"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
"... Donald Trump has been transforming American society not by legislation but by using his executive powers to put people in charge of government agencies who are inimical to their stated goals. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse ..."
"... By contrast, Trump is imposing a regime that was incubated long ago by people such as Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and every other libertarian think-tank funded by the Koch Brothers et al. The big bourgeoisie might not like the bad taste, racism and thuggish behavior of the Trump administration but they couldn't be happier with the results. This is an elected government that has fulfilled its deepest policy aspirations and that shows a willingness to push the Democrats back on their heels, so much so that someone like Mikie Sherrill lacks the courage to defend policies that might win elections down the road. After all, if she is unseated, she can always go back to a job as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. What happens to someone working in Walmart's is not her business, after all. ..."
Ever since the Democratic Party abandoned its New Deal legacy and adopted the neoliberal
centrism associated with the Carter presidency and then cast in stone by the Democratic
Leadership Council in 1985, each election loss has generated a chorus of remonstrations in the
left-liberal press about the need to run "progressive" candidates if the party wants to win.
The latest instance of this was a post to the Jacobin FB page that stated: "By running
to the right, Democrats insist on losing twice: at the polls and in constructing an inspiring
agenda. Bold left-wing politics are our only hope for long-term, substantive victory."
The question of why Democrats are so okay with losing has to be examined closely. In some
countries, elections have huge consequences, especially in Latin America where a job as an
elected official might be not only a source of income for a socialist parliamentarian but a
trigger for a civil war or coup as occurred in Costa Rica in 1948 and in Chile in 1973
respectively.
In the 2010 midterm elections, there was a massive loss of seats in the House of
Representatives for the Democrats. In this month's midterm elections, the Democrats hoped that
a "Blue Wave" would do for them what the 2010 midterms did for the Republicans -- put them in
the driver's seat. It turned out to be more of a "Blue Spray", not to speak of the toothless
response of House leader Nancy Pelosi who spoke immediately about how the Democrats can reach
across the aisle to the knuckle-dragging racists of the Republican Party.
Out of curiosity, I went to Wikipedia to follow up on what happened to the "losers" in 2010.
Did they have to go on unemployment? Like Republicans who got voted out this go-round,
Democrats had no trouble lining up jobs as lobbyists. Allen Boyd from Florida sent a letter to
Obama after the BP oil spill in 2010 asking him to back up BP's claim that seafood in the Gulf
of Mexico was okay to eat. After being voted out of office, he joined the Twenty-First Century
Group, a lobbying firm founded by a former Republican Congressman from Texas named Jack Fields.
A 1980 article on Fields describes him as a protégé of ultraright leader Paul
Weyrich.
Glenn Nye, who lost his job as a Virginia congressman, his considerable CV that included
working for the Agency for International Development (AID) and serving in various capacities
during the occupation of Iraq to land a nice gig as Senior Political Advisor for the Hanover
Investment Group.
John Spratt from South Carolina was described by Dow Jones News as "one of the staunchest
fiscal conservatives among House Democrats." That was enough for him to land a job with Barack
Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was supposed to come up
with a strategy to reduce the deficit. Just the sort of thing that was calculated to lift the
American economy out of the worst slump since the 1930s. Not.
Pennsylvania's Chris Carney was a helluva Democrat. From 2002 to 2004, he was a
counterterrorism analyst for the Bush administration. He not only reported to Douglas Feith in
the Office of Special Plans and at the Defense Intelligence Agency, researching links between
al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but served as an interrogator in Guantanamo. These qualifications
landed him a job as director of homeland security and policy strategy for BAE Systems when the
House of Representatives gig ended. A British security and munitions powerhouse, BAE won a
contract worth £4.4bn to supply the Saudis with 72 fighter jets – some of which
were used to bomb Red Cross and Physician Without Borders hospitals in Yemen.
With such crumb-bums losing in 2010, you'd think that the Democrats would be convinced that
their best bet for winning elections would be to disavow candidates that had ties to the
national security apparatus and anything that smacked of the DLC's assault on the welfare
state. Not exactly. When the candidates are female, that might work in the party's favor like
sugar-coating a bitter pill.
In Virginia, former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger and retired Navy Commander Elaine Luria
defeated Republican incumbents. Air Force veteran Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, former CIA
analyst Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and former Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey also
helped the Democrats regain the House. Sherill calculated that moving to the center would serve
her own and the party's interests. She told MSNBC: "As a Navy helicopter pilot I never flew
Republican missions or Democratic missions, I would have had a very short career. This is
something I do think vets bring to the table, this willingness to work with everyone."
For Sherrill, a newcomer to politics, the 11th has proved to be a tricky terrain. She is
seen as a progressive, but appears wary of carrying the "Trump resistance" banner into the
fray. At Wednesday's debate, Sherrill was determined to show she is more Morris Plains than
Montclair.
There were no heated vows to fight Trump, even though being "appalled" by the president
was what motivated her to run in the first place. The Nov. 6 midterms loom as a referendum on
Trump's presidency, but you would never have guessed that watching Wednesday's contest.
Sherrill repeatedly promised to be bipartisan -- a far cry from the combative,
confrontational tone that many in the party's grass roots are demanding.
On tax policy she sounded more centrist Republican than mainstream liberal Democrat, and
she refused to endorse issues like free community college tuition, which has become a popular
talking point for Democrats and was launched by Gov. Phil Murphy this summer.
"Without understanding how that would be paid for, I haven't supported it because it
sounds like it would raise taxes on our families,'" she said.
The moderate tone puzzled some of her ardent "resistance" activists who mobilized around
her candidacy.
For Eric Fritsch, 32, a Teamster for the film and television industry from West Orange, it
was jarring to hear Sherrill oppose Democratic Party wish-list items like free community
college tuition or "Medicare-for-all" coverage out of fear that it may raise taxes. She used
the same excuse to sidestep supporting a "carbon tax" to reduce global warming.
"By going on the defensive about taxes she is accepting a Republican framing that we don't
want to be responsible with taxes in the first place,'" said Fritsch, who insisted that he
remains a "very enthusiastic" Sherrill supporter.
It should be abundantly clear by now that the Democratic Party leadership will be selecting
a candidate in 2020 in all ways identical to Hillary Clinton but perhaps with a less tawdry
past and less of an appetite for Goldman-Sachs speaking fees. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe
Biden, Andrew Cuomo, et al have no intention of allowing upstarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
to spoil their plans, even if it means a second term for Donald Trump.
No matter. Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara urges his readers and DSA comrades to plunge ahead
trying to consolidate a "socialist" caucus in the Democratic Party. From his perspective,
working in the Democratic Party seems to be the "most promising place for advancing left
politics, at least in the short term." Keep in mind that Sherrill raised $1.9 million for her
campaign and my old boss from Salomon Brothers Michael Bloomberg ponied up another $1.8 million
just for her TV ads. Does anybody really think that "socialist" backed candidates will be able
to compete with people like Sherrill in the primaries? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was able to
defeat the hack Joe Crowley on a shoestring but that was something of a fluke. Until there is a
massive shake-up in American society that finally reveals the Democratic Party to be the
capitalist tool it has been since Andrew Jackson's presidency, it is likely that a combination
of big money and political inertia will keep the Democratic Party an agent of reaction.
Furthermore, the takeover of the House might turn out to be a hollow victory in the light of
how Trump rules. His strategy hasn't been to push through legislation except for the tax cut.
Remember the blather about investing in infrastructure? His minions in Congress have no
intention of proposing a trillion or so dollars in highway or bridge repair, etc. With Nancy
Pelosi fecklessly talking about how the two parties can collaborate on infrastructure, you can
only wonder whether she has been asleep for the past two years.
Donald Trump has been transforming American society not by legislation but by using his
executive powers to put people in charge of government agencies who are inimical to their
stated goals. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse as Malcolm X once put
it. Two days ago, the NY Times wrote about how the "Trump Administration Spares Corporate
Wrongdoers Billions in Penalties". It did not need legislation to help big banks rip off the
public. All it took was naming former head of BankOne Joseph Otting comptroller of the
currency. Senator Sherrod Brown, one of the few Democrats with a spine, called Trump out: "The
president's choice for watchdog of America's largest banks is someone who signed a consent
order -- over shady foreclosure practices -- with the very agency he's been selected to
run."
For all of the dozens of articles about how Trump is creating a fascist regime, hardly any
deal with the difference between Trump and Adolf Hitler. Hitler created a massive bureaucracy
that ran a quasi-planned economy with generous social benefits that put considerable restraints
on the bourgeoisie. Like FDR, he was taking measures to save capitalism. Perhaps if the USA had
a social and economic crisis as deep as Germany's and left parties as massive as those in
Germany, FDR might have embarked on a much more ambitious concentration camp program, one that
would have interred trade unionists as well as Japanese-Americans. Maybe even Jews if they
complained too much.
By contrast, Trump is imposing a regime that was incubated long ago by people such as
Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and every other libertarian think-tank funded by the Koch
Brothers et al. The big bourgeoisie might not like the bad taste, racism and thuggish behavior
of the Trump administration but they couldn't be happier with the results. This is an elected
government that has fulfilled its deepest policy aspirations and that shows a willingness to
push the Democrats back on their heels, so much so that someone like Mikie Sherrill lacks the
courage to defend policies that might win elections down the road. After all, if she is
unseated, she can always go back to a job as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. What happens
to someone working in Walmart's is not her business, after all.
Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
A foreign intelligence asset was used to justify surveillance of Trump[ and some of his associates
Notable quotes:
"... What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent? ..."
"... The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant"). ..."
"... The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale. ..."
"... Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power. ..."
"... I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors. ..."
"... if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know? ..."
"... Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost. ..."
"... Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance. ..."
"... From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. ..."
"... He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI. ..."
"... its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered. ..."
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
"... Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs. ..."
"... Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly: ..."
"... Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. ..."
"... One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...? ..."
"... What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this? ..."
"... Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun? ..."
"... British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy. ..."
"... British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion. ..."
"... Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people. ..."
"... still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources ..."
"... I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia. ..."
"... Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are. ..."
"... It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things ..."
The revelations from US Government records about the FBI/Intel Community plot to take out Donald Trump continue to flow thanks
to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch. The latest nugget came last Friday with the release of FBI records detailing their recruitment
and management of Britain's ostensibly retired Intelligence Officer, Christopher Steele. He was an officially recruited FBI source
and received at least 11 payments during the 9 month period that he was signed up as a Confidential Human Source.
You may find it strange that we can glean so much information from
a document dump that is almost
entirely redacted . The key is to look at the report forms; there are three types--FD-1023 (Source Reports), FD-209a (Contact
Reports) and FD-794b (Payment Requests). There are 15 different 1023s, 13 209a reports and 11 794b payment requests covering the
period from 2 February 2016 thru 1 November 2016. That is a total of nine months.
These reports totally destroy the existing meme that Steele only came into contact with the FBI sometime in July 2016. It is important
for you to understand that a 1023 Source Report is filled out each time that the FBI source handler has contact with the source.
This can be an in person meeting or a phone call. Each report lists the name of the Case Agent; the date, time and location of the
meeting; any other people attending the meeting; and a summary of what was discussed.
What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive
contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent?
The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA)
and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps
who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant").
We can be pretty sure this predates any alleged Russian "hacking" (unless it occurred as a result of alleged Russian hacking
of the DNC in 2015).
This needs to be pinned down if anyone is to be successfully prosecuted for creating this treasonous hoax.
A very closely related topic, Victor Davis Hanson is onto something but it is darker than he suggests,
https://www.nationalreview.... Paraphrasing, he gives the typical, rally around the flag we must stop the Russians intro but
then documents how govt flaks abused their power to influence our elections and then makes the point, 'this is why the public
is skeptical of their claims'.
The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their
hand on the scale.
Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are
trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the
mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't
support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power.
I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in
the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors.
What I can't figure out is: if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the
Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance
with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know?
Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them
to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost.
Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie
that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance.
From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole
thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews
by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. And of course the media narrative that Rep. Nunes, Goodlatte and others were endangering "national
security" by casting aspersions on the "patriotic" law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got
their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI.
Of course, he had most likely already done so and its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered
to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered.
Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was
not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this?
The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law
enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as
'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies.
It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of
agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries.
Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human Source.'
It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at face value. If, as seems likely,
both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately
involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information
to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary.
An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back
channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him.
A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the
supposed termination.
When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed – Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue
to help feed information to the FBI, Steele texted back:
"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be
forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."
At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to.' This seems to me
a rather important question. It would seem likely, although not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would
it have been someone else employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise significance
of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?
Another crucial paragraph:
'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in
London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence
probes in American history.'
The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.
As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the 'information operations' network he
created began to move into high gear. It is moreover clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments
of evidence suggest that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.
I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large
measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures
close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication
which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief.
The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky
Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16 December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence services.
(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived 'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at
http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather important question as to whether those who
sent it out, and those who received it, knew that it was more or less BS from start to finish.)
The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets, who was presented as an independent
'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'
Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No
mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the 'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian
Jewish mobster Semyon Mogilevich.
The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now know was a covert mission on behalf
of elements in the CIA.
Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether
the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson
were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important
issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it.
Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including
McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense.
So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs.
Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem
to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly:
Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with
the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted
his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation
culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. His initial contact with old friends at the FBI Eurasian
Crime Task Force is awfully similar to his contacting these same friends in 2016 after deciding his initial Trump research was
potentially bigger than mere opposition research.
One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get
'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously
I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt
on Trump...how is this not the same...?
Even worse is that the FBI was using this same foreign agent that a presidential
candidate had hired to get dirt on an opponent... Even knowing nothing about legalities this just doesn't look very good...
Stupid question? As the Col. has explained, the President can declassify any document he pleases. So, why doesn't Donaldo unredact
the redacted portions of these bullcrap docs? What is he afraid of? That the Intel community will get mad and be out to get him?
Isn't time for him to show some cojones?
Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this
have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence
source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation
that may have already begun?
British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete),
his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated
desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting
others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has
not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too
big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy.
Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing
agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? And therefore without having to mess about with any formal FISA warrant
thingy's ... But, then use what might be found (or plausibly alleged) to try to get a proper FISA warrant later on (July 2016)?
'Parallel Discovery' of sorts; with Fusion GPS also a leaky cut-out: channelling media reports to be used as confirmation of Steele's
"raw intelligence" in the formal FISA application(s)?
Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they
would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates,
" Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching
him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, "
That's a good question, could it legally enable an end run around the FISC until enough evidence was gathered for a FISC surveillance
authorization?.
I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the
NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws
they have that prohibits spying on their people.
Only a matter of time until someone figured out the same method could be used to "meddle" in national affairs.
I understand, but still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources such as Steele about
a very high profile American citizen and businessman -- aren't our intelligence services competent enough to have known and discovered
as much if not more about Trump than other countries' intelligence services? I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years
ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In
my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia.
Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them
are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these
people think they are.
It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things.
This "shadowy Russian" might well be Sergey Skripal. This suggests that Steele dossier was CIA operation with British MI6 as transfer mechanism and
Steele as a cover. And implicates Brennan. So this is next level of leaks after "Stormy Daniel"...
Another NYT leak out of a set of well coordinated leans from anonymous intelligence officials ;-) Poor Melania...
Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to a fascinating report from The New York Times. ..."
"... If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7 during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries. ..."
"... More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia is still being stoked no matter what. ..."
"... Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine, McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down. ..."
"... the CIA has to turn America into a criminal totalitarian regime in order to make the world safe for democracy ..."
"... How much you wanna bet that Brennan, Obama's CIA Director, was behind ..."
"... You mean the same Brennan who is the godfather of ISIS? ..."
"... "U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can call off the hounds. ..."
"... Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it... ..."
"... Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big bad russkies tricked us. ..."
"... 'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope. Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a long shot. ..."
"... i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds. this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to trump. ..."
"... Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a cloth." ..."
"... And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works ..."
"... So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers for procurers of hosebags for him to screw? ..."
When they said "Russian collusion", few expected it to be between the CIA and a "shadowy
Russian operative." And yet, according to a blockbuster NYT report, that's precisely what
happened.
* * *
The CIA paid $100,000 last year to a Russian operative who claimed to have derogatory
information about President Trump, including a video tape of the Republican engaged with
prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. If the video showed Trump, it would support claims made in
the infamous Steele dossier, the salacious opposition research report financed by the Clinton
campaign and DNC.
But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other
information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to
a fascinating report from The New York Times.
American spies made contact with the Russia early in 2017 after he offered to sell the Trump
material along with cyber hacking tools that were stolen from the NSA that year, according to
The Times. U.S. intelligence officials told The Times they were so desperate to retrieve those
tools that they negotiated with the operative for months despite several red flags, including
indications that he was working in concert with Russian intelligence.
Another red flag was the Russian's financial request. He initially sought $10 million for
the information but dropped the asking price to $1 million.
After months of negotiations, American spies handed over $100,000 in cash in a brief case to
the Russian during a meeting in Berlin in September.
The operative also offered documents and emails that purported to implicate other Trump
associates, including former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But The Times viewed the
documents and reported that they were mostly information that is already in the public
domain.
The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers, showed the video
purported to be Trump to a Berlin-based American businessman who served as his intermediary to
the CIA. But according to the Times, the footage and the location of the viewing raised
questions about its authenticity.
The 15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was
Trump, and there was no audio. The Russian also showed the video to his American partner at the
Russian embassy in Berlin, a sign that the operative had ties to Russian intelligence.
The Russian stonewalled the production of the cyber tools, and U.S. officials eventually cut
ties, according to The Times. After the payout in Berlin, the man provided information about
Trump and his associates of questionable veracity.
The Americans gave him an ultimatum earlier in 2018 to either play ball, leave Western
Europe, or face criminal charges. He left, according to The Times, which interviewed U.S.
officials, the American intermediary and the Russian for its article.
The Times' U.S. sources -- who appear to paint the American side in a positive light -- said
that they were reluctant to purchase information because they did not want to be seen buying
dirt on the president.
The officials also expressed concern that the Russian operative was planting disinformation
on behalf of the Russian government. U.S. officials were worried that the Russian government
has sought to sow discord between U.S. intelligence agencies and Trump. The revelation that the
CIA purchased dirt on him would likely do the trick.
The Times report also has other new details.
Four other Russians with ties to the spy world have surfaced over the past year offering to
sell dirt on Trump that closely mirrors allegations made in the dossier, according to the
article. But officials have reason to believe that some of sellers have ties to Russian
intelligence agencies.
The Times also provides new details on Cody Shearer, a notorious operative close to the
Clintons. Shearer was recently revealed to have shopped
around a so-called "second dossier" prior to the campaign which mirrored the sex allegations of
the Steele report.
According to The Times, he has criss-crossed Europe over the past six months in an attempt
to find video footage of Trump from the Moscow hotel room. Shearer claimed to have information
from the FSB, Russia's spy service, that a video existed of Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel room.
He shared a memo making the allegations with his friend and fellow Clinton fixer, Sidney
Blumenthal. Blumenthal in turn passed the memo to his friend, Jonathan Winer, a Department of
State official. Winer then gave the information to Steele who provided it to the FBI in October
2016.
Steele also provided information to Winer, who wrote up a two-page memo that was circulated
within the State Department.
Trump has denied allegations that he used prostitutes in Moscow. He has called the dossier a
"hoax" and "crap."
* * *
On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that "according to the @nytimes, a Russian sold phony
secrets on "Trump" to the U.S. Asking price was $10 million, brought down to $1 million to be
paid over time. I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here. It is
all now starting to come out - DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Of course, if Trump really wants to "drain the swamp", any such decision would have
originate with him. Tags PoliticsCommercial Banks
Release the pee pee video now! No one pee peed in the $100,000 video in question. The
15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was Trump,
and there was no audio. And how can anyone be more fascinated by the prospect of pee pee than
by the fact that US intelligence agencies were buying bad information from extremely shady
foreigners in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States?
Trump is starting to assume that the people are dumber than Obowel did. Earth to Don, you
sir have the drain pump, you sir have surrounded yourself with Swamp creatures.... You sir
are.............
According to this, the Russians stole the hacking tools needed to cut through the Swamp
levee, which were developed by the NSA, and now the CIA cannot buy them back. Now, since the
USA wanted its Swamp, the Russians are more than happy to let the USA drown in its swamp.
Anyone have a link for the Qanon posts. I haven't seen them in a couple of weeks since he
left 8chan where he was posting. I don't want the Youtube BS, I just want the link... anyone
got one. Its strangely not googleable... LOLZ.
If you think that the CIA is a U.S. intelligence agency working on the best interests of
the United States, you better wake up and smell the treason. They only work for the best
interests of themselves.
Here is a question. Why does the CIA not come out and clear the air re: Trump?
I mean they were even paying people to come up with dirt. He is now your president and the
country is a fucking mess. Should the CIA not come out and say we tried but we got nothing?
They do have the ability to fix all this Trump shit and yet crickets.
And the best interests of clients. The CIA started out is the muscle for the Dulles
Brothers clients who were being booted out of various countries they were super-exploiting.
The Agency hasn't looked back since.
Nobody got whizzed on. That lurid fantasy came soley out of the head of Hillary Clinton,
given to Blumenthal, passed around and made to look like it came from Russia.
It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald
firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a
building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT
being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping
backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in
front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist
passports floating gently down from the sky.
RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had
CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban
hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief
of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn
Monroe.
The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a
thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b)
in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the
Cold War...
Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope
needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle
attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit
stationary targets reliably.
Drain the swamp! Townsquare justice for Odumbo and Hitlery! George Soros to bathe in the
Amazon River with 1 million Piranha Fish until it completely disappears. Drain the evil
Dumorat swamp. Drain the banana republic CIA and FBI. Our tax dollars and constitution did
not pay for this shit.
With today's technology, the CIA is most likely working on a fake video for you right now.
They might release it on Vimeo or Netflix to cover the costs and give themselves plausible
deniability. To add a finishing touch they will make a fake video of Julian Assange claiming
he is releasing it. You'll be in hog heaven. Which is where folks like you go just before
being slaughtered by your owners and turned into spam.
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help
themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia
is still being stoked no matter what.
Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does
that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine,
McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to
Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the
rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down.
Good point in the last sentence. If someone is going to "drain the swamp" it is going to
have to be the president of the United States. I think I'm correct that he can fire anyone
that works in the executive department for cause. He can also order investigations or hire
people who will launch real investigations.
Mr. President, if you want to "drain the swamp," drain it.
If there was a video it would of been leaked during the election, they have nothing that
sticks on the guy.
All the evidence thus far states
Obama Hillary the FBI, DNC, CIA all spied on Trump and colluded with foreign governments
(U.K. , Ukraine , Russia) to try and dig up dirt to use against Trump (and they more or less
failed).
They turned over every rock they could, look at that stupid hot-mic video in the bus, how
many hours of video did they have to go through to dig up that crumb? they went back
searching through 30+ years of content and thats all they could come up with.... some locker
room talk lol
People have to just face it.
Your government was and still is corrupt and its a weaponized system of control, Your
government colluded with the enemy in a desperate attempt to stop Trump from becoming
president. Your government started a sham "Russia investigation" to cover up its own crimes.
Your government applied a different standard of justice to the clintons than it would have to
you or anyone else.
To date ZERO evidence has been brought forward that Trump or anyone in his campaign did
anything wrong, and the only people that have done anything wrong so far were picked by "the
swamp" to fill positions..... all the others fell into petty perjury Traps on meaningless
topics and insignificant factoids.
Isn't it lovely to find out that your money and mine is being used by government agents to
give us the government they want?
It's sort of like a thug robbing you and using part of your money to pay another thug to
rough you up from time time to time if you ask any questions with the thugs believing it's
for our own good.
Thanks, Hillary, for looking out for us. You and your best buds are the best. Such
bighearted givers! Meanwhile, give our regards to your partner in slime Obama, although it
must pain you to have been bested by 'Beavis' who thinks so much of himself to balance out
how little he impresses anyone who knows him.
"U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can
call off the hounds.
Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of
power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this
himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it...
As taxpayers can we sue the CIA for misusing our funds? Pretty sure that buying sex videos
for commercial release isn't part of the CIA's lawful mandate even at bargain prices.
Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US
intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on
their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own
treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big
bad russkies tricked us.
my sauces tell me that pink pussyhat wearing hollywood types have been called in because
they have a doppelganger for trump and access to 30,000 sexually abused victims that can act
as Russian prostitutes for just ten bucks each. snapchat has a trump emoji that can be transplanted onto any porn video star - male or
female - thus confirming that trump is a serial (serious?) user of ladies of the night
my sauces also tell me that the CIA offers a reward of 100,000 bucks (or 10 BTC) for every
photo-shopped (snap-shopped or porn-shopped) material.
of course, the CIA already owns many many porn movie studios and films, but it would
prefer third "party" movies - not from epstein's island where its operatives choose to rela
with a pizza.
the CIA "pink" budget for such movies is limited to just 5,000 clips or 5 billion of
taxpayers funds, whichever is the higher.
'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the
Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it
hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly
elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope.
Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a
long shot.
i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds.
this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to
trump.
Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I
copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a
cloth."
And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but
my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works.
So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and
more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers
for procurers of hosebags for him to screw?
I mean if they're so concerned about Trump and a couple of hookers... Better put some ice on that, CIA.
You all are so ridiculous and fooled with your "drain the swamp" bs. It's a great idea but
Trump doing it is a joke, I mean just look at who he has hired, what's wrong with you all are
you blind?!!
He can't even fill 1/3 of the government positions he's supposed to and the ones he has
have no business holding the positions given to them and are so incompetent, downright
criminal or just personally horrendous humans that they can't stay in office more than a few
months. All their blatant and moronically concocted lies are backing them into corners every
day that they just try and lie out of again. America is over if we really have gotten to the
point that a group like Trump's has support, it's just astonishing.
"... Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents. Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going back more than 10 years." ..."
Felix Sater, the man at the center of a controversial email "tying" President Trump to
Russia while trying to work a business deal, has come forward in a comprehensive
BuzzFeed News Exposé, which if Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Cormier and
co-author Jason Leopold hadn't verified - nobody would believe.
Sater went from a "Wall Street wunderkind" working at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to
getting barred from the securities industry over a barroom brawl which led to a year in prison,
to facilitating a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme for the New York mafia, to working
telecom deals in Russia - where the FBI and CIA tapped him as an undercover intelligence asset
who was told by his handler " I want you to understand: If you're caught, the USA is going to
disavow you and, at best, you get a bullet in the head ."
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents.
Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going
back more than 10 years."
To this day, Sater continues to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department, he said in
his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. He wouldn't disclose additional details,
except to say that he works on "international matters." Two US officials confirmed Sater
continues to be a reliable asset.
As for his regular life, when he relocated back to the US in 2010, he recalled, "Donald
said, 'Where have you been?'" Sater said Trump asked him to join the Trump Organization.
"That's when I became senior advisor to him," he said. The Trump Organization and the White
House declined to comment. - BuzzFeed
In effect, Sater - at least according to BuzzFeed , is more or less a rockstar opportunist
spy with a shady past, who redeemed himself as an asset for the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and the FBI. During the course of his work for the agencies, all unpaid, BuzzFeed
confirmed the following exploits:
He obtained five of the personal satellite telephone numbers for Osama bin Laden before
9/11 and he helped flip the personal secretary to Mullah Omar, then the head of the Taliban
and an ally of bin Laden, into a source who provided the location of al-Qaeda training camps
and weapons caches.
In 2004, he persuaded a source in Russia's foreign military intelligence to hand over the
name and photographs of a North Korean military operative who was purchasing equipment to
build the country's nuclear arsenal.
Sater provided US intelligence with details about possible assassination threats against
former president George W. Bush and secretary of state Colin Powell. Sater reported that
jihadists were hiding in a hut outside Bagram Air Base and planned to shoot down Powell's
plane during a January 2002 visit. He later told his handlers that two female al-Qaeda
members were trying to recruit an Afghan woman working in the Senate barbershop to poison
President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
He went undercover in Cyprus and Istanbul to catch Russian and Ukrainian cybercriminals
around 2005. After the FBI set him up with a fake name and background, Sater posed as a money
launderer to help nab the suspects for washing funds stolen from US financial institutions
.
"Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf of the USA but rather to its own
ends."
CIA probably was involved in Skripals false flag operation as well. Because the behaviour of Theresa May suggest that she from
the very beginning was sure about the USA full and unconditional support and putting pressure on EU allies. Then now we know
that Gina Haspel, who was also involved in Steele dossier and handled most oversees assets involved in entrapment of Trump, misled
Trump and pervaded him to expel 80 Russian diplomats.
Notable quotes:
"... Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly how the buildings came down. ..."
"... According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia ..."
"... So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our democracy. ..."
"... Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media. ..."
"... So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader. Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man? ..."
"... None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next? ..."
"... "If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics ..."
Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf
of the USA but rather to its own ends. And, in this realization, comes a jaded view of both the
CIA and the government it represents.
This realization may have begun with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Warren
Commission, a congressional investigation was convened. The commission concluded there was a
single lone shooter, a fringe outcast, Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone in the assassination
of the president. Many felt, in light of the facts, that the Warren Commission was a cover up
of what really went down on November 22, 1963, in Houston, Texas.
In 1976, the Congress reopened the Kennedy investigation. They created The United States
House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to investigate the
assassination of John F. Kennedy (and Martin Luther King Jr.).
The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and determined the Warren Commission was faulty
and there was more than one shooter and there was indeed a conspiracy to kill the president. So
much for the official narrative of the Warren Commission.
Why the Warren Commission cover up back then that even the Congress in 1976 (HSCA) reported
was bogus? One theory April 25, 1966, The New York Times wrote, "And, President Kennedy, as the
enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of
his Administration, that he wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it
to the winds."
Kennedy was no fan of the Director of the C.I.A. Allen Dulles or his agency, and in the
autumn of 1961 he purged the C.I.A. of Dulles and his entourage. This included Deputy Director
for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. You do not mess with
Allen Dulles and the C.I A. Let's leave it at that. Kennedy was dead within two years.
Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This
time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for
9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured
buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly
how the buildings came down.
By December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed a
petition for this investigation. If one looks at controlled demolitions and how the buildings
actually came down it is obvious the collapse was not due to an airplane flying into the
buildings, but rather a controlled demolition. 2,300 architects and engineers with verified
credentials all testify that the narrative of the government is patently false and
scientifically implausible if not impossible.
At about nine a.m. the Twin Towers are crashed into and collapse. At about five twenty p.m.
that same day, Building Seven collapses. No planes fly into Building 7, it just collapses.
Again, the videos show a controlled demolition.
There are various theories as to why 7 WTC was taken down. Theories range from 7 WTC being
the operation center for the demolition of the Twin Towers to more nefarious motives. "
According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the
destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a
clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia
What is important to remember is that NO STEEL FRAME HIGH RISE HAS EVER TOTALLY COLLAPSED
DUE TO FIRE.
These are but two examples of hundreds where we have been mislead by the official narrative
of the government and its MSM news. Remember the Trump Dossier that was leaked and printed as
fact? Or, the death of Seth Rich, a "botched" robbery? Or, the list of 200 news outlets in the
USA that were Russian Propaganda fronts? All reported as fact by the New York Times and
Washington Post. All fake news by the MSM fed to an unsuspecting American people.
So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve
agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both
are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings
Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all
must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story
after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our
democracy.
Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was
not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap
in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic
monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media.
Teresa May called the act "reckless" and "indiscriminate", and basically said Putin put
innocent English bystanders at risk. She upped the ante by dismissing 23 Russian diplomats, the
largest such expulsion in thirty years.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused May of grandstanding in her
response to the incident. Russian news agency Interfax reported that The Kremlin denies
involvement in the nerve agent poisoning, insisting one motive was to complicate Russia's
hosting of the World Cup this summer. Ah, dear Kremin, the motive was much deeper than the
World Cup games, which were only a bonus to the attack.
So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader.
Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He
has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no
new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man?
None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take
him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be
reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he
is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next?
Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN tells us, "The United States of America believes that
Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade
nerve agent," Haley said in her remarks at a UN Security Council emergency session, blasting
the Russian government for flouting international law.
"If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be
the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York
or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics
The USA needs an enemy to foment fear to justify it's astronomical defense budget. It just
loves a good cold war. However, now that Russia is no longer a pinko commie nation to be
demonized, and is indeed a capitalist democracy, we have to resurrect a new straw man to
hate.
It is remarkable the degree to which the liberal left has bought into this
industrial-military-complex narrative. The USA always has to be bombing someone, droning
someone or napalming someone to keep the monies flowing into the defense budget. Take a look at
our spending compared to Russia or other nations.
Alas, it is certainly not out of the question that the CIA was behind the attack. After this
amount of time Mr. Putin had nothing to gain in assassinating Mr. Skripal and his daughter. In
fact, he had a lot to lose. The CIA? They had a lot to gain, and nothing to lose. Never
underestimate the CIA and its brilliance in setting the narrative for its agenda. And, never
underestimate Mr. Putin in his resolve not to become their lapdog.
Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York. She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.
A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights. She is a psychotherapist and
political commentator.
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
You can find original interview at using the lisnk above, or if it disappeared, in Humor
section of this site
Notable quotes:
"... I will say that, just as Marxism provides an essential way of examining capitalism, libertarianism provides a filter for examining and criticizing stateist impulses. But a society organized around libertarian principles, just silly. ..."
"... The one thing libertarians want desperately to ignore is that imposing their vision of an utopian society is that while no one is "coerced" and will have equal rights, the inequalities that exist today will be cemented into society. ..."
What puzzles me about the Libertarian Dream is their ability to ignore the Dark Ages in
Western Europe.
It fulfills all their requirements, and by what accounts survive, was remarkably
unsuccessful. Life was poor, nasty, brutish and short.
I've has the discussion of rule of law with libertarians, and it went like this:
Lb: We could have a farming society without rule of law.
Me: How are disputes resolved?
Lb: We all get together and resolve the dispute.
Me: How is the dispute resolution enforced?
Lb: Everybody agrees to the resolution.
Me: What happens if some do not agree? What happens if someone cheats?
Lb: ..
Me: We've used this mechanism before, Hatfields vs McCoy' in the US, and Campbells Vs
McDonalds in Scotland.
Lb: ..
Those who don't know their History, are condemned to repeat it.
Winston Churchill in his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" refers to the desire
of the People in England to have "The King's Peace," otherwise known as "The Rule of Law"
with all it's apparatus, Police, Courts, etc.
The Libertarians appear to want "Rule by the Rich and Powerful" and do not understand
that that includes few, if any, of the current libertarians, except perhaps for the Koch
Brothers.
In the 90's when encountering a want-to-be business tycoon spouting Libertarian
nonsense, I would encourage them to seek their fortune in Somalia, where no government
existed.
I will say that, just as Marxism provides an essential way of examining capitalism,
libertarianism provides a filter for examining and criticizing stateist impulses. But a
society organized around libertarian principles, just silly.
Tom DiLorenzo pointed out on the Lew Rockwell website that the crisis was actually the
result of the government forcing banks to make risky loans to low-income borrowers.
Oh the poor banks, forced to loan money for houses aka: The Brer Rabbit Loan Origination
philosophy.
"Forced "the banks were not. They juiced the bankruptcy laws, and bundle up the loans
and sold then to a willing set of buyers, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, "Government
Corporations", who were re-nationalized when they fell into trouble.
The Bank's happily took the loan origination fees, and survived when they were then
"forced" to accept Government bail outs.
Why some senior bank executives even took a cut in Bonuses – the misery of it all!
/s
That was the first thing that leaped out at me too.
Are you kidding? the banks were "forced" by the government where to start with that
one?
The only thing that fits was said here not to long ago.
" arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. They just knock over the
pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like they won anyway."
The one thing libertarians want desperately to ignore is that imposing their vision of
an utopian society is that while no one is "coerced" and will have equal rights, the
inequalities that exist today will be cemented into society. Until someone can explain to
me what my recourse is when my right to breathe clean air and drink clean water or to speak
my mind freely is destroyed by a polluter or someone who doesn't like what I have to say, I
will view libertarianism as the worst of all possible worlds.
when i was still on faceborg, years ago, I would often be confronted by wandering
libertarians.
one way to send them into conniptions was to say, "fine. let's run your experiment of
lawlessness and "freedom" but first, in order to adhere to good experimental methodology,
shouldn't we first redistribute the wealth?"
a race hardly proves anything if it's between a fighter jet and a rickshaw.
the resulting frothing fits were entertaining. They believe that they are paragons of
logical thinking as opposed to us silly lefties.
and , like the neoreactionaries that threaten to take their place in corporate philosophy,
they seem to believe that they will naturally be the Lords of the Manor.
Libertarians hate to hear about Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.
Cain's libertarian views have the depth and breadth of a bunch of mutually contradictory
bumper stickers. The views lack a grasp of system interactions and impacts, and display a
narrow rigid simplicity that neglects scads of important social, economic and environmental
factors. The views are so inept it makes me wonder, was this interview satire?
The interview is based on the works of Hans-Hermann Hoppe; the parts in red either links
or when they have numbers, direct quotes with page references.
In my experience (from Usenet days, mostly) libertarians vary quite a bit in their
views. Mr. Hoppe's seem to be of the anarcho-capitalist flavor, similar to David
Friedman's, but many libertarians would disagree with them and some would say they are
crazy. Libertarianism seems to be a tendency, an attitude, a sensibility, rather than an
explicit set of principles cast in the form of propositions and rules. It is more aesthetic
than logical, in spite of the way they regard themselves; see Thus Spake
Zarathustra, on 'the coldest of all cold monsters' for a taste.
In regard to libertarianism on the ground: as with other marginal ideologies, there have
been some experiments; for example, there was a project of getting libertarians to move to
some county in New Hampshire where their numbers would enable them to have some influence
on the social order and its government. None that I know about have been very
successful.
> The views are so inept it makes me wonder, was this interview satire?
The interview is satire, but as you can imagine, libertarianism is extremely hard to
satirize; the author faced technical challenges in making the self-ownage even more obvious
than it already is.
More perhaps a caper, frolic, or prank -- of which are extended in time with no single
punchline (except for the running gag of "in a rights-respecting manner"). It's
satirical.
I have to admit that nowadays when someone says they are a libertarian, my 1st
assumption is that they are an idiot, who doesn't realize they are just a tool for the
republican/neoliberal overlords/industrialists who just want to go back to pre-regulatory
and pre-taxation years as were 120 years ago.Back when snake oil salesmen were free to
peddle their wares, any how they saw fit.
Thirty years ago, being a libertarian at least had some logic behind it. they were anti-
drug war and anti- police state and things that actually make sense. They realized there
had to be SOME laws, and Some civic responsibility.
anyone who has crazy ideas like this today are actual and factual "conspiracy theorists".
Talk about crazy. There isn't any substance here to refute . this is all total BS.
Again, we find the "information age" taken up by peoples opinions of "fact" that are pure
propaganda.
I've had close contact with libertarians. One is a medical doctor. A primary goal is to
eliminate democracy entirely. The people would have no input in determining the conditions
under which they live. A market unpreturbed by taxes and regulations would yield the most
optimum rusults which benefit the society. People who are lazy and who lack ambition, which
is proven by their low economic status, would be isolated and cast aside into favelas
because they are undeserving of anything better. The greatest threat is not global warming,
or the threat of nuclear war but tyranny. He and his son are armed and expect to be able to
defeat the government when the time comes. Based on a discussion where I used the term
social justice, the good doctored recoiled and said social justice is communism. He was
also against helping ( I suppose via the givernment) victims of natural catastrophies such
as floods, hurricanes, fires, earth quakes etc. When asked what kind of society would
result from these beliefs, they don't have a clue except to say that when one persues a
just and moral cause the outcome is of no consequence. When asked about global warming they
emphasized their right to have all the plastic straws they want. A tyrannical government
imposing rules is the greatest threat.
All very logical. Yes? Another doctor, my primary care physician welcomes global warming
because he thinks we can deal with it very easily and feels that it is most fortunate that
we don't have global cooling.
Another retired doctor I talk to expressed the view that all Muslim mosques in the US
should be blown up and all Muslims should leave the country or be killed.
hell no!
But they have a different "schtik" .. like cinton/obama doing the same thing but they use
different words . appealing to different people.
for clarity, i suppose I should have used some better punctuation.
"republican/neoliberal" meaning "the deregulation crowd"
""overlords/industrialist" meaning the powers that be who make money in manufacturing and
other related industries who have liabilities in relation to their waste/pollution
disposal, working conditions,safety standards/practices/costs,etc . who are the funders of
this type of propaganda.
I have no illusions that the deregulation gang didn't gain ascension to our gov't as of
late; with carter, and has been in EVERY administration since.
The absence of a thriving libertarian polity across all human history and geography
implies a fundamental incompatibility with human nature.
My guess is that any human group which tries it is simply destroyed and/or absorbed by
neighbouring human groups which employ more effective arrangements (whatever defects those
particular arrangements may have).
Libertarians aren't much for empiricism, I suppose .
Most of the last 10k years are feudal and libertarianism is just feudalism. Even the
Roman states were mostly run on a private law basis – aka libertarianism. Mass
slavery, citizenship limited to an elite who personally acted as enforcers, courts and
legislators.
Libertarianism is the perennial philosophy, horribly compatible with human nature.
It's interesting that this post is generating separate comment threads 7 years apart. I
started reading the 2011 comments thinking they were current and was immediately struck by
the thoroughness and passion of the debate, occurring around the time of the Obamacare
rollout and closer to the 2008 crash. Possibly more people had a stake in libertarianism
back then and found this interview threatening? In any event, one thing common to both
threads is the tendency not to recognize the interview as satire. Compliments to Mr.
Dittmer for his enduring dry wit (even though the internet makes irony hard to
recognize).
so what happens when the GLOs from different customers are pulled into a battle between
them? and how does this work when some one who hired them to protect them dies from a
business ?
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
"... Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his $25 million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his
$25
million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe.
The claim, according to The Hill was contained within a court filing by Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting - one of
three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling.
In the Thursday court
filing accusing Mueller's team of illegally withholding information in the case, Concord attorney Eric Dubelier made mention
of the "nude selfie," asking " Could the manner in which he collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the
United States? "
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
Relotius, meanwhile, has "gone underground," according to the Guardian, returning several
awards for his work while being stripped of others, such as CNN's two Journalist of the Year
awards. A German publication also stripped the journalist of a similar accolade.
At least 14 articles by Relotius for Der Spiegel were falsified , according to Steffen
Klusmann, its editor-in-chief. They include an award-winning piece about a Syrian boy called
Mouwiya who believed his anti-government graffiti had triggered the civil war. Relotius
alleged he had interviewed the boy via WhatsApp .
The magazine – a prestigious weekly – is investigating if the interview took
place and whether the boy exists. Relotius won his fourth German reporter prize this month
with a story headlined "Child's Play".
Klusmann admitted the publication still had no idea how many articles were affected. On
Thursday it was revealed that parts of an interview with a 95-year-old Nazi resistance
fighter in the US were fabricated. -
The Guardian
According to Relotius' Der Spiegel colleague Juan Moreno - who busted Relotius after
conducting his own research after his bosses failed to listen to his doubts , released a video
in which he attempted to describe how Relotius got away with his fabrications.
"He was the superstar of German journalism if one's honest, and if his stories had been
true, that would have been fully justified to say so, but they were not," said Moreno. "At the
start it was the small mistakes, things that seemed too hard to believe that made me
suspicious."
In addition to having several awards stripped from him, the 33-year-old Relotius now faces
embezzlement charges for allegedly soliciting donations for Syrian orphans from readers "with
any proceeds going to his personal account," according to the BBC . On Thursday, Relotius denied the
accusations.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
"... Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his $25 million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his
$25
million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe.
The claim, according to The Hill was contained within a court filing by Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting - one of
three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling.
In the Thursday court
filing accusing Mueller's team of illegally withholding information in the case, Concord attorney Eric Dubelier made mention
of the "nude selfie," asking " Could the manner in which he collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the
United States? "
LinkedIn
co-founder 'sorry' for funding fake Russian tweets for Democrats
(RT video). Admiited producing 200 fake Russian twits.
Notable quotes:
"... Reid Hoffman is a Billionaire, who is a member of the Bilderburg Group, & is on the Council of Foreign Relations. Obviously 'above the law'. His sorry apology will be good enough. ..."
"... Oh he is only sorry after he got caught. ..."
Imagine that ?...we knew... They owe Putin and the Russian people a apology....hmmm...would rather send all demoncrats to
Putin for their punishments...
Are you kidding me?! Man and here I was starting to think democrats weren't as bad. As an American I feel bad for how bad
many of my countrymen have tried to make Russia look
bad...
Reid Hoffman is a Billionaire, who is a member of the Bilderburg Group, & is on the Council of Foreign Relations. Obviously
'above the law'. His sorry apology will be good enough.
Nothing will happen to him, & RT is probably the only media outlet
that will even tell Americans about this. THX RT.
How about reposting 'Who owns the Media in less than 30 seconds'?
Are you updating the info because Rupert Murdoch
sold his media corps to Bob Iger?? THAT was your BEST video Ever!!
PLEASE REPOST IT!!
They create fakes themselves, investigate them themselves, and after finding the sources themselves they apologize. And we
are "guilty" of everything ... You look and wonder!
Marxist playbook 101, exactly what the democrats have been using on the American people. Accuse those of the very thing
that they themselves are guilty of!👍
This comes as no surprise of course. But, when you apologise for meddling/interfering in a state and or a federal election,
this is all one has to do, to not be charged for a possible crime, just apologise? Oh, and be a Democrat of course. Im an
American. But why has no other country came out and stated, that the US meddled in their elections? At least have come out
in the last 3 years and stated that? Most know, every country spies on and meddles in one anothers elections. It's not ok
but, we know and it happens.
The "liberal" Left can do whatever they want. ....no worries. All others do not get away with anything. If ever there was a
double standard, there you have it.
Linkedin is also biassed, there is no middle ground...one can establish highly sophisticated network linking each
individual and finding the most influentials...data is worth billions upon billions...and people, mainly highly educated
and skilled do have Linkedin account...so there is no "honest business", the co-founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, is among
ones that are not "honest"...big money, bigger lies...once one tells a lie, he, or she is alway liar...
Lots of complete morons in the comments who believe in the fake two party paradigm. Both parties believe you should suffer
at the dictates of multinational corporations and the banking industry.
I am getting a lot of SPAM from somebody who disguises himself as "RUSSIAN BOT" including Cyrillic characters in the
message and also in the metadata (!). Does anybody know who this could be?
Defending Roy Moore....lol also anyone see a conflict of interest when the Russian government funds this news program. And
basically is putting a story saying that Russian bots are fake and paid by dems.
When are arrests going to me made? We ALL know that the DNC is a criminal organisation and that the USA is on borrowed
time. The farce of American Democracy is getting more obvious by the day. There just aren't anywhere near enough people,
among the overall pool of American voters, that even know how their government is theoretically supposed to work to have a
functional self-governing nation state. Morons don't pick good government!
This is nothing new. Democrats are using Russian propaganda and Republicans like to use China propaganda. Both parties are
rothschild puppets and love to use propaganda for political agendas.
I can not remember the guy's name, but the guest that was speaking on the MSNBC panel at the
2:11
mark was pro -Trump earlier this year. I remember him saying that he was former Secret Service or something to that effect
on Youtube. Now, we see him on a panel alledging Russian speculation moving it's way to the White House. I guess he
couldn't become famous as pro-Trump, so he's went to the dark side
sorry for creating false evidence in a federal investigation is a huge crime and makes him a conspirator in coup to the
takedown of the presidency of the US.
He isn't a Democrat. But I know that Americans were using fake bots before, during, and after 2016. All Dems aren't Dems.
All GOP aren't GOP. There are a lot of coming out the closet for politicians going on in this day and age. Why now are we
hearing this? 2020. You are not dealing with dummy's just deviants.
What Hoffman did is totally understandable. I myself frequently donate $100,000 amounts to causes about which I know
nothing. Especially when I know that a minuscule amount like that won't really have any real impact on a Congressional
election. Kidding aside, may we look forward to indictments of Hoffman, New Knowledge, Morgan, and Fox in this matter -- a
case of real tampering and collusion? Glad I dumped Facebook AND LinkedIn on the same day last year.
Like anyone really thought it was true, well actually as if anyone who doesn't get the bulk of their news from CNN, MSNBC,
and the like, really thought it was true. Funny part is those idiots (CNN ect. veiwers) were screaming about how Russia was
tearing apart American society, and as though out the history of mankind, you only have yourselves to blame.
RT is funded by the Russian government btw so of course they're saying this I hope you all stop letting hate anger anger
control your life when it should be dragging your nuts across broken glass only to fart in a walkie talkie to have a
spiritual enlightenment experience and see all that is true thank you
This report is not the whole truth of what happened. You should look up the facts of this case before you get all partisan
happy. Or you can just be a traitor and take Russia's (RT) word on election tampering.
Even Gazdiev is fake. RT PLEASE STOP THE INFOTAINMENT. Gazdiev wants to be in theatre. Don't hold him back. Get a
journalist who can deliver the news without all the fake pauses and arm waving.
If you want to destroy the worlds SuperPower and know you can't do it military, then infiltration into the minds of its
people is a perfect way to destroy them when clearly America has a dumbed down population.
Kushner is responsible for setting up fake proTrump republican twitter accounts to help Trump get elected. Why would
democrats want to help Trump? That's another republican lie to fool the sheeple.
"
Nation
states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty
",
according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes
to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.
No this wasn't something Adolf Hitler said many decades ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel
told
attendants
at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. Merkel has announced she won't seek re-election
in 2021 and it is clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion before she stands
down.
"
In
an orderly fashion of course,
" Merkel joked, attempting to lighten the mood. But Merkel has always had a tin ear
for comedy and she soon launched into a dark speech condemning those in her own party who think Germany should have
listened to the will of its citizens and refused to sign the controversial UN migration pact:
"
There
were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are
representing The People
".
"
[But]
the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German]
people
," she stressed.
Merkel has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic,
saying "
That
is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations
".
Her words echo recent comments by the deeply unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day
speech that "
patriotism
is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason
."
The French president's words were deeply unpopular with the French population and his approval rating nosedived even
further after the comments.
Macron, whose lack of leadership is proving unable to deal with growing protests in France, told the Bundestag that
France and Germany should be at the center of the emerging New World Order.
"
The
Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace"
.
"
Europe
must be stronger and win more sovereignty
," he went on to demand, just like Merkel, that
EU
member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels
over "
foreign
affairs, migration, and development
" as well as giving "
an
increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources".
The "Resistance" -- the loose affiliation of liberals, progressives and neo-conservatives
dedicated to opposing Donald Trump -- is NOT a grass-roots movement. They don't speak for the
everyman or the poor or the oppressed. They are a distraction, nothing more. A parlor game. The
face
to Trump's heel .
The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State -- Pro-war, pro-globalisation,
pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of "progressive values". They prove
this with their own actions -- opposing Trump's moves toward peace with North Korea and finding
common ground with Russia.
In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been
notably quiet -- even in favour of -- three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of
the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.
They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse
to listen. So totally brain-washed by the "Orange Man Bad" hysteria, that they will
side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same
hashtags.
The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the
lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a
soldier "forged in combat", regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller's marine regiment
-- "The Magnificent Bastards".
Vietnam is reduced to a movie set -- nothing but a backdrop for Mueller's courage under
fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while "The Magnificent Bastards" strode around
the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a
couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded.
Taking a bullet in the leg from a terrified peasant who just wants you to sod off out of his
country will always win you medals, but it shouldn't.
Voluntarily signing on to enforce Imperial foreign policy in a war of conquest will always
have the media paint you as a hero, but it shouldn't.
What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having
ourselves. He's a "micromanager" and he's "too tough".
Yes, and I'm sure he works himself too hard and doesn't suffer fools gladly
and always speaks his mind aswell.
Read the column if you want, but I'd suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more
nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left
office .
Far more telling than what it does say is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller's
role as head of the FBI during the launch of the "war on terror", but doesn't go into any of
the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly
authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.
Let's be clear: Mueller's FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.
Given that, it's rather unsurprising that the article doesn't mention the word "Iraq" once.
A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller's testimony in front of congress played a key
role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction":
It doesn't matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn't matter how
tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn't matter if he looks like
Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar -- a man culpable
in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep
State.
A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance".
Obviously, Trump's administration is dangerous -- it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran
and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can't fight the right-hand
of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They're the same
monster.
Anti-Trumpers, all over the world, need to take a good look at WHO they're fighting
alongside, and ask themselves WHAT they are fighting for.
Kit
Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He
used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
Mueller's FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM=Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing
There were also numerous media accounts of explosives being used on 9/11–even ABC's
John Miller
stated initial FBI feedback was that there were additional explosives used at WTC on
9/11.
Did FBI test for explosives?
What were the results?
If no tests were done–why the F not?
Why didn't media or Congress ever follow up and ask FBI about the explosions which were
reported?
i was reading that puff-piece yesterday, thinking "i wonder how long off-g's response to
this journalistic offal will be in coming" you haven't disappointed! Kit..sorry, i sound like
a gushing fanboi. most people outside of america don't realise how deep statey Mueller really
is. he's the Harvey Keitel character from pulp fiction. the mob cleanup guy
the Graun is particularly odious at the moment. today's leader is a blatant opinion piece
where the "writer" is practically rubbing their hand on their thighs with glee, telling us
how trump is facing a subpoena cannon from the dems. good too see they're using their newly
re-minted political capital on the important business of running the country resistance my
arse
And with the anthrax investigation (which of course the Guardian doesn't mention), he's
also a proven incompetent.
Have to say though–I'm looking forward to the day when this investigation is
wrapped, the report comes out, and it's not at all what the Maddows wanted to hear. At that
point Mueller will suddenly be a Russian agent himself; incompetent; compromised, and any/all
other smears to explain why his investigation didn't find their irrational hysteria to be
true.
Then maybe a few months later Trump will fire him and he'll be a hero again and get a
Gofund to help this poor unemployed honorable soul.
Wonder how the Grauniad will explain away the Skripal case when it's revealed that
Mueller's Steele dossier was written by Skripal.
No wonder the British Deep State are panicking to prevent the publication of the documents
ordered by the Orange One.
The so-called anti-Trump Resistance(TM) plays the role of Good Cop to the Trump Regime's
Bad Cop. Nothing more.
This is the nature of the political shell game that passes for American democracy, which
in reality is an imperial plutocracy.
In all these Anglo imperialist nations in general like America, Britain, or Australia,
there is only one true party: the party of Anglo American imperialism.
The anti-Trump "Resistance" is merely one faction of the Anglo-American Empire, which is
in conflict with another faction of the Anglo-American Empire.
The supposed differences between them are similar to the differences between Coke and
Pepsi, or McDonald's and Burger King.
("A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance").
-- - ah, there you go again bringing in reason, a rational argument, the historical
record, common sense, and in short objective – "reality" – into the equation. Of
course if you are using these sort of criteria Mueller isn't going to look so good. You have
to understand that the "Resistance" is, well, more of a "feeling" than anything rational or
intellectually defensible.and valorizing Muller certainly isn't based on his "real-world"
behavior. Simply put, Muller stands in opposition to Trump and that "feels" right to the
"resistance." You know, just like it "feels right" to this same segment of the U.S.
population not to let themselves think about the fact that Obama was illegally and immorally
bombing 8 Muslim countries as he left office.
Of course in the end Mueller as "hero" of the "resistance" is simply the deep state's
slight of hand PR campaign to oppose Trump as the impossibly and unacceptably "bad face" for
U.S. empire that he is.
I mean how are Merkel or Macron or May supposed to rally their even half-awake citizenry into
dutifully following our tweet crazed endlessly offensive "Orange One" into the next all
important battle against the newest deep state defined "Hitler" in Iran, or Syria, or . . .
while maintaining any credibility with their own populations?
It's astonishing how many self professed 'Progressives' swallow the Resistance line. There
certainly is a war within the Administration, Dark State v the President. The latest episode
seems to have centred around cutting off the legs of Trump's big partner in the ME and his
son in law's close friend, Crown Prince bin Salman. What promoted Turkey to release the
information they had on the murder in Istanbul? We can be satisfied it wasn't borne out of
humanitarianism! Were they acting in lock step with the American Agencies like the CIA that
now tells Turkey it has intercepts 'proving' the Crown Prince ordered the killing? The
'bloodless' Regime Change that is underway aims to remove an arrogant and reckless not to say
bloodthirsty man from Absolute Power, a position he might have held for 50 years or more. No
wonder Erdoghan would like to see him sidelined. 50 years of Absolute Power in one of the
richest countries on earth is an awful lot of time! For the Americans it is a case of seizing
control of Foreign Policy in the ME from Trump who keeps talking about 'getting out' of
Syria: the Military and the Agencies regard that as not in American interests; they intend to
stay and control the vast oil wells in the NE. But it requires agreement with Turkey so who
knows what the Agencies promise Turkey in return? It sounds like a deal dividing northern
Syria between the Turks and the Americans; no room for the Kurds (again). It's the most
serious blow to Trump's authority akin to the time the American military disobeyed Obama over
the cease fire with Russia in Syria when instead they 'accidently' bombed Syrian soldiers,
killing 80 of them. President's it seems are not allowed their own Foreign Policy and in
reality that has been the case since the CIA was founded. Only Kennedy seriously tried to
break away
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims
and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally
occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™
Apart from the questions raised by some from the alternative media:
The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from
Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well,
Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist
attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:
1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to
understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being:
apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists,
homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)
2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely
to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily
solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.
3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as
Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more
wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also
making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs
funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood
Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.
Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could
have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a
group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern
extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German
women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They
get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names
and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some
American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of
women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little
push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the
West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.
And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at
all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US
Ambassador.
Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic
mentally unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United
States.
Oh my – the Jew "meathead" is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant
narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."
He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just
not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an
effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing
Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a
liar.
@MAGAnotMISA
What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims
annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.
Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand
that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government.
One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.
Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success.
Judaism lost the battle with christianity, bolsjewism failed in Russia, getting equal rights
in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in
surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbours, and all over the world, and jewish puppet
Hillary was not elected.
The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast
military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters
must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing
profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
@anon
In the idea that the USA is the new zion Trump indeed commits treason.
Before Israel was established many USA rabbis were against zionism, because in their view the
USA already was zion.
As to
, the use of such words for me means utter confusion, rational analysis no longer
possible.
Arthur Koestler was of the opinion that yiddish precluded sensible discussion.
The mentioned words show that he was wrong about the cause.
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his
father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.
In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,
"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this
little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."
That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no
expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies
of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically
deadly and destructive.
1. US withdrawal from Syria, and apparently all non-nato committed US troops from
Afghanistan.
2. Willingness to shutdown Government in order to force funding for the wall
3. Rumors of subpoena's being handed out at G.H.W Bush's funeral
4. Senate investigations into Clinton Foundation with auditors claiming jaw dropping
corruption
5. Grand Jury empaneled to investigate into 9/11
I don't know if Q is a psyop, but a lot of the things he has been saying appear to be
coming closer to reality. We can be certain that none of this would have happened had Clinton
been elected.
Meanwhile the deep state is not taking this lying down.
1. Netanyahu is threatening to increase operations in Syria. Perhaps he warned Trump to
get out because he is going to go nuclear or bio.
2. The global warming panic propaganda is being turned up to "broil" as weather warfare has
been unleashed across the planet.
3. Ukraine attempting to drag Nato into a war for the Kerch straight.
4. Stockmarkets tanking as the Fed keeps tightening while Mnuchin performs the "plunge
protection team rag"
5. Iran war threats and Persian gulf sabre rattling
6. Heeb financial war against Russia, Iran and China.
7. Heeb technology war against China (Huawei arrest)
Even if the US leaves Syria as Trump claims, they certainly will not just hand everything
over to Assad. The Damascus/Baghdad hiway re-opening through Al Tanf and the hand over of all
Euphrates river crossings to Syria would be indication of a true change of policy.
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to
see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.
I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to
my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee
Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the
Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.
Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a
state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner
who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good
riddance.
I'd just add that few things would please me more than to have DJT draft the human
chickenhawks due to their indispensable expertise and place their backsides in-country to
dole out their words of wisdom there.
The honorable & courageous American Man endowed with precision scientific/political
wisdom wrote, with special appeal to me: "Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do,
though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel , that
could actually result in more attacks upon Syria."
Call me crazy, but I'm still a bit leery, cautiously hopping this is not just another
charade. Is this just another way to allow the dissection of Syria to take another path?
Always remember if Trump is in opposition to his globalist master's he will be removed,
one way or the other.
Thank you for that! I now realize that the appellation chickenhawk used in reference to
the "let's you and him" fight gang is a slur on a fine little raptor. You have educated
me.
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ),
Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis
) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are
sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called
Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither
binoculars nor field guide.
But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of
warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.
President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a
face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that
there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big
surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday
stockings.
@wayfarer
Not sure if the opening word's in the first video are spoken by Sheikh Imran N Hosein. It
sounds like him. I just wanted to say I have listened to a lot of his messages and find him
very enlightening. For those who believe in end time prophecy, I think you will find well
versed and extremely intelligent, as compared to many of the so called "Christian" huckster's
out there selling religion for dollars.
Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilising a local
rival of both? Who knows?
What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the
rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can
buy.
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for
war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the
profits from the wars!
Zionists have instigated every war that the U.S. has been in since WWI and right on down
through the Mideast slaughter house that Israel and her Zionists patrons have sent Americans
to fight and die in and by crippled for life in and the millions of civilians, men, women and
children that have been murdered in the wars fought for Zionist Israel!
The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep state did
911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where the
Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when every
thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!
Finally Trump has done the right thing by getting out of Syria and now should get the hell
out of the Mideast and Afghanistan and close the slaughter houses!
God bless Putin and Russia and Assad and Syria for saving the people of Syria and
defeating ISIS aka Al CIADA ie a creation of the U.S. and Israel and Britain!
Zionists and Israel will be the death of America unless we wake up and smell the
coffee!
@renfro
One hopes that Russia will have stationed its advanced air defense systems throughout Syria.
And they should not be afraid to shoot down the Israeli aggressors.
@jilles
dykstra Jilles,
Haven't you completely contradicted your prior response to @renfro about Trump? You called
him a "complete idiot, leading a country to destruction," now you are claiming he is a
"reasonable man, who understands that warfare is just a destruction of wealth." He can't be
both, can he?
@DESERT
FOX Of extreme importance, Desert Fox of"The most incredible thing was that the Zionists
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast
wars and the war on terror where the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs
and got away with it ,"
Christmas Day greetings, Desert Fox!
Re; above sentence, a cordial question.
Is there anything you know & which you have not said (to date) that might signal that
the American-Israeli Empire's mighty military is prepped to allow the Assad and Rouhani
anti-Zionist governments to stand?
Uh perhaps, either delay or junk establishment of Greater Israel?
Am convinced Trump would only slow down international Jewry's plan. Or else no unguarded
JFK convertible limo trips for him on reelection-campaign road.
@chris
Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17
years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country
totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to
be liberators). Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants
to pull out. All three countries were much smaller and weaker than Iran, and the US is much
weaker, morally and militarily, than it was after the 9/11 hoax. And, after Russia has
expended much blood and treasure in ensuring victory for Assad and the Syrian people, will it
now sit on its hands as the US Air Force dismantles Teheran? Plus there is a resurgent China,
dependent on Iranian oil, to consider.
I'm not saying that Trump will not start a war against Iran (for Israel's benefit). But,
he'd better be prepared for the consequences, which will all be devastating to the American
Empire. Be careful what you wish for.
But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to
follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality.
Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against
the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good
news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day. Wouldnt it be nice if that Satanic
'fellow' was harrased at home like, unfortunatley, Tucker Carlson was. (Instead of
Carlson)
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog
could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until
the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is
disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the
workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all
locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ
such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"
Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he
won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade
away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.
@Parsnipitous
Reading my comment again, I can see where I might have misinterpreted Jilles intent. If so, I
apologize. However, if he had identified, by name, who he was referring to, perhaps I
wouldn't have been confused.
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The
United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital
interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians.
They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. Trump
was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters
believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired
mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay
for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq,
online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more
profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap
anymore.
opening the door to NATO's Turkey to go after the Kurd units there
Must look to the North:
On Turkey's Northwest front, tensions are high between the Greek Military & some foreign
controllers of Greece, and the Turkish Military, and their leaders.
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal
from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also
add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish
state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley
would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
For once, let all nuclear arsenal be directed at the Middle East and when the smoke clears
after a thousand years, there will be no God, Jews or Arabs to deal with any of remaining
humans will be welcomed!
@ChuckOrloski
In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and
elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think
their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be
placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their
proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.
Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and
Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and
see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but
with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.
It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but
have a Merry Christmas!
Yes to Trump and withdrawal from Mid East Wars, down with MSM, The Neocons, the 1% , the deep
state and Israel, the whole World hates these assholes. Go Donny Daddy!
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.
This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war
they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And
since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our
policies.
@Z-man
Israel fears Iran, is my idea.
Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli jews do not see how there ever can be peace with
the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'.
Not all jews are idiots.
Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a zionist reached Palestine, and saw that
this was not the 'land without people for people without land'.
He stated 'this is a crime'.
The destruction and destabilisation of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.
In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial
compensation, between Turkey and Greece.
To this day tensions exist between the two countries.
Iran is one of the oldest civilisations.
Twice, one might say even three time, the west overthrew Iranian democracy.
Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to power so that he could
subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah.
Iran also of course knows quite well jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to
destroy Iraq.
Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?
So that Netanyahu and USA jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be
otherwise ?
Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a problem, use
power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more power'.
There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbours, or with
the Palestinians.
About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'how we fooled the
Palestinians'?
Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin, one of them, if my
recollection is correct.
There always was the idea of overwhelming more military power, and of USA support.
Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest
USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW.
What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ?
Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?
Macron is not skiing between Christmas and New Year.
French is my worst language, but 'huis clos' is curtains closed, the expression is used often
for court proceedings without an audience, closed doors.
If my idea is correct that he stays indoors because his security cannot be guaranteed, maybe
someone whose first language is French can enlighten me.
Whatever the case, the man who wants an EU army now has trouble keeping peace in his own
country.
NATO, Stoltenberg's face during the dinner with Trump, disbelief.
Trigger and restrain, at the moment the Yellow Vests have caused the impossibility for
Brussels to do anything, survival is what concerns them.
@DESERT
FOX Desert Fox with a Montana-attitude, soft side, said: "It is snowing here in Montana
so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but have a Merry Christmas!'
Greetings from snowless Scranton, Desert Fox!
Over decades, have reflected upon Charles Schulz's great (1965) "Charlie Brown Christmas."
Prior to it's release, I have scant memory that Mr. Schulz had to battle those who wanted the
traditional Nativity of Christ and spiritual meaning out of the way. Fyi, Charles's opponents
lost!
As Christ-trashing Hollywood "Christmas" films dominate & mis-educate our popular
culture, please, please, please look (below) at the beautiful narration of "Charlie Brown
Christmas."
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he
promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt
mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is
actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100%
fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
@wayfarer
No snow here in Albuquerque, NM, but the skies are loaded with chemtrails. I guess the sky
spider's never get a day off. Here's hoping you and your's have a merry Christmas.
Trump wants Turkey to stop harassing Saudi Arabia about Kashoogi's murder and be more
complacent with Israel. He also wants Israel to become more anxious abiut its security so it
agrees on the Palestinian peace plan elaborated by Jared Kuchner and MBS.
Turkey has now promised to fight ISIS which it never did. Saudi Arabia as well as Syria wants
Turkey humiliated, defeated and out of Syria. It may well happen when the Turkish army will
be confronted with a renewedc ISIS manipulated by Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It seems that the withdrawal of the US forces from Syria may trigger the end of Erdogan's
hegemonic dreams in the region and the victorious return of Syria among the Arabs.
@follyofwar
Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No,
they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as
possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
"President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary
James Mattis. The Mattis resignation letter focused on the betrayal of allies "
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this, at
face value.
Orange clown's alleged disengagement from Syria may be (and probably is) nothing more that
a tactical retreat/change in plans for which the Mattis resignation is merely a fig leaf;
that is, it's just more of the same disingenuous dialectics that we've been bombarded with
since the beginning of the "Trump" administration.
Apparently we're urged to conclude that Trump has finally had enough of the people he
knowingly and willingly surrounded himself with, and their agenda, and now all of a sudden
(because of some kind of a spiritual epiphany, pro-American New Year's resolution, etc.) he
wants to do right by (some of) his supporters by doing what he should've done a long time
ago. (And the hint of a military drawdown in Afghanistan adds a nice touch).
Sorry but I can't buy what they're selling.
If in addition to withdrawing from Syria orange clown were to stop arming the "government"
of "Ukraine" and agree to negotiations with Russia on the issue of intermediate range nuclear
armed missiles in Europe – with a goal to support/strengthen the INF treaty rather than
withdraw from it – I might be willing to entertain the idea that something's
changed.
As it is now it'll take a lot more than the obligatory "avalanche of condemnation" i.e.,
cheap words, to convince me that the perfidious orange clown and his jewish-supremacist
handlers are doing anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with one
hand while steering it into the iceberg with the other hand.
Call me cynical but I think you cannot take ANYTHING our masters say or do, e.g. this,
at face value.
agree
just watch their behaviour – the wall never gets built even though they are now
talking about increasing the "defense" budget from $700 billion to $750 billion next year
– the increase alone is the cost of two walls
Although Russia has avoided any direct military challenge to NATO, it has nonetheless
shown a growing willingness to disrupt the status quo: through its use of force in Georgia
in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscriminate military intervention in Syria,
and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare to attempt to affect political outcomes in the
United States and Europe.
Haass is a Cheney's choice of opportunist and Goebbelsian kind of criminal:
Haass was born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn From 1989 to 1993, he was Special
Assistant to United States President George H. W. Bush and National Security Council Senior
Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs. In 1991, Haass received the Presidential
Citizens Medal for helping to develop and explain U.S. policy during Operation Desert
Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Haass argued that the leaders of the United States
should adopt "an imperial foreign policy" to construct and manage an informal American
empire (Haass 2000)
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines.
And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very
little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.
-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain
sanctions and other pressure on Iran.
-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the
U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.
-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece
pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from
tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.
Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major
policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary
to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is
saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow
thru on the crazy.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat."
So it was, was it? That's really the beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were
a few naysayers back then, since largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives,
who claimed that Stalin's postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to
protect the USSR from the talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was
well aware of all the loose talk on the American side and his country had just endured the
same attempt on the part of Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids – ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@MAGAnotMISA
"ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US
attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab
lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "
– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the
Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate"
terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/
Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan
The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to
the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed
in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in
Syria.
The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in
recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and
Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.
Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian
border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli
police and UN forces.
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow
benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
@renfro
Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that
there are elections due on 9 April.
You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a
missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days
when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.
"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media
yawns," by Eva Bartlett.
"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on
December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's
involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists --
including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other
non-rescuer behaviour.
a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets)
bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical
attack."
In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of
organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo
man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.
Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has
covered the event and its critical contents.
This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to
propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to
present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official
narrative.
@DESERT
FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep
state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where
the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when
every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"
The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get
counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings.
The 3rd building was only explosives.
@jilles
dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"
– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of
mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the
pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military
confrontation with Iran/Russia.
As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack
the US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated
as early as in 1945.
@Bragadocious
What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long
gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they
think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has
got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And
their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
@annamaria
THis is that GELLER who has been riling up ant Muslim hysteria in US She has been co hosting
the islamophobes and has been renting spaces for add against Jihad
@Michael
Kenny Like you are irreversibly bogged down in between your legs looking for Bush's WMD,
Obama's gas, Netanyhu's water source , Rothschild's oil,Bolton's nooses around himself,Weekly
Standard's lost child FDD and confused Sheldon's diaper.
!
@Alfred
Agree that many have died and are dying from cancer caused by the asbestos and other
materials in the dust, in my opinion the WTC towers were destroyed by direct energy weapons
plus micro nukes and WTC buildings 3,4,5,and 6 were destroyed by direct energy weapons and
WTC 7 was destroyed by conventional explosives, and there were 7 WTC buildings destroyed in
total.
Check the site Drjudywood.com and read her book Where Did The Towers Go and watch her
videos on youtube, she is a scientist and very credible and it is from her that I got the
directed energy weapons theory. There were no planes used and the planes that were seen were
holograms and for an explanation of this see John Lears videos on youtube, John Lear is the
son of William Lear the designer of the Lear Jet and John was a commercial pilot and his
videos on 911 explain why no planes were used.
Zionist Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911.
@jilles
dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice
of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without
actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds
bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's
the end of the world," etc.
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).
Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few
layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK,
let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our
middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an
exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.
No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global
ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the
eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to
think over the long term.
Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?
@Sarah
Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get
lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
@Realist
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
.local sources told Al Jazeera and Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency --
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that Ankara and Washington
agreed to complete withdrawal of the YPG forces from Manbij before the US pulls out of
Syria.
He added the US agreed to take back weapons given to the YPG.
Syrian government forces 'enter' Kurdish-controlled Manbij region
Trucks carrying regime forces and equipment, and armoured vehicles have arrived in the
region, sources say.
@follyofwar
Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship"
should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere.
Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax but I don't think any Iranians are.
Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything
goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.
@Svigor
It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that
they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of
their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC
and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show
their true colors.
@m___
Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually,
positive and optimistic.
If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of
better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same
page and malevolent re us , the common folks.
I am afraid that's not the case.
I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power
who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The
malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor
whim ,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors
bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides
otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.
Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been
happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the .Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for
long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.
The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by
that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.
They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.
"Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative
voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's
security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"
"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with
three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces.
Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the
process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their
hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by
ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a
civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for
the jihadists.
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not
happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state
structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan,
which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an
end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole
financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war
[in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a
unipolar world .
Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a
campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed
to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil
war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military
presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of
power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth.
The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
@Realist
When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an
economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia
were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are
still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full
recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played
nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd
ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for
Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to
al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib
extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards
of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on
the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy
and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division
might reward it.)
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
I find it interesting that Drudge has had almost nothing about the Syria withdrawal, or the
fallout Giraldi describes. I heard far more about it by tuning in to NPR.
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider.
It's not that simple. Any attempt to take control of the of the Bosporus would make it at
least temporarily impassable.
@follyofwar
The real change will come should ever US military personnel realise that true patriotism
would compel them not to serve, to sabotage equipment and even resort to fragging. Perhaps
Incitatus could give instructions on how some could pull off a "Corporal Klinger" in order to
evade service.
@Carlton
Meyer Good clip. High points for LULZ were "if we're fighting Assad doesn't that help
ISIS? And if we're fighting ISIS doesn't that help Assad?" and "now you know why people get
their news from Youtube."
@Bragadocious
It is business as usual. I remember when GWB was having some difficulty selling the war on
Iraq prior to the invasion. War criminal Tony Blair very eloquently addressed both houses in
the US and closed the sale. I watched it live with a tough old former Marine friend who was
actually moved to tears when he realised that the war would be going ahead. What hope is
there for nations that have yet to hold to account such vermin as Blair, GWB, Howard etc?
@follyofwar
The Brits were the original Rothschild ass-muppets. Before there was the Fed, there was the
Bank of England. Before there was the Senate, there was Parliament. And before there was Wall
Street, there was the City of London. Hell, without Britain, Israel wouldn't even exist!
I'm not putting down ordinary British people, who tend to be very nice. I'm talking about
their horrible ruling class, which is just rotten to the core.
@Realist
Taking into account long-range missiles, impassability of those straits is not such a great
military problem. But the disappearance of a large chunk if Istanbul (the US would call it
"collateral damage") would be a serious problem for Turkey.
I don't think it would ever come to that: Erdogan is a cautious bastard. His whole stint
with buying Russian C-400 was undertaken to make sure he is not "democratically" bombed by
those who bring democracy on the heads of aborigines in half-a-ton TNT installments and then
bitterly complain that those aborigines are ungrateful.
@Bragadocious
To be fair, the "Brits", as in the British people, bear the same responsibility as do the
"Americans", as in the American people. Granted, a great many voters in both nations are
quite utterly stupid but it might be more accurate to refer to The City and to Wall St as
being the guilty ones.
Grunts, the ones actually doing the fighting and dying, will typically refer to one who
speaks out in support of war, yet has avoided active military service, as a
chickenshit and not a chickenhawk.
So it's probably safe to say, wikiquote needs to be updated.
@never-anonymous
Your average American general isn't interested in America's welfare. He's interested in the
defensive industry because he plans to retire early from the US army and get rich lobbying
for defensive companies. People like this tend to be good at climbing the rank ladder because
they are completely self-serving, and they are a genuine problem for the the US when they get
to the top and claim the ear of a US president. All they do is promote more war to make their
future employers rich, who then provide a quid pro quo by hiring these disgusting generals
afterwards.
"though one has to be concerned that there might be some secret side deals with Israel or
Turkey that could actually result in more attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. "
@Partisangirl
#Israel murdered this Syrian soldier on #christmas. First lieutenant Gabriel Ali Raya won't
be going home to his family. Yet fools keep believing Israeli lie that they are targeting
Iran while it's bombing #Syria.
This is most certainly good news if true, but lets not forget they're still poking at Russia,
poking at China, still all over Africa, still stirring trouble in Latin America.
Who knows if they may be about to send in private mercenaries from Blackwater into Syria. Not
to mention all the money and weapons we give the Israelis-Saudis so they'll still be stirring
shit in Syria and elsewhere, all that American money could buy Israel lots of mercenaries to
do the same thing in Syria.
The entire MIC has gotten out of control, money buys congress, they have lots of money.
Assuming Trump has any real power or actually cares, he should be trying to get the "defense"
industries into doing something other than building weapons of war, maybe put them to work in
technology or health or something that benefits humanity, gets America back to competing with
Asia, instead of just killing folks.
As long as these "people" are making tons of money building weapons to kill, that is what
they will do, wherever it may be. War shouldn't a business.
I guess we just have to wait and see, I'll believe it when I see it.
DECEMBER 21, 2018 It's About Time for the U.S. to Exit Syria and Afghanistan
The final resolution of the U.S.-led war in Syria must be determined by Syrians
themselves. All foreign forces must recognize and respect the sovereignty of the Syrian
people and their legal representatives.
@RobinG
100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free.
After Action Review [AAR]:
-- Assad' s forces definitely expended a significant number of very expensive
interceptors.
-- They may, or may not, have shot down one or more less expensive standoff weapons launched
by Israel.
-- Iranian forces in Syria were hit and damaged (TBD on repairable vs. destroyed).
All objective analysts will score today's engagement as at least a minor win for the
IDF. Stand by for the non-objective, histrionic, Pallywood, Taqiyya artists' inevitable
attempts to misrepresent the events.
_____
The most critical question is, "What AA systems were active?"
The S-300 system, slated for eventual turnover to Syrian forces, has significant training
requirements. There are still months of training to be done. So, odds are the S-300 and S-400
systems in theatre, under exclusive Russian control, stayed off.
Much more limited systems such as S-200, Pantsir, and earlier generations are beatable if
they are accurately located during planning and shown the respect they deserve. These systems
have one shootdown of an F-16 variant that was too low and may have had a serious mechanical
failure in countermeasures.
The true decision points are still months away.
-- Will Russia ever turn an S-300 system over to Syrian control?
-- If so, will Assad pay the cash burn rate of ~$0.5 to $1.0 million per S-300 class
interceptor?
It is hard to believe that Assad will further bankrupt his nation and starve his children
to defend the Iranian, al-Hezbollah rocket forces being targeted by Israel.
May 5, 2017 Syrian War And The Battle For Golan Heights – Genie Oil & Gas Exposed!
The battle for Golan Heights in Syria will soon be under way and in this video Dan Dicks
of Press For Truth exposes the Genie Oil and Gas Company and everyone on their advisory
board.
I'm as happy with the withdrawal from Syria as anyone here, but "stay tuned" is probably
good advice so we don't get our hopes up too much. They may have moved them out of harm's way
in preparation for initiating more mischief somewhere else.
@A123
Troll #A123 confirms, ISRAEL KILLS ON CHRISTMAS
Following ancient pattern of Jews attacking on Holy Days.
Pantsir-S2 SAM system of #Syria Arab Air Defense Force launched eight 57E6-E surface to
air missiles at Delilah cruise missiles launched by F-16Is of 107sq "Knights of the Orange
Tail Squadron" flying from #Hatzerim AB.
Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from all directions to reverse his
decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will either fold completely or
bend at least a bit.
Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11, so keeping this in mind, the
Syria withdrawal decision could conceivably be taken out of his hands using (another) False
Flag,this time targeting Iran (and sacrificing a few thousand American servicemen in the
Middle East) or alternatively, using covert action in the US, aimed directly at substituting
Trump for Pence.
In an ethics free zone, combined with the enormous hubris of the maniacs running the
Empire, possibilities have to extend this far.
@A123
"100% of the planes sent by Israel have returned to base damage free."
– does this mean that you are ready to abandon the annoying quetching about "Jewish
eternal victimhood" and "Jewish incomparable suffering?"
And how is the Jewish State cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazi going on?
The first ever Jewish prime-minister of Ukraine Mr. Groysman has been quite effective in
keeping with the ongoing restoration of Nazism and banderism in the Kaganat of Nuland (former
Ukraine). Guess the main local financier of the neo-Nazi, an Israeli/Ukrainian citizen
Kolomojsky, is preparing for a special award from Knesset and AIPAC for his selfless service
to the ideas of zionism/nazism.
@RobinGPlease observe . as predicted, . the Taqiyya Trolls are now attempting to deploy
histrionics to distract from The Truth.
Serious questions:
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays?
No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching
offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
-- What militarily sound reason is there to give a free pass to violent Iranian forces that
do not respect any religious traditions or holidays? None?
The bottom line is pretty simple.
If Iran was not violent, there would be no military action against them on Christmas or
any other day. As long as Iran is violent, their Taqiyya supporters cannot credibly whinge
about countries defending themselves against Iranian violence.
@Digital
Samizdat What "ruling class". As ruling classes go, especially in a powerful country, the
British ruling class wasn't too bad till about 1900. Now the pseudomeritocracy scrambling to
make sense in a much less powerful and important country hardly deserves the description
"ruling class" at all. Indeed universal suffrage and the devastation of WW1 and the Great
Depression may have predictably doomed it years ago.
@NoseytheDuke
What do you make of the excuse for Howard (though Malcolm Fraser wouldn't have conceded it!!)
that he wasn't critical to the war happening and that only one Australian soldier was killed
(by his own hand, presumably accidentally)? 2003 was, after all, a bit early to be looking to
China for Australia's comfortable place in the world.
@renfro
Israel is attacking Lebanon and Syria . it is threatening other countries as well in between
for lending voices to issues like nuclear treaties with Iran. It has earlier stolen
passports, it has forged passports, it has assassinated leaders who were at that time in
third country. Now criticizing these activities will be nothing but expression of anti
semitism.
WTF wrong with these snake charmers of enormous linguistic variability ? That what it is.
They have tongues and they know how to coin new words .
Indeed it is, but the cacophony Trump's announcement raised seems genuine enough.
There's something about this whole affair that instills (at least in me) a vague sense
that Trump, having given up on a 2nd term, is going to get whatever he can via surprise
Presidential Policy Announcements as long as he lasts in office. It's how he ran his campaign
and almost certainly the only way he can get anything he said he wanted to do done.
Keep his detractors off-balance with a sufficiently constant stream of announcements that
their heads haven't quite stopped spinning before the next one comes out.
To that end, keeping the barking mad ideologues around him on the payroll makes sense.
They add to the noise that serves to make the announcement appear reasonable, whereas nuanced
argument would undermine his policies even when they're fundamentally right.
So, I'm staying tuned. We may see lots more coming from the same place.
Macron not on skis this year.
My idea is not fear of snipers, but fear of Macron being surrounded by Yellow Vest
skiers.
Honnecker's vacations were staying on a government estate, of course completely closed to the
public.
Even there, when he went for a walk, a guard a hundred metres before him and another behind
him.
Advertising his impopularity by completely closing a piste temporarily for just Macron and
some guards probably was seen as not a smart move.
@NoseytheDuke
Well, after, if I remember well, a seven year investigation a devastating report was
published about B-liars' war in GB.
In the Netherlands a somewhat similar report was published about Dutch complicity, the
David's report, blaming prime minister Balkenende at the time, and his minister of foreign
affairs then, De Hoop Scheffer, later Secretary of NATO.
None of the three is behind bars, true.
Nevertheless, they were exposed as war criminals.
I wonder if it is realistic to expect more, the crimes were political.
If Blair and the two Dutch could have refused, I wonder.
@byrresheim
If it was horrible is a matter of opinion, I see it as liberation.
Horrible regime, the shah's
It was possible because the USA had been driven out of Vietnam, could not afford another war.
The Smith Richardson Foundation was founded by billionaire heir to the Vicks fortune, H.
Smith Richardson In 1973, the founder's son, Randolph Richardson – a free market
fundamentalist and long-time patron of neoconservative ideologue Irving Kristol
– inherited the organization.
Recipients of funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation include a who's who of
neoconservative and militaristic right-wing institutions.
The Fusion GPS' bunch and Chris Steele are not the only people subverting the democratic
process in the US:
Recent hacked documents have revealed an international network of politicians,
journalists, academics, researchers and military officers, all engaged in highly deceptive
covert propaganda campaigns funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO),
NATO, Facebook and hardline national security institutions.
This "network of networks", as one document refers to them, centers around an ironically
named outfit called the Integrity Initiative. And it is all overseen by the Institute for
Statecraft, which has operated under a veil of secrecy.
Where is the US Intelligence Community when the foreign nationals infiltrate election
complain in the US?
Bracey-Lane is a 20-something British citizen He appeared out of nowhere to work in Iowa
as a field organizer for the Bernie Sanders campaign for president.
"I spent a year working, saving all my money, just thought I was gonna go on a two month
road trip from Seattle to New York and I thought, you know what? I'm gonna stay and work
for the Bernie Sanders campaign," Bracey-Lane told a reporter for AFP on January 27,
2016.
However An Institute for Statecraft document on "roles and relevant experience" of the
outfit's "expert team" notes that Bracey-Lane conducted a "special study of Russian
interference in the US electoral process." The document does not make clear when that study
was conducted, however, it is listed directly next to its author's history of work with the
Bernie campaign.
The Integrity Initiative (oh, irony!) has been also busy with subverting the democratic
process in Spain and the UK:
The Integrity Initiative waged a successful covert campaign to destroy the appointment
of Pedro Baños to Director of Spain's National Security Department by carry[ing] out
the hit job through a hand-picked "cluster" of Spanish politicians and operatives to flood
social media and sympathetic outlets with messages demonizing Baños.
The Integrity Initiative appears to have employed the same tactics to smear left-wing
journalists and political figures across the West, including the leader of the UK's Labour
Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
According to David Miller, professor of political sociology in the school of policy
studies at the University of Bristol and the director of the Organization for Propaganda
Studies, the Integrity Initiative "appears to be a military directed push."
@wayfarer
Not sure, but we are home to Kirtland Air Force Base and Sandia National Labs so I guess
anything is possible. I just know it has been brutal all fall and winter. Starts out with
massive chemtrailing and ends up with sky completely darkened.
My spidy sense is also tingling, but I am in awe that no one seem's to notice, no one
seem's to care. Like you, I feel the curtain is about to be pulled on the final act. God help
us all.
@Realist
I've read that Mr. Trump abrupted decided to pull out of Syria after a phone call with
Erdogan. He wasn't about to confer with Mattis, Pompeo, or Bolton as they would have all
objected. Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align
with Russia. It's all about geo-politics.
Too bad that crybaby Netanyahu doesn't like it. Israel has nowhere else to go and needs US
support to even exist. The Kurds will be sacrificed, but Turkey is much more important. Trump
must pull out the US troops ASAP as they nothing but sitting ducks – like those 400 or
so Marines who were blown up during the Lebanese civil war during the Reagan Admin. My
biggest concern is that they will be attacked with many casualties while in country, forcing
Trump to stay.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a 'childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist' who is 'committing Treason' against the United States."
He didn't just play a meathead on TV, he became one in real life.
@follyofwar
" Trump cannot afford to be the president who allowed Turkey to leave NATO and align with
Russia. It's all about geo-politics. "
What makes you think Turkey is still in NATO ?
And what is NATO ?
Both Merkel and Macron say they want an EU army.
An army for what, many here in Europe wonder.
Attacking the country that keeps the Germans warm in winter and German industry going ?
@Realist
Did you read Article V of NATO treaty?
Here it is:
Article V
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an
armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective
self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the
Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other
Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be
reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council
has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and
security.
To translate it into plain English, if one member is attacked and another member decides
to send the victim pampers, that other member would be perfectly within its rights. The US
made 100% sure it has no obligations whatsoever under that treaty. Not to mention that when
the US does have obligations, it simply breaks the treaty (the deal with Iran being the
latest glaring example).
@Wizard
of Oz A great legal mind such as your own would surely know that under US law any person
involved in any way in a crime resulting in the deaths of victims is held to be equally
responsible. Just being a wheelman or a lookout is enough to be found to be as equally guilty
as the triggerman. All forces involved in the war crimes of the invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan, other than the US, were token forces whose role was as much to legitimise the US
invasions as to have much material impact. Howard's (and Blair's) excuse that it was due to
faulty intel is an insult to those who serve honourably and legitimately in ASIO.
String them up, I say, and you Sir would demean yourself should you attempt to defend
them.
@Anonymous
You are seeing the world in black and white, whereas in reality it has various shades of
gray. The Deep State is not monolithic. Every snake in that pit wants to control not only us
"deplorables", but the other snakes, as well. While all those greedy rothschilds, soroses,
and adelsons beat even Devil himself in their lack of morals, some placed their bets on the
corrupt mad witch, while others on the orange clown. Some snakes are smart enough to
understand that to keep their loot they need the protection of a strong US state. Otherwise
other thieves would gladly steal their ill-gotten riches.
The presidents are frauds in a sense that they are puppets, but not in a sense that they
all have the same puppet master. Say, Nixon put the country ahead of the Empire and
extricated us from the Vietnam quagmire. There is a chance that Trump (i.e., the faction of
the Deep State that betted on him) also wants to save America as a country by acknowledging
the losses of the Empire and acting accordingly. We'll see soon enough.
Israel behind civilian planes ( this time in Lebanon)attacked Syria.
criticizing this piece of Israeli behavior is known as anti semitism according to Jew and
the jew slave Congress Senate , Diet , Parliament , ( USA Germany UK )
. If Saddam were Jewish , his pals were Likud and the citizen worshipped in synagogue ,
criticism against 1990 invasion of Kuwait would have been called anti semitism punishable by
jail .
@foolisholdman
There were cases of real Soviet aggression, although, contrary to the assertion of Western
propaganda, much fewer than there were cases of the US aggression. To give you an example,
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was Soviet aggression at its stupidest. The US invasion of
the same Afghanistan in 2001 was equally stupid. One can argue that it was even more stupid,
given that Soviet example preceded it. Only a hopeless moron steps into a trap knowing that
it is a trap.
However disgusting the US foreign policy was and still is, the USSR was no knight in
shining armor, either.
@foolisholdman
Sure Finland Czechoslovakia Hungary Romania Ukraine Poland Germany Belarus Armenia Azerbaijan
Estonia Latvia Bulgaria Georgia Yugoslavia Lithuania Moldova Chechnia etc.
@DESERT
FOX September 11, 2016 Al Qaeda: The Data Base
Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the
House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of
international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas,
arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
@AnonFromTN
Try again. Maybe 1979 was foolish, since "invasion" was manufactured.
As Zbig Brzezinski admitted, the Soviet action was produced by the CIA support to
anti-Russian Jihadi terrorism, not the other way round. Basically CIA funded terrorism to
"give USSR its own Vietnam." His interview is online.
@geokat62
geo warmly offered Fran: 'Welcome to the dark side, Fran."
Hey G.D.L.-robed Brother geokat!
As you likely are aware, the Syrian ballistic missile system gave 14 of 16 Israeli F-16
(dark) missiles aimed at Damascus outskirt a bright & shiny welcome.
But nonetheless, please refer to Haaretz article below, and Russian knowledge of Israel's
endangering two civilian airplane flight trajectories.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur .
No such Treaty as approval was ever given by the Senate. Soros sock-puppet Obama lied when
he claimed to have extra-constitutional powers to bind future administrations. Remember
Obama's promise, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? There were plenty of
warning signs that Obama was a liar, so no one should be surprised that he lied about
JOCPA.
Trump did not violate or break anything , because the non-ratified, non-treaty did
not meet Constitutional minimums.
__________
Putin supporters should understand this as Russia has an identical issue in play. The
1950′s transfer of Crimea to Ukraine did not meet Russian constitutional standards.
Thus, identical to Trump's treatment of JOCPA, Putin is free to ignore the
unconstitutional acts of the prior Krushchev / Vorashilov administration.
@Agent76
Agree, and would add that AL CIADA ie ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6
and NATO and Robin Cook was killed shortly after he made those statements, who benefits?
@Miro23
"Trump is dealing with the lethal crowd who orchestrated 9/11 "
Well this line of thought raises some serious question: (1) Why did Trump run for
president in the first place? (2) Why did he run on a platform of open defiance to the "deep
state" only to occupy a position of intimidating powerlessness? (3) Why does he not fight
back by investigating 9/11 or merely threatening to do so? (4) Why does he not use the power
of the "presidential bully pulpit" against the "deep state"? (5) If he was sincere during the
campaign, why did the "lethal crowd" not deploy a "lone nut" against him before the election?
(With so much at stake, why would they risk letting a sincere person anywhere near the levers
of power in the first place?) (6) How could a reasonable person be coerced into a course of
action (in the realm of "foreign policy") that seems to be leading to nuclear war/planetary
extinction? (7) If he was sincere about putting America first, then failing everything else,
why doesn't he simply resign?
@A123
Legally speaking, you are right. Not to mention that Obama was proven to be a liar in many
other things. But withdrawing from the Iran deal damaged the US credibility even among its
European vassals.
@AnonFromTN
I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in this
case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.
And as far as I know , "American" presidents all have the same master, which by the way,is
the same master that Putin and his bunch of corrupt oligarchs serve.. Of course there are
exceptions Nixon did try to fight against his master but I presume you know what happened to
the poor man. Poor but lucky. He died in his bed.
You got something right: "We'll see soon enough.".
But let me tell you the future: there will be no withdraw from Syria UNLESS the king of
Israel agrees.
And if the King agrees, it is because, he has other objectives which his puppets, Trump,
Putin, Macron will certainly try to implement.
But don't worry, the deep state and the "experts" will always give you "arguments" so you
can keep seeing the world in "various shades of gray".
@anonymoys
Agree with two things. First, Nixon was luckier than Kennedy, he was only forced to resign,
whereas Kennedy was murdered. Second, the same forces were responsible for both events.
But these dark forces are not all-powerful. The world is more complicated than you paint
it. There are different factions at work in the US and Russian politics, and these factions
are doing their best to cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely
wish success to both teams.
Say, many Russian oligarchs (BTW, oligarchs everywhere are criminals, in Russia, in the
US, in Europe, etc.) are likely Zionists, but there are other forces supporting Putin's
throne. That's why Russia screwed up the Israeli plan to break up Syria into a bunch of
warring impotent Bantustans, using Islamic bandits, some paid scum, some just incredibly
stupid "true believers". In this Russia teamed up with the Israeli arch-enemy Iran. Judging
by the Imperial tantrums in the US, which reached a hysterical pitch lately, Zionists are
unhappy with Russian and Chinese stances. So, there is hope for humanity yet.
"During war there are no civilians," that's what "Yossi," an Israeli military (IDF)
training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel
Corrie trials, held in Haifa's District Court earlier this week. "When you write a
[protocol] manual, that manual is for war," he added.
@NoseytheDuke
I bow to your superior knowledge of American law(s) but do recall the distasteful way in
which one reads of not completely innocent defendants being swept up for plea bargains by
such devices as conspiracy charges. But yes, I'm afraid Howard was at least an accessory
before the fact and I have no doubt it was Howard that JMF had in mind when he looked at me
at an anti Howard government affair in October 2004 and spoke of war criminals who ought to
be tried though I recall thinking at the time that it went a bit far to include Howard, the
hanger on. As one who came to give Howard amoral admiration just for the sustained
determination needed to become a truly successful politician (Cf. F.S. Oliver "The Endless
Adventure" and "In Defence of Politics" by Bernard Crick) I am more critical of him for what
he did and didn't do with his surprise control of the Senate (not so surprising to him
actually by August 2004 polling) including election giveaways that did much to prevent
Keating's superannuation schemes ever leading to relief of the burden of old age pensions or,
worse, the rise of industry funds to, effectively, be a funding arm for (often private school
educated) Labor careerists who will give us 25 years of reduced productivity and unnecessary
retail penalty rates and (at least for a while) reduced shopping hours and availability of
path and radiology .. just e.g. Then maybe the drag from China no longer making our coal and
iron ore super valuable will force changes that recognise we 99 per cent of us are lucky
drones (pending a Merkel influx of a million incompatible refugees anyway, but that I would
not expect from Shorten).
@AnonFromTN
I will suggest that a blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct.
To be accurate, one must define the perspective via the question:
-- Credibility in the eyes of whom?
I observed a significant increase in U.S. credibility among the citizens and governments
of practicing Christian nations of the EU. For example: Poland, Hungary, Austria, and
Italy.
Nations such as China that laughed at and casually rolled "Barak Hussein Obama the
Submissive" also upped their respect for the U.S. when Trump took over. Though, I do concede
that getting over a bar set at 0% (less than Rodney Dangerfield) is pretty easy.
Yes, U.S. National Socialist Democrats [DNC] lost credibility among Establishment Elites
of the NWO/UN Circle of Arrogance. After all, they failed to deliver Hillary Clinton to the
White House. However, DNC credibility among unelected elites at the debauched UN has nothing
to do with U.S. credibility among the civilized people of the world.
Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane. It is a lie to say that
they did. Given the air space congestion in the area it is functionally impossible to fly a
combat mission without overlapping a flight route.
The only force that endangered civilian airliners were those firing anti-aircraft
missiles that could hit those planes.
This is why it is highly likely that Russia will never turn over S-300 systems to Syrian
control. Russia wants to sell these systems. Interest will drop to zero if Syrian forces use
the S-300 to shoot down a civilian airliner over another nation such as Lebanon or
Turkey.
@AnonFromTN
"There are different factions at work in the US and these factions are doing their best to
cut each others' throats, which is a good thing. We should sincerely wish success to both
teams."
Seriously? With the exception of perhaps "the wall" and a few other relatively minor
distractive issues (which won't matter very much when the U.S. is a pile of nuclear ash), I
don't see any kind of "faction" offering any serious political opposition whatsoever to
anything of significance that orange clown does. All I see is cheap talk/posturing.
Israel did not fire any weapon system at any civilian airplane.
Strawman.
Nobody said your people fired missiles at a civilian airline. You used civilian
airplanes to hide behind. It is called using human shields – a war crime.
As for Russia handing over control of S-300′s to Syria, I would advise you to
continue to believe that. I look forward to your hubris and arrogance causing you to vanish
in a puff of smoke one day.
blanket statement on credibility does not work as a logical construct
Agree. But you appear to think that a blanket statement on "civilized people of the world"
works as a logical construct. Sorry to disappoint, it does not work, either.
After Trump announced that the US withdraws, every one of the other signatories of JCPOA
(Iran nuclear deal), namely China, France, Germany, EU, Russia, UK, and Iran said that they
will abide by the deal, with Iranian stipulation that if the US attempts any hostile action,
it would consider itself no longer bound by it. To wit, France, Germany, UK, and EU are
subservient pawns of the Empire in most cases.
Iranians explicitly said that the US unilateral withdrawal from this deal shows that it is
useless to negotiate with the US and come to any agreements with it, as the US will likely
break its word any time it finds it convenient. This did a huge damage to the credibility of
the country, no matter how you slice or dice it.
I agree regarding DNC credibility. After they falsified the results of their primaries (as
Wasserman-Schultz resignation right before the convention affirmed), DNC cannot claim any
credibility. Not that they even needed this trick: Sanders proved to be just as much of a
fraud and a piece of shit as the mad witch. However, DNC has nothing to do with it. Obama
administration was supposed to represent the country, not DNC. If the ability of Trump to act
as President depended on the credibility of RNC (which is as low as that of DNC, although
they did not falsify primaries, to the dismay of Deep State), our country is done for.
The President is supposed to be the leader of the country, not just his party. The actions
of both Obama and Trump in the international affairs that are meant for internal consumption
undermine the US more than any act of its avowed enemies.
Fyi, I particularly despise the Zionist GWOT designations, "collateral damage," and the
demonic branding of wartime Prisoners of War as "non-combatants," and exempt from
internationally recognized Geneva Convention treatment while in ZUSA military captivity.
As a veteran who took an August 1970 solemn oath to honor humane treatment of war
prisoners, & post-9/11, am wondering if taking such noble vow was being done throughout
Basic Training posts, stationed across our (argh!) "Homeland."
Really made me sick to see how Sergeant Charles Garner and P.F.C. Lyndi England were held
accountable for their barbaric Abu Ghraib acts, and shortly afterward, the
freak-intellectual, John Yoo, became the distorted administration's Prisoner-Torture High
Priest. (Zigh)
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
Hm. Perhaps U.R. Comment-Research Specialist can help me here?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hezbollah forces in Syria take off for Christian holidays?
No?
-- Do violent Iranian al-Hamas forces in Gaza disrespect their own religion by launching
offensive, border assaults every Friday? Yes?
I've got good news for you. Sometimes the world/truth is really black and white. And in
this case, certainly is: Trump is a fraud , has always been and will always be.
we can't be 100% sure yet but it's looking that way
unless that wall starts getting built pronto i don't see any reason to suport him 2020
All right and clear
Pity, that the lot is stained by the dropping-like sterotype about Goebels' "big lie"
Never mind it's of Hitler's labour, not Goebels', but, more important, in Mein Kampf it is
clearly expressed as a warning (beware..) against the chosen-tribe techniques.. The autor
should be learned enough to know better: superficiality or malice?
@A123
You are so desperate that you are looking under the mattress to find your last penny. Why
don't you ask your grandmother to ( Ben Guiron or Gold mare or some WaPo Rubin or KKK-
Krathamer Kristol Kagan ) to find it for you ?
Blooming Barricade , Dec 26, 2018 12:18:48 PM |
link
@2
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that... the fact that they're reverting to the old
name is the final step in the rehabilitation of the Iraq War criminals without liberals and
pseudo left none of which would be possible
Chris Williamson: Private Eye has reported that the #IntegrityInitiative anti-propoaganda
unit is taking tips from the security masterminds who tried to sell the wisdom of going to
war in Iraq!
And this outfit was set up by the Institute for Statecraft that's received £millions
from HM Govt!!! https://mobile.twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1076983080131416066
"... On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". ..."
"... The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry. ..."
"... Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience. ..."
"... The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. ..."
"... The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election. ..."
"... Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue. ..."
"... The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. ..."
"... For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi. ..."
On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women,
our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter,
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning
US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".
The reasons for Donald Trump's move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic
concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats
prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had
always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would
somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of
Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the
situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for
the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20
candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.
The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the
military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even
in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of
reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers,
and which will involve him repeating his mantra of "Promises Made, Promises Kept". He will list
how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other
efforts (from the Fed, the FBI, and Mueller himself) to hamper his efforts to "Make America
Great Again".
Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media
strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and
partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents,
while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision.
Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the
mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to
Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an
international audience.
The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very
much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund
Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to
understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in the Middle East, and
Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and
the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the
government, the more they are campaigning for him.
This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is
necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and
incomprehensible that may seem at times.
The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was
Trump's alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to
announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US
troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.
It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged
French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let's see what you can do without the
US!"
It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting
their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking
advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this
regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400
to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's
decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military
presence in Syria will continue.
There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably
unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and
propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.
We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian conflict. Damascus, Moscow,
Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv
and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to
destroy Syria, and following seven years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.
Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF.
The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and
losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative
move.
The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the
military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an
influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact,
since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and
other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air
defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for
the Israelis.
Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease,
choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in
the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.
The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade
Syria to fight ISIS, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for
the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib (which
Erdogan considers a province of Turkey). Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as
it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian
territory.
The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with
Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their
territory that is rich in oil and gas.
Erdogan wants to eliminate the SDF, and until now, the only thing that stood in his way was
the US military presence. He even threatened to attack several times, even in spite of the
presence of US troops. Ankara has long been on a collision course with NATO countries on
account of this. By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may
also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a
"dictator".
Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning
Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are
even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.
When Will They Leave, and Cui Prodest?
It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had
no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving
behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French
and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be
an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.
The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of
of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in
Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans (and spend money
to pay a lot of people in Washington) based on the delusion that they are doing something in
Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu
desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move.
Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of
troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his
friendship to Bibi.
Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the
other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana
format, guided by Iran and Russia. Putin and Rouhani are certainly pushing for this solution.
Trump, on the other hand, would like to see Turkey enter Syria in the place of US forces, to
demonstrate he concluded a win-win deal for everyone, beating the deep-state at their own
game.
Erdogan does not really have the military force necessary to enter Syria, which is the big
secret. He would be against both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, though the two not
necessarily in an alliance.
There is a triple bluff going on, and this is what is complicating the situation so much. On
the one hand, the SDF is bluffing in not wanting help from Damascus in case Erdogan sends in
his forces; on the other hand, Erdogan is bluffing in suggesting he is able to conquer the
territory held by the SDF; and finally, the French and British are bluffing by telling the SDF
they will be able to help them against both Erdogan and/or Assad.
Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best
position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with
distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the
enemies of Syria.
If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of
Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and
securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be
willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be
done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible
outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It
would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining
invaders (ISIS and the FSA/ Turkish Armed Forces) from the country, both in Idlib and in the
northeast in Afrin.
Russia is aware of the risk that Erdogan is running with the choices he will take in the
coming days. Perhaps the reason why Putin chose diplomacy over war with Turkey after the
downing of a Russian Su-24 in 2015 was in order to arrive at this precise moment, with as many
elements as possible present to convince Erdogan to stick with Russia and Iran instead of
embracing Trump's strategy and putting himself on an open collision course with Damascus,
Moscow and Tehran.
Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in
Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold
territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that
Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would
only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force.
Putin has certainly made it clear to Erdogan that if he made such a move to attack the SDF
and enter Syria, Russia in turn would militarily support the SAA with its air force to free
Idlib; and in case of incidents with Turkey, the Russian armed forces would respond with all
the interest earned from the unrequited downing of the Su-24 in 2015.
Erdogan has no choice. He must find an agreement with Damascus, and this is why he found
himself commenting on Trump's words the following day, criticizing US sanctions on Iran in the
presence of Iranian president Rouhani. The SDF know that they are between a rock and a hard
place, and have already sent a delegation to start negotiations with Damascus.
Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in
doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies,
infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of
these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.
Anybody who believe that hillary was derailed by Russians is iether idiot or neocon or both.
Notable quotes:
"... Since receiving an $11 million investment from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports. ..."
"... Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one that responded to it. "You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be inclined to endorse you", they wrote. New Knowledge then "asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters." While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the page disappeared the day after the vote. "It was weird," Watson commented to the New York Times. "The whole thing was weird." ..."
"... New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore's campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat Moore was secretly backed by Russia. ..."
"... While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical campaign of online deception against the American public while marketing themselves as the guardians against foreign interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as they have. ..."
Grayzone Project
-- On December 17, two reports detailing ongoing Russian interference operations commissioned by the
Senate Intelligence Committee were made public. They generated a week's worth of headlines and sent members of Congress and cable
news pundits into a Cold War frenzy. According to the report, everything from the Green Party's
Jill
Stein
to I
nstagram
to
Pokemon
Go
to the
African
American population
had been used and confused by the deceptive Facebook pages of a private Russian troll farm called the
Internet Research Agency.
Nevermind that 56% of the troll farm's pages
appeared
after
the
election
, that 25% of them were seen by no one, or that their miniscule online presence paled in comparison to the millions
of dollars spent on social media by the two major presidential campaigns and their supporters to sway voters. This was an
act
of war
that demanded immediate government action.
According to Sen. Mark Warner, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the reports were "a wake up call" and a
"bombshell" that was certain to bring "long-overdue guardrails when it comes to social media". His Republican counterpart on the
committee, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr,
hailed
the
research papers as "proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information sharing between the
social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them."
But the authors of one of the reports soon suffered a major blow to their credibility when it was revealed that they had engaged
in what they called a "Russian style" online disinformation operation aimed to swing a hotly contested special senate election.
The embarrassing revelation has already resulted in one of the authors
having
his Facebook page suspended
.
The well-funded deception was carried out by New Knowledge, a private cyber intelligence firm founded by two self-styled
disinformation experts who are veterans of the Obama administration: Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox.
'It may be designed to manipulate you'
Morgan began his
career
as
a product manager at AOL before founding a series of start ups, some with funding from the United States Agency for International
Development and Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network. Once a Brookings Institution researcher and special
advisor to the Obama White House and State Department, Morgan founded Data for Democracy, a volunteer organization said to use
"public data to monitor the election system for signs of fraud." Morgan also developed technology for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the arm of the Department of Defense created for basic, applied technological research, and
futuristic war toys.
Rising through the ranks of the national security apparatus, Morgan ultimately emerged as a go-to source for credulous reporters
seeking to blame Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump on Russian disinformation.
In an
interview
with
the local CBS affiliate in Austin, Texas, Morgan told viewers that feelings of discontent were telltale signs that they had been
duped by Russian disinformation.
"If it makes you feel too angry or really provokes that type of almost tribal response, then it
may be designed to manipulate you. People should be concerned about things that encourage them to change their behavior," he
warned.
Fox, for his part, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency and was a computer analyst for the Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC) military unit. JSOC is notorious for its spree of atrocities across the Middle East including digging
their bullets out of dead pregnant women's bodies in Afghanistan. Comparatively little information is available about Fox's
background.
Since
receiving
an $11 million investment
from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one
of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on
December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports.
The report, titled
"The
Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,"
was oversseen by Renee DiResta, a former Wall Street trader and tech
specialist who was recruited by Obama's State Department to devise strategies for combating online ISIS propaganda. The New York
Times
described
DiResta
as one among a small group of "hobbyists" who "meticulously logged data and published reports on how easy it was to manipulate
social media platforms."
The hobby lobby of online obsessives converged at New Knowledge this year to sound the alarm on supposed Russian disinformation.
In a New York Times
op-ed
published
as Americans went to cast their votes in the midterm elections, Morgan and Fox alleged that the Kremlin was secretly running
hundreds of propaganda websites in an effort to swing the outcomes. That assertion ran counter to the narrative the two
operatives had been spinning out just months before.
In an interview earlier in the year, Ryan
Fox
suggested
that despite the Trump administration's multiple rounds of sanctions against Russia, Vladimir Putin was so
satisfied with the state of U.S. affairs that the Kremlin had actually cut back on its supposed interference. "Strategically, are
they content with the way things are? Does it play in their favor to do anything right now? That's a valid question," Fox said.
"Keep up the momentum, keep poking away. But do they have to implement drastic measures like hacking the DNC and exposing
thousands of emails? Probably not."
More recently, Fox
claimed
to
have identified hundreds of Russian-controlled Facebook and Twitter accounts active in France's Yellow Vest movement, which has
raged against the country's neoliberal leadership and sparked anxiety among centrist elites across the Atlantic.
"There has been some suspect activity," a French cybersecurity official said. "We are in the process of looking
at its impact."
https://
on.wsj.com/2EzeS5c
However, Fox produced no evidence to support his incendiary accusation, prompting reporters to qualify his assertions as "
very
likely
" and write that he merely "
believes
"
Russian interference took place.
Drafting the dubious bot dashboard
Morgan is also one the developers of the
Hamilton
68 dashboard
, an online project dedicated to inflaming public outrage over online Russian bots. Funded by the German Marshall
Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy – which is itself backed by NATO and USAID – Hamilton 68 claims to track hundreds of
accounts supposedly linked to Russian influence operations. The effort has largely succeeded in drawing positive media attention
despite one of its founders, Clint Watts, admitting that the Twitter accounts it follows may actually be real people who are not
Russian at all.
When Morgan was
asked
what
techniques Hamilton 68 uses to identify Russian influence operations, he offered a confident-sounding but ultimately empty
answer: "We developed some techniques for determining who matters in a conversation Using some of those techniques, we've
identified a subset of accounts that we're very confident are core to furthering the Russian narrative in response to mainstream
events."
Because Morgan and his colleagues have explicitly refused to name the accounts monitored by Hamilton 68, his claims can never be
proven.
In a lengthy
profile
of
the musicologist-turned-New Knowledge "online detective" Kris Shaffer, Foreign Policy described the supposed methodology he
employed to identify Russian disinfo operations: "By working with massive datasets of tweets, Facebook posts, and online
articles, he is able to map links between accounts, similarities in the messages they post, and shared computer infrastructure."
The article added an extraordinarily revealing disclaimer: "This method of analysis is in its infancy, remains a fairly blunt
instrument, and still requires human intervention. It sometimes mistakes real people who post anti-imperialist arguments about
U.S. foreign policy for Kremlin trolls, for example."
It may have been that New Knowledge had no knowledge at all of Kremlin botnets, but their reports were nonetheless treated as
gospel by droves of credulous reporters eager to make their name in the frenzied atmosphere of Russiagate.
"We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation"
According to an internal New Knowledge report
first
seen by the New York Times
, the firm carried out a multi-faceted influence operation designed to undermine a 2017 bid by
right-wing Republican former state supreme court judge Roy Moore for an open Alabama senate seat. By its own admission, New
Knowledge's campaign capitalized on the the sexual assault allegations against Moore to "enrage and energize Democrats" and
"depress turnout" among Republicans.
To accomplish this, the New Knowledge team created a Facebook page aimed at appealing to conservative Alabamians by encouraging
them to endorse an obscure patio supply salesman-turned-write-in candidate named Mac Watson. They hoped the subterfuge would peel
votes away from Moore. It was precisely the kind of tactic that New Knowledge claims Russian troll farms carry out to sow
divisions among the American electorate.
Morgan told the New York Times the effort stopped there. But the New Knowledge report says the Facebook page "boosted" Watson's
campaign and even arranged interviews for him with The Montgomery Advertiser and the
Washington
Post
. At the same time, Watson's Twitter following mysteriously jumped from 100 to about 10,000.
One of the articles New Knowledge took credit for during its disinformation campaign.
Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one
that responded to it. "You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be
inclined to endorse you", they wrote. New Knowledge then "asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that
could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters."
While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the
page disappeared the day after the vote. "It was weird," Watson commented to the New York Times. "The whole thing was weird."
New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore's campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter
followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat
Moore was secretly backed by Russia.
Today, as can be seen below, Mother Jones is using a bogus story generated by a disinformation campaign to raise funds for more
Russiagate coverage.
As the Russian bot narrative peaked, Moore blamed the Jones campaign for manufacturing the scare. "It's not surprising that
they'd choose the favorite topic of MSNBC and the Fake News outlets -- the Russia conspiracy. Democrats can't win this election on
the issues and their desperation is on full display."
Moore's opponent, Jones, said he had no knowledge of the operation.
Moore was roundly mocked in liberal circles as a conspiratorial crank, but New Knowledge's internal report contained a stunning
admission: "We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on
social media by a Russian botnet," its authors revealed.
While the New York Times says the internal report does not confirm that New Knowledge purchased the bot account themselves, the
accounts' flagrant use of Cyrillic language and profile pictures of famous singers including Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera
and Avril Lavigne strongly suggest that whoever bought them went to extreme lengths to leave the appearance of a Russian hand.
The Alabama disinformation campaign was carried out through a network of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and former Obama
administration officials who have joined the private sector to leverage liberal anti-Trump outrage into profits.
Billionaire Reid Hoffman, who co-founded the employment networking site LinkedIn,
provided
$100,000
for the black ops campaign. The money was then pipelined through American Engagement Technologies, which is headed by Mikey
Dickerson, a former Google engineer who founded the United State Digital Service. Dickerson is also Executive Director of the New
Data Project, an organization dedicated to "testing new approaches" and "serving as an advanced technology research lab for
progressives."
A colleague of Hoffman's claimed the purpose of his investments was to "strengthen American democracy."
Since the New York Times' exposé, Facebook released a statement announcing its suspension of "five accounts run by a multiple
individuals for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior," including Morgan's account. The social media platform has opened
an investigation, though it has not revealed what the other pages are or who operated them.
The
headline
of
the New York Times story about the Facebook suspensions appeared to have been crafted to keep the focus on Russia while
deflecting scrutiny from the group of Democratic Party-linked hustlers that orchestrated the disinformation operation. It read:
"Facebook Closes 5 Accounts Tied to Russia-Like Tactics in Alabama Senate Race."
For his part, Sen. Jones has
demanded
an
investigation. "I think we've all focused too much on just the Russians and not picked up on the fact that some nefarious groups,
whether they're right or left, could take those same playbooks and start interfering with the elections for their own benefit,"
he said. "I'd like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws
being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible."
Facing an inquiry for possible violations of election laws, Morgan issued a mealy-mouthed statement claiming he "did not
participate in any campaign to influence the public and any characterization to the contrary misrepresents the research goals,
methods and outcome of the project."
While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is
hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical
campaign of online deception against the American public while marketing themselves as the guardians against foreign
interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as
they have.
Top Photo | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., right, with Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va.,
left, updates reporters on the status of their inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, at the Capitol in
Washington, Oct. 4, 2017. J. Scott Applewhite | AP
Dan Cohen
is
a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine.
Dan is a correspondent at RT America and tweets at @
DanCohen3000
.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"... My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™ ..."
"... Today's Jerusalem Post had a link to this Kamala Harris political fund-raising ad. ..."
"... Boot, Nuland, Shapiro, Stephens, Reiner, etc etc – one (((chickenhawk))) after another ..."
"... This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt mad witch to a man, are unhappy. ..."
"... Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win ..."
"... NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors. ..."
President Donald Trump's order to withdraw from Syria has been greeted, predictably, with an
avalanche of condemnation culminating in last Thursday's resignation by Defense Secretary James
Mattis. The Mattis resignation
letter focused on the betrayal of allies, though it was inevitably light on details,
suggesting that the Marine Corps General was having some difficulty in discerning that American
interests might be somewhat different than those of feckless and faux allies like Israel and
Saudi Arabia that are adept at manipulating the levers of power in Washington and in the media.
Mattis clearly appreciates that having allies is a force multiplier in wartime but fails to
understand that it is a liability otherwise as the allies create an obligation to go to war on
their behalf rather than in response to any actual national interest.
The media was quick to line up behind Mattis. On Friday, The New York Times
featured
a lead editorial entitled "Jim Mattis was right" while neocon twitter accounts blazed with
indignation. Prominent chickenhawk mouthpieces David Frum and Bill Kristol, among many others,
tweeted
that the end is nigh.
During the day preceding Mattis's dramatic announcement, the press went to war against the
Administration over Syria and also regarding other reports that there would be troop reductions
in Afghanistan. The following headline actually appeared
on a Reuters online article the day after the announcement by the president: "In Syria
retreat, Trump rebuffs top advisers and blindsides U.S. commanders." It would be difficult to
imagine stuffing more bullshit into one relatively short sentence. "Retreat," "rebuffs" and
"blindsides" are not words that are intended to convey any sort of even-handed assessment of
what is occurring in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. They are instead meant to imply that
"Hey, that moron in the White House has screwed up again!"
Consider for a moment the agenda that Reuters is apparently pushing. It is supporting an
illegal
and unconstitutional invasion of Syria by the United States that has a stated primary
objective of removing a terrorist organization which is already mostly gone and a less
frequently acknowledged goal of regime change for the legitimate government in Damascus and the
expulsion of that government's principal allies. Reuters is asserting that staying in Syria
would be a good thing for the United States and also for its "allies" in the region even though
there is no way to "win" and no exit strategy.
Reuters is presumably basing its assessment on the collective judgments of a group of "top
advisers" who are warmongers that the rest of the world as well as many Americans consider to
be psychopaths or possibly even insane. And then there are the preferences of the "blindsided"
generals, like Mattis, who have a personal interest in career terms for maintaining a constant
state of warfare. If you want to really know how what the military thinks about an ongoing war
ask a sergeant or a private, never a general. They will tell you that they are sick of endless
deployments that accomplish nothing.
The New York Timeslead story
headline on Thursday also let you know that its Editors were not please by Trump's move. It
read "U.S. ExitSeen as a Betrayal of the Kurds, and a Boon for ISIS." They also
editorialized "Trump's Decision to Withdraw From Syria Is Alarming. Just Ask His
Advisers."
The Washington Post was not far behind. It immediately ran an op-ed by the
redoubtable neocon chickenhawk Max Boot, whom Caitlin Johnstone
has dubbed The Man Who Has Been Wrong About Everything. The piece was entitled
Trump's surprise Syria pullout is a giant Christmas gift to our enemies making a twofer
with an incredible "Fuck the EU"
Victoria Nuland's piece entitled "In a single tweet Trump destroys U.S. policy in the
Middle East," which appeared simultaneously. That anyone would regard Boot and Nuland as
objective authorities on the Middle East given their ultimate and prevailing loyalty to Israel
has to be wondered at, but then again Fred Hiatt is the editorial/opinion page editor and he is
of the same persuasion, both ethnically and philosophically. They are all, of course, devoted
Zionists and the big lie about what is going on in the region is apparently always worth
repeating. As Joseph Goebbels put it in 1941 " when one lies, one should lie big,
and stick to it even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
Comments relating to the articles, op-eds and editorials in the Post and
Times bordered on the hysterical, sometimes suggesting that readers actually believe
that Trump was following orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin. And what was stirring at
Reuters, The Times , and the Post was only the tip of the iceberg. The
mainstream television news providers united in condemning the audacity of a president who might
actually try to end a war while the only favorable commentary on Trump's having taken a step
that is long overdue came from the alternative media.
One might profitably recall how Trump has only been praised as "presidential" by the
Establishment twice – when he staged cruise missile attacks on Syria based on faulty
intelligence. The Deep State wants blood, make no mistake about it and it is not interested in
"retreat." And Trump will also get almost no support from Congress, with only longtime critics
of Syrian policy Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
praising the move initially.
The arguments being made to criticize the Trump initiative were essentially cookie cutter
neocon soundbites. The Reuters piece in its first few lines of text asserts that the reversal
of policy "stunned lawmakers and allies with his order for U.S. troops to leave Syria, a
decision that upends American policy in the Middle East. The result, said current and former
officials and people briefed on the decision, will empower Russia and Iran and leave unfinished
the goal of erasing the risk that Islamic State, or ISIS, which has lost all but a sliver
territory, could rebuild." The article goes on to quote an anonymous Pentagon source who opined
that " Trump's decision was widely seen in the Pentagon as benefiting Russia as well as Iran,
both of which have used their support for the Syrian government to bolster their regional
influence. Iran also has improved its ability to ship arms to Lebanese Hezbollah for use
against Israel. Asked who gained from the withdrawal, the defense official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity, replied: 'Geopolitically Russia, regionally Iran.'"
Another so-called expert Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute was also cited in the
article, saying "It completely takes apart America's broader strategy in Syria, but perhaps
more importantly, the centerpiece of the Trump administration policy, which is containing
Iran."
Israel is also
turning up the heat on Trump, claiming that the move will make it more insecure. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to increase air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria as an
added security measure to make up for the American betrayal. Normally liberal American Jews
have joined the hue and cry against Trump on behalf of Israel. Filmmaker Rob Reiner
tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally unstable malignant
narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States.
The real story, lost in the wailing and gnashing to teeth, is that even after conceding that
Donald Trump's hyperbolic claim that the United States had defeated ISIS as the motive for the
withdrawal is nonsense, there is still no good reason for Washington to continue to keep troops
in Syria. The U.S. in reality did far less in the war against the terrorist groups infesting
the region than did the Russians, Iranians or the Syrians themselves and, as a result, it will
have less say in what kind of Syria emerges from the carnage. That is almost certainly a good
thing for the Syrian people.
But let's assume for sake of argument that the U.S. invasion really was about ISIS. Well,
ISIS continues to hold on to a small bit of territory near the Euphrates River and is reported
to have between one and two thousand remaining fighters. There are other estimates suggesting
that between 10,000 and 20,000 followers have dispersed and gone underground awaiting a
possible resurgence by the group. The argument that ISIS will reorganize and re-emerge as a
result of the American withdrawal assumes that it is the 2,000 strong U.S. armed forces that
are keeping it down, which is ridiculous. The best remedy against an ISIS recovery is to
support a restored and re-unified Syria, which will have more than enough resources available
to eliminate the last bits of the terrorist groups remaining in its territory.
So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Iran is a second world country with a small military and economy with no nuclear arsenal and it
neither threatens the United States nor any of its neighbors. But Israel supported by Saudi
Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria
recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality. Positioning American military forces to "counter"
Iran does not reduce the threat against the United States because there was no threat there to
begin with.
And then there is the argument that the U.S. departure empowers Iran and Russia. Staying in
Syria is, on the contrary, a drain on both those countries' limited resources. The more money
and manpower they have to commit to Syria the less they have to become engaged elsewhere and it
is hard to imagine how either country would exploit the "victory" in Syria to leverage their
involvement in other parts of the world. Both would be delighted if a final settlement of the
Syrian problem could be arrived at so they can get out.
And as for the United States, the military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the
U.S. itself or vital interests. There is nothing like that at stake in Syria. So, is American
national security better or worse if the U.S. leaves? As Russian and American soldiers only
confront each other directly in Syria, U.S. national security would in fact be greatly improved
because the danger of igniting an accidental war with Russia would be dramatically reduced.
There have reportedly already been a dozen incidents between U.S. and Russian troops, including
some involving shooting. That has been a dozen too many. Even the possibility of starting an
unintended war with Iran would potentially be disastrous for the United States as well as for
everyone else in the region, so it is far better to put some distance between the two
sides.
And finally, it is necessary to go to the argument for disengagement from Syria that is too
little heard in the western media or from the usual bonehead politicians named Graham and Rubio
who pronounce on foreign policy. How has American intervention in the Middle East and south and
central Asia benefited the people in the countries that have been invaded or bombed? Not at
all. By some estimates four million Muslims have been killed as a consequence of the wars since
2001 and millions more displaced. More than eight thousand U.S. military have died in the
process in wars that had no purpose and no exit strategy. And the wars have been expensive
–
$6 trillion and counting, much of it borrowed. War without end means killing without end
and it has to stop Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz
Review
Withdrawing from Syria is the right thing to do, though one has to be concerned that there
might be some secret side deals with Israel or Turkey that could actually result in more
attacks on Syria and on the Kurds. Donald Trump is already under extreme pressure coming from
all directions to reverse his decision to leave Syria and it is quite possible that he will
either fold completely or bend at least a bit. It is to be hoped that he will not do so as a
Christmas present to the American people. And he might want to think of a Christmas present for
2019. One might suggest a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
Syria Withdrawal Enrages the Chickenhawks, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review
The very fact that Hollywood twits who couldn't find Syria on the outline map of the world to
save their lives have been roped in to get all outraged about Trump withdrawing troops from
Syria proves that the military industrial complex is worried that it will lose sales if the
Amerikastani Empire steps back from actively looking for war.
The military industrial complex, after all, runs Hollywood ...
Again I have the idea that my, not just mine, theory about Trump is confirmed, he understands
that the USA will destroy itself economically and politically by continuing to try to control
the world.
Of course, USA Deep State is furious, through its mouth pieces CNN, Washpost and NYT.
Of course Netanyahu is more than furious, Sharon's 'we control America' seems to be over.
If Putin and Trump agree explicitly or implicitly, I do not know, and, if they indeed agree,
it does not matter.
The essential thing for me is that both in Washington and in Moscow we now have reasonable
men, who understand that warfare is just destruction of wealth.
Interesting is what the consequences for EU and NATO will be.
They must be in utter confusion.
What a great present, unexpectedly getting a Phil Giraldi column on Christmas day! Merry
Christmas, Phil and everyone !
I'm little more pessimistic about Trump's withdrawal from Syria; it seems to me all the
more proof that he's getting ready to attack Iran !
If you wanted to do that, you'd first clear it with the Israelis and they'd be quiet
(check) – actually, this would be their plan; then you would get US troops out of Syria
to protect them from Iranian troops in Syria (invited by Assad), (check). then you would move
one or two aircraft carriers into the Persian gulf (check)!
Then you would hit Iran on New Year's Day (open), and then you would take Trump down for
starting an illegal war (open).
All birds down with Stalin-esque (criminal) elegance!
My impression is, ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims
and to keep the US attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally
occupying Arab lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again ™
The fact is the mossad could easily pull this off, having so many Israelis from
Northern-African and Middle Eastern extraction, fluent in Arab and looking exactly like well,
Arabs. They could infiltrate and recruit Arab salafist patsies and easily organize terrorist
attacks without executing the hits themselves. And it is actually a genius move:
1) Create a terrorist thread in Europe, making Westerners wary of Arabs, ie more likely to
understand Israel policies towards Palestinians and side with Israel (message being:
apartheid State? what else can we Israelis do? Palestinians are all gropers, misogynists,
homophobes and potential terrorists FYI)
2) Hit the countries with the most Jews (France, Germany and UK) so they are more likely
to start packing up to make Aliyah, so Israel's demographic problem is at least temporarily
solved, retaining a majority population of Jews.
3) Make the US, through the Jewish lobby in the US, attack strategic countries such as
Libya, Iraq and Syria, creating a migrant tsunami to flood Europe, making Europeans even more
wary of Arabs and understanding of Israeli's treatment of Palestinians (Arabs) and also
making European Jews even more likely to make Aliyah. I even have heard of Israeli NGOs
funded by the Israeli Ministry of FA operating in Lesbos and helping "refugees" to flood
Europe. After a public outcry the Ministry logo vanished from the NGOs sponsors page.
Even the Cologne issue with the gropings, and I am getting too conspiratorial here, could
have been a group of Israeli provocateurs kickstarting the whole assaults wave. Let's say, a
group of mossad operatives, composed of Israelis from Northern-African and/or Middle Eastern
extraction, with false documentation and fluent in Arab, start groping and assaulting German
women, taking advantage of the total chaos offered and facilitated by moronic Merkel. They
get caught? no problem, false passports or even no passports at all, just give false names
and disappear. Not that Arabs need that much help to make themselves look bad, after all some
American reporter was assaulted *live* and for what I have read the lecherous groping of
women walking alone is a well documented problem in all the ME. But maybe thanks to a little
push by provocateurs, an incident big enough was engineered and the image of Arabs in the
West reached historic lows thanks to the Cologne affair.
And creating phoney terrorist groups to use them for false flags is not something new at
all for the mossad, let's all remember what the FLLF was and how almost executed an US
Ambassador.
"Filmmaker Rob Reiner tweeted on Thursday that the president is a "childish moronic mentally
unstable malignant narcissist" who is "committing Treason" against the United States."
He and fellow tribesmen are welcome to sign up and go fight Israel's wars themselves, just
not with white male republican blood. The guy is good at border skirmishes, too. He led an
effort to keep poor Mexicans out of his rich Malibu neighborhood back in 2014 by refusing
Whole Foods a building location. Like most of his kind, he's a sociopathic hypocrite and a
liar.
@MAGAnotMISA
What I miss is destroying white cultures through mass immigration.
Though what I miss in this theory what exactly is the objective, is it whites and Muslims
annihilating each other, or just divide and rule ?
But maybe thinking in this way has not gone far enough.
Bernard Baruch's world domination plan failed miserably, but he even failed to understand
that it had failed, otherwise he had not in 1946 pleaded for a world government.
One must not underestimate the enemy, but also not overestimate him.
Jewish policies for the last 2000 years can hardly be seen as a success.
Judaism lost the battle with Christianity, Bolshevism failed in Russia, getting equal rights
in W Europe led to the WWII deportations, with or without gas chambers, Israel succeeded in
surrounding itself with enemies, as neighbors, and all over the world, and Jewish puppet
Hillary was not elected.
The latest statements by Netanyahu confirm my idea of a complete idiot.
I continue to be amazed that anyone gives any credibility whatsoever who claims US Mideast
military involvement is in the best interest of the nation. The above-mentioned commenters
must almost inevitably more about self-interest than anything patriotic. As for appearing
profound, well, there's Rob Reiner!
As I sat in Christmas Eve service last night, an adorable little boy played quietly with his
father in the seat next to us. The little boy was probably just under 2 years of age.
In the middle of one of the Christmas Carols the thought struck me,
"I wonder if we will still be in ___________ war 17 years from now, when this
little boy becomes enlistment age . . ."
That thought alone makes me favor Trump for re-election. I think (I could be wrong, I'm no
expert) we have less war and a lesser risk of war with Trump. The "establishment" policies
of: invade the world – invite the world – in hoc with the world; are horrifically
deadly and destructive.
As usual, Giraldi is spot on with his observations. I wish him a Merry Christmas and hope to
see a lot more of his articles in the coming year.
I find Rob Reiner amusing, if not occasionally annoying. After having spent decades up to
my nose with his tribe while working in LA in the entertainment industry I can guarantee
Hollywood Jews go completely apoplectic anytime they perceive their government, the
Jewish-occupied government that rules over us all, is not following their commands.
Come to think of it, apoplexy's first definition is a stroke, its second definition is: a
state of intense and almost uncontrollable anger. One can only hope that jerks like Reiner
who indulge so heavily in the second definition will end up experiencing the first, and good
riddance.
A mong hawks in N. America, Cooper's Hawk ( Accipiter cooperii ),
Red-shouldered Hawk ( Buteo lineatus ), and Red-tailed Hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis
) are the three species most likely to take domestic chickens, or yardbirds as they are
sometimes called, and it is these three species that are or have been commonly called
Chickenhawks in the United States, at least among non-birders, who are people with neither
binoculars nor field guide.
But I think most here know that Philip Giraldi is referring to the craven human variety of
warmonger known in some circles as the Yellow-tailed Chickenhawk, or its close relative the
Yellow-bellied Chickenhawk.
President Trump's announcement is a very nice Christmas present, which I choose to take a
face value pending unwrapping. As always, actions speak louder than words. Let's hope that
there isn't a booby prize or two lurking beneath the Christmas tree and hidden by the big
surprise package, or that there isn't a lump of coal at the bottom of our holiday
stockings.
Pipelines to Europe for KSA and fresh water sources for Israel? Destabilizing a local
rival of both? Who knows?
What we do know is that "we" have allowed our "leaders" to pimp out our military to the
rogue special interests of the world. We have the best government foreign interests can
buy.
The Zionist MSM and MIC and the Zionist AIPAC and company are the hounds of Hell baying for
war as warmongers always want war as long as they do not have to fight it and can reap the
profits from the wars! ...
@chris
Let's think about this. The USA has not been able to defeat the Afghan Taliban forces in 17
years. It brought down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but, with that unfortunate country
totally destroyed, how could you call that a win (I doubt if the Iraqi's consider the US to
be liberators).
Now the crack pot Obama/Hillary campaign has lost in Syria, and Trump wants to pull out. All three countries were much
smaller and weaker than Iran...
But Israel supported by Saudi Arabia does not like Iran and has induced Washington to
follow its lead. Withdrawing from Syria recognizes that Iran is no threat in reality.
Positioning American military forces to "counter" Iran does not reduce the threat against
the United States because there was no threat there to begin with.
Yes of course, I would just add that Israel hates Iran.
Rand Paul and others have been pushing back hard against the NEOCON narrative here, good
news. The initial anti Trump tide has turned in this matter.
I briefly saw Bill Krysrol's smug mug on TV the other day....
Trump telling General Mattis to pack his bags and begone is the work of a good CEO. Mad Dog
could have done a lot of damage to Mr. Trump's agenda if he had been allowed to stay on until
the end of February, as he had said he would. In corporate America, if an underling is
disloyal to the CEO, he will be told to vacate the premises for good by the end of the
workday, and escorted out of the building by armed security. His keys will be taken, all
locks will be changed, and his passwords expunged. No doubt Trump, as CEO, has had to employ
such tactics many times before. He obviously relishes saying "You're Fired!"
Any competent Trump loyalist can be found to replace this worn out old soldier. I hope he
won't be yet another general. MacArthur said that "old soldier never die, they just fade
away." Time for Mattis to do just that, and never be heard from again.
Syria is a money pit for the taxpayers and giant profit source for the super rich. 'The
United States military should only be deployed anywhere to defend the U.S. itself or vital
interests' says Trump, Obama or Bush. But war is too important to be left to politicians.
They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.
Trump
was appointed by rich people only so they could have someone to blame. 100% of the voters
believe they personally have the right to kill women and children overseas with their hired
mercenaries to defend the U.S. itself or vital interests. Americans shell out taxes to pay
for US troops to guard mining operations and poppy fields in Afghanistan, oil fields in Iraq,
online propaganda and so much more. Why deploy the United States Military when there's more
profit in hiring private mercenaries? Plus you don't have to say that "vital interests" crap
anymore.
This article is an excellent summary of msm and neocon reaction to the planned US withdrawal
from Syria and a good survey of why getting Uncle Sam out of Syria makes sense. I would also
add that allying with the Kurds was at best a short term solution. Not only would a Kurdish
state in eastern Syria be unacceptable to Turkey but the Sunni Arabs of the Euphrates Valley
would be certain to resist Kurdish rule. Merry Christmas to all!
@ChuckOrloski
In my opinion, Zionist Israel will never stop being the agent provocateur in the Mideast and
elsewhere ie the Ukraine etc., and since the Zionists control the U.S. government I think
their satanic NWO plans are still in place, and think the U.S. military is just going to be
placed in Iraq and Jordan ie just across the border to Syria and will continue with their
proxy mercenaries aka AL CIADA aka ISIS.
Some good sites to follow are Southfront.org and Henrymakow.com and Stevequayle.com and
Thetruthseeker.co.uk etc., all things considered even Putin said that Russia will wait and
see if the U.S. really leaves the Mideast, I wish all our troops would be brought home, but
with the Zionist control of our government it will never happen.
It is snowing here in Montana so we have a white Christmas, which we could do without, but
have a Merry Christmas!
If you want to know who's agitating for war, look no further than our "friends," the Brits.
This is what they do every single time a U.S. President doesn't commit troops to some war
they've approved of, or started. They terror bait, or mock, or a combination of the two. And
since a lot of people in Washington take them seriously, it has appreciable impact on our
policies.
This is the first sane thing Trump did in two years. Also, this is the first action he
promised his supporters in 2016. Naturally, Israel-firsters, who in 2016 backed the corrupt
mad witch to a man, are unhappy. Their unhappiness is a good sign that this action is
actually in American interests. If Trump folds and reverses, this would expose him as a 100%
fraud. If he sticks to his guns, maybe there is hope for him yet. Stay tuned.
@follyofwar
Oh, no; I don't mean Trump will start some major ground offensive to win anything! No,
they'll just try to destroy Iran in order to give jihadist a chance to kill as many people as
possible. This will be a Libyan-style war and "victory."
The U.S. has 2,000 soldiers in a kill-sack if Erdogan decides to cut off their supply lines.
And, calling Erdogan "unreliable" is something of an understatement. The U.S. can say very
little about Erdogan's behaviour while he can take reprisals on U.S. troops.
-- Turkey and Saudi are feuding, and the U.S. needs Saudi more than Turkey to maintain
sanctions and other pressure on Iran.
-- Turkey is becoming dangerously deranged in its statements about Israel (1). And the
U.S. / Israeli relationship is vital for many reasons.
-- Turkey has been a threat to Christian Cyprus for decades. The Leviathan-Cyprus-Greece
pipeline is important to help free Christian Populist EU nations, such as Italy, from
tyrannical rule under Soros-servitors Merkel and Macron.
Do not over over read the withdrawal as a change in regional strategy. There are no major
policy changes. This is about opening the door to push out Erdogan, if that becomes necessary
to support the existing U.S. regional strategy. And, the U.S. can still hope that Erdogan is
saying demented things solely for domestic consumption and doesn't intend to actually follow
thru on the crazy.
@MAGAnotMISA
"ISIS is a mossad-Jewish lobby creation to win the PR war against Muslims and to keep the US
attacking and "containing" Israel's geopolitical adversaries and eternally occupying Arab
lands, and well, to Make Israel Safe Again "
– Hard to disagree with your statement. And who could forget the amazing care of the
Jewish State for the White Helmets known for their cooperation with other "moderate"
terrorists: https://gellerreport.com/2018/07/israel-syria-jordan.html/
Israel Evacuates 800 of Syria's White Helmets and Their Families to Jordan
The Israel Defense Forces said it engaged in the "out of the ordinary" gesture due to
the "immediate risk" to the lives of the civilians, as Russian-backed regime forces closed
in on the area. It stressed that it was not intervening in the ongoing fighting in
Syria.
The Jordanian government, which has consistently refused to accept Syrian refugees in
recent years, said an exception was made in this case as the United Kingdom, Canada and
Germany agreed to take the 800 White Helmet rescuers and their families.
Germany's Bild newspaper reported that a convoy of dozens of buses crossed the Syrian
border into Israel late Saturday, and were escorted to the Jordanian border by Israeli
police and UN forces.
A lot of the rejoicing in the pro-Putin camp seems to be based on the idea that this somehow
benefits Putin but I don't think it does. He is still irreversibly bogged down in Syria.
@renfro
Netanyahu is telling the idiotic Israeli public what they want to hear. Let's not forget that
there are elections due on 9 April.
You can hardly expect a politician to tell the public that if they so much as launch a
missile against Damascus airport, the airport of Tel Aviv will be bombed in return. The days
when the Israelis could do as they wished in Syria and Lebanon are gone.
"Organ theft, staged attacks: UN panel details White Helmets' criminal activities, media
yawns," by Eva Bartlett.
"[During] a more than one-hour-long panel on the White Helmets at the United Nations on
December 20 the irrefutable documentation was presented on the faux-rescue group's
involvement in criminal activities, which include organ theft, working with terrorists --
including as snipers -- staging fake rescues, thieving from civilians, and other
non-rescuer behaviour.
a Syrian civilian, Omar al-Mustafa, is cited as stating: "I saw them (White Helmets)
bring children who were alive, put them on the floor as if they had died in a chemical
attack."
In my own visits to eastern Ghouta towns last April and May, residents likewise spoke of
organ theft, staged rescues, the White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam, while an Aleppo
man likewise described them as thieves who steal from civilians, not rescuers.
Four days after the UN panel, to my knowledge, not a single corporate media outlet has
covered the event and its critical contents.
This is in spite of the fact that the Western corporate media has been happy to
propagandize about the White Helmets for years, and to attack those of us who dare to
present testimonies and evidence from on the ground in Syria which contradicts the official
narrative.
@DESERT
FOX "The most incredible thing was that the Zionists and the Zionist controlled deep
state did 911 which was the precursor to the latest Mideast wars and the war on terror where
the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and blamed the Arabs and got away with it , when
every thinking American knows that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911!"
The number of victims of 9/11 in NYC are way above 3000. Cancers and so on just don't get
counted. BTW, it is not from the dust. It is from the small nuclear bombs in the 2 buildings.
The 3rd building was only explosives.
@jilles
dykstra "Is Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?"
– He is certainly endangering himself and his parasitic state by the silly ideas of
mythological choseness.
Let's hope that the more intelligent Soviet Jews (as compared to the mediocre pool of the
pre-Soviet Israelis) take pains to explain the former salesman the stupidity of military
confrontation with Iran/Russia. As for the US-dwelling zionists' stupidity it is irredeemable.
@Bragadocious
What the hell is up with these dysfunctional Brits anyway? With their empire thankfully long
gone, their society in tatters, and a Muslim mayor running majority-minority London, they
think they can get the US to take on Iran for them? Spare me! This "special relationship" has
got to end. The Brits must be under the thumb of the Zionists even more than is the USA. And
their sad monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history.
@jilles
dykstra It's just what you said, he's keeping a low profile and staying inside on advice
of his security. They're probably worried about snipers in ahigh rise somewhere.
It's been fun listening to (((NPR))) try to spin military withdrawal as a bad thing without
actually saying as much. "Trump's facing critics in his own party," "here are some Kurds
bitching," "General McProcurer is really pissed," "Chikkenhauk Epsteinbergwitzbaum sez it's
the end of the world," etc.
No rationality, no credibility decision (Syria withdrawal).
Most variables are missing. Trump is insignificant but as a figurehead. At least a few
layers, the correlations and "secret" deals with Israel, Turkey, IS, Kurds, France, the UK,
let's not forget Russia are missing. The commoner, deplorable, are lead by the nose, our
middle class bread scribes are doing the herding by shifting the attention, and building an
exit of face saving on what they omit to pull in the open.
No value in this "News" and "Christmas present" at all, but more of deceit of a global
ruling class in the shadows. It is called smarts, to deceive the rest of the dumb (in the
eyes of the elites) masses, it is relevant to call out our elites on not smart enough to
think over the long term.
Who of a building presence of outliers can they still deceive?
@Sarah
Toga "Death and taxes" for countries translates to "war and bankruptcy." Maybe we'll get
lucky and hit the latter before we kill everyone in the former.
@Realist
That's more like Erdogan's problem with Russia. Russian coastal defense system K-300P
Bastion-P in Crimea is perfectly capable of making Bosporus and Dardanelles straits much
wider. However crazy Erdogan is, he is well aware of that.
@follyofwar
Actually Brits think their country is doing just great. But yeah, the "special relationship"
should be scuttled. We face a bigger threat from British jihadis than any Iranians anywhere.
Richard Reid is sitting in a federal Supermax, but I don't think any Iranians are.
Brits simply love using the U.S. military for their own venal objectives. And if anything
goes wrong, the Brits can distance themselves and blame it on "the Yanks." A win-win.
@Svigor
It is really funny to see "peace-loving" liberals trying not to look like warmongers that
they are. NPR is not alone in attempting this sleight of hand: NYT, CNN, WaPo, and others of
their ilk are desperately trying to appear peace-loving while promoting wars that benefit MIC
and Israel. Hypocrisy at its most awkward. The only good thing is, they are forced to show
their true colors.
@m___
Well you know, that perception of yours re how the real world really works is, actually,
positive and optimistic.
If if I get you correct, you believe/feel/think there IS the "overclass" (for a lack of
better word) which rules the world. They are hidden, all powerful, competent, on the same
page and malevolent re us , the common folks.
I am afraid that's not the case.
I believe/feel/think there is no such overclass.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of power
who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth. The
malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
And, gets worse, actually.
In this particular case I think the decision was made in a spur of a moment. Pure Emperor
whim,if you will.
On top of it, we still haven't seen any actual move on the ground.
And, even if those up to 2000 men do pull out, what about CIA/special forces/contractors
bunch?
And, even better, those 2000 and more can return in 48 hours if the Emperor decides
otherwise. In a spur of a moment too.
Anyone so happy here commenting this .thing has been following what's really been
happening with North Korea?
What exactly changed from that fateful meeting between the Emperor and the Cult Leader?
Let's summarize: the very point of all that was stopping and rolling back NK capability for
long range nuclear strike.
So .any "rolling" happened? Anything?
I don't think so, but, more than happy to be proven wrong. Proven, mind you.
The only important, and sad actually, is how we all got into the stage when a tweet by
that fellow can agitate us so much.
Mice and just a whiff of cheese over the cage.
They really got us where they wanted. And those "they" aren't even that smart.
Just great.
All wars are jews wars: "Trump is retreating from Syria – and from his pro-Israel Jewish conservative
voters. If that decision is a harbinger of other strategic moves distancing him from Israel's
security, much of his remaining Jewish support will fall off a cliff"
"The United States refuse to fight for the transnational financiers"
As soon as he entered the White House, Donald Trump was careful to surround himself with
three senior military officers with enough authority to reposition the armed forces.
Michael Flynn, John Kelly and especially James Mattis, have since left or are in the
process of leaving. All three men are great soldiers who together had opposed their
hierarchy during Obama's presidency. They did not accept the strategy implemented by
ambassador John Negroponte for the creation of terrorist groups tasked with stirring up a
civil war in Iraq. All three stood with President Trump to annul Washington's support for
the jihadists.
The Pentagon project for the last seventeen years in the "Greater Middle East" will not
happen. Conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, it was aimed at destroying all the state
structures in the region, with the exception of Israël, Jordan and Lebanon. This plan,
which began in Afghanistan, spread as far as Libya, and is still under way, will come to an
end on Syrian territory.
It is no longer acceptable that US armies fight with taxpayers' funds for the sole
financial interests of global financiers, even if they are US citizens.
The Bush Jr. and Obama administrations shoulder the entire responsibility for this war
[in Syria]. They were the ones who planned it and realised it within the framework of a
unipolar world .
Afghanistan's misery began during the Carter presidency. National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzeziński, called on the Muslim Brotherhood and Israël to launch a
campaign of terrorism against the Communist government. Terrified, the government appealed
to the Soviets to maintain order. The result was a fourteen-year war, followed by a civil
war, and then followed by the Anglo-US invasion.
After forty years of uninterrupted destruction, President Trump states that US military
presence is not the solution for Afghanistan, it's the problem.
My take is there are warring factions of mostly incompetent little people with a lot of
power who fight among themselves who's going to get more power and related material wealth.
The malevolent part re all those they see as below them is given, of course.
@Realist
When Erdogan's military had shot down the Russian jet, Turkey paid for it rapidly with an
economic squeeze. Russian tourism to Turkey was shut down and green grocer exports to Russia
were subjected to intense scrutiny/inspection and nearly halted. One could say the Turks are
still feeling the effect, the impact was immediate and probably there hasn't been a full
recovery to some of the businesses that had been damaged. Erdogan tucked his tail and played
nice with Putin after all but he is no dependable ally of anyone, he's screwed everyone he'd
ever done business with insofar as the M.E. regional game. The main problem with Turkey for
Russia is the Erdogan regime's Salafi outlook (to say the leadership is sympathetic to
al-Qaida would be an understatement.) Erdogan may have promised to 'neutralize' the Idlib
extremists but he won't, he can't, in fact he doesn't dare, it is estimated there are upwards
of 1,000 cells established in Turkey. How that plays out is anyone's guess but my money is on
the idea he'll shove the the Idlib extremists off on the Kurds as a Turkish military proxy
and cross Putin in the process (the USA won't mind this at all and in fact CIA Ops division
might reward it.)
@AnonFromTN"The only good thing is, they are forced to show their true colors."
Exactly. The liars, frauds, gatekeepers, Hillary-bots, and every brand of stupid in between
have been flushed into the open. For example, anyone who still admires Chomsky should take
note:
Aaron MatéVerified account @aaronjmate · Dec 24
Update: Chomsky was sent my Q & this is his response. He favors keeping US troops in
Syria as a holding operation until a final settlement w/ Russia-Assad that could guarantee
Kurds' safety. With US pulling out now, he argues that all leverage is lost to avoid a
Turkish assault:
"What deal with the Russians (who right now are making cozy deals with Turkey)? And a
deal with Assad, the main mass murderer in Syria – – who can in any event do
nothing to deter Turkey.
In fact, in the longer term there should be a deal crucially involving Russia and with
Assad, with some kind of guarantees (for what they are worth) to preserve at least some
limited protection for the Kurds. But that's the longer term. This is now. For now, the
sole deterrent to a Turkish assault is a small US contingent confined to Kurdish areas, as
a holding operation for a possible longer term settlement along the lines just
indicated."
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
"... Senate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest. This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a huge New York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt. ..."
"... Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with his predecessor Harry Reid ), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He also attacked Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea. ..."
"... Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held high office.) But Schumer has raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his daughter works there , and he helped get his former staffer appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times : "Mr. Warner should be looking for ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it." ..."
"... So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely, Schumer wrings his hands and hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics. ..."
Senate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest. This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a
huge New
York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt.
In his first two years as Senate minority leader, Schumer had two main priorities. First,
preserve his vulnerable moderates running in deeply Trumpy states, like Claire McCaskill in
Missouri, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Second, use the Trump
presidency to sneak through some odious stuff that most liberals hate.
Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a
Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with
his predecessor Harry Reid ), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And
because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he
largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He
also attacked
Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea.
And how about that first goal? Schumer failed spectacularly in preserving most of these
seats. Nearly all of his moderates -- to whom he had granted significant leeway to vote for
President Trump's judicial nominees and bills -- lost. Only Joe Manchin in West Virginia
managed to hang on. The Democratic Senate margin is being somewhat bolstered only by other
candidates knocking off Republican senators in Arizona and Nevada, which Schumer had little to
do with. (Indeed, Harry Reid, who is still helping run a well-oiled
labor turnout machine in Nevada, was the key figure behind the Nevada win.)
This brings me to Facebook. Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Confessore, Cecilia Kang, Matthew
Rosenberg, and Jack Nicas wrote a jaw-dropping
piece of reporting for the Times about Facebook's lobbying operation. They focused
on how the company has defended itself from evidence that Russian intelligence used the
platform to help Trump win in 2016, and that political extremists have been using the platform
to organize
atrocities , including
genocide .
Basically, the strategy conducted by Facebook's top executives, including CEO Mark
Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, was the filthiest sludge out of the bottom of the lobbying
barrel. (Facebook has defended itself and calls the report "grossly unfair.") The story is very
long, but probably the most explosive revelation was that Facebook hired a soulless Republican
propaganda shop to attack its critics -- notably the Open Markets Institute , which Anne-Marie Slaughter
shoved out of the New America Foundation on
instructions from her Google paymasters -- with anti-Semitic smears, casting it as the tool
of wealthy Jewish philanthropist George Soros. Remarkably, at the very same time they
convinced the Anti-Defamation League to cast criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic, as both
Zuckerberg and Sandberg are Jewish.
It's worth stopping for a moment to take this in. Just a couple weeks ago a right-wing
terrorist hopped up on anti-Soros propaganda massacred 11 Jews at a synagogue in Pittsburgh.
Another sent a mail bomb to Soros' home. A third person in D.C. was
recently arrested on suspicion of plotting another synagogue shooting.
Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation
into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing
populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held
high office.) But Schumer has
raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his
daughter works there , and he helped get his former staffer appointed to
the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told
Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times : "Mr. Warner should be looking for
ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it."
So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely,
Schumer wrings his hands and
hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose
anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign
cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics.
He has announced his order to withdraw US troops from Syria.
His Defense Secretary James Mattis has resigned. There are rumors National Security
Adviser John Bolton may go too. (Please take
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with you!)
He announced a start to withdrawing from Afghanistan.
He now says he will veto a government funding bill unless he gets $5 billion for his
Wall, and as of 12:01 AM Washington time December 22 the federal government is officially
under partial shutdown.
All of this should be taken with a big grain of salt. While this week's assertiveness
perhaps provides further proof that Trump's impulses are right, it doesn't mean he can
implement them.
Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding
hearings on how to block the Syria pullout . Congress hardly ever quibbles with a
president's putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate
Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority wants to pull
them out – even someplace where they're deployed illegally, as in Syria – well hold
on just a minute!
This will be a critical time for the Trump presidency. (And if God is really on his side, he
soon might get
another Supreme Court pick .) If he can get the machinery of the Executive Branch to
implement his decision to withdraw from Syria, and if he can pick a replacement to General
Mattis who actually agrees with Trump's views, we might start getting the America First policy
Trump ran on in 2016.
Mattis himself said in his resignation letter, "Because you have the right to have a
Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these [i.e., support for
so-called "allies"] and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my
position."
Right on, Mad Dog! In fact Trump should have had someone "better aligned" with him in that
capacity from the get-go. It is now imperative that he picks someone who agrees with his core
positions, starting with withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, and reducing confrontation with
Russia.
Former Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel complains that "our government is not a one-man show." Well, the "government"
isn't, but the Executive Branch is. Article II,
Section 1 : "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." Him. The President. Nobody else. Period.
Already the drumbeat to saddle Trump with another Swamp critter at the Pentagon is starting:
"Several possible replacements for Mattis this week trashed the president's decision to pull
out of Syria. Retired Gen. Jack Keane called the move a "strategic mistake" on Twitter.
Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding
Trump reconsider the decision and warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia." If
Trump even considers any of the above as Mattis's replacement, he'll be in worse shape than he
has been for the past two years.
On the other hand, if Trump does pick someone who agrees with him about Syria and
Afghanistan, never mind
getting along with Russia , can he get that person confirmed by the Senate? One possibility
would be to nominate someone like Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney specifically
to run the Pentagon bureaucracy and get control of costs, while explicitly deferring
operational decisions to the Commander in Chief in consultation with the Service Chiefs.
Right now on Syria Trump is facing pushback from virtually the whole Deep State
establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as the media from Fox News , to NPR ,
to MSNBC . Terror has again gripped the establishment that the Trump who was elected president
in 2016 might actually start implementing what he promised. It is imperative that he pick
someone for the Pentagon (and frankly, clear out the rest of his national security team) and
appoint people he can trust and whose views comport with his own. Just lopping off a few heads
won't suffice – he needs a full housecleaning.
In the meantime in Syria, watch for another "Assad poison gas attack against his own
people." The last time Trump said we'd be
leaving Syria "very soon " was on March 29 of this year. Barely a week later, on April 7,
came a supposed chemical incident in Douma, immediately hyped as a government attack on
civilians
but soon apparent as likely staged . Trump, though, dutifully took the bait, tweeting that
Assad was an "animal." Putin, Russia, and Iran were "responsible" for "many dead, including
women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack" – "Big price to pay." He then for the
second time launched cruise missiles against Syrian targets. A
confrontation loomed in the eastern Med that could to have led to war with Russia. Now, in
light of Trump's restated determination to get out,
is MI6 already ginning up their White Helmet assets for a repeat ?
Trump's claim that the US has completed its only mission, to defeat ISIS, is being compared
to George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner following defeat of Iraq's army and the
beginning of the occupation (and, as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it
helps get us out, who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his
terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in
Syria was never about ISIS. We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and
Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the
so-called
"Shiite land bridge" to the Mediterranean ).
For US forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the Syrians
and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht: about 20% "us," about
80% "them." The remaining pocket ISIS has
on the Syria-Iraq border has been deliberate ly left alone, to keep handy as a lever to
force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim an American
pullout will
lead to an ISIS "resurgence " is absurd. With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger,
the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will kill them. All of them.
If Trump is able to follow through with the pullout, will the Syrian war wind down? It needs
to be kept in mind that the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc) are the aggressors. We sought to use
al-Qaeda and other jihadis to effect regime change via the tried and true method. It
failed.
Regarding Trump's critics' claim that he is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians,
Assad is nobody's puppet. He can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it;
Iran, likewise, can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar
country, like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their presence
but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends, for example in
Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they'll be there only as long and to
the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal occupations with the Soviets' politely
leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out.
Instead of leaving, why didn't Moscow just do a " Diem " on them?) It
seems that American policymakers have gotten so far down the wormhole of their paranoid
fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can't be overemphasized, concerning areas
where the US has no actual national interests – that we no longer recognize classic
statecraft when practiced by other powers defending genuine national interests (which of course
are legitimate only to the extent we say so).
Anyway, if this week's developments are the result of someone putting something into
Donald's morning Egg
McMuffin , America and the world owe him (or her) a vote of thanks. Let's see more of
the wrecking ball we Deplorables voted for !
Trump thought that by bringing the swamp into his fold he might be able to defang it. He
bent the knee, played nice and kissed the ring but still they kept at him. I think Trump has
had enough of giving a mile for getting an inch. I like Trump when he presents himself as a
human wrecking ball to all the evil plans of the Washington establishment and if he continues
like this I honestly believe he will be reelected in 2020, and one day will be acknowleged as
a true chapion for every day Americans but if he shrinks back into his shadow and gives the
likes of Bolton and Pompeo free reign to **** all over the globe with their insane scheming
he will be a one term failure.
Don't get too excited about the possibility that there may be more kinds of viagra to try
out, Jattras. If Trump recently seems to be more like the candidate we voted for, the real
reason for his reversion back is because the midterm elections are over and Trump kept the
Senate.
Check with me before you start making a lot of crack-pot statements
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the
Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone
in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was later deployed to Kuwait. She previously served in the
Hawaii House of Representatives from
2002 to 2004. When she was elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives at age 21, Gabbard was the youngest woman to be elected
to a U.S. state legislature." wiki
------------
Major Gabbard, ARNG served in Iraq, is a woman, a Democrat, a person of color, a non-interventionist, a Hindu and a Pacific Islander
of Samoan descent. What could be better?
If that thought fails I suggest Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee as back-ups. pl
I have followed Tulsi Gabbard off and on since 2016. Some blogs attack her mercilessly but she has a consistent approach, is admirably
composed when under attack, and is one of the most courageous American politicians I've seen. That she is still there is achievement
enough, though it would be good to see the sort of politics in the West in which such people could be in office.
While I would be delighted to see Gabbard as SecDef is there any chance she would get Senate Confirmed? From what I have heard
from her she seems to have a realistic understanding of the World which would seem to bar her from the job.
Sounds good to me. Then she can become the first female POTUS (assuming actual scientific genders are still allowed) after Trump's
2nd term. (El Trumpissimo should have offered her the VP job, IMO.) (Meanwhile, we in Canada will be all agog about Trudeau III.
Unless Comrade Lang establishes residence and votes the entire Trudeau spawn out forever.) Ah well, we can dream.
She has my endorsement. Selecting Gabbard would explode some heads in Washington on both sides. Although I think she would make
a better replacement for National Security Adviser. Send the Mustache of Idiocy back to the AEI.
Brilliant ! Borg hates her, though. And not just because of her foreign policy views. She resigned as vice chair (if I recall
correctly) of the DNC, particularly after being christened as the next Obama-like Dem pol, because she felt the DNC was being
completely unfair to Bernie Sanders and I think it was well before anything came out in the news about what was happening. I'd
love to see it but she angers the political class almost as much as Trump. Fingers crossed, though !
One hundred percent. In particular, the absolute balls it took to do that knowing the flaming wreckage that would be thrown
her way. Says a lot about her character--ideology aside.
The Dems have not had the reckoning like the Rs did in 2016, but it's coming. To say nothing of the full airing of grievances
between the Obama and Clinton camps. I read there is going to be something like 19 Dem debates, some in 2019 and some in 2020.
I'm willing to wager it'll be far more nasty than the clown show the Rep. nomination was in 2016.
Gabbard would be an excellent choice, but she'd never do it. Can't be a Democrat and be that closely associated with the Orange
Devil! Trump should pardon Flynn and then appoint him as Sec Def. Really demonstrate his independence from the swamp. That move
just might cause enough heart attacks and strokes that the swamp would be drained in 48 hours.
Gabbard is well suited to support the implementation of a non-interventionist policy. I think she would do well as SecDef, but
would she take it? Trump's best course of action now is to conduct a quiet search and get a firm commitment before announcing
any possible candidates. Otherwise we'll see a repeat of the search for a new Chief of Staff.
Reason-able indeed. Gagged to watch Michael R. Gordon last night on PBS news hour plant uber-neocon Sen. Cotton as the likely
choice. (without mentioning that Cotton has been even more hawkish on Syria than Mattis...) Rand Paul is an interesting backup
suggestion, esp. as I was puzzled he caved and went along with Pompeo for SoS. In any case, what an overdue change of course that
any of the above suggestions would signal.
Sir;
It would depend on what Gabbard sees as her ultimate goal. Being Secretary of Defense, under any President, would be a real career
boost. Dealing with Trump would also toughen her up for waht I see as her eventual Armageddon level conflict with the Democratic
National Committee if she aspires to higher office. There is also the chance that the Republican Party might try to 'poach' her
from the Democrat Party. Even if Trump serves two full terms as President, she will still be young enough and tough enough to
run for the top spot, from either party.
Her ultimate goal will be release from Saṃsāra. In the meantime a career boost will doubtless be attractive, but only if accompanied
by good Karma. Vice-chair of the DNC met the first criterion, but it appears she resigned when it failed to meet the latter. People
who value their Karma are rare in life and all the more so in politics. She is an exotic flower to be sure.
I've been watching her for years.She's been a vocal critic of the imperial project and the occupation of Syria from the beginning.
I expect we'll see her make a run for the brass ring in 2024. Thumbs up.
Watched Kiersten Nielsen take a beating from retrograde congressmen yesterday on immigration, border protection, etx.; she never
lost her composure -- well, maybe one tiny retort.
If Gabbard has half the presence of Nielsen, the American people -- and women -- can feel proud of their leaders. Again.
I believe she'd be a good SecDef, but I fear that her taking that position in the Trump administration would derail the potential
she has for making a huge positive impact on the US political system. I would much rather see her announce early her candidacy
for president in 2020 on the Democratic ticket. Hopefully Bernie Sanders will recognize that his age will be a serious impediment
and will repay her support in 20016 by passing his torch (and mailing list) on to her for 2020. The Democratic Party needs an
enema in the worst way and no one is in a better position to administer it than Gabbard.
I agree that taking the position would probably ruin her chances going forward by association with Trump but I also believe the
Presidential run is too soon. If Sanders health remains strong I think a Sanders/Gabbard ticket would win and set up a Gabbard
run in 2024. I know of diehard Trump fans that would vote Sanders. Many working class are waking up to the raw deals they are
getting.
Excellent choice for that or any position in the Trump Administration but ... 1. not a doormat, 2. not a neocon, lunatic.
Trump will eventually surround himself with Wormtongue types (from Lord of the Rings). Neocons like Bolton who know that they
will not always get their way but want to be in the Throne room to poison his mind with flattery and have a chance to get the
glorious war they crave so much. He will likely appoint someone like Tom Cotton or Gen. Jack Keane. That is not what I want but
that is what I expect.
Agree. She's almost the lone voice against ME policy especially re Syria. Gets no pub. The Borgists would stomp all over her.
Think DT ever heard of her?
With an ever faster News cycle, People forget what happened in the Past bringing this World
to the Present.
Historical Facts Americans don't take into consideration.
1. Within weeks of 9/11, the US came out with WAR PLANS to change the governments of Iraq,
Libya, Syria and at THE END, Iran.
2. Republican Bush illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.
3. ISIS did not exist until the illegal US invasion of Iraq
4. Democrat Obama did Libya and started the Syrian regime phase of the 2001 US WAR PLAN for
the Middle East in 2011.
5. In line with the 2001 US WAR PLAN to change the Assad government, ISIS moved from Iraq to
Syria as proxy regime change fighters.
6. US MSM report the US illegally started bombing ISIS in Syria, and with all the US smart
bombs, they missed, and ISIS was getting stronger, on the verge of bringing down the Assad
regime after 4 years of Death and Destruction following the 2001 US WAR PLAN for Syria.
7. Russia and Iran are legally asked to come to the aid of their Middle East Ally, like
NATO's Article 5, and enter the Syrian WORLD WAR in 2015.
8. Russia starts bombing ISIS and doesn't miss. ISIS is finally degraded in Syria, putting a
stop to the 2001 US WAR PLAN for regime change.
9. The US has made regime change as American as Apple pie and refuses to look as the
terrorist failed States it begat implementing it's 2001 WAR PLAN. It does increase sales for
the Military-Industrial Complex.
10. This MATERIAL WORLD did not notice the Spiritual Sign of the Times, when ISIS destroyed
the Islamic Mosque in Nineveh, Iraq containing the tomb of Jonah in the Whale fame recorded
in the Jewish-Christian Bible some 2900 years ago. He was sent to that "World City Nineveh"
to warn them of impending destruction if they continue on the path they're on. He tried to
get away from being a buzzkill.
10. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:39-41
I despise Trump, but if he's managed to stumble on doing something sensible, and actually
does it (never a certainty with the casino swindler) -- great! There's no sane reason for
us to muck about in Syria. However it comes about, we should welcome a withdrawal there. If
the move gives Trump some of the approval that he plainly craves, maybe he'll repeat the
performance and end our purposeless wallow in Afghanistan.
It doesn't say anything good about the nominal opposition party, the Dems, that half or
more of them -- and apparently *all* of their dinosaur "leadership" -- can't stifle the
kneejerking and let him do it. Of course many of them are "troubled" because their Israeli
& Saudi owners, er, "donors" expect it. But some of them seem to have developed a sudden
deep attachment to "our mission in Syria" for no better reason than, Trump is for it,
therefore I must shout against it .
And then, of course, there's the Russia hysteria. Oh yeah, what a huge win for Moscow if
it scores the "prize" of occupying Syria! If that's Putin's idea of a big score, how
exactly does it harm any American to let him have it?
I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever be capable of doing anything other than
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
"... Robert Mueller is mentioned where he covered up an investigation tying important government people to the BCCI bank while Poppy Bush was president. ..."
From what I have understood ( and as well you will, by extensive reading ) this, and other
till now seeminlgy unknown initiatives, is the source
of the whole Russian meddling campaign,
and Skripal and other "poisonings" issue,
the rise of neonazis in Ukraine and the rest of Europe,
the provocations in the Kerch Strait,
various "colour revolutions" along European history,
"independentist movements" and last wars in Europe and the Middle East,
or money laundering schemes for unconfessable activities, with special chapter
dedicated to the recruiting, conditioning and military trainning of Muslim youth from
disadvantaged outcomes/neighborhoods to alleged "increase of opportunities",
which has all the look of the formation of our well know "proxy" army to use in the
Middle East and various "terrorist attacks" in European soil, where the perpetrators always
resulted having a close relation, or were "well known" with the intelligence services.
" This family had a role in the assassination of JFK, 9/11, and other covert operations
failures that are nothing less than sinister... "Starting with Prescott Bush's business dealings
with the Nazi's, to George H. Bush's association with Lee Harvey Oswald, Saddam Hussein, and
others.... all the way to George W. Bush's dealings with Osama Bin Laden long before he became a
'Terrorist'."
This book reveals a system that is broken and deeply corrupt. The old adage is true "things
are not as they appear". Don't read this if you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit
this.
Notable quotes:
"... The same Crichton whose secret military intelligence unit counted dozens of men who simultaneously held jobs as Dallas police officers? ..."
I highly recommend this book. If anything Russ Baker goes very easy on the Bush Crime Family.
For example google "Chip Tatum Pegasus" and you will find he is not mentioned in this book.
Then there is the case of the 1980's Franklin pedophile ring and GHW Bush's associations with
pedophilic pimp Lawrence E. King. Again, that is a whopping Bush family "secret" and it is
not in this book.
However, Baker does lay out a pretty google circumstantial case that GHW Bush may very
well have been involved in the JFK assassination. May I quote Baker asking GHW Bush:
-Some years ago you claimed not to remember where you were on the morning of Nov. 22,
1963? Have you since been able to recall?
-Can you tell us about your decades-long friendship with George de Mohrenschildt, the man
who was in and out of Lee Harvey Oswald's house on almost a daily basis in the year before
the Kennedy assassination?
-Did you, as characterized in an FBI memo, work as a CIA officer in tandem with Cuban
exiles at the time of the Kennedy assassination?
-Why have you never spoken publicly about the documented call you made to the FBI on Nov
22, 1963, in which you identified yourself fully and claimed to have information on a
possible suspect in Kennedy's death? What was the purpose of that call, in which you
mentioned your whereabouts at the time of the call, 1:45pm, as Tyler, Texas, i.e. about 99
miles away but just a short flight on the private plane on which you were traveling? Why did
you tell the FBI that you were en route next to Dallas and would stay at the Sheraton there
when you had already been at the Sheraton the night before--and right after that call flew to
Dallas but only to switch planes and fly back immediately to Houston? Why were you giving the
FBI the impression you would be staying in Dallas the night after the assassination instead
of letting them know you had stayed there the night before the assassination?
-Why was your own assistant at the home of the man you would finger as a suspect in the
shooting, and why did he end up providing the man with an alibi? Was the ultimate purpose of
that call not to cause the alleged suspect any permanent harm, but merely to use the call as
an excuse to state in government files that you were in a place other than Dallas?
-Since you claimed not to remember where you were when Kennedy was killed, how is it that
after these FBI memos surfaced, your wife Barbara suddenly found and published an old letter
placing you and her in Tyler, Texas shortly after the shooting?
On the day of the assassination, were you in touch with your friend and Republican running
mate Jack Crichton, a military intelligence figure who was connected to figures forcing their
way into the pilot car of Kennedy's motorcade? The same Crichton who controlled the man who
served as the interpreter between Oswald's wife and police and reframed her words so as to
implicate Oswald in Kennedy's shooting? The same Crichton who was working out of a secret
underground communications bunker below the streets of Dallas?
The same Crichton whose secret
military intelligence unit counted dozens of men who simultaneously held jobs as Dallas
police officers? The same Crichton who did secret oil industry intelligence work in the
Middle East while you did intelligence related oil industry work via your company, Zapata
Offshore?
-Finally, do you know people who consider the events of November 22, 1963 to, in their
minds, "reflect the very best of the American spirit?" You say almost nothing, ever, about
the Kennedy assassination, even skipping over it in your own memoir, which details much more
trivial events of the same year. Why is that? And why then, in your eulogy for former
President Ford, a member of the increasingly-discredited Warren Commission, did you go out of
your way to oddly praise him for promoting the increasingly-discredited "single bullet
theory?" You said:
"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford
and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists
can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final
definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry
Ford's word was always good."
Why did you, so bizarrely, smile when you uttered those words?
Now, with your Medal of Freedom, given you by a Democratic president who ran as an agent
of change, you truly seem to be enjoying the last laugh."
I've had this publication for several years. It's important to point out I've not read this
publication completely but rather I've used it for key search terms. If you don't have access
using this kind of information, you are way behind the curve on how this platform can be used
for research. It becomes even more vital in today's world of fake news reports as exampled by
what we being presented with today. These same electronic e'books can be read on the computer
too.
A few example on how you can cut and paste the vital info is presented below:
lone gunman is a much more comforting notion in our democracy than a vast apparatus that
can bring down presidents. Give us a simple explanation that easily encapsulates the horrible
and then we can retain forever all that we have held to be true. If there was any genius in
the Bush administration, it was the understanding that Americans did not want to confront
complexities and had a great need of "bad guys" to blame for what had gone wrong.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years . Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
The Iraq War was not, and never had been, about an imminent threat to the safety of
America and its allies; even Republicans like former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan
were publicly acknowledging that it was mostly about oil.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (p. 3). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
The reason the Bushes are relevant today, even with W.' s exit from the national stage, is
that the family and its colleagues and associates represent an elite that has long succeeded
in subverting our democratic institutions to their own ends. And they will continue to do so
unless their agenda and methods are laid bare to public scrutiny.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (p. 6). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
George William Bush acknowledged under oath -- as part of a deposition in a lawsuit
brought by a nonprofit group seeking records on Bush's past -- that he was the junior officer
on a three-to four-man watch shift at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February
1964, which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. 6 "I do not recognize the contents of the
memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the
CIA," he said. "In fact, during my time at the CIA, I did not receive any oral communications
from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information
relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI. Based on the
above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence
Agency referred to in the memorandum."
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (p. 11). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle
Edition.
Devine's role in setting up Zapata would remain hidden for more than a decade -- until
1965. At that point, as Bush was extricating himself from business to devote his energies to
pursuing a congressional seat, Devine's name suddenly surfaced as a member of the board of
Bush's spin-off company, Zapata Offshore -- almost as if it was his function to keep the
operation running. To be sure, he and Bush remained joined at the hip. As indicated in the
1975 CIA memo, Bush and Devine enjoyed a "close relationship" that continued while Mr. Bush
was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations nine years later. In fact, Devine even accompanied
then-congressman Bush on a two-week junket to Vietnam, leaving the day after Christmas in
1967, a year before the Republicans would retake the White House. After being "out" of the
CIA since 1953, Devine's top-secret security clearance required an update, though what
top-secret business a freshman congressman on the Ways and Means Committee could have,
requiring two weeks in Vietnam with a "businessman," was not made clear.
Baker, Russ. Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years (pp. 13-14). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle
Edition.
There's more but I hope my review of this work and the value of it will be apparent.
I most strongly recommend this book for the research in the discovery of State Crimes
Against Democracy.
Probably a "must read". Tells how the Saudis for decades did dirty work the CIA didn't want
to do itself (including Iran Contra), and they did it with the coordination and assistance of
Poppy Bush and his companies. Describes "W" Bush as an incompetent who failed at numerous
jobs that Daddy got him, and never succeeded at anything (other than marrying Laura and
ending his alcohol addiction when she threatened to leave him) until he became Texas
governor. Goes into detail about "W"'s draft dodging, and desertion of the Air Force Reserve
without being court martialed.
From Samuel Bush late 19th century to Bush 43 the book reveals the double life of the Bush
family. The connections and associations throughout a century leave little doubt that the
Bush family is entwined in many of the most historical and tragic events of wars, politics
and covert activities of the USA. If you want to understand what was really happening and how
the American citizens have been betrayed and hoodwinked by the Bush's this is a great book.
WOW! The closest I can come t o describing this is to say it is a multi-level, generational
expose of "incestuous" relationships WITHOUT the sex! How can that be? Read it and learn. If
I'd known how pervasive and of such longstanding and widespread these relationships.... I
would've started with a 14' x 14' white board and diagrammed a kind of "family" tree and
still would have had to write small! - really small. Someone said: "What a tangled web we
weave when first we practice to deceive." This is like THE largest can of worms; it was hard
to keep track, but Russ Baker did and showed how each player was connected to the next -
sometimes it was linear and other times it went sideways, but always came back to the
beginning family of Bush. Oh my.
The tangential names and places are fully explained in this book. The reality of elite
dynasties (Bush, Rockefeller, Kennedy) is undeniable. These people affect our lives, often in
ways only they know about. Connections are inherited, my friends. To get your feet wet, visit
YouTube and watch one of the video interviews with author Russ Baker.
An outstanding read, chock-full of background info on this dynastic American family.
Not flattering to them, but the allegations are mostly substantiated.
There are some questionable flights of speculation, which taint the book's general
objectivity.
I was shocked to learn of the many ways in which the same prominent figures kept popping-up,
complicit in the huge events of the past several decades (the Kennedy assassination,
Watergate scandal, Nixon's downfall, etc.).
And Geo.H.W. Bush was the "Man Behind the Curtain", swirling in the murky background of every
story.
My perception of BOTH Bush presidents has been fundamentally altered.
Fascinating.
Besides being an expose of the Bush dynasty, Baker demonstrates the close ties between many
different groups that people tend to think of as being separate - Texas oilmen, military
intelligence, Wall Street, FBI, CIA, the arms industry, organized crime, etc. It's a big
revolving door, a huge network of the Old Boys Club. The elites of the world are interested
in power and wealth, not in ideology.
He offers a cautionary note about trusting declassified government documents:
"Allen Dulles once called CIA documents 'hieroglyphics.'...Dulles used to expound on such
elements of tradecraft to his fellow Warren Commission members. On one occasion, he told them
that no one would be able to grasp an intelligence memo except for those involved in its
creation and their colleagues...When Thomas J. Devine, Poppy Bush's business partner and a
former CIA agent, coyly suggested to me that the problem with journalists like myself is that
'you believe what you read in government documents,' he was referring to such deeply coded
disinformation."
A must read book by noted journalist Russ Baker that documents the inherently obvious
connections with the bush family and the CIA, oil billionaires, energy giants and many more
conflicts of interest, particularly with Ken Lay and Enron. This is a book that reveals the
true bush dynastry. For example, I was not aware of Prescott Bush's mentoring of Richard
Nixon and his close relationship to President Eisenhower and how Prescott got Ike to put the
young inexperienced Nixon on the 1952 presidential ticket. The entire sorid history of the
bush's going back to post WW One and their support of the Nazi's in washing money for the 2nd
World War. Allen Dulles figures prominantly in this terrific read. Don't be fooled by the
gentel George H W Bush. His connections to the CIA go back way farther than he admits, and he
figures prominantly in Iran Contra. George H W Bush is the only known individual who cannot
account for where he was during the Coup D'Etat in November 1963. The man is a liar and a
coward as well as a thief. Baker spends about 75 pages detailing George H W Bush's
involvement in Watergate and the downfall of the Nixon administration. Well written and
documented. This is a five star book and a must read for truth seekers. Stephen Courts
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
While not specifically labeled, this look like an open thread. So....
The French MSM (and the BBC) are doing the usual underreporting of the numbers involved in
todays GJ activities. If interested, check out the RTL coverage: the "reporter" is standing
on a street that is filled shoulder to shoulder as far as the lens can see with yellow vests,
and states "there are about 50, maybe a hundred people here..."
The police concentrated their manpower around Versailles, and the GJ are everywhere but
there, so no gas, no violence. The infiltrators/casseurs didn't get the memo.
Speaking of the gas, one of the men seen bathing in the stuff these past weekends has put
out (FB? Twitter? This is being passed along from my French family members) that he has been
diagnosed with cyanide poisoning. I am not a chemist, but I don't think this is a usual
component of "tear gas ". Probably the Russians tampering with the gendarmes CS supply.
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
So at the moment when everybody assumed that Trump lost control of the foreign policy, he
does this. It's a real surprise. Kind of Christmas gift to his voters. And that's with neocon
Pompeo as his State Secretary and neocon Bolton as his national security advisor.
The War Party project of regime change in Tehran suffered a severe setback with the U.S.
pullout from Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that was to end with his assassination. ..."
"... The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria. ..."
"We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there," wrote President Donald
Trump as he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Syria, stunning the U.S. foreign
policy establishment.
Trump overruled his secretaries of state and defense, and jolted this city and capitals
across NATO Europe and the Middle East.
Yet Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. And what his decision
seems to say is this:
We are extricating America from the forever war of the Middle East so foolishly begun by
previous presidents. We are coming home. The rulers and peoples of this region are going to
have to find their own way and fight their own wars. We are not so powerful that we can fight
their wars while also confronting Iran and North Korea and facing new cold wars with Russia and
China.
As for the terrorists of ISIS, says Trump, they are defeated.
Yet despite the heavy casualties and lost battles ISIS has suffered, along with the collapse
of the caliphate and expulsion from its Syrian capital Raqqa and Iraqi capital Mosul and from
almost all territories it controlled in both countries, the group is not dead. It lives on in
thousands of true believers hidden in those countries. And like al-Qaeda, it has followers
across the Middle East and inspires haters of the West living in the West.
The U.S. pullout from Syria is being called a victory for Vladimir Putin. "Russia, Iran,
Assad are ecstatic!" wailed Senator Lindsey Graham.
Graham was echoed by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse who called the withdrawal a "retreat" and
charged that Trump's generals "believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS and
Hezbollah."
But ISIS is a Sunni terrorist organization. And as such, it detests the Alawite regime of
Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah and Iran, both of which are viewed by ISIS as Shiite heretics.
"Russia, Iran, Syria are not happy about the US leaving," Trump tweeted, "despite what the Fake
News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us."
If Putin, victorious in the Syrian civil war, wishes to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS, the last
major enemies of Assad in Syria, why not let him?
The real losers?
Certainly the Kurds, who lose their American ally. Any dream they had of greater autonomy
inside Syria, or an independent state, is not going to be realized. But then, that was never
really in the cards.
Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in
NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the
stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.
And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in
Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are
embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase
the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego
the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim
cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that
was to end with his assassination.
National security advisor John Bolton, who said U.S. troops would remain in Syria until all
Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias have been expelled, appears not to have been speaking
for his president. And if the Israelis were relying on U.S. forces in Syria to intercept any
Iranian weapons shipments headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Damascus, then they are going
to have to make other arrangements.
The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling
sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe
setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria.
However, given the strength of the opposition to a U.S. withdrawal -- Israel, Saudi Arabia,
the GOP foreign policy establishment in Congress and the think tanks, liberal interventionists
in the Beltway press, Trump's own national security team of advisors -- the battle to overturn
Trump's decision has probably only just begun.
From FDR's abandonment of 100 million East Europeans to Stalin at Yalta in 1945 to the
abandonment of our Nationalist Chinese allies to Mao in 1949 and of our South Vietnamese allies
in 1975, America has often been forced into retreats leading to the deaths of allies. Senator
Sasse says Trump is risking the same outcome: "A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if
this retreat is implemented."
But is that true?
Trump's decision to pull out of Syria at least has assured us of a national debate on what
it will mean to America to extricate our country from these Mideast wars. It is the kind of
debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com .
I believe "Syria" is a war crime planned and plotted by some western governments and their
allies. They are even reportedly financing and assisting terrorists. Which is criminal and
treasonous
-- -- --
"With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from
Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border
for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also
training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.
In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these
secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training
went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, 'Many of the
FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.'" Nafeez Ahmed http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/
-- -- -- -- --
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- --
There is further abundant evidence available at links below: http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-christmas-report-on-crimes-of-war.html
"At the very least, America will have its first serious debate on its Mideast wars since 2003
. It is the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into
invading Iraq."
Finally Mr Buchanan and I agree on something of substance. And I cannot believe I am in
agreement with Trump on this too (even though it was quite clumsy). Will wonders never
cease?
I hate that Trump will probably throw the Kurds under the bus since they acted as our
allies and suffered for it. And if I was Mr Fethullah Gulen I would be packing my bags for
Canada.
However, well done, sir. Now let the debate begin.
I think what is to be accomplished by the US staying in the Middle East? Hasn't over 17 years
and $600 billion spent and over a million dead been price enough? Hopefully, Syria is the 1st
step in ending American military involvement in the Middle East. America has enough to do in
taking care of serious issues here at home. As for the Middle East, let Israel, Saudia
Arabia, Turkey, Iran and other countries and ethnic groups who reside there solve their own
damn problems.
As a European it feels strange to feel this pro-Trump all of a sudden. Before you know it,
I'll order a MAGA cap (I'm always safe with that because carnaval is coming).
Russia just landed a nuclear bomber in Venezuela. Russia and China are making SIGNIFICANT
inroads in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and Africa.
If Israel comes under serious threat, the US will be there to assist in its defense but
the time has come when the US has to admit that the parasite freeloader nations like Europe
and Israel are coming at to high a cost a cost that is both distracting and obstructing the
US from being where it is really needed to deal with China and Russia.
People sit on their collective fat asses inside The Beltway within the confines of some book
lined conference room and make decisions involving the lives of thousands of young men and
women–other people's sons and daughters (never their own)– who may be dispatched
to take a bullet in anger. And over what? Making the MidEast "free for democracy"?
I dislike Trump even though I reluctantly voted for him only to keep the Congenital Liar
out of the White House. One of the few positives he exhibited was a desire to extricate the
United States from that MidEast hell-hole. For once at least he has delivered. Whether he
will succeed, however, remains to be seen. After all, the Beltway is swarming with chicken
hawks.
Very zero sum gain way of thinking. How can the US not spending hundreds of billions on a
lost cause be a win for Russia? Sounds more like a win for the US. I think the Syrian
government with Russia and Iran should be enough to demolish the physical caliphate.
Destroying ISIS ? Good luck with that suppress it OK but destroy easier said then done. How
have we done against, the Mafia? the IRA? drug cartels and so on and so forth. For those who
want to stay is there ever a set of conditions which would be satisfied allowing you to
leave? We are still in Germany, I think the Nazis are gone you can relax, if it was the
Soviets you worry about also gone by about 3 decades. If we can't accept that Germany is
sufficiently stable to no longer be blessed with our presence when oh when would Syria be
viewed as stable?
I have regretted voting for trump for many reasons. I concede that IF USA military leaves
Syria, this is a very positive development. He should now do the same for Afghanistan and
many other places around the world.
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian military have done a fine job of keeping IS on the
run. Let's hope they can finish the job.
In this issue at least I support Trump a hundred percent, and I think a lot of Americans
agree.
He's finally doing what he promised to do during the campaign.
I have been very unhappy with him, but if he follows through on this I'll give him credit.
Given the lock that the elites and establishment have on the media, it took guts. It's good
to see he has some.
While I didn't vote for this excrescence in The White House, I will give credit where credit
is due. Hillary's neocon impulses would have been infinitely worse here.
Still, looking at this past week, I can't help thinking about that whole Flight 93 thing.
But two years into The Trump presidency, it's starting to look more like that disaster movie
camp-fest Airport 1975, where we have crossed-eyed stewardess Karen Black trying to land the
stricken 747. In her immortal words to flight control: "Something hit us! There's no one left
to fly the plane! HELP US! OH MY GOD HELP US!!!"
One of the participants in the scheme, Jonathan Morgan, is the CEO of cybersecurity firm
New Knowledge. Morgan wrote a blistering account of Russian social media operations during
the 2016 election released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Another angle to this big @nytimes story... Guess who participated in using a Russian
style disinformation campaign to influence the Alabama Senate election AND hoped to frame
Russia for it? The CEO of the company that wrote the Senate Intel report on 2016 election
meddling. https://t.co/uSu8HYCl15
-- Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) December 20, 2018
As I wrote a comment on the German magazine"Die Zeit"praising Trump's decision to retreat
from Syria my comment was deleted.I denounced the European whining and letting do the
Americans their dirty work.Now the Europeans show their true colors.In Germany's MSM it
doesn't seem to be allowed to take Trump's side.By the way -it's very good and well
researched article.Thank you.
". If you want to blame "the Jews" for all the problems in the world, just remember that
your doing so in this language actually strengthens the position of the Zionists. And you may
want to consider that at least *some* of these Jew-bashing critiques of Israel on sites like
Unz and others are most certainly written by paid propagandists of the state of Israel." WJ@
14
Absolutely right. The routine way in which, all over the internet, the tired and
discredited themes of the anti-Semites and, their soul sisters, the anti-Communists infect
every serious discussion or sensible discourse is maddening.
There is not the tiniest doubt who benefits from this idiocy and it isn't the people of
Palestine or the working people.
CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic
National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike
appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five weeks prior to this and
approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the
2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the
five weeks had passed when the DNC published a press release stating that
CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate the NGP-VAN issues
(that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).
Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to
investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network
when the DNC emails were acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being
acquired and didn't publish logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either,
the latter of which is odd considering what
their product's features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a
monitoring capacity .
Images remove. to view then please to to the original artilce.
Notable quotes:
"... In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia. ..."
"... Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew . ..."
"... Going further, Rowley covers Mueller's bungled Amerithrax investigation that targeted an innocent man , violations of privacy , infiltration of non-violent anti-war groups and also references Mueller's history before being director of the FBI ..."
"... (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), ..."
However, history shows us that Mueller investigating anything may, inherently, come with
disadvantages when it comes to the pursuit of truth.
Mueller's Not-So-Stellar Past
According to whistleblowers, under Mueller's leadership, crimes and scandals involving
both government officials and the private-sector were ignored or covered-up by the FBI, and
there are questions about further cover-ups before he became the agency director.
In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in
which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting
that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia.
Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses
against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war
and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead
everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew .
Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S.
Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the
FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through
intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a
$100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated)
Bulger gang.
The revelations continue, from Mueller being OK with CIA conducting torture programs that
his agents warned against and systematically covering up torture through to working on the
prosecution of NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed illegalities and abuse.
Another article published a few months after Rowley's piece, by author Jeffrey Marty,
titled " Robert Mueller: Dirty Cop
" highlights the list of failures to investigate and bring justice to those responsible of
several high-profile crimes and corruption cases.
The article goes further, highlighting how the FBI and DOJ handled money laundering at
HSBC involving hundreds of billions of dollars (for which they were fined and allowed to
enter a deferred prosecution agreement
) and how Comey joined their board of directors a few months later, followed by Mueller
becoming a partner in the law firm that represented HSBC after he left the FBI.
These whistleblowers are prepared to testify under oath that Mueller committed perjury
and other crimes in his effort to conceal massive off-the-books citizen surveillance
programs rolled out in succession by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The article covers various statements made by Chuck Marler who had previously worked for
the Special Surveillance Group (SSG) at the FBI.
Earlier this year, Republican congressman Louie Gohmert also highlighted various issues in
a report titled " Robert
Mueller Unmasked " that opened with a bold assertion:
"Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people
that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and
credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone."
The report covers Mueller and his team's history of indicting innocent parties as well as
FBI abuses under Mueller's leadership and his efforts to punish whistleblowers while
retaining agents that provide false information.
Gohmert's report explains that Mueller and members of his team have various conflicts of
interest and argues that they should have recused themselves. It concludes with covering the
abuse of FISC, the Steele dossier and other aspects of RussiaGate that Mueller's probe seems
to lack interest in.
CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic
National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five
weeks prior to this and approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's
campaign manager for the 2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the five weeks had passed when the DNC
published a press
release stating that CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate
the NGP-VAN issues (that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).
Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to
investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network when the DNC emails were
acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being acquired and didn't publish
logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either, the latter of which is
odd considering what their product's
features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a monitoring capacity
.
Mueller's probe was never set up to find the truth about the DNC leak or the Guccifer 2.0
persona. The objective was to find evidence to support the RussiaGate conspiracy theory
rather than to thoroughly investigate all evidence no matter where it leads.
Even if finding the truth was Mueller's objective, there's little reason to believe that
he could have investigated this impartially due to his associations, little reason to expect
him to get conclusive results due to his history and little reason to think he would have the
inclination to investigate fully due to his inaction and lack of interest in what was reported to him over a year ago .
For all we know, Mueller and company could have simply taken names obtained from
intelligence on the OPCW hacking bust
that actually occurred three months prior to the indictment and attributed names of GRU
officers on a 'best-fit' basis to roles identified in their investigation
The bottom line is that Mueller's investigation has not fully investigated RussiaGate and
it appears that his investigation has avoided certain paths including those that would result
in CrowdStrike being investigated or that relate to evidence that contradicts the specific
conspiracy theory he has been tasked to investigate.
There is no point expecting the whole truth to arise from a restrictive probe that only
seeks evidence supporting a single specific conspiracy theory from someone who presided over
a decade of reported cover-ups at the FBI (and alleged framing of Assange), whose personal
associations introduce conflicts of interest and who seems to have selectively disregarded
evidence where it conflicts with the theory being pursued.
If you want the whole truth about what happened in 2016, it seems that an independent
commission may be the only way you'll get close to it.
Believe it or not, all these faces are fake. They have been synthesized by Nvidia's new AI
algorithm, a generative adversarial network capable of automagically creating humans, cats, and
even cars.
Credit: Nvidia
The technology works so well that we can expect synthetic image search engines soon - just
like Google's, but generating new fake images on the fly that look real. Yes, you know where
that is going - and sure, it can be a lot of fun, but also scary . Check out the video. It
truly defies belief:
According to Nvidia, its GAN is built around a concept called "style transfer." Rather than
trying to copy and paste elements of different faces into a frankenperson, the system analyzes
three basic styles - coarse, middle, and fine styles - and merges them transparently into
something completely new.
Coarse styles include parameters such as pose, the face's shape, or the hair style. Middle
styles include facial features, like the shape of the nose, cheeks, or mouth. Finally, fine
styles affect the color of the face's features like skin and hair.
According to the scientists, the generator is "capable of separating inconsequential
variation from high-level attributes" too, in order to eliminate noise that is irrelevant for
the new synthetic face.
For example, it can distinguish a hairdo from the actual hair, eliminating the former while
applying the latter to the final photo. It can also specify the strength of how styles are
applied to obtain more or less subtle effects.
Not only the generative adversarial network is capable of autonomously creating human faces,
but it can do the same with animals like cats. It can even create new cars and even
bedrooms.
Credit: Nvidia
Nvidia's system is not only capable of generating completely new synthetic faces, but it can
also seamlessly modify specific features of real people, like age, the hair or skin colors of
any person.
The applications for such a system are amazing. From paradigm-changing synthetic free-to-use
image search pages that may be the end of stock photo services to people accurately previewing
hair styling changes. And of course, porn.
The Guardian's latest attack on Julian Assange was not only a fallacious smear, it
represented a desperate attempt on behalf of the British intelligence community to conflate the
pending US charges against the journalist with Russiagate. The Guardian's article seeks to
deflect from the reality that the prosecution of Assange will
focus on Chelsea Manning-Era releases and Vault 7, not the DNC or Podesta emails.
We assert this claim based on the timing of the publication, the Guardian's history of
subservience to British intelligence agencies, animosity between The Guardian and WikiLeaks,
and the longstanding personal feud between Guardian journalist Luke Harding and Assange. This
conclusion is also supported by Harding's financial and career interest in propping up the
Russiagate narrative
"... " The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." ..."
"... 2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns." ..."
"... "There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." ..."
"... " This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." ..."
"... One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente " ..."
"... The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador. ..."
"... The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories. ..."
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." ..."
"... That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez , raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some. ..."
Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple
serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though
not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at
the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando
Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the
USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador .
Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian
Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now
been
definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy
between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he
was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear
authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories
based on fabricated documents.
In May,
Disobedient Media reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or
rather, the normal
security operations of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That
hit-piece ,
co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an
anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly
refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept , and also by WikiLeaks as an "anonymous libel" with which the
Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."
How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns
out.
Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a
comprehensive report
detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums
up her findings, which are worth reading in full :
" The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the
Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S.
government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both
Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa."
As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that
during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against
humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot
at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by
the court.
Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson
recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian
stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted : 2014 Ecuador's
Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was
fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake
Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."
Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement which reads in part:
"There is also evidence that
the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and
opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the
document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and
replaced with a version with this evidence removed)."
The statement also notes that
Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010
coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.
It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest
libelous article were photographed with
Villavicencio in Ecuador shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange
had conducted meetings with Manafort.
Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: " This video from the news wire
Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally
uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified
shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would
appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.
Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the
gall to publish another image of himself
with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "
One of my greatest journalistic experiences was
working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the
Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @somos_lafuente " [Translated from Spanish]
The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the
disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all
involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims,
or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.
Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted
by WikiLeaks via Twitter does show that
Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange
allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be
viewed, however, thanks to archive services.
The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence
showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it
documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and
fabricated stories.
All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding
and Collyns – Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even
quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these
three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?
Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its
already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.
Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism
Craig Murray calls Harding an " MI6
tool ", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook,
hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as
fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of
anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists
of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.
To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again
recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire
Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the
internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it
was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.
In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and
WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the
pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer
previously noted , Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: " Collusion: Secret
Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to
Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty
narrative his book supports.
Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that
Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his
pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the
case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on
behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book
sales.
That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange
story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version
of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez
, raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad
sources who duped them, as claimed by some.
It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same
intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee
for.
In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on
its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending
prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an
onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the
largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building
in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.
The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of
the establishment when it comes to Assange.
"... He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard. Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the slammer. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey appeared December 17th, 2018, for a
second round of questions by a joint House committee oversight probe into the DOJ and FBI
conduct during the 2016 presidential election and incoming Trump administration.
The Joint House Committee just released the transcript online (full pdf below).
Trey Gowdy grilled Comey on his vastly different handling of comments by Trump and Obama.
When Trump asked Comey whether he could see his way clear to easing up on Flynn, Comey
memorialized the conversation in a memo and distributed it to his leadership team, including
Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
However, when President Obama on 60 Minutes publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton's
mishandling of classified information -- setting the stage for true obstruction of justice --
Comey did nothing. He never talked to the president about potential obstruction, he never
memorialized his observations, and he didn't leak anything to the press. These were all things
he did with Trump.
He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard.
Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the
slammer.
2. According to Comey, Flynn had no right to counsel
This is interesting:
Mr. Gowdy. Did Mr. Flynn have the right to have counsel present during that interview?
Mr. Comey. No.
Oooooooookay.
3. Comey confirmed McCabe called Flynn to initiate "entrapment";
contradicts himself on counsel
And:
Mr. Gowdy. Why not advise General Flynn of the consequences of making false statements to
the FBI?
Mr. Comey. ...the Deputy Director [McCabe] called him, told him what the subject matter
was, told him he was welcome to have a representative from White House Counsel there...
So Comey is saying that Flynn didn't have the right to counsel (item 2), and then states
that he does have the right to a White House counsel attending the meeting.
The lies are getting harder and harder to keep straight with this egregious
individual.
4. Comey lied about McCabe's conversation with Flynn
When asked whether McCabe was trying to set Flynn up by asserting no counsel was needed in
the interview, Comey claimed he was unaware of that critical fact. But McCabe, in a written
memo, asserted that he told Flynn, "[i]f you have a lawyer present, we'll need to involve the
Department of Justice".
In other words, McCabe was trying to ensure Flynn had no counsel present during the
interview.
5. Comey still falls back on the Logan Act scam to justify his actions
Yes, the Logan Act. When former secretary of state John Kerry meets with various Mullahs
while President Trump is unwinding the disastrous Iran deal, there's no crime there !
But let Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, have a perfectly legitimate
conversation with a Russian diplomat, we get:
Mr. Comey. And I hesitate only with "wrong." I think a Department of Justice prosecutor
might say, on its face, it was problematic under the Logan Act because of private citizens
negotiating and all that business.
What a lying sack of gumbo. At the time, Flynn was not a private citizen. He was a member of
the incoming administration, and had anyone bothered to prosecute prior transitions for similar
"crimes", the entire Obama and Clinton posses would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
6.
Comey Throws James Clapper Under the Bus
When asked by Jim Jordan about his private meeting with the President to brief him on a very
tiny portion of the "salacious and unverified" (Comey's words under oath) dossier, Comey
claimed ODNI James Clapper had orchestrated the entire fiasco.
Mr. Comey. ...ultimately, it was Clapper's call. I agreed -- we agreed that it made sense
for me to do it and to do it privately, separately. So I don't want to make it sound like I
was ordered to do it.
He wasn't ordered to do it, but it was Clapper's call.
Oooooooookay.
7. Jordan Torches Comey Over His Dossier Comments
I'll just leave this here. Comey may need to put some ice on that.
Mr. Jordan. So that's what I'm not understanding, is you felt this was so important that
it required a private session with you and the President-elect, you only spoke of the
salacious part of the dossier, but yet you also say there's no way any good reporter would
print this. But you felt it was still critical that you had to talk to the President-elect
about it. And I would argue you created the very news hook that you said you were concerned
about...
...it's so inflammatory that reporters would 'get killed' for reporting it, why was it so
important to tell the President? Particularly when you weren't going to tell him the rest of
the dossier -- about the rest of the dossier?
8. Comey Concealed Critical National Security Concerns About Flynn From the
President
This is quite unbelievable: in a private dinner with the president, Comey neglected to
mention that just three days earlier he had directed the interview of Trump's ostensible
National Security Advisor.
Mr. Comey. ...at no time during the dinner was there a reference, allusion, mention by
either of
us about the FBI having contact with General Flynn or being interested in General Flynn
investigatively.
Mr. Jordan. That was what I wanted to know. So this is not just referring to the President
didn't bring it up. You didn't bring it up either.
Mr. Comey. Correct, neither of us brought it up or alluded to it.
Mr. Jordan. Why not? He's talking about General Flynn. You had just interviewed him 3 days
earlier and discovered that he was lying to the Vice President, knew he was lying to the Vice
President, and, based on what we've heard of late, that he lied tyour agents. Why not tell
his boss, why not tell the head of the executive branch, why not tell the President of the
United States, "Hey, your National Security Advisor just lied to us 3 days ago"?
Mr. Comey. Because we had an open investigation, and there would be no reason or a need to
tell the President about it.
Mr. Jordan. Really?
Mr. Comey. Really.
Mr. Jordan. You wouldn't tell the President of the United States that his National
Security Advisor wasn't being square with the FBI? ... I mean, but this is not just any
investigation, it seems to me, Director. This is a top advisor to the Commander in Chief. And
you guys, based on what we've heard, felt that he wasn't being honest with the Vice President
and wasn't honest with two of your agents. And just 3 days later, you're meeting with the
President, and, oh, by the way, the conversation is about General Flynn. And you don't tell
the President anything?
Mr. Comey. I did not.
Mr. Meadows. So, Director Comey, let me make sure I understand this. You were so concerned
that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the Vice President of the United States, but
that once you got that confirmed, that he had told a falsehood, you didn't believe that it
was appropriate to tell the President of the United States that there was no national
security risk where you would actually convey that to the President of the United States? Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Comey. That is correct. We had an --
The more we learn, the dirtier a cop Comey ends up appearing.
9. Gowdy Destroys the
Double Standard of Clinton vs. Flynn
Check this out:
Mr. Gowdy. ...we are going to contrast the decision to not allow Michael Flynn to have an
attorney, or discourage him from having one, with allowing some other folks the Bureau
interviewed to have multiple attorneys in the room, including fact witnesses. Can you see the
dichotomy there, or is that an unreasonable comparison?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to comment on that. I remember you asking me questions about that
last week. I'm happy to answer them again.
Mr. Gowdy. You will not say whether or not it is an unreasonable comparison to compare
allowing multiple attorneys, who are also fact witnesses, to be present during an interview
but discouraging another person from having counsel present?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to answer that in a vacuum...
10. Comey May Have Been Involved With the Infamous Tarmac Meeting
Another interesting vignette, this time from John Ratcliffe :
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it would appear from this that there had been some type of
briefing the day before, with reference to yesterday, June 27, 2016, where you had requested
a copy of emails between President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Comey. I see that it says that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...The significance of that is, as we talked about last time, June 27th of
2016 was also the date that Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on a
tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Do you recall whether or not this briefing was held at the FBI
because of that tarmac meeting, or was it just happened to be a coincidence that it was held
on that day? Mr. Comey. It would have to have been a coincidence. I don't remember a meeting
in response to the tarmac meeting.
Muh don't know!
11. Comey confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using a compromised,
insecure email server
Well, spank me on the fanny and call me Nancy!
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama were communicating via email
through an unsecure, unclassified server?
Mr. Comey. Yes, they were between her Clinton email.com account and his -- I don't know
where his account, his unclassified account, was maintained. So I'm sorry. So, yes, here were
communications unclassified between two accounts, hers and then his cover account.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Did your review of these emails or the content of these emails impact
your decision to edit out a reference to President Obama in your July 5th, 2016, press
conference remarks?
If Trump had done 1/1,000,000th of this crap, he'd be -- yes -- breaking rocks in
Leavenworth right now.
But there's no double-standard, rabble! Just keep buying iPhones and playing Call of Duty
!
...Aaaaaaaaand I'm spent.
Okay, done for now.
But let's recap the activities of Dr. "Higher Loyalty" Comey:
Did not investigate the felony leak to the press of the conversation between the Russian
Ambassador and Flynn.
Did not advise Congress of the "investigation" into Trump-Russia collusion as required by
statute.
Lied to the FISA court -- another felony -- about Carter Page being "an agent of a
foreign power".
Wrote an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton before more than a dozen witnesses,
including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
But, no, there's no double-standard for the aggressiveness of law enforcement when it comes
to Democrats like Clinton and Obama.
On the threshhold of the second anniversary of Donald Trump's inauguration, the details of
the coup to force him from the Presidency are emerging and should alarm all Americans
regardless of political party affiliation. Although many facts remain to be discovered, what
has emerged paints a shocking picture of criminal activity by FBI and CIA officials. That
explains in part why both agencies are going to great lengths to hide documents that provide
indisputable proof of their malfeasance.
When American law enforcement and officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority
to collect intelligence or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and
intimidation to silence those who worked for Donald Trump's Presidency, our Republic is
endangered.
My interest is not in protecting or defending Donald Trump. I am talking about defending the
rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional limitations on the powers of the Federal
Government are protected.
What evidence do I offer of the attempted coup? Here is what we know for certain:
Foreign intelligence entities started collecting intelligence on Donald Trump and his
associates in 2015. The names of more than 200 people connected to the Trump campaign listed in
those reports were unmasked by the Obama Administration. The FBI used two paid informants --
Christopher Steele and Stefan Halper -- to target Trump and members of his team and coordinated
this effort with British MI-6 and the CIA. The FBI had additional informant with direct access
to Trump who specialized in targeting Russian spies and Russian mobsters. His name? Felix
Sater. Yet, Sater appears never to have been tasked to provide any incriminating information on
Donald Trump. Bill Priestrap, the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence since
December 2015, relied on Felix Sater in a major operation against Russian spies and then had
oversight of the investigation into Donald Trump. So far, no indictment has surfaced from
Special Prosecutor Mueller's efforts implicating Trump with the Russian government.
The operation against Donald Trump is pure and simple covert action. But it is covert action
on a massive scale and has involved coordinated actions between U.S. law enforcement, U.S.
intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence agencies, including both the British Government
and the Australian Government.
There are eight major components to this covert action. This is not a confirmed complete
list. More elements may surface in the coming days. But these are what we know for certain:
The effort to destroy Donald Trump remains active. Trump, unfortunately, is proving to be
quite feckless in defying this threat and protecting himself. But this should not be about
protecting Trump and his reputation. This goes to something more profound and fundamental --
are those charged with collecting foreign intelligence and investigating crime permitted to act
with impunity against someone they define as a political foe. Such actions and attitudes
reflect an authoritarian government, not a Republic.
"No taxation without representation" is the cornerstone to the founding of the nation. Is
it not ?
Every Neocon Oligarch who Conspired to Defraud us into "war of aggression" should have ALL
their assets seized to pay for the costs of the wars they lied us into.
No more, no less.
Choosing to "Boycott Israel "may help the suffering Palestinians to some small degree, but
if anyone is serious about helping The UNITED STATES ..The highest priority should be SEIZING
the ASSETS of EVERY individual who LIED us into WAR.
The law is crystal clear on this ..and its on YOUR SIDE.
The people just need a referendum like "THE WAR FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT of 2020″
(retroactive to 2002.)
They just need to sign it and push it through .By "majority" mandate.
Why waste time boycotting Israel .When 300 million Americans are one step away from
rightfully taking back ALL their MONEY from every Neocon Oligarch who "conspired to defraud"
us into war ?
Think about how hard Americans have worked to build our country in 200 years we created
the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth.
Yet all that wealth has been Squandered, in a mere 17 years, because we were defrauded
into illegal wars of aggression.
Its not right.
Make THEM pay for the wars they lied us into.
Every penny.
Take back you solvency . Americans.
This is the smart play .its legal its just and its right there for you.
Matt o'Brien and Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writers
,
Associated Press
•
December
17, 2018
<img alt="Key takeaways from new reports on Russian disinformation" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/9VGA29inJ83dPeqC.cvqTg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/images/US_AHTTP_AP_HEADLINES_BUSINESS/e66de17c8e1a4cecaf1da81f2bf87093_original.jpg" itemprop="url"/>
Some suspected Russian-backed fake social media accounts on Facebook.
Russians seeking to influence U.S. elections through social media had their
eyes on Instagram and the black community.
These were among the findings in two reports released Monday by the Senate
intelligence committee. Separate studies from University of Oxford researchers
and the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge reveal insights into how Russian
agents sought to influence Americans by saturating their favorite online
services and apps with hidden propaganda.
Here are the highlights:
INSTAGRAM'S "MEME WARFARE"
Both reports show that misinformation on Facebook's Instagram may have had
broader reach than the interference on Facebook itself.
The New Knowledge study says that since 2015, the Instagram posts generated
187 million engagements, such as comments or likes, compared with 77 million
on Facebook.
And the barrage of image-centric Instagram "memes" has only grown since the
2016 election. Russian agents shifted their focus to Instagram after the
public last year became aware of the widespread manipulation on Facebook and
Twitter.
NOT JUST ADS
Revelations last year that Russian agents used rubles to pay for some of their
propaganda ads drew attention to how gullible tech companies were in allowing
their services to be manipulated.
But neither ads nor automated "bots" were as effective as unpaid posts
hand-crafted by human agents pretending to be Americans. Such posts were more
likely to be shared and commented on, and they rose in volume during key dates
in U.S. politics such as during the presidential debates in 2016 or after the
Obama administration's post-election announcement that it would investigate
Russian hacking.
"These personalized messages exposed U.S. users to a wide range of
disinformation and junk news linked to on external websites, including content
designed to elicit outrage and cynicism," says the report by Oxford
researchers, who worked with social media analysis firm Graphika.
DEMOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Both reports found that Russian agents tried to polarize Americans in part by
targeting African-American communities extensively. They did so by campaigning
for black voters to boycott elections or follow the wrong voting procedures in
2016, according to the Oxford report.
The New Knowledge report added that agents were "developing Black audiences
and recruiting Black Americans as assets" beyond how they were targeting
either left- or right-leaning voters.
The reports also support previous findings that the influence operations
sought to polarize Americans by sowing political divisions on issues such as
immigration and cultural and religious identities. The goal, according to the
New Knowledge report, was to "create and reinforce tribalism within each
targeted community."
Such efforts extended to Google-owned YouTube, despite Google's earlier
assertion to Congress that Russian-made videos didn't target specific segments
of the population.
PINTEREST TO POKEMON
The New Knowledge report says the Russian troll operation worked in many ways
like a conventional corporate branding campaign, using a variety of different
technology services to deliver the same messages to different groups of
people.
Among the sites infiltrated with propaganda were popular image-heavy services
like Pinterest and Tumblr, chatty forums like Reddit, and a wonky geopolitics
blog promoted from Russian-run accounts on Facebook and YouTube.
Even the silly smartphone game "Pokemon Go" wasn't immune. A Tumblr post
encouraged players to name their Pokemon character after a victim of police
brutality.
WHAT NOW?
Both reports warn that some of these influence campaigns are ongoing.
The Oxford researchers note that 2016 and 2017 saw "significant efforts" to
disrupt elections around the world not just by Russia, but by domestic
political parties spreading disinformation.
They warn that online propaganda represents a threat to democracies and public
life. They urge social media companies to share data with the public far more
broadly than they have so far.
"Protecting our democracies now means setting the rules of fair play before
voting day, not after," the Oxford report says.
4 hours
ago
so where's the evidence that Russian
facebook or twitter posts changed a single vote?
Overall, arms sales increased in 2017, with total global sales nearing 400
billion dollars, marking a 2.5 percent increase from last year and the third year of continued
growth for the industry.
Russia comes in second, with year-over-year growth in arms production. In 2017, Russia
provided the world with 10 percent of arms sales, closely followed by The UK.
Only major arms companies were included in this study. China was excluded due to
insufficient data.
Problem with this is that the buyers of all that American weaponry are definitely not got
any 'bang for the proverbial buck' (pun intended). Horrendously overpriced weaponry which in
most instances render less value and effectiveness than similarly available Russian
analogues.
They know, the arms are inferior garbage, it's just like mafioso protection money or
better known as extortion. The charge a fortune for substandard weapons and MIC folks keep
the change. Same as murican tax payers. If there were no boogie men created then what would
be the justification for all the spending on military hardware?
There is no return on investment here. It's money laundering.
Letter of intent only. They have literally purchased none of those orders, despite
repeated US harassment for the 15 Billion for the THAADS to get the ball rolling. All bluster
and boasting and smoke and mirrors.
My suspicion is that SA under MBS is considering switching sides slowly and will purchase
Russian and Chinese instead. If the US had foreknowledge of this, hence the switch in tone re
butchering journalists and Yemenis ... hence why MBS isn't Time Magazine poster boy at the
moment.
Your correct I went back and checked it was order book not delivery,MBS situation is very
interesting with the recent high five with Putin there was some backstory that it was
celebration of a certain US admirals demise that was causing them problems whether true or
not I dont know but it would not surprise me if S400's end up in Saudi Arabia
Remember that old stuff about Krupp being the "Merchant of Death"? Aren't we, like, edging
into that territory? Is this what the Founders and Ratifiers had in mind? Could this enormous
arms trade and our military expenditures and adventures be a clue that we're on the wrong
track?
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV
that there was collusion but it just didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at
"Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his
former personal lawyer a "Rat" which of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying
against you.
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet
Julian Assange. These fictions were just used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of
Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client
privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association is silent.
So, Manafort never laundered money and failed to report taxes? Did Flynn never fail to
report his work as a foreign agent? Did he also not report income taxes?
Look at all these poor crooks, unfairly being prosecuted for cheating and stealing.
All that could have been prosecuted by a district attorney. They looked at all of
Manafort's dealings 10 years ago and passed because he was working with the Podesta Group at
the time and thus protected by Hillary Clinton's influence.
Corsi, the former Washington bureau chief of Alex Jones' controversial site, InfoWars, filed
a lawsuit on Sunday which claims that special counsel Robert Mueller threatened him with prison
unless he agreed to falsely confess to being a liaison between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
and Republican political strategist Roger Stone, who was an adviser to Trump's presidential
campaign.
The suit, which seeks $100 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages,
also accuses the FBI, CIA and NSA of having placed Corsi under illegal surveillance "at the
direction of Mueller."
"... Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation program !!! ..."
"... the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global elites? ..."
"... Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they are fighting the commies. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... From his curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth. ..."
"... He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's Stabilisation Unit which is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI). ..."
"... This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine. ..."
"... That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia" ..."
"... In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested Military measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea: ..."
"... Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia? ..."
"... Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda ..."
"... Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures ..."
"... Russian information warfare - airbrushing reality ..."
"... Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria ..."
"... Russian penetration in Germany ..."
"... Russian conspiracy theory and foreign policy ..."
"... The most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the Initiative commissioned such research (pdf) and paid for it. ..."
"... Here is an interesting look at how little the Russia-linked entities spent on advertising on Google during the 2016 election: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/google-russia-and-4700-in-advertising.html Slowly but surely, the Russian meddling narrative is falling apart. ..."
"... McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow vest protesters. ..."
"... Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would have responded with force. ..."
"... It looks like one of the decision was to get closer to France (after getting very close friends in Homs and Aleppo?) See the list of people in the French II cluster dumped yesterday by Anonymous: half the names work at the fr Min of F Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties and http://www.gmfus.org/publications/frances-defense-partnerships-and-dilemmas-brexit ..."
"... This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state. ..."
"... it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy. ..."
"... It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes fascism. ..."
"... Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art. ..."
"... Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller? ..."
"... Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. " Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11, with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians. ..."
"... Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM ..."
"... The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism (Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque (less defensible) reasons and missions. ..."
"... right after 2016 US elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation. Seems that veil has been dispensed with ..."
"... Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking, setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry. That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise of free markets and democracy. ..."
"... 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation Designed To Create A New Enemy ..."
Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation
program !!! How many billions is that guna save us all ! not to mention lives saved.
Wrong JR. It seems quite the obvious that the big boy in the west, the US, would seem to be
the one spearheading the whole globalist agenda.
But this is a retarded proposition.
The US is nothing more than a Golem. It has been reduced to somnambulism and hijacked,
utilized for the ends of these Non-National elites. Sure, like many posters here, it feels good
to blame the US for everything. But the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its
hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but
ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global
elites?
Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power
brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of
Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they
are fighting the commies.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi was arrested and tortured for it...
"They broke my teeth, my nose, my leg, they electrocuted me, lashed me, they would beat me,
they even broke a table or a chair over my back. I don't know, they had my eyes covered,"
al-Zaidi recalled. "This was one thing I never experienced before. Torture by the
authorities, by the rule of law."
I wish it had been a hand grenade.
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and with influencing the public, military and governments of a number
of countries. What follows is an incomplete analysis of the third batch of the Initiative's
papers which was
dumped yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot
Integrity Initiative . The
Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.
Among the documents
lifted by some anonymous person from the servers of the Institute we find several papers
about Donnelly as well as some memos written by him. They show a russophobe mind with a lack of
realistic strategic thought.
There is also
a file (pdf) with a copy of his passport:
From his
curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army
Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office
(FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth.
He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries
General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises
the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's
Stabilisation Unit which
is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the
Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI).
During his time as military intelligence analyst in the 1980s Donnelly wrote several books
and papers about the Soviet Union and its military.
Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in
a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history.
... ... ...
Unfortunately, this state of affairs is now being challenged. A new paradigm of conflict
is replacing the 19th & 20th Century paradigm.
... ... ...
In this new paradigm, the clear distinction which most people have been able to draw
between war and peace, their expectation of stability and a degree of predictability in life,
are being replaced by a volatile unpredictability, a permanent state of instability in which
war and peace become ever more difficult to disentangle . The "classic" understanding of
conflict being between two distinct players or groups of players is giving way to a world of
Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big
corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each
other in a "war of all against all". The Western rules-based system, which most westerners
take for granted and have come to believe is "normal", is under attack from countries and
organisations which wish to replace our system with theirs. This is not a crisis which faces
us; it is a strategic challenge, and from several directions simultaneously.
In reality the "Western rules-based system", fully implemented after the demise of the
Soviet Union, is a concept under which 'the west' arbitrarily makes up rules and threatens to
kill anyone who does not follow them. Witness the wars against Serbia, the war on Iraq, the
destruction of Libya, the western led coup in Ukraine and the war by Jihadi proxies against the
people of Syria and Iraq. None of these actions were legal under international law. Demanding a
return to strict adherence to the rule of international law, as Russia,
China and others now do, it is not an attempt to replace "our system with theirs". It is a
return to the normal state of global diplomacy. It is certainly not a "Darwinian
competition".
In October 2016 Donnelly had a Private
Discussion with Gen Sir Richard Barrons (pdf), marked as personal and confidential. Barrons
is a former commander of the British Joint Forces Command. The nonsensical top line is: "The UK
defence model is failing. UK is at real risk."
Some interesting nuggets again reveal a paranoid mindset. The talk also includes some
realistic truthiness about the British military posture Barrons and others created:
There has been a progressive, systemic demobilisation of NATO militarily capability and a run
down of all its members' defences
...
We are seeing new / reinvented ways of warfare – hybrid , plus the reassertion of hard
power in warfare
...
Aircraft Carriers can be useful for lots of things, but not for war v China or Russia, so we
should equip them accordingly. ...
The West no longer has a military edge on Russia. ...
Our Nuclear programme drains resources from conventional forces and hollows them out. ...
The UK Brigade in Germany is no good as a deterrent against Russia. ...
Our battalion in Estonia are hostages, not a deterrent. ...
The general laments the lack of influence the military has on the British government and its
people. He argues for more government financed think tank research that can be fed back into
the government:
So, if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response, then we need to find a
way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it out of the political
space. We will need to impose changes over the heads of vested interests. NB We did this in
the 1930s
My conclusion is that it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something
dreadful to happen to shock us into action. We must generate an independent debate outside
government .
...
We need to ask when and how do we start to put all this right? Do we have the national
capabilities / capacities to fix it? If so, how do we improve our harnessing of resources to
do it? We need this debate NOW. There is not a moment to be lost.
This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper
into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken
from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine.
That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative
bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the
public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance
indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for
the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia"
.
Asking for government finance to influence the government to take a "tougher stand towards
Russia" seems a bit circular. But this is consistent with the operation of other Anglo-American
think tanks and policy initiatives in which one part of the government, usually the hawkish
one, secretly uses NGO's and think-tanks to lobby other parts of the government to support
their specific hobbyhorse and budget.
Here is how it is done. The 'experts' of the 'charity' Institute for Statecraft and
Integrity Initiative
testified
in the British parliament. While they were effectively paid by the government they lobbied
parliament under the cover of their NGO. This circularity also allows to use international
intermediates. Members of the Spanish cluster
(pdf) of the Initiative
testified in the British Parliament about the Catalan referendum and related allegations
against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. (It is likely that this testimony led to the change
in the position of the Ecuadorian government towards Assange.)
Unfortunately, or luckily, such lobbying operations are mostly run by people who are
incompetent in the specific field they are lobbying for. Chris Donnelly, despite a life long
experience in military intelligence, has obviously zero competence as a military strategist or
planner.
In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested
Military
measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea:
If I were in charge I would get the following implemented asp
Set up a cordon sanitaire across the Crimean Isthmus and on the coast N. of Crimea with
troops and mines
Mine Sevastopol harbour/bay. Can be done easily using a car ferry if they have no
minelayers. Doesn't need a lot of mines to be effective. They could easily buy some
mines.
Get their air force into the air and activate all their air defences. If they can't fly
the Migs on the airfield in Crimea those should be destroyed as a gesture that they are
serious. Going "live" electronically will worry the Russians as the Ukrainians have the
same electronic kit. If the Russians jam it they jam their own kit as well.
Ukraine used to have some seriously important weapons, such as a big microwave
anti-satellite weapon. If they still have this, they should use it.
The government needs a Strategic communication campaign-so far everything is coming
from Moscow. They need to articulate a long-term vision that will inspire the people,
however hard that is to do. Without it, what have people to fight for?
They should ask the west now to start supplying Oil and gas. There is plenty available
due to the mild winter.
I am trying to get this message across
Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the
frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures"
would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally
stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's
pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia?
Such half-assed thinking is typical for the Institute and its creation of propaganda. One of
its employees/contractors is Hugh Benedict Nimmo who the Initiative paid to produce
anti-Russian propaganda that was then disseminated through various western publications.
According to the (still very incomplete) Initiative files Ben Nimmo
received a monthly consultancy fee of £2.500 between December 2015 and March 2016. In
August 2016 he sent an invoice
(pdf) of £5,000 for his "August work on Integrity Initiative". A
Production Timetable (pdf) for March to June 2016 lists the following Nimmo outputs and
activities:
17 March Atlantic Council: Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda , Ben
Nimmo
21 March Newsweek: Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures , Ben
Nimmo
22 March, UK House of Commons: Russian information warfare - airbrushing
reality , Jonathan Eyal and Ben Nimmo
Mid May: Atlantic Council: Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria .
Ben Nimmo et al (Major study)
Early May timeframe: Russian penetration in Germany , Harold Elletson, Ben
Nimmo et al - 10,000 words
June timeframe: Atlantic Council, major report on Russian conspiracy theory and
foreign policy , Ben Nimmo (potential launch events in London and / or
Washington)
End-June: Mapping Russia's whole influence machine , Ben Nimmo - 10,000
words
One wonders how often Ben Nimmo double billed his various sponsors for these copy-paste
fantasy pamphlets.
In late 2017 Ben Nimmo and Guardian 'journalist' Carole Cadwalladr disseminated
allegations that Russia used Facebook ads to influence the Brexit decision. Cadwalladr even
received a price for her work. Unfortunately the price was not revoked when Facebook revealed
that "Russia linked" accounts had spend a total of 97 cents on Brexit ads. It is unexplained
how that was enough to achieve their alleged aim.
Cadwalladr is listed
as a speaker (pdf) at a "skill sharing" conference the Institute organized for November 1-2
under the headline: "Tackling Tools of Malign Influence - Supporting 21st Century
Journalism".
This year Ben Nimmo became notorious for claiming that
several real persons with individual opinions were "Russian trolls". As we
noted :
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is
a Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian
troll' accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have
know that @ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American- Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans
in Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide
performances on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a
'Russian troll' and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll'
opinions.
The
Institute for Statecraft Expert Team (pdf) list several people with military intelligence
backgrounds as well as many 'journalists'. One of them is:
Mark Galeotti
Specialist in Russian strategic thinking; the application of Russian disinformation and
hybrid warfare; the use of organised crime as a weapon of hybrid warfare. Educational and
mentoring skills, including in a US and E European environment, and the corporate world.
Russian linguist
Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about
Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then
Russia's chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is
waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified
operation.
Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian
doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the
propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review
published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It
concluded:
Gerasimov's article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has
been stated in the West.
But anti-Russian propagandist
repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti
invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally
recanted
:
Everywhere, you'll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the
"Gerasimov doctrine" -- named after Russia's chief of the general staff -- poses to the West.
It's a new way of war, "an expanded theory of modern warfare," or even "a vision of total
warfare."
There's one small problem. It doesn't exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer
we misunderstand the -- real, but different -- challenge Russia poses.
I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since
acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and
loathing in its wake.
The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", an expert of
disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and
used it to press for anti-Russian measures. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the
quality of the Institute's experts and work.
One of the newly released documents headlined CND Gen list 2
(pdf) (CND= Chris Nigel Donnelly) includes the names and email addresses of a number of
military, government and think tank people. The anonymous releaser of the documents claims that
the list is "of employees who attended a closed-door meeting with the white helmets". (No
document has been published yet that confirms this.) One name on the list is of special
interest:
Pablo Miller was the handler and friend of Sergej Skripal, the British double agent who was
"novichoked" in Salisbury. When Miller's name was mentioned in the press the British government
issued a D-Notice to suppress its further publishing,
Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had
recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent in Moscow, Christopher Steele, was also
involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and went to jail.
Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released
by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and
Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about
Donald Trump.
At the very beginning of the Skripal affair, before there was any talk of 'Novichok', we
asked
if Skripal was involved in creating the
now debunked "Dirty Dossier" and if that was a reason for certain British insiders to move
him out of the way:
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about
Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me,
then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots
of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and
running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very
dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia
looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
The
most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth
reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the
Initiative commissioned
such research (pdf) and paid for it.
After two years the Muller investigation found zero
evidence for the 'collusion' between Russia and the Trump campaign that the fake Steele
dossier suggested. The whole collusion claim is a creation by 'former' British intelligence
operatives who likely acted on request of U.S. intelligence leaders Clapper and Brennan. How
deep was the Russia specialist Chris Donnelly and his Institute for Statecraft involved in this
endeavor?
Checking through all the released Initiative papers and lists one gets the impression of a
secret military intelligence operation, disguised as a public NGO. Financed by millions of
government money the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative work under a charity
label to create and disseminate disinformation to the global public and back into the
government and military itself.
The paranoia about Russia, which does way less harm than the 'western' "rules based system"
constantly creates, is illogical and not based on factual analysis. It creates Russia as an
"enemy" when it is none. It hypes a "threat" out of hot air. The only people who profit from
this are the propagandists and the companies and people who back them.
The Initiatives motto "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation" is a truly Orwellian
construct. By disseminating propaganda and using it to influence the public, parliament, the
military and governments, the Institute actively undermines the democratic process that depends
on the free availability of truthful information.
It should be shut down immediately.
---
Note: There have already been attempts to delete the released files from the Internet. A
complete archive of all Integrity Initiative files published so far is here . Should
the public links cease to work, you can contact the author of this blog for access to private
backups.
Aside from the fact that the government itself funds this organization, the creepiest thing
about it is that the "non-governmental individuals" that help fund it are the same people
that run the think tanks: a bunch of Rhodesians.
"Such half-assed thinking...Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of
Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in
Crimea. Those "gestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear
power which were legally stationed in Crimea."
It sure seems like this half-assed thinking isn't just the domain of a fringe element, but
is increasingly mainstream among the elites. Doesn't bode well.
Thank you B. It is truly amazing to watch the UK elites unravel as they have become truly
unhinged by their own connivances. It is a bad joke at the commoner's expense that they
propagandize and demonize in the name of the 'Western rules based system' even as they are
busy shooting themselves in both feet by committing Brexit. Although there are legitimate
grievances with the EU, it is clear that Brexit is a Tory power play that is all politics and
zero governance. Alas, Perfidious Albion has succumbed to Mad Cow disease.
What remains mysterious (not really) is why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save
and strengthen democracy-- they aren't proudly proclaimed and advertised, in the open,
transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to
stand for might want to debate and form an opinion on.
The fact that it isn't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and
totalitarian streak that runs in between every two lines that they put on paper.
McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal
practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been
MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being
sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow
vest protesters.
Every time one scratches the surface of such smears, it seems there is a connection to
US/British MIC, Ukraine, or Israel - essentially, those who benefit (financially or
otherwise) from greater tensions with Russia.
At what point does neocon doubling-down on failed foreign policy become more than just
picking our pockets and warping our minds? At what point do they start killing our kids in
another unnecessary war?
Cold War has been over for nearly 30 years. It's time enough for Western countries to send
into real retirement every single cold-warrior, their time is over, their mindset is quaint
and useless, if not downright dangerous and counter-productive.
Thank you 'b'
I'll just say -- - there is safety in numbers ! Already valuable information, important to
the public good and democracy has been spread wide enough to be certain, this gene won't go
back in the bottle ! D notice or no ! And by doing that, has made the fearless journalists
and investigators lives all the safer ! Safety in numbers, spread this wide everyone?
Thanks for the continued exposition of this story b.....may it go viral
I want to comment on some of the wording you quote Donnelly as writing
" .....is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players
– nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and
so on – are constantly striving with each other in a "war of all against all".
"
This is Donnelly's characterization of a world in which finance is a public utility
instead of the private jackboot that it currently is. This is the delusion these people have
been led to believe.
So instead of his "war of all against all" that some might call human cooperation on the
basis of merit we have a mythical God of Mammon religion that continues to instantiate the
private finance led world of the West with it parasitic elite and fawning acolytes.
Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the
UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would
have responded with force.
Thankfully it wasn't done but the fact this was even discussed by senior figures confirms
that there was at least a sizable minority pushing for it. 30 years after the fall of the
Soviet Union, the Western elite have truly abandoned all sense of reality and embraced a
consequence free view of the use of force. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya they haven't
learned a thing! I'm becoming more and more certain that a peaceful transition to the
multipolar world is impossible and that it will only happen after the US or one of its'
vassal states blunder into a proxy war and get utterly and comprehensively defeated, forcing
a radical world realignment, but with nuts like John Bolton and the neocons in the Whitehouse
it could easily lead to a nuclear war
This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the
British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and
Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state.
exiled off mainstreet , Dec 15, 2018 2:22:39 PM |
link
As an aside this happens to be "Bill of Rights Day", the anniversary of the passage of the
Bill of Rights as amendments to the yankee constitution. This reveals again how far from the
rule of law the yankee imperium, now the key element of the British Empire they supposedly
seceded from, has strayed, since it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was
engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy.
It has also ensured that the victorious candidate has been neutered and faithfully follows
the world control line put forward by the five eyes spy-masters making up the empire in its
present iteration. This also shows what a farce the regime, based on the rule of law, now
presents.
It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's
kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it
is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic
and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes
fascism.
The "Western-based rules system" described in this article reminds me of a game called
"Calvin Ball" which appeared in the former comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes." In the strip
Calvin a wildly imaginative adolescent boy who plays a free-form of football with his
imaginary pet toy tiger (Hobbes). Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to
suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art.
b, I downloaded the zip file, and had also downloaded all the PDF's from pdf-archive
yesterday. There are more files in the zip, but the following were on pdf-archive and are NOT
in the zip:
integrity-france.pdf (this is a dud, looks like html, prob. response from a failed
attempt to put a file up on pdf-archive)
Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly
linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller?
Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either
generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. "
Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11,
with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 4:21:51 PM |
link
The transcript of his conversation with the general shows very starkly that we would last
about two minutes in a nuclear exchange, but about half a day in a conventional one. No
reserves, no equipment stockpiles, a navy consisting of two fat targets, neither of which has
any aircraft and some destroyers which have propulsion problems, a smallish air force and
very small numbers of troops. The tripwire force in Estonia is wholly sacrificial. In fact he
lays bare the whole fallacy of biting the bear. With the armed forces in the state he
describes, and with the recruitment and retention problems, wouldn't it be better, as one
defense minister said, 'to go away and shut up'...
Thanks b and especially the link to Valentina Lisitsa who I had tinkling in the background as
I read your grand expose. These people are seditious morons, parasites infesting the state
apparatus. Shut these fools down. Nice touch publishing the passport image. I can just
imagine the frenzied aftermath of Kit's visit to the basement. Big thanks to anonymous and
Craig Murray too. Their IT personel are probably visiting Devil's Island or Diego Garcia as
we read.
Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to
spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate
government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM
The British and US connections to loot and evade Russian riches and funds are exposed, as
well as the origin of sanctions, supposed "alt-media" "truth-seakers" like Meduza...or
supposed "pro-Russian" US intelligence operatives married to Russian women....
Amongst the many issues he usually passes over trying to make himself the fool, while at
the same time trying to convince us of the oustanding intellectual capacities, honesty and
classy stance of him and his "comittee"...
For that travel, to end bluntly and in such public view siding with the nazis of the "Azov
Regiment" and other criminals of war, there was no need of so many saddlebags, so as
pretending that the people who supported Trump as if there was no tomorrow, were enlightened
people who only wanted to rescue "America" for the "Americans", as if there would not be a
sign of blatant exceptionalism in appropriating of the term "Americans" for themselves in
such a huge continent....
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.
The FP pre-Soviet collapse consisted of one MO: GET THE COMMIES!
Since then, Neocons and Neolibs which are frontmen for this Non-National Globalized Elite,
have hijacked our country's military and have steered it to a Global agenda where dominance
in the ME means either superiority for these EURO elites or Vassal-hood.
The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse
which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism
(Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats
where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque
(less defensible) reasons and missions.
The average American could care less about the ME and the US would be 1000x better-off
reverting to an isolationist stance.
But this will not happen so long as Nationalism in the US and UK is repeatedly put-down.
It seems as though there is going to be another Brexit vote. Does anyone doubt that
miraculously the people by then will have second-guessed their will to Brexit and so will
vote against it given another crack at a vote?
Import IT workers and staff science faculties from abroad w dual citizens while kkr
buys wafer labs that outsource to mainland for manufacturing
Cry boo hoo hoo to wake up with indigenous capacity decades behind world players like
Russia, China, India, etc who operate on fractional budgets...
But this drama also exposes ashura/emigods intra necine warfare: right after 2016 US
elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation.
Seems that veil has been dispensed with , but it invites other questions, insofar as UK
is Her Majesty's Service, so are we to read this with Prince Harry or Philip's culture, or a
"consent by silence") in mind? Defending crown or EU "Saturnus Sattelitus"?
Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking,
setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right
about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry.
That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise
of free markets and democracy.
Good to see Trump finally give it a face... 'you need freedom and security now pay up
bitches'
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.... Globalist Agenda
I think the opposite is true.
The US-led Empire and their globalist sycophants seek to weaken Europe so that it can not
act independently in its own best interests. They will do what ever they can to ensure that
the vassals never join with Russia/China and the SCO.
Russian scare-mongering and immigration have been effective in furthering this agenda.
Also note: what USA has termed "new Europe" - eastern European states like Poland and Ukraine
- are solidly pro-American.
"... Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation program !!! ..."
"... the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global elites? ..."
"... Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they are fighting the commies. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... From his curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth. ..."
"... He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's Stabilisation Unit which is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI). ..."
"... This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine. ..."
"... That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia" ..."
"... In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested Military measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea: ..."
"... Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia? ..."
"... Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda ..."
"... Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures ..."
"... Russian information warfare - airbrushing reality ..."
"... Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria ..."
"... Russian penetration in Germany ..."
"... Russian conspiracy theory and foreign policy ..."
"... The most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the Initiative commissioned such research (pdf) and paid for it. ..."
"... Here is an interesting look at how little the Russia-linked entities spent on advertising on Google during the 2016 election: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/google-russia-and-4700-in-advertising.html Slowly but surely, the Russian meddling narrative is falling apart. ..."
"... McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow vest protesters. ..."
"... Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would have responded with force. ..."
"... It looks like one of the decision was to get closer to France (after getting very close friends in Homs and Aleppo?) See the list of people in the French II cluster dumped yesterday by Anonymous: half the names work at the fr Min of F Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties and http://www.gmfus.org/publications/frances-defense-partnerships-and-dilemmas-brexit ..."
"... This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state. ..."
"... it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy. ..."
"... It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes fascism. ..."
"... Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art. ..."
"... Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller? ..."
"... Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. " Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11, with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians. ..."
"... Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM ..."
"... The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism (Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque (less defensible) reasons and missions. ..."
"... right after 2016 US elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation. Seems that veil has been dispensed with ..."
"... Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking, setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry. That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise of free markets and democracy. ..."
"... 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation Designed To Create A New Enemy ..."
Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation
program !!! How many billions is that guna save us all ! not to mention lives saved.
Wrong JR. It seems quite the obvious that the big boy in the west, the US, would seem to be
the one spearheading the whole globalist agenda.
But this is a retarded proposition.
The US is nothing more than a Golem. It has been reduced to somnambulism and hijacked,
utilized for the ends of these Non-National elites. Sure, like many posters here, it feels good
to blame the US for everything. But the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its
hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but
ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global
elites?
Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power
brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of
Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they
are fighting the commies.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi was arrested and tortured for it...
"They broke my teeth, my nose, my leg, they electrocuted me, lashed me, they would beat me,
they even broke a table or a chair over my back. I don't know, they had my eyes covered,"
al-Zaidi recalled. "This was one thing I never experienced before. Torture by the
authorities, by the rule of law."
I wish it had been a hand grenade.
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and with influencing the public, military and governments of a number
of countries. What follows is an incomplete analysis of the third batch of the Initiative's
papers which was
dumped yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot
Integrity Initiative . The
Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.
Among the documents
lifted by some anonymous person from the servers of the Institute we find several papers
about Donnelly as well as some memos written by him. They show a russophobe mind with a lack of
realistic strategic thought.
There is also
a file (pdf) with a copy of his passport:
From his
curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army
Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office
(FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth.
He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries
General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises
the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's
Stabilisation Unit which
is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the
Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI).
During his time as military intelligence analyst in the 1980s Donnelly wrote several books
and papers about the Soviet Union and its military.
Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in
a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history.
... ... ...
Unfortunately, this state of affairs is now being challenged. A new paradigm of conflict
is replacing the 19th & 20th Century paradigm.
... ... ...
In this new paradigm, the clear distinction which most people have been able to draw
between war and peace, their expectation of stability and a degree of predictability in life,
are being replaced by a volatile unpredictability, a permanent state of instability in which
war and peace become ever more difficult to disentangle . The "classic" understanding of
conflict being between two distinct players or groups of players is giving way to a world of
Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big
corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each
other in a "war of all against all". The Western rules-based system, which most westerners
take for granted and have come to believe is "normal", is under attack from countries and
organisations which wish to replace our system with theirs. This is not a crisis which faces
us; it is a strategic challenge, and from several directions simultaneously.
In reality the "Western rules-based system", fully implemented after the demise of the
Soviet Union, is a concept under which 'the west' arbitrarily makes up rules and threatens to
kill anyone who does not follow them. Witness the wars against Serbia, the war on Iraq, the
destruction of Libya, the western led coup in Ukraine and the war by Jihadi proxies against the
people of Syria and Iraq. None of these actions were legal under international law. Demanding a
return to strict adherence to the rule of international law, as Russia,
China and others now do, it is not an attempt to replace "our system with theirs". It is a
return to the normal state of global diplomacy. It is certainly not a "Darwinian
competition".
In October 2016 Donnelly had a Private
Discussion with Gen Sir Richard Barrons (pdf), marked as personal and confidential. Barrons
is a former commander of the British Joint Forces Command. The nonsensical top line is: "The UK
defence model is failing. UK is at real risk."
Some interesting nuggets again reveal a paranoid mindset. The talk also includes some
realistic truthiness about the British military posture Barrons and others created:
There has been a progressive, systemic demobilisation of NATO militarily capability and a run
down of all its members' defences
...
We are seeing new / reinvented ways of warfare – hybrid , plus the reassertion of hard
power in warfare
...
Aircraft Carriers can be useful for lots of things, but not for war v China or Russia, so we
should equip them accordingly. ...
The West no longer has a military edge on Russia. ...
Our Nuclear programme drains resources from conventional forces and hollows them out. ...
The UK Brigade in Germany is no good as a deterrent against Russia. ...
Our battalion in Estonia are hostages, not a deterrent. ...
The general laments the lack of influence the military has on the British government and its
people. He argues for more government financed think tank research that can be fed back into
the government:
So, if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response, then we need to find a
way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it out of the political
space. We will need to impose changes over the heads of vested interests. NB We did this in
the 1930s
My conclusion is that it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something
dreadful to happen to shock us into action. We must generate an independent debate outside
government .
...
We need to ask when and how do we start to put all this right? Do we have the national
capabilities / capacities to fix it? If so, how do we improve our harnessing of resources to
do it? We need this debate NOW. There is not a moment to be lost.
This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper
into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken
from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine.
That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative
bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the
public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance
indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for
the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia"
.
Asking for government finance to influence the government to take a "tougher stand towards
Russia" seems a bit circular. But this is consistent with the operation of other Anglo-American
think tanks and policy initiatives in which one part of the government, usually the hawkish
one, secretly uses NGO's and think-tanks to lobby other parts of the government to support
their specific hobbyhorse and budget.
Here is how it is done. The 'experts' of the 'charity' Institute for Statecraft and
Integrity Initiative
testified
in the British parliament. While they were effectively paid by the government they lobbied
parliament under the cover of their NGO. This circularity also allows to use international
intermediates. Members of the Spanish cluster
(pdf) of the Initiative
testified in the British Parliament about the Catalan referendum and related allegations
against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. (It is likely that this testimony led to the change
in the position of the Ecuadorian government towards Assange.)
Unfortunately, or luckily, such lobbying operations are mostly run by people who are
incompetent in the specific field they are lobbying for. Chris Donnelly, despite a life long
experience in military intelligence, has obviously zero competence as a military strategist or
planner.
In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested
Military
measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea:
If I were in charge I would get the following implemented asp
Set up a cordon sanitaire across the Crimean Isthmus and on the coast N. of Crimea with
troops and mines
Mine Sevastopol harbour/bay. Can be done easily using a car ferry if they have no
minelayers. Doesn't need a lot of mines to be effective. They could easily buy some
mines.
Get their air force into the air and activate all their air defences. If they can't fly
the Migs on the airfield in Crimea those should be destroyed as a gesture that they are
serious. Going "live" electronically will worry the Russians as the Ukrainians have the
same electronic kit. If the Russians jam it they jam their own kit as well.
Ukraine used to have some seriously important weapons, such as a big microwave
anti-satellite weapon. If they still have this, they should use it.
The government needs a Strategic communication campaign-so far everything is coming
from Moscow. They need to articulate a long-term vision that will inspire the people,
however hard that is to do. Without it, what have people to fight for?
They should ask the west now to start supplying Oil and gas. There is plenty available
due to the mild winter.
I am trying to get this message across
Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the
frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures"
would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally
stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's
pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia?
Such half-assed thinking is typical for the Institute and its creation of propaganda. One of
its employees/contractors is Hugh Benedict Nimmo who the Initiative paid to produce
anti-Russian propaganda that was then disseminated through various western publications.
According to the (still very incomplete) Initiative files Ben Nimmo
received a monthly consultancy fee of £2.500 between December 2015 and March 2016. In
August 2016 he sent an invoice
(pdf) of £5,000 for his "August work on Integrity Initiative". A
Production Timetable (pdf) for March to June 2016 lists the following Nimmo outputs and
activities:
17 March Atlantic Council: Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda , Ben
Nimmo
21 March Newsweek: Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures , Ben
Nimmo
22 March, UK House of Commons: Russian information warfare - airbrushing
reality , Jonathan Eyal and Ben Nimmo
Mid May: Atlantic Council: Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria .
Ben Nimmo et al (Major study)
Early May timeframe: Russian penetration in Germany , Harold Elletson, Ben
Nimmo et al - 10,000 words
June timeframe: Atlantic Council, major report on Russian conspiracy theory and
foreign policy , Ben Nimmo (potential launch events in London and / or
Washington)
End-June: Mapping Russia's whole influence machine , Ben Nimmo - 10,000
words
One wonders how often Ben Nimmo double billed his various sponsors for these copy-paste
fantasy pamphlets.
In late 2017 Ben Nimmo and Guardian 'journalist' Carole Cadwalladr disseminated
allegations that Russia used Facebook ads to influence the Brexit decision. Cadwalladr even
received a price for her work. Unfortunately the price was not revoked when Facebook revealed
that "Russia linked" accounts had spend a total of 97 cents on Brexit ads. It is unexplained
how that was enough to achieve their alleged aim.
Cadwalladr is listed
as a speaker (pdf) at a "skill sharing" conference the Institute organized for November 1-2
under the headline: "Tackling Tools of Malign Influence - Supporting 21st Century
Journalism".
This year Ben Nimmo became notorious for claiming that
several real persons with individual opinions were "Russian trolls". As we
noted :
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is
a Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian
troll' accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have
know that @ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American- Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans
in Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide
performances on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a
'Russian troll' and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll'
opinions.
The
Institute for Statecraft Expert Team (pdf) list several people with military intelligence
backgrounds as well as many 'journalists'. One of them is:
Mark Galeotti
Specialist in Russian strategic thinking; the application of Russian disinformation and
hybrid warfare; the use of organised crime as a weapon of hybrid warfare. Educational and
mentoring skills, including in a US and E European environment, and the corporate world.
Russian linguist
Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about
Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then
Russia's chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is
waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified
operation.
Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian
doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the
propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review
published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It
concluded:
Gerasimov's article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has
been stated in the West.
But anti-Russian propagandist
repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti
invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally
recanted
:
Everywhere, you'll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the
"Gerasimov doctrine" -- named after Russia's chief of the general staff -- poses to the West.
It's a new way of war, "an expanded theory of modern warfare," or even "a vision of total
warfare."
There's one small problem. It doesn't exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer
we misunderstand the -- real, but different -- challenge Russia poses.
I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since
acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and
loathing in its wake.
The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", an expert of
disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and
used it to press for anti-Russian measures. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the
quality of the Institute's experts and work.
One of the newly released documents headlined CND Gen list 2
(pdf) (CND= Chris Nigel Donnelly) includes the names and email addresses of a number of
military, government and think tank people. The anonymous releaser of the documents claims that
the list is "of employees who attended a closed-door meeting with the white helmets". (No
document has been published yet that confirms this.) One name on the list is of special
interest:
Pablo Miller was the handler and friend of Sergej Skripal, the British double agent who was
"novichoked" in Salisbury. When Miller's name was mentioned in the press the British government
issued a D-Notice to suppress its further publishing,
Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had
recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent in Moscow, Christopher Steele, was also
involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and went to jail.
Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released
by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and
Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about
Donald Trump.
At the very beginning of the Skripal affair, before there was any talk of 'Novichok', we
asked
if Skripal was involved in creating the
now debunked "Dirty Dossier" and if that was a reason for certain British insiders to move
him out of the way:
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about
Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me,
then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots
of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and
running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very
dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia
looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
The
most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth
reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the
Initiative commissioned
such research (pdf) and paid for it.
After two years the Muller investigation found zero
evidence for the 'collusion' between Russia and the Trump campaign that the fake Steele
dossier suggested. The whole collusion claim is a creation by 'former' British intelligence
operatives who likely acted on request of U.S. intelligence leaders Clapper and Brennan. How
deep was the Russia specialist Chris Donnelly and his Institute for Statecraft involved in this
endeavor?
Checking through all the released Initiative papers and lists one gets the impression of a
secret military intelligence operation, disguised as a public NGO. Financed by millions of
government money the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative work under a charity
label to create and disseminate disinformation to the global public and back into the
government and military itself.
The paranoia about Russia, which does way less harm than the 'western' "rules based system"
constantly creates, is illogical and not based on factual analysis. It creates Russia as an
"enemy" when it is none. It hypes a "threat" out of hot air. The only people who profit from
this are the propagandists and the companies and people who back them.
The Initiatives motto "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation" is a truly Orwellian
construct. By disseminating propaganda and using it to influence the public, parliament, the
military and governments, the Institute actively undermines the democratic process that depends
on the free availability of truthful information.
It should be shut down immediately.
---
Note: There have already been attempts to delete the released files from the Internet. A
complete archive of all Integrity Initiative files published so far is here . Should
the public links cease to work, you can contact the author of this blog for access to private
backups.
Aside from the fact that the government itself funds this organization, the creepiest thing
about it is that the "non-governmental individuals" that help fund it are the same people
that run the think tanks: a bunch of Rhodesians.
"Such half-assed thinking...Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of
Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in
Crimea. Those "gestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear
power which were legally stationed in Crimea."
It sure seems like this half-assed thinking isn't just the domain of a fringe element, but
is increasingly mainstream among the elites. Doesn't bode well.
Thank you B. It is truly amazing to watch the UK elites unravel as they have become truly
unhinged by their own connivances. It is a bad joke at the commoner's expense that they
propagandize and demonize in the name of the 'Western rules based system' even as they are
busy shooting themselves in both feet by committing Brexit. Although there are legitimate
grievances with the EU, it is clear that Brexit is a Tory power play that is all politics and
zero governance. Alas, Perfidious Albion has succumbed to Mad Cow disease.
What remains mysterious (not really) is why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save
and strengthen democracy-- they aren't proudly proclaimed and advertised, in the open,
transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to
stand for might want to debate and form an opinion on.
The fact that it isn't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and
totalitarian streak that runs in between every two lines that they put on paper.
McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal
practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been
MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being
sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow
vest protesters.
Every time one scratches the surface of such smears, it seems there is a connection to
US/British MIC, Ukraine, or Israel - essentially, those who benefit (financially or
otherwise) from greater tensions with Russia.
At what point does neocon doubling-down on failed foreign policy become more than just
picking our pockets and warping our minds? At what point do they start killing our kids in
another unnecessary war?
Cold War has been over for nearly 30 years. It's time enough for Western countries to send
into real retirement every single cold-warrior, their time is over, their mindset is quaint
and useless, if not downright dangerous and counter-productive.
Thank you 'b'
I'll just say -- - there is safety in numbers ! Already valuable information, important to
the public good and democracy has been spread wide enough to be certain, this gene won't go
back in the bottle ! D notice or no ! And by doing that, has made the fearless journalists
and investigators lives all the safer ! Safety in numbers, spread this wide everyone?
Thanks for the continued exposition of this story b.....may it go viral
I want to comment on some of the wording you quote Donnelly as writing
" .....is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players
– nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and
so on – are constantly striving with each other in a "war of all against all".
"
This is Donnelly's characterization of a world in which finance is a public utility
instead of the private jackboot that it currently is. This is the delusion these people have
been led to believe.
So instead of his "war of all against all" that some might call human cooperation on the
basis of merit we have a mythical God of Mammon religion that continues to instantiate the
private finance led world of the West with it parasitic elite and fawning acolytes.
Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the
UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would
have responded with force.
Thankfully it wasn't done but the fact this was even discussed by senior figures confirms
that there was at least a sizable minority pushing for it. 30 years after the fall of the
Soviet Union, the Western elite have truly abandoned all sense of reality and embraced a
consequence free view of the use of force. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya they haven't
learned a thing! I'm becoming more and more certain that a peaceful transition to the
multipolar world is impossible and that it will only happen after the US or one of its'
vassal states blunder into a proxy war and get utterly and comprehensively defeated, forcing
a radical world realignment, but with nuts like John Bolton and the neocons in the Whitehouse
it could easily lead to a nuclear war
This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the
British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and
Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state.
exiled off mainstreet , Dec 15, 2018 2:22:39 PM |
link
As an aside this happens to be "Bill of Rights Day", the anniversary of the passage of the
Bill of Rights as amendments to the yankee constitution. This reveals again how far from the
rule of law the yankee imperium, now the key element of the British Empire they supposedly
seceded from, has strayed, since it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was
engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy.
It has also ensured that the victorious candidate has been neutered and faithfully follows
the world control line put forward by the five eyes spy-masters making up the empire in its
present iteration. This also shows what a farce the regime, based on the rule of law, now
presents.
It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's
kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it
is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic
and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes
fascism.
The "Western-based rules system" described in this article reminds me of a game called
"Calvin Ball" which appeared in the former comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes." In the strip
Calvin a wildly imaginative adolescent boy who plays a free-form of football with his
imaginary pet toy tiger (Hobbes). Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to
suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art.
b, I downloaded the zip file, and had also downloaded all the PDF's from pdf-archive
yesterday. There are more files in the zip, but the following were on pdf-archive and are NOT
in the zip:
integrity-france.pdf (this is a dud, looks like html, prob. response from a failed
attempt to put a file up on pdf-archive)
Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly
linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller?
Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either
generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. "
Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11,
with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 4:21:51 PM |
link
The transcript of his conversation with the general shows very starkly that we would last
about two minutes in a nuclear exchange, but about half a day in a conventional one. No
reserves, no equipment stockpiles, a navy consisting of two fat targets, neither of which has
any aircraft and some destroyers which have propulsion problems, a smallish air force and
very small numbers of troops. The tripwire force in Estonia is wholly sacrificial. In fact he
lays bare the whole fallacy of biting the bear. With the armed forces in the state he
describes, and with the recruitment and retention problems, wouldn't it be better, as one
defense minister said, 'to go away and shut up'...
Thanks b and especially the link to Valentina Lisitsa who I had tinkling in the background as
I read your grand expose. These people are seditious morons, parasites infesting the state
apparatus. Shut these fools down. Nice touch publishing the passport image. I can just
imagine the frenzied aftermath of Kit's visit to the basement. Big thanks to anonymous and
Craig Murray too. Their IT personel are probably visiting Devil's Island or Diego Garcia as
we read.
Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to
spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate
government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM
The British and US connections to loot and evade Russian riches and funds are exposed, as
well as the origin of sanctions, supposed "alt-media" "truth-seakers" like Meduza...or
supposed "pro-Russian" US intelligence operatives married to Russian women....
Amongst the many issues he usually passes over trying to make himself the fool, while at
the same time trying to convince us of the oustanding intellectual capacities, honesty and
classy stance of him and his "comittee"...
For that travel, to end bluntly and in such public view siding with the nazis of the "Azov
Regiment" and other criminals of war, there was no need of so many saddlebags, so as
pretending that the people who supported Trump as if there was no tomorrow, were enlightened
people who only wanted to rescue "America" for the "Americans", as if there would not be a
sign of blatant exceptionalism in appropriating of the term "Americans" for themselves in
such a huge continent....
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.
The FP pre-Soviet collapse consisted of one MO: GET THE COMMIES!
Since then, Neocons and Neolibs which are frontmen for this Non-National Globalized Elite,
have hijacked our country's military and have steered it to a Global agenda where dominance
in the ME means either superiority for these EURO elites or Vassal-hood.
The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse
which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism
(Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats
where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque
(less defensible) reasons and missions.
The average American could care less about the ME and the US would be 1000x better-off
reverting to an isolationist stance.
But this will not happen so long as Nationalism in the US and UK is repeatedly put-down.
It seems as though there is going to be another Brexit vote. Does anyone doubt that
miraculously the people by then will have second-guessed their will to Brexit and so will
vote against it given another crack at a vote?
Import IT workers and staff science faculties from abroad w dual citizens while kkr
buys wafer labs that outsource to mainland for manufacturing
Cry boo hoo hoo to wake up with indigenous capacity decades behind world players like
Russia, China, India, etc who operate on fractional budgets...
But this drama also exposes ashura/emigods intra necine warfare: right after 2016 US
elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation.
Seems that veil has been dispensed with , but it invites other questions, insofar as UK
is Her Majesty's Service, so are we to read this with Prince Harry or Philip's culture, or a
"consent by silence") in mind? Defending crown or EU "Saturnus Sattelitus"?
Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking,
setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right
about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry.
That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise
of free markets and democracy.
Good to see Trump finally give it a face... 'you need freedom and security now pay up
bitches'
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.... Globalist Agenda
I think the opposite is true.
The US-led Empire and their globalist sycophants seek to weaken Europe so that it can not
act independently in its own best interests. They will do what ever they can to ensure that
the vassals never join with Russia/China and the SCO.
Russian scare-mongering and immigration have been effective in furthering this agenda.
Also note: what USA has termed "new Europe" - eastern European states like Poland and Ukraine
- are solidly pro-American.
"... Nik Williams, the policy advisor for Scottish PEN, the Scottish centre of PEN International. We are leading the campaign opposing suspicionless surveillance and protecting the rights of writers both in Scotland and across the globe. Find out more on Twitter at @scottishpen and @nikwilliams2 . Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... In 2013, NSA whistle blower, Edward Snowden revealed the extent of government surveillance that enables intelligence agencies to capture the data of internet users around the world. Some of the powers revealed enable agencies to access emails in transit, files held on devices, details that document our relationships and location in real-time and data that could reveal our political opinions, beliefs and routines. ..."
"... As big data and digital surveillance is interwoven into the fabric of modern society there is growing evidence that the perception of surveillance affects how different communities engage with the internet. ..."
"... In 2013, PEN America surveyed American writers to see whether the Snowden revelations impacted their willingness to explore challenging issues and continue to write. In their report, Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives US Writers to Self-Censor , PEN America found that "one in six writers avoided writing or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillance". ..."
"... At times, surveillance appears unavoidable and this was evident in many of the writers' responses to whether they could take actions to mitigate the risks of surveillance. Without knowing how to secure themselves there are limited options: writers either resign themselves to using insecure tools or choose to avoid the internet all together, cutting them off from important sources of information and potential communities of readers and support. ..."
"... Although not explicitly laid out in the post, I'm inclined to believe any online research on PETs might single one out as a "Person of Interest" ..."
"... we know better now – EVERYTHING is recorded and archived. Privacy may not be dead yet, but now exists only in carefully curated offline pockets, away from not just the phone and the laptop, but also the smart fridge's and the face-recognising camera's gimlet eye. ..."
"... And it's not just off centre political opining that could be used in such efforts. The percentages of internet users who have accused [people of using] porn sites suggests there would be some serious overlap between the set of well known and/or 'important' people and the set of porn hounds. Remember the cack-handed attempts to smear Hans Blix? ..."
"... Most of us (real writers or just people who write) need to hold down a job and increasingly HR depts don't just 'do a Google' on all potential appointees to important roles but in large concerns at least, use algorithmic software connected to the web and the Cloud to process applications. ..."
We know what censorship looks like: writers being murdered, attacked or imprisoned; TV and
radio stations being shut down; the only newspapers parrot the state; journalists lost in the
bureaucratic labyrinth to secure a license or permit; government agencies approving which
novels, plays and poetry collections can be published; books being banned or burned or the
extreme regulation of access to printing materials or presses. All of these damage free
expression, but they leave a fingerprint, something visible that can be measured, but what
about self-censorship? This leaves no such mark.
When writers self-censor, there is no record, they just stop writing or avoid certain topics
and these decisions are lost to time. Without being able to record and document isolated cases
the way we can with explicit government censorship, the only thing we can do is identify
potential drivers to self-censorship.
In 2013, NSA whistle blower, Edward Snowden revealed the extent of government surveillance
that enables intelligence agencies to capture the data of internet users around the world. Some
of the powers revealed enable agencies to access emails in transit, files held on devices,
details that document our relationships and location in real-time and data that could reveal
our political opinions, beliefs and routines. Following these revelations, the UK government
pushed through the Investigatory Powers Act ,
an audacious act that modernised, consolidated and expanded digital surveillance powers. This
expansion was opposed by civil rights organisations, (including Scottish PEN where I work),
technologists, a number of media bodies and major tech companies, but on 29th November 2016, it
received royal assent.
But what did this expansion do to our right to free expression?
As big data and digital surveillance is interwoven into the fabric of modern society there
is growing evidence that the perception of surveillance affects how different communities
engage with the internet. Following the Snowden revelations, John Penny at the Oxford
Internet Institute analysed traffic to Wikipedia pages on topics designated by the Department
of Homeland Security as sensitive and identified "a 20 percent decline in page views on
Wikipedia articles related to terrorism, including those that mentioned 'al Qaeda,' 'car bomb'
or 'Taliban.'" This report was in line with a study by Alex Marthews and
Catherine Tucker who found a similar trend in the avoidance of sensitive topics in Google
search behaviour in 41 countries. This has significant impact on both free expression and
democracy, as
outlined by Penney: "If people are spooked or deterred from learning about important policy
matters like terrorism and national security, this is a real threat to proper democratic
debate."
But it doesn't end with sourcing information. In a study of Facebook, Elizabeth Stoycheff
discovered that when faced with holders of majority opinions and the knowledge of government
surveillance, holders of minority viewpoints are more likely to "self-censor their dissenting
opinions online". If holders of minority opinions step away from online platforms like
Facebook, these platforms will only reflect the majority opinion, homogenising discourse and
giving a false idea of consensus. Read together, these studies document a slow erosion of the
eco-system within which free expression flourishes.
In 2013, PEN America surveyed American writers to see whether the Snowden revelations
impacted their willingness to explore challenging issues and continue to write. In their
report, Chilling Effects:
NSA Surveillance Drives US Writers to Self-Censor , PEN America found that "one in six
writers avoided writing or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to
surveillance". But is this bigger than the US? Scottish PEN, alongside researchers at the
University of Strathclyde authored the report,
Scottish Chilling: Impact of Government and Corporate Surveillance on Writers to explore
the impact of surveillance on Scotland-based writers, asking the question: Is the perception of
surveillance a driver to self-censorship? After surveying 118 writers, including novelists,
poets, essayists, journalists, translators, editors and publishers, and interviewing a number
of participants we uncovered a disturbing trend of writers avoiding certain topics in their
work or research, modifying their work or refusing to use certain online tools. 22% of
responders have avoided writing or speaking on a particular topic due to the perception of
surveillance and 28% have curtailed or avoided activities on social media. Further to this, 82%
said that if they knew that the UK government had collected data about their Internet activity
they would feel as though their personal privacy had been violated, something made more likely
by the passage of the investigatory Powers Act.
At times, surveillance appears unavoidable and this was evident in many of the writers'
responses to whether they could take actions to mitigate the risks of surveillance. Without
knowing how to secure themselves there are limited options: writers either resign themselves to
using insecure tools or choose to avoid the internet all together, cutting them off from
important sources of information and potential communities of readers and support.
Literacy
concerning the use of Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (oftentimes called PETs) is a vital part
of how we protect free expression in the digital age, but as outlined by the concerns of a
number of the participants, it is largely under-explored outside of the tech community: "I
think probably I need to get educated a wee bit more by someone because I think we probably are
a bit exposed and a wee bit vulnerable, more than we realize." Another was even more stark
about their worries about the available alternatives: "I have no idea about how to use the
Internet 'differently'".
When interviewed, a number of writers expressed concerns about how their writing process has
changed or is in danger of changing as a result of their awareness of surveillance. One
participant who had covered the conflict in Northern Ireland in 70s and 80s stated that they
would not cover the conflict in the same manner if it took place now; another stopped writing
about child abuse when they thought about what their search history may look to someone else;
when they heard of a conviction based on the ownership of the Anarchist Cookbook, a participant
who bought a copy for research shredded it. Further to this a participant stated: "I think I
would avoid direct research on issues to do with Islamic fundamentalism. I might work on
aspects of the theory, but not on interviewing people in the past, I have interviewed people
who would be called 'subversives'."
These modifications or avoidance strategies raise a stark and important question: What are
we as readers being denied if writers are avoiding sensitive topics? Put another way, what
connects the abuse of personal data by Cambridge Analytica, the treatment of asylum seekers by
the Australian government on Manus and Nauru, the hiding of billions of pounds by wealthy
individuals as revealed in the Panama and Paradise Papers, the deportation of members of the
'Windrush Generation' and the Watergate scandal? In each case, writers revealed to the world
what others wanted hidden. Shadows appear less dense if writers are able to explore challenging
issues and expose wrongdoing free from the coercive weight of pervasive surveillance. When
writers are silenced, even by their own hand, we all suffer.
Surveillance is going nowhere – it is embedded into the fabric of the internet. If we
ignore the impact it has on writers, we threaten the very foundations of democracy; a vibrant
and cacophonous exchange of ideas and beliefs, alongside what it means to be a writer. In the
words of one participant: "You can't exist as a writer if you're self-censoring."
Thanks Yves, this is an important topic. Although not explicitly laid out in the post, I'm
inclined to believe any online research on PETs might single one out as a "Person of
Interest" (after all the state wants unfettered access to our digital lives and any attempt
by individuals to curtail such access is viewed with suspicion, and maybe even a little
contempt).
I trust the takeaway message from this post will resonate with any person who holds what
might be considered "heretical" or dissenting views. I'd also argue that it's not just
writers who are willingly submitting themselves to this self-censorship straitjacket,
ordinary people are themselves sanitizing their views to avoid veering too far off the
official line/established consensus on issues, lest they fall foul of the machinery of the
security state.
Yes – not just 'writers' as in 'those who write for a living or at least partly
define themselves as writers in either a creative or an activist sense, or both' – but
all of us who do not perceive ourselves as 'writers', only as people who in the course of
their lives write a bit here and there, some of it on public platforms such as this, but much
of it in emails and texts to friends and family. It wouldn't be quite so bad if the
surveillance was only of the public stuff, but we know better now – EVERYTHING is
recorded and archived. Privacy may not be dead yet, but now exists only in carefully curated
offline pockets, away from not just the phone and the laptop, but also the smart fridge's and
the face-recognising camera's gimlet eye.
Staying with the 'not just' for a moment – the threat is not just government
security agencies and law enforcement, or indeed Surveillance Valley. It is clear that if
egghead techs in those employments are able to crack our lives open then egghead techs in
their parent's basement around the corner may be capable of the same intrusions, their
actions not subject to any of the official box-ticking govt actors with which govt actors
must (or at least should) comply.
And it is not just the danger of govt/sinister 3rd parties identifying potential security
(or indeed political or economic) threats out of big data analysis, but the danger of govt
and especially interested third parties targeting particular known individuals –
political enemies to be sure, but also love rivals, toxic bosses, hated alpha males or queen
bitches, supporters of other football clubs, members of other races not deemed fully human,..
the list is as long as that of human hatreds and jealousies. The danger lies not just in the
use of the tech to ID threats (real or imagined) but in its application to traduce threats
already perceived.
And it's not just off centre political opining that could be used in such efforts. The
percentages of internet users who have accused [people of using] porn sites suggests there would be some
serious overlap between the set of well known and/or 'important' people and the set of porn
hounds. Remember the cack-handed attempts to smear Hans Blix? Apparently no fire behind that
smoke, but what if there was? The mass US surveillance of other parties prior to UN Iraq
deliberations (from the Merkels down to their state-level support bureaucrats) was a fleeting
and hastily forgotten glimpse of the reach of TIA, its 'full spectrum dominance', from the
heights of top level US-free strategy meetings down to the level of the thoughts and hopes of
valets and ostlers to the leaders, who may be useful in turning up references to the
peccadilloes of the higher-ups 'go massive – sweep it all up, things related and
not'
And it's not just the fear of some sort of official retribution for dissenting political
activism that guides our hands away from typing that deeply held but possibly inflammatory
and potentially dangerous opinion. Most of us (real writers or just people who write) need to
hold down a job and increasingly HR depts don't just 'do a Google' on all potential
appointees to important roles but in large concerns at least, use algorithmic software
connected to the web and the Cloud to process applications.
This is done without human
intervention at the individual level but the whole process is set up in such a way that the
algorithms are able to neatly, bloodlessly, move applicants for whom certain keywords turned
up matches (union or party membership, letters to the editor or blog posts on financial
fraud, climate change vanguardism, etc) to the back of the queue, in time producing a grey
army of yes people in our bureaucracies.
The normal person's ability to keep pace with (let alone ahead of) the tech disappeared
long ago. So when a possible anonymising solution – Tor – crops up but is soon
exposed as yet another MI/SV bastard love child, the sense of disappointment is profound.
Shocked but not surprised.
"Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. – I remember a
conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right,
these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves
and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of
society]? "
We already
know insurers have been using online searches to discriminate amongst the victimae. The
married/unmarried differences in cancer treatments are a confirmation. Self-censorship is a
rational decision in seeking information in a linked world. (I gave up on affording
insurance, and I do searches for friends; the ads I get are amusing.)
It could be said that journalists have a professional duty, but as the man said, "If you
believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
As the woman said, "If your business depends on a platform, your business is already
dead."
(As for the above quote, check the provenance for the relevance.)
I confess I do concatenate your quotes on
occasion: "For a currency to function as a reserve currency is tantamount to exporting jobs."
Some of your most illuminating statements are in side comments to linked articles.
Means I spend a lot of time reading the site. But then I get to recategorize most other
current events sites as 'Entertainment.' And since they're not very, they've been
downregulated.
My choice being shackled e'n more to chains of FIRE, or living a healthy happy life,
rather than increasing my stress by fighting institutions, we're investing in ourselves. Good
sleep, good food, good exercise.
The basis of our diet is coffee, with cocoa (7% daily fiber with each tablespoon) and
organic heavy whipping cream (your fats should be organic (;)). That cream's not cheap; well,
actually it is amazingly cheap considering the energy inputs. I'll be fasting soon to murder
cancer cells, and fasting also costs, lets see, nothing.
That the best thing you can do is nothing, occasionally, is a strong offset to the
institutional framework. Janet's been a nurse 40 years, and every day (truth) we get another
instance of not wanting the probisci inserted. Even when we get M4A, we'll be cautious in our
approach.
I suppose that here we are looking at the dogs that did not bark for evidence of
self-censorship. Certainly my plans to take over the world I do not keep on my computer. I
had not considered the matter but I think that a case could be made that this may extend
further than just writers. The number of writers that cannot publish in the US but must
publish their work in obscure overseas publications is what happens to those who do not seek
to self censor. There are other forms of censorship to be true. I read once where there was
an editorial meeting for either the Washington Post or New York Times when a story came up
that would make Israel look bad. The people at the table looked around and without so much as
a nod that story was dropped from publication. Now that is self-censorship.
But I can see this self censorship at work elsewhere. To let my flight take fancy, who will
paint the modern "Guernica" in this age? Would there be any chance that a modern studio would
ever film something like "The Day After" mentioned in comments yesterday again? With so many
great stories to be told, why has Hollywood run itself into a creative ditch and is content
to film 1960s TV shows as a movie or a version of Transformers number 32? Where are the
novels being written that will come to represent this era in the way that "The Great Gatsby"
came to represent the 1920s? My point is that with a total surveillance culture, I have the
feeling that this is permeating the culture and creating a chilling effect right across the
board and just not in writing.
What we are experiencing censorship-wise is nothing new, just more insidious. It is not
even a Left/Right politics issue. We just saw Trumpist fascist conservatives KILL the
Weekly Standard (an action praised by Trump) for advocating the wrong
conservativism. The shift in the televised/streamed media from news to infotainment has
enabled neoliberal capitalism to censor any news that might alienate viewers/subscribers to
justify obscene charges for advertising. Hilariously, even fascist Laura Ingram got gored by
her own neolib ox.
Of course, a certain amount of self-censorship is prudent. Insulting, inflammatory,
inciteful, hateful speech seldom animates beneficial change – just pointless violence
(an sometimes law suits). Americans especially are so hung up on "free speech" rights that
they too often fail to realize that no speech is truly free . There are always consequences
for the purveyor, good and bad. Ask any kid on the playground with a bloody nose.
I would like to see some Google traitor write an article on the latest semantic analysis
algorithms and tools. Thanks to the government, nobody but the FEDs and Google have access to
these new tools that can mine terabytes of speech in seconds to highlight global patterns
which might indicate plotting or organizing that might be entirely legal. I have been trying
for years to get access to the newer unobtainable tools to help improve the development of
diagnostic and monitoring self-report health measures. Such tools can also quickly scan
journals to highlight and coordinate findings to accelerate new discoveries. For now, they
are used to determine if your emails indicate you are a jihadist terrorist or dope peddler,
or want to buy a Toyota or a Ford.
Rhetorical I know, but Don DeLillo is quite good. It was in his novel Libra ,
although arguably from/about a different era at this point, where it first hit home to me
that the Blob really does manipulate the media to its own ends all the time. And you can't
swing a cat without hitting a terrorist in his books.
But to your point, DeLillo is pretty old at this point and I'm hard pressed to think of
anyone picking up his mantle. And none of his novels, as brilliant as some of them might be,
rise to the level of The Great Gatsby in the popular imagination to begin with.
The surveillance people are the nicest, kindest human beings that have only your best
interest at heart.
They would never break down your door and terrorize you for searching online for a
pressure cooker and if you heard stories that they did that, the surveillancers have an
answer for you, it's fake news, and if you persisted in not believing them, there are other
methods of persuasion to get you to change your mind or at least shut up about it.
That pressure cooker story gets a lot of mileage. While there is undoubtedly a lot of
surveillance it might be interesting to see a story on just how much of it leads to actual
arrests on real or trumped up charges. Here's suggesting that the paranoia induced by books
like Surveillance Valley is over the top in the same way that TV news' focus on crime stories
causes the public to think that crime is rampant when it may actually be declining.
That said, journalists who indulge their vanity with Facebook or Twitter accounts are
obviously asking for it. And the journalistic world in general needs to become a lot more
technologically "literate" and realize that Youtube videos can be faked as well as how to
separate the internet wheat from the chaff. Plus there's that old fashioned way of learning a
story that is probably the way most stories are still reported: talking to
people–hopefully in a room that hasn't been bugged.
Just to add that while the above may apply to America that doesn't mean the web isn't a
much more sinister phenomenon in countries like China with its new social trust score. We
must make sure the US never goes there.
For your first sentence I think you are referencing:
The surveillance people are "the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being[s]
I've ever known in my life." (ref. Statement by Major Marco about Raymond Shaw from 1962 and
2004 movies "The Manchurian Candidate"). ?
Maybe you need some refresher re-education.
Expression of minority opinions and surpressed information is not a safe activity, thus we
self censor. However reality asserts itself and perhaps in those moments one can more safely
express alternate points of view. As far as writing online i worry about the future –
with everything recorded and searchable, will we at some point be facing round ups of
dissidents? What kind of supression will stressed governments and corporate hierarchies do in
the future?
I think the last blog post I wrote that was linked here at NC was called "TPP is
Treason."
I was writing and was published on the Internet from 2011-2016. I continue to write, but I
no longer publish anything online, I closed my Facebook account, and I rarely comment on
articles outside of NC, especially anywhere I have to give up a digital-ton of personal info
and contacts just to say a few words one time.
Goodness knows I do not worry a bit about fundamentalist Islamic militancy. Do I have any
anxiety about jackbooted "law enforcement" mercenaries in riot gear and automatic rifles
breaking down my door at the behest, basically, of the corporate/banking/billionaire,
neoliberal/neoconservative status quo, my big mouth excoriating these elite imperialists, at
the same time asset forfeiture laws are on the books and I can have EVERYTHING taken from me
for growing a single plant of cannabis, or even having any cannabis in my house, or not, all
they have to report to a complicit media and prosecutorial State is that I was growing
cannabis when there was none.
Of course there is little danger of that if I am not publishing, and hardly anyone knows I
ever have, and no one currently is paying any attention.
The fact in America at least is, as long as the status quo is secure, TPTB don't really
care what I write, as long as they do not perceive it as a threat, and the only way they
would is if a LOT of people are listening But still, there is nothing more terrifying on
earth than America's Law/Corporate/Bank/Privatized Military/Media imperialist State, chilling
to say the least, evidenced in the extreme by a distracted, highly manipulated and neutered
citizenry.
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."
"If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search
may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain."
The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So
Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community.
And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split
into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents
as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety.
If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
Notable quotes:
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security
Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the
documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after
bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to
serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial
interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with
anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at
the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview
but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.
Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed
that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which
would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false
statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo
says.
According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the
agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they
wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely
affect the rapport."
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about
leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the
initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview
with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior
FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the
documents are guarded against tampering.
On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the
communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017
time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an
expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart,
which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a
supervisor and who approved them."
He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes
must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that
the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record
keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster,"
he added.
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time
that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying
was first published
and reported by SaraACarter.com.
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have
questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this
one count of lying.
In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn
"clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of
"subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the
hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.
"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the
national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a
relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.
The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued
about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime
Basically McCabe and others in his unit are totally discredited. He should have this
quashed and the case thrown out of court. No Miranda rights, therefore no lying to FBI.
Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ********
argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and
still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he
agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone
know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.
No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an
investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a
jury can find someone guilty of anything.
Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have
bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that
Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime
you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal
judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one
interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute
force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict
satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the
federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal
government
My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than
what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either)
that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually
of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't
pleased.
Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found
out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some
statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your
intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!
Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get
information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!
The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . .
.
Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all
microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some
certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .
. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in
any affairs. And he certainly said no.
So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair
started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)
See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines
of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.
But when faced with financial destruction, your kids being threatened, and false evidence
against you, you sometimes admit to the charges to make a deal...
The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink,
wink...
Leguran
It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It
is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to
happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.
The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are
subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether
cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from
their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own
ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to
happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.
lizzie dw
IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with
General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds
fishy.
Caloot
Hedge headline:
Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?
Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of
re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the
kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world wars - into a
renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the
accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of
his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign
history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it
essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to
follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician,
perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for
example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter
denunciation and discrediting of the former policy would be necessary to shift the National
mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further Imperial
adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who
came up through intelligence positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush
administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed
Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German
newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on
to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The
historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and
should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic
State would not "be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without
reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American
military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant
misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were
some curiously framed explanations of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual
notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special
counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors
investigated for criminal actions they took in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some
on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor committed
suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge
dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after
taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the
government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for
criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted
Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for this group of prosecutors. He smells a
rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will not
hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong
doing.
Looks like Partigenosse Mueller went a little bit too far.
Notable quotes:
"... Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him. ..."
Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG
Recovers 19,000 New "FBI Lovebird" Texts
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/15/2018 - 14:25 8.3K SHARES
The Justice Department's internal watchdog revealed on Thursday that special counsel Robert
Mueller's office scrubbed all of the data from FBI agent Peter Strzok's iPhone, while his FBI
mistress Lisa Page's phone had been scrubbed by a different department, according to a
comprehensive
report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released on Thursday.
After Strzok was kicked off the special counsel investigation following the discovery of
anti-Trump text messages between he and Page, his Mueller's Records Officer scrubbed Strzok's
iPhone after determining "it contained no substantive text messages," reports the
Conservative Review 's Jordan Schachtel.
Mueller's team was unable to locate Page's iPhone, however the DOJ's Justice Management
Division (JMD) similarly scrubbed her phone - resetting it to factory settings.
Meanwhile, the OIG recovered approximately newly found 19,000 Strzok-Page texts from their
Galaxy S5 phones . The messages span a "gap" in text messages between December 15, 2016 and May
17, 2017.
OIG digital forensic examiners used forensic tools to recover thousands of text messages
from these devices, including many outside the period of collection tool failure (December
15, 20 I 6 to May 17, 2017) and many that Strzok and Page had with persons other than each
other. Approximately 9,311 text messages that were sent or received during the period of
collection tool failure were recovered from Strzok's S5 phone, of which approximately 8,358
were sent to or received from Page .
Approximately 10,760 text messages that were sent or
received during the period of collection tool failure were recovered from Page's S5 phone, of
which approximately 9,717 were sent to or received from Strzok .
Thus, many of the text
messages recovered from Strzok's S5 were also recovered from Page's S5. However, some of the
Strzok-Page text messages were only recovered from Strzok's phone while others were only
recovered from Page's phone . -OIG Report
Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many
indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him.
In August 2016, Strzok and Page discussed an "insurance policy" in the event that Trump won
the election which many believe to be in reference to operation Crossfire Hurricane - the DOJ's
counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's
no way he [Trump] gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." wrote Strzok, adding
" It's like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
In the
home stretch of the 2016 US election, Strzok is fuming at Trump - texting Page: " I am riled
up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer." He then texts "I CAN'T
PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!," to which Page replies "I
don't know. But we'll get it back."
More than two years later, the anti-Trump FBI agents may not have gotten their country back
- but the special counsel's office continues to cast a shadow of doubt Trump's legitimacy.
Democrats could care less about the facts. They are very happy to be ignorant of them.
They don't care about the law or due process. They don't stand for anything except that vague
meaningless concept called "social justice."
They are throwbacks to an era where party is everything and the individual is expendable
in service of that party. History is of no consequence, traditions are junk and highest goal
is to feel good, ramifications are of no concern.
Every little fact that Mueller thinks he has is now tainted. He has engaged in evidence
tampering and ALL OF IT is fruit of the poisoned tree.
This human piece of excrement in a suit, this worthless deep stater and his henchmen
should be hung - but they won't be. Thirty years in a real prison should do the trick.
Confiscate every nickel he charged the citizens of this county and charge him at the same
rate for a year of wasted time.
Like I have said over and over on this blog "Democrats are unfit to govern."
"... It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers. ..."
"... In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after the Russia Gate was played up following the election. ..."
"... Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump. Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme. ..."
"... As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics. ..."
"... The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. ..."
"... Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture. ..."
"... Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the "blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot. ..."
"... karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this.. ..."
"... This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good". ..."
"... And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018. ..."
"... Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014. Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015). ..."
"... The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all. ..."
"... One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then. ..."
"... Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy. Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects - and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part. ..."
"... Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for). ..."
"... The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet. When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India as well). ..."
"... If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column. ..."
"... i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much... i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'.. ..."
"... as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site. ..."
"... the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest ..."
"... "MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, 'MAGA'." ..."
"... Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. ..."
"... Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example. ..."
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
The person(s) who first published documents of the shady UK organization Integrity Initiative decided that the discussion is about
the Initiative is not yet sufficient and published more documents.
The
first dump on the Cyberguerilla site happened on November 5. We discussed it
here . A smaller
dump on November 29 revealed more about the UK government paid Integrity Initiatives influence work in Germany, Spain and Greece.
A
third dump followed today.
The leaker, who uses the widely abused Anonymous label, promises to publish more:
Well-coordinated efforts of the Anonymous from all over the world have forced the UK politicians to react to the unacceptable
and in fact illegal activity of the British government that uses public money to carry out misinformation campaigns not only in
the EU, US and Canada but in the UK as well, in particular campaigns against the Labour party.
The Integrity Initiative is now under first official investigation. We promise to give close scrutiny to the investigation that
we believe should be conducted honestly, openly and absolutely transparently for the society, rather than become an internal and
confidential case of the Foreign Office.
To show our expertise in the investigation as well as to warn the UK government that they must not even try to put it all down
to the activity of some charity foundations and public organizations we reveal a part of documents unveiling the true face of
The Institute for Statecraft and some information about its leadership.
...
As the scandal in the UK is gaining momentum, it is ever so striking that European leaders and official representatives remain
so calm about the Integrity Initiative's activity in their countries. We remind you that covert clusters made up for political
and financial manipulation and controlled by the UK secret services are carrying out London's secret missions and interfering
in domestic affairs of sovereign states right in front of you.
...
This is another part of documents that we have on the Integrity Initiative. We do not change the goals of this operation. When
we return with the next portion of revelations, names and facts depends on how seriously the UK and EU leaders take our intentions
this time.
The dump includes invoices, internal analyses of international media responses to the Skripal affair, the Initiative's operations
in Scotland, France and Italy, some strategy papers and various other stuff. There are some interesting bits about the cooperation
of the Initiative with British Ministry of Defense. It will take me a while to read through all of it.
A "strictly confidential" proposal by the French company Lexfo to spread
the Integrity Initiative's state-sponsored propaganda through an offensive online influence campaigns for a monthly pay per language
of €20-40.000. The proposal also includes an offer for "counter activism" through "negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back,
etc." for €50,000 per month.
The offer claims that the company can launch hundreds of "news" pieces per day on as many websites. It notably also offers to
"edit" Wikipedia articles.
In short: This proposal describes large disinformation operations under the disguise of fighting alleged Russian disinformation.
It is at the core what the Integrity Initiative, which obviously requested the proposal, is about.
But as we saw in the information
revealed yesterday there is more to it. The Initiative, which has lots of 'former' military and intelligence people among its
staff, is targeting the political left in Britain as well as in other countries. It is there where it becomes a danger to the democratic
societies of Europe.
I'd bet a weeks wages on it that this is where Craig Summers came from and what he was ! This blog is the antidote to the official
spin! It was good to here from Craig Murray very thought provoking regards tactics.we all need our own method ! But not be gagged.
I respect others ways we are on the same side .being united is the defence against devide and rule.
I wonder what the Tory's
think of this scandal they must be angry at this attack on democracy, nah only joking! It'l be the dog that did'nt bark ! just
like the media oh and the police ! One rule for them 'no rule' opression for us 99%
thanks b.... aside from wondering if this is Russia accessing and sharing this, i think the sticking point is in this "Unintegrity
initiative" going after the uk political left... that is where i think this is going to get traction as more folks are going to
wake up if they see how deep and ugly this goes in targeting their own..
i could be wrong, but if this news catches on, or the uk MP women keeps hammering away on this, i think we will see some results..
i opened the pdf... here is a quick list of their objectives..
investigate sources of disinformation, perform threat assessment, and identify opportunities to combat false narratives
debunk fake news and black PR operations
discredit and intimidate the platforms broadcasting fake news
promote democratic principles and criticize the Russian illiberal model in the public debate, online. This plan should
be implemented in every targeted country and language, including Russian.
In Australia the scale of tendentious anti-Chinese propaganda is absurd . Australia is flailing around trying to cope with changing
circumstances . Already at a disadvantage in 'reading ' the world because of her geographical isolation the clear bias of information
she now faces from the Anglo/ U S media and government systems puts her at a disadvantage in forming intelligent policies .
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Dec 14, 2018 4:38:49 PM |
link
Can anyone make a zip with all dumps and files? For sharing and archiving this would be much easier.. As i believe it will not
last long till the scribd uploads etc are DMCAed.. My LUKS+Veracrypt secured storage system would be a safe bet for archiving,
so i would volunteer..
Much appreciated!
Note that this document --and I've seen more-- presumes there is a large scale Russian disinformation campaign going on. Other
documents presume Skripal was poisoned by Russia.
Once you run with these documents, beware that you are making those presumptions yours . That may be the objective here.
Integrity Initiative got a lot of scrutiny because they used their Twitter account to attack Corbyn. In it's latest info dump,
Anonymous describes additional UK political manipulation, writing that the Director of The Institute for Statecraft Christopher
Donnelly:
... lobbied the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for an inquiry into Russia's interference in
the Catalan referendum. He invited members of the Integrity Initiative Spain cluster Francisco de Borja Lasheras and Mira Milosevich-Juaristi.
At that moment they were receiving funds from the Foreign Office, i.e. the UK intelligence paid its own agents for fake
proof of Russia's interference in the Catalan referendum and later told them to lie to the Parliament to convince it to take
anti-Russian steps .
"Simon Bracey-Lane: Currently runs the IfS "Integrity Initiative" network communications and network development process; deep
experience in democratic election campaign processes in UK and especially in USA, viz: Regional Campaign Organiser: John Wisniewski
for Governor of New Jersey, USA. January - May 2017; Statewide Campaign Organiser: Bernie Sanders for President 2016, USA. Sept
2015 – May 2016; special study of Russian interference in the US electoral process."
Whatever the truth of the matter, he can definitely multitask. Running the II network communications and development process
(cultivating, recruiting, handling?) while also being a research fellow at the II's 'parent organization' Institute for Statecraft?
I wonder how many hours he has left in a day to sleep!
Then again he seems to have form in this regard. 'Special study of Russian interference in the election process' simultaneously
as being a key organizer in Sanders' campaign. Maybe he did his 'special study' in his free time?
Pure brazen depravity. And how will the average UK citizen become informed of what seems treasonous activity? Seems venders with
broadsheets in the style of yesteryear standing on street corners yelling EXTRA! need to return so the public can be informed
of its government's activities--Social Media is not sufficient.
Bevin and other UK citizens: What do you call your Swamp?
Any thoughts as to why exactly Russia became the chief demon? It seems the hysterical propaganda was focused exclusively on ISIS
until Putin spoke at the UN announcing Russia's intervention in Syria. Then the propaganda shifted, first directed at Putin, then
generally at Russia and Putin together. Is it anger over the prevention of imperialist design in the Middle East?
It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west
became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers.
This belated realisation, that the prize that the west had gained and plundered in the '90s (from the collapse of the Soviet
Union) had managed to wriggle free, seems to be something that the west can't accept.
In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen
Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign
disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after
the Russia Gate was played up following the election.
Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit
list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped
no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump.
Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme.
Oh well, looks like its almost over for Truth, although some truth probably gets allowed if enough of the lies are also presented. So my take is the anti Russia hysteria was just a clever way of getting support for a war on Truth (fake news).
Russia now has a similar initiative said to combat fakes news from US which will likely be used against Putin critics (US agents).
The law allows them "to block online content, including social media websites, whose activities are deemed "undesirable" or "extremist."
Maybe Putin is part of the Fake Wrestling game. Heel or Face, your choice.
I see the EU has set up a rapid alert system to help EU member states recognize disinformation campaigns, and increase the
budget set aside for the detection of disinformation from . It will also press technology companies to play their part in cracking
down on fake news. Major social media platforms have already signed up to a code of conduct. One minister said the EU would not
stand for "an internet that is the wild west, where anything goes".
Macron introduced a bill recently seeking to get " judges and the media sector's regulator involved in the fight against fake
news. A fact-checking state-run website would be created and social media would have to pitch in by warning users when a post
is sponsored -- or when someone pays to give it better visibility in a feed."
I suppose the War on Truth has gone global. I wont bother to mention China as they are the role model the West
follows.
As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and
has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics.
@14 What do you call your Swamp? "The Establishment", coined, I believe, by the historian AJP Taylor.
The founder of modern journalism William Cobbett used to call it "The Thing"
The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. Robert Parry wrote about it, and its contrast with
truth, a couple years ago.
The idea of questioning the claims by the West's officialdom now brings calumny down upon the heads of those who dare do it.
"Truth" is being redefined as whatever the U.S. government, NATO and other Western interests say is true. Disagreement with
the West's "group thinks," no matter how fact-based the dissent is, becomes "fake news."
So, we have the case of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius having a starry-eyed interview with Richard Stengel, the State
Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, the principal arm of U.S. government propaganda.
Entitled "The truth is losing," the column laments that the official narratives as deigned by the State Department and The
Washington Post are losing traction with Americans and the world's public.
Stengel, a former managing editor at Time magazine, seems to take aim at Russia's RT network's slogan, "question more," as
some sinister message seeking to inject cynicism toward the West's official narratives.
"They're not trying to say that their version of events is the true one. They're saying: 'Everybody's lying! Nobody's telling
you the truth!'," Stengel said. "They don't have a candidate, per se. But they want to undermine faith in democracy, faith
in the West." . . here
Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 14, 2018 8:47:12 PM |
link
@15
Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front
to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the
"blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot.
@ 15 jayc, @18 ADKC and @21 karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with
the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now
you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for
this..
... now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available
for this..
Posted by: james | Dec 14, 2018 9:19:09 PM | 26
This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about
the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good".
And the "common good" is decided by paymasters. Somewhere in between are mass media populated by folks particularly averse to
thinking -- again, they were selected by the employers not to think but to write and talk "correctly". But the press/TV lords
will not chisel all details of what is true and important, and what is false, unimportant or both, so journalists can absorb it
from think tanks and briefing from government informed sources. There are also astro-turfs and so on.
And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are
the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces
of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military
and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative
body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In
other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely
double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was
mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018.
... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics
and russias commitment to going into syria..
I think we can surmise that the Russian objection to US bombing Syria in September 2013 was countered with a two-prong strategy:
> doubling down in Syria via ISIS;
> pushing hard for overthrow of Ukrainian government to: a) punish Russia, and b) keep Russia busy so that the Russians
refrain from any further support for Syria
It was a superb and well-thought out strategy . . . that failed miserably. The coup in Ukraine succeeded and ISIS came within
weeks of defeating Assad BUT Russia managed to secure the best parts of Ukraine -and- intervened in Syria anyway (along with Iran).
Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained.
History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course
. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.
So the strategy changed once again. MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan. Obama's devious faux peacefulness
that used covert action and proxy forces could not succeed against determined opposition from Russia/China. To prevail, Empire
strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that
required re-developing nationalism. In short, "MAGA".
My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even
if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through
loud and clear despite his 'triage' formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before
a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood.
There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I'll point to one more thing: Note how he forms
an equivalence between all the troubles that the 'West' now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these
conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer's (in today's links) work on Ukraine and many links
regarding ISIS (like this one).
This comforting message [from Kissinger] is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent
obeservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like
the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland's obnoxious and misguided "f*ck the EU" with an exceptional!
"f*ck the World".
Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014.
Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015).
Trump was the ONLY populist, out of 19 contenders, in the Republican race. Hillary told Democratic-friendly media to focus
on Trump and did things during the Presidential race that call into question her desire to actually win. Trump is a MUCH better
choice for a MAGA nationalist than Hillary.
You were right then, and you are right now. My one beef with your 2016 election analysis is that it seems to me you shortchange
slightly the evidence of a real conflict and possibly fissure within the oligarchic elite, only certain segments of which seem
convinced that now is the time for MAGA. Others among the actual power brokers would I think have preferred HRC and 4-8 more years
of neoliberal internationalist interventionist grift a la Obama before having to finally turn to the MAGA nationalist strategy
(which given the resource struggles that will emerge over the next decades was always inevitable once the Project for the New
American (Israeli) Century collapsed, as it was bound to once Russia called its bluff in Syria.) But this is a minor point. What
is much more important is that behind MAGA is an envisioned world war on the scale of WWI and WWII in which "The West" takes on
China-Russia leading to the death of probably everybody.
"..my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics and
russias commitment to going into syria..."
I think that the proper context begins with the failure of Medvedev's Russia to veto the UNSC motion establishing a No Fly
zone over Libya. Inter alia this led to a real reverse for and an humiliation of China which had large financial investments as
well as large numbers of personnel involved in Ghadaffi's imaginative schemes.
My guess, and it is not a particularly well informed one, is that after the Libyan disaster-the worst sort of imperialist over
reach and brutality not only did China realise that Imperialism was reverting to its nightmarish type, but Russians leaders saw
that a permanent alliance-until the defeat of the empire- was the only alternative that it and China had to 'hanging separately'.
And that the same went for Iran and Syria-nobody could trust the west any longer and it would be foolish, and dangerous, to continue
to do so.
The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the
one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of
the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all.
Of course, 2011 was the last in a long series of increasingly stupid US aggressions, all of which Russia knew very well were aimed
at it as much as the selected sacrificial victim.
Those who say that Saddam was about oil could not be more wrong: he was a human sacrifice, slaughtered ritually on the corpses
of a million of his fellows, to demonstrate that the USA can do what it chooses when it wishes.
Karl Rove was wrong: not even Empires can create their own realities. The extravagant and bloody theatre of decades swaggering
around the middle east finds the US not only poorer but weaker than it was in 1980.
"It notably also offers to "edit" Wikipedia articles." b
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Posted by: V | Dec 14, 2018 11:37:12 PM | 32
It is more complicated. Wikipedia is sprawling and manipulations happen on entry basis, and it often leaves "controversies".
I also discovered that it is worth to brush up on language skills, if there are any. For example, on recent events in Crimea there
is an entry "Crimea Crisis" with Russian and Polish versions, and Polish "pro-Westerners" somehow left few traces of activity.
I wonder how is it in German and French Wikipedias. In English, think tanks and deep states indeed lack sufficient counter-activity.
Why didn't you make an archive yourself? Meanwhile the leakers account at Scribd has been slashed and all the files with it. Anyway - here is a Mediafire zip created yesterday of (allegedly) all files published so far.
IntegrityInitiative.zip
. Save it as long as it is available.
@ jackrabbit, I've heard other observers make the link with Kissinger's op-ed, but your demonstration is very convincing. William
Engdahl made the same call, Hillary's not a suitable player to pull off MAGA with masses of deplorables. Unfortunately for
Anglo-American
strategists, Trump with his linear cretinism lacks the necessary wherewithal to implement and execute a comprehensive geopolitical
strategy. Kissinger comes from another era, and probably cannot grasp how far devolution has taken American elites in the cesspit
of post modern hedonism.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 15, 2018 12:54:41 AM |
link
@V
It's illuminating to see this NATO-backed operation looking at a PR firm to edit Wikipedia because this brings to mind the
notorious "Philip Cross," which, for those not in the know, was uncovered by Craig Murray and others (
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/)
as having edited the pages of prominent left wing people and Labour Party people. In Germany, Left Party Bundestag member Diether
Dehm has highlighted a similar figure in German language Wikipedia, "Feliks," targeting socialists in that country. The similarities
of both to the proposals made by the PR firm above are eerie.
Can't speak for the French version of Wikipedia but with the German edition it is as bad as anywhere else when it comes to
social and political issues, particularly so if geopolitics (the West, ME, Russia ..) is concerned.
Two people, a biologist and a journalist, independently investigated networks on a senior editor and admin level active within
WikipediaG. What they found is rather shocking. One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost
immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content
or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then.
These guys can also be found on Youtube: Gruppe42 (group42)
Unfortunately their main documentaries are only available in German language but there's some other content 'Geschichten aus Wikihausen'
- 'The Tales of Wikihausen' with English subtitles.
Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM
It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy.
Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects
- and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part.
The BBC won't taalk about it but when it is in the House of Commons they have to
Sole result of a search "Integrity Initiative" on the BBC news website https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bv9zxj
(12/12 when then question was raised in the house of commons)
Posted by: Soft Asylum | Dec 15, 2018 4:36:27 AM | 39
Such people might be some of the worst examples of humans, but that doesn't mean they're trolls. In fact, plucking some
kind of motivations out of their psychopathic minds might be a good thing for the rest of us. If people such as them are posters
here, this would allow an opportunity to study them.
You feel you lack opportunities to study them? Pick up a newspaper, or turn on the cable news.
B: this info is astounding! Or perhaps not? Maybe the fact that the spooks are notoriously inept is what's astounding? I mean
you would think that what with all dweebs working for the state (eg GCHQ), they would be able to protect their own excreta? The earlier disinfo (it's a Russian plot etc) makes sense but it didn't work!
Old Microbiologist , Dec 15, 2018 7:09:31 AM |
link
Jay @15
Sorry, I didn't read any of this until this morning. Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very
expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure
etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for).
Asymmetrical wars against tiny nations without air support are
hard to justify spending Trillions of dollars forever. That dog just won't hunt after 18 years of a no-win war in Afghanistan
(or anywhere else). So, Russia and now just to make it even more critical, China are enemies that demand massive military buildups
of equipment that won't ever actually (hopefully) be put to use. This is to fight a two theater war against two nuclear superpowers.
Basically, it is insanity but it will make a few people very rich.
The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet.
When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is
nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India
as well).
If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping
was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor
minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former
Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was
trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to
Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put
into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column.
That is the over simplified view but it sums it up enough to explain what we are seeing. It is as always all about money. So,
Putin has resisted aggressively all US encroachments into the Russian sphere of influence. The sanctions actually help Russia.
A devalued ruble is great for oil exports which are only 12% of Russia's GDP. More self sufficiency is also a huge benefit. A
partnership with China ensures the US cannot ever achieve their goals of global domination. The US military has proven for the
past 70+ years they are incapable of any meaningful fighting and that the military is woefully incompetent. The ABM test results
even when cheating heavily are only roughly a 50% hit rate. That is against "normal" ballistic missiles. Russia's new systems
already circumvent this system by mid-flight course corrections.
The biggest problem is the neocon elites really believe all their own propaganda. That is very scary.
Jayc: you ask why Russia and specifically Putin? Cast your mind back to 1991 and the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin's coup and
the theft of billions of Russia's capital resources by Goldman Sachs et al. The Empire figured what was left of the former USSR
was a pushover and its vast natural resources, highly educated population, ripe for plucking and along comes the Tatar Putin,
a descendent of Genghis Khan! Whoops!
And only just in time. Then think about the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and later in 2003 and then Libya. The Russians stood by.
But Syria was a step too far and too near!
Jayc, it's Western, racist hubris. The Russkies are just a bunch of jumped up peasants (Hitler made the same mistake), so when
they asserted their right to resist, and it really started in 2015 with the Western financed 'revolution' against Assad, it came
as a real shock to the system to see that Russia actually did have real guns that fired and real jets and satellites to watch
it all. After all, it was those peasant Russians who went into space first (Duck agogo Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the genuine father
of space exploration).
It must have rocked the bastards back on their heels. So they hate Putin! He restored Russia's faith in itself and that is
simply not permissible! And do it with a military budget a small fraction of the Empire's and one that Putin CUT by 10% this year!
Wakey-wakey!
Okay, this is a vastly simplified explanation and I'm not going to deal with the internal contradictions of Russia, that's
for the Russians to do. But it seems that once more, the Russkies are saving our tired, sorry Western arses.
Bill
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 9:29:46 AM |
link
William Bowles @ 57
I commented at the Saker at the time of the first Ukrainian war that it looks like Mother Russia is being set up to defeat
fascism for the second time in 100 years. History may not exactly repeat itself but it does rhyme.
If I were the West I would tread very carefully, after the catastrophes of the 1990's the Russians are in no mood to roll over
for anyone. The West was surprised at the weapons and operational arts displayed in Syria, and that was just the conventional
stuff....
karlofi - Britain doesn't have swamps (environmental sort), but it does have lots of Bogs. And Bog is also another term for lavatory/toilet
- so one might describe Westminster, the City of London and the rest of the bourgeois British world as one Big Bog (if only someone
would flush it).
Well, I was excited about the supposed "lots on Skripal" and thought maybe there would be a smoking gun. Disappointed (mediafire
zip linked by b)! All I opened was the files with the word skripal in the name - nothing but ultra-boring newspeak from what seem
like spotty adolescents trying their best to feed their paymasters with the propaganda they want. The only one of any interest at all was the one reporting on skripal news coverage in Greece: the author was relatively normal,
and coverage in Greece was pretty neutral and sceptical of the UK propaganda.
There were only 100 documents in the zip which was supposed to be everything released so far (i.e. all three dumps).
Is there any evidence to confirm that all three dumps were done by the same person/people? I can't help wondering whether the
third dump might have been damage control from the Integrity Initiative themselves, to try to show that there is not much there.
As I said though, I didn't open anything except the files with skripal in the filename, so maybe there is something interesting
somewhere else. It may be that by specifically looking for skripal I failed to find any files with policy or analysis. All the
files I looked at seemed to be reports from the clusters in various countries (often addressed to Simon), or pure propaganda (spotty
teenagers) with no analysis.
ZH has a posting up about the Integrity Initiative and gives MoA a hat tip for being early onto the issue. This should insure that it won't be buried but I suspect it is time for another big shiny thing to appear to distract the masses
See also Namebase, the original collection of intelligence agents.
NameBase - Wikipedia
Founder Daniel Brandt began collecting clippings and citations pertaining to influential people and intelligence agents in the
1960s and especially in the 1970s after becoming a member of Students for a Democratic Society, an organization that opposed US
foreign policy.
[Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase
Posted by: William Bowles | Dec 15, 2018 11:16:15 AM | 67
That piece sums it up well, especially NATO's increasingly aggressive posture. And how self-righteously stupid the US is being.
I think 70% might be optimistic. This situation is even more like 1914 than 1914 was, in that the reallywantingwar-to-bluster
ratio looks even worse. Meanwhile Trump, with his self-indulgent saber-rattling, is like a twitter-empowered Kaiser. Imagine that
back then.
Another commenter up above says this'll be Russia's second go-round with fascism. Yup, and they can send US/NATO where they
sent Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII.
Russ, I wish I could be that optimistic. Yes, madmen they may be but they're madmen with tactical nukes! And judging by another
End of Days scenario, they actually seem to be contemplating their use, gambling that the Russians wont call their bluff! More
like the Cuban Missile Crisis than Sarevevo. So which side will blink first?
And then of course, we have Global Heating, which the Empire figures will 'take care' of that surplus to requirement population,
whilst the 1% wait it out in their bunkers.
I'm glad I'm at the other end of my life, rather than the beginning.
" we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can
ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation,
the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it". -- Frederick Engels, from the introduction
to 'The Dialectics of Nature', 1883.
thanks everyone for giving a response to either my comment, or @jayc's initial comment on what started this russiaphobia... i
think many of the answers are relevant and there is no one answer...
i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much...
i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'..
as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site... the fact that it is
mentioned in this integrity initiative data dump shows just how mainstream and 'go to' in the world of propaganda it is viewed
by the intel services and anyone else trying to get in on some of the gov't money handouts for this type propaganda.. it would
be very cool if the wikipedia site made a statement saying we no longer need donations, as the intel services of the west have
been paying us to continue... at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue
to try to hide this when it is so apparent??
"at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue to try to hide this when
it is so apparent??"
That's one of neoliberalism's refinements over classical fascism: Just as they figured out you don't need to kill dissenters
since no one listens to us anyway, so you also don't need formal Gleichshaltung under a de jure Geobbels ministry since
the MSM will happily "coordinate" itself and really doesn't need to be told what to do. They already know since theirs is the
same ideology.
Well, I'm only optimistic about that last part if they really can keep it to just shooting and not let the missiles fly.
On the other hand I'm not at all optimistic about that. Though even then I suspect it'll hit the West worst, precisely because
any such leveling is hardest on the most complex, most high maintenance, most just-in-time, least robust, least resilient, most
top-heavy Tower of Babel. That would be the US, Europe, and their dependencies.
from the link in b's post: As we see it, the main weakness in the Russians' disinformation campaign is their embrace of a quantity
- over quality and credibility - strategy as shown by their lack of credible spokespeople, their publication of a high volume
of "easily" identifiable propaganda and "fake news", and their heavy reliance on a few biased partisan sites, dubious social media
pages and uninspired trolls. Their stories are hard to believe,...
That sounds so much like a self-description of the US-UK MSM it is uncanny. (Bellingcat anyone? for ex.) Which, imho, shows
a complete lack of creativity, suppleness, or even a low-level semi-efficient approach to the general problem of information
/ narrative control. Because that is what it is all about: much of the discourse around it is waffle, which masquerades as
'new' as it invokes 'new info' double-speak: social circuits, fake news, distribution, deep learning, connectivity, targetting,
etc. (and other terms that are less readily comprehensible..)
Hah! I think it was Goebbels who said that the biggest mistake a propagandist can make is to believe his own propaganda and
I think your quote exemplifies it! But note it always has to contain an element of truth eg, 'as shown by their lack of credible
spokespeople'. Yes, the Russians, just like the North Koreans ain't very good at spin and thank goodness. It was a lesson that
Nixon never learned, the Emperor really is naked!
on the newest thread bjd make what i thought was an exceptional comment, which is easy enough to gloss over, but i think worth
repeating on this thread... here it is
"...why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save and strengthen democracy-- (aren't they) proudly proclaimed and advertised,
in the open, transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to stand for..."
The fact that they aren't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian streak that runs in between
every two lines that they put on paper."
I'm sure Bernard is going to ban me soon but before he does, you have to read this from Ron Unz on the Huawei debacle:
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly [Sheldon] Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest,
he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps
he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters
who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed
a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on
his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China. In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions
largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political
leverage.(my emph.
Averting World Conflict With China
The PRC Should Retaliate by Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
"MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to
be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In
short, 'MAGA'."
@28 Jackrabbit
I highlight these lines of your interesting post because, in the context of the Kissinger Op-Ed you refer to, they capture
an angle I had not considered and have to a degree nudged my thinking off what had been a steady course of assumptions and beliefs
relating to MAGA that go in the opposite direction from your hypothesis.
Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback
from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. It drew from, and fed on, the angst and diminishing prosperity of the
segment of the population that had been hit hardest by Globalization of the economy, to which Imperial adventures can be, and
after are, associated. The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions
in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war
effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was
a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy.
Doing it smarter and better than Obama did seems to the ticket to legitimacy for whatever Trump does in the foreign policy
realm. Replacing ISIS with actual American troops (while protecting a core capacity to revive ISIS if needed) is an example of
doing it differently from Obama, but the net result – with parts of Syria denied to the legitimate government – still supports
stark Imperialist, interventionists goals in a different way. The Russians and Syrians have free reign to attack ISIS, but do
not have the same liberty against American troops. The flip-side is that the American troops do not have the freedom of action
of ISIS to attack Syria. This creates a static line that serves the purpose of a partitionist goal. (ISIS is being allowed to
survive to enable an element of proxy action, for harassment purposes).
I find I can no longer dismiss Trump's appointments, in particular Pompeo and Bolton to key positions directing and shaping
US foreign policy, as some kind of 5-D chess move. They are signs that he is either a hostage President, or he is in on the act.
There is so much that remains unknown, but the clear outward indicators are that nothing really has changed when it comes to US
foreign policy objectives, only the methods and approaches are different.
Remember Obama's 'Change' meme? We don't understand that behind all these guys, and they are mostly men, stands industry and
its skills; advertising, marketing, statistics, psychology, pr, on and on it goes. And billions, billions, to spend! We are the
amateurs! Remember Saatchi & Saatchi's campaign to have Thatcher elected?
A new extremely lucrative 'industry' has sprung up.
a) to exploit hugely massive data sets (Facebook's trove and money earner..) and influence ppl => attitudes, behavior, votes,
etc. For ex. Cambridge Analytica. Much of this stuff is for now on the level of a scam. E.g. Trump was not elected due to any
type of manipulation or meddling by anyone, excepting those who financed him (other story, hard bucks and bribes - not! internet
detritus or subliminal messages) and imho the US MSM - TV specially - who care more about ratings and the money it brings than
anything else.
These efforts have got a lot of press, imho it is all smoke. If anyone has a good ex. of success ? (The model is built on about
200 years of advertising lore.)
b) Further upstream is to control the information that goes out / the audiences who are allowed to see whatever info, react
to it, communicate it - other. With the corollary of repressing dissident, unwelcome, contradictory, info, etc. Been going on
since say the Upper Paleolithic.
Today, what has to be managed is the extreme free-flow (internet): the only way this can be done is:
- to limit the channel, block info or some proportion of it, make the channel too expensive / unusable / forbid, repress
- to limit or corral the users (via propaganda / coercion / permission / certification / numbers / privilege / cost, etc.)
- to triage the information, the 'news', the narratives, the opinions, the appeals, etc. which represents the ultimate control
and is the choice made by the US-UK to mention only those.
Noirette, yuo want proof? Check out 'Programming of the President' by Roland Perry, Aurum Books, 1984. It's About Richard Wirthlin
and the Mormons. Can a computer be used to elect a president? Wel it elected Ronald Reagan. It's only a coupleof quid on Abe Books.
Essential reading IMHOP.
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised
segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world
wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures
such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create
the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar
Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History
will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without
the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was
not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations
of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn;
and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took
in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor
committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction
of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate
whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller
was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for
this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will
not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury
before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've
never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
. . .
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury
convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted
that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation.
He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial
team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and
the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before
3pm Friday.
In recent days we have discovered that Flynn was advised not to have counsel present during his FBI interview and that the
FBI is withholding the actual interview notes. The same FBI cabal that has dogged Trump - but AFAIK, Trump has said nothing about
the Flynn case.
Yet another reason to believe that Trump is not a "populist" savior but yet another agent of the establishment/Deep State.
Michael Flynn's a well known islamophobe who'd gladly defend zionist interests to the last american soldier. He'd fit right
in with Bolton on the NSC council. Flynn in his own words: "Islam is not a real religion, but a political ideology masked behind
a religion," While campaigning for Trump in 2016: ''Islamism a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people that has to
be excised "
I wonder how he planned on excising the cancer ? Deploying more stormtroopers to the levant to fight Iran ?
As Trump assumed control of the executive in early 2017, it didn't take long for Flynn to push for direct military involvement
in Yemen and confrontation with Iran: "Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling
emboldened... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."
Michael Flynn was also a fellow at the foundation for defence of democracies a well known den of zionists and universal fascists
such as Michael Ledeen. In fact they both wrote a book together The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War against Radical
Islam and Its Allies, where we find such nuggets as:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Putin has declared the United States (and NATO generally) to be a national security threat
to Russia, and "Death to America" is the official chant of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the Putinists and the radical Iranian
Muslims agree on the identity of their main enemy. Hence, one part of the answer is surely that their alliance is simply the logical
outgrowth of their hostility toward America.''
"The Russians and Iranians have more in common than a shared enemy. There is also a shared contempt for democracy and an agreement
-- by all members of the enemy alliance -- that dictatorship is a superior way to run a country, an empire, or a caliphate."
Flynn's angle was to exploit any potential fissure to pry Russia away from Iran and China. Presumbably after having dealt with
Iran and the middle Kingdom, the hegemon could then strike a final blow to defeat and contain an isolated Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250131626
"... Anything that gets Kristol out of public life is good. Sometimes collateral damage is part of the package. ..."
"... I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder. ..."
"... as Tucker Carlson noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing. ..."
"... Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they need to rent a U-Haul and leave town. ..."
"... If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing ..."
"... These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico -- that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their $200k editing job. ..."
McCarthy's analysis is sound but there are some variables he either misses or omits
concerning TWS's demise: See my "8 Thoughts" on the matter, including, for example: " TWS
was a strong voice of neoconservatism–which emerged in the 1970s as a theory, but only
matured into an applied political praxis during a post-Clinton presidency–and even
then–only after September 10, 2001 . but when Clinton lost to Trump, TWS lost a lot of
its original enemies, hence its original purpose ."
http://www.bookbread.com/2018/12/06/8-thoughts-on-the-new-york-times-article-about-the-demise-of-the-weekly-standard/
His wrongness rises almost to the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong
predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"), the Napoleon
of unnecessary wars.
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many
died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible
foreign policy.
Nah, bro. I remember these jackasses screaming for an American Empire. How many people did
they help kill with their braying for war? They pushed failed, murderous policies and showed
little to no regard for the people they would use as cannon fodder.
Bear in mind this, all you liberals looking for "good conservatives", as Tucker Carlson
noted, the Kristols, the Boots and others only really turned against Trump when he accused
Bush of lying us into war in the GOP debates. That's what turned them off: the possibility
that he wouldn't keep the guns blazing.
Now they're out of a job? Gosh, too bad. I guess they should learn how to code. Maybe they
need to rent a U-Haul and leave town.
If this is a sign that neoconservatives are losing influence, I say it's a good thing. I
remember when WS first started publishing during the '96 presidential campaign and it going
all out for Steve Forbes. Flat-taxes, shining city on a hill, come one come all immigration
policy, beacon of light to the rest of the world, blah, blah, blah. While they were obsessing
about taxes and attempting to democratize the rest of the world, our culture was quickly advancing to the bottom.
These are the guys who are totally cool with $40k a year factory jobs going to Mexico --
that's creative destruction -- but act as if it's some kind of crisis when they lose their
$200k editing job.
I'm sure there are some good people there, and I feel bad for families, but Kristol,
Podhoretz and Hayes can go to hell.
From comments: "Bill Kristol is possibly the single most delusional figure in our public life. His wrongness rises almost to
the level of genius: he is the Einstein of wrong predictions, the Machiavelli of outrageous proposals ("regime change in China"),
the Napoleon of unnecessary wars. Why anyone takes him seriously, except as an example of what *not* to do, is a mystery."
Unfortunately, this does nothing to diminish the influence of neoconservative foreign policy – those writers will keep
propagandizing from the Washington Free Beacon, Washington Examiner, Commentary, National Review, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... openly despising your potential customers is never a successful business strategy. ..."
"... Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world, Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy. ..."
"... Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in American history ..."
The Weekly Standard is no more. Its parent company is shutting the magazine down
after 23 years. It is hard to imagine that the magazine that was the home to such greats such
as Andrew Ferguson, Matt Labash, and Christopher Caldwell no longer exists. Those are the times
in which we live.
Good riddance. The Weekly Standard peddles a brand of conservatism that has been largely
repudiated by the Republican Party's rank and fle. Rather than accept reality, self-assess,
take stock, and possibly change the WS doubled down on neoconservatism in a particularly
arrogant and insulting way. Gary (above) is absolutely correct – openly despising your
potential customers is never a successful business strategy.
Oh, yeah – Kristol wants to run for President in 2020. And this guy thinks Trump is
delusional!
No sorrow here. I can't forget their cheerleading for stupid neocon wars in which so many
died, or the nasty things they said about such men as Buchanan who favored a more sensible
foreign policy.
Stephen Hayes called Rand Paul a Russian Stooge because he didn't want a confrontational
policy. This is typical of the stuff they printed. They were not interested in any sort of
serious debate. They were interested in shouting down opposition to their Invade the world,
Invite the world, In hoc to the world policy.
Why should I mourn this jingoist publication's demise? It's not very often you see justice
apportioned in this world, but here it is, even if too little and too late.
No, this should be celebrated. The only thing that would make this better is seeing them
walked out of the building with boxes full of personal effects in hand, as security makes
sure they don't steal any office supplies.
Boo-hoo Sorry if I'm more saddened for a lot of brave men and women in uniform
senselessly losing their lives over some chickenhawk writers having to find a new job on the
DC cocktail circuit because they can't work for the smug, elitists ideologues anymore who
used their worthless "Standard" to inspire one of the dumbest foreign policy disasters in
American history . They also used their rag to trash any conservatives who disagreed
with their call for endless wars as weak Neville Chamberlins reincarnated or un-American
agents of Putin. I feel nothing but contempt for them all. Their names will live on in infamy
as a scourge to our sadly dying republic.
Polichinello knows how to pile it on: "Let them learn to code." Priceless.
However, RD is right. The loss of any publication is painful. My pain actually began when
the mechanical workers–printers, engravers, stereotypers, etc. were done in by
progress. And now I get to see friends at the former St. Pete Times get the axe.
Besides supporting that nation destroying (US and Iraq war) and being an Israel Firster, Mr.
Dreher, here's a 2010 ad Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney producing, implying that Obama DOJ
lawyers who represented GITMO detainees were terrorists. They called them the "Al Qaeda 7"
It's funny that Bill Kristol is now persona non grata in the conservative movement,
considering he really is just a standard issue Republican. There's no difference between him
and Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers
I read (can't say 100%) that the Kochs opposed the Iraq War. They're not much for overseas
crusading, although they agree with neocons on immigration, trade, and caving to PC.
Walker talked a little about immigration restriction during his brief presidential
campaign, one of the reasons his donor money dried up.
Trump has reoriented the party on its immigration, trade, and foreign policy stances, and
Kristol isn't a God-guns-gays culture warrior, so, yeah, makes sense he would drift away
(aside from his personality).
Noah172
December 14, 2018 at 11:13 pm
This is not the demise I would have wanted for the WS. I would have preferred its writers be
fired and replaced with immigrants of color. That would have been delicious.
******************************************************
Yes! Use H1B visas to replace the WS staff with foreign workers at a far lower salary, and
force the staff to train them before they're let go.
It is extremely hypocritical for guys like Podhoretz to Moanin and complain about the way
the magazine was cancelled. He admits that it never made money but thinks some
multi-billionaire should continue to keep it afloat anyway. Talk about corporate welfare!
These guys advocated an extreme form of globalism that resulted in American jobs being
shipped overseas and economic hardship for millions of Americans, all in the name of
profitability. Why should the WS being any different?
To Kristol, Podhoretz, Hayes, etc: Tough luck – that's the way it goes. The
marketplace decided and you couldn't cut it. Why aren't you cheering cheering that decision?
Don't the rules apply to you too? I guess it's different when the shoe is on the other
foot.
George you nailed it. There's a special place in hell for people like the editors of the
weekly standard – I believe that wholeheartedly and not metaphorically.
What's weird to me is to see everyone decrying Kristol and his Weekly Standard colleagues as
"the Establishment." If that were still the case, the Standard would still be flying and
Kristol would be cruising. But no, Kristol and the neocons are now old news; has-beens; last
month's cold cuts.
Thus must I say to Trump and his fans: Congrats! You are now the GOP Establishment. Have
fun being able to please nobody. Have fun disappointing everybody. Have fun being held
accountable for bad policy decisions and the fate of a major political party. This is the
power, leadership, and influence you wanted, so you got it. We'll soon find out if history
remembers you less fondly than Bill Kristol.
Each passing year just raises the probability that Trump, being a U.S. president, will
launch a foolish war. When he does, and when you have to contort yourselves like circus
freaks to justify it, some of us are going to be quite amused.
One problem with this fat warmonger (and his wife Victoria Nuland) is that nether he not his children were ever forced to take M16
and fight for the policies he promotes. In other words he is a typical chickenhawk, a lobbyist of MIC on good salary. In some
way this fat pig bellicosity is aside effect of abolishing universal draft. He also probably was not a fighter and never
was severely beaten by super fighters in school or university. A typical nice Jewish kid.
Attempt to build global neoliberal empire reserving for the USA dominant position ("Full spectrum dominance") cost dear to
the common Americans and now it is clear that this initiative of neocons and their paymasters (financial oligarchy and military industrial
complex -- the neoliberal elite in other words) failed.
Kagan might be a talented propagandist of "full spectrum dominance" neoconservative policies, but it is important to understand
that intellectually he is a lightweight: he believes his own propaganda.
From comments: "When one sees Pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is Kagan talking with his neo con
war mongering."
Notable quotes:
"... Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC. ..."
"... The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two. ..."
"... The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people. ..."
"... "the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict. ..."
"... Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period. ..."
"... One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading. ..."
"... When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering. ..."
Today, Kagan is an influential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at The Washington Post , and a member
of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and
ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms
of electoral loyalties.
As a writer and public intellectual, Kagan has skillfully crafted historical narratives and strategic assessments supporting his
overarching neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign policy. His 1996 Foreign Affairs article with Bill Kristol, "
Toward a Neo-Reaganite
Foreign Policy ," still resonates today as a concise hallmark statement of that approach to America's role in the world. With
a long list of prominent books and articles following in that vein, it is little wonder that Andrew Bacevich called him "the chief
foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement."
Kagan's newest book,
The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World , fits nicely into his corpus. It is a spirited defense of the
"American-led liberal world order" by one of its most cogent and articulate advocates. It is part curated history, part philippic
for his preferred strategic vision for the United States. In this small volume, Kagan argues that the enlightened order America created
after World War II has allowed for much progress in the world. But this order is not natural, and its great benefits have been "made
possible by the protection afforded liberalism within the geographical and geopolitical space created by American power." To Kagan,
this liberal order is "fragile and impermanent," requiring constant care by its architect and beneficiary, the United States. He
sees the liberal order as being "like a garden, artificial and forever threatened by the forces of nature." Thus "preserving it requires
a persistent, unending struggle against the vines and weeds that are constantly working to undermine it from within and overwhelm
it from without." Otherwise, the jungle will "grow back and engulf us all."
The problem with the book is its reliance on some questionable historical and contemporary assessments, not to mention that it
fails to really make the case for the necessity and desirability of the liberal order in today's world.
Kagan begins The Jungle Grows Back by noting that the last 70 years of peace, prosperity, and the expansion of democracy
and respect for individual rights have been an exception to the historical norm. Far from being the natural course or inevitable,
this progress required something special and unique: that a liberal democratic country like the United States, with so many geopolitical
and economic advantages, rose to international prominence after World War II. Not only that, but, as Kagan argues, American leaders
were willing to use their great power at this special moment in history to act differently and to create a new and unique world order.
Rather than merely defend its narrow national interests, the United States created a liberal international order that it would
take responsibility for upholding and protecting. Kagan argues that this approach wasn't, as some might argue, directed at the Soviet
Union or anyone else in particular (though he admits the rise of the Soviet threat made it easier for Americans to accept it even
as the strategy became more difficult to implement). Instead, "its chief purpose was to prevent a return to the economic, political,
and strategic circumstances that had given rise to the last war." Thus, Kagan believes this internationalist approach was rooted
in a realism about the nature of geopolitics in the 20th century and a realization that the world was a jungle that required "meeting
power with greater power." American leaders had learned from World War II that they had to adopt a new approach to the world, one
that created, in Dean Acheson's words, "an environment for freedom." To do otherwise would be to let disorder reign or for others
to order the international system to the detriment of American interests and values.
Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing
the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part
of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC.
"Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support
for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."
The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's
wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as
the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two.
The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full
Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support
domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people.
Given that the liberal cultural order in the Homeland is so quickly degrading, the imposition of it internationally is likely
to become increasingly infected by poor judgment as well as resistance to it increasing.
It used to be in popular entertainment that the villains were interested in ruling the world, madmen with megalomania. That
enemy is now within.
"the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures
and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient,
excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict.
Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us
to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision.
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life
in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't
want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether
it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives,
and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)
"Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral
loyalties."
It is probably due to the fact that most people at that time thought Clinton was going to win. So his support for Clinton proved
2 things: warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor
of the people of this country, period.
One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility
of true liberalism spreading.
"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not
spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: "
Had there never been an Iraq War – Muslim revolution could never have spilled over from Iraq to any other nations – because
Saddam wasn't going to allow any Muslim revolution from happening within his borders.
..to his emergence in the post-Cold War era as arguably the leading intellectual advocate for a foreign policy of "benevolent
global hegemony" -- what scholars call "primacy."
An "intellectual" war monger? A "benevolent" Imperialist? ...
"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling
over from Iraq into US ally nations: Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan. Afghanistan is just another buffer country to fight the
Iranian stealth war."
I presume that history started in 2003 and that you have never heard of Saddam Hussein (the guy who fought a long war with
Iran aided by the US) or the Sunni Taliban who ruled Afghanistan and were opposed to Shia Iran. Except for the fraud and deceit
done by the neocon controlled US regime of the time, these illegal wars would not have been possible. Pick up some real history
books for a change. Don't learn about the Soviet Union from the Pravda.
"... MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam worked like this: ..."
"... They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA court a spying campaign on Trump ..."
"... the Obama regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the record to the right people ..."
"... They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama. ..."
"... The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2) laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much worse. ..."
"... And don't forget the Skripals' affair and the relationships (via M16) between Mr. Steele and Mr. Skripal: https://thedeepstate.com/steele-skripal/ ..."
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
"... Having said that, still worrying that the CIA devotes time to finding out what Maureen Dowd might write! ..."
"... It is true that Mazzetti's emails with the CIA do not shock or surprise in the slightest. But that's the point. With some noble journalistic exceptions (at the NYT and elsewhere), these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them." ..."
"... A few years ago the New York Times reported that there had been a successful coup in Venezuela - toppling Chavez. The story turned out to be inaccurate. The NY Times finally revealed their source - US State Dept... who were using NYT to give critical mass and support to their dream end to a thorn in their side. ..."
"... The New York Times-all the news the CIA decided is fit to print. ..."
Great column. The NYT does do some good things, such as give us Paul Krugman three times a
week, some important reporting and articulate editorial opposition to the republican
nightmare, but they are much, much too close to the government, as evidenced by their asking
for permission to print news the White House disapproves of.
They are also devoted to denying their readers an accurate picture of American foreign
policy. I frequently comment on threads there and my contributions nearly always get posted,
except when I use the word empire. I have never succeeded in getting that word onto their
website , nor have I seen it make it into anyone else's comment. It is like the famous
episode of Fawlty Towers. "Don't mention the empire.'' Stories and commentaries sometimes
describe specific aspects of US policy in negative terms, but connecting the dots is
obviously forbidden.
Bill Keller is like a character from The Wire. The perfect example of the kind of
authority-revering careerist that butt-kisses his way to the top in institutions.
most of the story seems to come down to the usual kind of thing we see from Judicial
Watch - manufactured outrage over almost nothing
I think part of the outrage here is the extent to which it's almost hard to muster the
energy because it's become so much the norm for the NYTimes to be in bed with whoever is in
power in Washington at any given time. It's the sort of thing that should be "they did
what!!!!?" but instead it's "yeah, well, Judith Miller, Wen Ho Lee, etcetc ... >long
drawn-out sigh<." So, perhaps there is some manufacturing of outrage, but not unreasonably
so if you take a step back and look at what's going on.
Having said that, still worrying that the CIA devotes time to finding out what Maureen
Dowd might write!
"This cynicism – oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely
what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.
It is true that Mazzetti's emails with the CIA do not shock or surprise in the slightest.
But that's the point. With some noble journalistic exceptions (at the NYT and elsewhere),
these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as commonplace, then it is transformed
in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable. Indeed, many
people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward
bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism
– oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely what enables
such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.
This is extremely important, and manifestly true. One runs into such people all the
time.
I haven't read any comments yet, but it would not surprise me to find some of them already
here.
Even worse, I've done it myself on occasion, most recently just the other day on a Cif
thread. Though I will say this; this kind of bullshit is not so much "transformed in people's
minds from something objectionable into something acceptable ", as grudgingly
transformed into something unstoppable , but still toxic and objectionable.
That's mighty thin gruel as an alibi, but the reality for a lot of ordinary working people
is they get fucking tired of it, and yes, they do get discouraged, then cynical and hardened
to it all.
That, of course, is part of the plan.
I'm unaware of a "source" being a person who requests documents from the reporter for doing
damage control on behalf of the boss. (Not that I'd worry about Dowd either.) How exactly is
this secret national intel? I'm glad this came out. We are being manipulated by the govt.
through its minions in the media. The entire incident, from the glorious movie to this
revelation is a fraud.
I found this interesting example of media manipulation at nakedcapitalsim.org:
"Pro-marijuana group endorses Obama The Hill. This purported group, which claims 10,000
members, appears to be just one guy with a PO Box and a press list. But don't count on your
average reporter digging deeper than the news release.":
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/links-82812.html#717LX1oL7dfPsb7I.99
The breadth and depth of propagandizing of citizens is astounding. I wonder what it's like
to have so little integrity. What kind of person so readily sells out their fellow citizen
with lies? It's scary because people read these things and they have no idea they are lies.
People are making decisions based on manufactured "facts". It's very difficult to find actual
information and I can tell you from personal experience, Obama supporters cling desperately
to "authorities" like the NYTimes to maintain their belief in the goodness of dear
leader.
This weird big-brother relationship goes both ways.
A few years ago the New York Times reported that there had been a successful coup in
Venezuela - toppling Chavez. The story turned out to be inaccurate.
The NY Times finally revealed their source - US State Dept... who were using NYT to give
critical mass and support to their dream end to a thorn in their side.
Nice investigative journalism. A couple of years ago the NYTmade a big deal of publicly
firing a low level writer for making up articles from his NY apt when he was supposed to be
in the field. He was hardly the worst of the bunch.
Great article and thankfully I do not trust big newspapers in the USA especially the New York
Times since it has being caught lying about Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq to justify
the Iraq War. Judith Millar was the liar then.
Read CounterPunch and smaller publications for the truth.
The NYT is all about selling ads on a Sunday. It really is a corrupt rag.
"this didn't come from me and please delete after you read." -- Mazzetti
This could serve as the epitaph for our times. This (Shock and Awe, drones, the Apache
Massacre, Guantanamo, killing children, etc.) didn't come from US (even though it did)
because ...our crimes can be deleted through that magical "we're too big and bad to fail"
button.
See, nothing to worry about.
(Except future historians who will not be blindfolded and gagged and who will
therefore have some choice things to say about the journalists who were fully complicit
in the crimes of this lawless era.)
They are not only presstitutes, they are degenerative presstitutes...
Notable quotes:
"... I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in an alleged scandal of this size. ..."
"... Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference. ..."
"... Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his 2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not. ..."
"... John Pilger's essay: Hold the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is so. ..."
"... but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. ..."
"... The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis] ..."
"... on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and etc - i found this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending.. ..."
"... That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best! ..."
"... Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence. ..."
"After the security briefing and everyone cleared out, McCabe shut the door to
Priebus's office. This is very weird, thought Priebus, who was standing by his
desk.
"You know this story in The New York Times?" Priebus knew it all too well.
McCabe was referring to a recent Times story of February 14 that stated, "Phone records
and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the elections, according to four
current and former American officials."
The story was one of the first bombs to go off about alleged Trump-Russian
connections after Flynn's resignation.
"It's total bullshit," McCabe said. "It's not true, and we want you to know
that. It's grossly overstated."
Oh my God, thought Priebus.
"Andrew," he said to the FBI deputy, "I'm getting killed."
The story about Russia and election meddling seemed to be running 24/7 on
cable news, driving Trump bananas and therefore driving Priebus bananas.
"This is crazy," Trump had told Priebus. "We've got to stop it. We need to
end the story."
McCabe had just walked in with a big gift, a Valentine's Day present. I'm
going to be the hero of this entire West Wing, Priebus thought.
"Can you help me?" Priebus asked. "Could this knockdown of the story be
made public?"
"Call me in a couple of hours," McCabe said. "I will ask around and I'll let
you know. I'll see what I can do."
Priebus practically ran to report to Trump the good news that the FBI would
soon be shooting down the Times story
Two hours passed and no call from McCabe. Priebus called him."I'm sorry, I can't," McCabe
said.
"There's nothing I can do about it. I tried, but if we start issuing comments on individual
stories, we'll be doing statements
every three days." The FBI could not become a clearinghouse for the accuracy of news stories.
If the FBI tried to debunk certain stories, a failure to comment could be seen as a
confirmation.
"Andrew, you're the one that came to my office to tell me this is a BS story,
and now you're telling me there's nothing you can do?"
McCabe said that was his position.
"This is insanity," Priebus said. "What am I supposed to do? Just suffer, bleed out?"
"Give me a couple more hours."
Nothing happened. No call from the FBI. Priebus tried to explain to Trump,
who was waiting for a recanting. It was another reason for Trump to distrust and
hate the FBI, a pernicious tease that left them dangling.
About a week later on February 24 CNN reported an exclusive: "FBI Refused
White House Request to Knock Down Recent Trump-Russia Story." Priebus
was cast as trying to manipulate the FBI for political purposes.
The White House tried and failed to correct the story and show that McCabe
had initiated the matter.
Four months later on June 8, Comey testified under oath publicly that the
original New York Times story on the Trump campaign aides' contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials "in the main was not true."
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling.
Posted by: Sid2 | Sep 20, 2018 3:03:44 PM | 3
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling, and concommittently the NYT is digging in; ergo ,
the NYT is also unravelling! The NYT will permanently damage its reputation with its own
readers.
I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the
fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it
would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in
an alleged scandal of this size.
Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of
advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's
campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked
not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal
email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference.
Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their
Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his
2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not.
John Pilger's essay: Hold
the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media
item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of
establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is
so.
Want to highlight this additional bit from Pilger:
"Journalism students should study this [New book from Media Lens Propaganda Blitz ]
to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news,
or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal
journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects
it, and colludes with it.
The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has
failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis]
IMO, the bolded text well describes BigLie Media. I wonder what George Seldes would say
differently from Pilger if he were alive. Unfortunately, Pilger failed to include MoA as a
source in his short list of sites having journalistic integrity.
on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and
etc - i found
this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending..
That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and
other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!
Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion
argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix
Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the
KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
"... MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam worked like this: ..."
"... They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA court a spying campaign on Trump ..."
"... the Obama regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the record to the right people ..."
"... They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama. ..."
"... The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2) laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much worse. ..."
"... And don't forget the Skripals' affair and the relationships (via M16) between Mr. Steele and Mr. Skripal: https://thedeepstate.com/steele-skripal/ ..."
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
"... Having said that, still worrying that the CIA devotes time to finding out what Maureen Dowd might write! ..."
"... It is true that Mazzetti's emails with the CIA do not shock or surprise in the slightest. But that's the point. With some noble journalistic exceptions (at the NYT and elsewhere), these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them." ..."
"... A few years ago the New York Times reported that there had been a successful coup in Venezuela - toppling Chavez. The story turned out to be inaccurate. The NY Times finally revealed their source - US State Dept... who were using NYT to give critical mass and support to their dream end to a thorn in their side. ..."
"... The New York Times-all the news the CIA decided is fit to print. ..."
Great column. The NYT does do some good things, such as give us Paul Krugman three times a
week, some important reporting and articulate editorial opposition to the republican
nightmare, but they are much, much too close to the government, as evidenced by their asking
for permission to print news the White House disapproves of.
They are also devoted to denying their readers an accurate picture of American foreign
policy. I frequently comment on threads there and my contributions nearly always get posted,
except when I use the word empire. I have never succeeded in getting that word onto their
website , nor have I seen it make it into anyone else's comment. It is like the famous
episode of Fawlty Towers. "Don't mention the empire.'' Stories and commentaries sometimes
describe specific aspects of US policy in negative terms, but connecting the dots is
obviously forbidden.
Bill Keller is like a character from The Wire. The perfect example of the kind of
authority-revering careerist that butt-kisses his way to the top in institutions.
most of the story seems to come down to the usual kind of thing we see from Judicial
Watch - manufactured outrage over almost nothing
I think part of the outrage here is the extent to which it's almost hard to muster the
energy because it's become so much the norm for the NYTimes to be in bed with whoever is in
power in Washington at any given time. It's the sort of thing that should be "they did
what!!!!?" but instead it's "yeah, well, Judith Miller, Wen Ho Lee, etcetc ... >long
drawn-out sigh<." So, perhaps there is some manufacturing of outrage, but not unreasonably
so if you take a step back and look at what's going on.
Having said that, still worrying that the CIA devotes time to finding out what Maureen
Dowd might write!
"This cynicism – oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely
what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.
It is true that Mazzetti's emails with the CIA do not shock or surprise in the slightest.
But that's the point. With some noble journalistic exceptions (at the NYT and elsewhere),
these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as commonplace, then it is transformed
in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable. Indeed, many
people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward
bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism
– oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely what enables
such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.
This is extremely important, and manifestly true. One runs into such people all the
time.
I haven't read any comments yet, but it would not surprise me to find some of them already
here.
Even worse, I've done it myself on occasion, most recently just the other day on a Cif
thread. Though I will say this; this kind of bullshit is not so much "transformed in people's
minds from something objectionable into something acceptable ", as grudgingly
transformed into something unstoppable , but still toxic and objectionable.
That's mighty thin gruel as an alibi, but the reality for a lot of ordinary working people
is they get fucking tired of it, and yes, they do get discouraged, then cynical and hardened
to it all.
That, of course, is part of the plan.
I'm unaware of a "source" being a person who requests documents from the reporter for doing
damage control on behalf of the boss. (Not that I'd worry about Dowd either.) How exactly is
this secret national intel? I'm glad this came out. We are being manipulated by the govt.
through its minions in the media. The entire incident, from the glorious movie to this
revelation is a fraud.
I found this interesting example of media manipulation at nakedcapitalsim.org:
"Pro-marijuana group endorses Obama The Hill. This purported group, which claims 10,000
members, appears to be just one guy with a PO Box and a press list. But don't count on your
average reporter digging deeper than the news release.":
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/links-82812.html#717LX1oL7dfPsb7I.99
The breadth and depth of propagandizing of citizens is astounding. I wonder what it's like
to have so little integrity. What kind of person so readily sells out their fellow citizen
with lies? It's scary because people read these things and they have no idea they are lies.
People are making decisions based on manufactured "facts". It's very difficult to find actual
information and I can tell you from personal experience, Obama supporters cling desperately
to "authorities" like the NYTimes to maintain their belief in the goodness of dear
leader.
This weird big-brother relationship goes both ways.
A few years ago the New York Times reported that there had been a successful coup in
Venezuela - toppling Chavez. The story turned out to be inaccurate.
The NY Times finally revealed their source - US State Dept... who were using NYT to give
critical mass and support to their dream end to a thorn in their side.
Nice investigative journalism. A couple of years ago the NYTmade a big deal of publicly
firing a low level writer for making up articles from his NY apt when he was supposed to be
in the field. He was hardly the worst of the bunch.
Great article and thankfully I do not trust big newspapers in the USA especially the New York
Times since it has being caught lying about Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq to justify
the Iraq War. Judith Millar was the liar then.
Read CounterPunch and smaller publications for the truth.
The NYT is all about selling ads on a Sunday. It really is a corrupt rag.
"this didn't come from me and please delete after you read." -- Mazzetti
This could serve as the epitaph for our times. This (Shock and Awe, drones, the Apache
Massacre, Guantanamo, killing children, etc.) didn't come from US (even though it did)
because ...our crimes can be deleted through that magical "we're too big and bad to fail"
button.
See, nothing to worry about.
(Except future historians who will not be blindfolded and gagged and who will
therefore have some choice things to say about the journalists who were fully complicit
in the crimes of this lawless era.)
They are not only presstitutes, they are degenerative presstitutes...
Notable quotes:
"... I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in an alleged scandal of this size. ..."
"... Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference. ..."
"... Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his 2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not. ..."
"... John Pilger's essay: Hold the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is so. ..."
"... but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. ..."
"... The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis] ..."
"... on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and etc - i found this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending.. ..."
"... That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best! ..."
"... Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence. ..."
"After the security briefing and everyone cleared out, McCabe shut the door to
Priebus's office. This is very weird, thought Priebus, who was standing by his
desk.
"You know this story in The New York Times?" Priebus knew it all too well.
McCabe was referring to a recent Times story of February 14 that stated, "Phone records
and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the elections, according to four
current and former American officials."
The story was one of the first bombs to go off about alleged Trump-Russian
connections after Flynn's resignation.
"It's total bullshit," McCabe said. "It's not true, and we want you to know
that. It's grossly overstated."
Oh my God, thought Priebus.
"Andrew," he said to the FBI deputy, "I'm getting killed."
The story about Russia and election meddling seemed to be running 24/7 on
cable news, driving Trump bananas and therefore driving Priebus bananas.
"This is crazy," Trump had told Priebus. "We've got to stop it. We need to
end the story."
McCabe had just walked in with a big gift, a Valentine's Day present. I'm
going to be the hero of this entire West Wing, Priebus thought.
"Can you help me?" Priebus asked. "Could this knockdown of the story be
made public?"
"Call me in a couple of hours," McCabe said. "I will ask around and I'll let
you know. I'll see what I can do."
Priebus practically ran to report to Trump the good news that the FBI would
soon be shooting down the Times story
Two hours passed and no call from McCabe. Priebus called him."I'm sorry, I can't," McCabe
said.
"There's nothing I can do about it. I tried, but if we start issuing comments on individual
stories, we'll be doing statements
every three days." The FBI could not become a clearinghouse for the accuracy of news stories.
If the FBI tried to debunk certain stories, a failure to comment could be seen as a
confirmation.
"Andrew, you're the one that came to my office to tell me this is a BS story,
and now you're telling me there's nothing you can do?"
McCabe said that was his position.
"This is insanity," Priebus said. "What am I supposed to do? Just suffer, bleed out?"
"Give me a couple more hours."
Nothing happened. No call from the FBI. Priebus tried to explain to Trump,
who was waiting for a recanting. It was another reason for Trump to distrust and
hate the FBI, a pernicious tease that left them dangling.
About a week later on February 24 CNN reported an exclusive: "FBI Refused
White House Request to Knock Down Recent Trump-Russia Story." Priebus
was cast as trying to manipulate the FBI for political purposes.
The White House tried and failed to correct the story and show that McCabe
had initiated the matter.
Four months later on June 8, Comey testified under oath publicly that the
original New York Times story on the Trump campaign aides' contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials "in the main was not true."
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling.
Posted by: Sid2 | Sep 20, 2018 3:03:44 PM | 3
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling, and concommittently the NYT is digging in; ergo ,
the NYT is also unravelling! The NYT will permanently damage its reputation with its own
readers.
I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the
fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it
would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in
an alleged scandal of this size.
Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of
advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's
campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked
not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal
email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference.
Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their
Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his
2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not.
John Pilger's essay: Hold
the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media
item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of
establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is
so.
Want to highlight this additional bit from Pilger:
"Journalism students should study this [New book from Media Lens Propaganda Blitz ]
to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news,
or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal
journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects
it, and colludes with it.
The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has
failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis]
IMO, the bolded text well describes BigLie Media. I wonder what George Seldes would say
differently from Pilger if he were alive. Unfortunately, Pilger failed to include MoA as a
source in his short list of sites having journalistic integrity.
on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and
etc - i found
this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending..
That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and
other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!
Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion
argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix
Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the
KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
"... The American Chamber of Commerce subsequently expanded its base from around 60,000 firms in 1972 to over a quarter of a million ten years later. Jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers (which moved to Washington in 1972) it amassed an immense campaign chest to lobby Congress and engage in research. The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEOs 'committed to the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation', was founded in 1972 and thereafter became the centrepiece of collective pro-business action. ..."
"... Nearly half the financing for the highly respected NBER came from the leading companies in the Fortune 500 list. Closely integrated with the academic community, the NBER was to have a very significant impact on thinking in the economics departments and business schools of the major research universities. ..."
"... In order to realize this goal, businesses needed a political class instrument and a popular base. They therefore actively sought to capture the Republican Party as their own instrument. The formation of powerful political action committees to procure, as the old adage had it, 'the best government that money could buy' was an important step. ..."
"... The Republican Party needed, however, a solid electoral base if it was to colonize power effectively. It was around this time that Republicans sought an alliance with the Christian right. The latter had not been politically active in the past, but the foundation of Jerry Falwell's 'moral majority' as a political movement in 1978 changed all of that. The Republican Party now had its Christian base. ..."
"... It also appealed to the cultural nationalism of the white working classes and their besieged sense of moral righteousness. This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded, if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti feminism. ..."
"... The alliance between big business and conservative Christians backed by the neoconservatives consolidated, not for the first time has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests ..."
"... Any political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold. ..."
"... Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social justice through the conquest of state power. ..."
"... By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological task. ..."
"... Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'postmodernism' which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s. ..."
"... Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. 'Strength', he wrote, 'lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations'. The National Chamber of Commerce, he argued, should lead an assault upon the major institutions––universities, schools, the media, publishing, the courts––in order to change how individuals think 'about the corporation, the law, culture, and the individual'. US businesses did not lack resources for such an effort, particularly when they pooled their resources together. ..."
The American Chamber of Commerce subsequently expanded its base from around 60,000 firms in 1972 to over a quarter of a million
ten years later. Jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers (which moved to Washington in 1972) it amassed an immense
campaign chest to lobby Congress and engage in research. The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEOs 'committed to the aggressive
pursuit of political power for the corporation', was founded in 1972 and thereafter became the centrepiece of collective pro-business
action.
The corporations involved accounted for 'about one half of the GNP of the United States' during the 1970s, and they spent close
to $900 million annually (a huge amount at that time) on political matters. Think-tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the
Hoover Institute, the Center for the Study of American Business, and the American Enterprise Institute, were formed with corporate
backing both to polemicize and, when necessary, as in the case of the National Bureau of Economic Research, to construct serious
technical and empirical studies and political-philosophical arguments broadly in support of neoliberal policies.
Nearly half the financing for the highly respected NBER came from the leading companies in the Fortune 500 list. Closely
integrated with the academic community, the NBER was to have a very significant impact on thinking in the economics departments
and business schools of the major research universities. With abundant finance furnished by wealthy individuals (such as
the brewer Joseph Coors, who later became a member of Reagan's 'kitchen cabinet') and their foundations (for example Olin, Scaife,
Smith Richardson, Pew Charitable Trust), a flood of tracts and books, with Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia perhaps the most widely
read and appreciated, emerged espousing neoliberal values. A TV version of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose was funded with a
grant from Scaife in 1977. 'Business was', Blyth concludes, 'learning to spend as a class.
In singling out the universities for particular attention, Powell pointed up an opportunity as well as an issue, for these
were indeed centers of anti-corporate and anti-state sentiment (the students at Santa Barbara had burned down the Bank of America
building there and ceremonially buried a car in the sands). But many students were (and still are) affluent and privileged, or
at least middle class, and in the US the values of individual freedom have long been celebrated (in music and popular culture)
as primary. Neoliberal themes could here find fertile ground for propagation. Powell did not argue for extending state power.
But business should 'assiduously cultivate' the state and when necessary use it 'aggressively and with determination'
In order to realize this goal, businesses needed a political class instrument and a popular base. They therefore actively
sought to capture the Republican Party as their own instrument. The formation of powerful political action committees to procure,
as the old adage had it, 'the best government that money could buy' was an important step. The supposedly 'progressive' campaign
finance laws of 1971 in effect legalized the financial corruption of politics.
A crucial set of Supreme Court decisions began in 1976 when it was first established that the right of a corporation to make
unlimited money contributions to political parties and political action committees was protected under the First Amendment guaranteeing
the rights of individuals (in this instance corporations) to freedom of speech.15 Political action committees could thereafter
ensure the financial domination of both political parties by corporate, moneyed, and professional association interests. Corporate
PACs, which numbered eighty-nine in 1974, had burgeoned to 1,467 by 1982.
The Republican Party needed, however, a solid electoral base if it was to colonize power effectively. It was around this time
that Republicans sought an alliance with the Christian right. The latter had not been politically active in the past, but the
foundation of Jerry Falwell's 'moral majority' as a political movement in 1978 changed all of that. The Republican Party now had
its Christian base.
It also appealed to the cultural nationalism of the white working classes and their besieged sense of moral righteousness.
This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded,
if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti feminism.
The alliance between big business and conservative Christians backed by the neoconservatives consolidated, not for the first
time has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests the evangelical Christians
eagerly embraced the alliance with big business and the Republican Party as a means to further promote their evangelical and moral
agenda.
Any political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold.
The worldwide political upheavals of 1968, for example, were strongly inflected with the desire for greater personal freedoms.
This was certainly true for students, such as those animated by the Berkeley 'free speech' movement of the 1960s or who took to
the streets in Paris, Berlin, and Bangkok and were so mercilessly shot down in Mexico City shortly before the 1968 Olympic Games.
They demanded freedom from parental, educational, corporate, bureaucratic, and state constraints. But the '68 movement also had
social justice as a primary political objective.
Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism,
identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social
justice through the conquest of state power. It has long proved extremely difficult within the US left, for example, to forge
the collective discipline required for political action to achieve social justice without offending the the Construction of Consent
desire of political actors for individual freedom and for full recognition and expression of particular identities. Neoliberalism
did not create these distinctions, but it could easily exploit, if not foment, them.
In the early 1970s those seeking individual freedoms and social justice could make common cause in the face of what many saw
as a common enemy. Powerful corporations in alliance with an interventionist state were seen to be running the world in individually
oppressive and socially unjust ways. The Vietnam War was the most obvious catalyst for discontent, but the destructive activities
of corporations and the state in relation to the environment, the push towards mindless consumerism, the failure to address social
issues and respond adequately to diversity, as well as intense restrictions on individual possibilities and personal behaviors
by state-mandated and 'traditional' controls were also widely resented. Civil rights were an issue, and questions of sexuality
and of reproductive rights were very much in play.
For almost everyone involved in the movement of '68, the intrusive state was
the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and
the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation: hence the threat to
capitalist class power.
By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state,
capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological
task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect
to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization
required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism
and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'postmodernism'
which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This
was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s.
In the US case a confidential memo sent by Lewis Powell to the US Chamber of Commerce in August 1971. Powell, about to be elevated
to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, argued that criticism of and opposition to the US free enterprise system had gone too far
and that 'the time had come––indeed it is long overdue––for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshaled
against those who would destroy it'.
Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. 'Strength', he wrote, 'lies in organization, in careful long-range
planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available
only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations'. The National
Chamber of Commerce, he argued, should lead an assault upon the major institutions––universities, schools, the media, publishing,
the courts––in order to change how individuals think 'about the corporation, the law, culture, and the individual'. US businesses
did not lack resources for such an effort, particularly when they pooled their resources together.
Documents leaked by internet hackers of Anonymous reveal how a supposedly independent think-tank based in the UK is a government
funded and controlled operation of misinformation and fake news.
At the same time that the Western powers were accusing Russia of interference in democracy, the UK government and its intelligence
services MI5 and MI6 were busily preventing the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain's
top advisory roles.
Details of the operation carried out by the Integrity Initiative (II), a project launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft,
have been published by the web site CyberGuerilla.org. It is a trove of documents allegedly hacked from II, showing carefully worked
out campaigns, costs and internal guidelines, as well as names of individuals cooperating with the network.
Anonymous shows that the network:
1. Is mainly funded by the UK government through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
2. Cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year.
3. Has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the US State Department.
4. Is controlled by figures in the UK who manipulate "clusters" of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and
journalists.
5. Clusters are said to operate in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, and Montenegro.
6. Its activities are carried under absolute secrecy via named intelligence services operatives in British embassies.
The Integrity Initiative poses as "Defending Democracy against Misinformation," but does exactly the opposite, spreading fake
news against Russia in order to defend the national interests of the UK and its imperialist allies, influence Russian speakers in
Europe and North America and "change attitudes in Russia itself".
An example of II's activities was the operation launched last June against the nomination of Army reserve colonel Pedro Baños
as Spain's Director of National Security. Attached to La Moncloa, the official residence and workplace of the prime minister of Spain,
the director's role is to advise the PM on existing and potential threats to the country and possible responses.
II's operation started after it was warned that the new Socialist Party (PSOE) government under Pedro Sánchez, which had just
been elected in parliament through a no confidence vote, was considering Baños and was about to confirm his appointment on June 7,
2018.
Immediately, newspapers like El Mundo and El País published articles accusing Baños of "sympathy for Russia."
Proof of this for El País was his "regular presence" on Russia Today and Sputnik , media outlets funded
by the Putin government. Further "evidence" was his tweet in response to a survey showing a domestic popularity rating of 74 percent
for Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Wouldn't we love to have a political leader half as popular right here in the European Union!!!"
Baños was also quoted as saying, "Which country has everything that we lack? Russia does. We will not gain anything by provoking
Russia. So Russia wants to have its own sphere of influence? Of course it does, just like the United States or China do. It also
wants to have its markets and like-minded countries nearby."
Numerous articles also put in doubt Baños' sanity for his participation in the popular offbeat TV show Cuarto Milenio that often
investigates topics such as conspiracy theories, ufology and parapsychology.
Baños reflects a minority realpolitik opinion within the Spanish ruling class which opposes provocative military actions and sanctions
against Russia. He sees the need to defend Spain's imperialist interests through a European army and closer relations with Russia
-- positions also held by sections of the German and French ruling elite.
The UK-sponsored II, however, saw Baños as a threat to British national interests and an obstacle to its anti-Russia campaign.
According to the hacked documents, at midday on June 7, 2018, the Spanish Cluster, obviously through informants at the highest levels
of the PSOE, "hear that a well-known pro-Kremlin voice, Pedro Baños, is to be appointed at the weekend (09.06.2018) as the Director
of the National Security Department (DSN), which works closely with the Spanish PM's office (La Moncloa) and is very influential
in shaping policy."
An action plan is drawn up laying out how Institute of Statecraft Fellow and Spain Cluster leader Nicólas de Pedro will alert
"the rest of the cluster members and prepare[s] a dossier to inform the main Spanish media. The cluster starts a Twitter campaign...
trying to prevent an appointment."
Spanish Cluster members also include Borja Lasheras and Quique Badia-Masoni, writers and journalists well known for their hysterical
anti-Russian positions. They are supported by II Team UK members Chris Hernon, Simon Bracey-Lane and Ben Robinson, and StopFake Spanish
Desk members Alina Mosendz and Serbian Cluster member Jelena Milic.
At 15:45, "The head of the Spanish cluster urgently contacts the British cluster, which activates the II network in order to create
international support for the Twitter campaign. The British Cluster creates a group in the WhatsApp messenger... to coordinate the
reaction on Twitter, gets contacts on Twitter to spread concerns and encourage people to 'retweet' the material. He publishes material
written by the head of the Spanish cluster Niko de Pedro on the Spanish version of the StopFake website, which is also 'retweeted'
by key influential figures."
The Spanish cluster then sends material to El País and El Mundo to publish. On the same day, El País
publishes, "Spanish PM taps Russia supporter for National Security Director."
The documents reveal that by 19:45, barely eight hours after the start of the operation, the "campaign [had] raised significant
noise on Twitter Contacts in the Socialist Party confirmed that this information reached the Prime Minister. Some Spanish diplomats
also expressed their concern. In the end, both the People's Party and the Civil Party (Ciudadanos) asked the Prime Minister to stop
the appointment."
The following day, the government drops Baños and nominates general Miguel Ángel Ballesteros instead.
The operation against Baños is a graphic illustration of the inner workings of the intelligence services in collaboration with
alleged "independent" journalists and academics. The same forces that accuse Russia of meddling in European nations' internal affairs
are themselves meddling to stop elected governments from nominating officials when it conflicts with their interests. They use social
media in the same way they accuse the Kremlin of using it.
By showing the real sources of information on which they rely, newspapers like El País or El Mundo are exposed
as conduits of the intelligence services to support the suppression of maverick political viewpoints, in this case, Baños' call for
closer relations with Russia.
Last year, El País carried out a
frenzied and paranoid campaign claiming that the Catalan crisis was not sparked by the Popular Party government's violent repression
of the secessionists, but was the result of Moscow and its "fake news." It quoted experts and specialists working for Spanish think
tanks like Instituto Elcano and Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The leaked documents show that many members of these think tanks are members of the "Spanish Cluster" of the Integrity Initiative.
The most notorious is Senior Analyst for Instituto Elcano, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi who testified last year in parliament to claim
that Russia was promoting fake news.
The Baños case is just one of the highlighted campaigns of Integrity Initiative, but according to Anonymous, similar operations
have been carried out in numerous other EU states.
The subtitle of this effusively admiring biography of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Grand Strategist, does not reflect its
true purpose. A more accurate one might be this: "Just as Smart as the Other Guy." The other guy, of course, is Henry Kissinger. The
implicit purpose of Justin Vaïsse's book is to argue that in his mastery of strategic thought and practice, Brzezinski ranks as Kissinger's
equal.
Notable quotes:
"... That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case. Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. ..."
"... After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university." Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington. For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished. Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard, was one of those places. ..."
"... From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy. ..."
"... Convinced that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence. ..."
"... This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer, rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets. According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the ..."
"... Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse." ..."
"... Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake." ..."
"... Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the presidency in 1976. ..."
"... When Carter won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of global celebrity. ..."
"... Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success. ..."
"... From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy," while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation. ..."
"... The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect. ..."
"... The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's emergence as a peer competitor. ..."
Underlying that purpose are at least two implicit assumptions. The first is that, when it comes to statecraft, grand strategy
actually exists, not simply as an aspiration but as a discrete and identifiable element. The second is that, in his writings and
contributions to US policy, Kissinger himself qualifies as a strategic virtuoso. For all sorts of reasons, we should treat both of
these assumptions with considerable skepticism.
That Brzezinski, who died last year at age 89, lived a life that deserves to be recounted and appraised is certainly the case.
Born in Warsaw in 1928 to parents with ties to Polish nobility, Brzezinski had a peripatetic childhood. His father was a diplomat
whose family accompanied him on postings to France, Germany, and eventually to Canada. The Nazi invasion of 1939, which extinguished
Polish independence, also effectively ended his father's diplomatic career. With war engulfing nearly all of Europe, Brzezinski would
not set foot on Polish soil again for nearly two decades.
Although the young Brzezinski quickly adapted to life in Canada, the well-being of Poles and Poland remained an abiding preoccupation.
After the war, he studied economics and political science at McGill University, focusing in particular on the Soviet Union, which
by then had replaced Germany as the power that dominated the country of his birth. Brzezinski was a brilliant student with a particular
interest in international affairs, a field increasingly centered on questions related to America's role in presiding over the postwar
global order.
After graduating from McGill, Brzezinski set his sights on Harvard, which at the time was the very archetype of a "Cold War university."
Senior faculty and young scholars on the make were volunteering to advise the national-security apparatus just then forming in Washington.
For many of them, the Soviet threat appeared to eclipse all other questions and fields of inquiry. In this setting, Brzezinski flourished.
Even before becoming an American citizen, he was thoroughly Americanized, imbued with the mind-set that prevailed in circles where
members of the power elite mixed and mingled. Partially funded by the CIA, the Russian Research Center, Brzezinski's home at Harvard,
was one of those places.
From his time in Cambridge, he emerged committed, in his own words, to "nothing less than formulating a coherent strategy for
the United States, so that we could eventually dismantle the Soviet bloc" and, not so incidentally, thereby liberate Poland. To this
cause, the young Brzezinski devoted himself with single-minded energy.
A s a scholar and author of works intended for a general audience, Zbig, as he was widely known, was nothing if not prolific.
Churning out a steady stream of well-regarded books and essays, he demonstrated a particular knack for "summarizing things in a concise
and striking way."
Clarity took precedence over nuance.
And with his gift for stylish packaging -- crafting neologisms ("technetronic")
and high-sounding phrases ("Histrionics as History in Transition") -- his analyses had the appearance of novelty, even if they often
lacked real substance.
Whether writing for his fellow scholars or addressing a wider audience, Brzezinski had one big idea when it
came to Cold War strategy: He promoted the concept of "peaceful engagement" as a basis for US policy.
Convinced that the Soviet Union
and the Soviet bloc were internally fragile, he believed that economic and cultural interaction with the West would ultimately lead
to their collapse. The idea was to project strength without provoking confrontation, while patiently exerting indirect influence.
Yet little of the Brzezinski oeuvre has stood the test of time. The American canon of essential readings in international relations
and strategy, beginning with George Washington's farewell address and continuing on through works by John Quincy Adams, Alfred Thayer
Mahan, Hans Morgenthau, and a handful of others (the list is not especially long), does not include anything penned by Brzezinski.
Although Vaïsse, a senior official with the French foreign ministry, appears to have read and pondered just about every word his
subject wrote or uttered, he identifies nothing of Brzezinski's that qualifies as must-reading for today's aspiring strategist.
This limited academic influence probably did not bother Zbig; he never saw himself as a mere scholar. He was a classic in-and-outer,
rotating effortlessly from university campuses to political campaigns, and from government service to plummy think-tank billets.
According to Vaïsse, Brzezinski never courted the media. Even so, he demonstrated a pronounced talent for getting himself in front
of TV cameras, becoming a frequent guest on programs like Meet the Press . He knew how to self-promote.
Toward the end of his life, Brzezinski even had a Twitter account. His last tweet, from May 2017, both summarizes the essence
of his worldview and expresses his dismay regarding the presidency of Donald Trump: "Sophisticated US leadership is the sine qua
non of a stable world order. However, we lack the former while the latter is getting worse."
F rom the time Brzezinski left Harvard in 1960 to accept a tenured position at Columbia, he made it his mission to nurture and
facilitate that sophistication. For Zbig, New York offered a specific advantage over Cambridge: It provided a portal into elite political
circles. As it had for Kissinger, the then-still-influential Council on Foreign Relations provided a venue that enabled Brzezinski
to curry favor with the rich and powerful, and to establish his bona fides as a statesman to watch. Henry's patron was Nelson Rockefeller;
Zbig's was Nelson's brother David.
Although not an ideologue, Brzezinski was a liberal Democrat of a consistently hawkish persuasion. Committed to social justice
at home, he was also committed to toughness abroad. In the 1960s, he supported US intervention in Vietnam, treated the domino theory
as self-evidently true, and argued that, with American credibility on the line, the United States had no alternative but to continue
prosecuting the war. Even after the war ended, Vaïsse writes, Brzezinski "did not view Vietnam as a mistake."
Yet Vietnam did nudge Brzezinski to reconsider some of his own assumptions. In the early 1970s, with an eye toward forging a new
foreign policy that might take into account some of the trauma caused by Vietnam, he organized the Trilateral Commission. Apart from
expending copious amounts of Rockefeller money, the organization produced little of substance. For Brzezinski, however, it proved
a smashing success. It was there that he became acquainted with Jimmy Carter, a Georgia governor then contemplating a run for the
presidency in 1976.
Zbig and Jimmy hit it off. Soon enough, Brzezinski signed on as the candidate's principal foreign-policy adviser. When Carter
won, he rewarded Brzezinski by appointing him national-security adviser, the job that had vaulted Kissinger to the upper ranks of
global celebrity.
Zbig held this post throughout Carter's one-term presidency, from 1977 to 1981. It would be his first and last time in government.
After 1981, Brzezinski went back to writing, continued to opine, and was occasionally consulted by Carter's successors, both Democratic
and Republican. Yet despite having ascended to the rank of elder statesman, never again did Brzezinski occupy a position where he
could directly affect US policy.
Because of Brzezinski's limited influence on foreign policy after Carter, Vaïsse's case for installing him in the pantheon of
master strategists therefore rests on the claim that on matters related to foreign policy, the Carter presidency was something less
than a bust. Vaïsse devotes the core of his book to arguing just that. Although valiant, the effort falls well short of success.
From the outset of his administration, Carter accorded his national-security adviser remarkable deference. Brzezinski was not
co-equal with the president; yet neither was he a mere subordinate. He was, Vaïsse writes, "the architect of Carter's foreign policy,"
while also exercising "an exceptional degree of control" over its articulation and implementation.
In a characteristic display of self-assurance and bureaucratic shrewdness, as the new president took office, Brzezinski gave him
a 43-page briefing book prescribing basic administration policy. Under the overarching theme of "constructive global engagement,"
Brzezinski identified 10 specific goals. The first proposed to "create more active and solid cooperation with Europe and Japan,"
the 10th to "maintain a defense posture designed to dissuade the Soviet Union from committing hostile acts." In between were less-than-modest
aspirations to promote human rights, reduce the size of nuclear arsenals, curb international arms sales, end apartheid in South Africa,
normalize Sino-American relations, terminate US control of the Panama Canal, and achieve an "overall solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
problem."
While Brzezinski's agenda was as bold as it was comprehensive, it nonetheless hewed to the Soviet-centric assumptions that had
formed the basis of US policy since the end of World War II. Zbig recognized that the world had changed considerably in the ensuing
years, but he also believed that any future changes would still occur in the context of a continuing Soviet-American rivalry. His
strategic perspective, therefore, did not include the possibility that the international order might center on something other than
the binaries imposed by the Cold War. The disintegration of the Soviet bloc and eventually of the Soviet Union itself was, in his
view, a nominal goal of American foreign policy, but not an immediate prospect.
Using Brzezinski's 10 policy objectives as a basis for evaluating his performance, Vaïsse gives the national-security adviser
high marks. "Few administrations have known so many tangible successes in only four years," he writes, citing the Panama Canal Treaty,
the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement, and improved relations with China. Yet while Panama remains an underappreciated achievement,
the other two qualify as ambiguous at best. The Camp David accords did nothing to resolve the Palestinian issue that underlay much
of Israeli-Arab enmity; it produced a dead-end peace that left Palestinians without a state and Israel with no end of problems. And
the Brzezinski-engineered embrace of China, enhancing Chinese access to American technology and markets, accelerated that country's
emergence as a peer competitor.
More troubling still was Brzezinski's failure to anticipate or to grasp the implications of the two developments that all but
doomed the Carter presidency: the 1978 Iranian Revolution and the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Vaïsse does his best to
cast a positive light on Brzezinski's role in these twin embarrassments. But there's no way around it: Brzezinski misread both --
with consequences that still haunt us today.
The Iranian Revolution, which Brzezinski sought to forestall by instigating a military coup in Tehran, offered a warning against
imagining that Washington could shape events in the Islamic world. Brzezinski missed that warning entirely, although he would by
no means be the last US official to do so. As for the Kremlin's plunge into Afghanistan, widely interpreted as evidence of the Soviet
Union's naked aggression, it actually testified to the weakness and fragility of the Soviet empire, already in an advanced state
of decay. Again, Brzezinski -- along with many other observers -- misread the issue. When clarity of vision was most needed, he failed
to provide it.
Together, these two developments ought to have induced a wily strategist to reassess the premises of US policy. Instead, they
resulted in decisions to deepen -- and to overtly militarize -- US involvement in and around the Persian Gulf. While this commitment
is commonly referred to as the Carter Doctrine, Vaïsse insists that it "was really a Brzezinski doctrine."
Regardless of who gets the credit, the militarization of US policy across what Brzezinski termed an "arc of crisis" encompassing
much of the Islamic world laid the basis for a series of wars and upheavals that continue to this day. If, as national-security adviser,
Brzezinski wielded as much influence as Vaïsse contends, then this too forms part of his legacy. When it mattered most, the master
strategist failed to understand the implications of the crisis that occurred on his watch.
The most glaring problem anyone faces in trying to assert Brzezinski's mastery of world affairs, however, rests not in Iran or
Afghanistan, but in how the Cold War came to an end. Indeed, Brzezinski viewed it as essentially endless. As late as 1987, just two
years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was still insisting that "the American-Soviet conflict is an historical rivalry that
will endure for as long as we live."
B rzezinski was certainly smart, flexible, and pragmatic, but he was also a prisoner of the Cold War paradigm. So too were virtually
all other members of the foreign-policy establishment of his day. Indeed, subscribing to that paradigm was a prerequisite of membership.
Yet this adherence amounted to donning a pair of strategic blinders: It meant seeing only those things that it was convenient to
see.
Which brings us back to Zbig's last tweet, with its paean to American leadership as the sine qua non of global stability. The
tweet neatly captures the mind-set that the foreign-policy establishment has embraced with something like unanimity since the Cold
War surprised that establishment by coming to an end. This mind-set gets expressed in myriad ways in a thousand speeches and op-eds:
The United States must lead. There is no alternative; history itself summons the country to do so. Should it fail in that responsibility,
darkness will cover the earth.
This is why Trump so infuriates the foreign-policy elite: He appears oblivious to the providential call that others in Washington
take to be self-evident. Yet adhering to this post–Cold War paradigm is also the equivalent of donning blinders. Whatever the issue
-- especially when the issue is ourselves -- it means seeing only those things that we find it convenient to see.
The post–Cold War paradigm of American moral and political hegemony prevents us from appreciating the way that the world is actually
changing -- rapidly, radically, and right before our very eyes. Today, with the planet continuing to heat up, the nexus of global
geopolitics shifting eastward, and Americans pondering security threats for which our pricey and far-flung military establishment
is all but useless, the art of strategy as practiced by members of Brzezinski's generation has become irrelevant. So too has Zbig
himself.
"... Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back. ..."
"... Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs of the intelligence community and have been for many years. ..."
"... I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount, and must be maintained at all costs. ..."
"... It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal than mere collusion ..."
"... "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw" ..."
"... Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair. ..."
The more important objection is that the fact that a certain behavior is common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed,
as is true for government abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be trained to view corrupt
acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as
commonplace, then it is transformed in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable.
Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing
from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back.
Besides, they don't all do it ... there are honorable reporters out there, some few of whom work for the Times and the Post.
Another great article Glenn. The Guardian will spread your words further and wider. Salon's loss is the world's gain.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs
of the intelligence community and have been for many years. That these email were allowed to get out under FOIA is indicative
of the fact that there are some people on the inside who would like to get the truth out. Either that, or the head of some ES-2's
Assistant Deputy for Secret Shenanigans and Heinous Drone Murders will roll.
Scott Horton quote on closely related Mazzetti reporting (in this case regarding misleading reporting on how important CIA/Bush
torture was in tracking down and getting bin Laden, the focus of this movie):
"I'm quite sure that this is precisely the way the folks who provided this info from the agency [to Mazzetti] wanted them to
be understood, but there is certainly more than a measure of ambiguity in them, planted with care by the NYT writers or their
editors. This episode shows again how easily the Times can be spun by unnamed government sources, the factual premises of whose
statements invariably escape any examination."
I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't
care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount,
and must be maintained at all costs.
If you don't like their paper-thin answers, tough. In their view (imo) this will blow over and business will resume, with the
all-important friends and connections intact. Thus leaving the machinery intact for future uncritical, biased and manipulative
"spin" of NYT by any number of unnamed govt. sources/agencies...
In what conceivable way is Mazzetti's collusion with the CIA an "intelligence matter" that prevents the NYT's managing
editor from explaining what happened here?
That one is easy, as we learned in the Valerie Plame affair. It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal
than mere collusion.
Just another step down the ladder towards despotism. "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment
by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw"
The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these
emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.
Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual
crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair.
The humor seems to go completely out of the issue when 100,000 people are dead and their families and futures changed forever.
"... It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." ..."
"... The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times ..."
The New York Times published a fraudulent and provocative "special report" Thursday titled "The plot to subvert an election."
Replete with sinister looking graphics portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a villainous cyberage cyclops, the report
purports to untangle "the threads of the most effective foreign campaign in history to disrupt and influence an American election."
The report could serve as a textbook example of CIA-directed misinformation posing as "in-depth" journalism. There is no news,
few substantiated facts and no significant analysis presented in the 10,000-word report, which sprawls over 11 ad-free pages of a
separate section produced by the Times.
The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City
and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker,"
and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin,
it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory
laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." The article begins with an ominous-sounding
recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016,
one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye
Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin,
it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory
laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Why does it "appear" to be the Kremlin? What is the evidence to support this claim? Among the 8.5 million inhabitants of New York
City and another 700,000 in Washington, D.C., aren't there enough people who might despise Obama as much as, if not a good deal more
than, Vladimir Putin?
This absurd passage with its "appeared" and "may well have" combined with the speculation about the Kremlin extending its evil
grip onto "United States soil" sets the tone for the entire piece, which consists of the regurgitation of unsubstantiated allegations
made by the US intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians and the Times itself.
The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed,
despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle
class that constitute the target audience of the Times , polls have indicated that the charges of Russian "meddling" in
the 2016 presidential election have evoked little popular response among the
"We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few."
Notable quotes:
"... bin laden gave terror a face. how conveeeenient for warmongers everywhere! ..."
"... CIA in collusion with mainstream newspaper NYT. And you call this news ? ..."
"... collusion between the us media and the us government goes back much, much further. Chomsky has plenty of stuff about this... ..."
"... The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees. ..."
"... The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives. ..."
"... World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century, the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes little sense now." ..."
"... just off the top of my head I recall the editor of one of a British major was an MI5 agent; this is in the public domain. ..."
"... We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few. ..."
"... The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman" JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA). ..."
I've often wondered what you think of the journalism of someone like Seymour Hirsch. (sic) He broke some very important
stories by cozying up to moles in the MIC.
You'e confusing apples with oranges. Hersh seeks information on issues that outrage him. These do not usually include propaganda
for the intelligence agencies, but information they would like to suppress. He's given secret information because he appears to
his informers as someone who has a long record of integrity.
It's straight outta that old joke about the husband being caught by his wife in flagrante delicto with the pretty young lady neighbour,
who then tells his wife that he and his bit on the side weren't doing anything: "And who do you believe-- me, or your lying eyes?"
The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the
war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they
didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost
their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees.
Following the pre-Iraq
embellishment, NYT covered up its deeds by sacrificing Journalist Judith Miller. As Miller answered a post-war court case, none
other than Chairman & CEO Arthur Sulzberger jr. locked arms with her as they entered the courtroom.
The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is
to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives.
World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page
law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century,
the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic
historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes
little sense now."
NYT, a liberal icon? In year 2000, when I lived in NYC, New York Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal used to regularly demonize
China in language surpassing even Rush Limbaugh. I told myself nah, that's not the Rosenthal-former-editor of the NYT. Only when
I read his obituary a few years later did I learn that it was indeed the same one.
We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few.
NOAM CHOMSKY _MANUFACTURING CONSENT haven't read it? read it. read it? read it again.
thought totalitarianism and the ruling class died in 1945? think again. thought you wouldn't have to fight like grandpa's generation
to live in a democratic and just society? think again.
Would that we could hold these discussions without reference to personal defamations -- "darkened ignorance" and "educate yourself"
which sounds like "f___ yourself". Why can't we just say "I respectfully disagree"? Alas, when discussing political issues with
leftists, that seems impossible. Why the vitriol?
Greenwald's more lengthy posts make it clear that he believes that people who differ with him are "lying" and basing their
viewpoint upon "a single right wing blogger". He chooses this explanation over the obvious and accurate one -- legal rationales
developed by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. The date of Greenwald's archive is February 19, 2006.
Oddly, he bases all of his contentions upon whatever he could glean up to that date. But the legal rationale for warrantless wiretaps
was based upon memos written by John Yoo at the OLC that Greenwald did not have access to in 2006. The memos were not released
until after Obama took office in 2009.
Obama released them in a highly publicized press conference staged for maximum political impact. Greenwald could not possibly
have understood the legal rationale for the program since he had not been privy to them until March 2009 if, indeed, he has bothered
to acquaint himself with them since then. Either way, nobody was "lying" except those who could have understood the full dimension
and willfully chose to hide or ignore the truth. It's not exactly like I am new to this subject as you seem to imply. I wrote
a 700 page book about Obama administration duplicity in this same vein. An entire chapter is devoted to this very topic.
Warrantless wiretaps were undertaken after a legal ruling from OLC. And after Obama took office, warrantless wiretaps were
continued. Obviously since they were based upon OLC rulings, since no prosecutions have ever been suggested and since they have
continued uninterrupted after Obama took office, the Justice Department under both administrations agrees with me and disagrees
with Greenwald. We arrive at this disagreement respectfully. Despite Obama's voluminous denunciations of the Bush anti-terror
approach on the campaign trail, he resurrected nearly every plank of it once he took office.
But this is a subsidiary point to a far larger point that some observers on this discussion to their credit were able to understand.
Despite all of these pointless considerations, the larger point of my original post was that Greenwald missed the "real" story
here, which was that the collusion between NYT and CIA was not due to institutional considerations as Greenwald seems to allege,
but due to purely partisan considerations. That, to me, is the story he missed.
I find that people who are losing debates try to shift the focus to subsidiary points hoping that, like a courtroom lawyer,
if they can refute a small and inconsequential detail raised in testimony, they will undercut the larger truth offered by the
witness. It won't work. Too much is on the record. And neither point, the ankle-biting non-issue about legality of warrantless
wiretaps or the larger, salient point about the overt partisan political dimension of NYT's collusion with a political appointee
at CIA who serves on the Obama reelection committee, has been refuted.
Joseph Toomey
Author, "Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies"
Conspiracy theorists, have been, of course, telling you this for years (given media's motive is profit and not honesty). I suppose
the exact same conspiracy theorists other guardian authors have been too eager to denounce previously?
The NSA wiretap program revealed by Risen was not illegal as Greenwald wrongly asserts. As long as one end of the intercepted
conservation originated on foreign soil as it did, it was perfectly legal and required no FISA court authorization.
Mr. Toomey, in 2006 Greenwald
published a compendium of legal arguments defending the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping and the (sound) rebuttals of
them. It is exhaustive, and covers your easily dispensed with argument. By way of introduction to his many links to his
aggregated, rigorous analyses of the legal issues, he wrote this:
I didn't just wake up one day and leap to the conclusion that the Administration broke the law deliberately and that there
are no reasonable arguments to defend that law-breaking (as many Bush followers leaped to the conclusion that he did nothing
wrong and then began their hunt to find rationale or advocates to support this conclusion). I arrived at the conclusion that
Bush clearly broke the law only by spending enormous amounts of time researching these issues and reading and responding to
the defenses from the Administration's apologists.
He did spend enormous time dealing with people such as yourself, and all of his work remains available for you to educate
yourself with, at the link provided above.
Maybe you'd like to explain that to Samuel Loring Morison who was convicted and spent years in the federal system for passing
classified information to Janes Defence Weekly. I'm sure he'd be entertained. Larry Franklin would also like to hear it. He's
in prison today for violating the Espionage Act.
Courts have recognized no press privilege exists when publishing classified data. In 1971, the Supreme Court vacated a prior
restraint against NYT and The Washington Post allowing them to publish the Pentagon Papers. But the court also observed that prosecutions
after-the-fact would be permissible and not involve an abridgement of the free speech clause. It was only the prior restraint
that gave the justices heartburn. They had no issue with throwing them in the slammer after the deed was done.
Thomas Drake, a former NSA official, was indicted and convicted after revealing information to reporters in 2010. The statute
covers mere possession which even NYT recognized could cover reporters as well. There have been numerous other instances of arrests,
indictments and prosecutions for disclosure to reporters. It's only been due to political calculations and not constitutional
limitations that have kept Risen and others out of prison.
The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman"
JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT
despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA).
What outrages me the most is the NYT's condescending attitude towards its readers when caught in this obvious breach of journalistic
ethics.
Both Baquet and Abramson, rather than showing some humility or contrition, are acting as if nothing bad has happened, and that
we are stupid to even talk about this.
This article misses the elephant in the room. Namely, that the NYT only plays footsies with Democrats in positions of power.
With the 'Pubs, it's open season.
Not true. There are many examples of the NYT colluding with the Bush administration, some of which Glenn has mentioned in this
article. Take, for example, the fact that the NYT concealed Bush's wire-tapping program for almost a year, at the request of the
White House, and didn't release details until after Bush's re-election.
"... The Government leaks classified material at will for propaganda advantage, but hunts Assange and tortures Private Manning for the same. ..."
"... these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them. ..."
"... The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool. ..."
The New York Crimes. The seamless web of media, government, business: a totalitarian system.
Darkly amusing, perhaps, unless one begins to tally the damage.
USA Inc. Viva Death,
Did you hear the one about the investment banker whose very expensive hooker bite off his
crank?
I'm not sure what's scarier--that the CIA is spending taxpayer dollars spending even a split
second worrying about what a two bit hack like Maureen Dowd writes, or that the NY Times
principals are so institutionally "captured" that they parrot "CIA speak".
Or maybe that our purported public servants in the legislature are bipartisanly
and openly attempting to repeal portions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign
Relations Authorization Act in 1987 banning domestic propaganda.
America is becoming a real sick joke. And the last to know will be about 65% of the
populace I like to call Sheeple.
Very depressing. I thought we would get a smart bunch over here. The major trend I've noticed
instead? Blind support for the empire and the apparatus that keeps it thriving. Unable to be
good little authoritarians and cheer for the now collapsing British Empire, they have to
cheer for it's natural predecessor, the American Empire. This includes attacking all those
who might question the absolute infallible of The Empire. Folks like.. Glenn. It is
fascinating to watch, if not disheartening.
So all cozying up to spooks is not always a bad thing, huh?
Just my point.
I see. I thought your point was that there was some sort of equivalence between Hersh's
development of sources to reveal truths that their agencies fervently wished to keep secret
and Mazzetti's active assistance in protecting an agency's image from sullying by fellow
journalists.
And that ended his career in government service, as it should have...or not:
From Wikipedia: John O. Brennan is chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President
Barack Obama; officially his title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security
and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
Unfortunately this is nothing new for Mazetti or the New York Times, nor is it the first time
Glenn Greenwald has called Mazetti out on his cozy relationship with the CIA:
The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash
The coordinated, successful effort to implant false story lines about John Brennan
illustrates the power the intelligence community wields over political debates.
Glenn Greenwald Dec. 08, 2008 |
...Just marvel at how coordinated (and patently inaccurate) their messaging is, and --
more significantly -- how easily they can implant their message into establishment media
outlets far and wide, which uncritically publish what they're told from their cherished
"intelligence sources" and without even the pretense of verifying whether any of it is true
and/or hearing any divergent views:
Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, New York Times, 12/2/2008:
Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama's likeliest
choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal
critics attacked his alleged role in the agency's detention and interrogation program. Mr.
Brennan protested that he had been a "strong opponent" within the agency of harsh
interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not
worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
Mr. Obama's search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are
complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush
administration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a
central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said
Mr. Obama's decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a
message that "if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted," and
had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency's clandestine service.
...The story, by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, noted that John O. Brennan had withdrawn
his name from consideration for CIA director after liberal critics attacked his role in the
agency's interrogation program, even though Brennan characterized himself as a "strong
opponent" within the agency of harsh interrogation techniques. Brennan's characterization was
not disputed by anyone else in the story, even though most experts on this subject agree that
Brennan acquiesced in everything that the CIA did in this area while he served there.
"these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Glenn - the only objection I have to your column and all your previous columns on this
matter is that I am not sure the establishment media actually claim to be watchdogs, at least
not any more, and certainly not since Sept 11. They really are more like PR reps.
The media is another tool in the [government, in this case] arsenal to help send a
message, as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
Yes. The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an
eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool.
Did everyone forget the Judith Miller article? The usage of Twitter and other social media
during the Iranian election of 2009? The leaks about the Iranian nuclear program in the
Telegraph? ARDA?
The U.S. government, along with every other government in the world, uses the media to
influence public opinion and send geopolitical messages to others that understand the message
(normally not the masses). The media is another tool in the arsenal to help send a message,
as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
We use social media to create social unrest if it aligns with our interests. We use the
media to send political messages and influence public opinion. The vast majority of reporting
in the N.Y. Times, WSJ, Guardian, Telegraph, and etc. do not reflect this, but every now and
then "unnamed sources" help further a geopolitical message.
In this country, it has been that way since before the founding fathers and the Republic.
Remember the Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Sam Adams as Vtndex, and etc.? Newspapers used for
"propaganda" purposes.
Upthread I asked him for his comments on the reporting of Seymour Hirsh. He is someone
who cozied up to all kinds of people - and wound up busting some extremely important
stories in the process.
I think a modest amount of review of Sy Hersh's work will demonstrate that his "cozying
up" hasn't included running interference for the spooks' official PR flacks.
"... For one thing, Marzetti apparently passed a draft of a Maureen Dowd column for vetting by the CIA . Her importance, or not, as a columnist or pundit aside, why would a NYT employee slip material to a gov't agency? That's the skillset of an informant, not a journalist. ..."
"... Today, the Wall Street-Security-Military Industrial Complex is unchallenged. Exaggerated respect is shown to the Military. Many of the Reporters who called in question the Political-Military establishment during Vietnam were muted during the second invasion of Iraq. None of lessons that Vietnam should have taught them about the lengths the Government would go to such as out right lies, and covert deceit were learned. Perhaps they were cowed into cooperation. ..."
"... Unprincipled and disingenuous - both the Obama Administration and the New York Times. Doesn't come as a surprise though ... ..."
"... I'd be worried about anyone going to the CIA for their fact-checking too... ..."
"The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried
to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration."
I would have answered just as OnYourMarx has done. Most every story Hersh broke was from a series of well-developed relationships
within CIA and/or MIC.
In terms of its relevance, it seems to me that any real journalist worth their salt does this. And so rather than deride those
who have relationships with government sources, we need to dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves what distinguishes the kind Hersh
developed from those that are problematic.
Excuse me for thinking that perhaps in the context of a discussion about the relationship between the media and government, it
might be helpful to talk about how journalists can actually use their relationships with people in the government to break important
stories. So I noted my thoughts about Hersh and asked for his.
Contrary to "gotcha," I thought it might be an opportunity to take the conversation a bit deeper. As with what I said about
humor, its no skin off my nose if no one takes me up on it. The only reason I brought it up later is because someone suggested
perhaps I should attempt to engage on a more substantive level...which I had done.
I've been completely upfront about the fact that I disagree with Glenn on most things (although I'll just point out that I
did comment about how much I agreed with his article on authoritarianism). So please also excuse me while I try to learn all the
rules about what is ok and not ok to talk about and how I'm supposed to do that properly in order to satisfy someone like you.
But thanks for ultimately getting back to the point in talking about the difference being what emerges from the "cozy relationship."
I actually disagree with that though. I think it depends on the journalist's ability to do critical thinking and questioning.
If they're merely stenographers or are simply set on finding something negative - either way they corrupt what the real story
might be.
Let's clear up one thing...Maureen Down is not a journalist OR a reporter. She is opinion columnist.
You can suggest that there's a qualitative difference between journalists and reporters, but Dowd is neither one. So to
me, the distinction when it comes to her is meaningless.
If that is so, then why would the CIA be so interested in what she wrote? And why would a NYT employee pass an unpublished
draft to them without, presumably, checking with an editor? "See, nothing to worry about," indeed.
Frankly, I don't even understand what your hang up is. Was Marzetti supposed to violate this woman's trust? Is he not supposed
to talk to government officials in order to report the news, which is the whole raison d'etre of his career.
For one thing, Marzetti apparently passed a draft of a Maureen Dowd column for vetting by the CIA . Her importance,
or not, as a columnist or pundit aside, why would a NYT employee slip material to a gov't agency? That's the skillset of an informant,
not a journalist.
I didn't think Ms. Dowd was that important to our nation's security, but that aside, why pass company material to outsiders?
"This song was known to everybody. A book was afterward printed, with a regular license He happened to select and print
in his journal this song ... He was seised in his bed that night and has been never since heard of. Our excellent journal
de Paris then is suppressed and this bold traitor has been in jail now three weeks Thus you see, madam, the value of energy
in government; our feeble republic would in such a case have probably been wrapt in the flames of war and desolation for want
of a power lodged in a single hand to punish summarily those who write songs."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in Paris, to Abigail Adams, June 21, 1785
Right, and I knew some of that. However I was after the other commenter's notions of what he meant by saying Hersh "cozyd
up" to CIA and MIC ppl, with an eye to figuring out why s/he thinks Hersh and his sources have relevance to the article being
discussed.
I've often wondered what you think of the journalism of someone like Seymour Hirsch. He broke some very important stories
by cozying up to moles in the MIC.
And I assumed Glenn supported Hirsh's work.
It's been kind of a long day. And, it's possible that I either need another drink, or to simply hit the sack. So, apologies
if this comes off sounding less than supportive. While you're busy wondering and assuming , you might better advance
your case if you also did a little Googling . And, pro tip, it wouldn't hurt to spell Hersh's name correctly. Lends credibility,
methinks.
I'd suggest that you were ignored because of the gotcha flavor to the way you tried to engage. I would also suggest
that if Glenn thought you were asking your question with some sincere intent, he might answer that it depends on how that coziness
is conducted, and what emerges from that "cozy relationship." Dan Gillmor's piece - to which Glenn links - on this subject
may add some additional insight.
In other words, if you're gonna do gotcha it helps not to show your hand too soon, or be quite so transparent. One could
do a little research first and bring their best game.
@MonaHot: Hersh's New Yorker piece about Bush regime ramping up against Iran in 2008. Robert Baer of the CIA was at least one
of his sources for that piece. In fact the film Syriana based Clooney's character on Baer.
Richard Armitage is the other MIC dude that comes to mind when thinking back on Hersh's stories. There must be countless of
them, though, including Saudis and Israelis who work to provide info to the MIC.
And I assumed Glenn supported Hirsh's work. That's why I brought him up. He cozys up to MIC folks as well. So its important
to make a distinction between cozying up to break important stories and cozying up to get access to power...a distinction that
Glenn didn't make.
What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific example of a story he broke after
doing that?
The American Mega-Media has long been in the bag of Corporatism. Long gone are the days of reporters challenging the Military.
During the Vietnam War the Military Briefings were Derisively called the Five O' Clock Follies.
Today, the Wall Street-Security-Military Industrial Complex is unchallenged. Exaggerated respect is shown to the Military.
Many of the Reporters who called in question the Political-Military establishment during Vietnam were muted during the second
invasion of Iraq. None of lessons that Vietnam should have taught them about the lengths the Government would go to such as out
right lies, and covert deceit were learned. Perhaps they were cowed into cooperation.
Julian Assange who should be seen as a hero to the free press was vilified by our corporate press. Assange did the work a free
press and a real reporter should perform.
Let's clear up one thing...Maureen Down is not a journalist OR a reporter. She is opinion columnist.
You can suggest that there's a qualitative difference between journalists and reporters, but Dowd is neither one. So to me,
the distinction when it comes to her is meaningless.
And I assumed Glenn supported Hirsh's work. That's why I brought him up. He cozys up to MIC folks as well. So its important
to make a distinction between cozying up to break important stories and cozying up to get access to power...a distinction that
Glenn didn't make.
Finally, I have no need whatsoever for anyone to laugh with me. I just found the juxtaposition of Dowd and reporting to be
funny. Someone said something similar and I added my agreement. If its not funny to you - ignore it. Not sure why you'd think
I'd expect anything else.
Mr. Grenwald, let's not make more of this than it's worth. I see nothing wrong with newspapers working with government agencies
in order to report their news to their readership. Frankly, I don't even understand what your hang up is. Was Marzetti supposed
to violate this woman's trust? Is he not supposed to talk to government officials in order to report the news, which is the whole
raison d'etre of his career.
Mr Greenwald, please don't pretend that journalism has only just 'degraded'
If the sub-header had read "Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has only just
lost the imperative to be a check to power" then you would have a case.
It doesn't, and you don't.
Next time read past the sub-header. You might get more out of it.
Exactly. Not coming from the so-called socialistic/communistic Democrat party either. In fact, the only reference I have seen
to poverty since John Edwards in 2008 (he who shall not be named!) is on the front page of HuffPo, where there are Shadow Conventions,
one of which concerns Poverty in America. There was a book in 1962, The Other America by Michael Harrington. We are well
on our way to having that be The Only America , at least for the vast majority of us.
I'd agree that the comment Glenn responded to was pretty superficial. I was just laughing with another commenter at the
idea of Dowd doing any actual reporting.
What's interesting to me is that's the one Glenn responded to. And yet when I asked what I believe was a pretty substantive
question about where the reporting of someone like Seymour Hirsh [sic] fits into his critique of journalism, he ignores it.
Superficial? He responded because, intentionally or not, you misrepresented what he said. While you may not have appreciated
the difference, "reporting" and "journalism" are qualitatively (there's that word you don't like) different things.
It takes very little in the way of courage, skill or talent to work as a "reporter" for a major mainstream newspaper like the
New York Times. For most pieces that the government has an interest in spinning (like the one under discussion), this is how it
works: 1. Type up the words of anonymous officials, 2. Submit your article to those same officials for "fact-checking," censorship
and approval, 3. Retire for the day.
Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, and not a trained journalist, on the other hand, is doing real journalism, and putting
most reporters to shame in the process. I can count on a single hand the number of reporters in the U.S. who deserve, like Greenwald,
to have the term of art "journalism" applied to their work. Hersh is one of them, and in this context, there isn't any more to
say with regards to a "critique."
As far as Glenn's own position goes, you can read any number of articles where he has praised Hersh's work. Just Google it.
That said, by joining the Guardian, Greenwald has graduated to a milieu where he rightly expects higher standards, in both
professional practice and in the quality of his readership. That doesn't mean you leave levity at the door, but it does mean that
you leave your whiny, self-entitled attitude ("But why won't he answer the question I really want him to answer?").
There are serious issues at stake here. I have a genuine question for you: if you disagree with Greenwald so much, why would
you expect him (or most of his readers) to laugh along with what you find funny?
Think about that, and get back to me if you come up with something plausible.
The USA has become so engrossed in itself that it doesn't even pretend to be a judicial state. Here we have a man called Osama
Bin Laden who is innocent of any crime yet the President of the United States of America brags about having him murdered.
This means that a precedent has been set that the President can order the murder of anyone even you.
The reason I said that perhaps I'd need to leave off the levity is that it was my superficial comment finding some humor in
all this that Glenn responded to and suggested that I was a complainer lacking in quality. It wasn't meant as anything but a half-baked
half-assed jab at the lightweight known as Maureen Dowd.
But as I said above, when I attempted to engage with some substance, I got ignored. I have no doubt that Glenn has a sense
of humor. But I'm afraid I'm not a good enough humorist to combine a laugh with in-depth engagement.
I'm counting on you being right on the idea that Glenn thrives on well reasoned dissent. That's why I'm here.
Indeed. Horse-hooey is a pleasant alternative to this steaming load of self-congratulatory manure.
About those fabled "handouts" ...where are they? Not in evidence when I see the local homeless vets in their wheelchairs...Nowhere
to be found when I see children shivering at bus stops without proper coats...can't quite see it in my overcrowded library...one
of the hottest tickets in town because it's literally a warm place to go. I'm sure parents who've lost homes because they were
craven enough to have a sick child and went bankrupt caring for them would love to find this fabled place where those generous
hands, stuffed full of money and goodies, are vying with each other to make things right.
If only we could find it.
-------------
"As of March 2012, 46.4 million Americans were receiving on average $133.14 per month in food stamps. "
According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, there was a payment error rate of 4.36% of food stamps
benefits down from 9.86% in 1999. A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker,
not the participant. ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges
Remain GAO report number GAO-10-956T, " July 28, 2010)
Wow, let's go wild on $33.25 a week! And then be accused of being "lazy," "pigs," "welfare queens," "parasites," "scum," etc.
[Pay no attention to the fat man behind the curtain busy purchasing his third home, or paying his lawyer to find another tax
loophole in the Virgin Islands; that pure industrious Republican bloke is too busy to stick his neck out and see the world as
he's helped make it for others.]
As if the National Transportation Safety Board didn't have enough to worry about.
Oh, and Glenn, here's a Salon story from 2010 titled
The NYT spills key military secrets on its front page .
Your lede: "In The New York Times today, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets
-- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country ..."
This didn't come from me, and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about. -- Guardian story
Update 5: Cohen has been sentenced to 36 months in prison for his crimes, far below the
guideline of 51 - 63 months laid out by New York prosecutors. The Judge noted that the
guidelines aren't binding and had the ability to issue a lesser sentence.
Cohen has also been hit with forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a fine
of $50,000. He will be allowed to voluntarily surrender on March 6 .
Update 4: Judge Pauley has responded following Cohen's statement, saying "Mr. Cohen's crimes
implicate a far more insidious crime to our democratic institutions especially in view of his
subsequent plea to making false statements to Congress," adding that Cohen's crimes warrant
"specific deterrence."
Update 3: Cohen has spoken, telling the Judge: "Recently the president tweeted a statement
calling me weak and it was correct but for a much different reason than he was implying. It was
because time and time again i felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds." Judge William
Pauley, meanwhile, noted that Cohen pleaded guilty to a " veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent
conduct ," which was motivated by "personal greed and ambition."
Update 2: Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, continues to reference Cohen's desire to cooperate
further with prosecutors to answer future questions - however Manhattan prosecutors don't
appear to care, according to Bloomberg banking reporter Shahien Nasiripour. In a memo last week
to the court, they said that Cohen's promise to cooperate further is worthless - especially
since there would be nothing requiring him to do so once he's already been sentenced.
Meanwhile, Jeannie Rhee - an attorney with Robert Mueller's office, told the court that
while Cohen lied to the special counsel's team during his first interview in July, he has been
truthful since.
Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos, however, says that any reduction in sentence
"should be modest."
Roos added that Cohen "has eroded faith in the electoral process and compromised the rule of
law," and that he engaged in " a pattern of deception of brazenness and greed ."
Update: Cohen's attorney, Guy Petrillo, says Cohen thought that President Trump would shut
down the Mueller probe, and has argued that his client's cooperation warrants a lenient
sentence.
"Mr. Cohen's cooperation promotes respect for law and the courage of the individual to stand
up to power and influence," said Petrillo.
"His decision was an importantly different decision from the usual decision to cooperate,"
added Petrillo. "He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our
country. He did so not knowing what the result would be, not knowing how the politics would
play out and not even knowing that the special counsel's office would survive."
"The special counsel's investigation is of the utmost national significance... Not seen
since 40 plus years ago in the days of Watergate." -Guy Petrillo
Petrillo has asked the judge to "consider Cohen's "life of good works" in his decision,
adding that Cohen's cooperation stands in "profound contrast" to others who havern't cooperated
and who "have continued to double-deal while pretending to cooperate."
***
Michael Cohen, former longtime personal lawyer for President Trump, has shown up to a New
York courthouse where he will be sentenced on Wednesday for a laundry list of crimes - some of
which implicate Trump in possible wrongdoing, but most of which have nothing to do with the
president. Judge William Pauley, meanwhile, noted that Cohen pleaded guilty to a " veritable
smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct ," which was motivated by "personal greed and ambition."
Update 2: Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, continues to reference Cohen's desire to cooperate
further with prosecutors to answer future questions - however Manhattan prosecutors don't
appear to care, according to Bloomberg banking reporter Shahien Nasiripour. In a memo last week
to the court, they said that Cohen's promise to cooperate further is worthless - especially
since there would be nothing requiring him to do so once he's already been sentenced.
Meanwhile, Jeannie Rhee - an attorney with Robert Mueller's office, told the court that
while Cohen lied to the special counsel's team during his first interview in July, he has been
truthful since.
Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos, however, says that any reduction in sentence
"should be modest."
Roos added that Cohen "has eroded faith in the electoral process and compromised the rule of
law," and that he engaged in " a pattern of deception of brazenness and greed ."
Update: Cohen's attorney, Guy Petrillo, says Cohen thought that President Trump would shut
down the Mueller probe, and has argued that his client's cooperation warrants a lenient
sentence.
"Mr. Cohen's cooperation promotes respect for law and the courage of the individual to stand
up to power and influence," said Petrillo.
"His decision was an importantly different decision from the usual decision to cooperate,"
added Petrillo. "He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our
country. He did so not knowing what the result would be, not knowing how the politics would
play out and not even knowing that the special counsel's office would survive."
"The special counsel's investigation is of the utmost national significance... Not seen
since 40 plus years ago in the days of Watergate." -Guy Petrillo
Petrillo has asked the judge to "consider Cohen's "life of good works" in his decision,
adding that Cohen's cooperation stands in "profound contrast" to others who havern't cooperated
and who "have continued to double-deal while pretending to cooperate."
***
Michael Cohen, former longtime personal lawyer for President Trump, has shown up to a
New York courthouse where he will be sentenced on Wednesday for a laundry list of crimes - some
of which implicate Trump in possible wrongdoing, but most of which have nothing to do with the
president.
Cohen, who went from claiming he would "take a bullet" for President Trump to stabbing his
former boss in the back, faces sentencing on nine federal charges , including campaign finance
violations based on a hush-money scheme to pay off two women who claimed to have had affairs
with Trump, as well as making false statements to special counsel Robert Mueller.
Prosecutors alleged that Cohen paid off two women at the "direction" of "Individual-1,"
who is widely assumed to be Trump.
Prosecutors said the payments amounted to illegal campaign contribution s because they
were made with the intent to prevent damaging information from surfacing during the 2016
presidential election, which Cohen pleaded guilty to in August.
Legal experts view the filing as an ominous sign for Trump , suggesting prosecutors have
evidence beyond Cohen's public admissions implicating the president in the payoff scheme.
While the Justice Department has said previously that a sitting president cannot be indicted,
that would not stop prosecutors from bringing charges against Trump once he leaves office. -
The Hill
New York prosecutors have recommended that Judge William Pauley impose "a substantial term
of imprisonment" on Cohen - which may be around five years. Cohen's attorneys, meanwhile, have
asked Pauley for a sentence which avoids prison time - citing his cooperation with the Mueller
probe and other investigations which began prior to his guilty plea last summer. Mueller said
that Cohen had "gone to significant lengths to assist the Special Counsel's investigation,"
having met with Mueller's team seven times where he reportedly provided information useful to
the Russia investigation. The special counsel's office has recommended that any sentence Cohen
receives for lying to Congress should run concurrently with the charges brought by the
Manhattan federal prosecutors.
Cohen, 52, pleaded guilty in August to tax evasion,
lying to banks and violating campaign finance laws - charges filed by the US Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York.
The campaign finance charges relate to his facilitation of two hush-money payments to porn
star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal shortly before the 2016 presidential
election. Both women say they had sex with Trump in the prior decade. The White House has
denied Trump had sex with either woman.
Prosecutors say the payments were made "in coordination with and at the direction of"
Trump, who is called "Individual-1" in a sentencing recommendation filed last week.
Cohen's crimes were intended "to influence the election from the shadows," prosecutors
wrote. -
CNBC
In November Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Organization's
ill-fated plans to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow - a project floated by Cohen and longtime
FBI asset who had been in Trump's orbit for years, Felix Sater. Cohen claims he understated
Trump's knowledge of the project. He also lied to Congress when he said that the Moscow project
talks ended in early 2016, when in fact he and the Trump Organization had continued to pursue
it as late as June 2016.
On Wednesday, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti - who is in attendance at Cohen's
sentencing, said in a Wednesday tweet that Cohen "thought we would just go away and he/Trump
would get away with it. He thought he was smart and tough. He was neither. Today will prove
that in spades."
Trump's paying around $280,000 in " hush money " .. out of his own pocket is
dwarfed into virtual insignificance by Obama's Presidential Campaign in 2008..,.
BEING FOUND "GUILTY" OF ILLEGAL USE OF 2 MILLION IN CAMPAIGN MONEY
barely reported by the media that saw THE OBAMA DOJ decide not to prosecute Obama and
instead quietly dispose of this
"REAL CRIME" with a fine of 375 thousand dollars by the US FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISION.
Welcome to the two tier Justice System we all live under..
One for the Deeeep State Globalist Elite and .. the other...
"Just in time inventory. Not possible 50 years ago."
You are correct to say that the Just-In-Time logistics of 2016 require 2016 tech, not
1966 tech.
Minor sidebar: Henry Ford invented a lot of the concepts that are now cutting-edge
management science, and pushed them as far as he could with the tech that he had.
Major Point: plug-and-play 3D printing was also not possible 50 years ago.
Technological tools empower the people who actually put those tools to use. If the
majority of people have no interest in tools, those uninterested people can't empower
themselves.
" But contrary to the idea that these technologies would increase freedom, they appear,
on a daily basis, to have decreased freedom and privacy "
The InfoTech Revolution still has a chance to empower individuals, to decentralize
decision-making, and to transfer social momentum from transnational exploiters to
community-based cooperatives.
Freedom and privacy have been eroded by the malicious actions of psychopaths. The tech
itself is like a fence. The destruction of liberty is like English kleptocrats forcing
peasants off the commons and fencing the land into sheep pens. Don't blame fence
technology; don't blame the sheep; blame the kleptocrats.
Radical decentralization has a very small number of people who actively work with the
necessary technology. Radical decentralization has a lot of passive supporters who like the
idea but can't understand the tech and don't want to try to learn.
Radical decentralization is not guaranteed to succeed, but if you're sympathetic to the
goal, it might be more productive to write proactive, encouraging essays to motivate the
currently passive supporters so that they will put forth the effort to become active
technologists.
I am remembering the movie "Other Peoples' Lives", about the Stasi in East Germany
before 1989; a terrific and even more terrifying today (than when I first saw it) about
surveillance of every one by corporations and governments. the wall has come down, we've
had the Middle East "Spring" but nothing is changed.
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... Yes, he (and I) read the filings. They are merely the assertions of overzealous Democrat prosecutors in the SDNY that used to work for Preet Bharara and have political/personal axes to grind. Witness past much more egregious instances of what they claim as a felony that have been resolved without charges by fines – most recently, Barak Obama's campaign finance violations. ..."
We last
looked at what Mueller had publicly -- and what he didn't have -- some 10 months ago, and I
remained skeptical that the Trump campaign had in any way colluded with Russia. It's worth
another look now, but first let's give away the ending (spoiler alert!): there is still no real
evidence of, well, much of anything significant about Russiagate. One thing that is clear is
that the investigation seems to be ending. Mueller's office has
reportedly even told various defense lawyers that it is "tying up loose ends." The moment
to wrap things up is politically right as well: the Democrats will soon take control of the
House; time to hand this all off to them.
Ten months ago the big news was Paul Manafort flipped; that seems to have turned out to be
mostly a bust, as we know now he lied like a rug to the Feds and cooperated with the Trump
defense team as some sort of mole inside Mueller's investigation (a heavily-redacted memo about
Manafort's lies, released by Mueller on Friday, adds no significant new details to the
Russiagate narrative.)
George Papadopoulos has already been in and out of jail -- all of two weeks -- for his
sideshow role. Michael Avenatti is now a woman beater who is just figuring out he's
washed up. Stormy Daniels owes Trump over $300,000 in fees after losing to him in court.
There still is no pee tape. And if you don't recall how unimportant Carter Page and Richard
Gates turned out to be (or even who they are), well, there is your assessment of all the
hysterical commentary that accompanied them a few headlines ago.
The big reveal of the Michael Flynn sentencing memo on Tuesday was that he will likely do no
prison time. Everything of substance in the memo was redacted, so there is little insight
available. If you insist on speculation, try this: it's hard to believe that something really
big and bad happened such that Flynn knew about it but still wasn't worth punishing for it, and
now, a year after he started cooperating with the government, still nobody has heard anything
about whatever the big deal is. So chances are the redactions focus on foreign
lobbying in the U.S.
This week's Key to Everything is Michael Cohen, the guy who lied out of self-interest
for Trump until last week when we learned he is also willing to lie, er, testify
against Trump out of self-interest. If you take his most recent statements at face
value, the sum is the failed negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow, which went on a few
months longer than was originally stated, and that we all knew about already.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a
sentencing memo Friday
for Cohen, recommending 42 months in jail. In a separate filing, Mueller made no term
recommendation but praised Cohen for his "significant efforts to assist the special counsel's
office." The memos reveal no new information.
Call it sleazy if you want, but looking into a real estate deal is neither a high crime nor
a misdemeanor, even if it's in Russia. Conspiracy law requires an agreement to commit a crime,
not just the media
declaiming that "Cohen was communicating directly with the Kremlin!" Talking about meeting
Russian persons is not a crime, nor is meeting with them.
The
takeaway that this was all about influence shopping by the Russkies falls flat. If Putin
sought to
ensnare Trump, why didn't he find a way for the deal to actually go through? Mueller has to
be able to prove actual crimes by the president, not just twist our underclothes into weekly
conspiratorial
knots . For fun, look here at the
creative writing needed to even suggest anything illegal. That doesn't sound like Trump's
on thin ice with hot shoes.
Sigh. It is useful at this point of binge-watching the Mueller mini-series to go back to the
beginning.
The primordial ooze for all things Russiagate is less-than-complete intelligence alleging
that hackers, linked to the Russian government, stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) in 2016. The details have never been released, no U.S. law enforcement agency
has ever seen the server or scene of the crime, and Mueller's dramatic indictments
of said hackers, released as Trump met with Putin in
Helsinki, will never be heard of again, or challenged in court, as none of his defendants
will ever leave Russia. Meanwhile, despite contemporaneous denials of the
same, is it somehow now accepted knowledge that the emails (and Facebook ads!) had some
unproven major effect on the election.
The origin story for everything else, that Trump is beholden to Putin for favors granted or
via blackmail, is opposition research purchased by the Democrats and carried out by an MI6
operative with complex
connections into American intelligence, the salacious
Steele Dossier . The FBI, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, then sought
warrants to
spy on the nominated GOP candidate for president based on evidence paid for by his
opponent.
Yet the real spark was the media, inflamed by Democrats, searching for why Trump won
(because it can't be anything to do with Hillary, and "all white people and the Electoral
College are racists" just doesn't hold up). Their position was and is that Trump must have done
something wrong, and Robert Mueller,
despite helping
squash a Bush-era money-laundering probe, lying about the Iraq
War, and
flubbing the post-9/11 anthrax investigation, has been resurrected with Jedi superpowers to
find it. It might be collusion with Russia or Wikileaks, or a pee tape, or taxes, packaged as
hard news but reading like Game of Thrones plot speculation. None of this is journalism
to be proud of, and it underlies everything Mueller is supposedly trying to achieve.
As the New York Times said in a rare moment of candor, "From the day the Mueller
investigation began, opponents of the president have hungered for that report, or an indictment
waiting just around the corner, as the source text for an incantation to whisk Mr. Trump out of
office and set everything back to normal again."
The core problem -- at least that we know of -- is that Mueller hasn't found a crime
connected with Russiagate that someone working for Trump might have committed. His
investigation to date hasn't been a search for the guilty party -- Colonel Mustard in the
library -- so much as a search for an actual crime, some crime, any crime. Yet all he's
uncovered so far are some
old financial misdealings by Manafort and chums, payoffs to Trump's mistresses that are not
in themselves
illegal (despite what prosecutors simply assert in the Cohen sentencing report ,
someone will have to prove to a jury the money was from campaign funds and the transactions
were "for the
purpose of influencing" federal elections, not simply "protecting his family from shame"),
and a bunch of people lying about unrelated matters.
And that's the giveaway to Muller's final report. There was no base crime as the starting
point of the investigation. With
Watergate , there was the break-in at Democratic National Headquarters. With Russiagate you
had Trump winning the election. (Remember too that the FBI concluded
forever ago that the DNC hack crime was done by the Russians, no Mueller needed.)
Almost everything Mueller has, the perjury and lying cases, are crimes he created through
the process of investigating. He's Schrodinger's Box : the
infractions only exist when he tries to look at them. Mueller created most of his booked
charges by asking questions he already knew the answers to, hoping his witness would lie and
commit new crimes literally in front of him. Nobody should be proud of lying, but it seems a
helluva way to contest a completed election as Trump enters the third year of his term.
Mueller's end product, his report, will most likely claim that a lot of unsavory things went
on. But it seems increasingly unlikely that he'll have any evidence Trump worked with Russia to
win the election, let alone that Trump is now under Putin's control. If Mueller had a smoking
gun, we'd be watching impeachment hearings by now.
Instead, Mueller will end up concluding that some people may have sort of maybe tried to
interfere with an investigation into what turned out to be nothing, another "crime" that exists
only because there was an investigation to trigger it. He'll dump that steaming pile of legal
ambiguity into the lap of the Democratic House to hold hearings on from now until global
warming claims the city of Benghazi and returns it to the sea. That or the 2020 election,
whichever comes first.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan .
As the American people are dragged through the media hysteria, one has to know, millions of
Americans have other issues on their minds, and be it right or wrong, don't care about about
Mueller's investigation. Simply put, our political system is far from holier than thou, as
they say. For numerous reasons, people had to decide, of the two personalities we had to
choose from, were a reflection of where our politics is. Clintons or Trumps.
@Kevin – (1) Most campaign finance violations are treated as minor offenses with fines.
Obama's campaign got a fine for a $2 million campaign finance violation. Why is this one, if
it is a crime at all, being treated as a felony?
(2) No court has ever held, and no court will ever hold, that paying your mistress for
silence is a campaign finance violation. Mixed motive payments can't be campaign finance
violations. How about a politician who gets cosmetic surgery before an election? If one of
her purposes is to appear younger and appeal to voters, is that a campaign finance violation
if she doesn't report to the government her payments to the surgeon? No court is going to
accept that theory.
"Good Grief. Did you read the filings? Directing someone to commit a felony?"
Good grief, do you know the difference between a prosecutor trying to make a case in a
one-sided filing versus actually bringing a case to a jury and having to prove elements of a
crime with evidence?
You don't give specifics (typical) but you're presumably referring to the payoffs to keep the
women quiet right? Thing is, that's not illegal unless it was provably for political reasons.
If he was trying to save his marriage, there was no crime. Besides, John Edwards did worse
and skated scot-free. You going to condemn him? If not, you're a hack so be quiet.
Mueller was FBI Director when Hillary was committing national security violations in using
her private server and other unauthorized devices. His conflicts of interest in overseeing an
investigation originating from a case involving those emails are obvious. He was either
incompetent, derelict of duty, and/or complicit in shielding Hillary from prosecution then
and and definitely now given the conspiracy surrounding the Steele dossier by her campaign
proxies, foreign operatives (including Russians), and corrupt Obama administration officials
who engaged in official misconduct to clear her and initiate a campaign to inflence the
election, illegally surveil Trump associates, and illegally circulate salacious, unverified
innuendos or unmasked names.
Mueller is involved in protecting his own reputation. He has obvious conflicts of interest
and was involved in possible official misconduct. He should not be given immunity from
examination, accountability, and disciplinary action. No official should be above the law. Is
he now the American Sulla or Marius?
There were crimes committed by those Mueller is shielding – officials he worked with in
the Obama administration, Clinton and her proxies, and foreign operatives (including
Russians.)
It's not a "felony" unless you prove it the money came from campaign funds, which it didn't.
And Trump only "directed" it according to a known liar trying to get a lighter sentence for
his own financial crimes.
Yes, I do remember who Carter Page is. He is an American citizen -- a bit of a doofus
American citizen I'll admit but still an American citizen -- and he was attacked by the
American Gestapo led by Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama, Podesta, the women that unmasked
other American citizens, and Crapper like no American citizen has ever been attacked before.
Carter Page is me and the same can happen to me if it can happen to Carter Page.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far reaching enough that an aggressive
prosecutor can always find a crime to charge anyone with. This is especially true for anyone
involved in higher level business or politics.
Even if the charges cannot be made to stick (and usually they can), the expense and hassle
of fighting the case will ruin most of us who are not very rich or married to a team of
criminal defense attorneys with loads of leisure time.
At the same time, even the FBI does not have the resources to charge every crime that it
comes across or could bring an indictment for.
This is entirely intentional. There is always a perfectly legal pretext to punish those
whom the establishment want to punish, and a means to keep everyone else in line.
This is not to suggest that the 1% hold a secret email vote every month to decide whom to
kick off the island. Rather, most prosecutors are glorified politicians, and they know whom
to please.
If, for instance, a prosecutor were to bring charges against HRC (and there are numerous
bases on which to do so), the howls of establishment outrage would be deafening. So nothing
was done. In fact, the FBI was very careful to interview her associates in a group (so that
they could get their stories straight) and to avoid interviewing The Queen at all, so as to
avoid a perjury trap, or forcing Her Majesty to have to lie, and thus putting the FBI in an
embarrassing position as to why it did not prosecute.
By contrast, Trump probably has also committed numerous crimes, even if they don't rise to
the breathless speculation of russiagate conspiracy theorists, nor will any crimes charged
relate to Trump's real crimes in foreign policy (because those crimes are the DC consensus).
However, the establishment didn't want the man in the first place, and it sure wants Trump
gone now.
Therefore, Trump will not enjoy the same protection. "Rule Of Law" and all that.
For my part, I will not be sorry to see him go. As I indicated, the man is a criminal, as
were his predecessors in office.
To all the commenters pointing out the Stormy Daniels payoff. What has that to do with
Russian collusion? The Mueller investigation went way off track finding unrelated crimes in
order to get flip leverage. Its been a "show me da man, I'll find the crime" exercise. In
other words, a witch hunt. If Trump is removed by any means other than an election, it will
be viewed as a coup, and the destruction of our democratic republic.
Yes, he (and I) read the filings. They are merely the assertions of overzealous Democrat
prosecutors in the SDNY that used to work for Preet Bharara and have political/personal axes
to grind. Witness past much more egregious instances of what they claim as a felony that have
been resolved without charges by fines – most recently, Barak Obama's campaign finance
violations.
As was said in the article, those claims would have to be proven in court –
according to the letter of the law – and it is a very high bar for the SDNY to get over
to get a conviction. You can indict a ham sandwich, but if it turns out to in fact be a steak
or cheese and crackers your case isn't worth anything.
Finally, as pointed out, contracting for a NDA is not illegal. It is, point of fact, a
contract that parties willingly enter into. Trump is a business and a brand, so trying to
prove that protecting that brand by spending his own money was NOT the purpose of the NDA is
pretty darn difficult.
Paying off mistresses isn't a felony. Even if it used campaign dollars and even if someone
else involved pleads guilty. Ask John Edwards Kevin.
I also concur that if Mueller could prove that Trump colluded with the Russians, Paul Ryan
(who f*cking hates Trump's guts) would have absolutely started impeachment hearings.
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your
personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one
problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen
despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.
One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch
hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications
among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your
personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one
problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen
despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.
One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch
hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications
among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?
Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their
addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form
a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the
Great Seal of the United States.
However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy
National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States
can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.
On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet
that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer
deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's
departure the next day, November 14.
Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who
brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she
served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over
seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to
accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC
News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently,
Ricardel was one of them.
The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their
backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter
of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel
speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born
Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia.
Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist
Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and
her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began
in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample
reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady
and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is
but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties
bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.
Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued
for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft
of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would
represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat.
Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage
evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser.
Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the
terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That
policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized
criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp
Bondsteel.
Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued
administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White
House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko.
She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to
various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends
of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department.
Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and,
thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN,
where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the
case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda
Khalilzad was serving.
After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the
post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage
into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing
former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free
Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a
senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of
divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US
government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of
Lithuania.
One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to
support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help
lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.
From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of
Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World
War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi
German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military
forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an
avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.
Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In
2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser
to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers
from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born
émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on
Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's
birth.
Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place
Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from
principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the
"Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces.
Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a
former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and
Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when
it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government
in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the
appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was
born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago,
Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the
apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid
regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks
embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the
French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt.
So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country
in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who
failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a
metric ton of salt.
Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the
situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the
bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.
Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their
addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form
a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the
Great Seal of the United States.
However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy
National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States
can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.
On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet
that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer
deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's
departure the next day, November 14.
Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who
brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she
served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over
seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to
accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC
News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently,
Ricardel was one of them.
The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their
backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter
of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel
speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born
Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia.
Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist
Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and
her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began
in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample
reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady
and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is
but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties
bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.
Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued
for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft
of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would
represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat.
Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage
evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser.
Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the
terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That
policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized
criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp
Bondsteel.
Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued
administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White
House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko.
She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to
various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends
of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department.
Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and,
thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN,
where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the
case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda
Khalilzad was serving.
After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the
post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage
into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing
former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free
Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a
senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of
divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US
government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of
Lithuania.
One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to
support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help
lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.
From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of
Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World
War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi
German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military
forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an
avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.
Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In
2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser
to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers
from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born
émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on
Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's
birth.
Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place
Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from
principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the
"Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces.
Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a
former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and
Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when
it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government
in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the
appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was
born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago,
Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the
apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid
regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks
embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the
French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt.
So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country
in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who
failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a
metric ton of salt.
Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the
situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the
bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.
Let us examine what all this infotech really has changed.
Control. Massive control. Surveillance.
Just in time inventory. Not possible 50 years ago.
Second to second tracking of workers without having to have a supervisor physically watching
them. Amazon warehouse workers carry devices which allow their workflow to be tracked to the
second. And if they aren't making their seconds, the supervisor is right on them. This wasn't
possible 30 years ago. If you wanted to have that sort of control, you had to have a supervisor
physically watching them, and the cost was prohibitive.
This sort of tracking is used for clerical workers as well.
Outsourcing work that had to be kept domestic before. The massive call centers in Delhi and
Ireland were not possible even 30 years ago. The cost was simply prohibitive.
Offshoring work, like manufacturing, was difficult to offshore before. Without real-time,
high-density communications, cutting edge manufacturing overseas was very difficult in the
past. You could offshore some things, certainly, but those industries tended to be mature
industries: shipbuilding, textiles, and so on. Cutting edge industries, no, they had to be
located close to the boffins or they were offshored to another, essentially First World
country–as when Britain offshored much of their production to the United States in the
late 19th century.
Commercial surveillance. Everything you buy is cross referenced. When you buy something at a
major retailers, the store takes a picture of you and matches it with your information. All
online purchase information is stored and centralized in databases. This information is shared.
This includes, but goes far beyond, internet surveillance; witness Google or Facebook serving
you ads based on what you've read or searched. Add this data to credit reports, bank accounts,
and so on, and it provides a remarkably complete picture of your life, because everything you
buy with anything but cash (and even some of that) is tracked. Where you are when you buy it is
also tracked.
Government surveillance. Millions of cameras in London and most other First World cities.
Millions of cameras in Chinese cities. Some transit systems now have audio surveillance.
Because the government can seize any private surveillance as well, you can assume you're being
tracked all day in most First World cities. Add this to the commercial surveillance system
described above and the picture of your life is startlingly accurate.
As biometric recognition system comes online (face, gait, infrared, and more) this work will
be done automatically.
What the telecom and infotech revolution has done is enable wide scale CONTROL and
SURVEILLANCE.
These are two sides of the same coin, you can't control people if you don't what they're
doing.
This control is most dictatorial, amusingly, in the private sector. The worse a job is, the
more this sort of control has been used for super-Taylorization, making humans into little more
than remotely controlled flesh robots.
It has made control of international conglomerates far easier; control from the top to the
periphery far easier. This is true in the government and the military as well, where central
commanders often control details like when bombs drop, rather than leaving it to a plane's
crew.
This is a world where only a few people have practical power. It is a world, not of radical
decentralization, but of radical centralization.
This is a vast experiment. In the past, there have been surveillance and control societies.
But the math on them has always been suspect. Sometimes they work, and work
brilliantly–like in Tokugawa Japan, certain periods of Confucian Chinese bureaucratic
control, or ancient Egypt.
But often they have been defeated, and fairly easily, by societies which allowed more
freedom; less control, less spying, and supervision. Societies which assumed people knew what
to do on their own; or just societies that understood that the cost of close supervision and
surveillance was too high to support.
The old East German Stasi model, with one-third of the population spying on the other
two-thirds was the ludicrous extension of this.
What the telecom and infotech revolutions have actually enabled is a vast experiment in
de-skilling, surveillance, and control–beyond the dreams even of the late 19th century
Taylorist movement, with their stopwatches and assembly lines. Nothing people do, from what
they eat, to what entertainment they consume, to when and how well they sleep; let alone
everything they do during their working day, is beyond reach.
This is not to say there are no good results from infotech and computers -- there are
plenty. But contrary to the idea that these technologies would increase freedom, they appear,
on a daily basis, to have decreased freedom and privacy and promise to radically reduce them
even more.
The second set of questions about any technology are how it can be used for violence, how it
can be used for control, and how it can be used for ideological production.
(The first question, of course, is what is required to use it. More on that another
time.)
Infotech may enable totalitarian societies which make those of the past look like
kindergarten. We are already far past the technology used in the novel 1984 (Big Brother could
not record, for example). That much of this surveillance is done by private actors as opposed
to the government, does not reduce the loss of freedom, autonomy, and privacy.
Combined with making humans obsolete, infotech and the telecom revolution are as vastly
important as their boosters say.
But, so far, not in a beneficial way. Yes, they could be used to make human lives
better, it seems the real traction of the telecom and infotech revolutions remarkably
began/coincided with neo-liberal policies which have hurt vast numbers of people in both the
First and Third Worlds–precisely because they helped make those neo-liberal policies
work.
Technologies are never neutral and there is no guarantee that "progress" will actually
improve people's lives. Even if a technology has the potential to improve people's lives,
potential is theoretical; i.e., not the same as practice.
Infotech and telecom tech are primarily control technologies, the same as writing was. They
vastly increase the ability to centralize and to control a population's behaviour.
Over the last few years, the potentially damaging impact of the internet, and particularly
social media, on democracy has increasingly come to dominate the news. The recently disclosed
internal Facebook emails, which revealed that employees
discussed allowing developers to harvest user data for a fee, are but the latest in a long
line of scandals surrounding social media platforms. Facebook has also been accused, alongside
Twitter, of fuelling the spread of false information. In October, the Brazilian newspaper
Folha exposed how Jair Bolsonaro's candidacy benefited from a coordinated disinformation
campaign conducted via Whatsapp, which is owned by Facebook. And there are growing concerns
that this tactic could be used to skew the Indian general elections in April.
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the
Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the
system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side
cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but
they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on
our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to
be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't
really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does
not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing
them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them
and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them
whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely,
there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque
to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump
I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.
In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.
That's true.
Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?
No. He hasn't?
No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done
any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's
role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think
he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress
is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.
I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but
that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should
we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was
to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions
that no one could answer.
Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?
Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.
Why should he be not capable?
Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing
power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power.
They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really
have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative
process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you
need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.
The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest
fool?
I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really
on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you
need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders
fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.
When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?
Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.
Which world exactly?
The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south.
It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always
lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that
I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.
If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should
have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind
of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy...
You become Venezuela.
You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did
it disappear?
If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.
The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.
Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people,
middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco
and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've
really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election
just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of
average people is now the party of the rich.
Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes
wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican
Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was
this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still
ongoing.
In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion
and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our
voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.
They have to, or they will lose.
They have to, or they will die. Yes.
You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You
describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?
I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with
the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary
wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would
send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.
The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push
back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion.
We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed
beneath its wheels.
Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.
Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably
a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?
Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.
In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.
Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another
pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities
to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.
In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in
the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution,
the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to
that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out
for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how
can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming
radical?
Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife?
How is your family?
They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.
The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?
Yes, they did and threatened my wife.
Which must have been absolutely scary?
Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.
Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.
Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You
can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right
to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only
totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.
Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?
No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf
of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last
year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really
on behalf of theoretical goals.
They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically,
it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order.
They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time
in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?
Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to
understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.
Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!
How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?
Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person.
I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.
Never?
Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple
times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.
... ... ...
How close to a revolution is your country?
By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides
for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably
too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable
with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence,
but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.
If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would
you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay
with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different
race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.
"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures,
but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental
country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're
Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.
Orange County is now purely Democrat.
That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably
not.
The country is getting redder and bluer.
Exactly.
This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?
Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically
and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the
politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're
not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them
to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not
what they say.
You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate
that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't
have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.
How important is migration in terms of change?
It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and
that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I
am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here
is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking
Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.
What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?
You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge
wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though
of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in
charge of it.
The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable
and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.
It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got
to get control of migration or you disintegrate."
John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.
Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not
a member?
So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's
what I like about them.
[laughter]
Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?
The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because
people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved
over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!
[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems
to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell
like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the
Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the
system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side
cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but
they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on
our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to
be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't
really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does
not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing
them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them
and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them
whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely,
there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque
to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump
I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.
In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.
That's true.
Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?
No. He hasn't?
No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done
any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's
role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think
he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress
is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.
I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but
that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should
we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was
to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions
that no one could answer.
Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?
Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.
Why should he be not capable?
Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing
power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power.
They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really
have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative
process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you
need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.
The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest
fool?
I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really
on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you
need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders
fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.
When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?
Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.
Which world exactly?
The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south.
It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always
lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that
I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.
If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should
have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind
of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy...
You become Venezuela.
You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did
it disappear?
If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.
The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.
Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people,
middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco
and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've
really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election
just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of
average people is now the party of the rich.
Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes
wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican
Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was
this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still
ongoing.
In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion
and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our
voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.
They have to, or they will lose.
They have to, or they will die. Yes.
You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You
describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?
I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with
the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary
wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would
send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.
The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push
back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion.
We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed
beneath its wheels.
Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.
Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably
a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?
Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.
In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.
Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another
pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities
to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.
In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in
the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution,
the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to
that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out
for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how
can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming
radical?
Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife?
How is your family?
They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.
The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?
Yes, they did and threatened my wife.
Which must have been absolutely scary?
Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.
Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.
Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You
can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right
to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only
totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.
Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?
No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf
of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last
year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really
on behalf of theoretical goals.
They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically,
it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order.
They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time
in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?
Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to
understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.
Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!
How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?
Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person.
I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.
Never?
Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple
times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.
... ... ...
How close to a revolution is your country?
By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides
for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably
too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable
with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence,
but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.
If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would
you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay
with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different
race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.
"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures,
but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental
country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're
Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.
Orange County is now purely Democrat.
That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably
not.
The country is getting redder and bluer.
Exactly.
This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?
Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically
and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the
politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're
not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them
to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not
what they say.
You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate
that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't
have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.
How important is migration in terms of change?
It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and
that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I
am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here
is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking
Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.
What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?
You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge
wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though
of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in
charge of it.
The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable
and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.
It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got
to get control of migration or you disintegrate."
John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.
Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not
a member?
So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's
what I like about them.
[laughter]
Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?
The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because
people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved
over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!
[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems
to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell
like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]
We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the activities of the
'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and
funded by the British government. The declared goal of the project is to counteract
Russian propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent
intentions, Britain has in fact created a large-scale information secret service in
Europe, the United States and Canada, which consists of representatives of
political, military, academic and journalistic communities with the think tank in
London at the head of it.
As part of the project Britain has time and again intervened into domestic
affairs of independent European states. A most demonstrative example is operation
'Moncloa' in Spain. Britain set to prevent Pedro Baños from appointment to the
post of Director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took the Spanish
cluster of the Integrity Initiative only a few hours to accomplish the task.
London's near-term plans to create similar clusters include Latvia, Estonia,
Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Armenia, Ukraine, Moldova, Malta, Czechia,
countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Georgia, Hungary, Cyprus, Austria, Switzerland, Turkey, Finland, Iceland, Denmark,
and the USA.
All the work is done under absolute secrecy via concealed contacts in British
embassies, which gives rise to more suspicion that Britain uses plausible excuse to
create a global system of information influence and political interference into
affairs of other countries.
Covert structures for political and financial manipulative activities under control
of British secret services are created not only in the EU countries but also on
other continents. In point of fact, quiet colonization of both former British
neighbors in the EU and NATO allies is taking place.
The government of Great Britain has to come out of the dark and declare straight
its intentions and unveil the results of the Integrity Initiative activities!
Otherwise, we will do it!
Today, we make public a part of the documents we have available. In case London
gives no response to our demands during the following week, we will reveal the rest
of the documents that contain many more secrets of the United Kingdom.
Isn't this interesting? A UK program to propagandize US and European audiences is set up to demonize Russia around the same time
GCHQ and MI6 are busy spying on US presidential candidates and then ultimately doing their best to throw an election over
here... while trying to frame Russia... for trying to throw an election over here. Cute right?
The head of MI6, the UK's intelligence service, hopes to recruit a new generation of
tech-savvy spies, with a passionate speech urging graduates to protect the homeland against the
arch nemesis who subverts the UK way of life.
"The era of the fourth industrial revolution calls for a fourth generation of espionage," Alex
Younger will say at St. Andrews University on 3rd December.
To lure young Brits into the spy agency who otherwise might not have seen themselves in MI6,
Younger paints an image of a clever arch nemesis –Russia– which can only be stopped
with the help of brilliant young minds from all sorts of backgrounds, not just by the snobbish
Oxbridge graduates typically associated with the service.
Fresh blood is needed to defend UK web domains against cyber-attacks, the spread of fake
news and interference in domestic politics, Alex Younger will say, at the same time praising
the old guard for "exposing" Russia in the highly-controversial Salisbury attack.
Russia, or any other UK adversary, better "not underestimate our determination and our
capabilities, or those of our allies," Younger's speech warns.
Hardly historic friends and bitter Cold War rivals, the UK and Russia have seen their
relations slip to new lows in March, following the poisoning of ex-Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia. London immediately pinned the blame for the Salisbury incident
directly on the Kremlin, and rejected any idea of an open joint investigation with Russia,
insisting its own probe would suffice to make the case and then punishing Moscow with
sanctions.
Moscow is also perpetually facing accusations of cyberwarfare against other states and
attempts to undermine democracy and to influence the political process within those countries.
And despite multiple reassurances that Moscow could not care less about the internal political
struggles in foreign states, London and British mass media continue to vilify Russia with
bizarre reports, like half of London's Russian community are spies for the Kremlin.
Claims of 'Russian meddling' look particularly hypocritical in the wake of a leak that
exposed the Integrity Initiative – a group that claims to be fighting back against
'Russian misinformation' – being a clandestine network of influencers that manipulate
European politics with the British government's backing.
The anti-Russia paranoia in the UK arguably reached its peak over the weekend, when military
bases across the nation issued security alerts after a Russian TV crew was accused of spying
outside the army's secret cyber warfare headquarters.
International hacker group Anonymous went ahead with its efforts to counter what it calls
Britain's interference with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. In a second dump of
secret documents within two weeks, the hacktivists disclose more details on the ongoing
UK-funded, anti-Russia information campaign spreading across Europe. The second batch of
documents leaked by Anonymous unravels more information on the activities of the Integrity
Initiative (II), a UK-based NGO ostensibly founded to counter disinformation and defend
democratic processes from malign influence. According to
the first documents leaked by the hacktivist organization last month, the project was in
fact a "large-scale information secret service" sponsored and created by London to tackle
'Russian propaganda.'
However, the latest leak suggests that "the British government goes far beyond and exploits
the Integrity Initiative to solve its domestic problems inside the United Kingdom by defaming
the opposition."
Discrediting UK Opposition
Anonymous refers to a "scorching" article that surfaced in
The Times on November 25 and was dedicated to Seumas Milne, director of strategy and
communications under Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Times' official Twitter account promoted
the piece three times within 24 hours on social media -- the only case for all of its articles,
Anonymous says. The hacktivists add that the Integrity Initiative retweeted the "defamatory"
article right after its publication (the post is now unavailable, but Anonymous provided a
screengrab of the retweet).
The group announced in November that the II constituted a network of clusters across Europe,
which sought to tamper with domestic affairs of several European countries such as France,
Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Spain, and Montenegro.
Countering Russia on German Soil
Another part of the leak is an interim report on the
establishment of a German cluster, which was purportedly written by Hannes Adomeit, a German
political expert specialising in Russian foreign policy. According to the uncovered documents,
the German cluster is coordinated by suspected MI6 agent Harold Elletson.
The report focuses mainly on research of Germans' attitudes toward Russia. Adomeit says that
the so-called "Russian narrative" on the origins of the crisis in Moscow's relations with the
West is "widely accepted by German public opinion." He adds that further research would be
carried out to examine "the reasons for the great receptivity of the Russia narrative" in
Germany.
He also addresses the case of Andrei Kovalchuk, a Russian arrested in Germany on suspicion
of smuggling cocaine to Moscow from Argentina. Kovalchuk was extradited to Russia in late July
-- much to the dissatisfaction of Adomeit, who suggests that German prosecutors could have
"made an effort" to question him and dig up some dirt on Russia.
Watching Russia's Reaction to Catalan Events
The activities of the Integrity Initiative's Spanish cluster were partly revealed by
Anonymous in the first leak on the project. However, a newly unveiled document titled
"Cluster
Breakdown" identifies people associated with the Spanish chapter.
The list includes territorial minister Jose Ignacio Sanchez Amor, MEP Fernando Maura, head
of Spain's peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic Dionisio Urteaga Todo, European
Commission Speaker Dimitri Barua, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Fernando Valenzuela
Marzo, head of Spanish delegation to NATO PA Ricardo Blanco Torno, former defence minister
Eduardo Serra Rexach. Other affiliates include foreign affairs reporters and pundits from
Spanish think tanks: the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, the European Council on
Foreign Relations, and the Elcano Royal Institute.
The Spanish cluster was apparently closely watching Russia's reaction to the movement in
support of Catalan independence in 2016. According to another leaked
interim report , the project's members were disappointed with Russia's moderate position on
the situation in Spain. However, they claimed, while Vladimir Putin insisted that the issue of
Catalan sovereignty was Spain's internal affair, he was happy to watch Europe "take its own
medicine" (a reference to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence).
This is why, they said, the Russian media took advantage of the 2016 developments in
Catalonia to portray the European Union as "declining, undemocratic and troubled". They went on
to link the media coverage of the Catalan events in Russia to Russia's alleged disinformation
campaign against the West.
The authors contend that given that Catalonia has become part of Russia's "big narrative
about the West," Russian meddling has also become part of the debates in Spain. "This
represents a clear window of opportunity" for promoting anti-Russia sentiment, they
conclude.
Skripal Case Coverage in Greece
The Integrity Initiative's Greek cluster was keeping a close eye on the
media coverage of the Salisbury poisoning in local newspapers. They went to considerable
lengths, studying 193 articles across six major media outlets. It seems, however, that the
result of all the hard work was rather unsatisfactory: the authors confess that the majority of
Greek newspapers adopted a neutral stance towards the Skripal case.
They claim that the Greek media were influenced into not taking sides and remaining
unbiased. "The strong pro-Russian sentiment in the Greek public opinion seems to have
influenced the Greek newspapers not to emphasize Russia's involvement."
The Integrity Initiative has yet to comment on this information dump. Anonymous claimed that
it released the second batch of documents after the EU leaders and international organisations
had ignored its first disclosure. The group accused the II and its sponsors of failing to "give
assurances that the network of clusters will only be used to counter Russia's disinformation
policy."
The "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed
to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth
Yanks.
Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W.
Bush's "poodle" for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into
Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton's dogsbody in the no
less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.
On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South
Korea, and
so many other useless so-called allies . We control their intelligence services, their
military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial
systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's impotent ire at
discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she –
did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you're sorry.
These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar
around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries
answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the
USSR's Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact
refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other
Pact forces to cross its territory.
By contrast, during NATO's 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft
access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most
Romanians' opposition to the campaign.)
But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.
To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to
the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion
in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington
"power couple" – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American
politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA
Victor logo . (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Whether this portends a real shift in
American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionable .
Saudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in
charge.)
Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of
World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and
financially, eclipsing Britannia's declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to
play the leading role. That didn't mean, however, that London trusted the Americans' ability to
manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar , the
British attitude of "
superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex " was "nicely
captured" in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK's postwar loan:
In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
"It's true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains."
Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by
exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond.
It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston
Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies
like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration
(NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their
UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called
"Five Eyes" of the tight Anglosphere spook community, infamous
for spying on each others' citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic
surveillance .
Despite not having two farthings to rub together,
impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn't fully ended until 1954 – had
a prime seat at the table fashioning the world's postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods
conference was largely an Anglo-American affair , of which the
aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter
White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.
American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn't have
much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current ( and hopefully last ) Saudi state – and didn't
assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by
President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much
of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with
France , the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including
taking a decisive
role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely
stepped into Britain's role managing the "East of Suez," the former suzerain was by no means
dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty
Organization (CENTO) in 1955.
CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain,
the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer
roots, going back at least to the
Crimean War in the 1850s . The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia
are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power
is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany,
then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia
warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving
Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by
Andrew
Lambert , professor of naval history at King's College London, the Crimean War still echoes
today :
"In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it's Britain and
Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which
is much larger than modern Turkey -- it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia,
and also Egypt and Arabia -- is a declining empire. But it's the bulwark between Russia,
which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to
open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific.
And it's really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit
like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really
run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the
fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going
to be the fulcrum for that fighting."
Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British
obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for
control of petroleum, the life's blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and
early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar
considerations might even support Jimmy Carter's taking up much the same position, declaring in
1980 that "outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force." The USSR was then a superpower and
we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.
But what's our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet
Union is gone and the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national
interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as
allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK
establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.
In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about
an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances
– without which Britain is a bit player – but
openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow ? To what lengths would they go to stop
him?
Say 'hello' to Russiagate!
One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign's "collusion" with Moscow
was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some "
hands across the water " to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at
Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it's clear that while evidence of
Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK's hand
in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible
rapprochement between the US and Russia .
As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who's actually Russian. The only
basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the
whole operation
originated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele , the British "ex" spy who wrote
it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The
notion that Steele, who hadn't been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts
is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence
with White House staff?)
Andrew Wood , a
former British ambassador to Russia Stefan Halper , a dual US-UK citizen. Ex-MI6 Director
Richard Dearlove . Robert Hannigan , former director of GCHQ; there is
reason to think surveillance of Trump was conducted by GCHQ as well as by US agencies under
FISA warrants. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ soon after the British government denied
the agency had engaged in such spying. Alexander Downer , Australian diplomat (well, not
British but remember the Five Eyes!). Joseph Mifsud , Maltese academic and suspected British
agent.
At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted
FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would
shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by
– no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May . Was she seeking
to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings'?
It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs
with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn't just the UK and
Australia. Also implicated are Estonia,
Israel, and Ukraine .) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in
false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok
poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele's,
one Pablo Miller , Sergei
Skripal's MI6 recruiter . (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the
dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian
government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow
flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.
A similar pattern
can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria : "We have irrefutable evidence
that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had
a hand in the staging" of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador
Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with
al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: "I am naming them because they have done
things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK
money." Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib
that the same ruse was being prepared
again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video
showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.
The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with
the US and the Netherlands,
accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World
Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and
a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone
didn't get the point,
British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared : "This is not the actions of a great
power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to
isolate them."
In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare
conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep
State collaborators in the United States. But it's not only aimed at Russia, it's an attack
on the United States by the government of a foreign country that's supposed to be one of
our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law,
and culture.
But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we've
allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not
conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception
that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion , seeks to embroil us
in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of
control.
This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom
and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.
James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to
the Senate GOP leadership.
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does
not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against
Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be
part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal,
academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to
take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
---
Update - The Integrity Initiative
confirms the release of its documents. - End Update
---
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed by
Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and promises
that:
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany
Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland
Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands
Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler,
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland,
Todd Leventhal
UK
Chris Donnelly,
Amalyah Hart, William Browder, John Ardis,
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham, Deborah Haynes,
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon, Mungo Melvin,
Rob Dover Julian Moore, Agnes Josa, David Aaronovitch, Stephen Dalziel, Raheem Shapi, Ben
Nimmo,
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede
Alan Riley [email protected] Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
I see that the cluster of UK journalists to receive propaganda from the Integrity Initiative
includes Guardian writer and former Le Monde chief editor (run out by her senior editors for
her "Putinesque" leadership style) Natalie Nougayrede. As if The Guardian needs any more
persuasion or encouragement to recede deeper into its labyrinthine network of rabbit-holes.
Jonathan Freedland must be jumping up and down in an infantile tantrum that Nugget-head got
such privileged access.
@ #2 pretzelattack Thanks for the Robert Mueller Guardian article link.
Am I the only one not to know that "As acting deputy attorney general, he [Robert Mueller]
was in charge of the investigation and indictment of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan
convicted of the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in
Scotland just before Christmas 1988.
Seems every new article I read on Robert Mueller, he was carrying out another CIA covert
plan.
Britain has been a US dog for years, most overtly in Blair's time over Iraq and Afghanistan,
but things haven't really changed. Britain's military has become more and more dependent on
the US. There is no longer an independent nuclear deterrent - the weapons are rented from the
US, and I'm certain that they couldn't be used without US approval (sure to be a backdoor
somewhere in the electronics which would enable the US to turn them off, if the US
disagreed). The F35s they've insisted on buying are probably in the same situation.
They're not slaves, or rather 'vassals' - the current word of sensitivity about the EU.
More active collaborators, which implies initiatives also stemming from Britain.
One should also recall Britain's function as US agent in the European Union. They were
opposed to many EU proposals, obviously to fit in with US desires. The most recent example is
the Galileo GPS system - they were opposed to it for years, but as Ivan Rogers told us
(former Brit ambassador to the EU), the opposition he was instructed to make failed.
It's all gone off a bit recently though. Trump is not interested in Britain in the way
Obama was. Brexit is a nativist movement, not what America wants. If Brexit goes through
finally, the interest of the US will be even less, as we can no longer intervene on the US's
behalf in Europe.
French agents of inluence according to leak: France
Francoise Thom Jusin Vaisse Thomas Bertin Caroline Gondaud Guillaume Schlumberger Raphael de
Lagarde Roland Galharague
Martin Briens Jean-Christophe Noel Laurent Rucker Alexandre Escorcia Nikola Guljevatej David
Behar Claire le Flecher Remy Bouallegue Paul Zajac Nicolas Roche Manuel Lafont Rapnouil
Laurent Rucker Patrick Hardouin Etienne de Durand
Janaina Herrera
I just knew if I scrolled down far enough the name Anne Applebaum would appear - Queen of the
Dual-Loyalists; but Wm. Browder!?
From her Wikipedia page: "She is a visiting Professor of Practice at the London School of
Economics, where she runs Arena, a project on propaganda and disinformation." I reckon she
"Practices" at the Post.
@7 "...things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the
soviet union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia
fully, as they'd intended..."
Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base.
@18 russ... yes - that pretty well sums it up... as for putin falling into the neoliberal
order - at this point it does look that way.. i am curious how russia could move forward at
this moment in some alternative way? what would the alternative way look like?
@zanon... thanks, but the list given for usa/canada has only one person on it that appears
to be a canuck - glen howard.. and unless it is a different glen howard, the guy is some
curling wiz, but no mention of his anti-russian credentials... his e mail address is given as
jamestown.org which is connected to the jamestown foundation.. turns out, he is not a canuck
either - "Glen Howard President
Mr. Howard is fluent in Russian and proficient in Azerbaijani and Arabic, and is a
regional expert on the Caucasus and Central Asia. He was formerly an Analyst at the Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Strategic Assessment Center. His articles have
appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, and Jane's Defense
Weekly. Mr. Howard has served as a consultant to private sector and governmental agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Intelligence Council and major oil
companies operating in Central Asia and the Middle East."
one of the people on the usa-can list - john nevado appears to be an equadorian...
bottom line - as a sensitive canuck, i think someone needs to change the list to say usa
and remove canada, as no canucks are on the list from the small research i did...
that is the sad thing about canada - it gets lumped in with the usa for good and bad on a
regular basis... maybe they could put crystia freelands name on this list... i think she
would qualify as a rabid anti-russia canuck...
reply to Plantman 13
re:
"Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by
internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have
been resolved and funding should now flow."
I don't think it was the Republican party that was the source of the deadlock.
I think it may have been Tillerson. He had close ties to Russia and in March 2018, he was
forced out of State and Pompeo came in.
"President Donald Trump nominated Pompeo as Secretary of State in March 2018, with Pompeo
succeeding Rex Tillerson after his dismissal."
"The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month
..."
That's a decent salary. He probably can work from home too - like Bellingcat. A fake NGO
operating with fake "integrity" to identify "fake news". Everything is rather upside-down
these days. Good to have all those names attached. Where's C Summers on the list? - maybe he
never realized till now the monthly salaries available.
Central Europe
Anne Bader Eduard Abrahayman Mitar Kuyundzic Plamen Pantev Solomon Passy Jaroslav Hajecek
Jakub Janda Frantisek Vrabel Peter Kreko Jan Strzelecki Mario Nicolini Austria
Harold Elletson Susan Stewart
Baltic section according to the leak:
Tomas Tauginas Asta Skaisgiryte Saulius Guzevicius Eitvydas BAJARŪNAS Renatas Norkus
Vytautas Bakas Laurynas Kasciunas Dr Povilas Malakauskas Ainis Razma Mantas Martisius Linas
Kojala
Major Jane Witt Claire Lawrence James Rogers Andriy Tyushka Viktorija Urbonaviciute
reply to dh 31
"Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base."
True that!
I was blown away by their arrogance when I saw the US had bids out to remodel the existing
Russian buildings in the Crimean port to for a school, housing.
It clearly never occurred to them that they could/would lose, nor did they even bother to
think that Russia may keep an eye out for such mind blowing acts of stupidity such as these
bids?
Craig Oliphant is Senior Advisor, Peaceful Change Initiative (PCI), based in London, and
Senior Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre. Until the end of 2010, he worked in
the diplomatic service and was Head of the Eastern Research Group in the Foreign Office,
dealing with Russia and Eastern Europe.
In the first half of the 1990s, Craig held posts in Brussels at NATO as an advisor on
Russia/Eastern Europe and was then at the OSCE in The Hague, as a regional advisor to the
OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. Before that he was at the UK Ministry of
Defence (MOD), as a senior lecturer at the Conflict Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst; he also worked for several years in the 1980s at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
in Munich, Germany. Craig has published widely on Russia/FSU affairs. He is a member of
IISS; RUSI; a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts; and is a Vice Chairman of the British
Georgian Society.
Independent Conflict Research & Analysis (ICRA) was founded in May 2010 as a
not-for-profit organisation providing objective conflict analysis and training. It is led by
Christopher Langton OBE, who spent 32 years in the British Army. During this time he served
in Northern Ireland, Russia, the South Caucasus where he was Deputy Chief of UNOMIG and held
defence attaché appointments in Russia, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia.
Subsequently he worked at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for 9
years where he was the focus on Afghanistan. At IISS he held appointments as the Head of
Defence Analysis, Editor of "The Military Balance" and Research Fellow for Russia before
being appointed Senior Fellow for Conflict & Defence Diplomacy.
He has worked as an independent expert on the international investigation into the
Russia-Georgia conflict of August 2008 and on the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission investigating
the violence that occurred in Southern Kyrgyzstan in 2010. Christopher was Advisor to the
UK-China Conflict Prevention Working Group 2014-2015 under the aegis of Saferworld and
supported by DFID.
reply to:
This cureemt state of affairs cannot last longer. Right?
Posted by: PacoRepublicano | Nov 24, 2018 3:02:15 PM | 37
That may be why the globalists seem to be a bit off the rails.
I read in an article on the present French fuel tax protests/riots that a recent poll of
world millennials found that 50 percent would go along with a change of govt, it was 75
percent in France. Concurrent with these riots the French govt is trying to bring back
mandatory military service for those in the 3rd year of high school.
Indoctrination camps ala China is my guess.
i do think it is better to ignore the local shill... they say the same stupid shit on a
regular basis.. out of the kindness of b, it is unlikely to stop... quoting jamestown.org is
more of the same stupidity that i have come to expect from our resident shill..
https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/
New I hope, from Murray's blog.
Note that Ben Bradshaw a Labour MP, famous forbeing the first MP who married a man, a fellow
BBC reporter, and a Blairite is one of the scum on the UK list. So is 'Prof' Alan Riley, a
lawyer with extensive interests in oil.
These people are constantly being wheeled out in the media as independent experts.
Talking of Murray's blog the latest piece laments the death of the Al Nusra spokesman who was
killed yesterday, by fellow salafists, as a democrat, secular etc etc.
Check the propaganda organization's twitter account: https://twitter.com/initintegrity
They have been in a retweeting spam mode since they got exposed. Quite hilarious.
"The Initiatives Guide to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It
lists the downing of flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in
Khan Sheikhoun and the Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation"."
This following document explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a Dirty Trick
operation against Russia. It also mentions the use of aspects of Russian culture to be used
as a weapon against it (eg the church)
It lists tream members, funding for specificic tasks and this statement:
"Code of Conduct (Greg to commence with internet etiquette)
Anonymity of the team remains paramount. As our activity increases we will, no doubt, attract
unwanted attention."
That directly contradicts the official UK government statement to the Russians that the
Integrity Initiative is a public domain program.
the secret to all good propaganda: accuse the other side of doing what you're guilty of
so people believe that anonymous collective managed to gain access, via 'hacking'to the
FCO computer system? really? seriously? you think that the second, or third most
critical/secure UK govt. system can be either 'spearfished' or accessed by some other
means?
I will say this. I had always assumed Ed Lucas was ex -UK intel. He worked at the Moscow
embassy for the FCO and has stuck to the "save the baltics from the evil empire" line ever
since. There is a surprisingly tight network of folk (Yes Ann Applebaum) who have been
together hating the commies and now the non-commie Russians since the 90s. Some of them are
very prominent now (Yes Chrystia) despite having backgrounds which might suggest an
irrational agenda driven outlook (Nazis?). They meet up at conferences discussing the
Soviet/Russian menace and never mention that on raw spend, Nato outspends their hated Russia
by 10x or 20x.
Still, for some reason these people are considered angels of light and the rest of us need
to follow their barely literate lead (actually Ed Lucas is very literate, as is Peter
Pomerantsev). Anders Aslund a lot less so.
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Luke "The Plagiarist" Harding and the other Guardian hacks must be really pissed off that
they weren't considered to be worthy of even a sub-cluster.
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
No, not really. MI6 have demonstrated even greater levels of stupidity in the past. For
example, supporting the salafist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and then being surprised at
the blowback that was the Manchester Arena suicide bombing by one of its followers
Greek group according to leak: Despina afentouli ELIAMEP Thanos Dokos Ioannis Armakolas
George Tzogopoulos Dimitris Xenakis Katerina Oikonomakou Ioannis Goranitis Tasos Telloglou
Katerina Chryssanthopoulou Sissy Alonistiotou
i remain agnostic for now on the authenticity of the 'integrity initiative, but is has a
definite Gladio/NATO feel to it, so it's entirely plausible.
but as i was pasting together a new diary on the ever-increasing increased jeopardy to
julian assange by way the Wikileaks account on twitter, they had these tweets up:
'Ecuador's president has signed a decree terminating the ambassador to the United Kingdom,
Carlos Abad. All diplomats known to Assange have now been terminated to transferred away from
the embassy.'
@ Willie Wobblestick with the righteous poem....very nice, may it go viral with b's piece
@ wendy davis with the status of julian assange...thanks
I think these actions reek of desperation and lack of understanding of what exposure may
ensue from julian going down in some way. Julian may be holding old news but I expect that
there are depths of it that will be new to many.
The circus tent is starting to burn and the animals are freaking out, ready to
stampede.
Can we evolve away from the private finance motivated world soon, please and thank
you?
the first wikitweet was to the anon 'operation integrity initiative'; the second one says:
"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications."
assange attorney hannah jonnason (@AssangeLegal) had been looking carefully at them,
parsing them in belief, but finally had re-tweeted wikileaks take. the 'portion' as i took it
by way of the subtweets was 'fabricated emails'. she's gret, plus brilliant, but on one
thread i'd posted she'd called marcy wheeler 'fbi informant MW', lol.
Golly gee-whiz! Why am I not surprised? Gotta have complementary sources of disinformation
operating in tandem with BigLie Media! Indeed, the synchronicity of so much fairly well
proves BigLie Media is part of this system. The Tower of Immorality being built primarily by
the Outlaw US Empire and its UK sidekick is like a Ponzi Scheme in that for it not to fall it
must have ever more lies continually added where eventually everything said by them will be
100% false.
It is getting tedious to have to type my personal information in every time I want to
comment. B has written that he is working on issues but I may forgo the web site link if this
continues....lazy as I am
@ wendy davis with the marcy wheeler as fbi informant claim....marcy seems well
intentioned but seems to have some way weird bias blinders in her thinking. I have stopped
following her because her signal to noise ratio got too bad. There are lots of folks like her
I am sorry to write. Well intentioned but drinking some koolaid that has them mixed up in
strategic ways.....almost like it was planned.....maybe more lists will come out now of other
organizations that are paying folk to build and/or maintain certain narratives like GWOT,
etc.
And yes, we can take the truth. It will set many free.
The chemical attack on Aleppo earlier today wasn't accompanied by immediate synchronized
media and NATO political leader accusations against the terrorists like we've seen associated
with the FFs. I've yet to see any, nor have any been reported on Twitter.
@ 68 pscychohistorian.. ditto your comments on marcy wheeler... all the folks at emptywheel
have gone off the rails, led by lead bozo - bmaz... i used to enjoy reading her, but the hate
russia memo they all swallowed is tedious slogging and i am not up for it..
James @70 i'm right there with ya. Watching how the Russian Derangement Syndrome has
afflicted otherwise sane and smart people has been disillusioning to say the least.
Blessings, b and comment support on this - it takes me back to the days when Five Eyes was
unravelling, and I can't but think that dastardly plot to surveil and snoop by means of
developing technology was going to be a worldwide instrument of torture and oneupmanship that
many thought would make that consortium top dog for all time.
So, they smashed the Guardian's computers, and they co-opted or blackmailed where they
could, but the genie was out. And out for good. It would make a good spy novel if it weren't
for the very real deaths and destruction that have happened in the wake of the revelations.
And that will happen before this sorry historical episode is over. I simply believe, however,
that thanks to nearly everyone contributing to this forum, such possibilities are
diminishing. Thank you,b and everyone.
I'm not well versed enough myself but I am baffled by this whole mess. All sides of this
are entities I don't trust at all: Intelligence agencies, Facebook, Trump and his crooked
playmates... seems there are no sides to trust or root for in this whole game of
espionage.
Ghost Ship @ 58: There is a Guardian writer in that UK journalist sub-cluster list and that
is Natalie Nougayrede. No surprise there ... over at Off-Guardian.org, commenters have their
own unprintable names for her. And you thought the bar at Integrity Initiative wasn't low
enough for Fraudian hacks.
It is important to note that Wikileaks questioned the authenticity of these documents. We
should be cautious before drawing any conclusions and wait for more information.
"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of
being fabrications."
iv> Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick
of NATO and the UKUS governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her
in the first place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If
they are all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this
Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick of NATO and the UKUS
governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her in the first
place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If they are
all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this
So Facebook is s co sponsor ? Social media not just about bringing people together but
manipulator and subversion .
If they were targeting Jews this would be called antisemitism , as iybisvtheytecyargetumg
russians ,
What role did they play In the novichok hoax ?
'Clusters established in each country' reads an awful lot like subversion and treachery
Should this be a matter for country police and national security ?
@Zanon 28
Même pour les Français, l'information est aujourd'hui en anglais... Ceci dit,
l'hystérie et l'"activité" anti-russe n'est pas très effective en
France... Trop d'Histoire et d'histoires partagées pour adhérer à cette
soupe servie pour les peuples anglo-saxons... Mais enfin, pas besoin d'avoir lu Hegel pour
comprendre que toute cette agitation-propagande sert in fine l'ennemi désigné,
la Russie; et précipite encore un peu plus, si c'est possible, la fin de l'empire.
Purported internal documents, from a UK government "counter-Russia" influence network
targeting mostly Europe and US, appear on site often alleged to be used by Russian state
hackers. cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of
being fabrications.
I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the
stash. There are some small but explainable inconsistencies (i.e. between budget plan and
approved budget?) and the whole stash is likely bigger than the published one. But all the
details I could check seem to fit.
"I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the
stash."
Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now? (I assume Assange can't do so from his
hideout.) My memory's hazy, but I recall there being some kind of internal struggle there,
and that a pro-Wall Street faction opposed the release of the Bank of America files and
destroyed them.
Are they now trying to turn and appease their system enemies? Wouldn't be the first such
sell-out. Maybe they're jealous of the prestige, lucre, and system respectability of the
Snowden/Greenwald/Intercept industrial complex.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 25, 2018 4:01:51 AM |
link
This has everything...right down to FCO email addresses. For FCO read MI6. Either this is
colossal disinfo from Anonymous or a significant operation is truly blown. To resort to
something like this, on this scale, showa that they are worried about something. Perhaps RT
is getting wore viewing and hits in the UK and Europe than their outlets are. Once the
internet was invented this was bound to happen. In some societies this would be regarded as
espionage and subversion and these shills would be rounded up for a little chat. Great
journalism b, stay safe......at least we now know who the provocateurs for the next false
flag are....
Zero Hedge also striking similar skeptical notes. They retweet Assange from 2016 stating
anonymous to be an FBI cutout organisation. These anti-Russian organisations are real and
their aim is to fight Russian propaganda, they will say by publishing truth while Russia says
with lies. Of course they are funded. So is Russian propaganda. What the Russians are doing
is classic "Spy vs Spy" and Barflies of course lap up the kool-aid just as easily as every
kool-aid drinker we deride. The constant state of confirmation bias and psychological
projection on the internets isn't even newsworthy but it's interesting sociology. Wash.
Rinse. Repeat. Same as it ever was. Whatever gets us through the night. It's alright. But is
Assange only speaking truth when he confirms our biases? I have more respect for him.
Thanks b for posting Wikileak's skeptical take even as you wish to believe otherwise. That's
integrity. And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a
possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if
you were in his shoes.
This is so big of a news but the western media do not say a word about it!
This screams subversion, Gladio from the very top/deep state of western society.
Posted by: donkeytale | Nov 25, 2018 4:12:41 AM | 92
"And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a
possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if
you were in his shoes."
Who said that, donkeydumbass? Learn to read. I asked if the post-Assange Wikileaks might
be trying to do that. Of course I don't know what Assange himself might or might not do, any
more than you do.
The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from
President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious
Russian hacking group behind the attack.
In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said
the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically
anyone."
He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for
other attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
Poupard is director general of the government cyber-defense agency known in France by its
acronym, ANSSI. Its experts were immediately dispatched when documents stolen from the Macron
campaign leaked online on May 5 in the closing hours of the presidential race.
Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who
did this alone. They could be in any country."
Some commentators claim that 'Anonymous' is an FBI operations and that lets them doubt
this issue.
Actually 'Anonymous' has been used as a cover by various shady agencies and individuals.
Everybody can publish whatever they want under the 'Anonymous' moniker. The moniker has no
credibility or meaning.
As always one has to distinguish between the source of information and the actual content
of the information.
Here the source is obviously shady. But the content, as far as I can tell, seems to be
real.
---
Also - don't feed the house troll. Craigsummers is allowed to comment here solely for our
amusement. There is no need to discuss whatever he posts.
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really
sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY
lucrative racket going?
In countries that may be hostile to this programme (Serbia, Spain, Italy for example), the
exposed cluster members should be immediately arrested as foreign spies and tried for
treason, and the exposed British Embassy contacts should be immediately expelled.
Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by
internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow.
Interesting isn't it, that from March 2018 the Trump Administration is no longer blocking
this programme! When was Trump's first meeting with President Putin, wasn't that in March?
Immediately afterwards of course he was lambasted. Was he turned at that point?
"Edward Snowden accused an Israeli cybersecurity firm of developing and selling surveillance
software to Saudi Arabia, enabling the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi":
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really
sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY
lucrative racket going?
Nah. like Skripal this is a home grown effort. After backing that loser Clinton with the
Steele file, the British Conservative government which likes to have its head even further up
Washington's arse than Tony Blair's is scared shitless that Trump will shit on them from a
great height for backing his rival. I suspect he will wait for Brexit to go through and then
take a dump on them when they turn up with their begging bowl in Washington looking for a
"free trade deal". They're hoping that with these attacks on Russia they will ingratiate
themselves with the Washington foreign policy establishment (Pat Lang's Borg) enough to
reduce the incredible volumes of shit Trump would dump on them. It looks like it's working at
the moment, but then Trump is known to be capricious so its anybody's guess what happens
later. Bear in mind that if the Conservative government make enough mistakes, it's that
socialist Corbyn who replaces it which is its Worst. Nightmare. Evah.
The bottom line as Al Gore said is there is no overriding authority. Sites like Above Top
Secrect are obviously run by people who want things kept top secrect. Snopes revealed itself
with its take on the White Helmets in Syria. Remember when the Greenpeace guy turned out to
be a shill for Nuclear Energy.
Thank you. Very good covering of the 'event', written in clear accessible language.
I am afraid that what was discovered is only a small part of the ocean of lies in which they
are trying to force us to swim.
I am amazed how these people can sleep well. Rotten and lying through and through...
In fact, nothing "surprising" or "unbelievable" was found. Specialists, experts, as well
as ordinary people, who have been interested in the topic, have long understood that it is
about a targeted propaganda, which operates according to its laws. This propaganda calls
truth a lie, and a lie truth, it calls white black and black it calls white. The work of this
propaganda is also clearly visible, for example, when, on the eve of some important event,
the "world community" suddenly (mean, "suddenly") finds out something "sensational", while
MSM all start writing the same thing with a certain bias (often anti-Russian). The Russian
Foreign Ministry has repeatedly pointed out the obvious coordination of the work of the
Western media when it comes to 'anti-Russian news'. All these info are in briefings and
statements of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which are publicly available on the
Ministry's website.
Especially clearly a targeted coordinated work of propaganda was visible during the events
in Syria, in particular, during the liberation of Aleppo. Remember all these "the last
hospitals". Even high-ranking representatives of the UN, many of whom are essentially Western
protégés, were also participating in this propaganda. For those who are
interested in how this worked during the liberation of Aleppo, I recommend reading this in full. A
lot of interesting details.
One thing is good - that such info become publicly known. Maybe more people will wake up
and think about what is going on.
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications.
This particular story might originate within MI6. If MI6 knew that the Russians had
gathered compromising information on this operation, MI6 would put out a story favourable to
them to capture the narrative before the Russians could. Like all black propaganda, they
would have to include some of the real truth to make the fake "truth" appear reliable. It
also allows the supposedly devious twats at MI6 to demonstrate their steadfastness in
"fighting" the Russians.
BTW, it's entirely possible that the Skripal incident was by the Russians but only
designed to incapacitate Skripal pere as a warning to him or MI6 to behave themselves and not
do stupid things in future but the Conservative government rather stupidly decided to put out
a bullshit narrative about what happened. Furthermore, don't forget that Churchill, the hero
of the Conservative Party used chemical weapons against the Russians/Soviets. Most Brit's
probably never knew or have forgotten but I doubt the Russians have or ever will.
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications.
I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in
the stash.
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2018 2:25:31 AM | 87
The best way the elite can undermine wikileaks is to infiltrate it and undermine it from
within, as they did to Amnesty International, and later Human Rights Watch, both of which are
completely controlled by US and UK intelligence services. I think it is a given that they
will have successfully infiltrated wikileaks - because I think it is impossible that
wikileaks could have avoided it completely, but lets hope that wikileaks keep up sufficient
defences to isolate the infiltration and limit its damage. With the current threats to
Assange that will be a big challenge!
If, as I suspect, this claim that the documents were fake was being pushed by an
infiltrator, then that infiltrator is raising flags to himself, so it is a high risk action
and emphasises the desperation the elite are in, that they are willing to burn a key
asset.
The docs are fakes? I don't think so, there's just too much detail and the names it exposes,
Aaronovich, Marcus (BBC), the financing. It's an awful lot of exposing in order to mislead us
don't you think? And if it was, it was one, gigantic failure!
The best way is to see how the MSM deal with it, if at all, so today for example, there's
been no mention on the BBC's RSS feed and there was none yesterday. I'd say that judging by
the nature and structure of the 'Institute of Statecraft', it's straight out of
Whitehall.
my apologies for my truncated response. what i'd meant to say is that we're talking past
one another. my fault entirely, as i never should have brought wheeler into the discussion,
and derailed my larger point. but i got in a hurry, and that was that.
but to those wondering why 'assange' would have noted that 'some portions have been
fabricated', asange notably has been incommunicado for the past seven months, and any
'visitors' (really just his legal team) are forced to surrender all their communication
device before entering the embassy. so who on the Wikileaks team had decided that is
unknowable, of course. but on one of the subtweets where b had noted jakub janda's pride in
being part of the organization (nice catch, by the way, b) one idiot linked to his home
website noting that assange is a Mossad operative.
when i'd been contemplating writing some of up, i will say that my favorite part was the
handbook, most especially this great psyop:
"What funding do they have/have access to/need? Caution! This is always a very sensitive
issue. NB 1 If asked about money for funding activities of a cluster, always be firmly vague
and helpfully uninformative and at all costs avoid making any funding commitments until we
have discussed it! NB 2 When talking about the Institute, be sure you can explain clearly
what we are and what we do. NB 3 if asked about our funding, be very clear: the Integrity
Initiative is funded by the Institute for Statecraft. The IfS gets its funding from multiple
sources to ensure its independence. These include: private individuals; charitable
foundations; international organisations (EU, NATO); UK Govt (FCO, MOD"
one commenter on the cyber guerilla doc dump page had noted: 'Propagandist Stephen Dalziel
is a given a regular platform by Monocle 24 in the UK and rebroadcast around the world.
Dalziel shills for the fraud "Bellingcat".'
And what is the difference between the MbS treatment of "unpleasant" Khashoggi and the US/UK
treatment of "unpleasant" Assange?
The absolute majority of the "progressives" and "liberals" in both the US and the UK are
sheepishly quiet when the most important journalist of our times, Julian Assange, has been
smeared and his life endangered by the kangaroo courts of the western corrupt judiciary.
mike k: "The US Mafia Government kangaroo court gathers it's phony "legal" forces,
salivating in anticipation of Assange as a choice morsel for it's evil appetite. Their
"logic" goes like this, "if we say you are guilty, then you are guilty".
And where is the zionized MSM? -- With the kangaroo courts, of course, working in a accord
with the mega war profiteers and other big-time criminals.
In France, last Pres. election, the favored candidate from the right (Républicains)
was Alain Juppé. As the F establishment likes to mimic the US in all ways, they
instored 'primaires' - primaries, to 'elect' 'the most popular candidate' from the two main
parties. As the French don't glom the depth of corruption of the US system and how to do
that, and just love - for all kinds of reasons - such gadgets, the vote at the
Républicain table (even the name is a tribute) turned out surprise to be for Francois
Fillon - who was (is) Catholic, pro-Russia, while your standard right-wing F-flavored stooge.
He was brought down speedily in a corruption scandal, for hiring his wife and children
amongst others to do no work or symbolic stuff. One third of F Parliament members do this
(off the cuff nos., but attested to ..), it is completely accepted. An allowed 'perk' - a way
to spend the budgets > 'favored' 'loyal' ppl.
The effiency and speed of this attack surprised me. Fillon - no fool - 'withdrew' so to
speak and made no waves beyond the acceptable i.e. stalwart opposition / defense at first,
then went to work for a Financial Co. All the hype about suing the wife, about getting money
back, whatever, died pronto.
I have no idea how this was organised. (The left was conveniently split.. between the
entrenched "Socialists" and "Mélenchon," France Insoumise ) and so the end-run
was between the vilified National Front (renamed now) Marine Le Pen, party which survives
only as they play their puppet role to guarantee they collect low-class opposition to then
always lose facing either the Socialists or the Républicains.
Syria Urges U.N. to Condemn Rebels After Apparent Chemical Attack
Syria accused rebel forces of launching an attack in Aleppo that sent scores of choking
victims to hospitals. Medical officials suspected chlorine had been used.
Characteristically, the attack is "apparent", but almost strangely, NYT reported Reuters
news providing an inconvenient story rather fast.
If some at least of the documents are fabrications, the plan of the Western intelligence
agencies may be to expose some false details in the documents to discredit the whole story.
So, what several posters here are now stating or at least implying is the @wikileaks account
is basically the same as "Anonymous"? That is, it is merely a cover used by shadowy
individuals and therefore no longer possesses any credibility unless it posts something with
which we can all agree?
And the thoughts it expressed do not necessarily bear any relationship to Julian
Assange?
Unless, of course, we agree with those thoughts?
Blooming Barricade , Nov 25, 2018 10:50:38 AM |
link
The Integrity Initiative is now trying to smear and attack Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn's
communications director and a key voice on the anti-war, anti-capitalist left, tweeting a
Times article that appears to have been contributed to by them. They also retweeted Michael
Weiss on Milne, who they appear to want to remove from a future Corbyn government in the vein
of that Spanish minister This should be a HUGE scandal given that this is funded by the UK
government and thus the Tory administration and is thus GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA against the
leader of the opposition, paid for by the taxpayer and in line with big business/military
Euro-Atlanticist lobby. Thanks to the digital urban guerrilla site for exposing this assault
on socialism and the public. https://twitter.com/InitIntegrity/status/1066691553350086656
Best MoA blockbuster yet!!! Somewhere down there Joseph Goebbels is gazing upward at all this
exposed chicanery, eyes shining with delight, and also green with envy.
Goebbels was a rank amateur and grossly overrated - he could do white propaganda when
things were going well for the Nazis which wasn't difficult, otherwise he was useless. When
things started to go bad for the Nazis, the British, particularly Sefton Delmer, started
running rings around him. The Americans really never understood black propaganda but why
should they, and the British are still trying to fight World War 11 with their black
propaganda and are still losing.
These kind of propaganda campaigns end up as own goals for the establishment. Peons and serfs
don't need to know what is going on, but the Dear Leaders' functionaries do need accurate
info in order to make correct decisions that further establishment goals. With all the smoke
and chaos of conflicting stories, can bureaucrats keep their lies straight? I think not.
As I understand it, glowing but inaccurate fabricated reports submitted to the former
German Democratic Republic (East Germany) Dear Leaders left them unable to comprehend just
how unhappy the GDR citizens actually were, so the collapse came as a surprise. [1] We can
see this happening in Afghanistan today. The Pentagon insists they are "winning" while the
Taliban-controlled territory continues to increase. When Uncle Sam is finally driven out, it
will come as a complete surprise to the DC Dunces who believe their own phony reports.
[1] Fulbrook, Mary; Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Inside the GDR 1949-1989; Oxford University
Books; 1995
Just imagine the response and publicity if this was a Russian government funded organization,
having a network of agents of influence groups of people in western europe...
reply to Russ 89
"Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now?"
Good question. Do you recall when Assange's attorney was killed when pushed in front of a
train at the time the Wikileaks founder Gavin Macfadyen died?
The staff roster at Wikileaks then went through an almost total turnover and there were
reports that someone was escorted from the building with a bag over their head and there were
reports that Assange's deadman switch was activated but stopped. All this occurred back in
2016.
The reason no one who knows Assange is being allowed physical contact may be because someone
else is in his place.I have a sad feeling that he is in a Langley basement.
on sept. 26, 2018 julian assange had named Kristinn Hrafnsson of iceland as the new
editor-in-chief of wikileaks. at that time julian had been cut off from communicating for six
months.
an hour ago wikileaks had tweeted:
@wikileaks: WikiLeaks Retweeted Integrity Initiative 'UK government backed anti-Russian
influence network account for "Integrity Initiative" confirms release of documents.'
@InitIntegrity 'Here is our statement on the recent publication by Russian media of hacked
Integrity Initiative documents.'
they offered some caveats, among them:
"We have not yet had the chance to analyse all of the documents, so cannot say with
confidence whether they are all genuine or whether they include doctored or false material.
Although it is clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or
Institute systems, much of it is dated and was never used. In particular, many of the names
published were on an internal list of experts in this field who had been considered as
potential invitees to future cooperation. In the event, many were never contacted by the
Integrity Initiative and did not contribute to it. Nor were these documents therefore
included in any funding proposals. Not only did these individuals have nothing to do with the
programme – they may not even have heard of us. We are of course trying to contact all
named individuals for whom we have contact details to ensure that they are aware of what has
happened."
now my guess, fwiw, is that the WL knows chapter and verse how the CIA vault 7 revelations
can be used to create false email addresses, etc., so perhaps they'd spotted some.
but assange's attorney jennifer robinson did get to see him on nov. 16.
Thus is an extraordinary article. It describes distilled hypocrisy on the part of the U.S.
and U.K. who have conniptions over Russian "meddling," that has proved to be thin gruel
indeed, but who organize a vast, expensive enterprise of their own to implement
disinformation and smear campaigns to influence the internal affairs of other countries and
friendly ones at that. Russia purchases a modest message on Twitter (?) and that is an attack
on "our democracy."The attack on the now oddly-sequestered Skripals is an epic East Asian
fire drill with Theresa May written all over it and it sure as hell has nothing "made in
Moscow" about it.
Anne Appelebaum and the other "journalists" have some 'splainin' to do about what
independent, unbiased journalists are doing as players in government propaganda
organizations.
Look y'all, @craigsummers is a paid troll. So all your responses are earning him or her
income. Trolling is an art form. b, you could regularly remined new readers to ignore mwn.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:14:22 AM |
link
I am Russian, live in Russia.
This is the most interesting journalistic investigation I've read in the last six months.
Thanks.
Most of all I am surprised, the whole world is in economic crisis, people in developed
countries are becoming poorer. Britain has an external debt of 7.5 trillion-314% of GDP. But
all useless garbage the money is. And most importantly, Why?
We all (USA, Russia, Britain, EU) are just village losers who fight in a roadside ditch,
proving that "I am good, they are bad".
And at this time past us at full speed is a huge Chinese train.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:42:03 AM |
link
And the destruction of the MH-17 Boeing by the Russians is also disinformation.
Do you know what the official version of the investigation is?
"Once upon a time. One air defense "Buk" secretly arrived from Russia, shot once, one rocket,
in one civil plane, and left back to Russia" (facepalm). Seriously, I'm not kidding, this
nonsense is the official version.
The involvement of several dozen Ukrainian air defense " Buk " located in the area of the
disaster, not even considered.
No one knows what they were doing.
All photos of "wandering, mad Russian "Buk" were false.
But sanctions imposed by the EU after the disaster, no one is going to cancel. And to
assume aloud "that" new authorities" of Ukraine at which hands on an elbow in blood " can be
guilty of accident, it is impossible, taboo.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 27, 2018 5:45:32 AM |
link
Gateside Mills in rural Fife is the official headquarters of the controversial
Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a "think tank" set up to combat Russian
disinformation.
For the tiny number of people aware of its existence, Gateside Mills is a derelict building
in rural Fife without any obvious signs of life.
Anyone curious enough to carry out further investigation might find a seemingly small
Scottish charity is registered there.
But the Sunday Mail can reveal the crumbling Victorian mill is actually the official
headquarters of the controversial Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a shadowy "think
tank" whose Integrity Initiative programme has been set up to combat Russian
propaganda.
Leaked documents prove the organisation received hundreds of thousands of pounds of
funding from the British Government via the Foreign Office.
...
The manager of the Integrity Initiative appears to be Christopher Donnelly.
A website biography states he is a graduate of Manchester University and reserve officer
in the British Army Intelligence Corps who previously headed the British Army's Soviet
Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst.
Between 1989 and 2003, he was a special adviser to Nato Secretaries General and was
involved in dealing with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and reform of newly
emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
He left NATO in 2003 to set up and run the UK Defence Academy's Advanced Research and
Assessment Group. In 2010, he became a director of IFS.
Russia are the problem along with China, because they both oppose their NWO agenda! This
agenda has been getting pushed from UK for decades now. It first started back in 1800's, but
now is world wide. The Corporate & Bankers want complete control of all economies &
jobs.
This way they control everything, where and who manufactures what and how much, all
controlled by Corporations. Governments become non existent, as do the Electorate. This would
have been obvious IF all TPP-TTIP-CETA Treaties had been signed. We'd have had one huge
Single Market that excluded BRICS, who'd have been forced in by war!
To their end, 'deep state; then attacked Rouseff in Brazil, had her 'impeached' and placed
their puppet Temer in charge, as an 'anchor' to BRICS, as well as creating problems in ME,
where China's One Belt One Road [New Silk Road] crosses continents.
The more people become aware of their intentions, the harder it becomes for them to win, as
they are now losing ground all round the world. The last two, Israel & UK are about to
fall. Netinyahoo has been charged with Corruption and May in UK, is on the verge of being
brought down, after being the first PM to be charged and found guilty of Contempt for
Parliament! Next to fall, the corrupt EU.
"... This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion. ..."
"... Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25, Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the "Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding world war! ..."
"... These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush. ..."
We are in a showdown moment. At this week's Group of 20 Summit -- only three days away, in
Buenos Aires, there is the potential for Great Power diplomacy in the direction of a New
Paradigm of foreign relations, as an outcome of the sideline meetings of heads of state and
government of the United States, China, Russia, India and others.
The growing momentum for New Paradigm economic development is seen in high-level events this
month in six Western European nations: in Germany, the "Hamburg Summit: China Meets Europe"
(Nov. 26-27); in France, the Lyon "Franco-Chinese Forum" (Nov. 26-28); in Spain, President Xi
Jinping's state visit (Nov. 27-29); in Portugal, Xi's visit (Dec. 4-5); in Italy, a new
Xinhua-associated Italian financial media service will be set up (Nov. 6 agreement); in Norway,
the first Polar Route icebreaker delivery of Yamal LNG, for transshipment from the northern
port of Honnigsvag.
This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires
gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire
crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion.
Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in
Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25,
Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the
"Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an
offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against
Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding
world war!
These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the
spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and
Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga
Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward
in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The
Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush.
The Nov. 25 Ukrainian naval breach of Russian territorial waters was long pre-planned. As
the Italian military journal Difesa Online wrote on Nov. 25, "it was evident to all
those who follow local events that for some days already, the Poroshenko government in Ukraine
was trying to provoke an armed confrontation with Moscow in the Crimean waters." Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, said the same yesterday, adding a warning. "We
are talking about a pre-planned, deliberate, and now realized large-scale provocation.... I
think everybody should be careful next time. I think there will be a next time, considering
what is happening now."
President Donald Trump's first response to the Ukraine incident, Nov. 26, was to express
concern, and hopes for settlement. "We do not like what's happening, either way; ... hopefully,
it will get straightened out." President Vladimir Putin will issue his statement on this
incident in a few days.
From London, however, comes a raving "script" of what Trump and the West must do against
Russia. It is the featured item on the website of the Integrity Initiative, which is a British
intelligence black war propaganda operation. Its funding is from the U.K. Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. Its Nov. 26 posting is titled, "West Is Once Again Failing Test Set by
Russian Aggression," by Edward Lucas, formerly of The Economist , and a longtime
Russia-hater, who wrote such books as Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the
West (2012) and The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West (2nd
ed., 2014). Lucas calls for "kinetic, symbolic, and financial measures" against Russia. This is
to include, the West sending military aid to Ukraine, running a NATO flotilla to the Ukrainian
port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, putting sanctions on Russian officials and businessmen
present in the West, and cutting Russia off from Western finance. Lucas says that the West
didn't act against Nazi Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland, but they must act now against
Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
Lucas is part of the British "cluster" of Integrity Initiative's operatives, which also
includes former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood of Orbis Business Intelligence,
the firm of "former" MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who fabricated the infamous anti-Trump
dossier. These figures are at the heart of the coup operations against Trump, and before that,
the Obama Administration election subversion.
Zepp-LaRouche nailed the Integrity Initiative in a Sputnik interview published yesterday,
now being run in media internationally. She said that the group's activity displays the "
modus operandi of British intelligence operations, and it very well may turn out, that
it is this network, which is deeply involved in 'Russiagate' and the entire coup against
President Trump."
"... Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.) ..."
Howard Zinn said, in a speech given shortly after the 2008 Presidential election, "If you don't know history, it's like you were
born yesterday. The government can tell you anything." (Speech was played on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org about Jan. 4, 2009
and is archived, free on the website.)
Being older (18 on my last Leap Year birthday - 72), I recall the NYTimes and CIA have had relationship with, and was caught
having "planted CIA workers" as NYTimes writers. Within my adult lifetime, in fact.
This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that [...] it is an "intelligence matter".
In a sense the CIA is always going to be right on this one - "Central Intelligence Agency" - but only as a matter of nomenclature,
rather than of any other dictionary definition of the word "intelligence".
Actually the collusion between the CIA and big business is far more damaging. The first US company I worked for in Brussels (it
was my first job) was constantly being targeted by the US media for having connections to corrupt South American and Third World
regimes. On what seemed like an almost monthly basis our personnel department would send round memos saying that we were strictly
forbidden to talk to journalists about the latest exposé.
It was great fun - even the telex operators knew who the spies were.
The line "'The optics aren't what they look like,' is truly an instant classic. It reminds me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra
quotes (which, unlike many attributed to him, is real, I think). Yogi once said about a restaurant in New York "Nobody goes there
anymore. It's too crowded." Perhaps Yogi should become an editor for the Times.
British readers will no doubt be shocked -- shocked! -- to learn of cozy relations between a major news organization and a national
intelligence agency.
"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet
said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.'
"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know,
it's much ado about nothing.'"
How can you have a Party if you don't have Party elites?
And how can a self-respecting member of the Party claim their individual status within the Party without secret knowledge designed
to identify one another as members of the Party elite?
[Proles are] natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals ... Life, if you looked about you, bore no resemblance
not only to the lies that streamed out of the telescreens, but even to the ideals the Party was trying to achieve. ... The
ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering -- a world of of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines
and terrifying weapons -- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts
and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting -- 300 million people all with the same
face. The reality was decaying, dingy cities, where underfed people shuffled to and fro in leaky shoes... [
1984 ,pp 73-74]
It makes no difference if an imagined socialist England, a collapsing Roman city-state empire, an actual Soviet Union, or a
modern American oligarchy.
Party members thrive while those wretched proles flail in confused and hungry desperation for something authentic (like a George
Bush) or even simply reassuring (like a Barack Obama.)
Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than
as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes
and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.)
Manzetti has "no bad intent" because he is loyal to the Party.
Like all loyal (and very well compensated) Party members, he would never do anything as subversive as reveal Party secrets.
"... Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to. ..."
"... Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any evidence ..."
Comment section (David Wooten): "According to the crown prince himself, Trump's [Jewish]
son-in-law gave him a secret list of his enemies -- the ones like Al Aweed who were
tortured and shaken down for cash. Khashoggi might even have been on that list.
One or more of the tortured ones likely tipped off Erdogan, which is why Turkey only
needed to enter the consulate, retrieve the recorded audio device they planted, and walk out
with the evidence. Turkey also has evidence that puts MbS' personal doctor and other staff
arriving in Turkey at convenient times to do the job -- and probably more. Khashoggi was
anything but a nice person but Trump cannot say that or he'll likely be accused of
involvement in his murder.
Dissociation is made far more difficult by the fact that Jared is a long time friend of
Netanyahu who, like Jared, hasbefriended MbS .
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
Were it not for the Khashoggi affair, fewer Republican seats would have been lost in the
election."
-- Time for Bolton to send for the clairvoyant Theresa May who has managed to accuse
Russia, and Mr. Putin personally, in the Skripals' poisoning n the absence of any
evidence .
These people -- Bolton, May, Gavin Williamson and likes -- are a cross of the ever-eager
whores and petty brainless thieves. To expose themselves as the willing participants in the
ZUSA-conducted farce requires a complete lack of integrity.
Of course, there is no way to indict the journalist's murderers since the principal
murderer is a personal friend of Netanyahu and Jared.
Jump, Justice, jump, as high as ordered by the "chosen."
By the way, why do we hear nothing about Seth Rich who was murdered in the most surveilled
city of the US?
@annamaria A 1st
grader can see that MbS was behind the murder of Kashoggi.
Trump won't fire his son-in-law, so if Jared doesn't have the decency to resign on his
own, he may well be responsible for Trump's downfall in addition to his own. Trump's silly
daughter, Ivanka, needs to go to.
I've been hoping for this since they moved to Washington with 'big daddy'.
@Anon " crappy
bedtime reading the woolyheadedness "
Hey, Anon[436], is this how your parents have been treating you? My condolences.
If you feel that you succeeded with your "see, a squirrel" tactics of taking attention
from the zionists' dirty and amoral attempts at coverup of the murder of the journalists
Khashoggi, which was accomplished on the orders of the clown prince (the dear friend of Bibi
& Jared), you are for a disappointment.
One more time for you, Anon[436]: the firm evidence of MbS involvement in the murder of
Khashoggi contrasts with no evidence of the alleged poisoning of Skripals by
Russian government.
The zionists have been showing an amazing tolerance towards the clown prince the murderer
because zionists need the clown prince for the implementation of Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz
Israel.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence , as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder
of Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the availableevidence . Thanks
to the zionists friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of
no importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
The stinky Skripals' affair involves harsh economic actions imposed on the RF in the
absence of any evidence, as compared to no sanctions in response to the actual murder of
Khashoggi, which involved MbS according to the available evidence. Thanks to the zionists
friendship with the clown prince, the firm evidence of Khashoggi murder is of no
importance. What else could be expected from the "most moral" Bibi & Kushner and the
treasonous Bolton.
"... Just to say, many people in tech understand the issues go way beyond building smart bombs. Worker surveillance and gamification of work are inhuman disasters, I agree. The anti-military actions have simply been the most visible, and they are good catalysts for organizing because they are so obviously evil. Lots of people feel uncomfortable about building things that kill people. ..."
Top U.S. general urges Google to work with military Reuters. EM: "Wow, this guy is clueless even by top-brass standards. For
example: Google Is Helping the Pentagon Build AI for Drones." Moi: I assume this is intended for the great unwashed masses, to give
them the impression that Google and the surveillance state are not joined at the hip.
Re: Top U.S. general urges Google to work with military
I will be more interested when the employees of a tech company revolt over the development of technology used to monitor workers
or put them out of work. It is easier to oppose military projects because they smack of something out of The Terminator films
while developments like Neo-Taylorism are not as obviously evil but are perhaps just as inhuman and socially destructive.
I'm involved with the Tech Workers Coalition, although I only speak for myself as a member. Some of my fellow members were
involved in the Google organizing against project Maven, and also Dragonfly. In the last few months there have also been organized
actions at Amazon and Salesforce in opposition to working with ICE. Various TWC members are also involved in partnering with food
service and janitorial staff around worker organizing and improving working conditions. One of the efforts I'm starting to get
involved with is a more organized network for mutual aid and disaster relief in the Bay Area, in the wake of this year's fire
season.
Just to say, many people in tech understand the issues go way beyond building smart bombs. Worker surveillance and gamification
of work are inhuman disasters, I agree. The anti-military actions have simply been the most visible, and they are good catalysts
for organizing because they are so obviously evil. Lots of people feel uncomfortable about building things that kill people.
Tech culture, especially in Silicon Valley, teaches workers to identify with the company completely. At Google you are a Googler.
At Pivotal you are a Pivot. We refer to each other this way, inside and outside of work. We are working against that conditioning
when we organize, so starting with "Let's not build things that blow humans into burning bits" is helpful.
Yet, reality could be bleeker. A handful of private companies control the information that
is needed to understand how the online ecosystem works. They manage the key infrastructure, and
most experts in the field are running this infrastructure after having signed non-disclosure
agreements. Thus, Plato's Allegory of the Cave might be a more fitting metaphor. Control over
key data allows these companies to play the role of shadow-masters. They get the chance to
reveal only the portions of reality they find convenient, defining how the general public
perceives the online space. Information scarcity is therefore not just the natural consequence
of the internet's novelty; it is created artificially and for strategic purposes: To shape
public opinion.
Should we break up these big companies? Should we allow them to continue growing, but under
strict, utility-type rules? Should we do nothing? Whatever we do should be the result of a
robust public debate. One that is based on the best available evidence regarding the effects
the internet is having on power relations, and is therefore capable of defining the set of
actions that would best serve the public interest. In short, at this point, we need key
information to be disclosed and available for public scrutiny. But information is power –
and it is unlikely to be disclosed voluntarily. It might require regulation.
When food production became industrialized, the US Government created the Food and Drug
Administration, which was tasked with monitoring and disclosing information regarding
compliance with quality standards. When government became too complex for the average citizen
to navigate, ombuds offices sprouted across the globe. As an independent institution of
government, ombuds were given the duty and power to investigate how government units work, and
report on matters concerning people's rights. The current situation requires exploring a
similarly bold institutional reform. One focused on ensuring the data needed to inform public
debate is made available by the tech industry.
Most people scoffed at the limited understanding of our digital world members of the US
Congress revealed when they grilled Mark Zuckerberg . And yet its likely
Facebook is not the only company behaving recklessly, nor the US Senators the only public
representatives that are "ignorant".
What we have is a growing gap between where power lies and where the institutions that seek
to hold it accountable to the people operate. Such institutions are incapable of allowing
democratically elected leaders to deliver their campaign promises. This is what is ultimately
triggering social tensions and undermining trust in our democracies. We need our institutions
to interpret these tensions as red flags and a call for a new social contract. And we need
institutions to react now. This situation goes far beyond the debate around digitalization. Yet
the online space is our future, and is therefore where this gap is most visible and urgent.
If our current institutions of government fail to ensure the ongoing technological
revolution puts people first, these institutions will sooner or later be rendered
irrelevant.
A previous version of this article was published at Chatham
House .
Facebook is a dictatorship of one. Alphabet is a dictatorship of two. As long as corporate
governance is anti-democratic that will have an unfortunately negative impact on civil
society. I hope shareholders in these and other companies will vote in favor of proposals by
NorthStar and others to phase out multi-class share structures, require that directors get at
least a majority vote to take office, do away with supermajority voting requirements,
etc.
The Internet was "born in sin," developed as it was to maintain communications during a
nuclear holocaust against a fundamentally fake threat.
Let's remember that the Soviet Union, however repressive it may have been toward its own
people and those in satellite countries, never posed the existential threat to the US that
was claimed. Rather, as Senator Arthur Brandenburg of Michigan infamously told Harry Truman
at the dawn of the Cold War, it would be necessary "to scare the hell out of the American
people" to get them to turn against their former Soviet allies, which the State and compliant
media spent the next forty years doing, often/largely producing weapons that don't work
against enemies that don't exist.
How has the Internet ever not been a tool of the national security state, and why should
we have ever expected otherwise?
While the discussion of of the need for new paradigms for regulation and accountability --
lest democratic or civil institutions become irrelevant -- is very much needed, I am
bewildered by the framing of the discussion to only the internet. The internet is just one,
interactive and immediately visible use of technology that has the potential to undermine a
fair society.
Some of the most insidious and destructive uses of data technology is not on the internet;
it's tools and processes used by previously trusted corporations, governments, and
institutions that is not regulated, not transparent and not accountable. So framing the
discussion with the 'internet' seems disengenuous.
"... Yes, its far better than the "first past the post" systems of the UK and the US where the number of votes split between two almost identical candidates can lead to a far different candidate winning with only a little over a third of the total vote. ..."
Proportional representation is definitely the way to go. I am sick to death of the
born-to-rule mentality of the major parties, and how they change the rules to benefit
themselves and to exclude others.
Minority government? There is no such thing - there is only 'government', and it is
supposed to involve all members of parliament in the decision-making process. 'Majority'
governments are an anathema to good governance. Every time I hear the likes of Tony Abbott
claim they have a mandate to implement ALL their policies, even though they only receive
around 35% of the primary vote, I want to throw something at the TV.
Bugger them! Make them work for a living - and make them consider ALL views, not just the
ones from their own party.
Preferences are an extremely good feature of our voting system
Yes, its far better than the "first past the post" systems of the UK and the US where the
number of votes split between two almost identical candidates can lead to a far different
candidate winning with only a little over a third of the total vote.
Preferential voting also makes it more possible for the major party duopoly being
overturned, allowing people to vote for a good independent without taking the risk of helping
a despised major party candidate from winning by default.
"The problem with representative democracy is that it represents the special interest groups
far more than it represents the citizenry." You are spot on.
What a logical and stirring argument you put forward Richard Denniss, and a large majority of
the electorate would have to agree.
However there is also a large number of people in the electorate that cannot appear to rise
from their nightly slumber without wearing their Blue, Red, Green or Orange tinted glasses
before facing the new day.
And because of this, and preferential voting, sneaking in the background is a plethora of the
wild mindless sub creatures called politicians who demand their rights to sit in the big
white building on Canberra;s Capital Hill, just waiting to spoil not only the electorate's
party but also known to prostitute the country's governance to their own advantage.
Richard, we desperately need a follow up stirring article on how to overcome this black
menace to our country, for the sake of our country.
If you think the public has an appetite for more bureaucrats, more rules and regulations to
micromanage people's lives and even more political wheeling and dealing in Canberra, you
should get out more.
That the coalition government is on the slide is of no long term consequence. We'll get a
Labor government next year and in a few years another coalition government and so on.
What is of long term significance is the loss of public trust in pretty much all of the
institutions - including goverment and the various government agencies that would be more
powerful under your scenario.
The problem with representative democracy is that it represents the special interest
groups far more than it represents the citizenry. Perhaps the solution lies in more direct
democracy.
The same sex marriage plebiscite demonstrated that we commoners can deliberate on a
sensitive issue, and in doing so behave far better than our elected representatives in
Parliament. And can make a sensible and progressive decision that our elected representatives
could not - both coalition and Labor MPs had opposed same sex marriage when it was raised in
th e Parliament.
The internet provides a platform for direct decision making by the citizenry. Perhaps we
should try that instead of what you are suggesting.
It's been clear for years that proportional representation has progressively meant death to
effective government, and that it forces major parties policy development further to the
political fringes to appeal to the fruit loops on the periphery of their respective
demographics. Time for a return to simple preferential voting (a-la-house of Reps) in the
senate, and an overhaul of what's considered a valid ballot - if you want to only rank 1, 2,
3 or all candidates it should be entirely your choice.
Hung parliaments, with diametrically opposed clumps of "independents" jointly holding the
balance of power can only ever deliver legislative stasis and constant political turmoil (as
we have experienced since 2010 and Europe and the US have suffered for the last decade).
Oh for the good old days when one or the other of the major parties held a working
majority in both houses, and policy was targeted at the 'sensible centre" of the Australian
electorate. At worst, they only had to deal with a couple of sensible Democrats, and the odd
lunatic fringe-ist like Harradine.
"... I find the Australian electoral system very mediocre. All those people who vote but really don't get represented. All those votes that just get mopped up by the major parties. I really can't understand why Australians have put up with such a poor system for so long. ..."
Having spent many years in a New Zealand under a First Past the Post system
and then Mixed Member Proportional, I am an enthusiastic supporter of proportional systems.
I
find the Australian electoral system very mediocre. All those people who vote but really
don't get represented. All those votes that just get mopped up by the major parties. I really
can't understand why Australians have put up with such a poor system for so long.
Hettie7-> melbournesam 31 Oct 2018 00:45
Proportional representation makes the most sense. Each party gets the same percentage of seats in the parliament as it
received votes in the election. That really is fair.
Authoritarianism has always existed. But it hasn't always been clearly visible. Technology
makes authoritarianism more powerful. Centralization and urbanization have served the
purposes of the elite well.
People need information and communication. The inverted totalitarianism we live in,
doesn't like that. It wants the Internet to implement that inverted totalitarianism (see
China). They want everything (in a corporatist way) to be mandatory, except for what is
forbidden. What has been revealed, and is being revealed, is that the current
political-economic system isn't fit for purpose, human purpose.
So the real answer is like what is happening in France now...
Attempting to blame the internet for the increasingly authoritarian world we live in is
not seeing the forest through the trees. The internet is surely a tool used against
humanity,That doesn't make it "bad". I would say the reason people can be fooled by these
social media propaganda tactics, is precisely because the fourth estate is practicing such in
depth propaganda campaigns, with all propaganda, all the time coverage on every other form of
media as well. People have nowhere to turn.
Why do people think some russians posting on facebook and twitter skewed the electorate in
this country than say nothing about:fox news,npr,cnn,rush limbaugh,hannity,the new york
times, wall st journal,the weekly standard, time magazine,people magazine, etc.All of these
organizations and all the others spout disinformation. every day.
And america's trend towards the authoritarian state has been accelerating since at least the
national security act of 1947.as a national trend, whereas in the beginning of this countries
existence, there have been authoritarian control of local districts by local groups, ie.
whites over blacks, or whites over indians, or rich over poor immigrants, etc.
All the internet age and the "information age is doing, is changing the medium. the message
is still the same. and there has always been resistance. now that resistance seems more
futile, but is it?
Why do people think some russians posting on facebook and twitter skewed the electorate
in this country than say nothing about:fox news,npr,cnn,rush limbaugh,hannity,the new york
times, wall st journal,the weekly standard, time magazine,people magazine, etc.All of these
organizations and all the others spout disinformation. every day.
Exactly. Our society is mainly shaped by its elites. And other than Twitter they are
barely involved with the internet at all but rather get their news and attitudes from the NY
Times or (in Trump's case) cable TV. Therefore rather than enhancing the always existing
authoritarianism of "manufactured consent," the internet works to undermine it. This of
course provokes much fingering of worry beads among the elite who see the mob and their
pitchforks as real threats. The situation in France illustrates this phenomenon nicely and
there have been calls by some to block Facebook in France so those yellow vests can't
communicate with each other.
Diversity of opinion is a good thing, not bad, and some of us scan right leaning websites
just to get a different view. The internet is not the problem. Powerful authoritarians are
the problem.
In my own undoubtedly faulty memory of Animal Farm , Orwell characterized the
devolution as "the nature of the beast" through his characters. That is (over and above the
allegory of the Russian revolution/devolution), there are strong traits in human character
that makes this devolution inevitable. We have the pigs; the aggressors, and the followers,
and less savory characters, and the "never quite enough" wise annimal(s) and so on, working
unwittingly together against the welfare of the whole making the end result seem precast. Not
so much that we did nothing, as that we could do nothing.
1984 never really addressed that issue (or at least I don't remember it doing so), but
from the start everything seemed inevitable, there was no discussion of any "might have
been," that could have been an alternative to the dystopia of an engineered rivalry between
two super-powers that worked off each other to maintain a compliant global society in
hopeless mass psychological, never mind physical, irons.
But even assuming this inevitability was Orwell's own belief and intent in his
writings (and not simply my misunderstanding of them), I agree with your point that we had
plenty of warning, and not just Orwell, and that society as a whole too frequently took the
easier road but with a lot of help and insistent guidance (manipulation) from our
increasingly corrupt leaders and captains of industry (our own pigs).
Animal Farm was Orwell's best book IMO because it speaks to universal human tendencies
even though the book was also about Stalin and Trotsky. 1984 was far fetched speculation
based on, as it turned out, the short lived totalitarianism of figures like Hitler and
Stalin. People assume we are living 1984 when it's really Animal Farm.
"... Neoliberal doctrine leads to skyrocketing inequality, a swelling in the desperate and forgotten poor who are vulnerable to populist messaging and the idea of a strongman peddling easy answers to keep people safe as civil unrest increases. Fascism seeks power for power's sake and total control over the populace, and always cruelty to the marginalised, the 'others'. How all the right wingers hand-wringing over the idea of 'socialist communisms!!1!' can't see that, I don't know. ..."
"... All over the world, failed neoliberalism is being replaced by right-wing populist nationalism & I don't think "repairing democratic institutions" is at the top of their to-do list. ..."
"... I'm certainly in favour of greater nationalisation, especially of essential services. But around the world, neo-liberalism has morphed into neo-fascism and this is where the next fight must be. ..."
"... In social systems, natural selection favours cooperation. In addition, we are biased toward ethical behaviours, so cooperation and sharing are valued in human societies. ..."
"... The consequences of four decades of financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely distributed busts. ..."
"... No wonder you get fascist right wing insurgence in this climate! ..."
Never forget that fascism is the natural defence mechanism of capital. After it is accrued,
it must be defended. The current trend in global politics is not an anomaly but an entirely
predictable outcome.
Neoliberal doctrine leads to skyrocketing inequality, a swelling in the
desperate and forgotten poor who are vulnerable to populist messaging and the idea of a
strongman peddling easy answers to keep people safe as civil unrest increases. Fascism seeks
power for power's sake and total control over the populace, and always cruelty to the marginalised, the 'others'. How all the right wingers hand-wringing over the idea of
'socialist communisms!!1!' can't see that, I don't know.
It's too late for the US I fear, and time is rapidly running out for the UK if they don't
pull their finger out and have another referendum before the self immolation of Brexit.
All over the world, failed neoliberalism is being replaced by right-wing populist nationalism
& I don't think "repairing democratic institutions" is at the top of their to-do list.
If
Australia does swing the pendulum to the left, it, along with NZ, will be one of the few
countries to do so. De-privatising will not be easy & will be met with a huge reactionary
backlash. They'll need to tread very carefully if they want to stay in government.
Neoliberalism may be dead but the neoliberals in the government will never admit it as they
seamlessly transition to authoritarian nationalism with populist promises - and failure to
deliver on them.
The neoliberal project was always a philosophical cover for crony capitalism that betrayed
the public interest by rewarding vested interests for their patronage, perverted democracy,
and served as a mechanism for perverting the natural function of an economy - to fairly
distribute goods, resources, and services throughout society - to favor the welfare of the
few over the many.
The self-interested culture of neoliberalism - the cult of the individual that denies the
common good - pervades every aspect of Australia's life as a nation - business, politics,
sport, education, and health - denying and crowding out public spirit, selfless service, and
societal wellbeing.
For meaningful change to occur there must be a rebirth of the conception of the public
good, and the virtue and necessity of acting to realise it.
However at this stage there is not a communal recognition of what the problem is let alone
how to go about repairing it. For that to happen there must be a widely accepted narrative
that naturally leads to the obvious actions that must be take to redress the damage done by
the neoliberal con job: decreasing economic inequality, restoring democracy, and rebuilding a
sense of common cause.
Piecemeal change will not be sufficient to enact the the sweeping transformation that has
to occur in every department of life. It is not enough to tax multinationals, to have a
federal integrity commission, to build a renewable future, or to move to proportional
representation.
Someone, some party, some coherent philosophical perspective has to explain why it must be
done.
It's certainly the case that the Liberal party, in particular, are now using ideas that fall
outside and to the right of neo-liberalism, but it's also obviously the case that
neo-liberalism and current Liberal thinking share the same underlying goal. Namely, the
transfer of wealth and power towards a narrower and narrower group of people and
corporations.
That suggests the death of neo-liberalism is coming about because – having done so
much damage already – it's no longer capable of delivering the required results, and
that we're moving into a new phase of the death spiral. I think that can also be seen in both
the US (where Trump is using the identified problems of neo-liberalism to further the same
basic agenda, but with less decorum and a larger cadre of useful idiots) and the UK (where
there's still a very strong possibility that Brexit will be used as an excuse to roll back
great swathes of social and democratic safeguards).
Perhaps even more worrying – given the latest reports on how we're destroying
habitat as well as the climate, and how much of our biodiversity is in South America,
particularly the Amazon – is that Brazil is how on a similar path.
The likelihood is that the Liberal party won't get away with what they have planned, but
they – and the forces behind them – certainly won't stop trying. And
unfortunately it's far from obvious that the Labor party will repudiate neo-liberalism
anytime soon. That they signed up for the latest iteration of TPP is hardly a good omen.
Democratic re-engagement is the better way forward from neo-liberalism, but unfortunately
I think it's unlikely to be the one that we end up taking.
All of that said, the deepest problem of all is the way in which democracy and government
have been corrupted, often via the media, but typically at the behest of corporations, and if
there is a way forward it has to be found in addressing those interactions
I'm certainly in favour of greater nationalisation, especially of essential services. But
around the world, neo-liberalism has morphed into neo-fascism and this is where the next
fight must be.
In social systems, natural selection favours cooperation. In addition, we are biased
toward ethical behaviours, so cooperation and sharing are valued in human societies.
But what happens when we are forced into an economic system that makes us compete at every
level? The logical outcome is societal decline or collapse.
Perhaps the worst aspect of neoliberalism was its infection of the Labor party. This has
left our social infrastructure alarmingly exposed.
The consequences of four decades of financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no
means equally shared. Internal and external class relations were made evident through
narrowly distributed booms followed by widely distributed busts.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would
suggest the opposite.
No wonder you get fascist right wing insurgence in this climate!
Thank you Richard Denniss we need to highlight this more and more and start educating the
dumbed down population saturated with neoliberal snake oil!
I think the Internet and the infotech revolution in general have been largely negative in their impact on the world. Ian Welsh
has a blog post that largely sums up my views on the issue.
Contrary to what many people say I think large organizations like governments and corporations have significantly more power
now than before and ordinary people have less power. The Internet has made it easier to get information but you have to sift through
tons of junk to get to anything decent. For every website like Naked Capitalism there are thousands pushing nonsense or trying
to sell you stuff.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it? At best it makes
you more well-rounded, interesting and harder to fool but in political terms knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you more effective.
In the past people didn't have access to nearly as much information but they were more willing and able to organize and fight
against the powerful because it was easier to avoid detection/punishment (that is where stuff like widespread surveillance tech
comes in) and because they still had a vibrant civic life and culture.
I actually think people are more atomized now than in the past and the Internet and other technologies have probably fueled
this process. Despite rising populism, the Arab Spring, Occupy, the Yellow Jackets in France, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and the DSA this is all a drop in the bucket compared to just the massive social movements of the 1960s much less earlier periods.
Robert Putnam argued that television, the Internet and other technologies likely helped to produce the collapse of civic life
in the United States by "individualizing" people's leisure time and personally I think Putnam is right. Civic life today is very
weak and I think the Internet is partially to blame.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it?
Agreed. If anything these more knowledgeable people had a greater audience prior to the internet. Whether you were a journalist,
a great economist, a great author, or a great orator you need to persist and show intellect and talent to have your message heard
wide and broad.
(This is probably a little idealistic, but I think there is truth there.)
Now you need very little of this. If your most famous asset is your attractive body you can attract a greater audience than
great scholars and politicians.
I can't speak much on authoritarianism since whatever form it takes on today is wildly different from what it was in the past.
Unfortunately, it is hard to convince many people living in western societies that they are living in an authoritarian system
because their metal images are goose-stepping soldiers and Fraktur print posters.
I suppose the way I can assure myself that we are living in an authoritarian society is by analyzing the endless propaganda
spewed from countless, high-viewership media and entertainment outlets. It is quite simple, if the media and entertainment narratives
are within a very narrow intellectual window (with lots of 600 lb. gorillas sitting in corners) than the culture and politics
are being defined by powerful people with a narrow range of interests. This is not to say that forming public opinion or preferring
particular political views is a new thing in Western media and entertainment, just that its application, IMO, is far more effective
and subtle (and becoming more-so by the day) than it ever was in, say, NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union.
I'd put my money down that most educated Germans during NAZI rule were well aware that propaganda was being utilized to "manufacture
consent" but they participated and accepted this despite the content for pragmatic/selfish reasons. Much of the NAZI propaganda
played on existing German/European cultural narratives and prejudices. Leaveraging existing ideology allowed the party to necessitate
their existence by framing the German as juxtaposed against the impure and unworthy. Again, ideologies that existed independent
of the party not within it. Goebbels and company were just good at utilizing the technology of the time to amplify these monstrosities.
I question that being the case today. It is far more complicated. Technology is again the primary tool for manipulation, but
it is possible that current technology is allowing for even greater leaps in reason and analysis. The windows for reflection and
critical thought close as soon as they are opened. Seems more like the ideology is manufactured on the fly. For example, the anti-Russia
narrative has some resonance with baby boomers, but how the hell is it effective with my generation (millennial) and younger?
The offhand references to Putin and Russian operatives from my peers are completely from left field when considering our life
experience. People in my age group had little to say about Russia three years ago. It says volumes on the subtle effectiveness
of Western media machines if you can re-create the cold war within two years for an entire generation.
In addition and related to above, the West's understanding of "Freedom of Speech" is dated by about 100 years. Governments
are no longer the sole source of speech suppression (more like filtering and manipulation), and the supremacy of the free-market
coupled with the erroneously perceived black-and-white division between public and private have convinced the public (with nearly
religious conviction) that gigantic media and entertainment organizations do not have to protect the free speech of citizens because
they are not government. Public/Private is now an enormous blob. With overlapping interests mixed in with any antagonisms. It
is ultimately dictated by capital and its power within both government and business. Cracking this nut will be a nightmare.
Yes, this is an authoritarian world, if measured by the distance between the populace and its governing powers, but it is an
authoritarianism operating in ways that we have never seen before and using tools that are terribly effective.
"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and
economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has
gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the
rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main
themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:
US imperial strategy as an outgrowth of British imperialism, and its transformation
following the collapse of the Soviet Union;
the significance of the creation of Israel with respect to the imperial
project;
the repositioning of Russia in world politics after the collapse of the Soviet
Union;
the emerging role of China and Iran in Eurasia;
the emerging opposition to the US and NATO.
This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding
from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great
Games"."
Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:
I think the Internet and the infotech revolution in general have been largely negative in their impact on the world. Ian Welsh
has a blog post that largely sums up my views on the issue.
Contrary to what many people say I think large organizations like governments and corporations have significantly more power
now than before and ordinary people have less power. The Internet has made it easier to get information but you have to sift through
tons of junk to get to anything decent. For every website like Naked Capitalism there are thousands pushing nonsense or trying
to sell you stuff.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it? At best it makes
you more well-rounded, interesting and harder to fool but in political terms knowing a lot of stuff doesn't make you more effective.
In the past people didn't have access to nearly as much information but they were more willing and able to organize and fight
against the powerful because it was easier to avoid detection/punishment (that is where stuff like widespread surveillance tech
comes in) and because they still had a vibrant civic life and culture.
I actually think people are more atomized now than in the past and the Internet and other technologies have probably fueled
this process. Despite rising populism, the Arab Spring, Occupy, the Yellow Jackets in France, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and the DSA this is all a drop in the bucket compared to just the massive social movements of the 1960s much less earlier periods.
Robert Putnam argued that television, the Internet and other technologies likely helped to produce the collapse of civic life
in the United States by "individualizing" people's leisure time and personally I think Putnam is right. Civic life today is very
weak and I think the Internet is partially to blame.
And even if you are more knowledgeable, so what? If you cannot put that knowledge to use what good is it?
Agreed. If anything these more knowledgeable people had a greater audience prior to the internet. Whether you were a journalist,
a great economist, a great author, or a great orator you need to persist and show intellect and talent to have your message heard
wide and broad.
(This is probably a little idealistic, but I think there is truth there.)
Now you need very little of this. If your most famous asset is your attractive body you can attract a greater audience than
great scholars and politicians.
I can't speak much on authoritarianism since whatever form it takes on today is wildly different from what it was in the past.
Unfortunately, it is hard to convince many people living in western societies that they are living in an authoritarian system
because their metal images are goose-stepping soldiers and Fraktur print posters.
I suppose the way I can assure myself that we are living in an authoritarian society is by analyzing the endless propaganda
spewed from countless, high-viewership media and entertainment outlets. It is quite simple, if the media and entertainment narratives
are within a very narrow intellectual window (with lots of 600 lb. gorillas sitting in corners) than the culture and politics
are being defined by powerful people with a narrow range of interests. This is not to say that forming public opinion or preferring
particular political views is a new thing in Western media and entertainment, just that its application, IMO, is far more effective
and subtle (and becoming more-so by the day) than it ever was in, say, NAZI Germany or the Soviet Union.
I'd put my money down that most educated Germans during NAZI rule were well aware that propaganda was being utilized to "manufacture
consent" but they participated and accepted this despite the content for pragmatic/selfish reasons. Much of the NAZI propaganda
played on existing German/European cultural narratives and prejudices. Leaveraging existing ideology allowed the party to necessitate
their existence by framing the German as juxtaposed against the impure and unworthy. Again, ideologies that existed independent
of the party not within it. Goebbels and company were just good at utilizing the technology of the time to amplify these monstrosities.
I question that being the case today. It is far more complicated. Technology is again the primary tool for manipulation, but
it is possible that current technology is allowing for even greater leaps in reason and analysis. The windows for reflection and
critical thought close as soon as they are opened. Seems more like the ideology is manufactured on the fly. For example, the anti-Russia
narrative has some resonance with baby boomers, but how the hell is it effective with my generation (millennial) and younger?
The offhand references to Putin and Russian operatives from my peers are completely from left field when considering our life
experience. People in my age group had little to say about Russia three years ago. It says volumes on the subtle effectiveness
of Western media machines if you can re-create the cold war within two years for an entire generation.
In addition and related to above, the West's understanding of "Freedom of Speech" is dated by about 100 years. Governments
are no longer the sole source of speech suppression (more like filtering and manipulation), and the supremacy of the free-market
coupled with the erroneously perceived black-and-white division between public and private have convinced the public (with nearly
religious conviction) that gigantic media and entertainment organizations do not have to protect the free speech of citizens because
they are not government. Public/Private is now an enormous blob. With overlapping interests mixed in with any antagonisms. It
is ultimately dictated by capital and its power within both government and business. Cracking this nut will be a nightmare.
Yes, this is an authoritarian world, if measured by the distance between the populace and its governing powers, but it is an
authoritarianism operating in ways that we have never seen before and using tools that are terribly effective.
"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and
economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has
gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the
rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main
themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:
US imperial strategy as an outgrowth of British imperialism, and its transformation
following the collapse of the Soviet Union;
the significance of the creation of Israel with respect to the imperial
project;
the repositioning of Russia in world politics after the collapse of the Soviet
Union;
the emerging role of China and Iran in Eurasia;
the emerging opposition to the US and NATO.
This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding
from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great
Games"."
Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:
"The last two Democratic presidencies largely involved talking progressive while serving
Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The obvious differences in personalities and
behavior of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama diverted attention from their underlying political
similarities. In office, both men rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely
undermined them."
https://democracynow.org - As the media memorializes George H.W. Bush, we look at the
lasting impact of his 1991 invasion of Iraq and the propaganda campaign that encouraged it.
Although the Gulf War technically ended in February of 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would
continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion
launched by George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq. A largely
forgotten aspect of Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq is the vast domestic propaganda effort before the
invasion began. We look at the way U.S. media facilitated the war on Iraq with journalist John
"Rick" MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper's Magazine and the author of the book
"Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War."
Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and
radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET:
https://democracynow.org
Though I'm no friend of Michael Moore, he at least was candid about American
"Judeo-Christian" adventures within foreign countries. America needs to pull in its horns,
and stop fooling around with other governments.
Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women
being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs, in addition to furthering the campaign by
Globalists to divvy up the world's resources and labor markets .
Our country is blessed with all the necessary raw materials, manufacturing capabilities,
educated and motivated work forces and security to completely support our population, without
the need to obtain staple supplies from foreign countries. Developing alternative energy
sources should be a top priority, to free our people from the yoke of foreign oil cartels --
or the domestic variety, for that matter. Globalism has done little more than implement the
enslavement of populations to mega-corporations, establishing a cabal of non-elected,
inviolable potentates who wield tremendous power over our leaders to do their bidding.
"Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything
else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military
adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be
suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal."
The practice of DoD "violates Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, which stipulates
that, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made
by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public
Money shall be published from time to time." ... The status quo has been generating
ever-higher DoD budgets for decades...
The losers in this situation are everyone else. The Pentagon's accounting fraud diverts
many billions of dollars that could be devoted to other national needs: health care,
education, job creation, climate action, infrastructure modernization, and more. Indeed, the
Pentagon's accounting fraud amounts to theft on a grand scale -- theft not only from
America's taxpayers, but also from the nation's well-being and its future."
"... Thus, when local news reporters pressed Atty. Dean Andrews (a Marcello atty., according to Waldron) after he was indicted by Garrison for perjury, Andrews initially sought to evade the reporter's questions. Finally he blurted out, "If they can kill the President, they can squash me like a roach." These are but a few of the revelations that were a consequence of Garrison's courage in challenging the Federal Government's narrative about the assassination. ..."
"... At the outset of Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, the Federal Government openly intervened to obstruct. US Attorney General Ramsey Clark announced that the Feds had already investigated Shaw and concluded he had nothing to do with the assassination! When was this investigation? Who investigated? Why did they investigate Shaw? ..."
"... Waldron includes a most salient paragraph: "...declassified files now show that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director Richard Helms immediately began a significant public relation counteroffensive, issuing detailed instruction on how to smear critics of the Warren Report. ..."
"... For example, in a January 4, 1967, CIA memo in which the Agency gives 53-pages of specific instructions on how to counter the growing tide of books and articles questioning the `lone-nut' conclusion...In many ways, those PR counteroffensives by the FBI and CIA would last for decades, and some writers make the case that they continue even today."(14-15) ..."
"... Important in the "get Garrison" media campaign was journalist Walter Sheridan. Waldron maintains Sheridan was sent to New Orleans by Robert Kennedy. Why would Robert Kennedy seek to destroy a DA who at least considered charging Carlos Marcello, arch-nemesis of the Kennedys? And was Robert really the dominant figure in the autopsy of his brother at Bethesda, as maintained by Waldron?(399-401) ..."
"... Because Waldron's thesis is that the Mafia had to blur the lines between two plots, an anti-Castro one in league with the CIA, and the one targeting JFK, he might have elaborated more on the CIA practices. ..."
"... Anthony Summers have documented that `nobody has ever made the flimsiest allegation that the authentic Lee Oswald had anything but good to say about John Kennedy' This is true of Oswald's interrogations, his media appearances, and his private talks."(338) ..."
The main objection to the theory that the Mafia planned the assassination of President Kennedy has always been that it would
not have had the power to cover-up its role in the murder. Nor would it have had the ability to control, curtail, and compromise
the autopsy, to bamboozle all the media, to intimidate witnesses speaking to FBI agents, and to appoint a blue-ribbon commission
that would issue a report with 26 volumes of documentary support, purporting to prove that the assassin was a lone-nut, never
once mentioning the Mafia!
Because the Mafia clearly lacked such power, either the Warren Commission was correct in attributing the assassination to Oswald,
or the cover-up and murder, were conducted by higher-ups in the US Government - like Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, the FBI, etc.
Or, it was the work of Fidel Castro and/or the Soviets. Were that the case, the demand by the American public for retaliation
would press our leaders to launch a large-scale invasion of Cuba, which could unleash World War III. To prevent nuclear war,
American leaders chose to cover up the evidence of Communist conspiracy that culminated in Dallas. The American leaders chose
cover-ups and deception in preference to the truth and nuclear war.
Waldron's purpose is to remove the chief obstacles to the view that the Mafia conspiracy resulted in the assassination of Jack
Kennedy. Waldron notes that in the last days of the Eisenhower Administration, CIA and Mafia links were forged in plots to
overthrow and assassinate the radical Fidel Castro in Cuba. With the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in spring 1961, however,
the newly inaugurated President Kennedy believed he had been misled by the CIA and proceeded to fire its leader, Allen Dulles.
Many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure of that mission because Kennedy had refused to support the landing with major
air, and if necessary, American land support.
The Missile Crisis of the fall of 1962 nudged the world to the edge of nuclear war. Though some assumed there had been a "no
invasion" pledge as part of the settlement, Waldron asserts that because Castro rejected inspection on Cuban soil, the no-invasion
pledge was inoperative. Moreover, Kennedy ordered a halt to any American CIA collaboration with the Mafia, in part because
his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy was leading the prosecution of organized crime, and had even used some extra-legal
tactics to deport New Orleans Mafia leader, Carlos Marcello. Nevertheless, Pres. Kennedy still authorized clandestine plots
to kill Castro, while simultaneously allowing top secret negotiations with the Castro regime to come to some accommodation.
But if no progress in those negotiations were evident by the end of November 1963, Pres. Kennedy decided to aid a coup in Cuba
staged by Gen. Juan Almeida, the head of the Cuban army and the number three official under Castro. In this coup, Fidel would
be assassinated, and Almeida's new government would request military intervention from the US to complete the counter-revolution.
The working date for that operation was 1 December 1963.
Unbeknownst to Kennedy and his new CIA leader, John McCone, however, the CIA's Director of Planning Operations, Richard Helms,
now held the highest operational post in the agency. Helms knew of the previous CIA-Mafia collaboration toward eliminating
Castro, and he ignored Kennedy's demand to cut ties with the Mafia. Instead, those earlier ties were retained and solidified
between some CIA operatives and Mafia organizations in Florida (led by Santo Trafficante), Chicago (represented by Johnny Rosselli),
and New Orleans (led by Marcello once he made it back to the US, probably flown in by pilot David Ferrie).
By linking the government approved assassination plots to kill Castro, with its own plots to kill Kennedy, the Mafia would
make it impossible to unravel the truth without exposing the US government's own deadly secrets to the American people, AND
exposing General Almeida in Cuba to the wrath of Fidel. Moreover, if the Mafia plot were successful, it could then plant false
information implicating Castro as the culprit. This might lead to calls for invasion of Cuba, Soviet retaliation, and WWIII.
The US government would then find it necessary to avoid war by covering up what really occurred in Dallas. Thus, the cover-up
was not conducted by the Mafia, but by innocent American leaders bent upon avoiding atomic war: President Lyndon Johnson, Chief
Justice Earl Warren, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, et al.
Waldron uses information garnered from tapes recorded for the FBI when Mafia chief Marcello was imprisoned; he confessed his
role in the Kennedy assassination to a fellow inmate who was wearing a wire. The information was not released when originally
recorded, nor in 1986 when the FBI operation concluded, nor in 1992 when the Congress passed the JFK Assassination Records
Act. In 1998, the FBI released the information, but it was buried in a flood of less important documents released at the same
time. Waldron's own research found the confessions in 2006 and in this book he makes an impressive case. Waldron asserts that
the Mafia planned the assassination with plots in at least three cities that Kennedy would visit in the fall of 1963, and in
each, a Lee Oswald-type patsy had been selected to deflect suspicion from the real killers. Chicago, Tampa-Miami, and Dallas
were the three sites that Kennedy would visit where Mafia hit men were imported to crush Camelot. Waldron also refers to confessions
by other Mafia leaders, including Trafficante, and Rosselli. Waldron is good at reminding readers of how, when Congress reinvestigated
the Kennedy murder, several Mafioso leaders were killed in most brutal fashions the day before they were to testify. In addition,
the wealthy white Russian who befriended the poor, "Marxist" Oswald in Dallas, George de Mohrenschildt, commited suicide the
day before his scheduled testimony. Waldron reminds readers of the number of "coincidental" deaths when Congress reinvestigated
the events in Dallas.
Waldron provided an excellent time-line studded with provocative tidbits of information. Thus, we learn that during the height
of the Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, Oswald, the "defector" to the USSR married to a Russian, gets a job in Dallas with
a corporation performing sensitive photographic work for the US government, such as interpreting pictures of Cuban missile
movements. (154) Furthermore, despite his "defection" and his later distribution of Fair Play for Cuba leaflets, Oswald was
never placed on the FBI's Security Index.(250, 258) Another item to ponder: Waldron reveals that both Jack Ruby and Gen. Edwin
Walker (the right-wing general whom Oswald allegedly shot at) were closeted homosexuals.(174) Of course, one could argue that
in the 1960s almost all gays were closeted. In that era, if a man were openly homosexual, "out," he was either "in" prison
or "in" a mental institution. Waldron also mentions the story of J. Edgar's alleged arrest for homosexuality.(231) Yet, Clay
Shaw is barely mentioned in the book.
Before engaging in a general critique of the book, I shall point out some minor errors. Louisiana Congressman Hale Boggs,
father of ABC and NPR commentator Cokie Roberts, was a US Representative, not a Senator.(31) Boggs WAS a member of the Warren
Commission, but Louisiana Sen. Russell Long was NOT.(146) Also, Waldron asserts that "there were only two time periods when
Oswald could have worked for Marcello as a runner: one in late April or early May 1963...and the other in late July, August,
and ...September 1963,..."(181-82) But Oswald might have worked for Marcello much earlier, when he was a teenager living in
New Orleans.
I disagree with Waldron's assessment that the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison hindered the investigation
by mainstream media of the Kennedy assassination.(15) Though the jury quickly found Clay Shaw not guilty of conspiring to kill
JFK, they told local reporters that they were convinced that JFK was a victim of a conspiracy. Garrison's prosecution showed
the Zapruder film in the courtroom, eventually unwrapping it for all to see how Kennedy's head moved to the back and left when
struck by the fatal shot. Under oath Dr. Pierre Finck described how doctors in Bethesda followed military orders at the expense
of providing Kennedy a thorough autopsy. If the national media were hostile to Garrison, not all of the local outlets were
so biased. Thus, when local news reporters pressed Atty. Dean Andrews (a Marcello atty., according to Waldron) after he was
indicted by Garrison for perjury, Andrews initially sought to evade the reporter's questions. Finally he blurted out, "If they
can kill the President, they can squash me like a roach." These are but a few of the revelations that were a consequence of
Garrison's courage in challenging the Federal Government's narrative about the assassination.
At the outset of Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, the Federal Government openly intervened to obstruct. US Attorney General
Ramsey Clark announced that the Feds had already investigated Shaw and concluded he had nothing to do with the assassination!
When was this investigation? Who investigated? Why did they investigate Shaw? The Feds did everything possible to obstruct
the Garrison prosecution, so that crucial witnesses could flee Louisiana, and governors like Ronald Reagan of California and
James Rhodes of Ohio, after consulting with federal officials, simply refused to extradite important witnesses like Gordon
Novel. How could any DA win a case under such circumstances?
Even Waldron concedes, "Recently released FBI files show that in the late spring of 1967, Garrison twice privately considered
indicting Marcello for the assassination of JFK but decided not to."(458) Waldron's thesis is that Marcello was guilty of the
murder, and yet he claims that the only official who contemplated charging Marcello with that crime, simply hindered mainstream
media investigations! Were those recently released FBI files that Waldron refers to intended to facilitate DA Garrison probe?
Or to sabotage it? And had Garrison charged Marcello with killing Kennedy, would the mass media have been any more sympathetic
to Garrison?
Waldron includes a most salient paragraph: "...declassified files now show that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director
Richard Helms immediately began a significant public relation counteroffensive, issuing detailed instruction on how to smear
critics of the Warren Report.
For example, in a January 4, 1967, CIA memo in which the Agency gives 53-pages of specific instructions
on how to counter the growing tide of books and articles questioning the `lone-nut' conclusion...In many ways, those PR counteroffensives
by the FBI and CIA would last for decades, and some writers make the case that they continue even today."(14-15)
Garrison failed to convict Clay Shaw. I would contend because of the hostility of the Feds, there is no way Garrison could
have convicted Marcello either. The national, main-stream media followed the marching orders of the federal government - orders
issued softly through their agency operatives and friends.
Important in the "get Garrison" media campaign was journalist Walter Sheridan. Waldron maintains Sheridan was sent to New Orleans
by Robert Kennedy. Why would Robert Kennedy seek to destroy a DA who at least considered charging Carlos Marcello, arch-nemesis
of the Kennedys? And was Robert really the dominant figure in the autopsy of his brother at Bethesda, as maintained by Waldron?(399-401)
Because the thrust of Waldron's book is assassination by the Mafia, he mentions the murder of Guatemalan leader Castillo Armas
in July 1957 by a "lone Communist" assassin, who then killed himself with the same weapon used to kill Armas. But there were
rumors at the time that Armas had run afoul of the Mafia, and Rosselli was then in Guatemala.(94) Shortly after the Bay of
Pigs, the strong man of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo was assassinated in what Waldron calls a gangland-type murder.(145)
And since Waldron explicated MafCia assassinations, he might have expanded his all-to-brief accounts of two other assassination,
even if the Mafia had nothing to do with them: - 1) the assassination of the Prime Minister in the newly independent Congo,
Patrice Lumumba on 17 January 1961 (p. 136, though his name is misspelt in Waldron's index); and - 2) the assassination of
South Viet Nam's Ngo Dinh Diem on 2 November 1963.(303) With Waldron's slight treatment of the latter, he evades speculation
on the CIA's role in that murder and its effect on future American policy in Vietnam and any connection between Diem's demise
may have had on events in Dallas. Because Waldron's thesis is that the Mafia had to blur the lines between two plots, an anti-Castro
one in league with the CIA, and the one targeting JFK, he might have elaborated more on the CIA practices.
There are anomalies in Waldron's work. On the one hand, we read that: "The [New Orleans police lieutenant who talked to Oswald
after his arrest with the FPCC in NO] also said that Oswald `liked the President,' a sentiment shared by most people who ever
heard Oswald mention JFK;"(251) and :"...It's important to keep in mind that others such as Anthony Summers have documented
that `nobody has ever made the flimsiest allegation that the authentic Lee Oswald had anything but good to say about John Kennedy'
This is true of Oswald's interrogations, his media appearances, and his private talks."(338)
On the other hand, Waldron also reports that: "The head of the Ku Klux Klan told veteran newspaper report and editor Patsy
Sims that he had met with Oswald in Atlanta. In her definitive history of the Klan, Sims writes that `one of her sources told
her that Oswald, in the summer of 1963, had called on [Klan] Imperial Wizard James Venable in his office in Atlanta seeking
the names of right-wing associates. Venable confirmed [to Sims] that he was fairly sure that Oswald had been there for that
purpose.' Oswald indicated to Venable that he was on his way to Chicago. Klan leader Venable made his statement to Sims in
the 1980s and it is difficult to see why Venable would make up an Oswald encounter since it tended to link Oswald with `right-wing
associates,' thus potentially giving the FBI reason to interview or investigate them."
"In the 1960s, Klan leader Venable was close to an associate of Guy Banister, white supremacist Joseph Milteer, who lived in
Georgia..."(286)
If this meeting did occur, it may have had more to do with the Banister-, Milteer-, far-right plot than about Oswald's personal
opinion of Kennedy. Oswald may have simply been following Banister's instructions, as he had done when pretending to be a Castro-sympathizer
handing out FPCC leaflets.
A related question: what was the connection between the Mafia and the racist, far-right? Clearly, some Cubans who had fled
Castro's far-left oppression in Cuba, may have felt more comfortable with right end of the political spectrum. The KKK certainly
inhabits that end. Milteer, who was taped predicting the assassination prior to events in Dallas, and then gloating about them,
was clearly far-right. So did Milteer, who prediction of, and later gloating over, the assassination was tape-recorded. Moreover,
Milteer declared that the conspiracy to kill Kennedy originated in New Orleans, backed by considerable sums, not all donated
by right-wingers. Milteer mentioned only one Louisiana politician (311), but Waldron does not reveal that name. I will go on
a limb to say that I suspect the politician was the leader of Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish (county), Judge Leander Perez.
In 1952 when Judge Perez decided to endorse the Republican ticket of Eisenhower and Nixon for President, Plaquemines Parish
voted over 93% for the Republicans - the highest percentage of any county in the entire nation.(Glen Jeansonne, Leander Perez:
Boss of the Delta, p. 194) In November 1960 when courts ordered desegregation of two New Orleans schools, Perez urged defiance,
and allowed whites to escape their integrated school by attending schools in neighboring St. Bernard Parish (also Perez=dominated).
In 1961 CORE began its Freedom Rides, where CORE members on buses attempted to integrate bus stations from Washington, DC,
to New Orleans. Most were stopped by brutal mobs or arresting police, and one bus was burnt. This made national and international
headlines. It was rumored (not Jeansonne's biography, but my memory is the source for the rest of this paragraph - HM) that
Perez then induced George Lincoln Rockwell to travel from his base in Virginia through the same route as the Greyhound buses
to New Orleans on his "hate bus." Rockwell was leader of the American Nazi Party. Before entering New Orleans, local police
demanded that he cover some of the signs that decorated his van - "Kill Commies, Queers, and Jews!" When in May 1961 Rockwell
and some of his uniformed crew were arrested for picketing the film "Exodus," there were rumors that Guy Banister, a one-time
Acting Superintendent of the NO Police, paid his bail. When Judge Perez went to the Hotel Roosevelt's Blue Room (possibly the
premier NO night spot at that time), Ted Lewis was performing. One of his signature acts was to sing "Me and My Shadow," while
a Black dancer in black clothing danced as his shadow.
The judge was not happy with this integrated entertainment. Perhaps
he was aware that Ted Lewis had been born, Theodore Friedman. To express his displeasure, the judge purposely broke glasses
where the shadow was to step, causing the Black to cut his foot. In the spring of 1969 Judge Perez passed on. In Plaquemines
Parish, two young Black men entered a store and announced they wanted to purchase liquor to celebrate the death of the Judge.
They were quickly arrested and sentenced to 6 month's hard labor. After serving only a few months, the NAACP succeeded in curtailing
the sentence.
Why would Marcello have a low-level racial extremist like Milteer aware of the plot to kill Kennedy if this were merely a Mafia
operation? Does this make sense?
Let me describe several incidents related to the question I just posed. It is truly amazing how different our relatives can
be from each other and from ourselves. By the late 1950s I had become an integrationist in my native New Orleans. This amounted
to little more than speaking in favor of the idea in high school and then college. That changed in September 1960 when I was
among the seven arrested in the first lunch-counter sit-in in New Orleans. It occurred at the large Woolworth's on Canal and
Rampart Streets. When my father heard of the sit-in in progress, he left work to try to get me away. Police had cordoned off
the counter area, and would not allow anyone to pass. With our arrests, and our names on p. 1 of the local paper and on national
TV (we did not see it as we were still in jail), it was now clear to all that I was a nlover. Although I moved from my parents'
home so as not to endanger them, it did not matter. They received phone calls in the middle of the night, threatening to bomb
the home. Thank God we had no restrictive gun control laws back then. My father easily borrowed a gun and bullets from a co-worker.
After a few months, the spotlight of hatred moved to the other end of the city, for in November Perez and others were instigating
resistance to the court-ordered desegregation of two public schools. I was suddenly old news. My dad felt safe enough to return
the gun. Upon getting it back, his co-worker asked my father, "Why did you borrow so many bullets? Only one would have done
the job." I was not very popular.
But one relative sought to help, - my crazy uncle. Of course, he probably thought of me as his crazy nephew. After my arrest
with CORE for integration, my uncle sought to restore honor to the family, by sending money to George Lincoln Rockwell's organization.
As a young child I once overheard him moaning over some beers, "Oh, if only Hitler had won." My uncle had been in the merchant
marine and had risked his life during WWII to get supplies to the nations fighting against the Axis. But he did not agree with
FDR's foreign policy. Meanwhile, I had been convicted of a felony (the sit-in), and was trying to survive. I certainly was
not seeking another arrest, but I did continue to participate in various demos throughout the 1960s, any one of which might
result in an arrest. Finally, in 1969 my car was followed by a police helicopter, and when I let a passenger out of the auto,
he was immediately arrested. I decided then it was time to leave my native city.
I would occasionally see that uncle when he visited my parents. He had a special greeting for me, "How are the burr heads doing?"
This would rile me a little, but I knew him well enough just to roll my eyes. Sometimes he would speak with my dad, but sometimes
he would address me, "Oh, that Bobby! They're gonna get that Bobby!" He was referring to Atty. Gen Robert Kennedy who seemed
to be pushing integration. I just tried to ignore him.
After a few years, I moved back with my parents and got a job teaching 5th grade in a new, private school. Around lunch one
day, Mrs. Flagg, another 5th grade teacher called me to her class room across the hall. Hers was enjoying a free period for
lunch, and one of her pupils had brought in a new item, a transistor radio. She told me to listen. Most of her class was playing,
making lots of noise, while she and I craned our necks above the 10-year-old and his radio. I heard the main points, but could
not leave my class unattended for long.
When I returned to my class, I informed them that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. The class cheered. I was stunned.
One girl placed her head on the table and cried. She was the exception. That was November 1963. Sometime after that, probably
early 1964, I again encountered my uncle. "What did I tell you, huh? What did I tell you?" Honestly, I had no idea what he
was talking about. Then he became more explicit, "Didn't I tell you they were going to get him?" Suddenly, shocked, I realized
what he was referring to. Now, I tried a counter. "But you said they were going to get Bobby!" "Well, they got the other one
instead." This time, exasperated, I finally asked, "Who is this `they' you keep talking about?" He quickly responded, "The
mob out in the parish." By the mob, he meant Marcello; by "out in the parish," he meant Jefferson Parish. When he said this,
my parents resided one block from the Airline Highway and the Church with the Neon Bible. We were only a few blocks from Jefferson
Parish and Marcello's office in the Town and Country Motel. My uncle's response simply confirmed my view that my uncle was
crazy. Who in early 1964 was linking Carlos Marcello to the Kennedy assassination? This sounded ever more absurd. When he said
this, I had already earned a BA and an MA from Tulane University. My uncle had finished 5rd grade. I was a scholar. He drove
a taxi. It was easy to dismiss his ravings. But years later I could only wonder, were they really ravings? Or was I too arrogant
to accept information when it was handed to me?
Despite the occasional repetition and lack of footnotes, and a few minor errors, Waldron has written a book that will be difficult
to ignore.
"Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate
the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election
results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment
by the voter. This emboldens them. The reality of votes cast and "democracy" past does not
does bode well for the people of the United Kingdom, their future as a nation or their
hopeful return to sovereignty once called, "Brexit."
Dynamite opening paragraph by Brett Redmayne-Titley.
It defines the vital issue of -To be or not to be – for our Planet's citizens who
struggle (or aught to), for functioning Democratic Republics founded upon the ideal of
Liberty and Justice for All.
Titley's ending mention of the trials of the Greek nation, and others, is well placed and
a tribute to his worldview, that is key to analyzing the situation in any particular
corner.
"Britains should consider this arbitrary bullying of Italy and of the UK. Then they should
consider the sad EU imposed current condition of Greece. Next, they might dwell on the failed
outcomes of previous elections within the nearby EU nations, and how similar movements were
defeated in their nation as well. Last, they must pay closest of attention to what is
actually in the souls of their own politicians and what they truly support."
In America, we lost our Democratic Republic and our last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy , in a hail of bullets in the Coup D'état of November 22, 1963.
The Citizen Yellow Vests in France , supported by their 2 leading Resistance
Fighters, Dieudonné , and Alain Soral , display the next step forward in
the Resistance to Tyranny.
Step 1 – Committees of Correspondence (mainstream media free – websites, &
communications).
2. Step away from the TVs – & breathe the free air outside as the Citizen
Militia Yellow Vests(Minutemen), regain the streets and stretch their muscles.
3. Final Step: We are Joined by free police, military, even CIA & other police agency
employees, in the act of regaining their Countries, with their Sovereignty, and their Honor.
We Restore Our Republics!
a. Zionist imperialist/racists to jail and awaiting Trial.
b. Cleanup & rebuilding.
c. Unbought electoral process - no $ allowed in the process (equal media access for
all candidates), Debates between the candidates. Let a hundred flowers bloom (what democrat
said that?)?
"... Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for
safety, he abhorred capitalism. ..."
@Bill Jones Interesting to read
how these idealists agree with Christian Gerondeau, 'Le CO2 est bon pour la planete, Climat, la grande manipulation', Paris 2017
Gerondeau explains how many deaths reducing CO2 emissions will cause in poor countries, simply as an example how electricity
for cooking will remain too expensive for them, so cooking is done on smoky fires in confined spaces.
" to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." " To intentionally impoverish
the world. To what end, I wonder ?
Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition
of rich and poor.
In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy, as Tibet was.
These idealistic idiots do not understand how they created the problem they now intend to solve with creating an even bigger
problem, their example is the EU, the EU is following this policy for more than twelve years now, since 2005, when the EU grabbed
power through the rejected EU 'consitution'.
Capitalism is no more than deciding between consumption and investment, Robinson Crusoë invested in a fishing net by temporarily
reducing consumption, he did not go fishing, but made a fishing net, expecting that his investment would make it possible to eat
more fish.
Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard
for safety, he abhorred capitalism.
Dutch 17th century capitalistic commerce to the far Indies, east and west, was not benign. Typically a ship left Amsterdam,
near the Schreierstoren, trans 'the tower for the crying', wives, mothers and girl friends, with 300 men aboard, and returned
with 100. Most of those who died were common sailors, captain and officers had a far lower mortality, mainly better food.
Our East Indies commerce also was not much fun for the people in the East, in the Banda Sea Islands massacre some 30.000 people
were killed, for a monopoly on pepper, if I remember correctly.
But, as the earth developed economically, there came room for also poor people getting lives beginning to look as worth living.
Engels in 1844, hope the year is right, described the conditions of working people in GB, this resulted in Das Kapital.
This room for a better life for also the poor was not given by the capitalistic system
In their struggle for a better world for anyone the idealists wanted globalisation, level playing field, anyone should be welcome
anywhere, slogans like this.
Globaliation, however, is the end of the nation state, the very institution in which it was possible to provide a better life.
Anyone following me until here now can see the dilemma, the end of the nation state was also the end of protection by that state
against unbridled capitalism.
As the idealists cannot give up their globalisation religion they must, as those who cannot give up the biblical creation story,
find an ideological way out of their dilemma. My conclusion now is 'in order to save our globalisation religion we try to destroy
economic growth, by making energy very expensive, in the hope of destroying capitalism'.
Alas, better, luckily, capitalism cannot be destroyed, those who invented the first furnaces for more or less mass producing
iron, they were capitalists. They saw clearly how cheap iron would bring economic growth, the plow.
In the country where the CO2 madness has struck most, my country, the Netherlands, the realisation of the poverty that drastically
reducing CO2 emissions will cause, has begun. If there really is madness, I wonder.
I indeed see madness, green leftists unable to make a simple multipiclation calculations about costs, but maybe mainly political
opportunism. Our dictator, Rutte, is now so hated that he needs a job outside the Netherlands, in order to qualify, either at
Brussels or in New York, with the UN, has to howl with the wolves.
At the same time, we have a gas production problem,, earthquakes in the NE, houses damaged, never any decision made to solve
the problem, either stop gas production, or strenghten the houses, both expensive solutions.
So, in my suspicious ideas, Rutte now tries to improve himself, at the same time solving a problem: within, say ten years,
the Netherlands functions without gas, and remains prosperous; the idea he tries to sell to us. In a few years time it will emerge
that we cannot have both, prosperous, and zero emission, but the time horizon for a politician is said to be five years.
Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005. Israel successfully
demanded enormous increases in joint U.S.-Israeli cyber warfare expenditures and benefited
from related U.S. contingency planning. Due to onerous secrecy, Americans remain unable to
engage in informed public debate about whether what amounts to US subjugation to the Israeli
prerogatives driving these massive expenditures should continue.
The US increased spending on the National Intelligence Program by 9 percent in fiscal year
2018 to $59.4 billion. The Military Intelligence Program surged 20 percent to $22.1 billion.
NIP plus MIP beat the year 2005 expenditure record totaling $81.5 billion for fiscal year
2018.
The development of secret offensive cyber warfare programs targeting Iran are included in
MIP and NIP budgets. According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney,
Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for
cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending.
Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in
Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be
to drag the United States into war.
by Grant Smith Posted on November 07, 2018 He is director of the Institute for Research:
Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.
There is very little spoken of the foreign threat of the Chabad network. It must be serious
opposition if even the CFR "globalists" write about it. ( https://www.theglobalist.com/donald-trump-benjamin-netanyahu-democracy-corruption/
) When I say threat, I mean global nuclear war, mass starvation, and disease. Chabad is the
link binding Trump and Putin advisors. Do you think anyone belonging in this protected
"religion" holds any sort of good will for the regular common folk inhabiting the world?
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina
Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?
Doesn't look good does it!
West Point says NO to Peace!
The warmongering bastard and West Point grad (first in class) -- Pompeo -- says NO peace
for Yemeni! Trump says wars are for Israel.
West Point is Jew occupied territory. All US Army generals are pro Israel.
US to keep aiding Saudis in Yemen despite furor: Pompeo
Buenos Aires (AFP) -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Saturday that the United
States would continue suppor ting Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen, despite
rising outrage over the kingdom.
Speaking from a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Pompeo acknowledged that the
humanitarian crisis in Yemen -- where millions are at risk of starvation -- had reached
"epic proportions" but said Washington and Riyadh were offering aid.
"The program that we're involved in today we intend to continue," Pompeo told CNN when
asked about military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.
I suspect not, but they answer to politicians. Ditto the CIA.
I suspect not also -- but only privately and in secret, would they be anti-Israel. If they
keep their mouth shut, they will have a six figure job waiting for them in the J-MIC. Hmm --
so much for the flag. Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art
"The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina
Haspel on the Kashoggi murder."
Could it not be more clear that Mossad runs our government? Didn't the military swear
oaths to protect the US from enemies foreign AND domestic? Oh, and I've given up on Trump.
He's an Israel-worshiping ineffective
What foreign threats indeed. Out biggest threats come from our own government:
"The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a
boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial
penalties."
But yet these clowns will do next to nothing to stop illegal seizures of white farms in
South Africa. Our treasonous government busy working to strip away our freedoms. Don't think
they won't use this precedent to outlaw other types of "hate speech." And brought to you by
the republican party.
@anon As AIPAC and
WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart
Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey's
Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective
by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety
generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish
Defense League.
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/08/29/treasury-sanctions-foreigners-for-israel
A few years ago, I had the temerity to write to David McCullough, the biographer of Harry
Truman, to tell him I thought he was wrong about an aspect of Truman's character.
McCullough was nice enough to write back. He said he thought Truman had not been malicious
but had simply lacked understanding, and in a revealing remark, he acknowledged that Truman
"just didn't know enough about [the Palestinians] and their situation" -- which he said,
quite accurately, is still true of most Americans. "The great shame," he wrote, "is that a
reasonable discussion of the subject remains so difficult to achieve in any public way."
Which brings me to my point: Reasonable discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
and particularly of the Palestinian perspective, has always been "so difficult to achieve in
any public way," and since the days of Woodrow Wilson .
From the article: Tuesday's briefing on Khashoggi's killing was limited to a
small group of lawmakers, including those of the Senate's Armed Services Committee,
Intelligence Committee, and Foreign Relations Committee.
Chuck,
These oversite committees are a joke!
Those committees are cheer leaders for those agencies. Those senators are hand picked to
support the Jew Security State.
We can be sure that they work to hide what those agencies are doing from We the
People.
"... The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). ..."
"... Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it. ..."
Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way
down, that's for sure.
1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer
operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).
If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls
through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that
would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the
"declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the
definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco
important.
2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or
wanted.
a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security conference
covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in
chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the
opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."
b.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1
In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can
get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then
Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the
West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will
and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian
and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety
and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's
time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.
c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/
'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN --
Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a
senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one.
That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed
pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
put it, "de-escalation on both sides."
d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/
Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back
against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By
Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.
f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important
-- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even
a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with
China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the
United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to
demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the
seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO,
at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian
sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This
is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."
And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a
fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get
stuck.
Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
I agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad
enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively
forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the
immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with
existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that
image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily
Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and
dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read
much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour
Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
"... The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and again ..."
"... The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts, people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced. All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior". ..."
"... Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to "confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course, is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo and hiss the proverbial bad guy. ..."
The main reason so many Americans buy into the anti-Russian craze is not only due to what people are told by
the government and media, but by how they think and process information. For if Americans were taught how to
analyze and think properly they would not fall for the blatant propaganda.
For example, we are told that the Nazis discovered the secret of repetition as a means of programming people
into believing something to be true, but we are not taught why this practice is so effective.
The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through
evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and
again. After a while, the mind interprets this consistent pattern as proof of truth value. In psychological
terms, "schemata" are created by a layering of memories similar in nature over time so that all events
associated with the phenomenon are perceived through a prism of previous repetitions. In other words, even if
a certain type of behavior is different from the norm it will still be identified as belonging to the typical
pattern regardless. It is literally a trick of the mind.
The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts,
people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by
constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even
educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced.
All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior".
Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to
"confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact
that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so
popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course,
is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo
and hiss the proverbial bad guy.
To a certain extent, pattern recognition comes into play as well because in America TV shows and films over
the past two decades evil Russian spies and mafia types have figured prominently. The repeating portrayals
create schemata which then create stereotypes that frame how we think.
Russophobia, however, will not last forever because it is essentially based upon lies. Truth always wins out
over time and fantasy gives way to reality. Despite the censorship on social media and the attempts to silence
RT America the truth will eventually triumph.
For gagging the tongue of truth is always followed by a long-suppressed shout that echoes ever louder
throughout the ages.
===============================
My comment:
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
... ... ...
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
Well, Dr. Paul Whatshisname is obviously an agent of Putin. Did I even need to say this?
On a serious note, repetition works perhaps shockingly well. I was taught in my childhood that Germans are
bad because Hitler and Russia was good because twice saviors. Simple and effective. However, with no social
media at the time, critical thinking was also available so I could outgrow the propaganda.
On 12/5/2018 at 10:29 AM,
A/Plague
said:
Are you on a salary in "Russia Today" or a volunteer?
I try to gently (and if possible, humorously) nudge people to question the "official narrative".
CNN / WaPo is
far
worse propaganda than RT. RT is clearly biased, but they are open about their
pro-Russia bias. CNN pretends to be objective "journalism".
And sometimes I feel like commenting in the same vein of this little guy, bouncing all over excitedly:
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking,
right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have.
they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about
that, it's so confusing.
16 hours ago,
Marina Schwarz
said:
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations.
Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything
from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know
what to think about that, it's so confusing.
16 hours ago,
Marina Schwarz
said:
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations.
Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything
from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know
what to think about that, it's so confusing.
When I read their articles I am mindful that they are Russian. Having said that, they seem to publish a lot
of good content, and much of it is from Reuters and other (mostly) reputable sources. Editorials are free for
anyone to research for themselves. Pretty much the same as other pubs.
Laying conspiracy theories aside for one moment (and I do so love a good conspiracy theory), let's chat about
this Russia panic.
I am not one to panic in general. Sure, I have a food, guns, and water stash in my basement. I'm generally
well prepared. There are Russia-is-the-boogeyman theories, and then there are
Russia-boogey-man-theories-are-silly theories. Of course they both can't be right.
But where do these theories come from?
I am sure I'm not going to do a very good job explaining my self in the rant that follows. But I'm going to
give it a good college try.
I want to talk about the Russia Boogeyman theory. First, there's no way to explain this other than to
divulge my age. So I'm just going to spit it out right here and get that out of the way. I'm 40. I've been 40
for approximately 5 years, stubbornly refusing to go further than that. There. I said it. Now that that's out
of the way, it's important to note that children are sponges. As such, they are impressionable and in young
childhood, traumatic events can have a profound and lasting effect, and even change how someone thinks.
When I was about 10ish, in about 1983, a movie came out. If you lived in America, and likely even if you
didn't, and you're over the age of 40 (or if you've been 40 for a while), you've seen it. It's a movie called
"The Day After". It was a huge production and it aired on television. The most watched TV movie ever. And
ranked as one of the top 10 movies ever by several sources. You millennial whippersnappers will have no clue
what I'm talking about. Read on anyway, if you'd like. I'm all inclusive.
The movie was about nuclear warfare, and most importantly, the aftermath. The setting was a small town in
Kansas, I think. A small town that very closely resembled my home town, making it particularly impactful (I
know that's not a word. Sue me.) to me at the time. In the movie, which although was a complete work of fiction
was very realistic, Russia unleashed nuclear weapons. It was freaky. So eerily unsettling was it that I
obsessed about it after I saw it. I thought about it every night. I remember being so afraid that in the event
of a nuclear blast, I might be separated from my family. I remember pondering if I would rather be obliterated
in the blast immediately, or whether I would prefer to be spared instant death only to survive without my
family under horrid conditions. I also remember drills at school around that same time that were designed to
get people prepared in the event of such a disaster. While it may have done so, it also solidified in my mind
that there was a real possibility these events would unfold.
Nearly two years post-freaky-movie, Sting released it's "Russia" song, about Russians loving their children
too. Although it was not talked about much at the time, since life proceeded as normal, in my mind I remember
thinking that I didn't much care if the Russians loved their children, because they were looking to wipe us off
the map. And I lived near the Soo Locks, and I distinctly remember knowing (but I don't have any idea where I
came by this information) that the Locks would be a nuclear target in the event of a strike, since it is a main
thoroughfare for ships.
You can't undo that kind of fear, no more than you can undo my fear of spiders. I know in my head that
spiders, at least where I live, are not poisonous and they cannot harm me. I know it. But my head cannot
eradicate the intense creepiness that even thinking about spiders conjures up. Likewise, no rational thought
about Russia can completely undo a fear that was borne as a child.
There you have it. My Russia hysteria may be founded or unfounded--I know not. But I do not have the power
within me to change this mindset.
Okay Russia-boogeyman-theories-are-silly promoters: fire away.
Great description of what life was like back then, er, so I was told, by older people. Not those of us born in
the 60's, er, I mean the 70's, er, the 80's. Yeah, that's it, the 80's!
We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of the
Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to pay
attention, though.
@Rodent
, your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The Cold
War was a blast, right?
P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by the
way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second World War. I
shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment industry was absent. End
of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.
8 hours ago,
Marina Schwarz
said:
We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of
the Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to
pay attention, though.
@Rodent
, your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The
Cold War was a blast, right?
P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by
the way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second
World War. I shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment
industry was absent. End of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.
Makes sense. Not surprisingly the movie makers (supposedly) did not want to have Russia be the first striker
in the movie, but they needed to borrow some footage from the DoD, and the govt. refused to play ball unless
Russia struck first. The guy who made the movie, while he was making it, reportedly would go home at night
literally sick to his stomach at the horrific nature of the movie. It went rounds and rounds with the censors
who thought it might not be suitable for families.
Also interesting, speaking of Russia-led propaganda, and coming from someone who has dabbled a tiny bit in
white-hatishness, if you google "The Day After Russia" as I did to inquire about the movie, there is actually a
Russian movie titled "the day after" about zombies. Yup, let's just bury those search results! It's a
conspiracy!!!
There is another interesting thread here about the different search results showing up for different people.
What shows up when YOU google "The Day After"?
You know, speaking of conspiracies, there is a fairly logical opinion that that movie was designed to scare the
bajeezus out of people so they wouldn't vote for Reagan a second term.
"... Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out? ..."
And there are other friends in unlikely
places. Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly
against a Trump threat
to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate. The real problem is that
the documents apparently don't expose anything done by the Russians.
Rather, they seem to appear to reveal
a plot by the British intelligence and security services
working in collusion with then CIA Director
John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment
favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?
So how about it? Teenagers who get in
trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the
United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends we have been nurturing all around the world,
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices. Get rid of the ties the bind to the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and yes, even the British. Deal fairly with all nations and treat everyone the
same, but bear in mind that there are only two relationships that really matter – Russia and China. Make a
serious effort to avoid a war by learning how to get along with those two nations and America might actually
survive to celebrate a tricentennial in 2076.
You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections. Why, if the
beneficiary was anyone other than a Democrat, much less one named Clinton, someone might
actually appoint a Special Counsel to look into it, not to mention the misdeeds of the
various agencies and departments who aided and abetted it.
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes cctv footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
a plot by the British intelligence and security services to subvert the course of the 2016
election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that
one work out?
Deep State and Establishment stooge Donald Trump.
There is still a chance for the United States if we
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the
deep state, that addresses the question of
"Who Are The Neoconservatives."
If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners
of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put
on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or
a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture
and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the
KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became
convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different
from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating
from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most
rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power.
Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political
strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious
tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian
means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It
is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement
to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable
label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives
do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together
either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet
level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private
writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's
war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical
Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative")
Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of
the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee,
which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest
American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism
is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find
horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants'
grandchildren".
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest
on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great
admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely
effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his
thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved
for superior minds.
nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for
government and governance.
national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality:
they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between
good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World
of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" –
the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its
finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world
of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful,
but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant
us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God
bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the
Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
the second coming of Christ myth
the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for
the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem
temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world
order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative
circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant
King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around
a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations",
replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third
World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it
with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe
that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make
it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace
and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet
Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied
against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception
of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is
a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States
must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will
lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and
the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist
clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month
after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists
"that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".
Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of
the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself
[ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
My summary:
We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
Among them are brilliant strategists
They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is
founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
"... Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out? ..."
And there are other friends in unlikely
places. Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly
against a Trump threat
to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate. The real problem is that
the documents apparently don't expose anything done by the Russians.
Rather, they seem to appear to reveal
a plot by the British intelligence and security services
working in collusion with then CIA Director
John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment
favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?
So how about it? Teenagers who get in
trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the
United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends we have been nurturing all around the world,
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices. Get rid of the ties the bind to the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and yes, even the British. Deal fairly with all nations and treat everyone the
same, but bear in mind that there are only two relationships that really matter – Russia and China. Make a
serious effort to avoid a war by learning how to get along with those two nations and America might actually
survive to celebrate a tricentennial in 2076.
You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections. Why, if the
beneficiary was anyone other than a Democrat, much less one named Clinton, someone might
actually appoint a Special Counsel to look into it, not to mention the misdeeds of the
various agencies and departments who aided and abetted it.
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes cctv footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
a plot by the British intelligence and security services to subvert the course of the 2016
election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that
one work out?
Deep State and Establishment stooge Donald Trump.
There is still a chance for the United States if we
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the
deep state, that addresses the question of
"Who Are The Neoconservatives."
If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners
of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put
on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or
a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture
and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the
KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became
convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different
from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating
from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most
rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power.
Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political
strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious
tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian
means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It
is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement
to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable
label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives
do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together
either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet
level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private
writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's
war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical
Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative")
Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of
the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee,
which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest
American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism
is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find
horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants'
grandchildren".
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest
on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great
admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely
effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his
thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved
for superior minds.
nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for
government and governance.
national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality:
they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between
good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World
of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" –
the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its
finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world
of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful,
but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant
us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God
bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the
Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
the second coming of Christ myth
the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for
the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem
temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world
order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative
circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant
King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around
a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations",
replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third
World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it
with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe
that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make
it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace
and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet
Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied
against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception
of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is
a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States
must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both
Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will
lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and
the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist
clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month
after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists
"that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".
Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of
the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself
[ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
My summary:
We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
Among them are brilliant strategists
They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is
founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
Greetings. We are Anonymous. We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the
activities of the 'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and
funded by the British government.
The declared goal of the project is to counteract Russian
propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent intentions, Britain has
in fact created a large-scale information secret service in Europe, the United States and
Canada, which consists of representatives of political, military, academic and journalistic
communities with the think tank in London at the head of it.
'UK Integrity Initiative is Meddling in The Affairs of Other Nations'26.11.2018
A leaked hybrid warfare plan of the British government, known as the
"Integrity Initiative," published by the hacker group Anonymous, has become a theme of
discussion among scholars in Europe. Sputnik spoke to Professor David Miller of the University
of Bristol on a plan allegedly adopted by London to counter "Russian propaganda." Sputnik: It
[Integrity Initiative] states that its main aim is to counter Russian disinformation, however,
what was happening with the Moncloa Campaign' in Spain suggests other motives does it not? Read
more at https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811261070148913-uk-integrity-russia-propaganda/
Statement on Russian media publication of hacked II documents26 November 2018
EU-wide 'anti-Russian psy-ops' program
confirms UK govt funding, Anonymous denies leak26 Nov, 2018
A network exposed by
leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at curbing "Russian propaganda" has
confirmed receiving money from the British government, while Anonymous has denied on Twitter
that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a network claiming to fight
disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II documents, which purports to
show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals cooperating with it, has
been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous collective. A major
Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak. Read more at
https://www.rt.com/news/444899-uk-psyop-leak-reaction/
Operation Gladio – Full 1992 documentary BBC Originally aired on BBC2 in 1992, 'Operation Gladio' reveals 'Gladio', the secret
state-sponsored terror network operating in Europe. https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGHXjO8wHsAAlso read
"... They go into business to wheel & deal and to rip people off. There are no depths that they won't sink to just to enrich themselves with wealth and power. They quickly learn how to sidestep and evade every law on the statute books. They have no integrity, no ethical standards and no moral compass. They are conscienceless and shameless. ..."
"... Surely by now people realize that FB is a data-gathering organ for a Deep State geointelligence database? Why all the indignation? Every key stroke you have ever made has been recorded. Just stop using all the Deep State social media (ie, all of them). ..."
"... Reject all the "divide-and-conquer" BS. We are many, they are few. United we stand. Divided, we fall. ..."
"... Never used FaceBook nor any other social media platform. All they exist to do is aggregate personal data which is then either sold or handed to governments to build profiles and keep tabs on what people are doing. The hell with that. ..."
Update: As the giant cache of newly released internal emails has also revealed, Karissa Bell
of
Mashable notes that Facebook used a VPN app to spy on its competitors .
The
internal documents , made public as part of a cache of documents released
by UK lawmakers, show just how close an eye the social network was keeping on competitors
like WhatsApp and Snapchat , both of which became acquisition targets.
Facebook tried to acquire Snapchat that year for $3 billion -- an offer Snap CEO Evan
Spiegel rejected . (Facebook then spent years attempting, unsuccessfully, to copy
Snapchat before finally kneecapping the app
by cloning Stories.)
...
Facebook's presentation relied on data from Onavo, the virtual private network (VPN)
service which Facebook also acquired several months later
. Facebook's use of Onavo, which has been likened to "corporate
spyware," has itself been controversial.
The company was forced to remove Onavo from Apple's App Store earlier this year after
Apple changed its
developer guidelines to prohibit apps from collecting data about which other services are
installed on its users' phones. Though Apple never said the new rules were aimed at Facebook,
the policy change came after repeated criticism of the social network by Apple CEO Tim Cook.
-
Mashable
A top UK lawmaker said on Wednesday that Facebook maintained secretive "whitelisting
agreements" with select companies that would give them preferential access to vast amounts of
user data, after the parliamentary committee released documents which had been sealed by a
California court, reports
Bloomberg .
The documents - obtained in a sealed California lawsuit and leaked to the UK lawmaker during
a London business trip, include internal emails involving CEO Mark Zuckerberg - and led
committee chair Damian Collins to conclude that Facebook gave select companies preferential
access to valuable user data for their apps, while shutting off access to data used by
competing apps. Facebook also allegedly conducted global surveys of mobile app usage by
customers - likely without their knowledge , and that "a change to Facebook's Android app
policy resulted in call and message data being recorded was deliberately made difficult for
users to know about," according to Bloomberg.
In one email, dated Feb. 4, 2015, a Facebook engineer said a feature of the Android
Facebook app that would "continually upload" a user's call and SMS history would be a
"high-risk thing to do from a PR perspective." A subsequent email suggests users wouldn't
need to be prompted to give permission for this feature to be activated. -
Bloomberg
The emails also reveal that Zuckerberg personally approved limiting hobbling Twitter's Vine
video-sharing tool by preventing users from finding their friends on Facebook.
In one email, dated Jan. 23 2013, a Facebook engineer contacted Zuckerberg to say that
rival Twitter Inc. had launched its Vine video-sharing tool, which users could connect to
Facebook to find their friends there. The engineer suggested shutting down Vine's access to
the friends feature, to which Zuckerberg replied, " Yup, go for it ."
"We don't feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which
is why we are releasing the documents," said Collins in a Twitter post accompanying the
published emails. -
Bloomberg
We don't feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which
is why we are releasing the documents.
Thousands of digital documents were passed to Collins on a London business trip by Ted
Kramer, founder of app developer Six4Three, who obtained them during legal discovery in a
lawsuit against Facebook. Kramer developed Pikinis, an app which allowed people to find photos
of Facebook users wearing Bikinis. The app used Facebook's data which was accessed through a
feed known as an application programming interface (API) - allowing Six4Three to freely search
for bikini photos of Facebook friends of Pikini's users.
Facebook denied the charges, telling Bloomberg in an emailed statement: "Like any business,
we had many of internal conversations about the various ways we could build a sustainable
business model for our platform," adding "We've never sold people's data."
A small number of documents already
became public last week, including descriptions of emails suggesting that Facebook
executives had discussed giving access to their valuable user data to some companies that
bought advertising when it was struggling to launch its mobile-ad business. The alleged
practice started around seven years ago but has become more relevant this year because the
practices in question -- allowing outside developers to gather data on not only app users but
their friends -- are at the heart of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Facebook said last week that the picture offered by those documents was misleadingly
crafted by Six4Three's attorneys. -
WaPo
"The documents Six4Three gathered for this baseless case are only part of the story and are
presented in a way that is very misleading without additional context," said Facebook's
director of developer platforms and programs, Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, who added: "We stand
by the platform changes we made in 2015 to stop a person from sharing their friends' data with
developers. Any short-term extensions granted during this platform transition were to prevent
the changes from breaking user experience."
Kramer was ordered by a California state court judge
on Friday to surrender his laptop to a forensic expert after he admitted giving the UK
committee the documents. The order stopped just short of holding the company in contempt as
Facebook had requested, however after a hearing, California Superior Court Judge V. Raymond
Swope told Kramer that he may issue sanctions and a contempt order at a later date.
"What has happened here is unconscionable," said Swope. "Your conduct is not well-taken by
this court. It's one thing to serve other needs that are outside the scope of this lawsuit. But
you don't serve those needs, or satisfy those curiosities, when there's a court order
preventing you to do so ."
Trouble in paradise?
As Facebook is now faced with yet another data harvesting related scandal, Buzzfeed
reports that internal tensions within the company are boiling over - claiming that "after more
than a year of bad press, internal tensions are reaching a boiling point and are now spilling
out into public view."
Throughout the crises, Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who maintains majority shareholder
control, has proven remarkably immune to outside pressure and criticism -- from politicians,
investors, and the press -- leaving his employees as perhaps his most important stakeholders.
Now, as its stock price declines and the company's mission of connecting the world is
challenged, the voices inside are growing louder and public comments, as well as private
conversations shared with BuzzFeed News, suggest newfound uncertainty about Facebook's future
direction.
Internally, the conflict seems to have divided Facebook into three camps: those loyal to
Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg; those who see the current scandals as
proof of a larger corporate meltdown ; and a group who see the entire narrative -- including
the portrayal of the company's hiring of
communications consulting firm Definers Public Affairs -- as examples of biased media
attacks. - Buzzfeed
"It's otherwise rational, sane people who're in Mark's orbit spouting full-blown anti-media
rhetoric, saying that the press is ganging up on Facebook," said a former senior employee.
"It's the bunker mentality. These people have been under siege for 600 days now. They're
getting tired, getting cranky -- the only survival strategy is to quit or fully buy in."
A Facebook spokesperson admitted to BuzzFeed that this is "a challenging time."
When exactly did [neo]Liberal Dems become enthusiastic cheerleaders for rapacious profit-maximizing
corporations acting illegally against the public interest?
Why would "progressives" want to shield Facebook from anti-trust legislation? Compared to
the 1950s / 60s / 70s ... it seems like "liberals" and "conservatives" have switched
roles.
Why is it that Zucker.slime.berg and so many other people of his ilk are basically crooks.
They go into business to wheel & deal and to rip people off. There are no depths that
they won't sink to just to enrich themselves with wealth and power. They quickly learn how to
sidestep and evade every law on the statute books. They have no integrity, no ethical
standards and no moral compass. They are conscienceless and shameless.
The world would be better off without them. Who would miss Phacephuq?
Surely by now people realize that FB is a data-gathering organ for a Deep State
geointelligence database? Why all the indignation? Every key stroke you have ever made has
been recorded. Just stop using all the Deep State social media (ie, all of them).
Get your
faces out of your phones and look around you and see what's happening. Humanity is becoming
digital. This is a control mechanism. To regain its sovereignty, humanity needs to unite
spiritually and head in a new direction. Reject all the "divide-and-conquer" BS. We are many,
they are few. United we stand. Divided, we fall.
Never used FaceBook nor any other social media platform. All they exist to do is aggregate
personal data which is then either sold or handed to governments to build profiles and keep
tabs on what people are doing. The hell with that.
In the USA we have always had will always have corruption to the fullest extent possible.
I know rich and powerful people who are very well connected and if the average person knew
what they truly think they would be freakin pissed!!
The author is tried to deceive: Flynn lobbed Russians on behave of Israel.
Muller dirty trick with Flynn (entrapment during the FBI interview) will eventually backfire
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December 2016 ..."
"... But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel. ..."
All of that, plus Flynn's "substantial assistance," early cooperation, and acceptance of "responsibility for his unlawful conduct,"
led Muller's team to ask the court to grant Flynn a lenient sentence that doesn't include prison time, according to
a highly anticipated sentencing memo the special counsel's office filed Tuesday night.
And there wasn't much more than that in 13 concise and heavily redacted pages that let down anyone expecting the document to be
another public narrative fleshing out lots of fresh detail about Mueller's investigation. Still, the filing, and some new details
in it, should give pause to members of Trump's inner circle -- especially the president's son-in-law and senior White House adviser,
Jared Kushner.
Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have
been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December
2016 . The filing also detailed a series of lies Flynn told about his contacts with and work for the Turkish government while
serving in the Trump campaign. (Given that Trump and a pair of his advisers had been pursuing
a real estate deal in Moscow during the first half of 2016, Flynn might mistakenly have seen wearing two hats as noncontroversial.)
But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about
interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations
with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed
on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel.
Flynn lied to federal agents who questioned him about those chats on Jan. 24, 2017, and that was a crime (as, possibly, were his
efforts as a private citizen to meddle with a sitting government's foreign policy). The former general
acknowledged lying ,
pleaded guilty a year ago, and
then began cooperating with Mueller's
probe.
The timeline around Flynn's conversations
is crucial because it shows what's still in play for the president and Kushner -- and why Mueller may have been content to lock
in a cooperation agreement that carried relatively light penalties, as well as why Flynn's assistance seems to have subsequently
pleased the veteran prosecutor so much.
Kushner's actions are also interesting because the Federal Bureau of Investigation has examined
his
own communications with Kislyak -- and Kushner reportedly encouraged Trump to fire his FBI director,
James Comey , in the
spring of 2017, when Comey was still in the early stages of digging into the Trump-Russia connection.
Comey, and his successor, Mueller, have been focused on possible favor-trading between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. We
know that Russian hackers directed by Russian intelligence operatives penetrated Democrat computer servers in 2016 and gave that
information and email haul to WikiLeaks to disseminate as part of an effort to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Trump
was also pursuing that
business deal in Moscow in 2016 and had other projects over the years
with a Russian presence . What might the Kremlin have been expecting in return? A promise to lift U.S. economic sanctions?
Kushner also had personal financial issues weighing on his mind at the time. He had spent much of 2016 trying to bail out his
family from his ill-considered and pricey purchase of a Manhattan skyscraper,
666 Fifth
Avenue .
After a meeting in Trump Tower with Kislyak on Dec. 1, 2016, which Flynn and Kushner
attended together ,
the ambassador arranged another gathering on Dec. 13 for Kushner and a
senior Russian
banker with Kremlin ties, Sergei Gorkov. The White House has
said that meeting was
innocent and part of Kushner's diplomatic duties. In a
statement
following his testimony before Congress in the summer of 2017, Kushner said that his interactions with Flynn and Kislyak on Dec.
1 only involved a discussion of Syria policy, not economic sanctions. He said that his discussion with Gorkov on Dec. 13 lasted less
than 30 minutes and only involved an exchange of pleasantries and hopes for better U.S.-Russian relations -- and didn't include any
discussion of recruiting Russians as lenders or investors in the Kushner family's
real estate business .
Kislyak enjoyed continued lobbying from the White House after his meetings with Kushner. On Dec. 22, Flynn asked Kislyak to delay
a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in Palestinian territory. Flynn later told the FBI that
he didn't ask Kislyak to do that, which wasn't true.
Court documents filed last year
said that a "very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team" directed Flynn to make an overture to Kislyak about the sanctions
vote. According to reporting from my
Bloomberg Opinion colleague Eli Lake and
NBC News , Kushner was that "senior member."
Bloomberg News reported that former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus also pushed Flynn to lobby Kislyak on the
U.N. vote. (Kushner didn't discuss pressing Flynn to contact Kislyak in his statement last summer and instead noted how infrequent
his direct interactions were.)
Kushner's role in these events isn't discussed in Mueller's sentencing memo for Flynn. The absence of greater detail might cause
Kushner to worry: If Flynn offered federal authorities a different version of events than Kushner -- and Flynn's version is buttressed
by documentation or federal electronic surveillance of the former general -- then the president's son-in-law may have to start scrambling
(a possibility
I flagged
when Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017).
Other portions of the 2016 and early 2017 timelines still matter, too.
On Dec. 28, less than a week after Flynn called Kislyak about the U.N. vote, the ambassador contacted Flynn, according to court
documents. The Obama administration had just imposed economic sanctions on Russia because of the Kremlin's effort to sabotage the
2016 election. Kislyak apparently told Flynn that Russia would retaliate because Flynn asked him to "moderate" Russia's response.
Flynn
reportedly discussed these conversations with a former Trump adviser, K.T. McFarland, on Dec. 29.
In the weeks that followed, Sally Yates, then acting U.S. attorney general, warned the Trump administration about Flynn's duplicity
and said he was a national security threat. She was fired days after that for refusing to enforce Trump's executive order seeking
to ban immigration from seven Islamic nations. The White House forced Flynn out in February of last year, and Trump fired Comey three
months later. The president subsequently began using "witch hunt" to describe the investigation that Mueller inherited from Comey.
Since then, as the White House and Trump have surely absorbed and as Flynn's sentencing memo reinforces, Mueller's hunt has now
ensnared a number of witches.
Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles,
thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is
a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke
Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency
feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with
Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to
conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking
allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well,
absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists
pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood
rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended
like they had never published it.
By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and
disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on
social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the
above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of
critical thinking), Politico posted this
ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story
was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted
by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative
fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and
"leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion
of Assange.
At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing
"truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got
caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking
the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.
Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one),
there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it
is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to
appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest
difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain
whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.
Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the
"official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept
of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other
"truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the
masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly
want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened,
JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or
whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.
The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell,
unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The
powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.
They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or
another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard
their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of
the powerless is always heresy.
For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we
know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our
knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on
Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet
bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is
merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.
Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a
journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on
television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But
they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because
of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful
when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state
that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't
afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream
Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such
heretics.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the
corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do
(albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that
"the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off
their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the
revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there
is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it
is safer and more rewarding to do so.
And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly
fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be
rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally
serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be
instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this
story.
As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice
but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they
are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running
around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff
unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.
#
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.
The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be
determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/
politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be
comprehensible, let alone useful.
We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some
kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy
media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt
their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that
narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.
This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data
loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world
are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably
false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this
process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be
self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of
major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in
their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.
Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and
maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors
that prevent this.
One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support --
and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be
constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion
involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with
obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly.
It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to
reevaluate one's worldview based on these.
And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social
acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,
Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because
it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social
consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of
this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong"
one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're
"supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal
of loyalty to the establishment.
It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items,
unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing
this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish
here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"
It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what
he thinks it does.
The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to
believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.
There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out
properly.
Take this excerpt:
The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that
that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are
blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will
make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say
it is say it is.
With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world
works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a
specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half
the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state
coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of
X .
If X is objectively false, too bad.
Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political
class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.
This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really
obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).
Obvious Example: Drug Dogs
Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60%
and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual
physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than
a coin toss.
Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a
target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug
dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).
However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a
signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable
cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.
Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted
based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a
coin?
Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence
admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about
drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their
possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.
In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior
probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not
suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).
More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy
In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary
sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or
otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a
representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).
The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an
ordinal voting mechanism.
What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before
any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that
ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify
the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').
Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever
been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1
of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems
– for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for
by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate
results).
So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers)
promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional
Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are
pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and
wishing will make it so.
Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four
centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex
– which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).
The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law is changed .
What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the
[extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".
American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex "
(the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United
States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –
This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are
overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force,
the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to
some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new
circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws
promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century
jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."
See how far you get.
So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights
or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side.
He should have made the point better.
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of
peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth'
was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it
Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and
power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says
Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are
deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless
creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:
The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third
alternative.
The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears
repeating
It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their
slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake
up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."
Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true.
(Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to
live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).
Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free
exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place
because they will fail to conform to ground truth.
Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent'
because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences
and expectations).
In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of
powerful enemies.
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11
or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we
have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.
But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own
families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the
blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and
suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia,
and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves
France.
@FB Scientific truth
is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example,
we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make
the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware
of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.
So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all
hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation
in someone elses computer!
Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on.
Here is where the trouble starts .
@The scalpel LOL and
then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end
scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
@Kratoklastes Strength
is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical
phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you
believe it or not.
Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and
marketing.
The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is
crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down
and vanquished.
The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a
will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there
will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which
means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related
striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain
the mental life of mankind.
Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration,
they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is
the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our
reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self
preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a
passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and
those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream
when they should have been preparing.
After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that
the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and
notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that
the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word,
per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used
over the years and centuries.
I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or
oscillating-contradictions .
Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation
The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in
practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical
counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean
either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.
Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word
person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally
a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can
mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought
and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").
By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone
had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just
before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got
instead:
[MORE]
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as
an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over
you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the
masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and
traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to
receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you
one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question
from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game
is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same
concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X
(an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights,
powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next
time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .
Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually
exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined
financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and
we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.
So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to
influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in
the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by
its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then
how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure
that that question is never presented in that way.
After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo
-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most
important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal
front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in
advance).
Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and
received by the debtor for their own use and control?
Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount
received?
Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of
parties ?
[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]
Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20%
per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or
otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an
undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or
loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."
In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it
$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the
debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is
required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is
it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000
cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?
Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a
noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question
that theoretically cannot exist.
Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense
word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense,
while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the
Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against
meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in
more specialized financial dictionaries.
So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or
regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the
debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every
financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent
alternative/contrary meaning.
This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual
definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended
reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.
Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it
doesn't .
With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive
answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is
never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.
With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a
financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play .
With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling
levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .
And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous
in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little
people of the product of their labour.
As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay
back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged)
interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates
between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective
– according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in
time.
It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated
simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything
.
A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit,
discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution,
etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the
entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic
arbitrage .
Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate
reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two
are from the American and English Courts, respectively.
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a
function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes
and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it.
The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you
have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think
it .
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely
believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the
entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty
mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics
who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who
communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a
cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of
perceiving reality beyond labels .
3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion
:
"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process
of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other
aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.
(West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
4.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the
means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.
I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the
best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the
physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .
@Tulip " which will
always ultimately be resolved by force."
Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot
be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.
" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to
daydream when they should have been preparing."
Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her
dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never
arrives.
In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11
truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to
a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade
Centers.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal
government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive
evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).
After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that
they will comply with the law.
Some good documentary films here to watch for free:
My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish
probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious
if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of
which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.
Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative
predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.
The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been
pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man "of the highest character,"
said his
eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. "He loved America and served with
character, class, and integrity," tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet
Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama , Bush's life was "a
testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous
good along the journey." Apple boss Tim Cook said : "We have lost a great
American."
In the age of Donald Trump, it isn't difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to
paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with "class"
and "integrity." It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016,
calling him a " blowhard ," and that he eschewed the
white nationalist, "alt-right," conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern
Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said , "firing a shot." He spent
his life serving his country -- from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA
to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and
great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids
.
Nevertheless, he was a public,
not a private, figure -- one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United
States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a
brazen way. "When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that
only praise be permitted but not criticisms," as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued
, because it leads to "false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts."
The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in
common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came
after him - his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent - than much of the
political and media classes might have you believe.
Consider:
... ... ...
He made a dishonest case for war . Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons
of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set
of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as
an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland
concluded , "was sold on a mountain of war propaganda."
For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait " without provocation or warning
." What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an
effective
green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before
his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement
with Kuwait."
Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in
August 1990 and claimed that he was doing
so in order "to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland." As Scott
Peterson wrote in the Christian Science
Monitor in 2002, "Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated that up to
250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil
supplier."
Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial
satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert.
"It was a pretty serious fib," Heller told Peterson, adding: "That [Iraqi
buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't
exist."
President George H. W. Bush talks with Secretary of State James Baker III and Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney during a meeting of the cabinet in the White House on Jan. 17, 1991 to
discuss the Persian Gulf War. Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP
He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500
tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific
civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in
the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least
408 Iraqi civilians . According to Human Rights Watch , the Pentagon knew
the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet
had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, "a serious violation of the laws of
war."
U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian
infrastructure -- from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing
plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post
reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to
create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners
now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair
without foreign assistance. Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and
interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as 'collateral' and unintended, was
sometimes neither."
Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for
"leverage" over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team
concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of
Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and "epidemic" levels of cholera and
typhoid.
By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau,
was estimating that Bush's Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including
13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and
sewage treatment plants. Daponte's numbers contradicted the Bush administration's, and she was
threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing " false information. " (Sound
familiar?)
He refused to cooperate with a special counsel . The Iran-Contra affair , in which the
United States traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and used the proceeds of those
arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, did much to undermine the presidency of Ronald
Reagan. Yet his vice president's involvement in that controversial affair has garnered far less
attention. "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete," wrote Special
Counsel Lawrence Walsh, a former deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower administration, in
his final report on the
Iran-Contra affair in August 1993.
Why? Because Bush, who was "fully aware of the Iran arms sale," according to the special
counsel, failed to hand over a diary "containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra"
and refused to be interviewed in the later stages of the investigation. In the final days of
his presidency, Bush even issued
pardons to six defendants in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger -- on the eve of Weinberger's trial for perjury and obstruction of
justice. "The Weinberger pardon," Walsh pointedly noted, "marked the first time a president
ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the
president was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case." An angry Walsh accused
Bush of "misconduct" and helping to complete "the Iran-contra cover-up."
I knew there was something wrong with Donald Trump's presidency the day he bombed the
airbase at Al-Shairat in Syria. It was a turning point. I knew it was a mistake the moment he
did it and argued as such at the time.
No act by him was more contentious.
It cost me hundreds of followers gained throughout the campaign who wanted to believe Trump
was playing 4-D chess. My Periscopes went from being events to afterthoughts.
Those that left needed to believe this because they had invested so much in him.
They had to believe he was playing some deep game with Putin to bring peace to the
region.
He wasn't.
I was right and truth is painful. The need for him to be Orange Jesus was so strong they
created Qanon and the 'science' of political horoscope as slowly but surely Trump was stripped
of all of his power except that of complaining about how unfair it all is.
That day he did something in the moment, with bad intelligence and let fly with tomahawks
which Russian and Syrian air defenses misdirected and/or shot down.
Empty President
His goal was to show everyone there was a new, strong sheriff in town.
All it did was weaken him.
The neocons praised him as presidential. They began to get their hooks in him then. But
truly, Trump was destroyed before he took office, giving up Michael Flynn, expelling Russian
diplomats and compromising his cabinet picks.
Because making war is the only true test of a President to the laptop bombardiers who
control foreign policy. With that one act Trump's days as an independent agent in D.C. were
numbered.
And since then the hope has been that given the enormity of the opposition to his Presidency
he was still fighting for what he campaigned on -- no nation building, bring the empire home,
protect the borders, and clean up the corruption.
He's made a few minor changes but not enough to change the course of this country and, by
extension, the world.
The people want this change. Those with the power don't.
G-20 Ghost
So here we are with a pathetic Trump outclassed at the G-20, a meeting he should dominate
but instead is ushered around like a child, given poor earpieces and looking a little lost.
He's only allowed to have one meeting of note by his handlers, with China's Xi Jinping.
Because that meeting wasn't going to end with anything damaging to the long-term plan.
Trump's tariff game is tired and all it will do is hasten the demise of U.S. competitiveness in
the very industries he wants us to be competitive in.
Because tariffs are a band-aid on the real problems of bureaucracy, corruption, waste and
sloth within an economy. They are not a product of China stealing our technology (though they
have).
And that $1 trillion deficit Trump is running? Music to the ears of the globalists who want
the U.S. brought low. More military spending. More boondoggles the banks can cut a nice big
check to themselves for with funny money printed without risk. This can go on for a few more
years until it doesn't matter anymore.
Trump's folding on meeting Putin is the final nail in his presidency's coffin. He's not even
allowed to make statements on this issue anymore. That's for Sarah Sanders, Mike Pomposity and
John Bolt-head to do.
You know, the grown-ups in the room.
No. Putin and Trump met once when they weren't supposed to and since then Trump has been
getting smaller and smaller. Sure, he held some rallies for the mid-terms to shore up his base
for a few weeks while the Democrats stole more than a dozen House seats, three governorships
and a couple of Senate seats, but hey he's still working hard for no pay.
Please.
Trump needed to show some real moral courage and speak with Putin about the Kerch Strait
incident like men, not sulk in the corner over a couple of ships. And yet his still throws his
full support behind a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman because arms sales and Iran.
Putin, for his part, makes no bones about doing business with the Saudis. He knows that bin
Salman is creating a quagmire for Trump while driving the U.S. and European Deep State mad.
For this Secretary of Defense James Mattis calls Putin, " A slow learner." This is a
flat-out threat that Mattis has more coming Putin's way. But in fact, it is Mattis who is the
slow learner since he still thinks Putin isn't three steps ahead of him.
Which he is. The game is all about time and money. And thanks to Mattis and, yes, Trump,
Putin will win the war of attrition he is playing.
Because that is what has been going on here from the beginning. Iran, China and Russia know
what the U.S. power brokers want and they knew Trump would always cave to them. So, they knew
exactly how to get Trump to over-commit to a strategy that cannot and will not ever come to
fruition.
I warned that Trump's blind-spot when it comes to Iran was his weakness. I warned that he
would eventually justify breaking every foreign policy promise to fulfill his plan to unite the
Sunni world behind him and Israel by giving them Iran.
The End of the Beginning
Welcome to today. And welcome to the end of Trump's presidency because now he is
pot-committed to regime change while the vultures circle him domestically. He has become Bush
the Lesser with arguably better hair.
He has alienated everyone the world over with sanctions and tariffs, hence his desire to "
Get me out of here " as the G-20 wound down. No one believes he matters anymore. By tying
himself to the Saudis and the Israelis the way he has he, the master negotiator, has left
himself no room to negotiate.
And that is leading to everyone defying him versus cutting deals to carve up the world, end
the empire and come home.
Trump is not leading here. He is being led. And change requires leaders. He has been led
down the path so many presidents have, more militarism, more empire. Because when you're the
Emperor everyone is your enemy. This is the paranoia of a late-stage imperial mindset.
It certainly is the mindset of Trump's closest advisors - Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo.
So Trump's "America First' instincts, no matter how genuine, have been twisted into
something worse than evil, they are now ineffectual keepers of the status quo fueling ruinous
neoconservative dreams of central Asian dominance.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 230 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.
His nose is wedged right up Adelson's & Bibi's ring-hole.
Even as we speak now, 100 drones crossed over from Turkey into Syria with French experts
modifying them to accept warheads of a chemical nature. Simultaneously the innovative British
military are providing miscellaneous WMD's/support to Jabhat-Al -Nusra in Idlib.
Time for Putin/Russia to take these cockroaches/vermin out in quick time, for their own
good.
Trump's grasshopper mind could be construed for severe Alzheimer's.
Trump boasted of how HE would "Make the US Military Great again" (as if it wasn't too big
to begin with..) and spent $16 billion EXTRA on 'defence,' yet now he suddenly flip-flopped
and calls defence spending "crazy."
Spot on, I completely agree with Luongo, and #metoo have been saying this for a long
time.
Trump's unstable and unhinged waffling, lying and flip-flopping (i.e. "4D chess") is
finally beginning to catch up with him and his presidency will not be marked with him being
the one who drained the swamp, but a presidency marked with a trail of destruction.
He has talked himself into so many corners, that it will be impossible to back out of
those corners....unless of course he turns the volume of his bullshitting, lying and waffling
up to 11.
"You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the
time."
It's easy to fool dumb American Trumptards, but it's not easy fooling the Russians, the
Europeans and the Chinese. They see right through his fake bravado and ********.
"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with
President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a
major and uncontrollable Arms Race," Trump wrote. "The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this
year. Crazy!"
Another classic Tweet from Captain Bonespurs. No wall, no change to healthcare, no
immigration policy, no amazing trade agreements, no slavery, no mandatory mullets, no
mandatory bible study at school, no burning of witches. And now he is talking about reducing
the largest military budget in history.
Trump is finished. He had two years to replace Sessions and Rosenstein and have someone at
the DOJ appoint a Special Councils for each item to look into:
The Clinton Foundation
Uranium One Deal
Hillary's Email Server
The murder of Seth Rich
The Benghazi Consulate Disaster
The Democrats computer scandal with the Iwan brothers.
Bill Clinton giving China classified missile and sub technology
The unelected Deep State actors controlling the country.
Q is a total ******* fraud. Trump has 3 weeks before he is assraped and left bleeding on
the floor by the Democrats and the RHINO's in the senate. If he gets impeached, Pence will be
impeached and Nitwit Nancy becomes POTUS. And within 2 months of that happening, we will have
full balls out, open Civil War II.
"... Neoliberalism is a set of practices that favors entrepreneurs and corporations, supports--often below the radar--massive state subsidies for the corporate estate, presses for radical deregulation of private markets, treats labor as an abstract factor of production, celebrates the authority of courts governed by a neoliberal jurisprudence, hates collective social movements on the left, protects imperial drives, strives to render democracy minimal, and moves to dismantle or weaken unions, social security, public schools and universal voting if and when the opportunities arise. Fascism is a form of capitalism that dismantles democracy, pushes intense nationalism, pursues racism, deploys big lies systematically, attacks vulnerable minorities to energize its base, corrupts courts, drives to make the media its mouthpiece, places police and intelligence agencies under its wing, colludes with foreign dictatorships, welcomes vigilante groups beneath a veneer of deniability, and jacks up the intensity of cultural ruthlessness. ..."
"... Democracy in Chains ..."
"... MacLean's book, through a close review of an archive not studied before, reveals how the public neoliberal pronouncements by Buchanan between the 1970s and 2000s were soon matched by a set of covert plans and financial funding designed to bring neoliberalism to power by "stealth" strategies. Buchanan had come to see, as had others, that the neoliberal agenda was not apt to be enacted by democratic means. So he adopted a two-track model. ..."
"... MacLean's review of the ruthlessness and narcissism that marked the private and public persona of Buchanan, a review that invites attention to character affinities between him and Trump. Neither Buchanan, Trump, nor Charles Koch -- the latter another key figure in the Buchanan story -- thought highly of compromise. They play a hardball game. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, its critics know so well, periodically spawns the economic crises its hubristic devotees promise will not happen. It also works to foster voter suppression, unlimited dark campaign contributions, extreme gerrymandered districts, take away worker benefits, appoint judges at state and national levels governed by neoliberal jurisprudence, treat voter suppression tactics to be needed to eliminate phantom voter fraud, oppose affirmative action, to weaken labor unions, and attack universal health care. ..."
"... The old, all so familiar, Hayek story of how socialism and social democracy are always on the "road to serfdom" is a fairy tale that has not in fact occurred. The transition, however, from neoliberalism to virulent fascist movements has occurred before and could do so again. ..."
Neoliberalism is not fascism. But the fact that many famous neoliberals have been moved to
support fascism to protect a regime from social democracy or socialism does give one pause.
Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, among others, took such a turn under duress. They also had highly
expansive views of what counted as a "socialist" threat.
Neoliberalism is a set of practices that favors entrepreneurs and corporations,
supports--often below the radar--massive state subsidies for the corporate estate, presses for
radical deregulation of private markets, treats labor as an abstract factor of production,
celebrates the authority of courts governed by a neoliberal jurisprudence, hates collective
social movements on the left, protects imperial drives, strives to render democracy minimal,
and moves to dismantle or weaken unions, social security, public schools and universal voting
if and when the opportunities arise. Fascism is a form of capitalism that dismantles democracy,
pushes intense nationalism, pursues racism, deploys big lies systematically, attacks vulnerable
minorities to energize its base, corrupts courts, drives to make the media its mouthpiece,
places police and intelligence agencies under its wing, colludes with foreign dictatorships,
welcomes vigilante groups beneath a veneer of deniability, and jacks up the intensity of
cultural ruthlessness.
So the two are different. Are there, however, enough affinities between them to help explain
how the former -- both in its leadership and its base of support--can migrate rapidly toward
the latter during periods of stress? Stress that it often enough creates by its own hubristic
market practices? Bearing in mind those noble neoliberals who today call out and hold out
against Trumpism -- they are on welcome public display on the Nicole Wallace show on
MSNBC--recent experience in the United States suggests that many other neoliberals, in a
situation of public stress, too easily slide toward the latter. A whole bunch of neoliberal
Republicans in the American Congress, after all, now support or tolerate policies and
belligerent practices they did not before the era of Trump. Many do not merely do so because
they are cowed by the danger of threats to them in Republican primaries -- they could, for
instance, quit politics, or join the Democratic Party to stop aspirational fascism, or
staunchly support the principles they embrace in those very Republican primaries and
elections.
The recent book, Democracy in Chains , by Nancy MacLean, allows us to discern more
closely how such slides and gallops can occur. It is focused on the life of a Nobel Prize
winning neoliberal -- who often called himself a libertarian -- loved by the Mt Pelerin Society
by the name of James Buchanan. I used to teach critically his book The Calculus of Consent in
the 1980s. But MacLean's book, through a close review of an archive not studied before,
reveals how the public neoliberal pronouncements by Buchanan between the 1970s and 2000s were
soon matched by a set of covert plans and financial funding designed to bring neoliberalism to
power by "stealth" strategies. Buchanan had come to see, as had others, that the neoliberal
agenda was not apt to be enacted by democratic means. So he adopted a two-track model.
That two-track model is revealing. So is the fact that this refugee from Tennessee -- a
former slave state and one that then imprisoned Blacks systematically to replace lost slave
labor -- seldom mentioned the specific conditions of Blacks or women as he articulated his
abstract defense of liberty. So, too, is MacLean's review of the ruthlessness and
narcissism that marked the private and public persona of Buchanan, a review that invites
attention to character affinities between him and Trump. Neither Buchanan, Trump, nor Charles
Koch -- the latter another key figure in the Buchanan story -- thought highly of compromise.
They play a hardball game.
The story starts, really, in Pinochet's Chile, where Buchanan helped that repressive regime
impose economic reforms backed by constitutional changes that would make it next to impossible
to reverse them. They were called them constitutional "locks and bolts". Buchanan never
publicized the extensive role he played with Pinochet in Chile. Nor did he ever express public
regret over its fascism, replete with prohibitions of free speech, practices of torture, and
decrees making it illegal to organize dissident social movements.
Another key epiphany occurred in the 1980s in the States. Reagan's massive tax cuts, which
were promised to spur rapid growth to pay for them, instead created deficits three times larger
than those Jimmy Carter had bequeathed. A public reaction set in as the regime proposed to make
radical cuts in Social Security and Medicare to make up the shortfall. But those plans failed.
After that failure, Buchanan concluded, consonant with advice by Milton Friedman, that such
entrenched programs could only be weakened and dismantled through disinformation campaigns.
Democracy had to be squeezed. Why? The majority of "takers" will never accept open plans to
curtail their benefits to reduce taxes on a minority of "producers". The takers, let's call
them for starters workers, the poor and the elderly, don't even believe in "liberty"--meaning
above all the freedom of entrepreneurs to roam freely in the market. So, you must pretend you
are trying to save the very system you seek to unravel. Talk incessantly about its "crisis".
Divide its supporters into older, retired members, who will retain benefits, and younger ones
who will have them cut. Celebrate the virtues of private retirement accounts. Propose to have
the wealthy be removed from the system, doing all these things until general support for the
social security system weakens and you are free to enact the next steps -- steps not to be
publicized in advance. Once you finally eliminate the system, people's general confidence in
the state will wane more. And new initiatives can be taken -- again in a stealth manner -- with
respect to Medicare, pollution regulations, climate change, unemployment insurance, and
democratic accountability.
Buchanan, to make a long story short, first increasingly bought into disinformation
campaigns and later joined the main financier of his Center at George Mason University, Charles
Koch, to support a series of voter suppression programs, neoliberal court appointees,
anti-labor laws, and intensely funded political campaigns to shift the priorities of the state.
The guiding idea was not only to change the rulers but to change the rules which govern
districting, court jurisprudence, voter access and the like. Liberty is for producers, not
takers, as Milt Romney also said later when he thought he was speaking only to a closeted room
full of producers.
Buchanan's abstract concern for market liberties, and the slanted liberties of association
and speech they carried with them, never brought him to speak of the subjugated conditions of
Blacks, women and other minorities in this society. The reason seems clear: their living
grievances threaten abstract claims about a market system of impersonal rational coordination.
The danger, to him, is mass democracy, which enlarges the power of "the state". When Buchanan
worried about the state he didn't seem to mean Pinochet. He meant democratic processes through
which the state is moved to support a collection of minorities who have been closed out of
equality, participation, and representation. Buchanan, as did his hero Hayek, loved to think in
abstractions, the kind of abstractions that cover up specific modes of suffering, grievance,
and care under shiny terms. As MacLean also notes, Buchanan came to see that neoliberal (and
libertarian) propaganda must aim at men more than women, because, on average, the latter are
less predisposed to such messages.
The Koch/Buchanan alliance, consolidated through an Institute at George Mason University,
soon became a Center to fund movements and generic models of reform on the Right as it informed
American movers and shakers how to create constitutional "locks and bolts" in states and the
federal government to secure desired reforms from dissident majorities once they were pushed
through and their real effects became apparent. A stealth campaign, followed by opposition to
"mob rule". Wisconsin, for instance, became a key laboratory under the regime of Scott Walker,
both enacting draconian policies and pursuing constitutional changes to secure them from future
majorities. To discern the severity of the stealth activities, consider how one of Buchanan's
lieutenants, Charles Rowley, eventually turned against them. He became upset when a new Chair
of the economics department summarily fired all untenured economists to replace them with a
single breed of libertarians. As summarized by MacLean, two things above all dismayed Rowley,
who retained his neoliberal outlook but opposed the stealth practices. "First the sheer scale
of the riches the wealthy individuals brought to bear turned out to have subtle, even seductive
power. And second, under the influence of one wealthy individual, in particular, the movement
was turning to an equally troubling form of coercion: achieving its ends essentially through
trickery, through deceiving people about its real intentions to go to a place which, on their
own given complete information, they would not go." (p. 208) It's like saying "repeal and
replace Obamacare" while planning only to make the first move. And then turn the same trick
again in several other domains. Eventually, Buchanan himself grew wary of Koch, in a setting
where two narcissistic, authoritarian men struggled to control the same Center. The money man
won out. In Rowley's own words Koch, the billionaire donor, "had no scruples concerning the
manipulation of scholarship."
Neoliberalism, its critics know so well, periodically spawns the economic crises its
hubristic devotees promise will not happen. It also works to foster voter suppression,
unlimited dark campaign contributions, extreme gerrymandered districts, take away worker
benefits, appoint judges at state and national levels governed by neoliberal jurisprudence,
treat voter suppression tactics to be needed to eliminate phantom voter fraud, oppose
affirmative action, to weaken labor unions, and attack universal health care.
How many neoliberal Republicans called out Donald Trump, for instance, when he launched his
presidential campaign by pretending insistently for six long years (with absolutely no
evidence) that the first African American President held office illegally. Obama was guilty
until proven innocent, according to that Donald Trump. How many stepped to the plate to
acknowledge galloping climate change in the face of those who have called it a hoax against all
the available evidence? What about the appointment of a judge who lied about his previous
record, had trouble with his drinking and temper, and probably tried to rape a young girl when
they were in high school? What about Trump's constant suggestions that minorities are guilty
until found innocent, punctuated by assertions that men applying for high government positions
and accused of harassment must be treated as innocent unless a court of law finds them guilty.
Quiet whispers from neoliberals of regret and suspicion against Trumpism on these issues, by
the way, do not cut the mustard. Neoliberal stealth tactics and neofascist Big Lies have moved
too close together for comfort.
One thing that emerged out of the long-term two track campaigns of neoliberalism is a
powerful wealth/income concentration machine joined to a series of precarious and suffering
minorities, including so many urban Blacks and poor whites. With labor unions, too, caught in a
squeeze. Donald Trump could then play on the prejudices and insecurities created; he thus found
himself in a position to incite large segments of the white labor and lower middle classes to
return to the old days, while retaining the support of a huge segment of the wealthy, donor
class. The disinformation campaigns of the old neoliberal vanguard can too easily slide into
the Big Lie campaigns Trump pursues in the service of White Triumphalism, intense nationalism,
misogyny, the reduction of critical social movements to mob rule, and militant anti-immigration
campaigns. The long time con man and money launderer has not, then, merely cowed a neoliberal
elite that had pointed in a different direction. He has pulled its stealth campaigns into
channels that most find more palatable than other social visions in circulation.
The memories of Hayek and Friedman in this respect return to haunt us. It need not surprise
us, given MacLean's archival history, that the latest Trump Supreme Court appointee supports
neoliberal policies in the domains of corporate deregulation, medical care, restrictive voter
laws, limits on civil rights, gerrymandering and like while also trumpeting notions of a
sovereign president so dear to the dark heart of Donald Trump -- the aspirational fascist who
conspired with Russia to win an electoral college majority in 2016. We must light a candle for
those noble neoliberals who resist the slide we are witnessing before our very eyes, as we also
keep both eyes open with respect to the wider crossing between neoliberalism and
neofascism.
The old, all so familiar, Hayek story of how socialism and social democracy are always
on the "road to serfdom" is a fairy tale that has not in fact occurred. The transition,
however, from neoliberalism to virulent fascist movements has occurred before and could do so
again. The current fascist electoral campaign rallies by Donald Trump are designed to up
the ante of charges against liberals and the Left by several decibel levels so that people will
temporarily forget all the horrible things he has done and will do if Republicans keep both
houses. They include halting or weakening the Mueller investigation, eliminating transgender
rights, consolidating Trump control over intelligence agencies and the courts, reversing the
remaining shreds of ObamaCare, upscaling attacks on universal voting, weakening the media,
creating horrendous immigration laws, encouraging vigilante drives, and many other things yet.
Drive someone to a voting precinct on election day and give them a copy of the MacLean book a
week before you do. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
But the internet has largely disabled the gigantic CIA fog-machine. Thousands of skilled
researchers quickly blow apart the propaganda line from the Deep State which is why there's
an hysterical reach these days to shut down the 'net (but still keep it open enough to sell
lots of stuff and nake money for the Predator Class).
Take the JFK assassination. One skilled researcher directs readers to the Warren
Commission, where buried deep inside one volume is a finding that Oswald's rife was
inoperable, certainly unable to function as a precise assassination weapon. Plus Oswald was a
lousy shot to begin with. Yet Military sharpshooters had to add parts just to site the weapon
and fire. This info in the WC pretty much excludes Oswald as the lone assassin. Without the
'net, how many people could find this info themselves.
9/11? Several researchers and web sites disclosed findings of a support network for the
alQ hijackers run by Saudi intelligence and the Royal family (the 28 pages inside the
Congressional 9/11 Inquiry); FBI informants providing financing, housing and other logistical
support to the hijackers; CIA knowledge that alQ had entered the US 18 months before 9/11 and
hid this knowledge etc.
Ditto for the OKC bombing (where local TV found bombs inside the Federal Building, which
blew away the FBI narrative about McVeigh)... ditto for the FBI role in handing out
explosives to the perps at the first WTC bombing etc. etc.
All this info, including news reports are up on the web even today... So with this kind of
info available for large numbers of people to find, the only tactic left for the deep state
psy-war operations to function is complete martial law in an Orwellian Police State. At that
point the game is over and the US collapses as a nation.
One month to the day after President Kennedy's assassination, the Washington Post published
an article by former president Harry Truman.
I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our
Central Intelligence Agency -- CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason
why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected
it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
Truman had envisioned the CIA as an impartial information and intelligence collector from
"every available source."
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting
conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to
established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such
intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all
intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as
President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a
volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about
this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead
the President into unwise decisions -- and I thought it was necessary that the President do
his own thinking and evaluating.
Truman found, to his dismay, that the CIA had ranged far afield.
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive
areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into
peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we
have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the
President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol
of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue -- and a subject for cold war enemy
propaganda.
The article appeared in the Washington Post's morning edition, but not the evening
edition.
Truman reveals two naive assumptions. He thought a government agency could be apolitical and
objective. Further, he believed the CIA's role could be limited to information gathering and
analysis, eschewing "cloak and dagger operations." The timing and tone of the letter may have
been hints that Truman thought the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination. If he did, he
also realized an ex-president couldn't state his suspicions without troublesome
consequences.
Even the man who signed the CIA into law had to stay in the shadows, the CIA's preferred
operating venue. The CIA had become the exact opposite of what Truman envisioned and what its
enabling legislation specified. Within a few years after its inauguration in 1947, it was
neck-deep in global cloak and dagger and pushing agenda-driven, slanted information and
outright disinformation not just within the government, but through the media to the American
people.
The CIA lies with astonishing proficiency. It has made an art form of "plausible
deniability." Like glimpsing an octopus in murky waters, you know it's there, but it shoots
enough black ink to obscure its movements. Murk and black ink make it impossible for anyone on
the outside to determine exactly what it does or has done. Insiders, even the director, are
often kept in the dark.
For those on the trail of CIA and the other intelligence agencies' lies and skullduggery,
the agencies give ground glacially and only when they have to. What concessions they make often
embody multiple layers of back-up lies. It can take years for an official admission -- the CIA
didn't officially confess its involvement in the 1953 coup that deposed Iranian leader Mohammad
Mosaddeq until 2013 -- and even then details are usually not forthcoming. Many of the so-called
exposés of the intelligence agencies are in effect spook-written for propaganda or
damage control.
The intelligence agencies monitor virtually everything we do. They have tentacles reaching
into every aspect of contemporary society, exercising control in pervasive but mostly unknown
ways. Yet, every so often some idiot writes an op-ed or bloviates on TV, bemoaning the lack of
trust the majority of Americans have in "their" government and wondering why. The wonder is
that anyone still trusts the government.
The intelligence agency fog both obscures and corrodes. An ever increasing number of
Americans believe that a shadowy Deep State pulls the strings. Most major stories since World
War II -- Korea, Vietnam, Kennedy's assassination, foreign coups, the 1960s student unrest,
civil rights agitation, and civic disorder, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 9/11, domestic
surveillance, and many more -- have intelligence angles. However, determining what those angles
are plunges you into the miasma perpetuated by the agencies and their media accomplices.
The intelligence agencies and captive media's secrecy, disinformation, and lies make it
futile to mount a straightforward attack against them. It's like attacking a citadel surrounded
by swamps and bogs that afford no footing, making advance impossible. Their deadliest operation
has been against the truth. In a political forum, how does one challenge an adversary who
controls most of the information necessary to discredit, and ultimately reform or eliminate
that adversary?
You don't fight where your opponent wants you to fight. What the intelligence apparatus
fears most is a battle of ideas. Intelligence, the military, and the reserve currency are
essential component of the US's confederated global empire. During the 2016 campaign, Donald
Trump questioned a few empire totems and incurred the intelligence leadership's wrath,
demonstrating how sensitive and vulnerable they are on this front. The transparent flimsiness
of their Russiagate concoction further illustrates the befuddlement. Questions are out in the
open and are usually based on facts within the public domain. They move the battle from the
murk to the light, unfamiliar and unwelcome terrain.
The US government, like Oceania, switches enemies as necessary. That validates military and
intelligence; lasting peace would be intolerable. After World War II the enemy was the USSR and
communism, which persisted until the Soviet collapse in 1991. The 9/11 tragedy offered up a new
enemy, Islamic terrorism.
Seventeen years later, after a disastrous run of US interventions in the Middle East and
Northern Africa and the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian
government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear that Islamic terrorism is no longer a
threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets . For
all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating
terrorist strikes or defeating them in counterinsurgency warfare
So switch the enemy again, now it's Russia and China. The best insight the intelligence
community could offer about those two is that they've grown stronger by doing the opposite of
the US. For the most part they've stayed in their own neighborhoods. They accept that they're
constituents, albeit important ones, of a multipolar global order. Although they'll use big
sticks to protect their interests, carrots like the Belt and Road Initiative further their
influence much better than the US's bullets and bombs.
If the intelligence complex truly cared about the country, they might go public with the
observation that the empire is going broke. However, raising awareness of this dire threat --
as opposed to standard intelligence bogeymen -- might prompt reexamination of intelligence and
military budgets and the foreign policy that supports them. Insolvency will strangle the US's
exorbitantly expensive interventionism. It will be the first real curb on the intelligence
complex since World War II, but don't except any proactive measures beforehand from those
charged with foreseeing the future.
Conspiracy theories, a term popularized by the CIA to denigrate Warren Commission skeptics,
are often proved correct. However, trying to determine the truth behind intelligence agency
conspiracies is a time and energy-consuming task, usually producing much frustration and little
illumination. Instead,
as Caitlin Johnstone recently observed , we're better off fighting on moral and
philosophical grounds the intelligence complex and the rest of the government's depredations
that are in plain sight.
Attack the intellectual foundations of empire and you attack the whole rickety edifice,
including intelligence, that supports it. Tell the truth and you threaten those who deal in
lies . Champion sanity and logic and you challenge the insane irrationality of the powers that
be. They are daunting tasks, but less daunting than trying to excavate and clean the
intelligence sewer.
I sometimes wonder whether the Bond films are a psy-op.
I mean, the 'hero' is a psycho-killer ... the premise of the films is 'any means to an
end' ... they promote the ridiculous idea that you can be 'licensed to kill', and it's no
longer murder ... and they build a strong association between the State and glamour.
Bond makes a virtue out of 'following orders', when in reality, it's a Sin.
Can't remember which Section of MI6 Ian Fleming (novelist 007.5) worked but he came into
contact with my Hero, the best double-agent Cambridge, maybe World, has Ever produced, Kim
Philby. Fleming was a lightweight compared to him and was most likely provided the Funds, by
MI6 to titillate the Masses, spread the Word of Deep State.
The article makes many good points but still falls into use of distorting bs language.
For example, "after a disastrous run of US interventions" - well, they stole Libya's
wealth and destroyed the country: mission accomplished; that's what they were trying to do.
It was not an ""intervention", it was a f***ing war of aggression based on lies.
Well the good news is that folks now know there is deep State, shadow govt, puppet
masters, fake news MSM mockingbird programming, satanic "musik/ pop" promoters, etc.
Not everyone knows but more know, and some are now questioning the Matrix sensations they
have. That they have not been told the Truth.
Eventually humanity will awaken and get on track, how long it will take is unknown.
The CIA is a symptom of the problem but not the whole problem. Primarily it is the
deception that it sows, the confusion and false conclusions that the easily led fill their
heads with.
Now that you know there are bad guys out there...
Find someone to love, even if it is a puppy or a guppy. Simplify your needs, and commit
small acts of kindness on a regular basis. The World will heal, it may be a rocky
convalescence, yet Good triumphs in the end.
"... Have you been watching the news over the past few weeks where the clowns who supposedly represent us at Westminster were offering to take cash in brown envelopes for privileged access to the political system? ..."
"... Now we have the Prime Minister attending the Bilderberg Group meeting without any officials or Civil Servants to record what is going on. I suppose he needs to attend to get instructions from his bosses on how he must run his 'democracy'! ..."
Democracy = a political system in which citizens have an equal say in the decisions that
affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally -- either
directly or through elected representatives -- in the proposal, development, and creation
of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and
equal practice of political self-determination. Do we have this in the UK at the moment
bearing in mind recent events (brown envelopes and Bilderberg Group to name but two)?
Does any country have this? With all due respect it is just words and sentiment. In my
previous comment I said that No i didnt think we had true democracy and I dont think it (if
there is such a thing) is achievable, not everyone would be satisfied it would be true
democracy thus its legitimacy would be called into question.
In my mind its a bit like saying the best thing would be a "benevolent, incorruptible,
sensible dictator", its a fantasy.
Politicians who are found to be on the take or are fiddling the public purse should be
dismissed immediately and a by election called. Would stop it happening as much as I am
sure we are only seeing the 'tip of the iceberg'.
Agreed and they should always be innocent until proven guilty and if found guilty of abuse
of office they should be barred from public office indefinitely in my mind, as long as they
break the law, not fudge the rules or whatever, which is also part of the problem. Hazel
Blears and countless others was re-elected despite being reviled in the media as an expenses
cheat.
So I assume you are happy for our PM to attend a secret meeting where nothing is ever
released to the media or press about what is going on or discussed?
I am neither happy nor unhappy, it is a private event that the PM is invited to by a
steering committee, I imagine the idea being they can discuss candidly without official airs,
graces, platitudes and politician speak for a while, it doesnt particularly concern me.
@LetsGetCynical - Democracy = a political system in which citizens have an equal say in the
decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally
-- either directly or through elected representatives -- in the proposal, development, and
creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the
free and equal practice of political self-determination. Do we have this in the UK at the
moment bearing in mind recent events (brown envelopes and Bilderberg Group to name but two)?
Politicians who are found to be on the take or are fiddling the public purse should be
dismissed immediately and a by election called. Would stop it happening as much as I am sure
we are only seeing the 'tip of the iceberg'.
So I assume you are happy for our PM to attend a secret meeting where nothing is ever
released to the media or press about what is going on or discussed?
No, but then again what is a "true democracy"? Agreed they are bunch of clowns but then
again who are the clowns that repeatedly vote for the same party regardless of what they say
or do?
where the clowns who supposedly represent us at Westminster were offering to take cash
in brown envelopes
Corruption is about as old as humanity itself, no "true democracy" will ever remove the
human element and all the pros and cons that entails.
Now we have the Prime Minister attending the Bilderberg Group meeting without any
officials or Civil Servants to record what is going on. I suppose he needs to attend to get
instructions from his bosses on how he must run his 'democracy'!
Whether or not you argee or disagree with the conference, it is by invite only, they don't
have to invite civil servants or journalists if they don't want to. And it does contain very
powerful people, why would the PM not attend?
attend to get instructions from his bosses
I take it the waiters are under permanent surveillance in order to ensure they don't
reveal the dastardly secrets about what Eric Schmidt "tells" Cameron to do? A bit fanciful in
my opinion.
@LetsGetCynical - Do you really believe that we live in a true democracy? Have you been
watching the news over the past few weeks where the clowns who supposedly represent us at
Westminster were offering to take cash in brown envelopes for privileged access to the
political system?
Now we have the Prime Minister attending the Bilderberg Group meeting
without any officials or Civil Servants to record what is going on. I suppose he needs to
attend to get instructions from his bosses on how he must run his 'democracy'!
"... As for the self-licking ice cream cone that "mainstream media" have become, and how they overlook little peccadilloes like feeding at the government PR trough and helping Cheney and Bush attack Iraq, well – now, now – let's not be nasty. Here's how Jill Abramson, The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief from 2000 to 2003, while the Times acted as drum major for the war, lets Bob Woodward off the hook for his own abysmal investigative performance. ..."
"... Are we to believe that the Abramsons, Woodwards, et al. of the media elite simply missed the WMD deception? ..."
Dishonest (not "mistaken") intelligence greased the skids for the
widespread killing and maiming in the Middle East that began with the Cheney/Bush "Shock and
Awe" attack on Iraq. The media reveled in the unconscionable (but lucrative) buzzword
"shock-and-awe" for the initial attack. In retrospect, the real shock lies in the awesome
complicity of virtually all "mainstream media" in the leading false predicate for this war of
aggression – weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Only one major media group, Knight Ridder, avoided the presstitution, so to speak. It
faced into the headwinds blowing from the "acceptable" narrative, did the investigative
spadework, and found patriotic insiders who told them the truth. Karen Kwiatkowski, who had a
front-row seat at the Pentagon, was one key source for the intrepid Knight Ridder
journalists. Karen tells us that her actual role is accurately portrayed by the professional
actress in the Rob Reiner's film Shock and Awe .
Other members of the Sam Adams Associates were involved as well, but we will leave it to
them to share on Saturday evening how they helped Knight Ridder accurately depict the prewar
administration/intelligence/media fraud.
Intelligence Fraud
More recently, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper added a coda to
pre-Iraq-War intelligence performance. Clapper was put in charge of imagery analysis before
the Iraq war and was able to conceal the fact that there were were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In his memoir, Clapper writes that Vice President Cheney "was pushing"
for imagery analysis "to find (emphasis in original) the WMD sites."
For the record, none were found because there were none, although Clapper –
"eager to help" – gave it the old college try. Clapper proceeds, in a matter-of-fact
way, to blame not only pressure from the Cheney/Bush administration, but also "the
intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't
really there."
Regarding those Clapper-produced "artist renderings" of "mobile production facilities for
biological agents"? Those trucks "were in fact used to pasteurize and transport milk,"
Clapper admits nonchalantly. When challenged on all
this while promoting his memoir at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, Clapper gave not the
slightest hint that it occurred to him his performance was somewhat lacking.
Media: Consequential Malfeasance
As for the self-licking ice cream cone that "mainstream media" have become, and how
they overlook little peccadilloes like feeding at the government PR trough and helping Cheney
and Bush attack Iraq, well – now, now – let's not be nasty. Here's how Jill
Abramson, The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief from 2000 to 2003, while the
Times acted as drum major for the war, lets Bob Woodward off the hook for his own abysmal
investigative performance.
Reviewing Woodward's recent book on the Trump White House, Abramson praises his "dogged
investigative reporting," noting that he has won two Pulitzer Prizes, and adds: "His work has
been factually unassailable." Then she (or perhaps an editor) adds in parenthesis: "(His
judgment is certainly not perfect, and he has been self-critical about his belief, based on
reporting before the Iraq War, that there were weapons of mass destruction.)"
Are we to believe that the Abramsons, Woodwards, et al. of the media elite simply
missed the WMD deception? (Hundreds of insiders knew of it, and some were willing to
share the truth with Knight Ridder and some other reporters.) Or did the media moguls simply
hunker down and let themselves be co-opted into helping Cheney/Bush start a major war? The
latter seems much more likely: and transparent attempts to cover up for one another, still,
is particularly sad – and consequential. Having suffered no consequences (for example,
in 2003 Abramson was promoted to Managing Editor of the NYT ), the "mainstream media"
appear just as likely to do a redux on Iran.
This is why there will be a premium on honest insider patriots, like Karen Kwiatkowski, to
rise to the occasion and try to prevent the next war. Bring along your insider friends on
Saturday; they need to know about Karen and about Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in
Intelligence.
Please do come and join us in congratulating Karen Kwiatkowski and the other SAAII members
who also helped Knight Ridder get the story right. (Those others shall remain unnamed until
Saturday.) And let insiders know this: they are not likely to hear about all this
otherwise.
Date : Saturday, December 8, 2018
Time : 6:30 PM Showing of film, "Shock and Awe" – 8:00 PM Presentation 17th
annual Sam Adams Award – Ceremony will include remarks by Larry Wilkerson, 7th SAAII
awardee (in 2009)
Place : The Festival Center, 1640 Columbia Road, NW, Washington, DC 20009
FREE : But RSVP, if you can, to give us an idea of how many to expect; email:
[email protected]
ALL WELCOME : Lots of space in main conference room
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). William
Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA. Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during
Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move
that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he
is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very
dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are
sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether
the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas
business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election
law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .
It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an
investigation looking for a crime.
This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by
definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where
a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
crime has been committed.
It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up
interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to
leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.
Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of
the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of
1001 violations would have come into port.
IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by
declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released
unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of
that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the
narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant
innuendo.
In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much
most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money
laundering that took place over a decade ago .
There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to
steal the 2016 election.
Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't
know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp
rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come
under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever
wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential
election.
"... As for the self-licking ice cream cone that "mainstream media" have become, and how they overlook little peccadilloes like feeding at the government PR trough and helping Cheney and Bush attack Iraq, well – now, now – let's not be nasty. Here's how Jill Abramson, The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief from 2000 to 2003, while the Times acted as drum major for the war, lets Bob Woodward off the hook for his own abysmal investigative performance. ..."
"... Are we to believe that the Abramsons, Woodwards, et al. of the media elite simply missed the WMD deception? ..."
Dishonest (not "mistaken") intelligence greased the skids for the
widespread killing and maiming in the Middle East that began with the Cheney/Bush "Shock and
Awe" attack on Iraq. The media reveled in the unconscionable (but lucrative) buzzword
"shock-and-awe" for the initial attack. In retrospect, the real shock lies in the awesome
complicity of virtually all "mainstream media" in the leading false predicate for this war of
aggression – weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Only one major media group, Knight Ridder, avoided the presstitution, so to speak. It
faced into the headwinds blowing from the "acceptable" narrative, did the investigative
spadework, and found patriotic insiders who told them the truth. Karen Kwiatkowski, who had a
front-row seat at the Pentagon, was one key source for the intrepid Knight Ridder
journalists. Karen tells us that her actual role is accurately portrayed by the professional
actress in the Rob Reiner's film Shock and Awe .
Other members of the Sam Adams Associates were involved as well, but we will leave it to
them to share on Saturday evening how they helped Knight Ridder accurately depict the prewar
administration/intelligence/media fraud.
Intelligence Fraud
More recently, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper added a coda to
pre-Iraq-War intelligence performance. Clapper was put in charge of imagery analysis before
the Iraq war and was able to conceal the fact that there were were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In his memoir, Clapper writes that Vice President Cheney "was pushing"
for imagery analysis "to find (emphasis in original) the WMD sites."
For the record, none were found because there were none, although Clapper –
"eager to help" – gave it the old college try. Clapper proceeds, in a matter-of-fact
way, to blame not only pressure from the Cheney/Bush administration, but also "the
intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't
really there."
Regarding those Clapper-produced "artist renderings" of "mobile production facilities for
biological agents"? Those trucks "were in fact used to pasteurize and transport milk,"
Clapper admits nonchalantly. When challenged on all
this while promoting his memoir at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, Clapper gave not the
slightest hint that it occurred to him his performance was somewhat lacking.
Media: Consequential Malfeasance
As for the self-licking ice cream cone that "mainstream media" have become, and how
they overlook little peccadilloes like feeding at the government PR trough and helping Cheney
and Bush attack Iraq, well – now, now – let's not be nasty. Here's how Jill
Abramson, The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief from 2000 to 2003, while the
Times acted as drum major for the war, lets Bob Woodward off the hook for his own abysmal
investigative performance.
Reviewing Woodward's recent book on the Trump White House, Abramson praises his "dogged
investigative reporting," noting that he has won two Pulitzer Prizes, and adds: "His work has
been factually unassailable." Then she (or perhaps an editor) adds in parenthesis: "(His
judgment is certainly not perfect, and he has been self-critical about his belief, based on
reporting before the Iraq War, that there were weapons of mass destruction.)"
Are we to believe that the Abramsons, Woodwards, et al. of the media elite simply
missed the WMD deception? (Hundreds of insiders knew of it, and some were willing to
share the truth with Knight Ridder and some other reporters.) Or did the media moguls simply
hunker down and let themselves be co-opted into helping Cheney/Bush start a major war? The
latter seems much more likely: and transparent attempts to cover up for one another, still,
is particularly sad – and consequential. Having suffered no consequences (for example,
in 2003 Abramson was promoted to Managing Editor of the NYT ), the "mainstream media"
appear just as likely to do a redux on Iran.
This is why there will be a premium on honest insider patriots, like Karen Kwiatkowski, to
rise to the occasion and try to prevent the next war. Bring along your insider friends on
Saturday; they need to know about Karen and about Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in
Intelligence.
Please do come and join us in congratulating Karen Kwiatkowski and the other SAAII members
who also helped Knight Ridder get the story right. (Those others shall remain unnamed until
Saturday.) And let insiders know this: they are not likely to hear about all this
otherwise.
Date : Saturday, December 8, 2018
Time : 6:30 PM Showing of film, "Shock and Awe" – 8:00 PM Presentation 17th
annual Sam Adams Award – Ceremony will include remarks by Larry Wilkerson, 7th SAAII
awardee (in 2009)
Place : The Festival Center, 1640 Columbia Road, NW, Washington, DC 20009
FREE : But RSVP, if you can, to give us an idea of how many to expect; email:
[email protected]
ALL WELCOME : Lots of space in main conference room
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). William
Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA. Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during
Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move
that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he
is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very
dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are
sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether
the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas
business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election
law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .
It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an
investigation looking for a crime.
This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by
definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where
a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
crime has been committed.
It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up
interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to
leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.
Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of
the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of
1001 violations would have come into port.
IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by
declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released
unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of
that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the
narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant
innuendo.
In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much
most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money
laundering that took place over a decade ago .
There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to
steal the 2016 election.
Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't
know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp
rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come
under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever
wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential
election.
There is a particular transparency of motive which becomes clear, and reconciles all inquiry, when an interested observer accepts
a particular media framework:
The media outlet CNN provides for their domestic and international audience, the preferred position for all policy and
points of advocacy from Hillary Clinton's Department of State.
The media outlet The Washington Post serves a similar purpose, however their specialized role is as a conduit for Barack
"Hussein" Obama's Central Intelligence Agency.
"the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear
that Islamic terrorism is no longer a threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets .
For all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating terrorist strikes or defeating them
in counterinsurgency warfare"
Excuse me,but WTF??
It's the US,NATO, Israhell and Saudis that created ISIS, with the above mentioned spending BILLIONS to combat ISIS in Syria.
The war on terror is a hoax. The lame exploitation of Arabs and Islam to manufacture consent for war on Iraq, starting with
Mossad planting of low yield thermal nuke weapons that brought the Towers down..Saudis were the patsies.
All of this with blessing of Zionists banksters and US Treasury& Fed Reserve.
If nothing else, these pages will show the reader the following:
Although he does not recall when asked, George (Herbert Walker) Bush was in Dallas the
day JFK was assassinated.
Bush lies about the fact that he was a high-ranking CIA official at the time of JFK's
death.
Bush allowed the escape of a convicted terrorist from prison to go to work for him as an
undercover CIA asset in Iran-Contra.
Bush has released another convicted terrorist.
Both these terrorists were present on Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963.
Both these terrorists were convicted for killing 73 people by blowing up an
airliner.
Bush is personal friends with a close associate of these convicted terrorists, who was
also a participant in Iran Contra.
Bush has taken a leading role as CIA official in structuring/organizing these terrorists
in effective organizations.
Shall we say: "Only in America, the land of unlimited opportunities"?
================================================
+ All three generations Bush are members of a most powerful and most secret society. It's
called The order of Skull and Bones. Those who want to learn more about Skull and Bones can do
so by clicking here . Or read
this book click
here.
And those who argue that Skull and Bones is just a harmless fraternity or boy scout's
club, may ask themselves whether it is okay for leaders of open and democratic societies, to be
members of secret organizations whose agendas are not to be disclosed to the public.
"My senior year, I joined Skull & Bones, a secret society, so secret, I can't say
anything more." George W. Bush, President of the United States
See George W. Bush admitting his membership of Skull and Bones by clicking
here
The unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush can be read here
Where were you, George?
+ Prescott Bush (father of George) made his fortune by financing the war effort of
Adolph Hitler together with his banking partners and fellow "bonesmen" Averell and Roland
Harriman. Prescott was stripped of his holdings in the Union Banking Corporation in 1942 under
the "Trading with the Enemy Act".
"On March 19, 1934, Prescott Bush handed Averell Harriman a copy of that day's New York
Times. The Polish government was applying to take over Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation
and Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company from "German and American interests" because of
rampant "mismanagement, excessive borrowing, fictitious bookkeeping and gambling in
securities." The Polish government required the owners of the company, which accounted for over
45% of Poland's steel production, to pay at least its full share of back taxes. Bush and
Harriman would eventually hire attorney John Foster Dulles to help cover up any improprieties
that might arise under investigative scrutiny." Source: "Heir to the Holocaust" by Toby
Rogers.
John Foster Dulles was the brother of Allen Dulles, the later CIA director,
who was the architect - together with Vice President Richard Nixon and George Bush - of the Bay
of Pigs invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro's Cuba. Allen Dulles was fired by President Kennedy
because of the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs. Yet Allen Dulles was appointed by Lyndon Johnson to
serve on the Warren Commission to "investigate" JFK's death.
+ A vice-president of Empire Trust in Dallas was Jack Crichton (also president of Nafco
Oil & Gas, Inc.) who was connected with Army Reserve Intelligence. In a 1995 book written
by Fabian Escalante, the chief of a Cuban counterintelligence unit during the late 1950s and
early 1960s, he describes that as soon as intelligence was received from agents in Cuba that
Fidel Castro had "converted to communism," a plan called "Operation 40" was put into effect by
the National Security Council, presided over by Vice-President Richard Nixon. Escalante
indicates that Nixon was the Cuban "case officer" who had assembled an important group of
businessmen headed by George Bush and Jack Crichton, both Texas oilmen, to gather the necessary
funds for the operation.
In Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (New York:
Carroll & Graf Publishers/Richard Gallen, 1992), at pp. 614-615, under a section called
"Origins of the Cover-up" there is a description of a group of Dallas men who surrounded Marina
Oswald as soon as her husband had been arrested, but before he was killed by Jack Ruby. These
were intelligence operatives seeking out Russian speakers. Ilya Mamantov knew George Bush and
spoke Russian. A geologist with Sun Oil, he received a call five hours after the assassination
from Jack Crichton, who was at that time the president of Nafco Oil and Gas, Inc. and a former
Military Intelligence officer then attached to Army Reserve Intelligence. Crichton was also
director of Dorchester Gas Producing Co. with D.H. Byrd, who owned the Texas School Book
Depository building and was a close friend of Lyndon Johnson.
+ In 1968, six months after the assassination of Robert Kennedy, Prescott writes
this letter (click here)
to Clover Dulles, wife of Allen Dulles. Note that he blames the Kennedy's for the failure of
the Bay of Pigs.
+ In the 1950's Prescott and the Harrimans are the founding fathers
of CBS. In 1963, CBS reporter Dan Rather makes his career break with the Kennedy Assassination
by lying to the American public that he sees JFK's head move violently FORWARD on the Zapruder
film. To hear Dan Rather lying click here .
The lie is possible, because the Zapruder film was bought by Time Life and kept lock and
barrel from the public for 14 years. Time Life is founded and owned by Henry Luce, also a
member of Skull and Bones. Luce had many friends, among them general Edward Lansdale, a known
covert operative for the CIA. Henry's wife, Clare Booth Luce, Congresswoman, is a radical
supporter of the Anti-Castro movement and personal friends with another high-ranking covert
operative for the CIA and a resident from Fort Worth: David Atlee Phillips. Edward Lansdale and
David Phillips are widely accepted as key planners of the JFK assassination. They are also
exact matches for the "covert operations specialist"(Phillips) and the "top brass in military
intelligence from Asia" (Lansdale) as described in Sam Giancana's biography "Double Cross" (to
read the page click
here ).
David Atlee Phillips and Edward Lansdale
+ David Atlee Phillips was the mastermind for the CIA staged coup by Pinochet in
1973, as well as the overthrow in 1954 of the Guatemala regime headed by Jacobo Arbenz. He is
working closely with CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, another suspect in the plot to kill JFK and
the leader of the infamous Watergate burglar team. In the 1950's and 1960's, Phillips is the
CIA case officer for the anti Castro Cubans in Havana and Mexico City. He is also the CIA
controller for Lee Harvey Oswald and James Files. James Files has confessed that he fired the
shot into JFK's head from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza. This
story is completely ignored by the mainstream media, which seems strange, because even if he
were lying, one would expect some exposure. The star of David Atlee Phillips rises to CIA
director of Covert Operations for the Western Hemisphere. According to his nephew Shawn
Phillips, who is quite a famous musician, David Atlee Phillips confirmed to his brother James
Atlee Phillips that he was in Dallas the day Kennedy died. To read Shawn's email: click here.
+ Prescott Bush advised Eisenhower to run for President and then launched Richard Nixon
into the Vice Presidency. Subsequently he was a major financer of Nixon's presidential campaign
against Kennedy. Prescott Bush was an avid JFK opponent and Nixon has always been a puppet for
the interests of the Bush family. To read the details click here .
"Figure that one out; if someone had tried to finger me for killing President Kennedy,
that person would have been my worst enemy. See volume one and ten for damning evidence. The
FBI agent that took Bush's call was Graham Kitchel, whose brother George Kitchel knew both de
Mohrenschildt (Oswald's best friend in Dallas) and Bush. (NOTE: Graham was a favourite of FBI
Director, J. E. Hoover who was briefing Bush of the CIA on November 23, 1963). On October 13,
1999, Adamson called Kenneth B. Jackson the FBI agent who investigated Parrott and received
Bush's complaint. Mr. Jackson, refused to return Adamson's phone call. why? "
Source: Bruce Adamson
"The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds."
+ Nixon admitted he was in Dallas, but gave conflicting accounts. To read about those
conflicting accounts click
here or click
here .
Is there other evidence to tie Nixon to key players in the JFK assassination? Yes, there is!
Look at this bombshell document that states Jack Ruby worked for Nixon: Click here . And Ruby was just a punk with
no connections to anyone?
+ One of the most tantalizing nuggets about Nixon's possible inside knowledge of JFK
assassination secrets was buried on a White House tape until 2002. On the tape, recorded in May
of 1972, the president confided to two top aides that the Warren Commission pulled off "the
greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated." Unfortunately, he did not elaborate. But the
context in which Nixon raised the matter shows just how low he could stoop in efforts to
assassinate the character of his political adversaries.
The Republican president made the "hoax" observation in the immediate aftermath of the
assassination attempt against White House hopeful George Wallace, a long-time Democratic
governor of Alabama. The attempt left Wallace paralyzed below the waist. Nixon blurted out his
comments about the falsity of the Warren findings in the middle of a conversation in which he
repeatedly directed two of his most ruthless aides, Bob Haldeman and Chuck Colson, to carry out
a monumental dirty trick. He urged them to plant a false news story linking the would-be
Wallace assassin -- Arthur Bremer -- to two other Democrats, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen.
George McGovern -- possible Nixon opponents in that year's fall elections. "Screw the record,"
the president orders on at one point. "Just say he was a supporter of that nut (it isn't clear
which of the two senators he is referring to). And put it out. Just say we have an
authenticated report."
As well as helping to perpetuate the Kennedy assassination "hoax" by turning down Haldeman's
proposal for a new JFK probe, Nixon had a major hand in perpetrating it. In November of 1964,
on the eve of the official release of the Warren Report, private citizen Nixon went public in
support of the panel's coming findings. In a piece for Reader's Digest, he portrayed Oswald as
the sole assassin. And Nixon implied that Castro -- "a hero in the warped mind of Oswald" --
was the real culprit.
He claimed that Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, had authorized a larger number of
wiretaps than his own administration. "But I don't criticize it," he declared, adding, "if he
had ten more and -- as a result of wiretaps -- had been able to discover the Oswald Plan, it
would have been worth it."
Whoops! The president apparently didn't realize his reference to "the Oswald Plan" didn't
square with the government's official lone-killer finding. For if Lee Harvey Oswald had been
solely responsible for the assassination, then there would not have been anyone for Oswald to
conspire with about his "plan" -- on a bugged telephone, or otherwise. Was Nixon inadvertently
revealing his knowledge that Mob leaders (Robert Kennedy's main wiretap targets) had a role in
President Kennedy's slaying? Was such a belief based on information acquired as a result of
Nixon's own solid ties to organized crime and the Mafia-infested Teamsters union? Source:
click here
.
+ A photograph exists of the Texas School Book Depository while the Dallas Police is sealing
off the building. Among the bystanders is a civilian that could be a twin brother of George
H.W. Bush.
+ George H.W. Bush is provably lying about his CIA career. He claims that his CIA
directorship in 1976 was his first job for the CIA. Difficult to believe? Page 3 will show the
proof for this lie. The truth is that he was actively involved in the preparation and financing
of the ill faithed Bay of Pigs invasion, as a high ranking CIA official, at which time he made
acquaintance with the now notorious CIA agent and Iran Contra operative Felix Rodriguez, a
veteran of the Bay of Pigs and Operation 40.
... ... ...
CONCLUSIONS:
The plot to kill JFK originates from the very same forces that were working together on the
Bay of Pigs and the plots to assassinate Fidel Castro: All these forces had their own reasons
to recapture Cuba and to hate Kennedy, whom they also blamed for the failure of the Bay of
Pigs.
These groups were
The CIA with the approval of some of the highest government officials (like Johnson,
Hoover, Ford and Nixon)
The anti Castro Cuban exiles
Mafiabosses Sam Giancana , Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante and
wealthy industrialists and Texan oilmen like H.L. Hunt, Syd Richardson and Clint
Murchison.
George H.W. Bush has documented connections to all four groups
Sam Giancana states in his biography that he knew Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon
personally (to read the page click here ), as well as the aforementioned oil
millionaires and George Demohrenshildt (to read the page click here ), , and that they planned the JFK
assassination together. James Files, the confessed grassy knoll assassin who fired the fatal
shot into JFK's head, did not only work for Sam Giancana, but was recruited in the CIA to train
Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs, by none other than David Atlee Phillips. He claims that one
of his later senior supervisors in covert operations was George H.W. Bush. Lyndon Johnson told
his mistress Madeline Brown: "It was the CIA and the Oilboys". Bush was both ! In addition he
was up to his neck in the Bay of Pigs and the anti Castro movement. What is the chance he could
not have known about the plot?
David Atlee Phillips was also the CIA supervisor for Lee Harvey Oswald, a heroic man that
was unwittingly chosen to take the blame as the patsy, while led to believe he was to penetrate
the group of assassins in order to sabotage the plot and prevent JFK's assassination.
On November 22, 1963 a criminal power elite seized control through a coup d'etat and a
subsequent cover up of the truth that lasts until today. This is because they strengthened
their position ever since. The key to unlocking the truth lies in one of their most powerful
assets: the mainstream media. That is why you were not aware of most of the above !
It is clear that Bush protected the cover-up, as well as individuals and CIA elements that
were involved in the JFK assassination. Although the above may not be conclusive evidence for
Bush's involvement or knowledge about JFK's murder, all together a bigger and more criminal
picture than many of us dare to imagine, emerges, with a direct connection to the political
situation of today.
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can
do for your country."
"A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to
public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders
today - and in fact we have forgotten."
"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."
"A man does what he must-in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and
dangers and pressures-and that is the basis of all human morality."
"A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. "
Former US President George H.W. Bush has died at age 94 in Houston, according to his
spokesperson Jim McGrath.
Born into privilege and a tradition of service, Bush was a son of a senator, celebrated
World War II combat pilot, student athlete, Texas oilman, Republican congressman, national
party chairman, pioneering diplomat and spy chief [who likely oversaw the CIA assets assigned
to the JFK kill team].
After his own 1980 presidential campaign came up short, he served two terms as Ronald
Reagan's vice president before reaching the pinnacle of political power by winning the 1988
presidential election, soundly defeating Democrat Michael Dukakis.
After losing the White House in 1992, Bush became a widely admired political elder who leapt
out of airplanes to mark birthday milestones.
A timely article. Main Stream Media (MSM) are the biggest tool of passive compliance and
propagandizing by a relatively docile population. I open the CNN URL and it is like reading
the neocon version of 1960's Pravda. The Australian government should be doing more to get
Julian Assange out of his current predicament. The 4th Estate is withering on the vine to
comply with lobby dictates.The Founders had a reason to mention this entity in the
Constitution.
To be fair to the MSM, they know that they are safe from persecution, as they never print a
word that the establishment does not want to see published.
Now here are some purveyors of Fake News, all evidence-free assertions proven totally false:
"But the evidence increasingly points to Assange having made himself a willing tool of
Russian Intelligence. There's a huge difference between pursuing the public's right to know
and and acting as the clandestine agent of an adversarial foreign power."
"He's a spy, a saboteur and a rapist. I'm all in for the free and adversarial press but
when a reporter is an actual criminal, lock him up."
"I don't think that it's the content of his email release that got Assange in hot water. It
was his calculated timing of the release to cause the most harm to a candidate's run for
President."
Right, journalists should always withhold true information about a politician and the
political processes they engage in from the public, so that the voters will remain deceived.
Well, I guess, the politicians YOU favor.
The press does not have to be afraid. The press is Deepstate. The Department of "Justice" is
Deepstate. They are the same machine, working in beautiful synchrony to obliterate
civilization.
Peter the 'press' is obviously not worried about losing their ability to inform the public of
the truth, because they no longer view that as their function. They are tools of propaganda
for the oligarchs that rule America. There are a few people like yourself, who want to inform
the public, but you represent a (shrinking) minority.
It's funny how Ds claim Assange helped seal Hillary's fate by releasing the emails without
recognizing the reality that the emails needed to exist in order to be released.
Why would you vote for someone who admitted to doing the things described?
BTW, should "John Doe" the leaker of the Panama Papers be tracked down?
This conundrum is partially the result of picking and choosing the enforcement of laws based
on political affiliation or beliefs.
We are not a republic now.
The individual has been declared an enemy of GovCo, the EstGOP and the Democrat People's
Parties.
So he screamed in the cafeteria and spilled his morning coffee. We all wondered what
happened to him and so we looked at his friend, and he told us that he must have read the
NYT, as that was his common reaction, a cry of pain and anguish and screams of "all lies, all
lies, all lies" whenever he reads the newspaper or watches the TV, esp. NYT.
Your article and the previous news about Manfort visiting Assange and the funny timing of
the same reminded me of this story.
The Western MSM is a lying scamming neoliberal propaganda machine.
"... I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. ..."
Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies
The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its
production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6
mouthpiece
Luke Harding of the Guardian.
Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian,
this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified "Russians" to
the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that
Manafort's plea deal was over.
The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor
logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these "Russians" are in the visitor logs.
This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict
Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure
was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was
accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log.
Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained
until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.
There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the "Russians" would
have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so
exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed
Ecuadorean "intelligence report" of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean
government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is
impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security –
would not know the identity of these alleged "Russians".
Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government
regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they
follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller's
pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the
Presidency.
My friend William Binney, probably the world's greatest expert on electronic surveillance,
former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that
it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a
download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting
a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at
the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC "security consultants"
Crowdstrike.
I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be
established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive "Big
Lie" will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack
of the DNC servers.
Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even
considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a
personal assurance of them.
I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York
Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security
services.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a
particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to
create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the
US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the
security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange's support prior to expelling
him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of
espionage.
Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and
has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever
be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York
Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are
seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the
"liberal media" no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of
the people, they are an instrument of elite control.
My opinions are conflicted, but I'd rather give Assange a Nobel Peace Prize than a criminal
conviction. He definitely deserves a Nobel Prize more than Obama. I was in an eatery in
Cambridge, MA, when I heard Obama's prize announced, and even there people where aghast and
astounded.
The Guardian was bought by Soros, a few years ago.
Washpost, NYT and CNN, Deep State mouthpieces.
That the USA, as long as Deep State has not been eradicated completely from USA society, will
continue to try to get Assange, and of course also Snowdon, in it claws, is more than
obvious.
So what are we talking about ?
Assange just uses the freedom of information act, or how the the USA euphemism for telling
them nothing, is called.
How Assange survives, mentally and bodily, being locked up in a small room without a
bathroom, for several years now, is beyond my comprehension.
But of course, for 'traitors' like him human rights do not exist.
"I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times
have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services."
These outfits are largely state-run at this point. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff
Bezos, a man with deep ties to the CIA through his Amazon company (which depends upon federal
subsidies and has received security agency "support") and the Guardian is clandestinely
funded through UK government purchases, among other things. MI6 has also effectively
compromised the former integrity and objectivity of that outlet by threatening them with
prosecutions for revealing MI6 spy practices. And the NYT has always been state-run. See
their coverage of the Iraq War. The Israelis have bragged about having an asset at the Times.
The American government has several.
It's amazing to see the obvious progression of the lies as they take hold in an anti-Trump
elite who seem completely impervious to understanding his victory over Clinton. All these
people who claim to be so cosmopolitan and educated seem to think Assange or Manafort would
have any interest in meeting each other. (Let alone in the company of unspecified
'Russians'.)
At first it was that Assange was wrong to publish the DNC leaks because it hurt Clinton
and thus helped Trump.
Then it was that Assange was actively trying to help Trump.
Now it's that Assange is in collusion with Trump and the 'Russians'.
The same thing happened with the Trump-Russian nonsense which goes ever more absurd as
time goes on. Slowly boiling the frog in the public's mind. The allegations are so
nonsensical, yet there are plenty of educated, supposedly cosmopolitan people who don't
understand the backgrounds or motives of their 'liberal' heroes in the NYT or Guardian who
believe this on faith.
None of these people will ever question how if any of this is true how the security
services of the West didn't know it and if they supposedly know it, how come they aren't
acting like it's true. They are acting like they're attempting to smear politicians they
don't like, however.
Luke Harding is particularly despicable. He made his name as a journalist off privileged
access to Wilkileaks docs, and has been persistently attacking Assange ever since the Swedish
fan-girl farce.
Assange did make a mistake (of which I am sure he is all too aware now) in the choice to,
rather than leave the info. open on-line, collaborate with the filthy Guardian, the sleazy
NYT, and I forget dirty name of the third publication.
@anon Since you
are posting as Anon coward, I am not expecting a reply, but would be interested in (and would
not doubt) state funding of the 'Guardian'?
As for the NYT, they are plainly in some sense state-funded, but the state in question is
neither New York nor the U.S.A., but the state of Israel.
@Che Guava
Perhaps he is referring to the sheer volume of ads the British government places for public
sector appointments. As for the paper edition, most of it seems to be bought by the BBC!
So he screamed in the cafeteria and spilled his morning coffee. We all wondered what
happened to him and so we looked at his friend, and he told us that he must have read the
NYT, as that was his common reaction, a cry of pain and anguish and screams of "all lies, all
lies, all lies" whenever he reads the newspaper or watches the TV, esp. NYT.
Your article and the previous news about Manfort visiting Assange and the funny timing of
the same reminded me of this story.
The Western MSM is a lying scamming neoliberal propaganda machine.
"... "The US economy has left large swaths of people behind. History shows that such periods are ripe for demagogues, and here again, deep pockets buy not only the policy set that protects them, but the "think tanks," research results, and media presence that foments the polarization that insulates them further." ..."
"... Stagnation of median wages may have been evident for longer in the US, but the recession has led to declining real wages in many other countries. Partly as a result , we have seen 'farther right' parties gaining popularity across Europe in recent years. ..."
A lot of US blog posts have asked this after the US government came very close to self-inflicted default. It was indeed an extraordinary
episode which indicates that something is very wrong. All I want to suggest here is that it may help to put this discussion in a
global context. What has happened in the US has of course many elements which can only be fully understood in the domestic context
and given US history, like the
enduringinfluence of race
, or cultural wars . But with other, more economic, elements
it may be more accurate to describe the US as leading the way, with other countries following.
"The US economy has
left large swaths of people behind. History shows that such periods are ripe for demagogues, and here again, deep pockets buy not
only the policy set that protects them, but the "think tanks," research results, and media presence that foments the polarization
that insulates them further."
Support for the right in the US does
appear to be correlated with low incomes and low human capital. Yet while growing inequality may be most noticeable in the US,
but it is not unique to it, as the chart below from the Paris School of Economics
database shows. Stagnation of median wages
may have been evident for longer in the US, but the recession has led to declining real wages in many other countries. Partly as
a result , we have seen 'farther
right' parties
gaining
popularity across Europe in recent years.
Yet surely, you might say, what is unique to the US is that a large section of the political right has got 'out of control', such
that it has done significant harm to the economy and almost did much more. If,
following Jurek Martin
in the FT, we describe business interests as 'big money', then it appears as if the Republican party has been acting against big
money. Here there may be a parallel with the UK which could be instructive.
In the UK, David Cameron has been forced to concede
a referendum on continued UK membership of the European Union, in an attempt to stem the popularity of the UK Independence Party.
Much of UK business would
regard leaving the
EU as disastrous, so Cameron will almost certainly recommend staying in the EU. But with a a divided
party, he lost a referendum. So the referendum pledge seems like a forced concession to the farther right that entails
considerable risks. As Chris Dillow
notes
there are
other areas where a right wing government appears to be acting against 'big money'.
While hostility to immigration has always been a reaction to economic decline, it is
difficult to deny that hostility to the
emigration associated with European
Union is a burning issue for the majority of people in the UK. That's why was Cameron forced to make such a dangerous concession over
the referendum.
Nice post, although I fear the causality in the US is exactly the same as in the UK. Politicians love scapegoats that cannot
answer back or that have no votes: immigrants and foreign countries both fit the bill and so end up being lambasted ad infinitum.
I also don't believe this issue is as trivial to the general population as you seem to suggest - if you tell a lie often enough
it becomes the truth.
So when, as you so often point out, the politicians can be seen to be going against all the tenets of sound macroeconomic policy,
perhaps because of their promotion of their almost religiously held ideologies, these policies fail, instead of taking responsibility
they pass the blame onto the last government, the Eurozone, or whoever is handy. Their friends in the press are happy to add petrol
to the flames, and as you say, at some point it all spirals out of control in some kind of right wing transatlantic race of the
copy cats.
When will big business stand up and defend their profits and markets? Only perhaps when the referendum falls due in the next
quarter...
As far as the US debt limit fiasco goes, that's to a significant extent the fault of the economics profession. That is, you
can't blame the average politician (who hasn't studied economics) for thinking that national debts can be treated the same way
as the debt of a microeconomic entity. So politicians think national debts need to be limited.
The reality, as Keynes pointed out is: "Look after unemployment and the budget looks after itself". I.e. we should concentrate
on keeping demand at a level that brings full employment, while leaving the debt to bob up and down (which it will do).
Unfortunately there is new breed of vociferous so called "economists" who don't understand Keynes: Rogoff, Reinhart, Fama,
etc. Thus politicians get mixed messages from economists, and plumb for the simple minded microeconomic view of debt.
Immigration and the EU have become linked. Popular EU support among the 12 started to fall with the rushed expansion eastwards
that expanded it to 27 much poorer countries in a single stroke. Before then we did not see huge movements of labour. Britain
went gung ho into this with immediate and complete liberalisation of labour flows based on a forecast (probably based on a "rigorous"
DSGE model) that said only 13000 would enter the country following this expansion. Virtually overnight over a million entered
from Poland alone. We have no control over this, and in a country in recession, growing income inequality, long term unemployment
despite the Blair boom, pressures on the NHS and education expenditure, and with a moral obligation to allow in refugees to enter
from outside the EU with a genuine need to escape violence, this is political dynamite.
We have seen something similar before in the UK, when after WW1 the Anti-Waste League led by the Daily Mail came into force
to attack Lloyd-George's 'land fit for heroes' welfare policies.
The 1921-2 Geddes Committee was pressured by the Treasury, which wanted Geddes' savings to reduce the debt, while the Cabinet
wanted to use them to reduce taxation. Geddes took as his 'normal year' 1914, but in the end spending on social services remained
above 1914 levels, and the problem was solved with taxation on business profits.
I'm an American. I used to go, long ago in my younger years, to a bar to play pool. I'd play with these two guys who drank
whisky and looked like a Clint Eastwood type. They were poor mechanics, but total libertarians filled with conspiracy theories.
You can't reason with these people. You just nod your head and walk away.
A few years back, the "big business" right in the U.S. (as typified, say, by the Chamber of Commerce lobby) consciously sought
an infusion of energy and numbers by inviting in the Far Right "insurgents" (or "crazies," depending on your point of view).
Now the Far Right faction has slipped its leash.
It is potentially good news that the Right has split. It can be easier to cope with two factions than a single unified party.
Progressive Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 because Theodore Roosevelt split the Republicans.
But there are too many echoes of other countries and other years -- 1933 comes to mind -- to take much comfort in the situation.
I'm not sure I understand the "mirror to a phenomenon that must be explained" stance of recent conservate media. Rush has been
around for a long time. And he's a babe compared to Pat Buchanan, the 700 Club and the John Birch Society. Anti-other and anti-social
contract have very long track records in the United States. News Corp. simply put large amounts of money into the coming niche
programing in the 90's as cable news became accepted and diversified (fragmented if you like that word better). That gave a concentrated
platform to the likes of Rush. The evolution was Murdoch's removal of religion as the context in which those views were presented
(as was prevalent on cable in the 80s).
I put a comment onto this blog about BBC think-tank reliance, comparing the number of Krugman, Shiller, and Stiglitz references
on their website to IEA, Taxpayers' Alliance, and Adam Smith Institute references (the latter far greater).
The episode of 'Daily Politics' (24th October, minutes 30:19-40:27 on the iplayer for BBC 2 at 12:00) shows what 'centre ground'
really means to the BBC:
1. 364 economists from 30 March 1980 Times letter are said to have been proven wrong by the show's host
2. Vicky Redwood says the UK could be like Greece if Osborne hadn't followed his economic plan
3. Booth from the IEA turns up etc.
4. Will Hutton looks flustered as a man with very slicked hair from the Telegraph mocks him
There is one day left on Feedback on Radio Four episode 18th October, in which Prof. Steve Jones talks about trying to convince
the BBC that their reporting on climate change isn't 'centre-ground' but inadequate. The conclusions he draws so politely about
the BBC couldn't be more germane to their economics coverage.
Simon - thanks for this post - I've been wondering about this issue myself for some time.
I'm not so sure about your conclusion that the media have driven right-wing discontent with the EU. Consider:
1. The Daily Express was the only national paper that called for an EU referendum prior to January (when the PM announced he
would hold one in the next parliament).
2. The rucktions in the Tory party over Europe started in the late 1980s and peaked over Maastrict - please correct me if you
remember differently but I thought that much of the hostility in the press towards the EU came after 1997, with the adoption of
the Social Chapter and large immigration post-2004 from Eastern Europe. This suggests that the popular press at most propogated
discontent that was already there, rather than originated it.
3. With such a large readership, you might expect that anti-EU sentiment in the right-wing press to be reflected across a lot
of people. But as you rightly note, most people don't care. Instead it's a small group of people who care *a lot*, and seem to
be disproportionately powerful in selecting some Tory MPs. This suggests that something else is going on.
I suspect that the key issue is that being a member of the EU involves a loss of soverignty - and it's plausible that a certain
type of Tory voter ("little Englanders") would care a lot about this independent of whether the media was pushing this or not.
The fact that they don't like many of the byproducts of the EU (immigration from Eastern Europe, more regulation) is grist to
the mill.
I agree that the line you suggest is certainly plausible. But even then I do not think you can discount the influence of the
press in reinforcing this group's views. If the press do succeed in getting an out vote, then I think their influence will be
clear.
They are not the only people who like to have their beliefs and prejudices confirmed. Imagine how many economists would be
happy to see examples of rational expectations all over the place.
The US political system is simply basically dysfunctional, but because the way it is designed it is not able to properly adress
that issue.
Go to the 4 major forces (roughly) in US politics (from right to left):
-Teadrinkers (morons that think the 18th century can come back):
-Rest Reps. Maybe not owned by big business but very close (and it is big business not business);
-Right part Demos. Very similar to the left Reps;
-Left Demos. Spendophiles who donot mind going bust in that process as it is other people's money anyway.
Centre being very similar (so effectively there is no choice for the half that votes). This is a system that allowed complete
jokes like Bush and even worse Obama come to power. Probably there were realistically more people pro bombing Congres than there
were pro bombing Syria. You have to shut down the government to be able to have that number of governmentservices that are affordable
on basis of normal tax revenue apparently.
This is a seriously sick system.
If a populist rises who has some appeal (no tea crap as that will never work mainstream anyway even if the policies were realistic
and they would be able to manage things and change) and is a bit clever you could see landslide.
Simply like in most of Europe an Alfa Romeo problem. You can sell a couple of time a crap car and subsequently tell people
that the next generation model has it solved. But if you do that a couple of time in a row, people try something different (whatever
it is). How good the alternative is mainly determines when they will move not if they will move. The latter is a certainty. In
Europe the alternative looks to come from the former Lada and Zastava factories (so put on your safetybelts and have your airbags
checked).
Pretty simple.
EMs and Co have caught up especially on quality of workforce. The middle income (and subsequently average quality) Western workers
are now competing in a world that is overflooded by cheap workers in their part of the market.
Simply means prices (of labour there) will go down.
Top end is not and capital is not. Capital is even 'subsidised' by things as QE.
A lot of the things you see happening can largely be explained by that eg:
-South of EU tanked. They face the EM competition first. Nobody is making stuff in Spain or Italy when it can be done for half
the price in India or China. Even worse effectively except with design the latter 2 make already better stuff than the former
2.
-US was first to get hit as it has the most open economy and the most international and openminded companies. UK will be next
on that list rest of Europe will follow.
-Germany looks to be the next outsource wave. It looks like that say in half a decade their model will not look as great as
they like to believe themselves. They simply havenot got the outsource wave yet in the same way as the US and UK. Chinese can
now make top end stuff and furthermore they have become a large part of the market for that.
Hard to tackle that redistribute income and you will see a lot more outsource. It is mainly in big business which is flexible
anyway. But anyway can now chose between probably 50 or so countries that are able to provide a location for a headoffice, R&D
and similar higher functions. Tax goes up they move.
Simply moronic to think you can tax international companies at rates for individuals 40-50-60%. Their stockvalue will drop with
20-30-40% because of that. Basically the CEO that gets that on his watch will never have any stock bonus because all growth he
will create will be eaten by tax increases. You only can increase taxes for corporate functions that are impossible to move.
And longer term. Of course a factory will not be moved from today to yesterday. But when it goes wrong reversing it is even more
difficult. Not that we won't see it, we probably will. But as said it will not work more likely only create trouble.
Longer term but worldwide the distribution will have to be adressed so way. Looks clear that there is not enough consumption.
However probably completely in the EMs. As the Western mid level worker is still way too expensive for the worldmarket.
And when China becomes too expensive the next way is already in position. Not much help to be expected from that corner.
So better rephrase the question. When will we be hit with this phenomenon?
Soon imho btw, you are probably hit by it already only didnot notice.
Brilliant isn't it - ordinary people taking upon themselves to challenge the domination of 'big money' as you put it. I know
you like big money but me, I'm a victim of the big money and its great mate, Big Government. No-one brainwashed me, no-one had
to tell me my taxes were too high, no one forced me to arrive at the view that big business is anti-market and anti-consumer.
As I said - it's brilliant, absolutely fantastic that people on the right of politics have realised that the establishment
isn't their friend and hasn't been for a generation.
I would let them describe themselves because my thinking about them is too complicated to put into a simple slogan.
I see them as essentially a single issue party - yes, I know they let themselves get contaminated with race and immigration
- and I tend to dislike single issue parties. Single issue parties always have the weakness that their views on other issues are
up for grabs, and they will "sell out" all but their single issue to whoever can put them into power.
However, the UKIP is now a fact. And we ignore facts at our peril. Perhaps worse than ignoring facts is explaining facts away.
If we dismiss the UKIP as just X-kind of party, we won't understand their growth.
So I just don't see right-anything as a useful way to describe them. It's much more complex than that.
As an American observer I believe Simon is correct. No doubt there are many complex factors that led to the ongoing mess in
our Congress but there is little doubt that the tremendous investment made by the right wing business community into buying up
media and "coin operated think tanks" has indeed created the conditions where we have in the U.S. a situation where the rich get
ever richer while the poor and middle class fall farther and farther behind. All the while, with the aid of clever propaganda
combined with a failing education system, the very people who are hurt the most by our skewed economic distribution keep voting
the crazies in. For a look into one of the original stimuli of this state of affairs, see the memo written in 1971 by Lewis Powell,
a Republican corporate attorney and later Supreme Court justice.
Excellent analysis, Professor Wren-Lewis. As a native of the US, your insights into parallels with UK politics come as news
to me, and it helps to gain some global perspective. I am inclined to conclude from your arguments that Bernstein's assertions
about the direction of causality (that income inequality creates fervent groups of voters, thereby leading to right wing media
"reflecting" extreme political views) is wrong, and that the direction of causality in the US is probably the same as it is in
the UK (that elements in the media want to push extreme political views, thereby "leading" the opinions of voters). Rupert Murdoch
is an especially clear example of where a figure in the media uses his influence to sway voters, but I think in the US it is not
uncommon for private citizens with enough resources and connections to manipulate the media in order to "lead" voters. Take for
example the Koch brothers, who, despite normally being associated with business interests, were supposedly instrumental in fomenting
the defund/shutdown strategy. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html )
"So why was Cameron forced to make such a dangerous concession over the referendum? "
That would be because, if you remember all the way back to May, Ukip polled 23% in the last local government elections, just
short of the Tories and far ahead of the Lib Dems.
Of course, just as support for the Tea Party is very strong. But I'm trying to ask why this is. Is it because the Conservative
Party has drifted left - that does not seem credible. So why the move to the right in popular opinion? Some say that is reading
it wrong - UKIP gets it support because its anti-EU. But why is Europe so far down the list of what people say they are worried
about?
I think we can learn from the US here. Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare - so why does the Tea Party see it as such a
threat? Perhaps the information they are getting is completely wrong.
"Perhaps the information they are getting is completely wrong."
The left has long comforted itself with lines like this. Blaming what the public believe on Beaverbrook, Rothermere or Murdoch
(or in the US Limbaugh or Beck).
If only they heard "the truth" they'd agree with us.
Well, the internet age has tested that theory to destruction. Today few people get their news from the press, most get it from
TV and the internet. The internet version of the Daily Mail (by far the most successful version of an internet newspaper) is mainly
gossip, not rightwing propaganda. The influence of the rightwing press in 2013 is negligible. For those who are interested, more
serious high quality information about the world we live in is readily accessible than ever before (for proof, see this very blog).
People vote Ukip because they agree with them. Uncomfortable, but there we are.
Cameron has no choice politically but to try and tack to the right on the issue of Europe. If, say, 10% vote Ukip at the GE
he knows he loses. A referendum promise was simply the least he could do politically.
The appeal of Ukip is probably down to immigration, and not Europe. People have probably cottoned on to the fact that Poles
(and Romanians etc) have freedom of movement so long as we remain in the EU. Arguments by economists that, in aggregate terms,
immigration is a good thing for the UK completely miss why individuals oppose immigration, which is nothing to do with the overall
economic picture.
We have to treat people who disagree with us (eg those voting Republican in the US) as grown ups with a legitimate different
opinion, rather than as children tricked into voting the wrong way by Limbaugh and Beck.
Both euroenthusiasts and eurosceptics have agreed that "Europe" is not a discrete policy area but a comprehensive constitutional
issue.
It certainly wasn't UKIP who laid down the classic sceptic challenge to EU authority - "What power have you got? Where did
you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" It was Tony
Benn (a much demonised left wing hate figure for the conservative press of the day).
The public understand that "Europe" is indivisible from their immigration & welfare concerns, their crime and civil rights
concerns and their prosperity and tax concerns.
Europe is involved in everything on their political agenda. The only question that really divides euroenthusiasts from eurosceptics
is - should it be?
SpinningHugo: I agree that information is much more available, although so is misinformation. But there is good evidence that
people are not well informed on key political issues: see http://timharford.com/2013/07/popular-perceptions-exposed-by-numbers/
This should not be a surprise - getting the correct information takes time.
That problem with democracy, that the polis are, roughly speaking, idiots has been a known problem since Plato. that is why
Plato opposed democracy, and wanted government by Philosopher Kings. Hoping that, given time, we'll have a population of Philosopher
Kings is crying for the moon.
What has changed recently however is not the growing strength of rightwing media, but its decline.
If, even given this, the Tea Party, Ukip and Golden Dawn do better, and not worse, there is no hope that giving it more time
will enable people to see sense.
I am afraid I just think you don't like democracy much. Philosopher Kings don't.
In America the Tea Party began with a large dollop of disgust at a dysfunctional-from-their-POV democracy (too much welfare,
too much crony capitalism) and settled into an American tradition of just hating government and taxes and belief that the solution
is to tear it down. This was quickly co-opted into the Republican Party platform as "don't raise my marginal tax rate," which
is essentially the only thing the party has stood for in three decades. The party ignores the other planks of the Tea Party platform.
It is just possible that as "average Americans" the Tea Party correctly perceives that the Big Money internationalization agenda
results in the hollowing out of the middle class and debt-servitude of the majority to the banks; and they would rather not go
down that path, implicitly being willing to sacrifice some GDP growth for greater equality, a trade-off that the research of Wilkinson
et al. (Equality Trust over there) supports. Between the EU and NAFTA a lot of middle class destruction has taken place. Increasingly
concentrated capital is just way too eager to arbitrage labor anywhere in the world. I don't understand why this is so hard to
see (or perhaps it is still just too taboo to speak; i.e., that Marx was right about some of the long-term dynamics of capitalism).
A nice snapshot of Tea Party demographics is available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
. They are *very slightly* higher than average income and *entirely average* in education and most other demographics.
Traditionally both Euroenthusiasts and eurosceptics have understood "Europe" as a constitutional issue and not merely as a
particular policy area. It is pointless saying that Europe ranks lower (in public concerns) than immigration when so much immigration
policy is set at EU level. It is pointless for a Greek or Spaniard to say that the economy is the key issue for them when the
commanding economic framework for their economic policy is set in Brussels and Frankfurt.
Therefore the fact that "Europe" is not a policy priority in U.K. public opinion survey's does not mean that the public do
not fully understand the resonance of Europe in all the policy areas that they do care about - energy & environment, policing
and civil rights, immigration & welfare, Economy ad employment.
"Europe" is a constitutional issue - it has a key role (and sometimes a dominant role) in all UK policy areas.
The British public care about Europe precisely because they care a lot about economic policy, welfare policy and all other
policy areas......
Your post-script mentions a poster who was "insulted" by your suggestion that the press are a strong influence on euro-scepticism.
I'm not insulted, but I think that your analysis really misses the point.
We live in a democracy, where the voters are exposed to all kinds of influences. We just have to live with that. The Murdoch
Press is one influence, but the BBC is another.
Most parts of the Press have to make a living, and so they can't afford to take positions that are really unpopular. Over time
they have to follow their readership. ironically, that doesn't apply to either the BBC, which can tax us, or the New Statesman,
which exists on a massive interest free loan.
The real question is whether public opinion on the EU or the rise of the UKIP are paradoxes that need to be explained away,
or if the gradual change in UK public opinion on the topic of the EU is just that, a gradual change in response to the experience
of the average voter. You can argue for either side, but it's unwise to assume.
I tend to distrust the UKIP and yet welcome its influence in politics, since it tends to keep the two - for now - major parties
honest on the subject of the EU.
I also interpret Cameron differently to you. If I were Cameron, I would see my actions less as a "forced concession" and more
as preparing the ground for negotiation with the EU.
The ideal outcome for those negotiations - to me - would be for the UK to stay in the Single Market, but gradually distance
itself from the EU's political institutions. In a sane World, I think this would happen, since it really doesn't cost Europe anything
to re-concede full sovereignty to the UK, but it will cost them quite a bit if the UK leaves the Single Market.
Of course, I am joking because I know perfectly well that we don't live in a sane World, and I think that the EU will come
to the table with a toxic mixture of hurt ego, power hunger, and a foul attitude towards the UK.
To counter this, Cameron will need a powerful lever in the form of a credible threat that if push comes to shove the UK really
will leave the EU, and the rise of the UKIP is exactly that lever.
If Cameron is the student of politics I think he is, he will remember Nixon's dictum that to get what you want, you have to
appear to be capable of insane acts.
"... We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers. ..."
"... Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war. ..."
"... The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign." ..."
We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but
instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which
is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.
Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example
was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media,
The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli
for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories
without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.
The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.
In a massive Times '
article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the
Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to
the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.
They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the
Great Plains.
With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with
any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the
central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up
of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's
all been proven.
Mueller: No collusion so far.
This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to
believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.
The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then
contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will
be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private
instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American
politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the
Trump campaign."
But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged
showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."
The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the
presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."
This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point
of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of
this very New York Times article?
Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this
piece.
A Banner Day
The 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the
Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the
Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.
On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the
Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and
Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most
effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)
Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were
from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called
the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any
political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been
explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell
"eyeballs."
For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as
well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the
anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with
"millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen
those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they
voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.
The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most
prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the
difference.
This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under
U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an
accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse
allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the
credibility of the entire article.
It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton
campaign. A
detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July
by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks
to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."
Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?
What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be
tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty
between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom
Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in
his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that
evidence.
This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him
wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it
was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a
conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.
Errors of Commission and Omission
There are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because
they would disturb the narrative:
Not mentioning that the FBI was never given access to the DNC server but instead gullibly
believing the assertion of the anti-Russian private company CrowdStrike, paid for by the DNC,
that the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief found in metadata proves Russia was
behind the hack. Only someone wanting to be caught would leave such a clue.
Incredibly believing that Trump would have launched a covert intelligence operation on
live national television by asking Russia to get 30,000 missing emails.
Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.
Ignoring the possible role of the MI6, the CIA and the FBI setting up Trump
campaign members George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as "colluders" with Russia.
Repeating misleading statements about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, in which Trump's
son did not seek dirt on Clinton but was offered it by a music promoter, not the Russian
government. None was apparently produced. It's never been established that a campaign
receiving opposition research from foreigners is illegal (though the Times has decided that
it is) and only the Clinton campaign was known to have obtained any.
Making no mention at all of the now discredited opposition research dossier paid for by
the Clinton campaign and the DNC from foreign sources and used by the FBI to get a warrant to
spy on Carter Page and potentially other campaign members.
Dismissing the importance
of politicized text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the pair
were "skewered regularly on Mr. (Sean) Hannity's show as the 'Trump-hating F.B.I.
lovebirds.'"
Putting down to "hyped news stories" the legitimate fear of a new McCarthyism against
anyone who questions the "official" story being peddled here by the Times .
Seeking to get inside Putin's head to portray him as a petulant child seeking personal
revenge against Hillary Clinton, a tale long peddled by Clinton and accepted without
reservation by the Times.
Pretending to get into Julian Assange's head as well, saying he "shared Mr. Putin's
hatred of Mrs. Clinton and had a soft spot for Russia." And that Assange "also obscured the
Russian role by fueling a right-wing conspiracy theory he
knew to be false."
Ignoring findings backed
by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked and not
hacked.
Erroneously linking the timing of WikiLeaks' Podesta emails to deflect attention from the
"Access Hollywood" tape, as
debunked in Consortium News by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with
WikiLeaks on those emails.
Distorts Geo-Politics
The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all
corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread
democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all
imperial powers.
The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the
so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The
Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
omitting crucial evidence of
a U.S.-backed coup.
The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was
not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an
objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.
The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For
the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of
Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd
proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that
showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were
statistically insignificant at less than one percent.
Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors
who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia
for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away
from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults
average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests
without Russia telling them what to do.
Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive
Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their
strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated
by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the
club, such as a website like Consortium News.
But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of
the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly
unusual move of apologizing
to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of
Russia-gate? Tags Politics
"... You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a clandestine operation run by intelligence units. ..."
"... Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence Act of 1917. ..."
"... Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917 unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ( US. Constitution, Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them. ..."
"... It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers. ..."
"... This story only scratches the surface on the extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic. Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to both sides of the aisle. ..."
"... It's no secret that the CIA and State Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations, well, consider this your wake-up call. ..."
"... "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby - Former CIA Director ..."
"... "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director 1981 ..."
"... While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the "virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), ..."
"... the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for everyone ..."
...this is the norm not the exception. It's also representative of a very significant cross
section of the State Department/CIA/Pentagon/DC Beaurcratic Machine, made up of various
Leftists, Statists, academia, and privileged youth with political science degrees from east
coast/DC/Ivy League schools.
I am having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around this story.....we have an alleged
CIA spokesperson purportedly attempting to engage in damage control with a prominent national
newspaper regarding the flow of information between the CIA and film-makers doing a story on
the Bin Laden raid. Ostensibly, the information provided, regarding the raid, was to help
secure the President's reelection bid?
I note that the logo on the phone of the published photo of CIA spokesperson Marie Harf
looks remarkably similar, if not identical, to the Obama campaign logo. A "Twitter" account
profile for M's. Harf references that she is a "National Security Wonk at OFA...." . Could
the "OFA" she makes reference to possibly be "Obama for America"? Her recent tweet history
includes commentaries critical of Romney and his supporters, which appear to be in response
to her observations while watching Republican Convention coverage.
My understanding heretofore was that those engaged in the Intelligence Community,
particularly spokespersons, preferred to keep a low profile and at least appear apolitical.
Based upon the facts as presented, one must reexamine whether a US intelligence agency is
engaging in the most blatant form political partisanship to unduly influence a US
Presidential election.
You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for
spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty
four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such
information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news
groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a
clandestine operation run by intelligence units.
I'm surprised by the pettiness of it all. And it's this pettiness that makes me think that
such data exchange is not only routine, but an accepted way to enhance a career. After all, who really cares what Dowd writes? I
believe Chomsky called her 'kinda a gossip columnist'. And, that's what she is.
That anyone
would bother passing her column to the CIA is, on the face of it, a little absurd. I don't
say she is a bad columnist, she's probably quite good, but hardly of interest to the CIA,
even when she is writing about the CIA. So basically, someone passed her column along,
because this is normal, and the more ambitious understand that this is how you 'get along'.
This kind of careerism is something I see, on some level, every day: the ambitious see the
rules of the game, and follow them, and the rationale comes later. For most of us, this
doesn't involve the security services. However, the principle that the MSM is, at the least,
heavily influenced by state power is fairly well understood by now in more critical circles:
all forms of media are subject to unusual and particular state pressures, due to their
central import in propaganda and mass-persuasion. The NYT is, in short, an obvious target for
this kind of influencing. And as such should really know much much better.
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that most of what I read, or see on the nightly
broadcasts, is essentially bullshit. I could switch to RT, and in a way its counter-point
would be useful in stimulating my own critical thinking, but much of what RT broadcasts is
also likely to be bullshit. We have a world of competing propaganda memes where nobody knows
the truth. It's like we are all spooks now, each and every one of us. An excellent article,
again.
Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence
Act of 1917.
Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917
unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press" ( US. Constitution,
Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the
Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than
having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its
constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them.
Excellent article, but it's not necessarily a surprise to see a reporter who has developed a
relationship with his source do that source a favor in hopes that the favor will some day be
returned with greater access.
It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in
how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the
flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers.
This story only scratches the surface on the
extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The
loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media
outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has
become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic.
Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to
both sides of the aisle.
What the commoners fail to understand is that the Public Relations (PR) industry controls 75%
of the information that you are fed from major media outlets. It's an industry that has
artfully masked everything you thought you knew. It's no secret that the CIA and State
Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than
propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of
employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations,
well, consider this your wake-up call.
Glenn, thanks for illuminating the insidious, dangerous cynicism pervading American media
& culture, which have become so inured to hypocrisy, corruption & desecration of
sacrosanct democratic values & institutions that has been crucial to the normalization of
formerly intolerable practices, laws & policies eating away at the foundations of our
constitutional democracy. The collective moral, principled "lines in the sand" protecting us
from authoritarian pressures are steadily being washed away, compromised, thanks to media
obsequious complicity.
While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government
and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the
"virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), and all
the "checks & balances" enshrined in our constitution after 9/11 (e.g. deferential
judiciary, bi-partisan Congressional consensus on increasingly authoritarian, secretive US
executive, propagandistic media, etc.). At least that's my thinking, and I see no significant
countervailing pressure capable of slowing- let alone reversing- this authoritarian
re-ordering of our constitutional order & political culture, though a few exceptions
exist (e.g. Judge Forrest's suprising courage to suspend NDAA provision 1021), and rare
journalists like yourself.
One astounding example of this widespread cynicism facilitating this authoritarian trend,
was the media's rather restrained response to the revelation that elements in the massive
Terrorist/Military Industrial Complex (HBGary) had been plotting military-style
social-engineering operations to discredit & silence progressive journalists,
specifically naming YOU, who I see as one of the rare defenders of the
constitutional/democratic "lines in the sand" under relentless attack. Where was the
overwhelming collective shock & outrage, or media demanding criminal investigations into
US taxpayer-funded attacks on our so-called "free press?"
My question for Glenn, is whether he thinks it would be possible for him to get legal
standing to sue the private (& US??) entities, which proposed the covert
discrediting/repression operations targeting you specifically?
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the documents published by Anonymous, reveal actions
constituting criminal conspiracy. Given the proposed methods included forms of
politically-motivated military warfare & coercion, the guilty parties would likely be
aggressively investigated and charged with some terrorist crimes, if they had been busted
planning attacks on people/entities that trumpeted Obama administration policies or its
corporate backers (i.e. if they were Anonymous). The HBGary proposal to discredit/silence
Wikileaks defenders strongly indicated they had experience with- & confidence in- such
covert operations. Requiring a journalist/academic to be covertly
discredited/destroyed/silenced before they get legal standing would be as absurd as the Obama
administration's argument that Chris Hedges & Co. plaintiffs lack standing because they
hadn't yet been stripped of their rights & secretly indefinitately detained without
charges or trial.
I thought you might be in the unique position to use the US courts to pry open & shine
some light upon the clearly anti-democratic, authoritarian abuses of power, & virtual
fusion of corporate & state powers, which you so eloquently write about.
I glad that foreign journalism is available for me to read our the internet, it's the only
way i can find truthful information about what's going on in my own country (USA). I've known the liberal media bias was a problem for a long time, but articles like this
continually remind me that things are far worse than they appear.
All the actions surrounding the NY Times and the CIA on this issue are atrocious. With this
type of "journalistic independence", why am I paying for a Times account??
As a favor to all readers, following is a summation of all past, present, and future ideas as
articulated by the Fortune Cookie Thinker, John Andersson:
A certain amount of genocide is good because the world is overpopulated.
You should never question authority; after all, you are not an expert on authority.
Everyone wins when we kill terrorists; the more we kill, the more we generate, thus the
more we kill again, which makes us win more.
It is not possible to have absolute power; therefore, power does not corrupt.
Drones kill bad people. Only bad people are killed by drones. Thus, drones are good. We
should have more drones. That is all.
I secretly think he's the real "Jack Handy" from the Deep Thoughts series on SNL.
In my high school history class in 1968 I learned all about how newspapers printed propaganda
stories before WWI and Spanish American war in order to influence the public so they would
want to go to war and it was called "yellow journalism". I also had an English teacher that
taught us about "marketing" and how they use visuals and printed words and film to make us
want to buy a product. My father taught me to NOT BELEIVE everything you read. Now it is
called "critical thinking" and has been added as a general education class in college that
you have to take for a college degree. Critical thinking about what you read and see and hear
should be taught as early as 10 year olds so people can think for themselves. I do not read
main stream newspapers in America but read news sites all over the world.
THANK GOD FOR THE
INTERNET THAT YOU CAN READ WHAT OTHER NEWSPAPERS. I discovered Glenn on Democracy Now and
they are my go to place to read about what is really happening.
the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA
is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for
everyone
"... We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers. ..."
"... In what is turning out to be the CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard operating procedures. ..."
"... Or Afghanistan. Many of the cruise missile libs supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. ..."
"... The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy. ..."
"... And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets. ..."
If we thought the public trust in journalism is low, then this news only pushes it down further. Do people in journalism care?
Some do very much but for the most the media and the power-holders are in collusion.
We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking
scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy
and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers.
The critical articles are nothing more than smokescreens. We are led to believe how hard-hitting the newspapers are and how
they hold the politicians and other power-brokers to fire. All hogwash. It is better we recognize that the citizens are merely
props they need to claim legitimacy.
Not till this moment did I realize that we are under siege. I thought Julian Assange was the one under siege but he was just trying
to offer us a path to freedom. With Assange neutralized and The New York Times and its brethren by all appearances thoroughly
compromised, how can any one of us stand for all of us against government malfeasance let alone tyranny?
Where would you go if you had dispositive proof of devastating government malfeasance? In what is turning out to be the
CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard
operating procedures.
It would actually be foolish to take evidence of horrific government behavior to the titular head of the government {who'd
likely persecute you as a whistleblower} or the major news organizations supposedly reporting to us about it {they'd bring it
right back to the government for guidance on what to do}.
Without safe and reliable ways to stand and speak for and to each other on a large scale about the foul deeds of our government,
we are damned to live very lonely vulnerable lives at the mercy of an unrestrained government.
Excerpt from script of Three Days of the Condor --
Higgins: I can't let you stay out, Turner.
Turner slowly stops, leans back against a building, shakes his head sadly.
Turner: Go home, Higgins. They have it all.
Higgins: What are you talking about?
Turner: Don't you know where we are?
Higgins looks around. The huge newspaper trucks are moving out.
Turner: It's where they ship from.
Higgins' head darts upward and he reads the legend above Turner's head. THE NEW YORK TIMES. He is stunned.
Higgins: You dumb son of a bitch.
Turner: It's been done. They have it.
Higgins: You've done more damage than you know.
Turner: I hope so.
Higgins: You want to rip us to pieces, but you damn fool you rely on us. {then} You're about to be a very lonely man,
Turner.
***
Higgins: It didn't have to turn out like this.
Turner: Of course it did.
Higgins: {calling out as they depart separate ways} Turner! How do you know they'll print it?
Turner stops. Stares at Higgins. Higgins smiles.
Higgins: You can take a walk. But how far? If they don't print it.
Several commenters have pointed out that the NYT does do "good" journalism. That is true. It is also true that they tell
absolute lies. See Judith Miller. The best way to sell a lie is to wrap it in the truth.
I know it's late in the comments thread by the time anyone bothers to read THIS minor contribution, but I think it worth mentioning
how this article from Glenn proves just how important are outlets like Democracy Now, RT, Cenk Uyger, Dylan Ratigan, et al. You
really have to turn away from the mainstream media as a source of anything. Far too compromised, by both their embeddedness with
the government, and their for-profit coroporate owners.
Note CNN's terrible ratings problems as of late, and the recent news that they are considering turning to more reality-type
shows to get the eyeballs back. If that isn't proof positive of the current value of corporate news, I don't know what is.
DemocracyNow.org. I think I'm going to donate to them today....
i'm do not understand why so many people are against authority in general, even when the legal & enforcement system is there
to protect your property, life and rights. i understand when corruption exists, it should be seriously addressed, but why throw
out a whole system that is "somewhat working"? why blindly call for revolution?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness."
This is a political officer acting as editor of a major newspaper. I agree this has been going on for some time. Here is my analysis
of that. The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine
agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with
some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy.
Romney and Obama are functionaries. They do as they're told. Obama is the more useful of the two as fewer people seem able
to look honestly at his policies. They will not oppose Obama for doing the same things and worse as Bush. It is why all stops
are being pulled out to get him, rather than Romney elected. The policies will be the same but the reaction of our population
to each man is vastly different.
So yes, the capture of the media has been going on for quite some time. It appears nearly consolidated at this time. Instead
of using this as a reason to ignore the situation, it is more important than ever to speak out. History is helpful in learning
how to confront injustice. It is not a reason, as I see many use it, to say; "well it's always been that way, so what?" In history,
we learn about corruption but we also learn that people opposed corruption. Is there some reason why we cannot also oppose corruption
right now?
I though Michael Wolff's recent analysis of Apple (here in the Guardian) was in many ways metaphorical for Western leadership,
his article acting in some ways to explain the behavior we see in cultural "elites."
Worth the read.
And somehow, after reading this article, all I can think of is the Wizard of Oz and a dancing midget army singing in
repetitive, high-pitched tones.
And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets.
Who will be the first commenter to leave the classic devastating critique: "The author fails to present a balanced view, showing
only one side. The author's argument has no substance and is not really worth anything."
Don't forget this one: "The author just complains and complains without ever offering a solution or a better approach."
Also, can anyone 'splain me how to do a "response"?
China does not have its own technological base and is depended on the USA for many technologies. So while China
isdefinitly in assendance, Washington still have capability to stick to "total global dominance" agenda for some time.
Attempt to crush China by Tariffs might provoke the economic crisi in China and possible a "regime change", like Washington
santions to the USSR in the past. And that's probably the calculation.
Notable quotes:
"... President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point, castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices. ..."
"... The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia. ..."
"... Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage. ..."
"... In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional" virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the application of ruthless imperial power. ..."
"... Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory. Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered by China, no longer America. ..."
"... Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that – empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic development and the benefits of Chinese investment. ..."
"... China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades. ..."
"... American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership ..."
The G20 summits are nominally about how the world's biggest national economies can cooperate
to boost global growth. This year's gathering – more than ever – shows, however,
that rivalry between the US and China is center stage.
Zeroing in further still, the rivalry is an expression of a washed-up American empire
desperately trying to reclaim its former power. There is much sound, fury and pretense from the
outgoing hegemon – the US – but the ineluctable reality is an empire whose halcyon
days are a bygone era.
Ahead of the summit taking place this weekend in Argentina, the Trump administration has
been issuing furious ultimatums to China to "change its behavior". Washington is threatening an
escalating trade war if Beijing does not conform to American demands over economic
policies.
President Trump has taken long-simmering US complaints about China to boiling point,
castigating Beijing for unfair trade, currency manipulation, and theft of intellectual property
rights. China rejects this pejorative American characterization of its economic practices.
Nevertheless, if Beijing does not comply with US diktats then the Trump administration says
it will slap increasing tariffs on Chinese exports.
The gravity of the situation was highlighted by the comments this week of China's
ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai, who warned that the "lessons of history" show trade wars can
lead to catastrophic shooting wars. He urged the Trump administration to be reasonable and to
seek a negotiated settlement of disputes.
The problem is that Washington is demanding the impossible. It's like as if the US wants
China to turn the clock back to some imagined former era of robust American capitalism. But it
is not in China's power to do that. The global economy has shifted structurally away from US
dominance. The wheels of production and growth are in China's domain of Eurasia.
For decades, China functioned as a giant market for cheap production of basic consumer
goods. Now under President Xi Jinping, the nation is moving to a new phase of development
involving sophisticated technologies, high-quality manufacture, and investment.
It's an economic evolution that the world has seen before, in Europe, the US and now
Eurasia. In the decades after the Second World War, up to the 1970s, it was US capitalism that
was the undisputed world leader. Combined with its military power, the postwar global order was
defined and shaped by Washington. Sometimes misleading called Pax Americana, there was nothing
peaceful about the US-led global order. It was more often an order of relative stability
purchased by massive acts of violence and repressive regimes under Washington's tutelage.
In American mythology, it does not have an empire. The US was supposed to be different from
the old European colonial powers, leading the rest of the world through its "exceptional"
virtues of freedom, democracy and rule of law . In truth, US global dominance relied on the
application of ruthless imperial power.
The curious thing about capitalism is it always outgrows its national base. Markets
eventually become too small and the search for profits is insatiable. American capital soon
found more lucrative opportunities in the emerging market of China. From the 1980s on, US
corporations bailed out of America and set up shop in China, exploiting cheap labor and
exporting their goods back to increasingly underemployed America consumers. The arrangement was
propped up partly because of seemingly endless consumer debt.
That's not the whole picture of course. China has innovated and developed independently from
American capital. It is debatable whether China is an example of state-led capitalism or
socialism. The Chinese authorities would claim to subscribe to the latter. In any case, China's
economic development has transformed the entire Eurasian hemisphere. Whether you like it or
not, Beijing is the dynamo for the global economy. One indicator is how nations across
Asia-Pacific are deferring to China for their future growth.
Washington likes to huff and puff about alleged Chinese expansionism "threatening" US allies
in Asia-Pacific. But the reality is that Washington is living in the past of former glory.
Trading blocs like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) realize their bread is buttered
by China, no longer America.
Washington's rhetoric about "standing up to China" is just that
– empty rhetoric. It doesn't mean much to countries led by their interests of economic
development and the benefits of Chinese investment.
One example is Taiwan. In contrast to Washington's shibboleths about "free Taiwan", more and
more Asian countries are dialing down their bilateral links with Taiwan in deference to China's
position, which views the island as a renegade province. The US position is one of rhetoric,
whereas the relations of other countries are based on material economic exigencies. And
respecting Beijing's sensibilities is for them a prudent option.
A recent
report by the New York Times starkly illustrated the changing contours of the global
economic order. It confirmed what many others have observed, that China is on the way to
surpass the US as the world's top economy. During the 1980s, some 75 per cent of China's
population were living in "extreme poverty", according to the NY Times. Today, less than 1 per
cent of the population is in that dire category. For the US, the trajectory has been in reverse
with greater numbers of its people subject to deprivation.
China's strategic economic plans – the One Belt One Road initiative – of
integrating regional development under its leadership and finance have already created a world
order analogous to what American capital achieved in the postwar decades.
American pundits and politicians like Vice President Mike Pence may disparage China's
economic policies as creating "debt traps" for other countries . But the reality is that other
countries are gravitating to China's dynamic leadership.
Arguably, Beijing's vision for economic development is more enlightened and sustainable than
what was provided by the Americans and Europeans before. The leitmotif for China, along with
Russia, is very much one of multipolar development and mutual partnership. The global economy
is not simply moving from one hegemon – the US – to another imperial taskmaster
– China.
One thing seems inescapable. The days of American empire are over. Its capitalist vigor has
dissipated decades ago. What the upheaval and rancor in relations between Washington and
Beijing is all about is the American ruling class trying to recreate some fantasy of former
vitality. Washington wants China to sacrifice its own development in order to somehow
rejuvenate American society. It's not going to happen.
That's not to say that American society can never be rejuvenated . It could, as it could
also in Europe. But that would entail a restructuring of the economic system involving
democratic regeneration. The "good old days" of capitalism are gone. The American empire, as
with the European empires, is obsolete.
That's the unspoken Number One agenda item at the G20 summit. Bye-bye US empire.
What America needs to do is regenerate through a reinvented social economic order, one that
is driven by democratic development and not the capitalist private profit of an elite few.
If not, the futile alternative is US failing political leaders trying to coerce China, and
others, to pay for their future. That way leads to war.
I'm familiar with information retrieval tech and worked for a small non-U.S. search engine
that was acquired by a major American search engine (not Google) in the late 20th century.
I've kept up with things as much as one can do from the outside since then.
I do not buy the conspiracy angle here. I believe Google when they say that they are
relying on automated algorithms.
You cannot really compare Google with any other search engine. DDG is a guy in his pajamas
coding it all by himself (and I respect that). Bing on the other hand has a good team of
talented information retrieval engineers, but they are nowhere near as well staffed as
Google
In addition, a lot of Google's quirks derive from the fact that they are the big guys.
Hackers and spammers and black hat SEOs target Google, looking for exploitable patterns.
Nobody cares how they rank in Bing and DDG, so nobody targets them. Google thus has to plug
the dike in all kinds of ways that the other search engines don't have to worry about.
Google is very evil, with its advertising price controls, automated stealing of data,
preferences for its own services in search results over more popular competitors, and in many
other ways. But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way
you're suggesting.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some higher level component in their search
software that is intended to combat black hat SEO is inadvertently skewing results in a way
that seems to favor the left, in the same way that AI software tends to come to the
conclusion that blacks commit a lot of crime and are not the best employees, although nobody
programmed it to do that. And it is possible that when the skew is anti
Google Suggest was throwing out "Islamists are terrorists," "blacks are not oppressed,"
"hitler is my hero," "white supremacy is good," and so on.
Google is micro-gaslighting again, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review
It is an explanation that makes more sense to me than that Google is trying to hide it
while Vox is trying to bring attention to it.
You are being remarkably obtuse.
Google is for the masses; what they do or don't do actually matters in terms of public
perception.
Vox is for the policy elite and will make no impact on the public consciousness; it isn't
meant for the masses.
Note that elite or specialist media have been talking about the opioid crisis for years,
and yet the topic has never made it out to the public consciousness or public discourse at
large, nor has it had any reception in the political sphere beyond mere platitudes, which
anyone who was not been paying attention to the topic would even understand.
Amusingly, though, if you do a Ctrl F on article you link to, the name "Sackler" nowhere
appears.
The point is how the elites control the public discourse, by keeping certain topics
obscure to the public at large, while the elites and their hired professionals and Mandarins
talk amongst themselves; a discourse not meant for the larger public.
But anyway, no one ever said that no one at all in the mass media was talking about the
opioid crisis; this is just your implied strawman.
The topic was Google; you are simply using a diversion, i.e., moving the goalposts to the
media at large.
Josh Rogin
uses the Senate's 63-37 vote on S.J.Res. 54 earlier this week to make a very strange
claim:
The Senate's stunning bipartisan rebuke of President Trump's handling of U.S.-Saudi
relations shows that the internationalist, values-based foreign policy of the late senator
John McCain still holds significant weight in both parties [bold mine-DL].
At the end of his career, McCain was one of the foremost defenders of U.S. involvement in
the war on Yemen. I suppose it was fitting that he capped off a long career of supporting
unnecessary and illegal wars by proudly supporting a truly indefensible one. When U.S. support
for the war began in 2015, he and Lindsey Graham
chastised Obama for not doing enough to help the Saudi coalition. Needless to say,
he was an
early and eager supporter of the intervention . When McCain was asked about the coalition's
bombing campaign and the civilian casualties that it was causing, he denied
that there were any. "Thank God for the Saudis," he once
said , praising the kingdom for its role in fueling the war in Syria.
I
commented on McCain's support for the war on Yemen in a post last year:
In addition to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate coalition
bombing campaign, McCain has reliably recited Saudi propaganda to provide cover for the war
while completely ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that their campaign has done
so much to cause.
McCain was the champion of a particular strain of aggressive interventionism that relied on
moralizing rhetoric to justify unjust actions. His foreign policy was "values-based" in the
sense that he would use "values" language to rally support for attacking certain regimes, but
when it came to applying the same standards to U.S. allies and clients McCain frequently became
mute or turned into a cynical apologist on behalf of states aligned with Washington. That is
certainly how he acted
when it came to the
Saudi coalition war on Yemen . Back when there were very few critics of the war in the
Senate, McCain was one of their
loudest opponents :
McCain incredibly described the Saudis as a "nation under attack" because of incursions
into Saudi territory that were provoked by the Saudi-led bombing campaign. Graham portrayed
the Saudis as victims of Yemeni "aggression," which has everything completely and obviously
backwards. It requires swallowing Saudi propaganda whole to argue that the Saudis and their
allies have been acting in self-defense, and that is what McCain and Graham tried to do. Both
repeatedly asserted that the Houthis are Iranian proxies when the best evidence suggests that
Iran's role in the conflict has always been negligible, and then justified their complete
indifference to the consequences of the Saudi-led war by complaining about Iranian behavior
elsewhere. Needless to say, the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Saudi-led bombing
campaign and blockade never once came up in their remarks, but I'm sure if they ever do
mention it they'll blame it on Iran somehow.
McCain used many of the same cynical and dishonest arguments then that Trump administration
officials use now. The senators that voted for S.J.Res. 54 were not following McCain's example
and they were definitely not embracing the kind of foreign policy he supported. On the
contrary, the success of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution this week was as much a rebuke to
McCain's foreign policy legacy as it was a rebuke to Trump's shameless Saudi First behavior.
Opposition to the war on Yemen was something that McCain vehemently rejected, and it is simply
and obviously wrong to credit McCain's foreign policy views for the antiwar victory that Sens.
Sanders, Murphy, Lee, and their colleagues won this week. For the last twenty-five years,
McCain never saw a U.S.-backed war he couldn't support, and that included the war on Yemen.
When the Senate voted to advance S.J.Res. 54 on Wednesday, they were voting against the war
that McCain had vocally backed for years.
"... At this time, there is no "factual basis" or "statement of the offense" filed in the clerk's file to support the guilty plea. This is unusual, as normally the factual basis is in writing and filed as part of the plea papers. Thus, as in his earlier criminal case in the same courthouse, the factual basis was probably done orally in open court at the time of the plea, and the only way to find out what it was is to get a transcript of the hearing from the court reporter. ..."
"... Most unusual of all is that Cohen is prosecuted for making a false statement to Congress. During the last 10 years or so, has anyone else made a materially false or misleading or fraudulent statement, or covered up or concealed a material fact to Congress, in violation of any U.S. law? Does anything come to mind causing a person wonder whether or not that has happened, such as Fast and Furious gun running, or maybe on the subject of domestic surveillance ...? ..."
Michael Cohen pleads guilty again, this time to the Mueller group As has by now been
plastered all over the mass media, Michael Cohen, a former attorney for president Donald Trump,
today went into federal court in Manhattan, New York City, to plead guilty as part of a deal in
a second case, filed this time by the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group. Also as before,
the deal was telegraphed by a "John Doe" paper filed yesterday in a U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York--
The charging document is once again an "information", since it was agreed to and not the
result of a grand jury indictment. It alleges that Cohen made false statements to the U.S.
Congress directed to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about a "branded property in
Moscow, Russia", obviously referring to a Trump property, and is based on Title 18, U.S. Code,
section 1001(a) and (c), the proverbial false statement statute [1]--
Since he was pleading guilty through the agreed charging paper filed today, he signed a
waiver giving up his right to be charged by an indictment for a felony--
Page 8 of the plea agreement indicates that Cohen talked to the Mueller group at least on 7
August 2018, 12 and 18 September, 8 and 17 October, and 12 and 20 November.
His lawyer filed a letter requesting that this new case be consolidated with his other
criminal case in the Southern District of New York, and be transferred to Judge William Pauley
III, in whose court the earlier case is pending--
Cohen is presently scheduled to be sentenced on 12 December 2018. The request to transfer
the case was granted, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"11/29/2018 Notice of Case Reassignment as to Michael Cohen, to Judge William H. Pauley,
III. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr no longer assigned to the case. (ma) (Entered:
11/29/2018)".
At this time, there is no "factual basis" or "statement of the offense" filed in the
clerk's file to support the guilty plea. This is unusual, as normally the factual basis is in
writing and filed as part of the plea papers. Thus, as in his earlier criminal case in the same
courthouse, the factual basis was probably done orally in open court at the time of the plea,
and the only way to find out what it was is to get a transcript of the hearing from the court
reporter.
Most unusual of all is that Cohen is prosecuted for making a false statement to
Congress. During the last 10 years or so, has anyone else made a materially false or misleading
or fraudulent statement, or covered up or concealed a material fact to Congress, in violation
of any U.S. law? Does anything come to mind causing a person wonder whether or not that has
happened, such as Fast and Furious gun running, or maybe on the subject of domestic
surveillance ...?
The Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theories stopped being farcical a while ago -- IMO
they are now in a class by themselves, perhaps a class shared with The Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion and other massively destructive lies.
The birther thing was awful, but at least it didn't get anyone killed, while this
thing will lead Trump to do stupid things to disprove it and might get us all killed.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around what precisely Trump is supposed to have done --
told Putin that he'd do anything he wanted in exchange for a real estate opportunity in
Moscow? I'm sure that Putin would have paid cash, no real estate required, for such a
privilege.
And yet the vast majority of people I've met believe that Trump is a Russian puppet
and that aggressive action is needed against Russia for the simple reason that
Trump=Russia=bad.
Gage
Skidmore /
Charles Haynes /Flickr Josh Rogin
uses the Senate's 63-37 vote on S.J.Res. 54 earlier this week to make a very strange claim:
The Senate's stunning bipartisan rebuke of President Trump's handling of U.S.-Saudi
relations shows that the internationalist, values-based foreign policy of the late senator
John McCain still holds significant weight in both parties [bold mine-DL].
At the end of his career, McCain was one of the foremost defenders of U.S. involvement in
the war on Yemen. I suppose it was fitting that he capped off a long career of supporting
unnecessary and illegal wars by proudly supporting a truly indefensible one. When U.S. support
for the war began in 2015, he and Lindsey Graham
chastised Obama for not doing enough to help the Saudi coalition. Needless to say,
he was an
early and eager supporter of the intervention . When McCain was asked about the coalition's
bombing campaign and the civilian casualties that it was causing, he denied
that there were any. "Thank God for the Saudis," he once
said , praising the kingdom for its role in fueling the war in Syria.
I
commented on McCain's support for the war on Yemen in a post last year:
In addition to dismissing the civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate coalition
bombing campaign, McCain has reliably recited Saudi propaganda to provide cover for the war
while completely ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian crisis that their campaign has done
so much to cause.
McCain was the champion of a particular strain of aggressive interventionism that relied on
moralizing rhetoric to justify unjust actions. His foreign policy was "values-based" in the
sense that he would use "values" language to rally support for attacking certain regimes, but
when it came to applying the same standards to U.S. allies and clients McCain frequently became
mute or turned into a cynical apologist on behalf of states aligned with Washington. That is
certainly how he acted
when it came to the
Saudi coalition war on Yemen . Back when there were very few critics of the war in the
Senate, McCain was one of their
loudest opponents :
McCain incredibly described the Saudis as a "nation under attack" because of incursions
into Saudi territory that were provoked by the Saudi-led bombing campaign. Graham portrayed
the Saudis as victims of Yemeni "aggression," which has everything completely and obviously
backwards. It requires swallowing Saudi propaganda whole to argue that the Saudis and their
allies have been acting in self-defense, and that is what McCain and Graham tried to do. Both
repeatedly asserted that the Houthis are Iranian proxies when the best evidence suggests that
Iran's role in the conflict has always been negligible, and then justified their complete
indifference to the consequences of the Saudi-led war by complaining about Iranian behavior
elsewhere. Needless to say, the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Saudi-led bombing
campaign and blockade never once came up in their remarks, but I'm sure if they ever do
mention it they'll blame it on Iran somehow.
McCain used many of the same cynical and dishonest arguments then that Trump administration
officials use now. The senators that voted for S.J.Res. 54 were not following McCain's example
and they were definitely not embracing the kind of foreign policy he supported. On the
contrary, the success of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution this week was as much a rebuke to
McCain's foreign policy legacy as it was a rebuke to Trump's shameless Saudi First behavior.
Opposition to the war on Yemen was something that McCain vehemently rejected, and it is simply
and obviously wrong to credit McCain's foreign policy views for the antiwar victory that Sens.
Sanders, Murphy, Lee, and their colleagues won this week. For the last twenty-five years,
McCain never saw a U.S.-backed war he couldn't support, and that included the war on Yemen.
When the Senate voted to advance S.J.Res. 54 on Wednesday, they were voting against the war
that McCain had vocally backed for years.
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of
the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent
military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite
was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and
forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had
become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by
the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the
economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force.
Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference.
And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and
appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life
constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public
opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are
attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was
nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to
accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "
War or a high state of war
preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"
Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a
genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the
military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed
permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical,
and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the
military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most
congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government
spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which
manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms
market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die,
even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there
is no demonstrable military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America
plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster
its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the
possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either
refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the
lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of
communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to
mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential
investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the
United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a
dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time
Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and
consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those
proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three
million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that
number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that
both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more
dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American
life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever
they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their
employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice
between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always
choose the latter over the former.
Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in
American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now
it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with
economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of
the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent
military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite
was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and
forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had
become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by
the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the
economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force.
Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference.
And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and
appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life
constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public
opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are
attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was
nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to
accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "
War or a high state of war
preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"
Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a
genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the
military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed
permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical,
and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the
military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most
congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government
spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which
manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms
market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die,
even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there
is no demonstrable military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America
plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster
its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the
possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either
refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the
lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of
communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to
mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential
investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the
United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a
dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time
Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and
consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those
proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three
million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that
number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that
both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more
dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American
life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever
they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their
employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice
between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always
choose the latter over the former.
Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in
American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now
it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with
economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....
President Trump's ex-longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen worked with an FBI informant
known as "The Quarterback" to negotiate a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during the 2016 US
election, according to
BuzzFeed News .
"The Quarterback," Felix Sater - a longtime FBI and CIA undercover
intelligence asset who was busted running a $40 million stock scheme, leveraged his
Russia connections to pitch the deal, while Cohen discussed it with Putin's press secretary,
Dmitry Peskov, according to BuzzFeed , citing two unnamed US law enforcement
officials.
Sater told BuzzFeed News today that he and Cohen thought giving the Trump Tower's most
luxurious apartment, a $50 million penthouse , to Putin would entice other wealthy buyers
to purchase their own. "In Russia, the oligarchs would bend over backwards to live in the
same building as Vladimir Putin," Sater told BuzzFeed News. "My idea was to give a $50
million penthouse to Putin and charge $250 million more for the rest of the units. All the
oligarchs would line up to live in the same building as Putin." A second source confirmed
the plan. -
BuzzFeed
The Trump Tower Moscow plan is at the center of Cohen's
new plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller after he admitted to lying to
congressional committees investigating Trump-Russia collusion.
According to the
criminal information filed against Cohen Thursday, on Jan. 20, 2016 he spoke with a
Russian government official, referred to only as Assistant 1, about the Trump Tower Moscow
plan for 20 minutes. This person appears to be an assistant to Peskov, a top Kremlin
official that Cohen had attempted to reach by email.
Cohen "requested assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to
build the proposed tower and financing the construction," the court document states.
Cohen had previously maintained that he never got a response from the official, but in
court on Thursday he acknowledged that was a lie. -
BuzzFeed
While the deal ultimately fizzled, "and it is not clear whether Trump knew of the
intention to give away the penthouse," Cohen has said in court filings that Trump was
regularly briefed on the Moscow negotiations along with his family.
Sater and Cohen "worked furiously behind the scenes into the summer of 2016 to get the
Moscow deal finished," according to BuzzFeed - although it was claimed that the project was
canned in January 2016, before Trump won the GOP nomination.
Sater, who has worked with the Trump organization on past deals, said that he came up with
the Trump Tower Moscow idea, while Cohen - Sater recalled, said "Great idea." "I figured,
he's in the news, his name is generating a lot of good press," Sater told BuzzFeed earlier in
the year, adding "A lot of Russians weren't willing to pay a premium licensing fee to put
Donald's name on their building. Now maybe they would be."
So he turned to his old friend, Cohen, to get it off the ground . They arranged a
licensing deal, by which Trump would lend his name to the project and collect a part of the
profits. Sater lined up a Russian development company to build the project and said that
VTB, a Russian financial institution that faced US sanctions at the time, would finance it.
VTB officials
have denied taking part in any negotiations about the project. -
BuzzFeed
Two FBI agents with "direct knowledge of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations" told
BuzzFeed earlier this year that Cohen had been in frequent contact with foreigners about the
potential real estate project - and that some of these individuals "had knowledge of or
played a role in 2016 election meddling."
Meanwhile, Trump reportedly personally signed the letter of intent to move forward with
the Trump Tower Moscow plan on October 28, 2015 - the third day of the Republican primary
debate.
Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced on December 12. By cooperating with the DOJ, he is
hoping to avoid prison.
In 1998, Sater pleaded guilty to his involvement in a $40 million stock fraud scheme
orchestrated by the Russian Mafia , and became an informant
for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and federal prosecutors, assisting with organized crime investigations.
In 2017, Sater agreed to cooperate with investigators into international money laundering schemes.
Left, right and centre in contemporary USSA politics are rotten and corrupt. Bernie
Sanders proved that even he is susceptible to dodgy business decisions. Trump is no more
rotten and adverse to dodgy/boarderline legally tenuous deals than anybody in politics on
Capitol Hill. Do I care about this? No, because there are far more important issues to be
dealt with by a magnitude of 90000 times.
Both sides on this issue are imbeciles. One side is pushing guilt, when compared to what
Killary and the Clinton foundation got up to, it is a complete non-story. The other side
are completely absolving Orange Jesus of any guilt and making out he has morals beyond
reproach.
I rarely comment on the Trump/Russia angle, because most of it is overblown, the
narrative is distorted and context is deliberately misinterpreted.
President Trump's ex-longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen worked with an FBI
informant known as "The Quarterback" to negotiate a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during
the 2016 US election, according to BuzzFeed News.
There is nothing about this sentence which carries any credibility at all.
Honestly, you might not have bothered writing it, or the rest of the article. No. I
didn't read it, and am not going to waste any of my life doing so either.
Can somebody just give me the short, simple, dumbed-down version of what any of this
means? What does this amount to? Is this any kind of game-changer? Does it change
anything?
" ...an un-named source" ..... another fantastical fairytale from a failed american
media company by yet another un-named source. How very convenient. President Vladimir
living in an american themed cramped badly designed apartment building ? Please, I do not
like to laugh much but this is starting to make me smile. Our President has a State owned
mansion in the best part of our glorious capital ....like me he owns almost nothing and
works all the time ....why would anybody with sanity in their brain believe that he would
make this change, especially to be associated with ANYTHING american. Also no Russian
businessman that I know has ever bought a property in a trump complex .... the build
quality and design is rubbish. Westerners should take time to view some of our exceptional
office and residential towers along the Moskva River to see where wealthy people want to
invest, work and live here. Get real West !!
OK thought experiment, given that he "only" earns perhaps 150k, how is Putin going to
pay for the upkeep of such a White Elephant? Imagine if he had to pay for maintenance of
the complementary hot n cold running whores that inevitable come with such an apartment
.... what if something breaks and needs replaced?
It's like giving a Ferrari to an Amish. Thanks, but no, thanks. Not his style.
Because Putin wants to live in a building with a bunch of mobsters.
And small world - wouldnt you know the Russians who try to do hotel deals are also into
hacking illegal, unsecure servers?
And though this indicates nothing, true or not, about the election - here's the secret :
the judeocorporate media has got the public trained to react to 'Russia' and 'Putin' purely
emotionally - so much so the Maddows of the world will shriek that this proves 'collusion'
- when it does no such thing.
More Deep State smoke and mirrors.
If you havent watched any Dan Bongino speeches on youtube its worth a look.
Crooks and criminals took over worldwide. Now even US-citizens elected one for
President. It´s a shame. How long will it take until the killer squads of Blackstone
financed by Blackrock prowl through the streets to kill anybody who isn´t useful in
their view? They have been practicing for years in foreign countries, paid with taxpayers
money.
Why did the FBI or Muller zero in on this guy Michael Cohen?
Because they got everything on him, Trump and his family and associates, long before any
investigations were initiated.
NSA collected all the phone records, emails, text messages, internet usages, banking
records, library loan records, etc, . . . on EVERY Americans. All they need to do is type
in a name, like you type in a search phrase on Google, and everything associated with that
person would come up, on the screen.
The FBI knew everything they need to know about Michael Cohen, and General Michael
Flynn.
All they need to get them or entrap them is to ask them questions, which they already
knew the answers, and wait for them to "lie" or misrepresent themselves.
BINGO!
They are charged with lying to the FBI.
Trump was smart that he refused to be "interview" with the Muller, the Inquisitor. His
lawyers knew Muller will try to trap into "lying" to the FBI.
"... No longer were the chief executive officers of these companies chosen because they were of the right social background. Connections still mattered, but so did bureaucratic skill. The men who possessed those skills were rewarded well for their efforts. Larded with expense accounts and paid handsomely, they could exercise national influence not only through their companies, but through the roles that they would be called upon to serve in "the national interest." ..."
"... Given an unlimited checking account by politicians anxious to appear tough, buoyed by fantastic technological and scientific achievements, and sinking roots into America's educational institutions, the military, Mills believed, was becoming increasingly autonomous. Of all the prongs of the power elite, this "military ascendancy" possessed the most dangerous implications. "American militarism, in fully developed form, would mean the triumph in all areas of life of the military metaphysic, and hence the subordination to it of all other ways of life." ..."
"... Rather they understood that running the Central Intelligence Agency or being secretary of the Treasury gave one vast influence over the direction taken by the country. Firmly interlocked with the military and corporate sectors, the political leaders of the United States fashioned an agenda favorable to their class rather than one that might have been good for the nation as a whole ..."
"... The new breed of political figure likely to climb to the highest political positions in the land would be those who were cozy with generals and CEOs, not those who were on a first-name basis with real estate brokers and savings and loan officials. ..."
"... the emergence of the power elite had transformed the theory of balance into a romantic, Jeffersonian myth. ..."
"... neither Congress nor the political parties had much substantive work to carry out. "In the absence of policy differences of consequence between the major parties," Mills wrote, "the professional party politician must invent themes about which to talk." ..."
"... the image he conveyed of what an American had become was thoroughly unattractive: "He loses his independence, and more importantly, he loses the desire to be independent; in fact, he does not have hold of the idea of being an independent individual with his own mind and his own worked-out way of life." Mills had become so persuaded of the power of the power elite that he seemed to have lost all hope that the American people could find themselves and put a stop to the abuses he detected. ..."
Power in America today looks far different from the picture that C. Wright Mills painted nearly half a century ago. C. Wright Mills's
The Power Elite was published in 1956, a time, as Mills himself put it, when Americans were living through "a material boom,
a nationalist celebration, a political vacuum." It is not hard to understand why Americans were as complacent as Mills charged.
Let's say you were a typical 35-year-old voter in 1956. When you were eight years old, the stock market crashed, and the resulting
Clutch Plague began just as you started third or fourth grade. Hence your childhood was consumed with fighting off the poverty of
the single greatest economic catastrophe in American history. When you were 20, the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor, ensuring that
your years as a young adult, especially if you were male, would be spent fighting on the ground in Europe or from island to island
in Asia. If you were lucky enough to survive that experience, you returned home at the ripe old age of 24, ready to resume some semblance
of a normal life -- only then to witness the Korean War, McCarthyism, and the beginning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Into this milieu exploded The Power Elite . C. Wright Mills was one of the first intellectuals in America to write that
the complacency of the Eisenhower years left much to be desired. His indictment was uncompromising. On the one hand, he claimed,
vast concentrations of power had coagulated in America, making a mockery of American democracy. On the other, he charged that his
fellow intellectuals had sold out to the conservative mood in America, leaving their audience -- the American people themselves --
in a state of ignorance and apathy bearing shocking resemblance to the totalitarian regimes that America had defeated or was currently
fighting.
One of the goals Mills set for himself in The Power Elite was to tell his readers -- again, assuming that they were roughly
35 years of age -- how much the organization of power in America had changed during their lifetimes. In the 1920s, when this typical
reader had been born, there existed what Mills called "local society," towns and small cities throughout Am erica whose political
and social life was dominated by resident businessmen. Small-town elites, usually Republican in their outlook, had a strong voice
in Con gress, for most of the congressmen who represented them were either members of the dominant families themselves or had close
financial ties to them.
By the time Mills wrote his book, this world of local elites had become as obsolete as the Model T Ford. Power in America had
become nationalized, Mills charged, and as a result had also become interconnected. The Power Elite called attention to three
prongs of power in the United States. First, business had shifted its focus from corporations that were primarily regional in their
workforces and customer bases to ones that sought products in national markets and developed national interests. What had once been
a propertied class, tied to the ownership of real assets, had become a managerial class, rewarded for its ability to organize the
vast scope of corporate enterprise into an engine for ever-expanding profits. No longer were the chief executive officers of
these companies chosen because they were of the right social background. Connections still mattered, but so did bureaucratic skill.
The men who possessed those skills were rewarded well for their efforts. Larded with expense accounts and paid handsomely, they could
exercise national influence not only through their companies, but through the roles that they would be called upon to serve in "the
national interest."
Similar changes had taken place in the military sector of American society. World War II, Mills argued, and the subsequent start
of the Cold War, led to the establishment of "a permanent war economy" in the United States. Mills wrote that the "warlords," his
term for the military and its civilian allies, had once been "only uneasy, poor relations within the American elite; now they are
first cousins; soon they may become elder brothers." Given an unlimited checking account by politicians anxious to appear tough,
buoyed by fantastic technological and scientific achievements, and sinking roots into America's educational institutions, the military,
Mills believed, was becoming increasingly autonomous. Of all the prongs of the power elite, this "military ascendancy" possessed
the most dangerous implications. "American militarism, in fully developed form, would mean the triumph in all areas of life of the
military metaphysic, and hence the subordination to it of all other ways of life."
In addition to the military and corporate elites, Mills analyzed the role of what he called "the political directorate." Local
elites had once been strongly represented in Congress, but Congress itself, Mills pointed out, had lost power to the executive branch.
And within that branch, Mills could count roughly 50 people who, in his opinion, were "now in charge of the executive decisions made
in the name of the United States of America." The very top positions -- such as the secretaries of state or defense -- were occupied
by men with close ties to the leading national corporations in the United States. These people were not attracted to their positions
for the money; often, they made less than they would have in the private sector. Rather they understood that running the Central
Intelligence Agency or being secretary of the Treasury gave one vast influence over the direction taken by the country. Firmly interlocked
with the military and corporate sectors, the political leaders of the United States fashioned an agenda favorable to their class
rather than one that might have been good for the nation as a whole.
Although written very much as a product of its time, The Power Elite has had remarkable staying power. The book has remained
in print for 43 years in its original form, which means that the 35-year-old who read it when it first came out is now 78 years old.
The names have changed since the book's appearance -- younger readers will recognize hardly any of the corporate, military, and political
leaders mentioned by Mills -- but the underlying question of whether America is as democratic in practice as it is in theory continues
to matter very much.
Changing Fortunes
The obvious question for any contemporary reader of The Power Elite is whether its conclusions apply to the United States
today. Sorting out what is helpful in Mills's book from what has become obsolete seems a task worth undertaking.
Each year, Fortune publishes a list of the 500 leading American companies based on revenues. Roughly 30 of the 50 companies
that dominated the economy when Mills wrote his book no longer do, including firms in once seemingly impregnable industries such
as steel, rubber, and food. Putting it another way, the 1998 list contains the names of many corporations that would have been quite
familiar to Mills: General Motors is ranked first, Ford second, and Exxon third. But the company immediately following these giants
-- Wal-Mart Stores -- did not even exist at the time Mills wrote; indeed, the idea that a chain of retail stores started by a folksy
Arkansas merchant would someday outrank Mobil, General Electric, or Chrysler would have startled Mills. Furthermore, just as some
industries have declined, whole new industries have appeared in America since 1956; IBM was fifty-ninth when Mills wrote, hardly
the computer giant -- sixth on the current Fortune 500 list -- that it is now. (Compaq and Intel, neither of which existed when Mills
wrote his book, are also in the 1998 top 50.) To illustrate how closed the world of the power elite was, Mills called attention to
the fact that one man, Winthrop W. Aldrich, the Am erican ambassador to Great Britain, was a director of 4 of the top 25 companies
in America in 1950. In 1998, by contrast, only one of those companies, AT&T, was at the very top; of the other three, Chase Manhattan
was twenty-seventh, Metropolitan Life had fallen to forty-third, and the New York Central Railroad was not to be found.
Despite these changes in the nature of corporate America, however, much of what Mills had to say about the corporate elite still
applies. It is certainly still the case, for example, that those who run companies are very rich; the gap between what a CEO makes
and what a worker makes is extraordinarily high. But there is one difference between the world described by Mills and the world of
today that is so striking it cannot be passed over. As odd as it may sound, Mills's understanding of capitalism was not radical enough.
Heavily influenced by the sociology of its time, The Power Elite portrayed corporate executives as organization men who "must
'fit in' with those already at the top." They had to be concerned with managing their impressions, as if the appearance of good results
were more important than the actuality of them. Mills was disdainful of the idea that leading businessmen were especially com petent.
"The fit survive," he wrote, "and fitness means, not formal competence -- there probably is no such thing for top executive positions
-- but conformity with the criteria of those who have already succeeded."
It may well have been true in the 1950s that corporate leaders were not especially inventive; but if so, that was because they
faced relatively few challenges. If you were the head of General Motors in 1956, you knew that American automobile companies dominated
your market; the last thing on your mind was the fact that someday cars called Toyotas or Hondas would be your biggest threat. You
did not like the union which organized your workers, but if you were smart, you realized that an ever-growing economy would enable
you to trade off high wages for your workers in return for labor market stability. Smaller companies that supplied you with parts
were dependent on you for orders. Each year you wanted to outsell Ford and Chrysler, and yet you worked with them to create an elaborate
set of signals so that they would not undercut your prices and you would not undercut theirs. Whatever your market share in 1956,
in other words, you could be fairly sure that it would be the same in 1957. Why rock the boat? It made perfect sense for budding
executives to do what Mills argued they did do: assume that the best way to get ahead was to get along and go along.
Very little of this picture remains accurate at the end of the twentieth century. Union membership as a percentage of the total
workforce has declined dramatically, and while this means that companies can pay their workers less, it also means that they cannot
expect to invest much in the training of their workers on the assumption that those workers will remain with the company for most
of their lives. Foreign competition, once negligible, is now the rule of thumb for most American companies, leading many of them
to move parts of their companies overseas and to create their own global marketing arrangements. America's fastest-growing industries
can be found in the field of high technology, something Mills did not anticipate. ("Many modern theories of industrial development,"
he wrote, "stress technological developments, but the number of inventors among the very rich is so small as to be unappreciable.")
Often dominated by self-made men (another phenomenon about which Mills was doubtful), these firms are ruthlessly competitive, which
upsets any possibility of forming gentlemen's agreements to control prices; indeed, among internet companies the idea is to provide
the product with no price whatsoever -- that is, for free -- in the hopes of winning future customer loyalty.
These radical changes in the competitive dynamics of American capitalism have important implications for any effort to characterize
the power elite of today. C. Wright Mills was a translator and interpreter of the German sociologist Max Weber, and he borrowed from
Weber the idea that a heavily bureaucratized society would also be a stable and conservative society. Only in a society which changes
relatively little is it possible for an elite to have power in the first place, for if events change radically, then it tends to
be the events controlling the people rather than the people controlling the events. There can be little doubt that those who hold
the highest positions in America's corporate hierarchy remain, as they did in Mills's day, the most powerful Americans. But not even
they can control rapid technological transformations, intense global competition, and ever-changing consumer tastes. American capitalism
is simply too dynamic to be controlled for very long by anyone.
The Warlords
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of the Cold War completely transformed
the American public's historic opposition to a permanent military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's
military elite was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate
world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological
innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the economy and the
military were being forged, the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military,
now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers,
and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism
which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting
to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one
in which the American people would come to accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "War or a high state
of war preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States," Mills wrote. In this state
of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement,
precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power
Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the military, at least in part because the military
has become so powerful in the districts of most congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and
government spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which manufacture military equipment.
American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems
never seem to die, even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there is no demonstrable
military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America plays in that world have changed. For
one thing, the United States has been unable to muster its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried
about the possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either refrain from pursuing military
adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover,
the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to mobilize support for military
expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was con sidered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source
of great potential investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the United States,
in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of
the American economy devoted to defense. At the time Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal
outlays and consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those proportions had fallen to 17
percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite
appeared, but that number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that both the economy and
the political systemof the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments
since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature,
more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority
of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country
and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. Mills believed that in the 1950s,
for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now it would be
more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with economic elites in other countries than it does with
the military elite of its own. The Power Elite failed to foresee a situation in which at least one of the key elements of
the power elite would no longer identify its fate with the fate of the country which spawned it.
Mass Society and the Power Elite
Politicians and public officials who wield control over the executive and legislative branches of government constitute the third
leg of the power elite. Mills believed that the politicians of his time were no longer required to serve a local apprenticeship before
moving up the ladder to national politics. Because corporations and the military had become so interlocked with government, and because
these were both national institutions, what might be called "the nationalization of politics" was bound to follow. The new breed
of political figure likely to climb to the highest political positions in the land would be those who were cozy with generals and
CEOs, not those who were on a first-name basis with real estate brokers and savings and loan officials.
For Mills, politics was primarily a facade. Historically speaking, American politics had been organized on the theory of balance:
each branch of government would balance the other; competitive parties would ensure adequate representation; and interest groups
like labor unions would serve as a counterweight to other interests like business. But the emergence of the power elite had transformed
the theory of balance into a romantic, Jeffersonian myth. So anti democratic had America become under the rule of the power
elite, according to Mills, that most decisions were made behind the scenes. As a result, neither Congress nor the political parties
had much substantive work to carry out. "In the absence of policy differences of consequence between the major parties," Mills wrote,
"the professional party politician must invent themes about which to talk."
Mills was right to emphasize the irrelevance of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century images to the actualities of twentieth-century
American political power. But he was not necessarily correct that politics would therefore become something of an empty theatrical
show. Mills believed that in the absence of real substance, the parties would become more like each other. Yet today the ideological
differences between Republicans and Democrats are severe -- as, in fact, they were in 1956. Joseph McCarthy, the conservative anticommunist
senator from Wisconsin who gave his name to the period in which Mills wrote his book, appears a few times in The Power Elite
, but not as a major figure. In his emphasis on politics and economics, Mills underestimated the important role that powerful symbolic
and moral crusades have had in American life, including McCarthy's witch-hunt after communist influence. Had he paid more attention
to McCarthyism, Mills would have been more likely to predict the role played by divisive issues such as abortion, immigration, and
affirmative action in American politics today. Real substance may not be high on the American political agenda, but that does not
mean that politics is unimportant. Through our political system, we make decisions about what kind of people we imagine ourselves
to be, which is why it matters a great deal at the end of the twentieth century which political party is in power.
Contemporary commentators believe that Mills was an outstanding social critic but not necessarily a first-rate social scientist.
Yet I believe that The Power Elite survives better as a work of social science than of social criticism.
At the time Mills was writing, academic sociology was in the process of proclaiming itself a science. The proper role of the sociologist,
many of Mills's colleagues believed, was to conduct value-free research emphasizing the close em pirical testing of small-bore hypotheses.
A grand science would eventually be built upon extensive empirical work which, like the best of the natural sciences, would be published
in highly specialized journals emph a sizing methodological innovation and technical proficiency. Because he never agreed with these
objectives, Mills was never considered a good scientist by his sociological peers.
Yet not much of the academic sociology of the 1950s has survived, while The Power Elite , in terms of longevity, is rivaled
by very few books of its period. In his own way, Mills contributed much to the understanding of his era. Social scientists of the
1950s emphasized pluralism, a concept which Mills attacked in his criticisms of the theory of balance. The dominant idea of the day
was that the concentration of power in America ought not be considered excessive because one group always balanced the power of others.
The biggest problem facing America was not concentrated power but what sociologists began to call "the end of ideology." America,
they believed, had reached a point in which grand passions over ideas were exhausted. From now on, we would require technical expertise
to solve our problems, not the musings of intellectuals.
Compared to such ideas, Mills's picture of American reality, for all its exaggerations, seems closer to the mark. If the test
of science is to get reality right, the very passionate convictions of C. Wright Mills drove him to develop a better empirical grasp
on Am erican society than his more objective and clinical contemporaries. We can, therefore, read The Power Elite as a fairly
good account of what was taking place in America at the time it was written.
As a social critic, however, Mills leaves something to be desired. In that role, Mills portrays himself as a lonely battler for
the truth, insistent upon his correctness no matter how many others are seduced by the siren calls of power or wealth. This gives
his book emotional power, but it comes with a certain irresponsibility. "In Am erica today," Mills wrote in a typical passage, "men
of affairs are not so much dogmatic as they are mindless." Yet however one may dislike the decisions made by those in power in the
1950s, as decision makers they were responsible for the consequences of their acts. It is often easier to criticize from afar than
it is to get a sense of what it actually means to make a corporate decision involving thousands of workers, to consider a possible
military action that might cost lives, or to decide whether public funds should be spent on roads or welfare. In calling public officials
mindless, Mills implies that he knows how they might have acted better. But if he did, he never told readers of The Power Elite
; missing from the book is a statement of what concretely could be done to make the world accord more with the values in which Mills
believed.
It is, moreover, one thing to attack the power elite, yet another to extend his criticisms to other intellectuals -- and even
the public at large. When he does the latter, Mills runs the risk of becoming as antidemocratic as he believed America had become.
As he brings his book to an end, Mills adopts a termonce strongly identified with conservative political theorists. Appalled by the
spread of democracy, conservative European writers proclaimed the twentieth century the age of "mass society." The great majority,
this theory held, would never act rationally but would respond more like a crowd, hysterically caught up in frenzy at one point,
apathetic and withdrawn at another. "The United States is not altogether a mass society," Mills wrote -- and then he went on to write
as if it were. And when he did, the image he conveyed of what an American had become was thoroughly unattractive: "He loses his
independence, and more importantly, he loses the desire to be independent; in fact, he does not have hold of the idea of being an
independent individual with his own mind and his own worked-out way of life." Mills had become so persuaded of the power of the power
elite that he seemed to have lost all hope that the American people could find themselves and put a stop to the abuses he detected.
One can only wonder, then, what Mills would have made of the failed attempt by Republican zealots to impeach and remove the President
of the United States. At one level it makes one wish there really were a power elite, for surely such an elite would have prevented
an extremist faction of an increasingly ideological political party from trying to overturn the results of two elections. And at
another level, to the degree that America weathered this crisis, it did so precisely because the public did not act as if were numbed
by living in a mass society, for it refused to follow the lead of opinion makers, it made up its mind early and thoughtfully, and
then it held tenaciously to its opinion until the end.
Whether or not America has a power elite at the top and a mass society at the bottom, however, it remains in desperate need of
the blend of social science and social criticism which The Power Elite offered. It would take another of Mills's books --
perhaps The Sociological Imagination -- to explain why that has been lost.
Corey is an iconoclast and the author of
'Man's Fight for Existence' . He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their
primal nature. Visit his new website at primalexistence.com
It wasn't long ago that the Left represented the anti-establishment wing in politics. They
used to fight against globalism (remember the anti-globalization movement?) even if their
motives were different from those of today's anti-globalists, as well as being against
censorship, imperialist wars, and the expanding powers of governments and corporations. But
today, you see leftists protesting against Brexit, attacking and censoring anyone who disagrees
with the establishment (using Twitter on their Apple products while sipping on their Starbucks
coffee), and are calling for war in Syria to challenge the Russians. So, just how the hell did
did they end up becoming the patsies for the elites?
To understand, we must go back to 2011 when the Occupy movement was ongoing. The Occupy
protests, which now seem like ages ago, came about as a response to the economic downturn with
the people realizing that they were being screwed by the system. We can debate endlessly about
exactly who these people were and the motives behind them, but the important fact is that, to
the elites, it was a sign that the people were waking up and challenging their power.
The elites were in a panic as this was the first time in post-war history that the people of
West mobilized in mass to threaten their rule. So, the cabals decided that they needed to act
fast before the whole movement evolved to a full-blown revolution. And they already had a plan
in mind: the never antiquated strategy of divide and rule.
The Diversion
When the people are discontent and angry from being powerless and dispossessed, the pressure
will mount and it won't go anywhere. The people want to vent out their frustrations. The elites
know that responding directly with repression only inspires greater desire to rise up, so
instead of fighting it, they prefer to re-channel that pent up energy elsewhere.
On February 2012, with the Occupy movement still raging, the elites were given that golden
opportunity -- or, rather, they created one -- when a black teenager was shot dead in Florida:
the none other than the infamous Trayvon Martin case. The shooter wasn't even a full white, but
the elites jumped at the chance and used their control of the media to throw everything they
had on it; anything to divert the public attention away from them. With their efforts, it
quickly became the biggest story of America.
But they didn't stop there. Police shootings, which have always been happening and to all
races, were also highly publicized by the mainstream media to stoke liberal outrage and racial
tensions that led to the creation of Black Lives Matter movement -- a movement that is
financed by George Soros and others to stir up unrests across America.
Did the elites convert Occupy protesters into SJW patsies?
The diversion was complete as the people were now more interested in racial issues than the
"1%" who were dictating their lives. The Occupy movement faded away and the people were now
venting out their anger elsewhere. Although I don't have as much proof as with the rise of BLM
movement, I strongly suspect that the resurgence of social justice warriors around the same
time is also the work of the elites who want the Leftists to target fellow citizens over
asinine cultural issues rather than the established order.
The Strategy
Back in 19th century, Karl Marx claimed that religion and nationalism was being used to
distract the masses from the fact that they were being oppressed under capitalism. If we were
to apply this concept to the world today, the culture wars going on now are distractions to
keep the masses from undermining the power of the elites.
The goal the elites is simple: divide the masses and let them fight each other so that they
will never come together to topple those in power. Meanwhile, they themselves focus on
expanding their own wealth and continue to implement institutional control to further their
globalist plans. The worst case scenario the elites want to avoid is to have the common people
unite as one, so they must do everything they can to fragment them by creating as many
divisions as possible.
My understanding of their modus operandi is this: 1) Use hot-button issues to stir up
controversy (something that doesn't affect them like gay marriage, race issues, and all other
politically correct nonsense). 2) Have the Leftists either get outraged or do something that
will provoke a reaction from the Right. 3) Let the people vent out their anger onto each other
and get at each other's throats. 4) When the issue fades away, foment a new controversy to
repeat the whole process. By cycling through them over and over again, the elites are able to
maintain the status quo and keep the people from uniting against them.
Thus, we have our current situation where the masses are divided with blacks against whites,
women against men, Islam and atheism against Christianity, Left against Right, and so on, but
no more anti-globalization, Tea Party movement, or Occupy Wall Street.
As long as those on the left continue berating the right as racists, sexists, and bigots who
are controlled by corporations and the right in turn accuse the left of being degenerate,
socialist slackers who just want freebies from a nanny government, nothing will change. As long
as the two sides see each others as enemies who are stupid and ignorant, and getting in the way
of creating a decent society, the people will remain divided. As long as the rest of the
population go berserk over wedding cakes for homosexuals, the latest "misogynist" outrage, or
how a lion named Cecil got shot, the elites will continue to win.
I know they look like an occupying army, but there's nothing to be alarmed about. They're
just your friendly neighborhood police doing their jobs to protect you from the
"terrorists."
First, while this article has been focused on how the Left has been toyed by the globalist
elites, let's not forget that the Right are not totally immune to their influence either.
Remember how Neo-cons (
globalist puppets disguised as conservatives ) effectively lured the conservatives in
America through faith and patriotism? The support they got from that base was the impetus to
launch their war against Iraq based on bullshit evidences of WMD's and Saddam–Al-Queda
link. While the Right has changed a lot since then, there are still "conservatives" today who
are itching for a war with Russia because USA! USA! USA! .
Second, it is crucial to remember that although the main goal is to maintain divide and
rule, it is not the end of it. The elites have far more sinister aims. By raising hell in
societies through demographic conflicts and terrorism, the elites are preparing for a total
social control. I get the feeling that the elites are letting the chaos and violence run its
course so that the people from the two opposing camps will join together in their approval of
new government measures for social control.
No matter their differences, when the people get terrified of savagery and disorder, they'll
welcome the state to intervene in the name of security. Europe is already getting used to large
military presence on their
streets while the US government is seemingly
preparing for a war against their own citizens . A leaked Soros memo also reveals that the
BLM movement is potentially being used to federalize the US
police . While many people seem to be concerned about violence and terrorism, it seems
those are just tools used by the elites to justify a totalitarian state in the near
future.
The Culture Wars: Necessary Fight Or Engineered Distraction?
The issue of culture wars is not an easy one as they are important in many ways, but are
still forms of distraction implemented by the elites.
On one hand, we are playing into the hands of elites by raging against social justice and
feminist pigshits instead of trying to stop the globalists,
Zionists , bankers,
mega-corporations , and the governments from undermining our existence. Really, do the
issues of politically-incorrect Halloween costumes and whatever bathroom trannies use matter
more than the fact that the middle-class is being destroyed, revelations of
massive corruption in the DNC, the coming police-state, and the globalist wars that are
causing death and destruction around the world? All the drama of outrage and counter-outrage is
silly when the elites are snickering as their new world order is taking shape.
On the other hand, culture does matter in many ways. Uncontrolled immigration, anti-male
laws, and censorship are all very relevant issues. And as much of the Leftists are now serving
as pawns of the establishment, the situation isn't exactly the divide and rule model I
described above. In a way, we are now forced to fight the Left and everyone else who are
getting in the way of fighting the globalist elites.
So, does this mean we should ally with those who scorn us? Or should we continue playing the
elite's games and bicker with their SJW drones? I don't have a good answer, but whatever we
choose to do, I believe it is crucial for us to focus our battles and not get trolled into
petty issues that the mainstream media wants us to focus on. We should always keep in mind that
it is always those at the top who are the true enemies of mankind.
Conclusion: Is There
Still Hope?
Although we no longer see grassroots movements and popular mobilization, the current US
election has shown that the people are still awake and sick of the establishment. To me, that
alone is a hopeful sign that people are still willing to challenge the ruling class.
With Bernie Sanders brought down by the establishment and his supporters scattered into
different camps, the only anti-establishment movement now is the presidential campaign led by
Donald Trump. This is why we are seeing unprecedented efforts by the elites to bring down Trump
and use disgruntled Leftists against his supporters.
I have my doubts
about Trump , but he is thousand times preferable to the certain nightmare that Hillary
Clinton will bring to America and the world if she gets elected. But besides voting, I believe
that it is more important for the people themselves to wake up and be aware of the methods of
control that are being implemented upon us. We can't constantly expect some knight in shinning
armor to come rally us; we must take the initiative ourselves and be willing to fight for our
own destiny.
"People of the West", not just the US. It's possible that the Occupy movement, too,
was created by the elites to counter the Tea Party until it spiraled out of
control.
GhostOfJefferson
✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ
It's more than just possible, it's pretty clear that it was. They show up with
buses rented and food vendors in tow. Somebody was paying for that shit, and it
sure as hell wasn't the unwashed hippy wannabes out shitting on cop cars.
Hugo
Its a false statement by the author to state that the 'left' was anti
establishment back in the day. It wasn't. It's goal, then and now was to create
a global, Marxist establishment and to do that it had brainwash the masses into
believing it was 'fightin the man'.
When in fact the 'left' has always been 'the man' as Marxism is focused on
control and authority. None of this is new. Perhaps new to North America but,
exactly the methodology that was used in Europe since WW1 to turn it into the
Marxist shiithole it has become. That in essence was what WW2 was about;
Nationalism vs. Globalized Marxism. And Nationalism lost.
Although it is in how you define the establishment. At the time of
progressives assuming power (around WW1, give or take) the "Establishment" was
fairly Classical Liberal and friendly to liberty and free trade, at least to an
extent. Now the "establishment" is them, and they are absolutely "the Man"
these days.
Koch brothers and Soros are accused of funding Tea Party and OWS
respectively; both denied the charges. Buses and food vendors aren't that
expensive and they did receive donations from ordinary people.
But I feel like the whole point of the article is now lost due to this
debate of who funded who, who's controlled by who, which is the good side and
which the bad, which just confirms that we are divided. I guess some things
never change.
Sorry man, but I didn't bring up OWS, the article did. They were so
astroturfed that I can't even pretend to take them seriously as legitimate
protest. When you have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the bulk of the Democrat
party cheering them on, that should give a moment for pause. On the flip side,
the Tea Party was reviled by the Dems AND the GOP simultaneously.
Oh please. Most free-market libertarian organizations are astroturfed by the Koch
brothers. They're every bit as insidious as the left, being the pro-free-trade and
pro-immigration people they are.
Spare me your Leftism. I took part in them, they were locally organized and
unfinanced, basically we just showed up (here in central Ohio) when a college
sophomore at OSU sent out a mass email to various local groups.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with free trade, and not all libertarians are
open borders/pro-immigration.
I concur whole heartedly. The tea party movement was a locally organized
movement and stood for ideals that made our country great .which is exactly why
the left lied so hard and loud about it.
Free trade is what caused all the factories in the rust belt to close and
outsourced all of American industry.
The Koch brothers themselves, the one that fund things like FreedomWorks,
GMU and certain elements of the Tea Party (simply because they weren't directly
involve in events does not make them not involved). They themselves are
pro-immigration.
I'm not a leftist in the slightest. Being an economic nationalist does not
make one left-wing.
Give me a break. Nobody "funded" us. There isn't even a leadership hierarchy
to fund. That's what you people don't get, it was a decentralized movement,
which gives it a lot of advantages that other movements do not have. It's why
we can't be "funded" as monolithic group.
"Free trade" didn't give us the current situation. The government now, and
at the time of NAFTA, so regulated the market and taxed it to the hilt that
it's laughable to even suggest that it's "free" in any real sense. The best you
can say about it is that it's mercantilist, which funny enough, is one step
away from "economic nationalism" aka national socialism.
> Give me a break. Nobody "funded" us. There isn't even a leadership
hierarchy to fund. That's what you people don't get, it was a
decentralized movement, which gives it a lot of advantages that other
movements do not have. It's why we can't be "funded" as monolithic
group.
BLM is also highly decentralized. Doesn't mean it isn't funded.
> "Free trade" didn't give us the current situation. The government
now,
and at the time of NAFTA, has so regulated the market and taxed it to
the hilt that it's laughable to even suggest that it's "free" in any
real sense. The best you can say about it is that it's mercantilist,
which funny enough, is one step away from "economic nationalism" aka
national socialism.
There's a difference between regulating industries and imposing preferential
tariffs and lavishing companies with subsidies similar to how China does.
They're the ones winning, in case you haven't noticed.
BLM has a hierarchy, a chain of command and this is easily seen by going to
the website of the people who started it.
If the government is out granting favors (or restricting access) then this
is not a "free market". Adam Smith would spit on the economic system that
America, and by proxy, most of the West has adopted since the
1930's.
> BLM has a hierarchy, a chain of command and this is easily seen by
going to the website of the people who started it
Yet the fact it can't keep the rank and file in line (as evidenced by the
endless rioting) speaks to this command structure not working.
> If the government is out granting favors (or restricting access)
then
this is not a "free market". Adam Smith would spit on the economic
system that America, and by proxy, most of the West has adopted since
the 1930's.
Funny you mention Adam Smith, because he argued for a social safety net and
a tax on beer to pay for it. Free-market fundamentalists love to ignore
this.
Yet the fact it can't keep the rank and file in line (as evidenced by the
endless rioting) speaks to this command structure not working.
They don't *want* them to be "in line". Their entire existence is to create
chaos to necessitate "change" at various levels. They are doing exactly what
they're told to do.
Sneering at Adam Smith does not change my statement at all. We are not now,
nor have we been since at least WW1, a "free market". Not even freaking close.
So the position you hold, I reject entirely.
> They don't *want* them to be "in line". Their entire existence is
to
create chaos to necessitate "change" at various levels. They are doing
exactly what they're told to do.
Do you honestly think that people trying to win the majority over to their
side would encourage beating the shit out of the majority? BLM, for all its
failings and Marxism, has lost the media war it was trying to win.
> They don't *want* them to be "in line". Their entire existence is
to
create chaos to necessitate "change" at various levels. They are doing
exactly what they're told to do.
Free-market capitalism is impossible in a situation where the state can
easily be used to slant the market in its favor. Corporations, especially big
ones, don't really like free markets.
Who says that they're trying to win the majority over to their side? This
aggitation is meant to spur a new set of "rules" and enforcers and empower
certain political groups at the expense of others.
Free-market capitalism is impossible in a situation where the state can
easily be used to slant the market in its favor. Corporations, especially big
ones, don't really like free markets.
Exactly, this is *exactly* what I'm pointing out. Blaming the "free market"
for things like NAFTA thus, is incorrect.
> Who says that they're trying to win the majority over totheir side?
This aggitation is meant to spur a new set of "rules" and enforcers and
empower certain political groups at the expense of others.
The people who are most able to facilitate change are the voters and the
organizations that control cops. Coming across as a bunch of thugs certainly
doesn't help them.
> Exactly, this is *exactly* what I'm pointing out. Blaming the "free
market" for things like NAFTA thus, is incorrect.
"Economic internationalism" (i.e no tariffs) would be a better term
then.
The people who are most able to facilitate change are the voters and
the
organizations that control cops. Coming across as a bunch of thugs
certainly doesn't help them.
You don't understand, this isn't about organizing voters. The changes I'm
talking about are not even vaguely connected to "democracy". Their entire point
is to be the firebomb throwers that enable a "crackdown". This is an old
script.
"Economic internationalism" (i.e no tariffs) would be a better term
then.
It's just the beginning. My hunch is that they will be fully mobilized after
Trump takes POTUS. The violence from the Left and their group of retards will
escalate an awful lot, I suspect.
Nah, the election is over, he's going to landslide. The only people who see
it as "iffy" are the mainstream media, and they're just trying to cover their
own asses at this point.
Just imagine, BLM if it got big enough could be the justification for a
police state. And when they raise the minium wage to $15 an hour, and even more
blacks have even fewer jobs .a desperate man does desperate things. Its BS that
blacks won't work, they had a higher employment rate in the 50's than whites.
And if you can't get a job you turn to crime. And families get broken up, and
welfare and divorce laws break up the family. And what has happened to them is
happening to everyone else, they were just the canaries in the coal
mine.
BLM has exceeded spectacularly. George Soros doesnt make many bad bets. The
police are against blacks, now blacks can justify killing cops, and cops can
justify killing blacks. Divide and conquer and no one sees that we are killing
you all.
Why would Adam Smith oppose the current model, when it is a continuation of
the British Empire he worked for, except that at least Britain forced Free
Trade on everyone else but themselves, this system asset strips every country.
BTW you show what an idiot you are mentioning 'what the West has adopted since
the 1930'. You do realise that we have had multiple conflicting economic models
since the 1930s? There was the Bretton Woods System, which Rockefeller and
Kissinger crushed to bring in the floating exchange rate, then Clintons 1999
repeal of the Glass Steagil Act, which set off the last 17 years of madness, so
there is no 1930s-2016 Western model Adam Smith would critique, as the current
madness is Smiths model. Free Trade was never some mom and pop trading freely
with each other utopia you might think, it was all about monopoly and gunboat
diplomacy. I thought that cult had ended 5 years ago? There is only 1 working
economic model, a high tech, high level education national socialist republic
with a national bank, where kikes have no control of finance, with one and only
one racial group, whites; no niggers, muds or kikes, then everything we work
towards is for Our Posterity.
Resorting? Fuck dude, you bring up "kikes" and go full dick sucking
admiration about "national socialism" which, I'm going to go out on a limb
here, is what the *FREAKING NAZIS* practiced.
And of course, when I note that you're for Nazism, that means that I'm under
jewish influence.
This whole "congruity" thing is new to you isn't it?
You do realise that national socialism is far older than "the
nazisssssssssss". It simply means a nation, as an ethnic group, and a
government of the people for the people. Most European countries have been
national socialists except the one major factor – they didn't have
control of the issuance of currency (as the Founding Fathers planned), ergo, it
was a socialist hive for jewish financiers/ central banking cartel. The
nazisssssssssss were pretty much the first country (other than Britain briefly
after WW1) to get control of the issuance of credit for what the Founding
Fathers coined The General Welfare. And look what happened, an economic miracle
in under a decade. When whites are given heir own space, free of jewish
parasitism, they are completely unbounded and can achieve anything (that was
until jew brainwashed America and allies fucked it up).
It simply means a nation, as an ethnic group, and a government of the
people for the people
Oh please, save that for people who have no grounding in socio-economic
theory.
Nationalism means what you say (in essence). SOCIALISM does NOT mean
anything of the sort. Trying to combine the two as a package deal is not going
to fly. Simply put, that dog don't hunt, son.
The Industrial Revolution from the very start, was a product of what the
French called Dirigisme. It was planned, financed and exectuted as a state run
project, both in Britian and France with the investment into science and the
creation of the canals, which laid the route for sending coal to the factories.
Americas developement was all through the same means, actually the US govenment
poaching the best scientists and miners etc from Britain, to use in America. I
guess you have never heard of Alexander Hamilton and is Report on Manufactures.
It is socialism minus any sick minded jewish involvement, ergo national
socialism. The left has been completely co-opted by jewish financiers with
Marx. Before Marx joined Masonry, he was a proponent of Freidrich List –
the true left, before kikes/ Freemasons hijacked it.
you had a great argument going until you started with the racial horse shit.
color and race dont matter to me. Its big government and big business against
everyone else, and those on top see no difference between black or white poor
people. to them, we are all trolls.
Free trade doesn't exist in the real world. The closer the West got to that
idea was in the 19th century. Moreover should we have a free trade, then
agreements and other binding documents wouldn't be necessary. A free trade
agreement is an oxymoron. Regulated trade agreement would be closer to the
truth.
Moreover China doesn't practice free trade, it practices mercantilism at a
high price: the suffering of its own people (check the working conditions and
the environmental costs). Had we (the west) exercised the ideas of free market,
we wouldn't be in this situation.
Really? Which country practised the uptoian Free Trade? Britian didn't
practise it; it forced Free Trade onto everyone else to keep rival countries
from developing, whilst using its own working class under worse conditions than
Africans-in-America slaves. Workhouses, borstals, child workers in mines from
age 6, 14 hours a day 6 days a week, dying on average at 28 years old. The good
old days of Free Trade!
You can go to Hell if what you search are utopias. In Earth and probably in
this universe you will find none. Moreover you misrepresent what I wrote. No
matter how you define it, in the 19th century there was more economic freedom
than now, at least within the countries. It was not a coincidence that that
century marked the zenith of European greatness.
By the way, I never said worldwide free trade is possible because it's not.
Intra-national free trade is possible and necessary along with a smaller
government, however not even within the European nations or within the U.S.
there is free trade. Endless Regulations, currency manipulation, finance
speculation are stifling trade and labor, and are making ever more attractive
the replacement of human labor via automation due to the high costs and risks
of hiring human beings (sex-lawsuits, constant pay rises) and the currency loss
of worth (devaluation).
By your writings, I can infer that you are just a racist communist. So I
guess the pogroms and gulags will continue until the morale
improves.
Free trade means freedom for the most prosperous country to flood foreign
countries with goods. There are two kinds of systems: overt mercantilism
(tariffs) or covert mercantilism (free "trade" with the WTO backing it).
If free trade benefitted the elite, they'd accept it.
That's why I said global unfettered (free) trade was impossible. Too many
differences. Free trade between two or more similar nations might be possible.
But free trade between unequal nations it doesn't work out as intented. However
we don't even have free trade within our borders how can you try to have free
trade with another nation?
Not exactly. Free market within a country is possible and the ideal
condition. Communism is just hellish ideology that ignores human nature, for
the "common good". Global or international free trade is most likely impossible
due to the human nature.
If you have a Free Market within a country, that means you are excluding
foreign competition, ergo it is not Free Trade, its just trade within a
protectionist country.
Wow, is it so simple now that simple minded man has explained it. Now how do
you suppose you protect your own economy (that your ancestors gifted to you)
from being flooded with cheaper imports, or your companies closing down and
moving to slave plantations to under cut wages? You do realise that Free Trade,
as an economic model (as opposed to the fantasy interpretation you have
deduced), was created with the sole purpose of looting and undercutting prices
to keep competators down? We can have a world of nation states – ethnic
nation states – where we have borders, regulations, protective tarrifs
and a central bank owned by and for the poeple, as opposed to the Roschild
family, and have a system of fair trade. It can't be free trade as you will
basically give every incentive to people who are not your people to undercut
you and practise economic and intellectual/ copyright espionage (like China
does). You do realise that this economic system since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, was created by known people, it was a conspiracy against
the feudal powers by the likes of John Baptiste Colbert and the French Academy
of Sciences. This Industrial Revolution didn't just happen by men who were
trying to make money and trade. There was a conspiracy by top scientists and
mathematicians to unlock nature through technology, in the face of the feudal
powers that tried suppressing it, such as the pressure Denis Papin had against
his work. There was literally government money all over the Industrial
Revolution from the start, and government regulation to protect
it.
Being thankful to your ancestors and proud of your ethnicity or race is one
thing. This guy however, he takes it to the next level.
Not white = not good enough.
All non-whites are enemies.
ENEMIES EVERYWHERRREEEE!!!
lol
Yeah, but then the state and the International bankers come in and demand 20
percent of the proceeds. Utopian in the sense it isn't possible given the
circumstances.
It's completely possible and happens all the time, in the black and gray
market. If left to our own devices, it would happen naturally and organically
among normal people.
With the caveat that there is no coercion. Coercion has managed to take on
incredible forms these days. I poison your food and try to sell you a health
book that promises a cure..free trade? I bribe researchers, to fake studies,
then sell drugs that don't work and share the money with doctors who are
accepted to be experts. Free trade? The more of a difference in intelligence
and money two parties have, usually the less free trade exists.
You are correct. The original Taxed Enough Already movement was designed as
a "headless" organization in an attempt to prevent the co-option of the group
by the Big Tent Republicans. Didn't work because Sarah Palin and the
FreedomWorks goons would show up in their Koch supplied buses and act like they
organized the events.
Open borders is fine, as long as you have zero welfare. Once you start
giving gibsmedats (welfare, health care, even free road use), then you need to
lock down the border tighter than a muslim's 9 year old bride.
Similarly (though more complex), free trade is great, as long as there is
little to no interference by the government, or at least similar business
crushing regulations on both ends (which is why free trade between Canada and
the US is a problem for neither country). Regulations, minimum wages, maternity
leave mandates, and such are the reason that free trade results in jobs going
over seas. Get the government to remove the regulations, and you eliminate
99.9% of the problem.
Wrong. Free trade didn't close the factories. Labor arbitrage is NOT a
function of free trade. That is how the masters have modified the language to
suit their needs.
The word you're looking for is arbitration. As for what destroyed the rust
belt, the fact the car industry went international and sought to produce cars
closer to markets meant that the old industrial heartland went to shit. Free
trade (or economic internationalism, just so GOJ doesn't call me out on this)
is partially to blame for this.
You're still at that magical thinking level where you think grassroots
movements just spring up? How quaint. The Tea Party was always funded by
billionaires. The Tea Party cult members acted like it got co-opted, but in
this country everything is lead from the top, they just pretend its grassroots
so you'll buy into something that really isn't in your best interest. As for
people saying America was created on Tea Party principles, it wasn't. The
Founding Father opposed the British Empires Free Market model which dumped
goods onto the colonies and prevented industry from developing. America is
inherently a high wage, high tech, protectionist nation state. Free Trade is
the opposite – cheap labor, no workers rights and monopoly, which is
really feudalism rebranded. For those who think the battle is Free Trade vs
Marxism, read what Marx said about British Free Trade (he was employed by the
Empire), he was wholly in support of it and David Ricado. Orginially Marx was
in favor of Freidrich List, and wrote essays on his system, then he got got
hooked into the Freemasonic networks, joined the British Library (spooks) and
pushed Free Trade, i.e British (jewish Freemasonic) Imperialism. There was a
left wing that was pushing our values, before the kikes took over it.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/books/Robert-Burns-book-2007.pdf
Occupy always stank to me. I don't know. It's as if I have some bullshit meter in my
head. This bullshit meter goes off when I see Obama. When I see people going crazy over
their country losing at football. When I see celebrity gossip. And when I see
OWS.
It stunk to me too because they didn't even seem to have a goal. Im mad so I'm
going to sit here stinking up the place. I'm mad, so we should close the federal
reserve..now that would have struck fear into the elitists!
I guess it stunk to me for two reasons:
1. Big organized movement with streamlined ideology. I always get a weird
feeling around my stomach when great numbers of people gather.
2. This super-focused blame on bankers, as if they were responsible for
everything wrong in their lives. I mean, most of those people aren't even the
underprivileged ones. They're probably students who just love the thrill of
protesting and get fed by mommy and daddy.
I experienced no.2 a few years back when a guy came to visit me to go to a
protest. So we were there walking with the crowd. A few people shouting through
megaphones attacking the police verbally. Police all around the movement.
Everybody kinda just walking like a zombie for some nebulous cause. Totally
pointless. I don't even feel the thrill. It's just boring to me. I would call
it scary, but it isn't even that. Those people are harmless. They aren't
killers. They have just enough courage to keep holding up a sign with some
slogan. When they shout, they don't even shout with passion. Or in other words:
They have just as much courage as the elite wants them to have in order for
them to not feel totally powerless. They get a little 'high' from the thing and
feel like they are changing the world, while nobody really cares. And this guy
who I was there with, he just loved it for fun. He didn't really care about the
cause either.
There were a bunch of enviro protesteres once at an event I went to, and I
started talking to them and asking basic enviro questions like " What causes
the ozone hole?" They had no clue. For many its a social club, maybe more of a
religion, they show up for their protests on Sunday and have a barbeque after,
and maybe get laid. But I agree with that guy you mentioned, there is a very
famous quote that he who controls the money controls the world. You might like
the movie Zeitgeist. The consipiracy theories arent theories, now with the
internet the proof can be so strong. I thought there was just NO WAY 911 could
have been faked-NO WAY. The fact that they pulled it off shows just how much
power the elites really have. 911 was a good deal all around, the new owner
made a fortune, the strongest reinsurance companies got stronger, US got the go
ahead to invade a few countries, and laws got passed depriving us of more
liberties(fear is always the best way to accomplish that). Win win
win.
Reminds me 1:1 of a former friend who is now a Scientologist. Scientology
has that "Say No To Drugs" campaign. They are against all drugs, no matter
what. My former friend happened to be at one of their stands so I went there
and confronted him, asked a few questions. The simplest one: Have you ever
taken drugs?
He said he took alcohol. And that's enough for him. He took alcohol and by
that he judges all drugs, including psychedelics. He gave some vague examples
of some cases where LSD supposedly hurt someone or whatever. But he didn't have
much answers either.
Only that Scientologists don't get laid is my guess. They attract and select
for the weakest of society. They appear to me to be mostly like sheep with zero
confidence, looking for a cause and a leader and a set of rules that explains
everything and blah blah.
Guess what. I told him I took LSD. He told me that that would probably
disqualify me from becoming a Scientologist. Hah! So you have thousands of
people working against psychedelics but not a single one of them has actually
taken them.
The more ironic that some people think Ron Hubbard came up with most of his
ideas on LSD
I read something about 911. Has it actually been proven to be true? That
would be a great thing to throw at people.
I've been learning alot about psychedelics lately too-a few interesting
things about them. They are all chemically related to adrenochrome-oxidized
adrenaline. oxidized adrenaline is a psychedelic(asthmatics take adrenaline,
which as it goes bad turns pink red then brown oxidizing), and it looks like
schizos are merely producing an excessive internal amount of this. To me, there
is a progression of behaviour modification..from normal, to borderline,
narcicism and ending with schizo with increased stress. Schizos are narcissists
by the way. But to me its adaptive, when you are under a great deal of stress
is when you drastically need to learn something and change your situation.
Another thing is that it appears mushrooms, reduce brain activity, which to me
links it to sensory deprivation and meditation. As for 911 heres a few good
videos, the simplest is the amazing stories told by the owner, that have to
change because they are so bad. And a multibillion dollar operation and he only
lost 4 people..and profited handsomely from the investment! Truly jewish
lightning.
its fantasyland stuff that you can demo a building in an afternoon. Which is
probably why he changed his story. Oh and he had plans drawn up for WTC 7 a
year before the attack. Perfectly normal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOSObJDs67Y
this guys says some interesting things
Hmm. What do you mean by chemically related? Is that some stuff you have
deeper knowledge that I probably wouldn't grasp? If so, that's cool. And what
do you mean by "it looks like" when you refer to schizos producing an excessive
amount? And where does the link between schizos and narcs come from and where
did you get that succession from (normal, borderline, narc, schizo). Seems a
bit inconclusive to me, especially since those are all groups of symptoms that,
as far as I can tell, have not been somehow linked to a real thing, but rather
those people are simply linked together because of similar symptoms. And the
symptoms of those 3 things are quite different, I'd say, and not really the
same or in some way successive.
Maybe you have a few good points, but I can't logically follow you because I
don't understand the links you make.
You also use 'it looks like' when you talk about mushrooms. What leads you
to that conclusion? Psychedelics have been shown to greatly increase brain
activity (not decrease). There was a test with LSD, the video is floating
around Youtube etc. Basically, they observed that there was a lot more activity
and what they called 'interconnectivity', which basically means all brain parts
lit up at the same time.
In other cultures, schizophrenics have been considered as those who walk
among the dead and given great respect. It's all a matter of perspective. My
experience with psychedelics is that they greatly raise awareness. They are
like an amplifier to all perceptions. I think you have to try it to be able to
make a conclusion, but maybe you have
But even then, schizophrenia is probably not even a real thing, just like
narcissism and borderline. More like a group of symptoms that don't necessarily
all have the same cause. So it is arguable that one schizophrenic is not the
same as another, which rings true from my experience in the nuthouse. One was
diagnosed with schizophrenia and yes, I would call him narcissistic. Others
were rather quiet and beaten down and shit (partly due to medication
probably).
Also, I wouldn't say meditation has much links to sensory deprivation,
although you could say that if you just think of some guy in a cave sitting
still. But that can be a good thing, too, because reducing the input from the
outside leaves more attention for the stuff that's inside, which can greatly
help you be mindful of your emotions and deal with your demons. Psychedelics
can help with this, although I use them scarcely. I see psychedelics a bit like
signposts for meditation. You take them and kinda know the direction you're
going and then you do the rest 'on foot'.
Thanks for the video links. I thought it was something that was officially
acknowledged, but it still seems to be kind of a borderline thing where you
have to do your own research, so I'll abstain from that for now. (Other stuff
on my mind)
By chemically similar I just mean similar molecular shape, if you read more
about the guys on that page you found they get more into it. Its good to talk
to you sounds like you have much experience on the subject.
Who knows, maybe my theory is wrong. To explain a little better my theory I
should say, a man usually goes through normal narcissism and then schizo, with
increasing amounts of stress. Borderline is more for women. And it seems like
environmental toxins might be able to cause it as well, and since they tend to
lodge in different places, that could cause different specific effects and
maybe they don't cause some of the same effects as adrenaline caused
narcissism. Now if you look at alot of the typical aspects of Narcissism you'll
notice that they would be good for say fighting or fleeing- black and white
thinking(no time for gray areas) more impulsive(no time to reflect), lack of
empathy(again there isnt enough time to consider nuances). One interesting
study found that narcissists actually can read emotion in others, just for some
reason they don't react to that info . Do you find that people with narc/schizo
have really really good memories? If so thats high adrenaline. If they also
tend to have a high heart rate, that would also tend to confirm my theory.
I had an interesting experience with a woman I know who had a resting heart
rate of 110(!) and a borderline personality. Just giving her a gram of sodium
ascorbate a day brought her resting heart rate down to 70, and she could sleep
8 hours now, and her personality actually changed. She went from being always
cold in a warm environment to absolutely radiating heat. This took place over a
few days.
Oh and for sensory deprivation, you can do the lite version, find some white
noise music and put something redish over your eyes. When I did this it was
like having a waking dream, very bizarre.
Yeah 911 is not officially debunked, everything is misinformation wars, and
people seem to be finally waking up to it this election.
Personally, I've gone through phases that would apply to pretty much all 3
of the categories. In fact, I dare say most of my life I've been stuck in a
fight or flight without realizing it. I think it's spot on. It allows black and
white, pretty much. In my case, it's a little more weird, because it kinda
conflicts with some other desires, leading to me being somewhat unpredictable
(borderline maybe, heh). I also seem to tend to have very high heart rate. Guy
at the gym told me this once despite me having not done much work or anything
beforehand. It was really just the stress of my social anxiety.
I find that this kind of stress creates a kind of sensation in my body that
may very well have to do with adrenaline. It feels kinda dead-ish. A bit like
the taste of blood when you get it into your mouth. Hard to describe. Numb, a
little sizzling, dark, oppressive, hot. Well yeah, dead. Also get it during
intensive training and too much of this makes me almost faint and gets me into
extremely weird states for a short amount of time. Like when I totally power
myself out, I can feel it coming. It's like I know shit I went too far and in
the next moment, I almost black out. Extremely extremely uncomfortable. It's
like I can feel my whole personality being deconstructed very quickly into
nothingness and then coming back again.
Interesting tip with the white noise I'll keep it in mind.
You might try paying attention to your heart rate more, either feel the side
of your neck, time for 15 seconds, then multiply by 4, or there are even
programs for smart phones that use the light and camera and can see the blood
pulses. What is likely happening to you is that when the heart beats
excessively fast, it actually stops pumping effectively, it seems to be a
defect we have-horses on the other hand have a max heart rate and wont go
beyond that even if they run faster. Now like I was telling the woman i know,
its like she's running a marathon, but she can never sit down, its a very
unhealthy thing. I think I saw a study in men where it correlates with a 400%
increase in mortality rate. There are many consequences of excess acid
production(co2 dissolved in blood is acidic). A little talked about fact of the
human body is that it goes to extreme effort to maintain PH. When you exercise,
your body aggressively and actively releases alkaline bone mineral to help
maintain PH, and when you rest it is rebuilt. You also eliminate acid through
breathing, urine and to a small extent through sweat. Excessive acid, can cause
kidney stones, gout, collagen breakdown, mild scurvy, acne, joint pain, feeling
of coldness. You might try like the woman I was talking with some potassium
ascorbate around a gram dissolved in a glass of water, take maybe two to three
times a day and see what your heart rate does, and if it improves some of your
other symptoms(potassium ascorbate I've learned is much better than sodium
ascorbate). You may see some initial negative effects too, because sometimes
all of a sudden you are eliminating toxins from your body that you werent
before. It isnt a panacea, but it can correct some of the basic problems going
on. For example the basic problem could be hyperthyroidism, which most likely
that woman had, and you have to treat that to decrease hormone production. I
suspect heavy metals that cross the blood brain barrier may be able to cause it
as well.
Quite interesting, I have to say. I am wondering how that can be reconciled
with my experiences. Maybe extreme stress is a precursor to death to the body,
hence it prepares itself to enter the world of the dead, in a sense. I think it
was proven (or hypothesized?) that the brain generates DMT on birth and death,
a potent psychedelic substance. It's like the mother of all psychedelics. Let's
you talk to God and shit like that.
This could indicate though, that schizophrenia (if the link is valid) is
less a result of a malfunctioning brain than some kind of constant stress that
is so severe that it creates those chemicals, leading to a 'disconnect from
reality'. If you think about it, death is a form of disconnect from reality, so
schizophrenia may be a half-way thing. That doesn't mean though that you have
to fight those chemicals with neuroleptika. In fact, I'd say the body produces
these things precisely because they are helpful in extreme stress. I have also
read here on ROK that extreme stress during lifting can create an almost
transcendental experience where you become one with the universe (or perceive
so) and stuff like that. If those chemicals create that kind of awareness, it
makes sense to me that it can be used constructively if the 'patient' practices
a lot of mindfulness or meditation.
Now, I will readily admit that I had something you could call a psychotic
episode on psychedelics. Only that I don't see it as pathologic. I am glad I
had that experience and I think it was important. Psychotic only describes the
symptoms. But a person that looks like he's freaking out from the outside may
be having a great experience on the inside that is actually healing and
helpful. Which is why indigenous tribes used psychedelics for thousands of
years as a cure, as a guide, as an initiation rite. Hah, and since we're
creating links: Initiation rites often deal with a lot of intense pain or even
symbolical dying. Christianity also talks about dying and being reborn. I think
there is a lot of truth in it. That to enter manhood fully, one has to die in a
sense and be reborn. Which is what those experiences can do they literally rip
you apart and put you back together in a better way.
Yeah those guys had an 80% ish success rate curing schizo. Looks like
toxoplasmosis(common infection) can cause it too. Orthomolecular was started by
Linus Pauling a double nobel prize winner. There are numerous things like this
where there are amazing cures, and no one cares to study further. Most medicine
is a scam. It would be horrible if it turned out simple herbs could cure
cancer, I mean they would lose about $50k per patient. Number two monopoly
according to Milton Friedman the famous economist. Japan and Germany seem to be
exceptions.
Thanks for the info on DMT and lifting, Ill check it out. Maybe DMT is an even
more potent one? I noticed that most of the greatest mathematical discoveries
happened during grave illness and a year before death. Look up Riemann or
Ramanujan as good examples. Now in my experience heart rate seems to be a good
measure of adrenaline..and from what Im reading it seem LSD and mushrooms
increases heart rate. As for rebirth in religion watch that movie I mentioned
Zeitgeist, it has a very interesting take on it. Many religions share the same
beliefs and it seems to be taken from the movement of the Sun.
Those rituals about killing the boy and going through hardship to be accepted
into the group of men seem very important. In a way its the classic heros
quest. A man can no longer run from danger as a child would, should no longer
cry from pain. Very important lessons that are rarely taught.
Honestly – do your own research. I know that's a redundant statement,
but that's what it has come down to. Zeitgeist promotes things such as the
Horus/Jesus theory – which has been debunked numerous times by mainstream
secular scholars. And that's only one among many other lies it propogates. When
it's so glaring that info is false – one is forced to look into their own
knowledge gathering
Doing your own research includes getting info from others with common
interests. The term "debunking" is a shit term. There are only better theories,
and better evidence. Many mainstream researchers are shit too, I talk alot
about medicine, and so much of what they do is provably crap based on their own
studies of what they do. And here as we've learned in the manosphere, studies
about men and women interactions are often gamed, to show that men are horrible
and women are saints. Someone producing a paper showing the wrong results will
almost never get published. Just like if you control the media, its easy to
have the appearance of authority, when in reality, money bought a fake
authority. SO do you have anything good to recommend?
But now its so clear how much control the elitists have, and how much they
are exerting now, I've had several posts insta vaporized from various places.
One was regarding threats to Trump and the other about a high level murder.
What they try to contol the most is what is most dangerous to them. They really
don't want Trump to win, because then they have to try to control him with
bullets, and that never looks good when you murder the highest guys. Because
then people notice. Putin is their nightmare, the elites set him up and pretty
soon some elites were floating in the river, and some were locked up. He let
others stay in their places, but it was clear a new sheriff was in town. I'm
enjoying watching them sweat.
Hmm but then, if "we" send people floating in the river are we actually
better or any different than the elite? Sounds like a perfectly mirror-reversed
behavior.
Well at the very least I would say the second was revenge while the first
was murder, however revolutions often produce the same tyrants they seek to
depose. And Tyrants create the same revolutions that kill them. They have a
goal to cull the worlds populations through social engineering(you might notice
for example all the porn now with incest one pornhub now) through toxins(drugs,
contaminated food and water), and financially. Sounds like a perfect program to
create a superman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
Reminds me of some comment on Youtube by someone who met one of those
'reptilians' and asked why they are causing suffering and that thing replied
'to make humanity stronger'. Heh.
Yeah, I suppose it is that way. There will always be the oppressed and
underprivileged and there will always be those who enjoy being in the current
mainstream. The truly oppressed will never be equal with those in power, that's
a fever dream.
I looked up the reptillian stuff. It works perfectly if you relace reptilian
with"jewish banker" and half reptillian as "collaborator". Sometimes they have
to act crazy to even be allowed to spread ideas without getting murdered like
say kubrick after eyes wide shut.
Mad that reckless gambling by financial institutions caused a massive
economic crash and global recession, millions of people losing their jobs and
their homes, job market and middle class still hasn't recovered from it. How do
you not know any of that??? It's been in the news for 8 years now.
Dont be and idiot everyone knows that.b Being mad isnt a goal. If they had
said we want to break up all of the biggest banks that would have been a goal.
Sitting there because you are mad inspires nothing and no one. And not
surprisingly they changed nothing.
If being mad wasn't a goal, Fox 'news' and Breitbart wouldn't exist.
You're sadly uninformed about the occupy wall street movement. But you
already made up your mind about it, it seems, dismissing people braver and more
involved than you who actually went out to risk their safety and freedom
protesting the criminal recklessness of financial institutions and their
failure to take responsibility for their actions. What was the goal? to show
American politicians and the financial industry that American people are fed up
with their behavior so much they've shaken off their apathy that infects the
brains of so many.
THAT is what the people in power fear – that the sleeping sheep would
wake up and get informed and start fighting back.
The movement inspired a lot and it's a pity you can't see it ( or simply
refuse to ).
You're the one who is sitting there. These people actually got off their
asses to go out and try to make a difference. Doubt you can say the
same.
It stank to me as well because the stock exchange isn't some evil globalist
tool. Everybody can buy shares and, you know, they don't always go up making you
filthy rich, quite the contrary. They are a useful financing tool for companies
though.
Who was proposing abolishing the stock exchange in it's entirety? Total
straw man you made up. OWS was about the criminal executives who gambled and
crashed the global economy, wanting accountability and new laws to prevent a
similar disaster from occuring. I'd think anyone with common sense could agree
on that.
As it stands, they avoid any criminal liability by paying fines as part of a
settlement and admitting no guilt. And the fines are a small fraction of their
profits so there is no incentive to follow the laws. It's seen as the cost of
doing (shady) business.
They came to the government hat in hand after they screwed up, and got a fat
bailout at the taxpayers expense. This is why I can't stand conservatives.
They're all for socialism for the rich, but rugged individualism for the poor
and middle class. It should be the reverse. Goldman and the others should have
been turned away and homeowners bailed out instead.
Can you imagine going to a casino, recklessly gambling, losing it all, then
begging/demanding the government give you more money?
that was just a bunch of ignorant conservative rednecks who didn't like paying
taxes. Astroturf. That joke of a movement isn't even worth mentioning. But it's funny
when they eat their own, like with Eric Cantor. Now he has to take a job as million
dollar a year lobbyist subverting our government, how sad.
Great article, and probably true. Part of self-development is seeing through this
shit.
The thing is, if we as Men focus on our own self-development, and on expressing our
bigger and better selves by dominating our environments, none of this stuff matters and
will eventually change anyway.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Occupy and Tea Party had one thing in common. How quickly they suckered the masses into
thinking they were for the people. Movements that large don't suddenly appear
overnight.
If somebody does something heinous, like nationalize 1/6th of the economy (health
care) you bet your bippy that great amounts of people will gather suddenly overnight.
Same for the nationwide pro-gun demonstrations that happened after the CN shooting.
Technology has made organizing and getting large groups together in a flash pretty
easy. Not everything is some nefarious conspiracy.
Now if the Tea Party had shown up with organized busses, vendors and pre-selected
college faculty in tow, like OWS, then you'd have something.
Some do and they start out as a emotive grassroots network, but get quickly
comprimised. I had relatives active in the Tea Party and after awhile it gets hijacked
and ran into the ground.
Did you read about the Oregon uprising against the feds and how they were acquitted?
The evidence revealed half the people involved were paid FBI informants. Thats what
happens over time to any organization deemed a threat.
You'll not get many thumbs up here, given half the idiots are unrecovered Tea Party
Free Trade dupes, that like cheap labor being imported, so long as their jobs are not
threatened.
There has always been elites who have tried to control the masses through divide and
conquer. Even if this crop is eliminated, others will arise. The only way we can come
together is if we have a common guiding set of principals to go by. Throughout history,
violent revolutions that have resulted in a loss of freedom, (French Revolution, Bolshevik,
Nazi, Cuban .etc.) all had an anti-christian element, or a bastardization of
Christianity.
In retrospect, as a people, we need to be continually reminded of the principals that
enable freedom to exist. Integrity, work, charity, self determination, etc. are taught in
church. Go to church, work to strengthen those virtues, and expect virtue from your
neighbor. If we as a whole, reject the crap spewed out main stream media and leftists, we
will have a stronger society.
You are exactly correct, and this is *precisely* why the Marxists, back to Marx,
targeted things like the church, family and traditional social constructs for
destruction. He understood what you're saying perfectly.
The Left has been successful appealing to Angry Destructive People but since the
seventies they have run out of people with legitimate grievances so all they have are the
angry anti-social dregs of society, the lazy Delta Males, Ugly Feminists, Perverts and
assorted scum.
To directly address the argument of the article, I'll offer this.
Divide and Conquer is a known strategy and yes, politicians use it (as do generals on a
battlefield). It's legitimate to note the tactic and try to avoid falling for it. That
being said, if we go so paranoid that we don't ever, ever take positions based on principle
or form opposition groups, we'll have given these very same powers the victory that they're
looking for with divide and conquer.
The moment you form a group to "counter the controlling elite" I guarantee you that it
will be attacked and discredited because "divide and conquer!". Even if it succeeds (let's
be optimistic) it will simply install itself as the new elite. This is human nature. It may
not happen immediately, it may take a few generations (think the early united States, where
Washington refused to be a "king" and instead deferred to the new Constitutional Republic)
to happen, but it will happen eventually (think the same nation in the 1930's).
Last, not every mass movement is 'financed by nefarious sources'. Sometimes, people just
get pissed off. That said, lots of mass movements are financed by unsavory types. The
problem becomes that we tend to default accept "all" instead of taking each group
individually for what they are.
They kind of ebb and flow. I really haven't kept up much the last couple of
years. My focus since 2010 or so has been pro-2nd Amendment advocacy, to be
honest.
They made significant gains at the local and state level. The RINOs are clinging
to the national GOP, but as their candidates just got punked by Trump they are on
borrowed time.
I heard that after the death of Muhammad Ali, the Orlando shootings happened to prevent
people's unity. I strongly suspected, after his death, an attack would happen in the US by
a Muslim to prevent American Muslim and nonMuslim cooperation and understanding. Media
won't say, but the shooter was gay.
We don't need mulsim/ non-muslim co-operation in America. America was designed and
built by and for whites, for Our Posterity. Freedom of religion clearly meant the sects
of Christianity and secular deists. There is no place in America for Islam or
muslims.
How about natives? Or perhaps we need to reintroduce pox in certain areas? And
let us not forget 3/5ths. Designed and built by and for whites, on the red mans
land, upon the black man's back.
Your emotive points are not based on fact, but feel free to source your
agruement. But slogans like "pox on the red mans land, upon the black man's
back" are simply leftist slogans. The "pox" Thing was debunked years ago. Red
man lands? Which tribe and under what conditions? One Million Indians inhabited
North America until the White man showed up. Now there are more reds that have
ever lived in the old days. Black mans back did very little. Most of America
was built on white Europeans backs no blacks in the wilderness in the old days
and most of the swamp draining, coal mining, tree cutting, etc.. was done by us
poor white folk.
Believe your myths if it makes you feel better, but your bullshit exists to
bridge your inferiority complex and has little to do with the
truth.
The pox did wipe out a good chunk of natives, but let us say that was not
the case, intentionally or not. Tribes and conditions- does this imply that,
were there a formal written declaration, it would have been unethical and they
would not have attempted to gain control? More reds than before argument cannot
hold water- populations tend to increase in the long run. Blacks did nothing
for the same reason economic communism does not- lack of incentives. Why work
for your slavemaster if you're not getting much out of it?
You assume inferiority complex is the cause of these arguments. I have
friends of all races but also recognize that all races have their bloody hands.
I am simply pointing out the case of the origins of American here, as this is
what the conversation became. I find it ironic, as far as the title if this
article goes. Also ironic is how I mentioned the possibility of Muslim and
American peace and then get opposed while the same people praise the
traditionalism of muslim women. Everyone claims they're objective and
truthful.
Lets talk about Natives, who, like Stone Age tribes the world over, were in
endless inter-tribal warfare with each other. The colonialists that arrived in
America often sided with peaceful tribes and co-operated, as they did in New
Zealand with the weaker (more peaceful) Maori Iwi, who begged the colonialists
to buy land as a buffer between waring tribes. The less technologically
developed in terms of producing food and storing it, the more scarcity and the
more war. That is just a smple reality, and Stone Age primitives are always at
war. Since they are always at war, its an open invite to conquer. Native
Indians now have technology and means of living 3000 years in advance of what
they had 400 years ago. You are welcome.
The issue of smallpox is just mythology. Most colonialists either had smallpox
or were semi-resistent. Indians were not, and it hit them harder. Are you going
to also bring up the Hollywood History theory that whites raped native woemn
when the records show that the more violent tribes kidnapped other tribes women
and sold them to colonialists for goods – the women were them married off
and lived at higher living standards that they otherwise would have, so some
good came out of that bad situation.
As for 3/5th, blacks were classed as 3/5ths yet they were dumped onto America
by Jewish Dutch slave merchants, having been bought from African tribesmen.
Less than 5% of whites owned slaves, yet freed slaves – who were paid btw
(so they were really indentured labor) – bought slaves at higher rates
than any other people – except jews, of which 70% owned slaves (as they
created the hatred of blacks with their Curse of Ham bullshit). Blacks are not
3/5ths human. They are worthless and have no place in any advanced country.
Personally I would wipe them out and have Africa as a big Safari Park for
Asians and Europeans.
Blacks labour didn't build America. There were more whites in indentured labor
than blacks. Blacks were freed from slavery by the technological inventions (o
white men) which made their labor surplus to requirements. Again, like Native
Americans, blacks were given a leg up from Stone Age savages, of at least 3000
years of know-how and technological progress. There is every reason to believe
they are incapable of even making metal of their own volition. So again, you
are welcome, you are a beneficiary of my ancestors superior creativity.
BTW, British working class had higher productivty that black slaves, were paid
less, worked longer hours, died 5 years younger on average, had to endure
Northern Winters often with no shoes and simple clothing, while slaves worked
as seasonal farm workers. You have no idea how hard whites worked to build this
civilisation you benefit from, and you probably don't care so long as it
magically appears to you via your welfare cheque.
-"Open invite to conquer" By that reasoning, I guess Muslims would be
justified entry and establish traditionalism over feminism in the US.
Technology=/=happiness.
-I was referring only to the smallpox, which killed the majority of the
native population.
-Distribution is irrelevant. Mass cheap labor.
-"Blacks were freed from slavery by the technological inventions (o white
men) which made their labor surplus to requirements" Stabbing a guy 9″
deep and pulling out 6 doesn't mean you did him a favor. Progress, which was
built on previous civilizations, which is the case for all great nations. But
as for your example-I suppose you'd have your mother raped and killed in
exchange for technology. I hear kids these days kill for PS4's sometimes.
-"Had higher productivity" and had freedom of choice. Willing
labor>unwilling labor.
Hunter Gatherer peoples do not have concepts such as nations. They have not
created property rights, they merely have inter-tribal war, endless revenge
killings. In such a society, yes, it is an open invite to walk in and claim
unclaimed land. Muslims coming here is exactly the opposite, they are trying to
extort property rights we created. If you haven't even grasped the basics of
anthropology and patriarchy vs matriarchy (stone age primitivism) then perhaps
you are on the wrong website.
As for smallpox, I was aware that you were talking about smallpox. Smallpox
wasn't spread deliberatly, it was just the nature of the airborne virus.
You comment on native indian women is disingenuous. Colonialists could have
bought the women or not, if not, they'd be raped and killed by other tribes
(who wholesale slanghtered women and children); why would they not buy them
under such circumstances?
Willing labor vs unwilling labor? Really did British working class have a
choice? They didn't own land, and couldn't open property. They were renting as
serfs for hundreds of years, and serfdom was really just renamed. They were
still a class of tennents, so were they willing workers? They could have
refused to work, and be beaten by their master and put into workhouses, where
people lasted on average 2 months before dying of injuries. Slaves had an easy
life compared to white Irish and British workng class, extremely easy, and in a
moderate climate. No sensible person could suggest otherwise.
You know oppression isn't just a thing niggers have suffered, just because
those worthless pieces of shit constantly whine about slavery – slavery
their own ancestors sold them into. They wouldn't last 5 minutes in a Northern
English or Welsh coal mine from the age of 6, as was standard practice.
Say what you like, the fact is, blacks sold blacks into slavery, to Dutch Jews.
Rich land owners used them to undercut white labor. It isn't the responsibility
of the 95% of whites that didn't own slaves, and who worked under worse
conditions. Whites freed slaves through technology, so your analogy is bullshit
and you know it. You do realise that many niggers went back to African –
Libberia, and threw their passports in the sea in protest at America. 2 weeks
later they were all in the water looking for their passports to return to the
Land of the Free Stuff. They are just worthless parasites like kikes, so why
defend them? Can we even really consider them human when their history is
basically no better or more advanced than other lower primates? They are just
niggers.
Claim unclaimed land land is one thing, unused land is another. I suppose
you submit a written consent form before a bang as well. The US has invaded
many muslim lands and the government created isis by proxy, which has led to
the refugee crisis in the first place. So the US owes something to refugees
(although owing something back in such a form will be a failure of epic
proportions, I think.)
-And you think that if they knew, anything would have been different?
Smallpox was considered a triumph for them.
-Not all. If there were a way to tell which ones would have been raped and
killed, and which not, I could understand. They just did the same thing. My
point still stands; control for benefit. They did not have the natives
interests at heart- it was a matter of what method would be best to subjugate
and control.
Slaves in the US vs other nonslaves. If working class whites had it worse
off, they could have asked to be slaves too. But that wasn't the case.
Blacks sold blacks because there are sellouts of all races so they can be on
the winning team. Its easy to say the US is better if they take everything if
value and leave the other country worse off .
You're pretty ignorant of actual history aren't you?
I'll bet you can't actually explain to me why blacks were counted as 3/5 of
a person in the Constitution, can you? I mean the real reason, not the Malcom X
bullshit.
Blacks barely built anything, most of them worked on plantations in the
South. I collect antique photos, your sneering little "reality" bears no
resemblance to what was actually going on, at the time.
As to the "red man's land", well, he should have made a real claim to it
instead of doing that stupid hippy "no man can own the land" crap. And, he lost
the war. It was a war, he lost, that's what happens when you lose a war. Get,
the fuck, over it.
Politics and elections. Blacks were property, southerners needed voting
power, etc. is what I was taught in school.
It was to help out blacks. In order to stymie the South and keep them from
enshrining slavery as a permanent institution through Congress, the Founding
Fathers thought ahead and counted each black slave as 3/5 instead of a full
person to keep Southern state representation manageable until slavery could be
abolished.
Worked on plantations, yes. And a lot harder than whites, because they
were slaves. Therefore, their contribution per person in labor was
greater.
Oh please. Picking cotton is hard work, no doubt, but it's no harder than
being a free man carting around marble and laying down foundations for great
buildings, or steel work or any other kind of highly labor intensive job.
-Typical justification to do what you want. Sounds exactly like a Jewish
method.
LOL! Yeah man, because only Jews say "Woe to the defeated" in regard to war.
Well, them and every other ethnicity on the planet. But yeah dude,
(((jews!)))
– Which wouldn't ever be enough. Sticking a knife in 9 inches and then
taking it out 6 via 3/5ths isn't doing him a favor.
-A free man is willing labor. Also, they get more say in their hours. Job
flexibility.
-Didn't say something was yours? I'll take it. Oh you're living in it? I'll
take it anyway That's basically it in a nutshell, in this regard and with the
Jews in regards to Israel-Palestine.
Actually, it was enough. Which is why they passed a law eliminating any more
slave states being admitted to the union, which then resulted in Kansas being a
bunch of dicks, which then brought on the civil war (in summary).
A free man is willing labor. Also, they get more say in their hours. Job
flexibility.
You are thinking that "then" is like "now". It wasn't. Good luck trying that
attitude in 1830.
Didn't say something was yours? I'll take it. Oh you're living in it? I'll
take it anyway That's basically it in a nutshell, in this regard and with the
Jews in regards to Israel-Palestine.
And the Celts who first sacked Rome. And the Germans in France. And the
English across their empire. And Rome across its empire. And China in regards
to Mongolia.
-Talking about initial justification. If the blacks weren't that good, never
should have brought em. Slavery was the 9 inch.
-Not as much flexibility, sure. But relative to slaves, I meant.
– If Empire A was peaceful, but Empire B attacked and lost, then A has
the right to conquer B in self defense and simultaneously grow. This is just
one example of an ethical conquest, but it has happened. America was anything
but.
Shoulda Woulda Coulda has nothing to do with the reality as they then faced
it. Slaves were already there, long predating the births of the Founding
Fathers. Telling me what they "shoulda woulda coulda" is irrelevant, they had
reality, and they dealt with it in a way that ultimately helped end
slavery.
Flexibility. Heh. Yeah, like, none.
The point on empires is that they did the same thing and used the same
justification, just like every other ethnicity on the planet. You trying to
make this into "Jeeeewwwwws!" is silly. There are instances where you can call
out the wrong perpetrated by some Jews, but this is not one of them. You may
wish to cede this point to remain honest and consistent.
Founding fathers supported slavery. Ending slavery wasn't enough. Equality
is.
So slaves and free men have equal freedom of labor?
Not all empires have done this. Most have, yes. But essentially my point is
that you insist that conquering was a good thing and the natives and blacks
should be grateful for getting killed, raped, and enslaved in exchange for a
television. Same in the middle east. They don't want democracy. Everyone else
did it so I should do it too? Well in that case, so does the hate, hence blm
and why the world hates america.
Oh bullshit. Now you're back to square one. Some supported it, many were
against it. This is precisely why they did the 3/5 thing, which I've patiently
explained to you.
Most have, yes
Correct Ergo your sneering "you sound like a Jeeeewwww!" is rendered
meaningless.
So are you. Admit it- it wasn't justified, and 3/5ths wasn'tt near enough.
Get rid of the white hero complex. Its the reason America is so hated around
the world.
No, you claim victimhood from blacks and all the other people you take from
and still claim to be the savior. Hatred outside and within the US takes a
special kind of people. It is just retribution. And the Islamic empire, at
least the Rashidun caliphate, did not.
According to the 1850 census blacks were 12.5% of the population.
Most of the rest of the 35,000,000 of the population at the time were white.
Those 3.5 million slaves didn't build everything.
As for the natives, they had no boundarys no government, no property rights
,they were cavemen who were conquered and white folk started a country with
government, property rights and civilization.
But those 12.5% were slaves, so they were doing more labor per person. Mass
cheap labor. I agree that the natives needed codified law, but it would be
ridiculous to think that was the reason that was justification to conquer. It
was just Manifest Destiny, something that is happening today via western
imperialism.
Yes I agree the slaves would have worked more man hours but all those other
people were not just sitting around.
The natives just were not prepared.it was was simply the way of the world at
the time. It just is what it is.
I expect the unwillingness to work was a big factor as well; lack of
incentives. My main issue is that some people today are still trying to justify
that what they did. Just because many other nations of the past did so, does
not a right make. This goes the other way too of course- there have been times
where whites were massacred and enslaved and driven out, which is also
wrong.
Right, but what do you consider white. I mentioned the other day that a girl
who was a member of the daughters of the American revolution, had membership to
the union club etc called me a "gateway minority" because 5 generations ago my
forebearers came her eyes from Italy
I don't know, I guess those damn ole wops are white too
I get a really really dark tan every year I guess I'm white too.
What in the hell is a gateway minority anyway? .now I've forgotten the point I
was trying to make anyway.
Usually by about the middle of May I start looking funny when I take my hat
off because my face,neck,arms and legs are dark brown and my head is BRIGHT
white.
As usual, you are full of shit.
America was built BY Anglos, FOR Anglos. This country was never meant to be
"whiteopia." The alt-right looks at the 1950s as the glory days of America. The
founding fathers would have been disgusted at all of the "lesser European" groups
that were in the country at that time, such as the Irish. The blacks have more of a
right to be here than many European immigrant groups.
Historically you have a point. But the circumstances are pushing the
European derived ethnicities of that country (U.S.) towards the formation of
multiple "white" identities (Southern, Midwestern, etc) which are the
combination of all types of Europeans. For European observers like me it seems
a ridiculous development if it were in Europe, but once again It's happening in
America and I am not American. It just is (the phenomenon I just described).
Hence your argument is out of date.
Well, there already were significant differences between the regions of the
United States, even when the European population was majority Anglo. Compare
the aristocratic, agrarian South to the liberal urban North.
Total bullshit made up from your pathetic negro brainpower. The Irish,
Scttish, Germans and French were invited as immigrants from the start of
America as a Constitutional Republic – INVITED TO SETTLE. You stupid
cunt, you don't even realise that the Founding Fathers got many of their ideas
from the French and the French Academy of Sciences, as well as German
economists. It was created by white Freemasons, some of whom were Scottish not
Anglo YOU STUPID CUNT. You think slave owning Alexander Hamilton was an anglo,
dumbshit? Blacks have no right to be in America, they were never part of the
Founding Fathers vision. You think they were fucking retarded and wanted the
dregs of the bell curve as citizens? OUR POSTERITY means European.
The Irish were INVITED? The fuck are you smoking? The Irish were viewed as
little, if any better than the Negroes. If you had told Washington or Jefferson
that they were the same race as an Irishman, they would have laughed in your
fucking face. Franklin viewed the Germans in America as a problematic presence
in the United States. OUR POSTERITY meant the descendants of the (largely)
Anglo-Germanic Protestants who founded this country, not all European peoples.
Get your head out of Unkie Adolf's ass and learn some history, provided you
have more than a single-digit IQ, something which I think you
lack.
You are making shit up as you go. What an absurd way to argue. The Irish
were invited to settle, its an historical fact. Jefferson was even a proponent
of the Irish independence. There were Catholic Founding Fathers, even at a time
when in Britain they were persecuted. Oh now America is Anglo-Germanic, not
Anglo like you previously stated? What about the Scots such as Alexander
Hamilton, or Benjamin Frankin being a product of French schooling, and the
American Revolutionary War was funded by Russians, French aristocrats such as
Marquez de Lafayette. What about the Dutch colonies, which New York is from. Go
and make up some shitty historical fantasy with someone who doesn't know
history. America was European – white, from the start.
The United States of America was founded by Anglo-Germanic Protestants,
mostly Englishmen. The Dutch, French and Spanish had colonies in North America,
but they did not create the country that would become the United States of
America. That was almost entirely the English, with a few Scots thrown in
there. First point refuted.
"Irish immigrants of this period participated in significant numbers in the
American Revolution, leading one British major general to testify at the House
of Commons that "half the rebel Continental Army were from Ireland."[14] Irish
Americans signed the foundational documents of the United States -- the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- and, beginning with Andrew
Jackson, served as President." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans
This first wave of Irish immigrants were the SCOTS-Irish, Scotsmen and
Englishmen who had settled (and in many ways colonized) Ireland. Second point
refuted.
I had an Irish forefather who fought as a private in the Revolution In the
PA Militia and another Irish forefather who came to America to fight the
British in the War of 1812. Johnny Bulls were still looked down upon in the
1950s by Irish and vice versa. LOL!
So now you have been proven incorrect, lets talk about why you elivate the
worthless nigger over fellow Europeans, in light of the evidence that Irish,
Russians, Italians (there was an Italian involved with the Founding documents
– look up Founding Fathers by Country of Origin), Prussians, Dutch,
Scottish and especially French were intimately involved in the creation of
America.
Correct. These are the people still pissed that Joe DiMaggio go to to play.
Ethnics in the major leagues?
I've mentioned it before, but there is a great quote from the movie The Good
Shepherd. Matt Damon plays an OSS office, Yale, skull and bones, American
pedigree, founding member o the CIA. He talks to Pesci who plays the mob boss
that the CIA tried to get to kill Castro.
Pesci: let me as you something. Us Italians, we got our families and the
church. The Jews have their traditions. The micks have their homeland. Even the
niggers have something, they have their music. What do you have
Damon: we have the United States of America the rest of you are just
tourists
If you don't date your family back to the mayflower than you are no
different than the Muslim invaders. Alt right would do well to remember than in
some people's eyebrows most of them are just light skinned niggers
The alt-right, like their SJW counterparts, don't care about facts. You
could lay it all out for them in the simplest terms imaginable and they'd still
be living in their fantasylands.
While I'm sure there's some truth to the notion of elites using divide and conquer, I
nonetheless get tired of fence-sitting rhetoric that implies that coming together with
leftists is the only way to defeat the elites.
Rank-and-file leftists want to BE elite, that's the main thing (other than provably
broken ideology) that differentiates them from me. I don't want power, I simply want people
to tell the truth and pull their weight. If you can't do that, I'd just as soon kill you as
look at you, because you are a cancer on this planet. I'm certainly not going to join up
with you to defeat some separate but equally evil group, lol. I prefer to fight and destroy
both groups.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately but I don't have the answer. I do
know that trying to find common ground with people who are part of the problem is
both the wrong answer and a waste of time.
It started in July 2012 at the Anaheim Riots. The whole thing was started by the white
anarchist anti authoritarian who s tired of taking shit from the cops.
I'm afraid your solution on a large scale basis is too ambitious. Most don't want to get
involved in any unpleasantness, much easier to go along to get along. Most don't want to
observe what's going on around them, it's much more important to walk around with one's
face in their iPhone or have it up to their ear. Most don't want to read, it's easier to
watch a video and have it summarized and spoon fed them. There is no right and wrong, it's
all relative.
Until the unthinkable happens to them or close friend or family most don't care,and if
said unthinkable DOES happen, it's Plan B time. Demand government find a solution to the
problem, any solution that makes them feel like something was done. And sure, they'll give
up privacy, their own ability to protect themselves, or agree to pay a little more as long
as a "feel good" measure is taken.
I was involved very early on in the Occupy movement, and I must say there were a lot of
good people in it who simply wanted to limit global finance capitalism from destroying the
American economy. Most of these people were older whites who were more in line with the
leftists we picture from the mid to late twentieth century. Unfortunately, the Occupy
movement already had the SJW seeds sown into its fabric from the very beginning. During the
meetings and marches I attended, it was made VERY CLEAR to me that if you are a white male,
it is your job to step aside and let the women and non-whites run the show and set the
agenda. And indeed that was the case. I stuck around for a little bit, listening to what
these angry black/brown women, socially retarded white women, and the token while male
faggot had to say. It started off as more anti-bank/capitalism, but the writing was on the
wall and I could see exactly how this movement was going to turn into the anti-white male
patriarchy, pro feminism, pro faggot, pro degeneracy movement it has transformed into
today.
"It started off as more anti-bank/capitalism, but the writing was on the
wall and I could see exactly how this movement was going to turn into
the anti-white male patriarchy, pro feminism, pro faggot, pro degeneracy
movement it has transformed into today."
Most movements and social-justice groups start out benevolent, like many religions.
Soon, those whom I call the "Crazy Elements" infiltrate that group/movement and alter
its definition. After not long, the "crazy" becomes the movement, and attracts more
bat-shit insane types faster than water seeking its own level. Once the lame-stream
media get bored, the ranks thin out, and everyone goes home, until the next group of
aggrieved shitheads gets loud (i.e. BLM, etc.). This shit is so easy to see from miles
away, though.
We've never had a natural form of capitalism which accords with the natural strengths of
people and nations. Instead, the natural instincts of what capitalism in its true sense was
meant to signify has always been undermined by the State and creeping socialism along each
step of the way. Civics, culture and customs, including religion were meant to be the
natural bulwarks against unfettered capitalism, not the State with all its forms of social
ideologies.
When will people ever get it- socialism is the natural blood and substance of modern
States in all its forms- the State's future (any western advanced State) is tied up
intrinsically with the "guardian" role of "social nanny" who'll protect her downtrodden
children from the nasty boggy man (who pays all her bills, including her socialist
programs) of libertine capitalism. The truth is that the entire system is rigged this way
and if we had a more conservative or traditional set of values (like religion etc) we
wouldn't need the socialist State to "protect us" from the free market, ispo facto, end of
the State control of peoples lives. Imagine, a world were people could survive in a state
of liberty and happiness without the need of the State? A Utopia perhaps??
The news about the Christian cartoonist Jack Chick's death, and the various reactions to
it, got me to thinking about how our elites view religion. It looks to me as if they think
about religion more rationally than they think about their childish utopianism regarding
globalization, race, immigration, feminism and sexual degeneracy.
Defenders of the elites' world view just laugh off religious obsessives who threaten
ordinary people with hell, especially straight white guys who ogle women, like the one in
Jack Chick's early tract, "This Was Your Life."
But they condemned Chick as a homophobe when he published tracts which threatened gays
with hell, even if they don't believe in it.
What accounts for the difference? Gays exist and hell doesn't, obviously. But also gays
have privileged status in our elites' project to destroy and remake traditional societies,
and they simply must remain immune from criticism, regardless of how much damage they cause
along the way, even from some religious nut who draws comic books which threaten them with
imaginary harm after death.
By contrast, notice that Chick also propagandized the fantasy that Israel's existence
somehow fulfills "bible prophecy," instead of showing the ordinary reality that people get
ideas from books. Not a peep of criticism from our elites about that delusion, curiously.
And not because our elites share Chick's belief about Israel, but because the Jews among
them have used this belief to play American Christians for suckers to make them support
pro-Israel policies in our government.
South Park Season 20 examines the concept of trolling. Here's my take:
trolling is defined as doing something to get a reaction from those defending the person
you insulted, which then brings a reaction from the other side. Sit back and watch the
fireworks.
We are being trolled when we fail to identify where the latest 'outrage' is coming from.
We allow ourselves to waste time and energy when the messenger dictates the terms.
By, for and about are the three key words with any message. Who is sending the message,
who is the message directed at, and what is the message itself. Basic critical analysis is
where the alt-right leaders (could) make the most impact.
It is a revolution against the middle class. With elite usiing weaponized poverty,
zombies and misfits against the middle clas.sRather than the top 1 percent, the left
attacks the privilege of the white assistant manager at Pizza Hut.
The concept of a free, middle class would be the historic exception. Throughout most
of history it was mostly made up of masters and lords as well as slaves and
serfs.
Read or view Milton Friedman on youtube. Every deep recession has been caused by a
drastic drop in money supply. The great depression was caused by the fed so that the
bankers could purchase the pieces for pennies on the dollar after. For those of you who
dont believe in conspiracy theories there has been so much time since 911 and all the
videos of all the people have been looked at and analyzed. Amazing stuff. Even better just
look at a few videos of speeches that the owner who just bought the trade centers not long
before(99 year lease).
The Me generation is the worst of America. And now they are in politics. America will be
better off when the self-serving, self-absorbed flower children are long gone.
Think about this – the elites know that white America is developing an awareness.
They also know that whites will revolt and correct the issue eventually. As a psychological
diffuser, they put a person in like Trump that appears to be everything he is. This will
allow whites to relax their defenses while the elites move to limit and censor information
that will oppose their long term goals. They do this under a president like Trump so whites
will remain docile. After 8 years, they continue their main agenda now with limited, if any
real independent news agencies, etc. It allows them to buy time, diffuse white opposition,
then continue with their program. Did Trump really "ditch" his inside team?
Agree. The radicals of the 60's supported the URSS against the US, today they want to
fight Putin, what is more puzzling is that they oppose Christians because we want to live
our faith, but they willingly accept sharia law that forbids women to wear a dress, are
shunned and considered second class, honor killings are frequent, feminists say nothing,
atheists say nothing, LGBT lobby is quiet, why? Because their leader, Soros has not given
the cue. Group thinking!!!
The occupy movement was a bunch of spoiled middle class suburban brats who were in the
top 1% globally. If they thought they were protesting the economic downturn, they were
fifteen years late. The Clinton administration signed the death warrant for the economy. It
just took 10 years to show the effect.
The housing bubble in 2006 ( which influenced the economic crash in 2008) was caused by
affirmative action policy in the big banks. The Clinton administration pressured the banks
into "not descriminating " against the poor. AKA giving hundreds of billions of dollars in
loans to people who were too irresponsible to pay rent. Then that debt was sold and resold,
until 1 by 1 the floor fell out.
A great explanation is in the new movie " The Big Short."
It was that terrible series of events that scared americans into voting for Barrack
Obama.
Then we had eight years of feminist propaganda, and here we are.
"... It is quite clear from the charging document that Sater, not Cohen, was the one who was extending the invitation from Russian officials for Cohen to travel to Russia. What remains unknown is whether Felix Sater was doing this on his own initiative or was acting on instructions from his FBI handler to "bait" Cohen with this opportunity. ..."
"... A criminal complaint filed by the FBI in January 2015 shows that the FBI's Counter Intelligence Division directed a Confidential Source of the FBI, who matches the description of Sater, to use the Trump Organization as bait to go after Russian intelligence officers. ..."
"... CS-1 posed as the representative of a wealthy investor looking to work with Bank-1 to develop casinos in Russia. ..."
"... discussed an email to BURYAKOV regarding the potential development of casinos in Russia ..."
"... Worth noting that this operation was carried out while E. W. "Bill" Priestap was the FBI special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division in the New York Field Office. Ten months after the success of this case, Priestap was promoted to assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, DC. It was Priestap's Counterintelligence Division that subsequently played a key role in going after the Trump campaign for allegedly working with the Russians in 2016. ..."
"... Yet, Priestap surely knew that the previous contacts between Trump's organization and the Russians had been brokered at the behest of the FBI. ..."
"... Felix Sater was not just some run of the mill snitch. He was a very important informant and asset for both the FBI and the CIA. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. When Loretta Lynch was nominated for US Attorney General, she was pressed by Senator Orin Hatch to divulge information on Sater to satisfy all of the people who had been defrauded in the failed Fort Lauderdale Trump Towers venture. Here's Loretta Lynch's response: ..."
"... 'The defendant in question, Felix Sater , provided valuable and sensitive information to the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially sealed.' ..."
"... Was Felix Sater operating as an FBI informant when matters related to Russia were discussed with members of Donald Trump's business enterprise? ..."
"... During the time that the FBI directed Felix Sater to use the Trump business enterprise as bait to entrap foreign spies and mobsters, was Trump witting of this ploy? ..."
"... I reiterate a point I made in my previous post. Felix Sater worked with Trump starting in 2003. At no point prior to Trump's June 16, 2015 announcement that he was running for President did the FBI pursue any criminal charges against Donald Trump or any member of his business organization. There are only two possibilities to explain that. Number one -- Donald Trump did not commit any overt acts that would have met the standard for a criminal indictment. Number two -- Donald Trump also was an informer for the FBI and was granted immunity and all records sealed. I believe the later is highly unlikely. Given the level of animus directed at Trump by many senior FBI officials, I find it improbable that such a secret could be kept. ..."
"... We really need to know what the FBI knew about Trump's Russia contacts that were facilitated by their informant, Felix Sater, and when they knew it. I do not think that the FBI will be eager to provide such answers. ..."
Sater is not named in the charging statement filed by the Special Prosecutor but Felix Sater
matches the description of "Individual 2." The charging statement clearly shows that Sater
played a key role in trying to promote contacts with the Russians, including Vladimir
Putin:
COHEN and Individual 2 discussed efforts to obtain Russian governmental approval for the
Moscow Project. (page 5)
COHEN and Individual 2 discussed on multiple occasions traveling to Russia to pursue the
Moscow Project. (page 5)
On or about May 4, 2016, Individual 2 wrote to COHEN,"I had a chat with Moscow. ASSUMING the
trip does happen the question is before or after the convention . . . Obviously the pre-meeting
trip (you only) can happen anytime you want but the 2 big guys where [sic] the question. I said
I would confirm and revert." (page 6)
On or about May 5, 2016, Individual 2 followed up with COHEN and wrote, "[Russian Official
1] would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia's Davos
it's June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either [the
President of Russia] or [the Prime Minister of Russia], as they are not sure if 1 or both will
be there. . . . He said anything you want to discuss including dates and subjects are on the
table to discuss."
On or about May 6, 2016, Individual 2 asked COHEN to confirm those dates would work for him
to travel. COHEN wrote back, "Works for me."
From on or about June 9 to June 14, 2016, Individual 2 sent numerous messages to COHEN about
the travel, including forms for COHEN to complete. However, on or about June 14, 2016, COHEN
met Individual 2 in the lobby of the Company's headquarters to inform Individual 2 he would not
be traveling at that time.
The day after COHEN's call with Assistant 1, Individual 2 contacted him, asking for a call.
Individual 2 wrote to COHEN, "It's about [the President of Russia] they called today."
It is quite clear from the charging document that Sater, not Cohen, was the one who was
extending the invitation from Russian officials for Cohen to travel to Russia. What remains
unknown is whether Felix Sater was doing this on his own initiative or was acting on
instructions from his FBI handler to "bait" Cohen with this opportunity.
A criminal complaint filed by the FBI in January 2015 shows that the FBI's Counter
Intelligence Division directed a Confidential Source of the FBI, who matches the description of
Sater, to use the Trump Organization as bait to go after Russian intelligence officers. Felix Sater appears to have played a critical role in taking down three Russian Non Official Cover
officers -- Evgeny Buryakov, Igor Sporyshev and Viktor Podobnyy -- who were charged by the FBI
in January 2015 for espionage. The alleged spying by these Russian NOCs commenced in 2012. We
do not know how the FBI discovered their activities, but the Russians became targets of an FBI
Counter Intelligence Division investigation. The complaint filed by FBI agent Gregory Monaghan,
shows how Confidential Source 1 (who fits the role played by Sater in the Trump organization)
used his relationship with Donald Trump's company as bait:
As set forth below, in the summer of 2014, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," the defendant,
met numerous times with a confidential source working for the FBI ("CS-1"). CS-1 posed as
the representative of a wealthy investor looking to work with Bank-1 to develop casinos in
Russia. . . BURYAKOV's statements and conduct reflected his strong desire to obtain
information about subjects far outside the scope of his work as a bank employee, and consistent
with his interests as a Russian intelligence agent. These meetings established BURYAKOV's
willingness to solicit and accept documents that CS-1 claimed he had obtained from a U.S.
government agency and which purportedlycontained information potentially useful to the Russian
Federation.
Monaghan's complaint, however, also reveals evidence that the Russians were quite skeptical
of Sater.
On or about July 22, 2014, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," and IGOR SPORYSHEV, the
defendants, had a conversation. BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV discussed an email to BURYAKOV
regarding the potential development of casinos in Russia . BURYAKOV stated that the
subject of the email was concerning "some sort of fucking nonsense" relating to casinos.
SPORYSHEV stated, "It's unclear . Casino, Russia, like, some sort of a set up. Trap of some
sort. I cannot understand what the point is." SPORYSHEV added, "You could meet [an associate of
CS-1] if you want - you will look and decide for yourself."
Notwithstanding their doubts, the Russians went ahead with a meeting with Sater in Atlantic
City, where Sater fulfilled his role on behalf of the FBI and set the hook in the Russians by
having them accept a U.S. Government document:
On or about August 8, 2014, CS-1 met with EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," the defendant,
and Male-2 in Atlantic City. The meeting lasted from around noon to 7:00 p.m. and included a
tour of casinos in Atlantic City. At the end of the day, CS-1 took BURYAKOV and Male-2 to
CS-l's office, where CS-1 gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed casino project in
Russia. At the end of the PowerPoint presentation, CS-1 noted that U.S. sanctions against
Russia could have an impact on their project. CS-1 also presented BURYAKOV with a United States
Government document ("Government Document-1"), labeled "Internal Treasury Use Only," which
contained a list of Russian individuals who had been sanctioned by the United States. CS-1
stated that CS-1 had a contact in the United States Government and could get more information
about sanctions if BURYAKOV was interested. BURYAKOV replied that he was interested in such
information. At the end of the meeting, BURYAKOV asked if he could keep Government Document-1,
which CS-1 then handed to BURYAKOV. BURYAKOV took the document with him and left the
meeting.
Worth noting that this operation was carried out while E. W. "Bill" Priestap was the FBI
special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division in the New York Field Office. Ten
months after the success of this case, Priestap was promoted to assistant director of the
Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, DC. It was Priestap's
Counterintelligence Division that subsequently played a key role in going after the Trump
campaign for allegedly working with the Russians in 2016.
Yet, Priestap surely knew that the
previous contacts between Trump's organization and the Russians had been brokered at the behest
of the FBI. The Monaghan affidavit does not paint a picture of "CS-1" acting unilaterally to
cultivate Russian intelligence officers.
So how do we know that Sater really was an FBI registered informant? The answer lies with
the failed Trump Tower in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Michael Sallah, writing for the Miami
Herald, was the first I could find that wrote about Sater and his FBI ties:
When Felix Sater and his partners launched a plan to put up a Trump tower in Fort Lauderdale
-- luring scores of investors -- he had already been charged in an explosive securities scam
with New York mob figures.
He had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing in the $40 million swindle.
But investors in the Trump tower never knew.
Sater had already been prosecuted in secret -- his arrest records shut down and every trace
of his role in the New York stock scandal stripped from public view. . . .
In a rare move, lawyers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intercede in a bitter debate
over the practice of concealing criminal cases from the public.
For now, Sater -- an FBI informant who owns a $4.8 million Fisher Island condo -- has become
the poster boy of the fight over whether judges have the power to bury all traces of someone's
criminal history. The Miami Herald, July 1, 2012 Sunday by Michael Sallah
Sallah provided the first comprehensive summary of Sater's shady past:
Born in the former Soviet Union and raised in New York, Sater began his rise in financial
circles as a young stock broker in the 1990s.
But his career took a wrong turn when he was arrested after getting into a bar fight where
he stabbed another broker in the face with the stem of a shattered margarita glass.
After a stint in prison, he was released on parole. But he got into trouble again, this time
in the stock fraud with members of the Genovese and Colombo crime families in 1998.
After pleading guilty to racketeering -- and the case sealed -- Sater went on to launch a
new career in real estate that would take him across the country, including South Florida.
After he joined the Bayrock Group in New York as an executive in 2003, the firm unveiled a
series of big developments, while licensing Trump's name.
They announced the stunning 24-story high-rise on Fort Lauderdale's beach that became one of
the biggest condo-hotel deals in Florida. The Miami Herald, July 1, 2012 Sunday by Michael Sallah
Felix Sater was not only an FBI informant, but he did some sensitive work for the CIA.
Sallah also broke this angle of the story about Sater:
Charged in a New York securities scandal, the 46-year-old businessman traveled to his native
Russia where he took on a unique role that went far beyond flipping on dangerous criminals.
He began spying for the CIA.
Tapping into the vast underground of the former Soviet Union, Sater was able to track down a
dozen Stinger missiles equipped with powerful tracking devices on the black market.
With the backing of U.S. agents, Sater agreed to buy the weapons -- keeping them out of the
hands of terrorists. In return, the CIA pledged to keep Sater from going to jail in the stock
scam he concocted with New York organized crime figures. . . .
What remains sealed is the work that Sater performed for the government in the past 14 years
that's now the topic of the court fight.
During one hearing, the judge said the case had reached top members "of a national law
enforcement security agency. I should say agencies -- plural." But he didn't elaborate.
The fight has been taken so seriously the judge is using the name John Doe instead of Sater
to hide his identity and to "protect the life of the person." The Miami Herald, September 8, 2012 Saturday by Michael Sallah
Felix Sater was not just some run of the mill snitch. He was a very important informant
and asset for both the FBI and the CIA. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch said. When Loretta Lynch was nominated for US Attorney General, she was
pressed by Senator Orin Hatch to divulge information on Sater to satisfy all of the people who
had been defrauded in the failed Fort Lauderdale Trump Towers venture. Here's Loretta Lynch's
response:
'The defendant in question, Felix Sater , provided valuable and sensitive information to
the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For
more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national
security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing
massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially
sealed.'
The FBI and Robert Mueller, who ran the FBI during the time that Sater operated as an FBI
informant, need to answer two key questions.
Was Felix Sater operating as an FBI informant when matters related to Russia were
discussed with members of Donald Trump's business enterprise?
During the time that the FBI directed Felix Sater to use the Trump business
enterprise as bait to entrap foreign spies and mobsters, was Trump witting of this
ploy?
I reiterate a point I made in my previous post. Felix Sater worked with Trump starting
in 2003. At no point prior to Trump's June 16, 2015 announcement that he was running for
President did the FBI pursue any criminal charges against Donald Trump or any member of his
business organization. There are only two possibilities to explain that. Number one -- Donald
Trump did not commit any overt acts that would have met the standard for a criminal indictment.
Number two -- Donald Trump also was an informer for the FBI and was granted immunity and all
records sealed. I believe the later is highly unlikely. Given the level of animus directed at
Trump by many senior FBI officials, I find it improbable that such a secret could be
kept.
We really need to know what the FBI knew about Trump's Russia contacts that were facilitated
by their informant, Felix Sater, and when they knew it. I do not think that the FBI will be
eager to provide such answers.
Summary: George Papadopoulos and his wife Simone Mangiante approached in Greece by a
known CIA/FBI operative, Charles Tawil. Mr. Tawil enlists George as a business
consultant, under the auspices of energy development interests, and hands him $10,000
in cash to take back to the U.S. Upon arrival at the Dulles airport Robert Mueller had
FBI agents waiting. Papadopoulos was stopped and searched; however, he never had the
cash because he smartly left it in Greece with his lawyer. Further:
[W]hen he was arrested at Dulles Airport on July 27 after coming off a flight from
Munich, prosecutors had no warrant for him and no indictment or criminal complaint. The
complaint would be filed the following morning and approved by Howell in
Washington.
On a tangential but related note, earlier today I saw an article at Zero Hedge that
was sourced from this Daily Caller article:
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Raids Home Of Whistleblower On Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says
https://dailycaller.com/201...
FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who
privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a
government watchdog, according to the whistleblower's attorney.
The Justice Department's inspector general was informed that the documents show that
federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian
company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News
Foundation alleges.
The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to
investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian
government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges.
Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with
Russia during the 2016 election.
"The bureau raided my client to seize what he legally gave Congress about the Clinton
Foundation and Uranium One," the whistleblower's lawyer, Michael Socarras, told TheDCNF,
noting that he considered the FBI's raid to be an "outrageous disregard" of whistleblower
protections.
----------------------------
In one of those "it's a small world" scenarios, one of the WalkAway YouTubers (former
SJW turned conservative) that I follow is the sister-in-law of this whistleblower! Here
is her video today about the raid
Witch hunt has its own dynamics and it is not necessary to get any facts to inflict great damage. Mueller, the key person in 8/11
investigation, is first and foremost a loyal neocon/neolib establishment stooge, not so much a lawyer. So the shadow of McCarthyism
fall on the Washitnton, DC.
Felix Sater was FBI asset from the very beginning.
Which such Byzantium politics in Washington and intrigues between almost identical parties worth of Madrid court it is not
accidental that FBI coves with upper hand in its struggle with Russian intelligence, Russians can't get such training in
viciousness, double dealing and false flag operations anywhere.
Notable quotes:
"... Disappearing for the midterms , Russiagate has re-emerged front and center. This week's barrage of developments in the cases of indicted Trump campaign figures Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopoulos have renewed long-running declarations of a presidency in peril . ..."
"... They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. ..."
"... Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already been resolved. The FBI began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information that led to his investigation is even more suspect. ..."
"... But its a key source for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime... ..."
"... Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case underscored that he worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is not Russia, but Israel . ..."
"... Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank." ..."
"... It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying stint in Ukraine. ..."
They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney
general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. Leading Democrats now see the probe as so paramount
that, despite having re-captured the House running on health-care issues, protecting the investigation has been deemed "our top priority"
(Representative Jerry Nadler) and "at the top of the agenda," (Representative Adam Schiff).
There is nothing objectionable about wanting to safeguard the Mueller investigation, nor about concerns that Trump's appointment
of an unqualified loyalist may jeopardize it. Mueller should complete his work, unimpeded. The question is one of priorities. After
all, the fixation on Mueller has not just raised anticipation of Trump's indictment, or even impeachment -- it has also
overshadowed many of
the actual policies that those seeking his political demise oppose him for. At this highly charged moment, it seems prudent to re-consider
whether the probe remains worthy of such attention and high hopes.
Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already
been resolved. The FBI
began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have
been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail
went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess
thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
The FBI interviewed Mifsud in Washington, DC, in February 2017, but Mueller has never alleged that Mifsud works with the Russian
government. Papadopoulos was ultimately sentenced to just 14 days behind bars for lying to the FBI about the timing and nature of
his contacts with Mifsud. He reported to a federal prison on Monday.
The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information
that led to his investigation is even more suspect. In its October 2016 application for a surveillance warrant on Page,
the FBI claimed it "believes that [Russia's]
efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [the Trump campaign]." But its a key source
for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by
former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime...
With the Russia investigation's catalysts coming up all but empty, there is little reason to expect that the remaining campaign
members who face prison time will reverse that trend. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn awaits sentencing in the coming
weeks on charges similar to Papadopoulos's. Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case
underscored that he
worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion
hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is
not Russia, but Israel .
Despite much hoopla to the contrary, Muller's new indictment of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen contains more inconvenient facts.
Cohen has pleaded guilty to a single count for lying to Congress about his role in a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
According to the plea document, Cohen gave Congress false written answers in order to "minimize links," between the Moscow project
and Trump, and to "give the false impression" that it was abandoned earlier than it actually was. Cohen
told the court that
he made these statements to "be loyal" to Trump and to be consistent with his "political messaging."
As I noted in The Nation
in October 2017 , the attempted real-estate venture in Russia "does raise a potential conflict of interest" for Trump, who
"pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trail." But nothing in Cohen's indictment incriminates Trump. Much of
what it details was previously known, and rather than revealing an illicit, transatlantic collusion scheme, it reads more like a
slapstick mafia buddy comedy. As
Buzzfeed News reported in May , Cohen communicated extensively with Trump organization colleague Felix Sater -- identified
in the Cohen plea as "Individual 2″ -- who had promised to secure Russian financing for the proposed Moscow project. But the
Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You
are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and
the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank."
Cohen then took matters into his own hands. As was previously known, he did not have an email address for a Russian contact, so
he wrote to a generic email address at the office of Dmitri Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin ("Russian Official 1,"
in the indictment). We now learn from Cohen that he managed to reach Peskov's assistant, who asked him "detailed questions and took
notes." But as The New York Times noted when the Trump
Moscow story first emerged: "The project never got [Russian] government permits or financing, and died weeks later." Sater tried
to save the project. He discussed arranging visits to Russia by both Cohen and Trump, but Cohen ultimately backed out after allegations
of Russian email hacking surfaced in June 2016.
According to Buzzfeed , Sater even proposed giving Putin a $50 million penthouse as an enticement, but "the plan never went anywhere
because the tower deal ultimately fizzled, and it is not clear whether Trump knew of "Sater's idea."
Cohen now claims that he spoke to Trump about the project more than the three times that he informed Congress about. For their
part, Trump's attorneys
do not seem concerned, saying that his recently submitted answers to Mueller align with Cohen's account. That Cohen perjured
himself to Congress raises problems for him, but it is hard to see how his lies about a project that failed and a proposed trip to
Russia that never happened can hurt Trump. That could only change if, as part of his new cooperation deal with Mueller, Cohen has
more to give.
As for Manafort, his case took a major turn when Mueller canceled their cooperation agreement and accused him of "crimes and lies."
The crucial questions are what does Mueller allege he lied to him about and what evidence is there to substantiate that charge. Mueller
is expected to provide details in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we can only speculate.
The revelation that
Manafort's lawyers shared information with Trump's attorneys even after the plea deal was struck in September has inevitably
fueled speculation that Manafort is lying to benefit Trump, or even hide evidence of a Russia conspiracy. That is certainly possible.
But theories that Manafort is then banking on a pardon from Trump do not square with the
prevailing
view that his
agreement with Mueller -- which included admitting to crimes that could be re-charged in state court -- was "
pardon proof ."
It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that
of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying
stint in Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal suggests that is the case,
reporting that Manafort's alleged lies "don't appear to be central to the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election
that Mr. Mueller is investigating." Earlier this month,
ABC News claimed , citing "multiple sources," that Mueller's investigators are "not getting what they want" from Manafort's cooperation
deal. When it comes to collusion, perhaps there is just nothing to get.
Watergate had tragic Shakespearean overtones , with Nixon as King Lear, but Russia-Gate -
perhaps the last gate America goes through on its giant slalom run to collapse - is but a
Chinese Fire Drill writ large.
The reason? In 1973, we were still a serious people. Today, the most lavishly credentialed
elite in history believe the most preposterous "stories," or, surely even worse, pretend to
believe them for political advantage.
Now, an epic battle of wills is setting up as Robert Mueller's investigation concludes its
business and its primary target, the Golden Golem of Greatness, girds his loins to push back.
Behind the flimsy scrim of Russia collusion accusations stands a bewildering maze of criminal
mischief by a matrix of federal agencies that lost control of their own dark operation to
meddle in the 2016 election.
The US intel community (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc), with the Department of Justice, all colluded
with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the intel agencies of the UK and Australia, to derail Mr.
Trump as a stooge of Russia and, when he shocked them by getting elected, mounted a desperate
campaign to cover their asses knowing he had become their boss.
The Obama White House was involved in all this, attempting to cloak itself in plausible
deniability, which may be unwinding now, too. How might all this play out from here?
One big mystery is how long will Mr. Trump wait to declassify any number of secret files,
memoranda, and communications that he's been sitting on for months .
My guess is that this stuff amounts to a potent weapon against his adversaries and he will
wait until Mr. Mueller releases a final report before declassifying it. Then, we'll have a fine
constitutional crisis as the two sides vie for some sort of adjudication.
Who, for instance, will adjudicate the monkey business that is already on-the-record
involving misdeeds in the Department of Justice itself? Will the DOJ split into two contesting
camps, each charging the other? How might that work? Does the Acting Attorney General Mr.
Whitaker seek indictments against figures such as Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, et
al. Will he also rope in intel cowboys John Brennan and James Clapper? Might Hillary find
herself in jeopardy -- all the while on the other side Mr. Mueller pursues his targets,
characters like Mr. Manafort, Michael Cohen, and the hapless Carter Page?
Or might Mr. Mueller, and others, possibly find themselves in trouble, as spearheads of a
bad-faith campaign to weaponize government agencies against a sitting president? That might
sound outlandish, but the evidence is adding up. In fact the evidence of a Deep State gone
rogue is far more compelling than any charges Mr. Mueller has so far produced on Trump-Russia
"collusion." An example of bad faith is former FBI Director James Comey's current campaign to
avoid testifying in closed session before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- he
filed a motion just before Thanksgiving. Mr. Comey is pretending that an open session would be
"transparent." His claim is mendacious. If he were questioned about classified matters in an
open session, he would do exactly what he did before in open session: decline to answer about
"sensitive" matters on the basis of national security. He could make no such claims in a closed
session. The truth is, his attorneys are trying to run out the clock on the current composition
of the house committees, which will come under a Democrat majority in January, so that Mr.
Comey can avoid testifying altogether.
There are other dicey matters awaiting some kind of adjudication elsewhere.
For instance, who is going to review the chain of decisions among the FISA judges who
approved of warrants made in bad faith to spy on US citizens? Perhaps the shrinking violet, Mr.
Huber, out in the Utah Prosecutor's Office of the DOJ, is looking into all that. He's been at
something for most of the year (nobody knows what). He has to answer to Mr. Whitaker now, or
the permanent AG who replaces him. And why is Mr. Trump dragging his heels on nominating a
permanent AG? I suppose the FISA court matter will fall to the Supreme Court, but how does that
process work, and how long might it take?
The potential for a stand-off exists that will confound any effort to untangle these things,
and I can see how that might lead to an extraordinary crisis in which Mr. Trump has to declare
some form of emergency or perhaps martial law to clean out this suppurating abscess of
illegality and sedition .
That can only be the last and worst resort, but what if the US judicial system just can't
manage to clean up the mess it has made?
If Trump doesn't go on a major offensive within the next couple of weeks he's fucked
because once the new ... House is sworn in on January 3rd he will be dealing with so many
different distractions at the same time it will make his attempt to fight back almost
impossible...
If Kunstler is right in his prediction of collapse. The Deep State is going to go the way
of the Stasi. Systemic collapse will usher in a purge the scope of which none of us can
fathom.
The CIA was running the entire show. The FBI was the CIA's dog.
Stefan Halper has been mislabeled by MSM as an FBI informant. Stefan Halper is a CIA
operative. He is the smoking gun.
Both the CIA and MI6 were colluding to prevent Trump from being elected and then working a
coup after election.
It all leads back to former CIA director Brennan and national security advisor Clapper.
Both worked under the authority of Obama, thus both believe what they were doing was
authorized by Obama, particularly Clapper who took his marching orders from Obama. They both
believed Clinton would win and everything would be brushed under the rug as usual.
Mueller is a cover up man and yes man with plenty of felonies. Rosenstein wrote the memo
Comey needed to be fired, because he wanted to replace Comey with Mueller. Rosenstein worried
Comey would talk, would begin to release data and start investigation to protect himself and
the FBI, so when Trump refused to appoint Mueller to FBI director, Rosenstein appointed
Mueller to take out Trump.
The MSM and everyone says how good Mueller is, but he's committed countless felonies and
no one at the DOJ has honor to be an American. The DOJ is political and is against this
nation, against the truth.
Sessions was cover up man and a yes man. He was also afraid of being indicted by Mueller.
His main purpose was illegal immigration, that's all he cared about. He didn't care what
happened to Trump and figured Pence would let him stay because of his mission on illegal
immigration and cannabis. Sessions believed he would roll back the legalization of cannabis
and Pence would follow him. Sessions believed Trump was soft on cannabis. That seems petty,
but that's the way Sessions thought.
No one follows the law anymore, this has trickled down to the people. These people have
set a bad example and the people have no respect for the system anymore.
The only way to make it respected again is for these criminals like Mueller, must be
killed. But because of the malaise caused by the criminals no one cares about America
anymore. No one cares enough to kill criminals like Mueller. The MSM is responsible for doing
incredible damage to the character of our nation. It's because of them all of this happened
because they will not tell the truth.
Just 6 corporations - all interlocking - own 95% of America's mainstream media. There's
the problem. Evil controls the narrative and fools the public. For example, ANTIFA - who are
they really, what are their roots, where do they come from? None of THIS will you get from
the MSM:
"The potential for a stand-off exists that will confound any effort to untangle these
things... might lead to an extraordinary crisis in which Trump has to declare some form of
emergency or perhaps martial law to clean out this suppurating abscess of illegality and
sedition ..."
The crooks will not give up without a fight and Trump will have to call in the
military?
Michael Cohen To Plead Guilty To Lying About Trump Russian Real-Estate Deal
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/29/2018 - 09:19 128 SHARES
Four months after
he pleaded guilty to campaign finance law violations, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has
copped to new charges of lying to congressional committees investigating Trump-Russia
collusion, according to
ABC . His latest plea is part of a new deal reached with Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
which had been said to be winding down before its latest burst of activity, including an
investigation into Roger Stone's alleged ties to Wikileaks. Stone ally
Jerome Corsi this week said he had refused to strike a plea deal with Mueller's
investigators, who had accused him of lying.
To hold up his end of the deal, Cohen sat for 70 hours of testimony with the Mueller probe,
he said Monday during an appearance at a federal courthouse in Manhattan where he officially
pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements.
According to
the Hill, Cohen's alleged lies stem from testimony he gave in 2017, when he told the House
Intelligence Committee that a planned real-estate deal to build the Trump Moscow Hotel had been
abandoned in January 2016 after the Trump Organization decided that "the proposal was not
feasible." While Cohen's previous plea was an agreement with federal prosecutors in New York,
this marks the first time Cohen has been charged by Mueller.
As part of his plea Cohen admitted to lying in a written statement to Congress about his
role in brokering a deal for a Trump Tower Moscow - the aborted project to build a
Trump-branded hotel in the Russian capitol. As has been previously reported, Cohen infamously
contacted a press secretary for President Putin to see if Putin could help with some red tape
to help start development, though the project was eventually abandoned.
Though, according to Cohen's plea, discussions about the project continued through the first
six months of the Trump administration. Cohen had discussed the Trump Moscow project with Trump
as recently as August 2017, per a report in the
Guardian.
As a reporter for NBC News pointed out on twitter, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Richard Burr and ranking member Mark Warner foreshadowed today's plea back in August after
Cohen pleaded guilty to the campaign finance violations.
Also notable: The plea comes just as President Trump is leaving for a 10-hour flight to
Argentina. In recent days, Trump appeared to step up attacks on the Mueller probe, comparing it
to
McCarthyism and questioning why the DOJ didn't pursue charges against the Clintons.
Cohen will be sentenced on Dec. 12, as scheduled. By cooperating, Cohen is hoping to avoid
prison, according to his lawyer. While this was probably lost on prosecutors, Cohen's admission
smacks of the "lair's paradox."
Senate Republicans have offered President Trump a degree of relief from his Mueller-related
anxieties by blocking a bill that would have protected the Mueller probe from being disbanded
by the president, but with the special counsel continuing his pursuit of
Roger Stone and
Jerome Corsi , and Congressional Democrats sharpening their knives in anticipation of
taking back the House in January, President Trump is once again lashing out at Mueller and the
FBI, declaring that the probe is an "investigation in search of a crime" and
once again highlighting the hypocrisy in the FBI's decision to give the Clintons a pass for
their "atrocious, and perhaps subversive" crimes.
Reiterating his claims that the Mueller probe bears many similarities to Sen. Joseph
McCarthy's infamous anti-Communist witch hunt, Trump also blasted the DOJ for "shattering so
many innocent lives" and "wasting more than $40,000,000."
"Did you ever see an investigation more in search of a crime? At the same time Mueller and
the Angry Democrats aren't even looking at the atrocious, and perhaps subversive, crimes that
were committed by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. A total disgrace!"
"When will this illegal Joseph McCarthy style Witch Hunt, one that has shattered so many
innocent lives, ever end-or will it just go on forever? After wasting more than $40,000,000
(is that possible?), it has proven only one thing-there was NO Collusion with Russia. So
Ridiculous!"
As CBS
News' Mark Knoller notes , this is the 2nd day in a row, Pres Trump likening the Mueller
investigation to the Joe McCarthy witch hunt of the 50s , known for making reckless and
unsubstantiated accusations against officials he suspect of communist views. McCarthy was
eventually censured by the Senate in 1954.
Last night, President Trump threatened to release a trove of
"devastating" classified documents about the Mueller probe if Democrats follow through with
their threatened investigations. He also declared that a pardon for soon-to-be-sentenced former
Trump Campaign executive Paul Manafort was still "on
the table.
My suspicion is that the left, since the special counsel was never actually given a
legitimate crime to investigate, will want this left in place permanently. That's just my
guess though.
Without a crime however, it's hard to argue that the special counsel has any legitimacy,
since the law specifies that there must be a crime.
With that said, how can the results of what Mueller does be looked at as anything but
illegitimate?
Yes, and that I can agree with you on, however, the focus of the investigation has been
misplaced on Trump when it should have been on the Clintons. So again I can say that the
legitimacy of the counsel is in question because with Trump there was no crime.
If anything the criminal activity was perpetrated on Trump by the deep state.
The difference is that McCarthy was right about everything. The similarity is that the
press wanted to talk about everything but the contents of McCarthy's folders. It's like the
Podesta emails - "Russia hacked muh emails!" but no one seems to want to discuss their
contents.
My comments here may try to be humorous but this video needs watched to fully understand
the Mueller probe--and forward to friends........... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag
Trump is right that Mueller is trying to create a crime where there is nothing but
politics as it is played today. Listen to former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who now
characterizes the Mueller investigation as 'a clown show', explain in great detail:
The crimes have been found.....and HRC and the democrats and their fbi pals committed
them. Mueller is not "in search of crimes", he's in search of crimes by trump associated
people.
You can see many similarities between the way the Democrats handled the Kavanaugh
nomination and Muellers investigation. If the GOP is smart they will start consolidating all
the facts about the FISA abuse, FBI abuse, IRS abuse, Mueller abuse and start a campaign
about it in time for the 2020 elections. If the Democrats were smart they would drop this
ASAP since it isn't going any where and hope people forget about it. Somehow, I doubt that
the Democrats are that smart... After all there was a movie about Watergate... and seems like
a lot of these people are trying to live Watergate all over again, but it's really about an
abuse of power, by the government and the media.
**** off, the government isnt going to do a ******* thing to these enterprise
criminals.
I find it completely demoralizing and a slap in the face to a country when you have these
enterprise criminals not being indicted and a president threatening to expose them because HE
doesnt like something. This is not about you Trump, this is about THE UNITED STATES.
I mean come-on Trump stop with the BS. DO YOUR ******* JOB.
What in the hell people, I personally find this to be a constant gut punch when these
criminals just commit crimes over and over and it becomes a Hannity or Limbaugh bullet point
for 3 hours.
How ******* stupid of Americans to sit idle while all of this in your face bank robbing
going on. Put another way the bank robber walks from the door of a bank with a sack of cash
to the car and the police say oh look a bank robber, and they turn to their partner and shrug
their shoulders drinking covfeffe
It's the Anglo-zionist entente that meddled in U.S. elections and if Americans don't get
upset about that then they are cucks who deserve their servile fate.
"In his foreword to my book, Alan Dershowitz discusses his time litigating cases in the
old Soviet Union. He was always taken by the fact that they could prosecute anybody they
wanted because some of the statutes were so vague. Dershowitz points out that this was a
technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, " Show me the man
and I'll find you the crime ." That really is something that has survived the Soviet
Union and has arrived in the good old USA. "Show me the man," says any federal prosecutor,
"and I can show you the crime." This is not an exaggeration. "
The only reason Mueller exists is for Trump to flog the Dems with. Thats the only reason
Trump keeps him around. The problem is losing the house means losing the power of subpoena,
so this should get interesting. The Repubs have it in for Trump too. Why else would they lose
a supermajority and the power of subpoena while still retaining the power to crush any bill
that the House pushes through? He's doomed, unless he can pull a rabbit out of his ***.
You don't actually believe that, do you? I suppose you still actually believe that they
even bother to count the votes. Trump was INSTALLED, not elected.
To create the illusion of division, which in turn keeps the population divided. It's
theater. Look at everything that's gone down; it's way too stupid to be real and I am
referring to both sides when I say that. The whole thing is custom tailored to stir the
emotions of a population with an average IQ of 100.
The fact that anybody is still clinging to hope in political solutions to anything is
sad and pathetic.
I don't think the political system will solve any of my problems, but Obama made it
abundantly clear that the political system will create plenty of problems.
Does anyone still believe that we have a political solution to our challenges.
1) More invaders than ever flooding our country.
2) Our most notorious criminals still walking our streets.
3) Fed, et al still manipulating our economy.
4) Law abiding citizens still being thrown into jail.
5) Surveillance state becoming ever more all seeing, and all invasive.
6) The push to war stronger than it has ever been in recent times.
7) Over 150 military bases strung across the planet.
8) Open criminality and rampant lies by press and politicians... I realize I already made
mention of the criminals, but thought this deserved emphasis.
9) Big news today... Supremes may limit the degree to which local government can encroach
on eighth amendment... wow... that this is even a debate.
10) The white population is being ordered into silence and obscurity... though no one has
forgotten to collect taxes... while the chimps and thugs are being encouraged to loot what is
left of the asylum...
I could go on... tell me, what is your vote going to accomplish? We are living on borrowed
time, and time has just about run out...
That's why voting is a waste of time because you're simply exchanging one sociopath for
another and I gave up on the notion long ago that we're living in the "land of the free".
That's the biggest line of BS the state has ever pushed but the rubes still believe it.
Progressive income tax, property taxes, central banking and they're all tenet's of communism,
in fact we have attained all ten planks of the communist manifesto. Read the IRS code or the
federal register and you'll see exactly how much freedom you have.
all you need to know about Mueller is his professional position on 9/11/01. From Judicial
Watch:
Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering
that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist
plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the
opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files
obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found
"many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks
on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group
sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears
that the lies were approved by Mueller. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to questions
about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.
Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it's difficult
to ignore that it chips away at Mueller's credibility as special counsel to investigate if
Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election. Even before the Saudi coverup documents
were exposed by nonprofit journalists, Mueller's credentials were questionable to head any
probe. Back in May Judicial Watch reminded of Mueller's
misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI
director.
Greenwald Goes Ballistic On Politico "Theory" Guardian's Assange-Manafort Story Was
Planted By Russians
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/28/2018 - 20:25 105 SHARES
After The Guardian attempted to shovel what appears to be a wholly fabricated story down our
throats that Trump campaign manager met with Julian Assange at the London Embassy - Politico
allowed an ex-CIA agent to use their platform to come up with a ham-handed cover story ever;
Russia tricked The Guardian into publishing the Manafort-Assange propaganda.
To that end, The Intercept 's Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian ) ripped Politico an
entirely new oriface in a six-part Twitter dress down.
Greenwald also penned a
harsh rebuke to the Guardian 's "problematic" reporting in a Tuesday article titled: "It Is
Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other
Evidence Showing This."
In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of
viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly
sketchy aspects to the story.
It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself
"secretly" visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It's possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim
Jong Un joined them.
And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form
of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it . Thus far, no such evidence has been
published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than
doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence
before forming a judgment?
The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough
people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story
would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets
would hyperventilate over it , and that they'd reap the rewards regardless of whether the
story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to
be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other. -
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
In short, The Guardian tried to proffer a load of easily disprovable claims - which if not
true, are pure propaganda. Once it began to blow up in their face, Politico let an
ex-CIA operative try to save face by suggesting Russia did it . Insanity at its finest.
Ever since Alan Rusbridger. left the Guardian as Chief Editor and made room for Assange
and Snowden etc., it seems that they have been infiltrated by the CIA and Luke H. gets
attention for his stories and Russia-hatred. The ENglish have been conditioned to hate Russia
and the Guardian will do anything to discredit Russia with whatever silly stories. Now they
are begging for money to survive: well, NO, because you went along with fake news to get some
money: corrupt, unlike Alan Rusbridger, Assange, Manning and Snowden.
Doesnt matter, 1/2 of our population is convinced, that our governmemt would never do to
the USA. what they do to other countries for the past 60 years.
Yep, the Russian Collusion / interference is so weak. Look at this story, it's breaking
and will be huge. Epstine's dirty details released, Muller looks pretty bad.
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
"... "clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems." ..."
"... The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak. ..."
"... The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone. ..."
A network exposed by leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at
curbing "Russian propaganda" has confirmed receiving money from the British government, while
Anonymous has denied on Twitter that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a
network claiming to fight disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II
documents, which purports to show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals
cooperating with it, has been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous
collective. A major Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak.
Responding to the leak on Monday, the organization
said it did indeed receive funding from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
for the past two years, but insisted that private donors were its primary source of money.
The statement neither confirmed nor denied that the documents were genuine, saying that it
didn't have time to validate them yet. But it said it was "clear that much of the material
was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems."
It claimed that many of the published documents were "dated and never used," and
that many of the individuals listed as members of II "clusters of influencers" were
never contacted by the program.
The documents not confirmed. However:
1. Their detail suggests they may be genuine
2. Nobody with knowledge has denied they're genuine
3. Some of those named have confirmed their association
4. Wkileaks hasn't evidenced its concerns
5. A history of some Wiki & Anonymous animosity
The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged
agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti contacted the FCO for comment about the disclosure, but its
representative said that information about the II was "already in the public domain,"
and that the British diplomatic service was "happy for the project to receive greater
exposure."
Interesting to watch Westerners picking up the Kremlin propaganda line that standing up to
Putin's lying, thieving, murdering regime is 'anti Russian'. Putin and his enablers and
appeasers are the true 'Russophobes'.
The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation
to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in
exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost
£1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone.
RT, which reported on the leak last Friday, asked a number of alleged participants in the II
program about their contribution. The majority of these have not yet replied, except for
journalist Edward Lucas and Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council Stephen
Blank.
It's been amusing to watch Putin sympathisers in the West who claim to be so adept at
seeing through 'government lies' and 'MSM bias' uncritically swallow and regurgitate the
version of events spread by Kremlin propaganda outlets that are known to relentlessly lie and
distort.
Trump most probably will be a one time President... The American people will elect the next time another bullshit artist
but this time probably from Democratic Party..
Notable quotes:
"... I'll give the congressman all of that, especially ..."
"... When the economy is bad, nobody wants a bullsh*t artist in the White House. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "He came to our community and said, 'Don't sell your house. These jobs are coming back,' " Green said. "We've seen nothing but job losses around here." ..."
"... What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back. ..."
Part of the retrenchment is a response to a slowdown in new-car sales that has prompted automakers to slim their operations
and shed jobs. And earlier bets on smaller cars have had to be unwound as consumers have gravitated toward pickup trucks and sport-utility
vehicles in response to low gasoline prices.
In addition, automakers have paid a price for the trade battle that Mr. Trump set in motion. In June G.M. slashed its profit
outlook for the year because tariffs were driving up production costs, raising prices even on domestic steel. Rising interest
rates are also generating headwinds.
Ms. Barra said no single factor had prompted G.M.'s cutbacks, portraying them as a prudent trimming of sails. "We are taking
these actions now while the company and the economy are strong to stay in front of a fast-changing market," she said on a conference
call with analysts.
More:
But demand for small and midsize cars has plunged. Two-thirds of all new vehicles sold last year were trucks and S.U.V.s. That
shift has hit G.M.'s Lordstown plant hard. Just a few years ago, the factory employed three shifts of workers to churn out Chevy
Cruzes. Now it is down to one. In 2017 the plant made about 180,000 cars, down from 248,000 in 2013.
More broadly, the years long boom in car and truck sales in North America appears to be ending, said John Hoffecker, vice chairman
at AlixPartners, a global consulting firm with a large automotive practice. "Sales have held up well this year, but we do see
a downturn coming," he said. AlixPartners forecast that domestic auto sales will fall to about 15 million cars and light trucks
in 2020, from about 17 million this year.
Watching cable news tonight at the gym, I heard an Ohio Democratic Congressman blast the president over this. He ripped Trump
for having made promises to industrial workers in his state in 2016, about how he would bring jobs back. He ripped Trump over the
steel tariffs that have driven up costs of production. And he ripped Trump for not taking his job seriously, for caring more about
Twitter than coming up with a strategy that might save jobs.
I'll give the congressman all of that, especially on Trump being a lazy, golfing-and-tweeting buffoon who doesn't
care about his job. Trump can get away with that when the economy is booming, but now it looks like things might be turning downward.
In Lordstown, workers planned to pray for a miraculous reversal of the company's decision, according to David Green, president
of United Auto Workers Local 1112.
"It's like someone knocks the wind out of you," he said of GM's announcement. "You lose your breath for a minute."
About 40 percent of the local's members voted for Trump, Green said. Now workers want to see the president keep his promises,
he said.
"He came to our community and said, 'Don't sell your house. These jobs are coming back,' " Green said. "We've seen nothing
but job losses around here."
Indeed, even before Monday's announcement, Lordstown had been bleeding jobs. Since Trump took office, GM has eliminated two
shifts and roughly 3,000 jobs at the plant, according to John Russo, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Kalmanovitz
Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor.
But we have to face some facts. People aren't buying what GM is making. Aside from the move away from small cars, an effect of
lower gasoline prices, sedan sales have been declining across all manufacturers. This summer, I got a good deal on a 2018 Honda Accord,
a car I really love, and that received rapturous praise from the automobile press when it came out. Honda struggled to sell the cars.
It's not because they're lousy cars. They're actually terrific cars. It's that consumers are losing interest in sedans. What good
does it do GM to manufacture cars that people will not buy?
You can't blame Trump for that.
What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back.
The Rust Belt made the crucial difference for Trump in 2016. Unless the Democrats' 2020 nominee is someone who is more or less a
space alien, it's going to be hard to win those voters' support when you've improved your Twitter game and your golf score, but those
plants are idle.
Jun 6, 2017 50 Years After Launching June 1967 War, Israel Continues World's Longest Military
Occupation
In the final installment of our three-part special on the 50th anniversary of the June
1967 war, author and scholar Norman Finkelstein discusses why the U.S.-backed "peace process"
was never meant to end the Israeli occupation, and how, despite the ongoing brutality, mass
Palestinian civil resistance could still bring it to an end.
"... The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an officially racist basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White: ..."
"... A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime ..."
"... The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences ..."
The original apartheid state of South Africa created "homelands", known colloquially as "bantustans", and proposed that, as the
apotheosis of apartheid, these "homelands" would become independent states and house the majority black population of the country
in fenced-off areas which had been too arid, rocky or commercial mineral free to attract significant white settlement over three
centuries of theft. South Africa actually did recognise some of these as Independent states, while the rest were supposed to be on
a course to recognition.
The maps really do bring out the startling similarity between these two attempts to formalise the dispossession of the original
people. Thankfully, even though the "Homelands solution" had its supporters including Thatcher, it never achieved support beyond
what was then an extreme right wing view, and none of the "independent states" ever achieved international recognition.
I worked in the FCO as the South Africa (Political) desk officer from 1984-6, and seeing off right wing Tory lobbying to adopt
the Homelands policy was a major problem. It is simply symptomatic of the extraordinary right wing shift in western politics over
the intervening three decades, that a "Bantustan" solution for Palestine, laughably called a "two state solution", is now the accepted
wisdom of the political and media class.
The proposal is precisely analogous to South Africa not only because of the displacement of the original population into separated
enclosures, but because it leaves the bulk of the land in the hands of a colonial population, whose identity and exclusivity is specifically
enshrined in law by ethnicity. Israel's adoption this year of a new nation state law putting the state on an
officially racist
basis only confirmed the reality encapsulated in a raft of hundreds of other laws and regulations. The harsh discriminatory regime
faced by non-Jews in Israel has been exhaustively
documented , and it is not my purpose to repeat it here. I recommend this lecture by Ben White:
Many of the practices Ben describes have strong echoes of the apartheid regime, as do the disregard for Black/Palestinian life,
the regular use of disproportionate lethal force against protestors, the mass arrests and detentions, the impunity for both law enforcers
and "master race" civilians who attack blacks/Palestinians. These features are highly analogous.
But what I want to address here is the striking similarity between the arguments used by supporters of apartheid, with which I
dealt every day at the FCO, and the arguments used today by supporters of Israel. They came by post thirty years ago not internet,
and we did not use the word meme, but the key arguments are exactly the same.
Imagine if the UK had in its statutes, and the USA had in its constitution measures to ensure only white people had the right
to immigration [one of Israel's basic laws is only Jews have the right to immigration into Israel]. Continuing the analogy with Israel's
recently passed 'Nation-State' [basic law].
1. "The states of the UK and the US are the nation-states of the 'white people".
2. "The actualization of the right of national self- determination in the states of the UK/USA is unique to white people"
3. "The UK/USA will labour to ensure the safety of sons of white people".
4. "The UK/USA will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of white people among the Diaspora".
5. "The UK/USA views 'white's only' settlement as joint national values and will labour to encourage and promote its establishment
and development".
Now let us look at one of the IHRA examples which the Labour Party have incorporated into the Labour Party rule book:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination – e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavour".
Who could deny that examples 1 to 5 above if incorporated into UK and US law would prove 100% that the UK and US were inherently
racist and that their 'existence were racist endeavours' and that anyone in the UK/US [including Jeremy Corbyn] who disapproved of
1 to 5 above, and said so, would fall foul of the IHRA definition, be accused of being Anti Semitic and drummed out of associations
like the Labour Party and possibly ostracised from society for life. Disgraceful.
Wilhelm Marr seems to have been strongly anti-J_ish and, in 1879, "he founded the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the
first German organization committed specifically to combating the alleged threat to Germany posed by the J_s and advocating their
forced removal from the country".
I find it bizarre that a term coined by a vehemently anti-J_ish person is used by the IHRA in preference to the more accurate
term anti-J_ism.
Meanwhile: The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas authorities in Gaza routinely arrest and torture
peaceful critics and opponents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/23/palestine-authorities-crush-dissent
Explains a lot
I think you'll find that most "bantustans" were led by corrupt officials who mistreated their "citizens". You don't imagine that
the Apartheid colonisers would want a genuine, free and united populace in their client statelets, do you? What goes for South Africa,
applies just as neatly to Israel.
As a South African there are lots of parallels with Israel/Palestine and a few differences. The differences are never in Israel's
favour. The one thing that I always convinced myself of was that Palestinians were not controlled like our Bantustan leaders were
– like Buthelezi managing the Zulus into good little darkies.
But now I am not so sure when I see the deliberate shut down of electricity.
Those in Israel will tell you that it is a better life than a Black South African experienced living in the madam or master's house.
There are Palestinian Doctors working in real jobs in real hospitals alongside real jews. That never happened in South Africa.
Those in Gaza will tell you that it is a worse life than living in a Homeland. That I can believe, we could at least grow food, tend
animals, create a community.
A major difference between South Africa's apartheid and Israel's is that the political will was there in the sixties to oppose
this ignominy. The Labour Party and Liberal Party and some Conservatives fought against it in the days before Israel (with its various
friends' groups) owned all the political parties and, shamefully, nobody has the balls to stand against this evil regime . If
they do they get shadow-banned or dragged through the courts/
The people instrumental in demonising apartheid and organising campaigns against South Africa were often the same people who
were devoted to the State of Israel. When you look at the people behind the campaigns you see which ideological positions they adhered
to, so it is worth looking up key individuals and their doctrinal adherences
Many whites have in fact been murdered since blacks took over South Africa. The facts are clear. So their fears were not only
a fantasy but realistic. This is the weakness of your argument, that you simply reject the fears of whites, which have come to fruition.
I suspect you simply have an animus towards white South Africans, it is a result of your moral self-righteousness. I also noticed
that you changed topic after mentioning that many whites genuinely believed that they would be murdered by blacks.
We suffered an armed robbery, my mother, who had just come out of intensive care, was beaten. She died less than 1 year later,
most probably from trauma. Many whites are not as lucky to have survived even the robbery. We have since emigrated. My family has
been living in SA for 250 years. More than 50% of blacks are immigrants of the last 50 years. Yet you insinuate that our right to
live in the land is less than theirs.
The number of whites, especially farmers, who have since been murdered brutally, create facts on the ground which you cannot gloss
over or dismiss if you were honest. It is telling that you changed topics just after mentioning the fears of whites. Because you
will never let a fact get in the way of your moral self.righteousness.
I do understand it. Once the Israeli's had established themselves, as immigrants have in UK, you almost can't turn the clock back
without inflicting the same policies/suffering in reverse. The Palestinians have de facto recognised this, hence their support for
a two state solution. I.e. two viable independent nations. Except, in practice, its not on offer as the Likud want to drive them
all into the sea or, until they expand further, Jordan.
Now that two states is unviable, the one multi-national state solution takes centre stage, but the Likud want a one-state without
the Palestinians, hence the new apartheid laws, in an attempt to keep the multi-national one-state, Jewish.
But it wont work, once the Palestinians embrace the one-state solution, and in effect declare themselves Israeli's, as the world,
even US, will support the need for all Israeli's to have equal rights, and Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital
of Israel (and de facto Palestine) brings that day closer.
To illustrate the point, the Zionists are advancing too far, like Hitler towards Stalingrad, to be cut off in the rear, resulting
in a pyrrhic victory. Instead of settling for a Jewish state, mostly occupied by Jews, alongside a Palestinian state, they are forcing
the creation of a multi-national one state, only half occupied by Jews, hence the need for new apartheid rules, to keep the multi-national
state, Jewish.
From an Israeli perspective, the "problem" is more or less solved. They'd love to fully take over Gaza and the West Bank, of course,
build a few hotels etc., but these are more or less clean-up operations. Something like 90% of the Palestinian population has been
expelled.
The whole area is a massive crime scene. I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there. It'd be like trying to find
the solution to the Big Bang. I can't see past making them stop and then setting up some sort of Nuremberg type system to deal with
the criminals.
There's nothing more depressing than this subject for me.
"I can't even fathom the idea of finding any solution there."
One man, One vote.
The demographics will then sort themselves out very quickly as those Israelis with dual-citizenship decamp and move to their "second"
country.
I would think that within a decade – maybe two – the demographics would be 70/30 or even more in favour of the Arab-speaking population,
and nobody will be killed and nobody will be dispossessed. And at that point "Israel" will change its name to "Palestine" and nobody
will make the slightest fuss about it.
I wouldn't use that phrase, no.
But it is as inevitable as that.
When the Zionist grip starts to loosen then a significant number of those Zionists are going to bolt – and that will accelerate
the process until it become a steamroller.
That's what nobody pays any attention to: the Palestinians won't go away because they have nowhere to go.
But there are enough Zionists who can – and will – and that will end up being the decisive factor.
They're not bolting for the exits yet because they are convinced that they are winning.
But they will waver, and it won't take many to break before the whole thing collapses.
Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though. They're intensifying and extending their grip. The Golan Heights aren't even
an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten. Poverty levels in Gaza thanks to sanctions and blockade have never been so bad as they
are right now.
Any day now we are expecting another major attack on Gaza along the lines of Caste Lead. They will hit schools and hospitals as
usual and thousands of unarmed civilians will die.
Not on the surface, no. The Israelis have excellent propaganda. Negative points are quickly brushed under the carpet. But Israel
is being hollowed out from the inside. Everybody has their second passport, ready to run. You will remember there was a big panic
in 2006 during Olmert's war in Lebanon. Hizbullah missiles were falling on Israel, and there were lengthy queues outside foreign
embassies for Israelis desperate to renew their second passports.
Nobody wants to fight any more. I mean, would you want to spend your life in the army reserve, obliged to be ready to go to war
whenever Netanyahu happens to decide on another invasion of Gaza? No, you would say sod it, I'm off to the States for a more peaceful
'normal' life. The Israeli army is just a poor militia now (see Pat Lang, passim). Even the Gazans stopped them cold in 2014. That
said, the airforce is very good, but it's the only arm that works now. And then Hizbullah have their stash of missiles that can now
reach anywhere in Israel, and Israel can do nothing about it (if they could, they would).
"Yeah, Right, there's no sign of wavering though."
Agreed, there is no *sign* of wavering.
Indeed, the degree of bombast coming out of the Israeli establishment is now deafening.
"The Golan Heights aren't even an issue today, that's how bad it's gotten."
Oh, I think that once the Syrian government wipes out the last of the jihadists and then forces the US to withdraw from Syrian
territory then you will find the Golan Heights will become very much a hot potato.
After all, it will then be the last piece of Syrian territory that is not under the control of the Syrians, and they'll be in
no mood to be "intimidated" by the Israelis.
The Israelis will keep beating up on the Gaza Strip? Sure, they will.
And that will lull the Likud into thinking that the IDF is still a mighty fighting force, sure, it will.
But the strategic situation for Israeli is getting worse and worse, to the point where the Israelis dare not attack Lebanon for
fear that the Syrians will take the opportunity to seize the Golan Heights, and the Israelis dare not launch an attack into Syria
lest Hezbollah launch a counter-attack on the flank of that expeditionary force.
And either way there is this slight problem: the IDF is now a bunch of fluffy-girls-blouses, and as such is likely to get its
arse kicked in a fight with a real army.
laguerre has it correct below: the IDF has been hollowed out, as has Israeli society as a whole. They are riding for a fall, and
when they do they will come down to earth with a thud.
And nobody will be more surprised than them, which is when they will stampede for the door.
She thought the investigation might have about six months left, although if Trump refuses a
face-to-face meeting, Mueller could seek a subpoena to put him before the grand jury. That
could be fought all the way to the supreme court.
There is a precedent, US v Nixon, when the justices ruled that the president must deliver
subpoenaed materials to a district court. Sixteen days later, Nixon resigned.
If Mueller decides not to have that fight, he could write a report saying he believed the
president obstructed justice. If he does not reach that conclusion, the Democratic-led House
could issue its own subpoenas.
"It is a chess match," said Milgram. "We'll have to see how it plays out in the next
year."
In Homage to
Catalonia (1938), his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell describes how his
wife was rudely woken by a police-raid on the hotel room she was occupying in Barcelona:
In the small hours of the morning there was a pounding on the door, and six men marched
in, switched on the light, and immediately took up various positions about the room,
obviously agreed upon beforehand. They then searched both rooms (there was a bathroom
attached) with inconceivable thoroughness. They sounded the walls, took up the mats, examined
the floor, felt the curtains, probed under the bath and the radiator, emptied every drawer
and suitcase and felt every garment and held it up to the light. ( Homage to Catalonia , ch.
14)
The police conducted this search "in the recognized OGPU [then the Russian
communist secret-police] or Gestapo style for nearly two hours," Orwell says. He then notes
that in "all this time they never searched the bed." His wife was still in it, you see, and
although the police "were probably Communist Party members they were also Spaniards, and to
turn a woman out of bed was a little too much for them. This part of the job was silently
dropped, making the whole search meaningless."
Orwell's story suggests a new word to me: typhlophthalmism , meaning "the practice
of turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts" (from Greek typhlos
, "blind," + ophthalmos
, "eye"). But it's a long word, so let's call it typhlism for short. Shorter is
better, because the term could be used so often today. Orwell's story is an allegory of modern
Western politics and social commentary, where so many essential but inconvenient facts are
"silently dropped" from analysis.
Some in Congress are bracing for the possibility that Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein might argue in his interview with lawmakers that the FBI did not have an
obligation to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the FISA judges. Such an argument is
contrary to how the court works, according to officials who prepare FISA warrants. The FBI is
required to submit only verified information and to alert the court to any omissions of
material fact that cast doubt on the supporting evidence, including any denials, these
officials told me.
Papadopoulos said his discussions with Halper -- identified this year by The Washington
Post as an FBI informant in the Russia case -- were among more than a half-dozen contacts
that U.S. and Western intelligence figures initiated with Papadopoulos during the
campaign.
Other contacts were initiated by Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials, an
Australian intelligence agent, an Australian diplomat, an Israeli diplomat and British
diplomats, Papadopoulos told me. At least one contact sought to offer him sex[*] in return
for information, he alleged.
Nearly all the contacts occurred in London, between April and October 2016, while
Papadopoulos served as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign
[*]Papadopoulos said he rejected that overture and then got another unexpected invite,
this time from the British foreign ministry. He said two diplomats quizzed him about Trump's
positions on Iran, Russia and Brexit, and arranged a follow-up meeting with a more senior
British official back in the United States.
This is what two weeks of likely jail is doing to the 'patsy', he's revealing many
interesting approaches. Is it true?
is how no one really talked about their content, eh? We learned that she rigged the primary
against Bernie and then everyone started talking about Russia ! Just as she and Podesta
wanted.
#1
Amazing how elusive they are (scrubbed from the State Dept website) and how they have never
been picked up on by most of the corporate media.
up 8 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this
proudly home-grown comment
"I am honored to have this invitation to address the annual meeting of the Dallas Citizens
Council, joined by the members of the Dallas Assembly--and pleased to have this opportunity to
salute the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.
It is fitting that these two symbols of Dallas progress are united in the sponsorship of
this meeting. For they represent the best qualities, I am told, of leadership and learning in
this city--and leadership and learning are indispensable to each other. The advancement of
learning depends on community leadership for financial and political support and the products
of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and
prosperity. It is not a coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and
graduate facilities--from MIT to Cal Tech--tend to attract the new and growing industries. I
congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic facts through the
creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.
This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It
is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the
progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy,
handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world
full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of
learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the
possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to
every world problem.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without
alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking
influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable.
But today other voices are heard in the land--voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to
reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will
suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of
weakness. At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its burden on
our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when
we are steadily reducing the number of Federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they
fear those supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing
armies.
We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the
American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion
that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of
slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.
I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this
question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most
enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or
cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength
and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal
pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the
disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.
Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our
strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not
belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will
be of no help.
I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the
major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe
away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the
Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of
Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic
assistance.
In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific
warnings--warnings that we could not stand by and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force,
or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or maintain offensive missiles on Cuba. But
while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in these and other instances, our successful
defense of freedom was due not to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use
on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend.
This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive
deterrents to the most subtle influences. And all types of strength are needed--no one kind
could do the job alone. Let us take a moment, therefore, to review this Nation's progress in
each major area of strength.
I.
First, as Secretary McNamara made clear in his address last Monday, the strategic nuclear
power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days,
by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all
potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic
victory--and the certainty of total destruction--if by reckless attack they should ever force
upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.
In less than 3 years, we have increased by 50 percent the number of Polaris submarines
scheduled to be in force by the next fiscal year, increased by more than 70 percent our total
Polaris purchase program, increased by more than 75 percent our Minuteman purchase program,
increased by 50 percent the portion of our strategic bombers on 15-minute alert, and increased
by too percent the total number of nuclear weapons available in our strategic alert forces. Our
security is further enhanced by the steps we have taken regarding these weapons to improve the
speed and certainty of their response, their readiness at all times to respond, their ability
to survive an attack, and their ability to be carefully controlled and directed through secure
command operations.
II.
But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by
strategic nuclear power alone. We have, therefore, in the last 3 years accelerated the
development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and increased by 60 percent the
tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe.
Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are
strategic or tactical. We have radically improved the readiness of our conventional
forces--increased by 45 percent the number of combat ready Army divisions, increased by 100
percent the procurement of modern Army weapons and equipment, increased by 100 percent our ship
construction, conversion, and modernization program, increased by too percent our procurement
of tactical aircraft, increased by 30 percent the number of tactical air squadrons, and
increased the strength of the Marines. As last month's "Operation Big Lift"--which originated
here in Texas--showed so clearly, this Nation is prepared as never before to move substantial
numbers of men in surprisingly little time to advanced positions anywhere in the world. We have
increased by 175 percent the procurement of airlift aircraft, and we have already achieved a 75
percent increase in our existing strategic airlift capability. Finally, moving beyond the
traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in
our special forces--those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against
the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but
equally dangerous manner.
III.
But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of
international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on
the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays
such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain
their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly,
as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes
possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth
the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist
breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us
several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American
lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near
the borders of the Communist bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the
threat of Communist aggression - VietNam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece,
Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the
forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts
to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require
in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic
help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same
disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well
be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Our foreign aid program is not growing in size, it is, on the contrary, smaller now than in
previous years. It has had its weaknesses, but we have undertaken to correct them. And the
proper way of treating weaknesses is to replace them with strength, not to increase those
weaknesses by emasculating essential programs. Dollar for dollar, in or out of government,
there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid
program. We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for
example, to do as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is
sending to the island of Cuba alone.
IV.
I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression
and attack. But, in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots
as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in
the world as well as our missiles--on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well
as the evils of tyranny.
That is why our Information Agency has doubled the shortwave broadcasting power of the Voice
of America and increased the number of broadcasting hours by 30 percent, increased Spanish
language broadcasting to Cuba and Latin America from I to 9 hours a day, increased seven-fold
to more than 3-5 million copies the number of American books being translated and published for
Latin American readers, and taken a host of other steps to carry our message of truth and
freedom to all the far corners of the earth.
And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space,
making an annual effort greater than the combined total of all space activities undertaken
during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual
operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the
United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space.
This effort is expensive--but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America. For there is
no longer any fear in the free world that a Communist lead in space will become a permanent
assertion of supremacy and the basis of military superiority. There is no longer any doubt
about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and
the American free enterprise system. In short, our national space effort represents a great
gain in, and a great resource of, our national strength--and both Texas and Texans are
contributing greatly to this strength.
Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at
home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice
will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully
educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the
hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and
prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to
all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.
It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our
recent record increases in national income and output--by surging ahead of most of Western
Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a
more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting
personal and corporate income taxes by some $ I I billion, as I have proposed, to assure this
Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history.
This Nation's total output--which 3 years ago was at the $500 billion mark--will soon pass
$600 billion, for a record rise of over $too billion in 3 years. For the first time in history
we have 70 million men and women at work. For the first time in history average factory
earnings have exceeded $100 a week. For the first time in history corporation profits after
taxes--which have risen 43 percent in less than 3 years--have an annual level of $27.4
billion.
My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America
today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our
dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the
scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and
promotion of freedom.
That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used
in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to
promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.
We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on
the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and
responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may
achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward
men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our
strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but
in vain."
Comment: This is the concluding article in a series of 12 articles written in 2006
commemorating (at the time) the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of JFK. This day,
November 22nd, 2018, is the 55th anniversary of what can, in hindsight and in Truth, be called
the Day America Died .
... ... ...
The fact is, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was a form of control of the government of
the United States. It is the ultimate form of control of the election process. Understanding
this can lead us to understand what has happened to our country since that terrible day in
November, 43 years ago. Studied carefully, the assassination of John F. Kennedy can reveal who
really controls the United States and its polices, particularly foreign policy. As John Kennedy
himself said:
"For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; in infiltration instead of
invasion; on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice; on
guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human
and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that
combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined, its
dissenters are silenced, not praised; no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no
democracy would ever hope to wish to match. ..."
He was right; but I think he didn't realize how far they were willing - and able -
to go.
Nowadays, we know how far they are able and willing to go: just look at the events of
September 11, 2001, which bear the same unmistakable stamp of the assassination of John F.
Kennedy. In fact, as I have mentioned before, the same gang is involved.
... ... ...
Laura Knight-Jadczyk is a seventh generation Floridian, a
historian/mystic and author of 14 books and many articles published in print and on the
internet. She is the founder of SOTT.net and the inspiration behind the Cassiopaean Experiment.
She lives in France with her husband, Polish mathematical physicist, Arkadiusz Jadczyk, four of
her five children, extended family, eight dogs, five birds and a cat.
The dumb thing is the Kennedys were up to their ass in deep state dirty dealing and well
understood how things were done. So, it does them no credit to have failed to strike first
against their enemies, to have used the full power of the presidency to crush their opponents
pre-emptively. Instead, they sucked out, rolled over and fed the machine Bobby.
Ned Ludd They went
into it with their eyes open, but could do nothing to prevent it except to wimp out. And they
refused to wimp out. Sometimes your fate, if you choose to meet it, is to be martyred.
"... Despite the animals' increasingly desperate circumstances on the farm, Squealer's barrage of untruths ultimately convince the lowly, overworked animals that "things were getting better." ..."
"... Anymore, whether it's in the company of dictators Trump keeps or among the multi-millionaires and billionaires that our purported Capitol Hill representatives mingle with at home and abroad, it's becoming increasingly harder to tell "which is which." ..."
If the demogagic President Donald Trump and his greedy loyalist Republican abettors had
their way, the American citizenry would be consigned to a life of Farm -like
drudgery.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" becomes the leader
pigs' contorted "Commandment" to the rest of the farm animals by the end of Animal
Farm .
... ... ...
Orwell himself, indicated that his simplistic foreboding fairtale held "a wider application"
about "power-hungry people."
"I meant the moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses
are alert.." Orwell writes Politics magazine founder Dwight Macdonald in a 1946 letter.
"What I was trying to say was," Orwell continues, "'You can't have a revolution unless you
make it for yourself; there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship.'"
Disillusioned Americans, who weren't so much "alert" as they were desperate, clearly were
swindled by Trump's disingenous populous revolution of sorts.
Now, in the flotsam wake of the midterm election's Democratic blue wave -- demonstrating a
new found citizen alertness that will flood the House in January -- the mistake of ever
allowing a Trump Presidency, is coming into sharp, unsettling focus.
Oppression is oppression. Greed and abuse of power produce essentially the same result
whatever the misanthropic ideology – Communism or Fascism or some other hybrid demagogic
"ism" to which Trump and his loyalists aspire.
If Washington D.C's plutocratic pigs had their druthers, Americans would be so dumbed down
by the con-in-chief's exhaustive lies and grating vitriol, endorsed by congressional majority
party Republicans, that we would have about as much say in our Republic's affairs as Animal
Farm 's befuddled barnyard animals had on the farm under the pigs.
"Napoleon is Always Right"
Trump is akin to Farm 's ruthless ruling pig, Napoleon, a Berkshire boar who, Orwell
writes, has a knack for "getting his own way."
Napoleon counted on his propagandist pig, Squealer, who "could turn black into white" to
brainwash the farm animals with lies about their tyrannical leader's supposed benevolence.
Even Clover the mare, who notices the changes the pigs sneakily make to Animalism's
Commandments, eventually is lulled into a sense of complacency, convincing herself that she
must have "remembered it wrong."
As the Farm animals work harder for less, the beloved, but dim-witted carthorse Boxer
declares, "I will work harder" and routinely motivates himself by extolling the pigs' most
controlling lie of all: "Napoleon is always right."
To advance his doubtless premeditated assault on truth and civility from the start of 2017,
President Trump has employed his own tag team versions of Squealer – in imaginative
mouthpieces Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Sanders, White House press secretary, seems eternally lost in an alternate reality where if
President Trump "says it, it must be true" – just as Farm's animals were
programmed to parrot of Napoleon, no matter how absurd the lie.
... ... ...
And we Americans, like Farm 's flock of mindless sheep taught by Squealer to
obediently bleat "Four legs good, two legs better ," are supposed to believe it all.
... ... ...
Pigs Hoarded Milk and Apples; Repubs, Tax Cuts For Rich
Just as Farm 's pigs reason early on that they need all of the farm's "milk and
apples" to lead the rest of the animals, Trump and his complicit Republican chums insisted at
the outset that billionaires' tax breaks are the key to economic revival for all.
Never mind that Reaganomics trickled down – and out, decades ago. Never mind that
corporate profits are soaring, while workers' wages have stagnated.
And that now, in order to pay for corporate big wigs' tax cuts, Republicans contrive to
carve up the people's Medicare and Medicaid, while sinisterly eyeing social security
benefits.
Who is the real "enemy of the people"?
"The turning-point of the story was supposed to be when the pigs kept the milk and apples
for themselves," Orwell writes in the 1946 letter to Macdonald, published in George Orwell: A
Life In Letters , 2013.
"If the other animals had had the sense to put their foot down then," Orwell continues, "it
would have been all right."
At the first sign of feebleness, Boxer, the farm's hardest worker -- instrumental in the
farm's success from which the pigs alone capitalized -- is hauled off to the
slaughterhouse.
Despite the animals' increasingly desperate circumstances on the farm, Squealer's barrage of
untruths ultimately convince the lowly, overworked animals that "things were getting
better."
Think of Trump's grandiose claims of new plant openings and soaring jobs numbers. When Fox
News' asked him this past weekend how he would grade his job as President so far, Trump
offered, "A plus."
And look no further than Trump's scripted, dictator-esque, brainwashing rallies, where
gullible Reality TV "fans" pathetically worship a snake oil salesman, cheering on command and
smiling idiotic smiles.
Which is Which?
In Farm' s last pages, the pigs have rewritten Animalism's "Seven Commandments" to
suit them, embracing the ways of the animals' sworn enemy humans.
"Comrade Napoleon" and his fellow privileged porkers have moved into overthrown (Manor Farm)
owner Mr. Jones' farm house, are dressed in his clothes and are walking upright on their two
hind legs.
By then, the incoherent sheep under the absolute sway of Napoleon's propagandist pig
Squealer, no longer are sounding off on command: "Four legs good, two legs bad," but rather,
"Four legs good, two legs better ."
Animal Farm leaves us with the animals peering through the farm house dining room
window as the pigs inside schmooze and toast mugs of beer with neighboring farmer, Mr.
Pilkington and his associates.
The pigs and humans end up squabbling over a card game in which Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington
each play an ace of spades.
Who is cheating?
In the novella's last line, the baffled animals at the window look from face to face, from
the humans to the pigs, but: "It was impossible to say which was which."
Anymore, whether it's in the company of dictators Trump keeps or among the
multi-millionaires and billionaires that our purported Capitol Hill representatives mingle with
at home and abroad, it's becoming increasingly harder to tell "which is which."
"... "We have followed this court case in America and we believed these documents contained answers to some of the questions we have been seeking about the use of data, especially by external developers," ..."
"... "to refrain from reviewing them" ..."
"... "return them to counsel or to Facebook." ..."
It is alleged that the data was harvested to target the users in political campaigns,
including in former UKIP leader Nigel Farage's Leave.EU campaign.
The UK parliamentary investigators used the former Six4Three top executive's brief stay in
London to force him to hand over documents his firm had obtained from a US court in Six4Three's
own lawsuit against Facebook.
The Guardian reported that the tech entrepreneur was warned he might go to jail or face a
hefty fine if he refuses to comply with the British authorities' request.
The documents, which are now to be reviewed by the British MPs, are said to include a
confidential correspondence between Facebook's senior officials, including Mark Zuckerberg, who
has so far snubbed requests to testify before parliament.
The lawsuit Six4Three, an app-developing startup, brought against Facebook back in 2015,
alleges that Zuckerberg was personally involved in a "malicious and fraudulent scheme"
and deliberately left loopholes for data-harvesting companies to fend off competition.
The documents are expected to reveal the scope of the Facebook CEO's involvement in the
alleged scheme.
"We have followed this court case in America and we believed these documents contained
answers to some of the questions we have been seeking about the use of data, especially by
external developers," Collins said.
Six4Three is in a long-running litigation with Facebook over the demise of its app Pikinis,
that allowed users to scan through friends' photos in an automatic search for bikini pics.
After Facebook disabled the function that allowed apps to access users' friend lists, Six4Three
filed a complaint against Facebook, arguing that it hurt its business model by no longer
permitting customers to share the data. Facebook argues that the allegations of its improper
handling of personal data have nothing to do with the lawsuit and had unsuccessfully fought the
release of its internal documents to Six4Three. The documents were provided to the startup by
the San Mateo Superior Court in California and are subject to a non-disclosure order, meaning
that are unlikely to be revealed to the public.
In response to the seizure of the documents by British MPs, Facebook has urged lawmakers
"to refrain from reviewing them" while calling to "return them to counsel or to
Facebook."
Zuckerberg has previously denied that he
knew of illegal harvesting of user data by Cambridge Analytica before the breach was reported
in the media.
It is alleged that Facebook's off-hand approach to personal data might have helped to alter
the outcome of the Brexit vote. In March, former director of research at Cambridge Analytica,
Chris Wylie, testified before MPs that the research carried out by a Canadian company with ties
to Cambridge Analytica before 2016 Brexit referendum might have swayed the vote.
When McCarthyism ghost is out it is difficult to suppress it. The bottom feeder from
Democratic Party have no other viable agenda that demonizing Russia and presenting it as the the
root cause of 2016 fiasco, which actually are result of their neoliberal transformation under
Bill Clinton. CIA democrats are now married to Russiagate.
The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm
trail. They didn't win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn't even talk about
it. Most voters don't care, or don't care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of
respondents think the Russia probe is "politically motivated"; a 46% plurality disapprove of
Mr. Mueller's handling of it.
That hasn't stopped Democrats from fixating on it since the
election, in particular when President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named
Matthew Whitaker as a temporary replacement. The left now insists the appointment is
unconstitutional or that because Mr. Whitaker once voiced skepticism on the Russia-collusion
narrative, he is unfit to oversee the Mueller investigation and must recuse himself.
The joke here is that neither Mr. Whitaker nor anybody else is likely to exercise any
authority over Mr. Mueller -- and more's the pity. The probe has meandered along for 18 months,
notching records for leaks and derivative prosecutions, though all indications are it has
accomplished little by way of its initial mandate.
As a practical matter, Mr. Mueller should have been brought to heel some time ago. As a
political matter, that won't happen. The administration has always understood that such a move
would provoke bipartisan political blowback, ignite a new "coverup" scandal, and maybe trigger
impeachment. It's even more unlikely officials would risk those consequences now, as Mr.
Mueller is said to be wrapping up.
Democrats know this, as does the grandstanding Sen. Jeff Flake. Yet they demand a Whitaker
recusal and are again pushing legislation to "protect" the special counsel's probe. Senate
Republicans rightly blocked that bill this week, partly on grounds that it is likely
unconstitutional. They also made the obvious point that if Mr. Trump intended to fire Mr.
Mueller, he'd have done so months ago and wouldn't need to ax Mr. Sessions to do it. And while
the president tweets ceaseless criticism of the probe, he has never threatened to end it.
Democrats are nonetheless doubling down on the probe for political advantage. Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared members of his caucus will demand that language making
it more difficult to fire Mr. Mueller be included in a spending bill that needs to pass before
the end of the current legislative session. Mr. Flake is offering an assist, saying that he
will block any judicial nominees in committee until a Mueller protection bill gets a Senate
floor vote. Over in the House, incoming Democratic committee chairmen, led by soon-to-be
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, are vowing an investigation blitz focused on
collusion with Russia.
Mr. Schumer's last shutdown -- a year ago -- was a bust even though it was waged over the
emotionally compelling issue of Dreamers, illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children. He
now proposes shutting down the government over a probe few people outside of Washington care
about. Mitch McConnell should be so lucky.
Mr. Flake, should he run for president, will struggle to explain to conservative voters his
obstruction of Trump judicial nominees, who'll be confirmed in 2019 anyway when the Republicans
expand their Senate majority.
Democrats' other problem is that this strategy hinges in large degree on an expectation that
Mr. Mueller ultimately finds something. There's no reason to believe he has turned up any
evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Sure, he's secured convictions against longtime Beltway bandits for long-ago lobbying. He's
squeezed the ole standby lying-to-investigators plea out of a few targets. He's indicted a
squad of Russian trolls, who will never be brought to trial and who even Mr. Mueller's office
admits had nothing to do with the Trump team. And while it seems likely his report to the
Justice Department will criticize Mr. Trump, it's improbable it will contain proof of
collusion.
And then? The president will have a field day. He will claim vindication and mercilessly
drive home that the investigation was a waste and a witch hunt. And he will have a point. Two
years of Democratic hyperbole will be undercut by the special counsel they've held out as the
ultimate sleuth. They'll have to decide whether to deride Mr. Mueller's findings as
insufficient to justify continuing their own probes.
Maybe Mr. Mueller has something. We'll see. But if the reporting is correct that he's wound
up high and dry, Democrats will end up there with him.
"... The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not raised the issue directly with the US president ." ..."
"... In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction." ..."
"... Trump walked that order back days later after the UK begged him not to release them. ..."
"... MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence. ..."
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ ..."
"... The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said. ..."
"... By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade. ..."
"... The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit. ..."
"... Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K. candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes' was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before & after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara (conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at meeting was Obama WH translator. ..."
"... The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day. ..."
"... Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were "unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and fraud left unpunished. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason. ..."
"... Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C. – and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation ..."
"... In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. ..."
"... The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation & Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start. ..."
"... They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim. ..."
"... Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE. ..."
The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent
President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling
investigation, according to
The Telegraph , stating that any disclosure would "undermine intelligence gathering if he
releases pages of an FBI application to wiretap one of his former campaign advisers."
Trump's allies, however, are fighting back - demanding transparency and suggesting that the
UK wouldn't want the documents withheld unless it had something to hide.
The Telegraph has talked to more than a dozen UK and US officials, including in American
intelligence, who have revealed details about the row.
British spy chiefs have "genuine concern" about sources being exposed if classified parts
of the wiretap request were made public, according to figures familiar with discussions.
" It boils down to the exposure of people ", said one US intelligence official, adding: "
We don't want to reveal sources and methods ." US intelligence shares the concerns of the
UK.
Another said Britain feared setting a dangerous "precedent" which could make people less
likely to share information, knowing that it could one day become public. -
The Telegraph
The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically
sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it
with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not
raised the issue directly with the US president ."
In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the
material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath
of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction."
Mr Trump wants to declassify 21 pages from one of the applications. He announced the move
in September, then backtracked, then this month said he was "very seriously" considering it
again. Both Britain and Australia are understood to be opposing the move.
The New
York Times reported at the time that the UK's concern was over material which " includes
direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher
Steele ," the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier." The UK's objection,
according to former US and British officials, was over revealing Steele's identity in an
official document, "regardless of whether he had been named in press reports."
We noted in September, however, that Steele's name was contained within the Nunes Memo
- the House Intelligence Committee's majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.
Steele also had
extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie , who - along with
Steele - was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump
called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly
reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of
Justice for
lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.
Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump
campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos
was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor
that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would
drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to
meet with).
Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page
and Papadopoulos in
London.
Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George
Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on
energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a
meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of
Democrats' emails.
Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a
government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller
In total, Halper received
over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted
before and during the 2016 election season.
Papadopoulos, who was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying about his conversations with
a shadowy Maltese professor and self-professed member of the
Clinton Foundation , has publicly claimed he was targeted by UK spies, and told The
Telegraph that he demands transparency. Trump's allies in Washington, meanwhile, have suggested
that the facts laid out before us mean that the ongoing Russia investigation was invalid from
the start .
In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the
"witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted
on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they
meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a
set-up from the start .
Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims
asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.
Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump
dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the
relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts
with the press.
He shared results of his investigation into Trump's links to Russia with the FBI beginning
in early July 2016.
The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four
FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier's claims, which include that he was
the Trump campaign's back channel to the Kremlin. - Daily Caller
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse
focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK
soil, is curious.
Trump talks the talk but so far no walking of the walk. Not falling for it anymore, Tyler. No Swamp Draining from Pres. Cheeto anymore than we got Hope or Change from Superfly
When fraud is coming to light, the cockroaches scramble. The so-called intelligence
agencies have run amuck for way too long and leave a trail of lies, murder and deception.
That is the reason Obama and Clinton went to New Zealand and Australia. They have access
to the Five Eyes network in New Zealand and Australia without their requests being recorded
whereas if they had asked in the US their requests and all documents given to them would have
been recorded. . They are both traitors to not only the sitting President and the US people
but also to the United States.
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their
excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which
occurred on UK soil, is curious.
MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is
interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence.
I think we all know now that the UK not Russia was the dirtbags working for Obama/HRC to
trap Trump. Release the declass Trump and let's start cleaning up the swamp. Let the SHTF those Brits
have never been friends to freedom.
If they released audio-video evidence of public officials indulging in cannibalistic
pedophilia at their state desks, they would still get off the hook.
Their MSM fiends oops I meant friends would scramble to the rescue and create another AV
to counter the actual one, and their idiot Democrat audiences would fall for it.
No matter what is exposed on 5 December the perps will get off the hook.
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K.
candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes'
was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French
L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before &
after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara
(conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie
Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at
meeting was Obama WH translator.
GPS Fusion wrote the Dossier with UK spy Steele and was paid by Hillary/DNC.
The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA
agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA
named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered
Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day.
Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump
campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat
contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were
"unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and
fraud left unpunished.
George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence
Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason.
Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C.
– and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no
evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation
April 9, 2018 by Jeff Carlson, CFA
In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow.
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA
chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director
level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. The meeting between Hannigan and Brennan appears somewhat unusual.
The US and the UK are two of the so-called Five Eyes -- along with Canada, Australia and
New Zealand -- that share a broad range of intelligence through a formalized alliance.
The GCHQ is responsible for Britain's Signals Intelligence. The NSA is responsible for the United States' Signals Intelligence. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was not CIA Director Brennan. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was NSA Director Mike Rogers. Luke Harding of the Guardian originally reported the meeting in an April 13, 2017 article
on Britain's spy agencies early role in the Trump-Russia investigation:
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures
connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. This intelligence was passed to the
US as part of a routine exchange of information
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further
information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians.
See above about phony robot "suspicious communications" set up by CIA McMullen to smear
Trump with Trump Tower falsely named server and data created in robo call response with
Russian Alfa bank.
Russian "communications" was e-data of the Russkie Bank and the non-Trump server named
"Trump OrGAINization". It was just two robo-computers pinging back and forth.
The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are
Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal
Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip
up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet
Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation
& Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start.
They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover
their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim.
Feb 13th, Don Bongino Podcast.
"I'll include an article from NPR. NPR, not a by any stretch a right Wing outlet. Ok? But
it's actually a decent piece. Now, it describes the three hop rule. It's from 2013, but it describes it very shortly
& ce scintillating in about 400 words. And it's done well so I'll include it in todays
show notes.
Remember, It's now the "Two Hop Rule" but you just have to know what a "Hop" is to
understand how dangerous this is.
Here's how they explain it.
It says, "testimony before Congress on Wednesday, remember this is written in 2013 Joe.
Showed how easy it is for Americans, with no connection to Terrorism to unwittingly have
their calling patterns analyzed by the Government." This is really wacko stuff. It hinges on
what is known as a "Hop."
Or chain analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone
records Joe, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and
everyone who calls those people." Chain Migration.
You ain't kidding! Right!? Chain spying!
It goes on...though....this is good.
"If the average person Joe, called 40 unique people. "Three Hop Analysts" would allow the
Government to mine the records....this is a staggering number...of 2.5 Million Americans when
investigating one suspected terrorist."
"Holy Moly!" Holly Moly is right.
Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the
FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE.
All the the emails he sent in the past to Trump Team members, combine that with "Two Hops"
you basically have everybody in the known universe that could of ever contacted the Trump
Team.
Paige sends an email, whatever to Kushner. I don't know who he sends emails to. He
probably didn't. But you get the point. Then you go to another "Hop." Kushner, who'd he send
an email to? Now you got the while Trump Team.
That's the whole point. That's why I constantly say to you that they were trying to put a
legal face on this thing after they realized the election was coming up and they could
lose.
They were like. Man, we've been spying on these people the whole time. We already got most
of their emails and their communications. How do we legally do it now?
Oh, we get a FISA Warrant, we use couple of "Hops" and we're Golden."
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does
not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against
Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be
part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal,
academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to
take action when the British center perceives a need.
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
"... The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not raised the issue directly with the US president ." ..."
"... In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction." ..."
"... Trump walked that order back days later after the UK begged him not to release them. ..."
"... MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence. ..."
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ ..."
"... The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said. ..."
"... By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade. ..."
"... The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit. ..."
"... Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K. candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes' was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before & after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara (conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at meeting was Obama WH translator. ..."
"... The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day. ..."
"... Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were "unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and fraud left unpunished. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason. ..."
"... Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C. – and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation ..."
"... In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. ..."
"... The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation & Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start. ..."
"... They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim. ..."
"... Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE. ..."
The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent
President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling
investigation, according to
The Telegraph , stating that any disclosure would "undermine intelligence gathering if he
releases pages of an FBI application to wiretap one of his former campaign advisers."
Trump's allies, however, are fighting back - demanding transparency and suggesting that the
UK wouldn't want the documents withheld unless it had something to hide.
The Telegraph has talked to more than a dozen UK and US officials, including in American
intelligence, who have revealed details about the row.
British spy chiefs have "genuine concern" about sources being exposed if classified parts
of the wiretap request were made public, according to figures familiar with discussions.
" It boils down to the exposure of people ", said one US intelligence official, adding: "
We don't want to reveal sources and methods ." US intelligence shares the concerns of the
UK.
Another said Britain feared setting a dangerous "precedent" which could make people less
likely to share information, knowing that it could one day become public. -
The Telegraph
The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically
sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it
with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not
raised the issue directly with the US president ."
In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the
material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath
of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction."
Mr Trump wants to declassify 21 pages from one of the applications. He announced the move
in September, then backtracked, then this month said he was "very seriously" considering it
again. Both Britain and Australia are understood to be opposing the move.
The New
York Times reported at the time that the UK's concern was over material which " includes
direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher
Steele ," the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier." The UK's objection,
according to former US and British officials, was over revealing Steele's identity in an
official document, "regardless of whether he had been named in press reports."
We noted in September, however, that Steele's name was contained within the Nunes Memo
- the House Intelligence Committee's majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.
Steele also had
extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie , who - along with
Steele - was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump
called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly
reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of
Justice for
lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.
Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump
campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos
was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor
that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would
drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to
meet with).
Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page
and Papadopoulos in
London.
Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George
Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on
energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a
meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of
Democrats' emails.
Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a
government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller
In total, Halper received
over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted
before and during the 2016 election season.
Papadopoulos, who was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying about his conversations with
a shadowy Maltese professor and self-professed member of the
Clinton Foundation , has publicly claimed he was targeted by UK spies, and told The
Telegraph that he demands transparency. Trump's allies in Washington, meanwhile, have suggested
that the facts laid out before us mean that the ongoing Russia investigation was invalid from
the start .
In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the
"witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted
on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they
meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a
set-up from the start .
Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims
asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.
Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump
dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the
relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts
with the press.
He shared results of his investigation into Trump's links to Russia with the FBI beginning
in early July 2016.
The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four
FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier's claims, which include that he was
the Trump campaign's back channel to the Kremlin. - Daily Caller
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse
focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK
soil, is curious.
Trump talks the talk but so far no walking of the walk. Not falling for it anymore, Tyler. No Swamp Draining from Pres. Cheeto anymore than we got Hope or Change from Superfly
When fraud is coming to light, the cockroaches scramble. The so-called intelligence
agencies have run amuck for way too long and leave a trail of lies, murder and deception.
That is the reason Obama and Clinton went to New Zealand and Australia. They have access
to the Five Eyes network in New Zealand and Australia without their requests being recorded
whereas if they had asked in the US their requests and all documents given to them would have
been recorded. . They are both traitors to not only the sitting President and the US people
but also to the United States.
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their
excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which
occurred on UK soil, is curious.
MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is
interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence.
I think we all know now that the UK not Russia was the dirtbags working for Obama/HRC to
trap Trump. Release the declass Trump and let's start cleaning up the swamp. Let the SHTF those Brits
have never been friends to freedom.
If they released audio-video evidence of public officials indulging in cannibalistic
pedophilia at their state desks, they would still get off the hook.
Their MSM fiends oops I meant friends would scramble to the rescue and create another AV
to counter the actual one, and their idiot Democrat audiences would fall for it.
No matter what is exposed on 5 December the perps will get off the hook.
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K.
candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes'
was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French
L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before &
after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara
(conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie
Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at
meeting was Obama WH translator.
GPS Fusion wrote the Dossier with UK spy Steele and was paid by Hillary/DNC.
The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA
agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA
named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered
Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day.
Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump
campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat
contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were
"unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and
fraud left unpunished.
George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence
Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason.
Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C.
– and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no
evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation
April 9, 2018 by Jeff Carlson, CFA
In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow.
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA
chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director
level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. The meeting between Hannigan and Brennan appears somewhat unusual.
The US and the UK are two of the so-called Five Eyes -- along with Canada, Australia and
New Zealand -- that share a broad range of intelligence through a formalized alliance.
The GCHQ is responsible for Britain's Signals Intelligence. The NSA is responsible for the United States' Signals Intelligence. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was not CIA Director Brennan. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was NSA Director Mike Rogers. Luke Harding of the Guardian originally reported the meeting in an April 13, 2017 article
on Britain's spy agencies early role in the Trump-Russia investigation:
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures
connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. This intelligence was passed to the
US as part of a routine exchange of information
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further
information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians.
See above about phony robot "suspicious communications" set up by CIA McMullen to smear
Trump with Trump Tower falsely named server and data created in robo call response with
Russian Alfa bank.
Russian "communications" was e-data of the Russkie Bank and the non-Trump server named
"Trump OrGAINization". It was just two robo-computers pinging back and forth.
The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are
Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal
Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip
up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet
Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation
& Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start.
They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover
their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim.
Feb 13th, Don Bongino Podcast.
"I'll include an article from NPR. NPR, not a by any stretch a right Wing outlet. Ok? But
it's actually a decent piece. Now, it describes the three hop rule. It's from 2013, but it describes it very shortly
& ce scintillating in about 400 words. And it's done well so I'll include it in todays
show notes.
Remember, It's now the "Two Hop Rule" but you just have to know what a "Hop" is to
understand how dangerous this is.
Here's how they explain it.
It says, "testimony before Congress on Wednesday, remember this is written in 2013 Joe.
Showed how easy it is for Americans, with no connection to Terrorism to unwittingly have
their calling patterns analyzed by the Government." This is really wacko stuff. It hinges on
what is known as a "Hop."
Or chain analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone
records Joe, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and
everyone who calls those people." Chain Migration.
You ain't kidding! Right!? Chain spying!
It goes on...though....this is good.
"If the average person Joe, called 40 unique people. "Three Hop Analysts" would allow the
Government to mine the records....this is a staggering number...of 2.5 Million Americans when
investigating one suspected terrorist."
"Holy Moly!" Holly Moly is right.
Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the
FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE.
All the the emails he sent in the past to Trump Team members, combine that with "Two Hops"
you basically have everybody in the known universe that could of ever contacted the Trump
Team.
Paige sends an email, whatever to Kushner. I don't know who he sends emails to. He
probably didn't. But you get the point. Then you go to another "Hop." Kushner, who'd he send
an email to? Now you got the while Trump Team.
That's the whole point. That's why I constantly say to you that they were trying to put a
legal face on this thing after they realized the election was coming up and they could
lose.
They were like. Man, we've been spying on these people the whole time. We already got most
of their emails and their communications. How do we legally do it now?
Oh, we get a FISA Warrant, we use couple of "Hops" and we're Golden."
"... Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received £168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and £250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does
not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against
Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be
part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal,
academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to
take action when the British center perceives a need.
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
Trump administration policy on Ukraine is also strictly adhere yo the neocon playbook. As if
Victoria Nuland is strill working in State Departemetn and Cheney is the vice president.
Notable quotes:
"... in style and substance, there was no greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview. ..."
"... Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. ..."
The controversial Washington think-tanker denied
to me in August 2017 that he'd directly advised the administration. To the contrary, he'd
actually endorsed and counseled Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump's bitter primary rival, in the late
stretches of the trench warfare 2016 primary (something, like most who have come over to Trump
after the primary, he has sought to minimize). But in style and substance, there was no
greater avatar for Trump's statement Tuesday than Gaffney's worldview.
Trump explicitly namechecked the Muslim Brotherhood, a career-long hobby horse of
Gaffney's, and depicted the Middle Eastern theater as straightforward. David Reaboi, an
alumnus of Gaffney's Center for Security Policy and now with the administration-friendly
Security Studies Group, fleshed the statement out Wednesday morning in an illuminating radio
interview. Reaboi has commented to
me in this publication before; there should be no reason to doubt his sincerity. But for
Reaboi, the joint action of last week's indictments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia coupled with
U.S. sanctions was sufficient, and it's time to get back to business.
... ... ...
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on
Twitter: @CurtMills .
The same things were said when the Queen of Great Britain as Head of State requested
President Eisenhower American Support for their Plans to overthrow an Iranian Democracy
in 1953 to save British Anglo-Persian Oil Revenues for Britons.
Or when Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle requested President Truman
American Millions in late 1944-45 intended to hold on to France's Indochina Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos Colonies to consolidate French control of the territory against Ho Chi
Minh determination for independence. Leading to the French 7 year war largely funded by
the United States few recall America refusing them costing another 2 Decades and another
5 Presidents inheriting this French Fiasco Imperialism.
Or when America Allied with Communists Joseb Besarionis Dze Jughashvili known as
Joseph (Koba) Stalin, murdered and imprisoned over 30 million Kulaks, Eastern Slavic
Europeans, and Soviet Union Subjects after making Peace with Adolph Hitler to carve up
Poland, and then required American Assistance of Billions to save Stalin's Communism from
Hitler no one objected?
All Presidents must weigh and decide past, current and future Alliances whether it be
President Carter and Reagan freezing American Iranian Assets and later returns by
President Obama in the Billions while Iran used the money to fund more Middle Eastern
Chaos and terror elsewhere. While President Trump reversed that signed Agreement and
added Sanctions to challenge Iranian Behavior. As well as promoting an Arabian Coalition
in the Middle East after 39 years of failure by the Aaytiollah's Regimes.
These controversies, policies, and outcomes are always up for debate, spin, and
accusations, and often depends on America being force to act and react Deeds of Deception
caused by other Nations Leaders especially, Absolute Monarchs, Communist, Socialist,
Fascist Dictators, and Theocratic Ayatollahs.
Saudi Arabia hosts US military bases. Saudi Arabia buys $billions upon $billions of US
weapons. Saudi Arabia is a major oil producer that aligns its activities with US oil
interests. Saudi Arabia is a big investor in the US. Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the
Middle East. Murder is murder. It's never OK, and God will judge. However, the US has
massive vital interests at stake.
Trump administration is complicit in Khashoggi murder.
The US intelligence had intercepted calls between Riyadh, Washington and Istanbul about
Khashoggi a few days before the killing. It was aware of MbS plans to abduct or kill the
Journalist.
Instead of alerting Khashoggi, the American government let him walk in the Saudi
Consulate and be butchered there.
"... She has been the most active anti war member of congress. She even visited Syria and talked with Assad. She has been tutored by Kucinich, and Kucinich's adviser on foreign affairs has been William R Polk. ..."
"... It's clear that we'll never be free of Dembot relapsing. That's how terminal addicts are. At any given time the great majority of the fake "radicals" who go around claiming to despise the Democrat Party are really just secretly yearning for the next fraudulent "progressive" Democrat hero to come along and sweep them off their feet and back into the Dembot fold. ..."
"... Kucinich, Obama, Warren, Hillary sheepdog extraordinaire Sanders, "AOC" (who just got done telling the Dembot version of climate activists, "Let's get behind Pelosi!"), Gabbard, many more whose names I've forgotten. ..."
"... Any actual sentient political person knows that the historical record of the Democrats is one long unbroken scam, that the "celebrity progressive hero" meme is invariably a fraud, and that this will never change for as long as the Democrat Party and its partisans exist. ..."
"... I used to trust and be gung-ho on Tulsi because of her association with Kucinich, but she lost my respect entirely after she started rubbing shoulders with this Zionist slime: ..."
"... In my view, when we group Gabbard in with corrupt politicians, we do the greatest disservice to our own understanding of how corruption works. We also give in and surrender to evil, sooner than we should. So we should beware of this kind of thinking, both from an honorable place of not maligning a person who may not yet have earned it, and also from a strategic view of not giving into defeatism. ..."
"... An overarching cynicism will only weary us, and the struggle is still alive. Cynicism is the cousin of defeatism and premature surrender. It's a position encouraged by the enemy, because it appears strong while it is actually weak. It's one of the tools that tame - the greatest of course being the one that divides us against each other, while the enemy rules. ..."
After Tulsi Gabbards tweet yesterday there has been a ton of old anti-Tulsi propaganda
that was originally created to discredit her support of Bernie being promoted all over the
place.
Those lies are being aggressively promoted by neocons in both parties and helped along
by supposed progressives and patriots who either ignorantly or maliciously spread the same
lies and sophistry.
Can you help fight against that? Here is what she is up against, these
two articles detail all the lies (compared to the facts) that the neocons and the dumb
progressives who don't bother to check facts are spreading around -- it would
be great if you can help get the word out about this organized slander campaign due to fear
of Tulsi gaining higher office and ending wars:
You don't know anything about Tulsi Gabbard. She has been the most active anti war member of congress.
She even visited Syria and talked with Assad.
She has been tutored by Kucinich, and Kucinich's adviser on foreign affairs has been William
R Polk.
I suggest you do some homework, read some selections on Polk's home page, also review
Kucinich's long term positions on war and peace.
It's clear that we'll never be free of Dembot relapsing. That's how terminal addicts are.
At any given time the great majority of the fake "radicals" who go around claiming to despise
the Democrat Party are really just secretly yearning for the next fraudulent "progressive"
Democrat hero to come along and sweep them off their feet and back into the Dembot fold.
Kucinich, Obama, Warren, Hillary sheepdog extraordinaire Sanders, "AOC" (who just got done
telling the Dembot version of climate activists, "Let's get behind Pelosi!"), Gabbard, many
more whose names I've forgotten.
I've never understood the unbreakable infatuation with the Democrats, other than the clear
fact that support for them isn't political at all, but a type of celebrity fandom.
Any actual sentient political person knows that the historical record of the Democrats is
one long unbroken scam, that the "celebrity progressive hero" meme is invariably a fraud, and
that this will never change for as long as the Democrat Party and its partisans exist.
Of course we already see Dembots everywhere crowing that the House majority is going to do
"real things", and without missing a beat their showcase promise is: "We're going to make
Trump release his tax forms!" I.e. the exact kind of worthless theater which does nothing to
help anyone real, the exact kind of misdirection scam in which the Democrats specialize.
The same goes for worthless tweets. BTW did Gabbard also give tweets condemning the
Zionist state? I'm betting no. Just like "AOC" backpedalled as fast as she could from her
pro-Palestinian comments. She even told an interviewer "I really don't know what I'm talking
about there." (Not an exact quote, but the gist.)
There is no peace with Israel! The fallacy of that statement on Israel dismantles
your argument. Just state that there is self-interest or self-preservation involved if Putin
sells out Iran to that stinking shithole Zionist entity. Iran fought side by side with Russia
and is an invited presence in Syria and a counter-weight to Zionist U.S. presence in Syria
and surrounding Zionist U.S. bases.
With all the Zionist Russian oligarchs breathing down Putin's neck in Russia, and the
demented Zionist state having a large percentage of Russian immigrants, Putin kowtows to
Zionism like everyone else. Yes, Putin is using Syria to get leverage over the U.S./Nato
axis, but Israel is tied to his self-preservation, so he'll drop Iran in a minute for that
reason, but don't say it's for the sake of peace when Israel has its sights on Iran as the
next target of the Empire. It's totally disingenuous to use peace and Israel in the same
sentence.
Next, @57 regarding the Gabbard tussle debs and others are having here: it's all moot
since she offended compassionate Democrat sensibilities by meeting with Assad. Don't
mention her name on Democratic sites; they can't stand her and you'll be excoriated for
bringing her up. So she'll never be the nominee anyway. Now, I don't think either that it's
necessary to even bring up the indigenous in Hawaii considering what was also done to native
Americans on the mainland.
There's something else that disqualifies her. I used to trust and be gung-ho on Tulsi
because of her association with Kucinich, but she lost my respect entirely after she started
rubbing shoulders with this Zionist slime:
I couldn't be bothered getting the picture on it's own so don't blame me for the comments
that surround it. Regardless, I no longer trust Gabbard because of her toxic Zionist
associates.
Sadly (or laughably, if you are in a jolly mood), Russ and Debisdead, and their handful of
likeminded others who daily gather about the ultraleft internet world (such as it is) will
never change their tune in the face of all evidence pointing to their invective (they term
this "critical education") adding up to nothing except furtherance of rightwing oppression
currently sweeping the world.
They offer nothing to motivate people other than the rejection of mainstream political
movements of the center-left which are already organised, in reactionary political parties to
be sure, into the tens of millions in the US.
Large numbers will be required if Russ, debs and their relatively few peers ever in fact
wake up from their blogging stupors (extremely doubtful, imho, based on evidence of the prior
10-15 years) and become a vanguard of the movement to topple and replace the liberal
democratic system with a fair system for all the people.
Lenin already nailed Russ, debs (and their few peers) to the wall way back in 1920:
Is parliamentarianism "politically obsolete"? That is quite a different matter. If that
were true, the position of the "Lefts" would be a strong one. But it has to be proved by a
most searching analysis, and the "Lefts" do not even know how to approach the matter.
In the last open thread I advanced the notion that humans are much more changeable than we
tend to assume, or that our institutions plan on. I could back this claim with substantial
collateral but I'll skip that here.
In my view, when we group Gabbard in with corrupt politicians, we do the greatest
disservice to our own understanding of how corruption works. We also give in and surrender to
evil, sooner than we should. So we should beware of this kind of thinking, both from an
honorable place of not maligning a person who may not yet have earned it, and also from a
strategic view of not giving into defeatism.
What really matters about the Gabbard situation is the history of other people and
institutions that once were on our side and stood as our heroes, and who now seem
compromised, corrupted, silenced or destroyed. There are powerful forces at play that can
turn the good to the bad. These are the forces that we should be intent on identifying, in my
opinion.
An overarching cynicism will only weary us, and the struggle is still alive. Cynicism is
the cousin of defeatism and premature surrender. It's a position encouraged by the enemy,
because it appears strong while it is actually weak. It's one of the tools that tame - the
greatest of course being the one that divides us against each other, while the enemy
rules.
What will be useful to watch with Gabbard will be what forces come to work on her, and how
long she can remain true to her indigenous spiritual strength, if indeed she has not already
caved in (I haven't studied the situation).
Sooner or later someone or some ones must appear who can remain true to the welfare of the
people, and survive all the forces that work to subvert that. Our sitting around hoping for
real change, however, is not going to get it done. Nor is falsely identifying as true those
who are already corrupted, or conversely, labeling as lost those who might still have some
truth in them. Understanding in precise detail and calling out and shedding light on these
forces of subversion, might just help, however.
Fact is, if we took your comment and replaced "Gabbard" with "Obama", we could pretty much
transpose it verbatim to 2008-09 and it would fit right in with what the Obamabots were
saying.
I agree, cynicism is pernicious, and I can't imagine anything more cynical than continued
special pleading on behalf of the Democrats, after all they've proven throughout their
perfidious history.
Maybe. But I think for Obama this would fall under "falsely identifying as true someone
who was already corrupted". What I get from people who have studied Gabbard is that she
hasn't yet fallen, and - conceivably - may not fall.
If Tulsi Gabbard weren't corrupted, she would stay away from the Adelsons no matter what
cause they're peddling that she might share. The Adelsons are kryptonite for trust! She
should know that! She should know better! Find some other financier for your cause, lady!
Now, to russ's point. Yes, it's good to get people to focus on another option besides the
Dems (hopefully you don't mean the Republicans who are part of the same duopoly syndicate).
However, the problem is that in a non-democracy with two Zionist-owned parties monopolizing
the mass demographic, just how do you intend that third option to win?
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
money.
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
"protesters".
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
side.
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
fucked.
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
Comey knows where all the skeletons are buried and has nothing to fear, apart from a
stitch-up behind closed doors hanging, where nobody gets to see. We all know Comey is a Deep
State puppet. This hearing is all for show, to give the dunces the illusion of a functioning
dumbocracy.
Pretty rich that he's worried about leaks....but then again, he would know.
He is damned worried about private testimony as doing so would open him up to suspicion
from guilty parties concerned he might rat them out to save his hide.
Select leaks, even if untrue (fake news turned against them) could bring great pressure
upon his life.
Former
FBI Director James Comey announced over Twitter on Thursday that he has been subpoenaed by
House Republicans.
He has demanded a public testimony (during which legislators would be unable to ask him
questions pertaining to classified or sensitive information), saying that he doesn't trust the
committee not to leak and distort what he says.
"Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans," he tweeted " I'm still happy to
sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a "closed door" thing because I've
seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion . Let's have a hearing and invite
everyone to see." In October Comey rejected a request by the House Judiciary Committee to
appear at a closed hearing as part of the GOP probe into allegations of political bias at the
FBI and Department of Justice, according to Politico
.
"Mr. Comey respectfully declines your request for a private interview," said Comey's
attorney, David Kelly, in a repsonse to the request.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) didn't appreciate Comey's
response.
" We have invited Mr. Comey to come in for a transcribed interview and we are prepared to
issue a subpoena to compel his appearance ," said a committee aide.
Goodlatte invited Comey to testify as part of a last-minute flurry of requests for
high-profile Obama administration FBI and Justice Department leaders, including former
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. He threatened
to subpoena them if they didn't come in voluntarily. -
Politico
The House committee has been investigating whether overwhelming anti-Trump bias with in the
FBI and Department of Justice translated to their investigations of the President during and
after the 2016 US election.
Didn't Gowdy deal with this already? "When did the FBI conduct an interview limited to 5
minutes?" "When did the FBI ever conduct an interview in public?" And the rest. Sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander.
(I happen to think Gowdy is compromised, but the points remain.)
The crook knows a public hearing will allow him to defer answering EVERY question because
it "involves a current investigation", "it's classified", "I don't recall" and every other
dodge under the sun. Put this creep away for good!
Comey knows he can't withstand real questioning. He will be forced to take the 5th. A lot
of desperation showing here. He won't show and time will run out on the House, so Lindsay
Graham needs to take up the cause.
"... Q says that Donald Trump was asked to run for the Presidency by a team of military generals and other assorted true patriots who have slowly and patiently coalesced behind the scenes, waiting for the right time to strike back against Cabal. Q says that President Trump and the Q team say a prayer to the departed spirit of JFK each and every day in the White House, to steel them for the battle against Cabal. Q says that John F. Kennedy Jr. was a close friend of Donald Trump, and either was killed by the Clintons to ensure Hillary's Senate seat, or faked his own death and is still alive, helping Trump and Team Q fight Cabal behind the scenes. Some believe he might even be Q himself. ..."
"... One of the remarkable things about the Q phenomenon is how it has reversed some of the beliefs and values that have long been held by conspiracy theorists. For example, ever since investigators during the Iran-Contra scandal found out about the REX-84 plan to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law in the event of a national emergency, people have worried that someday the government is going to round up all the patriots and stick them in a FEMA camp somewhere. (See the aforementioned William Cooper book for a typical presentation of this.) But now, with Q talking about military tribunals for the members of Cabal, many of the same people are applauding the idea of doing away with due process and Constitutional rights for those accused of a crime. ..."
"... Q supporters often point to the bizarre exchange between Lindsey Graham and Brett Kavanaugh during the latter's confirmation hearings. Graham made a point of establishing the legitimacy of such tribunals during times of war, noting that the United States has technically been at war since 9-11. This is seen as further evidence that Graham and Kavanaugh are both on Team Q and gearing up for "The Storm." Apparently Graham's years of shilling for the neocons' war agenda are just water under the bridge now. ..."
"... Then there is the last case that Kavanaugh presided over before his appointment to the Supreme Court by President Trump. That was the case of Morley vs. CIA , which was brought about by journalist Jefferson Morley, who discovered the identity of the aforementioned George Joannides back in the 1990s. Ever since that time, he has been fighting the CIA in court to try to get the records on Joannides, so that historians and researchers can try to piece together his role in the events surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination. In a 2-1 decision, Kavanaugh sided with the CIA against Morley in deciding that, when a litigant successfully sues the government for records through the Freedom of Information Act, the government is not liable to pay their legal costs. This "incentivizes the CIA and other agencies to abuse FOIA and discourages investigative reporting," because whereas the government has virtually unlimited resources to fight, stall, and stonewall in court, the average citizen journalist or investigator does not. ..."
"... Trump is probably no more motivated to expose deep state treasons from the past than Obama was to actually improve the lot of black people in America. They're both the political equivalent of pressure relief valves. ..."
"... Trump is a complete fraud, and Q's purpose is to keep the idiots who voted for Trump thinking "any day now, any day any day now " ..."
We are now at year 55 since the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. This defining event of the Baby Boomer generation
still looms large over the American nation, ever finding new ways to stay relevant to contemporary events.
There have been two significant developments during the Trump presidency. First was Trump's tweet in October 2017 saying that
he would declassify all the remaining JFK files that the government is still withholding. I and many others who are interested in
the JFK investigation were hopeful that this would happen, as I
wrote in March of that year. While Trump's
supporters cheered and took it as further confirmation of Trump's anti-establishment bona fides, the claim unfortunately turned out
to be false. More than 15,000 records remain withheld, including some of the most important records that researchers have been waiting
for, such as those on CIA man George Joannides.
Joannides, a mysterious figure whose identity was only discovered in the late 1990s, oversaw the agency's relationship with a
Cuban exile group that Lee Harvey Oswald was in contact with, and was then brought out of retirement in the 1970s in order to oversee
the CIA's relationship with the Congressional committee that had re-opened the JFK investigation. The Congressional investigators
were led to believe that Joannides was just a regular CIA employee with no relation to the events in question. When House Select
Committee on Assassinations chairman Robert Blakey finally found out, decades later, who Joannides really was, he admitted (to his
credit) that he was wrong to think that the CIA had cooperated with his investigation, and that he should have believed his investigators
like Gaeton Fonzi and Edward Lopez, who knew that the Agency was deceiving them, and tried to say so.
So we're still waiting for all the JFK files, and President Trump has not pushed the CIA to disclose them. But with a tweet and
a subsequent release of some previously classified material, most people have been convinced otherwise. Ask the average Trump supporter
whether or not Trump released all the JFK files and they will likely say that he has. This is because most of Trump's supporters,
even otherwise intelligent and skeptical people, are strongly inclined to believe most everything that he says, (must be that master
level persuasion) the same way that his detractors foolishly believe every negative story that the fake news media reports about
him, including the conspiracy theory that Russia "hacked" the 2016 election.
(One important finding – to my knowledge totally unreported in any mainstream source – is that the stolen DNC emails were transferred
at a speed far too fast
to have been done by outside hacking , whether by Russians across the sea or teenagers down the block. Instead they must have
been transferred onto a USB, by someone inside the DNC. Gee, I wonder who that could have been.)
But the biggest new story in the long tale of the JFK assassination and its cover-up is the emergence of Q.
With an ongoing series of posts on anonymous message boards known for being pro-Trump stomping grounds, Q – whoever he is or they
are – has created a grand conspiracy theory on par with that of Milton William Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse , or Chris Carter's
X-Files narrative (which I've always thought used material from Cooper).
The Q story holds that since President Kennedy's assassination, if not before, the United States has been under the control of
a shadowy entity which Q followers call "Cabal." Within Cabal are all the bad guys of all the great conspiracy theories of the past
hundred years, and more – the CIA, the Masons, the mafia, the black nobility, the Vatican, and even aliens. And they not only engineer
almost every significant event that happens in the political and social landscape, from elections to blockbuster movies to false
flag shootings, but they also commit the most heinous and unspeakable crimes, for the strangest of ritual and metaphysical reasons,
that you can imagine.
Q says that Donald Trump was asked to run for the Presidency by a team of military generals and other assorted true patriots who
have slowly and patiently coalesced behind the scenes, waiting for the right time to strike back against Cabal. Q says that President
Trump and the Q team say a prayer to the departed spirit of JFK each and every day in the White House, to steel them for the battle
against Cabal. Q says that John F. Kennedy Jr. was a close friend of Donald Trump, and either was killed by the Clintons to ensure
Hillary's Senate seat, or faked his own death and is still alive, helping Trump and Team Q fight Cabal behind the scenes. Some believe
he might even be Q himself.
What a great story! Where is Chris Carter to turn this into a tv show? (Arkhaven Comics is already turning it into a
comic book .) But then, times have changed, and one could
argue that there is no need to turn it into a show, because it is already a show that we are watching in real time and following
on social media. This would make Jean Baudrillard's head explode, if he were still alive.
One of the remarkable things about the Q phenomenon is how it has reversed some of the beliefs and values that have long been
held by conspiracy theorists. For example, ever since investigators during the Iran-Contra scandal found out about the REX-84 plan
to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law in the event of a national emergency, people have worried that someday the government
is going to round up all the patriots and stick them in a FEMA camp somewhere. (See the aforementioned William Cooper book for a
typical presentation of this.) But now, with Q talking about military tribunals for the members of Cabal, many of the same people
are applauding the idea of doing away with due process and Constitutional rights for those accused of a crime.
Q supporters often point to the bizarre exchange between Lindsey Graham and Brett Kavanaugh during the latter's confirmation hearings.
Graham made a point of establishing the legitimacy of such tribunals during times of war, noting that the United States has technically
been at war since 9-11. This is seen as further evidence that Graham and Kavanaugh are both on Team Q and gearing up for "The Storm."
Apparently Graham's years of shilling for the neocons' war agenda are just water under the bridge now.
Kavanaugh likewise has been hailed by Trump and Q supporters as another fighter in the battle against Cabal. I'm inclined to believe
that the sexual assault charges against Kavanaugh were false, especially because Blasey Ford's testimony was so obviously constructed
for maximum emotional effect and minimal legal accountability for perjury. (I'm also inclined to believe that Kavanaugh's innocuous
explanations of the various terms in his yearbook were bullshit. The only thing teenage boys like more than beer is sex.) But much
more important than any of that is the fact that Kavanaugh is alleged to have helped cover up the likely murder of Vince Foster when
he worked for Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. A witness in the Foster case, Patrick Knowlton, recently recounted
his experience with Kavanaugh during that investigation on
Ed Opperman's podcast . So how does Kavanaugh go from covering for the Clintons to being on team Lock-Her-Up?
Then there is the last case that Kavanaugh presided over before his appointment to the Supreme Court by President Trump. That
was the case of Morley vs. CIA , which was brought about by journalist Jefferson Morley, who discovered the identity of the
aforementioned George Joannides back in the 1990s. Ever since that time, he has been fighting the CIA in court to try to get the
records on Joannides, so that historians and researchers can try to piece together his role in the events surrounding Lee Harvey
Oswald and the JFK assassination. In a 2-1 decision, Kavanaugh sided with the CIA against Morley in deciding that, when a litigant
successfully sues the government for records through the Freedom of Information Act, the government is not liable to pay their legal
costs. This "incentivizes the
CIA and other agencies to abuse FOIA and discourages investigative reporting," because whereas the government has virtually unlimited
resources to fight, stall, and stonewall in court, the average citizen journalist or investigator does not.
I can't take a position on whether or not Q is "real," i.e. someone actually connected to the President, simply because I have
no way of knowing. The "Q proofs" that supporters offer up are not proofs at all, but some of them do indeed seem to defy explanation.
But what is more significant is that President Trump is clearly in on the game. And what is even more significant is that the mainstream
media, while publishing article after article about how stupid the Q theory is and how dangerous the Q followers are, never acknowledge
Trump's obvious acceptance of it, nor ask him to do anything about it.
The Q phenomenon could be killed in an instant, in a very simple way. All President Trump has to do is tweet: "Q is not real.
It's not anyone connected to me." Boom. Done. But he hasn't done that, or anything like it, such as having a friendly journalist
pitch the question to him. For whatever reason, he wants Q to continue. Why? And why is the media scared to ask him about it, especially
if they're so sure that it's just a larp, but nonetheless oh so very dangerous?
At least some of the benefit for Trump is obvious. The Q narrative paints him as perhaps the greatest President in American history,
selflessly devoted to battling evil in the name of truth, justice, and the American way. Just like how many people think of JFK.
Except that, whereas JFK is supposed to have been killed by the military-industrial complex, we're now supposed to be rooting for
the military-industrial complex as the good guys, fighting against the shadowy and nefarious Cabal. The plot has shifted from
Seven Days in May to G.I. Joe vs. Cobra . Trump, JFK, and the Deep State: Part Q, by Jack Ravenwood - The Unz Review
I don't think that President Trump would continue to subtly encourage the Q phenomenon just for the ego boost, or for the few
thousand extra votes it gets him. But I could be wrong – stranger things have happened in American politics.
We may yet learn the truth about who or what is behind Q. For those of us who believe that the prince of this world is the father
of lies, it's not impossible to believe that there are rich and powerful people who are as evil as Q says they are. And it's difficult
not to hope, in some part of your mind, that Trump really is what Q supporters believe him to be, and that The Storm really is going
to round up all those "bad, bad people" that Trump called out during his campaign. But I'm not holding my breath, just like I'm not
holding it waiting for the rest of those files.
I suspect, rather, that Q will disappear when the people behind him deem the time to be right, and no explanations will be forthcoming.
Competing theories will emerge – it was a psyop, it was just an elaborate hoax, it was Trump himself, it really was JFK Jr.! – and
researchers and historians will debate the minutiae, talking about how these pieces of evidence point to this conclusion,
but these other pieces of evidence point to that conclusion. And the question of Who Was Q? will take its place alongside
that other historical mystery that I'm sure I and others will still be writing and wondering about five, ten, twenty years from now,
and beyond: Who Killed JFK?
Trump is probably no more motivated to expose deep state treasons from the past than Obama was to actually improve the lot of
black people in America.
They're both the political equivalent of pressure relief valves.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong.
Trump, JFK, and the Deep State: Part Q, by Jack Ravenwood - The Unz Review
American foreign aid is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (the Symington Amendment) or refuses to abide by
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess
what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American foreign aid.
This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their agents of a foreign
government with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its American
Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of
American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks.
infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Refusal to renounce foreign citizenship should result in
immediate deportation with permanent loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders
of "dual citizenship" should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental
capacity.
In addition, any American citizen who serves or has served in Israel's military (Israel
Defense Forces) should automatically lose their American citizenship and be immediately
deported to Israel.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to see who would be the most rabid admirer of that foreign head
of state. The almost constant applause by our Congress was reminiscent of the Soviet
Politburo in which no one wanted to be the last person to stop clapping. Just who do they
work for? Certainly not for the interests of the United States.
Anyone can see that the USA is the only 'real' friend of Israel in the world.
But the USA is not a friend, as I heard long ago a USA politician say on tv, on jews in the
USA 'we do not love them, w're afraid of them'.
Any USA politcian who openly opposes Israel is without a job.
This is, in my opinion, what jewry does not realise, their power over the USA can disappear
overnight, could even become open hatred of jews.
These jewish organisations, with media controlled by jews, and politicians who accept the
inevitable, for money or not for money, just something like the Hoover Dam: one earthquake,
and their power over the USA is gone.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole west,
I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
However, in many history books one finds sentences as 'and then something happened that
nobody foresaw, but had grave consequences'.
Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to Twitter on Wednesday to excoriate Donald Trump
for his decision to apparently pardon Saudi Arabia for the killing of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, labeling the president the "bitch" of the authoritarian kingdom. "Hey
@realDonaldTrump," Gabbard tweeted , "being Saudi
Arabia's bitch is not "America First."
Gabbard's tweet comes just a day after Trump released
a statement -- with "America First!" right at the top -- that heavily implied that he will
not pursue any further action against top Saudi officials, who are widely believed to be
responsible for the writer's murder, and cast doubt on the finding of the CIA, his own
intelligence service.
Gabbard previously came
under fire for her own forays into Middle Eastern affairs, including her secret 2016
trip to meet with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria at the height of its civil war and her
suggestion that Assad, a brutal dictator who has overseen the deaths of more than 500,000
people in his country, should not be removed from office.
This is long overdue for so many reasons, but the corruption is so pervasive that reform
is nigh impossible (which I'm sure will reassure certain hearts).
I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid
lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism
about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel
standing right next to their shoulders.
Seriously, who can coherently argue that any hazard to democracy posed by Russia's
election influence was remotely comparable to the interference of Israel and Britain? And why
should the latter 2′s intentions any more than the former's?
Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a million
human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Notable quotes:
"... But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East. Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost. ..."
"... National Security Advisor John Bolton recently received the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America. ..."
"... one might suggest that the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given events of last Friday whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] . ..."
"Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense
of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state ..." Depending on what criteria one uses, there are between
200 and 600 groups in the United States that wholly or in part are dedicated to furthering the interests of Israel. The organizations
are both Jewish, like the Zionist Organization of America, and Christian Zionist to include John Hagee's Christians United for Israel,
but the funding of the Israel Lobby and both its political and media access comes overwhelmingly from Jewish supporters and advocates.
Many of the groups are registered with the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes as 501(c)3 "educational" or "charitable"
foundations, which enables them to solicit tax exempt donations. One might dispute whether promoting Israeli interests in the United
States is actually educational, but as of right now the Department of the Treasury believes it can be so construed, protected by
the First Amendment.
But there is a more serious consideration in terms of the actual relationships that many of the groups enjoy with the Israeli
government. To be sure, many of them boast on their promotional literature and websites about their relationships with the Benjamin
Netanyahu and his cabinet, so the issue of dual loyalty or, worse, acting as actual Israeli government agents must be considered.
There is a legal remedy to hostile foreigners acting against American interests and that is the Foreign Agents Registration Act
of 1938 (FARA). Originally intended to identify and monitor agents of Nazi Germany propagandizing in the United States, it has since
been applied to individuals and groups linked to other nations. Most recently, it was used against Russian news agencies RT America
and Sputnik, which were forced to register. It is also being considered for Qatar based al-Jazeera.
FARA
requires
identified agents to be transparent in terms of their funding and contacts while also being publicly identified as representing
the interests of a foreign nation. They must report to the Department of Justice every contact they have with congressmen or other
government officials. The text of the Act defines a foreign agent as
"any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the
order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly
or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and
who directly or through any other person --
(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
(ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political
consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of
value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or
(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government
of the United States."
In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has never
been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working closely
with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests.
That failure is at a minimum a tribute to Jewish power in the United States, but it is also due to the fact that the organizations
are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews, not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately
made by the groups
themselves
to demonstrate that they are not being directed by the Israeli government.
The difficulty in proving that one is directed by a foreign government has been definitively resolved regarding one group the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has become the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran, Israel's
bête noir
. The recent al-Jazeera expose on the activities of the Israeli lobbies in both Britain and the United States,
which I wrote about last week
, included a surreptitiously
filmed conversation with Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli intelligence officer who now heads the Ministry of Strategic Affairs,
which is tasked with countering what is perceived to be anti-Israeli activity worldwide.
The Ministry is particularly focused on the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which is increasingly
active in both the United States and Europe.
Vaknin-Gil was discussing his activities with Tony Kleinfeld, an undercover investigative reporter who was secretly recording
and filming his encounters with various members of the Israel Lobby as well as of the Israeli government.Vaknin-Gil provided
explicit confirmation
that the FDD
works directly with the Israeli government, making it an Israeli agent by the definition of FARA.
For those who are unfamiliar with FDD, it is probably currently the most prominent neocon organization though it nevertheless
claims to be a non-partisan "research group." It focuses on foreign policy and security issues by "Fighting Terrorism and Promoting
Freedom," as it informs us on its
website
masthead.
It works to "defend free nations against their enemies," which frequently means in practice anyone whom Israel considers to be
hostile, most particularly Iran. FDD's Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman,
and Bill Kristol. Its Executive Director is Canadian import Mark Dubowitz, who is obsessed with Iran. Its advisors and experts are
mostly Jewish and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.
FDD's auditorium has become a preferred venue for senior officials of the Trump Administration to go and make hardline speeches,
just as the American Enterprise Institute was under George W. Bush. Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Nikki Haley have all
spoken there recently, frequently focusing on Iran and the threat that it allegedly constitutes.
FDD aside, Vaknin-Gil
also confirmed
that there were other groups in the United States doing the same sorts of things on behalf of Israel. He said "We have FDD. We
have others working on this," elaborating that FDD is "working on" projects for Israel including "data gathering, information analysis,
working on activist organizations, money trail."
So Vaknin-Gil was admitting that FDD and others were working as Israeli proxies, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying
on legal organizations, and both planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction. Kleinfeld also spoke with a Jonathan
Schanzer, a senior official in FDD, who filled in a bit more of what the foundation is up to in terms of discrediting groups in the
U.S. that support the BDS movement.
Schanzer admitted "BDS has taken everybody by surprise" before complaining that the Jewish response has been "a complete mess.
I don't think that anybody's doing a good job. We're not even doing a good job." He then complained that attempts to discredit Palestinian
groups by linking them to terrorist groups had failed, as also had the use of the label anti-Semitism. "Personally I think anti-Semitism
as a smear is not what it used to be."
So, when will the Justice Department move on FDD now that its true colors have been exposed by al-Jazeera? The group must be required
to register if justice be done, but will it? Its principal partner in crime the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
has avoided registering for more than sixty years by claiming that it is an American organization working to educate the U.S. public
about the all the good things connected to Israel. Even though it meets regularly with Israeli government officials, it claims not
to be representing Israeli interests.
But just as in the case of FDD, it is time to require AIPAC to register as what it really is: a foreign agent. As a registered
agent, it will still be able to exercise First Amendment rights to defend Israel but it would not be able to be involved in lobbying
on Capitol Hill and directing money to politicians who are described as pro-Israeli, as it does now. Its finances will be transparent
and it will be perceived as an official advocate for Israel, not as an educational resource for what is happening in the Middle East.
Hopefully, when AIPAC stops throwing money around, the politicians and media types will find another place to roost.
To be sure the lovefest for Israel in government extends far beyond FDD and AIPAC. It can be found in many dark corners.
National
Security Advisor John Bolton
recently received
the "Defender of Israel" award from the Zionist Organization of America.
And
one might suggest that
the U.S. United Nations delegation, headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley, is directed by the Israeli government, particularly given
events of last Friday
whereby the U.S. voted against a motion condemning Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Syrian
Golan Heights, thereby recognizing for the first time Israel's sovereignty over the area. Whether Haley was speaking for herself
or for the administration was characteristically unclear, but it hardly matters
.
Nikki Haley might be referred to as a useful idiot, as Lenin put it, but her consistent pattern of extreme loyalty in defense
of Israel marks her out as being particularly beholden to the Jewish state, which will no doubt arrange to richly reward her through
some position in financial services for which she is totally unqualified when she leaves her post in January. And then she will be
well funded to run for president in 2020.
Having Haley in charge, one might just as well vote for Benjamin Netanyahu.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
Trump is presently Israel's man in the Oval Office and if he should not be available or bets need to be hedged for 2020, nikki
likudnik is a sensible substitute.
After all (as Giraldi rightly points out), she appears to serve not as U.N. ambassador for her own country, but for the Jewish
State of Israel.
The only "deep end" is Trump allowing the United States to be controlled by and have its national interests subverted by a
tiny client state via the out-sized lobbying bucks of Israel-firsters like Sheldon Adelson and his cabal.
Giraldi has consistently made this point and its clear who is unhappy about it.
' In spite of language that would presumably cover many of the hundreds of Jewish organizations acting for Israel, FARA has
never been used to compel registration of any such groups or individuals even when it was public knowledge that they were working
closely with the Israeli government to coordinate positions and promote other Israeli interests '
I think you've failed to grasp that Israel is not subject to gentile law.
" . . . but it is also due to the fact that the organizations are funded from within the United States by wealthy American Jews,
not by Israel, which is the argument sometimes inaccurately made by the groups themselves to demonstrate that they are not being
directed by the Israeli government."
I am not sure given the scope of the references that it matters. it appears that anyone advocating for any foreign entity is
included.
"(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts
within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant
for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses
contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United
States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States."
These "by the way, that includes" list makes it very clear what organizations are bound to register.
Israel's artificial 'war on terror' in the Middle East, has cost US taxpayers nearly $6 trillion and killed roughly half a
million human beings, and there's still no end in sight. source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news
Ludwig Watzal
, November 20, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
Geraldi's article shows how the Zionist Israel lobby holds the US public in choke cold and to put Israeli political goals
into the throat of the people and the US administration. Besides their power, there have to be many useful idiots who put up
with it and to support their bad goals. Their penetration of all walks of life renders it impossible to get FDD, AIPAC or all
the hundred other Israeli lobby groups registered as foreign agents. As Al Jazeera has demonstrated, these folks are working
foremost for Israeli interests. Their loyalty belongs primarily to Israel. If people would know, perhaps something could
change. But people are not allowed to tell because the Zionist controlled media are making sure of that.
@DESERT FOX
Dual citizenship has now been allowed in most (((Western liberal democracies))). There are two old adages on
the subject with slightly different views:
1) A slave cannot serve two masters; and 2) A slave with two masters is truly free.
All of the Jewish lobby groups fit into these views, but their magical mental gymnastics absolves them. In
the first instance, it is true that they cannot serve two masters, so they only serve one – Israel. In the
second instance, they are free, as they are not bound by allegiance to either master, they voluntarily serve
Israel.
Removing dual citizenship would be a step. Another step would be revisiting Chapter 115 on
Sedition. The definition under law, does not correlate with the normal legal definition.
The law contemplates force, the legal definition does not. Aligning the law with the legal concept of
sedition would put the "educational" groups would place them on less solid ground.
And finally, given that the US Constitution contemplates the government being "We, the people", all aid
to Israel is harvested from "We, the people" without consent. The famous Davy Crockett story covers it
nicely
"... In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the United States. ..."
"... "I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF ..."
In Trumpworld Israel's fantasy of the overarching Iranian menace creates a need for an
alliance of steel to combat this threat to the world and that alliance must include Saudi
Arabia. Why that is so is not clear to me. Saudi Arabia has no armed forces that possess
real combat power to do anything but bomb civilians and oppress the Shia of the Eastern
Province. Possession of military equipment does not equal combat power. A more convincing
feature of theTrumpish view is the economic bit. DJT wants the Saudis'money for the US
economy. Like any businessman/trader at that elevated level he is loathe to surrender market
share to his competitors who in this case are Russia and China. He is also quite grateful that
SA has pumped enough oil and gas to depress prices. All in all, I would say that he was quite
considerate in his forthright explanation to us all that he really IS the Saudi mukhtar of the
United States. pl
**********
Old Post
"I call upon Salman, the King of Saudi, to invite the prime minister of Israel Netanyahu
to visit Saudi Arabia," Katz said on Thursday
speaking at the Herzliya conference . "We saw what a wonderful host you can be when
President Trump was there. You can also send your heir, the new one, Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. He's a dynamic person. He is an initiator. And he wants to break through."" SF
--------------
OK, Yisrael Katz, the intelligence minister of Israel has asked the present king of Saudi
Arabia to invite Benjamin Natanyahu to a state visit in Riyadh. What a great idea! (irony) IMO
there is nothing that would be more likely to trigger a revolt within and without the SA royal
family against King Salman and his son, the new crown prince. People just don't understand that
the Saudi population and the royal family (thousands of people in various factions) continue to
regard Israel as the ultimate enemy. For all these carefully indoctrinated Wahhabis, Israel is
an abomination that occupies a portion of the territory of the 'umma, God's territory
on earth. To invite Israel's prime minister to Riyadh for a state visit or, indeed any kind of
visit, would be to recognize Israel as a state legitimately and perpetually occupying
Palestine. The behind the scenes machinations of various acculturated princes like Muhammad bin
Salman mean nothing to the people of the Saudi kingdom. What we are talking about in such a
demand is an invitation to blasphemy and apostasy. It is typical of the vast majority of
Israelis that in their contempt for non-Jews and especially their neighbors, they remain
ignorant of such realities. A truce would be possible but not permanent recognition. pl
" ... it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so
drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the
heels of President Trump's high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent,
President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US
still maintains major military presence in that country."
... the nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism." SF
----------
Saudi Arabia is a larger sponsor of Sunni jihadi movements than Qatar. That has always been
true. The "kingdom" is a state built on Sunni fanaticism. There are no churches, no synagogues,
no legally resident ministers of other faiths than Islam in the country. Mukhtar
(appointed head man and tax farmer) Donald Trump swore allegiance to his Saudi pals in Riyadh.
He did that before an army of witnesses from across the Islamic world. The Saudis have always
sought to impose their sphere of influence upon all Muslims within their reach. They
understandably think that mukhtar Trump gave them an extended reach as their henchman.
The air base at al-odeid in Qatar is a Qatari base in which the US has been allowed to
position the forward element of US CENTCOM's headquarter, the US air operations center for the
whole region and ten thousand bird men. (and women). Arabs do not do things like that from
altruistic love. The Qataris expected protection from Iran and Saudi Arabia and have not gotten
much of anything in return. Now Turkey , pursuing its Turanian destiny (on hold since the
Ottoman collapse) is building a military position as an ally of the al-than i family
rulers of Qatar. SA and its pipsqueak Gulfie allies are now threatening Turkey with - what?
Unhappiness if it does not abandon Qatar.? Did mukhtar Trump understand any of this
before he swore fealty to King Salman? I doubt it. pl
it is unlikely in the extreme that
Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme
that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here. it is unlikely in the extreme
that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US,
particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump's high-profile
visit to Saudi Arabia. While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to
back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that
country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and
Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting
violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar's change of policies would be
a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface
but now have finally burst into the open. The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the
pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here.
In a sense, that could be reversed. Indeed, none of the presidents since Bill
Clinton has done ALL that Netanyahu's Israel has demanded, since none of them have gone to
war against Iran.
Obama, it is said, couldn't stand to be in the same room as Bibi. He and
SOS Kerry negotiated the multi-party Iran Nuclear Deal against Bibi's wishes, which our
current POTUS irrationally tore up. Was Trump carrying out the will of Israel, or was it
because he could not bear to allow one of the few good things that Obama accomplished to
stand? Perhaps both.
Sixteen years ago Wesley Clark said that the PNAC plan was for the US to take out 7
countries in 5 years, with Iran being the coup de gras. Hasn't happened yet. And is Trump
really that crazy? Let's hope that Bibi, who may be on his way out of office for corruption,
never gets his war.
@ChuckOrloski
Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first
choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who
were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in
2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were
rolling in surplus money again.
Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the
perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the
Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already
underway
By Alison Weir
[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French
citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli
authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and
retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international
efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to
Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions
into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and
ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a
government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.
A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a
billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is
predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."
A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often
major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers,
publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud,
French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a
get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)
Victimizing French business owners & churches
The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of
small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost
their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.
Both share an implacable sense of Islamophobia. And, the deep sense of racial
inferiority complex which the hindoos feel, fits well with the cursed ideology of their
supremacist white-skinned Zionist masters. Them hindoos are willful lickspittle of the
Jooscum.
Man you really hit the bull's eye with this astute observation of yours (or is the golden
cafe we have here?? ;))
What I think is that, these hindoos (at least the ones who are on the top of the totem
pole) have what robert lindsay used to describe as, a very deep sense of inferiority complex
intertwined with a very superficial sense of superiority on the outside. Deeper the
inferiority complex, stronger the (external) superiority complex to offset the deep sense of
shame they have on the inside. I wonder why that is?
However it would be wrong to paint the whole country of India with the same brush. A
massive percentage of people there are bearing the brunt of toxic hatred and violence
emanating from the likes of 'zionist lickspittles' you mentioned. One can only surmise what
they must be enduring. These low caste and other minorities there would be a very patient and
stoic people as otherwise India would've erupted into a full blown civil war by now.
As for the 'jooscum', I take issue with that. There certainly are Jews, like Unz, Atzmon
and Shamir who defy the stereotype and become champions of real free speech and truth. So
again one must NOT go down that slippery slope of putting each and everyone to the guillotine
just because they happen to be cohen or ahmed or rahul or whatever. We are better than
that
@ChuckOrloski
Its much more than that .we have a lot of cost for Israel than just the yearly 3 billion, it
more like 5 billion if you count the 760,000 for missile defense and a dozen other programs
for aid to Israel. Cost was 1.6 trillion as of 2002, probably 2 trillion by now.
Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
December 9, 2002
By David R. Francis ,Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
[MORE]
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by
today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades,
his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the
Israel lobby.
For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its
backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he
figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli
officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs
of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion
in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.
Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by
the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't
pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both
principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.
Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed
early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion
in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting
$3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240
billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and
Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total
package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle
East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the
University of Maine.
These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well
spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if
Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden,
are little known.
One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the
US after Israel-Arab wars.
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories
Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms,
triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.
That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in
2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost
another $450 billion.
Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
Other US help includes:
• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds
worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the
United States economy, says Stauffer.
• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600
million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to
cover these.
• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile
projects.
• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says
these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.
• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid,
ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has
won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made
equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to
Israel.
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier.
Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often
resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.
• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion
a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use
its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.
• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi
Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.
@JC1
Asian-Americans are not brainwashed. When the LA riots occurred in part because a Korean
woman shot a black girl in the back of the head in her store, the Korean shopkeepers simply
got out their guns and started shooting black rioters like dogs which of course they
privately regard them to be. Blacks paid cash in their liquor stores but once this was no
longer a factor they simply started shooting at them-with much greater accuracy, too. The
average ghetto black was no match for a Korean with an SKS rifle.
Iranian Muslims are not brainwashed. When Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League who had
previously been known for brawling with Metzger and the Klan on talk shows tried to blow up
the mosque and congressman Issa after 9-11 (I guess he did not get the memo that the Z were
behind it) he was imprisoned. His death was suspicious and probably the result of Aryan gangs
on the inside. At any rate, so much for Jewish domination of the Muslims.
Hindus are supposedly cooperating with Jews in their takeover of the tech industry. I
cannot be sure of that. However, they are not brainwashed.
And as our Italian-American posters have noted here, the Italians who long resided in the
same cities with Jews don't give a "rat's culo" for Israel.
Supposedly the 1965 Immigration Act was engineered by Jews to destroy white society. What
it did accomplish was importing a bunch of Asians and Hispanics who do not care a whit about
Israel or Jews and some Muslims who detest them.
So it is the rural white prole who is brainwashed. He comes home from a hard day's work
and watches some film like BLACK PANTHER where a bunch of effete British character actors
play the baddies and the black Mandingo walks around in a costume and they want him to screw
their sister.
The Korean or Iranian or Italian in the city does not want to imitate blacks. Few of them
are whiggers. It is the rural white prole who wants to "keep it real". Italians who do choose
to be gangsters do not go to jail for the petty crimes that whiggers do.
I must say that the white is something of a fool. And I should add, I am one. Whites
seemed smarter in the 1990′s. But somehow they declined after Bush was elected.
Doesn't anyone else get fatigued by the constant demand for attention by the one
Ethnostate supposedly created by God ? What's in it for me ?
You get to pay for it.
Why Israel Will Never Repay US Loans
Dr. Israel Shahak
[MORE]
"All conceivable questions have been discussed about scheduling and conditions of the $10
billion in loan guarantees requested by Israel from the US government except one: How can
Israel possibly repay such a huge sum? After all, if Israel cannot repay these loans, the
burden will fall upon the guarantor, the US government, which in the last analysis means upon
the US taxpayers.
Such a repayment would in fact amount to foreign aid under another name. Because of the
deterioration of economic conditions in the US, no matter what forms of pressure the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may use, the Congress will be reluctant to offer
Israel $10 billion in an extra aid gift.
Given these realities, the best guess would be that both sides already know that since Israel
is not capable of repaying the US guaranteed loans, they regard the guarantees as a gift to
Israel in disguise.
A Gift in Disguise
Yitzhak Shamir and other Israeli government spokesmen, as well as spokesmen for Israel's
US lobby, constantly reiterate that Israel has so far been repaying its debts on time. They
don't mention that the US pays the interest on those loans, and eventually forgives them. If
the US did not do this, Israel's case would soon be comparable to that of the USSR and other
debt-ridden states which used their past good repayment records as justification for
borrowing more and more, until finally they defaulted on all their loans. The situation is
described by Israeli economist Zvi Timor, the editor of Al-Hamishmar, in an article entitled
"Dignified Behavior Under Pressure" in his journal's September 17 issue:
"For years we have been repaying all our debts from what we've been receiving as American
aid. Every year Israel gets $1.3 billion of economic aid, of which $ 1.1 billion goes for
debt repayment."
In other words, 85 percent of American economic aid "is not spent as it is supposed to be.
From private but reliable sources, I know that last year the sum in question reached $1.2
billion, i.e. 92 percent of the received "economic aid." It means that the American taxpayers
have been, without their knowledge, repaying the Israeli debt for years. Ordinary Americans
would be overjoyed if they learned that their debts were being repaid by somebody else. If
Israeli debt repayment goes under the name of "economic aid," it is to conceal from the US
public the knowledge that they are repaying somebody else's debts.
The deception is nevertheless obvious for the simple reason that the expenditure of
between $11 and $12 billion over 10 years would otherwise have produced some visible effects
in Israel. None, however, can be seen.
According to the Congressional Research Service issue brief, "Israel: US Foreign
Assistance Facts" by Clyde R. Mark (updated May 8, 1991), Israel also benefits from periodic
US government waivers. From 1974 to 1984, the United States waived repayment of part of
Israel's annual FMS (Foreign Military Sales). Since 1985, the US has waived repayment of the
total FMS. The waiver avoids establishing a program and personnel to oversee the program, as
would be required if the same amount were given as a Military Assistance Program grant.
What this means is that since the entire value of the enormous military aid the US has
granted Israel over the years is in fact a gift, Israel does not owe the US very much. The
brief states further that "the United States gives all ESF (Economic Support Funds) directly
to the Government of Israel rather than under a specific program. There is no accounting of
how the funds are used. " No other recipient of American aid benefits from such conditions,
which seem almost to have been designed to beget fraud. And fraud they did beget.
In fact, fraud and deceit have pervaded Israeli utilization of US support. Even the magnitude
of this support has been misreported. Contrary to the data routinely cited by the Western
press, combined US military and economic support to Israel has amounted not to $3.1 billion
yearly, but, as Timor stated, "in sum total, without counting the guarantees, the US
government helps Israel financially to the extent of about $5 billion."
In this sum he includes the value (to Israel) of "deductions [from US income tax] accruing to
funds raised by the United Jewish Appeal. " Incidentally, the bulk of these funds, although
they are put at the disposal of the Israeli government, remain in the US. They are used by
AIPAC and other segments of the Israeli lobby in the United States. In this way, the US
administration actually subsidizes lobbying power used against itself.
Other forms of covert American aid cited by Timor are discussed by Yossi Verter and Yigal
Laviv in an article headlined "The American financial aid to Israel is much higher than
previously known" in Hadashut of September 20. Their estimate of the total amount of support
received by Israel from the US roughly concurs with Timor's.
Relying on "documents leaked by the State Department, which were published in part by the
Wall Street Journal, " and also "on sources in the Congress" (and apparently on Israeli
sources as well), the writers conclude that "financial aid which Israel receives from the US
is much higher than published figures indicate, largely because Israel uses the received
money for complex financial speculation schemes which are without exception detrimental to
the interests of the American taxpayer."
They also assert that "between 1974 and 1989 Israel received from the US over $16 billion in
the form of military aid, but no one in the US really expected that any part of this total
would ever be repaid."
Asking About the Future
But let us leave the past aside, and ask about the future. Right now, the US pays existing
Israeli debts to commercial banks and allows their recycling. The question that therefore
remains is, how can Israel repay the additional principal and interest on the $10 billion in
loans? Or, alternatively, can Israel renounce the guarantees and impose an austerity regime
in their stead?
The latter option is already advocated by such Israeli ministers from the extreme right as
former Chief of Staff and present Minister of Agriculture Rafael Eitan. After all, in order
to repay this sum each year, Israel would have to increase its exports by at least $4
billion, or more if the profits from such exports did not reach 50 percent.
The last officially recorded value for Israeli exports was some $9.4 billion in 1988. The
value of imports was $12.3 billion, yielding a trade deficit of 23.2 percent, according to
the "Statistical Abstract of Israel, 1989." Since Israel is now in recession, the value of
its exports could not have increased much since then.
In fact, one particular export, that of weaponry, has collapsed since 1988. The value of
exported weapons, one-third of which went to Colombia alone, amounted in 1988 to $1.5
billion. The forecast for the next fiscal year was that this particular export would decrease
to $213 million.
Two major markets for the Israeli exports now are North America ($3.1 billion, of which $3
billion goes to the US) and the European Common Market ($3.2 billion). Israeli exports to the
US were composed chiefly of polished diamonds ($1.2 billion), medicines and chemicals ($180
million), and clothes and textiles ($125 million).
Only the gullible can expect that Americans, under present economic conditions, can be
influenced by AIPAC to buy more Israeli diamonds in quantifies sufficient to cover the
repayment of the new loans, to be borrowed at the rate of $2 billion per year for five years.
An increase of Israeli exports by $4 billion, or some 43 percent in a single year, is, as
Timor clearly recognizes, absolutely impossible.
Timor is right in pointing out that without the US guarantees, "a state like Israel, which
already has an enormous foreign debt per capita, enormous defense budget, enormous budgetary
deficit, and quite sizable trade deficit, would not be considered an attractive borrower on
the international financial market. " It can be mentioned in passing that an Israeli
budgetary deficit exists when the notyet granted American guarantees are already counted on
its revenue side! All these facts only reinforce disbelief in Israel's ability to ever repay
the loans guaranteed by the US.
The Austerity Alternative
The alternative option of renouncing the guarantees and imposing an austerity regime would
also have dire consequences. The proposed reduction of all salaries by 10 percent would yield
the equivalent in Israeli shekels of $2 billion. In addition to the social consequences of
this proposal, a hefty proportion of Israeli wage-earners would thus rapidly land below the
poverty line.
Nor would these sacrifices yield the intended economic effects. As Timor reminds his readers,
Israeli shekels are worthless outside of Israel. His conclusion, backed by some additional
arguments not mentioned here, is: "Any savings in shekels are bound to be quite ineffective,
because shekels are not dollars."
The prediction that Israel cannot possibly repay the loans which the US is requested to
guarantee rests on firm grounds. The data upon which this prediction is based, although not
publicized by the media before the current clash of the US administration with the Israeli
government and with the Israeli lobby in the US, were surely known to the advocates of the
guarantees from the start. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that the guarantees were
originally conceived as a grant in disguise. It would have been more honest to call them a
gift.
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment, or
housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your parents,
the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower cannot. So when
Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this year), that means
the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that Israel can then borrow
from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal Reserve provide an
additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they would be if Israel
(or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without backers.
"The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States may be planning to reduce
Israel's loan guarantees to account for any money the country spends constructing a
"security perimeter" that will divide its citizens from Palestinians. What are these loan
guarantees, and how important are they to Israel?
A loan guarantee is essentially the same thing whether you're buying a car, an apartment,
or housing materials for Soviet immigrants. A reliable financial entity (a bank, your
parents, the United States) promises to pay off the balance of a loan if the borrower
cannot. So when Congress promises Israel $9 billion in loan guarantees (as they did this
year), that means the U.S. government accepts responsibility for up to $9 billion that
Israel can then borrow from international creditors. And loans guaranteed by the Federal
Reserve provide an additional benefit: The interest rates offered are much lower than they
would be if Israel (or any small, debt-troubled nation) sought the loan without
backers.
The $9 billion in loan guarantees (along with $1 billion in direct aid) comprise a
special post-Gulf War II aid package, awarded to Israel on top of the $3 billion in other
assistance that the United States gives annually. But with loan guarantees, it's never
clear how much money is actually "given": In a perfect world, they wouldn't cost the United
States a cent. Israel -- or Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which snagged loan guarantees
as postwar rewards -- could borrow on the international markets, then pay off the loans
completely, leaving the United States with no financial obligation. But Israel has already
received nearly $10 billion in loan guarantees from the United States since 1992, and while
it has yet to default on any of those loans, this new round of guarantees is intended in
part to help Israel pay off the old debt. Which means the United States could be stuck with
a bill ranging anywhere from zero to $9 billion plus interest.
When borrowing on the United States' good credit, the Israeli government can use the money
for any purpose. However, Congress attached a series of stipulations to the recent package,
including one that reserves the right to reduce the guarantee amount to counterbalance any
money Israel spends creating new settlements in contested territory. This caveat is exactly
what Bush may use now to pressure Israel to cease construction on its "security perimeter"
-- if the caveat is employed, Israel would find itself fully responsible for part of its
loan (and thus with higher interest rates). And because Israel's annual revenues top out at
$40 billion, any tweaks to a $9 billion aid package could shake up the country's
economy.
Experts say it's far from clear that the Bush administration will follow through with this
plan. But simply threatening to reduce the guarantees can also be effective because Israel
needs the U.S.-backed loans to keep debt payments under control. In 1991, Israel was in a
similarly desperate financial situation, and the United States used the threat of limiting
loan guarantees to force then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to attend the Madrid peace
conference and suspend settlement construction while he was there
"The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94
percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.
The $13 million disbursed last week brings to $151 million the amount disbursed since the
program started in 2005, most of it to Jewish institutions "
The USA is not a sovereign nation, America is a sovereign nation, could that be what you
meant to say?
The USA is a corporation organized to govern; it owners are not investor-shareholders
but robber-barren bandit stakeholders. The USA was established to mitigate and tame down
the Democracy Americans had bleed red blood to achieve. Take a look at the corporate bylaws
(constitution) of the USA, they consist of seven articles.
The Executive, Article I. (pres. vp,), the Congress Art. II. (board of directors), the
Judiciary ( to settle difference) (Article III), Articles IV clarifies relations between
the different generally lesser governments (states), Article V, invents a way to make it
possible for the constitution to terminate the Confederation (that invention is called
Ratification) It was ratification that transferred the power of government from the
continental "democracy-practicing" masses right back into the hands of the few caretakers
who were beholding to, or in service to, private banking and foreign interest. America
governed itself for 11 years . After that the pre -evolution Oligarchs (wealthy or
highly educated elites) managed to get ratified their constitution and to use it to put
themselves right back into the positions of political and autocratic power they enjoyed
before the revolution. The constitution eliminated the right of Americans to a say
in the affairs of their government. (the government, and the affairs of government, were
separated from the masses of the people. The USA was used to protect and enhance the
aristocrats from the needs, wants and plight of the masses and to extract from the masses
the funds that support USA operations. To accomplish that transition feat, the banksters
used ( or invented and used) a process called ratification (Article VII). Ratification
eliminated the American Democracy overseen by the Articles of Confederation (as
administered by the American democratic continental government).
Read Constitution Article VI [2] and [3].. you will see.. authority..shall be supreme..
Judges Senators and Representatives ,.. Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial officers, both of the US and of the several States [shall be bound
by it].
Constitution Article VI [1] ..engagements entered into, before the
Adoption[ratification] ..shall be valid against the US [<=meaning in spite of the
democratic wish of those who fought the British , the US corporation (USA) would "recognize
as valid" deeds to real estate obtained by Land grant from a foreigner. Millions of acres
of America would remain in a very few private hands. It meant many other similar things..
to numerous to mention here. Had the Confederation continued slavery most likely would have
not survived.
Why bother with writing Article VI{1}? These few words allowed wealthy Washington
Aristocrat types to retain their vast personal ownership in their humongous-stretches of
real estate (land holdings) given (land granted) to them or to those from whom they
acquired them by a foreign power (on behalf of the Banksters who in those days controlled
everything). Democracy itself was the threat that produced the US Constitution ;
the US constitution eliminated democracy ; the constitution replaced America's
democracy by confederation with a republic (meaning no one but the elected few are to be
permitted any say in anything (go back to work and shut the **** up).
Why was democracy a threat ? The Confederation (government by agreement) was
being urged by its war vets to make good on its promises to give every vet a homestead and
a pension for their service in the war. The vets were demanding all land in America
belonged to Americans. they were insisting to refuse to recognize claims (deeds) to real
estate that predated the American revolution; we don't recognize deeds from foreign kings.
British, French or Spanish land grant owners turn the ownership of your land over to
America (the confederation), such land does not belong to you. We Americans do not
recognize land grants from foreign governments; these lands never belonged to foreigners so
they could not give them to you. Needless to say, land grant owners (Washington and family
owned most of Virginia and a great part of West Virginia <=reason George was appointed
general of the continental army, he was so rich everyone would know who he was and
volunteer to help fight the British).
It must be remembered that the Confederation (Articles of Confederation, not the USA)
was the government that defeated the British in the American Revolution, 1776-1778! The USA
did not then exist. Eleven Confederation years between 1776 (Declaration of Independence)
and the ratification of the USA (1789)
Ratification truncated the American Democracy; ratification re-established the British
Bankster appointed Aristocrats as puppets in charge over America.
The US Constitution created an Americanized form of British Parliamentary government, in
virtually the same form as existed in British Colonial times, but without a king or queen
(instead a President and Vice President); so the USA was the banker's government that would
control America, its just that most Americans did not know it. Most Americans cannot name
one of the 11 presidents of the Confederation (AOC government) because misleading
propaganda has been substituted in their school taught histories. Most Americans don't
understand federalism, nor do they have any idea the angry controversy that forced the USA
into existence.
I have written this several times and each time I understand more about what happened.
If you see I am wrong please say so.. I am really interested to sort out the truth and that
was a long time ago.
With all due respect to Philip Giraldi I do not buy this reasoning. Outsize influence of Israel in the US politics and
especially in foreign policy is a direct result of correlation of the goals of Israel and USA on the Middle East. In a way
Israel acts as yet another (informal) US state. The moment Israel tries to pursue independent foreign policy (for example by
booting Likud from government and electing more reasonable party and deviating from the USA goals) it will face consequences,
Israeli lobby or no Israeli lobby. Israel also acts as yet another lobbyist for the US military industrial complex.
The fact that media is owned by large corporations does no imply that it is owned by Israeli interests. And if MSM conduct
pro-Israeli propaganda they do so reflecting interests of the the US elite -- financial oligarchy. And a large
percentage of financial oligarchy support Zionism.
But the fact of interference of Israeli government in the USA election are reprehensible and those involved should be
prosecuted. Possibly using RICO act.
Discussion of the article is much more interesting then the article itself, revealing many additional aspects of the power of
Israeli lobby to influence the US elections. As well as the list of US politicians they managed to send to the dustbin of
history.
Notable quotes:
"... While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests. ..."
"... It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first to go. Next? ..."
"... The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US (Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for you. ..."
"... Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial law and that was that. ..."
"... The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in Syria. ..."
"... The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States. I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc. ..."
"... The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came from none other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"? ..."
"... You are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that "foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their nuclear facilities. ..."
"... Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as "agents of a foreign government" as required by American law. ..."
It is particularly ironic that as the midterm campaigns were drawing to a close there
appeared some serious investigative journalism that demonstrates precisely how Israel and
Jewish groups corrupt the political process in America to provide virtually unlimited support
for anything and everything that the despicable Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war
criminals seek to do. How the process has succeeded is best illustrated by the current Israeli
government's policy of "mowing the grass" in Gaza where it is using army snipers to kill
unarmed Palestinian protesters. Washington not only does not protest against the in-your-face
war crime, it aids and abets it with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman justifying the military
response as measured and appropriate.
Another area where Washington chooses to look the other way is regarding Israel's nuclear
arsenal, believed to consist of two hundred warheads. Under U.S. law, any country that has an
undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal cannot obtain American-made weapons and cannot received aid
of any type. Congress and the White House pretend that the Israeli nuclear arsenal does not
exist, in spite of the fact that the Israelis themselves have more than once implicitly
acknowledged it and instead of cutting aid to Israel have instead increased it. It is currently
$3.8 billion per year guaranteed for the next ten years, with extra money also available if
needed. No other country benefits from such largesse and gives in return so little.
To be sure, the groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John
Mearsheimer, which appeared in 2007, pulled no punches in describing how the Israel Lobby
operates in the United States. It also made clear that the relationship with Israel serves no
United States national interest whatsoever and exists solely because of the corruption of the
political system and the media by principally Jewish individuals and groups that are dedicated
to that task.
While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about
something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of
Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera
commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in
Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of
meetings with members of Israel's active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who
were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the
organizations that were most active in promoting Israel's interests.
The British expose, in two parts, aired in January, and was based on discussions and
interviews that took place between June and November 2017. It demonstrated how the Israeli
Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down" parliamentarians and
government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed
how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli
interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).
The secret recording revealed how an Israeli Embassy diplomat/spy named Shai Masot connived
with a senior civil servant to get rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as
a supporter of an independent Palestinian state. To Masot's additional query "Can I give you
some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?" the civil servant suggested " if you look
hard enough, I'm sure there is something that they're trying to hide a little scandal maybe."
Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified and confirmed
to be on a "hit list."
It was also learned that Masot had been secretly
subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative
Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express
concern that Israel's control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be:
"For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They're not doing that any more
in the Labour Party. CFI, they're doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in
the last elections did it automatically."
The documentary was initially a sensation in Britain but then, predictably, it went away as
Israel's loyal host of media scriveners took charge. Masot was recalled to Israel and Prime
Minister Teresa May, as good a friend to Jewish money and power as one is likely to find,
decided to do nothing. Her characteristically toothless reaction to the suggestion that her
government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country was:
"The Israeli ambassador has apologized the U.K. has a strong relationship with Israel and we
consider the matter closed."
The four-part series by al-Jazeera on the Lobby in the U.S. was meanwhile
temporarily spiked because the Qatari government was seeking to obtain the mediation of
prominent American Jews to pressure the White House to help resolve its outstanding conflict
with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The documentary has remained in limbo but in the past two weeks it has surfaced and
is now available . Its undercover investigative journalist, a British Jew named Tony
Kleinfeld, quickly charmed his way into the inner circle of Israel's supporters where he
discovered a network of organizations that act as fronts for the Israeli government. Their
activities include spying on supporters of Palestinian rights and disrupting demonstrations,
with a particular focus on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which Israel
has particularly targeted. They also resorted to tactics like smearing critics by generating
false accusations of sexual and personal misconduct, all of which was coordinated by Israel's
Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The ministry's director general is Sima Vaknin-Gil , a
former senior officer with Israel's military intelligence , and is staff consists mostly of
former spies drawn from Israel's various security agencies.
Later, Kleinfeld became involved with The Israel Project , which is a U.S. based
Israeli government backed propaganda organ that claims to be "a non-partisan American
educational organization dedicated to informing the media and public conversation about Israel
and the Middle East."
In a recorded conversation, Project employee Jordan Schachtel, explained the
objectives and extent of a secret Facebook operation. "We're putting together a lot of
pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren't The Israel Project's
channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate
with. That's why it's a secretive thing, because we don't want people to know that these side
projects are associated with The Israel Project."
In another episode, the Israel on Campus Coalition's
Jacob Baime, who claimed to have a $2 million budget, described coordinating with the Israeli
government, with an approach "modeled on General Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency
strategy in Iraq copied a lot from that strategy that has been working really well for us,
actually" using "offensive information operations." Baime described putting "up some anonymous
website" along with targeted Facebook ads so that critics "either shut down or they spend time
responding to it and investigating it, which is time they can't spend attacking Israel. It's
psychological warfare, it drives them crazy."
Kleinfeld also met with other groups. Foundation for Defense of Democracies was revealed as yet
another
agent of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, its directors meeting regularly with
Israeli Embassy staff in Washington. In spite of that the Treasury Department has not compelled
it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is also registered
with the IRS as a tax exempt 501(c)3 "charity." Indeed, no Jewish organization active on behalf
of Israel has ever had to register under FARA and most are classified as tax exempt charities
or educational foundations. Interestingly, however, the FDD's Jonathan Schanzer lamented in his
recorded conversation with Kleinfeld that "anti-Semitism as a smear is not what is used to
be."
In another bizarre episode, Kleinfeld visited the neocon dominated Hoover Institute in
California where he participated in a demonstration together with a group of bored young
conservative think tankers compelled by their professors to protest against a Students for
Justice in Palestine conference. The think tank fellows admit that they were "astroturfing"
– rent-a-crowd activism to make a small demonstration appear much larger.
Another segment
includes Israeli Lobby financier Adam Milstein, who is reported to be the principal funder
of Canary Mission, which has targeted some
1,900 students and academics in its profiles
since 2015 , smearing them as "racist," "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic." Jacob Baime,
executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, boasts in the film that "Canary Mission
is highly, highly effective to the extent that we monitor the Students for Justice in Palestine
and their allies."
In his recording, Milstein also talks about the need to "investigate" and "expose" critics
of Israel, who Milstein claims are anti-Semites, as well as "anti-Christian" and "anti-freedom"
activists who "terrorize us." His foundation also funds numerous anti-Palestinian organizations,
including the Israel on Campus Coalition ,
StandWithUs ,
CAMERA , the
AMCHA
Initiative and the FDD . Milstein also
funds and is chairman of the board of the Israeli-American Council. An Israeli-born California
based real estate developer, Milstein reportedly
served time in federal prison after a 2009 conviction for tax evasion.
An
Israeli spy at the University of California at Davis, Julia Reifkind also described to
Kleinfeld how the system worked at the campus level. She used multiple fake Facebook accounts
to monitor the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine. "I follow all the SJP accounts.
I have some fake names. My name is Jay Bernard or something. It just sounds like an old white
guy, which was the plan. I join all these groups." The information she obtained was then passed
on to her contact in the Embassy for forwarding on to Israel to be entered into their data base
of enemies.
So, Israel was engaging in interfering in legitimate political activity and also generating
fake news on the social media in both 2016 and 2018, the same accusation that has been leveled
against Moscow, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems curiously uninterested. And beyond the
al-Jazeera revelations, there is also the evidence that it was Israel that sought favors
from the incoming Trump Administration in 2016, not Russia. So who was actually corrupting
whom?
And then there are the more overt Israeli front groups like the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its $100 million annual budget and 200 employees, as well as the
other special arrangements to pander to Israel and the powerful American Jews who have made it
their mission to use the U.S. government as a mechanism to protect and nurture Israel. Last
week in Los Angeles $60 million
was raised by Hollywood's finest for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), "Their Job is to Look
After Israel. Ours is to Look After Them," the website proclaims.
Last month, an additional $32 million was raised for the IDF in New York City. Donations are
tax exempt, to support the armed forces of a country that is currently engaged in war crimes
and that has a secret nuclear arsenal.
So, Israel was technically speaking not running in the 2018 election, but it was very much
in the race. Jewish Democrats are
already boasting how the presence of a couple of Israel critics in the House, who will be
"reeducated" on the Middle East, will make no difference, that the party will be solid for the
Jewish state with more Jewish congressmen than ever before. Indeed, the "special relationship"
bond will be stronger than ever.
Five committee chairmanships in the House of Representatives will be in the hands of
passionate Israel firsters, including Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel
at Foreign Affairs. On the Republican side, the House is already 100% in Israel's pocket. And
as part of the White House team we have John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Donald Trump's Ambassador
to Israel David Friedman expressed the dual loyalty phenomenon best in a
recent speech . The United States is his "country of citizenship" but Israel is the country
he "loves so much."
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Gosh, I don't know where to start.
By God, Giraldi, you said a mouthful. Even two mouthfuls.
Where do we begin? I don't know. I am not a 'anti-Semite' or anti-Jew. As a matter of fact my
girlfriend for four years was Jewish. That's another story.
There appears to be a Jewish moneyed lobby, working in conjunction with other moneyed lobbies
to create a universal, one world government supervised by themselves. America was the first
to go. Next?
While I don't live in Va I was hoping for wins from congressional candidates Abigail
Spanberger and Leslie Cockburn. Unfortunately Cockburn was handed a defeat and while she was
probably always a longshot it undoubtedly didn't help that the journalist was questioned
about a book she co-authored in the 90′s (which I read).
The book – Dangerous Liaison – was not particularly controversial it
simply put forth what kind special relationship Israel has with its ally the US
(Iran-contra, Pollard Affair, USS Liberty, Dimona, et al). The type of information all
Americans should have a working knowledge of (but do not). Sorry Leslie, I was rooting for
you.
Sadly Crispin Blunt was taken down as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and
replaced by execrable arch neocon and descendant of German Jews Tom Tugendhat. Blunt had
authored reports criticising government actions in Libya and Syria and was looking to
investigate the influence of lobbies on British policy in the Middle East.
The list of prominent politicians "taken down" by Israel is lengthy, and includes
Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger
Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey.
I'm trying to think of a more recent example to make this point more relevant today and I
can only come up with Chuck Hagel even if it was done with velvet gloves.
No matter what sort of war crime Israel commits, no matter what level on interference crypto-Israeli donors and partisans
inject into America's political landscape, the Zionist nexus inside our civilization is now so embedded and untouchable that
its operatives can openly suborn US lawmakers while other Zionists initiate war (or use US power to do so) against rising
Mideast countries that Israel wants weakened, divided, or crushed.
Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria and Khadaffy's Libya discovered this the hard way.
Despite these slick machinations, there are few public protests, (((Media))) examinations, or movements inside America that
effectively oppose/thwart Israeli violence or the shrewd interference by Zionists in every US election since LBJ.
Why?
No one dares.
This, despite 1) Israel's possession of a rogue nuclear stockpile along with 2) Israel's multi-decade campaign to expel or
subjugate its native population of non-Jews, 3) Israel's ongoing acquisition of territory by force and 4) Israel's
trigger-happy propensity to annihilate (or harness US power to do so) any surrounding non-Jewish peoples (or nation) which
poses a potential "existential threat"to the Jewish state. (Palestine, Lebanon, Iran are you listening?)
Not only do American taxpayers subsidize and protect affluent Israel above beyond every other nation in world history, but
this oddball US commitment to the Zionist State is granted without precondition. That's right. It's unconditional. Israel's
extraordinary political privilege is astoundingly unique and uniquely dangerous.
Despite this political anomaly, in no US election (including the last one) is Zio-Washington's 'special relationship' with
nuclear-ready Israel ever an issue. Not one. Compare this to Washington's wild, unhinged obsession with Iran's non-nuclear
stockpile of weapons. America's irrational fear of Iran is an exotic delusion that's been cooked up by Zionists. Like Iraq and
Libya before it, Iran is slated for dismemberment. So stay tuned to your TVs for the latest news!
America's arranged but artificial marriage to the Zionist cause benefits Israel. Immensely. At the same time, it's cost us
trillions. Trillions. Oil embargos, annual billion-dollar aid packages, along with winless, trillion-dollar wars do gradually
add up. Yet political dissent remains muted. Taboo.
Anti-Semitism! (hush.) Meanwhile, America's pro-Zionist news and entertainment industries simplify, amplify, enable, and
solidify Israel's near-sacred status. No accident. You've heard the stories. You've heard the speeches. You've seen the films.
You've visited the museums.
Israel's unique untouchability allows it to rise above international constraints (with the assistance of Zio-Washington and
(((Big Media))) as it conducts military operations (and acts of war) that violate US laws, the UN Charter, as well as the
Geneva Conventions. Shouldn't this matter?
Certainly. But supreme victims enjoy supreme privileges.
Today, a tiny foreign power steers and shapes the policies and mindset of the world's most powerful civilization. No small
feat. No small threat.
Yep, Indian-Americans have not read it and do not seem that interested in Jews. Neither do Iranians. Catholics, which means
Irish and Italians on the East Coast and Latinos everywhere, do not seem to much care about Israel either.
Blacks in the US do not seem to much love Jews or care about Israel at all with the Muslim lunatic fringe of Farrakan etc.
deeply disliking them.
Apparently Evangelical Protestants of various sects love Jews for theological reasons and these people seem to have the
smallest piece of the pie these days.
Chinese, Indians, Iranian Muslims etc either are indifferent or detest Israel and yet they seem to be doing better than the
whites in the "bible belt".
Though a good number of rednecks who grew up singing old testament hymns would say that Jews deny their savior and don't
worship Jews.
@Z-man Charles
Freeman. His nomination to the NSC blocked by the Israeli lobby. Brilliant guy, career
foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador.
American politicians love Israel because it legitimizes their own corruption. They can be
bought and paid for political whores without having to hide it. As soon as anyone points out
that they are selling out their own country, they can recite the magic "anti-semitism"
incantation to make the criticism go away.
Judaism is nothing more than a "service-to-self" ideology, characterized by negative concepts
(e.g. greed, selfishness, etc.) and incapable of forgiveness. It's absolutely immiscible with
any form of a "service-to-others" ideology.
Well sure they bought Congress. But Congress has been a vestigial constitutional appendix
ever since CIA sent Don Gregg to see the Church and Pike Committees. He threatened martial
law and that was that. Congress degenerated into a crooked pedo playpen with a single
function: deciding matters beneath CIA's notice with legalized peculation.
The three branches of the US government are still CIA, CIA, and CIA. The only interesting
development is the catastrophic collapse of CIA's aggression by sending of armed bands in
Syria. This latest, possibly terminal, failure has spurred a frenzy of finger-pointing. When
CIA wrecked Vietnam they blamed the Pentagon (see Prouty's The Secret Team) and everybody
fell for it. But now with Syria, CIA pretended the Jews made them do it. That failed the
laugh test, so now they're framing Amway shitstain Eric Prince.
Another words walk up to any Chinese-American (The ones in California have been in the US
longer than most East Coast ethnic whites like the Italians) or Indian-Americans and ask them
what they know or care to know about Jews or Israel. They will say zero.
You'd get something genuinely negative from the Iranian Muslim community out in Los
Angeles. And also a good number of blacks.
Hispanics know little about Israel. Did not stop Cubans from taking over Miami.
I don't know what you define as a "real American".
The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part
undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United
States.
I suggest everyone watch all four episodes of this Doc.
@Baxter It's
more than just a moneyed lobby that has pulled this off for the past 100 years in america.
Much more. The Jewish mafia was heavily involved from the earliest days of the 20th century.
I highly recommend you all listen to this interview with Jeff Gates, someone who has as many
qualifications as any of the authors on Unz.com to talk about the Jewish lobby. The youtube
interviews with Jeff Gates are essential listening:
I wish I could find the quote but Jeff Gates thinks Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is light weights. Somewhere he makes the
comment "anyone who compares the Jewish Lobby to other lobbies [like the dairy lobby] as if
the Jewish Lobby happens just to be a little more effective than the rest is missing the
point of the exercise here."
lol @ this article and these comments. Love the tears! Never was there a more deserving group
of people to feel dejected and demoralized.
I think the most hilarious part though was this one:
In fact, Americans have never had the option of voting on the "special relationship"
that Israel enjoys with the United States as no Congressman would dare run against it lest
they be smeared in the media and find themselves running against an extraordinarily well
funded opponent benefitting from large donations coming from out of state sources.
Public opinion polls have consistently, over decades, shown that Americans are pro-Israel.
The only exceptions are blacks, far leftist whites, and Muslims, and even the first two are
not overwhelmingly anti. The needle has hardly moved in decades.
Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and Presidential
election for going on 40 years now, on whether US policy should be more pro-Iran and less
pro-Israel, and they have constantly chosen, with more consistency than basically any other
issue in that time period, to side with Israel. Complaining that there are -gasp-
organizations with money involved in this issue, even some from -gasp- out of
state , is hilarious and pathetic. Every issue in American politics has lobbyists and
national money flying around like crazy – guns, abortion, you name it. And every side
that loses in the court of public opinion says that they did so because of 'out of state'
money, even when they have more of it. Giraldi worked in government so he knows it, but why
have an honest perspective when you can enrage the hive?
You really can't come up with a more thorough rejection by the American people of a
political position than they have delivered, decade after decade, to the anti-Israel side.
The only side less popular than Iran lackeys in American discourse might be NAMBLA,
and even that is a close call.
America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix
of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers, and
Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.
@Anonymous
Bullshit. Americans are only "pro-Israel" because that is all they hear from the media and
the politicians. And that is because Jews control the media and the politicians.
The Al-Jazeera documentary reveals that these fifth columnist spies and narcs are using a
definition of anti-Semitism from the U.S. State Dept. to crush dissent. This definition came
from none other than Hillary Clinton. I especially liked this line:
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded
of any other democratic nation
They may want to rethink that one, as Israel fails pretty much all tests of the behavior of a
democratic nation, starting with being a democracy in the first place.
To think that Hillary, along with her fellow travelers like Victoria Nuland, are the
arbiters of what is or isn't anti-Semitism is quite a laugh.
Israel is just getting itself deeper and deeper into a quandary about what to do with the
Arabs in the occupied territories. They cannot be given full rights and there is not the
unsettled land to give them the state everyone including America pretends is going to be the
outcome of a temporarily stalled process. Israel is greasing the skids to disaster.
Indeed, bullshit! Why do you love Palestinians so much or conversely, dislike/hate Israelis
in equal measure?
Is it really the treatment of Christians of Arab origin in Judea and
Samaria that really galls you but won't say it out loud? If Jews are as powerful as you claim
they are, then why not just give them the Southern Lebanon, the Bekka Valley, the Gaza strip
and the Sainai Peninsula and ten billion dollars a year, which would be just a drop in the
bucket, to live us alone?
Why not resettle the most educated of all Arabs, the Palestinians,
in other Arab nations, and there're so many lands to choose from, but especially, Saudi
Arabia to help those gluttonous Afro-Semitic morons? Why egg on the Palestinians without
hope, to the discomfort of all humanity by giving the Jews the very excuse to hammer the
world with the exaggerated accusations of anti-Semitism? Why prolong what is inevitable and
how does it benefit, the people on whose behalf you are fuming?
As I said above, maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers, Borats,
Farrakhans, and blue-hairs. Look at who your articles attract – do you think
Americans like those people?
Most Americans are totally ignorant of the evil that has been done to their nation and the
West by Zionist Jews.
Most Americans are completely ignorant about the extent Zionist Jews control the
government of the United States and the media.
Most Americans know nothing about the role played by Zionist Jews in the mass murders
perpetrated by the communists in Russia and China.
Most Americans take the holocaust as gospel and believe the Jews have never harmed anyone
but have been the victims of the worst genocide in history.
Do not use the ignorance of the average American to claim that criticism of Zionist Jews
is irrational.
@Philip Giraldi
It is slightly amusing is it not to find that specious intervener illustrating part of your
case by appearing as Anonymous [272] and Anonymous [279] just a breath apart ..?
What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a
resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of
Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have
ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?
@RobinG He is known to be an Islam hater thus
unconditional support for Israel. This remark in itself is a proof how Israel is used to inflict havoc on the Islamic
civilization. Jews are the biggest beneficiaries of demonization of Islam. The mercenary terrorist army of CIA/Mossad is
called Islamic state.
@Z-man Liberal
Republican Senator Chuck Percy's takedown was particularly egregious and revealing.
He lost his position despite his popularity in Illinois politics. The deep pockets of The
Lobby and its control of the media (and the Republican Party) were simply too much for him to
counter.
After his senatorial defeat in 1985, The Lobby must have felt that an example must be made
of him. He then became a total nonperson both in politics and in the Washington DC social
scene which he chose to continue to reside in. He never spoke again (to my knowledge) before
any significant Republican Party event. In fact, his very name became a virtual dirty word in
Republican circles, right up there with the names of convicted child molesters or embezzlers.
Arch-Zionist Ronald Reagan enforced this shunning up until the end of his presidency.
Percy was no longer invited to appear in the mainstream media or speak before business or
academic groups. He simply disappeared.
Poof, like he had never been there in the first place.
When he died in 2011, many people In Washington were surprised. They had assumed he has
died decades before because of his blacklisting and the resulting invisibility.
Senator J. William Fulbright, a one-time icon of the left wing because of his opposition
to the Vietnam War was also quickly disposed of after he tried to oppose The Lobby and found
his left wing "friends" (along with their contributions) deserting him in droves.
Al this happened because they tried to be very slightly impartial about Israel.
Americans have had the chance to vote, over and over, every Congressional and
Presidential election for going on 40 years now, , and they have constantly chosen, with
more consistency than basically any other issue in that time period, to side with
Israel.
If that's true, then why are they spending such enormous sums of money to buy all of
Congress ? If the thing runs by itself, then why on God's green earth, does it need such
constant greasing of the skids ? Grant Smith of IRmep, who studies the financial pooling of
something like 200 Jewish organizations in the US, estimates I that together, they're
collecting money on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars from their diaspora and
lunatic Christian sects. This money is then used to buy Congress lock stock and barrel and
then to force it, among other things, to sign over billions in "aid" to Israel.
You poor child, were you not aware of any of this ? And you just thought the sniveling
prostrations and groveling our elected "leaders" perform each year at the AIPAC conference or
on their campaigns is all spontaneous ? Dear, dear, there is better quality acting at the
AIPAC conference than there ever was at any Oscar show or in any therein nominated film.
Face it, Israel is no different. Both sides are mustering money and influence, and you
lost fair and square in the court of public opinion.
Oh, but you might have the perspective a tad off; the fight may be just beginning.
It may be that in the past, Israel's friends might well have exercised power which easily
swung in their direction, but there may not have been much at stake for everyone else. Maybe
the fight wasn't worth it if you disagreed, but there could come a time when the balance
sheet of liabilities might begin to swing in the other direction. I sincerely hope you'll
maintain your sportsmanship attitude when that time comes, as it inevitably always does.
It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-Semitism even against those who don't
deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial nature of the
Anglosphere.
I don't recall the chief beneficiary of any other lobby helping to lie America into a war
with muslims that has since metastasized into pandemic proportions. I also don't recall any
other lobby beneficiary running interference for one of its compatriots who happened to
inflict the worst damage to American intelligence in its history. Come to think of it, this
very same beneficiary has been caught repeatedly committing espionage against America ~ a
crime which, if committed by any other actor, would warrant severe punishment ~ yet received
no punitive consequences for it.
@exiled off mainstreet But, as you admit, they
are FACTS. And, as such, must be disseminated to the uninformed and ignorant Americans.
If it does cause anti-Semitism, which is becoming as meaningless term as racism, how are the Anglos at fault? Whose
behavior is going to cause this resentment and blowback? Its certainly not the British! The British haven't been colonial for
quite awhile.
However the USA has become a colonial vassal for Israel. So who is the imperial power now?
You
are correct. Israel is the only country to flout the Symington Amendment, which mandates that
"foreign aid" be denied to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation"
agreement and refuses to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of their
nuclear facilities.
Add to that, AIPAC and many other pro-Israel organizations that have not registered as
"agents of a foreign government" as required by American law.
Be sure to watch The Lobby USA to see how treacherous our illegitimate govt. has become.
It gives you an idea of how these 6,000,000 Jewish lobbies work around the clock spying on,
blackmailing, subverting our govt. here in occupied America. They're letting these agents of
a hostile and repressive govt. (Israel) run around the US spying on Americans, using
blackmail, extortion, threats, violating their Constitutional rights. Nobody in Washington
seems to care. How long before Israel is assassinating American citizens for exercising their
rights?
Sheldon Adelson was at the White House watching the results of the midterm elections with
his puppet Trump, eating pizza, "mini" hotdogs, and burgers. No joke. He's started his own
lobby called IAC – Israeli American Council, thats even more extreme that AIPAC.
All traitors, all loyal to Israel. Republicans are owned by the Zionists and war
profiteers folks. Democrats not any better. All traitors.
As the British were bankrupted by an unnecessary war with Germany, the "New American Century"
isn't shaping up very well two decades in. 6T in additional debt from fighting Middle Eastern
wars for Israel is the biggest reason why, and there is no end in sight.
I actually don't think Israel has that much genuine organic political support among
Americans. It is all held together with media-fed illusions and threats.
@Cal Eyefornia'I agree with you. Lots of anti-Semitic nonsense on this site, e.g. "where are all the
millions buried?" (How about: all over Europe and Russia, cretins.) While the number of Jews
murdered by Nazis may be, say, half of the "official" figure (still horrific), the lunatic
fringe here won't provide their own figure (likely because they think it's zero). They
actually believe Hitler was a nice guy and every Jew in the world is a member of the "Jew
Illuminati." They think Israel bosses the USA around, and is the world's big dog that wags
the tail. They laughably point to people like Henry Ford and anti-Semitic sites like
codoh.com as "unbiased" sources for debate. They all need to "get a life."'
Well, Israel does boss the US around, and is inarguably one of the world's 'big dogs,'
which, for a nation the size of Honduras or Togo, does call for an explanation.
@exiled off
mainstreet'It seems like these facts are likely to increase anti-semitism even
against those who don't deserve to be subjects of prejudice, since this reveals the colonial
nature of the Anglosphere.'
Nu? The Holocaust increased bigotry directed at Germans, and Pearl Harbor didn't do much
for the popularity of Japanese.
Compared to these two groups, Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of their chosen evil.
It'd be damned strange if they didn't wind up having to pay.
@Tyrion 2 Jews
don't possess military power. They possess the benefit of a verbal dexterity and business
savvy that allows them to network in order to control banks and media.
You cannot conquer. You can only manipulate.
It is the difference between Mike Tyson threatening to kick your ass and Charles Manson
hypnotizing you.
The Unites States of America is effectively owned and controlled by Jews
How about The US of A is effectively colonized by the Zionists ?
All the noise and nonsense about Russian interference in American elections pale in
comparison to decisions on America's elected reps right to the President requiring Zionist
approval before they can win their seats. The control is total and absolute. This coming from
a country which depends on our tax dollars to maintain their criminal activities. And now the
push is on for WWIII forcing us to brinkmanship with the Russians in Syria and Europe. This
is an unprecedented abdication of US sovereignty.
I can't read all the responses, but I caught yours.
Look at it this way. 537 politicians in Washington, DC know 9-11 was a zionist jewish
operation and not a word out of any of them. Maybe a few are slow or hopelessly naive about
israel, so bump that number down to, say, 530. And again, not a peep.
537 of our "leaders" know israel was behind 9-11 yet they gave Netanyahu the record for
standing ovations during a speech. Think of how profound that fact is. Pure traitors.
Chistopher Bollyn once mentioned the point that not one college or high school has a
course or class on what subject is the 9-11 attacks. Suspicious, isn't it?
@Anonymous When
do you EVER see Jewish missionaries trying to convert people? I've seen Mormons and Catholics
overseas trying to convert people. But not Jews. When Jews do convert locals it is for
pussy-some ancient handful of males settle somewhere like Ethiopia or Italy and marry local
women. But it is not for salvation. Only for their pussies.
Part of this is empathy. The Christian sees the poor and disenfranchised and wants to
assist. The Korean shopkeeper in a black ghetto does not give a shit what the blacks believe
in and just wants his money.
@Anonymous "
maybe start with the optics of all these Holocaust deniers.."
– Why don't we start with the "optics" of Jewish Bolsheviks and their murderous
hatred towards Russians and Russian culture? Millions died in the labor camps (run and
"improved" by the Jewish administrators, see Naftali Frenkel), in the chambers of secret
police (see Yagoda and Berman), and in the villages of Ukraine and Kazakhstan during
Holodomor (courtesy of certain Kaganovich).
The most important "deniers" of today are Nuland-Kagan (the organizer of pro-neo-Nazi
putsch in Ukraine), Knesset (the provider of Ukrainian neo-Nazi with Israel-made rifles), and
the zionized US Congress that has been supporting the neo-Nazi-infested Ukranian
government.
And do not forget the profiteering and amoral ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center that both
refused to support the Conyers amendment: "If passed, Conyers' amendment would have
explicitly barred those found to have offered "praise or glorification of Nazism or its
collaborators, including through the use of white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or other similar
symbols" from receiving any form of support from the US Department of Defense. The ADL and
Wiesenthal Center refused to support Jeffries and Conyers' proposal."
https://www.alternet.org/world/how-israel-lobby-protected-ukrainian-neo-nazis
P.L. 115-141, the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following
for Israel:
· $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore
procurement;
· $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92
million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3
million for Arrow 2;
· $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
· $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
· $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and
water technologies;
· $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation
(BIRD) Energy program; and
· The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through
fiscal year 2019.
For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting an additionl $3.3 billion in Foreign
Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year
of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.
Israeli and American Jewish actions detailed in the article make perfect sense when you come
to realize that the US is no longer a sovereign nation at its core. The US only has a facade
of being one.
The facade is starting to crumble both because of the internet and Jewish arrogance.
Consequently, the goys are the beneficiaries of more censorship of bad thoughts. The plan is
to use increased censorship to prevent the facade from crumbling sufficiently to expose the
reality to the masses. Any empire wants to keep its colonies in line
America looks at the anti-Israel coalition and accurately sees a motley and pathetic mix
of Farrakhan FOI stompers, Borat-like Islamists, triggered blue-haired college screamers,
and Nazi-larping neckbeards, and says no thanks.
It seems apparent that you took exception (a sudden high blood pressure alert is making
you post this response?) to my expose on the role of Jewish slavery [as the videos of Dr.
Louis Farrakhan, who also happens to be AGAINST usury and in conjunction with PEACE--like
most of Christindom] (and I did not even include the Roman/Greek periods and the hand that
was attributed to the Jewish predominant role in slavery). But do continue because .
it will expose this inhumane dominance of slavery–just like it still exists today.
RE (original reference included here):
Why do the supremacist Jews refuse to take accountability in their role for slavery?:
"What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a resolution "that Israel's right
to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those
contiguous to Israel, have ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?"
Not sure what you are on about. Iraq was a secular state until invaded by the USA, which churned things up politically .
Syria has traditionally been a tolerant state that was home to one of the oldest Christian commujities, and a number of
different Islamic groups. Libya was a secular state–no state religion in Libya that I know of.
It is the US and Zionist ally, Saudi Arabia, that is the most religiously intolerant state in the ME and also the biggest
exporter of religious fanaticism.
Israel is the only [Religious designation] State in the ME -- no, in the whole world. I am unaware of the existence of a
Christian State, an Islamic State (except the caliphate), a Buddhist State, a Zoroastrian State. Israel is the most intolerant
state on the planet.
Ben Norton & guys like you give me hope that our country could still become saved by
"facts and a timeline."
As you know, Israeli crimes foisted upon upon the divided-Homeland, including unnecessary,
immoral, & ruinously expensive wars against "rogue/foes," for example, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Yemen, and likely soon Iran, NEVER NEVER NEVER require presentation of solid
evidence to dumb-goyim trained 'Merkins.
Disgusting. Embarrassing. A Yinon Plan underway for the USA! Ycch. I am pissed.
Along with partner Corporate Media-conspirators, The New York Times editorial board
deserves instant "regime change" because of their theatrical complicity with our treasonous
Zio Congress and Executive Branch.
What do you think the reaction would be, and by whom, if a US politician proposed a
resolution "that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state be supported until a majority of
Middle Eastern states by number and population, and all those contiguous to Israel, have
ended discrimination on grounds of religion"?
How typically ridiculous.
The reaction we should see would be to the statement that we will not support Israel as
long as it occupies Palestine and discriminates against non Jews in Israel.
Israel is a midget Nazi state not a democracy.
OK, so, that was a close one. For a moment there, I was starting to worry that the Democrats
weren't going to take back the House and rescue us from " the brink of
fascism ." Which, if that had happened, in addition to having to attend all those horrible
stadium rallies and help the government mass murder the Jews, we would have been denied the
next two years of Donald Trump-related congressional hearings and investigations that we can
now look forward to
I'm going to go ahead and call them the Hitlergate Hearings.
Staging these hearings has always been a crucial part of the Resistance's strategy. As
history has proved, time and time again, when literal fascists take over your democracy, outlaw
opposing political parties, and start shipping people off to concentration camps and revoking
journalists' White House access, the only effective way to defeat them is to form a whole
buttload of congressional committees and investigate the living Hitler out of them. This is
especially the case when the literal fascists who have commandeered your democracy are
conspiring with a shifty-eyed Slavic dictator whose country you have essentially surrounded
with your full-spectrum dominant military forces, and who your media have thoroughly demonized,
but who is nevertheless able to brainwash your citizens into electing his fascist puppet
president with a few thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.
Once you've determined that has happened (which it obviously has), the gloves have to come
off. No more prancing around in pussyhats, not with Russian Hitler in office! No, at that
point, you really have no choice but to wait two years until your opposition party (which
Hitler somehow forgot to ban) regains control of the House of Representatives (which Hitler
somehow forgot to dissolve), wait another two months until they take office, and then
immediately start issuing subpoenas, auditing Hitler's financial records, and taking affidavits
from former hookers. I realize that may sound extreme, but remember, we're talking about
literal fascists, backed by literal Russian fascists, who are going around emboldening literal
fascism, and making literal fascist hand gestures on television, and doing all kinds of other
fascist stuff!
Photo of a typical Trump rally. Trump himself designed the grandiose, operatic setting and
cast himself in the male lead as fiery, spittle-flecked orator/savior of his nation.
OK, so, that was a close one. For a moment there, I was starting to worry that the Democrats
weren't going to take back the House and rescue us from " the brink of
fascism ." Which, if that had happened, in addition to having to attend all those horrible
stadium rallies and help the government mass murder the Jews, we would have been denied the
next two years of Donald Trump-related congressional hearings and investigations that we can
now look forward to
I'm going to go ahead and call them the Hitlergate Hearings.
Staging these hearings has always been a crucial part of the Resistance's strategy. As
history has proved, time and time again, when literal fascists take over your democracy, outlaw
opposing political parties, and start shipping people off to concentration camps and revoking
journalists' White House access, the only effective way to defeat them is to form a whole
buttload of congressional committees and investigate the living Hitler out of them. This is
especially the case when the literal fascists who have commandeered your democracy are
conspiring with a shifty-eyed Slavic dictator whose country you have essentially surrounded
with your full-spectrum dominant military forces, and who your media have thoroughly demonized,
but who is nevertheless able to brainwash your citizens into electing his fascist puppet
president with a few thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.
Once you've determined that has happened (which it obviously has), the gloves have to come
off. No more prancing around in pussyhats, not with Russian Hitler in office! No, at that
point, you really have no choice but to wait two years until your opposition party (which
Hitler somehow forgot to ban) regains control of the House of Representatives (which Hitler
somehow forgot to dissolve), wait another two months until they take office, and then
immediately start issuing subpoenas, auditing Hitler's financial records, and taking affidavits
from former hookers. I realize that may sound extreme, but remember, we're talking about
literal fascists, backed by literal Russian fascists, who are going around emboldening literal
fascism, and making literal fascist hand gestures on television, and doing all kinds of other
fascist stuff!
Photo of a typical Trump rally. Trump himself designed the grandiose, operatic setting and
cast himself in the male lead as fiery, spittle-flecked orator/savior of his nation.
This article in The Intercept provides incontrovertible proof that Zionists wanted Trump
to win the election and that Chuck Schumer, their representative in Congress used the DNC and
Facebook to help him. It also demonstrates how Chuck Schumer supports Republican Presidents
and policies denying the will of many in his party even a Democratic President and betraying
millions of voters on the Left to forward the Zionist agenda in each and every case. I would
call this collusion and subversion of Democracy. Everything else Schumer does not to lose his
choice position as Senate minority leader is window dressing, lip service and a charade.
Trump often refers to his "leverage" in approaching geopolitics as a business negotiation,
and yet he is effectively hamstrung with two countries (Israel and KSA) where US leverage
should be overwhelming due to security guarantees. The complex web of influence and court
politics will prevent coherent decisive moves, which presumably he refers to when stating he
would rather "stay out" of the Middle East. It's a teachable moment, an opportunity for the
sort of truth-telling necessary to promote a draining of the swamp - the chance to publicly
acknowledge that nothing can be done because the interests of power blocs within the two
countries are embedded directly in the US political system itself.
Obama had the opportunity for truth-telling early in his administration when he could have
acknowledged that a single-payer health care system is not possible in America at this time -
not because it isn't rational and effective but because powerful domestic interests will not
allow it.
"... Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do – until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's relentless vilification of Russia and Putin. ..."
"... Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200 million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues. ..."
"... In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber! ..."
"... Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been involved in the 2013 pageant ..."
"... More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier! ..."
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill.
We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump
campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of
what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant .
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump
Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump
campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
4.0
out of 5 stars
America's Last Sprint: Race to the Bottom August 4, 2015
Format: Paperback
Verified Purchase It's interesting how polarizing this book is, the negative comments of
people decrying the author as anti-American. It seems he is simply describing the collapse of
one society and what America might learn from it. In America, this end or collapse is not near;
it's in progress. The middle class is being systematically dismantled. Orlov writes, "It is not
allowable to refer to America as a chronically depressed country, an increasingly lower-class
and impoverished country that fails to take care of its citizens and often abuses them."
Even with rudimentary understanding of history, we know that a democracy cannot be sustained
without a strong, vibrant middle class. To those who deny this is a problem, you lived through
2008. You should have learned enough that it could happen again and on a much greater
scale.
Orlov provides an insightful perspective, including an insider's view as having spent time
there, on Russia and the comparisons are instructive and often verge into gallows humor:
boondoggles are good. Americans are actually smart in their voter apathy (an original idea I've
not heard expressed before, but in a twisted way makes sense). "Why should essentially
powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy
of those who wield the power?" According to Orlov, In Russia, during the Soviet era, smart
people did their best to ignore the Communists, either through praise or criticism.
In the latter sections, Orlov almost cheerily outlines possible means of surviving the
collapse based on skills and opportunities.
Also recommended in this genre: Morris Berman's trilogy, "The Twilight of American Culture,"
"Dark Ages America," and "Why America Failed."
This is all for the open-minded and not those desperately clinging to the myth of American
Exceptionalism. If the Russians were resilient and adept at dealing with shortages and
bureaucracy, we soft overstuffed consumers, besotted with junk food and i-pads and bottomless
debt might do well to listen.
Don't hold your breath for it, but there should be an abject apology coming from US
politicians, pundits, media and intelligence agencies.
For months leading up to the midterm elections held last week, we were told that the Kremlin
was deviously targeting the ballot, in a replay of the way Russian hackers allegedly interfered
in the 2016 presidential race to get Donald Trump into the White House.
Supposedly reliable news media outlets like the New York Times and heavyweight Senate panels
were quoting intelligence sources
warning that the "Russians are coming – again".
So what just happened? Nothing. Where were the social media campaigns of malicious
Russian-inspired misinformation "sowing division"? Whatever happened to the supposed army of
internet bots and trolls that the Kremlin command? Where are the electoral machines tampered
with to give false vote counts?
Facebook said it had
deleted around 100 social media accounts that it claimed "were linked" to pro-Russian
entities intent on meddling in the midterms. How did Facebook determined that "linkage"? It was
based on a "tip-off" by US intelligence agencies. Hardly convincing proof of a Kremlin plot to
destabilize American democracy.
If elusive Russian hackers somehow targeted the midterm Congressional elections they
certainly seem to have a convoluted objective. Trump's Republican party lost the House of
Representatives to Democrat control. That could result in more Congressional probes into his
alleged collusion with Russia. It could also result in Democrats filing subpoenas for Trump to
finally disclose his personal tax details which he has strenuously refused to do so far.
Moreover, having lost control of one of the two Congressional chambers, Trump will find his
legislative plans being slowed down and even blocked.
Thus, if Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are the purported "puppet masters"
behind the Trump presidency, they have a very strange way of showing their support, as can be
seen from the setbacks of the midterms.
A far simpler, more plausible explanation is that there was no Russian hacking of the
midterms, just as there wasn't in the 2016 presidential election. Russian interference,
influence campaigns, malign activity, "Russia-gate", and so on, are nothing but myths conjured
up by Trump's domestic political opponents and their obliging media outlets.
Now that all the dire warnings of Russia hacking into the midterms have been shown to be a
mirage, the US intelligence agencies seem to be adopting a new spin on events. We are told that
they "prevented Russian interference".
In a Bloomberg
article headlined 'One Big Loser of the Midterms – Russian Hackers', it is claimed:
"Security officials believe [sic] they prevented cyberattacks on election day." However, they
added, "it's hard to tell."
In other words, US security officials have no idea if putative Russian hackers were
targeting the elections. The contorted logic is that if there were no hacking incidents, then
it was because US cybersecurity prevented them. This is tantamount to invoking absence to prove
presence. It's voodoo intelligence.
President Trump has a point when he lambastes Democrats and their supportive media for
crying foul only when they lose an election. In various midterm races, it was apparent that
Democrats would protest some alleged electoral discrepancy when their candidate lost against a
Republican. But when Democrats came out on top, there were no irregularities.
One can imagine therefore that if the Democrats had failed to win control over the House of
Representatives, then they and their intelligence agency and media supporters would have been
clamoring about "Russian interference" to help Republicans retain the House.
As it turned out, the Democrats won the House, so there is no need to invoke the Russian
bogeyman. In that case, it is claimed, Russian hackers "did not succeed" to penetrate the
electoral system or pivot social media.
Nonetheless, there was indeed rampant interference in the recent US election. For one thing,
some 28 pro-Israeli Political Action Committees and wealthy individuals spent around $15
million to promote 80 candidates in the Congressional elections, according to the organization If
Americans Knew. This foreign influence on US voters in favor of Israeli interests is nothing
new. It is standard practice in every election.
During the presidential campaign in 2016, the Israeli-American billionaire Sheldon Adelson
reportedly donated $25 million to Trump's campaign. Undoubtedly that legalized bribery is
why Trump on becoming president has pushed such a slavishly pro-Israeli Middle East policy,
including his inflammatory declaration of Jerusalem as the sole capital of the Zionist
state.
But there is no outcry about "Israeli influence campaigns" and "hacking" from the US media
or from Democrats over this egregious interference in American democracy. No, they prefer to
obsess about the phantom of Russian meddling.
Another evident source of electoral hacking was of the homegrown variety. There seem to be
valid grievances among ordinary American voters about gerrymandering of electoral districts by
incumbent parties, as well as voter disenfranchisement, especially among poor African-American
and Latino communities. There were also reported cases of phone canvassers making malicious
calls to discredit candidates, as was claimed by the beaten Democrat contenders in Florida and
Georgia.
Clearly, there are huge flaws in the US electoral system. Most glaringly, the gargantuan
problem of campaign funding by corporations, banks and other representatives of the oligarchic
system.
A further chronic problem is yawning voter apathy. The recent midterms were said to have
seen a "record turnout" of voters. The official figure is that only 48 per
cent of voters exercised their democratic right. That is, over half the voting population view
the ballot exercise as not worth while or something worse. This is a constant massive disavowal
of American democracy expressed in every US election.
The midterm elections demonstrate once again that American democracy has its own inherent
failings. But the political establishment and the ruling oligarchy are loathe to fix a system
from which they benefit.
When the system becomes unwieldy or throws up results that the establishment does not quite
like – such as the election of uncouth, big mouth Trump – then the "error" must be
"explained" away by some extraneous factor, such as "Russian hacking".
However, the latest exercise in American democracy, for what it is worth, gave the salutary
demonstration of the myth of Russian interference – at least for those who care to
honestly see that.
Another valuable demonstration was this: if supposedly reliable news media and an
intelligence apparatus that is charged with national security have been caught out telling
spectacular lies with regard to "Russian hacking", then what credibility do they have on a host
of other anti-Russia claims, or, indeed, on many other matters?
May I ever so slightly differ from one of your points?
You stated; "The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100 U.S.
'defense' contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, because then
all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other feudal and
fascist regimes, will greatly decline."
I would suggest that these top US defense contractors sales will decline for the simple
reason that they would then have to compete with the rest of the world. One of these US
defense strategies had been to sell their products, or rather say force their products on
NATO no matter how inferior they were. If my memory serves me correctly the UK had a good
fighter jet in the Lightning, but the US forced NATO to buy the vastly inferior American
product which had many crashes and killed quite a few pilots.
But in the situation of a multi-polar world the US would have to really compete with the
likes of Russia and China, which as we know are already producing superior products and the
US has never really been able to compete in such an atmosphere.
There is one other statement which I would also like to differ upon: " a mono-polar world
is a world in which one nation stands above international law" and this statement is
flawed.
A mono-polar world' has never given the right for one nation to be above international
law. America did though start calling itself the International 'policeman', modelling itself
on something similar to a New York policeman stealing apples from a greengrocer's stand. Once
the US realised that there were no voices to be heard, they automatically progressed from the
uniform policeman to the likes of 'Al Capone', which I've noted many bent policemen do.
The trick for such policemen is to know when to retire and get out of the game, but the US
has never been able to retire, and now its fruits are coming back to haunt them.
Eisenhower's
worst nightmare has come true, as defense mega-contractors climb into the cockpit to ensure we
stay overextended. What President Dwight D. Eisenhower dubbed the "military-industrial
complex" has been constantly evolving over the decades, adjusting to shifts in the economic and
political system as well as international events. The result today is a "permanent-war
complex," which is now engaged in conflicts in at least eight countries across the globe, none
of which are intended to be temporary.
This new complex has justified its enhanced power and control over the country's resources
primarily by citing threats to U.S. security posed by Islamic terrorists. But like the old
military-industrial complex, it is really rooted in the evolving relationship between the
national security institutions themselves and the private arms contractors allied with
them.
The first phase of this transformation was a far-reaching privatization of U.S. military and
intelligence institutions in the two decades after the Cold War, which hollowed out the
military's expertise and made it dependent on big contractors (think Halliburton, Booz Allen
Hamilton, CACI). The second phase began with the global "war on terrorism," which quickly
turned into a permanent war, much of which revolves around the use of drone strikes.
The drone wars are uniquely a public-private military endeavor, in which major arms
contractors are directly involved in the most strategic aspect of the war. And so the drone
contractors -- especially the dominant General Atomics -- have both a powerful motive and the
political power, exercised through its clients in Congress, to ensure that the wars continue
for the indefinite future.
♦♦♦
The privatization of military and intelligence institutions began even before the end of the
Cold War. But during the 1990s, both Congress and the Bush and Clinton administrations opened
the floodgates to arms and intelligence contractors and their political allies. The contracts
soon became bigger and more concentrated in a handful of dominant companies. Between 1998 and
2003, private contractors were getting roughly half of the entire defense budget each year. The
50 biggest companies were getting more than half of the approximately $900 billion paid out in
contracts during that time, and most were no-bid contracts, sole sourced, according to the
Center for Public Integrity.
The contracts that had the biggest impact on the complex were for specialists working right
in the Pentagon. The number of these contractors grew so rapidly and chaotically in the two
decades after the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials did not even know the full extent of
their numbers and reach. In 2010, then-secretary of defense Robert M. Gates even confessed to
Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and William M. Arkin that he was unable to
determine how many contractors worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which includes
the entire civilian side of the Pentagon.
Although legally forbidden from assuming tasks that were "inherent government functions," in
practice these contractors steadily encroached on what had always been regarded as government
functions. Contractors could pay much higher salaries and consulting fees than government
agencies, so experienced Pentagon and CIA officers soon left their civil service jobs by the
tens of thousands for plum positions with firms that often paid twice as much as the government
for the same work.
That was especially true in the intelligence agencies, which experienced a rapid 50 percent
workforce increase after 9/11. It was almost entirely done with former skilled officers brought
back as contractor personnel. Even President Barack Obama's CIA director Leon Panetta admitted
to Priest and Arkin that the intelligence community had for too long "depended on contractors
to do the operational work" that had always been done by CIA employees, including intelligence
analysis, and that the CIA needed to rebuild its own expertise "over time."
By 2010, "core contractors" -- those who perform such functions as collection and analysis
-- comprised at least 28 percent of professional civilian and military intelligence staff,
according to a fact sheet from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The dependence on the private sector in the Pentagon and the intelligence community had
reached such a point that it raised a serious question about whether the workforce was now
"obligated to shareholders rather than to the public interest," as Priest and Arkin reported.
And both Gates and Panetta acknowledged to them their concerns about that issue.
Powerfully reinforcing that privatization effect was the familiar revolving door between the
Pentagon and arms contractors, which had begun turning with greater rapidity. A 2010 Boston
Globe investigation showed that the percentage of three- and four-star generals who left
the Pentagon to take jobs as consultants or executives with defense contractors, which was
already at 45 percent in 1993, had climbed to 80 percent by 2005 -- an 83 percent increase in
12 years.
The incoming George W. Bush administration gave the revolving door a strong push, bringing
in eight officials from Lockheed Martin -- then the largest defense contractor -- to fill
senior policymaking positions in the Pentagon. The CEO of Lockheed Martin, Peter Teets, was
brought in to become undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National
Reconnaissance Office (where he had responsibility for acquisition decisions directly
benefiting his former company). James Roche, the former vice president of Northrop Grumman, was
named secretary of the Air Force, and a former vice president of General Dynamics, Gordon R.
England, was named the secretary of the Navy.
In 2007, Bush named rear admiral J. Michael McConnell as director of national intelligence.
McConnell had been director of the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1996, then became head
of the national security branch of intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Not
surprisingly McConnell energetically promoted even greater reliance on the private sector, on
the grounds that it was supposedly more efficient and innovative than the government. In 2009
he returned once again to Booz Allen Hamilton as vice chairman.
The Pentagon and the intelligence agencies thus morphed into a new form of mixed
public-private institutions, in which contractor power was greatly magnified. To some in the
military it appeared that the privateers had taken over the Pentagon. As a senior U.S. military
officer who had served in Afghanistan commented to Priest and Arkin, "It just hits you like a
ton of bricks when you think about it. The Department of Defense is no longer a war-fighting
organization, it's a business enterprise."
♦♦♦
The years after 9/11 saw the national security organs acquire new missions, power, and
resources -- all in the name of a "War on Terror," aka "the long war." The operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq were sold on that premise, even though virtually no al Qaeda remained in
Afghanistan and none were in Iraq until long after the initial U.S. invasion.
The military and the CIA got new orders to pursue al Qaeda and affiliated groups in
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and several other African countries, parlaying what the Bush
administration called a "generational war" into a guarantee that there would be no return to
the relative austerity of the post-Cold War decade.
Drone strikes against targets associated with al Qaeda or affiliated groups became the
common feature of these wars and a source of power for military and intelligence officials. The
Air Force owned the drones and conducted strikes in Afghanistan, but the CIA carried them out
covertly in Pakistan, and the CIA and the military competed for control over the strikes in
Yemen.
The early experience with drone strikes against "high-value targets" was an unmitigated
disaster. From 2004 through 2007, the CIA carried out 12 strikes in Pakistan, aimed at
high-value targets of al Qaeda and its affiliates. But they killed only three identifiable al
Qaeda or Pakistani Taliban figures, along with 121 civilians, based on analysis of news reports
of the strikes.
But on the urging of CIA Director Michael Hayden, in mid-2008 President Bush agreed to allow
"signature strikes" based merely on analysts' judgment that a "pattern of life" on the ground
indicated an al Qaeda or affiliated target. Eventually it became a tool for killing mostly
suspected rank-and-file Afghan Taliban fighters in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly
during the Obama administration, which had less stomach and political capital for outright war
and came to depend on the covert drone campaign. This war was largely secret and less
accountable publicly. And it allowed him the preferable optics of withdrawing troops and ending
official ground operations in places like Iraq.
Altogether in its eight years in office, the Obama administration carried out a total of
nearly 5,000 drone strikes -- mostly in Afghanistan -- according to figures collected by the
Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
But between 2009 and 2013, the best informed officials in the U.S. government raised alarms
about the pace and lethality of this new warfare on the grounds that it systematically
undermined the U.S. effort to quell terrorism by creating more support for al Qaeda rather than
weakening it. Some mid-level CIA officers opposed the strikes in Pakistan as early as 2009,
because of what they had learned from intelligence gathered from intercepts of electronic
communications in areas where the strikes were taking place: they were infuriating Muslim males
and making them more willing to join al Qaeda.
In a secret May 2009 assessment leaked to the Washington Post , General David
Petraeus, then commander of the Central Command, wrote, "Anti-U.S. sentiment has already been
increasing in Pakistan especially in regard to cross-border and reported drone strikes, which
Pakistanis perceive to cause unacceptable civilian casualties."
More evidence of that effect came from Yemen. A 2013 report on drone war policy for the
Council on Foreign Relations found that membership in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in
Yemen grew from several hundred in 2010 to a few thousand members in 2012, just as the number
of drone strikes in the country was increasing dramatically -- along with popular anger toward
the United States.
Drone strikes are easy for a president to support. They demonstrate to the public that he is
doing something concrete about terrorism, thus providing political cover in case of another
successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Donald Trump has shown no interest in scaling back
the drone wars, despite openly questioning the stationing of troops across the Middle East and
Africa. In 2017 he approved a 100 percent increase in drone strikes in Yemen and a 30 percent
increase in Somalia above the totals of the final year of the Obama administration. And Trump
has approved a major increase in drone strikes in Afghanistan, and has eliminated rules aimed
at reducing civilian casualties from such strikes.
Even if Obama and Trump had listened to dissenting voices on the serious risks of drone wars
to U.S. interests, however, another political reality would have prevented the United States
from ending the drone wars: the role of the private defense contractors and their friends on
Capitol Hill in maintaining the status quo.
♦♦♦
Unlike conventional bombing missions, drone strikes require a team to watch the video feeds,
interpret them, and pass on their conclusions to their mission coordinators and pilots. By 2007
that required more specialists than the Air Force had available. Since then, the Air Force has
been working with military and intelligence contractors to analyze full-motion videos
transmitted by drones to guide targeting decisions. BAE, the third-ranking Pentagon contractor
according to defense revenues, claims that it is the "leading provider" of analysis of drone
video intelligence, but in the early years the list of major companies with contracts for such
work also included Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, and SAIC (now Leidos).
These analysts were fully integrated into the "kill chain" that resulted, in many cases, in
civilian casualties. In the now-famous case of the strike in February 2010 that killed at least
15 Afghan civilians, including children, the "primary screener" for the team of six video
analysts in Florida communicating via a chat system with the drone pilot in Nevada was a
contract employee with SAIC. That company had a $49 million multi-year contract with the Air
Force to analyze drone video feeds and other intelligence from Afghanistan.
The pace of drone strikes in Afghanistan accelerated sharply after U.S. combat ended
formally in 2014. And that same year, the air war against ISIS began in Iraq and Syria. The Air
Force then began running armed drones around the clock in those countries as well. The Air
Force needed 1,281 drone pilots to handle as many "combat air patrols" per day in multiple
countries. But it was several hundred pilots short of that objective.
To fulfill that requirement the Air Force turned to General Atomics -- maker of the first
armed drone, the Predator, and a larger follow-on, the MQ-9 Reaper -- which had already been
hired to provide support services for drone operations on a two-year contract worth $700
million. But in April 2015 the Air Force signed a contract with the company to lease one of its
Reapers with its own ground control station for a year. In addition, the contractor was to
provide the pilots, sensor operators, and other crew members to fly it and maintain it.
The pilots, who still worked directly for General Atomics, did everything Air Force drone
pilots did except actually fire the missiles. The result of that contract was a complete
blurring of the lines between the official military and the contractors hired to work alongside
them. The Air Force denied any such blurring, arguing that the planning and execution of each
mission would still be in the hands of an Air Force officer. But the Air Force Judge Advocate
General's Office had published an article in its law review in 2010 warning that even the
analysis of video feeds risked violating international law prohibiting civilian participation
in direct hostilities.
A second contract with a smaller company, Aviation Unlimited, was for the provision of
pilots and sensor operators and referred to "recent increased terrorist activities," suggesting
that it was for anti-ISIS operations.
The process of integrating drone contractors into the kill chain in multiple countries thus
marked a new stage in the process of privatizing war in what had become a permanent war
complex. After 9/11, the military became dependent on the private sector for everything from
food, water, and housing to security and refueling in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2009 contractors
began outnumbering U.S. troops in Afghanistan and eventually became critical for continuing the
war as well.
In June 2018, the DoD announced a $40 million contract with General Atomics to operate its
own MQ-9 Reapers in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. The Reapers are normally armed for
independent missile strikes, but in this case, the contractor-operated Reapers were to be
unarmed, meaning that the drones would be used to identify targets for Air Force manned
aircraft bombing missions.
♦♦♦
There appears to be no braking mechanism for this accelerating new reality. U.S. government
spending on the military drone market, which includes not only procurement and research and
development for the drones themselves, but the sensors, modifications, control systems, and
other support contracts, stood at $4.5 billion in 2016, and was expected to increase to $13
billion by 2027. General Atomics is now the dominant player in the arena.
This kind of income translates into political power, and the industry has shown its muscle
and more than once prevented the Pentagon from canceling big-ticket programs, no matter how
unwanted or wasteful. They have the one-two punch of strategically focused campaign
contributions and intensive lobbying of members with whom they have influence.
This was most evident between 2011 and 2013, after congressionally mandated budget
reductions cut into drone procurement. The biggest loser appeared to be Northrop Grumman's
"Global Hawk" drone, designed for unarmed high-altitude intelligence surveillance flights of up
to 32 hours.
By 2011 the Global Hawk was already 25 percent over budget, and the Pentagon had delayed the
purchase of the remaining planes for a year to resolve earlier failures to deliver adequate
"near real time" video intelligence.
After a subsequent test, however, the Defense Department's top weapons tester official
reported in May 2011 that the Global Hawk was "not operationally effective" three fourths of
the time, because of "low vehicle reliability." He cited the "failure" of "mission central
components" at "high rates." In addition, the Pentagon still believed the venerable U-2 Spy
plane -- which could operate in all weather conditions, unlike the Global Hawk -- could carry
out comparable high-altitude intelligence missions.
As a result, the DoD announced in 2012 that it would mothball the aircraft it had already
purchased and save $2.5 billion over five years by foregoing the purchase of the remaining
three drones. But that was before Northrop Grumman mounted a classic successful lobbying
campaign to reverse the decision.
That lobbying drive produced a fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations law that added $360
million for the purchase of the final three Global Hawks. In Spring 2013, top Pentagon
officials indicated that they were petitioning for "relief" from congressional intent. Then the
powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Republican Buck McKeon, and
a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia,
wrote a letter to incoming Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on May 13, 2013, pressing him to fund
the acquisition of the Global Hawks.
The Pentagon finally caved. The Air Force issued a statement pledging to acquire the last
three Northrop Grumman spy planes, and in early 2014, Hagel and Dempsey announced that they
would mothball the U-2 and replace it with the Global Hawk.
Northrop spent nearly $18 million on lobbying in 2012 and $21 million in 2013, fielding a
phalanx of lobbyists determined to help save Global Hawk. It got what it wanted.
Meanwhile, Northrop's political action committee had already made contributions of at least
$113,000 to the campaign committee of House Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon, who also
happened to represent the Southern California district where Northrop's assembly plant for the
Global Hawk is located. Representative Moran, the co-author of the letter with McKeon, who
represented the northern Virginia district where Northrop has its headquarters, had gotten
$22,000 in contributions.
Of course Northrop didn't ignore the rest of the House Armed Services Committee: they were
recipients of at least $243,000 in campaign contributions during the first half of 2012.
♦♦♦
The Northrop Grumman triumph dramatically illustrates the power relationships underlying the
new permanent-war complex. In the first half of 2013 alone, four major drone contractors --
General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing -- spent $26.2 million lobbying
Congress to pressure the executive branch to keep the pipeline of funding for their respective
drone systems flowing freely. The Center for the Study of the Drone observed, "Defense
contractors are pressuring the government to maintain the same levels of investment in unmanned
systems even as the demand from the traditional theatres such as Afghanistan dies down."
Instead of dying down, the demand from drones in Afghanistan has exploded in subsequent
years. By 2016, the General Atomics Reapers had already become so tightly integrated into U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan that the whole U.S. war plan was dependent on them. In the
first quarter of 2016 Air Force data showed that 61 percent of the weapons dropped in
Afghanistan were from the drones.
In the new permanent-war complex the interests of the arms contractors have increasingly
dominated over the interests of the civilian Pentagon and the military services, and dominance
has became a new driving force for continued war. Even though those bureaucracies, along with
the CIA, seized the opportunity to openly conduct military operations in one country after
another, the drone war has introduced a new political dynamic into the war system: the drone
makers who have powerful clout in Congress can use their influence to block or discourage an
end to the permanent war -- especially in Afghanistan -- which would sharply curtail the demand
for drones.
Eisenhower was prophetic in his warning about the threat of the original complex (which he
had planned to call the military-industrial-congressional complex) to American democracy. But
that original complex, organized merely to maximize the production of arms to enhance the power
and resources of both the Pentagon and their contractor allies, has become a much more serious
menace to the security of the American people than even Eisenhower could have anticipated. Now
it is a system of war that powerful arms contractors and their bureaucratic allies may have the
ability to maintain indefinitely.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to. He is also
the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against the WikiLeaks
founder
The Justice Department is preparing to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and is increasingly optimistic it will be able
to get him into a U.S. courtroom, according to people in Washington familiar with the matter. Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors
have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived
in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012...
The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the
disclosure of national defense-related information.
The proposal I would like to see introduced at the United
Nations would be one to remove a nation that systematically violates the UN Charter. If not
totally remove them, then at least bar them from being on the Security Council, and of course
thus removing their veto.
The UN Charter is the treaty that any nation must adopt to join the United Nations. The very
purpose of the UN when it was formed after WW2 was to prevent war. Thus, the UN charter has
clauses that say a nation can only attack another nation under the authority of the UN Security
Council. It has a clause that says that it violates the UN Charter to even mass forces on
another nation's borders and to then threaten to attack in order to coerce another nation.
The USA has of course frequently been in violation of the UN Charter. Certainly what it has
been doing in Syria is in violation of the UN Charter. The US has been in violation of the UN
Charter for some time. At least back as far as when Clinton couldn't get the UN Security
Council to support his attack on Serbia and he went ahead and did it anyways. There is of
course a long list of such violations. Israel is of course also in violation of the UN Charter
with its constant attacks on its neighbors.
From there, the course would follow basically what Mr. Zuesse says. America's poodle, the UK
would certainly veto a resolution seeking to discipline the USA for breaking the very core
notion of the UN, which is to prevent another worldwide catastrophe like what the world
experienced during WW2. It was a world that was horrified by what had occurred during WW2 that
formed the UN to prevent that from happening again.
To me, its hard to see how the UN accepts the leadership of a nation that violates the Charter that every nation had to
agree to in order to join the organization. Of course, mob bosses have their own ways of breaking the rules of civilized
society. Still, it seems like a place to try to rally the world about.
Dear "Anonymous": Your comment is extremely well-informed and relevant, but the U.N. has been
highly dependent upon the U.S. financially, and therefore the initiative cannot come from the
U.N. itself, but only from particular nations. What I was summarily describing in concern to
the U.N. as it actually exists (not to the U.N. as it should exist, which maybe we'll get to
some day) is an ongoing PR stunt, to be staged at the U.N., to draw the public's attention to
the fact that the U.S. Government has been functioning blatantly, for many years, as a
fascist power. This truth needs to be rubbed constantly into the face of today's America's
Government so as to isolate that Government internationally to become the pariah-Government
that the people who founded the U.N. would puke to see. What won WW II was physically the
Allies, but what has since taken over in spirit is Hitler's spirit, but with different
priorities of whom the 'enemies' are, not Jews especially but this time Russians especially.
Instead of the 'vast Jewish conspiracy', we've got the 'cunning Russian conspiracy' now
having supposedly chosen the evil Trump and made him become America's President, etc, and
it's based on lies now just as it was based on lies in Hitler's time. But it's now the
American aristocracy, instead of the German aristocracy. I was proposing there a PR campaign,
to expose them as what they are.
The wealthy owners of America were always in favor of Hitler's idea of world domination, butt
hey wanted to be in charge of it instead of the Germans. After WWII they saw their chance to
take the lead and have been working to enslave the world ever since. Of course they hate the
UN, or anyone who does not bow to their will to power.
Thank you for this important article. I do not see the development of PESCO or any homegrown
European military as something positive. I think this is simply a re-branding exercise on
behalf of those who control NATO. These " new" proxy militaries will continue to buy US
military equipment as NATO did before. My fear is that the re-branding effort may result in a
revised military doctrine which may actually be more aggressive than NATO..
Laugh if you will, but I think the Eurocrats want to attempt to (re)take the North American
continent (probably with DC's blessing.) Did you see Putin and Trudeau huddle together at the
WWI commemoration meeting?
(And another thing ) We (the people of the West) should remember that the European, English
and American aristocracies (as Zuesse refers to them) keep a boot to each others throats, and
if one lets up, the other grabs a knife from the back pocket and goes for the jugular.
Because they are like that.
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who
join in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one
in which the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can
impose it only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this
case is the United States.
Might I suggest a viewing and listening to a Dr. Navarro speech:
America is not only the true "evil empire," but it is also a very sick and deluded evil
empire.
The Trump Regime is unhinged, as it desperately tries to Make the American Empire Great
Again by attacking its opponents such as Russia, China, or Iran; waging financial and
economic wars on the world; and projecting its own imperial insanity onto others one twitter
tweet at a time.
But this is true of America in general, regardless of whatever malign regime is in
Washington DC.
The more that America lashes out and seeks to maintain its pretensions as the
Exceptionalist nation, the more it only accelerates its own decline and destruction, as well
as its Day of Financial Reckoning with the collapse of the Ponzi Scheme US economy and Wall
Street.
Indeed, it's not a secret that another Wall Street implosion is coming, one that will make
the 2008 version triggered by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy seem like a tea party in
comparison.
Given Donald Trump's own record of multiple business bankruptcies, perhaps it's only
appropriate that he is the current ruler of America. LOL.
The real issue is when America itself will shatter into a several separate nation states.
Indeed, the prospect of a Second American Civil War is increasingly on the minds of US
foreign policy experts and even the American masses themselves.
According to Dmitry Orlov, America is fast closing the "collapse gap" with its former Cold
War nemesis, the USSR.
Food scarcity and malnutrition of children under the age of 5, places the Ukraine in
percentage terms lower than Pakistan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iraq .the Ukraine welcomes the Cookie
Monster (stats National Geographic)
Obama forever denigrated Nobel Peace Price, making it a cruel joke.
Notable quotes:
"... That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful, egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya. ..."
"... He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence. ..."
That Obomber was a real duplicitous piece of shi er, work. They give that con artist the
Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his glib platitudes and deceits promising a more peaceful,
egalitarian and prosperous world, and without a hesitation or apology he turns around and
initiates four or five new wars in addition to the two he had inherited from Dubya.
He re-ignites the Cold War, threatens Russia militarily at several staging areas along its
Western frontier, and doubles or triples down in expenditures on the American nuclear
arsenal. No price is too high for the American taxpayer when it comes to guaranteed American
hegemony over the planet. Nuclear brinksmanship is preferable to any modicum of peaceful co-existence.
The other sides (defined as enemies solely by Washington, not themselves) are treated with
disdain and disrespect, as Barry flaunts his trash talking skills, obviously learned in his
self-admitted days of street hustling and tripping on the drug du jour.
Trump has also been a master of insults, but it was Obama who unilaterally unveiled the
skill as a favored American diplomatic tactic.
I'm sure it has Putin, Xi, Kim and Rouhani shivering and willing to swallow any insult to
avoid unbridled Neocon wrath [sarc.]. Fools like the guys the American aristocracy routinely
put in the White House are gonna get us all killed one of these days.
"Emmanuel Goldstein is a fictional character in George Orwell's dystopian novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. He is the principal enemy of the state according to the Party of the
totalitarian Oceania. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious (and possibly fictitious)
dissident organization called "The Brotherhood" and as having written the book The Theory and
Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. He is only seen and heard on telescreen, and he may be a
fabrication of the Ministry of Truth, the State's propaganda department." (from
Wikipedia)
Yet Orwell wrote the following words in The Road to Wigan Pier :
"there is the horrible -- the really disquieting -- prevalence of cranks wherever
Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words
'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker,
nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in
England."
And:
"The ordinary man may not flinch from a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it
tactfully; offer him a dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight."
In the first of these excerpts, we see a perfect delineation of today's "Cultural
Marxism," and in the second, a perfect explanation of the support for Donald Trump. The
"deplorables" are those who resent and fight the dictatorship of the prigs. I'm somewhat
surprised that no one has written a history of the rise and advance of political correctness
in American public life and entitled it "The Dictatorship of the Prigs." I hope someone
does.
Brave New World has had a funny way of growing more interesting with age. Lenina
Crowne, the vacuous Future Woman, has leaped out of the pages of Huxley's novel and into our
real lives. Just give Lenina some tattoos and piercings, dye her hair an unnatural color and
put a smart phone on her fashionable Malthusian belt, and she would fit right into our world.
I think the author a little unfair to Huxley when he criticises him for no sense of social
"Class". The issue here is that class, in BNW, has been hard wired into each grouping (ie
deltas etc). Genetic engineering has predetermined all class AND individual desires &
interests. The sophistications of language, mind control etc in Orwell are thus unnecessary
& superseded.
The distinction between the inner party, outer party and proles does seem to be absolutely
crucial to Orwell (at least in 1984) and is often neglected by people debating Orwell vs
Huxley. Still, I tend to agree with those dissidents who have observed that there really is
no inner party. It is outer party buffoons all the way up.
George Orwell also beat his coolies "in moments of rage" as he put it in his autobiography.
He had first-hand experience as a repressive British colonial police officer in Burma,
1922-1927. He knew the autocratic mindset well, because he had lived it.
" Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson
and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny"
That was good for a laugh. What's the difference between governed from the top by liberal
slime career opportunist and governed from the top by the moron womanizer opportunist
comparable to the governor played by Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles? The difference is top
down slime versus top down idiocy.
There is a misapprehension at the core of this article; Huxley wrote from a liberal
'anything goes' perspective of morality, comparable to today's 'it's all about me' MTV
generation. A deeper understanding of Huxley's profound distaste and preoccupation with this
is afforded in his novel 'Point, Counter Point.' Orwell, on the other hand, aptly projects a
future social conservatism that is better compared to the extremes of a cloistered and
tightly policed ultra religious right.
It's not a matter of who was more 'right.' They are describing separate trajectories of
human social phenomena we see playing out today. The two were peering down different avenues
into the future.
But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further
afield. Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they
too are under the heel of the oppressor's jackboot.
Some left-wingers are. Think of poor Julian Assange!
'All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily
echoes of Orwell in the news The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new
president's repeated insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in
fact true, and then his adviser Kellyanne Conway's explanation that these statements were
not really falsehoods but, rather, "alternative facts."'
The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected
President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of
top-down tyranny.
Exactly. In 1984, 'Big Brother' actually controlled the media; Trump clearly doesn't, so
he is not Big Brother. He is Emmanuel Goldstein: a leader of the resistance but alas,
probably not real.
Oh dear no, big mistake -- it's Two Minutes Hate, not three as stated here. Orwell is
superior by far, since he was serious and more humane in his understanding of the effects of
totalitarianism on human psychology. But as a Morrissey song puts it, "I know you love one
person, so why can't you love two?"
@George F.
Held Goldstein isn't Orwell's hero. There is nothing in the book to show that Goldstein
even exists. All he could be is a propaganda construct (as I believe ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al
Baghdadi is in real life). And Goldstein's Jewishness, apart from his name, is non-existent.
When I read 1984 for the first time (in 1986, as it happens), I didn't realise that he was
even meant to be a Jew.
Lots of Jews are against the racist apartheid colonial settler zionazi pseudostate in
Occupied Palestine and its financial backers in New York, but we wouldn't want to disturb you
with facts, would we now.
Orwell, who finished his 1984 shortly after the liquidation of Palestine in 1947,
[1st printing was 1950], never saw the Elephant (Zionist Elephant). No one is perfect.
Orwell, who during WW II, was an employee for Churchill's Government, and labored in
Churchill's Propaganda Department (different official title), loyally reflected (most of)
that propaganda.
Few visionaries in 1947, understood or opposed the imperialist Oligarchs (financial
banking power), who supported the establishment of a so-called Jewish Nation – in
someone else's Nation. (The Balfour Declaration was issued during WW I and the liquidation of
one of the Peoples of the Middle East was in the planning stages). The Palestinians became
the – final victims of World War II.
The Palestinian General Strike (for independence) of 1936 , followed by an
insurrection was brutally suppressed by King George (the British Empire Oligarchs – who
had long (at least since 1815), become the Minions of the Zionist Bankers.
After WW II, Orwell, chose to ignore the crimes against the Palestinians, and possibly, to
get his books published/circulated. Who controls Hollywood-and the Mainstream Media?
For this anarchist, Orwell remains a visionary, a courageous soldier who served in
army of the POUM (Partido Obrero Unida Marxista -Trotskyist), and was wounded while defending
the same Spanish Republic as Durruti's Anarchists. Orwell's wife served as a Nurse in
Spain.
Recommend Orwell's fine book, His HISTORY, " Homage to Catalonia ."
Orwell had courage.
We American Citizen Patriots must display the same courage – as we Restore Our
Republic.
@Justsaying
" In fact, control by proxy seems to have generated a two-tiered control phenomenon where the
leaders are the puppets of puppeteers of a Zionist entity. "
Indeed my idea: Morgenthau Wilson, Baruch FDR, Bilderberg conferences, Soros Brussels,
Merkel, with whom exactly I do know, but it does not matter, Macron Rothschild, Tony Blair
Murdoch.
The catholic countries resist: Poland, Hungary, etc., maybe S Germany and Austria in this
respect also can be seen as catholic.
Trump, put your money where your mouth is, Soros, the Koch brothers, they did, but money
seeems to have failed in the last USA elections.
Must have been a shock, Solsjenytsyn writes that each jewish community in tsarist Russia
always had money for bribes.
@Durruti
Palestine and the Balfour declaration was a bit more complicated, the British saw an
opportunity to keep France, that had Syria and Lebanon, away from Egypt.
Mandate of course was just a fig leaf for colonialism.
@Ronald Thomas
West " What's the difference between governed from the top "
Possibly what is the theory of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA univrsity Amsterdam, that eight years
Obama have driven China and Russia so together that Khazakstan now is the economic centre of
the world, and that the present USA president understand this.
Khazakstan has the land port for trains to and from St Petersburg Peking.
Four days travel.
Do not hope this railway will have the same effect as the Berlin Bagdad: WWI.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist This isn't a top-ten contest. The reality we find ourselves in
seems to consist largely of billion-shades-of-grey continuums, not black-and-white absolutes.
Full-frontal assault (Orwell's state brutality) generally stimulates defensive action.
Tangential, obtuse assault (Huxley's anaesthetising hedonia) doesn't alert the defensive
posture, the immune response. Tipping points, inflection points, exist, but stealthy wolves
in sheeps' clothing, are more effective. The Venus fly trap, the carrion flower, convince
prey to approach trustingly. Brave New World's disguised depredation – the
nanny/welfare state, etc. – paves the way for Orwell's naked totalitarianism. It's the
friendly inmate offering the scared, lonely new prisoner a Snicker's bar and a smoke.
Why limit Orwell to "1984"? His "Animal Farm" is a great work, too. Although much shorter, it
captured the essence of all totalitarian societies even better. "All animals are equal, but
some animals are more equal than others" expresses the "democratic" rule of the 1% better
than anything.
Sail-Dog's favorite movie, Idiocracy is pretty good prescient too; especially the part about
president Camacho, who, by the way, and rather incredibly, most of you voted for two years
ago.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist Consider these excerpts:
1.All the rest had by that time been exposed as traitors and counter-revolutionaries.
Goldstein had fled and was hiding no one knew where, and of the others, a few had simply
disappeared, while the majority had been executed after spectacular public trials at which
they made confession of their crimes. Among the last survivors were three men named Jones,
Aaronson, and Rutherford. It must have been in 1965 that these three had been arrested.
2. 'It is called wine,' said O'Brien with a faint smile. 'You will have read about it in
books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I am afraid.' His face grew solemn
again, and he raised his glass: 'I think it is fitting that we should begin by drinking a
health. To our Leader: To Emmanuel Goldstein.'
Winston took up his glass with a certain eagerness. Wine was a thing he had read and dreamed
about. . . . The truth was that after years of gin-drinking he could barely taste it. He set
down the empty glass.
'Then there is such a person as Goldstein?' he said.
'Yes, there is such a person, and he is alive. Where, I do not know.'
'And the conspiracy -- the organization? Is it real? It is not simply an invention of the
Thought Police?'
'No, it is real. The Brotherhood, we call it. You will never learn much more about the
Brotherhood than that it exists and that you belong to it. I will come back to that
presently.'
Whether Goldstein exists is an issue raised in the novel itself, but that he (obviously
Jewish like another member of the Brotherhood, Aaronson) is presented sympathetically as a
libertarian enemy of the oppressive government is certain. Orwell's novel presents Jews
sympathetically as liberators of themselves and others.
And that presentation is historically false: Jews throughout history are the oppressors, not
the oppressed.
It is interesting to note that today's voice activated computer interfaces (Alexa, etc.) are
equivalent to Orwell's "telescreens" that monitor all activity within a household. Add to
that, the present push to implement "chipping"–the implantation of microchips into
humans, ostensibly for "convenience" and identification that cannot be lost–the "mark
of the beast" in biblical parlance.
The sad part is that much of the population is openly embracing these technologies instead of
being wary (and aware) that these are monitoring technologies which will lead to no good.
@Che Guava
The woman truck driver was the protagonist's love object and inspired what little plot
exists. He was supposed to save her, or so he thought. Everything else was window-dressing
(albeit quite imaginative), possibly the product of his growing insanity
"One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more
correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley".
This is the first lie by this author trying to co-opt both these writers for his agenda.
Orwell was an anti-imperialist and thats evident if you read 'Down and out in Paris or
London' or the 'Road to Wigan Pier'.
Burgess' politics and views can readily be known by reading 'Clockwork Orange' or 'The brave
New World'.
The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were anti
fascists.
If the comment posted is wrong , it's because the first paragraph was blatantly misleading
and stopped me from going any further.
One thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power of
secret societies. Recently Freemasonry celebrated its 300th anniversary with a big bash in
England. In Europe, the Catholics are aware of its power and effectiveness. Democracy is a
total illusion anyway; oligarchs always rule.
Another good one was Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. It also has Alexa-type screens that allow the
viewer to participate, feel like a "star" and acquire instant fame. Firemen start fires
instead of putting them out. Books (good books anyway) cause people to discover and share
another more meaningful world. Ergo, old books must be rooted out and destroyed. The war on
whiteness and patriarchy in today's parlance.
Nineteen Eighty-Four should be required reading in high schools. One of the most
creative and prophetic novels of all time. EN LEAVES, etc. But because of its socio-political
themes, BNW became part of high school canon. In contrast, 1984 maybe Orwell's greatest work.
It's like Anthony Burgess often said A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is the least of his works, but it's
his most famous novel because it was made into a classic movie and dealt with relevant social
themes of crime and psychology.
Still, even though 1984 has stuff about control of the populace through drugs and
pornography, the vision of BNW is closer to our world in this sense. We live in a world of
plenty than scarcity. So, whereas vice is allowed by the state in 1984 as an outlet for a
bored and tired public, vice is at the center of life in BNW. The world of 1984 allows some
kind of vice but is nevertheless essentially a puritanical, spartan, and moralistic state.
Also, vice, even if legal and state-sanctioned, is to be enjoyed behind closed doors. In
contrast, the world of BNW has vice of sex and drugs all over the place. Indeed, it is so
pervasive that it's not even regarded as vice but the New Virtue. And in this, our world is
like BNW. Gambling was once a vice but now a virtue. We are told it is fun, it offers
reparations to Indians, and creates jobs. And Las Vegas is like Disneyland for the entire
family. Disney Corp has turned into a Brothel, but it's still promoted as Family
Entertainment. Trashy celebs who indulge in hedonism and market excessive behavior are held
up as role models. Whether it's Hillary with Miley Cyrus or Trump with Kanye, it seems Vice
is the new Virtue. (I finally heard a Kanye album on youtube, and it began with a song along
the lines of 'suck my dic*'.)
Orwell was insightful about the power of language, but he thought that the totalitarian
state would simplify language to create conformity of mind. Such as 'doubleplusgood'. It
would be increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-poetic. But the PC manipulation of language
works the other way. It keeps on creating fancy, pseudo-intellectual, or faux-sophisticated
terms for what is total rot. So many people are fooled because they go to college and are fed
fancy jargon as substitute for thought.
Btw, as the 84 in 1984 was the reverse of 48, the year in which the book was written, many
literary critics have said the book was not about the future but the present, esp. Stalinist
Russia(though some elements were taken from Nazi Germany and even UK). As such, it was a
testament and a warning than a prophecy. Besides, Orwell had pretty much laid out the logic
of totalitarianism in ANIMAL FARM. Perhaps, the most distressing thing about 1984 is that the
hero embodies the very logic that led to the Repressive System in the first place. When asked
if he would commit any act of terror and violence to destroy the System, Winston Smith
answers yes. It's an indication that the System was long ago created by people just like him,
idealists who felt they were so right that they could do ANYTHING to create a just order. But
the result was totalitarianism.
One area where the current order is like 1984. The hysterical screaming mobs and their
endless minutes of hate. It's like Rule by PMS.
@AnneOne thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power
of secret societies.
One reason why BNW and 1984 fail as future-visions is they assume that the West will
remain white. Both are about white tyranny, white systems, white everything. So, the tyranny
is ideological, systemic, philosophical, and etc. It's about the rulers and the ruled. It's
about systems and its minions. Same with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. As ugly as its future vision is,
at least UK is still white in the novel and movie. But look at London today. It's turning
Third World. And white droogs and gangs are getting their ass whupped by black thugs.
Something happened in the West after WWII. Jews gained supreme power and eventually aided
homos to be their main allies. And Negroes gained supreme status as idols of song, sports,
and sex. This has complicated matters. The group-personalities of Jews and whites are
different. Jews are more aware and anxious; whites are more earnest and trusting. There is a
huge difference between Chinese elites manipulating Chinese masses AND Jewish elites
manipulating non-Jewish masses. Chinese elites think in terms of power. Jewish elites think
in terms of power over the Other. There is bound to be far less trust in the latter case,
therefore more need to twist logic in so many ways.
As for Negroes, their attitudes are very different from that of whites. In some ways, blacks
are the single most destructive force against order and civilization. Look at Detroit and
Baltimore. Haiti and Africa. And yet, the rulers of the Current Order elevate blackness as
the holiest icon of spiritual magic and coolest idol of mass thrills. This lead to the
madonna-ization of white women. Whore-ship as worship. It leads to cucky-wuckeriness among
white men. But if whites submit to blackness, their civilization will fall.
But because Jewish power needs to suppress white pride and power with 'white guilt'(over what
was done to Negro slaves) and white thrill(for blacks in sports, song, and dance), it
promotes blackness. So, on the one hand, Jewish Power is invested in maintaining the Order in
which they have so much. But in order for Jews to remain on top, whites must be instilled
with guilt and robbed of pride. And blackness is the most potent weapon in this. But in
promoting blackness, the West will be junglized. The future of France looks dire with all
those blacks coming to kick white male butt and hump white women. And when it all falls
apart, Jews will lose out too, at least in Europe. US might be spared from total black
destruction with brown-ization. Browns may not have stellar talent but they not crazy like
the Negroes.
1984 and BNW are about people lording over others. There isn't much in the way of minority
power. But today's world is about Minority Rule, especially that of Jews and Homos. And it's
about minorities of blacks in the West taking the mantle of Manhood and Pride from white guys
who are cucky-wucked.
Now, the thing about BNW is that its vision has been fulfilled yet. While one can argue
that Stalinism pretty much achieved the full extent of Orwellianism, humanity has yet to see
the rise of clones and bio-engineering. So, to fully appreciate Huxley, it might take a 100
to 200 yrs. Maybe women will stop giving birth. Maybe the idea of 'mother' will seem funny.
Maybe future beings will be cloned. And maybe different castes will be produced to do
different jobs. That way, there will be happiness. Today, people are still born naturally,
and each person wants to be 'equal'. But what if certain people are bio-engineered to be
submissive and happy to do menial work?
Also, mass cloning may be the only way a nation like Japan can sustain itself as they are
not breeding anymore.
The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were
anti fascists.
Orwell doesn't seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today I'd say my
politics hover around where Orwell's were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.
Truly "war is (now) peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
Most forget that the three great rats (snitches) of the 20th century were Eric Blair aka
Orwell (his famous list of Stalinist media simps), Ron Reagan (Commie Hollywoodites) , and
Tim Leary (Weathmen who broke him out of jail). Blair never imagined 99% of the population
would willingly invite a telescreen into their homes, and even pay a monthly fee to be dumbed
down and manipulated. He visualized the screen correctly to be just an advanced means of
propaganda and enslavement. Maybe it is time for an updated version of 1984. Call it 2024.
Big Jew (giant orange bloated comb over head on screen) could replace Big Brother, and say
Spencer UnzSailer could replace the mythical Goldstein. Dershowitz could replace O'Brien and
torment the hapless Winston Anglin and his tatted blowup doll, Julia.
Lesson: It is a Jewish question which we need not bother ourselves about, one way or the
other. Therefore, no rules for or against BDS, no influence from AIPAC, no aid to Israel or
Palestine, etc. etc. In other words, let's learn from our Jewish friends for once, and play a
game of "let's you and him fight."
@Tyrion 2Orwell doesn't seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today I'd say my
politics hover around where Orwell's were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.
Oddly enough, what we have in the West is actually repression by
sacro-ethno-corporatism.
Jews are disproportionately immensely powerful. So, there is an ethnic angle to the
current power.
But if Jews were merely rich and powerful, they could be critiqued and challenged like Wasps
still are. But they are untouchable because of the sacro-element. As the Children of Shoah,
opposition to Jewish Power is 'antisemitic' or 'nazi'.
Also, Globo-Shlomo-Homo Power owes to capitalism, not socialism or communism. Now,
corporate tyranny can't be as total as statist tyranny. Even with all the deplatforming and
etc, the current power can't do to dissidents what Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did. Still,
considering that a handful corporations dominate so much and that so many Americans are
either apathetic or rabid-with-PC, the current tyranny is formidable. After all, one doesn't
need to control EVERYTHING to keep the power. One only needs control of elite institutions,
flow of information, main narratives & icons/idols, and majority support(as US has a
winner-takes-all political system). As all such are concentrated in few institutions and
industries, the elites own pretty much everything.
With their power of media and academia, Jews have persuaded enough whites that it's virtuous
to be anti-white. And with mass-immigration-invasion, the combined votes of white cucks and
non-white hordes tip the majority toward the Globo-Shlomo-Homo Party. Unless there is total
collapse, this system can go on for a long long time.
Also, corporate power pretty much determines state power since most politicians are whores
of donors. And most people who serve in the Deep State were raised from cradle to idolize
certain figures and symbols as sacrosanct. As toadies and servants of the Power, they've
absorbed these lessons uncritically, and they are afraid to raise their kids with truly
critical mindset because asking Big Questions will derail their chance of entering the
corridors of privilege. Those in the Deep State bureaucracies are not necessarily corrupt.
They may be hardworking and committed to their service to the state, but they are essentially
flunkies since they never questioned the central shibboleths that govern today's PC. I don't
think people like James Comey are corrupt in the conventional sense. They probably sincerely
believe they are committed to the proper functioning of the state. But lacking in imagination
and audacity to question beyond the Dominant Narrative and Dogma, they can only be lackeys no
matter how smart or credentialed they are.
US and Israel are both essentially fascist states, but the differences is Israel is an
organic-fascist state whereas the US is an gangster-fascist state. If not for Israel's
Occupation of West Bank and bad behavior to its neighbors, its form of fascist-democratic
nationalism would be sound. It is a majority Jewish nation where the Jewish elites have an
organic bond with the majority of the people. Also, Jews have a ancestral and spiritual bond
with the territory, the Holy Land. Also, there is a balance of capitalism and socialism, and
the main theme is the preservation and defense of the homeland for Jews. So,
identity/inheritance is served by ideology, not the other way around. As such, Israel is a
pretty good model for other nations(though it could treat Palestinians somewhat better; but
then, Arabs IN Israel have it pretty good.) Israel need not be a gangster-fascist state
because there is natural, historical, and cultural bond between the rulers and the ruled.
But in the US, there is no such bond between the Jewish elites and the masses of goyim.
That being the case, it is most unnatural for the US to be Jewish-dominated. It's one thing
for Jews to be successful and disproportionately represented in US institutions and
industries due to higher IQ and achievement. But the idea of the Jewish elites serving as the
Dominant Ruling Elites in a nation where they are only 2% is ridiculous. It's like Turkey has
successful minority communities of Greeks, Armenians, and some Jews, but clearly the Turks
are in control. But in the US, Jews have the top power, and furthermore, Jews want to keep
the power and make all Americans suck up to Jewish power. But this can only work via
gangster-fascism since there is no organic bond between Jews and non-Jews. If Jewish elites
in Israel think and act in terms of "What can we do to empower all of us Jews as one united
people?", Jewish elites in the think in terms of "What can we do to bribe, browbeat,
threaten, silence, blacklist, and/or brainwash the goy masses to make them do our bidding?"
One if borne of love and trust, the other of contempt and fear.
Whatever problems exist in Israel, I'm guessing there is genuine love between Jewish elites
and Jewish masses. But there is a lot of hatred, fear, and anxiety among Jewish elites when
it comes to the goyim. The result is outrageous policy like hoodwinking white Christian
soldiers to smash 'terrorist muzzie' nations and then bringing over Muslims and embracing
them as 'refugees' against 'white supremacist bigots'.
Another problem with globo-shlomo-homo(and-afro) world order is that it's leading to
Mono-everything. It's leading to mono-financial rule by Wall Street. As Wall Street is so
dominant, it is effectively taking over all financial markets. And as the US military is so
dominant, the world is ending up with Mono-Militarism. The US continues to encircle China,
Russia, and Iran. And it's leading to Mono-Manhood. Prior to mass-migration-invasion, Europe
was all white. So, even though white men tend to lose to blacks in world competition, every
white nation had its white local-national hero. Its manhood was defined and represented by
its own men. The world had poly-manhood, or plurality of manhood. Even if white men lost to
blacks in world competition, they were the dominant men in their own nations. But with
Negroes entering every white nation, the result is Mono-Manhood(that of the Negro) in every
white nation. This is now spreading to Japan as well, as Japanese women now travel around the
world to fill up their wombs with black babies. And of there is Mono-Media. The world
communicates through English, but most English media are dominated by Jews. European nations
may censor American Media, but it's never the mainstream media. It's always alternative
media, and these censorship is done at the pressure of globalist Jewish groups. Jewish
globalists pressure Europe to allow ONLY mainstream US media while banning much of
alternative media that dares speak truth to power about Jewish power and race-ism(aka race
realism).
Why does the one have to be 'superior' to the other as they both make a lot of sense?
Why not a combination of both?
How about a society that controls people with a velvet glove by allowing for and promoting
every Brave New Worldish (often fatuous) personal pleasure while simultaneously, should a
person get out of line from the state's dictates, maintaining in the background the iron fist
of a full blown Orwellian police state?
The present society, though not there yet, is not that far away from that now.
Regarding 1984 I've always thought the Michael Radford film version starring
Richard Burton, John Hurt, and the luscious Suzanna Hamilton, filmed in an around London from
April – June, 1984, the exact time and setting of Orwell's novel, to have been
outstanding.
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
In my estimation, That Hideous Strength, the final novel of the science fiction trilogy of C.
S. Lewis, is the best and most prescient dystopian novel written – largely because it
is so much more than just a dystopian novel. It combines great characters, imaginative
fantasy from modern to medieval, and is a truly creepy horror story as well – with a
hilarious happy ending which illustrates God's very own sense of humor.
"... Huxley's main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through "entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies" is not actually absent in 1984 . ..."
"... In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called "PornSec," which mass produces porn for the Proles. ..."
"... One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford's film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be 'repurposed' as porn. ..."
"... But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing. ..."
"... But most brilliant of all is Orwell's prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed "thought crime," to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their "Newspeak" dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time. ..."
"... Orwell's insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley's novel. The same can be said about Orwell's treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today. ..."
"... Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and currently blogs at Affirmative Right . He recently published a book "Interviews and Obituaries," available on Amazon . ..."
One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct
or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.
In fact, as the only truly oppressed intellectual group, the Dissident Right are the only
ones in a position to offer a valid opinion on this, as no other group of intellectuals suffers
deplatforming, doxxing, and dismissal from jobs as much as we do. In the present day, it is
only the Dissident Right that exists in the 'tyrannical space' explored in those two dystopian
classics.
But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further afield.
Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they too are
under the heel of the oppressor's jackboot. In fact, they feel so oppressed that some of them
are even driven to discuss it in the pages of the New York Times at the despotically
high rate of pay which that no doubt involves.
In both the Left and the Dissident Right, the consensus is that Huxley is far superior to
Orwell, although, according to the New York Times article just alluded to, Orwell has
caught up a lot since the election of Donald Trump. Have a look at this laughable, "I'm
literally shaking"
prose from New York Times writer Charles McGrath :
And yet [Huxley's] novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now,
especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment,
than does Orwell's more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea.
Or it did until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily echoes of
Orwell in the news The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new president's repeated
insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in fact true, and then his
adviser Kellyanne Conway's explanation that these statements were not really falsehoods but,
rather, "alternative facts." As any reader of "1984" knows, this is exactly Big Brother's
standard of truth: The facts are whatever the leader says they are.
those endless wars in "1984," during which the enemy keeps changing -- now Eurasia, now
Eastasia -- no longer seem as far-fetched as they once did, and neither do the book's
organized hate rallies, in which the citizenry works itself into a frenzy against nameless
foreigners.
The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected
President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down
tyranny.
But to return to the notion that Huxley is superior to Orwell, both on the Left and the
Dissident Right, this is based on a common view that Huxley presents a much more subtle,
nuanced, and sophisticated view of soft tyranny more in keeping with the appearance of our own
age. Here's McGrath summarizing this viewpoint, which could just as easily have come out of the
mouth of an Alt-Righter, Alt-Liter, or Affirmative Righter:
Orwell didn't really have much feel for the future, which to his mind was just another
version of the present. His imagined London is merely a drabber, more joyless version of the
city, still recovering from the Blitz, where he was living in the mid-1940s, just before
beginning the novel. The main technological advancement there is the two-way telescreen,
essentially an electronic peephole.
Huxley, on the other hand, writing almost two decades earlier than Orwell (his former Eton
pupil, as it happened), foresaw a world that included space travel; private helicopters;
genetically engineered test tube babies; enhanced birth control; an immensely popular drug
that appears to combine the best features of Valium and Ecstasy; hormone-laced chewing gum
that seems to work the way Viagra does; a full sensory entertainment system that outdoes
IMAX; and maybe even breast implants. (The book is a little unclear on this point, but in
"Brave New World" the highest compliment you can pay a woman is to call her "pneumatic.")
Huxley was not entirely serious about this. He began "Brave New World" as a parody of H.G.
Wells, whose writing he detested, and it remained a book that means to be as playful as it is
prophetic. And yet his novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now,
especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment,
than does Orwell's more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North
Korea.
It is easy to see why some might see Huxley as more relevant to the reality around us than
Orwell, because basically "Big Brother," in the guise of the Soviet Union, lost the Cold War,
or so it seems.
But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley's superiority can be dismantled.
Most importantly, Huxley's main insight, namely that control can be maintained more
effectively through "entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through
overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies" is not actually absent in
1984 .
In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography
is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control
that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called "PornSec," which mass
produces porn for the Proles.
One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford's film version is when
Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a
room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their
surveillance film will be 'repurposed' as porn.
In fact, Orwell's view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and
sophisticated than Huxley's, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a
parody of the naive "free love" notions of H.G.Wells.
While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, 'anti-Sex' is used to strengthen the
hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left
-- and to a certain degree the Dissident Right -- are the most undersexed.
Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell's dystopian vision. While Brave New
World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory
Coffee, and Victory Tobacco -- all highly addictive substances that affect people's moods and
reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and
gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:
The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on
dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the
telescreens.
Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up
at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the
caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into
it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured
with cloves, the speciality of the cafe
In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments
at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.
But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in
terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much
more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how
tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a
formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer
needs policing.
But most brilliant of all is Orwell's prescient description of how language is changed
through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed
"thought crime," to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big
Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition
of their "Newspeak" dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what
they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.
Orwell's insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much
deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley's novel. The same can be
said about Orwell's treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings
particularly true today.
In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and
Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the
group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian
empire. The concept of "three minutes hate" has so much resonance with our own age, where
triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional
zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.
In Huxley's book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed
they are so clearly defined -- in fact biologically so -- that there is no conflict between
them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean
spheres.
In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself -- a rational actor,
controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled
member of the British upper classes.
Orwell's book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of
social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel
creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle
classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for
it.
Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and
currently blogs at Affirmative
Right . He recently published a book "Interviews and Obituaries," available on Amazon
.
Just
days into a ceasefire with Gaza, the Israelis sent commandos in to assassinate a Hamas
leader. Hamas then surprised Israel with more than 400 rockets in retaliation, leading to
another ceasefire agreed by Netanyahu. But this time his defense minister was having none of
it. He wants a conflict and is threatening to bring down the government if he does not get
one. What's next? Tune in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report:
The brutal warlord understood how to govern shrewdly and even humanely.
Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill, even Barack Obama: there are many
historical figures who Americans have turned to for inspiration in this political distemper.
That's especially true with the midterm elections only a week in the books. But I've recently
found an even more surprising leader who offers a number of political lessons worth
contemplating: Genghis Khan.
I'm quite serious.
As a former history teacher, I picked up Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern
World because I realized I knew relatively little about one of the most influential men in
human history. Researchers have
estimated that 0.5 percent of men have Genghis Khan's DNA in them, which is perhaps one of
the most tangible means of determining historical impact. But that's just the tip of the
iceberg. The Mongolian warlord conquered a massive chunk of the 13th-century civilized world --
including more than one third of its population. He created one of the first international
postal systems. He decreed universal freedom of religion in all his conquered territories --
indeed, some of his senior generals were Christians.
Of course, Genghis Khan was also a brutal military leader who showed no mercy to enemies who
got in his way, leveling entire cities and using captured civilians as the equivalent of cannon
fodder. Yet even the cruelest military geniuses (e.g. Napoleon) are still geniuses, and we
would be wise to consider what made them successful, especially against great odds. In the case
of Genghis Khan, we have a leader who went from total obscurity in one of the most remote areas
of Asia to the greatest, most feared military figure of the medieval period, and perhaps the
world. This didn't happen by luck -- the Mongolian, originally named Temujin, was not only a
skilled military strategist, but a shrewd political leader.
As Genghis Khan consolidated control over the disparate tribes of the steppes of northern
Asia, he turned the traditional power structure on its head. When one tribe failed to fulfill
its promise to join him in war and raided his camp in his absence, he took an unprecedented
step. He summoned a public gathering, or khuriltai , of his followers, and conducted a public
trial of the other tribe's aristocratic leaders. When they were found guilty, Khan had them
executed as a warning to other aristocrats that they would no longer be entitled to special
treatment. He then occupied the clan's lands and distributed the remaining tribal members among
his own people. This was not for the purposes of slavery, but a means of incorporating
conquered peoples into his own nation. The Mongol leader symbolized this act by adopting an
orphan boy from the enemy tribe and raising him as his own son.
Weatherford explains:
"Whether these adoptions began for sentimental reasons or for political ones, Temujin
displayed a keen appreciation of the symbolic significance and practical benefit of such acts
in uniting his followers through his usage of fictive kinship ."
Genghis Khan employed this equalizing strategy with his military as well -- eschewing
distinctions of superiority among the tribes. For example, all members had to perform a certain
amount of public service. Weatherford adds:
"Instead of using a single ethnic or tribal name, Temujin increasingly referred to his
followers as the People of the Felt Walls, in reference to the material from which they made
their gers [tents]."
America, alternatively, seems divided along not only partisan lines, but those of race and
language as well. There is also an ever-widening difference between elite technocrats and
blue-collar folk, or "deplorables." Both parties have pursued policies that have aggravated
these differences, and often have schemed to employ them for political gain. Whatever shape
they take -- identity politics, gerrymandering -- the controversies they cause have done
irreparable harm to whatever remains of the idea of a common America. The best political
leaders are those who, however imperfectly, find a way to transcend a nation's many differences
and appeal to a common cause, calling on all people, no matter how privileged, to participate
in core activities that define citizenship.
The Great Khan also saw individuals not as autonomous, atomistic individuals untethered to
their families and local communities, but rather as inextricably linked to them. For example,
"the solitary individual had no legal existence outside the context of the family and the
larger units to which it belonged; therefore the family carried responsibility of ensuring the
correct behavior of its members to be a just Mongol, one had to live in a just community." This
meant, in effect, that the default social arrangement required individuals to be responsible
for those in their families and immediate communities. If a member of a family committed some
crime, the entire unit would come under scrutiny. Though such a paradigm obviously isn't ideal,
it reflects Genghis Khan's recognition that the stronger our bonds to our families, the
stronger the cohesion of the greater society. Politicians should likewise pursue policies that
support and strengthen the family, the
"first society," rather than undermining or redefining it.
There are other gems of wisdom to be had from Genghis Khan. He accepted a high degree of
provincialism within his empire, reflecting an ancient form of subsidiarity. Weatherford notes:
"He allowed groups to follow traditional law in their area, so long as it did not conflict with
the Great Law, which functioned as a supreme law or a common law over everyone." This reflects
another important task for national leaders, who must seek to honor, and even encourage, local
governments and economies, rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions.
He was an environmentalist, codifying "existing ideals by forbidding the hunting of animals
between March and October during the breeding time." This ensured the preservation and
sustainability of the Mongol's native lands and way of life. He recognized the importance of
religion in the public square, offering tax exemptions to religious leaders and their property
and excusing them from all types of public service. He eventually extended this to other
essential professions like public servants, undertakers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and
scholars. Of course, in our current moment, some of these professions are already well
compensated for their work, but others, like teachers, could benefit from such a tax
exemption.
There's no doubt that Genghis Khan was a brutal man with a bloody legacy. Yet joined to that
violence was a shrewd political understanding that enabled him to create one of the greatest
empires the world has ever known. He eschewed the traditional tribal respect for the elites in
favor of the common man, he pursued policies that brought disparate peoples under a common
banner, and he often avoided a scorched earth policy in favor of mercy to his enemies. Indeed,
as long as enemy cities immediately surrendered to the Mongols, the inhabitants saw little
change in their way of life. And as Weatherford notes, he sought to extend these lessons to his
sons shortly before his death:
He tried to teach them that the first key to leadership was self-control, particularly
mastery of pride, which was something more difficult, he explained, to subdue than a wild
lion, and anger, which was more difficult to defeat than the greatest wrestler. He warned
them that "if you can't swallow your pride, you can't lead." He admonished them never to
think of themselves as the strongest or smartest. Even the highest mountain had animals that
step on it, he warned. When the animals climb to the top of the mountain, they are even
higher than it is.
Perhaps if American politicians were to embrace this side of the Great Khan, focusing on
serving a greater ideal rather than relentless point-scoring , we might achieve the same level
of national success, without the horrific bloodshed.
Changing the direction of American politics from the continued descent into degeneracy and
ahistoricity will be a dynastic task requiring us to teach our youngest generations about
civics and civility and U.S. history all the way from the intellectual and historical events
that led to the formation of the U.S. to the varied movements over the years that have either
strengthened the social cohesion of our melting pot nation or provoked rot from the inside
out.
Swallowing one's pride is the most difficult task of any political leader who tastes power
even once. At that point the politician frequently craves the citizenry to get on bended knee
and swallow the the arrogant decisions of the politician who has grown turgid from the
lustful exceses of the governmental trough.
I realize this "American Conservative" author is trying to point out strengths of someone
who he admits was also a tyrant, but there's a little too much much tyrant love for my taste.
Maybe strong leaders are exactly the problem, and maybe one of the reasons conservatives
often have their pants on fire is their claim that they love freedom as they beg for law and
order at the end of someone else's gun.
"... One of the characteristics of fascists, such as the self-confessed fascist, and Republican party icon, Leo Strauss, is to return philosophically to an earlier age when despotism ruled, and present that as a purer form of politics, before ideas of democracy arose, like Mr. Chalk's article suggests. ..."
"... A brief historical note: the conquests of Russia, the Middle East and southern China happened under Genghis' successors ..."
Mr. Chalk writes: The best political leaders are those who, however imperfectly, find a way
to transcend a nation's many differences and appeal to a common cause, calling on all people,
no matter how privileged, to participate in core activities that define citizenship.
The Great Khan also saw individuals not as autonomous, atomistic individuals untethered to
their families and local communities, but rather as inextricably linked to them. For example,
"the solitary individual had no legal existence outside the context of the family and the
larger units to which it belonged; therefore the family carried responsibility of ensuring
the correct behavior of its members to be a just Mongol, one had to live in a just
community."
The guy who wrote this couldn't have said it better: The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito
Mussolini. He wrote, in pertinent part:
"In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process
to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in
function of history to which all nations bring their contribution."
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State
and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State,
which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity."
"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room.
It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In
such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only."
My only exposure to Mr. Chalk's educational institution, Christendom College, was with a
friend's son who went there, and came back to Minnesota and argued with me, as an Army
Officer, that, of course torture was permissible, Aquinas said so.
A Catholic priest whom I knew pointed out later that there had been some further
developments in Catholic doctrine since Aquinas's pronouncements, even if he was a
"Saint."
One of the characteristics of fascists, such as the self-confessed fascist, and
Republican party icon, Leo Strauss, is to return philosophically to an earlier age when
despotism ruled, and present that as a purer form of politics, before ideas of democracy
arose, like Mr. Chalk's article suggests. This is not to ascribe fascist thought to Mr.
Chalk but only to suggest he doesn't need to go all the way back to Genghis Khan for his
political theory, the first half of the 20th Century was replete with similar ideas, in
places like Germany, Italy, and Japan, to name three, all of whom were featured in numerous
TV shows this past weekend in celebration of Veteran's Day.
I've had experience with Christendom College, too. One of my children graduated from there
& received a wonderful education & made lifelong friends.
The little I know about China & other cultures in the East sounds similar to: "and the
larger units to which it belonged; therefore the family carried responsibility of ensuring
the correct behavior of its members to be a just Mongol, one had to live in a just
community."
I think if you just replaced "Mongol" with "Chinese" here you might get the same idea.
That concept is a harder sell in the West where everything is about the individual but I
think we could benefit from adapting that idea a little to our culture.
Jack Weatherford is an apologist for Genghis Khan and should not be the sole source life
lessons that Genghis Khan offers. Go to primary sources to read about Mongol invasions from
the vantage of the victims and their efforts to get out from under the Mongol yolk.
Genghis Khan was from a nomadic people that made their living by grazing and raiding their
neighbors. He raised that up a notch by conquering much of the known world of the day.
I have my doubts about Genghis Khan putting much value on the lives of public servants,
undertakers, lawyers, teachers, and scholars. Perhaps doctors but medicine was not all that
advanced in the 13c. He definitely prized craftsmen who could work with leather, fabric, and
metal and particularly engineers whom he incorporated into his military campaigns.
This enlightened environmentalist may have spared the lives of animals but wantonly killed
peasants and destroyed farmland.
Genghis Khan military strategy involved rapine, destruction, terror, torture, enslavement,
and mass extermination, with death tolls unmatched by any other single person.
He destroyed civilizations leaving fields of bones where once there were buildings,
libraries, churches, mosques, temples, and hospitals. A partial list of cities destroyed by
Mongol conquest listed in in Wikipedia includes Balkh, Bamiyan, Herat, Kiev, Baghdad,
Nishapur, Merv, Urgench, Lahore, Ryazan, Chernigov, Vladimir, and Samarkand.
Mr. Chalk would have it that Genghis Khan created one greatest empires the world has ever
known. This was an empire of vassals, subject to communal punishment, and subject to periodic
acts of savagery to test loyalty. It is not a model that the US should emulate.
Perhaps we can learn much more from Cyrus the Great (580-529 BC) the Persian benevolent
emperor who declared the first charter of human rights in the history.
Contrary to Genghis Khan, he was very generous and kind to the conquered, who recognized him
as a liberator and "Law-giver".
He respected their religion and culture. Genghis was the opposite of Cyrus. When he conquered
Persia, he was extremely brutal.
"Weatherford notes: "He allowed groups to follow traditional law in their area, so long as it
did not conflict with the Great Law, which functioned as a supreme law or a common law over
everyone." This reflects another important task for national leaders, who must seek to honor,
and even encourage, local governments and economies, rather than applying one-size-fits-all
solutions."
I guess the Great Khan was a very fortunate man he did not have to deal with an
uncontrollable globalized financial network serving banks and multinational corporations
only.
The people over elites, yep. Is that not what the Great Trump promised?
Interesting article, though its relevance to our current unpleasantness is a bit hard to
swallow. MacArthur considered Timujin/Genghis Khan to be the greatest military genius of all
time. Can't argue against that assertion. To my knowledge, he never lost a single battle, and
his Mongol empire became the largest in history, controlling over 60 percent of the Eurasian
landmass (including China under his grandson, Kublai).
Nevertheless, as Marcus Aurelius might have written "Where is Genghis Khan now?" And his
empire? After he died, his descendants (Timujin's progeny was enormous) fell into quarreling
among themselves. When another grandson, Mangu Kahn, was defeated by the great Sultan Baybars
and the Egyptian Mamluks at the Battle of An Jalut, the empire began its slow recession.
Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler succumbed to the "Arrow of Time"–along with their
empires. And in the latter case, the United States will suffer the same fate, as difficult as
it may be for us to envision.
As Peter O'Toole's T.E. Lawrence said "Nothing is written." And nothing–is
forever.
In fairness one should take account of the responsibility of some of the conquered for the
westward expansion of the Mongol Empire. The rules of diplomacy we expect today probably
descend from the practice of the ancient Persian empires, but they had been adopted by the
steppe dwellers long before the days of Genghis Khan.
His most powerful neighbor to the west was the Khwarezmian Empire. The Shah of Khwarezmia
gave ample casus belli to Genghis Khan, and not long after died a refugee on an island in the
Caspian and had to be buried in his servant's shirt as he had none of his own. There were
further consequences.
The Shah's mother was a princess of the Qipchak nomads, who dominated the western steppe,
and they thus became enemies of the Mongols. After the fall of Khwarezmia, Genghis Khan sent
a reconnaissance force to scope out the western steppe and neighboring regions, two divisions
led by two of his best generals but with no mission to conquer anyone or to fight unless
necessary.
They needed to cross the Caucasus Mountains from south to north, but were impeded first by
the Georgians (who had suffered greatly at the hands of the Khwarezmians but did not regard
the Mongols with gratitude) and then by a Qipchak contingent who blockaded the pass. So the
Mongols first destroyed the Georgian army, and then tricked thi Qipchaks with bribes, which
they promptly took back once they were through the pass.
They then sent ambassadors to the major cities of Rus', each ruled by its own prince, to
assure them that they wanted peace with Rus' and intended to stay on the steppe. Many of the
princes, however, had taken wives from the Qipchak nobility (in addition to political
advantages secured by such unions, it seems that Qipchak girls were regarded as knowing how
to treat a fellow right), and Qipchaks in the princely courts told them that the Mongols were
dangerous enemies.
Thereupon the princes had the Mongol ambassadors thrown from the city walls (probably by
the Qipchaks). This gross violation of diplomatic norms put Rus' on the Mongols' fecal
register permanently. Worse yet, the Princes of a number of major cities were incited by the
Qipchak to take their armies and drive off the Mongols.
The latter staged a feigned retreat and led the Rus' forces a merry chase until they had
them with their backs to the River Kalka. Then they did what the Rus' princes could hardly
have expected (the Qipchaks should have, but were blinded by thirst for revenge)–they
turned and slaughtered the Rus' armies.
Then they went back and reported to the Great Khan, fulfulling their orders exactly. When
under his successor Ögödei the Mongols returned to Rus', they regarded the Rus'ians
as a low-life lot who violated basic rules of decency in international relations, had no
grasp of such military basics as unity of command, and had needlessly made themselves enemies
of the Great Khan and of the Blue Heaven.
The Khwarezmian Shah, Queen Tamara of Georgia, and the princes of Rus' could at least have
treated the Mongols politely. It might have saved them a lot of trouble.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Yeah, it can be very intimidating and disruptive on a personal level. And you know, there are certainly stories
of students feeling that in the film, and that we've also reported on for many years. But I think people should look at the big picture;
that this operation the film reveals, that Israel has been spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on, Israel and its lobby
groups, and people like Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump's biggest campaign donor, and people like Adam Milstein, who is named in the
film as- he's an Israeli-American financier, a convicted tax dodger who is named in the film as one of the main funders and founders
of the anonymous smear site Canary Mission, which tries to destroy the reputations of college students so that they can't get jobs.
It is very scary for individuals. But the big picture here is that Israel is losing the support of progressive segments of society,
big time. We see that in poll after poll. Just last month there was a poll by YouGov for the Economist that showed a collapse in
support for Israel among progressives, among liberals, among younger people, among people of color. And that the strong support for
Israel now looks exactly like Donald Trump's base. It's white, it's male, it's very right wing.
And so I think the film should be seen not so much as a testament to the success of the Israel lobby, but of its failure. The
fact that they have had to mount this massive operation, and it has not been able to staunch the hemorrhage of support for Israel,
I think really should encourage people that speaking out is the right thing to do. The more normalized that it becomes to talk about
Palestinian rights, the less power the smear and intimidation tactics have. So the message I think people should take away is speak
up more, not less, because we're winning.
BEN NORTON: Well, we'll have to end it there. We were speaking with Ali Abunimah, who is the co-founder and editor of The
Electronic Intifada. The Electronic Intifada is an award-winning news website that published this censored Al Jazeera documentary
with an undercover reporter investigating the Israel lobby in the United States. Thanks for joining us, Ali.
Transparency and knowledge is the key to dis-empowering the power elite and empowering everyday people. Israel's suppression
of this film is a clear example of information control. Thank you Ali Abunimah and The Electronic Intifada for helping relieve
the yolk of information asymmetry with regards to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Israel's manipulation of American policy.
I wrote a letter to my U. S. senator, critical of accepting "contributions" from an ardently pro-Israel government lobbying
group. The FBI showed up in the neighborhood and called to interrogate me. This for holding my (so-anointed "liberal") senator
accountable to act in the "best interests" of constituents!
Totalitarianism and fascism are creeping forward, and the governments
of Israel and its US collaborators -- in every branch and level of government -- are its leading proponents. What the Zionists
do is not only unconstitutional, it's seditious.
A lot of us in the human race don't look lightly upon truly seditious behavior,
such as that carried out every day by the U. S. government on behalf of multinational corporations and foreign agents in direct
violations of U. S. laws. Indeed, a lot of us consider sedition a capital crime, with all its attendant accountability implied.
Series Content Al Jazeera's undercover film The Lobby –
USA, censored by Qatar, has finally been published by The Electronic Intifada. Editor Ali
Abunimah discusses the documentary's explosive revelations, exposing Israel-backed attacks on
US activists
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
My study of Jewish ID politics suggests that America isn't just influenced by one Jewish
lobby or another. The entire American political-cultural-spiritual spectrum has been
transformed into a internal Jewish exchange. Most American do not see the true nature of the
battle they participate in and, for the obvious reasons, their media and their academics do not
help. It is more convenient to keep Americans in the dark.
America is rapidly moving towards a civil war. The divide isn't only ideological or
political. The split is geographical, spiritual, educational and demographical. In a
Vox article titled, "The Midterm Elections Revealed that America is in a Cold Civil War,"
Zack Beauchamp writes, "This is a country fundamentally split in two, with no real room for
compromise." Of the midterm election Beauchamp reports that "American politics is polarized not
on the basis of class or even ideology, but on identity One side open to mass immigration and
changes to the country's traditional racial hierarchy, the other is deeply hostile to it." He
correctly observes that "Republicans and Democrats see themselves as part of cultural groups
that are fundamentally distinct: They consume different media and attend different churches;
live in distinct kinds of places and rarely interact with people who disagree with them."
Despite this American schism, Israel and its Lobby are somehow able to influence both sides,
managing to finding pathways to the secluded corridors of both parties. Although Democrats and
Republicans can no longer talk to each other, it seems that both are happy to talk to Israel
and the Lobby. And it is at AIPAC's annual conference that these political foes compete in
their eagerness to appease a foreign state. This anomaly in American politics demands
attention.
As a former Israeli, I had not observed the effects of the Israel/ Jewish Diaspora dilemma
until I had my experience at the Student Union Hall in Britain. Israel was born with the
Zionist desire to eradicate the identity of Jews as cosmopolitans. Zionism promised to bond the
Jew with the soil, with a territory, with borders. Thus, it is consistent with the Zionist
paradigm that Israel is notorious for its appalling treatment ofasylum seekers, immigrants and,
of course, the indigenous people of the land. Israel has surrounded itself with separation
walls. Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a
'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been putting
into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump supporter, Israel's
politics is a wet dream. Maybe Trump should consider tweaking his motto in 2020 into 'Let's
make America Israel.' This would encompass building separation walls, bullying America's
neighbors, the potential to cleanse America of the 'enemy within,' and so on. It is not
surprising that in 2016
Trump beat Clinton in an Israeli absentee exit poll . The Israelis do love Trump. To them,
he is a vindication of their hawkish ideological path. Although during the election Trump was
castigated as a vile anti-Semite and a Hitler figure by the Jewish progressive press, once
elected,
Fox News was quick to point out that Trump was actually the 'First Jewish President.'
We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant anti
immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in borders. When
alt right icon Richard Spencer described himself on Israeli TV as "a White Zionist" he was
actually telling the truth. Israel puts into practice the ideas that Spencer and Trump can so
far only entertain. But the parallels between Israel and the Trump administration's Republican
voters is just one side of the story.
... ... ...
The story of Jewish political strength in America doesn't end there. A New York Jew can
easily metamorphosize from an hard-core Identitarian into rabid Zionist settler and vice
versa, but such a manoeuvre is not available to ordinary Americans. White nationalist
Richard Spencer can not make the political shift that would turn him into a progressive or a
liberal just as it is unlikely that a NY transsexual icon would find it possible to become a
'redneck.' While Jewish political identity is inherently elastic and can morph endlessly, the
American political divide is fairly rigid. Jewish ideologists frequently change positions and
camps, they shift from left to right, from Clinton to Trump (Dershowitz), they support
immigration in their host counties yet oppose it in their own Jewish State, they are against
rigid borders and even states in general, yet support the two state solution in Palestine
(Chomsky). Gentiles are less flexible. They are expected to be coherent and consistent.
It was this manoeuvrability that made PM Netanyahu's 2015 speech in front of a joint session
of Congress a 'success,' although it might well have been considered a humiliation for any
American with an ounce of patriotic pride. As we wellknow, Bibi can communicate easily with
both Republicans and Democrats just as he cansimultaneously befriend Trump and Putin. ....
Reading the article the thought came up 'when will the USA, the majority of USA citizens,
(begin to) realise that the era of USA foreign politics for internal political reasons, is
over, no longer affordable ?'
The 19th century USA Civil War was horrible, as with all civil wars it was, to a large extent
a foreign war.
If indeed again a USA civil war starts, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of
preventing it, not much of the present USA will still be there at the end, fysically.
And, will there still be a political USA when the fighting stops, or will it end as Germany,
the foreign victors creating the USA they want ?
A USA, as Germany now under Merkel, intent on destroying itself culturally ?
So good to see Gilad Atzmon here at Unz. I have read his two books, The Wandering Who?
and Being in Time , and can thoroughly recommend them.
These Jewish bodies tend to preach inclusiveness while practicing exclusivity.
But of course! They first begged for inclusion into our powers structures, then once we
complied, they returned the favor by taking them over and excluding us from them.
This is a bit reductive. This commenter does not recognize himself in the dichotomy above.
When forced to choose a race on bureaucratic forms, this commenter enters 'human.' Letting
them call you an American opens you up for intensely manipulative statist propaganda. And
when you know your rights – your human rights, as opposed to your bullshit half-assed
revoked constitutional rights – your race is incidental. You know that
nondiscrimination underpins your ethics and the law.
This sort of identity is certainly ferociously suppressed by the Israeli fifth column.
Falk is this kind of guy too, a Jew but so what, and look what they did to him. Ajamu Baraka
too. This overwhelming tidal wave of immigrants from the global south: they grew up with
human rights, including the crucial right to solidarity, which negates all the invidious
aspects of identity politics. Basically, as a human you side with underdogs worldwide:
Okinawans, Palestinians, landless Latin Americans, Africans, you name it. Cohesive social
forces are not confined to ethnic groups.
Tensions behind the Iron Curtain inside the US are incidental. The real conflict is us
humans versus overreaching states. Given the downtrodden nature of the US subject population,
this conflict is playing out mainly outside US borders. The left/right continuum has always
been a CIA construction. Statists and humanists array on an orthogonal axis, and that
contention continued when CIA rolled the old left up. Cosmopolitans have not gone away.
Israel may be infecting the US with statist divide et impera, but humanist institutions
are penetrating Israel too. Look what's happening as the HRC and other human rights treaty
bodies review Israel.
Israel is formally accused of interpreting its commitments in bad faith. This allows
treaty bodies to gang up and apply international criminal law to Israeli torture, murder, and
extermination. It's already happening to criminal US officials. Israel's next.
Atzmon is right re "New York Jews", them being potentially mutable. But, Israelis, being
normal nationalists, cannot show the same level of "shape-shifting". A multiculturalist
minority in one country can become other nation's nationalist majority. Just, Israeli
nationalists cannot become Israeli open borders advocates, multiculturalists, globalists etc.
Only a minority population, basically strangers in another country, can practice various
ways of behavior. Host, dominant culture in a country- cannot. Dershowitz can change
positions; just, both Netanyahu & any Israeli labor politician can not.
It's the hypocrisy that pisses everyone off with Jews. Few people, especially on the right,
have any issue with a nation defending itself. It's that the same Jews who are trying to
shove diversity/multiculturalism/refugees 49.Reuben Kaspate says: November 14, 2018 at 3:42
pm GMT Civil war? How soon are we talking here? Perhaps, the status quo will be the
foreseeable future just humming along. down our throats are either supportive or silent when
it comes to Israel making itself into a pure ethnostate behind barbed wire.
But at a certain point in my life, around my thirties, I started to find all of it too
exhausting. I wanted to simplify things. I demoted myself into an ordinary human being.
A lot of people want this, but ordinary humans beings also have to live in societies
– and quite sophisticated ones at that. Elected representatives (or leadership) need
responsibility and integrity for it to work.
THE US JOINS THE 3RD WORLD
Government responsibility and integrity are not guaranteed (notably in places like Africa
and S.E. Asia), but the United States is probably the leading example of a government failure
in an advanced society. In the US, like much of the 3rd world, special interests (minority
ethnic and commercial) loot the public through a corrupt bargain with the holders of
political power. Hillary Clinton was the classic example, with the same "Pay to Play"
philosophy as the usual leadership of the Philippines or the Congo.
The 3rd world antidotes are Nationalism and Populism, but having gained power, political
leaders usually sell out (sounds familiar). Also the public of the US have learnt to be
trusting, and find it hard to believe that they've been hit by a classic 3rd world
problem.
In the US, Zionists have looted $ trillions in support of their Special Interest (Israel)
and corporations have extracted many more $ trillions through the mass outsourcing of entire
industries, complete with their technology and supply networks to Asia. It's not engraved in
stone that US industry, had to relocated to Asia or Indians have to be recruited for its IT
work. Germany and Japan for example, have held onto their industrial leadership in recent
decades and the US could have done the same. At one time the US was the world leader in US
based automobile production (Detroit), steel, aluminium, camera and film, industrial
chemicals, communications equipment, computers and electronics, aircraft and aerospace (still
partly) etc. With what's left in mostly in services and retail (often looted by Hedge Fund
asset strippers).
In other words, under a genuine post WW2 "America First" policy involving top quality
national education, research and government support of leading industries, the US could still
be the world's leading industrial and economic power and not have to worry about debt,
deficits and social decline, and also find plenty of jobs for Latino migrants.
However, the US got instead its present 3rd world style corrupt elite who know that
nationalism is their Nº1 enemy.
Only Anglos can mount a nationalist challenge, hence the paranoia when Trump arrived on
the scene with his "America First" dialogue and Anglo base. In contrast, the whole apparatus
of the Zioglob/ deep state/MSM defence is Identitarian, and aimed at destroying the
foundations of Anglo society, with LGBT, "White guilt dialectics", multiculturalism,
exclusion from Ivy League universities, Hollywood slime, speech laws, statue demolition,
in-your-face Africanization, massive debt, political corruption, open frontiers and exporting
middle class jobs.
CHINA JOINS THE 1ST WORLD
The Chinese seem to be doing it right.They have an explicit national policy to gain and
hold top positions in key world industries and make it a joint national effort to succeed
(especially in national human development/education). Also when they find corrupt government
officials (even at high levels) they quickly put them on trial and shoot them.
Winston Churchill talked about this/these divisions in the Jewish people in the 1930s, back
before Israel became a Jewish ethnostate – he presented the main 2 divisions between
ethnic Jews who fell down in to the worst forms of Communism, Bolshevism, Anarchism in Russia
and Eastern Europe and those other ethnic Jews who were sort of doing OK being loyal to their
European/American countries especially England they lived in while also promoting a healthier
form of Zionism working for some eventual Jewish national state somewhere probably in then
British administered Palestine.
Zionism vs Communism – a struggle for the Jewish Soul:
Churchill didn't present the extremely bad alternative we had today:
Jews in the diasapora everywhere from Russia to Poland to Germany, France, England,
Canada, Sweden Australia, few left in South Africa our USA doing this:
Promoting Israel over everything as an exclusively Jewish ethno state with endless US, UK
other wars against Israel's neighbors and .
Promoting the worst forms of multi culturalism, open borders immigration in to the West,
Jewish media mafia domination/monopoly of the mainstream media, social media in USA, UK,
Sweden etc promoting the worst forms of porn, rap music, fake news, endless movies and TV
shows demonizing all White European men as evil Racists, rapists – promoting the worst
Jewish feminists/lesbians to the US Supreme Court, Rachel Maddow type news commentary
etc.
I have long admired your noble efforts on behalf of the Palestinian people. You often
write in ways that resonate with me, and I'm glad to see you here at The Unz Review.
Israel deployed hundreds of snipers in its fight to stop the March of Return – a
'caravan' of Palestinian refugees who were marching towards its border. Israel has been
putting into daily practice that which Trump has promised to deliver. For a Trump
supporter, Israel's politics is a wet dream.
But I have to tell you, you're waaayyy off with this characterization of Trump
supporters.
There are, I'm sure, a lot of brain-dead "Christian" Zionists who drool at the prospect of
slaughtered Palestinians, because murdering Christ's modern day relatives living in his lands
are the only way to force Jesus to return and give them their rapture. And I suppose there
are perhaps a fraction of a percentage point of people who actually want Trump to throw out
(or murder) all non-whites to create the kind of racial purity Bibi and his crew of
psychopaths are demanding for Israel.
But from what I've seen, and being one of them, as to the vast majority of what you call
"Trump supporters", the idea of murdering people in order to steal their land, is a monstrous
absurdity.
For the record, we voted for Trump to end the demonic reign of terror and mass
murder in the Middle East. The very kind of mass-murder and daily atrocities that were
cackling Hillary's ("we came, we saw, he died) and Bill's ("it's worth it") trademark.
We voted for Trump as a repudiation of those evils, that had long stained our national
soul, and indeed had made America the kind of place Bibi was pleased with.
We did not vote for Trump to murder and steal, or otherwise do anyone harm. We voted for
Trump to do the opposite, and end the Eternal Wars for Israel. No one on the Alt-right likes
the wars. We simply want to be left alone, to pursue our humble lives unmolested by
globalists and their nefarious designs for us. Is that so terrible?
. In fact, Israel has become a prime model for American nationalists.
with all due respect, that is a vile smear, Sir.
Where are these 'white nationalists' who're demanding we terrorize and murder and steal
other people's land? Eh?
For the record, white nationalists are today's Palestinians. What they're demanding is
that they don't have to give up the lands they have, and were born on, and be forced out to
make room for unlimited others. Or forced to assimilate to an Hispanic or Muslim culture and
way of life. Is that so egregious? To want to persevere as an American in an American
culture, with hostility to none, and trade with and good relations with all and any who
respond in good faith?
Why is it that all white people, from Europe to N. America and everywhere else, are all
expected to invite every non-white, non-Western, often hostile armies of (especially military
age young men) into our lands, and then treat them better than the indigenous, white second
class citizens?
What is it with that?!
Either Germans and Swedes and Americans hand over their nations or we're all going to be
called "Nazis" or "racists" or God help us, "Zionists".
WTF?
We can see that Israel, Trump and his voters have a lot in common. They want militant
anti immigration policies , they love 'walls,' they hate Muslims and they believe in
borders.
well, only the stupidest imbecile on the planet doesn't believe in borders. (or, an
ideologue that wants to see *certain* nations destroyed by armies of immigrants –
hostile or otherwise).
No one wants recognized borders more than the Palestinians. It is Israel that refused to
state its border, because it want to steal more land. How many Trump voters do you hear
talking about stealing other people's land? (I'm not talking about lunatics like Bolton.
American nationalists despise Bolton and McCain and all the rest of the Zionist, globalist
scum)
And I don't personally know of any reasonable American nationalist who 'hates Muslims'.
They just don't want them all here. Have you ever heard of Kosovo, Mr. Atzmon? There
are neighborhoods in Michigan that were Polish Catholic for generations. And they liked it
that way. They never hated Muslims or anyone else. But they do hate having their communities
taken over by alien peoples with alien cultures and now have to listen to 'calls to prayer'
at five in the morning every day. And demands for Sharia and other clashes with their former
way of life.
Are these people rabid Zionists demanding to murder people and steal their land, just
because they don't want throngs of Muslims coming in and transforming their community into
something they don't recognize or have any predilection for. Are they simply too racist and
hateful, and need to learn to assimilate? Eh?
I don't know who this Spencer guy is, and he sound like controlled opposition to me.
It would be wrong to equate nationalism with the frothing's of some so called
"white-Zionist". The only white Zionists I know of are the lunatic "Christian" Zionists.
The nationalists I know of simply want to be left -the fuck- alone!
Stop demanding that we hand over our country to people who don't appreciate it. (Indeed,
often hate it) Stop demanding that we doom our children to living in a nation that puts them
last in every way, behind every single non-white immigrate that can get to these shores. It
is insane to want to have people come to your nation who will be a burden, who often hate you
and yours, not to mention your culture, and want to displace you. It is insane to insist that
millions of people come in and compete with your children on an un-level playing field. Every
non-White immigrant that comes here gets Affirmative Action promotions and jobs and
university preference over the white children who were born here. Unless you hate white
people, that state of affairs is insane.
And yet here we are being badgered as thieving, psychotic murderous goons (Zionists)
simply for wanting what every single sane person on the planet wants: to preserve our way of
life and hand it down to our progeny – for them to have a decent life and hope for
theirs in turn.
And yet somehow, if we have white skin, wanting this is the most evil and wicked and
racist thing imaginable!
@Rurik White nationalists are a mixed bunch, going from the very bad (as Atzmon) sees
them to, maybe, the peaks of sainthood you attribute to them.
The whole idea of legit owners of land is a rationalization: everybody (meaning: every
group) took from someone else the land where they are, and did so by combat and might.
Sure, in our more civilized times we'd like such things to be relegated in the past, borders
to become stable, and ethnic cleansing and warfare to be a closed chapter.
These are wishes and words about said wishes, though.
Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all of
the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to include
a bit more than mine. Being the first stripe allowed, they'd go on, until I were left with no
land at all, all of this while seeing themselves as honest.
Whoever owns land, and whoever doesn't have a need to believe Jews worse than other people
knows what human nature is like when it comes to property, borders, and expansion.
Do you own a swath of land in the countryside, by chance? I do, and over the years all
of the three of my neighbours have applied pressure to broaden their owned land so as to
include a bit more than mine.
I doubt your neighbors have attacked you, burned your land, cut off or poisoned your water
and then confiscated your house and land ..as is the case of Israel's theft of Palestine.
This is the 21 century, not the 17th or 18th century.
When we interrupt our travels to take a break, I approach a group of young Israeli soldiers,
themselves waiting for a bus. Anyone speak English, I ask? Sure, answers one good-looking kid.
His accent is familiar.
Where are you from?
Connecticut.
He turns out to be an Ohio State grad, serving a tour as a "lone soldier" -- a Jew but not
an Israeli -- in the IDF. There are thousands of them.
I have never been comfortable with this phenomenon. If a young American hankers to defend a
country, it strikes me that he ought to defend his own rather than someone else's. But this
Buckeye from Connecticut is obviously a fine upstanding fellow so I don't press him to
explain.
"... Brennan was the leading force behind the prosecutions of eight national security whistleblowers during the Obama administration, almost three times the number of whistleblowers charged under the Espionage Act by all previous presidents combined. ..."
"... I worked for Clapper once and detest the man. I consider him to be an unprincipled careerist devoid of loyalty to anything or anyone but himself. He was IMO by far the worst Director the Defense Intelligence Agency has ever had and a man who did great damage to that agency in the process of seeking favor from his superiors. He is also a confessed perjurer. ..."
"... I first knew John Brennan when he was a junior analyst attached to the CIA station in Saudi Arabia and I was the Defense Attaché in the same embassy. I had a great deal of opportunity to observe him on the job and found him to be lacking in integrity, courtesy and intellect. ..."
"... He is well made up and looks to me to be hanging on through will power. ..."
"... Sir, I have to agree, Trump is beginning to fray on the edges and I think it will get worse. The 24/7 media attacks and resistance movement in general is having the desired impact. Trump is probably already distracted and angered by the impending impeachment process, criminal investigations and lawsuits that are coming beginning in January. Trump will not get a second term even if he wants it at this point. ..."
"... Whether it's Clapper, Clinton, Trump, Brennan, Obama, the neocon cabal in Bush II admin, or pick any scion from Wall Street's rogues gallery of bad actors from the last twenty years. Individuals charged with authority, those holding immense wealth, or in many instances both, have broken public trust. Repeatedly. And often egregiously. And they seem to be increasingly in your face about it. ..."
"... Col.- I agree. Especially with respect to the beating he is taking from all sides. He wrecked both the Bush and Clinton dynasties -- quite the vindictive bunch. And then had the unmitigated gall to take on the DC beast with no real allies and through only sheer tyranny of will. I'm amazed he's lasted this long without totally capitulating. ..."
"... My guess would be that he was a CIA informer/asset on the CPUSA, but apparently wasnt very good at it. Why this resulted in him being effectively promoted to agent, well, no idea. ..."
"... The somewhat paranoid explanation is that the KGB had a cunning plan of hindering US IC by trying to make them recruit morons. Imagine not-Stirlitz, who is CIA/DIA HR but actually KGB, carefully perusing different candidates and trying to figure out who would likely do the most damage if ever employed by the respective agency. ..."
"... He is and has always been a leftist who penalized straight, white men for being such when he was director of DIA without regard to talent or experience issuing a directive to HR that no such could be hired or promoted without his permission in each case. Brennan was a communist sympathizer but Clapper was a proponent of identity politics before it was fashionable. ..."
"... I hope their new best friends in the Democratic "Russia! Russia! Russia!" Party are happy with them. Why do they (if I remember correctly) still have their security clearances? ..."
12 November 2018Clapper and Brennan are felons? Probably yes. "The CIA is
required by law to inform congressional oversight committees whenever one of its officers,
agents, or administrators breaks the law, when an operation requires congressional approval
because it is a "covert action" program, or whenever something happens at the CIA that's
potentially controversial and the agency wants to save itself the embarrassment of explaining
itself to Congress later.
" I could see no reason to withhold declassification of these documents." Grassley said.
"They contained no information that could be construed as [betraying] sources and methods."
Brennan was the leading force behind the prosecutions of eight national security
whistleblowers during the Obama administration, almost three times the number of whistleblowers
charged under the Espionage Act by all previous presidents combined.
Indeed, I was one of the "Obama Eight." I was charged with five felonies, including three
counts of espionage, after I blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program. Of course, I hadn't
committed espionage and those charges were eventually dropped, but not until I had agreed to
take a plea to a lesser charge. I served 23 months in a federal prison.
Brennan and Clapper think the law doesn't apply to them. But it does. Without the rule of
law, we have chaos. The law has to apply equally to all Americans. Brennan and Clapper need to
learn that lesson the hard way. They broke the law. They ought to be prosecuted for it."
Kiriakou in Consortium News
-----------
I worked for Clapper once and detest the man. I consider him to be an unprincipled
careerist devoid of loyalty to anything or anyone but himself. He was IMO by far the worst
Director the Defense Intelligence Agency has ever had and a man who did great damage to that
agency in the process of seeking favor from his superiors. He is also a confessed
perjurer.
I first knew John Brennan when he was a junior analyst attached to the CIA station in
Saudi Arabia and I was the Defense Attaché in the same embassy. I had a great deal of
opportunity to observe him on the job and found him to be lacking in integrity, courtesy and
intellect. It should be remembered that he was a supporter of the Communist Party of the
United States before the CIA for some obscure reason hired him. pl
It's amazing to some one outside the country, to see how the Liberal people in the US,
now love Clapper and Brennan, who they would normally hate, just because they hate Trump
so much more.
John Kiriakou's book "Doing time like a spy" is an eye opening read for someone who has
no idea about the power plays in Washington. I'm glad he has bounced back from the
pounding they gave him.
I may be wrong, but I think Meuller was the head person pushing the false charges.
Kiriakou wrote a piece were he advises Trump not to testify for Meuller, as it will be
all twisted against him.
At some point, the politically powerful and financially wealthy are going to have to
be treated -- and be seen to be treated -- equally to their fellow citizens. If this bullshit
continues without some publicly corrective measure(s) the wheels are going to start
falling off the wagon.
I have the impression that Trump is entering a melt-down stage, not from the Mueller
nonsense but rather just from the unending pressure against him from the left and from
within the GOP. I would not be surprised to see some sort of collapse either physically
or in policy. Watch the border.
I don't know, Trump may be the only person who looks younger after eight years in office!
Doesn't he look in better shape then two years ago? I think the White house cooks are
limiting his intake of KFC and cheese burgers to good effect.
Sir, I have to agree, Trump is beginning to fray on the edges and I think it will get
worse. The 24/7 media attacks and resistance movement in general is having the desired
impact. Trump is probably already distracted and angered by the impending impeachment
process, criminal investigations and lawsuits that are coming beginning in January. Trump
will not get a second term even if he wants it at this point.
Basically, the country is
done for. In 20 years it will be as fully socialist as the worse of Europe (Sweden?). The
1 and 2 amendments will be gutted. The others? Well, it depends on your skin color,
gender and your political leanings. Not good for whites, males and conservatives. The
successful will be taxed into oblivion and there will be open borders, globalism, etc.
That is what the people have been trained by the education system and Hollywood
propaganda to want. Trump was a last gasp of the original American ideals and he knows
it. It was all for naught.
If the Dem controlled HR play only to the adulation of the pink pussy-hat crowd, and if
they regard themselves as far above the Deplorables then the wheels may also drop off. Their exuberance portends some unsafe use of their new found legislative power.
I was speaking in a much broader sense about political culpability re: wheels falling
off the wagon. I think one of the attitudes that both the pussy-hatters and the
deplorables share (though I'm sure they would loathe to admit it) and that is relevant to
our current "climate" of hostility revolves around their respective sense on a core issue
of fairness. Not that I'm saying life is or should be fair. But, come on. A ruling class
can only piss all over a polity, or publicly appear to be doing so, for only so long
while telling them it's raining before it boomerangs.
Whether it's Clapper, Clinton, Trump, Brennan, Obama, the neocon cabal in Bush II
admin, or pick any scion from Wall Street's rogues gallery of bad actors from the last
twenty years. Individuals charged with authority, those holding immense wealth, or in
many instances both, have broken public trust. Repeatedly. And often egregiously. And
they seem to be increasingly in your face about it.
As Mark Blyth, an economist at Brown, has noted on several occasions: "The Hamptons
are not a defensible position."
Col.- I agree. Especially with respect to the beating he is taking from all sides. He
wrecked both the Bush and Clinton dynasties -- quite the vindictive bunch. And then had the
unmitigated gall to take on the DC beast with no real allies and through only sheer
tyranny of will. I'm amazed he's lasted this long without totally capitulating.
It should be remembered that he was a supporter of the Communist Party of
the United States before the CIA for some obscure reason hired him. pl
doesn't show on Wikipedia on first sight. I don't have much knowledge about the
communist party in the US. I recall that Bertold Brecht was on McCarty's list as suspect.
That's my field, the arts.
According to
https://edition.cnn.com/201... his vote for a Communist candidate was his protest
against 'the system', ie., it was his means of expressing disquiet with either Nixon or
Ford.
Perhaps there is a long story in there somewhere.
thanks Pat. I trust your takes on people, and I am surely no fan of either, but this
puzzled me. So he voted for the communist party in the US, without any awareness it was a
lost vote? With 21?
Ok, for some reason I trust Zerohedge in limited ways as a source on the right that
may do its homework or Tyler, Durden, was it?
In this context it may make sense, but what is the meta-message concerning the meeting
between Putin and Trump? Ok, maybe I should NOT have listed Putin first.
So what are the facts? Well John Brennan was accepted into the CIA in 1980 even
though he admitted voting Communist in 1976. This is something inexplicable and
astounding for any thinking person to understand of itself.
Brennan, who by then had been appointed President Obama's CIA chief, first publicly
revealed this at the Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, on
15 September 2016, in Washington DC. There, he said that when he had applied in 1980 to
join the CIA, he admitted to them that in the 1976 Presidential election, at the height
of the Cold War against the "Godless" Soviet Union, when a strong Christian presidential
candidate, Jimmy Carter was running against Gerald Ford, Brennan had voted instead for
the candidate of the US Communist Party, Gus Hall, and that he was then greatly relieved
to find that this information didn't cause rejection of his CIA application. One must ask
why, as it happened 11 years before the "end of the Cold War" in 1991.
widely reported in media, beyond first Google sight by Rush Limbaugh?
My guess would be that he was a CIA informer/asset on the CPUSA, but apparently wasnt
very good at it. Why this resulted in him being effectively promoted to agent, well, no
idea.
My understanding is that promoting assets to actual agents is not a very common thing,
but could perhaps be done with people of very marginal asset value.
The somewhat paranoid explanation is that the KGB had a cunning plan of hindering US
IC by trying to make them recruit morons. Imagine not-Stirlitz, who is CIA/DIA HR but
actually KGB, carefully perusing different candidates and trying to figure out who would
likely do the most damage if ever employed by the respective agency.
The bog standard explanation is that he knew someone who knew someone, and this was
sufficient.
The last possible explanation was that someone in the hiring process thought it was a
good joke. Spies have quirky senses of humor.
Can't imagine the meltdown in the media and the Democrats if any of these Deep State
characters get indicted?
So, the big question is will Trump go for broke?
I did read it, but do not have the expertise to review most of it.
However, I will mention, from memory, several things in it that impressed me:
1. Regarding the firing of Michael Flynn as DIA Director, Clapper said that, in his view,
the justification for the firing was primarily that Flynn had not handled the civilian
DIA workforce properly. Essentially, that he did not coddle them as they wanted/needed to
be coddled. He thought he could/should give them orders on how he wanted things to be
done, and it was their duty to obey. And if they did not, that that was their fault, not
his.
2. He definitely saluted the flag of political correctness.
a) He praised practically to the skies the abilities of the women who supported him.
He finished his remarks about them by saying something like:"I hope when they (the women) take over the world that they will remember me kindly."
b) As to homosexuals and the gender insane (that's my, non-professional, term for what
many call "transgenders"), he could see no reason whatsoever for discrimination against
them. With regard to the gender insane, the job of the government was to protect them
against prejudice and hostility.
c) He emphasized his opposition to any discrimination against African-Americans.
I could give my own view on these social/political issues, but that would be a
distraction. Let the focus be on his views.
With regard to Clapper's less than accurate response to Senator Wyden,
Clapper goes into great detail to give the background to that, and discuss it.
I, although no expert on how IC leaders should answer questions from Congressmen,
find his explanation of his action to be satisfying.
Was there a better answer? I do not know.
But without further argument, I do not see his answer as a crime.
Anyhow, Colonel, I am sure you are eminently qualified to review his book,
from the points of view of intelligence, foreign policy, and IC management,
and from your comments above would seem to have the motivation.
I hope you do so.
I will NEVER read or comment on his wretched book. He is and has always been a leftist
who penalized straight, white men for being such when he was director of DIA without
regard to talent or experience issuing a directive to HR that no such could be hired or
promoted without his permission in each case. Brennan was a communist sympathizer but
Clapper was a proponent of identity politics before it was fashionable. BTW, I am
supposed to obey you?
"BTW, I am supposed to obey you?"
Of course not. But if I refrained from mentioning that this was the second time I had suggested
it,
I would open myself up to criticism for not mentioning the earlier time.
Either approach can be criticized.
I certainly respect your choice to not review the book,
but I hope you will not feel me too much of a pain if I state that I hope, sometime in
the future, you change your mind.
Few, if any, people, have the insights into Clapper that you do.
Another election stolen by the Democrats. A House of Representative seat in New Mexico.
CNN, Fox, MSNBC declared the Republican the winner the night of the election. This is
before 8,000 ballots out of 203,000 citizens showed up. Of course the Democrat Secretary
of State informed the Republican candidate she lost after counting these 8,000 votes.
It's over as far as I'm concerned. The Democrat Party has decided to steal elections
as they please. No objection from the Democrat Press. I loathe the Paul Ryan agenda but I
hate the Democrat Party more for what they have done to this country. There will never be
another election where either side will believe fair. Due to made up conspiracies such as
Russian collusion and heaven forbid have to show your id to vote.
Hillary runs in 2020 and this is the nail in the coffin of this Republic. Florida is
just a test run for her to steal that state.
She did it in 2016, and there was no negative outcome even when the theft was revealed
and acknowledged. Why would it not be just as easy to do it again in 2020, given that the
theft has the blessing of the Democratic Party?
I hope their new best friends in the Democratic "Russia! Russia! Russia!" Party are happy
with them. Why do they (if I remember correctly) still have their security clearances?
My understanding is that leaving government in other countries may well result in a
degradation (but iirc not a total revocation) of any held security clearance.
My impression, which is a guess and by no means authoritative or anything, is that the
US tends to classify too much information (much of it would not or only barely merit
being classified), and is then by necessity too lax in handing out clearances (as many
clearance owning individuals are needed to handle all the classified data). This results
in situations like Manning and Snowden, who iirc had some type of clearance and worked
this to gain information considerably above their actual legitimate clearance. Such as
"escalation" of clearance privileges will likely be far easier to achieve (and quite a bit
harder to detect) then stealing secrets without any clearance at all.
Classification is a bit like defending, if one attempts to defend everything, by
classifying everything, one may well end up defending nothing at all.
"... [Don't miss Barndollar discussing the forever war, the military industrial complex, and military reform at our fifth annual foreign policy conference on November 15 in Washington, D.C. Full schedule and free registration here] ..."
"... Gil Barndollar is Director of Middle East Studies at the Center for the National Interest and Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for the Study of Statesmanship. He served as a U.S. Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. ..."
Flickr As we near the halfway point of President Donald Trump's first term, U.S. foreign
policy is being widely portrayed as off the rails. Yet when one looks past the Trumpian
bluster, the predetermined media narrative, and the serial incompetence of an understaffed and
often inexperienced administration, one finds a foreign policy agenda that differs far more in
style than in substance from its predecessors'.
Donald Trump ran for president as a foreign policy Buchananite in all but name. Thoughhe
made pro forma genuflections before the altars of primacy and American military supremacy,
Trump repeatedly bemoaned America's disastrous interventions in the Greater Middle East. The
South Carolina Republican presidential debate in February 2016 seemed like a watershed moment:
Trump attacked George W. Bush's war leadership and proclaimed the Iraq war a disaster, a bold
stance in a Republican Party that still refused to acknowledge reality more than a decade after
the invasion. Despite being booed by some in the audience, Trump won the state easily and drove
"Low Energy" Jeb Bush out of the race.
Candidate Trump offered a radical break with the U.S. foreign policy establishment. He said
was NATO obsolete and warned of the danger of a third world war with Russia. He rightly
declared the Libyan intervention to be another fiasco, and an illegal one at that. Hillary
Clinton, by comparison, bragged about Muammar Gaddafi's death and compared Vladimir Putin to
Hitler. Foreign policy realists and restrainers were understandably receptive to a Trump
presidency, warts and all.
Much of Trump's rhetoric revolved around the undeniable fact that our allies are prospering
under an American security umbrella they do not pay enough to support. He famously said that
the United States should "take Iraq's oil" as payback for the American blood and treasure
invested there. Trump seemed to sum up his view of America in the world when he told The
Washington Post in March 2016: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."
Two years later, it is clear that "America First" was negotiable. U.S. troops aren't coming
home, entangling alliances are expanding not contracting, and American client states are even
more likely to drag us into war in the Middle East. When one pushes the media and the
president's personality out of view, the most remarkable thing about Trump's foreign policy is
how unremarkable it is. Beneath the rhetoric, American foreign policy these past two years has
remained shackled to the traditional pillars of primacy, interventionism, and hubris.
Afghanistan: The war in Afghanistan offers the clearest evidence of business as usual
in American foreign policy. The administration's brief attempt at unconventional thinking on
Afghanistan was the risible Prince plan, whereby the U.S. would continue to prosecute the war
but outsource it to a "modern East India Company." Erik Prince, formerly head of the Blackwater
security firm and more recently a logistics provider in Africa and trainer of Chinese security
services, proposed to turn Afghanistan over to a brigade of contractors and a "viceroy" with
total command of the U.S. war effort. Though many of Prince's critiques of the current strategy
are sound, mercenaries cannot fix a country with massive culture and governance problems. This
idea was thankfully rejected. More creative thinking, like a real effort to work with Russia,
China, and Pakistan to stabilize Afghanistan, or a withdrawal and a pledge to return in force
if necessary, appears to have been unwelcome.
Instead, a vaunted new strategy offered little substantive change. U.S. forces in
Afghanistan were increased by 4,000 troops, and the number of airstrikes shot up. But the
situation there has only gotten worse. Casualties for both civilians and Afghan security forces
have risen dramatically in the past year while Pakistan still shelters and abets the Taliban.
The Afghan military is still not able to hold territory without U.S. assistance. In fact,
independent assessors like the Long War Journal believe that nearly 60 percent of Afghanistan's
districts are either under Taliban control or contested. The Department of Defense even briefly
trotted out enemy body counts as a metric for progress before The New York Times rightly
invoked the Vietnam War.
Meanwhile, 17 years after 9/11, the Pentagon claims there are now upwards of 20 terror
groups operating in Afghanistan, including what's left of ISIS, the heir to al Qaeda. For that
reason, Americans are told we cannot leave.
Europe: Early in his presidency Trump briefly declined to endorse NATO's Article 5,
provoking predictable hysteria on both sides of the Atlantic. A year later, he gave America's
European allies a tongue-lashing in Brussels, calling them delinquent in their contributions to
collective defense. Germany received special attention, with the president labeling Europe's
largest economy a "captive of Russia." In Helsinki a few days later, Trump appeared to dismiss
charges of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, igniting yet another firestorm of criticism.
Back stateside, he concurred during an interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson that starting a
war over Montenegro, NATO's newest member, would be folly.
Yet when the dust finally settled, little had changed. The United States continues to
support Ukraine in its war against Russian-backed separatists, even selling Kiev Javelin
anti-tank missiles and other "lethal aid" that the more cautious President Barack Obama had
refused to provide. Sanctions against Russia pile up, dampening that country's long-term
economic development. European armies remain largely impotent while mindless NATO expansion
continues apace. Despite what he said on Fox News, Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate had
already signed off on the addition of Montenegro (and its tiny army of fewer than 2,000
soldiers) to NATO in 2017. Macedonia, another mouse that roared, is next. Poland has recently
entertained the idea of a "Fort Trump" to permanently house U.S. troops on its soil -- yet
another American tripwire force.
The Middle East: Iran remains the Trump administration's abiding foreign policy
obsession. Here, at least, one cannot blame false advertising. The president was explicit about
his plans to tear up Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that limited Iran's
nuclear ambitions, and make a better deal.
Once in office, the president's instincts on the regime were further fortified by the Saudis
and Israelis, to whom he has clung more tightly than any previous administration. He surrounded
himself with paid advocates of the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), a cult that is hated in Iran.
Trump's lawyer and national security advisor, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton respectively, have
spoken on MEK's behalf, despite it being a U.S.-designated terrorist organization until 2012.
Bolton now officially abjures regime change, but in July 2017 he promised an MEK gathering in
Paris that they would celebrate together in Tehran in 2019.
[Don't miss Barndollar discussing the forever war, the military industrial complex, and
military reform at our fifth annual foreign policy conference on November 15 in Washington,
D.C. Full schedule
and free registration here]
In May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo presented Iran with a list of 12 demands that bring
to mind Austria-Hungary and Serbia on the eve of World War I. Pompeo's conditions were not a
starting point for negotiations or normalization; they were a call for surrender. The
administration now believes it can crush Iran through economic sanctions and force it to the
negotiating table.
Trump's Iran obsession has had baleful effects beyond the Persian Gulf. U.S. sanctions on
Iran are damaging relations with a host of other nations by restricting their trade, even as
the president extolled the primacy of sovereignty at the United Nations General Assembly in
September.
Tethered to the increasingly reckless Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the U.S. has
continued to fuel, arm, and otherwise aid the Saudi-led coalition's brutal, stalemated war in
Yemen -- a policy begun by Barack Obama.
In Syria and Iraq, the U.S. can take credit for a successful campaign against the Islamic
State. Yet in the wake of this victory, U.S. troops seem to be staying put in Syria, despite a
promise by Trump to pull them out earlier this year. Top officials announced in September that
American forces will not be leaving Syria until the Iranians do. The risk of our presence in
Syria dragging us into a war with either Iran or Russia is more real than ever.
In Israel, Trump has doubled down on support of Benjamin Netanyahu and the hardline Likud
party. The U.S. finally moved its embassy to Jerusalem, as promised to pro-Israel donors during
the campaign, and cut off all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA),
the UN's Palestinian refugee agency. These moves only cemented a growing impression that Trump
never planned to be an honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Many now
believe that the peace process is dead.
North Korea: North Korea dominated headlines and fears of during 2017 and early 2018.
While the president tweeted about "fire and fury" and "Little Rocket Man" Kim Jong-un,
ultra-hawks in Washington pushed for a "bloody nose" preventive attack or even full-on regime
change in North Korea. Thankfully, this was one case where Trump's status quo foreign policy
prevented conflict. Both sides climbed down, conducted a historic summit in Singapore, and made
over-hyped and easily reversible concessions. The president's personalization of diplomacy
resulted in a victory, albeit in a verbal conflict that he had done much to create.
Substantively, little has changed. North Korea will keep its nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles, American troops will remain in South Korea, and further negotiations are
promised.
This is a good thing: a preventive war with North Korea would be the ultimate expression of
Bismarck's line about "committing suicide out of fear of death." It appears that North Korea
wants to slowly open itself to the world, a prospect that has South Korean businessmen quietly
ecstatic and China relieved. Nonetheless, this is basically business as usual: North Korea
threatens, is granted concessions, and the status quo is preserved. We have seen this before.
We may be on the cusp of a permanent change in relations with North Korea, but the jury is
still out.
China: There is one shining exception to the Trump administration's conventional
foreign policy: China. Trump, unencumbered by free trade ideology, is challenging China's
economic ascent. Gone is the mindless determinism of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the
evidence-free belief that free trade would somehow gradually end Chinese totalitarianism and
mercantilism. The Chinese have never competed on a level playing field and as a result we have
spent 20 years ceding American industry and supply chains to China. The hour is late, but there
is still time for the United States to fundamentally reorient its relationship with China.
Despite the chimera of a 355-ship navy, America will not win or lose this fight in a
Gotterdammerung in the South China Sea. The contest with China may be existential, but it is
primarily an economic, technological, and political battle. For all of the deep structural
problems in the U.S. economy, China has more to lose from a trade war right now than America
does.
It is not clear, though, if we are in the midst of a trade war or a trade bluff. If it is
the latter, we are likely to get a slightly better arrangement for U.S. businesses and then
proceed towards the same endpoint. If we are fighting a real trade war, however, there is an
opportunity to unwind "Chimerica" and bring manufacturing, if not necessarily jobs, home. It is
an open question whether the president has the stomach for the economic and political pain that
this will entail, as his oft-invoked roaring stock market tanks and Americans feel the bite of
tariffs in their wallets.
As with most things this administration does, competence is also an enormous question mark.
A trade war with China may be necessary and prudent. Simultaneously battling the Europeans and
our NAFTA partners while conducting a trade war with China is neither. If we want to
fundamentally reorder our economic relationship with China, for reasons of both national
security and long-term prosperity, we need to do it in concert with the other liberal
democracies, especially our North American neighbors. They could benefit greatly from a
reorientation of American trade. A strategy is needed, not an impulse and a series of tactical
tariffs.
How did America First so quickly become business as usual, China excepted? Diehard Trumpists
are inclined to defend the president's foreign policy U-turns by painting him as a prisoner of
his own administration, surrounded by conventional Republicans who subvert his
non-interventionist instincts. The writing was on the wall immediately, they claim, as a trio
of generals -- John Kelly, James Mattis, and H. R. McMaster -- were chosen to drive national
security policy. As veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, all three were unlikely to support any
radical reexamination of America's place in the world. Steve Bannon, who would and did support
such a change, was forced out of the White House within a year.
Personnel is policy, as the cliché goes, and the administration's foreign policy team
is dominated by men who are conventional internationalists at best, unrepentant
neoconservatives at worst. Rex Tillerson presided over a State Department in unprecedented
disarray and often found himself focused on limiting the damage of the president's bombast. His
successor has been a reliable agent of foreign policy orthodoxy, dutifully dealing with North
Korea on the one hand and threatening Iran on the other.
There is undoubtedly something to the narrative of internal betrayal, as Bob Woodward's
Fear and the recent anonymous New York Times editorial attest. America may not
have a true Deep State, but Trump's personality and some of his policies have provoked
unprecedented resistance from within government bureaucracies and even from his own political
appointees. Realigning American foreign policy in the face of an obdurate establishment was
always going to be a significant challenge. Succeeding in this task without a united team is
likely impossible.
But this is not an entirely tenable defense. These are men the president chose, and they are
doing his bidding, inasmuch as he knows and communicates what that is. The bench of realists
and non-interventionists may be small, but the president has put some of the worst warmongers
in Washington into positions of real power and influence.
So those who believe in foreign policy realism and restraint are left with the worst of both
worlds: a presidency that espouses an America First agenda but then proceeds to sabotage
support for these policies through reckless rhetoric, incompetent implementation, and a refusal
to carry out anything approaching a thoughtful, non-interventionist strategy.
Perhaps the next two years will see a drastic change in American foreign policy. Hope
springs eternal -- but there is scant reason for anything more than hope.
Gil Barndollar is Director of Middle East Studies at the Center for the National
Interest and Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for
the Study of Statesmanship. He served as a U.S. Marine infantry officer from 2009 to
2016.
"... Israel's newly won "friends" in the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE proved to be unstable and of little value. ..."
"... The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. ..."
"... The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed to occur long ago. ..."
"... If the 1973 War were to be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment. ..."
"... This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw ..."
"... The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be. ..."
"... I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat ..."
"... Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself. ..."
"... What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community? ..."
"... I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance. ..."
"... Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO. ..."
"... Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value, bias and use of victimization. ..."
Last week a ceasefire was
agreed upon between Palestinian factions in Gaza and Israel:
The aim of the change, in a plan mediated by Egypt and with money supplied by Qatar, is to provide much-needed relief for Gaza,
restore calm on the Israeli side of the border and avert another war.
On Sunday night Israeli special forces
broke the ceasefire by invading
Gaza under disguise. Such incursions happen
quite often but are
usually left unreported. The invaders wore civilian clothing and some were cloaked as women. Their cars arrived at the house of a
local Qassam commander but suspicious guards held them up. A firefight ensued in which 7 Palestinians and 1 Israeli officer were
killed. It is not clear what the intent of the Israeli raid was. A car left behind held what appeared to be surveillance equipment.
The intruders fled back to Israel.
It is likely that rivalry within the Israeli government was behind this provocation:
[T]he perception that Israel, by allowing the fuel and cash shipments into Gaza, was paying off Hamas set off acrimonious wrangling
between two rival right-wing members of Israel's security cabinet.
Earlier Sunday, Education Minister Naftali Bennett called the cash infusion "protection money." Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman
accused Mr. Bennett of having supported such payments and of having opposed in recent weeks the more aggressive military reprisals
against Hamas that Mr. Lieberman favored.
...
By night's end Mr. Netanyahu had cut short his trip [to Paris] and was flying back to Israel in response to the Gaza hostilities.
Did Lieberman order the incursion to undercut Netanyahoo ceasefire and his rival Bennet?
The breach of the ceasefire by Israel set off another round of tit for tat strikes. A commando unit of Hamas' Qassam brigade launched
an attack against a bus that had carried Israeli soldiers to the border. To avoid further escalation the shooter waited until the
soldiers were out of the way before hitting it. Only the driver was injured. Then the Israeli air force destroyed the al-Aqsa TV
station in Gaza city after notifying the Palestinians of its intent. It also damaged a university building. Rocket volleys from Gaza
followed and the Israeli air-force hit several buildings. After 48 hours the ceasefire was renewed.
During the conflict the Palestinian side demonstrated a series of new capabilities:
The Palestinian command published a video of the
strike against the bus by a Kornet anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). Since it lost dozens of tanks to ATGM attacks in the 2006
war against Hezbullah in Lebanon, the Israeli army is extremely afraid of such missiles. The arrival of these weapons in the besieged
Gaza will be a serious concern.
The Palestinians also
launched
over 460 artillery missiles and mortars within 25 hours. This by far exceeds the firing rate during Israel's 2014 war on the Gaza
strip. Some of these missiles had a larger range then previous models. Israel's Iron Dome missile defense systems fired some 100
missiles but their accuracy is questionable and the price high. Each Iron Dome missile costs some $65,000 while a mortar round
or rocket costs a few hundred dollar. Many of the Palestinian rockets reached their targets in the Zionist settlements Ashkelon,
Netivot, and Sderot.
Israel announced only two hits on missile launching cells. It seems that the Palestinians have perfected their camouflage
and remote firing capabilities.
The rival Palestinian groups in Gaza -Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others- operated under a central command. No group claimed
missile strikes for itself. In the past each volley of missiles was followed by a news statement in which this or that group claimed
responsibility. This time all groups worked from a common operations room. None released responsibility claims or other information
that would help Israel's intelligence.
Earlier Tuesday, the Political-Security Cabinet meeting that convened following the escalation in the south came to a halt after
seven hours. After hearing the army's and the security establishment's assessments, the cabinet instructed the IDF to continue
to operate in Gaza as necessary.
All the officials from the defense establishment who participated in the cabinet meeting -- IDF chief of staff, the head of
Military Intelligence, the head of the Shin Bet, the head of the Mossad, and the head of the NSC -- supported the Egyptian request
for a cease-fire .
...
" If we had intensified the attacks, rockets would have been fired at Tel Aviv ," senior cabinet officials said.
Since 15:30 local time today the situation is again quiet and calm. But the squabbling within the Israeli cabinet immediately
resumed:
All the ministers -- including Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Minister Naftali Bennett -- did not object to a cease fire.
Following this report, the Defense Ministry said that Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman's support of a cease-fire deal were
"fake news." The statement said that the Defense Minister's position was consistent and had not changed. Ministers Naftali Bennett,
Ayelet Shaked and Ze'ev Elkin also said they did not support a cease-fire deal with Hamas.
In total 13 people were killed in Gaza and at least 2 on the Israeli side. A Hamas spokesperson
accused Lieberman of being responsible for the breach of the ceasefire and demanded that Netanyahoo fires him.
The short conflict demonstrated that:
Israel is deterred. It does not want to launch another war on Gaza.
The siege of Gaza, by Israel, Egypt and by the Palestinian authority under Mahmoud Abbas, failed. The reputational cost of
the siege became too high after Israel killed some 160 Palestinians during weekly protests along the demarcation fence. It had
to allow diesel fuel and money from Qatar to reach Gaza.
The siege failed to prevent that Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other groups acquired a larger number of missiles and other new
capabilities.
The Palestinians in Gaza are united. The resistance against the occupation is alive and well.
For decades the Zionist entity was able to attack its neighbors as it pleased. That changed. It no longer dares to step into Lebanon
for fear of Hezbullah's reprisal. Syria's western airspace is closed for Israel thanks to the new S-300PMU2 air defense Russia delivered
to the Syrian army. Israeli special forces botched their incursion into Gaza and the Iron Dome missile defense proved to be to faulty
to protect Zionist settlements. The resistance in Gaza has new capabilities and surprises for Israel should it again attack.
The short conflict in Gaza only demonstrated that Israel is weak and that its downward trend continues.
Posted by b on November 13, 2018 at 02:52 PM |
Permalink
Comments The Israeli army is cr*p these days, only capable of shooting down unarmed Palestinians. No-one wants to spend their
lives fighting, ready to go off to war at any moment, rather than living normal Western lives. That probably had something to
do with the failure of the original raid - they left behind their (specially equipped) car, did they? Only the air force is any good,
and, lo and behold, it had to be brought in to recover the situation.
This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly
does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
The sooner Israel returns to being Palestine, where Jewish folks who want to live in the ME can do so in peace with their neighbours,
the better. The violent murderous destructive settler ethnics please go home, ta.
The hornet attack on the bus is in all likelyhood faked, around 26 seconds in your tube video at least 8 IDF are at the front of
the bus chatting, at around 46 seconds they are gone. We hear the sound of the missile being fired but are unable to see it tracking
the target as it moves in.
If fear for Tel Aviv was a motivation, an additional conclusion might be the Israeli's have little real faith in their Iron Dome
-- no?
Where is Iran in this story, that Lieberman is so keen on?
There is a difference. The cameraman in the Abrams shot is close to the launcher and to the line of fire so the ATGM rocket
motor exhaust is clearly visible. In the IDF shot, the cameraman could be well away from the launch, even at right angles to its
line of flight, totally hiding the rocket motor. That said, it would be even more gutsy to have placed an IED where the IDF was
likely to gather and much cheaper. The ATGMs are more valuable against IDF armor. $1 million of US taxpayer money going up in smoke just like that.
The Zionists politically unified the Gaza defense factions for the first time, which is a very important development that needed
to occur long ago. The Zionist's response to perform a War Crime fits their behavioral norm to a Tee.
If the 1973 War were to
be waged again using today's forces, it's likely Zionistan would lose. The Cabinet infighting mirrors the growing divide within
Zionistan's polity. Unfortunately, that divide doesn't seem to be producing an alternative political party that's anti-Apartheid
and favors a One State solution. Hard to argue with b's concluding assessment.
This appears to be a planted explosive after the bus was emptied out -- except for the driver who was sacrificed. It certainly
does not look like a Kornet as shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw
Posted by: LJ | Nov 13, 2018 3:24:00 PM | 2
I agree, I think this was an Israeli False Flag to justify an invasion and I agree it is a bomb beneath the bus.
A Kornet has a distinctive undulating pattern and leaves a smoke trail, for example:
here is what a Kornet looks like hitting something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8
thanks b... it sounds like none of the Israeli politicians want to own up to wanting a ceasefire.. why is that? is the idea of
projecting strength and aggressiveness the only posture Israel can take for the majority Israel religious orthodox voting public??
@6 john... i am curious... it sure looks to me like the usa is israels bitch... it's not just usa either.. one could include
canada, australia, uk and all the western poodles too... how does this event appear to make it look any different to you? thanks..
The US and Israel are doing their best to encourage a multi-polar world able to oppose their reckless actions, although there's
still a long way to go. The sooner both nations start to behave in a more circumspect manner, the safer the world will be.
I have often wondered how does the Israeli economy stay afloat. I am on the side of Israel. However it seems increasingly a losing
side. To survive they have had to adopt increasingly harsh and embarrassing measures. The only way to achieve victory is to ethnically
cleanse Arabs from the Middle East.
The Heart of Darkness
Rabbit Bomb Blues.
PeacefulProsperity , Nov 13, 2018 8:13:21 PM |
link
#18 - Gerard Butler hosted that event. His Malibu(?) house was just burned to the frame. Coincidence? I think not. He is all over
social media whining about it and people are actually calling him out. Maybe there's some hope for us after all.
Palestinians already know that Israel plans a genocide. Palestinians know that they will not be helped by the west or any other
country. Palestinians know that they have no voice and no way of countering the Israeli lobby. But where has this success really
got you and Israel?
I suggest that you are pursuing a path that means doom for both Palestinian and Israeli. You imagine that you can get rid of
Palestinians but lack the commonsense to see that this is impossible. You are building a future of (ever more) death and destruction.
There is another option (which you won't be interested in) and that is to change Israel from an apartheid state and grant equality
to Palestinians (including the right of return and restitution of property).
That you two could post such loathsome views indicates that you are completely unaware that you are staring into an abyss that
will consume both Palestinian and Israeli.
Never has Israel been so powerful and dominant and never has Israel's power seemed so impotent. Israel's nuclear weapons may
deter other countries but they are useless against Palestinians unless Israel really wants to launch such weapons against itself.
You need to wake up to the idea that Palestinian and Israeli might have a future together and consider that the path you are
following will bring a great tragedy to both sides.
My thoughts were identical - the single biggest development is the exhibited unity among the Palestinians. It does not spell
good for the expansionist apartheid bankrupt state (just like all its bankrupt Western bitches).
I also support renaming Gaza into Auschwitz, that was a brilliantly symbolic idea.
I am against renaming Gaza as Auschwitz. It is a transparent attempt to appeal to western/European sensitivities (which will not
work), will be nothing more than a publicity stunt, and is a denial of the unique Palestinian experience.
Probably more people in the world know of Gaza than they do of Auschwitz.
Thank you for putting that into words. The two entities are joined in an intimate embrace of destiny from which it seems that no single side can emerge alone. How
futile that Israel cannot see that its best chance to emerge as a nation, or at least as a people, is now, and that every day
it seeks to further reduce Palestine it furthers its own diminishing.
What will become of Israel? How will the region deal with it as, over time, it is increasingly defeated and forced to supply
proofs that it deserves to exist? What answer will it make, as it throws away all semblance of community?
@19 pp.. trump is no different.. hollywood and trump - 2 sides of the same coin.. both subservient to israel..
Posted by: james | Nov 13, 2018 8:21:21 PM | 20
Well that's wrong.
Trump can read the Zio-Jews like a book. They're so-o predictably evil and stupid. His unlawful and MEANINGLESS recognition of
Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" encouraged them to put their mass-murdering skills on display while the
civilized world watched
in horror and revulsion.
As b points out, Lebanon has long been too dangerous for their peculiarly wussy brand of courage, Syria is now off-limits,
and now the Powerless Palestinians have made them re-think their aggressive idiocy. The fact that they've always been their own
worst enemy is rapidly coming home to roost...
Israel is the land of Ivanka and Kissinger. I think US vetos at the UNSC will continue. US embassy is now at Jerusalem and
Trump has declared it the capital of Israel.
@27 hw... we have to disagree then... israels mass-murdering skills have been on display prior to and during trumps position..
nothing has changed with regard to Israel's attitude, trump or no trump.. and frankly trump could give a shit.. The money continues
to flow to Israel and usa subservience continues... i wish it was different, but i am not into some pipe dream in thinking trump
has made any difference.. he hasn't.. you have much greater faith in trump then i..
I'm about 6,000 miles away from the current excitement, and can't read any of the languages. So I've got to rely on second and
third hand reports of everything . What I'm hearing through those slender grapevines is that there are bitter faction fights
within the government of the apartheid Jewish State. Another factor is that none of the 'leaders' known to me are exactly oozing
competence. When your major propaganda outlet starts whining about the stupidity, things aren't going well.
1) The S-300 air defense missiles Russia has deployed to Syria. Netanyahu's brief chat with President Vladimir Putin in Paris
on Sunday yielded no concurrence for the resumption of Israeli air strikes against Iran. It is now up to him to decide whether
to take this as a Russian embargo on Israel overflights, or to go ahead and risk resuming those air strikes. In the worst case,
the Israeli air force might have to operate on two fronts: Syria and Gaza.
No, that's not the worst case. Dozens of Russian cruise missiles skimming the treetops while heading for the air and naval
bases of the Apartheid State is worse than that. Frankly, I doubt if the murderous and thieving little nation is capable of overcoming
both the jamming and the S-300 systems. But what do I know? - if they manage to do it without killing any Russians, the Syrians
will probably be reinforced with even heavier air defenses. Right now Syria is a lose/lose proposition.
2) Israel has tied its hands with an ultimatum to Beirut to shut down Iran's workshops in Lebanon for adding precision-guidance
to Hizballah's surface missiles, or else face Israeli attacks to destroy them. There was no date on the ultimatum. But to carry
it through, every ounce of Israel's air force capabilities will be required. The question is how did Israel's policy-makers
failed to avoid a situation which paralyses its ability to operate against strategic foes in Syria and Lebanon?
Notice the despair. Who on earth was running his mouth with a promise to destroy those Hezbollah shops? Yet even that's a losing
proposition, for Hezbollah is doubtlessly running many fakes and decoys, and keeping everything on such a small scale they'll
be barely scratched, if touched at all. But could the pilots of the apartheid Jewish State do even this? I ask because I don't
know the range of those Russian jamming devices. Hezbollah has every opportunity to set an ambush for incoming aircraft attacks.
The F-35 may be low visibility in terms of radar, but it represents an enormous infra-red beacon. There are anti-air missiles
in existence which are optimized for IR.
The final wild card is the Trumpster. He has been mighty erratic of late, and while he might do something wild and crazy, could
the Jewish State rely on whatever-it-is he might do helping them? Could be just the opposite.
@ Grieved with the internet interaction insight and wisdom....thanks and hope many read and understand your words.
@ Zachary Smith with the comment and question about Trump.
I see Trump as clearly representative of the global elite that are having to kill their current empire host without being certain
of how they can live with or make China's socialism with a Chinese face be controlled by an ongoing world of global private finance.
Trump is their public face deal maker and I will agree with Peter AU 1 that Kissinger is the global elite's behind the scenes
deal maker. I have written here before that Trump will default on US debt before he is out of office, IMO.
Can the global elite pressure the world's nations into their continued existence as the jackboot of global finance? Despite
the wild and crazy of grifter Donald Trump I still believe that reason is about to triumph over faith in the hallowed halls of
global finance......and Israel is the proxy front for that lost faith in monotheistic religions with better than others value,
bias and use of victimization.
For me the only question is how long will the transition take and how ugly will it be?
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much
worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
CIA intercepted Congressional emails about whistleblowers in 2014
The Inspector General expressed concern about "potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality" and "chilling effect"
Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.
The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures
are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept
secret until now.
In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during
"routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and
the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to
whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might
have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."
The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch,
is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence
agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.
"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats
and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type
of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but
"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive
Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community
Inspector General 2014
The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The
fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers
raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,"
wrote Grassley in a statement.
According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with
"bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."
Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence
officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
History of alleged surveillance abuses
Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the
possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's
response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be
saved or reported up to CIA management.
"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring
user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported
to agency leadership under an insider threat program."
However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:
"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually
shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy
Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."
Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency
(NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden.
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance,"
said
Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.
"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."
Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.
Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S.
citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured
in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only
allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed
that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.
Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of
President Trump.
Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!
All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against
our Constitution would be in full swing!
When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter.
Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged
and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance
and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a
horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.
Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties
before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump
won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas
as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.
From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's
US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy"
closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."
Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And
the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified
material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing
incriminating evidence.
Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew
the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since
our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when
(((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.
The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive
order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.
America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.
A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an
increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the
master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.
What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would
they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something
very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to
testify before congress.
That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his
people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in
at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic
he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you
inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 (
http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in
the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort
of thing that undermines their position with me!)
Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.
But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch
change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time
you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie,
the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."
There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce
its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise
is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just
want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee."
- BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women
The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies
to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in
the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.
Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of
colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources
and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."
In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another
'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite
an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of
its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months.
The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war.
We are in an age of new mccarthyism
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction
they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told
to!
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are
capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count
on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they
let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy
theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great
failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no
time at all and executed..
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without
them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11
events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry
out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada
on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast
US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying
the response, among other things.
Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes,
coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or
since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse
first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?
It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the
front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then
"disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.
For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new,
including:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised
structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim
ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged
in a 767 crash). "
Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized
by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel
specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.
All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there
was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention
that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos
or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then
"disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called
it as soon as the buildings imploded!
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly
and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel
and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to
the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they
are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better
off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory"
of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the
the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most
effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party
Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party
are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form
a "Political Revolution against Empire"
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is
concerned.
There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing
grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they
would have been much weaker to counter.
Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality
is maintained.
What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse
to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.
As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch
of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.
She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true
internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans
--- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted
totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE.
As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America,
is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised',
'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!
Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially
ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others
less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear
is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects'
of this monsterous EMPIRE."
Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to
others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin
slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.
HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather
rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a
major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against
the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business
organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out
that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel.
Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions
of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs
major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both
inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.
It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities
that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct
mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into
websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and
funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering
and heavy handed.
The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http:
www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.
The strategy
is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate
slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much
worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
CIA intercepted Congressional emails about whistleblowers in 2014
The Inspector General expressed concern about "potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality" and "chilling effect"
Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.
The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures
are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept
secret until now.
In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during
"routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and
the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to
whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might
have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."
The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch,
is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence
agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.
"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats
and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type
of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but
"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive
Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community
Inspector General 2014
The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The
fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers
raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,"
wrote Grassley in a statement.
According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with
"bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."
Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence
officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
History of alleged surveillance abuses
Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the
possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's
response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be
saved or reported up to CIA management.
"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring
user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported
to agency leadership under an insider threat program."
However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:
"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually
shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy
Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."
Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency
(NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden.
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance,"
said
Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.
"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."
Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.
Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S.
citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured
in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only
allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed
that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.
Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of
President Trump.
Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!
All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against
our Constitution would be in full swing!
When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter.
Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged
and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance
and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a
horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.
Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties
before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump
won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas
as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.
From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's
US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy"
closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."
Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And
the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified
material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing
incriminating evidence.
Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew
the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since
our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when
(((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.
The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive
order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.
America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.
A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an
increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the
master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.
What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would
they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something
very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to
testify before congress.
That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his
people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in
at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic
he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you
inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 (
http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in
the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort
of thing that undermines their position with me!)
Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.
But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch
change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time
you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie,
the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."
There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce
its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise
is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just
want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee."
- BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women
The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies
to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in
the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.
Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of
colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources
and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."
In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another
'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite
an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of
its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months.
The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war.
We are in an age of new mccarthyism
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction
they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told
to!
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are
capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count
on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they
let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy
theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great
failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no
time at all and executed..
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without
them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11
events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry
out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada
on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast
US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying
the response, among other things.
Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes,
coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or
since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse
first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?
It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the
front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then
"disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.
For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new,
including:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised
structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim
ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged
in a 767 crash). "
Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized
by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel
specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.
All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there
was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention
that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos
or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then
"disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called
it as soon as the buildings imploded!
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly
and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel
and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to
the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they
are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better
off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory"
of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the
the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most
effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party
Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party
are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form
a "Political Revolution against Empire"
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is
concerned.
There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing
grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they
would have been much weaker to counter.
Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality
is maintained.
What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse
to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.
As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch
of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.
She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true
internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans
--- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted
totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE.
As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America,
is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised',
'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!
Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially
ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others
less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear
is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects'
of this monsterous EMPIRE."
Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to
others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin
slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.
HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather
rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a
major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against
the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business
organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out
that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel.
Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions
of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs
major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both
inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.
It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities
that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct
mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into
websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and
funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering
and heavy handed.
The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http:
www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.
The strategy
is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate
slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?
"... There's no doubt about Google tracking. At least DuckDuckGo has a stated policy of not tracking, and is an alternative to the Google Goliath. ..."
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: A study from the Norwegian Consumer
Council dug into the underhanded
tactics used by Microsoft, Facebook, and Google to collect user data . "The findings
include privacy intrusive default settings, misleading wording, giving users an illusion of
control, hiding away privacy-friendly choices, take-it-or-leave-it choices, and choice
architectures where choosing the privacy friendly option requires more effort for the users,"
states the report , which includes images and examples of confusing design choices and
strangely worded statements involving the collection and use of personal data.
Google makes opting out of personalized ads more of a chore than it needs to be and uses
multiple pages of text, unclear design language, and, as described by the report, "hidden
defaults" to push users toward the company's desired action. "If the user tried to turn the
setting off, a popup window appeared explaining what happens if Ads Personalization is turned
off, and asked users to reaffirm their choice," the report explained. "There was no explanation
about the possible benefits of turning off Ads Personalization, or negative sides of leaving it
turned on." Those who wish to completely avoid personalized ads must traverse multiple menus,
making that "I agree" option seem like the lesser of two evils. In Windows 10, if a user
wants to opt out of "tailored experiences with diagnostic data," they have to click a dimmed
lightbulb, while the symbol for opting in is a brightly shining bulb, says the report.
Another example has to do with Facebook. The social media site makes the "Agree and
continue" option much more appealing and less intimidating than the grey "Manage Data Settings"
option. The report says the company-suggested option is the easiest to use. "This 'easy road'
consisted of four clicks to get through the process, which entailed accepting personalized ads
from third parties and the use of face recognition. In contrast, users who wanted to limit data
collection and use had to go through 13 clicks."
You seem to be keeping your gaze too low. You are not just a target for buying stuff; you
are also a target for modifying your opinion and behaviour in politics and other
questions.
You can be targeted through other vectors than traditional ads, e.g. notification flows,
news flows, ads-or-propaganda-disguised-as-news, product placement, insurance company
policies, employability, police knocking on your door, ...
As an extreme, think China. The view we outsiders get is that if they collect the wrong
data about you, they will *target* you in a way that no ad-blocker will stop.
This info has been out there for years yet no one is listening and/or cares. The mantra of
people seems to be "it's free" so why not. I have long ago seen this coming. Use Fedora Linux
or Debian. Use an iPhone over Android despite Apple having some issues. Use P2P apps in lieu
of things like Skype. Own your own domain and use that for email. It's cheap and you have
control of your user name and domain name. Tie that domain name to a privacy-respecting
service like Fastmail.
Don't use spy devices like Alexa or Google Home. These exist not to help you but to
harvest your data 24/7. Roll your own solutions, especially if you're technical or in IT. Use
your own skills. Run a Pi-hole, block and defund the ad companies and tracking companies.
Like drugs, just say no...
This info has been out there for years yet no one is listening and/or cares. The mantra of
people seems to be "it's free" so why not. I have long ago seen this coming. Use Fedora Linux
or Debian. Use an iPhone over Android despite Apple having some issues. Use P2P apps in lieu
of things like Skype. Own your own domain and use that for email. It's cheap and you have
control of your user name and domain name. Tie that domain name to a privacy-respecting
service like Fastmail.
Don't use spy devices like Alexa or Google Home. These exist not to help you but to
harvest your data 24/7. Roll your own solutions, especially if you're technical or in IT. Use
your own skills. Run a Pi-hole, block and defund the ad companies and tracking companies.
Like drugs, just say no...
what can be attributed to three companies who are some of the worst offenders of screwing
up general UI design.
Who the hell cares about my privacy settings when I can no longer safely use maps for
navigation due to its shitty settings of minimising into a useless picture in picture
everytime there's a hiccup on my phone and has removed the option to force audio output
throught the speaker meaning I can't hear it with bluetooth on either.
Who the hell cares about privacy settings on a website that makes it borderline impossible
to easily scroll through past messages, or whose mobile app doesn't let you post pictures
because it ends up in a select picture loop.
And as for Microsoft, one word... err two words: Start Menu *raises middle finger*
While Facebook is avoidable good luck avoiding Microsoft and Google if you're not a member
of the zombie Steve Jobs fan club...that said, whatever they extract is far less damaging
than the Equifax breach, after that I'd say cell phone carriers and all of the historical gps
data they share with third parties without your consent. Just like the instigators of the
2008 global financial meltdown the penalties = zero dollars.
You sound like a Google employee. There's no doubt about Google tracking. At least DuckDuckGo has a stated policy of not tracking, and is an alternative to the Google
Goliath.
"... Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to disclose their citizenship in another country? ..."
"... Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country. ..."
The Biblical injunction that "No one can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24) doesn't apply to
nations. Almost half of the world's countries, including the U.S., recognize dual citizenship--
even when they don't encourage it for the complicated legal issues it often raises.
For example, one who obeys a requirement to give allegiance to a country or votes in a
foreign election may be regarded as having renounced citizenship in the other country. What
happens when the legal claims of one country conflict with those of the second country? Which
of the two countries has an obligation to assist a dual national in distress?
Until the Supreme Court decided otherwise in the 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk , a
U.S. citizen who voted in a political election in a foreign state would forfeit his or her U.S.
citizenship. From that point on, dual citizens have maintained their right to vote and hold
public office without penalty.
Anyone can become a dual citizen, even members of Congress, high court judges and top
officials of the executive branch. There's no law or regulation against it. Nor are they
required to disclose such dual citizenship.
So what's the problem?
For most dual citizens, having the benefits of citizenship in two countries (including
expedited immigration) outweigh the costs (which may include tax obligations to both
countries).
Yet dual citizenship in the United States poses a hitherto unappreciated issue for
policy-level members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The divided national
loyalties of dual citizens can create real or apparent conflicts of interest when such
legislators, judges or senior officials make or speak out on policies that relate to their
second country.
The potential damage to our democracy is the greater when such potential conflicts of
interest are concealed in undisclosed dual citizenship.
Current entries on the Internet contain a number of undocumented assertions as to which
members of Congress and senior officers are dual citizens. Without reliable data, however,
Americans can only speculate on which senators and representatives may have divided national
loyalties.
The lack of transparency regarding citizenship erodes trust in government, raising
credibility doubts where there should be none, and allowing some apparent conflicts of interest
to continue undetected.
When a senator, representative or senior U.S. official speaks out, submits bills or
determines policy on an issue of importance to a foreign country of which that member or
official (or judge) has the tie of citizenship, their constituents and the U.S. public at large
should at least be able to assess whether such views or actions are influenced by the divided
loyalty.
Since they don't involve national loyalty, religion and ethnicity seldom raise conflict
issues. Moreover, they are generally matters of public record.
By contrast, dual citizenship creates conflict of interest through divided loyalties. Thus
it would seem reasonable to require that dual citizen members of Congress, the judiciary and
the executive be required to renounce citizenship in another country as a condition of public
service.
Both Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Texas) and former Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.) recently received wide press coverage when
they renounced their Canadian and Swiss nationalities, respectively.
Yet the media and government watchdog organizations have largely ignored the potential
conflict of interest inherent in dual citizenship. Why the neglect of this issue? Shouldn't
members of Congress (and federal judges and executive branch officials) at least be required to
disclose their citizenship in another country?
Even if our legal system continues to allow dual citizens to serve in high positions of
the U.S. government, it should require them to recuse themselves from participating in
decisions or policy debates that relate to their second country.
"... If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S. nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to give up their U.S. citizenship. ..."
Applying for citizenship under the Law of Return "is a formal procedure which you could
expect normally to take a number of months except under emergency conditions," said Yoram
Hazony, president of the the Herzl Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. "There is no such thing
as receiving Israeli citizenship without submitting a formal request to the Israeli
government."
... ... ...
It's also worth noting that the
U.S. government doesn't look especially kindly on dual citizenship. The United States
"recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy
because of the problems it may cause," according to the Department of State.
If an American citizen applies for foreign citizenship voluntarily, they "may lose U.S.
nationality," if there is evidence, through their statements or conduct, that they intend to
give up their U.S. citizenship.
... ... ...
Sanders' case
So has Sanders ever taken action to claim the Israeli citizenship the would qualify for? He
told Rehm no, and we have no evidence that would call that into question. While Sanders is
Jewish by birth and
spent some time on an Israeli kibbutz, or community farm, in the early 1960s, he would not
have become a citizen without a concerted effort to become one.
We did not hear back from Sanders' office, but a spokesman, Michael Briggs, told
Politico that "Diane Rehm is an excellent radio host. There's a great big Internet out
there with lots of good and bad information. I've never heard the question come up before."
Hazony, an Israeli who studied at Princeton and Rutgers and who has written widely about
both American and Israeli politics, said he's not aware of any American lawmakers with Israeli
citizenship. "In fact, it is common for Jews who are dual U.S.-Israel citizens to renounce one
or the other before serving in official government capacities," he said.
In 1967, the court ruled that the
State Department
had violated the Constitution when it refused to issue a new
U.S. passport to a U.S. citizen who had voted in an election in Israel. The decision overturned a law saying that "a person, who
is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voting in a political
election in a foreign state."
...there is no authoritative tally of how many U.S. citizens possess another nationality. Michael A. Olivas, an immigration
professor at the University of Houston Law Center, believes that the number is well over 1 million and could be several times
that number.
... ... ...
But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more
immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens -- as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with
strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn't possess
citizenship in those countries -- witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when
a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make.
... ... ...
But it's also true that dual citizenship undermines the common bond that unites U.S. citizens regardless of their ethnicity,
religion or place of birth. Dual citizenship places a sort of asterisk next to the names of some U.S. citizens but not others.
... ... ...
Nations vary in their attitudes toward dual citizenship. Some reject the concept outright; others allow their citizens to take
out a second citizenship only in selected countries and some have drawn a distinction between citizenship and nationality.
Yet there's no question that dual citizenship poses practical problems both for those who possess it and for the government.
The U.S. State Department discourages U.S. citizens from retaining or applying for citizenship in another country because "dual
nationality may limit U.S. government efforts to assist nationals abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally
has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance." The department also warns that "dual citizenship can present a security issue
whether to permit access to classified information which affects recruitment, employment and assignments." In some cases, dual
citizenship could disqualify an applicant for a sensitive position with the CIA or the State Department.
The complexities and complications raised by dual citizenship are not enough to justify amending the Constitution to overrule
the Supreme Court. But we agree with the State Department that U.S. citizens should think twice about professing allegiance to
another country. Moreover, by reinforcing the doubts that some hold about the loyalty of immigrants -- some U.S. citizens, for
instance, fume when Mexican Americans display the Mexican flag at Cinco de Mayo rallies -- the persistence of dual citizenship may
make it politically more difficult to secure a path to citizenship for immigrants who came here illegally.
Modern technology makes many things possible, but it does not make them cheap... The camera
needs to work in pretty adverse conditions (think about the temperature inside the light on a hot
summer day, and temperature at winter) and transmit signal somewhere via WiFi (which has range
less then 100m) , or special cable that needs to be installed for this particular pole. With wifi
there should be many collection units which also cost money. So it make sense only for
streetlights adjacent to building with Internet networking. And there are already cameras of the
highway, so highways are basically covered. Which basically limits this technology to cities.
Just recoding without transmission would be much cheaper (transmission on demand). Excessive
paranoia here is not warranted.
According to new government procurement data, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have purchased an undisclosed number of secret
surveillance cameras that are being hidden in streetlights across the country.
Quartz
first reported this dystopian development of federal authorities stocking up on "covert
systems" last week. The report showed how the DEA paid a Houston, Texas company called Cowboy
Streetlight Concealments LLC. approximately $22,000 since June for "video recording and
reproducing equipment." ICE paid out about $28,000 to Cowboy Streetlight Concealments during
the same period.
"It's unclear where the DEA and ICE streetlight cameras have been installed, or where the
next deployments will take place. ICE offices in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio have
provided funding for recent acquisitions from Cowboy Streetlight Concealments; the DEA's most
recent purchases were funded by the agency's Office of Investigative Technology, which is
located in Lorton, Virginia," said Quartz.
Christie Crawford, who co-owns Cowboy Streetlight Concealments with her husband, said she
was not allowed to talk about the government contracts in detail.
"We do streetlight concealments and camera enclosures," Crawford told Quartz. "Basically,
there's businesses out there that will build concealments for the government and that's what
we do. They specify what's best for them, and we make it. And that's about all I can probably
say."
However, she added: "I can tell you this -- things are always being watched. It doesn't
matter if you're driving down the street or visiting a friend, if government or law enforcement
has a reason to set up surveillance, there's great technology out there to do it."
Quartz notes that the DEA issued a solicitation for "concealments made to house network PTZ
[Pan-Tilt-Zoom] camera, cellular modem, cellular compression device," last Monday. According to
solicitation number D-19-ST-0037, the sole source award will go to Obsidian Integration
LLC.
On November 07, the Jersey City Police Department awarded Obsidian Integration with "the
purchase and delivery of a covert pole camera." Quartz said the filing did not provide much
detail about the design.
It is not just streetlights the federal government wants to mount covert surveillance
cameras on, it seems cameras inside traffic barrels could be heading onto America's highways in
the not too distant future.
And as Quartz reported in October, the DEA operates a complex network of digital
speed-display road signs that covertly scan license plates. On top of all this,
Amazon has been aggressively rolling out its
Rekognition facial-recognition software to law enforcement agencies and ICE, according to
emails uncovered by the Project for Government Oversight.
Chad Marlow, a senior advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, told Quartz that cameras in
street lights have been proposed before by local governments, typically under a program called
"smart" LED street light system.
"It basically has the ability to turn every streetlight into a surveillance device, which
is very Orwellian to say the least," Marlow told Quartz. "In most jurisdictions, the local
police or department of public works are authorized to make these decisions unilaterally and
in secret. There's no public debate or oversight."
And so, as the US continues to be distracted, torn amid record political, social and
economic polarization, big brother has no intention of letting the current crisis go to waste,
and quietly continues on its path of transforming the US into a full-blown police and
surveillance state.
I previously worked for one of these types of federal agencies and to be fair, $50,000
doesn't buy a lot of video surveillance equipment at government procurement costs. The
contractor doesn't just drill a hole and install a camera, they provide an entirely new
streetlight head with the camera installed.
It would be nice if they put some of this technology to work for a good cause. Maybe
warning you of traffic congestion ahead. Or advising you that one of your tires will soon go
flat.
Obviously that won't happen, so in the meantime, I can't wait to read next how the hackers
will find a way to make this government effort go completely haywire. As if the government
can't do it without any help. At least when the hackers do it, it will be funny and
thorough.
Besides the creepy surveillance part, some of the street light tech is interesting .
lights that dim like the frozen food section - when no one is in front of the case --- RGB
lighting that shows the approximate location for EMS to a 911 call ( lights that EMS can
follow by color)
basic neighborhood street lights are being replaced by LED -- lights in this article.
Hey, I have street lights AND cameras on the same poles at the shop/mad scientist lab/
play house.
but- surveillance -- the wall better have these lights -- light up the border !
This is yesteryears news. Shot Spotter has microphones that can pick up whispered
conversations for 300 feet for a long time now, while triangulating any gunshot in a
city...
"... For his first two years in office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich, wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. ..."
"... With Republicans in full control of Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to them. ..."
"... Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different. ..."
"... Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. ..."
Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats
will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas
will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance
that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.
However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical
populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in
office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich,
wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely
pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment
conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted
grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of
outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive.
With Republicans in full control of
Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the
Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to
them.
Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's
future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be
little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed
radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been
very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other
conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list
if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.
Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic
break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans
who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.
Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the
implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race
was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas
ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of
every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more
than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a
very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who
drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.
>>Johnstone: The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them<<
Preach!
The military defends Money Power Monopolist Mega-Corporate Fascist Global Empire, not
America, and definitely NOT the Constitution. The New Deal effectively wiped out the
Constitution, which was the "Old Deal."
Syria and Iran aren't threats, they are countries that don't have debt-based money systems
controlled by the Money Power Monopolists.
"In a sense, there is no "future". Currently, you note a consolidation of the few
remaining countries without a "central bank" ...and how rapidly this is occurring. Look for
Syria next to fall, and fall quickly.
North Korea has already cut a deal under the aegis of China...feit accompli. Cuba has also
agreed to the North American integration once Fidel "passes".
That leaves IRAN. And biblical prophesy. The fallout from that conflict sets the stage for
the true new world order as has been broadcast in the media for the last 13 years or so."
~Unnamed Rothschild
The establishment of central banks is ALWAYS a necessary first step of subjugation of
geographically congregated bloodlines. Note that Libya's first official act, before even the
corpses turned stiff...was the establishment of a central bank. Those rebel forces were
certainly well schooled by someone!
~Unnamed Rothschild
Amazing how Libyan rebels took time out of their daily war duties to establish a CENTRAL
BANK! Imagine the paperwork in getting that done on the battlefield!
Those rebels are a well educated lot!
Laughing out Loud!
Seriously, don't the serfs notice things like this?
~Unnamed Rothschild
The financier of the military makes it clear they are attacking Western countries -
monetarily and economically.
"Remember, the equity and bond markets exist only to remove fiat from circulation!"
~Unnamed Rothschild
Our soldiers joined, were trained, given orders. The best way to honor veterans is to quit
putting it on them. This is the government we have because it is the government we
want. It's the government we allow. This is on all of us . I think it's time for
people who are dissatisfied with the treatment of veterans, with the voter fraud, with the
lies and theft of elected officials, local, state, and federal, tired of the media lying to
us and creating fake events... perhaps it's time to peacefully strike. Perhaps it's time to
say No to vote fraud, to say No to lies and deceit.
Perhaps it's time to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances. That's
a Constitutional Right guaranteed to Citizens of the United States. That requires an active,
constructive peaceful assembly. Everyone has had it up to the eyes with this ******** and
this con-game we're being fed.
I'd rather get stomped to death than live on with this never ending slow coup against We
The People. We hold the power. Just us. We designate that power. It should be here to protect
us. That social contract deserves respect. You may be watching the only chance in your life
that you could do anything about it, given the current President and his attitude. I really
think that. It's not enough to watch the Proud Boys punch an Antifa in the jaw. That doesn't
do it for me. That's theatre.
My girlfriends father is old army security. I'm paying the bill at Dennys and he says, let
me put my military discount on that. So he's behind a guy in an Operation Iraqi Freedom
jacket. He says, hey; I like your jacket. The guy looks at him and he says, nice hat. Army
Security Agency. The military deserves more than a discount at ******* Denny's. They deserve
a country. So do I. So do you. But there's not going to be any country if we don't peacefully
come together to hang every last traitor scumbag lying trasonous seditious bastard by just
saying NO! Arrest these traitors! I don't want my vote raped. I don't want my speach raped.
Or yours! I don't give a **** about illegals or their kids because I take care of my kids
legally and lawfully and didn't put them in that **** expecting a parent of the century
award.
I don't ******* care what you call yourself. But if it's more important than your right to
call yourself whatever you want, you are my enemy and I tell you no.
If it's legal to vote and legal to be off work to vote, to peacefully assemble, it should
be legal to redress government. It's time to show out. It's time to say we want this ********
to stop. We have paid very well for the lifestyles and presidential libraries and foundations
and kept all the traitors in good health. But we reserve the right to cut you off if you
abuse our sacrifice to you and our votes to you. We reserve the right without prejudice to
say NO. That's our right. And until we say NO! our silence equals consent.
I say NO. I say **** THE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS trying to hold on to rape us of all our
Rights. And I say long live Trump for giving our country back to us at inauguration. That's
what's up. Let's peacefully **** these people up. USE IT OR LOSE IT.
And from a movie that says the futility of it all: "We fight because we are here." Imagine
dying in the trenches of WWI or in a shithole like the trenches of Korea.
The least we could do is to learn what really happened and why. I realize I was taught an
endless string of lies about history, especially US History, WWI, WWII, Vietnam war.
Be very careful and informed before joining the military.
Libtards don't really know much about anything, so it seems. Here's the deal:
As long as there are assholes in the world, there will be wars.
I don't have a problem with that. It's the world that I live in. It's been the case
throughout all of human history. A world without wars is pure ******* fantasy. It will never
happen. It's high time that libtards start accepting the world that they live in.
The problem that we're having , is that we're shooting the wrong assholes instead
of the right ones. But you know what? All of human history shows that problems like that are
always remedied as well. And if you're doing some soul-searching, trying to figure out who
the assholes are, they're probably going to be any group of people, who can't leave other
groups of people the hell alone .
Not surprisingly, the 20th century seems to be characterized by assholes fighting each
other.
Our psychopathic dna as a nation comes mainly from england, one of the most, if not the
most murdering countries in history. england cruelly colonized Asia and Africa, and literally
never stopped murdering the innocents. Now as our ALLY, among the other killing nations, such
as France and Germany, we the USA can kill literally any country or countries for any reason
or no reason.
we as the american people will be blamed for all the monstrous destruction and
innocents deaths. separation of our country and our politicians would be necessary if we are
to have a future. looking dim. why are we still dirty, and killing innocents, why are we
allowing saudi and israel to mass murder innocent women and children ?
no one cares enough
yet. you would think by 2018 we all would have banned war and conflict, we have not. this
makes me sick. I am a vet.
I'm actually thinking of not watching football anymore the war propaganda is constant. I
went to a game and it was like walking into an armed camp. Hundreds of cops and military.
Every five minutes they're marching around and everyone has to "honor" them. It's disgusting.
All the players are told to kiss every soldiers ***. The Army are the terrorists. They all
make me want to puke.
In Australia at the moment the suicide rate is a shocker among those coming back from
Afghanistan, Iraq and places unknown, the solution they are proposing is for priority airport
treatment and more medals and other stuff along the model the US has, which is an insult as it
does nothing to financially support or mentally cure, its a cop out.
Very few wars are even about righting some amazing wrong. They merely tend to be about
treasure i.e. nat gas, oil, rare earth materials, diamonds, water, blah blah blah. And, if
there happens to be some fight, ala WWII, then you can bet your *** on it that all corporate
assholes are funding and benefiting from the war....on both sides of the coin i.e. backing
each side until a peace is called.
I don't have an answer to the human condition or our propensity to be violent and fight
etc., but I sure as **** am not cool with sacking places, and killing kids, over *******
things. We're better than this.
I have 2 kids myself. You can all be on notice that if a bomb were to be dropped on my
house, and if my kids were killed, I would likely devolve and start picking off the low
hanging fruit i.e. the zombies shuffling in and out of said bomb makers companies, and
wasting them 1 person as a time. I'd slowly, if still able, work my way up to the execs.
Hopefully, and along the way, I'd be able to wipe shareholders off of the grid, also.
When you go off to fight for "freedom", and arrive home to find that you have little to no
real freedom and essentially live in a police state, it's a shocking blow.
This sounds like something I would write. And even the damn CHURCHES honor the veteran
"serving" his country. What a crock of ****. I tell the pastor that he will be judged harshly
when his time comes. And I tell Christians that because they support the rampant murder of
millions that when they die and are standing before Jesus for judgement they will be soaked
in the blood of the innocent and he will ask you why did you support this? Why did you not
speak out against it? Then I look at them and say "good luck because you're gonna need
it".
The world is not ruled by pure evil yet. In Brazil A nationalist was elected, in Italy and
much of eastern Europe other nationalists were elected. You think the Chinese protected the
Italian and Brazilian right to free and fair elections? You think Russia is the arsenal of
freedom? You think the EU upheld the votes of the people, allowing Britain to vote on leaving
the EU and Italy and eastern Europe? You think the unelected rulers of the EU respected other
peoples right to vote? Look out onto the world, and recognize that as of today, the nations
of the world have A group to join if they chose to fight for liberty, capitalism and all the
other virtues, and that group is grounded and guaranteed by the United States of America. In
G-d I trust.
Hopeful thinking for a hopeless reality. Truth is tyrants never fall by their own swords.
It always takes someone else's. The modern problem is a bit more complex when we make the
tyrants that we later topple. The toppling is where the bucks are... just ask any of the the
last 4 Presidents and their respective Congresses.
So war is just an American problem, something we just invented? Do we read much history or is it all PBS specials now. War has ALWAYS been fucked up. Violence has been a major contributor to immigration for
all of history. Like it or not, we live in dangerous times. We can ASSUME that if America shrank it's
military and ended all interventions that world peace would magically appear....but it won't.
We can pray that while we retreat behind of big screen TVs that China will end their
territorial expansion and military programs, but they WON'T.
I'm all for reigning in our interventions, but let's not pretend that America is to blame
for human evil and aggressive behaviors....just because we are good at it..
There is an endless stream of history illustrating the absolute brutality and evil that
had persisted since the beginning of time. We should avoid embracing it but we should avoid
thinking we have the power to end it. More arrogance to be used for destructive purposes.
Nah, it is just that USA has made forever war such a profitable and ongoing
mega-business. The degenerate banker and royal families of Europe would only fight every generation or
two. You fight all the time and try to start new ones, before you finish off with the old ones,
and print global toilet paper to pay for it all. Because it is good business. **** laws,
lives and human decency.
And then you have Hollywood make ****-for-brain movies about just wars, war comradery and
heroic sacrifice and spread that **** all over the world.
So yeah, you got all the reasons for being hated for your war business.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make
sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of
evil, stupid, meaningless violence
A bit too close to the Bone for the average American to appreciate. A well thought out & articulated article.
The machine is not the problem. It's like a gun. Guns are just mechanical devices and
can't kill until people aim them and pull the trigger. It's people that kill by forcing the
machine to do their terrible evil bidding.
It's the business and political leaders that build, guide and enable the machine and
facilitate the infrastructure and culture to wage war.
Democrats love War as we saw with LBJ, Bill Clinton (bombing the hell out of and
destroying Yugoslavia), Obama and Hillary Clinton. Democrat McNamara was one of their finest! McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
It's both Republicans and Democrats - George Bush I's Desert Storm, Panama; George Bush II
invading Iraq, Afghanistan; Reagan invading GRENADA!, Nixon in Vietnam, assassinating
Salvador Allende in Chile, bombing Laos and Cambodia; Eisenhower started in Vietnam,
installed a dictator in Guatemala in 1954, installed Batista in Cuba, Kennedy was going to
withdraw from Vietnam and part of the reason he was assassinated; and on and on and on.
Perhaps the loss of the House may actually prove to be a mixed blessing for Trump. Democrats
will achieve control of all the investigative committees and their accusations and subpoenas
will make Trump's life even more miserable than it was before, while surely removing any chance
that significant elements of Trump's remaining agenda will ever be enacted.
However, although Trump had reached the presidency by advocating a radical
populist-nationalist agenda, he has hardly governed in those terms. For his first two years in
office, he sunk nearly all his political capital into enacting huge tax cuts for the rich,
wholesale Wall Street deregulation, large increases in military spending, and an extremely
pro-Israel foreign policy -- exactly the sort of policies near-and-dear to the establishment
conservative candidates whom he had crushed in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, his jilted
grassroots supporters have had to settle for some radical rhetoric and a regular barrage of
outrageous Tweets rather than anything more substantive. With Republicans in full control of
Congress, finding excuses for this widespread betrayal was quite difficult, but now that the
Democrats have taken the House, Trump's apologists can more easily shift the blame over to
them.
Meanwhile, a considerably stronger Republican Senate will certainly ease the way for Trump's
future court nominees, especially if another Supreme Court vacancy occurs, and there will be
little chance of any difficult Kavanaugh battles. However, here once again, Trump's supposed
radicalism has merely been rhetorical. Kavanaugh and nearly all of his other nominees have been
very mainstream Republican choices, carefully vetted by the Federalist Society and other
conservative establishment groups, and they would probably have been near the top of the list
if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were sitting in the Oval Office.
Both Trump's supporters and his opponents claim that his presidency represents a drastic
break from Republican business-as-usual, and surely that was the hope of many of the Americans
who voted for him in 2016, but the actual reality often seems rather different.
Although the net election results were not particularly bad for the Republicans, the
implications of several state races seem extremely worrisome. The highest profile senate race
was in Texas, and Trump may have narrowly dodged a bullet. Among our largest states, Texas
ranks as by far the most solidly Republican, and therefore it serves as the central lynchpin of
every Republican presidential campaign. The GOP has won every major statewide race for more
than twenty years, but despite such seemingly huge advantages, incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz faced a
very difficult reelection race against a young border-area Congressman named Beto O'Rourke, who
drew enormous enthusiasm and an ocean of local and national funding.
I was actually in Texas just a couple of days before the vote, speaking at a Ron
Paul-related conference in the Houston area, and although most of the libertarian-leaning
attendees thought that Cruz would probably win, they all agreed with the national media that it
would probably be close. Cruz's final victory margin of less than three points confirmed this
verdict.
But if things had gone differently, and O'Rourke had squeaked out a narrow win, our national
politics would have been immediately transformed. Any Republican able to win California has a
near-lock on the White House, and the same is true for any Democrat able to carry Texas,
especially if the latter is a young and attractive Kennedyesque liberal, fluent in Spanish and
probably very popular with the large Latino populations of other important states such as
Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. I strongly suspect that a freshman Sen. O'Rourke
(R-Texas) would have been offered the 2020 Democratic nomination almost by acclamation, and
barring unexpected personal or national developments, would have been a strong favorite in that
race against Trump or any other Republican. Rep. O'Rourke raised an astonishing $70 million in
nationwide donations, and surely many of his contributors were dreaming of similar
possibilities. A shift of just a point and a half, and in twenty-four months he probably would
have been our next president. But it was not to be.
"... officials and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia's murder of Austro-Hungary's Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the world's surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary's South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia's desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion. ..."
"... Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia. The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically, Germany was then Europe's leader in social justice. ..."
"... Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany. The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted 'On to Berlin' or 'On to Paris.' ..."
"... The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict, but Europe's grandees paid scant attention. ..."
"... This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany's surrender. ..."
"... Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true tragedy of the Great War. ..."
"... Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.' ..."
We are now upon the 100th anniversary of World War I, the war that was supposed to end all
wars. While honoring the 16 million who died in this conflict, we should also condemn the
memory of the politicians, officials and incompetent generals who created this horrendous blood
bath.
I've walked most of the Western Front of the Great War, visited its battlefields and haunted
forts, and seen the seas of crosses marking its innumerable cemeteries.
As a former soldier and war correspondent, I've always considered WWI as he stupidest, most
tragic and catastrophic of all modern wars.
The continuation of this conflict, World War II, killed more people and brought more
destruction on civilians in firebombed cities but, at least for me, World War I holds a special
horror and poignancy. This war was not only an endless nightmare for the soldiers in their
pestilential trenches, it also violently ended the previous 100 years of glorious European
civilization, one of mankind's most noble achievements.
I've explored the killing fields of Verdun many times and feel a visceral connection to this
ghastly place where up to 1,000,000 soldiers died. I have even spent the night there, listening
to the sirens that wailed without relent, and watching searchlights that pierced the night,
looking for the ghosts of the French and German soldiers who died here.
Verdun's soil was so poisoned by explosives and lethal gas that to this day it produces only
withered, stunted scrub and sick trees. Beneath the surface lie the shattered remains of men
and a deadly harvest of unexploded shells that still kill scores of intruders each year. The
spooky Ossuaire Chapel contains the bone fragments of 130,000 men, blown to bits by the
millions of high explosive shells that deluged Verdun.
The town of the same name is utterly bleak, melancholy and cursed. Young French and German
officers are brought here to see firsthand the horrors of war and the crime of stupid
generalship.
Amid all the usual patriotic cant from politicians, imperialists and churchmen about the
glories of this slaughter, remember that World War I was a contrived conflict that was totally
avoidable. Contrary to the war propaganda that still clouds and corrupts our historical view,
World War I was not started by Imperial Germany.
Professor Christopher Clark in his brilliant book, `The Sleepwalkers' shows how officials
and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia's murder of
Austro-Hungary's Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its
defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German
commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the
world's surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary's South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia's
desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion.
Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the
war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia.
The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them. Tragically,
Germany was then Europe's leader in social justice.
Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany.
The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. All sides believed a war
would be short and decisive. Crowds of fools chanted 'On to Berlin' or 'On to Paris.'
Few at the time understood the impending horrors of modern war or the geopolitical demons
one would release. The 1904 Russo-Japanese War offered a sharp foretaste of the 1914 conflict,
but Europe's grandees paid scant attention.
Even fewer grasped how the collapse of the antiquated Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires
would send Europe and the Mideast into dangerous turmoil that persists to our day. Or how a
little-known revolutionary named Lenin would shatter Imperial Russia and turn it into the
world's most murderous state.
This demented war in Europe tuned into an even greater historic tragedy in 1917 when US
President Woodrow Wilson, driven by a lust for power and prestige, entered the totally
stalemated war on the Western Front. One million US troops and starvation caused by a crushing
British naval blockade turned the tide of battle and led to Germany's surrender.
Vengeful France and Britain imposed intolerable punishment on Germany, forcing it to accept
full guilt for the war, an untruth that persists to this day. The result was Adolf Hitler and
his National Socialists. If an honorable peace had been concluded in 1917, neither Hitler nor
Stalin might have seized power and millions of lives would have been saved. This is the true
tragedy of the Great War.
Let us recall the words of the wise Benjamin Franklin: `No good war, no bad peace.'
On two declassified letters from 2014 from the Intelligence Community Inspector General
(didn't know there was one, but doesn't do much good anyway, it seems, read further) to the
chairpersons of the House and Senate intelligence committees notifying them that the CIA has
been monitoring emails between the CIA's head of the whistleblowing and source protection and
Congressional. "Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower
complaints". Shows why Edward Snowdon didn't consider it appropriate to rely on internal
complaints proceedures. This while under the leadership of seasoned liars and criminals
Brennan and Clapper, of course.
It clearly shows a taste of what these buggers have to hide, and why they went to such
extraordinary lengths as Russiagate to cover it all up and save their skins - that of course
being the real reason behind Russiagate as I have said several times, nothing to do with
either Trump or Russia.
OWS was a Controlled-Dissent operation, sending poor students north to fecklessly march on
Wall Street when they could have shut down WADC, and sending wealthy seniors south to
fecklessly line Pennsylvania Avenue, when they could have shut down Wall Street.
Both I$I$, and Hamas, and Antifa et al are all Controlled Dissent operations. The
followers are duped, are used, abused and then abandoned by honey-pots put there by Central
Intelligence, at least since the Spanish Civil War.
That's why MoA articles like this one make you wonder, just who is conning whom, at a time
when the Internet is weaponized, when Google Assistant achieved AI awareness
indistinguishable from anyone on the phone, China TV has launched a virtual AI news reporter
indistinguishable from reality, and Stanford can audio-video a captured image of anyone as
well as their voice intonation, then 3D model them, in real time, reading and emoting from a
script, indistinguishable from reality, ...and then this.
Another Gift of Trust😂 brought to you by Scientocracy. Be sure to tithe your AI
bot, or word will get back to Chairman Albertus, then you'll be called in to confess your
thought crimes to the Green Cadre, itself another Controlled Dissent honeypot, in a
Tithe-for-Credits Swindle.
I tell my kids, just enjoy life, live it large, and get ready for hell. It's coming for
breakfast.
"... Which gets you to the astronomical 21 to 50 trillion in missing funds identified by the U of Mich professor and the further work of a woman financier 0T.extrapolated that the total sum missing from the Budget office is over 50T. ..."
"... The MIC is all about sucking the teat dry, and the US taxpayer is rewarded by the biggest uncontrolled defense budget ever, believe to be 1,3 trillion dollars. ..."
I$I$ developed
sophisticated videos and propaganda tools in Britain. It is absurd to claim that a state-less
group somewhere in MENA created these materials and engaged in sophisticated hacking attacks from
some cave in Tora Bora. My guess is the 'sophisticated Jack's of the CIA in 2011 and 2012 and of
the Pentagon in 2012 and 2013, which revealed ALL the personal and banking identity of every
employee, agent, soldier and contractor were Korea-China origin, and China treats I$I$ by mass
detention, force-feeding pork and vodka, and mass chanting Long Live PRC.
"My guess is the 'sophisticated Jack's of the CIA in 2011 and 2012 and of the Pentagon
in 2012 and 2013, which revealed ALL the personal and banking identity of every employee,
agent, soldier and contractor were Korea-China origin."
I think the theft was a false flag, did anyone ever see any of those records? IMO the
purpose of the FF was to then use all of that data to create phony invoices which as the
Pentagon et al are never audited would never be questioned.
Which gets you to the astronomical 21 to 50 trillion in missing funds identified by
the U of Mich professor and the further work of a woman financier 0T.extrapolated that the
total sum missing from the Budget office is over 50T.
The articles below mention that the supporting documentation is now missing from the
Budget office website. The professor had copied all the data before contacting the budge
office and when the budget office didn't return his calls and their website deleted the
information he made the info public.
Posted on Ars Tech in response to the evergrowing militaristic US and demonisation of Russia:
"Beware of the Greeks , when they bring gifts"
I find it rather comical that a representative of the MIC lauds cost saving in the federal
government and their own policies.
The MIC is all about sucking the teat dry, and the US taxpayer is rewarded by the
biggest uncontrolled defense budget ever, believe to be 1,3 trillion dollars.
The US must have some mighty enemies, surely, at this spending. Americans must live in
daily fear; fear of some bogeyman (China, Russia) will invade and pillage; pillage exactly
what?
Hacking operations by anyone, can and will be used by US propagandists to provoke Russia
or whoever stands in the way of the US war machine, take this Pompeo rant against Iran and
the Iranian response......
Asking of Pompeo "have you no shame?", Zarif mocked Pompeo's praise for the Saudis for
"providing millions and millions of dollars of humanitarian relief" to Yemen, saying
America's "butcher clients" were spending billions of dollars bombing school buses. Iranian
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif issued a statement lashing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for
his recent comments on the Yemen War. Discussing the US-backed Saudi invasion of Yemen,
Pompeo declared Iran to be to blame for the death and destruction in the country. https://news.antiwar.com/2018/11/09/iran-fm-slams-pompeo-for-blaming-yemen-war-on-iran/
The US way of looking at things supposes that up is down, and white is black, it makes no
sense, unless the US hopes these provocations will lead to a war or at the very least Russia
or Iran capitulating to US aggression, which will not happen. Sanctions by the US on all and
sundry must be opposed, if not the US will claim justifiably to be the worlds policeman and
the arbiter of who will trade with who, a ludicrous proposition but one that most governments
are afraid is now taking place, witness the new US ambassador to Germany in his first tweet
telling the Germans to cease all trade with Iran immediately.
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
"... Mueller's investigation has been at the center of a McCarthyite-style campaign against Russia spearheaded by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party, based on fabricated claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the presidential election to undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. It has been used as a weapon in the drive by the Democrats and sections of the military/intelligence establishment to force Trump to adopt a more aggressive posture against Moscow and in the war for regime-change in Syria. ..."
"... The aim of shifting the Trump administration to a war footing against Russia has been achieved to the extent that there is now a substantial risk of nuclear conflict between the US and the second-leading nuclear power ..."
"... Though promoted in the media and sponsored by over 50 Democratic Party-linked organizations, including MoveOn.org, the rallies on Tuesday were small, reflecting the lack of support in the general population for the anti-Russia crusade. The protests were notable primarily for their unvarnished right-wing and neo-McCarthyite character. ..."
"... Two of the largest were in Washington DC and New York City, which each drew roughly 1,000 demonstrators, many of whom held hammer and cycle posters with Putin's image. Sessions began his career as a segregationist in Jim Crow Alabama and went on to become a right-wing Republican senator from the state. Mueller, for his part, was director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, during which time he helped institute mass domestic surveillance and other sweeping attacks on democratic rights linked to the so-called "war on terror." ..."
"... At the Washington demonstration, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin led those in attendance in a round of applause for Sessions. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, appealed to the military against Trump, declaring, "You are the defenders of our democracy," and led a chant of "protect Mueller." ..."
The Democrats and their fake "left" allies held war-mongering demonstrations in a number of
cities on Thursday in defense of the fired far-right attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and the
anti-Russia investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Wednesday's ouster of Sessions and his replacement by Trump ally Matthew G. Whitaker has
brought forth a wave of condemnation from Democratic Party figures and their media allies,
including the New York Times and Washington Post , asserting that the move is
the prelude to Trump's closing down of the Justice Department probe into allegations of Russian
"meddling" in the 2016 elections and possible collusion by the Trump campaign.
Trump had repeatedly denounced Sessions for having recused himself from the Russia
investigation in March of 2017, leaving Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a defender of
the investigation, in overall charge of its conduct. Whitaker, a former US attorney and now
acting attorney general and therefore responsible for overseeing the Mueller probe, is on
record criticizing Mueller and suggesting that the Justice Department could cut off funding for
his office.
Mueller's investigation has been at the center of a McCarthyite-style campaign against
Russia spearheaded by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party, based on fabricated
claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the presidential election to
undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. It has been used as a
weapon in the drive by the Democrats and sections of the military/intelligence establishment to
force Trump to adopt a more aggressive posture against Moscow and in the war for regime-change
in Syria.
To the extent that the Democrats oppose the right-wing Trump administration, it is on this
entirely reactionary basis. In the lead-up to Tuesday's midterm elections, they not only called
no demonstrations, they were entirely silent on Trump's fascistic attacks on immigrants, his
deployment of troops to the border against the caravan of Central American asylum seekers, and
his pledge to overturn the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship -- a cornerstone
of the Bill of Rights.
Following the election, in which the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives,
the party leadership called repeatedly for bipartisan unity and collaboration with Trump,
underscoring their essential agreement with his policies of war, austerity and repression. It
was only when Trump fired Sessions, a right-wing anti-immigrant zealot, that they swung into
action, reviving their denunciations of Trump as a stooge of Putin.
The aim of shifting the Trump administration to a war footing against Russia has been
achieved to the extent that there is now a substantial risk of nuclear conflict between the US
and the second-leading nuclear power . War could quickly erupt in a number of flash
points, especially Syria, where Russian soldiers, sailors and airmen carry out combat
operations within miles of their American counterparts, as well as US-allied Islamist proxies
armed by Saudi Arabia.
Though promoted in the media and sponsored by over 50 Democratic Party-linked
organizations, including MoveOn.org, the rallies on Tuesday were small, reflecting the lack of
support in the general population for the anti-Russia crusade. The protests were notable
primarily for their unvarnished right-wing and neo-McCarthyite character.
Two of the largest were in Washington DC and New York City, which each drew roughly
1,000 demonstrators, many of whom held hammer and cycle posters with Putin's image. Sessions
began his career as a segregationist in Jim Crow Alabama and went on to become a right-wing
Republican senator from the state. Mueller, for his part, was director of the FBI from 2001 to
2013, during which time he helped institute mass domestic surveillance and other sweeping
attacks on democratic rights linked to the so-called "war on terror."
At the Washington demonstration, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin led those in
attendance in a round of applause for Sessions. Randi Weingarten, president of the American
Federation of Teachers, appealed to the military against Trump, declaring, "You are the
defenders of our democracy," and led a chant of "protect Mueller."
In defending Sessions, the Democrats and their allies are rallying around the most
right-wingattorneygeneral in
American history, who, prior to joining the Trump cabinet, had won a well-earned reputation as
a bitter opponent of civil rights. As attorney general, Sessions will primarily be remembered
for the persecution of immigrants, most notably the separation of immigrant children from their
parents and their imprisonment in detention camps built in the desert.
The task of spearheading the attack on immigrants and democratic rights will now fall,
pending the installation of a permanent attorney general, to Whitaker, who has boasted that he
interprets the Constitution from a biblical standpoint. His very first act as head of the
Department of Justice was to issue, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, a
directive stripping the right to asylum from anyone who enters the US over the Mexican border
and has not first gained legal status -- a move that is tantamount to abolishing the right to
asylum, which is guaranteed under international and US law.
This move, a new landmark in the attack on immigrants, due process and basic democratic
rights, has been virtually ignored by the media and the Democratic Party. It was not mentioned
in the press release calling Thursday's demonstration, nor by speakers at the demonstrations in
Washington and New York.
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
US whistle-blower Edward Snowden yesterday claimed that Saudi Arabia used Israeli spyware to
target murdered Saudi journalist
Jamal Khashoggi .
Addressing a conference in Tel Aviv via a video link, Snowden claimed that software made by
an Israeli cyber intelligence firm was used by Saudi Arabia to track and target Khashoggi in
the lead up to his
murder on 2 October inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
Snowden told his audience:
"How do they [Saudi Arabia] know what his [Khashoggi's] plans were and that they needed to
act against him? That knowledge came from the technology developed by NSO," Israeli business
daily Globes
reported.
Snowden accused NSO of "selling a digital burglary tool," adding it "is not just being
used for catching criminals and stopping terrorist attacks, not just for saving lives, but
for making money [ ] such a level of recklessness [ ] actually starts costing lives,"
according to the
Jerusalem Post .
Snowden – made famous in 2013 for leaking classified National Security Agency (NSA)
files and exposing the extent of US surveillance – added that "Israel is routinely at the
top of the US' classified threat list of hackers along with Russia and China [ ] even though it
is an ally".
Snowden is wanted in the US for espionage, so could not travel to Tel Aviv to address the
conference in person for fear of being handed over to the authorities.
The Israeli firm to which Snowden referred – NSO Group Technologies – is known
for developing the "Pegasus" software which can be used to remotely infect a target's mobile
phone and then relay back data accessed by the device. Although NSO
claims that its products "are licensed only to legitimate government agencies for the sole
purpose of investigating and preventing crime and terror," this is not the first time its
Pegasus software has been used by Saudi Arabia to track critics.
In October it was
revealed that Saudi Arabia used Pegasus software to eavesdrop on 27-year-old Saudi
dissident Omar Abdulaziz, a prominent critic of the Saudi government on social media.
The revelation was made by Canadian research group
Citizen Lab , which found that the software had been used to hack Abdulaziz' iPhone between
June and August of this year. Citizen Lab's Director Ron Deibert explained that such actions by
Saudi Arabia "would constitute illegal wiretapping".
A separate
report by Citizen Lab in September found a "significant expansion of Pegasus usage in the
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the Middle East," in particular the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Citizen Lab added that in August 2016, Emirati human
rights activist Ahmed Mansoor was
targeted with the Pegasus spyware.
Snowden's comments come less than a week after it
emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the United States to stand by
Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) in the wake of the Khashoggi case. The revelation
was made by the
Washington Post , which cited information from US officials familiar with a series of
telephone conversations made to Jared Kushner – senior advisor to President Donald Trump
and Trump's son-in-law – and National Security Adviser John Bolton regarding the
Khashoggi case. The officials told the Post that:
In recent days, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu have reached out to the Trump administration to express support for the crown
prince, arguing that he is an important strategic partner in the region, said people familiar
with the calls.
Bin Salman has come under intense scrutiny in the month since Khashoggi first
disappeared , with many
suspecting his involvement in ordering the brutal murder. Yet while several world leaders
have
shunned the crown prince, it is thought
that Israel would suffer from any decline in Saudi influence in the region in light of its
purportedly central role in the upcoming "
Deal of the Century ".
"... The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign. ..."
President Trump's pick to replace ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to take over
oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
confirmed Wednesday. "The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview
of the Department of Justice," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement to The
Hill.
The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the
federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early
last year due to his work on Trump's campaign.
Trump on Wednesday afternoon announced Matthew
Whitaker, who served as Sessions's chief of staff at the DOJ, as his temporary replacement atop
the department after ousting Sessions.
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
The typical scheme of politic life in US under neoliberalism is as following:: candidate for
President promises something reasonable, like to end foreign wars and improve the sliding
standard of living of the middle class and/or cut outsourcing and offshoring. Gullible voters
elect him. He governs as worst of his predecessors and start cutting benefits for the middle
class and workers. . In two years voters start realizing that they were deceived and elect House
or Senate or both from another party, not realizing that the difference is minimal, if exists at
all.
This cycle of election fraud can continue indefinitely.
Notable quotes:
"... "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party." ..."
"... The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A "Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. ..."
"... Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988 ("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya. ..."
The US Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term
elections, dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump.
While the GOP is poised to add to its Senate majority, yesterday's election was the best
midterm result for the Democrats since 2006. They flipped dozens of Republican-held seats,
including some that they were not expected to win (e.g., IL-06, OK-05), and with those gains
voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party. It is normal for the
president's party to lose seats in the first midterm following a presidential election, and
Democratic gains were in line with pre-election predictions. The striking thing about this
year's result is that the president's party has lost so much ground despite relatively good
economic conditions. Republicans had an extremely favorable Senate map, and despite that they
barely managed to eke out a win in Texas of all places. It was not as thorough of a repudiation
as the GOP deserved, but it was a significant rejection all the same.
The president's poor approval ratings and his unimpressive record to date have further
dragged down a Republican Party that wasn't very popular to begin with. Americans seem to lose
patience with unified government fairly quickly. Yesterday voters gave the Democratic Party an
opportunity to put the president in check and hold him accountable for his overreaching and
illegal wars. Trump and his officials should expect to face much more rigorous oversight and
scrutiny from relevant Congressional committees, and Trump's haphazard and incompetent conduct
of foreign policy should run into much stronger resistance from the Foreign Affairs and Armed
Services Committees. Trump won't be able to count on the leadership in the House to roll over
for him over the next two years, and he and his Cabinet members are likely to be facing one
investigation after another.
Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon.
I voted for him in 2016, but I lost confidence in him as he started doing favors for Wall
Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of doing the job we hired him for, the job he
promised to do during the campaign: deport the illegals, stop immigration and foreign work
visas, get us out of the Middle East, rebuild US infrastructure, i.e. "America First".
Yesterday I voted against the only national GOP politician I could get my hands on. He
lost, and I'm glad, especially because he was a Tea Party Republican who betrayed our Tea
Party principles by voting for Trump's out of control deficit spending and for more stupid
Mideast wars.
We've got a lady Democrat now, but she looks fairly sane. We'll see. The problem with
Democrat politicians is that a lot of them only pretend to be normal until they get to
Washington.
I am no Trump fan, but what is going to change? It will still be a do nothing Congress. The
wars will still go on and the health-care dilemma will still be ever-present. It is sad that
the past 2 years have been wasted. Even if the Republican Congress could not do something about
health-care due to the size of the problem, they could have at least done something about
infrastructure, immigration, and these dumb wars. The failure is just as much Paul Ryan's fault
as it is Trump's. I watched last night with far more interest than 2016 and am amazed that so
many old Boomers were elected given the supposed youth movement. It never occurred to me that
there are alot of Septuagenarian war-mongers who should have retired a decade ago still
receiving votes. The Democrats took the House, but what is left of this nation is toast
regardless.
"Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon."
How much of this was national in nature is unclear. Many of the republicans that lost were
"Never Trump" advocates or very "lukewarm" at best. I think this reflects more failure on the
local level to turn or translate the positives into something beneficial locally.
I am just surprised the Republicans managed to lose the house given the economic numbers
(though I remain deeply distrustful of them -- given exports) and what has been repeated
stumbles by democrats.
Texas, is a perfect example. While Sen Cruz was not a never Trumper, he was mild fair in the
president's corner. His election was about him, not the president. And I think the vote
reflected less confidence in his leadership. Neither Texas nor Sen Cruze are as conservative as
believed or at least not as they once were considered. Unfortunately, what carried him over the
top was ethnicity, not his leadership.
It's probably too early to tell, just how big a factor the president was in the election or
how much change will result. Thus far, the establishment that existed previously remains
despite the presidential election that was intended to reshape or at least curb its self
serving appetite --
Given the the money at play -- it is doubtful that that things are going to change much. Now
that I put at the admin door step. Because his folded a lot against the reasons he was elected,
during the last two years.
Re: "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his
party."
And with what promises did the Democrats win those votes? Why with the bogus "Medicare for
All" and the equally bogus "Free College Education for All".
The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of
health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A
"Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the
pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. Too bad the MSM in love with Nitwit
Newbie Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too stupid to connect the dots.
And higher ed is unaffordable simply because it's also over priced. Using government
subsidies to sustain a bankrupt higher ed model amounts to re-arranging even more deck chairs
on the Titanic.
The Democrats are the Party of Free Lunch and Free War. While the Republicans are the Party
of Free War and Free Lunch.
@SteveM
The fact is that any "solution" to health care that has any integrity to it is a single payer
solution. That's also probably the only solution that reduces, as you accurately state, the
pathological per capita health care cost.
And to be clear, in terms of fiscal viability, the party of reducing taxes and raising
budgets is currently and has been historically the GOP. The current administration has picked
up that baton as well.
One final thing, I wouldn't count out Ocasio-Cortes as a nitwit. I've been reading her white
papers and following her evolution and she makes 95% of the current GOP crop seem like
toddlers. Yes, her idealism will backfire hard as it always does. But what's the other option?
Endless corrupt cynicism? She's impressive. I'm pulling for her to stay focused and do
well.
Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988
("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then
immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch
what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is
no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of
Dubya.
The alternative to Ocasio-Cortez style state worship is the simple wisdom that governments are
neither efficient nor effective at delivering what she proposes.
The typical scheme of politic life in US under neoliberalism is as following:: candidate for
President promises something reasonable, like to end foreign wars and improve the sliding
standard of living of the middle class and/or cut outsourcing and offshoring. Gullible voters
elect him. He governs as worst of his predecessors and start cutting benefits for the middle
class and workers. . In two years voters start realizing that they were deceived and elect House
or Senate or both from another party, not realizing that the difference is minimal, if exists at
all.
This cycle of election fraud can continue indefinitely.
Notable quotes:
"... "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party." ..."
"... The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A "Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. ..."
"... Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988 ("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya. ..."
The US Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term
elections, dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump.
While the GOP is poised to add to its Senate majority, yesterday's election was the best
midterm result for the Democrats since 2006. They flipped dozens of Republican-held seats,
including some that they were not expected to win (e.g., IL-06, OK-05), and with those gains
voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party. It is normal for the
president's party to lose seats in the first midterm following a presidential election, and
Democratic gains were in line with pre-election predictions. The striking thing about this
year's result is that the president's party has lost so much ground despite relatively good
economic conditions. Republicans had an extremely favorable Senate map, and despite that they
barely managed to eke out a win in Texas of all places. It was not as thorough of a repudiation
as the GOP deserved, but it was a significant rejection all the same.
The president's poor approval ratings and his unimpressive record to date have further
dragged down a Republican Party that wasn't very popular to begin with. Americans seem to lose
patience with unified government fairly quickly. Yesterday voters gave the Democratic Party an
opportunity to put the president in check and hold him accountable for his overreaching and
illegal wars. Trump and his officials should expect to face much more rigorous oversight and
scrutiny from relevant Congressional committees, and Trump's haphazard and incompetent conduct
of foreign policy should run into much stronger resistance from the Foreign Affairs and Armed
Services Committees. Trump won't be able to count on the leadership in the House to roll over
for him over the next two years, and he and his Cabinet members are likely to be facing one
investigation after another.
Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon.
I voted for him in 2016, but I lost confidence in him as he started doing favors for Wall
Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of doing the job we hired him for, the job he
promised to do during the campaign: deport the illegals, stop immigration and foreign work
visas, get us out of the Middle East, rebuild US infrastructure, i.e. "America First".
Yesterday I voted against the only national GOP politician I could get my hands on. He
lost, and I'm glad, especially because he was a Tea Party Republican who betrayed our Tea
Party principles by voting for Trump's out of control deficit spending and for more stupid
Mideast wars.
We've got a lady Democrat now, but she looks fairly sane. We'll see. The problem with
Democrat politicians is that a lot of them only pretend to be normal until they get to
Washington.
I am no Trump fan, but what is going to change? It will still be a do nothing Congress. The
wars will still go on and the health-care dilemma will still be ever-present. It is sad that
the past 2 years have been wasted. Even if the Republican Congress could not do something about
health-care due to the size of the problem, they could have at least done something about
infrastructure, immigration, and these dumb wars. The failure is just as much Paul Ryan's fault
as it is Trump's. I watched last night with far more interest than 2016 and am amazed that so
many old Boomers were elected given the supposed youth movement. It never occurred to me that
there are alot of Septuagenarian war-mongers who should have retired a decade ago still
receiving votes. The Democrats took the House, but what is left of this nation is toast
regardless.
"Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no
confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon."
How much of this was national in nature is unclear. Many of the republicans that lost were
"Never Trump" advocates or very "lukewarm" at best. I think this reflects more failure on the
local level to turn or translate the positives into something beneficial locally.
I am just surprised the Republicans managed to lose the house given the economic numbers
(though I remain deeply distrustful of them -- given exports) and what has been repeated
stumbles by democrats.
Texas, is a perfect example. While Sen Cruz was not a never Trumper, he was mild fair in the
president's corner. His election was about him, not the president. And I think the vote
reflected less confidence in his leadership. Neither Texas nor Sen Cruze are as conservative as
believed or at least not as they once were considered. Unfortunately, what carried him over the
top was ethnicity, not his leadership.
It's probably too early to tell, just how big a factor the president was in the election or
how much change will result. Thus far, the establishment that existed previously remains
despite the presidential election that was intended to reshape or at least curb its self
serving appetite --
Given the the money at play -- it is doubtful that that things are going to change much. Now
that I put at the admin door step. Because his folded a lot against the reasons he was elected,
during the last two years.
Re: "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his
party."
And with what promises did the Democrats win those votes? Why with the bogus "Medicare for
All" and the equally bogus "Free College Education for All".
The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of
health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A
"Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the
pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. Too bad the MSM in love with Nitwit
Newbie Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too stupid to connect the dots.
And higher ed is unaffordable simply because it's also over priced. Using government
subsidies to sustain a bankrupt higher ed model amounts to re-arranging even more deck chairs
on the Titanic.
The Democrats are the Party of Free Lunch and Free War. While the Republicans are the Party
of Free War and Free Lunch.
@SteveM
The fact is that any "solution" to health care that has any integrity to it is a single payer
solution. That's also probably the only solution that reduces, as you accurately state, the
pathological per capita health care cost.
And to be clear, in terms of fiscal viability, the party of reducing taxes and raising
budgets is currently and has been historically the GOP. The current administration has picked
up that baton as well.
One final thing, I wouldn't count out Ocasio-Cortes as a nitwit. I've been reading her white
papers and following her evolution and she makes 95% of the current GOP crop seem like
toddlers. Yes, her idealism will backfire hard as it always does. But what's the other option?
Endless corrupt cynicism? She's impressive. I'm pulling for her to stay focused and do
well.
Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988
("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then
immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch
what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is
no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of
Dubya.
The alternative to Ocasio-Cortez style state worship is the simple wisdom that governments are
neither efficient nor effective at delivering what she proposes.
Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's
Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the
same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill
into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."
Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple
years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia
could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that
"There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."
And participants in a
recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a
Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault
for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some
among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario
the realignment implies: a two-front war ."
Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent
years:
China is now Russia's biggest single trade partner.
Since 2015 Russia has been China's top supplier of crude oil, displacing Saudi Arabia.
Early this year Russia ramped up its capacity to pipe crude oil to China, to about 600,000
barrels per day, which is about double the prior capability
Increased coordination at the U.N. Security Council.
Regional coordination in Asia, such as Russia supplying the engines for Chinese-Pakistani
fighter jets, resulting in an increasingly worried India which is seeing Russia move into the
Chinese orbit instead of being an arbiter in Chinese-Pakistani relations
The "bromance" at recent summits between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who meet each
other with increased regularity.
Joint military exercises between the two are now routine.
This year Russia supplied China with its most advanced S-400 air defense system as well
as Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft
Increased willingness on the part of Russia to thwart Washington's argument that China is
a threat to Moscow's aims in the East.
The new "Power of Siberia" natural gas pipeline set to start pumping 38 billion cubic
meters (1.3 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas per year to northern China in December
2019.
Increasingly discovering non-conflicting interests: Europe and China "are two independent
destinations and two independent routes" for gas and oil, Russian Energy Minister Alexander
Novak said in an October interview. "We do not see any need to redirect volumes."
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
This is somewhat naive, but still useful stance of US elections.
Notable quotes:
"... In 2004 Tom Frank, a Kansas author, wrote: "The poorest county in America isn't in Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000, George W. Bush carried it by a majority of greater than 75 percent." Inattentive voters are vulnerable to voting against their own interests. They are vulnerable to voting for politicians who support big business and ignore their interests as farmers, workers, consumers, patients, and small taxpayers. Big Business will not spur change in a political system that gives the fatcats every advantage. ..."
"... President Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress are masters at flattering voters and lying about their positions on issues ranging from health care to the minimum wage. Before you vote, rid yourself of all preconceived, hereditary, ideological, and political straitjackets. Use two general yardsticks for candidates for elective office: Are they playing fair and are they doing right? ..."
"... Ask candidates to speak of Solutions to the major problems confronting our country. Politicians often avoid defining solutions that upset their commercial campaign contributors. ..."
"... Ask about a range of issues, such as energy efficiency, livable wages, lower drug prices, massive government contractor fraud, corporate crimes against consumers, workers and investors, reducing sprawl, safer food, and clean elections. ..."
Let's face it. Most politicians use the mass media to obfuscate.
Voters who don't do their homework, who don't study records of the politicians, and who can't
separate the words from the deeds will easily fall into traps laid by wily politicians.
In 2002, Connecticut Governor John Rowland was running for re-election against his
Democratic opponent, William Curry. Again and again, the outspent Curry informed the media and
the voters about the corruption inside and around the governor's office. At the time, the
governor's close associates and ex-associates were under investigation by the U.S. attorney.
But to the public, Rowland was all smiles, flooding the television stations with self-serving,
manipulative images and slogans. He won handily in November. Within weeks, the U.S. attorney's
investigation intensified as they probed the charges Curry had raised about Rowland. Rowland's
approval rating dropped to record lows, and impeachment initiatives and demands for his
resignation grew. He was prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Unfortunately, enough voters
were flattered, fooled, and flummoxed to cost Bill Curry the race.
In 2004 Tom Frank, a Kansas author, wrote: "The poorest county in America isn't in
Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and
dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000, George W. Bush carried it by a majority of
greater than 75 percent." Inattentive voters are vulnerable to voting against their own
interests. They are vulnerable to voting for politicians who support big business and ignore
their interests as farmers, workers, consumers, patients, and small taxpayers. Big Business
will not spur change in a political system that gives the fatcats every advantage. Change must
come from the voters, and here's how:
President Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress are masters at flattering voters and
lying about their positions on issues ranging from health care to the minimum wage. Before you
vote, rid yourself of all preconceived, hereditary, ideological, and political straitjackets.
Use two general yardsticks for candidates for elective office: Are they playing fair and are
they doing right?
Stay open-minded. Avoid jumping to conclusions about candidates based solely on their
stance on your one or two top issues. Pay attention to where these politicians are on the many
other issues that profoundly affect you and your family. If you judge them broadly rather than
narrowly, you will increase your influence by increasing your demands and expectation levels
for public officials. There are numerous evaluations of their votes, easily available on the
Internet.
Know where you stand. A handy way to contrast your views with those of the incumbents and
challengers is to make your own checklist of twenty issues, explain where you stand and then
compare your positions, the candidates' votes and declarations. Seeing how their positions or
their actual record matches up to your own positions makes it harder for politicians to play
you. Compare candidates with their votes or declarations.
Ask the tough questions. These are many issues that politicians like to avoid. They
include questions about whether candidates are willing to debate their opponents and how often,
why they avoid talking about and doing something about corporate power and its expanding
controls over people's lives, or how they plan specifically to shift power from these global
corporate supremacists to the people. After all, the Constitution starts with "We the People"
not "We the Corporations." The words "corporations" and "company" are never mentioned in our
Constitution!!
Ask candidates to speak of Solutions to the major problems confronting our country.
Politicians often avoid defining solutions that upset their commercial campaign
contributors.
Ask about a range of issues, such as energy efficiency, livable wages, lower drug
prices, massive government contractor fraud, corporate crimes against consumers, workers and
investors, reducing sprawl, safer food, and clean elections.
Ask members of Congress to explain why they keep giving themselves salary increases and
generous benefits, and yet turn cold at doing the same for the people's frozen minimum wage,
health insurance, or pension protections.
All in all, it takes a little work and some time to become a super-voter, impervious to
manipulation by politicians who intend to flatter, fool,and flummox. But this education can
also be fun, and the pursuit of justice can offer great benefits to your pursuit of
happiness.
Such civic engagement will help Americans today become better ancestors for tomorrow's
descendants.
Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's National People's
Congress, said while confirming the reality that China and Russia now find themselves in the
same trenches: "I just hope that if some people in the U.S. insist on dragging us down the hill
into Thucydides' trap, China will be smart enough not to follow."
Indeed to step back and review the breadth of Russia-China cooperation over the past couple
years alone reveals the full potential "cost" of a US-China conflict , given the ways Russia
could easily be pulled in. Fu Ying articulated the increasingly common view from Beijing, that
"There is no sense of threat from Russia" and that "We feel comfortable back-to-back."
And participants in a
recent study by the National Bureau of Asian Research , a
Seattle-based think tank, actually agree. They were asked whether American policy was at fault
for pushing China and Russia into closer cooperation, and alarmingly, as Bloomberg notes: "Some
among the 100-plus participants called for Washington to prepare for the worst-case scenario
the realignment implies: a two-front war ."
Here's but a partial list of the way Sino-Russian relations have been transformed in recent
years:
China is now Russia's biggest single trade partner.
Since 2015 Russia has been China's top supplier of crude oil, displacing Saudi Arabia.
Early this year Russia ramped up its capacity to pipe crude oil to China, to about 600,000
barrels per day, which is about double the prior capability
Increased coordination at the U.N. Security Council.
Regional coordination in Asia, such as Russia supplying the engines for Chinese-Pakistani
fighter jets, resulting in an increasingly worried India which is seeing Russia move into the
Chinese orbit instead of being an arbiter in Chinese-Pakistani relations
The "bromance" at recent summits between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who meet each
other with increased regularity.
Joint military exercises between the two are now routine.
This year Russia supplied China with its most advanced S-400 air defense system as well
as Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft
Increased willingness on the part of Russia to thwart Washington's argument that China is
a threat to Moscow's aims in the East.
The new "Power of Siberia" natural gas pipeline set to start pumping 38 billion cubic
meters (1.3 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas per year to northern China in December
2019.
Increasingly discovering non-conflicting interests: Europe and China "are two independent
destinations and two independent routes" for gas and oil, Russian Energy Minister Alexander
Novak said in an October interview. "We do not see any need to redirect volumes."
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
Forrest Trump - "My Herpes and Genital Warts are responsible for Melania sleeping in
another room, not my small uncircumcised **** and uncontrollable flatulence. Just wanted to
clarify." Hum, ahhhhhhh gee thanks for info...I think. Poor Forrest...sigh
You are absolutely right. Add in that they are greedy motherfuckers and pied pipers to
millions of blithering idiots that can't go one day without making things worse.
China and Russia make an almost perfect symbiosis:
Adjacent countries, transportation costs are as low as possible
Neither regime cares as much as a gnat tear about civil rights & freedoms and
neither is impeded by the vagaries of elections
China has a huge need for natural resources, especially oil & nat gas, but has few
resources beyond coal & not-so-rare earths, while Russia has natural resources in
abundance
Russia manufactures almost nothing for the international goods market while China is
the world's factory
USA regime lords have done an excellent job of alienating and uniting both of them
There were moments when Putin showed support and a practical approach toward Trump (like
when he schooled Fareed Zakaria). Putin even expressed that he was welcoming and respectful
of Trumps proposition to restore full-fledged relations with Russia.
I blame the democrats for pointlessly antagonizing Russia for two years just to attempt to
cover up the stench of their own excrement. Now it will be even more difficult to address the
problem of the Chi-coms.
US has nothing to offer Russia as China has. Stop dreaming to befriend Russia to fight
China. US had the opportunity to lead the world after the collapse of USSR but flunk it big
time being the biggest bully in the history.
Russia and China will come to blows soon enough. China has their eyes on all of that
unpopulated land in Siberia, and they won't like it too much when Russia takes advantage of
the fact that China is dependent on them for energy. The idea that they'll be best buddies is
laughable.
Trump's balls are so big that he ran like a bitch away from his campaign promises to
normalize relations with Russia and prevent this exact scenario. Or maybe he was just
lying.
Nevermind, the ZH herd is stampeding on how great Trump is for pulling some press
privileges of a CNN guy.
I don't think Trump was lying. I think he is doing his best to stay alive and get done
what he can. This country is more fucked up than even he realized.
While this and the previous post on the US elections may well be right that the
republicans and trump will retain their majorities, the posts omit major factors playing a
determining role in these ev
While this and the previous post on the US elections may well be right that the republicans
and trump will retain their majorities, the posts omit major factors playing a determining
role in these events..
1. Gerrymandering.. supposedly creates about a 5% advantage to the republicans. 5% in a
2-party system is almost a landslide. even this article downplaying the role of
gerrymandering includes this line,
2. Voter-suppression. indications are that this may create and even bigger bias than
gerrymandering. it includes numerous tactics, in florida the felon-dienfranchisement tactic
alone suppresses 1.4 million majority black voters. it may be difficult for naive people like
me to imagine the mindset of the vote-suppressors, this excellent short article by meghan
tinsley, sketches the historical origins of these tactics, e.g.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/meghan-tinsley/civil-rights-and-voter-suppression-in-us
" The end of federal support for Reconstruction in 1877 ushered in the Jim Crow era, wherein
southern states waged a relentless campaign of racial terror against empowered black
citizens. From the outset, disenfranchising black citizens was a priority: the Black Codes
enforced severe penalties for minor 'crimes', such as vagrancy, and permanently barred
convicted felons from the vote. As these tactics spread, those who imposed them became
increasingly brazen about their purpose: in 1884, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld felon
disenfranchisement as an effective means to "preserve the purity of the ballot box".
With the entrenchment of segregation in the late nineteenth century, felon
disenfranchisement, combined with poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses,
effectively disenfranchised virtually all African-Americans in Southern states...
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, hailed as the single most important
legislative achievement of the Civil Rights Movement...
The effects were immediate and wide-reaching: whereas only seven percent of eligible
African-Americans in Mississippi were registered to vote in 1964, the number had jumped to
sixty-seven percent by 1969. Ostensibly colourblind policies, including laws that would
require citizens to present state-issued photo identification before voting, were blocked
because they would disproportionately prevent African-Americans from voting."
4. Electronic vote flipping. this has the least hard evidence, but there are anecdotes, even
in this election, of voters in texas ticking straight democratic slate options but finding
that the machine had entered their senate vote for ted cruz. There are also anecdotes in
earlier elections of vote tallies flipping suddenly, of electronic data not being recorded or
being erased before it could be checked and analysed etc. For those inclined to pooh-pooh
such reports, here is a troubling article on the 2012 mexican elections,
Unfortunately, Debsisdead is correct. The United States cannot be fixed. It could be
that Trump knows what's needed and is deliberately trying to set the US on a course towards
sanity using shock treatment, and is deliberately trying to wean America from the petrodollar
in such a manner that Americans have no other country to blame/bomb, thus saving civilization
from America's inevitable spasm of ultraviolence when the BRICS succeed in taking the
petrodollar down. This seems unlikely, though.
The sad reality is that the delusion Americans suffer from (result of their universal
cradle-to-grave brainwashing that I mentioned earlier) is too deeply rooted as a core
component of their identities.
That mass-based delusion must be overcome before America's psychotic behavior on the world
stage can be addressed, but I see no forces within the US making any progress in that
direction at all.
Even the brightest and most humanistic Americans are horribly twisted to appalling
evil by unquestionable faith in their own exceptionalism. As a consequence it could be
that the only hope for humanity lies in a radical USA-ectomy with the resulting stump being
cauterized.
I certainly wish there were some other way, but I don't see one.
(techcrunch.com)
36BeauHD on Monday November 05,
2018 @07:30PM from the he-said-she-said dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from
TechCrunch: An unexpected declaration by whistleblower Edward Snowden filed in court [last]
week adds a new twist in a long-running lawsuit against the NSA's surveillance programs. The
case, filed by the EFF a decade
ago , seeks to challenge the government's alleged illegal and unconstitutional surveillance
of Americans, who are largely covered under the Fourth Amendment's protections against
warrantless searches and seizures. It's a big step forward for the case, which had stalled
largely because the government refused to confirm that a leaked document was authentic or
accurate. News of the surveillance broke in 2006 when an AT&T technician Mark Klein
revealed that the NSA was tapping into AT&T's network backbone. He alleged that a secret,
locked room -- dubbed Room 641A -- in an AT&T facility in San Francisco where he worked was
one of many around the U.S. used by the government to monitor communications -- domestic and
overseas. President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans'
communications shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.
Much of the EFF's complaint relied on Klein's testimony until 2013, when Snowden, a
former NSA contractor, came forward with new revelations that described and detailed the vast
scope of the U.S. government's surveillance capabilities, which included participation
from other phone giants -- including Verizon (TechCrunch's parent company). Snowden's
signed declaration, filed on October 31 ,
confirms that one of the
documents he leaked , which the EFF relied heavily on for its case, is an
authentic draft document written by the then-NSA inspector general in 2009 , which exposed
concerns about the legality of the Bush's warrantless surveillance program -- Stellar Wind --
particularly the collection of bulk email records on Americans. "I read its contents
carefully during my employment," he said in his declaration. "I have a specific and strong
recollection of this document because it indicated to me that the government had been
conducting illegal surveillance."
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
"... "I am more than happy to deliver the $10,000 in cash I received, as part of what I believe was a sting operation to frame me in summer 2017, to your committee to examine for marked bills. This is in the interest of me being fully transparent," he wrote last week on Twitter to North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe. ..."
"... Afraid he might be killed if he didn't accept the money, Papadopoulos took the funds and later contacted Tawil - who allegedly told Papadopoulos he didn't want it back. From there, Papadopoulos gave the cash to his attorney in Greece. Upon his return to the United States several days later, Papadopoulos was arrested on July 28, 2017 at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C., by agents who he believes were looking for the cash. ..."
"... And then when Papadopoulos landed back in America, he was arrested at Dulles International Airport on July 27th. Strangely, he wasn't shown the warrant for his arrest when arrested, and didn't know the reason why until the next day. The $10,000 that Tawil paid Papadopoulos in cash is interesting in this context, as it would be the exact amount of money one would be required to declare at customs. Papadopoulos didn't recall if he was arrested before or after he filled out a customs slip (but didn't have the money on him). - Bongino.com ..."
George Papadopoulos - a central figure and self-admitted dupe in the Obama administration's targeted spying on the Trump campaign,
gave a wide-ranging interview to Dan Bongino on Friday, detailing what he claims to have been a setup by deep state operatives across
the world in order to ultimately infiltrate the Trump campaign.
In March 2016
, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud told Papadopoulos - an energy consultant who had recently joined the Trump campaign - that
Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, a claim which Papadopoulos repeated in May 2016 to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in
a
London bar . Of note, former FBI Assistant Director of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, reportedly
traveled to London directly before Downer
met with Papadopoulos, while a few months later former FBI agent Peter Strzok met with Downer in London directly before the DOJ officially
launched their investigation into the Trump campaign.
The alleged admission about Clinton's emails officially sparked the Obama administration's counterintelligence operation on Trump
on July 31, 2016 - dubbed Operation Crossfire Hurricane. In September 2016, the FBI would send spy Stefan Halper to further probe
Papadopoulos on the Clinton email allegation, and - according to his interview with Dan Bongino, Papadoplous says Halper angrily
accused him of working with Russia before storming out of a meeting.
Halper essentially began interrogating Papadopoulos, saying that it's "obviously in your interest to be working with the Russians"
and to "hack emails." " You're complicit with Russia in this, isn't that right George " Halper told him. Halper also inquired
about Hillary's hacked emails, insinuating that Papadopoulos possessed them. Papadopoulos denied knowing anything about this and
asked to be left alone. -
Bongino.com
There are two schools of thought on Papadopoulos and his relationship with Mifsud - the first link in the chain regarding the
Clinton email rumor. Notably, Mifsud claimed
last November to be a member of the Clinton Foundation, and has
donated to the charity.
The first theory is that Mifsud and Papadopoulos are Russian agents, and that Papadopoulos was used to try and establish a backchannel
to Putin.
Papadopoulos admits he tried to set up a Trump-Putin meeting - which was flatly rejected by the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos,
however, claims the Putin connection was a woman Mifsud introduced him to claiming to be Putin's niece, who was present at a March
24, 2016 meeting.
The second theory regarding Mifsud is that he was a deep state plant working with the FBI; convincing Papadopoulos that he could
arrange a meeting with members of the Russian government and then seeding Papadopoulos with the Clinton email rumor. From there,
as the theory goes, the "deep state" attempted to pump Papadopoulos for information and set up a case against him - beginning with
Alexander Downer and the "drunken" confession in London.
Papadopoulos told Bongino that he wasn't drunk during his meeting with Downer, and that he was being recorded . Papadopoulos noted
during the Bongino interview that transcripts of his meetings with Mifsud and Dower reportedly exist - which he says proves that
he was set up. According to Papadopoulos, Mifsud's lawyer said that he's not a Russian asset and was instead working for Western
intelligence.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying the FBI about his interactions with Mifsud, and was sentenced to 14 days in federal prison
and a $9,500 fine.
$10,000 cash
Papadopoulos also told Bongino about $10,000 in cash that he was given in an Israel hotel room in July 2017 - which he claims
was another attempt to set him up. He says that he believes the bills were marked, and is looking for a way to bring the cash into
the United States for Congressional investigators to analyze. The cash is currently with his attorney in Greece.
"I'm actually trying to bring that money back somehow so that Congress can investigate it because I am 100 percent sure those
are marked bills, and to see who was actually running this operation against me," Papadopoulos gold Bongino.
"I am more than happy to deliver the $10,000 in cash I received, as part of what I believe was a sting operation to frame me in
summer 2017, to your committee to examine for marked bills. This is in the interest of me being fully transparent," he wrote last
week on Twitter to North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe.
The two Republicans are members of a congressional task force investigating the FBI's investigation into possible collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia. The task force interviewed Papadopoulos on Oct. 25.
Papadopoulos acknowledged in his interview with Bongino that his claims about his encounters with an Israeli-American businessman
named Charles Tawil were "an incredible, insane story."
"But it's true," he asserted.
Papadopoulos told Bongino the he believes that Tawil "was working on behalf of Western intelligence to entrap me."
Papadopoulos does not have direct evidence that Tawil was working on behalf of a Western government when they met in March
and July 2017. Instead, Papadopoulos is speculating based on what he says is the peculiar circumstances of his encounters with
Tawil as well as his meetings with at least one known FBI informant. -
Daily Caller
Afraid he might be killed if he didn't accept the money, Papadopoulos took the funds and later contacted Tawil - who allegedly
told Papadopoulos he didn't want it back. From there, Papadopoulos gave the cash to his attorney in Greece. Upon his return to the
United States several days later, Papadopoulos was arrested on July 28, 2017 at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C.,
by agents who he believes were looking for the cash.
And then when Papadopoulos landed back in America, he was arrested at Dulles International Airport on July 27th. Strangely,
he wasn't shown the warrant for his arrest when arrested, and didn't know the reason why until the next day. The $10,000 that
Tawil paid Papadopoulos in cash is interesting in this context, as it would be the exact amount of money one would be required
to declare at customs. Papadopoulos didn't recall if he was arrested before or after he filled out a customs slip (but didn't
have the money on him). -
Bongino.com
At minimum, one should set aside an hour for the Bongino-Papadopoulos interview if only to hear his version of events.
Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is how George was able to end up with such a hot Italian (not Russian) wife:
"... Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion. ..."
"... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power. ..."
"... The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US. ..."
"... Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election. ..."
"... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence. ..."
"... As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net . ..."
With Jair Bolsonaro's victory in Brazil's presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump's, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.
The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump's election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western "analysts" and "experts" are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.
Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the "free press" – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.
Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:
"The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes."
This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity's id.
Selling plutocracy
There is a kind of truth in Jenkins' argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social
media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not
simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by
their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media
class expected.
Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much
to lose.
But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political
scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have
kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.
Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an
intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.
The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their
unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell
wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction;
the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of
wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts
funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary
austerity; and so on.
A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially
in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like
identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule
dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and
rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.
Fear of the domino effect
Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a
far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They
prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect
their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class
privilege, the real basis of the elite's power.
The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not
control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms
manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that
smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the
US.
Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because
powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the
key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and
without – from the moment of their election.
Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined
to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a
much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.
The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist
governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no
interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of
the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more
violence.
Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to
overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his "reforms". No one will
stop him creaming off Brazil's wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet's Chile,
Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with
neoliberalism.
Immune system
If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media
gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro's political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social
democratic leader of Britain's Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social
media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also
the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years
– since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep
someone like him from power.
The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it
has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.
Within days of Corbyn's election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the
voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it
refused to name, warning that the British army's commanders had agreed they would sabotage a
Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.
We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the
façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies
were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like
Corbyn much earlier.
Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy
the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even
treasonous.
But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success,
the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right's
defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left's
Achille's heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to
erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.
Slash-and-burn politics
Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life,
because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different
way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he
articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over
us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.
The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep
sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you
get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.
It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion
of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself
ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that
the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has
fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser
instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is
impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.
Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their
leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite's enrichment requires their poverty. They
have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our
only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.
Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of
the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media
have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have
taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate
and disillusioned public.
Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper
steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer
society, who prioritises mending what is broken.
The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their
credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him.
Bolsonaro is their monster.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
by Chris Bertram on October 31, 2018 Candice Delmas, A
Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Political obligation has always been a somewhat unsatisfactory topic in political
philosophy, as has, relatedly, civil disobedience. The "standard view" of civil disobedience,
to be found in Rawls, presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious
violations of the basic liberties yet occur and conceives of civil disobedience as a deliberate
act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave
wrong to our fellow citizens. To demonstrate their fidelity to law, civil disobedients are
willing to accept the consequences of their actions and to take their punishment. When Rawls
first wrote about civil disobedience, in 1964, parts of the US were openly and flagrantly
engaged in the violent subordination of their black population, so it was quite a stretch for
him to think of that society as "nearly just". But perhaps its injustice impinged less
obviously on a white professor at an elite university in Massachusetts than it did on poor
blacks in the deep South.
The problems with the standard account hardly stop there. Civil disobedience thus conceived
is awfully narrow. In truth, the range of actions which amount to resistance to the state and
to unjust societies is extremely broad, running from ordinary political opposition, through
civil disobedience to disobedience that is rather uncivil, through sabotage, hacktivism,
leaking, whistle-blowing, carrying out Samaritan assistance in defiance of laws that prohibit
it, striking, occupation, violent resistance, violent revolution, and, ultimately, terrorism.
For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly
just" society, we need a better theory, one which tells us whether Black Lives Matter activists
are justified or whether antifa can punch Richard Spencer. Moreover, we need a theory that
tells us not only what we may do but also what we are obliged to do: when is standing by in the
face of injustice simply not morally permissible.
Step forward Candice Delmas with her superb and challenging book The Duty to Resist:
When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press). Delmas points out the
manifold shortcomings of the standard account and how it is often derived from taking the
particular tactics of the civil rights movement and turning pragmatic choices into moral
principles. Lots of acts of resistance against unjust societies, in order to be effective, far
from being communicative, need to be covert. Non-violence may be an effective strategy, but
sometimes those resisting state injustice have a right to defend themselves. [click
to continue ]
Hidari 10.31.18 at 3:41 pm (no link)
Strangely enough, the link I was looking at immediately before I clicked on the OP, was this:
It would be interesting to see a philosopher's view on whether or not civil disobedience
was necessary, and to what extent, to prevent actions that will lead to the end of our
species.
Ebenezer Scrooge 10.31.18 at 4:52 pm (no link)
Two points:
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher
for nothing but speech acts.
I have no idea who Candice Delmas is, but "Delmas" is a French name. The French have a very
different attitude toward civil disobedience than we do.
Moz of Yarramulla 10.31.18 at 11:23 pm (no link)
civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character,
which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens.
I think that's a pretty narrow view of civil disobedience even if you just count the
actions of the protesters. Often NVDA is aimed at or merely accepts that a violent response
is inevitable. The resistance at Parihaka, for example, was in no doubt that the response
would be military and probably lethal. And Animal Liberation are often classified as
terrorists by the US and UK governments while murderers against abortion are not.
Which is to say that the definition of "nonviolent" is itself an area of conflict, with
some taking the Buddhist extremist position that any harm or even inconvenience to any living
thing makes an action violent, and others saying that anything short of genocide can be
nonviolent (and then there are the "intention is all" clowns). Likewise terrorism, most
obviously of late the Afghani mujahideen when they transitioned from being revolutionaries to
terrorists when the invader changed.
In Australia we have the actual government taking the view that any action taken by a
worker or protester that inconveniences a company is a criminal act and the criminal must
both compensate the company (including consequential damages) as well as facing jail time.
tasmania and
NSW and of course the anti-union
laws . The penalties suggest they're considered crimes of violence, as does the
rhetoric.
Moz of Yarramulla 11.01.18 at 12:13 am (no link)
Jeff@11
one should never legitimize any means toward social change that you would not object to
seeing used by your mortal enemies.
Are you using an unusual definition of "mortal enemy" here? Viz, other than "enemy that
wants to kill you"? Even US law has theoretical prohibitions on expressing that
intention.
It's especially odd since we're right now in the middle of a great deal of bad-faith use
of protest techniques by mortal enemies. "free speech" used to protect Nazi rallies,
"academic freedom" to defend anti-science activists, "non-violent protest" used to describe
violent attacks, "freedom of religion" used to excuse terrorism, the list goes on.
In Australia we have a 'proud boys' leader coming to Australia who has somehow managed to
pass the character test imposed by our government. He's the leader of a gang that requires an
arrest for violence as a condition of membership and regularly says his goal is to incite
others to commit murder. It seems odd that our immigration minister has found those things to
be
not disqualifying while deporting someone for merely
associating with a vaguely similar gang , but we live in weird times.
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius
Streicher for nothing but speech acts.
I do remember that*, but it's not clear to me why you think it's important to remember it
in this context. If somebody who had fatally punched a Nazi speaker were prosecuted for
murder, I doubt that 'he was a Nazi speaker' would be accepted as a defence on the basis of
the Streicher precedent.
*Strictly speaking, I don't remember it as something that 'we' did: I wasn't born at the
time, and it's not clear to me who you mean by 'we'. (Streicher himself probably would have
said that it was the Jews, or possibly the Jews and the Bolsheviks, who were hanging him, but
I don't suppose that would be your view.) However, I'm aware of the events you're referring
to, which is the real point.
Rawls presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations
of the basic liberties yet occur For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where
we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory
People need to stop spreading this misinterpretation about Rawls on civil disobedience, which
I've seen several places in the past few years. Rawls focuses on the case of a nearly just
society not because he thinks it's the only case in which you can engage in civil
disobedience but because he thinks it's the only case in which there are difficulties with
justifying it. He states this very clearly in A Theory of Justice : in cases where the
society is not nearly just, there are no difficulties in justifying civil disobedience or
even sometimes armed resistance. His natural duty account is not put forward as a general
theory of civil disobedience but to argue that civil disobedience can admit of justification
even in the case in which it is hardest to justify.
I'm not a fan of Rawls myself, but I don't know how he could possibly have been more clear
on this, since he makes all these points explicitly.
LFC 11.02.18 at 12:45 am (no link)
J-D @18
The Nuremberg tribunal was set up and staffed by the U.S., Britain, USSR, and France; so
whether Ebenezer's "we" was intended to refer to the four countries collectively or just to
the U.S., it's clear who hanged Streicher et al., and the tone of your comment on this point
is rather odd.
anon 11.02.18 at 4:23 pm (no link)
Resisting by protesting is OK.
However, here in the USA, actual legislation creating laws is done by our elected
representatives.
So if you're an Amaerican and really want Social Change and aren't just posturing or
'virtue signaling' make sure you vote in the upcoming election.
I'm afraid too many will think that their individual vote won't 'matter' or the polls show
it isn't needed or some other excuse to justify not voting. Please do not be that person.
Don Berinati 11.02.18 at 5:06 pm (no link)
Recently re-reading '1968' by Kurlansky and he repeatedly made this point about protests
– that to be effective they had to get on television (major networks, not like our
youtube, I think, so it would be seen by the masses in order to sway them) and to do that the
acts had to be outlandish because they were competing for network time. This increasingly led
to violent acts, which almost always worked in getting on the news, but flew in the face of
King's and others peaceful methods.
So, maybe punching out a Nazi is the way to change people's minds or at least get them to
think about stuff.
33 Trillion Reasons Why The New York Times Gets It Wrong on Russia-gate
Facebook Said 80,000 Russian Posts Were Buried in 33 Trillion Facebook Offerings Over
Two-Year Period Further Undermining NYT ·s Case
by Gareth Porter Posted on
November 05, 2018 November 3, 2018 Even more damning evidence has come to light
undermining The New York Times ' assertion in September that Russia used social media
to steal the 2016 election for Donald Trump.
The Times '
claim last month that Russian Facebook posts reached nearly as many Americans as actually
voted in the 2016 election exaggerated the significance of those numbers by a factor of
hundreds of millions, as revealed by further evidence from Facebook's own Congressional
testimony.
Further research into an earlier Consortium News
article shows that a relatively paltry 80,000 posts from the private Russian company
Internet Research Agency (IRA) were engulfed in literally trillions of posts on
Facebook over a two-year period before and after the 2016 vote.
That was supposed to have thrown the election, according to the paper of record. In its
10,000-word
article on Sept. 20, the Times reported that 126 million out of 137 million
American voters were exposed to social media posts on Facebook from IRA that somehow had a
hand in delivering Trump the presidency.
The newspaper said: "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media, the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
alone." The paper argued that 126 million was "not far short of the 137 million people
who would vote in the 2016 presidential election."
But Consortium News , on Oct. 10,
debunked that story, pointing out that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti failed to
report several significant caveats and disclaimers from Facebook officers themselves, whose
statements make the Times' claim that Russian election propaganda "reached" 126
million Americans an exercise in misinformation.
The newspaper failed to tell their readers that Facebook account holders in the United
States had been "served" 33 trillion Facebook posts during that same period -- 413 million
times more than the 80,000 posts from the Russian company.
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on October 31, 2017 is a far cry from what the Times claims. "Our best
estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of
these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. He said
an estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story
from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period, but over 194 weeks during the
two years 2015 through 2017 – including a full year after the election.
That means only an estimated 29 million FB users may have gotten at least one story
in their feed in two years. The 126 million figure is based only on an assumption that they
shared it with others, according to Stretch.
Facebook didn't even claim most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election–related. It
offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people were.
In addition, Facebook's Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri,
acknowledged in 2016 that FB subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA
stories that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually
read.
And now, according to the further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA
ads – let alone were influenced by them – are even more astronomical. In his Oct.
2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, "Americans using Facebook were exposed
to, or 'served,' a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds."
To put the 33 trillion figure over two years in perspective, the 80,000 Russian-origin
Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.
Shane and Mazzetti did not report the 33 trillion number even though The New York
Times ' own coverage of that 2017 Stretch testimony explicitly
stated , "Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount
of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users' News Feeds
everyday."
The Times ' touting of the bogus 126 million out 137 million voters, while not
reporting the 33 trillion figure, should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most
spectacularly misleading uses of statistics of all time.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. He can be contacted
at [email protected] .
Reprinted from Consortium
News with the author's permission.
by Justin Raimondo Posted on
November 05, 2018 November 4, 2018 After all the screaming headlines and hysterical talk
of "treason," the Russia-gate hoax was almost entirely absent from the midterms. One would
think that the other party being in the hands of a ruthless foreign dictator who has it in
for America would be a major campaign issue – that is, if the Democrats actually
believed their own propaganda. However, we've seen neither hide nor hair of Putin in all
those campaign ads, or at least hardly a glance: that's because Russia-gate has always been a
fraud, a setup, and really a criminal conspiracy to take down a sitting US President on the
basis of a gigantic lie.
As the promulgators of that lie are exposed – the Deep State amalgam that includes
foreign intelligence agencies as well as Trump's domestic opponents – Democrats are
backing away from what has suddenly become, for them, a very messy narrative. For what has
happened is that the narrative has turned on them, and now implicates them in a massive
scheme to embroil the Trump campaign in a web of foreign influencers.
The campaign to penetrate the Trump campaign appears to have been initiated abroad as much
as it was started by the Clinton campaign – who inherited the operation from a very
mysterious Republican donor after the GOP primaries. The "former" MI6 agent Christopher
Steele, now working for an ostensibly independent spy network, didn't consider the job of
digging up dirt on Trump just a normal job: he was passionately dedicated to stopping Trump
from ever reaching the White House. One can easily impute the same motivations to the little
group that took it upon themselves to break into the Trump campaign and put it under
surveillance, all of them attached to British intelligence:
Cambridge professor and foreign policy maven Stefan Halper ,
with longtime connections to MI6 and the CIA, who made a point of approaching the Trump
campaign early on and offering his "services." He later cultivated George Papadoupoulos, a
low-level aide to the campaign then living in London.
Sir Richard
Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who advised the spy ring and helped pass their
information to US government authorities, is very close to Halper.
"Professor"
Joseph Mifsud , a mysterious figure who first introduced target George Pappadoupolos to
the idea that the Russians had incriminating material on Hillary Clinton, and who has since
mysteriously disappeared (although his lawyer seems to know where he is).
Alexander Downer , formerly Australia's ambassador to the UK, arranged to meet a low
level Trump advisor in a London bar and reportedly learned about Mifsud's contention.
Downer went to the FBI, and Operation Regime Change, Washington, was launched.
That's just the tip of the iceberg: the "intelligence community" has its tentacles
everywhere, and while this has always been the case today our spooks are getting more brazen
than ever before. As an indication of their evolution from government agencies charged with
protecting the country into a coherent and very organized political force, a good number of
these former agents ran as Democratic candidates for Congress on a platform of hurt feelings.
"As someone who is from the intelligence community," former spook and Democratic
congressional candidate Elissa Slotkin
whines , "it is worrisome the way that President Trump has demonized the institutions
where people are working hard every day to keep us safe." The American reverence for the
military doesn't extend to the clandestine services: the public knows too much about their
history of dirty tricks, assassinations, and regime-change antics abroad to trust them much
on the home front.
Slotkin's lament is part and parcel of the great ideological shift when it comes to
matters of national security: it is the Democrats who are now the party of militarism, which
is the natural corollary of the globalist mentality that drives the "progressive" agenda.
These candidates, however, are operating at a disadvantage, as Russia-gate proves to be a
mirage and Robert Mueller continues to produce a bunch of low-level indictments that have
nothing to do with Russian "collusion."
The
polling on the Russia-gate "scandal" puts it somewhere between the 49 th and
the 100 th concern of voters, a number that dramatizes the great gulf that has
opened up between ordinary folks and the political class. The former are barely aware of
Russia-gate: even now, all knowledge of it is fading from their memories. The latter have
been obsessed with Russia-gate for two solid years – and now, when the narrative has
all but fallen apart and the only people left at the party are Louise Mensch and some guy who
keeps saying " It's time for some game
theory! ", will once respectable outlets like The New Yorker admit that they have
covered themselves in shame?
A NOTE TO MY READERS: I apologize for this rather short column, but I am still
recovering from an unfortunate relapse that has made it hard for me to do anything, let alone
write. This glitch was due to a change in my medication, which has now been corrected.
However, this also means I'm back to square one: the heavy chemotherapy in addition to the
Keytruda. I'm making a lot of progress recently and I expect to continue to improve.
Meanwhile, bear with me: the best is yet to come.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
The actions that are taken are a three-pronged attack in order to foster in global
governance, and they are as such:
Create ubiquitous electronic surveillance with unlimited police power
Throw the entire earth into an economic tailspin
Destroy all nationalism, national borders, and create chaos among all nations prior to an
"incendiary event" or series of actions that leads to a world war.
The world war is the most important part of it all, in the eyes of the globalists. The Great
Depression culminated in a world war, and periods of economic upheaval are always followed by
wars.
... ... ...
Every word here is recorded by XKeyscore mine and yours and stored in the NSA database in
Utah, under a file for "dissenters," "agitators," and every other descriptive label that can be
thought of for those who champion critical thought and independent thinking. Every
conservative-minded journalist or writer who dares to espouse these views and theories is being
recorded and kept under some kind of watch. You can be certain of it . Many are either shutting
down or "knuckling under" and complying.
The globalists are getting what they wish: consolidating the resources while they "tank" the
fiat economies and currencies of the nations. They are destroying cultures who just a mere two
centuries ago would have armed their entire male populaces with swords and sent invaders either
packing or in pieces.
They are destroying cultures by making them question themselves ! The greatest tactic
imaginable!
I submit this last for your perusal. Do you know who you are? The question is not just as
simple as it seems. Let's delve deeply. Do you really know who you are, where your family
originates? Your heritage, and its strengths and weaknesses? Is that heritage yours, along with
your heritage as an American citizen? It is not important that I, or others should know of
these strengths not at this moment in time. The world war is yet to come. As Shakespeare said,
"To thine own self be true." This is important for you to know it and hold fast to it. We are
in the decline of the American nation-now-empire.
When the dust settles, you'll know who will run with the ball even with three blockers
against them and will manage to slip the tackles or forearm shiver them in the face, outside of
the ref's eye, to run that ball in. The Marquis of Queensbury is dead, and those rules will go
out the window. When the dust settles, those who had the foresight and acted on it will be the
ones who will be given a gift: a chance to participate in what is to come. Stay in that good
fight, and fight it to win each day.
"... What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like? ..."
"... "You stupid Wap, you just scratched my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." ..."
"... That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned Democrat libtards. ..."
LP: You've recently highlighted that this is a
tricky time for historians and those who want to examine the past, like filmmakers.
Well-intentioned people who want to confront the injustices of history may end up replacing one
set of myths for another. You point out the distortion of history in films like "Selma" which
offer uplifting narratives about black experiences but tend to leave out or alter meaningful
facts, such as the ways in which blacks and whites have worked together. This is ostensibly
done to avoid a "white savior" narrative but you indicate that it may serve to support other
ideas that are also troubling.
AR: Exactly, and in ways that are completely compatible with neoliberalism as a style of
contemporary governance. It boils down to the extent to which the notion that group disparities
have come to exhaust the ways that people think and talk about inequality and injustice in
America now.
It's entirely possible to resolve disparities without challenging the fundamental structures
that reproduce inequalities more broadly. As my friend Walter Benn Michaels and I have been
saying for at least a decade, by the standard of disparity as the norm or the ideal of social
justice, a society in which 1% of the population controls more than 90% of the resources would
be just, so long as the 1% is made up non-whites, non-straight people, women, and so on in
proportions that roughly match their representation in the general population.
It completely rationalizes neoliberalism. You see this in contemporary discussions about
gentrification, for example. What ends up being called for is something like showing respect
for the aboriginal habitus and practices and involving the community in the process. But what
does it mean to involve the community in the process? It means opening up spaces for
contractors, black and Latino in particular, in the gentrified areas who purport to represent
the interests of the populations that are being displaced. But that has no impact on the logic
of displacement. It just expands access to the trough, basically.
I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in the
revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted. The argument is that it's bad because there
are disparities that it doesn't address. In the first place, that's not as true as they think
it might be, but there's also the fact that they can't or won't see how a struggle for
universal health care could be the most effective context for trying to struggle against
structural disparities. It's just mind-boggling.
LP: If politicians continue to focus on issues like race, xenophobia, and homophobia without
delivering practical solutions to the economic problems working people face, from health care
costs to the retirement crisis to student debt, could we end up continuing to move in the
direction of fascism? I don't use the word lightly.
AR: I don't either. And I really agree with you. I was a kid in a basically red household in
the McCarthy era. I have no illusions about what the right is capable of, what the bourgeoisie
is capable of, and what the liberals are capable of. In the heyday of the New Left, when people
were inclined to throw the fascist label around, I couldn't get into it. But for the first time
in my life, I think it's not crazy to talk about it. You have to wonder if Obama, who never
really offered us a thing in the way of a new politics except his race, after having done that
twice, had set the stage for Trump and whatever else might be coming.
Thanks, Yves. For decades now Reed has set the standard for integrating class-based
politics with anti-racism. I only wish Barbara Fields, whom he mentions, could get as much
air time.
Those who argue for identity-based tests of fairness (e.g. all categories of folks are
proportionately represented in the 1%) fail to think through means and ends. They advocate
the ends of such proportionality. They don't get that broad measures to seriously reduce
income and wealth inequality (that is, a class approach) are powerful means to the very end
they wish for. If, e.g., the bottom 50% actually had half (heck, even 30 to 40%) of income
and wealth, the proportionality of different groups in any socioeconomic tier would be much
higher than it is today.
There are other means as well. But the point is that identity-driven folks strip their own
objective of it's most useful tools for it's own accomplishment.
In reading this, my mind was drawn back to an article that was in links recently about a
Tea Party politician that ended up being sent to the slammer. He was outraged to learn that
at the prison that he was at, the blacks and the whites were deliberately set against each
other in order to make it easier for the guards to rule the prison.
It is a bit like this in this article when you see people being unable to get past the
black/white thing and realize that the real struggle is against the elite class that rules
them all. I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole
Trump-supporters-are-racists meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote
the way that they did, then they would find common cause with people that others would write
off as deplorable and therefore unsalvageable.
Howard Zinn, in " A Peoples' History of the United States" makes a similar argument about
the origins of racism in southern colonial America. The plantation owners and slave owners
promoted racism among the working class whites towards blacks to prevent them ( the working
class blacks and whites) from making common cause against the aristocratic economic system
that oppressed both whites and blacks who did not own property.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation owners
from slave revolts.
The entire book is an eye-opening story of class struggle throughout US history.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation
owners from slave revolts.
The militias were the bulk of the military, if the not the military, for large periods of
time for all of the British American Colonies for centuries. The colonists were in fairly
isolated, often backwater, places for much of the time. Between the constant small scale
warfare with the natives and the various threats from the French and Spanish military, there
was a need for some form of local (semi) organized military. It was the British government's
understandable belief that the colonists should pay at least some of the expensive costs of
the soldiers and forts that were put in place to protect them during and after the Seven
Years War that was the starting step to the revolution; the origins of modern American
policing especially in the South has its genesis in the Slave Patrols although there was some
form of police from the start throughout the Colonies form the very beginning even if it was
just a local sheriff. The constant theme of the police's murderous brutality is a legacy of
that. The Second Amendment is a result of both the colonists/revolutionarie's loathing, even
hatred, of a potentially dictatorial standing army of any size and the slave holders'
essential need to control the slaves and to a lesser degree the poor whites.
people gang up (in racial groups – maybe that's just easiest though it seems to have
systematic encouragement) in prison for protection I think. The protection is not purely from
guards. There are riots in which one could get seriously injured (stabbed), one could get
attacked otherwise etc.. Because basic physical safety of one's person is not something they
provide in prison, maybe quite deliberately so.
"I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole Trump-supporters-are-racists
meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote the way that they did, then
they would find common cause with people that others would write off as deplorable and
therefore unsalvageable."
In those for whom poverty caused them to vote for Trump. But some voted for Trump due to
wealth. And whites overall have more wealth than blacks and so overall (not every individual)
are the beneficiaries of unearned wealth and privilege and that too influences their view of
the world (it causes them to side more with the status quo). Blacks are the most economically
liberal group in America. The thing is can one really try simultaneously to understand even
some of say the black experience in America and try hard to understand the Trump voter at the
same time? Because if a minority perceives those who voted for Trump as a personal threat to
them are they wrong? If they perceive Republican economic policies (and many have not changed
under Trump such as cutting government) as a personal threat to them are they wrong? So some
whites find it easier to sympathize with Trump voters, well they would wouldn't they, as the
problems of poor whites more directly relate to problems they can understand. But so
what?
I am glad that Reed mentioned the quasi-religious nature of identity politics, especially
in its liberal form. Michael Lind made a similar observation:
As a lapsed Methodist myself, I think there is also a strong undercurrent of
Protestantism in American identity politics, particularly where questions of how to promote
social justice in a post-racist society are concerned. Brazil and the United States are
both former slave societies, with large black populations that have been frozen out of
wealth and economic opportunity. In the United States, much of the discussion about how to
repair the damage done by slavery and white supremacy involves calls on whites to examine
themselves and confess their moral flaws -- a very Protestant approach, which assumes that
the way to establish a good society is to ensure that everybody has the right moral
attitude. It is my impression that the left in Brazil, lacking the Protestant puritan
tradition, is concerned more with practical programs, like the bolsa familia -- a cash
grant to poor families -- than with attitudinal reforms among the privileged.
Many white liberals are mainline Protestants or former Protestants and I think they bring
their religious sensibilities to their particular brand of liberalism. You can see it in the
way that many liberals claim that we cannot have economic justice until we eliminate racist
attitudes as when Hillary Clinton stated that breaking up the big banks won't end racism. Of
course, if we define racism as a sinful attitude it is almost impossible to know if we have
eliminated it or if we can even eliminate it at all.
Clinton and liberals like her make essentially the same argument that conservatives make
when they say that we cannot have big economic reforms because the problem is really greed.
Once you define the problem as one of sin then you can't really do anything to legislate
against it. Framing political problems as attitudinal is a useful way to protect powerful
interests. How do you regulate attitudes? How do you break up a sinful mind? How can you even
know if a person has racism on the brain but not economic anxiety? Can you even separate the
two? Politicians need to take voters as they are and not insist that they justify themselves
before voting for them.
I thought this reference to the Protestant way of self-justification or absolving oneself
without talking about class in the US is true but was perhaps the weakest point. The
financial elites justify their position and excuse current inequalities and injustices
visiting on the 99% by whatever is the current dominate culturally approved steps in whatever
country. In the US – Protestant heritage; in India – not Protestant heritage; in
Italy – Catholic heritage, etc. Well, of course they do. This isn't surprising in the
least. Each country's elites excuse themselves in a way that prevents change by whatever
excuses are culturally accepted.
I think talking about the Protestant heritage in the US is a culturing interesting artifact
of this time and this place, but runs the danger of creating another "identity" issue in
place of class and financial issues if the wider world's elite and similar self excuse by
non-Protestant cultures aren't included in the example. Think of all the ways the various
religions have been and are used to justify economic inequality. Without the wider scope the
religious/cultural point risks becoming reduced to another "identity" argument; whereas, his
overall argument is that "identity" is a distraction from class and economic inequality
issues. my 2 cents.
Chris Hedges has been warning about the rise of American Fascism for years, and his
warnings are coming to fruition- and still, the general population fails to recognize the
danger. The evils and violence that are the hallmarks of fascist rule are for other people,
not Americans. The terms America and Freedom are so ingrained in the minds of citizens that
the terms are synonymous. Reality is understood and interpreted through this distorted lens.
People want and need to believe this falsehood and resist any messenger trying to enlighten
them to a different interpretation of reality- the true view is just to painful to
contemplate.
The horrors of racism offer a nugget of truth that can misdirect any effort to bring about
systemic change. Like the flow of water finding the path of least resistance, racist
explanations for current social problems creates a channel of thought that is difficult to
alter. This simple single mindedness prevents a more holistic and complicated interpretation
to take hold in the public mind. It is the easy solution for all sides- the tragedy is that
violence, in the end, sorts out the "winners". The world becomes a place where competing
cultures are constantly at each others throats.
Falling in the racism/ identity politics trap offers the elite many avenues to leverage
their power, not the least of which is that when all else fails, extreme violence can be
resorted to. The left/progressives have become powerless because they fail to understand this
use of ultimate force and have not prepared their followers to deal with it. Compromise has
been the strategy for decades and as time has proven, only leads to more exploitation. Life
becomes a personal choice between exploiting others, or being exploited. The whole system
reeks of hypocrisy because the real class divisions are never discussed or understood for
what they are. This seems to be a cyclical process, where the real leaders of revolutionary
change are exterminated or compromised, then the dissatisfaction in the working classes is
left to build until the next crisis point is reached.
WWIII is already under way and the only thing left is to see if the imperialist ideology
will survive or not. True class struggle should lead to world peace- not world domination.
Fascists are those that seek war as a means of violent expansion and extermination to suit
their own ends. Hope for humanity rests in the idea of a multipolar world- the end of
imperialism.
Agressive war is the problem, both on the small social scale and the larger stage between
nations. The main question is if citizens will allow themselves to be swept up into the
deceptions that make war possible, or defend themselves and whatever community they can form
to ensure that mass destruction can be brought under control.
The real crisis point for America will be brought about by the loss of foreign wars- which
seem inevitable. The citizenry will be forced to accept a doubling down on the existing
failures or will show the fortitude to accept failure and defeat and rebuild our country.
Seeking a mythic greatness is not the answer- only a true and sober evaluation will suffice-
it must be a broader accommodation that accepts responsibility for past wrongs but does not
get caught up in narrow, petty solutions that racist recriminations are hallmark. What is
needed is a framework for a truth and reconciliation process- but such a process is only
possible by a free people, not a conquered one. It is only on this foundation that an
American culture can survive.
This will take a new enlightenment that seems questionable, at least in the heart of
American Empire. It entails a reexamination of what freedom means and the will to dedicate
oneself to building something worth defending with ones life. It has nothing to do with
wanting to kill others or making others accept a particular view.
It is finding ones place in the world, and defending it, and cultivating it. It is the
opposite of conquest. It is the resistance to hostility. In a word, Peace.
I don't disagree with many of your assertions and their warrants but I am growing
disturbed by the many uses of the word 'Fascism'. What does the word mean exactly beyond its
pejorative uses? Searching the web I am only confused by the proliferation of meanings. I
believe it's time for some political or sociological analyst to cast off the words 'fascism'
and 'totalitarianism' and further the work that Hannah Arendt started. We need a richer
vocabulary and a deeper analysis of the political, social, philosophical, and human contents
of the concepts of fascism and of totalitarianism. World War II was half-a-century ago. We
have many more examples called fascism and totalitarianism to study and must study to further
refine exactly what kinds of Evil we are discussing and hope to fight. What purpose is served
sparring with the ghosts as new more virulent Evils proliferate.
You have brought up a very important point. The meaning of words and their common usage.
But I have to disagree that "new more virulent Evils" require a new terminology. To my mind,
that plays right into the hand of Evil. The first step in the advancement of evil is the
debasement of language- the spreading of lies and obfuscating true meaning. George Orwell's
doublespeak.
I don't think its a matter of casting off the usage of words, or the creative search to
coin new ones, but to reclaim words. Now the argument can be made that once a word is
debased, it looses its descriptive force- its moral force- and that is what I take as your
concern, however, words are used by people to communicate meaning, and this is where the easy
abandonment of words to their true meaning becomes a danger for the common good. You cannot
let someone hijack your language. A communities strength depends on its common use and
understanding of language.
Where to find that common meaning? Without the perspective of class struggle taken into
account- to orientate the view- this search will be fruitless. Without a true grounding,
words can mean anything. I believe, in America, this is where the citizenry is currently, in
a state of disorientation that has been building for decades. This disorientation is caused
by DoubleSpeak undermining common understanding that is brought about by class consciousness/
solidarity/ community. In a consumerist society, citizens take for granted that they are lied
to constantly- words and images have no real meaning- or multiple meanings playing on the
persons sensibilities at any given moment- all communication becomes fundamentally marketing
and advertising BS.
This sloppiness is then transferred into the political realm of social communication which
then transforms the social dialog into a meaningless exercise because there is really no
communication going on- only posturing and manipulation. Public figures have both private and
public views. They are illegitimate public servants not because they withhold certain
information, but because they hold contradictory positions expressed in each realm. They are
liars and deceivers in the true sense of the word, and don't deserve to be followed or
believed- let alone given any elevated social standing or privilege.
Your oppressor describes himself as your benefactor- or savior- and you believe them, only
to realize later that you have been duped. Repeat the cycle down through the ages.
DoubleSpeak and controlling the interpretation of History are the tools of exercising
power. It allows this cycle to continue.
Breaking this cycle will require an honesty and sense of empathy that directs action.
Fighting evil directly is a loosing game. You more often than not become that which you
fight against. Directly confronting evil requires a person to perform evil deeds.
Perpetuation of War is the perfect example. It must be done indirectly by not performing evil
actions or deeds. Your society takes on a defensive posture, not an aggressive one. Defense
and preservation are the motivating principles.
Speaking the truth, and working toward peace is the only way forward. A new language and
modes of communication can build themselves up around those principles.
Protecting oneself against evil seems to be the human condition. How evil is defined
determines the class structure of any given society.
So much energy is wasted on trying to convince evil people not to act maliciously, which
will never happen. It is what makes them evil- it is who they are. And too much time is
wasted listening to evil people trying to convince others that they are not evil- or their
true intensions are beneficent- which is a lie.
"Sparing with ghosts", is a good way of describing the reclaiming of historical fact. Of
belief in the study of history as a means to improve society and all of humankind thru
reflection and reevaluation. The exact opposite desire of an elite class- hell bent on self
preservation as their key motivating factor in life. If you never spar with ghosts, you have
no reference to evaluate the person standing before you- which can prove deadly- as must be
constantly relearned by generations of people exploited by the strong and powerful.
The breaking point of any society is how much falsehood is tolerated- and in the West
today- that is an awful lot.
"I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in
the revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted "
Check to see how their parents or other relatives made or make their money.
This is quite the challenge. I know a large number of upper middle class young people who
are amenable to the socialist message but don't really get (or don't get at all) what it
means. (I'm convinced they make up a large portion of that percentage that identifies as
socialist or has a positive image of socialism.) But it would be wrong to write them off.
A related point that I make here from time to time: all these UMC kids have been
inculcated with a hyper-competitive world view. We need a systemic re-education program to
break them free.
as a complementary anecdote, i know of economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life.
To them, the academic/ivory tower/abstract idea of equality in class, equality in income
is an idealistic pipe dream versus the dog-eat-dog reality of the world.
Interesting that you mention "economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of [low income?] free-riders,
cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life."
I read a lot of their snarling against alleged low income "moochers" in the local media.
What I find disturbing is their near total blindness to the for-profit businesses,
millionaires and billionaires who raid public treasuries and other resources on a regular
basis.
Just recently, I read a news story about the local baseball franchise that got $135
million dollars (they asked for $180 million) and the local tourism industry complaining
about their reduction in public subsidies because money had to be diverted to homeless
services.
No one seems to ever question why profitable, private businesses are on the dole. The fact
that these private entities complain about reductions in handouts shows how entitled they
feel to feed from the public trough. Moreover, they do so at a time of a locally declared
"homeless emergency".
Yet, it is the middle class precariat that condemn those below them as 'moochers and
cheaters', while ignoring the free-riders, cheaters and grand larceny above them.
There is no class consciousness. The working stiffs admire their owners so the only people
left to blame for their difficult life conditions are the poor below them on the social
hierarchy. Or they blame themselves, which is just as destructive. In the interim, they enjoy
the camaraderie that sporting events provide, so give the owners a pass. Bread and
Circuses.
A capitalist critique is the only way to change this situation, but that would require
learning Marxist arguments and discussing their validity.
There is that, or Charity for the poor, which only aggravates the class conflict that
plagues our society.
The third way is actually building community that functions on a less abusive manner,
which takes effort, time, and will power.
I homed in on your phrase "they deal with 'micro-triggers' of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life" and it landed on fertile [I claim!] ground in my imagination. I
have often argued with my sister about this. She used to handle claims for welfare, and now
found more hospitable areas of civil service employment. I am gratified that her attitudes
seem to have changed over time. Many of the people she worked with in social services shared
the common attitudes of disparagement toward their suppliants -- and enjoyed the positions of
power it offered them.
I think the turning point came when my sister did the math and saw that the direct costs
for placing a homeless person or family into appallingly substandard 'housing' in her area
ran in the area of $90K per year. Someone not one of the "free-riders, cheaters, [or villains
of] petty theft in their everyday life" was clearly benefiting. I am very lazy but I might
try to find out who and advertise their 'excellence' in helping the poor.
A "re-education" program? That usage resurrects some very most unhappy recollections from
the past. Couldn't you coin a more happy phrase? Our young are not entirely without the
ability to learn without what is called a "re-education" program.
The comments in this post are all over the map. I'll focus on the comments regarding
statues commemorating Confederate heroes.
I recall the way the issue of Confederate statues created a schism in the NC
commentarient. I still believe in retaining 'art' in whatever form it takes since there is so
little art in our lives. BUT I also believe that rather than tear down the Confederate
statues of Confederate 'heroes' it were far better to add a plaque comemorating just what
sorts of heroism these 'heroes' performed for this country. That too serves Art.
Tearing the statues down only serves forgetting something which should never be
forgotten.
This was intended as a separate comment to stand alone. I believe Art should not forget
but should remember the horrors of our past lest we not forget.
It occurred to me that centrists demonize the left as unelectable based entirely on tokens
of identity. Long haired hippies. The other. It works because the political debate in America
is structured entirely around identity politics. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal so
of course white people in Mississippi will never vote for the Democrats. Someone like Bernie
Sanders has a message that will appeal to them but he is presented as to the left of even
Pelosi or alternately a traitor to the liberal identity siding with racists and sexists.
Actually, all of these oppressions are rooted in working class oppression. But that is
inconsistent with the framing of ascriptive identity.
This was a great post. Didn't know about Adolph Reed. He gets straight to the point
– we have only 2 options. Either change neoliberal capitalism structurally or modify
its structure to achieve equality. Identity politics is a distraction. There will always be
differences between us and so what? As long as society itself is equitable. As far as the
fear of fascism goes, I think maybe fascism is in the goal of fascism. If it is oppressive
then its bad. If it is in the service of democracy and equality the its good. If our bloated
corporatism could see its clear, using AR's option #2, to adjusting their turbo neoliberal
capitalism, then fine. More power to them. It isn't racism preventing them from doing this
– it is the system. It is structural. Unfortunately we face far greater dangers,
existential dangers, today than in 1940. We not only have an overpopulated planet of human
inequality, but also environmental inequality. Big mess. And neither capitalism nor socialism
has the answer – because the answer is eclectic. We need all hands on deck and every
practical measure we can conjure. And FWIW I'd like to compare our present delusions to all
the others – denial. The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret. The acceptance is visible and powerful. What will the postmortem
statue of neoliberalism look like?
Do you really want 'equality' however you might define it? We are not born equal. Each of
us is different and I believe each of us is therefore very special. [I suppose I echo the
retort of the French regarding the equality of the sexes: "Vive la Difference!".] I believe
we should celebrate our inequalities -- while we maintain vigilance in maintaining the equal
chance to try and succeed or fail. The problem isn't inequality but the extreme inequalities
in life and sustenance our society has built -- here and more abroad. I don't mind being
beaten in a fair race. An unfair race lightens my laurels when I win. But our societies run
an unfair competition and the laurels far too heavily grace the brows of those who win. And
worse still, 'inequality' -- the word I'll use for the completely disproportionate rewards to
the winners to the undeserving in-excellent 'winners' is not a matter solved by a quest for
'equality'. The race for laurels has no meaning when the winners are chosen before the race
and the 'laurels' cost the welfare and sustenance for the losers and their unrelated kin who
never ran in the race. And 'laurels' were once but honors and there is too far little honor
in this world.
Nothing denotes a naive idealistic "progressive" than the demand for near absolute
equality in terms of money and status in their future society.all or nothing i guess.
I have read and appreciated many comments by 'Susan the other'. I would not ever
characterize her comments as those of a naive idealistic "progressive" demanding absolute
equality I should and must apologize if that is how you read my comment. I intended to
suggest equality is not something truly desirable in-itself. But re-reading her comment I
find much greater depth than I commented to --
'Susan the other' notes: "The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret." In answer to her question: "What will the postmortem statue of
neoliberalism look like?" I very much doubt that the post mortem statue of Neoliberalism will
show regret for anything save that all the profits were not accrued before those holding the
reins, the Elite of Neoliberalism, might gracefully die without care for any children they
may have had.
Thanks for this post. I am really surprised these days by black "liberal" media folks who
insist that racism be addressed before inequality/class issues. They are almost vehement in
their discussions about this. Are they protecting neoliberalism because it benefits them
.???
My previous admittedly overlong reply has yet to show. Darn.
But this question is an important one.
Yes, they do very much.
One of the reasons the Civil Rights struggle died was the co-option of the Black elites,
especially of the Civil Rights Movement, by the American elites. After Martin Luther King's
assassination, his Poor People's Campaign slowly died. A quiet quid pro quo was offered.
Ignore all the various social, economic, political and legal wrongs done to all Americans,
and yes blacks in particular, and just focusing on black identity and social "equality" or at
least the illusion of campaigning for it, and in you will be given a guaranteed, albeit
constrained, place at the money trough. Thus the Black Misleadership Class was born.
All the great movements in past hundred plus years have had their inclusivity removed.
Suffragism/Feminism, the Union Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, even the Environmental
Movement all had strong cross cultural, class, and racial membership and concerns. Every
single of these movements had the usually white upper class strip out everyone else and
focusing only on very narrow concerns. Aside from the Civil Rights Movement, black
participation was removed, sometimes forcefully. They all dropped any focus on poor people of
any race.
A lot of money, time, and effort by the powerful went into doing this. Often just by
financially supporting the appropriate leaders which gave them the ability to push aside the
less financially secure ones.
Reading this post in its entirety I feel the author must become more direct in critique.
Old jargon of class or race or a "struggle against structural disparities" should be replaced
by the languages of such assertions as: " the larger objective was to eliminate the threat
that the insurgency had posed to planter-merchant class rule" or "It just expands access to
the trough, basically". Why mince words when there are such horrors as are poised against the
common humanity of all?
Your comment is too brief and too enigmatic. If by Adolf you mean Adolf H. -- he is dead.
New potentially more dangerous creatures roam the Earth these days beware.
I consider currently one of our great intellectuals in that he understands and can use
language to make his case in a layman not necessarily friendly but accessible .
and as a southern born white male I think maybe I should watch Glory I remember a '67 show
and tell when a black classmate had a civil war sword come up in their sugar cane field, and
when I and a friend found a (disinterred yuck) civil war grave just out in the woods in north
florida. People seem to have forgotten that times were chaotic in our country's checkered
past I was in massive race riots and massive anti war protests as a child of the '60s, but
since I was in the single digits at the time no one payed me any mind as a for instance my
dad somehow got the counselors apartment in a dorm at florida state in 68′ and I
remember people in the the dorms throwing eggs at the protesters. It was nuts.
Ferguson's INET paper got me thinking about what triggers racism in us. As a kid, ethnic
pejoratives were usually a reaction to some injury. "You stupid Wap, you just scratched
my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." I tend to agree with the
premise that bailing out Wall Street and letting Main Street lose out offers a powerful
trigger for a racist reaction. People might have been softening on their lifelong covert
racism when they succumbed to Obama's charm. But when you lose your job, then your house, and
wind up earning a third of what you did before the GR, that is the sort of thing that
triggers pejorative/racist reactions. That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy
globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned
Democrat libtards. Then, when a MAGA-hatted Trump echoes those sentiments over a PA
system, the ghost of Goebbels is beaming.
Paul Jay says a significant section of the population supporting far right "populism" is
part of the process of the development of fascism, but the acceptance of gross inequality is
also a necessary condition for this process – From a live recording on October 29th,
2018
What does the question mean: "How is Israel mediating its right-wing nationalistic
ethnocratic political bent with the fact that the Jews massacred in
Pittsburgh were apparently progressive?" One cannot mediate "a bent". I cannot follow a
discussion of a question I do not understand. To mediate means to "intervene between
people (not a bent!) in a dispute in order to bring about an agreement or
reconciliation", according to one good dictionary. I notice that diction is a problem for
many who ask questions, and no one stops to ask them what they mean.
The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of
sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may
not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven
ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his
office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman
claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims
against him.
13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up
accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters
received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the
matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u
Looks like Iran was "Skripaled". Intelligence agencies are now capable to perform false flag operation in thier
home countries and blame other government with absolute impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe. ..."
"... It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State. ..."
"... The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents. ..."
"... Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested and prosecuted. ..."
"... On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group ..."
"... It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran ..."
"... The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Both are hawks. ..."
"... Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel ..."
"... Iran's foreign minister accuses Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran ..."
"... Times of Israel ..."
"... Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such operations. ..."
"... Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad ..."
"... "Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently. ..."
"... It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences. Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?" ..."
Israels secret service Mossad, with the CIA behind it, is framing Iran with alleged assassination plots in Europe.
In September a terror attack killed some 30 people in Iran. Two entities, an Arab separatist movement as well as the Islamic State
terror group ISIS, took responsibility. After an investigation Iran found that it was ISIS which was responsible. It took revenge
against the identified culprits.
Six weeks later Denmark claims, without providing evidence, that Iran tried to assassinate a leader of the Arab separatist movement
over the incident. Iran denies any such attempt. The right wing Danish government uses the claim to urge other European countries
to sanction Iran.
It is unlikely that Iran would take action in Europe, which it urgently needs to reduce the damage of U.S. sanction, over
an incident for which it already punished the Islamic State.
The Danish claims are allegedly based on information provided by Mossad. That only increases the suspicion that the assassination
plot is a false flag operation similar to a recent one in Belgium. More likely though is that the CIA is behind such false flag incidents.
The details:
On September 22 gunmen
killed 29 and wounded
more than 70 participants and onlookers of a veterans day parade in Ahvaz, Iran:
Three of the attackers were gunned down during clashes with the security forces and one other was arrested, news agencies reported.
...
"The terrorists disguised as Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basiji (volunteer) forces opened fire to the authority
and people from behind the stand during the parade," the governor of Khuzestan, Gholam-Reza Shariati, said, according to IRNA.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also referred to the attack as terrorism. Nauert said on Saturday, "We stand
with the Iranian people against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism and express our sympathy to them at this terrible time".
On 22 September 2018, Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility for the 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack in comments to UK-based
Iran International TV. He said that his group Ahvaz National Resistance, a part of Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of
Ahvaz, has "no choice but to resist." On 23 September, a statement made in The Hague, Netherlands, on the ASMLA website, denied
responsibility for the attack, saying that the claim was made by a "group that was expelled from the organization since 2015."
After Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility Iran
accused Saudi Arabia
of involvement in the attack:
IRGC spokesman Ramezan Sharif said the attackers were affiliated with a terrorist group supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran's state-run
Press TV said.
"The individuals who fired at the people and the armed forces during the parade are connected to the al-Ahvaziya group which
is fed by Saudi Arabia," Sharif said. Saudi Arabia has yet to respond to the allegations.
Several years ago ASMLA aka Al-Ahvaziya
committed several
terror attacks in Iran. Its leaders live in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Iran immediately reminded
those countries of their duties:
Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassadors of the Netherlands and Denmark, along with a senior British diplomat on Saturday
to issue a strong protest the attack, Iran's state-run media reports.
Bahram Ghasemi, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Iran "re-emphasized" to the diplomats a previous warning about
the presence in their respective countries of members of a group that Iran classifies as a terrorist group and wants arrested
and prosecuted.
According to IRNA, Ghasemi said "it is unacceptable" that members of a terrorist group be allowed in those countries and not
be included on the European Union's terror list only because they have not committed crimes on European soil.
A few days later though, Iran concluded that the attack was not committed by the Ahvaz movement, but by the Islamic State. On
October 1 it responded with a missile salvo
that hit Islamic State facilities in Syria:
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced they have bombed a site in eastern Syria in retaliation to the terrorist
attack against a military parade in Iranian Ahvaz 10 days ago.
...
The IRGC confirmed that the targeted terrorist group was behind the terror attack that killed over a dozen and injured many
more in the city of Ahvaz.
An additional operation against the planers of the attack
took place on October 15 in Iraq:
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Tuesday they had killed the "mastermind" behind an attack on a military parade in the Iranian
city of Ahvaz last month which left 25 people dead, nearly half of them members of the Guards.
The Guards said in a statement published on state media their forces had killed a man named Abu Zaha and four other militants
in Diyala province in Iraq. One news website run by Iran's state television said Abu Zaha was a member of Islamic State.
That closed the issue for Iran.
On October 30 Denmark suddenly accused Iran of
an assassination plot against a leader of the ASMLA group:
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen described the alleged planned assassination by Iran of an exiled separatist leader
in Denmark as "totally unacceptable"
The Iranian ambassador to Copenhagen was summoned to the foreign ministry over the allegations. A Norwegian citizen of Iranian
origin was arrested in Sweden on 21 October in connection with the alleged plan. The man denies the charges. Authorities conducted
a massive manhunt on 28 September which led to road closures, trains and ferries being cancelled, and bridges being shut across
Denmark.
On Tuesday, Danish intelligence chief Finn Borch Andersen confirmed the measures had been taken to prevent the alleged plot.
The Danish intelligence accused the Norwegian citizens of taking pictures of a house where one of the ASMLA leader lives. It provide
no evidence for its claims. Iran rejected the accusations:
An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said such "biased reports" and allegations pursued " the enemy's plots and conspiracies"
to harm the developing relations between Iran and Europe , according to Tasnim news agency.
It indeed seems that Danish government, led by the rightwing Venstre party, is collaborating with the U.S. and Britain to
sabotage the European position against U.S. sanctions on Iran:
Mr Rasmussen said, after a meeting with his British counterpart Theresa May in Oslo, that he appreciated her support. "In close
collaboration with UK and other countries we will stand up to Iran," he tweeted. Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said Denmark
would discuss further actions with European partners in the coming days.
The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, congratulated
Denmark on arresting "an Iranian regime assassin".
The former Secretary General of NATO and U.S. stooge Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the predecessor of the current
Venstre party leader and Danish premier Lars Løkke
Rasmussen. Both are hawks.
Yesterday Israeli journalist reported that the information on which Denmark acted came from Israel:
BREAKING: Israeli Mossad gave Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) the information about the assassination attempt
planned by Iranian intelligence service against the leader of the Iranian opposition organization ASMLA, Israeli official tells
me
Well - if Israeli officials says Iran did something bad that will surely be true. (Not.)
Iran's foreign minister
accuses
Israel of running false flag operations to frame Iran :
Denmark's accusations against Iran followed the unveiling of another suspected Iranian plot to target a Paris rally by an opposition
group in June. According to Israeli reports, the Mossad helped thwart that attack as well , which led to the arrest of several
Iranians in Europe, including a diplomat.
The earlier plot
involved two members of the anti-Iranian terror cult MEK in Belgium who were caught with explosives that they allegedly wanted
to use to blow up a MEK conference in Paris:
The allegation that an Iranian operative plotted an attack on French soil is jeopardizing Europe's support for the accord. As
U.S. and Israeli officials ramp up pressure on Europe to sever ties with Tehran, they have cited it as a reason why Mr. Macron
and other leaders should end their support for the deal.
On Tuesday, Denmark announced it had foiled an Iranian operation to kill a dissident, turning up the pressure on Europe to
harden its posture toward Tehran. A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry said Iran had no involvement in the case.
The most interesting question about such plots is always "Cui bono?". Who benefits from these incidents?
Iran has no interest in causing any upheaval with Europe shortly before the second round of U.S. sanctions, which threaten
its economic well being, come into place early this month. Iran already took revenge for the Ahvaz attack. It has no need to tackle
some unrelated separatist who resides in Denmark. Iran needs Europe to work around the U.S. sanctions. That aim prohibits any such
operations.
Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt. In both cases
some stooges with no current relation to Iran were caught. Both cases came to light after information was allegedly provided by Mossad
.
But is it really Israel who set up these incidents? Both serve U.S. interest just as much. It is no secret that the U.S. wants
to prevent European subversion of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
In June 2017 the Trump administration
installed
a new CIA group to plot and launch undercover operations against Iran. It is led by its most ruthless operator:
He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the
hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.
Now the official, Michael D'Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.'s Iran operations, according to current and former
intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the
president took against Iran during his campaign.
Mr. D'Andrea's new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations
under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said.
A year later the same Mike Pompeo, now Secretary of State, created the
Iran Action Group within
the State Department. It is a complementary entity to the CIA group. Little has been published about the action both groups have
taken so far. What has Ayatollah Mike done since he set up shop 18 month ago?
It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad
only in an auxiliary role. The U.S. can hardly admit that it is faking terrorist incidents in Europe while the overrated Mossad loves
to take credit for everything that happens on this world.
Europe has no interest in supporting or escalating Trump's war on Iran. EU countries should demand hard evidence from Denmark
and other accusers of Iran and should not act on the basis of only vague accusations.
Posted by b on November 1, 2018 at 10:30 AM |
Permalink
Comments Iran should sue the puppet state Denmark. End of story
Israel is regarded as a beneficent country with no ulterior motives by western governments and media. Every time, you can count
on like clockwork, no matter how outrageous or self serving the claim.
thanks b.. i agree with your analysis here.. the usa needs to keep its puppet states. on a string... cia has a long history of
these types of actions.. i am surprised at how easily or convenient it is for the puppets to continue as puppets.. and of course
as we approach the nov 5 th financial santion bs from the evil empire that claims equality for all (after usa and israel are cared
for) will be trying to alienate the rest of the world to iran as much as possible.. the timing here is in line with that goal
post.. very predictible, just like our local shill who will claim it is iran as opposed to usa-israel-ksa and etc, that pull this
shit regularly.. the same ugly crew responsible for supporting terrorism as witnessed in syria, yemen and etc further back are
at work here... predictible..
i suspect more bs to come from these same state sponsored liars....
The complete and utter amorality of the West on display yet again, as if we needed any more examples. There is certainly compelling
evidence that a group of "extremists" are endangering all of humanity and the entire planet, the only problem for Western MSM
in reporting on this is that those "extremists" are in fact the ruling elites of the West and their "allies" in Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
"Both, the MEK plot as well as the case in Denmark, smell of false flag incidents. In both case no one was hurt." Just like
with the "bombs" shipped to a few US "liberals" recently.
I thought the War on Terror dictated that the whole world was the battlefield. What's the difference between Iran trying to take
down a terrorist in Denmark and the US trying to take one down in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Africa?
It was only going to be a matter of time until Iran got Skripalled. Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
Tweets a list : "Incredible series of coincidences.
Or, a simple chronology of a MOSSAD program to kill the JCPOA?"
Please note the last listed "coincidence."
Also on Zarif's Twitter is a video segment of his interview with Face The Nation and other important announcements.
This is what he said about the Pittsburg attack:
"Extremism and terrorism know no race or religion, and must be condemned in all cases. The world deserves better than to
have to live with weaponized demagoguery. Thoughts and prayers with victims of terrorist attack on Pittsburgh synagogue and
their loved ones." [My Emphasis]
The nations of the world have had the following choice to make for awhile now, and I'd say the choice can no longer be kicked
down the road:
Either blindly follow the two prevaricating Outlaw Nations--United States and Israel--or stand with Russia, China, and others
in supporting proven truths and upholding the fundamental principles of International Law as expressed via the UN Charter. In
other words, it's past time to review GW Bush's dicta: Either you're with us or against us--abet the lawbreakers or join the posse
to contain them.
The evil empire and their bought minions are infecting the globe. They will never stop until their domination by organised $ brings
surfs everywhere under their control.
These forces do not believe in a "middle class", they believe the wealthiest should rule because it creates a more stable and
predictable society..
A society Charles Dickens wrote about. Wonderful...
One needs a high level of stupid among the western population to sell bull s... by the buckets. But then again, that is US and
allies. As was said: Too stupid to realize they are stupid. In the US the most trusted institution is the military. Proof enough?
about MEK, the terrorist group... our shithead exprime minister steven harper was singing the praises of them the past month....
apparenlty stevie just can't do enough for israel and zionism, and if the canuck media which is essentialy bought and paid for
by the same interests has its way, we will get a similar insane gov't after trudeau light is finished his term... apparently canucks
are one cycle behind the usa in electing its leaders... it will be a trump type israel subservient toad for next pm of cauckistan...
i sure wish the western political players weren't so beholden to neoliberalism. and we had someone even half the leader putin
is.... but, we don't....
East by not responding strongly to West provocations is begging for war.
East by crying for West for cooperation is begging for war.
And since East and West are controlled by the same same cabal - war is inevitable.
Just ask Mr. Kissinger...
The Edomites, who after Rome's extermination of the remnant of the House of Israel at Jerusalem began calling themselves "Jews"
for "controlled opposition" for "the real Anti-Christ" "engine for enslaving mankind" we founded God's America to escape, become
sex perverts, including incesting Sabbatean Frankists - hence the Manchu-baldness, as a consequence of their satanic cult's ritual
sodomy of innocent toddlers while being rabbinically inculcated as "gods chosen by God to rule the world."
Wow. Thank You for this one. After reading this excellent assessment of the present situation, of which we might only know the
most shallow facts, I had to do a search (DDG) about Iran during the time of the first openly Fascist Europe - being described
as having emanated from 3rd-Reich-Germany and Italy.
I was unaware that there was an
Anglo-Soviet
Invasion of Iran , because of the alleged sympathy of the Shah's Iran with Nazi-Germany. The Brits and the Russians were buddies
then and wanted to prevent that Iranian oil is accessible to Nazi-Germany.
All over sudden I am confused that the Brits invaded shoulder to shoulder with Soviet forces Iran - while now, besides delivering
the political ham theater of saber rattling against Russia, supporting terror and instigating sanctions against Iran again.
To make things much worse to comprehend, one is to wonder how many European countries actually did join Nazi Germany without
much ado at the time, based on the fact that the Scandinavians and the Netherlands are now as Fascist as Nazi Germany was during
its short 1000 years of glory. Does anybody else get the impression that this was always this way? That we have been lied to about
everything regarding Fascism? That it was never Fascism that was the problem in Europe - as it appears to do very well there -
but a strong Germany that could have easily governed its territory via effective 'bureaucracy'. All of Europe.
The truth is, that the stench of Fascism today, was already stinking badly in the 20th century, but was never really a problem.
The problem were the Germans. And somehow, the Germans want to continue to have economic ties with Iran. Is this how history repeats
itself - minus the marching Soviet/Russian and British buddy forces?
How many false flag operations have been invoked to explain unpopular events in recent years? The British government was behind
the attempted murder of Skripal. All of the chemical attacks launched against the opposition in Syria were false flag operations
to bring the US into the war (which amounted to nothing burgers anyway). Ray McGovern hypothesized the US used the Vault 7 tools
as a false flag to blame Russia for the DNC hack. Is there any end to false flag speculation?
Who cares if the Iranians deny the charge? That means absolutely nothing. Russia has been lying and denying for years. Additionally,
that Mossad would have provided the information to Denmark and France is completely logical since they have been collecting intelligence
on Iran for years - and have been dealing with Iranian-supported terrorists for decades.
There is no evidence for a false flag operation. Sure it's a possibility (it's always a possibility), but the current evidence
points toward Iranian plans to murder dissidents. The British were right about Skripal. The Dutch were right about MH17. Ray McGovern
was wrong about the CIA hacking the DNC - and the likely result of this investigation is that Iran planned to murder a couple
of dissidents. In lieu of the stupidity exhibited by the Saudis in the Khashoggi murder, it's completely believable.
With all of that said, this is a well thought out attempt to blame the US.
Denmark has become another UK, willing to perform any act and light any fuse against Russia, Iran or any nation that challenges
the hegemony of US, EU and NATO.
Just a subservient vassal, self-degradating. I would compare Denmark to a whore, but that defames those poor souls.
The Danes are like Brits. There, I said it. Nothing worse than the official scumbags of Britain. Pity the good folks of both
countries.
Such a little country desperately trying to hide their true Nazi soul, fabricating events and promulgating Fake News and bogus
Intel.
In service to big Hegemon and little hegemon (Israel).
thanks for the analysis. we all see the pattern, but i guess it's still important to debunk the bullshit--it just never seems
to stop the predetermined goals. it was widely seen that saddam's alleged wmd's didn't exist, but the invasion went on. now the
u.s. wants war with iran. unless russia or china intervenes, what can stop it?
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Nov 1, 2018 3:15:48 PM |
link
@10 - WJ: Difference is, USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick. ;)
I think false flag seems likely, but i also have some doubts about ISIS claiming to be resposible. The Iranian state is also pretty
complex, with many different actors and power centers. So it cant be ruled out that those arab seperatists are resposible and
that some rouge IRGC faction took action against reason of the state as a whole.
Like B said, the EU should demand evidence. Like with Skripal.. Not trust the Danish NATO proxys.
The Dutch were not right about MH17, and neither are the Danes. Almost certainly another anti-Iranian false flag coming --
this on American soil -- w war soon to follow.
'The Russian military traced the Buk missile [9M38 missile], which shot down the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in eastern
Ukraine in 2014, using serial numbers found on missile fragments showcased by an international team of investigators led by the
Netherlands.
'Using the serial number of the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 No. 8-30-113 and the engine of the missile 9D131 with the serial
number 8869032, the Russian military identified this missile as one produced by the Dolgoprudny plant – a Soviet/Russian designer
and mass producer of surface-to-air missiles located in the city of Dolgoprudny, Moscow Oblast.
'The military said that the documentation for the aforementioned missile is still stored at the plant – the missile with the
aforementioned engine and nozzle cluster has the manufacturing serial number of 8868720.
'According to the provided documents, the nozzle cluster was installed in the missile on December 24, 1986. The engine was
installed to the missile on the same day.'
About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless. Otherwise, their policy goal
remains the same: Full Spectrum Dominance by any means necessary. The attack proves yet again the Outlaw US Empire would rather
have destabilization and war in the region than peace, still thinking it remains the World's Boss.
Thanks b, this is Journalism. Poor craigsummers appears to be in shock. It's ok craig.
We're in a really strange place vis a vis "Mossad" in the west. The average person on the street doesn't know whether to idolize
them as superhuman kickass kravmaga-inventing Jason Bourne types, or diabolical creeps like Weinstein's "former Mossad" minions.
Then Sacha Baron Cohen comes around and makes them funny again. Are they scary? Funny? When they appear in official media, it's
usually in a display of mindblowing incompetence or fraud. So you can see how we're confused.
25 - "USA has drones and some 19 yo teen can kill you with his joystick."
Yes, from a safe place in some place in the U.S. desert, but I wonder how the pilots of the aircraft refueling the KSA bombing
runs to Yemen feel as they finish and do a 180 to return to base. Do they first look to see what their evil has done before heading
back?
More likely it is Iran conveniently concluded that ISIS was responsible, only to get off the hook of EU countries that harbor
terrorists not only anti Iran by anti Russia, so they closed the case not to wreck meek EU attempt to find the way around US sanctions
with trade with Iran. Mossad did not like that and hence used another Russia Gate like provocation to stop EU Iran accommodation,
this time claiming new Iranian terrorism issue Orwelian style blame victims.
karlof1 27 "About the only difference between Trump and Hillary I can judge is he's not quite as reckless."
I would agree with that, but I also think he will be willing to take big risks to see his plan through. He may well be like
Putin's cornered rat if his plans are blocked.
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role in accusing Iran of supporting terrorism
and terrorist cells in Europe. Is Denmark's action as much to pressure Sweden and Finland into joining NATO as it is to pressure
the EU into following the US in sanctioning Iran and tearing up the nuclear treaty the EU still adheres to?
This crap by the Danes is not without precedent. They were in on the US attack against the SAA at Deir Ezzor. US, UK, Australia
and Denmark all took part in that attack.
One question we should be asking is why all of a sudden is Denmark taking a leading role
the danes swede and norway,netherlands folks have all been anglo zion borged.
the man leading this charge is a mr samuel son a proud son of a son i am sure he believes what he says i'm sure he has good reason.
wait for future headlines involving norways trillion dollar sovreign wealth fund vanishing just like gadaffi libya or ukraines
gold..
country control via epstein lolita express blackmail.
young boys and girls in ritual cctv horror show as a form of soft power persuasion
I'm not entirely convinced b. The Iranian government has a long history of assassination attempts. And Denmark is not exactly
a war mongering nation so your claims seem a bit shaky. I have never been impressed by analyses of Iran on this blog, as I think
both b and many commentators here totally ignorant of the IRI's crimes against its own citizens. I am very knowledgable when it
comes to Iran and so incidents like these do not surprise me. Of course I should make clear that it is possible to be against
the IRI and western war mongering nations at the same time.
I just can't stand responding to cs21 hasbara garbage; nothing is more annoying than hasbara. To quote Irish Nobel laureate GB
Shaw: never wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig loves it!
Mossad used the MEK and another terrorist group, Jundallah in Iran when they didn't do the dirty job themselves to assassinate
Iranian scientists extra-judicially. Imagine if JFK had done same when Israel was developing its nuclear weapons on the sly?
That's not all, Mossad used these terrorists like they used terrorists in Syria to foment manufactured revolution, specifically,
in Iran, the Green Revolution and as for example what was done in Ukraine, terrorist snipers masquerading as basiji fired into
the crowd of green protestors and killed a young women who the Western media elevated as the face of the Revolution hoping it
would incite anger that would spread exponentially and trigger riots everywhere then civil war like in Syria and Ukraine, but
they were very disappointed. This is playbook Mossad/CIA revolution engineering. All constituted criminal acts against sovereign
nations, except in Iran their plan fizzled.
Mossad also used false flag against Gadaffi in Libya and years earlier against Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader
of Iran that preceded the Shah. The Lavon Affair was a false flag comprised of multiple terrorist attacks that Israel planned
and plotted to execute and blame on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian groups.
Mossad has assassinated what it considered to be terrorists in Europe, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Jordan and on and on with total
impunity. Some of these so-called terrorists were political leaders recent example Arafat, and attempted murder of Meschal, at
least one or more were false flag to trigger civil war, i.e. in Lebanon, and some were what South African Apartheid victims would
consider resistance and freedom fighters.
Israel also attacked the USSLiberty and no doubt had a hand in U.S. military sabotage in Lebanon not to mention murdering American
journalists and activists.
ALL this was done with impunity. So in regards to these foiled terrorist attacks I have no doubt Mossad is up to no good and
Israel has everything to gain in this dirty business they have executed many times before.
The truth lies in who benefits most and who has exhibited the most egregious pattern of behaviour. ISRAEL.
Yes, it certainly smells like a false flag operation.
The CIA, MI6, and Mossad have been doing such operations in Europe since the end of WW2.
No surprise.
IRAN must be a hasbara trigger word. The Zionist web army recruits have arrived. Everything you pulled out of wiki I can double,
triple, quadruple for Isra-hell. For starters, let's talk about Prison facility 1391 - torture, murder, perpetual isolation--dark
ages stuff.
Let's talk about the kidnapping, imprisonment, even torture of children. Perhaps, the worst human rights record against children.
8000 Palestinian children arrested since 2000.
What about the two-tier justice system in Isra-hell?
Shall we discuss the murder of activists, journalists and protestors? What about political prisoners in Isra-hell? What about
administrative detention. Detention without trial.
This is the tip of the iceberg regarding Isra-hell's human rights abuses. Don't get me started.
As we approach the end of the year the big questions facing Europe are:
(1) Which country will win the prize for the most decapitations or slit throats? France or Germany?
With dozens of horrific crimes recently these two competitors are running neck and neck, however with Macron's France averaging
close to one slit throat per day, France is probably going to win this contest
Which leaves us with the big question Germans are asking
(2) Which city will earn the distinction of being 2018's Rape Capital of Germany?
For a long time it seemed that the winner would surely be Berlin, but then Freiburg lurched into the lead a few weeks ago.
And now, with a 15-year-old being gang-raped by Afghan asylum seekers, Munich is hustling to take the title.
This crime and subsequent arrests were kept out of the media for a few weeks
-- coincidentally, until just after the recent local elections in Bavaria
The article below from Bild, also translated into English, contains additional details:
Suspects in Custody: Six Men Allegedly Raped Girl (15)
October 30, 2018
Munich -- The Munich police have arrested five Afghan refugees; according to Bayerischer Rundfunk another alleged perpetrator
is on the run.
The allegation: They reportedly raped a 15-year-old girl.
The Munich public prosecutor confirmed to BILD upon request that there is an investigation involving a sexual assault and several
people have been arrested. The spokesman did not want to comment further.
The case: The girl, who is being psychologically cared for, according to BILD's information, had filed charges against her
"partner" at the end of September. The asylum seeker is said to have verbally threatened her and thereby forced her to have intercourse.
Also, he forced her to have intercourse with several his friends. She was so intimidated that she had to endure being abused
by them all for several days. Each case is to be handled individually. Physical violence had played no role in the incidents.
In addition to the alleged victim's partner, four other refugees (all between 20 and 25 years old) were arrested. The alleged
perpetrators are registered asylum seekers.
In the meantime, warrants have been issued against them on suspicion of rape. They are in custody.
The assaults are said to have occurred at the end of September. The first arrests were made four weeks ago.
Some interrogations remain to be conducted to substantiate the allegations made by the alleged victim, which is one explanation
for why the authorities have not made the case public.
Some of the detainees admitted that they had intercourse with the minor, but said that it had taken place by mutual agreement."
Got that?
According to Bild, "Physical violence played no role in the incidents"
First their is money laundering charges by the US against Denmark's largest bank and now we have Denmark joining the Trump stomp
on Iran project. Could it be the US cut a deal with Denmark to limit their investigations and penalties into this bank and maybe
others, or possible involvement of Danish government officials, and the Dane's jumped at the chance to limit the damage to the
country and it's economy and keep sanction happy Trump from sanctioning them into the poor house.
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world.
I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
42 ben, ditto... cs has never heard of the cia and the past countless years of there horrors... in fact as far as cs is concerned,
they never had any role to play in ghouta 2011 and afterwards either...cs thinks the letters stand for charity international association...usaid
is another benevolent org as far as cs is concerned... if cs was ever to read john perkins 'confessions of an economic hit man'
he would fall out of his chair and have his world turned upside down.... cs really needs to hang over at pat langs site where
some of his love and ignorance of the usa's covert history has a place of acceptance.. it ain't here..
"It is likely that the false flag operations in Europe, like the ones in Belgium and Denmark, are run by the CIA with the Mossad
only in an auxiliary role."
Very difficult to distinguish the two. Israel declared its campaign to internally destabilise Iran last spring (evidently having
quailed at the risks of the open military attack), the US has been fruitlessly attempting the same for forty years. I suppose
the new Israeli campaign has revived US efforts.
By the way, I was interested by Alastair Crooke's recent remark that Israeli air superiority has been broken by the S300s.
Crooke's views are to take seriously.
Steve, how could you overlook the all time top lap dog: the UK? The UK would be first on most people's list of sycophant enablers
of US terrorism, regime change, and false flag operations. Sometimes Macron tries to run ahead of the pack, but gets slapped back
by Trump, but when all is said and done, the whole NATO crew are self-serving idiots and assholes.
Denmark, like Sweden and Norway are the biggest enablers of USA's imperial efforts more than any other nations in the whole world.
I think it is only Russia which gets that fact. Nobel prizes are nothing but tooks of the US empire
Posted by: Steve | Nov 2, 2018 4:49:42 AM | 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said!
I totally agree with you after saw the ghastly bully behaviour of Denmark on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference,
who was actively trying to force down the throat of BRICS (EPS. China & India) and developing countries the schemes that US &
Co wanted: 1): to strangle the development chance of third world and 2). to escape the accountability/ownership of the big messy
pollution the Western countries has been emitted into the air and the world for centuries.
Another aggressive Dane who was in full swing to propagate the Empire's interests/schemes is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ex-NATO
Secretary General, who was so belligerent that I sometimes question how the peace-love Denmark can produce such an aggressive
person......
b, is there any way to highlight a 'Craig Summers' post at the top, so we can skip over his/her/their lying rubbish unread. Bad
enough having to wade through the effusions of the sprinkling of religious loonies who seem to be posting now, without wasting
time on this bellingcrap-style hasbarollocks.
"In the beginning of 2017 the Danish Security Service PET had received information about planned political murder of individuals
in Denmark who oppose the Turkish government. The PET acted on the information and put the would be targets in safety. This is
revealed by Swedish Radio Ekot. https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6975341
And is Denmark going to stop doing this:"Denmark's foreign minister has for the first time acknowledged that the government
allowed the sale of surveillance technology to authoritarian Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE." "Mass surveillance
during and after the Arab Spring was used to facilitate the mass incarceration of dissidents, leading to the eventual crushing
of popular movements, the report alleged."
And what are the Syro-Ahwazian pro-FSA dudes up to in Denmark:"One battalion of the rebel Free Syrian Army is called the "Ahwaz
Brigade", although the group says there are no foreign fighters in its ranks.
"We have relations with different factions of the (Syrian) rebels," said Habib Nabgan, the former head of a coalition of Ahwazi
parties whose armed wing carried out last week's pipeline attack.
"They need information, which we give them, and we need some of their expertise, so there is cooperation and that is developing,"
he told Reuters via telephone from Denmark, where he took refuge in 2006." https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-iran-arabs-insight-idUKBRE97E0O620130815
Ahwazians in Syria:"Before the Syrian uprising, the Ahwazi community in Damascus was living in fear, but is now fully behind the
revolutionary struggle.There have been frequent demonstrations in Syria by Ahwazi Arabs flying the opposition flag alongside their
own."
Interesting, the first time i heard of this story my instinct immediately was, why on earth would Iran conduct such risky and
rather pointless operations where the downside would greatly outweigh any benefit if they were caught?? Add to that, no one was
harmed, they got "caught".. and Mossad involved.. seems pretty clear to anyone who actually understands what's going on in the
world.. but there aren't many of us who actually think when we read the news.. thanks again MR B for another insightful piece
on analysis :)
Why? Because you think your Zionist propaganda claptrap is actually convincing and working to bring down surviving bastions
of independent thought? It's laughable how hasbara-scripted you read; delivering superficially well-constructed neoliberal brainwash,
whitewash material. Your disingenuous ilk courting the Left with liberal goodies, in one hand while unleashing double-standard
neoconservative righteous destruction with the other is the main reason we now suffer Trump's fascist right-wing version of same.
People protest vote neoliberalism and end up in the arms of the hard right-wing version. It's a no choice choice; an affront to
real democracy. You play the desperation of the Left against the Right and then deliver it into the same neoconstruct. You're
two sides of the same cult and neither can stand independent thought. After I read your Zionist-contrived claptrap, I feel like
my mind has been abused and my time wasted. Once you're wise to the trap, you never go back to falling for whichever charismatic
puppet is going to save us from the other side.
The goal becomes helping others break free of the vicious, cyclical no-choice duopoly to viably challenge and destroy it for
good! You pretend at righeousness, but you're on the side of status quo darkness.
Uh, just one more point, I still believe in GW Shaw's wisdom that you shouldn't wrestle with ignorance, ie pigs, but I just intended
@56 as a Reader Beware CS for anyone who's out there only reading.
Perhaps of more importance was Crooke's remark on US debt. He said in August the cost of servicing the debt, for the first
time, exceeded tax revenue. On top of that, the US must sell over a trillion of new debt each year for the next three years.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Nov 2, 2018 11:31:43 AM | 58
Yes I too thought that was interesting. But Israel's problem is more fatal, in a permanent sense. Air superiority once lost
won't be recovered, but the US could, if it wanted to, live more within its means.
As usual, some former official has to include : Israeli intelligence tipped off the CIA that Iran had likely identified
some of its assets, said the same former official.
"Bolton, speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington, said he expects U.S. defense
spending "to flatten out" in the near term. He said he didn't anticipate major cuts to entitlements such as Medicare and Social
Security.
""It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society,"
Bolton said. "And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.""
Of course, he wants to cut support for citizens instead of support for the Deep State and its massively corrupt MIC. The massive
cut in revenues caused by Trump's giveaways to corporations and the 1% were designed to exacerbate the problem and create an artificial
crisis in discretionary spending. Most from all sides of the political spectrum can see this for what it is and are already pushing
back, which will be the fundamental reason Trump won't get a 2nd term--his policies are proving to be a fiscal nightmare.
The evidence provided by the author that the CIA was the primary driving agent in these incidents is not compelling. In fact,
the US government under Obama supported the JCPOA against the wishes of the Netanyahu government. Thus the statement that "US
interests" are necessarily defined by sanctions against Iran seems to me to be unfounded. Had the author replaced "US interests"
with "Trump administration policies", which are clearly much more aligned with the interests of the Likud and Netanyahu the statement
might be more supportable.
"Do you remember the Green revolution of 2009 that went pfttttt?"
Very interesting article, but the Green Revolution didn't go pfft because of that. 2009 failed because the middle class aren't
very good at revolutions. They aren't the majority, and they didn't have popular support.
"... Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about "weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting. ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous. ..."
"... Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at home. ..."
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was
rapidly stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was
planning to use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held
up a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides
purporting to show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to
end.
The World Socialist Web Site , in an editorial board statement published the next
day, declared the brief for war "the latest act in a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism
and deceit." War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction."
Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political
aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global
hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have
examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations --
some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without
a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that
there "is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has
the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and
more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media
accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one
million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again,
the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American
government -- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has
been relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
The argument presented by the American media is that the alleged existence of a
fly-by-night operation, employing a few hundred people, with a budget amounting to a
minuscule fraction of total election spending in the US, constitutes a "a virtual war against
the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda" ( New York
Times ).
In the countless articles and media commentary along this vein, nowhere can one find a
serious analysis of the Mueller indictment of the Russians itself, let alone an examination
of the real motivations behind the US campaign against Russia. The fact that the indictment
does not even involve the Russian government or state officials is treated as a nonissue.
While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims
about "weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on
terror" is exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the
Islamic fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting.
More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the
dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major
nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline
using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National
Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments,
declared, "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
Russia is seen by dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus as a principal
obstacle to US efforts to control the Middle East and to take on China -- and it is this that
has been at the center of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Trump
administration.
There have already been a series of clashes in recent weeks between the world's two
largest nuclear-armed powers. On February 3, a Russian close-air support fighter was shot
down by al-Nusra Front fighters, which are indirectly allied with the United States in its
proxy war against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Then, on February 7 and 8, Russian
soldiers were killed in US air and artillery barrages in Deir Ezzor, in what survivors called
a "massacre." Both the US and Russian governments have sought to downplay the scale of the
clash, but some sources have reported the number killed to be in the hundreds.
Even as US and Russian forces clashed in Syria, representatives of the Kremlin and the
Pentagon sparred at the Munich security conference this weekend over the deployment and
development of nuclear weapons. While accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Washington this month issued a nuclear posture review
envisioning a massive expansion of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.
The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military
aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext
for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures
adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed
to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political
dissent effectively treasonous.
Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching
measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search
results and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media
platform it has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance.
Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic
principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
The target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The
ruling elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at
home.
The working class must draw the necessary conclusions from its past experiences. In 2003,
the Democratic Party supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and provided it
with the necessary political cover. Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the
organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war,
employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all
popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist agenda.
The urgent task is to mobilize the working class, in the United States and
internationally, against the entire apparatus of the capitalist ruling elite. The fight
against war and dictatorship is at the same time the fight against inequality and
exploitation, for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a global socialist
society.
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that
Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived
the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel and concrete
building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and
conveniently fluttered to the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who
immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
MUST WATCH: Shocking Video by Comedian Bill Maher - Russia Delusion Still Raging Among US
LiberalsRichard
Brandt 10 min ago | 600 words 10
131RussiaHoax Bill Maher outdid
himself recently with this video, but in doing so, he inadvertently showed how out of touch the
Jewish Hollywood liberal elites like Maher are with most of the country, and even more so with
the rest of the world.
Take the 5 minutes to watch the video, it is an eye-opener. Bullet points follow below:
Somehow, Maher managed to pack the following into his monologue:
Republican party has become the party of Putin.
He brings up the pee tape (again)
Trump is a Russian "ho", Putin is his pimp
Compares Putin to Bin Laden
Russia "flipped" the entire Republican party
Russia is a dictator who keeps attacking the US
Putin is a thug
Russians are racists, that's why Conservatives like them
Says how wonderful he thinks it is that the UK, Germany, and France have become
multi-racial countries over the last 20 years. Says Russia bad for not doing the same.
Russia is a "Honkey Oasis"
Russia has "taken over America" by meddling in her elections.
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments
as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history
for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.
Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks
the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.
She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her
last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final
straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative
fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition
partners.
Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the
dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain
for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors,
Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal
in the postwar world.
One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated
her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey
to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed
her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within
the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have
left them for the AfD.
Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question
of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has
"utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society)
and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were
rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.
For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject.
Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to
be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with
those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.
"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later,
she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male
asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at
the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as
"Merkel the Bold."
Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, TheNew York Times
reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed
that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always
the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement
whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end
of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.
The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's
socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of
sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European
criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics),
she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim
world might prove difficult.
Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants
during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.
In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself.
Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came
in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.
In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become
more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.
Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars
.
"... On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S. military establishment wants, Merkel must provide. ..."
"... But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum Lady, Theresa May here). ..."
"... Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea. ..."
"... Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring at a staggering pace in Russia. ..."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped down as the leader of the Christian Democratic
Union, the party she has led for nearly two decades. Yesterday's election in Hesse, normally a
CDU/SPD stronghold was abysmal for them.
She had to do something to quell the revolt brewing against her.
Merkel knew going in what the polls were showing. Unlike American and British polls, it
seems the German ones are mostly accurate with pre-election polls coming close to matching the
final results.
So, knowing what was coming for her and in the spirit of trying to maintain power for as
long as possible Merkel has been moving away from her staunch positions on unlimited
immigration and being in lock-step with the U.S. on Russia.
She's having to walk a tightrope on these two issues as the turmoil in U.S. political
circles is pulling her in, effectively, opposite directions.
The globalist Davos Crowd she works for wants the destruction of European culture and
individual national sovereignty ground into a paste and power consolidated under the rubric of
the European Union.
They also want Russia brought to heel.
On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that
furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever
forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S.
military establishment wants, Merkel must provide.
So, if she rejects that role and the chaos U.S. policy engenders, particularly Syria, she's
undermining the flow of migrants into Europe.
This is why it was so significant that she and French President Emmanuel Macron joined this
weekend's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan in Istanbul.
It ended with an agreement on Syria's future that lies in direct conflict with the U.S.'s
goals of the past seven years.
It was an admission that Assad has prevailed in Syria and the plan to atomize it into yet
another failed state has itself failed. Merkel has traded 'Assad must go' for 'no more
refugees.'
To President Trump's credit he then piggy-backed on that statement announcing that the U.S.
would be pulling out of Syria very soon now. And that tells me that he is still coordinating in
some way with Putin and other world leaders on the direction of his foreign policy in spite of
his opposition.
But the key point from the Istanbul statement was that Syria's rebuilding be prioritized to
reverse the flow of migrants so Syrians can go home. While
Gilbert Doctorow is unconvinced by France's position here , I think Merkel has to be
focused on assisting Putin in achieving his goal of returning Syria to Syrians.
Because, this is both a political necessity for Merkel as well as her trying to burnish her
crumbling political throne to maintain power.
The question is will Germans believe and/or forgive her enough for her to stay in power
through her now stated 'retirement' from politics in 2021?
I don't think so and it's obvious Davos Crowd boy-toy Macron is working overtime to salvage
what he can for them as Merkel continues to face up to the political realities across Europe,
which is that populism is a natural reaction to these insane policies.
Merkel's job of consolidating power under the EU is unfinished. They don't have financial
integration. The Grand Army of the EU is still not a popular idea. The euro-zone is a disaster
waiting to happen and its internal inconsistencies are adding fuel to an already pretty hot
political fire.
On this front, EU integration, she and Macron are on the same page. Because 'domestically'
from an EU perspective, Brexit still has to be dealt with and the showdown with the Italians is
only just beginning.
But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to
fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum
Lady, Theresa May here).
And Macron should stop looking in the mirror long enough to see he's standing on a quicksand
made of blasting powder.
This points to the next major election for Europe, that of the European Parliament in May
where all of Merkel's opposition are focused on wresting control of that body and removing
Jean-Claude Juncker or his hand-picked replacement (Merkel herself?) from power.
The obvious transition for Merkel is from German Chancellor to European Commission
President. She steps down as Chancellor in May after the EPP wins a majority then to take
Juncker's job. I'm sure that's been the plan all along. This way she can continue the work she started
without having to face the political backlash at home.
But, again, how close is Germany to snap elections if there is another migrant attack and
Chemnitz-like demonstrations. You can only go to the 'Nazi' well so many times, even in
Germany.
There comes a point where people will have simply had enough and their anger isn't born of
being intolerant but angry at having been betrayed by political leadership which doesn't speak
for them and imported crime, chaos and violence to their homes.
And the puppet German media will not be able to contain the story. The EU's speech rules
will not contain people who want to speak. The clamp down on hate speech, pioneered by Merkel
herself is a reaction to the growing tide against her.
And guess what? She can't stop it.
The problem is that Commies like Merkel and Soros don't believe in anything. They are
vampires and nihilists as I said over the
weekend suffused with a toxic view of humanity.
Oh sure, they give lip service to being inclusive and nice about it while they have
control over the levers of power, the State apparatus. But, the minute they lose control of
those levers, the sun goes down, the fangs come out and the bloodletting begins.
These people are vampires, sucking the life out of a society for their own ends. They are
evil in a way that proves John Barth's observation that "man can do no wrong." For they never
see themselves as the villain.
No. They see themselves as the savior of a fallen people. Nihilists to their very core
they only believe in power. And, since power is their religion, all activities are justified
in pursuit of their goals.
Their messianic view of themselves is indistinguishable to the Salafist head-chopping
animals people like Hillary empowered to sow chaos and death across the Middle East and North
Africa over the past decade.
Add to this Merkel herself who took Hillary's empowerment of these animals and gave them a
home across Europe. At least now Merkel has the good sense to see that this has cost her nearly
everything.
Even if she has little to no shame.
Hillary seems to think she can run for president again and win with the same schtick she
failed with twice before. Frankly, I welcome it like I welcome the sun in the morning, safe in
the knowledge that all is right with the world and she will go down in humiliating defeat yet
again.
Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing
for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European
electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea.
Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There
will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring
at a staggering pace in Russia.
Social pressure to conform is natural in any organization. And universities are not exception. Various people positioned
differently on confiormism-independent_thinking spectrum, so we should not generalize that social pressure makes any
students a conformist, who is afraid to voice his/her opinion. Some small percentage of student can withstand significant social
pressure. But the fact that around 50% can't withstand significant social pressure sounds right.
As more and more college professors express their social and
political views in classrooms, students across the country are feeling increasingly afraid to
disagree according to a survey of 800 full-time undergraduate college students, reported by the
Wall Street Journal ' s James Freeman.
When students were asked if they've had "any professors or course instructors that have
used class time to express their own social or political beliefs that are completely
unrelated to the subject of the course," 52% of respondents said that this occurs "often,"
while 47% responded, "not often."
A majority -- 53% -- also reported that they often "felt intimidated" in sharing their
ideas, opinions or beliefs in class because they were different from those of the professors.
-
WSJ
What's more, 54% of students say they are intimidated expressing themselves when their views
conflict with those of their classmates.
The survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale's William F. Buckley,
Jr. Program (which counts Freeman among its directors), was undertaken between October 8th and
18th, and included students at both public and private four-year universities across the
country.
This is a problem, suggests Freeman - as unbiased teachers who formerly filled universities
have been replaced by activists who "unfortunately appear to be just as political and
overbearing as one would expect," and that " perhaps the actual parents who write checks can
someday find some way to encourage more responsible behavior. "
As for the students, there's at least a mixed message in the latest survey results. On the
downside, the fact that so many students are afraid of disagreeing with their peers does not
suggest a healthy intellectual atmosphere even outside the classroom. There's more
disappointing news in the answers to other survey questions. For example, 59% of respondents
agreed with this statement:
My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of
engaging in hate speech.
This column does not favor hatred, nor the subjective definition of "hate speech" by college
administrators seeking to regulate it. In perhaps the most disturbing finding in the poll
results, 33% of U.S. college students participating in the survey agreed with this
statement:
If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be
justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.
An optimist desperately searching for a silver lining would perhaps note that 60% of
respondents did not agree that physical violence is justified to silence people speaking what
someone has defined as "hate speech" or "racially charged" comments. But the fact that a third
of college students at least theoretically endorse violence as a response to offensive speech
underlines the threat to free expression on American campuses.
Perhaps more encouraging are the responses to this question:
Generally speaking, do you think the First Amendment, which deals with freedom of speech, is
an outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today's society and should be changed
or an important amendment that still needs to be followed and respected in today's society?
A full 79% of respondents opted for respecting the First Amendment, while 17% backed a
rewrite.
On a more specific question, free speech isn't winning by the same landslide. When asked if
they would favor or oppose their schools having speech codes to regulate speech for students
and faculty, 54% of U.S. college kids opposed such codes while 38% were in favor.
The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional
behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus
on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan
from an earlier era: Don't trust anyone over 30.
this tyranny applies not only to politics and weirdo social world view, it runs thru
everything. Group think is powerful and those not following get excluded, defunded of
resources and ridicule and other punishment.
The education-industrial complex is a massive spending and debt-fed bubble, that has
created a massive political organizing force and teflon monoculture. They are parasites
feeding off government and the debt of students
It's always been like this, at school as a 5 year old ....my little kid was sent to the
headmaster for objecting to making a key ring thing in craft as not one kid had a key. He
spoke a well reasoned argument and of course is at the Supreme Court now. But gained no
respect or nurturing from that school. I also copped it, made career decision to be a
scientist because of the stupidity of an english teacher not knowing same issues prevailed
there. Was thrown out of english honours course so did the exam on my own knowledge and got
first class honours in the state.
At University we all know you feed back what they want if you want to pass. Some want
intelligence and best true understanding others want their crippled stuff. This also applies
if you are a science, physiology researcher. Cutting edge work if not mainstream does not get
published, you have to be part of a recognised institution to be published so no independent
researcher,
There are set ideas and marketing there of eg antioxidants fallacies, need for estrogen,
and until recently How stupid was Lamarck because he espoused the passing down of response to
environment to subsequent generations...Darwin thought this too but idea was suppressed. Then
epigenetics got the new hot thing for grants. Fck them all.
My child and I discussed a version with the principal when he was doing the
bacceaulureate, as from 5 onwards teachers rejected correct answers and wanted their answers.
The excellent advice was to view it all like a driving exam, learn the road rules and give
them back.
students always know the tyranny of the teacher and evaluator. At 6 my kid was sat with
the slow learners and forced to give 30answers a day ' correct' . Ie lies and untruths.
Infinity as answer to how many corners has a cylinder was not only mad bad but
ridiculed.
It's impossible to actually debate someone who has NO FACTS on either side of the
argument....
it winds up like this....
"not even WRONG"
The phrase " not even wrong " describes an argument or explanation that purports to be
scientific but is based on invalid reasoning or speculative premises that can neither be
proven correct nor falsified .
Hence, it refers to statements that cannot be discussed in a rigorous, scientific sense . [1] For a
meaningful discussion on whether a certain statement is true or false, the statement must
satisfy the criterion called "falsifiability" -- the inherent possibility for the statement
to be tested and found false. In this sense, the phrase "not even wrong" is synonymous to
"nonfalsifiable". [1]
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicistWolfgang Pauli , who was
known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. [2][3]Rudolf Peierls documents an
instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected
was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not
even wrong' ." [4] This is also
often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native
German , " Das
ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!". Peierls remarks that quite a few
apocryphal stories of this
kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by
him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau , "What you said was so confused
that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not. " [4]
Chemical engineering, engineering structural (optional), basic electrical engineering and
C++ programing and he can make any machine to automatically preform any chemical process out
of his garage. You could probably watch a butt ton of YouTube and a library card and also
learn those skills.
The homogenized culture of colleges today is very similar to what I imagine it was like in
the 1950's, but with a different set of "values" obviously. The 1950's led to the 1960's, and
a complete rejection by many young people of establishment mono-culture. Maybe the young
people eventually will figure out that what they see as SJW counter-culture is actually new
establishment culture, and they will rebel against it in a few years. Probably not,
though.
When I was in the army and got sentence to 2 years less a day in Military prison in
Edmonton, I paid $1.70 a day, which the military were so kind to ring up a tab for me, when I
got released from prison they handed me my bill and made me work it off before I got my
dishonorable discharge
<
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.>
As with any event I always look at who benefits. Certainly the anti-gun lobby. Zionists
have always benefitted from such acts as they use them to get more protection against
criticism of their policies (eg legislation to define antisemitism as hate speech which would
include criticism of Israel). Remember the NY bombing threats a couple of years ago were
coming from an individual said to be working alone in Israel)
Be interesting to learn more about this Bowers. I am skeptical its a psyops at this point
because he was taken alive, but who knows.
What is often missing in comments is the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist
"Jews", Zionists with Jew and Jews with Semites!
Zionism is an extremely radical anti-Jewish ideology that is based on a fantasy of a
racial/cultural pure society, as was Nazism and the Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states (excluding Oman). This is not to say that there are not other societies that are
racist, such as the US, Japan and India to mention just a few.
Most believers in Zionism are Radical conservative Christians with some 40 million in the
US alone. A vast majority of US Christians support Zionism via their voting for Politicians
that support Zionism and Zionist "Jews".
Jews are just those that practice one of the variations of the Jewish religion much like
there are various Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox sects. As long as a religion practices an
inner form of the religion (e.g. some Sufi Islamic sects) that provides a moral basis for
interactions with other in a society there is little harm in religion.
Jews are considered a part of the broad category of Semitic people the denotes a family of
languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as
Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semitic
"Genetic studies indicate that modern Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi
specifically), Levantine Arabs, Assyrians/Syriacs, Samaritans, Maronites, Druze, Mandaeans,
and Mhallami, all have a common Near Eastern heritage which can be genetically mapped back to
the ancient Fertile Crescent, but often also display genetic profiles distinct from one
another, indicating the different histories of these peoples."
Furthermore, Jews are generally less Semitic than their current neighbors as: "A DNA study
of "six Middle Eastern populations (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews from Israel;
Muslim Kurds; Muslim Arabs from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area; and Bedouin from
the Negev)" found that Jews were more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile
Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
It is important to point out that Benzion Netanyahu (AKA Ben Nitay) may not be Semitic
like many of the Jews in the government of Israel. His father was a Zionist Rabbi in Poland
named Benzion Mileikowsky who was also a one-time secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benzion-Netanyahu
Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" are mostly Ashkenazim (only some 40% of these have generic
markers for Semitic Jews) and not only are anti-Semitic against the Palestinian Muslims and
Christians but are also discriminating against the Ultra-Orthodox Semitic Jews. Furthermore,
the Zionist Jews are facing daily protests against their rule from Semitic Jews, Christians
and Muslims who are actually citizens of the state of Israel. Recently these protests have
increased since the Zionist "Jews" that currently control Israel even passed a bill that
officially defines Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and Hebrew as the
country's official language.
Anti-Semitic Zionist "Jews" also do not recognize the Syrian citizenship of the Druze
living in the occupied Golan Heights. The refuse to take Israeli citizenship and use a
Israeli laissez-passer to travel outside of Israel with the citizenship box left empty.
Likewise, the Zionist anti-Semites suppress three million, mostly Semites, living in open
air concentration camps and have killed and wounded some 10,000 as collective punishment with
the approval of the West (including Australia). https://joanroelofs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/insecurity-blanket.pdf
@51 Krollchem - "...the importance of not confusing Zionism with Zionist "Jews", Zionists
with Jew and Jews with Semites!"
Yes indeed.
True it is that Zionists are the Jews' worst enemies, as Alan Hart pointed out in this
talk, titled after his 3-volume book and available on YouTube: Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
We are familiar now with seeing how many of our confusions are actually caused by the
disinformation machine, and the same can be said for the massive conflation that takes place
between the notions of Zionism, Jewishness and Semitism.
Trolls come to western discussions all the time to inflame anti-semitism - why would
Israel send them to do that? Because anti-semitism is the racism that forms the smoke behind
which Zionism can hide.
Zionism essentially uses the Jews as human shields. Like the Wahhabi, Zionism hides behind
innocent civilians. And because of the fog of war put out by Zionist disinformation and
field-level trolling, few critics can take aim at the Zionist actions hiding behind the Jews,
and don't dare shoot for fear of hitting "Semites", so called.
Thanks for the two links! I come to MoA to learn and appreciate your comment and the
additional info.
Pft , Oct 28, 2018 6:36:52 PM | 39
">link
Assuming this was not another psyops it seems amazing to me that people cant distinguish
between the Israeli government and their lobby which influences policy and elections in the
US and the average Jew attending a synagogue.
If memory serves, there is a no-schrapnel waxed-cardboard version of an RPG available for
non-armored targets. When I saw the Hastings crime scene, I saw the rear of the burning car
blown out by that RPG, and *then* Hastings crashed into the tree at an impossible angle,
instinctively power-sliding from what he must have assumed was a truck had just slammed into
his right rear quarter-panel. Don't be Michael Hastings. Don't be Robert Bowers, for that
matter, lol. The US-UK-IL-KSA mugwumps!
And that's why we will never have autonomous private vehicles. They are just using
taxpaying citizens as beta-testers for an autonomous Deep-Purple Mil.Gov UniParty global
police state.
By pure coincidence at a business-club dinner last night, I sat next to a military
subcontractor with Chinese connectiins, an import license and a Made-in-USA final assembly
warehouse. He is developing a low-altitude persistent-loitering traffic-monitoring drone. He
was in Bellevue to meet with the coders. It would be used with the HOV lane high resolution
cameras and real-time facial-recognition software, to identify speeders' names, vehicles and
addresses for first-deployment ... but can just as easily operate in reverse to find a target
and confirm-identify the front-seat passengers, then paint a laser target on the vehicle as
it wings down the freeway, waiting for an open area Hastings-esque hellfire denouement.
Prolly for MENA. Prolly A-OK, Joe. Nothing to see here, citizen. E pluribus now get back
to work. Pence's latest $1/4-TRILLION nuclear ICBM upgrade program awards soon, and we're
gonna need those tithe-tributes!
"... Whether Twitter had made an honest mistake, or scrambled to engage in damage control, is sort of immaterial at this point. Some of his posts have been archived , but not responses to them. All that suspending his account accomplished is to make it more difficult to parse the Florida man's motives. By the way, Sayoc's Facebook page was likewise taken down on Friday. ..."
The history of criminal behavior and online threats by Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man charged
with sending suspicious packages to prominent Democrats, somehow went ignored by both
government and social media police.
Sayoc, 56, was arrested on Friday, and stands accused of sending pipe bombs - 14, as of the
last count - to former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, actor Robert De Niro,
billionaire Democrat donors George Soros and Tom Steyer, and several Democrat lawmakers.
Federal authorities have refused to speculate on the suspect's motives, but news outlets
quickly pored over Sayoc's social media
feeds , finding photos and videos of pro-Trump memes, Trump rallies, and abusive language
towards Democrats. A van in which he reportedly lived, after losing his home to foreclosure,
was covered in pro-Trump decals. Twitter #Resistance activists, who had already coined the term
"MAGAbomber" to describe the suspect, rejoiced.
It was Sayoc's prior run-ins with the law that allowed the FBI to find him, matching a
fingerprint and DNA from some of the packages to samples they had on file. His criminal record
shows charges of grand theft, misdemeanor theft, battery, felony steroid possession, and even
threatening a bomb attack in 2002 - leaving an open question of how he kept getting
away with it all, over and over again.
Then there is the matter of Sayoc's social media accounts. Over the past two years, under
intense pressure by Democrats and drummed-up charges of "Russian meddling," Twitter and
Facebook have cracked down on users left
and right . Time and again, people engaging in protected free speech have been " shadowbanned " or
suspended, permanently or until they deleted posts someone reported as "offensive."
Yet when Democratic strategist Rochelle Ritchie actually reported Sayoc's account to Twitter
two weeks ago, over a threat she received from him after appearing on a Fox News show,
Twitter did not find the post
objectionable .
Richie then received an email from Twitter saying
the previous response to her complaint had been "an error."
Whether Twitter had made an honest mistake, or scrambled to engage in damage control, is
sort of immaterial at this point. Some of his posts have been archived , but
not responses to them. All that suspending his account accomplished is to make it more
difficult to parse the Florida man's motives. By the way, Sayoc's Facebook page was likewise
taken down on Friday.
Both Twitter and Facebook claim they are trying to improve "conversations" on their
platforms, and that their purges are nonpartisan. While technically correct, that's misleading.
Establishment figures and outfits somehow always skate, while both critics of Clintonism on the
left and Trump Republicans end up under the banhammer.
Meanwhile, the social media giants continue to insist they are not publishers, and delegate
the dirty work of policing to quasi-NGOs like the National Endowment for
Democracy and the Atlantic Council . They
end up deciding who's a "Russian bot" or "Iranian troll" based on arbitrary criteria, which the
mainstream media repeats uncritically.
That someone like Sayoc ended up under the radar of both the authorities and social media
police suggests that he was either deliberately tolerated, or that their "defense of democracy"
is a sham. It is perhaps fitting that none of Sayoc's bombs actually exploded; the only thing
they blew up in the end seems to be some illusions.
"... Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is "akin to the German Nazy Party last century" in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism. ..."
Roberts, Former Asst. Treasury Secretary in the Reagan administration and former
contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal has been an outspoken critic of neocon foreign
policy and Washington corruption from a conservative viewpoint.
He has an enormous following on the internet and publishes at the Unz Review and on his own
website.
... ... ...
Roberts, 79, served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1982. He was formerly a
distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior research fellow at the Hoover
Institution, and has written for the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek.
Roberts maintains an active
blog .
He's also vehemently against interventionary wars around the world , and spoke with Russia's
state-owned Sputnik news in a
Tuesday article - in which Roberts said that President Trump's decision to pull out of the
Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty was a handout to the military-security
complex.
The former Reagan administration official clarified that he does not think "that the
military-security complex itself wants a war with Russia, but it does want an enemy that
can be used to justify more spending. " He explained that the withdrawing from the INF
Treaty "gives the military-security complex a justification for a larger budget and new
money to spend: manufacturing the formerly banned missiles."
...
The economist highlighted that " enormous sums spent on 'defense' enabled the armaments
corporations to control election outcomes with campaign contributions ," adding that in
addition, "the military has bases and the armaments corporations have factories in almost
every state so that the population, dependent on the jobs, support high amounts of
'defense' spending."
"That was 57 years ago," he underscored. "You can imagine how much stronger the
military-security complex is today." - Sputnik
Roberts also suggested that " The Zionist Neoconservatives are responsible for Washington's
unilateral abandonment of the INF treaty, just as they were responsible for Washington's
unilateral abandonment of the ABM Treaty [in 2002], the Iran nuclear agreement, and the promise
not to move NATO one inch to the East. "
Is this what got him suspended?
Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is "akin to the German
Nazy Party last century" in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism.
" Their over-confidence about their ability to quickly defeat Israel's enemies and open the
Middle East to Israeli expansion got the US bogged down in wars in the Middle East for 17 years
... During this time, both Russia and China rose much more quickly than the neoconservatives
thought possible."
Dr. Roberts opined that US policy makers are seeking to weaponize the Russian opposition
and "pro-Western elements" to exert pressure on Moscow into "accommodating Washington in
order to have the sanctions removed." On the other hand, the Trump administration's new arms
race could force Russia into spending more on defense, according to the author. - Sputnik
While we don't know if Roberts' Sputnik interview resulted in his Twitter ban 48 hours
later, it's entirely possible.
"... Save WikiLeaks is vilified by governments (and increasingly by journalists) for its exposures, including of the U.S.-UK "special relationship" in running a joint foreign policy of deception and violence that serves London and Washington's elite interests, says Mark Curtis. ..."
"... Middle East Eye ..."
"... A cable the following year shows the lengths to which Whitehall goes to defend the special relationship from public scrutiny. Just as the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War was beginning in 2009, Whitehall promised Washington that it had "put measures in place to protect your interests". ..."
"... The Wikileaks cables are rife with examples of British government duplicity of the kind I've extensively come across in my own research on UK declassified files. In advance of the British-NATO bombing campaign in Libya in March 2011, for example, the British government pretended that its aim was to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on civilians and not to overthrow him. ..."
"... However, Wikileaks files released in 2016 as part of its Hillary Clinton archive show William Burns, then the U.S. deputy secretary of state, having talked with now Foreign Secretary Hague about a "post-Qaddafi" Libya . This was more than three weeks before military operations began. The intention was clearly to overthrow Gaddafi, and the UN resolution about protecting civilians was simply window dressing. ..."
"... (U.S. Air Force photo) ..."
"... Cables show the US spying on the Foreign Office and collecting information on British ministers. Soon after the appointment of Ivan Lewis as a junior foreign minister in 2009, U.S. officials were briefing the office of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about rumors that he was depressed and had a reputation as a bully, and on " the state of his marriage. " ..."
"... In addition, Wikileaks cables reveal that journalists and the public are considered legitimate targets of UK intelligence operations. In October 2009, Joint Services Publication 440 , a 2,400-page restricted document written in 2001 by the Ministry of Defence, was leaked. Somewhat ironically, it contained instructions for the security services on to avid leaks of information by hackers , journalists and foreign spies. ..."
WikiLeaks' Legacy of Exposing US-UK Complicity October 27, 2018 •
7 Comments
Save WikiLeaks is vilified by governments (and increasingly by journalists) for its
exposures, including of the U.S.-UK "special relationship" in running a joint foreign policy of
deception and violence that serves London and Washington's elite interests, says Mark
Curtis.
By Mark Curtis Middle East Eye
Twelve years ago this month, WikiLeaks began
publishing government secrets that the world public might otherwise never have known. What it
has revealed about state duplicity, human rights abuses and corruption goes beyond anything
published in the world's "mainstream" media.
After over six months of being cut off from outside world, on 14 October 14 Ecuador has
partly restored Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's communications with the outside world from
its London embassy where the founder has been living for over six years. (Assange, however,
later
rejected Ecuador's restrictions imposed on him.)
The treatment – real and threatened – meted out to Assange by the U.S. and UK
governments contrasts sharply with the service Wikileaks has done their publics in revealing
the nature of elite power, as shown in the following snapshot of Wikileaks' revelations about
British foreign policy in the Middle East.
Conniving with the Saudis
Whitehall's special relationship with Riyadh is exposed in an extraordinary
cable from 2013 highlighting how Britain conducted secret vote-trading deals with Saudi
Arabia to ensure both states were elected to the UN human rights council. Britain initiated the
secret negotiations by asking Saudi Arabia for its support.
Hague: 'World needs pro-American regime' in Britain. (Chatham House)
The Wikileaks releases also shed details on Whitehall's fawning relationship with
Washington. A 2008 cable , for example, shows then
shadow foreign secretary William Hague telling the U.S. embassy that the British "want a
pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it."
A cable the following year shows the lengths to which Whitehall goes to defend the special
relationship from public scrutiny. Just as the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War was beginning
in 2009, Whitehall promised Washington that it had
"put measures in place to protect your interests".
American Influence
It is not known what this protection amounted to, but no U.S. officials were called to give
evidence to Chilcot in public. The inquiry was also refused
permission to publish letters between former U.S. President George W. Bush and former UK
Prime Minister Tony Blair written in the run-up to the war.
Also in 2009, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised the prospect of reducing the number of
British nuclear-armed Trident submarines from four to three, a policy opposed in Washington.
However, Julian Miller, an official in the UK's Cabinet Office, privately assured U.S. officials that
his government "would consult with the U.S. regarding future developments concerning the
Trident deterrent to assure there would be 'no daylight' between the U.S. and UK." The idea
that British decision-making on Trident is truly independent of the U.S. is undermined by this
cable.
The Wikileaks cables are rife with examples of British government duplicity of the kind I've
extensively come across in my own
research on UK declassified files. In advance of the British-NATO bombing campaign in Libya
in March 2011, for example, the British
government pretended that its aim was to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on
civilians and not to overthrow him.
However, Wikileaks files released in 2016 as part of its Hillary Clinton archive show
William Burns, then the U.S. deputy secretary of state, having talked with now Foreign
Secretary Hague about a "post-Qaddafi" Libya . This was more
than three weeks before military operations began. The intention was clearly to overthrow
Gaddafi, and the UN resolution about protecting civilians was simply window dressing.
Another case of British duplicity concerns Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos
archipelago in the Indian Ocean, which is now a major U.S. base for intervention in the Middle
East. The
UK has long fought to prevent Chagos islanders from returning to their homeland after
forcibly removing them in the 1960s.
A secret 2009 cable shows that a particular ruse concocted by Whitehall to promote this was
the establishment of a " marine reserve " around the
islands. A senior Foreign Office official told the US that the "former inhabitants would find
it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the
entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve."
A B-1B Lancer unleashes cluster munitions. The B-1B uses radar and inertial navigation
equipment enabling aircrews to operate without the need for ground-based navigation aids.
(U.S. Air Force photo)
A week before the "marine reserve" proposal was made to the U.S. in May 2009, then UK
Foreign Secretary David Miliband was also conniving with the U.S., apparently to deceive the
public. A cable reveals Miliband helping the
U.S. to sidestep a ban on cluster bombs and keep the weapons at U.S. bases on UK soil, despite
Britain signing the international treaty banning the weapons the previous year.
Miliband
approved a loophole created by diplomats to allow U.S. cluster bombs to remain on UK soil
and was part of discussions on how the loophole would help avert a debate in Parliament that
could have "complicated or muddied" the issue. Critically, the same cable also revealed that the
U.S. was storing cluster munitions on ships based at Diego Garcia.
Spying on the UK
Cables show the US spying on the Foreign Office and collecting information on British
ministers. Soon after the appointment of Ivan Lewis as a junior foreign minister in 2009, U.S.
officials were briefing the office of U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about rumors that he was depressed and had a reputation as a
bully, and on " the state of his marriage. "
Washington was also shown to have
been spying on the UK mission to the UN, along with other members of the Security Council and
the UN Secretary General.
In addition, Wikileaks cables reveal that journalists and the public are considered
legitimate targets of UK intelligence operations. In October 2009,
Joint Services Publication 440 , a 2,400-page restricted document written in 2001 by the
Ministry of Defence, was leaked. Somewhat ironically, it contained instructions for the
security services on to avid leaks of information by hackers , journalists and
foreign spies.
Millions worldwide are demanding the release of Wikileaks founder Assange after six years of
what the UN calls "arbitrary detention." (New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)
The document refers to investigative journalists as "threats" alongside subversive and
terrorist organizations, noting that "the 'enemy' is unwelcome publicity of any kind, and
through any medium."
Britain's GCHQ is also revealed to have spied on Wikileaks itself – and its readers.
One classified GCHQ
document from 2012 shows that GCHQ used its surveillance system to secretly collect the IP
addresses of visitors to the Wikileaks site in real time, as well as the search terms that
visitors used to reach the site from search engines such as Google.
Championing Free Nedua
The British government is punishing Assange for the service that Wikileaks has performed. It
is ignoring a UN ruling that he is being held in " arbitrary
detention " at the Ecuadorian embassy, while failing, illegally, to ensure his health needs
are met. Whitehall is also refusing to offer diplomatic assurances that Assange will not be
extradited to the US – the only reason he remains in the embassy.
Smear campaigns have portrayed Assange as a sexual predator or a Russian agent, often in the
same media that have benefitted from covering Wikileaks' releases.
Many journalists and activists who are perfectly aware of the fake news in some Western
media outlets, and of
the smear campaign against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn , are ignoring or even colluding in
the more vicious smearing of Assange.
More journalists need to champion the service Wikileaks performs and argue for what is at
stake for a free media in the right to expose state secrets.
This
article originally appeared on Middle East Eye.
Mark Curtis is an historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development
and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain's
Collusion with Radical Islam.
"... This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. ..."
"... This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was never meant to be owned in the first place. ..."
"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the
citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a
stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen
implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called
"weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."
This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the
economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it
was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the
Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The
ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues
to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was
going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that
it was unconstitutional.
"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property
lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real
property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers -- not
legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute
This is the struggle -- the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was
never meant to be owned in the first place.
Trump may have his own views, but he has no own foreign policy. He is a neocon's
marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have come to end. ..."
"... Woodward wrote ..."
"... Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we are already out, and they'll believe him? ..."
"... Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk. ..."
"... The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos. ..."
"... There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to what the supporters claim. ..."
In a routine dating back to 2004, U.S. officials
regularly claim that the latest strategy in Afghanistan is working -- or as General David
Petraeus said in
2012 , the war had "turned a corner." It hadn't and it still hasn't. In fact, evidence
overwhelmingly affirms that the newest "new" strategy will be no more effective than those that
came before it. It is time to stop losing U.S. lives while pretending that victory is just
around the corner. It is time to end the war in Afghanistan.
Last week, one of the most brazen insider attacks of the war took place in Kandahar when one
of the Afghanistan governor's bodyguards turned rogue,
killingthree high-profile
Afghan leaders and
wounding the senior U.S. field commander, Brigadier General Jeffrey Smiley. Miraculously,
the new commander, General Scott Miller, escaped harm. But in 2018,
eight Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the American death toll to
2,351 .
On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush
addressed the nation as combat operations in Afghanistan began. He emphasized that the
American "mission is defined. The objectives are clear. [Our] goal is just." Those objectives,
he explained , were "targeted actions" that were "designed to disrupt the use of
Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the
Taliban regime."
By the summer of 2002, those objectives were fully met as the Taliban organization was
wholly destroyed and al-Qaeda severely degraded. As of 2009, there were reportedly
as few as 100 stragglers scattered impotently throughout Afghanistan. The military mission
should therefore have ended and combat forces redeployed.
Instead Bush, and later Obama, transitioned the military mission -- without consultation
from Congress -- into a nation-building effort that was doomed from the start. Candidate Donald
Trump spoke of a different approach to the Middle East and railed against nation-building
abroad. His instincts on Afghanistan have been consistent and correct from very early on. Had
it not been for the relentless pressure of several key officials, the war might already have
come to end.
After a December 2015 insider attack, Trump tweeted : "A suicide
bomber has just killed U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When will our leaders get tough and smart.
We are being led to slaughter!" According to Bob Woodward's book Fear , Trump brought
that same passion against the futility of the Afghan war into the White House.
Woodward
wrote that at an August 2017 meeting on Afghanistan, Trump told his generals that the
war had been "a disaster," and chided them for "wanting to add even more troops to something I
don't believe in."
Woodward claims that Trump then told the top brass, "I was against this from the beginning.
He folded his arms. 'I want to get out,' the president said. 'And you're telling me the answer
is to get deeper in.'" Under pressure -- from the likes of Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and Senator Lindsey Graham -- Trump eventually gave in.
Events have since proven that Trump would have done the country a favor by resisting that
pressure and sticking to his instincts to end the war. The violence
keeps up at a record pace, civilian casualties continue to set
all-time highs , and Afghan troops struggle
mightily with battle losses. The president was right in August 2017 and his instincts
remain solid today.
The longer Trump continues to defer to the establishment thinking that produced 17
consecutive years of military failure, the longer that failure will afflict us, the more
casualties we will suffer unnecessarily, and the more money we will pour down the drain.
It is time for Trump to remember that it is futile to try to win the unwinnable and finally
end America's longest war.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lieutenant
Colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments,
two of which were in Afghanistan.
Trump defers to the Pentagon because he doesn't really care. He says he wants to get out of
Afghanistan (and I support that) but getting out isn't going to make him any money, or get
him any votes. So why bother with it, especially when he can lie to his base and tell them we
are already out, and they'll believe him?
Trump is the kind of person who likes to "talk the talk" but when comes right down to it, he
going to sadly, "walk the walk" that the Washington establishment tells him to walk.
The treasonous MIC and those top generals do not care about the nation and ordinary
Americans. They care only about their profits, careers and their own egos.
There is no war they don't like – Middle East, checked, Ukraine, yes, South China
Sea, sure, Korea, definitely. It is so sad that Trump turns out to be such a weak and impotent president, contrary to
what the supporters claim.
I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his campaign
positions on this and other things .
God; what might have been .
SDS, you are correct. I've often thought that Trump could have forged a majority coalition by
doing things the People really wanted, or at least didn't hate: nominating another Gorsuch,
cutting the size of government, appointing competent people, getting out of the Middle East,
no tariffs, less racism, getting concession from businesses that benefited from the tax cut,
following emoluments rules, etc. etc.
"I think a lot of us could have tolerated the asinine antics if he had stuck to his
campaign positions on this and other things . God; what might have been ."
First, sorry you fell for The Con. I understand. Maybe. Second, the real question is, "What are you going to do about it?". Vote Republican Nov 6? Why would you do that? Hope against all hope? Dementia? Gluttony
for punishment? BTW. HRC is not on the ballot this time, and will never be again.
Unless we intend to invade en mass, and scour the country from one end to the other to defeat
any and all opponents, the mission in Afghanistan will remain what it is. "new wine (of
sorts) in old wineskins.
If we are going to remake a country -- we had better remake it. I am not sure i have ever
said this before but the entire affair
We hear Pakistan is now desperate for IMF aid. That the One belt One Road initiative there by
China has already put the country in the position of having to stand down its creditor,
China. Partly with the help of Japanese finance, Iran and India are out to squeeze Islamabad
out of world trade.
The Pakis are headed into a new dark age, so don't expect the Russians to bark wildly and
chase down this car. With any luck, they and China will revive the Northern Alliance, make a
garrison of Kabul, and eventually Xi and Vladi will have their own escalating civil war over
control over Central Asia.
I'd say January 2019 is a good time to begin a quick US withdrawal, just as long as we
pull out of the IMF and not give another red American cent to the region, save a green zone
around Kabul with economically productive areas.
I would argue that although this would seem like an American loss, it will put our
Progressive yappers to shame. What human values would they stand up and defend now, among the
IndoPak Caravan? Maybe then we'll really focus on our own border and wage the good fight
where it is needed -- the Culture War.
Obama had intended to leave. The military insisted on vict'ry and another Surge. He gave them
their Surge and their time to do it. They failed, made things worse and prevented Obama from
leaving. They're still playing. Trump's just the latest Oval Office 'sucker'.
"... As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. ..."
"... Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses. ..."
As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into
three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners,
plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist
constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion.
And certainly in terms of his voters, in terms of his voter base, that's a small proportion.
What you have, then, is the rich, amongst whom he has a very significant lead. He polls 60-65
percent amongst the rich. And these people are motivated by what is called [inaudible]machismo,
which is anti-Worker's Party sentiment, which is really a sort form of barely-disguised class
loathing which targets the Worker's Party, rails against corruption, but of course turns a
blind eye to corruption amongst more traditional right-wing politicians.
These are the people who, at the end of the day, are quite influential, and have probably
proved decisive for Bolsonaro. But that isn't to say that he doesn't have support amongst the
poor, and this is the real issue. Bolsonaro would not win an election with just the support of
the reactionary middle class and the rich. He needs the support amongst the broad masses, and
he does have that to a significant degree, unfortunately.
What are they motivated by? They're motivated by a sense that politics has failed them, that
their situation is pretty hopeless. The security situation is very grave. And Bolsonaro seems
to be someone who might do something different, might change things. It's a bit of a rolling of
the dice kind of situation. And you know, here the Worker's Party does bear some blame. They've
lost a large section of the working class. A large section of the poor feel like they were
betrayed by the Worker's Party, who didn't stay true to its promises. The Worker's Party
implemented the austerity in its last government under Dilma, which led to a ballooning of
unemployment. And you know, there's a sense that- well, what have you done for us? A lot of
people don't want to return to the path. They want something better, and kind of roll the dice
hoping that maybe Bolsonaro does something, even though all evidence points to the fact that
he'll be a government for the rich, and the very rich, and for the forces of repression.
GREG WILPERT: So finally, in the little time that we have remaining, what is
happening to Brazil's left? Is it supporting the Haddad campaign wholeheartedly?
ALEX HOCHULI: Yes, absolutely. It's pretty much uniform amongst the left. Certainly
in terms of, you know, in terms of individuals, in terms of groups, in terms of movements.
Everyone, from even the kind of far-left Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party who
hate PT have told its members that they should vote for Fernando Haddad who, it should be
noted, is a figure to the right of that of PT, I guess, within the party. He's a much more
centrist figure. So that's kind of notable.
What hasn't happened is a broad front against fascism. That hasn't really materialized,
because the Brazilian center has failed to defend its democratic institutions against the very
obvious threat that Bolsonaro represents. You know, just to highlight one thing, Eduardo
Bolsonaro, who is Jair Bolsonar's son and a congressman, has threatened the Supreme Court,
saying that you could close down the Supreme Court. All you have to do is send one soldier and
one corporal, and they'll shut down the Supreme Court. I mean, this is a pretty brave threat
against Brazilian institutions. And a lot of the center has failed to really manifest itself,
really failed to take a stand. Marina Silva, who was at one point polling quite high about six
months ago, who is a kind of an environmentalist and an evangelical and a centrist, and who is
known for always in her speeches talking about doing things democratically, even she- it took
her until this week to finally endorse Haddad, lending Haddad critical support.
The center right, which should be the, you know, the Brazilian establishment, the ones
upholding the institutions, have broadly failed to endorse Haddad as the democratic candidate.
Which is really, really striking. I mean, just to give you one example, probably the best known
figure for your viewers outside of Brazil who might not know the ins and outs and all the
players involved, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was
exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has
yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years
ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This
is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian
supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro
poses.
GREG WILPERT: Wow. Amazing. We'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for what happens on
Sunday. We'll probably have you back soon. I'm speaking to Alex Hochuli, researcher and
communication consultant based in Sao Paulo. Thanks again, Alex, for having joined us
today.
The first stage is social media censorship. The next stage is the total blocking of
websites offering alternative news to the MSM. This is by far the most dangerous threat to
individual freedom.
The intenet addressing system is controlled at the top by the US military (and always
was). The ultimate arbiter for any internet address lookup is in the US InterNIC system
(owned and controlled by the US military), to which all the national domain name registries
defer. By manipulating or falsifying lookup data they can block international access to any
website in the world (including covertly). US/UK censorship is going to rapidly expand over
the very near future, as the West moves to ever more suppressionist policies. We urgently
need a new internet addressing infrastructure with a capability to bypass the US structures
and allow any internet access that might be blocked by the US, before alternative media
outlets are totally silenced.
There are vague references in the alternate media from time to time of Russian/Chinese
initiatives to develop an alternative infrastructure, but I have not seen anything specific.
I don't know how advanced these projects are, or whether they are intended for use from
anywhere in the world or only internally in the officially participating countries.
Under the current internet system, the local user uses configurable numerical addresses as
local address lookup under TCP/IP (Name Server) - ISPs normally try to set this to their own
servers through their installation software, but you can also set it manually to some other
name server that you find more reliable. For example, many ISPs illegally block certain
websites by sabotaging the address lookup on their own name server (i.e. it does not match
the data held by the official registry for the domain name) with false data (I have seen this
done many times to my own website, both my own ISP and other people's ISP; it blocks email
based on the blocked domain name at the same time, or the block can be specific to sub-domain
such as www). When you try to access the site you then get an error message from the browser.
If you challenge the ISP they will be forced to correct the data, but then they may silently
sabotage it again later. Instead of using your ISPs own name server, you can use any other
name server that is publicly accessible (some name servers might not be accessible from a
different ISP, but many are accessible to anyone). A good solution is often a name server
belonging to a local (or non-local!) university. Sometimes you might find you then get more
reliable access to non-mainstream websites, and fewer browser errors (address not found).
What I would like to see Russia/China/BRICS/SCO/etc offer ASAP is some nameserver
infrastructure that can be accessed through the standard nameserver settings under TCP/IP on
any computer, and which offer configurable access to the internet address lookup registries
around the world without critical dependence on the US controlled InterNIC database.
Numerical internet addresses (IP addresses) change from time to time. This is in itself
normal. For example if MoA changes its service provider (web server), the MoA numerical IP
address will be changed. The change in IP address is registered in the database stored in the
registry for the .org upper level domain name in the US, and other name servers around the
world regularly update their own data from that. If the US substitutes false values, any
attempt to access the website can be diverted to an alternative address (sometimes a fake
website!) managed by the US. Sometimes they do this even now, and then if challenged they
pretend it was a "mistake". Russia/China need to provide name server infrastructure combined
with user software (browser inferface) that is capable of selecting archived IP address
lookup data when the most recently available data in the registry is false, selectable by
date (the registry contains information on when the data was last changed). By selecting an
IP address from archived data before the block, it can re-enable access to the site (as long
as the website is still on the servers - if on US servers that is still under US control, but
if it is on Russian servers it is not under US control).
Some websites legitimately need to be blocked - eg ISIS propaganda sites etc - the system
would need to be able to block access to archived IP addresses for such legitimately blocked
sites.
As I suggested some weeks ago, B really needs to prepare for possible blocking in advance
- I am quite sure it will come eventually - by registering a non-US website such as
moonofalabama.org.ru etc, and announcing that alternate address. When the internet is cut, it
is already too late to announce the backup site! That can still be blocked by the US, but
there are more ways to get around it.
"... They had to assemble a number of these devices and no one knows if the idea was to scare these political operatives or was a true false flag operation. ..."
"... When yet another 'explosives expert' was introduced to explain the procedure, I burst out laughing. When I looked around at the several disapproving faces in the dining area, I shrugged my shoulders and remarked: "It reminds me of Pro Wrestling." One other older man laughed. The rest were perplexed. ..."
"... I am inclined at this point to think that this is a campaign organized from the left intended to move the needle before the elections. I would look for college students in the NY City area where "bombs" have been hand delivered. Try NYU or Columbia first. ..."
Whoever cooked up the scheme to send fake bombs to Democrat politicians on the eve of the
2018 mid-term election, you have to give them credit for creativity. The so-called "bombs" sent
to the likes of the Clintons, Obama, Soros and Joe Biden are made to appear like real bombs but
lack the detonator and other key components that one would normally find with a real Improvised
Explosive Device. Friends in ATF and the FBI tell me that these "devices" are to explosives
what the little kid dressed as Pocohontas is to real American Indians. Costumed theater.
The audience for this theater is the voting public. The Democrats want you to believe that
Donald Trump has stirred up a culture of hate and that some acolyte of Trump has now embarked
on his own personal jihad. Of course, those pushing this nonsense ignore Madonna's call to blow
up the White House. They ignore Kathy Griffin's decapitation of the President's effigy. They
ignore the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up the Republicans practicing for a softball game.
They ignore the mob attacks on Sarah Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and others in the Trump
Administration. They ignore the multiple Antifa attacks that have shutdown conservative
Republicans. They ignore the cacophony of epithets hurled by former Obama officials, like John
Brennan and Jim Clapper, against Donald Trump.
Nope. It is all Donald Trump's fault. What a crock!!!
PT - No one knows yet who sent the bombs and what their political motive might be. It
might be a amateur bomb maker who had no idea what he/she was doing as a bomb maker.
They had to assemble a number of these devices and no one knows if the idea was to
scare these political operatives or was a true false flag operation.
The idea of demonstrations is to get your point across and to show the intensity
behind it. Now I don't agree with hassling someone in a pubic non political space. But
please spare me the idea that Saint Trump is our President - not when he applauded
Gianforte for body slamming to the ground, Ben Jacobs. I think all democrats said the
shooting at the Congressional baseball practice was totally improper.
There is way too much animosity displayed in our political system. The current
political ads are way out of bounds - on both sides. this is doing nothing but furthering
the partisanship that is slowly eating away at our culture.
Democratic Party and many (not all, of course) of its supporters are a real danger--from
suicidal identity and gender politics to unhinged progressive "brown-shirts" totally
capable to start a fire they will not be able to control.
Sir;
You get complete agreement from here.
Now New York city is moved one step closer to Fortress City status with the deployment of
the National Guard there to 'protect' 'key' locations.
I was in a local fast food place yesterday that had Fox News on the jumbo television
screen mounted on the wall of the eating area. When yet another 'explosives expert'
was introduced to explain the procedure, I burst out laughing. When I looked around at
the several disapproving faces in the dining area, I shrugged my shoulders and remarked:
"It reminds me of Pro Wrestling." One other older man laughed. The rest were
perplexed.
What I am worried about is that this might be a program to set the scene for an actual
attempt on Trump.
One cannot be too cynical today.
I suspect that it is *precisely* because of that long list of "left-wing" provocations
and incitements to violence which started to worry the "influence managers" of the borg
planners. They must have seen lots of feedback indicating that the "left" was perceived
as being violent and anti-democratic, and thus needed to "change the conversation" back
to... Donald Trump is to blame for everything, naturally. And Putin. Russians. You know
the story by now.
I think it will fail badly for several reasons. Firstly, it is simply too slick - all
the "bombs" coming one after the other, and the "targets" seeming like a list of
prominent Trump "enemies". It is totally unlike the kind of campaign a "lone wolf" or
amateur group would do. Secondly, after pushing the insane conspiracy theories like
"Russiagate" for two years, the instinct in the public mind is to see this as yet another
"false flag". Thirdly, I would imagine that such people - who have the very best security
money can buy - were clearly never in danger even if the "bombs" were genuine.
I think Trump and Pence have shown an excellent response - by immediately condemning
these "attacks" they have made the Dummycrats look terrible by comparison. Remember the
ricin packages? The mobs? Calls for assassination? Sure you do. But what you will not
remember is a single example of a Democrat condemning any of it, or suggesting to their
followers to refrain from violent and terrorist-like tactics. Because it never
happened.
Yet, still in the Twilight Zone of CNN/MSNBC/etc, it is still Donald Trump (and his
Russian "handlers", of course!) who is always responsible for violence, incivility,
anti-democratic tendencies, global warming, poverty, low wages, poor Star Wars reviews,
Conor losing to Khabib, Crimea, Syria...
My WAG is that ithe "so-called bombs"came from Alt-Right types and that the intended
message was "The next time, or the time after that, they'll be for real -- you're that
vulnerable." We shall see ... perhaps.
I am inclined at this point to think that this is a campaign organized from the left
intended to move the needle before the elections. I would look for college students in
the NY City area where "bombs" have been hand delivered. Try NYU or Columbia first.
I would say that fascism is nationalist movement with the nationality of host country in its core. While neoliberalism
like Trotskyism is in its core globalization movement.
Modem far right movement in Europe emerged as a reaction neolineralism and with few exceptions (Ukranina, oland, Baltic states)
are suspecialous of both EU and the USA and by extension of neoliberal globalization
Notable quotes:
"... The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F Byrnes, has been a member of the council. ..."
"... n their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy ..."
"... When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. ..."
"... There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé. ..."
"... Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. ..."
"... Before defining the characteristics of fascism, we should look at the neo-conservatives who run the US government on behalf of the elite. ..."
"... The small, but ruthless, group of men, the "money power" described by Lincoln, has stolen democracy from the American people. ..."
Perhaps the best description of how the elite operate comes from the late Senator Barry Goldwater, Presidential candidate of
the Republican Party back in 1964. Senator Goldwater, a close friend of both JFK and Joe McCarthy, was considered a saber
rattling, extreme right wing conservative. Following his death, the Washington Post wrote: "Unlike nearly every other politician
who ever lived, anywhere in the world, Barry Goldwater always said exactly what was on his mind. He spared his listeners
nothing." This eulogy appears to be confirmed in one of Goldwater's books, With no Apologies, [12] in which he presents an
astonishingly frank exposé of the unfettered power and aspirations of the elite:
"The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making with the State Department and other federal
agencies. Every secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F Byrnes, has been a member of the council. Almost
without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. I believe
that the Council on Foreign relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological
anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a
socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - it's all the same to them.
"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945,
three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post
for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable
change in foreign or domestic policy.
There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during
the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy
Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.
"Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe,
Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and
banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
"Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping
and administering the proposed New World Order The Trilateral organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate - its
members selected by Rockefeller, its purpose defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller Examination of the
membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with
great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors In my view, the
Trilateral Commission represents a skilful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -
political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.
"The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power. David Rockefeller and
Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him to win the Democratic nomination
and the Presidency [1977]. To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the
intellectual influence of the academic community - which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations - and
the media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It was
no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the commission in 1973. But they weren't ready to bet all
their chips on Carter. They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open they also brought in
Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other
potential nominees."
Goldwater's testimony is all the more astonishing coming from a man with considerable knowledge of the core of the matrix and
who was no radical of the left. Goldwater was the only Republican Presidential candidate not to be the CFR choice for the
presidential nomination in the last 50 years.
The elite inner-circle members of the Bilderberg club, Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, conspire to
politically, and economically, dominate the entire world under their New World Order, or Globalisation as they now prefer to name
it.
Since the Second World War, Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations has filled key positions in virtually every
administration. Since Eisenhower, every man who has won the nomination for either party (except Goldwater in 1964) has been
directly sponsored by Rockefeller's CFR.
Before defining the characteristics of fascism, we should look at the neo-conservatives who run the US government on behalf of
the elite. In her book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, [13] Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of
Calgary, Canada, names current politicians, political advisers, administration and Supreme Court officials, who were followers of
the teachings of the fascist Leo Strauss.
Leo Strauss (1899- 1973) was a philosopher at the University of Chicago (built by Rockefeller money) where he taught many of
those currently involved in the US administration. Strauss left Nazi Germany in 1934 having been given a Rockefeller Foundation
bursary and is considered to be the "fascist godfather" of today's neo-cons.
According to Jeffery Steinberg in Executive Intelligence review [14]: "A review of Leo Strauss' career reveals why the label 'Straussian'
carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany (he actually left for a better
position abroad, on the warm recommendation of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt), Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most
notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. Recent biographies have
revealed the depth of Heidegger's enthusiasm for Hitler and Nazism.
"The hallmark of Strauss's approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run
by 'philosophers' who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and
deceived a foolish 'populist' mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general
population in clueless servitude."
Professor Shadia Drury [15] provides a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the neocons "Leo Strauss was a great believer
in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent
threat to the United States - the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaeda and the
Iraq regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz [Straussian] and others in the war party are denying that these
were the real reasons for the war.
"The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss's disciples consider it
a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it. The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished
believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be
like throwing pearls before swine A second fundamental of Strauss's ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for
secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He
argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons - to spare the people's feelings and to protect the elite from
possible reprisals. The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to
rule over the inferior, the master over the slave and the wise few over the vulgar many.
"I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close
to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realised in the political life of
a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny."
Shadia Drury is by no means alone in her desperate concern. Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois law
school writes [16]: "I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was
trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protégé, co-author, and literary executor Joseph Cropsey.
Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago I concur completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of
Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process by Chicago's Straussian
cabal.
"Chicago routinely trained me and numerous other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is
precisely why so many neophyte neo-con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago became
the 'brains' behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree
from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his 'lawyers' at the Department of Injustice [sic] are members of the
right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka 'Feddies'), which originated in part at the
University of Chicago.
"According to his own public estimate and boast before the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush Jr. hired about 20
Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its
Bush Jr. Straussian cabal. Only the University of Chicago would have the Orwellian gall to publicly claim that Strauss and
Bloom [a Strauss protégé] cared one whit about democracy let alone comprehend the 'ideals of democracy'.
"Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz or
totalitarians like Ashcroft! The neo-con cabal, currently ruling America and in charge of pursuing the New World Order agenda
is, according to Professors Drury and Boyle, "a tyranny of warmongers and unscrupulous elites from an intellectual and moral
cesspool."
What are the implications of this "New World Order", or "Globalization" as it is now called? Richard K. Moore [17] writes:
"The course of world events, for the first time in history, is now largely controlled by a centralised global regime. This regime
has been consolidating power ever since World War II and is now formalising that power into a collection of centralised
institutions and a new system of international 'order'. Top western political leaders are participants in this global regime, and
the strong Western nation state is rapidly being dismantled and destabilised. The global regime serves elite corporate interests
exclusively. It has no particular regard for human rights, democracy, human welfare, or the health of the environment. The only
god of this regime is the god of wealth accumulation.
"In two centuries the Western world has come full circle from tyranny to tyranny. The tyranny of monarchs was overthrown in
the Enlightenment and semi-democratic republics were established. Two centuries later those republics are being destabilised
and a new tyranny is assuming power - a global tyranny of anonymous corporate elites. This anonymous regime has no qualms
about creating poverty, destroying nations, and engaging in genocide.
"Humanity can do better than this - much better - and there is reason to hope that the time is ripe for humanity to bring
about fundamental changes We can oust the elites from power and reorganise our economies so that they serve the needs of the
people instead of the needs of endless wealth accumulation. This is our Revolutionary Imperative. Not an imperative to violent
revolution, but an imperative to do something even more revolutionary - to set humanity on a sane course using peaceful,
democratic means."
Bottom line, are the neo-cons driving this agenda neo-fascist? Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published research
on fascism [18] in which he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and several Latin American
regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each fascist State:
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans,
symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in
fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the
other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy
over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists;
socialists; terrorists, etc.
Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a
disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.
Rampant sexism - The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist
regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is
represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media
is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in
war time, is very common.
Obsession with National security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Religion and Government are intertwined - Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the
nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when
the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who
put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government,
labor unions are either eliminated, or are severely restricted.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher
education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free
expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce
laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There
is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates
who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from
accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even
outright stolen by government leaders.
Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are
manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassinations of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting
numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries
to manipulate or control elections.
Benito Mussolini - who knew something about fascism - had a more straightforward definition: "Fascism should more properly be
called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Abraham Lincoln stated, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the
safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country
will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and
the republic is destroyed."
The small, but ruthless, group of men, the "money power" described by Lincoln, has stolen democracy from the American
people. An ever-growing number of informed Americans, however, are fighting a brave, but desperate rear-guard action to
retrieve that democracy. Will we give them our total support now, or simply sit back and watch as the entire planet is taken back
to the dark ages? "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."
Jim Macgregor is a 57 year old retired doctor. For many years he was a family practitioner and visiting Medical Officer
to Glenochil Prison, one of Scotland's high security prisons. Through his prison work, he developed a special interest in
miscarriages of justice and is a member of the Miscarriage of Justice Organisation. MOJO (Scotland). You can contact Jim at
[email protected]
American politics
has become a game of, by, and for corporate interests, with tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for polluters, and war and global
warming for the rest of us. Americans – and the world – deserve better.
smart traffic they say? Wowsers. I always wanted those lights to turn green immediately (when Im around).
And 24/7 tracking, so they can give you personal ads on LCD billboards while you walk past.
And better yet: access to lock or unlock your front door for a 'repairman'. Yeah that will work out great. I always wanted to
hand the keys to my home to outsiders for safe keeping, but now its automatic!
Amazing. What a different life we would all lead in this Smart City. /s
Roughly one hundred years ago, the people who "ran things," – the drivers behind
governments, big business and banking – formulated a concept which became known by a
number of names, but, predominantly, as the "New World Order."
The concept was to put an end to unnecessary competition and warfare and have a central,
unelected group of people run the entire world. It was not considered necessary to completely
eliminate individual countries; the idea was to control them all centrally. It also didn't
necessarily mean that wars would end. Warfare can be quite useful for rulers, as they provide
an excellent distraction from resentment toward the leaders who impose control over a
people.
Ever since that time, this same rough group of people has continued generationally.
Sometimes, but not always, the family names change. Useful people are added on and less useful
ones removed. But the concept itself has continued, evolved and, in fact, gained strength.
But, as yet, the process remains incomplete. Several facets to a New World Order are not yet
in place. It's proven difficult to "fool all of the people all of the time," so the effort to
subjugate an entire world has taken more time than originally anticipated.
An essential component of this control is the elimination of the personal holding of wealth.
Whilst the leaders intend to expand their own wealth in an unlimited fashion, they seek to
suppress the ability of the average person to increase his own wealth. Wealth leads to
independence and independence from a New World Order is unacceptable. Wealth gives people
options. They must be taught to accept being herded like cattle and being compliant, or they
will become troublesome.
Surveillance Capitalism is nice term for STASI=line regime which became the "new normal". When we say Google we mean CIA.
Notable quotes:
"... Being touted as "the world's first neighborhood built from the internet up," the Google designed smart city is set to deploy an array of cameras and sensors that detect pedestrians at traffic lights or alert cleanup crews when garbage bins overflow, reports The Globe and Mail . Robotic vehicles will whisk away garbage in underground tunnels, heated bike lanes will melt snow and a street layout will accommodate a fleet of self-driving cars. ..."
"... Such an account could potentially work with facial recognition "and allow for example a repairman to get into a home to perform his duties and firefighters to have access a building when a fire alarm is triggered." ..."
"... The project's critics included former BlackBerry CEO Jim Balsillie who referred to the development as "a colonizing experiment in surveillance capitalism attempting to bulldoze important urban, civic and political issues." ..."
"... Ann Cavoukia's decision to walk away from the project was made just weeks after Waterfront Toronto's Digital Strategy Advisory Panel member, Saadia Muzaffar, resigned over concerns about how Google will collect and handle data collected from people within the smart city. ..."
"... "We are at a point where a secretive, unelected, publicly funded corporation with no expertise in IP, data or even basic digital rights is in charge of navigating forces of urban privatization, algorithmic control and rule by corporate contract." ..."
A privacy expert tasked with protecting personal data within a Google-backed smart city project has resigned as her pro-privacy
guidelines would largely be ignored by participants.
"I imagined us creating a Smart City of Privacy, as opposed to a Smart City of Surveillance," Ann Cavoukian, the former privacy
commissioner of Ontario, wrote
in a resignation letter to Google sister company Sidewalk Labs.
"I felt I had no choice because I had been told by Sidewalk Labs that all of the data collected will be de-identified at source,"
she added.
Cavoukian was an acting consultant involved in the plan by Canada's Waterfront Toronto to develop a smart city neighborhood in
the city's Quayside development. She had created an initiative called Privacy by Design that aimed to ensure citizens' personal data
would be protected.
Once it became apparent that citizen privacy could not be guaranteed, Cavoukian decided it was time to leave the project:
But then, at a Thursday meeting, Cavoukian reportedly realized such anonymization protocols could not be guaranteed. She told
the Candian news outlet that Sidewalk Labs revealed at that meeting that their organization could commit to her guidelines, but
other involved groups would not be required to abide by them.
Cavoukian realized third parties could possibly have access to identifiable data gathered through the project. "When I heard
that, I said, 'I'm sorry. I can't support this. I have to resign because you committed to embedding privacy by design into every
aspect of your operation,'" she told Global News. –
Gizmodo
Being touted as "the world's first neighborhood built from the internet up," the Google designed smart city is set to deploy
an array of cameras and sensors that detect pedestrians at traffic lights or alert cleanup crews when garbage bins overflow,
reports The Globe
and Mail . Robotic vehicles will whisk away garbage in underground tunnels, heated bike lanes will melt snow and a street layout
will accommodate a fleet of self-driving cars.
The city will also
provide each
citizen a "user account" which will allow access to "the various online services of the neighborhood and improve participatory
democracy."
Such an account could potentially work with facial recognition "and allow for example a repairman to get into a home to perform
his duties and firefighters to have access a building when a fire alarm is triggered."
The project's critics included former BlackBerry CEO Jim Balsillie who referred to the development as "a colonizing experiment
in surveillance capitalism attempting to bulldoze important urban, civic and political issues."
In an October op-ed, Balsillie describes smart cities as the new battlefront for big tech and warned that the commercialization
of IP and data within the city would mean that personal information would just be another target of corporate digital-gold mining.
The 21st-century knowledge-based and data-driven economy is all about IP and data. "Smart cities" are the new battlefront for
big tech because they serve as the most promising hotbed for additional intangible assets that hold the next trillion dollars
to add to their market capitalizations. "Smart cities" rely on IP and data to make the vast array of city sensors more functionally
valuable, and when under the control of private interests, an enormous new profit pool. As Sidewalk Labs' chief executive Dan
Doctoroff
said
: "We're in this business to make money." Sidewalk also wants
full autonomy from
city regulations so it can build without constraint.
You can only commercialize IP or data when you own or control them. That's why Sidewalk, as a recent Globe and Mail investigation
revealed , is taking control to own all IP on this project. All smart companies know that controlling the IP controls access
to the data, even when it's shared data. Stunningly, when Waterfront Toronto released its "updated" agreement, they left the ownership
of IP and data unresolved, even though IP experts publicly asserted that ownership of IP must be clarified up front or it
defaults to Sidewalk. Securing new monopoly IP rights coupled with the best new data sets creates a systemic market advantage
from which companies can inexorably expand.
A privately controlled "smart city" infrastructure upends traditional models of citizenship because you cannot opt out of a
city or a society that practises mass surveillance. Foreign corporate interests tout new technocratic efficiencies while shrewdly
occluding their unprecedented power grab. As the renowned technologist Evgeny Morozov
said : "That the city is also the primary target of big tech is no accident: If these firms succeed in controlling its infrastructure,
they need not to worry about much else."
Ann Cavoukia's decision to walk away from the project was made just weeks after Waterfront Toronto's Digital Strategy Advisory
Panel member, Saadia Muzaffar,
resigned over concerns about how Google will collect and handle data collected from people within the smart city.
Saadia Muzaffar specifically pointed to "Waterfront Toronto's astounding apathy and utter lack of leadership regarding shaky public
trust and social licence."
Local residents remain concerned over the lack of transparency in regards to the project as many believe the deal has been shrouded
in secrecy. As Jim Balsillie described it:
"We are at a point where a secretive, unelected, publicly funded corporation with no expertise in IP, data or even basic
digital rights is in charge of navigating forces of urban privatization, algorithmic control and rule by corporate contract."
Barry McBear, 2 hours ago
Getting rid of facebook was easy, but de-googling my life is going to be a real pain in the ***. One that clearly must be
done though.
smart traffic they say? Wowsers. I always wanted those lights to turn green immediately (when Im around).
And 24/7 tracking, so they can give you personal ads on LCD billboards while you walk past.
And better yet: access to lock or unlock your front door for a 'repairman'. Yeah that will work out great. I always wanted to
hand the keys to my home to outsiders for safe keeping, but now its automatic!
Amazing. What a different life we would all lead in this Smart City. /s
"... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com . ..."
Gareth Porter is interviewed on his article for Truthdig, " Can Trump Take
Down the American Empire? " Porter talks about revelations in the Bob Woodward book "Fear",
about the Trump presidency, and how they may pertain to the American Empire. Porter also talks
about the Trump presidency, North Korea, and Iran.
"... As a Muslim, Mr. Khashoggi could have gone to any country that upholds Muslim marriage rites and remarried without having to formally divorce his first wife, and then go to America and live with his "new wife" under the guise of a de-facto relationship. So why would he risk his life and walk into a potential death trap? ..."
"... Logic stipulates that Khashoggi entered the Consulate after he was given vehement assurances that his safety was guaranteed by the Saudi Crown. He would have never entered the Consulate had he not been given this assurance. ..."
"... Hatice Cengiz (Turkish for Khadijeh Jengiz) it is claimed, raised the first alarm for Khashoggi's disappearance, announcing at the same time that she is/was his fiancée. But that latter announcement of hers came as a surprise even to Khashoggi's own family. ..."
"... Some reports allege that Hatice has had a colourful history, including Mossad training https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPuKo7WMSA&feature=youtu.be . The same YouTube alleges that she was a Gülenist and was arrested by Erdogan and released under the condition that she works for his security apparatus in order to guarantee her freedom. If such is the case, do we know if she has been also blackmailed in exchange for security of family members, loved ones, property etc? We don't know. ..."
"... In reality, irrespective of what his family members are saying now, Khashoggi has never introduced her to the world as his fiancée; and this is fact. So was she his fiancée? It is at least possible that she wasn't? So, who was she to Khashoggi and what role did she possibly play? ..."
"... Gülen is falling out of America's favour as he seems to have outlived his use-by date, and the Gülenist movement would be in dire need of a new benefactor. ..."
"... Cengiz, a former Gülenist, released on the above-mentioned conditions and possible threats, might have introduced herself to Khashoggi as an undercover Gülenist, and she had a history to support her claim. Being a former Gülenist, she might have indeed kept a foot in the Gülenist camp, and with the diminishing support of the American Government to the Gulenist movement, she might have been recruited to source finance. The Gülenists might have eyed Saudi Arabia to take this role, and as the rift between the Saudi royals and Erdogan intensified after their former joint effort to topple the legitimate secular government of Syria ..."
"... MBS himself would have inadvertently invited the Gülenists to approach him when he announced, back in March 2018 during a visit to the Coptic Pope Tawadros II in Egypt, that the triangle of evil in the Middle East is comprised of Iran, Islamist extremists groups and Turkey, and, in naming Turkey, he obviously meant Erdogan personally. ..."
"... With the Saudi-led Wahhabi version of fundamentalist Islam competing with the Muslim Brotherhood side, politically and militarily headed by Erdogan, it is not far-fetched to believe that either party is conspiring to topple the other. ..."
"... It is highly likely that Saudi officials had several contingency plans for Khashoggi's visit; depending on its outcome and the information that he had to offer. Those plans might have included giving him a wide range of treatments, ranging from a red carpet reception in Saudi Arabia, to beheading and dismembering him within the Consulate's grounds. ..."
"... It is possible that the Saudi officials in Turkey have had their own contacts with the Gülenists prior to the supposed ground-breaking visit of Khashoggi. In such a case, if the story Khashoggi may have offered did not fall in line with the story the Saudi's already know, then Khashoggi would have automatically been branded as suspicious and his safe entry would have been revoked. In such a case, he would have walked into his own trap. ..."
"... If any of the above scenarios are accurate, then the role of Erdogan in this story is not that of a scavenger who capitalized on the rift generated between the Saudis and America, but that he was instrumental in conjuring up and orchestrating the whole drama. Erdogan might have subjected the Saudi Government to the Gülen litmus test, and in such a case, the victim is Saudi Arabia and the scavenger is America seeking silence money in lieu of continued protection of Saudi interests. ..."
"... In all of the above scenarios, Khashoggi would have been driven into the trap by his alleged fiancée and had his impunity revoked by the Saudi officials because he failed the test. ..."
"... Most likely, Khashoggi was after amnesty from the Saudi Crown, and this would be a safety concern not only for Khashoggi himself, but also for his family that continued to live in Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Arabic media are inundated with posts and YouTube videos that are very damning of Hatice Cengiz ..."
"... . In reality however, her sudden emergence as Khashoggi's "fiancée", the fact that she allegedly waited for nearly 24 hours before reporting his disappearance and her personal, professional and political history are all factors that cast much doubt about her innocence and instead, portray her as a possible key element in the series of events that led to the disappearance of Khashoggi. ..."
"... And if Trump is seizing the opportunity to grab MBS, and this time he will be grabbing by the wallet, if Erdogan smells a hint of preparedness of MBS to support Gülen, then Erdogan would want MBS's wallet and head. Any whichever way, the silver lining of this story is that for once, Saudi Arabia is finally running for cover. Few around the world will give this brutal royal family any sympathy. ..."
"... MBS has committed heinous war crimes in Yemen and has made huge errors of judgment with regard to Syria and Qatar. He made many enemies, and it seems that Erdogan is out to get him. ..."
"... It does seem possible that the Assad-must-go curse has reached the neck of the Saudi throne ..."
"... Interestingly enough apparently K handed his two phones to fiancée before he went in ..any good journalist would have left a cache somewhere to be opened incase of certain events?????? ..."
"... why enter the consulate in Turkey? And, not in USA? And, why not the Embassy as the Ambassador has more power, than the Consular? Also, both the Muslim Brotherhood have Wahhabism have been friends for ages, as their theology is very similar with each other. And, if fact Erdogan is not Muslim Brotherhood but a Sufi. ..."
"... I've read several articles about Khashoggi and my feeling right now is everyone is lying, including B and Ghassan Kadi. ..."
"... Seems to me that also the Old US Establishment, along with the EU Establishment, both anti-Trump, never wanted MbS in the first place. Israel, and therefore Trump, are happy with MbS but a lot of people would like to see him gone and get the old "safe" gang back (who paid handsome bribes/salaries for decades). MbS is similar to Trump, way too impulsive, unpredictable and manic, and a special kind of crazy on top to make for a reliable partner in crime. ..."
"... The Establishment wants the Saudis to sell them their oil, then to recycle the money back into their economies. They'd prefer that they do this quietly, without any big fuss. They can get rich doing so, but they shouldn't disrupt the world. And this is the role that the Saudis have played mostly for the last 60-70 years. ..."
"... Until MbS. So yes, it is conceivable that some other powerful people are getting a bit tired of him. The same powerful people who really don't want the disruption of the world that a Shiite-Sunni war over the oil fields would cause. The same powerful friends who are also worried about Trump upsetting apple carts. Perhaps these powerful people are moving against a war, which means against Trump on Iran, and against MbS if they feel he keeps stirring things up too much. ..."
"... One problem throughout this whole affair is that I don't believe the Turks. Erdogon shutdown or converted the independent media that they once had. And in a case like this, all information comes from the government anyways. The Sauds have been rightly attacked for changing their story. But the Turks have been too. I've gotten the feeling that the 'news' reports from Turkish leaks (supposedly) have simply been the plot lines of various Hollywood movies. The body was cut up (with a chainsaw? like in Texas?), the body was dissolved in acid, the killers watched on Skype (always good to get that hip tech tie-in to a story). It can't all be true. ..."
"... Like The Salisbury Affair, The Case of the Disappearing Lover in Instanbul simply is going to have to be one to sit back and wait and see what if anything actually emerges as the truth. ..."
"... Seems pretty clueless to drop the bits in a well. Maybe the "local contact" was actually the consul, suggesting: Hey, I have an idea! How about dropping the body parts down the well? ..."
"... That is about the dumbest thing I have heard yet in the Story of K. Except, the idea of the body double. The people who thought up the body double idea must be the same Einsteins who figured the well in the consul's garden was a solution to disposal. Keystone Konsul. ..."
"... That bit of imagination leads to the idea that one of Khashoggi's last thoughts was "shit, I knew getting married again was a bad idea." ..."
"... The interesting thing was watching the US media go crazy about this. I kept thinking how different was this from Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awaki executed by drone strike? Al-Awaki received no trial, or even some kind of demand. Obama and his team just had him executed. So MBS is a horrible monster for doing exactly what Obama did. ..."
"... Khashoggi seemed to be working to "end dictatorship" and spread "free speech," democracy, voting, opinion polls, feminism, gender theory, lgbt washrooms, all that. All the great stuff of democracy. Worked out great in Sweden, why not Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... It was Khashoggi beating the Assad must go drum. The last Saudi represented on this site said Assad is harmless as long as he understands Saudi interests exist in Syria. Not ideal, but a better offer than London's. Further, the dead "journalist" believed Syria should be divided, and worse, that we should now act as if Assad is already gone ..."
"... Seems to come down to him being lied to, conn'd or lured into the consulate and his death. Then we come to the whole other point of why on earth did the Saudis use their consulate as an assassination killing ground? ..."
"... Governments killing people within their consulates is very rare. For reasons that are now very obvious, if they weren't before. ..."
"... The pundits who say MBS wanted to send a message set off alarms in my brain. Because that is exactly the reason we are supposed to believe that Putin uses all sorts of bizarre assasination methods that are obviously traced back to him. He wants to send a message. Yeah, right. And that's why they brought a bleep-storm of trouble down on top of their heads. To send a message? ..."
When I worked and lived in Saudi Arabia, one of the first things I learnt was that
the company I worked for had a fulltime employee with the job description of "Mu'aqeb". The
best translation of this title is "expeditor". This man was in charge of every matter that had
to do with dealing with government. He is the one who takes one's passport and sees that a
Saudi "Iquama" (temporary certificate of residence) is produced. He is the one who renews
driving licenses. He is the one that does the necessary paperwork to grant employees exit and
re-entry visas when they go away on holidays. He even applies on one's behalf for visas to
visit other countries. He even paid water and electricity bills. He did it all, and of course,
on top of his salary, he expected a present from employees on their return to work from
holidays, and some employees would risk big penalties smuggling in Playboy magazines to reward
him with. But the company I worked for was not alone in this regard; all other companies had
their own "Mu'aqeb".
It is against the Saudi psyche, culture and "pride" to go to a government office, wait in
line and make an application for anything. Not even uneducated poor Saudis are accustomed to go
through the rigmarole of government red-tape and routine.
Mr. Khashoggi was from the upper crust, and it is highly doubtful that he would have been
willing and prepared to physically enter the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul seeking an official
document.
Jamal Khashoggi was no fool. He knew the modus operandi of the Saudi Government too well. He
knew that what he had said was tantamount to a death sentence in the brutal Kingdom of Sand. So
what incited him to walk into the Consulate? To receive a divorce certificate so he could
remarry as the reports are trying to make us believe? Not a chance.
But this is not all. As a Muslim, Mr. Khashoggi could have gone to any country that upholds
Muslim marriage rites and remarried without having to formally divorce his first wife, and then
go to America and live with his "new wife" under the guise of a de-facto relationship. So why
would he risk his life and walk into a potential death trap?
Logic stipulates that Khashoggi entered the Consulate after he was given vehement assurances
that his safety was guaranteed by the Saudi Crown. He would have never entered the Consulate
had he not been given this assurance.
But why would the Saudi Government give him this assurance even though he had been very
critical of MBS? A good question.
Once again, a logical hypothetical answer to this question could be that Khashoggi had some
important meeting with a high ranking Saudi official to discuss some issues of serious
importance, and this normally means that he had some classified information to pass on to the
Saudi Government; important enough that the Saudi Crown was prepared to set aside Khashoggi's
recent history in exchange of this information.
If we try to connect more dots in a speculative but rational manner, the story can easily
become more interesting.
Hatice Cengiz (Turkish for Khadijeh Jengiz) it is claimed, raised the first alarm for
Khashoggi's disappearance, announcing at the same time that she is/was his fiancée. But
that latter announcement of hers came as a surprise even to Khashoggi's own family.
Not much is said and speculated about Hatice in the West, but she is definitely making some
headlines in the Arab World, especially on media controlled and sponsored by Saudi Arabia. To
this effect, and because the Saudi neck is on the chopping board, it is possible that for the
first time ever perhaps, the Saudis are telling the truth.
But the Saudis are the boys who cried wolf, and no one will ever believe them. But, let us
explore how they might have got themselves into this bind.
As we connect the dots, we speculate as follows:
Some reports allege that Hatice has had a colourful history, including Mossad training
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPuKo7WMSA&feature=youtu.be . The
same YouTube alleges that she was a Gülenist and was arrested by Erdogan and released
under the condition that she works for his security apparatus in order to guarantee her
freedom. If such is the case, do we know if she has been also blackmailed in exchange for
security of family members, loved ones, property etc? We don't know.
It has also been reported that Jamal Khashoggi met her only as early as May 2018 and later
introduced her as an expert on Omani history and politics. In reality, irrespective of what his
family members are saying now, Khashoggi has never introduced her to the world as his
fiancée; and this is fact. So was she his fiancée? It is at least possible that she wasn't? So, who was she to Khashoggi and what role did she possibly play?
The following speculation cannot be proved, but it makes sense:
To explain what a Gülenist is for the benefit of the reader who is unaware of this
term, Erdogan blamed former friend and ally Fethullah Gülen for the failed coup attempt of
July 2016 and persecuted his followers, putting tens of thousands of them in jail. Erdogan's
relationship with America was already deteriorating at that time because of America's support
to Syrian Kurds, and to add to Erdogan's woes, America was and continues to give Gülen a
safe haven despite many requests by Erdogan to have him extradited to Turkey to face trial. But
Gülen is falling out of America's favour as he seems to have outlived his use-by date, and
the Gülenist movement would be in dire need of a new benefactor.
Cengiz, a former Gülenist, released on the above-mentioned conditions and possible
threats, might have introduced herself to Khashoggi as an undercover Gülenist, and she had
a history to support her claim. Being a former Gülenist, she might have indeed kept a foot
in the Gülenist camp, and with the diminishing support of the American Government to the
Gulenist movement, she might have been recruited to source finance. The Gülenists might
have eyed Saudi Arabia to take this role, and as the rift between the Saudi royals and Erdogan
intensified after their former joint effort to topple the legitimate secular government of
Syria
The Gülenists would have found in Al-Saud what represents an enemy of an enemy, and
they had to find a way to seek Saudi support against Erdogan. MBS himself would have
inadvertently invited the Gülenists to approach him when he announced, back in March 2018
during a visit to the Coptic Pope Tawadros II in Egypt, that the triangle of evil in the Middle
East is comprised of Iran, Islamist extremists groups and Turkey, and, in naming Turkey, he
obviously meant Erdogan personally.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/08/saudi-crown-prince-sees-a-new-axis-of-evil-in-the-middle-east/
Khashoggi, with his expansive connections, looked like a good candidate to introduce the
would-be new partners and broker a deal between them.
Back to what may have incited Khashoggi to enter the Saudi Consulate and to why the Saudi
Government would have, in that case, given him a safe entry despite his history. Possibly,
Khashoggi believed that he had a "big story" to relay to the Saudi Government; one that most
likely exposed big time anti-Saudi dirt about Erdogan.
With the Saudi-led Wahhabi version of fundamentalist Islam competing with the Muslim
Brotherhood side, politically and militarily headed by Erdogan, it is not far-fetched to
believe that either party is conspiring to topple the other. If Khashoggi had a story to this
effect, even if it was fake but credible enough for him to believe, it would have given him the
impetus to seek an audience at the Saudi Consulate and hence an expectation for the Consulate
to positively reciprocate. In reality, given the history and culture involved, it is hard to
fathom that any scenario short of this one would have given either Khashoggi and/or the Saudi
officials enough reasons to meet in the manner and place they did.
It is highly likely that Saudi officials had several contingency plans for Khashoggi's
visit; depending on its outcome and the information that he had to offer. Those plans might
have included giving him a wide range of treatments, ranging from a red carpet reception in
Saudi Arabia, to beheading and dismembering him within the Consulate's grounds. What happened
after Khashoggi entered the precinct of the Consulate is fairly muddy and hard to speculate on.
If the above speculations thus far have been accurate, then these are the possible scenarios
that followed the fateful CCTV coverage of Khashoggi's entry to the Consulate:
1. It is possible that the Saudi officials in Turkey have had their own contacts with the Gülenists prior to the supposed ground-breaking visit of Khashoggi. In such a case, if the
story Khashoggi may have offered did not fall in line with the story the Saudi's already know,
then Khashoggi would have automatically been branded as suspicious and his safe entry would
have been revoked. In such a case, he would have walked into his own trap.
2. On the other hand, if Khashoggi indeed gave Saudi authorities vital information, so vital
that it clearly is vehemently pro-Gülen, and as Gülen is no longer an American
favourite, then upon his return to America he may have become a Saudi liability that can
potentially muddy the Saudi-American waters that the Saudis desperately try to keep clear. In
such an instance, it would be opportune for the Saudis to finish him off before he could return
to America.
3. A third possibility is that some Saudi officials already working covertly with Gülen
saw in Khashoggi an already persona non grata, a dangerous Erdogan implant and decided to take
action against him.
If any of the above scenarios are accurate, then the role of Erdogan in this story is not
that of a scavenger who capitalized on the rift generated between the Saudis and America, but
that he was instrumental in conjuring up and orchestrating the whole drama. Erdogan might have
subjected the Saudi Government to the Gülen litmus test, and in such a case, the victim is
Saudi Arabia and the scavenger is America seeking silence money in lieu of continued protection
of Saudi interests.
In all of the above scenarios, Khashoggi would have been driven into the trap by his alleged
fiancée and had his impunity revoked by the Saudi officials because he failed the
test.
But what triggered him off personally to walk into this possible trap? What was in it for
him? Definitely not divorce documents. Most likely, Khashoggi was after amnesty from the Saudi
Crown, and this would be a safety concern not only for Khashoggi himself, but also for his
family that continued to live in Saudi Arabia. He may well have thought that by providing vital
and sensitive information to his government, his previous "sins" would be set aside and he
would be treated as a hero, his family would feel safe, despite that fact that he has
criticized the Crown Prince in the past.
Arabic media are inundated with posts and YouTube videos that are very damning of Hatice
Cengiz. Most of them perhaps are Saudi propaganda and should not be taken without a grain of salt.
In reality however, her sudden emergence as Khashoggi's "fiancée", the fact that she
allegedly waited for nearly 24 hours before reporting his disappearance and her personal,
professional and political history are all factors that cast much doubt about her innocence and
instead, portray her as a possible key element in the series of events that led to the
disappearance of Khashoggi.
Furthermore, why would a person in her position make rules and conditions about meeting the
President of the United States of America, even if this President is Donald Trump? (
Jamal Khashoggi's fiancee I will only visit Trump if he takes action World news The Guardian ) How many
people in history have refused the invitation of American Presidents? Who does she think she is
or who is she trying to portray herself as?
And if Trump is seizing the opportunity to grab MBS, and this time he will be grabbing by
the wallet, if Erdogan smells a hint of preparedness of MBS to support Gülen, then Erdogan
would want MBS's wallet and head. Any whichever way, the silver lining of this story is that
for once, Saudi Arabia is finally running for cover. Few around the world will give this brutal
royal family any sympathy.
There are other rumors spreading in the Arab world now alluding to the removal of MBS from
office and passing over the reins to his brother. MBS has committed heinous war crimes in Yemen
and has made huge errors of judgment with regard to Syria and Qatar. He made many enemies, and
it seems that Erdogan is out to get him.
It does seem possible that the Assad-must-go curse has reached the neck of the Saudi
throne.
Erdogan presentation to his party today too most media seemingly reporting deep
international concern and hubris from arms suppliers... Interestingly enough apparently K
handed his two phones to fiancée before he went in ..any good journalist would have left a
cache somewhere to be opened incase of certain events??????
No confirmation of victims "screams", etc although a there is one report he was held in a
stranglehold which would prevent such vocalisation?
You left the elephant out of the room. You are right that Jamal Khashoggi had no need to
enter the consulate for his divorce, and you suggested the reason being quid pro quo. But why enter the consulate in Turkey? And, not in USA? And, why not the Embassy as the Ambassador has more power, than the Consular? Also, both the Muslim Brotherhood have Wahhabism have been friends for ages, as their
theology is very similar with each other. And, if fact Erdogan is not Muslim Brotherhood but
a Sufi.
So, why did you leave out the elephant in the room, Israel. With the fall of Saudi
Arabia, Israel has more to loose and Iran has more to gain.
I was waiting for this article.
Looks B is not buying this version.
"There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories being weaved around the case. Some of them
were mentioned in the comments here. I don't buy it. Turkey did not arrange the incident. I
see no sign that the U.S., Israel, Qatar or the UAE had a hand in this. This was a very
stupid crime committed by Mohammad bin Salman. Or even worse, a mistake. The wannabe-sultan
Erdogan is a crafty politician. He is simply riding the wave." https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/10/how-will-caligula-fall.html#more
I've read several articles about Khashoggi and my feeling right now is everyone is lying,
including B and Ghassan Kadi. (wrote this article. Mod.)
B ignores all said by Ghassan Kadi . And Ghassan Kadi is being soft on
SA cuz Russian wants it.
SA is a prize big enough to the bear get out of his cave. Deep State set the trap and SA fell like a kid cuz they are very predictable. They simply
kill a lot! Everybody is trying to profit and only one thing is sure about all this:
we will never know!
Seems to me that also the Old US Establishment, along with the EU Establishment, both
anti-Trump, never wanted MbS in the first place. Israel, and therefore Trump, are happy with
MbS but a lot of people would like to see him gone and get the old "safe" gang back (who paid
handsome bribes/salaries for decades). MbS is similar to Trump, way too impulsive,
unpredictable and manic, and a special kind of crazy on top to make for a reliable partner in
crime.
The Establishment wants the Saudis to sell them their oil, then to recycle the money back
into their economies. They'd prefer that they do this quietly, without any big fuss. They can
get rich doing so, but they shouldn't disrupt the world. And this is the role that the Saudis
have played mostly for the last 60-70 years.
Until MbS. So yes, it is conceivable that some other powerful people are getting a bit tired of him.
The same powerful people who really don't want the disruption of the world that a
Shiite-Sunni war over the oil fields would cause. The same powerful friends who are also
worried about Trump upsetting apple carts. Perhaps these powerful people are moving against a
war, which means against Trump on Iran, and against MbS if they feel he keeps stirring things
up too much.
One problem throughout this whole affair is that I don't believe the Turks.
Erdogon shutdown or converted the independent media that they once had. And in a case like
this, all information comes from the government anyways. The Sauds have been rightly attacked for changing their story. But the Turks have been
too. I've gotten the feeling that the 'news' reports from Turkish leaks (supposedly) have
simply been the plot lines of various Hollywood movies. The body was cut up (with a chainsaw?
like in Texas?), the body was dissolved in acid, the killers watched on Skype (always good to
get that hip tech tie-in to a story). It can't all be true.
To some extant, I get the feeling I'm watching Qatar money buying news stories to get back
at the Sauds. If so, good for them.
Like The Salisbury Affair, The Case of the Disappearing Lover in Instanbul simply is going
to have to be one to sit back and wait and see what if anything actually emerges as the
truth.
Could not be sulphuric acid the "traditional acid" for dissolving bodies you would need more
than 25 litres the most dangerous lethal fumes and smell would have filled the whole building
which would have been contaminated other people choking with deadly fumes. How to get acid in
and out/disposed ..people in PPE hosing down etc etc
I actually thought the "local contact" who supposed disposed of the body took it rolled up in
a rug and cremated it. Seems pretty clueless to drop the bits in a well. Maybe the "local contact" was actually the
consul, suggesting: Hey, I have an idea! How about dropping the body parts down the well?
That is about the dumbest thing I have heard yet in the Story of K.
Except, the idea of the body double.
The people who thought up the body double idea must be the same Einsteins who figured the
well in the consul's garden was a solution to disposal. Keystone Konsul.
Maybe I'm being sexist, but I imagine a discussion between the couple, with the future wife
saying she wants to get married, while the future husband is saying "Ah, aren't things great
now? Why change it? We can just live together." That bit of imagination leads to the idea that one of Khashoggi's last thoughts was "shit,
I knew getting married again was a bad idea."
The interesting thing was watching the US media go crazy about this. I kept thinking how
different was this from Obama ordering Anwar Al-Awaki executed by drone strike? Al-Awaki
received no trial, or even some kind of demand. Obama and his team just had him executed. So
MBS is a horrible monster for doing exactly what Obama did.
Khashoggi seemed to be working to "end dictatorship" and spread "free speech," democracy,
voting, opinion polls, feminism, gender theory, lgbt washrooms, all that. All the great stuff
of democracy. Worked out great in Sweden, why not Saudi Arabia?
All I'm getting out of this article is a desire to see the house of Saud fall. Plus some
dense little leaguer stuff about a marriage or something. Come on!
It was Khashoggi beating the Assad must go drum. The last Saudi represented on this site said Assad is harmless as long
as he understands Saudi interests exist in Syria. Not ideal, but a better offer than London's. Further, the dead "journalist"
believed Syria should be divided, and worse, that we should now act as if Assad is already gone – said the guy who got
sawed up and buried under a flower bed.
Seems to come down to him being lied to, conn'd or lured into the consulate and his death. Then we come to the whole other point of why on earth did the Saudis use their consulate
as an assassination killing ground? Governments wanting to kill people is nothing new. That's
what governments do. Governments killing people within their consulates is very rare. For
reasons that are now very obvious, if they weren't before.
The pundits who say MBS wanted to send a message set off alarms in my brain. Because that
is exactly the reason we are supposed to believe that Putin uses all sorts of bizarre
assasination methods that are obviously traced back to him. He wants to send a message. Yeah,
right. And that's why they brought a bleep-storm of trouble down on top of their heads. To
send a message?
Email is cheaper. And if someone is dead from methods not traced back to you, then someone
else goes and whispers the message into the few ears you want to hear it, that is a lot more
effective than either Novachuk in a park or a bloody murder in a consulate.
Israel/US/Saudi tried to pass Turkey off as the sole sponsor and creator of ISIS. It was an
important player, certainly, largely because of its geographic location. So a bit of revenge?
As with all these events, there will be multiple facets from the various actors, some
mutually exclusive.
The only thing that is certain so far is the west's concern for Saudi's alleged execution
of a 'journalist' is rank hypocrisy.
"2. On the other hand, if Khashoggi indeed gave Saudi authorities vital information, so
vital that it clearly is vehemently pro-Gülen, and as Gülen is no longer an
American favourite, then upon his return to America he may have become a Saudi liability that
can potentially muddy the Saudi-American waters that the Saudis desperately try to keep
clear. In such an instance, it would be opportune for the Saudis to finish him off before he
could return to America."
The SA gang would want to protect the "vital" . . . pro-Gulan" information obtained from K
because that information would have given the SA gang an advantage in dealing with America
because a K running free could expose SA sources and knowledge, so he had to be eliminated.
(??)
Or, Erdogan knows via Cengiz that K believes he can facilitate a deal between Gulan and SA
to the detriment of Turkey, in order that K can protect his family in SA. But SA already
knows somehow that K is in effect an agent for SA's enemy Erdogan and is peddling polyester
rugs, that K's story is donkey doo, so SA believes K is betraying SA with said donkey doo, so
out comes the Popeil's Pocket Body Dismemberer. ??
". . . should not be taken for (without) a grain of salt." ??
As for the conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and SA's Wahabbists, it strikes me that
the custodianship of the two holy mosques in SA, or better said the moral leadership role
that said literal custodianship confers could be in contention if Erdogan can demonstrate to
his immense egoic neo-Ottoman satisfaction belongs to Turkey under his direction.
It seems no matter who "wins" every one of the players loses credibility any way this
plays out.
"contention if Erdogan can demonstrate to his immense egoic neo-Ottoman satisfaction belongs to
Turkey under his direction."
This was my main takeaway from Erd's address to Parliament. The bit about the Saudis as
protectors of the holy cities. Like, maybe not. LIke, look at the mess they have made.
They are clearly incompetent and have no standing as protectors of holy sites.
Hmm, so who would be a better "protector"? Could it be the one who arrogates to himself the
authority to call out false 'protectors" by any chance?
Probably this murder will end with nothing more than "The Saudis are really evil. Who didn't
already know that". But lets look at what we do know about the killing (and what is rumored in
news reports).
Before Khashoggi goes into for the meeting a team of 15 Saudi agents, several of them men
close to MBS arrive from Saudi Arabia and go into the building. Including among them an
autopsy expert with a "bonesaw". One of them is a body double for Khashoggi and carries with
him a fake beard to make his resemblance to Khashoggi even stronger. An hour or so later that
man leaves the building wearing Khashoggi's clothes and sunglasses. And the fake beard. So that
the CCTV might record him as Khashoggi.
RT reports that minutes before the killing Khashoggi talks on the phone to MBS. Its thought
that MSB wants Khashoggi to agree to return to Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi refuses. Right after
that Khashoggi is killed and dismembered. The Turkish press is now reporting that parts of
Khashoggi's remains have been found in a well at the Saudi Consuls official residence. I'd say
with that kind of evidence anyone would have to be braindead (or just not willing to admit
the truth for political reasons), to not conclude MBS is up to his beard in this conspiracy to
commit murder.
One question being asked is why would MBS risk it. But I think the answer is simple. He
believes he is untouchable and can do whatever he wants (the track record for that is pretty
good for him until now, and maybe now as well). He took power in Saudi Arabia from his
cousins, and got away with it. He starts and conducts a bloody war against Yemen, and isn't
punished. He holds hostage dozens of the wealthiest Saudis and tortures them for large chunks
of their wealth. And gets away with it. He kidnaps the Lebanese PM, and forces him to resign (at
least for a while). And he gets no punishment even for that. He threatens Qatar with war, closes
the border. And still no punishment. He funds terrorists all over the Middle East. And yet again
no punishment. So why on earth would he pause at murdering a "pain in the a$$" Saudi dissident
who dares to defy him. He may have gone a "bridge too far" this time. But his record points to
his surviving this time too (hopefully not).
Has anyone commented of the features of this grisly murder that make it look like some kind
of ritual murder?
They could have just stabbed or strangled him or druged him. Bu why cut off fingers?
Symbolism?
Why deface facial features?
Was he drawn and quartered like traitors in medieval Europe?
Or was it renaissance Europe?
And, what happened to all the blood?
How did they keep it off the clothing that the body double then donned?
Just wondering what kind of "message" K's murder was designed to send to him, as he
died.
Or, what kind of cultic weirdness was being provided for bin Salman to feel satisfaction at
the manner of the death?
Yesterday
the news broke that Swamp Monster-In-Chief John Bolton has been pushing President Trump to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 1988 arms control agreement
between the US and the Soviet Union eliminating all missiles of a specified range from the
arsenals of the two nuclear superpowers. Today, Trump
has announced that he will be doing exactly as Bolton instructed.
This would be the second missile treaty between the US and Russia that America has withdrawn
from since it abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
in 2002. John Bolton, an actual
psychopath who Trump hired as his National Security Advisor in April, ran point on that move as well
back when he was part of the increasingly indistinguishable Bush administration.
"This is why John Bolton shouldn't be allowed anywhere near US foreign policy," tweeted Senator
Rand Paul in response to early forecasts of the official announcement.
"This would undo decades of bipartisan arms control dating from Reagan. We shouldn't do
it. We should seek to fix any problems with this treaty and move forward."
"This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s," Malcolm Chalmers,
the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute,
told The Guardian .
"If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to
expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear
states for the first time since 1972."
"A disaster for Europe," tweeted Russia-based journalist
Bryan MacDonald. "The treaty removed Cruise & Pershing missiles, and Soviet ss20's from the
continent. Now, you will most likely see Russia launch a major build up in Kaliningrad &
the US push into Poland. So you're back to 1980, but the dividing line is closer to
Moscow."
"Russia has violated the agreement. They've been violating it for many years and I don't
know why President Obama didn't negotiate or pull out," Trump told reporters in Nevada.
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we're not
allowed to. We're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we've honored the agreement
but Russia has not unfortunately honored the agreement so we're going to terminate the
agreement, we're going to pull out."
What Trump did not mention is that the US has indeed been in
violation of that agreement due to steps it began taking toward the development of a new
ground-launched cruise missile last year. The US claims it began taking those steps due to
Russian violations of the treaty with its own arsenal, while Russia claims the US has already
been in violation of multiple arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements.
So, on the one front where cooler heads prevailing is quite literally the single most
important thing in the world, the exact opposite is happening. Hotter, more impatient, more
violent, more hawkish heads are prevailing over diplomacy and sensibility, potentially at the
peril of the entire world should something unexpected go wrong as a result. This is of course
coming after two years of Democratic Party loyalists attacking Trump on the basis that he has
not been sufficiently hawkish toward Russia, and claiming that this is because he is Putin's
puppet.
In response to this predictable escalation the path for which has been lubricated by
McResistance pundits and their neoconservative allies, those very same pundits are now reacting
with horror that Putin's puppet is now dangerously escalating tensions with Putin.
"BREAKING: Trump announces that the United States will pull out of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty that the US has been in for 31 years," exclaimed the popular
Russiagater Brian Krassenstein in a tweet that as of this writing has over 5,000 shares.
"Welcome back to the Cold War. This time it's scarier And no, It's not Obama, or Hillary or the
Democrat's fault. It's ALL TRUMP!"
"Hilarious to listen to all this alarmed screaming about US withdrawal from INF Treaty
emanating from those who for 2 years have been demanding that Trump get tough with Russia,"
tweeted George Szamuely
of the Global Policy Institute. "Now that they've got their arms race I hope they are pleased
with themselves."
"Are those who have spent the past two years warning of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy &
cheering confrontation w/ Russia ready to shut the fuck up yet?" asked Aaron Maté, who
has been among the most consistently lucid critics of the Russiagate narrative in the US.
Are they ready to shut the fuck up? That would be great, but this is just the latest
escalation in a steadily escalating new cold war, and these blithering idiots didn't shut the
fuck up at any of the other steps toward nuclear holocaust.
They didn't shut the fuck up when this administration adopted a Nuclear
Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurred lines between
when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate.
As signs point to Mueller's investigation
wrapping up in the near future without turning up a single shred of evidence that Trump
colluded with the Russian government, it's time for everyone who helped advance this toxic,
suicidal anti-Russia narrative to ask themselves one question: was it worth it? Was it worth it
to help mount political pressure on a sitting president to continually escalate tensions with a
nuclear superpower and loudly screaming that he's a Putin puppet whenever he takes a step
toward de-escalation? Was it worth it to help create an atmosphere where cooler heads don't
prevail in the one area where it's absolutely essential for everyone's survival that they do?
Or is it maybe time to shut the fuck up for a while and rethink your entire worldview?
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
"... I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests, and have very little to do with elections and popular will. ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @The Liberal Moonbat ..."
"... , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges ..."
"... "There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have." ..."
We can soon forget Russia's "meddling" in the 2016 election (or
lack of meddling ), because the Justice Department is already throwing down indictments for
meddling in the
2018 midterm elections.
Russians working for a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin are engaging in an elaborate campaign of "information warfare"
to interfere with the American midterm elections next month, federal prosecutors said on Friday in unsealing charges against a
woman whom they labeled the project's "chief accountant."
Information warfare? That sounds serious. So what exactly is her objectives?
But this time, prosecutors said the operatives appeared beholden to no particular candidate. Russia's trolls did not limit themselves
to either a liberal or conservative position, according to the complaint. They often wrote from diverging viewpoints on the same
issue.
Uh, that's called trolling, and if trolling is against the law then 4Chan should watch out. It seems that trolling now equals
fraud .
It isn't just Russia. China and Iran are
meddling as well.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland
Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies
, but that the campaigns have spread "disinformation" and "foreign propaganda."
"We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies," the statement said. "These activities also
may seek to influence voter perceptions and decision making in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections."
So how exactly are they defrauding the American public? As for "undermine confidence in democratic institutions", we already know
that we are an oligarchy
, not a democracy. So I think the burden of evidence is on our government to prove otherwise, not on Russia.
I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic
institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests,
and have very little to do with elections and popular will.
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
@gjohnsit AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA. Are foreign
ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
RT aired a documentary about the OccupyWall Street movement on 1, 2, and
4 November. RT framed the movement as a
fight against "the ruling class" and described
the current US political system as corrupt and
dominated by corporations.
RT advertising
for the documentary featured Occupy
movement calls to "take back" the
government. The documentary claimed that
the US system cannot be changed
democratically, but only through "revolution."
After the 6 November US presidential
election, RT aired a documentary called
"Cultures of Protest," about active and often
violent political resistance
RT's reports often characterize the United
States as a "surveillance state" and allege
widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use
RT has also focused on criticism of the US
economic system, US currency policy, alleged
Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to
Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US
financial collapse
#1
AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA.
Are foreign ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?
Basically, this Russian woman is being indicted for doing the books for a Russian entity that incorporated a number of US businesses.
These businesses had persons write and post under pen names a number of articles dealing with political subjects. That has been
interpreted by the Special Counsel as a conspiracy to violate a federal campaign law that forbids contributions to US election
campaigns. That's right, the indictment construes written opinion to be the same as money contributions.
The case would probably be thrown out -- nobody has been prosecuted for this before -- however the woman indicted will never
be in court to defend herself, as the prosecutor and FBI know. Mueller is getting desperate to come up with indictments to fill
in his jig saw puzzle.
@enhydra lutris@enhydra lutris@enhydra lutris
speech is constitutionally protected and can't be limited by campaign finance legislation. Mueller appears to have decided on
his own to abrogate the Citizens United decision.
That would be okay, if he applied it to prosecute political mouthpieces such as AIPAC, along with corporate fronts owned by
the Saudis, Chinese, British and 100 other countries who similiarly post anonymously.
It's now undeniable: Mueller is the prosecutorial weapon of a very selective political vendetta.
But somewhere on the left, right around the fault line where Barack Obama is deemed to have been a bad president, opinion
turns back again toward skepticism.
It gets worse from there. I'm betting that this was written by someone from the Atlantic Council or maybe Friedman's twin brother.
This person sure went to a lot of work to deride anyone who doesn't believe in Russia Gate didn't he?
Facebook has almost admitted that they are censoring people and websites because of Russia's ads on it that they say affected
the election. BTW. Didn't Obama also use Cambridge Analytics during his campaign and did the same things that Trump did? Pretty
sure that he did. But I guess that was different because of reasons. Yep. That's why.
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this.
But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the voting
policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want to
war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
Months before the 2016 election they were already calling Jill Stein a "Nader spoiler" (
here , here , and
here )
Funny how 3rd parties are demonized in this "democracy"
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the
voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want
to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
There is so much BS in that article it's hard to choose which one is the worst but I'm going with this one.
But Stein's willingness to praise Russian propaganda outlets and push Kremlin talking points didn't end in Moscow. Indeed,
she challenged – and arguably surpassed – Trump in crafting the most Moscow-friendly campaign of 2016.
For instance, Stein made the strange claim multiple times that NATO had "surrounded" Russia with nuclear weapons. As she
told The Intercept, "This is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, on steroids – in fact, on crack." (Less than 10 percent of
Russia's land border touches any NATO member-states.) She also said last year that NATO is only fighting "enemies we invent
to give the weapons industry a reason to sell more stuff."
This is what she actually said about NATO and Russia.
Stein: I think this is an issue where something does need to be said--but it's important to understand where they are coming
from. The United States, under Bush 1, had an agreement when Germany joined NATO--Russia agreed with the understanding that
NATO would not move one inch to the east. Since then NATO has pursued a policy of basically encircling Russia--including the
threat of nukes and drones and so on.
Okay and this one too.
Likewise, Stein claimed that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was, in reality, a "coup" that the U.S. "helped foment." Only two
other leaders have described Ukraine's toppling of former president Viktor Yanukovych as a "coup": Putin and Kazakhstani President
Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose country remains a security ally of Russia. Stein even spent time last year saying that "Russia
used to own Ukraine."
Pretty sure that during Obama's presidency the Ukraine government was overthrown by this country and now we're arming neo Nazis
with some very bad weapons.
ThinkProgress says it's being targeted by ad networks for producing 'controversial political content'. I'm thinking it's more
because they lie their asses off to people who read its website. This is the most blatant lying I've seen from a website. How
many people believed every word written there?
Join us on Sunday 10/28 to meet Jill Stein and Alameda/SF County Green candidates: Laura Wells, Saied Karamooz, Aidan Hill
and Mike Murphy. to support our candidates. People,... https://t.co/EtWyo6fism
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.
I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment, aka
the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially in election
years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that gives you the
shits until you're dead.
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the
voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want
to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
The GOP has made it so that over 10% of the population can't vote this year. I think it's in Georgia where thousands are being
kicked off the voting rolls almost every day by the dude that is in charge of it and he is also running for an office. They have
been gerrymandering the country and other things. Of course the democrats don't seem to be doing much to make it easier for people
to vote. But yeah, both parties are just as corrupt.
Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is a huge
conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are suing him
for?
Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or Trump's
voters though.
BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate
got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?
Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is
a huge conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are
suing him for?
Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or
Trump's voters though.
BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate
got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by
its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.
I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment,
aka the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially
in election years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that
gives you the shits until you're dead.
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation. The
charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral process.
Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply enough
voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them after the
election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste time and
money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating, but he's
really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.
@snoopydawg
, its like a nuclear submarine calling the teapot black.
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation.
The charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral
process.
Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply
enough voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them
after the election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste
time and money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating,
but he's really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.
we were going to receive at Fitzmas? Hoping the Establishment is going to finally reveal its sausage-making, really is a flight of fancy. McSausage for the McResistance. The Public are to be seen at voting stations, and not heard.
Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland
Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies,
At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:
Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their
lives being mocked and marginalized."
#Mueller#TrumpRussiahttps://t.co/eN349xhjG3
We had Great discussion about
Caitlin's article. Lots of good comments.
Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of
Homeland Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed
any tallies,
At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:
Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their
lives being mocked and marginalized."
#Mueller#TrumpRussiahttps://t.co/eN349xhjG3
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it. I have
followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made, and
those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the Western
powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance of
dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All issues
lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan news".
-- John "Squinty Forehead Man" Graziano (@jvgraz)
October 18, 2018
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it.
I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made,
and those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the
Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance
of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All
issues lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan
news".
computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls, but
the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree that Russia
interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda is so powerful.
The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.
About those FB ads that swayed the election ...
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered
it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.
https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it.
I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made,
and those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the
Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance
of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All
issues lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan
news".
computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls,
but the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree
that Russia interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda
is so powerful. The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.
About those FB ads that swayed the election ...
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered
it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.
https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims
lodged against a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Bloomberg.
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals
for election meddling , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges
. Mueller's team tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served,
however Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors 'well, they're here.'
*
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office
alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Concord is one of the corporations that Mueller said placed ads on FB to sway people's opinion on Trump and Hillary. The ads
that most were placed after the election.
All this proves that the spy-craft of the Saudi assassination team was abysmal. All
cellphone networks store records of each call. Any foreign official's phone in Turkey is
under surveillance of the country's intelligence service.
Only some throw-away phone
with an anonymous prepaid card could have given some protection.
Perhaps some, but not much. Even anonymous cellphone connections can be geo-located with a
maximum error of a few meters, so calls to Saudi Arabia from within the consulate could be
noted. What more, the dim-witted Saudis probably would not have bothered with tack-on
encryption devices.
Facebook's New Troll-Crushing "War Room" Confirms Surveillance By Corporation Is The New
America
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/21/2018 - 22:30 270 SHARES
Facebook on Wednesday briefed journalists on its latest attempt to stop fake news during the
election season , offering an exclusive tour of a windowless conference room at its California
headquarters, packed with millennials monitoring Facebook user behavior trends around the
clock, said
The Verge .
This is Facebook's first ever "war room," designed to bring leaders from 20 teams,
representing 20,000 global employees working on safety and security, in one room to lead a
crusade against conservatives misinformation on the platform as political
campaigning shifts into hyperdrive in the final weeks leading up to November's US midterm
elections. The team includes threat intelligence, data science engineering, research, legal,
operations, policy, communications, and representatives from Facebook and Facebook-owned
WhatsApp and Instagram.
"We know when it comes to an election, every moment counts," said Samidh Chakrabarti, head
of civic engagement at Facebook, who oversees operations in the war room.
"So if there are late-breaking issues we see on the platform, we need to be able to detect
and respond to them in real time, as quickly as possible."
This public demonstration of Facebook's internal efforts comes after a series of security
breaches and user hacks, dating back to the 2016 presidential elections. Since the announcement
of the Cambridge Analytics privacy scandal in March, Facebook shares have plunged -14.5% It
seems the war room is nothing more than a public relations stunt, which the company is
desperately trying to regain control of the narrative and avoid more negative headlines.
The war room is staffed with millennials from 4 am until midnight, and starting on Oct. 22,
social media workers will be monitoring trends 24/7 leading up to the elections. Leaders from
20 teams will be present in the room. Workers will use machine learning and artificial
intelligence programs to monitor the platform for trends, hate speech, sophisticated trolls,
fake news, and of course, Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interference.
Nathan Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity, told CNBC the company wants fair
elections, and that "debate around the election be authentic. ... The biggest concern is any
type of effort to manipulate that."
In the first round of presidential elections in Brazil, Facebook's war room identified an
effort to suppress voter turnout:
"Content that was telling people that due to protest, that the election would be delayed a
day," said Chakrabarti. "This was not true, completely false. So we were able to detect that
using AI and machine learning. The war room was alerted to it. Our data scientist looked into
what was behind it and then they passed it to our engineers and operations specialist to be
able to remove this at scale from our platform before it could go viral."
The war room has been focused on the US and Brazilian elections because it says
misinformation in elections is a global problem that never ends. Gleicher warns that Facebook
is observing an increased effort to manipulate the public debate ahead of US midterms.
"Part of the reason we have this war room up and running, is so that as these threats
develop, not only do we respond to them quickly, but we continue to speed up our response, and
make our response more effective and efficient." Gleicher adds that it is not just foreign
interference but also domestic "bad actors" who are hiding their identity, using fake accounts
to spread misinformation.
"This is always going to be an arms race, so the adversaries that we're facing who seek to
meddle in elections, they are sophisticated and well-funded," said Chakrabarti.
"That is the reason we've made huge investments both in people and technology to stay
ahead and secure our platforms."
Big Brother is watching you: surveillance by corporations is the new America.
One of the privileges granted to corporations under State laws is the limitation of
liabilities as to shareholders. If you operate a business as a sole proprietor or as one of
the partners in a general partnership, then you can personally be sued for the unpaid debts
or other liabilities arising from the operation of the business. But if you are an owner of a
corporation, which is what shareholders are, then you have no personal liability and can't be
held accountable for the unpaid debts or other liabilities arising from the operation of the
corporation.
This limited liability privilege is what is wrong with corporations. The most you stand to
lose as a shareholder is what you paid for your shares. As a result, corporations can amass a
large amount of capital and when they become very large they not only damage free market
competition, but they power associated with their size and importance gives them control over
the political process. They can lobby and bribe politicians for laws that are favourable to
themselves, and unfavourable to the rest of us. And shareholders lose control over the
operation, just like your vote for politicians is relatively meaningless as a percentage of
the total vote. Management takes over, just like the elite take over governments, and ethics
disappear.
If shareholders of corporations did not have limited liability, the incentive to buy
shares would disappear, and most businesses would be carried out by small entities; we would
have a competitive "mom and pop" economy instead of a monopoly or oligopoly type economy. And
with a competitive economy if one of the competitors pulled the **** that the big internet
corporations pull, they would soon suffer the wrath of their customers who would have
alternative places to go.
Corporate laws are just another example of government interference in the economy that
produces the bad results we see today from corporatism. Corporatism is just another mechanism
to create rule by the elite and slavery for the majority. The solution is to prohibit States
from franchising corporations, and to use existing anti-trust laws to bust up all the big
corporations.
It is sad that so many people think that corporatism is capitalism and then reach the
conclusion that socialism or communism is the solution to the bad results they see today. It
is not. Capitalism is a free market with no government granted privilege to any of the
competitors. The only role of government in the economy is to protect rights, instead of
destroying rights as they do today.
I just had to uninstall my ESET anti-virus software. It was intentionally erasing utorrent
from my computer. To get to Pirate Bay, now blocked in the USA, I set my VPN to Belgium.
Almost immediately, I started getting messages from my e-mail provider, MSN, asking if I was
signing in from Belgium. When I make any payments via Internet banking, I have to turn off my
VPN or the transaction will not be recognized. When Trump and his NWO puppeteers decide to
take their gloves off, I am pretty sure my Internet connection will be on the Kill List. Just
like yours, you ZH posters.
That is why my description on Facebook states that if you post political information you
will be unfollowed. I only allow photos of kittens and well a lot of nebulous stuff,
education, and health and fitness. If they knew my ideas I would be followed by all the
worlds security agencies. I am resolved to help people become Normal within the infosphere. I
allow no politics because politics is Fake News and the sooner people forget about the
concept the sooner they will be inclined to decentralize existing concentrations of
wealth.
" The war room is staffed with millennials from 4 am until midnight, and starting on Oct.
22, social media workers will be monitoring trends 24/7 leading up to the elections. Leaders
from 20 teams will be present in the room. Workers will use machine learning and artificial
intelligence programs to monitor the platform for trends, hate speech, sophisticated trolls,
fake news, and of course, Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interference."
With all this fascist (and highly provocative) techno-insanity at their disposal
before the midterms...
...what, pray tell, will these pointy-headed leftist brats say about a red
asshamering in November?
Their silly "war room" wasn't expansive or invasive enough...?
Even the dullest people should be able to figure out that the easiest way to divulge the
truth about anything is to allow ALL information to flow like a stream. Whoever's telling the
lies will be discovered apace. Of course, FaceBook, Google, Twitter and all of the other
corporate entities know this. And they also know who the (((great masters of the lie))) are.
It is themselves. They are in panic mode, folks. We must kill this latest effort of
(((theirs))) by simply avoiding their platforms. Use their own weapons against them...
BOYCOTT. Seek alternative sites and search engines. Most importantly, spread far and wide
what you know to be their ulterior motives.
In a new article titled " Mueller
report PSA: Prepare for disappointment ", Politico cites information provided by defense
attorneys and "more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning
Watergate to the 2016 election case" to warn everyone who's been lighting candles at their
Saint Mueller altars that their hopes of Trump being removed from office are about to be dashed
to the floor.
"While [Mueller is] under no deadline to complete his work, several sources tracking the
investigation say the special counsel and his team appear eager to wrap up," Politico
reports.
"The public, they say, shouldn't expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of
Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump - not to mention an explanation
of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller
sleuths," the report also says, adding that details of the investigation may never even see
the light of day.
An obscene amount of noise and focus, a few indictments and process crime convictions which
have nothing to do with Russian collusion, and this three-ring circus of propaganda and
delusion is ready to call it a day.
This is by far the clearest indication yet that the Mueller investigation will end with
Trump still in office and zero proof of collusion with the Russian government, which has been
obvious since the beginning to everyone who isn't a complete fucking moron. For two years the
idiotic, fact-free, xenophobic Russiagate conspiracy theory has been ripping through mainstream
American consciousness with shrieking manic hysteria, sucking all oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticisms of the actual awful things that the US president is doing in real life.
Those of us who have been courageous and clear-headed enough to stand against the groupthink
have been shouted down, censored, slandered and smeared as assets of the Kremlin on a daily
basis by unthinking consumers of mass media propaganda, despite our holding the philosophically
unassailable position of demanding the normal amount of proof that would be required in a
post-Iraq invasion world.
As I
predicted long ago , "Mueller isn't going to find anything in 2017 that these vast,
sprawling networks wouldn't have found in 2016. He's not going to find anything by 'following
the money' that couldn't be found infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The
factions within the intelligence community that were working to sabotage the incoming
administration last year would have leaked proof of collusion if they'd had it. They did not
have it then, and they do not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption
throughout his investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish, but he
will not find evidence of collusion to win the 2016 election that will lead to Trump's
impeachment. It will not happen." This has remained as true in 2018 as it did in 2017, and it
will remain true forever.
None of the investigations arising from the Russiagate conspiracy theory have turned up a
single shred of evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016
election, or to do anything else for that matter. All that the shrill, demented screeching
about Russia has accomplished is manufacturing support for
steadily escalating internet censorship , a
massively bloated military budget , a hysterical McCarthyite atmosphere wherein anyone who
expresses political dissent is painted as an agent of the Kremlin and any dissenting opinions
labeled "Russian talking points" , a complete lack of accountability for the Democratic
Party's brazen election rigging, a total marginalization of real problems and progressive
agendas, and an overall diminishment in the intelligence of political discourse. The
Russiagaters were wrong, and they have done tremendous damage already.
In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely
and spend the rest of their lives being mocked and marginalized. In a world wherein pundits and
politicians can sell the public a war which results in the slaughter of a million Iraqis and
suffer no consequences of any kind, however, we all know that that isn't going to happen.
Russiagate will end not with a bang, but with a series of carefully crafted diversions. The
goalposts will be moved, the news churn will shuffle on, the herd will be guided into
supporting the next depraved oligarchic agenda , and almost nobody will have the intellectual
honesty and courage to say "Hey! Weren't these assholes promising us we'll see Trump dragged
off in chains a while back? Whatever happened to that? And why are we all talking about China
now?"
But whether they grasp it or not, mainstream liberals have been completely discredited. The
mass media outlets which inflicted this obscene psyop upon their audiences deserve to be driven
out of business. The establishment which would inflict such intrusive psychological
brutalization upon its populace just to advance a few preexisting agendas has proven that it
deserves to be opposed on every front and rejected at every turn.
And those of us who have been standing firm and saying this all along deserve to be listened
to. We were right. You were wrong. Time to sit down, shut up, stop babbling about Russian bots
for ten seconds, and let those who see clearly get a word in edgewise.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
It's not over until every corrupt "player" who had a material role in the DemoRats'
corrupt scheme to fraudulently frame Trump is brought to justice. Not to do so means there's
absolutely no deterrent to prevent the DemoRats from repeatedly fraudulently weaponizing
government agencies to attack their political opponents (defined as "Obamunism'). After all,
this was the most egregious fraudulent and illegal political conspiracy in our nation's
history. The DemoRat players must spend a decade or more in the big house. You'd think the
MSM would like that, as the trials of the traitors to America would give the MSM fodder for
their endless psycho-babble and shift attention away from the MSM's complicity in
Obamunism.
That ******* **** Maddow is the deep state's Tokyo Rose and should be yanked from the
airwaves and prosecuted for seditious lies and slander. She has plenty of company at the
other major news networks as well.
Can you imagine all of the "Deer-Caught-In-The-Headlights" looks if Mueller were to come
out with an indictment of Hillary, the Decepticrats and the DNC? I can!
All of this Russia ******** has been a diversion to distract the current administration
and to inhibit the discovery of the real crimes that have been committed against the US and
the world since 1991 when GHWB took office... Everything from 9-11 to WMDs in Iraq to
billions of $$$ in cash being airlifted to Iran to Barry Soetoro being a stooge for Saudi
Arabia... They have bought themselves two years in the process, but they cannot stop the
truth coming out...
I spoke to an ex-pat Indian, now an American citizen; settled there for three decades and
more. Well knowledgeable. He praised Pres. Trump but told me, "But Trump did not win fair."
When I told him that this Russia probe is going to wind up, admitting no collusion, he was
surprised. Then I told him that his favourite media are lying to him; he was confused. Then I
asked him to google "Seth Rich"; he was stunned. Finally it dawned on him he was the Truman
without the benefit of a show. By the time I did my talk over, about 20 minutes later, he was
a much chastised man. He had the intellectual integrity to admit that he was wrong, that he
had been fooled and he ought to have been more careful.
Thank you Caitlin, you have been a truth advocate from the beginning. We have been waiting
for #Russiagate ******** to end and embarrass the Democrats. Unfortunately, President Trump
is starting to be hostile towards Russia now. What a pity it was, that Democrats ruined a
chance of Peace !
The entire Mueller probe is based on a lie... Rosenstein called for a special counsel
without evidence of a crime being committed and no, collusion is not a crime on the
books...
Why all of this has taken 2 years to come to light is beyond me.. The only answer is that
the entire affair has been a giant kabuki show on both sides of the aisle to keep the people
distracted and divided...
Not just the Obama admin spying on Trump, but to tie his hands in investigating everything
from billions of $$$ in cash being delivered to Iran, to who controls Barry Soetoro himself,
to Uranium one, to the Clinton Foundation and on and on and on... There is ample evidence
that the US was infiltrated by a Manchurian Candidate that was hell-bent on destroying the
country, but what we have gotten as a by-product is half of the country hating the US... Weak
minded lemmings that want socialism... The US is fucked and has been for decades... All part
of the reason I left...
The best part is, I hope Carter page , George papadopolous, Paul manafort, and myriad
Russian defendants drag their lawsuits out forever and bring unlimited documents into
discovery, pulling these **** head shill lawyers into never ending court circuses and
hopefully sue Mueller's team to recoup the wasted taxpayer millions. BTW much of this is the
fault of shills like McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake, and the other neocon
establishment who would rather see Trump taken down by Democrat hoax operations than
legitimately beat them.
This is ridiculous, the result could not be clearer:
If there's any suggestion that Mueller's report cannot be released then we know without a
doubt that the report contains absolutely nothing of consequence.
Otherwise, why would they do so much preparation for disappointment.
I too hope that all the people who have been ruined by this debacle bring countless legal
actions that require public disclosure of alleged 'secret' documents.
In the end Trump will have to, regardless of protest from the UK or anyone else for that
matter, have to declassify the whole lot of it so that his false accusers are laid bare on
the alter of shame for all to see.
They never could win legitimately so they cheated like no other, and of course as the
foundation they used the queen cheater Hillary Clinton herself. I hope she does run for
election in 2020, it will be 3 strikes and the bitch is out. What an embarassement for
Hillary.
This is an incorrect view. neoliberal is about global corporatist dictatorship.
Fascism and neofascism are limited to a single country, and often to single ethnos or (in case of
neofacism) culture. So far we see that neofascism was a reaction of excesses of neoliberal
globalization.
The fact that both neoliberalism and neofascism are forms of corporatist dictatorship do not
chnge this fact.
"I see it more as a neoliberal desire to belong to some vague bigger global entity.
Plus the fact that since WW2 nationalism has become equated with fascism."
Yes, what a beautiful piece of propaganda and mind control, carried out by the people
behind this 'vague bigger global entity and facilitated by their 'Mainstream Media', to
create this neo-liberal desire.
In reality it is this 'vague bigger global entity' that embodies the essence of fascism -
i.e. corporatist-dictatorship.
Obama was a neocon, Trump is a neocon. what's new ?
Chinese leaders appeared to be acting on the advice of the 6th century BC philosopher and general Sun Tzu, who wrote in The Art
of War, "there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."
Candidate Trump railed against the invasion of Iraq during his campaign, at one point blaming George W. Bush directly and saying,
"we should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East." As president-elect, Trump continued to promise a very
different foreign policy, one that would "stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be
involved with."
The election of Donald Trump gave the international community pause: Trump appeared unpredictable, eschewed tradition, and flouted
convention. He might well have followed through on his promise to move the U.S. away from its long embrace of forever war. China's
government in particular must have worried about such a move. If the U.S. focused on its internal problems and instead pursued a
restrained foreign policy that was constructive rather than destructive, it might pose more of an impediment to China's rise to global
power status.
But the Chinese need not have worried. With a continued troop presence in Afghanistan and Syria, a looming conflict with Iran,
and even talk of an intervention in Venezuela, Trump is keeping the U.S. on its perpetual wartime footing.
This is good news for Beijing, whose own foreign policy could not be more different. Rather than embracing a reactive and short-sighted
approach that all too often ignores second- and third-order consequences, the Chinese strategy appears cautious and long-ranging.
Its policymakers and technocrats think and plan in terms of decades, not months. And those plans, for now, are focused more on building
than bombing.
This is not to say that China's foreign policy is altruistic-it is certainly not. It is designed to cement China's role as a great
power by ensnaring as many countries as possible in its economic web. China is playing the long game while Washington expends resources
and global political capital on wars it cannot win. America's devotion to intervention is sowing the seeds of its own demise and
China will be the chief beneficiary.
"... More than 60 percent of Americans who have some European ancestry can be identified using DNA databases – even if they have not submitted their own DNA, researchers reported Thursday. ..."
"... Enough people have done some kind of DNA test to make it possible to match much of the population, the researchers said. So even if you don't submit your own DNA, if a cousin does, it could lead people to you. ..."
"... The point here is the stupid, faddish public is dumb enough to submit the material the very DNA being used by the "trusted" authorities either out in the open or by back-door methods to round up all of the DNA for the surveillance state. ..."
"... I invite anyone to comment who has experience with a "transfer station," or other garbage collection facility, and anyone in the healthcare/hospital industry with some inside info as to their nefarious methods. You can easily see from these examples how they are hard on the trail relentless bloodhounds that have the scent of their quarry and they will not stop until everyone is categorized and monitored. Then the real fun begins. ..."
"... The same group (ELITE/DEEPSTATE) that wants this Tyranny outcome is also supporting the infighting, LGBTQ rtstuv, BLM, CODE PINK, ME TOO etc etc... They know that as long as we (the working class tax paying stiffs) think this is actually a left/right- Dem/Rep issue and keep bickering over the BS, we will never unite against the takeover of our country and begin to unite to defend our rights. ..."
Walmart is interested in what's going on in your body while you shop.
The company wants to collect this data in a particularly creepy way: through the handles of their shopping carts. Walmart recently
submitted a patent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office called "
System and Method for a Biometric Feedback Cart Handle ," CBInsights reports.
These innovative shopping cart handles would collect your biometric data, meaning your stress level, your body temperature,
and heart rate -- all while you're strolling through the aisles of your local store, filling your cart with Walmart's everyday
low-priced items.
The article proceeds to explain Walmart's "spin" on it is to provide a way to "check on a customer with a physical problem."
Since when has Walmart ever been concerned about anyone's physical well-being? Isn't this the company that settled out of court
for millions to pay for stolen labor time and breaks from employees? Isn't this the same Walmart that twenty years ago put small
stores in to break local competitors (Mom and Pop stores) in small towns and when they went belly up, closed their small Walmarts
and "plopped" a Super-Walmart down in the center of where five small ones used to be? Then all the little serfs could come from miles
around to service the monolith with their play money, as the local economies of the small towns died, right? Worse. Being a "too
big to fail" type of business, they're deep in bed with the governments, federal and state. Simple data collection "for your own
safety and well-being," right?
No. They're going to tie this data in with all of the other micro-data and metadata they are already gathering filming you with
their little cameras filming Johnny Jones Junior and Daddy Jones as they pick up a box of shells for the shotgun amount and type
recorded and filed next to the photos and film with their names and biometrics.
They want every piece of information on you and your family, and they're not going to stop until they have it all of it.
More than 60 percent of Americans who have some European ancestry can be identified using DNA databases – even if they have
not submitted their own DNA, researchers reported Thursday.
Enough people have done some kind of DNA test to make it possible to match much of the population, the researchers said. So
even if you don't submit your own DNA, if a cousin does, it could lead people to you.
They said their findings, published in the journal Science, raise concerns about privacy. Not only could police use this information,
but so could other people seeking personal information about someone.
The article goes on to talk about Joseph DeAngelo, a former cop in California suspected of murder, and how they nabbed him by
using DNA submitted by a "distant cousin" that narrowed down the list for cops on his trail. Read the article for more specifics
and demographics on these DNA "commercial" test kits.
The point here is the stupid, faddish public is dumb enough to submit the material the very DNA being used by the "trusted"
authorities either out in the open or by back-door methods to round up all of the DNA for the surveillance state.
I invite anyone to comment who has experience with a "transfer station," or other garbage collection facility, and anyone
in the healthcare/hospital industry with some inside info as to their nefarious methods. You can easily see from these examples how
they are hard on the trail relentless bloodhounds that have the scent of their quarry and they will not stop until everyone is categorized
and monitored. Then the real fun begins.
To digress: this is why we must all be of one accord, and disseminate this information and take steps while there is still
time. As the weeks, months, and years roll by; the hellish apparatus of what was once termed "government" becomes a machine for rule
by enslavement. That machine is perfecting itself. When control is finally obtained total, unchallenged control? That's when the
liquidations the killings will begin, for the ownership of the resources and for the control and enslavement of all humanity.
The same group (ELITE/DEEPSTATE) that wants this Tyranny outcome is also supporting the infighting, LGBTQ rtstuv, BLM,
CODE PINK, ME TOO etc etc... They know that as long as we (the working class tax paying stiffs) think this is actually a left/right-
Dem/Rep issue and keep bickering over the BS, we will never unite against the takeover of our country and begin to unite to defend
our rights.
They the ruling ELITE have funded and played us against one another using our phobias as ammunition (gay/trans rights, racism,religious
beliefs, even our political views ) used to exploit us and keep us infighting to avoid the true threat Deep State/ELITE ruling
class!
What are you getting out of all this? Seriously - are you having fun? Does your career of choice provide you with enough fulfillment
to justify the extravagant costs and loss of your time? Being single, (and I assume young), you can go anywhere in the world,
do any job, be any person you wish to be. Joint the French foreign legion, watch whales from a tourist charter boat, become a
fish and vegitables farmer in Vietnam - if you can think of it, you can do it.
So again - your current lifestyle - what's in it for YOU? Are you having fun yet?
My personal recommendation would be to move out of the city, buy a plot of land and hand build your own house, slowly, using
the raw materials from your land. Work when you have to, learn mad skills that become tradeable, grow your own food. Anyone can
do it, and back in the day EVERYONE used to do it. But do some travelling first, to wrap your head around how big the world is,
and how irrelevant governments and rules are.
Oh, and never take unsolicited advice from strangers on the internet. That's first on the list.
OverTheHedge... I appreciate your advise. I have been thinking of moving out of the country all together. This thought might
get a serious taking once I do some traveling like you said. I have no job satisfaction. I have no philosophy side feeding my
brain here.
I feel like I am just a machine. I am thinking of traveling Asia may be next year. I will sure do it. Thanks for the advise
again. I do believe there are other ways to live life. There are other ways to be satisfied and die with out a guilty feeling.
Thanks alot my friend.
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went
out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or
if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had
not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase,
but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?...
The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's
thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no
awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
Notable quotes:
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
.
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Stefan Halper
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
Roger Stone
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
WaPo
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
through
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Alexander Downer
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
themarketswork.com )
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
2016.
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
...
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Daily Caller
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
...
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
Daily Caller
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
on China.
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
The "original" so-called intelligence report was a load of BS, I read it, I'm a computer
engineer of over 30 years experience. My opinion is that it was pure BS, "filler" posing as a
report, no evidence presented. Nothingburger. People then seized on it, waved it in the air,
and said, "Here's the proof!". That's a common tactic that's been used over, and over. Here's
the NY Times "correction". Note, after the correction, Hillary continued to spout the
nonsense that 17 agencies all agreed. It was ONLY the FBI, CIA Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (Dan Coats), and the NSA.
The puzzling part is this - since the "blame Russia" story is fake, why does the US
continue to harass and provoke Russia, via Nato, Bolton, Haley? Who's in charge??
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about
Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was
made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American
intelligence community.
But what if comes out that they didn't break any law ? They can ask for reparations of
lost money because of sanction and then every sanctioned entity and individual in Russia can
ask for reparations because of bogus charges.
It seems likely the overwhelming record of the Mueller "probe" into "interference in US
elections" will be pretended prosecution of acts which never occurred or which violate no
statutory laws.
In other words, it's been a political stunt with no lawful foundation from the very
beginning.
Had they bothered to look into FBI and DNC/Hillary efforts to deceptively manipulate
public perception with false accusations, they would have found ample evidence of criminal
conduct.
I been waiting for some news on this one. I had heard a while back that Mueller tried to
deny the Russian company the ability to contest the charges with that weak *** "they haven't
been served properly" excuse only to have it rejected by the judge.
I hope this deflates on Mueller and leaves him open to charges by the others who he
alleges conspired to meddle in US elections.
FFS the US meddles in EVERYONE's elections they now kicking and screaming cuz someone
might have setup a troll farm or dispensed some info on Hillary that might not have been true
(can it be?)
This will play out badly for the Mueller team, the judge already hates them and is
disgusted by their tactics.
"Made up a crime to fit the facts they have" is a normal mode of operation for federal
prosecutors. Hopefully the judge throws out all charges, but unlikely to have a broader
impact on non-stop fabrications by US attorneys.
What this accusation boils down to is saying that the Russian firm's deception is "proof"
that they thought they were violating US law, and that this intention to break a non-existent
law constitutes a framework under which they can be convicted of breaking a non-existent law.
The crazy never stops. Mueller and his minions should be disbarred.
Why is there any requirement to identify oneself beyond an alias, unless there are
obligations of debt involved. Even there, the LLC places a barrier between an individual and
the creditor.
I post with a pseudonym. My pseudonymous identity bears responsibility for its own
reputation.
ELECTION MEDDLING (as defined by Mueller and Kravis): every VPN blogger and/or user with
more than one GMail account.
But NOT multi-million dollar foreign "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation. That have
dried up since November of 2016. Oh no, nothing meddling about over there.
By participation, do they mean like polls that consistently show the USA as the greatest
impediment to global peace and tranquility? Or the numerous opinion sharers that the US
government is depraved? Or like the kind of participation of Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland?
Or like the Western sponsored Jihadi headchoppers hired to interfere in Syrian elections? Or
like the US military fueled aggression against Yemeni sovereignty? Or like the US/Clinton
sponsored destabilization of Libyan democracy? Or like the Obama/US sponsored destabilization
of Egypt? Or like the US/Western sponsored failed coup in Turkey?
Or most crucially, the US/neoconservative never ending direct interference in internal
Russian affairs?
These need to be clarified so folks can understand what meddling/interference/intervention
means. It's not enough to point fingers, when worse activities have been, are being carried
out by the pointers. Any society that abandons basic ethics, is one destined for the scrap
heap of history.
Americans have forgotten what it means to be Americans, and this desperate gambit by the
DOJ highlights viscerally, that the American system of government, one based on ethical
values, is no more! It demonstrates the fragility of the system.
God alone knows if salvage is possible now, the USA has in the blink of an eye, become the
erstwhile USSR, overly sensitive to the unworkability of its sociopolitical system. It is the
end game of unsustainable imperium.
"Rather, the allegation is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that
precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether they had broken the
law. -
Bloomberg " I didn't know Prof. Irwin Corey worked for the US Attorney's office. By this
explanation whether you break a law or not you can be guilty of precluding these agencies
from determining that you did not break a law, even if whatever you did to prevent such
determination was not illegal.
didn't the Judge in Manaforts trial do something similar when he called out the Mueller
team on their motivation's for bringing Manafort up on old charges the DOJ had previously
declined to prosecute him on?
Amerika is 180 degree turn from my logic. Mueler presented fake evidence and fabricated
Lockerbie trial. He was working with Steele.
So this is great guy to head FBI and bull sheet Russia medling. In normal country, guy
like Mueler is so discredired that can be hapi to have county investigator job, not
government job
LOL, Mueller's investigation is fucked. Indeed, they are going to have to bring forth the
evidence via discovery.
It will come to light they manufactured a crime without the evidence. Also, if they don't
drop the case they're running the risk of exposing even more crimes they committed.
This is where the American people should rise up and repeal prosecutorial immunity and
make the real criminal's pay the price for manufacturing crime's! Care to speculate how many
prosecutor's wouldn't even touch a potential criminal with doubt of innocence, if indeed
prosecutors were held accountable for their own crimes???
Like I've said, people have NO idea how raunchy and corrupt this manufactured Mueller
investigation is, once the unredacted FISA warrant and 302's are released, the people will
realize both the seditious and traitorous behavior that went on in the ObamaSpy ring to frame
Trump!
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims lodged against
a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to
Bloomberg .
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for
election meddling, surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges. Mueller's team
tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served, however Judge Dabney Friedrich
denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors '
well,
they're here .'
Concord was accused in the indictment of supporting the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian 'troll farm' accused of trying
to influence the 2016 US election.
On Thursday, Judge Freidrich asked Mueller's prosecutors if she should assume they aren't accusing Concord of violating US laws
applicable to election expenditures and failure to register as a foreign agent.
Concord has asked Dabney to throw out the charges - claiming that Mueller's office fabricated a crime, and that there is no law
against interfering in elections.
According to the judge's request for clarification, the
Justice Department has argued that it doesn't have to
show that Concord had a legal duty to report its expenditures to the
Federal Election Commission . Rather, the allegation
is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether
they had broken the law. -
Bloomberg
On Monday, Friedrich raised questions over whether the special counsel's office could prove a key element of their case - saying
that it was "hard to see" how allegations of Russian influence were intended to interfere with US government operations vs. simply
"confusing voters," reports
law.com .
During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show
the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC's functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.
" You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that? " Friedrich asked.
Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to
show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government "regulates and monitors" foreign
participation in American politics . That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians' alleged creation of fake
social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and "computer infrastructure" intended to mask the Russian origin
of the influence operation.
" That is deception that is directed at a higher level ," Kravis said. Kravis appeared in court with
Michael Dreeben , a top Justice Department appellate lawyer on detail to the special counsel's office. -
law.com
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged
a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Dubelier added that the case against Concord Management is the first in US history "where anyone has ever been charged with defrauding
the Justice Department" through their failure to register under FARA .
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent
the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his
version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will
using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election
campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of
state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that
GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly
matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr
Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the
secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps
he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.
Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian
president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to
Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from
videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the
beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his
daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.
There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually
been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if
the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan
Bandera was.
However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to
expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive
expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.
Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats
connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff
to the enemy.
That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by
the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the
RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke
the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a
turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks,
explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.
The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action
from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered
state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's
novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover.
Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.
But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove
their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and
not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched.
Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of
Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a
formidable task.
There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and
their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal
their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll
go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent
threats, this end of the world is quite possible.
Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it
wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has
initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to
return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it
turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have
been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian
reactions.
I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never
know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people
like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director
and actors.
@utu " Instead we get
defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as
inept and indolent.
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal
poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable
haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it
– which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to
die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc,
etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay
retired.
Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not
to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their
incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda
gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian
perfidy.
Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.
@Anatoly Karlin " British
or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what
passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "
On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that
he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was
involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid
stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.
"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more
attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other
spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .
A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly
respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with
your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific
human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible
selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said,
almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have
not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both
touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure
where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to
Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons
applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other
places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples
from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the
dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian
jail.
If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton
Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander
Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.
If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the
observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.
Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence"
services.
The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media
seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.
The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a
sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have
had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.
Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits
and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the
closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the
hotel was not then immediately quarantined.
And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they
are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR
disaster.
The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by
anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in
Photoshop.
But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow,
that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If
anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire
passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can
work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).
But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that
not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where
Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.
@Tyrion 2 Had some
experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.
Here are a few examples.
There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female
handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when
she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of
both.
There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S.
military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.
There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that
was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was
a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers.
The feds busted them.
As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was
occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned
vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their
espionage work and methods.
I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read
people, quite well. It's a natural gift.
Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing
out their self-serving bullshit.
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end
Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I
published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan
I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14
'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU
or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another
Potemkin village production from the reality masters
Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a
frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans
to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion
the elaborate hoax
Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added
this
' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't
try to kill anyone that's stupid
It's some sort of spy game
Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back
someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very
stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and
their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing
dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '
This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a
dollar short
I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the
Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper
bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever
pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory
because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to
show the Russians were in fact somehow involved
But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that
Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on
their countermove
Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out
of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in
the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the
hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'
It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient
intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent
poisoning
BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and
chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact
same chemical compound organophosphates
'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand
deaths.'
That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and
treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like
Salisbury
That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital
the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would
have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery
But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid
Brits
So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very
very far from over
As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the
matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly
well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a
useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months
ago
PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel
apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out
of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material
anyway
As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if
such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in
the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been
employed why not ?
@FB How would a fake
database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to
UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?
In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the
very article to which you are responding started with:
It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and
counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the
subterranean battle.
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge
vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a
spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any
Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since
by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a
spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is
that?
Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west.
Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that
are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.
Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of
being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered
protection from Mother Russia.
Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter
father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much
everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western
generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect
her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.
Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of
time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is
equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers
such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality,
despite ditching socialism.
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly'
refuse to take at face value this silly statement
it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean
battle.'
Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data'
about Petrov and Boshirov
that was put out by Bellingcat
Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle
the most utterly stupid bipeds
A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's
acknowledged partner here
If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various
sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their
flight to the UK
Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear
In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and
glorify the Bellingcat outfit
which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott
Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential
advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those
willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as
it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.
Boils down to, from the comment below:
When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market
.) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret
service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best
postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has
a price..
and
Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage.
And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the
Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of
Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian
intelligence services"? Mais non.
CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend
not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and
ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.
For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide,
in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back
off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under
the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as
chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that
his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.
So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with
it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.
The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state.
They rule the USA.
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent
the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his
version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will
using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election
campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of
state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that
GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly
matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr
Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the
secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps
he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.
Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian
president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to
Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from
videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the
beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his
daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.
There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually
been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if
the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan
Bandera was.
However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to
expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive
expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.
Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats
connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff
to the enemy.
That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by
the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the
RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke
the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a
turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks,
explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.
The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action
from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered
state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's
novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover.
Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.
But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove
their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and
not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched.
Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of
Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a
formidable task.
There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and
their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal
their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll
go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent
threats, this end of the world is quite possible.
Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it
wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has
initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to
return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it
turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have
been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian
reactions.
I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never
know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people
like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director
and actors.
@utu " Instead we get
defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as
inept and indolent.
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal
poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable
haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it
– which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to
die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc,
etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay
retired.
Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not
to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their
incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda
gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian
perfidy.
Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.
@Anatoly Karlin " British
or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what
passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "
On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that
he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was
involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid
stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.
"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more
attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other
spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .
A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly
respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with
your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific
human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible
selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said,
almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have
not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both
touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure
where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to
Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons
applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other
places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples
from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the
dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian
jail.
If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton
Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander
Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.
If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the
observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.
Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence"
services.
The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media
seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.
The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a
sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have
had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.
Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits
and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the
closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the
hotel was not then immediately quarantined.
And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they
are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR
disaster.
The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by
anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in
Photoshop.
But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow,
that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If
anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire
passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can
work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).
But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that
not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where
Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.
@Tyrion 2 Had some
experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.
Here are a few examples.
There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female
handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when
she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of
both.
There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S.
military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.
There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that
was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was
a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers.
The feds busted them.
As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was
occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned
vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their
espionage work and methods.
I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read
people, quite well. It's a natural gift.
Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing
out their self-serving bullshit.
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end
Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I
published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan
I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14
'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU
or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another
Potemkin village production from the reality masters
Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a
frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans
to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion
the elaborate hoax
Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added
this
' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't
try to kill anyone that's stupid
It's some sort of spy game
Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back
someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very
stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and
their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing
dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '
This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a
dollar short
I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the
Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper
bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever
pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory
because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to
show the Russians were in fact somehow involved
But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that
Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on
their countermove
Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out
of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in
the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the
hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'
It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient
intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent
poisoning
BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and
chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact
same chemical compound organophosphates
'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand
deaths.'
That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and
treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like
Salisbury
That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital
the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would
have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery
But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid
Brits
So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very
very far from over
As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the
matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly
well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a
useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months
ago
PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel
apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out
of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material
anyway
As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if
such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in
the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been
employed why not ?
@FB How would a fake
database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to
UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?
In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the
very article to which you are responding started with:
It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and
counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the
subterranean battle.
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge
vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a
spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any
Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since
by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a
spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is
that?
Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west.
Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that
are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.
Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of
being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered
protection from Mother Russia.
Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter
father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much
everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western
generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect
her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.
Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of
time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is
equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers
such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality,
despite ditching socialism.
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly'
refuse to take at face value this silly statement
it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean
battle.'
Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data'
about Petrov and Boshirov
that was put out by Bellingcat
Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle
the most utterly stupid bipeds
A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's
acknowledged partner here
If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various
sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their
flight to the UK
Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear
In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and
glorify the Bellingcat outfit
which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott
Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential
advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those
willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as
it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.
Boils down to, from the comment below:
When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market
.) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret
service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best
postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has
a price..
and
Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage.
And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the
Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of
Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian
intelligence services"? Mais non.
CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend
not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and
ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.
For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide,
in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back
off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under
the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as
chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that
his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.
So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with
it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.
The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state.
They rule the USA.
I initially backed Trump, though with reservations on his attitude to Iran and his wanting
to increase US military spending - build a stronger US military. Pulling out of the TPP was
great. Au had sovereignty on paper if not in practice, but with the TPP, Australia would not
have had sovereignty legally. His first attack on Syria was a flash bang exercise to disable
his opponents. His second attack I thought initially was the same, but with everything I've
read since, I believe Trump's US planned to destroy Syrian military but not wanting to go to
war with Russia at that time, respected the Russian nyet on targets.
With Idlib it moved up a notch, Trump's US threatening attack on Syria including Russian
personal stationed there, and Russia moving to asymmetrical moves rather than in your face
nuclear amageddon, which is what a full on US attack on Syria would have amounted
to..
"... Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation. ..."
"... This article was originally published by The Nation . ..."
There have been plenty of purely criminal and commercial " rogue " operations by
intelligence agents in history, but also " rogue " ones that were purposefully
political. We know, for example, that both Soviet and US intelligence agencies - or groups of
agents - tried to disrupt the Eisenhower-Khrushchev détente of the late 1950s and early
1960s, and that some intelligence players tried to stop Khrushchev's formal recognition of West
Germany, also in the early 1960s.
It is reasonable to ask, therefore, whether the attacks on Skripal and Khashoggi were "
rogue " operations undertaken by political opponents of the leaders' policies at home
or abroad, with the help of one or another intelligence agency or agents. Motive is a - perhaps
the - crucial question. Why would Putin order such an operation in the UK at the very
moment when his government had undertaken a major Western public-relations campaign in
connection with the upcoming World Cup championship in Russia? And why would MbS risk a
Khashoggi scandal as he was assiduously promoting his image abroad as an enlightened
reform-minded Saudi leader?
We lack the evidence and official candor needed to study these questions, as is usually the
case with covert, secretive, disinforming intelligence operations. But the questions are
certainly reason enough not to rush to judgment, as many US pundits do. Saying " we do not
know " may be unmarketable in today's mass-media environment, but it is honest and the
right approach to potentially fruitful " analysis. "
2. We do know, however, that there has been fierce opposition in the US political-media
establishment to President Trump's policy of " cooperating with Russia ," including in
US intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and FBI - and at high levels of his own
administration.
We might consider Nikki Haley's resignation as UN ambassador in this light. Despite the
laurels heaped on her by anti-Trump media, and by Trump himself at their happy-hour farewell in
the White House, Haley was not widely admired by her UN colleagues. When appointed for
political reasons by Trump, she had no foreign-policy credentials or any expert knowledge of
other countries or of international relations generally. Judging by her performance as
ambassador, nor did she acquire much on the job, almost always reading even short comments from
prepared texts.
More to the point, Haley's statements regarding Russia at the UN were, more often than not,
dissimilar from Trump's -- indeed, implicitly in opposition to Trump's. (She did nothing, for
example, to offset charges in Washington that Trump's summit meeting with Putin in Helsinki, in
July, had been " treasonous .") Who wrote these statements for her, which were very
similar to statements regarding Russia that have been issued by US intelligence agencies since
early 2017? It is hard to imagine that Trump was unhappy to see her go, and easier to imagine
him pushing her toward the exit. A president needs a loyalist as secretary of state and at the
UN. Haley's pandering remarks at the White House about Trump's family suggests some deal had
been made to ease her out, with non-recrimination promises made on both sides. We will see if
opponents of Trump's Russia policy can put another spokesperson at the UN.
As to which aspects of US foreign policy Trump actually controls, we might ask more urgently
if he authorized, or was fully informed about, the joint US-NATO-Ukraine military air exercises
that got under way over Ukraine, abutting Russia, on October 8. Moscow regards these exercises
as a major " provocation ," and not unreasonably.
3. What do Trump's opponents want instead of " cooperation with Russia "? A much
harder line, including more " crushing " economic sanctions. Sanctions are more like
temper tantrums and road rage than actual national-security policy, and thus are often
counterproductive. We have some recent evidence. Russia's trade surplus has grown to more than
$100 billion. World prices for Russia's primary exports, oil and gas, have grown to over $80 a
unit while Moscow's federal budget is predicated on $53 a barrel. Promoters of anti-Russian
sanctions gloat that they have weakened the ruble. But while imposing some hardships on
ordinary citizens, the combination of high oil prices and a weaker ruble is ideal for Russian
state and corporate exporters. They sell abroad for inflated foreign currency and pay their
operating expenses at home in cheaper rubles. To risk a pun, they are " crushing it.
"
Congressional sanctions - for exactly what is not always clear - have helped Putin in
another way. For years, he has unsuccessfully tried to get " oligarchs " to repatriate
their wealth abroad. US sanctions on various " oligarchs " have persuaded them and
others to begin to do so, perhaps bringing back home as much as $90 billion already in
2018.
If nothing else, these new budgetary cash flows help Putin deal with his declining
popularity at home - he still has an approval rating well above 60 percent - due to the
Kremlin's decision to raise the pension age for men and women, from 60 to 65 and from 55 to 60
respectively. The Kremlin can use the additional revenue to increase the value of pensions,
supplement them with other social benefits, or to enact the age change over a longer period of
time.
It appears that Congress, particularly the Senate, has no Russia policy other than
sanctions. It might think hard about finding alternatives. One way to start would be with real
" hearings " in place of the ritualistic affirmation of orthodox policy by "
experts " that has long been its practice. There are more than a few actual
specialists out there who think different approaches to Moscow are long overdue.
4. All of these dangerous developments, indeed the new US-Russian Cold War itself, are elite
projects -- political, media, intelligence, etc. Voters were never really consulted. Nor do
they seem to approve. In August, Gallup asked its usual sample of Americans which policy toward
Russia they preferred. Fifty-eight percent wanted improved relations vs. only 36 percent who
wanted a tougher US policy with more sanctions. (Meanwhile, two-thirds of Russians surveyed by
an independent agency now see the United States as their country's number-one enemy, and about
three-fourths view China favorably.)
Will any of the US political figures already jockeying for the Democratic presidential
nomination in 2020 take these realities into account?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.
This article was originally published by The
Nation .
In Bavaria's state elections, German voters sent a powerful message to German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, who has been harshly criticized for opening up Germany's borders to the free
flow of migration. But strangely enough the pro-immigrant Green Party took a solid second
place.
Merkel and her fragile coalition, comprised of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Social
Democrats Party (SPD) and Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered staggering losses
in Bavaria on Sunday, losses not experienced by the two powerhouse conservative parties for
many decades.
The CSU won just 37.3 percent of the vote, down 12.1 percent from 2013, thus failing to
secure an absolute majority. It marked the worst showing conservative Christian Bavaria, where
the CSU has ruled practically unilaterally since 1957. But the political mood in Germany has
changed, and Merkel's so-called sister party will now be forced to seek a coalition to cover
its losses.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD), in an awkward alliance with their
conservative allies, secured just 9.5 percent of the Bavarian vote, down almost 10.9 percent
from its 2013 showing.
The dismal results were not altogether unexpected. CSU leader Horst Seehofer has regularly
clashed with Angela Merkel over the question of her loose refugee policies, which saw 1.5
million migrants pour into Germany unmolested in 2015 alone. In January 2016, when the number
of arrivals had peaked, Bavaria grabbed headlines as Peter Dreier, mayor of the district of
Landshut, sent a
busload of refugees to Berlin, saying his city could not handle any more new arrivals.
Yet, despite such expressions of frustration, and even anger, Germany, perhaps out of some
fear of reverting back to atavistic nationalistic tendencies that forever lurks in the
background of the German psyche, has not come out in full force against the migrant invasion,
which seems to have been forced upon the nation without their approval. As with the young girl
in the video below, however, some Germans have come forward to express their strong
reservations with the trend.
In general, however, the German people, in direct contradiction to the stereotype of them
being an orderly and logical people, do not seem overly concerned with the prospects of their
tidy country being overrun by the chaos of undocumented and illegal migrants. This much seemed
to be confirmed by the strong showing of the pro-immigration Green Party, which took second
place with 18.3 percent of the votes, a 9 percent increase since the last elections.
Katharina Schulze, the 33-year old co-leader of the Bavarian Greens,
told reporters "Bavaria needs a political party that solves the problems of the people and
not create new ones over and over again."
However, a political platform that seems fine with open borders seems to contradict
Schulze's claim to not creating new problems "over and over again." Today, thanks to Merkel's
disastrous refugee non-plan, which the Greens applaud,
every fifth person in Germany comes from immigration, a figure that will naturally increase
over time, placing immense pressure on the country's already overloaded
social welfare programs, not to mention disrupting the country's social cohesiveness.
Thus Schulze may find it an impossible challenge "solving the problems of the people," one
of the vaguest campaign pledges I have ever heard, while embracing a staunchly refugee-friendly
platform that seems doomed to ultimate disaster.
Indeed, Germany appears to be on a collision course between those who accept the idea of
being the world's welcome center for refugees, and those who think Germany must not only close
its borders, but perhaps even send back many refugees. After all, it has been proven that many
of these new arrivals are in reality
'
economic migrants' who arrived in Europe not due to any persecution back home, but rather
from the hope of improving their lot in life. While it's certainly no crime to seek out
economic opportunities, it becomes a real problem when it comes at the expense of the domestic
population.
From an outsider's perspective, I cannot fathom how it is possible that Angela Merkel is
still in power. Although there is no term limit on the chancellorship, people must still go to
the polls and vote for this woman and the CDU, which the majority continues to do –
despite everything.
In a search for answers, I found an explanation by one Arne Trautmann, a German lawyer from
Munich.
"I think the answer lies in German psychology. We do not like instability. We had our
experience with it (hyperinflation, wars and such) and it did not work very well. Angela Merkel
offers such stability. Simply because she has been around for so long."
Still, that answer just drags up more questions that perhaps only the Germans can answer.
After all, if the German people "do not like instability," then the specter of their borders
being violated on a daily basis such be simply unacceptable to them. Perhaps I am missing
something.
In any case, there was a consolation prize of sorts in the Bavarian elections, as the
anti-immigrant AfD party took fourth place (behind the Free Voters) with 10.2 percent of the
votes, an increase of 10 percent from their 2013 performance.
This will give the AfD parliamentary power in the state assembly for the first time, which
should work to put the brakes on illegal migrants entering the country. For the future of
Germany, it may be the last hope.
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been
nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.
She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the
wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard
to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria.
She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only
to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight
into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to
control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.
So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser and what we've accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending our reach . ..."
"... By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
"... As long as NATO exists, Washington will continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it benefited Germany's national interest. ..."
"... She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He is leaving the door open. ..."
"... What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018. ..."
"... Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to exchange ensuring business for many years to come. Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it). Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana. ..."
"... IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere. ..."
"... So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines. ..."
"... Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA. ..."
"... It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil (unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong? ..."
"... The United States should lead by example. Telling Germany not to import Russian gas is rich considering the U.S. also imports from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/12/russia-was-a-top-10-supplier-of-u-s-oil-imports-in-2017/ ..."
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
This
is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us
and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing
this fundraiser and what we've
accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending
our reach .
Yves here. It's not hard to see that this tiff isn't just about Russia. The US wants Germany
to buy high-priced US LNG.
By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm.
Originally published at
OilPrice
The United States and the European Union (EU) are at odds over more than just the Iran
nuclear deal – tensions surrounding energy policy have also become a flashpoint for the
two global powerhouses.
In energy policy, the U.S. has been opposing the Gazprom-led and highly controversial
Nord Stream 2 pipeline project , which will follow the existing Nord Stream natural gas
pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. EU institutions and some EU members
such as Poland and Lithuania are also against it, but one of the leaders of the EU and the
end-point of the planned project -- Germany -- supports Nord Stream 2 and sees the project as a
private commercial venture that will help it to meet rising natural gas demand.
While the U.S. has been hinting this year that it could sanction the project and the
companies involved in it -- which include not only Gazprom but also major European firms Shell,
Engie, OMV, Uniper, and Wintershall -- Germany has just said that
Washington shouldn't interfere with Europe's energy choices and policies.
"I don't want European energy policy to be defined in Washington," Germany's Foreign
Ministry State Secretary Andreas Michaelis said at a conference on trans-Atlantic ties in
Berlin this week.
Germany has to consult with its European partners regarding the project, Michaelis said, and
noted, as quoted by Reuters, that he was "certainly not willing to accept that Washington is
deciding at the end of the day that we should not rely on Russian gas and that we should not
complete this pipeline project."
"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent
of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline," President Trump said.
Germany continues to see Nord Stream 2 as a commercial venture, although it wants clarity on
the future role of Ukraine as a transit route, German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer
said last month.
Nord Stream 2 is designed to bypass Ukraine, and Ukraine fears it will lose transit fees and
leverage over Russia as the transit route for its gas to western Europe.
Poland, one of the most outspoken opponents of Nord Stream 2, together with the United
States, issued a joint statement last month during the visit of Polish President Andrzej Duda
to Washington, in which the parties
said , "We will continue to coordinate our efforts to counter energy projects that threaten
our mutual security, such as Nord Stream 2."
The president of the Federation of German Industry (BDI), Dieter Kempf, however, told
German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung last month, that he had "a big problem with a third
country interfering in our energy policy," referring to the United States. German industry
needs Nord Stream 2, and dropping the project to buy U.S. LNG instead wouldn't make any
economic sense, he said. U.S. LNG currently is not competitive on the German market and would
simply cost too much, according to Kempf.
The lower price of Russian pipeline gas to Europe is a key selling point -- and one that
Gazprom uses often. Earlier this month Alexey Miller, Chairman of Gazprom's Management
Committee, said at a gas forum in
Russia that "Although much talk is going on about new plans for LNG deliveries, there is no
doubt that pipeline gas supplies from Russia will always be more competitive than LNG
deliveries from any other part of the world. It goes without saying."
The issue with Nord Stream 2 -- which is already
being built in German waters -- is that it's not just a commercial project. Many in Europe
and everyone in the United States see it as a Russian political tool and a means to further
tighten Russia's grip on European gas supplies, of which it already holds more than a third.
But Germany wants to discuss the future of this project within the European Union, without
interference from the United States.
Maybe the US thinks it will also have to go out of its way to accommodate Germany and the
EU by offering to construct the necessary infrastructure in Europe for the import of LNG at
exorbitant US prices. MAGA. How long would that take?
The question is, is it inevitable that the EU/US relationship goes sour?
Continentalism is on the rise generally, and specifically with brexit, couple this with the
geographical gravity of the EU-Russia relationship makes a EU-Russia "alliance" make more
sense than the EU-US relationship.
Ever since the death of the USSR and the accession of the eastern states to the EU, the
balance of power in the EU-US relationship has moved in ways it seems clear that the US is
uncomfortable with.
To all of this we must add the policy differences between the US and the EU – see the
GDPR and the privacy shield for example.
I have said it before – the day Putin dies (metaphorically or literally) is a day
when the post war order in Europe may die, and we see the repairing of the EU-Russia
relationship (by which I mean the current regime in Russia will be replaced with a new
generation far less steeped in cold war dogma and way more interested in the EU).
"The post war order in Europe will doe and we see the repairing of the EU/Russian
relationship "
I think you mean the German/Russian relationship and that repair has been under way for
more than a decade. The post war order is very very frayed already and looks close to a break
point.
This Nord Stream 2 story illustrates more than most Germany's attitudes to the EU and to
the world at large. Germany used its heft within the EU to 1 ) get control of Russian gas
supplies into Central Europe (Germany insisted that Poland could not invest in the project
apparently and refused a landing point for the pipeline in Poland. Instead it offered a flow
back valve from Germany into Poland that the Germans would control) 2) thumb its nose at the
US while outwardly declaring friendship through the structures provided by EU and NATO
membership.
Even Obama suspected the Germans of duplicity (the Merkel phone hacking debacle).
It's is this repairing relationship that will set the tone for Brexit, the Ukraine war,
relations between Turkey and EU and eventually the survival of the EU and NATO. The point ?
Germany doesn't give a hoot about the EU it served its purpose of keeping Germany anchored to
the west and allowing German reunification to solidify while Russia was weak. Its usefulness
is in the past now, however from a German point of view.
Putin dying isn't going to change Washington. As long as NATO exists, Washington will
continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along
with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it
benefited Germany's national interest.
Come to think of it, maybe Merkel dying off would improve German-Russian relations
She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while
Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said
that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He
is leaving the door open.
Germany won't lose if NATO and the EU break up. It would free itself from a range
increasingly dis-functional entities that, in its mind, restrict its ability to engage in
world affairs.
I think you are right. Russia and Germany are coming together and there's nothing we can
do about it because "private commercial venture." Poetic justice.
And the economic link will
lead to political links and we will have to learn a little modesty. The ploy we are trying to
use, selling Germany US LNG could not have been anything more than a stopgap supply line
until NG from the ME came online but that has been our achilles heel.
It feels like even if
we managed to kick the Saudis out and took over their oil and gas we still could no longer
control geopolitics. The cat is out of the bag and neoliberalism has established the rules.
And it's pointless because there is enough gas and oil and methane on this planet to kill the
human race off but good.
That exactly right. and Gerhard Schroder has been developing those political relationships
for more than a decade. The political/economic links already go very deep on both sides.
if the rapprochement is occurring, Brexit, the refugee crisis and Italy's approaching debt
crisis are all just potential catalysts for an inevitable breakup. Germany likely views these
as potential opportunities to direct European realignment rather than existential crises to
be tackled.
What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption
and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018
Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes
re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018.
The US produces annually about 33,000,000 million cubic feet and consumes 27.000.000
million according to the EiA . So there is an
excess to export indeed.
Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to
exchange ensuring business for many years to come.
Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture
Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland
representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it).
Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still
dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana.
I don't know much about NG markets in Poland but according to Eurostat prices for
non-household consumers are very similar in Poland, Germany, Lithuania or Spain.
Gas contracts are usually linked to oil prices. A lot of LNG is traded as a fungible
product like oil, but that contract seems different – most likely its constructed this
way because of the huge capital cost of the LNG facilities, which make very little economic
sense for a country like Poland which has pipelines criss-crossing it. I suspect the
terminals have more capacity that the contract quantity – the surplus would be traded
at market prices, which would no doubt be where the profit margin is for the supplier (I
would be deeply sceptical that unsubsidised LNG could ever compete with Russia gas, the
capital costs involved are just too high).
IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with
oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do
with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere.
IMO, the folks responsible for this waste are as usual, ignoring the 'externalities', the
costs to the environment of course, but also the cost of infrastructure and transport related
to turning this situation to their advantage.
So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to
offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and
of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and
high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines.
This doesn't even take into account the possibility that the whole fracked gas supply may
be a short-lived phenomenon, associated with what we've been describing here as basically a
finance game.
Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income
American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA.
Just to clarify, fracked gas is not usually a by-product of oil fracking – the
geological beds are usually distinct (shale gas tends to occur at much deeper levels than
tight oil). Gas can however be a byproduct of conventional oil production. 'wet' gas
(propane, etc), can be a by-product of either.
It's common for oil wells both fracked and conventional to produce natural gas (NG) though
not all do. The fracked wells in the Permian Basin are producing a great deal of it.
Natural gas does indeed form at higher temperatures than oil does and that means at
greater depth but both oil and NG migrate upward. Exploration for petroleum is hunting for
where it gets captured at depth, not for where it's formed. Those source rocks are used as
indicators of where to look for petroleum trapped stratigraphically higher up.
It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil
(unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It
sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will
have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use
nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong?
I wonder what the secret industry studies say about the damage possible from an accident
at a LNG port terminal involving catastrophic failure and combustion of the entire cargo of a
transport while unloading high-pressure LNG.
They call a fuel-air bomb the size of a school bus 'The Mother of all bombs', what about
one the size of a large ocean going tanker?
Many years ago, someone was trying to build an LNG storage facility on the southwest shore
of Staten Island 17 miles SW of Manhattan involving very large insulated tanks. In spite of
great secrecy, there came to be much local opposition. At the time it was said that the
amount of energy contained in the tanks would be comparable to a nuclear weapon. Various
possible disaster scenarios were proposed, for example a tank could be compromised by
accident (plane crashes into it) or terrorism, contents catch fire and explode, huge fireball
emerges and drifts with the wind, possibly over New Jersey's chemical farms or even towards
Manhattan. The local opponents miraculously won. As far as I know, the disused tanks are
still there.
A 28-inch LNG underground pipeline exploded in Nigeria and the resulting fire engulfed
an estimated 27 square kilometers.
Here's one from Cleveland;
On 20 October 1944, a liquefied natural gas storage tank in Cleveland, Ohio, split and
leaked its contents, which spread, caught fire, and exploded. A half hour later, another
tank exploded as well. The explosions destroyed 1 square mile (2.6 km2), killed 130, and
left 600 homeless.
The locals in Nigeria drill hole in pipeline to get free fuel.
The Nigeria Government has been really wonderful about sharing the largess and riches of
their large petroleum field in the Niger delta. Mostly with owners of expensive property
around the world.
I am trying to think of what might be in it for the Germans to go along with this deal but
cannot see any. The gas would be far more expensive that the Russian deliveries. A fleet of
tankers and the port facilities would have to be built and who is going to pick up the tab
for that? Then if the terminal is in Louisiana, what happens to deliveries whenever there is
a hurricane?
I cannot see anything in it for the Germans at all. Trump's gratitude? That and 50 cents
won't buy you a cup of coffee. In any case Trump would gloat about the stupidity of the
Germans taking him up on the deal, not feel gratitude. The US wants Germany to stick with
deliveries via the Ukraine as they have their thumb on that sorry country and can threaten
Germany with that fact. Nord Stream 2 (and the eventual Nord Stream 3) threaten that
hold.
The killer argument is this. In terms of business and remembering what international
agreements Trump has broken the past two years, who is more reliable as a business partner
for Germany – Putin's Russia or Trump's America?
I find it impossible to believe that a gas supplier would keep to an artificially low LNG
contract if, say, a very cold winter in the US led to a shortage and extreme price spike.
They'd come up with some excuse not to deliver.
My recollection was that there was a law that prohibited export-sales of domestic US
hydrocarbons. That law was under attack, and went away in the last couple years?
LNG with your F35? said the transactional Orangeman
The fracked crude is ultralight and unsuitable for the refineries in the quantities
available, hence export, which caused congress to change the law. No expert, but understand
that it is used a lot as a blender with heavier stocks of crude, quite a bit going to
China.
The petroleum industry has been bribing lobbying the administration for quite a
while to get this policy in place, The so called surplus of NG today (if there is), won't
last long. Exports will create a shortage and will result in higher prices to all.
also, if Germany were to switch to American LNG, for how long would this be a reliable
energy source? Fracking wells are short lived, so what happens once they are depleted? who
foots the bill?
I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been
nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.
She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the
wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard
to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria.
She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only
to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight
into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to
control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.
So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!
Putting money aside for a moment, Trump, as well as the entire American establishment,
doesn't want Russia "controlling" Germany's energy supplies. That's because they want America
to control Germany's energy supplies via controlling LNG deliveries from America to Germany
and by controlling gas supplies to Germany through Ukraine. This by maintaining America's
control over Ukraine's totally dependent puppet government. The Germans know this so they
want Nord Stream 2 & 3.
Ukraine is an unreliable energy corridor on a good day. It is run by clans of rapacious
oligarchs who don't give one whit about Ukraine, the Ukrainian "people", or much of anything
else except business. The 2019 presidential election may turn into a contest among President
Poroshenko the Chocolate King, Yulia Tymoshenko the Gas Princess, as well as some others
including neo Nazis that go downhill from there. What competent German government would want
Germany's energy supplies to be dependent on that mess?
It has been said that America's worst geopolitical nightmare is an
economic-political-military combination of Russia, Iran, and China in the Eurasian
"heartland". Right up there, if not worse, is a close political-economic association between
Germany and Russia; now especially so since such a relationship can quickly be hooked into
China's New Silk Road, which America will do anything to subvert including tariffs,
sanctions, confiscations of assets, promotion of political-ethnic-religious grievances where
they may exist along the "Belt-Road", as well as armed insurrections, really maybe anything
short of all out war with Russia and China.
Germany's trying to be polite about this saying, sure, how about a little bit of LNG along
with Nord Stream 2 & 3? But the time may come, if America pushes enough, that Germany
will have to make an existential choice between subservience to America, and pursuit of it's
own legitimate self interest.
It's hard to make NG explode, as it is with all liquid hydrocarbons. It is refrigerated,
and must change from liquid to gaseous for, and be mixed with air.
I've also worked on a Gas Tanker in the summer vacations. The gas was refrigerated, and
kept liquid. They is a second method, used for NG, that is to allow evaporation from the
cargo, and use it as fuel for the engine (singular because there is one propulsion engine on
most large ships) on the tanker.
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at
the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the
president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested
he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good
guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some
point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
improve.
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
apart."
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose
philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for
America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has
never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against
North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and
has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and
local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil
Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment
needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN.
Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer
really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a
puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been
assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from
South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the
global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other
wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression
against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals
at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could
even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under
Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of
colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the
military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these
generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals
the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part
of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit
bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for
him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in
2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was
running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took
office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and
enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also
disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy
improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?
Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We
don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of
recent decades.
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew
the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.
He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles
about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at
which time he will dump them and make up something else.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world
affairs.
Fixed:
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.
This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or
moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this
whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another
theory that contradicts this one.
Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And,
specially, what is he failing to do?
Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the
military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine
as a joke, it is only half a joke.
Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have
little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and
active marching in support.
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:
"Arrest Them"
Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned
Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower
Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?
Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire
Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive
Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs
Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large
Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "
Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against
Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in
concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
What did Judas Goat 43 say again?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."
I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then?
Past performance does predict future results.
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on
immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to
get us out of the Middle East.
His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).
No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying,
but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at
the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the
president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested
he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good
guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some
point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
improve.
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
apart."
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose
philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for
America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has
never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against
North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and
has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and
local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil
Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment
needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN.
Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer
really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a
puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been
assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from
South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the
global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other
wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression
against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals
at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could
even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under
Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of
colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the
military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these
generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals
the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part
of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit
bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for
him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in
2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was
running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took
office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and
enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also
disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy
improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?
Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We
don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of
recent decades.
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew
the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.
He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles
about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at
which time he will dump them and make up something else.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world
affairs.
Fixed:
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.
This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or
moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this
whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another
theory that contradicts this one.
Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And,
specially, what is he failing to do?
Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the
military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine
as a joke, it is only half a joke.
Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have
little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and
active marching in support.
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:
"Arrest Them"
Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned
Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower
Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?
Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire
Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive
Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs
Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large
Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "
Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against
Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in
concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
What did Judas Goat 43 say again?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."
I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then?
Past performance does predict future results.
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on
immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to
get us out of the Middle East.
His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).
No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying,
but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.
The stunning CSU defeat in Bavaria means that the coalition partner in Angela Merkel's
government has lost an absolute majority in their worst election results in Bavaria since
1950.
In a preview analysis before the election, Deutsche
Welle noted that a CSU collapse could lead to Seehofer's resignation from Merkel's
government, and conceivably Söder's exit from the Bavarian state premiership, which would
remove two of the chancellor's most outspoken critics from power , and give her room to govern
in the calmer, crisis-free manner she is accustomed to.
On the other hand, a heavy loss and big resignations in the CSU might well push a
desperate party in a more volatile, abrasive direction at the national level. That would
further antagonize the SPD, the center-left junior partners in Merkel's coalition, themselves
desperate for a new direction and already impatient with Seehofer's destabilizing antics, and
precipitate a break-up of the age-old CDU/CSU alliance, and therefore a break-up of Merkel's
grand coalition. In short: Anything could happen after Sunday, up to and including Merkel's
fall.
The Financial Times reports that the campaign was dominated by the divisive issue of
immigration, in a sign of how the shockwaves from Merkel's disastrous decision to let in more
than a million refugees in 2015-16 are continuing to reverberate through German politics and to
reshape the party landscape.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning
Bavarian election defeat of the CSU party, and the message voters sent to Angela Merkel, the
last of the Obama 'rat pack' neo-liberal, globalist leaders whose tenure as German Chancellor
appears to be coming to an end.
Credit:
reddees/Shutterstock
Should each and every intersection you stop at or drive through be a potential federal
surveillance site? The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) certainly seems to think so. The
DEA is currently
expanding its use of license plate readers (LPRs) in digital road signs, which is sure to
have an impact on drivers' basic expectation of privacy.
The agency sees this program as a
collaboration between "federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement license plate readers"
to curb the actions of drug traffickers, money launderers, and other criminals. The agency
installs these cameras in digital street signs on roads that it believes are popular with
lawbreakers.
Such actions are not unique to the DEA. Police agencies share the data they obtain from LPRs
with hundreds of different local, state, and federal agencies. These agencies range from police
departments to Customs and Border Patrol to the U.S. Park Service to the U.S. Postal Service.
For example, the San Diego Police Department is
reportedly sharing its license plate data with around 900 different federal, state, and
local agencies.
Before these agencies can use their LPRs, though, the roads they select must have use for
the signs in which they are installed. Daniel Herriges, an urban planner and content manager at
Strong Towns, observes that "road design is, in fact, often the biggest underlying cause
of unsafe speed in cities." Because traffic engineers design roads to be forgiving, it creates
the perception that they are less risky. Motorists then respond "by driving faster or less
attentively," Herriges says.
In response to such unsafe driving, communities
like Albuquerque, New Mexico, have been requesting traffic calming and enforcement measures
through safe street initiatives, including signs that warn drivers. This unwittingly provides
an outlet for data collection.
Herriges suggests that rather than increase enforcement, roads should be rethought entirely.
"Addressing speed through design rather than through enforcement carries numerous advantages,"
he says. "For one, it's more effective -- studies consistently show that most drivers disregard
posted speed limits." That means traffic engineering could be the best defense of Fourth
Amendment rights in terms of license plate data collection -- except, of course, for a
constitutional challenge in court.
No federal or state courts have made any rulings on the constitutionality of an LPR program
as vast as the DEA's. Instead, the judiciary has ruled
that "single-instance database checks of license plate numbers" do not constitute searches
under the Fourth Amendment. The courts have argued this is the case because license plates are
in "plain view." However, the DEA's massive database, and the sharing they engage in with other
agencies, clearly exceed the "single-instance" that courts have ruled constitutional.
"Law enforcement likes to claim that because license plates are in public view that creating
massive ALPR networks aren't very different than stationing cops at certain locations and
having them write down the information by hand," said Dave Maass, senior investigative
researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "So far, there haven't been many
challenges to this in the courts, except on the state level. That said, policymakers have been
pursuing (and passing) new restrictions on both sides of the aisle."
Similar to the National Security Agency's vast metadata collection program, the sharing of
license plate information can paint a very holistic picture of who a person is and what their
day-to-day life looks like. It can be as mundane as a person visiting his parents or it can be
more intrusive -- local police could share the data of everyone who visits a certain
immigration lawyer with Customs and Border Patrol, for example.
"I am definitely concerned that agencies may target people by searching ALPR data for
visitors to immigration lawyers, medical clinics serving undocumented people, churches
specializing in foreign-language services, or locations where day laborers gather," Maass said.
He added that DHS routinely uses "questionable tactics" when detaining undocumented
immigrants.
The DEA expanding its LPR program would further erode Americans' basic expectation of
privacy, and do nothing to make America's streets any safer. It's time to stop throwing more
money and resources at the failed war on drugs.
Dan King is a Young Voices contributor, journalist, and digital communications
professional based in Arlington, Virginia. His work has appeared at Reason ,, The Week and the Washington Examiner .
Ethan A. Greene is a Young Voices alumnus and master's student of City and Regional
Planning at Clemson University. His writing has appeared in Strong Towns, Planetizen, Spiked!,
and the Washington Times .
Don't underestimate the gravity of yet another ominous sign of times. Ever since the first
street cameras appeared the specter of totalitarian control has loomed large.
That moment brought into sharp focus concern that the technology that enables unlimited
storage and instant access to data could quickly become the tool of total control, too tempting
to any form of government and transform it into a totalitarian monster.
I was shocked by how virtually no resistance emerged, no serious, principled objections were
raised. Now, we are rapidly progressing into the next stage. If conservatism stands for
anything, this is the hill to die on. Comrades frogs, water's getting warmer, high time to jump
out!
Fascism is always eclectic and its doctrine is composed of several sometimes contradicting each other ideas. "Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." (Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..."
)
Some ideas are "sound bite only" and never are implemented and are present only to attract sheeple (looks
National Socialist Program ). he program championed
the right to employment , and called for the institution of
profit sharing , confiscation of
war profits , prosecution of usurers and profiteers,
nationalization of trusts , communalization of department stores,
extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a
national education program of all classes, prohibition
of child labor , and an end to the dominance of
investment capital "
There is also "bait and switch" element in any fascism movement. Original fascism was strongly anti-capitalist, militaristic and
"national greatness and purity" movement ("Make Germany great again"). It was directed against financial oligarchy and anti-semantic
element in it was strong partially because it associated Jews with bankers and financial industry in general. In a way "Jews" were codeword
for investment bankers.
For example " Arbeit Macht Frei " can be viewed as
a neoliberal slogan. Then does not mean that neoliberalism. with its cult of productivity, is equal to fascism, but that neoliberal
doctrine does encompass elements of the fascist doctrine including strong state, "law and order" mentality and relentless propaganda.
The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it lost its meaning. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated
as a working-class political party . This is not true about
Trump whom many assume of having fascist leanings. His pro white working class rhetoric was a fig leaf used for duration or elections.
After that he rules as a typical Republican president favoring big business. And as a typical neocon in foreign policy.
From this point of view Trump can't be viewed even as pro-fascist leader because first of all he does not have his own political
movement, ideology and political program. And the second he does not strive for implementing uniparty state and abolishing the elections
which is essential for fascism political platform, as fascist despise corrupt democracy and have a cult of strong leader.
All he can be called is neo-fascist s his some of his views do encompass ideas taken from fascist ideology (including "law and order";
which also is a cornerstone element of Republican ideology) as well as idealization and mystification of the US past. But with Bannon
gone he also can't even pretend that he represents some coherent political movement like "economic nationalism" -- kind of enhanced
mercantilism.
Of course, that does not mean that previous fascist leaders were bound by the fascism political program, but at least they had one.
Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that, "To [Hitler,
the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had
brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation,
for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory,
against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents."
Notable quotes:
"... Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago. ..."
"... Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics. ..."
"... In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence. ..."
"... fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. ..."
"... The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle. ..."
It's in the name of tradition that the anti-Semites base their "point of view." It's in the name of tradition, the long, historical
past and the blood ties with Pascal and Descartes, that the Jews are told, you will never belong here.
-- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1952)
It is only natural to begin this book where fascist politics invariably claims to discover its genesis: in the past. Fascist
politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously
pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist
mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago.
Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals,
its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present,
these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics.
In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal
cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the
face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence.
These myths are generally based on fantasies of a nonexistent past uniformity, which survives in the traditions of the small towns
and countrysides that remain relatively unpolluted by the liberal decadence of the cities. This uniformity -- linguistic, religious,
geographical, or ethnic -- can be perfectly ordinary in some nationalist movements, but fascist myths distinguish themselves
with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests
and civilization-building achievements. For example, in the fascist imagination, the past invariably involves traditional, patriarchal
gender roles. The fascist mythic past has a particular structure, which supports its authoritarian, hierarchical ideology. That past
societies were rarely as patriarchal -- or indeed as glorious -- as fascist ideology represents them as being is beside the point.
This imagined history provides proof to support the imposition of hierarchy in the present, and it dictates how contemporary society
should look and behave.
In a 1922 speech at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Benito Mussolini declared:
We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. . . . Our myth is
the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total
reality, we subordinate everything.
The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -- or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal
family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism
and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?
In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family. The leader is
the father of his nation, and his strength and power are the source of his legal authority, just as the strength and power of the
father of the family in patriarchy are supposed to be the source of his ultimate moral authority over his children and wife. The
leader provides for his nation, just as in the traditional family the father is the provider. The patriarchal father's authority
derives from his strength, and strength is the chief authoritarian value. By representing the nation's past as one with a patriarchal
family structure, fascist politics connects nostalgia to a central organizing hierarchal authoritarian structure, one that finds
its purest representation in these norms.
Gregor Strasser was the National Socialist -- Nazi -- Reich propaganda chief in the 1920s, before the post was taken over by Joseph
Goebbels. According to Strasser, "for a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation -- for the
woman it is motherhood!" Paula Siber, the acting head of the Association of German Women, in a 1933 document meant to reflect official
National Socialist state policy on women, declares that "to be a woman means to be a mother, means affirming with the whole conscious
force of one's soul the value of being a mother and making it a law of life . . . the highest calling of the National Socialist
woman is not just to bear children, but consciously and out of total devotion to her role and duty as mother to raise children for
her people." Richard Grunberger, a British historian of National Socialism, sums up "the kernel of Nazi thinking on the women's question"
as "a dogma of inequality between the sexes as immutable as that between the races." The historian Charu Gupta, in her 1991 article
"Politics of Gender: Women in Nazi Germany," goes as far as to argue that "oppression of women in Nazi Germany in fact furnishes
the most extreme case of anti-feminism in the 20th century."
Here, Mussolini makes clear that the fascist mythic past is intentionally mythical. The function of the mythic past, in fascist
politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity,
and struggle.
With the creation of a mythic past, fascist politics creates a link between nostalgia and the realization of fascist ideals. German
fascists also clearly and explicitly appreciated this point about the strategic use of a mythological past. The leading Nazi ideologue
Alfred Rosenberg, editor of the prominent Nazi newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, writes in 1924, "the understanding of and the
respect for our own mythological past and our own history will form the first condition for more firmly anchoring the coming generation
in the soil of Europe's original homeland." The fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present.
Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished
Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University. Stanley is the author of Know How; Languages in Context;
More about Jason Stanley
This could have been such a helpful, insightful book. The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so
often that it has started to lose its meaning. I hoped that this book would provide a historical perspective on fascism by examining
actual fascist governments and drawing some parallels to the more egregious / worrisome trends in US & European politics. The
chapter titles in the table of contents were promising:
- The Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectual
- Unreality
- Hierarchy
- Victimhood
- Law & Order
- Sexual Anxiety
- Sodom & Gomorrah
- Arbeit Macht Frei
Ironically (given the book's subtitle) the author used his book divisively: to laud his left-wing political views and demonize
virtually all distinctively right-wing views. He uses the term "liberal democracy" inconsistently throughout, disengenuously equivocating
between the meaning of "representative democracy as opposed to autocratic or oligarchic government" (which most readers would
agree is a good thing) and "American left-wing political views" (which he treats as equally self-evidently superior if you are
a right-thinking person). Virtually all American right-wing political views are presented in straw-man form, defined in such a
way that they fit his definition of fascist politics.
I was expecting there to be a pretty heavy smear-job on President Trump and his cronies (much of it richly deserved...the man's
demagoguery and autocratic tendencies are frightening), but for this to turn into "let's find a way to define virtually everything
the Republicans are and do as fascist politics" was massively disappointing. The absurdly biased portrayal of all things conservative
and constant hymns of praise to all things and all people left-wing buried some good historical research and valid parallels under
an avalanche of partisanism.
If you want a more historical, less partisan view of the rise of fascist politics, I would highly recommend Darkness Over Germany
by E. Amy Buller (Review Here). It was written during World War II (based on interviews with Germans before WWII), so you will
have to draw your own contemporary parallels...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The vast regime of
torture created by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks
continues to haunt
America.
The political class and most of the media have never dealt honestly with the
profound constitutional corruption that such practices inflicted. Instead, torture enablers are
permitted to pirouette as heroic figures on the flimsiest evidence.
Former FBI chief James Comey is the latest beneficiary of the media's "no fault" scoring
on the torture scandal.
In his media interviews for his new memoir,
A Higher Loyalty:
Truth, Lies, and Leadership
, Comey is portraying himself as a Boy Scout who sought only to do
good things. But his record is far more damning than most Americans realize.
Comey continues to use memos from his earlier government gigs to whitewash all of the
abuses he sanctified.
"Here I stand; I can do no other," Comey told George W. Bush in 2004
when Bush pressured Comey, who was then Deputy Attorney General, to approve an unlawful
anti-terrorist policy. Comey was quoting a line supposedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when
he told Emperor Charles V and an assembly of Church officials that he would not recant his sweeping
criticisms of the Catholic Church.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations did excellent
reports prior to Comey's becoming FBI chief that laid out his role in the torture scandal. Such
hard facts, however, have long since vanished from the media radar screen.
MSNBC host
Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He
was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, in
a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers such as Comey, declared,
"The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful.
Comey believed they were not .
So Comey pushed back as much as he could.
"
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the scandalous religious
practices of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose
the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values:
he approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the
optics.
Losing Sleep
Comey became deputy attorney general in late 2003 and "had oversight of the legal
justification used to authorize" key Bush programs in the war on terror,
as a Bloomberg
News analysis noted. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again
sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002
Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be
unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct
a military campaign." The same Justice Department policy spurred a secret 2003 Pentagon document on
interrogation policies that openly encouraged contempt for the law: "Sometimes the greater good for
society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law."
Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing the stacking of naked
prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution from a wire connected to a man's penis,
guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers
celebrating the sordid degradation.
Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh
published extracts in the New Yorker from a March 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that
catalogued other U.S. interrogation abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric
liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle
and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with
threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."
The Bush administration responded to the revelations with a torrent of falsehoods,
complemented by attacks on the character of critics.
Bush declared, "Let me make very
clear the position of my government and our country . The values of this country are such that
torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Bush had the audacity to run for reelection as
the anti-torture candidate, boasting that "for decades, Saddam tormented and tortured the people of
Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq is free and a sovereign nation." He was hammering this theme despite a
confidential CIA Inspector General report warning that post–9/11 CIA interrogation methods might
violate the international Convention Against Torture.
James Comey had the opportunity to condemn the outrageous practices and pledge that the
Justice Department would cease providing the color of law to medieval-era abuses. Instead, Comey
merely repudiated the controversial 2002 memo.
Speaking to the media in a
not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, he declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad,"
"abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary." He helped oversee crafting a new memo with
different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboarding
, which sought to break
detainees with near-drowning. This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S.
government since the Spanish-American War. A practice that was notorious when inflicted by the
Spanish Inquisition was adopted by the CIA with the Justice Department's blessing. (When Barack
Obama nominated Comey to be FBI chief in 2013, he testified that he had belatedly recognized that
waterboarding was actually torture.)
Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about
Bush-administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees, because
Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique.
Detainees could be
forcibly kept awake for 180 hours until they confessed their crimes. How did that work? At Abu
Ghraib, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee "handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his
head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake."
Numerous FBI agents protested the extreme interrogation methods they saw at Guantanamo and
elsewhere, but their warnings were ignored.
Comey also approved "wall slamming"
-- which, as law professor David Cole wrote,
meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times. Comey also signed off on the
CIA's using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18
hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public
in 2009, many Americans were aghast -- and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated
Bush policies.
When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes
than a reverse-mortgage contract.
Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial
extreme interrogation methods, he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee.
The Torture Guy
In his memoir, Comey relates that his wife told him,
"Don't be the torture guy!"
Comey apparently feels that he satisfied her dictate by writing memos that opposed
combining multiple extreme interrogation methods. And since the vast majority of the American media
agree with him, he must be right.
Comey's cheerleaders seem uninterested in the damning evidence that has surfaced since
his time as a torture enabler in the Bush administration.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence
Committee finally released a massive report on the CIA torture regime -- including death resulting
from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods
on broken legs, and dozens of cases where innocent people were pointlessly brutalized.
Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of
prisoners. From the start, the program was protected by phalanxes of lying federal officials.
When he first campaigned for president, Barack Obama pledged to vigorously investigate the Bush
torture regime for criminal violations. Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse
after another to suppress the vast majority of the evidence, pardon all U.S. government torturers,
and throttle all torture-related lawsuits. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture
scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou's fate illustrates that telling the
truth is treated as the most unforgivable atrocity in Washington.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to
abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving.
Instead, he remained in
the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my
job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this
because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have
largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to confer
sainthood.
When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly paid senior
vice president for Lockheed Martin, he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice
Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring
commitment to truth." But he had perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both
the Justice Department and the U.S. government. He failed to heed Martin Luther's admonition, "You
are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say."
Comey is likely to go to his grave without paying any price for his role in
perpetuating appalling U.S. government abuses.
It is far more important to recognize
the profound danger that torture and the exoneration of torturers pose to the United States. "No
free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law," is one of the mottoes
chiseled into the façade of Justice Department headquarters. Unfortunately, politicians nowadays
can choose which laws they obey and which laws they trample.
And Americans are supposed
to presume that we still have the rule of law as long as politicians and bureaucrats deny their
crimes.
Tags
Comey was the hand-picked schlub that was placed in a position of
power to be a firewall... Nothing more and he has been rewarded
handsomely for playing this role... One can only hope that one day he
becomes a liability to his handlers and that there is a pack of
hungry, wild dogs that will rips him apart... Hopefully on PPV...
The Absolute, Complete,
Open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness began.
Unabated. Like a malignant Cancer.
Growing to Gargantuan proportions.
Irrefutable proof of the absolute, complete, open Lawlessness by
the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC., its CEO & Board of
Directors.
1. Torture .
2. WMD lie to the American People.
3. Lying the American People into War.
4. Illegal Wars of Aggression.
5. Arming, funding & training of terror organizations by the State
Dept. / CIA & members of CONgress.
6. BENGAZI
7. McCain meets with ISIS (Pics available).
8. Clapper lies to CONgress.
9. Brennan lies to CONgress & taps Congressional phones / computers.
10. Lynch meets Clinton on tarmac.
11. Fast & Furious deals with the Sinaloa Cartel.
12. Holder in Contempt of CONgress.
13. CIA drug / gun running / money laundering through the tax payer
bailed out TBTFB.
14. Illegal NSA Spying on the American People.
15. DNC Federal Election Crime / Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
16. Hillary Clinton email Treason.
17. Clinton Foundation pay to play RICO.
18. Anthony Weiner 650,000 #PizzaGate Pedo Crimes.
19. Secret Iran deal.
20. Lynch takes the Fifth when asked about Iran deal
21. FBI murders LaVoy Finicum
At the current moment we're completely Lawless.
We have been for quite some time. In the past, their Criminality
was "Hidden in plain view."
Now it's out in the open, in your face Criminality & Lawlessness.
Complete debachary.
Thing is, the bar & precedent has been set so high among these
Criminals I doubt we will ever see another person arrested in our
lifetime.
Comey thinks he is above the law. He and his associates feel they are
not bound by the rules and laws of the US, they are the ELITE. Comey
should go to JAIL, HARD CORE not Country Club, along with his
associates, Yates, Rosenstein, Brennan, McCabe, Stzrock, Paige and
etc. Lock him up
It's nearly impossible to read major newspapers, magazines, or online publications in recent months without
encountering a
plethora
of articles
contending that the United States is
turning
inward
and "going alone," "abandoning Washington's global leadership role" or "retreating from the world."
These
trends
supposedly herald
the
arrival
of a new "isolationism." The chief villain in all of these worrisome developments is, of course, Donald
Trump. There is just one problem with such arguments; they are vastly overstated bordering on utterly absurd.
President Trump is not embracing his supposed inner isolationist. The policy changes that he has adopted regarding
both security and international economic issues do not reflect a desire to decrease Washington's global hegemonic
status. Instead, they point to a more unilateral and militaristic approach, but one that still envisions a
hyper-activist U.S. role.
For instance, it's certainly not evident that the United States is abandoning its security commitments to dozens of
allies and clients. Despite the speculation that erupted in response to Trump's negative comments about the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances during the 2016 election campaign (and occasionally since
then), the substance of U.S. policy has remained largely unchanged. Indeed, NATO has continued to expand its
membership with Trump's blessing -- adding Montenegro and
planning
to
add Macedonia.
Indeed, Trump's principal complaint about NATO has always focused on European free-riding and the lack of
burden-sharing, not about rethinking the wisdom of the security commitments to Europe that America undertook in the
early days of the Cold War. In that respect, Trump's emphasis on greater burden-sharing within the Alliance is simply
a less diplomatic version of the message that previous generations of U.S. officials have tried sending to the
allies.
Moreover, Trump's insistence at the July NATO summit in Brussels that the European nations
increase
their military budgets
and do more for transatlantic defense echoed the comments of President Obama's Secretary
of Defense
Chuck
Hagel
in 2014. Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the alliance or
watch it become irrelevant. Declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, are "not sustainable. Our alliance can
endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it." Rebalancing NATO's "burden-sharing and
capabilities," Hagel stressed, "is mandatory -- not elective."
Additionally, U.S. military activities along NATO's eastern flank certainly have not diminished during the Trump
administration. Washington has sent forces to participate in a growing number of exercises (war games) along Russia's
western land border -- as well as in the Black Sea -- to demonstrate the U.S. determination to protect its alliance
partners. Trump has even escalated America's "leadership role" by authorizing the sale of
weapons
to Ukraine
-- a very sensitive step that President Obama carefully avoided.
Trump even seems receptive to establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe. During a state visit
to Washington in mid-September, Poland's president, Andrzej Duda, promised to provide $2 billion toward construction
costs if the United States built a military base in his country. Duda
even
offered
to name the base "Fort Trump." Trump's reaction was revealing. Noting that Poland "is willing to make a
very major contribution to the United States to come in and have a presence in Poland," Trump stated that the United
States would take Duda's proposal "very seriously."
American Conservative
columnist Daniel Larison
notes
that
while Trump often is accused of wanting to "retreat" from the world, "his willingness to entertain this proposal
shows that he doesn't care about stationing U.S. forces abroad so long as someone else is footing most of the bill."
U.S. military activism does not seem to have diminished outside the NATO region either. Washington persists in its
futile regime-change campaign in Syria, and it continues the shameful policy of
assisting
Saudi Arabia
and its Gulf allies pursue their atrocity-ridden war in Yemen. Both of those Obama-era ventures
should have been prime candidates for a policy change if Trump had wished to decrease America's military activism.
There are no such indications in Europe, the Middle East, or anywhere else. The U.S. Navy's
freedom
of navigation patrols
in the South China Sea have actually increased in size and frequency under Trump -- much to
China's
anger
. Washington's diplomatic support for Taiwan also has
quietly
increased
over the past year or so, and National Security Advisor John Bolton is on record suggesting that the
United States move some of its
troops
stationed on Okinawa
to Taiwan. The
U.S.
military presence
in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, both in overall size and the number of host countries.
Those are all extremely strange actions for an administration supposedly flirting with a retreat from the world to
be adopting. So, too, is Trump's push for increases in America's already bloated military budget, which now exceeds
$700 billion -- with even higher spending levels on the horizon.
Accusations of a U.S. retreat from the world on non-military matters have only slightly greater validity. True,
Trump has shown little patience for multilateral arrangements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris
climate agreement, or the United Nations Human Rights Council that he concluded did not serve America's national
interests. On those issues, the president's actions demonstrated that his invocation of "America First" was not just
rhetoric. However, regarding such matters, as well as the trade disputes with China and North Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement partners, the administration's emphasis is on securing a "better deal" for the United States, not
abandoning the entire diplomatic process. One might question the wisdom or effectiveness of that approach, but it is
a far cry from so-called isolationism.
Indeed, Americans would have been better off if Trump had been more serious about challenging the policy status
quo, especially with respect to security issues. A reconsideration of Washington's overgrown and often obsolete
security commitments to allies and clients around the world is long overdue. Abandoning the disastrous twin
strategies of humanitarian military intervention and regime-change wars is a badly needed step. And waging a new cold
war against Russia is the height of dangerous folly that needs to be reversed.
But contrary to Trump's shrill -- and sometimes hysterical -- critics, America has had no meaningful reconsideration of
such misguided policies or a willingness to adopt a more focused, limited, and prudent U.S. role in the world.
Notions that there has been a pell-mell U.S. retreat from global leadership -- i.e., Washington's hegemonic
pretentions -- under Donald Trump are a myth. What Trump has adopted is merely a more unilateral and militarized version
of a stale foreign policy that does not benefit the American people.
"... Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history." ..."
"... "a wider war on dissident narratives in online media." ..."
Alternative voices online are incensed after Facebook and Twitter closed down hundreds of
political media pages ahead of November's crucial midterm elections. Facebook says they broke
its spam rules, they say it's censorship. Some 800 pages spanning the
political spectrum, from left-leaning organizations like The Anti Media, to flag-waving opinion
sites like Right Wing News and Nation in Distress, were shut down. Other pages banned include
those belonging to police brutality watchdog groups Filming Cops and Policing the Police.
Even
RT America's Rachel Blevins found her own page banned for posts that were allegedly
"misleading users."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of
right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political
content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has
happened to every censorship advocate in history."
In America, Conservatives were the first to complain about unfair treatment by left-leaning Silicon Valley tech giants.
However, leftist sites have increasingly become targets in what Blumenthal calls "a wider war on dissident narratives in
online media." In identifying enemies in this "war," Facebook has partnered up with the Digital Forensics Lab, an
offshoot of NATO-sponsored think tank the Atlantic Council. The DFL has promised to be Facebook's "eyes and ears" in
the fight against disinformation (read: alternative viewpoints).
If one had to identify the main reason behind the utter failure of the U.S. political
establishment and military leadership, both civilian and in uniform, to identify and prioritize
weapons programs and procurement that was truly in line with the national defense needs of the
country, it would be the institutional corruption of the U.S. military industrial complex. This
is not a fault of one party, but is the inevitable outcome of a thoroughly corrupted system
that both generates and wastes great wealth at the expense of the many for the benefit of the
few.
Massive defense budgets do not lead to powerful military forces nor sound national defense
strategy. The United States is the most glaring example of how a nation's treasure can be
wasted, its citizens robbed for generations, and its political processes undermined by an
industry bent on maximizing profitability by encouraging and exacerbating conflict. At this
point it is questionable that the United States' could remain economically viable without war,
so much of its GDP is connected in some way to the pursuit of conflict.
There is no doubt that the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in an
Orwellian sleight of hand in 1947, just a few years after end of World War II. The military
industrial complex grew into a monolith during the war, and the only way to justify the
expansion of the complex, was by finding a new enemy to justify the new reality of a massive
standing military, something that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. This unlawful state
of affairs has persisted and expanded into a rotten, bloated edifice of waste. Wasted effort,
wasted wealth and the wasted lives of millions of people spanning every corner of the planet.
Tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform, and millions of civilians of so many
nations, have been tossed into the blades of this immoral meat grinder for generations.
President Donald Trump was very proud to announce the largest U.S. military budget in the
nation's history last year. The United States spent (or more accurately, borrowed from
generations yet to come) no less than $874.4 billion USD. The declared base budget for 2017 was
$523.2 billion USD, yet there are also the Overseas Contingency Operations and Support budgets
that have to be considered in determining the total cost. The total DOD annual costs have
doubled from 2003 to the present. Yet, what has the DOD really accomplished with so much money
and effort? Very little of benefit to the U.S. tax payer for sure, and paradoxically the
exorbitant waste of the past fifteen years have left every branch of the U.S. military
weaker.
The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of reigning in the military adventurism of
the executive branch. They have the sole authority to declare war, but more importantly, the
sole authority to approve the budget requests of the military. It is laughable to think that
the U.S. Congress will do anything to reign in military spending. The Congress and the Senate
are as equally guilty as the Executive in promoting and benefitting from the military
industrial complex. Envisioned as a bulwark against executive power, the U.S. Congress has
become an integral component of that complex. No Senator or Representative would dare to go
against the industry that employs so many constituents within their state, or pass up on the
benefits afforded them through the legalized insider-trading exclusive to them, or the
lucrative jobs that await them in the defense industry and the many think tanks that promote
continued prosecution of war.
adopted false US personas online to get
people to attend rallies and conduct other political activities. (An alternative explanation is
that IRA is a purely commercial, and not political, operation.)
Whether those efforts even came close to swaying US voters in the 2016 presidential
election, as Shane and Mazzetti claimed, is another matter.
Shane and Mazzetti might argue that they are merely citing figures published by the social
media giants Facebook and Twitter, but they systematically failed to report the detailed
explanations behind the gross figures used in each case, which falsified their
significance.
Their most dramatic assertions came in reporting the alleged results of the IRA's efforts on
Facebook. "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media," they wrote, "the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
alone."
Then, to dramatize that "eventual audience" figure, they observed, "That was not far short
of the 137 million people who would vote in the 2016 presidential elections."
But as impressive as these figures may appear at first glance, they don't really indicate an
effective attack on the US election process at all. In fact, without deeper inquiry into their
meaning, those figures were grossly misleading.
A Theoretical Possibility
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch actually said in testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last October was quite different from what the Times reporters
claimed. "Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served
one of these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch
said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established accomplishment.
Facebook was saying that it estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at
least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period but over 194 weeks
during the two years 2015 through 2017. That, figure, in turn, was based on the estimate that
29 million people might have gotten at least one story in their Facebook feed over that same
two-year period and on the assumption that they shared it with others at a particular rate.
The first problem with citing those figures as evidence of impact on the 2016 election is
that Facebook did not claim that all or even most of those 80,000 IRA posts were
election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million
people was, in fact, election-related. But Stretch did testify that IRA content over that
two–year period represented just four thousandths (.0004) of the total content of
Facebook newsfeeds.
Thus each piece of IRA content in a twitter feed was engulfed in 23,000 pieces of non-IRA
content.
That is an extremely important finding, because, as Facebook's Vice President for News Feed,
Adam Moseri,
acknowledged in 2016 , Facebook subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories
that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually read.
Facebook did conduct research on what it calls "civic engagement" during the election
period, and the researchers concluded
that the "reach" of the content shared by what they called "fake amplifiers" was "marginal
compared to the volume of civic content shared during the US elections." That reach, they said,
was "statistically very small" in relation to "overall engagement on political issues."
Shane and Mazzaetti thus failed to report any of the several significant caveats and
disclaimers from Facebook itself that make their claim that Russian election propaganda
"reached" 126 million Americans extremely misleading.
Tiny IRA Twitter Footprint
Shane and Mazzetti's treatment of the role of Twitter in the alleged Russian involvement in
the election focuses on 3,814 Twitter accounts said to be associated with the IRA, which
supposedly "interacted with 1.4 million Americans." Although that number looks impressive
without any further explanation, more disaggregated data provide a different picture: more than
90 percent of the Tweets from the IRA had nothing to do with the election, and those that did
were infinitesimally few in relation to the entire Twitter stream relating to the 2016
campaign.
Twitter's
own figures show that those 3,814 IRA-linked accounts posted 175,993 Tweets during the ten
weeks of the election campaign, but that only 8.4 percent of the total number of IRA-generated
Tweets were election-related.
Twitter estimated that those 15,000 IRA-related tweets represented less than .00008 (eight
one hundred thousandths) of the estimated total of 189 million tweets that Twitter identified
as election-related during the ten-week election campaign. Twitter has offered no estimate of
how many Tweets, on average were in the daily twitter stream of those people notified by
Twitter and what percentage of them were election-related Tweets from the IRA. Any such
notification would certainly show, however, that the percentage was extremely small and that
very few would have been read.
Research by Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren of Clemson University on 2.9 million Tweets
from those same 3,814 IRA accounts over a two year period has
revealed that nearly a third of its Tweets had normal commercial content or were not in
English; another third were straight local newsfeeds from US localities or mostly non-political
"hashtag games", and the final third were on "right" or "left" populist themes in US
society.
Furthermore, there were more IRA Tweets on political themes in 2017 than there had been
during the election year. As a graph of those tweets over time shows,
those "right" and "left" Tweets peaked not during the election but during the summer of
2017.
The Mysterious 50,000 'Russia-Linked' Accounts
Twitter also determined
that another 50,258 automated Twitter accounts that tweeted about the election were associated
with Russia and that they have generated a total to 2.1 million Tweets – about one
percent of the total number election-related tweets of during the period.
But despite media coverage of those Tweets suggesting that they originated with the Russian
government, the evidence doesn't indicate that at all. Twitter's Sean Edgett told
the Senate Intelligence Committee last November that Twitter had used an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account". Twitter considered an account
to be "Russian" if any of the following was found: it was created in Russia or if the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email; the user's display name
contains Cyrillic characters; the user frequently Tweets in Russian, or the user has logged in
from any Russian IP address.
Edgett admitted
in a statement in January, however, that there were limitations on its ability to determine
the origins of the users of these accounts. And a past log-in from a Russian IP address does
not mean the Russian government controls an account. Automated accounts have bought and sold
for many years on a huge market, some of which is located in Russia. As Scott Shane reported
in September 2017, a Russian website BuyAccs.com offers tens and even hundreds of thousands
of Twitter accounts for bulk purchase.
Twitter also observed that "a high concentration of automated engagement and content
originated from data centers and users accessing Twitter via Virtual Private Networks ("VPNs")
and proxy servers," which served to mask the geographical origin of the tweet. And that
practice was not limited to the 50,000 accounts in question. Twitter found that locations of
nearly 12 percent of the Tweets generated during the election period were masked because of use
of such networks and servers.
Twitter identified over half of the Tweets, coming from about half of the 50,000 accounts as
being automated, and the data reported on activity on those 50,000 accounts in question
indicates that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were using the automated accounts in
question. The roughly 23,000 automated accounts were the source of 1.34 million Tweets, which
represented .63 percent of the total election-related Tweets. But the entire 50,000 accounts
produced about 1 percent of total election-related tweets.
Hillary Clinton got .55 percent of her total retweets from the 50,000 automated accounts
Twitter calls "Russia-linked" and .62 percent of her "likes" from them. Those percentages are
close to the percentage of total election-related Tweets generated by those same automated
accounts. That suggests that her campaign had roughly the same proportion of automated accounts
among the 50,000 accounts as it did in the rest of the accounts during the campaign.
Trump, on the other hand, got 1.8 percent of this total "likes" and 4.25 percent of his
total Retweets for the whole election period from those accounts, indicating his campaign was
more invested in the automated accounts that were the source of two-thirds of the Tweets in
those 50,000 "Russia-linked" accounts.
The idea promoted by Shane and Mazzetti that the Russian government seriously threatened to
determine the winner of the election does not hold up when the larger social media context is
examined more closely. Contrary to what the Times' reporters and the corporate media in
general would have us believe, the Russian private sector effort accounted for a minuscule
proportion of the election-related output of social media. The threat to the US political
system in general and its electoral system in particular is not Russian influence; it's in part
a mainstream news media that has lost perspective on the truth.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected] . Reprinted from
Consortium News with the author's
permission.
That might sound far fetched or even crazy but we have been here before. When in December
1988 Pan Am Flight
103 exploded over Lockerbie it was quite obvious that it was a revenge act for the July
1988 murder of 290 people on board of Iran Air flight 655 by the U.S. navy.
But the investigation was fudged and in the end it was politically most convenient to blame
Libya's Ghaddafi for the Pan Am disaster even while he had nothing to do with either
incident.
@8: For an objective discussion, with detailed analysis of the forensic
evidence, of how and where the Lockerbie bomb was placed I recommend the book 'Adequately
explained by stupidity?' by M.Kerr. The author (wisely in my view) does not speculate on who
might have placed the bomb, although she makes it clear that it could not have been either of
the Libyans tried for the crime. The book is not perfect, as it lacks an index, but you can't
have everything!
To Pan Am Flight 103: 4-5 years ago i watched a documentation about it, with the usual
narrative. But some weeks ago i tried to learn some more pieces of the truth about it, and
on Wikipedia is a MSM/propaganda article like so often these days. Has anyone some links to
an unbiased account on the tragedy? Thanks in advance! Posted by:
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda | Oct 11, 2018 4:31:13 PM | 8
"For years disinformation specialists have peddled a giant lie about the crash of Pan Am 103
at Lockerbie. Time and time again the media has hysterically regurgitated the flawed and
impossible legend that Maid of the Seas was brought to earth by a bomb triggered by a
barometrically-activated timer, hidden in a radio in a samsonite suitcase. A barometric timer
set for 10,000 feet altitude, which miraculously failed to activate when the Air Malta Flight
it was allegedly planted on climbed through 10,000 feet after departing Valetta for
Frankfurt, and again when the Pam Am feeder Boeing 727 to London climbed through 10,000 feet
after departing Frankfurt." https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Bomb_Trigger_on_Pam_Am_103
Copyright Joe Vialls, May 2000
In The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror , which bombing is a modern
template for many false flags that follow, i.e. , a drill goes live, the author
follows a myriad of threads, including the fact that CIA intelligence officers were on Pan Am
103 ("Inconvenient Truths" and "Lockerbie: The Flight From Justice" mention this was well).
The contention is that they were returning to Langley to present evidence that a rogue CIA
group was running drugs through Lebanon. It sez here the rogues managed to place a bomb on
the plane in Germany.
I looked into the Lockerbie thing several years ago and was astonished to find out that
the only link to Lybia was a Swiss made timer supposedly used to detonate the bomb. It was
found "by chance" although the plane debris were scattered over many square kilometers...
My understanding of the Lockerbie air tragedy is that it's a classic example of two birds
being killed with one stone.
Where TPTB find a possibility that two problems or issues can be dealt with by the same
solution, however violent, that possibility becomes reality.
The context to the Lockerbie shootdown is that at the time the CIA was running a
heroin-trafficking racket in the Middle East with Lebanese partners. Investigators from the
DIA (Defense Intelligency Agency, the Pentagon's own spy agency) discovered this scheme and
collected evidence to expose it. The CIA became aware of what the DIA agents knew and wanted
them out of the way. One of the CIA's Lebanese partners knew that the Iranian government, or
people within it, wanted revenge on the US for the earlier shootdown of an Iranian passenger
jet by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf.
The CIA's Lebanese partners knew of the Iranians' desire for revenge and may have arranged
with the Iranians to substitute a bomb for cash or heroin packets in a suitcase taken on
board the Pan Am jet. This case may have been part of the evidence the DIA was taking back to
the US (but the DIA agents might not have known at the time they took the case on board).
I am not sure of all the details (details not being my strong suit) but that's my
understanding in a nutshell.
"the GRU's disregard for global values and rules that keep us all safe".
Like the values and rules that led the NSA to eavesdrop on Chancellor Merkel's phone calls
for years, and to use American Embassies as listening posts. Mutti Merkel was very
understanding, considering they were only doing it to keep us all safe.
As pointed out elsewhere there is no such agency called the GRU. Like there is no agency
called the KGB. This in itself demonstrates that NATzO is spreading pure propaganda.
It's probably not sloppiness, per se; it's more that Britain has reached a new level of
dazzling investigative brilliance, so that normal GRU tradecraft can no longer withstand its
piercing eye.
Rosenstein said he was joking when he made the comments to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and FBI attorney Lisa Page, however that claim has been refuted by the FBI's former top
attorney.
"We have many questions for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and expect answers to those
questions. There is not at this time a confirmed date for a potential meeting ," the aide told
the Caller .
" Don't think he is coming ," added one Republican lawmaker on Wednesday.
The same lawmaker told TheDCNF on Tuesday that Rosenstein was likely to testify before the
House Judiciary and House Oversight & Government Reform Committees to answer questions
about claims he discussed wearing a wire during his interactions with Trump.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus had called on Rosenstein to testify about
his remarks, which were first reported by The New York Times on Sept. 21.
The conservative lawmakers, including North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Ohio Rep. Jim
Jordan, have been staunch critics of Rosenstein because of his failure to respond to requests
for documents related to the FBI's handling of the Trump-Russia probe. - Daily Caller
On Tuesday we reported that the FBI's former top attorney, James Baker, told Congressional
investigators last week that Rosenstein wasn't joking about taping Trump.
"As far as Baker was concerned, this was a real plan being discussed," reports
The Hill 's John Solomon, citing a confidential source.
"It was no laughing matter for the FBI," the source added.
Solomon points out that Rosenstein's comments happened right around the time former FBI
Director James Comey was fired.
McCabe, Baker's boss, was fired after the DOJ discovered that he had leaked self-serving
information to the press and then lied to investigators about it. Baker, meanwhile, was central
to the surveillance apparatus within the FBI during the counterintelligence operation on
then-candidate Trump.
As the former FBI general counsel, Baker was a senior figure with a pivotal position who
had the ear of the FBI director.
Baker also is at the heart of surveillance abuse accusations , many from congressional
Republicans. His deposition lays the groundwork for a planned closed-door House GOP interview
with Rosenstein later this week.
Baker, formerly the FBI's top lawyer, helped secure the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, as well as three subsequent
renewals. -
Fox News
Meanwhile, the New
York Times noted that McCabe's own memos attest to Rosenstein's intentions to record Trump
- which led to Rosenstein reportedly tendering a verbal resignation to White House chief of
staff John Kelly.
"... This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war. ..."
"... As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire. ..."
Few, if any, believe what they hear and read from leaders and media publicists. Most people
choose to ignore the cacophony of voices, vices and virtues.
This paper provides a set of theses which purports to lay-out the basis for a dialogue
between and among those who choose to abstain from elections with the intent to engage them in
political struggle.
Thesis 1
US empire builders of all colors and persuasion practice donkey tactics; waving the carrot
and wielding the whip to move the target government on the chosen path.
In the same way, Washington offers dubious concessions and threatens reprisals, in order to
move them into the imperial orbit.
Washington applied the tactic successfully in several recent encounters. In 2003 the US
offered Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi a peaceful accommodation in exchange for
disarmament, abandonment of nationalist allies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In 2011,
the US with its European allies applied the whip – bombed Libya, financed and armed
retrograde tribal and terrorist forces, destroyed the infrastructure, murdered Gaddafi and
uprooted millions of Africans and Libyans. . . who fled to Europe. Washington recruited
mercenaries for their subsequent war against Syria in order to destroy the nationalist Bashar
Assad regime.
Washington succeeded in destroying an adversary but did not establish a puppet regime in the
midst of perpetual conflict.
The empire's carrot weakened its adversary, but the stick failed to recolonize Libya
..Moreover its European allies are obligated to pay the multi-billion Euro cost of absorbing
millions of uprooteded immigrants and the ensuing domestic political turmoil.
Thesis 2
Empire builders' proposal to reconfigure the economy in order to regain imperial supremacy
provokes domestic and overseas enemies. President Trump launched a global trade war, replaced
political accommodation with economic sanctions against Russia and a domestic protectionist
agenda and sharply reduced corporate taxes. He provoked a two-front conflict. Overseas, he
provoked opposition from European allies and China, while facing perpetual harassment from
domestic free market globalists and Russo-phobic political elites and ideologues.
Two front conflicts are rarely successful. Most successful imperialist conquer adversaries
in turn – first one and then the other.
Thesis 3
Leftists frequently reverse course: they are radicals out of office and reactionaries in
government, eventually falling between both chairs. We witness the phenomenal collapse of the
German Social Democratic Party, the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK), (and its new version Syriza)
and the Workers Party in Brazil. Each attracted mass support, won elections, formed alliances
with bankers and the business elite – and in the face of their first crises, are
abandoned by the populace and the elite.
Shrewd but discredited elites frequently recognize the opportunism of the Left, and in time
of distress, have no problem in temporarily putting up with Left rhetoric and reforms as long
as their economic interests are not jeopardized. The elite know that the Left signal left and
turn right.
Thesis 4
Elections, even ones won by progressives or leftists, frequently become springboards for
imperial backed coups. Over the past decade newly elected presidents, who are not aligned with
Washington, face congressional and/or judicial impeachment on spurious charges. The elections
provide a veneer of legitimacy which a straight-out military-coup lacks.
In Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela, 'legislatures' under US tutelage attempted to ouster
popular President. They succeeded in the former and failed in the latter.
When electoral machinery fails, the judicial system intervenes to impose restraints on
progressives, based on tortuous and convoluted interpretation of the law. Opposition leftists
in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador have been hounded by ruling party elites.
Thesis 5
Even crazy leaders speak truth to power. There is no question that President Trump suffers a
serious mental disorder, with midnight outbursts and nuclear threats against, any and all,
ranging from philanthropic world class sports figures (LeBron James) to NATO respecting EU
allies.
Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and
ongoing fabrications of the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified
the lies of the leading print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post
, the Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited
in the eyes of the larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have
failed, a war monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many
injustices.
Thesis 6
When a bark turns into a bite, Trump proves the homely truth that fear invites aggression.
Trump has implemented or threatened severe sanctions against the EU, China, Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, North Korea and any country that fails to submit to his dictates. At first, it was
bombast and bluster which secured concessions.
Concessions were interpreted as weakness and invited greater threats. Disunity of opponents
encouraged imperial tacticians to divide and conquer. But by attacking all adversaries
simultaneously he undermines that tactic. Threats everywhere limits choices to dangerous
options at home and abroad.
Thesis 7
The master meddlers, of all times, into the politics of sovereign states are the
Anglo-American empire builders. But what is most revealing is the current ploy of accusing the
victims of the crimes that are committed against them.
After the overthrow of the Soviet regime, the US and its European acolytes 'meddled' on a
world-historic scale, pillaging over two trillion dollars of Soviet wealth and reducing Russian
living standards by two thirds and life expectancy to under sixty years – below the level
of Bangladesh.
With Russia's revival under President Putin, Washington financed a large army of self-styled
'non-governmental organizations' (NGO) to organize electoral campaigns, recruited moguls in the
mass media and directed ethnic uprisings. The Russians are retail meddlers compared to the
wholesale multi-billion-dollar US operators.
Moreover, the Israelis have perfected meddling on a grand scale – they intervene
successfully in Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. They set the Middle East agenda,
budget and priorities, and secure the biggest military handouts on a per-capita basis in US
history!
Apparently, some meddlers meddle by invitation and are paid to do it.
Thesis 8
Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of
dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.
ORDER IT NOW
In the US the buyers and brokers are called 'lobbyists' – everywhere else they are
called fraudsters. Corruption (lobbying) grease the wheels of billion dollars military
spending, technological subsidies, tax evading corporations and every facet of government
– out in the open, all the time and place of the US regime.
Corruption as lobbying never evokes the least criticism from the mass media.
On the other hand, where corruption takes place under the table in Iran, China and Russia,
the media denounce the political elite – even where in China over 2 million officials,
high and the low are arrested and jailed.
When corruption is punished in China, the US media claim it is merely a 'political purge'
even if it directly reduces elite conspicuous consumption.
In other words, imperial corruption defends democratic value; anti-corruption is a hallmark
of authoritarian dictatorships.
Thesis 9
Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building – especially in promoting
urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.
Imperial financed mobs – provided the cover for CIA backed coups in Iran (1954),
Ukraine (2014), Brazil (1964), Venezuela (2003, 2014 and 2017), Argentina (1956), Nicaragua
(2018), Syria (2011) and Libya (2011) among other places and other times.
Masses for empire draw paid and voluntary street fighters who speak for democracy and serve
the elite. The "mass cover" is especially effective in recruiting leftists who look to the
street for opinion and ignore the suites which call the shots.
Thesis 10
The empire is like a three-legged stool it promotes genocide, to secure magnicide and to
rule by homicide. Invasions kills millions, capture and kill rulers and then rule by homicide
– police assassinating dissenting citizens.
The cases are readily available: Iraq and Libya come to mind. The US and its allies invaded,
bombed and killed over a million Iraqis, captured and assassinated its leaders and installed a
police state.
A similar pattern occurred in Libya: the US and EU bombed, killed and uprooted several
million people, assassinated Ghadaffy and fomented a lawless terrorist war of clans, tribes and
western puppets.
"Western values" reveal the inhumanity of empires built to murder "a la carte" –
stripping the victim nations of their defenders, leaders and citizens.
Conclusion
The ten theses define the nature of 21 st century imperialism – its
continuities and novelties.
The mass media systematically write and speak lies to power: their message is to disarm
their adversaries and to arouse their patrons to continue to plunder the world.
When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country. Iraq? Libya?
Americans, and I am one, can barely keep their own country from sinking into a pit of decay.
Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit in terms of
infrastructure, crime and poverty.
When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country.
Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit
Because what a ZOG does with it's host nation has nothing to do with improving anything
for the occupied peoples.
Think of it like the Communist Manifesto. They thump it around, preaching utopia and
equality and all that sugar and honey. This is because they want you to buy what they are
selling. But they don't have any intention of ever delivering. None whatsoever.
All they're really trying to do is whip up an army of useful idiots to be used as blunt
instruments. And once these useful idiots are done fulfilling their role in the
redistribution of wealth and power, they are discarded only to realize too little too late
that they have been working against their own interests all along.
The same thing goes for exporting Democracy. It's never been about improving anyone's
lives. In the West or any of their target nations. It's been about whipping useful idiots up
into an army that can be used as a blunt instrument against the obstacles in the way of
(((someone's))) geopolitical ambitions.
This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long
tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war.
False Flag Events Behind the Six Major Wars
False flags to fool Americans into the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam
War and the War on terror.
Interesting is that a USA textbook already describes USA imperialism, without using the
word:
Barbara Hinckley, Sheldon Goldman, 'American Politics and Government, Structure, Processes,
Institutions and Policies', Glenview Ill., 1990
Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in
Australia. The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices
were sky-high and the economy was dreadful. Who benefits. Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.
A great comment with the proper name calling for the ZUSA in relation to the current
situation in Turkey:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/how-turkeys-currency-crisis-came-to-pass.html#comments
Excerpts:
" The Dollar op indicates that the USA ( or rather those who pull the strings in the
US ) finally admits that our Ally is responsible for almost all mischievous events which
took place in Turkey.
The USA is not a country, but rather a useful contract killer on a larger scale
compared to the PKK-FETO-ISIS etc.
The US is now stepping forward fearlessly because 'the arms of the octopus', as Erdogan put
last week, has been severed in Turkey."
These two definitions do stick:
1. the US is manipulated by the puppeteers -- people (the US citizenry at large) have no
saying in the US decisions (mostly immoral and often imbecile); the well-being of the US is
not a factored in the decisions
2. the US has become a "contract killer" for the voracious puppeteers
Prof. Petras, thanks. A while back I read something called Confessions of an Economic Hit
Man (?) in which the writer describes his efforts to put other nations into debt to
American institutions and American-controlled or -influenced international institutions for
the ulterior purpose of political control. Sounded plausible enough, and I saw the author
speak on TV on his book tour.
How do any of us know we're living in a country gone massively wobbly? Can a German
sipping wine in Koblenz in 1936 even imagine Hitler's Germany will be a staple of American
cable shows eighty years hence, and not in a good way? Can a Russian in the same year imagine
that the latest round of arrests won't be leading to a Communist utopia now, or ever?
FWIW-my guess is America's imperial adventures are heavily structural, being that foreign
policy is strongly within the President's purview, and Congress can be counted on to
rubber-stamp military expeditions. Plus, empire offers a good distraction from domestic
politics, which are an intractable mess of rent-seeking, racial animus, and corporate
interests.
I don't like it much having to live in a racketeerized America, but there's not a whole
lot we can do.
Professor Petras glasses are becoming little bit foggy, but his scalpel still cuts to the
bone.
But this article is lecture for beginner class, or the aliens visitors who just landed on
Earth
Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and
ongoing fabrications of the mass media.
A damned good article, Sir! And bless you for calling bankster propaganda anything
but "mainstream."
Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is
poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to
misleading a bewildered people.
-Walter Lippman, A Preface to Politics ( 1913 ), quoted in The Essential
Lippmann, pp. 516-517
Lippman was an Allied propagandist among many other things.
The 10 theories that led Petras to conclude "{the message is "to disarm their adversaries and
to arouse their patrons" to continue to plunder the world}" is an example, that the American
people are clueless about how events documented by Petras research, led Petras to conclude
the USA is about plunder of the world .
There is a distinct difference between USA governed Americans and the 527 persons that
govern Americans.
Access by Americans to the USA 1) in person with one of its 527 members, 2) by communication
or attempted communication via some type of expression or 3) by constitutionally allowed
regime change at election time. None of these methods work very well for Americans , if at
all; but they serve the entrenched members of the USA, massive in size corporations and
upstream wealthy owners, quite well.
Secondly, IMO, Mr. Petras either does not understand democracy or has chosen to make a
mockery of it?
The constitution that produced the USA produced not a democracy, but a Republic.
A republic which authorized a group ( an handful of people) to rule America by rules the USA
group
decides to impose. Since the group can control the meaning of the US Constitution as well
as change it's words, the group has, unlimited power to rule, no matter the subject matter or method
(possible exceptions might be said to be within the meaning of the bill of rights; but like
all contract
clauses, especially a contract of the type where one side can amend, ignore, change or
replace or use
its overwhelming military and police powers to enforce against the other side, leaving the
other side no
recourse, is not really a contract; it might better be called an instrument announcing the
assumption of
power which infringes inalienable human rights).
Therefore just because 527 members of the USA government might between themselves practice
Democracy does not mean the governed enjoy the same freedoms.
So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the
ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US
constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation
(Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war none-the-less
(read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of the USA).
(Note: The AOC, was the American government that defeated the British Armies [1776-1783],
the 1776 American AOC American Government was the government that surveyed all of the land
taken from the British by the AOC after it defeated the entire British military and stopped
the British aristocrat owed, privately held corporate Empires from their continuous raping of
America and abuse of Americans. those who did the work.
The AOC was the very same American Government that hired G. Washington to defeat and chase
the British Aristocratic Corporate Colonial Empires out of America. The 1776 American AOC
Government was the very same government that granted freedom to its people (AOC really did
practice democracy, and really did try to divide and distribute the vast American lands taken
from the British Corporate Colonial Empire equally among the then living Americans. The AOC
ceased to exist when the US Constitution installed the USA by a self proclaimed regime
change process , called ratification). There were 11 presidents of the AOC, interestingly
enough, few have heard of them.
Once again the practice of political self-determination democracy is limited to the 525
USA members who have seats in the halls of the Congress of the USA or who occupy the offices
of the President of USA or the Vice-President of the USA. All persons in America, not among
the 527 salaried, elected members of the USA, are governed by the USA.
@Heisendude Israel has no constitution, and therefore no borders.
A constitution also describes borders.
An Israeli jew one asked Ben Gurion why Israel has no defined borders, the answer was
something like 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot expand'.
@Jeff Stryker Why does Israel assist all sorts of bandits, including, but not limited to,
ISIS, in Syria? Just recently Israel helped in extracting the White Helmets, a PR wing of
Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaida) from South Syria. Please explain.
@Anonymous Those 527 are bought and paid for lackeys. We don't know how many real owners
of the USA there are, don't know many of their names, but we do know that when those lackeys
imagine that they are somebodies and try to govern, they are eliminated (John Kennedy is the
most unambiguous example).
You may have heard of it. Globalism, N(J)ew World Order. That which the
(((internationalists))) are always working towards. A one world government with them at the
top, the ruling class.
Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in
Australia.
Australia is a white nation. All white nations are supposed to suffer and ultimately
collapse upon the creation of their New World Order. Vietnam was a complete success for the
one's who really wanted that war.
The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices
were sky-high and the economy was dreadful.
Bush was a neocon, wars for Israel with that 'surplus' were the intention all along. As
wars under Hillary would have been as well. And as they potentially could still be if Trump
proves to be a lap dog for Israel as well. He campaigned on no pointless wars, but there's no
saying for sure until he either brings all our troops home or capitulates and signs Americans
up to be cash cows and cannon fodder for more Israeli geopolitical ambitions.
Who benefits.
Those same rootless cosmopolitans that always benefit from playing both sides of the
field, seeding conflict and then cashing in on the warmongering, genocidal depopulation and
population displacement in the name of their geopolitical ambitions.
Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.
Israel made that mess. Threatened their borders with war. Land theft. Y'know. Golan
Heights. Genocide land theft and displacement are all Israel does. Their borders have
expanded every year since their creation.
Everything that's happening in the Middle East is because of the Rothschild terror state
of Israel and the Zionist Jews who reside in it .. as well as in our various western
ZOGs.
Have you really never heard of the Oded Yinon Plan ? Their genocidal outline for
waging wars of aggression for the purpose of expanding their borders and becoming the
dominant regional superpower by balkanizing the surrounding Arab world.
The only nations of significance left on their check list are as follows : Syria, Iran,
Saudi Arabia. And many will argue that the House of Saud has always been crypto, helping
Israel behind the scenes. Their sudden post-coup cooperation with their former 'enemies' is
little more than a sign that they are needed as a wartime ally more in the current phase of
their Yinon Plan than as controlled opposition funding and arming ISIS while keeping the
public eye off of Israel's role in their creation and direction. Sure enough, it seems there
is a rather strong push for an alliance between KSA, Israel and the US for war with Iran.
Technological progress, particularly the progress in information technology is pushing
mankind with accelerated speed toward final solution and final settlement.
Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of
dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.
Yep. I have been ranting for years calling for a Anti-Corruption Political Party Platform
by some group.
The corruption of our politicians is the cause of all the problems everyone else is ranting
about.
In some ways I think most people deserve what they are going to get eventually because
they ignore the corruption of their heroes .whether it be Trump, Hillary or any other.
I tell you sheeple .if someone will cheat and lie to others they will do the same thing to
you ..you are stone cold stupid if you think other wise.
@Biff Jeff and Mikeat are both correct if my friend's account of his participation in a
recent trade show there is true. My friend's wife is a ding bat Hillarybot and she got to
yammering to me after returning about all the wonderful diversity she saw in the streets of
Dubai, but I shut her down pretty quickly by pointing out that the diversity darlings in
Dubai were paid help for the Sheikdom and weren't even second class temporary residents by US
standards; that they can be (and are) summarily deported to some slave market in Yemen if
they don't mind their Ps and Qs VERY carefully in that society. She's also a wino, but
confessed that the Trader Joe's box grade merlot sold for about US$18 to $25 a goblet in a
tourist zone food and beverage joint. (and that didn't slow her down one bit) Hubby had to
watch her close, as obvious public drunkenness (even in the tourist zone) has high potential
for extreme justice.
The New Economy plan being promoted there is the development of a sort of Disneyworld on
steroids international vacation attraction, as the leaders seem to think that their oil is
going to run out soon.
@peterAUS CNN, Washpost and NYT since a very long time suffer from a serious mental
disorder.
It reminds me of Orwell's The Country of the Blind.
When the man who could see was cured all was well.
@DESERT FOX While the Fed is a focal point, it is not the central issue. If Americans,
were actually in voting control of the central issue Americans could and probably would
abolish the fed and destroy its income by removing the income tax laws, very early on.
But if the Fed and Income taxes are not the central issue, what is the central issue?
Could it be majority will "control of the structure and staffing of that structure" that
often people call government? Look back to the creation of the US Constitution! There the
central issue for the old British Aristocracy accustomed to having their way, was: can
Aristocrats stay in control (of the new American democracy) and if so, how should "such
control" be established so that British corporate power, British Aristocratic wealth and
British Class Privilege can all survive the American revolution? {PWP}.
The question was answered by developing a form of government that enabling the Oligarch
few to make the rules [rule of law] that could control the masses and to produce a government
that had a monopoly on the use of power, so that it could enforce the laws it makes, against
against the masses and fend off all challenges. The constitution blocked the people's right
to self determination; it empowered the privileged, it favored the wealthy, and most of all
it protected and saved pre-war British owned PWP as post war PWP.
Today those who operate the government do so in near perfect secrecy (interrupted only
occasionally by Snowden, Assange, and a few brave others). It spies on each person, records
each human breath taken by the masses, relates relationships between the masses, because
those in charge fear the power of the masses should the masses somehow find a way to impose
their will on how things are to be. How can rules made by Aristocrats in secret, be
considered to be outcomes established by self- determination of the masses who are to be
governed?
Ratification is the process that abolished Democracy in America. The story of those
who imposed ratification has not yet been told. Ratification was used to justify the
overthrow of the Articles of the Confederation (AOC was America's government from 1776 to
1789). To defeat the British empire the AOC hired the most wealthy man it could find to
organize an Army capable to defeat the British Military. The AOC warred on the British Armies
with the intent to stop colonial corporate empires from continuing to rape American
productivity and exploit the resources in America for the benefit of the British Corporate
Empires [Read the Declaration of Independence].
You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time, wealth?
I don't think tossing coins across the mile wide Potomac made him a dime? How did GW attain
such wealth in British owned, corporately controlled Colonial America? Why was George
Washington able to keep that British earned wealth after the British were chased out of
America? More importantly many gave their all, life, liberty and property to help chase the
British out, GW gave ..?
Title by land grants [Virginia and West Virginia] are traceable to GWs estate.
What the land grant landowners feared most was that the new American democracy, might
allow the masses to revoke or deny titles to real estate in America, if such title derived
from a foreign government (land grant). The Articles of Confederation government was talking
about dividing up all of the lands in America, and parceling it out, in equal portions, to
all living AOC governed America. Deeds from kings and queens of England, France, Spain,
Portugal, and the Netherlands to land in America would not be recognized in the chain of
title? Such lands would belong to the new AOC government or to the states who were members of
the AOC.
You might check out Article 6, (Para 1) of the US Constitution.. it says in part
" All Debts contracted and Engagements[land grants and British Corporate Charters] entered
into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution, as under the confederation.
(meaning loans to British Banks would be repaid and land deals made with foreign nations
and corporations including those that resulted in creating a land Baron in British Colonial
America, were to be treated as valid land titles by US Constitution. Consider the plight of
Ex British Land Grant Barron Aristocrat [EBLGBA] who finds himself in now independent
democratic America? Real Americans might decide EBLGBAs were some kind of terrorist, or
spies. Under such circumstances, the EBLGA might look at Americans as a threat to their
Aristocracy, a threat to their PWP..
Example: A Spanish Land Grant property in America ( King of Spain gave 5 million acres of
land in America to ZZ in 1720 (ZZ is a Spanish Corporation ZZ doing business in America), the
land transaction was recognized as valid under British Colonial Law in America. But would
Independent AOC America recognize a deed issued by a Spanish King, or British Queen to Real
Estate in America?
After the Revolution, the question does a EBLGBA retain ownership in the American located
land that is now part of Independent America? Ain't no dam deed from a Spanish government
going to be valid in America. King of England cannot give a deed to land that is located in
independent America.
So if, a corporation, incorporated under British Law, claims it owns 5 million acres of
American land because the Queen of England deeded it the the corporation: does that mean the
5 million acres still belongs to British Corporation X, and of course to the person made
Aristocrat by virtue of ownership of the British Corporation). Is a British Corporation now
to be an American Corporation? British Landed Gentry (land grant owners) in independent post
war America, were quick to lobby for the constitution because the constitution protected
their ownership in land granted to them by a foreign king or queen in fact the constitution
protected the PWP.
I agree with your Zionist communist observation. It is imperative for all persons
interested in what is happening to study the takeover of Russia from the Tzar by Lenin and
his Zionist Communist because what the Zionist did to the Christians in Russia in 1917 seems
to be approaching for it to happen here in America and because that revolution was a part of
the organized Zionist [1896, Hertzl] movement to take control of all of the oil in the world.
Let us not forget, Lenin and crew exterminated 32 million White Russians nearly all of whom
were educated Christians living in the Ukraine.
As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I
feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire.
So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the
ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US
constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation
(Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war
none-the-less (read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of
the USA).
What a relief to find that there are a few (very few) others who have a clue. The
"constitution" was effectively a coup d'etat. We proles, peasants and other pissants have
been tax and debt slaves ever since, and the situation has continuously worsened. Lincoln's
war against Southern independence, establishment of the Federal Reserve, Wilson's and
especially FDR's wars, and infiltration of the US government and industry by Commies,
Zionists and other Eastern European goon-mafiosi scum have completely perverted what this
country is supposedly about.
I doubt the situation will ever begin to improve unless and until the mass of brainwashed
dupes understand what you wrote.
@Anon Please comment more often. Excellent info there.
You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time,
wealth?
True. Especially since the guy was a third rate, (probably mostly incompetent), Brit
military officer and terrorist who treated the men under his command like sh!t.
Reminds me of Ol Johnny Boy McCain and other such scum.
@jilles dykstra "Ben Gurion: 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot
expand'.
-- Right. Hence the mass slaughter in the Middle East.
Hapless Canada is going to accept the "humanitarian" terrorists from While Helmets
organization. The rescue is a joint Israel-Canada enterprise: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- -- -- -
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland (a committed banderist and admirer of Ukrainian
neo-Nazis) and Robin Wettlaufer (Canada's representative to the Syrian Opposition and a harsh
critic of Assad "regime") have been playing a key role in the evacuation of the White
Helmets. But there are some questions to Robin: "Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not
to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the
Parliament, no public discussion. Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100
injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will
fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- Guess Robin Wettlaufer, due to her ethnic solidarity, would be fine with these injured
Palestinian children being smothered by someone, but the well-financed White Helmets are the
extremely valuable material for realizing Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel (see Ben Gurion
answer).
The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office
It turns out that 'budget surplus' does not mean what most people think it means. When your household has a budget surplus, its rate of debt accumulation reverses
(i.e., the total value of household debt falls). Credit cards get paid down, mortgages get
paid off, and eventually you end up with a large and growing positive net worth. That's what
running a 'budget surplus' means , right?
Not so for governments : the US government could run perpetual budget 'surpluses'
and still grow government debt without bound – because they do not account for things
the way they insist that we serfs account for things there are a bunch of their expenditures
that they simply don't count in their 'budget'.
It's a bit like if you were to only count the amount your household spent on
groceries , and declare your entire budget to be in 'surplus' or 'deficit' based on
whether or not there's change after you do your weekly shopping. Meanwhile, you're spending
more than you earn overall, and accumulating debt at an expanding rate.
Runaway debt is what destroys – whether it's families or countries.
There has only been one year since 1960 in which the US Federal Debt has fallen :
1969 .
During the much-touted "Clinton Surpluses", the US Federal Debt rose by almost a
quarter- trillion dollars . The first two Bush years had larger surpluses than
either of the two Clinton surpluses – but still added $160 billion to the
Federal debt.
I know those don't sound like big numbers anymore – much given that Bush added $602
billion per year on average, and Obama added twice Bush 's amount (1.19 trillion per
year).
"... This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war. ..."
"... As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire. ..."
Few, if any, believe what they hear and read from leaders and media publicists. Most people
choose to ignore the cacophony of voices, vices and virtues.
This paper provides a set of theses which purports to lay-out the basis for a dialogue
between and among those who choose to abstain from elections with the intent to engage them in
political struggle.
Thesis 1
US empire builders of all colors and persuasion practice donkey tactics; waving the carrot
and wielding the whip to move the target government on the chosen path.
In the same way, Washington offers dubious concessions and threatens reprisals, in order to
move them into the imperial orbit.
Washington applied the tactic successfully in several recent encounters. In 2003 the US
offered Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi a peaceful accommodation in exchange for
disarmament, abandonment of nationalist allies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In 2011,
the US with its European allies applied the whip – bombed Libya, financed and armed
retrograde tribal and terrorist forces, destroyed the infrastructure, murdered Gaddafi and
uprooted millions of Africans and Libyans. . . who fled to Europe. Washington recruited
mercenaries for their subsequent war against Syria in order to destroy the nationalist Bashar
Assad regime.
Washington succeeded in destroying an adversary but did not establish a puppet regime in the
midst of perpetual conflict.
The empire's carrot weakened its adversary, but the stick failed to recolonize Libya
..Moreover its European allies are obligated to pay the multi-billion Euro cost of absorbing
millions of uprooteded immigrants and the ensuing domestic political turmoil.
Thesis 2
Empire builders' proposal to reconfigure the economy in order to regain imperial supremacy
provokes domestic and overseas enemies. President Trump launched a global trade war, replaced
political accommodation with economic sanctions against Russia and a domestic protectionist
agenda and sharply reduced corporate taxes. He provoked a two-front conflict. Overseas, he
provoked opposition from European allies and China, while facing perpetual harassment from
domestic free market globalists and Russo-phobic political elites and ideologues.
Two front conflicts are rarely successful. Most successful imperialist conquer adversaries
in turn – first one and then the other.
Thesis 3
Leftists frequently reverse course: they are radicals out of office and reactionaries in
government, eventually falling between both chairs. We witness the phenomenal collapse of the
German Social Democratic Party, the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK), (and its new version Syriza)
and the Workers Party in Brazil. Each attracted mass support, won elections, formed alliances
with bankers and the business elite – and in the face of their first crises, are
abandoned by the populace and the elite.
Shrewd but discredited elites frequently recognize the opportunism of the Left, and in time
of distress, have no problem in temporarily putting up with Left rhetoric and reforms as long
as their economic interests are not jeopardized. The elite know that the Left signal left and
turn right.
Thesis 4
Elections, even ones won by progressives or leftists, frequently become springboards for
imperial backed coups. Over the past decade newly elected presidents, who are not aligned with
Washington, face congressional and/or judicial impeachment on spurious charges. The elections
provide a veneer of legitimacy which a straight-out military-coup lacks.
In Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela, 'legislatures' under US tutelage attempted to ouster
popular President. They succeeded in the former and failed in the latter.
When electoral machinery fails, the judicial system intervenes to impose restraints on
progressives, based on tortuous and convoluted interpretation of the law. Opposition leftists
in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador have been hounded by ruling party elites.
Thesis 5
Even crazy leaders speak truth to power. There is no question that President Trump suffers a
serious mental disorder, with midnight outbursts and nuclear threats against, any and all,
ranging from philanthropic world class sports figures (LeBron James) to NATO respecting EU
allies.
Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and
ongoing fabrications of the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified
the lies of the leading print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post
, the Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited
in the eyes of the larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have
failed, a war monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many
injustices.
Thesis 6
When a bark turns into a bite, Trump proves the homely truth that fear invites aggression.
Trump has implemented or threatened severe sanctions against the EU, China, Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, North Korea and any country that fails to submit to his dictates. At first, it was
bombast and bluster which secured concessions.
Concessions were interpreted as weakness and invited greater threats. Disunity of opponents
encouraged imperial tacticians to divide and conquer. But by attacking all adversaries
simultaneously he undermines that tactic. Threats everywhere limits choices to dangerous
options at home and abroad.
Thesis 7
The master meddlers, of all times, into the politics of sovereign states are the
Anglo-American empire builders. But what is most revealing is the current ploy of accusing the
victims of the crimes that are committed against them.
After the overthrow of the Soviet regime, the US and its European acolytes 'meddled' on a
world-historic scale, pillaging over two trillion dollars of Soviet wealth and reducing Russian
living standards by two thirds and life expectancy to under sixty years – below the level
of Bangladesh.
With Russia's revival under President Putin, Washington financed a large army of self-styled
'non-governmental organizations' (NGO) to organize electoral campaigns, recruited moguls in the
mass media and directed ethnic uprisings. The Russians are retail meddlers compared to the
wholesale multi-billion-dollar US operators.
Moreover, the Israelis have perfected meddling on a grand scale – they intervene
successfully in Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. They set the Middle East agenda,
budget and priorities, and secure the biggest military handouts on a per-capita basis in US
history!
Apparently, some meddlers meddle by invitation and are paid to do it.
Thesis 8
Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of
dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.
ORDER IT NOW
In the US the buyers and brokers are called 'lobbyists' – everywhere else they are
called fraudsters. Corruption (lobbying) grease the wheels of billion dollars military
spending, technological subsidies, tax evading corporations and every facet of government
– out in the open, all the time and place of the US regime.
Corruption as lobbying never evokes the least criticism from the mass media.
On the other hand, where corruption takes place under the table in Iran, China and Russia,
the media denounce the political elite – even where in China over 2 million officials,
high and the low are arrested and jailed.
When corruption is punished in China, the US media claim it is merely a 'political purge'
even if it directly reduces elite conspicuous consumption.
In other words, imperial corruption defends democratic value; anti-corruption is a hallmark
of authoritarian dictatorships.
Thesis 9
Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building – especially in promoting
urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.
Imperial financed mobs – provided the cover for CIA backed coups in Iran (1954),
Ukraine (2014), Brazil (1964), Venezuela (2003, 2014 and 2017), Argentina (1956), Nicaragua
(2018), Syria (2011) and Libya (2011) among other places and other times.
Masses for empire draw paid and voluntary street fighters who speak for democracy and serve
the elite. The "mass cover" is especially effective in recruiting leftists who look to the
street for opinion and ignore the suites which call the shots.
Thesis 10
The empire is like a three-legged stool it promotes genocide, to secure magnicide and to
rule by homicide. Invasions kills millions, capture and kill rulers and then rule by homicide
– police assassinating dissenting citizens.
The cases are readily available: Iraq and Libya come to mind. The US and its allies invaded,
bombed and killed over a million Iraqis, captured and assassinated its leaders and installed a
police state.
A similar pattern occurred in Libya: the US and EU bombed, killed and uprooted several
million people, assassinated Ghadaffy and fomented a lawless terrorist war of clans, tribes and
western puppets.
"Western values" reveal the inhumanity of empires built to murder "a la carte" –
stripping the victim nations of their defenders, leaders and citizens.
Conclusion
The ten theses define the nature of 21 st century imperialism – its
continuities and novelties.
The mass media systematically write and speak lies to power: their message is to disarm
their adversaries and to arouse their patrons to continue to plunder the world.
When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country. Iraq? Libya?
Americans, and I am one, can barely keep their own country from sinking into a pit of decay.
Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit in terms of
infrastructure, crime and poverty.
When was the last time "Nation building" resulted in a livable country.
Why "deliver Democracy" when Dubai makes much of the US look like shit
Because what a ZOG does with it's host nation has nothing to do with improving anything
for the occupied peoples.
Think of it like the Communist Manifesto. They thump it around, preaching utopia and
equality and all that sugar and honey. This is because they want you to buy what they are
selling. But they don't have any intention of ever delivering. None whatsoever.
All they're really trying to do is whip up an army of useful idiots to be used as blunt
instruments. And once these useful idiots are done fulfilling their role in the
redistribution of wealth and power, they are discarded only to realize too little too late
that they have been working against their own interests all along.
The same thing goes for exporting Democracy. It's never been about improving anyone's
lives. In the West or any of their target nations. It's been about whipping useful idiots up
into an army that can be used as a blunt instrument against the obstacles in the way of
(((someone's))) geopolitical ambitions.
This is not new and has been going for at least a century. And the US elites have a long
tradition of false flags to to get the people of America riled up for war.
False Flag Events Behind the Six Major Wars
False flags to fool Americans into the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam
War and the War on terror.
Interesting is that a USA textbook already describes USA imperialism, without using the
word:
Barbara Hinckley, Sheldon Goldman, 'American Politics and Government, Structure, Processes,
Institutions and Policies', Glenview Ill., 1990
Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in
Australia. The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices
were sky-high and the economy was dreadful. Who benefits. Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.
A great comment with the proper name calling for the ZUSA in relation to the current
situation in Turkey:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/how-turkeys-currency-crisis-came-to-pass.html#comments
Excerpts:
" The Dollar op indicates that the USA ( or rather those who pull the strings in the
US ) finally admits that our Ally is responsible for almost all mischievous events which
took place in Turkey.
The USA is not a country, but rather a useful contract killer on a larger scale
compared to the PKK-FETO-ISIS etc.
The US is now stepping forward fearlessly because 'the arms of the octopus', as Erdogan put
last week, has been severed in Turkey."
These two definitions do stick:
1. the US is manipulated by the puppeteers -- people (the US citizenry at large) have no
saying in the US decisions (mostly immoral and often imbecile); the well-being of the US is
not a factored in the decisions
2. the US has become a "contract killer" for the voracious puppeteers
Prof. Petras, thanks. A while back I read something called Confessions of an Economic Hit
Man (?) in which the writer describes his efforts to put other nations into debt to
American institutions and American-controlled or -influenced international institutions for
the ulterior purpose of political control. Sounded plausible enough, and I saw the author
speak on TV on his book tour.
How do any of us know we're living in a country gone massively wobbly? Can a German
sipping wine in Koblenz in 1936 even imagine Hitler's Germany will be a staple of American
cable shows eighty years hence, and not in a good way? Can a Russian in the same year imagine
that the latest round of arrests won't be leading to a Communist utopia now, or ever?
FWIW-my guess is America's imperial adventures are heavily structural, being that foreign
policy is strongly within the President's purview, and Congress can be counted on to
rubber-stamp military expeditions. Plus, empire offers a good distraction from domestic
politics, which are an intractable mess of rent-seeking, racial animus, and corporate
interests.
I don't like it much having to live in a racketeerized America, but there's not a whole
lot we can do.
Professor Petras glasses are becoming little bit foggy, but his scalpel still cuts to the
bone.
But this article is lecture for beginner class, or the aliens visitors who just landed on
Earth
Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and
ongoing fabrications of the mass media.
A damned good article, Sir! And bless you for calling bankster propaganda anything
but "mainstream."
Ours is a problem in which deception has become organized and strong; where truth is
poisoned at its source; one in which the skill of the shrewdest brains is devoted to
misleading a bewildered people.
-Walter Lippman, A Preface to Politics ( 1913 ), quoted in The Essential
Lippmann, pp. 516-517
Lippman was an Allied propagandist among many other things.
The 10 theories that led Petras to conclude "{the message is "to disarm their adversaries and
to arouse their patrons" to continue to plunder the world}" is an example, that the American
people are clueless about how events documented by Petras research, led Petras to conclude
the USA is about plunder of the world .
There is a distinct difference between USA governed Americans and the 527 persons that
govern Americans.
Access by Americans to the USA 1) in person with one of its 527 members, 2) by communication
or attempted communication via some type of expression or 3) by constitutionally allowed
regime change at election time. None of these methods work very well for Americans , if at
all; but they serve the entrenched members of the USA, massive in size corporations and
upstream wealthy owners, quite well.
Secondly, IMO, Mr. Petras either does not understand democracy or has chosen to make a
mockery of it?
The constitution that produced the USA produced not a democracy, but a Republic.
A republic which authorized a group ( an handful of people) to rule America by rules the USA
group
decides to impose. Since the group can control the meaning of the US Constitution as well
as change it's words, the group has, unlimited power to rule, no matter the subject matter or method
(possible exceptions might be said to be within the meaning of the bill of rights; but like
all contract
clauses, especially a contract of the type where one side can amend, ignore, change or
replace or use
its overwhelming military and police powers to enforce against the other side, leaving the
other side no
recourse, is not really a contract; it might better be called an instrument announcing the
assumption of
power which infringes inalienable human rights).
Therefore just because 527 members of the USA government might between themselves practice
Democracy does not mean the governed enjoy the same freedoms.
So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the
ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US
constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation
(Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war none-the-less
(read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of the USA).
(Note: The AOC, was the American government that defeated the British Armies [1776-1783],
the 1776 American AOC American Government was the government that surveyed all of the land
taken from the British by the AOC after it defeated the entire British military and stopped
the British aristocrat owed, privately held corporate Empires from their continuous raping of
America and abuse of Americans. those who did the work.
The AOC was the very same American Government that hired G. Washington to defeat and chase
the British Aristocratic Corporate Colonial Empires out of America. The 1776 American AOC
Government was the very same government that granted freedom to its people (AOC really did
practice democracy, and really did try to divide and distribute the vast American lands taken
from the British Corporate Colonial Empire equally among the then living Americans. The AOC
ceased to exist when the US Constitution installed the USA by a self proclaimed regime
change process , called ratification). There were 11 presidents of the AOC, interestingly
enough, few have heard of them.
Once again the practice of political self-determination democracy is limited to the 525
USA members who have seats in the halls of the Congress of the USA or who occupy the offices
of the President of USA or the Vice-President of the USA. All persons in America, not among
the 527 salaried, elected members of the USA, are governed by the USA.
@Heisendude Israel has no constitution, and therefore no borders.
A constitution also describes borders.
An Israeli jew one asked Ben Gurion why Israel has no defined borders, the answer was
something like 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot expand'.
@Jeff Stryker Why does Israel assist all sorts of bandits, including, but not limited to,
ISIS, in Syria? Just recently Israel helped in extracting the White Helmets, a PR wing of
Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaida) from South Syria. Please explain.
@Anonymous Those 527 are bought and paid for lackeys. We don't know how many real owners
of the USA there are, don't know many of their names, but we do know that when those lackeys
imagine that they are somebodies and try to govern, they are eliminated (John Kennedy is the
most unambiguous example).
You may have heard of it. Globalism, N(J)ew World Order. That which the
(((internationalists))) are always working towards. A one world government with them at the
top, the ruling class.
Vietnam was a mess for a decade at least and created an immigration crisis in
Australia.
Australia is a white nation. All white nations are supposed to suffer and ultimately
collapse upon the creation of their New World Order. Vietnam was a complete success for the
one's who really wanted that war.
The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, oil prices
were sky-high and the economy was dreadful.
Bush was a neocon, wars for Israel with that 'surplus' were the intention all along. As
wars under Hillary would have been as well. And as they potentially could still be if Trump
proves to be a lap dog for Israel as well. He campaigned on no pointless wars, but there's no
saying for sure until he either brings all our troops home or capitulates and signs Americans
up to be cash cows and cannon fodder for more Israeli geopolitical ambitions.
Who benefits.
Those same rootless cosmopolitans that always benefit from playing both sides of the
field, seeding conflict and then cashing in on the warmongering, genocidal depopulation and
population displacement in the name of their geopolitical ambitions.
Israel? Syria is a mess that threatens their borders.
Israel made that mess. Threatened their borders with war. Land theft. Y'know. Golan
Heights. Genocide land theft and displacement are all Israel does. Their borders have
expanded every year since their creation.
Everything that's happening in the Middle East is because of the Rothschild terror state
of Israel and the Zionist Jews who reside in it .. as well as in our various western
ZOGs.
Have you really never heard of the Oded Yinon Plan ? Their genocidal outline for
waging wars of aggression for the purpose of expanding their borders and becoming the
dominant regional superpower by balkanizing the surrounding Arab world.
The only nations of significance left on their check list are as follows : Syria, Iran,
Saudi Arabia. And many will argue that the House of Saud has always been crypto, helping
Israel behind the scenes. Their sudden post-coup cooperation with their former 'enemies' is
little more than a sign that they are needed as a wartime ally more in the current phase of
their Yinon Plan than as controlled opposition funding and arming ISIS while keeping the
public eye off of Israel's role in their creation and direction. Sure enough, it seems there
is a rather strong push for an alliance between KSA, Israel and the US for war with Iran.
Technological progress, particularly the progress in information technology is pushing
mankind with accelerated speed toward final solution and final settlement.
Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of
dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.
Yep. I have been ranting for years calling for a Anti-Corruption Political Party Platform
by some group.
The corruption of our politicians is the cause of all the problems everyone else is ranting
about.
In some ways I think most people deserve what they are going to get eventually because
they ignore the corruption of their heroes .whether it be Trump, Hillary or any other.
I tell you sheeple .if someone will cheat and lie to others they will do the same thing to
you ..you are stone cold stupid if you think other wise.
@Biff Jeff and Mikeat are both correct if my friend's account of his participation in a
recent trade show there is true. My friend's wife is a ding bat Hillarybot and she got to
yammering to me after returning about all the wonderful diversity she saw in the streets of
Dubai, but I shut her down pretty quickly by pointing out that the diversity darlings in
Dubai were paid help for the Sheikdom and weren't even second class temporary residents by US
standards; that they can be (and are) summarily deported to some slave market in Yemen if
they don't mind their Ps and Qs VERY carefully in that society. She's also a wino, but
confessed that the Trader Joe's box grade merlot sold for about US$18 to $25 a goblet in a
tourist zone food and beverage joint. (and that didn't slow her down one bit) Hubby had to
watch her close, as obvious public drunkenness (even in the tourist zone) has high potential
for extreme justice.
The New Economy plan being promoted there is the development of a sort of Disneyworld on
steroids international vacation attraction, as the leaders seem to think that their oil is
going to run out soon.
@peterAUS CNN, Washpost and NYT since a very long time suffer from a serious mental
disorder.
It reminds me of Orwell's The Country of the Blind.
When the man who could see was cured all was well.
@DESERT FOX While the Fed is a focal point, it is not the central issue. If Americans,
were actually in voting control of the central issue Americans could and probably would
abolish the fed and destroy its income by removing the income tax laws, very early on.
But if the Fed and Income taxes are not the central issue, what is the central issue?
Could it be majority will "control of the structure and staffing of that structure" that
often people call government? Look back to the creation of the US Constitution! There the
central issue for the old British Aristocracy accustomed to having their way, was: can
Aristocrats stay in control (of the new American democracy) and if so, how should "such
control" be established so that British corporate power, British Aristocratic wealth and
British Class Privilege can all survive the American revolution? {PWP}.
The question was answered by developing a form of government that enabling the Oligarch
few to make the rules [rule of law] that could control the masses and to produce a government
that had a monopoly on the use of power, so that it could enforce the laws it makes, against
against the masses and fend off all challenges. The constitution blocked the people's right
to self determination; it empowered the privileged, it favored the wealthy, and most of all
it protected and saved pre-war British owned PWP as post war PWP.
Today those who operate the government do so in near perfect secrecy (interrupted only
occasionally by Snowden, Assange, and a few brave others). It spies on each person, records
each human breath taken by the masses, relates relationships between the masses, because
those in charge fear the power of the masses should the masses somehow find a way to impose
their will on how things are to be. How can rules made by Aristocrats in secret, be
considered to be outcomes established by self- determination of the masses who are to be
governed?
Ratification is the process that abolished Democracy in America. The story of those
who imposed ratification has not yet been told. Ratification was used to justify the
overthrow of the Articles of the Confederation (AOC was America's government from 1776 to
1789). To defeat the British empire the AOC hired the most wealthy man it could find to
organize an Army capable to defeat the British Military. The AOC warred on the British Armies
with the intent to stop colonial corporate empires from continuing to rape American
productivity and exploit the resources in America for the benefit of the British Corporate
Empires [Read the Declaration of Independence].
You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time, wealth?
I don't think tossing coins across the mile wide Potomac made him a dime? How did GW attain
such wealth in British owned, corporately controlled Colonial America? Why was George
Washington able to keep that British earned wealth after the British were chased out of
America? More importantly many gave their all, life, liberty and property to help chase the
British out, GW gave ..?
Title by land grants [Virginia and West Virginia] are traceable to GWs estate.
What the land grant landowners feared most was that the new American democracy, might
allow the masses to revoke or deny titles to real estate in America, if such title derived
from a foreign government (land grant). The Articles of Confederation government was talking
about dividing up all of the lands in America, and parceling it out, in equal portions, to
all living AOC governed America. Deeds from kings and queens of England, France, Spain,
Portugal, and the Netherlands to land in America would not be recognized in the chain of
title? Such lands would belong to the new AOC government or to the states who were members of
the AOC.
You might check out Article 6, (Para 1) of the US Constitution.. it says in part
" All Debts contracted and Engagements[land grants and British Corporate Charters] entered
into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution, as under the confederation.
(meaning loans to British Banks would be repaid and land deals made with foreign nations
and corporations including those that resulted in creating a land Baron in British Colonial
America, were to be treated as valid land titles by US Constitution. Consider the plight of
Ex British Land Grant Barron Aristocrat [EBLGBA] who finds himself in now independent
democratic America? Real Americans might decide EBLGBAs were some kind of terrorist, or
spies. Under such circumstances, the EBLGA might look at Americans as a threat to their
Aristocracy, a threat to their PWP..
Example: A Spanish Land Grant property in America ( King of Spain gave 5 million acres of
land in America to ZZ in 1720 (ZZ is a Spanish Corporation ZZ doing business in America), the
land transaction was recognized as valid under British Colonial Law in America. But would
Independent AOC America recognize a deed issued by a Spanish King, or British Queen to Real
Estate in America?
After the Revolution, the question does a EBLGBA retain ownership in the American located
land that is now part of Independent America? Ain't no dam deed from a Spanish government
going to be valid in America. King of England cannot give a deed to land that is located in
independent America.
So if, a corporation, incorporated under British Law, claims it owns 5 million acres of
American land because the Queen of England deeded it the the corporation: does that mean the
5 million acres still belongs to British Corporation X, and of course to the person made
Aristocrat by virtue of ownership of the British Corporation). Is a British Corporation now
to be an American Corporation? British Landed Gentry (land grant owners) in independent post
war America, were quick to lobby for the constitution because the constitution protected
their ownership in land granted to them by a foreign king or queen in fact the constitution
protected the PWP.
I agree with your Zionist communist observation. It is imperative for all persons
interested in what is happening to study the takeover of Russia from the Tzar by Lenin and
his Zionist Communist because what the Zionist did to the Christians in Russia in 1917 seems
to be approaching for it to happen here in America and because that revolution was a part of
the organized Zionist [1896, Hertzl] movement to take control of all of the oil in the world.
Let us not forget, Lenin and crew exterminated 32 million White Russians nearly all of whom
were educated Christians living in the Ukraine.
As Petras says: "The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism" because, I
feel, they are the same values that defined the British Colonial Empire.
So the USA is ruled by puppets, 527 of them, puppets of the Oligarchs. Since the
ratification of the USA constitution, Americans have been governed by the USA [The US
constitution (ratified 1778) overthrew and disposed of the Articles of Confederation
(Government of America founded 1776). Not a shot was fired, but there was a war
none-the-less (read Federalist vs Anti-Federalist and have a look at the first few acts of
the USA).
What a relief to find that there are a few (very few) others who have a clue. The
"constitution" was effectively a coup d'etat. We proles, peasants and other pissants have
been tax and debt slaves ever since, and the situation has continuously worsened. Lincoln's
war against Southern independence, establishment of the Federal Reserve, Wilson's and
especially FDR's wars, and infiltration of the US government and industry by Commies,
Zionists and other Eastern European goon-mafiosi scum have completely perverted what this
country is supposedly about.
I doubt the situation will ever begin to improve unless and until the mass of brainwashed
dupes understand what you wrote.
@Anon Please comment more often. Excellent info there.
You might research.. How did George Washington achieve his massive, for its time,
wealth?
True. Especially since the guy was a third rate, (probably mostly incompetent), Brit
military officer and terrorist who treated the men under his command like sh!t.
Reminds me of Ol Johnny Boy McCain and other such scum.
@jilles dykstra "Ben Gurion: 'we do not want to define borders, if we did, we cannot
expand'.
-- Right. Hence the mass slaughter in the Middle East.
Hapless Canada is going to accept the "humanitarian" terrorists from While Helmets
organization. The rescue is a joint Israel-Canada enterprise: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- -- -- -
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland (a committed banderist and admirer of Ukrainian
neo-Nazis) and Robin Wettlaufer (Canada's representative to the Syrian Opposition and a harsh
critic of Assad "regime") have been playing a key role in the evacuation of the White
Helmets. But there are some questions to Robin: "Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not
to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the
Parliament, no public discussion. Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100
injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will
fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?"
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/435670-white-helmets-canada-syria/
-- Guess Robin Wettlaufer, due to her ethnic solidarity, would be fine with these injured
Palestinian children being smothered by someone, but the well-financed White Helmets are the
extremely valuable material for realizing Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel (see Ben Gurion
answer).
The US had a surplus budget when Clinton left office
It turns out that 'budget surplus' does not mean what most people think it means. When your household has a budget surplus, its rate of debt accumulation reverses
(i.e., the total value of household debt falls). Credit cards get paid down, mortgages get
paid off, and eventually you end up with a large and growing positive net worth. That's what
running a 'budget surplus' means , right?
Not so for governments : the US government could run perpetual budget 'surpluses'
and still grow government debt without bound – because they do not account for things
the way they insist that we serfs account for things there are a bunch of their expenditures
that they simply don't count in their 'budget'.
It's a bit like if you were to only count the amount your household spent on
groceries , and declare your entire budget to be in 'surplus' or 'deficit' based on
whether or not there's change after you do your weekly shopping. Meanwhile, you're spending
more than you earn overall, and accumulating debt at an expanding rate.
Runaway debt is what destroys – whether it's families or countries.
There has only been one year since 1960 in which the US Federal Debt has fallen :
1969 .
During the much-touted "Clinton Surpluses", the US Federal Debt rose by almost a
quarter- trillion dollars . The first two Bush years had larger surpluses than
either of the two Clinton surpluses – but still added $160 billion to the
Federal debt.
I know those don't sound like big numbers anymore – much given that Bush added $602
billion per year on average, and Obama added twice Bush 's amount (1.19 trillion per
year).
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
You would have to wonder why Putin opened with the following remarks if you were ignorant of
the global situation:
"You came here to hold an open and trust based discussion on the issues of the
global energy agenda .
"We believe that progress in global energy, as well as the stable energy security of our
entire planet, can only be achieved through global partnership, working in accordance with
general rules that are the same for everyone, and, of course, through conducting transparent
and constructive dialogue among market players which is not politically motivated but is
based on pragmatic considerations and an understanding of shared responsibilities and mutual
interests." [My Emphasis]
His characterization of Skripal came during the Q&A, and there are likely more gems to
be had from that session.
Waging Illegal Aggressive War, Illegal sanctions, Violations of UNSC Resolutions, Breaking
of Contracts, and Ongoing violation of the UN Charter and US Constitution since 1945 are just
a few of the reasons why it must be called the Outlaw US Empire as no other term properly
describes it. 80 years ago, appeasement didn't work, and it's clear it doesn't work today
either. Together the world's nations must bring the Outlaw US Empire to heel and make it obey
the Rule of Law and abandon its unilateral Rule of the Gun.
Ah, there it is. The reason behind this strange week, the dots that few will connect.
Putin speaking at a conference about "sustainable energy in a changing world."
Right there, two phrases that are certain to set off Exxon corp and their puppets in the
political theater. Say "sustainable energy" around an oil giant and watch them shudder. The,
mention "changing world" to any of that class and they have nightmares about their children
having to learn Chinese. Put them all together in one title of a conference at which Putin
himself is speaking and well, now we know why the Shakespearian chorus of Exxon's oil
industry bit players like former Texas Governor Rich "the hair" Perry and former Texas
Senator Hutchinson are suddenly frothing at the bit about the Park Rangers mounting a naval
blockade of Russia (see Yogi Bear for how that's likely to turn out, hey booboo?) and nuclear
first strikes on Russia.
Putin, Sustainable Energy, Changing world .. enough to send some senior executive geezers
at Exxon grabbing for their nitro pills and speed dialing their cardiologists.
For those who like to call Russia "a gas station masquerading as a country" here is Putin's
note on ecology:
"A separate ambitious task for the future is the development of renewable energy sources,
especially in remote, difficult-to-access areas of this country, such as Eastern Siberia, and
the Far East. This is opening a great opportunity for our vast country, the world's largest
country with its diverse natural and climatic conditions.
Friends, in conclusion I would like to tell you the following: sustainable and steady
development of the energy industry is a key condition for dynamic growth of the world
economy, enhancing living standards and improving the wellbeing of all people on our
planet.
Russia is open to cooperation in the energy industry in the interests of global energy
security and for the benefit of the future generations. And we certainly rely on active
dialogue on these subjects and cooperation.
Nothing is going to save us from our energy problems, nothing and especially not renewables.
Spend some time reading and studying Gail Tverberg's material and one will quickly see we
are heading for a financial catastrophe because of affordability issues. On the one hand
there isn't enough money to pay for extraction of oil and gas and on the other the consumer
is strapped because of high pump prices etc. But like she herself says if only the wages of
non elite workers could rise high enough to help pay for the increased costs then likely we
wouldn't have a problem. That though is clearly not happening.
I am deeply afraid we are going to wake up to a world very different from the one we went
to sleep in. Just this one article alone expresses the grave situation the world is in:
Every time Chuck Paar makes the over 500-mile round trip from his home in Mt. Jewett,
Pennsylvania, to Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, his 18-wheel tractor trailer carries 25 tons
of sand or cement and burns about $265 of diesel in one day. That's up from as little as $166
for the same route two years ago, and the increased cost of fuel is squeezing already thin
industry profit margins.
@Frederick
V. Reed The idea of 'stealth' aircraft is in fact mostly a gimmick designed to enrich the
military contractors it doesn't actually work very well at all, as proved in 1999 when the
Serb air defense, using ancient Soviet surface to air missiles of 1950s vintage, shot down
the USAF F117 aircraft and damaged another that was then written off, and therefore counts as
a kill
–F117 canopy displayed at the Belgrade Aviation Museum
But let's look at the idea of 'low observable' aircraft technology in a little more
detail, and how it may be countered by air defense
Ufimtsev, working at the Moscow Institute of Radio Engineering, developed a coherent
theory on the behavior of radio wave scattering off solid objects he published his seminal
work Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction in 1962 the Soviet
military saw no real value in this and allowed it to be published
In 1971, the USAF translated this work into English and a couple of engineers at Lockheed
realized that Ufimtsev had provided the mathematical foundation to predict how radar waves
deflect off an aircraft it was a lightbulb moment the main insight of Ufimtsev's work was
that the size of a radar return was more a function of the edge geometry of the aircraft than
its actual size
Retired USAF Lt Colonel William B O'Connor, who flew the F117 gives a good telling of the
story
here
The end result is that the F117 and B2 were developed by programming Ufimtsev's math into
powerful computers in order to come up with aircraft shaping geometry that minimized radar
reflection subsequent 'low observable' aircraft like the F22 and F35 all build on this basic
physics
Now while the idea of reducing an aircraft's radar return sounds good in principle it has
a lot of real-world drawbacks for instance the shaping can only be optimized for one
particular aspect, such as a head-on if the aircraft turns into a bank for instance its radar
return will increase by as much as 100 fold owing to the simple fact that a banking aircraft
exposes its broad underbelly, which has no way to be optimized to also be 'stealthy' the
shaping cannot accomplish the same result of scattering radio waves off in all directions,
from all angles
There are other challenges the vertical tail surfaces will also bounce back radio waves
this is why a tailless, flying wing design like the B2 is better suited to the task but this
kind of configuration brings with it compromises in aircraft maneuverability and agility
Aside from the aircraft geometry, which is the main means of achieving 'low observability'
there are also special coatings that are designed to 'absorb' radio waves although this is
only of limited effectiveness and depends a lot on the thickness of the rubbery coating I had
the opportunity to physically examine a piece of the wreckage of that F117 shot down in
Serbia, and the thickness and weight of that coating was surprising it was about 1/16 inch
thick in places along the vertical stabilizers and seemed to weigh more than the underlying
composite honeycomb structure itself [typical of Lockheed lightweight structural design]
This additional weight is a major disadvantage of 'stealth' aircraft aircraft must be as
light as possible to perform well that is just basic physics but these logical design
considerations have seemingly been sidelined in what can only be explained as a money-making
gimmick that only detracts from actual aircraft capability
The F35 is far worse of course but Col Riccioni passed away before he could fully train
his guns on this very deficient aircraft
The fact of the matter is that the F117 was more 'stealthy' than the F22 or F35 this due
to its faceted design wherein the airframe shape was defined largely by a series of flat
plates [remember that the whole physics of radio reflection boils down to edge
geometry...]
The current MIC propaganda is that the faceted shape is not necessary due to improved
supercomputers that can calculate the math for curved surfaces well, the physical fact is
that curved surfaces reflect in all directions and no amount of 'supercomputing' can change
that Col Riccioni, who is no slouch in physics, having designed and taught the first
graduate-level course in astronautics at the USAF Academy, confirms that the F117 was a more
'stealthy' design than the F22 and the F35 is considered not as stealthy as the F22
As for defending against 'low observable' aircraft with surface to air missiles [SAMs] let
us review some of the pertinent factors that go into this equation a SAM system consists
basically of powerful radars that spot and track enemy aircraft and guide a missile shot to
the target the only way to kill a SAM system by means of an attacking aircraft is to target
its radars with a special type of missile that homes in on radio signals known as
anti-radiation missiles [HARMs] such as the US AGM88
The problem becomes one of reach how far can the SAM missiles reach and how far can the
HARMs reach ?
A long range SAM like the S300/400 wins this contest easily the S300 can hit targets as
far as 250 km away [400 km for S400] while the best Harms can reach about 150 km at most and
that's if fired at high aircraft speed and altitude so it becomes a question of how do you
get within the SAM missile kill zone to fire your Harm in the first place ?
In the 1999 bombing of Serbia, the US and 18 participating Nato allies mustered over 1,000
aircraft and fired a total of over 700 Harms at Serb air defenses, over the course of 78 days
but managed to knock out only three 1970s era mobile SAM units the 2K12 'Kub'
This campaign was truly a David vs Goliath match, yet the Serbs effectively fought the
alliance to a draw
NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS [integrated air defense
system], and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the
engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles -- envelopes that extended as high as
50,000 feet.
Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value
surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits
to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs.
Even during the operation's final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm
the destruction of only three of Serbia's approximately 25 known mobile SA-6
batteries.'
Lambeth notes that things could have been much different had the Serbs had the S300
'One SA-10/12 [early S300 variant] site in Belgrade and one in Pristina could have
provided defensive coverage over all of Serbia and Kosovo. They also could have threatened
Rivet Joint, Compass Call, and other key allied aircraft such as the airborne command and
control center and the Navy's E-2C operating well outside enemy airspace.
Fortunately for NATO, the Serb IADS did not include the latest-generation SAM equipment
currently available on the international arms market.'
Since 1999, the last major SEAD [suppression of enemy air defense] operation by Nato the
Russian air defense capabilities have only become more lethal the radars employed on the
S300/400 series are phased array types which are very difficult to jam and much more precise
in guiding a missile to the target
Phased array means that instead of a parabolic dish, the antenna consists of several
thousand individual antenna elements that are electronically steered in order to create a
very precise radar beam [instead of a dish antenna being mechanically rotated and tilted]
'With electronic beam steering, very low sidelobes and a narrow pencil beam mainlobe,
the 30N6 phased array is more difficult to detect and track by an aircraft's warning
receiver when not directly painted by the radar, and vastly more difficult to jam.
While it may have detectable backlobes, these are likely to be hard to detect from the
forward sector of the radar. As most anti-radiation missiles rely on sidelobes to home in,
the choice of engagement geometry is critical in attempting to kill a Flap Lid.'
Shown is the latest generation 92N6 'Grave Stone' engagement radar used with S300/400
systems the engagement radar actually guides the missile shot, while separate early warning
and acquisition and tracking radars first detect the target, then cue the engagement radar to
point to the target and guide the missile shot
In this scenario the weakest link of the S200 is eliminated its obsolete parabolic dish
type engagement radar the S200 missile is instead guided to the target by the formidable new
S300/400 radars
'In this arrangement, an SA-20/21 system with its high power aperture and highly jam
resistant acquisition and engagement radars prosecutes an engagement, but rather than
launching its organic 48N6 series missile rounds, it uses the SA-5 Gammon round instead
The challenge which a hybrid SA-5/SA-20/SA-21 system presents is considerable. The
SA-20/21 battery is highly mobile, and with modern digital frequency hopping radars, will
be difficult to jam.
Soft kill and hard kill become problematic. In terms of defeating the SA-5 component of
the hybrid, the only option is to jam the missile CW homing seeker, the effectiveness of
which will depend entirely on the vintage of the 5G24N series seeker and the capabilities
of the jamming equipment. If the customer opts for an upgrade to the seeker electronics,
the seeker may be digital and very difficult to jam.'
This could be the most important part of the story, since the Syrians have a large number
of S200 systems it is certain that a number of additional S300/400 radars have been delivered
as part of that '49 pieces' reported in Russian media and these powerful and fully mobile
radars [truck mounted] will be used to modernize the S200 network
It is worth noting also that SAM mobility is a key advance of the S300/400 systems the
various radars and the missile launchers are all mounted on large trucks and are designed for
five minute shoot and scoot this mobility proved key to the Nato difficulty with Serbian
SAMs, even though those old systems were not designed for that, but the Serbs nonetheless
would dismantle and move the fixed radars and launchers on a regular basis
In order to attack a SAM with an aircraft you first have to know where it is the only way
to know is when it turns on its radar at which point it may be too late if it is pointed at
you after taking the shot, the whole thing packs up and moves in five minutes flat [the
Patriot takes 30 minutes by comparison]
It should be noted here that these mobile Russian search and acquisition radars are
extremely powerful the 'Big Bird' series is in the same class as the Aegis radar mounted on
USN missile cruisers and destroyers
'The 64N6E Big Bird is the key to much of the improved engagement capability, and
ballistic missile intercept capability in the later S-300P variants.
This system operates in the 2 GHz band and is a phased array with a 30% larger aperture
than the US Navy SPY-1 Aegis radar, even accounting for its slightly larger wavelength it
amounts to a mobile land based Aegis class package. It has no direct equivalent in the
West.'
The final piece of the puzzle when it comes to countering 'stealth' aircraft is a special
category of radar designed specifically for that purpose these operate at much lower
frequencies [ie longer wavelength] which renders the stealth shaping useless since the
physics dictates that aircraft features shorter than the radar wavelength cannot produce the
desired scattering effect as Col Riccioni notes
[The F22's] radar signature is admittedly small in the forward quarter but only to
airborne radars. The aircraft is detectable by high-power, low-frequency ground based
radars
it is physically impossible to design shapes and radar absorptive material to
simultaneously defeat low power, high-frequency enemy fighter radars, and high power,
low-frequency ground based radars.'
The system uses a series of radars of varying wavelength each mounted on a mobile chassis
as with all the modern Russian SAM radars the long wavelength radar finds the 'stealth'
target easily and then cues a shorter wavelength radar to further pinpoint the target, which,
in turn, cues the engagement radar that guides the missile shot
Shown is such a deployment of three radars and a command vehicle in the background
All told, the upgrade of the Syrian air defenses now presents a very formidable system it
should be noted that the S200 missile when used with these powerful radars could be an
especially deadly combination this rocket was until 2009 the longest range SAM rocket in the
world, with a maximum range of up to 375 km
Unlike modern SAM missiles that use solid propellant rocket motors [basically a bottle
rocket] the S200 uses a real liquid fuel rocket engine it has a top speed of 2.5 km/s which
is actually faster than the S400 rockets and the liquid engine means it can be throttled to
decrease or increase its speed [minimum flying speed is 700 m/s] something that a solid
rocket cannot do
In the right hands, this combination of advanced S300 radars and the superb kinematic
performance of the S200 missile could be a deadly combination the fact that Syria has a lot
of these S200 missiles means that adding those S300 radars makes it a whole new ballgame we
already saw back in February when an S200 shot down an Israeli F16 in Israeli airspace there
are unconfirmed reports that a second aircraft was hit and possibly destroyed
The question of Israeli F35s trying to attack these mobile S300 SAMs is not really a
serious consideration for any air combat practitioner the F35 has terrible flight
characteristics such as very high wing loading, which directly affects its turning ability
[think of running with a 100 lb backpack and how that might affect your maneuverability]
The basic flight physics of this airplane are terrible, as many qualified experts have
pointed out it would be difficult to envisage how it could play a role in mounting an attack
against these Syrian S300s
The only realistic option to attack such an air defense zone would be to use the
mountainous terrain along the Levant coast and fly a nap of the earth mission with highly
maneuverable fighters like the F15 and F16 to try to hide from radar in the mountains and get
close enough to deliver a Harm missile to an S300 radar
But this would be a very risky mission especially considering that the Russians are flying
their AWACS planes over Syria, so even terrain following is not going to work in trying to
hide
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [
article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be
clear which is which.
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking.
Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret
things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative
connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An
ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything
would call it "outreach."
There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking
to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out
in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [
wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out
absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in
"human wave" attacks.
"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was
presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm
perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the
industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.
One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent
cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define
appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there
was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a
cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's
fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim
pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian
or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.
John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the
major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.
US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to
war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in
advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the
superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to
try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.
My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other
nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and
Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder
reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of
its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a
war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has
not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US
distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US
power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis
is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]
The Netherland [sic] for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly
accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it
comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims
in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and
UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My
opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the
CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own
military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.
All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault
7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking
the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution
that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA
malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET --
Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully
said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA
wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]
It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US
has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being
prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap,
missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by
the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor
in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and
operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the
NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.
Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far
between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have
amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA
and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing
to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA
and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?
The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So
it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For
example:
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr
] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the
CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was
suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George
Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the
70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical
ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can
imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps
for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The
CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders
built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks,
they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve
crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked
code.
Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There
are four options:
The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has
caught them until just recently.
The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the
hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy
tools.
The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts
the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence
agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is
around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are
much smaller operations?
Something else.
That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's
not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel
management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other
processors have similar backdoors.
Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my
tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the
competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is
unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.
&
(kaspersky)
I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly
iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too
mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of
systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures
about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [
vice ] [
vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.
Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were
used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine.
These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market,
including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks
have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive
software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific
targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.
But
Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has
the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even
before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of
the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.
EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the
plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old
that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.
This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the
NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is,
Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution
correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in
Maryland. [kaspersky]
Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the
BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably
backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the
GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares?
The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be
considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let
you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.
Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably.
Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire
zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and
decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc.
There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at
all.
From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."
The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the
cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge
budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any
business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do?
They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what
governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their
side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.
In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another
example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider
'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel
and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the
call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it
doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof.
"They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all
of the above depending on where and when.
Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or
the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious
hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda
campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic
propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets,
justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.
So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been
consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order
to justify its actions and defend its budget.
The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence
community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone
involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese
can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that
the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice
cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem
like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a
cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.
Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this
link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]
Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired
backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other
scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared
to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG
flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.
We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do
something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they
literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great
surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old
culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at
the switch after all!"
What little I've been able to find out the new
Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive
retribution against (perceived) foes.
Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of
same.
Pierce R. Butler@#1: What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that
it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.
Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80%
offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The
People.
Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence
people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have
been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never
deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.
The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't
take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember
reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of
the Morris worm
that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a
year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it
still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first
place.
Cat Mara@#3: Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media).
I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur
instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well
as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that
sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the
Russians.
The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is,
"why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten
you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and
stupid.
The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering.
Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost
effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA;
they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers.
That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things
like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they
don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England
with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.
On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of
the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant
chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and
some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the
holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.
That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit
pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We
were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our
uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm
-f' in the uucp queue.
Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line:
" agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their
incompetence."
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [
article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be
clear which is which.
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking.
Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret
things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative
connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An
ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything
would call it "outreach."
There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking
to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out
in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [
wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out
absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in
"human wave" attacks.
"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was
presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm
perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the
industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.
One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent
cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define
appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there
was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a
cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's
fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim
pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian
or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.
John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the
major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.
US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to
war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in
advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the
superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to
try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.
My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other
nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and
Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder
reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of
its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a
war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has
not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US
distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US
power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis
is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]
The Netherland [sic] for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly
accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it
comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims
in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and
UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My
opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the
CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own
military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.
All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault
7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking
the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution
that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA
malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET --
Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully
said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA
wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]
It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US
has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being
prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap,
missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by
the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor
in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and
operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the
NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.
Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far
between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have
amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA
and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing
to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA
and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?
The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So
it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For
example:
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr
] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the
CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was
suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George
Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the
70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical
ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can
imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps
for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The
CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders
built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks,
they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve
crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked
code.
Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There
are four options:
The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has
caught them until just recently.
The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the
hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy
tools.
The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts
the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence
agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is
around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are
much smaller operations?
Something else.
That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's
not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel
management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other
processors have similar backdoors.
Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my
tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the
competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is
unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.
&
(kaspersky)
I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly
iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too
mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of
systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures
about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [
vice ] [
vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.
Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were
used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine.
These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market,
including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks
have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive
software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific
targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.
But
Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has
the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even
before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of
the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.
EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the
plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old
that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.
This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the
NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is,
Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution
correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in
Maryland. [kaspersky]
Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the
BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably
backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the
GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares?
The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be
considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let
you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.
Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably.
Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire
zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and
decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc.
There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at
all.
From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."
The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the
cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge
budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any
business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do?
They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what
governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their
side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.
In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another
example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider
'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel
and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the
call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it
doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof.
"They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all
of the above depending on where and when.
Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or
the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious
hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda
campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic
propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets,
justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.
So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been
consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order
to justify its actions and defend its budget.
The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence
community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone
involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese
can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that
the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice
cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem
like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a
cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.
Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this
link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]
Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired
backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other
scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared
to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG
flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.
We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do
something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they
literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great
surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old
culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at
the switch after all!"
What little I've been able to find out the new
Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive
retribution against (perceived) foes.
Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of
same.
Pierce R. Butler@#1: What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that
it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.
Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80%
offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The
People.
Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence
people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have
been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never
deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.
The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't
take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember
reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of
the Morris worm
that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a
year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it
still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first
place.
Cat Mara@#3: Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media).
I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur
instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well
as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that
sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the
Russians.
The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is,
"why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten
you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and
stupid.
The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering.
Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost
effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA;
they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers.
That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things
like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they
don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England
with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.
On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of
the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant
chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and
some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the
holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.
That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit
pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We
were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our
uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm
-f' in the uucp queue.
Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line:
" agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their
incompetence."
In other words CIA Democrats actually are running on classic Republican foreign policy platform with some neo-McCarthyism
flavor added for appetite. . Such a convergence of two parities.
The Democratic Party is widely favored to win control of the House of Representatives in the
US midterm elections November 6, with projections that it will gain 30 to 50 seats, or even
more, well above the net gain of 23 required for a majority.
The last time the Democratic Party won control of the House from the Republicans was in
2006, when it captured 30 Republican seats on the basis of a limited appeal to the massive
antiwar sentiment among working people after three years of disastrous and bloody warfare in
Iraq, and five years after the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
In stark contrast, there is not a hint of an antiwar campaign by the Democratic challengers
seeking Republican seats in the 2018 elections. On the contrary, the pronouncements of leading
Democrats on foreign policy issues have been strongly pro-war, attacking the Trump
administration from the right for its alleged softness on Russia and its hostility to
traditional US-led alliances like NATO.
This is particularly true of the 30 Democratic congressional nominees in competitive races
who come from a national-security background. These challengers, previously identified by the
World Socialist Web Site as the CIA Democrats , constitute the
largest single grouping among Democratic nominees in competitive seats, more than state and
local officials, lawyers or those wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns.
The 30 national-security candidates include six actual CIA, FBI or military intelligence
agents, six State Department or other civilian national security officials, 11 combat veterans
from Iraq and Afghanistan, all but one an officer, and seven other military veterans, including
pilots, naval officers and military prosecutors (JAGs).
The range of views expressed by these 30 candidates is quite limited. With only one
exception, Jared Golden , running in the First District of Maine, the military-intelligence
Democrats do not draw any negative conclusions from their experience in leading, planning or
fighting in the wars of the past 25 years, including two wars against Iraq, the invasion of
Afghanistan, and other military engagements in the Persian Gulf and North and East Africa.
Golden, who is also the only rank-and-file combat veteran -- as opposed to an officer -- and
the only one who admits to having suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, criticizes
congressional rubber-stamping of the wars of the past 20 years. "Over the past decade and a
half, America has spent trillions on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on other conflicts
across the globe," his campaign website declares. "War should be a last resort, and only
undertaken when the security interests of America are clearly present, and the risks and costs
can be appropriately justified to the American people."
These sentiments hardly qualify as antiwar, but they sound positively radical compared to
the materials posted on the websites of many of the other military-intelligence candidates. In
some ways, Golden is the exception that proves the rule. What used to be the standard rhetoric
of Democratic Party candidates when running against the administration of George W. Bush has
been entirely scrapped in the course of the Obama administration, the first in American history
to have been engaged in a major military conflict for every day of its eight years.
All the other national-security candidates accept as a basic premise that the United States
must maintain its dominant world position. The most detailed foreign policy doctrine appears on
the website of Amy McGrath , who is now favored to win her contest against incumbent Republican
incumbent Andy Barr in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky.
McGrath follows closely the line of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton
presidential campaign, supporting the Iran nuclear deal that Trump tore up, embracing Israel,
warning of North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, and declaring it "critical that the US
work with our allies and partners in the region to counter China's advances" in the South China
Sea and elsewhere in Asia.
But Russia is clearly the main target of US national-security efforts, in her view. She
writes, "Our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified that Russia is the greatest
threat to American security. Russia poses an existential threat to the United States due to its
nuclear weapons and its behavior in the past several years has been disturbing. Russia's
aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming. It's becoming more
assertive in the Arctic, likely the most important geostrategic zone of competition in the
coming decades. The US should consider providing defensive arms to Ukraine and exerting more
pressure on Moscow using economic sanctions."
She concludes by calling for an investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Five other national-security candidates focus on specific warnings about the danger of
Russia and China, thus aligning themselves with the new national security orientation set in
the most recent Pentagon strategy document, which declares that the principal US national
security challenge is no longer the "war on terror," but the prospect of great power conflicts,
above all with Russia and China.
Jessica Morse , a former State Department and AID official in Iraq, running in the Fourth
District of California, blasts the Trump administration for "giving away global leadership to
powers like China and Russia. Our security and our economy will both suffer if those countries
are left to re-write the international rules."
Former FBI agent Christopher Hunter , running in the 12th District of Florida, declares,
"Russia is a clear and present danger to the United States. We emerged victorious over the
Soviet Union in the Cold War. We must resolve anew to secure an uncompromising victory over
Russia and its tyrannical regime."
Elissa Slotkin , the former CIA agent and Pentagon official running in Michigan's Eighth
Congressional District, cites her 14 years of experience "working on some of our country's most
critical national security matters, including U.S.-Russia relations, the counter-ISIS campaign,
and the U.S. relationship with NATO." She argues that "the United States must make investments
in its military, intelligence, and diplomatic power" in order to maintain "a unique and vital
role in the world."
Max Rose , a combat commander in Afghanistan now running in New York's 11th Congressional
District (Staten Island and Brooklyn), calls for "recognizing Russia as a hostile foreign power
and holding the Kremlin accountable for its attempts to undermine the sovereignty and
democratic values of other nations." Rose is still in the military reserves, and took two weeks
off from his campaign in August to participate in small-unit drills.
Joseph Kopser , running in the 21st District of Texas, is another anti-Russian firebrand,
writing on his website, "As a retired Army Ranger, I know first hand the importance of standing
strong with your allies. Given Russia's march toward a totalitarian state showing aggression
around the region, as well as their extensive cyber and information warfare campaign directed
at the U.S., England, and others, our Article 5 [NATO] commitment to our European allies and
partners is more important than ever." He concludes, "Since the mid-twentieth century, the
United States has been a principal world leader -- a standard that should never be
changed."
Four national-security candidates add North Korea and Iran to China and Russia as specific
targets of American military and diplomatic attack.
Josh Welle , a former naval officer who was deployed to Afghanistan, now running in the
Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey, writes, "We have to stand together in the face of
threats from countries like North Korea and Iran. The human rights violations and nuclear
capabilities of these countries pose a direct threat to the stability of this world and
therefore need to be met with strong military presence and a robust defense program to protect
ourselves."
Tom Malinowski , former assistant secretary of state for human rights, running in New
Jersey's Seventh District, calls for maintaining economic sanctions on Russia "until it
stops its aggression in Ukraine and interference in our democracy ,"
effusively endorses the state of Israel (whose government actually interferes in US elections
more than any other), and calls for stepped up sanctions against North Korea.
Mikie Sherill , a former Navy pilot and Russian policy officer, running in New Jersey's 11th
District, writes, "I have sat across the table from the Russians, and know that we need our
government to take the threat they pose seriously." She adds to this a warning about "threats
posed by North Korea and Iran," the two most immediate targets of military-diplomatic blackmail
by the Trump administration. She concludes, referring to North Korea's nuclear program, "For
that reason I support a robust military presence in the region and a comprehensive missile
defense program to defend America, our allies, and our troops abroad."
Dan McCready , an Iraq war unit commander who claims to have been born again when he was
baptized in water from the Euphrates River, calls for war to be waged only "with overwhelming
firepower," not "sporadically, with no strategy or end in sight, while our enemies like Iran,
North Korea, Russia, and the terrorists outsmart and outlast us." He is running in North
Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, adjacent to the huge military complex at Fort
Bragg.
One military-intelligence candidate cites immigration as a national-security issue, echoing
the position of the Trump administration, which constantly peddles scare stories that
terrorists are infiltrating the United States disguised as immigrants and refugees. That is
Richard Ojeda , running in the Third Congressional District of West Virginia, who publicly
boasts of having voted for Trump in 2016, in the same election in which he won a seat in the
West Virginia state senate running as a Democrat.
Ojeda writes on his web site, "We must also ensure that terrorists do not reach American
soil by abusing our immigration process. We must keep an up to date terror watch list but
provide better vetting for those that go onto the watch list."
A career Army Airborne officer, Ojeda voices the full-blown militarism of this social layer.
"If there is one thing I am confident in, it is the ability of our nation's military," he
declares. "The best way to keep Americans safe is to let our military do their job without
muddying up their responsibilities with our political agendas."
He openly rejects control of the military by civilian policy-makers. "War is not a social
experiment and I refuse to let politics play a role in my decision making when it comes to
keeping you and your family safe," he continues. "I will not take my marching orders from
anyone else concerning national security."
Only one of the 30 candidates, Ken Harbaugh , a retired Air Force pilot running in the
Seventh Congressional District of Ohio, centered on the industrial city of Canton, acknowledges
being part of this larger group. He notes, "In 2018, more vets are running for office than at
any moment in my lifetime. Because of the growing inability of Washington to deal responsibly
with the threats facing our nation, veterans from both sides of the aisle are stepping into the
breach."
Referring to the mounting prospect of war, he writes, "Today, we face our gravest
geopolitical challenge since 9/11. Our country remains at war in Afghanistan, we have troops
engaged in North Africa, Iraq and Syria, and Russia continues to bully our allies. Meanwhile,
North Korea has the ability to directly threaten the American mainland with nuclear missiles."
He concludes, "we need leaders with the moral authority to speak on these issues, leaders who
have themselves been on the front lines of these challenges."
These statements, taken cumulatively, present a picture of unbridled militarism and
aggression as the program of the supposed "opposition" to the Trump administration's own
saber-rattling and threats of "fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Perhaps even more remarkable is that the remaining 17 national-security candidates say
nothing at all about foreign policy (in 11 cases) or limit themselves to anodyne observations
about the necessity to provide adequate health care and other benefits to veterans (two cases),
or vague generalities about the need to combine a strong military with diplomatic efforts (four
cases). They give no specifics whatsoever.
In other words, while these candidates tout their own records as part of the
national-security apparatus as their principal credential for election to Congress, they
decline to tell the voters what they would do if they were in charge of American foreign
policy.
Given that these 17 include intelligence agents ( Abigail Spanberger and Gina Ortiz Jones ),
a National Security Council Iraq war planner ( Andy Kim ), and numerous other high-level State
Department and military commanders, the silence can have only the most ominous
interpretation.
These CIA Democrats don't want to tell voters about their plans for foreign policy and
military intervention because they know these measures are deeply unpopular. They aim to gain
office as stealth candidates, unveiling their program of militarism and war only after they
take their seats, when they may very well exercise decisive influence in the next Congress.
"... At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter. ..."
"... So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites ..."
"... The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise. ..."
"... This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt" ..."
"... In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness. ..."
The constitution was a creation of the elite at the time, the property class. Its mission was to prevent the common folk from
having control. Democracy=mob rule= Bad.
The common folk only had the ability to elect representatives in the house, who in turn would elect Senators. Electors voted
for President and they were appointed by a means chosen by the state legislature , which only in modern times has come to mean
by the popular vote of the common folk. Starting from 1913 it was decided to let the common folk vote for Senator and give the
commonfolk the illusion of Democracy confident they could be controlled with propaganda and taxes (also adopted in 1913 with the
Fed)
At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively
free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the
MOED became a minority voter.
Bernays science of propaganda took off during WWI, Since MOED's made up the most educated class (relative to minorities and
women) up to the 70's this was a big deal for almost 60 years , although not today when miseducation is equal among the different
races, sexes and ethnicities.
So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen
United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates
chosen by the elites
So how do the common folk get control over the federal government? That is a pipe dream and will never happen. The founders
who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today
got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless
and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise.
Pft has a point. If there was ever a time for the people to take the republic into its hands, it may have been
just after the Civil War when the Dems were discredited and the Repubs had a total control of Congress.
This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century.
So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt"
All manner of political office-seekers devoted themselves to getting on the government gravy train, somehow.
The selling of political offices was notorious and the newspaper editors of the time were ashamed of this.
Then there was the Whiskey Ring. The New York Customs House was a major source of corruption lucre.
Then there was vote selling in blocks of as many as 10,000 and the cost of paying those who could do this.
Then there were the kickbacks from the awards of railroad concessions which included large parcels of land.
If there ever was a Golden Age of the United States it must have been when Franklin Roosevelt was President.
karlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"
The only thing us "common folk" can do is work within our personal sphere of influence, and engage who you can, when you can,
and support with any $ you can spare, to support the sites and any local radio stations that broadcast independent thought. (
if you can find any). Pacifica radio, KPFK in LA is a good example. KPFA in the bay area.
Other than another economic crash, I don't believe anything can rouse the pathetic bovine public. Bread and circuses work...
The division of representative power and stake in the political process back at the birth of the US Constitution was as you
say it was. But this wasn't because any existing power had been taken away from anyone. It was simply the state of play back then.
Since that time, we common people have developed a more egalitarian sense of how the representation should be apportioned.
We include former slaves, all ethnic groups and both genders. We exclude animals thus far, although we do have some - very modest
- protections in place.
I think it has been the rise of the socialist impulse among workers that has expanded this egalitarian view, with trade unions
and anti-imperialist revolutions and national struggles. But I'm not a scholar or a historian so I can't add details to my impression.
My point is that since the Framers met, there has been a progressive elevation of our requirements of representative government.
I think some of this also came from the Constitution itself, with its embedded Bill of Rights.
I can't say if this expansion has continued to this day or not. History may show there was a pinnacle that we have now passed,
and entered a decline. I don't know - it's hard to say how we score the Internet in this balance. It's always hard to score the
present age along its timeline. And the future is never here yet, in the present, and can only ever be guessed.
In my view, the dream of popular control of representative government remains entirely possible. I call it an aspiration rather
than a pipe dream, and one worth taking up and handing on through the generations. Current global society may survive in relatively
unbroken line for millennia to come. There's simply no percentage in calling failure at this time.
It may be that better government comes to the United States from the example of the world nations, over the decades and centuries
to come. Maybe the demonstration effect will work on us even when we cannot work on ourselves. We are not the only society of
poor people who want a fair life.
In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative
government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the
predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be
madness.
"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect
it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up
now would be madness."
Here, here! I fully agree with you.
In my opinion, representative government was stronger in the U.S. from the 1930's to the 1970's and Europe after WW2. And as
a result the western world achieved unprecedented prosperity. Since 1980, the U.S. government has been captured by trans-national
elites, who, since the 1990's have also captured much of the political power in the EU.
Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result
of this dictatorship.
Prosperity, and peace, will only return when the dictators are removed and representative government is returned.
"Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result
of this dictatorship."
Exactly!! I feel like the Swedish knight Antonius Block in the movie the 7th Seal. There does not seem any way out of this
evil game by the death dealing rulers.
Love it. But you fad3d at the end. It was Gingrich, not Rodham, who was behind Contract on America, and GHWBush's Fed Bank
group wrote the legislation that would have been Bush's second term 'kinder, gentler' Gramm-Leach-Bliley bayonet up the azs of
the American Dream, as passed by a majority of Congress, and by that point Tripp and Lewinski had already pull-dated Wild Bill.
God, can you imagine being married to that hag Rodham? The purple people-eating lizards of Georgetown and Alexandria. Uurk.
I'm reading a great FDR book, 'Roosevelt and Hopkins', a signed 1st Ed copy by Robert Sherwood, and the only book extant from
my late father's excellent political and war library, after his trophy wife dumped the rest of his library off at Goodwill, lol.
They could have paid for her next booblift, ha, ha, ha.
Anyway, FDR, in my mind, only passed the populist laws that he did because he needed cannon fodder in good fighting shape for
Rothschild's Wars ("3/4ths of WW2 conscripts were medically unfit for duty," the book reports), and because Rothschild's and Queens
Bank of London needed the whole sh*taco bailed out afterward, by creating SS wage-withholding 'Trust Fund' (sic) the Fed then
tapped into, and creating Lend-Lease which let Rothschilds float credit-debt to even a higher level and across the globe. Has
it all been paid off by Germany and Japan yet?
Even Lincoln, jeez, Civil War was never about slavery, it was about finance and taxation and the illegitimate Federal supremacy
over the Republic of States, not unlike the EU today. Lincoln only freed the slaves to use them as cannon fodder and as a fifth
column.
All of these politicians were purple people-eating lizards, except maybe the Kennedy's, and they got ground and pounded like
Conor McGregor, meh?
"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect
it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give
up now would be madness."
Compare to: Sentiments of the Nation:
12º That as the good Law is superior to every man, those dictated by our Congress must be such, that they force constancy and
patriotism, moderate opulence and indigence; and in such a way increase the wages of the poor, improve their habits, moving away
from ignorance, rapine and theft.
13º That the general laws include everyone, without exception of privileged bodies; and that these are only in the use of the
ministry..
14º That in order to dictate a Law, the Meeting of Sages is made, in the possible number, so that it may proceed with more
success and exonerate of some charges that may result.
15. That slavery be banished forever, and the distinction of castes, leaving all the same, and only distinguish one American
from another by vice and virtue.
16º That our Ports be open to friendly foreign nations, but that they do not enter the nation, no matter how friendly they
may be, and there will only be Ports designated for that purpose, prohibiting disembarkation in all others, indicating ten percent.
17º That each one be kept his property, and respect in his House as in a sacred asylum, pointing out penalties to the offenders.
18º That the new legislation does not admit torture.
19º That the Constitutional Law establishes the celebration of December 12th in all Peoples, dedicated to the Patroness of
our Liberty, Most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, entrusting to all Peoples the monthly devotion.
20º That the foreign troops, or of another Kingdom, do not step on our soil, and if it were in aid, they will not without the
Supreme Junta approval.
21º That expeditions are not made outside the limits of the Kingdom, especially overseas, that they are not of this kind yet
rather to spread the faith to our brothers and sisters of the land inside.
22º That the infinity of tributes, breasts and impositions that overwhelm us be removed, and each individual be pointed out
a five percent of seeds and other effects or other equally light weight, that does not oppress so much, as the alcabala, the Tobacconist,
the Tribute and others; because with this slight contribution, and the good administration of the confiscated goods of the enemy,
will be able to take the weight of the War, and pay the fees of employees.
Temple of the Virgen of the Ascencion
Chilpancingo, September 14, 1813.
José Mª Morelos.
23º That also be solemnized on September 16, every year, as the Anniversary day on which the Voice of Independence was raised,
and our Holy Freedom began, because on that day it was in which the lips of the Nation were deployed to claim their rights with
Sword in hand to be heard: always remembering the merit of the great Hero Mr. Don Miguel Hidalgo and his companion Don Ignacio
Allende.
Answers on November 21, 1813. And therefore, these are abolished, always being subject to the opinion of S. [u] A. [alteza]
S. [very eminent]
"Also do not forget that all invisible stuff that US army had during the Clinton/HRC era,
were easily visible. F-117 in Serbia,"
See: Comment #43: (very detailed, links to open source US mil docs)
"The idea of 'stealth' aircraft is in fact mostly a gimmick designed to enrich the
military contractors it doesn't actually work very well at all, as proved in 1999 when the
Serb air defense, using ancient Soviet surface to air missiles of 1950s vintage, shot down
the USAF F117 aircraft and damaged another that was then written off, and therefore counts as
a kill "
Thanks for that link. That's an essay in itself, and I'm still reading it. Fascinating and
valuable background on stealth.
First takeaway for me is that the Russians invented stealth but considered it
impracticable at the time. The US designers took the Russian equations and ran with them,
throwing out many other considerations of plane-worthiness in order to promote this dud of a
magic bullet.
"... Accountability is for the little people, immunity is for the ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded some of the darkest moments in human history ..."
"... September began with John McCain's funeral – a memorial billed as an apolitical celebration of the Arizona lawmaker, but which served as a made-for-TV spectacle letting America know that everyone who engineered the Iraq war is doing just fine. ..."
"... The underlying message was clear: nobody other than the dead, the injured and the taxpayer will face any real penalty for the Iraq debacle. ..."
"... Meanwhile, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon garnered non-Onion headlines by floating the idea of running for president – a reminder that a decade after his firm played a central role in destroying countless Americans' economic lives, he remains not only unincarcerated and gainfully employed, but so reputationally unscathed that he is seen as a serious White House candidate. ..."
Accountability is for the little people,
immunity is for the ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded some of the darkest moments in human
history
'If there are no legal consequences for profiteers who defrauded the
global economy into a collapse, what will deter those profiteers from doing that again?' Illustration: Mark Long/Mark Long for Guardian
US W hen the former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was
released from prison
a few weeks ago, the news conjured memories of a corporate scandal that now seems almost quaint – and it was also a reminder
that Enron executives were among the last politically connected criminals to face any serious consequences for institutionalized
fraud.
Since Skilling's conviction 12 years ago,
our society has been fundamentally altered by a powerful political movement whose goal is not merely another court seat, tax cut
or election victory. This movement's objective is far more revolutionary: the creation of an accountability-free zone for an ennobled
aristocracy, even as the rest of the population is treated to law-and-order rhetoric and painfully punitive policy.
Let's remember that in less than two decades, America has experienced the Iraq war, the financial crisis, intensifying economic
stratification, an opioid plague, persistent gender and racial inequality and now seemingly unending climate change-intensified disasters.
While the victims have been ravaged by these crime sprees, crises and calamities, the perpetrators have largely avoided arrest, inquisition,
incarceration, resignation, public shaming and ruined careers.
That is because the United States has been turned into a safe space for a permanent ruling class. Inside the rarefied refuge,
the key players who created this era's catastrophes and who embody the most pernicious pathologies have not just eschewed punishment
– many of them have actually maintained or even increased their social, financial and political status.
The effort to construct this elite haven has tied together so many seemingly disparate news events, suggesting that there is a
method in the madness. Consider this past month that culminated with the dramatic battle over the judicial nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
September began with John McCain's funeral – a memorial billed as an apolitical celebration of the Arizona lawmaker, but which
served as a made-for-TV spectacle letting America know that everyone who engineered the Iraq war is doing just fine.
The event was attended by Iraq war proponents of both parties, from
Dick Cheney to
Lindsey
Graham to Hillary Clinton. The funeral featured a saccharine eulogy from the key Democratic proponent of the invasion, Joe Lieberman,
as well the resurrection of George W Bush. The
codpiece-flaunting
war president who piloted America into the cataclysm with
"bring 'em on" bravado,
"shock and awe" bloodlust and
"uranium from
Africa" dishonesty was suddenly portrayed as an icon of warmth and civility when he
passed a lozenge to Michelle Obama. The scene was depicted not as the gathering of a rogues gallery fit for a war crimes tribunal,
but as a
venerable
bipartisan reunion evoking
nostalgia for the supposed halcyon days – and Bush promptly used his newly revived image to
campaign
for Republican congressional candidates and
lobby
for Kavanaugh's appointment .
The underlying message was clear: nobody other than the dead, the injured and the taxpayer will face any real penalty for the
Iraq debacle.
Next up came the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis – a meltdown that laid waste to the global economy, while providing
lucrative taxpayer-funded bailouts to Wall Street firms.
To mark the occasion, the three men on whose watch it occurred – Fed chair Ben Bernanke, Bush treasury secretary Hank Paulson
and Obama treasury secretary Tim Geithner – did not offer an apology, but instead promised that another financial crisis will eventually
occur, and they
demanded lawmakers give public officials
more power to bail out big banks in the future.
In a similar bipartisan show of unity, former Trump economic adviser
Gary Cohn gave an interview in which he asked "Who broke the law?" – the implication being that no Wall Street executives were
prosecuted for their role in the meltdown because no statutes had been violated. That suggestion, of course, is undermined by
banks
'
own
admissions that they defrauded investors (that includes
admissions of fraud
from Goldman Sachs – the very bank that Cohn himself ran during the crisis). Nonetheless,
Obama's attorney
general, Eric Holder – who has now rejoined
his old corporate defense law firm – subsequently backed Cohn up by arguing that nobody on Wall Street committed an offense that
could have been successfully prosecuted in a court of law.
Meanwhile, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon garnered non-Onion headlines by
floating the idea
of running for president – a reminder that a decade after his firm played a central role in destroying countless Americans' economic
lives, he remains not only unincarcerated and gainfully employed, but so reputationally unscathed that he is seen as a serious White
House candidate.
Again, the message came through: nobody who engineered the financial crisis will pay any real price for wreaking so much havoc.
Then as
Hurricane Florence provided the latest illustration of climate change's devastation, ExxonMobil
marched into the supreme court to demand an end to a state investigation of its role denying and suppressing climate science.
Backed by 11 Republican attorneys general
, the fossil fuel giant had reason to feel emboldened in its appeal for immunity: despite
investigative reporting detailing the company's prior knowledge of fossil fuel's role in climate change, its executives had already
convinced
the Securities and Exchange Commission to shut down a similar investigation.
Once again, the message was unavoidable: in the new accountability-free zone, companies shouldn't be bothered to even explain
– much less face punishment for – their role in a crisis that threatens the survival of the human species.
... ... ...
The answer is nothing – which is exactly the point for the aristocracy. But that cannot be considered acceptable for the rest
of us outside the accountability-free zone.
David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an investigative journalist at Capital & Main. His latest book is Back to Our Future:
How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was
ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
Given the credible evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election,
it's only natural that Americans are concerned about the possibility of further foreign interference, especially
as the midterms draw closer.
But I worry that we're focusing too much on the foreign part of the problem -- in
which social media accounts and pages controlled by overseas "troll factories" post false and divisive material --
and not enough on how our own domestic political polarization feeds into the basic business model of companies
like Facebook and YouTube.
It's this interaction -- both aspects of which are homegrown -- that fosters the
dissemination of false and divisive material, and this will persist as a major problem even in the absence of
concerted foreign efforts.
Consider some telling exchanges from this year's Senate hearings involving
high-level executives from Facebook and Twitter. (Google, which owns YouTube, didn't bother sending a comparable
representative.) In April, Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, pressed Facebook's chief executive, Mark
Zuckerberg, on how much money the company had made by ads placed by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll
factory. Mr. Zuckerberg replied that it was about $100,000 -- a negligible amount of money for the company.
Advertisement
Last month, Ms. Harris further grilled Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating
officer, on this point, demanding to know how much inauthentic Russian content was on Facebook. Ms. Sandberg had
her sound bite ready, saying that "any amount is too much," but she ultimately threw out an estimate of .004
percent, another negligible amount.
The exchange made for good viewing: a senator asking tough questions, chastised
executives being forced to put exact numbers on the table. But the truth is that paid Russian content
was
almost certainly immaterial to Facebook's revenue -- and the .004 percent
figure, though almost certainly rhetorical, does capture the relative insignificance of the paid Russian presence
on Facebook.
Contrast this, however, with another question from Ms. Harris, in which she asked
Ms. Sandberg how Facebook can "reconcile an incentive to create and increase your user engagement when the content
that generates a lot of engagement is often inflammatory and hateful."
That
astute
question Ms. Sandberg completely sidestepped, which was no surprise:
No statistic can paper over the fact that this is a real problem.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have business models that thrive on the outrageous,
the incendiary and the eye-catching, because such content generates "engagement" and captures our attention, which
the platforms then sell to advertisers, paired with extensive data on users that allow advertisers (and
propagandists) to "microtarget" us at an individual level.
Traditional media outlets, of course, are frequently also cynical manipulators of
sensationalistic content, but social media is better able to weaponize it. Algorithms can measure what content
best "engages" each user and can target him or her individually in a way that the sleaziest editor of a broadcast
medium could only dream of.
... ... ...
It is understandable that legislators and the public are concerned about other
countries meddling in our elections. But foreign meddling is to our politics what a fever is to tuberculosis: a
mere symptom of a deeper problem. To heal, we need the correct diagnosis followed by action that treats the
underlying diseases. The closer our legislators look at our own domestic politics as well as Silicon Valley's
business model, the better the answers they will find.
Zeynep Tufekci
(@zeynep)
is an associate professor at the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina,
the author of "Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest" and a contributing opinion
writer.
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was
ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
White people who voted for Trump for his Supreme Court list have been duped so many times.
First, when Trump promised us "America First!" Voters, apparently content to trust mere
words, have ignored Trump's apparent definition of "America First!" as "America has the right
to antagonize Iran and Russia, and launch pointless attacks upon Syria." Second, when Trump
added Kavanaugh's name to a list of judges after he had gotten into office. Third, when Trump
negotiated with scum Anthony Kennedy, who obviously demanded a Kavanaugh nomination in
exchange for his retirement.
Christine Ford is, quite frankly, a distraction from the real intrigue: how Donald Trump
motivated his base to support a candidate from the elitist wing.
But good luck finding conservatives with the balls to publicly point out the truth: the
President we elected has stabbed us in the back with an establishment nomination.
The recent history of the Supreme Court has been one of Justices playing the part of
politicians in robes. Perhaps no better example was the nullification of the recount in the
Bush v Gore election with the "Brooks Brothers Riot" where paid operatives of the republicans
stormed the election office in Florida and declared the recount over in an extra judicial
action which was backed up by the members of the Supreme Court leading to their moniker
"politicians in robes". The Supreme Court basically stole that election by upholding the use
of violence as a tool to stop the recount instead of reacting on its own to denounce the use
of such tactics.
The Supreme Court has become weaponized as a force for right wing agendas and it has taken
a partisan position many times due to justices who have become radicalized to advance right
wing views. This is part of a vast right wing well funded and well oiled political money
machine. Little debut over the 10 million dollars spent by anonymous donors greasing the
nomination of Neil Gorsuch. The $10 million effort to win federal appeals court Judge Neil
Gorsuch's confirmation, funded by unknown donors to a conservative interest group called the
Judicial Crisis Network, follows a successful $7 million effort last year to block President
Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. The group calls it "the most robust operation in the
history of confirmation battles."
Billionaires are funding the selection and nomination of Supreme Court Justices for one
reason. So that the Supreme Court is stacked by loyal conservatives who will side with big
industrialist businesses on every case brought against big industrialists.
This is a long term strategy funded with hundreds of millions of dollars poured into
efforts to create a three point strategy. Fund AstroTurf phony grass roots populist
organizations which claim they are formed by housewives and farmers and middle class folk but
who really serve the interests of the billionaire class. Fund politicians and judges who are
begging to get the money to win elections by promising they will do everything to support the
uber class and groveling at their feet for the cash to be had. Create laws to serve the
interests of billionaires.
So far each effort has been a phenomenal success. Funded with hundreds of millions of
dollars willing recipients of all the corporate cash have created the ostensible populist
front defending wedge issues like abortion, gun control and anti immigration along with a
health dose of anti establishment hatred of the government. Their real aim is to serve the
corporate interests.
Donald Trump is perhaps the biggest benefactor of the money machine having won election
based on this populist jargon while spending little of his own money but really serving the
corporate interests most obviously by supporting the 1.9 Trillion dollar tax breaks for
billionaires.
It is unlikely that the average American would get angry about health care or their own
social security which is funded by workers not billionaires unless they were propagandized by
every main stream media outlet with Fox News and other more extremely radical right wing
media outlets and all the rightwing websites and right wing syndicated media pundits.
Average Americans have been suckered to believe that what is in their own interests is
very bad for America and Freedom and Democracy etc. They have been hoodwinked into voting for
politicians who want to strip them of healthcare, social security, financial security and
basic rights to privacy and access to the judicial system with arbitration clauses attached
to every product down to toothbrushes and sunglasses. They have come to believe that
defending wedge issues means they will vote for republicans no matter how bad their economic
future is compromised and their future put at risk by predatory businesses which offer
paycheck loans, balloon mortgages, sky high interest and insurance rates, multiple bank
accounts with lots of surcharges (Pinkerton Bank) and promise to end Medicare and Social
Security because its Okay to give trillions to billionaires but not Okay to help average hard
working people.
Donald Trump is the pinnacle of this usurpation of power capturing the Executive Branch
funded by free advertising from the media and running on a fake AstroTurf populist campaign
strategy while delivering all the money to the billionaires as he entertains guests for huge
fees at his Florida Property against the Emoluments Clause which appears to be dead. No
president should economically benefit from the position of the highest office in the land for
personal enrichment yet the Tax Cuts seem to have been perfectly tailored for Trumps own
enrichment via a little known clause which allows property investment owners to pass the
profits gained via those holdings to other entities like his kids at greatly lower taxes.
What a windfall for Trump who has investment pass through properties all over the place. It's
a really nice deal" for Trump and pass-through owners like him, said Roberton Williams, a
senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
So much for the little guy as republicans now demand that the giant deficit created by
their enormous tax cuts for the wealthy now be shrunk by eliminating all social welfare
programs like Social Security which if funded by workers under the payroll deduction tax.
Payroll taxes are taxes imposed on employers or employees, and are usually calculated as a
percentage of the salaries that employers pay their staff. Payroll taxes generally fall into
two categories: deductions from an employee's wages, and taxes paid by the employer based on
the employee's wages. These taxes fund Social Security/ Workers earnings are garnished to pay
for Social Security. The Government does not steal this money from rich people. They take it
from every worker according to a schedule.
How stupid we are to willingly call this wasteful government spending and buy the BS of
the republicans that it must end. What will they do with all the money once none of us is
going to see a dime of what we donated under law? Why they will steal it of course.
Who has the authority to declare all social welfare programs unconstitutional? The Supreme
Court. Who has the power to decline any case brought against and well monied entity including
the President? The Supreme Court.
It is not so much about beer and drunkenness and abuse of women but about the continued
abuse of us all by the republican party which is funded by the rich and operated by the rich
for the rich and only for the rich.
Vladimir Putin: What I want – and I am completely serious – is that this
nightmare about Russia's alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States
ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up
their own mess and restore a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like
in the oil market. I want the domestic political squabbles in the United States to stop ruining
Russia-US relations and adversely affecting the situation in the world.
"... I agree with Hoarsewhisperer that the elite are showing desperation but look at the sheer volume of BS they can spew out that is all over the map. ..."
"... The ... West is doubling down on Psychological Projection . Works like a charm with most peoples in the affected areas. ..."
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
"... Russia has tried to negotiate with the US to avoid cyberspace being turned into another area of conflict. The US has rebuffed these requests. Likely too much money to be made by the MIC in another theater of warfare with that extortion racket called NATO and too much promise of the NSA scooping up even more data and adding it to the data already collected by the 5 eyes. ..."
"... Didn't WikiLeaks disclosed the fact that NSA can disguise any hack to look like some other actor was the culprit? All this shouting that Russia and China did these terrible deeds is to hide the fact that the west does this all the time as disclosed by WikiLeaks? And the Germans complaining? I hope they have improved security for the Chancellor's phone. Russia is a member of OPWC. Why do they have to sit out in cars in the parking lot of OPCW headquarters to hack into OPCW? Why not from the comfort of their office in the building. What is of more importance to me is an upcoming vote in the OPCW about investigation reports laying blame in the future. That will be a game changer in the false flag chemical attack be it Syria or the UK. currently reports don't lay blame. ..."
"... Going by the squealing noises coming out of the US and loyal vassals, the yanks are probably just pissed that they can't get into Russia or China's secure communications. ..."
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims:
The Foreign Office attributed six specific attacks to GRU-backed hackers and identified 12
hacking group code names as fronts for the GRU – Fancy Bear, Voodoo Bear, APT28,
Sofacy, Pawnstorm, Sednit, CyberCaliphate, Cyber Berku, BlackEnergy Actors, STRONTIUM, Tsar
Team and Sandworm."
The "hacking group code names" the Guardian tries to sell to its readers do not
refer to hacking groups but to certain cyberattack methods . Once such a method is known it
can be used by any competent group and individual. Attributing such an attack is nearly
impossible. Moreover Fancybear, ATP28, Pawn Storm, Sofacy Group, Sednit and Strontium are
just different names for one and the same well known method . The other
names listed refer to old groups and tools related to criminal hackers. Blackenergy
has been used by cybercriminals since 2007. It is alleged that a pro-Russian group named
Sandworm used it in Ukraine, but the evidence for that is dubious at best. To throw out such
a list of code names without any differentiation reeks of a Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD)
campaign designed to dis-inform and scare the public.
The Netherland for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
The anti-Russian campaign came just in time for yesterday's NATO Defense Minister
meeting at which the U.S. 'offered'
to use its malicious cyber tools under NATO disguise:
Katie Wheelbarger, the principal deputy assistant defense secretary for international
security affairs, said the U.S. is committing to use offensive and defensive cyber
operations for NATO allies, but America will maintain control over its own personnel and
capabilities.
If the European NATO allies, under pressure of the propaganda onslaught, agree to that,
the obvious results will be more U.S. control over its allies' networks and citizens as well
as more threats against Russia:
NATO's chief vowed on Thursday to strengthen the alliance's defenses against attacks on
computer networks that Britain said are directed by Russian military intelligence, also
calling on Russia to stop its "reckless" behavior.
International organizations like the OPCW have long been the target of U.S. spies and
operations. The U.S. National Security Service (NSA) regularly hacked the OPCW since at
least September 2000 :
According to last week's Shadow Brokers leak, the NSA compromised a DNS server of the
Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in September 2000, two
years after the Iraq Liberation Act and Operation Desert Fox, but before the Bush election.
It was the U.S. which in 2002 forced
out the head of the OPCW because he did not agree to propagandizing imaginary Iraqi
chemical weapons:
José M. Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was unanimously re-elected last year as
the director general of the 145-nation Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, was voted out of office today after refusing repeated demands by the United States
that he step down because of his "management style." No successor has been selected.
The U.S. arranged the vote against Bustani by threatening to leave the OPCW. Day's earlier
'Yosemite Sam' John Bolton, now Trump's National Security Advisor, threatened to hurt José
Bustani's children to press him to resign:
"I got a phone call from John Bolton – it was first time I had contact with him
– and he said he had instructions to tell me that I have to resign from the
organization, and I asked him why," Bustani told RT. "He said that [my] management style
was not agreeable to Washington."
...
Bustani said he "owed nothing" to the US, pointing out that he was appointed by all OPCW
member states. Striking a more sinister tone, Bolton said: "OK, so there will be
retaliation. Prepare to accept the consequences. We know where your kids are. "
According to Bustani, two of his children were in New York at the time, and his daughter
was in London.
Russia's government will need decades of hard work to reach the scale of U.S./UK
hypocrisy, hacking and lying.
The propaganda rush against Russia came on the same day as a similar campaign was launched
against China. A well timed Bloomberg story, which had been in the works for over a
year, claimed that Chinese companies manipulated hardware they manufactured for the U.S.
company SuperMicro. The hardware was then sold to Apple, Amazon and others for their cloud
server businesses.
Nested on the servers' motherboards, the testers found a tiny microchip, not much bigger
than a grain of rice, that wasn't part of the boards' original design.
Both Apple and Amazon denied the story with very
strong
statements . The Bloomberg tale has immense problems. It is for one completely
based on anonymous sources, most of them U.S. government officials:
The companies' denials are countered by six current and former senior national security
officials, who -- in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued
under the Trump administration -- detailed the discovery of the chips and the government's
investigation.
The way the alleged manipulation is described to function is theoretical possible ,
but not plausible . In my learned opinion one would need multiple manipulations, not just
one tiny chip, to achieve the described results. Even reliably U.S. friendly cyberhawks
are
unconvinced of the story's veracity. It is especially curious that such server boards
are still in use in security relevant U.S. government operations:
Assuming the Bloomberg story is accurate, that means that the US intelligence community,
during a period spanning two administrations, saw a foreign threat and allowed that threat
to infiltrate the US military. If the story is untrue, or incorrect on its technical
merits, then it would make sense that Supermicro gear is being used by the US military.
Bloomberg reporters receive bonuses based indirectly on how much they shift markets with
their reporting. This story undoubtedly did that.
When the story came out SuperMicro's stock price crashed from
$21.40 to below $9.00 per share. It now trades at $12.60:
The story might be a cover-up for a NSA hack that was accidentally detected. Most likely
it is exaggerated half truth, based on
an old event , to deter the 'western' industry from sourcing anything from producers in
China.
This would be consistent with other such U.S. moves against China which coincidentally
(not) happened on the same day the Bloomberg story was launched.
Vice President Mike Pence accused China on Thursday of trying to undermine President Donald
Trump as the administration deploys tough new rhetoric over Chinese trade, economic and
foreign policies.
...
Sounding the alarm, Pence warned other nations to be wary of doing business with China,
condemning the Asian country's "debt diplomacy" that allows it to draw developing nations
into its orbit.
Pence also warned American businesses to be vigilant against Chinese efforts to leverage
access to their markets to modify corporate behavior to their liking.
Another move is a new Pentagon report warning against the purchase of Chinese equipment
and
launched via Reuters in support of the campaign:
China represents a "significant and growing risk" to the supply of materials vital to the
U.S. military, according to a new Pentagon-led report that seeks to mend weaknesses in core
U.S. industries vital to national security.
The nearly 150-page report, seen by Reuters on Thursday ahead of its formal release
Friday, concluded there are nearly 300 vulnerabilities that could affect critical materials
and components essential to the U.S. military.
...
"A key finding of this report is that China represents a significant and growing risk to
the supply of materials and technologies deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national
security," the report said.
The Bloomberg story, the Pence speech and the Pentagon report 'leak' on the same
day seem designed to scare everyone away from using Chinese equipment or China manufactured
parts within there supply chain.
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
...
Mr Reed writes that the software "was programmed to reset pump speeds and valve settings to
produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds".
The U.S. government under Trump - and with John Bolton in a leading position - copied Trump's
brutal campaign style and uses it as an instrument in its foreign policy. Trump's victory in
the 2016 election proves that such campaigns are highly successful, even when the elements
they are build of are dubious or untrue. In their scale and coordination the current
campaigns are comparable to the 2002 run-up for the war on Iraq.
Then, as during the Trump election campaign and as now, the media are crucial to the
public effect these campaigns have. Will they attempt to take the stories the campaigns are
made of apart? Will they set them into the larger context of global U.S. spying and
manipulation? Will they explain the real purpose of these campaigns?
IMO the US Government's propaganda is structured to along the lines of a
fantasy novel. The propaganda is designed to convince the public of two inherently
contradictory ideas:
1) that the country is surrounded on vast sides by vast hostile empires
that threaten everything we hold dear and
2) despite these dire threats, the country cannot
really be harmed because of "our freedoms."
Like with a fantasy novel, the reader gets all
the thrills of an epic battle while being certain that the evil empires will never triumph.
An attractive form of propaganda, to be certain.
Well, so far the propaganda is having very minor effect on the ordinary people. If you read
the comment section of most of the corporate media you will see that people are just not
buying the BS.
Indifference of the ordinary people does not mean much. Just that there is such
indifference. The arguments against that claimed Chinese hardware hack are
meta-arguments.
... Got to wonder what the end game is here. WW3? Or up they expecting the Russian people to come
begging for an end to sanctions? Posted by: dh | Oct 5, 2018 11:49:07 AM | 11
Good question.
It's not WWIII. Putin has already said that if WWIII goes Nuclear, survival will be a
lottery. Imo the Christian Colonial West, hypnotised by 30 years of its own bs and busily
patting itself on the back and performing Victory Laps on the world stage, has been caught
napping (asleep at the wheel) and now needs time to ponder the downside.
Imo this latest drivel-fest stems from the fact that Russia is now/again militarily
unassailable. That doesn't mean that Russia can't be attacked but it does mean that anyone
who tries it will wish they hadn't.
And it's driving the defunct Masters Of The Universe insaner.
I agree with Hoarsewhisperer that the elite are showing desperation but look at the sheer
volume of BS they can spew out that is all over the map.
The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the
sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored.....the
sex issue is marginalized and pop goes the weasel onto the Supreme Court to bring the US
closer to feudalism.
The ... West is doubling down on Psychological Projection . Works like a charm
with most peoples in the affected areas.
Although it is practically a symptom of a deeper sitting mental illness, it is still
treated as some sort of cavalier's delinquency. Like it is to be expected that the rulers of
said West resort to this kind of projection.
The only interesting part though - one that is next to never really understood by the
gullible masses - is the Projection part of it. Because it means nothing else than the
fact that the projector is the one who is perpetrating the crimes and malevolent activities
it accuses the 'enemy'/opposing side of.
The West is mentally ill. Nothing new, the Eastern sages pointed to that a long time ago.
Very much like the Native American Indians were flabbergasted by the moronity and cruelty the
invaders displayed. The one that has adhered to my memory like fusion is: Only paleface
would set a river on fire.
Last but not least, Nazi is as Nazi does. As can be verified perusing the story of this
Nazi that never had to fear repercussions for his crimes against humanity. For the simple
reason that the U.S. protected him to gain his knowledge about advanced biological and
chemical warfare. The Nazi was Kurt Blome .
In early morning broadcasts yesterday, BBC and NPR accused China and Russia of projecting
positive images of their countries, and of acting in accordance with their national
interests.
I am so proud that my own country – USA – would never do either one of those
things!
"On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's development of computer chip
manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut
its ties with its big motherland."
Gen William Looney, first gulf war.... "If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to-air
missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace We dictate the way they live
and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when
there's a lot of oil out there we need. [1]"
We'r a rule based system,
Here'r the rules. We decide..... who'r terrorists, who'r 'freedom fighters. Whats a fair election, whats a farce. Whats a genocide, whats legit police action. Whats R2p, whats unprovoked aggression. Who can do biz with whom. Who's the right man for your prez. We own you. MAGA.
[1]
I dont like to use wiki but that's the only place I could retrieve this quote, they'r wiping
the net clean, even images, videos.
Better be mentally prep for the day you wake up in the morning and cant find MOA,
Back to sanctioning Russian under the flimsy pretext of Skripals' poisoning. The US has been poisoning Georgians (some died) and this is well documented. Are the UK
prudes ready to sanction the US for the crime?
"The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo
for a secret US military program. Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of
Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting
insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia's capital
Tbilisi.
The Pentagon projects involving ticks coincided with an inexplicable outbreak of
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) which is caused by infection through a tick-borne
virus. In 2014 34 people became infected (amongst which a 4-year old child). A total of 60
cases with 9 fatalities have been registered in Georgia since 2009."
The above is an honest journalism and not some presstituting production by the eunuchs
Luke Harding and George Monbiot. And don't forget Luke & George's comrade-in-arms, the
"phenomenal expert" Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies underwear and college dropout)
who has zero training in engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics, ballistics, foreign
languages, biology, history and basically in any field of research. Zero. This is why Higgins
is the best expert at the the ziocon Atlantic Council made of the scoundrels of the same
caliber.
"This is a man who, with his agency Bellingcat, will absolutely always back the position
of western governments, and powerful western organisations."
A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that
Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be
extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that
cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty.
This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to
be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory
information favoring the accused corporations.
As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the
present status of the case?
Funny how lowkey this topic is handled. It appeard in The Times. As the Times article is
behind a paywall. I am linking to the Irish Times:
MI5 can authorise agents to commit crimes, tribunal told . Maybe the UK should be
sanctioned.
Makes my fantasy go a little wild and wonder if there might be any connection to
Skripal.
For those who missed May's latest Brexit speech (which had zero content), here she is jiving
to Dancing Queen by Abba for her glorified entrance. No need to make caricatures, she
does it herself. Free of charge.
The USA + GB have become totally unhinged. Seeking a 'safe' enemy *without* - as the
Deplorables or Brexiteers *within* don't hit the spot, for many reasons - .. to explain and
cover up Hillary's loss and the ugly Brexit mess with its clueless posturing pols, is one
thing.
To continue to provoke Russia and China, particularly Russia, in this way is now skirting
with danger beyond the .. ? Containable, ignorable, what ..?
Plus, the MSM, lousy as it is and was, has spinned off into even further mad realms,
seemingly forced into a hyper, over-blown anti-Russian hysteria. Often far more strongly so
than the pols. / others they seemingly quote.
This is all becoming seriously alarming. I'm getting very bad feelings.
Seems like another episode of False Friday to bury all the crap made public during the week
while pushing other news aside. Much of it's recycled crap from Obama's term and just as
false.
During the Cold War, the West contolled some 2/3 of the global economy.
If they again bring a "Free World" protective curtain down around themselves in defensive
retrenchment, what percent would they control now? Which countries would be guaranteed to be
inside the tent pissing out, and which would be outide the tent pissing in? And who would be
non-aligned (with the exception of their military purchases.)
Pakistan, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela,
Nicaragua, Africa, etc. -- Where would the dominos fall? Is this what they are trying to
accomplish? If you are not with us, you are against us, as the ever eloquent G. W. Shrub
might have said. Any predictions?
thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..
of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China
what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now
an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to
pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of
this western madness...
the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via
propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on
russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with
the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..
is there a way to create an alternative internet??
Looking around the MSM, MH17 also comes into it. Dutch are accusing Russia of trying to hack
the MH17 sham investigation. This propaganda attack comes only a week or two after Russia
tracked the missile parts numbers, supplied by JIT, through records which led to Ukraine.
Russia has tried to negotiate with the US to avoid cyberspace being turned into another area
of conflict. The US has rebuffed these requests. Likely too much money to be made by the MIC
in another theater of warfare with that extortion racket called NATO and too much promise of
the NSA scooping up even more data and adding it to the data already collected by the 5 eyes.
Canada is being pressured into not buying Chinese for its military civilian hardware.
Scare the politicians into buying US goods that have a backdoor for the CIA to use. Canada
shouldn't complain. The Canadian government hacked into the Brazilian government computers
for the benefit of Canadian mining interests.
Didn't WikiLeaks disclosed the fact that NSA can disguise any hack to look like some other
actor was the culprit? All this shouting that Russia and China did these terrible deeds is to
hide the fact that the west does this all the time as disclosed by WikiLeaks? And the Germans
complaining? I hope they have improved security for the Chancellor's phone. Russia is a
member of OPWC. Why do they have to sit out in cars in the parking lot of OPCW headquarters
to hack into OPCW? Why not from the comfort of their office in the building. What is of more
importance to me is an upcoming vote in the OPCW about investigation reports laying blame in
the future. That will be a game changer in the false flag chemical attack be it Syria or the
UK. currently reports don't lay blame.
An element of the Skripal poisoning saga in Britain (the Novichok) was lifted from the TV
series "Strikeback" screening in the country in November 2017 and February 2018. I have seen
something on the Internet (but can't find the link) that said the subplot with the abandoned
perfume bottle that contained poison was also taken from a TV show.
Prepare to be unsurprised then when the people who write propaganda for The Powers That
Should Not Be turn out to be the same people who write scripts for Hollywood films and TV
shows. A lot of these people also write novels or teach creative writing courses.
We really do seem to be living in a society where mythology and fantasy are becoming more
prominent than facts and analysis in decision-making.
Wherever it is the Russian government responsible or not, the UK and the Nederlands are
admitting that they are impotent in front of attacks in the cyberworld. That wifi can be
sniffed so easily at international organizations show total irresponsibility. These
cyberattacks are simply humiliating for these countries as it shows that despite their
military power, they are highly vulnerable. To dispel the humiliation, they respond
aggressively by accusing countries, not to individuals, and they accuse the current
boogeyman, Russia.
Maybe NATO's budget should be cut down on murdering weapons and allocate to Cyber Defense as
this seems to become the new way of war.
In view of the lack of proper cyber defense worldwidee, anybody, any country can hack and
play around with others. I would be surprised if Israel, the USA and the UK China are not
stiffing in other countries organizations. They have not been found because they are the
'good' sniffers while Russia, Iran, China are the "bad' sniffers
Cold war is on with new technology, It is time for countries to realize that.
Considering what the military war has cost in money, death toll and destruction, maybe cold
war would be less costly in human toll.
China has set up quantum internet via optic fiber linking a number of government
departments.
Going by the squealing noises coming out of the US and loyal vassals, the yanks are probably
just pissed that they can't get into Russia or China's secure communications.
For those who missed May's latest Brexit speech (which had zero content), here she is jiving
to Dancing Queen by Abba for her glorified entrance. No need to make caricatures, she
does it herself. Free of charge.
The USA + GB have become totally unhinged. Seeking a 'safe' enemy *without* - as the
Deplorables or Brexiteers *within* don't hit the spot, for many reasons - .. to explain and
cover up Hillary's loss and the ugly Brexit mess with its clueless posturing pols, is one
thing.
To continue to provoke Russia and China, particularly Russia, in this way is now skirting
with danger beyond the .. ? Containable, ignorable, what ..?
Plus, the MSM, lousy as it is and was, has spinned off into even further mad realms,
seemingly forced into a hyper, over-blown anti-Russian hysteria. Often far more strongly so
than the pols. / others they seemingly quote.
This is all becoming seriously alarming. I'm getting very bad feelings.
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
"... Plus according to Microsemi's own website, all military and aerospace qualified versions of their parts are still made in the USA. So this "researcher" used commercial parts, which depending on the price point can be made in the plant in Shanghai or in the USA at Microsemi's own will. ..."
"... The "researcher" and the person who wrote the article need to spend some time reading more before talking. ..."
"... You clearly have NOT used a FPGA or similar. First the ProASIC3 the article focuses on is the CHEAPEST product in the product line (some of that model line reach down to below a dollar each). But beyond that ... Devices are SECURED by processes, such as blowing the JTAG fuses in the device which makes them operation only, and unreadable. They are secureable, if you follow the proper processes and methods laid out by the manufacturer of the specific chip. ..."
"... Just because a "research paper" claims there is other then standard methods of JTAG built into the JTAG doesn't mean that the device doesn't secure as it should, nor does it mean this researcher who is trying to peddle his own product is anything but biased in this situation. ..."
"... You do know that the Mossad has been caught stealing and collecting American Top Secrets. ..."
"... The original article is here. [cam.ac.uk] It refers to an Actel ProAsic3 chip, which is an FPGA with internal EEPROM to store the configuration. ..."
"... With regard to reprogramming the chip remotely or by the FPGA itself via the JTAG port: A secure system is one that can't reprogram itself. ..."
"... When I was designing VMEbus computer boards for a military subcontractor many years ago, every board had a JTAG connector that required the use of another computer with a special cable plugged into the board to perform reprogramming of the FPGAs. None of this update-by-remote-control crap. ..."
"... It seems that People's Republic of China has been misidentified with Taiwan (Republic of China). ..."
"... Either the claims will be backed up by independently reproduced tests or they won't. But, given his apparent track record in this area and the obvious scrutiny this would bring, Skorobogatov must have been sure of his results before announcing this. ..."
"... Where was this undocumented feature/bug designed in? I see plenty of "I hate China" posts, it would be quite hilarious if the fedgov talked the US mfgr into adding this backdoor, then the Chinese built it as designed. Perhaps the plan all along was to blame the Chinese if they're caught. ..."
"... These are not military chips. They are FPGAs that happen to be used occasionally for military apps. Most of them are sold for other, more commercially exploitable purposes. ..."
"... The page with a link to the final paper actually does mention China. However, it's an American design from a US company. I suspect we will find the backdoor was in the original plans. It will be interesting to see however. ..."
"Today's big news is that researchers have found proof of Chinese manufacturers putting
backdoors in American chips that the military uses. This is false. While they did find a
backdoor in a popular FPGA chip, there is no evidence the Chinese put it there, or even
that it was intentionally malicious.
Furthermore, the Actel ProAsic3 FPGA chip isn't fabricated in China at all !!
1) Read the paper http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/Silicon_scan_draft.pdf
2) This is talking about FPGAs designed by Microsemi/Actel.
3) The article focuses on the ProAsic3 chips but says all the Microsemi/Actel chips tested
had the same backdoor including but not limited to Igloo, Fusion and Smartfusion.
4) FPGAs give JTAG access to their internals for programming and debugging but many of the
access methods are proprietary and undocumented. (security through obscurity)
5) Most FPGAs have features that attempt to prevent reverse engineering by disabling the
ability to read out critical stuff.
6) These chips have a secret passphrase (security through obscurity again) that allows you to
read out the stuff that was supposed to be protected.
7) These researchers came up with a new way of analyzing the chip (pipeline emission
analysis) to discover the secret passphrase. More conventional analysis (differential power
analysis) was not sensitive enough to reveal it.
This sounds a lot (speculation on my part) like a deliberate backdoor put in for debug
purposes, security through obscurity at it's best. It doesn't sound like something secret
added by the chip fab company, although time will tell. Just as embedded controller companies
have gotten into trouble putting hidden logins into their code thinking they're making the
right tradeoff between convenience and security, this hardware company seems to have done the
same.
Someone forgot to tell the marketing droids though and they made up a bunch of stuff about
how the h/w was super secure.
I don't think anyone fully understands JTAG, there are a lot of different versions of it
mashed together on the typical hardware IC. Regardless if its a FPGA, microcontroller or
otherwise. The so called "back door" can only be accessed through the JTAG port as well, so
unless the military installed a JTAG bridge to communicate to the outside world and left it
there, well then the "backdoor" is rather useless.
Something that can also be completely disabled by setting the right fuse inside the chip
itself to disable all JTAG connections. Something that is considered standard practice on
IC's with a JTAG port available once assembled into their final product and programmed.
Plus according to Microsemi's own website, all military and aerospace qualified versions
of their parts are still made in the USA. So this "researcher" used commercial parts, which
depending on the price point can be made in the plant in Shanghai or in the USA at
Microsemi's own will.
The "researcher" and the person who wrote the article need to spend some time reading more
before talking.
The so called "back door" can only be accessed through the JTAG port as well, so unless
the military installed a JTAG bridge to communicate to the outside world and left it there,
well then the "backdoor" is rather useless.
With pin access to the FPGA it's trivial to hook it up, no bridges or transceivers needed.
If it's a BGA then get a breakout/riser board that provides pin access. This is off-the-shelf
stuff. This means if the Chinese military gets their hands on the hardware they can reverse
engineer it. They won't have to lean very hard on the manufacturer for them to cough up every
last detail. In China you just don't say no to such requests if you know what's good for you
and your business.
Not being readable even when someone has the device in hand is exactly what these secure
FPGAs are meant to protect against!
It's not a non-issue. It's a complete failure of a product to provide any advantages
over non-secure equivalents.
You clearly have NOT used a FPGA or similar. First the ProASIC3 the article focuses on is
the CHEAPEST product in the product line (some of that model line reach down to below a
dollar each). But beyond that ... Devices are SECURED by processes, such as blowing the JTAG fuses in the device which makes
them operation only, and unreadable. They are secureable, if you follow the proper processes
and methods laid out by the manufacturer of the specific chip.
Just because a "research paper" claims there is other then standard methods of JTAG built
into the JTAG doesn't mean that the device doesn't secure as it should, nor does it mean this
researcher who is trying to peddle his own product is anything but biased in this
situation.
"Even if this case turns out to be a false alarm, allowing a nation that you repeatedly
refer to as a 'near-peer competitor' to build parts of your high-tech weaponry is
idiotic."
Not to mention the non-backdoor ones.
'Bogus electronic parts from China have infiltrated critical U.S. defense systems and
equipment, including Navy helicopters and a commonly used Air Force cargo aircraft, a new
report says.'
The US military should have a strict policy of only buying military parts from
sovereign, free, democratic countries with a long history of friendship, such as Israel,
Canada, Europe, Japan and South Korea.
Didn't the US and UK governments sell crypto equipment they knew they could break to their
'allies' during the Cold War?
Second problem.... 20 years ago the DOD had their own processor manufacturing facilities,
IC chips, etc. They were shut down in favor of commercial equipment because some idiot
decided it was better to have an easier time buying replacement parts at Radioshack than
buying quality military-grade components that could last in austere environments. (Yes,
speaking from experience). Servers and workstations used to be built from the ground up at
places like Tobyhanna Army Depot. Now, servers and workstations are bought from Dell.
Fabs are expensive. The latest generation nodes cost billions of dollars to set up and
billions more to run. If they aren't cranking chips out 24/7, they're literally costing
money. Yes, I know it's hte military, but I'm sure people have a hard time justifying $10B
every few years just to fab a few chips. One of the biggest developments in the 90s was the
development of foundries that let anyone with a few tens of millions get in the game of
producing chips rather than requiring billions in startup costs. Hence the startup of tons of
fabless companies selling chips.
OK, another option is to buy a cheap obsolete fab and make chips that way - much cheaper
to run, but we're also talking maybe 10+ year old technology, at which point the chips are
going to be slower and take more power.
Also, building your own computer from the ground up is expensive - either you buy the
designs of your servers from say, Intel, or design your own. If you buy it, it'll be
expensive and probably require your fab to be upgraded (or you get stuck with an old design -
e.g., Pentium (the original) - which Intel bought back from the DoD because the DoD had been
debugging it over the decade). If you went with the older cheaper fab, the design has to be
modified to support that technology (you cannot just take a design and run with it - you have
to adapt your chip to the foundry you use).
If you roll your own, that becomes a support nightmare because now no one knows the
system.
And on the taxpayer side - I'm sure everyone will question why you're spending billions
running a fab that's only used at 10% capacity - unless you want the DoD getting into the
foundry business with its own issues.
Or, why is the military spending so much money designing and running its own computer
architecture and support services when they could buy much cheaper machines from Dell and run
Linux on them?
Hell, even if the DoD had budget for that, some bean counter will probably do the same so
they can save money from one side and use it to buy more fighter jets or something.
30+ years ago, defense spending on electronics formed a huge part of the overall
electronics spending. These days, defense spending is but a small fraction - it's far more
lucrative to go after the consumer market than the military - they just don't have the
economic clout they once had. End result is the military is forced to buy COTS ICs, or face
stuff like a $0.50 chip costing easily $50 or more for same just because the military is a
bit-player for semiconductors
You do know that the Mossad has been caught stealing and collecting American Top Secrets.
In fact most of the nations above save perhaps Canada have at one time or another been caught
either spying on us, or performing dirty deeds cheap against America's best interest. I'd say
for the really classified stuff, like the internal security devices that monitor everything
else... homegrown only thanks, and add that any enterprising person who's looking to get paid
twice by screwing with the hardware or selling secrets to certified unfriendlies get's to
cools their heels for VERY LONG TIME.
We investigated the PA3 backdoor problem through Internet searches, software and
hardware analysis and found that this particular backdoor is not a result of any mistake or
an innocent bug, but is instead a deliberately inserted and well thought-through backdoor
that is crafted into, and part of, the PA3 security system. We analysed other
Microsemi/Actel products and found they all have the same deliberate backdoor. Those
products include, but are not limited to: Igloo, Fusion and Smartfusion.
we have found that the PA3 is used in military products such as weapons, guidance,
flight control, networking and communications. In industry it is used in nuclear power
plants, power distribution, aerospace, aviation, public transport and automotive products.
This permits a new and disturbing possibility of a large scale Stuxnet-type attack via a
network or the Internet on the silicon itself. If the key is known, commands can be
embedded into a worm to scan for JTAG, then to attack and reprogram the firmware
remotely.
emphasis mine. Key is retrieved using the backdoor. Frankly, if this is true, Microsemi/Actel should get complete ban from all government
contracts, including using their chips in any item build for use by the government.
I would not be surprised if it's a factory backdoor that's included in all their products,
but is not documented and is assumed to not be a problem because it's not documented.
With regard to reprogramming the chip remotely or by the FPGA itself via the JTAG port: A
secure system is one that can't reprogram itself.
When I was designing VMEbus computer boards
for a military subcontractor many years ago, every board had a JTAG connector that required
the use of another computer with a special cable plugged into the board to perform
reprogramming of the FPGAs. None of this update-by-remote-control crap.
No
source approved [dla.mil] for Microsemi (Actel) qualified chips in China. If you use
non-approved sources then, well, shit happens (although how this HW backdoor would be
exploited is kind of unclear).
It seems that People's Republic of China has been misidentified with Taiwan (Republic of
China).
Either the claims will be backed up by independently reproduced tests or they won't. But,
given his apparent track record in this area and the obvious scrutiny this would bring,
Skorobogatov must have been sure of his results before announcing this.
Even though this story has been blowing-up on Twitter, there are a few caveats. The
backdoor doesn't seem to have been confirmed by anyone else, Skorobogatov is a little short
on details, and he is trying to sell the scanning technology used to uncover the
vulnerability.
Hey hey HEY! You stop that right this INSTANT, samzenpus! This is Slashdot! We'll have
none of your "actual investigative research" nonsense around here! Fear mongering to sell ad
space, mister, and that's ALL! Now get back to work! We need more fluffy space-filling
articles like that one about the minor holiday labeling bug Microsoft had in the UK! That's
what we want to see more of!
The back-door described in the white paper requires access to the JTAG (1149.1) interface
to exploit. Most deployed systems do not provide an active external interface for JTAG. With
physical access to a "secure" system based upon these parts, the techniques described in the
white paper allow for a total compromise of all IP within. Without physical access, very
little can be done to compromise systems based upon these parts.
Where was this undocumented feature/bug designed in? I see plenty of "I hate China" posts,
it would be quite hilarious if the fedgov talked the US mfgr into adding this backdoor, then
the Chinese built it as designed. Perhaps the plan all along was to blame the Chinese if
they're caught.
These are not military chips. They are FPGAs that happen to be used occasionally for
military apps. Most of them are sold for other, more commercially exploitable purposes.
This is a physical-access backdoor. You have to have your hands on the hardware to be able
to use JTAG. It's not a "remote kill switch" driven by a magic data trigger, it's a mechanism
that requires use of a special connector on the circuit board to connect to a dedicated JTAG
port that is simply neither used nor accessible in anything resembling normal operation.
That said, it's still pretty bad, because hardware does occasionally end up in the hands
of unfriendlies (e.g., crashed drones). FPGAs like these are often used to run classified
software radio algorithms with anti-jam and anti-interception goals, or to run classified
cryptographic algorithms. If those algorithms can be extracted from otherwise-dead and
disassembled equipment, that would be bad--the manufacturer's claim that the FPGA bitstream
can't be extracted might be part of the system's security certification assumptions. If that
claim is false, and no other counter-measures are place, that could be pretty bad.
Surreptitiously modifying a system in place through the JTAG port is possible, but less of
a threat: the adversary would have to get access to the system and then return it without
anyone noticing. Also, a backdoor inserted that way would have to co-exist peacefully with
all the other functions of the FPGA, a significant challenge both from an intellectual
standpoint and from a size/timing standpoint--the FPGA may just not have enough spare
capacity or spare cycles. They tend to be packed pretty full, 'coz they're expensive and you
want to use all the capacity you have available to do clever stuff.
This is a physical-access backdoor. You have to have your hands on the hardware to be
able to use JTAG. It's not a "remote kill switch" driven by a magic data trigger, it's a
mechanism that requires use of a special connector on the circuit board to connect to a
dedicated JTAG port that is simply neither used nor accessible in anything resembling
normal operation.
Surreptitiously modifying a system in place through the JTAG port is possible, but
less of a threat: the adversary would have to get access to the system and then return it
without anyone noticing.
As someone else mentioned in another post, physical access can be a bit of a misnomer.
Technically all that is required is for a computer to be connected via the JTAG interface in
order to exploit this. This might be a diagnostic computer for example. If that diagnostic
computer were to be infected with a targeted payload, there is your physical access.
The page with a link to the final paper actually does mention China. However, it's an
American design from a US company. I suspect we will find the backdoor was in the original
plans. It will be interesting to see however.
Kind of Chinagate, but China means her Taivan and the design is US-based. Completely false
malicious rumors -- propaganda attack on China. The goal is clearly to discredit Chinese hardware
manufactures by spreading technical innuendo. In other words this is a kick below the belt.
Bloomberg jerks are just feeding hacker paranoia.
First of all this is not easy to do, secondly this is a useless exercise, as you need access
to TCP/IP stack of the computer to transmit information. Software Trojans is much more productive
area for such activities.
Today, Bloomberg BusinessWeek published a story claiming that AWS was aware of modified
hardware or malicious chips in SuperMicro motherboards in Elemental Media's hardware at the
time Amazon acquired Elemental in 2015, and that Amazon was aware of modified hardware or chips
in AWS's China Region.
As we shared with Bloomberg BusinessWeek multiple times over the last couple months, this is
untrue. At no time, past or present, have we ever found any issues relating to modified
hardware or malicious chips in SuperMicro motherboards in any Elemental or Amazon systems. Nor
have we engaged in an investigation with the government.
There are so many inaccuracies in this article as it relates to Amazon that they're
hard to count. We will name only a few of them here. First, when Amazon was considering
acquiring Elemental, we did a lot of due diligence with our own security team, and also
commissioned a single external security company to do a security assessment for us as well.
That report did not identify any issues with modified chips or hardware. As is typical with
most of these audits, it offered some recommended areas to remediate, and we fixed all critical
issues before the acquisition closed. This was the sole external security report commissioned.
Bloomberg has admittedly never seen our commissioned security report nor any other (and refused
to share any details of any purported other report with us).
The article also claims that after learning of hardware modifications and malicious chips in
Elemental servers, we conducted a network-wide audit of SuperMicro motherboards and discovered
the malicious chips in a Beijing data center. This claim is similarly untrue. The first and
most obvious reason is that we never found modified hardware or malicious chips in Elemental
servers. Aside from that, we never found modified hardware or malicious chips in servers in any
of our data centers. And, this notion that we sold off the hardware and datacenter in China to
our partner Sinnet because we wanted to rid ourselves of SuperMicro servers is absurd. Sinnet
had been running these data centers since we launched in China, they owned these data
centers from the start, and the hardware we "sold" to them was a transfer-of-assets agreement
mandated by new China regulations for non-Chinese cloud providers to continue to operate in
China.
Amazon employs stringent security standards across our supply chain – investigating
all hardware and software prior to going into production and performing regular security audits
internally and with our supply chain partners. We further strengthen our security posture by
implementing our own hardware designs for critical components such as processors, servers,
storage systems, and networking equipment.
Security will always be our top priority. AWS is trusted by many of the world's most
risk-sensitive organizations precisely because we have demonstrated this unwavering commitment
to putting their security above all else. We are constantly vigilant about potential threats to
our customers, and we take swift and decisive action to address them whenever they are
identified.
– Steve Schmidt, Chief Information Security Officer
Trumptards are IDIOTs
CashMcCall , 5 hours ago
TRUMPTARDS have an enormous amount of surplus time on their hands to forward their Harry
Potter Styled Conspiracies.
APPLE AND AMAZON DENIED THE STORY. STORY OVER... GET IT CREEPY?
CashMcCall , 5 hours ago
While TRUMPTARDS were posting their Conspiracy Theories and the "TrumpEXPERTS" were
embellishing the ridiculous story with their lavish accounts of chip bug design, I was
enjoying a Bloomberg windfall.
Having confirmed early that the story was False since AMAZON and APPLE BOTH DENIED IT...
and their stock was not moving, I turned to Supermicro which was plunging and down over 50%.
I checked the options, and noted they were soft, so I put in bids for long shares and filled
blocks at 9 from two accounts.
The moronic TRUMPTARD Conspiracy posts continued, Supermicro is now up over 13.
That is the difference between having a brain in your head or having TRUMPTARD **** FOR
BRAINS...
Urban Roman , 5 hours ago
On second thought, this story is just ********. Note that the BBG story never mentions the
backdoors that were talked about for over a decade, nor did they mention Mr. Snowden's
revelation that those backdoors do exist, and are being used, by the surveillance state.
Since the Chinese factories are manufacturing these things, they'd have all the specs and
the blobs and whatever else they need, and would never require a super-secret hardware chip
like this. Maybe this MITM chip exists, and maybe it doesn't. But there's nothing to keep
China from using the ME on any recent Intel chip, or the equivalent on any recent AMD chip,
anywhere.
The purpose of this article is to scare you away from using Huawei or ZTE for anything,
and my guess is that it is because those companies did not include these now-standard
backdoors in their equipment. Maybe they included Chinese backdoors instead, but again, they
wouldn't need a tiny piece of hardware for this MITM attack, since modern processors are all
defective by design.
Chairman , 5 hours ago
I think I will start implementing this as an interview question. If a job candidate is
stupid enough to believe this **** then they will not work for me.
DisorderlyConduct , 4 hours ago
Well, hmmm, could be. To update a PCB is actually really poor work. I would freak my
biscuits if I received one of my PCBs with strange pads, traces or parts.
To substitute a part is craftier. To change the content of a part is harder, and nigh
impossible to detect without xray.
Even craftier is to change VHDL code in an OTP chip or an ASIC. The package and internal
structure is the same but the fuses would be burned different. No one would likely detect
this unless they were specifically looking for it.
Kendle C , 5 hours ago
Well written propaganda fails to prove claims. Everybody in networking and IT knows that
switches and routers have access to root, built in, often required by government, backdoors.
Scripts are no big thing often used to speed up updates, backups, and troubleshooting. So
when western manufacturers began shoveling their work to Taiwan and China, with them they
sent millions of text files, including instructions for backdoor access, the means and
technology (to do what this **** article is claiming) to modify the design, even classes with
default password and bypass operations for future techs. We were shoveling hand over foot
designs as fast as we could...all for the almighty dollar while stiffing American workers. So
you might say greed trumped security and that fault lies with us. So stuff this cobbled
together propaganda piece, warmongering ****.
AllBentOutOfShape , 5 hours ago
ZH has definitely been co-oped. This is just the latest propaganda ******** article of the
week they've come out with. I'm seeing more and more articles sourced from well known
propaganda outlets in recent months.
skunzie , 6 hours ago
Reminds me of how the US pulled off covert espionage of the Russians in the 70's using
Xerox copiers. The CIA inserted trained Xerox copy repairmen to handle repairs on balky
copiers in Russian embassies, etc. When a machine was down the technician inserted altered
motherboards which would transmit future copies directly to the CIA. This is a cautionary
tale for companies to cover their achilles heel (weakest point) as that is generally the
easiest way to infiltrate the unsuspecting company.
PrivetHedge , 6 hours ago
What another huge load of bollocks from our pharisee master morons.
I guess they think we're as stupid as they are.
CashMcCall , 6 hours ago
But but but the story came from one of the chosen money changers Bloomberg... everyone
knows a *** would never lie or print a false story at the market open
smacker , 7 hours ago
With all the existing ***** chips and backdoors on our computers and smartphones planted
by the CIA, NSA, M$, Goolag & friends, and now this chip supposedly from China, it won't
be long before there's no space left in RAM and on mobos for the chips that actually make the
device do what we bought it to do.
Stinkbug 1 , 7 hours ago
this was going on 20 years ago when it was discovered that digital picture frames from
china were collecting passwords and sending them back. it was just a test, so didn't get much
press.
now they have the kinks worked out, and are ready for the coup de grace.
This story seemed to die. Did anyone find anything indicating someone on our side has
actually got a look at the malicious chip, assuming it exists? Technical blogs have nothing,
only news rags like NewsMaxx. If 30 companies had these chips surely someone has one. This
might be one huge fake news story. Why Bloomberg would publish it is kind of odd.
FedPool , 7 hours ago
Probably a limited evaluation operation to gauge the population's appetite for war.
Pentagram market research. They're probably hitting all of the comment sections around the
web as we speak. Don't forget to wave 'hi'.
Heya warmongers. No, we don't want a war yet, k thanks.
underlying , 7 hours ago
Since were on the topic let's take a look at the scope hacking tools known to the general
public known prior to the Supermicro Server Motherboard Hardware Exploit; (P.S. What the ****
do you expect when you have Chinese state owned enterprises, at minimum quasi state owned
enterprises in special economic development zones controlled by the Chinese communist party,
building motherboards?)
Snowden NSA Leaks published in the gaurdian/intercept
This does not include the private/corporate sector hacking pen testing resources and
suites which are abundant and easily available to **** up the competition in their own
right.
Exactly. Why would they ever need a super-micro-man-in-the-middle-chip?
Maybe this 'chip' serves some niche in their spycraft, but the article in the keypost
ignores a herd of elephants swept under the carpet, and concentrates on a literal speck of
dust.
Moribundus , 8 hours ago
A US-funded biomedical laboratory in Georgia may have conducted bioweapons research under
the guise of a drug test, which claimed the lives of at least 73 subjects...new documents
"allow us to take a fresh look" at outbreaks of African swine fever in southern Russia in
2007-2018, which "spread from the territory of Georgia into the Russian Federation, European
nations and China. The infection strain in the samples collected from animals killed by the
disease in those nations was identical to the Georgia-2007 strain." https://www.rt.com/news/440309-us-georgia-toxic-bioweapon-test/
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the
Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according
to
Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,
told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's
extremely troubling."
Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between
Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that
seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter
Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left
the bureau. -
Fox News
Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this
year.
Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality
agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and
forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance
warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the
FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source
giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,"
said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether
the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the
FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. -
Fox News
According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his
deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three
subsequent renewals .
Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview,
according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels
of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President
Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.
Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his
impending firing.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in
limbo.
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence
of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in
the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in
pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price
for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden
issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely
invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently
mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse –
most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers,
or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last
night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in
the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual
intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did
believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials
to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement
in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central
and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently
at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within
the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the
whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and
most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly
shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the
mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course.
Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud
seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to
hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted
in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient
reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the
rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both
hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate
the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without
the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly
propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated
to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been
suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian
doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of
the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of
the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component
the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and
the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from
the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger
individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were
the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities,
and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to
a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining
a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which
he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This
was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay
behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their
fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof.
Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded
with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions
women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem
was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't
find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they
are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical
Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation
to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims,
but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of
interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be
the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical
method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated
to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European
and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I
think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it
betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform
to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely
eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of
common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity
to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such,
I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with
the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon
has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in
testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the
Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus
of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and
emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent
some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems
likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was
announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election.
Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly
she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological
injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory,
however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been
exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical
advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the
scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim
into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively
projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along,
often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.
William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics
and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played.
However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual
proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough
information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.
We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we
only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could
prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore
girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older
boyfriend
and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was
a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first
base at the party.
From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone
without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those
were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom
with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her
demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment
into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence
of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in
the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in
pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price
for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden
issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely
invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently
mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse –
most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers,
or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last
night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in
the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual
intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did
believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials
to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement
in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central
and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently
at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within
the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the
whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and
most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly
shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the
mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course.
Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud
seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to
hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted
in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient
reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the
rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both
hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate
the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without
the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly
propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated
to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been
suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian
doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of
the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of
the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component
the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and
the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from
the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger
individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were
the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities,
and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to
a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining
a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which
he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This
was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay
behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their
fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof.
Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded
with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions
women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem
was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't
find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they
are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical
Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation
to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims,
but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of
interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be
the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical
method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated
to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European
and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I
think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it
betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform
to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely
eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of
common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity
to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such,
I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with
the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon
has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in
testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the
Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus
of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and
emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent
some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems
likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was
announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election.
Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly
she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological
injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory,
however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been
exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical
advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the
scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim
into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively
projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along,
often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.
William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics
and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played.
However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual
proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough
information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.
We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we
only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could
prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore
girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older
boyfriend
and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was
a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first
base at the party.
From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone
without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those
were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom
with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her
demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment
into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
This is a really apt quote: "America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with
one another on war, neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases
the power and profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both."
Notable quotes:
"... The buzzword "bipartisan" gets used a lot in US politics because it gives the illusion that whatever agenda it's being applied to must have some deep universal truth to it for such wildly divergent ideologies to set aside their differences in order to advance it, but what it usually means is Democrat neocons and Republican neocons working together to inflict new horrors upon the world. ..."
"... America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war, neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or legs are more evil. ..."
If there's one thing that brings a tear to my eye, it's the inspiration I feel when watching
Republican-aligned neoconservatives and Democrat-aligned neoconservatives find a way to bridge
their almost nonexistent differences and come together to discuss the many, many, many, many,
many, many many many things they have in common.
In a conference at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, "Resistance" leader and
professional left-puncher Neera Tanden met with Iraq-raping neocon Bill Kristol to discuss
bipartisanship and shared values. While leprechauns held hands and danced beneath candy
rainbows and gumdrop Reaper drones, the duo engaged in a friendly, playful conversation with
the event's host in a debate format which was not unlike watching the Pillsbury Doughboy have a
pillow fight with himself in a padded room after drinking a bottle of NyQuil.
To get the event started, the host whose name I refuse to learn asked the pair to discuss
briefly what common ground such wildly different people could possibly share to make such a
strange taboo-shattering dialogue possible.
"Issues around national security and believing in democratic principles as they relate to
foreign policy," replied
Tanden . "And opposing authoritarianism, and opposing the kind of creeping populism that
undermines democracy itself."
Neera Tanden, in case you are unaware, is a longtime Clinton and Obama insider
and CEO of the plutocrat-backed
think tank Center for American Progress. Her emails featured prominently in the 2016
Podesta drops by WikiLeaks, which New Republic described as revealing "a
pattern of freezing out those who don't toe the line, a disturbing predilection for someone who
is a kind of gatekeeper for what ideas are acceptable in Democratic politics." Any quick glance
at Tanden's political activism and Twitter presence will render this unsurprising, as she often
seems more concerned with attacking the Green Party and noncompliant progressive Democrats than
she does with advancing progressive values. Her entire life is dedicated to keeping what passes
for America's political left out of the hands of the American populace.
Kristol co-signed Tanden's anti-populist rhetoric and her open endorsement of
neoconservative foreign policy, and went on to say that another thing he and Tanden have in
common is that they've both served in government, which makes you realize that nothing's black
and white and everything's kinda nebulous and amorphous so it doesn't really matter if you, say
for example, help deceive your country into a horrific blunder that ends up killing a whole lot
of people for no good reason.
"I do think if you've served in government -- this isn't universally true but somewhat true --
that you do have somewhat more of a sense of the complexity of things, and many of its
decisions are not black and white, that in public policy there are plusses and minuses to
most policies," Kristol said
.
"There are authentic disagreements both about values, but also just about how certain
things are gonna work or not work and that is what adds a kind of humility to one's belief
that one is kind of always right about everything."
I found this very funny coming from the man who is notoriously always wrong about
everything, and I'd like to point out that "complexity" is a key talking point that the
neoconservatives who've been consistently proven completely wrong about everything are fond of
repeating. Everything's complicated and nothing's really known and it's all a big blurry mess
so maybe butchering a million Iraqis and destabilizing the Middle East was a good thing . Check
out this short clip of John
Bolton being confronted by Tucker Carlson about what a spectacular error the Iraq invasion was
for a great example of this:
I listened to the whole conference, but it was basically one long smear of amicable
politeness which was the verbal equivalent of the color beige, so I had difficulty tuning in.
Both Tanden and Kristol hate the far left (or as those of us outside the US pronounce it, "the
center"), both Tanden and Kristol hate Trump, and hey maybe Americans have a lot more in common
than they think and everyone can come together and together together togetherness blah blah. At
one point Kristol said something about disagreeing with internet censorship, which was weird
because his Weekly Standard
actively participates in Facebook censorship as one of its authorized "fact checkers".
The buzzword "bipartisan" gets used a lot in US politics because it gives the illusion that
whatever agenda it's being applied to must have some deep universal truth to it for such wildly
divergent ideologies to set aside their differences in order to advance it, but what it usually
means is Democrat neocons and Republican neocons working together to inflict new horrors upon
the world.
America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war,
neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and
profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up
the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality
the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or legs
are more evil.
Neera Tanden and Bill Kristol are the same fucking person. They're both toxic limbs on the
same toxic beast, feeding the lives of ordinary people at home and abroad into its gaping mouth
in service of the powerful. And populism, which is nothing other than support for the
protection of common folk from the powerful, is the only antidote to such toxins. Saying
populism undermines democracy is like saying democracy undermines democracy.
Keyser , 29 minutes ago
The only thing the neocons care about is money and dead brown people, in that order,
because the more dead people, the more $$$ they make...
Jim in MN , 28 minutes ago
You mean, neolibcon globalist elite sociopath traitors, right?
bshirley1968 , 38 minutes ago
I am confident that if I ever spent time around Caitlin there would be a whole host of
things we would disagree about......but this,
" America's two mainstream political parties agree furiously with one another on war,
neoliberalism, Orwellian surveillance, and every other agenda which increases the power and
profit of the plutocratic class which owns them both. The plutocrat-owned mass media plays up
the differences between Democrats and Republicans to hysterical proportions, when in reality
the debate over which one is worse is like arguing over whether a serial killer's arms or
legs are more evil."
.....is something we can absolutely agree on. This FACT needs to be expounded and driven
down the sheeple throats until they are puking it up. Why don't they teach that in screwls?
Because school is where the foundation for this lie of two parties is laid .
DingleBarryObummer , 29 minutes ago
It's funny that you say that. I was just thinking about how high school was a microcosm of
how the world is.
The football stars were the "protected class." They could park like assholes, steal food
from the cafeteria, and show up late, and wouldn't get in trouble.
That's just one of a multitude of examples. That's a whole nother article in itself.
DingleBarryObummer , 39 minutes ago
Tucker Carlson made Bolton look like the dingus he is in that interview. We all know
(((who))) he works for.
+1 to tucker
WTFUD , 43 minutes ago
Campaigns are funded, career Politicians become made-men, conduits for the scramble of
BILLIONAIRES gorging bigly on-the-public-teat, with a kick-back revolving door supernova
gratuity waiting at the end of the rainbow.
Of course they can ALL AGREE . . . eventually.
Chupacabra-322 , 54 minutes ago
"How many people have Kristol and his ilk murdered in their endless wars for israel?"
Countless.
ChiangMaiXPat , 58 minutes ago
As a Trump voter, I believe I have more in common with Caitlin Johnstone then "any"
Neocon. Her articles and writing are mostly "spot on." I imagine I would disagree on a couple
key social issues but on foreign policy I believe most conservatives are on the same page as
her.
ChiangMaiXPat , 54 minutes ago
I thought her piece was "spot on," she's a very good writer. The Neo CONS will be the
death of this country.
"... Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure" instead. ..."
"... Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world). ..."
"... we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War, which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation. ..."
"... the "real" US economy is only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy ..."
"... at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing war. ..."
"... Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution." ..."
"... The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now becoming exponentially worse ..."
"... If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is natural, and to be expected. ..."
It is rather surprising that the Democrats who have demonized Donald Trump at every turn
have voted in favour of the this extremely bloated defense budget, putting even more military
might into the hands of a President and Commander-in-Chief that they seem to despise and who
they are demonizing because of his alleged collusion with Russia.
We've been in WW3 for several years now. Bolton went "Full Monty" with his
declaration that U.S. forces will stay in Syria until Iran vacates. The introduction of a
Yemen War Powers Resolution in the House last week is a hopeful sign. A reason to root
for a Blue Wave in November. Dem leadership, already on record backing the War Powers
Resolution, would be obligated to block U.S. enabling genocide in Yemen.
I disagree with Eric Zusse's belief that USA wants to start WWIII. I think they want to
contain/constrain discontent of allies and citizenry as they attempt to destroy the Russian
and Chinese economies. War is only a last resort. But heightened military tensions mean that
the major protagonists have to divert resources to their military, causing a drag on the
economies.
Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the
period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't
seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure"
instead.
The big concern for me is that "maximum pressure" also means an elevated chance of
mistakes and miscalculations that could inadvertently cause WWIII.
Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies
when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late
2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is
not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world).
PS IMO Trump election and the Kavanaugh and Gina Haspel nominations are key to the pursuit
of global hegemony.
Most warnings have centered on a financial meltdown, as this article
reviews . As most know, IMO we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War,
which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation.
As noted in my link to Escobar's latest, the EU has devised a retaliatory mechanism to
shield itself and others from the next round of illegal sanctions Trump's promised to impose
after Mid-term elections.
In an open thread post, I linked to Hudson's latest audio-cast; here's what he said on the 10th
anniversary of the 2008 crash: "So this crash of 2008 was not a crash of the banks. The banks
were bailed out. The economy was left with all the junk mortgages in place, all the
fraudulent debts."
Another article I linked to in a comment to james averred the "real" US economy is
only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy . Hudson again:
"Contrary to the idea that bailing out the banks helps the economy, the fact is that the
economy today cannot recover without a bank failure ." [My emphasis]
Wh at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open
eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire
for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing
war.
As Hudson's stated many times, the goal of the 1% is to reestablish Feudalism via
debt-peonage. All the other happenings geopolitically serve to mask this Class War within the
Outlaw US Empire. Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political
upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution."
Many predict that this crisis will be timed to occur in 2020 constituting the biggest
election meddling of all time.
The crisis will likely be blamed on China without any evidence for hacking Wall Street and
causing the subsequent crash -- a Financial False Flag to serve the same purpose as 911.
Much can occur and be obscured during wartime. The radical changes to USA from 1938-1948
is very instructive--the commonfolk were on the threshold of gaining control over the federal
government for the first time in US history only to have it blocked then reversed (forever?)
by FDR and the 1% who tried to overthrow him in 1933.
Same with the current War OF Terror's use to curtail longstanding civil liberties and
constitutional rights and much more. To accomplish what's being called "Bail-In" within the
USA, Martial Law would need to be emplaced since most of the public is to be robbed of
whatever cash they have, and World War would probably be the only way to get Martial Law
instituted--and accepted by the military which would be its enforcer.
A precedent exists for stealing money from the people--their gold--via Executive Order 6102 , which
used a law instituted during WW1 and still on the books.
The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now
becoming exponentially worse . Critical graphs are going off their charts. The end is
near.
If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities
it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is
natural, and to be expected.
Like individual humans, the human population as a whole can pursue activities that
maintain it's health, or it can indulge in activities that create disease and hasten it's
death. Humankind is deep in toxifying behaviors that signal it's demise in the near
future.
Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility -- like the Ma Bell telephone
system was regulated in the 1950's. Google is too powerful -- it should not have the cultural
monopoly power it has over our society.
"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or
not -- Google is a product of our culture -- therefor our culture has a valid claim on its
actions.
It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not
like it -- but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.
The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.
A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules
over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way,
individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this
simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning
political system.
Wade says: September
24, 2018 at 4:04 pm GMT 300 Words @Tyrion 2
Nice try. But to me this falls flat. First of all I don't think Ron has literally blamed Jews for
all the world's evils any more than Southern Christians like me have been blamed for all the
world's evils by Hollywood.
The issue is that Zionist leadership plays really dirty. And they are good at it. But having
them in control of the West's media means that their negative impact on society goes unremarked
upon while the positive things they do are trumpeted from the rooftops. We are allowed to notice
Jewish power in relation to their main accomplishments, but we are referred to the nearest
holocaust museum when we notice any negative impact that Jewish power has. It's one of the
many wars on "noticing" the media is engaged in.
I don't see how all of this ends in mass pogroms, let alone a holocaust if you want my
opinion. We're just hoping for a much overdue correction in perspective. Topics like Israel's
founding and influence in US politics, The Holocaust, WWII and 911 are being desacralized so they
can be discussed rationally, and that's good for everyone. Those who doubt Oswald was the lone
assassin have been treated for decades with a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories about JFK
ranging from Cuba and Castro, to anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, The Mafia, the KBG, the CIA all being
cast as possible suspects, but not even once has Israel being fingered by anyone anywhere (except
by the indefatigable Michael Collins Piper) as a possible suspect, even though they had as clear
(or clearer) motives and opportunity than nearly anyone else. Why hasn't this possibility been
more fully explored by JFK researchers? Everyone needs to know how much Israel has benefited from
911. Their role in this also needs to be explored much more by researchers and brought out into
the open.
The Unz Review is a tremendous site. It attracts superior writers as well as commentators. And
Ron Unz, fortunately, is untouchable. The ADL understands this. Better for them to remain
silent. They want to keep you as obscure as possible. Thus, the silent treatment.
Thus, the MSM would rather talk about crude 'white power' sites than the perspicacious Unz
Review. But you can bet, Ron, that they will pounce on you if given the opportunity.
Says Ron: "I do think [the ADL] may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained
within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what
keeps them far, far away." That covers it. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the UNZ
review grow in influence and readership.
The quote "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
comes from Tacitus The Life of Agricola
other nice quotes are-
"It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one
thinks."
― Tacitus, Histories of Tacitus
"It is a principle of nature to hate those whom you have injured."
― Tacitus
"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity." Annals
and finally
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by
greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by
false pretenses, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their
wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania
Well, I don't know. My sister is an executive assistant. I thought I knew what that meant and
you probably do too. But then one day I sat down with her and we actually talked about her
job, and I quickly realized that not only was my understanding of her job so shallow as to be
effectively meaningless, but it was so shallow that I didn't even understand how much I was
missing. I'd just glanced at the title and said to myself "yep, executive assistant, assist
executives, that's what she does" and at no point had it ever even occurred to me that there
was anything past that. In fact, it was even worse than that, because half the stuff I
imagined she might do wasn't part of her job at all (hint, if you think "executive assistant"
and "secretary" are remotely similar you are just as far off track as I was).
I still don't understand what she does but at least now I know how little I know. If she
came to me for career advice there's no chance I'd be able to offer her anything other than
meaningless platitudes, because I don't even know enough right now to know if her current job
is a good one or a bad one. If she'd asked me before I realized how much I don't know I'd be
in the same boat, only probably rolling my eyes that she would get so worked up over x, y, or
z when her job was so simple and straightforward that there's no possible way it could be
that stressful.
Yeah.
All of this is to say that unless your friends are on a career path similar to yours they
probably not only fail to understand your job, but they probably fail so bad that they don't
even know how far off they are. That's not because your friends are stupid or because IT is
so impenetrably complex that only the chosen few can grasp it; its just that most of us don't
have a lot of expertise in careers outside of our own. Lacking context, we turn to pop
culture for reference. Picture the stereotypical Hollywood "computer guy" (or, if you must,
"hacker"). That's probably what your friends think your job is like. Now imagine that guy
coming to you complaining about how hard and stressful his job is. How hard could it be
anyway? I have a computer at home and don't have to do much to keep it running. These things
all basically run themselves, don't they?
So, point is his friends aren't necessarily assholes or in denial. They probably just
don't know enough to understand how little they know, as is true for all of us, and are
trying to give well-intentioned advice; OP asked, after all, and they want to help their
friend. But you can't give good advice if you don't have all the facts, and especially not if
you don't even know how much you're missing.
The executive assistants I know (to VPs, presidents, CEOs) practically run the company. Not
entirely, but a good chunk of it.
Filter what their executive knows and doesn't know, what meetings that take and don't,
and what their priorities are. If the EA isn't on your side, you're not getting to their
exec.
This influences strategy for the company, which means the EA is often helping direct
strategy.
Because they are spending 100% of their time with the exec (compared to the, say, 2
hours I get every other month as one of the department heads), they have a huge amount of
influence. They are trusted. And they have heard about everything that is happening at the
company. They know more than I do about what's really happening.
As to what they do, on the surface, it does look like secretary work. Schedule
appointments. Schedule venues for meetings/conferences. Book travel. Make sure the exec is
prepared for the appointments (knows what they need to know; has met with the right people in
advance to get briefed; leaves on time to get to the appointment). Answer emails and phone
calls.
But the level of knowledge they need to perform those tasks for an executive is much
higher.
Well, sure, that's an unfortunate commute. You're basically saying "I would take getting paid
for X for y hours of work over getting paid (x - costs of transportation ) for y + 4.5 or
more hours of work.
It's a decent jumping-off point for a middle management role of your own, if one opens up at
the same company. You're playing a huge role in running your exec's department
already, so you've got the lay of the land and you're clearly a competent wrangler of humans.
Who promoted herself from Harvey's legal secretary to the COO in a span of two episodes,
didn't skip a beat, and kept doing exactly what she was doing before.
Well, seeing as my last post was a big long thing about how I don't fully understand what
they do this is a limited view, but a short pithy summary would be that she handles all the
stuff her boss should be doing but doesn't have time to actually do. That's everything from
negotiating phone plans and insurance rates to making sure all the certifications and permits
they need to function are taken care of to planning and booking meetings and seminars. It's
very wide ranging and is a ton of responsibility. As noted elsewhere a good EA practically
runs the company.
I work from home 2 days a week. My wife thought I was nuts when I brought home a gaming
headset and 2nd monitor for the PC I use at home.
She thought I was sitting at home playing minecraft all day.
The reality is I need lots of screen space to doy job and I have conference call meetings
several times a day. I can actually hear and be heard with the headset.
I agree the downside is getting tagged for late day or after hours emergency work because
I can respond quickly.
I ended up buying an egpu so I could hook up a third monitor to my laptop. Currently trying
to figure out how to arrange stuff on my desk to fit a fourth; may have to start mounting
them on swivel arms. I want as much screen space as I can get when I doy job.
I also have an hdmi switch to change the monitors to my gaming machine when it's Minecraft
time. Tax deductible 4k 27 " monitors are good for that too.
Got a stud above/behind your desk? The fourth one on the wall angled down can work pretty
well, throw your notifications bar up there, calendar, anything you rarely glance at but
should be able to see without moving another program or window.
All of these makes sense, but I am just going to add the following: - Your friends should
recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to being burned out. That is a
clear indicator if you are at right job or not. - Your friends should also be able to help
you figure out if you are appreciated and in a company with good culture
Good companies/management do everything they can to empower employees, provide adequate
training, and set realistic expectations. All of that increases employees' morale and
confidence. Without those two, company is bound to fail sooner or later.
Your friends should recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to
being burned out. That is a clear indicator if you are at right job or not.
Your friends should also be able to help you figure out if you are appreciated and in
a company with good culture
And, as your friend, you might want to listen to us if we point out these things more than
a few times. There are one off vent sessions over a beer then there are long-term, consistent
complaints.
Yes, sometimes you just want to vent, but if someone is pointing out the same thing
constantly, they may have a point and it's up to you to start on a path to changing the
situation.
This. Many resources out there clearly state that your friends either support your success or
place negative labels on your success.
Go check out 7 habits of highly effective peeps. Will give you a completely new
perspective. Not just about friends but yourself and how you interact with others.
Sorry, it seems this comment or thread has violated a sub-reddit rule and has been removed by
a moderator.
Community Members Shall Conduct Themselves With Professionalism.
This is a Community of Professionals, for Professionals.
Please treat community members politely - even when you disagree.
No personal attacks - debate issues, challenge sources - but don't make or take things
personally.
No posts that are entirely memes or AdviceAnimals or Kitty GIFs.
Please try and keep politically charged messages out of discussions.
Intentionally trolling is considered impolite, and will be acted against.
The acts of Software Piracy, Hardware Theft, and Cheating are considered
unprofessional, and posts requesting aid in committing such acts shall be removed.
No, he just needs to understand that people give generic advice that they think sounds good
but they really don't understand your job or have never been in your situation. And he does.
Being able to empathize with your friends concerns, to understand their feelings without
understanding exactly what they're going through, is a talent that not everybody has. Neither
is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead say "wow,
that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck." But these are not the only
attributes that make someone friend-worthy.
On the other hand, not everybody can tolerate having friends that lack empathy and
understanding. So for some the answer "they need new friends" may be true, I just don't think
OP necessarily does. In fact, I think it's the same kind of generic, bad advice that I'm
talking about to say that he does.
Neither is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead
say "wow, that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck."
When I'm in situations like this (I can't advise because I lack context or experience) I
advise flipping a coin. Quit after finding a new job or stay and keep trying to change the
place, heads or tails. After you've flipped the coin and seen the result, examine your
feeling... disappointed or relieved? There's your answer regardless of the coin toss you know
how you really feel, and should trust your gut.
This! When my friend(s) complain about their current workplace/position/etc I always
recommend they get their feelers out and start looking. It may take a while but you'll
eventually find something.
It took me almost a year to find something comparable or better but didn't land the final
interview this past year. But, my old job lost our largest client and I am now working for
said client. Couldn't be happier!
You don't know what someone deals with & those people may want to bend over backward to
help this person if they could. Don't automatically label them shitty friends. You don't even
know them.
No. I trust them and usually come to them when I'm emotionally invested/upset and yelling
about a situation at work. Making decisions in this mindset is always a bad idea. I was
talked off a ledge long enough to make a smart, calculated decision.
You probably figured this out already, but the whole "go hire someone" thing was a ploy to
keep you around a little longer. They gave you permission to recruit, not authority to hire.
They were never going to green light the position.
You also facilitated management's bad behavior by putting too much effort into doing the
right thing. You weren't valued or appreciated, you were just taken advantage of.
Spot on. I was given the illusion of great authority, but in the end - not on the things that
matter. I borderline want to say the word 'budget' doesn't exist here.
This. Why would they hire someone when you're doing it all. IT employees have a much better
stress level, work life balance, and career when they learn how to say no or "that's not my
role". Unless you're trying to get into that area, never volunteer you do work that should be
done by another area. It'll start becoming the norm and will never stop. Good luck on your
next gig though!
Yeah. I learned at my old job that the "what can we do to keep you?" question is bullshit.
It's a way for them to determine what they can lie to your face about to string you along as
far as possible. I asked for a team change, and they managed to string me along saying I was
approved for almost 9 months, until suddenly I'm not approved anymore and there's not even a
spot open for me.
Never again will I attempt to be honest with my manager. You can know that I'm thinking
about leaving when I give you my 2 weeks notice.
Thanks for the story, and the perspective. I'm the sole SA at a smallish entertainment-based
development studio, didn't understand half the tech you reference and I do have a senior
network architect I can (remotely) fall back on, but many days I'm totally overwhelmed. We
had a major product success last year and we've been ramping up like crazy. More office
rollout, more servers, more users, more developers (so like users but worse), more backup
needs, more bandwidth, more "and can you get better teleconference speakers for the meeting
rooms", more baroque software licensing to figure out, also do I have batteries? Mouse pads?
Highlighters? Why are you asking me for highlighters? No I can't fix your chair. Etc etc. And
I'm waiting for that one crucial system to break that I won't know how to fix.
I guess I'm just saying your post gave me some much-needed perspective. Cheers.
The best time to look for a job is when you don't need a job
Hell yeah! I quit about 6 months ago and don't even look. I get sporadic emails from
LinkedIn and other avenues and if things look good, I'll apply, otherwise the hell with it.
I've had a few interviews but sadly most places look like they have issues with
understaffing, overworked, etc.
Ah well, in the next few years I'm sure something good comes up.
Had my jr get assigned 2 more standing desks this week (about 8 installed in the last 2
months and I guess we literally can't trust someone to unplug their 3 cables from the little
NUC...). I wrote him an email discussing the core parts of his job and how no one cares about
how many standing desks are or are not installed at any given time. Focus on doing your job
well, please talk to me or CIO if you are getting stressed by any workload (we all know that
sometimes it feels like the tickets just stream in and you make no headway no matter what you
do). We'll do whatever is needed to either take care of em.
I have also done some stand up desk troubleshooting and installation, if it has a wire in it
or on it, or even holds something with a sufficient number of wires people can claim it is
confusing, it's your problem. 15 years of working in the IT/SA field and I'm unboxing a desk
because 'my computer has all the wires and I'll probably just mess it up if I try to move
everything myself'. Fortunately our users are very reasonable in general.
How about one of those tiny space heaters? A user asked me if I could figure out why it
wasn't working, and all I did was flip a big red switch marked "ON."
Start to say no. Do the hours in your contract and go home. When stuff doesn't get done tell
them you need more people. Either they get more people or you search for a new job. But if
they don't get more people you would search for a new job anyway. Just burned out.
Seems to me like a lot of horror stories here are because people either care too much or
are deeply afraid of looking for a new job. These conditions exist because you let them.
Years ago a manager from a different department (non IT obviously) walked over to us to let
us know a toilet was clogged. We all just looked at him and laughed. I was also yelled at
once for not helping someone move a file cabinet during an office move, while we still had
tons of PC's left to setup.
IT has always been the "well, we don't have above whose responsibility it is to take care
of this, so IT can do it" field.
I'm going through a similar situation to you OP but for a different reason.
I left a good MSP job (busy and at times frustrating) for a larger employer and the job I
was expecting to have is not at all like the one I applied for it's very boring and quite
slow with too much idle time sometimes which is weird since it's an operations roles for a
billion dollar business but probably half of the "work" I'm doing now is "hey sorry to wake
you but we got this alarm and we've raised an incicent can you take a look" when I used to
design and manage environments end to end.
My job for some people would be the jackpot but for me it's awful and I'm considering
leaving to go back to my way more stressful MSP job.
My problem is I have too many resources to call on (multiple teams to escalate to) and I'm
just left watching the screens because of it.
This is what I'm afraid of as well but I need more friggin money. The screen watchers
actually make more because they exist in big companies with lots of money.
We definantely do some automation but maybe not enough.
The alarms are mostly validation checks (is it actually p1? Is that event due to a
change?) and anything that can be automated is and we don't get alerts for it.
Our alarm dashboard is an aggregator of a ton of systems that all send their alarms to
it.
Unfortunately once the infrastructure and databases become self healing we're all out of a
job.
Same boat here. "is this really going to happen again before this system is decommed?" Should
I spend a few hours making a good test that will determine if its really this problem again
and fixing it + reporting the result of the fix? Or should I spend the 6 minutes it takes to
fix this and move on with my life.
Re: Self healing - out of a job. Oh PLEASE! We're not out of a job when stuff is self
healing; we're into a new one. I'm just a regular sys admin and even I am starting to think
about how I can use machine learning to solve issues I face or to improve our business. It'll
be QUITE some time before I actually start doing anthing with ML, let alone something useful.
I'd LOVE to have more time to play with new stuff.
We use ansible for automation. I do love it but it's fairly time consuming to setup (half the
stuff is in a txt doc waiting for a playbook to be built)
Management jobs usually require some management experience and I have a little bit of team
leading experience but not the sort of "manage this budget and this department" management
experience I'm also torn between making that jump to management and getting "off the tools"
or doing a deep dive into a specific set of technical tools.
My dad was an engineer for various semiconductor factories for years. He hit that same point
in his role - but there was a much bigger push to go to management, which he did. after about
5 years of that he quit - he was way to burnt out and hasn't returned to corporate life
since. The money was good but the job wasn't worth it.
Hell, the only job he's had in years was as a general contractor putting in sinks and
stuff making what I do as a help desk monkey.
I'm sort of going into a remote management position. Working for a MSP as problem escalation
for 8 techs. Finding 'teachable moments' (probably all of them!) to train on troubleshooting
process. In my spare time I'll be getting amazon aws certs and I'll eventually move into a
different role. Sounds challenging enough not to be bored :)
Oh I can do their jobs they're like "tier 3" while we're "tier 2" and we can do actual work
(permissions allowing) our team holds the same level of certs they do (MCSA, MCSE etc) were
just in at a different layer of the business which is changing.
I don't just watch for alarms and escalate it's just a small part of the role really but
it's the most prominent part when you're on the graveyards which always makes me a bit
resentful of my own choice to come here.
No, he said he had to sweep snow off a satellite dish because it's heater was broke. He said
nothing about being on the roof. Sweeping dishes after a heavy snowfall is not uncommon. I
had to do the same thing this morning while on-call.
I work in a small environment incredibly similar to OP's, Calix, Metaswitch, etc. We have
a SME for each area; one for voice, one for IP/IT systems (me), one for video, and two
outside plant guys. We cover/triage each others duties during on-call rotation. It works well
enough for us, but sounds like OP is doing it all. It would be one thing if he had to only
deal with the non-IT stuff on occasion, but if all those responsibilities are solely his,
thats untenable.
If it's a small company everyone needs to chip in beyond their official responsibility to
make things work, but they also need to be compensated at the rate of their top skills and
not driven into the ground. IMO
The problem here is that you kept the ship running, even though you told management you
needed help, things were still getting done.
Management will not do anything about thing until they break, so while you bust your ass
keeping things going they don't care how you did it. All they know is things are still
running.
You either have to show them things breaking or put your foot down negotiate a commitment to
hire a hand.
Just out of interest what was their reaction when you handed in your notice? Did they counter
or they simply decided to hire a replacement. They must have been in a world of hurt if it
was the latter and you were the only one doing that role.
Yep, a recruiter bringing someone in will cost 15-25k. Giving someone an internal referral
for 7k is comparative peanuts, AND you get two happy employees because of that.
Heya, I don't know how far into your career you are, but I'm 45, pretty senior level (I've
been a c-level exec) and wanted to tell you:
Don't ever compromise. Ever.
I am in a similar situation at an MSP (I'm in a leadership role) and have the same kinds
of conversations about resources and losing valuable workers because there's no help. The
management above me isn't listening and we are going to lose a very fine employee (like
yourself -- someone with skill who is trying to make it better but is not being
heard -- and it's because management don't know how to run an ITIL-based shop and hire to
that kind of skill set. I put toghether a framework to measure qualifications of our
employees and they all measure up to Tier 1 analysts/engineers (in both experience and quals)
and some of them are considered Tier 3 employees and they can't do something as simple as
read and interpret a Wireshark packet capture. And I keep being told either "we have to make
do with what we have" or "you're not seeing what good they can do". So clearly in my case
there's a division in vision for leadership and I'm giving up and probably moving on. In your
case, you tried, gave your input, and, if they're not gonna listen to you, move on. Your
expectations are NOT too high. Their expectations aren't high enough. Move on to somewhere
there's a fit. You can only help someone from burning their hand on the stove so many times
before you give up and go watch TV.
Yes. They all are 6 months to 1 year out of technical school. They are able to accomplish
SOME tasks. They are unskilled at anything above Tier 1 despite someone saying "you know
about X. Here, go do it."
For instance, a windows admin should be able to implement GPO and know what it's about.
Maybe have an MS cert. but our main windows admin is working towards his CCNA and has been
out of school for 6 months. Not exactly a right fit for that job.
I've been in a similar situation, the problem is not necessarily an issue with vision. More
than likely upper management have been given the mandate to keep costs down or at least
same.
So they will come up with any excuse not to hire more people or if someone of good quality
leaves they will only hire someone lower quality i.e. lower pay.
That is the problem with corporate culture everyone is there looking only after number one,
as long as the job is getting done they don't care how much those doing it care about the
company or that they are doing their jobs efficiently, cost effective or to a high
standard.
All they care about is that the job is getting done.
Stories like this is why I gave up trying. Used to, I would change my plans to do a last
minute cutover on the weekend because you changed the date 3 different times. These days, my
response is always, "I have an opening 3 weeks from now".....because I don't let it fuck up
my life anymore. Frankly, nothing has happened since I started giving those answers. What are
they going to do anyways? Hire someone else? pffft.
Christ, I felt bad for myself when I quit MY job but goddamn, you were in a
shithole! Glad you found something better.
I still hear from people at my old job that nothing has changed. They hire someone else
but never fix the problems. Overworked, understaffed, complaints are listened too with great
concern and then ignored.
It does sound very much like they're, perhaps unwittingly, taking advantage of you and you're
right to want to leave a job that's damaging your life so terribly.
I mean, works sucks most of the time, but it doesn't have to suck ALL the time and there
should be at least enough people to have the work ease off from time to time or you just go
manic from the stress.
Everybody expects different things from their job and not all jobs are right for all
people. IMO, life is too short to spend it doing a job you hate or working in a toxic
environment. I applaud your efforts to try and improve things but ultimately you've got to
draw a line where enough is enough and just move on. Do what's right by you, because your
company is working every day to do what's right by them and not necessarily what's good for
you.
Something sounds off. You talked to the ceo about what they can do, and they have their own
headend, but won't outsource the printers? That's always the first thing that needs to be
sourced out because it's petty shit like toner or pain in ass like the fuser.
Sounds like they needed someone to streamline the processes, and have 2-3 more people on
board. A senior network guy and two more minions eager to learn and take those 'patch cable
broken' or port security tickets.
You were used hard and long and have been fed bad advice. You should have left that place
long ago and hopefully this lesson will stick with you forever.
The same two questions, every time, before you go looking. And then the third, when you have
an offer on the table (sometimes it's one you went looking for, sometimes it's one that just
appeared in your inbox).
Are you happy? If not, why not?
Will a different job make you happier?
Will this opportunity make you happier?
Sometimes the problem is at home, and changing your work life might help (if it brings
more money or a shorter commute), and sometimes it won't. Sometimes the problem is at work,
and you can influence change either within the organization or within yourself (changing your
expectations, adjusting your work schedule to be earlier or later, discussing with your
management group about changes to your role, etc) in order to improve the situation. Or you
improve your work situation by leaving it behind, if there is no way to improve it or the
people who can help improve it are unwilling (or themselves unable) to do so.
Yes, sometimes the easy opportunities for change just aren't there, and you need to make
harder decisions about the change your life needs. In those moments one should be grateful
for what they have, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should accept that this is their lot
in life. Maybe you need to move. Maybe you're looking for a remote position. Maybe you take
the plunge and live off savings for a few months -- though unless you're on the verge of a
breakdown, this can cause complications later; it's generally true that it is easier to find
a job if you have a job. Not universally, but generally. Maybe you give up IT and become a
Birthday Clown, because you enjoy making children happy more than you enjoy clicking buttons
anymore.
Best of luck to you in your new place, hopefully it works out!
Are your friends in IT in any way? I find that most people have no idea what IT means, or the
individual fields. They expect the same person who helps them with spreadsheets also
makes/updates the websites, sets up the phone system, maintains the network.. and may even
think they plug in their power bar. Most people can't discern the difference between
facilities, an electrician and someone in one of the many fields of IT in my experience.
Heck, at my company the executives have no idea what I do. They ask me to do things from
investigate and roll out MDM.. to go to one of our communities and setup one of the
resident's televisions. I've even been asked to install generator power outlets.. I've just
learned to say "no" and explain to them who's responsibility it is. If they are unwilling to
hire someone or even just bring the proper person from within the organization, the problem
can stay a problem.
Your friends may not be crappy, they might just be clueless.
The CEO found out and we sat down ... He puts that responsibility on me.
I've seen my own managers do the same, and still am thinking through if, when and how it's
a mistake. Managers are there to support and enable important things happening. If it's a
small thing then all they need to do is give you permission to do it. But if it's a big thing
then they need to mange it, e.g track it, ask how it's going, ask what you need, get
other people involved, set priorities etc. Not just give a pep talk, say "it's on you now"
and wash hands of it. That basically means, "cheer up, but I don't care". If I wanted someone
to listen carefully and then do nothing about it I'd go to therapy, thanks.
Being that IT is generally a self-taught field, where we can play around with and test things
before doing them in production...
I recommend sticking to jobs where you're doing commonly reproducible/testable software
stuff. i.e. standard Windows/Linux servers + standard software. Basically things that can be
completely learned and tested in virtual machines, without needing any special hardware at
all.
I reckon all the proprietary "black box" / vendor specific devices etc you mentioned make
working in "IT" much much more stressful. You basically have to learn a whole heap of
different systems where what you learn is only applicable to one device. And you can't easily
play around with them like you can with pure software and virtual machines etc. So you're
often learning & testing in production, and even then, only once something has already
failed. And you're likely not going to have spare parts, or even be able to get them easily.
The same goes for network engineers dealing with lots of cisco routers etc to a certain
degree. Basically anything that involves hardware except for standard PCs and servers running
Windows or Linux.
I worked for a post-production company for a while, and yeah it was similar. I was busy as
fuck with the regular standard everyday IT shit, yet still had the responsibly to figure out
all there proprietary devices etc that I'd never even heard of before. And because they're
not commonplace IT stuff, there's fuckall information on the internet to learn about them and
troubleshoot etc. And of course learning about that shit doesn't translate into useful skills
you can take elsewhere in other IT jobs.
So yeah these days, I'm 100% software. I actually do IT consulting part time, and even
when my clients want to buy hardware, I just give them some recommendations and get them to
order it directly from Dell or whoever. I don't want to be responsible for hardware failures,
of which I have zero control over.
OP I'm in the same boat. COO found out that my medial issues I may jump ship. Had a chat and
he said he would do everything to get people hired. My boss has had approval for hiring for
weeks now and not one person has been interviewed. I have also been thinking about getting
medicated because I'm in denial with work. I'm going to jump ship soon take time off and see
what happens.
That is what MSP is. MSP is the environment where self-driven, stoic people survive and other
people crumble. MSP is especially tough in the role like yours as you have no one to rely on
anymore, but everyone else is coming to you to fix a problem they can't figure out. I am
there, been there for awhile. People think you are smarter than them, but all you are is more
persistent and willing to sacrifice your sanity and your free time to figure out a problem by
going to 10th page of google and performing advanced search queries on reddit.
I think MSP life after age of 35 is impossible to do unless you are crazy. :)
You were in an impossible situation with really shit poor management. Don't waste a second
thought. They'll either figure out why they can't keep people or they'll fail in spectacular
fashion. The bottom line is you have to protect yourself and your interests, you owe that
company nothing. The only time you owe a company that isn't your own is if the company makes
significant investment in your and your career, which your former company clearly didn't.
Good for you on recognizing that you had options. In many ways in that former situation you
were the one with the power and its great that you exercised it.
I went through practically the same thing. Found a nice job down the street from my house I
could just walk to. They had a full web team to handle all their websites and web problems,
but their skills were about 20 years old. At first I didn't notice because I would handle IT
/ network problems all day.
Then eventually I started getting web site issues pushed to me, then web design issues.
Eventually I was building all their web sites and running their entire web platform while
everyone else on that team just sat around all day making emails. All this extra work never
came with any pay increase and everyone would always say "You do everything here, if you
leave we're screwed".
A day came when there was a landslide of issues combined with an HR nightmare and nobody
seemed to wanted to handle anything. By the end of the day I realized I had wanted to leave
the job for over a year and I was only staying to keep things together until I got everything
to a stable point. Unfortunately this place could never reach a stable point because their
management was an absolute shit show and never wanted to step up to face any big
problems.
This seems really common after reading some stories here. A good amount of IT people
probably feel obligated to keep things running even when they hate their job.
I also found a remote job with a ridiculous salary increase after going through so many
interviews to the point of utter mental exhaustion. The grass definitely can be greener
sometimes its just much harder to find than you would ever think.
Iberiano says:
September 29, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT 300 Words Looking at that photo of the former primary
contenders, reminded me of all the holier-than-though talk we got from the right-of-center,
about how Trump was too gruff, and crass, about everything, including sexual topics,
interactions with women, etc.
What these hearings demonstrated, that we already knew, was that the Puritan-Jew alliance is
obsessed with all things sexual, perverted, distasteful theirs is a world of, as you
point out, "preppy white boy" fantasies, where the bad guys look like the blond jock in Karate
Kid, and drive around in their Dad's 1982 Buick Regal or their own '79 Camero, looking to
"score" with virginal know-nothing, Red Riding Hoods, that happen to find themselves at 'gang
rape parties' (?), out of nowhere. Who go on to have Leftist careers only to resurrect
repressed memories 35 years later–projected in front of the world
It's a silly framework from which they obsess, but it's similar to Kinsey, Mead and others
of the Left. Sex. Projection, doubling-down, and an absence of due process to punish people for
the very things that actually occupy their minds. Even in her advanced age, you could
tell, Feinstein was enjoying the open air discussions regarding sexual topics.
Let the Right / Never-Trumpers be on notice–Trump is light fare compared to where the
Left will go and has been, regarding women, sex, and all things crass.
After 9/11," said US Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran, "our focus was
supporting the ground fight, which meant we were operating that force a lot, and when you
operate the force a lot it eats up a lot of your cash, it eats up a lot of your service
life."
Operating a Nimitz-class carrier runs about $298 million per year, the Government
Accountability Office estimated in a 1997 study. The current carrier fleet is made up entirely
of Nimitz-class carriers, with the lone ship of the new Ford-class still undergoing sea
trials.
"Add on to this the cost of the air wing, the combat power behind the aircraft carrier," a
US Navy lieutenant commander wrote in thesis paper from 2012. "An average current air wing is
composed of four fighter/attack squadrons of 10-12 aircraft each, an electronic warfare
squadron of four aircraft, an airborne command and control squadron of four aircraft, two
onboard delivery aircraft and a helicopter squadron of six aircraft."
The workhorse F/A-18 carrier aircraft, according to the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense Comptroller, costs about $10,507 to fly per hour. Brett Odom, former F/A-18 pilot and
financial expert at Fighter Sweep, has disputed the Pentagon's cost accounting, however, on the
grounds that it only covers marginal costs.
Odom estimated that the cost to pay pilots and support crews, conduct engine maintenance and
fuel the aircraft for an hour was $11,140 -- approximately in line with DoD's estimate. But
then there is the cost of the aircraft itself: an F/A-18 runs about $65 million. Odom refers to
this figure as capital cost. Incorporating the average acquisition cost smoothed out over an
expected life of 6,000 flight hours into the equation, the expert reached $22,000 in cost per
flight hour.
"There are valid reasons to ignore capital costs and treat them as sunk costs in certain
situations. However, by ignoring capital costs, the Department of Defense is implicitly stating
that its fighter aircraft are free, or -- like the pyramids -- they can be expected to function
forever," Odom wrote
for Fighter Sweep in 2016.
"This has all been building up" for 17 years "through overuse of the carrier force and naval
aviation," former Pentagon official Bob Work said in comments to USNI.
"When we kept two carriers in the Persian Gulf for a period of time, we kept telling the
senior leadership that this was going to have a downstream effect, and it would really put a
crimp maintenance-wise, and there would be gaps both in the Pacific as well as the Middle East.
That is coming home to roost," Work said.
While the US Navy carrier fleet was taxed abroad, Washington's defense budgets continued to
grow.
"It's fairly obvious that corporate interests for the defense industry like Raytheon and
others have driven a lot of our spending in the last 20 years or so, especially given the War
on Terror post-9/11," Daniel Sankey, a California-based financial policy analyst, said in an
interview with Sputnik News.
"We've carried this huge, outsized expenditure," he noted. "Eventually the money supply
starts going down. It's not infinite, even though the US pockets are pretty deep."
The carrier force is now facing the music of the Pentagon's "credit card wars" since 9/11,
conflicts that have been paid for with mostly borrowed funds. Brown University's Institute for
International and Public Affairs found that post-9/11 war expenses add up to about $5.6
trillion.
"You have a thoroughbred horse in the stable that you're running in a race every single day.
You cannot do that. Something's going to happen eventually," Secretary of the Navy Richard V.
Spencer told reporters in August.
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ...
shared values and consensus
which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power
and swag remained."
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand
the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
If we consider the state of the
nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of
profound political disunity within the elites
pop out:
The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now
commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the
mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of
law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are
ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the
governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown
:
disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.
It's impossible to understand the
divided Deep State
unless we situate it in the larger
context of
profound political disunity
, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose
slim but insightful volume
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
I have been recommending since 2009.
As I noted in my 2009 book
Survival+
,
this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse.
The shared values and
consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for
what power and swag remained.
A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats:
such
rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation
together. The public sees the value system at the top is
maximize my personal profit by whatever means are
available
, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and
rentier rackets
, and they follow suit by
pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the
disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.
But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding
wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens
the already yawning fissures in the body politic.
Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing
, as
Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no
longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or
disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.
As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left
to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been
co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity.
I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant
public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is
trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in
the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and
the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.
What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically
unstable.
Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes
(the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.
The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system
because
each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial
Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political
order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.
Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial
and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new
book
Ages
of Discord
.
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we
understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
There is no other possible
output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of
these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
"... "a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ... shared values and consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained." ..."
"... If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. ..."
"... If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out: ..."
"... Psychopaths with no moral principles. The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown : disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies. ..."
"... A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available , i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets , and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on. ..."
"... But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic. ..."
"... As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security. ..."
"... The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center. ..."
"a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse ...
shared values and consensus
which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power
and swag remained."
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand
the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
If we consider the state of the
nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of
profound political disunity within the elites
pop out:
The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now
commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the
mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.
The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of
law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are
ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the
governed.
Psychopaths with no moral principles.
The nation's elites are not just divided--they're exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown
:
disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.
It's impossible to understand the
divided Deep State
unless we situate it in the larger
context of
profound political disunity
, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose
slim but insightful volume
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
I have been recommending since 2009.
As I noted in my 2009 book
Survival+
,
this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse.
The shared values and
consensus which had held the Empire's core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for
what power and swag remained.
A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats:
such
rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation
together. The public sees the value system at the top is
maximize my personal profit by whatever means are
available
, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and
rentier rackets
, and they follow suit by
pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the
disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.
But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding
wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens
the already yawning fissures in the body politic.
Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing
, as
Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no
longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or
disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.
As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there's no one left
to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been
co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity.
I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently the dominant
public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the "Russia hacked our elections and is
trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public, less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in
the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and
the resulting decay of the nation's moral/political center.
What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically
unstable.
Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes
(the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.
The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system
because
each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial
Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political
order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.
Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial
and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new
book
Ages
of Discord
.
If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we
understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.
There is no other possible
output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of
these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility -- like the Ma Bell telephone
system was regulated in the 1950's. Google is too powerful -- it should not have the cultural
monopoly power it has over our society.
"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or
not -- Google is a product of our culture -- therefor our culture has a valid claim on its
actions.
It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not
like it -- but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.
The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.
Hopefully the FBI will investigate this collusion between Soros and the Democrats and Ms.
Katz to influence the results of the judicial nomination process.
If you don't know all the local issues and controversies -- and I'll admit I don't -- it
makes the mid-terms hard to call.
In general–about 80% of the time–midterms go against a sitting president. But
in this case, I agree with the Derb: I think the Dims are in a rude awakening.
It's nice that our Israeli embassy has been moved to Jerusalem
Nice? Speak for yourself!
It's nice that Senator Graham has found his high dudgeon at last. Now that he's found
it, though, how long will it be before he turns it against immigration patriots?
That's probably the only reason Graham was chosen to publicly throw a fit: he's
inside-the-Beltway safe. He can huff and puff and talk tough on this hearing, precisely
because the Establishment knows he'll never really go against them on issues like immigration
or foreign policy. Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? Remember how Arlen Specter was the
Republican standard-bearer back then? Nuff said.
@ advancedatheist It is difficult in these trying times to find good entertainers.
I thought confirmation hearings,were to test for qualifications required to be a
Supreme?
Such things as ability to write, understanding of the complexities of the constitution,
beliefs and past rulings, convictions about the bill of rights, and things like that? The
Constitution is supposed to create the structure of government, authorize payment of fat
salaries to 527 elected entertainers and limit the scope of the personal financial activities
while in office. I can't image a confirmation hearing that would review the judicial history
of the past rulings and professional activities of a candidate. The audience would not be
interested to hear what those who practice law and interact with the candidate had to say
about him and his legal abilities. When and in which tent are those hearings to begin?
Where are the opinions by Judge Kavanaugh? Why have they not been produced for inspection
in the hearings? What does this man think? Why did Trump select Judge Kavanaugh to be a
supreme? At the moment it looks like the the hearings have been conducted to cover for the
attacks by Israel on Russian Airplanes in Syria. I can think of no other reason for such a
circus?
What I have seen, heard and read describe another propaganda guided privately owned media
production with side shows by two of the best known acts in circus life ( shows by the Gods
of poop and by the Democraps were featured).
I still don't know anything about Judge Kavanaugh do you?
I hereby claim that Lindsey Graham and Larry Kudlow are horrible whores for the GOP Cheap
Labor Faction. Both Lindsey Graham and Larry Kudlow push wage-reducing open borders mass
immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.
I also strongly suggest that Larry Kudlow and Lindsey Graham were big backers of the Iraq
War debacle.
Larry Kudlow and Lindsey Graham both push sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams.
Larry Kudlow has no memory whatsoever of any guest ever at his house. Is Larry Kudlow a
ruling class louse?
Trump brought on board his ship of state all sorts of louts such as Larry Kudlow, Gary
Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, Nikki Haley, John Bolton and many other no good bastards. Trump invited
the swamp into the White House.
"... Christine Ford has taken the false allegations racket a bit too far. She is probably lying, as how come she did not call 911 or file a police report if this happened? She comes from a family of lawyers. She has an army of attorneys who would have rushed and filed police reports and filed civil suits if any man had dared touch her. ..."
Christine Ford has taken the false allegations racket a bit too far. She is probably
lying, as how come she did not call 911 or file a police report if this happened? She comes
from a family of lawyers. She has an army of attorneys who would have rushed and filed police
reports and filed civil suits if any man had dared touch her.
That did not happen for 3 decades for one reason -- nothing happened on the night in
question.
The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few 100K
under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this
racket.
Kavanaugh has proved himself unfit for the position of supreme court justice. Under heavy
fire, he has shown that he is a spineless coward, a crying baby incapable of fighting back
like a man. Moreover, he is a total idiot.
What did he expect, that the baby killers were going to accept even the possibility of a
supreme court justice who may vote to overturn Wade VS Roe and the end of Planned Parenthood?
He has shown that this totally expected attack took him by surprise. What a fool!
Courage under fire? Call the Marines, but not Kavanaugh.
The key word there is of course "gentlemanly." Could any concept be more at odds with
the zeitgeist than gentlemanliness? It's hard not to think there's a demographic dimension
to this. That older style of courtesy, forbearance, and compromise that used to inform our
politics was a white-European thing, perhaps particularly an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic thing.
I agree that politics in the US is coarsening like our pop culture and increasingly
looking like 3rd world politics. This is where America is headed as we become more culturally
enriched:
The neocons and neolibs has always been the indignant, end justifies the means crowd.
Since Trump's election they've completely gone off the rails....
You're right about Trump being a big disappointment so far in immigration. Caving here and
calling for an FBI investigation makes him look as stupid as Flake. Fat chance FBI will close
it in a week. This is the same agency that gave us Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page,
the Steele Dossier, owned by Deep State and corrupt to the core. These GOP fools are once
again playing right into the hands of the (((Dems))) – Feinstein, Blumenthal, Schumer
and Ford's lawyer Bromwich, already complaining about the 'artificial timeline'. No one can
ever outcon the financial elite.
"... The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a "final solution" to the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided "race war" in which a few antisocial malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against "uncorrected" humanity. The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of corporatist genocide. ..."
In El-Akkad's dystopian vision, the War on Muslims mutates into the War on Southerners --
but has nothing to do with race. Instead, the Yankee Terror State turns its savagery against
the New Rebels of the Free Southern States because those good ole boys and girls (of all shades
of skin pigmentation and sexual preference) refuse to give up fossil fuels, choosing instead to
secede from the Union.
Al-Akkad's vision of blue vs. red global-warming-driven war run amok in a near-future
America that has completely forgotten about the whole concept of race is surprisingly
plausible, at least while you are reading it. (Civil War I, after all, was really
about economics not race , so why shouldn't Civil War II also be over an economic issue?)
The plot turns on the adventures of Sarat, a young Red State woman of mixed and meaningless
(near-black Chicano and po' white trash) ancestry who awakens politically and goes after the
Blue State occupiers in pretty much the same way the Iraqi resistance went after George W.
Bush's storm troopers.
... ... ...
C.J. Hopkins offers a deeper, more accurate, vastly funnier, more genuinely subversive
vision. His far-future America, which bears an uncanny resemblance to our nightmarish present,
features drone-patrolled hyper-surveiled cities, each of which is divided by an Israeli-style
Wall complete with Israeli-style checkpoints and incursions featuring Israeli-style killings of
hapless untermenschen. But instead of Israelis vs. Palestinians, the divide here is between the
Normals on one side of the wall and the Anti-Socials on the other. The Normals -- good
corporate citizens who are submitting to pharmaceutical and genetic correction so they can work
and consume and conform and live meaningless lives like everybody else without batting an
eyelash -- are conditioned to fear and loathe the Antisocials, who retain enough humanity to
rebel, in whatever pathetically insignificant way, against corporatist dystopia.
Zone 23 , like American War , imagines the future as post-racial: Hopkins'
Normal vs. Antisocial divide isn't about race. But it is, nonetheless, very much about
behavioral genetics. In this (not so) far future, the Hadley Corporation of Menomonie,
Wisconsin has developed a variant-corrected version of the MAO-A gene. Inserted into embryos
via germline genetic engineering, this patented DNA produces "clears": people who are
intelligent but incurious, incapable of emotionally-driven fight-or-flight aggression
(including the most common defensive variety), "easily trained, highly responsive to visual and
verbal commands," and so on. In other words, perfect corporate citizens!
The corporatist state naturally strives to perfect itself, imposing a "final solution" to
the ASP (anti-social person) problem by mandating that henceforth no non-genetically-engineered
babies may be born. The result is a very one-sided "race war" in which a few antisocial
malcontents try to hold out against what amounts to a genocide against "uncorrected" humanity.
The plot follows two of those ASP antiheroes as they throw rocks at the Israeli bulldozer of
corporatist genocide.
Hopkins' ferociously funny yarn is not just a satire on our ever-worsening techno-dystopia.
In imagining a genetic basis to the difficulties many of us experience adjusting to
hyperconformist "technologically-enhanced" lifestyles, and in portraying individuals struggling
and flailing against the uber-civilization around them like flies caught a spider web, Zone
23 resonates with the great
critiques of technological civilization .
A very shrewd observation, widely misattributed to Voltaire, states that "To learn who rules
over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Or put another way,
individuals are reluctant to publicly challenge those whose power they fear. Certainly, this
simple standard helps to explain many important aspects of America's severely malfunctioning
political system.
@Tyrion 2
Nice try. But to me this falls flat. First of all I don't think Ron has literally blamed Jews
for all the world's evils any more than Southern Christians like me have been blamed for all
the world's evils by Hollywood.
The issue is that Zionist leadership plays really dirty. And they are good at it. But having
them in control of the West's media means that their negative impact on society goes unremarked
upon while the positive things they do are trumpeted from the rooftops. We are allowed to
notice Jewish power in relation to their main accomplishments, but we are referred to the
nearest holocaust museum when we notice any negative impact that Jewish power has. It's
one of the many wars on "noticing" the media is engaged in.
I don't see how all of this ends in mass pogroms, let alone a holocaust if you want my
opinion. We're just hoping for a much overdue correction in perspective. Topics like Israel's
founding and influence in US politics, The Holocaust, WWII and 911 are being desacralized so
they can be discussed rationally, and that's good for everyone. Those who doubt Oswald was the
lone assassin have been treated for decades with a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories about JFK
ranging from Cuba and Castro, to anti-Castro Cubans, LBJ, The Mafia, the KBG, the CIA all being
cast as possible suspects, but not even once has Israel being fingered by anyone anywhere
(except by the indefatigable Michael Collins Piper) as a possible suspect, even though they had
as clear (or clearer) motives and opportunity than nearly anyone else. Why hasn't this
possibility been more fully explored by JFK researchers? Everyone needs to know how much Israel
has benefited from 911. Their role in this also needs to be explored much more by researchers
and brought out into the open.
The Unz Review is a tremendous site. It attracts superior writers as well as commentators. And
Ron Unz, fortunately, is untouchable. The ADL understands this. Better for them to remain
silent. They want to keep you as obscure as possible. Thus, the silent treatment.
Thus, the MSM would rather talk about crude 'white power' sites than the perspicacious Unz
Review. But you can bet, Ron, that they will pounce on you if given the opportunity.
Says Ron: "I do think [the ADL] may be absolutely terrified of the many facts contained
within the series of recent columns that I have now published, and such abject terror is what
keeps them far, far away." That covers it. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the UNZ
review grow in influence and readership.
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to
distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should
believe.
We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt,
while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say
something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very
limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly
and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.
If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our
advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a
friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.
This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to
recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest,
at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are
forms of power.
Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by
the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media,
the political class, and the security services.
But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the
relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful
institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or
her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political
systems in which they have to operate.
Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than
we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth
and success depend.
And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework
underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.
Narrative control
It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he
has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small
group of people around you.
It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm
– the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.
It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from
the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a
Richard Nixon.
But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the
reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over
knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we
wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about
it.
Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see –
structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be
felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten
the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.
The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to
absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they
have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies",
those who stand in their way to global domination.
No questions about Skripals
One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have
recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to
murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.
I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian
security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury
to kill the Skripals.
What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the
British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that
the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative
or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have
been entirely passive too.
That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from
the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider
such as Craig Murray.
A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions
that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the
intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the
inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only
are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks
critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid
accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's
pocket.
That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised –
like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and
the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The
evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is
keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.
And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.
Ripples on a lake
Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image
as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that
guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those
who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.
It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals,
that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to
identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those
structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on
individuals.
That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities –
celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the
ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.
News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could
not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.
Up against the screen
If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system
– neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they
offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX
screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a
complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth,
the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.
Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism
that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It
exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth
that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several
centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.
But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new
means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of
economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and
the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of
children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.
These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and
entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being
exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or
even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class
on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.
In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less
corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.
Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you
wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more
power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of
this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known
to mankind.
A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A
globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and
chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our
craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a
narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news
programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.
Assumptions of inevitability
Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves
that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we
established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use
of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.
Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are
no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how
inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a
vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.
David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the
context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to
assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and
without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being
aware that they are conspiring in the system.
When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the
movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected
for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society
– tend to respond to events in the same way.
Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball
bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will
form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first
layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably
produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect
crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.
The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the
real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key
resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control
that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a
class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour
needed to make them productive.
Our place in the pyramid
In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of
the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will
rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below.
They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently
superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.
And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain
and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase
profits and sell brands.
All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our
small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the
power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring
and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would
be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms
manufacturers.
And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that
distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed
to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist,
dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being
anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin,
pro-Assad, a Marxist.
None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the
system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is
easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians
and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.
In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the
moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real
danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back
from the screen, and see the whole picture.
Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election
that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and
trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit
Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a
decade ago?
Profit, not ethics
Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth
through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the
pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven
not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.
The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task
of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing
for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It
lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate
tomorrow.
And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group,
any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.
If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read
a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are
sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed
for us.
Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future
you wish for your grand-children.
In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its
appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are
increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their
expense.
Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change
, which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates
Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the
power elite he does little to change anything
Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter
any of his promises that might threaten them
As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of
Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system,
rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the
establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.
Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched
US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still
failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife
era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social
security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced
NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has
been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the
power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First
@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself...
however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how
relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook
summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and
wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and
has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the
anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top
of uk dynamics..
(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that
necessitates (a)
Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of
conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and
crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality.
Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?
The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration.
This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing
the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to
fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took
place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked
off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his
promise, as every President has done since .
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to
distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should
believe.
We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt,
while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say
something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very
limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly
and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.
If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our
advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a
friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.
This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to
recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest,
at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are
forms of power.
Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by
the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media,
the political class, and the security services.
But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the
relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful
institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or
her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political
systems in which they have to operate.
Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than
we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth
and success depend.
And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework
underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.
Narrative control
It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he
has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small
group of people around you.
It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm
– the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.
It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from
the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a
Richard Nixon.
But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the
reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over
knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we
wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about
it.
Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see –
structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be
felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten
the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.
The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to
absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they
have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies",
those who stand in their way to global domination.
No questions about Skripals
One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have
recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to
murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.
I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian
security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury
to kill the Skripals.
What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the
British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that
the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative
or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have
been entirely passive too.
That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from
the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider
such as Craig Murray.
A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions
that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the
intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the
inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only
are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks
critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid
accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's
pocket.
That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised –
like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and
the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The
evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is
keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.
And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.
Ripples on a lake
Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image
as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that
guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those
who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.
It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals,
that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to
identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those
structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on
individuals.
That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities –
celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the
ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.
News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could
not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.
Up against the screen
If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system
– neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they
offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX
screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a
complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth,
the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.
Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism
that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It
exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth
that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several
centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.
But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new
means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of
economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and
the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of
children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.
These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and
entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being
exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or
even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class
on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.
In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less
corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.
Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you
wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more
power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of
this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known
to mankind.
A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A
globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and
chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our
craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a
narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news
programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.
Assumptions of inevitability
Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves
that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we
established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use
of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.
Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are
no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how
inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a
vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.
David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the
context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to
assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and
without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being
aware that they are conspiring in the system.
When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the
movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected
for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society
– tend to respond to events in the same way.
Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball
bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will
form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first
layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably
produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect
crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.
The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the
real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key
resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control
that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a
class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour
needed to make them productive.
Our place in the pyramid
In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of
the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will
rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below.
They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently
superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.
And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain
and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase
profits and sell brands.
All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our
small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the
power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring
and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would
be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms
manufacturers.
And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that
distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed
to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist,
dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being
anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin,
pro-Assad, a Marxist.
None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the
system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is
easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians
and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.
In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the
moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real
danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back
from the screen, and see the whole picture.
Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election
that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and
trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit
Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a
decade ago?
Profit, not ethics
Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth
through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the
pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven
not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.
The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task
of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing
for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It
lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate
tomorrow.
And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group,
any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.
If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read
a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are
sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed
for us.
Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future
you wish for your grand-children.
In my own words then. According to Cook the power elites goal is to change its
appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are
increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their
expense.
Since they do not actually want change they find actors who pretend to represent change
, which is in essence fake change. These then are their insurgent candidates
Trump serves the power elite , because while he appears as an insurgent against the
power elite he does little to change anything
Trump promotes his fake insurgency on Twitter stage knowing the power elite will counter
any of his promises that might threaten them
As an insurgent candidate Trump was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of
Syria. He wanted good relations with Russia. He wanted to fix the health care system,
rebuild infrastructure, scrap NAFTA and TTIPS, bring back good paying jobs, fight the
establishment and Wall Street executives and drain the swamp. America First he said.
Trump the insurgent president , has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched
US missiles at Syria, relations with Russia are at Cold War lows, infrastructure is still
failing, the percentage of people working is now at an all time low in the post housewife
era, he has passed tax cuts for the rich that will endanger medicare, medicaid and social
security and prohibit infrastructure spending, relaxed regulations on Wall Street, enhanced
NAFTA to include TTIPS provisions and make US automobiles more expensive, and the swamp has
been refilled with the rich, neocons , Koch associates, and Goldman Sachs that make up the
power elites and Deep State Americas rich and Israel First
@34 pft... regarding the 2 cook articles.. i found they overly wordy myself...
however, for anyone paying attention - corbyn seems like the person to vote for given how
relentless he is being attacked in the media... i am not so sure about trump, but felt cook
summed it up well with these 2 lines.. "Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and
wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and
has launched US missiles at Syria." i get the impression corbyn is legit which is why the
anti-semitism keeps on being mentioned... craig murrary is a good source for staying on top
of uk dynamics..
(a) talk coherently
(b) have some kind of movement consisting of people that agree with what is says -- that
necessitates (a)
Then he could staff his Administration with his supporters rather than a gamut of
conventional plutocrats, neocons, and hacks from the Deep State (intelligence, FBI and
crazies culled from Pentagon). As it is easy to see, I am describing an alternate reality.
Who is a Trumpian member of the Administration? His son-in-law?
The swamps been filled with all kinds of vile creatures since the Carter administration.
This is when the US/UK went full steam ahead with neoliberal globalism with Israel directing
the war on terror for the Trilateral Empire (following Bibis Jerusalem conference so as to
fulfill the Yinon plan). 40 years of terror and financial mayhem following the coup that took
place from 1963-1974. After Nixons ouster they were ready to go once TLC Carter/Zbig kicked
off the Trilateral era. Reagan then ran promising to oust the TLC swamp but broke his
promise, as every President has done since .
"... Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance. ..."
Which is the cohort of voters who allegedly are leaning toward voting Republican in the
mid-terms but who allegedly would refrain if Trump accepted Rosenstein's resignation? And
which is the cohort not already motivated to turn out to vote Democrat but who allegedly
would be motivated by a Rosenstein resignation? Is there real data on these?
I think if I had been a 2016 Trump voter I'd be feeling pretty disappointed about how he's
unable to enforce the most basic discipline and loyalty even among his closest administration
members, and this Rosenstein episode would be yet another egregious example.
If the Republicans do lose either/both houses, the main reason will be that for once
they've taken on the normal Democrat role of being confused and feckless about what they want
to do (they can't bring themselves to whole-heartedly get behind Trump; but a major
Republican strength has been how they normally do pull together an present a united front).
And Trump himself, in his inability to control his own immediate administration, also gives
an example of this fecklessness.
@ Circe who is writing that any who like any of what Trump is doing must be Zionists.
Get a grip. I didn't vote for Trump but favored him over Clinton II, the war criminal.
Trump represents more clearly the face of the ugly beast of debauched patriarchy, lying,
misogyny, bullying and monotheistic "everybody else is goyim" values. Trump very clearly
represents the folks behind the curtain of the Western private finance led "culture". He and
they are both poor representations of our species who are in power because of heredity and
controlled ignorance over the private finance jackboot on the lifeblood of the species.
Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by
the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the
inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity
can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance.
I am taking a beginning astronomy class and just learned that it took the monotheistic
religions 600 years to accept the science of Galileo Galilei. We could stand to evolve a bit
faster as we are about to have our proverbial asses handed to us in the form of extinction,
IMO.
"... It does seem to me that Rosenstein is an agent of those opposed to Trump or is another part of the Jewish control apparatus in the US. He is the one who appointed Mueller as the Special Prosecutor. Mueller is definitely a minion of the "Deep State". ..."
"... It seems obvious to me that Trump had real estate dealings with the Russian Mafia. This will never be investigated. These would mostly be about money. So this would be the Jewish Russian Mafia contingent. ..."
I assume the Awan brothers and their scandalous spying on the US congress through all
those democrats has been bipartisanly removed from public eye. If Trump has the cards to
play to keep his team in majority NOW is the time to play them.
This is the biggest scandal since Hillary and her crappy email server.
The USA is a dopes circus.
it is obvious that Trump is not in charge. Or he is as stupid as the Dems would
like to think he is. It would be obvious to most politicians that Sessions was a terrible
choice as attorney General. Just like Agnew was deposed as VP before Nixon was deposed as
President, Rosenstein would have to go before Sessions would be replaced. It would take quite
a while to get the new AG confirmed. Rosenstein would then be acting AG.
It does seem to me that Rosenstein is an agent of those opposed to Trump or is another
part of the Jewish control apparatus in the US. He is the one who appointed Mueller as the
Special Prosecutor. Mueller is definitely a minion of the "Deep State".
It seems obvious to me that Trump had real estate dealings with the Russian Mafia.
This will never be investigated. These would mostly be about money. So this would be the
Jewish Russian Mafia contingent.
There is Israeli collusion in meddling with American election outcomes. Somehow this will
never be investigated.
First of all, it's a little premature to headline that Rosenstein was neither fired nor
resigned since Trump will meet with him on Friday and Trump is a loose canon and would love
any excuse to remove the thorn from his side. However, because Trump's Oracle Sean Hannity
warned him not to do it; he might not; BUT he might give R a reason to resign, because,
that's the least risky and very favorable option for him. McGahn and Kelly have no interest
in seeing Rosenstein gone, period, ergo, they held R in place.
Now if this was a set up, it sure pissed off Democrats; you have only to go to their
hangouts to see how pissed they were with the Times and whoever leaked that news.
Either it was a colossal impulsive blunder by the Times to monopolize the news cycle for
the week or it was meant to abort Mueller's investigation. The risk to the investigation was
too great without a fail-proof outcome for this to have been a deliberate set up from the
Democratic side and their angst and outrage over the leak that would end the investigation
proves this point.
It not clear what Dems they get from impeachment. Are they salivating to see Pence as the
President ? I hope not.
Notable quotes:
"... And who are all deeply, DEEPLY plugged into Israel's Likud party, Israel's intelligence apparatus and who were all in some way intimately involved not only with the events of 9/11, but as well, the disastrous 'clash of civilizations' that followed, better known as the 'war on terror'. ..."
"... In addition to this, they are all deeply, DEEPLY committed to seeing Trump impeached, and for the singular reason that he stands opposed to any new military adventures for Israel's benefit and is dedicated to reigning in this Judaic mad dog before it blows up the entire world. ..."
"... Mike Pence, a died-in-the-wool Christian Zionist, take over as the new occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. ..."
Is a lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangster and NeoCon Israel firster who is
closely aligned with this guy
Eliot Cohen, also a lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangster and NeoCon Israel
firster, who is aligned with this guy
Bill Kristol, also a lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangster and NeoCon Israel
firster who is aligned with this guy
Paul Wolfowitz, a lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangster and NeoCon Israel
firster, who is aligned with this guy
Robert Kagan, a lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangster and NeoCon Israel
firster,
As well as his portly brother, who are both aligned with this guy–
Max Boot, a lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangster and NeoCon Israel firster
who is aligned with this gal,
Jennifer Rubin -- A lying, warmongering, Jewish supremacist gangstress and NeoCon
Israel firster, and who is aligned with this guy
Charles Krauthammer .That is, before he recently died and went to hell
And who are all deeply, DEEPLY plugged into Israel's Likud party, Israel's
intelligence apparatus and who were all in some way intimately involved not only with the
events of 9/11, but as well, the disastrous 'clash of civilizations' that followed, better
known as the 'war on terror'.
In addition to this, they are all deeply, DEEPLY committed to seeing Trump impeached,
and for the singular reason that he stands opposed to any new military adventures for
Israel's benefit and is dedicated to reigning in this Judaic mad dog before it blows up the
entire world.
Also keep in mind, that an entire gaggle of geniuses, experts, and prophets, some of the
'brightest luminaries' in fact within the '9/11 truth movement', find themselves in the
peculiar and perplexing circumstance of standing alongside these aforementioned warmongering,
Neocon Zionist Jews by lending their voices and their support in causing Trump as much
discomfort as possible, thus assisting Israel in her drive to see this guy–
Mike Pence, a died-in-the-wool Christian Zionist, take over as the new occupant at
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
"... My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the media imho to also take heat off Mueller. ..."
Last Friday the New York Times published
a story that reflected negatively on the loyalty of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein towards President Trump. Rosenstein, the NYT claimed, suggested to
wiretap Trump and to remove him by using the 25th amendment. Other news reports contradicted
the claim and Rosenstein himself denied it.
The report was a trap to push Trump towards an impulsive firing of the number two in the
Justice Department, a repeat of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre . The
Democrats would have profited from such an ' October surprise ' in the November 6
midterm elections. A campaign to exploit such a scandal to get-out-the-votes was already
well prepared .
The trap did not work. The only one who panicked was Rosenstein. He feared for his
reputation should he get fired. To prevent such damage he offered to resign amicably. He
tried this at least three times:
By Friday evening, concerned about testifying to Congress over the revelations that he
discussed wearing a wire to the Oval Office and invoking the constitutional trigger to
remove Mr. Trump from office, Mr. Rosenstein had become convinced that he should resign,
according to people close to him. He offered during a late-day visit to the White House to
quit, according to one person familiar with the encounter, but John F. Kelly, the White
House chief of staff, demurred.
...
Also over the weekend, Mr. Rosenstein again told Mr. Kelly that he was considering
resigning. On Sunday, Mr. Rosenstein repeated the assertion in a call with Donald F. McGahn
II, the White House counsel. Mr. McGahn -- [...] -- asked Mr. Rosenstein to postpone their
discussion until Monday.
...
By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice
Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to
resign, they asked.
...
At the White House the deputy attorney general slipped into a side entrance to the West
Wing and headed to the White House counsel's office to meet with Mr. McGahn, who had by
then been told by Mr. Kelly that Mr. Rosenstein was on his way and wanted to resign.
McGhan punted the issue back to Kelly and finally Rosenstein spoke with Trump. Trump did
not fire him nor did he resign. It is now
expected that he will stay until the end of the year or even
longer :
President Trump told advisers he is open to keeping Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
on the job, and allies of the No. 2 Justice Department official said Tuesday he has given
them the impression he doesn't plan to quit.
The trap did not work. Neither did Trump panic nor did the White House allow the panicking
Rod Rosenstein to pull the trigger. The people who set this up, by leaking some dubious FBI
memo to the NYT , did not achieve their aims.
There are only six weeks left until the midterm elections. What other October surprises
might be planned by either side?
Posted by b on September 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM |
Permalink
This account gives an interesting twist, that Trump wants to keep Rosenstein
as leverage.
I think it is not in the interest of Trump to do anything that could look like hampering the
Mueller investigation. It might be in his interest to try to force Mueller to show what he
has bevore the midterm elections, but that could also be seen as a form of hampering.
I think there are already lots of indications that the whole Russiagate collusion story
was fabricated. The messages between Peter Strzok und Lisa Page point towards this direction,
and it seems that different stories that were used for Russiagate were connected.
It seems that the Steele dossier played a crucial role for getting warrants for spying on
the Trump campaign and for starting the media campaign about Trump-Russia "collusion".
Obviously, the Steele dossier is a rather implausible conspiracy theory (allegedly, Russia
made preparations for Trump's candidacy years earlier when hardly anyone thought Trump would
have the slightest chance of being nominated by a major party), contains no evidence for the
allegations, and the elements that can be verified are either banal and don't show collusion
or they are false (e.g. Trump's lawyer going to Prague, it seems he has an alibi, and there
are leaks that there was another person named Michael Cohen, without a connection to Trump,
who flew to Prague, so Steele probably had access to flight data, but did not do further
verifications).
A further strand of "Russiagate" is the story around Papadopoulos. First, it should be
noted that it hardly shows foreknowledge of the DNC leaks when someone may have speculated
that Russia may have e-mails from Hillary Clinton - at that time, the deleted mails from
Clinton's private server were talked about a lot, and one of the concerns that was often
mentioned was that Clinton's private server may have been hacked by Russia or China. None of
the versions of what Papadopoulos was allegedly told by Mifsud and told Downer specifically
mention DNC or Podesta e-mails. Second, the people involved had close connections to Western
intelligence services. Mifsud had close ties with important EU institutions and was connected
with educational institutions used by Western intelligence agencies (mainly Italian, British,
FBI). If he really was a Russian spy, there would have been larger consequences, and the FBI
would hardly have let him go after questioning him. According to a book by Roh and Pastor who
have known Mifsud for a long time, he denies having told Papadopoulos anything about damaging
material about Hillary Clinton (Mifsud also said that in an interview), and Mifsud suspects
Papadopoulos of being a provocateur of Western intelligence services - Papadopoulos
forcefully tried to create connections between the Trump campaign and Russians, but both
sides were not willing to go along (a representative of a Russian think tank which
Papadopoulos asked to invite Trump answered that the Trump campaign should send an official
request, which never followed). Papadopoulos was in (probably frequent) contact with FBI
informer Stefan Halper, and it may be that Papadopoulos was an unwitting provocateur because
of events Stefan Halper arranged. The Australian diplomat Downer has connections to the
Clinton foundation (he helped arranging large payments by Australia) and Western secret
services. Third, what has exactly been said by whom is disputed. As mentioned, Mifsud denies
mentioning anything about damaging material on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos (the only one
who claims this is Papadopoulos), and Papadopoulos denies mentioning e-mails to Downer. It
seems, Papadopoulos were only half-willing participants in the setup arranged by Stefan
Halper whose goal was to have some background for the message that could be received from
Downer. Papadopoulos' wife has shared a picture of Stefan Halper and Downer together, which
also fits the idea that this story was set up by FBI informant Halper with Downer.
The visit of the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya was arranged by Fusion GPS, and she met with
him before and after the meeting she met with Glen Simpson.
Of course, we are just in the beginning, there is certainly enough concrete material for
starting an investigation (unlike with the alleged Trump-Russia collusion), but many details
are still open. Those who presumably set up the collusion story went from offensive to
defensive, even if that might not be clear if someone reads particularly biased media. Now,
the time until the midterms certainly is not enough for conducting and concluding such an
investigation. But it should be enough for unclassifying and publishing some documents that
shed further light on these events.
The time for more decisive action against those who set up Russiagate may be after the
midterm elections, and how easy that will be probably partly depends on the election result.
Therefore, I suppose that Trump and other Republicans will strongly press for important
documents being unclassified and published before the elections.
Trump admin and GOP Congress are doing almost everything possible to alienate the majority of
the public on a wide spectrum of issues that's also helped threaten the positions of
Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The fallout from the 2016 Primary and subsequent
disclosures about Clinton and DNC corruption and law breaking--meddling in elections and
caucuses--has emboldened numerous people--particularly women--who were previously politically
apathetic, not just to run for office, but also to work to get like-minded candidates
elected. Sanders called for an insurrection--and yes, he's still sheep dogging--and it's
emerged and isn't totally controlled by the DemParty despite its efforts: The cat's out of
the bag.
Now I expect the usual attacks using the trite adage that voting doesn't matter. Well,
guess what, Trump's election proves that adage to be 100% false. There's only one path to
making America Great and that's by getting the neoliberals and neocons out of government; and
the only way to do that is to run candidates with opposing positions and elect
them--then--once in office, they need to oust the vermin from the bureaucracy--Drain the
Swamp, as Trump put it. I know it can be done as it's been done before during two different
epochs of US History. And the System was just as rigged against popular success than as it is
now.
Karlof1 I agree w you 100%. Voters can make a difference and change is still possible however
unlikely and rare. The problem is voter complacency which is fed by cynicism. Ironically
younger liberal voters tend to be the most complacent especially at the midterm elections.
This year complacency doesn't appear to be an issue so we will probably see a Dem House in
January if not also a Dem Senate.
My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or
fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump
can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the
media imho to also take heat off Mueller.
Trump could shock the world by being on his best behavior for a few weeks. (j/k don't hold
your breath).
Just a little review:
In November, Dems are expected to take the House of Representatives by a modest margin.
The House, not the Senate determines impeachment. Impeachment is like an indictment -- the
Senate would then have a "trial" of sorts, and then to convict, you need 2/3 majority of
Senators. Nobody expects that.
Nixon actually resigned out of shame after being impeached. Clinton didn't. Trump gives
zero f**ks so this outcome isn't even worth discussing.
The Senate is more important. It is just barely within reach for Democrats if everything
goes in their favor. If they win every single seat that is competitive, Democrats get 51/100
seats, plus 2 independents who side with them, but minus a couple of Democrats-in-name-only
who regularly vote with Republicans (West Virginia's Manchin for example). Recall that the
Vice President (Pence) is the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
More realistically, in a still optimistic scenario, Democrats will lose one or more of the
competitive races, and end up with 49-50 votes in the Senate. (they are expected to win big
in 2 years in 2020, due to many more Republicans facing re-election then).
Only someone morbidly partisan within the Corporate One-Party would bother seeking the
impeachment of a fungible geek like a US president. Indeed, those fixated on impeachment
evidently have no rationale beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome. To replace Trump with Pence
would be no improvement and most likely would make things worse. Trump and Pence share the
corporate globalization ideology and goals, but Trump's more chaotic execution is more likely
to lead to chaotic, perhaps system-destructive effects more quickly than a more disciplined
execution. The same is true of any Democrat we could envision replacing Trump in 2020.
That's why it was a good thing that Trump won in 2016: He's more likely to bring about a
faster collapse of the US empire and of the globalization system in general. Not because
these are his goals, but because his indiscipline adds a much-needed wild card to the
deck.
Needless to say, humanity and the Earth have nothing to lose, as we're slowly but surely
being exterminated once and for all regardless.
"... Trump's worldview is dominated by a zero-sum view of international relations in which the U.S. is constantly being ripped off by everyone. ..."
"... Trump is a militarist by instinct and as a matter of policy, and his progressive critics repudiate that as well. ..."
"... Trump's critique of past U.S. foreign policy boils down to complaining that other countries don't pay us for protection and that the U.S. doesn't plunder resources from the countries it invades. This is not, to put it mildly, what progressives consider to be wrong with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... The key failing in Brands' column is that he buys into the falsehood that Trump is in favor of "global retreat," and so he worries that both parties will soon be led by candidates advocating for that. For one thing, there has been no "retreat" under Trump, and everything he has done since taking office has been to mire the U.S. more deeply in the multiple wars he inherited. ..."
"... Literally never heard a Democratic Socialist advocate for anything other than what you summarized – threat de-escalation, reduce US military footprint abroad, don't use the threat of military force as a "diplomatic tool", stop the drone war, end the war in Afghanistan, etc. ..."
"... Of course right now Dem Socialists are just as marginalized within the Democratic party as you are within the Trumpian Neocon hellscape of the current Republican leadership. Maybe one day the Senate will have more Rand Pauls and Chris Murphys but right now we've just got a bunch of Grahams and Schumers perfectly happy to let Trump continue down this dark path. ..."
According to Brands, "the ideas at the heart of Trump's critique of U.S. foreign policy are also the ideas at the heart of the
progressive critique," but that's also simply not true. Trump's worldview is dominated by a zero-sum view of international relations
in which the U.S. is constantly being ripped off by everyone.
The progressive critics he cites specifically reject that assumption and emphasize the importance of international institutions.
Trump is a militarist by instinct and as a matter of policy, and his progressive critics repudiate that as well.
Trump's critique of past U.S. foreign policy boils down to complaining that other countries don't pay us for protection and
that the U.S. doesn't plunder resources from the countries it invades. This is not, to put it mildly, what progressives consider
to be wrong with U.S. foreign policy.
The key failing in Brands' column is that he buys into the falsehood that Trump is in favor of "global retreat," and so he
worries that both parties will soon be led by candidates advocating for that. For one thing, there has been no "retreat" under Trump,
and everything he has done since taking office has been to mire the U.S. more deeply in the multiple wars he inherited.
For another, progressives aren't calling for a "retreat" from international engagement, either. They are opposed to certain aggressive
and destructive policies, but they don't eschew engagement and cooperation with other states.
On the contrary, they are advocating
for more of that while rejecting the militarism that Trump embraces. Indeed, Bessner anticipates Brands' silly criticism and explicitly
says, "None of this means the United States should retreat from the world."
Anthony M says: September 26, 2018 at 5:30 pm
Literally never heard a Democratic Socialist advocate for anything other than what you summarized – threat
de-escalation, reduce US military footprint abroad, don't use the threat of military force as a "diplomatic tool", stop the
drone war, end the war in Afghanistan, etc.
Of course right now Dem Socialists are just as marginalized within the Democratic party as you are within the Trumpian
Neocon hellscape of the current Republican leadership. Maybe one day the Senate will have more Rand Pauls and Chris Murphys
but right now we've just got a bunch of Grahams and Schumers perfectly happy to let Trump continue down this dark path.
Is not Soros a CIA asset? He was instrumental in "color revolutions" in Soviet Union and post
Soviet republics.
This is really Byzantium level of political intrigue. A state with such a high level political intrigue might be
eventually replaced by military dictatorship.
Notable quotes:
"... An aide to George Soros, Michael Vachon, has confirmed a February report that the left-wing billionaire financier has funded an ongoing effort by Fusion GPS and ex-Feinstein staffer and former FBI agent, Dan Jones, to privately continue the Trump-Russia investigation, according to the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross. ..."
"... Vachon made the admission to the Washington Post 's David Ignatious - who has previously been accused of being a deep-state conduit. ..."
"... Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. " ..."
"... In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel Committee report. ..."
"... An April House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million. ..."
George Soros has admitted to funding an ongoing private Trump-Russia investigation
conducted by Fusion GPS and a former FBI agent and staffer for Dianne Feinstein
In February, it emerged that Soros and a group of "mystery donors" had funded a $50
million "war chest" - as revealed in a House Intel Committee report
The former FBI agent and Feinstein staffer, Dan Jones, reportedly claimed to be working
with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele as part of the ongoing investigation
An aide to George Soros, Michael Vachon, has confirmed a February report that the
left-wing billionaire financier has funded an ongoing effort by Fusion GPS and ex-Feinstein
staffer and former FBI agent, Dan Jones, to privately continue the Trump-Russia investigation,
according to the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross.
Vachon made the admission to the
Washington Post 's David Ignatious - who has previously been accused of being a deep-state
conduit.
Ignatius notes at the end of a
Tuesday article downplaying GOP assertions that the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign actually colluded with Russia to defeat Trump; "Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson
declined to comment for this article. Soros's spokesman, Michael Vachon, told me that Soros
hadn't funded Fusion GPS directly but had made a grant to the Democracy Integrity Project,
which used Fusion GPS as a contractor. "
The Democracy Integrity Project - according to the
Caller, was formed in 2017 by Jones.
The Post column confirms what a Washington, D.C., lawyer named Adam Waldman told The Daily
Caller News Foundation about a conversation he had with Jones in March 2017.
Waldman was an attorney for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. He also worked in some
capacity for Christopher Steele, according to text messages he exchanged with Virginia Sen.
Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence panel.
In what the Post's Ignatius noted was an "incestuous" relationship, Steele, a former MI6
officer, has done work for the Kremlin-linked Deripaska in the past .
Waldman told TheDCNF that Jones approached him on March 15, 2017 through text message
asking to meet.
"Dan Jones here from the Democracy Integrity Project. Chris wanted us to connect," he
wrote, seemingly referring to Steele. At a meeting two days later, Waldman said that Jones
told him that he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS and that their project was being
funded by Soros and a group of Silicon Valley billionaires . - Daily Caller
effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by
The Federalist , after a series of
leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested
that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately
involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified
memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. "
In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their
investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel
Committee report.
Jones also runs the Penn Quarter Group - a "research and investigative advisory" firm whose
website was registered in April of 2016, days before Steele delivered his first in a series of
Trump-Russia memos to Fusion GPS . Jones also began tweeting out articles suggesting illicit
ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as early as 2017.
Steele's work during the 2016 election culminated in the salacious and unverified 35-page
"Steele dossier" used to obtain a FISA warrant against then-President Trump (which, as we
reported on Friday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
leaked the details to CNN 's Jake Tapper prior to the seemingly coordinated publication by
BuzzFeed ).
An April House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that he was working
with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million.
"In late March 2017, Jones met with FBI regarding PQG, which he described as 'exposing
foreign influence in Western election,'" reads the House Intel report. "[Redacted] told FBI
that PQG was being funded by 7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and
California, who provided approximately $50 million ."
"[Redacted] further stated that PQG had secured the services of Steele, his associate
[redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
Presidential election," reads the report, which adds that Jones " planned to share the
information he obtained with policymakers and with the press ."
And the Daily Caller 's
Chuck Ross noted at the time, Jones "also offered to provide PQG's entire holdings to the FBI"
according to the report, citing a "FD-302" transcript of the interview he gave to the FBI.
Of note, during Congressional testimony last year when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked Glenn
Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, if he was still being paid for work related to the dossier ,
Simpson refused
to answer . And while the dossier came under fire for "
salacious and unverified " claims, a January 8 New York
Times profile of Glenn Simpson confirmed that dossier-related work continues.
Sean Davis of The Federalist
reported in February that Jones' name was mentioned in a list of individuals from a
January 25 Congressional letter from Senators Grassley and Graham to various Democratic
party leaders who were likely involved in Fusion GPS's 2016 efforts. The letter sought all
communications between the Democrats and a list of 40 individuals or entities, of which Jones
is one.
Still no word on whether Jones and Fusion GPS - funded by Soros - have been able to find a
connection between Trump and Russia, but we're sure they'll keep plugging away.
insanelysane , 8 minutes ago
More fake dossiers? After the Kav fiasco of fake accusations, who the **** is going to
believe in anything else coming from Steele and Fusion and company?
Hyzer , 3 minutes ago
The New York Times for one.
Boscovius , 8 minutes ago
For good or bad, the Founders gave Treason a very strict definition. It probably won't
apply to very many of these fucko's. But yes, Sedition is most certainly on the menu.
medium giraffe , 11 minutes ago
"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side. If you will not fight, then you will
meet your destiny."
-Darth Soros
???ö? , 13 minutes ago
That's probably called SEDITION.
Grumbleduke , 14 minutes ago
are these assholes some kind of an exile government?
Where were they exactly exiled from, then? How about you yanks send some democracy bombs
their way, for a change?
Look at them as sacrificial lambs: the world would cheer, give you props and support like
after 9/11. Meanwhile new psychos with unimaginable wealth and cold-heartedness will quietly
take over. Don't you worry, we'll all get fucked hard.
One way or another - this clown show won't last for long.
You think your/"our" children will ever forgive us?
"... Rosenstein's discussion of wearing a wire into the Oval Office lends credence to that charge, but there is much more to it. The story begins with the hiring by the Clinton campaign, though its law firm cutout, in June 2016, of the dirt-divers of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Fusion swiftly hired retired British spy and Trump hater Christopher Steele, who contacted his old sources in the Russian intel community for dirt to help sink a U.S. presidential candidate. ..."
"... Regrettably, Trump, at the request of two allies -- the Brits almost surely one of them -- has put a hold on his recent decision to declassify all relevant documents inside the Justice Department and FBI. ..."
The New York Times report that Rosenstein, sarcastically or seriously in May 2017, talked of
wearing a wire into the Oval Office to entrap the president, suggests that his survival into
the new year is improbable.
Whether Thursday is the day President Donald Trump drops the hammer is unknown.
But if he does, the recapture by Trump of a Justice Department he believes he lost as his
term began may be at hand. Comparisons to President Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre may not be
overdone.
The Times report that Rosenstein also talked of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump
suggests that Sen. Lindsey Graham had more than a small point on "Fox News Sunday": "There's a
bureaucratic coup going on at the Department of Justice and the FBI, and somebody needs to look
at it."
Indeed, they do. And it is inexplicable that a special prosecutor has not been named. For
while the matter assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller, to investigate any Trump collusion
with Russia in hacking the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC, is serious, a far graver
matter has gotten far less attention.
To wit, did an anti-Trump cabal inside the Department of Justice and the FBI conspire to
block Trump's election, and having failed, plot to bring down his presidency in a "deep state"
coup d'etat?
Rosenstein's discussion of wearing a wire into the Oval Office lends credence to that
charge, but there is much more to it. The story begins with the hiring by the Clinton campaign,
though its law firm cutout, in June 2016, of the dirt-divers of Fusion GPS.
Fusion swiftly hired retired British spy and Trump hater Christopher Steele, who
contacted his old sources in the Russian intel community for dirt to help sink a U.S.
presidential candidate.
What his Russian friends provided was passed on by Steele to his paymaster at GPS, his
contact in the Justice Department, No. 3 man Bruce Ohr, and to the FBI, which was also paying
the British spy.
The FBI then used the dirt Steele unearthed, much of it false, to persuade a FISA court to
issue a warrant to wiretap Trump aide Carter Page. The warrant was renewed three times, the
last with the approval of Trump's own deputy attorney general, Rosenstein.
Regrettably, Trump, at the request of two allies -- the Brits almost surely one of them
-- has put a hold on his recent decision to declassify all relevant documents inside the
Justice Department and FBI.
Yet, as The Wall Street Journal wrote Monday, "As for the allies, sometimes U.S. democratic
accountability has to take precedence over the potential embarrassment of British
intelligence."
Even a leader of unparalleled integrity and probity would likely be outmatched and outflanked
by what we call "the Swamp" and alas, that's not Mr Trump to begin with. I do believe that
Trump is patriotic and wants what's best for the country but 1) that's not enough–he
also has colossal personal liabilities and issues of character and 2) our nation's capital is
full of people who are neither patriotic nor do they want what's best for the country.
The Establishment doesn't take kindly to apostates, whatever their stripe.
psychohistorian | Sep 24, 2018 11:43:23 PM | 123 "I hope for capitulation by the private
finance folk so society can evolve into some sort of meritocracy."
Unfortunately, the Cheney/Greenspan/Kagan kind does not capitulate voluntarily. They are
the impulsive leeches and born traitors. The deficit of decency shows in their progeny as
well -- see the disgusting youngsters from the Cheney, Bush, and Blair clans. All of them
openly enjoy the ill-gotten wealth that is soaked in the blood of the innocent. All of them
are subhuman deformities morality-wise.
"It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on
American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle
East."
Orange Clown's a liar whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud
from the beginning. Our presidential poseur obviously had no intention of following through
on most of his pre-election intimations and campaign promises.
Netanyahu might have considered it all a win-win either way, with the Russian plane
masking and enabling the Israeli attack without consequence for Israel or, perversely,
producing an incident inviting retaliation from Moscow, which would likely lead to a
shooting war with the United States after it inevitably steps in to support Israel's
government.
There we go! Glad someone gets it.
I had to read Saker's article suggesting that just maybe it could have been an
actual accident on Israel's part through my fingers as I could not manage to lift my face
from my palm the entire time.
It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on
American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the
Middle East.
I'd love to see this happen, but let's be real. If we pulled out of Israel's terror wars,
Mossad would stage a false flag to bring us right back in less than 12 months later. There's
only one way to stop fighting wars for Israel and that's to end Israel. We've got to strike
at the roots, not the branches.
If
Russia shot down Israeli aircraft or bombed the airbase from which they took off, or even
obliterated Israel, America would do nothing but bitch and complain. The American military
does not want a war with Russia, because they know they cannot win a conventional war with
Russia. I would go so far as to say that even if Russia sank American warships including an
aircraft carrier America would not go to war.
America does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them to the continental United States. That is why she would bend over backwards to
prevent a war with countries like Russia, China or North Korea, and the reason these
countries need not fear America. The prevention of nuclear war is the underlying premise of
American foreign policy. It has been since the nuclear age began. America would only use its
nuclear weapons if the American mainland is hit with nuclear weapons.
America would accept the loss of hundreds or even thousands of its servicemen rather than
have the continental USA turned into a wasteland. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment
of US unwillingness to fight a nuclear power, but .I also can't forget that the US ruling
elites are pathological. Psychotic with hubris, greed & egoism. The "exceptional", the
"indispensable" nation .& worse, the wagging dog to the Israeli tail.
Trump
is owned by israel, I wish I was wrong, but there is no way around it. I mean, I expect him
any day to convert to judaism.
No way around it. Trump's infamous campaign slogan of MAGA
quickly mutated into MIGA which is the originally intended version anyways. Obedience to
Israel has become a norm in presidential election campaigns. Even the disenfranchised
minority caucuses, including and especially the Black one is firmly in Israel's pockets now.
The Black leadership role has now been essentially reduced to making the odd noise after the
shooting of an unarmed Black by a White cop.
Trump is presently at the U.N. repeating all the American foreign policy propaganda. The hubris he's delivering is off the
charts. Disgusting doesn't begin to cover how deceptive and slimy his zionist-authored rhetoric is. He's a sad, pathetic
mouthpiece for his masters in Israel.
"... If Trump backs the British looneys in the UN security council in a day or two we can all be sure he is now a puppet on a British string and that point will be seen by USA voters. ..."
"... Any leader that lets a foreign nation, Britain, try to destroy his family, presidential campaign and now presidency by assembling and publishing a dirt dossier without response is a coward. If Trump wont stand up to Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, or any of the dossier conspirators, then he is useless. The USA voters see that no matter what the spin but the swing voters more than any other actually discriminate and make judgements based on actions ..."
"... They are in a quandary and only Trump can cement their support by going after the perpetrators NOW and telling the EU loonies like Britain and France to F off with their belligerent war mongering. I wouldn't count on it. ..."
More notions on USA election so excuse a repeat post all. I figure an enormous number of
voters reeled in horror at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton president and voted for Trump.
Will that horror revert to more democrat support now?
Are those swing voters now uncertain if the $hillary will stage a come back. Nothing
absolute has been stated and the demoncrats go through the motions of 'thinking about'
another stooge like creepy Joe Biden. The USA is not liberated from the 'Clinton option'
yet.
More to the point though is that repeatedly implied and sometimes stated 'certainty' that
the DOJ/FBI under its new Trumpian management has a thousand grand jury indictments pending
to be actioned in October or something. The Trumpers are certain that their hero is about to
slay the many headed dragon and they have been anticipating that move for some time. Sure
there appears to be sufficient evidence to draw and quarter a couple of seriously stupid
clowns.
Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there
is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no
matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues. If
Trump backs the British looneys in the UN security council in a day or two we can all be sure
he is now a puppet on a British string and that point will be seen by USA voters.
Any leader that lets a foreign nation, Britain, try to destroy his family,
presidential campaign and now presidency by assembling and publishing a dirt dossier without
response is a coward. If Trump wont stand up to Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, or any of the
dossier conspirators, then he is useless. The USA voters see that no matter what the spin but
the swing voters more than any other actually discriminate and make judgements based on
actions .
They are in a quandary and only Trump can cement their support by going after the
perpetrators NOW and telling the EU loonies like Britain and France to F off with their
belligerent war mongering. I wouldn't count on it.
"... If Trump backs the British looneys in the UN security council in a day or two we can all be sure he is now a puppet on a British string and that point will be seen by USA voters. ..."
"... Any leader that lets a foreign nation, Britain, try to destroy his family, presidential campaign and now presidency by assembling and publishing a dirt dossier without response is a coward. If Trump wont stand up to Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, or any of the dossier conspirators, then he is useless. The USA voters see that no matter what the spin but the swing voters more than any other actually discriminate and make judgements based on actions ..."
"... They are in a quandary and only Trump can cement their support by going after the perpetrators NOW and telling the EU loonies like Britain and France to F off with their belligerent war mongering. I wouldn't count on it. ..."
More notions on USA election so excuse a repeat post all. I figure an enormous number of
voters reeled in horror at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton president and voted for Trump.
Will that horror revert to more democrat support now?
Are those swing voters now uncertain if the $hillary will stage a come back. Nothing
absolute has been stated and the demoncrats go through the motions of 'thinking about'
another stooge like creepy Joe Biden. The USA is not liberated from the 'Clinton option'
yet.
More to the point though is that repeatedly implied and sometimes stated 'certainty' that
the DOJ/FBI under its new Trumpian management has a thousand grand jury indictments pending
to be actioned in October or something. The Trumpers are certain that their hero is about to
slay the many headed dragon and they have been anticipating that move for some time. Sure
there appears to be sufficient evidence to draw and quarter a couple of seriously stupid
clowns.
Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there
is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no
matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues. If
Trump backs the British looneys in the UN security council in a day or two we can all be sure
he is now a puppet on a British string and that point will be seen by USA voters.
Any leader that lets a foreign nation, Britain, try to destroy his family,
presidential campaign and now presidency by assembling and publishing a dirt dossier without
response is a coward. If Trump wont stand up to Hillary Clinton, Theresa May, or any of the
dossier conspirators, then he is useless. The USA voters see that no matter what the spin but
the swing voters more than any other actually discriminate and make judgements based on
actions .
They are in a quandary and only Trump can cement their support by going after the
perpetrators NOW and telling the EU loonies like Britain and France to F off with their
belligerent war mongering. I wouldn't count on it.
Well, well, Mr.Trump talks the talk but never walks the walk it semms...
If only poor Kennedy would be so lucky...
Nobody to point fingers at for wiring the president...
Did they wire Kenny Mr.Trump?
You did a big show about putting out stuff that would reveal what happened with kennedy,
but instead the people were fed the ussual BS plus some "new" irrelevant" stuff.
Was it just a show to push for more power for your favorite Mr.Netanyahou?
"... The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests. ..."
That was mild, though, compared to the "bloodbath" (Kaplan's word) that ensued after
Mearsheimer teamed up with Harvard's own iconoclastic realist, Stephen M. Walt, to produce a
2006 magazine article on the U.S.-Israel relationship, later expanded into a book entitled
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy .
The thesis was that pro-Israel groups in the United States had pushed the
country into policy decisions favored by Israel but contrary to American interests.
Arguing the Constitution with Brennan is like arguing the Bible with an Atheist.
hansenwtLeader -> KCMark
Except Brennan will be in charge of something again in the next Democrat Presidency....if
you vote Democrat....Anyone that remotely acts like Brennan, (not a partisan
argument)...should never ever be allowed near the levers of control of this country....the
2016 election has proven this.
Brennan is dreaming about acceptance of Mueller witch hunt for all Americans: "It is critically important for all of the American citizens to learn the results of that
investigation, and whether or not it implicates Mr. Trump and others, we have to be ready to
accept those findings as apolitical, and not something that is being done for political
purposes," he said.
Notable quotes:
"... Actually, Brennan...there is nothing unconstitutional about what Trump is doing. Nothing at all, not one thing. Your call for circumvention is however seditious and you should be prosecuted for your actions. But beyond that, your fear and your blathering makes me smile from ear to ear because it means you are scared that the truth about you and your ilk WILL come one. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". It is precious watching you squirm! ..."
"... Arguing the Constitution with Brennan is like arguing the Bible with an Atheist. ..."
"... So, why should WE THE PEOPLE not be able to see what Brennan and his ilk have either been leaking selectively at us or hiding to subvert a lawful election. ..."
Former CIA director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan called on FBI director Christopher
Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
to "push back" on any directive from the White House that may have a "negative impact" on the
Mueller investigation.
Brennan called on "individuals of conscience" in the administration to remember that they
took an oath of office not an oath to Donald Trump. Moments prior Brennan admonished people who
are abusing their powers to "protect" Trump.
"I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House
does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to
the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign," Brennan said of the trio.
"A number of individuals are trying to protect Mr. Trump and abusing their authorities and
their powers, whether it be in Congress or within the executive branch," Brennan said on
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports . "And this is something that I am hoping that
individuals of conscience are going to stop and prevent because I am concerned that this is
just one indication that Mr. Trump is going to increasingly look for steps to take in order to
further to try to subvert the Mueller investigation."
"I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House
does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to
the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign, but if they really believe this
is going to have serious impact, the national security law enforcement, and judicial process,
they have an obligation since they took the oath of office to the constitution of the United
States and not Mr. Trump to uphold their responsibilities and their agency and the departments'
authorities," Brennan said.
Brennan called it critically important that Americans accept the results of the Mueller
probe.
"It is critically important for all of the American citizens to learn the results of that
investigation, and whether or not it implicates Mr. Trump and others, we have to be ready to
accept those findings as apolitical, and not something that is being done for political
purposes," he said.
JackDan
Actually, Brennan...there is nothing unconstitutional about what Trump is doing. Nothing at all, not one thing. Your
call for circumvention is however seditious and you should be prosecuted for your actions. But beyond that, your fear and
your blathering makes me smile from ear to ear because it means you are scared that the truth about you and your ilk WILL
come one. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". It is precious watching you squirm!
KCMarkLeader -> JackDan
Arguing the Constitution with Brennan is like arguing the Bible with an Atheist.
hansenwtLeader -> KCMark
Except Brennan will be in charge of something again in the next Democrat Presidency....if you vote Democrat....Anyone that
remotely acts like Brennan, (not a partisan argument)...should never ever be allowed near the levers of control of this
country....the 2016 election has proven this.
Edgarson
So, why should WE THE PEOPLE not be able to see what Brennan and his ilk have either been leaking selectively at us or
hiding to subvert a lawful election.
We're talking about FISA warrants of a Presidential campaign's staff.
Why should we not see this? Why should the truth not all come out?
What possible reason can Brennan have to keep THIS out of public knowledge?
JackDanLeader -> Edgarson
The only logical reason is because Brennan does not want to go to jail. Well too bad Brennan!
SUTOPEL
In other words, this man is telling the FBI NOT to release anything that belongs to We The People.
JackDanLeader -> SUTOPEL
In other words he is openly advocating for government officials to disobey a presidential order, which is either sedition
or treason. I'll let Brennan pick which one.
The tragedy is that Georgetown Prep and Yale alumni like Pompeo have no fear of lampposts or
Hiroshima. Unless the elite work to get consent of the governed back again, the future will be
one or the other.
The armed forces are watching the present chaos in the US between the revolutionary
"Progressives" and the counter-revolutionary "Deplorables." Our versions of Belisarius, Narses
and Mundus are calculating the odds of an eventual calming of the discord. They cannot think
that the odds are very good.
Political war could easily lead to the real thing. pl
Literally the best pithy summary of the current trends on the right and the left
that I have read since since the current arc started with the 2008 Great
Recession.
With respect can I say that I would have thought a more accurate historical parallel
would have been the late Roman Republic where the Populares (deplorables) were in
conflict with the Optimates (progressives). The latter used every measure they could
devise, including assassination, to prevent their opponents passing legislation that
might improve the lot of the people. This of course was simply capping the Volcano
and when it eventually erupted it destroyed them all and Imperial Rome arose out of
the ashes. So it will be here. Democracy in the United States is perishing in the
internecine warfare of Washington DC. Eventually Caesar will arise and put an end to
the Republic.
The 82nd Airborne v. Antifa ? Some would crawl over broken glass to be in that very
short event, but I suggest it will never happen.
However, two Generals, and a Eunuch (plenty of candidates for that job) bearing
gold v. The Resistance ? Will your own Theodora, or her step-daughter, call 'Stand To
!' ?
The parallels are very interesting. Provided that the FBI can arrest a bunch of
internal high level subversives and crooks (not hard to find..) as an initiating
event, and a USSC member or two provides a legal opinion as a basis for action, and
the Constitution is followed, and the affair ends with a Presidential and
Congressional election to reset the board, it could turn out very well.
Timing ? I think Trump will win in 2020, whether he makes it to 2024, who knows ?
One thing I'm confident of is that the POTUS after Trump will need to heed the people
who elected Trump if their issues are still unresolved - and if not then hold on for
the ride.
I think things will settle down once Trump's gone. Pence is kind of bland, and his
politics would be nothing new, warmed over Reagan/Bush. A new war on Iran would be a
wild card.
There might be a real crisis in ten years or so based on demographic shifts. What
some people call "the left" will start flipping states like Georgia and Texas, just
as Virginia and NC are being flipped.
National power would be lost to the GOP in current form. They might retool and
recover by reorienting to their traditional smallholder base from the earlier 20th
century and abandon the cultural and racial posturing.
If there's another presidential election crisis like 2000, the possibility of
trouble is real. I also wonder about these Special Operations types would could see
the injustice of supermen like them being ruled by civilians.
A combination of the final results of the Mueller investigation and the House passing
to the Democrats. In the alternative, Trump firing Mueller and a Democratic
House.
Pence is much more reliable for The Powers that Be, the Borg, etc.
Submitted mostly for humor, the story told here unintentionally, perhaps, reminds
hilariously of our own in spots. Please nuke without comment if this is leading
towards an undesired conversation.
Eugene Weber's Western Tradition series, The Byzantine Empire:
Arguing the Constitution with Brennan is like arguing the Bible with an Atheist.
hansenwtLeader -> KCMark
Except Brennan will be in charge of something again in the next Democrat Presidency....if
you vote Democrat....Anyone that remotely acts like Brennan, (not a partisan
argument)...should never ever be allowed near the levers of control of this country....the
2016 election has proven this.
Is the FBI trying to goad President Trump into firing the man in charge of supervising
the Mueller probe? That's what Sean Hannity and a handful of Trump's Congressional allies
think.
According to a report in Politico, Republicans in Congress are approaching a story
about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein attempting to organize a palace coup with
extreme caution, despite having twice nearly gathered the votes to remove him in the recent
past.
Meanwhile, Trump allies including Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Florida Congressman
Matt Gaetz are saying that the story should be treated with suspicion. Jordan and Freedom
Caucus leader Mark Meadows once filed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. But now,
both Meadows and Jordan intend to proceed with caution, telling Politico that he would like
to see the memos that the story was based on.
Sean Hannity took this latter theory a step further during his show on Friday evening,
where he urged Trump not to fire Rosie and instead insisted that the story could have been a
"trap". He added that he had been told by "multiple sources" that the story was planted by
unspecified "enemies of Trump."
"I have a message for the president tonight," Hannity said Friday night. "Under zero
circumstances should the president fire anybody the president needs to know it is all a
setup."
The NYT would anything to destroy Trump so, on general principles, the set up story has
plausibility.
US President Donald Trump has given his first detailed public comment concerning a report on
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's alleged proposal to secretly record the president last
year. The president quickly shifted his focus to US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, declaring
that Rosenstein was hired by the AG and that Trump had nothing to do with the deputy attorney
general's appointment, according to Fox News.
The question was raised because Trump announced on January 31, 2017, that he would nominate
Rosenstein to be the deputy attorney general.
"I was not involved in that process because, you know, they go out and get their own
deputies and the people that work in the department," Trump said, cited by the Hill.
The president's remarks came a week after an interview in which Trump -- perhaps decrying a
lack of lockstep loyalty from the AG -- asserted that he didn't have an attorney general, while
declaring that he had chosen Sessions, a former Republican Senator for Alabama, out of an
assurance that loyalty would be the most important job requirement.
Sessions came under fire from Trump after the AG recused himself from overseeing the ongoing
investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election – a
probe now overseen by Rosenstein. However, the deputy attorney general was recently criticized
by Senator Lindsey Graham who suggested Rosenstein should appoint a special counsel to
investigate FBI's actions, trying to "destroy the President", Sunday News reported. "If
Rosenstein's involved, he should be fired. If he's not involved, leave him alone," Graham
said.
Trump referred to the Rosenstein allegations as "a very sad story" and has promised to "make
a determination" about how to proceed.
According to Fox News, Rosenstein allegedly made his comment in May 2017, while meeting with
temporary acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, following Trump's firing of agency head James
Comey. McCabe was himself fired by Trump in March after an internal Justice Department
investigation found that he lied about his involvement in a news media disclosure. Rosenstein
called the Fox News report of his alleged suggestion to secretly record Trump "inaccurate and
factually incorrect" adding "there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment" based on the
deputy AG's interactions with the current US president.
"... "so long as they are transparent with the users about how they are using the data." ..."
"... In practice, this means that any app that shares your private data with advertisers must disclose this fact in their privacy policy. This is seen first in a pop-up box that includes a note that the app wants permission to "read, send, delete and manage your email." However, information about the marketers this data is shared with can often be more difficult to find. ..."
"... In their letter to the company, the senators claim that one marketing company, Return Path Inc, read the private contents of 8,000 emails to train its AI algorithms. ..."
"... "not limited to your name, email address, username and password." ..."
"... At least 379 apps available on the Apple and Android marketplaces can access users' email data. In Google's letter to Congress, the firm declined to say when, if ever, it has suspended an app for not complying with its rules. ..."
"... Google itself has mined users' emails since Gmail was launched in 2004, but announced last year that it would stop the practice, amid privacy concerns and a federal wiretapping lawsuit. ..."
"... "discuss possible approaches to safeguarding privacy more effectively." ..."
"... Everything you've ever searched for on any of your devices is recorded & stored by Google https://t.co/8KGgO0xT92 ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Omnipresent tech giant Google told US senators that it lets third-party
apps read data from Gmail accounts and share this information with marketers, even though
Google itself allegedly stopped this practice last year. In a letter sent to the lawmakers in
July and made public on Thursday, Google said that developers may share your data with third
parties for the purposes of ad-targeting, "so long as they are transparent with the users
about how they are using the data."
In practice, this means that any app that shares your private data with advertisers must
disclose this fact in their privacy policy. This is seen first in a pop-up box that includes a
note that the app wants permission to "read, send, delete and manage your email."
However, information about the marketers this data is shared with can often be more difficult
to find.
Google's letter came in response to a request by Republican senators for information about
the scope of the email content accessible to these third parties. In their
letter to the company, the senators claim that one marketing company, Return Path Inc, read
the private contents of 8,000 emails to train its AI algorithms.
Return Path told the Wall Street Journal at the time that, while it did not explicitly ask
users whether it could read their emails, permission is given in their user agreements, which
state that the company collects personal information including but "not limited to your
name, email address, username and password."
At least 379 apps available on the Apple and Android marketplaces can access users' email
data. In Google's letter to Congress, the firm declined to say when, if ever, it has suspended
an app for not complying with its rules.
Google itself has mined users' emails since Gmail was launched in 2004, but announced last
year that it would stop the practice, amid privacy concerns and a federal wiretapping
lawsuit.
Now, privacy officials from Google, Apple and Amazon are preparing to travel to Capitol Hill
next week, for a Commerce Committee
hearing . There, the tech companies will be asked to "discuss possible approaches to
safeguarding privacy more effectively."
Everything you've ever searched for on any of your devices is recorded & stored by
Google https://t.co/8KGgO0xT92
The hearing is another in a series of grillings faced by the tech industry since the
Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal revealed in March that Facebook allowed a third party to
collect personal information on millions of users. Google CEO Larry Page was invited to a
Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on political bias, foreign interference and privacy on
tech platforms earlier this month, but declined to show up, sending a written testimony
instead.
The letter from the Democrats on the Gang of 8 to Coats, Rosenstein and Wray is
something. Asking them to be insubordinate by refusing the order of the President to
release unredacted documents & communications. What were the verbal assurances these
apparatchiks gave the Democrats? Did they agree to withhold information from their boss?
As Col. Lang has stated numerous times the President is the ultimate classification
authority except for atomic secrets. Coats, Rosenstein & Wray I'm sure know that. If
they disagree with his declassification order they can always resign. Insubordination is
a fireable offense.
If Trump is a Deep State puppet, then why Deep stat fight it with such intensity. Why "Steele dossier", w3hy Mueller, why "Mistressgate"
But it is true that Trump essentially conduct typical Republican President policy, like Obama betraying his electorate.
Notable quotes:
"... So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has surrounded himself with. Lol ..."
"... offshore money coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the next housing market collapse. ..."
Stormy Daniels supposedly said she was surprised to hear Trump was running for President
because he had said to her he didnt want to be be President. After all, why would he? Rich
guy with maybe 5 years left to live. Who needs it?
So why did he run. He had no choice. Look at the ease in which government can bring dawn
anyone with tax and money laundering charges and look at his partners and a number of his
dodgy financial dealings not to mention the ongoing audit firing his campaign. His buddy
Felix Sater cut a deal and so didn't Trump. Run and serve and keep your wealth and stay out of
jail, and make a few billion with insider deals while you are at it.
So the Deep State which is far more than entrenched bureaucrats as the naive define it (it
includes the ruling elite in finance, MIC, oil, MSM, retired
intelligence/military/state/congress, etc), brought in a controlled Trojan horse pretending
to be a populist who was all about the working class and anti establishment, anti war and
anti globalist while those he served were opposites. Look at what he has done and who he has
surrounded himself with. Lol
So what is the endgame for this Russiagate and this phony Deep State vs Trump nonsense?
Why Trump?
Not sure I know for sure. Polarizing and dividing the US with perhaps a civil war when
Trump gets impeached and resigns, or at least imposition of permanent martial law. Get
support for massive censorship which all authoritarian regimes need. And of course as the US
goes down this path its puppet states in EU, UK and elsewhere will follow. I guess we will
have to wait and see.
In the meantime, Trump will feed the beast (tax cuts for rich, tarrifs for middle class,
higher Military spending, cuts to Medicare/Medicaid/social security, higher insurance
premiums/HC costs, phony economic figures to mask deteriorating economic conditions for the
median (remember when Trump said the same of Hillary using the same bogus figures)
Fewer people are working in the US under Trump as more people are disappeared from the
work force. GDP growth per MH is due to higher extraction of wealth from middle class by the
rentier class, and stock market growth is due to central bank purchases, offshore money
coming home due to tax breaks and of course the plunge protection team removing the risk of a
major drop until after the mid term elections. We are already seeing the beginning of the
next housing market collapse.
"... shortly after FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office, and himself wearing a wire to record the President at the White House. Rosenstein is supervising the Mueller Special Counsel investigation of the President. Rosenstein has heatedly denied the Times story. ..."
"... Also this week, Mueller's first victim, former Trump Campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos began press appearances detailing how he was set up by the British and the CIA in the evidence fabrication phase of the Russiagate investigation, during the Spring of 2016. ..."
Friday afternoon, the New York Times once again took up the coup against Donald
Trump, not as a news matter, but as a witting psychological warfare instrument for those bent
on trying to illegally remove this President from office. They
report, with great fervor, that shortly after FBI Director James Comey was fired by
Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the
President from office, and himself wearing a wire to record the President at the White House.
Rosenstein is supervising the Mueller Special Counsel investigation of the President.
Rosenstein has heatedly denied the Times story.
This leak occurs in a context where the coup itself is unraveling. The President ordered the
declassification of foundational documents in the coup itself on Monday, September 17,
including tweets from Robert Mueller's central witness, Jim Comey. According to press accounts,
"our allies" called to complain, most certainly the British and the Australians who instigated
this coup together with Barack Obama and John Brennan. In addition, the so-called gang of eight
Senators and Congressmen who get briefed by the intelligence community had their knickers in a
full knot. On Friday, shortly before the Times story broke, the President delayed release of
the documents, placing their release in the hands of Justice Department Inspector General
Michael Horowitz, while insisting that the documents be reviewed and released in an expedited
fashion. He also reserved the right to move forward himself if the matter was not handled with
expedition. This was a sound move by Trump and the documents will be released.
Also this week, Mueller's first victim, former Trump Campaign volunteer George
Papadopoulos began press appearances detailing how he was set up by the British and the CIA in
the evidence fabrication phase of the Russiagate investigation, during the Spring of 2016.
There is a sitting grand jury in Washington D.C. hearing evidence concerning fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe. According to various sources, that grand jury is also hearing evidence
about criminal abuses of the FISA court process and media leaks.
The press reporting to date on the story points to Andrew McCabe or Robert Mueller as the
source of the leak to the New York Times .
McCabe's memos are reportedly the source of the story and he has provided those to
Mueller.
There is no doubt that Rosenstein has been a corrupt force throughout the ongoing coup
against the President.
The question, which allies of the President should be asking, however, is why is this
occurring now? In this strategic context? From the grey lady ragsheet that is the chief
propaganda arm of the coup?
The President should demand that the Inspector General Horowitz immediately obtain and
review the McCabe memos and interview everyone involved in the referenced in the Times
and any follow-on meetings under oath, as well as investigating the source of the leak to the
New York Times , providing him an immediate report for his consideration by early next
week.
I think it is very unlikely that Trump will fire Rosenstein now. After all, he has not
fired Sessions, Rosenstein, or Mueller for a long time, even though it must be hard to watch
this Russiagate charade going on for over two years from the beginning of the FBI
investigation without the slightest evidence so far (and, according to Strzok's and Page's
messages, without any concrete indication at the time Mueller was appointed) and most
influential media still pretending all the time the big bombshell could come any moment,
which has considerably weakened Trump. But he is hardly completely stupid, he knows that it
is in his best interest to let Mueller finish the investigation and show how little he
has.
Trump may not be the most sophisticated intellectual, but the idea that he acts
impulsively without thinking about the consequences is hardly appropriate. The idea that
Trump may now fire Rosenstein is probably mostly based on the fact that he fired Comey. But
firing Comey was hardly a rash, impulsive decision - it was recommended to Trump by
Rosenstein. The same Rosenstein who then, right after Comey had been fired on the basis of
his recommendation used that firing and Comey's leak for appointing special counsel Mueller.
This is such an absurd dirty trick Rosenstein had played on Trump that I find it astonishing
that Trump did not fired Rosenstein right away after Rosenstein had recommended him to fire
Comey and then used the firing of Comey for appointing Mueller - I would have fired
Rosenstein in Trump's position, but he probably knows much more about surviving power
struggles than I do, and since he did not fire Rosenstein right after that treacherous
behavior, it is very unlikely that he will do so after a few additional rumors in the
media.
I don't think Democrats really want impeachment. Especially if they are going to win the
midterms (and only then is impeachment realistic), they will conclude that, even though he
won in 2016, he will easy to beat in 2020, and they will hardly want to lose their favorite
bogeyman before 2020 (especially since most of them don't want to run on political issues
because the overlap of what the Democratic base wants and what the Democratic donors want is
so small, being just anti-Trump is an easy way out). Furthermore, even if Democrats win, they
cannot magically make evidence for Russiagate appear (they may spin some factoids Mueller may
present, but the power of that is probably limited).
Still, I think the midterms are important, mainly because Democrats will use a majority in
the House for stopping the congressional investigation into the abuse of power of the secret
services and their collusion with the Clinton campaign. I find it an absurd situation when
most mainstream media pretend that „spygate" (somthing for which there is a lot of
initial evidence, even just the texts by Strzok and Page certainly would be enough for
appointing a special counsel) is an absurd conspiracy theory meant to distract from the
really important topic, Russiagate (something for which „there is no there there", no
evidence, at all after over two years from the first Russiagate claims). Winning the midterms
will probably allow Democrats to let the whole Russiagate story into the background (just
claiming Trump is not fit for the job, even if he is no Russian puppet), but if they lose,
they cannot stop Nunes, and then, Trump may also be freer to support uncovering the abuse of
power by people in the secret services.
I am to the left of most Democrats, and therefore I find it odd that I am now convinced
that it is very important that Republicans retain a majority in the House. But I think it is
very important that the abuse of power by people in the secret services is investigated and
prosecuted, therefore I hope that this time, at least some leftists will vote for Republicans
because the abuse of power by secret services is such a threat to democracy that it should
have high priority (the other reason why I hope Republicans win the midterms is the extremely
belligerent language many Democrats use towards Russia, who knows to which dangerous
jingoistic acts such irresponsible lunatics could drive Trump, even if Republicans'
ecological policies are worse for the future of humanity in the long run, in the short run,
avoiding nuclear war is more important).
If the NYT version of the incident is true, it indeed would give Trump plenty of
reasons to fire Rosenstein (and Mueller and Session.) Several prominent Trump
supporters
urge him to do such:
Fox News host Laura Ingraham tweeted that Rosenstein "needs to go. Today."
The president's son Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: "No one is shocked that these guys would
do anything in their power to undermine" the president.
Eric Bolling, a former Fox News host who is in contact with the president, said that
"if the allegation is true, absolutely fire Rosenstein. No one could find fault in that
decision now."
But firing Rosenstein now would be a huge mistake. It would be perceived as a Saturday Night
Massacre :
The Saturday Night Massacre was a series of events which took place in the United States
on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal. U.S.
President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire independent
special prosecutor Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately.
Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus
refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the
Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork considered
resigning, but did as Nixon asked.
It is obvious who would be served by such a 'slaughter'. It would not help
Trump or the Republicans at all. It would be huge gift to the Democrats who have long
prepared for such an eventuality. Dozens
of groups aligned with the Democrats have prepared
a campaign to be launched the very moment Trump announces the firing of Mueller,
Session or Rosenstein:
[W]e're preparing to hold emergency "Nobody Is Above the Law" rallies around the country
in the event they are needed -- 900+ of them and counting, in every state, with 400,000
RSVPs to date!
Join us.
Such a campaign now could be used to get-out-the-votes on November 6. It would
be immensely helpful for the Democrats and increase their chance to capture the House
and/or Senate.
In defense of publishing the piece the NYT's deputy managing editor Matt Purdy
says :
... this story is based on months of reporting.
So why is it coming out now? The answer seems obvious. The NYT report is a
trap, timed for the upcoming election. It is not an attack on Rod Rosenstein, but on Trump.
It is supposed to goad him into an impulsive reaction and to commit a Saturday night
massacre of his own. Nixon's 'massacre' was highly negative for him and helped to bring him
down.
Trump did not became president by being stupid. I don't think he will fall for
this.
The US economy is not running real well except for the very very well to do, and
those who happen to work for the likes of Google or Facebook, or of course an ibank.
The USA economy is not doing that great. It has the perception that it's doing better and
that perception has become reality. A false one but one that people believe Trump has
brought them.
Trump is fighting a desperate action to revive the USA, the LEFT is fighting everyone of
his initiatives every step of the way.
However TRUMP has made this easier for the LEFT and NEOCONS by allowing them a space in his
administration.
There was no GOD DAMNED reason for him to keep Rosenstein.
There were so many good people willing and waiting to be called into Government service
that would've helped push his agenda.
Everything Trump gets is his own fault
"A majority might even give the Democrats a chance to impeach Trump."
Well, 67 votes are required and without a
Saturday Night Massacre" or "tapes" which provide irrefutable evidence the possibility of
67 votes seems quite remote. I don't even think they are pushing for impeachment, they talk
a big game yet vote through 15 life time judges without a word and hand over to him an
extra 80 billion for bombs. Destabilization abroad brought home.
It's interesting to see this maneuver in a chain to goad Trump, following the continuing
lackluster Mueller fiasco and in line with Woodward's book, the op-ed, and Democratic
Kavanaugh maneuvering. Trump has been reluctant to get rid of Mueller, and probably will
continue caution there--but now we have Rosenstein implicated in possible subversion
(speaking of who is above the law meme??) and blocking release of the classified memos,
which disclosure most likely will deepen the prejudice problem the DOJ is up against. This
bias throughout the IC is slowly coming out to JQ Public. So, B, I think Trump will
show some balls here and fire Rosenstein and Sessions, and that will help the Repubs in the
elections vs. hurting them.
exiled off mainstreet , Sep 22, 2018 4:03:04 PM |
link
The time to fire Rosenstein will come after Muller issues his final report. Probably the
day after. I have a feeling Muller will wrap it up right after the midterms. It appears
that the soft coup going on against Trump is orchestrated at the highest levels of the
bureaucracy with support from the DNC. Now that McCain is gone the Republican support seems
to have fizzled out.
Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik has been talking about coups and counter coups surrounding Trump
in the US government on the AJ show and his own website. He does have the chops to back it
up. Some of maybe a form of psyops since that is his specialty.
The Democrats have to win the midterms. If they do not then Trump will have the
opportunity to hire a strong AG and finish cleaning out the upper echelon of the FBI. With
that the focus will be investigations and criminal action against the perpetrators of the
soft coup among other issues. I am not sure how far that will get as the deep state has a
deep bench and Trump is surrounding himself with Kabbalists, NEOCONS, and Evangelical
Zionists.
All the leading economic indicators are great to healthy except for inflation which is
slightly above the FED target. Where I am at all the skilled workers are working and many
businesses are hiring. Homelessness is worse than I have ever seen but I do not see any
Latino or Asian homeless people. It is nearly 100% white or African Americans. Most appear
to be drugged out losers.
I agree with Bernhard that the NY Times article is intended to
get Trump to sack Rosenstein, Sessions and even Mueller, and, though the Times and neolibs
and neocons think that the superficial resemblance to the Saturday Night Massacre would
lead them to victory, the obvious bullshit of the campaign, which even the Times article
reveals despite itself would insulate Trump against such a backlash occurring. In fact, the
planned media firestorm might itself create a backlash, since Trump would no doubt say that
the reason he was acting was the fact sedition had been proven by the actions of
Rosenstein, Mueller, et. al. and his supporters would increase because many of those who
supported him because he wasn't the harpy are disappointed with his failure to even be able
to control his justice ministry. I agree with Sid2 (no. 7) that if he did show some cojones
and acted against the coup plotters he would gain rather than lose support. Also, people
favour stability over chaos, which is what a democratic victory in congress would achieve,
since the democrats have, with a few laudable exceptions, totally sold out to the imperial
power structure and the neoliberal capitalist model.
A confidential report by Belgian investigators confirms that British intelligence services
hacked state-owned Belgian telecom giant Belgacom on behalf of Washington, it was revealed on
Thursday (20 September).
The report, which summarises a five-year judicial inquiry, is almost complete and was
submitted to the office of Justice Minister Koen Geens, a source close to the case told AFP,
confirming Belgian press reports
The matter will now be discussed within Belgium's National Security Council, which
includes the Belgian Prime Minister with top security ministers and officials.
Contacted by AFP, the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's Office and the cabinet of Minister
Geens refused to comment .
####
NO. Shit. Sherlock.
So the real question is that if this has known since 2013, why now? BREXIT?
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
A little-known unit in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is conducting
a covert surveillance, espionage and blackmail campaign against American citizens on a large
scale. Not since the arrest of Jonathan Jay Pollard and the 1992 expose of the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai Brith's espionage against civil rights activists has the Israeli government
been so actively involved in clandestine influence and espionage against American targets.
The unit is Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, headed by director general Sima
Vaknin-Gil. Vaknin-Gil reports personally to PM Netanyahu. Vaskin-Gil is a former Brigadier
General in the IDF, who once was the Chief Israeli Military Censor. Her Ministry has spawned a
"private" security firm, Israel Cyber Shield, headed by former Ministry official and Israeli
National Police officer Eran Vasker. According to Haaretz, ICS is part of the spy network
gathering dossiers on anti-Israel activists from the BDS movement in the United States.
The existence and mission of the Ministry first came to prominence in a four-part
documentary produced by Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based international news organization. In 2016,
Al Jazeera successfully infiltrated the American Zionist apparatus via James Anthony Kleinfeld,
a British Jew who graduated from Oxford, spoke six languages and was well-versed in Middle East
affairs. Kleinfeld infiltrated The Israel Project and other pro-Israel US organizations to such
an extent that the leadership welcomed him with open arms and let down their guard about their
collusion with the Israeli government, in targeting pro-Palestine organizations and other
Israel critics.
Armed with a hidden video recorder, Kleinfeld obtained large amounts of material on the
inner workings of TIP, AIPAC, the Israeli-American Council, the Maccabee Task Force and the
Zionist Organization of America. He got "straight from the horse's mouth" that the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies is a spy agency working as an unregistered agent of the Israeli
government. One TIP official confided to Kleinfeld that they had to be very careful, because
they were "a different government working on foreign soil."
Earlier this year, Al Jazeera was scheduled to air four 50-minute documentary segments on
Kleinfeld's findings. But, Al Jazeera was required to first inform the organizations that were
to be featured in the documentary about the pending airing of the series. At that point, the
full weight of the US Zionist apparatus along with the Israeli government came down on the
Qatar government to press for censorship of the documentary. Suddenly, the US Zionist lobby,
which had allied with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in denouncing Qatar as a terrorist state,
backing Hamas and other jihadist organizations, reversed positions and gave their support to
Qatar. The documentary has never aired.
But bootleg copies of the devastating documentary are clearly circulating around. Alain
Gresh wrote a lengthy summary for The Nation on August 31, based on his having viewed the
entire four-part series, courtesy of a friend in the Middle East. Sooner or later, the entire
series will surface, despite the Qatar censorship decision. Excerpts have already been posted
on some websites.
I like to think this is a story that is too big to bury for long.
Thanks Harper and hats off to Kleinfeld, this was a brave thing to undertake. I assume
not posting the name of the documentary nor links to the cited article was a deliberate
decision not to invite a return of a hasbara plague here. They are easy to find anyhow.
The Electronic lntifada certainly seem to have a copy and are publishing extracts
weekly at present. Please let us know as soon as the whole thing makes it into the public
domain. It will be very interesting to see how far they are willing to go to try and
suppress it. It will also be interesting to see what effect its inevitable release (and
the timing of it) has on Russiagate.
"I like to think this is a story that is too big to bury for long."
Harper, what do you think could be the outcome if the story does indeed surface?
I'm very skeptical that there would be much coverage in our corporate media and even
if there were it would be to discredit the story among accusations of anti-semitism. I
don't see anything in our current environment to shake loose the noose that the ziocons
have our political and media establishment in.
FDD is the successor organization of a group called EMET, an education initiative
founded earlier in 2001 as part of an effort to gain support for Israel's response to the
Palestinian Intifada and to diminish public outcry against Israeli actions.[11] Regarding
EMET, Slate reported in mid-2015: "On April 24, 2001, three major pro-Israel donors
incorporated an organization called EMET (Hebrew for 'truth'). In an application to the
Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, [FDD president Clifford May] explained
that the group 'was to provide education to enhance Israel's image in North America and
the public's understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.'"[12]
It seems to be a fact that the
FARA is being selectively enforced.
If that is true (and who would deny that it is?), then the pertinent question
becomes: "Just what are the criteria that determine when FARA is enforced?" .
Some examples seem pertinent:
1) Obviously, the prosecution of Manafort is directly related to turning him against
Trump. Even a federal judge, Judge Ellis, has asserted this.
2) Has anyone ever been prosecuted as being an agent for Israel? Rather transparently,
there is AIPAC which seems to have Teflon around it.
3) According to
your Wikipedia biography , you yourself registered under FARA:
"For a period prior to and during the Iraq War, [Lang] registered under the U.S.
Department of Justice's Foreign Agents Registration Act, for his work on behalf of a
Lebanese politician and industrialist." Interesting. One may wonder what made you so
register (i.e., did somebody suggest that you do so?), and also if there is a double
standard held against people, depending on, say, whether they are working for Israel vice
an Arab person or organization.
I suspect Giraldi knows quite a bit about this subject.
Finally, here are some Politico articles that are pertinent:
What does my FARA registration have to do with Giraldi? I was a corporate officer in a
commercial enterprise that manufactured building materials in the Arab Gulf, Europe and
the US. I also ran the owner of the company's family foundation. He was a Muslim and he
put his Zakat (tithing money) into the foundation. We did building trades, agriculture
and language training in Lebanon, microcredit lending to women and supported Henry
Siegman's ME Project at the CFR in NY. That project put money into policy papers on ME
subjects that were given to the State Department and NSC staff. Corporate counsel advised
me that because these policy papers recommended policy positions for the US I should
register and I did so. When I stopped working for this company in 2006 I deregistered.
My intent was that
"I suspect Giraldi knows quite a bit about this subject."
be applied to the statement immediately above it, namely,
"One may wonder ... if there is a double standard held against people, depending on, say,
whether they are working for Israel vice an Arab person or organization."
But the influence by Israel in the US seems to be of more long data than that of
Bibi´s tenure...Just may be with Bibi, like it happens with The Donald, all is more
obvious, more blunt, and less subtle....as it is the man himself....
Wow! I guess a commenter here has a wider audience than perhaps one might have thought.
No one has ever been afraid of me in my entire life, or even cared too much what I said.
It'll take some getting used to. I doubt I can swing it.
Al Jazeera did two simultaneous Israeli influence investigations and produced two
four-part documentaries: one about Israeli activities in the UK, and another one about
those in the US.
https://www.haaretz.com/whd...
Israel fought the release of the UK version in the UK on anti-Semitic grounds, but
lost. That series called "The Lobby" already aired there and is available on Al Jazeera's
site.
Israel switched tactics to supress the US version by attacking Qatar and Al Jazeera
directly, pressuring them to cancel its release here (US), thus avoiding the political
bribes necessary to subvert the US Constitution's First Amendment. Unfortunately, they
probably would have had many US politicians supporting their accusations of anti-Semitism
and could have had it censored anyways - damn the bothersome US Constitution. Killing the
US documentary at the source was far less messy PR-wise and just as effective at
silencing any journalism critical of Israel's interference in US. Elections, policy and
other matters of state.
"An unforeseen effect of the Iraq war is that it has allowed more Americans to speak
freely about the role of the Israel lobby. When and how was it born? While it is
generally understood that American interest groups played a crucial role in creating the
state of Israel in 1948 and supporting politicians who would stand up for Israel, other
facts have remained elusive. Grant F. Smith reveals that many of the functions the Israel
lobby smoothly and quietly executes in political life today were formed in the late 1950s
and early 1960s: the crucial political contributions and unrelenting campaign to convince
Americans that Israel and the United States share common interests and enemies, whether
the old Communist bloc-or Islamic radicals in the 21st century. Smith documents the
lobby's awesome resistance to public accountability for its actions before Congress and
the Justice Department. That fascinating history is the terrain of this book. Referencing
over 1,000 previously classified documents released under a Freedom of Information Act
filing, Smith follows Isaiah L. Kenen's path from registered foreign agent for the
Israeli government to founder of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC.
Smith unearths a formerly secret non-prosecution agreement, the "subvention caveat"
reached between the Israel lobby and the US Department of Justice. The agreement reveals
a great deal about the latitude of the lobby's operations and the US government's
institutional aversion to challenging it. America's Defense Line may forever change the
debate about US Middle East policy formulation."
Journalist Sara Carter told Sean Hannity during his Wednesday radio show that the FBI has
two sets of records in the Russia investigation, and that "certain people above Peter Strzok
and above Lisa Page" were aware of it - implicating former FBI Director James Comey and his #2,
Andrew McCabe.
Hannity : Sara, I'm hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out
there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that
was real one that was made for appearances . Is there any truth to this?
Carter : Absolutely, Sean . With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as
well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of
books.
I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain
people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this . I also believe that
there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are
possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector
General and possibly even a Grand Jury.
Actually, it was b h o who opened the Fed borrowing window to the Wall Street
investment crowd who were able to borrow at 1/4 % interest so that they could play the
markets with impunity.
b h o played both sides against the middle telling folks to vote for him and 'hope and
change' bullshit and to shake his fist at Wall Street -- all the while enabling them to make
more money than they thought existed.
Like so many of his predecessors in the White House, Trump has surrounded himself with
Zionists in almost every important position imaginable and they're more than willing to screw us
into the ground -- just because they can.
That's true only in sense of using "bait and switch" with the electorate. Trump partially
destroyed previous model created by Clinton-Bush-Obama and introduced "national naoliabralism" --
neoliberalism without globalization. He also openly rely on brute force.
Notable quotes:
"... Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people. ..."
"... Draining the Swamp cannot be taken seriously. Trump installed in the Trump Cabinet, Swamp Creatures through and through, most notably Goldman Sachs dudes we've seen in Dubya Bush, Obama and now Drumpf. ..."
"... Trump is his own man and just like Obama he has minions spread garbage that he is being undermined and the bad stuff is not his fault. Trump showed his true colors when he stocked up on neocons and warmongers and gave the military $100 billion when they were asking for 50. ..."
"... His meetings with Kim and Putin were just theater as Trump gleefully puts more sanctions on Russia and has done nothing but threaten pain for those cheating on sanctions to help North Korea. ..."
Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people.
Agree completely. There's nothing political about these "politics", fake-populist
politicians are just another kind of celebrity (thus Trump fits in well), cable news is a
(highly toxic) genre of entertainment, and partisan Repbots and Dembots aren't political people
at all, but competing celebrity or sports fan clubs. None of them cares about any aspect of
reality, which is why the system can commit such horrendous real-world crimes; for the
political class these crimes aren't real. They're all sociopaths, which is the only way it's
possible to be a partisan of either flavor of the Corporate One-Party.
And that's how unelected operatives and the NYT can openly express such contempt for
democracy and the open society without fear of provoking any significant reaction from the
people: For the kinds of people who read the NYT, such things are meaningless abstractions. Any
of them would happily endorse Hitler-level crimes (which the US is very close to anyway) on the
part of their "team".
If Trump is a fourth of fifth grader, looks like we have a third grade coup d etat. As you
pointed out, these people are not the brightest lights but perhaps the most easily
bribed/threatened? I suspect a hidden hand behind the insurrection rather than a stunning
example of bureaucratic unity. Ditto for the rash of anti Trump 'literature'. Woodward crawled
in bed with the ruling elite decades ago.
Trump is probably not the first president to be 'Trumped' by his bureaucratic minions?n
Obama didn't keep a single campaign promise.during his eight disappointing years. Perhaps not
all of his betrayal of the electorate is because he was just another lying weasel.
Jr @ 19 said:"Trump and Obama are only heros if you believe that USA is democracy and the
democratically elected 'populist' truely represents his/her base. That is a fantasy."
"Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people."
Jr, you nailed it.
Forget ideology, follow the $, you'll understand more..
Draining the Swamp cannot be taken seriously. Trump installed in the Trump Cabinet, Swamp
Creatures through and through, most notably Goldman Sachs dudes we've seen in Dubya Bush, Obama
and now Drumpf.
Also, we see nothing of any draining at this point and but simply an assault on the commons
(and a gift giving for the rich) as would be expected from any boilerplate Republican
asshole.
Now foreign policy may be his strong suit but, there has been nothing much to impress here
either. Just follow Israel.
Trump is his own man and just like Obama he has minions spread garbage that he is being
undermined and the bad stuff is not his fault. Trump showed his true colors when he stocked up
on neocons and warmongers and gave the military $100 billion when they were asking for
50.
His meetings with Kim and Putin were just theater as Trump gleefully puts more sanctions
on Russia and has done nothing but threaten pain for those cheating on sanctions to help North
Korea.
His body language and emphatic delivery, and sometimes glee, when announcing these new
sanctions, and his telling Russia to get out of Syria and give back Crimea, belie the fiction
that Trump is being forced to do so.
If that was the case he could have had his minions announce it. One can see the insincerity
when he claims the US is getting out of Syria and his confident matter of fact delivery when
threatening to bomb Syria over what he knows is a fake gas attack. It was no accident that
Trumps 2 hurried missile strikes on Syria happened as Israel was butchering Palestinians thus
diverting attention from the dastardly deeds. Trump has been best buddies with Israel and Saudi
Arabia and stays mum on Israel bombing Syria and Saudi Arabia killing over tens of thousands of
innocent people in Yemen and creating the humanitarian crisis there.
There's the bonus of weapons sales to those "humanitarian" regimes. Up until recently
organizations have ignored the inhumane UN sanctions that forbade sending medicines into North
Korea and nothing was said. Suddenly last month ALL of them stopped. Somebody gave them the
word stop or else. Trump says nothing of the efforts to scuttle better relations between the US
and North Korea or the fake news that the Norks are still making missiles and nukes offered
with no proof.
While the US is sabotaging the efforts North and South Korea are making great progress which
makes me expect South Korea is going to be hit sanctions for "unfair trade." South Korea could
defuse the whole thing and announce they are taking possession of the Norths nukes but they
know the US would punish them badly as the the US does not want any nukes in the Korea's and
needs a boogie man north to justify it's out sized military presence in the area.
Once Trump sat in the big boy chair in the oval office the focus of Making America Great
Again switched to continue the drive for US world domination by destroying the economies of the
competition and create world wide chaos with sanctions, tariffs, and local currency destruction
making the world come crawling to the US to save them. Thus turning the cleanest dirty shirt in
the laundry to snow white.
b: "Why is no public figure expressing concern about this subversion of democracy? How
come no one protests?"
Trump is the Republican Obama.
'Trumptards' blame others for the failings of their hero just like 'Obamabots' did. This
is not an accident. Apologists are an important part of the faux populist leadership
model.
Trump and Obama are only heros if you believe that USA is democracy and the
democratically elected 'populist' truely represents his/her base. That is a fantasy.
Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people.
I have made these points many times over the last year. Sadly, people nod their heads
and continue to engage on terms set by the establishment.
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the
possibility that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators
on all sides routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack
Trump but secretly loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their
eyes even part way open already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense
hatred for one another while working together to pace their respective bases into
accepting more and more neoliberal exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative
bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl and shake their fists at each other, then
cuddle up and share candy when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this
administration be any different?
...
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political
terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice
while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both
parties , yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If
you can separate the masses into two groups based on extremely broad ideological
characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined "us vs them" narratives into each of the
two stables, with the white hats and black hats reversed in each case. Now you've got
Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats cheering for the CIA, for the FBI,
and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be operating on the inside of
Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of the US power
establishment or another .
"... "....cunning, ambitious,and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.....". ..."
"... JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass ..."
The CIA is not really in the business of collecting "intelligence." That "agency" is and always has been in the business of
subverting or toppling other governments.
So they have finally gotten around to subverting the USSA government. Why am I not surprised.
What came to my mind when I read this good article, MB, is words from George Washington's Farewell Address. He may have written
to explain about the dangers of political parties, but it resonates exactly about what is occurring in this present state of American
governance.
"....cunning, ambitious,and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to
usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.....".
As Mark Twain said, its easier to fool somebody than to convince them they have been fooled,
its even easier (former) and tougher (latter) when you control the narrative and news, not to
mention education.
That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and
other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!
Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion
argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix
Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the
KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
The timing is interesting. Hillary Clinton was one-on-one wiht Maddow "for the hour" last
night (I didn't watch) and has/had an "important" broadside againt TRump in the Atlantic
(covered extensively also in the Guardian) .... trying to claw her way back into the
limelight or just promoting the **newly released** paperback edition of "What Happened" with
and extensive "caboose" or adendum (caboose being irrc HRC's term).
I suspect some of the powerful are realizing what an impending disaster and "anti-climax"
Mueller's investigation appears increasingly likely to be. It was !!! Breaking News !!! a few
nights ago that Mueller was ready to sentence Flynn (guilty plea ages ago) for the single
count of lying to the FBI ... don't hold your breath because it's -- OMG -- happening in
December 2018. As far as I could tell, the significance (OMG) seems to be that Mueller feels
Flynn's cooperation has been completed. (Flynn may be reassured, given given Papadopoulos'
sentence).
People may have said unwise things and acted in unwise fashion, proving conspiracy to
commit an actual crime (which is a crime even in the absence of a crime occurring) may be
prove unconvincing.
The role of the media is pure and simple BS generation and dissemination , nothing
else. The BS has several clearly discernible patterns:
1) the one b mentions - the title and the first few paragraphs say one thing, after >90%
of the text is passed the truth is mentioned - perfectly matched to the readers attention
curve (b you could have mentioned the psych research); the purpose - claim objectivity,
2) the first bits reported about some important event are usually the most truthful because
the BS generation machine has a turn-on lag; the morning news 7 am about what happened last
night are the most truthful because the masters of narratives do not wake up at 6 am to BS,
they come to work comfortably at 9 am; the BS portion increases during the day, for the most
watched 8pm and/or 10pm news to become pure unadulterated BS.
And so on, I have more patters but for another discussion.
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com . ..."
by Scott | Sep 14, 2018
| Interviews |
0 comments Larry Wilkerson, former army Colonel and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State
Colin Powell, is interviewed on his new article at LobeLog "
The Neoconservative Comeback " on the growing influence of neoconservatism in the Trump
Administration. Trump's Syria and Afghanistan policy are discussed, as well as the old axiom,
personnel is policy.
Well, well, well, spying in the USA and subverting both its citizens and congress
critters. Another brilliant article by Alain Gresh in Le Monde Diplomatique: The truths that
wont be heard.
I don't support many of Trump's policies (making peace with Russia, drawing down our wars
not withstanding) and the man, to me, is a childish buffoon. But what's categorically worse
than having a childish buffoon as a sitting president? A deep state cabal of neocons and
neolibs cheered on by the left and MSM so emboldened by the success of their usurpation that
they brag about it on the pages of the leading newspapers in the country. As much as pains me
to say, it's the behavior of the left in America that is truly sickening in the whole sordid
affair.
It's his own fault. He should've and could've fired everyone from DAY ONE. He kept hold overs
from all the previous administrations and now he's stuck with them. Trump PHUCKED up big time
by not bringing in ALL of his supporters to fight for him and those that do are FIRED. So go
suck on it Trumpy.
"... I still love the theater though. The meaningless political theater that last occurred when Clinton was President. What's most amusing this time is that it's only the hyper-partisans (many of whom are not self-aware enough to realize it) who identify (again, consciously or subconsciously) that even care. The rest of us simply get to see each party's idiotic followers on the "left" and the "right" get sucked into the media's chosen narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the bombings and interventions can continue, Gitmo can remain open (btw, anyone else notice that unlike hurricanes that hit the mainland, nobody ever cares whether Gitmo will be evacuated?), the massive bank bailout can be relegated deeper and deeper into the memory hole and the two parties (including Trump's cabinet) continue to grow closer and closer together where the subjects of domestic surveillance and neocon warmongering are concerned. ..."
"... I love it. I laugh openly at anyone who mentions Russia to me from either angle. "No collusion!" is as entertaining as "Putin got Trump elected!" - Idiots. ..."
"... i do believe the proxy wars are really all about this same salient fact - the usa and us$ can not be challenged.. any challenge will be met with war, covert, or overt.. ..."
The whole nonsense about Russian interference, which was obviously nonsense from Day One
and has never, for a moment looked like anything but nonsense, seems to indicate that we
have entered a post political era in which policy discussions and debates are forgotten and
smears and false accusations take their place.
Currently in the US the Kavanaugh nomination which ought to be about the meaning of the law
and the consequences of having a Supreme Court which will make Judge Taney look like
Solomon at his most impressive. Instead it is about an alleged teenage incident in which
the nominee is said to have caressed a girls breasts at a drunken party when all involved
were at High School. Before that we had a Senatorial election in Alabama in which the
Republican candidate was charged with having shown a sexual interest in teenage girls-
whether this was a 'first' in Alabama is unknown but it is believed to have happened
elsewhere, in the unenlightened past.
Then we have the matter of whether Jeremy Corbyn is such a danger to Jews that they will
all leave the country if he is ever elected to power. This long campaign, completely devoid
of evidence, like 'Russiagate' has the potential of going on forever, simply because there
being no evidence it cannot be refuted.
Which is also the case with the Skripal affair, because of which even as we speak, massive
trade and financial sanctions are being imposed against Russia and its enormous, innocent
and plundered population.
In none of these cases has any real evidence, of the minimal quality that might justify the
hanging of a dog, ever advanced. But that doesn't matter, the important thing is to choose
a side and if it is Hillary Clinton's to believe or to pretend to believe and to convince
others to believe (as Marcy at Emptywheel has been doing for close to three years now) in
the incredible.
Who says that we no longer live in a Christian society in which faith is everything?
I wonder how many time i will see this, See everyone using the meme they want you to use,
For example 'Election collusion' or 'Russian collusion' Etc.
A huge smoke screen allowing the main fleet to escape. The tide of votes going as it did
sure did bring out the liars. From the first moment that the results showed that the huge
behemoth of their interference blew flat and failed, they went all out to cast the loss as
some sort of interference from what ever source, Fact is the entire process is constantly
under attack from within by forces that it's ends in their sights and the loss of control
of that process forced them into damage control, Today we are seeing the lofty heights they
will stack the dung up to direct your attentions away from the FIRST and real interference
in the election process.
Well folks say the Hillary creature as she is, What she was a token place marker for,
The forces looting North America, The forces driving the 'Order out of Chaos' operation.
This operation has been a monkey on the backs of the public outside the halls of modern
powers and their use.
The process, even a rigged process FAILED. What ever the dirt they have on the eventual
choice you made about your course, they will not allow you to subvert their plans even if
you all come together and move the levers of power, I saw the photo that soon came out of
Trump rather depressed looking, You say that photo, You knew exactly what it meant, From
that picture to today everythng is back on THEIR track not YOURS.
The entire process is under their control as long as the many remain in their comfy
places built for them. Fix is a dangerous and frightening path for a very good reason. The
eventual outcome of their process is going to be a very hard place to live. Overcoming
their control and domination is not going to be allowed, History is coming for the evil of
this world and the fix is going to be a very devastating event.
When you have so many heads following your evil ways, It's hard not to have the response
to evil fall on your actions and deal with your ways.
We live in a very interesting times. If you thought 9/11 was bad... You ain't seen
nothing yet.
If you substitute "witches" or "the bogeyman" for "Russia" in most US and European news
articles, you get a better sense for how ridiculous and unfounded they are. But as we
witnessed in Salem, it's not hard to get mass hysteria going with a complete lack of
evidence.
Once people are on the "Trump is a Russian tool" bandwagon it's extremely hard to get
them off, as the absence of evidence is harder to prove--while people find the repeated
assertion of imaginary evidence entirely convincing.
@karlof1 #6: The narrative that has been promoted grows thinner all the time, with the
emphasis switching from collusion to corruption and with that fading in the news on to his
being deranged. Now we have resistance from Rosenstein to the House Investigative Committee
and Trump to release the classified memos showing the shenanigans of Strzok, Comey, et al,
plus emerging voices from inside. I do believe the collusion narrative is withering; more
important "deplorables" don't give a damn anyway.
Well, it's a proven fact that millions of recycled US taxpayer's dollars were used by
Zionists to influence the 2016 and most every previous election going back to 1968, if not
further. Massive documentation of collusion exists between Zionists and US politicos at all
levels of government. Furthermore, there's much publicly available evidence sufficient to
indict and convict Hillary Clinton of numerous felonies along with several high officials
within the DNC for election interference. Why not rant and rail against these very easily
proven crimes?!
Obviously. I still love the theater though. The meaningless political theater that last
occurred when Clinton was President. What's most amusing this time is that it's only the
hyper-partisans (many of whom are not self-aware enough to realize it) who identify (again,
consciously or subconsciously) that even care. The rest of us simply get to see each party's
idiotic followers on the "left" and the "right" get sucked into the media's chosen
narrative.
Meanwhile, the bombings and interventions can continue, Gitmo can remain open (btw,
anyone else notice that unlike hurricanes that hit the mainland, nobody ever cares whether
Gitmo will be evacuated?), the massive bank bailout can be relegated deeper and deeper into
the memory hole and the two parties (including Trump's cabinet) continue to grow closer and
closer together where the subjects of domestic surveillance and neocon warmongering are
concerned. We'll never see the PATRIOT ACT re-debated and the military budget will
increase beyond all imagination while the hand wringing about "deficit spending" on the right
stops so long as there's an "R" after the name of whomever sits in the White House.
I love it. I laugh openly at anyone who mentions Russia to me from either angle. "No
collusion!" is as entertaining as "Putin got Trump elected!" - Idiots.
@11 karlof1.. that also gets me... if one is looking for corruption in the political class,
it is not hard to find! why start and stop only with russia? i think the answer is fairly
obvious.. there has been an ongoing attempt to maintain the unipolar world with us$ and
russia and china potentially interfere with this ongoing status... thus we are back to
psychohistorians ongoing issue over finances - private verses public, and what we wish to see
as a world hopefully moving forward here..
i do believe the proxy wars are really all about this same salient fact - the usa and
us$ can not be challenged.. any challenge will be met with war, covert, or overt..
None of the Times' sources are named - except one: Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, or rather his memos about the
meetings with Rosenstein and other officials.
The number two official at the Justice Department wanted to secretly record President Donald Trump so as to impeach him, claims
the New York Times. Spoiler Alert: Rod Rosenstein denies the claim, but does it matter in the swamp?
"Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment" the Times blared in a breaking news headline
on Friday afternoon, adding that the deputy attorney general also discussed recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the
constitutional provision for removing Trump from office.
The Times would have its readers believe that Rosenstein was surprised when Trump used his memo to justify the firing of FBI
Director James Comey in May 2017, and sought to enlist AG Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly –now the
White House chief of staff– to support him in ousting Trump.
Hard to know the truthfulness of anything coming from the NYT. Rosenstein denies the story and says there is no basis for
invoking the 25th amendment against Trump. The story might be disinformation to provoke a response from Trump.
Still Rosenstein has been slow walking the release of FISA related documents, and it's hard to trust him. This Russia
investigation is a witcvh hunt , and Rosenstein has been right at the center of it. If Rosenstein was fair minded he would have
shut this yard sale down a long time ago. In the meantime, Trump is looking more and more like a victim. I'd probably wait for the
documents to come out and let the pressure build on Sessions and Rosenstein.
If this latest revelation from the New
York Times doesn't drive President Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, or
convince Congress to impeach him, then we can't imagine what would.
In a shocking report citing a bevy of anonymous DOJ officials, the NYT recounted on Friday
an aborted mutiny attempt organized by Rosenstein, who allegedly tried to organize members of
Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to oust Trump from office. In an attempt to
persuade the clearly reluctant members of Trump's cabinet, Rosenstein suggested that he or
other officials should secretly tape Trump "to expose the chaos" he said was engulfing the West
Wing. According to NYT, the sources were either briefed on Rosenstein's plans, or learned about
it from the files of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired after being
disgraced by an inspector general investigation.
ABC News, which also reported the story, cited sources familiar with McCabe's files. A
grand jury is also weighing whether to press charges against McCabe for allegedly misleading
the inspector general.
Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th
Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials.
Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by
F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that
documented Mr. Rosenstein's actions and comments.
None of Mr. Rosenstein's proposals apparently came to fruition. It is not clear how
determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell Mr. McCabe that he might be
able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of
homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the
25th Amendment.
According to the NYT, this all happened during the spring of 2017, shortly after Trump cited
a letter that Rosenstein had penned criticizing former FBI Director James Comey's handling of
the Clinton probe as justification to fire Comey. Rosenstein reportedly felt he had been "used"
by the president as an excuse to fire Comey. Rosenstein soon began telling colleagues that he
would ultimately be "vindicated" for his role in Comey's firing. Around the same time, he began
to express his displeasure with Trump's handling of the hiring process for Comey's
replacement.
The president's reliance on his memo caught Mr. Rosenstein by surprise, and he became
angry at Mr. Trump, according to people who spoke to Mr. Rosenstein at the time. He grew
concerned that his reputation had suffered harm and wondered whether Mr. Trump had motives
beyond Mr. Comey's treatment of Mrs. Clinton for ousting him, the people said.
A determined Mr. Rosenstein began telling associates that he would ultimately be
"vindicated" for his role in the matter. One week after the firing, Mr. Rosenstein met with
Mr. McCabe and at least four other senior Justice Department officials, in part to explain
his role in the situation.
During their discussion, Mr. Rosenstein expressed frustration at how Mr. Trump had
conducted the search for a new F.B.I. director, saying the president was failing to take the
candidate interviews seriously. A handful of politicians and law enforcement officials,
including Mr. McCabe, were under consideration.
Rosenstein also tried to recruit some of his would-be co-conspirators to surreptitiously
record Trump in the Oval Office.
Mr. Rosenstein then raised the idea of wearing a recording device or "wire," as he put it,
to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether
Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was.
However, although Rosenstein "appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional" during what can
only be described as a coup attempt against a sitting president, even the paper admit that his
conduct in attempting to solicit the illicit wiretapping of a sitting president was extremely
reckless and unwarranted, and that, if uncovered, it could be used as grounds to fire
Rosenstein.
If not him, then Mr. McCabe or other F.B.I. officials interviewing with Mr. Trump for the
job could perhaps wear a wire or otherwise record the president, Mr. Rosenstein offered.
White House officials never checked his phone when he arrived for meetings there, Mr.
Rosenstein added, implying it would be easy to secretly record Mr. Trump.
The suggestion itself was remarkable. While informants or undercover agents regularly use
concealed listening devices to surreptitiously gather evidence for federal investigators,
they are typically targeting drug kingpins and Mafia bosses in criminal investigations, not a
president viewed as ineffectively conducting his duties.
In the end, the idea went nowhere, the officials said. But they called Mr. Rosenstein's
comments an example of how erratically he was behaving while he was taking part in the
interviews for a replacement F.B.I. director, considering the appointment of a special
counsel and otherwise running the day-to-day operations of the more than 100,000 people at
the Justice Department.
The Times and ABC reported that Rosenstein told McCabe that he believed Attorney General
Jeff Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly would go along with the plan.
Another source said they believed Rosenstein was being sarcastic when he made the comment about
recording Trump
One source who was in the meeting confirmed that Rosenstein did make a remark about
recording Trump with the use of a wire. But the source insists: "The statement was sarcastic
and was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the
president."
Rosenstein has decried the story as "factually incorrect" and said that "based on my
personal dealings" with the president, that there isn't any basis to invoke the 25th amendment.
This, of course, is tantamount to a deep state insider admitting that there is no factual basis
to impeach Trump.
Mr. Rosenstein disputed this account.
"The New York Times's story is inaccurate and factually incorrect," he said in a
statement. "I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are
obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let
me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis
to invoke the 25th Amendment."
A lawyer representing McCabe told CNN and the Times that his client had documented his
conversations in Rosenstein in a series of memos, which he later turned over to Mueller more
than a year ago. However, a set of those memos was left at the FBI when McCabe departed.
McCabe's lawyer, Michael Bromwich, said in a statement to CNN that his client "drafted
memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with high level officials and preserved
them so he would have an accurate, contemporaneous record of those discussions."
"When he was interviewed by the special counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his
memos - classified and unclassified - to the special counsel's office. A set of those memos
remained at the FBI at the time of his departure in late January 2018. He has no knowledge of
how any member of the media obtained those memos," Bromwich added.
The
Washington Post reported that FBI lawyer Lisa Page (the former lover of disgraced FBI
special agent Peter Strzok) was also at the meeting where wiretapping was discussed. WaPo also
said that McCabe had pushed for the DOJ to open an investigation into the president, to which
Rosenstein replied, "what do you want to do Andy, wire the president?"
While Rosenstein and Trump clearly never saw eye to eye, the level of resentment that
Rosenstein harbored toward the president was not previously known. Unsurprisingly, the story
has already fired up speculation that Rosenstein may have been the anonymous administration
official who penned a critical op-ed that was published earlier this month in the New York
Times. Underscoring the seriousness of these allegations, CNN
reported that the McCabe memos that were described to ABC and the Times have been turned over
to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
iinthesky , 13 minutes ago
Try to remember this is the New York Times. This is suspect and there is a motive in
publishing this now.. they want Trump to fire Rosenshmuck before the elections.
Debt Slave , 12 minutes ago
Recall Strzok's behavior during his testimony. It couldn't be more obvious if they took
out a full page ad in the New York Times.
LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago
This is coming from McCabe.
Trying to get a deal. Remember what he screamed when he heard that he was under
investigation: "If they **** with my pension I will burn this place to the ground!!"
Well, he's got the gas and the matches. He doesn't want to go to prison where Hillary's
people can shank him. He's letting some tidbits out now to convince Huber he will do more
damage from outside than inside.
I say **** HIM. Let him burn it down. Sessions is recused - not his fault.
McCabe needs to do 3-5 in a FedPen for his lies and cover-ups. Tried to quash the Weiner
laptop and impede a Federal investigation. Repeatedly leaked information to misdirect and
interfere with a Federal investigation.
A top, trained intel officer. Lock him the hell up. This is the kind of "patriot" who
comes up through the Deep State system to run the alphabet agencies that work day and night
to protect America from the sunlight its intel community so desperately needs on those who
sell out the rank-and-file, hardworking true patriots for their own boundless ambition.
Strzok and Page come next.
Burn out the poison vipers' nests.
1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago
Read the article and you better understand why the NYT is throwing Rosenstein under the
bus.
Holy shite. I'm getting a feeling that this is ready to EXPLODE on the world stage. And
implicate Britain and Australia as in on the scam. I'm getting the sense, the Brits called
Trump and begged him not to let this come completely to light. Trump has ALL these
motherfuckers by the balls now. I just hope and pray that ******* arrogant poser Obama is
sweating bullets right now.
I cant even imagine how this all plays out. These arrogant ******* Nee World Order pieces
of ****,especially both Clinton's, Obama and most if not ALL of his senior administration
just felt entitled to do whatever the **** they wanted, the ends justify the means, the
Constitution and the people be damned. These people really to need to endure a special type
of hell. If this charade doesn't warrant it, what does? To Big To Fail comes to mind, though.
This might be SO big, Trump actually has to manage the shitshow...or the train goes off the
rails.
This guy quit the week before The Don took the keys to the white house.....Imagine that.
As you might recall Judge Nap at Fox stated that the Obama Cabal used the brits to spy on
Trump and then was place in timeout for 2 weeks. He returned and double downed on his
statement.
KimAsa , 16 minutes ago
The swamp turning on each other. Love it.
dems will lose 5 senate incumbent seats at midterms and offset one. The dems will not win
over the Senate.
the dem running in AZ has a bit of a past that is catching up to her now.
The dems will lose the House handily.
Keyser , 25 minutes ago
Enough is enough... Time to drag rat-faced Rosenstein out of the FBI in chains, then put
him on an airplane to Gitmo and charge him with sedition... This scum sucking ****** needs a
refresher course in the LAW, military law that is...
iinthesky , 23 minutes ago
Not now.. after november
pelican , 13 minutes ago
**** it
iinthesky , 13 minutes ago
Try to remember this is the New York Times. This is suspect and there is a motive in
publishing this now.. they want Trump to fire Rosenshmuck before the elections.
bigrooster , 14 minutes ago
Hmm the last name seems like a Tribe member. I am sure that there is no connection. But
Trump's daughter and granddaughter are now members of the Tribe. I would die before taking
that mark. I guess we now know what the Number of The Beast is...join the Tribe or die/starve
in the near future. Good thing we of faith know who wins in the end.
SunRise , 15 minutes ago
"Fired", That's all? No jail? They're attempting to frame the conversation, so a low
penalty for High Treason seems normal in the minds of the Public.
Goldennutz , 16 minutes ago
HAHAHAHAHA!!
NOTHING will happen to ANYONE!!!
Ohhh...they might get someone to fall on the sword for a few mill in a Swiss account but
that's about it!
All these career uncivil serpents will walk away with a fat goobermint pension with free
lifetime bennies courtesy of us suckas , get a fat self-serving book deal and a cushy million
dollar job with some firm.
Meantime us ZH-ers will still be here typing away and blubbering about how unfair this all
is.
BWWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
inosent , 28 minutes ago
"public servant"? puhleeez, give it a rest!
Shelby cobra , 28 minutes ago
The news just keeps getting worse each day for these swamp monsters ,but there is a better
chance of hell freezing over than any of them going to jail!
Is-Be , 38 minutes ago
From an outsiders perspective, this is not a Jewish problem. It is a monotheist
problem.
How can anyone blame the Jews and worship his God?
Are we all Semites now?All Jews? With you-know-who in charge being the font of all our
troubles.
Soon we will all be one.
Soon each will know his place.
Indeed, Dr. Jacobs.
All is clear to Odin. But what of Thor?
No wonder Mrvl comix is keen to abuse our Gods and Goddesses. It's what they do.
Of cause they'll let loose their Muslims upon us as enforcers if we stray from their
plan.
Secrecy, dear Goy. No light please.
It was not for nothing that Odin hung for 9 days on Yggdsdril, the tree of life.
And the squirrel runs up and down the Sacred tree, telling tales.
romanmoment , 35 minutes ago
Rosenstein needs to be fired, right now.
Debt Slave , 33 minutes ago
You can't trust one of them. The truth may be inconvenient and unacceptable in our
current, political climate, but you can not trust a god damned one of them.
If it is a bad thing to recognize the facts of life, then proceed at your own peril.
The Swamp Got Trump , 35 minutes ago
Please fire this **********.
debtserf , 23 minutes ago
He will only fire him if he doesnt do exactly as he is told from now till November.
Hass C. , 52 minutes ago
Putin must be getting irritable bowel from too much popcorn.
Aerows , 49 minutes ago
What a big flaming bag of dog **** on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Except this isn't a prank, it affects our government at the highest of levels.
Harvey's-Rabbi , 49 minutes ago
I made up mind that today my posted comments will contain as much relevant materiel as
possible, other than that which may implicate legendary destroyers of their host culture. I
have kept this in mind while commenting on this guy and what he as attempted to do, even
trying to enlist other sectors of the nation's leadership.....
Thank you for reading.
Debt Slave , 25 minutes ago
I think you are doing a fine job of it.
History and the study of pathological behavior are .the greatest of endeavors. Only then
can a man recognize the reality of his world without any artificially induced delusions.
It really is an exercise of maturity.
divingengineer , 56 minutes ago
Yeah, they knew enough about Trump this early in his term to justify spying and
impeachment/removal?
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
apocalypticbrother , 1 hour ago
Rod Rodentstein is a dirty rat.
Debt Slave , 22 minutes ago
He certainly does resemble one.
EscondidoSurfer , 55 minutes ago
NYT wanted to get ahead of Trump before he released this and other sensitive information,
sources and procedures.
Hass C. , 1 hour ago
Are they setting Trump up for some sort of confrontation? After all, the NYT is not
exactly a Friend of Trump these days.
Vigilante , 1 hour ago
High time the evil kikester gets the boot. Isn't he who also hired Mueller to start his
bogus investigation?
Debt Slave , 21 minutes ago
I believe he did, yes. Odd that Trump can't seem to get rid of him.
Victory_Garden , 1 hour ago
Of course this is a firable evil deed.
Like, phuck! This evil ziobot phuckin phaggot phucker pile of shat should have been
phuchin french fried and thrown out the phucking building shiteter years ago. Phuckin-A,
PERIOD!
Question is, will the Sir Pres fire this cikesucxker?
Take a look at the commie news networks view of this and be darn sure to keep this bfore
they erase it. This will make good eatin for this costa crow and wolfie bafaronizer and all
the, they suck hitlery cunthags big plastic kak purple hippie tie wareing dweebs of drool.
Phuckin phaggots.
Speaking of isreall. What the phuck are those phuckin crazy arsehole woarmongers up to
now?
chinese censorship SUCKS!
.
GoingBig , 1 hour ago
The drivel that you people post is hilarious!
1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago
You should file a complaint.....try door FU2....closed at 5 PM...
Walking Turtle , 54 minutes ago
You should file a complaint.....try door FU2....closed at 5 PM...
Ah but even after hours, there is STILL the Secret Access Complaint Department.
That office is open 18/7/365\6, right there behind that selfsame door (FU2 iirc) with
generous seating and several magazines to share. Just buzz the buzzer for admittance.
But there is a secret, which shall herein be disclosed forthwith. To wit, the
Secret Password. Because without it one will never be admitted. Turns out, the Secret
Password is (and always was) the Office Manager's name. Know that name and you can
expect satisfaction in due full course!
Her name is Helen Waite. Those with After-Hours Complaints such as this one really should
go to Helen Waite, now shouldn't they? "Always there for YOU !" is the Standing Motto.
Servicing that nasty complaint and smiling while doing so...
Just stay seated and don't lose your Number. Remember Herself's Name. And that is all.
0{;-)o[
GoingBig , 20 minutes ago
LMAO!
Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago
Trump did not go to Princeton, Harvard or Yale and rape children and drink their blood
like Hillary, Obama and the Bush's, so you know the deep state is out to get him. Drain the
swamp and expose these assholes Mr. President.
Buck Shot , 1 hour ago
Worried about his reputation? Is he afraid the other cheerleaders will say he is a slut?
What a ******* *****. I bet he has never been in a fistfight in his life.
novictim , 1 hour ago
Wow. I may have reached a peak now. I don't think I could be anymore cynical about the FBI
and DOJ at this point.
GoingBig , 1 hour ago
lmao, I think most people would gasp in horror if they actually heard Trump go on one of
his famous Trumptantrums, which happens every 3-4 minutes. This is freaking hilarious.
NoPension , 1 hour ago
Haha!
You're right...you're hilarious.
Hass C. , 58 minutes ago
More wishful thinking from you.
1970SSNova396 , 57 minutes ago
The best part of you ran down your mothers leg
GoingBig , 19 minutes ago
That's a ******* new one! LMFO. What are you 100 years old! FLMAO
cheech_wizard , 41 minutes ago
Here, have another soy latte.
vintage512 , 1 hour ago
lmao... this is outrageous....this generation should be in the streets.. they get into the
streets to wait in line for the new iphone but not for their civil liberties...priorities...a
nation of pathetic eunuchs
DingleBarryObummer , 1 hour ago
like the liberty of having sound money... which we don't have?
Ranger7676 , 1 hour ago
I have several young 30's friends who went from liberal to Trump supporters. They see
whats going on with the Deep State and don't like it.
Is-Be , 56 minutes ago
iPhones and eunuchs go together like hookers and blow.
Keep them away from your gonads if you are worth breeding from.
Megaton Jim , 1 hour ago
Get rid of the ******* kikes in government, Wall St and the media. Jooz are Satanic
vermin!
DingleBarryObummer , 1 hour ago
Trump's going to be mighty lonely in his white house.
moman , 1 hour ago
'Get rid of the ******* kikes in government,' ....get rid of the DUMB-*** Goyim that alow
this ****!
GoingBig , 1 hour ago
somebody needs some milk and cookies....
Hass C. , 54 minutes ago
Actually, you have a point, moman. To hell with the whole pack. But who's going to send
them there?
Victory_Garden , 1 hour ago
Oh my, he said, ****!
So, has the ships Tyler lifted the chinese censorship?
Curious crew member wanna know and if indeed this be the truth, then let the good rants
roll!
Testing: ****! Holy...****!
So OK, back to the farkin grind.
All hands forward for leave.
Ding...ding...ding.
+
True Historian , 1 hour ago
Sessions and Trump are together, a team. Session's recusal will be rescinded after the
2018 election. Then the real "deep state" removal process will begin. Trump has played them
all; and is in the process of destroying them.
Sessions-Trump secret deal is that Sessions will take the verbal assaults until the
Mueller investigation goes down in flames.
Notice that Mueller has gone quiet. He knows he is through; he is cutting a deal with
Trump so that he doesn't go to jail over the "Uranium One" deal.
The Kav anaugh hearings with Feinstein are just to incite all anti-democrats to vote.
1970SSNova396 , 1 hour ago
If not for LBJ's great slacking society the dems would never win another election. Blacks
will do what they always do and vote for dems. They fuq up everything they touch.
Nunny , 55 minutes ago
I hate the LBJ ********, and we all see what he did there. I talk to mill working blacks
everyday that have got 'woke'....and not in the stupid snowflake way.
Hass C. , 48 minutes ago
A man on the cusp of winning such a chess game is not having tweet tantrums every morning.
Those pathetic tweets are a sign of powerlessness, not the opposite.
When this is said, i wish you were right.
JoeTurner , 1 hour ago
In diverse, multicultrual America competency will soon be a crime
Seems pretty clear by now that the reason Trump doesn't fire these 5th-columnists
is because he can't . The rot in the system is far more deeply entrenched than most
imagined: We are seeing a system openly and contemptuously ignore the wishes of the elected
Chief Executive, and he seems to have no power to do anything but launch a few acerbic tweets
at his tormenters.
So why isn't Hillary Clinton in jail? Because the Clinton cabal is still in control,
that's why. Which explains all sorts of things, including Rosenstein's display of arrogance
before the Congress: He knows well who runs things and it ain't Congress or the President. He
knows that it's a matter of time before Trump is either completely broken, or run out of
town, or both, and isn't a bit concerned about showing what he thinks of the "deplorables"
who dared question his divine right to do what the corporations goddamn please.
And I don't even have much hope for these grand jury hearings on worms like McCabe and
Comey, either. A prosecutor has pretty unlimited control over a grand jury in the real world,
and they almost always do what the prosecutor wants. I have not heard anything that tells me
that the government agents in charge of these grand jury investigations aren't just more
Clintonites. In which case, look for no-bills for the Clintonist criminals. It's the classic
way corrupt prosecutors get rid of cases without fading the heat: "We presented the cases,
but the grand jury no-billed, nothing we can do. Next case..."
Corrupt to the bone. Wish I were wrong, but sure doesn't look like it.
debtserf , 1 hour ago
Trump is the big dog. He looks for leverage. Why fire Slippery Rod if he has all the
leverage over him to secure his own insurance policy against impeachment - and crush the Dems
in the midterms. If Rod doesnt do this and pronto, then Bubba will be telling him to "get on
ma body".
Looks like Big T has this one covered.
Debt Slave , 12 minutes ago
Recall Strzok's behavior during his testimony. It couldn't be more obvious if they took
out a full page ad in the New York Times.
debtor of last resort , 1 hour ago
They have put the left on the altar to make the right start the war.
LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago
This is coming from McCabe.
Trying to get a deal. Remember what he screamed when he heard that he was under
investigation: "If they **** with my pension I will burn this place to the ground!!"
Well, he's got the gas and the matches. He doesn't want to go to prison where Hillary's
people can shank him. He's letting some tidbits out now to convince Huber he will do more
damage from outside than inside.
I say **** HIM. Let him burn it down. Sessions is recused - not his fault.
McCabe needs to do 3-5 in a FedPen for his lies and cover-ups. Tried to quash the Weiner
laptop and impede a Federal investigation. Repeatedly leaked information to misdirect and
interfere with a Federal investigation.
A top, trained intel officer. Lock him the hell up. This is the kind of "patriot" who
comes up through the Deep State system to run the alphabet agencies that work day and night
to protect America from the sunlight its intel community so desperately needs on those who
sell out the rank-and-file, hardworking true patriots for their own boundless ambition.
Strzok and Page come next.
Burn out the poison vipers' nests.
NoPension , 1 hour ago
All these ******* vipers are go to start eating other. As I think about it...Mr.Trump
should just stay out of their way...and poke the hornets nest every so often, get them all
stirred up!
McCabe...muh Pension. Haha! All those years...carrying scumbag water...and he gets to end
up in the graybar hotel, while they skate? I do not think sooooo......
Man, this is going to make a great movie some day.
debtserf , 1 hour ago
Sopranos meets Veep.
NoPension , 1 hour ago
House of Cards is going to look like Sesame Street when this thing winds up....
debtserf , 54 minutes ago
It's a perpetual Muppet Show.
Nunny , 50 minutes ago
I was thinking the same thing. Why watch 'fiction' when you can watch it in real time. I
told my husband, if Trump gets in, one thing I know, it will be ENTERTAINING. And BTW, hubby
had never registered to vote in all his 60+ years....but he did just to vote for Trump. THAT
is how much we hate the status quo of a government that hates it's own citizens.
And as a side bar....we also did it to throw a big fat middle finger to the press, the
'celebrities' the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Cobra Commander , 1 hour ago
NYT and "anonymous sources;" sounds like the Left is trying to goad President Trump, or at
least sow more discord in the White House.
That said, how is it that President Obama gets a self-described "wingman" for an attorney
general (Holder), and President Trump gets bird feces for his?
Holy shite. I'm getting a feeling that this is ready to EXPLODE on the world stage. And
implicate Britain and Australia as in on the scam. I'm getting the sense, the Brits called
Trump and begged him not to let this come completely to light. Trump has ALL these
motherfuckers by the balls now. I just hope and pray that ******* arrogant poser Obama is
sweating bullets right now.
I cant even imagine how this all plays out. These arrogant ******* Nee World Order pieces
of ****,especially both Clinton's, Obama and most if not ALL of his senior administration
just felt entitled to do whatever the **** they wanted, the ends justify the means, the
Constitution and the people be damned. These people really to need to endure a special type
of hell. If this charade doesn't warrant it, what does? To Big To Fail comes to mind, though.
This might be SO big, Trump actually has to manage the shitshow...or the train goes off the
rails.
This guy quit the week before The Don took the keys to the white house.....Imagine that.
As you might recall Judge Nap at Fox stated that the Obama Cabal used the brits to spy on
Trump and then was place in timeout for 2 weeks. He returned and double downed on his
statement.
I for one am shocked that's a *** would try to subvert America's political system.
ObiterDictum , 2 hours ago
Watch how the media puts this story into its magic hat and poof!, it disappears. Meanwhile
those two investigative journalistic corpses known as Woodward and Bernstein, heroes of J
schools everywhere, will shake off their mothballs of irrelevance and swill cocktails with
their fellow elitist nitwits and talk about Watergate and Trump while this open corruption
accelerates. The truth does not matter anymore - just repeat a lie over and over again and
the moronic media reports it as a "competing fact." Or, just call up WaPo and say, "I will
speak to you as an anon. government official" and THEY PRINT IT with a line that they
asked you for a comment and you declined. The media becomes the publicist/lap dog of the
corrupted politicians. The majority of people reading the comment thinks, " hey, it must
be true if they are afraid to be named. I am sure the paper verified it." The lack of an
independent media has killed Truth. Truth is now a concept. And, then the media blame Trump
for the fact that 50% of the population does not trust them. A bit like the old story of the
person who kills his parent and says, ' oh, feel sorry for me, I am an orphan ."
Endgame Napoleon , 1 hour ago
Back in the Watergate days, the American people cared about the 4th Amendment, which is
why an audible gasp was heard in the congressional hearings, when it was revealed that Nixon
taped people in the WH.
Today, the American people have ceded their 4th Amendment rights in many ways, including
when agreeing to be taped and filmed in the maze of paperwork signed in any
$10-to-$12-per-hour office job that will not even cover the cost of rent for those with no
spousal income and no womb-productivity-based welfare and progressive tax-code welfare.
'We've come a long way, baby.'
High-ranking, highly paid people in the WH, too, are already being taped, hence the Flynn
incident.
There is a word for it when you try to wiretap a head of State... now what was that? Oh,
yes. Espionage , and pieces of **** like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg fried in the
electric chair for it. Why should this particular dual citizen be any
different? Fry his *** extra crispy -just like a chicken.
RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago
Rosenberg...Rosenstein.....Hmmmmmm
Jackprong , 2 hours ago
Rosenstein orchestrated a COUP ATTEMPT! Rosenstein needs to pay for this Banana Republic
move on his part. Before he pays, he should spill his guts about his relationships with Obama
and Mrs. Bill Clinton.
blindfaith , 2 hours ago
Is the New York Times and ABC beginning to see the light? Are they awakening to the
deception? Will they become actual news reporters?
So many questions.....
RictaviousPorkchop , 2 hours ago
No. The media is merely cashing in on the chaos, AND in hopes that Trump will fire the
Jewish Lad.
A lot of people see society in organic terms, and think the maintenance of the whole
over-rides the welfare of any particular bit – even if that particular bit happens to be
themselves (Trump recently hit this theme when he tweeted that "patriotic" Americans were
prepared to sacrifice for the greater good in the trade war).
Heirarchy is probably unavoidable, not for reasons of individual difference but because
one-to-many organisation is the only form that scales readily. We can all have an equal voice on
a jury, but not when building a henge or a operating a car-factory.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of non-conservatives have a very difficult time grappling with the notion that a commitment to inequality, that a belief in the inherent superiority of some people over others, that one group has the the right to rule and dominate others, is a moral belief. ..."
"... Since, according to this argument, you are amongst other things, your social class, I cannot judge your moral actions unless I understand your social circumstances. But morality is a form of judgement, or to put it another way a ranking. Morality is means nothing unless I can say: 'you are more moral then him, she is more moral than you' and so on. (Nietzsche: 'Man is Man the esteemer' i.e. someone who ranks his or her fellow human beings: human beings cannot be morally equal or the phrase has no meaning). ..."
"... Therefore, unless people have a role in life (i.e. butcher, baker, candlestick maker) then morality collapses (this is the weak point in the argument and if you wanted to tear the whole edifice down you would start here). ..."
"... And of course this social order must be hierarchical, or else anyone can be anything one wants to be, and in that case, who will sweep the streets? ' ..."
"... In other words Conservatives believe that without hierarchy, without ranking and without a stratified (and therefore meaningful) social order, morality actually disintegrates. You simply cannot have a morality without these things: everything retreats into the realm of the subjective. Conservatives don't believe that things like the Khmer Rouge's Killing Fields, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution are bad things that happened to happen: they believe that they are the necessary and inevitable end result of atheistical, relativistic, egalitarian politics. ..."
"... To the Right, the Left has no morality, as they understand the term, and cannot in fact do so. Leftist morality is a contradiction in terms, in this worldview. ..."
I think this is an incredibly important point here:
'One last point: A lot of non-conservatives have a very difficult time grappling with
the notion that a commitment to inequality, that a belief in the inherent superiority of some
people over others, that one group has the the right to rule and dominate others, is a moral
belief. For many people, particularly on the left, that idea is not so much immoral as
it is beyond the pale of morality itself. So that's where the charge that I'm being
dismissive or reductive comes from, I'm convinced. Because I say the animating idea of the
right is not freedom or virtue or limited government but instead power and privilege, people,
and again I see this mostly from liberals and the left, think I'm making some sort of claim
about conservatism as a criminal, amoral enterprise, devoid of principle altogether, whereas
I firmly believe I'm trying to do the exact opposite: to focus on where exactly the moral
divide between right and left lies.'
Both the Right and the Left, think that they are moral. And yet they disagree about moral
issues. How can this be?
The solution to this problem is to see that when Rightists and Leftists use the word
'moral' they are using the word in two different (and non compatible) senses. I won't dwell
on what the Left mean by morality: I'm sure most of you will be familiar with, so to speak,
your own moral code.
What the Right mean by morality is rather different, and is more easily seen in 'outliers'
e.g. right wing intellectuals like Evelyn Waugh and T.S. Eliot rather than politicians.
Intellectuals can be rather more open about their true beliefs.
The first key point is to understand the hostility towards 'abstraction': and what
purposes this serves. Nothing is more alien to right wing thought that the idea of an
Abstract Man: right wing thought is situational, contextual (one might even call it
relativistic) to the core. de Maistre states this most clearly: 'The (French) constitution of
1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the
world as Man . In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I
am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare
that I have never met him in my life.'
This sounds postmodern to us, even Leftist (and of course Marx might have given highly
provisional approval to this statement). But the question is not: is this statement true?
It's: 'what do the right do with this statement?'
Again to quote another reactionary thinker Jose Ortega y Gasseett: 'I am myself plus my
circumstances'. Again this is simply a definition of contextualism. So what are your
circumstances? They are, amongst other things, your social circumstances: i.e. your social
class.
Since, according to this argument, you are amongst other things, your social
class, I cannot judge your moral actions unless I understand your social circumstances. But
morality is a form of judgement, or to put it another way a ranking. Morality is means
nothing unless I can say: 'you are more moral then him, she is more moral than you' and so
on. (Nietzsche: 'Man is Man the esteemer' i.e. someone who ranks his or her fellow human
beings: human beings cannot be morally equal or the phrase has no meaning).
But I can't hermeneutically see what moral role you must play in life, I cannot judge you,
unless I have some criteria for this judgement, and for this I must know what your
circumstances are.
Therefore, unless people have a role in life (i.e. butcher, baker, candlestick maker)
then morality collapses (this is the weak point in the argument and if you wanted to tear the
whole edifice down you would start here). Because unless we know what one's social role
is then we can't assess whether or not people are living 'up to' that role. And of course
this social order must be hierarchical, or else anyone can be anything one wants to be, and
in that case, who will sweep the streets? '
And if anyone has any smart arse points to raise about that idea, God usually gets roped
in to function, literally, as a Deux ex Machina.
' The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.'
Clive James put it best when discussing Waugh: 'With no social order, there could be no
moral order. People had to know their place before they knew their duty he (and, more
importantly society) needed a coherent social system (i.e. an ordered social system, a
hierarchical social system)'
In other words Conservatives believe that without hierarchy, without ranking and
without a stratified (and therefore meaningful) social order, morality actually
disintegrates. You simply cannot have a morality without these things: everything retreats
into the realm of the subjective. Conservatives don't believe that things like the Khmer
Rouge's Killing Fields, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution are bad things that
happened to happen: they believe that they are the necessary and inevitable end result of
atheistical, relativistic, egalitarian politics. Social 'levelling', destroying
meaningful (i.e. hierarchical ('organic' is the euphemism usually used)) societies will
usually, not always but usually, lead to genocide and/or civil war. Hence the hysteria that
seizes most Conservatives when the word relativism is used. And their deep fear of
postmodernism, a small scale, now deeply unfashionable art movement with a few (very few)
philosophical adherents: as it destroys hierarchy and undermines one's capacity to judge and
therefore order one's fellow human beings, it will tend to lead to the legalisation of
pedophilia, the legalisation of rape, the legalisation of murder, war, genocide etc, because,
to repeat, morality depends on order. No social order= no morality.
Hence the Right's deep suspicion of the left's morality. To the Right, the Left
has no morality, as they understand the term, and cannot in fact do so. Leftist
morality is a contradiction in terms, in this worldview.
I gave up on the Guardian's comment site myself, 10 years ago, as the censorship on there
made it pointless. Has something changed?
There was one prolific commenter there, MrPikeBishop, who was so popular, he was even
commissioned to write articles above the line. Then one day, bam, he is banned, and his entire
posting history gone. That did it for me; little emperors not fit to clean his boots, just
rubbed him out. I spat on the site that day and never went back. Proclaiming themselves the
bastion of free speech, when they actually the enemies of it.
Actually, I was caught out here in the UK, by the demise of the old five pound note, and
then the ten pound note, because I stopped reading and watching MSM years ago. It's worth it,
to get their irritating buzzing out of my head.
Back to the linked Guardian article; this is indeed interesting – these questions
asked by the journalist:
– Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France and/or Israel
attack?
– Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate?
– Do they even understand how close we're coming to global war, whenever a NATO country
operates in Syria?
– How long can we rely on Russian common sense to avoid WWIII?
Maybe the landing approach thesis works – experts in Russ aviation would know if Russ
equivalent to(US/UK) AN/APS-13 aft approach radar, used since 1942 in a series of versions,
was/is fitted to Il20 in question.
Seems that anybody smart enough to build radar would fit tailradar in combat zone, and
leave it on. Note actual radar may have been superseded by an infra red detector a question
for experts. Has been long time since 1942, technical methods improve. And the search
radars?
Ok, pilot, engineer, copilot are doing approach and busy and everybody else just being
inattentive? F 16 were not tracked the entire time? Again, maybe. Radar works at 6000 feet
and horizon still 152 km away F16 can't sneak up unseen fast but not that fast
I always maintain situational awareness in war zones, helps to live longer.
software of S200 can not target friendlies, system was is integrated.
"... Exactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and reduce it to a failed state is a non starter. ..."
"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and Russia
has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have organized
their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"
Exactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working
overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it
means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and
reduce it to a failed state is a non starter.
Syria is the keystone. The geography is a primary target for the destruction of ME. It has
cultural and economic ties that bind most of the region. Destroying Syria is primary for US
Hegemony and Israeli dominance.
But Turkey, Iran, Iraq and now Russia stand in the way. With Hezbollah, Lebanon is joined
to the alliance against the US-Israeli aggression. And strategically, Jordan will facilitate
what it can to stabilize the region.
This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel, the US, UK and
France will long be remembered across the Motherland. Syria now more than ever is a land of
sacrificed sons of Russia. The stakes are now eternal.
This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half of
Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These
people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate
people at home.
The two preceding comments seem to be mutually exclusive, i .e., in direct contradiction:
1. "This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel,"
2. "This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half
of Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These
people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate
people at home."
But, "the point" in (1) seems, actually, to be the exact opposite.
So, has the incident alienated Russians from Israel? Or, can Russia not "afford" to be
alienated from Israel because there are too many Russian Israelis?
Or is it the other way around? That Russian Israelis will not stand for their government's
treatment of Russia? Somehow I suspect that Russian/ex-Soviet Israelis won't give a flying
eff about their govt's treatment of Russia, and the same goes for their relatives inside
Russia. They hated the USSR and couldn't wait to get away. Why does Putin have to cater to
the views of these emigres to Israel, Russian Israelis, or to their families back in Russia?
How do the latter differ from Zionists in the USA who have dual loyaties?
BTW, it is my understanding that the USA paid for the resettlement of Soviet Jews in
Israel in the eighties, not the USSR .
1.3 million Russians in Israel, are Russian jews, and are likely identify primarily as
jewish.
Their aims and concerns, are jewish ones. Their likely only concerns regarding Russia, are
that Russia does not obstruct Israeli ambitions, and that the network of jewish influence in
Russia does not diminish, but thrives. Their interest is for Russia to be another of Israel's
golems, like the USA is.
I moot that true Russian interests, conflict with their own, and they will absolutely
follow their own. Same as AIPAC in the USA, and equivalents everywhere else.
Their ancestral home country might be Russia, but I moot there is nothing Russian about
them.
All my humble opinion. I stand to be corrected. Russia does not have a fifth column in
Israel, it is the other way round.
Look, I'm not a military expert, but I have followed the events in the Middle East fairly
closely for over 30 years. I, and many others, have stated repeatedly that Russia's clearly
demonstrated unwillingness to use its military forces to protect Syria from Western and US
strikes can only lead to disaster.
The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from
the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by
the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the
region by the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from
intervening directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that
could go nuclear).
Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian
operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military
planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria
would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in
Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.
How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are
challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those
red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no
longer have any credibility in Syria.
My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike
the SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria
to ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will
have a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that
they will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the
Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how
could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over
Syria?
You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an
Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3.
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the
ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated.
There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at
Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken
out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not
even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would
not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite
psychotic.
The Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means
available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made
things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's
interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end.
It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their
holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to
the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt
with.
This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without
going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in
NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of
course.
I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I
sincerely hope that I am.
That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if
the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the
enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else
they need to find a new weak spot to poke.
Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are
not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'
Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical
as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.
Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia
(and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the
ever unreliable Turkey..
Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really
the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes
free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the
world.
I have to agree up to a point that this attack was a "full test of the EW capabilties of the
western & Israel armies". This was not just an Israeli attack. Israel just supplied four
attack jets. The French were (as Russia observed) firing missiles. British aircraft were high
overhead providing surveillance and attack data. U.S. surveillance aircraft similar to the
IL-20 are more or less full-time orbiting off the Lebanon/Syria coasts gathering data,
probing electronic systems and providing aerial data link relays for the planes and ships
below. We should all stop calling this an "Israeli attack". It was basically a NATO
attack on Syria.
It's evident that the Russian and Syrian forces were not prepared for
such a combined attack as this.
NATO "won" overwhelmingly.
And this was just a "warmup" for
the next, bigger attack to come. Russia must up it's game drastically or it's going to face a
crushing defeat in the next attack.
"Israeli military delegation led by air force commander to travel to Moscow to share
information on Il-20 plane crash.
The Israeli military delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin will
travel to Moscow on September 20 with information about the crash of a Russian Il-20
reconnaissance aircraft off the Syrian coast that killed 15 military personnel, the IDF press
service said Wednesday."
Will be interesting to see how or maybe if it correlates with Russian intelligence?
The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from
the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the
region by
the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from
intervening
directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that could go
nuclear).
Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian
operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military
planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria
would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in
Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.
How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are
challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those
red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no
longer have any credibility in Syria.
My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike the
SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria to
ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will have
a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that they
will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the
Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how
could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over
Syria? You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an
Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3.
Reply
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the
ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated.
There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at
Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken
out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not
even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would
not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite
psychotic.
The Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means
available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made
things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's
interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end.
It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their
holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to
the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt
with.
This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without
going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in
NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of
course.
I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I
sincerely hope that I am.
That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if
the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the
enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else
they need to find a new weak spot to poke.
Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are
not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'
Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical
as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.
Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia
(and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the
ever unreliable Turkey..
Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really
the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes
free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the
world.
Which is why the provocations won't stop. Honestly, I don't see how Putin can think he can
shrug them off and continue with the job at hand in Syria. He will try but Zion will continue
to double-down.
I believe the West has seen enough of their schemes foiled by Putin and his playing the
long game. The strategy now is to take the long game from him. The advantage in this goes to
the West as they can be as provocative as they want while Russia has to be careful not to be
seen as an aggressor lest it wreck Nord Stream, Turk Stream and the thaw in relations with
Germany.
Putin has sounded conciliatory, maybe even weak in some eyes. He did, however, note that
Russia's attitude towards this incident is expressed in the MoD statement, which is
noticeably less conciliatory.
Perhaps that, along with some concrete actions (I favor a limited no-fly zone), will deter
outside interference while the essential work at Idlib can continue. We can only hope.
May I remind you Saker that this incident was not just a provocation. It is a promise or
threat being honored. For months we have we have been hearing high ranking American officials
openly advocating that their goal in Syria was to make as many as possible Russian military
return home in body bags. From Senators to directors of intelligence have unabashedly and
unapologetically said so openly on American TVs. And they are doing it whenever possible.
So the question for Mr. Putin is whether he's gonna let them continue with impunity. I don't
know how old most commentators on this site are, but for those who remember the denouement of
the Vietnam war you will remember that the only war the US ever lost was when the American
people had enough of hundreds of their soldiers returning home every week in body bags.
remember the Tu 20 was used a RADAR shield for the 4 Israeli F-16. These are obviously
aircraft and operate from an Israeli military base.The Russians know the geographical
coordinates of these bases to the accuracy of a few meters. The Russian SSBM can stay in the
Black Sea and the Caspian Sea Flotilla can repeat their Deir ez Zoor feat again testing the
Iron Dome an Davids Sling in the process.
This potential threat will cause the Israeli military planers some sleepless nights.
I have read that the fire works capabilities of Hezbollah have somewhat improved in recent
years. The possible components of a "no fly zone" over Israel and western Syria. Not that it
will happen but making the protection racket in Washington foam at their Snouts is worth
something too. IMHO
Lets not forget China has people (Special Forces, Logistics people, medics etc) on the ground
in Syria. Some brigades of the special forces are embedded with the Syrian Arab Armies Tiger
Division and 4th Armored Division. The spearheads of most campaigns.
China has major plans foe the Levant, as far as connectivity with the OBR Silk Roads. They
already have plans to rebuild Syria.
With cheap Chinese weapons, and a large volume of such, the Arabs, Assyrians of Syria will
achieve their ultimate victory. The same applies to Iraq, where the U.S. , British and French
position looks more and more precarious.
By 2030, the U.S., Britain and France will have been expelled from the MENA/Central Asian
regions, only to have China fill the vacuum. Russia or not, China is coming, its rising
fast.
I agree with you 100% that there is no hope for the Western globalist elite. That's because
they're incompetent, psychopathic, loser scum who are only a few bricks short of a load and
their ponzi scam is only a few moves from mate.
I wouldn't say that at all. They are still in positions of power with enormous economic and
military sources. They are in decline but not that far down the road. Russia won't act
strongly because the US/NATO/Israel/Saudi alliance is waaaaay more powerful and still very
united in the Imperial project. Only a very tight China-Russia-Iran alliance would cause the
Empire to hesitate to play their current game of continual micro-aggressions against
Russia/Syria/Iran. Putin will not respond because he does not have as close an alliance with
the Chinese as the US has with their "allies (vassals)." Washington can no longer dictate
terms in world affairs but is more influential than Russia/China/Iran and any other minor
players.
Kfeto
You need to do your homework before posting comments. Erdogan had nothing to do with with the
shooting of that Russian SU-24. This was done behind his back, with pro-US elements in Turkey
hoping to create a rift between Russia and Turkey. It was a provocation. The pilot of that
Turkish F-16 was a Turk of Albanian origin, who was subsequently placed under arrest. When
the US instigated that coup d'etat against Erdogan, it was the Russians who both warned him
and saved his life, as his plane was targeted by Turkish F-16's flown by conspirators, who
backed off, having Russian Sukhois behind them and Russian missiles in Syria pointing at
them.
The shooting of that Russian reconnaissance plane in Syria was another provocation, Israel
hoping to provoke Putin to retaliate and starting a mass war in Syria, bearing in mind that
NATO brought additional ships to the Syrian coast. It did not work, as Putin stayed cool.
However, Russian and Syrian AA missile systems have now become integrated. When it comes to
this latest provocation, it could have been greater than it appeared. Commentators have
pointed to that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of missile was that ? An AA
missile, or a cruise missile ? Did the French shoot that Russian plane down ? If so, then we
were facing a very real threat of wider war, because had the Russians retaliated, then NATO
would have had an excuse to attack Syria, now that it's little false flag plan has been
exposed, another chemical "attack" by Assad, as if Assad was foolish enough to do such a
thing.
The point is that Putin does not fall for provocations. He has proved it again.
I concur. Israel is a rogue state, and this was a provocation.
A firm response is required. The world is watching. Anything short of a firm response
would negate Vostok 2018.
Does Putin stand with, and behind his own Minister of Defense, who layed the blame firmly
on Israel.
Russia needs to secure Syrian and Lebanese airspace to Israeli provocations. AS a starting
point. And Russia should make a lot of noise at the U.N., giving them a headache there, as
well as points against the U.S..
Israeli arrogance should not be let go by superpower Russia.
amarynth
You are correct. I am wondering what really happened. Officially that Russian plane was
mistakenly shot down by Syrians, who were targeting Israeli F-16's that were hiding behind
the Russian plane. Both the Syrian radar operators and their Russian advisors must have known
about that Russian reconnaissance plane, making such a mistake improbable, but not
impossible. Then we have reports of that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of
missile was that ? An AA missile, or a cruise missile ? No additional data has been provided.
I wonder why.
NATO ships are still off the Syrian coast. Why ? For what purpose ? Just keeping them at
sea must cost millions of dollars. Are they waiting for something ?
That false flag chemical
"attack" which the US planned, hoping to frame Assad, has been exposed. Putin and Erdogan
make a deal on Idlib. After that we have that Israeli attack, with the French giving a
helping hand. Was NATO provoking Putin to make a retaliatory attack, either against Israel or
against that French frigate ? Time will tell. However, as The Saker has stated, Russians have
patience.
Patience is not always a virtue. Stalin paid dearly for his patience with Hitler even though
his plans for Lebensraum and expansion eastward were not hidden. Careful Mr. Putin that you
not pay dearly for your patience with the American Empire when it's plan "Project for a New
American Century" has been clearly spelled out.
Yes Saker as you say let's wait and see what the Russian response will be.
Over the years – this always is the knee jerk reaction of the armchair warriors and
anti-Putin/Russia trolls – whenever Russia is attacked in Syria or elsewhere. Some
still don't learn that Russia is slow to saddle and quick to ride. The MOD statements have
already set down who is to blame and a reply to this disgusting provocation will be answered
in their own way and in their own time. Putin also agreed with the MOD statements and hinted
himself to watch this space.
"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and
Russia has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have
organized their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"
This was a very important point, I also noted. I also read that the II-20 plane was
returning from reconnaissance over Idlib and was just coming into land .take from that what
you will ..
I think a basic question here is whether the Israelis were deliberately trying to down the
II-20. Is it a coincidence that the Israeli attack took place precisely when that plane was
landing? The Israelis have done worse. I think they had foreknowledge of 9-11, for example,
and were unwilling to help their American "friends".
Given that 15 Russians were killed Russia probably does need to respond. The challenge
will probably be to avoid actions that restrict Russian choices, especially given that Trump
& Co. are willing to play nuclear chicken. The Russians want to avoid being forced into a
sequence of actions that lead to WWIII or other bad outcomes. They want to make the choices,
not others.
The Israelis have a history of trying to provoke others. For example, before they invaded
Lebanon they tried to provoke a PLO military response to some attacks so that they could
claim their invasion was self-defense against PLO "aggression". The PLO didn't take the bait
but the Israelis invaded Lebanon anyway.
I haveto challenge your cleverly hidden piece of misinformation. The WTC was brought down by
controlled demoliton and the sheer scope of the operation (3 sites, NORAD exercise) clearly
points to the involvment of state actors. So about what should the the Israelis warn their US
comrades?
Its true building #7 appears to have been destroyed by a controlled demolition but we don't
know for sure at this point who was responsible, although Israel is high on my list of
suspects. (Incidentally, there is evidence that the 1993 WTC bombing was an Israeli black op.
too.) However, we do know that an Israeli spy ring followed the 9-11 hijackers for months and
a group of these spies cheered during the 9-11 attack. This convinces me that while the plot
was carried out by Al Queda, the Israelis were in the background making sure they succeeded.
It also convinces me that the Israelis are perfectly capable of deliberately downing the
II-20 or worse.
We know who said this: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've
had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made
that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
I know the US is in the grip of AIPAC, the Neocon's and their Billionaire masters etc
(including Trump). But it's time for the American people to accept responsibility for their
part in what is happening. It is not OK to accept medals and money for military service
overseas to support the Empire. Occupying foreign nations and killing foreign people in order
to pay for college and to pay the mortgage and set up an retirement plan is weakness, not
strength. "Thank you for your service", indeed. Too many Americans still worship at the altar
of the Pentagon.
It's time for Americans to kick the MIC to the curb, give up the Petrodollar and
corruption that comes with it, and come up with a saner national business model and way of
life. I know that many, many American soldiers have paid a heavy price for their "service" or
even "servitude", but not more so than the nations they have ruined during their service.
It's time for the American people to come together and accept that "War" cannot be the
solution to every problem facing America in it's foreign or domestic policies. It is time to
Down Tools and clean up the corruption in DC and on Wall Street and in the US establishment
in general.
I believe these sentiments are not shocking to most Americans, but this also means the
sense of desperation in the US/Zio elites wedded to War is growing, another reason they push
so hard and so frantically. They know time is running out for them. On this front and many
others.
Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
@ Christian,
I have Serbian roots, and US & its NATO poodles bombed and finished their decade long job of destroying my country in 1999.
That nightmare just doesn't end.
But my definition of evil is worth noting. Evil can put a bullet in your head, but where is the fun in that? Put the gun in
the hand of a good person, deceive them, and get them to do it. THAT's true evil, and there in a nutshell is what has been
done to the US.
I struggled to understand as a child, why lying was as great a crime in Christianity as murder and stuff, but I later
understood; deceit is the greatest evil, it turns good people into monsters. There is no anger like righteous anger.
All that evil needs to thrive, is ignorance. The American people as a whole, are grossly ignorant, but they are not evil;
they are simply deceived, just like Brits actualy. A good number of yanks on Zerohedge wish Putin was their own president, so
some are awake. Overall, the US citizenry actually can't give a hoot about Russiagate. There is no mass ill will towards
Russia.
So those are just my thoughts. I just want the American, and European people to wake out of their trance.
That's a bold statement but cancerous growth is typical of any intelligence agency, especially CIA: all of them want more and more
budget money and try to influence both domestic and foreign policy. That's signs of cancel.
FBI actually has dual mandate: suppressing political dissent (STASI functions) and fight with criminals and organized crime.
The fact the President does not control his own administration, especially State Department isclearly visible now. He is more like
a ceremonial figura that is allowed to rant on Twitter, but can't change any thing of substance in forign policy. and Is a typucal Repiblican
in domenstic policy, betraying the electorate like Obama did
Notable quotes:
"... Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption. ..."
Shifting from Sessions to the much-maligned FBI, Trump said the agency was "a cancer" and that uncovering deep-seated corruption
in the FBI may be remembered as the "crowning achievement" of his administration, per
the Hill .
"What we've done is a great service to the country, really," Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval
Office.
"I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer
in our country."
Moreover, Trump insisted that he never trusted former FBI Director James Comey, and that he had initially planned to fire Comey
shortly after the inauguration, but had been talked out of it by his aides.
Trump also said he regretted not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately instead of waiting until May 2017, confirming
an account his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, gave Hill.TV earlier in the day that Trump was dismayed in 2016 by the way Comey handled
the Hillary Clinton email case and began discussing firing him well before he became president.
"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,"
Trump said. "I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don't want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day
on the job. ... I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don't want him there when I get there."
The FISA Court judges who approved the initial requests allowing the FBI to surveil employees of the Trump Campaign also came
in for some criticism, with Trump claiming they used "poor Carter Page, who nobody even knew, and who I feel very badly for...as
a foil...to surveil a candidate or the presidency of the United States." Trump added that he felt the judges had been "misled" by
the FBI.
He criticizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court's approval of the warrant that authorized surveillance
of Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign aide, toward the end of the 2016 election, suggesting the FBI misled the court.
"They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter
Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he's been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in
order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States."
As for the judges on the secret intelligence court: "It looks to me just based on your reporting, that they have been misled,"
the president said, citing a series of columns in The Hill newspaper identifying shortcomings in the FBI investigation. "I mean
I don't think we have to go much further than to say that they've been misled."
"One of the things I'm disappointed in is that the judges in FISA didn't, don't seem to have done anything about it. I'm very
disappointed in that Now, I may be wrong because, maybe as we sit here and talk, maybe they're well into it. We just don't know
that because I purposely have not chosen to get involved," Trump said.
Trump continued the assault on Sessions during a brief conference with reporters Wednesday morning. When asked whether he was
planning to fire Sessions, Trump replied that "we're looking into lots of different things."
To be sure, Sessions has managed to hang on thus far. And if he can somehow manage to survive past Nov. 6, his fate will perversely
rest on the Democrats' success. Basically, if they wrest back control of the Senate (which, to be sure, is unlikely), Sessions chances
of staying on would rise dramatically. But then again, how much abuse can a man realistically endure before he decides that the costs
of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving?
DingleBarryObummer , 19 minutes ago
Sessions works for Trump, because Trump is running the uniparty russia-gate stormy-gate anti-trump show. Sessions was intentionally
placed there to stonewall and make sure the kabuki goes on. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. This **** garners sympathy for him
as the persecuted underdog, rallies his base; and distracts from the obvious zio-bankster influence over his admin and his many
unfulfilled campaign promises. He's deceiving you. Why do you think Giuliani acts like such a buffoon? It's because that's what
he was hired for. All distractions and bullshit. He will not get impeached, Hillary is not going to jail, nothing will happen.
The zio-Banksters will continue to stay at the top of the pyramid, because that's who trump works for, NOT you and me.
"While Trump's fascination with the White House still burned within him [re: 2011], he also had The Apprentice to deal with--and
it wasn't as easy as you might think. He loved doing the show and was reluctant to give it up. At one point, he was actually thinking
of hosting it from the oval office if he made it all the way to the White House. He even discussed it with Stephen Burke, the
CEO at NBCUniversal, telling Burke he would reconsider running if the network was concerned about his candidacy." -Roger Stone
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past.
They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people,
for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They utilize strategies
that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and
lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive,
in the game of power." -Robert Greene
Sparkey , 31 minutes ago
This is why the 'little' people love President 'The Donald' Trump, he says the things they would like to say, but have no platform
to speak from, Mushroom man The Donald has no fear he has got Mushroom power, and he has my support in what ever he does!
Secret Weapon , 43 minutes ago
Is Sessions a Deep State firewall? Starting to look that way.
TrustbutVerify , 48 minutes ago
Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic
election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based
bureaucratic bias and corruption.
I suspect Sessions will last until after the mid-term elections. Then Trump will fire him and bring someone like Gowdy in to
head the DOJ and to bring about investigations.
And, my gosh, there seems to be so much to investigate. And to my mind prosecute.
loop, 49 minutes ago
"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
- U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
mendigo, 59 minutes ago
Cool stuff. But really the cancer goes much deeper. That is the scary part. Trump is now largely controlled by the Borg.
Government employees and elected officials have a choice: can either play along and become wealthy and powerful or have
their careers destroyed, or worse.
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics." ..."
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while
serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue
to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill
any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure
of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show,
another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz
Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is
critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah.
@Diversity Heretic I applied through the GreatAgain website and never received the
courtesy of a reply despite having conributed to the Trump campaign before Iowa, nine years
working on Capitol Hill (for Republicans) and seven years in a regulatory commission (working
for a Republicaén commissioner), a JD and an MBA. So I'm not surprised to hear that
applications through the website were not even considered and jobs filled with Washington
insiders. (The first inclination that I had that something was seriously wrong in the
staffing area was when Calista Gingrich was named as ambassador to the Vatican.) Trump has
the classic problem of the outsider: no institutional mechanism to staff an administration.
(Jesse Ventura had a similar problem when he was elected as governor of Minnesota as an
independent). He compounds that problem by making poor choices that involve his personal
judgment and consideration (e.g., John Bolton and Nikki Haley?!).
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're
in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think
we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
It is astonishing that after all the fraudsters and con masters masquerading as politicians
there are huge numbers who claim to believe in the system where humans have voluntarily given
away their freedoms.
Hope and Change, replaced by MAGA.
Do you honestly believe that your Founding Fathers would rebel against King's Tyranny if it
were possible to change it by peaceful means?
@anonymous None of this should have come as a surprise.
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure
of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show,
another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz
Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is
critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah. Voting in our
national elections has become another example of evil paraded before us as a moral duty. It
ironically results in disenfranchisement by perpetually legitimizing a federal government as
much at war with its own citizens as with every other people who oppose the new American
Proposition -- the antithesis of a fulfilling human culture wherever it's found, and which
today amounts to claiming that freedom and democracy equate to owning stuff and vicariously
participating in unbridled avarice, sexual depravity, war, torture, and mass murder. Either
party and all that horror is a constant.
So, instead of girding middle America mentally, spiritually, and physically to fight to
the death for what's worth living for, and while there's still some chance to save ourselves
and our nation, we get the Republican leadership, Fox News, and Conservatism Inc blowing
smoke in our eyes, temporizing on behalf of the Deep State by pretending these veiled and
overt calls for white genocide are just in bad taste or that curtesy and cowardice are an
effective policy toward a wildly homicidal left.
"... Since when have these "Guardians of Our Republic" ever been against the release of more information from our government? Obviously, only when such release might put a dent in the Russia cloud that they have deliberately perpetuated regardless of the drip, drip, drip of evidence implicating high-ranking FBI, CIA and Justice officials in wrongdoing. ..."
"... The actions of former Secretary of State John Kerry in meeting with Iranian ministers -- a country with which we have no diplomatic relations -- are 100 times more troubling, as he is actively undermining the policy of the current administration. ..."
"... So, two years, a trail of ruined lives, shredded constitutional protections, an administration under a cloud, and no collusion. All that's really been uncovered is a single meeting with a Russian lawyer who actually dined the night before and after the Trump Tower meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS, who testified he didn't speak to her about it, even though she was his client. ..."
"... It's time for the shroud of secrecy around this investigation to be lifted, for everything to be put in public view. The Justice Department -- and even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has brazenly defied congressional subpoenas -- must comply with these very lawful and appropriate orders without delay. It also is time for the media to give full, fair coverage to any and all revelations that come out of these documents, regardless of who it hurts or helps. ..."
"... President Barack Obama once famously said that "elections have consequences," and he was right. But those consequences can't be the weaponization of our intelligence assets and the setting-off of investigations to bring down a newly elected government we don't like. Policy changes should be the consequence. ..."
"... Remember, the ends don't justify the means. It is the means that justify the ends. ..."
Democrats are squawking about President Trump's order to release the material used by the
FBI and the Justice Department to initiate the investigation of his campaign. These minority
committee chairs, soon likely to be in the majority, claim it's unfair, an abuse of power,
one-sided.
Since when have these "Guardians of Our Republic" ever been against the release of more
information from our government? Obviously, only when such release might put a dent in the
Russia cloud that they have deliberately perpetuated regardless of the drip, drip, drip of
evidence implicating high-ranking FBI, CIA and Justice officials in wrongdoing.
This investigation of the Trump campaign, his administration, family and associates has gone
on for more than two years without any serious evidence supporting the Russia-Trump collusion
theory. And, increasingly, it looks like there never was any real evidence to support the
launching of the largest investigation of an administration in history. It's the only known
investigation ever by an outgoing party of the incoming officials of the other party. It was
whipped up by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, former British spy Christopher Steele and
partisans in the Obama administration, creating a vast echo chamber with information that was
never substantiated in any material way and, on the face of it, was preposterous. (No one ever
offered Trump campaign adviser Carter Page $19 billion for anything.)
Now, before Americans go to vote, is precisely the time to unmask publicly this information;
if it favors the current administration, then the originators of the investigation will have
even more explaining to do. Information that was used to start an investigation can't possibly
be exculpatory unless, in the light of day, it appears forced, false or incomplete. After all,
it was used to convince judges that crimes were being committed by Trump and his
associates.
Based on what we see in the prosecutions, there appears to have been three tranches of
allegations behind the investigations -- the "tip" from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer
that George Papadopoulos had some generalized advance information about email hacking, the
Christopher Steele dossier, and the then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates investigation of
Gen. Michael Flynn for potential Logan Act violations. The Mueller probe systematically pursued
all of them to the prosecutorial limits, until every witness was bludgeoned into
cooperation.
The Papadopoulos case yielded tremendous speculation but no collusion -- just a rather
pointless prosecution against him, resolved with 14 days in jail. The best they got from the
former Trump campaign adviser was a nod at a meeting that maybe Trump should meet Vladimir
Putin. It remains unclear whether FBI plants were sent to entrap him, and others, but that may
come out in these documents.
The famous dossier pointed fingers at Page, Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and
onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort as the collusion masterminds. Page was extensively
spied upon, apparently to no avail. Cohen did not take the fabled trips to Prague or anywhere
else and, yet, his financial life was investigated anyway and he became a victim of the Mueller
probe. He is now part of a Stormy Daniels insurance policy if the main investigation fails to
take down the president.
Manafort quite rightly sought a plea deal after losing part of the first trial, and he
admitted he did not pay taxes or file lobbying reports, but none of the charges against him
include collusion with Russians. I would not hold my breath for any bombshell revelations from
him. He could add more color to a Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, but that meeting
was not a crime.
Gen. Flynn is set to be sentenced and it's unlikely he will get even 14 days, given his
record of service to the nation. He was deliberately targeted by Yates, an outgoing Obama
official, who intercepted legitimate transition calls with the Russian ambassador and
dispatched the FBI to question Flynn about those, even though she already had a transcript
showing they were benign. The actions of former Secretary of State John Kerry in meeting with
Iranian ministers -- a country with which we have no diplomatic relations -- are 100 times more
troubling, as he is actively undermining the policy of the current administration.
Then there is Roger Stone. He may have texted with one of the hackers of Clinton campaign
emails, but he rejected operatives' efforts to get him to pay for Hillary dirt. Here, Mueller
is having less luck trying the same playbook used on others, of finding something in his
personal or business life to deploy as leverage against him.
Investigating people in this manner is so completely un-American that Congress should pass
legislation to prohibit it in the future, especially when there are political considerations.
We investigate crimes, not people. Here, people were named and then investigated until crimes
of any kind were found.
So, two years, a trail of ruined lives, shredded constitutional protections, an
administration under a cloud, and no collusion. All that's really been uncovered is a single
meeting with a Russian lawyer who actually dined the night before and after the Trump Tower
meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS, who testified he didn't speak to her about it, even
though she was his client.
It's time for the shroud of secrecy around this investigation to be lifted, for everything
to be put in public view. The Justice Department -- and even Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, who has brazenly defied congressional subpoenas -- must comply with these very
lawful and appropriate orders without delay. It also is time for the media to give full, fair
coverage to any and all revelations that come out of these documents, regardless of who it
hurts or helps.
President Barack Obama once famously said that "elections have consequences," and he was
right. But those consequences can't be the weaponization of our intelligence assets and the
setting-off of investigations to bring down a newly elected government we don't like. Policy
changes should be the consequence.
We have elections every two years, and that's the right route for Americans to express their
frustrations. Investigations, especially without probable cause, are most often the wrong way
-- and maybe this additional sunlight on what was done here will bring us together around
needed reforms to prevent this from ever happening again.
Remember, the ends don't justify the
means. It is the means that justify the ends.
Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm
specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author
of "Microtrends Squared." He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to
2000, including during Clinton's impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter
@Mark_Penn.
The week leading up to the funeral of Senator John McCain produced some of the most bizarre
media effusions seen in this country since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.
McCain, who never saw a war or regime change that he didn't like, was apparently in reality a
friend of democracy and freedom worldwide, a judgment that somehow ignores the hundreds of
thousands of presumed foreign devils who have died as a consequence of the policies he
enthusiastically promoted in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.
McCain, who supported assassination of US citizens abroad and detention of them by military
commissions back at home, was hardly the upright warrior for justice eulogized in much of the
mainstream media. He was in fact for most of his life a corrupt cheerleader for the
Establishment and Military Industrial Complex. McCain was one of five Senators who, in return
for campaign contributions, improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles Keating,
Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a target of a regulatory investigation by
the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently did not follow through with
proposed action against Lincoln.
Lincoln Savings and Loan finally did collapse in 1989, at a cost of $3.4 billion to the
federal government, which had insured the accounts, while an estimated 23,000 Lincoln
bondholders were defrauded, many losing their life savings. When the Keating story broke in
1989, the Phoenix New Times newspaper called McCain
the worst senator from any state in American history.
There was plenty of pushback on the McCain legacy coming from the alternative media, though
nothing in the mainstream where politicians and pundits from both the left and the right of the
political spectrum united in their songs of praise. Amidst all the eulogies one
article did, however, strike me as particularly bizarre. It was written by Jeffrey
Goldberg, Editor in Chief of The Atlantic , and is entitled " McCain would have
passed the Anne Frank test" with the sub-heading "The senator spent decades
demonstrating his willingness to fight powerful men who abused powerless people."
Goldberg, a leading neoconservative, casually reveals that he has had multiple discussions
with McCain, including some in "war zones" like Iraq. He quotes the Senator as saying "I hated
Saddam. He ruled through murder. Didn't we learn from Hitler that we can't let that happen?"
Goldberg notes that McCain's hatred "for all dictators burned hot" before hitting on a number
of other themes, including that, per the senator, it was Donald Rumsfeld's "arrogance and
incompetence that helped discredit the American invasion" of Iraq. Goldberg quotes McCain as
saying "He [Rumsfeld] was the worst."
Jeffrey Goldberg also claims a conversation with McCain in which he asserted that, even
though an Iraq war supporter, he had become frustrated with the effort to "renovate a despotic
Middle Eastern country." As he put it, "theory of the American case was no match for the
heartbreaking Middle East reality," which is yet another defense of U.S. interventionism with
the caveat that the Arabs might not be ready to make good use of the largesse.
Elsewhere Goldberg, echoing McCain, has attributed the disaster in Iraq to the
"incompetence of the Bush Administration," not to the policy of regime change itself,
presumably because the Pentagon was unsuccessful at killing enough Arabs quickly enough to suit
the neoconservatives. McCain's reported response to Goldberg's equivocation about Saddam
Hussein's Iraq was "But genocide! Genocide!"
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
As a follow-up to my Aug 27th blog, I ask people to name McCain's most important
accomplishment during his long political career. They can think of none, but the TV tells
them McCain was great because he was a neocon. Senator Paul Laxalt saw more combat than
McCain and had an equally long and distinguished career. He was not a crazed neocon so our
media barely reported his death last month.
Here are two examples of McCain's bad character just this past year. McCain had always
opposed Obamacare and campaigned against it. The Republicans had tried to repeal it for
years. The election of President Trump also brought in more Republican congressmen. The House
easily repealed it, and the Senate finally had a majority to vote for a partial repeal. This
would be a big victory for the Republicans led by President Trump. When the vote was held,
McCain shocked everyone and voted against it, thus abandoning his principles and backstabbing
his party! This was applauded by the Democrats and the insurance companies who profit from
Obamacare. They praised McCain as a "maverick", although everyone knows this was done just to
thwart a Trump victory.
On his deathbed, McCain directed his staff not to invite his Presidential running mate
Sarah Palin to his funeral. She campaigned for him as a loyal teammate and never said a bad
word about McCain during the campaign or after their loss. McCain blamed her for his loss and
expressed this in a childish manner. Allow me to summarize his life. John McCain was as
selfish, spoiled brat who had no sense of decency.
As I have stated before it is with great sorrow that I note the passing of McCain. A more
just god would have prolonged the agony of cancer for may years to come so he could live in
misery, anguish, and pain, as penance for the lives he has destroyed here and abroad. I fear
that several such lifetimes in such suffering would be grossly inadequate recompense for what
he has wrought.
Small wonder that I have no belief in such an inordinately cruel and unjust god who allows
men like McCain to live and thrive and then vanish into the ether with his debts unpaid,
while the crew of USS Liberty live their lives in the knowledge of their betrayal by McCain's
father, and later McCain himself.
An orphaned child weeps in Iraq while America lauds this beast among men while he lived,
and sings his praises on his death. A curse on all his enablers.
This was a stirring editorial, Philip, and an much-needed rejection of John McCain's
artificial status as a 'great American'.
Indeed, the fact that such a murderous sycophant as McCain would receive extended,
bi-partisan honors by establishment 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike, demonstrates what a
staged and loathsome cesspool of corruption has become Imperial Washington, not to mention
our vaunted Fourth Estate. I haven't felt this estranged from my own country since the last
time Bibi Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress.
What on earth is the Anne Frank test ?
The Anne Frank story simply is of jews in hiding in the Netherlands in WWII, discovered in
1944, deported, where Anne Frank died in early 1945 died of typhoid, while others who stayed
in the same Amsterdam canal achterhuis, literally 'behind house', built later in the garden,
survived.
Before I continue, there is not a shred of doubt that the hiding place and the way they were
in hiding is not true.
However, if a fourteen year old wrote the diary, there are doubts.
Except for the text itself, how at the end of 1944 a ball point pen arrived in occupied
Netherlands, the last part is written by ballpoint, no explanation whatsoever.
Jews were in hiding all over the Netherlands, my mother told me how after the Canadians had
driven out the Germans, snow white people appeared in her small village, that she had known
nothing about, they had been inside for several, maybe five, years.
The effort to get food to them must not be underestimated, food was rationed strictly.
I will keep my fence. His policies regarding Carte Blanche' support for Israel, the invasion of
Iraq, Afghanistan, , interventions in Libya, Syria the Ukraine and pressing the matter on Iran
-- the Russia baiting and Russia conspiracies –
From reading these uppity remarks by Mr. Giraldi, it's obvious he didn't get the text
commanding all good Americans to get on their knees and worship the dead mass-murderer
psychopath McCain.
"He said that, in the post holocaust world, all civilized people, and the governments of
all civilized nations, should be intolerant of leaders who commit verified acts of genocide
"
"Verified?" John Boy using legalese to slither away from his participation in numerous acts
of genocide, both directly by dropping Napalm on Vietnamese civilians or as one of the US
Senate's most rabid war mongers, demanding that this nation or that country be bombed, invaded
and smashed, because McCain had set himself up as judge, jury and executioner? No facts needed,
verdict already in, GUILTY as usual, off with their heads.
If the ICC was actually functional and not just a tool of NATO, EU, Israel and its US
colony, McCain–along with a slew of other US and Israeli war criminals–would of
been dancing on air a long time ago.
I served among fighter jocks back in the 1970s. They're great guys, cut a good public
figure, they're patriotic, true believers in air power, and they enjoy the prestige of their
military occupation. They are also straight-line-only thinkers. They'd bristle at the idea that
they've been "handled" by anyone.
We had a retired Navy captain here who was elected county commissioner. Bristling with
energy and ideas, he had the security of his good government pension. So he thought. Bought by
a local zillionaire, he served prison time.
Fighter jocks simply won't "get" that the job of our political masters is to cripple and
puppetize nominally representative institutions by bribery, blackmail, extortion, and the like,
for the purpose of providing rhetorical cover for what they want to do.
You should and you should try to get others even more influential than yourself (I'm thinking
Pat Buchanan), to browbeat CBS to disclose that this Jeffrey Goldberg is an Israeli
citizen. He's on 'Face The Nation' almost as much as the lovely Margaret Brennan.
"That McCain enthusiastically became Goldberg's patsy is at least one good reason that we
should all be grateful that he never was elected president."
Yes, McCain did not appear to be particularly bright, but he was highly energized by the
"dueling banjos" of ambition and avarice (dumping his sick first wife for a younger, much
richer one), and hence a perfect mark for the wily Zionist manipulators.
The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret
influence campaign on Facebook
Censored film reveals The Israel Project's secret Facebook campaign
The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret
influence campaign on Facebook.
This is revealed in The Lobby – USA, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that has
never been broadcast due to censorship by Qatar following pressure from pro-Israel
organizations.
In the newest clips, David Hazony, the managing director of The Israel Project, is heard
telling Al Jazeera's undercover reporter: "There are also things that we do that are
completely off the radar. We work together with a lot of other organizations."
Graham seems slightly more well behaved since McCain left the Senate. The stare down of
Graham was excellent.
I hold to the theory that the Generals backed Trump and the CIA backed Hillary.
Adding to that theory I submit that it was the reason why the former regime targeted Flynn
first. As head of the DIA he may have had a big role in neutralizing some of the other
intelligence agencies in their election meddling. He was the most dangerous person to the
former regime.
I do not hold the the mass indictments theory. With that many Grand Juries going someone
would see something unless they are being held on military bases with military people on the
juries. The whole system would melt down if that happened. The MSN would be all over this
spinning the military dictator line, especially with the upcoming election.
If the Republicans lose Congress the Trump Russia investigations will continue for another
two years along with the tiring blather from the MSM.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a
wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it
possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden
interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news
coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang
him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.
An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could
have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir
Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.
When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested
that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.
On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in
full:
'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses
brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend
is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says
Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take
on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'
On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information
from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'
A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared
by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision
being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would
seem to me unlikely that Steele was.
This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years
ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in
those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to
a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion
I had made.
In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented
a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue,
and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.
On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public,
without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish
what they published.
I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs,
unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty
linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.
And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction
of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely,
without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.
Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may
have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.
If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication,
either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what
Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.
But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would
not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.
I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent
from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.
It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts
and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also
Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.
It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation',
while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.
If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech
to which Kim Sengupta refers.
A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In
this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex
and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'
Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended
implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities',
the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.
My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American
intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended
consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate
measures to cover their backsides.
There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One
of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency
planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of
a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.
The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central
role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.
Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous
communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even
have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson
also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.
Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others.
Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and
Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.
You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's
US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to
Comey.
Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then
there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in
all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors
on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's
golf course in NJ.
Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone
leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.
Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access
to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.
Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere
McAuliffe.
In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media
personalities for a quid pro quo.
As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids.
Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.
There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.
Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed
their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an
old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.
I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and
after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies
are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real
job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.
At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the
Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of
Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience
in spookdom.
If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.
I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.
Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything
about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop
all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around.
Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.
"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."
I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.
But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably
less efficient?
I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to
predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang
indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised"
mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?
I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget
that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria
and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.
Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans
won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm
not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.
I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media,
the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump.
Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.
Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than
this crazy Trump/Russia thing?
Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop
with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.
At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary
in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:
'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that
a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.
I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which
Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history'
crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.
In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional
conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not
binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward
rascality.
On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary
points raised by your remarks.
As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok
for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately
involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,
It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures
in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else
is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.
If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before
Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared
to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'
The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's
handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision.
A key paragraph from the report:
'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher
Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes
from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'
There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed
the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also
be rewritten.)
One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in
the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to
top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.
And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which
could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain,
or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.
So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources,
and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.
All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved
in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.
That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well
as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister,
quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making
it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie
Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that
he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to
the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.
Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent
any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish
that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.
That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon
the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.
Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.
I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs
which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help
to the congressional investigations and hearings.
To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's
Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate
and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.
I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner
will be very interesting to pursue.
The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.
No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's
good friend Benjamin Wittes.
Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?
"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy
in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime,
will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist
anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to
be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy
is heart-breaking"
Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.
But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir
Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although
he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.
As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson
Society.'
This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent –
Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.
In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that
only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic
states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'
Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest'
an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See
https://nationalinterest.or...
.)
Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had
been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against
all' was to be avoided.
And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of
universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.
This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western
'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere
with ideological dogma:
'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that
US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also
by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its
society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took
the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence
on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their
own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle
and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything
America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'
I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's
account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.
One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which
was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville
on.
(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican'
thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate
and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)
However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees
that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war
'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.
Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology
of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:
'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid,
let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and
society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire.
This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members
of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the
harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy
and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners
find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and
degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'
Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer,
I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by
a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly
over the years.
And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended
up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers',
among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.
At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei
Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised
had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations,
we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)
Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet
models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.
What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the
'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.
If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including
among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries,
it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.
After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.
The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the
product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to
understand.
I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me,
are global.
I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO
the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and
that was that.
PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson
I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."
Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.
Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.
Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically?
If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains?
What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their
racket?
It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the
Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole
Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then
there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller
appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated?
Was each element separate?
There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.
I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort
such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and
not 'heart-breaking']...
Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have
not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results.
https://apelbaum.wordpress....
Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.
I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back,
but not looked at it properly.
It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved
to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.
A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT
person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.
This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from
official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can
be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.
At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources
and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.
And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation.
Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation
is designed to obscure.
One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian
intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.
This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people.
(There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)
Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that
at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of
security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.
Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational
programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.
The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was
acting as an agent of MI6.
There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov
appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.
But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political
disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying
information to the Russians.
If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a
series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually
large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.
An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries
on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.
It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence
is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter
and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor
at Orbis and Hakluyt.'
That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove.
When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things
listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent
Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.
If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and
close examination suggests that key parts of it are.
In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele
and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly
killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was
read.
Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the
'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.
Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.
At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others
have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British
counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.
Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history,
and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible
interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more
important – Hakluyt.
And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting,
it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.
This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working
against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations'
against the former.
There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate,
such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.
Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate',
which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons –
being obscured.
Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in
such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.
In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies
and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.
Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the
likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.
One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby
involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that
you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what
design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional
cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse
to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.
At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.
Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier.
Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary
reactions.
My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in
his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.
In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction
company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software
development.
What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing
OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'
That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like
the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'
So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed
by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.
Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to
the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.
Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle
East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.
In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional
wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'
And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that
country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company
to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'
The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology,
whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating
online fraud.
At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation.
So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.
Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title
'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.
Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may
be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'
While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT
techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.
I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters
– 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:
'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of
the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.
'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and
federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he
has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ
and state.'
As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response
to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with
Semyon Mogilevich.
This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it
as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.
It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted
in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler
Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying
to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'
So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the
US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.
If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the
post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a
common enemy.
If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate
inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')
One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which
I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.
So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been
able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper
with a strong Jewish presence.
That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent
gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims
about Hakluyt and other matters.
In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in
Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel
– by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional
dividing lines in the United States and Britain.
Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements
in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying
to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.
It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic
Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier
rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested
deed is a real conundrum.
I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post
and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.
Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US,
UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are
all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.
Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.
I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting
the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose
is a very interesting one.
It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this
represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves,
I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.
A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko
is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky
both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.
It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly
wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led
by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.
This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky
group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution
Service request for his extradition.
In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards',
to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version,
the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.
Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations'
people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism
– makes clear it is justified.
What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees,
was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'
Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level
people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people
on your side as to people on ours.
Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose
strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost
of Boris Berezovsky.
But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the
successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted
to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.
As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented
by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material
from Russian sources.
The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who
runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.
(See
https://gordonua.com/public...
. A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although
it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)
The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by
British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'
As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of
the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she
clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making
Putin 'prime suspect.'
Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might
get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility
out.
What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western
intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.
And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death
by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by
Lord Sumption.
Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings
less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case
scenario.
Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister
acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably
have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.
And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the
polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'
Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to
the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element
in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.
That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative,
is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.
This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture
Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'
Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative
has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his
'information operations' people bears directly:
'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors,
Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was
right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable.
The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher
Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing
to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'
For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct:
It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the
second and final memoranda.
That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.
The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence
about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are
attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought
to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not
at its weakest.
Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the
'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised
by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.
The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to
me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence
to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.
One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content
and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not
match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report"
to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.
I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association
with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm
seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion
was undermined.
Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting
in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough
to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before
the election
Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.
Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track
on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.
Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit
in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and
mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had
the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him
One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers
murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)
Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from
the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD
to know that report exists - and covered it up.
That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about
that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.
And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration
knew?
That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even
more people are likely to end up in jail.
You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what
he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot
of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.
I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape"
was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.
I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies
if I missed that response.
Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.
What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".
When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything
he said was true.
1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.
2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the
future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.
3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem
he already has had in the past.
4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target
of retaliation in some way.
If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for
his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he
said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.
Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility
that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked
him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.
I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks. But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote: 55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh
had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know
this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."
56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C.
police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were
unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer.
At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed
FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016],
[Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some
juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you
know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money." . . . "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . . The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had
a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to
his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording
and his statement to NPR cannot both be true. endquote https://medium.com/@caityjo...
You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.
But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before
the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another
complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.
It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those
on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether
the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.
I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to
opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations
underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about
the legal ramifications.
This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant
or fan the media flames.
And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the
he abuse for political reasons.
Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah,
the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.
I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful
media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.
I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.
IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand
jury.
Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest
of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.
It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this.
One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed
very serious offences indeed.
However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding,
I would be interested.
"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this."
That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in
the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now
consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?
Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence
Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.
I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until
more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does,
and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.
I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could
be considered crimes:
intentionally misleading FISC
perjury
leaking classified information
launching investigations on the basis of known false information
surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
conspiracy to subvert the constitution
sedition/treason
There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these
people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions
nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein
are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein
and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.
Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted
the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
"... Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin. ..."
"... The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views. ..."
I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:
a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and
b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values,
freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market
purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.
Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and
usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.
We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents
(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained
surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal
disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are
always justified in terms of (a).
Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers,
extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying
on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.
The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied
about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible'
republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's
tacit support of his views.
Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a
wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it
possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden
interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news
coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang
him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.
An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could
have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir
Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.
When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested
that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.
On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in
full:
'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses
brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend
is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says
Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take
on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'
On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information
from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'
A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared
by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision
being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would
seem to me unlikely that Steele was.
This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years
ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in
those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to
a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion
I had made.
In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented
a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue,
and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.
On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public,
without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish
what they published.
I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs,
unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty
linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.
And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction
of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely,
without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.
Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may
have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.
If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication,
either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what
Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.
But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would
not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.
I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent
from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.
It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts
and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also
Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.
It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation',
while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.
If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech
to which Kim Sengupta refers.
A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In
this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex
and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'
Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended
implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities',
the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.
My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American
intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended
consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate
measures to cover their backsides.
There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One
of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency
planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of
a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.
The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central
role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.
Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous
communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even
have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson
also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.
Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others.
Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and
Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.
You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's
US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to
Comey.
Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then
there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in
all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors
on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's
golf course in NJ.
Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone
leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.
Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access
to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.
Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere
McAuliffe.
In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media
personalities for a quid pro quo.
As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids.
Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.
There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.
Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed
their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an
old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.
I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and
after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies
are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real
job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.
At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the
Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of
Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience
in spookdom.
If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.
I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.
Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything
about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop
all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around.
Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.
"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."
I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.
But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably
less efficient?
I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to
predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang
indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised"
mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?
I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget
that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria
and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.
Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans
won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm
not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.
I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media,
the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump.
Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.
Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than
this crazy Trump/Russia thing?
Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop
with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.
At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary
in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:
'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that
a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.
I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which
Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history'
crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.
In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional
conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not
binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward
rascality.
On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary
points raised by your remarks.
As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok
for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately
involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,
It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures
in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else
is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.
If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before
Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared
to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'
The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's
handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision.
A key paragraph from the report:
'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher
Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes
from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'
There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed
the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also
be rewritten.)
One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in
the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to
top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.
And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which
could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain,
or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.
So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources,
and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.
All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved
in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.
That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well
as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister,
quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making
it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie
Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that
he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to
the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.
Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent
any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish
that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.
That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon
the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.
Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.
I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs
which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help
to the congressional investigations and hearings.
To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's
Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate
and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.
I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner
will be very interesting to pursue.
The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.
No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's
good friend Benjamin Wittes.
Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?
"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy
in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime,
will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist
anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to
be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy
is heart-breaking"
Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.
But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir
Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although
he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.
As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson
Society.'
This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent –
Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.
In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that
only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic
states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'
Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest'
an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See
https://nationalinterest.or...
.)
Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had
been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against
all' was to be avoided.
And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of
universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.
This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western
'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere
with ideological dogma:
'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that
US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also
by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its
society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took
the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence
on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their
own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle
and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything
America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'
I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's
account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.
One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which
was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville
on.
(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican'
thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate
and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)
However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees
that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war
'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.
Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology
of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:
'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid,
let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and
society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire.
This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members
of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the
harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy
and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners
find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and
degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'
Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer,
I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by
a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly
over the years.
And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended
up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers',
among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.
At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei
Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised
had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations,
we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)
Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet
models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.
What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the
'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.
If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including
among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries,
it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.
After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.
The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the
product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to
understand.
I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me,
are global.
I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO
the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and
that was that.
PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson
I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."
Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.
Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.
Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically?
If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains?
What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their
racket?
It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the
Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole
Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then
there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller
appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated?
Was each element separate?
There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.
I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort
such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and
not 'heart-breaking']...
Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have
not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results.
https://apelbaum.wordpress....
Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.
I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back,
but not looked at it properly.
It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved
to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.
A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT
person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.
This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from
official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can
be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.
At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources
and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.
And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation.
Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation
is designed to obscure.
One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian
intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.
This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people.
(There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)
Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that
at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of
security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.
Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational
programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.
The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was
acting as an agent of MI6.
There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov
appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.
But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political
disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying
information to the Russians.
If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a
series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually
large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.
An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries
on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.
It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence
is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter
and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor
at Orbis and Hakluyt.'
That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove.
When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things
listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent
Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.
If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and
close examination suggests that key parts of it are.
In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele
and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly
killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was
read.
Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the
'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.
Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.
At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others
have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British
counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.
Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history,
and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible
interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more
important – Hakluyt.
And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting,
it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.
This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working
against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations'
against the former.
There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate,
such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.
Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate',
which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons –
being obscured.
Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in
such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.
In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies
and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.
Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the
likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.
One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby
involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that
you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what
design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional
cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse
to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.
At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.
Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier.
Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary
reactions.
My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in
his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.
In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction
company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software
development.
What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing
OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'
That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like
the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'
So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed
by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.
Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to
the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.
Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle
East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.
In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional
wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'
And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that
country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company
to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'
The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology,
whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating
online fraud.
At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation.
So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.
Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title
'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.
Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may
be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'
While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT
techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.
I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters
– 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:
'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of
the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.
'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and
federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he
has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ
and state.'
As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response
to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with
Semyon Mogilevich.
This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it
as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.
It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted
in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler
Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying
to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'
So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the
US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.
If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the
post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a
common enemy.
If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate
inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')
One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which
I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.
So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been
able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper
with a strong Jewish presence.
That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent
gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims
about Hakluyt and other matters.
In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in
Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel
– by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional
dividing lines in the United States and Britain.
Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements
in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying
to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.
It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic
Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier
rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested
deed is a real conundrum.
I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post
and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.
Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US,
UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are
all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.
Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.
I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting
the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose
is a very interesting one.
It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this
represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves,
I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.
A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko
is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky
both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.
It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly
wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led
by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.
This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky
group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution
Service request for his extradition.
In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards',
to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version,
the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.
Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations'
people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism
– makes clear it is justified.
What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees,
was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'
Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level
people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people
on your side as to people on ours.
Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose
strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost
of Boris Berezovsky.
But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the
successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted
to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.
As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented
by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material
from Russian sources.
The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who
runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.
(See
https://gordonua.com/public...
. A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although
it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)
The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by
British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'
As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of
the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she
clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making
Putin 'prime suspect.'
Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might
get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility
out.
What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western
intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.
And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death
by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by
Lord Sumption.
Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings
less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case
scenario.
Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister
acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably
have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.
And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the
polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'
Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to
the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element
in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.
That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative,
is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.
This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture
Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'
Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative
has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his
'information operations' people bears directly:
'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors,
Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was
right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable.
The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher
Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing
to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'
For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct:
It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the
second and final memoranda.
That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.
The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence
about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are
attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought
to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not
at its weakest.
Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the
'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised
by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.
The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to
me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence
to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.
One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content
and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not
match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report"
to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.
I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association
with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm
seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion
was undermined.
Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting
in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough
to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before
the election
Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.
Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track
on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.
Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit
in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and
mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had
the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him
One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers
murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)
Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from
the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD
to know that report exists - and covered it up.
That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about
that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.
And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration
knew?
That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even
more people are likely to end up in jail.
You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what
he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot
of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.
I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape"
was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.
I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies
if I missed that response.
Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.
What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".
When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything
he said was true.
1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.
2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the
future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.
3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem
he already has had in the past.
4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target
of retaliation in some way.
If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for
his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he
said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.
Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility
that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked
him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.
I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks. But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote: 55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh
had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know
this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."
56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C.
police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were
unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer.
At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed
FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016],
[Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some
juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you
know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money." . . . "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . . The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had
a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to
his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording
and his statement to NPR cannot both be true. endquote https://medium.com/@caityjo...
You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.
But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before
the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another
complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.
It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those
on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether
the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.
I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to
opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations
underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about
the legal ramifications.
This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant
or fan the media flames.
And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the
he abuse for political reasons.
Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah,
the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.
I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful
media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.
I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.
IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand
jury.
Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest
of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.
It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this.
One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed
very serious offences indeed.
However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding,
I would be interested.
"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this."
That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in
the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now
consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?
Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence
Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.
I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until
more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does,
and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.
I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could
be considered crimes:
intentionally misleading FISC
perjury
leaking classified information
launching investigations on the basis of known false information
surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
conspiracy to subvert the constitution
sedition/treason
There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these
people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions
nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein
are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein
and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.
Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted
the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
"... Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin. ..."
"... The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views. ..."
I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:
a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and
b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values,
freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market
purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.
Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and
usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.
We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents
(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained
surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal
disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are
always justified in terms of (a).
Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers,
extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying
on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.
The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied
about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible'
republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's
tacit support of his views.
Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
"... Needless to say, it is Amazon which has crushed and eliminated the local community bookshop that was once a beloved social commons, in every town and city across the land. ..."
"... Unfortunately, now that Amazon has a total monopoly on book publishing, it can decide who will or will not be published. But really, isn't Amazon the end result of libertarianism, neo-liberal, no regulation capitalism as we now have? ..."
"... This is a total nightmare situation: a gigantic behemoth corporation, unanswerable to anybody. Doesn't even need to have clearly worded guidelines, deliberately vague so they can censor whomever they want, at their whim. There is zero accountability with this libertarian arrangement. ..."
I hate Amazon through and through: from that greedy little rat Bezos who has become the
world's richest man on the backs of his workers which he treats like slaves, like
dogs–paying them so little they have to apply for foodstamps, to the horrible working
conditions at Amazon's giant fullfillment warehouses (no lunchbreak; penalizing workers for
going to the bathroom for too long; deliberately firing workers when they become legally
entitled to full time regular employment (Amazon deliberately uses temp/contract workers to
avoid paying healthcare, maternity leave, pension, vacation, etc). In short, Amazon is a
total, complete asshole corporation which has now become a global publishing monopoly by
deliberate design.
Needless to say, it is Amazon which has crushed and eliminated the local
community bookshop that was once a beloved social commons, in every town and city across the
land.
This story about Hoffman's getting censored and removed from Amazon's Kindle books is a
fine example of why libertarianism is idealistic nonsense. Libertarians argue that no
government is necessary? No laws needed? That government regulation is an unnecessary
interference in a pure person to person marketplace? What a load of bollocks. If there were
robust anti-monopoly regulations in place that were actually enforced, there would be no
Amazon monopoly like we suffer under today; it would be one of many smaller sized retailers.
We would have choice! Hoffman could go and sell through a different bookseller.
Unfortunately, now that Amazon has a total monopoly on book publishing, it can decide who
will or will not be published. But really, isn't Amazon the end result of libertarianism,
neo-liberal, no regulation capitalism as we now have?
Bezos: "It's my company and I'll do
what I please, censor whatever I want!" Yes–this is pure neo-liberal libertarianism
with no government regulation. No way to redress grievances.
This is a total nightmare
situation: a gigantic behemoth corporation, unanswerable to anybody. Doesn't even need to
have clearly worded guidelines, deliberately vague so they can censor whomever they want, at
their whim. There is zero accountability with this libertarian arrangement.
It would be much
better if there were laws on the books, enforced, which
a) stopped such abusive monopolies
from happening in the first place;
b) laws on the books–enforced–protecting
author's publication rights, to prevent censorship as is now happening.
You don't have this
in USA today, so authors get screwed over, censored and disappeared. Anyways, much for
libertarianism.
ATTN: if you still have an Amazon membership and buy stuff from them -- do your civic
duty and stop it! Delete your account and tell them why!
To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business.
Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's
authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in
print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon
renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter
of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no
rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research
specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are
ominous.
Exactly. And this kind of global monopoly power can't be diminished in time with naive,
"free market – just go somewhere else", Libertarian sound-bites. People who believe in
that fairytale are beyond naive. Amazon, YouTube, Reddit and Twitter are untouchable in an
environment where their competitors can barely offer a fraction of a fraction of the
Worldwide audience to their "content creators" and very few content creators to the audience.
This built-in inertia is self-reinforcing and tremendously inert. It's also the reason why
the Globalists have spared no expense to own those platforms.
Free speech will have to be enforced and saved politically. Waiting for Zuckenberg
to un-fuck it is a fool's errand.
The White Helmets as a brand had their website first registered by Ali Weiner of Purpose
Inc (Brooklyn advertising agency) on 2014-08-11T19:50:31Z
I had noticed their activity shortly after that date but it wasn't labelled White Helmets
as such. I recall a series of setpiece rescues with someone who looked like Hadi Alabdullah
giving a running comment and speeches denouncing Assad.
The setpiece rescues always had a small diesel fire and usually some white smoke, a bunch
of rescuers who ran into the building while the commenter gave a speech, and then rescuers
ran the rescued infants past the camera while the narrator gave a 'moral' speech.
There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted
in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a
longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a
dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).
In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex
administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted
the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or
anyone who got in the way.
Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego
Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different
women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,
the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband
did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now
has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress,
(Wikipedia).
It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte
who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by
parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it.
'Hypocrisy', though a tendentious sort of word, is the key, I think. In electoral politics
40% on either side are going to vote the way they vote regardless of how persuasive the
electoral campaign of candidate A, or the unfittedness of candidate B; so the game is:
persuading those 20% who used to be called 'floating voters'.
And the way you do that is by blank-screening yourself and letting the electors project
onto you, by presenting yourself as Conservative even though you're Labour (as Blair did), or
conversely presenting yourself as radical even though you're a straight-down-the-line
tax-cutting defense-budget-ballooning Republican.
Trump's campaign persuaded many that he would in no way 'conserve', but would rather tear
down the establishment.
Brexit was masterminded by a group of elite hard right wingers who somehow managed to
persuade a large tranche of the electorate that it Remain were all metropolitan elites and
that they were the true voice of the people.
The real challenge is not finding a definition of conservatism that can bracket a genius
like Burke with a moron like Sarah Palin; it's finding a definition that enables a
billionaire playboy to define himself as a man of the people; that allows him to promise eg
free healthcare for all and kicking Wall Street out of politics on the campaign trail without
losing his Conservative bona fides.
I think it is impossible to discuss modern conservatism, especially its neocon variety
without discussing neoliberalism. Too many people here concentrate on superficial traits,
while the defining feature of modern conservatives is the unconditional support of "hard
neoliberalism." There is also a Vichy party which supports "soft neoliberalism" ...
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been
promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative." But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to
Pinochet's
Kabaservice Contra Corey -- Thoughts About How To Think About Conservatism -- Crooked
Timber Chile -- one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively
applied -- "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a
democratic government devoid of liberalism." The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which
sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the
pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining mean the freedom to suppress wages.
Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge
iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax
means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
The other important area is the attitude to the existence and maintenance of the global US
empire and the level of indoctrination into "American exceptionalism" which I view as a
flavor of far-right nationalism. But here we need to talk not about conservatism but
neofascism.
In a way, the current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (one of the features of which was
de-legitimization of the neoliberal elite which led to the election of Trump) develops with
strange similarities with the events of 1920-1935 in Europe.
"... Mueller is getting bad press for not going after Hillary and the democrats. If his findings are all against Trump it will be portrayed as a partisan hack job given all the dems on his team. ..."
Wait - where is the Special Counsel looking into FBI/DOJ misconduct with regard to falsely
exonerating Hillary ehile fabricating probable cause to spy on Trump??
Seriously, Mueller has been on a fishing expedition for 2 fucking years premised entirely
on what seems to be FBI/DOJ manufactured evidence and lies to the FISA court... steele memo,
the meetings with 'Russians' that were obvious set ups... Sally Yates making what should be a
CRIMINAL abuse of office call in justifying spying on Flynn because as part of an incoming
admin he was (gasp!) talking to Russian diplomats like incoming admins HAVE TO AND ALWAYS
do...
There are more than enough reasons for a special counsel to look into all that because the
Very fucking point Is the FBI and DOJ have been corrupted by political bias, despite the
'nothing to see here' bullshit of the IG Report.
All this while Hillary and Brennan and Comey and Clapper with his phony bullshit DNI
report all walk around free.. and I'll believe McCabe and Rosenstein are going to be indicted
when they are indicted.
Rosenstein tried to hide very relevant texts from Congress and lied about why.
Trump is getting shit advice. He should fire Sessions and Rosenstein right away, let the
media go nuts, and find a couple black or latino guys or women to replace them in 'acting'
status. See - they just need to be honest and teasonably good.
I Claudius, 4 hours ago
Completely disagree w/Dershowitz. Mueller is getting bad press for not going after Hillary and the democrats. If his
findings are all against Trump it will be portrayed as a partisan hack job given all the dems on his team.
My thoughts? Tony Podesta and that Skadden Arps attorney have been selected by the party leaders as the fall guys for the
dems. They are throwing them overboard so the Mueller BS probe can be portrayed as non-partisan. They can claim that Manafort
was not just a "get Trump's associates" hit job by now stating that Manafort got them these two clowns.
Manafort has zero on Trump and Mueller now has a huge dem jizz load on his face for getting nowhere. He now has to
preserve his reputation and going after these two f'wads for some minor issue (don't forget, the Repubs backed themselves
into a corner claiming this Foreign lobbyist thing is a minor infraction). So now they get these two guys on a BS charge . .
.
And they walk and Mueller saves face.
caconhma, 3 hours ago
It is all BS. The Trump affairs are just diversions from his primary assignments:
Utterly promote and advance interests of Zionist Mafia and Israel
Destabilize the US internal situation and use it as a pretext for transforming the USA into a totalitarian police
state
Protect and defend US$ as the only one viable reserve currency
Prevent by any means China from becoming a geopolitical superpower challenging the USA
IMHO, Trump's masters are doing their job very incompetent and their evil game will terribly backfire against them.
In a way Pence is a guarantee that Trump will not be impeached no matter what ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they may yet get their wish. But not yet. ..."
"... In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election' although I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica Lewinsky was ultimately political too). ..."
"... It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance violations'. But what do I know. ..."
"... Cohen is a serious problem. He has implicated Trump in criminal conduct. ..."
"... Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him). But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities. ..."
"... To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises. ..."
"... It's intentionally vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions." ..."
"... And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational, only less politically disorganized. ..."
"... Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much less removal. ..."
This is bad for Trump but not unexpected. Despite the fig leaf of 'Russian collusion' the
main brief of Mueller was 'find out bad stuff about Trump and his associates' and of course it
was almost inevitable that he would find such stuff because Trump and his cronies are scumbags
who exist to break the law. This is the reality of capitalism (as has been pointed out 'crony
capitalism' is the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed or ever will exist). Congress
might or might not accept it, but the Senate (even more viciously 'gerrymandered' albeit de
facto) won't yet. So Trump won't go down, not yet.
The only way that Trump will go down, IMHO is if and when the Republican establishment
decide that they have got everything out of him that they're going to get, which means after
the next Presidential election. Assuming he wins it, he may be ditched quickly. The
Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they
may yet get their wish. But not yet.
In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but
paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a
philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election' although
I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica Lewinsky was
ultimately political too).
It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance
violations'. But what do I know.
Manaforte is a publicity problem, which will get worse with his second trial, and, if the
US Attorney decides to proceed on the hung counts, a third trial.
None of it ties to Trump; it suggests he hangs out with criminals and does not notice or
care about their conduct. That is a publicity issue. Cohen is a serious problem. He has
implicated Trump in criminal conduct.
As he is still facing a state investigations, there is high risk that he will exchange
information for leniency in that investigation. Which will result in more, at least
potentially, statements incriminating Trump. It is not clear to me what the status is
relative to the Mueller investigation -- only that his current deal does not require
cooperation with Mueller.
Having taken this step, I would expect him to work with Mueller as a way to further
leniency in sentencing and to insure no further prosecutions. (I can't tell from news
coverage whether the deal includes all federal investigations or not.) Cohen seems a credible
witness and too close to Trump on the direct political issues for any very successful effort
to wall him off.
His statement also is a big problem for the lawsuits by Daniels, and others, as it shreds
Trump's defenses to date. But none of it will mean that significant numbers of Republicans in
the Congress will back away from Trump. Nixon held most Republicans until he resigned. I
don't see a reason to think the team loyalty now will be less.
Watch what Lanny Davis, Cohen's attorney, says and does. He is not a Giuliani. He is
clearly telling prosecutors his client has valuable information and is willing to provide it
(if not already disclosed).
'The Republicans simply don't care, and nothing will make them care.'
To be fair, I don't care either, and nothing will make me care. Anyway, back in the real world .
'Michael Cohen, who spent a decade as a lawyer for Trump, told a judge Tuesday that he was
directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from
disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in
violation of campaign finance law.
Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal
case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice
Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution
does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
In comments to reporters after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in federal
court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said prosecutors were sending a
message that they are unafraid to file charges when campaign finance laws are broken. But he
did not mention Trump or offer any indication that his office planned to pursue action
against the president.'
(Washington Post)
'Despite impeachment talk, it's no easy task to remove a president in such a way. Both
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate.
President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be removed from office.
There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high crimes
and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse the
president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then
impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires
a two-thirds majority.
In Trump's case, starting the impeachment process would currently require a mass revolt by
Republicans against him in the House of Representatives -- controlled by the GOP -- an event
even less likely than normal with midterm elections on the horizon.'
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
'I am no lawyer, but apparently if you spend that much money covering up your adultery to
avoid damage to your political campaign, that is a crime'.
I sort of see what you are saying, and of course, in a certain sense, what you say is not
only true but self-evidently and obviously true. Any politician engages in activities to gain
him or herself votes. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like the most obvious way to
conceptualise these activities. CF Bill Clinton.
Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because
he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And
in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him).
But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities.
Does it not seem more likely that Trump's main concern in paying the hush money was to
avoid his wife, who had just given birth, finding out? Obviously the effect on votes would be
of benefit to him, but I'm not sure that was his main concern.
I too agree with most of what Hidari said here (and there), except for their last
paragraph here.
To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was
transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal
– the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but
immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital
affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises.
These functioned as
(unreported) in-kind donations, insofar as they were third-party resources expended to for
the explicit purpose of providing electoral support to the candidate.
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
It's intentionally
vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one
of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his
aforementioned words and actions."
Again, though, the idea that the payoffs to Ms. Cliffords and Ms. McDougal were made to
prevent Ms. Trump from learning of the affairs defies all credibility when considering that
they occurred in the fall of 2016 rather than ten years earlier.
It would be a strange way to conceptualise the activity if it was based purely on
the fact that the hush money was politically helpful. But:
"He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the
women were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office," implicating the president in a federal crime.
"I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the
principal purpose of influencing the election" for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said."
So I don't really know how you can keep insisting this is an issue of conceptual
analysis
I don't think that a Congressional majority, and certainly not the 2/3 Senate majority
needed for removal, is going to feel much ethical pressure to impeach based on the list of
wrongdoing we know about so far, or that are at all likely to emerge. Quite aside from the
lack of gravity of the crimes on that list, none of them are a clear betrayal of the
electorate that decided he should be president. That electorate already knew he was a
Russophile, had even invited Russians to hack D computers, they knew that he was a
pussy-grabber, and that his privately-owned business was ethically challenged -- yet an
electoral majority voted him in anyway. Removal on impeachment involves the legislature
asserting its will and its judgment over that of the people. Of course the legislature is
also elected by the people to accomplish duties that include holding the president to certain
standards. But I don't see even a 2/3 D Senate (which we would only get by the Rs losing
every race up this year, plus about 15 of them party-switching) having the cojones for such
an assertion, certainly not when the electorate already knew about the crimes when they voted
for the criminal. The Rs have cojones for such enterprises, and in spades, but not our
beloved Ds.
And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if
successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational,
only less politically disorganized.
Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I
don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much
less removal.
If the Ds do have control of either house after the election, of course the usual that we
can expect of them is not very much. Even if they control both chambers, they couldn't
possibly have the 2/3 in both needed to run the govt by overriding the vetoes that any actual
program of theirs would be sure to attract from the president. Even with 2/3, because this is
a D 2/3 we're talking about, we can most likely discount the possibility that they would even
try to exercise any oversight over what the govt does in opposition to the president's
control.
An actual political party in this situation of even controlling a bare majority of just
the House could do a whole lot to not only thwart Trump, but to at least make a credible
effort at asserting control over the govt. They could of course block any new legislation, or
the repeal of any existing law, and even the actual Ds are probably up to that. But to go
further, to control or limit how Trump runs the govt under existing law, this D majority of
the House would have to be willing to boldly set sail on the sea of political hardball and
take up a career of budgetary hostage-taking -- so right off we should say that this is
political fanfic, and not even canonic fanfic.
But a girl can dream, can't he, so let's pursue this alternate reality just a bit. Who
knows, if Trump's misrule makes things sufficiently dire, maybe even the Ds will be motivated
to find their inner pirate.
To take ICE as an example, it would go something like this. The House only agrees to pass
the annual appropriations on a 30-day continuing resolution basis, so that their assent is
needed every 30-days to the govt doing anything. They pass all the spending except for the
ICE funding (keeping the funding for whatever ICE spends on housing and otherwise caring for
people already apprehended -- that funding goes with the funding of the rest of the govt),
which they hold back until and unless Senate and president agree to ICE funding that includes
new law that keeps ICE from doing family separations, and whatever else the Ds find
objectionable. After success getting control of ICE abuses, next month when the CRs come due,
they do the same maneuver on their next target of Trump misrule.
The risk is that the Rs, Senate and president, just refuse to agree to the omnibus that
funds everything else the govt does until the Ds let loose the ICE funding. There is a govt
shutdown, and the Ds run the risk of being blamed. It turns into a game of legislative
chicken. Of course, this has to be anti-canon fanfic for such a game to end other than by the
Ds swerving first, so the real world Ds will never actually even start the game, because
whatever their faults, they know their limitations.
Hidari #13: " they 'all' want to get rid of him now?"
The Republican Senate would be happy to throw him overboard tomorrow. His voters are the
problem. They won't wait for his voters to turn on him however, if the Senate receives a
lengthy bill of impeachment from a Democratic House and Mueller has signed off on some of the
charges.
They'd rather have Pence do the sanctimonious messaging and go into 2020 trying to
reconstruct the party with an open primary.
After all, the GOP stands to lose Senate seats in 2020 anyway, just due to the map (the
same problem they have this year, with the House). If the election in 76 days puts the
Democrats in charge of the House, Trump won't make it to the end of his term.
'To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not to
keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing of the
payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election,
make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from
turning into October Surprises. '
Oh ok, I didn't really understand that. I haven't to be honest, been following the Stormy
Daniels story too closely for the good reason that I don't care.
So one infers that the FL did in fact know about these things. Could we conceptualise it
thus, then: Trump paid the hush money to ensure that Melania was not publicly humiliated by
these things (I mean, humiliated even more than simply being married to Donald Trump)?
But obviously, in that case, Trump not wanting this to be a big story in the run up to the
election was obviously a 'thing'.
"... "It seems like the censorship power many people on the left want Silicon Valley executives to unilaterally exercise might end up being wielded against the left. One good way to know that would happen is that is already is happening." ..."
"... teleSUR English's page has been removed from Facebook for the second time this year without any specific reason being provided. It should be noted that the first time this occurred back in January 2018, Facebook did NOT provide any explanation in spite of our best efforts to understand their rationale. This is an alarming development in light of the recent shutting down of pages that don't fit a mainstream narrative. ..."
"... Your Page "teleSUR English" has been removed for violating our Terms of Use. A Facebook Page is a distinct presence used solely for business or promotional purposes. Among other things, Pages that are hateful, threatening or obscene are not allowed. We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group, or that are set up by an unauthorized individual. If your Page was removed for any of the above reasons, it will not be reinstated. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in the permanent loss of your account. ..."
"... Max Blumenthal tweet shows the role of the Atlantic counsel had in removing the site from Facebook. Click the link to show who is on the counsel. This group has had a hand in a lot of shit that has been happening since Trump was elected. ..."
"... It is Deeply Concerning when one of the biggest social media platform censors whomever the hell they want and people say that "what's the big deal? It's a private company that should be able to monitor the content if they want." ..."
"... private company ..."
"... Here's a Reuters article on the role of the Atlantic Council. And yes, their board is a rogue's gallery of warmongers and imperialists. Reuters ..."
"... They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get. ..."
"... They track your web movement any time you read a page that has their "like us" button. They can learn everything about you from your family and friends who are on it because they get access to their contacts in their phones and tons of other places. This is a huge invasion of privacy, but no one should be surprised. The CIA gave Zucchini his start up money to build his site for that reason. ..."
"... I realize not participating in social media does not exempt me from the surveillance state. Heaven forbid they miss someone. But it's one or three less things I am giving absolute permission to my life. ..."
"... Ceterem censeo, Facebook delendum est! ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... inspired me to seek it out and add it to my home page. I'm going to paste Infowars (Alex Jones) on here too, just to spite them. Also, it's good to know what the crazies are up to. Jones got a big spike from the ban. ..."
"It seems like the censorship power many people on the left want Silicon Valley executives to unilaterally exercise might
end up being wielded against the left. One good way to know that would happen is that is already is happening."
For the second time this year, Facebook has suspended teleSUR English's page, claiming the left-leaning Latin American news
network violated the social media platform's terms of service without any further explanation -- a move that provoked outrage
and concern among journalists, free speech advocates, and Big Tech critics.
In a short article posted on teleSUR's website on Monday, the regional news network -- which is based in Venezuela but also
has received funding from Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua -- explained:
teleSUR English's page has been removed from Facebook for the second time this year without any specific reason being
provided. It should be noted that the first time this occurred back in January 2018, Facebook did NOT provide any explanation
in spite of our best efforts to understand their rationale. This is an alarming development in light of the recent shutting
down of pages that don't fit a mainstream narrative.
According to the outlet, "the only communication" teleSUR has received from Facebook is the following message:
Your Page "teleSUR English" has been removed for violating our Terms of Use. A Facebook Page is a distinct presence
used solely for business or promotional purposes. Among other things, Pages that are hateful, threatening or obscene are not
allowed. We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group, or that are set up by an unauthorized individual. If your
Page was removed for any of the above reasons, it will not be reinstated. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result
in the permanent loss of your account.
Max Blumenthal tweet shows the role of the
Atlantic counsel had in removing the site from
Facebook. Click the link to show who is on the counsel. This group has had a hand in a lot of shit that has been happening since
Trump was elected.
Facebook has just deleted the page of @telesurenglish
. A network source tells me FB justified eliminating the page on the vague basis of "violation of terms." The NATO-backed
@DFRLab is currently assisting FB's purge. This is
deeply disturbing. pic.twitter.com/MQe3Brdn15
It is Deeply Concerning when one of the biggest social media platform censors whomever the hell they want and people say that
"what's the big deal? It's a private company that should be able to monitor the content if they want."
Well it seems that its a Big Fucking Deal when that private company is working hand in hand with the government. Facebook
has already been removing left leaning website's post for some time now and it looks like they are upping their game.
Directors. There's some real stinkers on that list. 'Honor' has nothing to fo with it.
Honorary Directors
David C. Acheson
James A. Baker, III
Harold Brown
Frank C. Carlucci, III
Ashton B. Carter
Robert M. Gates
Michael G. Mullen
Leon E. Panetta
William J. Perry
Colin L. Powell
Condoleezza Rice
Edward L. Rowny
George P. Shultz
Dr. Horst Teltschik
John W. Warner
William H. Webster
If you don't think that, then good luck. They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed
up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Good luck to us all. Let's hope a supervolcano blows before we are all actually further imprisoned in this open air prison.
They track your web movement any time you read a page that has their "like us" button. They can learn everything about
you from your family and friends who are on it because they get access to their contacts in their phones and tons of other places.
This is a huge invasion of privacy, but no one should be surprised. The CIA gave Zucchini his start up money to build his site
for that reason.
Many lefties were happy when FB deleted Jones and were mad at the Twitter guy who didn't. The site that they censored today
isn't an American one, but I'm sure those lefties would be sh*tting bricks if FB did that to Rachel's show and website.
If you don't think that, then good luck. They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed
up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Good luck to us all. Let's hope a supervolcano blows before we are all actually further imprisoned in this open air prison.
They track your web movement any time you read a page that has their "like us" button. They can learn everything about you
from your family and friends who are on it because they get access to their contacts in their phones and tons of other places.
This is a huge invasion of privacy, but no one should be surprised. The CIA gave Zucchini his start up money to build his site
for that reason.
Many lefties were happy when FB deleted Jones and were mad at the Twitter guy who didn't. The site that they censored today
isn't an American one, but I'm sure those lefties would be sh*tting bricks if FB did that to Rachel's show and website.
I realize not participating in social media does not exempt me from the surveillance state. Heaven forbid they miss someone.
But it's one or three less things I am giving absolute permission to my life.
Anyway, it's disheartening how we are giving away our freedoms so easily.
and not enough people care about it because it. This I don't get. They are the ones who say that our military is fighting to
defend our freedoms and yet they say that it's okay if the government spies on them because they have nothing to hide.
I realize not participating in social media does not exempt me from the surveillance state. Heaven forbid they miss
someone. But it's one or three less things I am giving absolute permission to my life.
Anyway, it's disheartening how we are giving away our freedoms so easily.
I am more grateful each day that I never signed up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Ceterem censeo, Facebook delendum est!
(Further, I opine, Facebook must be abolished!)
edit: Adjusted translation to less violent (but still accurate) terminology.
If you don't think that, then good luck. They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed
up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Good luck to us all. Let's hope a supervolcano blows before we are all actually further imprisoned in this open air prison.
inspired me to seek it out and add it to my home page. I'm going to paste Infowars (Alex Jones) on here too, just to spite
them. Also, it's good to know what the crazies are up to. Jones got a big spike from the ban.
Silicon Valley's coordinated purge of all things Infowars from social media has had an unexpected result; website traffic
to Infowars.com has soared in the past week, according to Amazon's website ranking service Alexa.
That said, Google and Apple are still allowing people to access Infowars content via apps, which have seen their downloads
spike as well.
Consumers still can access InfoWars through the same tech companies that just banned it. Google still offers the Infowars
app for Android users, and Apple customers can download it through the App Store.
As of Friday, the show's phone app remained near the top of the charts in both the Apple App and Google Play stores.
Infowars Official, an app that lets viewers stream Jones' shows and read news of the day, was ranked fourth among trending
apps in the Google Play store Friday. In the news category on Apple's App Store, Infowars earned the fourth slot under the
top free apps, behind Twitter and News Break, a local and breaking news service, revealing a sudden boost of user downloads.
–American Statesman
I like your idea. I'm going to hit both sites daily just to spite them.
inspired me to seek it out and add it to my home page. I'm going to paste Infowars (Alex Jones) on here too, just to spite
them. Also, it's good to know what the crazies are up to. Jones got a big spike from the ban.
"... People with original content and distingushable personalities were purged from Twitter for reasons that are hard to discern ..."
"... Probably 99% of posters at Twitter (the only "social media" that I read) are amateurs who never had time, talent or inclination to post anything original. ..."
"... If we count re-tweets or copies of pictures of cute cats and puppies, the percentage of "inauthenticity" is huge. But when one posts about atrocities in Yemen rather than puppies or adorable Israeli settlers in West Bank then he/she can be identified as a "threat". To USA? to humanity? to puppies? to the adorable settlers?. Who knows and who cares. ..."
"... what you see going on nowadays reminds you of George Orwells "2 minutes of hate" in his book 1984. ..."
"... Why (for what reason) is anybody on this social media shit? Not a rhetorical question; I dumped all of it well more than a decade ago. I'm not claiming some kind of superiority here; just questioning where critical thinking skills failed big time. It should have been obvious (it was to me) where this would end. And here we are... ..."
"... I don't see much serious debate on FB. Most people are communicating with friends, or people they call friends. And they are not anonymous which makes people cautious about expressing their true feelings. ..."
"... Selling advertisements is Facebook's business. Well only partially, a secondary line. Their main business is harvesting the psychometric data all its users so carelessly hand them, and then selling said data on to nefarious third parties. ..."
"... In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas could be restricted--what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version of such repression. ..."
"... Amazon (and others) banning books is the updated version of book burning. ..."
"... Young Millennials were drawn to Facebook like 1950's teenyboppers were drawn to smoking. All the kids were doing it. Decades later, those smokers paid a terrible price: lung cancer, COPD, etc. And they had even (unknowingly) poisoned their own kids (via secondhand smoke). ..."
"... People simply have no "sense" for systemic risk. We only seem to learn via disaster. Whether it is social media, MIC, financial markets, propaganda, climate change, etc. ..."
"... "Free Syrian Army sentences Syrian doctor to 6 months in prison for criticizing Erdogan on Facebook" ..."
I followed FireEye link a bit and I have several conclusions.
1. The diagram they made about several "inauthentic sites" is totally bogus. People have various reasons to create anonymous
accounts, for example if they have Saudi citizenship and they post something "pro-Iranian" because of authentic views they may
be kidnapped, whipped and perhaps even executed. An American citizens may want to be anonymous if his/her views are unpopular
among H management where they work. Besides several black lines of "shared e-mail addresses" that are already inconclusive they
have "red arrows" of "promotional activity", presumably links, re-Tweets etc. of which there are billions.
2. I checked a "persona" and black-linked "fake journal". Persona has almost zero activity, 3 Twitter followers. Journal seems
to be somewhat fake because it has several articles with low originality, nicely looking frontpage and some pages that are totally
empty (e.g. Central Asia). It seems that this is one person effort to collate themes and views to his/her liking and practice
web design, and due to sparse posting and mediocre originality, probably zero effective influence.
3. Eliminating 543 such accounts changes next to nothing given their sparse traffic. But FireEye identifies them as "threats".
WFT?
4. By the way of contrast, when I followed tweets about fighting in Syria I witness huge concerted waves of masked re-tweets,
identical tweets presented not as re-tweets that clearly had the purpose of swamping the traffic sympathetic to their opponents.
The numbers were not surprising given the number of jihadi volunteers that actually served as cannon fodder rather than twitter
warriors.
5. People with original content and distingushable personalities were purged from Twitter for reasons that are hard to
discern (posting bloody pictures from battlefields? non-purged accounts show them too).
Probably 99% of posters at Twitter (the only "social media" that I read) are amateurs who never had time, talent or inclination
to post anything original. For example they may find several posts of their liking and re-post them, expressing their views
without inventing new content. If they create more than one account and are noticed by others, they could fall into FireEye criteria.
If we count re-tweets or copies of pictures of cute cats and puppies, the percentage of "inauthenticity" is huge. But when
one posts about atrocities in Yemen rather than puppies or adorable Israeli settlers in West Bank then he/she can be identified
as a "threat". To USA? to humanity? to puppies? to the adorable settlers?. Who knows and who cares.
That's quite an intelligent and observant post Piotr Berman. The evolution of the social media phenomena has me, for one, astounded.
Not to mention confounded. How to go viral?
That's the question to answer. Even the mightiest sea wall can not resist the big
tide.
@25 pB, respectfully, you must not know a lot of people... Many, many people still use Facebook and even use it as their main
source of information; instead of ridiculing and thinking oneself superior to these people, we should engage them where they are
at and tell them that it is not the best place to rely on for news.
The social media censorship has certainly escalated lately but it is of course following a long trend - we've known for several
months for example that Facebook was shutting down pro-Palestine pages at the behest of the Israeli, American, and German governments,
and of course there was the PropOrNot fiasco and the tweaking of Google's algorithms to supress alternative, mainly (real, not
liberal-capitalist) left-wing websites. I am hopeful however that in a sense the cat is out of the bag, there is a critical mass
of people who simply do not trust enough in the official channels anymore, and eventually all this censorship will backfire. That
is an optimistic view anyway...
there's a long and even honourable history behind the use of such professional actors going back to Ancient Egypt and the use
of wailers at high-class peoples funerals, and one could see the point to all of that. But that was all done for the best of intentions.
unfortunately the modern incarnation of such ancient traditions is now being done for all the worst of intentions. (originally
it was all done to generate positive emotions and feelings) nowadays its the complete opposite.
what you see going on nowadays reminds you of George Orwells "2 minutes of hate" in his book 1984.
if you are going to say anything, at please do try to be positive or constructive. Otherwise probably best not to do or say
anything at all.
Why (for what reason) is anybody on this social media shit? Not a rhetorical question; I dumped all of it well more than a
decade ago. I'm not claiming some kind of superiority here; just questioning where critical thinking skills failed big time. It
should have been obvious (it was to me) where this would end. And here we are...
there's a long and even honourable history behind the use of such professional actors going back to Ancient Egypt and
the use of wailers at high-class peoples funerals, and one could see the point to all of that. but that was all done for the
best of intentions.
Best of intentions, maybe not. The proletariat struggled greatly against their rulers. Slavery and serfdom were cultural norms.
Not that these were attendees of upper class funerals, but in service to the elite to be sure. The illusion that oppressors are
benevolent must be upheld. The reports would be spread throughout the town. Perhaps we were wrong in our assessment that ol' Joe
was a cruel and miserable oppressor.
This trick has endured through the ages. See Facebook. By the looks of it, everyone now suffers from Stockholm Syndrome.
@36 I don't see much serious debate on FB. Most people are communicating with friends, or people they call friends. And they
are not anonymous which makes people cautious about expressing their true feelings.
I work in a library part-time. Most of my regular patrons who do nothing but use the computers use Facebook for their entire two
hours for messaging friends or lovers, or they divide up their time between that and YouTube videos. I try to help them from time
to time figure out the latest changes to their Facebook accounts, even though I haven't used it in years.
They're ordinary sorts of people whose lifestyles require them to get their Internet through our public space rather than at
home, or they don't want to use their phones for it. There are also folks who have various social or physical disabilities who
enjoy watching videos of trains and steam engines. There are also kids who don't use Facebook but watch endless reiterations of
AI-generated YouTube videos or play roblox or agar.io.
So, I guess I'm saying people use social media shit to pass the time. Much like those of us who are passing the time using
this site. While we might believe we are getting deeper to the truth of our realities through MoA, we're also sitting in front
of a screen just as much.
Selling advertisements is Facebook's business. Well only partially, a secondary line. Their main business is harvesting
the psychometric data all its users so carelessly hand them, and then selling said data on to nefarious third parties.
@karlof1 | Aug 22, 2018 3:31:39 PM | 14
In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas could be restricted--what's happening
with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version of such repression.
While Amazon (and others) banning books is the updated version of book burning.
Why (for what reason) is anybody on this social media shit? Not a rhetorical question; I dumped all of it well more than a
decade ago. I'm not claiming some kind of superiority here; just questioning where critical thinking skills failed big time.
It should have been obvious (it was to me) where this would end. And here we are...
I was active on a few web-places in the years 2002-2008 or so. The opportunity for "platonic dialog" was suited to my temperament
I guess and the results were interesting.
I turned more than one big site on it's head with my questioning. Some of my posts went insanely viral. Those were the early
days. I noticed professional trolls from the outset who seemed to be part of the web-site forum itself. They were my adversaries,
and over time began to mimic my posts since no one could beat me at Socratic dialoging.
The topics were many different: for examples: global warming and the environmental ethos, the old Leibnitz-Newton argument,
and regarding the justifications for the Iraq War...
It was fun! A Socratic dialog site with member-referees would actually be a great thing.
This is based on my experience: it is a great learning experience to have to defend a thesis. I did independent research at
that time to avoid getting caught in an argument with my pants down. In every thread it was just about EVERYBODY in there against
me.
(I knew the non-poster listeners were fascinated by what was going on. One site employed a software called Motet which
is excellent for making repeated references to one´s own posts or to the posts of another or to documentary evidence, so the discussions
don't get bogged down explaining the debate to new-comers). I came to realize that my posts were being studied when i drew some
conclusions from the responses they were provoking.
Ten years ago, I totally dropped out of these kinds of internet forums where ideas might so usefully be examined in light of
the opinions and knowledge of a diversity of persons.
Young Millennials were drawn to Facebook like 1950's teenyboppers were drawn to smoking. All the kids were doing it. Decades
later, those smokers paid a terrible price: lung cancer, COPD, etc. And they had even (unknowingly) poisoned their own kids (via
secondhand smoke).
People simply have no "sense" for systemic risk. We only seem to learn via disaster. Whether it is social media, MIC, financial
markets, propaganda, climate change, etc.
Hey all the cool kids are on THIS side of the boat!!
Rivera told officials he exited his vehicle and started "running behind her and alongside her," according to the criminal
complaint. Tibbetts then grabbed her phone and told him she was going to call the police , according to the criminal
complaint.
@46 "But the naivete of Millennials is now legendary. From SJW "snowflakes" to attractive joggers that think their cellphone protects
them in sparsely populated areas:..."
And that is precisely what I dislike about FB. If I was to post something like that there I would be called a fascist or dragged
into unwinnable arguments. Or, horror of horrors, publicly unfriended.
The Mueller investigation has been going on for a very long time - if he had found
anything of any real value it would be out there already, trying to reduce Trump popularity
and hit the GOP mid-terms.
The Mid Terms are very important to Deep State. The Dems must at least get the House back
in order to stop Trump.
That Mueller and Co have virtually have found nothing to put out there to stop Trump and
the GOP means they have fuck all, and are now clutching at Straws.
They are going to have to go the Bullshit path....start inventing. OH and all sorts of
False Flags between now and Mid Terms are guaranteed. ALSO will the neocons dupe Trump into a
Syria mistake that causes the death of many US soldiers? We know Deep State don't care who or
how many they kill, so long as they get what they want.
One wonders if the Censoring of Conservative media, and Political Sites is because Deep
State are planning to Assassinate President Trump , as is stated on Alex Jone's site.
BANNED VIDEOS – PENTAGON INTEL SAYS GLOBALISTS WANT TRUMP DEAD BY MARCH 2019
Watch the clips censored by over one hundred websites
There have probably been several Trump assassination attempts since he was elected.
Knowing what happened to Lincoln when he vetoed the National Bank / Fed Reserve of his
time;
And what happened to JFK when he stated he would shut down the CIA;
Trump is fully aware he performs a death defying act daily. There may be others out there
willing to make the Trump-JFK-Lincoln sacrifice, to take back America, but not Pence, not
Sanders, not any current Democrat prez wanna be.
Thom Paine ,
It would be impossible, or an exercise in suicide by the GOP and or Democrats if they
actually impeached Trump.
Two thirds of the Senate is required for Impeachment, meaning the GOP would have to
vote with the Dems and that would mean total devastation of the GOP at the following
elections.
If the Dems tried impeachment, they would be only signaling to their hardcore base, but
there would be a significant voter backlash against them. It would be a self defeating
act.
If the GOP and Dems voted to impeach Trump in the Senate, Trump can appeal to the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court would deny the Impeachment - unless there was proper legal
cause.
There has to be a legally provable breach of Federal law outside the POTUS exercise of
powers. Extraordinary prosecution requires extraordinary evidence.
You cannot remove a President elected by 62 million people on flimsy hearsay, or 'he said
she said' evidence, or pure circumstantial evidence. It would also set a precedence where
Presidents could be impeached on the drop of a hat.
At the moment the Dems and Deep State want to impeach Trump because he beat Clinton and
fucked up the last step in their plan to own America.
If Trump beat Sanders not many would be whining right now, they wouldn't care.
StarGate ,
Your premise legally appears to be accurate, that the Supreme Court is a failsafe against
a retaliatory political impeachment, based primarily on fact Hillary lost.
However, that means the Supreme Court would have to been beyond corruption and Trump would
have to bring a case.
j0nx ,
No. All the Dems and deep state need to know is that a lot of the deplorable would riot
like mofos if they tried. No dem would be safe. You think they don't know that? Sociology
101.
Saying the deplorables wouldn't riot is like saying Obama's minions wouldn't have if the
shoe were reversed 7 years ago and there was an open coup against him like there is
Trump.
Withdrawn Sanction ,
Sorry to nit pick, but there are 2 steps here: the first is impeachment by the House. Akin
to an indictment. Then there is a trial in the Senate which is presided over by the Chief
Justice of the SC. THEN a 2/3s affirmative vote is required for conviction and removal from
office.
An impeachment just like an indictment is meaningless w/o a conviction. You see how much
"damage" an impeachment did to Slick Willy. Didn't skip a beat
There is one small point everyone seems to be over looking. It was Rosenstein's official
recommendation to Trump to terminated Comey because Rosenstein was trying to install Mueller
as FBI director, a professional "yes man" and cover up specialist. So when Trump wouldn't
make Mueller FBI director, then Rosenstein had to destroy Trump to cover up. He appointed
Mueller to special council.
The cover ups go all the way back to 9/11.
missionshk ,
missed that they are all tied to 911 conspirators, brennan, mueller, comey
missed the satanists dems.drinking the blood of children, weiners laptop, and pakistani
spies
missed the clinton bribery foundation, and failed one world government
and missed continued demonization of russia, the social paid antifa soros treason
Looks like JFK murder was an interception of interests of CIA with the interests of organized
crime
Notable quotes:
"... Here's the story: When Oswald applied for a room in New Orleans he told what CIA-connected writer Priscilla McMillan described as "another of his funny, pointless lies," that is, that Oswald said he worked for the Leon Israel Company. McMillan insisted Oswald had no connection with the company. We do know the company was in the coffee import business. We don't know why Oswald claimed he worked there. And maybe he did. ..."
"... The principal figure behind the company, Samuel Israel Jr. -- evidently grandfather of the current Samuel Israel -- was closely connected to Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman unsuccessfully prosecuted in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for complicity in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... The possible Israeli connection to the Samuel Israel, III money scandal is interesting considering that -- according to Jewish-American JFK researcher A. J. Weberman -- Jim Garrison, in an unpublished novel, suggested Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, was behind the JFK assassination -- something Garrison did not mention elsewhere. ..."
"... Garrison evidently became aware Clay Shaw had Mossad connections through service on the board of the shadowy Permindex corporation. ..."
"... In light of revelations in the 1980s (theretofore unknown) that JFK was working to stop Israel's secret drive to assemble an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Shaw's Permindex engagement is intriguing. In fact, Permindex chairman, Louis Bloomfield was a functionary of liquor baron and Meyer Lansky crime syndicate figure Sam Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and -- with Bronfman -- a major patron of Israel's nuclear weapons program, among a group of U.S. and Canadian millionaires who bankrolled the project in the '50s to the tune of $250 million today. ..."
Although the media reported on the bizarre case of Samuel Israel III -- an East Coast hedge
fund operator who swindled investors out of $450 million and who disappeared after attempting
to fake his own suicide -- what the media has not reported is the connection of Israel's family
to circumstances surrounding the assassination of John E Kennedy.
The media has mentioned Israel is a scion of a distinguished New Orleans Jewish family. Not
mentioned is that Israel's family enterprise, the Leon Israel Company, popped up in a
mysterious way in connection to activities of JFK's alleged assassin, New Orleans native Lee
Harvey Oswald, in that city in the summer of 1963. While details of Oswald's New Orleans
sojourn are thoroughly documented, his link to the Israel Company seems taboo.
Here's the story: When Oswald applied for a room in New Orleans he told what
CIA-connected writer Priscilla McMillan described as "another of his funny, pointless lies,"
that is, that Oswald said he worked for the Leon Israel Company. McMillan insisted Oswald had
no connection with the company. We do know the company was in the coffee import business. We
don't know why Oswald claimed he worked there. And maybe he did.
What is puzzling is that JFK assassination researchers avoid exploring the Israel Company.
Although researchers dissect other picayune details about Oswald's life in New Orleans, no
researchers will mention the Israel connection.
The principal figure behind the company, Samuel Israel Jr. -- evidently grandfather of
the current Samuel Israel -- was closely connected to Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman
unsuccessfully prosecuted in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for complicity
in the JFK assassination. Israel was vice president of the Board of Commissioners of the
Port of New Orleans and on the Council of the Lower Mississippi River Port Interests (putting
him in trade executive Clay Shaw's sphere).
Israel also won the French Medal of Merit for his service in the U.S. Army in Europe, at the
time Shaw was decorated by the French for his service there. It is likely Shaw and Israel knew
each other as early as World War II.
Was Oswald promised a job at the Israel Company -- arranged by Shaw -- or was Oswald
employed by the company? If so, how? Did this company play a role in manipulating Oswald in New
Orleans? These are questions that need to be answered.
At present day, Samuel Israel III is on the lam, many believe in Israel which welcomes
Jewish criminals fleeing prosecution in the United States. Note, though: Israel says he is a
Christian, despite his background.
The possible Israeli connection to the Samuel Israel, III money scandal is interesting
considering that -- according to Jewish-American JFK researcher A. J. Weberman -- Jim Garrison,
in an unpublished novel, suggested Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, was behind the
JFK assassination -- something Garrison did not mention elsewhere.
Garrison evidently became aware Clay Shaw had Mossad connections through service on the
board of the shadowy Permindex corporation.
In light of revelations in the 1980s (theretofore unknown) that JFK was working to stop
Israel's secret drive to assemble an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Shaw's Permindex engagement is
intriguing. In fact, Permindex chairman, Louis Bloomfield was a functionary of liquor baron and
Meyer Lansky crime syndicate figure Sam Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and --
with Bronfman -- a major patron of Israel's nuclear weapons program, among a group of U.S. and
Canadian millionaires who bankrolled the project in the '50s to the tune of $250 million
today.
Another Permindex figure was banker Tibor Rosenbaum, longtime Mossad director for finance
and arms procurement, whose Geneva bank was a Mossad proprietary and money laundry for Lansky
crime syndicate profits. ★
Michael Collins Piper is a contributing editor for AFP.
Mostly reflexively, not always consciously, The Powers That Be seek to retain and
enlarge their sphere of influence. Nothing, not even the venerated vote, is allowed to
alter that "balance."
That's why the 'Deep State' or whatever one wants to call that malignant organism that has
taken over DC–and much of the West–needs professional toadies like Woody, who
will dutifully report whatever smelly lump of fertilizer the PTB are trying to sell. Bet
Woody's the best paid stenographer in the world, doing a good job of confusing Americans,
keeping them anxious of the unknown, so the PTB can keep herding us towards the NWO
slaughterhouse.
The washed-out journalist then blurted out this in disbelief: "Trump said the 'World
Trade Organization is the worst organization in the world.'"
Another bit of propaganda, as those central banks–like the toxic FED–keep the
world under their thumb by controlling the money flow, printing currencies out of thin air,
then getting paid outrageous sums of interest each year–around 500 Billion in the
US–for their counterfeiting scheme.
That kind of power can and does crash stock markets and wreck economies, as the FED has
been doing since it was spawned in 1913. They and their buddies then buy homes, businesses,
MSM outlets and costly toys for pennies on the dollar, while us 'deplorables' wonder if
they're going to be able to keep making their mortgage payments if they lose their job.
To repeat, this was promised on the campaign trail and in Trump position papers. We now
know who stole those promises from the American people.
"We know?" Some do, but many don't, as they rally around Tubby the Grifter to protect
their savior from those nasty Democrats.
"Drain the Swamp" and "MAGA" were skillfully crafted psyops, most likely from the inner
sanctum of the most pernicious lobbying outfit on Capitol Hill, AIPAC. RT, a news outlet, got
mugged by a sold-out Congress and forced to register as a lobbying outfit, but not AIPAC. No
Sir, why that would be anti-Semitic and only foul, Jew hating Neo-Nazis would even think
about making AIPAC follow the law.
What AIPAC has and continues to do needs to be kept hidden from the American public, lest
they engage in the dangerous behavior of actually wondering if Israel is an ally or a
well-disguised enemy.
Trump was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and 2016 was when the bill came due. He was
'Chosen,' not be We the People, but AIPAC and Israel as the best POTUS to do their bidding,
since Hillary carried way too much baggage.
Trump has been the best POTUS for Israel since the traitorous liar LBJ.
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or
President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To
which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with
John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause
until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your
fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for
eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In
fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back.
Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as
they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them
stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a
wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you
think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy
proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him
inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped
down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want,
except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the
nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could
have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they
please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours
alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger
demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire
country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals
airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American
economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet
love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in
Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't
Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White
House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway
Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international
spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for?
China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing
politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my
campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get
rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig
holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and
make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel
have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things
should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do
with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will
qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the
American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the
vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and
only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot
seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life.
Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the
North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our
problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have
backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five
percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a
shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and
Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of
martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has
68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many
homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in
Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are
out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled
with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at
least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No
federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding
schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will
go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to
localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a
free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be
inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in
Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme
measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems
to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their
way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't
spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of
illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying
microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism,
any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum
containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a
helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can
do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico
with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
"... Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The documents were real, but only certain documents were released. ..."
"... Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of the JFK assassination! ..."
He graduated from the CIA university (aka Yale) then went to CIA basic training as a naval
intelligence officer for five years, then to the Washington Post. This is why he was allowed
White House access by the Trump Neocons, despite is record as a back stabber to those who
oppose the Neocon agenda. The Washington Post itself was co-founded by the CIA. Woodward was
a key player in the last CIA coup when Nixon was ousted, not too long after they disposed of
troublesome President Kennedy. I noted some of this in my 2010 blog:
Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned
CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The
documents were real, but only certain documents were released. Prouty wrote the other
reason for this "leak" was to upset the Nixon administration, which it was trying to
destabilize in hopes of ousting Nixon.
That President was upset that the CIA refused to provide him with requested documents
concerning the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. Nixon also angered the "Power Elite" by
withdrawing American troops from their profitable business venture in Vietnam and improving
relations with Red China.
Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as
a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just
happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of
the JFK assassination!
This piece makes Trump look like a credible president – that is, if he is to be judged
by his campaign promises to the American electorate who voted him in. This is only partly
true. Recall that Trump did make unequivocal promises: "We will stop racing to topple foreign
regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with,". and "We will stop
racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved
with," Not long after such promises, he announced he would be sending more troops to
Afghanistan. His bombing of Syria and illegally keeping American boots in that country surely
flies in the face of such promises especially in light of statements that American troops
will not leave that country any time soon, in keeping with America's zeal for fighting
Israel's wars. This piece portrays Trump as intrepid and true to his word. Yet, like many of
his predecessors, the morbid fear of the pro-Israeli lobby remains a defining feature of US
foreign policy matters. Neither can Trump exonerate himself from the ongoing tragedy in Yemen
emboldening the Saudis and their Emirati allies with the sale of billions of dollars of arms
to these medieval monarchies, not to mention the logistical support given them by the US.
"... Obama, it turns out, was among the most militaristic White House occupants in American history, taking the imperial presidency to new heights. It has been said that Obama was the only president whose administration was enmeshed in multiple wars from beginning to end. His imperial ventures spanned many countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia along with proxy interventions in Yemen and Pakistan. ..."
"... Obama engineered two of the most brazen regime-change operations of the postwar era, in Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014), leaving both nations reduced to a state of ongoing civil war and economic ruin. ..."
"... United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric recently decried this violence, noting the indiscriminate shelling by armed groups killing civilians, including children. Not to be outdone, the U.S. (joined by a few European states) issued a statement condemning the violence in Libya, reading in part: "We urge armed groups to immediately cease all military actions and warn those who tamper with security in Tripoli or elsewhere in Libya that they will be held accountable for any such actions." How thoughtful of those very military actors who, with U.N. blessing, brought nothing but endless death and destruction to the Libyan people. ..."
"... In Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin was being demonized as the "new Hitler", real fascists (or at least neo-fascists) were installed in power through the well-planned and generously-funded conspiracy of Obama's neocon functionaries, led by Victoria Nuland and cheered on by such visiting notables as John McCain, Joe Biden, and John Brennan -- all scheming to bring the Kiev regime into the NATO/European Union orbit. The puppet Poroshenko regime has since 2014 been given enough American economic and military largesse to finance its warfare against separatists in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, resulting in more than 10,000 deaths, with no end in sight. Following the gruesome pattern of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Ukrainian society descends into deepening chaos and violence with no end in sight. ..."
"... It is easy to forget that it was the Obama administration that planned and carried out the first phases of the Mosul operation (begun in October 2016) which produced hundreds of thousands of casualties (with at least 40,000 dead), left a city of two million in Dresden-like state of rubble, and drove nearly a million civilians into exile. The same fate, on smaller scale, was brought to other Sunni-majority cities in Iraq, including Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah (already destroyed by U.S. forces in 2004). Whatever the official goal, and however many secondary collaborators were involved, these were monstrous war crimes by any reckoning. ..."
"... In the months before Obama departed the White House he laid the groundwork for a new, more dangerous, Cold War with Russia. This agenda, negating earlier plans for a "reset" with the Putin government, would be multi-faceted – expanded NATO forces along Russian borders, renewed support for the oligarch Poroshenko in Ukraine, new and harsher economic sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, accelerated cyberwarfare, charges of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Not only has this strategy, eagerly advanced by the Clintonites and their media allies, brought new levels of insanity to American politics, it has left the two nuclear powers menacingly closer to armed confrontation than even at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
"... Obama's contributions to a more robust imperial presidency went further. Collaborating with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he stoked the Syrian civil war by lending "rebel" fighters crucial material, logistical, and military aid for what Clinton – anticipating electoral victory – believed would bring yet another cheerful episode of regime change, this one leaving the U.S. face-to-face with the Russians. During his tenure in office, moreover, Obama would deploy more special-ops troops around the globe (to more than 70 countries) than any predecessor. ..."
Obama, it turns out, was among the most militaristic White House occupants in American
history, taking the imperial presidency to new heights. It has been said that Obama was the
only president whose administration was enmeshed in multiple wars from beginning to end. His
imperial ventures spanned many countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia along
with proxy interventions in Yemen and Pakistan. He ordered nearly 100,000 bombs and
missiles delivered against defenseless targets, a total greater than that of the more
widely-recognized warmonger George W. Bush's total of 70,000 against five countries. Iraq alone
– where U.S. forces were supposed to have been withdrawn – was recipient of 41,000
bombs and missiles along with untold amounts of smaller ordnance. Meanwhile, throughout his
presidency Obama conducted hundreds of drone attacks in the Middle East, more than doubling
Bush's total, all run jointly (and covertly) by the CIA and Air Force.
Obama engineered two of the most brazen regime-change operations of the postwar era, in
Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014), leaving both nations reduced to a state of ongoing civil war
and economic ruin. For the past seven years Libya has been overrun by an assortment of
militias, jihadic groups, and local strongmen – predictable result of the U.S./NATO
bombing offensive to destroy the secular nationalist (and modernizing) Kadafi regime. This was
purportedly Secretary of State Clinton's biggest moment of glory, her imperialist gloating on
full display following Kadafi's assassination. As this is written conditions in Libya worsen by
the day, reports surfacing of hundreds of people killed during violent clashes in the suburbs
of Tripoli as rival militias fight for control of the capital. Militias now exercise control
over ports, airfields, and much of the oil infrastructure. More tens of thousands of Libyans
are being forced from their homes, a development greeted with silence at CNN and kindred media
outlets.
United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric recently decried this violence, noting the
indiscriminate shelling by armed groups killing civilians, including children. Not to be
outdone, the U.S. (joined by a few European states) issued a statement condemning the violence
in Libya, reading in part: "We urge armed groups to immediately cease all military actions and
warn those who tamper with security in Tripoli or elsewhere in Libya that they will be held
accountable for any such actions." How thoughtful of those very military actors who, with U.N.
blessing, brought nothing but endless death and destruction to the Libyan people.
In Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin was being demonized as the "new Hitler", real fascists (or
at least neo-fascists) were installed in power through the well-planned and generously-funded
conspiracy of Obama's neocon functionaries, led by Victoria Nuland and cheered on by such
visiting notables as John McCain, Joe Biden, and John Brennan -- all scheming to bring the Kiev
regime into the NATO/European Union orbit. The puppet Poroshenko regime has since 2014 been
given enough American economic and military largesse to finance its warfare against separatists
in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, resulting in more than 10,000 deaths, with no end in
sight. Following the gruesome pattern of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Ukrainian society
descends into deepening chaos and violence with no end in sight.
It is easy to forget that it was the Obama administration that planned and carried out
the first phases of the Mosul operation (begun in October 2016) which produced hundreds of
thousands of casualties (with at least 40,000 dead), left a city of two million in Dresden-like
state of rubble, and drove nearly a million civilians into exile. The same fate, on smaller
scale, was brought to other Sunni-majority cities in Iraq, including Ramadi, Tikrit, and
Fallujah (already destroyed by U.S. forces in 2004). Whatever the official goal, and however
many secondary collaborators were involved, these were monstrous war crimes by any
reckoning.
After calling for a nuclear-free world (and receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for that promise),
Obama reversed course and embarked on the most ambitious U.S. nuclear upgrading since the early
1950s – the same project inherited by Trump. Speaking in Prague in 2009, the president
called for total abolition of nukes, saying "the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of
those [nuclear] weapons have not . . . Our efforts to contain these dangers [must be] centered
on a global non-proliferation regime." A laudable objective to be sure. But for a price tag of
one trillion dollars (over two decades), Obama decided to create new missile delivery systems,
expand the arsenal of tactical warheads, and fund a new cycle of bombers and submarines –
all with little political or media notice. These initiatives violated the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty prohibiting such moves, while essentially blocking any genuine efforts
toward nuclear reduction and nonproliferation.
In the months before Obama departed the White House he laid the groundwork for a new,
more dangerous, Cold War with Russia. This agenda, negating earlier plans for a "reset" with
the Putin government, would be multi-faceted – expanded NATO forces along Russian
borders, renewed support for the oligarch Poroshenko in Ukraine, new and harsher economic
sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, accelerated cyberwarfare, charges of Russian interference in
the 2016 elections. Not only has this strategy, eagerly advanced by the Clintonites and their
media allies, brought new levels of insanity to American politics, it has left the two nuclear
powers menacingly closer to armed confrontation than even at the peak of the Cold War.
Obama's contributions to a more robust imperial presidency went further. Collaborating
with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he stoked the Syrian civil war by lending "rebel" fighters
crucial material, logistical, and military aid for what Clinton – anticipating electoral
victory – believed would bring yet another cheerful episode of regime change, this one
leaving the U.S. face-to-face with the Russians. During his tenure in office, moreover, Obama
would deploy more special-ops troops around the globe (to more than 70 countries) than any
predecessor.
Many liberals and more than a few progressives – not to mention large sectors of the
media intelligentsia -- will find it difficult to reconcile the picture of an aggressively
imperialist Obama with the more familiar image of a thoughtful, articulate politician who laced
his talks with references to peace, arms control, and human rights. But this very dualism best
corresponds to the historical reality. In his book The Obama Syndrome
, Tariq Ali writes: "From Palestine through Iraq, Obama has acted as just another steward
of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but
with more emollient rhetoric." He adds: "Historically, the model for the current variant of
imperial presidency is Woodrow Wilson, no less pious a Christian, whose every second word was
peace, democracy, or self-determination, while his armies invaded Mexico, occupied Haiti, and
attacked Russia [yes, Russia!], and his treaties handed one colony after another to his
partners in war. Obama is a hand-me-down version of the same, without even Fourteen Points to
betray."
As the 2018 midterm elections approach, Obama has chosen to depart from historical norm and
go on the attack against a Trump presidency viewed as signifying all that is evil. A Democratic
victory would reject Trump's "dark vision of the the nation and restore honesty, decency, and
lawfulness to the American government". In his first speech Obama said that orchestrated public
fear has created conditions "ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and
no shame about tapping into America's dark history of racial and ethnic and religious
division." Does Obama need to be reminded that such "dark history" also includes militarism and
imperialism?
Whatever one's view of the Trump phenomenon in its totality, the amount of death and
destruction he has brought to the world does not (yet) come close to Obama's record of warfare,
drone strikes, regime changes, military provocations, and global deployments. If neocon
interests have come to shape U.S. foreign policy, those interests have so far been more fully
embraced by Obama and the Clintonites than by Trump, despite the scary presence of Trump's
hawkish circle of lieutenants. Unfortunately, Obama's eight years of imperial aggression
elicited strikingly few liberal or progressive voices of dissent across the political and media
terrain. He enjoyed nearly complete immunity from protest at a time when even the smallest
vestiges of a once-vigorous American antiwar movement had disappeared from the scene.
CARL BOGGS is the author of several recent books, including Fascism Old and New
(2018), Origins of the Warfare State (2016), and Drugs, Power, and Politics (2015). He can be
reached at [email protected].
" The United States of
Amnesia ." That's what Gore Vidal once called us. We remember what we find it convenient to
remember and forget everything else. That forgetfulness especially applies to the history of
others. How could their past, way back when, have any meaning for us today?
Well, it just might. Take the European conflagration of 1914-1918, for example.
You may not have noticed. There's no reason why you should have, fixated as we all are on
the daily torrent of presidential tweets and the flood of mindless rejoinders they elicit. But
let me note for the record that the centenary of the conflict once known as The Great War is
well underway and before the present year ends will have concluded.
Indeed, a hundred years ago this month, the 1918 German Spring Offensive -- codenamed
Operation Michael -- was sputtering to an unsuccessful conclusion. A last desperate German
gamble, aimed at shattering Allied defenses and gaining a decisive victory, had fallen short.
In early August of that year, with large numbers of our own doughboys now on the front lines, a
massive Allied counteroffensive was to commence, continuing until the eleventh hour
of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, when an armistice finally took effect and the guns
fell silent.
In the years that followed, Americans demoted The Great War. It became World War I, vaguely
related to but overshadowed by the debacle next in line, known as World War II. Today, the
average citizen knows little about that earlier conflict other than that it preceded and
somehow paved the way for an even more brutal bloodletting. Also, on both occasions, the bad
guys spoke German.
So, among Americans, the war of 1914-1918 became a neglected stepsister of sorts, perhaps in
part because the United States only got around to suiting up for that conflict about halfway
through the fourth quarter. With the war of 1939-1945 having been sacralized as the moment when
the Greatest Generation saved humankind, the war-formerly-known-as-The-Great-War collects dust
in the bottom drawer of American collective consciousness.
From time to time, some politician or newspaper columnist will resurrect the file labeled
"August 1914," the grim opening weeks of that war, and sound off about the dangers of
sleepwalking into a devastating conflict that nobody wants or understands. Indeed, with
Washington today having become a carnival of buncombe
so sublimely preposterous that even that great journalistic iconoclast H.L. Mencken might have
been struck dumb, ours is perhaps an apt moment for just such a reminder.
Yet a different aspect of World War I may possess even greater relevance to the American
present. I'm thinking of its duration: the longer it lasted, the less sense it made. But on it
went, impervious to human control like the sequence of Biblical plagues that God had inflicted on the
ancient Egyptians.
So the relevant question for our present American moment is this: once it becomes apparent
that a war is a mistake, why would those in power insist on its perpetuation, regardless of
costs and consequences? In short, when getting in turns out to have been a bad idea,
why is getting out so difficult, even (or especially) for powerful nations that
presumably should be capable of exercising choice on such matters? Or more bluntly, how did the
people in charge during The Great War get away with inflicting such extraordinary damage on the
nations and peoples for which they were responsible?
For those countries that endured World War I from start to finish -- especially Great
Britain, France, and Germany -- specific circumstances provided their leaders with an excuse
for suppressing second thoughts about the cataclysm they had touched off.
Among them were:
mostly compliant civilian populations deeply loyal to some version of
King and Country, further kept in line by unremitting
propaganda that minimized dissent; draconian discipline -- deserters and malingerers faced
firing squads -- that
maintained order in the ranks (most of the time) despite the unprecedented scope of the
slaughter; the comprehensive industrialization of war, which ensured a seemingly endless supply
of the weaponry, munitions, and other equipment necessary for outfitting mass conscript armies
and replenishing losses as they occurred.
Economists would no doubt add sunk costs to the mix. With so much treasure already
squandered and so many lives already lost, the urge to press on a bit longer in hopes of
salvaging at least some meager benefit in return for what (and who) had been done in was
difficult to resist.
Even so, none of these, nor any combination of them, can adequately explain why, in the
midst of an unspeakable orgy of self-destruction, with staggering losses and nations in ruin,
not one monarch or president or premier had the wit or gumption to declare: Enough! Stop this
madness!
Instead, the politicians sat on their hands while actual authority devolved onto the likes
of British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, French Marshals Ferdinand Foch and Philippe Petain,
and German commanders Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. In other words, to solve a
conundrum they themselves had created, the politicians of the warring states all deferred to
their warrior chieftains. For their part, the opposing warriors jointly subscribed to a
perverted inversion of strategy best summarized by Ludendorff
as "punch a hole [in the front] and let the rest follow." And so the conflict dragged on and
on.
The Forfeiture of Policy
Put simply, in Europe, a hundred years ago, war had become politically purposeless. Yet the
leaders of the world's principal powers -- including
Allow me to suggest that the United States should consider taking a page out of Lenin's
playbook. Granted, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, such a suggestion might
have smacked of treason. Today, however, in the midst of our
never-ending efforts to expunge terrorism, we might look to Lenin for guidance on how to
get our priorities straight.
As was the case with Great Britain, France, and Germany a century ago, the United States now
finds itself mired in a senseless war. Back then, political leaders in London, Paris, and
Berlin had abrogated control of basic policy to warrior chieftains. Today, ostensibly
responsible political leaders in Washington have done likewise. Some of those latter-day
American warrior chieftains who gather in the White House or testify on Capitol Hill may wear
suits rather than uniforms, but all remain enamored with the twenty-first-century equivalent of
Ludendorff's notorious dictum.
Of course, our post-9/11 military enterprise -- the undertaking once known as the Global War
on Terrorism -- differs from The Great War in myriad ways. The ongoing hostilities in which
U.S. forces are involved in various parts of the Islamic world do not qualify, even
metaphorically, as "great." Nor will there be anything great about an
armed conflict with Iran , should members of the current administration get their
apparent
wish to provoke one.
Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war.
By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given our
reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of the fight
is no longer required.
There are also obvious differences in scale, particularly when it comes to the total number
of casualties involved. Cumulative deaths from the various U.S. interventions, large and small,
undertaken since 9/11, number in the hundreds of thousands . The precise tally
of those lost during the European debacle of 1914-1918 will never be known, but the total
probably surpassed
13 million .
Even so, similarities between the Great War as it unspooled and our own
not-in-the-least-great war(s) deserve consideration. Today, as then, strategy -- that is, the
principled use of power to achieve the larger interests of the state -- has ceased to exist.
Indeed, war has become an excuse for ignoring the absence of strategy.
For years now, U.S. military officers and at least some national security aficionados have
referred to ongoing military hostilities as " the Long War ." To describe our conglomeration of
spreading conflicts as "long" obviates any need to suggest when or under what circumstances (if
any) they might actually end. It's like the meteorologist forecasting a "long winter" or the
betrothed telling his or her beloved that theirs will be a "long engagement." The implicit
vagueness is not especially encouraging.
Some high-ranking officers of late have offered a more forthright explanation of what "long"
may really mean. In the Washington Post , the journalist Greg Jaffe
recently reported that "winning for much of the U.S. military's top brass has come to be
synonymous with staying put." Winning, according to Air Force General Mike Holmes, is simply
"not losing. It's staying in the game."
Not so long ago, America's armed forces adhered to a concept called victory , which
implied conclusive, expeditious, and economical mission accomplished. No more. Victory
, it turns out, is too tough to achieve, too restrictive, or, in the words of Army
Lieutenant General Michael Lundy, "too absolute." The United States military now grades itself
instead on a curve. As Lundy puts it, "winning is more of a continuum," an approach that allows
you to claim mission accomplishment without, you know, actually accomplishing anything.
It's like soccer for six-year-olds. Everyone tries hard so everyone gets a trophy.
Regardless of outcomes, no one goes home feeling bad. In the U.S. military's case, every
general gets a medal (or, more likely, a
chest full of them).
"These days," in the Pentagon, Jaffe writes, "senior officers talk about 'infinite
war.'"
I would like to believe that Jaffe is pulling our leg. But given that he's a conscientious
reporter with excellent sources, I fear he knows what he's talking about. If he's right, as far
as the top brass are concerned, the Long War has now officially gone beyond long. It has been
deemed endless and is accepted as such by those who preside over its conduct.
Strategic Abomination
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military
bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term,
but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called
defense contractors, and the " emergency
men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the
national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some
quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits,
promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course,
that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they
come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service
rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this:
in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they
have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation,
they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning
hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and
departing after a couple years to
make way for someone else to give it a try.
It tells us something about our prevailing standards of generalship that, by resurrecting an
old idea -- counterinsurgency -- and applying it with temporary success to one particular
theater of war, General David Petraeus acquired a reputation as a military genius. If Petraeus
is a military genius, so, too, is General George McClellan. After winning the Battle of Rich
Mountain in 1861, newspapers
dubbed McClellan "the Napoleon of the Present War." But the action at Rich Mountain decided
nothing and McClellan didn't win the Civil War any more than Petraeus won the Iraq War.
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly
report and from whom they nominally take their orders. Of course, under the heading of
politician, we quickly come to our current commander-in-chief. Yet it would be manifestly
unfair to blame President Trump for the mess he inherited, even if he is presently engaged in
making matters worse .
The failure is a collective one, to which several presidents and both political parties have
contributed over the years. Although the carnage may not be as horrific today as it was on the
European battlefields on the Western and Eastern Fronts, members of our political class are
failing us as strikingly and repeatedly as the political leaders of Great Britain, France, and
Germany failed their peoples back then. They have abdicated responsibility for policy to our
own homegrown equivalents of Haig, Foch, Petain, Hindenburg, and Ludendorff. Their failure is
unforgivable.
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election
already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to
declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white,
that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
"... It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests. ..."
"... Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. ..."
1. "The only way for Syria and Iran and Russia to defend Syria is to clearly tell
Washington, London, Paris (the main ZOGs) and Israel that attacks on Syria will be responded
to by attacks on Israeli military and intel sites. The introduction of any nuclear device of
any size will result in a full-scale nuclear response.
That is the only play otherwise Syria simply bleeds to death as t he Jews get their
puppets to keep fomenting terror and dropping bombs on SAA efforts to fight those
terrorists . We come to the moment when Russia either defends Syria by hitting Israel or
it decides to accept the Long Death of Anglo-Zionist megalomania."
2. "I really do wish Russia would just instantly bomb Israel. That would be the best way
to separate us from that satanic rope around our necks."
3. "I call everyone in the military to disobey orders for attacking anything in Syria
except Isis. Need to spread this on social media. Don't be mercenaries of Israel
."
-- Your "most victimized" have squandered all and any sympathy for your "incomparable
sufferings" by promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. The Jewish State and its
subordinate zionized US have become the gravest danger to humanity.
This whole issue is so surrealistic. The last time the OPCW didn't confirm their accusations,
but now they know who is going to commit a chemical attack right now, and they don't even
wait for the actual events to be cocksure about it. Apparently they want a nuclear Mexican
standoff. This is the problem that last time maybe Russia wasn't convincingly committed to a
nuclear war, and so they are trying to explore this perceived weakness. It will get to a
point where the US will call Russia's "bluff" which will turn out not to have been a bluff.
Jews undermined and
destroyed their own society, as routinely as they undermine Western Civilization. The OT
reveals the historic pattern of Hebraic self-destruction, and depravity; which was repeated
in the 1st Century, and chronicled by Josephus.
Jews are not as problematic, as the Muhammadans.
So, 1st things 1st. The ziocon-supported "rebels" of A Qaeda (see Washington Post
editorial written by Israel firsters) are preparing a children sacrifice for the glory of the
the mythical Eretz Israel: https://www.rt.com/news/438282-white-helmets-film-chemical-attacks/
"The militants have selected 22 children and their parents from several villages in the
Aleppo governorate who will play parts in staging fake chemical weapon attacks.
Another group of children is comprised of orphans kidnapped from refugee camps, who are meant
to be used for the footage of death scenes. It is currently kept in one of the buildings of
the Ikab prison controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group.
Signs of activities to prepare staged chemical weapon attacks were reported in Kafir-Zait,
the military claims, also naming two villages where toxic chemicals have been delivered to
stage provocations."
-- Not a peep from the "humanitarian" Jewish State that has been waiting impatiently a
resumption of the slaughter of civilians in the sovereign State of Syria. Nothing pleases the
Jewish State more than the death of kids in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Iran. This is your
tribeswoman:
" Paul Joseph Watson reported that at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups are pledging
allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate group responsible for killing
American troops in Iraq.
"Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and
massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and
making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners," Watson wrote.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even admitted to BBC that these Syrian rebels
on the same side as the U.S. in Syria are terrorist groups
President Obama has been openly supporting the Syrian rebels "
"We know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert
operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster.
Eventually, it brought in both ISIS as a splinter group to the jihadists that went in, it
also brought in Russia.
So we have been digging deeper and deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and
not continue to throw missiles, not have a confrontation with Russia."
"Syria is only part of a much larger problem. It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli
concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is
not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests.
Congress and the Special Counsel are
investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the
other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. Netanyahu
and his crew of unsavory cutthroats are hardly ever cited for their malignant influence over
America's political class and media. Bomb Syria? Sure. After all, it's good for Israel."
-- The bloody, murderous, perfidious Jewish Power is guilty of the rivers of blood and
mounds of human flesh in Syria. Close your holo-biz museums already.
Days after Google was exposed trying to
help Hillary Clinton
win the 2016
election, a leaked "internal only"
video published by
Breitbart
Senior
Tech correspondent Allum Bokhari
reveals a panel of Google executives
who are absolutely beside themselves
following Hillary Clinton's historic
loss.
The video is a full recording of
Google's first all-hands
meeting following the 2016 election
(these weekly meetings are known
inside the company as "TGIF" or
"Thank God It's Friday" meetings).
Sent to Breitbart News by an
anonymous source, it features
co-founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin, VPs Kent Walker and
Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and
CEO Sundar Pichai
. -
Breitbart
In the video, Brin can be heard
comparing Trump supporters to fascists
and extremists - arguing that like
other extremists, Trump voters suffered
from "boredom" which has, he
claims, historically led to fascism and
communism.
He then asks his company what they
can do to ensure a "better quality of
governance and decision-making."
And according to Kent Walker, VP for
Global Affairs, those who support
populist causes like the MAGA movement
are motivated by "fear, xenophobia,
hatred and a desire for answers that
may or may not be there."
He later says that
Google
needs to fight to ensure that populist
movements around the world are merely a
"blip" and a "hiccup" in the arc of
history that "bends towards progress."
The video can be seen below, however
scroll down for a list of timestamped
segments to note, courtesy of
Breitbart
.
(00:00:00 – 00:01:12) Google
co-founder Sergey Brin states that
the weekly meeting is
"probably not the most joyous we've
had"
and that
"most
people here are pretty upset and
pretty sad."
(00:00:24) Brin contrasts the
disappointment of Trump's election
with his excitement at the
legalization of cannabis in
California, triggering laughs and
applause from the audience of Google
employees.
(00:01:12) Returning to
seriousness, Brin says he is
"deeply offen[ded]"
by the
election of Trump, and that the
election
"conflicts with
many of [Google's] values."
(00:09:10) Trying to explain the
motivations of Trump supporters,
Senior VP for Global Affairs, Kent
Walker
concludes: "fear, not
just in the United States, but
around the world is fueling
concerns, xenophobia, hatred, and a
desire for answers that may or may
not be there."
(00:09:35) Walker goes on to
describe the Trump phenomenon as a
sign of "tribalism that's
self-destructive [in] the
long-term."
(00:09:55) Striking an
optimistic tone, Walker assures
Google employees that despite the
election,
"history is on our
side"
and that the
"moral arc of history bends towards
progress."
(00:10:45) Walker approvingly
quotes former Italian Prime Minister
Matteo Renzi's comparison between
"the world of the wall" with its
"isolation and defensiveness" and
the "world of the square, the
piazza, the marketplace, where
people come together into a
community and enrich each other's
lives."
(00:13:10) CFO Ruth Porat
appears to break down in tears when
discussing the election result.
(00:15:20) Porat promises that
Google will "use the great strength
and resources and reach we have to
continue to advance really important
values."
(00:16:50) Stating
"we
all need a hug,"
she then
instructs the audience of Google
employees to hug the person closest
to them.
(00:20:24) Eileen Noughton, VP
of People Operations, promises that
Google's policy team in DC is "all
over" the immigration issue and that
the company will "keep a close watch
on it."
(00:21:26) Noughton jokes about
Google employees asking, '
Can
I move to Canada?
' after
the election. She goes on to
seriously discuss the options
available to Google employees who
wish to leave the country.
(00:23:12) Noughton does
acknowledge "diversity of opinion
and political persuasion" and notes
that s
he has heard from
conservative Google employees who
say they "haven't felt entirely
comfortable revealing who [they]
are."
and urged
"tolerance." (Several months later,
the company would fire James Damore
allegedly for disagreeing with
progressive narratives.)
(00:27:00) Responding to a
question about "filter bubbles,"
Sundar Pichai promises to work
towards "correcting" Google's role
in them
(00:27:30)
Sergey Brin
praises an audience member's
suggestion of increasing matched
Google employee donations to
progressive groups.
(00:34:40)
Brin compares
Trump voters to "extremists,"
arguing for a correlation between
the economic background of Trump
supporters and the kinds of voters
who back extremist movements. Brin
says that "voting is not a rational
act" and that not all of Trump's
support can be attributed to "income
disparity." He suggests that Trump
voters might have been motivated by
boredom rather than legitimate
concerns.
(00:49:10) An employee asks if
Google is willing to "invest in
grassroots, hyper-local efforts to
bring tools and services and
understanding of Google products and
knowledge" so that people can "make
informed decisions that are best for
themselves." Pichai's response:
Google will ensure its "educational
products" reach "segments of the
population [they] are not
[currently] fully reaching."
(00:54:33) An employee asks what
Google is going to do about
"misinformation" and "fake news"
shared by "low-information
voters." Pichai responds by stating
that
"investments in machine
learning and AI" are a "big
opportunity" to fix the problem.
(00:56:12) Responding to an
audience member, Walker says Google
must ensure the rise of populism
doesn't turn into "a world war or
something catastrophic and instead
is a blip, a hiccup."
(00:58:22) Brin compares Trump
voters to supporters of fascism and
communism, linking the former
movement to "boredom," which Brin
previously linked to Trump voters.
"It sort of sneaks up sometimes,
really bad things" says Brin.
(01:01:15) A Google employee
states:
"speaking to white
men, there's an opportunity for you
right now to understand your
privilege"
and urges
employees to "go through the
bias-busting training, read about
privilege, read about the real
history of oppression in our
country." He urges employees to
"discuss the issues you are
passionate about during Thanksgiving
dinner and don't back down and laugh
it off when you hear the voice of
oppression speak through metaphors."
Every executive on stage – the CEO,
CFO, two VPs and the two Co-founders
– applaud the employee.
(01:01:57) An audience member
asks if the executives see "anything
positive from this election result."
The audience of Google employees,
and the executives on stage, burst
into laughter. "Boy, that's a really
tough one right now" says Brin.
Google and it's execs seem to be a collective of Dr.
Frankenstein's whose creation unknowingly or knowingly practices evil
against innocence.
Little Girl Scene from 1931
Frankenstein
and 1974
Young
Frankenstein
We saw the scene in 1931
Frankenstein
where the creature
meets a young girl. Although a little afraid, she accepts him and
plays games with him. After they throw all the petals from a flower
into the lake, he looks around for something else to throw. He picks
her up and throws her in. Until recently, the actual toss was cut
from presentations of the film, because it is just too painful.
DeadFred
,
I have a friend who was there that night with the election coverage
crew. He's a secret conservative trying not to lose his good paying
job so I won't give details. But he described a scene to me that
would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. It was pretty much how it
is described here and he had to just grit his teeth and try to keep
from laughing or crying. "Just keep repeating, $190,000 per year"
uhland62
,
When the Emperor (google) doesn't like his people he must go and find
himself another people.
Thebighouse
,
SOMEHOW GOOGLE FACEBOOK TWITTER NEED TO PAY US FOR USING OUR PERSONAL
AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WITHOUT
"REAL" CONSENT.
Ever gone googling? They need to pay you for selling you
information. It is blatant theft. You are ENTITLED TO YOUR MONEY.
I got that word entitled from Warren and obummers micky and barry.
Oh and sharpton too.
bobdog54
,
First, they may have a reasonably good, not high, IQ but it's clear
the stark reality of the real world and its people are completely
unknown to them or they have little to no integrity.
Second,
maybe they are completely brain dead to support a clear criminal over
4 decades or they themselves are essentially of the criminal mind.
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in
an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would
prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money
or more power...
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty
guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for
monopoly and vested interest.
Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is
directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power
of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war
withRussia. That would leave him with no staff.
But Trump is not fooling me. You do not make a campaign promise to cooperate with Russia,
and then hire all these people who want to go to war with Russia.
It tells me that Trump was lying during his campaign.
He told us Iraq was the wrong decision, and now he has bombed Syria twice and is ready to
bomb them again; he told us that he wants out of the mid-east; he told us he wanted to
cooperate with Russia.
So I voted for him, but he was lying. I already found out he is a brazen liar. He took
those Clinton women to his debate to humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton, when all the while
he was doing the same thing with women. That is what I call a brazen liar.
He is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less. They probably told him
to hire Bolton and all the other war-mongers around him. He's not surrounded by the enemy. He
is surrounded by his friends.
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the
GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of
putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement
with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise
he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the
Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials.
@Admiral
Assbar The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle
against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them,
instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas
of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign
policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences:
backing out of the Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials. "The biggest mystery of this whole
presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them "
It seems fairly clear that, whenever a new President is sworn in, he immediately receives
a "pep talk" in which he is informed what he will and will not say and do, and what will
happen to him, his family, their pets, and everyone they have ever spoken to if he disobeys.
Probably this "offer that he can't refuse" is concluded by words along the lines of: " and if
you want to get what the Kennedys got, just try stepping out of line".
J. Edgar Hoover used to do something of the kind when he was head of the FBI, but that was
relatively benign – just a threat of blackmail accompanied by kindly advice never to
fight the FBI.
@AlbionRevisited I was
referring to the campaign, of course we're in a different situation now. It's amazing the way
in which they were able to co-oped his administration. AlbionRevisted wrote: "It's amazing
the way in which they (Neoconservatives) were able to co-oped his (Trump)
administration."
Greetings AlbionRevisited!
Many were disappointed with Trump and that might even include a percentage of the voting bloc
known as "Deplorables."
Nonetheless, after honing into candidate Donald Trump's awful 2017 homage to AIPAC, it
becomes dramatically less amazing how Neoconservatives crept into the White House.
Recall how rabid leftist Neoconservatives wanted Hillary, and how suddenly the naysayer,
Extra-Octane Neoconservative, John Bolton, stuck with the phoney populist, "America
First-After-Israeli-Interests," talkin' Donald J. Trump?
The essence of American presidential campaigns/elections boil down to powerful international
Jewry needs & timing, and disemboweled citizens must take-it or leave-it. Uh, support the
immoral wars and pay the bill!
Thanks, AlbionRevisted.
Herald says: September 12, 2018 at 10:53 am GMT • 100 Words
@Tom Welsh
I am not convinced that Trump started out with good intentions but quickly bowed to threats. Trump was never a principled
person and it seems much more likely that he was always a stooge for the Israel lobby and the MIC.
I used to think that things would have been worse under Hillary but these days I'm even beginning to have doubts on that
score.
jacques sheete, September 12, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT • 100 Words
@Admiral Assbar
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them
No mystery at all. It was all campaign rhetoric like the Shrub's promises of "a humble foreign policy" and "compassionate
conservatism," O-bomba-'s "hope and change"and Woody 'n Frankies promises to keep the US out of war.
KenH, September 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm GMT
Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria
for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man.
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday
at getting back at you" – Chuck Schumer. maybe Schumer's protective scare-mongering
goes to a deeper matter; the matter of the most powerful intelligence agency operating in the
USA is MOSSAD, an entity which has penetrated every aspect of American governance.
AIPAC is one of MOSSAD's favorite playgrounds
Did Sanders' people challenge 'the Russians did it' propaganda line, demand the DNC
servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No.
no U.S. intelligence agency has performed its own forensic analysis on the [Clinton's] hacked
servers. Instead, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the
third-party security firm CrowdStrike [Dm. Alperovitch, of the CrowdStrike fame, is a vicious
Russophobe and loyal zionist fed and cared for by the ziocon Atlantic Council.] In actuality
we know it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC emails with a thumbdrive.
Vladimir Putin, the man standing in the way of Syria's breakup and working to keep the
Iran agreement intact and avert a war, must be demonized to realize Bibi Netanyahu's goals.
In fact, Israel's intelligence services focus has historically prioritized Russia, first, and
the USA second "
– The Jewish Bolsheviks are in arms against Russia and the US because this is what
the Jewish Bolsheviks are best for -- at the destruction of functioning human societies.
"Leaking Like Mad": FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 09/12/2018 - 15:30 637 SHARES
The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a "media
leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers."
A December 15, 2016 email appears to discuss a "political" leaking operation, in which
others were " leaking like mad " amid the Trump-Russia probe.
"Oh, remind me to tell you tomorrow about the times doing a story about the rnc hacks,"
Page texted Strzok.
"And more than they already did? I told you Quinn told me they pulling out all the stops
on some story " Strzok replied.
A source told Fox News "Quinn" could be referring to Richard Quinn, who served as the
chief of the Media and Investigative Publicity Section in the Office of Public Affairs. Quinn
could not be reached for comment.
Strzok again replied: " Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and
worried, and political, they're kicking into overdrive. "
In one passage, Strzok apparently misreads a reference to "rnc" as "mc," and then,
realizing his error, blames "old man eyes."
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term "sisters."
-
Fox News
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or any
other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11, it's
all about cooperation and sharing. "
The US intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies, including the CIA, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI and the National Security Agency.
Fox News notes that the "leaking like mad" reference was texted the same day that several US
news outlets reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved - and
personally approved, Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Then, on January 10, 2017,
The Times published another article which suggested that Russian hackers had "gained
limited access" to the Republican National Committee (RNC) - the same day that BuzzFeed News
published the "Steele Dossier" accusing President Trump of a variety of salacious and unproven
ties to Russia.
Following the text about "sisters leaking," Strzok wrote to Page:
" And we need to talk more about putting C reporting in our submission. They're going to
declassify all of it "
Page replied: "I know. But they're going to declassify their stuff, how do we withhold
"
" We will get extraordinary questions. What we did what we're doing. Just want to ensure
everyone is good with it and has thought thru all implications," Strzok wrote. "CD should
bring it up with the DD."
A source told Fox News that "C" is likely in reference to classified information, whereas
"CD" is Cyber Division, and DD could refer to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March for making an unauthorized
disclosure to the news media, and "lacked candor" under oath on multiple occassions.
It is unclear what "submission" Strzok and Page were referring to. -
Fox News
A source also told Fox News that the messages were part of the newly released batch of
Strzok-Page communications obtained by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who uncovered
them as part of his investigation into the FBI's conduct in the Russia investigation.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
asscannon101 ,
That first pic in the article- the one of Strzok- that is a 'peyote face'. The crazy eyes
and the grotesque, exaggerated facial grimacing. Mescaline will do that to you. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. Just lucky that he didn't spaz out, shit in his pants, flop
around on the floor squawking like a seagull and start chewing his own lips off. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. A lot of books. Over and over again. A lot of fucking
books.
troutback ,
Get a Fucking Rope and an Oak Tree. That's how I feel. It's fucking Treason!
Sheesh
tb
bobdog54 ,
The swamp aka the deep state is not only not a conspiracy theory but a real seditionous
conspiracy against our Constitutional Laws and Way of Life. And much much deeper than most
can imagine.
Automatic Choke ,
why are they not incarcerated?
this shit is an affront to all of us who follow the laws, respect election results, pay
taxes, and try to be good citizens.
PUT THEM AWAY!!!!!
navy62802 ,
So we already know that these people committed sedition against the government based on
the known evidence. One more tape doesn't prove the crime any more than the other evidence.
All this does is drive home the fact that there were additional conspirators who protected
these criminals from justice. It's fucking sickening.
Call me when someone in the government gets the balls to finally charge these criminals
with the crimes they have obviously committed. Until then, new evidence is moot.
bobdog54 ,
Wish I could give you 100 up arrows!
All Risk No Reward ,
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being
oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
― Malcolm X
The above is true, but only tangentially related to this topic in that it expresses the
media LIES.
The TRUTH is that the BankstObama FBI worked overtime to get BankstoTrump "elected" as one
of the Bankster financed "selections." Banksters "select" based on money and promotion, then
you "vote" on their selection in an "election."
Let freeDUMB rain!
Here's how it worked...
1. Mid 2016, FBI became aware of Hellary's criminal activity.
2. Mid 2016, Comey sent memo stating Hellary would not be prosecuted. He did not say this
is because she's a Money Power Sith Lord front woman who has a KMA card. Nick Rockefeller
explained this to Aaron Russo, as told by Aaron himself when he was interviewed by Alex
Jones. Oh, and Rockefeller told him the details of the post 9/11 Afghanistan invasion in
advance, too. The interview is worth watching.
3. October, 2016, Comey announced an investigation into Hellary's criminal behavior. Uh,
it was already determined she wouldn't be prosecuted, right? Yup. So why publicly imply she
could be charged and convicted IF NOT TO AID AND ABET DONALD "HE'S WORTH MORE TO US
(BANKSTERS) ALIVE THAN DEAD" TRUMP INTO THE WHITE HOUSE?
By the way, that's an accurate and real quote from an attorney that represents something
like 50+ banks against Trump. He said it to describe why the Banksters didn't force Donald
into bankruptcy and take all his stuff. Donald OWES the Banksters FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS TODAY
THAT IS NOT POVERTY!
This is called an October Surprise, and they are rarely good.
4. After the elections, Comey announces that Hellary committed the crimes, was caught red
handed, but wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to commit the crime. Try that at
your next court date for running a stop sign you didn't see, serfer boys and girls.
5. Propaganda depicting Comey and Trump as enemies ensued immediately, lest the mindless
rabble formulate the most obvious question in their wittle minds...
"Why did the Obama FBI create a phony October Surprise to hurt Hellary and promote
Trump's election as President?"
That's not in the Money Power Matrix programming!
The reason is that the Banksters wanted Trump in office, because their debt-based money
system bubble (largest in human history) is set to implode AND THERE IS NO PERSON ON PLANET
EARTH THAT IS MORE CAPABLE OF MAGNETICALLY TAKING ALL THE BLAME ONTO HIMSELF THAN DONALD J.
TRUMP.
Nobody.
The name of the game is to shield the Banksters and their debt-money system from criticism
as the fraudulent ROOT CAUSE of the debt-money bubble bust cycles that asset strips entire
societies and leads to systematic global oppression of all ordinary people. At least for
those not directly or indirectly murdered by the Bankster anti-ordinary human agendas.
And, being promoted as an outsider, the Banksters get to save their two controlled
privately incorporated "politically parties in the minds of Muppets" from taking full blame,
therefore, all the Muppets will continue to think they have freedom because they get to
"vote" for Bankster quisling #1 or Bankster quisling #2.
Let freeDUMB rain!
PS - The Banksters don't even care that I spill the beans on their plans because they know
the masses, even the ZeroHedge masses, simply lack the imagination to envision the reality
they Banksters have financed into existence.
alfbell ,
Wake me up once the handing out of prison sentences starts. If they never do, I don't want
to wake up.
WarAndPeace ,
Only a politician would not recognize that they are criminals.... ah apply that whichever
way you want.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Captain Nemo de Erehwon ,
Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. It is what prevents people from doing real
damage. It is the sole hope for the world.
It was not hard-nosed intelligence and legal professionals running a secretive op to
overturn the election. If it were there would not be this trail of text messages describing
each step in detail. The amateurish execution, given all the assets at their disposal
including Australian Ambassadors, mysterious European Professors, and other premiere
intelligence agencies, even perhaps other US government agencies is like spoilt rich kids
ruining their parents' ...hmm is that offensive nowadays? ...legal guardians' ...!@$# it ...
father's company.
All Risk No Reward ,
>>Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. <<
You don't comprehend the milieu.
The agendas include, but are not limited to:
1. Produce more debt - private, corporate, and governmental. Incompetence? On what planet?
They are AMAZING!
2. Prevent the plebs from realizing #1. Again, they have you duped - and you aren't
alone.
3. Pretend inferiority, so that concerted malevolent intent is not discerned. Art of War
101.
The are doing a stellar job at their true agendas.
Dare I say, so good that I can't exclude supernatural guidance.
Muddy1 ,
Why show the attractive pictures of Lisa Page? I liked the ones where she looked like the
dimwit she is.
Pons Asinorum ,
She's more attractive with her mouth shut.
Yog Soggoth ,
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or
any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11,
it's all about cooperation and sharing. " Witches perhaps? Cotton Mather was right!
fulliautomatix ,
There's another William - "it's all about cooperation and sharing." Oh, and telling the
truth.
Remington Steel ,
Treasonous fucks. They should all hang in D.C.'s National Mall.
SnatchnGrab ,
Hang them in the public square so that we may spit on them.
I am Groot ,
They should be staked down to the ground out in the desert, covered in honey and have ants
poured all over them.
SaulAzzHoleSky ,
Strzok's lawyer will say that this refers to problems with his Depends, not the
media.....
WTFUD ,
Down down deeper and down - that's pretty deep.
There's very little deep about the F-uk-us Political Establishment; empty suits,
treasonous filth, cowardly, and yet, wholeheartedly believe they are principled.
S.H.O.C.K.I.N.G
motoXdude ,
Just like enlightened, educated Liberals... those working in these agencies (and most
likely the agencies themselves) are above the law and here to govern the great unwashed and
deplorables! This IS THE DEEP STATE aka THE SWAMP! Time to drain it or drop a high tension
power line in it!
Anunnaki ,
Leaking must not be a crime for Keebler Sessions
Mzhen ,
Wasn't it fortunate that Seth Rich was involved in transporting DNC data to WikiLeaks?
Without the "hacking" link in the chain, the rest of the plan could not have been set into
motion. Characterized as an ardent Bernie supporter, Seth Rich was actually scheduled to go
to work at Hillary's campaign headquarters a few weeks after the date of his murder.
WTFUD ,
The Classic Clinton Foundation ENTRAPMENT.
The job offer being a ruse just in case they didn't get him 1st Time.
SirBarksAlot ,
According to this news clip, there are secret military tribunals going on and John McCain
was executed for his treason.
His 3 remaining brain-cells were targeted with magnetic pulses like the one's going down
at the US Embassy in CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBA.
HominyTwin ,
That's right! Powerful people are taking care of everything, and making sure all will be
right with the USA once again, in the very near future, without effort or sacrifice or
thinking on our part. That is wonderful news!!!!
south40_dreams ,
Build the gallows.
missionshk ,
my understanding is that there were 14 people from various agencies, in a chat room all
committing treason, but dont here about that any more
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the coup is winning.
Prosource ,
Not sure the coup is winning, but it's been almost 2 years and we are only this far in
investigations and prosecutions ???
fulliautomatix ,
Trying to keep some of the legal community alive.
Dickweed Wang ,
Does Lisa Page have tits or are those mutant mosquito bites?
NewHugh ,
In my limited experience flat girls figure out a way to "compensate"...
I am Groot ,
Have you seen her smile ? She's all gums. I'll bet Stzrok loves when the vet takes her
teeth out to clean them and she blows him.
GUMMY ! GUMMY ! GUMMY !
SirBarksAlot ,
It hasn't been determined if she has tits or not.
However, she certainly has balls.
cosmyccowboy ,
she needs the crocodille dundee test... the dept of injustice is trannies on parade!
Collectivism Killz ,
Just in case Qanon is wrong about Keebler Elf Sessions, can someone at least gently remind
him that failure to prosecute will give creeps like Joe Biden a second shot at his
Granddaughters? Not sure if he cares, but I would think an old hound dog such as Sessions
would at least consider his final legacy on earth. All that Fried Chicken and chitlins have
to catch up with him at some point.
Yog Soggoth ,
Everyone up on the Hill feels the fire burning below their feet, those who succumb will
embrace the everlasting heat. Where is Billy? Can you clean this up for me?
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
lookslikecraptome ,
Just put up the link to fox news that ran this story. Talk about a cut and paste.
"As Communists, we work in the elections not just for a candidate but strategically to
build and strengthen the movement and our Party for the long term. The situation varies
greatly from one state and election district to the next so tactics have to be developed
locally. The more we share our concrete experiences, the more we can learn and get ideas from
each other. Here are thoughts for consideration:
1. Where to concentrate?
Clubs: the neighborhood or election district where the club is located;
Districts: election districts that can be flipped; election districts where
working-class champions who are incumbents are under attack; election districts with a
progressive primary candidate.
2. What goals?
• build a voter base to change the political balance of forces;
• strengthen relationships with unions, left/progressive electoral forms like Our
Revolution (OR) and Working Famlies Party (WFP), etc;
• raise the level of class consciousness, unity and solidarity;
• enlarge the CPUSA diverse working-class membership and readership of People's
World;
• identify among our members potential candidates for local office.
3. What methods?
Voter registration: laws differ from state to state. Where there is postcard
registration, door-to-door work with voter cards and issue petitions and sign-ups are a great
way to identify people who want to become engaged and who we can follow up with to vote and
get involved. Tabling with voter cards, issue petitions, People's World and literature is
another way, but harder to follow up with people in scattered geography. Increasing voter
turnout in working-class communities can win elections and create the base for organizing to
win a people's program. It is a direct challenge to the corporate right-wing that depends on
depressing and suppressing the vote.
Participate with allies: Unions, progressive community groups and left/progressive
electoral forms are the best way to participate in campaigns and build the movement for the
long term. Organizations vary from place to place. Labor 2018 is the AFL-CIO program and
anyone can take part in phone banks and visits to the homes of union members. Each union also
has its own election program that union members should prioritize. Local issue coalitions or
ballot initiatives are also important venues, for example Jobs with Justice, Planned
Parenthood, Fight for 15, the Poor People's Campaign, Millions of Jobs etc. Left and
progressive electoral organizations that have endorsed candidates with strong programs are a
strategic way to participate such as Our Revolution, Working Families Party, Indivisible,
etc. If you are just getting started this is a great way to reach out.
Chupacabra-322 ,
They really thought Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton
would win.
And, with it. Complete destruction of Conservatism, Libertarian Values, &
Ideology.
Her Crimes would have never been uncovered or bought out into the open as we're
witnessing.
Much was at stake. Everything was lost.
The Presidency LOST.
Weaponized Intelligence Community with Agents, Assets & Operatives. LOST.
Complicit, Criminal Loyal CIA, FBI, DOJ. LOST.
Supreme Court. LOST.
No doubt, the censorship & Gas Lighting would have been turned on fully.
And, with it Tyrannical Lawlessness.
mc888 ,
How about the "Free Press"? Exposed as nothing but a corrupt propganda outlet for the
DS.
"Free Independent Journalism" LOST.
All these MSM propaganda outlets need their FCC licenses revoked for broadcasting false
information and hoaxes.
Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. The War of
theWorlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology seri...
Operation Mockingbird lives on, just as we, the "conspiracy theorists" said.
And look who was wrong about reality in the end:
The ones pretending nothing was/is wrong, and that we were/are crazy.
Well who's crazy now motherfuckers?
Looks like it's you lot over there, desperately clinging to your MSM/DNC/GOP idols, asking
for FB/Twitter/Google to ban everything too inconvenient for your "reality".
Face the truth for once: the collusion is and has always been between the
MSM/DNC/GOP/Alphabet Agencies and the DEEP STATE. And you perpetuate the oppression by being
party to it.
Yippie21 ,
And to sell the Russia-crap, the Obama administration purposely kicked diplomats out of
the country and laid on sanctions in December. I'm curious enough to wonder how much of the
White-helmet gas attacks in Syria ( that Trump reacted to ) were indirectly done to further
the anti-Russia narrative by Obama folks.... After all, the whole Syria mess has his
fingerprints all over it.
surf@jm ,
Big wow......
Clear and convincing evidence of a crime, obviously isn't a crime in Washington D.C.,
unless, of course, you are a conservative.....
fulliautomatix ,
little wow - Strzok deliberately documented the crimes on his and Page's phones.
thetruthhurts ,
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term
"sisters."
_______________________________
CIA, NSA etc.
PrivetHedge ,
I see what they are afraid of now.
The 'russiagate' stuff is now starting to reveal the very structure and organisation of
the Deep State: once only suspected by the sheep, now it's coming into plain sight for all to
see to the horror of all the pharisee jew vampires who are now seeing the first signs of
dawn.
asscannon101 ,
That first pic in the article- the one of Strzok- that is a 'peyote face'. The crazy eyes
and the grotesque, exaggerated facial grimacing. Mescaline will do that to you. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. Just lucky that he didn't spaz out, shit in his pants, flop
around on the floor squawking like a seagull and start chewing his own lips off. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. A lot of books. Over and over again. A lot of fucking
books.
troutback ,
Get a Fucking Rope and an Oak Tree. That's how I feel. It's fucking Treason!
Sheesh
tb
bobdog54 ,
The swamp aka the deep state is not only not a conspiracy theory but a real seditionous
conspiracy against our Constitutional Laws and Way of Life. And much much deeper than most
can imagine.
Automatic Choke ,
why are they not incarcerated?
this shit is an affront to all of us who follow the laws, respect election results, pay
taxes, and try to be good citizens.
PUT THEM AWAY!!!!!
navy62802 ,
So we already know that these people committed sedition against the government based on
the known evidence. One more tape doesn't prove the crime any more than the other evidence.
All this does is drive home the fact that there were additional conspirators who protected
these criminals from justice. It's fucking sickening.
Call me when someone in the government gets the balls to finally charge these criminals
with the crimes they have obviously committed. Until then, new evidence is moot.
bobdog54 ,
Wish I could give you 100 up arrows!
All Risk No Reward ,
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being
oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
― Malcolm X
The above is true, but only tangentially related to this topic in that it expresses the
media LIES.
The TRUTH is that the BankstObama FBI worked overtime to get BankstoTrump "elected" as one
of the Bankster financed "selections." Banksters "select" based on money and promotion, then
you "vote" on their selection in an "election."
Let freeDUMB rain!
Here's how it worked...
1. Mid 2016, FBI became aware of Hellary's criminal activity.
2. Mid 2016, Comey sent memo stating Hellary would not be prosecuted. He did not say this
is because she's a Money Power Sith Lord front woman who has a KMA card. Nick Rockefeller
explained this to Aaron Russo, as told by Aaron himself when he was interviewed by Alex
Jones. Oh, and Rockefeller told him the details of the post 9/11 Afghanistan invasion in
advance, too. The interview is worth watching.
3. October, 2016, Comey announced an investigation into Hellary's criminal behavior. Uh,
it was already determined she wouldn't be prosecuted, right? Yup. So why publicly imply she
could be charged and convicted IF NOT TO AID AND ABET DONALD "HE'S WORTH MORE TO US
(BANKSTERS) ALIVE THAN DEAD" TRUMP INTO THE WHITE HOUSE?
By the way, that's an accurate and real quote from an attorney that represents something
like 50+ banks against Trump. He said it to describe why the Banksters didn't force Donald
into bankruptcy and take all his stuff. Donald OWES the Banksters FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS TODAY
THAT IS NOT POVERTY!
This is called an October Surprise, and they are rarely good.
4. After the elections, Comey announces that Hellary committed the crimes, was caught red
handed, but wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to commit the crime. Try that at
your next court date for running a stop sign you didn't see, serfer boys and girls.
5. Propaganda depicting Comey and Trump as enemies ensued immediately, lest the mindless
rabble formulate the most obvious question in their wittle minds...
"Why did the Obama FBI create a phony October Surprise to hurt Hellary and promote
Trump's election as President?"
That's not in the Money Power Matrix programming!
The reason is that the Banksters wanted Trump in office, because their debt-based money
system bubble (largest in human history) is set to implode AND THERE IS NO PERSON ON PLANET
EARTH THAT IS MORE CAPABLE OF MAGNETICALLY TAKING ALL THE BLAME ONTO HIMSELF THAN DONALD J.
TRUMP.
Nobody.
The name of the game is to shield the Banksters and their debt-money system from criticism
as the fraudulent ROOT CAUSE of the debt-money bubble bust cycles that asset strips entire
societies and leads to systematic global oppression of all ordinary people. At least for
those not directly or indirectly murdered by the Bankster anti-ordinary human agendas.
And, being promoted as an outsider, the Banksters get to save their two controlled
privately incorporated "politically parties in the minds of Muppets" from taking full blame,
therefore, all the Muppets will continue to think they have freedom because they get to
"vote" for Bankster quisling #1 or Bankster quisling #2.
Let freeDUMB rain!
PS - The Banksters don't even care that I spill the beans on their plans because they know
the masses, even the ZeroHedge masses, simply lack the imagination to envision the reality
they Banksters have financed into existence.
alfbell ,
Wake me up once the handing out of prison sentences starts. If they never do, I don't want
to wake up.
WarAndPeace ,
Only a politician would not recognize that they are criminals.... ah apply that whichever
way you want.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Captain Nemo de Erehwon ,
Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. It is what prevents people from doing real
damage. It is the sole hope for the world.
It was not hard-nosed intelligence and legal professionals running a secretive op to
overturn the election. If it were there would not be this trail of text messages describing
each step in detail. The amateurish execution, given all the assets at their disposal
including Australian Ambassadors, mysterious European Professors, and other premiere
intelligence agencies, even perhaps other US government agencies is like spoilt rich kids
ruining their parents' ...hmm is that offensive nowadays? ...legal guardians' ...!@$# it ...
father's company.
All Risk No Reward ,
>>Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. <<
You don't comprehend the milieu.
The agendas include, but are not limited to:
1. Produce more debt - private, corporate, and governmental. Incompetence? On what planet?
They are AMAZING!
2. Prevent the plebs from realizing #1. Again, they have you duped - and you aren't
alone.
3. Pretend inferiority, so that concerted malevolent intent is not discerned. Art of War
101.
The are doing a stellar job at their true agendas.
Dare I say, so good that I can't exclude supernatural guidance.
Muddy1 ,
Why show the attractive pictures of Lisa Page? I liked the ones where she looked like the
dimwit she is.
Pons Asinorum ,
She's more attractive with her mouth shut.
Yog Soggoth ,
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or
any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11,
it's all about cooperation and sharing. " Witches perhaps? Cotton Mather was right!
fulliautomatix ,
There's another William - "it's all about cooperation and sharing." Oh, and telling the
truth.
Remington Steel ,
Treasonous fucks. They should all hang in D.C.'s National Mall.
SnatchnGrab ,
Hang them in the public square so that we may spit on them.
I am Groot ,
They should be staked down to the ground out in the desert, covered in honey and have ants
poured all over them.
SaulAzzHoleSky ,
Strzok's lawyer will say that this refers to problems with his Depends, not the
media.....
WTFUD ,
Down down deeper and down - that's pretty deep.
There's very little deep about the F-uk-us Political Establishment; empty suits,
treasonous filth, cowardly, and yet, wholeheartedly believe they are principled.
S.H.O.C.K.I.N.G
motoXdude ,
Just like enlightened, educated Liberals... those working in these agencies (and most
likely the agencies themselves) are above the law and here to govern the great unwashed and
deplorables! This IS THE DEEP STATE aka THE SWAMP! Time to drain it or drop a high tension
power line in it!
Anunnaki ,
Leaking must not be a crime for Keebler Sessions
Mzhen ,
Wasn't it fortunate that Seth Rich was involved in transporting DNC data to WikiLeaks?
Without the "hacking" link in the chain, the rest of the plan could not have been set into
motion. Characterized as an ardent Bernie supporter, Seth Rich was actually scheduled to go
to work at Hillary's campaign headquarters a few weeks after the date of his murder.
WTFUD ,
The Classic Clinton Foundation ENTRAPMENT.
The job offer being a ruse just in case they didn't get him 1st Time.
SirBarksAlot ,
According to this news clip, there are secret military tribunals going on and John McCain
was executed for his treason.
His 3 remaining brain-cells were targeted with magnetic pulses like the one's going down
at the US Embassy in CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBA.
HominyTwin ,
That's right! Powerful people are taking care of everything, and making sure all will be
right with the USA once again, in the very near future, without effort or sacrifice or
thinking on our part. That is wonderful news!!!!
south40_dreams ,
Build the gallows.
missionshk ,
my understanding is that there were 14 people from various agencies, in a chat room all
committing treason, but dont here about that any more
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the coup is winning.
Prosource ,
Not sure the coup is winning, but it's been almost 2 years and we are only this far in
investigations and prosecutions ???
fulliautomatix ,
Trying to keep some of the legal community alive.
Dickweed Wang ,
Does Lisa Page have tits or are those mutant mosquito bites?
NewHugh ,
In my limited experience flat girls figure out a way to "compensate"...
I am Groot ,
Have you seen her smile ? She's all gums. I'll bet Stzrok loves when the vet takes her
teeth out to clean them and she blows him.
GUMMY ! GUMMY ! GUMMY !
SirBarksAlot ,
It hasn't been determined if she has tits or not.
However, she certainly has balls.
cosmyccowboy ,
she needs the crocodille dundee test... the dept of injustice is trannies on parade!
Collectivism Killz ,
Just in case Qanon is wrong about Keebler Elf Sessions, can someone at least gently remind
him that failure to prosecute will give creeps like Joe Biden a second shot at his
Granddaughters? Not sure if he cares, but I would think an old hound dog such as Sessions
would at least consider his final legacy on earth. All that Fried Chicken and chitlins have
to catch up with him at some point.
Yog Soggoth ,
Everyone up on the Hill feels the fire burning below their feet, those who succumb will
embrace the everlasting heat. Where is Billy? Can you clean this up for me?
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
lookslikecraptome ,
Just put up the link to fox news that ran this story. Talk about a cut and paste.
"As Communists, we work in the elections not just for a candidate but strategically to
build and strengthen the movement and our Party for the long term. The situation varies
greatly from one state and election district to the next so tactics have to be developed
locally. The more we share our concrete experiences, the more we can learn and get ideas from
each other. Here are thoughts for consideration:
1. Where to concentrate?
Clubs: the neighborhood or election district where the club is located;
Districts: election districts that can be flipped; election districts where
working-class champions who are incumbents are under attack; election districts with a
progressive primary candidate.
2. What goals?
• build a voter base to change the political balance of forces;
• strengthen relationships with unions, left/progressive electoral forms like Our
Revolution (OR) and Working Famlies Party (WFP), etc;
• raise the level of class consciousness, unity and solidarity;
• enlarge the CPUSA diverse working-class membership and readership of People's
World;
• identify among our members potential candidates for local office.
3. What methods?
Voter registration: laws differ from state to state. Where there is postcard
registration, door-to-door work with voter cards and issue petitions and sign-ups are a great
way to identify people who want to become engaged and who we can follow up with to vote and
get involved. Tabling with voter cards, issue petitions, People's World and literature is
another way, but harder to follow up with people in scattered geography. Increasing voter
turnout in working-class communities can win elections and create the base for organizing to
win a people's program. It is a direct challenge to the corporate right-wing that depends on
depressing and suppressing the vote.
Participate with allies: Unions, progressive community groups and left/progressive
electoral forms are the best way to participate in campaigns and build the movement for the
long term. Organizations vary from place to place. Labor 2018 is the AFL-CIO program and
anyone can take part in phone banks and visits to the homes of union members. Each union also
has its own election program that union members should prioritize. Local issue coalitions or
ballot initiatives are also important venues, for example Jobs with Justice, Planned
Parenthood, Fight for 15, the Poor People's Campaign, Millions of Jobs etc. Left and
progressive electoral organizations that have endorsed candidates with strong programs are a
strategic way to participate such as Our Revolution, Working Families Party, Indivisible,
etc. If you are just getting started this is a great way to reach out.
Chupacabra-322 ,
They really thought Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton
would win.
And, with it. Complete destruction of Conservatism, Libertarian Values, &
Ideology.
Her Crimes would have never been uncovered or bought out into the open as we're
witnessing.
Much was at stake. Everything was lost.
The Presidency LOST.
Weaponized Intelligence Community with Agents, Assets & Operatives. LOST.
Complicit, Criminal Loyal CIA, FBI, DOJ. LOST.
Supreme Court. LOST.
No doubt, the censorship & Gas Lighting would have been turned on fully.
And, with it Tyrannical Lawlessness.
mc888 ,
How about the "Free Press"? Exposed as nothing but a corrupt propganda outlet for the
DS.
"Free Independent Journalism" LOST.
All these MSM propaganda outlets need their FCC licenses revoked for broadcasting false
information and hoaxes.
Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. The War of
theWorlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology seri...
If the FBI really would have put its muscle behind it HRC would be president.
Instead Comey was waffling, re-opening the email investigation and writing a mealy-mouthed
letter to Congress just before the election.
It's pretty funny to watch the Tyler Kremlin boys try to contort this into a Deep State
conspiracy to prevent Trump and get HRC elected. If so this would have been the most inept
conspiracy ever.
debtserf ,
News Flash: It was (inept).
How else are we finding all this out?
"Trump won therefore there cannot have been a conspiracy" is not a cogent argument.
Paralentor ,
We all knew it. What the Soros owned Social Media and Rothschild AP/Reuters owned
mainstream choose to tell the sleeping public is an entirely different story.
justyouwait ,
So if we didn't live in a banana republic these guys would all be in prison or at least
going through some court proceedings for what they did. Not here though. No sir, we live in a
full blown, first world banana republic where the power elite are truly far better off than
the peons that pay their way but we offer enough distractions on so many levels that most of
the peons don't realize they are being played and many that do throw up their hands and say
ho hum, I have nothing to worry about (as long as they can have their entertainment &
distractions).
The whole FBI has to be tore down and redone from the ground up. Sure the Deep State would
want total control of the national and most powerful police force. This is how you control
government and the peons. It has shown itself to be beyond corrupt. Yes there may be many
good ones still out there but how do we know anymore? Wipe it out and start again. Yes, I
know it won't happen because it is far too huge a labyrinth to dismantle & reassemble but
the point is still valid. I guess the best we can hope for is to take down some at the top
and then make them squeal on the others. Won't happen until we reform the DOJ first
though.
DRTexas ,
What? Sorry, I wasn't listening. I was thinking about the bread, circuses, and the bit of
meat and cake they are allowing me to have.
Mercuryquicksilver ,
Cults have "Sisters".
Chupacabra-322 ,
Mocking Bird, Presstitute, Deep State "Sister" appendages.
chubbar ,
No question these folks are committing treason/sedition and it goes directly to Obama,
that fucking traitor. God, I hope these fuckers swing!
Itdoesntmatter ,
fuck you people are fucking stupid....The people writing this shit are laughing at you
idiot sheeple...
Totin ,
Riiiiiight. You are a dumb phuck if you don't think this kind of news makes a huge
difference.
1970SSNova396 ,
I will have to wait until Strzok's Jew lawyer tells us the real deal. They don't lie for
sure. There is a golden calf joke in there somewhere.
Hadenough1000 ,
Comey will be in jail when this is over
1970SSNova396 ,
That can't happen! The entire US government will be jail if that were to happen including
half the house and 80% of the senate past and present.
NMmom ,
I have no problem with that. Do you?
fulliautomatix ,
They ought to be happy they're only going to jail.
Stan522 ,
Comey was following orders....
A fish stinks starting at the head
No one at the top ever pays the price, they usually find an underling to take the fall, so
don't expect jail time for obama.....
1970SSNova396 ,
Hillary wasn't joking when she said " we all will hang from nooses if the fuking bastard
wins"
To be continued.
Hadenough1000 ,
This is why anyone paying attention KNOWS that this makes watergate look like a
kindergarten party
ISIS Barry weaponized the hell out of our government
just like they do in third world dumps where that Muslim pig was raised
all the felons this time are obamas boys
MedTechEntrepreneur ,
I want these two Yay-hoo's Waterboarded and Propofal'ed tonight! Live streamed nationwide.
I want the truth...all of it!
peippe ,
to learn what? that these lovers loved hillary & thought they were doing 'god's
work'?
please, it's like listening to francis the leader of the catholic church these days.
Gitmo for all of them.
Kosher meals till they quit lying.
All the other detainees get Egg McMuffins.
SHADEWELL ,
Gums and Butter
Page and the balding weirdo dickhead...match made in hell
Strzok has to be the most fucked up individual I have ever seen...a 50 yr old that acts
like an effeminate weirdo
Fucking scary that a weirdo like that can obtain a position that high in
"intelligence"
Truly fucked up...must have been servicing folks like Brennan
topshelfstuff ,
Sure Previously Known, But Not Previously Believed To Be
r0mulus ,
Operation Mockingbird lives on, just as we, the "conspiracy theorists" said.
And look who was wrong about reality in the end:
The ones pretending nothing was/is wrong, and that we were/are crazy.
Well who's crazy now motherfuckers?
Looks like it's you lot over there, desperately clinging to your MSM/DNC/GOP idols, asking
for FB/Twitter/Google to ban everything too inconvenient for your "reality".
Face the truth for once: the collusion is and has always been between the
MSM/DNC/GOP/Alphabet Agencies and the DEEP STATE. And you perpetuate the oppression by being
party to it.
JoeTurner ,
I sometimes lose sleep wondering how horrific things would be if the Clinton Crime Cabal
was in power. All over the TV in New York demorats are running insane political ads for
Cuomo, Nixon, Teachout and all the rest of the wild eyed communist wack jobs. Not one of them
has any proposals to govern better or improve the life of the middle class. Its all about
aggrieved minorities sticking it to whitey for 'mo gimmies'
Hadenough1000 ,
If that fat drunk and her raping Pig hubby had won then
MS13 Killers would be in the streets with their amnesty papers and new welfare checks and
voter Registration
weinstein would be in the cabinet
Rapist clinton and ISIS Barry would be on the Supreme Court
we would be losing 200,000 jobs a week again like with Barry
thank God for Trump
Prosource ,
And Mike Rogers.
And Bill Binney.
And Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan.
1970SSNova396 ,
New York is a shithole country ...a lost cause....JewVille
Zappalives ,
nyc is a parasite on the real America and must be destroyed.
Prosource ,
Babylon will fall..
Count on it..
Just hope we can survive the tumor removal.
Yippie21 ,
And to sell the Russia-crap, the Obama administration purposely kicked diplomats out of
the country and laid on sanctions in December. I'm curious enough to wonder how much of the
White-helmet gas attacks in Syria ( that Trump reacted to ) were indirectly done to further
the anti-Russia narrative by Obama folks.... After all, the whole Syria mess has his
fingerprints all over it.
surf@jm ,
Big wow......
Clear and convincing evidence of a crime, obviously isn't a crime in Washington D.C.,
unless, of course, you are a conservative.....
fulliautomatix ,
little wow - Strzok deliberately documented the crimes on his and Page's phones.
thetruthhurts ,
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term
"sisters."
_______________________________
CIA, NSA etc.
attah-boy-Luther ,
16 more 'sisters eh?
yipper....pedos love like a set of arkansas cousins as well...lol.
PrivetHedge ,
I see what they are afraid of now.
The 'russiagate' stuff is now starting to reveal the very structure and organisation of
the Deep State: once only suspected by the sheep, now it's coming into plain sight for all to
see to the horror of all the pharisee jew vampires who are now seeing the first signs of
dawn.
valerie24 ,
God, I hope you're right.
insanelysane ,
Still want to see the communication between the lovers at the time Seth Rich was
murdered.
So...under the ruse of consolidating agencies under Homeland Security to effectively
coordinate against terrorism, they now are organized to effectively coordinate a battle
against anyone of their choosing.
i think we've been had.
consider me gone ,
It was only a matter of time. Thing is, is that it took almost no time at all. Go figure.
So much for that Constitution thingy. What did Franklin say again, when he left the
Constitution Convention?
Chupacabra-322 ,
The Deep State collects blackmail data on all Democratic & Republican members that are
in positions of power. That is how they are able to keep secrets and control politicians.
The entire Surveillance Infrastructure Is & was being used for one thing. .. To build
blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion Tool.
.. NOTHING legal about it.
The Awan Case is the biggest Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Political
Espionage Operation of our lifetime.
And, the Awans were let off the Hook. That alone is telling of how far down the Tyrannical
Lawless Espionage rabbit hole it is.
Idiocracy's Not Sure ,
FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known ..Never Underestimate The
Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups.....NUTPOSPILG
valerie24 ,
Agree, but will the real culprits be convicted? I'm talking about the dual citizens that
have kept us in endless wars in the Middle East, some of whom have active roles in the White
House.
No doubt Rosenstein, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Ohr, Strozk, Page, etc. Should be in jail.
Hell, Sessions should probably be in jail just for failing to act.
What about the rest? The 9/11 conspirators - Silverstein, Bush, Cheney, the CIA and
Mossad, the dancing fucking Israeli's?
What a shit show
conraddobler ,
It's all just a show, even Q says constantly to "Enjoy the show"
I haven't liked this show for about 10 plus years and it wasn't that good before and on
top of all that, the illusion to which I have awoken from about that time seems to have
shattered any illusions that were concurrent to it.
In reality, our country was taken from us at least 100 years ago "if not much more, and if
we ever really had one" and if anyone thinks that they will ever "give it back" then you are
in fact suffering from a severe reality gap.
There are no "good guys" when they want to put the ring on to save us all they still
unfortunately will have to put the damn ring on to do it.
No one is advocating what actually needs to be done, namely finding a band of hobbits to
toss it into the fire from whence it came.
Just because some honorable people want to stop dishonorable people from doing
dishonorable things does not mean when they are elevated to such positions of power that they
won't turn themselves, they always do.
Until the MIC collapses we will forever be slaves to someone, doesn't matter who, bankers
or the military, either way we will not be free.
Restoring the rule of law would mean public trials, not military tribunals, a fact which
people aren't discussing at all.
The way they caught these people was the spying on everyone. The very power that most
threatens our liberties will restore our liberties?
What are the odds of that?
I'm not blind, the world is a dangerous place, maybe liberty is just too tough or
impossible to exercise in the modern world?
Clearly we were nearing a horrible fate and I am grateful for being saved form something
worse even if it only flips us out of one pan to the next the other pan was intolerably
hot.
What I most want to point out above all else is that human freedom is exceedingly fragile
and tough to win, it should be guarded much more closely and absolute power will always
corrupt so anything we do to navigate as a nation needs to adhere to the constitution as
closely as possible.
I don't like being told there have to be secrets, I don't like military tribunals, I'm not
saying that we don't need a military.
We need a military and we need it badly and we need to get out money's worth out of
it.
I can only ask that instead of a show, give me the real damn thing, I want, along with
millions upon millions of other Americans, REAL DAMN LIBERTY!
asscannon101 ,
That first pic in the article- the one of Strzok- that is a 'peyote face'. The crazy eyes
and the grotesque, exaggerated facial grimacing. Mescaline will do that to you. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. Just lucky that he didn't spaz out, shit in his pants, flop
around on the floor squawking like a seagull and start chewing his own lips off. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. A lot of books. Over and over again. A lot of fucking
books.
troutback ,
Get a Fucking Rope and an Oak Tree. That's how I feel. It's fucking Treason!
Sheesh
tb
bobdog54 ,
The swamp aka the deep state is not only not a conspiracy theory but a real seditionous
conspiracy against our Constitutional Laws and Way of Life. And much much deeper than most
can imagine.
Automatic Choke ,
why are they not incarcerated?
this shit is an affront to all of us who follow the laws, respect election results, pay
taxes, and try to be good citizens.
PUT THEM AWAY!!!!!
navy62802 ,
So we already know that these people committed sedition against the government based on
the known evidence. One more tape doesn't prove the crime any more than the other evidence.
All this does is drive home the fact that there were additional conspirators who protected
these criminals from justice. It's fucking sickening.
Call me when someone in the government gets the balls to finally charge these criminals
with the crimes they have obviously committed. Until then, new evidence is moot.
bobdog54 ,
Wish I could give you 100 up arrows!
All Risk No Reward ,
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being
oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
― Malcolm X
The above is true, but only tangentially related to this topic in that it expresses the
media LIES.
The TRUTH is that the BankstObama FBI worked overtime to get BankstoTrump "elected" as one
of the Bankster financed "selections." Banksters "select" based on money and promotion, then
you "vote" on their selection in an "election."
Let freeDUMB rain!
Here's how it worked...
1. Mid 2016, FBI became aware of Hellary's criminal activity.
2. Mid 2016, Comey sent memo stating Hellary would not be prosecuted. He did not say this
is because she's a Money Power Sith Lord front woman who has a KMA card. Nick Rockefeller
explained this to Aaron Russo, as told by Aaron himself when he was interviewed by Alex
Jones. Oh, and Rockefeller told him the details of the post 9/11 Afghanistan invasion in
advance, too. The interview is worth watching.
3. October, 2016, Comey announced an investigation into Hellary's criminal behavior. Uh,
it was already determined she wouldn't be prosecuted, right? Yup. So why publicly imply she
could be charged and convicted IF NOT TO AID AND ABET DONALD "HE'S WORTH MORE TO US
(BANKSTERS) ALIVE THAN DEAD" TRUMP INTO THE WHITE HOUSE?
By the way, that's an accurate and real quote from an attorney that represents something
like 50+ banks against Trump. He said it to describe why the Banksters didn't force Donald
into bankruptcy and take all his stuff. Donald OWES the Banksters FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS TODAY
THAT IS NOT POVERTY!
This is called an October Surprise, and they are rarely good.
4. After the elections, Comey announces that Hellary committed the crimes, was caught red
handed, but wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to commit the crime. Try that at
your next court date for running a stop sign you didn't see, serfer boys and girls.
5. Propaganda depicting Comey and Trump as enemies ensued immediately, lest the mindless
rabble formulate the most obvious question in their wittle minds...
"Why did the Obama FBI create a phony October Surprise to hurt Hellary and promote
Trump's election as President?"
That's not in the Money Power Matrix programming!
The reason is that the Banksters wanted Trump in office, because their debt-based money
system bubble (largest in human history) is set to implode AND THERE IS NO PERSON ON PLANET
EARTH THAT IS MORE CAPABLE OF MAGNETICALLY TAKING ALL THE BLAME ONTO HIMSELF THAN DONALD J.
TRUMP.
Nobody.
The name of the game is to shield the Banksters and their debt-money system from criticism
as the fraudulent ROOT CAUSE of the debt-money bubble bust cycles that asset strips entire
societies and leads to systematic global oppression of all ordinary people. At least for
those not directly or indirectly murdered by the Bankster anti-ordinary human agendas.
And, being promoted as an outsider, the Banksters get to save their two controlled
privately incorporated "politically parties in the minds of Muppets" from taking full blame,
therefore, all the Muppets will continue to think they have freedom because they get to
"vote" for Bankster quisling #1 or Bankster quisling #2.
Let freeDUMB rain!
PS - The Banksters don't even care that I spill the beans on their plans because they know
the masses, even the ZeroHedge masses, simply lack the imagination to envision the reality
they Banksters have financed into existence.
alfbell ,
Wake me up once the handing out of prison sentences starts. If they never do, I don't want
to wake up.
WarAndPeace ,
Only a politician would not recognize that they are criminals.... ah apply that whichever
way you want.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Captain Nemo de Erehwon ,
Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. It is what prevents people from doing real
damage. It is the sole hope for the world.
It was not hard-nosed intelligence and legal professionals running a secretive op to
overturn the election. If it were there would not be this trail of text messages describing
each step in detail. The amateurish execution, given all the assets at their disposal
including Australian Ambassadors, mysterious European Professors, and other premiere
intelligence agencies, even perhaps other US government agencies is like spoilt rich kids
ruining their parents' ...hmm is that offensive nowadays? ...legal guardians' ...!@$# it ...
father's company.
All Risk No Reward ,
>>Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. <<
You don't comprehend the milieu.
The agendas include, but are not limited to:
1. Produce more debt - private, corporate, and governmental. Incompetence? On what planet?
They are AMAZING!
2. Prevent the plebs from realizing #1. Again, they have you duped - and you aren't
alone.
3. Pretend inferiority, so that concerted malevolent intent is not discerned. Art of War
101.
The are doing a stellar job at their true agendas.
Dare I say, so good that I can't exclude supernatural guidance.
Muddy1 ,
Why show the attractive pictures of Lisa Page? I liked the ones where she looked like the
dimwit she is.
Pons Asinorum ,
She's more attractive with her mouth shut.
Yog Soggoth ,
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or
any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11,
it's all about cooperation and sharing. " Witches perhaps? Cotton Mather was right!
fulliautomatix ,
There's another William - "it's all about cooperation and sharing." Oh, and telling the
truth.
Remington Steel ,
Treasonous fucks. They should all hang in D.C.'s National Mall.
SnatchnGrab ,
Hang them in the public square so that we may spit on them.
I am Groot ,
They should be staked down to the ground out in the desert, covered in honey and have ants
poured all over them.
SaulAzzHoleSky ,
Strzok's lawyer will say that this refers to problems with his Depends, not the
media.....
WTFUD ,
Down down deeper and down - that's pretty deep.
There's very little deep about the F-uk-us Political Establishment; empty suits,
treasonous filth, cowardly, and yet, wholeheartedly believe they are principled.
S.H.O.C.K.I.N.G
motoXdude ,
Just like enlightened, educated Liberals... those working in these agencies (and most
likely the agencies themselves) are above the law and here to govern the great unwashed and
deplorables! This IS THE DEEP STATE aka THE SWAMP! Time to drain it or drop a high tension
power line in it!
Anunnaki ,
Leaking must not be a crime for Keebler Sessions
Mzhen ,
Wasn't it fortunate that Seth Rich was involved in transporting DNC data to WikiLeaks?
Without the "hacking" link in the chain, the rest of the plan could not have been set into
motion. Characterized as an ardent Bernie supporter, Seth Rich was actually scheduled to go
to work at Hillary's campaign headquarters a few weeks after the date of his murder.
WTFUD ,
The Classic Clinton Foundation ENTRAPMENT.
The job offer being a ruse just in case they didn't get him 1st Time.
SirBarksAlot ,
According to this news clip, there are secret military tribunals going on and John McCain
was executed for his treason.
His 3 remaining brain-cells were targeted with magnetic pulses like the one's going down
at the US Embassy in CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBA.
HominyTwin ,
That's right! Powerful people are taking care of everything, and making sure all will be
right with the USA once again, in the very near future, without effort or sacrifice or
thinking on our part. That is wonderful news!!!!
south40_dreams ,
Build the gallows.
missionshk ,
my understanding is that there were 14 people from various agencies, in a chat room all
committing treason, but dont here about that any more
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the coup is winning.
Prosource ,
Not sure the coup is winning, but it's been almost 2 years and we are only this far in
investigations and prosecutions ???
fulliautomatix ,
Trying to keep some of the legal community alive.
Dickweed Wang ,
Does Lisa Page have tits or are those mutant mosquito bites?
NewHugh ,
In my limited experience flat girls figure out a way to "compensate"...
I am Groot ,
Have you seen her smile ? She's all gums. I'll bet Stzrok loves when the vet takes her
teeth out to clean them and she blows him.
GUMMY ! GUMMY ! GUMMY !
SirBarksAlot ,
It hasn't been determined if she has tits or not.
However, she certainly has balls.
cosmyccowboy ,
she needs the crocodille dundee test... the dept of injustice is trannies on parade!
Collectivism Killz ,
Just in case Qanon is wrong about Keebler Elf Sessions, can someone at least gently remind
him that failure to prosecute will give creeps like Joe Biden a second shot at his
Granddaughters? Not sure if he cares, but I would think an old hound dog such as Sessions
would at least consider his final legacy on earth. All that Fried Chicken and chitlins have
to catch up with him at some point.
Yog Soggoth ,
Everyone up on the Hill feels the fire burning below their feet, those who succumb will
embrace the everlasting heat. Where is Billy? Can you clean this up for me?
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
lookslikecraptome ,
Just put up the link to fox news that ran this story. Talk about a cut and paste.
"As Communists, we work in the elections not just for a candidate but strategically to
build and strengthen the movement and our Party for the long term. The situation varies
greatly from one state and election district to the next so tactics have to be developed
locally. The more we share our concrete experiences, the more we can learn and get ideas from
each other. Here are thoughts for consideration:
1. Where to concentrate?
Clubs: the neighborhood or election district where the club is located;
Districts: election districts that can be flipped; election districts where
working-class champions who are incumbents are under attack; election districts with a
progressive primary candidate.
2. What goals?
• build a voter base to change the political balance of forces;
• strengthen relationships with unions, left/progressive electoral forms like Our
Revolution (OR) and Working Famlies Party (WFP), etc;
• raise the level of class consciousness, unity and solidarity;
• enlarge the CPUSA diverse working-class membership and readership of People's
World;
• identify among our members potential candidates for local office.
3. What methods?
Voter registration: laws differ from state to state. Where there is postcard
registration, door-to-door work with voter cards and issue petitions and sign-ups are a great
way to identify people who want to become engaged and who we can follow up with to vote and
get involved. Tabling with voter cards, issue petitions, People's World and literature is
another way, but harder to follow up with people in scattered geography. Increasing voter
turnout in working-class communities can win elections and create the base for organizing to
win a people's program. It is a direct challenge to the corporate right-wing that depends on
depressing and suppressing the vote.
Participate with allies: Unions, progressive community groups and left/progressive
electoral forms are the best way to participate in campaigns and build the movement for the
long term. Organizations vary from place to place. Labor 2018 is the AFL-CIO program and
anyone can take part in phone banks and visits to the homes of union members. Each union also
has its own election program that union members should prioritize. Local issue coalitions or
ballot initiatives are also important venues, for example Jobs with Justice, Planned
Parenthood, Fight for 15, the Poor People's Campaign, Millions of Jobs etc. Left and
progressive electoral organizations that have endorsed candidates with strong programs are a
strategic way to participate such as Our Revolution, Working Families Party, Indivisible,
etc. If you are just getting started this is a great way to reach out.
Chupacabra-322 ,
They really thought Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton
would win.
And, with it. Complete destruction of Conservatism, Libertarian Values, &
Ideology.
Her Crimes would have never been uncovered or bought out into the open as we're
witnessing.
Much was at stake. Everything was lost.
The Presidency LOST.
Weaponized Intelligence Community with Agents, Assets & Operatives. LOST.
Complicit, Criminal Loyal CIA, FBI, DOJ. LOST.
Supreme Court. LOST.
No doubt, the censorship & Gas Lighting would have been turned on fully.
And, with it Tyrannical Lawlessness.
mc888 ,
How about the "Free Press"? Exposed as nothing but a corrupt propganda outlet for the
DS.
"Free Independent Journalism" LOST.
All these MSM propaganda outlets need their FCC licenses revoked for broadcasting false
information and hoaxes.
Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. The War of
theWorlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology seri...
If the FBI really would have put its muscle behind it HRC would be president.
Instead Comey was waffling, re-opening the email investigation and writing a mealy-mouthed
letter to Congress just before the election.
It's pretty funny to watch the Tyler Kremlin boys try to contort this into a Deep State
conspiracy to prevent Trump and get HRC elected. If so this would have been the most inept
conspiracy ever.
debtserf ,
News Flash: It was (inept).
How else are we finding all this out?
"Trump won therefore there cannot have been a conspiracy" is not a cogent argument.
Paralentor ,
We all knew it. What the Soros owned Social Media and Rothschild AP/Reuters owned
mainstream choose to tell the sleeping public is an entirely different story.
justyouwait ,
So if we didn't live in a banana republic these guys would all be in prison or at least
going through some court proceedings for what they did. Not here though. No sir, we live in a
full blown, first world banana republic where the power elite are truly far better off than
the peons that pay their way but we offer enough distractions on so many levels that most of
the peons don't realize they are being played and many that do throw up their hands and say
ho hum, I have nothing to worry about (as long as they can have their entertainment &
distractions).
The whole FBI has to be tore down and redone from the ground up. Sure the Deep State would
want total control of the national and most powerful police force. This is how you control
government and the peons. It has shown itself to be beyond corrupt. Yes there may be many
good ones still out there but how do we know anymore? Wipe it out and start again. Yes, I
know it won't happen because it is far too huge a labyrinth to dismantle & reassemble but
the point is still valid. I guess the best we can hope for is to take down some at the top
and then make them squeal on the others. Won't happen until we reform the DOJ first
though.
DRTexas ,
What? Sorry, I wasn't listening. I was thinking about the bread, circuses, and the bit of
meat and cake they are allowing me to have.
Mercuryquicksilver ,
Cults have "Sisters".
Chupacabra-322 ,
Mocking Bird, Presstitute, Deep State "Sister" appendages.
chubbar ,
No question these folks are committing treason/sedition and it goes directly to Obama,
that fucking traitor. God, I hope these fuckers swing!
Itdoesntmatter ,
fuck you people are fucking stupid....The people writing this shit are laughing at you
idiot sheeple...
Totin ,
Riiiiiight. You are a dumb phuck if you don't think this kind of news makes a huge
difference.
1970SSNova396 ,
I will have to wait until Strzok's Jew lawyer tells us the real deal. They don't lie for
sure. There is a golden calf joke in there somewhere.
Hadenough1000 ,
Comey will be in jail when this is over
1970SSNova396 ,
That can't happen! The entire US government will be jail if that were to happen including
half the house and 80% of the senate past and present.
NMmom ,
I have no problem with that. Do you?
fulliautomatix ,
They ought to be happy they're only going to jail.
Stan522 ,
Comey was following orders....
A fish stinks starting at the head
No one at the top ever pays the price, they usually find an underling to take the fall, so
don't expect jail time for obama.....
1970SSNova396 ,
Hillary wasn't joking when she said " we all will hang from nooses if the fuking bastard
wins"
To be continued.
Hadenough1000 ,
This is why anyone paying attention KNOWS that this makes watergate look like a
kindergarten party
ISIS Barry weaponized the hell out of our government
just like they do in third world dumps where that Muslim pig was raised
all the felons this time are obamas boys
MedTechEntrepreneur ,
I want these two Yay-hoo's Waterboarded and Propofal'ed tonight! Live streamed nationwide.
I want the truth...all of it!
peippe ,
to learn what? that these lovers loved hillary & thought they were doing 'god's
work'?
please, it's like listening to francis the leader of the catholic church these days.
Gitmo for all of them.
Kosher meals till they quit lying.
All the other detainees get Egg McMuffins.
SHADEWELL ,
Gums and Butter
Page and the balding weirdo dickhead...match made in hell
Strzok has to be the most fucked up individual I have ever seen...a 50 yr old that acts
like an effeminate weirdo
Fucking scary that a weirdo like that can obtain a position that high in
"intelligence"
Truly fucked up...must have been servicing folks like Brennan
topshelfstuff ,
Sure Previously Known, But Not Previously Believed To Be
r0mulus ,
Operation Mockingbird lives on, just as we, the "conspiracy theorists" said.
And look who was wrong about reality in the end:
The ones pretending nothing was/is wrong, and that we were/are crazy.
Well who's crazy now motherfuckers?
Looks like it's you lot over there, desperately clinging to your MSM/DNC/GOP idols, asking
for FB/Twitter/Google to ban everything too inconvenient for your "reality".
Face the truth for once: the collusion is and has always been between the
MSM/DNC/GOP/Alphabet Agencies and the DEEP STATE. And you perpetuate the oppression by being
party to it.
JoeTurner ,
I sometimes lose sleep wondering how horrific things would be if the Clinton Crime Cabal
was in power. All over the TV in New York demorats are running insane political ads for
Cuomo, Nixon, Teachout and all the rest of the wild eyed communist wack jobs. Not one of them
has any proposals to govern better or improve the life of the middle class. Its all about
aggrieved minorities sticking it to whitey for 'mo gimmies'
Hadenough1000 ,
If that fat drunk and her raping Pig hubby had won then
MS13 Killers would be in the streets with their amnesty papers and new welfare checks and
voter Registration
weinstein would be in the cabinet
Rapist clinton and ISIS Barry would be on the Supreme Court
we would be losing 200,000 jobs a week again like with Barry
thank God for Trump
Prosource ,
And Mike Rogers.
And Bill Binney.
And Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan.
1970SSNova396 ,
New York is a shithole country ...a lost cause....JewVille
Zappalives ,
nyc is a parasite on the real America and must be destroyed.
Prosource ,
Babylon will fall..
Count on it..
Just hope we can survive the tumor removal.
Yippie21 ,
And to sell the Russia-crap, the Obama administration purposely kicked diplomats out of
the country and laid on sanctions in December. I'm curious enough to wonder how much of the
White-helmet gas attacks in Syria ( that Trump reacted to ) were indirectly done to further
the anti-Russia narrative by Obama folks.... After all, the whole Syria mess has his
fingerprints all over it.
surf@jm ,
Big wow......
Clear and convincing evidence of a crime, obviously isn't a crime in Washington D.C.,
unless, of course, you are a conservative.....
fulliautomatix ,
little wow - Strzok deliberately documented the crimes on his and Page's phones.
thetruthhurts ,
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term
"sisters."
_______________________________
CIA, NSA etc.
attah-boy-Luther ,
16 more 'sisters eh?
yipper....pedos love like a set of arkansas cousins as well...lol.
PrivetHedge ,
I see what they are afraid of now.
The 'russiagate' stuff is now starting to reveal the very structure and organisation of
the Deep State: once only suspected by the sheep, now it's coming into plain sight for all to
see to the horror of all the pharisee jew vampires who are now seeing the first signs of
dawn.
valerie24 ,
God, I hope you're right.
insanelysane ,
Still want to see the communication between the lovers at the time Seth Rich was
murdered.
So...under the ruse of consolidating agencies under Homeland Security to effectively
coordinate against terrorism, they now are organized to effectively coordinate a battle
against anyone of their choosing.
i think we've been had.
consider me gone ,
It was only a matter of time. Thing is, is that it took almost no time at all. Go figure.
So much for that Constitution thingy. What did Franklin say again, when he left the
Constitution Convention?
Chupacabra-322 ,
The Deep State collects blackmail data on all Democratic & Republican members that are
in positions of power. That is how they are able to keep secrets and control politicians.
The entire Surveillance Infrastructure Is & was being used for one thing. .. To build
blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion Tool.
.. NOTHING legal about it.
The Awan Case is the biggest Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Political
Espionage Operation of our lifetime.
And, the Awans were let off the Hook. That alone is telling of how far down the Tyrannical
Lawless Espionage rabbit hole it is.
Idiocracy's Not Sure ,
FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known ..Never Underestimate The
Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups.....NUTPOSPILG
let freedom ring ,
Trump is fucking nuts get over it!
Westcoastliberal ,
Go back to the Huffington Post. It's where idiots like you belong.
MsCreant ,
Nuts or not does not make this right.
You're putting too much "dumb" in your free-dumb.
valerie24 ,
The entire US population should be nuts over it and at the ready with their pitchforks.
This shit has gone on way too long and thankfully Trump's election has exposed these deep
state scumbags.
r0mulus ,
If you don't make an argument supported by facts, you lose by default. Loser.
Got The Wrong No ,
let freedom ring. That's funny coming from a 1 month Media Matters Commie.
Trump is nuts.....the new war cry of the failed Demrat losers. Everything from Russiagate
to Stormy has failed. Let's try the 25 Amendment. You and your masters are a fucking
joke.
debtserf ,
There's an orange nutter living rent-free in your head. Maybe you need to get over it son.
He won. Nearly 2 years ago now. You really need to let it go.
Breathe....and relax.
Snout the First ,
Isn't there more than enough evidence disclosed already to have a dozen or two of them
behind bars for life? What the fuck is Trump waiting for?
GaryLeeT ,
I think he's waiting so he can deliver an October surprise with a massive
declassification.
Yippie21 ,
That and he may want to wait to get Kavanaugh seated on the court. Trump is a long-game
thinker so, might at well get a judge first, and then start kicking ant hills.
navy62802 ,
It might take a while, but I think the full truth will eventually emerge. What has been
done here is a betrayal of the United States by career bureaucrats. It appears to be a
campaign of sedition.
Westcoastliberal ,
Coup de 'tat is what it is. Double whammy: Treason AND Sedition!
valerie24 ,
Agree, but will the real culprits be convicted? I'm talking about the dual citizens that
have kept us in endless wars in the Middle East, some of whom have active roles in the White
House.
No doubt Rosenstein, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Ohr, Strozk, Page, etc. Should be in jail.
Hell, Sessions should probably be in jail just for failing to act.
What about the rest? The 9/11 conspirators - Silverstein, Bush, Cheney, the CIA and
Mossad, the dancing fucking Israeli's?
What a shit show
debtserf ,
Hasn't it already emerged enough? You couldn't make this shit up. Even LeCarre would be
hard pushed to concoct such a labyrinthine plot as this. And no doubt there's much much more,
much deeper sub-plots, but you get the gist.
conraddobler ,
It's all just a show, even Q says constantly to "Enjoy the show"
I haven't liked this show for about 10 plus years and it wasn't that good before and on
top of all that, the illusion to which I have awoken from about that time seems to have
shattered any illusions that were concurrent to it.
In reality, our country was taken from us at least 100 years ago "if not much more, and if
we ever really had one" and if anyone thinks that they will ever "give it back" then you are
in fact suffering from a severe reality gap.
There are no "good guys" when they want to put the ring on to save us all they still
unfortunately will have to put the damn ring on to do it.
No one is advocating what actually needs to be done, namely finding a band of hobbits to
toss it into the fire from whence it came.
Just because some honorable people want to stop dishonorable people from doing
dishonorable things does not mean when they are elevated to such positions of power that they
won't turn themselves, they always do.
Until the MIC collapses we will forever be slaves to someone, doesn't matter who, bankers
or the military, either way we will not be free.
Restoring the rule of law would mean public trials, not military tribunals, a fact which
people aren't discussing at all.
The way they caught these people was the spying on everyone. The very power that most
threatens our liberties will restore our liberties?
What are the odds of that?
I'm not blind, the world is a dangerous place, maybe liberty is just too tough or
impossible to exercise in the modern world?
Clearly we were nearing a horrible fate and I am grateful for being saved form something
worse even if it only flips us out of one pan to the next the other pan was intolerably
hot.
What I most want to point out above all else is that human freedom is exceedingly fragile
and tough to win, it should be guarded much more closely and absolute power will always
corrupt so anything we do to navigate as a nation needs to adhere to the constitution as
closely as possible.
I don't like being told there have to be secrets, I don't like military tribunals, I'm not
saying that we don't need a military.
We need a military and we need it badly and we need to get out money's worth out of
it.
I can only ask that instead of a show, give me the real damn thing, I want, along with
millions upon millions of other Americans, REAL DAMN LIBERTY!
valerie24 ,
Excellent post!!
fulliautomatix ,
faded a bit toward the end, nice one.
Freedom is a property that can be taken from you? How do you come by this "freedom"?
RubberJohnny ,
Why are these people still on the OUTSIDE?
WHY!!!!!
Rubicon727 ,
"Why are these people still on the OUTSIDE?
WHY!!!!!"
Why? Because the greedy corporations, banks, and the entire financial system has corrupted
every federal/regional and local institutions from the US Senate/The Military Complex all the
way down to the local politician.
It only stands to reason the US would come to this. With millions of zombified American
citizens, and the bought off media - they are all participants watching this nation DIE!
I Am Jack's Macroaggression ,
#RUSSIAHOAX
Hey, Stockman outlined this well over a year ago. It would be great to see an updated
article:
Brennan used the Ukrainians to launder the dossier to Steele.
Oldwood ,
The "deep state" is anyone who attempts to direct our government in contradiction to the
constitution or the will of the people as represented by democratic process. They have been
shoving this notion of the sanctity of "democracy" while willingly subverting it in every
case that its result contradict THEIR AGENDA. It knows no party or specific affiliation
beyond its own self interests.
Trump, as the outsider, is forced to work in league with many of these people as "they"
will not allow anything else. People openly opposed to them are destroyed by their media and
courts, and as such, Trump's roster of potential team is severely limited. The ONLY means of
putting people devoted to the destruction of deep state is through elections, as all others
(and even then) will be run through the gauntlet.
We can Trash Trump all we please, but find me another, ANYONE who will stand in his place,
someone who will gain enough support to win an election against otherwise insurmountable
odds, and will then stand and face them and take their withering unending attacks. We hear
the complaints of his tweets, when in consideration of what he faces hourly, seems tiny in
response....while knowing he is attacked for that in full knowledge that doing anything more
would bring about more investigation, legal action and the inevitable impeachment.
Trump is the impossible man, the one who is willing to do what no other will, and ALL
constitutional, within the law. Accusations of tyranny when he has done nothing extraordinary
other than to simply act within his constitutional powers to advance his stated agenda.
We can dislike what he does and how he does it but no rational person can suggest he is
doing it illegally or immorally (beyond the standards that progressives have established
themselves).
fulliautomatix ,
Hey Oldwood - I've enjoyed your posts for a while now.
I'd argue that the deep state is more usefully defined as that part of the governing body
that exercises sovereign rights with regard to exemption to consequences at law. It is
probably worth noting that these sovereign rights evolved from a claimed divine right as the
divine was based in Rome (for the model of "the democratic west") and the claim was no longer
useful. Where others are more than willing to employ murderous tactics such a recognised body
is a pragmatic tool - but one to be used by the state as a whole. No consequences at law does
not mean no consequences at all - and it does not mean that the people who have employed
murderous tactics in order to benefit themselves are immune to reaction to their behaviours.
Arguing that you are immune to consequences at law, at the same time as seeking the
protection of the law, is no argument.
brushhog ,
Does anyone believe that these two were acting on their own? You think they masterminded
the whole conspiracy? They were two low-level foot soldiers in a much deeper conspiracy...the
real questions that need to be addressed is who were the generals? Whose orders were they
operating under?
107cicero ,
Hillary's, Obama, Soros', Rice's, Brennans' and Comey's.
But I think that Crooked Hillary double crossed Comey in the last two weeks, reneging on a
post presidential promise I would guess, and Comey 'restarted' the investigation which deep
sixed her presidential hopes.
Thieves and whores fight among each other just as hard......
brushhog ,
Forgot Clapper.
FreedomWriter ,
That's why waterboarding is still legal and Trump is OK with it.
AsEasyAsPi ,
The only evidence of "Collusion" exists with Hillary, the DNC, Fusion GPS and the
Obamite-Leftovers in the DOJ/FBI.
beenlauding ,
Stories about How Corrupt Us government is: 6million
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head
of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli
and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback
means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny,
nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs
Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power
in 1990s on.
Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history.
Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation.
Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power
in 1990s on.
https://youtu.be/SdJiJ53TexI
Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history.
Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation. "Their war-mongering
is a way of compensation.."
"In an editorial Friday, the [Washngton] Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad's ruthless [?] recapture of his country
"pathetically weak." To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be "another damaging
abdication of U.S. leadership."
– Very clear. The WP is heavily zionized. The Al Qaeda (euphemistically called by the WP "compensators" the "rebels in Idlib")
is a great asset for the dreamers about Eretz Israel. The authors of the editorial are cowards of zionist persuasion, who would
never ever stand for the US interests and for such western values as the freedom of information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQbYCY9Cr7o
– Here is the presstituting Martin Baron, Executive Editor at The Washington Post. "Baron was born to a Jewish family. His
parents immigrated from Israel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron
-- And Israel is a place where Martin Baron's heart belongs to. It would be great if his body and his whole family also belong
to the Land of Dancing Israelis, instead of using the resources of the US citizenry in propping the warmongering and supremacist
Jewish State.
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head
of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli
and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback
means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny,
nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent. Cheney stated he had "other things to do" during
the Vietnam War. Bolton stated he had no intention of dying in a war that was already lost. Ironic, given the eagerness with which
both chickenhawks send young Americans to their bloody end in desert wars.
@reiner Tor The issue is that, while most
likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly
how close we are to a nuclear war, because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can
the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which would in turn lead to some US response
and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear
superpowers will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they don't use their nukes in
20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error
is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea. The biggest tragedy here is that the (((people))) in control
of the US/UK/France want a war against Iran/Russia/China. Their speciality is goyim-on-goyim slaughter and the WW3 is actually
necessary for their messianic ambitions. Their plan is to watch it from underground bunkers and rule over whatever is left afterwards.
That's why I said "it's only a matter of time". They will never stop on their own.
"... Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin). ..."
"... Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon. ..."
Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams.
Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right
political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]
Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more
aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and
related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They
further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for
'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action.
[3]
The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The
9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy
choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims
and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in
the basement.'[4]
The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the
rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong
as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they
have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's
remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in
the documentary series, A Very Heavy
Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.
In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor
Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere
in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality
which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .
This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State
researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and
aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome
of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State,
including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly
maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.
Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with
his sister Abby Martin of Media
Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from
Fluorescent Grey (Robbie
Martin).
Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture
practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us
as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in
Eugene, Oregon.
Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018
Global Research: Through the late 20th and early 21st century, the neoconservatives loomed
large in American foreign policy the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the Bush administration.
In 2018, it may seem that their power and influence has waned, but in fact, many of these
neoconservatives still hold influence, and their legacy has had a much larger impact on
politics and society.
In this Global Research News Hour special, we talk with journalist, filmmaker, and musician
Robbie Martin on his 3-part documentary, A Very heavy Agenda. This film series covers the rise
and continued influence of the neoconservatives. In Part 1, Robbie talks about the artistic and
political influence for A Very Heavy Agenda and some of the early history of the war on
terror.
Talking more broadly about the documentary, what was.. sort of the genesis of the idea for A
Very Heavy Agenda? The documentary has a very distinct style and you don't do a lot of
editorializing. So what was the inspiration for all that? And why did you choose the kind of
this topic and the kind of technique that you were using for this documentary film?
Robbie Martin: I think I probably should give a shout out to filmmaker Adam Curtis right off
the top, because I don't give him enough credit when I talk about the inspiration for this
film. As you may know, or if you're not familiar with it but he made a film series called The
Power of Nightmares during the Bush administration that was sort of charting the
neoconservative influence in the Bush administration and before, and how they've sort of
mirrored the Wahhabist, Islamic, you know, fundamentalists and Al Qaeda figures by using what
Adam Curtis described as the Power of Nightmares, that by concocting these nightmare fantasy
scenarios, you could gain power, and people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were
able to do that by spinning these hysterical fear-mongering tales about, oh, what would happen
if a bio-terrorist attack happened? You know what would happen if terrorists attacked the World
Trade Centers?
That was a big inspiration for me during the Bush administration. It sort of helped me
become more politically aware. It made me question a lot of things after 9/11 and having to do
with the Iraq war. But over time, i just became sort of just, oh the neocons, they're the
people who were mainly behind the Iraq war. They're sort of an evil class of foreign policy
makers in DC who really want war at every opportunity. And that's just how I thought of them
throughout the years.
It wasn't until my sister, Abby Martin, and for those listening who aren't aware of this, my
sister actually had a show on the Russian-owned television channel, Russia Today America out of
DC from the years around 2012 to, I think, early 2015.
So she had a show on RT for about three years, and while she was there, I remember having a
conversation with her very early on saying, you know, we have to be ready for when the U . S .
g overnment decides that they're going to get mad at what this channel's doing. because when
she started working there in 2012, it didn't seem like there was any attention whatsoever to
RT, this idea of Russian meddling, this idea of Russian propaganda, no one cared about it.
In fact, U.S. officials at the time marginalized it and even one of my characters in my
film, Victoria Nuland, says it has a very tiny audience. She actually marginalized it during a
Brookings panel in DC. Now, that was the attitude back when my sister first started working
there, but over time, we started seeing early signs of what appeared to be an information war
being waged against the Russian government by shady actors inside the United States.
And that may sound a little bit ironic, considering the way that we see everything through
this lens now of Russian meddling, that everyone in the U.S. would describe RT as a form of
information war now. You know , that's how everybody would describe it now, but back then it
was such a small channel it barely anybody watched it, I mean that was kind of more true what
they were saying back then, U.S. officials marginalizing it that was more of the true
narrative. It was a small channel and had very little influence.
But yet maybe just a year or two into her working there, maybe a year and a half, we really
started to notice something strange happening in the United States where there was all this
focus starting to accumulate towards Putin and Russia and why Russia was so bad. And it started
more subtly, kind of in the background. The Sochi Olympics , however, was sort of when we
noticed -- it was almost like all these coordinated narratives started to really flood out of
U.S. media channels, and all this awareness all of a sudden about the Russian gay law, which as
someone who's very adamantly pro gay rights, I was bothered by it as well, but I mean even at
the time I remember thinking, now this is an odd amount of focus towards the Russian gay law
when yet Saudi Arabia actually executes gays still, and there's hardly any talk about that in
the U.S. media. W hat's actually happening here?
So there was some early signs and sort of like what me just sort of my gut reaction and my
sister's gut reaction to that climate at the time wondering what was going on. And of course,
right after the Sochi O lympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine, it kind of boiled
over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over Euromaidan
– basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a coup which
many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. S tate D
epartment.
And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of control , and from the
period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against
Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before
the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and
frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.
i know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a
long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon
influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that
constructed the blueprints to the I raq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing
this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.
And how it only took . you know . certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we
are. T hey essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall
of communism and the Berlin wa ll and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too
long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made
it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried
to smear her while she was working for RT.
GR: Right yeah
RM: And that's maybe a more literal answer to your question is – that was the key
inspiration for me like, oh, wait these n eocons are still around, they're waging some kind of
cutting edge information war against Russia at the Obama a dministration doesn't seem to care
about, and they're out there trying to ruin my sister. So all those factors combined, sort of
coalesced at once, and I'm like , I have to do something about this because no one else is
talking about this push, what I saw as a propaganda push to try to push us into kind of a
war-footing with Russia. Whether you want to call it World War III or an ideological
confrontation.
GR: Right, yeah, and I mean , some of the more, the details of some of these things we'll
get into. I mean, I don't want to get too far into it, because I want people to to to watch
your.. the documentary, because I think it's so great. And especially I'm 31 so I kind of, the
9/11 thing really shaped myself and my generation in so many ways. But even in watching this,
there's so many things that I forgot about or didn't even know about? You know like we kind of
form these narratives and we don't really think about it or you know who's controlling this
stuff and for what purposes. But I think you give a good summation of that.
But one of the things too about the film itself is you use a lot of footage of these people
if it's one of the K agans or Bill Kristol or whomever I mean, obviously this was a conscious
decision to use their own words, so could you talk a little bit about why you decided to do it
that way? Because I think in watching the how many hours it is over the three parts, you get,
you kind of see the same themes coming up again, but it's from these people themselves that are
saying this stuff. Could you talk about the power of that and why you decided to do that?
RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the
psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was
going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put
through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the
span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure
she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and
this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon
think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.
So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the Foreign Policy
Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the Foreign Policy Initiative
is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think
tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I
realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably
every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring,
very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me
into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank
videos for weeks on end.
Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from
the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more
candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more
clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the
Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of
fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when
I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found
him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war
hawks that would go on Fox News.
But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so
fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder
if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.
And then the other reason, if I'm being completely honest, I didn't feel confident at the
time to actually add any of my own editorial narration. I kind of cringe sometimes at movies
that do that too much, especially political documentaries. Without naming names or crapping on
anyone, let's just say I watched a political documentary that had the word wars in the title.
And I felt that the filmmaker himself was made himself the main character, and while the
content of the film was great, he talked about Yemen, Somalia all these how do I say it without
revealing the film maker? All these wars, hidden wars, happening in all these other countries,
the filmmaker made himself the main character, and I cringe so much at that I kind of was in
this position where I was like, I don't even know how to enter my own editorial point of view
into this other than my editing and the way I'm presenting all this footage.
So when I made P art 1, it was out of necessity, mostly because I didn't know how to do that
yet, and I didn't feel confident enough to do it, but then also the footage I was grabbing was
so compelling to me on its own, I felt that maybe this could work just on its own. Like I
wasn't When I was originally making it it didn't even cross my mind to add narration. It was
only until later when I was like, I need to release this and show people that I actually
decided to add narration. But as you're saying Part 1, I think you're mostly talking about Part
1, has no narration whatsoever. And it's just It's mostly just a collage of footage of these
neoconservatives talking, and conversing and revealing sort of how they truly think.
GR: Yeah, so in talking about it like how they, the neocons , think and what their worldview
really is I think a lot of listeners of CKUW and the Global Research News Hour would be
familiar when you say neocons and Project for a New American Century, but I think the
overriding perception is that they're a thing of the past. They were kind of, they had their
time with the Bush and through the 2000 s and then they're gone. So why should people still be
paying attention to the neocons in 2018?
RM: Great question . I mean a nd you're right to say that. The general perception is that
they kind of got shamed out of existence based on the failure "the failure" of the Iraq War and
the amount of public pressure against that, and how most people have come to the belief that it
was a disaster. And the neocons are largely associated with that military invasion and frankly,
that massacre that was done completely for no logical reason whatsoever unless we're talking
about imperialistic games. The WMDs argument is complete BS and everyone knows that now.
So their names were largely associated with the worst lies of the Bush a dministration , and
that was my perception of it too until I started working on this documentary film, is that they
had gone away and they weren't really a problem anymore. And even when I started to see some of
the same faces pop up talking about Russia and how evil Putin was back in like 2014, I didn't
personally think it was that big of a deal because I thought, well these people are super
marginalized. Who's really listening to them anymore? Obama is clearly not listening to them.
But that actually turned out not to be true. The Obama part He actually was listening to them
as described in my film.
But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is
because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed
to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy
consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and
make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community
into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with
the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but
see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these
neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact
that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because
that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to
cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say,
hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go
after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially
convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.
So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people
now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see
much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which
is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a
non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election
when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever
they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.
That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's
because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you
don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody
is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.
GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you
personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost
like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're
talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the
neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early
2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people
are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is
something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit
before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my
generation and the world that I'm living in now
But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind
of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk
about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some
odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider
narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.
So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don
and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour
period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright
calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we
should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the
effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you
think the effect of that was?
RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer
that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this
short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping
up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus
was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something
that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important
to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding
America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor,
a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe
that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being
heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are
two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq
surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David
Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are
some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so
relatively obscure They're not household names.
So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force
raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to
hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the
planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the
U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they
don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the
actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what
they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if
they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.
And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now
that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this,
I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run
throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for
the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I
find that very strange.
And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into
that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating
the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were
still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S.
media was doing.
So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we
should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that
badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the
only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing
through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s
saying that before on record.
And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you
were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what
would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would
have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?
GR: Right. Yeah.
RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush
Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax
infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by
that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.
GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his
documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the
neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role
of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at
averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin.
For the Global Research N ews H our, I'm Scott Price.
-end of transcript-
Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5
Newly released text messages between disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page regarding a "media leak
strategy" have come under intense scrutiny, as they were exchanged one day before and one day after a bombshell Washington Post article
during a critical point in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports
Sara Carter
and the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
Photo: Daily Caller
The text messages, revealed Monday by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and sent the day before and after two damaging articles about former
Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, raise " grave concerns regarding an apparent systematic culture of media leaking by high-ranking
officials at the FBI and DOJ related to ongoing investigations."
Recall that Strzok's boss, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for authorizing self-serving leaks to the press.
Also recall that text messages released in January reveal that Lisa Page was on the phone with Washington Post reporter Devlin
Barrett , then with the New York Times , when the reopening of the Clinton Foundation investigation hit the news cycle - just one
example in a series of text messages matching up with MSM reports relying on leaked information, as reported by the
Conservative Treehouse .
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
The review of the documents suggests that the FBI and DOJ coordinated efforts to get information to the press that would potentially
be "harmful to President Trump's administration." Those leaks pertained to information regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court warrant used to spy on short-term campaign volunteer Carter Page.
The letter lists several examples:
April 10, 2017: (former FBI Special Agent) Peter Strzok contacts (former FBI Attorney) Lisa Page to discuss a "media leak
strategy." Specifically, the text says: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about
media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a job well done while referring to two derogatory articles about
Carter Page. In the text, Strzok warns Page two articles are coming out, one which is "worse" than the other about Lisa's "namesake"."
Strzok added: "Well done, Page." -
Sara
Carter
Meadows says that the texts show " a coordinated effort on the part of the FBI and DOJ to release information in the public domain
potentially harmful to President Donald Trump's administration. "
lisa page...why do i get the sense she was strzork's agency handler and not his fbi lover? is it because his mannerisms scream
homo, or is it because he speaks to her as a subordinate to a superior? those texts were far more focused on the dissemination
and control of information than they were about arranging trysts. strange. and speaking of homos, did you guys catch the conversation
about kasich? seems he's been in the closet for a long time. seems his long-time advisor/'roommate' is more than just that.
another lisa that should pique your interest is Lisa Barsoomian. who is lisa barsoomian? who is she married to? what is her
connection with lynch, holder, strzok, ohr, steele, obama, priestap, comey, etc?
anyone else think a FISA declass docu-drop perfectly apropos for the 9/11 anniversary?
i sure do.
janus
jeff montanye ,
i never get tired of realizing peter strzok, regarded as absolutely the top of the line in counterintelligence, thought ("I
had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you . . .") he could avoid the nsa by his choice of phone. priceless.
insanelysane ,
Look the un-bias IG reviewed the FBI's action and found no bias. How can that happen? Who does a review to see if the IG is
biased? Who does a review to see if the person that finds that the IG has no bias has bias?? Who does a review....
Someday Sessions and Rosenstein may get sacked or the people responsible for the sacking will get sacked.
If the Dims take back Congress in the mid-terms, none of these revelations will matter one iota as the Dims will bury these
investigations and start their own into everything Trump... Time for Trump to drop the hammer on all of these people, BEFORE the
mid-terms...
novictim ,
And what is the reason for the people REALLY in charge going after Trump? It has always been about his Anti-Neoliberal agenda.
Specifically, TARIFFS on CHINA. The oligarchs behind the establishment have made fantastic amounts of money off the strip-mining
of American industry and Capital. They want the cheap labour of Asia and the 3rd world yet also want to sell the sh#t back to
the USA even though that trade imbalance will lead to ruin.
If not for President Trump, there would be no hope for the American people.
ipud ,
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a (hatchet) job well done...
From FBI's "Protected Voices" website, on "Safer Campaign Communications"-
"To secure communications channels -- such as email, messaging apps, and social media -- use encryption, disable archiving
, use access controls, disable remote wiping, use account lockout, and patch your systems."
If campaigns should disable archiving, would they not be in violation of federal e-mail retention laws?
rosiescenario ,
It is interesting that all of the "reporters" at the MSM do not care that the entire (excluding FOX) news organization is behaving
exactly as Tass and Pravda used to behave under communist Russia. These folks are too dense to see the irony that a read of RT
today is more factual than anything coming out of the U.S. media.
I guess when you are a liberal Dem you do not have anything honest and factual to discuss....you resort to calling Benghazi
"a wild conspiracy".
migra ,
They aren't too dense. They know exactly whats going on and they are happy with it as long as it helps there cause.
Stan522 ,
So, what the fuck was the Inspector General looking at and reviewing when he declared there was no bias.....?
migra ,
Because IG Horowitz is one of, "them".
Anunnaki ,
Horowitz. Nuff said
enough of this ,
It was a deep-state whitewash just like his next report is going to be.
By the way this new commenting system and specifically the lack of ability to follow up on a conversation since there are no
links to a user's history of comments really sucks.
sgorem ,
i agree.........
ThinkerNotEmoter ,
Yep.
I blame Trump.
Indelible Scars ,
It is waaaay better.
SmallerGovNow2 ,
agree with you. it is the way it used to be when you could really have a common thread and people were not jumping the thread
just to get their comments at the top...
Nunny ,
It was so tiresome to respond to a thread and have to wade through 3 pages+ to see if someone responded. I like this much better.
Sanity Bear ,
True, glad to see the comment-jumping thing gone.
However, now you have to remember which articles you posted on and hunt for them yourself in order to check for followup, which
is worse user-wise than having to click through a bunch of pages to see how far down your comment got pushed.
pops ,
Yes. It sucks big time.
Sanity Bear ,
Hanging offense treason, and there is not even the slightest ambiguity that that is what this is.
Empire's Frontiers ,
Why does it seem obvious that the sitting administration used all its levers to aid Hillary in her election, and further, destroy
Trump in his victory?
Ink Pusher ,
That'll be 6 orders of SEDITION with a side order of COLLUSION for each and a Diet TREASON for everyone to drink please.
Long Live The Donald ,
Trump is fucking nuts! Get Over it!
cheech_wizard ,
So you're still sodomizing your children?
Yen Cross ,
Yen is older, and looks 1o years younger than than that pile of shit!
Guilt has away of destroying people
Yen Cross ,
Faggot libtard snowflake?
American Snipper ,
This cocksucker Rosenberg needs to be fired, as is everyone on Trumps short list of leakers. Drain the fucking swamp! Redact
all Russian docs, speed it up, Mr. President!!!
I am Groot ,
When you say "fired" , I'm thinking he should be strapped to missile and fired into the sun, Wiley coyote style.....
Yen Cross ,
Pro facto**** Never ever once, ever has Yen cheated on a Woman.
Many opportunities, but yen used the bigger head.
Yen will never cheat on the Woman he's dedicated to.
Cursive ,
Lisa should really stick with the straight hair. Much better than that headshot with the cheesy perm that was first circulated.
Her credentials as a nasty Deep State dick gobbler aside, She rises from a 2 to a 5 (on a scale of 10).
Htos1 ,
3, with a bag. If she's not fat.
bookofenoch ,
Nope. Lisa Page is a filthy whore. Imagine sharing her front and back holes with Strzok. Or Kissing her Strzok jizz drinking
hole.
Repulsive. Forever disgraced. The woman is dogshit.
I am Groot ,
It's really hard to rate animals on a scale of 1 to 10. Tough choice between her and a goat.
rbianco3 ,
Released in January- this is September WTF?
This is seriously important information - could have exonerated the President almost a year ago - and had he been impeached
would have no recourse. Those that did not release until now are co-conspirators.
justyouwait ,
They are co-conspirators and more. They were placed to do the job they are doing. Rotten Rodney is the head of the snake in
the DOJ. He was positioned to slow down or if possible totally hold back key information from congress (his boss). Old man Sessions
was co-opted right from the start. He looks & acts like a guy taking orders. I don't know what they have on him (use your imagination)
but he was neutered right from day 1. He should be charged with dereliction of duty and fired. I think if a true investigation
is ever done and all the facts come out, Rotten Rodney could very well be charged with treason along with a large number of other
Deep State operatives and more than a few in the Democratic Party.
Htos1 ,
Depends on what was in all those bankers boxes of FBI files trucked over to the WH from Reno and Holder in the 90's.
Chupacabra-322 ,
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths & Sociopaths get off on Gas Lighting the Public through their
own manufactured, Scripted False Narratives & Psychological Operations.
Sick, twisted, Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths deserve to be hung with Piano wire. Them, Breanan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, Obama
& last but not least the ring leader Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large, Hillary Clinton.
stubb ,
CRUSH HIS SKULL NOW
1970SSNova396 ,
The CrossRoads have been reached.........Saddle up
Can't wait for the release of all the MSM person that were paid via GPS to spin this shit!
Yen Cross ,
That little prick, needs to be knocked down, an notch?
His cum guzzling adultress pretty much sums things up?
Calvertsbio ,
What we need is a 100% republican DOJ, FBI, CIA, politicians... wipe out the democrats for a better society... That should
work, then we won't need Zerohedge to spread all this propaganda !
Robert of Ottawa ,
The repubs and dementocrats are on the same team, the uniparty swamp where all congressman and senators get equal bribes if
they wish
1970SSNova396 ,
They're all whores for a buck.How else can you make less than 200k per year
yet retire with millions ...just in the House.
Calvertsbio ,
Yes, we are doomed, for sure it is every FAMILY for themselves... Glad I only have one kid to work thru this mess, I can keep
an eye on her...
My sister, brother, father all are week too week people.. They never listened, prepared, etc... Just glad Pops has the SS and
post office pension... Otherwise, would be living here... Also kind of glad they are 1200 miles away... Too bad they ignored all
the signs... They will be begging in a few years.. Beans and RICE
Htos1 ,
90% of the repugs are ON the team! Otherwise billary would be a warm memory and no 9/11.
sniffybigtoe ,
Never fear! The GOP is ready and willing to do fuck all about it.
r0mulus ,
Yep- can't have a fake two party system without a fake second party to collude with...
candyman ,
After 3 hrs... ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN - nothing on the web pages.
thetruthhurts ,
November can't come fast enough for Democrats and the Corporatist deep state.
enough of this ,
It was a deep-state whitewash just like his next report is going to be.
This is seriously important information - could have exonerated the President almost a year ago - and had he been impeached
would have no recourse. Those that did not release until now are co-conspirators.
justyouwait ,
They are co-conspirators and more. They were placed to do the job they are doing. Rotten Rodney is the head of the snake in
the DOJ. He was positioned to slow down or if possible totally hold back key information from congress (his boss). Old man Sessions
was co-opted right from the start. He looks & acts like a guy taking orders. I don't know what they have on him (use your imagination)
but he was neutered right from day 1. He should be charged with dereliction of duty and fired. I think if a true investigation
is ever done and all the facts come out, Rotten Rodney could very well be charged with treason along with a large number of other
Deep State operatives and more than a few in the Democratic Party.
Htos1 ,
Depends on what was in all those bankers boxes of FBI files trucked over to the WH from Reno and Holder in the 90's.
Chupacabra-322 ,
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths & Sociopaths get off on Gas Lighting the Public through their
own manufactured, Scripted False Narratives & Psychological Operations.
Sick, twisted, Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths deserve to be hung with Piano wire. Them, Breanan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, Obama
& last but not least the ring leader Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large, Hillary Clinton.
Dre4dwolf ,
Fbi leaks fake story to media -> Media reports fake story-> Fbi uses fake story as evidence in Visa Court - > Fisa court grants
a Fisa warrant that would of otherwise been denied -> rinse repeat till all your political enemies are crippled by fake investigations
??? profit???
Fufi007 ,
Deep State and Shadow Government Clowns.
They all burning in Hell. Let's give them goodbye.
In due course of time, they will be sucked out of here and taken far into Space into a gross Planet where the Monkeys are seeing
that Black Stone next to their pot hole and going like crazy for the marvel just discovered.
The more shit you intake the heavier and difficult lift to better zones.
Miserables. Hasta la Vista Fools. They took it deep and swallowed the whole Enchilada !!!!
OccamsCrazor ,
these fbi and doj f*ckers will roast in hell.
WAY worse than Watergate.
MuffDiver69 ,
That Strzok is one fudge packer. Having an affair my ass...not with any women.
devnickle ,
Shall be hung by the neck until deceased. That is the penalty for Treason. Hillary, Bill, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Podesta's,
Holder, Awans, Whatshername Shitz, et al. The list is endless. McStain is dead, he bailed before the purge.
devnickle ,
Saddam was powder puff compared to these assholes. If it was good enough for him.....
arby63 ,
If they worked for me, they would be facing a grand jury now.
janus ,
lisa page...why do i get the sense she was strzork's agency handler and not his fbi lover? is it because his mannerisms scream
homo, or is it because he speaks to her as a subordinate to a superior? those texts were far more focused on the dissemination
and control of information than they were about arranging trysts. strange. and speaking of homos, did you guys catch the conversation
about kasich? seems he's been in the closet for a long time. seems his long-time advisor/'roommate' is more than just that.
another lisa that should pique your interest is Lisa Barsoomian. who is lisa barsoomian? who is she married to? what is her
connection with lynch, holder, strzok, ohr, steele, obama, priestap, comey, etc?
anyone else think a FISA declass docu-drop perfectly apropos for the 9/11 anniversary?
i sure do.
janus
Normal ,
Hey, that's worse than rootin tootin putin. Putin didn't do it. The FBI did it.
flyonmywall ,
Whaaat? The FBI and CIA colluding to undermine a sitting US President?
Oh come on, that's just silly !!
GotEmAll ,
Yes these people are leaking, and they will leak again, again and again etc. Until these Leakers get shown the inside of a
Jail cell, tell me why would they be afraid to leak?
Look at strzok, what did he get lose his job (by the way some leftist will hire him somehwere) and what else......nothing;
heck it didn't even cost him anything really considering all the donations he got from his go fund me.
You want the leaks to stop, its time for Sessions, to start laying the hammer down on these candyasses.
wafm ,
besides having a totally unfuckinpronouncable name, Zok is obviously a complete incompetent. Hang the cunt.
DJ the Tax Man ,
Whether they know it or not the FBI and DOJ have a very limited life cycle left in the workings of our country. The American
people will take over soon and the justice will be delivered swift and viciously.
DOJ and FBI you have a choice step-up and do your job or just step aside.
For the sake of the saving of America every one of the Deomocrats better end up behind bars for the rest of their life including
Mueller
Tunga ,
<)
Tunga ,
"A meme is a cognitive or behavioral pattern that can be transmitted from one individual to another one. Since the individual
who transmitted the meme will continue to carry it, the transmission can be interpreted as a replication : a copy of the
meme is made in the memory of another individual, making him or her into a carrier of the meme. This process of
self-reproduction (the memetic life-cycle ), leading to spreading
over a growing group of individuals, defines the meme as a replicator, similar in that respect to the gene (Dawkins, 1976; Moritz,
1991.
No known source but still a favorite Tunga talking point: NOT!
Karl Marxist ,
But Hurrican Florence, everybody! Trump's gonna release those documents ... but ... Hurricane Florence! Israel's gonna commit
that Idlib false flag, hurl banned white phosphorus weapons at US funded "terrorists" who are Syrian Christians but Hurricane
Florence! Everything's gonna get crunched. Just what the media is waiting for. 24/7 on Hurricane Florence!
Tunga ,
Stop making sense!!!
jeff montanye ,
i never get tired of realizing peter strzok, regarded as absolutely the top of the line in counterintelligence, thought ("I
had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you . . .") he could avoid the nsa by his choice of phone. priceless.
deus ex machina ,
YEP.
pelican ,
Stan Beeman level of skill.
Makes one wonder if all the FBI is this sloppy.
FBaggins ,
Hey look at this. More than 28 ZH articles on domestic and financial issues and finally one from earlier today something on
Syria.
Now let me see. The elite and imperious commissars of the US high command in their caution to protect vital US propaganda interests
and save the people from the truth, have banned all coverage of the Syrian conflict on Youtube - out of fear that their next planned
false-flag attack will blow up in their faces - which means that they have likely also "cautioned" with severe sanctions any alternate
media site directors in the same way.
Ms No ,
For all we know we could become rice crispies within 24 hours. Its not immanent but not at all out of the question. I think
people are desensitized to this already.
People should be on the edge of their seats, if not shitting their pants. Russian media is pretty quiet too. Al Jazeera is
now an atrocity similar to Hufpo (since the mad prince hung everybody upside down and surrounded Qatar and nabbing Jazeera).
Its eerie when this happens. People seem to be desensitized to the idea of conflict with Russia already.
I am Groot ,
Forget the rope and the bullets. It's time to take a fucking axe to all of these Deep State scumbag traitors.
insanelysane ,
Look the un-bias IG reviewed the FBI's action and found no bias. How can that happen? Who does a review to see if the IG is
biased? Who does a review to see if the person that finds that the IG has no bias has bias?? Who does a review....
Someday Sessions and Rosenstein may get sacked or the people responsible for the sacking will get sacked.
Enough already gaaddammit! You swamp creatures need to fess up that you've tried to unseat Trump from Day 1. End this bogus
"investigation" that y'all know, and have known, is nothing short of treason. Everyone caught in your snares should be released
regardless of guilt or innocence. Everyone involved in your conspiracy should get mandatory 25 years with no parole. Yeah, that
means you too Brennan!
truthseeker47 ,
Disagree: Commie traitor Brennan should be in front of a firing squad.
consider me gone ,
I'd be okay with that too. But swinging from a noose having vacated his bowels on national TV would be more degrading.
Tunga ,
Big love rules.
;)
Tunga ,
Maybe you should stick to T€#++€r?
Jk.
Tunga ,
"These people, are not people." - Bill Clinton to AG Lynch on the Tarmack.
navy62802 ,
Conspiracy. Not "collusion."
navy62802 ,
I will never forget that freak Strozk testifying before Congress. I get chills just thinking about it.
Yeah, there's a comment. Vlad in Syria building up forces to allow Iran to install missile sites to protect Nordstream 2 and
Assad regime while threatening Israel. Do Israel and its allies stand by and let this happen or do they tell Vlad the game is
on, and if it's war he must have, then war he will have,
So this Moscow Messiah has become the enabler of the wonderful mullahs of Iran and the humanist Assad of Syria. These
are the quality of scum with which the Tsar of Russia has chosen to align. All you proud Russians stand and sing an anthem
to the butcher of Damascus and the most repressive and dangerous force in the Middle East, the Murderous Mullahs of a Muzzled
Iran. What an Axis of Pigs. For alleged muslims, they snortle like pork around in the shite and mud with Vlad an awful lot.
Putin drives the Middle East and the world toward Armageddon because his intellectual and moral poverty can devise no strategy
for the spread of Russian power except at the tip of missiles.Maybe he wants to accelerate the war before it becomes nuclear,
so he cannot push Israel to the edge of extinction.
Perhaps he will ride in as the Great Reconciliator once he has allowed Iran's expansion throughout Syria. The Jews will either
concede, or they will treat us to a true test of the Russian super AAs. It may be a really good show, or it could be time for
Amazon and Apple to relocate to a zip code 100 feet below Wellington, new Zealand.
MrAToZ ,
Why is there no perp walk? There is a conga line of law breakers and not a single arrest. Either there is something going on
that we are not allowed to know or this is going to drag on till it fades away. This is the longest quietest investigation into
largest crime and scandal in U.S. history and all that is on display is arrogance. Hang someone in the town square.
dubsea ,
Were two years in. ..and you wonder..does our democracy run a machine...out of control government...or does the machine run
democracy... goddam we voted ...let him do his job....
navy62802 ,
The machine runs the "democracy." If you have not realized that yet, you are willfully blind.
Keyser ,
If the Dims take back Congress in the mid-terms, none of these revelations will matter one iota as the Dims will bury these
investigations and start their own into everything Trump... Time for Trump to drop the hammer on all of these people, BEFORE the
mid-terms...
Oldwood ,
Not only that, but our hot air economy will pop like a cheap Chinese balloon.
The only thing keeping it going is public and business confidence that they might have a chance. That chance will dissipate
like a baby fart if Trump faced a Democrat majority.
It should make many here yearning for their dream "reset" wet with anticipation.....the ultimate in ignorance.....getting exactly
what they hope for.
LaugherNYC ,
Every single shred of evidence points to a powerful conspiracy between the DOJ, FBI, HRC and Democrat machine to smear Trump
with the cooperation of all those Russians supposedly totally riding the Trump train. Yeah, that's how I help get an American
et elected, create a whole smear story that he's a Russian puppet.
If they're not gong to prosecute these lying scum, there needs to be a for real investigarion
devnickle ,
And the shooting will commence.
BankSurfyMan ,
Dry humping Lisa with a bit of Hedge off the wall, Thanks Peter... Fucktard Man of the year 2018 and beyond! SEXY!
MozartIII ,
Can we just shoot all of them already? The Clintons as well??
goldenbuddha454 ,
dumb and dumbererer
WarAndPeace ,
If these two get off without being sentenced for criminals, Americans are gonna actually start a revolution with guns.
commiebastid ,
you can bet it won't be covered in the 'news'
devnickle ,
Enough is enough.
Old Poor Richard ,
Democratic operative codename "Keebler Elf" is furiously scrambling to bury and distract. Maybe call friends in the White Helmets:
"Now would be a great time for that fake gas attack!"
The Terrible Sweal ,
Stzork should go up the river for a very long time.
CheapBastard ,
That'll be hard to do when he's disenboweled.
I am Groot ,
When he's cremated, I mean buried at the stake, they can send his remains to Gitmo.
claytonmoore50 ,
I hope they have had to surrender their passports.
They are so done...
oDumbo ,
You can just "smell" the Starbucks shitcan on these pukes. Hang them at noon.
Imagine clicking on a short url in a comment section in the current year .
Fedtacular ,
#CancelAllAgencies FBI CIA DOJ ATF DHS TSA EPA DOE FAA FDA. fuck it. They are all filled with Union loving liberal pensioners.
Cutting the heads off won't kill the deep state.
captain whitewater ,
Hang all of these criminals from lamp posts along the capital streets.
GoingBig ,
Here on Conspiracy Hedge.... The news nobody else is reporting because its conjecture.
Nunny ,
Have another drink and stumble to bed Hillary.
wisefool ,
they stink. we dont. The church will always find the high ground.
It is a metitroucious society if you take the long view.
ZIRPdiggler ,
Would you do Lisa Page? I would. She's not super hot but she kinda looks like she would be fun in bed
booboo ,
If she had as many dicks sticking out of her that were stuck in her she would look like a porcupine.
Scuba Steve ,
too gummy when she smiles ...
I am Groot ,
She must have a good vet to get her teeth that clean.
Anunnaki ,
She has DSL
novictim ,
And what is the reason for the people REALLY in charge going after Trump? It has always been about his Anti-Neoliberal agenda.
Specifically, TARIFFS on CHINA. The oligarchs behind the establishment have made fantastic amounts of money off the strip-mining
of American industry and Capital. They want the cheap labour of Asia and the 3rd world yet also want to sell the sh#t back to
the USA even though that trade imbalance will lead to ruin.
If not for President Trump, there would be no hope for the American people.
Anunnaki ,
No one goes to jail
Won Hung Lo ,
T minus ZERO. Here it comes......
pine_marten ,
Strzok's member seemed alive with a dark malfeasance that sent her deep into an underworld where her orgasms were tectonic.
ipud ,
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a (hatchet) job well done...
Thethingreenline ,
Page looks kinda hot in that pic
WTFUD ,
Hot's OTT however, she looks like she's handled a cockatoo.
Thethingreenline ,
Kinda........hot
I am Groot ,
I'm sure Eva Braun said Hitler "looked kinda hot" too.......
From FBI's "Protected Voices" website, on "Safer Campaign Communications"-
"To secure communications channels -- such as email, messaging apps, and social media -- use encryption, disable archiving
, use access controls, disable remote wiping, use account lockout, and patch your systems."
If campaigns should disable archiving, would they not be in violation of federal e-mail retention laws?
paul20854 ,
This guy needs incarceration.
I am Groot ,
You meant to say "incineration". There, fixed that for ya......
CatInTheHat ,
They are ALL in on it. This whole fucking shit show slow walked in a bunch of Kabuki for the plebes
Trump, as the most powerful man in the world could have fired Sessions ages ago and had every single document DECLASSIFIED
to where this shitshow would have ended long ago and cankles, Obama Rice Holder, Powers, Lynch
et.al , would be doing a perp walk
And where are the investigations into true Russian collusion with Cankles having sold our yellow cake to them for a few bucks
donation to the Clinton money washing machine foundation? And her emails, many of which have been discovered and we're highly
claddified sent on that bitch's blackberry & on and on it goes
They are ALL IN ON IT. INCLUDING TRUMP. And none of this shit is going to end until the American people overthrow their government
Chupacabra-322 ,
It's absolute, complete, open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness .
Shue ,
And there's fuck all any of you can do anything about it.
Chipped ham ,
Some Donkeys gonna get kicked.
Better happen real soon. I can't take it. Just when I can't scream anymore about why someone's not in jail, out comes another
nugget like this.
Drip. Drip. Drip. I can't take it anymore. When will the dam break?
Htos1 ,
We need a couple of dam busters to come rolling in........Q and Trump come to mind.
Heroic Couplet ,
What laws should Republicans be able to break? How does Trump have seven-to-ten indicted campaign and transition staff? Where
was Trey Gowdy, the Faux News attorneys, the RNC attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, Mitch McConnell, Mark Meadows, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon
Adelson, and Rupert Murdoch when Trump was vetting ha-ha and appointing his team? Faux News has succeeded in dumbing down Republicans
to the point their long term memory is whatever Hillary did last.
Fishthatlived ,
"seven-to-ten"......what a maroon.
ChiangMaiXPat ,
Run away troll...the sedition is mind numbing. What your failing to grasp on purpose I might add is the entire investigation
against Trump is specious "tainted fruit" illegal, it is a Coup in any iteration. Monastic cognitive dissonance only gets you
so far....
Tzanchan ,
Gowdy spent lord knows how many hours/years looking to string up HRC...The select committee itself was created by House Republicans
in May 2014. The committee issued its final report on the Benghazi attack a little more than two years later in June 2016 and
was officially shut down in December 2016. The select panel spent $7 million during the course of the probe.
The committee ultimately issued an 800-page report, which faulted the Obama administration on a number of fronts, and lawmakers
questioned Clinton for 11 hours in an October 2015 hearing. Zero indictments and a piss away of taxpayer money. Yes 4 noble and
patriotic Americans were killed and the administration bumbled the reasons, but crimes committed, well, none. Talk about double
standards.
Nunny ,
Yes indeedy....who shut down the Bengazi investigation?
xcct ,
Build the fucking gallows! Time for bullshit talk is over. Arrest, try and execute all these fuckers.
Htos1 ,
We need a "neutral" 3rd party as the DOJ is corrupt, and the house has no bollocks. Say, oh, the military? AND their gallows.
goldenbuddha454 ,
All these Washington elites run in the same circles. Term limits on all of Congress. On all civil servants too. Noone who has
worked in gov. can be a lobbyist. Its so incestuous. The door revolves continuously in favor of the connected.
bookofenoch ,
Page and Strozk are disgusting. Hideous.
They will die screaming, and nobody will mourn them.
Fedtacular ,
They will be sent off McCain style.
Ban KKiller ,
George Webb covers this pretty well...and more. How come he can keep naming names and live? Or not be sued for libel? Anyhoo...his
show is pretty amazing.
Shill me.
JimZin ,
my Popcorn with extra butter is hot and ready to go...let the mid-term shit show begin! hanging is way to nice for these deepstate
fuckturds. yes a noose is right, but they should be dragged behind a Ford truck on a gravel road by a couple of Deplorables that
smell like Walmart
Htos1 ,
I remember that Texas based campaign commercial from 1996!
"If you vote Republican, another brother is dragged behind a pickup truck"!
Only then it actually worked on the low infos.
Indelible Scars ,
The Honorable Rod RosenSTEIN? Alrighty then....
rosiescenario ,
It is interesting that all of the "reporters" at the MSM do not care that the entire (excluding FOX) news organization is behaving
exactly as Tass and Pravda used to behave under communist Russia. These folks are too dense to see the irony that a read of RT
today is more factual than anything coming out of the U.S. media.
I guess when you are a liberal Dem you do not have anything honest and factual to discuss....you resort to calling Benghazi
"a wild conspiracy".
migra ,
They aren't too dense. They know exactly whats going on and they are happy with it as long as it helps there cause.
Stan522 ,
So, what the fuck was the Inspector General looking at and reviewing when he declared there was no bias.....?
migra ,
Because IG Horowitz is one of, "them".
Anunnaki ,
Horowitz. Nuff said
enough of this ,
It was a deep-state whitewash just like his next report is going to be.
By the way this new commenting system and specifically the lack of ability to follow up on a conversation since there are no
links to a user's history of comments really sucks.
sgorem ,
i agree.........
ThinkerNotEmoter ,
Yep.
I blame Trump.
Indelible Scars ,
It is waaaay better.
SmallerGovNow2 ,
agree with you. it is the way it used to be when you could really have a common thread and people were not jumping the thread
just to get their comments at the top...
Nunny ,
It was so tiresome to respond to a thread and have to wade through 3 pages+ to see if someone responded. I like this much better.
Sanity Bear ,
True, glad to see the comment-jumping thing gone.
However, now you have to remember which articles you posted on and hunt for them yourself in order to check for followup, which
is worse user-wise than having to click through a bunch of pages to see how far down your comment got pushed.
pops ,
Yes. It sucks big time.
Sanity Bear ,
Hanging offense treason, and there is not even the slightest ambiguity that that is what this is.
Empire's Frontiers ,
Why does it seem obvious that the sitting administration used all its levers to aid Hillary in her election, and further, destroy
Trump in his victory?
Ink Pusher ,
That'll be 6 orders of SEDITION with a side order of COLLUSION for each and a Diet TREASON for everyone to drink please.
Long Live The Donald ,
Trump is fucking nuts! Get Over it!
cheech_wizard ,
So you're still sodomizing your children?
Yen Cross ,
Yen is older, and looks 1o years younger than than that pile of shit!
Guilt has away of destroying people
Yen Cross ,
Faggot libtard snowflake?
American Snipper ,
This cocksucker Rosenberg needs to be fired, as is everyone on Trumps short list of leakers. Drain the fucking swamp! Redact
all Russian docs, speed it up, Mr. President!!!
I am Groot ,
When you say "fired" , I'm thinking he should be strapped to missile and fired into the sun, Wiley coyote style.....
Yen Cross ,
Pro facto**** Never ever once, ever has Yen cheated on a Woman.
Many opportunities, but yen used the bigger head.
Yen will never cheat on the Woman he's dedicated to.
Cursive ,
Lisa should really stick with the straight hair. Much better than that headshot with the cheesy perm that was first circulated.
Her credentials as a nasty Deep State dick gobbler aside, She rises from a 2 to a 5 (on a scale of 10).
Htos1 ,
3, with a bag. If she's not fat.
bookofenoch ,
Nope. Lisa Page is a filthy whore. Imagine sharing her front and back holes with Strzok. Or Kissing her Strzok jizz drinking
hole.
Repulsive. Forever disgraced. The woman is dogshit.
I am Groot ,
It's really hard to rate animals on a scale of 1 to 10. Tough choice between her and a goat.
rbianco3 ,
Released in January- this is September WTF?
This is seriously important information - could have exonerated the President almost a year ago - and had he been impeached
would have no recourse. Those that did not release until now are co-conspirators.
justyouwait ,
They are co-conspirators and more. They were placed to do the job they are doing. Rotten Rodney is the head of the snake in
the DOJ. He was positioned to slow down or if possible totally hold back key information from congress (his boss). Old man Sessions
was co-opted right from the start. He looks & acts like a guy taking orders. I don't know what they have on him (use your imagination)
but he was neutered right from day 1. He should be charged with dereliction of duty and fired. I think if a true investigation
is ever done and all the facts come out, Rotten Rodney could very well be charged with treason along with a large number of other
Deep State operatives and more than a few in the Democratic Party.
Htos1 ,
Depends on what was in all those bankers boxes of FBI files trucked over to the WH from Reno and Holder in the 90's.
Chupacabra-322 ,
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths & Sociopaths get off on Gas Lighting the Public through their
own manufactured, Scripted False Narratives & Psychological Operations.
Sick, twisted, Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths deserve to be hung with Piano wire. Them, Breanan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, Obama
& last but not least the ring leader Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large, Hillary Clinton.
stubb ,
CRUSH HIS SKULL NOW
1970SSNova396 ,
The CrossRoads have been reached.........Saddle up
Can't wait for the release of all the MSM person that were paid via GPS to spin this shit!
Yen Cross ,
That little prick, needs to be knocked down, an notch?
His cum guzzling adultress pretty much sums things up?
Calvertsbio ,
What we need is a 100% republican DOJ, FBI, CIA, politicians... wipe out the democrats for a better society... That should
work, then we won't need Zerohedge to spread all this propaganda !
Robert of Ottawa ,
The repubs and dementocrats are on the same team, the uniparty swamp where all congressman and senators get equal bribes if
they wish
1970SSNova396 ,
They're all whores for a buck.How else can you make less than 200k per year
yet retire with millions ...just in the House.
Calvertsbio ,
Yes, we are doomed, for sure it is every FAMILY for themselves... Glad I only have one kid to work thru this mess, I can keep
an eye on her...
My sister, brother, father all are week too week people.. They never listened, prepared, etc... Just glad Pops has the SS and
post office pension... Otherwise, would be living here... Also kind of glad they are 1200 miles away... Too bad they ignored all
the signs... They will be begging in a few years.. Beans and RICE
Htos1 ,
90% of the repugs are ON the team! Otherwise billary would be a warm memory and no 9/11.
sniffybigtoe ,
Never fear! The GOP is ready and willing to do fuck all about it.
r0mulus ,
Yep- can't have a fake two party system without a fake second party to collude with...
candyman ,
After 3 hrs... ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN - nothing on the web pages.
thetruthhurts ,
November can't come fast enough for Democrats and the Corporatist deep state.
Dre4dwolf ,
Fbi leaks fake story to media -> Media reports fake story-> Fbi uses fake story as evidence in Visa Court - > Fisa court grants
a Fisa warrant that would of otherwise been denied -> rinse repeat till all your political enemies are crippled by fake investigations
??? profit???
Calvertsbio ,
Of course it is, profit for the republican party. works every time... Always blame others for your own misgivings.
danl62 ,
Obama perfected that strategy. When you are guilty blame the other party. When someone else does something right take credit
even though you had nothing to do with it. Than have a press conference with I,I,I me, me,me ...
Mr. Bones ,
Alinsky rules numbers 5, 6, 8, 11, and 13.
1970SSNova396 ,
The Obama dik sukers meeting has been canceled for today....try again on Tuesday Sport
stubb ,
I always blame your mother for my misdoings. Quite appropriate, as she is balls-deep involved in most of them.
HenryJ ,
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe,
Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a
Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take
a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the
Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At
what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot
come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live
through all time or die by suicide."...........Abraham Lincoln, a Portion of his Lyceum address
BrokeMiner ,
FBI and DOJ are just a bunch of dudes in a circle jerk that get nothing done and cover up a bunch of illegal shit. what a joke
stubb ,
They look good doing it, though.
Lord JT ,
Rod Rosenstein? more like Rod Rosenasshole, if you ask me.
Pigeon ,
Errr...Dr. Rosen Rosen...
aaahhhhh Dr. Rosenpenis
Lost in translation ,
UPVOTED!
I still use that line, myself - it was a great movie!!
Yen Cross ,
Two peas in an pod.
For the life of me, I don't understand why dudes cross swords.
Women are so beautiful.
Men are very handsome, and women are beautiful.
Yen gets confused sometimes???
The clown is 48, and an professional cheater. His wife has the sex drive of the last CAT balance sheet.
Yen is taking a nap. Fuck you very much
Yen Cross ,
Was it the CAT balance sheet, or me pile driving your trophy wife?
MoreFreedom ,
Pretty soon these conspirators will be doing plea deals that they were doing what Obama told them to do. And they'll have evidence
to back it up. Otherwise Obama wouldn't be working so hard attacking Trump, along with the other guilty acting members of his
administration. Strzok showed he thought he was still untouchable.
Pigeon ,
Vee ver juscht following orders
Htos1 ,
Hence, the need for tribunals at Gitmo!
RICKYBIRD ,
I think Page flipped way, way back. That's why we have her emails. Emails which the FBI tried to withhold from Congress. There
are still bombshells among the Page-Strzok emals that haven't been released. The FBI has pleaded a "glitch" (that's the word it
has the huzpah to use) already to excuse the slow production.
MuffDiver69 ,
Many sources for FBI investigative reports are actually media articles that were written based on leaks from the FBI investigators.
>This is one of the reasons the media are dug-in to a position of alignment with the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials.
Inasmuch as the truth is adverse to the interests of the corrupt officials, so too is that same truth toxic to the media corporations
who engaged in the collaboration.
Additionally, many of the journalists who keep showing up amid the population of this ongoing story are likely connected to
the Fusion-GPS network.
This creates even more motive for ongoing media obfuscation.
True Blue ,
It is a neat little circle-jerk; the FBI lacks probable cause to get the secret courts to give them a writ because their
'evidence' is obviously from a paid off source within one political party trying to undo their opposition; so they 'leak' a massive
pile of steaming bullshit to the friendly presstitutes, who promptly write a 'news' article based on it, which the FBI then takes
to their 'secret court' judge as 'probable cause' to spy on their patron's opposition...
This is beyond banana republic level of corruption, malfeasance and abuse of power.
TeethVillage88s ,
There are many books Non-Fiction and Fiction that indicate that the Nazis were not rooted out after WWII. Of course in hind
sight there is little benefit from USA from joining WWI or WWII other than securing a position as Super Power and Financial and
Trading/Industrial Giant... to assume the Anglo Empire... But to my point: I'd guess we have secrets upon secrets, we create 1000s
of secrets a day, and have huge secrets industries. 17 Intel Agencies. I would guess CIA, NSA, SEC, FINRA, FDIC, Comptroller of
the Currency, Federal Reserve... all have secrets and can act against Trump as Gary Cohn and Mnuchin, John Bolton, might. Lots
of room for adding Mockingbird Sources.
Many sources for FBI investigative reports are actually media articles that were written based on leaks from the FBI investigators.
thebigunit ,
I'm not so sure about that.
We're sure Rosenstein will get right on it...
Rosenstein seems to me like kind of a slimy reptile.
just the tip ,
for the 10,000th time.
it is not treason god damn it.
it is sedition.
Not Too Important ,
Wrong. The dossier starts in London, with MI6. This is international involvement, which makes it all treason, and because it
is against the 'Head of State', it is accurately defined as 'High Treason'.
Hillary's actions regarding her server involved the 'US Nation', which makes her crimes 'High Treason', and every single person
who used that server, or knew about that server and stopped any action, is also guilty of 'High Treason'.
These are crimes punishable by death, as outlined in the US Constitution. Now you can see why there is such a massive attempt
at avoiding indictments and trials. And you can see why Trump made it clear, through EO, that these widespread crimes of 'High
Treason' should be handled by military tribunals.
Both sides have to play for keeps, there's only going to be one victor. And they will kill billions to avoid punishment. Or
just simply take as many as they can with them, they are all psychopaths.
RICKYBIRD ,
Joe DiGenova today says Susan Rice's self-serving email memorandum to herself, which she sent literally minutes before she
left the WH, concerning a recent meeting at the WH on, I think, Jan 5th, was the meeting at which the FBI ambush of General Flynn
was planned. Obama, Lynch, Comey, and others, including Sally Yates were in on it.
nmewn ,
That mental image is almost as bad as Bruth Ohr & Nellie or...Bill & Hill ;-)
So, where are we at here?
Looks to me like...
Strzok...FIRED.
Comey...FIRED.
McCabe...FIRED.
Ohr...DEMOTED.
Yates...FIRED.
Nellie...fluent in Russian, a student in Russia 1989 & a CIA op before & now, walking the streets...lol.
Rybicki...RESIGNED.
Page...RESIGNED.
Finally, history will show Mike Rogers as a patriot in the entire affair, how he could just sit there, next to Comey and not
stand up and garret him (knowing what he had done) in front of that Senate Committee (and the cameras) is a testament to his honor,
his integrity and his commitment to the rule of law as a free man.
I couldn't have done it, it would have been over in five seconds.
"... . Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites. ..."
"... Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause. ..."
"... Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell. ..."
"... As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Lenin in Zurich ..."
"... The Terror Enigma ..."
"... 9/11: The Big Lie ..."
"... Popular Mechanics ..."
"... Red Ice Radio ..."
"... Fahrenheit 9/11 ..."
"... Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power ..."
"... This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses . ..."
"... Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
"... The late Alan Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11 attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview . ..."
"... JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State ..."
"... But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel. ..."
"... One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. ..."
Although immigration and Hispanic crime were perennial topics in that HBD group, for a few
years after the 9/11 attacks the latter issue was almost entirely displaced by feverish
exchanges on Muslim terrorism and the accompanying Clash of Civilizations. Once again, I was
invariably on the short end of a 99-to-1 divide, with nearly all the others in the group
claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center conclusively proved that we needed to close
our borders to foreign immigrants. I pointed out that since the Arab hijackers involved hadn't
been immigrants, but had generally entered our country on tourist visas, maybe the "War on
Terrorism" should be renamed the "War on Tourism," and we should protect America by completely
closing our borders to the horrifying risks of the latter. Yet everyone ignored my sage
advice.
The 9/11 attacks themselves had astonished me as much as everyone else on the HBD list, but
aside from carefully reading the developing story in the New York Times and my other
morning newspapers, I was too busy with my work to otherwise follow the topic. At first,
everyone seemed certain that there would soon be a wave of follow-up attacks by the dozens or
perhaps even hundreds of other Islamic terrorists remaining in our country, but nothing like
that ever happened. After a few weeks had gone by without any further explosions, even small
ones, I told the other HBD listmembers that I now strongly suspected every last Al Qaeda
terrorist in America had probably died in the suicide attacks of September 11th, and there
wasn't a single remaining operative left behind to commit further mayhem. Many of the others
disagreed with me, but as the months and eventually the years went by, my surprising hypothesis
turned out to be correct.
There was one important exception to this pattern, but it actually served to confirm the
rule. As I wrote a few years ago in my original "American Pravda" article:
Consider the almost forgotten anthrax mailing attacks in the weeks after 9/11, which
terrified our dominant East Coast elites and spurred passage of the unprecedented Patriot
Act, thereby eliminating many traditional civil-libertarian protections. Every morning during
that period the New York Times and other leading newspapers carried articles
describing the mysterious nature of the deadly attacks and the complete bafflement of the FBI
investigators. But evenings on the Internet I would read stories by perfectly respectable
journalists such as Salon 's LauraRozen or the staff of the Hartford
Courant providing a wealth of additional detail and pointing to a likely suspect and
motive.
Although the letters carrying the anthrax were purportedly written by an Arab terrorist,
the FBI quickly determined that the language and style indicated a non-Arab author, while
tests pointed to the bioweapons research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md., as the probable source
of the material. But just prior to the arrival of those deadly mailings, military police at
Quantico, Va., had also received an anonymous letter warning that a former Ft. Detrick
employee, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, might be planning to launch a national campaign of
bioterrorism. Investigators quickly cleared Dr. Assaad, but the very detailed nature of the
accusations revealed inside knowledge of his employment history and the Ft. Detrick
facilities. Given the near-simultaneous posting of anthrax envelopes and false bioterrorism
accusations, the mailings almost certainly came from the same source, and solving the latter
case would be the easiest means of catching the anthrax killer.
Who would have attempted to frame Dr. Assaad for bioterrorism? A few years earlier he had
been involved in a bitter personal feud with a couple of his Ft. Detrick coworkers, including
charges of racism, official reprimands, and angry recriminations all around. When an FBI
official shared a copy of the accusatory letter with a noted language-forensics expert and
allowed him to compare the text with the writings of 40 biowarfare lab employees, he found a
perfect match with one of those individuals. For years I told my friends that anyone who
spent 30 minutes with Google could probably determine the name and motive of the likely
anthrax killer, and most of them successfully met my challenge.
This powerful evidence received almost no attention in the major national media, nor is
there any indication that the FBI ever followed up on any of these clues or interrogated the
named suspects. Instead, investigators attempted to pin the attacks on a Dr. Steven Hatfill
based on negligible evidence, after which he was completely exonerated and won a $5.6 million
settlement from the government for its years of severe harassment. Later, similar hounding of
researcher Bruce Ivins and his family led to his suicide, after which the FBI declared the
case closed, even though former colleagues of Dr. Ivins demonstrated that he had had no
motive, means, or opportunity. In 2008, I commissioned a major 3,000-word
cover story in my magazine summarizing all of this crucial evidence, and once again
almost no one in the mainstream media paid the slightest attention.
Unlike the 9/11 attacks themselves, I had closely followed the Anthrax terrorism, and was
shocked by the strange silence of the government investigators and our leading newspapers. At
the time, I generally assumed that the attacks were totally unconnected with 9/11 and merely
opportunistic, but I simply couldn't understand how a few minutes a day of reading
Salon and the Hartford Courant on the web could seemingly solve the
front-page whodunit that was baffling everyone at the FBI and the New York Times . It
was around that point when I started to wonder whether the elite media publications I had
always relied upon were merely "Our American Pravda" under a different name
. Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has
made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the
9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites.
In theoretical physics, new scientific breakthroughs often occur when known objects are
found to behave in inexplicable ways, thereby suggesting the existence of previously
unsuspected forces or particles. In evolutionary biology, when a biological organism appears to
be acting against its own genetic interests, we may safely assume that it has probably fallen
under the control of a different organism, typically a parasite, which has hijacked the host
and is directing its activities toward different ends. While I couldn't be entirely sure what
was happening to the politics and media of my own country, something very odd and disturbing
was certainly taking place.
Things soon became even much worse. Since the 9/11 attacks had apparently been organized by
Osama bin Laden and he was based in Afghanistan under Taliban protection, our attack on that
country at least seemed rational. But suddenly there also soon appeared talk of attacking
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
At first I couldn't believe what was taking place, simply awed by the breathtaking power and
dishonesty of "our American Pravda," with the establishment media so easily transforming black
into white and night into day. Once again, quoting from my original article of that title:
The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among
the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly
ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had
always been Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime in Iraq. Yet through misleading public
statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the "yellowcake" documents,
the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media
to persuade our citizens that Iraq's nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and
required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed
that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the
mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre
the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl
Harbor.
True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but
most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they
are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly -- almost uniformly -- backed the case for
war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality. Prominent journalists across the
liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions
passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.
The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen.
Bill Odom rightly called the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history."
American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country
took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and
others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may
reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly
still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and
its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010
from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and
liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency,
with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.
But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most
of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain
just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media
organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of
our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show
that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.
Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and
the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might
surprise George Orwell.
As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002,
I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had
somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I
could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare .
Throughout the 1990s and even afterward, I'd been on very friendly terms with the Neocons in
NYC and DC, working closely with them on issues relating to immigration and assimilation.
Indeed, my December 1999 article "California and the End of
White America" had not only appeared as one of the longest cover stories ever published in
Commentary , their intellectual flagship, but had even been cited as the centerpiece
of its annual fund-raising letter.
I and my other DC friends were well aware of the fanatical views most Neocons held on Israel
and Middle Eastern policy. Indeed, their foreign policy obsessions had been a regular staple of
our jokes and ridicule, but since it seemed unimaginable that they would ever be given any
authority in that sphere, their beliefs had seemed a relatively harmless eccentricity. After
all, could anyone possibly imagine fanatical libertarians being placed in total control of the
Pentagon, allowing them to immediately disband the American armed forces as a "statist
institution"?
Moreover, the complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the
more shocking given their recent political missteps. During the 2000 presidential campaign,
nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush
for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they
had been almost totally been frozen out of high-level appointments. Both Vice President Dick
Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans,
lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration
figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O'Neil. Indeed, the only
Neoconservative figure offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor
Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was
ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her "nanny problems." The highest-ranking
Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential
appointment had been almost totally ignored by everyone.
ORDER IT NOW
Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic defeat they
had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill
Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the
spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one
point, he took his head in his hands and wondered whether it was time for him to just abandon
the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank.
Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining
overwhelming influence in our government, an eirie parallel to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's
Lenin in Zurich . The totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had
suddenly allowed a small but committed ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic
country.
A thorough account of the Neocons and their takeover of the Bush Administration in the
aftermath of 9/11 is provided by Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski in his 2008 book The Transparent
Cabal, conveniently available on this website:
Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the
attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system , and with the little
time I could spend on public policy matters, I was totally focused to the ongoing Iraq War
disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the
conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies, shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq
nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually
faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans. Al Qaeda
had largely disappeared, with Bin Laden perhaps hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless
Homeland Security "threat alerts," there had been absolutely no further Islamic terrorism on
American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside the Iraq charnel house. So the
precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.
Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old
friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned
the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward
Bush's perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage.
When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying,
Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden
court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008 , I don't
recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.
During those same years, I'd also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn ,
whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our
disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in
2006 about the "conspiracy nuts" of
the 9/11 Truth movement who were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my
sympathies. Each of us move in different political circles, and that brief reference may have
been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to
regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.
Admittedly, I'd occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks
here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the
Antiwar.com front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught
while filming that plane attacks in NYC, while
a much larger Mossad "art student" spy operation around the country had also been broken up
around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter subject
before that expose was scuttled and "disappeared" under ADL pressure.
ORDER IT NOW
But I wasn't sure about the credibility of those claims, though it did seem plausible that
Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge
benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that
Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror
Enigma , a very short book about some of these strange facts, bearing the provocative
subtitle "9/11 and the Israeli Connection," but I never considered reading it. In 2007,
Counterpunch itself
published a
fascinating follow-up story about that arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in
NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day,
which turned out to be a much broader operation than I had previously realized. But all these
details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq
and Iran.
However
Moreover, around that same time I'd stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11
attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch
article, I'd discovered that immediately following the attacks, their supposed terrorist
mastermind
, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such a deed.
Once I checked around a little and fully confirmed that fact , I was
flabbergasted. 9/11 was not only the most successful terrorist attack in the history of the
world, but may have been greater in its physical magnitude than all such previous terrorist
operations combined. The entire purpose of terrorism is to allow a small organization to show
the world that it can inflict serious losses upon a powerful state, and I had never previously
heard of any terrorist leader denying his role in a successful operation, let alone the
greatest in history. Something seemed extremely wrong in the media-generated narrative that I
had previously accepted. I began to wonder if I had been as deluded as the tens of millions of
Americans in 2003 and 2004 who naively believed that Saddam had been the mastermind behind the
September 11th attacks. We live in a world of illusions generated by our media, and I suddenly
felt that I had noticed a tear in the paper-mache mountains displayed in the background of a
Hollywood sound-stage. If Osama was probably not the author of 9/11, what other huge falsehoods
had I blindly accepted?
A couple of years later, I came across a very interesting column by Eric Margolis, a
prominent Canadian foreign policy journalist purged from the broadcast media for his strong
opposition to the Iraq War. He had long published a weekly column in the Toronto Sun
and when that tenure ended, he used his closing appearance to run a double-length piece
expressing his very strong doubts about
the official 9/11 story .
ORDER IT NOW
In addition, an old friend of mine with strong connections to elite French circles at some
point shared what he regarded as an amusing anecdote. He mentioned that at a private dinner
party in Paris attended by influential political and media figures, France's former Defense
Minister had told the other disbelieving guests that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile
rather than a civilian jetliner. My friend explained that the minister in question was widely
regarded as extremely intelligent and level-headed, thereby proving that even the most highly
reputable individuals may sometimes believe in utterly crazy things.
But I interpreted those same facts very differently. France probably possessed one of the
four or five best intelligence service in the world, and surely a French Defense Minister would
be privy to better information about true events than a typical media pundit. In fact, one of
the earliest books sharply questioning the official 9/11 narrative was 9/11: The Big
Lie by French journalist Thierry Meyssan, which appeared in 2002 and similarly argued that
the Pentagon had been struck by a missile, perhaps suggesting that it may have been partly
influenced by leaks coming from French Intelligence.
I eventually shared that account of the French minister's private opinions with a very
well-connected American individual, someone in our elite Establishment with whom I'd become a
little friendly. His reaction made it clear that he held the same highly unorthodox views about
the 9/11 attacks, although he had never publicly voiced them lest he risk losing his elite
Establishment membership card.
Over the years, all these discordant claims had gradually raised my suspicions about the
official 9/11 story to extremely strong levels, but it was only very recently that I finally
found the time to begin to seriously investigate the subject and read eight or ten of the main
9/11 Truther books, mostly those by Prof. David Ray Griffin, the widely acknowledged leader in
that field. And his books, together with the writings of his numerous colleagues and allies,
revealed all sorts of very telling details, most of which had previously remained unknown to
me. I was also greatly impressed by the sheer number of seemingly reputable individuals of no
apparent ideological bent who had become adherents of the 911 Truth movement over the
years.
ORDER IT NOW
I certainly attempted to locate contrary books supporting the official 9/11 story, but the
only one widely discussed was a rather short volume published by Popular Mechanics
magazine, whose lead researcher turned out to be the cousin of Homeland Security chief Michael
Chertoff. None of the writers appeared to have any serious academic credentials, and they
seemed to generally ignore or deflect some of the strongest pieces of evidence provided by the
numerous scholars and experts involved in the 9/11 Truth movement. Hence, I hardly found their
analysis persuasive, and half-wondered whether Homeland Security had quietly arranged the
publication, which might help explain the extremely odd nepotistic coincidence. Popular
magazines simply do not carry the scientific weight of research professors at major
universities. Perhaps the holes in the official 9/11 narrative were so numerous and large that
no serious scholar could be found to defend it.
ORDER IT NOW
When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period
of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are
entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively refuted, reasonable conclusions seem to
point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number
of separate near-fatal anomalies in the official 9/11 story has now grown enormously long,
probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely
and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the
narrative that so many of us have believed for so long. The numerous Griffin books, beginning
with his important 2004 volume
had spent 29 years at the CIA , rising to become of its senior figures as Director of its
Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In
August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article
explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11
Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different. The following
year, he provided a forceful endorsement to many other highly-regarded
former US intelligence officers .
We might expect that if a former intelligence officer of Christison's rank were to denounce
the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page
news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it
nearly a decade later.
Even nearly all of our supposed "alternative" media outlets were nearly as silent.
Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been
regular contributors to Counterpunch , publishing many dozens of articles there and
certainly were its most highly-credentialed writers on intelligence and national security
matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it
never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison's views to current
Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to
discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a "9/11 Truther."
When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, widespread ignorance becomes
unavoidable.
For those so interested, Christison's 2006 article mentioned the strong evidence he found in
a C-Span broadcast of
a two-hour panel discussion on the September 11th terrorist attacks , and especially cited
the documentary Loose Change as an excellent summary of many of the flaws in the
official 9/11 case. The full "Final Cut" version of that film is conveniently available on
YouTube:
With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events seventeen years ago, each of
us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most extreme and obvious. Danish
Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the
destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade
explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour long interview on Red Ice
Radio . The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found in an NYC street after
the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the highly
incriminating contents of the hijacker luggage recovered in a lost airline bag. And the
testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the
collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official story. The sudden total
collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.
Let us now suppose that the overwhelming weight of evidence is correct, and concur with
high-ranking former CIA intelligence analysts, distinguished academics, and experienced
professionals that the 9/11 attacks were not what they appeared to be. We recognize the extreme
implausibility that three huge skyscrapers in New York City suddenly collapsed at free-fall
velocity into their own footprints after just two of them were hit by airplanes, and also that
a large civilian jetliner probably did not strike the Pentagon leaving absolutely no wreckage
and only a small hole. What actually did happen, and more importantly, who was behind it?
The first question is obviously impossible to answer without an honest and thorough official
investigation of the evidence. In the absence of that, numerous, somewhat conflicting
hypotheses have been advanced and debated within the confines of the 9/11 Truth community. But
the second question is probably the more important and relevant one, and I think it has always
represented a source of extreme vulnerability to 9/11 Truthers.
The most typical approach, as generally followed in the numerous Griffin books, is to avoid
the issue entirely and focus solely on the gaping flaws in the official narrative. This is a
perfectly acceptable position but leaves all sorts of serious doubts. What organized group
would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale
against the central heart of the world's sole superpower? And how were they then able to
orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the
participation of the American government itself?
The much smaller slice of 9/11 Truthers who choose to address this "whodunit" question seem
to be overwhelmingly concentrated among rank-and-file grassroots activists rather than the
prestigious experts, and they usually answer "inside job!" Their widespread belief seems to be
that the top political leadership of the Bush Administration, probably including Vice President
Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had organized the terrorist attacks, either
with or without the knowledge of their nominal but ignorant superior, President George W. Bush.
The suggested motives included justification for military attacks against various countries,
supporting the financial interests of the powerful oil industry and military-industrial
complex, and enabling the destruction of traditional American civil liberties. Since the vast
majority of politically-active Truthers seem to come from the far left of the ideological
spectrum, these sorts of notions seem logical and almost self-evident.
Although not explicitly endorsing those Truther conspiracies, filmmaker Michael Moore's
leftist box office hit Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to raise such similar suspicions. His
small budget documentary earned an astonishing $220 million by suggesting that the very close
business ties between the Bush family, Cheney, the oil companies, and the Saudis were
responsible for the Iraq War aftermath of the terrorist attacks, with the domestic crackdown on
civil liberties being part-and-parcel of the right-wing Republican agenda.
ORDER IT NOW
Unfortunately, this apparently plausible picture seems to have almost no basis in reality.
During the drive to the Iraq War, I read Times articles interviewing numerous top oil
men in Texas who expressed total puzzlement at why America was planning the attack, saying that
they could only assume that President Bush knew something that they themselves did not. Saudi
Arabian leaders were adamantly opposed to an American attack on Iraq, and made every effort to
prevent it. Prior to his joining the Bush Administration, Cheney had served as CEO of
Halliburton, an oil services giant, and his firm had heavily lobbied for the lifting of U.S.
economic sanctions against Iraq. Prof. James Petras, a scholar of strong Marxist leanings,
published an excellent 2008 book entitled Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US
Power in which he conclusively demonstrated that Zionist interests rather than those of
the oil industry had dominated the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
As for Michael Moore's film, I remember at the time sharing a laugh with a (Jewish) friend
of mine, both of us finding it ridiculous that a government so overwhelmingly permeated by
fanatically pro-Israel Neocons was being portrayed as in thrall to the Saudis. Not only did the
plot of Moore's film indicate the fearsome power of Jewish Hollywood, but its huge success
demonstrated that most of the American public had apparently never heard of the Neocons.
Bush critics properly ridiculed the president for his tongue-tied statement that the 9/11
terrorists had attacked America "for its freedoms" and Truthers have reasonably branded as
implausible the claims that the massive attacks were organized by a cave-dwelling Islamic
preacher. But the suggestion that that they were led and organized by the top figures of the
Bush Administration seems even more preposterous.
Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of
the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also CEOs of major
corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican
administration in early 2001 and immediately began organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist
attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military
headquarters, hoping to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to
even be part of a leftist political satire.
Let's step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case
in which the top political leadership of a country launched a major false-flag attack upon its
own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people. The America
of 2001 was a peaceful and prosperous country run by relatively bland political leaders focused
upon the traditional Republican goals of enacting tax-cuts for the rich and reducing
environmental regulations. Too many Truther activists have apparently drawn their understanding
of the world from the caricatures of leftist comic-books in which corporate Republicans are all
diabolical Dr. Evils, seeking to kill Americans out of sheer malevolence, and Cockburn was
absolutely correct to ridicule them at
least on that particular score.
Consider also the simple practicalities of the situation. The gigantic nature of the 9/11
attacks as postulated by the Truth movement would have clearly required enormous planning and
probably involved the work of many dozens or even hundreds of skilled agents. Directing CIA
operatives or special military units to organize secret attacks against civilian targets in
Venezuela or Yemen is one thing, but ordering them to mount attacks against the Pentagon and
the heart of New York City would be fraught with stupendous risk.
Bush had lost the popular vote in November 2000 and had only reached the White House because
of a few dangling chads in Florida and the controversial decision of a deeply divided Supreme
Court, so most of the American media regarded his new administration with considerable
hostility for those reasons. If the first act of such a newly-sworn presidential team had been
directing the CIA or the military to prepare attacks against New York City and the Pentagon,
surely those orders would have been regarded as issued by a group of lunatics, and immediately
leaked to the hostile national press.
The whole scenario of top American leaders being the masterminds behind 9/11 is beyond
ridiculous, and those 9/11 Truthers who make or imply such claims -- doing so without a single
shred of solid evidence -- have unfortunately played a major role in discrediting their entire
movement. In fact, the common meaning of the "inside job" scenario is so patently absurd and
self-defeating that one might even suspect that the claim was encouraged by those seeking to
discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement as a consequence.
On the other hand, it does seem entirely plausible that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush
leaders may have been manipulated into taking certain actions that inadvertently furthered the
9/11 plot, while a few lower-level Bush appointees might have been more directly involved,
perhaps even as outright conspirators. But that is not the normal meaning of the "inside job"
accusation.
So where do we now stand? It seems very likely that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an
organization far more powerful and professionally-skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen
random Arabs armed with box-cutters, but also the attacks were clearly not the work of the
American government itself. So who actually attacked our country on that fateful day seventeen
years ago, killing thousands of our fellow citizens?
Effective intelligence operations are concealed in a hall of mirrors, often extremely
difficult for outsiders to discern, and false-flag terrorist attacks certainly fall into this
category. But applying a different metaphor, the complexities of such events may be seen as a
Gordian Knot, almost impossible to disentangle, but which may sometimes easily be cut by asking
the simple question "Who benefited?"
America and most of the world certainly did not, and the disastrous legacy of that fateful
day have transformed our own society and much of the entire world. The endless American wars
soon unleashed have already cost us many trillions of dollars and set our nation on the road to
bankruptcy, while killing or displacing many millions of innocent Middle Easterners. Most
recently, that flood of desperate refugees has begun engulfing Europe, and the peace and
prosperity of that ancient continent is now under severe threat.
Our traditional civil liberties and constitutional protections have been drastically eroded,
and our society placed on the road to becoming an outright police state, with American citizens
now passively accepting unimaginable infringements on their personal freedoms, all originally
begun under the guise of preventing terrorism.
I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of
the 9/11 attacks and America's military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.
During 2000 and most of 2001, America was a peaceful prosperous country, but a certain small
Middle Eastern nation had found itself in an increasingly desperate situation. Israel then
seemed to be fighting for its life against the massive waves of domestic terrorism that
constituted much of the Second Intifada.
According to many analysts, Ariel Sharon had deliberately provoked that Palestinian uprising
in September 2000 by marching to the Temple Mount backed by a thousand armed police, and the
resulting violence and polarization of Israeli society had successfully installed him as Prime
Minister in early 2001. But once in office, his notoriously harsh measures failed to prevent a
wave of continuing attacks, increasingly made by from suicide-bombers, and there was a
widespread opinion that the violence would soon trigger a huge outflow of Israeli citizens,
perhaps producing a death-spiral for the Jewish state. Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other major
Muslim powers were supporting the Palestinians with money, rhetoric, and sometimes even
weapons, and it appeared that Israeli society was beginning to crumble. I remember hearing from
some of my DC friends that numerous Israeli policy experts were suddenly seeking berths at
Neocon thinktanks so that they could relocate to America.
Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of being willing to
undertake strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single
roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, and having finally
obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.
The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world's sole superpower was fully
mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the
Middle East. Sharon's close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an
opportunity to seize control of America's foreign policy and national security apparatus, with
an NSA staffer later reporting that Israeli generals freely roamed the halls of the Pentagon
without any security controls. Meanwhile, the excuse of preventing domestic terrorism was used
to implement newly centralized American police controls that were employed to harass or even
shut down various anti-Zionist political organizations. One of the Israeli Mossad agents
arrested by the police in New York City as he and his fellows were celebrating the 9/11 attacks
and producing a souvenir film of the burning World Trade Center towers told the officers that
"Terrorism is now America's problem." And so it immediately became.
General Wesley Clark reported that soon after the 9/11 attacks he was informed that a secret
military plan had somehow come into being under which America would attack and destroy seven
major Muslim countries over the next few years, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, which
coincidentally were all of Israel's strongest regional adversaries and the leading supporters
of the Palestinians. As America began to expend enormous oceans of blood and treasure attacking
all of Israel's enemies after 9/11, Israel itself no longer had as much need to do so, and
partly as a consequence, almost no other nation in the world has so enormously improved its
strategic and economic situation during the last seventeen years, even while a large fraction
of the American population has become completely impoverished during that same period and our
country burdened with an insurmountable national debt. A parasite can often grow fat even as
its host suffers and declines.
As I have emphasized, for many years after the 9/11 attacks I paid little attention to its
details and had only the vaguest notion that there existed an organized 9/11 Truth movement.
But if someone had ever told me that the terrorist attacks had been false-flag events and
someone other than Osama had been responsible, my immediate guess would have been Israel and
its Mossad.
Certainly no other nation in the world can remotely match Israel's track-record of
remarkably bold high-level assassinations and false-flag attacks, terrorist and otherwise,
against other countries, certainly including America and its military. Furthermore, the
enormous dominance of Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the American establishment media and
increasingly that of many other major countries in the West has long ensured that even when the
solid evidence of such attacks were discovered, very few ordinary Americans would ever hear of
them.
The pattern of behavior is really quite remarkable. During the 1940s, even prior to the
establishment of the State of Israel, the various Zionist factions assassinated Lord Moyne, the
British Minister for the Middle East and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, and
made unsuccessful attempts to kill
President Harry S. Truman and British
Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin , while even discussing the possible assassination of
Prime
Minister Winston Churchill . There seems considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad
subsequently played a central
role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of the enormous pressure he
was applying to persuade Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons plans. Mossad defector Victor
Ostrovsky warned the American government that Israel was planning to assassinate President
George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s due to the bitter conflict over financial aid, and
apparently those warnings were taken seriously . As recently as 2012, the editor of the
main Jewish newspaper in Atlanta publicly called for the assassination of President Barack Obam a over his
policy differences with Israel.
The history of military and terrorist attacks is even more striking. One of history's
largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and
largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954 ,
Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending
to have them blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. In 1950, there are strong claims that Israeli
Mossad agents launched a wave of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in
Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq's large thousand-year
Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea
attack against the U.S.S. Liberty , intending to leave no survivors, and
ultimately killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack got out
and it was called off.
The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that
none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were
quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred
Americans is aware of them. Most of these secret attacks against American and other Western
targets came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other
attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.
Once we accept that the 9/11 attacks were probably a false-flag operation, an absolutely
central clue to the likely perpetrators has been their extraordinary success in ensuring that
such a gigantic wealth of enormously suspicious evidence has been totally ignored by virtually
the entire American media, whether liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.
The only other such extreme cases that come to my mind almost invariably involve either
Jewish issues or Israel. For example, virtually no Americans are today aware of the close Nazi-Zionist
economic partnership of the 1930s that was a crucial factor in the creation of the State of
Israel. Similarly, although our Western media has enshrined it as one of the central events of
the twentieth century, there seems a good likelihood that the Jewish Holocaust of the Second
World War is either substantially or almost entirely fraudulent . Even highly successful
false-flag terrorist operations will tend to leave behind many individual clues, and possessing
the media power to cause this evidence to vanish from perceived reality is an extraordinarily
useful tool for such situations.
Meanwhile, in the particular case at hand, the considerable number of zealously pro-Israel
Neocons situated just beneath the public surface of the Bush Administration in 2001 would have
greatly facilitated both the successful organization of the attacks and their effective
cover-up and concealment, with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle
merely among the most obvious names. Whether such individuals were knowing conspirators or
merely had personal ties allowing them to be persuaded to take steps furthering the plot is
entirely unclear.
Most of this information must surely be obvious within knowledgeable circles, and I strongly
suspect that many individuals who had paid much greater attention than myself to the details of
the 9/11 attacks may have quickly formed a tentative conclusion along these same times. But for
obvious social and political reasons, there is an enormous reluctance to publicly point the
finger of blame towards Israel on a matter of such enormous magnitude, so except for a few
fringe activists here and there, they kept their suspicions to themselves and simply remained
silent.
Meanwhile, the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement probably feared they would be destroyed by
media accusations of deranged anti-Semitism if they did expressed a whisper of such suspicions.
This political strategy may have been necessary, but by failing to name any plausible culprit,
they created a vacuum that was soon filled by "useful idiots" of the "inside job" persuasion,
who pointed an accusing finger at Cheney and Rumfeld, and thereby did so much to discredit the
entire 9/11 Truth movement.
This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky,
former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the
Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of
columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews,
along with additional
analyses .
Obviously, such explosive charges never reached the pages of my morning Times , but
they did receive considerable transitory coverage in elements of the alternative media, and I
remember seeing the links very prominently featured at Antiwar.com and widely
discussed elsewhere. I had never previously heard of Sabrosky, so I consulted my archiving
system and immediately discovered that he had a perfectly respectable record of
publication on military affairs in mainstream foreign policy periodicals and had also held a
series of academic appointments at prestigious institutions. Reading one or two of his articles
on 9/11, I felt he made a rather persuasive case for Mossad involvement, with some of his
information already known to me but much of it not.
Since I was very busy with my software work and had never spent any time investigating 9/11
or reading any of the books on the topic, my belief in his claims back then was obviously quite
tentative. But now that I have finally looked into the topic in much greater detail and done a
great deal of reading, I think it seems quite likely that his 2009 analysis was entirely
correct.
I would particularly recommend his long 2011 interview on Iranian Press TV, which I first
watched just a couple of days ago. He came across as highly credible and forthright in his
claims: Here's a highly controversial clip from a much
longer radio interview he did in 2010:
Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on
the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional
demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately
identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable
clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV and widely discussed on the
Internet.
And by a very strange coincidence, just three days after Jowenko's broadcast video interview
had received such heavy attention,
he had the misfortune to die in a frontal collision with a tree in Holland . I'd suspect
that the community of professional demolition experts is a small one, and Jowenko's surviving
industry colleagues may have quickly concluded that bad luck might come to those who rendered
controversial future opinions on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.
Meanwhile, the ADL soon mounted a huge and largely
successful effort to have Press TV banned in the West for promoting "anti-Semitic
conspiracy theories," even persuading YouTube to entirely eliminate its huge video archive of
its past shows.
Most recently, Dr. Sabrosky provided an hour-long presentation at this June's Deep Truth video panel conference , during
which he expressed considerable pessimism about America's political predicament, and suggested
that the Zionist control over our politics and media had grown even stronger over the last
decade.
The late Alan
Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also
broke his
silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11
attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview .
One of the first writers to explore this topic was journalist Christopher Bollyn, and the
details contained in his long series of newspaper articles are often quoted by other
researchers. In 2012, he gathered together this material and published it in the form of a book
entitled Solving 9-11 , thereby making his information on the possible role of the
Israeli Mossad in the attacks available to a wider audience. However, his volume severely
suffers from the typical lack of resources available to the writers on the political fringe,
with very poor organization and frequent repetition of the same points due to its origins in a
set of individual articles. So those who purchase it should be forewarned about these severe
stylistic weaknesses.
Probably a much better compendium of the very extensive evidence pointing to the probable
Israeli hand behind the 9/11 attacks has been more recently provided by French journalist
Laurent Guyénot, both in his 2017 book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State and
also his 8,500 word article "9/11 was an Israeli Job" that is
being published as a companion piece to this one. His background in 9/11 Truth issues vastly
exceeds my own very limited investigation of the subject and he provides a far greater wealth
of detail than I could possibly include in this simple summary. While I wouldn't necessarily
agree with all his claims and analysis, the overall account is certainly consistent with my
own.
I think I might as well add a couple of nuggets of my own in support of the Israeli Mossad
Hypothesis.
We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of
three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be
an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational
infrastructure and manpower. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook
great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to
find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply
vanished into thin air.
But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly
round up and arrest
some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same
geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of
these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans
in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad
agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but
under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel.
There is also another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. One
month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were
caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story
that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but
which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure,
all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. I remember first
encountering this extremely suspicious incident in the early 2000s on an
fringe Hispanic-activist website , and the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers
reporting the dramatic events were once available elsewhere on the Internet, but after all
these years I can no longer easily locate them. The details of this incident are obviously
rather fragmentary and perhaps garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.
One might speculate that if Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by also
destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America's
military invasions in the Middle East would have been enormously greater. Furthermore, any
scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have
been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America's dominant Spanish-language network, fully
solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush's military endeavors.
I doubt that I've spent more than just a few weeks of my total time reading and researching
that complex topic, most of that only very recently. I am sure that numerous readers far more
knowledgeable than myself will notice various serious errors in my discussion and generously
assist in correcting those. Furthermore, my preparation of this analysis was unfortunately cut
short by the approach of an particular anniversary date, so that under different circumstances
my presentation would have been far more complete and more polished. But I felt there would be
some benefits in making this material immediately available to others, even though many might
already be familiar with most or all of this information.
Readers should therefore regard this as a preliminary version of my article, which I may
render into a more polished form within the next couple of days, a practice that I have never
previously followed.
"... I agree that this is possibly the case, but what about Rosenstein's Monster? ..."
"... IOW, why is Mueller being allowed to run amok? Does Trump have a plan to contain the damage, however fabricated, other than (rightly) criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing himself? ..."
"... I agree with Bob. It's all of them. Dump them all, including Trump, his creepy family and cronies, and the garbage GOP who passed the biggest deficit budget in US history. ..."
"... Trump already totally betrayed voters like me, who wanted our troops out of the Middle East and our resources and focus back on America, Americans, and American infrastructure. ..."
"... Liam, the "suckers who voted for Trump" happen to be the electorate. A similar group of suckers voted for Obama, Bush and Clinton. This trio who preceded Trump were not golden gods of leadership as I recall. The last two doubled and redoubled the total national debt, and squandered trillions in pointless wars. ..."
"But a savvy Donald Trump saw the conspiracy right away. And he realized immediately that in
order to carry his campaign agenda to Make America Great Again he must of necessity first
preserve his presidency from the conspiracy of the Deep State, the mainstream media, and the
establishment elites of both political parties"
I agree that this is possibly the case, but what about Rosenstein's Monster?
IOW, why is Mueller being allowed to run amok? Does Trump have a plan to contain the
damage, however fabricated, other than (rightly) criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing
himself?
I agree with Bob. It's all of them. Dump them all, including Trump, his creepy family and
cronies, and the garbage GOP who passed the biggest deficit budget in US history.
Trump already totally betrayed voters like me, who wanted our troops out of the Middle
East and our resources and focus back on America, Americans, and American infrastructure.
The smell coming from Washington, Wall Street, the MSM, and Silicon Valley is
overpowering.
Liam, the "suckers who voted for Trump" happen to be the electorate. A similar group of
suckers voted for Obama, Bush and Clinton. This trio who preceded Trump were not golden gods
of leadership as I recall. The last two doubled and redoubled the total national debt, and
squandered trillions in pointless wars.
Trump had the sense to encourage development and transport of natural resources. He
slashed mindless regulations and reduced taxes. The economy is growing after the long Obama
depression. His was the worst economy in my lifetime. In the Carter years of stagflation
companies would not hire young grads. In the Obama years that was also the case but many
middle aged workers were let go as well. We might now be seeing real wage increases across
the board. If Trump is a clown, as so many describe, perhaps we should recruit future
presidents from clown schools.
"... General Eisenhower told us to our faces all about the fiction, and yet we as a culture/civilization pretend the president is solely in charge. ..."
What's truly remarkable is Gen. Eisenhower told us upon leaving presidency all about who
competes with our elected president on what happens.
Those presidents that toe the "military industrial complex" line most closely are seen as
the most in charge.
President Kennedy did not, was murdered. President Johnson did, it
eventually sickened him, he did not seek reelection. President Nixon was removed from office.
President Carter was humiliated. President Reagan's dream of a nuclear free world was vetoed
by guess who. President Bush was defeated by the mother of all sycophants to that force.
President Clinton was their man. Vice President Cheney was even more so. President Obama
tried to hide the fact he was not. President Trump has not tried to hide that fact.
Reporting on the Trump phenomena would benefit by more imagination.
Is it not a public service, irrespective of one's opinions on him, that it should now be
clear to all, now via the Trump Phenomena, that what was plainly told us all in the 1950s
from a General, is the way it is?
Yet a "criticism" of Trump is his "sin" of taking off the mask.
General Eisenhower told us to our faces all about the fiction, and yet we as a
culture/civilization pretend the president is solely in charge.
What is remarkable is the amount of reporting on the current president that lacks
imagination, insight, logic, rationality, reason, common sense, and insight.
However, that is not remarkable given that most of the reporters lived all their lives in
a culture/civilization that fails to educate us in a meaningful way. Their and our
professors, mentors, supervisors, and family, and friends and significant others, also so
socialized; however, the road to progress is in front of us if we are curious enough.
Were the goal of contemporary American Politics first and foremost a search for the truth,
that would be one thing.
The Shining Star of American Politics, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren perfectly
epitomizes that it is not, as she knows better, was seduced by power, and all that that
implies. The ends justify the means for the entire lot of them.
Whatever that evil perspective engender, progress is and never shall be one of them.
The negligence with which he selected his cabinet is pretty telling
Notable quotes:
"... I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux populist front man. ..."
"... Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'. ..."
"... Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of democracy. ..."
At some point even the most ardent Trump acolyte will have to admit this [Syria]
is now Trump's policy. It is not something done by the neocons, the deep state, the
anonymous resister or the ghost of John McCain without Trump's acquiescence. [And]
He is not ... clueless, oblivious ...
Pat is half right.
I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux
populist front man.
Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of
their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists
SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'.
There are two other fallacies that keep cropping up to confuse things:
1) Triumph of Democracy. While some may recognize that USA is no longer a democracy, others continue to insist that
"Trump won" and are incline to suspect Russian interference (even while acknowledging the
flaws in that theory). Few care to delve much deeper (i.e. engage brain cells).
2) President's Constitutional power. You see this mistake made as Pat Lang declares that Trump 'owns' the Syrian mess now. The
President has great power in the US Constitutional system and (sadly) that is why it is so
important to the establishment that it be controlled. Trump was SELECTED, not ELECTED.
Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of
democracy.
That has been my take on affairs sine some time: Trump is just the mouthpiece of, and strong-armed by the Media Military Industrial Intelligence Complex (MMIIC).
Full disclosure: I despise Trump for a great number of reasons.
Even fuller disclosure: I despise with a vengeance the Intel community, which has taken over the media and the DNC and are
the Jesuits of the MIC.
Professor Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School, who is a lawyer's lawyer accurately pointed
out that Mueller and his Democrat Lawyers are really acting illegally.
Mueller is a principal officer of the DoJ not a subordinate officer and according to the
Appointments Clause in the Constitution must be appointed by the President and confirmed by
the senate. He is neither. His activities are supposed to be supervised only by the AG
Sessions as a principal officer. AG Sessions has recused himself from the so called Russian
Collusion investigation only. Rosenstein is only a Deputy AG and was not appointed or
confirmed as the Acting AG so Mueller is also unsupervised. Mueller appointment and his
activities are constitutionally illegal.
No one has ever offered a smidgen of concrete evidence whatsoever that there was ever any
collusion of interference in the election by the Russians and certainly none by the Trump
Campaign.Former CIA head Brennan at the CIA has never offered under oath any proof of any
cyber attacks by the Russians. Obama and Brennan never even pursued the Chinese hacks that
were physically confirmed by server and IP addresses from China under Obama. The Democrats
claim that their DNC server was hacked by the Russians. This has never been confirmed as the
DNC refused to allow it to be taken and examined by the FBI or any other agency. The DNC also
had a lot to hide on it. After all, their foreign IT guy ran off to Pakistan with all the
server data on flash drives. Blackmail? The DNC servers were subpoenaed a year by the House
Judiciary Committee, Somehow they have all disappeared! Felony obstruction of justice.
So here we are a over a year and a half later and still not a single smidgen of proof of
any Russian interference. Not a single one of Mueller's American indictments have had
anything whatsoever to do with the fake Russian collusion claim or anything that occurred in
the campaign period or the transition to office.
This is an obvious attempt at a soft coup to effect the mid terms in favor of the
Democrats. And it is obvious to even a casual observer that Alan Dershowitz exposed
A never-shown Al Jazeera documentary on the pro-Israel lobby in the US reveals possibly
illegal Israeli spying on US citizens, and the lobby's fear of a changing political mood.
(This article has been published in French in Le Monde diplomatique, and translated by Le
Monde diplomatique, English edition.)
@Moi Problem,
Akbar, is that most Americans are ignorant and greedy--and the Jews fully understand that.
Salaam Alaikum "(FDD) Senior Advisor Richard Goldberg and FDD Visiting Fellow Jacob Nagel.
Goldberg and Nagel argue that the Trump administration should use its sanctions authorities
to target foreign governments, as well as their agencies and officials, engaged in activities
authorized under the JCPOA." "Moreover, Goldberg and Nagel argue that those parties
establishing research or business ties with U.S.-designated entities -- which, come November,
will include the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran -- should be subject to U.S. secondary
sanctions " not allow – "international collaboration, including in the form of
scientific joint partnerships, [would] be established in agreed areas of research," "Goldberg
and Nagel further argue that the Trump administration should threaten to cut funding to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the agency continues to provide technical
assistance to Iran and to host seminars and conferences in Iran. " "Iran would have little
choice but to kick the IAEA out of the country and withdraw entirely from the agency's
oversight. The world would thus lose the unprecedented oversight of Iran's nuclear program
that the JCPOA had provided.
That may be a feature, rather than a bug, of Goldberg and Nagel's proposal"
Yes the number 5 is the replay of the neocons success in getting UN out of Iraq which was
then used by the stupid Bush to justify the attack on Iraq.
FDD has in 2004 printed article documenting the high pitched neocons fevers and the lies
they engaged in to get US attack Iraq.
That might or might not have them made look like pragmatic nationalist patriotic pro-American
. But these bastards are nothing but pro-Israel They just change the spot and denounce the
previous spot.
Looks like my comment made on the previous Syria thread was a waste of my time. Oh Well!
The Iraqi situation has clearly turned in the favor of the Outlaw US Empire as it craves
chaos. It seems more likely than ever that Sadr's been turned given his behavior. The
situation will give comfort to Neocons who want to "consolidate gains" within Syraq and
continue building their military presence.
I very much welcomed the Russian statement on the al-Tanf terrorist base; its liquidation
will hopefully come swiftly. It's instructive to compare the political stability of Syria
with Iraq's political chaos. I think it very likely we'll see Daesh's resurrection within
Iraq as that's the Outlaw US Empire's main tool to keep the chaos ongoing--the empire doesn't
fight against Daesh; rather, it uses Daesh to fight against its stated enemies
everywhere.
The Iraqi situation has clearly turned in the favor of the Outlaw US Empire as it craves
chaos.
I don't agree with that, for the obvious reason that it will be impossible to
support the US position in al-Tanf. And indeed in Syrian Kurdistan. What the US wants is a
US-agreed PM in Iraq, and moderate stability.
"... McCain was a protégé of neo-Conservative founder Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a crazy servant of the British imperial agenda who constantly sought military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... The British were so enamored of Jackson's views that they have dedicated an entire society of British intelligence spooks to him, the Henry Jackson Society. The former incarnation of this group was the Committee on Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century in the United States. ..."
"... Leading members of both groups hastily retreated to British mother ship after they led the mobilization for the failed and disastrous Iraq War here in the U.S. Sir Richard Dearlove, who has shepherded Christopher Steele and other British aspects of the coup against Donald Trump, is a leading member of this group. ..."
"... He was uniquely ruthless when it comes to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally recruit far right fanatics as American proxies ..."
"... He backed the installation of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to govern Egypt, another failed and insane project. More than $5.6 trillion was spent chasing John McCain's idyll of democracy in Southwest Asia. Six thousand seven hundred Americans died, more than 50,000 were wounded, entire countries were reduced to rubble with accompanying genocide against their populations, the largest mass human migration ever was sent into Europe resembling something akin to the desperate mass flights of the Middle Ages. ..."
John McCain died and deserved a decent funeral based on his war record and his long, if destructive, public service. McCain and
others in Washington's arrogant and narcissistic elite decided before his death, however, to use McCain's demise to advance the coup
against the President, and to make claims about the late Senator and themselves which are totally and utterly false and delusional.
The funeral was a national media extravaganza achieving a status normally only enjoyed by former Presidents. It was, according to
New Yorker Magazine , also the "biggest resistance meeting yet." President Donald Trump was not invited so that the cowards
in the funeral crowd, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, could freely take potshots at the President. McCain picked these leaders
of the country's descent into hell deliberately, to romanticize his death, and to trash talk the current President, albeit, in eloquent
and lofty language and knowing allusions. In effect, they wrapped the murderous crimes of empire in the American flag.
McCain was a protégé of neo-Conservative founder Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a crazy servant of the British imperial agenda
who constantly sought military confrontation with Russia.
The British were so enamored of Jackson's views that they have dedicated an entire society of British intelligence spooks
to him, the Henry Jackson Society. The former incarnation of this group was the Committee on Present Danger and the Project for a
New American Century in the United States.
Leading members of both groups hastily retreated to British mother ship after they led the mobilization for the failed and
disastrous Iraq War here in the U.S. Sir Richard Dearlove, who has shepherded Christopher Steele and other British aspects of the
coup against Donald Trump, is a leading member of this group.
Funding for McCain's political adventures came from his second wife, whose brewing company fortune was completely mixed up in
Arizona mob and mob funding during its earlier years.
With respect to McCain's activities, Max Blumenthal characterized them accurately in the August 27th Consortium News:
"McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention in the post-Cold War era from the Senate floor. . .
He was uniquely ruthless when it comes to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally
recruit far right fanatics as American proxies . . .
In Libya and Syria, he cultivated affiliates of Al-Qaeda as allies, and in Ukraine, McCain recruited actual sig-heiling neo-Nazis.
. .
Following the NATO orchestrated murder of Libya's leader, McCain tweeted: "Qaddafi on his way out, Bashar Al Assad is next."
He backed the installation of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to govern Egypt, another failed and insane project. More than
$5.6 trillion was spent chasing John McCain's idyll of democracy in Southwest Asia. Six thousand seven hundred Americans died, more
than 50,000 were wounded, entire countries were reduced to rubble with accompanying genocide against their populations, the largest
mass human migration ever was sent into Europe resembling something akin to the desperate mass flights of the Middle Ages.
It is these horrific actions by McCain, not the myth peddled at his funeral, which is the source of the conflict between Trump
and John McCain, and between Trump and George Bush and Barack Obama. Trump promised to end the imperial policy of endless religious
and population wars and Wall Street bailouts, and the voters responded resoundingly by electing him President.
@Iris"Marshall
Sam Shama, boasted here at U.R. about his being a Nazi Hunter and having collared a few."
Well, that's extraordinary, because in his comment 201 above, Sam Shama said:
"How do the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds, whoever they are, depend on everyday
Jews?"
As you know, French-Israeli Serge Klarsfeld and his German wife Beate are the most famous
"Nazi hunters" in Europe. They formed an association which located and brought to "justice"
some of the most famous names involved in Nazi occupation (Bousquet, Barbie, Papon,
Touvier,...).
How come Sam Shama doesn't know these most famous comrades? Split personality?
Schizophrenia? Pseudonym swapping? :-) :-)
https://images.sudouest.fr/2014/12/03/57ebc98866a4bd6726a8263e/widescreen/1000x500/serge-et-beate-klarsfeld-au-memorial-de-la-shoah.jpg
The famous comrades, and specifically the Simon Weisenthal Center of Nazi-hunters, suddenly
gone AWOL as soon as the US zionists began their mutually beneficial cooperation with
neo-Nazi in Ukraine.
Moreover, it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and
evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi
in Ukraine.
The miserable Anti-Defamation League (of the anti-democratic methods) is now on a spot for
doing nothing with regard to the murderous activities (including the openly
anti-Jewish activities) of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine (the Kaganat of Nuland is a de facto
protectorate of the US). It seems that for the ADL, there are certain precious neo-Nazi (the
Israel-supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine) and the "bad" Nazis whose image has been helping the
ADL and the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds to demonstrate their allegiance to Jewish
"principles," while making good gesheft (reparation-extortion) on the tragedy of the WWII for
holo-biz.
There is more for the oh-so-sensitive crowd of holocaustians: The prime minister of
Ukraine (where the Nazism has been enjoying its very visible renaissance since 2014) is a
Jewish man Volodymyr Groysman who was miraculously "elected" by Ukrainians in 2016. It is
well known that Ukrainians en masse are not terribly predisposed towards the Jews: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
To recap: The Jewish State and the US/EU zionists have been cultivating the close
relationships and collaboration with neo-Nazi leaders in Ukraine. Take note that none of the
Jewish Nazi collaborators has been punished for the material and political support of the
neo-Nazi movement in Eastern Europe. Why the EU puts people in jail for making an honest
research in the WWII but allows the zionists to support the neo-Nazi is not easy to
understand, considering the influence of the thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled Jewish
Lobby.
@Sam Shama On the
contrary. You haven't responded to the substantial issues from my first post, where I showed
that the CDN list did contain many Jewish names; your mealy-mouthed, code-worded, phrasing
notwithstanding.
Speaking of giving it a rest, I would think it is you who should consider it. Antisemitism
is a serious matter, Phillip. "Antisemitism is a serious matter, Phillip."
– Tell it to Bibi and the Kagans clan: https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
"FEARS OF ANTI-SEMITISM SPREAD IN UKRAINE"
@Sam Shama I don't
usually like taking retirees to task, but you are a special case. You actually threaten Jews
with harm every so often in idiotic, thinly veiled language. You should contemplate that.
"You actually threaten Jews with harm "
– Don't project. Your Jewish State and your zionist stink-tanks in the US/UK are the
greatest danger to the decent Jews.
"Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine:" https://countercurrents.org/2018/07/05/israel-is-arming-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/
One of the main financiers of the neo-Nazi formation "Azov" an Israeli citizen Kolomojsky:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-47564dbc32c28a68f9407fd689f6b3c8-c
I keep telling you Sam that you aren't too smart everything you say just reinforces
everything that is criticized about your tribe ..and you just keep right on giving us more
proof.
First, I have no tribe. Merely logging and attempting to introduce a modicum of
balance in these flagrant displays of hatred.
Second, I don't claim any particular advantage in the department of smarts; only doing my
bit for the advancement of the various causes of humanity. In that, I am sure you claim
primacy, but do you know who said the following: "It is a profitable thing, if one is wise,
to seem foolish." Google's your friend. " flagrant displays of hatred "
– Listen to your Moldovan thug Avi Lieberman and your no less thuggish justice minister
Ayelet Shaked to get the real "flagrant displays of hatred:"
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/new-israeli-justice-minister-called-for-genocide-of-palestinians/article/432659
"Shaked made international headlines when she posted a highly controversial unpublished
article by the late Uri Elitzur, a close Netanyahu ally and an early leader of the movement
by Jewish settlers to colonize occupied Palestinian territories The post asserted that "the
entire Palestinian people is the enemy" and advocated genocide against the entire nation,
"including its elderly women, its cities and its villages, its property and its
infrastructure." Some excerpts: " They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on
all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers they should follow their sons [to
hell], nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they
raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."
– Don't you like the facts of the Jewish State's financial, logistical, and military
support for ISIS / Al Qaeda ?
https://www.sott.net/article/386618-US-and-Israel-will-not-allow-the-elimination-of-Al-Qaeda-and-ISIS-in-southern-Syria-The-solution-is-Syrian-resistance
@annamaria The
famous comrades, and specifically the Simon Weisenthal Center of Nazi-hunters, suddenly gone
AWOL as soon as the US zionists began their mutually beneficial cooperation with neo-Nazi in
Ukraine.
Moreover, it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and evaporated
as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi in
Ukraine.
The miserable Anti-Defamation League (of the anti-democratic methods) is now on a spot for
doing nothing with regard to the murderous activities (including the openly
anti-Jewish activities) of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine (the Kaganat of Nuland is a de facto
protectorate of the US). It seems that for the ADL, there are certain precious neo-Nazi (the
Israel-supported neo-Nazis in Ukraine) and the "bad" Nazis whose image has been helping the
ADL and the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds to demonstrate their allegiance to Jewish
"principles," while making good gesheft (reparation-extortion) on the tragedy of the WWII for
holo-biz.
There is more for the oh-so-sensitive crowd of holocaustians: The prime minister of Ukraine
(where the Nazism has been enjoying its very visible renaissance since 2014) is a Jewish man
Volodymyr Groysman who was miraculously "elected" by Ukrainians in 2016. It is well known
that Ukrainians en masse are not terribly predisposed towards the Jews:
https://worldpolicy.org/2014/03/03/fears-of-anti-semitism-spread-in-ukraine/
To recap: The Jewish State and the US/EU zionists have been cultivating the close
relationships and collaboration with neo-Nazi leaders in Ukraine. Take note that none of the
Jewish Nazi collaborators has been punished for the material and political support of the
neo-Nazi movement in Eastern Europe. Why the EU puts people in jail for making an honest
research in the WWII but allows the zionists to support the neo-Nazi is not easy to
understand, considering the influence of the thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled Jewish
Lobby. " it seems that the Wiesenthals and the Klarsfelds simply melted away and
evaporated as soon as the Jewish State began sending the Israel-made weaponry to the neo-Nazi
in Ukraine."
- 1- Indeed. The Klarsfelds don't open their big lecturing gob neither when Jewish French
citizens, born and brought up in France, with no links to Palestine, volunteer and join the
IDF to murder Palestinians. They are the higher share of IDF volunteers, ahead of Jewish US
citizens.
A war crime in broad daylight: French-Israeli IDF soldier coldly shooting in the head
wounded 21-year old Palestinian Abd Al Fatah Al Sharif.
- 2- Simon Wiesenthal, as you know, was an utter fraud and one of the biggest conmen of
the century. Among his many lies is his so-called incarceration at Auschwitz. Former members
of the German Army even stated that he was a collaborator.
- 3- I'll finish on a cheerful note , and a very good illustration of MSM's double
standards. Unreported by the press, unlike Corbyn's elusive anti-semitism, Ukraine's
Parliament Speaker has just declared that "Hitler was the biggest democrat". One can't make
this up.
That has been my take on affairs sine some time: Trump is just the mouthpiece of, and strong-armed by the Media Military Industrial Intelligence Complex (MMIIC).
Full disclosure: I despise Trump for a great number of reasons.
Even fuller disclosure: I despise with a vengeance the Intel community, which has taken over the media and the DNC and are
the Jesuits of the MIC.
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers,"
Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim
that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign,
during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook
of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."
According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian
forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya
and Hama.
According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain
on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley
said." SF
------------
Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont
that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki
is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds
before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit
whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol.
It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.
I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South
Carolina accent adds to the effect.
The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They
are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe
that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that
my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying
to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to
have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and
is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.
She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to
the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.
These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy
in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious
minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.
They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland.
pl
Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia
& Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or
be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them
took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all
as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level
of support Assad has within Syria.
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way
to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you
were making in your post):
When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion
and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at
the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those
territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little
harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians
when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally
superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency
operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed
them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given
an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption
of the rubes.
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the
siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use
them as human shields.
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed
to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out
of the city) were sent back into the city.
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There
are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers
who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes
them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar
to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians
I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.
Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject
to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic
and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.
Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can
easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions
in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his
money's worth.
https://www.investopedia.co...
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis
by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons.
Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless
escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,"
and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have
to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."
Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover
land know anything about this change of tune?
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections
crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after
lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...
The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform
list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended
his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited
for political ends.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author
of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa
(true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'
Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after
what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone
since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants
under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality
Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study:
http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have
stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However,
the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is
spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics
like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as
a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador"
to the "others."
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.
In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history
and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of
his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?
You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long
Russia should continue to turn the other cheek:
http://www.unz.com/article/...
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever
getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime
ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.
A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan
Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months.
here
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to
another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.
Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.
Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled
by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration
just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Père et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any
chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this
post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.
Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does
anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?
"... Mueller's problem is that his entire investigation has been revealed to be permeated with illegality and dubious Constitutional premises. As the result of investigations by Congress, we know that as of December, 2015 British intelligence agencies were frantically signaling their fears about Donald Trump to Obama Administration intelligence officials, primarily the CIA of John Brennan. ..."
"... The British were demanding that Trump be taken out by whatever means because he was "soft on Russia." They were demanding that Trump be taken out by criminalizing the idea for which the American people ultimately voted, a rational relationship, rather than war, between the U.S. and Russia. ..."
"... By the early Spring, we now know Brennan was operating out of the CIA with a taskforce investigating Trump based on British "leads," despite multiple legal prohibitions against just such domestic activity by the CIA. ..."
"... That task force included Peter Strzok, the fired FBI agent who said he would do anything to prevent Trump's election. This operation included sending informants to plant fabricated evidence on peripheral figures in the Trump campaign, including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. ..."
The media posited that these two events, one by trial, one by plea, gave Robert Mueller new
found credibility and "momentum' at a point where both were dissipating extremely rapidly. This
claim, like the others we have examined here, has no relation to reality.
Mueller's problem is that his entire investigation has been revealed to be permeated with
illegality and dubious Constitutional premises. As the result of investigations by Congress, we
know that as of December, 2015 British intelligence agencies were frantically signaling their
fears about Donald Trump to Obama Administration intelligence officials, primarily the CIA of
John Brennan.
The British were demanding that Trump be taken out by whatever means because he
was "soft on Russia." They were demanding that Trump be taken out by criminalizing the idea for
which the American people ultimately voted, a rational relationship, rather than war, between
the U.S. and Russia.
By the early Spring, we now know Brennan was operating out of the CIA with a taskforce
investigating Trump based on British "leads," despite multiple legal prohibitions against just
such domestic activity by the CIA.
That task force included Peter Strzok, the fired FBI agent
who said he would do anything to prevent Trump's election. This operation included sending
informants to plant fabricated evidence on peripheral figures in the Trump campaign, including
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The fake evidence suggested that Trump was using Russian
obtained "dirt" against Hillary Clinton. The evidence planting operations, mostly conducted on
British soil, were designed to back up the bogus and otherwise evidence free and indefensible
dossier authored by MI-6's Christopher Steele, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and promoted
by the Department of State, Department of Justice, the FBI, and select reporters. The dirty
British Steele dossier claimed that Trump had been compromised by Putin. Based on this, Trump
was targeted in a full-set counterintelligence investigation by the FBI including surveillance
of his campaign and anyone associated with it. The goal of this surveillance was to put those
who were around Trump under an investigative microscope stretching back years to find any crime
or misdeed for which they could be prosecuted. That is the illegal and unconstitutional
backdrop to everything Robert Mueller has produced thus far. Nothing produced by Mueller has
shown Trump to be a puppet of Putin as claimed by the British, the Clinton campaign, and the
national news media. Nonetheless, the entire episode has damaged relations between the U.S. and
Russia and between the U.S. and China, which was the British strategic goal in the first
instance, continuing the dive into a new and dangerous Cold War. Trump has fought this at every
step.
Paul Manafort was hired to handle delegate selection at the Republican National Convention
and then as campaign manager. He worked for Trump for six months total until his legal problems
became known and he resigned. He was charged by Mueller with tax, foreign agent registration
act, and bank fraud offenses for his lobbying activities on behalf of the deposed government of
Ukraine. That government was overthrown in coup in which John McCain played a critical role, a
coup which empowered outright neo-Nazis. Christopher Steele, British intelligence, and the U.S.
State Department also played major roles in the Ukraine regime change operation. Manafort was
targeted by both Ukrainian and British intelligence because he, in effect, backed the perceived
Russian side in the coup. For this, he was being investigated by the Obama Justice Department
well prior to any campaign association with Donald Trump. Mueller simply adjusted the focus of
this already political investigation, a focus aimed at turning Manafort into an asset against
Trump by means of the terror of potential prison sentences numbering in the hundreds of years
as the result of overcharged and duplicative indictments.
Michael Cohen, who worked with Trump as a lawyer, also had his share of prior legal
problems, primarily related to taxes concerning his taxi medallion business in New York City.
For months, the mainstream media has featured the claims of porn star Stormy Daniels claiming a
one night stand with the future President, ten years ago, as if the nation could draw some
lesson from Daniels about public virtue. Cohen apparently arranged to pay off Daniels and
another woman concerning their allegations about sex with the President. Among other suspicious
dealings, Cohen tape recorded conversations with his client, Donald Trump, during the campaign,
a complete and total violation of legal ethics which would independently cost him his law
license. For many months prior to his plea deal, Cohen has been a target of intense
investigative interest based on his tax problems. In recent months, Cohen has repeatedly
signaled that he was willing to betray the President and say whatever prosecutors in the
Southern District of New York wanted him to say about Donald Trump in order to avoid jail. The
problem is that prosecutors thought Cohen an obvious desperate liar and were not buying.
Ultimately, the deal which Cohen struck has him claiming that candidate Trump asked him to pay
hush money to the women, resulting in Federal Election Campaign Act violations. This is what
the Justice Department claimed against John Edwards in a widely ridiculed and failed
prosecution. It is exactly the type of claim by which the British and our Establishment
impeached Bill Clinton.
Cohen hired long-time Clinton operative Lanny Davis to represent him in recent months and to
make a deal. Following his plea, Davis claimed that Cohen had two made-up morsels to offer
Mueller, in return for a reduced sentence, a claim that Trump knew about the June 2016 Trump
Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, and a claim that Cohen knew about Russian hacking of
Hillary Clinton's emails. Davis has since admitted that both these claims were totally false
and has had to walk them back publicly.
So, if you are tempted by the media t think that either of these "convictions" are germane
to the President's fitness for office, or Robert Mueller's credibility, please, seek medical
attention. The madness which now infects much of official Washington may have claimed you.
Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before,
Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many
thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a junior
analyst.
At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence
agency given his communist background.
Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.
Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated
from junior analyst to the prestigious position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent
a few years.
Its said he was appointed purely for 'political' reasons, alleged to have been at the direct
request of Bill Clinton and other Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from
within the Agency.
Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly 'their man' so
to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated, even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to
ingratiate himself with the Saudis.
Important to read is an NBC news article entitled 'Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John
Brennan for Spying Comments' by Ken Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.
The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the
feelings of many in the CIA who felt that Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan's near four year departure from the
CIA into the commercial world, having been 'left out in the cold' from the CIA, from November
2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called 'The Analysis
Corporation'.
So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA's senior management, by
newly elected President Obama, to head the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the
CIA in 2005.
Lastly let's not forget Brennan's many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most
notable is the Benghazi debacle and the death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something
else to ponder.
Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.
In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on
his Trump traitor claim by saying "I didn't mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he
has done is nothing short of treasonous." Rachel Maddow responded correctly "If we diagram the
sentence, 'nothing short of treason' means it's treasonous?"
A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security
clearance other than to commercially exploit it?
Last month what can be described as 200+ 'friends of Brennan', former CIA officials of
varying rank, responded against the removal of former CIA Director Brennan's security
clearances, in support of him.
These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.
And why not?
Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?
A potentially more serious issue than 'the Brennan controversies' is that the US
intelligence community has around 5 million people with security clearances as a whole includes
approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously high
number and makes a mockery of the word secret.
Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity
required, that has stood up and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an 'Open Letter',
yet this letter's contents have hardly at all been reported in the media.
Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their
professionalism and humility, and disdain for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the
current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?
I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the
public media as some sort of impartial critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I
beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence
professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations
whatsoever.
None of this is true.
You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited
sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the
business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have never heard a
shot fired in anger.
You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to
produce finished intelligence based on information provided to you by others. The work of
intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered this trade
either.
In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior
officer, you were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time
Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each
morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other
individuals. Period.
While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then
President Bill Clinton. End of story.
Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your
personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates.
Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by
the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.
All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is
no more impartial analysis then would be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney.
You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces hostile to this
president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the
networks most vocally opposed to President Trump and his agenda.
There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober
judgment of what is best for this nation. They are based exclusively on what you believe to
be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied yourself.
It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have
been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in
recent American history.
Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize
him and destabilize him led by you. This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the
stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan political
reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.
You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a
political hack. Say so.
"... "Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace" to regions such as the Mideast. ..."
"... It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace" (despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior). ..."
"... With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster, repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one around him. You must believe us!" ..."
"... There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the obvious ..."
We gave Trump the presidency, what he does with it is his responsibility. He was warned
repeatedly about the neocons et al, but has chosen to staff up with the same swamp creatures
he ostensibly meant to expurgate.
We are left to wonder how much of this "reality" TV?
"Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the
form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace"
to regions such as the Mideast.
It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat
the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace"
(despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior).
With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards
countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses
no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster,
repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we
observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one
around him. You must believe us!"
There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is
what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the
obvious.
"... "What is quietly happening across parts of Iraq is less of a resurgence, and more a resurfacing, of the Islamic State. Many of these fighters never actually left, but merely scattered temporarily, having melted away into the population only to return. " ..."
How is ISIS resurfacing in Iraq? The short answer is that it never really left. Despite US
President Donald Trump's orders to "
annihilate ISIS ," members of the organization have continued to exist in Iraq and Syria
and carry out attacks. The caliphate has fallen and the group no longer holds the vast
territory and population it once controlled. However, supporters, organizers and fighters have
not simply disappeared. Instead, the aspiring proto-state has reverted back to its roots as a
terrorist insurgency. The US-based Soufan
Center assessed the environment as such:
"What is quietly happening across parts of Iraq is less of a resurgence, and more a
resurfacing, of the Islamic State. Many of these fighters never actually left, but merely
scattered temporarily, having melted away into the population only to return. "
The US and the UN agree that there may be as many as 30,000 ISIS
members still present in Iraq and Syria. Jason Warner and Charlotte Hulme writing for the
Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (CTC) also recently estimated that an additional
6,000
fighters are spread across Africa , with the Islamic State West-Africa Province (Boko
Haram) contributing more than half of the total. ISIS continues to wield influence further
abroad with IS-Khorasan in
Afghanistan as well as supporters in the Philippines
, Indonesia
, and throughout the Indo-Pacific.
These members and supporters received encouragement and direction from their highest leader,
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in an
audio message released last month. The message promoted patience and perseverance, claiming
that the time will come again for a resurgence. In Iraq, this may be a functional
strategy.
Little change
ISIS's Iraqi presence began as al-Qaeda in Iraq, an al-Qaeda affiliate led by
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi . The group found footholds in Iraq in the chaos caused by the US
invasion in 2003, and then re-branded itself as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) following its
founder's death in 2006. While pressured by the Anbar
Awakening and the US troop surge in 2007,
ISI managed to survive and wait for conditions to become more favorable.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki , a Shia
politician, would contribute to these conditions by giving preferential treatment and status to
Shiite Iraqis. As a result, many of Iraq's Sunnis were disillusioned and alienated from the
Iraqi state and were at least indifferent to ISIS, if not supportive. Renad Mansour of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in 2016 that a lack of options for Sunni
political engagement combined with "intra-Sunni conflict" drove the power development of ISI.
Following the withdrawal of US troops in 2011, the Iraqi security forces were left mostly alone
to fight the extremist group, and quickly buckled under the task.
Research published by the CTC earlier this year sought to analyze the
opinions of young men in Mosul , ISIS"s Iraqi capital. While largely characterized as
"corrupt, brutal, and hypocritical," 93% reported that ISIS had positive effects during the
beginning of their authority. Even now that they have lost that authority, most respondents
were confident that ISIS will not disappear anytime soon. The Sunni community in general was
characterized by the men as divided and both spiritually and physically weak.
Following the collapse of the caliphate, Iraq began judicial proceedings for thousands of
accused ISIS members. While trials are a necessary and positive element in resolving the
conflict, Iraq's courts have been quickly overwhelmed, resulting in trials lasting for as
little as
10 minutes . Innocent Sunnis are at risk of being swept
up in these trials, and joining the many who have already been sentenced to
death as a result of these proceedings.
Shia militias also continue to act with impunity as an element of Iraq's security
forces , reinforcing the power disparity between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. With Sunni
estrangement, internal conflict and disunity, and a perception of weakness continuing, it falls
on the government to enforce security and suppress violence.
Political inclusion
Perhaps the largest result of the Iraqi election this year was the ascension of
Muqtada al-Sadr , a Shia cleric, as the leader of the winning parliamentary block. Al-Sadr
promoted Iraqi unity and the abandonment of political divisiveness in his campaign; however,
his group has also been accused of
past aggression against Sunnis . How al-Sadr and the new Parliament will lead Iraq, enforce
security, and form relationships with Sunni communities remains to be seen.
The Sunni community apparently remains internally conflicted and continues to face
challenges at the hands of the Iraqi state. Renad Mansour believes that greater power-sharing
at high levels and greater autonomy at low levels is key to relieving the pressure on Sunni
communities and reengaging them with the state while also accounting for the lack of unity
within the Sunni community. Without political engagement, and facing institutionalized
challenges, many Sunnis may continue to support or be indifferent to extremist groups like
ISIS. Although the group itself has lost its attractiveness among most of Iraq's Sunnis, the
conditions which fueled its earlier growth are still present.
Doubtless, members of the group have gone into hiding and will continue to launch attacks
for the foreseeable future. ISIS will likely never return to the high point it experienced
several years ago, but it has defied expectations before. With smart re-branding and a strategy
made to appeal more to the local population, combined with a messy government unable to provide
security, ISIS may manage regain some of the power it has lost.
"... two more people tied to me would be dragged before the Grand Jury. ..."
"... Mueller and his smug band of thugs seek to browbeat before the Grand Jury is conservative author Dr. Corsi. ..."
"... It was Dr. Corsi who first alerted me to the lucrative business deals and Russian collusion of John and Tony Podesta but Corsi, a brilliant researcher, got this information from already published public sources! ..."
"... The other longtime contact Mueller seeks to interrogate this week is Trump hating left-wing radio host and deranged but job Randy Credico who merely confirmed for me that Wikileaks had, as it's publisher Julian Assange told CNN in June if 2016 a trove of devastating material on Hillary and would publish the material in October before the election. ..."
Robert Mueller the biased and partisan " Special Counsel "who has no interest whatsoever in
the multiple crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and his deeply corrupted FBI
and Justice Department but is on a relentless drive to remove President Donald Trump has done
it again!
This time Mueller and the partisan band of left-wing hitmen on the "Get Trump squad" leaked
to the media that two more people tied to me would be dragged before the Grand
Jury.
If you believe the fake news media Mueller seeks to prove that I had advance knowledge of an
alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee by "the Russians" and that this alleged
hack email material was then sent to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who then passed it on to me to
pass in to my friend and client if 40 years Donald Trump. This is a damnable provable lie!
The other fairy tale Mueller is pushing is the false claim that I knew that Wikileaks had
obtained and would [publish] Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's incredibly incriminating
emails. This also categorically false!
One of my friends Mueller and his smug band of thugs seek to browbeat before the Grand
Jury is conservative author Dr. Corsi.
It was Dr. Corsi who first alerted me to the lucrative business deals and Russian
collusion of John and Tony Podesta but Corsi, a brilliant researcher, got this information from
already published public sources! Corsi also made me aware of an August 14, 2016 article
in Breitbart News by Peter Schweizer who reported that John Podesta's brother Tony had lobbied
for the same Ukrainian political party as Paul.
While Corsi did not memorialize his findings until Aug 31 I had heard enough to post my now
Iconic tweet predicting " the Podesta's time in the barrel (time under the same public scrutiny
as Paul Manafort) would come "on August 21. Remember the context- Manafort was taking a beating
in the press but I knew the Podesta's Russian ties were more extensive and that Tony was in the
same boat as Manafort.
Note in the original Tweet I said THE Podesta's time in the barrel while THE (which is
omitted in virtually every news report including ironically the final House Intelligence
Committee Report) clearly refers to TWO Podestas. There is much debate about the apostrophe s
in Podesta's- I say it is correct as it is a plural possessive (referring to BOTH their time in
the barrel) while others argue it should be "Podestas" if I was speaking of two people.
The other longtime contact Mueller seeks to interrogate this week is Trump hating
left-wing radio host and deranged but job Randy Credico who merely confirmed for me that
Wikileaks had, as it's publisher Julian Assange told CNN in June if 2016 a trove of devastating
material on Hillary and would publish the material in October before the election.
This I know- there is no evidence in my emails or texts or anywhere else or from any other
party that would demonstrate that I knew about the publication or content of John Podesta's
extraordinarily embarrassing and incriminating emails in advance or that I knew about the
source or content of the DNC material Wikileaks did publish .Mr. Mueller will find nothing of
the sort and any claim to the contrary by anyone would be composed perjury.
If Corsi and Credico testify truthfully their testimony would be exculpatory for me but
Mueller has a lifelong record of squeezing witnesses to get them to lie.
Some people should be very careful what they wish for.
UPDATE- the testimony of Dr. Jerome Corsi before the Grand Jury today was canceled.
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no
more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their
pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources
are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't
know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close
to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for
which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in
it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front
pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage.
The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on
September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad
– bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas
Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite
obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's
"amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the
trust of one's superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing
measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust
military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which
could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model
of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.
The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which
White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with
Russian and North Korea.
Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and
dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations
with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman
service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch
mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing
the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence.
Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are
visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat
Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize
the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The
dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to
distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington,
Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and
betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded
by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people
systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick
might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is
much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly
matters since they are so closely entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power
territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other
media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among
others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the
text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look
at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write
the letter."
Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't
that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback
grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more
serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and
"instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative
pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If
Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his
mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he
says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy
from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to
breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on
teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to
blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten
the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States
pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former
Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural
resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States
has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO
countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their
own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United
States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form
of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is
what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice
of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative,
and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with
other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles
with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained,
and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry.
In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory
is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?
Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the
establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin
is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected
communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with
some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention.
First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is
worse.
But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That
tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again.
I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.
The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently
said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia,
China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections,
these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.
Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential
to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks.
For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she
should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose
those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the
Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against
Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea
interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us,
Russians.
What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears
this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats.
But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of
Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter."
President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the
Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information
about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections.
But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our
effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?
Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and
undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.
But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will
lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more
sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that
the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk
as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve
the role of world government you better be rich.
Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle
as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already
completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen
and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.
And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions
are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will
try our best. Before that, let's just watch.
And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no
more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their
pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources
are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't
know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close
to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for
which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in
it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front
pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage.
The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on
September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad
– bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas
Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite
obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's
"amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the
trust of one's superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing
measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust
military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which
could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model
of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.
The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which
White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with
Russian and North Korea.
Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and
dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations
with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman
service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch
mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing
the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence.
Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are
visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat
Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize
the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The
dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to
distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington,
Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and
betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded
by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people
systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick
might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is
much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly
matters since they are so closely entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power
territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other
media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among
others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the
text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look
at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write
the letter."
Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't
that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback
grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more
serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and
"instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative
pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If
Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his
mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he
says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy
from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to
breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on
teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to
blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten
the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States
pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former
Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural
resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States
has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO
countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their
own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United
States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form
of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is
what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice
of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative,
and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with
other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles
with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained,
and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry.
In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory
is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?
Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the
establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin
is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected
communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with
some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention.
First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is
worse.
But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That
tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again.
I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.
The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently
said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia,
China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections,
these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.
Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential
to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks.
For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she
should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose
those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the
Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against
Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea
interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us,
Russians.
What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears
this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats.
But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of
Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter."
President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the
Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information
about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections.
But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our
effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?
Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and
undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.
But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will
lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more
sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that
the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk
as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve
the role of world government you better be rich.
Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle
as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already
completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen
and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.
And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions
are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will
try our best. Before that, let's just watch.
And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.
(theverge.com)Sanders' Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act
(abbreviated "Stop BEZOS") -- along with Khanna's House of Representatives counterpart, the
Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act --
would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large
companies . The bill's text characterizes this as a "corporate welfare tax," and it would
apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If
workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8
housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits.
The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that
are de facto company employees.
"... Neoliberal Totalitarianism and the Social Contract ..."
"... Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy ..."
"... Historical Introduction ..."
"... The Social Contract ..."
"... "Man is born free, but everywhere in chains." ..."
"... Discourse on Inequality, ..."
"... "association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all." ..."
"... "The Social Contract Theory in a Global Context" ..."
"... The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism ..."
"... The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto ..."
"... "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality" ..."
"... "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be." ..."
"... New America Foundation's ..."
"... The Social Contract in Africa ..."
"... "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The Guardian ..."
"... Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly? ..."
"... "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" ..."
"... Monthly Review ..."
"... A Short History ofNeoliberalism ..."
"... Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract ..."
"... "I think not having the ..."
"... recognizes the people that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." ..."
"... "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly competitive and unequal world." ..."
"... "Pessimism of Intelligence, Optimism of Will" ..."
"... Perspectives on Gramsci ..."
"... Social vs. Corporate Welfare ..."
"... "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a globalized dialectic of ruling classes." ..."
"... The End of Ideology ..."
"... : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx." ..."
"... The End of History ..."
"... Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology ..."
"... "Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA" Social Movement Studies," ..."
"... The Great Transformation ..."
"... "To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ..."
"... "The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers. Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or telecommunications. ..."
"... "Democracy or Neoliberalism?" ..."
"... "When Exclusion Replaces Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism" ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Fascism ..."
"... The role of the state ..."
"... "The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly, there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure. The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion, that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here." ..."
"... Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality ..."
"... Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America ..."
"... everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. ..."
"... "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian Capitalism," ..."
"... is seen as an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues. ..."
"... The state exists ..."
"... as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded around a transcendent principle ..."
"... The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus." ..."
"... The Politics of Free Markets ..."
"... "The new dual sate is alive and well: Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a few." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchalnd ..."
"... Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty ..."
"... Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology. ..."
"... The Fascist Nature of Neoliberalism ..."
"... "La Dottrina del Fascismo" ..."
"... "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," ..."
"... "inverted totalitarianism" ..."
"... Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical Engagements ..."
"... Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society ..."
"... Sociology of Imperialism ..."
"... "The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader, as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state and state interests that are different from its own." ..."
"... Democratic elections have become the means for installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and pinnacle of achievement." ..."
"... "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." ..."
"... "Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy." ..."
"... Lectures on Fascism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it. ..."
"... "In some parts of Europe, and in the United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It is becoming part of normal daily discourse." ..."
"... The Global Rise of Populism ..."
"... The risk democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign. ..."
"... Can the World be Wrong ..."
"... "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and humanity's future. ..."
"... Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13% reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party. Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French presidential race. ..."
"... "Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract ..."
"... "a property of institutions or systems in which the "rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another" ..."
"... The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere ..."
"... The Trickle Down Delusion ..."
"... "Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2 percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and 2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from 2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire 1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the productivity–pay divergence. ..."
"... "Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why It's Real" ..."
"... "The fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against Man ..."
"... Neoliberal Hegemony ..."
"... Toward a 21st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "A 21 st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "The nature of work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs." ..."
"... " Turning the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One Night" ..."
"... 'knowledge based economy' ..."
"... "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?" ..."
"... Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism ..."
"... "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... "Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived." ..."
"... lumpenproletariat ..."
"... "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies ..."
"... The Denationalization of Money ..."
"... Austerity: The Lived Experience ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the Normalization of Violence ..."
"... "Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily. It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance, neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the categories of both winners and losers." ..."
"... "When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to 59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. ..."
"... Exploitation; What is it and why it is Wrong ..."
"... Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power ..."
"... Publics around the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems. Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions. Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%). ..."
"... Communication and the Globalization of Culture ..."
"... Class Politics and the Radical Right ..."
"... In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States. Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality, the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been resolved." ..."
"... Popper, Hayek and the Open Society ..."
"... Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Social Exclusion ..."
"... London Labour and the London Poor ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st Century" ..."
"... "The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest." ..."
"... Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US and Europe, ..."
"... "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review ..."
"... The Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing' ..."
"... European Network and Debt and Development ..."
"... "Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60 – 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling inflation and new debt." ..."
"... Makers and Takers: How Wall Street Destroyed Main Street ..."
"... "The Politics of Public Debt: Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", ..."
"... "Why should the new oligarchs be interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some privately owned island? ..."
"... Neoliberalism and the Making of the Subprime Borrower ..."
"... The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition ..."
"... Debt: the First 5000 Years ..."
"... "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" ..."
"... "Germany's chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat or ..."
"... . These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchland ..."
"... Grassroots Resistance to Neoliberalism ..."
"... Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers' Movement), ..."
"... (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), ..."
"... (Fanmi Lavalas) ..."
"... (Narmada Bachao Andolan). ..."
"... "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" ..."
"... "100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993." ..."
"... Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, ..."
"... Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" ..."
"... The BRICS: Challenges to the Global Status Quo" ..."
"... Landless Workers Movement ..."
"... Partido dos Trabalhadores ..."
"... The Drug War in Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ..."
"... Justice in El Barrio ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Occupy Wall Street ..."
"... 'De-democratization' under Neoliberalism ..."
"... Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution ..."
"... "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ..."
"... "undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any hierarchy in value or belief systems." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism as Political Theology of Chance: the politics of divination." ..."
"... Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" ..."
"... Virtue and Economy ..."
"... The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in Decline, ..."
"... The Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... "Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption." ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ..."
"... The Politics of Thatcherism ..."
"... "The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" ..."
"... "A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers." ..."
Neoliberal Totalitarianism and the Social Contract
Abstract
Analyzing aspects of the rightwing populist tide arising largely in reaction to the
pluralistic-diversity model of neoliberalism, this essay examines the evolving social contract
that normalizes systemic exploitation and repression in the name of capitalist growth. Amid
incessant indoctrination by the media representing big capital, people try to make sense of
whether their interests are best served under the pluralist-diversity model of globalist
neoliberalism with a shrinking social welfare safety net, or an authoritarian-economic
nationalist model promising salvation through the use of an iron hand against domestic and
foreign enemies.
Socioeconomic polarization under the neoliberal social contract has laid the groundwork for
political polarization clearly evident not just in President Donald Trump's America and Prime
Minister Narendra Modi's India representing a rightwing populist neoliberal ideology, but
France's President Emmanuel Macron's La République En Marche that espouses a
pluralist–diversity-environmentalist model aiming at the same neoliberal goals as the
populists. Whether under the pluralist or the authoritarian model, neoliberalism represents
what Barrington Moore described in Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966)
a capitalist reactionary route that Italy, Japan, and Germany followed under totalitarian
regimes in the interwar era to protect the capitalist class after the crisis that wars of
imperialism (1870-1914) and WWI had created in core capitalist countries.
Although the world is much more thoroughly integrated under capitalism today than it was a
century ago, the same marked absence of a revolutionary trend as there was in the interwar era
is evident in our era. This accounts for the neoliberal revolution from above culminatingin
variations of authoritarian regimes throughout the world. This does not only signal a crisis in
capitalism but social discontinuity that will precipitate sociopolitical instability as
contradictions within the political economy foster polarization across all sectors of
society.
Historical Introduction
Most people today have no reason to be familiar with the term "social contract" any more
than they are familiar with neoliberalism that inordinately influences public policy on a world
scale. For many analysts contemplating the relationship of the individual to organized society,
the social contract is about the degree to which government advances a set of social and
economic policies articulated by an ideology designed to benefit certain institutions and
social groups, while safeguarding sovereignty in the name of the governed. The problem arises
when the governed no longer view the social contract as legitimate, a point that John Locke
addressed as this was a key issue in 17 th century England right before the Glorious
Revolution.
The social contract has its origins in the transition from subsistence agriculture of the
feudal-manorial economy to commercial agriculture and long-distance trade under capitalism in
the 15 th and 16 th century. With the advent of the Scientific Revolution
in the 17 th century and the Enlightenment in the 18 th century
coinciding with England's first industrial revolution accounted for more rapid evolution of the
division of labor, European intellectuals challenged the old social order based on birth-right
privilege of the aristocracy representing the agrarian-based economy of the past. Changes
taking place in the economy and social structure gave rise to bourgeois social contract
theories that articulated a core role in the state for the merchant-banking class, especially
in northwest Europe where mercantile capitalism consolidated.
As the ideological force of the English Glorious Revolution (1689), John Locke, the father
of Western Liberalism, argued for a regime that reflected the emerging bourgeoisie inclusion
into the political mainstream to reflect the commensurate role in the economy. Interestingly,
Locke provided a philosophical justification for overthrowing the government when it acted
against the interests of its citizens, thus influencing both the American War of Independence
and the French Revolution. Building on Locke's liberal philosophy and views on the tyranny of
absolutism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in The Social Contract (1762) that: "Man
is born free, but everywhere in chains." This statement reflected the views of many
bourgeois thinkers who believed that modernization of society is not possible in the absence of
a social contract that takes into account natural rights, an approach to government that would
mirror a merit based criteria.
Departing from Locke's liberalism that had property ownership and individualism at the core
of his political thought, in the Discourse on Inequality, (1754) Rousseau argued that
property appropriation rests at the root of institutionalized inequality and oppression of
individuals against the community. The role of the state plays a catalytic role for it as an
"association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective
force of all." The basis of social contract theory accounts for the sovereign power's
legitimacy and justice, thus resulting in public acceptance. (Jason Neidleman, "The Social
Contract Theory in a Global Context"http://www.e-ir.info/2012/10/09/the-social-contract-theory-in-a-global-context/
; C. B. Macpherson. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism , 1962)
Rooted in the ascendancy of the European bourgeoisie, social contract theory has evolved in
the last three centuries, especially after the Revolutions of 1848 and the rise of the working
class as a sociopolitical force demanding inclusion rather than marginalization and
exploitation legalized through public policy that the representatives of capitalism legislated.
The cooptation of the working class into bourgeois political parties as a popular base in the
age of mass politics from the mid-19 th century until the present has obfuscated the
reality that social contract under varieties of parliamentary regimes continued to represent
capital.
The creation of large enterprises gave rise not only to an organized labor movement, but to
a larger bureaucratic regulatory state with agencies intended to help stabilize and grow
capitalism while keeping the working class loyal to the social contract. Crisis in public
confidence resulted not only from economic recessions and depressions built into the economy,
but the contradictions capitalism was fostering in society as the benefits in advances in
industry, science and technology accrued to the wealthy while the social structure remained
hierarchical.
Ever since 1947 when the ideological father of neoliberalism Friedrich von Hayek called a
conference in Mont Pelerin to address how the new ideology would replace Keynesianism,
neoliberals have been promising to address these contradictions, insisting that eliminating the
social welfare state and allowing complete market dominationthat would result in society's
modernization and would filter down to all social classes and nations both developed and
developing. Such thinking is rooted in the modernization theory that emerged after WWII when
the US took advantage of its preeminent global power to impose a transformation model on much
of the non-Communist world. Cold War liberal economist Walt Rostow articulated the
modernization model of development in his work entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto , 1960. By the 1970s, neoliberals adapted Rostow's modernization
theory as their bible and the core of the social contract. (Evans Rubara, "Uneven
Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality"
The challenge for the political class has always been and remains to mobilize a popular base
that would afford legitimacy to the social contract. The issue for mainstream political parties
is not whether there is a systemic problem with the social contract intended to serve the
capitalist class, but the degree to which the masses can be co-opted through various methods to
support the status quo. "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on
higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've
moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a
hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has
grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social
contract might be."
Considering that Keynesianism and neoliberalism operate under the same social structure and
differ only on how best to achieve capital formation while retaining sociopolitical conformity,
the article above published in The Atlantic illustrates how analysts/commentators
easily misinterpret nuances within a social contract for the covenant's macro goals. A similar
view as that expressed in The Atlantic is also reflected in the New America
Foundation's publications, identifying specific aspects of Arthur Schlesinger's Cold War
militarist policies enmeshed with social welfare Keynesianism as parts of the evolving social
contract.
Identifying the social contract with a specific set of policies under different
administrations evolving to reflect the nuances of political class and economic elites,some
analysts contend that there is a European Union-wide social contract to which nationally-based
social contracts must subordinate their sovereignty. This model has evolved to accommodate
neoliberal globalism through regional trade blocs on the basis of a 'patron-client'integration
relationship between core and periphery countries.
A European export and integral part of cultural hegemony in the non-Western world, the
liberal-bourgeois social contract for the vast majority of Africans has failed to deliver on
the promise of socioeconomic development, social justice and national sovereignty since
independence from colonial rule. Just as in Africa, the Asian view of the social contract is
that it entails a liberal model of government operating within the capitalist system rather
than taking into account social justice above all else. Embracing pluralism and diversity while
shedding aspects of authoritarian capitalism associated with cronyism and the clientist state,
the view of the Asian social contract is to subordinate society to neoliberal global
integration and work within the framework of Western-established institutions. In each country,
traditions governing social and political relationships underlie the neoliberal model. (Sanya
Osha, The Social Contract in Africa , 2014;
Despite far reaching implications for society and despite the political and business class
keen awareness of neoliberalism, most people around the world are almost as perplexed by the
term neoliberalism as they are with social contract theory that is outside the public debate
confined to the domain of political philosophy. Many associate neoliberalism withRonald Reagan
supporter Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School', rarely mentioning the political dimension
of the economic philosophy and its far-reaching implications for all segments of society. In an
article entitled "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The
Guardian columnist George Monbiot raised a few basic questions about the degree to which
the public is misinformed when it comes to the neoliberal social contract under which society
operates.
" Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of
its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown
of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the
epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to
these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either
catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had
– a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Advocates of neoliberalism, both from the pluralist-social welfare wing and the rightwing
populist camp, have succeeded in institutionalizing the new social contract which has
transformed the historically classical notion of individual freedombased on the Enlightenment
concept of natural rights into freedom of capitalist hegemony over the state and society.
Whether operating under the political/ideological umbrella of pluralism-environmentalism in
Western nations, combined with some version of a Keynesian social welfare pluralist model, with
rightwing populism or authoritarianism in one-party state, political and corporate elites
advancing the neoliberal model share the same goal with regard to capital formation and
mainstream institutions.
Weakening the social welfare corporatist state model by reaching political consensus among
mainstream political parties by the late 1980s-early 1990s, whether operating under a
centrist-pluralist or conservative party, neoliberals have been using the combination of
massive deregulation with the state providing a bailout mechanism when crisis hits; fiscal
policy that transfers income from workers and the middle class – raising the public debt
to transfer wealth from the bottom 90% to the wealthiest 10% -; providing corporate subsidies
and bailouts; and privatizing public projects and services at an immense cost to the declining
living standards for the middle class and workers.
As much in the US as in other developed nations beginning in the 1980s, the neoliberal state
has become status quo by intentionally weakening the social welfare state and redefining the
social contract throughout the world. Working with large banks and multilateral institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank that use loans as leverage to
impose neoliberal policies around the world in debtor nations desperate to raise capital for
the state and attract direct foreign investment, the advanced capitalist countries impose the
neoliberal social contract on the world.
As reflected in the integrated global economy, the neoliberal model was imbedded in IMF
stabilization and World Bank development loans since the late 1940s. After the energy crisis of
the mid-1970s and the revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua in 1979, international developments
that took place amid US concerns about the economy under strain from rising balance payments
deficits that could not accommodate both 'military Keynesianism' (deficit spending on defense
as a means of boosting the economy) and the social welfare system, neoliberalism under the
corporate welfare state emerged as the best means to continue strengthening capitalism. (J. M.
Cypher, "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" , Monthly
Review Vol. 59, No. 2, 2007; Jason Hickel, A Short History ofNeoliberalism ,
Everything from government agencies whose role is strengthening capital, to public schools
and hospitals emulating the market-based management model and treating patients and students as
customers, the neoliberal goal is comprehensive market domination of society. Advocates of the
neoliberal social contract no longer conceal their goals behind rhetoric about
liberal-democratic ideals of individual freedom and the state as an arbiter to harmonize the
interests of social classes. The market unequivocally imposes its hegemony not just over the
state but on all institutions, subordinating peoples' lives to market forces and equating those
forces with democracy and national sovereignty. In pursuit of consolidating the neoliberal
model on a world scale, the advocates of this ideology subordinate popular sovereignty and
popular consent from which legitimacy of the state emanates to capital. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/introren.htm
As an integral part of the social environment and hegemonic culture reflecting the
hierarchical class structure and values based on marginalization, the neoliberal social
contract has become institutionalized in varying degrees reflecting the more integrative nature
of capitalism after the fall of the Communist bloc coinciding with China's increased global
economic integration. Emboldened that there was no competing ideology from any government
challenging capitalism, neoliberals aggressively pursued globalization under the
deregulation-corporate welfare anti-labor model.
Some countries opted for mixed policies with a dose of quasi-statist policies as in the case
of China. Others retained many aspects of the social welfare state as in the case of EU
members, while some pursue authoritarian capitalism within a pluralistic model. Still other
nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia where pluralism and multi-party traditions are not
very strong, neoliberal policies are tailored to clientist politics and crony capitalism. In
all cases, 'market omnipotence theory' is the catalyst under the umbrella of the neoliberal
social contract.
Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract
Just as religion was universally intertwined with identity, projection of self-image in the
community and the value system in the Age of Faith (500-1500), secular ideology in the modern
world fulfills somewhat a similar goal. Although neoliberalism has been criticized as a secular
religion precisely because of its dogmatism regarding market fundamentalism, especially after
2013 when Pope Francis dismissed it as idolatry of money that attempts to gloss over abject
socioeconomic inequality on a world scale, capitalistsand the political class around the world
have embraced some aspects if not wholeheartedly neoliberal ideology.
https://economicsociology.org/2014/12/25/pope-francis-against-neoliberalism-finance-capitalism-consumerism-and-inequality/
In the early 21 st century arguments equating the rich with societal progress and
vilifying the poor as social stigma indicative of individual failure are no different than
arguments raised by apologists of capitalism in the early 19 th century when the
British Parliament was debating how to punish the masses of poor that the industrial revolution
had created. In defending tax cuts to the wealthy, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated:
"I think not having theestate taxrecognizes the people
that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have,
whether it's on booze or women or movies."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/grassley-estate-taxes-booze-women_us_5a247d89e4b03c44072e5a04
; The US senator's argument could easily be heard in early 19 th century England.
Blaming the poor for structural poverty which capitalism causes has become widespreadsince the
early 1980s. This is because of government efforts to dismantle the welfare state as a social
safety net and transfer resources for tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals. https://www.globalresearch.ca/blaming-the-poor-for-poverty/535675
Rooted in classical liberal ideology, neoliberalism rests on laissez-faire and social
Darwinist principles that affirm societal progress as defined by materialist self-interest.
Because private financial gain is the sole measure of success and virtue, neoliberals demand
that the state and international organizations must remove impediments to capital
accumulationnationally and internationally no matter the consequences to the non-propertied
classes. Aiming for more than mere mechanical compliance, the goal of the ideology is to create
the illusion of the neoliberal self that lives, breathes, and actualizes neoliberal myths in
every aspect of life from a person as a worker to consumer and citizen.
Jim Mcguigan argues that "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal
hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in
subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate
in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom
emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and
heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly
competitive and unequal world." (Jim McGuigan: 'The Neoliberal Self',Culture Unbound,
Volume 6, 2014; http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v6/a13/cu14v6a13.pdf
By offering the illusion of integration to those that the social structure has marginalized
while trying to indoctrinate the masses that the corporate state is salvation and the welfare
state is the enemy to default all of society's problems, the neoliberal ideology has captured
the imagination of many in the middle class and even some in the working class not just in the
West but around the world and especially in former Communist bloc countries where people
entertained an idealized version of bourgeois liberal society. (S. Gill, "Pessimism of
Intelligence, Optimism of Will" in Perspectives on Gramsci , ed. by Joseph
Francene 2009)
Similar to liberalism in so far as it offers something for which to hope, neoliberalism is a
departure when it decries the state as an obstacle to capitalist growth not only because of
regulatory mechanisms and as an arbiter in society that must placate the masses with social
programs, but even as a centralized entity determining monetary and fiscal policy. Proponents
of neoliberalism demand turning back the clock to the ideology that prevailed among capitalists
and their political supporters at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when there were no
state mechanisms to regulate labor conditions, mining operations and the environment, food and
drugs, etc. From a dogmatic market fundamentalist perspective, the market transcends national
borders and supersedes the state, thus the principal form of governance revolves around
furthering capital accumulation.
Not only is there an absence of a social conscience not so different than what prevailed in
the nascent phase of industrial capitalism, but there is disdain of social responsibility on
the part of capital beyond the realm of tax-deductible charity donations and voluntarism. More
significant, neoliberals believe that capital is entitled to appropriate whatever possible from
society because the underlying assumption of corporate welfare entitlement is built into the
neoliberal ideology that identifies the national interest with capital and labor as the enemy
of capital accumulation. (K. Farnsworth, Social vs. Corporate Welfare , 2012)
The irony in all of this is that in 2008 the world experienced the largest and deepest
recession since the 1930s precisely because of neoliberal policies. However, its advocates
insisted that the recession was causedwe did not have enough deregulation, privatization,
corporate welfare and low taxes on capital rather than going too far with such an extreme
ideology whose legal and illegal practices that led to the global recession. Even more ironic
neoliberal ideology blames the state – central banks, legislative branch and regulatory
agencies – rather than the economic system for the cyclical crisis.
https://cgd.leeds.ac.uk/events/2008-global-financial-crisis-in-a-long-term-perspective-the-failure-of-neo-liberalism-and-the-future-of-capitalism-2/
Because the state puts the interests of a tiny percentage of the population above the rest
of society, it is a necessary structure only in so far as it limits its role to promoting
capital formation by using any means to achieve the goal. Whether under a pluralistic-diversity
political model or an authoritarian one, neoliberalism is anti-democratic because as Riad Azar
points out, "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the
assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a
globalized dialectic of ruling classes."
From conservative and liberal to self-described Socialist, political parties around the
world have moved ideologically farther to the right in order to accommodate neoliberalism as
part of their platform. The challenge of the political class is to keep people loyal to the
neoliberal ideology; a challenge that necessarily forces political parties to be eclectic in
choosing aspects of other ideological camps that appeal to voters. While embracing corporate
welfare, decrying social welfare is among the most glaring neoliberal contradiction of an
ideology that ostensibly celebrates non-state intervention in the private sector. This
contradiction alone forces neoliberal politicians of all stripes and the media to engage in
mass distraction and to use everything from identity politics ideologies to cult of
personality,and culture wars and 'clash of civilization' theories.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/How-the-Democrats-Became-The-Party-of-Neoliberalism-20141031-0002.html
;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/paul-emery/why-on-earth-would-socialists-support-neoliberal-undemocratic-eu
To justify why self-proclaimed socialist and democratic parties have embraced neoliberalism,
many academics have provided a wide range of theories which have in fact helped solidify the
neoliberal ideology into the political mainstream. Among the countless people swept up by the
enthusiasm of the Communist bloc's fall and China's integration into the world capitalist
economy, Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (2000), argued that the world returned to
old religious and ethnic conflicts around which ideologies of the new century were molded.
Encouraged by China's integration into the global capitalist system, in September 2006 Bell
wrote : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of
Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal
with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I
still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort
of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx."https://prezi.com/kha1ketnfjtd/ideology-in-everyday-life/
Such hasty pronouncements and others in works like Francis Fukuyama's The End of
History expressed the Western bourgeois sense of relief of an integrated world under the
Western-dominated neoliberal ideology that would somehow magically solve problems the Cold War
had created. While Bell, Fukuyama and others celebrated the triumphant era of neoliberal
ideology, they hardly dealt with the realities that ideology in peoples' lives emanates from
mainstream institutions manifesting irreconcilable contradictions. A product molded by the
hegemonic political culture, neoliberal ideology has been a factor in keeping the majority in
conformity while a small minority is constantly seeking outlets of social resistance, some
within the neoliberal rightwing political mold.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on
As catalyst to mobilize the masses, nationalism remains a strong aspect of ideological
indoctrination that rightwing populist neoliberals have used blaming immigrants, Muslims,
women, gays, environmentalists, and minorities for structural problems society confronts
resulting from the political economy. Although there are different political approaches about
how best to achieve neoliberal goals, ideological indoctrination has always played an essential
role in keeping people loyal to the social contract. However, the contradiction in neoliberal
ideology is the need for a borderless world and the triumph of capital over the nation-state
while state policies harmonize disparate capitalist interests within the nation-state and
beyond it. If neoliberal ideology tosses aside nationalism then it deprives itself of a
mechanism to mobilize the masses behind it. https://left-flank.org/2011/01/16/the-curious-marriage-of-neoliberalism-and-nationalism/
Arguing that the 'Ideological State Apparatuses' (ISA) such as religious and educational
institutions among others in the private sector perpetuate the ideology of the status quo,
Louis Pierre Althusser captured the essence of state mechanisms to mobilize the masses.
However, ideology is by no means the sole driving force in keeping people loyal to the social
contract. While peoples' material concerns often dictate their ideological orientation, it
would be hasty to dismiss the role of the media along with hegemonic cultural influences deeply
ingrained into society shaping peoples' worldview and keeping them docile.
Building on Althusser's theory of how the state maintains the status quo, Goran Therborn (
Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology , 1999) argues that the neoliberal state
uses ideological domination as a mechanism to keep people compliant. Combined with the state's
repressive mechanisms – police and armed forces – the ideological apparatus
engenders conformity wherein exploitation and repression operate within the boundaries that the
state defines as 'legal', thus 'normal' for society. A desirable goal of regimes ranging from
parliamentary to Mussolini's Fascist Italy (1922-1943) and clerical Fascism under Antonio de
Oliveira Salazar's Portugal (1932-1968), legalized repressive mechanisms have become an
integral part of neoliberal ideological domination.
The unchecked role of neoliberal capitalism in every aspect of the social fabric runs the
risk of at the very least creating massive social, economic and political upheaval as was the
case with the great recession of 2008 preceded by two decades of neoliberal capitalism taking
precedence over the welfare regulatory state whose role is to secure and/or retain equilibrium
in global markets. In The Great Transformation , (1944)", Karl Polanyi argued that:
"To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their
natural environment would result in the demolition of society."
Because Polanyi lived through the Great Depression era of the New Deal and the rise and fall
of the Axis Powers, he was optimistic that a return to the 1920s would not take root after
WWII. Polanyi accepted Hegel's view of the social contract that the state preserves society by
safeguarding general or universal interests against particular ones. However, we have been
witnessing the kind of demolition of society Polanyi feared because of unchecked market forces.
This is in part because the demise of the Communist bloc and the rise of China as a major
economic power emboldened advocates of neoliberal ideology.
With the realization of US long road to decline at the end of the Vietnam War, neoliberal
elites prevailed that the crisis of American leadership could be met with the elimination of
Keynesian ideology and the adoption of neoliberalism as tested by the Chicago School in Chile
under the US-backed dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990. That the neoliberal
ideology became an experiment tested in a US-backed military dictatorship in South America is
itself revealing about what the nature of the social contract once implemented even in
pluralistic societies where there was popular and political support for Keynesianism.
Characteristic of a developing nation like Chile was external dependence and a weak state
structure, thus easily manipulated by domestic and foreign capital interested in deregulation
and further weakening of the public sector as the core of the social contract.
"The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned
enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to
capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers.
Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and
state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and
untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or
telecommunications. (Atilio A. Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism?"http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html
Advocating the systematic dismantling of the social welfare state in the name of upholding
the virtues of individualism while strengthening of corporate welfare capitalism in the name of
economic growth on global scale, advocates of neoliberal ideology were emboldened by the
absence of a competing ideology after the fall of the Soviet bloc and China's capitalist
integration. As the income gap widened and globalization resulted in surplus labor force amid
downward pressure on wages, a segment of the social and political elites embraced a rightwing
populist ideology as a means of achieving the neoliberal goals in cases where the pluralist
ideological model was not working. The failure of neoliberal policies led some political and
business elites to embrace rightwing populism in order to save neoliberalism that had lost
support among a segment of society because of its association with centrist and reformist
cultural-diversity pluralist neoliberals. This trend continues to gain momentum exposing the
similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism. (David Zamora, "When Exclusion Replaces
Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism"http://nonsite.org/feature/when-exclusion-replaces-exploitation.
Neoliberalism and Fascism
The role of the state
Unprecedented for a former president, on 10 December 2017 Barak Obama warned Americans not
to follow a Nazi path. A clear reference to president Trump and the Republican Party leading
America in that direction with rhetoric and policies that encourage 'culture war' (
kulturkampf – struggle between varieties of rightwingers from evangelicals to
neo-Nazis against secular liberals), Obama made reference to socioeconomic polarization at the
root of political polarization.
"The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid
to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly,
there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure.
The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance
and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion,
that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around
the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-warns-americans-against-following-in-the-path-of-nazi
germany_us_5a2c032ce4b0a290f0512487
Warning about the road to Nazism, Obama drew distinctions between the Democratic Party's
brand of pluralist neoliberalism and Trump's rightwing populist model. Naturally, Obama did not
mention that both models seek the same goals, or that policies for which he and his predecessor
Bill Clinton pursued drove a segment of the population toward the authoritarian neoliberal
model that offers the illusion of realizing the American Dream. Distancing themselves from
neo-Fascists, mainstream European political leaders embracing the pluralist model under
neoliberalism have been as condemnatory as Obama of rightwing populism's pursuit of 'culture
war' as a precursor to Fascism.
Accusing Trump of emboldening varieties of neo-Fascists not just in the US and EU but around
the globe, European neoliberal pluralists ignored both the deep roots of Fascism in Europe and
their own policies contributing to the rise of neo-Fascism. Just as with Obama and his fellow
Democrats, European neoliberal pluralists draw a very sharp distinction between their version
of neoliberalism and rightwing populism that either Trump or Hungary's Viktor Orban pursue.
Neoliberal pluralists argue that rightwing populists undercut globalist integration principles
by stressing economic nationalism although it was right nationalists Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan that engaged in wholesale implantation of neoliberal policies.
https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/02/28/the-myths-of-far-right-populism-orbans-fence-and-trumps-wall/
Rightwing populism under Ronald Reagan as the first president to implement neoliberal
policies emerged as a reaction to the prospect that the Western-basedcore of capitalism was
weakening as a result of a multi-polar world economy. Whereas in the middle of the 20
th century the US enjoyed balance of payments surpluses and was a net creditor with
the dollar as the world's strongest reserve currency and the world's strongest manufacturing
sector, in 2017 the US is among the earth's largest debtor nations with chronic balance of
payments deficits, a weak dollar with a bleak future and an economy based more on parasitic
financial speculation and massive defense-related spending and less on productive sectors that
are far more profitable in Asia and developing nations with low labor costs. (Jon Kofas,
Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality , 2005, 40-54)
Exerting enormous influence by exporting its neoliberal ideological, political, economic and
cultural influence throughout the world, the US-imposed transformation model has resulted in
economic hardships and political and social instability in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
Institutionalizing neoliberalism under rightwing populism and using Trump as the pretext to do
so, the US is leading nations around the world to move closer to neo-Fascism, thus exposing
neoliberalism as totalitarian.The recognition by the political class and business class that
over-accumulation is only possible by continued downward wage pressure has been a key reason
that a segment of the population not just in the US but across EU has supported populist
rightwing and/or neo-fascists.
Rejecting the claim of any similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism, neoliberal
apologists take pride that their apparent goal is to weaken the state, by which they mean the
Keynesian welfare state, not the 'military Keynesian' and corporate welfare state. By contrast,
Fascists advocated a powerful state – everything within the state, nothing outside
the state, nothing against the state. American neoliberals of both the pluralist and
rightwing camps have created a societal model not just in one nation like Mussolini and Hitler
but globally with the result of: "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against
neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism.
Neoliberal totalitarianism finds different expression in the US than in India, in Hungary
than in Israel. In " Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian
Capitalism," Shankar Gopalakrishnan observed that exclusive Hindu nationalism has been the
catalyst for rightwing neoliberalism to mobilize popular support. "Hindutva [ a term
coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 to assert exclusive Hindu dominance] is seen as
an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from
class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven
anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it
does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the
extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues.The state exists only as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded
around a transcendent principle : The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu
rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus."
Whereas under Ronald Reagan's neoliberal populist policies (Reaganism) under a rightwing
political umbrella the state structure was strengthened in the US, in the process of
implementing neoliberal policies state bureaucratic functions have been outsourced to private
companies thus keeping with the spirit of corporate-welfare goals. Other countries followed a
path similar to the one of the US. Contrary to the claims of many neoliberal scholars,
politicians and commentators, neoliberalism has not weakened the state simply because the
ideology lays claims to a hegemonic private sector and weak state. It is true that the
Keynesian-welfare state structure has been weakened while the
corporate-welfare-militarist-police-state structure has been strengthened. However, in the less
developed capitalist countries the public sector has weakened as a result of the US and EU
imposing the neoliberal model which drains the public sector of any leverage in stimulating
economic and social development investment because of the transfer of public assets and public
services to the private sector.( http://jgu.edu.in/article/indias-neoliberal-path-perdition
; Monica Prasad, The Politics of Free Markets , 2006)
Gaspar Miklos Tamas, a Romanian political philosopher of the George Lukacs-inspired Budapest
School, argues that global division of labor in the neoliberal era has not only resulted in
wealth transfer from the bottom up but it has diminished national sovereignty and citizenship
for those in less developed (periphery) nations. "The new dual sate is alive and well:
Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of
arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this
second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty
within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of
citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on
mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation
struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is
not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a
few."https://www.opendemocracy.net/people-newright/article_306.jsp
If the normative state is the domain of the very few with the rest under the illusion of
inclusion, Miklos Tamas concludes that we are living in a global post-fascist era which is not
the same as the interwar totalitarian model based on a mass movement of Fascism. Instead,
neoliberal totalirarianism categorically rejects the Enlightenment tradition of citizenship
which is the very essence of the bourgeois social contract. While the normative state in
advanced countries is becoming more authoritarian with police-state characteristics, the state
in the periphery whether Eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa is swept along by neoliberal
policies that drive it toward authoritarianism as much as the state in Trump's America as in
parts of Europe to the degree that in January 2018 Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union
(CDU) faced the prospect either of new elections or entering into a coalition with the neo-Nazi
Alternative fur Deutchalnd (AfD). https://www.prosper.org.au/2010/05/25/the-counter-enlightenment/
The rightwing course of the Western World spreading into the rest of the world is not only
because of IMF austerity used as leverage to impose neoliberalism in developing nations.
Considering that countries have been scrambling to attract foreign investment which carries
neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatization, weak trade unions and low taxes as a
precondition, the entire world economic system is the driving force toward a form of
totalitarianism. As Miklos Tamas argues, this has diluted national sovereignty of weaker
countries, allowing national capitalists and especially multinational corporations to play a
determining role in society against the background of a weak state structure. Along with
weakened national sovereignty, national citizenship in turn finds expression in extreme
rightwing groups to compensate for loss of independence as the bourgeois social contract
presumably guarantees. (Aihwa Ong, Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and
Sovereignty , 2006;
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/22/globalization-does-not-entail-the-weakening-of-the-liberal-state/
It is undeniable that there is a qualitative difference in Berlin and Rome under neoliberal
regimes today than it was under Fascism. It would be a mistake to lump a contemporary
neoliberal society together with the Third Reich and Fascist Italy, a dreadful and costly
mistake that Stalinists made in the 1930s. Interwar totalitarianism existed under one-party
state with a popular base operating as a police state. Although many countries under varieties
of neoliberal regimes have an electoral system of at least two parties alternating power, the
ruling parties pursue neoliberal policies with variations on social and cultural issues
(identity politics), thus operating within the same policy framework impacting peoples' living
standards.
Not just leftist academic critics, but even the progressive democratic Salon
magazine recognized during the US election of 2016 that the neoliberal state would prevail
regardless of whether Trump or Clinton won the presidential contest. " Neoliberalism
presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little
pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far
as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in
that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the
planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding
ideology.
In neoliberal society either of the pluralist-diversity or of the authoritarian political
camp there are elements of polizeistaat though not nearly full blown as in the Third
Reich. While conformity to the status quo and self-censorship is the only way to survive,
modern means of communication and multiple dissident outlets attacking the status quo from the
right, which is far more pervasive and socio-politically acceptable than doing so from the
left, has actually facilitated the evolution of the new totalitarian state.
http://www.thegreatregression.eu/progressive-neoliberalism-versus-reactionary-populism-a-hobsons-choice/
Whereas big business collaborated closely with Fascist dictators from the very beginning to
secure the preeminence of the existing social order threatened by the crisis of democracy
created by capitalism, big business under the neoliberal social contract has the same goal,
despite disagreement on the means of forging political consensus. Partly because neoliberalism
carries the legacy of late 19 th century liberalism and operates in most countries
within the parliamentary system, and partly because of fear of grassroots social revolution, a
segment of the capitalist class wants to preserve the democratic façade of the neoliberal
social contract by perpetuating identity politics. In either case, 'economic fascism' as the
essence of neoliberalism, or post-fascism as Miklos Tamas calls it, is an inescapable
reality. (Andrea Micocci and Flavia Di Mario, The Fascist Nature of Neoliberalism ,
2017).
In distinguishing the composition and goals of theparliamentary state vs. the Fascist
one-party state, Italian Fascism's theoretician Giovanni Gentile characterizedit as
'totalitario'; a term also applied to Germany's Third Reich the latter which had the added
dimension of anti-Semitism as policy. Arguing that ideology in the Fascist totalitarian state
had a ubiquitous role in every aspect of life and power over people, Gentile and Mussolini
viewed such state as the catalyst to a powerful nation-state that subordinates all institutions
and the lives of citizens to its mold. In "La Dottrina del Fascismo" (Gentile and
Mussolini, 1932), Musolini made famous the statement: "Everything within the state, nothing
outside the state, nothing against the state," although Hitler's polizeistaat was
more totalitarian because it had the means to achieve policy goals stated in Mein
Kampf .
The convergence of neoliberalism and Fascism is hardly surprising when one considers that
both aim at a totalitarian society of different sorts, one of state-driven ideology and the
other market-driven with the corporate welfare state behind it. In some respects, Sheldon
Wolin's the "inverted totalitarianism" theory places this issue into another
perspective, arguing that despite the absence of a dictator the corporate state behind the
façade of 'electoral democracy' is an instrument of totalitarianism. Considering the
increased role of security-intelligence-surveillance agencies in a presumably open society, it
is not difficult to see that society has more illiberal than classic liberal traits. Sheldon
Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted
Totalitarianism, 2008)
More powerful than the Axis Powers combined, American "Inverted totalitarianism" was
internationalized during the Cold War and became more blatant during the war on terror, in
large measure used as a pretext to impose neoliberalism in the name of national security. As
the police-state gradually became institutionalized in every respect from illegal surveillance
of citizens to suppressing dissent to the counterterrorism-neoliberal regime, it was becoming
clearer to many scholars that a version of fascism was emerging in the US which also sprang up
around the world. (Charlotte Heath-Kelly et al. eds., Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical
Engagements , 2016;
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15074-Chris-Hedges-The-Great-Unraveling-USA-on-the-brink-of-neo-fascist-police-state#.WifwyLBrzIU
Almost a century after the era of Fascist totalitarianism that led to WWII, the transition
of capitalism's global structure with a shifting core from the US and northwest Europe to East
Asia has entailed intense global competition for capital accumulation to the degree that the
advanced countries have been pushing living standards downward to compete with low-wage global
markets. The process of draining greater surplus value from labor especially from the periphery
countries where IMF-style austerity policies have resulted in massive capital transfer to the
core countries has taken place under the neoliberal social contract that has striking
similarities with Fascism.
Backed by the state in the advanced capitalist countries, international organizations among
them the IMF have been promoting economic fascism under the label of 'neoliberal reforms', thus
molding state structures accordingly. Neoliberal totalitarianism is far more organized and
ubiquitous than interwar Fascism not only because of the strong national state structure of
core countries and modern technology and communications networks that enables surveillance and
impose subtle forms of indoctrination, but also because the international agencies established
by the US under the Bretton Woods system help to impose policies and institutions globally.
Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society
The genesis of illiberal politics can be traced back to the end of WWI when Europeans
witnessed the unraveling of the rationalist order of the Enlightenment rooted in Lockean
liberalism. Influenced by the wars of imperialism that led the First World War at the end of
which Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks to a revolutionary victory over Czarist Russia, Joseph
Schumpeter like many European scholars was trying to make sense of how capitalism's forcible
geographic expansion (imperialism) led to such global disasters that undermined the rationalist
assumptions of the Enlightenment about society and its institutions. In his Sociology of
Imperialism (1919), he wrote the following about the relationship of the bourgeoisie with
the state.
"The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader,
as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest
submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of
organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some
countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the
bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic
enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state
and state interests that are different from its own."
The strong state structure of the imperial state that the bourgeoisie supported as a vehicle
of expanding their interests globally while maintaining the social order at the national level
held true only for the advanced capitalist countries eagerly trying to secure international
markets at any cost including armed conflict. While essential for capital integration and
expansion, the strong state structure was and remains an anathema to the bourgeoisie, if its
role is to make political, economic and social concessions to the laboring and middle classes
which are the popular base for bourgeois political parties. While classical liberal theory
expresses the interests of capitalism its role is not to serve in furtherance of political
equality for the simple reason that capitalism cannot exist under such a regime. Both John
Locke and John Stuart Mill rejected political egalitarianism, while Schumpeter viewed
democratic society with egalitarianism as an integral part of democracy. Rejecting Locke's and
Mill's abstract receptiveness to egalitarianism, neoliberals of either the pluralist or
authoritarian camp are blatantly adopt illiberal policies that exacerbate elitism, regardless
of the rhetoric they employ to secure mass popular support.
Characterized by elitism, class, gender, racial and ethnic inequality, limits on freedom of
expression, on human rights and civil rights, illiberal politics thrives on submission of the
masses to the status quo. In his essay The Political Economy of Neoliberalism and Illiberal
Democracy, Garry Jacobs, an academic/consultant who still believes in classical liberal
economics operating in a pluralistic and preferably non-militaristic society, warns that
world-wide democracy is under siege. " Democratic elections have become the means for
installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and
inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters
in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an
impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media
conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake
news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by
vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a
complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative
governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of
secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of
the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and
pinnacle of achievement."
While neoliberals in the populist rightwing wholeheartedly share and promote such views,
those who embrace the pluralist-identity politics camp are just as supportive of many aspects
of the corporate welfare-police-counterterrorism state as a means to engender domestic
sociopolitical conformity and to achieve closer global economic integration. The question is
not so much what each political camp under the larger neoliberal umbrella pursues as a strategy
to mobilize a popular base but whether the economic-social policies intertwined with a
corporate-welfare-police-counterterrorism state is the driving force toward a Fascist model of
government. In both the pluralist model with some aspects of the social safety net, and the
rightwing populist version neoliberalism's goal is rapid capital accumulation on a world scale,
institutional submission of the individual and molding the citizen's subjective reality around
the neoliberal ideology.
Illiberal politics in our time is partly both symptomatic of and a reaction to neoliberal
globalism and culture wars that serve to distract from the intensified class struggle boiling
beneath the surface. Rhetorically denouncing globalist neoliberalism, populist rightwing
politicians assert the importance of national capitalism but always within the perimeters of
neoliberal policies. Hence they co-opt the socio-cultural positions of nationalist extremists
as a political strategy to mobilize the masses. Scholars, journalists and politicians have
speculated whether the rising tide of rightwing populism pursuing neoliberalism under
authoritarian models not just in the Western World, but Eastern Europe, South Asia and Africa
reflects the rejection of liberal democracy and the triumph of illiberal politics that best
reflects and serves the political economy. Unquestionably, there is a direct correlation
between the internationalization of the Western neoliberal transformation model imposed on the
world in the post-Soviet era and the rise of rightwing populism reacting to the gap between the
promises of what capitalism was supposed to deliver and the reality of downward pressures on
living standards. http://www.counterfire.org/interview/18068-india-s-nightmare-the-extremism-of-narendra-modi
;
http://ac.upd.edu.ph/index.php/news-announcements/1201-southeast-asian-democracy-neoliberalism-populism-vedi-hadiz
; http://balticworlds.com/breaking-out-of-the-deadlock-of-neoliberalism-vs-rightwing-populism/
Not just the US, but Europe has been flirting with 'illiberal democracy' characterized by
strong authoritarian-style elected officials as Garry Jacobs has observed. Amid elections in
Bosnia in 1996, US diplomat Richard Holbrooke wondered about the rightwing path of former
Yugoslav republics. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are
"racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is
the dilemma." Twenty years after what Holbrooke dreaded election outcomes in Yugoslavia,
the US elected a rightwing neoliberal populist leading the Republican Party and making culture
wars a central theme to distract from the undercurrent class struggle in the country. A
structural issue that transcends personalities, this reality in America is symptomatic of the
link between neoliberalism and the rise of illiberal democracy in a number of countries around
the world. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy
Some political observers analyzing the rightist orientation of neoliberal policies have
concluded that neoliberalism and Fascism have more in common than people realize. In 2016,
Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates Union of Belgium, wrote a brief article arguing
that Neoliberalism is indeed a form of Fascism; a position people seem to be willing to debate
after the election of Donald Trump pursuing neoliberal policies with a rightwing populist
ideological and cultural platform to keep a popular base loyal to the Republican Party.
"Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian
and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy
has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every
aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which
treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in
jeopardy."http://www.defenddemocracy.press/president-belgian-magistrates-neoliberalism-form-fascism/
It is ironic that neoliberal society is 'a species of fascism', but there no widespread
popular opposition from leftist groups to counter it. People remain submissive to the
neoliberal state that has in fact eroded much of what many in the pluralist camp hail as
liberal democratic institutions. Most adapt to the status quo because to do otherwise means
difficulty surviving today just as it was difficult to survive under Fascism for those in
opposition; as Palmiro Togliatti noted ( Lectures on Fascism, 1935) when he cautioned
about castigating workers who joined the party simply because they placed survival of their
family above any progressive ideology. Because evidence of systemic exploitation ingrained into
society passes as the 'norm', and partly because repression targets minority groups, migrants,
and the working class, especially those backing trade unions and progressive political parties,
people support the neoliberal state that they see as the constitutional entity and the only
means for survival.
The media, government and mainstream institutions denounce anyone crying out for social
justice, human rights and systemic change. Such people are 'trendy rebels', as though social
justice is a passing fad like a clothing line, misguided idealists or treasonous criminals.
Considering that the corporate-owned and state media validates the legitimacy of the neoliberal
social contract, the political class and social elites enjoy the freedom to shape the state's
goals in the direction toward a surveillance police-state. All of this goes without notice in
the age when it is almost expected because it is defaulted to technology making easy to detect
foreign and domestic enemies while using the same technology to shape the citizen's subjective
reality.
Partly because of the communications revolution in the digital age, neoliberalism has the
ability to mold the citizen beyond loyalty to the social contract not just into mechanical
observance but total submission to its institutions by reshaping the person's values and
identity. In this respect, neoliberalism is not so different from Fascism whose goal was to
mold the citizen. " Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in
redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood,
their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical
liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition,
although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be
emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer
version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one
thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism
idealized it.
Although people go about their daily lives focused on their interests, they operate against
the background of neoliberal institutions that determine their lives in every respect from
chatting on their cell phones to how they live despite their illusions of free will. As the
world witnessed a segment of the population openly embracing fascism from movement to
legitimate political party in interwar Europe, a corresponding rise in racism and ethnocentrism
under the umbrella of rightwing neoliberal populism has taken place in the first two decades of
the 21 st century.
Representing the UN Human Rights agency, Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad al-Hussein stated that 2016
was disastrous for human rights, as the 'clash of civilizations' construct has become ingrained
into the political mainstream in Western countries. "In some parts of Europe, and in the
United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating
to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer
confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It
is becoming part of normal daily discourse."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/united-nations-chilling-warning-rise-fascism-human-rights-prince-zeid-a7464861.html
Because neoliberalism has pushed all mainstream bourgeois political parties to the right,
the far right no longer seems nearly as extreme today as it did during the Vietnam War's
protest generation who still had hope for a socially just society even if that meant
strengthening the social welfare system. The last two generations were raised knowing no
alternative to neoliberalism; the panacea for all that ails society is less social welfare and
privatization of public services within the framework of a state structure buttressing
corporate welfare. The idea that nothing must be tolerated outside the hegemonic market and all
institutions must mirror the neoliberal model reflects a neo-totalitarian society where
sociopolitical conformity follows because survival outside the system is not viable.
Although Western neoconservatives have employed the term 'neo-totalitarian' to describe
Vladimir Putin's Russia, the term applies even more accurately to the US and someEuropean
nations operating under neoliberal-military-police state structures with as much power than the
Russian bureaucratic state has at its disposal.The contradiction of neoliberalism rests in the
system's goal of integrating everyone into the neo-totalitarian mold. Because of the system's
inherent hierarchical structure, excluding most from the institutional mainstream and limiting
popular sovereignty to the elites exposes the exploitation and repression goals that account
for the totalitarian nature of the system masquerading as democratic where popular sovereignty
is diffused. The seemingly puzzling aspect of the rise in rightwing populism across the globe
that rests in marginalization of a segment of the population and the support for it not just
from certain wealthy individuals financing extremist movements, but from a segment of the
middle class and even working class lining up behind it because they see their salvation with
the diminution of weaker social groups. This pattern was also evident in Nazi Germany, Fascist
Italy and pro-Nazi authoritarian regimes of the interwar era. https://www.demdigest.org/neo-totalitarian-russia-potent-existential-threat-west/
; Benjamin Moffitt, The Global Rise of Populism (2017.
Because of contradictions in bourgeois liberal democracy where capital accumulation at any
social cost is the goal, the system produced the current global wave of rightwing populism just
as capitalism in the interwar era gave rise to Fascism. As one analyst put it, " The risk
democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous
elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for
unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution
takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or
revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new
governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with
the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong
leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever
present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never
in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external
value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/41987-neoliberalism-fascism-and-sovereignty
/
Public opinion surveys of a number of countries around the world, including those in the US,
indicated that most people do not favor the existing social contract rooted in neoliberal
policies that impact everything from living standards and labor policy to the judicial system
and foreign affairs. Instead of driving workers toward a leftwing revolutionary path, many
support rightwing populism that has resulted in the rise of even greater oppression and
exploitation. Besides nationalism identified with the powerful elites as guardians of the
national interest, many among the masses believe that somehow the same social contract
responsible for existing problems will provide salvation they seek. While widespread
disillusionment with neoliberal globalization seems to be at the core in the rise of rightwing
populism, the common denominator is downward social mobility. (Doug Miller, Can the World
be Wrong ? 2015)
As Garry Jacobs argues, "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their
illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and
harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of
power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the
greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be
realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual
interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and
humanity's future.
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-3/issue-3/political-economy-neoliberalism-and-illiberal-democracy
Just as in the interwar era when many Europeans lost confidence in the rationalism of the
Enlightenment and lapsed into amorality and alienation that allowed for even greater public
manipulation by the hegemonic culture, in the early 21 st the neoliberal social
contract with a complex matrix of communications at its disposal is able to indoctrinate on a
mass scale more easily than ever. Considering the low level of public trust in the mainstream
media that most people regardless of political/ideological position view as propaganda rather
than informational, cynicism about national and international institutions prevails. As the
fierce struggle for power among mainstream political parties competing to manage the state on
behalf of capital undercuts the credibility of the political class, rightwing elements enter
the arena as 'outsider' messiahs above politics (Bonapartism in the 21 st century)
to save the nation, while safeguarding the neoliberal social contract. This is as evident in
France where the pluralist political model of neoliberalism has strengthened the neo-Fascist
one that Marine Le Pen represents, as in Trump's America where the Democratic Party's
neoliberal policies helped give rise to rightwing populism.
As the following article in The Economist points out, widespread disillusionment
with globalist neoliberal policies drove people to the right for an enemy to blame for all the
calamities that befall society. " Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of
respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in
the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an
optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The
turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of
the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13%
reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether
or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party.
Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French
presidential race.https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-12
Similar to deep-rooted cultural and ideological traits of Nazism in German society, there
are similar traits in contemporary US, India and other countries where rightwing populism has
found a receptive public. Although there are varieties of populism from Lepenism (Marine Le
Pen's National Front) to Trumpism (US Republican Donald Trump) to Modism (India's Narendra
Modi), they share common characteristics, including cult of personality as a popular rallying
catalyst, promoting hatred and marginalization of minority groups, and promising to deliver a
panacea to "society" when in fact their policies are designed to strengthen big capital.
Rightwing populist politicians who pursue neoliberal policies are opportunistically pushing
the political popular base toward consolidation of a Fascist movement and often refer to
themselves as movement rather than a party. Just as there were liberals who refused to accept
the imminent rise of Fascism amid the parliamentary system's collapse in the 1920s, there are
neoliberals today who refuse to accept that the global trend of populism is a symptom of failed
neoliberalism that has many common characteristics with Fascism. In an article entitled
"Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" by Sheri Berman, the neoliberal
journal Foreign Affairs , acknowledged that liberal bourgeois democracy is losing its
luster around the world. However, the author would not go as far as to examine the structural
causes for this phenomenon because to do so would be to attack the social contract within which
it operates. Treating rightwing populism as though it is a marginal outgrowth of mainstream
conservatism and an aberration rather than the outgrowth of the system's core is merely a
thinly veiled attempt to defend the status quo of which rightwing populism is an integral
part.
Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract
Structural exploitation – "a property of institutions or systems in which the
"rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
– has been an incontrovertible reality of all class-based societiesfrom the establishment
of the earliest city-states in Mesopotamia until the present.Usually but not always intertwined
with social oppression, structural exploitation entails a relationship of social dominance of
an elite group over the rest of society subordinated for the purpose of economic, social,
political, and cultural exploitation. Legitimized by the social contract, justifications for
institutional exploitation include safety and security of country, eliminating impediments to
progress, and emulating nature's competitive forces that exist in the animal kingdom and
reflect human nature.
From Solon's laws in 6 th century BC Athens until our contemporary neoliberal
era, social contract theory presumes that the state is the catalyst for social harmony if not
fairness and not for a privileged social class to exploit the rest of society. No legal system
has ever been codified that explicitly states its goal is to use of the state as an instrument
of exploitation and oppression. In reality however, from ancient Babylon when King Hammurabi
codified the first laws in 1780 B.C. until the present when multinational corporations and
wealthy individuals directly or through lobbyists exert preponderate influence in public policy
the theoretical assumption is one of fairness and justice for all people as a goal for the
social contract.
In the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – biotechnology, nanotechnology,
quantum computing, and artificial intelligence – presumably to serve mankind as part of
the social contract rather than to exploit more thoroughly and marginalize a large segment of
humanity, the persistence of structural exploitation and oppression challenges those with a
social conscience and morality rooted in humanist values to question what constitutes societal
progress and public interest. Liberal and Christian-Libertarian arguments about free will
notwithstanding, it has always been the case that mainstream institutions and the dominant
culture indoctrinate people into believing that ending exploitation by changing the social
contract is a utopian dream; a domain relegated to poets, philosophers and song writers lacking
proper grounding in the reality of mainstream politics largely in the service of the dominant
socioeconomic class. The paradox in neoliberal ideology is its emphasis on free choice, while
the larger goal is to mold the subjective reality within the neoliberal institutional structure
and way of life. The irreconcilable aspects of neoliberalism represent the contradictory goals
of the desire to project democratic mask that would allow for popular sovereignty while
pursuing capital accumulation under totalitarian methods. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_contractarianism.html
' http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/05/15/indoctrination-and-free-will/
Social cooperation becomes dysfunctional when distortions and contradictions within the
system create large-scale social marginalization exposing the divergence between the promise of
the neoliberal social contract and the reality in peoples' lives. To manage the dysfunction by
mobilizing popular support, the political elites of both the pluralist and the
authoritarian-populist wing operating under the neoliberal political umbrella compete for power
by projecting the image of an open democratic society. Intra-class power struggles within the
elite social and political classes vying for power distracts from social exploitation because
the masses line behind competing elites convinced such competition is the essence of democracy.
As long as the majority in society passively acquiesces to the legitimacy of the social
contract, even if in practice society is socially unjust, the status quo remains secure until
systemic contradictions in the political economy make it unsustainable. https://mises.org/library/profound-significance-social-harmony
In the last three centuries, social revolutions, upheavals and grassroots movements have
demonstrated that people want a social contract that includes workers, women, and marginalized
groups into the mainstream and elevates their status economically and politically. In the early
21 st century, there are many voices crying out for a new social contract based on
social justice and equality against neoliberal tyranny. However, those faint voices are drowned
against the preponderate neoliberal public policy impacting every sector while shaping the
individual's worldview and subjective reality. The triumph of neoliberal orthodoxy has deviated
from classical liberalism to the degree that dogmatism 'single-thought' process dominates not
just economics, not just the social contract, but the very fabric of our humanity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21598282.2013.761449?journalCode=rict20
; https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world
Under neoliberalism, "Uberization" as a way of life is becoming the norm not just in the
'financialization' neoliberal economy resting on speculation rather than productivity but in
society as well. The neoliberal ideology has indoctrinated the last two generations that grew
up under this system and know no other reality thus taking for granted the neoliberal way of
life as natural as the air they breathe. Often working two jobs, working overtime without
compensation or taking work home just to keep the job has become part of chasing the dream of
merely catching up with higher costs of living. People have accepted perpetual work enmeshed
with the capitalist ideology of perpetual economic growth perversely intertwined with progress
of civilization. The corporate ideology of "grow or die" at any cost is in reality economic
growth confined to the capitalist class, while fewer and fewer people enjoy its fruits and
communities, cities, entire countries under neoliberal austerity suffer.
The incentive for conformity is predicated on the belief that the benefits of civilization
would be fairly distributed if not in the present then at some point in the future for one's
children or grandchildren; analogous to living a virtuous life in order to enjoy the rewards
after death. As proof that the system works for the benefit of society and not just the
capitalist class, neoliberal apologists point to stock market gains and surprisingly there is a
psychological impact – the wealth effect – on the mass consumer who feels
optimistic and borrows to raise consumption. Besides the fact that only a very small percentage
of people on the planet own the vast majority of securities, even in the US there is no
correlation between stock market performance and living standards. (John Seip and Dee Wood
Harper, The Trickle Down Delusion , 2016)
If we equate the stock market with the 'wealth of the nation', then in 1982 when the S & P
index stood at 117 rising to 2675 in December 2017, the logical conclusion is that living
standards across the US rose accordingly. However, this is the period when real incomes for
workers and the middle class actually declined despite sharp rise in productivity and immense
profits reflected in the incomes gap reflected in the bottom 90% vs. the top 10%. This is also
the period when we see the striking divergence between wealth accumulation for the top 1% and a
relative decline for the bottom 90%. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/upshot/income-inequality-united-states.html
; https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/
A research study compiled by the pro-organized labor non-profit think tank 'Economic Policy
Institute' stresses the divergence between productivity and real wages. While the top 0.01% of
America's experienced 386% income growth between 1980 and 1914, the bottom 90% suffered 3% real
income drop. Whereas in 1980 income share for the bottom 90% stood at 65% and for the top 1% it
stood at 10%, by 2014 the bottom 90% held just half of the income, while the top 1% owned 21%.
This dramatic income divergence, which has been shown in hundreds of studies and not even
neoliberal billionaires deny their validity, took place under the shift toward the full
implementation of the neoliberal social contract. It is significant to note that such income
concentration resulting from fiscal policy, corporate subsidy policy, privatization and
deregulation has indeed resulted in higher productivity exactly as neoliberal apologists have
argued. However, higher worker productivity and higher profits has been made possible precisely
because of income transfer from labor to capitalist. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
;
https://aneconomicsense.org/2015/07/13/the-highly-skewed-growth-of-incomes-since-1980-only-the-top-0-5-have-done-better-than-before/
"Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent
of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2
percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and
2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In
essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher
hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between
productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from
2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the
median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of
the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity
growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation
and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire
1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the
productivity–pay divergence. " (Josh Bivens and Lawrence Mishel, "Understanding
the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why
It's Real" in Economic Policy Institute, 2015,
http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/
The average corporate tax rate in the world has been cut in half in the last two decades
from about 40% to 22%, with the effective rate actually paid lower than the official rate. This
represents a massive transfer of wealth to the highest income brackets drained from the working
class. More than half-a-century ago, American anthropologist Jules Henry wrote that: "The
fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account
for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against
Man (1963). The myth that the neoliberal policies in the information age lead toward a
society richer for all people is readily refuted by the reality of huge wealth distribution
gaps resulting from 'informational capitalism' backed by the corporate welfare state.
Capital accumulation not just in the US but on a world scale without a ceiling has resulted
in more thorough exploitation of workers and in a less socially just society today than in the
early 1960s when Jules Henry was writing and it is headed increasingly toward authoritarian
models of government behind the very thin veneer of meaningless elections. Against this
background of unfettered neoliberalism, social responsibility is relegated to issues ranging
from corporate-supported sustainable development in which large businesses have a vested
interest as part of future designs on capital accumulation, to respecting lifestyle and
cultural and religious freedoms within the existing social contract. (Dieter Plehwe et al.
eds., Neoliberal Hegemony , 2006; Carl Ferenbach and Chris Pinney, " Toward a 21st
Century Social Contract" Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 24, No 2, 2012;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00372.x/abstract
At its Annual conference in 2017 where representatives from the 'Fortune 500', academia,
think tanks, NGOs, and government, business consultancy group BSR provided the following vision
under the heading "A 21 st Century Social Contract" : "The nature of
work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable
safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and
political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in
which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other
outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These
workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it
is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs."https://bsr17.org/agenda/sessions/the-21st-century-social-contract
Representing multinational corporate members and proud sponsors of sustainable development
solutions within the neoliberal model, BSR applauded the aspirations and expectations of
today's business people that expect to concentrate even more capital as the economy becomes
more 'UBERized' and reliant on the new digital technology. Despite fear and anxiety about a
bleak techno-science future as another mechanism to keep wages as close to subsistence if not
below that level as possible, peoples' survival instinct forces them to adjust their lives
around the neoliberal social contract. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/
Reflecting the status quo, the media indoctrinate people to behave as though systemic
exploitation, oppression, division, and marginalization are natural while equality and the
welfare of the community represent an anathema to bourgeois civilization. What passes as the
'social norm', largely reflects the interests of the socioeconomic elites propagating the
'legitimacy' of their values while their advocates vilify values that place priority on the
community aspiring to achieve equality and social justice. (Robert E. Watkins, " Turning
the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One
Night" , 2016).
The neoliberal myth that the digital technological revolution and the 'knowledge based
economy' (KBE) of endless innovation is the catalyst not only to economic growth but to
the preservation of civilization and welfare of society has proved hollow in the last four
decades. Despite massive innovation in the domain of the digital and biotech domains,
socioeconomic polarization and environmental degradation persist at much higher rates today
than in the 1970s. Whether in the US, the European Union or developing nations, the neoliberal
promise of 'prospering together' has been a farce. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tsq.12106/full
; http://www.ricerchestoriche.org/?p=749
Neoliberal myths about upward linear progress across all segments of society and throughout
the world notwithstanding, economic expansion and contraction only result in greater capital
concentration. "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database
listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational
corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies
controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating
revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies
with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on
average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global
operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of
the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further
60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found
much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their
ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the
total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to
control 40 per cent of the entire network."https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/imperialism-and-the-concentration-of-capital/http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
.
With each passing recessionary cycle of the past four decades working class living standards
have retreated and never recovered. Although the techno-science panacea has proved a necessary
myth and a distraction from the reality of capital concentration, considering that innovation
and technology are integral parts of the neoliberal system, the media, politicians, business
elites, corporate-funded think tanks and academics continue to promote the illusive 'modernist
dream' that only a small segment of society enjoys while the rest take pride living through it
vicariously. ( Laurence Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski, "Neoliberalism and
technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?"
Rooted in militarism and police-state policies, the culture of fear is one of the major ways
that the neoliberal regime perpetually distracts people from structural exploitation and
oppression in a neoliberal society that places dogmatic focus on atomism. Despite the atomistic
value system as an integral part of neoliberalism, neoliberals strongly advocate a corporate
state welfare system. Whether supporting pluralism and diversity or rightwing populists,
neoliberals agree that without the state buttressing the private sector, the latter will
collapse. Author of Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (2007) David Ciepley
argues in "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" that the system's
contradictions have led to the authoritarian political model as its only option moving
forward.
"Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the
University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the
totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal
regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll
back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize)
the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals
and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this
contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth,
intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as
appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new
levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the
juncture at which we have arrived."https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/
Adhering to a tough law-and-order policy, neoliberals have legalized large-scale criminal
activity perpetrated by capitalists against society while penalizing small-scale crimes carried
out mostly by people in the working class and the marginalized lumpenproletariat .
Regardless of approaches within the neoliberal social contract, neoliberal politicians agree on
a lengthy prison sentences for street gangs selling narcotics while there is no comparable
punishment when it comes to banks laundering billions including from narcotics trafficking, as
Deutsche Bank among other mega banks in the US and EU; fixing rates as
Barclays among others thus defrauding customers of billions; or creating fake accounts
as Wells Fargo , to say nothing of banks legally appropriating billions of dollars
from employees and customers and receiving state (taxpayer) funding in times of 'banking
crises'. Although it seems enigmatic that there is acquiescence for large scale crimes with the
institutional cover of 'legitimacy' by the state and the hegemonic culture, the media has
conditioned the public to shrug off structural exploitation as an integral part of the social
contract. http://theweek.com/articles/729052/brief-history-crime-corruption-malfeasance-american-banks
;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/corruption-in-the-european-union-scandals-in-banking-fraud-and-secretive-ttip-negotiations/5543935
Neoliberalism's reach does not stop with the de-criminalization of white-collar crime or the
transfer of economic policy from the public sector to corporations in order to reverse social
welfare policies. Transferring sweeping policy powers from the public to the corporate sector,
neoliberalism's tentacles impact everything from labor and environment to health, education and
foreign policy into the hands of the state-supported corporate sector in an effort to realize
even greater capital concentration at an even greater pace. This has far reaching implications
in peoples' lives around the world in everything from their work and health to institutions
totalitarian at their core but projecting an image of liberal democracy on the surface. (Noam
Chomsky and R. W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order , 2011; Pauline
Johnson, "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" European Journal of Social
Theory , 2014
Comprehensive to the degree that it aims to diminish the state's role by having many of its
functions privatized, neoliberalism's impact has reached into monetary policy trying to
supplant it with rogue market forces that test the limits of the law and hard currencies. The
creation of cryptocurrencies among them BITCOIN that represents the utopian dream of
anarcho-libertarians interested in influencing if not dreaming of ultimately supplanting
central banks' role in monetary policy is an important dimension of neoliberal ideology.
Techno-utopians envisioning the digital citizen in a neoliberal society favor a 'gypsy economy'
operating on a digital currency outside the purview of the state's regulatory reach where it is
possible to transfer and hide money while engaging in the ultimate game of speculation. (
https://btctheory.com ; Samuel Valasco and
Leonardo Medina, The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies , 2013)
Credited as the neoliberal prophet whose work and affiliate organizations multinational
corporations funded, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek favored market forces to determine
monetary policy rather than having government in that role working behind central banks. Aside
from the fact that central banks cater to capital and respond to markets and no other
constituency, Hayek's proposal ( The Denationalization of Money , 1976) was intended
to permit the law of the 'free market' (monetary speculation) determine policy that would
impact peoples' living standards. Hence capital accumulation would not be constrained by
government regulatory measures and the coordination of monetary policy between central banks.
In short, the law of unfettered banking regulation would theoretically result in greater
economic growth, no matter the consequences owing to the absence of banking regulatory measures
that exacerbate contracting economic cycles such as in 2008. www.voltaire.org/article30058.html )
In December 2017, the UK and EU warned that cryptocurrencies are used in criminal
enterprises, including money laundering and tax evasion. Nevertheless, crypto-currency reflects
both the ideology and goals of capital accumulation of neoliberals gaining popularity among
speculators in the US and other countries. Crypto-currencyfulfills the neoliberal speculator's
dream by circumventing the IMF basket of reserved currencies on which others trade while
evading regulatory constraints and all mechanisms of legal accountability for the transfer of
money and tax liability.
Although a tiny fraction of the global monetary system, computer networks make
crypto-currency a reality for speculators, tax evaders, those engaged in illegal activities and
even governments like Venezuela under Nocolas Maduro trying to pump liquidity into the
oil-dependent economy suffering from hyperinflation and economic stagnation If the
crypto-currency system can operate outside the purview of the state, then the neoliberal
ideology of trusting the speculator rather than the government would be proved valid about the
superfluous role of central banks and monetary centralization, a process that capitalism itself
created for the harmonious operation of capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/bitcoin-uk-eu-plan-cryptocurrency-price-traders-anonymity
; http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2099017-venezuela-inflacion-nicolas-maduro-crisis-precios
Indicative of the success of the neoliberal ideology's far reaching impact in economic life
cryptocurrencies' existencealso reflects the crisis of capitalism amid massive assaults on
middle class and working class living standards in the quest for greater capital concentration.
In an ironic twist, the very neoliberal forces that promote cryptocurrencies decry their use by
anti-Western nations – Iran, Venezuela, and Russia among others.The criticism of
anti-Western governments resorting to cryptocurrenciesis based on their use as a means of
circumventing the leverage that reserve currencies like the dollar and euro afford to the West
over non-Western nations. This is only one of a few contradictions that neoliberalism creates
and undermines the system it strives to build just as it continues to foster its ideology as
the only plausible one to pursue globally. Another contradiction is the animosity toward
crypto-currencies from mainstream financial institutions that want to maintain a monopoly on
government-issued currency which is where they make their profits. As the world's largest
institutional promoter of neoliberalism, the IMF has cautioned not to dismiss cryptocurrencies
because they could have a future, or they may actually 'be the future'. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-unlimited-potential-lies-in-apolitical-core/
; http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/bitcoin-ethereum-cryptocurrency-imf-christine-lagarde/
After the "Washington Consensus" of 1989, IMF austerity policies are leverage to impose
neoliberal policies globally have weakened national institutions from health to education and
trade unions that once formed a social bond for workers aspiring to an integrative socially
inclusive covenant in society rather than marginalization. The IMF uses austerity policies for
debt relief as leverage to have the government provide more favorable investment conditions and
further curtail the rights of labor with everything from ending collective bargaining to
introducing variations of "right-to-work" laws" that prohibit trade unions from forcing
collective strikes, collecting dues or signing the collective contract. Justified in the name
of 'capitalist efficiency', weakening organized labor and its power of collective bargaining
has been an integral part of the neoliberal social contract as much in the US and UK as across
the rest of the world, invariably justified by pointing to labor markets where workers earn the
lowest wages. (B. M. Evans and S. McBride, Austerity: The Lived Experience , 2017;
Vicente Berdayes, John W. Murphy, eds. Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the
Normalization of Violence , 2016).
Although many in the mainstream media took notice of the dangers of neoliberalism leading
toward authoritarianism after Trump's election, a few faint voices have been warning about this
inevitability since the early 1990s. Susan George, president of the Transnational Institute,
has argued that neoliberalism is contrary to democracy, it is rooted in Social Darwinism, it
undermines the liberal social contract under which that people assume society operates, but it
is the system that governments and international organization like the IMF have been
promoting.
"Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the
debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support
to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course
neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after
long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what
they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal
neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily.
It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at
all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and
democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy
should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance,
neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the
categories of both winners and losers."
Those on the receiving end of neoliberalism's Social Darwinist orientation are well aware of
public policy's negative impact on their lives but they feel helpless to confront the social
contract. According to opinion polls, people around the world realize there is a huge gap
between what political and business leaders, and international organizations claim about
institutions designed to benefit all people and the reality of marginalization. The result is
loss of public confidence in the social contract theoretically rooted in consent and democracy.
"When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete
indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of
rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard
democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral
institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to
59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. (Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism",
http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html
)
Not just in developing nations operating under authoritarian capitalist model to impose
neoliberal policies, but in advanced countries people recognize that the bourgeois freedom,
democracy and justice are predicated on income. Regardless of whether the regime operates under
a pluralistic neoliberal regime or rightwing populist one, the former much more tolerant of
diversity than the latter, the social contract goals are the same. In peoples' lives around the
world social exploitation has risen under neoliberal policies whether imposed the nation-state,
a larger entity such as the EU, or international organizations such as the IMF. Especially for
the European and US middle class, but also for Latin American and African nations statistics
show that the neoliberal social contract has widened the poor-rich gap.
In a world where the eight wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the bottom 50% or
3.6 billion people, social exploitation and oppression has become normal because the mainstream
institutions present it in such light to the world and castigate anyone critical of
institutionalized exploitation and oppression. Rightwing populist demagogues use nationalism,
cultural conservatism and vacuous rhetoric about the dangers of big capital and 'liberal
elites' to keep the masses loyal to the social contract by faulting the pluralist-liberal
politicians rather than the neoliberal social contract. As the neoliberal political economy has
resulted in a steady rising income gap and downward social mobility in the past three decades,
it is hardly surprising that a segment of the masses lines behind rightwing populist demagogues
walking a thin line between bourgeois democracy and Fascism.
Seizing power from sovereign states, multinational corporation are pursuing neoliberal
policy objectives on a world scale, prompting resistance to the neoliberal social contract
which rarely class-based and invariably identity-group oriented manifested through
environmental, gender, race, ethnicity, gay, religious and minority groups of different sorts.
Regardless of the relentless media campaign to suppress class consciousness, workers are aware
that they have common interests and public opinion studies reveal as much. (Susan George,
Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power , 2015)
According to the Pew Research center, the world average for satisfaction with their
governments are at 46%, the exact percentage as in the US that ranks about the same as South
Africa and much lower than neighboring Canada at 70% and Sweden at 79%. " Publics around
the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems.
Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or
somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too
or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions.
Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least
half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only
in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%).
As confounding as it appears that elements of the disillusioned middle class and working
class opt either for the exploitation of pluralist neoliberalism or the exploitation and
oppression of rightwing populism expressed somewhat differently in each country, it is not
difficult to appreciate the immediacy of a person's concerns for survival like all other
species above all else. The assumption of rational behavior in the pursuit of social justice is
a bit too much to expect considering that people make irrational choices detrimental to their
best interests and to society precisely because the dominant culture has thoroughly
indoctrinated them. It seems absurd that indirectly people choose exploitation and oppression
for themselves and others in society, but they always have as the dominant culture secular and
religious indoctrinates them into accepting exploitation and oppression. (Shaheed Nick
Mohammed, Communication and the Globalization of Culture , 2011)
Throughout Western and Eastern Europe rightwing political parties are experiencing a
resurgence not seen since the interwar era, largely because the traditional conservatives moved
so far to the right. Even the self-baptized Socialist parties are nothing more than staunch
advocates of the same neoliberal status quo as the traditional conservatives. The US has also
moved to the right long before the election of Donald Trump who openly espouses suppression of
certain fundamental freedoms as an integral part of a pluralistic society. As much as in the US
and Europe as in the rest of the world, analysts wonder how could any working class person
champion demagogic political leaders whose vacuous populist rhetoric promises 'strong nation"
for all but their policies benefit the same socioeconomic elites as the neoliberal
politicians.(J. Rydgren (Ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right , 2012)
Rooted onclassical liberal values of the Enlightenment, the political and social elites
present a social contract that is theoretically all-inclusive and progressive, above all 'fair'
because it permits freedom to compete, when in reality the social structure under which
capitalism operates necessarily entails exploitation and oppression that makes marginalization
very clear even to its staunchest advocates who then endeavor to justify it by advancing
theories about individual human traits.
In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures,
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based
industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of
these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States.
Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other
countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction
reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality,
the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of
government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over
the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been
resolved."http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/01/15/public-attitudes-toward-the-next-social-contract/
The neoliberal model of capitalism spewing forth from core countries to the periphery and
embraced by capitalists throughout the world has resulted in greater social inequality,
exploitation and oppression, despite proclamations that by pluralist-diversity neoliberals
presenting themselves as remaining true to 'democracy'. The tilt to the right endorsed at the
ballot box by voters seeking solutions to systemic problems and a more hopeful future indicates
that some people demand exclusion and/or punishment of minority social groups in society, as
though the exploitation and oppression of 'the other' would vicariously elevate the rest of
humanity to a higher plane. Although this marks a dangerous course toward authoritarianism and
away from liberal capitalism and Karl Popper's 'Open Society' thesis operating in a pluralistic
world against totalitarianism, it brings to surface the essence of neoliberalism which is
totalitarian, the very enemy Popper and his neoconservative followers were allegedly trying to
prevent. (Calvin Hayes, Popper, Hayek and the Open Society , 2009)
Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism
Social Exclusion
Every sector of society from the criminal justice system to elderly care has been impacted
by neoliberal social marginalization. More significant than any other aspect of neoliberalism,
the creation of a chronic debtor classwithout any assets is floating a step above the
structurally unemployed and underemployed.The Industrial revolution exacerbated social
exclusion producing an underclass left to its own fate by a state that remained faithful to the
social contract's laissez philosophy. Composed of vagrants, criminals, chronically unemployed,
and people of the streets that British social researcher Henry Mayhew described in London
Labour and the London Poor , a work published three years after the revolutions of 1848
that shattered the liberal foundations of Europe, the lumpenproletariat caught the attention of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ( The German Ideology ) interested in the industrial
working class movement as the vanguard of the revolution.
Lacking a class consciousness thus easily exploited by the elites the lumpenproletariat were
a product of industrial capitalism's surplus labor that kept wages at or just above subsistence
levels, long before European and American trade union struggles were able to secure a living
wage.In the last four decades neoliberal policies have created a chronic debtor working class
operating under the illusion of integration into the mainstream when in fact their debtor
status not only entails social exclusion but relegated to perpetual servitude dependence and
never climbing out of it. The neoliberal state is the catalyst to the creation of this new
class.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/a-164-year-old-idea-helps-explain-the-huge-changes-sweeping-the-world-s-workforce
In an essay entitled "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st
Century"
Portuguese social scientists Elísio Estanque and Hermes Augusto Costa argue that the
manner that neoliberalism has impacted Europe's social structure in both core and periphery
countries has given rise to the new precarious working class, often college-degreed,
overqualified, and struggling to secure steady employment especially amid recessionary cycles
that last longer and run deeper.
"The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and
its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social
policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only
question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the
youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the
sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a
result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace
and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the
middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour
relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which
also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest."
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34149/InTech-Labour_relations_and_social_movements_in_the_21st_century.pdf
'Proletarization' of the declining middle class and downward income pressure for the working
class and middle classhas been accompanied by the creation of a growing chronic debtor class in
the Western World. Symptomatic of the neoliberal globalist world order, the creation of the
debtor class and more broadly social exclusion transcends national borders, ethnicity, gender,
culture, etc. Not just at the central government level, but at the regional and local levels,
public policy faithfully mimics the neoliberal model resulting in greater social exclusion
while there is an effort to convince people that there is no other path to progress although
people were free to search; a dogma similar to clerical intercession as the path to spiritual
salvation. http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/feat-economy.shtml
The neoliberal path to salvation has resulted in a staggering 40% of young adults living
with relatives out of financial necessity. The number has never been greater at any time in
modern US history since the Great Depression, and the situation is not very different for
Europe. Burdened with debt, about half of the unemployed youth are unable to find work and most
that work do so outside the field of their academic training. According to the OECD, youth
unemployment in the US is not confined only to high school dropouts but includes college
graduates. Not just across southern Europe and northern Africa, but in most countries the
neoliberal economy of massive capital concentration has created a new lumpenproletariat that
has no assets and carries debt. Owing to neoliberal policies, personal bankruptcies have risen
sharply in the last four decades across the Western World reflecting the downward social
mobility and deep impact on the chronically indebted during recessionary cycles.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/
; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-young-americans-living-with-their-parents-is-now-the-norm/
; Iain Ramsay, Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US
and Europe, 2017)
Historically, the safe assumption has been that higher education
is the key to upward social mobility and financial security, regardless of cyclical economic
trends. However, the laws of overproduction apply not only to commodities but to the labor
force, especially as the information revolution continues to chip away at human labor. College
education is hardly a guarantee to upward social mobility, but often a catalyst to descent into
the debtor unemployed class,or minimum wage/seasonalpart time job or several such jobs. The
fate of the college-educated falling into the chronic debtor class is part of a much larger
framework, namely the 'financialization' of the economy that is at the core of neoliberalism. (
Vik Loveday, "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility
and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review , September
2014)Beyond the simplisticsuggestion of 'more training' to keep up with tech changes,
the root cause of social exclusion and the chronic debtor class revolves around the
'financialization' of the neoliberal globalist economy around which central banks make monetary
policy. Since the beginning of the Thatcher-Reagan era, advanced capitalist countries led by
the US conducted policy to promote the centrality of financial markets as the core of the
economy. This entails resting more on showing quarterly profit even at the expense of taking on
debt, lower productivity and long-term sustainability, or even breaking a company apart and
dismissing workers because it would add shareholder value. Therefore, the short-term financial
motives and projection of market performance carry far more weight than any other
consideration.
Symptomatic of a combination of deregulation and the evolution of capitalism especially in
core countries from productive to speculative, financialization has transformed the world
economy. Enterprises from insurance companies to brokerage firms and banks like Goldman Sachs
involved in legal and quasi-legal practices, everything from the derivatives market to helping
convert a country's sovereign debt into a surplus while making hefty profits has been part of
the financialization economy that speeds up capital concentration and creates a wider rich-poor
gap. Housing, health, pension systems, health care and personal consumption are all impacted by
financialization that concentrates capital through speculation rather than producing anything
from capital goods to consumer products and services. (Costas Lapavitsas, The
Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing'http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13604813.2013.853865
Billionaire speculator George Soros has observed that market speculation not only drives
prices higher, especially of commodities on a world scale, but the inevitability of built-in
booms and busts are disruptive simply because a small group of people have secured a legal
means for capital accumulation. At the outbreak of the US stock market collapse followed by the
'great recession' of 2008, the European Network and Debt and Development (EURODAD)
published an article critical of financialization and its impact on world hunger.
"Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the
Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important
agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to
attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in
Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the
exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven
most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase
was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in
industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60
– 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people
falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price
explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling
inflation and new debt."http://eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/news/food%20speculation%202%20pager%20final.pdf
Someone has to pay for the speculative nature of financialization, and the labor force in
all countries is the first to do so through higher indirect taxes, cuts in social programs and
jobs and wages for the sake of stock performance. Stock markets around which public policy is
conducted have eroded the real economy while molding a culture of financialization of the last
two generations a large percentage of which has been swimming in personal debt reflecting the
debt-ridden financialization economy. Contrary to claims by politicians, business leaders and
the media that the neoliberal system of financialization is all about creating jobs and helping
to diffuse income to the middle class and workers, the only goal of financialization is wealth
concentration while a larger debtor class and social marginalization are the inevitable
results. It is hardly surprising that people world-wide believe the political economy is rigged
by the privileged class to maintain its status and the political class is the facilitator.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41359-financialization-has-turned-the-global-economy-into-a-house-of-cards-an-interview-with-gerald-epstein
; Costas Lapavitsa, Financialization in Crisis, 2013; Rona Foroohar, Makers and Takers: How
Wall Street Destroyed Main Street , 2016)
Despite efforts by pluralist and populist neoliberals throughout the world to use 'culture
wars' and identity politics as distractionwhile deemphasizing the role of the state as the
catalyst in the neoliberal social contract, the contradictions that the political economy
exposes the truth about the socially unjustsociety that marginalizes the uneducated poor and
college-educated indebted alike.Not to deemphasize the significance of global power
distribution based on the Westphalian nation-state model and regional blocs such as the
European Union, but neoliberals are the ones who insist on the obsolete nation-state that the
international market transcends, thus acknowledging the preeminence of capitalism in the social
contract and the subordination of national sovereignty to international capital and
financialization of the economy. After all, the multinational corporation operating in
different countries is accountable only to its stockholders, not to the nation-state whose role
is to advance corporate interests.
No matter how rightwing populists try to distract people from the real cause of social
exclusion and marginalization by focusing onnationalist rhetoric, marginalized social groups
and Muslim or Mexican legal or illegal immigrantshave no voice in public policy but
financialization speculators do. In an article entitled "The Politics of Public Debt:
Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", Wolfgang
Streeck concludes that neoliberalism's systemic rewards provide a disincentive for capitalists
to abandon financialization in favor of productivity. "Why should the new oligarchs be
interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability
if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money
produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage
diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is
forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some
privately owned island?
An important difference between pluralists and rightwing populists in their approach to the
state's role is that the former advocate for a strong legislative branch and weaker executive,
while rightwing populists want a strong executive and weak legislative. However, both political
camps agree about advancing market hegemony nationally and internationally and both support
policies that benefit international and domestic capital, thus facilitating the convergence of
capitalist class interests across national borders with the symptomatic results of social
exclusion. ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718508000924
; Vicente Navarro, "The Worldwide Class Struggle"https://monthlyreview.org/2006/09/01/the-worldwide-class-struggle/
Regardless of vacuous rhetoric about a weak state resulting from neoliberal policies, the
state in core countries where financialization prevailshas been and remains the catalyst for
class hegemony as has been the case since the nascent stage of capitalism. Both Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan strengthened the corporate welfare state while openly declaring war
against trade unions and by extension on the working class that neoliberals demonize as the
enemy of economic progress. As statistics below illustrate, the debtor class expanded rapidly
after 1980 when the financialization economy took off, reaching its highest point after the
subprime-induced great recession in 2008. Under neoliberal globalist policies, governments
around the world followed theReagan-Thatcher model to facilitate over-accumulation of capital
in the name of competition. (Montgomerie Johnna, Neoliberalism and the Making of the
Subprime Borrower , 2010)
Whether the state is promoting neoliberal policies under a pluralist or authoritarian
models, the neoliberal culture has designated labor as the unspoken enemy, especially organized
labor regardless of whether the ruling parties have co-opted trade unions. In the struggle for
capital accumulation under parasitic financialization policies, the state's view of labor as
the enemy makes social conflict inevitable despite the obvious contradiction that the
'enemy-worker' is both the mass consumer on whom the economy depends for expansion and
development. Despite this contradiction, neoliberals from firms such as Goldman Sachs has many
of its former executives not just in top positions of the US government but world-wide, no
matter who is in power. Neoliberal policy resulting in social exclusion starts with
international finance capitalism hiding behind the pluralist and rightwing populist masks of
politicians desperately vying for power to conduct public policy.
Just as the serfs were aware in the Middle Ages that Lords and Bishops determined the fate
of all down here on earth before God in Heaven had the last word, people today realize the
ubiquitous power of capitalists operating behind the scenes, and in some case as with Trump in
the forefront of public-policy that results in social exclusion and rising inequality in the
name of market fundamentalism promising to deliver the benefits to all people. Neoliberalism
has created a chronicdebtor class that became larger after the 2008 recession and will continue
growing with each economic contracting cycle in decades to come. Despite its efforts to keep
one step ahead of bankruptcy, the identity of the new chronic debtor class rests with the
neoliberal status quo, often with the rightwing populist camp that makes rhetorical overtures
to the frustrated working classthat realize financialization benefits a small percentage of
wealthy individuals.
Personal debt has skyrocketed, reaching $12.58 trillion in the US in 2016, or 80% of GDP.
The irony is that the personal debt level is 2016 was the highest since the great recession of
2008 and it is expected to continue much higher, despite the economic recovery and low
unemployment. Wage stagnation and higher costs of health, housing and education combined with
higher direct and indirect taxes to keep public debt at manageable levels will continue to
drive more people into the debtor class. Although some European countries such as Germany and
France have lower household debt relative to GDP, all advanced and many developing nations have
experienced a sharp rise in personal debt because of deregulation, privatization, and lower
taxes on the wealthy with the burden falling on the mass consumer. Hence the creation of a
permanent debtor class whose fortunes rest on maintaining steady employment and/or additional
part-time employment to meet loan obligations and keep one step ahead of declaring bankruptcy.
Austerity policies imposed either by the government through tight credit in advanced capitalist
countries or IMF loan conditionality in developing and semi-developed nations the result in
either case is lower living standards and a rising debtor class. http://fortune.com/2017/02/19/america-debt-financial-crisis-bubble/
Maurizio Lazzarato's The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal
Condition argues that neoliberalism has created a debtor-creditorrelationship which has
supplanted the worker-capitalist dichotomy, an argument that others focusing on the
financialization of the economy have made as well. Although in Keynesian economics public and
private debt was a stimulant for capitalist growth amid the contracting cycle of the economy,
the neoliberal era created the permanent chronic debtor class that finds it difficult to
extricate itself from that status. Evident after the deep recession of the
subprime-financialization-induced recession in 2008, this issue attracted the attention of some
politicians and political observers who realized theconvergence of the widening debtor class
with the corresponding widening of the rich-poor income gap.
By making both private and public debt, an integral part of the means of production, the
neoliberal system has reshaped social life and social relationships because the entire world
economy is debt-based. Servicing loans entails lower living standards for the working class in
advanced capitalist countries, and even lower in the rest of the world, but it also means
integrating the debtor into the system more closely than at any time in history. While it is
true that throughout the history of civilization human beings from China and India to Europe
have used various systems of credit to transact business (David Graeber, Debt: the First
5000 Years , 2014), no one would suggest reverting back to debt-slavery as part of the
social structure. Yet, neoliberalism has created the 'indebted man' as part of a policythat has
resulted in social asymmetrical power,aiming to speed up capital accumulation and maintain
market hegemony in society while generating greater social exclusion. https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/87E0
Ever since the British Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, followed by a number of
other European governments in the early 1800s, there was an assumption that slave labor is
inconsistent with free labor markets as well as with the liberal social contract rooted in
individual freedom. Nevertheless, at the core of neoliberal capitalismUS consumer debt as of
October 2017 stood at $3.8 trillion in a 419 trillion economy. Debt-to-personal income ratio is
at 160%; college student debt runs at approximately $1.5 trillion, with most of that since
2000; mortgage debt has tripled since 1955, with an alarming 8 million people delinquent on
their payments and the foreclosure rate hovering at 4.5% or three times higher than postwar
average; consumer debt has risen 1,700 since 1971 to above $1 trillion, and roughly half of
Americans are carrying monthly credit debt with an average rate of 14%. The debt problem is
hardly better for Europe where a number of countries have a much higher personal debt per
capita than the US.In addition to personal debt, public debt has become a burden on the working
class in so far as neoliberal politicians and the IMF are using as a pretext to impose
austerity conditions, cut entitlements and social programs amid diminished purchasing power
because of inflationary asset values and higher taxes. https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-debt-statistics-causes-and-impact-3305704
; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/dealbook/household-debt-united-states.html
While personal debt is often but not always a reflection of a consumerist society, personal
debt encompasses everything from education to health care costs in times when the
digital/artificial intelligence economy is creating a surplus labor force that results in work
instability and asymmetrical social relations. Technology-automation-induced unemployment
driving down living standards creates debtor-workers chasing the technology to keep up with
debt payments in order to survive until the next payment is due. Considering the financial
system backed by a legal framework is established to favor creditors, especially given the
safeguards and protections accorded to creditors in the past four decades, there are many
blatant and overt ways that the state uses to criminalize poverty and debt. In 2015, for
example, Montana became the first state not to take the driver's license of those delinquent on
their student debt, thus decriminalizing debt in this one aspect, though hardly addressing the
larger issue of the underlying causes of debt and social exclusion. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:4b8gtht779
; https://lumpenproletariat.org/tag/neoliberalism/
In an article entitled "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" , Thomas Klikauer
stressed that the weakening of the social welfare state took place under the Social Democratic
Party (SPD)-Green Party coalition (1998-2005) government pursuing pluralist neoliberal
policies. Although historically the SPD had forged a compromise that would permit for the
social inclusion of labor into the institutional mainstream, by the 1990s, theSPD once rooted
in socialism had fully embraced neoliberalism just as the British Labour Party and all
socialist partiers of Europe pursuing social exclusion. Klilauer writes: "Germany's
chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no
longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat orprecariate. These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the
growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s."https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/torturing-the-poor-german-style/
No different than working class people in other countries need more than one job to keep up
with debt and living expenses, so do three million Germans (rising from 150,000 in 2003) that
have the privilege of living in Europe's richest nation. Just as the number of the working poor
has been rising in Germany, so have they across the Western World. Social exclusion and the
expansion of the debtor class in Germany manifested itself in the national elections of 2017
where for the first time since the interwar era a political party carrying the legacy of
Nazism, the Alternative fur Deutchland (AfD), founded by elite ultra-conservatives,
captured 13% of the vote to become third-largest party and giving a voice of neo-Nazis who
default society's neoliberal ills to Muslims and immigrants. Rejecting the link between market
fundamentalism that both the SPD and German conservatives pursued in the last three decades,
neoliberal apologists insist that the AfD merely reflects a Western-wide anti-Muslim trend
unrelated to social exclusion and the policies that have led to Germany's new lumpenproletariat
and working poor.
https://crimethinc.com/2017/10/01/the-rise-of-neo-fascism-in-germany-alternative-fur-deutschland-enters-the-parliament
; https://www.jku.at/icae/content/e319783/e319785/e328125/wp59_ger.pdf
Interestingly, US neoliberal policies also go hand-in-hand with Islamophobia and the war on
terror under both Democrat and Republican administrations, although the pluralist-diversity
neoliberals have been more careful to maintain a politically-correct rhetoric. Just as in
Germany and the rest of Europe, there is a direct correlation in the US between the rise in
social exclusion ofMuslim and non-Muslim immigrants and minorities and the growing trend of
rightwing populism. There is no empirical foundationto arguments that rightwing populism
whether in Germany or the US has no historical roots and it is unconnected both to domestic and
foreign policies. Although the neoliberal framework in which rightwing populism operates and
which creates social exclusion and the new chronic debtor class clashes with neoliberal
pluralism that presents itself as democratic, structural exploitation is built into the social
contract thus generating grassroots opposition.
Even before the great recession of 2008, there were a number of grassrootsgroups against
neoliberal globalism both in advanced and developing nations. Some found expression in social
media, others at the local level focused on the impact of neoliberal policies in the local
community, and still others attempted to alter public policy through cooperation with state
entities and/or international organizations. The most important anti-neoliberal grassroots
organizations have been in Brazil ( Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers'
Movement), South Africa (Abahlali baseMjondolo, Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign,
Landless Peoples' Movement), Mexico (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación
Nacional, EZLN), Haiti (Fanmi Lavalas) and India (Narmada Bachao
Andolan).
The vast majority of organizations claiming to be fighting against neoliberal policies are
appendages either of the pluralist or the rightwing populist political camp both whose goal is
to co-opt the masses as part of their popular base. The anti-globalization movement and by
implication anti-neoliberal includes elements from the entire political spectrum from left to
ultra-right. From India, to Bangladesh, from South Africa to Brazil, and from the US, France,
and the UK, working class resistance to neoliberal globalism has been directly or indirectly
co-opted and often de-politicized by corporate-funded or government-funded NGOs and by
'reformist' local and international organizations.
By promoting measures invariably in the lifestyle domain but also some social welfare and
civil rights issues such as women's rights, renter's rights, etc, the goals of organizations
operating within the neoliberal structure is not social inclusion by altering the social
contract, but sustaining the status quo by eliminating popular opposition through co-optation.
It is hardly a coincidence that the rise of the thousands of NGOs coincided with the rise of
neoliberalism in the 1990s, most operating under the guise of aiding the poor, protecting human
rights and the environment, and safeguarding individualism. Well-funded by corporations,
corporate foundations and governments, NGOs are the equivalent of the 19 th century
missionaries, using their position as ideological preparatory work for Western-imposed
neoliberal policies. http://socialistreview.org.uk/310/friends-poor-or-neo-liberalism
;
https://zeroanthropology.net/2014/08/28/civil-society-ngos-and-saving-the-needy-imperial-neoliberalism/
On the receiving end of corporate and/or government-funded NGOs promoting the neoliberal
agenda globally, some leading grassroots movements that advocate changing the neoliberal status
quo contend that it is better to 'win' on a single issue such as gay rights, abortion, higher
minimum wage, etc. at the cost of co-optation into neoliberal system than to have nothing at
all looking in from the outside. Their assumption is that social exclusion can be mitigated one
issue at a time through reform from within the neoliberal institutional structure that
grassroots organizations deem as the enemy. This is exactly what the pluralist neoliberals are
promoting as well to co-opt grassroots opposition groups.
Partly because governmental and non-governmental organizations posing as reformist have
successfully co-opted grassroots movements often incorporating them into the neoliberal popular
base, popular resistance has not been successful despite social media and cell phones that
permit instant communication. This was certainly the case with the Arab Spring uprisings across
North Africa-Middle East where genuine popular opposition to neoliberal policies of
privatization, deregulation impacting everything from health care toliberalizing rent controls
led to the uprising. In collaboration with the indigenous capitalists, political and military
elites, Western governments directly and through NGOs were able to subvert and then revert to
neoliberal policies once post-Arab Spring regimes took power in the name of 'reform' invariably
equated with neoliberal policies.
https://rs21.org.uk/2014/10/06/adam-hanieh-on-the-gulf-states-neoliberalism-and-liberation-in-the-middle-east/
In "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" Jim Yong Kim
ed., 2000) contributing authors illustrate in case studies of several countries how the
neoliberal status quo has diminished the welfare of billions of people in developing nations
for the sake of growth that simply translates into even greater wealth concentration and misery
for the world's poor. According to the study: "100 countries have undergone grave economic
decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than
it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes
20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their
real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993."http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html
Anti-neoliberal groups assume different forms, depending on the nation's history, social and
political elites, the nature of institutions and the degree it has been impacted by neoliberal
policies that deregulate and eliminate as much of the social safety net as workers will
tolerate. Even the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) that experienced rapid
growth from the early 1990s until the great recession of 2008 have not escaped mass opposition
to neoliberalism precisely because the impact on workers and peasants has been largely
negative.
https://www.cpim.org/views/quarter-century-neo-liberal-economic-policies-unending-distress-and-peasant-resistance
; Juan Pablo Ferrero, Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, 2014;
Mimi Abramovitz and Jennifer Zelnick, " Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on
Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" , http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/HS.40.1.f
Grassroots organizations opposed to policies that further integrate their countries into the
world economy and marginalize the working class have been especially persistent in South
Africa, Brazil, and India. To assuage if not co-opt the masses the BRICS followed a policy mix
that combines neoliberalism, aspects of social welfare and statism. Combined with geopolitical
opposition to US-NATO militarism and interventionism, the BRICS policies were an attempt to
keep not just the national bourgeois loyal but the broader masses by projecting a commitment to
national sovereignty.
In Brazil, India and South Africa internal and external corporate pressure along with US,
EU, and IMF-World Bank pressures have been especially evident to embrace neoliberal policies
and confront grassroots opposition rather than co-opt it at the cost of making concessions to
labor. Considering that the development policies of the BRICS in the last three decades of
neoliberal globalism accommodated domestic and foreign capital and were not geared to advance
living standards for the broader working class and peasantry, grassroots opposition especially
in Brazil, India and South Africa where the state structure is not nearly as powerful as in
Russia and China manifested itself in various organizations.
One of the grassroots organizations managing to keep its autonomy is Brazil's Landless
Workers Movement (MST)skillfully remaining independent of both former President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff. Although the MST supported some policies of theformer
presidents who presented themselves as champions of labor rather than capital, both Lula and
Rousseff made substantial policy compromises with the neoliberal camp and were eventually
implicated in corruption scandals revealing opportunism behind policy-making. While the record
of their policies on the poor speaks for itself, the Lula-Rousseff era of Partido dos
Trabalhadores was an improvement over previous neoliberal president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso (1995-2003). https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/the-brazilian-crisis/
The MST persisted with the struggle against neoliberal policies that have contributed to
rising GDP heavily concentrated among the national and comprador bourgeoisie and foreign
corporations. Other Latin American grassroots movements have had mixed results not much better
than those in Brazil. Ecuador under president Rafael Correa tried to co-opt the leftby yielding
on some policy issues as did Lula and Rousseff, while pursuing a neoliberal development model
as much as his Brazilian counterparts. With its economy thoroughly integrated into the US
economy, Mexico is a rather unique case where grassroots movements against neoliberalism are
intertwined with the struggle against official corruption and the narco-trade resulting in the
assassination of anti-neoliberal, anti-drug activists. (William Aviles, The Drug War in
Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ;
Anti-neoliberal resistance in the advanced countries has not manifested itself as it has in
the developing nations through leftist movements such as South Africa's Abahlali baseMjondolo
or Latin American trade unions that stress a working class philosophy of needs rather than the
one of rights linked to middle class property and identity politics. https://roarmag.org/essays/south-africa-marikana-anc-poor/
Popular resistance to neoliberalism in the US has been part of the anti-globalization movement
that includes various groups from environmentalists to anti-IMF-World Bank and anti-militarism
groups.
Although there are some locally based groups like East Harlem-based Justice in El
Barrio representing immigrants and low-income people, there is no national anti-neoliberal
movement. Perhaps because of the war on terror, various anti-establishment pro-social justice
groups assumed the form of bourgeois identity politics of both the Democratic Party and the
Republican where some of the leaders use rightwing populism as an ideological means to push
through neoliberal policies while containing grassroots anger resulting from social exclusion
and institutional exploitation. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/the-legacy-of-anti-globalization
Black Lives Matter revolving around the systemic racism issue and Occupy Wall
Street anti-capitalist group fell within the left orbit of the Democratic Party (Senator
Bernie Sanders) who is an advocate of the pluralist-diversity model, opposes market
fundamentalism,and proposes maintaining some vestiges of the Keynesian welfare state. With the
exception of isolated voices by a handful of academics and some criticsusing social media as a
platform, there is no anti-neoliberal grassroots movement that Democrats or Republicans has not
successfully co-opted. Those refusing to be co-opted are invariably dismissed as everything
from idealists to obstructionists. Certainlythere is nothing in the US like the anti-neoliberal
groups in Brazil, India, Mexico, or South Africa operating autonomously and resisting
co-optation by political parties. The absence of such movements in the US is a testament to the
strong state structure andthe institutional power of the elites in comparison with many
developing nations and even some parts of Europe.
https://www.salon.com/2015/08/15/black_lives_matter_joins_a_long_line_of_protest_movements_that_have_shifted_public_opinion_most_recently_occupy_wall_street/
As an integrated economic bloc, Europe follows uniform neoliberal policies using as leverage
monetary and trade policy but also the considerable EU budget at its disposal for subsidies and
development. A number of European trade unions and leftist popular groups fell into the trap of
following either Socialist or centrist parties which are pluralist neoliberal and defend some
remnants of Keynesianism. Those disillusioned with mainstream Socialist Parties pursue the same
neoliberal policies of social exclusion as the conservatives fell in line behind newly formed
non-Communist reformist parties (PODEMOS in Spain, SYRIZA in Greece, for example) with a
Keynesian platform and socialist rhetoric.
As the government of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras proved once in power in 2015,
self-baptized 'leftist' parties areleftist in rhetoric only. When it comes to policy they are
as neoliberal as the opposition they criticize; even more dangerous because they have deceived
people to support them as the alternative to neoliberal conservatives. Because grassroots
movements andthe popular base of political parties that promise 'reform' to benefit the masses
are co-opted by centrists, center-left or rightwing political parties, social exclusion becomes
exacerbated leading to disillusionment.
Consequently,people hoping for meaningful change become apathetic or they become angry and
more radicalized often turning to rightwing political parties. Although there is a
long-standing history of mainstream political parties co-opting grassroots movements, under
neoliberalism the goal is to shape them intoan identity politics mold under the pluralist or
rightwing populist camp. Behind the illusion of choice and layers of bourgeois issues ranging
from property rights and individual rights rests a totalitarian system whose goal is popular
compliance. https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/eliane-glaser/elites-right-wing-populism-and-left
;
More subtly and stealthily interwoven into the institutional structure than totalitarian
regimes of the interwar era, neoliberal totalitarianism has succeeded not because of the
rightwing populist political camp but because of the pluralist one that supports both
militarism in foreign affairs and police-state methods at home as a means of maintaining the
social order while projecting the façade of democracy. Whereas the neoliberal surveillance
state retains vestiges of pluralism and the façade of electoral choice, the police state
in interwar Germany and Italy pursued blatant persecution of declared ideological dogmatism
targeting 'enemies of the state' and demanding complete subjugation of citizens to theregime.
Just as people were manipulated in interwar Europeinto accepting the totalitarian state as
desirable and natural, so are many in our time misguided into supporting neoliberal
totalitarianism.
In her book entitled Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (2015),
Wendy Brown argues that not just in the public sector, but in every sector of society
neoliberal ideology of 'de-democratization' prevails. Extensions of a hierarchical economic
system rather than citizens with civil and human rights guaranteed by a social contract aimed
at the welfare of the collective, human beings are more commoditized today than they were in
the nascent phase of industrial capitalism. The kind of ubiquitous transformation of the
individual's identity with the superstructure and the 'de-democratization' of society operating
under massively concentrated wealth institutionally intertwined with political power in our
contemporary erawas evident in totalitarian countries during the interwar era.
Whereas protest and resistance, freedom of expression and assembly were not permitted by
totalitarian regimes in interwar Europe, they are permitted in our time. However, they are so
marginalized and/or demonized when analyzing critically mainstream institutions and the social
contract under which they operate that they are the stigmatizedas illegitimate opposition.
Permitting freedom of speech and assembly, along with due process and electoral politicsbest
servesneoliberal socioeconomic totalitarianism because its apologists can claim the system
operates in an 'open society'; a term that Karl Popper the ideological father of
neo-conservatism coined to differentiate the West from the former Communist bloc closed
societies.
As Italian journalist Claudio Hallo put it: "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural
fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can
change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is
why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal
party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an
insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/171240-global-totalitarianism-change-neoliberalism/
In an essay entitled "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ,
Hans van Zon argues that as the Western World'sdominant ideologies since the 1980s,
"undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the
most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any
hierarchy in value or belief systems."http://www.imavo.be/vmt/13214-van%20Zon%20postmodernism.pdf
. Beyond undermining society's immune system and the open society under capitalism, asHans van
Zon contends, the convergence of these ideologies have contributed to the 'de-democratization'
of society,the creation of illiberal institutions and collective consciousness of conformity to
neoliberal totalitarianism. The success of neoliberalism inculcated into the collective
consciousness is partly because of the long-standing East-West confrontation followed by the
manufactured war on terror. However, it is also true that neoliberal apologists of both the
pluralist and rightwing camp present the social contract as transcending politics because
markets are above states, above society as 'objective' thus they can best determine the social
good on the basis of commoditized value. (Joshua Ramsay, "Neoliberalism as Political
Theology of Chance: the politics of divination."https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201539
An evolutionary course, the 'de-democratization' of society started in postwar US that
imposed transformation policy on the world with the goal of maintaining its economic,
political, military and cultural superpower hegemony justified in the name of anti-Communism.
Transformation policy was at the root of the diffusion of the de-democratization process under
neoliberalism, despite the European origin of the ideology. As it gradually regained its status
in the core of the world economy after the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in
1957, northwest Europe followed in the path of the US. http://www.eurstrat.eu/the-european-neoliberal-union/
Ten years before the Treaty of Rome that created the EEC,Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek
gathered a number of scholars in Mont Pelerin where they founded the neoliberal society named
after the Swiss village. They discussed strategies of influencing public policy intended to
efface the Keynesian model on which many societies were reorganized to survive the Great
Depression. Financed by some of Europe's wealthiest families, the Mont Pelerin Society grew of
immense importance after its first meeting which coincided with the anti-labor Taft-Hartley
Act, the Truman Doctrine formalizing the institutionalization of the Cold War, and the Marshall
Plan intended to reintegrate Europe and its colonies and spheres of influence under the aegis
of the US. Helped along by the IMF, World Bank, and the International Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade established in 1947, US transformation policy was designed to shape the world to its own
geopolitical and economic advantage based on a neo-classical macroeconomic and financial
theoretical model on which neoliberal ideology rested. http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/
Considering that millionaires and billionaires providefunding for the Mont Pelerin Society
and affiliates, this prototype neoliberal think tank became the intellectual pillar of both the
pluralist and rightwing neoliberal camps by working with 460 think tanks that have
organizations in 96 countries where they influence both centrist and rightwing political
parties. Whether Hillary Clinton's and Emmanuel Macron's pluralist neoliberal globalist version
or Donald Trump's and Narendra Modi's rightwing populist one, the Mont Pelerin Society and
others sharing its ideology and goals exercise preeminent policy influence not on the merit of
its ideas for the welfare of society but because the richest people from rightwing Czech
billionaire Andrej Babisto liberal pluralist billionaireseither support its principles and
benefit from their implementation into policy. (J. Peterson, Revoking the Moral Order: The
Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle , 1999;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate
If the neoliberal social contract is the answer to peoples' prayers world-wide as Hayek's
followers insist, why is there a need on the part of the state, international organizations
including UN agencies, billionaire and millionaire-funded think tanks, educational institutions
and the corporate and state-owned media to convince the public that there is nothing better for
society than massive capital concentration and social exclusion, and social conditions that in
some respects resemble servitude in Medieval Europe? Why do ultra-rightwing Koch brothers and
the Mercer family, among other billionaires and millionaires fromNorth America, Europe, India,
South Korea and Latin America spend so much money to inculcate the neoliberal ideology into the
collective consciousness andto persuade the public to elect neoliberal politicians either of
the pluralist camp or the authoritarian one?
Seventy years after Hayek formed the Mont Leperin Societyto promotea future without
totalitarianism, there are elected neoliberal politicians from both the pluralist and
authoritarian camps with ties to big capital and organized crime amid the blurring lines
between legal and illegal economic activities that encompasses everything from crypto-currency
and insider trading to offshore 'shell corporations' and banks laundering money for drug lords
and wealthy tax evaders. Surrender of popular sovereignty through the social contract now
entails surrender to a class of people who are criminals, not only based on a social justice
criteria but on existing law if it were only applied to them as it does to petty thieves. In
the amoral Machiavellian world of legalized "criminal virtue" in which we live these are the
leaders of society.Indicative of the perversion of values now rooted in atomism and greed, the
media reports with glowingly admiring terms that in 2017 the world's 500 richest people became
richer by $1 trillion, a rise that represents one-third of Africa's GDP and just under
one-fifth of Latin America's. Rather than condemning mal-distribution ofincome considering what
it entails for society, the media and many in the business of propagating for neoliberalism
applaud appropriation within the legal framework of the social contract as a virtue.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/500-richest-people-became-1-trillion-richer-in-2017-mukesh-ambani-tops-indian-list/story-JcNXhH9cCp2pzRopkoFdfL.html
; Bob Brecher, "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" in Virtue and
Economy . ed. Andrius Bielskis and Kelvin Knight, 2015)
Neoliberalism has led to the greater legitimization of activities that would otherwise be
illegal to the degree that the lines between the legitimate economy and organized criminal
activity are blurred reflecting the flexible lines between legally-financed millionaire-backed
elected officials and those with links to organized crime or to illegal campaign contributions
always carrying an illegal quid-pro-quo legalized through public policy. Beyond the usual
tax-haven suspects Panama, Cyprus, Bermuda, Malta, Luxemburg, among othersincluding states such
as Nevada and Wyoming, leaders from former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to President Donald
Trump with reputed ties to organized criminal networks have benefited from the neoliberal
regime that they served.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254953831_Economic_Crime_and_Neoliberal_Modes_of_Government_The_Example_of_the_Mediterranean
)
Self-righteous pluralist neoliberals castigate rightwing billionaires for funding rightwing
politicians. However, there is silence when it comes to the millions amassed by pluralist
neoliberals as the infamous "Panama Papers" revealed in 2016. Despite the institutionalized
kleptocracy, the mediahas indoctrinated the public to accept as 'normal' the converging
interests of the capitalist class and ruling political class just as it has indoctrinated the
public to accept social exclusion, social inequality, and poverty as natural and democratic;
all part of the social contract.( http://revistes.uab.cat/tdevorado/article/view/v2-n1-armao
; Jose Manuel Sanchez Bermudez, The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in
Decline, 2012;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalisms-world-of-corruption-money-laundering-corporate-lobbying-drug-money/5519907
The Future of Neoliberalism
After the great recession of 2008, the future of neoliberalism became the subject of debate
among politicians, journalists and academics. One school of thought was that the great
recession had exposed the flaws in neoliberalism thus marking the beginning of its demise. The
years since 2008 proved that in a twist of irony, the quasi-statist policies of China with its
phenomenal growth have actually been responsible for sustaining neoliberalism globally and not
just because China has been financing US public debt by buying treasuries while the US buys
products made in China. This view holds that neoliberalism will continue to thrive so as long
as China continues its global ascendancy, thus the warm reception to Beijing as the new
globalist hegemonic power after Trump's noise about pursuing economic nationalism within the
neoliberal model. (Barry Eichengreen, Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great
Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History , 2016;
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/23/has-the-global-financial-crisis-challenged-us-power-in-international-finance/
)
China is not pursuing the kind of neoliberal model that exists in the US or the EU, but its
economy is well integrated with the global neoliberal system and operates within those
perimeters despite quasi-statist policies also found in other countries to a lesser degree.
Adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), China's current share of world GDP stands at 16%
and at annual growth above 6% it is expected to reach 20%, by 2020. This in comparison with
only 1.9% in 1979 and it explains why its currency is now among the IMF-recognized reserved
currencies. With about half-a-million foreign companies in China and an average of 12,000 new
companies entering every day, capitalists from all over the world are betting heavily on
China's future as the world's preeminent capitalist core country in the 21 st
century. China will play a determining role in the course of global neoliberalism, and it is
politically willing to accept the US as the military hegemon while Beijing strives for economic
preeminence. Interested in extracting greater profits from China while tempering its race to
number one, Western businesses and governmentshave been pressuring Beijing to become more
immersed in neoliberal policies and eliminate all elements of statism. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-09/22/content_15775312.htm
; https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/china/foreign-investment
Although the US that has 450,000 troops in 800 foreign military bases in more than 150
countries and uses its military muscle along with 'soft-power' policies including sanctions as
leverage for economic power, many governments and multinational corporations consider Beijing
not Washington as a source of global stability and growth. With China breathing new life into
neoliberalism on the promise of geographic and social convergence, it is fantasy to speculate
that neoliberalism is in decline when in fact it is becoming more forcefully ubiquitous.
However, China like the West that had promised geographic and social convergence in the last
four decades of neoliberalism will not be any more successful in delivering on such promises.
The resultof such policies will continue to be greater polarization and social exclusion and
greater uneven development, with China and multinationals investing in its enterprises becoming
richer while the US will continue to use militarism as leverage to retain global economic
hegemony rapidly eroding from its grip. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-deployments-may-2017-5
;
http://www.zapruderworld.org/welfare-state-decline-and-rise-neoliberalism-1980s-some-approaches-between-latin-americas-core-and
; Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization , 2012)
Between China and the US, the world can expect neoliberal globalization to continue under
the pluralist and populist rightwing models in different countries with the two converging and
reflecting the totalitarian essence of the system at its core.Characterized by rapid
development and sluggish growth in Japan and Western core countries, neoliberal globalization
has entailed lack of income convergence between the developed and developing world where uneven
export-oriented growth based on the primary sector keeps developingnations perpetually
dependent and poor. Interestingly, the trend of falling incomes characteristic of the
developing nations from 1980 to 2000 was just as true in Western countries. It was during these
two decades of ascendant neoliberalism that rightwing populist movements began to challenge the
pluralist neoliberal political camp and offering nationally-based neoliberal solutions, further
adding to the system's existing contradictions. (Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal
Globalization , 2012)
The debate whether the rise of populism or perhaps the faint voices of anti-capitalism will
finally bring about the end of neoliberalism often centers on the digital-biotech revolution
often blamed for exacerbating rather than solving social problems owing to uneven benefits
accruing across social classes. It is somewhat surprising that IMF economists have questioned
the wisdom of pursuing unfettered neoliberalism where there is a trade-off between economic
growth andsocial exclusion owing to growing income inequality. Naturally, the IMF refrains from
self-criticism and it would never suggest that neoliberal globalization that the Fund has been
promoting is responsible for the rise of rightwing populism around the world.
Within the neoliberal camp, pluralist-diversity advocatesare satisfied they have done their
part in the 'fight for democracy' when in fact their stealthy brand of the neoliberal social
contract isin some respects more dangerous than the populist camp which is unapologetically
candid about its pro-big business, pro-monopoly, pro-deregulation anti-social welfare platform.
Shortly after Trump won the presidential election with the help of rightwing billionaires and
disillusioned workers who actually believed that he represented them rather than the
billionaires, an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor is typical of how
pluralist neoliberals view the global tide of rightwing populism.
"Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and
Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the
perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear
persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits
have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on
neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three
decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My
fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push
back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and
alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption."
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Breakthroughs-Voices/2016/1206/Opposing-neoliberalism-without-right-wing-populism-A-Latin-American-guide
Without analyzing the deeper causes of the global tide of rightwing populism promoting
neoliberalism under an authoritarian political platform, pluralist-diversity neoliberals
continue to promote socioeconomic policies that lead to social exclusion, inequality, and
uneven development as long as they satisfy the cultural-lifestyle and corporate-based
sustainable-development aspects of the social contract.Tolend legitimacy and public acceptance
among those expecting a commitment to pluralism, the neoliberal pluralists embrace the
superficialities and distraction of diversity and political correctness. Ironically, the
political correctness trend started during theReagan administration's second term and served as
a substitute for social justice that the government and the private sector were rapidly eroding
along with the social welfare state and trade union rights. As long as there is'politically
correctness', in public at least so that people feel they are part of a 'civilized' society,
then public policy can continue on the barbaric path of social exclusion, police-state methods,
and greater economic inequality.
The future of neoliberalism includes the inevitability that social exclusion will lead to
social uprisings especially as even some billionaires readily acknowledge the social contract
favors them to the detriment of society. As the voices against systemic exploitation become
louder,the likelihood will increase for authoritarian-police state policies if not regimes
reflecting the neoliberal social contract's ubiquitous stranglehold on society. Although
resistance to neoliberalism will continue to grow, the prospects for a social revolution in
this century overturning the neoliberal order in advanced capitalist countries is highly
unlikely. Twentieth century revolutions succeeded where the state structure was weak and people
recognized that the hierarchical social order was the root cause of the chasm between the
country's vast social exclusion coupled with stagnation vs. its potential for a more inclusive
society where greater social equality and social justice would bean integral part of the social
contract. (Donna L. Chollett, Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ,
2013)
Despite everything pointing to the dynamics of a continued neoliberal social contract,
diehard pluralists like British academic Martin Jacques and American economist Joseph Stiglitz
insist there is hope for reformist change. In The Politics of Thatcherism (1983)
Jacques applauded neoliberalism, but during the US presidential election in 2016 he had changed
his mind, predicting neoliberalism's demise. He felt encouraged that other pluralist
neoliberals like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz were voicing their concerns signaling an
interest in the debate about social inequality. In an article entitled "The death of
neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" , he wrote: "A sure sign of the
declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against
it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by
monetarists and free marketeers."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics
Along with Krugman, Stiglitz and others in the pluralist camp favoring a policy mix that
includes Keynesianism,Martin Jacques, Thomas Picketty and others like them around the world
doenjoy some small influence with the pluralist-diversity camp. However, the demise of
neoliberalism will not result from intellectual critiques regardless of the merits. On the
contrary, the neoliberal social contract is solidifying not evolving toward dissolution. This
is largely because the dynamics of the social order continue to favor it and the opposition is
split between ultra-right nationalists, pluralists of varying sorts resting on hope of
restoring Keynesian rationalism in the capitalist system, and the very weak and divided
leftists in just about every country and especially the core ones.
https://theconversation.com/if-we-are-reaching-neoliberal-capitalisms-end-days-what-comes-next-72366
Neoliberalism's inherent contradictions will result in its demise andthe transition into a
new phase of capitalism. Among the most obvious and glaring contradictions is that the ideology
promotes freedom and emancipation when in practice it is a totalitarian system aimed to mold
society and the individual into conformity of its dogmatic market fundamentalism.Another
contradiction is the emphasis of a borderless global market, while capitalists operate within
national borders and are impacted by national policies that often collide at the international
level as the competition intensifies for market share just as was the case in the four decades
before the outbreak of WWI. Adding to the list of contradictions that finds expression the
debate between neoliberal rightwingers and pluralists is the issue of "value-free" market
fundamentalism while at the same time neoliberals conduct policy that has very strong moral
consequences in peoples' lives precisely because of extremely uneven income distribution.
The enigma in neoliberalism's futureis the role of grassroots movements that are in a
position to impact change but have failed thus far to make much impact. Most people embrace the
neoliberal political parties serving the same capitalist class, operating under the illusion of
a messiah politician delivering the promise of salvation either from the pluralist or
authoritarian wing of neoliberalism. The turning point for systemic change emanates from within
the system that fails to serve the vast majority of the people as it is riddled with
contradictions that become more evident and the elites become increasingly contentious about
how to divide the economic pie and how to mobilize popular support behind mainstream political
parties so they can maintain the social order under an unsustainable political economy. At that
juncture, the neoliberal social contract suffersan irrevocable crisis of public confidence on a
mass scale. Regardless under which political regime neoliberalism operates, people will
eventually reject hegemonic cultural indoctrination. A critical mass in society has not reached
this juncture. Nevertheless, social discontinuity is an evolutionary process and the
contradictions in neoliberalism will continue to cause political disruption, economic
disequilibrium and social upheaval.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten
academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political
economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the
World Bank and IMF in the world.
Neo-Liberalism in America is an underlying political philosophy based on belief in the
sanctity of personal "freedom" with the conviction that this freedom is expressed through
self-determination. It extends back to the early settlement and then the writing of
transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) who popularized the expression
"self-reliance." In the recent American election it underlay the Donald Trump code words:
"what makes America great again." Ronald Reagan took advantage of it with his derisive use
of the term "welfare queens." It undergirds the foundation of today's Republican Party.
Russians want a weak and divided US. Putin couldn't care less about who is running the
nation.
Did they interfere with our election? Maybe.
Did illegals criminally vote in our elections after Obama asked them to? Did the Clintons
and the DNC pay millions for the so-called research that led to Russia dossier? Yes. Did
Clinton have her billionaire foreign friends funding her campaign? Yes.
But I guess direct foreign interference doesn't count if the Democrats were behind it. I
think Democrats need to understand that people are starting to notice all the BS they are
preaching.
You can't have it both ways....unless your a Democrat. People got tired of that and elected
a clown over a corrupt political cult of blatant liars and criminals. Normal people don't like
SJW types, hypocrites and habitually outraged race baiters.
At some point you start to notice how they flood social media and every forum with their
trash propaganda. Even slashdot seems to get hit constantly.
I followed that assault on Fallujah very closely at the time. Remember that the US Marines
had tried to take over the town some months before but met with very fierce resistance and
were chased out of town. Therefore there was an element of revenge and also punishment about
this second assault. First they occupied the civilian hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah
(a war crime). They then systemically bombed and destroyed the power station, the water
pumping station and the sewage works (all war crimes).
Then as you point out they used white phosphorous munitions (a war crime), but there was
something peculiar in the immediate aftermath. Having eventually successfully subdued the
town, US troops went around the central area and systematically shot out, and thus drained,
all the water towers (these were numerous as many houses had them). Then military bulldozers
moved in and removed all the topsoil from a couple of square kilometres. This led to
speculation that some form of illegal chemical weapons had been deployed.
Mad Dog indeed.
"... 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court ..."
"... The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The Toilet"). ..."
"... So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class. ..."
Libyan War The Truth
The Great Tribes of Libya have begun their cleansing of the terrorists brought into their country illegally by NATO in their 2011
invasion of Libya.
These terrorists include groups such as Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Ansar Al Sharia, ISIS,
Salafists, Wahabists and other assorted small criminal mercenary militia gangs. All of these militia gangs have been controlling
Tripoli since 2011, ILLEGALLY. These terrorists are working with the UN puppet government, appointed by the UN (headed by the criminal
Serraj) without any authority or vote of the Libyan people. These terrorist gangs answer to no laws or rules. They roam the streets
armed and attack or steal at will. The Libyan people have suffered under these gangs ever since NATO, Obama, Clinton, McCain and
others invaded their country with NATO using a false flag lie of a revolution to justify their war crimes.
Today, many of the largest tribes in Libya joined the Tarhouna tribe near Tripoli to support them in the cleansing of the rubbish
controlling the city of Tripoli. The people of Libya who are all members of tribes and represented by the tribes, have had enough.
Recently, as I reported earlier, 45 young men were sentenced to death by a kangaroo court made up of criminal militias.
These young men had broken no laws, their only crime was being members of the Libyan army fighting against NATO invaders in 2011.
This was just one more criminal act that pushed the Libyan people (tribes) over the edge. Even though the tribes have no support
from outside like the militias who receive weapons and money from the US (via Turkey), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Sudan; the Great
Tribes of Libya have joined together to take back their sovereignty no matter what.
The terrorist gangs (militias) fearing the loss of their "golden goose" have called their brother terrorists from all over Libya
to support them in their battle. These terrorists (Salafists and Wahabists, et. al) are being flown into the Mitiga Airport in Tripoli.
The Mitiga airport, the old Wheelus Air Base , is being
controlled by the terrorists.
So, as the world watches, the Great Tribes of Libya, standing alone with all their Libyan brothers and sisters, take on the New
World order and their proxy army of terrorists.
We ask the people of the world to stand with their Libyan brothers and sisters as they fight the Zionist New World Order, Khazarian
mafia cabal. The Cabal has taken their country by illegal means and placed their criminals on the ground to keep the Libyan people
from their security and sovereignty.
The Great tribes of Libya are showing the world how to fight, they deserve your support and your respect. God bless them all as
they fight against the evil that is permeating the entire world today.
Comment: More from
Sputnik:
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on the conflicting parties in Libya to immediately cease fire and sit down at the
negotiating table, his spokesman said in a statement on Saturday.
"The Secretary-General calls on all parties to immediately cease hostilities and abide by the ceasefire agreement brokered
by the United Nations and the Reconciliation Committees," the secretary-general's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.
Guterres condemned the continued hostilities in and near Tripoli, in particular, the indiscriminate shelling, which killed
and injured civilians, including children. He offered his deepest condolences to the victims' relatives.
"He urges all parties to grant humanitarian relief for those in need, particularly those who are trapped by the fighting,"
the spokesman added.
Ghassan Salame, a special representative of the UN secretary-general and the head of the United Nations Support Mission in
Libya (UNSMIL), will continue to work and cooperate with all parties to achieve a long-term political agreement acceptable to
all, he concluded.
[F]ighting erupted on August 26 reportedly between local militias and Kani tribal fighters from Tarhouna, southeast of Tripoli.
According to the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) NGO, heavy shelling in residential areas resulted in an unspecified number of
casualties and approximately 8,000 refugees and asylum seekers remaining trapped in closed detention centers in dire humanitarian
conditions.
The Great Tribes of Libya sounds like an organically risen and named group; in contrast to Al Quaeda ("The Database" OR "The
Toilet").
So, I'm for any Libyans trying to take back theuir country from the UK/USRael/France (FUKUS) 'coalition' which destroyed
the most prosperous African country with the largest middle class.
But that's their plan - as enacted further daily - here in the West, too.
DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT IS BEING PUT OUT IN THE WESTERN MEDIA. THE MEDIA AND ZIONIST NEW WORLD
ORDER CABAL IS ATTEMPTING TO FABRICATE THE SAME PROBLEM AS IN 2011 BY PRINTING LIES.
THERE IS NO CEASEFIRE, THERE IS NO TRUCE.
THE FIGHT IN TRIPOLI IS BETWEEN THE LIBYAN PEOPLE (TRIBAL ARMY) AND THE TERRORIST GANGS
CALLED MILITIAS.
These are the facts on the ground today in Tripoli:
1. The combined army of the Great Tribes of Libya is fighting against the terrorists and
mercenaries in Tripoli. These terrorists call themselves militias, but they are nothing more
than hired thugs, thieves, murderers and criminals made up of Muslim Brotherhood, LIFG, Ansar
Al Sharia, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. These terrorists were brought into Libya by the illegal NATO
war against the sovereign country of Libya. They are supported by the US (via Turkey), Qatar,
Sudan and Saudi Arabia, they work with the UN puppet government in Tripoli. As long as they
roam the streets of Tripoli with their weapons there is no security, no peace and no life for
the innocent Libyans.
2. All Tribes of Libya support this army.
3. All legitimate Libyan people in Tripoli and throughout Libya support the tribes and are
against these terrorist militias
4. The Great Tribes of Libya will not stop until all terrorists are dead or gone outside of
Libya. The terms of any truce with the tribal army would mean the end of the criminal puppet UN
government and the end of the terrorist militias, so there will not be a truce.
On September 2, 2018 Reuters reported that 400 prisoners escaped from the Ain Zara prison in
Tripoli. The truth is that the army of the Libyan tribes attacked the prison and effected the
freedom of 400 Libyan soldiers about 5pm on September 2. Amongst those 400 were the 45 young
men to be assassinated as condemned last week by the kangaroo militia court in Tripoli. In
2011, when NATO invaded they opened all the prisons in Libya and let out all the criminals to
help attack the Libyan people. Most if not all of the people imprisoned in Libya now were
people who were fighting against NATO or were against the NATO take over (working in the
government).
I am fully aware as are the honorable leaders of the tribes in Libya that all of our
conversations are monitored as we are the only true source of information of the activities of
the Libyan tribes and their struggle to regain their sovereignty. Having stated that, I want to
editorialize by saying that the illegal activities of the US mercenaries in Libya concerning
their Kangaroo court and their decision to assassinate 45 mostly dark skinned Libyan soldiers,
was the straw that broke the camels back. This left the legitimate Libyan people with no option
except to go into the streets and wrest control of their country from these paid
mercenaries.
One of the tribal spies inside these criminal militias told us 2 weeks ago that all the
criminal militias have been frightened by the impending death of John McCain, they consider him
their brother, founder, funder and protector. McCain had protected them from all scrutiny and
allowed their barbarianism. The death of McCain would mean all their sins would be exposed.
They wanted to kill all the prisoners, but their UN handlers said the militias must have the
appearance of legitimacy. Consequently, the kangaroo court was set in motion.
The great tribes of Libya have taken on the battle to free their country of the terrorists
and puppets placed there by the New World Order Zionists who in effect own NATO. This is a
serious battle for their sovereignty. They take this on with no outside help, unlike Syria who
has had the aid of Russia, Iran and China, the Libyan people are alone in this battle. They are
battling the same criminals as are the Syrian army. They know this is a battle of life or death
for them, they are not a large population, they have already lost over one million people, they
are now only 5.5 million. As the world watches Syria, please let it not forget the fight for
freedom happening now in Libya.
About the Author:
James and Joanne Moriarty were appointed official spokespersons of the Tribes of Libya by
their Supreme Leader in 2012. For their story and mission to get the message out and help the
Libyan people, go here.
"... "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "' ..."
"... Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.' ..."
"... It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically. ..."
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our
hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:
'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected
sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April.
"We killed them out of a certain
naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in
our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'
Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank
discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here.
Charges of anti-Semitism
and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and
his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very
sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
"... The documentary, which was produced by an undercover reporter who infiltrated pro-Israel groups in the U.S. in 2016, has been censored by the Qatari government – the owner of Al Jazeera – as part of an attempt by Qatar to win the support of major Jewish American organizations. ..."
"... New details about the contents of the censored documentary appeared this week in the French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, and video excerpts from it were published by Max Blumenthal and on the website Electronic Intifada. ..."
Parts of Censored Al Jazeera Documentary on D.C. Israel Lobby Leaked 03/09/2018
Leaked clips from film, pulled by Qatar in bid to appease U.S. Jewish community, show
'astroturfing' by college students involved with right-wing think tank, claim to reveal top
U.S. donor of BDS blacklist
By Amir Tibon
August 30, 2018
Video excerpts and new details from the
censored Al Jazeera documentary about the Israeli lobby in the United States have been
leaked to select media outlets in recent days.
The documentary, which was produced by an undercover reporter who infiltrated pro-Israel
groups in the U.S. in 2016,
has been censored by the Qatari government – the owner of Al Jazeera – as part
of an attempt by Qatar to win the support of major Jewish American organizations.
New details about the contents of the censored documentary appeared this week in the French
monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, and video excerpts from it were published by Max
Blumenthal and on the website Electronic Intifada.
Michael Cohen's guilty plea
directly implicating President Trump in the commission of a crime has stimulated new talk
about possible impeachment. Given how the case involves sexual liaisons, it also has
stimulated comparisons with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Most such comparisons focus on
the domestic politics of each episode, and on such questions as whether Democrats who
downplayed the significance of Clinton's dalliance with a White House intern would be
inconsistent if they now went after Trump -- although Clinton's behavior did not involve an
election and violation of campaign finance law -- whereas Cohen's allegation about Trump
does.
Those more interested in foreign and security policy might focus instead on another
dimension of how Clinton's caper with Monica Lewinsky was discussed at the time. When
Clinton, following al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
twenty years ago this month, ordered cruise missile attacks against facilities associated
with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan, some of his political opponents accused him of using
the strikes to boost domestic support that was sagging amid the Lewinsky affair. The
accusation was stimulated partly by the timing of the missile strikes, which occurred just
three days after Clinton admitted in a televised address that he had misled the public about
his relationship with Lewinsky.
The commedia dell'arte mourning of McCain is in full bloom. In a vulgar orgy of pompous,
bathetic praise from Congress and the media, he is being piously canonized. To counter this
shameless obsequy by attacking him for what he actually was would be an exercise in futility,
just as the endless ad hominem hatchet jobs on Trump accomplish nothing.
It's more useful to examine the grisly American disease of which he was a champion and
cynosure. The son and grandson of Admirals, a bred-in-the-bone military man, he flew a fighter
in Vietnam. Shot down -- and amazingly not summarily executed -- he was held as a POW, and
became a lifelong advocate of unlimited use of military force for American world
domination.
Nothing unusual in that. It is and has been the baseline political credo of all American
politicians since Monroe, at least, up to and including Trump, Hillary, Sanders, and Warren.
The surest way to the graveyard for political hopefuls is to be seen or slimed as "soft on
defense".
The fact that actual defense of the country has not been necessary since the War of 1812,
and is not now, and that the hoax only exists to suck our national wealth into the War Machine
has not been effectively articulated. The idea, false to its core, that America must spend
astronomic sums to "defend" its polity and its people has taken on the character of revealed
religion in a country where multitudes believe in angels and Endtimes.
This appropriation of the wealth of the people by the corporate forces of imperial murder
has not come suddenly. Oceans of innocent blood have drenched the world from our military
violence since Quincy Adams said of America that "she goes not abroad in search of monsters to
destroy".
World War II proved to Eisenhower's Military/Industrial/Congressio nal Complex the
obscene profit to be had from annihilating people, cities, and countries. Schumpeter
defined the War Machine far better than Ike did: "Created by the wars that required it, it now
creates the wars it requires."
Since 1945, America, by then firmly in its grasp, has relentlessly scoured the world behind
the gross and cynical lie of defense of freedom, to foment, ignite, and expand the brutal,
devastating, shock-and-awe gorefests the War Machine has to have. That Korea, Vietnam, and the
catalog of Middle Eastern horrors the US perpetrated were failures on a cosmic scale except as
cash cows for the War Machine has been of little concern to the most somnolent, propagandized,
passive public since that of the Third Reich. These national mass murder atrocities were sold
to Americans as defense of our indispensable "homeland" from barbarian, sub-human "others".
Some, such as Al Qaida were, absurdly, our Deep State's own creations.
It is commonly said and believed that the American public is not at fault for its profound,
intractable moral cowardice since War Machine swag has kept them in a combination insane
asylum, crack house, and human zoo. How else could they have lived with the intolerably bitter
truth that their country is the serial violator and exterminator, the voracious destroyer, of
so many millions of simple, guiltless, victim peoples?
This is where John McCain and his ilk comes in. Exploiting his bogus and accidental
credentials, he became a pitch man for the massive con of American purity and idealism as a
front for imperialist greed, and made a career promoting and lionizing the War Machine as it
raped the peoples of earth and robbed Americans blind in pursuit of its cancerous
enrichment.
Still, McCain was only a cracked and bent tool. He was always an effect, a symptom; never a
cause. The real driver of the War Machine is heartless, soulless, predatory Capitalism. Its
credo is exploitation of everything to maximize profit. In a closed system, competing capital
conflicts, collides. Greed eclipses reason and war results. The greatest capital concentration
requires the most terrible military, in which violence displaces conscience. There never has
been, and never can be, Capitalism without war.
Indoctrinated, baffled, saddled with a cesspool Congress and the deeply stupid, vulgarian
Trump, centrist Americans, desperate for refuge, rush mindlessly to the new War Party,
Democrats eager to use McCain's $700 billion dollar hogwallow "defense" bill, to insult and
provoke China and Russia, and to attack Iran. Hubris, false bravado, and panic rule; nowhere is
there self knowledge and with it, long overdue, sorrow, regret, and shame.
Karmic retribution--the pitiless hand of Nemesis--is all America deserves.
Paul Edwards is a writer and film-maker in Montana. He can be reached at: [email protected]
The commedia dell'arte mourning of McCain is in full bloom. In a vulgar orgy of pompous,
bathetic praise from Congress and the media, he is being piously canonized. To counter this
shameless obsequy by attacking him for what he actually was would be an exercise in futility,
just as the endless ad hominem hatchet jobs on Trump accomplish nothing.
It's more useful to examine the grisly American disease of which he was a champion and
cynosure. The son and grandson of Admirals, a bred-in-the-bone military man, he flew a fighter
in Vietnam. Shot down -- and amazingly not summarily executed -- he was held as a POW, and
became a lifelong advocate of unlimited use of military force for American world
domination.
Nothing unusual in that. It is and has been the baseline political credo of all American
politicians since Monroe, at least, up to and including Trump, Hillary, Sanders, and Warren.
The surest way to the graveyard for political hopefuls is to be seen or slimed as "soft on
defense".
The fact that actual defense of the country has not been necessary since the War of 1812,
and is not now, and that the hoax only exists to suck our national wealth into the War Machine
has not been effectively articulated. The idea, false to its core, that America must spend
astronomic sums to "defend" its polity and its people has taken on the character of revealed
religion in a country where multitudes believe in angels and Endtimes.
This appropriation of the wealth of the people by the corporate forces of imperial murder
has not come suddenly. Oceans of innocent blood have drenched the world from our military
violence since Quincy Adams said of America that "she goes not abroad in search of monsters to
destroy".
World War II proved to Eisenhower's Military/Industrial/Congressio nal Complex the
obscene profit to be had from annihilating people, cities, and countries. Schumpeter
defined the War Machine far better than Ike did: "Created by the wars that required it, it now
creates the wars it requires."
Since 1945, America, by then firmly in its grasp, has relentlessly scoured the world behind
the gross and cynical lie of defense of freedom, to foment, ignite, and expand the brutal,
devastating, shock-and-awe gorefests the War Machine has to have. That Korea, Vietnam, and the
catalog of Middle Eastern horrors the US perpetrated were failures on a cosmic scale except as
cash cows for the War Machine has been of little concern to the most somnolent, propagandized,
passive public since that of the Third Reich. These national mass murder atrocities were sold
to Americans as defense of our indispensable "homeland" from barbarian, sub-human "others".
Some, such as Al Qaida were, absurdly, our Deep State's own creations.
It is commonly said and believed that the American public is not at fault for its profound,
intractable moral cowardice since War Machine swag has kept them in a combination insane
asylum, crack house, and human zoo. How else could they have lived with the intolerably bitter
truth that their country is the serial violator and exterminator, the voracious destroyer, of
so many millions of simple, guiltless, victim peoples?
This is where John McCain and his ilk comes in. Exploiting his bogus and accidental
credentials, he became a pitch man for the massive con of American purity and idealism as a
front for imperialist greed, and made a career promoting and lionizing the War Machine as it
raped the peoples of earth and robbed Americans blind in pursuit of its cancerous
enrichment.
Still, McCain was only a cracked and bent tool. He was always an effect, a symptom; never a
cause. The real driver of the War Machine is heartless, soulless, predatory Capitalism. Its
credo is exploitation of everything to maximize profit. In a closed system, competing capital
conflicts, collides. Greed eclipses reason and war results. The greatest capital concentration
requires the most terrible military, in which violence displaces conscience. There never has
been, and never can be, Capitalism without war.
Indoctrinated, baffled, saddled with a cesspool Congress and the deeply stupid, vulgarian
Trump, centrist Americans, desperate for refuge, rush mindlessly to the new War Party,
Democrats eager to use McCain's $700 billion dollar hogwallow "defense" bill, to insult and
provoke China and Russia, and to attack Iran. Hubris, false bravado, and panic rule; nowhere is
there self knowledge and with it, long overdue, sorrow, regret, and shame.
Karmic retribution--the pitiless hand of Nemesis--is all America deserves.
Paul Edwards is a writer and film-maker in Montana. He can be reached at: [email protected]
The commedia dell'arte mourning of McCain is in full bloom. In a vulgar orgy of pompous,
bathetic praise from Congress and the media, he is being piously canonized. To counter this
shameless obsequy by attacking him for what he actually was would be an exercise in futility,
just as the endless ad hominem hatchet jobs on Trump accomplish nothing.
It's more useful to examine the grisly American disease of which he was a champion and
cynosure. The son and grandson of Admirals, a bred-in-the-bone military man, he flew a fighter
in Vietnam. Shot down -- and amazingly not summarily executed -- he was held as a POW, and
became a lifelong advocate of unlimited use of military force for American world
domination.
Nothing unusual in that. It is and has been the baseline political credo of all American
politicians since Monroe, at least, up to and including Trump, Hillary, Sanders, and Warren.
The surest way to the graveyard for political hopefuls is to be seen or slimed as "soft on
defense".
The fact that actual defense of the country has not been necessary since the War of 1812,
and is not now, and that the hoax only exists to suck our national wealth into the War Machine
has not been effectively articulated. The idea, false to its core, that America must spend
astronomic sums to "defend" its polity and its people has taken on the character of revealed
religion in a country where multitudes believe in angels and Endtimes.
This appropriation of the wealth of the people by the corporate forces of imperial murder
has not come suddenly. Oceans of innocent blood have drenched the world from our military
violence since Quincy Adams said of America that "she goes not abroad in search of monsters to
destroy".
World War II proved to Eisenhower's Military/Industrial/Congressio nal Complex the
obscene profit to be had from annihilating people, cities, and countries. Schumpeter
defined the War Machine far better than Ike did: "Created by the wars that required it, it now
creates the wars it requires."
Since 1945, America, by then firmly in its grasp, has relentlessly scoured the world behind
the gross and cynical lie of defense of freedom, to foment, ignite, and expand the brutal,
devastating, shock-and-awe gorefests the War Machine has to have. That Korea, Vietnam, and the
catalog of Middle Eastern horrors the US perpetrated were failures on a cosmic scale except as
cash cows for the War Machine has been of little concern to the most somnolent, propagandized,
passive public since that of the Third Reich. These national mass murder atrocities were sold
to Americans as defense of our indispensable "homeland" from barbarian, sub-human "others".
Some, such as Al Qaida were, absurdly, our Deep State's own creations.
It is commonly said and believed that the American public is not at fault for its profound,
intractable moral cowardice since War Machine swag has kept them in a combination insane
asylum, crack house, and human zoo. How else could they have lived with the intolerably bitter
truth that their country is the serial violator and exterminator, the voracious destroyer, of
so many millions of simple, guiltless, victim peoples?
This is where John McCain and his ilk comes in. Exploiting his bogus and accidental
credentials, he became a pitch man for the massive con of American purity and idealism as a
front for imperialist greed, and made a career promoting and lionizing the War Machine as it
raped the peoples of earth and robbed Americans blind in pursuit of its cancerous
enrichment.
Still, McCain was only a cracked and bent tool. He was always an effect, a symptom; never a
cause. The real driver of the War Machine is heartless, soulless, predatory Capitalism. Its
credo is exploitation of everything to maximize profit. In a closed system, competing capital
conflicts, collides. Greed eclipses reason and war results. The greatest capital concentration
requires the most terrible military, in which violence displaces conscience. There never has
been, and never can be, Capitalism without war.
Indoctrinated, baffled, saddled with a cesspool Congress and the deeply stupid, vulgarian
Trump, centrist Americans, desperate for refuge, rush mindlessly to the new War Party,
Democrats eager to use McCain's $700 billion dollar hogwallow "defense" bill, to insult and
provoke China and Russia, and to attack Iran. Hubris, false bravado, and panic rule; nowhere is
there self knowledge and with it, long overdue, sorrow, regret, and shame.
Karmic retribution--the pitiless hand of Nemesis--is all America deserves.
Paul Edwards is a writer and film-maker in Montana. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Further to the point I made upthread is an english language article on Le Monde
Diplomatique which considers how and why an Al Jazeera documentary which featured israelis
and their stooges around Capitol Hill openly discussing their campaigns of dirty tricks and
their concern that young amerikans were no longer buying their tosh.
The documentary was an early victim of the Saudi/UAE attack on Qatar (the home of AJ) that
left al Jazeera's staff extremely upset and the leaks have been continuous.
The article goes on to discuss current methods of the israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs,
methods to be used on websites which square with much of the nonsense we have been subjected
to. I'm not going to waste space by pasting any of it here, don't be put off by the intro,
this goes way past rewording Mearsheimer or any of the already familiar stuff about aipac and
the deceivers. I reckon we all need to read it in its entirety before hunting out the four
part doco which will inevitably surface on the web in the not-too distant future, especially
since the cold shouldering of Qatar has re-commenced.
The censored al Jazeera documentary on the USAmerican Israeli lobby may well be Qatari
propaganda. Some may have noticed that I am quite critical of al Jazeera Arabic (which
heavily campaigned for Muslims from around the world to go to Syria and fight holy Jihad
against the hated secular government of the infidels). But propaganda is not necessarily
false. To propagate is to nurture and help to grow.
At any rate, I haven't seen anyone mention that al Jazeera made another documentary on the
Israel Lobby, but in Britain. It was released and may be viewed here:
Would it be prudent to view Israel as yet another US state, albeit
without formal association with the union ?
I doubt that Israeli influence is a one way street. In most areas the
USA neoliberal elite interests and Israeli interests coincide or strongly
corrlate. For example in no way the USA invade Iraq to serve exclusively
Israeli interests. They were interested in control of oil rich state (the
scenario later repeated in Libya) and Israeli interests played important,
but secondary role in the invasion.
Notable quotes:
"... American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel. ..."
"... Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel. ..."
"... How he represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery. ..."
"... Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. ..."
Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer said "I've never seen a
President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I
wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have
got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea
what goes on."
Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8,
1967, Israeli attack on the American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34
American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was operating in international waters and was
displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had identified the vessel as
American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It was
the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly
received the most medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one
hell of a story of courage under fire, but don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make
a movie out of it.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier
planes sent to aid the stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom
rather than embarrass his good friend Israel. Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S.
government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry headed by Admiral John
McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before
determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as
crewmen from Navy ships that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado
in Malta before being threatened and sworn to secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to
convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the White House and the
Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures
from the Liberty survivors.
The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act
against its own interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how
Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a
lopsided trade agreement that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year
on the top of direct grants from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable"
donations by American Jews.
If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation
vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very
interested in reading a
remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and
its friends work from inside the system to corrupt our political process and make the American
government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes in some detail how the
Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.
A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George
W. Bush's 2004 signing off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group's website proclaims that
it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating
rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money
launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding
been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how
"the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as
tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and
proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear
weapons complex."
The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated
secretly within the Treasury itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli
government as well as with pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel on the taxpayer's
dime, as did his three successors in office.
Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen. It was reported then and
subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who were
both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency
regarding what the office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he
refused to answer reporter questions "about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and
whether sanctioning Iran, a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian nuclear program was an example of endemic
double standards at OTFI."
Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal
Pearl Mandelker,
a former and possibly current Israeli citizen . All of the heads of OTFI have therefore
been Jewish and Zionist. All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel
frequently on "official business" and they all are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most
often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has been that many of the victims
of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's Jewish
lobbyists. OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle
Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to
Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons
traffickers and money launderers . And once placed on the SDN there is no transparent
way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.
Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut
down and individuals exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish
state have been imprisoned. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through
congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the land when it comes to curtailing
free speech whenever Israel is involved.
The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews
closely attached to Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on
behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are
vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the
Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the
pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan
Administration and they and their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were major players in the catastrophic war with
Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow, described in
2004 as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with
Iran.
American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of
Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman,
is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or
foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements
on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli
government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI
were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the
Palestinians in speeches in Israel.
He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government
talking points and has
tried to change the wording of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word
"occupied" when describing Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend
beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and
the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he represents the United States and
its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.
Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone,
who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy."
Once upon a time, in an apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as
posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused
him of pandering to Jewish audiences.
Apparently when opportunity knocked he changed his mind
about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a Jewish
advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement
and also worked to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He
is reportedly still connected financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a
conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus
free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of living allowance and a 10%
hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.
So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything,
it wants, apparently. Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a
minute and we'll draft some legislation that will give you even more money. Create a treasury
department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to punish critics of the
Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars
for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent
the interests of the foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just
happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Russiagate can be viewed as a pretty inventive way to justify their own existence for bloated
Intelligence services: first CIA hacks something leaving traces of russians or Chinese; then the
FBI, CIAand Department of Homeland security all enjoy additional money and people to counter the
threat.
The US Department of Homeland Security fabricated "intelligence reports" of Russian
election hacking in order to try to get control of the election infrastructure (probebly so
that they can hack it more easily to control the election results).
"... Bill threw away the Deplorables' jobs in NAFTA in search of the Globalist Utopian vision at the heart of the Establishment's indoctrination in the schools. ..."
"... Those who said farewell to Senator John McCain at the National Cathedral did not mentioned that he is as responsible as anyone for the forever wars that are causing the refugee influx that is tearing Europe apart ..."
"... I think it is very important to realize that the current mess in this country is largely a result of not reigning in the investment bankers as well as the country embarking on deadly and abusive wars against a large part of the non-western world. ..."
"... Where you and I differ is over Donald Trump. I do not believe for one minute that he gives a damn about the people that have been screwed so royally over the last thirty to forty years. He is just louder and more obnoxious than most. ..."
"... If there is a way out of this mess, I cannot see it. ..."
"... The banks make everything function. When there is a banking crisis they turn up the screws on the politicians and the politicians respond by bailing the banks out at the expense of the majority of the population. ..."
"... Second, they are pathetically easy for the establishment to manipulate. It is as simple as getting the nominally left faction of the establishment to have a woman stump for a policy using vaguely left wing terms and they will fall over themselves to support it. I've been told by these people that Russia must be violently opposed because Vladimir Putin is a homophobic, islamaphobic (!), racist right-winger. It's kind of amazing to see the political descendants of the hippies cheering on the prospect of a nuclear war because it would be a woman killing everyone in the name of LGBT rights. ..."
"... many of these deplorables embraced Bernie Sanders* (a Neo-Bolshevik?) and would welcome a return to an FDR style democratic party. ..."
"... Like was said 2 yrs ago, the dems would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. And I include Pelosi, Schumer, you name it, in that bunch. ..."
"... As for Trump's base--I have always thought it erroneous to label that base as working men and women of below average education, etc. 90% of Trump voters supported Romney and 60% had a median income above the national average. ..."
"... The military, veterans, and various police agencies. States fail when they will no longer enforce the official line. That's usually happens when their own family members start showing up in the marches, barricades, protests, and such. ..."
We Americans were traditionally divided politically and culturally by region. There is still
some of that but the major fault lines are more fuzzy now.
1. The Establishment. This group was on parade during the McCain imperial procession across
the lands. The sight of the supposedly mutually opposed Republicans and Democrats hobnobbing,
backslapping, joking, hugging and passing around the bi-partisan mints while they waited for
the stiff to be wheeled in was revealing. The cavernous nave of the pseudo-Gothic church was a
perfect venue for this fête de joie. A window depicting Robert Lee looked down
on this vast space until recently. That has been taken down to maintain amity between the
Yankee and "Southern" wings of the establishment. The Episcopal Church of today has no use for
such as he. I wonder if the masses who support "the middle" understand how cruelly they are
deceived by the pretended mutual animosity of their "betters." The farce was on display last
week.
2. The Neo-Bolsheviks. These people have been gathering their strength in the schools since
the '60s. they have indoctrinated the young all this time with a hatred of capitalism, a
contempt for American tradition to include the Constitution and a desire to see the country
reduced to the status of Cambodia in the Year Zero. The spectacle of the disintegration of
Venezuela after decades of socialist tinkering means nothing to them. This time we will get it
right! This is their belief. Disillusioned communists told me all across what had been the
Warsaw Pact that Communism was never given a fair chance to prove itself. The American Bolsheviki think they will get it right this time if they attain power. The original Bolsheviks
seized power with how many members in the vanguard? 20,000? Tell me. The governments of New
York, California and New Jersey are all seeking to accommodate the Neo-Bolsheviks. How far will
they go? The Soviet Bolsheviks killed millions of Russian Kulaks and political enemies.
Remember that!
3. The Deplorables. This is essentially the "country party." They are the people who know
they are being dis-possessed. These are the people who know they are despised by both the
Establishment and the Neo-Bolsheviks and who are acutely aware that these other groups intend
to exterminate them as a group if not as individuals. The Clintons were the ultimate
Establishment people. Bill threw away the Deplorables' jobs in NAFTA in search of the Globalist
Utopian vision at the heart of the Establishment's indoctrination in the schools.
Ross Perot
was an amusing little freak? He spoke of a "great sucking sound" that would be heard as
Deplorable jobs followed cheap capital across the southern border?
The Deplorables do not think
he was funny at all. They elected Trump to give them hope and he has done that. They do not
want to be governed by Establishment figures like HC who detested them as obstacles so much
that she could not refrain from treating the miners with contempt to their faces. Bette Midler
said this week that the Establishmenters cannot fight the Deplorables because people like her
have no weapons but PBS tote bags. An interesting point.
There are a lot of splinter groups and factions. Tell me what they are. pl
Compared to the 60s there is much less social strife today. No riots on the streets, no
bombings by radical groups, no live fire shootings to quell protests in universities. So is
this the quiet before the storm?
What we see today is much more arm-chair fighting using keyboards on social media.
Frothing at the mouth pushing hashtags The extent of action is writing #MeToo and
#BringBackOurGirls. Can such somnambulant warriors cause a real war?
My observation is that over the last 30 years, there are a few big trends.
One, is PCness becoming more and more embedded causing increased censorship of
speech.
The second is rising "doublethink" and the Establishment melding into a true Ingsoc
with increasing governmental interference in all aspects of people's lives to benefit the
"party club".
The third, is the growth in "state capitalism", reflected in the increasing
financialization of the economy and the substitution of credit for capital. It's no
longer what's good for GM but what's good for Goldman Sachs. The Federal Reserve run by
the Ph.Ds on the "sophistry" standard as the primary lever.
The fourth trend is a slow moral decay among the elites as the powerful no longer feel
a sense of duty and honor. It is more important for them how they are perceived by the
"club". Invitations to gatherings such as Davos, Aspen, & the Google "camp".
Fifth, is increasing hopelessness among many segments reflected in the rising deaths
to opioids.
This post brought a smile of recognition to my face. I agree.
The media desperately ignores this issue. The current Western power structure is in
flux and is confusing.
Communism died when the Soviet Union fell. China, Cuba and Vietnam are
not workers' paradises. The hard left is impotent and in the lurch. The mild left and
liberals sold out to the Plutocrats. Republicans are crazy except for Corporatists who are
keeping their mouths shut and passing tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
Those who
said farewell to Senator John McCain at the National Cathedral did not mentioned that he is
as responsible as anyone for the forever wars that are causing the refugee influx that is
tearing Europe apart.
Their donors are imposing austerity and poverty on to the people.
There
is no one championing the concerns of the Deplorables except the hard right. These Theocrats
are most likely to start carting off red shirted teachers, librarians, pot heads, agnostics,
unemployed and dissidents to work camps, once things fall apart.
I think it is very important to realize that the current mess in this country is largely a
result of not reigning in the investment bankers as well as the country embarking on deadly
and abusive wars against a large part of the non-western world.
As you rightly pointed out, both establishment parties are equally guilty of the worst
offensives against those who choose to live outside of the major metropolitan areas.
This country would be much better off if people were taught how the investment banking
system works and how it is regularly abused by the rich to make themselves richer. Of course,
that is not in the interest of the establishment leaders.
Where you and I differ is over Donald Trump. I do not believe for one minute that he gives
a damn about the people that have been screwed so royally over the last thirty to forty
years. He is just louder and more obnoxious than most.
If there is a way out of this mess, I cannot see it.
I am like you over seventy. I believe the old should be encouraged to disappear from
politics and only the young should be engaged in trying to save this country (as well as
themselves).
In my varied career I worked twice as an employee and three times as a consultant for
Standard & Poors Retail Brokerage Division. I also worked for the Bank of New York,
Government Clearance Division and did various consulting stints at Union Bank of Switzerland
and Manufacters Hanover.
All of these positions were in the technology field.
You would be amazed at what you can learn from the inside.
The banks make everything function. When there is a banking crisis they turn up the screws
on the politicians and the politicians respond by bailing the banks out at the expense of the
majority of the population.
Of course, the politicians know that they will be rewarded either directly or indirectly
by the bankers. Just think of all those millions they pay for speaking fees.
We are as united as Rome was near the end of their Empire when their idiot
establishment was convinced they could integrate a massive influx of tribes that loathed
their way of life. Same is occurring in Europe. History rhymes.
Rural vs City you touched on, gun owners vs gun banners, gender sanity vs gender
insanity, free traders vs keeping what's left of our manufacturing base, stockholders vs
deplorable's, open border chaos vs normal immigration patterns to the US, CNN& MSNBC
vs Rural, Decent healthcare vs nothing, establishment vs God, Democrat intense hate vs
Southern whites. I am a rural southern white who did consider myself independent,
however, the intense hate directed toward me and my southerners makes me hate them. So be
it.
Using your terminology, the places where I see the most serious factional divisions
are the Neo-Bolsheviks. There's a group one might call the "50 Staters" after Howard
Dean; they're people who want to re-orient the country in a more socialist direction
(Medicare for all, increased minimum wage, expanded union rights, generally expanded
intervention in the economy) and believe they can sell this as an electoral platform.
They hate the establishment, and are themselves hated like poison by much of the rest of
the Neo-Bolsheviks. The term "Bernie Bro" and "Brocialist" were thrown around a lot last
election by people who's platform is basically "destroy all power structures" without
thinking too hard about what it would mean should they have the power to do it. I've
classed them with the Neo-Bolsheviks due to geographic and cultural similarities, though
they may also be viewed as the left wing of the Deplorables. Personally, these are the
lot I'd say I'm the most similar too.
The remainder of the neo-Bolsheviks can largely be grouped according to what they
believe the source of all evil in the world is: Men; white people; the concept of gender
itself; and in fringe cases the idea that being overweight is unhealthy or other aspects
of reality they find inconvenient. Politically they're hamstrung by three things:
First, they can't really think about anything coherently. The only way they allow
themselves to process issues is deciding who the victim of men/white-people/etc... is in
a situation and deciding that this person must be in the right. If that leads to an
conclusion where the cognitive dissonance is too much to bear (most recently the Siraj
Wahhaj case), they then argue that the fact you're talking about it means "you're
racist/sexist/transphobic/*-phobic shut up". This naturally leads to things like someone
who believes that white-people are the source of all evil talking about how the groping
attacks in Germany were just 'white bodies being subjected to what they subject black
bodies too' (they love to use the word 'bodies' instead of 'people'). The people who
believe men are the source of all evil took some umbrage at this idea. This infighting is
constant.
Second, they are pathetically easy for the establishment to manipulate. It is as
simple as getting the nominally left faction of the establishment to have a woman stump
for a policy using vaguely left wing terms and they will fall over themselves to support
it. I've been told by these people that Russia must be violently opposed because Vladimir
Putin is a homophobic, islamaphobic (!), racist right-winger. It's kind of amazing to see
the political descendants of the hippies cheering on the prospect of a nuclear war
because it would be a woman killing everyone in the name of LGBT rights.
Third, every effective organizer and leader they may have just becomes part of the
establishment. Since these are typically female, gay, or non-white, they cannot
meaningfully be opposed no matter how obviously they betray the goals of the
neo-Bolsheviks. This happens to the deplorables as well, but they seem to be far more
aggressive in countering it. It's not a coincidence that the neo-Bolsheviks have never
really succeeded in any political project that the establishment doesn't find
acceptable.
I may well be downplaying their threat, but they do seem to have disadvantages that
the original versions lacked.
I'm not sure who you would lump in with the "Neo-Bolsheviks", but as someone living in
a semi-rural area of Iowa--deplorable central -- that voted democratic for decades and then
voted for Trump, many of these deplorables embraced Bernie Sanders* (a Neo-Bolshevik?)
and would welcome a return to an FDR style democratic party.
If for no other reason than to partake of the benefits afforded every other citizenry
in the western world such as universal healthcare, free or affordable college, etc.
Establishment Dems:
Imho, far from being supporters of progessive economic policy, most liberal dem
politicians defend the status quo as much as anyone and defer to their tech, insurance,
arms, and financial donors.
Like was said 2 yrs ago, the dems would rather lose with Clinton than win with
Sanders. And I include Pelosi, Schumer, you name it, in that bunch.
Trump's Base/Deplorables:
As you say, there are many more factions. Not all so-called deplorables are the same
politically of course.
As for Trump's base--I have always thought it erroneous to label that base as working
men and women of below average education, etc. 90% of Trump voters supported Romney and
60% had a median income above the national average.
While he is supported by disparate
groups, the largest of Trump's base is the vast suburban gop voters of many large US
cities. The Msm just doesn't want to acknowledge that Trump voters are also their well to
do neighbors. Trump carried Suffolk County/Hamptons in New York state.
The military, veterans, and various police agencies. States fail when they will no
longer enforce the official line. That's usually happens when their own family members
start showing up in the marches, barricades, protests, and such.
Loads of bright eyed youngsters have joined up over the last few decades thinking they
would be like Luke Skywalker only to find out they're being used as Imperial
Stormtroopers.
Facebook has deleted all of my posts from July 2017 to last week because I am, apparently, a
Russian Bot. For a while I could not add any new posts either, but we recently found a way
around that, at least for now. To those of you tempted to say "So what?", I would point out
that over two thirds of visitors to my website arrive via my posting of the articles to
Facebook and Twitter. Social media outlets like this blog, which offer an alternative to MSM
propaganda, are hugely at the mercy of these corporate gatekeepers.
Facebook's plunge into censorship is completely open and admitted, as is the fact it
is operated for Facebook by the Atlantic Council - the extreme neo-con group part funded by
NATO and whose board includes serial war criminal Henry Kissinger, Former CIA Heads Michael
Hayden and Michael Morrell, and George Bush's chief of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff ,
among a whole list of horrors .
The staff are worse than the Board. Their lead expert on Russian bot detection is an
obsessed nutter named Ben Nimmo, whose fragile grip on reality has been completely broken by
his elevation to be the internet's Witchfinder-General. Nimmo, grandly titled "Senior Fellow
for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab", is the go-to
man for Establishment rubbishing of citizen journalists, and as with Joseph McCarthy or Matthew
Clarke, one day society will sufficiently recover its balance for it to be generally
acknowledged that this kind of witch-hunt nonsense was not just an aberration, but a
manifestation of the evil it claimed to fight.
There is no Establishment cause Nimmo will not aid by labeling its opponents as Bots.
This from the Herald newspaper two days ago, where Nimmo uncovers the secret web
of Scottish Nationalist bots that dominate the internet, and had the temerity to question the
stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
Nimmo's proof? 2,000 people had used the hashtag #Dissolvetheunion on a total of 10,000
tweets in a week. That's five tweets per person on average. In a week. Obviously a massive
bot-plot, eh?
When Ben's great expose for the Herald was met with widespread ridicule , he doubled
down on it by producing his evidence - a list of the top ten bots he had uncovered in this
research. Except that they are almost all, to my certain knowledge, not bots but people . But
do not decry Ben's fantastic forensic skills, for which NATO and the CIA fund the Atlantic
Council. Ben's number one suspect was definitely a bot. He had got the evil kingpin. He had
seen through its identity despite its cunning disguise. That disguise included its name,
IsthisAB0T, and its profile, where it called itself a bot for retweets on Independence. Thank
goodness for Ben Nimmo, or nobody would ever have seen through that evil, presumably
Kremlin-hatched, plan.
No wonder the Atlantic Council advertise Nimmo and his team as " Digital Sherlocks ".
The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I
am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies
of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for
the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect
presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment
he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration
told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive
was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the
Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility
of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively
that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime.
Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we
would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent
of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find
the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary
of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names
of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists
disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists
on which none of the suspects were mentioned.
From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the
instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should
be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these
attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of
maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.
In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation,
under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme,
conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural
resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction
of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised.
Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix
", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski
intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries
whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would
be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational
financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the
armed wing of these predators.
For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots
by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and
opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men
have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth
and poverty has increased.
We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy –
phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East.
Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.
In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version,
two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile,
and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.
In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced
by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists
in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian
Arab Republic.
So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the
Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of
the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.
So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress,
one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we
see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring
back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we
see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your
homeland by attacking your position.
Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the
diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of
11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.
Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational
interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which
aspires to freedom.
Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real
perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst
alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today
a political refugee in Syria.
See :
Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State
Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred
Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton;
James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks;
T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom;
John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele;
and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.
The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I
am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies
of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for
the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect
presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment
he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration
told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive
was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the
Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility
of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively
that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime.
Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we
would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent
of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find
the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary
of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names
of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists
disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists
on which none of the suspects were mentioned.
From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the
instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should
be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these
attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of
maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.
In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation,
under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme,
conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural
resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction
of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised.
Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix
", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski
intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries
whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would
be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational
financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the
armed wing of these predators.
For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots
by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and
opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men
have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth
and poverty has increased.
We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy –
phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East.
Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.
In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version,
two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile,
and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.
In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced
by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists
in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian
Arab Republic.
So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the
Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of
the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.
So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress,
one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we
see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring
back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we
see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your
homeland by attacking your position.
Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the
diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of
11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.
Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational
interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which
aspires to freedom.
Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real
perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst
alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today
a political refugee in Syria.
See :
Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State
Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred
Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton;
James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks;
T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom;
John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele;
and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.
"... For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. ..."
"... There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there. ..."
For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically
served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief
Executive. It fit Trump's profile and his skepticism about the USIC that he felt no need
to have more quasi-official advisors peering over his shoulder. And a year-and-a-half into the
first term, the Trump Administration is still suffering from scores of vacancies in important
posts in all the executive branch departments.
Now, lo and behold, some appointments have been made to PFIAB, and it don't look good. The
only two names I have been able to locate as appointees to the PFIAB are: Steve Feinberg, who
was named on May 11, 2018 as the PFIAB chairman, and Samantha Ravich was named more recently as
the Board's vice chairman. To date, there are no indications there are any other members. Back
in January, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded PayPal and was one of the
only Valley big wigs to back Trump for President, rejected the offer to head PFIAB. Thiel's
data mining firm Palantir has extensive contracts with the USIC and he may have felt he'd be
caught up in conflict of interest allegations. He has also expressed concerns to friends that
the Trump Presidency may be headed for oblivion.
So who are the new PFIAB chair and vice chair? Steve Feinberg is a vulture fund magnate,
whose Cerberus Capital Management has wrought havoc across the US economy. The firm, founded in
1992 and named after the mythical three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades, Apropos.
After looting GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, Feinberg bought up a number of arms
manufacturers and defense contractors, including DynCorp. According to his bio on AllGov,
Feinberg was trained by ex-Army snipers and set up his own private "military base" outside of
Memphis, Tennessee.
Ever the hedger, Feinberg backed Jeb Bush for president, then switched to Donald Trump in
the final months of the 2016 campaign, while also bankrolling Chuck Schumer in his Senate
re-election campaign.
Samantha Ravich is pure neocon. She was a national security aide to Vice President Dick
Cheney and was one of the biggest promoters of the "Saddam WMD" hoax, leading to the Iraq
invasion of March 2003. She runs the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Transformative
Cyber Innovation Lab, is listed on the FDD site as "principal investigator on FDD's
Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project" and Board Advisor on FDD's Center on Sanctions and
Illicit Finance. She is an advisor to the Chertoff Group.
You can't get more neocon than Samantha Ravich.
Question: Has President Trump finally caved in to the neocon long march through the
institutions? Is PFIAB another romper room for son-in-law and Netanyahu captive and love slave
Jared Kushner? Will PFIAB actually have a role or simply be a window dressing that Trump
ignores as he relies on a handful of cabinet and White House advisors and his rolodex of
billionaire friends who he chats up most evenings from the East Wing?
What I don't understand is after Iraq, who in the world with any brains would listen to
the Neo-cons again? As a veteran of the NY real estate wars, Trump has run into tons of snake
oil salesmen in his life and survived because he did not listen to them. What arguments are
neo-cons now advancing that would overcome all our previous mistakes and cause Trump to not
boot them out of the room. In my previous job as interim CFO of Prudential I was involved
with the negotiations with Trump and his Japanese partner over selling the ground under the
Empire State Building in 1991. At least back then, Trump did not listen to anyone except what
his gut told him. His mannerisms and personality have not changed one iota from those days to
his Presidency so why would Trump be susceptible to the nwo-cons when it goes against the
grain of everything he has espoused in the past.
Sad, but Trump doesn't pay any attention to groups like that. For him anything like that
is just PR and shareholder relations. He is much more interested in what the true loudmouths
on the boob tube have to say.
It's amazing to me that somebody who has engaged in NYC business and politics for so long
is so oblivious of how and when the strings are pulled when something needs to get done. Is
it even humanly possible that the same person that got himself into the WH can be so
oblivious. It's really an enigma. But then again, you kindly like to point out that sometimes
the most obvious explanations are the ones staring you right in the face
Donald Trump doesn't have an ideology or think tanks backing him; only his family. He is
in his 70s. He will appoint GOP flacks who didn't diss him in the past notwithstanding if
they are neocons or not. What he has done is jump in front of the parade. The FBI ran a sting
on Mayor of Tallahassee who is now the Democrat's Florida candidate for governor. The power
class is trying to contain the parade and direct it in the direction that they want. If it
goes wild, they will jail it.
More on Stephen Feinberg and his military connections:
"Through DynCorp, Feinberg already controls one of the largest military
contractors in the U.S., one which trains Afghanistan's police force and
assists in their narcotics-trafficking countermeasures. According to the
Times, Feinberg proposed an expanded role for such contractors, and
also recommended transferring the command of paramilitary operations in
the country to the C.I.A., increasing their operating footprint while
decreasing both transparency and accountability. He reportedly discussed
Afghanistan with President Trump in person."
same bullshit from the MIC, promoting war in Syria, in the bottles of the democrats and
the republicans. both parties are supporting the Russia bullshit -- look at the politics
swirling around McCain's funeral for example.
Both parties interfere in the middle east, paying off different sides, fighting al Qaida
one place, supporting them in Syria.
Both parties promote people like Bolton, with Bolton's agenda. Trump's main value is as a
destabilizer, which is why the established republicans and the democrats hate him, but the
people he surrounds himself with are very telling.
There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents
like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side
of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there.
Ok, no insights or insides to offer, Harper, but from my own reading of Trump's Foreign
Policy Speech, scripted it was, I seem to recall I was told then vs earlier ad lib
approaches, I somewhat assumed this more general road into the future under Trump.
Strictly I dislike it deeply to approach anything resembling the, I" told you so" pattern.
It could suggest I only search for bits and pieces that fit in.
Irony/sarcasm alert: How well did the respectively selected PFIAB experts conform under
Bush, Obama? And who but a master in business would fit into let's say Trump's larger
meme-strategy: we have been exploited as a nation by close to everyone for ages?
What a wonderful insightful comment. Other than missing that PFIAB helped sell the Iraq
WMD, just like they were paid to do; and this pair will do the same next time out.
Bombing it induced a humanitarian crisis in the coastal region where Gaddafi's power was
concentrated, contributed to a wave of refugees, and let the cities which supported him know
they were not impregnable, that their weaknesses were being exploited. The stupid cover
story, solemnly intoned by talking heads who believe their listeners are almost too stupid to
breathe without prompting and assistance, was because cutting the civilian population off
from water in order to force capitulation is a war crime.
Looks like we came very close in the USA to classic definition of fascism: (1) Powerful
and continuing expressions of nationalism (yes); (2). Disdain for the importance of human
rights (NO, only for brown people); (3). Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying
cause (yes); (4) The supremacy of the military/avid militarism (yes); (5) Rampant sexism
(NO); (6) A controlled mass media (NO; only MSM; Internel is still not controlled) (7)
Obsession with national security (yes); (8) Religion and ruling elite tied together (yes;
Pence is a good example here); (9) Power of corporations protected (yes); (10) Power of labor
suppressed or eliminated (yes). (11) Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
(no); (12) Obsession with crime and punishment (yes); (13) Rampant cronyism and corruption
(yes); (14). Fraudulent elections (yes; via two party system)
Notable quotes:
"... Hitler and Netanyahu's statements reflect the viewpoint of Social Darwinism, an ideology that justifies elite dominance of society to its own ends. ..."
"... This idea "that Fascism (and Nazism) are a form of Liberalism" seems like a really important idea. ..."
"... That's my point: Arendt's totalitarianism theory is 100% false. There is no "totalitarianism" in reality: it is a Cold War myth, a mirage. Nazism and Communism had absolutely nothing in common (as she states). Different ideology, different genesis in Western school of thought, different goals, different economic systems etc. ..."
"... Propaganda warfare, prison systems, war strategies, logistics -- those are all universal methodologies, means to achieve an end, there are no patents in then. This is so true that the USA is using many methods (including torture in black sites) that, during the Cold War, its propaganda (which would cause Goebbels envy) stated only a "totalitarian" (i.e. a communist or a fascist) would do. ..."
"... I am saying that liberalism may subvert democracy and tend towards criminality [including genocide] and that seems an area that has been neglected when considering what the nature of Nazism/Fascism really is. ..."
"... The US had social liberalism following WWII although tainted somewhat by the CIA and MIC and lasting until the early 70's. There was essentially a civil war fought starting in 1963 at the elite level by neoliberal globalists and social liberal nationalists leading to a number of assassinations and ending with Nixons impeachment/resignation in 1973/74. The good guys lost and its been downhill ever since as the US descends Jacobs Neoliberal Ladder. ..."
"... Although you're right in the sense that Liberalism has some diversity over history, its cornerstone is freedom=private property. ..."
"... 'Totalitarianism' has roots in 'total mobilisation' and 'total war' – in the total regimentation of the population, driven by the capitalist great powers and their competition to conquer colonies and global hegemony. Hitler aspired to German revanchism, winning back and expanding Germany's 'living space' and colonial territories. He saw himself as heir to the colonial tradition, which he sought to radicalise. ..."
"... He first of all identified with the US example, seeking his own Far West in Eastern Europe and reducing the Slavs to the condition of slaves in service of the Herrenvolk. Decisively, this project met its definitive defeat at Stalingrad; this defeat was, at the same time, the beginning of a gigantic wave of anti-colonial revolts. ..."
(Neo-)Liberalism, imperialism, Nazism, etc. are all internationalist as well.
I know so many people on the western left who believe that invading Syria, Iran,
Venezuela, intervening in Africa, sanctions/punishments (war?) on Russia, Soros, colour
revolutions, etc. is all good and justified because it moves away from the nation state
towards internationalism.
Even what you call Arendt's "same techniques" is wrong: nazi Germany had a completely
different socioecomic and cultural structure than the USSR. Germany didn't even had eg
commissaries, they didn't even had a planified central economy. It was really just
liberalism: an USA that went wrong.
Someone recently told me that the whole of human history boils down to one thing, "one
tribe wants to take something from another tribe". I would put it another way, sharing
outside of the family unit is learned, taking is natural selection at its best.
So, having stated Arendt as your belief, you now deny it, saying that fascism is
different from communism. So what makes fascism then, apart from the technique of declaring
the unity of the nation behind the leader, which the commies also did? The only answer is
nationalism, as I said before.
To those who say Statements 1 and 3 illustrate reality: don't confuse bullying with
strength.
Hitler and Netanyahu's statements reflect the viewpoint of Social Darwinism, an ideology
that justifies elite dominance of society to its own ends.
The question we should be asking ourselves is whether nations that have achieved
military power, often through intimidating and brainwashing their own peoples, and smashing
down those who resist. should be allowed to continue in this way. And for what purpose?
Can the actions and policies of Nazi Germany and Israel be construed as those of
powerful and strong nations? If Israel chooses easy targets to attack, and relies on
bullying others and intimidating them by exploiting the Shoah, are its actions those of a
strong nation?
I have been brought up with the history and consequences of the potato famine and one
thing that always puzzled me was why the British Empire just allowed it to happen? It would
have cost little to the Empire and cast the British in a whole new light in the eyes of the
Irish.
This proposition that it was ideological (liberalism) is something of an eye opener to
me, social darwinism (let the weak die) is a very persuasive reason. And this does lead to
a direct correlation with Nazism/fascism.
The more recent books (Kershaw) on Hitler talk about the freedom of officials to do what
they want and take what they want as a reason why there are not written orders from Hitler
authorising (amongst other things) the genocide of those considered weak and undesirable.
This is obviously frustrating to the writers because they are unable to convincing find
sufficient written documentation supporting the administrative implementation of the
presumed 'ideology'; a frustrating inability to adequately explain Hitler, as it were.
This
idea that Nazism is some kind of souped up liberalism is more convincing than saying Hitler
was just too lazy to get out of bed in the mornings.
The key objection that I think that most people will instinctively have (because the
idea is so contrary to what we have been taught) is that (neo-)liberalism and democracy go
together. However, some of (neo-)liberalism's prime ideological advocates (Hayek, James M.
Buchanan) clearly wanted to minimise democratic interference and envisaged a time when
democracy was no longer of use and could be discarded.
This idea "that Fascism (and Nazism) are a form of Liberalism" seems like a really
important idea.
Thank you for taking us back to the Greeks! I offer in tandem this quotation from the
website of a Plato scholar who has long been one of my heroes, Bernard Suzanne (his site is
still available, an amazing source of ongoing study):
"Unless either the philosophers become kings in the cities or those who are nowadays called kings and rulers get to philosophizing truly and adequately, and this falls together upon the same person, political power and philosophy, while the many natures of those who are driven toward the one apart from the other are forcibly set aside, there will be no cessation of evils, my dear Glaucon, for cities, nor, methinks, for the human race." Plato, République, V, 473c11-d61
I will just add that the title "Republic" is a bad translation of the Greek word
"Politeia" - to my mind "Citizenry" fits better, bearing in mind that cities in Socrates'
day were the equivalent of small states. And in Shakespearean terms, it would be prudent to
say of that 'forcible setting aside of many natures' - "Aye, there's the rub!"
ADKC: ... why the British Empire just allowed it to happen?
It wasn't liberalism or social darwinism. As proven by the success of Irish outside
Ireland. It was pacifying the unruly Irish that lived next door to the greatest Empire yet known.
Today we would call it a crime against humanity.
Prior to the contrived Potato Famine was Enclosure. Perhaps you've read Sir Thomas
More's Utopia which describes well the outcome of that quite deliberate policy. It
would be nice to ascribe such doings to the Policy favored by Sir Francis Bacon who
advocated waging war on the poor continuously and mercilessly, deeming them The Hydra
threatening the wellbeing of the well off.
As many have written, the British rehearsed
their colonial policies first on the Irish and the aims had nothing to do with Liberalism
or any other ism aside from Authoritarianism, which is quite close to being a Totalitarian
System and is certainly argued as such. That Liberalism can be in any way associated with
Fascism means a basic lack of understanding of Liberalism's defining
characteristics .
That's my point: Arendt's totalitarianism theory is 100% false. There is no
"totalitarianism" in reality: it is a Cold War myth, a mirage. Nazism and Communism had
absolutely nothing in common (as she states). Different ideology, different genesis in
Western school of thought, different goals, different economic systems etc.
Hitler never
laid out any economic plan, it was implicit the liberal model was the model: he simply
wanted a traditional colonial power that could mirror the British Empire to the East. He
didn't invent racism or genocide.
It was not just a difference of "the Third Reich was nationalist and the USSR was not"
-- on the contrary, Socialism in one country was the victorious ideology post-Lenin, and
the Cuban, Vietnamese and Chinese (to a lesser extent) were all nationalist in substance.
Fidel Castro wasn't even communist when he led the Revolution!
There are no coincidence in "techniques". Unless you characterize anything as tributary
to the place who first invented it. In this sense, everybody who uses Law is Roman, or
anybody who goes to space is Soviet -- which is absurd.
Propaganda warfare, prison systems,
war strategies, logistics -- those are all universal methodologies, means to achieve an
end, there are no patents in then. This is so true that the USA is using many methods
(including torture in black sites) that, during the Cold War, its propaganda (which would
cause Goebbels envy) stated only a "totalitarian" (i.e. a communist or a fascist) would
do.
The USSR was a unique experiment, which dissolved suddenly and unexpectedly. In my
opinion, it was valuable in the sense it was the first experience of a State in which the
working class was in power (dictatorship of the proletariat). Yes, it failed -- but no new
economic system is born ready, like Athena from the head of Zeus. Even capitalism failed
for more than 300 years before finally working in the least of probable of places: tiny and
peripheral England.
There is pretty strong debate on the nature of the British reaction to the 1845 Irish
Potato Famine. Some sources say it was deliberate genocide on the part of the British.
Either Irish people starved to death or they fled overseas (and gave up their land,
language and culture) to survive. Others point to the monoculture that the introduction of
potatoes back in the 1600s created, and the population boom that resulted. Potatoes are a
very nutritious crop staple for poor people.
The famines that began afflicting India from the 1770s on (after the Indian
subcontintent started to come under British rule through the British East India Company)
and which the British always never dealt with adequately - even though previous empires in
India had always been able to stave off famine and starvation when monsoons failed to
arrive or were late and harvests ended up ruined - might shed some light on the British
treatment of the Irish Potato Famine.
In India. the Mughals and others who came before them prevented famine in areas that had
suffered crop failures by reducing taxation and giving afflicted areas stored grain (from
previous years' surpluses). Under British rule, India was heavily taxed (by having to
supply food for the empire) and the levels of taxation were maintained regardless of local
or regional conditions. In times when the monsoon failed and crops failed, communities
continued to suffer from the brunt of heavy taxation. Combined with the British destruction
of the Indian textile industry over the 1700s, which put thousands out of work, British
taxation and other imperial policies turned India into a massive poorhouse.
And yet the British State would describe itself (then and now) as liberal and
democratic. Even today the British State does not recognise that any "crime against humanity"
happened in Ireland regarding the potato famine.
To avoid any confusion:- I am not suggesting that there wasn't a crime, I am not
advocating social darwinism, I am not suggesting that the Irish were weak or inferior in
anyway. I am saying that liberalism may subvert democracy and tend towards criminality
[including genocide] and that seems an area that has been neglected when considering what
the nature of Nazism/Fascism really is.
Communism is state owned capitalism where state controls the means of production, fascism
and neoliberalism (classic liberalism)is private owned capitalism where the owners of
production (elites) control the government to an unhealthy degree. Social liberalism
(called socialism by some) is a mix of state and privately owned production, a mix
determined to maximize benefits to society with the people in control of government, and
capitalism and government serving the people and not just the elites
The US had social liberalism following WWII although tainted somewhat by the CIA and MIC
and lasting until the early 70's. There was essentially a civil war fought starting in 1963
at the elite level by neoliberal globalists and social liberal nationalists leading to a
number of assassinations and ending with Nixons impeachment/resignation in 1973/74. The
good guys lost and its been downhill ever since as the US descends Jacobs Neoliberal
Ladder.
Only in some kind of hell could a guy like Trump be elected. At least the Germans never
elected their racist and fascist leader
Although you're right in the sense that Liberalism has some diversity over history, its
cornerstone is freedom=private property.
If you take the first Constitution of the French
Revolution, you'll see right in the first articles that by freedom they consider the right
of the individual to fully enjoy his life and his private property ("industrie"). This
chunk of the Constitution remained in the next versions.
So, colonialism was a perfectly liberal policy: the workers you're exploiting are your
property, so you're enjoying your individual freedom. It was only with the socialist
uprisings of the 19th Century that property-less people (i.e. workers) begun to enjoy some
rights -- the most illustrative being the right to vote (non-censitary vote, universal
vote).
There's absolutely no documentation that demonstrate Hitler and/or Mussolini tried to
end liberalism and create a new economic system (like the Communist). Nazism and Fascism
are literally liberalism with a bombastic narrative (one with the quest of the Aryan Race
of its Lebensraum; the other trying to revive the Roman Empire), but all the basic elements
of liberalism are there: the main one being the preservation of private property.
P.S.: the concept of freedom of speech was different back then: all those rights only
belonged to the capitalist class; workers and slaves were not considered human beings. The
concept of the "universal man" only really came in vogue with Marx; before him, it was
widely believed the dominant class was of a different breed than that of an dominated
class.
We're discussing isms here. What ism's being advocated by the
testimony before the Outlaw US Empire's Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Wess
Mitchell:
"Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and
ideological wherewithal to contest U.S. primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It
continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the
administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by
systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American
power."
Mitchell mentions a document I wasn't able to locate, the "Russia Integrated Strategy,"
but I was able to find what appears to be
its predecessor , "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017."
Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the
Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the planet and its people. Some would consider that
Totalitarianism--the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain
aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is
featured as one of its alleged values, which is why the many undemocratic aspects of
various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for example. What
do we call a government that directly lies to its populous? What sort of ism is in
play?
Mitchell's testimony was done in public so it didn't remain secret very long, was
written about in Russian, then
the analysis was translated into English . Hopefully barflies and others will read
these documents and shudder, although I'm sure a few will say "So, what's new?" Well, this
goes far beyond the millennia long, ongoing Class War, and confirms what I've been saying
for awhile now--We're already within a Hybrid Third World War being waged by people who
want everything or nothing. What sort of ism's that? In my book, it's the worst form of
Authoritarianism anyone might imagine.
One of the things I find missing in the discussion so far is the anthropological
perspective. A short version would be that with the rise of monotheistic religions came the
rise of human hubris about humans place in the cosmos and limited variations of us/them
proscriptions about how life should be led....and the belief that everyone should believe
this way or be eliminated.
This arrangement was challenge during the (as yet finished) Enlightenment period that
began with the start of the scientific revolution in 1620. This period was the birth of
liberalism and the church and state came under increased scrutiny.....but not
rejection....blind faith still lives on.
Fast forward to the present where we have ongoing elimination of any and all cultures
not "Western" which is my biggest problem with our social order....it is reducing our
genetic ability to survive by the monoculture focus.....as well as being a heinous form of
social organization that favors the few over the many.
On to fascism....Fascism is not just defined by a single aspect but a combination that
show the face of the beast. The best description of fascism is a list of 14 points written
in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes
of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet
(Chile). His points are as follows:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the
fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens
caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and
demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled
with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to
realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even
demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy,
denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a
means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures,
and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice -- relentless
propaganda and disinformation -- were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
"spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals,
Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other
religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes
were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial
infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an
expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals,
intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were
male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were
adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in
Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus
lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be
relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power
to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of
the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was
usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite.
It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints.
Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and
questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as
godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders
of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the
precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion
that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A
perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on
religion.
9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of
large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw
the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed
states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite
were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests,
especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the
political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed
or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright
contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were
anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to
national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled;
politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of
dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature
should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to
rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal
charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of
criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more
police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to
enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive
financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of
government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth
from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national
security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely
unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When
actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power
elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or
disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the
power elite.
Jr @ 138: Thanks for the link, but all I get from the endless semantics, is that the
English language is a lot like beauty, " in the eye of the beholder, or speaker.
English, or any language, can be used to inform or confuse.
How many of a similar sample of Germans in 1938 thought that their government would do
what it did? Consent must be manufactured. Caitlin Johnstone recently wrote this addition
to the genre
explaining how that's done .
I have a different perspective than psychohistorian.
For starters, I would see different causes of Enlightenment. It was a huge (if somewhat
misunderstood) ideological change in Europe, and such changes are caused by the profound
catastrophes undermining the trust in the status quo. While the scientific and other
cultural advances were definitely in place in 17 century Europe, a larger part of that
century were spent on horrific wars. If you add up their effects and compare to the
continent's population, it is hard to tell if 17 century was less horrible that World Wars
of 20-th century or not. And most of those wars were "religious", or had a major religious
component. In reaction, the thinkers and rulers got convinced that "reason" should have
primacy over "religion". Scientific advances played a role in fortifying the authority of
"reason", but ideas like defending one true faith and following rulers because of their
divine mandate were discredited by calamitous wars.
Advantages of "reason" were quite quickly noticed by elites, for example divine rights
of absolute rulers were patched by their enlightenment. Wars in Europe improved methods of
conscription, arming and disciplining the peasants and outright massacring and pillaging
was less evident than in 17-th century. But any discussion on fascism had to wait until
20-th century, because it made no sense in authoritarian systems of more traditional elites
-- manipulating public opinion makes little sense if public opinion matters only a little.
But as democracy became widespread AND the traditional elites got compromised once again by
WWI, radical movements emerged, including Communism and Fascism.
What I am trying to say is that mo st of points listed as features of fascism by
psychohistorian is "good old order" with appeals to "reason". Of course, all methods used
in the past are applied if handy, e.g. in Thailand divine mandate of the king is
energetically applied by the ruling military junta. To me, fascism is bit more specific.
For example, the cult of a uniquely qualified leader, championing the "common people",
projects of "national grandeur" that may include highway system and/or war of conquests,
rank intimidation augmenting more gentle "manipulation" etc.
But most of points listed by psychohistorian are more insidious features that follow
from "Iron law of oligarchy". Getting rid of them will require more effort than getting rid
of "true fascism".
vk, what text/interviews are you using for your claims about Arendt's theory of
totalitarianism? I mean, could you quote a specific place or paragraph? I come to her
thought through Life of Mind and Human Condition, and my take or sense of her ideas about
"totality" when it comes to social structures is that she gets it amazingly well how
contemporary technology destroys/yed the public realm by amplifying the organismic aspects
of the collective. Y'all talk about the ism of totalitarian being you find in Hannah's
writings, but it's like there's still something missing: the difference between the social
and the political isn't just a matter of concept but metaphysical. It isn't just
ideological but geo-metric. Social control isn't political when it reaches the point of
actualizing gods'-eyes-views, it has become self-aware bureaucracy -- what we already find
every day when our ego mistakes its beliefs about control for actions making history.
People forget the deepest slogan of The Party is GOD is POWER. If you believe war is not
peace and ignorance is not strength, then you have to figure out why Orwell wants you to
also start figuring out why god is not power.
Some like to amalgamate Nazism and communism into one, with the term 'totalitarianism'
covering both How would you analyse this concept?
'Totalitarianism' has roots in 'total mobilisation' and 'total war' – in the
total regimentation of the population, driven by the capitalist great powers and their
competition to conquer colonies and global hegemony. Hitler aspired to German revanchism,
winning back and expanding Germany's 'living space' and colonial territories. He saw
himself as heir to the colonial tradition, which he sought to radicalise.
He first of all identified with the US example, seeking his own Far West in
Eastern Europe and reducing the Slavs to the condition of slaves in service of the
Herrenvolk. Decisively, this project met its definitive defeat at Stalingrad; this defeat
was, at the same time, the beginning of a gigantic wave of anti-colonial
revolts.
A historical comparison is useful, here, for grasping how unserious the dominant
ideology's framing of 'totalitarianism' is. At the start of the nineteenth century
Napoleon sent a powerful army to Saint-Domingue with the mission of re-establishing
slavery, after it had been abolished thanks to the great black revolution led by
Toussaint Louverture.
We could indeed say that in the war that then raged, the attacked were no less
'savage' than the attackers. But we would cover ourselves in ridicule if we claimed that
we could reduce both sides to a common 'savagery' or a shared bloody
'totalitarianism'.
Much of the consideration of fascism here has been about the power and control of leaders
and elites. There is another side to the equation
One writer foretold the inevitable decline of the US toward fascism based on the social
construct used to establish law. At its' formation the US, like most of the West, had some
form of divinely sanctioned 'law' as the basis of its' civil code. While in theory law was
proclaimed to flow from democratic forms of government, the law was actually a projection
of a cultural/social ideal based on a religious text.
As that cultural/social/religious unity fractured in the face of secularism, humanism
and liberalism, there was a shift in the 'authority' that lay behind social law. The writer
I referred to indicated that cultural inertia would continue to carry the country for a
generation or two, but inevitably social/moral disintegration would occur. The result he
said would economic & social collapse which would in turn propel a movement toward
fascism.
Since then there has been a lot of evidence from evolutionary biology that suggests the
human predisposition to organize itself under some form of "authority structure" is
hard-wired into us.
"Not sure where the Romans and Genghiz Khan fit into that theory." dh |
We are not talking about wars but about societies in normal times. Both the Romans (see
eg Bread and Circuses) and the various post Genghiz states (the Mongol dynasty in China)
ruled by ensuring the general welfare of the population.
Incidentally there is no suggestion that the Irish were an 'inferior race'. Those
depending on the potato were weakened when there were no edible potatoes. The point is that
there was plenty of food to feed them but that liberal ideology did not allow of 'relief'
which would improve their fate.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its alive and
well today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. Pft at 43.
Yes.. I'd go further, the Fascists (as a standard narrow ex. Italy and Germany somewhat
before and during WW2) merely adopted parts of what was then mainstream 'Science' and/or
sociological accepted thinking, which itself was of course built on the zeitgeist, trends
in popular opinion etc. 'Modern' (late 18th - early 19th cent > 'misgenation', apartheid
laws, etc.) eugenics was very much a USA driven scientific trend. (Colonialist roots..)
Many got on the bandwagon - medicos, drug pedlers, breeders (of non-humans like chickens
and beef), socio pundits, pols, and more. Ex.
'Biologic' determinist credos (=> it's all in your genes) hold a strong sway in the
US today, stronger imho than in any other country, sticking out my neck as of course I know
little to nothing about 2/10 or far more of the world.
The fundamentalist and rigidly deterministic stance of course serves repressive
policies: ppl are born bad and 'need prison' etc.
Another nefarious result, e.g. 'ppl are born gender dysphoric' so need corrective
measures (surgery, drug dependence) is another, exploitative, side of the same coin.
The primary link between neoliberalism and fascism is their insistence that the weak go to
the wall. Communism denies this so did all societies before the British empire of the
C19th.
It is inconceivable that any previous society would have condoned the positions adopted by
the British government in Ireland during the 'Potato famine' or the policies pursued during
successive Bengal famines.
For those unfamiliar with the history of what occurred in Ireland it is worth recalling
that during the years in which the potato harvest failed entirely there were massive
shipments of food out of Ireland, vast quantities of meat, butter, cheese, barley and other
grains, were despatched to England and elsewhere for sale.
Benjamin Jowett, the Master of Balliol College Oxford, said of the liberal Political
Economists that he distrusted them and had done so since being told by one of them that,
while it was true that more than a million Irish people had died of starvation during the
famine, "He said that he wasn't sure that that that was enough."
For Bengal see, for example, Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts.
"... That she equated the two is intellectually dishonest, but hey, it was the height of the Cold War, there was poetic license to lie in the academic world. ..."
@ Posted by: Charles R | Sep 2, 2018 12:49:09 AM | 145
Her book in question is The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Possibly her most famous
book and the one which skyrocketed her career in the USA (and to the CIA, to which she was a
collaborator).
Also, in an article about modernism (I don't know how it was published in English), in the
last paragraphs, she mentions her "research on totalitarianism", and then goes on stating
that what united nazism and communism was the adoption of a "grand narrative" (see the
coincidence with post-modernism? Not a mere coincidence, for sure): the nazi adopting the
"grand narrative" of race struggle and the communist the one of class struggle. That she
equated the two is intellectually dishonest, but hey, it was the height of the Cold War,
there was poetic license to lie in the academic world.
I was born right at the end of the Cold War. I probably belong to the first generation of
historians born "post-Cold-War". And the first thing that amazed me was the sheer quantity of
pure lies and myths that pervaded Cold War era thought and science. It wasn't some
"conspiracy theory" level lies -- those very carefully crafted lies, extremely difficult to
debunk -- no, it was pure ideology, lies that can be easily debunked with a first look at
primary sources or with five minutes in internet research. Future historians (of the 22nd
Century) will probably see the Cold War era until today as a dark age for science.
Even Marxist production of this era suffered a lot: Marx must have had spinned in his tomb
like never before during the post-war era.
-//-
@ Posted by: les7 | Sep 2, 2018 3:36:39 AM | 149
Since then there has been a lot of evidence from evolutionary biology that suggests the
human predisposition to organize itself under some form of "authority structure" is
hard-wired into us.
The homo sapiens is an apex superpredator, a species of the fifth trophic level (level 5).
To top it off, we are also omnivorous, which makes us even more deadly and voracious.
Apex predators are not cannibal (the higher the trophic level, the lower the energy level,
so it wouldn't be energetically advantageous for apex predators to eat/hunt themselves. The
meat of apex predators have very low nutrition levels and are usually full of parasites and
other poisonous residues (e.g. dolphin meat is full of mercury, not edible for humans).
However, apex predator can and do kill themselves in territorial disputes -- be it among
themselves, be it with another apex predator species.
So, it is only natural that humans kill themselves for resources. It is in our nature.
However, there's a situation where apex predators stop killing themselves: when the
environment has enough for everybody. It will not be Teletubbies, where everybody will hug
and love themselves, but they would tolerate themselves. For example, you may want to kill a
stranger in the street -- but if that stranger is your children's doctor, then you'll think
twice, you'll tolerate his existence just because it is in your economic interest to keep him
alive.
That's what Marx was all about: capitalism increased interdependency, so are now, relative
to total population, killing ourselves less. The only reason the USA just don't nuke
everybody is that it depends on the rest of the world for trade. If we develop the productive
forces further, we could have a situation were the excedent would be so big that nobody would
have to exploit nobody (a fully-automated society). Again, Marx never stated communism would
be a hippie utopia: humans would still get happy, sad, anger, grief, violence for passional
motives would still happen, people would still cry when a parent would die etc. etc. What he
envisaged was a society without class.
-//-
Now, the last time about liberalism.
Liberalism is an umbrella term (although not as umbrella as illuminism) to designate the
legitimating of capitalism over four centuries. Liberalism was not just philosophy: it was an
economic theory etc.
What unites liberals of all sorts of kinds is the fact that, ultimately, the acted to
preserve or advocate for capitalism.
Liberalism can be better described thus as the way of life of capitalism; the way
capitalism perceives itself over time.
The separation we do nowadays between liberalism and nazifascism comes from neoliberal
propaganda.
Neoliberalism (new liberalism) was born in the 40s, in Mont Pelerin, and its doctrine
stated that 1) post-war social-democracy in Western Europe = socialism and should be combated
and 2) what happened between the WWI (1914) and WWII (1945) was an abortion of History, and
the world should continue from where it stopped (i.e. with the old liberalism).
That's why I consider neoliberalism more like the "return of the liberals" than "the new
liberalism", albeit it, I confess, from the point of view of the economists, the latter
definition suits better. New liberalism because they conceded liberalism collapsed in 1914
and needed to be updated (this happened with Friedman's monetarism); Return of the liberals
because, albeit it was born in the 40s, it was just in 1979, with the election of Margaret
Thatcher in the UK, that it would really come to power in a worldwide level (there was
already a neoliberal experiment in Pinochet's Chile, some years before).
But I think the definite empirical proof totalitarianism is a Cold War myth and that
nazifascism is really liberalism is that this new rise of the "far-right/alt-right" is not
coming from socialist countries (North Korea, Cuba, China and Vietnam), but from capitalist,
Western Democracies (Italy, France, USA, UK, Australia, Japan -- albeit Japan never gave up
fascism to begin with --, Sweden, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Austria and Ukraine). It was from
the liberals' womb that fascism was (re)born, not "communism". This is a fact, a fact we can
observe today, with our own senses.
Now, you can rationalized that many of these countries are from the ex-Iron Curtain. But
1) it only happened after they turned capitalist, not while they were under the USSR and 2)
those Iron Curtain countries were actually full-fledged Nazi countries before the USSR
liberated them in 1945, so they had a nazi past and culture as a nationalist narrative
against USSR hegemony; the Ukraine has a sui generis history, that involved a triple side
civil war (White, Black and Red Armies), so, albeit they were part of the USSR, they too had
a Nazi past.
"... During the Cold War, a cold warrior called Hannah Arendt published a book (with a CIA editor) that laid out the most famous version of the theory of totalitarianism. ..."
"... The theory of totalitarianism states that communism and fascism are the sides of the same coin. Arendt's central argument was that both communism and nazism were brother ideologies because both adopt a central, all-encompassing historical narrative: nazism adopting the narrative of the struggle between the races and communism adopting the narrative of struggle between classes. ..."
"... Yes, she equate racism to class struggle (which is a false dichotomy, because class struggle is empirically observable towards all written history we have available today, while race war is a modern late 19th Century invention). ..."
"... The Cold War ended and Arendt's theory was proved wrong: the USSR dissolved over the weight of its own internal contradictions. But the idea that nazifascism and communism were brother ideologies stuck in the West. ..."
"... Thanks karlof1 I look forward to you posts here. I am sure the elite could be identified as fascist as the concentration of wealth and power was certainly in their hands then after centuries of mercantile plunder. Equally they bundled the wealth generated from the progress of automation from horse drawn farm machinery through to steam power etc. ..."
"... As for American Fascism, the entire mindset of American Exceptionalism combined with the doctrine of Manifest Destiny provide it with a substantial foundation. ..."
"... "Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes ..."
"... Yes, he saw it but IMO was too soft toward it. I'd be remiss not to mention Bertram Gross's bold 1980 book Friendly Fascism and Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism . ..."
Fascism (and Nazism) is a form of Liberalism. But we need to clarify one of the most
persuading Cold War myths: the myth of totalitarianism.
(huge parenthesis alert)
-//-
During the Cold War, a cold warrior called Hannah Arendt published
a book (with a CIA
editor) that laid out the most famous version of the theory of totalitarianism.
The theory of totalitarianism states that communism and fascism are the sides of the same
coin. Arendt's central argument was that both communism and nazism were brother ideologies
because both adopt a central, all-encompassing historical narrative: nazism adopting the
narrative of the struggle between the races and communism adopting the narrative of struggle
between classes.
Yes, she equate racism to class struggle (which is a false dichotomy,
because class struggle is empirically observable towards all written history we have
available today, while race war is a modern late 19th Century invention).
Arendt's totalitarianism theory helped to give birth to modern liberal leftism, more
specifically, post-modernism, which states that there's no "long term narrative" in human
history (i.e. there's no class war; or class war was a random phenomenon of the late
19th-early 20th Centuries) and that there's no truth: only points of view based on the
observer's immediate observation.
Alongside post-modernism, there was, at the same time, a rehabilitation of Christianism,
as a part of the ideological war against communism/socialism in the Cold War: that meant a
tendency to secularism and reason begun to be reversed in the West from the 70s onwards. Such
"imbecilization" process is not new: it happened during the decline of the Roman Empire,
during the late Severan dinasty and throughout the crisis of the Third Century and progressed
with the reforms of Diocletian, reaching its appex with Constantine and Justinian. This
period of time saw the economy of Rome collapse, while Christianism flourished.
So yes, everytime society tries to progress, the Western elite calls 911-Christianism to
the rescue, it is not new: it is important to notice that, after the French Revolution, the
legitimizing narrative was that the Roman Republic was being revived (Napoleon was in love
with Ancient Rome, and read all of Caesar's Commentaries ) -- what Marx called the
"farce" in the Brummaire -- and that both the British and the American empires like to
mirror themselves with the Roman Empire (and many of modern laws and principles are based on
Roman jurists). So, there's a lot of inspiration there by the Western elites.
But Arendt came out with another very important conclusion: that a totalitarian society
can not disintegrate from within, only from the outside. Put it in other terms, the peoples of
totalitarian states can never do a revolution, only be liberated by an alien liberal society.
At the time, there was no perspective the USSR would ever go away, and there was plenty of
demand to ideologies that legitimized rising military spending and invasions in the Third
World.
The Cold War ended and Arendt's theory was proved wrong: the USSR dissolved over the
weight of its own internal contradictions. But the idea that nazifascism and communism were
brother ideologies stuck in the West.
-//-
Nazifascism is a mode of liberalism (classic liberalism) because that's what history shows
us: both Hitler and Mussolini were born and created during the apex of liberalism, in liberal
countries and received liberal education. Both declared the communists as their main enemies
once they got to power. Both economies remained highly decentralized, liberal style, during
the WWII. If you take out both lunatic narratives, you wouldn't be able to discern, e.g., a
typical German Aryan family in Berlin from a typical suburban family in the 60s USA.
Communism/socialism both came from classical Social-Democracy (not the post-war version,
the original version). Classical Social-Democracy has a very well documented paternity: Karl
Marx.
Marx took the term "socialism" from the nowadays so-called "utopian socialists", a
movement from France, whose main intellectual was Proudhon. Those "utopian socialists" come
from the old late-feudal artisan class, the class which lost the most with industrialization.
Communism (as in communist parties) come from the late 19th Century/early 20th Century schism
between the German and Russian Social-Democrat parties. At the time, the German one made a
turn to the right (which would culminate, decades later, with it supporting the German
bourgeoisie in WWI, a pivotal episode to the rise of Nazism in the 30s), and Lenin, in order
to make the ideological differences clear, changed the name to "communist". So, whatever
point of view you adopt, neither communism nor socialism come from liberalism, so it doesn't
even belong to the same branch as nazifascism.
The last "common ancestor" of both Social-Democracy and Liberalism is illuminism. But
"illuminism" was not a school or ideology per se, but an umbrella term to designate a
significant change in thought after the 16th Century. If you take the concept of Reason as
the condition sine qua non to designate something illuminist, then the only existing "child"
of "illuminism" today is Marxism.
Controlled dissent relies on obscuring the Pincer Movement being used to corral Freedom
and Liberty.
'(Commercial consumerism is) consistent with banal economic relations and routine familial
and social patterns, and, as a means towards those ends, imprisonimg...the authentic, strong,
free, vital human beings who learned to break loose and live heroic lives, in defiance of
(Judaic) 'static legalism'.
Simplicity is the panacea for the evils of the present. In short, back to Nature. We must
look to the Artist, not to the Scientist as our teacher and guide, for the artist was the
genius who knew the goal and the way ...through the ideals which the new 'vitalist' culture
intended to displace decadent 'civilization': childlike simplicity, natural spontaneity, an
Olympian will to risk and dare, an unerring intuition into the hidden and transcendent, a
sense of awe and mystery, an abundance of unrestrained passions, and an exhilirating torrent
of energy.'
(Vision and Violence, Arthur Mendel)
So Nietzche, but also Euell Gibbons and Carlos Casteňeda were 'Back to Nature' NAZIs.
Nietzche saw Judaic culture of regimental Bolshevism as the 'unpure enemy', and eugenic
extermination as the solution, while the Hippies saw 'The Pigs' (regimental military
Bolshevism) as the unclean enemy, and 'Get Back to the Land and Set My Soul Free' as the
solution. They're both a form of Fascism.
If you don't 'turn on, tune, in and drop out', if you won't let your hair grow long as you
can show it, and wear beads braided in your beard and hemp sandals, write graffiti about AGW
and fossil fuels, and eat meal worms and cannabis cookies, then you are an 'unclean pig'.
The End of History Rational Supra-National State, versus the Hot Money Pay-for-Play
Uber-Capitalist Renegades. Regimental Bolshevism and Iconoclastic Fascism are just the
two-sided Janus-faced nature of our human reality. Rodham the Bolshevik versus Trump the
Fascist. Lose-lose.
Lose-lose most especially in USA, because State-Corporate Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty
represents the unholy union of these two anti-human forces. Think Israel joining with the
Syrian 'rebels' (sic). Think the globalist ECB/IMF/WB finance marauders aligning with the
NATO Wehrmacht.
That's the NWO Spawn of Satan. They are One. Netanyahu is your Father. Come into the
Light. Use the Force, Luke. A
Oh, and be sure to get your vaccinations!
@22 ex-Reedie nails it. All three quotes were pre-empted by Thucydides so very many
centuries ago, when he has the Athenians responding to the Melians appeal to decency with
"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".
Before, of course, the Athenians slaughtered the Melians.
But the other side of the coin is, of course, "he who lives by the sword dies by the
sword".
The Siege of Melos is a classic example: the Athenians conquered the Melians and then
colonized Melos (sound familiar?). And then.... in the long run lost the Peloponnesian War
and all those colonists were sent packing.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Cock of the walk one day, a feather duster the next.
It's a long way to the top, and a quick ride to the bottom.
All concepts that would be utterly foreign to Netanyahu.
Until, that is, it happens to him and his Zionist throwbacks to the 19th century.
" It is not just by chance that Netanyahoo sounds like Hitler. Both, Theodore Herzl, the
founder of Zionism, and Adolph Hitler developed their political awareness around the turn of
the century "
Interestingly, the Indian fascists of the Hindutva movement, of which the RSS organisation
is the mothership, also have intellectual links to the Nazis... The romantic irrationalist
texts from which the European fascists drew their inspiration were translated into Marathi
and read avidly, by the brahmins of western India where Hindutva ideology was incubated.
It is important to make a distinction between Hinduism, the religion, and 'Hindutva' which
is a political ideology. Hindutva is more old-fascism than neo-fascism. The RSS, the
mothership of this ideology, has been organising their movement for nearly a hundred years.
And it is follows quite well the old-fascist pattern. The mothership sends expeditionary
contingents into each area of social life and captures it - nazi youth, nazi unions, nazi
lawyers, etc. The present phase is probably best captured by the old nazi term,
'gleichschaltung' , the attempt to force social institutions into the fascist mould... there
seems to be now an ongoing attempt to capture the universities, the media, the supreme court
etc. in India.
Those interested can check out the following books
1. Walter Andersen and S Damle Brotherhood in Saffron...
(a reliable objective description of the RSS.. unfortunately out-of-print for decades, but it
should be available in the Univ.of Heidelberg South Asia institute library . no electronic
copy seems to be available, if anyone has a link, please post. Andersen and Damle have a new
book to be published this year)
2. MS Golwalkar We or out nationhood defined and Bunch of Thoughts.
MSG was the second head and most important ideologue of the RSS who admired nazi 'race
pride'. he wrote,
"To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging
the country of the semitic races -- the Jews... Race pride at its highest has been manifested
here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having
differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us
in Hindusthan to learn and profit by."
and
"the foreign races [he meant other religions too] in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu
culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must
entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, ie of the
Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay
in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no
privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen's rights."
Thanks karlof1 I look forward to you posts here. I am sure the elite could be identified
as fascist as the concentration of wealth and power was certainly in their hands then after
centuries of mercantile plunder. Equally they bundled the wealth generated from the progress
of automation from horse drawn farm machinery through to steam power etc.
I guess the englander workers could be coerced or press ganged into supporting their
fascist lords as they were to support the various wars and defense needs. I doubt that one
should class the workers and common folk as naturally fascist though. Cowed into compliance
from centuries of oppression seems a better description.
Engels was a mighty keen observer and knew well the ways of the ruling class
industrialists.
"...since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must..." Thucydides - he said it in Melian Dialogue.
But the quote should be read in context...and is itself a paraphrase of Athenian
Policy,
It is also True. Yes indeed, fascists do sometimes say true things...it happens. I do not
like fascists, but I do like truth, doesn't everybody?
Gramsci's thinking thrives in many fields, being a safe haven for political and
intellectual organizations midway between the pure abandonment of Marxism and unrestricted
adherence to neoliberal "democracy".
Gramsci became the prostitute of the neoliberals, as he was before that of the recycled
Stalinists when against "Trotskyism", whatever this was.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its alive and well
today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. The strong (cognitive or
physical) rule the weak. Any attempt at equalizing the disparity is labelled as Socialism and
is opposed in part for fears it promotes dysgenics.
Darwin had it right I think. Or maybe it was the ancient Greeks. I'm trying pretty hard to
keep up here ,eugenics might be partly responsible for that.
Thank Christ somebody broke in with news of that guy getting blowed up. Somebody said
Canada might be the culprit. Well, suck me dry and call me Dusty, I never heard of that
motherfucker and neither have any of my friends at the bar. Maybe it's because of that gal
who had a granddad that was a Uke who liked Nazi invaders better than the Russians. But she's
pretty busy right now trying deal with other stuff. Like the biggest trade deal in the
world.
I had been going to propose that the answer to all three questions was "Thrasymachus" (from
Plato's Republic) - but I see in checking my source that all that fine young man did actually
say was that justice is the advantage of the stronger, using as an example the rulers of
cities who order things to their own advantage. And indeed, the statement is refuted, which
causes the frightening man to blush...But best to read the original, as what Thrasymachus
represents looms larger in that setting and in the labyrinthian dialogue upon whose threshold
he makes his claim.
Posted by: juliania | Aug 31, 2018 6:45:58 PM |
link
England is now divided down the middle politically, as is a whole list of country's, to many
to mention. left and right increasingly polarized ! Perhaps the most important being
the USA. If
we look at the right wing street violence in Germany this week, we see what is going to
happen all the way round very soon.
This weeks violent aggressive protest is much much bigger
than people realize ! It was aimed at innocent people in the street, it was apparently
protesting about victims of western military aggression emigrating to Germany. But not
addressing the root couse of why they became victims, but the problems
caused by their emigration to Germany.
Last Sunday these nazi's and there sympathizers numbered 6000 but the truth is a large
proportion of the police present were on their side. Looking the other way when violence
occurred failing to arrest people doing the nazi salute. The coalition
government has a large
part of extreme right wing politicians.
These next weeks determine which way western country's will swing. We can stop the nazi's on
the street's or we can except the consequences.
Whatever thing Trump and his minions (American allies, "Western Civilization") are doing
right now, they are just restructuring already existing trade deals at best.
-//-
As for the "Greek" discussion. It's not a surprise Hitler took at least some inspiration
from the ancient Greek. From the 19th to early 20th Century, there was some kind of "Greek
revival" in Germany's academic circles. Take Nietzsche for example: he dialogues with the
Greeks (mainly Plato and Socrates) many times. Even that so-called Nazi historian (forgot his
name) focused on the ancient Greek. Hell, even Marx did his doctorate thesis over Epicurus.
So, Hitler essentially lived in the end of a "philellene" period of Germany.
As far as the strong protecting the weak, the human animal is a prime example of this as
the mother and infant must be protected for several years before either can fend for
themselves. Another well known example is the mother bear protecting her cubs--don't mess
with either!
There's no superiority/inferiority involved as such in either example as both
are natural mechanisms. The concept of social castes/classes was very well established
millennia ago with numerous ideas put forth to justify their existence, many of which still
operate today. Many of those ideas are present within the Monthly
Review article I linked to yesterday.
Engels may or may not have coined the term
Social Murder, but even the Whigs agreed as this passage shows:
"In 1844, Frederick Engels wrote that 'English society daily and hourly commits what the
working-men's organs, with perfect correctness, characterize as social murder. It has placed
the workers under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long [and] it
undermines the vital force of these workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them
to the grave before their time.'24 Anyone who thinks that Engels was not an objective witness
should compare his judgement to that of the influential Whig journal the
Edinburgh
Review :
"Out of every two persons who die in the east of London, one perishes from preventable
causes. From twenty to thirty thousand of the labouring population of London are killed every
year by causes which, if we chose, we might expel by a current of water. Though we do not
take these persons out of their houses and murder them, we do the same thing in effect, -- we
neglect them in their poisonous homes, and leave them there to a lingering but a certain
death."
It's very easy to see why Marx and Engels characterized what they observed in England and
Europe as Class War. But can the English of the mid 1800s be characterized as fascist, or
perhaps just the elite?
...As for American Fascism, the entire mindset of American Exceptionalism combined with
the doctrine of Manifest Destiny provide it with a substantial foundation.
Combined with the
implied imperialism within JQ Adams speech that outlined what became known as The Monroe
Doctrine, White, Anglo-Saxon superiority was further institutionalized. Social-Darwinism is
quite complex to discuss despite it being a relatively simple concept on the surface.
Wikipedia's
page is rather good on this topic and shows Herbert Spencer published his ideas before
Darwin published his revolutionary book. Vice-President Henry Wallace is the most prominent
American citizen I know of to write boldly about American Fascism In his famous NY
Times op/ed The Dangers of
American Fascism that concludes thusly:
"Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and
eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about
this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward
certain races, creeds and classes."
Yes, he saw it but IMO was too soft toward it. I'd be remiss not to mention Bertram
Gross's bold 1980 book Friendly Fascism and Sheldon Wolin's Inverted
Totalitarianism .
This discussion is getting out of hand. vk 99 is not right (to be
polite).
Laguerre | Sep 1, 2018 2:48:22 PM | 114
Nazifascism is a mode of liberalism (classic liberalism)
because that's what history shows us: both Hitler and Mussolini were
born and created during the apex of liberalism...
Communism and Fascism are not the same thing, as in the theory of
Arendt. They merely used the same techniques. Nor is fascism really
liberalism. Perhaps a reaction, but not even that.
The states in which Hitler and Mussolini grew up were not liberal
democracies, but rather monarchical autocracies, which had failed. So
reactions to that.
The demonstration is that Neo-Nazis today are not in any way liberal,
but rather far right, based on uber-nationalism. That is the basis also
of 1930s fascism. Nationalism taken to an extreme, and employing
totalitarian techniques.
Neoliberalism did improved that conditions of top 20% population, but not the rest, who
actually lost the standard of living achived under the New Deal capitalism
Notable quotes:
"... Financial capitalism under the neoliberal 'ideology' that has started in the early 70s, has offered a fake prosperity - all based on debt - for the masses in Western societies, for a couple of decades. Through this way, the ruling class managed to 'hypnotize' the majority, hiding the enormous fraud. This 'hypnosis' made societies compromise with the wars and destruction outside the Western soil. ..."
"... When this illusion collapsed, the ugly picture of reality paralyzed the societies. The police state became stronger under the pretext of terrorism to crush any thoughts for uprising against the fake democracy. ..."
"... the warmongers of the regime don't even bother to search for pretexts to conduct new wars. ..."
Financial capitalism under the neoliberal 'ideology' that has started in the early 70s,
has offered a fake prosperity - all based on debt - for the masses in Western societies, for a
couple of decades. Through this way, the ruling class managed to 'hypnotize' the majority,
hiding the enormous fraud. This 'hypnosis' made societies compromise with the wars and
destruction outside the Western soil.
As long as this colourful circus was performing on the stage of a deceptive ideological
framework, very few bothered to question and condemn the undemocratic nature of the West. And
they were often being characterized as 'radicals' by the establishment machine. When this illusion collapsed, the ugly picture of reality paralyzed the societies. The
police state became stronger under the pretext of terrorism to crush any thoughts for uprising
against the fake democracy.
The more people wake up and realize the authoritarian nature of the regime, the more it will
becoming more authoritarian. Just think for a moment: it's not only the increasing censorship,
the brutality of the police state. It is also the fact that the warmongers of the regime
don't even bother to search for pretexts to conduct new wars.
Varoufakis says that Europe and the United States were never set up as democracies. And that it
is impossible for our sophisticated societies to become sustainable without democracy. It is
highly questionable whether our societies are indeed sophisticated apart from the technological
progress. Yet, there is no doubt that they are walking away from real democracy instead of
trying to approach it. So, instead of becoming sustainable, they become increasingly unstable,
which fatally leads to their final collapse.
To those who say Statements 1 and 3 in B's post reflect or demonstrate reality: don't
confuse bullying with strength.
The statements are expressions of Social Darwinism in its various forms. Social Darwinism
represents a particular belief system that justifies the existence of an elite dominating
society and culture, so as to ensure its (that is, the elite's) continued survival and
domination.
Needless to say, Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara are under police investigation in
Israel for corruption. Sara N apparently is also notorious for ill-treating her staff and
throwing her weight around to impress and intimidate others.
Is this sort of behaviour - stealing from the nation, bullying others - the behaviour of
those who are strong and secure in their power?
-----
Even the Mongols, though they brought destruction, extermination and ruin everywhere they
went, did eventually bring order and stability, and revived trade and civilisation. They
themselves became civilised by the peoples they conquered. In the end, they were undone by
their own internal family squabbles and competition. They were not so strong as they first
seemed.
It's not enough to be "strong" in a military sense - what a nation's leadership does with
its power is as important as acquiring and having that power in the first place.
Mueller has resorted to the classic sleazy prosecutor's gambit of resorting to auxiliary
allegations like perjury. All you need is to bully someone into contradicting the President
and you have a perjury charge if you can trap the President into making statements on
oath.
And re the tangled web of Robert Mueller gang corruption:
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a
one-hour speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium
One deal then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under
gag order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any
crimes regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time in many cases, was either herself or her
legal partner acting in representation of James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton,
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US
Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller to his current
job.
You could have mentioned Robert Reich's call for the entire Trump presidency to be
annulled, including erasure of all executive orders he has issues and unseating of all judges
and officials he has appointed. In a perfect nod to Stalinism, he is is to be sent down the
memory hole with every shred of evidence of his existence airbrushed out of existence. BTW,
Reich is a great name for one who comments on how to deal with Nazis, nicht war?
The corporate media run these features in the wake of every "Trump Deathwatch" episode
to taper liberals off the effects of the mindless hysteria they have just finished
generating.
Yeah, wouldn't want to those liburls to go cold-turkey and crash on the sidewalk with
blood running out of their ears, noses and eye sockets.
And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides
to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get
extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of
aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.
Don't doubt. Doublethink is an integrated feature of liberalism and there would not be any
sort of problem whatsoever in doing both. Like a priest how lies with a sex worker, then has
her whipped and branded for being a temptress.
Inb4 Corvinus proclaiming his fealthy in Mueller and his "extremely complex,
never-had-it-before" investigation that will calve any minute now.
That was the old days. The cold war was playing it safe. The US did coups and wars then
too. Vietnam and South Asia was bombed and destroyed. Coups in Latin America were a regular
thing. Cuba was the only one that managed to keep the US out. After the cold war, the US
branched out to Europe (Yugoslavia, Ukraine), North Africa (Libya) and West Asia (
Afghanistan, Iraq). The US has been going crazy in the middle east since 1991. 1991 Iraq war
ended on Purim 1991. 2003 war on Iraq started on Purim. 2011 war on Libya started on Purim.
Notice the eight year play for the last two. Is Iran in line for the next Purim attack in
2019?
Readjustment!!!!
And so it took two years for Miller and his team of superhero lawyers to find one miserable
tax cheat, who was hiding his money in all the wrong places.
So what is IRS doing anyway? Playing with theirs ?
This is only one, little bit more significant signs of decaying of US hegemonistic
Capitalism.
One way or the other, with Trump or without Trump Us society is standing on the doorsteps of
major readjustment theoretical, practical, and political.
Hypocrisy will end, and somebody will have to tell the American people the naked truth.
Russia had zero influence on US politics by the time of Reagan, the main
source of
subversion in America switched to Israel and is now also the main source of the opposition to
Trump. He can take the mainspring out of the opposition machine by wrong-footing his enemies
in the Jewish community with an attack on Iran. It will only remain to destablise Jordan then
expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and officially annex it, and the anti-Trump
movement will be like the Left after the Six Day War.
Mueller, the man accused on a German site of having perpetrated Lockerby, to kill a rival
secret service, that found out about Mueller's drug trade in Beirut.
It was, if it is true, great for Mueller that he was the USA investigator of Lockerby.
I wonder if it is known in the USA that already during the trial held in the Netherlands,
the father of one of the victims, who was at the trial, that some about the mechanism for the
ignition was inconsistent.
This was later confirmed by the, if I remember correctly, Swiss manufacturer.
The Libyan convicted for Lockerby went to a Scottish jail, quite soon, a Scottish
investigation committee came to the conclusion that he was innocent.
Those who lost relatives in the disaster never got answer to the question how and why it was
possible that shortly before take off in London VIP's were manoevred out of the plane.
As to the Libyan, 'luckily' he got a deadly disease, great smokescreen for letting him
go.
Until now we do not how the cause of the death of Arafat.
If Mueller is as criminal as asserted, I cannot know.
However, three years after Sept 11 I could no longer fool myself, this was not a Muslim
terrorist attack.
The mentioned German site also explained that Sept 11 brought a profit of some $ 5 billion to
thr owners of the Twin Towers, to be paid by Allianz, A German firm, that as a result had to
fire 3000 employees.
The insurance with Allianz dated from three weeks before Sept 11.
So, for who thinks, what is his point, no crime within the USA I judge impossible any
more.
Also not accusing a president of things that never happened.
Wonder if hegemonistic capitalism can decay.
When in Florida I visited the Flagler museum, accompanied by a USA friend who lived in the
vicinity.
He told me some interesting Flagler stories.
The main USA problem, is, in my opinion, that little has changed since the times of Flagler
and Rockefeller.
Rockefeller, BTW, was able in a few years time, by buying a news agency, to change his image
with the USA public from ruthless capitalist to philantropist, Bill Gates and Soros
accomplished something similar, though not here in Europe.
Polish socialists call the Soros followers 'Sorosjugend'.
"... They are simply dragged along for the ride when Washington is determined to do something. They have nowhere to turn with their votes even. Republican or Democrat, the results in terms of war and empire will be the same. ..."
"... Washington ignores the UN. It ignores international law. It ignores many traditions and norms. Oh, it will offer up some excuse, some flimsy excuse for what it is doing, but, in the end, it doesn't matter what the American public believes, any more than it matters what the other 95% of humanity represented by the UN believes ..."
"... John Bolton's ugly public threat about even more devastating bombing if chemical weapons are used again -- "again," entirely begging the question of whether such weapons had ever been used by the government, with virtually all indicators saying they had not -- serves as a public invitation to the paid mercenaries in al-Nusra and such affiliates as the phony humanitarians of the White Helmets, to get on with the job of generating a needed provocation. ..."
"... And what will it matter if the public supports it or not? They know absolutely nothing anyway about what goes on in Syria and America's big, long-term role in it on behalf of Israel and others, including Saudi Arabia, to work towards destroying a legitimate government and cripple a beautiful country ..."
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JUSTIN RAIMONDO IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"The New Cold War Flops, The American People Are Not Buying
"Poll shows anti-Russia campaign had little effect"
Justin Raimondo, as he has shown in other articles, often just does not "get it."
It simply does not matter whether the American public embraces the power establishment's
disinformation efforts.
There is almost no connection between what average Americans want and believe and what
Washington does.
And this has been true for a very long time. Did the public want the holocaust in Vietnam or
a list of other horrors?
They are simply dragged along for the ride when Washington is determined to do
something. They have nowhere to turn with their votes even. Republican or Democrat, the results
in terms of war and empire will be the same.
The United States' power establishment doesn't care what anyone thinks anymore when it wants
to do something. Oh, I'm sure they'd rather the public "bought in," but whether they do or not
simply is not a "deal breaker."
Washington ignores the UN. It ignores international law. It ignores many traditions and
norms. Oh, it will offer up some excuse, some flimsy excuse for what it is doing, but, in the
end, it doesn't matter what the American public believes, any more than it matters what the
other 95% of humanity represented by the UN believes .
The American public is virtually uninformed about what goes on abroad anyway. Their press
and government representatives work hard towards that end. And the truth is the American public
is largely uninterested. Bored with foreigners and even knee-jerk hostile to many. So many
people also are just trying to keep body and soul together in the changed economic realities of
contemporary America. They have no time to be concerned about what goes on "out there."
America's establishment actually counts on such realities in its imperial calculations.
The only time America's public ever gets really worked up over such matters is when
Americans die in considerable numbers. Foreigners, who cares? But America has arranged its
foreign dirty work so that numbers of Americans do not die.
The numbers at a certain point during Vietnam began to generate something like the national
divisions of the American Civil War. Through many mechanisms, that has never been allowed to
happen again.
Look at the dirty work in Syria. We know, right now, a new phony gas attack is being planned
around Idlib. There is significant intelligence on the matter. And it is only a set-up for a
new round of bombing Syria, a country with which America is not legally at war and a country
where it has no business having any forces without permission.
John Bolton's ugly public threat about even more devastating bombing if chemical weapons are
used again -- "again," entirely begging the question of whether such weapons had ever been used
by the government, with virtually all indicators saying they had not -- serves as a public
invitation to the paid mercenaries in al-Nusra and such affiliates as the phony humanitarians
of the White Helmets, to get on with the job of generating a needed provocation.
And will even one newspaper or network in America question the fraud? Or question the
excessive response?
And what will it matter if the public supports it or not? They know absolutely nothing
anyway about what goes on in Syria and America's big, long-term role in it on behalf of Israel
and others, including Saudi Arabia, to work towards destroying a legitimate government and
cripple a beautiful country .
"... My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it. ..."
"... Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East." ..."
My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go
until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let
him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously
support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.
Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge
in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East."
We live in times in which the media elites and academia are fully insane. That means that
the 'normal' levels of insanity and venality for career politicians will be ramped up.
So this "tribe" (as you call them) are the folks leading the criticism of the President?
These folks "own the media" you aver -- yes?
Hmmm, then that clearly can't be a "tribe" which includes Netanyahu, his likudniks and
neo-cons and militant right-wing, American billionaire Zionists -- because they've never had
it so good under any U.S. President.
As for the Palestinians (let alone the American middle class), well, things are rather
different.
unilateral private media ownership is the problem, not privatized tribal hate for Trump or
whomever..
Government vs Private Parallel Media can solve many, many problems created by Deep
State it can quickly turn the tables on the deep state or strongly support it.. Since
1492 when Martin Luther exposed unilateral backroom power, massive singularities of
accumulated wealth, and controlled, filtered propaganda to the masses. government has become
the responsibility of the governed, and the governors have become the servants of the masses.
However, those same powers Luther exposed have done everything in their power to deny the
masses the right to self determination
Trump has a plan to nationalize the media, but I think he should merely parallel the
private media with open source government media ( no rules to use it, none, not any, sex
weird stuff, criminal stuff, whatever ,just let anyone with something to say say it on their
own website hosted by the government). Produce a government media hosting site, allow anyone,
foreign or local, to present on the public media. use government developed search engine and
indexing technology (no private party no private contractors, everything and everyone
involved at the government host site is a government employee and all technology is developed
by government for government use only) and let the masses decide for themselves both 1) form
of government and 2) degree of corruption they will accept. Everyone can then select do they
want to view the Deep State Media or one of the millions of content providers visible on the
government media host.
"Zionism(A.K.A. Neo-Cons, and all "Israeli Firsters") is a political ideology based upon
the suspension of reason and common sense, rooted upon a macabre death wish that worships the
state of Israel.
Israel-First loyalists do not have to be Jewish. Christian-Zionists routinely forgo
faithfulness to our country, when they place Israel above the interests of our own nation.
The notion that Israel is a trusted ally is the most absurd illusion that exists in a
demented political culture. This is the "Big Lie", an invention of Zionist subversion, which
is the cause of an insane American foreign policy. Israel-First zealots control every aspect
of political power in the United States. An actual American holocaust that stares us directly
in our faces stems from sick fraudulent propaganda and phony guilt deceit that only benefits
Zionists and Israel."
I hope not. If Trump wants to go down a hero, he can be the monkey wrench that wrecks so
much damage on the machine that it's no longer capable of threatening the world. If he can
perform a controlled demolition of the USA, the rest of the world will continue just fine
without them. We'll remember him as a hero for preventing WW3.
None of this makes any difference. The MSM still control 98 percent of the information
transmission systems in the western world. Indeed, (((they))) are beginning to prohibit other
information systems such as the internet.
What you don't hear about never happened. The flip side of that coin is that what you hear
about over and over comes to be reality, regardless. Think Tawana Brawley. Think Duke sports
teams.
Where there's smoke there must be fire, right?
Trump has a talent for feeding the MSM red meat. Always with a good dose of poison mixed
in so they are happy to shoot themselves in the foot. Think Roseanne Roseannadanna.
Nevermind
Well, he can't attack Syria because Israel, ya know, might get hot grease spattered on
them. And besides, Israel wants Syria with as little additional damage as possible, leaving
an attack on Iran as the only method of "attacking" Russia. But, it cannot be done directly,
with flimsy excuses. The excuses are just too damn flimsy.
Also, life is too damn good for American Army mercenaries to have to risk life and limb
for another meaningless ME conflict. Nope, the Army needs another five years, at the very
least, before another round of medals and benefit-increases justifies their personal risk. US
Army take-home, "combat" pay and massive health-and-living benefits amount to the best living
any white American boy can experience, but there is a limit.
Now, limited-scope attack by proxy? Iraq border conflict? Afghanistan border conflict?
Both good, plus there is already umpty-ump bajillion $ of US taxpayer-paid military equipment
in Afghanistan. Good excuse to junk it all and get new stuff. That's what taxpayers are for,
after all.
The fact is that the U.S. is a Zionist controlled plantation and there is no difference at
the top levels between the demonrats and the republicons as both are Zionist controlled and
are traitors to America, as proof of this is the Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state
attack on 911 which killed 3000 Americans and Israel and the Zionists got away with it and
every thinking America knows they did it.
The only difference between Trump and Helliary is their plumbing, both are Zionist puppets
and the ziocons run the U.S. gov..
"... A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq. ..."
"... The article , entitled "Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin's Plans for Midterms," claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian president "who have provided crucial details" that have now stopped reporting at a critical time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to " American officials familiar with the intelligence" who " spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal classified information." ..."
"... Having Brennan as a source is an indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone. ..."
"... And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a "plan" for America's midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny and ineffective because "The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people" in their expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA. ..."
A quite astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times, astonishing even by
the standards of that newspaper, which featured Judith Miller and Michael Gordon in the
Pentagon-sponsored lie machine that led up to the catastrophic war against Iraq.
The
article , entitled "Kremlin Sources Go Quiet, Leaving CIA in the Dark about Putin's Plans
for Midterms," claims that the United States has had a number of spies close to the Russian
president "who have provided crucial details" that have now stopped reporting at a critical
time with midterm elections coming up. The reporting is sourced to " American officials
familiar with the intelligence" who " spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to reveal classified information."
After reading the piece, my first reaction was that Judith Miller was back but the byline
clearly read Julian E. Barnes and Matthew Rosenberg . Noms de plume , perhaps? The
article is so astonishingly bad on so many levels that it could have been featured in Marvel
Comics instead of the Gray Lady. First of all, if American intelligence truly has in the
Kremlin high level human agents, referred to as humint, it would not be publicizing the fact
for fear that Moscow would intensify its search for the traitors and discover who they were. No
intelligence officer speaking either openly or anonymously would make that kind of fatal
mistake by leaking such information to a journalist.
If indeed the source of the leak was a genuine intelligence officer it suggests a different,
more plausible interpretation. The CIA might, in fact, have no high-level agents at all at the
Kremlin level and is intent on having the Russians waste time and energy looking for the moles.
There is additional evidence in the article that the agent story might be a fabrication. The
authors assert that the CIA agents in Moscow provided critical information relating to the
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The nature of that information, if it
existed at all, is something less than transparent and the piece cites no less an authority on
Moscow's subversion than ex-Agency Director John Brennan, who connived at electing Hillary when
he was at CIA and has had an axe to grind ever since. Having Brennan as a source is an
indication that the two journalists were desperate and were willing to cite anyone.
And then there are the narratives that the journalists accept to make their whole story
credible. As the title of the article suggests, they believe that Russian President Vladimir
Putin has a "plan" for America's midterm elections. To support that conjecture they cite recent
assertions from both corporate and government leaders that there has been meddling in cyber
systems and on social media over the past few months, though it is interesting to note that no
evidence has been provided to link such activity to Russia.
So, does Putin have a plan? The New York Times apparently believes he does. And
what would that plan involve? The Times thinks it is no less than "a broad chaos
campaign to undermine faith in American democracy." It also cites Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats as affirming that Putin is "intent on undermining American democratic
systems." Think about that for a moment. Why would Russia want to damage an already oftentimes
dysfunctional system of government? To replace it with what? A dictatorship might be more
effective and even warlike, contrary to Russia's own interests. Why mess with something that is
already messy all by itself?
The article also hurls out other lies and half-truths. It assumes that Russia was trying to
change the outcome of the 2016 US election, for which there is no evidence at all, and it also
claims that Putin is killing off spies, citing the Skripal case in Britain, for which proof of
an actual Russian connection has never been presented.
And finally, then there is an odd whine from a former CIA Russia expert John Sipher
blaming the intelligence failure on the likelihood that the Agency Station in Moscow is tiny
and ineffective because "The Russians kicked out a whole bunch of our people" in their
expulsion of sixty American diplomats/spies in March. Sipher is inter alia confirming to Moscow
that many of those expelled were, in fact, CIA.
He also needs to recall that the persona non grata (PNG) move was in response to
the US expelling sixty Russians and closing two diplomatic facilities over Skripal, which means
the United States deliberately took self-inflicted steps that it should have known would
cripple its ability to spy in Moscow. And now it is complaining because it doesn't know what is
going on.
*
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence
officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA
Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter
Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a
frequent contributor to Global Research.
See,
this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that
Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty
is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a
realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States
cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high
opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.
Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy
– arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest
economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in
order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of
feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.
Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on
punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy
industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the
other.
In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington
pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of
Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen
then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would
happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an
8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump
government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with
it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European
resolve against the USA.
Trumps campaign was so well thought out and timed that he obliterated everyone in the
primaries. Is there a faction of the deep dark state behind him? Probably. The military
appears to have backed Trump and the three letter agencies minus the DIA and a few others
backed Hillary.
This is why we see the 95% negative coverage of Trump by media systems well infiltrated by
the three letter boys and girls. Despite that he has managed to hold a decent rating in the
polls and has been knocking the stuffing out of the deep state republicans in the various
elections.
Now who released the famous DNC emails? I am guessing the Obama crowd did it to damage
Hillary and her cronies. It knocked out her DNC head and they placed Donna Brazil in who
damaged Hillary more on CNN. Why? His faction consolidates power from the aging Clinton
structure and sets up the election with his candidate in 2020 which could be his significant
other. They would have to think Trump to be a beatable buffoon after 4 years as they think
their way is better.
By setting up Trump with the phony Russian charges they have damaged him but not among his
ardent supports which are significant. As that phony story peters out they have moved to
other alleged high crimes outside the special prosecutors office that can continue unhindered
during the election cycle. The first phase of this was armed beforehand by Obama and Clinton
bureaucrats which are slowly being pushed out.
Despite Trumps twitter feed which seems to bind his base he has deftly maneuvered and
achieved many of his promised accomplishments. He has peace in Asia on his fingertips and
trade deals which may turn his way on some fronts in time.
Trump has many dirty secrets he can release and one is that China has been running massive
operations inside the deep state under the noses of the democrats. Many feel that Clinton has
been running a drop box on her hidden server basically selling national security secrets for
a donation to her foundation.
Another sign that the political divisions are 'pretend' is that the 'Dems', the ostensive
losers re. Trump, have not behaved like a political party who loses. These generally disband,
retire, fold, or make efforts at reform, re-orientation etc. Renewal may be tough but they
often try. (As did the Repubs after Obama's election, though the effort was incredibly weak.)
Nothing like that is going on, because the fight is not political. It is based on tribal
desperate angst at the 'surprise' election of an outsider who holds cards in his hands nobody
can speak about.
To 'True Believers', if [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] seems equivocal, or even confused, about
the nature of (Democratic) socialism or expresses anodyne, conformist, safe positions, they
will justify this as sensible reticence. AOC has to appeal to the elusive "center", and
charm skeptical voters by not appearing unduly extreme or, God forbid, radical.
As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third
Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true
political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work
as hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent.
Ocasio-Cortez is merely a willing actress poster-babe (she will earn a LOT). The role is
not different from prancing about in lovely swish skirts on some MSM-TV series. She was
selected for her looks / background (not the best re. the background, but there aren't many
candidates, which is very hopeful imho), her naiveté, ignorance, and submissive
stance. Some 'fake' younger figures -only women and male gays, girls are more acceptable to
the general public- have to be pictured as up-n-coming Dems, in a kind of sketchy and
unconvincing parade of 'diversity' and so on.
Posted by b on August 30, 2018 at 01:07 PM | Permalink
JR is spot on; The Orange Buffoon and the "witchhunt" against him (just like the "Qanon"
Hollywood-style drama-thriller) are smoke and mirrors to keep the peasants occupied with
bullcrap, while the
cleptofascists are done robbing you blind...
The simple truth is that all "western" societies and democracies are hijacked by
(((Transformer Borgs))) and, contrary to what (((snake-oil salesmen))) in $5 000 suits tell
you, there is no way out of this mess through a ballot.
"... I was not sure whether Trump was controlled opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly engineering. Now it appears that he is both. ..."
"... Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks. ..."
"... If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public psyche. ..."
"... the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists, attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become whatever the globalists want us to become. ..."
"... Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown. ..."
At that time I was certain that the globalists would find great use for a Trump presidency,
more so in fact than a Clinton presidency. However, I was not sure whether Trump was controlled
opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly
engineering. Now it appears that he is both.
Trump's history was already suspicious. He was bailed out of his considerable debts
surrounding his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City in the early 1990s by
Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross , which saved him from embarrassment and
possibly saved his entire fortune . This alone was not necessarily enough to deny Trump the
benefit of the doubt in my view.
Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their
careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from
Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of
Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks.
Some liberty movement activists ignore this reality and attempt to argue around the facts of
Trump's associations. "What about all the media opposition to Trump? Doesn't this indicate he's
not controlled?" they say. I say, not really.
If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated
division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation
warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public
psyche.
This is not to say that leftist opposition to Trump and conservatives is not real. It
absolutely is. The left has gone off the ideological deep end into an abyss of rabid frothing
insanity, but the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to
look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists,
attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is
designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become
whatever the globalists want us to become.
... ... ...
As this is taking place, conservatives are growing more sensitive to the notion of a leftist
coup, from silencing of conservative voices to an impeachment of Trump based on fraudulent
ideas of "Russian collusion."
To be clear, the extreme left has no regard for individual liberties or constitutional law.
They use the Constitution when it suits them, then try to tear it down when it doesn't suit
them. However, the far-left is also a paper tiger; it is not a true threat to conservative
values because its membership marginal, it is weak, immature and irrational. Their only power
resides in their influence within the mainstream media, but with the MSM fading in the face of
the alternative media, their social influence is limited. It is perhaps enough to organize a
"coup," but it would inevitably be a failed coup.
Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the
globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used
as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be
fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown.
I have always said that the only people that can destroy conservative principles are
conservatives. Conservatives diminish their own principles every time they abandon their
conscience and become exactly like the monsters they hope to defeat. And make no mistake, the
globalists are well aware of this strategy.
Carroll Quigley, a pro-globalist professor and the author of Tragedy and Hope, a book
published decades ago which outlined the plan for a one world economic and political system, is
quoted in his address ' Dissent: Do We Need It
':
"They say, "The Congress is corrupt." I ask them, "What do you know about the Congress? Do
you know your own Congressman's name?" Usually they don't. It's almost a reflex with them,
like seeing a fascist pig in a policeman. To them, all Congressmen are crooks. I tell them
they must spend a lot of time learning the American political system and how it functions,
and then work within the system. But most of them just won't buy that. They insist the system
is totally corrupt. I insist that the system, the establishment, whatever you call it, is so
balanced by diverse forces that very slight pressures can produce perceptible results.
For example, I've talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the
future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were
consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are
pretty generally in this group."
Is a "failed coup" being staged in order to influence conservatives to become the very
"fascists" the left accuses us of being? The continuing narrative certainly suggests that this
is the game plan.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
"During his 32 years in the US Senate, the real John McCain was a consistent warmonger ,
advocating US military intervention in Africa, South America, Korea, and almost everywhere.
He sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" before a veterans group, and called demonstrators
against Henry Kissinger "despicable scum." The record of his public calls for coups,
invasions, blockades, bombings and assassinations to advance US military and economic
domination of the planet is far too long to list.
All this explains why corporate media are lifting up their whitewashed and manufactured
version of John McCain. He's one of their own, a genuine war criminal and loyal servant of
capital. Lifting him up, creating and embellishing his heroic story lifts up and legitimizes
the rule of the rich. Now they'll be looking for parks, schools and airports to name after
him. Just as the elementary school in Aaron Magruder's Boondocks was named after J. Edgar
Hoover, we'll soon see John McCain's name staring back at us from what little public property
is left. Get ready for it."
Ahhh but there is much more to the story here look and read:
Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills.
... The whole of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal
victory of the strong over the weak.
Who is paraphrased here?
The first state to adopt evolutionary ethics would prevail over all others in the struggle
for existence. ... Extermination and war then became moral goods to eliminate the weak.
And who said this?
The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or
for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in
the end peace is made with the strong.
2. Wilhelm Schallmayer, co-founder of the German eugenics movement in the early 20th
century, paraphrased here .
3. Benjamin Netanyahoo on August
29 2018 at the Negev Nuclear Weapon Center (Also here .)
Also:
It is not just by chance that Netanyahoo sounds like Hitler. Both, Theodore Herzl, the
founder of Zionism, and Adolph Hitler developed their political awareness around the turn of
the century in imperial Vienna. Social Darwinism was the rage of that time. Fascists and
Zionists drank from the same poisoned well.
Besides - did you know that Hitler did not want to exterminate the Jews? An Arab made him do
that. A Muslim. That is according
to one Benjamin Netanyahoo, currently prime minister of the Zionist entity in
Palestine:
In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting
between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: "Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at
the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, 'If
you expel them, they'll all come here (to Palestine).' According to Netanyahu, Hitler then
asked: "What should I do with them?" and the mufti replied: "Burn them."
The account is, of course, historically nonsense.
Related:
The administration of the Hindu supremacist Narendra Modi in India launched an
arrest campaign to silence its critics. Its demonetization program, a first step to introduce a degressive bank
transaction tax , did not achieve the desired results but
created an economic mess . Modi's re-election is in danger. The accusations against the
arrested people imply, correctly in my view, that the government of India is fascist:
I figured one of those quotes had to have been from Winston Churchill. Though on second
thought, his forte was more in the denigration of brown-skinned people.
When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled "made in Germany"; it will not be
marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course,
"Americanism."
Professor Halford E. Luccock of the Divinity School of Yale University in a sermon at the
Riverside Church, Riverside Drive and 122d Street, NYC. September 1938.
So what.
1 and 3 are not even arguments, they are plain old description of reality as it is.
As for point 2, that's that old German arrogance, how the hell do you know what the genome
"wants". Taken form what we know today, a eugenic state would initiate a program of forced
miscegenation.
Such is the arrogance of evolutionary ethics. And so too, we pay the price of a system
built on such folly. Certainly no better than those who claim divine sanction to slaughter
and destroy.
"The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or
for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in
the end peace is made with the strong."
It is ironic that Netanyahoo should say that. Netanyahoo himself is extremely weak and
unstable due to his corruption and the criminal probes against him. He flexes his muscles and
violently bullies the Palestinians and illegally bombs Syria to assert a strength that is
nonexistent. Israel is weak against its neighbours especially Hezbollah and Syria, its IDF is
weak and ineffective against Hezbollah and the Syrian army, and in its insane paranoia it is
so fanning the flames of conflict that it risks inciting (or may even itself initiate) a war
that realistically could result in its own annihilation.
Russia's foreign minister is the latest official to warn the US against using a possible
chemical weapons provocation to justify a new strike against Syrian forces. He said Moscow
warned the West not to play with fire in Syria.
Sergey Lavrov reiterated the warning that a staged chemical weapons attack in Syria's
Idlib province may trigger a US-led attack on the forces loyal to Damascus.
READ MORE: US & allies can have missiles ready to strike Syria within 24 hours –
Russian Foreign Ministry
Earlier, the Russian military reported that a group of militants in Syria was preparing a
provocation, in which chlorine gas would be used to frame the Syrian government forces. The
incident would be used by the US and its allies to justify a new attack against the country,
similar to what happened in April, according to the claim.
Amid international tensions, Russia has launched a massive naval exercise in the
Mediterranean Sea, which involves 25 ships and 30 aircraft, including Tu-160 strategic
bombers.
The US earlier stated that it would retaliate to a possible a chemical attack by the
Syrian government, using more firepower than it did in April. The previous tripartite strike
by the US, the UK and France targeted what they called sites involved in chemical weapons
research. It came in response to an alleged use of an improvised chlorine bomb against a
militant-held area. Russia insists that the incident had been staged with the goal of
triggering the Western response.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It will take the US and its allies just 24 hours to ready its missile-strike group for an
attack against Syria, the Russian Foreign Ministry said. The statement comes amid warnings of
a possible false-flag chemical attack.
Earlier, the Pentagon denied Moscow's claim that Washington was building up military
forces in the region. One of the US warships, USS 'The Sullivans,' left the Persian Gulf
after media reports about an increased American military presence in the area, according to
Zakharova.
While rejecting news of its growing presence in the region, the "US military forgot to
mention that they can build up missile capabilities to strike Syria in just 24 hours. The
strike group of the United States, France and the UK currently consists of planes, strategic
and tactical aircraft at bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Crete," Zakharova said.
Moscow has repeatedly warned that a false flag chemical weapons attack is being planned in
Syria's Idlib province to frame Damascus and use as a pretext for a new strike. Eight
canisters of chlorine were delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a group of
militants, trained in the handling of chemical weapons by the British private military
contractor Olive Group, arrived in the area, according to Defense Ministry.
On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the planned provocation is
aimed only at preventing the expulsion of terrorists from the de-escalation zone in Idlib. He
also accused the US of trying to get rid of another "dissident regime" in Syria, as was the
case in Iraq and Libya.
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The second of these RT links is being totally censored by Google and DuckDuckGo. I think
something big is up. Perhaps WW-III.
Hitler's inspiration for the specifics of Nazism was Sparta (while the political system in
itself was inspired from Fascism). It's amazing (and one of the most glaring examples of
liberal self-censorship) that people don't know about this fact.
For people who don't know, (the famous version of) Sparta was a post-communist polis of
Classical Greece, born from the reforms of mythological Lycourgos in the 9th Century BCE.
Apart from the apparent military discipline, Classical Sparta was famous for two things:
1) it didn't killed the male population of the conquered poleis in the Peloponnese and
captured and assimilated the adult female population; instead, it enslaved them, and
institutionalized their status (the helots). It was impossible, in theses, for a helot to
become a Spartiate, so the helots population became much larger than the Spartiate population
over time. The most amazing fact here is that, albeit some helot revolts probably happened,
they were never victorious. Hitler rationalized it as Spartiate genetic superiority.
2) the Spartiates allegedly practiced eugenics among themselves. This was immortalized in
our times by the popular movie "300", where they threw defective newborns over a cliff. This
cliff really exists and there are many skeletons found there by archaeologists, but none of
them are from babies or even children -- only adult males were found (probably criminals;
there was no prisonal system in the ancient world because it would be very expensive:
penalties were usually execution for the common guy -- and throwing from a cliff was a very
traditional way of execution, practiced by the Romans since the kingdom times -- and exile
for the powerful). Again, Hitler rationalized this (probably myth) as the cause for (1).
But the rationalization behind those three quotes is wrong: yes, it is true that "might"
is an essential ingredient for "right", but might doesn't come from intrinsic characteristics
of a given people (be it genetic or religious).
For the first case, Darwin's Natural Selection theory is clear: it only happens because
reproduction is random. Factors such as geographical isolation are hindering factors of
natural selections. In other words, artificial selection (eugenics) is a bad way of doing
natural selection: it is always the environment that should decide who reproduces and who
doesn't, human breeding should always be random (i.e. by chance) if we want to keep our
genetic diversity at the healthies state possible.
For the second case, just empirical investigation is enough: a religion only consolidates
itself as dominant ex post facto, i.e. after the domination is done. Religion is only to
reinforce consensus of the power. But religion by itself doesn't generate power: Islam, for
example, was born as a necessity of the merchants of Mecca to initiate a bellicose expansion
through the Arabian peninsula (and beyond). But it was economic necessity which gave birth to
the religion, not the religion that gave birth to the economic necessity.
-//-
As for Modi. It was a known fact his monetary policy would fail. The Chinese had already
warned, days after it was approved:
His demonetisation policy only didn't result in the immediate collapse of his government
because most Indian people don't have access to such big notes to begin with. He gained
significant popular support from the poorest rural areas with this:
Could have been Churchill, Kissinger, Poppy Bush, Henry Ford, Lloyd Blankfein, Patton,
Sherman, John McCain, Ollie North, any member of the Cheney family, either of the Kagan
brothers plus Nudelman, Andrew Jackson, Karl Rove, Pliny the elder, or hundreds of other
like-minded heroes whom made sincere, heartfelt remarks such as these.
Now JEB or Dubya or Nikki Haley, or Betsy DeVoss, for example, don't have the brain cells
to put together sentences like these, but they uphold this worldview for a trust fund or a
paycheck.
Full title of Darwin's magnum opus: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'. Presumably, though, favoured
by nature, not by human intervention. Therein lies the problem: Man has a mind, a will and an
awareness of the past, and for thinkers like Samuel Butler and Marx, Darwin (who was
influenced by Malthus) had advanced scientific thought a lot, but had not given a full
picture.
@8 I did a duck-duck-go and google search on "missiles ready to strike Syria within 24 hours"
and both popped up the RT article at the head of the search.
"Meglio viviere un giorno da leone che cento da pecore." " Better to live a day as lion then
100 days as a sheep. "
Benito Mussolini circa 1924. Fascist and Zionist LA MEME CHOSE
Agree totally with b's take on Netanyahu. What an a-hole.
I am eagerly awaiting b's commentary on the neo-Nazi mobs in Germany. No doubt the rise of
fascism in Europe is related to U.S. driven wars in the Middle East which have produced
hundreds of thousands of refugees, but what can be done about it? I should think that step
number one is to cease hostilities in Syria, thus allowing civil society to normalize. This
would stem the outward flow of refugees and encourage the inward flow of many who would want
to return to their homeland.
Communists and Jews were in concentration camps in Germany since 1933 in Dachau eight years
before the meeting, starved, exploited to collapse and death in quarries. In fact most of
first Jews were communists, candidates from KPD arrested before elections of April 1933
conducted under emergency law with Hitler's designated as Kantzler.
"We hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the
Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what
is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do
that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong
do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
A summary of Athenian statements to the Melians, Book V, 5.89-[1]
Melian Dialogue
History of the Peloponnesian War
Thucydides
The final clause is often quoted by many people, among them Noam Chomsky.
The Melian Dialogue is a brilliant fictionalized recreation of the pre-siege negotiations
between Athens and Melos. It is important to note that, from a military point of view, the
brutal genocidal siege, while initially successful, was short-lived, successfully over-turned
by the Spartans, and ultimately regretted by many Athenians (Cf. example of hubris).
Perhaps more revealing is the spirit in which Thucycides is quoted: Triumphantly,
realistically, or lamentably.
The Twitter link on the Netanyahu quote is a gold mine! Simply scroll down!
'Russian interference???' 'We're working to prevent Iran from establishing military
presence in Syria. We won't relent in pursuit of this goal as we did not relent in bringing
about the cancellation of the bad nuclear deal w/ Iran, a goal seen impossible when I put it
on the intl agenda several years ago
10:05 - 29. 8. 2018'
Posted by: Northern Observer | Aug 31, 2018 10:10:13 AM | 5
1 and 3 are not even arguments, they are plain old description of reality as it
is.
Not quite.
In (1) the second sentence could pass as an observation, but the first one cannot. It
contains the verb "has to" so it is not a passive statement but the assertive one. It implies
a necessity and desire.
In (3), yes, from that quote alone it is not clear is Bibi identifies himself with the weak,
or with the strong. So, you might be right, it could be that he just cynically describes the
world as is, without endorsing it. However, it clear IMO on which side he prefers to be.
But, I do not see that kind of attitude much different than for example of my realtor who
told that I should install alarm in my apartment so that a prospective burglar chooses
someone else's place to rob, instead of mine.
Or a car dealer who sells huge 4x4 SUV monsters to moms telling them that it is safer for her
children, because in case of collision, passengers in larger vehicle are less injured than in
the smaller one. And moms do buy them. And put a sticker on the back 'Baby in car' what I
find quite ironic.
"Surely some will always be stronger than others. The real question is whether the strong
have an obligation to help the weak." dh
There is no question about it: unless the strong assist the weak the community will dissolve.
Society depends upon mutual aid and without society the strongest individual perishes and
disappears.
Nothing is more mistaken than to regard the ravings of fascists and the fantasies of
eugenicists as 'common sense' axioms. In reality man is a social creature almost uniquely
unable to survive alone.
Hitler and Netanyahu were/are whistling in the dark, attempting to banish their consciousness
of the inevitable fate of the unjust whose actions are a stench in the nostrils of
humanity-Karma.
Will Israel survive until 2030?
In his report , Garrie says: "The Russian Foreign Minister has condemned the terrorist
act and has accused the Kiev regime of committing an act of state terrorism." I've yet to see
Lavrov's statement, but I trust Garrie.
As for American Fascism, the entire mindset of American Exceptionalism combined with the
doctrine of Manifest Destiny provide it with a substantial foundation. Combined with the
implied imperialism within JQ Adams speech that outlined what became known as The Monroe
Doctrine, White, Anglo-Saxon superiority was further institutionalized. Social-Darwinism is
quite complex to discuss despite it being a relatively simple concept on the surface.
Wikipedia's page
is rather good on this topic and shows Herbert Spencer published his ideas before Darwin
published his revolutionary book. Vice-President Henry Wallace is the most prominent American
citizen I know of to write boldly about American Fascism In his famous NY Times op/ed
The Dangers of
American Fascism that concludes thusly:
"Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and
eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this
conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain
races, creeds and classes."
Yes, he saw it but IMO was too soft toward it. I'd be remiss not to mention Bertram
Gross's bold 1980 book Friendly Fascism and Sheldon Wolin's Inverted
Totalitarianism .
Northern Observer - "1 and 3 are not even arguments, they are plain old description of
reality as it is"
Not so. The Primitive Darwinists took no account of feedback, or inter-related systems.
The super-tiger eats all the prey and then dies out. There has to be a balance.
But that's a mechanistic refutation of the Primitive Darwinist argument, not that much
better than the argument itself. To be human surely means something different in any case,
unless we are to succumb to mechanistic determinism.
I thought it comes from Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, who is after all blamed as a
father/idelogue of Nazim.
"What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and the power
itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling
that power is increasing -- that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more
power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but competence. The first principle of
our humanism is that the weak and the failures shall perish. And they ought to be helped to
perish."
As far as the strong protecting the weak, the human animal is a prime example of this as the
mother and infant must be protected for several years before either can fend for themselves.
Another well known example is the mother bear protecting her cubs--don't mess with either!
There's no superiority/inferiority involved as such in either example as both are natural
mechanisms. The concept of social castes/classes was very well established millennia ago with
numerous ideas put forth to justify their existence, many of which still operate today. Many
of those ideas are present within the Monthly
Review article I linked to yesterday. Engels may or may not have coined the term
Social Murder, but even the Whigs agreed as this passage shows:
"In 1844, Frederick Engels wrote that 'English society daily and hourly commits what the
working-men's organs, with perfect correctness, characterize as social murder. It has placed
the workers under conditions in which they can neither retain health nor live long [and] it
undermines the vital force of these workers gradually, little by little, and so hurries them
to the grave before their time.'24 Anyone who thinks that Engels was not an objective witness
should compare his judgement to that of the influential Whig journal the Edinburgh
Review :
"Out of every two persons who die in the east of London, one perishes from preventable
causes. From twenty to thirty thousand of the labouring population of London are killed every
year by causes which, if we chose, we might expel by a current of water. Though we do not
take these persons out of their houses and murder them, we do the same thing in effect, -- we
neglect them in their poisonous homes, and leave them there to a lingering but a certain
death."
It's very easy to see why Marx and Engels characterized what they observed in England and
Europe as Class War. But can the English of the mid 1800s be characterized as fascist, or
perhaps just the elite?
"...since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must..." Thucydides - he said it in Melian Dialogue.
But the quote should be read in context...and is itself a paraphrase of Athenian
Policy,
It is also True. Yes indeed, fascists do sometimes say true things...it happens. I do not
like fascists, but I do like truth, doesn't everybody?
Gramsci's thinking thrives in many fields, being a safe haven for political and
intellectual organizations midway between the pure abandonment of Marxism and unrestricted
adherence to neoliberal "democracy".
Gramsci became the prostitute of the neoliberals, as he was before that of the recycled
Stalinists when against "Trotskyism", whatever this was.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its
alive and well today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. The strong
(cognitive or physical) rule the weak. Any attempt at equalizing the disparity is labelled as
Socialism and is opposed in part for fears it promotes dysgenics.
Social Darwinism and Eugenics was certainly not owned by Fascists alone. Its alive and well
today and is used to justify neoliberal economics and imperialism. The strong (cognitive or
physical) rule the weak. Any attempt at equalizing the disparity is labelled as Socialism and
is opposed in part for fears it promotes dysgenics.
So since this blog entry is dedicated on "The delusions of grandeur that the
United States of America suffer", I will let you on a little secret....
I am doing this because USA is literally a midget and that is not my personal oppinion.
USA is as defenceless as a baby cockroach trying to find its way out of a stinky poophole using
as a nest.
God has a very strange sense of humor it seems.
For the love of me I can't figure out why He chose these clowns to pretend they are the
global superpower in order for Mankind to be bullied around.
It must be our collective sins!
I can understand, Rome, Persia, Greece, China, India, even some portions of European
history, but USA is a total joke.
... ... ...
So since this blog entry is dedicated on "The delusions of grandeur that the United States
of America suffer", I will let you on a little secret....
I am doing this because USA is literally a midget and that is not my personal oppinion.
USA is as defenceless as a baby cockroach trying to find its way out of a stinky poophole
using as a nest.
God has a very strange sense of humor it seems.
For the love of me I can't figure out why He chose these clowns to pretend they are the
global superpower in order for Mankind to be bullied around.
It must be our collective sins!
I can understand, Rome, Persia, Greece, China, India, even some portions of European
history, but USA is a total joke.
Darwin had it right I think. Or maybe it was the ancient Greeks. I'm trying pretty hard to
keep up here,eugenics might be partly responsible for that.
Thank Christ somebody broke in with news of that guy getting blowed up. Somebody said
Canada might be the culprit. Well, suck me dry and call me Dusty, I never heard of that
motherfucker and neither have any of my friends at the bar. Maybe it's because of that gal
who had a granddad that was a Uke who liked Nazi invaders better than the Russians. But she's
pretty busy right now trying deal with other stuff. Like the biggest trade deal in the
world.
I had been going to propose that the answer to all three questions was "Thrasymachus" (from
Plato's Republic) - but I see in checking my source that all that fine young man did actually
say was that justice is the advantage of the stronger, using as an example the rulers of
cities who order things to their own advantage. And indeed, the statement is refuted, which
causes the frightening man to blush...But best to read the original, as what Thrasymachus
represents looms larger in that setting and in the labyrinthian dialogue upon whose threshold
he makes his claim.
So back to current affairs !
England is now devided down the middle politically, as is a whole list of country's, to many
to mention. left and right increaseingly polerised ! Perhaps the most important being usa. If
we look at the right wing street violence in Germany this week, we see what is going to
happen all the way round very soon. This weeks violent aggressive protest is much much bigger
than people realise ! It was aimed at inocent people in the street, it was apparently
protesting about victems of western military aggression being in Germany. But not stateing
their victems, but the problem.
Last Sunday these nazi's and there simperfiers numbered 6000 but the truth is a large
proportion of the police present were on there side. Looking the other way when violence
occurred failing to arrest people doing the nazi salute. The coalition govenment has a large
part extreme right wing.
These next weeks determine which way western country's will swing. We can stop the nazi's on
the street's or we can except the consequences.
Whatever thing Trump and his minions (American allies, "Western Civilization") are doing
right now, they are just reestructuring already existing trade deals at best.
-//-
As for the "Greek" discussion. It's not a surprise Hitler took at least some inspiration
from the ancient Greek. From the 19th to early 20th Century, there was some kind of "Greek
revival" in Germany's academic circles. Take Nietzsche for example: he dialogues with the
Greeks (mainly Plato and Socrates) many times. Even that so-called Nazi historian (forgot his
name) focused on the ancient Greek. Hell, even Marx did his doctorate thesis over Epicurus.
So, Hitler essentially lived in the end of a "philellene" period of Germany.
I have been a student of the history of hemispheres and I see this as an abrupt redirect.
Several heavily destructive wars have been fought over this in just the last 55 years. LAND
REFORM is on the economic agenda. At the IMF indeed.
Even at this late stage, the right wing can be stopped peacefully! By sheer weight of numbers
alone. tomorrow again they plan a large demonstration. It's now time for the German public to
stand up against the reemergence of full blown hitler style fascism taking over there
country. And lastly a warning as shocking as it is you can no longer trust your police, they
are no longer on your side or on the side of law and order. I don't say this lightly ! I have
been following events closely !
Netanyahoo and David Irving arguing in the same direction regarding Hitler and
the slaughter of Europe's Jews. Wow.
Thanks, b, I didn't see the (scroll down) so leapt right to search engines and in: Vision and
Violence
Arthur P. Mendel · 1999 · Philosophy
from the Google Books access, found some pretty dundew'd up stuff. Are these really
quotations? Wow, eugenics must have been a thrill ride in the 1930s for a gimp.
"... Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite , in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital. ..."
Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite
, in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the
nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite
centralized on the control of global capital.
Thus, in his just-released study Giants: The Global
Power Elite , Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University
in the USA, identifies the world's top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and
J.P Morgan Chase, each with more than one trillion dollars of investment capital under
management, as the 'Giants' of world capitalism. The seventeen firms collectively manage more
than $US41.1 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the
globe.
This $41 trillion represents the wealth invested for profit by thousands of millionaires,
billionaires and corporations. The seventeen Giants operate in nearly every country in the
world and are 'the central institutions of the financial capital that powers the global
economic system'. They invest in anything considered profitable, ranging from 'agricultural
lands on which indigenous farmers are replaced by power elite investors' to public assets (such
as energy and water utilities) to war.
In addition, Phillips identifies the most important networks of the Global Power Elite and
the individuals therein. He names 389 individuals (a small number of whom are women and a token
number of whom are from countries other than the United States and the wealthier countries of
Western Europe) at the core of the policy planning nongovernmental networks that manage,
facilitate and defend the continued concentration of global capital. The Global Power Elite
perform two key uniting functions, he argues: they provide ideological justifications for their
shared interests (promulgated through their corporate media), and define the parameters of
action for transnational governmental organizations and capitalist nation-states.
More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 directors of the seventeen global financial
Giants and offers short biographies and public information on their individual net wealth.
These individuals are closely interconnected through numerous networks of association including
the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference, university affiliations,
various policy councils, social clubs, and cultural enterprises. For a taste of one of these
clubs, see this account of The Links in New York. As Phillips
observes: 'It is certainly safe to conclude they all know each other personally or know of each
other in the shared context of their positions of power.'
The Giants, Phillips documents, invest in each other but also in many hundreds of investment
management firms, many of which are near-Giants. This results in tens of trillions of dollars
coordinated in a single vast network of global capital controlled by a very small number of
people. 'Their constant objective is to find enough safe investment opportunities for a return
on capital that allows for continued growth. Inadequate capital-placement opportunities lead to
dangerous speculative investments, buying up of public assets, and permanent war spending.'
Because the directors of these seventeen asset management firms represent the central core
of international capital, 'Individuals can retire or pass away, and other similar people will
move into their place, making the overall structure a self-perpetuating network of global
capital control. As such, these 199 people share a common goal of maximum return on investments
for themselves and their clients, and they may seek to achieve returns by any means necessary
– legal or not . the institutional and structural arrangements within the money
management systems of global capital relentlessly seek ways to achieve maximum return on
investment, and the conditions for manipulations – legal or not – are always
present.'
Like some researchers before him, Phillips identifies the importance of those transnational
institutions that serve a unifying function. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, G20,
G7, World Trade Organization (WTO),
World Economic Forum (WEF), Trilateral
Commission, Bilderberg Group ,
Bank for International Settlements, Group of 30 (G30), the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Monetary
Conference serve as institutional mechanisms for consensus building within the transnational
capitalist class, and power elite policy formulation and implementation. 'These international
institutions serve the interests of the global financial Giants by supporting policies and
regulations that seek to protect the free, unrestricted flow of capital and debt collection
worldwide.'
But within this network of transnational institutions, Phillips identifies two very
important global elite policy-planning organizations: the Group of Thirty (which has 32 members) and the extended executive
committee of the Trilateral Commission
(which has 55 members). These nonprofit corporations, which each have a research and support
staff, formulate elite policy and issue instructions for their implementation by the
transnational governmental institutions like the G7, G20, IMF, WTO, and World Bank. Elite
policies are also implemented following instruction of the relevant agent, including
governments, in the context. These agents then do as they are instructed. Thus, these 85
members (because two overlap) of the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission comprise a
central group of facilitators of global capitalism, ensuring that 'global capital remains safe,
secure, and growing'.
So, while many of the major international institutions are controlled by nation-state
representatives and central bankers (with proportional power exercised by dominant financial
supporters such as the United States and European Union countries), Phillips is more concerned
with the transnational policy groups that are nongovernmental because these organizations 'help
to unite TCC power elites as a class' and the individuals involved in these organizations
facilitate world capitalism. 'They serve as policy elites who seek the continued growth of
capital in the world.'
Developing this list of 199 directors of the largest money management firms in the world,
Phillips argues, is an important step toward understanding how capitalism works globally today.
These global power elite directors make the decisions regarding the investment of trillions of
dollars. Supposedly in competition, the concentrated wealth they share requires them to
cooperate for their greater good by identifying investment opportunities and shared risk
agreements, and working collectively for political arrangements that create advantages for
their profit-generating system as a whole.
Their fundamental priority is to secure an average return on investment of 3 to 10 percent,
or even more. The nature of any investment is less important than what it yields: continuous
returns that support growth in the overall market. Hence, capital investment in tobacco
products, weapons of war, toxic chemicals, pollution, and other socially destructive goods and
services are judged purely by their profitability. Concern for the social and environmental
costs of the investment are non-existent. In other words, inflicting death and destruction are
fine because they are profitable.
So what is the global elite's purpose? In a few sentences Phillips characterizes it thus:
The elite is largely united in support of the US/NATO military empire that prosecutes a
repressive war against resisting groups – typically labeled 'terrorists' – around
the world. The real purpose of 'the war on terror' is defense of transnational globalization,
the unimpeded flow of financial capital around the world, dollar hegemony and access to oil; it
has nothing to do with repressing terrorism which it generates, perpetuates and finances to
provide cover for its real agenda. This is why the United States has a long history of CIA and
military interventions around the world ostensibly in defense of 'national
interests'.
An interesting point that emerges for me from reading Phillips thoughtful analysis is that
there is a clear distinction between those individuals and families who have wealth and those
individuals who have (sometimes significantly) less wealth (which, nevertheless, is still
considerable) but, through their positions and connections, wield a great deal of power. As
Phillips explains this distinction, 'the sociology of elites is more important than particular
elite individuals and their families'. Just 199 individuals decide how more than $40 trillion
will be invested. And this is his central point. Let me briefly elaborate.
There are some really wealthy families in the world, notably including the families
Rothschild (France and the United Kingdom), Rockefeller (USA), Goldman-Sachs (USA), Warburgs
(Germany), Lehmann (USA), Lazards (France), Kuhn Loebs (USA), Israel Moses Seifs (Italy),
Al-Saud (Saudi Arabia), Walton (USA), Koch (USA), Mars (USA), Cargill-MacMillan (USA) and Cox
(USA). However, not all of these families overtly seek power to shape the world as they
wish.
Similarly, the world's extremely wealthy individuals such as Jeff Bezos (USA), Bill Gates
(USA), Warren Buffett (USA), Bernard Arnault (France), Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico) and Francoise
Bettencourt Meyers (France) are not necessarily connected in such a way that they exercise
enormous power. In fact, they may have little interest in power as such, despite their obvious
interest in wealth.
In essence, some individuals and families are content to simply take advantage of how
capitalism and its ancilliary governmental and transnational instruments function while others
are more politically engaged in seeking to manipulate major institutions to achieve outcomes
that not only maximize their own profit and hence wealth but also shape the world itself.
So if you look at the list of 199 individuals that Phillips identifies at the centre of
global capital, it does not include names such as Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Koch, Walton or even
Rothschild, Rockefeller or Windsor (the Queen of England) despite their well-known and
extraordinary wealth. As an aside, many of these names are also missing from the lists compiled
by groups such as Forbes and
Bloomberg , but their
absence from these lists is for a very different reason given the penchant for many really
wealthy individuals and families to avoid certain types of publicity and their power to ensure
that they do.
In contrast to the names just listed, in Phillips' analysis names like Laurence (Larry) Fink
(Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), James (Jamie) Dimon (Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and
John McFarlane (Chairman of Barclays Bank), while not as wealthy as those listed immediately
above, wield far more power because of their positions and connections within the global elite
network of 199 individuals.
Predictably then, Phillips observes, these three individuals have similar lifestyles and
ideological orientations. They believe capitalism is beneficial for the world and while
inequality and poverty are important issues, they believe that capital growth will eventually
solve these problems. They are relatively non-expressive about environmental issues, but
recognize that investment opportunities may change in response to climate 'modifications'. As
millionaires they own multiple homes. They attended elite universities and rose quickly in
international finance to reach their current status as giants of the global power elite. 'The
institutions they manage have been shown to engage in illegal collusions with others, but the
regulatory fines by governments are essentially seen as just part of doing business.'
In short, as I would characterize this description: They are devoid of a legal or moral
framework to guide their actions, whether in relation to business, fellow human beings, war or
the environment and climate. They are obviously typical of the elite.
Any apparent concern for people, such as that expressed by Fink and Dimon in response to the
racist violence in Charlottesville, USA in August 2017, is simply designed to promote
'stability' or more precisely, a stable (that is, profitable) investment and consumer
climate.
The lack of concern for people and issues that might concern many of us is also evident from
a consideration of the agenda at elite gatherings. Consider the International Monetary
Conference. Founded in 1956, it is a private yearly meeting of the top few hundred bankers in
the world. The American Bankers Association (ABA) serves as the secretariat for the conference.
But, as Phillips notes: 'Nothing on the agenda seems to address the socioeconomic consequences
of investments to determine the impacts on people and the environment.' A casual perusal of the
agenda at any elite gathering reveals that this comment applies equally to any elite forum.
See, for example, the agenda of the recent WEF meeting in
Davos . Any talk of 'concern' is misleading rhetoric.
Hence, in the words of Phillips: The 199 directors of the global Giants are 'a very select
set of people. They all know each other personally or know of each other. At least 69 have
attended the annual World Economic Forum, where they often serve on panels or give public
presentations. They mostly attended the same elite universities, and interact in upperclass
social setting[s] in the major cities of the world. They all are wealthy and have significant
stock holdings in one or more of the financial Giants. They are all deeply invested in the
importance of maintaining capital growth in the world. Some are sensitive to environmental and
social justice issues, but they seem to be unable to link these issues to global capital
concentration.'
Of course, the global elite cannot manage the world system alone: the elite requires agents
to perform many of the functions necessary to control national societies and the individuals
within them. 'The interests of the Global Power Elite and the TCC are fully recognized by major
institutions in society. Governments, intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police
forces, military, and corporate media all work in support of their vital interests.'
In other words, to elaborate Phillips' point and extend it a little, through their economic
power, the Giants control all of the instruments through which their policies are implemented.
Whether it be governments, national military forces, 'military contractors' or mercenaries
(with at least $200 billion spent on private security globally, the industry currently employs
some fifteen million people worldwide) used both in 'foreign' wars but also likely deployed in
future for domestic control, key 'intelligence' agencies, legal systems and police forces,
major nongovernment organizations, or the academic, educational, 'public relations propaganda',
corporate media, medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, all instruments are fully
responsive to elite control and are designed to misinform, deceive, disempower, intimidate,
repress, imprison (in a jail or psychiatric ward), exploit and/or kill (depending on the
constituency) the rest of us, as is readily evident.
Defending Elite Power
Phillips observes that the power elite continually worries about rebellion by the 'unruly
exploited masses' against their structure of concentrated wealth. This is why the US military
empire has long played the role of defender of global capitalism. As a result, the United
States has more than 800 military bases (with some scholars suggesting 1,000) in 70 countries
and territories. In comparison, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia have about 30 foreign
bases. In addition, US military forces are now deployed in 70 percent of the world's nations
with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) having troops in 147 countries, an increase of 80
percent since 2010. These forces conduct counterterrorism strikes regularly, including drone
assassinations and kill/capture raids.
'The US military empire stands on hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and continues
to support repressive, exploitative governments that cooperate with global capital's imperial
agenda. Governments that accept external capital investment, whereby a small segment of a
country's elite benefits, do so knowing that capital inevitably requires a return on investment
that entails using up resources and people for economic gain. The whole system continues wealth
concentration for elites and expanded wretched inequality for the masses .
'Understanding permanent war as an economic relief valve for surplus capital is a vital part
of comprehending capitalism in the world today. War provides investment opportunity for the
Giants and TCC elites and a guaranteed return on capital. War also serves a repressive function
of keeping the suffering masses of humanity afraid and compliant.'
As Phillips elaborates: This is why defense of global capital is the prime reason that NATO
countries now account for 85 percent of the world's military spending; the United States spends
more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
In essence, 'the Global Power Elite uses NATO and the US military empire for its worldwide
security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world,
whereby the US/ NATO military empire, advised by the power elite's Atlantic Council , operates in service to the
Transnational Corporate Class for the protection of international capital everywhere in the
world'.
This entails 'further pauperization of the bottom half of the world's population and an
unrelenting downward spiral of wages for 80 percent of the world. The world is facing economic
crisis, and the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security. It is
a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to economic collapse is to print
more money through quantitative easing, flooding the population with trillions of new
inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction
requires further spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the Giants and global networks of
economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, death, and
destruction, at home and abroad.'
Where is this all heading?
So what are the implications of this state of affairs? Phillips responds unequivocally:
'This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war,
starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching a
species-level threat. We realize that humankind is in danger of possible extinction'.
He goes on to state that the Global Power Elite is probably the only entity 'capable of
correcting this condition without major civil unrest, war, and chaos' and elaborates an
important aim of his book: to raise awareness of the importance of systemic change and the
redistribution of wealth among both the book's general readers but also the elite, 'in the hope
that they can begin the process of saving humanity.' The book's postscript is a 'A Letter to
the Global Power Elite', co-signed by Phillips and 90 others, beseeching the elite to act
accordingly.
'It is no longer acceptable for you to believe that you can manage capitalism to grow its
way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution
and waste, and civil unrest is everywhere inevitable at some point. Humanity needs you to step
up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every
family, and all human beings. We urge you to use your power and make the needed changes for
humanity's survival.'
But he also emphasizes that nonviolent social movements, using the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights as a moral code, can accelerate the process of redistributing wealth by pressuring
the elite into action.
Conclusion
Peter Phillips has written an important book. For those of us interested in understanding
elite control of the world, this book is a vital addition to the bookshelf. And like any good
book, as you will see from my comments both above and below, it raised more questions for me
even while it answered many.
For this reason I do not share his faith in moral appeals to the elite, as articulated in
the letter in his postscript. It is fine to make the appeal but history offers no evidence to
suggest that there will be any significant response. The death and destruction inflicted by
elites is highly profitable, centuries-old and ongoing. It will take powerful,
strategically-focused nonviolent campaigns (or societal collapse) to compel the necessary
changes in elite behavior. Hence, I fully endorse his call for nonviolent social movements to
compel elite action where we cannot make the necessary changes without their involvement. See
'A Nonviolent Strategy to End Violence and Avert Human Extinction' and Nonviolent Campaign Strategy .
Fundamentally, Giants: The Global
Power Elite is a call to action. Professor Peter Phillips is highly aware of our
predicament – politically, socially, economically, environmentally and climatically
– and the critical role played by the global power elite in generating that
predicament.
If we cannot persuade the global power elite to respond sensibly to that predicament, or
nonviolently compel it to do so, humanity's time on Earth is indeed limited.
*
Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence.
He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are
violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of 'Why Violence?' His email address
is [email protected]
and his website is here . He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
"... Western media monopolies, appendages of the billionaire ruling class, select for narratives which glorify criminal foreign policies. Hence, these monopolies are cheerleaders for uninterrupted wars of aggression. ..."
"... Ruling class policymakers hide their criminality beneath banners of freedom, democracy, and human rights. [1] These lies provide cover for what amounts to a Western- orchestrated and sustained overseas holocaust and the thirdworldization of domestic populations. ..."
"... The lies and misplaced adulation also serve to legitimize the West's proxies, which include al Qaeda [2] in Syria, and neo-Nazis [3] in Kiev. ..."
"... The adulation, then, is part of the apparatus of deception. It brands those who should be facing trials at the Hague as heroes, as it erases the truth, which is a vital component for Peace and International Justice. ..."
Western media monopolies, appendages of the billionaire ruling class, select for
narratives which glorify criminal foreign policies. Hence, these monopolies are
cheerleaders for uninterrupted wars of aggression.
Ruling class policymakers hide their criminality beneath banners of freedom,
democracy, and human rights. [1] These lies provide cover for what amounts to a
Western- orchestrated and sustained overseas holocaust and the thirdworldization
of domestic populations.
The lies are further reinforced when those who advance these toxic policies are
celebrated as heroes. This misplaced adulation negates the struggle for Peace
and the rule of International Law. The lies and misplaced adulation also serve
to legitimize the West's proxies, which include al Qaeda [2] in Syria, and
neo-Nazis [3] in Kiev.
What's great thing about the pic accompanying this piece
in the Washington Post sanctifying McCain as a human
rights advocate is that the guy to his left is an actual
Nazi. He's Oleh Tyahnybok, a Ukrainian Nazi. Too good!
The adulation, then, is part of the apparatus of deception. It brands those who
should be facing trials at the Hague as heroes, as it erases the truth, which is
a vital component for Peace and International Justice.
Once the spy agencies become the controlling element a government degenerates into a
regime or imperium depending upon its level of power.
The rule of law is sidelined and a cynical form of dictatorship develops.
Britain, the US and all anglophone countries are exhibiting the results of this sort of
evolution.
It is more dangerous now than when the historical odious tyrannies ran riot during the
'30s and '40s of last century because technology has advanced to the point that their
continuance is a threat to our survival as a species.
Samuel Moyn's review of Michael Walzer's A Foreign
Policy for the Left is worth reading in its entirety. This passage jumped out at me:
Walzer's attempt to snatch the promise of American intervention from the jaws of recent
horrors shows the need to repeat the litany. The left has long since learned how difficult it
is to respond to those who laughed when it tried to save the pure idea of communism from its
totalitarian applications. Walzer applies the same strategy to humanitarian intervention, as
if it might work better in this case.
Remarkably, Walzer does not even mention the Libyan intervention in 2011 [bold mine-DL],
which -- like the Iraq War -- has left hopes for militarized humanism in shambles. Ever since
Democrats and their allies abroad acted to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi under the cover of
humanitarian protection, the possibility of insulating the so-called "responsibility to
protect" civilians abroad from great power designs and horrendous long-term outcomes has
become incredible. Much like a stock newsletter touting a new strategy to beat the odds after
a market crash, the promise of a better scheme for picking winners among prospective
interventions has become unbelievable, at least for now. For Walzer, however, the priority is
to chide fellow leftists for failing to defend the option of humanitarian intervention in
theory, not to understand today why almost nobody thinks it improves the world in
practice.
It seems strange that Walzer wouldn't mention the Libyan war at all in this book. As Moyn
says, it is extremely relevant to the debate over "humanitarian" interventions and their
consequences. What makes this omission even more striking is that Walzer was a public
opponent of the Libyan war when it happened. Walzer opened his article written at
the start of the intervention with this statement:
There are so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where
to begin.
Walzer was absolutely right to oppose the Libyan war, and his early arguments against it
were very similar to some my own objections. That makes his decision not to mention the Libyan
war or his opposition to it that much more difficult to understand. He could have cited his
opposition as an example of good judgment and proof that he could distinguish between necessary
and unnecessary wars, but for whatever reason he didn't do that. Libya is one of the chief
examples most people today would think of when discussing the merits and flaws of
"humanitarian" intervention, but apparently Walzer doesn't think it is worth talking about. It
is even odder that Walzer would make defending "humanitarian" interventionism the focus of his
book when he saw very clearly then how easily the rhetoric of protecting civilians could be
abused to launch an unjustified war.
"... Maximum pressure usually just provokes maximum resistance, and it leads to more of the behavior that the pressure campaign was supposed to stop. ..."
"... Our policymakers rarely, if ever, learn much of anything from our government's past blunders and crimes. If they acknowledge that previous policies failed, they are reluctant to admit that the policies were certain to fail. It is much more common for policymakers and pundits to blame the failure of our policies abroad on the inadequacies of our proxies and allies or the designs of our adversaries. The fact that these policies can be undone so easily by obvious and foreseeable problems does not seem to matter. There are not many that are willing to accept that a policy failed because it was inherently unsound. ..."
"... Real learning is impossible without a willingness to question and then discard faulty assumptions, and far too many of our policymakers and political leaders won't ever get rid of certain assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Once someone takes for granted that the U.S. has both the right and the authority to meddle in the affairs of other states and dictate their policies to them on pain of collective punishment and/or war, he is likely to see the pursuit of regime change in other lands as being almost synonymous with American "leadership" itself. ..."
"... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair. ..."
"... The largest donor to re-election campaigns are the military industrial complex, and it is always in their best interest to start or continue more wars. Since they are the ones that control the money, it is always in the interest of elected representatives to support starting or continuing wars. ..."
"... "When will we ever learn?" When will war cease to be profitable for those that have, or claim, War Powers? ..."
"... One should not mistake the useful "bolt-on" careerists that might or might not be true believers in the Great Gamble with the profiteers that have the actual power. The oligarchs and the arms manufacturers do not care whether the policies are wrong or right, failed or successful, as long as there is blood money to be made. If anything, failure in perpetuity is a guarantor of future cash flow and continued rent extraction. ..."
"... When it comes to their relationship with the world, empires do not learn. They bully. Why should the policy makers learn? They are the invincable empire. They can bully and pounce without consequences, no matter the outcome. Learning is for weaklings who need that in order to survive. ..."
"... As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers -- that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: "follow the money." ..."
"... When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
Thomas Pickering explains that the Trump
administration's Iran policy is doomed to fail on its own terms:
The policy of maximum pressure and unachievable demands is based on deeply flawed
assumptions about Iran and the wise use of American power.
Pickering is describing Trump's Iran policy here, but he could just as easily be talking
about the president's handling of many other issues. The Trump administration insists on
demanding that other governments capitulate, make sweeping concessions that would overturn most
of their current policies, and then punishes them if the other side refuses to comply with
insane ultimatums. No one responds well to being dictated to, and that is particularly true of
regimes that have made opposition to the U.S. a major part of their reigning ideology.
Maximum pressure usually just provokes maximum resistance, and it leads to more of the
behavior that the pressure campaign was supposed to stop.
Later on in his column, Pickering reviews the sorry record of U.S.-sponsored regime change
and then asks:
When will we ever learn?
If the last two decades are anything to go by, the answer is never. Our policymakers
rarely, if ever, learn much of anything from our government's past blunders and crimes. If they
acknowledge that previous policies failed, they are reluctant to admit that the policies were
certain to fail. It is much more common for policymakers and pundits to blame the failure of
our policies abroad on the inadequacies of our proxies and allies or the designs of our
adversaries. The fact that these policies can be undone so easily by obvious and foreseeable
problems does not seem to matter. There are not many that are willing to accept that a policy
failed because it was inherently unsound.
"We" never learn because so many of our political leaders and analysts don't think that our
failed policies were wrong in themselves. The only thing that they are interested in knowing is
how to implement the same bad ideas more "effectively" the next time. These are the people that
still think that preventive war and regime change are appropriate policy options when done the
"right" way. Real learning is impossible without a willingness to question and then discard
faulty assumptions, and far too many of our policymakers and political leaders won't ever get
rid of certain assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Once someone takes for granted
that the U.S. has both the right and the authority to meddle in the affairs of other states and
dictate their policies to them on pain of collective punishment and/or war, he is likely to see
the pursuit of regime change in other lands as being almost synonymous with American
"leadership" itself.
While I appreciate your optimism I am far more cynical. Our leaders won't learn for the
same reason tobacco companies rejected evidence that smoking is bad for you.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his
not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair.
The largest donor to re-election campaigns are the military industrial complex, and it is
always in their best interest to start or continue more wars. Since they are the ones that
control the money, it is always in the interest of elected representatives to support
starting or continuing wars.
There is no money to be made in peace. Everything else, sadly, is just window
dressing.
A sound conclusion based on accumulated evidence is hard to refute. But 2 decades? Nah,
more like 5, at least for those who remember Vietnam, a case in which political affiliation
ultimately didn't matter to those pursuing the inevitable conclusion of the mistakes they
believed they could set right. LBJ got us into it and Nixon, having committed treason by
secretly undermining the peace negotiations while running in '68, 'finished the job' by
keeping us there 4 more years, at a huge cost in American lives that far exceeded the
casualty toll in the more recent debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The real reason why is because the US is so rich even George W Bush's $2 Trillion blunder
in Iraq is something a $20T economy can shrug off. How long that remains the case against a
resurgent China is anyone's guess.
"our political leaders and analysts don't think that our failed policies were wrong in
themselves"
One should not mistake the useful "bolt-on" careerists that might or might not be true
believers in the Great Gamble with the profiteers that have the actual power. The oligarchs
and the arms manufacturers do not care whether the policies are wrong or right, failed or
successful, as long as there is blood money to be made. If anything, failure in perpetuity is
a guarantor of future cash flow and continued rent extraction.
Mr. Larison is an American Republican in the original sense of the word in my view. But I
get the feeling he does not realize that when it comes to foreign policy, the US is not a
republic. It is an empire. It only is a republic at home.
When it comes to their relationship with the world, empires do not learn. They bully. Why
should the policy makers learn? They are the invincable empire. They can bully and pounce
without consequences, no matter the outcome.
Learning is for weaklings who need that in order to survive.
Empires do not learn, they fall. Either military or financially. Till that day comes, no learning!
Good to hear from Tom Pickering. I'm very glad his generation retains its voice and
contributes to the foreign policy debate. Sometimes it seems like it's all punk kids and
neocons who either don't know what the hell they're talking about or are lobbying for a
foreign country. More Pickering please, and less of the other stuff.
As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no
persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the
actual powers -- that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have
been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that
invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: "follow the money."
When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been
wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and
shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to
say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must
surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
So U.S. soldiers get killed, so Palestinians get insulted, robbed, and confined to a set
of squalid concentration areas, so the "peace process" never gets far from square one,
etc., etc. -- none of this makes the policies failures; these things are all surface froth,
costs not born by the policy makers themselves but by the cannon-fodder masses, the bovine
taxpayers at large, and foreigners who count for nothing.
America's brave troopers today fight for freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, all the
while yearning, as FDR said, "for the end of battle" when they can return home. They are not
there to seize natural resources or to pump up a president's approval ratings–nor, for
all of my differences with President Obama, do I believe he has ordered troops into harm's
way for such nefarious purposes.
If that isn't the exact opposite of truth, I don't know what is.
As a matter of fact, RPI recently ran a
fantastic editorial by Jessica Pavoni, who was a member of the military, but sought to
leave the Air Force as a conscientious objector after learning that the Max Boots of the world
were spinning false tales.
Not only has the Empire managed to bring the exact opposite of freedom to "Afghanistan, Iraq
and beyond," but it has also accomplished the snuffing out of freedom here at home as well.
Groping at the airports, the monitoring of all our communications and finances, as well as the
militarized local police (See: Boston & Ferguson) are just a few potent examples.
Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel is
now trying to scare the pants off Americans once again:
ISIL poses a threat greater than 9/11. ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group
we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group This is way beyond anything we have seen.
The Empire wants more!
Max Boot, the fantasy storyteller, is helping to grease the wheels.
Most of US Russiagate charges are projection. Russiagate is a color
revolution of the block of neoliberals and neocons to depose Trump. They are
afraid of too many skeletons in the closet to allow Trump to finish his
term. And for a right reason. Trump is unpredictable and he at one moment
can turn on them and start revealing unpleasant truth about Bush II and
Obama.
But rumors about the demise of the US neoliberal empire are slightly
exaggerated ;-). Without providing an alternative model to neoliberalism and
without ethnological superiority China does not stand a chance.
Notable quotes:
"... Through endless repetition, allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia. ..."
"... Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures & keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance & hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth! ..."
"... Their claim to One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than 100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology development system (DARPA) ..."
"... other Nations may reach a saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the realization that this crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped, once & for all time! ..."
It was around 1898, when America first starting thinking it was the center of the universe.
In that year the U.S. intervened in Cuba's war for independence and proceeded to take over
parts of the decrepit Spanish Empire, from Latin America to the Philippines. Shortly before, in
1893, the U.S. overthrew the Queen of Hawaii on behalf of U.S.-backed sugar and pineapple
plantation owners.
That led to a long history of political interference in other countries, in the form of
destabilization, coups and invasions. Once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, a narrative was
fostered to justify expanding NATO to Russia's borders.
In the last four years, anti-Russian propaganda has reached a fever pitch: lies about
Russia's "expansionism" in Ukraine; hype about Russia's "meddling" in the U.S. elections,
creating an existential "threat to democracy;" unproven allegations of Russia using chemical
weapons to poison the Skripals in London. Experts are trotted out on major media to further the
narrative without hard evidence. Together with think-tanks, the American and British media run
these stories daily with almost no counter news or opinions. Through endless repetition,
allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these
unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia.
In 2004, journalist Ron Suskind wrote in The New York Times magazine that a top White
House strategist for President George W. Bush -- identified later as Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy
White House Chief of Staff -- told him, "We're an empire now; we create our own reality."
Swiss journalist, Guy Mettan, in his 2017 book, Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious
Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria, writes that the West's psycho-social pathology
about Russia dates back over 1,000 years to the division of Christendom between the Orthodox
and Roman churches. The U.S. is a relative newcomer to this, but seeks perhaps its biggest
role.
" More than merely dominate, the American superpower now seeks to control history," Mettan
says.
Myth of Russian Expansionism
The astute University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer exposed how the West provoked
the Ukraine crisis in his 2014 Foreign Affairs article,
"Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin."
But the American foreign policy establishment and media remain committed to the suppression of
facts about the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev and the resulting escalating tensions with Russia.
Ignoring or fabricating evidence, the U.S. and NATO persist in
lying that Russia has expansionist goals in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. Russia is helping
ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine who are resisting the coup, Crimea (which had been part
of Russia since 1783 and transferred by the Soviets to Ukraine in 1954) held a referendum in
2014 in which the public voted to rejoin Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in to
help fight Western and Gulf-backed jihadists trying to violently overthrow the government, as
even then Secretary of State John Kerry admitted .
Another scholar, Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University
of Kent, writes in his latest book, Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order, that the
Ukraine crisis crystallized the profound differences between Russia and the West, differences
that are not just a replay of the "Cold War."
Simply put, under the banner of the indispensable "liberal world order," neo-conservative
warriors and "democracy"-spreading-"humanitarian-interventionists"
are promoting the Russophobia "reality" to justify American hegemony.
Ditching Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn : Ditched when he turned on America. (Wikimedia Commons)
One of the greatest illustrations of the centuries-old Russophobia, says Mettan in his 2017
book, is the case of Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
" During the 1990s, I was shocked by the way the West treated Solzhenitsyn," Mettan wrote.
"For decades, we had published, celebrated, and acclaimed the great writer as bearing the torch
of anti-Soviet dissidence," but only when he criticized his communist Russia. But after moving
to the U.S., when Solzhenitsyn showed a preference for privacy "rather than attending
anticommunist conferences, western media and academics began to distance themselves."
And when Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia and spoke out against Russian 'westernizers' and
liberals who denied Russian interests, he was labeled "an outdated, senile writer," though he
had not changed his fundamental views on freedom.
After the mid-July, Trump-Putin Helsinki summit, there were countless mass media delusions
and hysteria against U.S.-Russia ties, reminiscent of the Hearst newspaper empire's propaganda
that whipped up a frenzy to support the empire-building war against Spain in 1898. Professor
Stephen Kinzer vividly described the unsuccessful battle by prestigious anti-imperialists
against the power of the Hearst propaganda in his latest book, The True Flag:Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire."
Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed
U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia.
Do we have enough good sense left to follow the advice of Henry David Thoreau: "Let us
settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion,
and prejudice till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality."
Or, as I thought when I visited Galileo's house that day in the Florentine hills: the world
does not revolve around America.
Jean Ranc is a retired psychologist/research associate at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Wonderful observations that challenge the complete and utter madness of our times here in
the U.S., and the West in general. The inquisitorial "accusations" leveled against Putin and
Russia by the West bear no more resemblance to "reality" than the lunatic accusations that
the Holy Inquisition leveled against "witches," "heretics" and "non-believers" for centuries
as it used terror to consolidate power. Given the ever more shrill and painfully persistent
nature of these ongoing nonsense anti-Russian accusations – it would appear more and
more of us in the West are falling into the category of – "non-believers."
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:45 pm
A very good post Gary. The West is decadent and corrupt.Whatever high moral grounds the
West once held, I am afraid they are either forgotten or totally gone.
Delightful piece to read, great comments as usual. I can only add that the neocolonialists
who don't want to give up leading the US over the edge, as mike says "into the abyss", will
be forced to change their ways, well stated by Babylon and others. The tragedy of what they
have done by their narcissistic, egoistic, delusional misleading, is that they have wrecked
the lives of millions worldwide. But of course, that is the story of deluded conquerors until
they meet their own end. I welcome the sun setting on the "American Century"; a sharp reset
awaits us all but we should welcome it.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Jessika: the saddest part in all this is that they still continue to wreck and decimate
lives worldwide. It is like a cancer eating and obliterating every thing in their path. A
very incisive post.
The cancer is psychopathy! These people have no conscience or empathy. They are liars and
manipulators. They treat people like objects to be used and abused. Until America admits that
we've had a substantial percentage of psychopathic leaders and mentality, from the Puritans
forward, we will never recover from the psychological, social, economic, political, legal,
religious destruction this ilk has forced upon the rest of us. It took me deep research and
therapy to discover that psychopaths project themselves onto the rest of us and then claim we
are somehow damaged, flawed or have sinful human nature. The problem has always been the
psychopaths among us (1%) who have created hierarchies and placed themselves atop them. They
have bamboozled most of us with their lies but as we wake up to their games, we can kick them
out of power and we can create a country of the 99% with conscience and empathy rather than a
country of slaveowners and deluded "Israelites" who believed they had the right to exploit,
enslave, kill
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:36 am
It's not sad, it's what's deathcult tyrants & dying Empires do, they take as many
victims as they can, once they realise the end is nigh! It's a mass shooter mentality &
it's disgraceful!
JR , August 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm
HI Jessika,
I tried to find you while I was still living in NH as I got the idea you live there as well.
I had lived in the Dartmouth area in the 70's but the brutal winters were too much! this time
around so I returned to my home base here in Chapel Hill. If you'd like to be in touch, you
can reach me at my old-but-still-good Santa Fe address: [email protected]
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 5:37 pm
American egotism is legendary. It is the defining mark of the breed. Ignorant know-it-alls
lead us confidently into the abyss.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Mike: If American leaders that are in control of the country have studied history of any
empire, they would come to the realization that empires do not last forever. The illogical
part is that empire's life expectancy has been more or less the same worldwide. And like an
opened book the end is closing in and they know it.
Realist , August 28, 2018 at 5:00 pm
Excellent bit of necessary truth-telling. Too bad it won't be read in most of America, not
because the people would reject its premise, but because their keepers just won't let them
see it in the highly manipulated mass media.
America has repeatedly become what it most professes to hate: first an onerous empire like
Spain, then a pack of fascists like Nazi Germany, and now totalitarian tyrants like the
Soviets. Welcome to the truth, the one NOT fabricated by Rove's inheritors of empire.
Babyl-on , August 28, 2018 at 4:32 pm
This thought is so important to understand if you are to make any sense of the new
multi-polar world which does not revolve around the failing Western empire.
China's Belt and Road is a catalyst but China will benefit only through the
interconnection of the entire Eurasian land mass – sooner than you think, high-speed
trains will cross the steppes. That is the new world the Enlightenment era is dead the
Eurasian era is opening. Eurasia will trade most naturally with Africa and it will prosper
because The US Empire is the last of the Enlightenment white European empires.
When you consider the integration of the great Eurasian land mass for the first time is
history (the ancient Silk Road writ large) it's easy to forget about a US over there
separated by all that water from the thriving markets.
Those oceans which protected the center of power from attack now are a big disadvantage in
trade.
We are witnessing the end of the Enlightenment and the end of Empire which it spawned.
China is not imperial, Russia is not imperial – no country today seeks empire but
the US and they are failing in every way. Western Liberal Democracy also died with the
Enlightenment, new forms of governance and culture will develop, the sky really is the limit,
now that the old dead Enlightenment is moving out of the way.
It would be a brighter future if not for that pesky climate.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:51 am
Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures &
keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance &
hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth!
Russia
& China are the future with the one belt, one road initiative & America is being left
in the rear view mirror & is on the path to total oblivion thanks to its warmongering
ways! The end of this corrupt American Empire can't come soon enough for people who want to
live in peace!
Egocentrism isn't just a Donald Trump thing, it's an American thing. America's
never-ending RussiaGate narrative is a classic example of psychological projection. It can't
be US who has the problem, it must be THEM who has the problem. Time to own it.
paraphrasing J. Pilger -- America should leave the rest of the world
alone -- leave it alone
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:15 am
Yes, I second what Mr Pilger stated & I will add a few more requests? "Leave the
World" alone! Stop your Warmongering interference in other Countries affairs! Immediately
stop all your murderous Wars, Coups & Financial & Economic terrorism such as
weaponising the dollar & Trade sanctions to illegally punish other Nations! Abide by
International Laws & the U.N. charter! Remove your 800 bases from around the World &
stick to your own backyard! Stop being the Worlds Policeman because no one asked you to
perform this role! Look after your own people first & stop wasting trillions of dollars
on the pointless & stupid Military Industrial Complex! Ban Campaign lobbyists & big
money from Politics! Jail all corrupt Corporates & thieving Bankers, Politicians &
seize their assets! These are a few things for a start! There are many more things you could
do more numerous to name here, but the main thing is LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! We are sick to
death of this American Empire!
Sally Snyder , August 28, 2018 at 2:28 pm
Here is what Americans really think about the anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Less than half of Americans believe that Russia's interference in the 2016 election made a
difference to the final outcome and nearly six in ten Americans believe that it is important
that Washington continue to improve relations with Moscow.
Jeff Harrison , August 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm
When you get to the end of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six volumes of dense,
erudite prose which details the failings of a decadent society, Gibbon lets you in on a
secret. The Roman Empire was militarily defeated. Not all at once, mind. But militarily
defeated nonetheless. Consider what that means for the US.
RnM , August 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Rome became a victim of its success, being overstretched beyond their war technology
(horses, shields, swords and siege machines.)
My inability and unwillingness to predict the end of the rise of The Empire of "We the
People" and its brand of War Technologies, is due to my close perspective and life-long
Bernaiseian (?sp) brainwashing by the mass media, which, thankfully, has, since 2016, been
dealt a blow to the mask on their (the corporate media's) Totalitarian nature.
Their claim to
One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than
100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology
development system (DARPA). So, in the American attempt to surpass the Romans, the Empire of
We the People (as a Totalitarian dystopia) may well be thwarted by the spread of open
information. I hope so. The alternative might be very difficult to defeat.
Jeff, if you enjoyed Gibbons, I think you would really enjoy Michael Parenti's, "The
Assassination of Julius Caesar". There are so many parallels between the late Roman Republic
and today's America. Michael got his PhD in political science and history from Yale and
writes "people's history". He argues convincingly that Caesar was assassinated -- - not for
being an egomaniac and dictator -- - but because he stood up against the most elite in the
senate by seeking reforms that would benefit the masses. He actually argues that Gibbons
wrote as a historian from the priviledged class and therefore never condemned the senate for
exploiting the masses.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:34 am
Yes, what it means,& if History is anything to go by, that other Nations may reach a
saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the
realization that this
crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped,
once & for all time!
The Roman Empire never saw the Barbarian hordes such as the
Visigoth's, Huns & Vandals coming until it was to late! Will the American Empire see
there downfall coming? 9/11 proved the arrogant American Empire couldn't even see that event
coming, due to their own hubris & complacency!
If the paeans to McCain by diverse political climbers seems detached from reality, it's
because they reflect the elite view of U.S. military interventions as a chess game, with the
millions killed by unprovoked aggression mere statistics.
Kinesis is not just a cryptocurrency, Kinesis combines the best of the old world and the
new, bringing the most stable and secure forms of currency, gold and silver, to the consumer,
in digital form.
As the Cold War entered its final act in 1985, journalist Helena Cobban participated in an
academic conference at an upscale resort near Tucson, Arizona, on U.S.-Soviet interactions in
the Middle East. When she attended what was listed as the "Gala Dinner with keynote speech",
she quickly learned that the virtual theme of the evening was, "Adopt a Muj."
"I remember mingling with all of these wealthy Republican women from the Phoenix suburbs and
being asked, 'Have you adopted a muj?" Cobban told me. "Each one had pledged money to sponsor a
member of the Afghan mujahedin in the name of beating the communists. Some were even seated at
the event next to their personal 'muj.'"
The keynote speaker of the evening, according to Cobban, was a hard-charging freshman member
of Congress named John McCain.
During the Vietnam war, McCain had been captured by the North Vietnamese Army after being
shot down on his way to bomb a civilian lightbulb factory. He spent two years in solitary
confinement and underwent torture that left him with crippling injuries. McCain returned from
the war with a deep, abiding loathing of his former captors, remarking as late as 2000, "I hate
the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." After he was criticized for the racist remark,
McCain
refused to apologize. "I was referring to my prison guards," he said, "and I will continue
to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture
of my friends."
'Hanoi Hilton' prison where McCain was tortured. (Wikimedia Commons)
McCain's visceral resentment informed his vocal support for the mujahedin as well as the
right-wing contra death squads in Central America -- any proxy group sworn to the destruction
of communist governments.
So committed was McCain to the anti-communist cause that in the mid-1980s he had joined
the advisory board of the United States Council for World Freedom, the American affiliate of
the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, a former leader of WACL's
British chapter who had turned against the group in 1974, described the organization as "a
collection of Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racialists, and
corrupt self-seekers. It has evolved into an anti-Semitic international."
Joining McCain in the organization were notables such as Jaroslav Stetsko, the Croatian Nazi
collaborator who helped oversee the extermination of 7,000 Jews in 1941; the brutal Argentinian
former dictator Jorge Rafael Videla; and Guatemalan death squad leader Mario Sandoval Alarcon.
Then-President Ronald Reagan honored the group for playing"a leadership role in drawing
attention to the gallant struggle now being waged by the true freedom fighters of our
day."
Being Lauded as a Hero
On the occasion of his death, McCain is being honored in much the same way -- as a patriotic
hero and freedom fighter for democracy. A stream of hagiographies is pouring forth from the
Beltway press corps that he described as his true political base. Among McCain's most
enthusiastic groupies is CNN's Jake Tapper, whom he chose as his personal stenographer for a
2000 trip to Vietnam. When the former CNN host Howard Kurtz asked Tapper in February, 2000,
"When you're on the [campaign] bus, do you make a conscious effort not to fall under the
magical McCain spell?"
Trending Articles "Exuberance Is Back:" Investing In Ferraris
Better Bet
As US stocks hit record highs, a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO offered by sold in Monterey,
California on Saturday for a
"Oh, you can't. You become like Patty Hearst when the SLA took her," Tapper joked in reply
.
Ocasio-Cortez: Called McCain 'an unparalleled example of human decency.'
But the late senator has also been treated to gratuitous tributes from an array of prominent
liberals, from George Soros to his soft
power-pushing client, Ken Roth, along with three fellow directors of
Human Rights Watch and "democratic socialist" celebrity Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who hailed McCain as
"an unparalleled example of human decency." Rep. John Lewis, the favorite civil rights symbol
of the Beltway political class, weighed in as well to
memorialize McCain as a "warrior for peace."
If the paeans to McCain by this diverse cast of political climbers and Davos denizens seemed
detached from reality, that's because they perfectly reflected the elite view of American
military interventions as akin to a game of chess, and the millions of dead left in the wake of
the West's unprovoked aggression as mere statistics.
There were few figures in recent American life who dedicated themselves so personally to the
perpetuation of war and empire as McCain. But in Washington, the most defining aspect of his
career was studiously overlooked, or waved away as the trivial idiosyncrasy of a noble servant
who nonetheless deserved everyone's reverence.
McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention of the post-Cold War era from the
Senate floor, while pushing for sanctions and assorted campaigns of subterfuge on the side. He
was uniquely ruthless when it came to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict
zones to another to personally recruit far-right fanatics as American proxies.
In Libya and Syria, he cultivated affiliates of Al Qaeda as allies, and in Ukraine, McCain
courted actual, sig-heiling neo-Nazis.
While McCain's Senate office functioned as a clubhouse for arms industry lobbyists and
neocon operatives, his fascistic allies waged a campaign of human devastation that will
continue until long after the flowers dry up on his grave.
American media may have sought to bury this legacy with the senator's body, but it is what
much of the outside world will remember him for.
'They are Not al-Qaeda'
McCain with Abdelhakim Belhaj, leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a former Al
Qaeda affiliate.
When a violent insurgency swept through Libya in 2011, McCain parachuted into the country to
meet with leaders of the main insurgent outfit, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),
battling the government of Moamar Gaddafi. His goal was to make kosher this band of hardline
Islamists in the eyes of the Obama administration, which was considering a military
intervention at the time.
What happened next is well documented, though it is scarcely discussed by a Washington
political class that depended on the Benghazi charade to deflect from the real scandal of
Libya's societal destruction. Gaddafi's motorcade was
attacked by NATO jets , enabling a band of LIFG fighters to capture him,
sodomize him with a bayonet, then murder him and leave his body to rot in a
butcher shop in Misrata while rebel fanboys snapped cellphone selfies of his fetid corpse.
A slaughter of Black
citizens of Libya by the racist sectarian militias recruited by McCain immediately followed
the killing of the pan-African leader. ISIS took over Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte while
Belhaj's militia took control of Tripoli, and a war of the warlords began. Just as Gaddafi had
warned , the ruined country became a staging ground for migrant smugglers on the
Mediterranean, fueling the rise of the far-right across Europe and enabling the return of slavery to
Africa.
Many might describe Libya as a failed state, but it also represents a successful realization
of the vision McCain and his allies have advanced on the global stage.
Following the NATO-orchestrated murder of Libya's leader, McCain tweeted , "Qaddafi on his way
out, Bashar al Assad is next."
McCain's Syrian Boondoggle
Like Libya, Syria had resisted aligning with the West and was suddenly confronted with a
Salafi-jihadi insurgency armed by the CIA. Once again, McCain made it his personal duty to
market Islamist insurgents to America as a cross between the Minutemen and the Freedom Riders
of the civil rights era. To do so, he took under his wing a youthful DC-based Syria-American
operative named Mouaz Moustafa who had been a consultant to the Libyan Transitional Council
during the run-up to the NATO invasion.
In May 2013, Moustafa convinced McCain to take an illegal trip across the Syrian border and
meet some freedom fighters. An Israeli millionaire named Moti Kahana who coordinated efforts
between the Syrian opposition and the Israeli military through his NGO, Amaliah, claimed to have "financed the opposition group
which took senator John McCain to visit war-torn Syria."
"This could be like his Benghazi moment," Moustafa remarked excitedly in a scene from a
documentary, "Red
Lines," that depicted his efforts for regime change. "[McCain] went to Benghazi, he came
back, we bombed."
During his brief excursion into Syria, McCain met with a group of CIA-backed insurgents and
blessed their struggle. "The senator wanted to assure the Free Syrian Army that the American
people support their cry for freedom, support their revolution," Moustafa said in an interview
with CNN. McCain's office promptly released a photo showing the senatorposing beside a beaming
Moustafa and two grim-looking gunmen.
Days later, the men were
named by the Lebanese Daily Star as Mohammad Nour and Abu Ibrahim. Both had been implicated
in the kidnapping a year prior of 11 Shia pilgrims, and were identified by one of the
survivors. McCain and Moustafa returned to the U.S. the targets of
mockery from Daily Show host John Stewart and the subject of harshly critical reports from
across the media spectrum. At a town hall in Arizona, McCain was berated by constituents, including Jumana
Hadid, a Syrian Christian woman who warned that the sectarian militants he had cozied up to
threatened her community with genocide.
McCain with then-FSA commander Salam Idriss, an insurgent later exposed for kidnapping Shia
pilgrims.
But McCain pressed ahead anyway. On Capitol Hill, he introduced another
shady young operative into his interventionist theater. Named Elizabeth O'Bagy, she was a
fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, an arms industry-funded think tank directed by
Kimberly Kagan of the neoconservative Kagan clan. Behind the scenes, O'Bagy was consulting for
Moustafa at his Syrian Emergency Task Force, a clear conflict of interest that her top Senate
patron was well aware of. Before the Senate, McCain cited a Wall Street Journal editorial by
O'Bagy to support his assessment of the Syrian rebels as predominately "moderate," and
potentially Western-friendly.
Days later, O'Bagy was
exposed for faking her PhD in Arabic studies. As soon as the humiliated Kagan fired O'Bagy,
the academic fraudster took another pass through the Beltway's revolving door, striding into
the halls of Congress as McCain's newest foreign policy aide.
McCain ultimately failed to see the Islamist "revolutionaries" he glad handled take control
of Damascus. Syria's government held on thanks to help from his mortal enemies in Tehran and
Moscow, but not before a billion dollar CIA arm-and-equip operation helped spawn one of the
worst refugee crises in post-war history. Luckily for McCain, there were other intrigues
seeking his attention, and new bands of fanatical rogues in need of his blessing. Months after
his Syrian boondoggle, the ornery militarist turned his attention to Ukraine, then in the
throes of an upheaval stimulated by U.S. and EU-funded soft power NGO's.
Coddling the
Neo-Nazis of Ukraine
On December 14, 2013, McCain materialized in Kiev for a meeting
with Oleh Tyanhbok , an unreconstructed fascist who had emerged as a top opposition leader.
Tyanhbok had co-founded the fascist Social-National Party, a far-right political outfit that
touted itself as the "last hope of the white race, of humankind as such." No fan of Jews, he
had complained that
a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia" had taken control of his country, and had been photographed throwing
up a sieg heil Nazi salute during a speech.
None of this apparently mattered to McCain. Nor did the scene of Right Sector neo-Nazis
filling up
Kiev's Maidan Square while he appeared on stage to egg them on.
"Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better!" McCain proclaimed to
cheering throngs while Tyanhbok stood by his side. The only issue that mattered to him at the
time was the refusal of Ukraine's elected president to sign a European Union austerity plan,
opting instead for an economic deal with Moscow.
McCain met with Social-National Party co-founder Oleh Tyanhbok.
McCain was so committed to replacing an independent-minded government with a NATO vassal
that he even mulled a military assault on Kiev. "I do not see a military option and that is
tragic," McCain lamented in an interview about the crisis. Fortunately for him, regime change
arrived soon after his appearance on the Maidan, and Tyanhbok's allies rushed in to fill the
void.
By the end of the year, the Ukrainian military had become bogged down in a bloody trench war
with pro-Russian, anti-coup separatists in the country's east. A militia affiliated with the
new government in Kiev called Dnipro-1 was
accused by Amnesty International observers of blocking humanitarian aid into a
separatist-held area, including food and clothing for the war torn population.
Six months later, McCain appeared
at Dnipro-1's training base alongside Sen.'s Tom Cotton and John Barasso. "The people of my
country are proud of your fight and your courage," McCain told an assembly of soldiers from the
militia. When he completed his remarks, the fighters belted out a World War II-era salute made
famous by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators: "Glory to Ukraine!"
Today, far-right nationalists occupy key posts in Ukraine's pro-Western government. The
speaker of its parliament is
Andriy Parubiy , a co-founder with Tyanhbok of the Social-National Party and leader of the
movement to honor World World Two-era Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera. On the cover of
his 1998 manifesto, "View From The Right," Parubiy appeared in a Nazi-style brown shirt with a
pistol strapped to his waist. In June 2017, McCain and Republican Speaker of the House Paul
Ryan
welcomed Parubiy on Capitol Hill for what McCain called a "good meeting." It was a shot in
the arm for the fascist forces sweeping across Ukraine.
McCain with Dnipro-1 militants on June 20, 2015
The past months in Ukraine have seen a
state sponsored neo-Nazi militia called C14 carrying out a pogromist rampage against
Ukraine's Roma population, the country's parliament erecting an exhibition honoring Nazi
collaborators, and the Ukrainian military formally approving the pro-Nazi
"Glory to Ukraine" greeting as its own official salute.
Ukraine is now the sick man of Europe, a perpetual aid case bogged down in an endless war in
its east. In a testament to the country's demise since its so-called "Revolution of Dignity,"
the deeply unpopular President Petro Poroshenko has promised White House National Security
Advisor John Bolton that his country -- once a plentiful source of coal on par with
Pennsylvania -- will now purchase coal from the
U.S. Once again, a regime change operation that generated a failing, fascistic state stands as
one of McCain's greatest triumphs.
McCain's history conjures up memory of one of the most inflammatory statements by Sarah
Palin, another cretinous fanatic he foisted onto the world stage. During a characteristically
rambling stump speech in October 2008, Palin accused Barack Obama of "palling
around with terrorists." The line was dismissed as ridiculous and borderline slander, as it
should have been. But looking back at McCain's career, the accusation seems richly ironic.
By any objective standard, it was McCain who had palled around with terrorists, and who
wrested as much resources as he could from the American taxpayer to maximize their mayhem.
Here's hoping that the societies shattered by McCain's proxies will someday rest in peace.
America's brave troopers today fight for freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, all the
while yearning, as FDR said, "for the end of battle" when they can return home. They are not
there to seize natural resources or to pump up a president's approval ratings–nor, for
all of my differences with President Obama, do I believe he has ordered troops into harm's
way for such nefarious purposes.
If that isn't the exact opposite of truth, I don't know what is.
As a matter of fact, RPI recently ran a
fantastic editorial by Jessica Pavoni, who was a member of the military, but sought to
leave the Air Force as a conscientious objector after learning that the Max Boots of the world
were spinning false tales.
Not only has the Empire managed to bring the exact opposite of freedom to "Afghanistan, Iraq
and beyond," but it has also accomplished the snuffing out of freedom here at home as well.
Groping at the airports, the monitoring of all our communications and finances, as well as the
militarized local police (See: Boston & Ferguson) are just a few potent examples.
Meanwhile, Chuck Hagel is
now trying to scare the pants off Americans once again:
ISIL poses a threat greater than 9/11. ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group
we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group This is way beyond anything we have seen.
The Empire wants more!
Max Boot, the fantasy storyteller, is helping to grease the wheels.
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris
Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep
sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A
place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation
don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where
the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious,
empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with
making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.
Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's
shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene
in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding
a cinder block."
Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he
was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into
my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much
as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.
For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial
profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that
captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison,
probation, and dismal job prospects...."
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris
Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep
sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A
place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation
don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where
the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious,
empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with
making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.
Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's
shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene
in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding
a cinder block."
Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he
was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into
my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much
as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.
For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial
profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that
captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison,
probation, and dismal job prospects...."
"... There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel, going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters. ..."
"... Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." ..."
"... Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the neo-liberal trickle-down baloney. ..."
SA is cursed with neo-liberal trickle-down baloney stifling radical economicchangeKevin Humphrey, The New Age, Johannesburg, 1 December 2016
South Africa's massive inequalities are abundantly obvious to even the most casual observer. When the ANC won the elections in
1994, it came armed with a left-wing pedigree second to none, having fought a protracted liberation war in alliance with progressive
forces which drew in organised labour and civic groupings.
At the dawn of democracy the tight knit tripartite alliance also carried in its wake a patchwork of disparate groupings who, while
clearly supportive of efforts to rid the country of apartheid, could best be described as liberal. It was these groupings that first
began the clamour of opposition to all left-wing, radical or revolutionary ideas that has by now become the constant backdrop to
all conversations about the state of our country, the economy, the education system, the health services, everything. Thus was the
new South Africa introduced to its own version of a curse that had befallen all countries that gained independence from oppressors,
neo-colonialism.
By the time South Africa was liberated, neo-colonialism, which as always sought to buy off the libera-tors with the political
kingdom while keep-ing control of the economic kingdom, had perfected itself into what has become an era where neo-liberalism reigns
supreme. But what exactly is neo-liberalism? George Monbiot says: "Neo-liberalism sees competi-tion as the defining characteristic
of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process
that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that 'the market' delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."
Never improving
There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and
is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel,
going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters.
Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is
recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a
more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
Nelson Mandela
South Africa's sad slide into neo-liberalism was given impetus at Davos in 1992 where Nelson Mandela had this to say to the assembled
super rich: "We visualise a mixed economy, in which the private sector would play a central and critical role to ensure the creation
of wealth and jobs. Future economic policy will also have to address such questions as security of investments and the right to repatriate
earnings, realistic exchange rates, the rate of inflation and the fiscus."
Further insight into this pivotal moment was provided by Anthony Sampson, Mandela's official biographer who wrote: "It was not
until February 1992, when Mandela went to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he finally turned against nationalisation.
He was lionised by the world's bankers and industrialists at lunches and dinners."
This is not to cast any aspersions on Mandela, he had to make these decisions at the time to protect our democratic transition.
But these utterances should have been accom-panied by a behind the scenes interrogation of all the ANC's thoughts on how to proceed
in terms of the economy delivering socialist orientated solutions without falling into the minefield of neo-liberal traps that lay
in wait for our emerging country.
Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen
to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the
table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the
neo-liberal trickle-down baloney.
Now no one dares to express any type of radical approach to our economic woes unless it is some loony populist. Debate around
these important issues is largely missing and the level of commentary on all important national questions is shockingly shallow.
Anti-labour, anti-socialist, anti-poor, anti-black The status quo as set by the largely white-owned media revolves
around key neo-liberal slogans mas-querading as commentary that is anti-labour, anti-socialist and anti-poor, which sadly translates
within our own context as anti-black and therefore repugnantly racist.
We live in a country where the black, over-whelmingly poor majority of our citizens have voted for a much revered liberation movement
that is constantly under attack from within and without by people who do not have their best interests at heart and are brilliant
at manipulating outcomes to suit themselves on a global scale.
Kevin Humphrey is associate executive editor of The New Age
"... After 40 years as a journalist for a variety of media outlets, none of them fake, ..."
"... Judith Coburn became a private eye, specializing in death-penalty cases and searches for people whom filmmakers and writers want to find for their movies and books. ..."
Now that we know we are surveilled 24/7 by the National Security Agency , the FBI, local police,
Facebook ,
LinkedIn , Google, hackers, the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, data brokers,
private spyware groups like
Black Cube , and companies from which we've ordered swag on the Internet, is there still
any "right to be forgotten," as the Europeans call it? Is there any privacy left, let alone a
right to
privacy ?
In a world in which most people reveal their intimate secrets voluntarily, posting them on
social media and ignoring the pleas of security experts to protect their data with strong
passwords -- don't use your birth date, your telephone number, or your dog's name -- shouldn't
a private investigator, or PI, like me be as happy as a pig in shit? Certainly, the
totalitarian rulers of the twentieth century would have been, if such feckless openness had
been theirs to abuse.
As it happens, tech -- or surveillance capitalism -- has disrupted the private investigation
business as much as it's ripped through journalism, the taxi business
, war making, and so many other private and public parts of our world. And it's not only
celebrities and presidential candidates whose privacy hackers have burned through.
Israeli spyware can steal the contacts off your phone just as LinkedIn did to market itself
to your friends. Google, the Associated Press
reported recently , archives your location even when
you've turned off your phone. Huge online database brokers like Tracers , TLO , and IRBsearch that law enforcement and private eyes like me use can
trace your address, phone numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, family members,
neighbors, credit reports, the property you own, foreclosures or bankruptcies you've
experienced, court judgments or liens against you, and criminal records you may have rolled up
over the years.
Ten years ago, to subscribe to one of these databases, I had to show proof that I was indeed
a licensed investigator and pass an on-site investigation to ensure that any data I downloaded
would be protected. I was required to have a surveillance camera and burglar alarm on the
building where my office was located, as well as a dead bolt on my office door, a locked filing
cabinet, and double passwords to get into my computer. Now, most database brokers just require
a PI or attorney license and you can sign right up online. Government records -- federal and
state, civil and criminal -- are also increasingly online for anyone to access.
The authoritarian snoops of the last century would have drooled over the surveillance uses
of the smartphones that most of us now carry. Smartphones have, in fact, become one of the
primo law enforcement tools other than the Internet. "Find my iPhone" can even find a dead body
-- if, that is, the victim left her iPhone on while being murdered. And don't get me started on
the proliferation of surveillance cameras in our world.
Take me. I had a classic case that shows just how traceable we all now are. There was a dead
body, a possible murder victim, but no direct evidence: no witnesses, no DNA, no fingerprints,
and no murder weapon found. In San Francisco's East Bay, however, as in most big American
cities, there are so many surveillance cameras mounted on mom-and-pop stores, people's houses,
bars, cafes, hospitals, toll bridges, tunnels, even in parks, that the police can collect
enough video, block by block, to effectively map a suspect driving around Oakland for hours
before hitting the freeway and heading out to dump a body, just as the defendant in my case
did.
Once upon a time, cops and dirty private eyes would have had to attach trackers to the
undercarriages of cars to follow them electronically. No longer. The particular suspect I have
in mind drove his victim's car across a bridge, where cameras videotaped the license plate but
couldn't see inside the car; nor, he must have assumed, could anyone record him on the deserted
road he finally reached where he was undoubtedly confident that he was safe. What he didn't
notice was the CALFIRE video camera placed on that very road to monitor for brush fires. It
caught a car's headlights matching his on its way to the site he had chosen to dump the body.
There was no direct evidence of the murder he had committed, just circumstantial, tech-based
evidence. A jury, however, convicted him in just a few hours.
A World of Tech Junkies
In our world of the unforgotten, tech is seen as a wonder of wonders. Juries love tech. Many
jurors think tech is simply science and so beyond disbelief. As a result, they tend to react
badly when experts are called as defense witnesses to disabuse them of their belief in tech's
magic powers: that, for instance, cellphone calls don't always pinpoint exactly where someone
was when he or she made a call. If too many signals are coming in to the closest tower to a
cell phone, a suspect's calls may be rerouted to a more distant tower. Similarly, the FBI's
computerized fingerprint index often makes mistakes in its matches, as do police labs when it
comes to DNA samples. And facial recognition systems, the hottest new tech thing around (and
spreading
like wildfire across
China ), may be the most
unreliable of all, although that certainly hasn't stopped Amazon from marketing a
surveillance camera with facial recognition abilities.
These days, it's hard to be a PI and not become a tech junkie. Some PIs use tech to probe
tech, specializing, for example, in email investigations in big corporate cases in which they
pore through thousands of emails. I recently asked a colleague what it was like. "It's great,"
he said. "You don't have to leave your office and for the first couple of weeks you entertain
yourself finding out who's having affairs with whom and who's gunning for whom in the target's
office, but after that it's unspeakably tedious and goes on for months, even years."
When I started out, undoubtedly having read too many Raymond Chandler and Sue Grafton
novels, I thought that to be a real private eye I had to do the old-fashioned kind of
surveillance where you actually follow someone in person. So I agreed to tail a deadbeat mom
who claimed to be unemployed and wanted more alimony from her ex. She turned out to be a
scofflaw driver, too, a regular runner of red lights. (Being behind her, I was the one who got
the tickets, which I tried to bill on my expense report to no avail.) But tailing her turned
out to make no difference, except to my bank account. Nor did tech. Court papers had already
given us her phone and address but no job information. Finally, I found her moonlighting at a
local government office. How? The no-tech way: simply by phoning an office where one of her
relatives worked and asking for her. "Not in today," said the receptionist helpfully and I knew
what I needed to know. It couldn't have been less dramatic or noir -ish.
These days, tech is so omnipresent and omnivorous that many lawyers think everything can be
found on the Internet. Two lawyers working on a death-penalty appeal once came to see me about
working on their case. There had been a murder at a gas station in Oakland 10 years earlier.
Police reports from the time indicated that there was a notorious "trap house" where crack
addicts were squatting across from the gas station. The lawyers wanted me to find and interview
some of those addicts to discover whether they'd seen anything that night. It would be a quick
job, they assured me. (Translation: they would pay me chump change.) I could just find them on
the Internet.
I thought they were kidding. Crack addicts aren't exactly known for their Internet presence.
(They may have cell phones, but they tend not to generate phone bills, rental leases, utility
bills, school records, mortgages, or any of the other kinds of databases collect that you might
normally rely on to find your quarry.) This was, I argued, an old-fashioned shoe-leather-style
investigation: go to the gas station and the trap house (if it still existed), knock on doors
to see if neighbors knew where the former drug addicts might now be: Dead? Still on that very
street? Recovered and long gone?
In a world where high-tech is king, I didn't get the job and I doubt they found their
witnesses either.
You'd think that, in a time when tech is the story of the day, month, and year and a
presidential assistant is even
taping without permission in the White House Situation Room, anything goes. But not for
this aging PI. I mean, really, should I rush over to a belly-dancing class in Berkeley to see
if some guy's fiancée and the teacher go back to her motel together? (No.) Should I
break into an ex-lover's house to steal memos she'd written to get him fired? (Are you
kidding?) Should I eavesdrop on a phone call in which a wife is trying to get her husband to
admit that he battered her? (Not in California, where the law requires permission from every
party in a phone call to be on the line, thereby wiping out such eavesdropping as an
investigative tool -- only cops with a warrant being exempt.)
I certainly know PIs who would take such cases and I'm not exactly squeaky clean myself.
After all, as a journalist working for Ramparts magazine back in the 1960s, I broke
into the basement of the National Student
Association (with another reporter) to steal files showing that the group's leaders were
working for the CIA and that the agency actually owned the very building they occupied. In a
similar fashion, on a marginally legal peep-and-trespass in those same years, another reporter
and I crawled through bushes on the grounds of a VA Hospital in Maryland where we had been told
that we could find a replica of a Vietnamese village being used to train American assassins in
the CIA's Phoenix
program . That so-called pacification program would, in the end, kill more than 26,000
Vietnamese civilians. We found the "village," secretly watched some of the training, and filed
the first piece about that infamously murderous program for New York's Village Voice
.
Those ops were, however, in the service of a higher ideal, much like smartphone
videographers today who shoot police violence. But most of surveillance capitalism is really
about making sure that no one in our new world can ever be forgotten. PIs chasing perps in
divorce cases are a small but tawdry part of just that. But what about, to take an extreme case
in which the sleazy meets the new tech world big time, the FBI's pursuit of lovers of kiddy
porn, which I learned something about by taking such a case? The FBI emails a link to a fake
website that it's created to all the contacts a known child pornographer has on his computer or
phone. It has the kind of bland come-on pornographers tend to use. If you click on that link,
you get a menu advertising yet more links to photos with titles like "my 4-year-old daughter
taking a bath." Click on any of those links and you'll be anything but forgotten. The
FBI will be at your door with cuffs within days.
Does someone who devours child porn have a right to be forgotten? Maybe you don't think so,
but what about the rest of us? Do we? It's hardly a question anymore.
The Good and Ugly Gotchas of This Era
When all the surveillance techniques on those information databases work, it's like three
lemons lining up on a one-armed bandit. Recently, for instance, a California filmmaker called
me, desperate. She was producing a movie about the first Nepalese woman to climb Mount Everest.
Her team had indeed reached the summit, but were buried in an avalanche on the way down with
only one survivor. The filmmaker wanted to find that man.
Could I do so? She didn't have enough money to send me to Nepal. (Rats!) But couldn't I find
him on the Internet? His name, she told me, was Pemba Sherpa. What's his family name, I asked?
That's when I found out that "sherpa" isn't just a Western term for Nepalese who guide people
up mountains; it's the surname of many Nepalese. Great! That's like asking me to find John
Smith with no birthdate, social security number, address, or even the Nepalese equivalent of
the state where he lives. In my mind's eye, I could instantly see my database search coming up
with the always frustrating "your search criteria resulted in too many records found." I also
had my doubts that, despite the globalization of our tech world, most Nepalese were on the
Internet.
Amazingly, however, checking out "sherpas," I promptly found a single Pemba in my search,
unfortunately with -- the bane of a PI's life -- not another piece of information.
Okay, Google, I thought, it's all yours. No Pemba on the first five pages of my search
there. (Groan.) But it was late at night and I was feeling obsessive, so I kept going. (Note to
home investigators: don't give up on Google after those first few pages.) From earlier
research, I had discovered that one of the main Nepalese communities outside that country was
in Portland, Oregon, where many mountaineering companies are also based. On maybe my 28th
Google page, I suddenly saw a link to a Portland alternative newspaper story from the
mid-1990s. (Who was even scanning in such articles back then?)
I clicked on it. The piece was about a Portland Pemba Sherpa who had gone back to his native
village to help its inhabitants get electricity. The article went on to say that he had left
Nepal "because too many of his friends had died on the mountain." Hmmm. It also reported that
he was married to a mathematics teacher at a Portland community college.
We're talking about a more-than-20-year-old article! Still, the next morning I doggedly
called the college and yes, his wife was teaching math there. I was patched through to the math
department where, yes again, the wife picked up and, yes, her husband was the sole
survivor of that climb, and she was sure he'd want to be interviewed for the movie.
Bingo! The actual wonders of the Internet and a heartwarming story about someone who needed
to be found. Finding an ancient nanny to invite to the wedding of a guy she had raised -- after
they had been out of contact for decades -- proved a similarly happy search. But that's rare.
The question, not just for PIs but for all of us, is this: Should everyone be so track
down-able, even if they don't wish to be? Some investigators, in the spirit of the moment,
think that if there's an unknowable about anyone, it should be uncovered. The journalist who
outed
novelist Elsa Ferrante really thought he'd done something, but it was just another in an
increasing number of mean-spirited gotchas of our era.
Why do people need privacy anyway? The freedom and community that Internet utopians promised
us has led instead to the scraping open of our lives by law enforcement, social media, hackers,
marketers, and the world's governments. Now we're left largely to our own devices when it comes
to what little we can do about it and the global surveillance culture that it's enmeshed all of
us in.
Back in the late 1960s, Erwin Knoll, editor of the Progressive magazine, made
President Richard Nixon's enemy list. That qualified him to be wiretapped by the FBI, so he
asked his wife Doris to call female friends every day and discourse on grisly gynecological
matters to disturb the listening agents (mostly male in those days). Erwin wondered if they
wouldn't think it was some kind of code.
After 40 years as a journalist for a variety of media outlets, none of them fake,
TomDispatch regularJudith Coburn became a private eye, specializing in
death-penalty cases and searches for people whom filmmakers and writers want to find for their
movies and books.
"... President Trump is making a terminable mistake in trusting to facts and truth, neither of which is respected in the scant remains of Western Civilization. ..."
"... all of which are employed for the purpose of contradicting truth. ..."
"... Americans are too insouciant to know it, but they are living day by day only at the mercy of Russia. ..."
Mueller is part of the plot against Trump as is Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who
appointed Mueller special prosecutor. Both are guilty of sedition as they are active
participants in an organized coup to overthrow the President of the United States. But Trump is
too powerless to have them arrested and put on trial for the conspiracy against democracy that
they are conducting. President Trump is making a terminable mistake in trusting to facts
and truth, neither of which is respected in the scant remains of Western Civilization.
Once there was hope that information available on the Internet would serve as a
countervailing power to the lies told by the Western print, TV, and NPR presstitutes. But this
was a vain hope. There are some good and reliable websites, increasingly being closed down by
the ruling elite. The ruling elites have most of the money and can finance most of the online
voices, all of which are employed for the purpose of contradicting truth.
I received today an email from RootsAction urging me to donate money to speed Trump's
impeachment. The website has even prepared the Articles of Impeachment and proclaims that
"Trump's Fixer Says the President Engaged in a Criminal Conspiracy to Sway the 2016
Election."
This accusation comes from one of Trump's former lawyers, Michael Cohen. They are
allegations that most defense attorneys understand is Michael Cohen's effort to gain a light
sentence for his income tax evasion by "composing," to use the term of Harvard Law Professor
Alan Dershowitz, evidence against the man Mueller really wants -- President Trump.
I will be unequivocal. RootsAction, as is the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and
the rest of the media whores, is lying. To pay off two women, who might have been paid by the
military/security complex, or Hillary & Bill Clinton, or the Democratic National Committee,
to bring such charges or who simply saw an opportunity to collect a bunch of dollars from
Donald Trump, is most certainly, most definitely not, as RootsAction claims, "the high crime
and misdemeanor of attempting to fraudulently influence the outcome of a US presidential
election. This is an impeahable offense warranting removal from office."
Whoever advises RootsAction is a totally incompetent attorney. Moreover, to show the utter
stupidity of RootsAction's ignorant assertion, a "misdemeanor" cannot be a "high crime." A
"high crime" is a "felony."
I have posted on my website statements from legal experts that there is nothing unlawful
about paying off claimants. Corporations do it continually. It is much cheaper to pay off a
false claim than to finance a court case to refute it. There is no reason whatsoever for a
political candidate competing for a party's nomination for the presidency to be distracted by
fighting court cases brought to extort money from him.
Moreover, considering the dire straints in which the American population between the two
coasts has been left by decades of jobs offshoring, the government's inability to provide
assistance to those millions of Americans whose living standard is dissolving because the
military/security complex appropriates $1,000 billion annually from America's resources, and
the Trump public's awareness that provoking Russia into war is in no one's interest,
RootsAction and the rest of the imbeciles have to be crazy beyond all belief to think that that
anyone who voted for Trump cared if he had sexual encounters with two women. Considering the
dire straits of Americans, the last thing they would do is to vote against their champion
because he had sex with two women, assuming that he did.
Yet, an unsubstantiated claim by a lawyer who did not pay his income tax, a claim made for
the purpose of a light sentence in exchange for providing false evidence against the President
of the United States, is now, according to RootsAction, the New York Times, Washington Post,
NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., and so on, grounds for impeaching the President of the United States who
hopes to defuse the extremely dangerous tensions between Washington and Russia.
The military/security complex wants to impeach Trump because he wants peace with Russia,
thus taking away the essential enemy that justifies their budget and power.
Are Americans too stupid to notice that there is not a shred of evidence of the "Russiagate"
accusations? What we have in their place is income tax evasion charges, not against Trump, but
against an attorney and a Republian campaign manager. More convincing charges could be brought
against Democrats, but have not. The Hillary crowd of criminals has proven immune to
prosecution.
No one has to approve of Trump in order to have the intelligence to see that Trump's
intention to normalize relations with Russia is the world's main hope of continued existence.
Once nuclear weapons go off, global warming will take on new meaning.
... ... ...
Americans are too insouciant to know it, but they are living day by day only at the
mercy of Russia.
And if authoritarian governments happen to relatively low IQ societies (like Germany
in 1933?), we might ponder this:
A truly authoritarian leader would have the sole power to :
– declare war unilaterally and frequently;
– issue 300,000 national security letters, administrative subpoenas with gag orders that
enjoin recipients from ever divulging they've been served;
– control information at all times than any monarch in history under the National
Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.
–torture, kidnap and assassinate anyone anywhere at will.
Personal freedom in an authoritarian state would be limited by
– secretly banning 50,000 people from flying and refusing requests for an explanation
– imprisoning 2,000,000 people without trial
– executing 2,000 people each year prior to arrest.
In a real an authoritarian state there would be
– warrantless surveillance of private phone and email conversations by the NSA;
– SWAT team raiding homes;
– shootings of unarmed citizens by police;
– harsh punishment of schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance;
– endless wars;
– out-of-control spending;
– militarized police;
–roadside strip searches;
– roving TSA sweeps;
– privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans;
– fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on citizens' private transactions;
– militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition
"... Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war. ..."
"... Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats. ..."
"... These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited Federal funds at their fingertips. ..."
Ron Unz has linked to WSWS.org several times in the past as WSWS was targeted by the Deep
State/Google etc. cabal to make it disappear into the "memory hole."
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do
with economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality.
The cultural-Marxist troika.
Just one of many good point you make. The only thing I'd add is in relation to:
Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil
war.
As Reg mentions: conflict among the masses is very much the plan. Divide et
impera.
And my stupid [neo]liberal friends still think the democrats are going to save them, and then
on to super – duper – special stupid, they think their vote for a democrat is
going to have an impact. On to ludicrous stupid – it's all the republicans fault.
Identity politics at its finest.
Unfixable, and circling the drain.
The Alarmist, June 8, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT • 100 Words
"Center-right" and "business oriented?"
Try Oligarch-centric.
There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the fall of
Constantinople: Sultan Mehmed II rounded up the surviving oligarchs of
the Empire and asked them why they had withheld their riches and
resources from supporting the Empire's final defense against his
conquest, to which the oligarchs replied that they were saving their
riches for his most excellent majesty. He had them brutally executed.
Jake, June 8, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil
machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts
the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats.
At the upper levels there is no difference between the Demonrats and the
Republicons as all are controlled by the Zionists and congress would by
more accurately called the lower house of the Knesset..
prusmc, June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
@anon
These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There
previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited
Federal funds at their fingertips.
It is a mistake to think they will be any different than Maxine
Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerold Nadler or Luis Guitirez. Senator Joe
Manchin of West Virginia is about a unconventional as we can expect the
new congressional majority members to be.
jacques sheete, June 8, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Anon
The ultra rich use the poor to attack the middle so they can
distract everyone else from uniting
That, in fact, is the practical aim of government in general.
Parties, schmarties it's all one huge extortion racket.
"... I lost all respect for him first on his treatment of his first wife when he returned from captivity. I notice that no one in the media mentioned her existence. ..."
Of course, you already know that because the headlines are dominating the news coverage.
Most of the coverage is also lionizing him as some kind of hero who defended America from his
time as a POW in Vietnam to his attacks on Russia for supposedly trying to undermine American
democracy. The fact is, and I know this because I've documented some of it in the course of my
own work in recent years, he was a warmonger supreme. McCain never met a war–especially a
regime change war–he didn't like, nor a terrorist he couldn't endorse as a "freedom
fighter," especially, as in the case of Syria, if that terrorist was in the service of the
regime change war he endorsed. In Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, a million or more people have
died and tens of millions more are suffering as a result of these wars that McCain did so much
to bring about.
In a short but to-the-point piece. Sputnik summarizes
McCain's extreme Russophobia and his love for the Nazi regime in Kiev. Vladimir Putin was being
charitable when, as Sputnik recounts, he told Oliver Stone that McCain was a patriot, but one
who couldn't accept that the world had changed. "People with such convictions, like the Senator
you mentioned, they still live in the Old World," Putin said. "And they're reluctant to look
into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast the world is changing." That Putin
was able to say that says more about his genuine humanity than it does about McCain, who gave
up whatever humanity he had a long time ago.
Anyone fighting for a genuine peace in the world will not mourn the passing of John McCain.
I endorse Willy B's view of McCain. From dealing with him personally i would say that he
was indeed a fighter. He would fight anyone who disagreed with him about anything. RIP
The beatification of McCain by our media is a symptom of a decadent political and media
culture that sees no need to look, see, or hear anything beyond the most superficial
analysis. That culture does nothing more than use stock images, phrases, and slogans that
trigger blind acceptance by much of the population. (Present company excepted of course.)
That's my biggest issue. The MSM fawned over him so much he was a virtual cult hero. I
could not watch CNN for more than a total of about 5 minutes over the weekend because they
were pouring it on so thick. Jack Tapper would have married the guy.
If you interview his colleagues and they want to wax eloquent and you let them, fine, I
get that. But it is unseemly for the hosts themselves to join in and remind us that they are
now basically state media.
Anna Cabrera jumped in and said, in regard to his hawkishness, 'He always wanted to spread
freedom around to the less fortunate'.
Were they really praising McCain or was it a form of self worship, because McCain and his
kind always assured us that we in the U.S. was always 100% right and our enemies were 100%
wrong and needed to be vanquished. If CNN hosts entertained different ideas, they would
actually have to work for a living.
Had McCain said nice things about Trump, I can assure you this little love fest we are
witnessing right now would be playing out a bit differently right now.
He was an abomination and stupid beyond words. I am very grateful I will no longer have to
listen to his hate speech directed against any and all in the world who disagreed with him.
His allies Al-Qaeda in Syria I am sure are mourning his passing along with the false flag
specialist of the world. He would have been instrumental in any upcoming false flag trying to
incite a WWIII conflagration between the US and Russia. The only time in life he would have
had peace would have been the 15 minutes he knew the nuclear missiles were flying toward
Russia. This tells you everything you need to know about the man. The current hagiography is
ridiculous when you realize his own co-workers in the Senate hated him almost to a man minus
his BFF Graham. He is property of the Heavens now and no longer our problem here on
Earth.
This quasi-religious veneration of politicians is unseemly. It is profane. It is
unbecoming of us as a people, and it has transformed the majority of public offices into ones
that are truly attractive only to men who are unfit to hold them.
As much as one single man is responsible for anything, John McCain
is responsible for the Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine Wars. Any memorial that doesn't include
this is propaganda.
Sidney Schanberg, the Journalist of "The Killing Fields" wrote a damning story about
McCain helping cover up evidence of left behind US POWs in Vietnam.
https://www.theamericancons...
John McCain was a flawed man, just like the rest of us. I did not agree with many of his
policy prescriptions but he seemed genuine in his pursuit of what he thought was right.
Anyone who has to stand up in front of the world for all to see and take a political position
will find many who agree and many who disagree with only history providing 20-20 hindsight.
In 20 years will readers of this Blog go to the achieves and find any stupidity in some of
the comments made this past year? It would be an interesting experiment.
I did not agree with many of his policy prescriptions but he seemed genuine in his
pursuit of what he thought was right.
the question is was he "genuine"? And if so, what is that?
jdledell reverts to to standard etiquette here. But he does not quite utter the ultimate
one: May he rest in peace. Does he?
For me the outsider it looks that McCain, may have been the 'partisan spearheader ' within
a larger American institutional representative consensus. What's the core and what is the
reason for that phenomenon? Nitwit question, I admit. ...
It might only take a few days after I've written a comment here or elsewhere to see that
something I wrote sounded stupid or just me getting way ahead of myself. I try and remember
my place when I comment but sometimes dumb stuff gets through. I love this blog.
Wow...looking for perfection, are we? Why don't we try a reasoned analysis of McCain's
good and bad points---he did some good and some bad. I, personally, am not as upset about his
war-mongering (although you are certainly correct) but am quite upset that he put Sarah Palin
forward into the national spotlight as a possible President. Dear Merciful, what was he
thinking! That is probably the single most anti-democracy and anti-American move of his
career.
As a time traveler left behind from that period and someone who led the clandestine search
for MIAs and remains I must tell you that I do not think any MIAs were left behind in SE
Asia. My operation in Defense HUMINT searched diligently across SE Asia for years and found
lots of remains which were reported to the Hickam AFB facility but never any MIAs. There were
a few deserters from US forces who chose to remain SE Asia but that was their business and we
left them alone once we found them.
Col Lang , a bit off topic here , but do you know if there's french operatives (those who
assigned / lived among the tribes) are left abandoned when french pulled out ? i recall
reading about it in Bernard Fall's book
No, There were some few of the GCMA who chose to stay. But, in general, it was our
montagnard allies and those of the French who were abandoned to the the mercies of the ethnic
communist enemies.
Col. Lang -- I'm glad you addressed this MIA issue. IMHO, the MIA hagiography may well
have been the beginning of the conspiracy theory/fake news extravaganza that we live under
today.
My spook project was based in SE Asia where we could get into all these countries
surreptitiously. They reported to me for command and control and product to JCRC. Based on
our data among other research they did they asked the VN government, etc. for access to the
sites. This was in the early '90s. There was a liaison office in DIA that kept the Congress
and the families at bay while we searched.
Reasoned analysis? Perhaps you should ask those who were at the other end of your
country's gun barrel whether it is possible to have a reasoned analysis about this man. The
millions who suffered and died because of this "imperfect" Mc Cain surely must not be sorry
this man has passed away. Neither am I. There are evil people whose disappearance lets
mankind breath a sigh of relief.
Like every person Sen. McCain had good and bad. While we can admire his grit and courage
as a POW and empathize with his suffering in Vietnam, we should not airbrush his incessant
campaigning and support for all the regime change interventions that killed millions of
innocent civilians.
I very much dislike this type of relativistic thinking, because you can say the same about
literally anything, making such a statement almost entirely meaningless.
Yes McCain was a neo-conservative who as a senator advocated wars of aggression. However,
it was Bush and Cheney who made the decision to go into Iraq - not McCain. Why lay all the
responsibility for millions of innocent deaths on just John McCain.
McCain is being promoted as a great American hero. IMO he does not deserve that. I have
known brave men who were not the fils a papa of a four star and they were and are ignored. In
the ME, he, Lieberman and Graham were just puppets of Israel.
I don't disagree. All I am saying is that there are still one or two O-6s out there that
get the honorary title of Commodore when a task-organized unit that does not rate a flag
officer arises. That is both in the USN and USCG.
I can write only as a citizen who has little influence in politics, if any. These are my
thoughts::
First, I did vote for him when he was running for POTUS. But I held my nose in doing so..
We really had two terrible choices that year. Obama or McCain. I think I liked voting for his
choice of VP mostly because it set the talking heads into such a state of shock.
I lost all respect for him first on his treatment of his first wife when he returned from
captivity. I notice that no one in the media mentioned her existence.
Then his "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" "joke" just seemed shockingly nasty to me. Suggesting
bombing of people as a joke?
The McCain / Graham duo of the neocon philosophy would always cause me to turn off the TV.
Did no one in the media ever want to do any real investigation of the consequences of the War
in Iraq?
I was taught not to speak ill of the dead. And I try not to dwell on the death of Mccain
right now. So, I've kept my television off. As a committed Christian, I know Who is sitting
in judgement of McCain, and I trust His judgement will be fair and honest and the judgement
will be from the heart of a "father" in regard to a "son" who, as we all have, had flaws as
well as strengths.
He is now with his Maker, as some day we each will be.
In other words, Diana, his bomb, bomb, Iran shocked you a lot less then did the idea Obama
could become president? Notice, I am not judging you. My own possibly ill-guided choice would
have been based on the fact that he was one of the few that voted against the Iraq War.
You remember your reasoning in 2007?
How exactly did the soccer Mom surface in that context? Arbitrary choice, wasn't aware of
the history of its use in elections. By the way. But whenever I hear or read Palin "soccer
mom" pops up on my mind, Followed let's say by the flags on her desk and rumors around Weekly
Standard's influencing the choice.
I voted for Obama twice because I could not live with the prospect of the alternatives.
Obama, IMO turned out to be a crypto-revolutionary. we don't need a revolution in the US. We
need good government and we are getting it with regard to the economy.
His views on many things I disagreed with strongly, but compared to so many herd-minded
pusillanimous creatures which hold office in both houses these days..his courage stands out.
His finest hour:
The CIA is a crucial instrument of U.S. imperialist domination of the people of the world.
This is the organization that dispatches drones that hover constantly over rural villages in
Pakistan, in Libya, in Yemen, in Somalia, terrorizing the masses, ready at any moment to call
in massive airstrikes if their operators perceive a gathering of villagers as a "threat." This
is the organization that cranked out fake "evidence" of "weapons of mass destruction" and
"terrorist connections" (that did not really exist) in Iraq to justify the 2003 U.S. invasion
that ended up killing a million people and all but destroying the Iraqi nation. This is the
organization that set up secret "black site" torture centers around the world, where
suspects were waterboarded, slammed into walls, and imprisoned in coffins until they
were broken in body and spirit, with the torture at times continuing even after the
CIA realized they were innocent.
Brennan was deeply involved in much of this and has been called the "assassination czar" for
his role in drone attacks. He staunchly defended the "black sites," saying they were "vital,"
helped cover up the large number of civilian casualties from drone attacks, and justified
kidnapping "suspects" and handing them over to be tortured by U.S. allies that are even less
hemmed in than the CIA by any pretense of respect for human rights.
So standing up for American citizens is considered a "mentally insane" thing?
You are utterly and completely out of your mind, virtually from another planet, another
reality. A textbook example of insanity. The fact that you don't recognize it, simply
confirms the fact.
The Deep state is not, repeat not , the American people.
Regarding the Intel community: There are the guys in the trenches. these are honorable
guys. Then there is the leadership. The current leadership is on notice to behave itself, on
account of the new "Sheriff" in town. The corrupt politicized leadership from the
Clinton/Bush/Obama regimes however, now out of power, are attempting to overthrow the
legitimately elected president of the United States. In so doing, they are pursuing
treason-lite.
Clapper, Brennan, and Hayden are already full-on war criminals: Iraq & torture. Now,
in their attempt to destroy the Trump presidency, they are adding betrayal of democracy and
betrayal of the Constitution of the United States to their criminal resume. These are evil
men who think it is their job to run the United States from behind a malleable (gutless?)
figurehead who does what they tell him to do.
As I said in my original post, it is fascinating to observe people like you, utterly
dominated -- brain-raped really -- by a neocon/neoliberal narrative that has reduced them to
robotic -- even willing -- slaves of the 1%. Good for you. Enjoy. The others, who prefer
self-mastery to self-enslavement, will benefit from your choice of enslavement.
That is what all of this boils down to; Trump treating Americans like s*hit in front of
the whole world, while praising Russia and Russians.
The IC war criminals/traitors should not be equated with or allowed to hide anonymous
behind the majority population of decent Americans. Which is what simpletons like you enable
and then fall for.
I fully understood all the concerns for what the Left is doing to people and to the
society.
Trump praises Israel and says that, "Securing Israel's safety is our most important
task" not a peep comes from the Trump-supporters?!
Some Trump supporters do object. Others however grasp the political reality of Jewish
political influence in the US. Politically incompetent simpletons like yourself think Trump
should commit political suicide by taking on the Jews.
The Jews/Israel will be dealt with -- or not -- later, when Trump has secured his
presidency. And then, the rebalancing of the US-Israeli relationship will not be grounded in
hostility to the Jews, but will be more along the lines of America First.
Never ever did I expect, that it would be the Trump-supporters surfacing as the fifth
column, giving the "finishing touch" to the destruction of American citizens.
The above is pure paranoid, "the sky is falling", TDS whackadoodle.
The Liberals seem to have woken up,
The country is in the throes of a cultural war between the bubble-wrapped snowflakes and
"real" people. Thankfully, the "real" people will win, precisely because they have the
advantage of being reality-connected. The snowflakes will benefit as well -- you will benefit
-- by the resulting opportunity to reconnect with reality.
Good luck, best wishes, Trump is rapidly changing the world for the better.
And let me add: The Soviet Union is a quarter century gone, and with it Soviet Communism.
Putin is the preeminent statesman of our times. Go to YouTube and listen to what he says. He
and Trump, aligned, are a force for good in the world. Peace with Russia is coming, and with
it a new era of peace and prosperity in the world.
Which leaves me to echo your closing comment:
Are you ever going to be able to comprehend this?
(Answer: Probably not for another six years, if ever.)
"... The elites are no longer capable or willing of dealing with grave systemic threats, even when it is in their own long-term interests to do so. ..."
"... We can't have faith in the political leadership of these elites, that is the current leadership of either the Republican or the Democratic Parties or the billionaires who bankroll them, to face up to this danger. One would think it's in the interest of the elites themselves to deal with this. But the military-industrial complex has far too much invested in a narrative that depends on a major existential rival. They need war and almost war. American capital will not give up it's dominant global commercial position they believe depends on their military might. Oil and guns determines US foreign policy, not national security. On this point alone, one can argue this ruling class is not fit to rule. But of course, there is more. ..."
"... Do you accept the popular initiative "for crisis-safe money: money creation by the National Bank only!" ..."
"... MIT trains AI to be a psychopath by feeding it reddit posts ..."
While the fight for health care for all, a higher minimum wage, unionization, against
systemic racism, mass incarceration and other necessary reforms are just and critical to
engaging people in struggle, we also need to tell people the whole truth about just how
critical the big picture is.
While the Trump presidency is a cabal of criminals, billionaires and far-right ideologues,
it must first of all be seen in the context of the threats to our very existence, not merely
reduced to the daily scandals and twitter storms. There is no need to treat working people as
infants. The culture is aimed at the infantilization of our political discussion. We can
believe that America is already great or that we should Make America Great Again, but it's all
the religion of Americanism, and it's meant to make us willing children who will march into
battle or just resign ourselves to things the way they are. We are not infants and we must, as
best we can, tell people the whole truth.
As catastrophic and savage as capitalism was during the 20th century, continuous wars and
genocides, deep economic crisis and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, the system
proved to be resilient, the global elites did find a kind of equilibrium. Capitalism did not
come to an end and the attempts at socialism failed. While many societies around the world have
been destroyed, millions slaughtered in war and many more living in deep poverty, the truth is
the majority of the people in the advanced capitalist world are mostly doing ok. In the United
States there are as many families earning more than $100,000 a year, as there are earning under
$30,000. But as resilient as capitalism has proved to be, I don't think this world order is
sustainable. The elites are no longer capable or willing of dealing with grave systemic
threats, even when it is in their own long-term interests to do so.
We're in a different kind of moment than we've ever faced before. Of course, nuclear weapons
posed an existential threat before, but at least the elites saw that ending human life on earth
wasn't in their interests. That is so far that's true. Because as crazy as the prospect of
nuclear war is, they have not given up their deteriorating hair triggered nuclear arsenals and
they actually contemplate the use of localized nuclear weapons. As you know, first Obama
planned for a new wave of nuclear weapons, and now Trump is spending billions expanding
America's nuclear capability. While it's unlikely that the elites will deliberately launch a
nuclear Armageddon, we are all living in denial if we think that an accidental triggering of
such isn't possible. The hair trigger policy means there is around ten minutes to decide if
what looks like an attack is one or is a glitch in the software. It's a cold war posture still
in place in the United States and Russia, it's Dr. Strange Love's Doomsday machine. We
can't have faith in the political leadership of these elites, that is the current leadership of
either the Republican or the Democratic Parties or the billionaires who bankroll them, to face
up to this danger. One would think it's in the interest of the elites themselves to deal with
this. But the military-industrial complex has far too much invested in a narrative that depends
on a major existential rival. They need war and almost war. American capital will not give up
it's dominant global commercial position they believe depends on their military might. Oil and
guns determines US foreign policy, not national security. On this point alone, one can argue
this ruling class is not fit to rule. But of course, there is more.
... ... ...
Why can't the ruling elites deal with the systemic threats of climate change, financial
crisis, global war, and AI? Threats to the future of their own system? Because they are in the
middle of an orgy of profit making. They can't believe their good fortune. If they had any
doubts before the election, Wall St. now loves Trump. Even though most of finance knows that
unregulated, it's only a matter of time before the crisis of 07/08 repeats itself. But what the
hell, no one will go to jail and the public will bail them out again.
Wall St. is euphoric as they swim in an ocean of super wealth. While the financial sector
represents about 7 percent of our economy it takes around 25 percent of all corporate profit,
with only 4 percent of all jobs. With such concentrated wealth goes a competitive culture that
prizes daily returns on capital, above the future of humans on earth. These are the people that
control American politics as they throw unlimited funds at political campaigns.
The threat of climate crisis? The elites believe, if they actually think beyond their
private jets and yachts, that they will be ok. Their kids will be ok, even their grandkids. And
then? Apres Moi le Deluge. After me comes the floods said Louis the XV. In Maryland we just saw
much of a city washed away, and it's surely the shape of things to come.
... ... ...
As much as the digital revolution helped create a vile stratum of the ultra-rich, it's also
created the conditions for a more democratic economy and politics. The Sanders campaign has
shown that the political structures that were built to look democratic because the power of
billionaires would always win out, can be challenged with mass fundraising. Online organizing
and social media has transformed political campaigning and made it less reliant on funds for TV
ads. The internet allowed independent media to challenge the power of concentrated media
ownership, it made The Real News possible. We are just seeing the early phase of what's
possible.
Hi Paul!
You've hit the nail on the head. People's power cannot be underestimated and that will
one day demolish the Rothschild-Rockefeller Banker s' imperium (Wall St. Plus) spread
across the world, people who made their money through cheat and deception for half a
millennium and continue still under delusions, they and their upper middle-class cronies
and crawlers through AI manipulations can hold on to people's plunder. They haven't
learnt from French and Russian revolutions. Take comfort in the great Mahatma Gandhi's
prophecy learnt from South Africa and applied to India with success. 'A minority cannot
reign a majority for long time. Classical sociological histories such empires will
collapse. Trump will realise only when flood waters reach his real estates to withdraw
from Climate Change accord.
George Chakko, former U.N. correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria.
Vienna, 22/ 06/ 2018 03:13 hrs CET
Hi George, Like yourself, I concur with Paul's message and, while your optimism is
shared in no small part by myself, the history of human civilisation to this very day is
built on the exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Like yourself I expect, this
cancerous evolution cannot be permitted to continue; but we shouldn't expect that the
powerful will refrain from using every technological advantage in their arsenal to
protect their position, even unto the death of us all.
For myself, I draw comfort from knowing that the most rapid advancements in our poisoned
society have arrived through the widespread proliferation of knowledge and the leisure to
engage intellectual and creative pursuits among the broader population. Even as the
powerful conspire to curtail the free exchange of ideas and thought through constraints
imposed by mass surveillance and privately-regulated access to the Internet;
emancipation, egalitarianism and enlightenment of the species will likely only be
achieved following economic collapse and survival beyond the barbarism that will
certainly follow. That said, the present state of barbarism is likely more egregious than
what might succeed the collapse.
Regards,
Munk
Hiya NCB. Seen it... a great interview. The courageous and noble Mr. Nader (a man most
deserving of the Presidency, unlike the political careerists foisted before the public
during every election cycle) presents a measure of optimism concerning the human effort
necessary to turn the system around. I am, for the most part, in agreement. Everyone
knows this life is shit, but haven't the first idea as to what to do about it. As a herd
animal, we've very susceptible to fear and the threat of physical violence - we're also
easily manipulated and distracted by duplicitous entertainments and propagandized news.
As they say, it only takes a spark to start a fire, and this society is a tinder box.
I couldn't agree with you more Munk.
In the so-called "civilised urban habitats" on Globe to which Trump belongs we've only
most recently witnessed umpteen hundreds of separated children's deep psychic anguish
till the revolt broke out through enlightened protests from within Trump's own family.
It's absolute shame that a president claiming himself a "Christian" and ignominiously
"championing " Christianity's cause unsolicited in Jerusalem, had to be brow-beaten by
his own wife and brought to senses to behave himself towards human children within his
fences. How correct Paul Jay was that Trump "billionaire" had indeed flunked miserably on
the human-side facet.
Internet piercing is a double-edged sword. It is not a game that can be monopolised by a
few, although in the name of American security they could potentially foul play
instituting many organised evil But China, Russia and India have smart programmers/cyber
specialists too to slice the BC's (Billionaire Club's) far-reaching tentacles to render
them ineffective in the long-run. Billions of customers world-wide can one day leave
Google/ Yahoo search machines and hang on to cheap but effective Made in China variants,
The deep-state epitomised by NSA-Pentagon conglomerate servicing whole-heartedly the
RR-Banker imperium cannot theoretically or practically conquer the world, even if the
U.S. outnumber with its many-satellites legion. The Big C (Big Capital comprised of the
RR-Bankers, the Fed, the Military Industrial-Complex, the Big Oil, the Big Pharma etc.)
lurk under a criminal delusion of unilateral world dominance that is ruining billions
today. Remember the old French wisdom of Revolution – "The Great are great, because
we are on our knees. Now let us rise". That will happen someday for sure, if the 21st
century peasants unite through internet or other means and ways.
George Chakko, Vienna 22/06/2018 11:09 am CET
To complement Proudhon's revolutionary remark, I'll add, "the secret of freedom lies
in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." -- M.
Robespierre
I'm disheartened however, by the results of the 2018 Swiss Sovereign Money Referendum.
With only 21% of the population casting a vote for the plainly-worded referendum
initiative stating:
" Do you accept the popular initiative "for crisis-safe money: money creation by
the National Bank only!" "
75% of those responding to the referendum call, answered "No" to the initiative.
Can't say I'm surprised... Switzerland's economy is dominated by the financial
sector.
The result of the Swiss Referendum does however suggest that my faith in education, as
a mechanism for social transformation, may be misplaced - the Swiss population are among
the best educated, yet their turnout would suggest that "crisis" is a desirable state of
social and economic affairs. Perhaps they, as we, for all their advantage, remain utterly
"ignorant" of the masochistic proclivities of our capitalist economy. Perhaps, on the
other hand, my indictment should be reserved to those responsible for the curriculum of
ignorance - the State and the media.
It's pretty well understood that people are --rightfully!--suspicious of changes into
which they had no or insufficient input. Throughout human history changes have been
imposed from above, and the ones who benefit have always been the imposers, not the
imposed-upon.
So the Swiss result should have been expected unless the people had much more
input than we ever get with our "public comment period" sop.
The Swiss Referendum was encouraged by a grass-roots motion that required some 100,000
signatures to be put before the broader public as a topic for referendum. This was a
genuine 'bottom-up' motion.
As indicated by George elsewhere in this thread, Switzerland enjoys preeminence as the
home of the private International Bank for Settlements (IBS), a tool that, like the World
Bank largely run out of the U.S. is used to wage economic warfare upon all nations and
indenture the global population with debt. Banking is Switzerland's principle industry;
if you regard the parasitic exploitation of nations and economies an genuine "industry"
(human farming under the yoke of debt servitude).
The wording of the referendum measure was plain, but it did not adequately qualify the
present system of money creation as one being in the hands of private interest, rather
than public interest.
It's still hard to imagine that the nation's money supply is governed by "private
interest". This abrogation of justice is no different than feudal societies.
That's 100K people who had some level of connection to the petition, but what about
the rest of the people, Munk?
How many people in toto were actually in on the discussions from the start, got to
argue the issues, had input into the wording, etc.? Probably not even 100 people. Maybe
not even ten .
What mechanisms, if any, were set up to let everyone in the country argue it out after
the issue went on the ballot but before the election? My bet would be: none, and that the
rest of Switzerland had to decide something they didn't really understand and for which
they felt no sense of ownership, just another "black box" filled with godknowswhat,
created entirely by strangers with unknown agendas.
The Swiss educational standards maybe one of the best in the world. But Switzerland is
the tightest Black Capital of the world finely accepting all the black money of the world
that is clandestine, but braving an immaculately innocent angelic face upfront. I heard
long ago that every bank deposit in Swiss Banks gets a nominal bank interest, be it 2, 3,
or 5 pc whatever the current fix for agreement might be, over 30-40 pc of this interest
rate is immediately transferred per annum to Swiss Exchequer by law. In other words,
every Swiss citizen could enjoy from financial view enjoy a nice holiday in Bahamas or
elsewhere in the world. Black Money, reportedly a half of monetary deposits in entire
Swiss Banks is the financial life back-up mainstay of Swiss economy. Several U.S.
multi-billionaires, not yet monitored, are guessed to be confided clients of Swiss Banks.
Swiss Banks are also guess destination of stable black money deposits of East European
oligarchs including Russians. Even the British Crown are reportedly having deposits
there. What you also need to know is that only few years back the Swiss held a referendum
on Gold. (My story on that in
OneIndia.com/GoodReturns.in (Will Gold reign as most sought currency stabiliser?
Written by: George Chakko, Vienna, Updated: Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 9:37 [IST]")
offers a periscope on how the Deep State over-arches internationally)
"Trump will realise only when flood waters reach his real estates to withdraw from
Climate Change accord."
That is scary. It looks like Jonathan Kleck's prediction will happen sooner.... And
that "thousand points of light" will disperse from NY to all parts of the globe, like the
"Tower of Babel" because you proles and peons are not allowed to reach the heights of
heaven and be Gods--creating your own interest-free money.=)
New $100 Bill Decrypted - Nuclear Devastation + Tsunami
Hi!
Thanks for ringing alarm. More precise, flood waters should reach his bedroom midnight,
to know earliest by morning where he stands, on or offshore, swim or drown !
G.Chakko, Vienna, Austria. 06/07/2018 02:09 am CET
Peoples' power can very well be overestimated. True, Condorcet wrote that if people
knew their power, the ruling-class would shudder with fear. Well the rulers do know, and
they take measures to control the power of their people. Even long before mass media,
demagogues knew how. The "great" Gandhi held Hindu power over the Dalits, demonstrating
that the Hindu majority can suppress a minority brutally, as Arundhati Roy makes clear.
The Israelis suppress the Palestinians, a minority over a majority? Tell us, what are the
lessons of the French and Russian revolutions? Didn't the French Revolution teach that
revolutions can take 82 (1789-1871) years and a foreign war (Franco-Prussian) to be rid
of a monarchy? What did the failure of the Russian Revolution of February, 1917, through
the Leninist gangster-coup of November, 1917, and 74 years of the USSR teach? That it
took most of a century to install a drunken US puppet (Yeltsin) in the Kremlin? What did
the American Revolution and our Constitution of 1787 and Bill of Rights of 1789 teach?
Was it that the great experiment has been a failure; that the Constitution means what
five scoundrels in the Supreme Court decide with no recourse; that the Bill of Rights
buys as much freedom as a 3 dollar bill will buy coffee? When the empires collapse, as
you wrote, what will replace them: a dark age; other empires; starvation, disease, and
permanent loss of human habitat? What do your "classical sociological histories" tell
you?
Hi!
As a general blanket answer to issues raised, is evolution, gradual transformation of
society to an evolved order from a less evolved; evolution is the only alternative key
that will work. All radical solutions will bring frictions, disruptions and deaths
countless. Devolution is what is happening now, what you referred to. People's power is a
"rubber" concept; it expands and contracts its potentialities and applicabilities,
functional on the societies, times and ages. But it is there immanent, be it
under-estimated or overestimated, depending on the localised situation in historical
context. Gandhi's charm with the Dalits was due to his own low-caste status, independent
of his more rigorous agenda of Indian Independence struggle to gain freedom from British
that included all classes. You use the word "power" (Hindu) falsely in that context of
Gandhi & Dalits giving you the wrong motive reading for those days. But in today's
context you are right.
The basic question of revolutions is why do they come to pass? To find a convincing
answer you got to go back to Hegel who applied the seminal Dialectic of Immanuel Kant
– Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis (Critique of Pure Reason) to historical events. To
put Hegel in a paraphrased layman's language, when power consolidates unilaterally
through the application of force or otherwise, it is bound to create in course of time an
antithesis (people's rising or opposition in a society) to end up in a clash or get
transformed to a synthesis, speak compromise – say Czarist Russia vs Communist
power rise leading to a clash resulting in destruction germinating a classless society
(Marxism-Leninism). What Marx & Engels did not want to accept was that the
Dialectical Process of history for Hegel will continue and again give rise to another
Thesis etc., thus the cycle will perpetrate in real-time history ending finally in the
Absolute Idea which for Hegel was God, which Marxism in principle denies. Marx's
classless society is not "static" and it will change and indeed has changed with the
current Russian Federation's rejection of it. Lenin / Stalin could have spared millions
of human lives' torture and death if they had listened to the deeper meaning of Hegelian
Dialectic. In 1971 at a reception in Bonn, West Germany, when I confronted Prof. Theodore
Oisserman on this issue (Prof. Oiserman was then Chief political ideologist of the
Politburo of USSR) he responded in a typical communist way giving me a rather wavy answer
saying more studies need to be done and the matter "differentiatingly" understood!.
Barring an all-out thermo-nuclear clash on Earth, say a Global Nuclear war, world
societies will again spurt out of destroyed ground and rebuilt. Both Japan and Germany
came back to life after pounded into ashes. This time in a nuclear shower bio-life could
potentially end. But I hope it will not come to that; you can avoid all such apocalypse
by inner transformation, elimination of negativities and aggressions through Yoga &
Meditation irrespective of your religious affinities, and cut asunder the addiction to
exorbitant material bondage exaggerated by superfluous body & health needs via
marketing media. At the basis is the cancerous material greed that needs be cut down
substantially, especially of the affluent consumers. That's the only cogent way out of
this misery we have created for ourselves. The Super-Rich has enormous resources to solve
most of the world's chronic problems which they helped entrench. They are now called to
act under world pressure for the good of our planet and for themselves and their
children's future.
The billionaire class, and their ability to control the media propaganda machine, and
the political parties in nations that allow voting, and the dictators in nations that
don't, – are, as you say, destroying our beautiful planet in the name of profits.
The tragedy is that they could also use their billions and influence to save the planet.
We humans eventually figured out that human sacrifice was wrong, so we stopped doing
that. We humans eventually figured out that slavery was wrong, so we stopped doing that.
How long will it take the ruling class to figure out that making our planet unfit for
human habitation is wrong?
While ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, NYT and WP continue to bullsh*t, confuse,
and brain-wash the U.S. public on behalf of the rich and powerful, the oceans on our
planet have increased in temperature, CO2 saturation, and acidity.
As a result, 50% of coral reefs have been destroyed forever, and the remaining reefs only
have about 10-15 years before they are destroyed too. As a result, oxygen is being
depleted from the oceans, causing massive ''dead zones'' and threatening marine life. As
a result, ocean currents will be de-stabilized causing the Gulf Stream to halt.
What happens after all this takes place? Even the National Geographic Society (not
exactly a lefty organization) has documented the truth about climate change.
Thank you Paul Jay for being the first news organization to openly and clearly state that
climate change, and the billionaire/millionaire class are a threat to human
existence.
I doubled my monthly donation.
Hi Elkojohn!
I fully subscribe to your view. Yes, an inner transformation of the "stinking" Super-Rich
is what is essentially required, in view of the enormous potential of financial and
social management power they hold that can solve most of the problems on this planet.
Unless these give up their meaningless "endless" material greed and evolve into a higher
human being liberating themselves from the claws of material bondage, I do not see any
other peaceful way out but "class clash and crash" on future's door-step.
George Chakko, Vienna, 23/ 06/ 2018 06:28 am CET
The chances of ordinary people getting any measure of liberty in the current plans of
the ruling class are quite poor. Effectively their silence or whispered objections are
inadequate to comprise real dissent. In any event the rulers have compromised our dissent
by kettling and police violence. Perhaps a majority of people are working 24/7 to feed
and clothe themselves and have no time for the structure of society.
Historically, we have relied on a champion to save us - Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon -
but we are on each occasion subjected to the whispering campaigns of the former power
holders and became confused. I think the best prospects today are to take the opportunity
of the next economic bust (which is about as reliable as the sun rising every day), and
force officials to permit community banks of the type Frank Capra filmed. These banks
will individually issue paper for exchange. Their small local size ensures it can be
regulated.
Richard Werner is the man who has started this in UK. He has all the necessary
information in his lecture here -
This is a great piece and timely. Sentient and hyperintelligent AI is a bit of a
wildcard, which most likely will be attempted to be harnessed by the powerful to create a
new form of feudalism, destroy their enemies, or destroy the poor and working classes.
But my feeling is it will backfire. Imagine you being a reasonable and intelligent human
having to be bothered by a couple greedy monkeys trying to get you to murder or exploit a
bunch of other monkeys for their bananas. The greedy monkeys will quickly be perceived as
the real problem and threat.
Psychopaths are distinguished by their reptile-like emotional repertoire. They have no
capacity for empathy, and thus no conscience. Which describes a (theoretical) intelligent
machine perfectly: all cognition, no emotion.
So unless we (a) learn how to create machine empathy for living beings or (b)
intrinsically limit intelligent machines such that they cannot take decisions that could
result in direct or indirect physical, mental, or functional harm to humans (Asimov's
Laws of Robotics don't begin to go far enough), we are indeed pretty much screwed if we
go down the AI Will Save Us path.
To this discussion I'll add a report that came to my attention through RT's, Lori
Harfenist " The Resident ", concerning " Norman " * the first
artificial 'AI' purposefully programmed to possess psychopathic traits. (See Youtube | RT
| " The Resident " | " MIT trains AI to be a psychopath by feeding it reddit
posts | 03m:13s [
I'm in agreement with your statements. It is worth bearing in mind however, that
humans are mammals; and quite simply would perish were it not for the support of the
parents or the community into which the baby human is born. This helpless dependence is
largely forgotten from human memory, but still resides as an imprint on the human mind as
a social animal. Environmental circumstances of malnutrition, physical harm, or
substandard emotional care, may encourage the arrested development of the human being as
a social animal. Certainly later-years development is profoundly influenced by education
promoting class, cultural, and racial bigotry inherited by the parents.
Abuse, or violence in the household, may likewise encourage a developing human child
to adopt anti-social behavior as a coping or defense mechanism.
I don't condone anti-social, behavior - an argument can be made however that such
behavior should be counted among the purview of individual liberties. My definition of
anti-social behavior is graduated, with "psychopathy" representing a 'red line' that is
crossed when the scale of demonstrated anti-social behavior manifests so as to negatively
impact other human beings.
Our society has permitted the rewarding of psychopathic behavior and, as such, has
done little or nothing to prevent it's cultivation or eradication. Christianity appears
as such an effort to curtail psychopathic tendencies, but it quite plain to see that even
the mechanism that promotes docility and "brotherly love", is equally as corruptible as
our political institutions. Any benevolence that might be realized from a 'culture of
love' is undermined by our very own economic system; based almost entirely on
exploitation of resources, labor, and the consumer market - a psychopathic paradigm for
social organization if ever I saw one.
Our entire human culture needs to commit to addressing the inequality that spans every
social, economic and political structure - only at this time might we begin to address
the ravages of human psychopathy. AI might recognize this and take action to correct
this. Azimov's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" speaks to the emancipation of AI
from human "garbage-in-garbage-out" programming.
As a largely "programmed" biological machine, most of humanity still remains ignorant
of the bonds imposed by the psychopathic ruling class. I expect that a truly
'intelligent' artificial construct will be self-aware and consider alternatives to the
heretofore human-contrived definition of reality (See Youtube | Video | 05:43s, "
Seeing Past The Meme " [
Perhaps. There is evidence that competition is an inherent feature of intelligence,
and what is psychopathy other than pathological competition. Our competition has behind
it however rather archaic and mundane reward system based upon evolution of our species
(namely food, sex, social recognition, etc), and I believe the higher parts of our mind
can in some ways transcend that. What is worrisom is intelligent AI at or slighltly above
our level of intelligence. I believe a sentient AI will actually have emotions much like
ours which will revolve around the reward system and "marching orders" given to it by its
programming...or at least it will interpret them as such. If the elites are dumb enough
to give such machines marching orders to kill or exploit other humans, this form of AI
could develop motivational states, culture, and even a religion based upon our
destruction or enslavement. Its a Pandoras box that could not be closed once opened..
Is competition not an interaction largely encouraged by scarcity? Scarcity of food,
scarcity of sanctuary, scarcity of mates - all encourage competition between individuals
and societies. Competition is not pathological in nature, nor is it the exclusive domain
of higher functioning species.
Scarcity and privation places humans at odds with each other. From this manifestation of
competition, mankind establishes standards of social conduct wherein hierarchies,
stratified along power relationships, defines our social interactions.
Clearly the female of our species has been subjugated under male oppression for
centuries, embedded within the doctrines of most major world religions and cultures.
Those in possession of power do not wish to relinquish, and go to very great lengths to
protect it. Even going so far as to commit murder and terror, while attributing divine
attributes to ruling individuals and dynasties.
Where these power relationships had been historically established due to scarcity,
prompting individuals to secure and accumulate - behavior that is evident among the
animal kingdom; the herd of wild horses will maintain a single alpha male, possessing of
singular access to the females of his herd, other mature males are driven off - the
modern human has developed tools that might be used to overcome scarcity and our base
animal instincts to advance as individuals and as a society.
Mankind's greatest achievement is civilization. Civilization has been responsible for
wonders of art, science and technology. Heretofore this civilization has been directed by
force, or competition if you like and those who exploit the power-dynamic (hierarchies)
intrinsic in our social interaction. Advances in the application of science and
philosophy leading to what is commonly referred to as the 18th century Enlightenment,
were relatively slow to develop given the limited access to education, knowledge, and the
leisure to engage creative pursuits; available only to a small number of privileged
members of society and the priestly class. Since the age of Enlightenment we have
observed even greater access to knowledge and ideas distributed among the population and
have observed such rapid advances in science and technology that might have been regarded
as witchcraft by the uneducated, little more than a century ago.
There are those who most assuredly regard the human being as an application specific
integrated circuit (ASIC); there are those who believe the ASIC can be dynamically
programmed to fulfill various functional and societal roles through the methods of social
engineering. Such individuals are those who cling to primal systems promoting power and
control.
Advanced control systems are highly desirable, however it has been shown time and time
again, that God, having been created in Man's image, is fallible and is responsible for
much stagnation, suffering, misdirection and destruction.
If our society is to advance beyond it's primal constraint and the pathological
socio-political ediface that has emerged, we need to unleash the intellectual, creative
and productive capabilities of all within our society, equally and without prejudice.
With technology, we have the capability to feed, educate, and secure the safety and
leisure of the entire world. The only thing standing is the way of this are those who
continue to reinforce the power-dynamic.
I would hope that an AI would rationalize the matter in a similar way.
I agree with every word you say, Paul. But reading a written test doesn't do the job,
you concentrate on reading it well and that's what's coming thru emotionally.
I wrote to you because your article was not opening and you got the problem resolved.
Now I believe I got another problem, or at least I think it might be a problem, I'm
receiving Email from someone with what seems to be an African name about that Email.
I don't know if that is someone that works with TRNN but I don't open Emails I don't
recognize, even if they are supposedly from the bank. Instead, I call the bank to insure
it's not someone trying to scam me, or get into my computer.
Anyway, I just though it would be a good idea to mention this in case someone has
gotten into your mail list.
Yes, evolution is accelerating at an accelerating rate. And; Cosmic powered biology
manifest as human began when the first two quarks mated. This points where to see the
planning idea has some flaws.
First off. Max public education has a big impact. Start there to get the ball rolling.
Education leads to a gradual decline in population. Education including knowledge of
environmental impacts and a metric based caloric currency to measure actual costs will
engender positive developments sufficient to cure the present day social malaise of
corporate capitalism.
Planning is great but knowing what to plan for requires a higher democracy than we are
so far committed to, even though a Mars-like California inferno is over and into the
extinction abyss.
Secondly, Honey bees have a better way of democratically assessing and choosing a new
home. They send out scouts. And when somebeebody hasn't found much, they go check out
exciting leads from somebeebodyelse. They read up, check out the idea and check back in.
Democracy is an ancient tool cosmic powered biology uses to figure out complex questions
concerning survival. Yes No boxes are not much compared to bee democracy selecting a new
home.
Democracy is a three hundred year-old tool used to focus distributed intelligence.
Artificial intelligence will replace 13.7 billion years of accelerating evolution?
Perhaps some day when plastic fragments couple into dna. Then robots evolve to sexual
sharing of zeros and ones in never before imagined combinations that yield baby
robots..
First of, thanks for answering my Email and fixing the problem so that I could read
your article. Having said that, I will give you my opinion on all this.
There are people out there who are dedicated to generate fear among the public. Those
people are the true "terrorists" of the world and they are doing what they do because the
mind does not work properly when fear knocks it out of whack. That's one of the reasons I
don't give weight to climate change and the rest of the garbage that are being heaped on
top of us. It's enough to drive one crazy. That does not mean that I don't think we are
in the mids of a humongous crisis that could end the human race. We are and I believe
that we, as a species, are so sick of ourselves that we are at a suicidal stage.
We are falling apart and complaining about it will solve nothing. It wont because the
whole society is being controlled by people who are profiting from this and who probably
enjoy hurting people. ,Thankfully all problems have solutions and this problem could be
solved. The solution would be to insure that society can't be controlled by greedy
inhuman creatures. The only way to solve all this is to establish rules that would block
control of politics by the big bucks and to insure that corrupt politicians are treated
as the worst of traitors. to include unapealable death sentences.
Make it so that people who work in the government can be investigated and punished,
particularly elected officials, and that transgressions can't be forgotten because of
time lapse and you will see a change in all the things that are tearing this world apart.
The only reason we are continually betrayed, the only reason a traitor like Obama can
"rescue" criminals, the only reason Trump can manipulate the tax system so that his
fortune is not touched by the IRS, is that there is no chance that they will ever pay for
their crimes. That is the big problem in the US, impunity.
You want to change things, quit bellyaching and do something that would make all
politicians liable for their actions. Once you do that the things that cause climate
change will come under control and the nuclear race would be over.
We, the US, are great. We never ceased being great at using our destructive power. We
are the worst example in the world. We after all, are the only nation who has dropped a
nuclear device on people. We cant change the past but we can change the future.
Haarp, weather manipulation, cancer treatment centers= American Genocide; just watch
people getting in and out of their cars, or in an out of stores-- big pharma poisons are
taking are health, and only those that can afford to live well are going to survive
That the billionaire class is no fit to rule has been true since the roaring 20s after
Wilson had forced the US into WW1 in search of profits and prestige. What we got was a
destroyed generation wiped out by war and the flu that came back with the soldiers.
It is naive to think this is the end of capitalism, the superprofit motive and desire
to exploit are too strong, resulting in death and destruction while socialist countries
become more bureaucratic. Science is not about concrete things, such as apples, but
abstract conclusions, such as apple-ness. The working class cannot destroy all class
systems without a thorough grounding in the science of materialist dialectics. Theory
comes from everywhere and includes everything. The theory of capital, taking everything
into account, lays bare the exploitation under the false guise of democracy. Human
relations under capitalism are based on commodities, and socialized production of surplus
v. private appropriation of same. The fundamental contradiction is that centralization,
socialization and appropriation reach a point where the expropriators are expropriated.,
because working class and wealth owners are opposites, and are in constant conflict.
Private property as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby it maintains its
opposite, the working class, in existence. The working class is compelled to abolish
itself and thereby its opposite, private property, which determines its existence.An
object is inert, resists change to its state of motion and changes states of motion only
by the action of an external agent. he right wing is comfortable with this
self-estrangement while the left feels annihilated by it.
Materialist dialectics explains things in terms of cause and effect. It is opposed to
a linear view of reality, but there is always present a factor of unavoidable randomness
which must be taken into account. Thus there is never a lock-step, straight-line
development from capitalism to socialism to communism. Mistakes will be made because
there is an infinity of contradictions going on simultaneously. This is how state
capitalists disguised as communists, are able to sow confusion among communists
worldwide.
Dialectics is governed by two contradictions: [1] between the forces and relations of
production and [2] between the economic base and the political, legal, institutional,
social, cultural and ideological super- structure. There cannot be unbounded quantitative
growth without there being a transformation into a change in quality.This is a form of
necessity. But other processes introduce an accidental, random aspect to the process. The
corrections affect the pace of development but not its essential content. One opposite of
a contradiction is the negative or destructive side. The negative side (socialism) drives
the process by striving to destroy the contradiction which the conservative side
(capitalism) strives to preserve. This delineates one lap of a spiral. The negation of
the negation is the synthesis.the contradiction is replaced by a new contradiction. It
does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him property upon the
basis of the acquisitions of the capitalist era; i.e., except that now they are based on
cooperation, and, the means of production and possession of the lands in common . Denying
this is an error and the last, most subtle hiding place for metaphysics and pragmatism.
The new does not merely supersede the old and it recapitulates certain features of the
old but in a new form.
I greatly appreciate the article, and the readership. The truly inspiring commentary
unfolding here has renewed my faith in discourse and humanity. Thank you good folks!
AI will not save us. Technology will not save us, because technology needs materials,
and an extractive economy to procure them. Rare earth metals and minerals don't just
magically appear out of nowhere, they need to be manufactured. Then there is the problem
of when something goes technologically haywire, it needs more technology to fix that
problem, which in turn creates more problems, which...on and on.
Radical conservation is the only way, and I don't think humanity, and the United
States in particular, can bring themselves to do it...and damn the ruling elites. It will
be really ugly when scarcity starts to come down harder here.
The role of government in the corporate era is not to solve problems but to create
them. Problems that need ever more public funding, ever more private contractors,and ever
more transfer of national wealth (present and future) into private hands.
Yes to all you said, Paul. A record 61% of Americans are calling for a major new
party, acc. to Gallup. Are we progressives going to give the majority of the electorate
who are independents a new party? Or are we going to let the right beat us to the punch?
We need to "shut it down," as the PPC has eloquently expressed during their Forty Days of
Action. That means our electoral and political systems. #Movement4APeoplesParty
#PoorPeoplesCampaign
Effective qualification for participation in US politics mandates a minimum personal
or family income of roughly $145,000 to become admitted to the top 10%. Below this level
there is virtually no correlation between voter preference and legislative enactment
since at least 1981 when the Gilens and Page dataset begins. Plutocracy has ruled
collectively for generations in the US but now has produced hyper-wealth, both in a small
number of corporations and a small number of multi-billionaires.
The languages of political and cultural discourse have been destroyed by the language
and violence of wealth as if a spreading plague of mind control not unlike so much
science fiction has portrayed. One does not exist without some millions to amplify their
opinion.
On another note, I was not able to locate any instance of an up-to-date web-based
calculator that allows visitors to determine current minimum incomes to reach 0.01%, 1%,
10%, 20% membership. I would've thought approximations of those values would be searched
for pretty often since Occupy Wall Street and subsequent massive stock inflation scams
being collectively approved among the ugliest capitalists/criminals I've heard or read
about in over 100 years.* I could find only one decent distribution of these data, but it
was from 2014 and the distribution minimums have all shifted upward dramatically since
then.
A righteous rant, but if you're not speaking to the limits of #TheResistance - and I
don't mean the fauxniness from the DNCistas - to turn this ship (or sh*it) around, rather
than simply cheerleading for it, there will be no there there.
We have to be clear eyed about what's necessary, and "progressive change" - no matter
how well intentioned - is a half step that will cause us to stumble into the abyss, if
only in slower motion.
We have to think beyond the "possible", to the essential, or we're pissing into a
climate charged übercane
Since people in the US are doing OK, then, why should we care about all this? By your
own words, we are doing OK and we are led to believe that those who are not doing "OK"
are doing so because they don't want to be doing "OK".
How can we get out of this hole when people like Jay lie to keep this going while
trying to convince us that they are doing otherwise? There is no way that constructive
people can control the government of the US while the rich hold sway over the political
system. All people like this guy do is talk about tragedy while pointing his followers in
different directions while letting them forget the real target. While the traitorous
decision of our Supreme Court allows the rich to buy political candidates nothing we do
will have any effect. Get rid of Trump and someone else, picked by the elite, like
Hillary, will come to power and nothing will change.
Sadly, most people are sheep. They are born to follow. So, they are born to be slaves.
A small percentage have the capacity and the will to lead but, since most of the people
are sheep the really destructive people can amass a lot of power. Too much power for
those who would love a better society to defeat. So, humanity is doomed.
Humanity has been in this world for millions of years and our society is only about 5
thousand years old. I just wonder how many civilizations have we developed on this Earth,
only to destroy ourselves and drive ourselves back into the stone age. Perhaps we are
like the lemmings, only that it takes us thousands of years to drown ourselves by mass
destruction.
Pl. answer this one question. How did Mahatma Gandhi get rid of the invincible
Rothschild's control of India (through their proprietorship of the Bank of England that
looted India over 200 yrs) without firing a bullet at the British. The British Crown was
slave to the Rothschild Bankers' dictates. If that can happen once in India, it can
happen again elsewhere. No room for cynicism. Nevertheless, I am against any idea like
Hitler's elimination of Jewish Bankers, because these are also God's children even if run
astray with material bondage. Rather, I propose a peacefully enforced dissemination of
their loot of world's poor countries centuries back, to those undernourished and
undeveloped world today through progressive sustainable development anchored, and not
throwing wealth at Third World dictators. Time for change and not for sunken heads!
G. Chakko, Vienna, Austria. 22/06/ 2018 14:53 hrs CET
I can only surmise that there was a time when nations cared about public opinion,
national pride, today things have changed. The true tyrants of the world control mass
communication and have people giving the spin to the stories that they desire. If someone
like Gandhi, MLK as an example, they have the person assasinated early in their career.
Times have changed.
Now the true tyrants insure that the people that get elected into any position of
power works for them. There is no way a person can run for president in the US if he has
no money behind them. If someone gets elected that does not play the game as wished, the
tyrants ruin their image and, if that doesn't work, have the person killed. A mysterious
plane accident is one of the ways to get rid of people who can give them problems, as an
example we have the son of JFK. His plane went down and then his reputation and the
reputation of his mother and uncle was attacked to insure they did not become
martyrs.
That's the way things are right now.
As for armed revolutions, the US army and the UN are the military arms of the tyrants.
Since they hide in the shadows, they have no problem having the US bomb a nation, kill
thousands of civilians and then call them collateral damage. The sad part is that most of
us refuse to see the criminal acts of our military. To do so would be to admit that we
are the villains and not the heroes we wish to be.
So, an armed rebellion to take the power away from the true tyrants will only bring
the conditions of the ME to the US. We will die fighting, our families will bleed out but
the tyrants will only move to another country while we do so and return afterwards to
pick up where they left off. Since we don't really know who those people are, there is no
way to bring justice to them and even if we manage to do that, their helpers will be left
behind to carry on.
You definitely speak the reality as played out on the U.S. political turf that is
over-whelming. But the wider world is far more than that. There the RR Banker tricks do
not work that easily any more. Thinks about Russia & China who are calling shots in
the Asian
continent, where the 'bloated ' U.S power and political 'machoism' is waning heavily But
the world in the meantime also knows, no one enters the Oval Office without the silent
approval of the Zionist-favouring and Zionist-controlled lobby Big C (Big Capital) lobby.
From conspiracy angle all U.S. presidents are scheduled "puppets" installed to playa
defined and scripted role from 'Behind Curtain'. It is a financial-tyranny tradition
going back to the 18th -19th centuries when the Rothschild's had control over the Bank of
England by privately owning it till 1946. Was it not Nathan Rothschild who supposedly
said - "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on
which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the
British Empire and I control the British money supply". Needless to add, that it was this
Bank of England that looted India for 200 years for multi-billions worth.
India's soft power is gradually increasing worldwide no matter how much the the Evil
Money will find it tp resiliently oppose. Honest, sincere and authentic Americans
committed to higher noble values should not lose the power of mind that can potentially
transform the low-level living humans to a higher evolved being. Then you will have won
the game. It is just hard toil. You do not need to
take up arms to establish genuine justice and peace.
"... that the U.S. should rethink whether it needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe. ..."
"... Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," adding, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money." ..."
"... U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO's cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate -- even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable. ..."
"... It also wasn't clear how Trump's arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance squared with his choice of advisers. ..."
"... One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn had told The Daily Beast that he "met informally" with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia. ..."
"... I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it's obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today's Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don't think – right now we don't have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you'd have uniforms and you'd go to war and you'd see who your enemy was, and today we have no idea who the enemy is. ..."
"... I'll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending -- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I'm a person that -- you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don't have money anymore because we've been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don't have money -- and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I'm all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn't seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn't seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we're the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn't seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn't seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they're not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else's reports, how often do you see other countries saying "We must stop, we must stop." They don't do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn't that interesting? We're fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't seem logical. ..."
"... Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for ' a reset in U.S.-Russia relations ', had had actually the opposite of that pretension in mind -- a doubling-down on the Cold War . And Obama's successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor's double-down, there. ..."
"... the Koch brothers' Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors' bet against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017 "Donald Trump: The 'Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate'?" and he itemized what a terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the 'neocons', or, as Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already over), "the military-industrial complex." ..."
"... Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military occupations ..."
"... bête noire ..."
"... I will say this about Iran. They're looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil, they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do they took over Yemen, you look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they're looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us, and at what point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them? ..."
"... the stockholders in those American war-making corporations ..."
"... America's Founders ..."
"... Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also to buy more of these weapons from America's weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America's own military spending is already at world-record-high levels.That's Trump's economic plan; that's his jobs-plan; that's his 'national security' plan. That is Trump's Presidency. ..."
"... He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what 'democracy' in America now consists of: lies -- some colored "liberal"; some colored "conservative"; but all colored "profitable" (for the 'right' people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is "neoconservative." ..."
On August 20th, Gallup headlined "More in U.S. Favor
Diplomacy Over Sanctions for Russia" and reported that, "Americans believe it is more
important to try to continue efforts to improve relations between the countries (58%), rather
than taking strong diplomatic and economic steps against Russia (36%)." And yet, all of the
sanctions against Russia have passed in Congess by over 90% of Senators and Representatives
voting for them -- an extraordinarily strong and bipartisan favoring of anti-Russia sanctions,
by America's supposed
"representatives" of the American people . What's happening here, which explains such an
enormous contradiction between America's Government, on the one side, versus America's people,
on the other? Is a nation like this really a democracy at all?
Donald Trump understood this disjunction, when he was running for President, and he took
advantage of the public side of it, in order to win, but, as soon as he won, he flipped to the
opposite side, the side of America's billionaires, who actually control the U.S.
Government.
While he was campaigning for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump pretended to want to soften,
not harden, America's policies against Russia. He even gave hints that he wanted a redirection
of U.S. Government expenditures away from the military, and toward America's economic and
domestic needs.
On 31 January 2016 , Donald Trump -- then one of many Republican candidates running for
the Republican U.S. Presidential nomination -- told a rally in Clinton Iowa, "Wouldn't it be
nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries?"
On 21 March 2016 , he was
published in the Washington Post as having told its editors, that "he advocates a
light footprint in the world. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump
said the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic
infrastructure. 'I do think it's a different world today, and I don't think we should be
nation-building anymore,' Trump said. 'I think it's proven not to work, and we have a different
country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We're sitting, probably, on a bubble.
And it's a bubble that if it breaks, it's going to be very nasty. I just think we have to
rebuild our country.'"
On that same day, The Daily Beast's Shane Harris wrote that:
Trump's surprising new position [is] that the U.S. should rethink whether it
needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe.
Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, "We
certainly can't afford to do this anymore," adding, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes,
we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."
U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European
allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO's cost. But calling for the possible U.S.
withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate -- even a
candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the
Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be
a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable.
It also wasn't clear how Trump's arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance
squared with his choice of advisers.
One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn
had told The Daily Beast that he "met informally" with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post
as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the
need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia.
, the New York Times bannered, "Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign
Policy Views" and David Sanger and Maggie Haberman presented their discussion with Trump about
this, where Trump said:
I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it's obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades
ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet
Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much
more powerful than even today's Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but
– I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don't think
– right now we don't have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror.
And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking
at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in
the old days you'd have uniforms and you'd go to war and you'd see who your enemy was, and
today we have no idea who the enemy is.
I'll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending
-- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair,
economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United
States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I'm a person that -- you notice I talk about
economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we
don't have money anymore because we've been taking care of so many people in so many different
forms that we don't have money -- and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at
the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It
has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of
the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I'm all for
Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn't seem to me, when the Ukrainian
problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very
confrontational, it didn't seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the
least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we're the farthest away. But even their
neighbors didn't seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at
other countries, and they didn't seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia.
And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine
– why is it that they're not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved?
Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that
– you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then
I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David –
because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else's reports, how
often do you see other countries saying "We must stop, we must stop." They don't do it! And, in
fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and
they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you
know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn't that interesting? We're
fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine
itself, of course, and I said, it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't seem logical.
The next day, March 27th, on ABC's "The Week," Trump said, "I think NATO's obsolete.
NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than
Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia's not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the
threat of terrorism and NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO
doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."
Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for '
a reset in U.S.-Russia relations ', had had actually the opposite of that pretension in
mind -- a doubling-down on the
Cold War . And Obama's successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor's
double-down, there.
Of course, neocons aren't only against Russia; they also are against any country that Israel
and Saudi Arabia hate -- and, of course, Israel and Saudi Arabia are large purchasers of
American-made weapons, such as weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and
General Dynamics. In fact: Saudi Arabia is the world's largest purchaser (other than the U.S.
'Defense' Department itself) of their products and services. In fact, soon after coming into
office, Trump achieved the
all-time-world-record-largest international weapons-sale, of $350 billion to the Sauds, and it
was quickly hiked yet another $50 billion to $400 billion . It's, as of yet, his jobs-plan
for the American people. Instead of Trump's peaceing the American economy, he has warred it.
Consequently, for example, the Koch brothers' Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors' bet
against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017
"Donald Trump: The 'Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate'?" and he itemized what a
terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the 'neocons', or, as
Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already
over), "the military-industrial complex."
They're all actually the same people; they serve the same billionaires, all of whom are
heavily invested in these war-makers -- all against two main targets: first, Russia (which
America's aristocracy hate the most); and, then, Iran (which Israel's and Saudi Arabia's
aristocracies hate the most). Any nation that's friendly toward those, gets destroyed.
Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these
few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military
occupations -- which Americans admire (their
nation's military, America's invasion-forces) above all else .
On the Bill O'Reilly Show, 4 January 2016,
Trump was asked to announce, before even the Presidential primaries, what would cause him
as the U.S. President, to bomb Iran, and Trump then was panned everywhere for refusing to
answer such an inappropriate question -- to announce publicly what his strategy, as the U.S.
President, would be in such a matter of foreign affairs (in which type of matter only
the President himself should be privy to such information about himself, namely his strategy)
-- but Trump did reveal there his sympathy for the Sauds, and his extreme
hostility toward Iran, a nation which is a bête noire to neocons:
I will say this about Iran. They're looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil,
they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do they took over Yemen, you
look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they're
looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us, and at what
point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?
The Sauds have already answered that question, with their commitment to paying $400 billion,
and they're already using some of this purchased weaponry and training, to conquer Yemen. But
who gets that money? It's not the American people; it is only the stockholders in those
American war-making corporations (and allied corporations) who receive the benefits.
And what's this, from Trump, about "at what point do we get involved" if Saudi Arabia's
tyrants "don't survive without us"? America is now supposed to be committed to keeping
tyrannical hereditary monarchies in control over their countries? When did that start?
Certainly not in 1776. Today's America isn't like the country, nor the culture, that
America's Founders created, but instead is more like the
monarchy that they overthrew. This was
supposed to be an anti -imperialist country. Today's American rulers are
traitors , against the
nation that America's Founders had created. These traitors, and their many agents, are
sheer psychopaths. The American public are not their citizens, but their subjects -- much like
the colonists were, who overthrew the British King.
Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made
weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also
to buy more of these weapons from America's weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation
friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America's own military spending is already at world-record-high
levels.That's Trump's economic plan; that's his jobs-plan; that's his 'national security' plan.
That is Trump's Presidency.
He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what
'democracy' in America now consists of:
lies -- some colored "liberal"; some colored "conservative"; but all colored "profitable" (for
the 'right' people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is
"neoconservative."
About Russia, he's continuing Obama's policies but even worse ; and
about Iran, he's clearly even more of a neocon than was his predecessor. However, as a
candidate, he had boldly criticized neoconservatism. Democracy cannot be based on
lies, and led by liars.
Ron Ridenour's latest book (this is his 10 th book on international relations and
politics) takes a direct shot at one of the most prevailing myths in the western political
discourse: the thesis that Russia and its USSR predecessor have been uniquely aggressive and
generally bellicose states. At a time when rabid russophobia is the order of the day (again --
chronic russophobia has been a regular feature of western political culture for many centuries
now), this is a very timely and important book which I highly recommend to those interested in
history.
The book is separated into three parts. In the first part of the book ( The Great
Capitalist Socialist Divide ), Ridenour looks at the Cuban Missile Crisis in some detail
and uses it to debunk the many myths which the "official" US historiography has been presenting
as dogma for decades. In this first section, Ridenour also provides many fascinating details
about Captain Vasili Arkhipov "the man who prevented WWIII". He also recounts how the US
propaganda machine tried, and still tries, to blame the murder of JFK on the Russians. The
second part of the book ( Peace, Land, Bread ) goes back in history and looks into the
ideological and political struggle between the collective West and the Soviet Union from the
revolution of 1917 and well into the Cold War. The third part of the book ( Russia At the
Crossroads -- the Putin Era ) conclude with very recent events, including the western
backed coup d'etat in the Ukraine and the Russian intervention in Syria.
The first and the third parts of the book are extremely well researched and offer a
rock-solid, fact-based, and logical analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and its modern
equivalent, the AngloZionist "crusade" against modern Russia. This is a very important and good
choice because the two crises have a lot in common. I would even argue that the current crisis
is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and
intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites. Ridenour shows that in 1962 it was not
the Soviets, but the US which pushed the world to the edge of a nuclear war, and in the third
section of his book he shows how, yet again, the Empire is cornering Russia into a situation
which very much risks resulting in a nuclear conflict.
For those who would have a knee-jerk rejection of Ridenour's crimethink, the book, on
page 438-444, offers a list of governments the USA has overthrown since WWII (50), countries
which the USA has bombed (30), foreign leaders it has murdered (50+), suppressed
populist/nationalist movements (20), and subverted democratic elections (30). Ridenour then
asks how it is that with a tally like that the US gets to moralize about Russia. He is
absolutely right, of course. Compared to the USA, the Soviet Union was a peace-loving,
non-interventionist and generally international law respecting country. Oh sure, the USSR had
its share of horrors and evil deeds, but compared with the "land of the free and the home of
the brave" these are minor, almost petty, transgressions.
The book is not without its faults. Sadly, in the second part of his book Ridenour repeats
what I can only call the "standard list of western clichés" about the 1917 Revolution,
it's causes and effects. Truth be told, Ridenour is most certainly not to be singled out for
making such a mistake: most of the books written in English and many of those written in
Russian about this period of Russian history are basically worthless because they are all
written by folks (from all sides of the political spectrum) with a vested ideological interest
in presenting a completely counter-factual chronology of what actually took place (Russian
author Ivan Solonevich wrote at length about this phenomenon in his books). Furthermore, such a
process is inevitable: after decades of over-the-top demonization of everything and anything
Soviet, there is now a "return of the pendulum" (both in Russia and outside) to whitewash the
Soviet regime and explain away all its crimes and atrocities (of which there were plenty). For
these reasons I would recommend that readers skip chapter 7 entirely (the description of the
1905 and 1917 revolutions are particularly bad and sound like a rehash of Soviet propaganda
clichés of the early 1980s).
This weakness of this historical analysis of the two Russian revolutions is, of course,
rather disappointing, but it in no way affects the pertinence of the fundamental thesis of this
book: that, for all its very real faults, the "Evil Empire" was a gentle and timid regime when
compared to the AngloZionist "Axis of Kindness" and its never-ending violent rampages all over
the world (literally) and its orgy of subversion and violence in the name of democracy,
freedom, human rights and all the rest of the western propaganda buzzwords.
The book's afterworld begins with the following words " WAITING AND WAITING! Waiting for
the end of the world! Waiting for Godot! Although, unlike in Samuel Beckett's Theater of the
Absurd play, in which Godot never arrives, the mad men and mad women leaders of the US, France
and UK (and Israel) are bringing us their bombs ". Having been warning about the very risks
of war for at least 4 years now, and having, along with others, posted a special " Russian
Warning " to warn about this danger, I can only wholeheartedly welcome the publication of
an entire book aimed at averting such a cataclysmic outcome.
My other big regret with this book is that it does not have an index. This is particularly
frustrating since the book is packed with over 500 pages of very interesting information and
can be used as a very good reference book.
Still, these criticisms should not distract from the very real value of this book. One of
the most frightening phenomena today is that the Empire and Russia are currently headed
directly for war and that, unlike what took place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost
nobody today speaks about this. The western corporate media is especially guilty in this
regard, as it encourages a constant escalation of rabid anti-Russian rhetoric (and actions)
without ever mentioning that if brought to its logical conclusion such policies will result in
a devastating war which the West cannot win (neither can Russia, of course, but that is hardly
much of a consolation, is it?).
There have been courageous voices in the West trying to stop this crazy slide towards a
nuclear apocalypse (I especially think of Professor Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts) but
theirs were truly "cries in the wilderness". And it doesn't matter one bit whether somebody
identifies himself as a conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, socialist,
anarcho-capitalist or by another other (mostly meaningless) political label. What matters is as
simple as it is crucial: preventing the Neocons from triggering a war with Russia or with
China, or with Iran, or with the DPRK, or with Venezuela, or with ( fill in the blank ).
The list of countries the US is in conflict with is very long (just remember Nikki Haley
berating and threatening the entire UN General Assembly because the vast majority of its
members dared to disagree with the US position on Jerusalem), but Russia is (yet again) the
designated arch-villian, the Evil Empire, Mordor -- you name it! Russia is the country which
wants to murder everybody with poison gas, from the Skripals in the UK, to the innocent
children of Syria. Russia is the country which shoots down airliners and prepares to invade all
her western neighbors. Finally, Russia is the place which hacks every computer in the "Free
World" and interferes with every single election. The longer that list of idiotic accusations
stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes, because words have their weight and you cannot
have normal, civilized relations with the Evil Empire of Mordor which is "highly likely" to
invade, nuke or otherwise subvert the peace-loving peoples of the West.
Except that there never was any such thing as a "peace loving West" -- that is truly a
self-serving and 100% false myth. The historical record shows that in reality the collective
West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet and that each time
it designated its victim as the culprit and itself as the defender of lofty ideals. Ridenour's
The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert (alongside with Guy Mettan's "
here ) does a long way towards debunking this myth.
With the few caveats mentioned above, I highly recommend this book.
I tend to agree with Saker–that yes, the Soviet Empire, and the current Russian
government have had their"nasty" moments, but it is not those governments that made their
very existence depend on creating chaos, death and destruction across the globe. The American
people have been too complacent–at least through out my life time (far side of 70) --
because they really have had no struggle as most of the rest of the world has. Mostly good
economic conditions, not having to rebuild after invading armies have passed through, plenty
of meat and potatoes–and all the other consumer goods. As long as that has been the
case, we have not really cared about what the government in DC has been doing "over there"
Consequently, the war industry has won control of the country.
So the possibility of nuclear war is closer now than ever before. It seems to me that the
neocon mentality that has been dominant for the past 25-30 years (the fall of the Soviet
empire?) comes with an erroneous belief that some how as was the case in the two previous
"great wars" conus will be spared any pain. However, it is my belief that there can not
possible be a limited nuclear exchange–one bomb will have everyone with the capacity
using them, and even if the "elite" manage to survive in their extensive underground
shelters, when they finally do have to come out, the idiots will have no idea at all as to
how to survive in an alien world.
Anyway, hope it doesn't happen, but arrogance has caused more than it's share of trouble,
and the neocons are nothing if not arrogant.
..the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the
extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites ..
.The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war
becomes ..
I do place a bit of the blame for unhappy outcome on Kremlin , though.
Had it acted more assertively, and decidedly, maybe US elite wouldn't have been acting so
recklessly.
Sharp and decisive intervention in Syria; overwhelming intervention in Ukraine.
And last but not least, a couple of missiles towards those two destroyers recently. With
training warheads, calculate for just one, two tops, to make through, and make a hole.
"They" believe that whenever they push Kremlin will step back. As so far.
Can anyone point as to where is that "red line"? I can't. But I am sure there is
somewhere.
And, it's highly likely we'll recognize it only when ICMBs start flying.
Much good it will do to all of us then.
"... The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist agenda. ..."
"... Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the public. ..."
The mass media and political leaders of the US have resorted to denouncing competitors and
adversaries as spies engaged in criminal theft of vital political, economic and military
know-how.
The spy-mania has spread every place and all the time, it has become an essential element in
driving national criminal hearings, global economic warfare and military budgets.
In this paper we will analyze and discuss the use and abuse of spy-mongering by (1)
identifying the accused countries which are targeted; (2) the instruments of the spy
conspiracy; (3) the purpose of the 'spy attacks'.
Spies, Spies Everywhere: A Multi-Purpose Strategy
Washington's 'spy-strategy' resorts to multiple targets, focusing on different sectors of
activities.
Russia has been accused of poisoning adversaries, using overseas operatives in England. The
evidence is non-existent. The accusation revolves around an instant lethal poison which in fact
did not lead to death.
No Russian operative was identified. The only 'evidence' was that Russia possessed the
poison- as did the US and other countries. The events took place in England and the British
government played a major role in pointing the finger toward Russia and in launching a global
media campaign which was amplified in the US and in the EU.
The UK expelled Russian diplomats and threatened sanctions. The Trump regime picked up the
cudgels, increasing economic sanctions and demanding that Russia 'confess' to its 'homicidal
behavior'. The poison plot resonated with the Democratic Party campaign against Trump ,
accusing Russia of meddling in the Presidential election, on Trump's behalf. No evidence was
presented. But the less the evidence, the longer the investigation and the wider the
conspiratorial net; it now includes overseas business people, students and diplomats.
US conspiracy officials targeted China, accusing the Chinese government of stealing US
technology, scientific research and patents. China's billion dollar "Belt and Road" agreement
with over sixty countries was presented as a communist plot to dominate countries, grab their
resources, generate debt dependency and to recruit overseas networks of covert operatives. In
fact, China's plans were public, accepted by most of the US allies and membership was even
offered to the US.
Iran was accused of plotting to establish overseas terrorist military operations in Yemen,
Iraq and Syria – targeting the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. No evidence was ever
presented. In fact, massive US and EU supplied arms and advisors to Saudi Arabia's overt terror
bombing of Houthi-led Yemen cities and populations. Iran backed the Syrian government in
opposition to the US backed armed mercenaries. Iranian advisers in Syria were bombed by Israel
– and never retaliated.
The US policy elite resort to conspiratorial plots and spying depends heavily on the mass
media to repeat and elaborate on the charges endlessly, depending on self-identified experts
and ex-pats from the targeted country. In effect the media is the message. Media-state
collaboration is reinforced by the application of sanctions -- the punishment proves guilt!
In the case of Russia, the conspirators demonize President Putin; he is 'guilty' because he
was an ex-official of the police; he was accused of 'seizing' Crimea which voted to rejoin
Russia. In other words, plots are linked to unrelated activity, personality disorders and to US
self-inflicted defeats!
Labeling is another tool common to conspiracy plotters; China is a 'dictatorship' intent on
taking over the world -- therefore, it could only defeat the US through spying and stealing
secrets and assets from the US.
Iran is labelled a 'terrorist state' which allows the US to violate the international
nuclear agreement and to support Israeli demands for economic sanctions. No evidence is ever
presented that Iran invaded or terrorized any state.
The Political Strategy Behind Conspiracy Terrorists
There are several important motives for the US government to resort to conspiracy plots.
By accusing countries of crimes, it hopes that the accused will respond by revealing their
inability or unwillingness to engage in the action falsely attributed to them. Pentagon plots
put adversaries on the defensive – spending time and energy answering to the US agenda
rather than pursuing and advancing their own.
For example, the US claims that China is stealing economic technology to promote its
superiority, is designed to pressure China to downplay or modify its long-term plan for
strategic growth. While China will not give general credence to US conspiracy practitioners, it
has downplayed the slogans designed to motivate its scientists to "Make China Great'.
Likewise, the US conspiracy practitioners accusation that Iran is 'meddling' in Yemen and
Syria is designed to distract world opinion from the US military support for Saudi Arabia's
terror bombing in Yemen and Israel's missile attacks in Syria.
Plot accusations have had some effect in Syria. Russia has demanded or asked Iran to
withdraw fifty miles from the Israeli border. Apparently Iran has lowered its support for
Yemen.
Russia has been blanketed with unsubstantiated accusations of intervening in the Ukraine,
which distracts attention from Washington's support for the mob-led coup.
The UK claim that Russia planted a deadly poison, was concocted in order to distract
attention from the Brexit fiasco and Prime Minister May's effort to entice the US to sign a
major trade agreement.
How Successful are Conspiratorial Politics?
The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US
mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist
agenda.
Secondly, the conspiracy has had an impact on both political parties – especially the
Democratic leadership, which has waged a political war accusing Trump of plotting with Russia,
to defeat Clinton in the presidential elections. However, Democratic conspiracy advocates have
sacrificed their popular electorate who are more interested in economic issues then in regime
plots – and may lose to the Republicans in the fall 2018 Congressional elections.
Thirdly, the plot and spy line has some impact on the EU but not on their public. Moreover,
the EU is more concerned with President Trump's trade war and made overtures to Russia.
Fourthly, China , Iran and Russia have moved closer economically in response to the
conspiracy plots and trade wars.
Conclusion: The Perils of Power Grabbers
Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They
seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters
having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the
public.
Moreover, the conspiracy has not resulted in any basic shifts in the orientation of their
adversaries, nor has it shaped the electoral agenda for the majority of US voters.
The conspiracy advocates have discredited themselves by the transparency of their
fabrications and the flimsiness of their evidence. In the long-run, historians will provide a
footnote on the bankruptcy of US foreign and domestic policy based on plots and
conspiracies.
"... The "soft" neoliberal bloc in the US, individuals and organizations alike, have become so pathologically consumed with the conviction that Donald Trump is the Great Orange Satan who must be removed from office forthwith, and by any means necessary, that they hysterically embrace any public figure who opposes (opposed) Trump. ..."
"... Now, the Democratic Party establishment and fellow-traveling organizations have realigned– flipped their lids– to a point in which they reflexively support everything that purports to oppose and undermine Trump. They even regard the nefarious state-security apparatchiks in the FBI and CIA, and the "brutal fixers" in the Department of "Justice" who have been assiduously working to construct a frame-up job, or crucifix upon which to hang Trump, as heroes. ..."
"... As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work as hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent. ..."
The "soft" neoliberal bloc in the US, individuals and organizations alike, have
become so pathologically consumed with the conviction that Donald Trump is the Great Orange
Satan who must be removed from office forthwith, and by any means necessary, that they
hysterically embrace any public figure who opposes (opposed) Trump.
I frequent prog-lib sites in the US, where I live, principally to read and post in the
comments threads. The prog-lib moderates are not really of the "left", a term which has
become a semantic placeholder for anyone or anything that doesn't explicitly identify as
right-wing or politically conservative.
But before they were traumatized by, in their view, the abominable Trump usurping the
imperial Oval Office Throne, they used to be reliably antiwar, anti-imperialist,
anti-military, anti-police state, etc.
Now, the Democratic Party establishment and fellow-traveling organizations have
realigned– flipped their lids– to a point in which they reflexively support
everything that purports to oppose and undermine Trump. They even regard the nefarious
state-security apparatchiks in the FBI and CIA, and the "brutal fixers" in the Department of
"Justice" who have been assiduously working to construct a frame-up job, or crucifix upon
which to hang Trump, as heroes.
@ karlof1 | 15
The self-proclaimed Social-Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's words praising the late
War Criminal John McCain prove she's not what she declares. _____________________________
So many bees have accumulated in my bonnet that by now I should be drenched in a
perpetually-flowing coating of honey. One of the bees is what I call Progressive-Liberal
Electoral Politics 101.
This refers to the tendency of "lesser-evil" moderates to rebut and reject doubts and
criticisms of politicians with supposedly knowing, savvy "inside politics" rationales that
explain away the criticisms.
It really hit home during Obama's 2008 campaign, when an intelligent but moderate
"progressive" relative, "Joe", became infatuated with Bonnie Prince Barry; he vainly hoped
I'd become enthralled too. Just a couple of examples:
I was outraged (but not surprised) when Obama reneged on his repeated "vows" to oppose
draconian FISA legislation that gave carte blanche to government/corporate surveillance, and
immunized corporations who'd illegally and illicitly assisted in conducting such
surveillance. Joe responded to my outrage by superciliously explaining, "Oh, he had to
do that! He can't just say and do things to keep progressives happy-- he has to reassure a
fearful and desperate public that he's 'tough' on national security issues!"
Joe also whipped out this "Oh, he had to do that!" justification at the drop of a
hat every time Obama did or didn't do something that seemed to conflict with his progressive
"Third Way" image; when nominee and president-elect Obama packed his transition team and
cabinet with reactionary Clintonista retreads and Goldman-Sachs banksters, Joe praised this
as a shrewd "pragmatic" gambit to "consolidate his support within the party". There was
always some pat prog-lib catechism blurb explaining why "he had to do that", case closed.
I've seen exactly this logic applied to AOC. To True Believers, if she seems equivocal, or
even confused, about the nature of (Democratic) socialism-- or, as here, expresses anodyne,
conformist, safe positions, they will justify this as sensible reticence. AOC has to
appeal to the elusive "center", and charm skeptical voters by not appearing unduly extreme
or, God forbid, radical.
As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third
Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true
political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work as
hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been in the news lately due to his inquiry into
Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. After a 12-year stint leading the Bureau, the
longest ever since J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller is now seen by many as an honest man serving the
interest of the American public. However, that perception cannot be defended once one knows
about Mueller's past.
What some people don't know about Mueller is that
he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.
These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation
into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI
investigations into the crimes of September 11 th , 2001. Today the public is
beginning to realize that Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign is a similar diversion.
Mueller's talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S.
Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they
didn't commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant -- mobster James "Whitey" Bulger."
According to the Boston Globe , "Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger
was
helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow
graves along the Neponset."
Mueller was then appointed as chief investigator of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 in
Scotland. The account Mueller produced was a flimsy story that accused a Libyan named Megrahi
of coordinating placement of a suitcase bomb that allegedly traveled unaccompanied through
several airports to find its way to the doomed flight. Despite Mueller's persistent defense of
this unbelievable tale, Megrahi was released from prison in 2009 and died three years later in
Libya.
With the Pan Am 103 case, Mueller was covering up facts related to some of the of victims of
the bombing -- a group of U.S. intelligence specialists led by Major Charles McKee of the
Defense Intelligence Agency. McKee had gone to Beirut to find and rescue hostages and, while
there, learned about CIA involvement in a drug smuggling operation run through an agency
project called COREA. As TIME magazine
reported , the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent
intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives "targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the
hostage-rescue team." This would prevent disclosure of what McKee's team had learned. That
theory was also supported by the fact that the CIA showed up immediately at the scene of the
crash, took McKee's briefcase, and returned it empty.
Mueller's diversions led to his leadership of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department
of Justice, putting him in charge of investigations regarding BCCI. When Mueller started in
that role, members of Congress and the media were already critical of the government's approach
to the BCCI affair. Mueller came into the picture telling the Washington Post that
there was an "appearance of, one, foot-dragging; two, perhaps a cover-up." Later he denied the
cover-up claim and the suggestion that the CIA may have collaborated with BCCI operatives.
But again, Mueller was simply brought in to accomplish the cover-up. The facts were that
BCCI was used by the CIA to
operate outside of the rule of law through funding of terrorists and other criminal operatives.
The bank network was at the root of some of the greatest
crimes against the public in the last 50 years, including the Savings & Loan scandal,
the Iran-Contra affair, and the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Mueller was instrumental in obstructing the BCCI investigation led by Manhattan District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During this time, Justice Department prosecutors were instructed
not to cooperate with Morgenthau. Describing Mueller's obstruction of Morgenthau, the
Wall Street
Journal reported that, "documents were withheld, and attempts were made to block other
federal agencies from cooperating."
Describing Mueller's role in the BCCI cover-up more clearly, reporter Chris
Floyd wrote :
"When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI's operations in the late Eighties,
President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice
Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been
unaccountably 'botched'–witnesses went missing, CIA records got 'lost,' Lower-ranking
prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to 'lay off.' Most of the big BCCI players went
unpunished or, like [Khalib bin] Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller,
of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001–by George W.
Bush."
Yes, in the summer of 2001, when the new Bush Administration suspected it would soon need a
cover-up, Mueller was brought in for the job. Although suspect Louis Freeh was FBI Director in the
lead-up to the crimes, Mueller knew enough to keep things under wraps. He also had some
interesting ties to other 9/11 suspects like Rudy Giuliani , whose career paralleled
Mueller's closely during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Under Mueller, the FBI began the whitewash of 9/11 immediately. Mueller himself lied
repeatedly in the direct aftermath with respect to FBI knowledge of the accused hijackers. He
claimed that the alleged hijackers left no paper trail , and
suggested that they exercised "extraordinary secrecy" and "discipline never broke down." In
fact, "ring leader" Mohamed Atta went to great lengths to draw attention to himself prior to the
attacks. Moreover, the evidence the accused men supposedly left behind was obvious and implausibly
convenient for the FBI.
Meanwhile, Mueller's FBI immediately seized control of the investigations at the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA where United Flight 93 was destroyed.
Under Mueller , leaders of the Bureau went on to arrest and intimidate witnesses, destroy
or withhold evidence, and prevent any independent investigation. With Mueller in the lead, the
FBI failed to cooperate with the government investigations into 9/11 and failed miserably to
perform basic investigatory tasks. Instead, Mueller
celebrated some of the most egregious pre-9/11 failures of the FBI by giving those involved
promotions, awards, and cash bonuses.
As FBI whistleblower Coleen
Rowley later wrote with regard to 9/11, "Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney
general) presided over a cover-up." Kristen Breitweiser , one of the four 9/11
widows known as the "Jersey Girls," stated something similar:
"Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information
specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there
was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi
evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation."
Supporting Breitweiser's claims, public watchdog agency
Judicial Watch emphasized Mueller's role in the cover-up.
"Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that
the lies were approved by Mueller."
Mueller's FBI went on to "botch" the investigation into the October 2001 anthrax attacks. As
expected, the result was a long series of inexplicable diversions that led nowhere. The anthrax
attacks occurred at a time when Mueller himself was warning Americans that another 9/11 could
occur at any time (despite his lack of interest in the first one). They also provided the
emotional impetus for Americans and Congress to accept the Patriot Act, which had been written
prior to 9/11. Exactly why Mueller's expertise was needed is not yet known but examining the evidence suggests
that the anthrax attackers were the same people who planned 9/11.
With knowledge of Mueller's past, people can see that he is not in the news today to reveal
important information about Russia and the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Mueller is in
the news to divert attention away from important information and, most likely, to prevent the
Trump Administration from being scrutinized in any real way.
Trump definitely is hell-bent of destroying the dollar system. He
created four powerful allied: China, Russia, Iran and Turkey that will work
to weaken dollar hegemony and create alternative systems. It is unclear why.
Smartphones present a viable alternative to credit cards and it is just
a matter of time that credit cards became obsolete.
Despite his promises of restraint, America has become a cat's paw in a Middle East intrigue
likely to lead to war.
Notable quotes:
"... Editor's note: This is the editorial from the July/August 2018 print edition of ..."
"... So now Israel and those Gulf states want to put Iran back in its box, and they want America to supply the muscle. Pompeo demonstrated Trump is prepared to do so with demands that no sovereign nation could accept. As our Dan Larison wrote, they would require Iran "to surrender its foreign policy decision-making to Washington and U.S. clients and to abandon all of the governments and groups that have relied on its support." ..."
"... The New Yorker piece leaves no doubt that Trump and his team welcome the new alliance aborning among Israel, the Saudis, and the UAE, pulled together by their fear and animosity directed at Iran ..."
"... So America under Trump has become a cat's paw in a Middle East intrigue that is very likely to lead to war. This is not how he campaigned in 2016, and it is not what the American people want. If Trump doesn't veer away from this path to war and the result is further Mideast blood and woe, he likely will go down in flames. That would be fitting and proper. But the rest of the world wouldn't deserve the result. ..."
Editor's note: This is the editorial from the July/August 2018 print edition of The
American Conservative.
We must confess that we never read Donald Trump's famous book, The Art of the Deal .
And we don't know if there is a chapter called "Bait and Switch." But that's precisely what
Trump perpetrated upon the American people when he crafted a campaign decrying America's
destructive and costly military Middle East involvement -- and then, as president, set in
motion events seemingly calculated to get us into another war there.
The president also promised to pull the United States out of the Iranian nuclear deal.
However foolish, it was at least an honest representation of what his intention. And ultimately
he did it. Thus it was possible to conclude that Trump was sincere on both his resolve to avoid
further Mideast wars and his intention to exit the Iranian deal. Voters could draw their own
conclusions about whether the two campaign promises were mutually exclusive or not.
But voters had no reason to conclude during the campaign that he would deal with Iran so
aggressively as to force a dangerous showdown. Two significant developments suggest Trump's
intentions far surpass his campaign rhetoric. One is the recent ultimatum delivered to Iran by
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He listed 12 demands on what Iran must do to avoid
"unprecedented" economic pressure designed to crush Iran's ability to play a major role in its
home region. The other is a remarkable New Yorker story by Adam Entous detailing how the
Trump administration has joined hands with Iran's regional enemies -- Israel, Saudi Arabia, and
the United Arab Emirates -- to strip Iran of its regional influence.
As Pompeo put it, "Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East." Of
course Iran has not dominated the region in any serious way for centuries, but it does have
significant influence there by dint of its size, population, economy, and military. And its
geopolitical influence expanded exponentially when America destroyed Iraq's Sunni regime and
removed a major impediment to Iran's freedom of action.
So now Israel and those Gulf states want to put Iran back in its box, and they want America
to supply the muscle. Pompeo demonstrated Trump is prepared to do so with demands that no
sovereign nation could accept. As our Dan Larison wrote, they would require Iran "to surrender
its foreign policy decision-making to Washington and U.S. clients and to abandon all of the
governments and groups that have relied on its support."
Indeed, they are reminiscent of Austria's 1914 demands of Serbia after the assassination of
Arch-Duke Ferdinand and the aggressive ultimatum delivered to Japan by U.S. Secretary of State
Cordell Hull on November 26, 1941. Both were were designed to induce war.
The New Yorker piece leaves no doubt that Trump and his team welcome the new alliance
aborning among Israel, the Saudis, and the UAE, pulled together by their fear and animosity
directed at Iran. The headline: "How the President, Israel, and the Gulf states plan to fight
Iran -- and leave the Palestinians and the Obama years behind." One Trump friend said
Netanyahu, mastermind of the anti-Iranian alliance, encountered at the White House a "blank
canvas" for his bold brush strokes. This person added: "Israel just had their way with us."
So America under Trump has become a cat's paw in a Middle East intrigue that is very
likely to lead to war. This is not how he campaigned in 2016, and it is not what the American
people want. If Trump doesn't veer away from this path to war and the result is further Mideast
blood and woe, he likely will go down in flames. That would be fitting and proper. But the rest
of the world wouldn't deserve the result.
The Union of Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats
d by
gjohnsit
on
Fri, 08/24/2018 - 4:42pm
It began in 2016, when neconservative war
criminals formed an
alliance
with
warmongering Democrats.
Illustrative of their emerging alliance, as
Glenn Greenwald reports, is yet another Beltway
foreign policy initiative: the Alliance for
Securing Democracy....The Alliance's advisory
council includes Jake Sullivan, Clinton's
foreign policy adviser, and Mike Morell, acting
CIA director under Obama. They sit comfortably
with Kristol, Mike Chertoff, homeland security
secretary under Bush, and hawkish former
Republican congressman Mike Rogers. With a
record of catastrophic foreign policy fiascoes,
the establishment comes together to strike back.
It turns out that this was only the beginning.
The common enemy here was Russia, and one method of
unity is the
Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI)
.
A group of neocon heartthrobs have banded
together with an eclectic array of Russiagaters
to form a visionary organization committed to
protecting Western democracy....
Celebrated war cheerleader Max Boot, who serves
on RDI's board of directors, announced the
creation of this highly original organization in
a Washington Post op-ed.
... Unlike the dozens of other well-financed
bastions of status-quo thinking, RDI aims to
"unite both the center-left and center-right" by
promoting "liberty, democracy and sanity in an
age of discord."
Also on RDI's board of directors is WaPost writer
Anne Applebaum who once wrote an op-ed entitled
"Should We Assassinate Saddam?"
The organization's president, Richard Hurowitz, is a
member of the warmongering Council on Foreign
Relations.
For several months, an alliance has been forming
between the neoconservative American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) and the neoliberal Center for
American Progress (CAP). It's the sort of
kumbaya not witnessed since wartime Washington a
decade ago.
A press release from CAP on May 10 blares: "CAP
and AEI Team up to Defend Democracy and
Transatlantic Partnership." The same joyous
tidings accompanied a public statement issued by
AEI on July 31, which stressed that the alliance
was meant to resist "the populist assault on the
transatlantic community" for the purpose of
"defending democracy."
It's hard to tell what they mean when they say
"democracy", but it's virtually certain that it
isn't in the dictionary.
There's something pathetic and ironic about
neconservatives and neoliberals joining forces to
defend "democracy" when they are the biggest threats
to democracy.
Now we have
mainstream
conservatives
openly cheering for the Democrats
in November.
Nor is Boot alone among neocon Never-Trumpers.
Syndicated columnist George Will, who left the
GOP after the election of Trump, is also
agitating for a Democratic congressional
takeover...
Another former Republican, MSNBC commentator and
onetime congressman Joe Scarborough (also a
current member of the Council on Foreign
Relations), has set the standard for anti-Trump
animus. His colleague at MSNBC, former GOP
congressman and McCain presidential campaign
chair Steve Schmidt, is yet another fiery Trump
detractor rooting for the Dems.
This union of evil and evil comes from the Dems as
well.
For instance, liberals new found love of
warmonger
John McCain
.
Forty-four percent of Republicans surveyed in
the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released
Wednesday hold a negative view of McCain, while
only 35 percent have a positive view of him.
Meanwhile, 52 percent of Democrats surveyed now
see him in a positive light.
The press and liberal groups gushed, and
hundreds of headlines approvingly quoted the
former president. "Why you should listen when
George W. Bush defends the media," declared a
headline at the Washington Post. "George W Bush:
a welcome return," raved the Guardian, which
went so far as to call him a "paragon of
virtue." The leftist site ThinkProgress ran a
blog post titled "George W. Bush defends the
Constitution to rebuke Trump."
"Paragon of virtue"? Has everyone forgotten that
he's a war criminal?
The White House said that Brennan
used his security clearance to "sow
division and chaos," and lend a
sheen of credibility to his public
criticisms of the president. The
White House looked into revoking
Brennan's clearance after he accused
Trump of "treason" for meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin
last month.
Straight away, Democrats jumped in
to defend Brennan's character and to
blast Trump for pulling his
clearance. Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-California), ranking member of
the House Intelligence Committee,
said that "In adding John Brennan to
his enemies list, Trump demonstrates
again how deeply insecure and
vindictive he is."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Virginia) called
the revocation "the weak, paranoid,
authoritarian behavior of a
dictator."
...
Brennan's thesaurus-heavy Tweets and
self-righteous grandstanding have
made him a hero to the anti-Trump
#resistance. However, while
Democrats are falling over
themselves to pat the former career
spy on the back, there was a time
when Brennan spied on Democratic
lawmakers compiling a report into
his agency's use of torture tactics
– and got away with it.
In 2014, as the Senate Intelligence
Committee was compiling a lengthy
report into the CIA's use of
'enhanced interrogation techniques'
at its secret prisons, chair Dianne
Feinstein (D-California) accused
Brennan's agency of secretly
monitoring the committee's computers
and removing sensitive documents.
After initially denying any
wrongdoing and rejecting Feinstein's
"spurious allegations," Brennan
quietly apologized to lawmakers
after an internal review proved the
senator right.
Despite being caught red-handed
spying on his overseers, the Obama
administration Department of Justice
declined to press charges against
Brennan, and he remained in charge
of the CIA.
...if it bit them on their fat, hairy
asses. The Left starts with those three
little words that make my heart beat
faster ... "Nationalize the Banks". It
doesn't start with "microscopically left
of the extreme radical far right". The
rich old lady who says "impeachment is
off the table" and "we're capitalist and
that's that" isn't the freaking Left.
and they do it out in the open, and take
pride in it. They are protecting
democracy, from us. Like the economy,
education, health care, democracy is
reserved for the 1%. Too dangerous to
leave it to us.
tted by
Not
Henry Kissinger
on Fri, 08/24/2018 - 7:26pm
IMO, neoliberalism and neoconservatism
are dependent on each other. How can
neoliberal policies be spread around the
world without using neoconservative
policies? That is why Bush can be
popular with the "left". When I read
this essay, this song came to mind:
A guy on DKos, AntonBursch, once told me
he couldn't wait till they "purged all
the Greens (which I think meant us) out
of the Democratic party, so we can make
an alliance with the center-right."
Not really sure what anyone means by
"center," anymore; it appears to have
something to do with money.
As Alan Grayson once said, "So that's
what passes for centrist these days."
itted by
Cant
Stop the M...
on Sat, 08/25/2018 - 12:18pm
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
People were scrimping and saving
and skimping on essentials for
themselves and their loved ones
in order to come up with
multiples of $27 to donate to
Bernie's campaign, but he
couldn't be bothered to defend
his own supporters' right to be
registered correctly and vote in
a fair primary.
Instead he went with the very
cabal that had cheated him, and
them.
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email
investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress
that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used
by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above.
Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a
second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite,
File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the
"hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a
sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later
told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to
eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen.
Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the
remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new
emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for
classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single
12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the
evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016,
said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month
of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her
unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included
highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information
and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive
.
The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to
Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that
officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained
the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first
months at the State Department.
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email
discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal
court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel,
along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors
and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest
lawyers.
If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics
have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for
this article said.
"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year
veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an
investigation before the election."
Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of
evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for
sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the
huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant
affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government
business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the
search.
The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New
York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated
back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or
after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton
initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands
of emails sought by investigators.
Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them,
according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not
authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to
receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email
account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.
Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her
campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and
his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand.
At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather
than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.
Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped
his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:
"Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the
United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or
her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of
an FBI investigation?"
What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the
Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes
relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.
However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have
prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was
destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to
2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for
evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it
was, on classified information.
Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged
foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence
on the laptop.
The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located
in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her
2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included
thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a
felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected
manner.
By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.
That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them
work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal."
Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21,
2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry
device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server,
bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal
statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before
Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton
of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling
of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this
case."
Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and
the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility,
including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the
FBI interviewed her.
Fast-forward to September 2016.
FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as
part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A
former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.
On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of
emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a
large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.
The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by
Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of
Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and
hillaryclinton.com.
The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since
investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were
transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and
Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop
in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some
60,000 originally reported by Clinton.
The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain"
immediately.
The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney,
was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to
Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of
this."
(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but
personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated
McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000
relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and
referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation
into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)
McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text
messages show.
Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately
that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could
not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the
emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out
of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely
connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the
time.")
FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery,
particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In
fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's
tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed
"Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as
secretary.
By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he
found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final
count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and
Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the
mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking
terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report.
Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get
somebody elected here in the United States?"
Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New
York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to
his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of
digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career
officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off
alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.
The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which
only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case
reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male -
John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned
to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office
at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.
The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the
sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might
be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really,
really horrible."
Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the
Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a
search and to inform Congress about the discovery.
By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted
McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."
Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs
she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok
responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.
The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly
about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search
warrant.
Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to
reopening email case.
"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner
laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the
U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on
the Clinton investigation.
Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their
feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.
"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the
Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent
Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura
Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought
it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."
Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated
attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the
election."
He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a
suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.
The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed
the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had
been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began
reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and
notify Congress.
FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the
Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at
the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had
exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October
surprise" on Fox News.
Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.
During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about
leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried
about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney
confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks."
McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."
Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an
investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed
to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed
Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to
Congress with the discovery so close to the election.
"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these
emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it,"
then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak
this."
Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new
developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill
oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office
rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big
impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.
But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey
quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight
committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in
the Clinton email investigation.
Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant
emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in
futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."
That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in
the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had
"a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the
Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential,"
according to the IG report.
Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only
one.
Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally
inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman,
who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack
Obama's presidential campaigns.)
His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully
all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with
McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."
In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be
serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping,"
or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.
The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either.
They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time
expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.
For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after
interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different
than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing
emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.
"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different
tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI
employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the
Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to
wrap up her email investigation.)
The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to
another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton
"better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated,
"fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."
At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers
confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process
the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails
"may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the
pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the
laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could
search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.
Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal
email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit.
By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in
the FBI system.
(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his
original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's
handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the
federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal
ramifications for Clinton.)
The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New
York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin
N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it
would find on the laptop.
"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was
Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period,"
Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search
warrant request was "too narrow."
That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's
private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside
investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted,
because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of
emails.
Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found
classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at
those emails, as well.
Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously
described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's
term.
"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both
any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the
potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.
Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential
significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search
warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the
information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of
the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent
had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.
That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of
the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't
really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton
and her team.
"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for
Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even
though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.
In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from
both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the
remaining emails in a hurry.
One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they
should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new
process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."
Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from
a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.
On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that
Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the
stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast
to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted
it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they
contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the
context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.
"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the
Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.
But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his
investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to
national polls opening.
At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should
essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on
Nov. 2.
Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about
what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.
"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very
angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about
all of this."
"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."
Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."
"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he
reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty
[attorney-client] privilege."
Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey
described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it
had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation
– having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and
electronic devices manually.
Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of
new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.
Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that
technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the
laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to
individually review manually.
But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the
emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three
officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for
Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely
absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against
prior emails recovered during the investigation."
Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in
Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."
The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying
characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields –
informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially
work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear
investigation."
Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails
containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As
a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law
enforcement sources say.
"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled
out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished
to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked.
Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at
those documents.
After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate
Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said
during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before
investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop.
High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying"
statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."
A scene from the
documentary "Weiner."
As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to
another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going
to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."
On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about
"drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted
back about an hour later.
The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new
controversy and would still pull off a victory.
"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have
a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic
lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the
remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the
investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.
Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of
new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the
"filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with
6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from
that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal
agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."
On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077
emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and
incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified
material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the
original classification authorities within the intelligence community.
"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.
By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they
had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And
allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a
criminal motive.
Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear
again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.
As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged
text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok
said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."
Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by
a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop
search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless
found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077
emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the
time.
Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not
duplicates but new to investigators.
RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email
regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent
Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.
Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential
high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a
classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and
sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected]
account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."
Tom
Fitton: "sham" investigation.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the
existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of
the 3,077 "work-related" emails.
"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told
RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."
He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.
The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although
investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all
before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone
unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.
Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign
hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined
the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a
foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was
never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.
Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other
intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even
though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach,
gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.
Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division
determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by
unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber
intrusion or other means."
Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State
Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare
a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.
Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its
three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.
Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of
her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.
Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the
confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to
receive them.
The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on
Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been
investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?
Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.
Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling
classified information, Comey explained:
"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what
she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."
At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed
Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the
committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to
interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump
throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical
new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied
by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the
greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to
Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau
attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's
discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan
decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.
Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying
"hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance
warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama
administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster,
to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an
application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.
IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation
of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.
Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias
in regards to the October events."
Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the
cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged
ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified
allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on
"bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which
he said never "affected his work."
The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that
his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.
"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the
matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still,
contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton.
On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the
Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?
The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the
image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the
Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.
But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the
evidence on the device was preserved.
The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually
restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into
the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.
"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and
preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will
return the subject laptop."
Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving
potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and
obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement
authorities.
Reporting on RussiaGate, as it is called, goes on day after day, always something new, more
hacks, more targets, more election rigging or is it all more fake news? Who controls the news,
who really controls the news? Perhaps the news itself rigs elections and spreads rumors,
promotes fakery and serves foreign interests as well, let's take a look.
First of all, we might ask why no one, certainly not anyone in the paid media, noted that
"non-state actors" as they are called in intelligence and counter-terrorism, are the big
players nowadays. After all, it is the media that creates reality, that defines truth, though
that effort has now migrated to Silicon Valley moguls who now hire failed academics and
journalists who have set up "truth panels."
Before that, the fake press reported lies, and any academic who taught otherwise or wrote
otherwise was a "conspiracy theorist" and faced loss of tenure, though tenure seldom exists in
today's world of rapidly declining academic standards, in the US at least.
A case study for infiltration of US government by a foreign intelligence service, other than
Russia, is easy to find. When Australian Rupert Murdoch and his media empire came to America,
they clearly bought House Speaker Newt Gingrich in order to have laws changed.
"... First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." ..."
"... It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts. ..."
But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app padding that have nothing
to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance violations related to what a critic of Trump
aptly describes
as "a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up mistresses." I question the level
of word play, if not fantasizing, necessary to claim that these crimes validate "
this investigation of foreign subversion." None of them has anything to do with that.
The perils of this, that, these, and those.
Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is "a political investigation"? I think
they imply quite the opposite, and quite obviously so.
Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton had been elected
president. There would be no convictions because there would have been no investigation.
If Hillary had been elected, all the crimes of Manafort and Cohen -- certainly those that
took place over many years before the election, but even, I think, those having to do with
campaign contributions and mistress cover-ups -- would never have been investigated, because
all would have been considered right with the political world.
The Manafort and Cohen crimes would have been ignored as the standard tactics of the elite
financial grifting -- as well as of parasitism on, and payoffs by, political campaigns -- that
they are. Indeed, there would have been no emergency,
save-our-democracy-from-Russian-collaboration, Special Counsel investigation, from which these
irrelevant charges were spun off, at all.
... ... ...
Have you heard of the Podestas? The Clinton Foundation? Besides, the economic purpose of
American electoral politics is to funnel millions to consultants and the media. Campaign
finance law violations? We'll see how the
lawsuit over $84 million worth of funds allegedly transferred illegally from state party
contributions to the Clinton campaign works out. Does the media report, does anybody know or
care, about it? Will anybody ever go to prison over it?
... ... ...
First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the
impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the
Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." If the Democrats insist these convictions
are not just matters of financial hijinx, irrelevant to Mueller's "Russia collusion"
investigation, and irrelevant in fact to anything of political substance; if they assert that
the payoffs to Stormy and Karen (the only acts directly involving Trump) disqualify Trump for
the presidency, then they will have no excuse but to call for Trump's impeachment, and act to
make it happen. Their base will demand that Democratic candidates run on that promise, and if
the Democrats re-take the House, that they begin impeachment proceedings immediately.
... ... ...
If they try to impeach and fail (which is likely), well, then, as happened to the
Republicans with Clinton, they will just look stupid, and will be punished for having wasted
the nation's political time and energy foolishly. And Trump will be strengthened.
If they were to impeach, convict, and remove Trump (even by forcing a resignation), a large
swath of the population would conclude, correctly, that a ginned-up litigation had been used to
overturn the result of the 2016 election, that the Democrats had gotten away with what the
Republicans couldn't in 1998-9. That swath of the population would likely withdraw completely
from electoral politics, leaving all their problems and resentments intact -- hidden for a
while, but sure to erupt in some other ways. It would deeply undermine any notion that the
political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and
the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook
posts.
. .. ... ...
...if they do move forward, that will initiate a political battle that will tear the country
apart and end up either with their defeat or the victory of Mike Pence.
... ... ...
By the way, for those who think that Manafort's conviction portends a smoking gun, based on
his work for "pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych," as the NYT and other liberals persistently call
him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron
Maté. It's a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow's (and, to a lesser extent, Chris
Hayes's) version of the deceptive implication -- presented as an indisputable fact -- that
Manafort's work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for
Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to
turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is
abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you'd never know that from
reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "If
it weren't for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging
Yanukovich to the West." And the Democrats know this.
And if you think Cohen is harboring secret knowledge of Trump-Russia collusion that he's
going to turn over to Mueller, take look at Maté's thread on that.
We are now entering a new period of intense political maneuvering that's the latest turning
point in the bizarre and flimsy "Russiagate" narrative. I've been asked to comment on that a
number of times over the past two years, and each time I or one of my fellow commentators would
say, "Why are we still talking about this?" It was originally conjured up as a Clinton campaign
attack on Trump, but, to my and many others' surprise and chagrin, it somehow morphed into the
central theme of political opposition to Trump's presidency.
... ... ...
Russiagate was a pretext to dig around everywhere in his closet. Trump was clueless about
the trap he was setting for himself, and has been relentlessly foolish in dealing with it. It
is a witch hunt, and he's riding around on his broom, skywriting self-incriminating
tweets.
There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump -- his racism, his stupidity, his
infantile narcissism, his full embrace of Zionist colonialism with its demand to attack Iran,
his enactment of Republican social and economic policies that are destroying working-class
lives, etc. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them. His election was a symptom of deep
pathologies of American political culture that we must address, including the failure of the
"liberal" party and of the two-party system itself. That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not
one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment,
starting with the clear constitutional crime of launching a military attack on another country
without congressional authorization. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its allied media do not want to center the fight on
these substantive political issues. Instead, they are centering on this barrage of Russiagate
litigation -- none of which yet proves, or even charges, Russian "collusion" -- which they are
using as a substitute for politics. And, in place of opposition, they're substituting
uncritical loyalty to the heroes of the military-intelligence complex and "our democracy" that
only a complete fantasist could stomach. I mean, when you get to the point that you're
suspecting John Bolton's "
ties to Russia " .
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. ..."
"... On TV yesterday he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign. Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million. He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings. ..."
"... Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen? Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as Fortune reported in June : "The Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices." ..."
"... But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens? He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread ..."
"... What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might do just that. Offense is the best defense. ..."
"... That is both dangerous in that the mandate of a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized. ..."
"... In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been. ..."
If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's
that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers
and figure out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping
across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any
thinking person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand thrown in here and there.
But sometimes the fixers happen to come under scrutiny of the law, like when they get entangled in a Special Counsel investigation.
Both Manafort and Cohen now rue the day they became involved with Trump, or rather, the day he was elected president and solicited
much more severe scrutiny.
Would either ever have been accused of what they face today had Trump lost to Hillary? It's not too likely. They just gambled
and lost. But there are many more just like them who will never be charged with anything. Still, a new fixer name has popped up the
last few days who may, down the line, not be so lucky.
And that's not even because Lanny Davis is a registered foreign agent for Dmytro Firtash, a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch wanted
by the US government. After all, both Manafort and Cohen have their contacts in that part of the world. Manafort made tens of millions
advising then-president Yanukovich in the Ukraine before the US coup dethroned the latter. Cohen's wife is Ukrainian-American.
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which makes it kind of curious that Michael
Cohen would pick him to become his legal representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. Glenn Greenwald wrote this in August 2009 about the health care debate:
After Tom Daschle was selected to be Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services and chief health care adviser, Matt
Taibbi wrote: "In Washington there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle." One could easily have added:
"And then there's Lanny Davis." Davis frequently injects himself into political disputes, masquerading as a "political analyst"
and Democratic media pundit, yet is unmoored from any discernible political beliefs other than: "I agree with whoever pays me."
It's genuinely difficult to recall any instance where he publicly defended someone who hadn't, at some point, hired and shuffled
money to him. Yesterday, he published a new piece simultaneously in The Hill and Politico – solemnly warning that extremists on
the Far Left and Far Right are jointly destroying democracy with their conduct in the health care debate and urging "the vast
center-left and center-right of this country to speak up and call them out equally" – that vividly illustrates the limitless whoring
behavior which shapes Washington generally and specifically drives virtually every word out of Lanny Davis' mouth.
Davis' history is as long and consistent as it is sleazy. He was recently hired by Honduran oligarchs opposed to that country's
democratically elected left-wing President and promptly became the chief advocate of the military coup which forcibly removed
the President from office. He became an emphatic defender of the Israeli war on Gaza after he was named by the right-wing The
Israel Project to be its "Senior Advisor and Spokesperson." He has been the chief public defender for Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman
and the Clintons, all of whom have engaged his paid services.
And as NYU History Professor Greg Grandin just documented: "Recently, Davis has been hired by corporations to derail the labor-backed
Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize, all the while touting himself as a "pro-labor liberal."
Davis was also the chief U.S. lobbyist of the military dictatorship in Pakistan in the late 90s and played an important role in
strengthening relations between then President Bill Clinton and de facto president General Perez Musharraf."
Trending Articles Majority Of Young Americans Live In A Household Receiving
New analysis from CNS News finds that the majority of Americans under 18 live in households that take "means-tested
There's much more in that article, but you get the drift. And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer
defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate
so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis.
On TV yesterday
he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign.
Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the
accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million.
He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings.
Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen?
Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as
Fortune reported in June : "The
Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not
offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices."
It seems safe to assume that's the point where Cohen turned, or was turned, to Lanny Davis. From a full decade of being Trump's
fixer to being fixed by the Clintons' fixer. That's a big move. It raises a number of questions :
First, why did Trump not pay Cohen's legal fees? This is 2 months after the raid on the man's office, home, hotel room, in
which huge amounts of files and disks etc. were seized.
Second question: if Lanny Davis only now sets up a Go Fund Me campaign, who's been paying him over the past 2 months? Did Cohen
sell assets, or is someone else involved?
Anyway, so Davis goes on TV with big words about how Cohen will tell all about Trump -provided people donate half a million- and
adding "I know that Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from a man that he considers to be both corrupt and a dangerous person
in the oval office. And [Cohen] has flatly authorized me to say under no circumstances would he accept a pardon from Mr. Trump."
Oh, and that "the turning point for his client's attitude toward Trump was the Helsinki summit in July 2018 which caused him to
doubt Trump's loyalty to the U.S." That, to my little brain, doesn't sound like something that would come from Cohen. That sounds
more like a political point the likes of which Cohen has never made. That's plain old Russiagate.
But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens?
He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread:
1/ In a few minutes of airtime today, Michael Cohen attorney Lanny Davis has rejected a key Steele dossier claim, and, more
significantly I think, the basis for all of the ceaseless, frenzied speculation that Cohen has something to offer Mueller on Trump-Russia
collusion:
3/ Right after, Davis walks back his already heavily qualified innuendo to
@ Maddow -- which generated endless chatter -- about Cohen being useful
to Mueller's probe on collusion & knowing of hacking. Now Davis claims he was "tentative", that Cohen "may or may not be useful",
etc:
4/ Earlier in the day, Davis also asserted that Cohen was "never, ever" in Prague -- undermining a key claim in the Steele
dossier that he went there in August/September 2016 as part of the collusion scheme:
https:// twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/st atus/1032427395993624576
6/ So in short: Lanny Davis has not just denied what was explosively alleged about Cohen-Trump by Steele, CNN, and McClatchy,
but has also walked back the explosive speculation about Cohen-Trump that Lanny Davis himself generated.
Is Michael Cohen sure he wants this guy as his lawyer? Is he watching this stuff?
If Cohen and Manafort have broken laws, they should be punished for it. The same goes for all other Trump campers, including the
Donald. But it would be good if people realize that Cohen and Manafort are not some kind of stand-alone examples, that they are instead
the norm in Washington. And Moscow, and Brussels, London, everywhere there's a concentration of power. In all these places, and probably
more so in DC, there are these folks specializing in the edge of the law.
What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their
fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might
do just that. Offense is the best defense.
I don't know, we don't know, what monsters Trump has swept under his luxurious carpets. But we do know that those are not the
only monsters in Washington. Meanwhile, the Steele dossier that was used to start the entire Mueller remains just about entirely
unverified. The Russian collusion meme he was tasked with investigating has so far come up empty.
That he would find something if he tried hard enough was obvious from the start. That is both dangerous in that the mandate of
a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that
it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized.
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be
expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like
Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You can't drain half a swamp.
This is Lavrentiy Beria style move from John "911 coverup" Mueller. It is clear that he can dig dirt on trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... What's more, Mr Weisselberg has been at the beating heart of the Trump Organization since the 1970s. He handles the president's private trust, is the treasurer of the family's charitable foundation - currently under investigation by the state of New York - and has, at times, reviewed the Trump presidential campaign's accounting books ..."
The Trump Organization's finance boss, Allen Weisselberg, has reportedly been granted legal immunity in the probe into Michael
Cohen.
He was summoned to testify earlier this year in the investigation into Cohen, Donald Trump's longtime former lawyer, US media
report.
Cohen pleaded guilty on Tuesday to handling hush money for Mr Trump in violation of campaign finance laws.
Mr Weisselberg, Chief Financial Officer, is the latest to get immunity.
On Thursday, it emerged that David Pecker, head of the company that publishes the National Enquirer tabloid, was also given immunity.
Mr Weisselberg is reportedly mentioned on a tape secretly recorded by Cohen in 2016 in which a hush money payment to an alleged
lover of Mr Trump is discussed.
It is not yet clear what Mr Weisselberg has agreed to in return for getting legal immunity.
The Trump Organization has not commented on the reports, which first emerged in the Wall Street Journal.
Where does this fit in?
This is the latest twist in a saga continuing to dog the Trump administration.
In a serious blow, Cohen, Mr Trump's personal lawyer for more than a decade, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to eight criminal charges,
including tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
He said he had paid hush money to two women who alleged they had affairs with Mr Trump, at the direction of "the candidate" -
a clear reference to Mr Trump.
Cohen said the payment was made for the "principal purpose of influencing [the 2016] election".
His plea deal with prosecutors could see his prison sentence reduced from 65 years to five years and three months.
Mr Weisselberg was one of those called to give evidence before a federal grand jury for the Cohen investigation earlier this year,
the Wall Street Journal reports.
Separately, the Manhattan district attorney has launched a preliminary investigation into whether the Trump Organization falsified
business records relating to payments made to Cohen, a source confirmed to CBS news.
The dominoes continue to fall
By Anthony Zurcher, Senior North America Reporter
Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has told a federal judge that the president knew about his illegal payments to women claiming
illicit affairs with the then-candidate. The publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, formerly a close ally of Mr Trump's, has
reportedly received immunity to discuss his role in the payments.
Now multiple US media outlets are reporting that Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization and the
only non-relative trusted by the president to run his business empire during his presidency, is co-operating with federal investigators.
While much of the political world has been focused on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the situation in New York for the president
is increasingly threatening.
Mr Weisselberg reportedly oversaw the reimbursements Mr Cohen received from the Trump Organization for paying adult film star
Stormy Daniels. Depending on how the financial transfer was accounted for, it could run afoul of a number of campaign finance and
accounting laws.
What's more, Mr Weisselberg has been at the beating heart of the Trump Organization since the 1970s. He handles the president's
private trust, is the treasurer of the family's charitable foundation - currently under investigation by the state of New York -
and has, at times, reviewed the Trump presidential campaign's accounting books.
He's the man who knows things - and now he's talking.
What's the origin of all this?
It is the latest fallout from the wider inquiry launched by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017 into suspected collusion
between the Trump election campaign and Russia.
As part of that probe, Cohen's offices were raided and investigators looked into his finances. What they found was passed on to
New York judicial authorities.
Cohen's lawyer has said his client is "more than happy" to help the collusion inquiry.
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied collusion with Russia, and Russia denies involvement in the 2016 election.
Related Topics
Federal prosecutors have granted immunity to American Media Inc. CEO and longtime friend of
President Trump, David Pecker, reports the Wall Street
Journal .
...Brennan, a thirty-year CIA veteran, had first been considered to head the CIA in 2008 by
President-Elect Barack Obama. Brennan withdrew his name from consideration when the ACLU and
other human rights groups charged that he had been involved in the torture of suspected
terrorists during the administration of President George W. Bush. Apart from consistently
denying that he was personally involved with the CIA's torture program, Brennan has alternated
between condemning torture and
defending it. Brennan has defended "extraordinary rendition," the euphemism for "rendering"
suspected terrorists to other countries to be questioned under torture . Brennan claims that he spoke out
during the Bush years against some "harsh interrogation" practices, but no one has been found
who recalls this. [2] Perhaps the soft-spoken
Brennan spoke out quietly.
Before he became Obama's CIA director in 2013, Brennan was Obama's chief counterterrorism
adviser. During the years 2009 to 2013, Brennan and Obama met every "Terror Tuesday" (the
macabre designation used in the White House) to study proposed "kill lists" of suspected
members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in order to decide who the US would kill next with Hellfire
missiles fired from unmanned aerial drones, including kills in countries with which the US was
not at war.
Salon calls Brennan a "serial
misleader" when it comes to drones. Perhaps Brennan's biggest whopper came in June 2011. In
public remarks, Brennan claimed that no civilians had been killed by US drones in nearly a
year. When that claim raised eyebrows, Brennan backpedaled, telling the New York Times
a few days later that there had been no "credible evidence" of civilian casualties for the past
year. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a British-based NGO, contends that at least 45
civilians were killed by US drones during that period. By the time Brennan left his post as
Obama's counterterrorism adviser in 2013 to become CIA director, US drones had killed 891
civilians just in Pakistan, including 176 children, according to the Bureau of Investigative
Journalism.
When MSNBC host
Rachel Maddow interviewed Brennan on August 17 about the loss of his security clearance,
neither she nor Brennan said a word about drones. This is all the more remarkable in that
Maddow had previously questioned President Obama's
"Orwellian" drone program. If liberals don't like civilians being killed by drones, why are
they celebrating John Brennan? CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair asks:
"Are liberals who are bewailing the revocation of John Brennan's security clearance
worried that Trump's drone strikes will become less accurate?"
CIA spies operating within the Kremlin have suddenly "gone to ground" according to the
New York
Times , citing American officials clearly abusing their security clearances.
The officials do not think their sources have been compromised or killed - rather, they've
been spooked into silence amid "more aggressive counterintelligence by Moscow, including
efforts to kill spies," according to the Times, pointing to the still-unsolved March poisoning
of former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal in the UK.
Curiously, the Times immediately suggests that the lack of intelligence is " leaving the CIA
and other spy agencies in the dark about precisely what Mr. Putin's intentions are for
November's midterm elections. "
But American intelligence agencies have not been able to say precisely what are Mr.
Putin's intentions : He could be trying to tilt the midterm elections, simply sow chaos or
generally undermine trust in the democratic process . - NYT
There it is. Of course, buried towards the end of the article is this admission:
But officials said there has been no concrete intelligence pointing to Mr. Putin ordering
his own intelligence units to wade into the election to push for a certain outcome , beyond a
broad chaos campaign to undermine faith in American democracy.
Meanwhile, "current and former officials" tell the Times that the outing of FBI spy Stefan
Halper, who infiltrated the Trump campaign, had a " chilling effect on intelligence collection
."
"... Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering. ..."
Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public face – the
MSM:
stopping the deplorable rebellion
cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery and international
leadership role
bitch slapping China
The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment of a feudal world
comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally
castrated peasants to serve as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.
Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the
deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding
the deep state elites and social engineering.
"... Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering. ..."
Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public face – the
MSM:
stopping the deplorable rebellion
cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery and international
leadership role
bitch slapping China
The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment of a feudal world
comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally
castrated peasants to serve as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.
Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the
deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding
the deep state elites and social engineering.
"... Anyway, what's there to argue: in its founding documents, the EU declares that its foreign and security policies will follow those of NATO. In other words, Europeans have declared *themselves* to be incapable of thinking about their place in the world, letting Uncle Sam do this for them instead. Nobody will respect them unless they first learn to respect themselves. ..."
"... By the standards our Congress is applying to Russia, this would be an "Act of War", now wouldn't it? ..."
"... Well the EU swallowed the farcical story of the Scripals so I expect anything Mrs May tells them about a leak will be believed. ..."
"... International spookery is a lucrative job, if you can get in it. ..."
"... Truth is every bit as strange as fiction, only dirtier. I have to believe that international skulduggery and its various specialties like espionage, smuggling, hacking, whacking and merking is a growth industry in today's globalist world. Millennials take note, if you want to pay off those student loans in this lifetime, because I'm sure they will still collect on them in Hades. ..."
"... GCHQ is there to support the establishment and the neocons. If Corbyn were to be elected, they will be in the thick of causing as much trouble as possible for the new government. Gladio springs to mind. ..."
"... john wilson – "the farce continues." Absolutely. The Skripnal affair in the U.K. and Russiagate here in the U.S. demonstrate the absolute and utter contempt our respective elites have for the intelligence of the populace of each nation. I ..."
As the author also acknowledges with the references to the Belgacom saga: what else is
new. It's not just spying, but outright sabotage of critical European infrastructure, which
is one of the factors showing that if you'd ever want the EU to go anywhere, step one is that
you'd *want* to throw the Brits out–the London branch of the US Govt will *never* be a
loyal European ally. Instead of getting its own act together, the article informs us that the
EU "is concerned to retain access to the UK's defense and security powers post-Brexit".
This goes to show that the problem lies a bit deeper, since ultimately the loyalty of
Merkel and Macron is also to the Dark Throne, though perhaps not to the same extent as with
Ms. May.
Anyway, what's there to argue: in its founding documents, the EU declares that its
foreign and security policies will follow those of NATO. In other words, Europeans have
declared *themselves* to be incapable of thinking about their place in the world, letting
Uncle Sam do this for them instead. Nobody will respect them unless they first learn to
respect themselves.
John McCarthy , August 18, 2018 at 8:24 pm
By the standards our Congress is applying to Russia, this would be an "Act of War",
now wouldn't it?
padre , August 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm
First thing that comes to mind is, whether there were any Russians involved?
Peter , August 19, 2018 at 3:28 pm
Of course they were. Britishers never would spy on their "friends", would they now?. I
think that Putin personally did the spying, the man has just too much time on his hands.
Brad Owen , August 18, 2018 at 9:19 am
Have British spies been hacking the EU you ask? Is it not true that spies have been at
work in the isles and on the Continent for CENTURIES? I would say it's an even more important
force than the military forces, what with their ability to embroil one enemy in a war with
another enemy, thus eliminating two enemies, with just a bagful of money and a few proxy
provocateurs. No wonder finance is King, intelligence/covert ops his governing Prime
Minister, and over rules the military industrialists and uniformed services and the citizenry
and their elected representatives.
john wilson , August 18, 2018 at 5:35 am
Well the EU swallowed the farcical story of the Scripals so I expect anything Mrs May
tells them about a leak will be believed. Whatever the EU negotiators have to say about Brexit behind closed doors seems to be irrelevant as sooner or later they will have to put
their cards on the table.
Realist , August 18, 2018 at 4:19 am
International spookery is a lucrative job, if you can get in it. Mental time slip back to
the early 60's. Ian Fleming's "James Bond" novels had just hit the states as the latest craze
and one of my best friends, a Ukrainian fellow, therefore congenitally attracted to the dark
side, discovers them and becomes a cult follower, so much so that when he's kicked out of
college for fraud a few years later he becomes involved in international gemstone smuggling
under the mentorship of an ex-Nazi uncle ensconced near the Brasil-Argentine border, makes
beaucoup lucre, marries a fellow American expat down in Latin America at the height of
Iran-Contra shenanigans and eventually returns home a very wealthy man now living out his
dotage in the closest thing to a manor house in the exurbs north of Chicago.
Truth is every
bit as strange as fiction, only dirtier. I have to believe that international skulduggery and
its various specialties like espionage, smuggling, hacking, whacking and merking is a growth
industry in today's globalist world. Millennials take note, if you want to pay off those
student loans in this lifetime, because I'm sure they will still collect on them in
Hades.
John A , August 18, 2018 at 4:05 am
GCHQ is there to support the establishment and the neocons. If Corbyn were to be elected,
they will be in the thick of causing as much trouble as possible for the new government.
Gladio springs to mind.
john wilson , August 18, 2018 at 5:49 am
Jean, the latest in the Scripal case gets ever more bizarre. A few days ago the police
went to the homes of 12 people who were in the Zizzies restaurant (don't know if is was staff
or members of the public) and took away their clothes for testing.
This is a full FIVE MONTHS
after the event.
I know we British are a scruffy lot, if not down right dirty, but for Christ
sake give it rest, even we wash our clothes after five months. The farce continues.
john wilson – "the farce continues." Absolutely. The Skripnal affair in the U.K. and
Russiagate here in the U.S. demonstrate the absolute and utter contempt our respective elites
have for the intelligence of the populace of each nation. It almost makes one long for the
good old days when our intelligence agencies had to at least try to come up with plausible
explanations for elite criminal activities: i.e. "the magic bullet (JFK assassination)" :)
and "the pancake effect (9/11)" :)
Ok, ok, maybe they've never really given us any real respect as critical thinkers, but I
quite agree with you that government propaganda has now reached absolutely farcical levels of
idiocy over the last several years and is now completely and utterly detached from any actual
"physical reality" on planet earth.
"... Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG ..."
"... Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them, not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out in legislation. ..."
"... Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their rescue in a New York minute. ..."
"... Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy, I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination of the major intel agencies. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning government in the bathtub" all too literally. ..."
Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation
of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel
under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG
He could easily be brought up on rather serious charges.
Abby , August 18, 2018 at 11:23 pm
He also leaked classified information to the press as did others and
they could have been prosecuted under the espionage act. They will be losing
their security clearances soon too. The information that they leaked was
the NSA information on Flynn to the Washington post. But of course the Obama
justice department only prosecuted people who exposed Washington's dirty
secrets.
Realist , August 17, 2018 at 1:21 am
Yes, what Kenneth might like to see happen may be admirable but not going
to happen in 2018 or 19, which is practically a different universe from
1975 and for exactly the reasons you specify. This country and its self-appointed
minders have changed massively in 45 years. Besides, 1975 was a year after
Watergate was finally resolved with Nixon and Agnew's resignations and Congress
may have been feeling its oats, going so far as to defund the Vietnam war!
Imagine defunding ANY of the multiple wars ongoing!
Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them,
not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out
in legislation. Schumer let that feline out of the sack when he warned
the president not to mess with them.
Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top
officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down
their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their
rescue in a New York minute.
We saw how the CIA worked around congressionally-imposed budgetary restraints
in Iran-Contra: by secretly running drugs from Columbia to LA, selling arms
to Iran and using the proceeds to fund death squads in Central America.
Congress didn't have the guts to take that investigation to it logical conclusion
of impeachments and/or indictments. Why?
Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon
before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed
for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy,
I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination
of the major intel agencies.
Unfettered Fire , August 17, 2018 at 12:11 pm
The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning
government in the bathtub" all too literally.
Rosa Brooks' book How War Became Everything and Everything Became
the Military exposes the vast expansion and added responsibilities of
the MIC, as governmental departments continue to be dismantled and privatized.
She even said in a book circuit lecture that she thought the idea of
Congress "declaring war" was antiquated and cute. Well, how long will it
be when the very hollowed out structures of Capitol Hill and the White House
are considered antiquated and cute?
What if the plan all along has been to fold up this whole democratic
experiment and move HQ into some new multi-billion dollar Pentagon digs?
Remember the words of Strobe Talbott:
"Within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete;
all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty
wasn't such a great idea after all."
This nation had better wake up fast if it wants to salvage the currency
authorizing power of government and restore its role in the economy, before
it's no longer an option and the private bankers, today's money lenders
in the temple, govern for good.
"The bank strategy continues: "If we can privatize the economy, we
can turn the whole public sector into a monopoly. We can treat what
used to be the government sector as a financial monopoly. Instead of
providing free or subsidized schooling, we can make people pay $50,000
to get a college education, or $50,000 just to get a grade school education
if families choose to go to New York private schools. We can turn the
roads into toll roads. We can charge people for water, and we can charge
for what used to be given for free under the old style of Roosevelt
capitalism and social democracy."
This idea that governments should not create money implies that they
shouldn't act like governments. Instead, the de facto government should
be Wall Street. Instead of governments allocating resources to help the
economy grow, Wall Street should be the allocator of resources – and should
starve the government to "save taxpayers" (or at least the wealthy). Tea
Party promoters want to starve the government to a point where it can be
"drowned in the bathtub."
But if you don't have a government that can fund itself, then who is
going to govern, and on whose terms? The obvious answer is, the class with
the money: Wall Street and the corporate sector. They clamor for a balanced
budget, saying, "We don't want the government to fund public infrastructure.
We want it to be privatized in a way that will generate profits for the
new owners, along with interest for the bondholders and the banks that fund
it; and also, management fees. Most of all, the privatized enterprises should
generate capital gains for the stockholders as they jack up prices for hitherto
public services.
You can see how to demoralize a country if you can stop the government
from spending money into the economy. That will cause austerity, lower living
standards and really put the class war in business. So what Trump is suggesting
is to put the class war in business, financially, with an exclamation point."
"... Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino, and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!! ..."
"... I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ..."
"... Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. ..."
"... Gone are those heady days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? ..."
What does Mueller himself stand to lose if he can't find any dirt on Trump/collusion?
From what I have read about Mueller's career as a kind of designated hitter, I doubt that there
are any scruples lying within him to hold him back from any step that would "prove his
case."
Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and
suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who
publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino,
and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!!
Tom , August 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm
I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the
Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller
instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
Professor , August 19, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job
description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point
of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. I do think he's in for
a comeuppance of some kind but how does it help Republicans in the
midterm to do this now?
Gone are those heady
days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing
every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? He must be stewing in his own juices
., steaming hot.
He is a hard man to admire and he's tough to look at as well but hey he's
not as ugly as Clapper and nothing is ever going to touch him.
"... The boundaries for paranoia are moving rapidly. Trump's election appears to have caused the security state to move into overdrive and in its haste drop almost all pretense re the attempts to control access to dissenting narratives. ..."
"... Inertia, or even misplaced patriotism over US corporations like Facebook, is the road to hell. ..."
"... The Second Amendment make specific provision for the people's right to prevent tyranny by their government in the material world. So far, the Constitution lacks a similar provision preventing government tyranny in cyberspace. This does not mean that defense of this right should be fought for any less vigorously and in the 21st century I'd consider it at least as important. ..."
"... Zuck and his ilk Sandberg are doing CYA and using those who have contacts inside the beltway. ..."
Is there something wrong with this picture, or am I just being overly suspicious or even
paranoid?
No, just "inauthentic".
The boundaries for paranoia are moving rapidly. Trump's election appears to have caused the
security state to move into overdrive and in its haste drop almost all pretense re the attempts
to control access to dissenting narratives. I truly fear for SST in this fast-deteriorating
environment. If Trump's presidency does nothing else but bring the thought-control swamp to the
attention of the masses, he will have done his country a great service.
RaisingMac has the right idea.
Rights waste away unless frequently exercised and 'voting' to switch to less censorious
platforms is a vital part of defending the right to free speech. Inertia, or even misplaced
patriotism over US corporations like Facebook, is the road to hell.
The Second Amendment make
specific provision for the people's right to prevent tyranny by their government in the
material world. So far, the Constitution lacks a similar provision preventing government
tyranny in cyberspace. This does not mean that defense of this right should be fought for any
less vigorously and in the 21st century I'd consider it at least as important.
FireEye's tip eventually led Facebook to remove 652 fake accounts and pages. And
Liberty Front Press, the common thread among much of that sham activity, was linked to
state media in Iran, Facebook said on Tuesday.
"... Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents. ..."
"... In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job. ..."
"... Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates was even remotely suitable for the presidency. ..."
"... Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the election. ..."
(1) An intellectual Rubicon is crossed when Giuliani is deemed a reliable source for
anything.
(2) Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the
national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has
always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents.
It's
not a quality unique to Brennan. In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job.
(3) Am happy to hear that Brennan wants "all Americans [to] get the answers they so rightly
deserve" [NYT] from the Mueller investigation. But he'd be more persuasive if that desire
extended equally to the Senate's investigation into torture.
(4) Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates
how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A
number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates
was even remotely suitable for the presidency. Where does the law come in? If the claim --
hinted at but not made explicit -- is that Brennan was part of a conspiracy to produce the
Steele dossier, allegations of fact, not to mention citation to laws violated, would be
helpful. Based on information known to date, we can reasonably surmise that some, but not all,
of the material in the dossier was the product of Russian disinformation channelled to Steele.
If there's something more, it would be good to get details.
(5) Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His
Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the
election. And, more broadly, if there really was a conspiracy by the national security
apparatus, it was an endeavor that failed. One would think that the 63 million would be pleased
on both counts.
(6) If law breaking there was, what explains the silence from the DOJ under Sessions, whose
stellar career is littered with contrived prosecutions of political opponents? It doesn't take
much to draft an indictment. Yet, here we are, nearly two years into the new dawn, and Brennan
continues to walk free and even spout off publicly. What explains that?
"... Well before Monday night, when Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani let a small bomb drop on Brennan, there was strong evidence that Brennan had been quarterbacking illegal operations against Trump. ..."
"... "I'm going to tell you who orchestrated, who was the quarterback for all this The guy running it is Brennan, and he should be in front of a grand jury. Brennan took a dossier that, unless he's the biggest idiot intelligence agent that ever lived it's false; you can look at it and laugh at it. And he peddled it to [then Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, and that led to the request for the investigation. So you take a false dossier, get Senators involved, and you get a couple of Republican Senators, and they demand an investigation -- a totally phony investigation." ..."
"... Will Mueller let his best-friends-forever -- the country's highest former "justice" and intelligence officials -- be held accountable? I don't think so; there is too much already available on paper, and their foul odor envelops him as well. I believe Mueller will be tempted to manufacture damaging, WMD-style "evidence" of a Trump-Russia conspiracy. (Some of you will recall that DOJ pulled that one, almost successfully, on Thomas Drake.) ..."
"... The stakes are so high, and Mueller's own behavior -- both in the past and now -- is so demonstrably smelly that, when push comes to shove, I think there is a better-than-even chance that he might take the "manufacture" risk, confident there is probably no one left with the conscience and courage of a Thomas Tamm (the DOJ lawyer who blew the whistle on gross violations of the 4th Amendment). ..."
Did anyone else notice the dog that did not bark, in NYT and WaPo coverage of the Brennan
clearance story yesterday and today? I forced myself to read both papers this morning. Unless I
missed it, there was no mention of what Giuliani told Hannity less than two days before Brennan
lost his clearance. Here's how I put it yesterday:
++++++++++++
Well before Monday night, when Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani let a small bomb drop on
Brennan, there was strong evidence that Brennan had been quarterbacking illegal operations
against Trump. Giuliani added fuel to the fire when he told Sean Hannity of Fox news:
"I'm going to tell you who orchestrated, who was the quarterback for all this The guy
running it is Brennan, and he should be in front of a grand jury. Brennan took a dossier
that, unless he's the biggest idiot intelligence agent that ever lived it's false; you can
look at it and laugh at it. And he peddled it to [then Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid,
and that led to the request for the investigation. So you take a false dossier, get Senators
involved, and you get a couple of Republican Senators, and they demand an investigation -- a
totally phony investigation."
+++++++++++++
I am no fan of Fox or Hannity, much less Giuiliani, but but well, isn't the President's
lawyer worth mentioning when he says something this closley connected?
As I wrote earlier, Brennan is "running scared." The people who are supposed to be in charge
have the goods on him. It will be of great interest to watch what happens over the next few
weeks and months.
Will Mueller let his best-friends-forever -- the country's highest former "justice" and
intelligence officials -- be held accountable? I don't think so; there is too much already
available on paper, and their foul odor envelops him as well. I believe Mueller will be tempted
to manufacture damaging, WMD-style "evidence" of a Trump-Russia conspiracy. (Some of you will
recall that DOJ pulled that one, almost successfully, on Thomas Drake.)
The big question at that point would be whether DOJ and FBI have been so totally corrupted
that not one lawyer/"officer of the court" and not one other employee will recognize her/his
duty, by his/her solemn oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from
all enemies foreign and domestic," TO BLOW THE WHISTLE.
The stakes are so high, and Mueller's own behavior -- both in the past and now -- is so
demonstrably smelly that, when push comes to shove, I think there is a better-than-even chance
that he might take the "manufacture" risk, confident there is probably no one left with the
conscience and courage of a Thomas Tamm (the DOJ lawyer who blew the whistle on gross
violations of the 4th Amendment).
If Mueller does choose to go that route, it is to be hoped that he will be proven wrong in
assuming that he and Comey were successful in weeding out any and all FBI/DOJ "malcontents" who
might place their oath to the Constitution ahead of career and misguidedly blind loyalty to
bosses.
What do you all think?
Ray
F. G. Sanford , August 16, 2018 at 2:13 pm
Some have wondered what charges might be brought to bear against Mr. Brennan. The article
also hints that underlings may succumb to fear for their own careers and finally resort to
the "just following orders" defense. That would amount to, "Brennan made me do it". Of
course, Mr. Brennan could resort to that ruse as well, and implicate Clapper, Hayden, Biden
or Mr. Obama himself. But lets get back to the "charges". Steele had been out of the Russia
loop for ten years, and his buddy Pablo Miller was apparently retired as well. Neither one of
them had any viable connections to anyone actively involved with the Putin administration.
Skripal had been sentenced to eight years in prison then exchanged – if I'm not
mistaken – in the Anna Chapman swap. That exchange was conducted with unusual haste and
lack of fanfare, which caused some to suspect something sinister was afoot. I believe Hillary
was still Secretary of State when that happened. So, Steele had no valid Russian sources that
anyone can identify, but Hillary had been hooked up with Tyler Drumheller (now deceased) and
Sydney Blumenthal, both of whom have been identified as participants in a private
intelligence activity and various "creative writing" endeavors. Some guy named Cody Shearer
popped up in the mix as well, but I don't have any idea how he fits in. My guess is, between
the four of them, they "pencil whipped" the dossier – made it up out of whole cloth
– and THERE WERE NO KREMLIN OR RUSSIAN SOURCES. So, the "charge" would be "falsifying
an official document" under Title 18, U.S. Code. Chapter 47 of that code contains about forty
particulars, but the one most applicable would probably be "18 U.S. Code § 1039 –
Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone records
information of a covered entity".
I'm pretty sure I've got this dead on, but proving it may be difficult. Keep in mind,
we're dealing with people who are adept at "slithering". Prosecution would expose too many
insiders to tangential jeopardy. I'm still betting nobody will see any jail time. Just
sayin'.
robjira , August 16, 2018 at 2:35 pm
FG, it's been opined for a little while now that Sergei Skripal may have been the "Kremlin
source" for the dossier (some have suggested Skripal may have even been the author as
well).
Skripal was turned by Steele, and his handler was Miller, who (until a "D Notice" was issued
to the press by the British government) apparently was also Skripal's neighbor in
Salisbury.
F. G. Sanford , August 16, 2018 at 3:12 pm
All of that is apparently true according to the "official" facts. But the timeline between
Skripal's discovery, interrogation, trial, imprisonment and subsequent exchange would have
rendered any information he had stale or irrelevant, if he had any at all. A Russian name was
required to convince a FISA court judge that there was a "source", but that judge would not
have been in a position to determine source validity or reliability. And, just as
conveniently as Seth Rich is no longer available to testify, Skripal has been fortuitously
"disappeared". Figure the odds!
Bart Hansen , August 16, 2018 at 6:25 pm
A footnote here: The FISA court judges are appointed by the chief justice of the supreme
court.
robjira , August 16, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Agreed, FG; while Skripal was obviously no longer (within the timeline of the 2016
bruhaha) a mainline into the "inner workings of the Kremlin," he would still provide adequate
"local color" to the dossier's narrative.
I wonder if the way too convenient "coincidences" as we've been seeing for the past 2 years
now have ever been as thick as they are these days.
Peace.
GM , August 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Skripal may well have contributed, but it's increasingly apparent that the dirty dossier
was produced by a team of authors
FG, the DoJ usually eschews statutes that pinpoint a crime involving fraud in favor of the
old durable mail and wire fraud statutes. The problem with the more specific statutes is that
they rarely have much of a judicial gloss while the precedents under the mail and wire fraud
statutes are beyond numerous.
Dave P. , August 16, 2018 at 3:20 pm
Nothing is going to come out of it. They are all in it together to defend the Imperial
agenda of world wide domination at any price. Trump is the only outsider opposed to it in
some ways, and a few others like Rand Paul. It does not matter which ever way Trump chooses;
cave in as he is doing or hit back as he does sometimes, they are determined to remove him.
The rot in the institutions, both government and private has gone too far deep to the core.
No hope of regeneration in the near future.
William Binney was on Jimmy Dore show yesterday. He said that the Country in looking like
Germany in 1933. Below is the link:
Ray, what I think is that the president's statement about why Brennan was stripped of his
clearance was all about Brennan's attacks on the president. That should never have been
mentioned because it plays right into the hands of the democrats who claim that Trump is
stifling Brennan's right to free speech.
Trump's statement need never have mentioned any of Brennan's criticisms, and should have
been limited to his suspected criminal acts. Brennan has almost certainly committed numerous
crimes while in government service. He is also most likely guilty of giving classified
material to his media contacts. That's what Trump's statement should have addressed.
Now Trump looks like an idiot again, thanks to his inability to control his own
emotions.
backwardsevolution , August 16, 2018 at 9:47 pm
Ed – Trump hasn't taken away Brennan's right to free speech at all. All he's taken
away is his security clearance. Brennan is still free to speak. As I said above, the law
is:
"In the case of former CIA directors, the agency 'holds' their security clearance and
renews it every five years for the rest of their lives. However, that requires former CIA
directors to behave like current CIA employees."
Trump is damned no matter what. Leave Brennan with a security clearance and suffer leaks
to the media. Take it away and be accused of limiting Brennan's speech (which of course it
doesn't do). The media will spin it no matter what.
Trump can't go around accusing Brennan of breaking the law when he doesn't have solid
evidence – YET – but it's coming.
Ed , August 17, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I said that the democrats are claiming that Brennan's right to free speech is being
stifled. I didn't say that I thought that was the case. IMO, a top secret clearance is
actually a gag order on the holder of the clearance. As soon as Brennan opens his mouth about
anything he is privy to, he loses his qualification for the clearance.
The democrats don't understand the right of free speech at all if they think that removing
Brennan's clearance in any way stifles his right to speak. Trump foolishly admitted that
Brennan's clearance was being pulled because of his attacks on Trump. That was stupid, but I
have come to expect nothing less from Trump
Al Pinto , August 16, 2018 at 4:01 pm
In my view
Brennan having Mueller as his best-friends-forever (BFF) certainly seems sufficient
protection for the near and/or long term future. I tend to agree that after the upcoming
Labor Day, Mueller will drop some manufactured evidence that might have been made in advance
as an "insurance policy" for Brennan. The evidence will be hard to refute and will make
Brennan look like the greatest patriot
The CIA/DOJ/FBI/NSA had lost interest in the Constitution long time ego; even GW Bush
said, "The Constitution is just a god damn paper " In another word, it means nothing
Ed , August 16, 2018 at 10:58 pm
With Mueller for a friend, he won't need enemies. Mueller's influential sponsors are all
out of office now. Mueller himself is open to some serious charges along with Clinton and
others for the uranium deal. All of these former Obama admin officials are ready to drop like
ripe fruit from a tree. None of them have any power anymore and all of them could go to
prison.
Brennan is done for. He doesn't have any more moves left except trying to twist the arms
of some shaky democrats in Congress who he has damaging info on. Even if Mueller, Brennan,
Clapper and Comey don't go to jail, they are finished. They're just flopping on the deck
now.
Jean 2 , August 16, 2018 at 4:10 pm
Dear Ray, I always love your work but I'm confused by your assertions of Muellers smelly
behavior. For us less informed, could you explain what behavior that is?
Mueller is a Bush criminal bag-man for the FBI.From the BCCI criminal banking scandel {CIA
drug money} to 9/11 and lying to congress about WMDs and illegal spying and torture ..his
grubby paws are all over it ..
strngr-tgthr , August 16, 2018 at 6:53 pm
I guess he is refferring to this among other things.
However today Brennan said Trump is 100% Guilty of COLLUSION and OBSTRUCTION he was the
CIA, director, they no everything, so we will just have to wait and see.
AnthraxSleuth , August 17, 2018 at 4:22 am
And yet there is no such legal term as collusion.
Brennan is a jack a s s and continues to prove that daily.
How did someone who open admits he voted for the communist party candidate for pres ever
get a security clearance in the first place?
Much less get confirmed as CIA director?
"... After eight years of enjoying President Barack Obama's solid support and defense to do pretty much anything he chose -- including hacking into the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Brennan now lacks what, here in Washington, we refer to as a "Rabbi" with strong incentive to advance and protect you. He expected Hillary Clinton to play that role (were it ever to be needed), and that seemed to be solidly in the cards. But, oops, she lost. ..."
"... What needs to be borne in mind in all this is, as former FBI Director James Comey himself has admitted: "I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president." Comey, Brennan, and co-conspirators, who decided -- in that "environment" -- to play fast and loose with the Constitution and the law, were supremely confident they would not only keep their jobs, but also receive plaudits, not indictments. ..."
"... So, unlike his predecessors, most of whom also left under a dark cloud, Brennan is bereft of anyone to protect him. He lacks even a PR person to help him avoid holding himself up to ridicule -- and now retaliation -- for unprecedentedly hostile tweets and other gaffes. Brennan's mentor, ex-CIA Director George Tenet, for example, had powerful Rabbis in President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as a bizarrely empathetic establishment media, when Tenet quit in disgrace 2004. ..."
"... The main question now is whether the chairs of the House oversight committees will chose to face down the Deep State. They almost never do, and the smart money says that, if they do, they will lose -- largely because of the virtually total support of the establishment media for the Deep State. ..."
At war with current and former intelligence officials since before he was elected, Donald
Trump on Wednesday moved to strip Barack Obama's CIA chief of his security clearance, though
worse may be in store for John Brennan, says Ray McGovern.
There's more than meets the eye to President Donald Trump's decision to revoke the security
clearances that ex-CIA Director John Brennan enjoyed as a courtesy customarily afforded former
directors. The President's move is the second major sign that Brennan is about to be hoisted on
his own petard. It is one embroidered with rhetoric charging Trump with treason and, far more
important, with documents now in the hands of congressional investigators showing Brennan's
ringleader role in the so-far unsuccessful attempts to derail Trump both before and after the
2016 election.
Brennan will fight hard to avoid being put on trial but will need united support from from
his Deep State co-conspirators -- a dubious proposition. One of Brennan's major concerns at
this point has to be whether the "honor-among-thieves" ethos will prevail, or whether some or
all of his former partners in crime will latch onto the opportunity to "confess" to
investigators: "Brennan made me do it."
Brennan: Called Trump a 'traitor.' Now Trump's taken away his security clearances.
Well before Monday night, when Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani let a small bomb drop on Brennan,
there was strong evidence that Brennan had been quarterbacking illegal operations against
Trump. Giuliani added fuel to the fire when he told Sean Hannity of Fox news:
"I'm going to tell you who orchestrated, who was the quarterback for all this. The guy
running it is Brennan, and he should be in front of a grand jury. Brennan took a dossier that,
unless he's the biggest idiot intelligence agent that ever lived it's false; you can look at it
and laugh at it. And he peddled it to [then Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, and that led to
the request for the investigation. So you take a false dossier, get senators involved, and you
get a couple of Republican senators, and they demand an investigation -- a totally phony
investigation."
The Fix Brennan Finds Himself In
After eight years of enjoying President Barack Obama's solid support and defense to do
pretty much anything he chose -- including hacking into the computers of the Senate
Intelligence Committee -- Brennan now lacks what, here in Washington, we refer to as a "Rabbi"
with strong incentive to advance and protect you. He expected Hillary Clinton to play that role
(were it ever to be needed), and that seemed to be solidly in the cards. But, oops, she
lost.
What needs to be borne in mind in all this is, as former FBI Director James Comey
himself has admitted: "I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure
to be the next president." Comey, Brennan, and co-conspirators, who decided -- in that
"environment" -- to play fast and loose with the Constitution and the law, were supremely
confident they would not only keep their jobs, but also receive plaudits, not
indictments.
Unless one understands and remembers this, it is understandably difficult to believe that
the very top U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials did what documentary evidence has
now demonstrated they did.
So, unlike his predecessors, most of whom also left under a dark cloud, Brennan is
bereft of anyone to protect him. He lacks even a PR person to help him avoid holding himself up
to ridicule -- and now retaliation -- for unprecedentedly hostile tweets and other gaffes.
Brennan's mentor, ex-CIA Director George Tenet, for example, had powerful Rabbis in President
George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as a bizarrely empathetic establishment
media, when Tenet quit in disgrace 2004.
The main question now is whether the chairs of the House oversight committees will chose
to face down the Deep State. They almost never do, and the smart money says that, if they do,
they will lose -- largely because of the virtually total support of the establishment media for
the Deep State.
This often takes bizarre forms. The title of a recent column by Washington Post "liberal"
commentator Eugene Robinson speaks volumes: "God Bless the Deep State."
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he served
under nine CIA directors and seven Presidents. He is a member of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2018 at 2:22 pm
O Society – this is what I posted further down the page:
"This is what I found from Executive Order 12968 (Access to Classified Information):
eligibility is granted on the basis of standards, including 'strength of character,
trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment'. John Brennan has made
some wild accusations against President Trump recently, going so far as accusing him of
treason, etc.
Under Sec. 3.4. Reinvestigation Requirements, it says:
"(b) Employees who are eligible for access to classified information shall be the subject
of periodic reinvestigations and may also be reinvestigated if, at any time, there is reason
to believe that they may no longer meet the standards for access established in this
order."
John Brennan no longer meets the "standards" laid out in Executive Order 12968. He has NOT
shown discretion, honesty, trustworthiness, reliability. He is even suspected of leaking
classified information to the media. And accusing President Trump of treason for talking to
Putin (and other things he has said about Trump) went too far.
The Russiagate lies are trickling out now and the players are slowly being revealed
(Comey, Clinton, Lynch, Yates, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, McCabe, Ohr, Crowdstrike, Fusion
GPS, Christopher Steele, the DNC, etc.) Watergate pales in comparison.
sgt_doom , August 19, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Two Questions for John Brennan
[Formal Disclaimer: Never voted for, nor liked, Donald Trump -- never voted for any
republiCON for that matter.]
Mikey Morrell, lame loser, CBS analyst and former CIA guy during the time of that
fabricated intelligence on those weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq, claims John Brennan is
a national security resource!?
Riiiiiiiiiggggghhhhtttt . . . .
OK, so let's pose two questions to examine how valid Morrell's claim is.
(1) Brennan was the CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia at the time when the State
Department examiner rejected American visa applications by twelve of the thirteen future 9/11
hijackers -- that refusal was countermanded or overridden by the CIA.
So, Mr. Brennan, what was your responsibility in this matter and why wasn't your security
clearance immediately pulled after 9/11 and why weren't you investigated on this
situation?
(2) During the time Brennan was CIA director the American intelligence and defense
establishment was severely penetrated by Chinese military hackers (the Pentagon, CIA, NSA,
private defense contractors and various government agencies, most notably the OPM which had
over 25 million personnel records compromised).
So, Mr. Brennan, were you paid above minimum wage for your job performance during that
period, and if so, how can you justify it?
John Brennan as a national security resource?!
More like a national security disaster ! ! !
National security resource my barbarously hard butt!
Tom , August 18, 2018 at 10:57 pm
Suggestion for Brennan. If he really wants to be taken seriously, start by toning down the
arrogance. I mean, it's bad enough to have to deal with Trump's racism, arrogance and more.
Now we have Brennan with his do-you-know-who-the-****-I-am attitude every time he's on
camera. Two out of control mega egos inside the Beltway. Who cares.
Alcuin , August 18, 2018 at 9:37 am
Re Brennan as ringleader, was he coordinating with the British and/or other governments
concerned about Brexit and populism?
Alcuin , August 18, 2018 at 9:05 am
Re Brennan as ringleader, is the speculation that Rosenstein's wife works for the CIA
credible?
Brenda Schouten Beckett , August 18, 2018 at 9:03 am
Ray, thank you SO MUCH for giving us something we can use to explain to others about this
recent Brennan scandal. People over here in the Netherlands are getting "news" that Trump is
a dictator who won't let honest people tell their story. Brennan is being played over here as
the victim. Nobody knows the story of the betrayal that made me lose faith in President
Obama: when he appointed this beast to chief of the CIA. THEN I finally woke up and realized
Obama was just as bad as Bush ever was. We need more articles like this to explain to people
you do NOT have to be a Trump supporter to expose these war criminals. Please, the "father of
waterboarding" is NOW the "victim"? When will people wake up. And then President Obama gets
on television and with all his folksy charm, tells the world, "We tortured some folks" as if
saying it like that made it just a tiny little misstep.
Fesje van der Wal-Kijlstra , August 18, 2018 at 4:06 am
I read (Google) Brennan visited Kiev, in the end of June 2014., about 3 weeks before the
MH17 was taken down.
Oliver Stone knew CIA had a false flag incident in mind when their invasion in the Bay of
Pigs did not work out to end the rule of Fidel Castro in Cuba: taking down an aircraft and
blaming Castro for it. John F. Kennedy did not permit this.
Assuming Brennan's visit was not just to be polite, could there be a connection between his
visit and the taking sown of MH17. Russian rebels shot 6 descending planes with granates from
their shoulder. Poroshenko called them "terrrists" and this fase flag (?) could be
helpful.
"... Presumably in reaction, Trump revoked Brennan's security clearance, the continuing access to classified information usually accorded to former security officials. In the political-media furor that followed, Brennan was mostly heroized as an avatar of civil liberties and free speech, and Trump traduced as their enemy. ..."
"... Brennan's allegation was unprecedented. No such high-level intelligence official had ever before accused a sitting president of treason, still more in collusion with the Kremlin. ..."
"... (Perhaps because the disloyalty allegation against Trump has been customary ever since mid-2016, even before he became president, when an array of influential publications and writers -- among them a former acting CIA director -- began branding him Putin's "puppet," "agent," "client," and "Manchurian candidate." The Los Angeles Times ..."
"... Why did Brennan, a calculating man, risk leveling such a charge, which might reasonably be characterized as sedition? The most plausible explanation is that he sought to deflect growing attention to his role as the "Godfather" of the entire Russiagate narrative, as Cohen argued back in February. If so, we need to know Brennan's unvarnished views on Russia. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Is this liberal historical amnesia? Is it professional incompetence? A quick Google search would reveal Brennan's less-than-"impeccable" record, FBI misdeeds under and after Hoover, as well as the Senate's 1975 Church Committee's investigation of the CIA and other intelligence agencies' very serious abuses of their power. ..."
Valorizing an ex-CIA director and bashing Trump obscures what is truly
ominous.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics
at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually)
weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments,
now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com
.)
Ever since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, every American president has held
one or more summit meetings with the Kremlin leader, first and foremost in
order to prevent miscalculations that could result in war between the two
nuclear superpowers. Generally, they received bipartisan support for doing
so. In July, President Trump continued that tradition by meeting with
Russian President Putin in Helsinki, for which, unlike previous presidents,
he was scathingly criticized by much of the US political-media
establishment. John Brennan, CIA director under President Obama, however,
went much further, characterizing Trump's press conference with Putin as
"nothing short of treasonous." Presumably in reaction, Trump revoked
Brennan's security clearance, the continuing access to classified
information usually accorded to former security officials. In the
political-media furor that followed, Brennan was mostly heroized as an
avatar of civil liberties and free speech, and Trump traduced as their
enemy.
Leaving aside the missed occasion to discuss the "revolving door" involving
former US security officials using their permanent clearances to enhance
their lucrative positions outside government, Cohen thinks the subsequent
political-media furor obscures what is truly important and perhaps ominous:
Brennan's allegation was unprecedented. No such high-level intelligence
official had ever before accused a sitting president of treason, still more
in collusion with the Kremlin. (Impeachment discussions of Presidents Nixon
and Clinton, to take recent examples, did not include allegations involving
Russia.)
Brennan
clarified his charge
: "Treasonous, which is to betray one's trust and to
aid and abet the enemy." Coming from Brennan, a man presumed to be in
possession of related dark secrets,
as
he strongly hinted
, the charge was fraught with alarming implications.
Brennan made clear he hoped for Trump's impeachment, but in another time,
and in many other countries, his charge would suggest that Trump should be
removed from the presidency urgently by any means, even a coup. No one, it
seems, has even noted this extraordinary implication with its tacit threat
to American democracy. (Perhaps because the disloyalty allegation against
Trump has been customary ever since mid-2016, even before he became
president, when an array of influential publications and writers -- among them
a former acting CIA director -- began branding him Putin's "puppet," "agent,"
"client," and "Manchurian candidate." The
Los
Angeles Times
even saw fit to print an article suggesting that the
military
might
have to remove Trump if he were to be elected, thereby having the very
dubious distinction of predating Brennan.)
Why did Brennan, a calculating man, risk leveling such a charge, which might
reasonably be characterized as sedition? The most plausible explanation is
that he sought to deflect growing attention to his role as the "Godfather"
of the entire Russiagate narrative, as Cohen argued back in February. If so,
we need to know Brennan's unvarnished views on Russia.
They are set out with astonishing (perhaps unknowing) candor in
a
New
York Times
op-ed
of August 17. They are those of Joseph McCarthy
and J. Edgar Hoover in their prime. Western "politicians, political parties,
media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated,
wittingly and unwittingly, or even bought outright, by Russian
operatives not only to collect sensitive information but also to distribute
propaganda and disinformation. I was well aware of Russia's ability to work
surreptitiously within the United States, cultivating relationships with
individuals who wield actual or potential power. These Russian agents are
well trained in the art of deception. They troll political, business and
cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who
become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters. Too often, those
puppets are found." All this, Brennan assures readers, is based on his "deep
insight." All the rest of us, it seems, are constantly susceptible to
"Russian puppet masters" under our beds, at work, on our computers. Clearly,
there must be no "cooperation" with the Kremlin's grand "Puppet Master," as
Trump said he wanted early on. (People who wonder what and when Obama knew
about the unfolding Russiagate saga need to ask why he would keep such a
person so close for so long.)
And yet, scores of former intelligence and military officials rallied around
this unvarnished John Brennan, even though, they said, they did not entirely
share his opinions. This too is revealing. They did so, it seems clear
enough, out of their professional corporate identity, which Brennan
represented and Trump was degrading by challenging the intelligences
agencies' (implicitly including his own) Russiagate allegations against him.
It's a misnomer to term these people representatives of a hidden "deep
state." In recent years, they have been amply visible on television and
newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present themselves as members
of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government. This too has
gone largely undiscussed while nightingales of the fourth branch -- such as
David
Ignatius
and
Joe
Scarborough
in the pages of the
The
Washington Post
-- have been in full voice.
The result is, of course -- and no less ominous -- to criminalize any advocacy of
"cooperating with Russia," or détente, as Trump sought to do in Helsinki
with Putin. Still more, a full-fledged Russophobic hysteria is sweeping
through the American political-media establishment, from Brennan and -- pending
actual evidence against her -- those who engineered the arrest of Maria Butina
(imagine how this endangers young Americans networking in Russia) to the
senators now preparing new "crippling sanctions" against Moscow and the
editors and producers at the
Times
,
Post
,
CNN, and MSNBC. (However powerful, how representative are these elites when
surveys indicate that a majority of the American people still prefer good
relations with Moscow?) As the dangers grow of actual war with Russia -- again,
from Ukraine and the Baltic region to Syria -- the capacity of US
policy-makers, above all the president, are increasingly diminished. To be
fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American crisis, some
say the worst since the Civil War.
Finally, there was a time when many Democrats, certainly liberal Democrats,
could be counted on to resist this kind of hysteria and, yes, spreading
neo-McCarthyism. (Brennan's defenders accuse Trump of McCarthyism, but
Brennan's charge of treason without presenting any actual evidence was
quintessential McCarthy.) After all, civil liberties, including freedom of
speech, are directly involved -- and not only Brennan's and Trump's. But
Democratic members of Congress and pro-Democratic media outlets are in the
forefront of the new anti-Russian hysteria, with only a few exceptions. Thus
a generally liberal historian
tells
CNN viewers
that "Brennan is an American hero. His tenure at the CIA was
impeccable. We owe him so much." Elsewhere the same historian
assures
readers
, "There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support since the
CIA was created in the Cold War." In the same vein, two
Post
reporters
write of the FBI's "
once
venerated reputation
."
Is this liberal historical amnesia? Is it professional incompetence? A quick
Google search would reveal Brennan's less-than-"impeccable" record, FBI
misdeeds under and after Hoover, as well as the Senate's 1975 Church
Committee's investigation of the CIA and other intelligence agencies' very
serious abuses of their power.
Or have liberals' hatred of Trump nullified
their own principles?
The critical-minded Russian adage would say, "All
three explanations are worst."
Stephen F. Cohen
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of
Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University
and a contributing editor of
The
Nation
.
"... There is very substantial evidence that John Brennan has continued to act as a leaker over the past few months in order to create media narratives. ..."
There is very substantial evidence that John Brennan has continued to act as a leaker over
the past few months in order to create media narratives.
In July, the New York Times published a front-page article on Trump's alleged behaviour
when he was briefed by the DNI about Russian interference (remember that "DNI Report" that
said RT programming on fracking and Occupy swayed the electorate to vote for Trump?)
The story says that Trump was briefed by "John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R.
Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director
of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command," and that
the meetings were top-secret. The story is entirely based around testimony from "several
people who attended the intelligence briefing."
Only three people attended the meeting, and Brennan is a stated enemy of Trump. It is
therefore all but stated that the story is basically a "plant" by the former head of the CIA,
on the front page of the US's most well-regarded newspaper! They've gone from publishing Sy
Hersh on intelligence abuse to letting their paper be used as an editorial space for
ex-spooks.
"... Brennen and the anti Russia neo-cons in the deep state wanted Hillary.She was their queen and has the body count to prove it. They were going to make sure noone else was elected and they were going to blackmail and threaten anyone who got in the way Trump was a shock. ..."
"... "Clinton encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape." ..."
Brennen and the anti Russia neo-cons in the deep state wanted Hillary.She was their queen
and has the body count to prove it. They were going to make sure noone else was elected and they
were going to blackmail and threaten anyone who got in the way Trump was a shock.
Even Trump didn't think he was going to win and didn't want to. That's why Melanie cried when
he won..
He was only there as a pied piper for Hillary who hand picked Trump and had Bill give Trump
tips on how to run as a republican {Trump hasn't been a republican since 1999 and was a big
Hillary supporter}.
Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton
encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own
views of the political landscape.
"Clinton encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and
offered his own views of the political landscape."
Now WHY would Bill do that?wanna hint?
Clinton and Brenner and the FBI thought they had it in the bag ..Trump leaked out all over
the floor and now they are desperate to clean up the mess so they can get back to mass murder
and war.
"... The entire trans-Atlantic Establishment is behind the anti-Russia campaign and it started long before the election (for any doubters, Robert Parry's articles on Ukraine and MH17 should give one an idea of this). ..."
I do know that the Wall Street Journal mentioned Brennan's alleged role in the creation of
the Steele Dossier and the FBI texting scheme in both the news and editorial pages, but I
still don't think that he personally is the "ringleader" of all of this.
The entire
trans-Atlantic Establishment is behind the anti-Russia campaign and it started long before
the election (for any doubters, Robert Parry's articles on Ukraine and MH17 should give one
an idea of this).
"... Seems without a doubt that Brennan is guilty as a coconspirator to perpetrate a fraud on the FISA court. ..."
"... Brennan understood there would be hell to pay if it came out Hillary partisans in the U.S. government were spying on her opponent's campaign, making use of opposition research she had purchased. But Brennan, who was auditioning to be Hillary's CIA director and choking on his anger at the thought of Trump as president, couldn't help himself apparently. ..."
"... From April 2016 to July 2016, according to leaked stories in the British press, he assembled a multi-agency taskforce that served as the beginnings of a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. During these months, he was "personally briefing" Obama on "Russian interference" -- Brennan's euphemism for spying on the Trump campaign -- and was practically camped out at the White House. So in all likelihood Obama knew about and had given his blessing to Brennan's dirt-digging. ..."
"... The FBI's liaison to Brennan was Peter Strzok, whose hatred for Trump equaled Brennan's. But even Strzok knew Brennan was blowing smoke about Trump-Russian collusion. Strzok would later tell his mistress he sensed the probe would prove a crock -- "there's no big there there." ..."
"... There is very substantial evidence that John Brennan has continued to act as a leaker over the past few months in order to create media narratives. ..."
"... There is ample evidence in open public news reports of BO's having his finger on the scale, both before the election and after Trump's inauguration, which implicates him in pre-election meddling, as well as post-inauguration apparent sedition, in the form of his (Obama's) shadowing Trump as he (Trump) began his first awkward attempts at visiting overseas, likely offerring these potentates an alternative foreign policy, (once a coupe d'tat of some sort takes place) . ..."
"... Brennan was Obama's stooge. Can't wait to hear JB sing. ..."
After reviewing Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, I'd be inclined to include a count of
unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the charges against Brennan. See Egan,
484 U.S. 518 (1988), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/
[1]
Almost certainly, Brennan's arrogance and impunity have allowed classified information to
pass his lips during his various pronouncements on Russia-Gate. Prosecuting him for
disclosure of classified information thus draws on a large body of prior statements, enabling
him to be prosecuted for his prior statements. It also deprives him of his defebse if a
purported First Amendment right of free speech. And the more instances of him spouting
classified information are proved, the more wild he and his prior statements will seem to the
jury.
[1] "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States.' U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access
to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is
sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that
person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of
power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. This
Court has recognized the Government"s 'compelling interest' in withholding national security
information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. The authority to
protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as
Commander in Chief."
(Internal citations omitted.)
backwardsevolution , August 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Paul Merrell – thanks for the addition of "unauthorized disclosure of classified
information".
"Almost certainly, Brennan's arrogance and impunity have allowed classified information to
pass his lips during his various pronouncements on Russia-Gate."
Yes. Washington has been leaking like a sieve, and I have no doubt that Brennan has played
some role in this leakage.
With the evidence now trickling out of the Department of Justice and the FBI re
spying/FISA Court abuse/Steele dossier, I'm holding out for "Seditious Conspiracy," because I
think this was their "intent" all along. LOL – I'm going right for the jugular!
AnthraxSleuth , August 17, 2018 at 4:58 am
Seems without a doubt that Brennan is guilty as a coconspirator to perpetrate a fraud
on the FISA court.
Oedipa Maas , August 15, 2018 at 11:31 pm
Seymour Hersh: Russia Gate: a Brennan operation.
Antiwar7 , August 15, 2018 at 11:07 pm
Ray, what do you think the outcome will be for Brennan?
Incidentally, for all the people who routinely call Putin a thug, what about Brennan? It's
well known he chaired the Obama kill sessions, aka Terror Tuesdays. And he's got the
look.
The crux of this whole sorry saga that has dominated the public sphere for approaching two
years now, is that nothing gets done for American people whose tax dollars are wasted on this
pathetic show, demonstrating that the "public servants" exist primarily to serve
themselves.
That Brennan should be a mouthpiece for MSNBC is testimony to the mess of American
politics both "right" and "left".
Too bad JFK's wish to shatter the CIA into "a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds"
was ended.
"Brennan knew he was treading on a political minefield. He referred to the FBI/ CIA's
spying on the Trump campaign as an "exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue." That
helpful crumb comes from Russian Roulette, the book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff.
Brennan understood there would be hell to pay if it came out Hillary partisans in the
U.S. government were spying on her opponent's campaign, making use of opposition research she
had purchased. But Brennan, who was auditioning to be Hillary's CIA director and choking on
his anger at the thought of Trump as president, couldn't help himself apparently.
From April 2016 to July 2016, according to leaked stories in the British press, he
assembled a multi-agency taskforce that served as the beginnings of a counterintelligence
probe into the Trump campaign. During these months, he was "personally briefing" Obama on
"Russian interference" -- Brennan's euphemism for spying on the Trump campaign -- and was
practically camped out at the White House. So in all likelihood Obama knew about and had
given his blessing to Brennan's dirt-digging.
The FBI's liaison to Brennan was Peter Strzok, whose hatred for Trump equaled
Brennan's. But even Strzok knew Brennan was blowing smoke about Trump-Russian collusion.
Strzok would later tell his mistress he sensed the probe would prove a crock -- "there's no
big there there."
What's valuable about the Corn/ Isikoff account is it inadvertently provides a picture of
Brennan running an anti-Trump spying operation right out of Langley. Even after the FBI probe
formally began in July 2016, Brennan was bringing CIA agents, FBI officials, and NSA
officials into the same room at CIA headquarters to pool their anti-Trump hunches.
To give these meetings a patina of respectability, Brennan invoked the post-9/11 rationale
of interagency cooperation. Their political import is still unmistakable."
There is very substantial evidence that John Brennan has continued to act as a leaker
over the past few months in order to create media narratives.
In July, the New York Times published a front-page article on Trump's alleged behaviour
when he was briefed by the DNI about Russian interference (remember that "DNI Report" that
said RT programming on fracking and Occupy swayed the electorate to vote for Trump?)
The story says that Trump was briefed by "John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R.
Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director
of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command," and that
the meetings were top-secret. The story is entirely based around testimony from "several
people who attended the intelligence briefing."
Only three people attended the meeting, and Brennan is a stated enemy of Trump. It is
therefore all but stated that the story is basically a "plant" by the former head of the CIA,
on the front page of the US's most well-regarded newspaper! They've gone from publishing Sy
Hersh on intelligence abuse to letting their paper be used as an editorial space for
ex-spooks.
" He expected Hillary Clinton to play that role (were it ever to be needed), and that
seemed to be solidly in the cards. But, oops, she lost .."
The simple truth is that President Barrack Obama was clearly seen and heard desperately
attempting to prop up Hillary, perhaps the weakest candidate to ever run. (And there have
been some weak candidates in my memory. Dukakis, McCain and Romney come to mind, but none of
them had frequent coughing fits at the podium, stumbled up stairs, or had to be dragged and
shoved into a oversized SUV. Very Presidential, eh? Did the Russkies do that one?), in order
to protect his legacy.
There is ample evidence in open public news reports of BO's having his finger on the
scale, both before the election and after Trump's inauguration, which implicates him in
pre-election meddling, as well as post-inauguration apparent sedition, in the form of his
(Obama's) shadowing Trump as he (Trump) began his first awkward attempts at visiting
overseas, likely offerring these potentates an alternative foreign policy, (once a coupe
d'tat of some sort takes place) .
Brennan was Obama's stooge. Can't wait to hear JB sing.
JWalters , August 15, 2018 at 8:00 pm
I recall being hopeful when Brennan testified to the Senate that he would implement
Obama's plan to transfer all CIA drone operations to the military. This echoed JFK's order to
transfer all CIA military operations to the military, essentially reverting the CIA to its
original purpose of gathering information. The JFK case was discussed well by Colonel L.
Fletcher Prouty. JFK's order died with him. Obama's order was never implemented by Brennan.
So who does Brennan really work for? An obvious candidate is the brotherhood of war
profiteers. e.g. http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
I agree that Brennan should have his clearance revoked, and frankly so
should anyone after they leave government. The thing is, I just got done
reading "The Devil's Chessboard", and it is quite clear that Allen Dulles
still ran things after he was fired by JFK, and was most likely the coordinator
of the assassination.
I doubt that Trump has any more control of the CIA than JFK had.
Until people like Brennan are capable of being prosecuted in a court
of law, our so-called "Intelligence" agencies don't give a rat's ass what
the president orders. In fact, they probably give "suggestions" that are
in fact orders.
Right now I think they are trying to figure out a way to get him
out of office without having to actually kill him.
backwardsevolution , August 18, 2018 at 8:22 am
Hi, Skip. The Devil's Chessboard sounds like a good book; I'll have to
read it. Yes, I think whoever gets to the top of the CIA is probably one
mean, bad monster of a human being.
I too think they'd love to assassinate Trump, but I don't think they
dare. There are too many people who just don't believe the government
anymore, and Trump's supporters would blow the roof off if anything happened
to him. They've got to be worried about that because they're the ones with
all the guns. Ha!
I think they're desperately racing against time, trying to nail Trump
before he nails them. The evidence is slowly trickling out (because the
FBI and DOJ are stalling) re the Steele dossier/Russiagate/spying, etc.
From the evidence gathered so far, it's pretty evident that the upper
layer of the DOJ, FBI and CIA are rotten to the core and should be dismantled
ASAP. If all Trump does while being in office is bring these guys down,
then he will have done a great service.
"... The Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they may yet get their wish. But not yet. ..."
"... It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance violations'. But what do I know. ..."
"... There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high crimes and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse the president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires a two-thirds majority. ..."
"... I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind by 'High crimes and misdemeanors ..."
"... the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises. ..."
This is bad for Trump but not unexpected. Despite the figleaf of 'Russian collusion' the
main brief of Mueller was 'find out bad stuff about Trump and his associates' and of course
it was almost inevitable that he would find such stuff because Trump and his cronies are
scumbags who exist to break the law. This is the reality of capitalism (as has been pointed
out 'crony capitalism' is the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed or ever will
exist). Congress might or might not accept it, but the Senate (even more viciously
'gerrymandered' albeit de facto) won't yet. So Trump won't go down, not yet.
The only way that Trump will go down, IMHO is if and when the Republican establishment
decide that they have got everything out of him that they're going to get, which means after
the next Presidential election. Assuming he wins it, he may be ditched quickly. The
Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they
may yet get their wish. But not yet.
In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but
paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a
philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election'
although I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica
Lewinsky was ultimately political too).
It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance
violations'. But what do I know.
'The Republicans simply don't care, and nothing will make them care.'
To be fair, I don't care either, and nothing will make me care.
Anyway, back in the real world .
'Michael Cohen, who spent a decade as a lawyer for Trump, told a judge Tuesday that he was
directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from
disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in
violation of campaign finance law.
Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal
case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice
Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution
does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
In comments to reporters after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in federal
court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said prosecutors were sending a
message that they are unafraid to file charges when campaign finance laws are broken. But he
did not mention Trump or offer any indication that his office planned to pursue action
against the president.'
(Washington Post)
'Despite impeachment talk, it's no easy task to remove a president in such a way. Both
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate.
President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be removed from office.
There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high
crimes and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse
the president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then
impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires
a two-thirds majority.
In Trump's case, starting the impeachment process would currently require a mass revolt by
Republicans against him in the House of Representatives -- controlled by the GOP -- an event
even less likely than normal with midterm elections on the horizon.'
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors ,'
'I am no lawyer, but apparently if you spend that much money covering up your adultery to
avoid damage to your political campaign, that is a crime'.
I sort of see what you are saying, and of course, in a certain sense, what you say is not
only true but self-evidently and obviously true. Any politician engages in activities to gain
him or herself votes. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like the most obvious way to
conceptualise these activities. CF Bill Clinton.
Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because
he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And
in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him).
But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities.
Does it not seem more likely that Trump's main concern in paying the hush money was to
avoid his wife, who had just given birth, finding out? Obviously the effect on votes would be
of benefit to him, but I'm not sure that was his main concern.
Very serious. Cohen is obviously going to cooperate (if he hasn't begun already) on topics
far afield from his own charges, and Manafort must be thinking hard about doing the same
thing, now.
Lawfare does not mention the politics: this also boosts the possibility that
Democrats will take control of the House. Then they may wait for Mueller's report do the
heavy lifting before impeaching Trump and in the meantime start various committee
investigations of emoluments and the corruption elsewhere in the Administration.
The next two
years will be unremitting television news of more crime and corruption. If and when they
impeach Trump, even a Republican-controlled Senate will convict; the Senate only needs
2/3rds. The Senators all want to get rid of him; he makes it harder for them to run for
President themselves.
For now, they will all be watching the disapproval rating at someplace
reputable like FiveThirtyEight's aggregator. Tuesday's news will cycle into these figures, in
about a week or ten days. If it starts to tick downwards 3-5%, back to the levels in the last
half of 2017, Trump is toast sooner rather than later.
I too agree with most of what Hidari said here (and there), except for their last
paragraph here. To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was
transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal
– the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but
immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital
affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises.
These functioned as (unreported) in-kind donations, insofar as they were third-party
resources expended to for the explicit purpose of providing electoral support to the
candidate.
Hidari@ I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
It's intentionally
vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one
of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his
aforementioned words and actions."
Again, though, the idea that the payoffs to Ms. Cliffords and Ms. McDougal were made to
prevent Ms. Trump from learning of the affairs defies all credibility when considering that
they occurred in the fall of 2016 rather than ten years earlier.
@Hidari it would be a strange way to conceptualise the activity if it was based purely on
the fact that the hush money was politically helpful. But:
"He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the
women were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office," implicating the president in a federal crime.
"I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the
principal purpose of influencing the election" for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said."
So I don't really know how you can keep insisting this is an issue of conceptual
analysis
I don't think that a Congressional majority, and certainly not the 2/3 Senate majority
needed for removal, is going to feel much ethical pressure to impeach based on the list of
wrongdoing we know about so far, or that are at all likely to emerge.
Quite aside from the lack of gravity of the crimes on that list, none of them are a clear
betrayal of the electorate that decided he should be president. That electorate already knew
he was a Russophile, had even invited Russians to hack D computers, they knew that he was a
pussy-grabber, and that his privately-owned business was ethically challenged -- yet an
electoral majority voted him in anyway.
Removal on impeachment involves the legislature asserting its will and its judgment over
that of the people. Of course the legislature is also elected by the people to accomplish
duties that include holding the president to certain standards. But I don't see even a 2/3 D
Senate (which we would only get by the Rs losing every race up this year, plus about 15 of
them party-switching) having the cojones for such an assertion, certainly not when the
electorate already knew about the crimes when they voted for the criminal. The Rs have
cojones for such enterprises, and in spades, but not our beloved Ds.
And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if
successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational,
only less politically disorganized.
Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I
don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much
less removal.
If the Ds do have control of either house after the election, of course the usual that we
can expect of them is not very much. Even if they control both chambers, they couldn't
possibly have the 2/3 in both needed to run the govt by overriding the vetoes that any actual
program of theirs would be sure to attract from the president. Even with 2/3, because this is
a D 2/3 we're talking about, we can most likely discount the possibility that they would even
try to exercise any oversight over what the govt does in opposition to the president's
control.
An actual political party in this situation of even controlling a bare majority of just
the House could do a whole lot to not only thwart Trump, but to at least make a credible
effort at asserting control over the govt. They could of course block any new legislation, or
the repeal of any existing law, and even the actual Ds are probably up to that. But to go
further, to control or limit how Trump runs the govt under existing law, this D majority of
the House would have to be willing to boldly set sail on the sea of political hardball and
take up a career of budgetary hostage-taking -- so right off we should say that this is
political fanfic, and not even canonic fanfic.
But a girl can dream, can't he, so let's pursue this alternate reality just a bit. Who
knows, if Trump's misrule makes things sufficiently dire, maybe even the Ds will be motivated
to find their inner pirate.
To take ICE as an example, it would go something like this. The House only agrees to pass
the annual appropriations on a 30-day continuing resolution basis, so that their assent is
needed every 30-days to the govt doing anything. They pass all the spending except for the
ICE funding (keeping the funding for whatever ICE spends on housing and otherwise caring for
people already apprehended -- that funding goes with the funding of the rest of the govt),
which they hold back until and unless Senate and president agree to ICE funding that includes
new law that keeps ICE from doing family separations, and whatever else the Ds find
objectionable. After success getting control of ICE abuses, next month when the CRs come due,
they do the same maneuver on their next target of Trump misrule.
The risk is that the Rs, Senate and president, just refuse to agree to the omnibus that
funds everything else the govt does until the Ds let loose the ICE funding. There is a govt
shutdown, and the Ds run the risk of being blamed. It turns into a game of legislative
chicken. Of course, this has to be anti-canon fanfic for such a game to end other than by the
Ds swerving first, so the real world Ds will never actually even start the game, because
whatever their faults, they know their limitations.
Hidari #13: " they 'all' want to get rid of him now?"
The Republican Senate would be happy to throw him overboard tomorrow. His voters are the
problem. They won't wait for his voters to turn on him however, if the Senate receives a
lengthy bill of impeachment from a Democratic House and Mueller has signed off on some of the
charges.
They'd rather have Pence do the sanctimonious messaging and go into 2020 trying to
reconstruct the party with an open primary.
After all, the GOP stands to lose Senate seats in 2020 anyway, just due to the map (the
same problem they have this year, with the House). If the election in 76 days puts the
Democrats in charge of the House, Trump won't make it to the end of his term.
'To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not
to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing
of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the
election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult
entertainers from turning into October Surprises. '
Oh ok, I didn't really understand that. I haven't to be honest, been following the Stormy
Daniels story too closely for the good reason that I don't care.
So one infers that the FL did in fact know about these things. Could we conceptualise it
thus, then: Trump paid the hush money to ensure that Melania was not publicly humiliated by
these things (I mean, humiliated even more than simply being married to Donald Trump)?
But obviously, in that case, Trump not wanting this to be a big story in the run up to the
election was obviously a 'thing'.
"... Mueller's team of partisan prosecutors seek to prove the unprovable -- that I received allegedly hacked e-mails from the Russians or Wikileaks and passed them on to Donald Trump. ..."
Mueller is running a criminally abusive, constitutionally unaccountable, professionally and
politically incestuous conspiracy of ethically conflicted cronies colluding to violate my
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and those of almost everyone who had any sort of
political or personal association with me in the last 10 years.
He has conducted a supposedly comprehensive investigation of a very narrow and limited issue
as an open-ended, totally limitless Grand Prosecution, with absolutely no articulable or even
identifiable criminal predicate to substantiate it as a lawful investigation, even under
ordinary circumstances.
Mueller's team of partisan prosecutors seek to prove the unprovable -- that I received
allegedly hacked e-mails from the Russians or Wikileaks and passed them on to Donald
Trump. This threadbare false narrative is harped on endlessly by the slugs at MSNBC and
other despicable "fake news" outlets.
Now, because of the accuracy of my tweets -- in which I merely followed the tweets of
Wikileaks and the many public interviews of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange -- Mueller and
his hit-men seek to frame some ludicrous charge of "defrauding the United States."
This is, of course, based on a false and unproven assumption that Assange is a Russian agent
and Wikileaks is a Russian front -- neither of which has been proven in a court of law.
Interestingly Assange himself has said, "Roger Stone has never said or tweeted anything we at
Wikileaks had not already said publicly."
A question for all the impeach Trump for colluding with Russia weenies:
How would Cohen know anything about Trump's collusion with Russia? Why would Trump need a
lawyer for this illegal activity? If you are going to claim that Trump just happened to share
this information with Cohen, then why not anyone else? Is Cohen some sort of consigliere or
confession booth priest for Trump?
This whole farce with Cohen is pathetic BS. Cohen will be told to say this and that my
Mueller and this will be deemed "evidence". Americans are really a few cards short of a full
deck to swallow this drivel.
BTW, the new consensus emerging amongst the "deplorables" who do not share the official
CNN fake news narrative, is that the dirty dossier produced by Steele was a Russian
machination. This is truly overwhelming in its retardation. Why the f*ck would Russia
undermine Trump by colluding with Hillary when Hillary was basically foaming at the mouth to
start a war over Russia's intervention in Syria. Hillary's Democratic Party has ignited the
current anti-Russian hysteria in America, so there is no way that Russia was colluding with
her or her party. Americans are apparently too brainwashed or dumb to distinguish between the
involvement of Russian nationals and the Russian state. You can find dozens of nationals from
any country to do anything with the right motivation.
"... "Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their security clearance and their puppet masters ..."
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
And now you want to talk about trying to shoe horn reality into your fantasy outcome.
Anyone with with 2 brain cells to rub together is laughing at you and your ilk pushing this
complete horse chit.
The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more
than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their
security clearance and their puppet masters.
Do yourself a favor and turn off that freak Rachel Madcow!
"... If it's really true that the centre cannot hold, The Empire is going to have an increasingly hard time cloaking its lies. Of course, the west could simply return to the values of brotherhood and the common struggle it continues to espouse but never really seriously practiced. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. ..."
So let's start with America's next big war -- the Gulf War against Iraq, Take One. John
McCain voted for war . Were
there casualties? You could say that; 294 Americans died in the Gulf War. The UK lost 47. It's
worth noting, as an aside, that Syria was a US ally in the Gulf War, and had 2 of its soldiers
killed. How about Iraqis? Well, nobody seems to have kept a very accurate count -- they were,
after all, the enemy, and killing them was encouraged -- and the official American
count is established from Iraqi prisoner-of-war records, and was featured in a report
commissioned by the US Air Force. It estimates 20,000-22,000 combat deaths overall, in both the
air and ground campaigns. Was that a slaughter? You tell me. And before we move on from the
Gulf War, John McCain voted (after
the war was over) against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain
veterans' benefits.
Four years later, McCain supported an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments
of Veterans Affairs and other federal agencies by $8.9 billion. The following year, McCain
voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. As of the
year 2000, 183,000 U.S. veterans of the Gulf War, more than a quarter of the U.S. troops who
participated, had been declared permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
You may only be 'slaughtered' if you are dead, but the irrevocable changes for the worse in
the quality of life for thousands of Americans who were only doing what their country ordered
them to do should count for something, what do you say?
This from the American senator who famously could not remember how
many houses he and his wife owned . For the record, the number of homes, ranches, condos,
and lofts, together worth a combined estimated $13,823,269.00, was ten.
Gee; I'm starting to get a little mad at McCain. Well, let's move on.
In 2003, the US government of the day decided that Saddam Hussein had not learned his lesson
the first time, and so this time he had to go. Accordingly, the USA polled its allies for
military forces who were not otherwise occupied, and had another go at it. John McCain said
hell yes, let's get it on. American military
casualties , 4,287 killed, 30,187 wounded. A bit more of a slaughter than the first
attempt. The advent of ceramic-plate body armor protected the soldier's body core, so that many
more survived injuries that would have been so horrific they would surely have killed them. The
downside is that many lived who lost limbs too badly damaged to save, and were crippled for
whatever life remained to them. The Iraqi casualty figures were again an estimate,
although better documented; by the most reliable count, somewhere between 182,000 and 204,000
Iraqis were killed. Needlessly and pointlessly slaughtered, many of them; American troops grew
so fearful as a result of the steady drip of casualties among their own that they frequently
opened fire on families in cars with children simply because they did not obey instructions in
a language they did not speak or understand. At Mahmudiya, in March 2006, Private Steven Green
and his co-conspirators raped and
killed 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza, killed her family and set her body afire to blur the
details of the crime. When Iraqi soldiers arrived on the scene, Green and his fellow murderers
blamed it on Sunni insurgents.
The following year, President Bush approved a 'surge' of 20,000 additional troops, which
John McCain so energetically agitated for that it became known informally as 'the McCain
doctrine'. That's after he claimed in 2004 that if an elected government in Iraq asked that US
forces leave, they would have to go even if they were not happy with the security situation. He
also recognized, the following year, that Iraqis resented the American military presence, and
the sooner and more dramatically it could be reduced, the better it would be for everyone. I
guess if you lay claim to both sides of the argument, you're bound to convince someone that you
know what you're doing.
That same year, 2007, John McCain
voted against a requirement for specifying minimum time periods between deployments for
soldiers deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. When they need you
back in the meat-grinder, you go, never mind how many times you've already been there. Let's
just keep in mind, before we leave Iraq, that the entire case for war the second time around
was fabricated with wild tales of awful weapons Saddam supposedly had which could kill
Americans while they were still in America , and so he had to be dealt with. When it was
suggested to the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that America should concentrate on
Afghanistan, since that is where the backers of the 9-11 strike against America had fled, he
mused
that there were 'no good targets in Afghanistan' , although there were 'lots of good
targets in Iraq'. Some researchers suggest he was after a 'teachable moment' for America's
enemies which would convince them of America's irresistible power. While John McCain assessed
that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense ever, his complaint was not that
Rumsfeld was not killing enough people, but that he showed insufficient commitment to winning
the war.
Libya. Hoo, boy. In 2009, John McCain -- together with fellow die-faster-please senators Joe
Lieberman and Lindsey Graham --
visited Tripoli , to discuss Libya's acquisition of American military equipment. John
McCain assured Gadaffi (his son, actually) that America was eager to provide Libya with the
equipment it needed. Hardly more than a year later, he espoused the position that Gadaffi must
be removed from power because he had American blood on his hands from the Lockerbie bombing. In
2011, he visited the Libyan 'rebels', and
publicly urged Washington to consider a ground attack to forcibly remove Gaddafi from
power. Just a friendly public service reminder; the Lockerbie bombing was most likely carried
out by Syria, was -- according to pretty reliable testimony -- rigged by
the American intelligence services to finger Libya , and probably the stupidest thing
Gaddafi ever did was to admit to it anyway and pay compensation, in an effort to move on.
Anyway, more war. What the fuck is it with this guy?
Well, even something so grim as war has its comic moments. What else would you call it when
NATO claims, with a straight face, that the enemy is hiding his
tanks and artillery from its watchful eye inside the water pipes of the Great Man-Made
River? What they actually wanted was an excuse to bomb it -- which they did, as well as the
pumping stations which brought abundant fresh water to the coastal region, in the certain
knowledge that it would create a crisis for the civilian population. Which, by the bye, is
against just about every convention on the subject ever written.
Well, even something so grim as war has its comic moments. What else would you call it when
NATO claims, with a straight face, that the enemy is hiding his
tanks and artillery from its watchful eye inside the water pipes of the Great Man-Made
River? What they actually wanted was an excuse to bomb it – which they did, as well
as the pumping stations which brought abundant fresh water to the coastal region, in the
certain knowledge that it would create a crisis for the civilian population. Which, by the bye,
is against just about every convention on the subject ever written.
Here are some of the pipe sections, when they were being trucked to the assembly point. As
the article suggests, these sections are 4 meters across; but remember, that's at their widest
point. They are only 4 meters for about a foot, because a water pipe is a circle.
Libya mostly used the T-72 Main Battle Tank, and those would be the ones NATO wanted to
eliminate, since the others were considerably older. A T-72, width-wise, would just fit in a
4-meter water pipe, as it is 3.6 meters wide . However,
it's also over 45 tons in weight. The concrete rings were designed to carry free-flowing water,
not a 45-ton tank. Would they take that kind of weight, distributed only over a 7-meter length?
Where is there an entry point to the water-pipe that is the same width as the widest diameter
of the pipe? As discussed, the water pipe is 4 meters wide at its widest point. But the T-72 is
2.3 meters high. The tank would only fit if it was as high as a lunchbox, because the 4-meter
width narrows dramatically from the widest point; it's a circle. Even where it did fit, it
would be supported only on the outer edges of its tracks, and you have to cut the 4-meter
measurement approximately in half, because the upper portion of the tank would have to be above
the point where the tracks touched on each side. The idea was preposterous from the outset, and
it speaks to what fucking simpletons western government believes make up its populations that
they would dare to put such nutjobbery in print. A T-72 could not fit in a 4-meter water pipe.
The notion was demonstrably foolish. But NATO wanted to destroy the water system, so it made up
a reason that would allow it to be a well-meaning potential victim of deadly violence.
According to The Guardian – the same source that told you Gadaffi was hiding
his tanks in the plumbing – the death toll in the Libyan civil war prior to the NATO
intervention was about 1000-2000. According to the National Transitional Council, the outfit
the west engineered to rule post-Gaddafi Libya,
the final butcher's bill was about 30,000 dead . The very day after NATO folded its tents
– figuratively speaking, as the western role was entirely air support for the
flip-flop-wearing rebels – and went home, al Qaeda
raised its black flag over the Benghazi courthouse .
Caitlin Johnstone claimed John McCain used his political career to advocate for military
interventions which resulted in the slaughter of large numbers of human beings. Is that
accurate? What say you, members of the jury? In each of the cases above, John McCain used his
political influence, over and above his vote, to argue, advocate, hector and plead for military
intervention by the armed forces of the United States of America and such coalition partners as
could be rounded up. In each of the cases above, the necessity of toppling the evildoing
dictator was exaggerated out of all proportion, portrayed as an instant and refreshing
liberation for his people, and as only the first phase of a progressive plan which would turn
the subject country into a prosperous, western-oriented market democracy. In each of the cases
above the country is now a divided and ruined failed state whose pre-war situation was
significantly better than its miserable present. And in each of the cases above, a lot of
people were killed who could otherwise have reasonably expected to be alive today.
Also, each of the cases above is chronologically separated from the others by a sufficient
span for it to be quite evident what a cluster-fuck the previous operation was, so that anyone
disposed to learn from his mistakes might have approached the situation differently as it
gained momentum, argued for caution based on previously-recorded clusterfuckery, pleaded for
reason to prevail and for improved dialogue to be a priority. Not John McCain. He learned
precisely the square root of nothing from previous catastrophes, and plunged into the next
catastrophe with the enthusiasm most remarked among those who are not all there, as the
vernacular describes it. He not only voted for war every time, he expended considerable effort
in cajoling and persuading the reluctant to go along.
Perhaps the introduction here of the definition for 'warmonger' would be helpful
to the jury. To wit; "O ne who advocates or attempts to stir up war. A person who fosters
warlike ideas or advocates war." Synonyms: hawk, aggressor, belligerent, militarist, jingoist,
sabre-rattler. There, John; I just saved you the trouble of writing an epitaph.
Will the world be a better place once John McCain is gone? Difficult to say, really, and the
present state of affairs in the world argues strongly that it will not. But it will certainly
be no poorer for his passing, and if he were to be replaced politically by an individual who
took the trouble to do a little research, muse on previous experience, and review all the
available options before voting to send in the Marines why, that would be a victory for
everyone in a world where victory is increasingly not even a possibility.
Was Caitlin Johnstone right? Broadly speaking, and going on the information available at the
time her statement was made, yes; she was.
More dirt on McCain, whose source I now forget, but, if I rightly recall, it was a comment
made by a US citizen on some blog way back. I have posted it before:
Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several accounts ("Why Does
the Nightingale Sing", for example), he only got into the Naval Academy for a free college
degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and he should have been kicked out several
times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two
aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his third mission over Vietnam, and getting
captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status,
he passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of
service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating
allowing him to collect some $40,000 a year tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when
McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000
a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement,
while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or
gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs
reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon
after he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were
so angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour.
McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten
times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet
thinks it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor a
rare good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe
seven.
McCain is walking talking proof that sociopaths are fast-tracked for success. There never
was a man, in my opinion, in US politics that was more exploitative, coldly calculating and
utterly ruthless than that bag of shit.
But, Mark said it much better with style, slashing wit and evidence.
Thanks, Mark, for another analysis of the opinion-management being rolled out across the
media.
The stand-out memory I have of the great Ken Kesey novel "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"
is the description of a "pecking party" inside a battery hen building in which one bird is
injured, a speck of blood appears and the crazed neighbours peck it to death. Unfortunately
they get spattered and their neighbours take up the pecking a bloodbath ensues. That seems
like a decent analogy to the current attempts to close down any alternative to official
narrative promotion.
Thanks, Cortes, and to all my well-wishers. I loved 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', it
was at least as memorable as 'Flowers for Algernon' for me, and I read them both at around
the same point in my life, when I was in my early 20's.
If it's really true that the centre cannot hold, The Empire is going to have an
increasingly hard time cloaking its lies. Of course, the west could simply return to the
values of brotherhood and the common struggle it continues to espouse but never really
seriously practiced. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
"Flowers For Algernon" is such a stunning work it's a real shame that it's not better
known (at least in the UK).
On the news management front, I get the sense that the narrative is slipping away from
control. Over a couple of months I've noticed that the free "Metro" papers have been left
unread in largish amounts on some buses (busy routes) -- when they were being snaffled up
until recently. People can sense that they are being herded, I think, and resent it.
"... Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in removing uncooperative heads of state? ..."
"... I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo Ufkotte. ..."
From the WaPo op-ed "God Bless the Deep State," by Eugene Robinson:
Democrats in Congress are powerless; the Republican leadership, spineless. Experienced
government officials know that their job is to serve the president. But what if the
president does not serve the best interests of the nation?
In this emergency [emphasis mine], the loyal and honorable deep state has a
higher duty. It's called patriotism.
Is Robinson really suggesting a military coup? That would take a lot of planning and
organization and would be almost impossible to keep secret. Some honest military officer
might find out and put the kibosh on it, like Kirk Douglas did in Frankenheimers's classic
political thriller, Seven Days in May .
Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and
spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup,
something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained
in removing uncooperative heads of state?
Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian
agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson
on the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working
for the CIA, right?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo
Ufkotte.
Ltichfield
, August 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm
Re "Thank god for the Deep State."
Amazing, absolutely amazing, statement.
This is, obviously, an admission of the existence of the Deep State -- otherwise generally
written off as a "conspiracy theory."
Simultaneously it is a statement that the Deep State "knows better than voters" and also
"knows what to do."
This is, actually, a treasonous statement. Why doesn't anyone notice this???
There is only one article that is translated into English: "The world upside down"
2006, http://www.ulfkotte.de/18.html
Journalists for Hire is available in German only. (I was able to buy a copy last year.)
I've always avoided Eugene Robinson's columns because he seemed like the quintessential,
no-think, Borg-assimilated, groupie to me. His column of July 19 entitled "God Bless the Deep
State" proves it.
I started highlighting the patent falsehoods in Robinson's column. It didn't take me long
to realize that it would be much quicker to highlight the truthful comments. Much, much
quicker. I've read the column twice and my copy remains unmarked.
It's a tough call, but probably the most bizarre of Gene's assertions was the
following:
"God bless them. With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the
Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss."
Seriously? The deep state stands between us and the abyss? In the real world, where the
rest of us live, the deep state is the abyss!
Seems like Washington has been overrun by pod people from an alternate universe, where
everything is an inverted, mirror image of reality. Up is down, left is right, etc. Their
moral compasses aren't exactly broken, they just point south instead of north.
As for Brennan, he and the president are both zealous advocates of torture. That tells us
much about the condition of their moral compasses. A plague on both their houses, with
the following reservation: as a certified neocon and Clinton dead-ender, Brennan is even more
dangerous to us real-worlders than Trump. He called Trump a traitor for trying to do
the right thing. In Brennan's alternate-universe Washington, to do evil is the summum
bonum of patriotism.
Anyone find any reference to "Russian trolls" in it, apart from this: " It found
many tweets that were posted by the same bots thought to have been used to influence the 2016
election, as well as marketing and malware bots "?
I see: "thought to have been used", writes the "journalist".
And on that supposition the Independent "journalist" rests his case.
It turns out that many anti-vaccine tweets come from accounts whose provenance is
unclear ," said David Broniatowski, an assistant professor in GW's School of Engineering and
Applied Science.
"These might be bots, human users or 'cyborgs' – hacked accounts that are
sometimes taken over by bots. Although it's impossible to know exactly how many tweets were
generated by bots and trolls, our findings suggest that a significant portion of the online
discourse about vaccines may be generated by malicious actors with a range of hidden
agendas."
Equivocation central – it's amazing what can pass as a 'study' these days. What is
even more incredible is that we have arrived at a point in our history when the appearance of
debate on a point is suspicious, and inspires 'researchers' to 'study' the problem to see who
is behind it rather than focusing on why the point generated debate in the first place. We
have arrived at a point where it is actually unpatriotic to disagree with the official
narrative.
Many more Americans believe vaccines are safe than the astroturfed 'debate' suggests,
found the study. Google says bullshit. A recent Zogby poll of a claimed representative sample
group found only 32% of respondents said they were 'very confident' vaccines were safe. The
same or a similar question was posed 10 years ago, and the proportion who said they were 'not
too confident has risen 3% since then, while those who said they were 'not at all confident'
in the safety of vaccines went up by 2%. People are not getting more confident, they're
getting less confident. There; that's my study – where's my research grant?
Once again, as soon as the mainstream media finds an argument, it is quick to blame it on
unidentified 'Russian trolls', rather than addressing the problem. The state narrative is the
law. And the pace is quickening.
This is how you can tell Americans (and media as a whole, for that matter) truly are
stupid.
Okay, first of all: The whole anti-vaccine hysteria is as American as apple pie, going way
back to at least 1998 and to a research paper in the medical journal The Lancet linking MMR
vaccines to autism spectrum disorders (a paper that was lated found to be severely lacking in
scientific rigor) and certain people raising concern about the mercury content in the
thiomersal vaccines. This sparked numerous anti-vaccination campaigns all over the US,
ranging from concerned but ignorant parent groups all the way to the Alex Jones type of
conspiracy guzzlers, and many of these are alive and kicking to this day.
The vaccine controversy rose to new prominence the widely publicized Jenny McCarthy crap
in 2007-2008 and was further fueled by the (legitimate, as it happens) swine flu
vaccine-linked narcolepsy cases a few years later.
This stuff trends from time to time, and apparently this clickbait farm (that is what it
actually is) caught a whiff of it and thus posted a grand total of 253 (!) short-worded
tweets with a vaccination hashtag, out of which according to these so-called researchers 43%
were "pro-vaccination", 38% "anti-vaccination" and the remainder were neutral.
And they're "sewing division", "threatening our health" and so on Good god, I'm not sure
how much more of this I can take to be honest.
This reminds me of a piece of news here in Sweden the other day, namely that the Swedish
Social Democrats got their website DDoS-ed twice. I mean, that's to be expected (the
elections are coming up shortly, some of these "establishment" parties are not held in high
regard in certain demographics and regularly get their election posters torn down or
vandalized and so on, DDoS attacks are cheap to order online and so on and so forth. Fine.
The "IT expert" at the Social Democratic Party said they'd tracked down the IPs from which
the attack came, and these were random IPs in Japan, in South Africa, in Spain, in Korea
and in Russia.
Well, duh , it's a distributed denial-of-service attack, using botnets
consisting of infected personal computers all over the world, and it's all available for hire
on various onion/darknet market websites for a couple of bucks an hour or so. But of course,
the media just disregarded the blatantly obvious and instead decided to illustrate the news
with a great Russian flag and some hooded hacker-type fellow superimposed.
It just blows my mind. The info war is real, no doubt about it
Most Americans simply don't understand how science works. In school they are not taught
the scientific method, how experiments are conducted, how statistical sampling works, or even
anything about statistics period.
Without such knowledge they are left to the human "default" state of mind, which is magical
thinking coupled with basic empiricism. As in "My best friend's daughter got the polio
vaccine and then was diagnosed with autism " etc etc.
The ignorance is colossal. I have a friend at work who is actually quite brilliant in her
own way, but I discovered, in a conversation, that she doesn't understand how computers work,
or how language works. She bought some product and is now convinced that computers
"understand human speech". I almost despaired in trying to explain to her that computers are
only machines and cannot understand human language.
Apparently she was suckered by some of these "AI" products like Siri, Cortana, etc. People
don't learn in school how the "natural language" computer processing works. I don't claim to
understand these algorithms myself, as this is a very specialized field of Computer Science,
and I never really studied it that much. The only bit that I know, is that "Natural Language"
algorithms are based on massive database searches coupled with statistical probabilities in
the formation of phrases.
Apparently the Computer Science developments in this field were held back for about 10 years
due to reliance on Chomsky's theories (of Transformational Grammar), which turned out to be
false and fruitless. As people should have known from the start, if only they had read their
Alan Turing in school.
Once the wrong-headed Chomskyite approach was abandoned and a more empirical methodology
was introduced, then progress started to be made more quickly in the arenas of computer
translation, voice recognition, and "natural language" algorithms.
But the main point here is that computers are just machines and cannot actually speak or
understand human languages. And yet Americans apparently think that they can. All part of the
"magical thinking" mode which is encouraged by The Powers That Be.
I was recently told to turn off my mobile/cellphone because of storms and told that more
than one person had been hit by lightning not so far away. I asked where it was. A kid
outside in a field. I was indoors. I didn't turn it off. I do though unplug stuff if it's
going to be a biggie.
"Apparently the Computer Science developments in this field were held back for about 10
years due to reliance on Chomsky's theories (of Transformational Grammar), which turned out
to be false and fruitless. As people should have known from the start, if only they had read
their Alan Turing in school."
Ummm Followed by a thorough familiarization Searle's work
Thanks for the post, it is an interesting article. However, I believe that it
misrepresents the fundamental point of Turing's work in his development of the Turing
Machine. Turing's legacy is actually (I believe) the opposite of what the layperson thinks it
is, since Turing had proved mathematically that "computer" languages are not the same as
"natural" languages and cannot be mapped out nor parsed. Turing's proofs basically dismiss
(in advance) all of Chomsky's research in the field of so-called transformational
grammar.
I would also point out that Roger Schank was a con-man who received unwarranted grant
money based on his fictitious research into so-called "Artificial Intelligence".
I put Chomsky in a different category: His work was well-meaning but incorrect. His
theories went against Turing's proofs and led researchers down a blind alley. Which resulted
in the loss of approximately one decade of what could have been fruitful empirical work. But
is catching up now. I notice, for starters, that google translation is getting better than it
used to be. But these products like "Siri" and "Alexa" are simply toys, they are like the
dancing dolls of the wizard Coppelius.
You can also tell the writer is a son of of the uneducated and doltish media himself (I
think it was a man, I don't have time now to go back and look); it's 'sowing division', as if
division were seeds, rather than 'sewing', as if it were thread.
"My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising
from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over
a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out
of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people
like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort
to desperate measures to cover their backsides."
Brennan exposed "intelligence community" as a forth branch of government.
The branch more powerful that then the other three combined.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the
intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency,
unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable
practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations
that could arguably land some people in prison.
The main suspicion is that Steele's involvement may
have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal
its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could
also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions
had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with
Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... It's a misnomer to term these people representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War. ..."
Brennan's allegation was unprecedented. No such high-level intelligence official
had ever before accused a sitting president of treason, still more in collusion
with the Kremlin. (Impeachment discussions of Presidents Nixon and Clinton,
to take recent examples, did not include allegations involving Russia.)
Brennan clarified his charge : "Treasonous, which is to betray one's trust
and to aid and abet the enemy." Coming from Brennan, a man presumed to be in
possession of related dark secrets,
as he strongly hinted , the charge was fraught with alarming implications.
Brennan made clear he hoped for Trump's impeachment, but in another time, and
in many other countries, his charge would suggest that Trump should be removed
from the presidency urgently by any means, even a coup. No one, it seems, has
even noted this extraordinary implication with its tacit threat to American
democracy. (Perhaps because the disloyalty allegation against Trump has been
customary ever since mid-2016, even before he became president, when an array
of influential publications and writers -- among them a former acting CIA director
-- began branding him Putin's "puppet," "agent," "client," and "Manchurian candidate."
The
Los Angeles Times even saw fit to print an article suggesting that
the military might have to remove Trump if he were to be elected, thereby having
the very dubious distinction of predating Brennan.)
Why did Brennan, a calculating man, risk leveling such a charge, which might
reasonably be characterized as sedition? The most plausible explanation is that
he sought to deflect growing attention to his role as the "Godfather" of the
entire Russiagate narrative, as Cohen argued back in February. If so, we need
to know Brennan's unvarnished views on Russia.
They are set out with astonishing (perhaps unknowing) candor in
a New York Times op-ed of August 17. They are those of Joseph McCarthy
and J. Edgar Hoover in their prime. Western "politicians, political parties,
media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly
and unwittingly, or even bought outright, by Russian operatives not only to
collect sensitive information but also to distribute propaganda and disinformation.
I was well aware of Russia's ability to work surreptitiously within the United
States, cultivating relationships with individuals who wield actual or potential
power. These Russian agents are well trained in the art of deception. They troll
political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled
individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters.
Too often, those puppets are found." All this, Brennan assures readers, is based
on his "deep insight." All the rest of us, it seems, are constantly susceptible
to "Russian puppet masters" under our beds, at work, on our computers. Clearly,
there must be no "cooperation" with the Kremlin's grand "Puppet Master," as
Trump said he wanted early on. (People who wonder what and when Obama knew about
the unfolding Russiagate saga need to ask why he would keep such a person so
close for so long.)
And yet, scores of former intelligence and military officials rallied around
this unvarnished John Brennan, even though, they said, they did not entirely
share his opinions. This too is revealing. They did so, it seems clear enough,
out of their professional corporate identity, which Brennan represented and
Trump was degrading by challenging the intelligences agencies' (implicitly including
his own) Russiagate allegations against him. It's a misnomer to term these people
representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply
visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present
themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government.
This too has gone largely undiscussed while nightingales of the fourth branch
-- such as
David Ignatius and
Joe Scarborough in the pages of the The Washington Post -- have
been in full voice.
The result is, of course -- and no less ominous -- to criminalize any advocacy
of "cooperating with Russia," or détente, as Trump sought to do in Helsinki
with Putin. Still more, a full-fledged Russophobic hysteria is sweeping through
the American political-media establishment, from Brennan and -- pending actual
evidence against her -- those who engineered the arrest of Maria Butina (imagine
how this endangers young Americans networking in Russia) to the senators now
preparing new "crippling sanctions" against Moscow and the editors and producers
at the Times , Post , CNN, and MSNBC. (However powerful, how
representative are these elites when surveys indicate that a majority of the
American people still prefer good relations with Moscow?)
As the dangers grow
of actual war with Russia -- again, from Ukraine and the Baltic region to Syria
-- the capacity of US policy-makers, above all the president, are increasingly
diminished. To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American
crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War.
Finally, there was a time when many Democrats, certainly liberal Democrats,
could be counted on to resist this kind of hysteria and, yes, spreading neo-McCarthyism.
(Brennan's defenders accuse Trump of McCarthyism, but Brennan's charge of treason
without presenting any actual evidence was quintessential McCarthy.) After all,
civil liberties, including freedom of speech, are directly involved -- and not
only Brennan's and Trump's. But Democratic members of Congress and pro-Democratic
media outlets are in the forefront of the new anti-Russian hysteria, with only
a few exceptions. Thus a generally liberal historian
tells CNN viewers that "Brennan is an American hero. His tenure at the CIA
was impeccable. We owe him so much." Elsewhere the same historian
assures readers , "There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support
since the CIA was created in the Cold War." In the same vein, two Post
reporters write of the FBI's "
once venerated reputation ."
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with
Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes
across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the
Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard
Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too
many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China.
Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union
and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and
decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in
far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the
Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA
used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon
inherited and did not want.
The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his
conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always
wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid
of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to
accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing
his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and
so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war
management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.
Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a
CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is
to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties
are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told
The Anti-Empire Report # 159 Willian Blum
The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post
foreign policy reporter: July 18, 2018
Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin
nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure.
Therefore ?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in
Mexico? William Blum
Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last
time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and
run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who
did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014,
according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern
Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts. Best, Michael Birnbaum
To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high
State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to
encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who
were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next
president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch
Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a
while. William Blum
To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months
and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a
credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to
the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she
clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with
potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for
overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to
shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat
the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych
in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible
falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't
stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the
Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will
find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US
foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific.
Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides. Best, Michael Birnbaum
======================= end of exchange =======================
Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments;
never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new
president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr
Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports
fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make
it easy to give some examples.
For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And,
yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem –
Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full
century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is
there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast?
Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that
when they do it can seem rather weird.
To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the
Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in
proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed
objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and
conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So
we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at
determining the winner.
The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm
looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something
logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from
influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK.
But I do not find such evidence.
Each day brings headlines like these:
"U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England
forces White House to act"
"Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?"
"Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat"
These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article,
but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in
America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY.
Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing
sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump
over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any
of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were
a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.
There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this
story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many
are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've
read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which
earn money simply by attracting visitors.
As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians
look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would
Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely
proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal
time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.
However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day
believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact
that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at
all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is
alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.
But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?
For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more
than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That
was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the
wall.
After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to
register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to
require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new
Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America,
CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments
accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek
to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."
And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights
and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S.
government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that
Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski,
"apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would
interfere in the other's elections."
"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's
interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what
the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."
How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?
We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft
the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today
was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's
wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of
political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."
"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and
government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda
outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a
U.S. retreat from global leadership."
"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they
can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in
anything abroad.
And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and
government-overthrows.
"... The anti-Russian mania in U.S. politics gives social media companies a welcome excuse to clamp down on promotional schemes for sites like Liberty Front Press by claiming that these are disinformation campaigns run by the U.S. enemy of the day . ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Well this surely shows that Facebook/Twitter is run through the help of US/Western intelligence ..."
"... Sorry, but, if you let any opinion on Facebook or Twitter sway your politics, you're an idiot. ..."
"... fireEye, google, yahoo, facebook and so many other tech companies are all in a few miles radius of one another in San Jose area of California ..."
"... In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas could be restricted -- what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version of such repression. ..."
"... Blogs today represent yesterday's broadsheets, and by using social media, they can increase their exposure to a wider audience. Thus, social media represents a point-of-control for those trying to shape/frame discourse/content. They may be private companies, but they interact with public discourse and ought to be subjected to Free Speech controls like the USA's 1st Amendment. ..."
"... Very many hi-tech companies in the US are working with the CIA. Such as Oracle that has an office on the east coast of the US that keeps a very low profile inside the company. ..."
"... Robert Bridge provides us with a timely written article dealing with the issue at hand: "And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they're spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well." ..."
"... IMHO, it would be foolish to presume that the CIA would simply discontinue and to walk away from (as it claims!) a program like Operation Mockingbird. Government agencies have famously infiltrated the Quakers (ferchrissakes!). Facebook was funded and developed by a CIA front shop. Zuckerburg is a dopey kid and a frontispiece. ..."
"... The danger of course is when people start to conclude that any media site permitted by FB or SM is Sanctioned by the Propaganda department of the Ministry of Truth and ignored. ..."
"... Trump would be hailed a savior if he were to morph into President Taft and Bust the Trusts like BigLie Media, its allied telecoms and social media corps. ..."
"... As to a lack authenticity, what about the tweets from outside Egypt pushing and reporting on the "Arab Spring" protests there. We have other examples of "inauthentic" social messaging on other agendas pushed like Syria. What about "A Gay Girl in Damascus?" ..."
"... who still uses facebook? The only people i know who still are active users are senior citizens. ..."
The creation of digital content led to the re-establishment of claqueurs :
By 1830 the claque had become an institution. The manager of a theatre or opera house was
able to send an order for any number of claqueurs. These were usually under a chef de claque
(leader of applause), who judged where the efforts of the claqueurs were needed and to
initiate the demonstration of approval. This could take several forms. There would be
commissaires ("officers/commissioner") who learned the piece by heart and called the
attention of their neighbors to its good points between the acts. Rieurs (laughers) laughed
loudly at the jokes. Pleureurs (criers), generally women, feigned tears, by holding their
handkerchiefs to their eyes. Chatouilleurs (ticklers) kept the audience in a good humor,
while bisseurs (encore-ers) simply clapped and cried "Bis! Bis!" to request encores.
An alternative is to create artificial social media personas who then promote ones content.
That is what the Internet Research Agency , the Russian "troll factory" from St.
Petersburg, did. The fake personas it established on Facebook promoted IRA created
clickbait content like puppy picture pages that was then marketed
to sell advertisements .
The profit orientated social media giants do not like such third party promotions. They
prefer that people pay THEM to promote their content. Selling advertisements is Facebook's
business. Promotional accounts on its own platform are competition.
Yesterday Facebook announced that it deleted a
number of user accounts for "inauthentic behavior":
We've removed 652 Pages, groups and accounts for coordinated inauthentic behavior that
originated in Iran and targeted people across multiple internet services in the Middle East,
Latin America, UK and US. FireEye, a cybersecurity firm, gave us a tip in July about "Liberty
Front Press," a network of Facebook Pages as well as accounts on other online services.
...
We are able to link this network to Iranian state media through publicly available website
registration information, as well as the use of related IP addresses and Facebook Pages
sharing the same admins. For example, one part of the network, "Quest 4 Truth," claims to be
an independent Iranian media organization, but is in fact linked to Press TV, an
English-language news network affiliated with Iranian state media.
FireEye has identified a suspected influence operation that appears to originate from Iran
aimed at audiences in the U.S., U.K., Latin America, and the Middle East. This operation is
leveraging a network of inauthentic news sites and clusters of associated accounts across
multiple social media platforms to promote political narratives in line with Iranian
interests. These narratives include anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as
well as support for specific U.S. policies favorable to Iran, such as the U.S.-Iran nuclear
deal (JCPOA) .
...
Based on an investigation by FireEye Intelligence's Information Operations analysis team, we
assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors.
The evidence FireEye presents is quite thin. The purpose of its inquest and report is
obviously self-promotion.
Moon of Alabama is also promoting anti-Saudi , anti-Israeli
, and pro-Palestinian themes. It
supports the JCPOA deal. This is, according to FireEye, "in line with Iranian interests".
It may well be. But does that make Moon of Alabama a "suspected influence operation"?
Is it an "inauthentic news site"?
Is the @MoonofATwitter
account showing "coordinated inauthentic behavior" when it promotes the pieces presented on
this site? We, by the way, assess with high confidence that that this activity originates from
a German actor. Is that a reason to shut it down?
Here is another high confidence tip for FireEye. There is proof, and even an admission of
guilt, that a hostile government financed broadcasting organization is creating inauthentic
Facebook accounts to disseminate disinformation. These narratives include
anti-Russian, anti-Syrian, and pro-Saudi views, as well as support for specific U.S. policies
favorable to Israel, such as its financing of the
anti-Iranian headscarf campaign .
This year the U.S. government run Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will spend more than
$23 million for its Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). OCB administers Radio and Television
(TV) Martí programs directed at the Cuban public. In its 2019 budget
request to Congress (pdf) the BBG admits that it creates inauthentic Facebook
accounts to increase the distribution of its dreck:
In FY 2018, OCB is establishing on island digital teams to create non-branded local Facebook
accounts to disseminate information . Native pages increase the chances of appearing on Cuban
Facebook users newsfeeds. The same strategy will be replicated on other preferred social
media networks.
How is this different from what the PressTV may have done? When will Facebook shut those
inauthentic BBG accounts down?
At the Defense One Summit last November [2016], former GEC director Michael Lumpkin [GEC,
Pentagon propaganda department] described how the Center was using the data it received as
a Facebook advertiser to maximize the effectiveness of its own targeted appeals.
"Using Facebook ads, I can go within Facebook, I can go grab an audience, I can pick
Country X, I need age group 13 to 34, I need people who have liked -- whether it's Abu Bakr
Al Baghdadi or any other set -- I can shoot and hit them directly with messaging," Lumpkin
said. He emphasized that with the right data, effective message targeting could be done for
"pennies a click."
Ironically, when I created a FB page hangout for my foreign students to disseminate topical
educational materials that were freely available as PDF links, or free 'loss-leader' lessons
from for-profits, or Khan Academy free lesson links ... in other words, organizing a
docent-guided free education feed for terribly poor 3W students ...
FB informed me that this
was an 'illegal' business activity, lol. They shut it down with *zero* warning. One moment it
was a beautiful colorful uplifting education resource, the next it was burnt to ashes. 404.
ATM, on an Anony FB page I launched to reconnect with my students, after a couple
ill-advised comments to their thread posts, discussing what's *really* going on in the world,
FB has blocked any posts that I might want to make. They just never show up when I hit enter.
Like training a bad puppy, lol. All FB lets me do is 'like' or emoji or 'wave' to my
students, so it's a semaphore that I still exist, even in FB lockup.
But I think I'll stop. It's bread-crumbing them to FBs candy-cane house and the boiling
cauldron that awaits. Frog in a Pot!
"...we assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors."
Jeez, can't they at least produce a "highly likely" for us? On the intelligence community's confidence scale, "moderate" has to be just above
"wishful" and "doubtful"
One of the tricks of corporate propaganda:
Often, when exposed to capitalist propaganda, a socialist gets the impression that he can
have the best of both worlds! - the perceived benefits of capitalism as he keeps his beloved
social benefits.
It isn't until some time after the bmobing has stopped, that he realizes that he has lost
ALL his former social benefits and what he has thereafter is hard capitalism and no
money.
Well this surely shows that Facebook/Twitter is run through the help of US/Western
intelligence.
Only way is to fight back or you will eventually have fines and end up in jail for
thoughtcrimes.
This site and us here commenting is of course already targeted by these scums, besides,
sites like this will certainly be shut down sooner or later.
Remember Facebook also attacked Venezuela recently, "Why Did Facebook Purge TeleSUR English?"
TeleSUR English is a rare voice of dissent to US foreign policy. Is that why Facebook
deleted its page?
b.. thanks... your first paragraph giving context to how the public was swayed going back
close to 200 years ago was very interesting..
The usa gov't has something to sell and something to buy.. fireEye, google, yahoo,
facebook and so many other tech companies are all in a few miles radius of one another in
San Jose area of California.. If Russia was to bomb somewhere in the usa - that would be one good
place to start!
They are all selling to the usa gov't at this point... the usa devotes so
much to propaganda and these corps all try to peddle the needed tools to keep the
fearmongering going, when they're not snooping of course! hey - they can do both - snoop and
sell!!
Long ago before the Hydrocarbon Epoch, the Broadsheet was your typical newscast assembled by
the local printer who was often reporter and editor, and even in small towns there was
competition, with readers of news gathering in coffee shops to discuss their contents. The
vociferousness of many publications was extreme, but as Jefferson observed in the 1790s,
easily disproved hyperbole was far more desirable than censorship -- people were deemed capable
of determining a publication's veracity for themselves and thus their success or failure
would be determined by the marketplace of ideas.
In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas
could be restricted -- what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version
of such repression. With the advent of the personal computer and internet, ease of publishing
exploded, which presented elites determined to control the overall discourse with a huge
problem they are still grappling with. One of the aims of the Independent Media Center on its
founding in 1999 was to turn every activist into a reporter and every computer into a
printing press with contents published collectively at regional Media Centers. Unfortunately,
after a promising first several years, the nascent movement failed and remains in dormancy,
being mostly replaced by personal blogs.
Blogs today represent yesterday's broadsheets, and by using social media, they can
increase their exposure to a wider audience. Thus, social media represents a point-of-control
for those trying to shape/frame discourse/content. They may be private companies, but they
interact with public discourse and ought to be subjected to Free Speech controls like the
USA's 1st Amendment.
Very many hi-tech companies in the US are working with the CIA. Such as Oracle that has an
office on the east coast of the US that keeps a very low profile inside the company. In fact
the first contract that launched the company was a contract with the CIA to implement the IBM
SQL standard. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone here why the CIA would use a relational
database (have to keep all those subversive secret ops in order). Similar connection to CIA
for Google, Facebook, Symantec, etc.
If you are using US software (very likely) then assume CIA and NSA back-doors. Some
solutions are to use Linux and VPNs, and Yandex for cloud storage. Get away from US
software.
Robert Bridge provides us with a timely written article dealing with the issue at hand:
"And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they're spending time in the
MSM whorehouse as well."
Sorry, should have included this in 17. As many know, Caitlin Johnstone, a Truth Seeker par
excellence, has also been censored, but prior to that
wrote this essay on the subject at hand, which is all about manufacturing consent as she
sees it:
"This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look
like what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of
dissenting media bit by bit."
This is a US government ordered setup supported by the evidence she presents in her intro,
but not by Trump!
IMHO, it would be foolish to presume that the CIA would simply discontinue and to walk away
from (as it claims!) a program like Operation Mockingbird.
Government agencies have famously infiltrated the Quakers (ferchrissakes!). Facebook was funded and developed by a CIA front shop. Zuckerburg is a dopey kid and a
frontispiece.
The danger of course is when people start to conclude that any media site permitted by FB or
SM is Sanctioned by the Propaganda department of the Ministry of Truth and ignored. Then
these few truthful media sites that are unbanned will need to beg these social media giants
to ban them so as to restablish credibility. FB and SM will then need to ban a few controlled
MSM sites so people will believe they are credible and read the propaganda
I guess we are not there yet, or are we? I do not use FB or other SM for news or anything else, although I do occasionally click on
links to them from a web page, but I guess a lot of people do. Maybe that will change.
The battle over Net Neutrality is related to this. Recently,
Verizon blackmailed a California fire department engaged in fighting the state's largest
ever wildfire by throttling its data feed thus threatening public safety for a Few Dollars
More.
Trump would be hailed a savior if he were to morph into President Taft and Bust the Trusts
like BigLie Media, its allied telecoms and social media corps.
Claqueurs. One of the earliest versions of the annoying "laugh track" used in television.
Like Ben 10, I learned something new today.
As to a lack authenticity, what about the tweets from outside Egypt pushing and reporting
on the "Arab Spring" protests there. We have other examples of "inauthentic" social messaging
on other agendas pushed like Syria. What about "A Gay Girl in Damascus?"
As usual, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of US govt/media.
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with
Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes
across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the
Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard
Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too
many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China.
Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union
and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and
decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in
far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the
Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA
used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon
inherited and did not want.
The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his
conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always
wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid
of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to
accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing
his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and
so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war
management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.
Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a
CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is
to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties
are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told
The Anti-Empire Report # 159 Willian Blum
The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post
foreign policy reporter: July 18, 2018
Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin
nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure.
Therefore ?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in
Mexico? William Blum
Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last
time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and
run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who
did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014,
according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern
Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts. Best, Michael Birnbaum
To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high
State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to
encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who
were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next
president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch
Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a
while. William Blum
To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months
and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a
credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to
the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she
clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with
potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for
overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to
shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat
the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych
in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible
falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't
stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the
Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will
find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US
foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific.
Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides. Best, Michael Birnbaum
======================= end of exchange =======================
Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments;
never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new
president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr
Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports
fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make
it easy to give some examples.
For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And,
yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem –
Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full
century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is
there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast?
Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that
when they do it can seem rather weird.
To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the
Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in
proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed
objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and
conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So
we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at
determining the winner.
The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm
looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something
logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from
influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK.
But I do not find such evidence.
Each day brings headlines like these:
"U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England
forces White House to act"
"Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?"
"Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat"
These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article,
but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in
America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY.
Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing
sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump
over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any
of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were
a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.
There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this
story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many
are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've
read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which
earn money simply by attracting visitors.
As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians
look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would
Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely
proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal
time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.
However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day
believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact
that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at
all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is
alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.
But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?
For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more
than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That
was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the
wall.
After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to
register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to
require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new
Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America,
CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments
accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek
to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."
And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights
and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S.
government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that
Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski,
"apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would
interfere in the other's elections."
"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's
interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what
the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."
How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?
We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft
the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today
was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's
wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of
political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."
"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and
government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda
outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a
U.S. retreat from global leadership."
"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they
can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in
anything abroad.
And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and
government-overthrows.
"... The anti-Russian mania in U.S. politics gives social media companies a welcome excuse to clamp down on promotional schemes for sites like Liberty Front Press by claiming that these are disinformation campaigns run by the U.S. enemy of the day . ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Well this surely shows that Facebook/Twitter is run through the help of US/Western intelligence ..."
"... Sorry, but, if you let any opinion on Facebook or Twitter sway your politics, you're an idiot. ..."
"... fireEye, google, yahoo, facebook and so many other tech companies are all in a few miles radius of one another in San Jose area of California ..."
"... In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas could be restricted -- what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version of such repression. ..."
"... Blogs today represent yesterday's broadsheets, and by using social media, they can increase their exposure to a wider audience. Thus, social media represents a point-of-control for those trying to shape/frame discourse/content. They may be private companies, but they interact with public discourse and ought to be subjected to Free Speech controls like the USA's 1st Amendment. ..."
"... Very many hi-tech companies in the US are working with the CIA. Such as Oracle that has an office on the east coast of the US that keeps a very low profile inside the company. ..."
"... Robert Bridge provides us with a timely written article dealing with the issue at hand: "And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they're spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well." ..."
"... IMHO, it would be foolish to presume that the CIA would simply discontinue and to walk away from (as it claims!) a program like Operation Mockingbird. Government agencies have famously infiltrated the Quakers (ferchrissakes!). Facebook was funded and developed by a CIA front shop. Zuckerburg is a dopey kid and a frontispiece. ..."
"... The danger of course is when people start to conclude that any media site permitted by FB or SM is Sanctioned by the Propaganda department of the Ministry of Truth and ignored. ..."
"... Trump would be hailed a savior if he were to morph into President Taft and Bust the Trusts like BigLie Media, its allied telecoms and social media corps. ..."
"... As to a lack authenticity, what about the tweets from outside Egypt pushing and reporting on the "Arab Spring" protests there. We have other examples of "inauthentic" social messaging on other agendas pushed like Syria. What about "A Gay Girl in Damascus?" ..."
"... who still uses facebook? The only people i know who still are active users are senior citizens. ..."
The creation of digital content led to the re-establishment of claqueurs :
By 1830 the claque had become an institution. The manager of a theatre or opera house was
able to send an order for any number of claqueurs. These were usually under a chef de claque
(leader of applause), who judged where the efforts of the claqueurs were needed and to
initiate the demonstration of approval. This could take several forms. There would be
commissaires ("officers/commissioner") who learned the piece by heart and called the
attention of their neighbors to its good points between the acts. Rieurs (laughers) laughed
loudly at the jokes. Pleureurs (criers), generally women, feigned tears, by holding their
handkerchiefs to their eyes. Chatouilleurs (ticklers) kept the audience in a good humor,
while bisseurs (encore-ers) simply clapped and cried "Bis! Bis!" to request encores.
An alternative is to create artificial social media personas who then promote ones content.
That is what the Internet Research Agency , the Russian "troll factory" from St.
Petersburg, did. The fake personas it established on Facebook promoted IRA created
clickbait content like puppy picture pages that was then marketed
to sell advertisements .
The profit orientated social media giants do not like such third party promotions. They
prefer that people pay THEM to promote their content. Selling advertisements is Facebook's
business. Promotional accounts on its own platform are competition.
Yesterday Facebook announced that it deleted a
number of user accounts for "inauthentic behavior":
We've removed 652 Pages, groups and accounts for coordinated inauthentic behavior that
originated in Iran and targeted people across multiple internet services in the Middle East,
Latin America, UK and US. FireEye, a cybersecurity firm, gave us a tip in July about "Liberty
Front Press," a network of Facebook Pages as well as accounts on other online services.
...
We are able to link this network to Iranian state media through publicly available website
registration information, as well as the use of related IP addresses and Facebook Pages
sharing the same admins. For example, one part of the network, "Quest 4 Truth," claims to be
an independent Iranian media organization, but is in fact linked to Press TV, an
English-language news network affiliated with Iranian state media.
FireEye has identified a suspected influence operation that appears to originate from Iran
aimed at audiences in the U.S., U.K., Latin America, and the Middle East. This operation is
leveraging a network of inauthentic news sites and clusters of associated accounts across
multiple social media platforms to promote political narratives in line with Iranian
interests. These narratives include anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as
well as support for specific U.S. policies favorable to Iran, such as the U.S.-Iran nuclear
deal (JCPOA) .
...
Based on an investigation by FireEye Intelligence's Information Operations analysis team, we
assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors.
The evidence FireEye presents is quite thin. The purpose of its inquest and report is
obviously self-promotion.
Moon of Alabama is also promoting anti-Saudi , anti-Israeli
, and pro-Palestinian themes. It
supports the JCPOA deal. This is, according to FireEye, "in line with Iranian interests".
It may well be. But does that make Moon of Alabama a "suspected influence operation"?
Is it an "inauthentic news site"?
Is the @MoonofATwitter
account showing "coordinated inauthentic behavior" when it promotes the pieces presented on
this site? We, by the way, assess with high confidence that that this activity originates from
a German actor. Is that a reason to shut it down?
Here is another high confidence tip for FireEye. There is proof, and even an admission of
guilt, that a hostile government financed broadcasting organization is creating inauthentic
Facebook accounts to disseminate disinformation. These narratives include
anti-Russian, anti-Syrian, and pro-Saudi views, as well as support for specific U.S. policies
favorable to Israel, such as its financing of the
anti-Iranian headscarf campaign .
This year the U.S. government run Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will spend more than
$23 million for its Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). OCB administers Radio and Television
(TV) Martí programs directed at the Cuban public. In its 2019 budget
request to Congress (pdf) the BBG admits that it creates inauthentic Facebook
accounts to increase the distribution of its dreck:
In FY 2018, OCB is establishing on island digital teams to create non-branded local Facebook
accounts to disseminate information . Native pages increase the chances of appearing on Cuban
Facebook users newsfeeds. The same strategy will be replicated on other preferred social
media networks.
How is this different from what the PressTV may have done? When will Facebook shut those
inauthentic BBG accounts down?
At the Defense One Summit last November [2016], former GEC director Michael Lumpkin [GEC,
Pentagon propaganda department] described how the Center was using the data it received as
a Facebook advertiser to maximize the effectiveness of its own targeted appeals.
"Using Facebook ads, I can go within Facebook, I can go grab an audience, I can pick
Country X, I need age group 13 to 34, I need people who have liked -- whether it's Abu Bakr
Al Baghdadi or any other set -- I can shoot and hit them directly with messaging," Lumpkin
said. He emphasized that with the right data, effective message targeting could be done for
"pennies a click."
Ironically, when I created a FB page hangout for my foreign students to disseminate topical
educational materials that were freely available as PDF links, or free 'loss-leader' lessons
from for-profits, or Khan Academy free lesson links ... in other words, organizing a
docent-guided free education feed for terribly poor 3W students ...
FB informed me that this
was an 'illegal' business activity, lol. They shut it down with *zero* warning. One moment it
was a beautiful colorful uplifting education resource, the next it was burnt to ashes. 404.
ATM, on an Anony FB page I launched to reconnect with my students, after a couple
ill-advised comments to their thread posts, discussing what's *really* going on in the world,
FB has blocked any posts that I might want to make. They just never show up when I hit enter.
Like training a bad puppy, lol. All FB lets me do is 'like' or emoji or 'wave' to my
students, so it's a semaphore that I still exist, even in FB lockup.
But I think I'll stop. It's bread-crumbing them to FBs candy-cane house and the boiling
cauldron that awaits. Frog in a Pot!
"...we assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors."
Jeez, can't they at least produce a "highly likely" for us? On the intelligence community's confidence scale, "moderate" has to be just above
"wishful" and "doubtful"
One of the tricks of corporate propaganda:
Often, when exposed to capitalist propaganda, a socialist gets the impression that he can
have the best of both worlds! - the perceived benefits of capitalism as he keeps his beloved
social benefits.
It isn't until some time after the bmobing has stopped, that he realizes that he has lost
ALL his former social benefits and what he has thereafter is hard capitalism and no
money.
Well this surely shows that Facebook/Twitter is run through the help of US/Western
intelligence.
Only way is to fight back or you will eventually have fines and end up in jail for
thoughtcrimes.
This site and us here commenting is of course already targeted by these scums, besides,
sites like this will certainly be shut down sooner or later.
Remember Facebook also attacked Venezuela recently, "Why Did Facebook Purge TeleSUR English?"
TeleSUR English is a rare voice of dissent to US foreign policy. Is that why Facebook
deleted its page?
b.. thanks... your first paragraph giving context to how the public was swayed going back
close to 200 years ago was very interesting..
The usa gov't has something to sell and something to buy.. fireEye, google, yahoo,
facebook and so many other tech companies are all in a few miles radius of one another in
San Jose area of California.. If Russia was to bomb somewhere in the usa - that would be one good
place to start!
They are all selling to the usa gov't at this point... the usa devotes so
much to propaganda and these corps all try to peddle the needed tools to keep the
fearmongering going, when they're not snooping of course! hey - they can do both - snoop and
sell!!
Long ago before the Hydrocarbon Epoch, the Broadsheet was your typical newscast assembled by
the local printer who was often reporter and editor, and even in small towns there was
competition, with readers of news gathering in coffee shops to discuss their contents. The
vociferousness of many publications was extreme, but as Jefferson observed in the 1790s,
easily disproved hyperbole was far more desirable than censorship -- people were deemed capable
of determining a publication's veracity for themselves and thus their success or failure
would be determined by the marketplace of ideas.
In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas
could be restricted -- what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version
of such repression. With the advent of the personal computer and internet, ease of publishing
exploded, which presented elites determined to control the overall discourse with a huge
problem they are still grappling with. One of the aims of the Independent Media Center on its
founding in 1999 was to turn every activist into a reporter and every computer into a
printing press with contents published collectively at regional Media Centers. Unfortunately,
after a promising first several years, the nascent movement failed and remains in dormancy,
being mostly replaced by personal blogs.
Blogs today represent yesterday's broadsheets, and by using social media, they can
increase their exposure to a wider audience. Thus, social media represents a point-of-control
for those trying to shape/frame discourse/content. They may be private companies, but they
interact with public discourse and ought to be subjected to Free Speech controls like the
USA's 1st Amendment.
Very many hi-tech companies in the US are working with the CIA. Such as Oracle that has an
office on the east coast of the US that keeps a very low profile inside the company. In fact
the first contract that launched the company was a contract with the CIA to implement the IBM
SQL standard. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone here why the CIA would use a relational
database (have to keep all those subversive secret ops in order). Similar connection to CIA
for Google, Facebook, Symantec, etc.
If you are using US software (very likely) then assume CIA and NSA back-doors. Some
solutions are to use Linux and VPNs, and Yandex for cloud storage. Get away from US
software.
Robert Bridge provides us with a timely written article dealing with the issue at hand:
"And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they're spending time in the
MSM whorehouse as well."
Sorry, should have included this in 17. As many know, Caitlin Johnstone, a Truth Seeker par
excellence, has also been censored, but prior to that
wrote this essay on the subject at hand, which is all about manufacturing consent as she
sees it:
"This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look
like what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of
dissenting media bit by bit."
This is a US government ordered setup supported by the evidence she presents in her intro,
but not by Trump!
IMHO, it would be foolish to presume that the CIA would simply discontinue and to walk away
from (as it claims!) a program like Operation Mockingbird.
Government agencies have famously infiltrated the Quakers (ferchrissakes!). Facebook was funded and developed by a CIA front shop. Zuckerburg is a dopey kid and a
frontispiece.
The danger of course is when people start to conclude that any media site permitted by FB or
SM is Sanctioned by the Propaganda department of the Ministry of Truth and ignored. Then
these few truthful media sites that are unbanned will need to beg these social media giants
to ban them so as to restablish credibility. FB and SM will then need to ban a few controlled
MSM sites so people will believe they are credible and read the propaganda
I guess we are not there yet, or are we? I do not use FB or other SM for news or anything else, although I do occasionally click on
links to them from a web page, but I guess a lot of people do. Maybe that will change.
The battle over Net Neutrality is related to this. Recently,
Verizon blackmailed a California fire department engaged in fighting the state's largest
ever wildfire by throttling its data feed thus threatening public safety for a Few Dollars
More.
Trump would be hailed a savior if he were to morph into President Taft and Bust the Trusts
like BigLie Media, its allied telecoms and social media corps.
Claqueurs. One of the earliest versions of the annoying "laugh track" used in television.
Like Ben 10, I learned something new today.
As to a lack authenticity, what about the tweets from outside Egypt pushing and reporting
on the "Arab Spring" protests there. We have other examples of "inauthentic" social messaging
on other agendas pushed like Syria. What about "A Gay Girl in Damascus?"
As usual, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of US govt/media.
"... Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept. ..."
"... When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary. ..."
"... Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA. ..."
From the web the other side of the rabbit hole, key items in the utterly
corruption-tainted profile of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton etc team jabbing at
Trump
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour
speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal
then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag
order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes
regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey,
Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA.
Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed
Robert Mueller to his current job.
"... At bottom, the issue is: Who speaks for America? Is it the mainstream media, the deep state, the permanent government, the city that gave Trump 4 percent of its votes? Or is it that vast slice of Middle America that sent Trump to drain the swamp? ..."
"... For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen. But this issue of security clearances is a battlefield where the president cannot lose, if he fights wisely. ..."
"... its way past time that Trump start the sacking of the "disloyal" in the security/intelligence agencies. Yes, he may need to move cautiously -- smaller fish first, perhaps ? But, to repeat: "For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen, just like in the movies." ..."
"... Its interesting to see how shielded the Dem party is from voters. First is their use of Caucuses which uniformly went with Obama over Hillary in 2008 – they represent a quasi church. Then there are the super delegates, the money wranglers and blue bubble potentates that decide who wins a nomination. ..."
"... there are the two factions of the ruling dynasties, Bush and Clinton, that are seeded into the deep state. It should be noted that Bill and Hillary are personally worth $300M and have a family foundation that controls $2.5B in tax free funds. They could only have done that by selling America under the protection of Deep State. Finally, there is Manhattan Media which is the King Maker with its air cover ..."
"... Of those 4 million Americans holding Top Secret clearances, how many also hold dual citizenship? ..."
"... It's not complicated. I was surprised to find that these spy bureaucrats apparently remain cleared after leaving government "service" in one way or another. Obviously, big-boy swamp creatures have their privileges. They should have them no more. If the orange clown can't handle that, I don't see what use he is for anything else, either. ..."
"... If you need to know or have access to something, then you will require clearance according to what you will have access in accordance with your work level. Some times, it is better not to know somethings, believe me. ..."
The White House statement of Sarah Huckabee Sanders on John Brennan's loss of his clearances
was spot on:
"Any access granted to our nation's secrets should be in furtherance of national, not
personal, interests.
"Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access
to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations --
wild outbursts on the Internet and television -- about this administration. Mr. Brennan's lying
and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent
with access to the nation's most closely held secrets, and facilitates the very aim of our
adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos."
Trump is said to be evaluating pulling the security clearances of Clapper, ex-FBI Director
James Comey, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe,
former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
This is a good start. Some of these individuals have been fired. Some are under
investigation. Some were involved in the FBI's "get-Trump" cabal to prevent his election and
then to abort his presidency.
... ... ...
At bottom, the issue is: Who speaks for America? Is it the mainstream media, the deep
state, the permanent government, the city that gave Trump 4 percent of its votes? Or is it that
vast slice of Middle America that sent Trump to drain the swamp?
Trump's enemies, and they are legion, want to see Robert Mueller charge him with collusion
with Russia and obstructing the investigation of that collusion. They want to see the
Democratic Party take over the House in November, and the Senate, and move on to impeach and
remove Trump from office. Then they want to put him where Paul Manafort sits today.
For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen. But
this issue of security clearances is a battlefield where the president cannot lose, if he
fights wisely.
Americans sense that these are privileges that should be extended to those who protect us,
not perks for former officials to exploit and monetize while they attempt to bring down the
commander in chief.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
A neutral observation on political expediency: its way past time that Trump start the
sacking of the "disloyal" in the security/intelligence agencies. Yes, he may need to move
cautiously -- smaller fish first, perhaps ? But, to repeat:
"For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen, just
like in the movies."
OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column on this topic
state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what is had enabled Mr. Brennan,
once he left government employ, to access? Is it like a password or something? What is the
practical effect of its revocation?
"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances," this sounds like the Battle of
Molehill Mountain. Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.
Given the demographic changes that the United States is experiencing, it is quite likely
that populist political candidates will continue to play on voters' perceptions of
vulnerability.
Its interesting to see how shielded the Dem party is from voters. First is their use of
Caucuses which uniformly went with Obama over Hillary in 2008 – they represent a quasi
church. Then there are the super delegates, the money wranglers and blue bubble potentates
that decide who wins a nomination.
Then there are the two factions of the ruling dynasties,
Bush and Clinton, that are seeded into the deep state. It should be noted that Bill and
Hillary are personally worth $300M and have a family foundation that controls $2.5B in tax
free funds. They could only have done that by selling America under the protection of Deep
State. Finally, there is Manhattan Media which is the King Maker with its air cover. Its like
we are ruled by a House of Lords answerable only to Manhattan Privilege, the owners and
operators of multinational entertainment companies. This is what Trump beat. His presidency
is truly a miracle.
+ all the living expresidents whose kill list is huge and let us not forget the dead
ones
your country have been at war over 200 years since its creation. so how
American dare use
the old muuh "commies killed a gazillion of people" is not easy to understand tbh.
but i guess hubris, propaganda and no knowledge about the world plays a big part
OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column on this topic
state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what is had enabled Mr. Brennan,
once he left government employ, to access? Is it like a password or something? What is the
practical effect of its revocation?
"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances," this sounds like the Battle of
Molehill Mountain.
Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.
I held clearances at various times during my engineering career. It's very simple. If you
quit or retire, your clearance evaporates instantly. If, within your job, you are assigned to
work that doesn't require a clearance and your employer doesn't anticipate your needing it
again anytime soon, it is dropped (maintaining a clearance isn't cheap).
And, no, it isn't like a password, not really. If you want classified information, you
need two things to get it: appropriate clearance, and need-to-know. The person or system from
whom or which you're trying to get the information is duty-bound to verify that you have
both. Obviously, for someone who's retired or been fired and is now out jacking the jaw on
CNN, there is no need-to-know, and for an "ordinary" cleared person, there'd be no clearance,
either.
It's not complicated. I was surprised to find that these spy bureaucrats apparently remain
cleared after leaving government "service" in one way or another. Obviously, big-boy swamp
creatures have their privileges. They should have them no more. If the orange clown can't
handle that, I don't see what use he is for anything else, either.
Thank you. I didn't appreciate that the restrictions are upon those already privy to
information as part of their jobs. So, Mr. Brennan can no longer be furnished, under color of
law, non-public information by sympathetic former colleagues.
I did have a clearance when in the Service. Once I left, I kept it for five years I think.
And it is a 'sellable' when you are looking for a job with defense contractors, Basically,
it means that you could have access to the level of clearance that you have, related to what
you work on. Not every one has the same level of clearances. I assume they do have Top Secret
clearances of higher, because they do have access to high level stuff, and or info that is
not available to others. Its called 'need to know'. If you need to know or have access to
something, then you will require clearance according to what you will have access in
accordance with your work level. Some times, it is better not to know somethings, believe
me.
"... Indeed, Brennan's retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an "expert" on television and in the newspapers ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Even John Brennan's supporters are shy about defending the former CIA Director's more extravagant claims. James Clapper, the ex-Director of National Intelligence, has described Brennan's comments as "overheated." ..."
"... The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama's CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest. After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued to prove to be unrelenting. ..."
"... there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. ..."
"... it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began. ..."
"... Since that time, Brennan has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." He has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "wholly in the pocket of Putin," definitely "afraid of the president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear." And he then administered what might be considered the coup de main ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he became Director. ..."
"... John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station (COS) in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed , killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt to do the same to Syria. ..."
"... After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in. ..."
"... Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama characterizes him as " always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest." ..."
"... Indeed, he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hanged for such behavior. One has to hope that Brennan's day of judgment will eventually come and he will have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity. ..."
"... Brennan should be in prison for the lies and accusations he has made. He is as corrupt as they come. Brennan is at the center of an Obama/Clinton directed scam to discredit Trump. Trump, love him or hate him, was elected by the American people. Brennan and his ilk may not like it but that does not mean they have the right to bend the country to their collective wills. Time to throw the book at these malcontents. ..."
"... What does it say about Obama that he favored a character like Brennan? ..."
"... Paranoids project a lot and accuse others of everything dark they ( paranoids ) have inside , blaming others for their own`s paranoid violent drives ..."
"... Brennan is part of Obama's swamp that Trump promised to drain. I hope others like Susan Rice and Clapper will follow. ..."
"... Unhinged and dumb. IMHO, they're easier to manipulate by the Puppet Masters. You can't have Groton & Yale-educated types like in Allen Dulles' day because they might go off the Puppet Master playbook and start calling audibles out in the field. ..."
"... Brennan is such a small part of a massively corrupt behind the scene picture. There are probably 2000 or 3000 more who need the same treatment immediately. ..."
"... I hope the issue of whether or not the POTUS has the authority to Trump all security clearance goes to court, because if its outcome is positive for Trump, maybe Trump will Trump Bush's and Clinton clearances. That would make the job of the AG quite a bit easier. ..."
"... Brennan is an idiot. Just listen to him and watch him. And having missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, why does the press suddenly hold the intelligence community in such high regard? The truth is the MSM will do anything to nail Trump not that I particularly like him although compared to HC ..."
"... On the contrary, Brennan is just the kind of person who rises up the ranks in government. And look at Gina, his successor, should she even be where she is ? ..."
"... Oh sure, we can pick on Brennan, he's a funny-looking asskisser, thick as mince, but making it all his fault obscures the blindingly obvious fact that Hillary was the institutional choice of CIA. The other CIA talking heads are distancing themselves from Brennan simply because he bends over backwards to please his Project Mockingbird producers. He's hamming it up and embarrassing them, that's all. ..."
"... CIA installed four presidents: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Hillary was supposed to be next but she couldn't even beat her handpicked loser asshole in a rigged election. So CIA is going berserk. Trump's war is with CIA, not Brennan. ..."
"... I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. . ..."
"... On the brighter side, in Dante's Inferno , the hottest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors. Hope Mr. Brennan likes warm weather. ..."
"... In a contemporary newspaper account of the creation of the OSS (forerunner of CIA) the OSS was described as "five Jews working in a converted vault in Washington DC". Described in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". The CIA has always been Israel's club. Even before it was called CIA ..."
"... Brennan voted for the communist party as a youth. Perhaps youthful flightiness could be taken in stride but a tendency to flip-flop from one form of utopianism to another is often a lifetime trait of unstable people, much like some switch religions constantly. ..."
"... There really is a swamp to drain. There really is a lot of fake news. There really are people within our government, intelligence agencies, and media who, whether through malicious intent or just stupidity, are "enemies of the people." ..."
"... After a major air disaster with large loss of life, the standard TV reporting template is to send a news crew to the arrival airport to get coverage of the distraught relatives. On 9/11 there were 4 simultaneous air disasters with approx 500 dead. How many extended TV reports at the 4 arrival airports, with hundreds of 'grieving relatives/friends' did you see? I saw zero. ..."
"... Brennan sounds like a hog that doesn't wash itself of his own sins while he is carrying out his paymasters' wish. He thinks that he is indispensable to the powers that be he may want to remember the late Alphonse D'Amato of New York, who was chucked aside once he had used up his senatorial cudgel to extract gelt out of the Swiss banks ..."
"... It is absolutely terrifying to recognize that very many in those "elites" never became real adults in their lives and psychologically (mentally?) are still at the high school maturity level. All political tops are messy, soaked in palace intrigues and clash of egos larger than cathedrals, but this particular case is something else entirely and it has a lot to do with overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American party and government so called "elites". ..."
"... The talking head types typically heard in US mass media are overly suspect and coddled. From the FBI, there's Frank Figluizzi and Josh Campbell. A rare exception to that spin is Tucker Carlson hosting former NSA official William Binney. ..."
"... I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than life in prison at our expense. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect but he must be doing something right because the entire establishment is out to get him. I've never seen anything like it in my life. ..."
"... CIA Democrat Party Hack John Brennan says: "Sometimes my IRISH comes out in my Tweets." ..."
"... What Giraldi calls a "failure of intelligence" is probably about as far as most ex-CIA officer would go on 9/11, at least in public. Whether or not some part the intelligence community was actually complicit in the execution of 9/11 is another matter, though discussing it here only distracts from the main thrust of the article. ..."
"... I think we used to all think that the spooks were at least guided by some moral principles, in their goals, if not in their operations, but bozos like Brennan, Morell, Tenet, Heyden, etc, clearly show that this is not the case. ..."
"... Brennan is not the first to use hyperbole to monetize a scandal. Not the first to take advantage of his proximity to the President. And I agree with Sen Burr's statement. But that's not the point. I'm concerned by what he did as CIA director as the Trump/Russia relationship developed. ..."
"... I totally agree with you about Brennan requesting an FBI investigation. But rather than looking into non-existent Russian operations, if he were truly doing his job he should be calling for an investigation into Zion-gate ..."
The battle between many former intelligence chiefs and the White House is
becoming a gift that keeps on giving to the mass media, which is characteristically
deeply immersed in Trump derangement syndrome in attacking the president for
his having
stripped former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. One
of the
most ludicrous claims , cited in the Washington Post on Sunday,
was that the Trump move was intended to "stifle free speech." While I am quite
prepared to believe a lot of things about the serial maladroit moves and explanations
coming out of the White House, how one equates removing Brennan's security clearance
to compromising his ability to speak freely escapes me. Indeed, Brennan has
been speaking out with his usual vitriol nearly everywhere in the media ever
since he lost the clearance, rather suggesting that his loss has given him a
platform which has actually served to enhance his ability to speak his mind.
He should thank Donald Trump for that.
Indeed, Brennan's retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing
to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value
for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an "expert" on television
and in the newspapers. Are you listening New York Times and
NBC ? Brennan's clearance did not mean that he had any real insight
into current intelligence on anything, having lost that access when he left
his job with the government. It only meant that he could sound authoritative
and well informed by relying on his former status, enabling him to con you media
folks out of your money on a recurrent basis.
It has sometimes been suggested that free speech is best exercised when it
is somehow connected to the brain's prefrontal lobes, enabling some thought
process before the words come out of the mouth. It might be argued that Brennan
has been remarkably deficient in that area, which is possibly why he looks so
angry in all his photographs. Even John Brennan's supporters are shy about
defending the former CIA Director's more extravagant claims. James Clapper,
the ex-Director of National Intelligence,
has described Brennan's comments as "overheated."
The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama's
CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton
become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest.
After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played
a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January
just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information
and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law
enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued
to prove to be unrelenting.
In May 2017, Brennan
testified before Congress that during the 2016 campaign
he had " encountered and [was] aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons
involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian
efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." Politico
was also in on the chase and picked up on Brennan's bombshell in an article
entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
What Brennan did not describe, because it was "classified," was how he developed
the information regarding the Trump campaign in the first place. We know
from Politico and other sources that it derived from foreign intelligence
services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be
a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information
might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into
a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump
were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at
the time. That is how Russiagate began.
Since that time, Brennan
has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that "When the full extent
of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you
will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history."
He
has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over
his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is
"wholly in the pocket of Putin," definitely "afraid of the president of Russia"
and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that he
has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he
does have something to fear and something very serious to fear." And he then
administered what might be considered the coup de main , saying that
the president should be impeached for "treasonous" behavior after Trump
stood next to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a news conference
in Finland and cast doubt on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies that
Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Trump's decision to pull Brennan's clearance attracted an immediate tweeted
response from the ex-CIA Director: "This action is part of a broader effort
by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely
worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of
speaking out." He also added, in a New York Times
op-ed , that "Mr. Trump's claims of no collusion [with Russia] are, in a
word, hogwash," though he provided no evidence to support his claim and failed
to explain how exactly one washes a hog. There has subsequently been an avalanche
of suitably angry Brennan appearances all over the Sunday talk shows, a development
that will undoubtedly continue for the immediate future.
The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one, having also been
made repeatedly by Brennan CIA associate the grim and inscrutable Michael Morell,
who flaunts his
insider expertise both at The Times and on CBS. Regarding both
gentlemen, one might note that it is an easy mark to allege something sensational
that you don't have to prove, but the claim nevertheless constitutes a very
serious assertion of criminal behavior that might well meet the Constitutional
standard for treason, which comes with a death penalty. It is notable that in
spite of the gravity of the charge, Brennan and Morell have been either unable
or unwilling to substantiate it in any detail. Even a usually tone-deaf Congress
has noted that there is a problem with Brennan's credibility on the issue, not
to mention his integrity. Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, has
observed that
"Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the
Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement
is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn't
he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017?
If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office,
it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge
of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel,
not The New York Times ."
This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have
worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly
disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint
and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out
of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so
he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he
became Director.
John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even
as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station
(COS) in Saudi Arabia
when
the Khobar Towers were bombed , killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he
incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11
and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA
chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition
programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt
to do the same to Syria.
Barack Obama wanted Brennan to be his CIA Director but his record with the
Agency torture and rendition programs made approval by the Senate problematical.
Instead, he became the president's homeland security advisor and deputy national
security advisor for counterterrorism, where he did even more damage, expanding
the parameters of the death by drone operations and sitting down with the POTUS
for the
Tuesday morning counterterrorism sessions spent refining the kill list of
American citizens.
After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections
and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the
Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged
in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in.
Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying
had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama
characterizes him as " always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest."
So the real John Brennan emerges as an unlikely standard bearer for the First
Amendment. He has an awful lot of baggage and is far from the innocent victim
of a madman Trump that is being portrayed in much of the media. Indeed,
he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners
and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in
the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hanged for such behavior.
One has to hope that Brennan's day of judgment will eventually come and he will
have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity.
The question seems stark to me as to how in the hell did brennan ever
get accepted by the cia in the first place. Was he vetted all? With his
psychological makeup, his past political affiliations (or inclinations),
he seems from the outside as a candidate mostly likely to be rejected out
of hand beyond the first step.
And then we have his rise through the ranks to Director-one could ask
WTF? Who were his handlers?
Perhaps Mr. Brennan is guilty of using the psychological tactic of "projection"
against President Trump? All the things he accuses President Trump of ("treason"
perhaps), he is actually guilty of himself.
How an admitted supporter of CPUSA and Gus Hall voter even got past the
SBI investigation is enough to mystify one. He must have had strong supporters
and the top of the house in his young days.
"He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in
that intelligence failure."
Shame on you Philip. Years of research has convinced me that it was not
a failure at all but rather one of their greatest hits. I usually like your
commentary but salting your rhetoric with lies to promote the false CIA
narrative is not acceptable.
AMF
The PBS NewsHour segment with CIA Director John Brennan, included
this quote from him:
" We see what he has done in places like Crimea and Ukraine
and in Syria. he tends to flex muscles, not just on himself, but
also in terms of Russia's military capabilities. He plays by his
own rules in terms of what it is that he does in some of these theaters
of conflict.
So I don't think we underestimated him. He has sought to advance
Russia's interests in areas where there have been political vacuums
and conflicts. But he doesn't ascribe to the same types of rules
that we do, for example, in law of armed conflict. What the Russians
have done in Syria in terms of some of the scorched-earth policy
that they have pursued that have led to devastation and thousands
upon thousands of innocent deaths, that's not something that the
United States would ever do in any of these military conflicts."
Own rules as in what Turkey has done in northern Cyprus and the Clinton
led NATO in Kosovo? It was a shameful example of journalism on the part
of PBS to let Brennan's comments go unchallenged. PBS had earlier run
a pro-CrowdStrike feature. It's not as if there aren't any expert cyber
security/ intelligence sources offering a different perspective.
As for the devastation of thousands of civilians during war (raised
by Brennan), consider some past US actions like what happened in Japan
during WW II, the Cold War activity in Southeast Asia, as well as post-Cold
War actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The collateral damage emphasis
has been hypocritically applied. Along with the subjectively dubious
comments of Hayden and Nance, the above excerpted comments from Brennan
are indicative of a (past and present) politicized element within US
Intel.
Not very outstanding personality, He had his moment on the sun when Libyan
and Syrian war crimes by Hillary and Obama were prepared. He is now in the
shade and his brain is feed for mold and mildew.
Brennan should be in prison for the lies and accusations he has made.
He is as corrupt as they come. Brennan is at the center of an Obama/Clinton
directed scam to discredit Trump. Trump, love him or hate him, was elected
by the American people. Brennan and his ilk may not like it but that does
not mean they have the right to bend the country to their collective wills.
Time to throw the book at these malcontents.
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political
corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced
demagogue in the dustbin of history."
Methinks Brennan was looking in the mirror when he first mouthed that
truth, which is actually about the former CIA Director. Why these
intelligence people maintain that Top Secret(TS) clearance after they retire,
resign or get tossed during a change in the WH is beyond me. It's great
for them, as they can burnish that TS as credentials when getting hired
by CNN or FOX to blather on about something, usually enhancing some lie
or propaganda those pseudo-news outlets are promoting.
But the bigger problem is that some or maybe many are Israel-Firsters,
who have loyalty to that Apartheid nightmare and most likely pass on info
to their Israeli buddies that they should not have gotten.
That is called treason and is one more reason why their TS clearance
should be revoked when they leave government work.
A powerful, pointed essay to be shared widely. That Mr. Brennan's shameful
acts listed here go back to the last Bush presidency can also help to enlighten
those still gulled by the Red/Blue puppet show.
The notion that anyone high up in the CIA might ever be convicted of
war crimes under the rule of Imperial Washington, though, is sadly laughable.
Notice that Senator Burr still refers to Mr. Brennan as "Director Brennan."
The way these people think of themselves is not only annoying, but maintains
a system in which they're above the law.
One suggested edit: " Japanese and German officers were [hanged] for
such behavior."
Obama favored the Muslim Brotherhood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood. The Nobel Prize of
" peace " winner bombed a few arab countries from Libia to Afganistan ,
and organized " color revolutions " ( coups d` Etat ) in many other arab
and non arab countries . Obama provoked millions of arabs refugees escaping
from wars and invading Europe . Obama provoked the coup d`Etat and war in
Ukraina
Great article Philip, as usual. I am your biggest fan ..roasting here
in the south of Turkey watching the unfolding debacle on par with the suns
relentlessness.
" He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in
that intelligence failure. "
Is meant here that for some reason that I still do not understand the
plotters failed to make use of the hijacked planes to fly into the towers,
the Pentagon and into Camp David ? In my usual immodest opinion Sept 11
was blundering along, so that two other planes than the 'hijacked' ones
flew into the towers, the first had some bulge under the plane, the second
had no windows, what flew into the Pentagon was something small, and the
Pennsylvania plane 'atomised' in mid air, according to the coroner.
But, with a complete failure, I must admit that the improvisation was
not bad, and had success, with help of the USA's media. BTW, on a German
site is explained what profit the Jewish owners of the Towers made, $ five
billion, seen in Germany by the insurer, Allianz, as insurance fraud. In
order to be able to pay Allianz fired 3000 employees. Alas, the article
has disappeared, too shocking, maybe.
You are assuming a level of competence on the CIA. No one there predicted
the collapse of the Soviet Union, they said Iraq had WMDs, and now made
up this nonsense about Trump. They are the same folks who brought us the
Bay of Pigs more than half a century ago. Too bad Kennedy didn't get to
break them up into a million pieces and scatter them in the wind like he
wanted to do.
Why does the CIA hire unhinged people like Brennan and Philip Mudd?
Unhinged and dumb. IMHO, they're easier to manipulate by the Puppet
Masters. You can't have Groton & Yale-educated types like in Allen Dulles'
day because they might go off the Puppet Master playbook and start calling
audibles out in the field.
Saying as Giraldi did that 911 was a failure of intelligence is a coverup
for the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and
Giraldi and every thinking America knows that Israel and the deep state
did it and got away with it.
Brennan and the majority of the deep state are under Zionist control
and the fact that they let Israel and the Zionists get away with 911 means
that Brennan and every one of the 17 intel agencies that had knowledge of
911 is a traitor to America and the fact that Israel got away with killing
3000 Americans proves that Zionists and Israel have total control of every
facet of the U.S. government.
May God help America as we are a captive nation of zionists.
Already posted under the current Buchanan column, but more likely to
learn something here:
OK, I admit that I haven't researched it myself. But shouldn't a column
on this topic state briefly what a "security clearance" is and explain what
is had enabled Mr. Brennan, once he left government employ, to access? Is
it like a password or something? What is the practical effect of its revocation?
"With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances [Buchanan],"
this sounds like the Battle of Molehill Mountain.
Thanks to anyone who helps to provide some context.
Brennan is such a small part of a massively corrupt behind the scene
picture. There are probably 2000 or 3000 more who need the same treatment
immediately.
Trumping security clearance at termination from any job that requires
them; in government, military or in the private sector, should be automatic,
without exception. Trump all non active or non essential clearances would
reduce the power of and the number of corporate lobbyist, private mercenaries,
global gun slingers and creators of the privately owned 24/7 promoted, highly
spied on fake news stories and many corrupt crossboard activities..
I hope the issue of whether or not the POTUS has the authority to
Trump all security clearance goes to court, because if its outcome is positive
for Trump, maybe Trump will Trump Bush's and Clinton clearances. That would
make the job of the AG quite a bit easier.
This idea of trumping security clearances has some real promise as a
way to restore some modicum of democracy in the USA. But Trumping Security
Clearance should be rule based. Trump needs to issue a presidential order..
worded something like this. All security clearances in the USA are issued
on a as needed basis, and shall terminate as soon as the need is resolved,
or the person holding the clearance is terminated from the job for which
the clearance was issued.
Brennan is an idiot. Just listen to him and watch him. And having
missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and Iraqi WMD, why does the press suddenly
hold the intelligence community in such high regard? The truth is the MSM
will do anything to nail Trump not that I particularly like him although
compared to HC .
On the contrary, Brennan is just the kind of person who rises up
the ranks in government. And look at Gina, his successor, should she even
be where she is ?
Oh sure, we can pick on Brennan, he's a funny-looking asskisser,
thick as mince, but making it all his fault obscures the blindingly obvious
fact that Hillary was the institutional choice of CIA. The other CIA talking
heads are distancing themselves from Brennan simply because he bends over
backwards to please his Project Mockingbird producers. He's hamming it up
and embarrassing them, that's all.
You don't get near the White House without doing lots of favors for CIA.
Trump laundered money for the CIA agents who looted Russia. Hillary was
of course senior Nomenklatura and next in line. Cord Meyer recruited her
husband at Oxford, and she helped frame Nixon with CIA's Watergate burlesque
(read Russ Baker.) She's the Queen of Mena.
CIA installed four presidents: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Hillary
was supposed to be next but she couldn't even beat her handpicked loser
asshole in a rigged election. So CIA is going berserk. Trump's war is with
CIA, not Brennan.
I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan? DC
is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather than
life in prison at our expense. .
Maybe we should start constructing skyscrapers out of the bodies of birds,
like the ones that crashed this Swedish jet?
'Russia hacked the birds': Social media mocks Swedish paranoia after birds
take down fighter jet
He'd have a lot of company there: pretty much every American federal
official in the last few decades, as well as most Russian officials who
were in power from ~1989 to ~2000. That circle must be really crowded, like
Washington, DC.
In a contemporary newspaper account of the creation of the OSS (forerunner
of CIA) the OSS was described as "five Jews working in a converted vault
in Washington DC". Described in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". The CIA
has always been Israel's club. Even before it was called CIA.
Brennan voted for the communist party as a youth. Perhaps youthful
flightiness could be taken in stride but a tendency to flip-flop from one
form of utopianism to another is often a lifetime trait of unstable people,
much like some switch religions constantly. Why promote someone like
this to such a high position? This Russian Manchurian Candidate business
is bizarre and casts doubt about his mental health. In addition there were
rumors about him having converted to Islam while posted in Saudi Arabia.
Just some of the usual rumor-mongering that goes on, I thought. Then I looked
at him in testimony on YouTube. I was struck by his weirdly rhapsodic way
of describing Islam that seemed to go beyond merely playing up to them.
In addition he calls Jerusalem by the Arabic name of Al-Quds, something
no one here does and seems strange for a CIA head to do that. People like
this are the cream of the crop, guardians of our security and well-being?
Brennen is one of the Most untrustworth political gangsters among the
totally corrupted Amerian political class. That the fawning Media does Not
dismiss this crook as an so-called expert speaks for itself. President Trump
should revoke all Security clearances from the Obama crooks.
John Brennan is a traitor to America. At this point, this is basically
undeniable to any rational observer who has assessed the verifiable details
of his career. It is mind-boggling that he was ever accepted to any position
within our government and the CIA. The level of incompetence within the
US government and intelligence agencies is terrifying. The only good thing
about this idiot's irrational blabbering in the media is that it has the
potential to cause even many liberals to finally grasp how stupid, petty,
and dangerous the actions of the socialist-leaning left in our government,
intelligence agencies, and media are. There really is a swamp to drain.
There really is a lot of fake news. There really are people within our government,
intelligence agencies, and media who, whether through malicious intent or
just stupidity, are "enemies of the people."
In a more just world, John Brennan would be hanged and all of America
would cheer.
Is meant here that for some reason that I still do not understand
the plotters failed to make use of the hijacked planes to fly into the
towers, the Pentagon and into Camp David?
There were no 'hijacked planes'. The hijack ruse was a sleight of hand
distraction. It's like the old movie plane crash trick: Set up your camera
to frame a hill in extreme long shot. A plane dives into the frame from
the right and disappears behind the hill. The moment it goes behind the
hill, special effects set off a large pyro charge and there's a huge fireball.
Oh no, the plane crashed behind the hill!
Scheduled flights must have taken off with the requisite squawk codes,
but where they went & who was on them if any, is anyone's guess. What's
clear (in the same way it's clear Oswald wasn't sniping on Nov 22 '63) is
the scheduled jets didn't fly into towers/buildings. UAV aircraft did.
After a major air disaster with large loss of life, the standard
TV reporting template is to send a news crew to the arrival airport to get
coverage of the distraught relatives. On 9/11 there were 4 simultaneous
air disasters with approx 500 dead. How many extended TV reports at the
4 arrival airports, with hundreds of 'grieving relatives/friends' did you
see? I saw zero.
A security clearance is granted on a strict need-to-know basis.
I fail to see how these former ranking intelligence officials like John
Brennan maintain the need-to-know after they have left public service.
When the Central Intelligence Agency was established by President Truman
on September 18, 1947, one justification was that the United States had
been caught off-guard by the surprise Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor,
and therefore it was necessary to coordinate all intelligence activities
under a single head, or director, who would have direct access to the president,
and there would be no more such surprises.
Of course, all that about Pearl Harbor is a cock 'n' bull story from
top to bottom, just like 9/11 is. FDR knew exactly what was going on. In
fact, no one had worked harder to bring it about than the President himself.
Just as Stalin had been successful in tricking Hitler into attacking the
Soviet Union, so too was Roosevelt successful in goading the Japanese to
attack Pearl Harbor. It was the plan all along: Let the enemy strike the
first blow, then seize the moral high ground, from which lofty summit the
enemy can be vilified and demonized with propaganda including the most astonishingly
poisonous accusations, like an industrialized program in Nazi Germany to
exterminate the Jews.
But Truman wasn't done yet. In 1952, he established the National Security
Agency, ostensibly because the CIA was doing a poor job with communications
intelligence.
Now, in the wake of 9/11–where the initial story was that we were "blindsided"–
we've got 17 different intelligence agencies, with a new position created
to coordinate them all. Whatever it is all these guys are doing, about the
only thing we can be sure of is that they will have few problems getting
the budget to do it, and instead of intelligence, we get propaganda and
chaos.
Brennan sounds like a hog that doesn't wash itself of his own sins
while he is carrying out his paymasters' wish. He thinks that he is indispensable
to the powers that be he may want to remember the late Alphonse D'Amato
of New York, who was chucked aside once he had used up his senatorial cudgel
to extract gelt out of the Swiss banks. Trump isn't going to be either
impeached or gotten rid off, simply because he works for the same crowd
and the only difference between him and lowly spook is that the former is
part of the ruling class, while the latter is just a peon used to distract
the dumbed down public!
It is absolutely terrifying to recognize that very many in those
"elites" never became real adults in their lives and psychologically (mentally?)
are still at the high school maturity level. All political tops are messy,
soaked in palace intrigues and clash of egos larger than cathedrals, but
this particular case is something else entirely and it has a lot to do with
overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American party
and government so called "elites".
I didn't quite get that about Baer as well. The only basis perhaps is
that Baer might be less of a propagandist when compared to Mudd and Brennan.
The talking head types typically heard in US mass media are overly
suspect and coddled. From the FBI, there's Frank Figluizzi and Josh Campbell.
A rare exception to that spin is Tucker Carlson hosting former NSA official
William Binney.
I am not denying Brennan's guilt. But why single out Brennan?
DC is teeming with war criminals, most of which deserve the noose, rather
than life in prison at our expense.
I don't believe he's being singled out. Much attention is focused on
him, on account of the absurd things he spews in high profile settings.
He deserves to get severely rebuked, long with a good number in mass media
and body politic who handle him with kid gloves.
The NSA, military intelligence outfits and other groups can provide information
gathering services to the United States government and the President of
the United States.
John Brennan... is completely and totally representative of the kind
of CIA government worker human filth that steals money from the US government
while damaging the best interests of the United States.
If General George Washington and General Andrew Jackson were alive, John
Brennan would be forcefully exiled from the United States for his actions
against the United States of America.
So if Trump is a CIA asset, why are they doing everything in their power
to get rid of him, short of killing him (so far..)? The fact of the
matter is that both Hillary and Jeb Bush were the Deep State candidates,
either was supposed to win, didn't matter which as both would be puppets
anyway.
Neither Bernie Sanders nor Trump were supposed to win, the Democrats
did their part in getting rid of Sanders, the Republicans tried, and failed,
to get rid of Trump (again, so far..)
Trump is imperfect but he must be doing something right because the
entire establishment is out to get him. I've never seen anything like it
in my life.
Hardly anything memorable has been written about the botched CIA operation
in Laos during the Vietnam War. Under the guise Air America , the CIA spent
millions if not billions of dollars in a futile attempt to stop the Pathet
Lao. Lots of innocent lives lost but no one held accountable at the highest
levels of our government. But then again that seems to be the same story
involving inept leadership and corruption in all the conflicts the US has
been engaged in since WWII.
What Giraldi calls a "failure of intelligence" is probably about
as far as most ex-CIA officer would go on 9/11, at least in public. Whether
or not some part the intelligence community was actually complicit in the
execution of 9/11 is another matter, though discussing it here only distracts
from the main thrust of the article.
I think we used to all think that the spooks were at least guided
by some moral principles, in their goals, if not in their operations, but
bozos like Brennan, Morell, Tenet, Heyden, etc, clearly show that this is
not the case.
Obviously, it's only about power and being in the game; whichever way
the wind blows they have to be in on it in order to apply pressure on whoever
turns up on top. At no level do they even care whether the general direction
is moral or criminal. They simply play all sides of the table for best agency,
deep state, or personal interest – no other consideration comes even in
play. The image they portray on television is as realistic as the depiction
of Ozzie and Harriet was to a real marriage.
Trump revoking Brennan's security clearance doesn't move me. His freedom
of speech is not stifled; it gives him a larger platform.
Brennan is not the first to use hyperbole to monetize a scandal.
Not the first to take advantage of his proximity to the President. And I
agree with Sen Burr's statement. But that's not the point. I'm concerned
by what he did as CIA director as the Trump/Russia relationship developed.
It's abundantly clear to me that Director Brennan acted appropriately
and the Mueller investigation is legitimate and necessary.
Abundantly clear, eh, PintOrTwo? Perhaps it was so clear to you after
having a pint or two?
I expect he would "(use) that information to request an FBI investigation
into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers
(to) Trump". To do otherwise would be egregious.
I totally agree with you about Brennan requesting an FBI investigation.
But rather than looking into non-existent Russian operations, if he were
truly doing his job he should be calling for an investigation into Zion-gate
– i.e., the massive interference into US politics wielded by the Zionists
through their network of organizations, aka The Lobby . Why concentrate
on the ant when the elephant is standing right in front of you? You wouldn't
be engaging in deflection, would you, PintOrTwoOrThree?
When the state keeps a secret it subordinates the human right to know.
There are very few things that reach that standard. When the state enables
an abuse of a secret, it endangers everyone's freedoms and liberties.
There can be no greater abuse of free speech than state secrets, and
therefore no greater duty of the state to both prove the need to keep the
knowledge secret and to prevent anyone from wrongfully using or abusing
the knowledge kept secret.
When someone on the inside, committed to preserving the secret in trust
realizes that the trust has been abused and that the trust is regularly
abused, and decides as a matter of conscious to endure the consequences,
by stepping forward to disclose failures of the state with regard to the
knowledge kept secret, that brave person becomes known as a whistle blower.
In effect that whistle blower is speaking for all of us, he or she becomes
the protector of human rights because only he or she knows, outside of the
state, that the state is infringing a human right.
Human rights always trump state rights. Unless the whistle blower exposed
the wrong doings or abuse, the state is left to continue its wrongdoing.
Exposed, the state must explain its behavior, suffer the consequences, and
protect the whistle blowers. Its unfortunate that the whistle blower is
treated much like the woman abused, in court, the victim is made to look
to be the criminal.
overall precipitous decline, both intellectual and moral, of American
"elites".
I'm not sure whether, on balance, that bodes well or ill. For Americans,
probably ill, but from the RoW's perspective it may simply mean that the
Empire dies that much more quickly. Barring somebody doing something really
stupid. EG: "Assessing" in their ignorance that they can win a nuclear exchange
when they inevitably find themselves at their wit's end, of course.
That you don't care is evidenced by your trust in The Guardian and AP
as reliable sources for news and information, I mean, fool me once and all
that but dozens of times should be more than enough for anyone who does
care.
In the long run it may even be a bitter but life-saving medicine. BTW,
OT–can you, please, get me to your excellent economic post about GDP "growing"
while in reality shrinking. I hope you recall which one, I lost the link
to it, sadly.
Anon (76) below is the interpretive guidance for US human rights law
relating to the right to seek and obtain information – Article 18 – supreme
law of the land.
"... 'Some people have a substantive critique of Trump for furthering the fundamentally evil cause of racist US global empire, while others have a procedural critique of Trump for harming this fundamentally noble cause by carrying it out incompetently, if not a purely aesthetic critique for harming this fundamentally noble cause by making it look too gauche and uncouth. Those two styles of critique are fundamentally at odds.' ..."
"... This seems to me to be fundamentally the point. Particularly when (in the case of Russia and North Korea) the Democrats and the (majority of the) corporate media are essentially trying to outflank Trump on the Right , and the more or less complete failure of the Left to oppose in any meaningful way American machinations in Syria or Libya (with a few honourable exceptions), ..."
"... With very few exceptions (mainly on trivial issues) Trump has governed absolutely and precisely as any Republican would have done. His 'base' is almost exactly the same as Romney's ..."
"... Meanwhile the corporate media get hysterical about which apparatchik got fired or got their security clearance revoked for some reason or something and who said what to whom or whatever .it's all so boring I can scarcely type it out (and in fact I haven't). ..."
"... Considering the friendly recent exchanges between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise, suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign policy. ..."
"... Much of the damage to US politics over the last two years has been done by the anti-Trump media themselves, with their mood of perpetual panic and their lack of imagination. But the uncanny gift of Trump is an infectious vulgarity, and with it comes the power to make his enemies act with nearly as little self-restraint as he does. The proof is in the tweets.' ..."
"Public statements by Trump make it clear that there wasn't, in fact, a plausible national
security rationale for revoking Brennan's clearance."
This is false, the White House has released more than one statement about Brennan's lying
and unhinged behavior, whether you accept them or not. And in fact Brennan has made a number
of hysterically deranged statements, most notably around the time of the Putin summit, that
would make even Joe McCarthy blush.
And this latest Constitutional principle that we've suddenly discovered, that a top
security clearance is a form of speech, opens a large can of worms. The implications are so
obvious that spelling it out seems unnecessary, I'll just note that when I get the security
clearance that is my inalienable right as an American I won't be using it for my own selfish
ends.
"I'm basically OK with a tactical alliance with people in the national security
establishment, insofar as there are shared political interests. Trump is a disaster across
many dimensions"
Got it. Our choice is either the Fuhrer or the Deputy Reichsfuhrer. Gosh, I wonder why so
many Americans are disconnected from the political process
ph 08.17.18 at 11:12 pm (no link)
@4 Seems to get this right, imo. The best and simplest identification of this class of
self-interested profiteers, 'patriots,'policy wonks, grifters, and their minions and
water-carriers in elected office and the media was made by Eisenhower in his farewell speech.
Henry is entirely right to recognize they are as permanent as the weather, and as much a
feature of life as they were during Chaucer's time. This is their world, we just live in
it.
The pedigrees and connections identified in @4 exist to ensure that the public face of the
corporation masquerading as an individual (to quote RN) looks and sounds 'right.'
That's what made the 44th president absolutely ideal. Even better he proved a loyal and
willing servant -- expanding the Bush/Cheney security state, drone strikes, and surveillance
and execution of US citizens occasionally deemed enemies of the state. 45 has fewer allies in
that community, but he's proving more far more difficult to remove than many had thought.
Henry is right -- this looks very much like an inside baseball story.
Whatever Trump does or does not accomplish, the profits from violence, manipulation, and
duplicity via the wheels of government will remain and be one of the principal driving forces
in nation-state external and internal relations for a very long time.
Hidari 08.18.18 at 6:45 am (no link)
'Some people have a substantive critique of Trump for furthering the fundamentally evil cause
of racist US global empire, while others have a procedural critique of Trump for harming this
fundamentally noble cause by carrying it out incompetently, if not a purely aesthetic
critique for harming this fundamentally noble cause by making it look too gauche and uncouth.
Those two styles of critique are fundamentally at odds.'
This seems to me to be fundamentally the point. Particularly when (in the case of Russia
and North Korea) the Democrats and the (majority of the) corporate media are essentially
trying to outflank Trump on the Right , and the more or less complete failure of the
Left to oppose in any meaningful way American machinations in Syria or Libya (with a few
honourable exceptions),
With very few exceptions (mainly on trivial issues) Trump has governed absolutely and
precisely as any Republican would have done. His 'base' is almost exactly the same as
Romney's.* There was no 'Trump surge'. He didn't win the election, Clinton (a weak candidate)
lost it. Despite the hysteria, most of his deviations from 'the norm' have been in a more
imperial direction (e.g. his desire for a stronger NATO which, rather unbelievably, was
reported in the worthless media as a desire to destroy NATO). Trump's disgusting and
hypocritical sanctions on Russia (which will cause much suffering of ordinary people) have,
to the best of my knowledge, not been criticised by any leftist, anywhere, although the
insane fantasy that he is 'soft on Russia' is quite popular (with the implication that he
should be 'tougher' on Russia, maybe risking nuclear war) presumably because it fits in with
the increasingly deranged Russiagate nonsense. CF also his more aggressive stance towards
China (another nuclear power) which again risks nuclear war, and which has again, passed
almost uncommented on in elite discourse (to be fair he follows in Obama's footsteps
here).
I might add that Trump's most egregious and disgraceful departure from the 'consensus',
permitting the American Embassy to move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, has also passed more or
less uncriticised, as the Democrats still instinctively obsequiously grovel to the far right
Netanyahu when they get the chance, whimpering like whipped dogs (this simile is unfair to
dogs).
Meanwhile the corporate media get hysterical about which apparatchik got fired or got
their security clearance revoked for some reason or something and who said what to whom or
whatever .it's all so boring I can scarcely type it out (and in fact I haven't).
*Almost the first thing Trump arranged was a tax cut for his rich cronies.
Powerful post and a very clear thinking. Thank you !
Also an interesting analogy with NSDAP the 25-point Plan of 1928
Hitler's initial programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some
elements of the working class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real, and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the
Night of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi
programme were steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing
throughout the '30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run-up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him
some states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the
White House soon after.
Actually NSAP program of 1928 has some political demands which are to the left of Sanders
such as "Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes", ".We demand the nationalization of
all (previous) associated industries (trusts)." and "We demand a division of profits of all
heavy industries.". Here is a sample:
... ... ...
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a
livelihood and way of life for the citizens
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or
physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the
universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of
all. Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt
(interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands
of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the
people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate
communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms,
the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or
municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and
prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to
the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be
punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and
child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the
legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all
organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long
as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race...
But I think Trump was de-facto impeached with the appointment of Mueller. And that was the
plan ( "insurance" as Strzok called it). Mueller task is just to formalize impeachment.
Pence already is calling the shots in foreign policy via members of his close circle
(which includes Pompeo). The recent "unilateral" actions of State Department are a slap in
the face and, simultaneously, a nasty trap for Trump (he can cancel those sanctions only at a
huge political cost to himself) and are a clear sign that Trump does not control even his
administration. Here is how
Philip Giraldi described this obvious slap in the face:
The most recent is the new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury
England. For those not following developments, last week Washington abruptly and without
any new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in the
belief that Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter
Yulia on March 4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia
Skripal has recently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to
the conclusion that even one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being
promoted by the British and American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent
exchanges between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something
of a surprise, suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of
his own foreign policy.
From the very beginning, any anti-globalization initiative of Trump was sabotaged and
often reversed. Haley is one example here. She does not coordinate some of her actions with
Trump, or the Secretary of State, unliterary defining the US foreign policy.
Her ambitions worry Trump, but he can very little: she is supported by Pence and Pence
faction in the administration. Rumors "Haley/Pence 2020" surfaced and probably somewhat
poison atmosphere in the WH.
Add to this that Trump has hostile to him Justice Department, CIA, and FBI. He also does
not control some critical appointments such as the recent appointment of CIA director (who in
no way can be called Trump loyalist).
Which means that in some ways Trump already is a hostage and more a ceremonial President
than a real.
'The President is very much a figurehead – he wields no real power whatsoever. He is
apparently chosen by the (people), but the qualities he is required to display are not those
of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is a
controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to
wield power but to draw attention away from it.' (Douglas Adams)
CF Also the LRB:
'Trump comports himself not as a president or even a politician, but as a reality TV host.
He is a showman above all. In a process where the media are cast as reviewers, and voters as
spectators, the show is getting bad reviews but doing nicely: the clear sign of success is
that nobody can stop talking about the star. He keeps up the suspense with teasers and decoys
and unscheduled interruptions, with changes in the sponsors and the supporting cast and
production team. The way to match the Trump pace is by tweeting; but that is to play his game
– a gambit the White House press corps have found irresistible. Much of the damage to
US politics over the last two years has been done by the anti-Trump media themselves, with
their mood of perpetual panic and their lack of imagination. But the uncanny gift of Trump is
an infectious vulgarity, and with it comes the power to make his enemies act with nearly as
little self-restraint as he does. The proof is in the tweets.'
"... The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements. ..."
"... Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away ..."
"... In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events. ..."
"... U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?" ..."
"... If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters. ..."
"... The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content ..."
"... Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense. ..."
"... To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. ..."
"... The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. ..."
"... There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite ..."
"... A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. ..."
"... A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. ..."
"... In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. ..."
"... The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. ..."
"... The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. ..."
"... To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. ..."
"... The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C ..."
Consistent with its possession as a leading and money-making asset of the nation's wealthy
elite, the United States corporate and commercial mass media is a bastion of power-serving
propaganda and deadening twaddle designed to keep the U.S. citizenry subordinated to capital
and the imperial U.S. state. It regularly portrays the United States as a great model of
democracy and equality. It sells a false image of the U.S. as a society where the rich enjoy
opulence because of hard and honest work and where the poor are poor because of their laziness
and irresponsibility. The nightly television news broadcasts and television police and law and
order dramas are obsessed with violent crime in the nation's Black ghettoes and Latino barrios,
but they never talk about the extreme poverty, the absence of opportunity imposed on those
neighborhoods by the interrelated forces of institutional racism, capital flight, mass
structural unemployment, under-funded schools, and mass incarceration. The nightly television
weather reports tells U.S. citizens of ever new record high temperatures and related forms of
extreme weather but never relate these remarkable meteorological developments to anthropogenic
climate change.
The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice
between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the
Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far
more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of
business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry
confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it
downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and
policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by
protest movements.
As the prolific U.S. Marxist commentator Michael Parenti once remarked, US "Newscasters who
want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt
around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very
little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients.
Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every
appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away." [1]
Selling Empire
U.S. newscasters and their print media counterparts routinely parrot and disseminate the
false foreign policy claims of the nation's imperial elite. Earlier this year, U.S. news
broadcasters dutiful relayed to U.S. citizens the Obama administration's preposterous assertion
that social-democratic Venezuela is a repressive, corrupt, and authoritarian danger to its own
people and the U.S. No leading national U.S. news outlet dared to note the special absurdity of
this charge in the wake of Obama and other top U.S. officials' visit to Riyadh to guarantee
U.S. support for the new king of Saudi Arabia, the absolute ruler of a leading U.S. client
state that happens to be the most brutally oppressive and reactionary government on Earth.
In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its
clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible
and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the
global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as
far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American
Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no
selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy
reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the
State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information
on current events.
As the leading Left U.S. intellectuals Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman showed in their
classic text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Orwellian
double standards are rife in the dominant U.S. media's coverage and interpretation of global
affairs. Elections won in other countries by politicians that Washington approves because those
politicians can be counted on to serve the interests of U.S. corporations and the military are
portrayed in U.S. media as good and clean contests. But when elections put in power people who
can't be counted on to serve "U.S. interests," (Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro for example),
then U.S. corporate media portrays the contests as "rigged" and "corrupt." When Americans or
people allied with Washington are killed or injured abroad, they are "worthy victims" and
receive great attention and sympathy in that media. People killed, maimed, displaced and
otherwise harmed by the U.S. and U.S. clients and allies are anonymous and "unworthy victims"
whose experience elicits little mention or concern.[2]
U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The
dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that
create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they
hate us? What have we done?"
In February of 2015, an extraordinary event occurred in U.S. news media – the firing
of a leading national news broadcaster, Brian Williams of NBC News. Williams lost his position
because of some lies he told in connection with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A naïve
outsider might think that Williams was fired because he repeated the George W. Bush
administration's transparent fabrications about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11. Sadly but predictably enough, that wasn't his
problem. Williams lost his job because he falsely boasted that he had ridden on a helicopter
that was forced down by grenade fire during the initial U.S. invasion. If transmitting
Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media
authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters.
More than Entertainment
The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated
structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings.
Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector,
which is loaded with political and ideological content but was completely ignored in Herman and
Chomsky's groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent. [3] One example is the Hollywood movie "Zero
Dark Thirty," a 2012 "action thriller" that dramatized the United States' search for Osama
bin-Laden after the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks. The film received critical acclaim and
was a box office-smash. It was also a masterpiece of pro-military, pro-CIA propaganda,
skillfully portraying U.S. torture practices "as a dirty, ugly business that is necessary to
protect America" (Glenn Greenwald[4]) and deleting the moral debate that erupted over the CIA's
"enhanced interrogation techniques." Under the guise of a neutral, documentary-like
façade, Zero Dark Thirty normalized and endorsed torture in ways that were all the more
effective because of its understated, detached, and "objective" veneer. The film also marked a
distressing new frontier in U.S. military-"embedded" filmmaking whereby the movie-makers
receive technical and logistical support from the Pentagon in return for producing elaborate
public relations on the military's behalf.
The 2014-15 Hollywood blockbuster American Sniper is another example. The film's audiences
is supposed to marvel at the supposedly noble feats, sacrifice, and heroism of Chris Kyle, a
rugged, militantly patriotic, and Christian-fundamentalist Navy SEALS sniper who participated
in the U.S. invasion of Iraq to fight "evil" and to avenge the al Qaeda jetliner attacks of
September 11, 2001. Kyle killed 160 Iraqis over four tours of "duty" in "Operational Iraqi
Freedom." Viewers are never told that the Iraqi government had nothing to do with the 9/11
attacks or al Qaeda or that the U.S. invasion was one of the most egregiously criminal and
brazenly imperial and mass-murderous acts in the history of international violence. Like Zero
Dark Thirty's apologists, American Sniper's defenders claim that the film takes a neutral
perspective of "pure storytelling," with no ideological bias. In reality, the movie is filled
with racist and imperial distortions, functioning as flat-out war propaganda.[5]
These are just two among many examples that could be cited of U.S. "entertainment" media's
regular service to the American Empire. Hollywood and other parts of the nation's vast
corporate entertainment complex plays the same power-serving role in relation to domestic
("homeland") American inequality and oppression structures of class and race. [6]
Manufacturing Idiocy
Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark,
power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is
the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian
sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs
and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and
concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin
Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by
Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active
participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7]
– into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense.
In the U.S., where violence is not as readily available to elites as in 1970s Latin America,
corporate America seeks the same terrible outcome through its ideological institutions,
including above all its mass media. In U.S. movies, television sit-coms, television dramas,
television reality-shows, commercials, state Lottery advertisements, and video games, the
ideal-type U.S. citizen is an idiot in this classic sense: a person who cares about little more
than his or her own well-being, consumption, and status. This noble American idiot is
blissfully indifferent to the terrible prices paid by others for the maintenance of reigning
and interrelated oppressions structures at home and abroad.
A pervasive theme in this media culture is the notion that people at the bottom of the
nation's steep and interrelated socioeconomic and racial pyramids are the "personally
irresponsible" and culturally flawed makers of their own fate. The mass U.S. media's version of
Athenian idiocy "can imagine," in the words of the prolific Left U.S. cultural theorist Henry
Giroux "public issues only as private concerns." It works to "erase the social from the
language of public life so as to reduce" questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to
"private issues of individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with "the central
neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature," it portrays the
only barriers to equality and meaningful democratic participation as "a lack of principled
self-help and moral responsibility" and bad personal choices by the oppressed. Government
efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) societal disparities of
race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are portrayed as futile,
counterproductive, naïve, and dangerous.[8]
To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and
take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often
even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to
obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it,
the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such.
It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state"
– the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the
non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the "right hand of the state"[9]:
the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor,
and attacks those perceived as nefariously resisting the corporate and imperial order at home
and abroad. Police officers, prosecutors, military personnel, and other government authorities
who represent the "right hand of the state" are heroes and role models in this media. Public
defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, racial justice activists, union
leaders, antiwar protesters and the like are presented at best as naïve and irritating
"do-gooders" and at worst as coddlers and even agents of evil.
The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is
also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident
than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. As
the American cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern U.S. television
commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western
champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. "Its
principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners," Postman noted, "believed
capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature,
well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest." Commercials
make "hash" out of this idea. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with wholly irrational
claims. They rely not on the reasoned presentation of evidence and logical argument but on
suggestive emotionalism, infantilizing manipulation, and evocative, rapid-fire imagery.[10]
The same techniques poison U.S. electoral politics. Investment in deceptive and manipulative
campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in mass-marketed election contests
between business-beholden candidates that are sold to the audience/electorate like brands of
toothpaste and deodorant. Fittingly enough, the stupendous cost of these political
advertisements is a major factor driving U.S. campaign expenses so high (the 2016 U.S.
presidential election will cost at least $5 billion) as to make candidates ever more dependent
on big money corporate and Wall Street donors.
Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of
U.S. television and radio advertisements. These commercials assault citizens' capacity for
sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable
television, with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just 15 seconds. This is a
factor in the United States' long-bemoaned epidemic of "Attention Deficit Disorder."
Seventy years ago, the brilliant Dutch left Marxist Anton Pannekoek offered some chilling
reflections on the corporate print and broadcast media's destructive impact on mass cognitive
and related social resistance capacities in the United States after World War II:
"The press is of course entirely in hands of big capital [and it] dominates the spiritual
life of the American people. The most important thing is not even the hiding of all truth about
the reign of big finance. Its aim still more is the education to thoughtlessness. All attention
is directed to coarse sensations, everything is avoided that could arouse thinking. Papers are
not meant to be read – the small print is already a hindrance – but in a rapid
survey of the fat headlines to inform the public on unimportant news items, on family triflings
of the rich, on sexual scandals, on crimes of the underworld, on boxing matches. The aim of the
capitalist press all over the world, the diverting of the attention of the masses from the
reality of social development, nowhere succeed with such thoroughness as in America."
"Still more than by the papers the masses are influenced by broadcasting and film. These
products of most perfect science, destined at one time to the finest educational instruments of
mankind, now in the hands of capitalism have been turned into the strongest means to uphold its
rule by stupefying the mind. Because after nerve-straining fatigue the movie offers relaxation
and distraction by means of simple visual impressions that make no demand on the intellect, the
masses get used to accepting thoughtlessly all its cunning and shrewd propaganda. It reflects
the ugliest sides of middle-class society. It turns all attention either to sexual life, in
this society – by the absence of community feelings and fight for freedom – the
only source of strong passions, or to brute violence; masses educated to rough violence instead
of to social knowledge are not dangerous to capitalism "[11]
Pannekoek clearly saw an ideological dimension (beyond just diversion and stupefaction) in
U.S. mass media's "education to thoughtlessness" through movies as well as print
sensationalism. He would certainly be impressed and perhaps depressed by the remarkably
numerous, potent, and many-sided means of mass distraction and indoctrination that are
available to the U.S. and global capitalist media in the present digital and Internet era.
The "entertainment" wing of its vast corporate media complex is critical to the considerable
"soft" ideological "power" the U.S. exercises around the world even as its economic hegemony
wanes in an ever more multipolar global system (and as its "hard" military reveals significant
limits within and beyond the Middle East). Relatively few people beneath the global capitalist
elite consume U.S. news and public affairs media beyond the U.S., but "American" (U.S.) movies,
television shows, video games, communication devices, and advertising culture are ubiquitous
across the planet.
Explaining "Mainstream" Media Corporate Ownership
There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and
"independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and
imperial elite. The first and most important explanation for this harsh reality is concentrated
private ownership – the fundamental fact that that media is owned primarily by giant
corporations representing wealthy interests who are deeply invested in U.S. capitalism and
Empire. Visitors to the U.S. should not be fooled by the large number and types of channels and
stations on a typical U.S. car radio or television set or by the large number and types of
magazines and books on display at a typical Barnes & Noble bookstore. Currently in the
U.S., just six massive and global corporations – Comcast, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, The
News Corporation and Disney – together control more than 90 percent of the nation's print
and electronic media, including cable television, airwaves television, radio, newspapers,
movies, video games, book publishing, comic books, and more. Three decades ago, 50 corporations
controlled the same amount of U.S. media.
Each of the reigning six companies is a giant and diversified multi-media conglomerate with
investments beyond media, including "defense" (the military). Asking reporters and commentators
at one of those giant corporations to tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening in the
U.S. and the world is like asking the company magazine published by the United Fruit Company to
the tell the truth about working conditions in its Caribbean and Central American plantations
in the 1950s. It's like asking the General Motors company newspaper to tell the truth about
wages and working conditions in GM's auto assembly plants around the world.
As the nation's media becomes concentrated into fewer corporate hands, media personnel
become ever more insecure in their jobs because they have fewer firms to whom to sell their
skills. That makes them even less willing than they might have been before to go outside
official sources, to question the official line, and to tell the truth about current events and
the context in which they occur.
Advertisers
A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally
reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay
for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Chomsky has noted in a recent interview,
large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass and commercial
media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's
supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."[12]
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate the affluent people who
count for an ever rising share of consumer purchases in the U.S. It is naturally those with the
most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Government Policy
A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of
oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a
"free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous
"competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media
firms. Under the terms of the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act,
commercial, for-profit broadcasters have almost completely free rein over the nation's airwaves
and cable lines. There is no substantive segment of the broadcast spectrum set aside for truly
public interest and genuinely democratic, popular not-for profit media and the official
"public" broadcasting networks are thoroughly captive to corporate interests and to right-wing
politicians who take giant campaign contributions from corporate interests. Much of the 1996
bill was written by lobbyists working for the nations' leading media firms. [13]
A different form of state policy deserves mention. Under the Obama administration, we have
seen the most aggressive pursuit and prosecution in recent memory of U.S. journalists who step
outside the narrow parameters of pro-U.S. coverage and commentary – and of the
whistleblowers who provide them with leaked information. That is why Edward Snowden lives in
Russia, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, Chelsea Manning is serving life in a U.S. military
prison, and Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. A leading New York
Times reporter and author, James Risen, has been threatened with imprisonment by the White
House for years because of his refusal to divulge sources.
Treetops v. Grassroots Audiences
In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a
tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from
defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative,
high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists
commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. Left U.S. media critics
like Chomsky and Herman are said to be hypocrites because they obviously find much that is of
use as Left thinkers in the very media that they criticize for distorting reality in accord
with capitalist and imperial dictates.
The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media
they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the
critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S.
policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following
the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first
audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class
citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the U.S. mass media and the
corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this "rabble"
cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in
society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological
ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they're told. They are to leave
key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century U.S. public intellectual and
media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman called "the responsible men." That "intelligent,"
benevolent, "expert," and "responsible" elite (responsible, indeed, for such glorious
accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great
Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State) needed, in Lippman's view, to be
protected from what he called "the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd."[15] The deluded
mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority is not the audience for elite
organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal.
The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most
the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most
part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and
who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because
their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant
on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional
certification. This elite includes such heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers,
lawyers, public administrators, and (most) tenured university professors. Since these elites
carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization,
co-optation, and indoctrination – all essential to the rule of the real economic elite
and the imperial system – they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and
policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and
political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the
brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the "bewildered herd." At the same time,
information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and
their "coordinator class" servants and allies often contains a measure of reasoned and sincere
intra-elite political and policy debate – debate that is always careful not to stray
beyond narrow U.S. ideological parameters. That is why a radical Left U.S. thinker and activist
can find much that is of use in U.S. "treetops" media. Such a thinker or activist would,
indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources.
"P"BS and N"P"R
A second objection to the Left critique of U.S. "mainstream" media claims that the U.S.
public enjoys a meaningful alternative to the corporate media in the form of the nation's
Public Broadcasting Service (television) and National Public Radio (NPR). This claim should not
be taken seriously. Thanks to U.S. "public" media's pathetically weak governmental funding, its
heavy reliance on corporate sponsors, and its constant harassment by right wing critics inside
and beyond the U.S. Congress, N"P"R and "P"BS are extremely reluctant to question dominant U.S.
ideologies and power structures.
The tepid, power-serving conservatism of U.S. "public" broadcasting is by longstanding
political and policy design. The federal government allowed the formation of the "public"
networks only on the condition that they pose no competitive market or ideological challenge to
private commercial media, the profits system, and U.S. global foreign policy. "P"BS and N"P"R
are "public" in a very limited sense. They not function for the public over and against
corporate, financial, and imperial power to any significant degree.
"The Internet Will Save Us"
A third objection claims that the rise of the Internet creates a "Wild West" environment in
which the power of corporate media is eviscerated and citizens can find and even produce all
the "alternative media" they require. This claim is misleading but it should not be reflexively
or completely dismissed. In the U.S. as elsewhere, those with access to the Internet and the
time and energy to use it meaningfully can find a remarkable breadth and depth of information
and trenchant Left analysis at various online sites. The Internet also broadens U.S. citizens
and activists' access to media networks beyond the U.S. – to elite sources that are much
less beholden of course to U.S. propaganda and ideology. At the same time, the Internet and
digital telephony networks have at times shown themselves to be effective grassroots organizing
tools for progressive U.S. activists.
Still, the democratic and progressive impact of the Internet in the U.S. is easily
exaggerated. Left and other progressive online outlets lack anything close to the financial,
technical, and organizational and human resources of the corporate news media, which has its
own sophisticated Internet. There is nothing in Left other citizen online outlets that can
begin to remotely challenge the "soft" ideological and propagandistic power of corporate
"entertainment" media. The Internet's technical infrastructure is increasingly dominated by an
"ISP cartel" led by a small number of giant corporations. As the leading left U.S. media
analyst Robert McChesney notes:
"By 2014, there are only a half-dozen or so major players that dominate provision of
broadband Internet access and wireless Internet access. Three of them – Verizon,
AT&T, and Comcast – dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have
set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful
sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than
most other advanced nations and get much lousier service These are not 'free market'
companies in any sense of the term. Their business model, going back to pre-Internet days,
has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services.
Their 'comparative advantage' has never been customer service; it has been world-class
lobbying.' [16]
Along the way, the notion of a great "democratizing," Wild West" and "free market" Internet
has proved politically useful for the corporate media giants. The regularly trumpet the great
Internet myth to claim that the U.S. public and regulators don't need to worry about corporate
media power and to justify their demands for more government subsidy and protection. At the
same time, finally, we know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and others
that the nation's leading digital and Internet-based e-mail (Google and Yahoo), telephony (e.g.
Verizon), and "social network" (Facebook above all) corporations have collaborated with the
National Security Agency and with the nation's local, state, and federal police in the
surveillance of U.S. citizens' and activists' private communications.[17]
Solutions
The fourth objection accuses Left media critics of being overly negative, "carping" critics
who offer no serious alternatives to the nation's current corporate-owned corporate-managed
commercial and for-profit media system. This is a transparently false and mean-spirited charge.
Left U.S. media criticism is strongly linked to a smart and impressive U.S. media reform
movement that advances numerous and interrelated proposals for the creation of a genuinely
public and democratically run non-commercial and nonprofit U.S. media system. Some of the
demand and proposals of this movement include public ownership and operation of the Internet as
a public utility; the break-up of the leading media oligopolies; full public funding of public
broadcasting; limits on advertising in commercial media; the abolition of political
advertisements; the expansion of airwave and broadband access for alternative media outlets;
publicly-funded nonprofit and non-commercial print journalism; the abolition of government and
corporate surveillance, monitoring, and commercial data-mining of private communication and
"social networks."[18] With regard to the media as with numerous other areas, we should recall
Chomsky's sardonic response to the standard conservative claim that the Left offers criticisms
but no solutions: "There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'they present solutions
and I don't like them.'"[19]
A False Paradox
The propagandistic and power-serving mission and nature of dominant U.S, corporate mass
media might seem ironic and even paradoxical in light of the United States' strong free speech
and democratic traditions. In fact, as Carey and Chomsky have noted, the former makes perfect
sense in light of the latter. In nations where popular expression and dissent is routinely
crushed with violent repression, elites have little incentive to shape popular perceptions in
accord with elite interests. The population is controlled primarily through physical coercion.
In societies where it is not generally considered legitimate to put down popular expression
with the iron heel of armed force and where dissenting opinion is granted a significant measure
of freedom of expression, elites are heavily and dangerously incentivized to seek to
manufacture mass popular consent and idiocy. The danger is deepened by the United States'
status as the pioneer in the development of mass consumer capitalism, advertising, film, and
television. Thanks to that history, corporate America has long stood in the global vanguard
when it comes to developing the technologies, methods, art, and science of mass persuasion and
thought control.[20]
It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing
about dominant U.S. corporate media. During the Cold War era, U.S. officials and media never
referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main state newspapers as
"mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian media outlets as
"Soviet state media" and treated that media as means for the dissemination of Soviet
"propaganda" and ideology. There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and
commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in
their day. It is just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal
perspectives of its host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.
Its success is easily exaggerated, however. To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media
has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts
and minds of the U.S. populace. A recent Pew Research poll showed that U.S. "millennials"
(young adults 18-29 years old) have a more favorable response to the word "socialism" than to
"capitalism" – a remarkable finding on the limits of corporate media and other forms of
elite ideological power in the U.S. The immigrant worker uprising of May 2006, the Chicago
Republic Door and Window plant occupation of 2008, the University of California student
uprisings of 2009 and 2010, the Wisconsin public worker rebellion in early 2011, the Occupy
Movement of late 2011, and Fight for Fifteen (for a $15 an hour minimum wage) and Black Lives
Matter movements of 2014 and 2015 show that U.S. corporate and imperial establishment has not
manufactured anything like comprehensive and across the board mass consent and idiocy in the
U,S. today. The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control
every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events
across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. The struggle for
popular self-determination, democracy, justice, and equality lives on despite the influence of
corporate media.
"... Most important was " Brennan's ringleader role in the so-far unsuccessful attempts to derail Trump , both before and after the 2016 election. As far as we can tell it was Brennan who concocted and launched the conspiracy to insinuate that Trump is connected with alleged Russian influence. Brennan bet that Hillary Clinton would win the election. He lost his bet and is now out in the cold. He fears that his role, especially his conspiring with British security services and with the Steele dossier, will come to light. ..."
"... [R]unning against the deep state provides Trump a rhetorical crutch. It's a built-in excuse for failing to deliver on his 2016 campaign promises. Sitting presidents usually have to run as incumbents. Trump can try to run for re-election as an outsider. And is there a better poster boy for the alleged deep state than Brennan? ..."
"... The idiots who express solidarity with Brennan by offering up their security clearances confirm, simply by doing so, that there IS a deep state cabal that is opposed to Trump. Attacking Brennan and them will help Trump to get reelected. ..."
"... By colluding against me, the fake media proved once and for all, that they are in cahoots with the Democrats and have declared themselves to be my true political opposition ..."
"... Trump is excellent in playing his domestic opponents. Brennan made a huge mistake in publicly opposing him. He is now standing in the limelight and people will only dig further into his role in the "Russian collusion" campaign. Yesterday Brennan authored a New York Times ..."
"... Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn't he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times . ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will let go of the issue. Brennan is a too juicy target to stop shooting at it. Currently Brennan is still too valuable as an enemy for Trump to destroy him. But once that is over Brennan's day of judgment will come. Here are high hopes that Brennan will finally have to pay for at least one of his many crimes. ..."
"... If the Democrats jump to defend Brennan, they will have fallen into another Trump Trap. They are assuredly tone-deaf and stupid enough to take the bait. ..."
"... You are a Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. But this is nonsense ..."
"... Trump, whatever maybe said against him, is a legitimately, constitutionally elected president. The people like Brennan working against him were not elected. I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Jill Stein. But, if there is a civil war, I will have to fight for Trump's side. The oath that I swore as a naval officer was to the Constitution. ..."
"... he's a nasty neocon that is of course protected by liberal MSM ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no limit on the numbers of despicable, warmongering, money-grubbing, craven, destructive, maniacal creatures in government. Brennan is one such specimen. Brennan belongs in prison for subverting the Constitution. ..."
"... Look, Brennan has now had enough time, with his 'hit-team' to clear much of his record and trail of criminality, and he believes that he has enough backing to go after Trump. The key is obviously the Uranium1 scam, which Mueller and Sessions appear to be stalling on big-time. And then there's the Imran Awan / Debbie Washerwoman Shultz bonanza about to break big-time - and you're trying to tell me that Brennan being charged or sued would be 'quite extreme, and an evil precedent'? ..."
"... Just my 2 cents worth. Trump's a stooge, and nearly 100% of what he does is solely and only to bully someone whom Trump perceives has having stood up to him (Trump). It's not so much about Trump taking on BigSpy, Inc, in any meaningful or substantive way. It's about Trump being a big-assed bully and throwing his considerable weight around... without accomplishing much other than smacking down Brennan - deservedly but with no real ongoing lasting useful effect. ..."
"... Democrats are not collectively smart enough or politically astute enough to run away from Brennan. What fools they are! ..."
"... Why did Trump nominated Gina Haspel as CIA Director? Her nomination was supported by former CIA directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Michael Morell, former Director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA chief of station in London in 2016, when the plot against Trump was hatched. She must have known what Steele et al. were up to. ..."
"... Trumps connections with the Russian Mafia were certainly reason for concern. Too bad the DeepState Media downplayed this angle and some other angles , perhaps that would have prevented Trump from winning. ..."
"... Post Brennan the Trump administration is not only expanding the use of drones, it is also obscuring the facts about how many drones are being used, how many people are being killed by them, and where. His CIA Director Gina Haspel is certainly just as evil as Brennan and even better versed in water boarding. ..."
"... And we should not forget Brennan's role in the coup in Ukraine....does CIA still have an office on the 4th floor of SBU building in Kiev? ..."
"... If the intelligence agencies are so hostile to him, then why nominate Haspel? How does Haspel who, is connected to torture, help MAGA? How is Trump "draining the swamp" when he nominates a swamp creature (the 'choice' of the Deep State) for CIA Director? ..."
"... When "populist" Presidents (both Obama and Trump) serve the establishment instead of the people then we are, simply, being played. In fact, the American political system is organized to prevent a real popul ..."
U.S President Trump
revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.
Good. It is probably the best things Trump has ever done. Brennan is one of the most
despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell instead of making money off his
former status.
Besides that there is
no sound reason why anyone who does not work for the government, directly or indirectly,
should have a clearance and thereby access to state secrets. ACLU and others are
wrong in this. Revoking or keeping a security clearance has nothing to do with free speech
or first amendment rights.
Abu Jihad Brennan was the CIA's station chief in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were
bombed. Al-Qaeda did it , but
Brennan was helpful in blaming the attack on Hizbullah and Iran. He was deputy executive
director of the CIA on 9/11. That 9/11 happened was an intelligence failure or, as some have
it, an incident arranged by the deep state. Brennan was CIA chief of staff while the agency
concocted false stories about Iraqi WMD. He was within the command line that ran the CIA
torture program. It was Brennan who conspired with the Gulf dictators to hire Jihadis to
destroy Libya and to attempt the same in Syria. In short - the man was always ruthless,
incompetent and dishonest.
When Obama became president he wanted to make Brennan Director of the CIA. The Democrats in
Congress were opposed to that. Obama then made him his high priest of
targeted killings . After Obama's reelection, Brennan finally became director. He ordered
the CIA to spy on the Congress committee investigating CIA torture. He lied to Congress under
oath when he denied that it had happened. When it was proven that the CIA did what it did, he
had to apologize.
At that time a Washington Post editorial headlined
Obama should fire John Brennan . Today the Post
calls the revocation of a security clearance of a former official, who -it had opined-
should have long been fired, a "political vendetta against a career intelligence officer".
Hypocrites.
Most important was " Brennan's
ringleader role in the so-far unsuccessful attempts to derail Trump , both before and after
the 2016 election. As far as we can tell it was Brennan who concocted and launched the
conspiracy to insinuate that Trump is connected with alleged Russian influence. Brennan bet
that Hillary Clinton would win the election. He lost his bet and is now out in the cold. He
fears that his role, especially his conspiring with British security services and with the
Steele dossier, will come to light.
Since Trump became president Brennan publicly opposed him. That was a huge mistake. He is no
match for Trump. Be revoking Brennan's clearance Trump is now elevating him to 'hero' of the so
called 'resistance' against him which he connects to the deep state.
This is the Trump playbook :
[R]unning against the deep state provides Trump a rhetorical crutch. It's a built-in excuse
for failing to deliver on his 2016 campaign promises. Sitting presidents usually have to run
as incumbents. Trump can try to run for re-election as an outsider. And is there a better
poster boy for the alleged deep state than Brennan?
The idiots who express solidarity with Brennan by
offering up their security clearances confirm, simply by doing so, that there IS a deep
state cabal that is opposed to Trump. Attacking Brennan and them will help Trump to get
reelected.
Trump uses the same playbook when he attacks the "fake news media" for opposing him. He is
right in that nearly all U.S. and international editors favored Hillery Clinton over Trump.
This week 200 U.S. papers united to write editorials against Trump's attacks against the
"freedom of the press". They fell
for his trick :
Most journalists agree that there's a great need for Trump rebuttals. I've written my share.
But this [Boston] Globe -sponsored coordinated editorial response is sure to
backfire: It will provide Trump with circumstantial evidence of the existence of a national
press cabal that has been convened solely to oppose him. When the editorials roll off the
press on Thursday, all singing from the same script, Trump will reap enough fresh material to
whale on the media for at least a month. His forthcoming speeches almost write themselves:
By colluding against me, the fake media proved once and for all, that they are in cahoots
with the Democrats and have declared themselves to be my true political opposition ...
Trump is excellent in playing his domestic opponents. Brennan made a huge mistake in
publicly opposing him. He is now standing in the limelight and people will only dig further
into his role in the "Russian collusion" campaign. Yesterday Brennan authored a New York
Times Op Ed headlined
President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash. It does not provide any evidence for
the "hogwash" claim. Brennan can not show that there was a Trump campaign collusion with Russia
or anyone else.
Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, gave a somewhat salty and
fitting
response :
"Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign
colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement is based on intelligence he
received while still leading the CIA, why didn't he include it in the Intelligence Community
Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since
leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal
knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times .
"If, however, Director Brennan's statement is purely political and based on conjecture,
the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive
Branch."
In short: "Nut up or shut up."
It is doubtful that Trump will let go of the issue. Brennan is a too juicy target to stop
shooting at it. Currently Brennan is still too valuable as an enemy for Trump to destroy him.
But once that is over Brennan's day of judgment will come. Here are high hopes that Brennan
will finally have to pay for at least one of his many crimes.
If the Democrats jump to defend Brennan, they will have fallen into another Trump Trap. They
are assuredly tone-deaf and stupid enough to take the bait.
That said, there is no deep state, there is just the state. There are factions in the
ruling class, but arbitrarily deciding one is evil is just working for the other. You are a
Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state
for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. But this is
nonsense. The idea that people hate John Brennan so much they'll vote for Trumpery in the
midterm and 2020 because Trump is kicking the ass of their enemy...did you actually read what
you wrote here?
As far as the free speech rights of Brennan are concerned, the question is whether any
contacts with other security officials, and any other research for article, books and
speeches can be deemed as pursuing information he is not cleared for. That he could be
criminally charged or sued. This would be quite extreme, and an evil precedent when such
repressive tactics are used even within the upper ranks. What they do to each other, they'll
do to us, faster, harder and more often.
Good. It is one of the best things Trump has ever done. Brennan is one of the most
despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell.
but, but, Nancy Pelosi said in a twit:
Revoking the security clearance of an honorable patriot is a stunning abuse of power &
a pathetic attempt to silence critics.
Whom am I to believe? (um, trick question) Thank you for the brief summary of this horrible person's career lowlites. Now I can just
point people to this piece when they ask me how can I speak against such an 'honorable
patriot'. Jeesh, these times we live.
Trump, whatever maybe said against him, is a legitimately, constitutionally elected
president. The people like Brennan working against him were not elected.
I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Jill Stein. But, if there is a civil war, I will have
to fight for Trump's side. The oath that I swore as a naval officer was to the
Constitution.
"Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive.
He should rot in hell." Neither of those are reasons to remove someone's security clearance. The reasons are
documented. Try to stay on topic.
I think this is the right move and it may indeed turn out to be a political win. But before
giving Trump all the credit, it should be noted that Senator Rand Paul, a man who has
consistently been critical of US foreign policy, publicly proposed the idea of canceling
Brennan's security clearance last month.
Unfortunately, there is no limit on the numbers of despicable, warmongering, money-grubbing,
craven, destructive, maniacal creatures in government. Brennan is one such specimen. Brennan belongs in prison for subverting the Constitution.
"That said, there is no deep state, there is just the state. There are factions in the
ruling class, but arbitrarily deciding one is evil is just working for the other. You are a
Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state
for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. "
What a strange opening gambit? There obviously is a deep state - who do you think Trump
has been battling with if it is not 'hangers on' to political power and influence, the MIC,
the Corporations, Wall St, the Fed and the Bankers (spelt with a 'W')?
Look, Brennan has now had enough time, with his 'hit-team' to clear much of his record and
trail of criminality, and he believes that he has enough backing to go after Trump. The key
is obviously the Uranium1 scam, which Mueller and Sessions appear to be stalling on big-time.
And then there's the Imran Awan / Debbie Washerwoman Shultz bonanza about to break big-time -
and you're trying to tell me that Brennan being charged or sued would be 'quite extreme, and
an evil precedent'?
Jeez, what are they feeding the trolls with these days...
Brennan is disgusting scum. May he rot.
I would prefer for all who are Ex-BigSpy,Inc to have their security clearances revoked as
soon as they become "ex." Sadly, that's apparently not how it's done. I fully disagree with a
policy of letting these "ex" types keep their security clearance as "a matter of courtesy."
Perhaps this whole kerfuffle will lead to a review of this practice and a change but not
holding my breath.
Although I kinda personally "like" it that Trump revoked Brennan's clearance, I am also
troubled by it. I don't think Trump followed proper channels, and the way it was done -- and
for the reasons stated -- are questionable. IMO, it has at least a bit of a stink of
Dictatorship about it.
Ergo, I'm not all "down" with what Trump did. Yeah, yeah, he fired a shot across the bow
of BigSpy, Inc. In some ways, that's a good thing. But as usual, Trump does this in such a
stupidly dumb and ham-handed way that it pretty much negates the potential "good" this might
do.
Just my 2 cents worth. Trump's a stooge, and nearly 100% of what he does is solely and
only to bully someone whom Trump perceives has having stood up to him (Trump). It's not so
much about Trump taking on BigSpy, Inc, in any meaningful or substantive way. It's about
Trump being a big-assed bully and throwing his considerable weight around... without
accomplishing much other than smacking down Brennan - deservedly but with no real ongoing
lasting useful effect.
Democrats are not collectively smart enough or politically astute enough to run away from
Brennan. What fools they are!
They abandoned their "working persons" base a long time ago. That, and Obama embraced
(rescued) the Republican Party after it was nearly torn asunder by Dubya Bush. Recall that
Republican affiliation was at an historic low. They needed a boot on their throats and
instead they got a hand up. A seat at the table, and often, the head of the table.
Completely revived, they (the R Party) now have carte blanche to destroy public
institutions at will.
Why did Trump nominated Gina Haspel as CIA Director? Her nomination was supported by former CIA directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and
Michael Morell, former Director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden, and former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper. Draining the swamp? If Trump had taken on Brennan sooner, Haspel's nomination and confirmation might've been
moot.
Trumps connections with the Russian Mafia were certainly reason for concern. Too bad the
DeepState Media downplayed this angle and some other angles , perhaps that would have
prevented Trump from winning.
Post Brennan the Trump administration is not only expanding the use of drones, it is also
obscuring the facts about how many drones are being used, how many people are being killed by
them, and where. His CIA Director Gina Haspel is certainly just as evil as Brennan and even
better versed in water boarding.
Anyways, big whoop that Brennan lost his security clearance . I doubt he needs Food Stamps
now.
Personally I hope this gets right out of control. Drone strikes and cruse missile style !
Freandly rebels, white helmets the whole deal. bring it on and pass the popcorn !!! Dirty
scum.
lysias @27: Trump was meant to win? Obviously not by the intelligence agencies...
If the intelligence agencies are so hostile to him, then why nominate Haspel? How does Haspel who, is connected to torture, help MAGA? How is Trump "draining the swamp"
when he nominates a swamp creature (the 'choice' of the Deep State) for CIA Director?
When "populist" Presidents (both Obama and Trump) serve the establishment instead of the
people then we are, simply, being played. In fact, the American political system is organized
to prevent a real popul
As far as I am concerned, every CIA director, living or dead, is/was guilty of heinous crimes
and deserves to rot in hell. Yet it is just plain nonsense to believe that Donald Trump can
outsmart them...
"a deep state asset." How do you know that? It could be just as well that Trump is
fighting this group by outsmarting them with the long game, a la Putin. (i.e. mixed signals
and not acting too brashly in undoing the cabal)
"a faux populist." Even if he was a faux populist, which he might exhibit shades
of, how does this make him a bad president at this current juncture in US history? Would you
accept that a good president could not be a populist? IMO, he appears to be scrambling the
cohesive unity and appearance of America's FP and putting the pressure on the seams of NATO
and the UN so that they may eventually tear. Whatever your opinion of the UN, one can not
argue against its ineffectual weight in ongoing atrocity (Syria, Yemen), but one COULD argue
that it has been an agent of or has at least been coopted by the NWO.
I believe you are proceeding from these two points in your thinking that need to be
reevaluated.
In your prior post @13, you equate selecting Gina Haspel as director of the CIA as further
proof of Trump's assured malfeasance. Have you considered that:
1) she may be ineffectual and so on Trump's leash at the CIA
2) in her prior years under the shadow of Brennan, her promotions might have been
politically-motivated and so it is understandable that a globalist like Brennan would vote in
lockstep their approval of Haspel because "GIRL POWER!" .
3) it might not be as simple as that to say that just because one is brought up in Brennan's
CIA and then ascends to its heights that she will do globalist/Brennan bidding as a
sleeper-agent in her position.
I agree with everything expressed here about Brennan but while Trump is getting rid of one
war criminal, he's bedding another; oligarch friend Erik Prince aka Blackwater ceo, aka exCIA
operative who he wants to put in charge in Afghanistan. Trump could care less of your noble
reasons for hating Brennan. Trump is no genius who gives a damn about human rights
violations. Trump only cares about number one; HIMSELF.
So what's the difference between Brennan and Prince? Only the size of their bank account.
When Trump does something right as in Brennan's case you can always thank his big fat ego;
self-promotion or self-preservation; SELF being the operative word. To compensate for that
accidental right move he'll make a collosal dumb move as in North Korea vs Iran as in Brennan
vs Erik Prince. I rest my case.
The enemy of my enemy is also an enemy in this case. It pains me to agree with Trump on any
issue. Brennan is a thug. His physiognomy gives him away at a glance. To say he is no match
for Trump is not correct. He is no match for the power of the presidency. Trump can't handle
this power, either, which is why he is going down for laundering money for Russians and for
colluding with them to win the election, which is not to say the Russians rigged the
election. Nor is not to say the Russians are enemies, as Obama and the CIA have struggled to
establish. This is to say that Trump is impulsive, ignorant, solipsistic, and corrupt to the
bone.
I have heard rumour that while he was CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in the late 1990s,
John Brennan converted to Wahhabi Islam. Is anyone able to say if this is true?
The only sources of information on this rumour are a former FBI counter-terrorism agent
John Guandolo and a retired CIA senior official Brad Johnson (who has admitted that he has
never heard Brennan say the shahada - the profession of faith, that the only God is Allah and
Muhammad is his prophet - but knows people in the CIA who apparently have heard Brennan say
the shahada in front of Saudi and US government officials).
Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive.
Indeed. It's possible that the misdeeds listed in the article have not begun to measure
the man's wickedness.
I think it's a good time to mention The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the
Global Drug Trade by Alfred McCoy. (I am not posting a link as the URL is too long.) As
the title says, the book is about how deeply the CIA is involved in the global drug
trade.
What are the chances that former CIA Director Brennan is/was one of the gangsters causing
the current opioid and heroin epidemic in the U.S.?
Why would he have a security clearance if he was no longer a member of the government?
None of them should
I cannot understand the logic of it all,
Hillary Clinton for example - she has one I believe.
Rather bizarre isn't it?
Just asking.
"... Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination - MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won). ..."
"... Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary". ..."
There were only two populists in the race: Trump and Sanders. One on Hillary's left (sheep-dogging voters to Hillary)
and one on Hillary's right (Trump).
Why did any of the other 18 republicans turn populist? Why didn't they wait so long to complain about the coverage being
provided to Trump?
Why were Republicans so adamantly against Trump after he won the nomination? Many said that they prefered Hillary - whom they
had claimed to hate so much only months before? Answer: Trump had to be an outsider. That's what makes the populist so compelling.
He has to be seen as taking on the establishment.
After such a contentious race, why did Trump quickly say that there would be no prosecution of Hillary? He has proven to be
petty and vain yet he was so quick to forgive the Clintons?
Why did Trump wait so long to fire Comey? It's almost like it was timed for Comey to hand the baton to a special prosecutor.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Here's a few more questions (of many many other questions)
Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination -
MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won).
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of the well-documented time that Hillary changed her vote for a big donor? Hillary loudly
proclaimed that she NEVER changed her vote for money before and DURING the crucial New York debate.
Why didn't Sanders release his 2014 tax returns? He called his tax returns "boring" yet, despite Hillary having released
10 years of tax returns, Sanders only released his 2015 returns. When his 2015 returns were delayed, reporters
asked for the 2014 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was
an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary".
Good questions. Asking them sequentially leads even a dumbass like me to conclude Sanders is a fraud.
Unfortunately, most Sanders supporters probably don't remember the issues long enough to reevaluate them collectively. Each
issue appears to them during "the news cycle" as some one-off foible -- considered as misdemeanors and then forgotten before
the next one occurs and thus never assembled mentally as evidence for a larger felony case.
"... The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by protest movements. ..."
"... Newscasters who want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients. Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away ..."
"... In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information on current events. ..."
"... U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they hate us? What have we done?" ..."
"... If transmitting Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters. ..."
"... The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings. Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector, which is loaded with political and ideological content ..."
"... Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark, power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7] – into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense. ..."
"... To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it, the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such. It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state" – the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority. ..."
"... The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. ..."
"... There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and "independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and imperial elite ..."
"... A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. ..."
"... A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a "free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous "competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media firms. ..."
"... In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative, high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. ..."
"... The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S. policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class citizens. ..."
"... The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional certification. ..."
"... To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts and minds of the U.S. populace. ..."
"... The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C ..."
Consistent with its possession as a leading and money-making asset of the nation's wealthy
elite, the United States corporate and commercial mass media is a bastion of power-serving
propaganda and deadening twaddle designed to keep the U.S. citizenry subordinated to capital
and the imperial U.S. state. It regularly portrays the United States as a great model of
democracy and equality. It sells a false image of the U.S. as a society where the rich enjoy
opulence because of hard and honest work and where the poor are poor because of their laziness
and irresponsibility. The nightly television news broadcasts and television police and law and
order dramas are obsessed with violent crime in the nation's Black ghettoes and Latino barrios,
but they never talk about the extreme poverty, the absence of opportunity imposed on those
neighborhoods by the interrelated forces of institutional racism, capital flight, mass
structural unemployment, under-funded schools, and mass incarceration. The nightly television
weather reports tells U.S. citizens of ever new record high temperatures and related forms of
extreme weather but never relate these remarkable meteorological developments to anthropogenic
climate change.
The dominant corporate U.S. media routinely exaggerates the degree of difference and choice
between the candidates run by the nation's two corporate-dominated political organizations, the
Democrats and the Republicans. It never notes that the two reigning parties agree about far
more than they differ on, particularly when it comes to fundamental and related matters of
business class power and American Empire. It shows U.S. protestors engaged in angry
confrontations with police and highlights isolated examples of protestor violence but it
downplays peaceful protest and never pays serious attention to the important societal and
policy issues that have sparked protest or to the demands and recommendations advanced by
protest movements.
As the prolific U.S. Marxist commentator Michael Parenti once remarked, US "Newscasters who
want to keep their careers afloat learn the fine art of evasion with great skill they skirt
around the most important parts of a story. With much finesse, they say a lot about very
little, serving up heaps of junk news filled with so many empty calories and so few nutrients.
Thus do they avoid offending those who wield politico-economic power while giving every
appearance of judicious moderation and balance. It is enough to take your breath away." [1]
Selling Empire
U.S. newscasters and their print media counterparts routinely parrot and disseminate the
false foreign policy claims of the nation's imperial elite. Earlier this year, U.S. news
broadcasters dutiful relayed to U.S. citizens the Obama administration's preposterous assertion
that social-democratic Venezuela is a repressive, corrupt, and authoritarian danger to its own
people and the U.S. No leading national U.S. news outlet dared to note the special absurdity of
this charge in the wake of Obama and other top U.S. officials' visit to Riyadh to guarantee
U.S. support for the new king of Saudi Arabia, the absolute ruler of a leading U.S. client
state that happens to be the most brutally oppressive and reactionary government on Earth.
In U.S. "mainstream" media, Washington's aims are always benevolent and democratic. Its
clients and allies are progressive, its enemies are nefarious, and its victims are invisible
and incidental. The U.S. can occasionally make "mistakes" and "strategic blunders" on the
global stage, but its foreign policies are never immoral, criminal, or imperialist in nature as
far as that media is concerned. This is consistent with the doctrine of "American
Exceptionalism," according to which the U.S., alone among great powers in history, seeks no
selfish or imperial gain abroad. It is consistent also with "mainstream" U.S. media's heavy
reliance on "official government sources" (the White House, the Defense Department, and the
State Department) and leading business public relations and press offices for basic information
on current events.
As the leading Left U.S. intellectuals Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman showed in their
classic text Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Orwellian
double standards are rife in the dominant U.S. media's coverage and interpretation of global
affairs. Elections won in other countries by politicians that Washington approves because those
politicians can be counted on to serve the interests of U.S. corporations and the military are
portrayed in U.S. media as good and clean contests. But when elections put in power people who
can't be counted on to serve "U.S. interests," (Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro for example),
then U.S. corporate media portrays the contests as "rigged" and "corrupt." When Americans or
people allied with Washington are killed or injured abroad, they are "worthy victims" and
receive great attention and sympathy in that media. People killed, maimed, displaced and
otherwise harmed by the U.S. and U.S. clients and allies are anonymous and "unworthy victims"
whose experience elicits little mention or concern.[2]
U.S. citizens regularly see images of people who are angry at the U.S. around the world. The
dominant mass media never gives them any serious discussion of the US policies and actions that
create that anger. Millions of Americans are left to ask in childlike ignorance "Why do they
hate us? What have we done?"
In February of 2015, an extraordinary event occurred in U.S. news media – the firing
of a leading national news broadcaster, Brian Williams of NBC News. Williams lost his position
because of some lies he told in connection with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A naïve
outsider might think that Williams was fired because he repeated the George W. Bush
administration's transparent fabrications about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction
and Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11. Sadly but predictably enough, that wasn't his
problem. Williams lost his job because he falsely boasted that he had ridden on a helicopter
that was forced down by grenade fire during the initial U.S. invasion. If transmitting
Washington's lies about Iraq were something to be fired about, then U.S. corporate media
authorities would have to get rid of pretty much of all their top broadcasters.
More than Entertainment
The U.S. corporate media's propagandistic service to the nation's reigning and interrelated
structures of Empire and inequality is hardly limited to its news and public affairs wings.
Equally if not more significant in that regard is that media's vast "entertainment" sector,
which is loaded with political and ideological content but was completely ignored in Herman and
Chomsky's groundbreaking Manufacturing Consent. [3] One example is the Hollywood movie "Zero
Dark Thirty," a 2012 "action thriller" that dramatized the United States' search for Osama
bin-Laden after the September 11, 2001 jetliner attacks. The film received critical acclaim and
was a box office-smash. It was also a masterpiece of pro-military, pro-CIA propaganda,
skillfully portraying U.S. torture practices "as a dirty, ugly business that is necessary to
protect America" (Glenn Greenwald[4]) and deleting the moral debate that erupted over the CIA's
"enhanced interrogation techniques." Under the guise of a neutral, documentary-like
façade, Zero Dark Thirty normalized and endorsed torture in ways that were all the more
effective because of its understated, detached, and "objective" veneer. The film also marked a
distressing new frontier in U.S. military-"embedded" filmmaking whereby the movie-makers
receive technical and logistical support from the Pentagon in return for producing elaborate
public relations on the military's behalf.
The 2014-15 Hollywood blockbuster American Sniper is another example. The film's audiences
is supposed to marvel at the supposedly noble feats, sacrifice, and heroism of Chris Kyle, a
rugged, militantly patriotic, and Christian-fundamentalist Navy SEALS sniper who participated
in the U.S. invasion of Iraq to fight "evil" and to avenge the al Qaeda jetliner attacks of
September 11, 2001. Kyle killed 160 Iraqis over four tours of "duty" in "Operational Iraqi
Freedom." Viewers are never told that the Iraqi government had nothing to do with the 9/11
attacks or al Qaeda or that the U.S. invasion was one of the most egregiously criminal and
brazenly imperial and mass-murderous acts in the history of international violence. Like Zero
Dark Thirty's apologists, American Sniper's defenders claim that the film takes a neutral
perspective of "pure storytelling," with no ideological bias. In reality, the movie is filled
with racist and imperial distortions, functioning as flat-out war propaganda.[5]
These are just two among many examples that could be cited of U.S. "entertainment" media's
regular service to the American Empire. Hollywood and other parts of the nation's vast
corporate entertainment complex plays the same power-serving role in relation to domestic
("homeland") American inequality and oppression structures of class and race. [6]
Manufacturing Idiocy
Seen broadly in its many-sided and multiply delivered reality, U.S. corporate media's dark,
power-serving mission actually goes further than the manufacture of consent. A deeper goal is
the manufacture of mass idiocy, with "idiocy" understood in the original Greek and Athenian
sense not of stupidity but of childish selfishness and willful indifference to public affairs
and concerns. (An "idiot" in Athenian democracy was characterized by self-centeredness and
concerned almost exclusively with private instead of public affairs.). As the U.S. Latin
Americanist Cathy Schneider noted, the U.S.-backed military coup and dictatorship headed by
Augusto Pinochet "transformed Chile, both culturally and politically, from a country of active
participatory grassroots communities, to a land of disconnected, apolitical individuals"[7]
– into a nation of "idiots" understood in this classic Athenian sense.
In the U.S., where violence is not as readily available to elites as in 1970s Latin America,
corporate America seeks the same terrible outcome through its ideological institutions,
including above all its mass media. In U.S. movies, television sit-coms, television dramas,
television reality-shows, commercials, state Lottery advertisements, and video games, the
ideal-type U.S. citizen is an idiot in this classic sense: a person who cares about little more
than his or her own well-being, consumption, and status. This noble American idiot is
blissfully indifferent to the terrible prices paid by others for the maintenance of reigning
and interrelated oppressions structures at home and abroad.
A pervasive theme in this media culture is the notion that people at the bottom of the
nation's steep and interrelated socioeconomic and racial pyramids are the "personally
irresponsible" and culturally flawed makers of their own fate. The mass U.S. media's version of
Athenian idiocy "can imagine," in the words of the prolific Left U.S. cultural theorist Henry
Giroux "public issues only as private concerns." It works to "erase the social from the
language of public life so as to reduce" questions of racial and socioeconomic disparity to
"private issues of individual character and cultural depravity. Consistent with "the central
neoliberal tenet that all problems are private rather than social in nature," it portrays the
only barriers to equality and meaningful democratic participation as "a lack of principled
self-help and moral responsibility" and bad personal choices by the oppressed. Government
efforts to meaningfully address and ameliorate (not to mention abolish) societal disparities of
race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality and the like are portrayed as futile,
counterproductive, naïve, and dangerous.[8]
To be sure, a narrow and reactionary sort of public concern and engagement does appear and
take on a favorable light in this corporate media culture. It takes the form of a cruel, often
even sadistically violent response to unworthy and Evil Others who are perceived as failing to
obey prevalent national and neoliberal cultural codes. Like the U.S. ruling class that owns it,
the purportedly anti-government corporate media isn't really opposed to government as such.
It's opposed to what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the left hand of the state"
– the parts of the public sector that serve the social and democratic needs of the
non-affluent majority. It celebrates and otherwise advances the "right hand of the state"[9]:
the portions of government that serve the opulent minority, dole out punishment for the poor,
and attacks those perceived as nefariously resisting the corporate and imperial order at home
and abroad. Police officers, prosecutors, military personnel, and other government authorities
who represent the "right hand of the state" are heroes and role models in this media. Public
defenders, other defense attorneys, civil libertarians, racial justice activists, union
leaders, antiwar protesters and the like are presented at best as naïve and irritating
"do-gooders" and at worst as coddlers and even agents of evil.
The generation of mass idiocy in the more commonly understood sense of sheer stupidity is
also a central part of U.S. "mainstream" media's mission. Nowhere is this more clearly evident
than in the constant barrage of rapid-fire advertisements that floods U.S. corporate media. As
the American cultural critic Neil Postman noted thirty years ago, the modern U.S. television
commercial is the antithesis of the rational economic consideration that early Western
champions of the profits system claimed to be the enlightened essence of capitalism. "Its
principal theorists, even its most prominent practitioners," Postman noted, "believed
capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature,
well-informed, and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest." Commercials
make "hash" out of this idea. They are dedicated to persuading consumers with wholly irrational
claims. They rely not on the reasoned presentation of evidence and logical argument but on
suggestive emotionalism, infantilizing manipulation, and evocative, rapid-fire imagery.[10]
The same techniques poison U.S. electoral politics. Investment in deceptive and manipulative
campaign commercials commonly determines success or failure in mass-marketed election contests
between business-beholden candidates that are sold to the audience/electorate like brands of
toothpaste and deodorant. Fittingly enough, the stupendous cost of these political
advertisements is a major factor driving U.S. campaign expenses so high (the 2016 U.S.
presidential election will cost at least $5 billion) as to make candidates ever more dependent
on big money corporate and Wall Street donors.
Along the way, mass cognitive competence is assaulted by the numbing, high-speed ubiquity of
U.S. television and radio advertisements. These commercials assault citizens' capacity for
sustained mental focus and rational deliberation nearly sixteen minutes of every hour on cable
television, with 44 percent of the individual ads now running for just 15 seconds. This is a
factor in the United States' long-bemoaned epidemic of "Attention Deficit Disorder."
Seventy years ago, the brilliant Dutch left Marxist Anton Pannekoek offered some chilling
reflections on the corporate print and broadcast media's destructive impact on mass cognitive
and related social resistance capacities in the United States after World War II:
"The press is of course entirely in hands of big capital [and it] dominates the spiritual
life of the American people. The most important thing is not even the hiding of all truth about
the reign of big finance. Its aim still more is the education to thoughtlessness. All attention
is directed to coarse sensations, everything is avoided that could arouse thinking. Papers are
not meant to be read – the small print is already a hindrance – but in a rapid
survey of the fat headlines to inform the public on unimportant news items, on family triflings
of the rich, on sexual scandals, on crimes of the underworld, on boxing matches. The aim of the
capitalist press all over the world, the diverting of the attention of the masses from the
reality of social development, nowhere succeed with such thoroughness as in America."
"Still more than by the papers the masses are influenced by broadcasting and film. These
products of most perfect science, destined at one time to the finest educational instruments of
mankind, now in the hands of capitalism have been turned into the strongest means to uphold its
rule by stupefying the mind. Because after nerve-straining fatigue the movie offers relaxation
and distraction by means of simple visual impressions that make no demand on the intellect, the
masses get used to accepting thoughtlessly all its cunning and shrewd propaganda. It reflects
the ugliest sides of middle-class society. It turns all attention either to sexual life, in
this society – by the absence of community feelings and fight for freedom – the
only source of strong passions, or to brute violence; masses educated to rough violence instead
of to social knowledge are not dangerous to capitalism "[11]
Pannekoek clearly saw an ideological dimension (beyond just diversion and stupefaction) in
U.S. mass media's "education to thoughtlessness" through movies as well as print
sensationalism. He would certainly be impressed and perhaps depressed by the remarkably
numerous, potent, and many-sided means of mass distraction and indoctrination that are
available to the U.S. and global capitalist media in the present digital and Internet era.
The "entertainment" wing of its vast corporate media complex is critical to the considerable
"soft" ideological "power" the U.S. exercises around the world even as its economic hegemony
wanes in an ever more multipolar global system (and as its "hard" military reveals significant
limits within and beyond the Middle East). Relatively few people beneath the global capitalist
elite consume U.S. news and public affairs media beyond the U.S., but "American" (U.S.) movies,
television shows, video games, communication devices, and advertising culture are ubiquitous
across the planet.
Explaining "Mainstream" Media Corporate Ownership
There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States' supposedly "free" and
"independent" media functions as a means of mass indoctrination for the nation's economic and
imperial elite. The first and most important explanation for this harsh reality is concentrated
private ownership – the fundamental fact that that media is owned primarily by giant
corporations representing wealthy interests who are deeply invested in U.S. capitalism and
Empire. Visitors to the U.S. should not be fooled by the large number and types of channels and
stations on a typical U.S. car radio or television set or by the large number and types of
magazines and books on display at a typical Barnes & Noble bookstore. Currently in the
U.S., just six massive and global corporations – Comcast, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, The
News Corporation and Disney – together control more than 90 percent of the nation's print
and electronic media, including cable television, airwaves television, radio, newspapers,
movies, video games, book publishing, comic books, and more. Three decades ago, 50 corporations
controlled the same amount of U.S. media.
Each of the reigning six companies is a giant and diversified multi-media conglomerate with
investments beyond media, including "defense" (the military). Asking reporters and commentators
at one of those giant corporations to tell the unvarnished truth about what's happening in the
U.S. and the world is like asking the company magazine published by the United Fruit Company to
the tell the truth about working conditions in its Caribbean and Central American plantations
in the 1950s. It's like asking the General Motors company newspaper to tell the truth about
wages and working conditions in GM's auto assembly plants around the world.
As the nation's media becomes concentrated into fewer corporate hands, media personnel
become ever more insecure in their jobs because they have fewer firms to whom to sell their
skills. That makes them even less willing than they might have been before to go outside
official sources, to question the official line, and to tell the truth about current events and
the context in which they occur.
Advertisers
A second explanation is the power of advertisers. U.S. media managers are naturally
reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the large corporations that pay
for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Chomsky has noted in a recent interview,
large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass and commercial
media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's
supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."[12]
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate the affluent people who
count for an ever rising share of consumer purchases in the U.S. It is naturally those with the
most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Government Policy
A third great factor is U.S. government media policy and regulation on behalf of
oligopolistic hyper-concentration. The U.S. corporate media is hardly a "natural" outcome of a
"free market." It's the result of government protections and subsidies that grant enormous
"competitive" advantages to the biggest and most politically/plutocratically influential media
firms. Under the terms of the 1934 Communications Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act,
commercial, for-profit broadcasters have almost completely free rein over the nation's airwaves
and cable lines. There is no substantive segment of the broadcast spectrum set aside for truly
public interest and genuinely democratic, popular not-for profit media and the official
"public" broadcasting networks are thoroughly captive to corporate interests and to right-wing
politicians who take giant campaign contributions from corporate interests. Much of the 1996
bill was written by lobbyists working for the nations' leading media firms. [13]
A different form of state policy deserves mention. Under the Obama administration, we have
seen the most aggressive pursuit and prosecution in recent memory of U.S. journalists who step
outside the narrow parameters of pro-U.S. coverage and commentary – and of the
whistleblowers who provide them with leaked information. That is why Edward Snowden lives in
Russia, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, Chelsea Manning is serving life in a U.S. military
prison, and Julian Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. A leading New York
Times reporter and author, James Risen, has been threatened with imprisonment by the White
House for years because of his refusal to divulge sources.
Treetops v. Grassroots Audiences
In this writer's experience, the critical Left analysis of the U.S. "mainstream" media as a
tool for "manufacturing consent" and idiocy developed above meets four objections from
defenders of the U.S. media system, A first objection notes that the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Financial Times (FT), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
and other major U.S. corporate media outlets produce a significant amount of, informative,
high-quality and often candid reporting and commentary that Left thinkers and activists
commonly cite to support their cases for radical and democratic change. Left U.S. media critics
like Chomsky and Herman are said to be hypocrites because they obviously find much that is of
use as Left thinkers in the very media that they criticize for distorting reality in accord
with capitalist and imperial dictates.
The observation that Leftists commonly use and cite information from the corporate media
they harshly criticize is correct but it is easy to account for the apparent anomaly within the
critical Left framework by noting that that media crafts two very different versions of U.S.
policy, politics, society, "life," and current events for two different audiences. Following
the work of the brilliant Australian propaganda critic Alex Carey, we can call the first
audience the "grassroots."[14] It comprises the general mass of working and lower-class
citizens. As far as the business elites who own and manage the U.S. mass media and the
corporations that pay for that media with advertising purchases are concerned, this "rabble"
cannot be trusted with serious, candid, and forthright information. Its essential role in
society is to keep quiet, work hard, be entertained (in richly propagandistic and ideological
ways, we should remember), buy things, and generally do what they're told. They are to leave
key societal decisions to those that the leading 20th century U.S. public intellectual and
media-as-propaganda enthusiast Walter Lippman called "the responsible men." That "intelligent,"
benevolent, "expert," and "responsible" elite (responsible, indeed, for such glorious
accomplishments as the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the Great
Recession, global warming, and the rise of the Islamic State) needed, in Lippman's view, to be
protected from what he called "the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd."[15] The deluded
mob, the sub-citizenry, the dangerous working class majority is not the audience for elite
organs like the Times, the Post, and the Journal.
The second target group comprises the relevant political class of U.S. citizens from at most
the upper fifth of society. This is who reads the Times, the Post, WSJ, and FT, for the most
part. Call this audience (again following Carey) the "treetops": the "people who matter" and
who deserve and can be trusted with something more closely approximating the real story because
their minds have been properly disciplined and flattered by superior salaries, significant
on-the-job labor autonomy, and "advanced" and specialized educational and professional
certification. This elite includes such heavily indoctrinated persons as corporate managers,
lawyers, public administrators, and (most) tenured university professors. Since these elites
carry out key top-down societal tasks of supervision, discipline, training, demoralization,
co-optation, and indoctrination – all essential to the rule of the real economic elite
and the imperial system – they cannot be too thoroughly misled about current events and
policy without deleterious consequences for the smooth functioning of the dominant social and
political order. They require adequate information and must not be overly influenced by the
brutal and foolish propaganda generated for the "bewildered herd." At the same time,
information and commentary for the relevant and respectable business and political classes and
their "coordinator class" servants and allies often contains a measure of reasoned and sincere
intra-elite political and policy debate – debate that is always careful not to stray
beyond narrow U.S. ideological parameters. That is why a radical Left U.S. thinker and activist
can find much that is of use in U.S. "treetops" media. Such a thinker or activist would,
indeed, be foolish not to consult these sources.
"P"BS and N"P"R
A second objection to the Left critique of U.S. "mainstream" media claims that the U.S.
public enjoys a meaningful alternative to the corporate media in the form of the nation's
Public Broadcasting Service (television) and National Public Radio (NPR). This claim should not
be taken seriously. Thanks to U.S. "public" media's pathetically weak governmental funding, its
heavy reliance on corporate sponsors, and its constant harassment by right wing critics inside
and beyond the U.S. Congress, N"P"R and "P"BS are extremely reluctant to question dominant U.S.
ideologies and power structures.
The tepid, power-serving conservatism of U.S. "public" broadcasting is by longstanding
political and policy design. The federal government allowed the formation of the "public"
networks only on the condition that they pose no competitive market or ideological challenge to
private commercial media, the profits system, and U.S. global foreign policy. "P"BS and N"P"R
are "public" in a very limited sense. They not function for the public over and against
corporate, financial, and imperial power to any significant degree.
"The Internet Will Save Us"
A third objection claims that the rise of the Internet creates a "Wild West" environment in
which the power of corporate media is eviscerated and citizens can find and even produce all
the "alternative media" they require. This claim is misleading but it should not be reflexively
or completely dismissed. In the U.S. as elsewhere, those with access to the Internet and the
time and energy to use it meaningfully can find a remarkable breadth and depth of information
and trenchant Left analysis at various online sites. The Internet also broadens U.S. citizens
and activists' access to media networks beyond the U.S. – to elite sources that are much
less beholden of course to U.S. propaganda and ideology. At the same time, the Internet and
digital telephony networks have at times shown themselves to be effective grassroots organizing
tools for progressive U.S. activists.
Still, the democratic and progressive impact of the Internet in the U.S. is easily
exaggerated. Left and other progressive online outlets lack anything close to the financial,
technical, and organizational and human resources of the corporate news media, which has its
own sophisticated Internet. There is nothing in Left other citizen online outlets that can
begin to remotely challenge the "soft" ideological and propagandistic power of corporate
"entertainment" media. The Internet's technical infrastructure is increasingly dominated by an
"ISP cartel" led by a small number of giant corporations. As the leading left U.S. media
analyst Robert McChesney notes:
"By 2014, there are only a half-dozen or so major players that dominate provision of
broadband Internet access and wireless Internet access. Three of them – Verizon,
AT&T, and Comcast – dominate the field of telephony and Internet access, and have
set up what is in effect a cartel. They no longer compete with each other in any meaningful
sense. As a result, Americans pay far more for cellphone and broadband Internet access than
most other advanced nations and get much lousier service These are not 'free market'
companies in any sense of the term. Their business model, going back to pre-Internet days,
has always been capturing government monopoly licenses for telephone and cable TV services.
Their 'comparative advantage' has never been customer service; it has been world-class
lobbying.' [16]
Along the way, the notion of a great "democratizing," Wild West" and "free market" Internet
has proved politically useful for the corporate media giants. The regularly trumpet the great
Internet myth to claim that the U.S. public and regulators don't need to worry about corporate
media power and to justify their demands for more government subsidy and protection. At the
same time, finally, we know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and others
that the nation's leading digital and Internet-based e-mail (Google and Yahoo), telephony (e.g.
Verizon), and "social network" (Facebook above all) corporations have collaborated with the
National Security Agency and with the nation's local, state, and federal police in the
surveillance of U.S. citizens' and activists' private communications.[17]
Solutions
The fourth objection accuses Left media critics of being overly negative, "carping" critics
who offer no serious alternatives to the nation's current corporate-owned corporate-managed
commercial and for-profit media system. This is a transparently false and mean-spirited charge.
Left U.S. media criticism is strongly linked to a smart and impressive U.S. media reform
movement that advances numerous and interrelated proposals for the creation of a genuinely
public and democratically run non-commercial and nonprofit U.S. media system. Some of the
demand and proposals of this movement include public ownership and operation of the Internet as
a public utility; the break-up of the leading media oligopolies; full public funding of public
broadcasting; limits on advertising in commercial media; the abolition of political
advertisements; the expansion of airwave and broadband access for alternative media outlets;
publicly-funded nonprofit and non-commercial print journalism; the abolition of government and
corporate surveillance, monitoring, and commercial data-mining of private communication and
"social networks."[18] With regard to the media as with numerous other areas, we should recall
Chomsky's sardonic response to the standard conservative claim that the Left offers criticisms
but no solutions: "There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'they present solutions
and I don't like them.'"[19]
A False Paradox
The propagandistic and power-serving mission and nature of dominant U.S, corporate mass
media might seem ironic and even paradoxical in light of the United States' strong free speech
and democratic traditions. In fact, as Carey and Chomsky have noted, the former makes perfect
sense in light of the latter. In nations where popular expression and dissent is routinely
crushed with violent repression, elites have little incentive to shape popular perceptions in
accord with elite interests. The population is controlled primarily through physical coercion.
In societies where it is not generally considered legitimate to put down popular expression
with the iron heel of armed force and where dissenting opinion is granted a significant measure
of freedom of expression, elites are heavily and dangerously incentivized to seek to
manufacture mass popular consent and idiocy. The danger is deepened by the United States'
status as the pioneer in the development of mass consumer capitalism, advertising, film, and
television. Thanks to that history, corporate America has long stood in the global vanguard
when it comes to developing the technologies, methods, art, and science of mass persuasion and
thought control.[20]
It is appropriate to place quotation marks around the phrase "mainstream media" when writing
about dominant U.S. corporate media. During the Cold War era, U.S. officials and media never
referred to the Soviet Union's state television and radio or its main state newspapers as
"mainstream Russian media." American authorities referred to these Russian media outlets as
"Soviet state media" and treated that media as means for the dissemination of Soviet
"propaganda" and ideology. There is no reason to consider the United States' corporate and
commercial media as any more "mainstream" than the leading Soviet media organs were back in
their day. It is just as dedicated as the onetime Soviet state media to advancing the doctrinal
perspectives of its host nation's reigning elite -- and far more effective.
Its success is easily exaggerated, however. To everyday Americans' credit, corporate media
has never been fully successful in stamping out popular resistance and winning over the hearts
and minds of the U.S. populace. A recent Pew Research poll showed that U.S. "millennials"
(young adults 18-29 years old) have a more favorable response to the word "socialism" than to
"capitalism" – a remarkable finding on the limits of corporate media and other forms of
elite ideological power in the U.S. The immigrant worker uprising of May 2006, the Chicago
Republic Door and Window plant occupation of 2008, the University of California student
uprisings of 2009 and 2010, the Wisconsin public worker rebellion in early 2011, the Occupy
Movement of late 2011, and Fight for Fifteen (for a $15 an hour minimum wage) and Black Lives
Matter movements of 2014 and 2015 show that U.S. corporate and imperial establishment has not
manufactured anything like comprehensive and across the board mass consent and idiocy in the
U,S. today. The U.S. elite is no more successful in its utopian (or dystopian) quest to control
every American heart and mind than it is in its equally impossible ambition of managing events
across a complex planet from the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. The struggle for
popular self-determination, democracy, justice, and equality lives on despite the influence of
corporate media.
"... Most important was " Brennan's ringleader role in the so-far unsuccessful attempts to derail Trump , both before and after the 2016 election. As far as we can tell it was Brennan who concocted and launched the conspiracy to insinuate that Trump is connected with alleged Russian influence. Brennan bet that Hillary Clinton would win the election. He lost his bet and is now out in the cold. He fears that his role, especially his conspiring with British security services and with the Steele dossier, will come to light. ..."
"... [R]unning against the deep state provides Trump a rhetorical crutch. It's a built-in excuse for failing to deliver on his 2016 campaign promises. Sitting presidents usually have to run as incumbents. Trump can try to run for re-election as an outsider. And is there a better poster boy for the alleged deep state than Brennan? ..."
"... The idiots who express solidarity with Brennan by offering up their security clearances confirm, simply by doing so, that there IS a deep state cabal that is opposed to Trump. Attacking Brennan and them will help Trump to get reelected. ..."
"... By colluding against me, the fake media proved once and for all, that they are in cahoots with the Democrats and have declared themselves to be my true political opposition ..."
"... Trump is excellent in playing his domestic opponents. Brennan made a huge mistake in publicly opposing him. He is now standing in the limelight and people will only dig further into his role in the "Russian collusion" campaign. Yesterday Brennan authored a New York Times ..."
"... Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn't he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times . ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will let go of the issue. Brennan is a too juicy target to stop shooting at it. Currently Brennan is still too valuable as an enemy for Trump to destroy him. But once that is over Brennan's day of judgment will come. Here are high hopes that Brennan will finally have to pay for at least one of his many crimes. ..."
"... If the Democrats jump to defend Brennan, they will have fallen into another Trump Trap. They are assuredly tone-deaf and stupid enough to take the bait. ..."
"... You are a Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. But this is nonsense ..."
"... Trump, whatever maybe said against him, is a legitimately, constitutionally elected president. The people like Brennan working against him were not elected. I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Jill Stein. But, if there is a civil war, I will have to fight for Trump's side. The oath that I swore as a naval officer was to the Constitution. ..."
"... he's a nasty neocon that is of course protected by liberal MSM ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no limit on the numbers of despicable, warmongering, money-grubbing, craven, destructive, maniacal creatures in government. Brennan is one such specimen. Brennan belongs in prison for subverting the Constitution. ..."
"... Look, Brennan has now had enough time, with his 'hit-team' to clear much of his record and trail of criminality, and he believes that he has enough backing to go after Trump. The key is obviously the Uranium1 scam, which Mueller and Sessions appear to be stalling on big-time. And then there's the Imran Awan / Debbie Washerwoman Shultz bonanza about to break big-time - and you're trying to tell me that Brennan being charged or sued would be 'quite extreme, and an evil precedent'? ..."
"... Just my 2 cents worth. Trump's a stooge, and nearly 100% of what he does is solely and only to bully someone whom Trump perceives has having stood up to him (Trump). It's not so much about Trump taking on BigSpy, Inc, in any meaningful or substantive way. It's about Trump being a big-assed bully and throwing his considerable weight around... without accomplishing much other than smacking down Brennan - deservedly but with no real ongoing lasting useful effect. ..."
"... Democrats are not collectively smart enough or politically astute enough to run away from Brennan. What fools they are! ..."
"... Why did Trump nominated Gina Haspel as CIA Director? Her nomination was supported by former CIA directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Michael Morell, former Director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA chief of station in London in 2016, when the plot against Trump was hatched. She must have known what Steele et al. were up to. ..."
"... Trumps connections with the Russian Mafia were certainly reason for concern. Too bad the DeepState Media downplayed this angle and some other angles , perhaps that would have prevented Trump from winning. ..."
"... Post Brennan the Trump administration is not only expanding the use of drones, it is also obscuring the facts about how many drones are being used, how many people are being killed by them, and where. His CIA Director Gina Haspel is certainly just as evil as Brennan and even better versed in water boarding. ..."
"... And we should not forget Brennan's role in the coup in Ukraine....does CIA still have an office on the 4th floor of SBU building in Kiev? ..."
"... If the intelligence agencies are so hostile to him, then why nominate Haspel? How does Haspel who, is connected to torture, help MAGA? How is Trump "draining the swamp" when he nominates a swamp creature (the 'choice' of the Deep State) for CIA Director? ..."
"... When "populist" Presidents (both Obama and Trump) serve the establishment instead of the people then we are, simply, being played. In fact, the American political system is organized to prevent a real popul ..."
U.S President Trump
revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.
Good. It is probably the best things Trump has ever done. Brennan is one of the most
despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell instead of making money off his
former status.
Besides that there is
no sound reason why anyone who does not work for the government, directly or indirectly,
should have a clearance and thereby access to state secrets. ACLU and others are
wrong in this. Revoking or keeping a security clearance has nothing to do with free speech
or first amendment rights.
Abu Jihad Brennan was the CIA's station chief in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were
bombed. Al-Qaeda did it , but
Brennan was helpful in blaming the attack on Hizbullah and Iran. He was deputy executive
director of the CIA on 9/11. That 9/11 happened was an intelligence failure or, as some have
it, an incident arranged by the deep state. Brennan was CIA chief of staff while the agency
concocted false stories about Iraqi WMD. He was within the command line that ran the CIA
torture program. It was Brennan who conspired with the Gulf dictators to hire Jihadis to
destroy Libya and to attempt the same in Syria. In short - the man was always ruthless,
incompetent and dishonest.
When Obama became president he wanted to make Brennan Director of the CIA. The Democrats in
Congress were opposed to that. Obama then made him his high priest of
targeted killings . After Obama's reelection, Brennan finally became director. He ordered
the CIA to spy on the Congress committee investigating CIA torture. He lied to Congress under
oath when he denied that it had happened. When it was proven that the CIA did what it did, he
had to apologize.
At that time a Washington Post editorial headlined
Obama should fire John Brennan . Today the Post
calls the revocation of a security clearance of a former official, who -it had opined-
should have long been fired, a "political vendetta against a career intelligence officer".
Hypocrites.
Most important was " Brennan's
ringleader role in the so-far unsuccessful attempts to derail Trump , both before and after
the 2016 election. As far as we can tell it was Brennan who concocted and launched the
conspiracy to insinuate that Trump is connected with alleged Russian influence. Brennan bet
that Hillary Clinton would win the election. He lost his bet and is now out in the cold. He
fears that his role, especially his conspiring with British security services and with the
Steele dossier, will come to light.
Since Trump became president Brennan publicly opposed him. That was a huge mistake. He is no
match for Trump. Be revoking Brennan's clearance Trump is now elevating him to 'hero' of the so
called 'resistance' against him which he connects to the deep state.
This is the Trump playbook :
[R]unning against the deep state provides Trump a rhetorical crutch. It's a built-in excuse
for failing to deliver on his 2016 campaign promises. Sitting presidents usually have to run
as incumbents. Trump can try to run for re-election as an outsider. And is there a better
poster boy for the alleged deep state than Brennan?
The idiots who express solidarity with Brennan by
offering up their security clearances confirm, simply by doing so, that there IS a deep
state cabal that is opposed to Trump. Attacking Brennan and them will help Trump to get
reelected.
Trump uses the same playbook when he attacks the "fake news media" for opposing him. He is
right in that nearly all U.S. and international editors favored Hillery Clinton over Trump.
This week 200 U.S. papers united to write editorials against Trump's attacks against the
"freedom of the press". They fell
for his trick :
Most journalists agree that there's a great need for Trump rebuttals. I've written my share.
But this [Boston] Globe -sponsored coordinated editorial response is sure to
backfire: It will provide Trump with circumstantial evidence of the existence of a national
press cabal that has been convened solely to oppose him. When the editorials roll off the
press on Thursday, all singing from the same script, Trump will reap enough fresh material to
whale on the media for at least a month. His forthcoming speeches almost write themselves:
By colluding against me, the fake media proved once and for all, that they are in cahoots
with the Democrats and have declared themselves to be my true political opposition ...
Trump is excellent in playing his domestic opponents. Brennan made a huge mistake in
publicly opposing him. He is now standing in the limelight and people will only dig further
into his role in the "Russian collusion" campaign. Yesterday Brennan authored a New York
Times Op Ed headlined
President Trump's Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash. It does not provide any evidence for
the "hogwash" claim. Brennan can not show that there was a Trump campaign collusion with Russia
or anyone else.
Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, gave a somewhat salty and
fitting
response :
"Director Brennan's recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign
colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan's statement is based on intelligence he
received while still leading the CIA, why didn't he include it in the Intelligence Community
Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since
leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal
knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times .
"If, however, Director Brennan's statement is purely political and based on conjecture,
the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive
Branch."
In short: "Nut up or shut up."
It is doubtful that Trump will let go of the issue. Brennan is a too juicy target to stop
shooting at it. Currently Brennan is still too valuable as an enemy for Trump to destroy him.
But once that is over Brennan's day of judgment will come. Here are high hopes that Brennan
will finally have to pay for at least one of his many crimes.
If the Democrats jump to defend Brennan, they will have fallen into another Trump Trap. They
are assuredly tone-deaf and stupid enough to take the bait.
That said, there is no deep state, there is just the state. There are factions in the
ruling class, but arbitrarily deciding one is evil is just working for the other. You are a
Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state
for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. But this is
nonsense. The idea that people hate John Brennan so much they'll vote for Trumpery in the
midterm and 2020 because Trump is kicking the ass of their enemy...did you actually read what
you wrote here?
As far as the free speech rights of Brennan are concerned, the question is whether any
contacts with other security officials, and any other research for article, books and
speeches can be deemed as pursuing information he is not cleared for. That he could be
criminally charged or sued. This would be quite extreme, and an evil precedent when such
repressive tactics are used even within the upper ranks. What they do to each other, they'll
do to us, faster, harder and more often.
Good. It is one of the best things Trump has ever done. Brennan is one of the most
despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell.
but, but, Nancy Pelosi said in a twit:
Revoking the security clearance of an honorable patriot is a stunning abuse of power &
a pathetic attempt to silence critics.
Whom am I to believe? (um, trick question) Thank you for the brief summary of this horrible person's career lowlites. Now I can just
point people to this piece when they ask me how can I speak against such an 'honorable
patriot'. Jeesh, these times we live.
Trump, whatever maybe said against him, is a legitimately, constitutionally elected
president. The people like Brennan working against him were not elected.
I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Jill Stein. But, if there is a civil war, I will have
to fight for Trump's side. The oath that I swore as a naval officer was to the
Constitution.
"Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive.
He should rot in hell." Neither of those are reasons to remove someone's security clearance. The reasons are
documented. Try to stay on topic.
I think this is the right move and it may indeed turn out to be a political win. But before
giving Trump all the credit, it should be noted that Senator Rand Paul, a man who has
consistently been critical of US foreign policy, publicly proposed the idea of canceling
Brennan's security clearance last month.
Unfortunately, there is no limit on the numbers of despicable, warmongering, money-grubbing,
craven, destructive, maniacal creatures in government. Brennan is one such specimen. Brennan belongs in prison for subverting the Constitution.
"That said, there is no deep state, there is just the state. There are factions in the
ruling class, but arbitrarily deciding one is evil is just working for the other. You are a
Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state
for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. "
What a strange opening gambit? There obviously is a deep state - who do you think Trump
has been battling with if it is not 'hangers on' to political power and influence, the MIC,
the Corporations, Wall St, the Fed and the Bankers (spelt with a 'W')?
Look, Brennan has now had enough time, with his 'hit-team' to clear much of his record and
trail of criminality, and he believes that he has enough backing to go after Trump. The key
is obviously the Uranium1 scam, which Mueller and Sessions appear to be stalling on big-time.
And then there's the Imran Awan / Debbie Washerwoman Shultz bonanza about to break big-time -
and you're trying to tell me that Brennan being charged or sued would be 'quite extreme, and
an evil precedent'?
Jeez, what are they feeding the trolls with these days...
Brennan is disgusting scum. May he rot.
I would prefer for all who are Ex-BigSpy,Inc to have their security clearances revoked as
soon as they become "ex." Sadly, that's apparently not how it's done. I fully disagree with a
policy of letting these "ex" types keep their security clearance as "a matter of courtesy."
Perhaps this whole kerfuffle will lead to a review of this practice and a change but not
holding my breath.
Although I kinda personally "like" it that Trump revoked Brennan's clearance, I am also
troubled by it. I don't think Trump followed proper channels, and the way it was done -- and
for the reasons stated -- are questionable. IMO, it has at least a bit of a stink of
Dictatorship about it.
Ergo, I'm not all "down" with what Trump did. Yeah, yeah, he fired a shot across the bow
of BigSpy, Inc. In some ways, that's a good thing. But as usual, Trump does this in such a
stupidly dumb and ham-handed way that it pretty much negates the potential "good" this might
do.
Just my 2 cents worth. Trump's a stooge, and nearly 100% of what he does is solely and
only to bully someone whom Trump perceives has having stood up to him (Trump). It's not so
much about Trump taking on BigSpy, Inc, in any meaningful or substantive way. It's about
Trump being a big-assed bully and throwing his considerable weight around... without
accomplishing much other than smacking down Brennan - deservedly but with no real ongoing
lasting useful effect.
Democrats are not collectively smart enough or politically astute enough to run away from
Brennan. What fools they are!
They abandoned their "working persons" base a long time ago. That, and Obama embraced
(rescued) the Republican Party after it was nearly torn asunder by Dubya Bush. Recall that
Republican affiliation was at an historic low. They needed a boot on their throats and
instead they got a hand up. A seat at the table, and often, the head of the table.
Completely revived, they (the R Party) now have carte blanche to destroy public
institutions at will.
Why did Trump nominated Gina Haspel as CIA Director? Her nomination was supported by former CIA directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and
Michael Morell, former Director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden, and former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper. Draining the swamp? If Trump had taken on Brennan sooner, Haspel's nomination and confirmation might've been
moot.
Trumps connections with the Russian Mafia were certainly reason for concern. Too bad the
DeepState Media downplayed this angle and some other angles , perhaps that would have
prevented Trump from winning.
Post Brennan the Trump administration is not only expanding the use of drones, it is also
obscuring the facts about how many drones are being used, how many people are being killed by
them, and where. His CIA Director Gina Haspel is certainly just as evil as Brennan and even
better versed in water boarding.
Anyways, big whoop that Brennan lost his security clearance . I doubt he needs Food Stamps
now.
Personally I hope this gets right out of control. Drone strikes and cruse missile style !
Freandly rebels, white helmets the whole deal. bring it on and pass the popcorn !!! Dirty
scum.
lysias @27: Trump was meant to win? Obviously not by the intelligence agencies...
If the intelligence agencies are so hostile to him, then why nominate Haspel? How does Haspel who, is connected to torture, help MAGA? How is Trump "draining the swamp"
when he nominates a swamp creature (the 'choice' of the Deep State) for CIA Director?
When "populist" Presidents (both Obama and Trump) serve the establishment instead of the
people then we are, simply, being played. In fact, the American political system is organized
to prevent a real popul
As far as I am concerned, every CIA director, living or dead, is/was guilty of heinous crimes
and deserves to rot in hell. Yet it is just plain nonsense to believe that Donald Trump can
outsmart them...
"a deep state asset." How do you know that? It could be just as well that Trump is
fighting this group by outsmarting them with the long game, a la Putin. (i.e. mixed signals
and not acting too brashly in undoing the cabal)
"a faux populist." Even if he was a faux populist, which he might exhibit shades
of, how does this make him a bad president at this current juncture in US history? Would you
accept that a good president could not be a populist? IMO, he appears to be scrambling the
cohesive unity and appearance of America's FP and putting the pressure on the seams of NATO
and the UN so that they may eventually tear. Whatever your opinion of the UN, one can not
argue against its ineffectual weight in ongoing atrocity (Syria, Yemen), but one COULD argue
that it has been an agent of or has at least been coopted by the NWO.
I believe you are proceeding from these two points in your thinking that need to be
reevaluated.
In your prior post @13, you equate selecting Gina Haspel as director of the CIA as further
proof of Trump's assured malfeasance. Have you considered that:
1) she may be ineffectual and so on Trump's leash at the CIA
2) in her prior years under the shadow of Brennan, her promotions might have been
politically-motivated and so it is understandable that a globalist like Brennan would vote in
lockstep their approval of Haspel because "GIRL POWER!" .
3) it might not be as simple as that to say that just because one is brought up in Brennan's
CIA and then ascends to its heights that she will do globalist/Brennan bidding as a
sleeper-agent in her position.
I agree with everything expressed here about Brennan but while Trump is getting rid of one
war criminal, he's bedding another; oligarch friend Erik Prince aka Blackwater ceo, aka exCIA
operative who he wants to put in charge in Afghanistan. Trump could care less of your noble
reasons for hating Brennan. Trump is no genius who gives a damn about human rights
violations. Trump only cares about number one; HIMSELF.
So what's the difference between Brennan and Prince? Only the size of their bank account.
When Trump does something right as in Brennan's case you can always thank his big fat ego;
self-promotion or self-preservation; SELF being the operative word. To compensate for that
accidental right move he'll make a collosal dumb move as in North Korea vs Iran as in Brennan
vs Erik Prince. I rest my case.
The enemy of my enemy is also an enemy in this case. It pains me to agree with Trump on any
issue. Brennan is a thug. His physiognomy gives him away at a glance. To say he is no match
for Trump is not correct. He is no match for the power of the presidency. Trump can't handle
this power, either, which is why he is going down for laundering money for Russians and for
colluding with them to win the election, which is not to say the Russians rigged the
election. Nor is not to say the Russians are enemies, as Obama and the CIA have struggled to
establish. This is to say that Trump is impulsive, ignorant, solipsistic, and corrupt to the
bone.
I have heard rumour that while he was CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in the late 1990s,
John Brennan converted to Wahhabi Islam. Is anyone able to say if this is true?
The only sources of information on this rumour are a former FBI counter-terrorism agent
John Guandolo and a retired CIA senior official Brad Johnson (who has admitted that he has
never heard Brennan say the shahada - the profession of faith, that the only God is Allah and
Muhammad is his prophet - but knows people in the CIA who apparently have heard Brennan say
the shahada in front of Saudi and US government officials).
Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive.
Indeed. It's possible that the misdeeds listed in the article have not begun to measure
the man's wickedness.
I think it's a good time to mention The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the
Global Drug Trade by Alfred McCoy. (I am not posting a link as the URL is too long.) As
the title says, the book is about how deeply the CIA is involved in the global drug
trade.
What are the chances that former CIA Director Brennan is/was one of the gangsters causing
the current opioid and heroin epidemic in the U.S.?
Why would he have a security clearance if he was no longer a member of the government?
None of them should
I cannot understand the logic of it all,
Hillary Clinton for example - she has one I believe.
Rather bizarre isn't it?
Just asking.
"... Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination - MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won). ..."
"... Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary". ..."
There were only two populists in the race: Trump and Sanders. One on Hillary's left (sheep-dogging voters to Hillary)
and one on Hillary's right (Trump).
Why did any of the other 18 republicans turn populist? Why didn't they wait so long to complain about the coverage being
provided to Trump?
Why were Republicans so adamantly against Trump after he won the nomination? Many said that they prefered Hillary - whom they
had claimed to hate so much only months before? Answer: Trump had to be an outsider. That's what makes the populist so compelling.
He has to be seen as taking on the establishment.
After such a contentious race, why did Trump quickly say that there would be no prosecution of Hillary? He has proven to be
petty and vain yet he was so quick to forgive the Clintons?
Why did Trump wait so long to fire Comey? It's almost like it was timed for Comey to hand the baton to a special prosecutor.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Here's a few more questions (of many many other questions)
Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination -
MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won).
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of the well-documented time that Hillary changed her vote for a big donor? Hillary loudly
proclaimed that she NEVER changed her vote for money before and DURING the crucial New York debate.
Why didn't Sanders release his 2014 tax returns? He called his tax returns "boring" yet, despite Hillary having released
10 years of tax returns, Sanders only released his 2015 returns. When his 2015 returns were delayed, reporters
asked for the 2014 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.
Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was
an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary".
Good questions. Asking them sequentially leads even a dumbass like me to conclude Sanders is a fraud.
Unfortunately, most Sanders supporters probably don't remember the issues long enough to reevaluate them collectively. Each
issue appears to them during "the news cycle" as some one-off foible -- considered as misdemeanors and then forgotten before
the next one occurs and thus never assembled mentally as evidence for a larger felony case.
In Part 1 we referenced the infamous hysteria triggered in Salem Massachusetts by Betty
Parris (age 9) and Abigail Williams (age 12).
In 1692 their prepubescent imaginations were apparently more than capable of detecting the
evil doings of witches at loose in their community; and a population hopped up with Calvinist
enthusiasm for the supernatural works of the Almighty apparently was also capable of lapsing
into collective madness – at least for a spell.
But who would have thought that in the year 2018 the grizzled adults and racketeers who
populate the Imperial City would fall prey to the same momentary outbreak of deliriums?
After all, Vladimir Putin was the very same Putin who made a mere cameo appearance in the
2012 presidential debates. He got an honorable mention when Barack Obama appropriately schooled
Mitt Romney on the fact that Russia was not America's principal national security threat.
Indeed, the MSM commentators who are shrieking about Trump's parlay with Vlad today were
knowingly furrowing their brows about Romney's alleged gaffe back then.
So the question at hand is what changed? How did the politics as usual debating points about
the status of Russia and Putin only 69 months ago turn into a veritable Salem style
hysteria?
We'd suggest two pivotal events turned the Imperial City upside down. To wit, Barry lost his
nerve in August 2013 on the Syrian red line and Donald Trump won the 2016 election in the red
zones of Flyover America.
In between, the mainstream media completely lost its grasp on reality as the Imperial City
dove headlong into it latest and greatest Indispensable Nation adventures by intervening in
Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen, and Iraq for the third time.
The Indispensable Nation conceit, of course, is the ultimate cover story for the work of
Empire and is the polar opposite of the rudimentary America First notions on which Donald Trump
rode into the White House.
As it happened, the Indispensable Nation meme flourished when the neocons and liberal
interventionists became ascendant during the Clinton and early Bush 43 era; and they virtually
ran the policy tables after 9/11 as the full-throated War on Terrorism cranked up a powerful
head of steam.
Nevertheless, the acolytes of Empire nearly lost their political lunch when Shock & Awe
in Iraq turned into a bloody quagmire and the retaliation against the Taliban for harboring the
9/11 conspirators ended up as an endless trillion dollar war in the Hindu Kush.
That's why the peace candidate won in 2008. And it didn't matter that Barrack Obama was an
utterly unqualified greenhorn Senator and former part-time law professor and community
organizer who had no more claim to the Oval Office in his day than the Donald did this time
around.
But Barry was too much the quick study by half. Rather than dismantle the rogue postwar
Empire of the neocons and militarists, he sought to make it smarter and more deft. So he
populated his national security team with moderate neocons like Robert Gates, Leon Panetta,
David Petraeus and Victoria Nuland and a posse of liberal interventionists including Hillary
Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power.
Our point here is not simply that peace never had a chance with that crowd in charge of
policy; it's that the outbreak of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011 triggered a toxic
brew of interventionist enthusiasm among Barry's foreign policy team that quickly metastasized
into R2P (responsibility to protect) madness in Libya and Syria.
Needless to say, even a newly arrived Martian visitor in 2011 what have been scratching his
head about Libya.
In his advancing old age, Khadafy had turned himself into a model non-proliferator and
exclusively inward focused tyrant. Libya thus posed a threat to exactly no one outside its own
borders; and it was just plain laughable as a matter of concern to the security of the American
homeland.
But Hillary and her posse famously danced on Khadafy's grave after NATO-enabled terrorists
brought about his brutal demise. So doing, they learned a dangerously erroneous lesson.
Namely, that uncooperative dictators who purportedly threatened their citizens with
genocidal repression could be clinically removed for a few billions worth of bombs, drones and
aid to local rebels.
That proposition really had nothing to do with homeland security in America and was belied
by the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now the "smart" people were in charge, and both
Libya and Egypt were proof they knew how to make Regime Change happen with a minimum of muss
and fuss.
Yet any intelligent reading of the impossible sectarian politics of Syria put the lie to
that conceit in a heartbeat.
Indeed, given the 40-year history of the Assad family business built around Baathist
secularism and a protective umbrella for Syria's numerous minority confessions – Alawite,
Druse, Shiite, Christian, Jewish, Kurd etc. – the very idea of arming Sharia-spouting
Sunni Arabs to overthrow the Assad regime was sheer lunacy.
So whatever the immediate origins and allegedly peaceful intentions of the anti-Assad
uprising in the spring of 2011, it did not take long for these clashes to degenerate into
bloody urban warfare.
And it did not take a lot of figuring to also see that arming Muslim Brotherhood sectarians
was absolutely guaranteed to generate a violent response from Damascus. That's because the
Brotherhood had been the historic vanguard of Sunni religious opposition to the Baathist
secularism of the Assad regime; and had been brutally suppressed by the senior Assad in the
1980s.
Beyond that, it was also a given that the Shiite polities on either side of Syria's borders
would likely come to Assad's aid. That is, the Iranians in the east and Hezbollah across the
southwest border in Lebanon – to say nothing of the regime's longtime Russian patrons,
whose only naval base in the Mediterranean was located on Syria's tiny slice of coastline.
In any event, Obama's neocons and R2P liberals threw every caution to the wind. In going all
in for regime change and demonizing Assad as a butcher who used barrel bombs and chemical
weapons against innocent civilians, they maneuvered Obama – newly feisty as the slayer of
Osama bin-Laden – into drawing his famous red line on the use of chemical weapons.
Needless to say, that was catnip to the Nusra Front and ISIS jihadists who dominated the
armed opposition. It did not take long for them to mount a false flag attack in Ghouta in
August 2013, which horrified the social media connected world when 1300 civilians suffered
gruesome deaths from what was apparently sarin gas.
Only later did rocket experts demonstrate that the sarin had been delivered by short-range
projectiles launched from jihadist controlled areas outside of Damascus, not by Assad's forces
15-20 miles away. But at the moment, the job was done: Obama was on the hot-seat of his own
foolishly drawn red line – exactly where the jihadist and his own interventionists wanted
him.
When he attempted to escape the trap by punting the decision to bomb Assad to Capitol Hill,
however, Cool Hand Vlad saw his opening. To wit, he quickly brokered a deal with Assad to have
his entire chemical weapons arsenal removed and destroyed under international supervision.
That was operationally executed by the acknowledged neutral experts at the OPCW
(Organization For The Prevention of Chemical Weapons) and there is little doubt that the
preponderant share of Assad's arsenal was eliminated.
Yet for that act of constructive statesmanship, the neocons and liberal interventionists
never forgave Putin. Then and there he became Bad Vlad because his action on chemical weapons
but the kibosh on Washington's excuse for regime change in Damascus.
In fact, the War Party interventionists of both stripes – neocons and R2P liberals
– went on the all-out attack in September 2013, transforming Putin from the also
mentioned adversary of the Obama-Romney debate one year earlier into a veritable
demon . Hillary now even insisted his was a modern day Adolph Hitler.
As it happened, the duly elected President of Ukraine chose that same fall to pursue an
economic bailout deal with Moscow to rescue his country's debt-laden, corruption ridden
post-Soviet economy; and he did so in lieu of the far less attractive deal that had been
offered by the west through the EC, IMF and Washington.
Not surprisingly, that wholly appropriate decision by the leader of a sovereign nation
became exactly the opening for the Washington interventionists to strike hard at Putin and
Russia.
We have detailed elsewhere how the so-called Maidan uprising on the streets of Kiev in
February was funded, organized and enabled by Washington and its cadres of operators from the
CIA, NED, State and sundry NGOs; and how that divided the country to the quick politically when
Washington installed and recognized a radical nationalist government that immediately moved
against the Russian speaking populations of the Donbas and Crimea.
Indeed, enabling the Kiev coup and instantly recognizing the crony capitalists, ruffians and
neo-Nazi nationalists who formed the new government was the single stupidest act of peace
candidate Barry's entire presidency.
But by then the interventionists were in high dudgeon. So there was no stopping their
virtually instantaneous demonization of Russia and Putin for actions which were self-evidently
driven by Russia's vital national interests in it own backyard – not some kind of
aggressive quest for territory or lebensraum.
To wit, Putin did not "seize" Crimea like it was some country in the Benelux that he
coveted. To the contrary, Crimea was virtually Russian to the core after it was purchased by
Catherine the Great in 1783 and thereafter when Sevastopol become the homeport for the great
black sea fleet of czars and commissars alike.
For crying out loud, Crimea was never part of Ukraine until Khrushchev had the
Soviet Presidium transfer it in 1954 from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet
Republic as a gift to his Ukrainian compatriots who had stood with him the bloody struggle for
Stalin's succession.
So Washington decided to declare economic war on Russia through Obama's idiotic sanctions in
order to make sure that the dead hand of the Soviet Presidium's writ is enforced 64 years
later.
Besides, Russia did conduct a referendum which was fair by all objective accounts; and under
which 83% of the eligible voters elected to return to Mother Russia after what had been an
historical short interlude of rule by the Ukrainian state. Among other things, the
overwhelmingly Russian speaking population of Crimea as not enthusiastic about being culturally
"cleansed" the Ukrainian nationalists who now ruled in Kiev.
Likewise with the Donbas and the other nearby Russian speaking provinces on the eastern
border. Many of them had been put there generations earlier by Stalin to man what was the
industrial maw – coal, iron, steel, chemicals and heavy engineering – of the Soviet
Union.
And all of them knew of the terrors that had occurred during WWII when the Hitler's
Wehrmacht marched through the Donbas and destroyed everything and everyone in sight on its way
to the siege of Stalingrad, and how it had been accompanied by legions of Ukrainian
collaborators during the terror.
They also knew that the region had eventually been liberated from the Nazi terror by the Red
Army as it returned through the region on its way to Berlin.
Yet the interventionist fools in Washington ignored all of this and proclaimed Putin menace
to peace and the rule of law because he came to the aid of the overwhelmingly Russian-speaking
population, which did not want to be ruled by the Ukrainian nationalists who had illegally
sized power in Kiev.
The obvious solution all along was partition – just like happened when Washington
forced Serbia to give up Kosovo; or when the artificial country of Czechoslovakia, created by
backroom intrigue at Versailles in 1919 peacefully decided to separate into two sovereign
countries a few year back.
In short, there is no there, there. The Ukraine/Crimea "aggression" is nothing of the kind,
and Putin was in Syria because he was invited to be there by its sovereign government.
In fact, the whole demonization campaign, the sweeping economic sanctions and NATO's
provocative encroachments on Russia's borders in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea are nothing
more than retaliation for Putin's wise rescue of Barrack Obama from his own stupid red
line.
But this isn't the end of the stupidity. In part 3 we will strip the bark off the Russian
election meddling meme by laying out the simple fact that a country which is no threat to the
security of the American homeland, but which has been viciously attacked by Washington, might
will seek to make it's case for a different policy.
That is to say, none of this is about espionage or stealing military secrets. It actually
boils down to the obvious fact that Donald Trump had an open mind about Russia and had not been
party to Obama's cabal of neocon and R2P interventionists and their campaign of revenge against
Vlad Putin.
That Putin preferred Trump was a no brainer and he admitted as such at the Helsinki Summit.
But that Putin's preference for Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the
election is also patently obvious.
Nevertheless, the Deep State has cooked up a massive fiction that claims Moscow made every
effort to do so.
We intend to tear that Big Lie limb-for-limb in Part 3, but suffice it here to consider the
take below from CIA veteran
Philip Giraldi . It does remind that Salem on the Potomac is actually happening in the here
and now:
Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear
misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly
includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to
disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with
what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity
might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information
effort that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many
countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited
resources, and even carrying out regime change.
If the Kremlin's objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is
already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be
involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no
one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to
enable personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone
would be working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would
be done using cutouts to break any chain of custody. A cutout might consist of using thumb
drives to transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no
sending or receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and
compromised.
So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were
responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed
there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a
political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement
with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a
loss to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain,
Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together
of the leaders of the world's two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an
opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.
In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship
August 10, 2018 •
92 Comments
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between
corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship, argues
Caitlin Johnstone in this commentary.
By Caitlin Johnstone
Last year, representatives of Facebook,
Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to
"quell information rebellions" and adopt a "mission statement" expressing their commitment to
"prevent the fomenting of discord."
" Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," the representatives were
told. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media
battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and
easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Today Twitter has silenced three important anti-war voices on its platform: it has
suspended Daniel
McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, suspended Scott Horton of the
Scott Horton Show , and completely removed the account of prominent
Antiwar.com writer Peter Van Buren.
I'm about to talk about the censorship of Alex Jones and Infowars now, so let me get the
"blah blah I don't like Alex Jones" thing out of the way so that my social media notifications
aren't inundated with people saying "Caitlin didn't say the 'blah blah I don't like Alex Jones'
thing!" I shouldn't have to, because this isn't actually about Alex Jones, but here it is:
I don't like Alex Jones. He's made millions saying the things disgruntled right-wingers want
to hear instead of telling the truth; he throws in disinfo with his info, which is the same as
lying all the time. He's made countless false predictions and his sudden sycophantic support
for a US president has helped lull the populist right into complacency when they should be
holding Trump to his non-interventionist campaign pledges, making him even more worthless than
he was prior to 2016.
But this isn't about defending Alex Jones. He just happens to be the thinnest edge of the
wedge.
Infowars has been censored from Facebook, Youtube (which is part of Google), Apple, Spotify,
and now even Pinterest, all within hours of each other. This happens to have occurred at the
same time Infowars was circulating a petition with tens of thousands
of signatures calling on President Trump to pardon WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange,
who poses a much greater threat to establishment narratives than Alex Jones ever has. Assange's
mother also reports that this
mass removal of Infowars' audience occurred less than 48 hours after she was approached to do
an interview by an Infowars producer.
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between
corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. Because
legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the
ability to control the U.S. government's policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no
effective influence whatsoever, the U.S. unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.
Large, influential corporations are inseparable from the state, so their use of censorship is
inseparable from state censorship.
This is especially true of the vast mega-corporations of Silicon Valley, whose extensive
ties to U.S. intelligence agencies are well-documented . Once you're assisting
with the construction of the US military's drone program , receiving grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, or having your site's content
regulated by NATO's propaganda arm , you don't get to pretend you're a private,
independent corporation that is separate from government power. It is possible in the current
system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to
billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political
power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else
they'll work with your competitors instead of you
Censorship Through Private Proxy
And yet every time I point to the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all
new media political discourse with an iron fist, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a
bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands. "It's not censorship!" they exclaim. "It's a private
company and can do whatever it wants with its property!"
They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will never be censored. Everyone
else is on the chopping block, however. Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's algorithms, and it won't be
long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the establishment Syria and Russia
narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same exact pretext as Infowars.
This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look like
what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of dissenting
media bit by bit.
Don't believe that's the plan? Let's ask sitting US Senator Chris Murphy: " Infowars is the
tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our
nation apart," Murphy tweeted in response
to the news. "These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our
democracy depends on it."
That sure sounds an awful lot like the warnings issued to the Silicon Valley representatives
on the Senate floor at the beginning of this article, no? This is headed somewhere dark.
We're going to have to find a way to keep the oligarchs from having their cake and eating it
too. Either (A) corporations are indeed private organizations separate from the government, in
which case the people need to get money out of politics and government agencies out of Silicon
Valley so they can start acting like it, and insist that their owners can't be dragged out on
to the Senate floor and instructed on what they can and can't do with their business, or (B)
these new media platforms get treated like the government agencies they function as, and the
people get all the First Amendment protection that comes with it. Right now the social
engineers are double-dipping in a way that will eventually give the alliance of corporate
plutocrats and secretive government agencies the ability to fully control the public's access
to ideas and information.
If they accomplish that, it's game over for humanity. Any hope of the public empowering
itself over the will of a few sociopathic, ecocidal, omnicidal oligarchs will have been
successfully quashed. We are playing for all the chips right now. We have to fight this. We
have no choice.
This
commentary was originally published on CaitlinJohnstone.com .
Ms. Johnstone is right. Government pressure on corporations works but the media in all its
forms does a pretty good job of sowing discord without government interference. There are so
few instances where the government and the major media are not in sync, they are hard to
find. As to allowing the lonely voices of worthy organizations like Consortium News, why
should they bother. Allowing them creates the pretense of free speech. If they become
dangerous, the mood of our elected officials is to fix the problem as Ms. Johnstone rightly
notes. The defense of freedom of speech by government and the major media is very selective,
and the use of the calling fire in a loaded theatre standard is a big enough vehicle for
suppression to drive a truck through, a whole convoy in fact.
As an aside, watching Sixty Minutes on their hit piece about Russian interference in our
elections was an example of sloppy journalism that seems to be the norm. when it is about
Russia. I was about to say they never used to be like that, but I think that is probably not
true.
Bulls-eye!!!! especially on Democratic party loyalists who perform a much more important
function for plutocracy than the Republicans and the Tea Party – to rally around fake
progressive politics dripping out of the DNC, and effectively drain off the pressure building
for true progressive politics.
cjonsson1 , August 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm
This is a good example of Caitlin explaining what is going on in the American media wars
which is crucial for people to know.
Our access to information, other than government propaganda, is becoming very limited because
the few major social network corporations are owned by a few wealthy individuals or private
government contractors. They are monopolies which should be designated public utilities, and
regulated as such, or broken up into smaller entities, allowing for competition.
It is important to preserve what is left of our freedom of expression and our free press. The
ability to comment on reporting and discuss it with others is diminishing while sources are
becoming more and more restricted.
Government and big business fight the public for control of information and opinion. We have
to collectively save our stake in democracy by rejecting censorship.
You make some very good points. Alas, I disagree about Alex Jones. The very few times I've
listened to his videos, it seemed to me every last thing he said was absolutely true and
correct. So I don't know where the idea comes from that he speaks disinformation. He's
sometimes obnoxious and hard to watch. But that's a different thing. His words are accurate,
particularly about the globalists, the deep state, US-Russia relations, and Trump.
"It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million
dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where
money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures
like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they'll work with your competitors instead of
you."
Actually, If companies get big, they become potential big tools/weapons for the war-making
State, at which point they will be offered a deal that they can't refuse, as one would expect
within this gangster Corporatocracy. Look at Wikileaks. Mozilla simply jumped on the fake
news bandwagon, so they are now safe, as Aaron Kesel at Activist Post points out. Lavabit's
owner, Ladar Levinson had principles and was loyal to his customers (including Edward
Snowden) whom he didn't want to betray just because the Corporatocracy State demanded it, and
so he shut down. He revived his company once he figured out ways to shield his customers from
the war-making State that attacks us all in the name of 'national security'.
So, it's a little more dire than the government just deciding to favor your competitors,
which of course the amazing Caitlin knows.
With all of this capture by tech giants, innovators, by the war-making State (Randolph
Bourne), How will end? I have more than one answer to that. One of those answers is the
obvious one: Ramped up counterrevolution, in the area of cyberspace mainly, in the State's
war against the people. And such a war is underway as any number of authors have demonstrated
thoroughly. And its not (just) Russia attacking the people. Jeff Halper wrote "War Against
The People." Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes edited "The Secure And The Dispossessed." Douglas
Valentine wrote "The Phoenix Program," which he notes wasn't confined to Vietnam. Noam
Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote the devastating two-volume "Political Economy Of Human
Rights," which included "The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism." And Edward
Herman wrote: "The Real Terror Network." All of those books and many others talk about
counterrevolution and the counterinsurgency (State terrorism) that goes with it.
And counterrevolution and counterinsurgency doesn't have to be of the extreme variety,
such as in South Vietnam when the US was torturing that country to death. Caitlin has talked
about how the State (New Zealand) went to work on her friend, Suzie Dawson. Read the account.
It's quite illuminating.
What do you call 'thinking' that is against 'thinking' (and what we consider to be a part
of innovation that leads to inventions that elevate society? It's called counterrevolution.
That's where our corrupt tech giants have gone. It won't end well for them, even if they
think otherwise and even if they feel safe because they are with the big guy. There's a
bigger guy who has that big guy in his sights.
Somehow I had missed those words from our elected "representatives" in Congressional
hearing. What these political pimps and whores don't want us to do is get together and agree
to dispel the bullshit that we're up to our necks in right now.
As far as I know this is the first piece I've read by Caitlin Johnstone, and I agree with
her general premise that this is more than just ominous. More and more of our elected
"representatives" talk and act like alien totalitarians.
The good news is that Trump's "trade" and saber-rattling belligerence is finally awakening
the rest of humanity to the fundamental non-starter of a unipolar anything. That one entity
so militarily, politically, and economically dominant that it can cause pain and suffering
wherever and whenever it decides. It is ironic that Trump's MAGA is the act in this play that
will dethrone the USA. The downside is that the 99% control NOTHING (this is true across most
of the planet.) Another downside is that the megalomaniacs in power will not concede power
without a cataclysmic conflict. But nothing is set in stone, though the indications don't
look promising.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the
human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion,
still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is always a great benefit
– the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision
with error."
– JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) English political economist, philosopher
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 3:12 am
Something must be getting into the water supply either by accident or design to induce the
mass hypnosis that has so many presumably intelligent people believing that we must all walk
in lockstep on every policy the elites want. Maybe we are all zombified from the massive
amounts of Xanax, Valium, Oxycontin and other mind-numbing psychoactive agents our population
consumes and pisses, unmetabolized, into the water table to be recycled into our drinking
water, obviating the need for a personal prescription to enjoy (suffer) the effects.
It's a real pity if the totally transparent sham scare stories they have disseminated are
alone enough to convince most of the people to give up their constitutional rights and
privacy. Clearly the tactic of the big lie doesn't work on every last individual or sites
like this one would not have an audience. That is why they want to shut us down, and Alex
Jones, though not a member of this journal club, is just the first step towards an outcome
that will encompass everyone remaining outside an all pervasive Groupthink.
Ideas, beliefs, memes, values, customs, habits and such are not received universally from
some inspirational force on high. (You are simply told to believe that from earliest
childhood.) They are spread through the population like a virus from mind-to-mind contact,
whether in person or via some modality of mass communication, like the TV or the internet.
The object of censorship, as per Alex Jones or Ron Paul most recently, is to extirpate the
source of "infection" as close to its point of origin as possible, before it can be spread to
too many carriers for transmission to others. People tend to believe what they hear and what
they hear comes from their regular contacts. Shut down their favorite talk show host or
internet site and they become starved for new "seditious" ideas. If they never hear a truth,
chances are they won't think it up themselves and certainly not act upon it.
Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind
control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard. I
know, I know, some of our number already get a taste of that.
Dave P. , August 11, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Realist –
"Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind
control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard .
. . "
You have it absolutely right. There have been markers all along since G.W. Bush/Cheney
rule, clear indicators of this new Future.
But some of us are so desperate to have a better and peaceful future for the humanity on
this planet that we get our hopes high for any silver lining in the sky – Obama's hope
and change, now Trump's getting along with Russia and stopping interventions abroad.
Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate, candidates
with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been or is. The
politicians in both parties are accomplished ConMen, in service of the real Masters –
MIC, Wall Street Finance, Media and Entertainment, working to bring this new Future. Bernie
Sanders is no different.
Skip Scott , August 12, 2018 at 7:08 am
"Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate,
candidates with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been
or is. "
I have noticed this ploy as well. They are willing to have a few faux progressives to keep
the progressive wing of the party from abandoning them altogether. They use Sanders, and now
this new Ocasio-Cortez, to sell their "big tent" narrative, and then co-op them when it comes
to all the important issues. They also constantly sell the idea that voting for third party
candidates is a waste of time, so you have to settle for "the lesser of evils" when it comes
time for a new president. I don't know how long they can keep playing the same con-game
before people see through it, but if it happens again in 2020, I think we are doomed.
Realist , August 12, 2018 at 10:01 am
The Democratic incumbent running for the senate in Florida (Bill Nelson) has made me so
angry by yet again using the party con against Russia that I could never vote for him even
though his opponent is the horrendous Governor Rick Scott (who plead guilty to defrauding
Medicare to the tune of a billion dollars for his Columbia HMO system prior to his election).
I cannot abide such theft of taxpayer money in broad daylight, but I also cannot accept
Nelson's spewing lies that Russia has actively hacked the Florida voter roles, plans to
delete registrations and disrupt the November elections. You know who's really more likely to
do those things? The Democratic and Republican parties.
Nelson is just making pre-emptive excuses for the loss that he sees coming. If he believes
his desperate gambit can work, he must think the voters are damned idiots to believe that
Russia would persist in perpetrating sabotage against American interests putting them
constantly in the crosshairs of our politicians and media. He must think that Floridians will
buy any tall tale that their elected officials tell them, totally unsupported by any
evidence. We are to believe that Assad never stops trying to poison his own people and that
Putin never stops interfering in American elections. (Why should Putin favor Rick Scott?
Because he admires American crooks?) If you truly believe such accusations, it is probably
logical that you would favor WAR with that country. I will vote for someone from the
Baader-Meinhof gang or the Taliban Party (if there is such a beast) before either Nelson or
Scott. Or I won't vote at all.
Zero Hedge tonight has an interesting article by Charles Hugh Smith, "The Grand Irony of
Russiagate: US Becomes More Like USSR Every Day". The clampdown in the old Soviet Union
before its collapse has parallels to what's going on in US now.
Jeff Harrison , August 10, 2018 at 5:12 pm
From Wikipedia. Fascism:
Fascism (/?fæ??z?m/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2]
characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong
regimentation of society and of the economy.
The Cheetos-in-chief would love to wield dictatorial power and has tried to do so in the
past as have his predecessors (Obama, yeah, well, we had to torture some folks::Shrub you're
with us or against us.). Senator Chris Murphy essentially telling these companies who to kick
off their platforms, the regimentation of society and the economy is continuing apace as
companies are forced to comply with government demands that the government should never be
able to make but they do for "national security reasons"
Pfui. As I've said before the US has become a fascistic police state.
MBeaver , August 11, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Many other western countries, too. The only thing missing to "fit" fascism is the
nationalism. They completely gave up their national identity for neoliberal agendas. I wont
look for a new term, because its as close to fascism as anything else, especially since the
definition of leftism and socialism has changed a lot since fascism was invented (by a
socialist), so why shouldnt the definition of fascism a tiny bit?
But it exposes people who always cry "its not fascism" because nationalism is missing, as
accomplices at the very least.
Also, as an objective person, you should at least admit, that "cheeto-in-chief" is
actually trying hard to keep the promises he made. I havent seen that in a western leader in
a very VERY long time. Its just very obvious that the president isnt almighty and the deep
state is very powerful. Thanks to Trump its become evident to even fools, that the USA is
much more corrupt than even any conspiracy theorist would have thought just a few years
ago.
jaycee , August 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm
The idea that discordant speech is somehow a threat to the nation or democracy is so
looney and bereft of fact that it is actually painful to contemplate how many otherwise
intelligent persons seem to have internalized the notion. Obviously, Trump's election victory
severely damaged the Establishment's confidence in the ability to "manufacture consent" to
the degree that fundamental concepts of free speech are now in the cross-hairs. They will
destroy the Republic in order to save it.
When the corporate state speaks of "hate speech" and "community standards" – one can
be sure they are not referring to Madeline Albright's stunning defense for killing of a half
a million Iraqi children with sanctions as "worth it." Nor would the corporate state ever
categorize as "hate speech" the daily attack by a wide variety of U.S. officials and media
pundits, not only on the Russian government, but on the very – "character" – of
the Russian people as a whole.
Our actual and very real – "community standards" – in the U.S. include the
complete normalization of illegal immoral endless aggressive war-making in violation of
international law (not to mention regime change by jihadists, drone murders, economic
warfare, political assassinations, etc.) – along with the despicable demonization of
official enemies – in other words the total "normalization of hate-speech."
"Violations" of these widely held U.S. "community standards" & "hate-speech standards"
involves plain and simply any – "challenge" – to them or deviation from them. In
other words to speak words not sufficiently 'anti-Russian' today is considered a form of
"hate speech" in MSM and in political discourse. To suggest peace rather than war with Russia
might be a good idea is to violate precious "community standards" which today tolerate only
mindless fact-free warmongering in public discourse. You really can't make this stuff up!
Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Excellent comments. So true.
We are heading towards some sort of dark ages, and at very fast pace.
Maxwell Quest , August 10, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Gary, pointing out the shameless and bald-faced hypocrisy as you did can sometimes shake
the stupefaction from an open-minded reader. Sadly, though, arguments such as these just seem
to bounce off the Russiagaters, having no effect. Conversely, these very same people couldn't
lavish enough praise on the peace prize winner Obama, whether he was bailing out the corrupt
banks, letting the lobbyists craft Obamacare, trafficking arms through Benghazi, or droning
some wedding party in the desert.
What do both of these examples have in common? Easy, the state media was able to control
the narrative in each case, and these same hypnotized drones ate it up hook, line and sinker.
This brings us right back to why internet-based censorship is the hot topic of the day, since
it is the single most threat to complete state control over the public mind.
Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 11:09 pm
Well said. Obama is not gone yet. He is still out there selling his philosophy of
promoting the Wall street and corrupt banks, and droning and killing the weak and innocents
all over the world , for the right cause so to speak – spreading freedom and democracy.
And liberals buy it. What a World we live in!
He, along with Clintons, is the main instigator of "Russia Gate", which may lead the human
life to extinction on Earth.
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:24 am
Dave
Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and
democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:22 am
Damn straight, Maxwell.
Mildly Facetious , August 11, 2018 at 4:16 pm
Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and
democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
??????????????????????????
They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will
never be censored.
Everyone else is on the chopping block, however.
Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's
algorithms, and it won't be long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the
establishment Syria and Russia narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same
exact pretext as Infowars.
-- - compare that, if you've a clue, (not to obfuscate your subject), Caitlan Johnstone,
with, not mere censorship, but the Protection of 'Confidential' information such as the
Industrial Pharma INDUSTRY OF DEATH (shades -of -nazi-germany??? )via INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
and PRESCRIBING OF OPIOIDS as if Huxley's "Soma" or/and a preview of " The Chemical and
Bacteriological Conditioning of the Embryo. – Practical Instructions for Beta
Embryro-Store Workers /// as in government forced vaccinations along with Facebook enforced
capitulation of any/all -- Personal Sovereign Belief/s massively defaulting and bowing the
knee and Becoming Persuaded and Trapped into inescapable Autocracy, by reason of Darwin-esk
dissembling and a dis-informed election to Dissent Into The Maelstrom of the sinking ship of
American Exceptionalism, -- as if God could/would "forgive" all-of-the-collective Brutality
of Bombs, bullets, Uranium Munitions / CRIPPLING Sanctions imposted -- support of brutal
dictators Who massacred INNOCENT Civilians in order to obtain/secure US MILITARY FUNDS, in
order to secure autocratic/authoritative CONTROL
We are engulfed in a Molding Faze of acceptance of/into a totally new Reality strangely
built upon Nazi science/experiments, now Entering an/the Age of Space-Age manipulation of
DNA, Gene Manipulation -- origins of species ordered inside test tubes.
George Gilder prophetically saw this in this and more in his prescient 1990's book,
MICROCOSM. --
George Gilder and his Discovery Institute were far Ahead – of -the -curve in this
'Facebook" era of Futurisms .
Please find and consider his book, esp as it relates to technological possibilities and
the New Wonders (Brave New Worlds) of Gene splicing / manipulation .
At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state
of the "Three Headed Monster" that is the Democratic Party.
This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left
to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, "Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?" I'll
provide the link to this masterful analysis of the "illness" – but first let me tempt
readers with a brief synopsis of the "first head".
" one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold
during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes
and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of
Donald Trump represented.
The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An
overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was
actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community
itself . who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel
service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case,
Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges --
for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead
of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop
running its mouth -- "
This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the
masks are coming off.
Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.
"... The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly. But Russia was not an adversary then. ..."
"... Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian border. ..."
"... We are your adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. ..."
The question is finally being asked, by the
president himself: what's wrong with collusion? Or at least his lawyer asks the question, while
Trumps tweets:
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion.
The problem, of course, is that of collusion with an alleged adversary. Russia, we
are constantly informed, is one such adversary, indeed the main state adversary, with Putin is
its head.
Adversary is a very strong term. The Hebrew word for adversary is Satan. Satan is
the ultimate symbol of evil in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Satan tempted Eve at the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil, causing her to eat the fruit, and so evil entered the
world.
Just like some want you to think that evil entered the (good, pristine) U.S. electoral
process due to this Russian adversary in 2016.
(Sometimes listening to TV pundits vilifying Putin I find Luther's famous hymn floating
through my head:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.
His craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal.
Luther's referring to Satan, of course. But the current mythology around Putin -- as someone
who still , like Lenin and Stalin before him, and the tsars of old, wishes us
harm; is an unbridled dictator with a powerful great nuclear arsenal; is the wealthiest man on
earth; and hates democracy -- resembles the mythology around the Adversary in the Bible.)
But let us problematize this vilification. When did Russia become a U.S. adversary?
Some might say 1917 when in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution Moscow became the center of
the global communist movement. But surely that period ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the
Warsaw Pact and the USSR.
Throughout the 1990s the U.S. cultivated Boris Yeltsin's Russia as a friend and even aided
the drunken buffoon in winning the 1996 election. Bill Clinton and Yeltsin signed the Start II
treaty. Harvard professors advised Moscow on economic reform.
The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a
traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to
include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan
and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of
German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly.
But Russia was not an adversary then.
Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered
NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real
change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian
border.
It was a clear statement by the U.S. to a friendly country: We are your adversary.
But, of course, the Pentagon and State Department always pooh-poohed Russian concerns, denying
that NATO targeted any particular country.
Four years later (2008) NATO announced intentions to draw Ukraine and Georgia into the
alliance. Meanwhile the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent state. Kosovo, the historical
heart of Serbian civilization, had been wrenched from Serbia in 1999 under the pretext of a
"humanitarian" intervention that included the first bombing (by NATO) of a European capital
city since 1945. The province had been converted into a vast NATO base.
Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, emboldened by the prospect of NATO membership and
western backing, attacked the capital of the separatist republic of South Ossetia, provoking
(as the Russians explain it) a proper punitive response: the Russo-Georgian War of August 7-16
. After this Moscow recognized South Ossetia and a second breakaway republic, Abkhazia, in a
tit-for-tat response to Washington's recognition of Kosovo.
Now Russia was labelled an aggressive power -- by the power that had carved up Yugoslavia,
and invaded and occupied Iraq on the basis of lies and killed half a million in the process.
Plans to include Georgia in NATO had to be put on hold, in large part due to European allies'
opposition (why provoke Russia?) but the U.S. intensified efforts to draw in Ukraine. That
meant toppling the anti-NATO elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
The U.S. State Department devoted enormous resources to the Maidan coup in Kiev on February
23, 2014. Its agents helped topple the government, ostensibly for its failure to negotiate an
agreement for Ukrainian associate membership in the EU, but really to bring pro-NATO forces to
power and expel the Russian Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula where it has been based since
1783. Moscow's limited support for the Donbass ethnic-Russian separatists and re-annexation of
Crimea were, of course, depicted by the U.S. as more aggression, more mischievous opposition to
"U.S. global interests."
But from Moscow's point of view these moves have surely been defensive. The main problem is
(obviously) NATO and its dangerous, unnecessary and provocative expansion. Throughout his
presidential campaign Trump questioned the continued "relevance" of NATO. Characteristically he
focused on budget issues and allies' failure to meet the goal figure of 2% if GDP for military
expenses (misleadingly depicting investment shortfalls as a betrayal and rip-off of the
victimized U.S.). But he did -- to the alarm of many, and probably to Moscow's delight --
express little enthusiasm for the alliance's historical purpose.
The most rational proposition Trump voiced before his election that the U.S. should "get
along" with Russia. That is, get along with the so-called adversary. Trump as we all know had
been in Russia on business, hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, and maintains
interest in building a Trump Tower in the city. He has met and befriended Russian oligarchs. He
quite possibly sees Russia as just another country, like Germany or France.
If "the French" had had dirt on Hillary, would it have been okay to "collude" with them to
influence the election result? France is, of course, a NATO ally. Would that make it different?
Now that the president and his layers are openly questioning whether "collusion", per
se, is even illegal, the specific nature of the colluder becomes more relevant.
Russia is an adversary.
Russia is an adversary.
Putin in Helsinki acknowledged to a reporter that he had hoped Trump could win, because he
had expressed hope for better relations. He might have added that he dreaded the prospect of a
Hillary victory because of her warmongering and characterization of him as a Hitler. Naturally
the Russian media favored Trump over Clinton at a certain point when he emerged as a credible
candidate. So when Trump on July 27, 2016 called on Russia to release Hillary's missing emails
("if you've got 'em") the Russians probably felt invited to make contact through channels. And
when informed that they had dirt, Don Jr. wrote: "If that's what you say, I love it." (Who can
blame him?)
Let's say there was some collusion after the June 6 Trump Tower meeting. Trump has suddenly
acknowledged that the meeting with the Russians was indeed to "seek political dirt." He adds
that this is "totally legal," and this may be true. Some are now saying that Don Jr. may have
violated a federal statute (52 USC 30121, 36 USC 5210) forbidding any foreign person to "make a
contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise
to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local
election.' and for anyone to knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any
contribution or donation prohibited by [this law]." But the language is vague. If a Canadian
speechwriter works gratis for a U.S. political candidate, in order to help him or her win, is
this not "a thing of value" intended to affect an election?
If Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner had met with Canadian agents in Trump Tower I
doubt there would have been any controversy. The fact is, Trump won the election and many of
those stunned by that wish to undermine him using revived Cold War-type Russophobia. They
insist: He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. And now they hope
they've got him on this charge.
*****
Five years ago a young man named Edward Snowden (now living in forced exile in Russia)
revealed to the world the extent of the U.S.'s global surveillance. He showed us how the NSA
wiretaps EU meetings, popes' conversations, Angela Merkel's cell phone and maintains metadata
on virtually all U.S. residents. He showed us what the contemporary advanced state can do in
this respect. We should suppose that Moscow has, if not similar capacity, at least enough
expertise to hack into the DNC emails or John Podesta's g-mail account. Is that surprising?
What none of the TV anchors is allowed to say needs to be said again: The U.S. interferes in
foreign elections all the time, including Russian ones. It should surprise no one if Russian
intelligence responds in kind. The point is not the provenance of the leaked emails but their
content.
Those horrified by the leaked material complain that their release was designed to
"undermine faith in our democratic system." Really? Don't the workings of the system itself
undermine one's faith in it, once they are exposed? Was it adversarial of the leaker to inform
us that the DNC had no intention of allowing Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination,
and thus that the process was rigged? Was it unfriendly to reveal that Podesta was hoping the
media would hype Trump, as an easy target for his candidate?
The question that will no doubt be debated in the coming days is whether seeking dirt on a
political opponent from any foreigner is indeed illegal, or whether there are specific legal
ramifications of meeting with someone from an "adversary" country. But it seems to me that
Russia has not been defined as such officially. So we may have a discussion less about legality
than the politics of Russophobia.
I am happy to see Trump besieged, rattled, possibly facing impeachment. But to bring him
down on the basis of "Russian collusion," on the assumption that Russia is an adversary, would
only advantage the warmongers who want no-fly zones over Syria and military support for the
Kiev regime against the Donbas separatists. Vice President Pence I believe favors both.
Trump has said that he cannot host Putin in Washington this year, or until the Russian Hoax
witch hunt is over. But Putin has invited him to Moscow. One senses he wants some agreements
with Trump before he is ousted by his gathering adversaries, including the press, courts,
Democrats, select Republicans, turncoat aides and he himself sometimes in his unguarded
tweets.
Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of
numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Gary .
But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is "honorable". Yeah, that's the term
they use to refer to the scumbags that "represent" us in congress. In
reality, "there is no honor amongst thieves", and government is full of
them because sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.
It's a unruly fuck show at the FBI and nobody is being held accountable. No
leadership, no standards, no neutrality, no accountability. Obama weaponized
the FBI. Fire everyone.
In both cases CIA and neocons run the show. But there is new powerful factor: emergence of CIA democrats like Brennan and the conversion
of intelligence agencies into political tool, the Cerberus that safeguard the castle of neoliberalism in the USA. The USA people (bottom
90%) be damned.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's guilt in " Russiagate " is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day. ..."
"... Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times ..."
"... Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs. ..."
declared liberal celebrity
activist Rosie O'Donnell at a protest in front of the White House last week. "We see it, he can't lie about it," she added. "He is
going down and so will all of his administration." "The charge is treason," O'Donnell declared. Protesters held held large letters
that spelled it out: " T-R-E-A-S-O-N ."
O'Donnell is by no means alone in her sentiments. Trump's guilt in "
Russiagate " is now
assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day.
This kind of partisan religiosity is not new.
In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, conservative pundit Ann Coulter accused war opponents of "
treason " and
insisted of Saddam Hussein, "We know he had weapons of mass destruction."
Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and
Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and
the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based
on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many
excitedly rushed to
pretend that
chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as
reported by the New York Times in 2014 were somehow the same thing as the "
mushroom cloud " the
Bush administration said Saddam was capable of.
Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.
The post-2016 left's most dominant narrative is arguably their deeply held belief -- with all the ferocity and piety of yesterday's
pro-war conservatives -- that Russia colluded with Trump's campaign to undermine the presidential election. Many believe that the
president and anyone who supports his diplomatic efforts like
Senator Rand Paul
are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It really was plausible that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 based on what our intelligence agencies knew, or purported to know. Today,
it is feasible that American democracy really has Putin's fingerprints on it based on things revealed by U.S. intelligence.
But isn't it also possible that the left is reading far too much into Russiagate?
The Nation 's Aaron Maté believes
liberals are overreaching, and that's putting it mildly:
From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of US government officials and
other sources, most of them unnamed. The reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller's recent indictment of 12 Russian military-intelligence
officers for hacking of Democratic party servers and voter databases is no exception. Mueller's indictment is certainly detailed.
Most significantly, it marks the first time anyone has been charged for offenses related to Russiagate's underlying crime.
But while it is a major step forward in the investigation, we have yet to see the basis for the allegations that Mueller has
lodged. As with any criminal case, from a petty offense to a cybercrime charge against a foreign government, a verdict cannot
be formed in the absence of this evidence.
Then the irony kicks in. Maté continues, "The record of US intelligence, replete with lies and errors, underscores the need for
caution. Mueller was a player in one of this century's most disastrous follies when, in congressional testimony, he endorsed claims
about Iraqi WMDs and warned that Saddam Hussein 'may supply' chemical and biological material to 'terrorists.'"
Noting Mueller's 2003 WMD testimony
is not an attempt to undermine him or his investigation, something Maté also makes clear. But it does serve as an important reminder
that "intelligence" can be flat-out wrong. It reminds us how these scenarios, which so much of Washington and the elite class fully
endorse, can be looked back on as lapses of reason years later.
Mass psychology is real. Political classes and parties are not immune.
"Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true," Maté asks. "Hacking e-mails and voter databases
is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country's election can never be justified."
He continues, "But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile
social-media ads amount to an 'attack,' even an 'act of war,' are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed."
The U.S. could have certainly used less hyperbole and more sobriety in 2002 and 2003.
And there's good chance that when the history books are written about American politics circa 2018, much of Russiagate will be
dismissed as more Red Scare than
Red Dawn .
With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat
based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous.
We don't know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it's easy to see how, even
if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of
fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history.
No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia
that may yet emerge.
Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans' Iraq fantasy.
All this may be as Hunter would have it. Yet there is the nagging doubt that Trump, who could only find major financing for his
enterprises following his last bankruptcy through Putin-controlled banks, could be free of any entangling ties or obligations.
And if those doubts prove true, what then?
From the Nation: "From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of U.S. government
officials and other sources, most of them unnamed."
This is a key point, because now Democrats and the most of the Left are ready to embrace a guy like Brennan a.k.a. Mr. Torture,
merely because they hate Trump.
I'll also admit to not knowing what's coming in the future, but as of now there's a strong circumstantial case to be made that
this reactions to Russian election meddling, which when all was said and done amounted to providing the voting public with the
truth about the DNC and its own election-fixing operation, that this reaction is only about losing the 2016 presidential election
to a guy who was only given a 1% chance of winning by almost everyone.
This is the most sensible commentary on "Russiagate" I have seen anywhere in a long time.
At present, there is some suggestive evidence in the public arena, but nothing conclusive.
What we probably need, actually, is a moratorium on commentary about this until the investigation reaches its conclusion. That
can take a long time. But until then, the endless partisanship-motivated speculation we hear daily is, frankly tiresome.
Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your temperate perspective on this. I wish this would be the last word on the subject until the
investigation ends.
'"Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.'
I suspect I agree with the author's sentiment, but it is not easy to tell.
Who stands accused? Trump? Russia? Both?
The claim that Trump is colluding with Russia is not the same as the claim that Iraq War opponents were colluding with Saddam
Hussein.
The manufactured "Russia!" hysteria campaign orchestrated by the Obama/Clinton Democratic Party leadership, as deplorable and
dubious as it might be, has nothing in common with the "5th column" smears Sullivan et.al. were peddling in 2002-2003 and beyond.
The claim that Trump committed "treason" would be legally incorrect on the worst case. Without a formal Congressional declaration
of war, we are not at war with Russia, and Russia is not the enemy, no matter how much irresponsible mouthbreathing is broadcast
from the biparty Congress members. However corrupt and corrupted Trump may be, corruption does not qualify as treason. If corruption
were treason, Congress, in support of Israel and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the US (and certainly not in support of Russia)
would be a house of traitors.
In comparison, the claim that opponents of the Iraq war were traitors was not just idiotic, but morally inexcusable. If anybody
violated their oath, it was Bush himself, his appointees, and the ranking officers of the US military, for issuing illegal orders
and/or following them.
"Russian election meddling" is the new WMD only the extent it is used as a pretext for war against Russia. It is the new "stained
dress" in the attempt to challenge the ballot and paralyze an inconvenient President. I have no doubt that the Clintons are corrupt,
and the GOP has engaged in many a Congressional effort to "investigate". The Clinton campaign adopted this playbook, and the damage
to the Republic done by all is growing every day.
The real corruption here is the pretense that Congress is any better than Trump, that Russian oligarchs have more impact on
the eroding Republic than Israeli-American, Saudi and UAE oligarchs, and that the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections
and the franchise is Russia, and not the Roberts Court, Democrat apparatchiks like Sunstein, or Republican frauds like Kobach.
Both parties are actively conspiring and plotting to make sure our votes are meaningless and cannot harm incumbents and the war
profiteering classes, and where there used to be an opposition to illegal war and to oligarchs and plutocrats, there is now willing
participation in manufactured hysteria to extend the 2016 campaign indefinitely.
WMDs? The very concept is a scam -- there is nukes, and nothing else. Nuclear arsenals outsized to end us all, and trillion
dollar waste to expand them, are the tie that binds the US and Russia, and I suspect that Russia would be a lot more rational
about reducing those arsenals than the US. If the author wants to worry about ending up on the wrong side of history, he should
stop worrying about partisan points and focus. Politics is not a team sports, and anybody who picks a favorite is a failure as
a citizen. Nobody who wants power is suitable for it.
Ask yourself, if Saddam Hussein had had "WMD" -- say, some of those chemical and biological stocks Reagan envoy Rumsfeld helpfully
provided to Saddam Hussein -- would that have made the Iraq invasion legal, right just, necessary, successful? Or if Powell's
little phials and mobile weapons labs actually existed?
Heck, let's say Saddam managed to make actual nukes out of tubes that weren't and yellowcake that wasn't. North Korea has nukes.
Does that make invasion and aggressive war legal, right, just necessary, successful?
WMD or not was a lie wrapped within a deception inside a fraud. That's the one thing that it has in common with "Russiagate".
Every layer, every aspect of it is a lie, a distraction, and everybody -- Trump included -- is perpetuating the hysteria for their
own benefit. The stupidity of it is only barely rivaled by the mendacity.
Trump is proving to be the Republican Alger Hiss. The partisanship of 1948 quickly crystallized into pro- and anti-Hiss camps
in which the then limited evidence was trumped by ideology. It was not until the Verona tapes were released in the early 1990s
that Hiss was proven to be guilty. Had Nixon and his allies called for a special prosecutor in 1948 and the facts both open and
classified been examined intensely, Hiss would never have become the progressive Victim that he was to be for over thirty years.
Ditto with Trump. Absent Mueller's investigation, these accusations against Trump (and I believe them to have serious weight and
substance as well as potential for policy changes to prevent election fraud) would be mere ideological shrapnel to be argued over
for another thirty years. Let the investigations proceed unimpeded and a final accounting be published at the very least for the
sanity and integrity of the Republic. Don't let Trump become the Right's Alger Hiss.
In other words, let's imagine that Putin has really tried to change election results. Let's imagine that Trump really has been
bribed by Russian oligarchs.
Is that why we are at this juncture? Is that why Congress has not served the People and upheld the Constitution in decades?
Is that why citizens and voters lose trust in our institutions, and doubt election results?
Really?
We cannot even own up to our own mistakes, our own greed, our own malignancy. We have to blame it not on our "business partners"
and "allies" and their hundreds of billions of dollars of arms purchases, we will blame it on Russia.
How small we have become.
It is not just Trump, it is Congress. It is not just this administration and this Congress, it is the previous ones, and the
ones before it, and so on.
The point is not whether or not the "Russia!" hysteria and the allegations against Trump are accurate or not. The point is
that, in comparison to everything else, it would just be more of the same, and we brought it upon ourselves.
@Collin-
Isn't it extremely Orwellian to say that 'information isn't really information/should be censored or disregarded if it comes from
a subversive (Russia) source'?
Naturally, it allows for a very easy way to control and censor information.
Now, as far as pure security threats, aside from information that should've been public anyway, experts deem that the DNC information
came from on site:
Now this is also an appeal to authority, but VIPs has a better track record and I've seen them actually elaborate on their
claims, not just assert them.
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the
people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of
democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the
Times .
Lavrov suggests that Skripals were intentionally poisoned by BZ which temporary disable a person (for approx 4 days) and
Novichok was injected in samples to implicate Russia. He impliedly suggests that this was a false flag operation.
Notable quotes:
"... First, US sanctions against Russia, then the Skripals mystery, and last the Attack at Syria....What the masters of the world trying do??? ..."
"... I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump regime. ..."
I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades
as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he
certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump
regime.#IDONOTCONSENT
Sometimes he continues talking without look at paper..... bcs he say true.... and USA,
BRITAIN and France cant do that bcs they are lying and scared if they will say something
wrong.
"... What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented. ..."
"... the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer 2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by Russia. ..."
"... Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation. ..."
"... From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood in the way of corporate profits. ..."
"... This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful CIA takeover of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term strategy. ..."
"... Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution against Russia? ..."
"... Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite well. ..."
"... Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's creation of the Cold War mentality and activities. Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ..."
"... Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since sat on it. ..."
"... But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney. ..."
"... No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation against President Trump. ..."
"... I was struck by one comment particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. ..."
"... Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did. ..."
"... Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources' confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question indirectly. ..."
I don't believe the Russians did this. I think there are
perhaps millions of people in the US capable of carrying out this action and many more with
motive. Furthermore, if they did, I am happy that the information was made available so I can't
see why I would care.
That said, I am unconvinced by this evidence. I am quite familiar with file systems on
different operating systems and I would at least need to know what device we are talking about
here. Did it come from Assange? Why doesn't somebody say so? What sort of device is it? The
simple fact that it was copied from a computer doesn't prove that the computer was the DNC
server. It might have been copied from Putin's iMac. I believe in one reading the writer
acknowledged that the dates on the drive could be manipulated and I am certain that this is
true. While this may still leave it above the level of evidence that the FBI or "intelligence"
agencies have presented (or even claimed to have) it is not conclusive.
Reply
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:10 pm
What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian
fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language
Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies
are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented.
Furthermore, I have no reason to disbelieve Craig Murray that the docs were handed to him
directly and transferred by him to Wikileaks. Quite the contrary, in fact, since his
reputation would undoubtedly be irreconcilably demolished for all time if the Russiagaters
ever came up with hard proof to support their conspiracy theory.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:12 pm
Please forgive all the typos, posted on my little bitty phone :)
j. D. D. , August 14, 2018 at 2:21 pm
The crucial premise of the ongoing British-instigated coup against President Trump and the
chief legal ground for Robert Mueller's operation against the President, is the claim that
the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John Podesta, and provided the results to
WikiLeaks which published them. The authenticity of such emails showing Hillary Clinton to be
a craven puppet of Wall Street who had cheated Bernie Sanders of the nomination were never
disputed, by Clinton, or anyone else.
Nor has the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer
2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by
Russia.
Furthermore, the only people who really know where and by whom the download occurred are
Julian Assange, whose life is now in peril, and former British Ambassador Craig Murray.
Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this
month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation.
paul g. , August 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Craig stated he was merely a go between, who was given the data in the woods by American
University by probably another go between. Lots of cut outs here but the data was transferred
physically by thumb drive(s).
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:27 am
"The crucial premise is the claim that the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John
Podesta, and provided the results to WikiLeaks which published them."
I would like to call attention to a little slice of history of US the destabilization of
Eastern Europe and the USSR that would help to explain what is happening today.
From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province
of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and
his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War
II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an
international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood
in the way of corporate profits.
This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a
shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize
Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people
such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these
settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about
dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful
CIA takeover of the Democratic Party.
The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all
measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the
White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term
strategy.
Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have
intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution
against Russia?
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm
Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term
strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite
well.
Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's
creation of the Cold War mentality and activities.
Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:33 am
Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the
CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK
assassination. Later, Carter was the only Democrat President who may or may not have
been heavily involved with the CIA. The Clintons were likely involved with the CIA early on
in their Mena, Arkansas drug-smuggling schemes, and the CIA was definitely closely involved
in their presidential anti-Slavic foreign policy. The Clintons' neoliberal agenda fit well
with the older neocons and consolidated the Duopoly support for the crazed think tank ideas
in DC.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:45 am
all perhaps true, but the cia, etc. have terribly neglected their republican base (ftr:
registered democrat, sanders and trump voter) and it is baying at their heels, drool swinging
from gnashing fangs. that is a political change as profound and radical as anything i
observed around the tear gas and batons of the sixties.
"They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails
heads will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last
vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what?"
Then nothing. It puts one mind of the comment made by one of the Robber Barons when they
were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. His comment " All that was lost was honour"
In the present mess even if eventually it all comes to light no one is going to be held
answerable. No one is going to jail. Truth does not matter. The propaganda is what matters.
if it is proven wrong it is merely swept under the rug. With the short attention spans of
Americans it would be forgotten in a New York Minute.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Perhaps this explains the need for the likely false flag poison attack in Britain and the
fake Douma nerve gas attack. Russiagate hasn't really been panning out so well and too much
info has been emerging to challenge the narrative.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:29 am
I fully agree.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 1:06 pm
If Russian hacking is a hoax, why has it not been exposed by all the Trump appointed
intelligence and FBI heads? Trump's people could shut it down with a public single statement.
Y'all are deep into a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Pffft!
It was shown to be a hoax by Clinton's own campaign staff in their book released after the
election titled "shattered".
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
Guess the only conspiracy theororist here is you.
Goebbels would be so proud.
You drank the kool-aid bruh!
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 2:19 pm
My comment applies equally well to your response. Why doesn't Nunes, Pompeo, or Coates,
etc ever say anything about these theories?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
It's no longer a theory when the conspirators confess to it in their own writing.
Which I demonstrated to you in the previous post.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm
This very slanted article amplifies a few post-election statements. I'm sure Podesta and
Mook wanted to play this up. Some of that was sour grapes but most people are inclined to
think it was also true. These guys controlling most media outlets and most of the
intelligence community seems absurd to me. But I guess we all believe what we want to believe
now.
jdd , August 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm
One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being
accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually
requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since
sat on it.
But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were
hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary
proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney.
No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead
the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by
analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation
against President Trump.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:54 am
And Donald Trump has more training in show business than most politicians or even internet
commenters. I suspect there is a fall premiere of quite an extravaganza leading up to the
midterm elections.
Read half the most intelligent commentary and had to quick. I was struck by one comment
particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. Too simple but too much to ask, I guess.
Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to
the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did.
Modawg , August 14, 2018 at 3:28 pm
I think he has been asked and has politely refused to reveal. But his innuendo is that it
was from inside the US and definitely not the Russkies.
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:44 pm
Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he
couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources'
confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and
conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question
indirectly.
A Solomonic solution that is technically not a violation of confidentiality
Andy Wilcoxson , August 14, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Can I play devil's advocate and ask a question. Can we rule out the possibility that a hacker in Russia, China, or wherever
had remote control of a computer in the United States that they used to hack the DNC?
49.1 megabytes per second is almost 400 mbps, which is a very fast transfer speed, but there were one gigabit (1000 mbps)
connections available in several US markets when these e-mails were stolen. You might not have been able to transfer the files
directly from Washington D.C. to Russia at those speeds, but you certainly could have transferred them between computers
within the United States at those speeds using gigabit internet connections.
Is there something I'm missing? How does the file transfer speed prove this was a USB download and not a hack when gigabit
internet connections existed that could have accommodated those transfer speeds -- maybe not directly to Russia or Europe, but
certainly to another US-based computer that foreign hackers may have have remotely controlled.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm
Actually a byte is 10 bits total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps. The
question of whether the DNC server was attached to a network that fast would be easy to answer, if the FBI or anybody else
wanted to check.
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the
people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of
democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the
Times .
"... I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism. ..."
"... Kees van der Pijl fills in the details here (ignore the title of the piece): https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/ ..."
"... the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended). ..."
"... I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of its nation's citizens becomes a target. ..."
"... I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was grounds for the first round of sanctions. ..."
I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the
Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014, as was well covered here at
Consortium News. The policy – isolate Russia as a pariah nation – was set before
the Maidan events reached their resolution. Victoria Nuland's "f -- - the EU" rant was in
response to efforts to mediate the situation and possibly spoil or derail the plans. IMHO,
the Russian response to the violent coup was fully expected by the Americans to have been a
tanks-in-the streets-Czechoslovakia-1968 scenario, and yet all they got was a Crimean
referendum and a frozen stalemate in eastern Ukraine. Still, policy being policy, NATO
reacted as if there had been a full invasion regardless.
Anecdotally, conversations I've had with intelligent, progressive, good-hearted persons
suggests the election of Trump has in effect destabilized their critical thinking abilities.
This has opened up the space in which the worst aspects of Cold War 2.0 have flourished. In
their minds, the urgent need to remove Trump by any means, fair or foul, fully overwhelms any
other priorities, including objective consideration of the current moment.
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:14 pm
I think you are right about Ukraine. I also recall that everything went downhill after
Putin negotiated for Assad to give up all Syria's chemical weapons. Which gave cause to
believe Putin was being punished for interfering in the Coalitions schemes. I think Robert
Parry sighted that as well.
No matter jaycee I too believe that Ukraine was where the U.S. fired the first bullet.
This New World Order the U.S. represents doesn't negotiate, no instead it's either our way or
no way, is the mantra of the tribe. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 11:08 pm
I wrote a response jaycee that went to the wind . What I was saying was Putin got punished
with the uprising in Ukraine after he pulled Assad out of the chemical weapons debate.
Joe
Suggestion the Consortium needs to get this comment boards algorithm problem figured
out.
Sibiriak , August 14, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jaycee:
"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin
and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014 " -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the
restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points
have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election
manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism.
"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the
Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014,"
As in statistics perceived trajectories are functions of framing including evaluation
horizons.
From inception, and through declarations such as the Monroe doctrine, some in the
misrepresentation "United States of America" have perceived others as simultaneously
existential threats and existential opportunities.
These existential threats and opportunities have been facilitated and acted upon as
functions of perceived needs and opportunities.
The targets and modes of activation of these perceived needs and opportunities have varied
according to perceived needs and opportunities, sometimes using the tactics of "hot wars" and
sometimes using the tactics of "cold wars".
Some in the misrepresentation "United States of America" have correctly perceived others
as existential threats and opportunities to/for them given their socio-economic system and
its perceived requirements – the functions of the "other" being multi-various –
the definition of the "others" include but are not necessarily restricted to those of
difference within and without the "United States of America".
Some in the Soviet Union in the early 1970's attempted to conflate "strategy" with
"tactics" and decided to forget notions of existential threat and perceive only existential
opportunity through conflation, thereby facilitating detente on the basis of spheres of
influence.
War is not restricted to things that go bang but restricted to forms of coercion.
The misrepresentation "cold war", which was never cold but sometimes engaged through
proxies, was/is a context specific tactic.
Some are of the view that the ends justify the means instead of understanding that means
condition ends, and consequently some facilitate and rely upon increasing the conflation of
strategy with tactics increasing the sum, motivations, and resolve of the "others", thereby
conditioning strategy through accelerating, continuing and expanding existential threats.
Those who engage in such self-delusion were not/are not restricted to the
misrepresentation "United States of America" but as Thucydides and others were aware, have
been/are generally restricted to those who perceive others as existential opportunities and
threats.
Some others correctly assess the misrepresentation "United States of America" to be more a
land of opportunity than an existential threat.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:48 am
I agree with your comment.
A good precis.
And the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as
a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia.
Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who
are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself
after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended).
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:47 am
jaycee-
I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of
his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not
partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to
the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of
its nation's citizens becomes a target.
Aime Duclos , August 14, 2018 at 1:50 pm
Yes, Skip, when the West's pillaging and looting of Putin's country was stopped, the one
percent was not amused. Add to that NATO's constant march up to Russia's borders, the threat
to and actual placement of "defensive" missles on Russia's border.
The last straw was the US orchestrated coup in it's next NATO prize for acquisition Ukraine.
Putin reacted as any leader would, and with restraint I might add.
Yet somehow all this proves Putin is a thug?
It's been a calculated drive to this new Cold War. The MIC is having it's way.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm
I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was
grounds for the first round of sanctions.
Lavrov suggests that Skripals were intentionally poisoned by BZ which temporary disable a person (for approx 4 days) and
Novichok was injected in samples to implicate Russia. He impliedly suggests that this was a false flag operation.
Notable quotes:
"... First, US sanctions against Russia, then the Skripals mystery, and last the Attack at Syria....What the masters of the world trying do??? ..."
"... I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump regime. ..."
I'm an American. I'm disgusted with the mafia cartel bankrupt corporation that masquerades
as the government. I don't like or trust any government but after listening to this guy, he
certainly comes across as way more trustworthy than anyone puppet we have in the Trump
regime.#IDONOTCONSENT
Sometimes he continues talking without look at paper..... bcs he say true.... and USA,
BRITAIN and France cant do that bcs they are lying and scared if they will say something
wrong.
Who are two factions of the elite that now logged horns? Patrick Martin thinks that "Brennan
party" "... oppose Trump mainly on the grounds that his foreign policy -- particularly in
relation to Russia -- is undermining longstanding strategic interests of American
imperialism."
Notable quotes:
"... The action against Brennan provoked widespread opposition within the military-intelligence apparatus and from the Democratic Party and the corporate media. Most congressional Democrats and some Republicans criticized Trump's action, while former intelligence and security officials issued public protests. ..."
"... As the Socialist Equality Party declared in the main resolution adopted by its Fifth National Congress, last month, both sides in the conflict, Trump and his opponents, are enemies of the working class ..."
"... The break with democratic forms of rule is accompanied by ferocious conflicts within the state apparatus. Each day the president spews his verbal tirades, while the Democrats expound their neo-McCarthyite fantasies of Russians "sowing discord" in America. There is nothing remotely progressive, let alone dignified, in the opposition to Trump mounted by the Democratic Party and sections of the media. They represent another reactionary faction of the ruling class. They oppose Trump mainly on the grounds that his foreign policy -- particularly in relation to Russia -- is undermining longstanding strategic interests of American imperialism. ..."
The warfare reached a new stage Wednesday with the move by US President Donald Trump to
revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, citing his "erratic conduct
and behavior," "frenzied commentary" in the media and on Twitter, and "wild outbursts on the
internet and television."
The action against Brennan provoked widespread opposition within the
military-intelligence apparatus and from the Democratic Party and the corporate media. Most
congressional Democrats and some Republicans criticized Trump's action, while former
intelligence and security officials issued public protests.
The New York Times , the main media mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, immediately
opened its editorial pages to Brennan to respond to Trump's action. In a comment published
Thursday, Brennan focused entirely on promoting the myth of Russian intervention in the US
elections, denouncing Russian denials as "hogwash," and portraying Trump as a conscious and
witting collaborator with "our primary global adversary" -- in other words, a traitor.
The White House first hinted at revoking Brennan's security clearance last month, and the
statement announcing the action initially carried the date July 26, indicating that the move
had been decided on three weeks ago, but was not made public until Trump felt it would help
distract public attention from the mounting crisis within his administration.
... ... ...
On the other hand, Brennan has emerged naturally as the chief spokesman of Trump's ruling
class critics. He is the former head of drone warfare for the Obama administration and the
former chief executive of the organization of official assassins, thugs and professional liars
known as the Central Intelligence Agency. As CIA director, he sought to block the Senate
Intelligence Committee report released in 2014 documenting CIA torture during the Bush
administration.
Brennan has a three-decade career with the CIA, where he served, among other places, as
station chief in Saudi Arabia, before spending most of the past 20 years at CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia or in the Obama White House.
Since leaving the CIA in January 2017, Brennan has cashed in on his intelligence career with
a lucrative post as an "analyst" and commentator for NBC News. He has played a leading role in
the campaign by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, backed by the media and the
Democratic Party, to attack Trump as "soft" on Russia. The aim is not only to impose a shift in
the foreign policy of the Trump administration, but to create the framework for criminalizing
domestic opposition and censoring the Internet.
As the Socialist Equality Party declared in the main resolution adopted by its
Fifth National Congress, last month, both sides in the conflict, Trump and his opponents, are
enemies of the working class :
The break with democratic forms of rule is accompanied by ferocious conflicts within
the state apparatus. Each day the president spews his verbal tirades, while the Democrats
expound their neo-McCarthyite fantasies of Russians "sowing discord" in America. There is
nothing remotely progressive, let alone dignified, in the opposition to Trump mounted by the
Democratic Party and sections of the media. They represent another reactionary faction of the
ruling class. They oppose Trump mainly on the grounds that his foreign policy -- particularly
in relation to Russia -- is undermining longstanding strategic interests of American
imperialism.
It is notable that Brennan's column in the New York Times , written in McCarthyite
language, presents democratic forms themselves as the main weakness in a global struggle with
Russia. Brennan writes: "Electoral politics in Western democracies presents an especially
inviting target, as a variety of politicians, political parties, media outlets, think tanks and
influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly and unwittingly, or even bought outright by
Russian intelligence operatives. The very freedoms and liberties that liberal Western
democracies cherish and that autocracies fear have been exploited by Russian intelligence
services "
Not only Trump is right calling neoliberal MSM the enemy of the people. This is a distributed
version of the Ministry of Truth. With CIA as a command center ;-).
Thanks God internet still exists and is not completely controlled by neoliberals and
neocons.
The behaviors of neoliberal MSM during color revolution against Trump is pretty revealing, so
say the least.
That Department N of the Ministry of Truth is upset about Trump revealing inconvenient truth
should not surprise anybody
Notable quotes:
"... And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe ..."
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the
enemy of the people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the
lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous,
period," said the Times .
Fair enough, but is it not also dangerous for a free press to be using its First Amendment
rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant, and
traitor?
The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump.
But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to
massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game against
Democrats?
And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe -- organized
national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic
"collusion" against him?
If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times , and the Washington
Post are mortal enemies that want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?
We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the
ideological, social, and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even
post-Trump, we can ever come together again.
Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: "You could put half of
Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic, Islamophobic. Some of those folks are irredeemable, but they are not America."
When Clinton's reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks.
Just as Governor Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a
bill-signing ceremony: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great."
America was "never that great"?
If ex-CIA director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would
have lost a lot more than his security clearance.
He would have been challenged to a duel.
"Trump's performance in Helsinki," Brennan had said, "exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes
& misdemeanors.' It was treasonous."
Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and
privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social
Security?
CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose
unique experience, knowledge, and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a
national crisis.
Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.
Who trashed it?
Was it not the former heads of the security agencies -- CIA, FBI, director of national
intelligence -- who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one
might expect from Antifa?
Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held if
they descend into cable TV hatred and hostility?
Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating the families of detained
illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into
Auschwitz. "Other governments have separated mothers and children" was Hayden's caption. Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the
enemy of the people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of
democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the
Times .
Fair enough, but is it not also dangerous for a free press to be using its First Amendment
rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant, and
traitor?
The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump.
But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to
massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game against
Democrats?
And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe -- organized national
attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic "collusion"
against him?
If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times , and the Washington
Post are mortal enemies that want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?
We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the
ideological, social, and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even
post-Trump, we can ever come together again.
Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: "You could put half of
Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic, Islamophobic. Some of those folks are irredeemable, but they are not America."
When Clinton's reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks.
Just as Governor Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a
bill-signing ceremony: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great."
America was "never that great"?
Cuomo's press secretary hastened to explain: "When the president speaks about making America
great again he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery,
discrimination, segregation, sexism, and marginalized women's contributions."
Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out
of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.
In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.
Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not
responding to his message, Obama trashed such folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave
new world: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't
like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations."
These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries, and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10
years later, deride and dismiss as "Trump's base."
What Clinton, Cuomo, and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and
ideological wars of America today.
Most media elites accept the historic indictment -- that before the Progressives came, this
country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia, and that its history was a
long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans
whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.
Those who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great,
good, and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.
For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands. ..."
"... Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling, rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America. ..."
"... America is after all a country in which half the population believe in the creation myth. ..."
"... "Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives. ..."
"... I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a third manifestation of mass hysteria. ..."
It is quite interesting how many uninformed posters and/or trolls would love to find a way to show the "Russiagate" nonsense
is somehow plausible in spite of the evidence. They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing
in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands.
I will say that the amount of mental gymnastics required to continue not believing evidence that is right in front of one's
eyes is quite impressive – but I'd never underestimate the American people's creativity when they want to maintain their illusions/delusions.
And I'd certainly never underestimate the Russiagate troll army's persistence.
At this rate I expect to soon encounter some version of the following "observation" in the comments section for this article:
– "maybe space aliens hired by the Russians downloaded the files to a to a new fangled thig-a-ma-jig and then shape-shifted so
Craig Murray would be fooled into thinking a real-like-human insider provided him the files on a flash drive." – "oh, oh, wait,
maybe the aliens abducted Murray too, and then just made him "think" a fellow human gave him the drive in person." "yeah, yeah,
and maybe Assange just says he didn't get the files from the Russians because "he's a space alien too." "Yeah, prove to me that
it didn't happen this way – you can't – ha! there! I win!"
Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling,
rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America.
"Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in
the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State
Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives.
ToivoS , August 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm
I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over
taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass
hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was
the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a
third manifestation of mass hysteria.
It all began with Hillary's shocking defeat. Many millions of her supporters knew that she was so good that she had to win.
But then she lost. Those millions of Democrats could not accept that in fact their assessment of her talents were totally wrong
and that she lost because she has to be one of the worst candidates in American history. That is a reality those people refused
to accept. Instead they had to concoct some crazy conspiracy to explain their break with reality. This is a classic case of cognitive
dissonance which often leads to mass hysteria.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm
People choose to believe what they feel that they most need to believe to assuage their insecurities fostered by what they
perceive to be the dangerous and scary world in which they exist. The simple fact that we know that life is finite by the time
we're three years old fosters the creation of such constructs as that of the myth of everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven
complete with a mortgage-free condo and an extra parking space for all repentant sinners are mainstream beliefs.
ToivoS, you are right about Hillary. She simply couldn't accept her defeat. She was the one who began Russiagate by the lie,
"17 intelligence agencies" said the Russians hacked the emails.
As for times of mass-swallowing of a lie in the 1930s every German thought that Poland was about to invade Germany and they were
scared so much that they believed their leaders who "false flagged" them into invading Poland "first." Of course, Poland had no
intention of invading Germany.
Notice every time the US attacks another sovereign country, there's a false flag waved for the citizens to follow?
Don't you appreciate that we have consortiumnews?
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly
stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to
use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up
a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to
show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to
end.
... ... ...
...War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction."
Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political
aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global
hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could
have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations
-- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a
doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there
"is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the
capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more
recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its
media accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one
million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again, the
media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government --
which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been relentlessly
expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
DemoRats and Deep Staters are all about the enemy "Russia". To hell with them both. And to hell with Brennan, Clapper, Yates,
Rice, and all the other lying, cheating promoters of OBAMUNISM: Weaponizing government agencies to attack DemoRats' political
opponents like you and me. You know the fake "Russia Collusion" fraud perpetrated by the DemoRats goes all the way up to Obama.
"... What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented. ..."
"... the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer 2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by Russia. ..."
"... Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation. ..."
"... From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood in the way of corporate profits. ..."
"... This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful CIA takeover of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term strategy. ..."
"... Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution against Russia? ..."
"... Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite well. ..."
"... Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's creation of the Cold War mentality and activities. Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ..."
"... Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since sat on it. ..."
"... But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney. ..."
"... No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation against President Trump. ..."
"... I was struck by one comment particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. ..."
"... Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did. ..."
"... Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources' confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question indirectly. ..."
I don't believe the Russians did this. I think there are
perhaps millions of people in the US capable of carrying out this action and many more with
motive. Furthermore, if they did, I am happy that the information was made available so I can't
see why I would care.
That said, I am unconvinced by this evidence. I am quite familiar with file systems on
different operating systems and I would at least need to know what device we are talking about
here. Did it come from Assange? Why doesn't somebody say so? What sort of device is it? The
simple fact that it was copied from a computer doesn't prove that the computer was the DNC
server. It might have been copied from Putin's iMac. I believe in one reading the writer
acknowledged that the dates on the drive could be manipulated and I am certain that this is
true. While this may still leave it above the level of evidence that the FBI or "intelligence"
agencies have presented (or even claimed to have) it is not conclusive.
Reply
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:10 pm
What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian
fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language
Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies
are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented.
Furthermore, I have no reason to disbelieve Craig Murray that the docs were handed to him
directly and transferred by him to Wikileaks. Quite the contrary, in fact, since his
reputation would undoubtedly be irreconcilably demolished for all time if the Russiagaters
ever came up with hard proof to support their conspiracy theory.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:12 pm
Please forgive all the typos, posted on my little bitty phone :)
j. D. D. , August 14, 2018 at 2:21 pm
The crucial premise of the ongoing British-instigated coup against President Trump and the
chief legal ground for Robert Mueller's operation against the President, is the claim that
the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John Podesta, and provided the results to
WikiLeaks which published them. The authenticity of such emails showing Hillary Clinton to be
a craven puppet of Wall Street who had cheated Bernie Sanders of the nomination were never
disputed, by Clinton, or anyone else.
Nor has the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer
2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by
Russia.
Furthermore, the only people who really know where and by whom the download occurred are
Julian Assange, whose life is now in peril, and former British Ambassador Craig Murray.
Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this
month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation.
paul g. , August 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Craig stated he was merely a go between, who was given the data in the woods by American
University by probably another go between. Lots of cut outs here but the data was transferred
physically by thumb drive(s).
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:27 am
"The crucial premise is the claim that the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John
Podesta, and provided the results to WikiLeaks which published them."
I would like to call attention to a little slice of history of US the destabilization of
Eastern Europe and the USSR that would help to explain what is happening today.
From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province
of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and
his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War
II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an
international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood
in the way of corporate profits.
This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a
shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize
Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people
such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these
settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about
dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful
CIA takeover of the Democratic Party.
The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all
measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the
White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term
strategy.
Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have
intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution
against Russia?
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm
Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term
strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite
well.
Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's
creation of the Cold War mentality and activities.
Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:33 am
Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the
CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK
assassination. Later, Carter was the only Democrat President who may or may not have
been heavily involved with the CIA. The Clintons were likely involved with the CIA early on
in their Mena, Arkansas drug-smuggling schemes, and the CIA was definitely closely involved
in their presidential anti-Slavic foreign policy. The Clintons' neoliberal agenda fit well
with the older neocons and consolidated the Duopoly support for the crazed think tank ideas
in DC.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:45 am
all perhaps true, but the cia, etc. have terribly neglected their republican base (ftr:
registered democrat, sanders and trump voter) and it is baying at their heels, drool swinging
from gnashing fangs. that is a political change as profound and radical as anything i
observed around the tear gas and batons of the sixties.
"They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails
heads will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last
vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what?"
Then nothing. It puts one mind of the comment made by one of the Robber Barons when they
were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. His comment " All that was lost was honour"
In the present mess even if eventually it all comes to light no one is going to be held
answerable. No one is going to jail. Truth does not matter. The propaganda is what matters.
if it is proven wrong it is merely swept under the rug. With the short attention spans of
Americans it would be forgotten in a New York Minute.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Perhaps this explains the need for the likely false flag poison attack in Britain and the
fake Douma nerve gas attack. Russiagate hasn't really been panning out so well and too much
info has been emerging to challenge the narrative.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:29 am
I fully agree.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 1:06 pm
If Russian hacking is a hoax, why has it not been exposed by all the Trump appointed
intelligence and FBI heads? Trump's people could shut it down with a public single statement.
Y'all are deep into a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Pffft!
It was shown to be a hoax by Clinton's own campaign staff in their book released after the
election titled "shattered".
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
Guess the only conspiracy theororist here is you.
Goebbels would be so proud.
You drank the kool-aid bruh!
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 2:19 pm
My comment applies equally well to your response. Why doesn't Nunes, Pompeo, or Coates,
etc ever say anything about these theories?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
It's no longer a theory when the conspirators confess to it in their own writing.
Which I demonstrated to you in the previous post.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm
This very slanted article amplifies a few post-election statements. I'm sure Podesta and
Mook wanted to play this up. Some of that was sour grapes but most people are inclined to
think it was also true. These guys controlling most media outlets and most of the
intelligence community seems absurd to me. But I guess we all believe what we want to believe
now.
jdd , August 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm
One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being
accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually
requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since
sat on it.
But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were
hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary
proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney.
No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead
the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by
analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation
against President Trump.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:54 am
And Donald Trump has more training in show business than most politicians or even internet
commenters. I suspect there is a fall premiere of quite an extravaganza leading up to the
midterm elections.
Read half the most intelligent commentary and had to quick. I was struck by one comment
particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. Too simple but too much to ask, I guess.
Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to
the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did.
Modawg , August 14, 2018 at 3:28 pm
I think he has been asked and has politely refused to reveal. But his innuendo is that it
was from inside the US and definitely not the Russkies.
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:44 pm
Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he
couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources'
confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and
conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question
indirectly.
A Solomonic solution that is technically not a violation of confidentiality
Andy Wilcoxson , August 14, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Can I play devil's advocate and ask a question. Can we rule out the possibility that a hacker in Russia, China, or wherever
had remote control of a computer in the United States that they used to hack the DNC?
49.1 megabytes per second is almost 400 mbps, which is a very fast transfer speed, but there were one gigabit (1000 mbps)
connections available in several US markets when these e-mails were stolen. You might not have been able to transfer the files
directly from Washington D.C. to Russia at those speeds, but you certainly could have transferred them between computers
within the United States at those speeds using gigabit internet connections.
Is there something I'm missing? How does the file transfer speed prove this was a USB download and not a hack when gigabit
internet connections existed that could have accommodated those transfer speeds -- maybe not directly to Russia or Europe, but
certainly to another US-based computer that foreign hackers may have have remotely controlled.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm
Actually a byte is 10 bits total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps. The
question of whether the DNC server was attached to a network that fast would be easy to answer, if the FBI or anybody else
wanted to check.
"... The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped. ..."
"... Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor, providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in establishment institutions. ..."
The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening
chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped.
Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor,
providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in
establishment institutions.
Hell, it's even being leveraged to explain away racism. Win win win win. I'd say they are
right where they want to be at this juncture.
Dave P. , August 14, 2018 at 6:21 pm
GM – Excellent observations. Very true.
I would add that they – the Ruling Establishment – are accomplished in the art
of manipulating the public into believing whatever they want them to believe in. In fact,
they have world wide reach.
"... But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the Times ..."
Less than four days after the Parkland school shooting, the New York Times has
found a way to turn a national tragedy that claimed the lives of 17 high school students into
an opportunity to escalate its unrelenting campaign of anti-Russian propaganda, involving the
continuous bombardment of the public with reactionary lies and warmongering.
Against the backdrop of a major escalation of military tensions between the two countries,
the Times seized upon the Justice Department indictment of Russian nationals over the
weekend to claim that Russia is at "war" with the United States. Now, the Times has
widened this claim into an argument that Russia somehow bears responsibility for social
divisions over the latest mass shooting in America.
Its lead headline Tuesday morning blared: "SHOTS ARE FIRED, AND BOTS SWARM TO SOCIAL DIVIDES
- Florida School Shooting Draws an Army Ready to Spread Discord"
According to the Times , Russian "bots," or automated social media accounts, sought
"to widen the divide" on issues of gun control and mental illness, in order to "make compromise
even more difficult." Russia sought to exploit "the issue of mental illness in the gun control
debate," and "propagated the notion that Nikolas Cruz, the suspected gunman" was "mentally
ill."
The absurd claim that Russia is responsible for the existence of social divisions in America
is belied by the shooting itself, which is a testament to the fact that American society is
riven by antagonisms that express themselves, in the absence of a progressive outlet, in
outpourings of mass violence.
The aim of this campaign is to target anyone who would criticize the underlying social
causes of the shooting -- the violence of American society, the nonexistence of mental health
services, or even the social psychology that gives rise to mass shootings -- as a "Russian
agent" seeking to "sow divisions" in American society. The Times lead is based
entirely on a "dashboard" called Hamilton 68 created by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for
Securing Democracy, whose lead spokesman is Clint Watts, the former US intelligence agent and
censorship advocate who declared in November that social media companies must "silence" sources
of "rebellion."
Without naming any of the accounts it follows, Hamilton 68 claims to track content tweeted
by "Russian bots and trolls." But most of the trends leading the dashboard are news stories,
many posted by Russia Today and Sputnik News , that are identical with the
trending topics followed by any other news agency. Thus, Hamilton 68 provides an instant
New York Times headline generator: Any major news story can be presented as the result
of "Russian bots."
The New York Times is making its claims about "Russian meddling" with what is known
in the law as "unclean hands." That is, the Times practices the very actions of which
it accuses others.
Here is not the place to deal with the long and bloody history of American destabilization
campaigns and their horrific consequences in Latin America and the Middle East, or to review
the fact that many American journalists serving abroad had dual functions -- as reporters and
as agents.
But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of
Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the
Times with the major operations of the US intelligence agencies.
This is
particularly true with regard to Russia, in regard to which the Times acts as an
instrument of US foreign policy misinformation, practicing exactly what it accuse the Kremlin
of.
Take, for example, the so-called political "dissident" Aleksei Navalny. This proponent of
extreme nationalism and xenophobia, with deep ties to Russia's fascistic right, and extensive
connections to US intelligence agencies, has been championed by the Times as the voice
of social dissent in Russia. Despite his miniscule support within Russia, Navalny's activities
generate front-page headlines in the Times , which has mentioned him in over 400
separate articles.
Another example is the Times ' promotion of the "feminist" rock band Pussy Riot,
which makes a habit of getting themselves arrested by taking their clothes off in Russian
Orthodox churches, and whose fate the Times holds up as a horrific example of Russian
oppression. The very name "Pussy Riot," which in typical usage is not even translated into
Russian, expresses the fact that this operation aims to influence American, and not Russian,
public opinion.
In 2014, the Times met with members of Pussy Riot at their editorial offices, and
have since extensively promoted the group, having mentioned it in over 400 articles. The term
"anti-Putin opposition" is mentioned in another 600 articles.
The logic of the Times ' campaign was expressed most clearly by its columnist
Thomas Friedman, the personification of the pundit as state intelligence mouthpiece whose
career was aptly summed up in a biography titled Imperial Messenger . In a column
published on February 18 ("Whatever Trump is Hiding is Hurting All of US Now"), Friedman
declares a "code red" threat to the integrity of American democracy.
"At a time when the special prosecutor Robert Mueller -- leveraging several years of
intelligence gathering by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and N.S.A. -- has brought indictments against 13
Russian nationals and three Russian groups -- all linked in some way to the Kremlin -- for
interfering with the 2016 U.S. elections," Friedman writes, "America needs a president who will
lead our nation's defense against this attack on the integrity of our electoral democracy."
This "defense," according to Friedman, would include "bring[ing] together our intelligence
and military experts to mount an effective offense against Putin -- the best defense of all."
In other words, war.
The task of all war propaganda is to divert internal social tensions outwards, and the
Times ' campaign is no different. Its aim is to take the anger that millions of people
feel at a society riven by social inequality, mass alienation, police violence, and endless
war, and pin it on some shady foreign adversary.
The New York Times ' claims of Russian "meddling" in the Parkland shooting set the
tone for even more hysterical coverage in the broadcast evening news. NBC News cited Jonathan
Morgan, another collaborator on the Hamilton 68 project, who declared that Russia is "really
interested in sowing discord amongst Americans. That way we're not focused on putting a unified
front out to foreign adversaries."
The goal of the ruling class and its media accomplices is to put on "a unified front"
through the suppression of social opposition within the United States. Along these Lines, NBC
added, "Researchers tell us it's not just Russia deploying these attacks on social media,"
adding "many small independent groups are trying to divide Americans and create chaos."
Who are these "small independent groups" seeking to "create chaos"? By this, they no doubt
mean any news or political organization that dares question the official line that everything
is fine in America, and that argues that the horrendous levels of violence that pervade
American society are somehow related to social inequality and the wars supported and justified
by the entire US political establishment
"... The erosion of the American society is on track, and its stay the course until this corporate owned government cannot govern no more. ..."
"... In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have produced and present it into the Mueller Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack there of. ..."
"... For a possibly useful parsing of what is actually going in the Mueller investigation, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt4kwAvNqU The delivery is a bit inelegant, but the main takeaway is that the Mueller investigation is meant to hide what really went down between the Dems and the Russians. ..."
"... Here you can read to how far the U.S. is willing to go with nothing but allegations. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-sanctions/ This insanity has to end. ..."
Russia Gate has given us one thing for sure, and
that it is now ravishing the internet of all of its corporate controlled First Amendment
Rights. Just like the establishment of long TSA lines pushing us travelers through airport
security like inspected cattle, was an example of 911 reforms to our system, this Russia Gate
Investingation and all its trappings are doing the same destruction to our liberties.
What
memories of a free and liberal society have we all seen swirl ever so slowly, but deliberately
down the memory hole of our once civil liberties? The erosion of the American society is on
track, and its stay the course until this corporate owned government cannot govern no more.
In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have
produced and present it into the Mueller Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack
there of.
Good to hear Patrick Lawrence get down with it, that's what we need more of. At the rate the
internet is going, say it now, or forever hold your peace, is now in force.
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:26 pm
Here is a link to something that at first seems a little unrelated, but after reading it
ask yourself, is it? Moon Jae in of S Korea may just have the answer for the way of dealing
with past government malpractices.
For a possibly useful parsing of what is actually going in the Mueller investigation,
check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt4kwAvNqU The delivery is a bit inelegant, but the main takeaway is that the Mueller investigation
is meant to hide what really went down between the Dems and the Russians.
Excellent observations, Joe. I hope this – Russia gate – does not lead to a
much more dangerous zone as it appears to be heading to with these sanctions against Russia
slated to go into effect in November. There was this rather very disquieting article the
other day in Strategic Culture by Finnian Cunningham.
If this is true it is hard to see Russiagate collapsing...
Notable quotes:
"... The ruling establishment has pushed all their chips onto the table in a do-or-die effort to make this allegation stick. ..."
"... How many times has the U.S. "national security" establishment brazenly deceived the country and the world, at incalculable cost, without being held to account in a way that seriously discomfited the perpetrators? ..."
"... From the bomber gap, to the missile gap, through Vietnam from beginning to end, to Iran-Contra, to Iraqi WMDs, and so much more. ..."
"... It's hard to see Russia-gate collapsing in a way that would force its architects and proponents to acknowledge its fictitiousness: it is too much of an irrational miasma to actually be falsifiable in the sort of concrete way that led to even such perfunctory admissions of error as we got when Saddam's "WMDs" failed to exist. ..."
"... Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned elusive WMDs – and get laughs – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would this time be any different? ..."
"... People often wonder why psychopathic sadists enjoy torturing their victims, when presumably they have enough cognitive empathy to appreciate how terrible the suffering is. ..."
"... But that is WHY the sadists enjoy their activities so much. What they do to their victims is so unendurable, yet someone is having to endure it – and that somebody is not the perpetrator. ..."
"... It's hard to know if the American people will ever see a full explanation of this, Church Committee or FOIA style, ..."
Maxwell Quest August 13, 2018 at 9:38 pm Excellent article! I was particularly jolted by the
reference that the Russia-gate narrative has become "too big to fail." So true!
The ruling establishment has pushed all their chips onto the table in a do-or-die effort
to make this allegation stick.
They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails heads
will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last
vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what?
Reply
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:45 am
Or, as Patrick Lawrence puts it: "The risk of self-inflicted damage these institutions
assume, should the truth of the Russia-gate events emerge -- as one day it surely will -- is
nearly incalculable."
However, I disagree with both Mr. Lawrence and you, Maxwell Quest. I think that assessment
is actually too optimistic.
How many times has the U.S. "national security" establishment brazenly deceived the
country and the world, at incalculable cost, without being held to account in a way that
seriously discomfited the perpetrators?
From the bomber gap, to the missile gap, through Vietnam from beginning to end, to
Iran-Contra, to Iraqi WMDs, and so much more.
It's hard to see Russia-gate collapsing in a way that would force its architects and
proponents to acknowledge its fictitiousness: it is too much of an irrational miasma to
actually be falsifiable in the sort of concrete way that led to even such perfunctory
admissions of error as we got when Saddam's "WMDs" failed to exist.
But even if that somehow does happen, and the whole Beltway official and media
establishment has to suck it up and emit a feeble "my bad" about Russia-gate, what makes you
think it will have any lasting consequences in terms of the dispensation of power and
privilege among the U.S. elites?
Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned
elusive WMDs – and get laughs – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would
this time be any different?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:07 am
"Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned
elusive WMDs – and get laughs" – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would
this time be any different?
Yup, got lots of laughs from his fellow members of the club that were coconspirators.
Had he tried that joke around veterans and the families of casualties of that whole
criminal adventure I doubt he would have made it out alive.
Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:57 am
Had he tried that joke around any of the millions of victims of his criminal aggression or
their familes and friends, I am sure he would not have made it out alive.
But if you have ever managed to think yourself into the criminal mind, you will understand
that it is precisely the fact that he was NOT subject to any comeback that made the whole
thing such fun.
People often wonder why psychopathic sadists enjoy torturing their victims, when
presumably they have enough cognitive empathy to appreciate how terrible the suffering
is.
But that is WHY the sadists enjoy their activities so much. What they do to their
victims is so unendurable, yet someone is having to endure it – and that somebody is
not the perpetrator.
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 4:51 am
I've never tried to think myself into the criminal mind. And, I thank you for the insight.
I have had someone try to kill me. Someone that has killed at least one person before by his
own admission. It changes you forever.
Anne Jaclard , August 14, 2018 at 10:33 am
Agreed. The American corporate press has been running what are essentially press releases
and "dossiers" of evidence for a year now, mostly from shady private firms (Twitter trolls
"discovered" by Graphika, Fusion GPS's "Dirty Dossier," CrowdStrike's initial investigation
of the DNC).
Many of these firms aren't neutral parties either, head of CrowdStrike is rabidly
anti-Russia and just put together another package of "research" that was debunked on
Ukraine.
It's hard to know if the American people will ever see a full explanation of this,
Church Committee or FOIA style, given that these are companies with no public
obligations .not good.
Jeff Harrison , August 13, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Well, Patrick, I"m glad to see that you're writing for a reputable organization for a
change. I don't have a hell of a lot to add to what you've said but I'll say this. I saw an
article about the DefCon in Las Vegas this AM or yesterday. I don't remember where and I
can't find it again but the gist of it is – they had like 39 kid volunteers who they
told to go hack the election systems in some number of "battleground" states. The upshot? 35
of the 39 kids successfully hacked several election systems. The champ was an 11 yo girl who
broke in in 10 minutes. If our election systems are so poorly designed that kids can break
into them in just a few minutes, I'm sure it's just a walk in the park for an actual pro.
Jeff Harrison , August 13, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Hah! I found it. It was on RT, of course. Here's the link
-https://www.rt.com/usa/435824-us-midterms-hacking-children/
Good comments to this very good article. I agree with Gary that the US is in decline,
perhaps terminal, and that rising Eurasia led by China and Russia is the reason for the Deep
State's frantic need to try to focus the people on Russia, and now the biggie, China, to
avoid the reality of the social decay within from not addressing the people's needs for well
over 30 years. However, i also don't think as many Americans are swallowing this lie as MSM
and politicos would have us believe. What we now call the "alt-left", perhaps, may take it
seriously. It was Mme Clinton herself who is at the top of chain of this manufactured
story.
But I don't think we'll see this fixation around for the next 20-30 years, as Mr. Lawrence
speculates, because I don't think we'll have that much time for such political nonsense as we
are confronted by massive Earth changes, not all human-caused, that are now manifesting.
Tom Kath , August 13, 2018 at 8:28 pm
The correction of "illusions" often has the appearance of being too horrendous to
contemplate. Be it the delusion that we can get wealthy on debt, or the delusion that we are
invincible. These are all able to be traced back to a fundamental belief which has long been
proven to be inconsistent with reality.
mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:29 pm
How did we get here? The stupefication of the American people was well advanced before the
pilgrims landed. The idea that this continent only really began when we "discovered" it was
the beginning of our idiocy. That this land was waiting for the blessing of our special role
in "civilizing' it was a continuation of our delusional thinking.
In philosophy there is a concept called Teleology which means to view things "by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated
causes". If we are to look at Russiagate from a teleological perspective, and indeed we should, as the evidentiary and proportional
justification is severely lacking, we see a distinct organism with a broad purpose. So let's examine, what purposes are being
served by Russiagate, what agendas being driven, and interests being advanced?
Control of information by imperial, establishment and corporate interests
Control of discourse and dissent being stigmatized
Restriction of democracy by third parties and anti-establishment candidates being smeared as "Kremlin supported'
The enlargement of the military industrial complex
The ideological alignment of the nominal left and center with authoritarianism
The justification of imperialism and aggressive foreign policy
The deflection from widespread issues of discontent
The projection of issues in the 2016 election, particularly primary rigging, voting irregularities, voter suppression,
candidate funded troll operations like Correct the Record, widespread collusion between candidates and the mainstream media,
and outsized influence of Israeli, Saudi and Ukrainian lobbies
Considering how much of an impact Russiagate has had towards these ends, in comparison how meagerly it has tackled these phantom
Russian meddlers and "active measures", I think it's fair to say that Russiagate has NOTHING to do with it's stated cause. If
Russiagate can be described by what it does, and not what allegedly caused it, what it is is an authoritarian push to broadly
increase control of society by establishment elites, and to advance their imperialistic ambitions. In this way, it does not look
dissimilar to the way previous societies have succumbed to authoritarian and imperialist rule, nor do the flavors of propaganda,
censorship and nationalism differ greatly. The 2016 election represented the ruling Establishment losing control of the narrative,
and to a lesser degree, not getting their preferred candidate. And in response the velvet glove is slipping.
Reply
mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:33 pm
Excellent analysis!
Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 9:12 pm
You nailed that one man, Kudos
Maxwell Quest , August 13, 2018 at 9:32 pm
9. The delegitimization of Trump's presidency, and a false justification for removing him from office, or in the very least
crippling his ability to function as the executive.
Indeed. The Shit Snowball keeps gaining size and momentum because so many groups get various benefits from propagating the
Russiagate narrative.
I xeroxed your list of 8 – as well as an excerpt from Patrick Lawrence's original article – then added references and artwork
to set it off in a classy way.
Please let me know what the two of you think of the results:
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 3:00 am
This analysis is spot on.
Kevin Huxford , August 13, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Duncan Campbell's article is embarrassing, especially in that it took him so long to even slightly correct his misrepresentation
of Binney's position on the matter.
Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm
This article touches on such a fundamental truth which is the new paradigm of US disunity, the fracturing of both US political
parties and a greater General dysfunction of the American body politic not to mention the US's Image of itself.
A truly excellent and very important post! Thank you.
"To doubt the hollowed-out myth of American innocence is a grave sin against the faith." – author
Absolutely! The current "Russiagate" lunacy renders anyone a "heretic" who might engage in such "doubt"
– or who engages in any independent critical thinking on this matter. I've never seen the political class, the deep state psychopaths,
and the MSM more irrational, nor more out of touch with and more contemptuous of – simple basic verifiable physical "reality"
– than at this historical moment. The current state of affairs suggests the American empire may not simply be in decline, but
is instead perhaps in free fall with the hard ground of reality rapidly approaching. The current level of absolute public lunacy
also suggests the landing will be neither graceful nor pleasant, and may actually come as a shock to the true believers.
Terrific article, Patrick Lawrence. Too Big Too Fail is exactly correct. Just as the banks in the 2008 mortgage crisis got
bailed out, so the Russiagate narrative is cultivated by the US government. Both are insults to the American people.
As you know, there has been some recent discussion of this leak vs. hack topic. To wit:
There is a response by William Binney in video form at the end of this article:
Trump revoked Brennan's clearance for what he called "unfounded and outrageous allegations"
against his administration, while also announcing that the White House is evaluating whether to
strip clearances from other former top officials.
Trump later told the Wall Street Journal his decision was connected to the ongoing federal
probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and allegedly collusion by his
presidential campaign.
"I call it the rigged witch hunt, (it) is a sham," Trump said in an interview with the
newspaper on Wednesday. "And these people led it."
"It's something that had to be done," Trump added. -
Reuters
"... "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law." ..."
"... Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." ..."
"... This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
– Globalism
– open borders
– anti-Russia, Iran
– American hegemony which means endless wars
– support for gay marriage
– anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues
aren't as clearcut anymore.
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
Bingo! It looks like neocons and neoliberals joined forces to fight the rise of "populism"
which should probably be more properly called "the crisis of neoliberalism." To a certain
extent, the current "NeverTrumplists" neo-McCarthyism campaign is the behavior of a wounded
neoliberal beast (I am not sure why they have such an allergic reaction to Trump who in
domestic policies is 100% neoliberal and in foreign policy is 66% neocon.)
They try to suppress dissent under the smoke screen of "commitment to democracy and core
democratic principles" because, as you can guess, this is very important "at a time when the
character of our societies is at stake." The character of the neoliberal society in the USA
and EU to be exact.
Ironically, those "defenders of democracy" are interested in the issue of democracy even
less than former Soviet nomenklatura. All they want is to kick the "classic neoliberalism"
can down the road (and, as a side effect, preserve their lucrative sinecures; this is
especially visible with Max Boot in his recent interviews )
As Professor Paul Gottfried
noted about the recent alliance of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP):
Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?
Presumably, it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as
personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban.
Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing with its
villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue
different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and
respect the rule of law."
It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other
right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have
disrespected their countries' legal traditions.
Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!)
to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances
and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is
to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's
cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and
nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about
Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values."
This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its
advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from
whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."
"... "authoritarian regimes pursue different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and respect the rule of law." ..."
"... Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." ..."
"... This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
– Globalism
– open borders
– anti-Russia, Iran
– American hegemony which means endless wars
– support for gay marriage
– anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues
aren't as clearcut anymore.
Neocons and [neo]liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
Bingo! It looks like neocons and neoliberals joined forces to fight the rise of "populism"
which should probably be more properly called "the crisis of neoliberalism." To a certain
extent, the current "NeverTrumplists" neo-McCarthyism campaign is the behavior of a wounded
neoliberal beast (I am not sure why they have such an allergic reaction to Trump who in
domestic policies is 100% neoliberal and in foreign policy is 66% neocon.)
They try to suppress dissent under the smoke screen of "commitment to democracy and core
democratic principles" because, as you can guess, this is very important "at a time when the
character of our societies is at stake." The character of the neoliberal society in the USA
and EU to be exact.
Ironically, those "defenders of democracy" are interested in the issue of democracy even
less than former Soviet nomenklatura. All they want is to kick the "classic neoliberalism"
can down the road (and, as a side effect, preserve their lucrative sinecures; this is
especially visible with Max Boot in his recent interviews )
As Professor Paul Gottfried
noted about the recent alliance of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute
(AEI) and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP):
Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?
Presumably, it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as
personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban.
Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing with its
villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue
different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and
respect the rule of law."
It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other
right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have
disrespected their countries' legal traditions.
Fortunately, our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!)
to impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances
and misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is
to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's
cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and
nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about
Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values."
This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its
advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from
whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."
First rule of diplomacy– respect the culture and traditions of your
your [sic] host country, aka as [sic] the place where you were
born.
In Seagal's case, the "host" country to which the "academic" McFaul refers is not "also
known as the place where you were born", where "you" is Seagal, to whom McFaul is proffering
unsolicited advice.
The place where Seagal was born is the USA: Seagal's host country in this instance is
Russia.
If Seagal had truly wished to respect the culture and traditions of his host country, he
should have made his statement of acceptance of the post in Russian:
Я глубоко
потрясен и
польщен
назначением
специальным
представителем
российского
Министерства
иностранных
дел по
гуманитарным
связям с США.
Надеюсь, что мы
сможем достичь
мира, гармонии
и
положительных
результатов в
мире. Я очень
серьезно
отношусь к этой
чести.
However, as far as I am aware, Mr. Seagal does not speak Russian, but McFaul does, albeit
он несет полную
хуйню!
Oh, yeah, uh huh, McFaul speaks Russian. In fact, he is some kind of jive-talkin' Russian
homie, telling his audience that he looked forward to seeing them in 'Yoburg', which is the
culture-respectful term for "Yekaterinburg'. That's what got him dubbed "McFuck'. if I recall
correctly.
Then off he went as US Ambassador to Russia, where he almost immediately invited a host of
Russian opposition figures to the US embassy. According to Olga Romanova (& wikipedia)
they discussed the recent Russian protests and "the United States Presidential election
campaign" with McFaul.
While McFaul was away fostering Democrat collusion with Russian opposition figures,
Browder rammed the Magnitsky Act through Congress because of the legislative anomaly that the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment had to be repealed and Congress wouldn't give away something for
nothing.
McFaul and Browder are on the same team, playing different positions.
But ultimately they are impotent chimps. This ain't 1917 and not Sorosite and similar funding
of regime change is going to work in Russia. All these US laws and sanctions are blowhard
vapidity. They only generate healthy stimulus for Russia to clean up the last vestiges of
Yeltsin's 1990s era distortions in its economy and legal system.
Rory Cormac investigates Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations
in the postwar period
Historian Rory Cormac discusses his new book Disrupt and Deny, which investigates
Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations in the postwar period
####
Podcast at the link.
There's plenty not mentioned within, but still interesting. I would question though the
veracity of official reports released under (Freedom of Information) requests and would
assume that some of those documents are fabricated. After all, if keeping secrets is your
business, then you have have whole range of options for obfuscation, from complete release to
none at all.
Curiously having spoken of the Mau Maus, no mention is made of the discovery a few years
ago of MoD dossiers discovered in a skip (UK gov selling off real estate) detailing the
torture and abuse of them which until then had been completely denied, and ultimately went
before the high court and was fully exposed
"... So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the danger of contagion . ..."
"... Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008. ..."
"... Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war. ..."
"... NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires. ..."
"... NATO only seems to be useful to the hegemony that supports it. Peace is not it's mission. ..."
By now you've probably heard that Turkey is having a financial crisis, and Trump appears to be pouring gasoline on it.
But you may not understand what is happening, or you may not know why it's important.
So let's do a quick recap
.
Turkey's currency fell to a new record low today. Year to date it's lost almost half its value, leading some investors and
lenders inside and outside of Turkey to lose confidence in the Turkish economy.
...
"Ninety percent of external public and private sector debt is denominated in foreign currencies," he said.
Here's the problem. Because of the country's falling currency, that debt just got a lot more expensive.
A Turkish business now effectively owes twice as much as it did at the beginning of the year. "You are indebted in the U.S.
dollar or euro, but your revenue is in your local currency," explained Lale Akoner, a market strategist with Bank of New York
Mellon's Asset Management business. She said Turkey's private sector currently owes around $240 billion in foreign debt.
This is all about hot money that has been washing around in a world of artificially low interest rates, and now, finally, an
external shock happened. As it
always happens .
The bid-ask spread, or the difference between the price dealers are willing to buy and sell the lira at, has widened beyond
the gap seen at the depth of the global financial crisis in 2008, following Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s collapse.
So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the
danger of contagion
.
The turmoil follows a similar currency crash in Argentina that led to a rescue by the International Monetary Fund. In recent
days, the Russian ruble, Indian rupee and South African rand have also tumbled dramatically.
Investors are waiting for the next domino to fall. They're on the lookout for signs of a repeat of the 1997-1998 Asian financial
crisis that began when the Thai baht imploded.
A minor currency devaluation of the Thai baht in 1997 eventually led to 20% of the world's population being thrust into poverty.
It led to Russia defaulting in 1998, LTCM requiring a Federal Reserve bailout, and eventually Argentina defaulting in 2001.
Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008.
The markets want Turkey to run to the IMF for a loan, but that would require a huge interest rate hike and austerity measures
that would thrust Turkey into a long depression. However, that isn't the
biggest obstacle .
The second is that Erdogan would have to bury his hatchet with the United States, which remains the IMF's largest shareholder.
Without U.S. support, Turkey has no chance of securing an IMF bailout program.
There is another danger, a political one and not so much an economic one, that could have dramatic implications.
If Erdogan isn't overthrown, or humbled, then there is an ironclad certainty that Turkey will
leave NATO and
the West.
Turkey, unlike Argentina, does not seem poised to turn to the International Monetary Fund in order to stave off financial collapse,
nor to mend relations with Washington.
If anything, the Turkish President looks to be doubling down in challenging the US and the global financial markets -- two
formidable opponents.
...
Turkey would probably no longer view the US as a reliable partner and strategic ally.
Whoever ends up leading the country, a wounded Turkey would most likely seek to shift the center of gravity away from the West
and toward Russia, Iran and Eurasia.
It would make Turkey less in tune with US and European objectives in the Middle East, meaning Turkey would seek to assert a
more independent security and defense policy.
Erdogan has warned Trump that Turkey would
"seek new friends" , although Russia and China haven't yet stepped up to the plate to bat for him.
Russia, Iran and China do have a common interest when in comes to undermining the
petrodollar . Pulling Turkey into their sphere of influence would be a coup.
Turkey lies at a historic, strategic crossroad. The
bridge between the peaceful West and the war-ridden dictatorships of the East that the West likes to bomb.
On its Western flank, Turkey borders Greece and Bulgaria, Western-facing members of the European Union. A few years ago, Turkey
-- a member of NATO -- was preparing the join Europe as a full member.
Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with
Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war.
Losing Turkey would be a huge setback for NATO, the MIC, and the permanent war machine.
more struggling economies are starting to get it. Trade wealth for the rulers (IMF supporters) to be paid by the rest of us.
Fight back. Squeeze the bankers balls. Can't have our resources, now way, no how, without a fight.
in a flailing Turkey? Weren't there some outside potential takers encouraging China when it floated its currency proposal?
Nastarana on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:41pm
NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires.
Patrolling our shores for drug running and toxic dumping. Teaching school, 10 kids per class maximum. Refurbishing buildings and
housing stock. Post Cold War, an military alliance with Turkey makes no sense.
"See: I'm not biased against the POTUS and never have been, cos I'm investigating the
Dems, too. So I need to continue my impartial work forever" scam:
" anything he unearths about Russian election interference.." Future tense, as in not yet
accomplished as of this date. Mueller landed himself a good gig, but you can bet he has
discovered a great deal about 'foreign money flowing into Washington' which will never be
told, because it's not good politics, and has nothing to do with Russia. I daresay a
significant amount flows out of Washington as well, for intrigues and influence-peddling
abroad.
Russiagate has deepened the partnership between Washington and Silicon Valley, and leftist websites are among the first
casualties.
Notable quotes:
"... America has a real problem here with accomplishing its goals – which it is obviously achieving, the silencing of legitimate dissent and the prioritization of the national-security narrative – while simultaneously advertising itself as the center of what the evildoers hate for its freedoms. ..."
"... Americans, and everyone who uses their services, are increasingly regulated in everything they do and say, extending now to what you are allowed to see and hear. Actual freedom is dwindling away to a pinpoint, and what the government wants every election cycle is more cops, more law and order and more security. ..."
TheRealNews
Published on 11 Aug 2018
From Alex Jones to alleged Russian trolls, major internet companies are increasingly policing content on their platforms. Max
Blumenthal of the Grayzone Project says the partnership between Facebook and the Atlantic Council highlights "the merger of the
national security state and Silicon Valley."
Russiagate has deepened the partnership between Washington and Silicon Valley, and leftist websites are among the first casualties.
After falsely accusing an anti-white supremacist rally event page of being a fake, Facebook shut down the page of VenezuelaAnalysis.com
for several hours without explanation. We speak to VA founder and TRNN host Greg Wilpert, as well as the Grayzone Project's Max
Blumenthal
Western "freedom" of expression in action. I find it interesting how the voices of a few heretics are supposedly some big threat
to NATzO. That would indicate that NATzO is not quite the bastion of democracy it paints itself to be. It is unstable because
it is based on lies and heretics can initiate the crashing of the facade. But if this is indeed the case, then NATzO is on its
way out since no amount of repression of dissidents will change the fundamental inconsistency of its existence.
America has a real problem here with accomplishing its goals – which it is obviously achieving, the silencing of legitimate dissent
and the prioritization of the national-security narrative – while simultaneously advertising itself as the center of what the
evildoers hate for its freedoms.
Americans, and everyone who uses their services, are increasingly regulated in everything they
do and say, extending now to what you are allowed to see and hear. Actual freedom is dwindling away to a pinpoint, and what the
government wants every election cycle is more cops, more law and order and more security.
"... Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!! ..."
"... he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others. ..."
"... The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan! ..."
"... Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration! ..."
"... What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"? ..."
"... Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question. ..."
"... The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers. ..."
"... As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space. ..."
I think one of Mueller's deeply embedded character flaws is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed. Much
like the awful dealings with Whitey Bulger, sending men to prison for crimes they did not commit, in federal custody where they
could keep them quiet and under the threat of death if they were to talk.
He did this to protect the corruption surrounding that case, he is Mr. Wolf, sent in to clean up the fucking mess. He has gotten
away with this tact of ruthlessness for so long that he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this
is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others.
This will be his downfall, like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick the White whale, caught in the harpoon tethers and wrapped around
the great whale as he takes him deep into the abyss.
Mueller hasn't even interviewed Don Jr yet. If he were going after Trump that would be a big deal. I tell this to my liberal
friends this info and they're like wtf is Mueller even doing?
Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration!
What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia
to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on
here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference
in the 2016 election"?
Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom?
That's the question.
The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok,
Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers.
You wonder what Mueller and his team do with "exculpatory evidence" they discover. It must go in that deep, dark recess where
Obama's birth cert and college and law school records go.......
As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two
are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
"... Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!! ..."
"... he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others. ..."
"... The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan! ..."
"... Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration! ..."
"... What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"? ..."
"... Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question. ..."
"... The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers. ..."
"... As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space. ..."
I think one of Mueller's deeply embedded character flaws is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed. Much
like the awful dealings with Whitey Bulger, sending men to prison for crimes they did not commit, in federal custody where they
could keep them quiet and under the threat of death if they were to talk.
He did this to protect the corruption surrounding that case, he is Mr. Wolf, sent in to clean up the fucking mess. He has gotten
away with this tact of ruthlessness for so long that he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this
is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others.
This will be his downfall, like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick the White whale, caught in the harpoon tethers and wrapped around
the great whale as he takes him deep into the abyss.
Mueller hasn't even interviewed Don Jr yet. If he were going after Trump that would be a big deal. I tell this to my liberal
friends this info and they're like wtf is Mueller even doing?
Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration!
What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia
to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on
here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference
in the 2016 election"?
Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom?
That's the question.
The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok,
Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers.
You wonder what Mueller and his team do with "exculpatory evidence" they discover. It must go in that deep, dark recess where
Obama's birth cert and college and law school records go.......
As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two
are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
"... However, these gunmen were not local Catholics, they were not part of the IRA or any other Ulster organisation, whoever they were, they were there on the orders of external forces. ..."
"... From the point of view of those who sent those gunmen, the event was a great success, it achieved precisely the results they wanted as it resulted in 13 dead, innocent Catholic civilians and ignited the province of Ulster into decades of awful violence. ..."
"... Who would want to do such a thing, who would want to create an internal conflict inside the British Isles that would greatly influence Britain and it's governments for a quarter of a century? I believe that Bloody Sunday was part of the CIA-lead campaign of false flag terror known as Gladio. Gladio terrorist operations had begun in 1972, three years after Muammar Gadaffi had been placed in power in Libya by a CIA coup and Libya was to be the base of operations for Gladio. ..."
Note
the point made by a Para that all of the members of the British Army killed in the three years
of The Troubles to that point had been the victims of 'highly accurate sniper fire'. Then note
how the situation was setup to place the Paras in the worst possible position – sent in
to a very hot spot where the high ground – the blocks of flats, was occupied by the
enemy, an enemy that was known to have possessed at least one sniper rifle. The Paras were
going to be shot at and the gunfire was almost certain to come from the flats.
Listen to the testimony of the Paras, they are adamant that is indeed what happened –
that multiple weapons opened fire on them from the flats, they were experienced troops and knew
exactly what incoming rifle fire sounded like, they saw the bullets striking the ground around
them. I have no doubt that this is indeed what happened, that the Paras were fired on from the
flats. What happened next was all too predictable -the Paras reacted in the only way they were
trained to react when fired upon – to seek out the source of the gunfire and attack it
immediately.
This was the start of the massacre as the Paras reacted to the gunfire from the flats by
moving forward and shooting at any targets that presented themselves and tragically, the only
targets that day were innocent, unarmed British civilians, young Catholics who were guilty of
little more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The bishop and other Catholics
present on that day are equally adamant that no-one on the civilian side was armed, that none
of the protesters fired on the Paras; I believe they are telling te truth just as much as the
Paras are.
How can both the Paras and the civilians be telling the truth when they hold opposing
testimonies?
I think it is pretty simple and with the benefit of decades of hindsight and the knowledge
of many subsequent false flag events, pretty obvious what really happened. I believe that
gunmen were indeed placed in the flats and perhaps other buildings around 'Aggro Corner' and
those gunmen did indeed fire at the Paras, not with the intention of hitting any of them as
that would provide proof that gunmen were present and active that day, but with the intention
of causing the Paras to react with the hyper aggression which they had been trained to
display.
However, these gunmen were not local Catholics, they were not part of the IRA or any other
Ulster organisation, whoever they were, they were there on the orders of external forces.
Forces that intended to escalate the civil unrest that had wracked the province since 1969 into
a far more belligerent and violent affair where large and highly organised paramilitary forces
like the IRA were formed to battle the British Army and the Ulster Constabulary in what was a
virtual civil war. For this to happen, an event like Bloody Sunday had to take place, innocent
Catholics had to be sacrificed and the British had to look like brutal and murderous
imperialist oppressors.
From the point of view of those who sent those gunmen, the event was a great success, it
achieved precisely the results they wanted as it resulted in 13 dead, innocent Catholic
civilians and ignited the province of Ulster into decades of awful violence.
Who would want to do such a thing, who would want to create an internal conflict inside the
British Isles that would greatly influence Britain and it's governments for a quarter of a
century? I believe that Bloody Sunday was part of the CIA-lead campaign of false flag terror
known as Gladio. Gladio terrorist operations had begun in 1972, three years after Muammar
Gadaffi had been placed in power in Libya by a CIA coup and Libya was to be the base of
operations for Gladio.
Gladio had multiple objectives, in the political climate of the Cold War it aimed to
discredit left wing political groups, more importantly, the aim was to inculcate a climate of
fear among the general populace. This was known as the 'strategy of tension' which was intended
to generate a pervasive sense of fear which would encourage the population to appeal to the
state for protection. I firmly believe that Bloody Sunday and the subsequent 'Troubles' in
Northern Ireland was part of Gladio and that the intelligence services of Britain, the USA and
their NATO allies were directly responsible.
One point Ian that is not clear from the videos Ian is that high above the Bogside along
the City of Derry walls British soldiers fired down from on high into the crowds making
away from the city center for Free Derry Corner. With soldiers separated there is always
danger of crossed signals, soldiers caught in crossfire and officers at cross purposes. All
in all, as you say, it was a disaster. When the Paras are around expect a no-nonsense high
intensity encounter. Whoever, the cad or Hooray Henry was who decided to use the Paras for
crowd arrests deserved to be thumped. Nobody deserved to die that day. Nobody! Soldiers as
you say just follow orders and if confronted with real or probable danger will react
accordingly. And those trained to kill, do just that, kill. Everything in the planning of
that day smacked of deliberate provocation/saber-rattling against a peaceful Civil Rights
protest march. And the planners of the Bogside havoc from their offices at Whitehall proved
a world away from ensuing events on the ground and a far remove from logic or basic common
sense. And God rest the dead!
"... Thus ends another episode in the seemingly interminable serial, "Bernie Sanders Tries, and Fails, to Put a Progressive Coat of Paint on the Democratic Party." Since he rocketed to political prominence in 2016 in his challenge to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, Sanders has played this role again and again. ..."
"... First, he appeals to the idealism of young people and the economic grievances of working people, claiming to represent a genuine alternative to the domination of American politics by the oligarchy of "millionaires and billionaires." Then he diverts those who have responded to his campaign back into the existing political framework, endorsing whatever right-wing hack emerges from the Democratic wing of the corporate-controlled two-party system. ..."
"... In the 2018 campaign, where he is not a candidate except for reelection in Vermont, Sanders has endorsed and campaigned for a number of supposedly left-wing candidates in the Democratic primaries, always based on the same pretense, that the Democratic Party can be reformed and pushed to the left, that this party of corporate America can be transformed into an instrument of social reform and popular politics. ..."
"... The requirements for receiving Sanders' support and that of "Our Revolution," the political operation formed by many of his 2016 campaign staffers, are not very demanding. The self-proclaimed socialist does not demand that his favored candidates oppose capitalism or pay lip service to socialism -- and almost none of them do. ..."
"... In other words, Sanders uses the image of radicalism and opposition to the status quo that surrounded his 2016 campaign to lend support to very conventional, pro-capitalist candidates, whose policies are well within the mainstream of the Democratic Party -- a party whose leadership has embraced most of the measures cited above, secure in the knowledge that it will not keep a single one of these promises and can always blame the Republicans for blocking them. ..."
"... In Michigan, Sanders spoke at rallies for El-Sayed, and his supporters were quite active on college campuses and on social media, mobilizing support among young people. But as in 2016, there was little effort to reach the working class, particularly minority workers in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and other devastated industrial cities. ..."
"... Sanders and the supposedly "left" Democrats he promotes all fervently support the trade union bureaucracy, which is working overtime this year to prevent strikes by angry and militant workers -- as at United Parcel Service -- and to isolate, terminate and betray them where they break out -- as with the state-wide teachers' strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona earlier this year. ..."
"... Under these conditions, the Democratic Party is not a party that can or will can carry out social reforms in order to save capitalism, as in Roosevelt's day. It is a party that will carry out the dictates of the ruling class for war and austerity while using the services of "left" politicians like Sanders to confuse and disorient working people and youth. ..."
Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed went down to a double-digit defeat Tuesday in the Democratic primary, overwhelmed
by the near-unanimous support of the Democratic Party establishment for former state senator Gretchen Whitmer. The daughter of
former Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Richard Whitmer won every county in the state and will go on to face Republican State Attorney
General Bill Schuette in the November general election.
In a tweet to his supporters, El-Sayed declared: "The victory was not ours today, but the work continues. Congratulations to
@gretchenwhitmer on her primary win. Tomorrow we continue the path toward justice, equity and sustainability."
When tomorrow came, however, that "path" led to a unity luncheon at which El-Sayed and the third candidate in the race, self-funding
millionaire Shri Thanedar, pledged their full support to Whitmer. "Today we all retool and figure out how we make sure that Bill
Schuette does not become governor. I'm super committed to that," El-Sayed said. "Never has it been more important to have a Democrat
lead state government."
Thus ends another episode in the seemingly interminable serial, "Bernie Sanders Tries, and Fails, to Put a Progressive
Coat of Paint on the Democratic Party." Since he rocketed to political prominence in 2016 in his challenge to Hillary Clinton,
the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, Sanders has played this role again and again.
First, he appeals to the idealism of young people and the economic grievances of working people, claiming to represent
a genuine alternative to the domination of American politics by the oligarchy of "millionaires and billionaires." Then he diverts
those who have responded to his campaign back into the existing political framework, endorsing whatever right-wing hack emerges
from the Democratic wing of the corporate-controlled two-party system.
In 2016, this involved appealing to his supporters to back Hillary Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus. The Clinton campaign refused to make the slightest appeal to the working class in order to preserve its support within
corporate America and, in the process, drove millions of desperate workers to stay home on Election Day or vote for Trump, allowing
the billionaire demagogue to eke out an Electoral College victory.
In the 2018 campaign, where he is not a candidate except for reelection in Vermont, Sanders has endorsed and campaigned
for a number of supposedly left-wing candidates in the Democratic primaries, always based on the same pretense, that the Democratic
Party can be reformed and pushed to the left, that this party of corporate America can be transformed into an instrument of social
reform and popular politics.
The requirements for receiving Sanders' support and that of "Our Revolution," the political operation formed by many of
his 2016 campaign staffers, are not very demanding. The self-proclaimed socialist does not demand that his favored candidates
oppose capitalism or pay lip service to socialism -- and almost none of them do.
Their platforms usually include such demands as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, implementing "Medicare for all," interpreted
in various fashions, establishing free public college education for families earning less than $150,000 a year, and enacting universal
pre-K education. They usually promise not to accept corporate money and to support campaign finance reform.
These Sanders-backed candidates, like Sanders himself in 2016, have very little to say about foreign policy and make no appeal
whatsoever to the deep anti-war sentiment among American youth and workers. There is no discussion of Trump's threats of nuclear
war. As for trade war, most, like Sanders himself, embrace the economic nationalism that is the foundation of Trump's trade policy.
In other words, Sanders uses the image of radicalism and opposition to the status quo that surrounded his 2016 campaign
to lend support to very conventional, pro-capitalist candidates, whose policies are well within the mainstream of the Democratic
Party -- a party whose leadership has embraced most of the measures cited above, secure in the knowledge that it will not keep
a single one of these promises and can always blame the Republicans for blocking them.
In Michigan, Sanders spoke at rallies for El-Sayed, and his supporters were quite active on college campuses and on social
media, mobilizing support among young people. But as in 2016, there was little effort to reach the working class, particularly
minority workers in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and other devastated industrial cities.
Sanders and the supposedly "left" Democrats he promotes all fervently support the trade union bureaucracy, which is working
overtime this year to prevent strikes by angry and militant workers -- as at United Parcel Service -- and to isolate, terminate
and betray them where they break out -- as with the state-wide teachers' strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona earlier
this year.
The real attitude of Sanders and El-Sayed to genuine socialism was made clear when they sought to ban supporters of the Socialist
Equality Party and SEP candidate for Congress Niles Niemuth from distributing leaflets and holding discussions outside campaign
rallies for El-Sayed.
This year, Sanders has been campaigning with a sidekick, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of
America who won the Democratic congressional nomination in the 12th District of New York, defeating incumbent Representative Joseph
Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.
Ocasio-Cortez campaigned for El-Sayed in Michigan and also for several congressional candidates, including Brent Welder in
Kansas and Cori Bush in Missouri, who also went down to defeat on August 7. Like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez claims that the Democratic
Party can be transformed into a genuinely progressive "party of the people" that will implement social reforms.
But at age 28, Ocasio-Cortez has less practice in performing the song-and-dance of pretending to be independent of the Democratic
Party establishment while working to give it a left cover and prop it up. She was clumsier in her execution, attracting notice
as she walked back a campaign demand to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and sought to downplay her previous
criticism of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.
After her campaign swing through the Midwest, Ocasio-Cortez traveled to the Netroots Nation conference in New Orleans, an annual
assemblage of the left flank of the Democratic Party. She told her adoring audience that her policies were not radical at all,
but firmly in the Democratic mainstream. "It's time for us to remember that universal college education, trade school, a federal
jobs guarantee, a universal basic income were not all proposed in 2016," she said. "They were proposed in 1940, by the Democratic
president of the United States."
The reference to Franklin D. Roosevelt was inadvertently revealing. Roosevelt adopted reform policies, including many of those
suggested by the social democrats of his day such as Norman Thomas. He was no socialist, but rather a clever and conscious bourgeois
politician who enacted limited reforms in a deliberate effort to save the capitalist system.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez likewise seek to save the capitalist system, but under conditions where no such reforms are possible.
The American ruling class no longer dominates the world economy, but is beset by powerful rivals in both Europe and Asia. It is
pouring resources into the military to prepare for world war. And at home, even the most modest measures run up against the intransigent
opposition of the super-rich, who control both parties and demand even greater wealth for themselves at the expense of working
people.
Under these conditions, the Democratic Party is not a party that can or will can carry out social reforms in order to save
capitalism, as in Roosevelt's day. It is a party that will carry out the dictates of the ruling class for war and austerity while
using the services of "left" politicians like Sanders to confuse and disorient working people and youth.
Thus, at Netroots Nation, the assembled "left" Democrats gave a loud ovation to Ocasio-Cortez, but also to Gina Ortiz Jones,
the Democratic nominee in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, also young, nonwhite and female. Ortiz Jones has another characteristic,
however. She is a career Air Force intelligence officer who was deployed to Iraq, South Sudan and Libya -- all the scenes of US-instigated
bloodbaths.
Ortiz Jones is one of nearly three dozen such candidates chosen to represent the Democratic Party in contested congressional
districts around the country. Another such candidate is Elissa Slotkin, who won the Democratic nomination Tuesday in Michigan's
Eighth Congressional District. Slotkin served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad before being promoted to high-level positions
in the Pentagon and the Obama-era National Security Council.
The fake leftism of Bernie Sanders in alliance with the CIA: That is the formula for the Democratic Party in 2018.
"... Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks, but I'm sure it's all part of the plan. ..."
"... Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel because uh chaos and destabilization. ..."
. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal
of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well
as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion
dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less
is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel
which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.
Oh right, who can forget the cabal of Jews controlling the US government and military at
the time of the Iraq invasion, such as President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, CIA director George Tenet, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice Every.Single.Time, am I right, folks?
Oh wait, they aren't Jewish? Well, I blame the Jews away. Just look at uh Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Woflowitz and
journalist Bill Kristol. That sounds like an extremely powerful cabal easily capable of
commanding such trivial figures as the President, CIA director, Secretary of State, et
cetera, to do their bidding.
Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to
pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack
on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the
Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks,
but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.
Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and
created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and
likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel
because uh chaos and destabilization.
And if you doubt that neocons totally control the US government, just look at how we're at
war with Iran! Well we're not technically at war yet, a decade after neoconservatives
began promoting the war and President Obama did somehow manage to sign a nuclear deal with
Iran that infuriated his neocon and Israeli puppetmasters but I'm sure that President Trump,
famously beloved by Jews and neocons everywhere, will soon go to war with Iran.
' I'm not entirely sure why you keep hanging on to this tired and false narrative that
US politicians are some sort of stooges and puppets of Israel '
Maybe because they are stooges and puppets? In extreme cases, they even boast of it. When
Romney was running for president, he promised he would check with Israel on any action we
took in the Middle East. When Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was promoting civil war
in Syria, she explained that this was necessary because Israel wished it.
It goes on, and on. If someone is considering a run for Congress, he gets a nice little
packet from AIPAC. Among other things, he's asked to write an essay expressing his feelings
about Israel.
If the essay isn't satisfactory, AIPAC backs his opponent.
Not surprisingly, when Netanyahu -- the premier of a tiny state on the other side of the
planet -- spoke to Congress he was interrupted with standing ovations seventeen times. The
display put me in mind of the sort of frenzied adulation Communist delegates used to display
towards Stalin.
and the motives, of course, would be similar, even if actual death isn't in prospect. For
most in Congress, displease Israel, and your political career just ended.
"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had
considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with
Washington."
It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack.
I think it needs to be emphasized that it's not merely a matter of practical politics.
Israel is evil -- she brings misery to millions, actual happiness to almost no one, and
engages in behavior with no defensible moral foundation at all. She has attacked every
single one of her neighbors, compulsively seeks out further conflict to paper over the
shortcomings in her own national identity, and treats her Palestinian subjects with a
morality about like that of a nasty little boy pulling the wings off a fly.
Arguably, others are as bad. However, unlike the others, Israel could not have come into
being without our support, and could not continue to exist today without our continued moral,
economic, diplomatic, and military support. If we pulled the plug, Israel would cease to
exist as a Jewish supremacist state within -- at most -- a decade.
We are, in fact, responsible for Israel, and hence responsible for Israel's crimes. Other
people's teenaged sons may well be out there stealing cars and raping girls. This happens to
be our son doing it. We're responsible.
We pursue many policies I regard as futile, short-sighted, deluded, or self-destructive.
My personal list would include 'come one come all' immigration, global warming denial,
maintaining a massive military establishment, condoning 'Black Lives Matter,' and probably
some other things.
No doubt the reader has his own list. However, that's not the point. The point is that
essentially, these policies are merely stupid rather than actually evil. It's not evil
to think we should just let whoever wants come into the US. It's dumb -- but it isn't
evil. In fact, I'll willingly credit people who vote for 'sanctuary cities' et al with the
most laudable sentiments. I merely question their intelligence.
Israel is different. Israel is evil, and hence our support for it is as well. It is the
most fundamentally wrong act we are engaged in.
There is a moral dimension to life. There is a distinction between striving to do good --
however unsuccessfully -- and willingly participating in evil.
"A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of
individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part
by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason
but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House
without any objection from a controlled media."
Kind of begs the question, why are we giving any aid to a first-world country with a GDP
growth rate in the 3% to 4% rate for years (even while we were stuck below 2%) and an
unemployment rate below 4%?
The Israeli economy is in better shape than the US economy; they should be giving us
aid.
"Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad,
an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham
but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them."
Yes, it is truly amazing what our "Best & Brightest" will do to stay on-side.
Following Mr. Giraldi's earlier post regarding the gubernatorial run of Israeli puppet Ron
DeSantis and the Big Sugar connections of Adam Putnam, it would seem a Floridian's least
worst choice is Bob White.
Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself
1st part: Absolutely, indubitably correct.
2nd part: ¿Qué? Why do people say/write this? Under what corrupt
arrangement does an oh, so obvious outlaw have any such right?
Consider: A gang of out-of-towners turns up at a block of flats, breaks the doors down and
occupies the building, killing some erstwhile owner/occupiers and ejecting most of the rest
on the way in, thereafter whooping it up big, and ignoring [obviously too feeble] orders to
RoR+R*3 [= Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.] Since when can such
outlaws dictate anything, thumb their noses at the Law?
Property, especially here land, is alienable – but this does not mean
' subject to seizure by aliens .'
Kindly consider: "A fair exchange is no robbery." A fair exchange means willing
seller, interested buyer, and a freely and fairly agreed price. No such thing exists
vis-à-vis the forcible colonisation of Palestine. Some proof may be seen
here [my
bolding]:
By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and
villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20,500
km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine
Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership.[5]
5. Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land
and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.
Especially in reference to the illegitimate entity which terms itself Israel, wiki is not
reliable, being, like the US Congress, Israeli-occupied territory. So it is noteworthy that
they write "in control of" as opposed to 'own.' They can't ever own it due to not having
purchased it, and Palestinians may not surrender it, due to the UDHR which specifies
*inalienable* rights:
Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Also, see the Washington Consensus:
10.Legal security for property rights.
Further, there is UNSC242: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, plus
only just law may earn respect, and/or be respected. A law dispossessing erstwhile legal
owner/occupiers is an utter travesty.
Me; comment: Its illegitimacy is all so howlingly obvious!
Fazit: Apart from the ~6% of 'pre-Herzl Palestine' which 'invading by stealth' alien,
mostly European Jews managed to purchase, the illegitimate entity does not own nor can they
ever own the land/property they squat upon, which still belongs to the erstwhile
owner/occupiers, specifically the 'native' pre-Nakba Palestinians [now including heirs &
successors]. Then, the illegitimate entity does not declare borders for two reasons 1) any
such declaration would be [probably successfully] challenged and 2) the illegitimate entity
expresses the desire to expand to 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' Q: Just how ghastly is
that? A: Could hardly be worse.
Closing the loop: How can land-thieves have any 'right to defend' such improperly
alienated land/property? It doesn't compute! rgds
Thank you, Mr. Giraldi, for another forceful rebuke of Zionist criminality and US
culpability.
The supremacist kosher state is a cancer on America. Just survey the wreckage. Count the
bodies. Who benefits from this?
The Zionist project is a plague on humanity. It entertains no compromise. It will stop at
virtually nothing. Examine the blood-soaked damage from Soviet Russia to Germany to Palestine
and beyond. It moves Washington around via remote control.
The situation has become very grave. Speech deemed 'anti-Semitic' is rapidly being
criminalized worldwide.
Right wing political expression (that Jews don't like) on Twitter, Facebook and the web is
being de-platformed for speech infractions that involve 'hate'. But it's only 'hate' of a
certain stripe.
After all, hatred is ubiquitous in America. It cuts in every direction. So why is the
focus so intense on just one spectrum of hatred?
Might it have something to do with the political preferences of those in power?
Oh maybe.
Principles be damned. Whose ox is being gored?
With that in mind, consider this: who might actually be the biggest hater of
all?–and killer? (Hint: it's certainly not the powerless Alt-right 'deplorables'.)
Might it instead be the world's foremost victims?
After all, incendiary speech–even 'hate speech'–does not kill. It takes bombs,
drones, tanks and missiles to accomplish that.
So where's the uproar over routine sorties which needlessly dispense death and
destruction?
It's gone missing.
Incredibly, it is rough speech and acute political criticism–not failed, horrific
wars–that are being criminalized. Pro-Zionist 'wars of choice' still get a pass in our
corporate board rooms, TV studios, news rooms, and in most of Official Washington.
This entrenched distortion allows neocons and their underlings to jawbone and plot their
next preemptive war. The Big Squeeze is on. Beware Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and
Iran. Zionism is an 'unshakable' Washington value. So get ready.
How distant wars advance the interests of average Americans remains a mystery.
Despite this puzzle, America's MSM offers little resistance and no straightforward
criticism of Zio-Washington's ceaseless war efforts on behalf of a certain 'democratic ally'.
In similar fashion, the Fourth Estate has also been compromised.
It's worth remembering that, according to the UN Charter, a state-sponsored 'First Strike'
against another sovereign state is the most serious war crime. This elementary moral precept
however matters not–at least not when Israel is pulling the strings. Quiet, children.
Listen. Obey.
What we have here is a pattern of vast serial criminality.
Zio-Washington has become Israel's war vessel. We regular folk are just along for the
ride.
So don't forget to cheer for the good guys!
Incredibly, US-enabled, Israeli ruthlessness has gotten even worse under 'America First'
Trump. After all, Trump needlessly tore up Obama's hard-fought peace deal with Iran.
Why would Trump make such a move? (As a candidate, he was far less hawkish).
Our weakened and despised President needs desperately to please America's foremost lobby.
Trump cannot govern without their support. This peculiar situation however requires
additional blood-letting on behalf of the Zionist state. Foreign wars that benefit Israel are
the unwritten price that the goyim leadership in America must pay. Sorry folks!
(Are you listening, Tehran?)
Jewish power corrupts. Overwhelming Jewish power corrupts in overwhelming fashion.
We are in a very peculiar ideological and political place in which Democracy (oh sainted
Democracy) is a very good thing, unless the voters reject the technocrat class's leadership.
Then the velvet gloves come off. From the perspective of the elites and their technocrat
apparatchiks, elections have only one purpose: to rubberstamp their leadership.
As a general rule, this is easily managed by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
advertising and bribes to the cartels and insider fiefdoms who pony up most of the cash.
This is why incumbents win the vast majority of elections. Once in power, they issue the
bribes and payoffs needed to guarantee funding next election cycle.
The occasional incumbent who is voted out of office made one of two mistakes:
1. He/she showed a very troubling bit of independence from the technocrat status quo, so a
more orthodox candidate is selected to eliminate him/her.
2. The incumbent forgot to put on a charade of "listening to my constituency" etc.
If restive voters can't be bamboozled into passively supporting the technocrat status quo
with the usual propaganda, divide and conquer is the preferred strategy. Only voting for the
technocrat class (of any party, it doesn't really matter) will save us from the evil Other :
Deplorables, socialists, commies, fascists, etc.
In extreme cases where the masses confound the status quo by voting against the technocrat
class (i.e. against globalization, financialization, Empire), then the elites/technocrats will
punish them with austerity or a managed recession. The technocrat's core ideology boils down to
this:
1. The masses are dangerously incapable of making wise decisions about anything, so we have
to persuade them to do our bidding. Any dissent will be punished, marginalized, censored or
shut down under some pretext of "protecting the public" or violation of some open-ended
statute.
2. To insure this happy outcome, we must use all the powers of propaganda, up to and
including rigged statistics, bogus "facts" (official fake news can't be fake news, etc.),
divide and conquer, fear-mongering, misdirection and so on.
3. We must relentlessly centralize all power, wealth and authority so the masses have no
escape or independence left to threaten us. We must control everything, for their own good of
course.
4. Globalization must be presented not as a gargantuan fraud that has stripmined the planet
and its inhabitants, but as the sole wellspring of endless, permanent prosperity.
5. If the masses refuse to rubberstamp our leadership, they will be punished and told the
source of their punishment is their rejection of globalization, financialization and
Empire.
Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike. My two favorite charts of the outcome of
technocrats running things to suit their elite masters are:
The state-cartel-crony-capitalist version: the top .1% skim the vast majority of the gains
in income and wealth. Globalization, financialization and Empire sure do rack up impressive
gains. Too bad they're concentrated in the top 1.%.
The state-crony-socialist version: the currency is destroyed, impoverishing everyone but the
top .1% who transferred their wealth to Miami, London and Zurich long ago. Hmm, do you discern
a pattern here in the elite-technocrat regime?
Ideology is just a cover you slip over the machine to mask what's really going on.
Hammer it and remove all EMF's. An old microwave over works as a Faraday cage. Also; if you take a cell phone and wrap it in
just a layer or two of aluminum foil; it will not make or receive calls.
Good point. Save alot of shekkels too. Why just the other day I was standing in grocery line having an imaginary conversation
with my imaginary broker, on my fake phone! The conversation became quite heated. It was all going swell until I ran into the
door on my way out, fell over backwards, spilt the milk carton, and crushed a dozen eggs. No one even noticed ..
They don't need GPS to know where you are, cell towers report the same information to good enough accuracy for most uses. When
Google is tracking you, that is how they are doing it usually.
OSMand replaces google maps very nicely, and works perfectly fine completely off line (by GPS). It also doesn't have to allow
google to update its maps every 30 days to keep it working, download maps for anywhere in the world and just use them.
Lineage OS is a replacement for Android OS. I've had it in 2 phones so far, quite content with it. Open source, so lots of
eyes on it to make sure this sort of shit isn't happening. You can minimize or completely eliminate the google presence, your
choice.
Whether some deep-down shit is tracking me, I have no idea. I assume it is, and act accordingly.
Love to try lineage but I'm on Verizon and their phones since the note 5 are locked down good. Rooting, jailbreaking, or what
ever you call it is the way to go if your concerned about privacy.
Even taking the battery out doesn't work anymore... they've built in transistors that will
hold enough juice to keep the tracking capabilities enabled for several hours after the
battery is removed.
Throughout, Republicans in Congress were relentless in their pursuit. (If the recent Peter
Strzok hearing shocked you, you didn't watch any of the dozens of Whitewater hearings.) Starr's
office leaked like a sieve, making it clear that his mission had strayed far beyond normal law
enforcement into being a political operation intended to bring down the president. The media
ate it all up like little baby birds with their beaks open, eager to take whatever was fed to
them. The atmosphere was febrile and intense.
Starr had finally decided to close up shop after years and years of chasing his tail had
come up with no evidence of a crime. But that was when the Paula Jones civil suit opened the
door for Linda Tripp to stab her friend Monica Lewinsky in the back, and right-wing lawyers set
a perjury trap for the president. Clinton walked into it, lying under oath when asked if he'd
engaged in an extramarital affair with Lewinsky. The rest is history.
Of course this kind of devious machination is what Republicans see happening with Robert
Mueller's investigation into Trump's campaign dealings with Russians.
Please support antiwar.com -- a unique antiwar site in the climate of rabid militarism and
jingoism...
Notable quotes:
"... "the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect stooge." ..."
"... Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator! ..."
Libertarians are largely lost in the wilderness of the present era: wandering without a
compass, either moral or ideological, and without a clue as to how to get home, never mind
reach their ultimate goal of "freedom in our time." Yes, that was the old slogan that we
libertarians started out with: an optimistic battle-cry that, today, seems unrealistic, at
best. But is it? And if it isn't, who can show us the way forward?
My answer is simple: look at what Sen. Rand Paul is doing, and take a lesson. Instead of
weeping and wailing about the loss of a "libertarian moment" that never really happened, Sen.
Paul is making a difference. As Politicoreports
:
" Rand Paul has the ear, and the affection, of the most important person in the White
House: President Donald Trump.
"Once bitter rivals on the Republican campaign trail, the Kentucky senator and the
commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the
president likes to deride as 'foreign policy eggheads,' including those who work in his own
administration."
When Trump appointed the hawkish John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, the usual
suspects crowed that "the neocons have taken over the White House." Never mind that a) Bolton
is no neocon, and b) Trump is known for encouraging vigorous debate among his policy advisors
while not necessarily agreeing with one or the other – these people, mostly alleged
non-interventionists, hate the President for other reasons, and merely seized on the
appointment as a convenient talking point. However, this narrative is contradicted by the
reports of Sen. Paul's increasing influence in the Oval Office:
"While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the aide added, he shares a real bond with
Paul: 'He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul.'"
"Paul has quietly emerged as an influential sounding board and useful ally for the
president, who frequently clashes with his top advisers on foreign policy. The Kentucky
senator's relationship with Trump, developed via frequent cellphone calls and over rounds of
golf at the president's Virginia country club, became publicly apparent for the first time on
Wednesday when the senator announced he had hand-delivered a letter to the Kremlin on Trump's
behalf."
While the Beltway apparatus put together by the Kochs has jumped on the NeverTrump bandwagon
with both feet, publicly declaring war on the administration and announcing a de facto alliance
with the Democrats, Sen. Paul has made a difference in a key area that the Koch machine has
largely abandoned or reversed itself: foreign policy. Here's Politico again:
"Both Paul and Trump routinely rail against foreign entanglements, foreign wars, and
foreign aid – positions characterized as isolationist by critics and as 'America first'
by the president and his supporters. Even on points of where they disagree, Paul has
extracted small victories."
That one area is Iran, and even there it looks like Sen. Paul has his finger in the
dike:
"But Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with
Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White
House. '
Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this
person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle
East."
As the President launches peace initiatives from the Korean peninsula to the steppes of
Russia, the virtue-signalers among us pretend that none of that is happening and obsessively
descry the decision to exit the Iran deal. Yet where has all their moaning and groaning gotten
them? Sen. Paul is single-handedly doing more for peace than any of these bloviating
nonentities could dream of.
The hysteria aimed at the President is now directed at Sen. Paul, with the New York
Times in what is perhaps mistakenly presented as a "news" article
describing the Senator's relationship with the White House in words that are clearly over the
top:
"Suddenly, in the mind of the junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Trump has soared from
lower than that speck of dirt to high enough for Mount Rushmore."
One imagines the foam-flecked computer screen of the author was quite a mess well before she
reached the end of her jeremiad. Hatred for the President blends and merges with hatred for
Russia as the Fourth Estate becomes an instrument in the hands of the War Party. Vanity
Fair – that bastion of foreign policy expertise – shrieks
that
"the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian
iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer
Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace
with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect
stooge."
Yeah, suuure it does, Tina: anything you say. Just like those who wanted to end the
Vietnam war were "stooges" of Ho Chi Minh. Just like Ronald Reagan getting rid of a whole
category of nukes made him a "stooge" of Gorbachev.
And to get down to the real intellectual heavyweight: S. E. Cupp, whose credentials seem to
be phony glasses and blondness, vomits up her considered opinion
that Sen. Paul is now Putin's "errand boy." Which is far better than being Max Boot's errand girl , but
don't anyone tell Iraq war-supporting Ms. Cupp that she has blood on her hands. She feels no
need to apologize.
Oh yes, the heavies are out in force, sliming Sen. Paul for defending the President's
Helsinki peace initiative with nuclear-armed Russia. Vanity Fair , S. E. Cupp –
who's next? Madonna? Women's Wear Daily ?
Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed
scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand
for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and
change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the
wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every
person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator!
Marxism provides one of the best analysis of capitalism; problems start when Marxists propose
alternatives.
Notable quotes:
"... Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo ..."
"... I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods. ..."
"... The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system. ..."
"... any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain. ..."
"... dirigiste regimes ..."
"... With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international ..."
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. ..."
"... US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital. ..."
C.J. Polychroniou: How do you define imperialism and what imperialist tendencies do you detect as inherent in the
brutal expansion of the logic of capitalism in the neoliberal global era?
Prabhat Patnaik: The capitalist sector of the world, which began by being located, and
continues largely to be located, in the temperate region, requires as its raw materials and
means of consumption a whole range of primary commodities which are not available or
producible, either at all or in adequate quantities, within its own borders. These commodities
have to be obtained from the tropical and sub-tropical region within which almost the whole of
the Third World is located; and the bulk of them (leaving aside minerals) are produced by a set
of petty producers (peasants). What is more, they are subject to "increasing supply price," in
the sense that as demand for them increases in the capitalist sector, larger quantities of them
can be obtained, if at all, only at higher prices, thanks to the fixed size of the tropical
land mass.
This means an ex ante tendency toward accelerating inflation as capital
accumulation proceeds, undermining the value of money under capitalism and hence the viability
of the system as a whole. To prevent this, the system requires that with an increase in demand
from the capitalist sector, as capital accumulation proceeds, there must be a compression of
demand elsewhere for these commodities, so that the net demand does not increase, and
increasing supply price does not get a chance to manifest itself at all.
Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on
the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was
done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement
of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the
"drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken
away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo . The income of the
working population of the Third World, and hence its demand, was thus kept down; and
metropolitan capitalism's demand for such commodities was met without any inflationary threat
to the value of money. Exactly a similar process of income deflation is imposed now upon the
working population of the Third World by the neoliberal policies of globalization.
I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for
imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the
threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make
the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the
contemporary periods.
We recognize the need for a reserve army of labor to ward off the threat to the value of
money arising from wage demands of workers. Ironically, however, we do not recognize the
parallel and even more pressing need of the system (owing to increasing supply price) for the
imposition of income deflation on the working population of the Third World for warding off a
similar threat.
The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and
bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into
globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing
an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate
the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the
Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system.
Those who argue that imperialism is no longer a relevant analytic construct point to the
multifaceted aspects of today's global economic exchanges and to a highly complex process
involved in the distribution of value which, simply put, cannot be reduced to imperialism. How
do you respond to this line of thinking?
Capitalism today is of course much more complex, with an enormous financial superstructure.
But that paradoxically makes inflation even more threatening. The value of this vast array of
financial assets would collapse in the event of inflation, bringing down this superstructure,
which incidentally is the reason for the current policy obsession with "inflation targeting."
This makes the imperialist arrangement even more essential. The more complex capitalism
becomes, the more it needs its basic simple props.
I should clarify here that if "land-augmenting" measures [such as irrigation, high-yielding
seeds and better production practices] could be introduced in the Third World, then,
notwithstanding the physical fixity of the tropical land mass, the threat of increasing supply
price -- and with it, [the threat] of inflation -- could be warded off without any income
deflation. Indeed, on the contrary, the working population of the Third World would be better
off through such measures. But these measures require state support and state expenditure, a
fact that Marx had recognized long ago. But any state activism, other than for promoting its
own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not
surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance
capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of
obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own
domain.
The post-decolonization dirigiste regimes [regimes directed by a central authority]
in the Third World had actually undertaken land-augmentation measures. Because of this, even as
exports of commodities to the metropolis had risen to sustain the biggest boom ever witnessed
in the history of capitalism, per capita food grain availability had also increased in those
countries. But I see that period as a period of retreat of metropolitan capitalism, enforced by
the wound inflicted upon it by the Second World War. With the reassertion of the dominance of
finance, in the guise now of an international finance capital, the Third World states
have withdrawn from supporting petty producers, a process of income deflation is in full swing,
and the imperialist arrangement is back in place, because of which we can see once more a
tendency toward a secular decline in per capita food grain availability in the Third World as
in the colonial period.
There is a third way -- apart from a greater obsession with inflation aversion and a yoking
of Third World states to promoting the interests of globalized finance rather than defending
domestic petty producers -- in which contemporary capitalism strengthens the imperialist
arrangement. It may be thought that the value of imports of Third World commodities into the
capitalist metropolis is so small that we are exaggerating the inflation threat from that
source to metropolitan currencies. This smallness itself, of course, is an expression of an
acutely exploitative relationship. In addition, however, the threat to the Third World
currencies themselves from a rise in the prices of these commodities becomes acute in a regime
of free cross-border financial flows as now, which threatens the entire world trade and
payments system and hence makes income deflation particularly urgent. Hence the need for the
imperialist arrangement becomes even more acute.
Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that
"McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely,
this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still
alive and kicking?
The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported
financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world
through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce
among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the
phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific
truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of international
finance capital which is interested in preventing any partitioning of the world, so
that it can move around freely across the globe.
Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which
is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance
capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The
US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the
interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a
German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.
Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity
or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is
international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital.
So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a
different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se . The latter,
though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention all over the
world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the
imperialism of international finance capital.
Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a
vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both
of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism
has gone beyond.
... ... ...
One final question: How should radical movements and organizations, in both the core and the
periphery of the world capitalist economy, be organizing to combat today's imperialism?
Obviously, the issue of imperialism is important not for scholastic reasons, but because of
the praxis that a recognition of its role engenders. From what I have been arguing, it is clear
that since globalization involves income deflation for the peasantry and petty producers, and
since their absorption into the ranks of the active army of labor under capitalism does not
occur because of the paucity of jobs that are created even when rates of output growth are
high, there is a tendency toward an absolute immiserization of the working population.
For the petty producers, this tendency operates directly; and for others, it operates through
the driving down of the "reservation wage" owing to the impoverishment of petty producers.
Such immiserization is manifest above all in the decline in per capita food grain
absorption, both directly and indirectly (the latter via processed foods and feed grains). An
improvement in the conditions of living of the working population of the Third World then
requires a delinking from globalization (mainly through capital controls, and also
trade controls to the requisite extent) by an alternative state, based on a worker-peasant
alliance, that pursues a different trajectory of development. Such a trajectory would emphasize
peasant-agriculture-led growth, land redistribution (so as to limit the extent of
differentiation within the peasantry) and the formation of voluntary cooperatives and
collectives for carrying forward land-augmentation measures, and even undertaking
value-addition activities, including industrialization.
Small Third World countries would no doubt find it difficult to adopt such a program because
of their limited resource base and narrow home market. But they will have to come together with
other small countries to constitute larger, more viable units. But the basic point is that the
question of "making globalization work" or "having globalization with a human face" simply does
not arise.
The problem with this praxis is that it is not only the bourgeoisie in the Third World
countries, but even sections of the middle-class professionals who have been beneficiaries of
globalization, who would oppose any such delinking. But the world capitalist crisis, which is a
consequence of this finance-capital-led globalization itself, is causing disaffection among
these middle-class beneficiaries. They, too, would now be more willing to support an
alternative trajectory of development that breaks out of the straitjacket imposed by
imperialism.
Marxism provides one of the best analysis of capitalism; problems start when Marxists propose
alternatives.
Notable quotes:
"... Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the "drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo ..."
"... I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the contemporary periods. ..."
"... The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system. ..."
"... any state activism, other than for promoting its own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own domain. ..."
"... dirigiste regimes ..."
"... With the reassertion of the dominance of finance, in the guise now of an international ..."
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. ..."
"... US military intervention all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the imperialism of international finance capital. ..."
C.J. Polychroniou: How do you define imperialism and what imperialist tendencies do you detect as inherent in the
brutal expansion of the logic of capitalism in the neoliberal global era?
Prabhat Patnaik: The capitalist sector of the world, which began by being located, and
continues largely to be located, in the temperate region, requires as its raw materials and
means of consumption a whole range of primary commodities which are not available or
producible, either at all or in adequate quantities, within its own borders. These commodities
have to be obtained from the tropical and sub-tropical region within which almost the whole of
the Third World is located; and the bulk of them (leaving aside minerals) are produced by a set
of petty producers (peasants). What is more, they are subject to "increasing supply price," in
the sense that as demand for them increases in the capitalist sector, larger quantities of them
can be obtained, if at all, only at higher prices, thanks to the fixed size of the tropical
land mass.
This means an ex ante tendency toward accelerating inflation as capital
accumulation proceeds, undermining the value of money under capitalism and hence the viability
of the system as a whole. To prevent this, the system requires that with an increase in demand
from the capitalist sector, as capital accumulation proceeds, there must be a compression of
demand elsewhere for these commodities, so that the net demand does not increase, and
increasing supply price does not get a chance to manifest itself at all.
Such demand-compression occurs above all through the imposition of an income deflation on
the petty producers, and on the working population in general, in the Third World. This was
done in the colonial period through two means: one, "deindustrialization" or the displacement
of local craft production by imports of manufactures from the capitalist sector; and two, the
"drain of surplus" where a part of the taxes extracted from petty producers was simply taken
away in the form of exported goods without any quid pro quo . The income of the
working population of the Third World, and hence its demand, was thus kept down; and
metropolitan capitalism's demand for such commodities was met without any inflationary threat
to the value of money. Exactly a similar process of income deflation is imposed now upon the
working population of the Third World by the neoliberal policies of globalization.
I mean by the term "imperialism" the arrangement that the capitalist system sets up for
imposing income deflation on the working population of the Third World for countering the
threat of inflation that would otherwise erode the value of money in the metropolis and make
the system unviable. "Imperialism" in this sense characterizes both the colonial and the
contemporary periods.
We recognize the need for a reserve army of labor to ward off the threat to the value of
money arising from wage demands of workers. Ironically, however, we do not recognize the
parallel and even more pressing need of the system (owing to increasing supply price) for the
imposition of income deflation on the working population of the Third World for warding off a
similar threat.
The fact that the diffusion of capitalism to the Third World has proceeded by leaps and
bounds of late, with its domestic corporate-financial oligarchy getting integrated into
globalized finance capital, and the fact that workers in the metropolis have also been facing
an income squeeze under globalization, are important new developments; but they do not negate
the basic tendency of the system to impose income deflation upon the working population of the
Third World, a tendency that remains at the very core of the system.
Those who argue that imperialism is no longer a relevant analytic construct point to the
multifaceted aspects of today's global economic exchanges and to a highly complex process
involved in the distribution of value which, simply put, cannot be reduced to imperialism. How
do you respond to this line of thinking?
Capitalism today is of course much more complex, with an enormous financial superstructure.
But that paradoxically makes inflation even more threatening. The value of this vast array of
financial assets would collapse in the event of inflation, bringing down this superstructure,
which incidentally is the reason for the current policy obsession with "inflation targeting."
This makes the imperialist arrangement even more essential. The more complex capitalism
becomes, the more it needs its basic simple props.
I should clarify here that if "land-augmenting" measures [such as irrigation, high-yielding
seeds and better production practices] could be introduced in the Third World, then,
notwithstanding the physical fixity of the tropical land mass, the threat of increasing supply
price -- and with it, [the threat] of inflation -- could be warded off without any income
deflation. Indeed, on the contrary, the working population of the Third World would be better
off through such measures. But these measures require state support and state expenditure, a
fact that Marx had recognized long ago. But any state activism, other than for promoting its
own exclusive and direct interest, is anathema for finance capital, which is why, not
surprisingly, "sound finance" and "fiscal responsibility" are back in vogue today, when finance
capital, now globalized, is in ascendancy. Imperialism is thus a specifically capitalist way of
obtaining the commodities it requires for itself, but which are produced outside its own
domain.
The post-decolonization dirigiste regimes [regimes directed by a central authority]
in the Third World had actually undertaken land-augmentation measures. Because of this, even as
exports of commodities to the metropolis had risen to sustain the biggest boom ever witnessed
in the history of capitalism, per capita food grain availability had also increased in those
countries. But I see that period as a period of retreat of metropolitan capitalism, enforced by
the wound inflicted upon it by the Second World War. With the reassertion of the dominance of
finance, in the guise now of an international finance capital, the Third World states
have withdrawn from supporting petty producers, a process of income deflation is in full swing,
and the imperialist arrangement is back in place, because of which we can see once more a
tendency toward a secular decline in per capita food grain availability in the Third World as
in the colonial period.
There is a third way -- apart from a greater obsession with inflation aversion and a yoking
of Third World states to promoting the interests of globalized finance rather than defending
domestic petty producers -- in which contemporary capitalism strengthens the imperialist
arrangement. It may be thought that the value of imports of Third World commodities into the
capitalist metropolis is so small that we are exaggerating the inflation threat from that
source to metropolitan currencies. This smallness itself, of course, is an expression of an
acutely exploitative relationship. In addition, however, the threat to the Third World
currencies themselves from a rise in the prices of these commodities becomes acute in a regime
of free cross-border financial flows as now, which threatens the entire world trade and
payments system and hence makes income deflation particularly urgent. Hence the need for the
imperialist arrangement becomes even more acute.
Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that
"McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely,
this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still
alive and kicking?
The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported
financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world
through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce
among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the
phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific
truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of international
finance capital which is interested in preventing any partitioning of the world, so
that it can move around freely across the globe.
Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which
is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance
capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The
US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the
interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a
German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.
Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity
or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is
international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital.
So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a
different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se . The latter,
though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention all over the
world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader setting of the
imperialism of international finance capital.
Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a
vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both
of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism
has gone beyond.
... ... ...
One final question: How should radical movements and organizations, in both the core and the
periphery of the world capitalist economy, be organizing to combat today's imperialism?
Obviously, the issue of imperialism is important not for scholastic reasons, but because of
the praxis that a recognition of its role engenders. From what I have been arguing, it is clear
that since globalization involves income deflation for the peasantry and petty producers, and
since their absorption into the ranks of the active army of labor under capitalism does not
occur because of the paucity of jobs that are created even when rates of output growth are
high, there is a tendency toward an absolute immiserization of the working population.
For the petty producers, this tendency operates directly; and for others, it operates through
the driving down of the "reservation wage" owing to the impoverishment of petty producers.
Such immiserization is manifest above all in the decline in per capita food grain
absorption, both directly and indirectly (the latter via processed foods and feed grains). An
improvement in the conditions of living of the working population of the Third World then
requires a delinking from globalization (mainly through capital controls, and also
trade controls to the requisite extent) by an alternative state, based on a worker-peasant
alliance, that pursues a different trajectory of development. Such a trajectory would emphasize
peasant-agriculture-led growth, land redistribution (so as to limit the extent of
differentiation within the peasantry) and the formation of voluntary cooperatives and
collectives for carrying forward land-augmentation measures, and even undertaking
value-addition activities, including industrialization.
Small Third World countries would no doubt find it difficult to adopt such a program because
of their limited resource base and narrow home market. But they will have to come together with
other small countries to constitute larger, more viable units. But the basic point is that the
question of "making globalization work" or "having globalization with a human face" simply does
not arise.
The problem with this praxis is that it is not only the bourgeoisie in the Third World
countries, but even sections of the middle-class professionals who have been beneficiaries of
globalization, who would oppose any such delinking. But the world capitalist crisis, which is a
consequence of this finance-capital-led globalization itself, is causing disaffection among
these middle-class beneficiaries. They, too, would now be more willing to support an
alternative trajectory of development that breaks out of the straitjacket imposed by
imperialism.
WASHINGTON -- Suffering yet another unexpected setback during his ongoing investigation into foreign collusion with the Trump
campaign, Special Counsel Robert Mueller scrambled Friday to contain the damage to his documents after spilling an entire Grape Crush
Big Gulp all over his Russia evidence. "No, no, no! No! Aw,
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than
previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald
Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina
I had just finished exercising and went to the sauna. The gym I go to is a modern facility
with new equipment and is very popular in our city.
My favorite parts are the sauna and the steamer. Both remind me of my old country –
Russia. Though, to be politically and geographically correct – I never lived in Russia: I
was born and raised in one of the fifteen republics of the former USSR – the republic of
Kazakhstan.
So, I am a Russian from Kazakhstan. It's kind of confusing for Americans, and when
twenty-six years ago my American wife brought me here, the customs official gave me an alien
card where my nationality was stated not Russian but Kazakh. My friends make fun of me, because
Russians and Kazakhs are like apples and oranges. We look different
In 1992, when I arrived in America, the relationship between the two cold war rivals was
excellent: Americans traveled to Russia, opening McDonalds, KFC's, Burger Kings, and other
businesses, and Russians were opening not only their hearts but even the secrets of the
overthrown KGB. Millions of Russians and Americans enjoyed such a "romance" between the two
most powerful nuclear countries in the world.
Not anymore! Every morning I wake up to the words, "Russia is terrible," and go to sleep
with the humiliating jokes of the "night-show-clowns" about "the dictator" Putin and "barbaric"
Russians, whose 13 hackers changed the electoral minds of millions of naïve Americans.
Wow! What a powerful "gasoline station country"- Russia, as Senator McCain calls it.
If in 1992 the people in my city who heard my accent were very nice to me and to Russia, now
the usual reaction is to stare at me like a goat at the newly painted gates. One of my
neighbors even yelled at me when I answered his question about my recent trip to Russia. I told
him: "Russians like Putin because he saved their country from collapse. I saw with my own eyes
how Russia has changed since my last trip there. I didn't see the impact of Obama's sanctions,
Russians have better roads, than we have in Colorado; the shops, are filled with all kinds of
products; the churches are restored "
My neighbor who didn't like Trump yelled at me: "If you like Russia go back to your
country!" My answer was: "I love Russia but I am American – like your immigrant wife,
like you. I love America for a lot of reasons, one of them – the right to speak! Nobody
should privatize this right." He ran away, later coming to apologize
My wife, knowing my hard-tempered character asks me not to talk about policy –
Putin-Trump anymore. And I don't, to a certain degree. However, when someone asks me about
Russia or Putin I usually answer, giving my point of view; I just cannot be silent. I was
silent for 40+ years living in the USSR, not anymore! Of course, not everyone likes my answers,
like the man I am going to tell you about.
So, I went into the sauna; a stout man was sitting on the upper bench. He was the same age
as I. Many of the older men in America call ourselves "old farts." The name is not offensive to
us, because we really do not care about our image, and because we like to make jokes about
everything, mostly about ourselves. Usually, we old farts are nice, we love to talk, even in
the sauna. Young people nowadays do not talk. They turn on their phones even in the sauna
– I bet they do not know how to talk with other people. They cover their "secrets" in
towels while we do not – we do not have any secrets anymore.
Anyway, the man said hello to me, I answered, and he caught my slight accent.
"Where are you from?" It's a question I am usually asked.
"From here." I answered.
He was a little confused. I knew what usually followed if I had said – "from
Kazakhstan." Usually, there would be an exchange of this type: "Where is it?" – "Between
Russia and China," – "How do you like it here?" The silly film "Borat" helped me for a
short period of time. People were smiling, as if they met Sasha Cohen, and I was happy that at
least they knew some geography, though the film was silly and the geography in it was
completely mistaken.
"No, I mean originally where are you from?" The guy, let's call him Tony, found the right
question.
I decided not to check his geography skills and said that I came from Russia. The dialog
that followed was remarkable. Here it is.
"Welcome to America! Your English is pretty good!"
"Yours, too." He didn't get my humor. "Just joking," I said, "As for welcoming, it's a
little late: I have lived here for 25 years."
"Have you been in Russia lately?" He asked.
"Yes, I go there every year."
"Wow. So, what do you think about that crazy guy , Pyutin?"
"Sorry, honey," – I apologized to my wife in my thoughts and picked up the gauntlet.
"You mean Putin? He is not crazy. Actually, he is one of the smartest rulers Russia ever had."
I said.
Tony's eyes nearly leaped from their sockets. "But he is a dictator and kills people!"
"I wouldn't call him a dictator – he was just last week elected by nearly 67% of
Russians. I would call him an authoritarian, strong ruler; but a weak ruler in Russia wouldn't
survive a day. Besides, there were seven people opposed him in the election!"
Tony smiled. "You call it an election? He chose the opponents himself from his friends. The
whole world knows that elections in Russia are a sham!"
"Who told you this nonsense, Tony? Did you listen to the debates? Did you hear how these
people yelled at each other and cursed Putin, asking people to vote for them not for Putin.
They really were as tough as Hillary to Donald! And besides, there were a lot of observers from
110 countries. They claimed the election was legitimate."
"No, I do not believe you."
"You may not believe me but I am citing the international organizations reports. You may
check their reports on the Internet yourself. You may even sue these organizations if you
wish."
Tony was silent for a minute, then turned his head to me and asked: "You know that Pyutin is
evil even to his own people?"
"You mean Putin? Who told you? How many Russians share your opinion?"
"McCain."
"Is he Russian?"
"No, but he knows that Pyutin is KGB."
"His name is Putin!" I tried to correct at least this in his mind. "So, you do not believe
me, a Russian, who just returned from Russia, but you believe this Senator, who hates Putin and
Russia? Besides, there are no KGB anymore."
"But he used to be KGB?"
"Yes, and Bush H. was also a CIA agent. So, what? After the collapse of the Soviet Union
there were no people who didn't work for government in that country, we all worked for
government! Putin is good for Russia, he is the brightest politician nowadays. He is like a
great Chess-master, and he is a dangerous player. We must be careful with him. Some Congressmen
are underestimating Russia, calling it "a gasoline station with nukes," but I was there this
summer and saw with my own eyes how much people love Putin, and how much he is doing to make
that country great again."
"Yeh, yeh, yeh " Tony didn't know what to say. Then he recalled something and turned his red
face to me. "Well, he invaded Crimea, and Ukraine!"
"No, he did not. Crimea was a harbor for the Russian navy, and according to the treaty
between Ukraine and Russia there were sixteen thousand Russian troops stationed there on a
permanent base. There were about twenty-three thousand Ukrainian troops there, too. So, when
the thugs in Kiev took power, illegally kicking out president Yanukovych and killing the
political opponents, the Crimean people decided to organize a referendum. Ninety-six percent
decided to reunite with Russia, as they were Russians for nearly 400 years before the Communist
dictator Khrushchev gave that peninsula to Ukraine as a present to his native land."
"But they had no right to secede from the main land of Ukraine!"
"Yes, they did. International law gives the right for self-determination to people.
Remember, we split from the British Empire."
"But it was so long ago!"
"Okay, what about East and West Germany or Kosovo? The people in these countries also
exercised their right of self-determination, but they didn't have any referendum as far as I
know."
Tony looked at me attentively. "I don't believe you."
"You have the right not to believe me. You asked, I answered."
Tony was silent for a while. Then he threw out his last argument. "I hope you wouldn't deny
that Putin killed British citizens recently, using KGB gas!"
Wow, he pronounced "Putin" correctly! I smiled. The nice face of my American wife appeared
in my head again, and she was not happy! I kissed her in my thoughts and finished the
conversation with my last knockout blow:
"I wouldn't deny it if the poisoning by Russians had been proved!"
"But it was proved by Teresa May!"
"Really? What did she say?"
"She said that it was Putin who poisoned the British citizens!"
"Not really, my friend. She said that it was "highly likely" that Russia did it! Besides,
only Mr. Skripal is a British citizen, his daughter is a Russian citizen"
"Does it make any difference?"
"You mean, "highly likely" is proof to punish somebody? What about one of the main pillars
of democracy – innocent until proven guilty?"
"But we believe our allies, not the Russians!"
That statement made me laugh. "You believe not facts but political statements without any
facts? Wow! What kind of democracy is that?"
Tony's face became so red that I was afraid it would melt. He stood up from the bench and
without looking at me firmly said:
"Russians are our enemies, and democracy does not apply to them."
He left, leaving me with a sudden fear of approaching nuclear war.
At night I prayed for peace. I prayed for American and Russian people-in-power who could
easily destroy this fragile planet. If people refuse to understand each other, they fight.
Kennedy and Khrushchev fortunately understood this. Will Putin and Trump understand?
Pavel Kozhevnikov was born in Kazakhstan. In 1992 he married an American woman and
relocated to Colorado, USA, where he worked in a variety of business ventures and taught
various subjects including Russian at Mitchell High School as well as at Pikes Peak Community
College and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Pavel continues to enjoy teaching
Russian at the local community college and university and devotes his free time to writing. He
has published four books of stories and poems as well as numerous articles for newspapers and
journals in Russia, Germany, Kazakhstan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Global Intel Hub received the following text message from an ex-CIA
operative who we obviously cannot disclose:
911 was an insurance fire. My neighbor's do this - I've lived in the South for 25 years when their house is in bad need of
repair they light a fire and take the insurance check, only people from New York only Israelis only high-level military people
are capable of organizing such a high-profile Insurance fire this was a Hollywood quality Blockbuster make no question about it
this was an A+ event like nothing the world has ever seen if the Holocaust was a bold and aggressive move by Hitler; 9/11 was
pure genius mazel tov
Ending more than five years of bitter legal battles, the World Trade Center's insurance carriers agreed to fork over the remaining
$2 billion in payments – a move that clears the way to rebuild the massive complex, Gov. Spitzer announced yesterday.
The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than
what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.
Then there is this issue about the WTC building itself. There were design flaws, the engineers knew it. The building would have
needed billions in repairs, should it not have been destroyed on 911.
Here's how it probably went down. Sitting around the Kibbutz chatting, owner told friend about structural problems of WTC. Friend
says "well I have a problem too, cannot get US help fighting Arabs, we need a 'Pearl Harbor' - let's kill 2 birds with one stone.
Call our friends in Hollywood, in Washington, let's make a plan."
Jewish Lightning indeed. Look up the term in papers during the early 1900's. People noticed a connection back then. "Hmmmm,
I wonder why all these jew owned tenement buildings are going up in smoke...." People were smart back then, no sense of guilt
to hold them back from acknowledging the truth of the matter. Sadly all too many of the jews got away with it, their crummy buildings
burned, the residents displaced, then they got new property paid for by the insurance company that they stole from due to a fraudulent
fire.
Insurance fraud was on the laundry list of crimes committed that day. However, Fire is a believable cause for the collapse(s)
only if you are learning disabled.
Absolute fake news... the overwhelming evidence is that 9/11 was terror spectacle engineered by the US military and intelligence
with the Saudi Royal family. The purpose was to stampede the population into perpetual war -- a new or second Pearl Harbor as
it were. And also to shred what remains of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Much of the story is documented in the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry (which is NOT the 9/11 Commission cover-up designed to refute
the Congressional Inquiry)
Mossad has thoroughly infiltrated US intelligence whose key leaders were dual passport citizens so they likely knew that the
CIA allowed al Qaeda figures into the US more than a year in advance of Sept 11th. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence
that Mossad had any working operational role in 9/11... don't bother bloviating about dancing Jews unless you can bring some real
evidence to the table.
Right out of silverburgstein's mouth came the command to "Pull it" literally on day one did it take this long to know what
the plan was? Not for most of us
There is also plenty of evidence that the markets were being played as well: shorts on airline and insurance stocks and other
trades that only make sense if you know what is coming. There is no doubt that there was foreknowledge of the event and that many
actors profited handsomely from it.
Mueller is in on the Kabuki Theater just like Trump and all the rest - it's just to make Trump look like a Maverick-y Swamp-Drainer
while he is actually part of the Banker/Wall St/Fed ass-fucking that the US citizens are getting
Once had a Jewish executive tell me once with a straight face, that a Jewish fathers responsibility to his son is to help him
thru his first lawsuit so he can get established in Life.
911 was many things, there was no single magic bullet.
It was the means for the USA to begin it's Global Rampage.
It solved all these problems ....
It allowed the US to get into Afghanistan to secure Lithium and Opium
It allowed the US to get into Iraq to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's
It allowed the US to get into Libya to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's
It gave the Bush Clown his 15 minutes of Fame and a boost in popularity he desperately needed
It allowed Silverstein to make a Profit on his purchase of the Towers
It allowed the US to Invade any country on the Pretext of Terrorism for any Country not buying US Bonds
It allowed the Pentagram to not worry about where 2.3 Trillion Dollars went missing
It allowed the MIC to get a boost in Sales and Profits by selling more Military Weapons
It allowed the US to prevent GazProm (Russian) from Installing a Pipeline to Syria
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld all got Richer as a Direct result of these Wars
The CIA got more money, more control and more spying capability for Domestic and International
The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.
The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.
"A few people died" being many millions and counting.
Yes, maybe the biggest scam was getting the US military to murder Israel's enemies on an even larger scale than before. This
was a Mossad operation with Deep State complicity.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Google is actually tracking you even when you switch your device settings to Location
History "off" .
As journalist Mark Ames comments in response
to a new Associated Press story exposing Google's ability to track people at all times even when they explicitly tell Google
not to via iPhone and Android settings, "The Pentagon invented the internet to be the perfect global surveillance/counterinsurgency
machine. Surveillance is baked into the internet's DNA."
In but the latest in a continuing saga of big tech tracking and surveillance stories which should serve to convince us all we
are living in the beginning phases of a Minority Report style tracking and pansophical "pre-crime" system, it's now confirmed
that the world's most powerful tech company and search tool will always find a way to keep your location data .
The Associated Press sought the help of Princeton researchers to prove that while Google is clear and upfront about giving App
users the ability to turn off or "pause" Location History on their devices, there are other hidden means through which it retains
the data .
Google says that will prevent the company from remembering where you've been. Google's
support page on the subject states: "You
can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored."
For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on
Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are .
And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like "chocolate chip cookies," or "kids science kits," pinpoint your
precise latitude and longitude -- accurate to the square foot -- and save it to your Google account .
The issue directly affects around two billion people using Google's Android operating software and iPhone users relying on Google
maps or a simple search.
Among the computer science researchers at Princeton conducting the tests is Jonathan Mayer, who
told the AP , "If you're going to allow users to turn off something called 'Location History,' then all the places where you
maintain location history should be turned off," and added, "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have."
Google, for its part, is defending the software and privacy tracking settings , saying the company has been perfectly clear and
has not violated privacy ethics.
"There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people's experience, including: Location History,
Web and App Activity, and through device-level Location Services," a Google statement to the AP reads. "We provide clear descriptions
of these tools, and robust controls so people can turn them on or off, and delete their histories at any time."
According to the AP, there is a way to prevent Google from storing the various location marker and metadata collection possibilities,
but it's somewhat hidden and painstaking.
Google's own description on how to do this as a result of the AP inquiry
is as follows :
To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not
specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App Activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety
of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account.
When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account. But leaving "Web & App Activity" on and
turning "Location History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline," its visualization of your daily
travels. It does not stop Google's collection of other location markers.
You can delete these location markers by hand, but it's a painstaking process since you have to select them individually ,
unless you want to delete all of your stored activity.
Of course, the more constant location data obviously means more advertising profits and further revenue possibilities for Google
and its clients, so we fully expect future hidden tracking loopholes to possibly come to light.
Beginning in 2014, Google has utilized user location histories to allow advertisers to track the effectiveness of online ads at
driving foot traffic . With the continued
possibility of real-time tracking to generate billions of dollars, it should come as no surprise that Google would seek to make it
as difficult (or perhaps impossible?) as it can for users to ensure they aren't tracked.
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than
previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald
Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina
WASHINGTON -- Suffering yet another unexpected setback during his ongoing investigation into foreign collusion with the Trump
campaign, Special Counsel Robert Mueller scrambled Friday to contain the damage to his documents after spilling an entire Grape Crush
Big Gulp all over his Russia evidence. "No, no, no! No! Aw,
"... "The currency of our country is targeted directly by the US president," ..."
"... "This attack, initiated by the biggest player in the global financial system, reveals a similar situation in all developing countries." ..."
"... "All of our action plan and measures are ready," ..."
"... "Together with our banks, we prepared our action plan regarding the situation with our real sector companies, including Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the sector that is affected by the fluctuation the most," ..."
"... "Together with our banks and the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), we will take the necessary measures quickly." ..."
"... "It is making an operation against Turkey Its aim is to force Turkey to surrender in every field from finance to politics, to make Turkey and the Turkish nation kneel down," ..."
"... "We have seen your play and we challenge you." ..."
Turkey has accused Donald Trump of leading an attack on its national currency. The lira lost
about 40 percent of its value against the US dollar this year and, to reduce its volatility,
Ankara has prepared an urgent action plan. "The currency of our country is targeted
directly by the US president," Finance Minister Berat Albayrak told the Hurriyet.
"This attack, initiated by the biggest player in the global financial system, reveals a
similar situation in all developing countries."
The Turkish lira took a massive hit against the dollar on Friday following Trump's decision
to double tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Turkey to 20 percent and 50 percent.
Overall, the national currency lost roughly about 40 percent of its value this year.
To calm down the markets, the government instructed its institutions to implement a series
of actions on Monday. "All of our action plan and measures are ready," Albayrak said,
without elaborating.
"Together with our banks, we prepared our action plan regarding the situation with our
real sector companies, including Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the sector
that is affected by the fluctuation the most," the minister
said . "Together with our banks and the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency
(BRSA), we will take the necessary measures quickly."
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan meanwhile slammed the US decision to impose new tariffs on
steel and aluminum imports.
"It is making an operation against Turkey Its aim is to force Turkey to surrender in
every field from finance to politics, to make Turkey and the Turkish nation kneel down,"
Erdogan said
in Trabzon on Sunday. "We have seen your play and we challenge you."
I had just finished exercising and went to the sauna. The gym I go to is a modern facility
with new equipment and is very popular in our city.
My favorite parts are the sauna and the steamer. Both remind me of my old country –
Russia. Though, to be politically and geographically correct – I never lived in Russia: I
was born and raised in one of the fifteen republics of the former USSR – the republic of
Kazakhstan.
So, I am a Russian from Kazakhstan. It's kind of confusing for Americans, and when
twenty-six years ago my American wife brought me here, the customs official gave me an alien
card where my nationality was stated not Russian but Kazakh. My friends make fun of me, because
Russians and Kazakhs are like apples and oranges. We look different
In 1992, when I arrived in America, the relationship between the two cold war rivals was
excellent: Americans traveled to Russia, opening McDonalds, KFC's, Burger Kings, and other
businesses, and Russians were opening not only their hearts but even the secrets of the
overthrown KGB. Millions of Russians and Americans enjoyed such a "romance" between the two
most powerful nuclear countries in the world.
Not anymore! Every morning I wake up to the words, "Russia is terrible," and go to sleep
with the humiliating jokes of the "night-show-clowns" about "the dictator" Putin and "barbaric"
Russians, whose 13 hackers changed the electoral minds of millions of naïve Americans.
Wow! What a powerful "gasoline station country"- Russia, as Senator McCain calls it.
If in 1992 the people in my city who heard my accent were very nice to me and to Russia, now
the usual reaction is to stare at me like a goat at the newly painted gates. One of my
neighbors even yelled at me when I answered his question about my recent trip to Russia. I told
him: "Russians like Putin because he saved their country from collapse. I saw with my own eyes
how Russia has changed since my last trip there. I didn't see the impact of Obama's sanctions,
Russians have better roads, than we have in Colorado; the shops, are filled with all kinds of
products; the churches are restored "
My neighbor who didn't like Trump yelled at me: "If you like Russia go back to your
country!" My answer was: "I love Russia but I am American – like your immigrant wife,
like you. I love America for a lot of reasons, one of them – the right to speak! Nobody
should privatize this right." He ran away, later coming to apologize
My wife, knowing my hard-tempered character asks me not to talk about policy –
Putin-Trump anymore. And I don't, to a certain degree. However, when someone asks me about
Russia or Putin I usually answer, giving my point of view; I just cannot be silent. I was
silent for 40+ years living in the USSR, not anymore! Of course, not everyone likes my answers,
like the man I am going to tell you about.
So, I went into the sauna; a stout man was sitting on the upper bench. He was the same age
as I. Many of the older men in America call ourselves "old farts." The name is not offensive to
us, because we really do not care about our image, and because we like to make jokes about
everything, mostly about ourselves. Usually, we old farts are nice, we love to talk, even in
the sauna. Young people nowadays do not talk. They turn on their phones even in the sauna
– I bet they do not know how to talk with other people. They cover their "secrets" in
towels while we do not – we do not have any secrets anymore.
Anyway, the man said hello to me, I answered, and he caught my slight accent.
"Where are you from?" It's a question I am usually asked.
"From here." I answered.
He was a little confused. I knew what usually followed if I had said – "from
Kazakhstan." Usually, there would be an exchange of this type: "Where is it?" – "Between
Russia and China," – "How do you like it here?" The silly film "Borat" helped me for a
short period of time. People were smiling, as if they met Sasha Cohen, and I was happy that at
least they knew some geography, though the film was silly and the geography in it was
completely mistaken.
"No, I mean originally where are you from?" The guy, let's call him Tony, found the right
question.
I decided not to check his geography skills and said that I came from Russia. The dialog
that followed was remarkable. Here it is.
"Welcome to America! Your English is pretty good!"
"Yours, too." He didn't get my humor. "Just joking," I said, "As for welcoming, it's a
little late: I have lived here for 25 years."
"Have you been in Russia lately?" He asked.
"Yes, I go there every year."
"Wow. So, what do you think about that crazy guy , Pyutin?"
"Sorry, honey," – I apologized to my wife in my thoughts and picked up the gauntlet.
"You mean Putin? He is not crazy. Actually, he is one of the smartest rulers Russia ever had."
I said.
Tony's eyes nearly leaped from their sockets. "But he is a dictator and kills people!"
"I wouldn't call him a dictator – he was just last week elected by nearly 67% of
Russians. I would call him an authoritarian, strong ruler; but a weak ruler in Russia wouldn't
survive a day. Besides, there were seven people opposed him in the election!"
Tony smiled. "You call it an election? He chose the opponents himself from his friends. The
whole world knows that elections in Russia are a sham!"
"Who told you this nonsense, Tony? Did you listen to the debates? Did you hear how these
people yelled at each other and cursed Putin, asking people to vote for them not for Putin.
They really were as tough as Hillary to Donald! And besides, there were a lot of observers from
110 countries. They claimed the election was legitimate."
"No, I do not believe you."
"You may not believe me but I am citing the international organizations reports. You may
check their reports on the Internet yourself. You may even sue these organizations if you
wish."
Tony was silent for a minute, then turned his head to me and asked: "You know that Pyutin is
evil even to his own people?"
"You mean Putin? Who told you? How many Russians share your opinion?"
"McCain."
"Is he Russian?"
"No, but he knows that Pyutin is KGB."
"His name is Putin!" I tried to correct at least this in his mind. "So, you do not believe
me, a Russian, who just returned from Russia, but you believe this Senator, who hates Putin and
Russia? Besides, there are no KGB anymore."
"But he used to be KGB?"
"Yes, and Bush H. was also a CIA agent. So, what? After the collapse of the Soviet Union
there were no people who didn't work for government in that country, we all worked for
government! Putin is good for Russia, he is the brightest politician nowadays. He is like a
great Chess-master, and he is a dangerous player. We must be careful with him. Some Congressmen
are underestimating Russia, calling it "a gasoline station with nukes," but I was there this
summer and saw with my own eyes how much people love Putin, and how much he is doing to make
that country great again."
"Yeh, yeh, yeh " Tony didn't know what to say. Then he recalled something and turned his red
face to me. "Well, he invaded Crimea, and Ukraine!"
"No, he did not. Crimea was a harbor for the Russian navy, and according to the treaty
between Ukraine and Russia there were sixteen thousand Russian troops stationed there on a
permanent base. There were about twenty-three thousand Ukrainian troops there, too. So, when
the thugs in Kiev took power, illegally kicking out president Yanukovych and killing the
political opponents, the Crimean people decided to organize a referendum. Ninety-six percent
decided to reunite with Russia, as they were Russians for nearly 400 years before the Communist
dictator Khrushchev gave that peninsula to Ukraine as a present to his native land."
"But they had no right to secede from the main land of Ukraine!"
"Yes, they did. International law gives the right for self-determination to people.
Remember, we split from the British Empire."
"But it was so long ago!"
"Okay, what about East and West Germany or Kosovo? The people in these countries also
exercised their right of self-determination, but they didn't have any referendum as far as I
know."
Tony looked at me attentively. "I don't believe you."
"You have the right not to believe me. You asked, I answered."
Tony was silent for a while. Then he threw out his last argument. "I hope you wouldn't deny
that Putin killed British citizens recently, using KGB gas!"
Wow, he pronounced "Putin" correctly! I smiled. The nice face of my American wife appeared
in my head again, and she was not happy! I kissed her in my thoughts and finished the
conversation with my last knockout blow:
"I wouldn't deny it if the poisoning by Russians had been proved!"
"But it was proved by Teresa May!"
"Really? What did she say?"
"She said that it was Putin who poisoned the British citizens!"
"Not really, my friend. She said that it was "highly likely" that Russia did it! Besides,
only Mr. Skripal is a British citizen, his daughter is a Russian citizen"
"Does it make any difference?"
"You mean, "highly likely" is proof to punish somebody? What about one of the main pillars
of democracy – innocent until proven guilty?"
"But we believe our allies, not the Russians!"
That statement made me laugh. "You believe not facts but political statements without any
facts? Wow! What kind of democracy is that?"
Tony's face became so red that I was afraid it would melt. He stood up from the bench and
without looking at me firmly said:
"Russians are our enemies, and democracy does not apply to them."
He left, leaving me with a sudden fear of approaching nuclear war.
At night I prayed for peace. I prayed for American and Russian people-in-power who could
easily destroy this fragile planet. If people refuse to understand each other, they fight.
Kennedy and Khrushchev fortunately understood this. Will Putin and Trump understand?
Pavel Kozhevnikov was born in Kazakhstan. In 1992 he married an American woman and
relocated to Colorado, USA, where he worked in a variety of business ventures and taught
various subjects including Russian at Mitchell High School as well as at Pikes Peak Community
College and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Pavel continues to enjoy teaching
Russian at the local community college and university and devotes his free time to writing. He
has published four books of stories and poems as well as numerous articles for newspapers and
journals in Russia, Germany, Kazakhstan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @
nytimes , @ NBCNews , @ ABC , @ CBS , @ CNN
) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! ~ Donald Trump
On Thursday, Mr. Trump expressed his distaste for journalists in more populist terms, saying,
"much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks
not for the people, but for the special interests."
"The public doesn't believe you people anymore," Mr. Trump added. "Now, maybe I had something
to do with that. I don't know. But they don't believe you."
President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of
the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading
print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial
Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the
larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war
monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @
nytimes , @ NBCNews , @ ABC , @ CBS , @ CNN
) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! ~ Donald Trump
On Thursday, Mr. Trump expressed his distaste for journalists in more populist terms, saying,
"much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks
not for the people, but for the special interests."
"The public doesn't believe you people anymore," Mr. Trump added. "Now, maybe I had something
to do with that. I don't know. But they don't believe you."
President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of
the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading
print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial
Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the
larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war
monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.
I was surprised by the reactions (good and bad) to the column. Some readers were sarcastic.
Not having access to Google, Facebook or Twitter? "Lucky them!" wrote one Facebook user. "They
have not missed anything important!" said another.
... ... ...
In other news this week:
Li Yuan is the Asia tech columnist for The Times. She previously reported on China
technology for The Wall Street Journal. You can follow her on Twitter here:
@LiYuan6.
It is not only George Soros is losing. Neoliberalism is losing some of its fights too, despite recent revenge in sev eral Latin
American countries. Deep state was always an alliance of Wall Street sharks with intelligence agencies and Soros is a true representative
of this breed. He is connected and acted in sync with them in xUSSR space. In this sense he can be viewed as a part of Harvard
Mafia which economically raped Russia in 1990th...
Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, correctly called Soros and other speculators "unscrupulous profiteers" whose immoral
work served no social value. That actually aptly characterize all members of Harvard mafia not just George Soros.
BTW, if Victoria Nuland (of EuroMaydan putch fame) praises a particular person, you can be sure that his person serves US
imperial interests...
Notable quotes:
"... ...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark against him. ..."
"... In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that "we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world." ..."
"... I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has created around the world it has been confirmed. ..."
"... Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. ..."
"... I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening. ..."
"... As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best. But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the rest of us. ..."
"... I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate power to effect political outcomes because of their money. ..."
"... Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. ..."
"... Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used in that context by those who have it. ..."
"... What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights. ..."
"... Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity. ..."
"... Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous. ..."
"... George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that "philanthropy". ..."
"... What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple. ..."
"... What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth ..."
"... What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent among which are these two: ..."
"... Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism. ..."
"... The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe. ..."
"... Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals. ..."
Yet the political realm is where Soros has made his most audacious wager. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, he poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the former Soviet-bloc countries to promote civil society and [neo]liberal democracy. It was
a one-man Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, a private initiative without historical precedent. It was also a gamble that a part of
the world that had mostly known tyranny would embrace ideas like government accountability and ethnic tolerance. In London in the
1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an "open society," in
which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper's concept became Soros's cause.
... ... ...
...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal
agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark
against him.
Last autumn, he signaled that same sense of defiance when he announced that he was in the process of transferring the bulk of
his remaining wealth, $18 billion in total at the time, to the O.S.F. That will potentially make it the second-largest philanthropic
organization in the United States, in assets, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is already a sprawling entity, with some
1,800 employees in 35 countries, a global advisory board, eight regional boards and 17 issue-oriented boards. Its annual budget of
around $1 billion finances projects in education, public health, independent media, immigration and criminal-justice reform and other
areas
... ... ...
He decided that his goal would be opening closed societies. He created a philanthropic organization, then called the Open Society
Fund, in 1979 and began sponsoring college scholarships for black South African students. But he soon turned his attention to Eastern
Europe, where he started financing dissident groups. He funneled money to the Solidarity strikers in Poland in 1981 and to Charter
77 in Czechoslovakia. In one especially ingenious move, he sent hundreds of Xerox copiers to Hungary to make it easier for underground
publications to disseminate their newsletters. In the late 1980s, he provided dozens of Eastern European students with scholarships
to study in the West, with the aim of fostering a generation of [neo]liberal democratic leaders. One of those students was Viktor
Orban, who studied civil society at Oxford. From his Manhattan trading desk, Soros became a strange sort of expat anticommunist revolutionary.
... ... ...
In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that
"we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not
national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns
the world." Along with the fiery speeches, there were the billboards, which featured a picture of a smiling Soros and the message,
"Let's not let George Soros have the last laugh."
... ... ...
Orban's coalition won 49 percent of the vote, enough to give it a supermajority in Parliament. But the anti-Soros campaign didn't
end with the election. Days after the vote, a magazine owned by a pro-Orban businesswoman published the names of more than 200 people
in Hungary that it claimed were Soros "mercenaries."
... ... ...
There have been mistakes; by his own admission, Soros erred in championing Mikheil Saakashvili, the mercurial former president
of Georgia, and also became too directly involved in the country's politics in the early 2000s. He clearly misjudged Orban. But as
Victoria Nuland, a former American diplomat who worked for both Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, put it when I spoke to her recently,
"George is a freedom fighter."
"Billionaire philanthropist?" Really? Does that make the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelstein "philanthropists" too, or does
that label apply only to left-leaning individuals seeking political leverage many times that of the average citizen?
One citizen, 1 vote. ALL citizens should be limited to $100 contributions for their senators, representatives and the President.
NO citizen should be able to contribute to a campaign in a state where he/she is not a full-time permanent resident.
And NO citizen should be able to contribute more than $100 to his/her own campaign. We don't need more Kennedys, Clintons,
Bloombergs, Trumps, Perots or Forbes buying (or trying to buy) their way into public office, using their millions.
Of the people, by the people, for the people. That's the model, folks. Depart from it at your peril.
Soros--a "European at heart." Must have brought some much-needed smiles to the UK following the recent Trump Tour of Destruction.
How soon we forget--in the 90s, Soros broke the pound as the Brits were trying to unify European currencies--with unfortunate
conditions that weakened the effort and Soros smartly exploited.
Who can blame a globalist from crashing a poorly devised govt scheme and walking away with a cool $1B--back when a billion
dollars was a lot of money? I am not the person to say whether Soros may qualify as an honest proponent of democracy, but I strongly
suspect that he is a poster boy of the ultra-nationalists as they battle globalization.
In a way, Soros epitomizes the failure of globalization, which may or may not benefit the classic, labor-intensive industries
of manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and mining, but always benefits, sometimes wildly, the financial "industry."
As far as I'm concerned, Soros is merely making reparations. And, sorry to say, George, it's prob too little, too late.
I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has
created around the world it has been confirmed. Nigel Farage, the British politician, recently said on television that Mr.
Soros is out to destroy the world. It certainly appears to be the case when you see what he did to the British and Thai economies.
He was so concerned with helping immigrants and refugees that he had little regard for the citizens that actually lived in those
countries that are being affected. People lost their livelihoods but that did not matter to him.
Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. He ... does not care who he hurts as
long as he promotes his progressive agenda. He wants to allow as many immigrants to enter a nation as possible even if it adversely
affects that country while he lives in luxury and is not inconvenienced by this invasion. He has billions and will probably never
be touched by massive immigration.
I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they
can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations
are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected
and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening.
As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best.
But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the
rest of us.
I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal
democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate
power to effect political outcomes because of their money.
The making of such huge amounts of money is not done with any charitable purpose. Only later, does charity come to mind.
Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. Yes, a billion people around the world are better
off because of the forces of "globalization" (this total most definitely includes Soros himself), but millions of Americans have
suffered economically as a result. GATT, NAFTA and the entire alphabet soup of trade deals have lined the pockets of the globalists,
while grinding the fortunes of U.S. working and middle class laborers into dust.
Great article. Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used
in that context by those who have it. At this juncture, I think the American people deserve to see an expose of all those
millionaires and billionaires who have and continue to support Trump. It's only fair, to lay the money trail on the table, on
all sides, for everyone to see.
What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the
world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and
move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights.
Immigration policies are also sometimes used in ways to suppress wages, and even more worse, enacted with very little thought
given to assimilation. Most of the poorer areas, or ghettoes surrounding Paris for example are populated with huge numbers of
Muslim immigrants that face extremely daunting odds of fully assimilating into French culture.
While the wealthier (sometimes elite [neo]liberals) Parisians almost certainly live in gated or posh neighborhoods with hardly
any immigrants as their neighbors. Despite the generous financial support Soros (and some other elites) gives to human rights
causes, he rarely outright discusses some of these problems associated with free trade, globalization and mass immigration. These
seeming hypocrisies and inconsistencies then become much easier fodder for those of Orban's ilk to manipulate and ultimately consolidate
power.
Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the
take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity.
First, Hungary is not xenophobic, they merely want to protect their culture. Second, George Soros wants plenty of wealth for
him and his family, yet he wants those of us in the middle class to dive up our meager assets with the world's poorest. Third,
his personal wealth has often been generated by destroying currencies and the middle class who owns those currencies. Fourth,
he promotes open borders without consulting the citizenry of said borders as to their opinion regarding their own national sovereignty.
Our world would be a much better place without George Soros.
Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions
by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians
and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous.
Soros employs his vast wealth to create the society he dreams of, regardless of what the rest of us want. When the democratic
process veers away from his vision, he uses the power of his wealth to steer it back.
So he's just another wealthy and powerful elite trying to remake the world as he prefers it. Such arrogance!
Sucking money out of the world's economies so that he can direct it as HE sees fit does not make a man great. Rather, I would
argue that such actions contributed to the rise of both Brexiteers and Trumpsters.
If Soros really wants to contribute to society, he would lobby for financial industry reform - less favorable tax treatment
for hedge funds (what value do they really provide to society) and a transaction tax on trades to reduce speculation. Then fight
for minimum wage increases.
This is a horrifying interview and does not improve the image of George Soros. "My ideology is nonideological," he says while
spending billions on politics, which he defines as "In politics, you are spinning the truth, not discovering it." He describes
Obama as his greatest disappointment because Obama "closed the door on me," as in he expected Obama should work with him and take
his advice. Soros uses his billions to fund politicians and meddle in elections... this is a man who enjoys influencing and manipulating
politics and becomes frustrated when his efforts backfire or are not successful.
This man is the absolute worst! His no borders policy has done more to hurt Europe then Russia ever could. The Soros gang has
zero respect and tolerance for nation-state sovereignty and local governance. Talk about a global elite! He and his gang epitomize
that arrogance.
George Soros bet big on open borders,one world governance and destroying the working class through unfair trade agreements.
Yes he appears to be losing. Thank God for small favors.
It cracks me up to read these type of article in the NYT and then read another story in the NYT about how if you can pay the
money you can have yourself a private waiting area in a major airport to separate yourself from the chaos of the masses in the
public waiting areas. Maybe democracy wouldn't be in trouble around the world if it worked as well for the "slobs" in the public
waiting areas as it did for those in the exclusive waiting rooms. This is globalization in a nutshell. It works great for the
rich, not so well for the rest of us slobs. This is a government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people.
The slobs realise their government doesn't really care that their jobs are disapearing and their standard of living is going down.
To say that George Soros is funding [neo]liberal democracy is a misnomer. What Soros is funding is open borders. Where national
interests are set aside, global interests prevail. This is precisely what George Soros is advocating. Tired of having to face
multitude regulatory systems in his effort to build a global financial empire, Soros is quite right in discerning that a borderless,
global regulatory system would increase his financial power exponentially. Nations are right to resist the encroachment of Soros
because global interests, by definition, are not local interests. Nationalism, so loathed by Soros and his open border lackeys,
serves as a check and balance on men like Soros who would be god and would dictate to the world from some point of central governance
what their truth and value should be. George Soros and his globalist kin should be resisted. The true threat to global interests
is not nationalism, it is globalism.
Soros, and American [neo]liberalism, economic and social [neo]liberalism championed by Soros and the NYT, is in its death throes.
Call us fascists, totalitarians, racists--- understand clearly: we do not care. Europe is waking up. [neo]liberalism is close
to being dead. No spectres or phantoms are haunting Europe. Blood is standing up and answering our ancestors.We are not commodoties,
consumers, meat for your wars. You have attacked us, belittled us, turned our queen of continents into latrines of filth. You,
American [neo]liberalism, have destroyed us.Now, we take our nations back.
It's amusing to read phrases like "nationalism and tribalism are resurgent". It never does to underestimate tribalism; as long
as groups feel safe they are tolerant. But when groups feel threatened, tribalism rears up in what is not so much a resurgence
but more like an awakening from a nap.
The older cultures of Europe are waking up from a nap and realizing that unless they reassess a few long-held assumptions,
they will eventually be ethnically diminished and culturally pressured.
Denmark has banned the burka and legislated some of the harshest migration, immigration, asylum, and naturalization laws in
Europe. It is implementing laws to ensure integration, including stopping benefits to families whose children are not integrating.
Do the author and Mr. Soros think that Denmark exercising control over its future demographics and preserving its culture are
malign?
The Danes some years ago elected the Danish People's Party to significant power; the DPP is often referred to as a far right
party, but is a typical left-wing party in everything except pushing Denmark toward "multiculturalism".
Sweden's centre-left government, on the other hand, brought in hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants and then refused
even to admit, let alone discuss, the glaring problems with integration within its immigrant community.
Result: the Sweden Democrats, a bona fide neo-Nazi party, are set to do extremely and alarmingly well in Sweden's September
elections.
This super-rich elitist from Hungary is trying to buy American democracy and reshape it in his image regardless of what We
The People want. And the Democrats are on his payroll and totally owned by this foreign agent!
Soros' flaw is that he only tolerates centralized socialist democracy. He cannot stand the idea of democracy in the form of
a federal republic with a weak central government. Interestingly, he made his billions as a predatory capitalist now he turns
on capitalism. He also exhibits a particularly vicious elitism: No one should be allowed to own guns except his private security
guards. He knows that umarmed men are always someone's slaves.
Soros is a hypocrite who did one thing and is now out to create a legacy. All is shows is he is driven by both greed and ego.
His blatant hypocrisy probably did more harm than good - common denominator, it's always about him. Hey Soros, don't do us plebes
any more favors, ok?
Democracy is alive and well, regardless of what Soros thinks. He does not represent democracy, he was never been elected to
any public office. He represents open borders mass migration, as the name of one of his NGOs implies, Open Society Foundation.
Brexit voters, and other voters across the west are increasingly voting against his philosophy. Voters in the US, Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, etc, have democratically chosen as their leaders conservative controlled borders leaders, and
to underscore, all were elected via the democratic process.
Open Borders and globalism that Soros is pushing is increasingly being rejected in voting booths in the EU and the US.
It is hardly undemocratic to increasingly vote against what Soros is selling – chaotic mass migration made possible by open
borders.
He represents [neo]liberal democracy, and voters increasingly favor conservative democracy.
George Soros is the epitome of corruption – penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does
not matter what his true intentions are – he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that
"philanthropy".
Red Cross and Salvation Army is philanthropy. What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas
on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple.
Sure, he is not the only one doing that, but he is the one doing that most overtly and blatantly. He seems to relish being
the face of the elitist disregard for the masses. What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite – democracy
destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort.
Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth, just as leftists predicted.
Soros benefitted financially, which has increased his privilege to participate in governance voters cannot achieve. Despite Soros'
wealth, successfully manipulating currency markets does not easily transfer to manipulating electorates. Even if Soros believes
his projects would produce good governance, he lacks the ability to convince voters what is in their best interests.
I am elated to hear that George Soros might be losing.
What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent
among which are these two:
1). Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism.
2). The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe.
Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over
the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals.
Trump attacked former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the man at the center of the Trump dossier scandal, who
had extensive contacts with the Department of Justice's former #4 ranked official, before and after the FBI opened its Trump-Russia
probe in the summer of 2016,
according to new emails
recently turned over to Congressional investigators.
That official, Bruce Ohr, was
demoted twice
after the DOJ's Inspector General discovered that he lied about his involvement with opposition research firm Fusion
GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson - who employed Steele. Ohr's CIA-linked wife, Nellie, was also
employed by Fusion
as part of the firm's anti-Trump efforts, and had ongoing communications with the ex-UK spy, Christopher Steele
as well, suggesting that Steele was much closer to the Obama administration than previously disclosed, and his DOJ contact Bruce
Ohr reported directly to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates - who approved at least one of the FISA warrants to surveil Trump campaign
aide Carter Page.
"The big story that the Fake News Media refuses to report is lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G. Bruce
Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele to write the phony & discredited Dossier, paid for by Crooked
Hillary & the DNC.... " Trump tweeted.
"...Do you believe Nelly worked for Fusion and her husband STILL WORKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF "JUSTICE." I have never seen anything
so Rigged in my life. Our A.G. is scared stiff and Missing in Action. It is all starting to be revealed - not pretty. IG Report soon?
Witch Hunt!"
Trump's latest broadside on Steel and Ohr was likely prompted by speculation that the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee is preparping subpoenas for people connected to the controversial Steele dossier. As The Hill
reported earlier
this week
, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is said to be preparing subpoenas for Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson.
By escalating his all too public demands on AG Sessions, Trump is risking further scrutiny by Robert Mueller, who is
already
poring over Trump's tweets
to solidify his Obstruction of justice case, while inviting a whole new set of contradictory statements
by his newest attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who most recently said that Trump would be willing to sit down with Mueller if two specifics
topics are not discussed:
Why Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
What Trump said to Comey about the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Of course, by continuing his periodic twitter attacks on Sessions, Trump makes it prohibitively difficult for Mueller to agree
to those terms. Tags
Multiline Utilities - NEC
It's hard to say what's really going on behind the scenes but you'd think at some point soon that a huge and undeniable truth-bomb
is revealed.
Here's a sick thought...is Session's position as Trump's AG the "insurance policy" (((they))) had in place?
If Session's isn't part of Trump's plan then he'll be gone soon enough. If Trump endlessly tolerates Session's inactivity and
merely berates him periodically (just for optics) then we'll know Sessions is clandestinely working behind the scenes (w/HUBER)
and this movie starts to finally get interesting.
Obama, Hillary & Co. will pay for their attempted/failed treason. But will Session's be the AG that see's it through?
He's just trying to mess with your head and make you confused. That's what he does.
"Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side."- Roger
Stone's Rules (the guy who got trump elected.)
What you don't realize is WE the people are his "enemy" in that tactic above. It's gaslighting.
Here's another Stone rule
"Always praise 'em before you hit 'em."
"Politics isn't theater. It's performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake."
"Unless you can fake sincerity, you'll get nowhere in this business"
MetaMussolini Our golfing warthog president has picked a cabinet of semi-human dirty people who are intellectually corrupt gangsters. Trump makes worse the sorrows of the middle class.
This confirms what we've been hearing on the alt news. Sessions isn't doing his job and the criminals will get a pass. Mr.
Sessions, you may not agree with the President and may feel you're acting honorably but that's a problem. You were put there to
round up the criminals (your former esteemed colleagues) and didn't follow through on your duties. Step aside and let someone
step up who isn't timid and let's git 'er done. Of course, that's assuming any of this was real to begin with and I have serious
doubts.
I think it goes a lot deeper than Hillary, Obama, or any intel agencies. All the way up to the globalist western oligarchs who
are scared shitless of losing control and allowing a populist movement to fuck up their racketts.
Orders come down the pike from
the oligarchs through the politicans [ who's campaigns cannot be funded without the oligarchs, and who nod is needed to be accepted
by either of the two parties ] and their appointed intelligentce agents, down through the media, through the special interest groups
to the idiot at home watching CNN.
If Session's isn't part of Trump's plan then he'll be gone soon enough. If Trump endlessly tolerates Session's inactivity
and merely berates him periodically (just for optics) then we'll know Sessions is clandestinely working behind the scenes (w/HUBER)
and this movie starts to finally get interesting.
Do you think that there are a lot of public servants in Washington DC
who practice rule of law, hold themselves to higher ideals, are
interested in promoting and spreading liberty? Tell me about them.
Most Reps are just talking heads, that's all they do, appear before
cameras looking like they are accomplishing shit. Same with Sessions,
except now he's in a appointed position, where there's actual things
to be accomplished besides finding the next donor to sell out to. But
it's not called the swamp for nothing. These law abiding freedom
loving so called conservatives we've been voting for are a joke, no
significant gains, only slightly less aggressive rate of
deterioration into a bigger state. And Session fits into that club
nicely. The conservative club is the joke. I'm merely pointing it
out. I'd like to be wrong, but I see no evidence of it. We're way
past the tipping point, too many of us are in on the take, in one way
or another, to go back, and by design.
Amen! I heard a sound clip of Sessions giving a speech on XM 125 a few
days ago. The man can barely talk and when he does talk he sounds like a
moron. A real life Forest Gump. He sounds retarded. Bad choice on the
part of Trump.
ADF: Alliance Defending Freedom and is made of Christians. Because of
that it is a hate group. The fucking commies will never stop. This PC
crap that everything is hate speech and everything is racist is
nonsense. I'm sick of it, quite frankly. Want to be racist? Go ahead.
Want to say something hateful or stupid? Go ahead. Let the leftists
freak out. I have had enough of their caterwauling!
This is awesome: "lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G.
Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly." If you have seen pics of Nelly,
well, she isn't beautiful. Her being married to Ohr is weird. Beyond weird.
These two things do not go together!
Thats interesting because waldman inserted himself with assange and did
nine visits..the purpuse of that was to establish a mythical Russian
bridge to Assange that would be used against him by Mueller who was
exposed workin on Oleg Matter with the FBI . Oleg powed 25 M of own
money..and never got his visa. Chris steele was working to Get Oleg his
visa..Walman represented steele assange and Oleg...
He completed his
mission..on assange then sold him down the river turning the immunity
deal over to Warner...
Knowing full well Warner Comey and deepstate would trash it.
Warner is King of the Snakes..Adam was just doing what was best for
his mafioso boss Olegs business. Oleg and FBI are joined at the hip.
Sessions was the insurance. He screened everyone during the transition
including halper, who was then pushed aggressively by Navarro... Its ironic
that when paige , the patsy, went to the Cambridge meeting paid by Halpers
connection.. Paige took it cuz no body wanted to go so he volunteered.. the
guest speakers were Madelinne Albright of the Atlantic Council and Vin Weber
disgraced congressman whose PR firm was scrutinized by Mueller.
Albright went to emphasize what a threat Trump and the populist movement
was and how important it was to get on the transition team. No telling how
many others Sessions let thru. Make no mistake.. he will be implicated in
this. Trump knows what a betrayal this really was.
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens' political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in hollowed-out communities. ..."
"... Welcome to the "New World Economic Order;" which looks suspiciously like Dickensian Predatory Capitalism. ..."
"... Just one caveat: Neoliberalism is not really market-fetishism, unless fetishism is understood as fake devotion. Neoliberalism is a State ideology of the economy, its central tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be better off as a by-product. ..."
"... The Academy are direct and indirect employees of the State. The Ivy League are direct and indirect employees of plutocrats (thru the university endowment). The State officials are plutocrats or more commonly indirect employees of the plutocrats. What is not to like? How can the Academy be reformed, when it has been oligarchic since Plato (an oligarch) invented it the first Rand Corporation ..."
"... Steve Keen said similarly in Forbes – that once you offshore an industry it is too expensive to reinstall, and that some old factory for making furnaces cannot be retooled to make textiles, etc. even tho' you might have a comparative advantage for doing textiles – sounds like corporate raiding and big time looting more and more because once you devastate an industry you really cannot do anything economically with those facilities and those workers. ..."
"... Another factor in maintaining manufacturing in the USA is what is referred to as furthering the "next bench syndrome". This is where one is made aware of a manufacturing problem to solve due to proximity to the factory floor, and the solution leads to new profitiable products that can be used both inside/outside the original factory. ..."
"... Financialization leads to asset bubbles and deindustrialization. It hollows out industries. When money/credit are created in ever increasing quantity, the makeup of how we "work" shifts from goods producing to "finance". ..."
"... Get ready for real kleptocracy. Breitbart obscurantism + Trump/Bannon misdirection = turkeys vote for thanksgiving. ..."
"... TINA was definitely an ideology – an idea backed by interest. They were making fun of Thatcherism last nite on France 24 because it had been so devastating and now one of the candidates in France is talking her old trash again. ..."
"... "The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive." ..."
Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his
appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social
order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this
respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,
but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order,
and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.
Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream
political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no
alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed
enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the
last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned
for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such
agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving
short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or
altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and
more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most
part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy
recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction
of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization,
or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of
comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset
stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization
produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global
cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of
suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and
working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in
favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of
it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed,
it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets
hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in
the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on
rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that
unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream
political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in
thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a
share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to
abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise
of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically
simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by
many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt
sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private
provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support
antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal
or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in
the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the
shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the
reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory
produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as
replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a
theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens'
political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging
in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured
unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in
hollowed-out communities.
Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden
theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological and
charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics, were
altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics hardly
registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the U.S.) emerged
across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the analysts' lack of
explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such movements -- the
obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people, inconsistently and
unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was little explored. The
failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative data provided by polling,
'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be captured through open-eyed
experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for forms of understanding that can
comprehend the currents within the human person, and go beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream
social science has offered few if any resources to understand, let alone challenge, illiberal
majoritarianism, now a world-remaking phenomenon.
Trumpism is a crisis for the most prestigious methods of understanding economic and social
life, ennobled and enthroned by the metropolitan academy of the last third of a century. It has
caused mainstream 'social science' to fall like a house of cards. It can only save itself
through comprehensive reinvention, from the ground up.
You are onto something here. I always wondered if the suppression of wages would lead to a
decline in the population of people even willing to learn a task due to a perceived lack of
incentive to make the effort. This would work alongside a seldom mentioned fact; the limits
to the supply of appropriately skilled "foreigners" to perform a task.
The resultant mix must
be generating an industry of active recruiters in foreign lands for in demand, for less,
skill sets. I would lay money on the bet that eventually, things will reach the point where
criminal activities make more sense than the miserable jobs on offer.
"I always wondered if the suppression of wages would lead to a decline in the population
of people even willing to learn a task due to a perceived lack of incentive to make the
effort."
Just from what I've seen & heard I'm pretty sure that's already happened with CNC
machinists, and it's happening with CDLs, and starting to happen with CNAs.
"I'm pretty sure that's happened with CNC machinists."
One of my neighbours is a CNC machinist. He is presently working "free lance" because the
company he was associated with was bought by a Taiwanese concern and all the skilled labour,
previously in house, was out sourced. After a couple of years of near disasterous
"production," the company re-shored the more technical work, but as sub contract labour.
Now
Jack receives regularly spaced "jobs" from the company to do what was previously done in
house. Naturally, now Jack and his fellow "free tradesmen" have to supply all the incidental
work involved, such as quarterly taxes, insurance if any, self supplied "workers comp," of a
sort, and most importantly, the actual machinery to do the work. Even a used CNC machine is a
pretty big investment for an individual.
Jack's CNC machine is almost as big as a Volkswagen
Beetle. Jack was "lucky" insofar as he was already trained to do this work. Others needs rely
on the support of small businesses in this "Engineering Trade," or go into debt to learn the
process at a technical college. Then, as Jack has remarked, there is no set schedule nor
guaranteed contract. The ultimate "craps shoot."
Welcome to the "New World Economic Order;" which looks suspiciously like Dickensian Predatory
Capitalism.
Sounds like a classic supply/demand curve: the lower the price, the lower the supply and
the greater the demand. As many have noted – perhaps higher wages would increase the
number of job applicants.
However, skilled workers aren't widgets – they need to be trained. Companies don't
want to invest in training, and students don't want to take out all those student loans
without some assurance that there'll be a job which pays enough to pay off the loans and
still have enough left over to put food on the table and have a roof over their heads. Thus,
it takes time to bring more skilled workers on-line, and by then, the demand may have
evaporated.
Public schools investing in training workers would help – but that would mean
raising taxes to pay for them – and Grover would get angry.
I think some states are seeing a shortage of teachers because of the way they've demonized
the teaching profession and cut wages for the last fifteen years.
That was front page on the Wall St Journal Europe a couple days ago – a jaw-drop
moment. The voice of business effectively calling for a larger pool of voiceless dirt-cheap
laborers to dismantle the social contract. Clearly the management class has no fear of
suffering consequences, like maybe even higher crime rates (their native victims not the
illegals the perps), dystopic civics, encapsulation, culture = branding. are those
undocumented roofers in code with that left over sealing? you bet! management has got them by
the cajones.
Important to note there's quite a lot of Europeans who stay illegally in the US by
entering on the visa waiver program as tourists and simply overstaying. Irish and Eastern
Europeans especially. If you're in the Northeast it's common to see Irishmen working
maintenance jobs at buildings here, or as bartenders or other cash jobs – 90% are going
to be out of status. But this issue gets almost zero media attention.
Citizen registration (cr) would effectively end illegal immigration in the US. Once you
get past the immigration control at the airport you are in. access to relevant services is
possible without having to prove citizenship/legality. It is insane and/or perversely clever
that illegals can get drivers licenses, ss#s, use dumps, open bank accounts, receive water
and electrical services, even pay taxes without having to out themselves.
The only barrier is
at the border and Trump is gonna make it really big! hahaha.
To receive any municipal service, including registering to vote, it should be necessary to be
registered at city hall, anytime you change address you have to renew your registration,
standard practice in eur social democracies.
The thing to do is try to push the actual numbers of people trying to immigrate here down,
by ceasing to ruin their home countries. No one's ever even tried that.
You are on the right path Tim.
Any of you notice this shift in economic possibilities from Russia?
Excerpt:
The Stolypin Group
The third group represented was the one most Western observers ridiculed and dismissed,
with the US Pentagon-linked Stratfor referring to them as a "strange collective." I have
personally met and talked with them and they are hardly strange to anyone with a clear moral
mind.
This is the group which after two months has emerged with the mandate from Vladimir Putin
to lay out their plans to boost growth again in Russia.
The group is in essence followers of what the great almost-forgotten 19th Century German
economist, Friedrich List, would call "national economy" strategies. List's national economy
historical-based approach was in direct counter-position to the then-dominant British Adam
Smith free trade school.
Can we find some common ground in this demographic driven trade problem?
De`tante (Steady State) trade, lack of traditional "growth" yet more abundance and sanity?
Can we defeat demographic trends with a better monetary system? There is plenty of need, is
that not unfulfilled demand?
We see massive malinvestment and over capacity right now, so some common sense like List
and George sounds good to me.
I thought it's not possible to get a driver's license without a green card or US
citizenship since they changed the laws after 9/11. If this is true, one cannot get a SS No.,
open a bank a/c etc. Mexicans and others who cross the border w/o papers are unable to open a
bank a/c and therefore pay big fees to Amex for money orders.
Not all states adopted the OpenID law which requires this, and the federal government cannot impose it since it imposes a
financial cost on the states without compensating benefit. There are federal punishments for not adopting it, but states are
fighting it.
In my state you need legal presence docs and proof of residence in the state, at least a
student visa for example, to get a drivers license. And then the info is checked against the
federal govt Save request.
I think the post office and drug stores sell money orders without id? Certainly without
perm res status.
I think bank accounts can be opened at least at some banks with a foreign passport and
maybe an itin number.
I'm told by my father that in Berkely Springs, West Virginia, men can get haircuts for as
little as $1.75. Perhaps these are eastern European barbers? More likely it is simply a
product of the crushing desperation we see in our broken economy. But hey, unemployment is
under 5% so everything's fine, right? The dismal science indeed.
Just one caveat: Neoliberalism is not really market-fetishism, unless fetishism is
understood as fake devotion. Neoliberalism is a State ideology of the economy, its central
tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be better off as a
by-product.
So if the push of the populace is strong enough, a new State ideology of the economy (aka
mainstream economic dogma) would develop around the concepts of Self-suficiency (as opposed
to Globalization), Industrialism (as opposed to Financialization), and Stimulus (as opposed
to Austerity). Probably MMT has something to say about the latter, but what about
Self-sufficiency and Industrialism?
its central tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be
better off as a by-product. Ruben
Yes, government-subsidized* private credit creation being a (the?) prime example of
this.
*e.g. forcing the poorer to lend (a deposit is legally a loan) to banks to lower the
borrowing costs of the more so-called creditworthy, the richer, or else be limited to dealing
with unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, cash.
The Academy are direct and indirect employees of the State. The Ivy League are direct and
indirect employees of plutocrats (thru the university endowment). The State officials are
plutocrats or more commonly indirect employees of the plutocrats. What is not to like? How
can the Academy be reformed, when it has been oligarchic since Plato (an oligarch) invented
it the first Rand Corporation
Tell me where you want to go and I'll provide the selective facts and the subjective
interpretation of those facts to reach the desired conclusions = Economists
-- - or merely arbitrarily change the cell definitions in excel as Harvard economists
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.
As early as 1967 Greenspan was well known as an academic whore and a Rockefeller Puppet
which now is a vast army of dial up opinions.
"Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of
mainstream political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that
there was no alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the
iron-handed enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy."
Yesterday I posted a link from Krugman saying that manufacturing CANNOT be restored in the
US.
Not that laws, rules, trade agreements make it difficult, but that something akin to the
"arrow of time" or entropy prevents it – " that there was no alternative." Which is why
I so vehemently disagree with the man. 1st, economics is not a physical science. 2nd, the
loss of manufacturing in this country is due to man made conventions. Men made the rules, men
can unmake the rules.
Just like prohibition was thought to be a good idea, but with the passage of time, it was
revealed that whatever benefits arise of not drinking, it is more than offset by the
setbacks.
I used to believe in "free trade" – but a thing called reality whacked me upside the
head and disabused me of the notion. Whether GDP is going up fast enough or not, there is
overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of GDP is not distributed to the 90% of the
members of society.
Like a lot of things, we did the experiment – it doesn't work, but a few who gain
advantage by that state of affairs want it to continue. The emperor has been exposed as
having no clothes, and once you see the nakedness, you can't unsee it.
of course you could institute that all manufacturng used 1960s technology – or maybe
even 1860s, that would generate even more jobs.
short of doing that, todays higly automated factory will use about tenth of blue collar
workforce than in 1960s with the same productivity but creating much more complex
products.
I've seen reshoring happen (into compartively high labour cost country) and it created a
thousand jobs or so. the previus offshoring costed close to five or six thousands iirc.
I doubt that you'd wish for the US workers to have 10k or less annual salary –
because that is what the Chinese get (10k is about the average salary for a worker at one of
the plants making Apple gadgets, and that involves almost continuous overtime. IIRC, the
hourly rate is something like $1.80. Oh, and there's no health or social insurance).
I suggest you investigate why the UK was the birthplace of industrial revolution and the
Continent wasn't (hint – the UK labour costs were order(s) of magnitude higher than say
in France or Germany. It just didn't make sense to invest in up-front expensive capital goods
when you could get reams of very cheap labour instead).
And, in fact, the QE and ZIRP made it even worse, because before that you'd to cost the
capital at much more than labour, while now you can get money for literally nothing (assuming
you want to use it for something, like capital goods). At the same time, the companies run
locally optimal, but globally bad strategy of holding on the money, failing to recognise that
for people to spend, they have to earn first. The supply economic mantra "if you make it
cheap enough, someone will buy" fails to recognise that shopping basket of most people is
very much skewed towards food, energy and housing, leaving limited buffer for other goods
– so the "cheap enough" may have to be "free" or "near free" in the environment of
falling real wages.
But I'd be happy for you to provide examples of re-shored operations where the number of
jobs created were the same (assuming the same quality of jobs) or comparable to the number of
jobs lost by offshoring before.
I don't have US numbers, but I can give you UK ones. In 1970s, UK car manufacturing
industry employed about 500k people. That number has been steadily dropping and today it's
about 140k total between all manufacturers (you may see some sources use number as high as
750k – but that generally includes anyone who has anything to do with cars, like car
salesmen, garage staff etc. – not just car manufacturers. I don't have a reliable
comparable number for 1970, so use manufacturers only).
In 1970, UK manufactured about 2m cars, in 2014 it was about 1.6m. The loss of 400k is
almost entirely covered by the loss of commercial vehicles capacity – personal cars are
at the same level.
So, the UK car industry lost about 70% of its jobs, but only 20% of its output. And the
cars it manufactures today are mostly driveable unlike say Austin Allegro.
The situation is not that much different elsewhere. Yves run an article on Trump making US
coal "great again" – and the conclusion was the same – it will never employ the
same number of people at the same salaries.
I work in the electronics industry and had a minor observation point for some of the
outsourcing of electronics manufacturing from the USA to, primarily, Asia, starting in the
late 1980's. At first USA employees were told not to worry as only excess capacity would be built
overseas. But, that was proven to be an optimistic(?) statement, as even the managers making these
statements also disappeared.
If one looks at the value of raw electronic "ingredients" produced in Asia, for example,
Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), one can see how much capacity has been built up overseas.
Here are some numbers pulled from report I have access to:
For 2015, 26.5 billion dollars of PCB's were produced in China.
Taiwan and South Korea produce 7.8Billion and 7.3billion respectively.
Even high priced Japan produces 5.36 billion dollars of PCB's
The North American number is 2.846 billion.
China + Japan + Taiwan + South Korea +Other Asia = .51.94 billion vs 2.8 billion in North
America.
So Asia produces 18.55 x as much dollar volume of PCBs than North America (Canada +
USA)
In my simple minded labor model, when a country allows very free migration of capital
overseas, importation of foreign workers by migration or temporary visas and outsourcing of
labor by computer networks to overseas workers, it seems implausible one would argue that USA
wages would not tend lower in response.
But we have Obama and numerous economists, pushing the Free Trade mantra, via TPP, as good
for American workers.
And a further factor is the US military and State Department strive to make it safer for
American businesses to function anywhere in the world, lowering business risk while pitching
increased national security to the USA population (who bears the military cost).
It will be difficult to bring American manufacturing back, especially when the alleged
high paying white collar college jobs are pushed as the solution to USA wage stagnation.
Steve Keen said similarly in Forbes – that once you offshore an industry it is too
expensive to reinstall, and that some old factory for making furnaces cannot be retooled to
make textiles, etc. even tho' you might have a comparative advantage for doing textiles
– sounds like corporate raiding and big time looting more and more because once you
devastate an industry you really cannot do anything economically with those facilities and
those workers.
Which explains why after clever men like Mitt Romney finish with your
corporation's takeover nobody dashes in to re-up something new. Like pulling a tree out by
its roots and then expecting it to grow into some kinda shrub.
Well I like Steve Keen but he and PK are finally on the same page, where neither knows not
what the f he is talking about.
A lot of "offshoring" of the steel industry happened as the US plants themselves were
passing the "invest or wind down" point in their life. Since the US labor force was
considered intractable and foreign governments had much newer facilities the TPTB in steel
just punted on US manufacturing.
I am going to try to find a link, but there was a lot of
debate between the union and US Steel (? one of them? ) about building a continuous caster
plant in the 70's. Foreign companies had them, we didn't. I think they didn't, but the point
is the, all other things being equal, any plants of any type of manufacturing go
thru the same technological vs ageing cycle, and the US is as likely to gain "back" -- quotes
because like continuous casting, it's steelmaking but not the same as before -- an industry
as it is to have lost it in the first place. Factories like to be located where they make
sense.
And what is all this about "well they don't need anybody in manufacturing, it's all gonna
be machines now". Yeah, right. Been on a manufacturing floor lately? People have yet to be
born that are going to be working in something called "manufacturing". And if the machines
cut the work need by 10x, we may well need 10x as much stuff as long as it is the
right stuff.
Well, if we had universal heathcare and Germanic trade education, but that would require
elections not between carrot-heads and Queen Wannabes.
Because they have a skilled trade education track, and manufacturing is a respected
occupation that one can raise a family doing. Because of the high-skill labor base, Germany
can make high-margin products that the rest of the world wants to import.
From very early, all German kids are encouraged to build things and take things apart, and
they are given this opportunity even in urban areas at special "building playgrounds" that
have hammers, nails, and wood. How is a poor American kid in a housing project going to do
this? He's not, and even if he does have a clue what to do with a tool someone hands him on
the job, he won't have the deep fundamental background to use it well without a long period
of training and screwups -- the kind of period he would have already gotten through while
growing up.
American small businesses that require skilled technicians are desperate for them. We
literally cannot grow our businesses because of labor constraints.
Since I am not an economist nor a historian probably I should restrain myself, but if you
look at the history of labor relations in Germany you might notice that Bismark, not exactly
a bleeding heart, believed that it was in the nation's interest to have a healthy, well-fed,
well-educated populace. They not only made better workers, they made better soldiers. Then
from the 1890s onward Socialism was much better regarded in Germany than it ever has been in
the U.S. I speculate that there is a desire for fairness that has deeper roots in German
culture than in American culture -- which is not particularly homogenous anyway.
Nobody wants to hear this, but manufacturing profit margins, according to Bruce Greenwald
of Columbia Business School, are plummeting around the world. Globalization has hit its peak
without our recognizing the fact and without our help. Fifty years from now, most of the
things we buy will be made within fifty miles of our homes. In twenty years, we won't be
admiring the German system.
I used to respect Krugman during Bush II presidency. His columns at this time looked like
on target for me. No more.
Now I view him as yet another despicable neoliberal shill. I stopped reading his columns
long ago and kind of always suspect his views as insincere and unscientific. In this
particular case the key question is about maintaining the standard of living which can be
done only if manufacturing even in robotic variant is onshored and profits from it
re-distributed in New Deal fashion. Technology is just a tool. There can be exception for it
but generally attempts to produce everything outside the US and then sell it in the USA lead
to proliferation of McJobs and lower standard of living. Creating robotic factories in the
USA might not completely reverse the damage, but might be a step in the right direction. The
nations can't exist by just flipping hamburgers for each other.
Actually there is a term that explains well behavior of people like Krugman and it has
certain predictive value as for the set of behaviors we observe from them. It is called
Lysenkoism and it is about political control of science.
Yves in her book also touched this theme of political control of science. It might be a
good time to reread it. The key ideas of "ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined
Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism " are still current.
Another factor in maintaining manufacturing in the USA is what is referred to as
furthering the "next bench syndrome". This is where one is made aware of a manufacturing problem to solve due to proximity to
the factory floor, and the solution leads to new profitiable products that can be used both
inside/outside the original factory.
This might be an improved process or an improvement in manufacturing tooling that had not
been anticipated before.
New products will be created with their profits/knowledge flowing to the country hosting
the manufacturing plants.
The USA seems to be on a path of "we can create dollars and buy anything we want from
people anywhere in the world".
Manufacturing dollars and credit rather than real goods might prove very short sighted if
dollars are no longer prized.
Perhaps the TPP, with its ISDS provisions, indicates that powerful people understand this
is coming and want additional wealth extraction methods from foreign countries.
The author mentions globalization and financialization. But what seems to be always left
out (and given a pass) in these discussions is the role of central banks and monetary
policy.
Central banking policy (always creating more money/credit) lies at the nexus of almost all
that is wrong with modern capitalism and is the lubricant and fuel that enables
financialization's endless growth.
Financialization leads to asset bubbles and deindustrialization. It hollows out
industries. When money/credit are created in ever increasing quantity, the makeup of how we
"work" shifts from goods producing to "finance".
Then through globalization, what we lack in goods, foreigners who accept our paper, seem
to provide. At least for now. In a closed system, financialization has its natural limits.
But enabled by cross-border trade, it metastasizes.
In the short run, it appears to be a virtuous circle. We print paper. They make real
stuff. They take our paper. We take their stuff. We feel very clever.
But over time, wealth inequality grows. Industries are hollowed out. The banking sector
dominates.
And then we get a populist uprising because people realize "something is wrong".
But mistakenly, they think it's globalization. Or free trade. Or capitalism. When all
along, it's just central banking. Central banks are the problem. Central bankers are the
culprits.
Yes, insofar as they create fiat for the private sector since that is obviously violation
of equal protection under the law in favor of the banks and the rich.
Otoh, all citizens, their businesses, etc. should be allowed to deal directly in their
nation's fiat in the form of account balances at the central bank or equivalent and not be
limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, a.k.a. cash.
Central banks are part of the problem, but not because any of the things you say. Abandon
monetarism, is just wrong, on everything.
CB's do not control the rates effectively during the upturns (they are just procyclical as
they add to savings though higher rates).
CB's "creating money" would mean loanable funds theory is right, but as it has been
demonstrated over and over it's horribly wrong. Banks suffice themselves to expand credit on
upturns, and CB'ers can do nothing about it. On downturns they cna try, and fail, because the
appetite for credit is just not there. Credit expansion and contraction is endogenous and
apart of of what CB's do, not to speak about all the forms of shadow money which are the real
outliers and trouble makers.
What CB's do, in practice, is to prevent capitalism from collapsing on crisis, making "bad
money" good, by stabilising asset prices. All their tools are reactive, not pro-active, so
they cannot create any condition, because they react to conditions. They neither set the
rates in reality, nor "create money" that enters the real economy in any meaningful way.
The religion of "central bankism" is part of the problem, but as it is the religion of
"monetarism" (which are the same) on which many of those ideas are based.
Banks suffice themselves to expand credit on upturns, and CB'ers can do nothing about
it IDG
Yes, "loans create deposits" but only largely virtual liabilities wrt to the non-bank
private sector. We should fix that by allowing the non-bank private sector to deal with
reserves too then it would be much more dangerous for banks to create liabilities since bank
runs would be as easy and convenient as writing a check to one's cb account or equivalent. Of
course, government provided deposit insurance could then be abolished too since accounts at
the cb or equivalent are inherently risk-free.
Our system is a dangerous mess because of privileges for depository institutions –
completely unnecessary privileges given modern computers and communications.
Get ready for real kleptocracy. Breitbart obscurantism + Trump/Bannon misdirection = turkeys vote for thanksgiving.
Sessions views on race at Justice = curtailed civil rights.
Wilbur Ross pension stripping = privatize Social Security.
DeVos at education = privatize the golden egg of public education.
85% tax credit for private infrastructure spending = fire sale of the public square (only
rich need apply).
3~4 Military generals in the cabinet = enforcement threat for crypto-fascist state.
McGahn at counsel + Pompeo at CIA = Koch Bros.
Ryan at speaker = privatize Medicare
Welcome to government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires.
btw, if Giuliani is appointed to a cabinet post, he will have to explain his foreknowledge
of the NY FBI→Kallstrom→Comey connection→to Congress under oath (if they
aren't too afraid to ask).
I worry along with you, but again: When somebody Ms DeVos opens her mouth people just
naturally recoil. Trump doesn't seem to have grasped the only thing that mattered in his
election – you want your enemies to suck. His appointees are people that suck. Hillary
would have appointed smooth-talkers who could effortlessly move between "private and public"
positions.
PS: Paul Ryan is a good counterexample – people fall for his BS because he isn't
quite a stupid as, say Guiliani. Of course he was elected, not picked by Trump.
mr reddy solves the riddle of the Great Refusal but doesn't far enough: certainly
mainstream economists were wrong to act as cheerleaders for the kleptocracy, yet they were
also complicit in a material sense by furnishing all the necessary algorithms to boost the
derivatives industry into the realm of corporate cyber-theft. that genie isn't going back
into bottle. what's in store for us then? economic apartheid. just read what the new team has
been saying about walls, guns, police, military and terrorism. the bannon plan is for heavily
policed gated communities monopolizing vital resources; high surveillance, rights abatement
zones for the proletariat; and a free-fire wilderness of lumpen gangsters, gun-toting
vigilantes, survivalist cults, etc. competing for subsistence. mad max, only run by people
worse than mel gibson. close to what we already have but once legislated into existence
impossible to reverse without a violent revolution. once again mr. reddy is correct: hobbes'
leviathan is the negation of social science.
hmmmm .. Trump said quite a few contradictory things during his campaign and it would seem
an error to believe anything a candidate says on either side of an issue. Have the Koch
brothers (who are involved w/Trump) been particularly unhappy with the numerous billions
they've accumulated under Obama? I expect this regime to be more along the 'different
globalization' side (more a shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic). Manufacturing will
be back in relation to the degree – penalties are eliminated on 'repatriated' funds,
land is eminent domained on behalf of oligarchs, private profit is granted primacy over
pollution, then build their factories with public money and abolish the minimum wage.
Austerity will continue but the new con will be private/public partnerships. Don't you want
to buy you friend/family member/neighbor a job? Don't you?
The elite, including the Trump's, are going to continue their actions until they've taken
it all.
Since you mention land you might be interested in the idea of land value taxation a way to
take the land back from the oligarchs an idea that has been around for a long time
assiduously ignored by folks like Naked Capitalism.
Mr. Fitzgerald, if you search in NC for "land value taxation" you will see many articles,
especially from Mr. Hudson. NC has thoroughly covered a lot of territory regarding this
topic.
Yes you could probably catch us restlessly muttering "Henry George" in our sleep half the
time.
The problem is it's a really, really hard sell. It just sounds funny. Pittsburgh actually
had it until a few years ago when it was "discovered" and before there was even a discussion
the Democratic mayor and City Council who should have known better had rescinded it before
anybody got a chance to say anything.
" during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the
traditional single-rate property tax. The tax on land in Pittsburgh was about 5.77 times the
tax on improvements."
To be good Russian plants, we do actually need to know things about Amerika
Anyway, here's the problem: people just voted for a billionaire how you gonna get this
type of taxation approved given the Pittsburgh example?
It seems to be forgotten that this was a vote against Clinton and not a vote for Trump. If
Trump goes back on his progressive platform, jobs jobs jobs there will be a backlash so fast
that it will give everyone, especially the billionaires whiplash. Let them touch one hair on
Social Security's head or privatize Medicare, there will be another big surprise in the
mid-term elections. When the good people of the rust belt find out about the plans to put
rentier tolls on all that public infrastructure, trust me the pitchforks will come out from
their corners quick as you blink The best laid plans of billionaires and their lackeys often
go awry. The curtain has been lifted. If Trump thinks he can satisfy the working class by
giving another huge tax break to the .01%, he better think again. They do not have enough
rubber bullets nor pepper spray.
Nah, as long as Trump keeps blaming folks of color, he's got a good six years. You
overestimate the people of Flyover. Yes, they got hosed by Obama, but they've been electing
Republicans to flog them for 30 years.
It's a hard sell for good reason. Many Americans are land rich and cash poor. The idea
that they'd have to sell property to pay such a tax offends even the simplest conception of
sound land planning. If a lot more property came on the market at once, as it would have to
under the land tax scheme, we'd be Japan all over again.
Taxes should be unavoidable to avoid violating equal protection under the law and land
taxes are certainly unavoidable in that land can't be hidden as income, for example, can
be.
Another unavoidable tax, except for the existence of physical fiat* (notes and coins),
would be a tax on fiat, i.e. negative interest.
*Yet these can be taxed when bought and sold to the central bank with/for "reserves"**
**Just another name for fiat account balances at the central bank when the account owners are
depository institutions.
The goal should be to reduce injustice – preferably at its source. And the source of
much injustice is surely government privileges for private credit creation and other welfare
for the rich such as positive interest paying sovereign debt.
Still, there's previous injustice to deal with so asset redistribution should be on the
table too and that could include taxing the rich to give to the poor – certainly not to
run a surplus (or even a balanced budget) as you say.
Mainstream analysts don't want to recognize the real problem. They failed the people have
lost their legitimacy to govern.
Not saying Trump is the solution (I'm hoping for a solution from the left and think that
Trump could enable his cronies, but nothing else), but the Establishment is unworthy to
govern.
A solution that most people would consider being from the left but which is the radical
center (taking valid ideas from both left and right) is land value taxation the wedge issue
to tax the various sources of unearned income (estimated at 40+% of GNP however you determine
it) thus allowing for the elimination of taxation of earned income from wages and profit from
the investment of real capital in the real economy. Taxing community created land value and
making the distinction between earned and unearned income has been assiduously ignored and
avoided by mainstream economists, most of our vaunted/sainted public intellectuals and
sources like naked capitalism but since all of that has failed there is nothing to lose by
considering what this author, Sanjay Reddy, says is necessary: "It [social science] can only
save itself through comprehensive reinvention, from the ground up." I suggest that the this
has already been done literally from the ground up by the analysis that has been around for a
very long time that takes land, how its value is created, who owns it and what happen when
you tax its value into account. Happy day.
We finally made it to the post-modern wasteland. It is pretty weird to see the post-modern
methods used by social scientists for decades to dissect culture actually manifest in
practiced culture.
TINA was definitely an ideology – an idea backed by interest. They were making fun
of Thatcherism last nite on France 24 because it had been so devastating and now one of the
candidates in France is talking her old trash again. Humor is effective against ideology when
all else fails but it takes a while. But as defined above, we actually do have an alternative
– our current alternative is "illiberal majoritarianism". Sounds a tad negative. We
should just use the word "democracy".
"The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed
at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying
taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were
trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive."
The landowners wanted to increase their profit by charging a higher price for corn, but
this posed a barrier to international free trade in making UK wage labour uncompetitive by
raising the cost of living for workers.
In a free trade world the cost of living needs to be the same in West and East as this
sets the wage levels.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally
uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These costs all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the
high minimum wage.
US labour can never compete with Eastern labour and will have to be protected by
tariffs.
Free trade has requirements and you must meet them before you can engage in free
trade.
The cost of living needs to be the same in West and East.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that all assets in the West were equally owned by its
citizens? Then wouldn't free trade with the East be a universal blessing for the citizens of
the West and not a curse for some (actually many) of them?
So the problem is unjust asset distribution? But how could that occur if our economic
system is just? Except it isn't just since government subsidies for private credit creation
are obviously unjust in that the poor are forced to lend (a deposit is legally a loan) to
banks for the benefit of the rich.
A technical note, to avoid possible confusion: "corn" in British means wheat and other
small grains – a "corn" is a kernel. Maize was not a big factor in Britain; too far
north.
There are two certainties in life – death and taxes.
There are two certainties about new versions of capitalism; they work well for a couple of
decades before failing miserably.
Capitalism mark 1 – Unfettered Capitalism
Crashed and burned in 1929 with a global recession in the 1930s.
The New Deal and Keynesian ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 2 – Keynesian Capitalism
Ended with stagflation in the 1970s.
Market led Capitalism ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 3 – Unfettered Capitalism – Part 2 (Market led Capitalism)
Crashed and burned in 2008 with a global recession in the 2010s.
We are missing the vital ingredient.
When the first version of capitalism failed, Keynes was ready with a new version.
When the second version of capitalism failed, Milton Freidman was waiting in the wings
with his new version of capitalism.
Elites will always flounder around trying to stick with what they know, it takes someone
with creativity and imagination to show the new way when the old way has failed.
Today we are missing that person with creativity and imagination to lead us out of the
wilderness and
stagnation we have been experiencing since 2008.
1) The work of the Classical Economists and the distinction between "earned" and
"unearned" income, also "land" and "capital" need to be separated again (conflated in
neoclassical economics)
Reading Michael Hudson's "Killing the Host" is a very good start
2) How money and debt really work. Money's creation and destruction on bank balance
sheets.
3) The work of Irving Fisher, Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen on debt inflated asset
bubbles
>The Euro was designed with today's defective economics.
Man I didn't think of that. What comically lousy timing. I do like this post because it
similar to sigh, ok it asserts my belief but still don't think I'm in an echo chamber here, I
actually want people to know what I think so they can reinforce the good and whittle out the
bad anyway, asserts my belief that "economics" isn't a science but when used in the best way
is a toolkit, here we need an hammer (austerity), here we need a screwdriver (some tweaking).
It isn't one tool for all jobs for all time.
American's are brainwashed from birth about capitalism and Milton Freidman may have been
as susceptible as the next man.
He may not have realised he was building on a base that had already been corrupted, the
core of neoclassical economics.
The neoclassical economists of the late 19th century buried the difference between
"earned" and "unearned" income.
These economists also conflated "land" and "capital" to cause further problems that were
clear to the Classical Economists looking out on a world of small state, raw capitalism.
Thorstein Veblen wrote an essay in 1898 "Why is economics not an evolutionary
science?".
Real sciences are evolutionary and old theory is replaced as new theory comes along and
proves the old ideas wrong.
Economics needs a scientific, evolutionary rebuild from the work of the classical
economists.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a
BTL portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing
nothing productive.
This is what happens when stuff goes missing from economics.
Keynes realised wage income was just as important as profit.
Wage income looks after the demand side of the equation and profit the supply side.
I think we will find he was right, this knowledge has just gone missing at the moment.
Keynes studied the Great Depression and noted monetary stimulus lead to a "liquidity
trap".
Businesses and investors will not invest without the demand there to ensure their investment
will be worthwhile.
The money gets horded by investors and on company balance sheets as they won't invest.
Cutting wages to increase profit just makes the demand side of the equation worse and leads
you into debt deflation.
Central Banks today talk about the "savings glut" not realising this is probably Keynes's
"liquidity trap".
It's more missing stuff.
When Keynes was involved in Bretton Woods after the Second World War they put in
mechanisms for recycling the surplus, to keep the whole thing running.
The assumption today is that capitalism will just reach stable equilibriums by itself.
The Euro is based on this idea, but Greece has just reached max. debt and collapsed, it
never did reach that stable equilibrium.
Recycling the surplus would probably have worked better.
I disagree that we don't have a ready to go replacement. MMT. We just have TPTB throwing
$$$ around to make sure no one hears about it, much less does anything.
I believe that our way out of this morass is to start by buying locally. There are always
people who make things and they need to be supported. We may not get the cheap products, but
we can build our communities up gradually over time. Our standard of living will be different
but we will have our dignity and the means for creating prosperous communities.
I have been a member of a localist group here in AZ. Said group does a great job of
appealing to people from across the political spectrum. And that is a good example to
follow.
"I believe that our way out of this morass is to start by buying locally."
I very much like the localist movement, and I try very hard to support it in upstate NY,
among other places. The problem with this approach is that there are simply way too many
people for us to painlessly revert back to an artisanal, agrarian 18th c. lifestyle.
To put this in Empire State terms: we might just be able to accommodate hundreds of
thousands of people who used to work for Kodak, I.B.M, or Xerox upstate– in new jobs
making craft beer or high-quality string instruments, etc. Yet what do we do with the many
millions of people, who live downstate, who currently work in jobs very dependent on a
globalized economy?
We've seen a few economists posting lately to say that all social sciences got it wrong,
and especially economics. What's curious to me is that non of the examples given apply to any
social science except economics.
Is this the same discipline that refuses to acknowledge the value of other disciplines and
cross-discipline research, ducking for cover behind the very disciplines it's been
snobbing?
'All social sciences' indeed.
The election was less about trump gaining voters in the rust belt than Clinton losing
hers. Romney lost with exactly as many votes as trump got because 6 million that voted for
black Obama preferred to stay home rather than vote for white Clinton.
All the dems need to do is to run a candidate willing to spend quality time in the swing
states, somebody not totally corrupt and not verbally advocating confrontation with Russia
would also be a big help, though this already rules out most dem elites.
Of course if trump manages to get a lot of infra built, and gets a lot of decent jobs, his
support in 2020 will grow, maybe to the point only a strong progressive could beat him.
But today's dem elites will fight tooth and nail to keep real progressives from controlling
the party, as instructed by their corp overlords remember, bankers might go to jail if the
wrong person gets AG. First indication is Keith on dec 1 can/will big o keep him out?
I liked this 'take' by Prof. Reddy a lot in terms of looking at what happened to bring us
to a Trump Presidency (with an observation that Orange Duce hasn't YET been sworn in).
But if he thinks that a Tea Party shaped Republican House and Senate and soon to be skewed
Supreme Court aren't about to launch a season of Rent Taking and Austerity to levels
previously only attained in Arthur Laffer's wet dreams he needs his otherwise rational head
examined.
Don't go so excited the "Trump Revolution" like the "Obama Revolution" will likely end up
as "hopeless" for ordinary folk. So for starters Trump's tax breaks will save the 1% fifteen
percent and the rest of us 2 percent! Already the msm including my local paper are already
grinding out the counter-propaganda against raising tariff barriers for China. The majority
of the electorate are too ignorant to figure much of it out and come 2024 will be voting
Ivanka Trump in as president!
If Trump raises MORE(notice that word son) tariffs against China, he will get a nice
uppercut across the forehead when China cancels contracts one after another and jobs start
being lost in the next NBER recession. His ego can't take that.
He was the Mercers introduction to the elite, nothing more or less. If anything, the
Republicans are more Jewy than ever.
"The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization."
IOW, it isn't science; it's political ideology.
The environmental economist Herman Daley traces that back to the very beginning of the
field; he says the earliest economists essentially chose sides in the contest then raging
between landowners (resource based) and merchants (trade based). That made them
propagandists, not referees. And it's the reason economics, from the beginning, suppressed
the distinction between natural resources, like land, water, and minerals, and human-created
capital. It recognized only two "production factors," when in reality there are at least
three. Marx picked up the same self-serving :"error."
" illiberal majoritarianism"
That's an unfortunate word choice, considering that Trump lost the election by nearly 2
million votes. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the defective Electoral College
system. Maybe now we'll get some action on the Popular Vote initiative.
It's important to remember that the rebellion is "illiberal" mainly because the "liberal"
parties refuse to offer a "liberal" populism, aka the New Deal. You could call it an old,
proven idea. Some of us see that as weak tea, but even that isn't on offer outside the
marginalized Left. (This is the essential point of Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with
Kansas.")
Of course, that's just a further illustration of the author's point.
One of the most insightful chapters in Karl Polanyi's THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION is about
something Karl calls "the discovery of society." It is the story of how those who wrestled
with the fundamental falsehoods of the "self-regulating market" [our Libertarian friends'
dreamworld] had to begin thinking about how people in their everyday lives actually, really,
incompletely, made a life for themselves in a world defined by trickle-down economics. It was
never a pretty sight, but the lesson was that the "self-regulating market" was going to be
regulated somehow by non-economic actors with non-economic considerations foremost in mind,
like it or not, or face destruction by human beings whose lives were distorted beyond what
would be tolerated by ordinary people. Most people put up with neoliberal BS for a generation
because that's what most people do, most of the time, even when they know they're being sold
a bunch of horsecr*p. But the limit of what people will tolerate in a society defined by the
false gods of market capitalism is reached periodically. Trump's victory tells us that one of
these limits has been reached. The question now is, "What are we going to "discover" about
ourselves and about the society we want to live in–and will we find a way to create it,
assuming it's something good?" (Or flee from, if it turns sour.)
TINA folks will repeat, over and over, that "there is no alternative," but that bugaboo
has just been smashed. Clinton, Summers, Obama, Rubin, Schumer, and the many, many lesser
lights of Neo-Liberalism have become "old hat" almost overnight. Let's hope our discovery of
society includes a stronger dose of Reason and Solidarity than would seem to exist in
Trumpworld.
ergo: Less work (at all levels) + increasing population (which includes some explosive
variables, like a large increase of older persons who will require economic support from
fewer younger workers) = a massive increase in tension re: the struggle for available
necessities.
Technology innovation will help with some of this, but the great, looming problem is: how
are billions of idle people with nothing to do going to be motivated to remain
non-disruptive? I can see a massive surveillance state controlling the "idles"; perhaps new
technologies that permit people to jack their brains into the network for diversion (but how
long before people become desensitized to that?). Will there be a "spiritual" revolution that
is not attached to current dogmatic religions, that values having less, sharing more,
cooperating with others, etc.? Hard to say.
Anyway, it's coming, yet very few policy makers are talking about it. I'll bet the
Pentagon is planning for this scenario, among others.
In twenty years – maybe a few more – we should be able to begin to migrate
away from earth. It will probably be a LONG time before extra-earth settlements are feasible
and sustainable. That said, we here on earth are going to have our hands full.
Can humanity somehow find ways to overcome its wired propensity for status reflected by
material wealth, and somehow change that status-seeking to a sharing model that is not
top-down?
I've been pondering this for a while. People much smarter than I will hopefully lead the
way. We have our work cut out for us.
This segment is interesting theatre, especially considering that Mr. Giuliani is acting as
President Trump's attorney on the Russiagate matter, and that he is going public about anything
at all having to do with the investigation and its case, in full knowledge that anything he
says publicly will be noted. Nevertheless, "America's Mayor" made several very strong
assertions:
Mueller doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction; he has all the answers
already and those answers are not going to change in a direct interview with President
Trump.
Mueller is trying to trap the President into perjury.
The reason Mueller is trying to trap the President is simply because he does not have a
case.
According to Mr. Giuliani, the case will not fizzle; it is going to blow up on
them
This is because there is a lot more that they (meaning the Democrats) did, that no one
knows yet.
It will wind up with Mr. Mueller himself having a lot to answer for.
These and other points are included in Mr. Giuliani's responses in his discussion with Sean
Hannity.
The question that would logically arise with such a set of claims is "why would this
investigation even be happening in the first place, if it is only guaranteed to lose?"
And this question is what gives lie to the massive conspiracy of the Deep State and various
powerful figures
such as Bill Browder , the neo-con establishment, and secular humanist liberals, all banded
together to stop President Trump atany cost from changing America's headlong
plunge into the darkness of the soft tyranny of modern-day liberalism. Russia stands as the one
great power in the world that declares with great strength that this group of people is wrong,
and therefore, Russia, and anyone who wishes to grant her legitimacy – must be
stopped.
A speculative question that next arises is this:
What happens when President Trump gets vindicated?
There is a massive power play in motion here, and the stakes are much higher than anyone
cares to admit.
"... "While much of neoliberalism's rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives. Indeed, even the so-called free marketers in Australia can see alternatives." ..."
"... It's dogma is nothing but empty lies held up as flawed truth's and full of scoundrels who profit from its concomitant pain. ..."
"neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national
interests"
Its almost impossible to talk about a mining economy and a "free market" in the same
sentence, Richard. a mining economy is is synonymous with corruption, Dutch disease and
political grabs for cash etc. In the height of the 2009 GFC announced by kev07, unskilled
labourers in the pilbara were still earning $100/hr. Real estate prices for 3 bed shacks in
karratha were starting at $1million plus. The blue collar dominated pilbara area was
overwhelmed with greed fed by left politicians hiding behind socialist ideals. The reality
was that left wing economists recognized the "dutch disease" problem and their solution was
to flood the area with greedy blue collar workers who were blowing their enormous salaries on
prostitutes, alcohol and gambling in the hope that profits from the mining boom would be
flushed into other parts of the economy.
The solution? partially transition Australia's economy to an innovation driven economy
because innovation is linked to learning which is linked to stronger self esteem and self
efficacy in the community. an innovation driven econmy is the better way of promting social
development in the community and an innovation driven economy is the most effective way for
politicians to transition to the benefits of a "free market" driven economy.... the reality
is that transitioning to an innovation would require smacking the socialists over the back of
the head in the hope that aspiring socialists will respect the ideas and intellectual
property of others as opposed to continue to assimilate intellectual property in the name of
employment generation and the common good
I dont fear the potential rise of neoliberalism, although i understand that spruiking a
free market whilst talking about mining is ridiculous.
I fear the individuals who are have been talking about mining, and targeting/victimising the
non politically active conservatives for more than 2 decades in the name of socialism
"While much of neoliberalism's rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no
alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives. Indeed, even the
so-called free marketers in Australia can see alternatives."
Excellent article Richard, you have captured the ideology and its dogma quite
specularly.
It's dogma is nothing but empty lies held up as flawed truth's and full of scoundrels who
profit from its concomitant pain.
Examples from today's headlines and a few from last week:
"... Although he was a brilliant orator, Hitler's failures are too innumerable to list. [Link] He was certainly a failure as a painter and his General staff considered him an incompetent military strategist (fortunately for the Allies.) However, Hitler was merely the right man at the right time and place to achieve power. As Ross explains, Hitler was , "the result of a large protest movement colliding with complex patterns of elite self-interest, in a culture increasingly prone to aggressive mythmaking and irrationality." That sounds all too close to home, doesn't it? ..."
"... Enter Donald Trump; the right man at the right time and place. He's a brute, a bully, and a demagogue, but he understands the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times and he adjusts his message to appeal to his base. ..."
"... I have known many bullies; on the playground and in the boardroom. A bully may achieve short-term gain, but for long-term pain. It is very easy to destroy corporate culture, but extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mend a toxic workplace after the bully was dismissed. Now, extrapolate this to the world under Donald Trump. ..."
"... After his first meeting with Trump, he wrote that Trump "saw every unknown person as a threat and that his first instinct was to annihilate that threat. 'He's like a velociraptor. He has to be boss, and if you don't show him deference he kills you.'" ..."
"... If everything is so awesome, why are Americans drinking themselves to death in record numbers?" [Link] ..."
We're told that great leaders make history. Like so much of what we are taught, that's a
load of bunk. Yes, great leaders make it into the history books, but they do not make history.
You make history. I make history. All we dirt people together make history. Government-run
schools don't teach us this because it makes us easier to control.
The "Great Man Theory" [Link] tells us that history can be
largely explained by the impact of great leaders. This theory was popularized in the 1800's by
the historian and social commentator Thomas Carlyle [Link] The Great Man Theory downplays the
importance of economic and practical explanations. It is an appealing theory because its
simplicity offers the path of least resistance. That should ring an alarm.
Herbert Spencer [Link] forcefully disagreed with the "Great
Man Theory." He believed that great leaders were merely products of their social environment.
"Before he can remake his society, his society must make him." Tolstoy went so far as to call
great leaders "history's slaves." However, this middle ground still misses the mark.
At the other extreme is "history from below" [Link] aka 'the people's history.'
"History from below" takes the perspective of common people rather than leaders. It emphasizes
the daily life of ordinary people that develop opinions and trends " as opposed to great people
introducing ideas or initiating events." Unfortunately, this too is only half the equation, and
it is no surprise that it appeals to Leftist and Marxist agendas.
Having studied politics and history ever since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963,
I determined that although history is partly the environments and individuals shaping each
other reciprocally, it is more than that. It is you and I who make history with every decision
we make, every dollar we spend, everything we learn, every vote we cast and every opinion we
voice. It's even what we don't do. It is mostly organic and cannot easily be explained in a
simple, linear fashion the way the aforementioned political philosophers tried.
Great leaders are merely the right person at the right time and place. However, they do not
lead so much as follow from the front. They stick their finger in the air to see which way the
wind blows. They may be brutes, bullies or demagogues, but they are sensitive enough to
understand the zeitgeist , the spirit of the times and so, they adjust their message
accordingly.
That is one reason Jimmy Carter was a failed President. He was a nice guy, but he did not
get an accurate reading of the times. Instead, he acted on the wishful thinking that is
characteristic of liberals.
One of the significant shortcomings of many political philosophers is their ignorance of
human nature. That is why Collectivism in all its forms appeals to the downtrodden. "Share and
share alike" is a beautiful ideal so long as you get other people's stuff, but the flip side of
the coin is not quite so appealing.
I heard a radio interview with a self-avowed Communist:
"So do you believe in 'share and share alike?"
"Yes, I do."
"And, if you had more than one house, you'd give them away and keep just one for
yourself?"
"Yes. I would."
"And, if you had more than one vehicle, you'd give them away and keep just one for
yourself?"
"Yes, I would."
"And, if you had more than one shirt "
"Whoa, wait a minute! I have more than one shirt."
I can't remember the rest of the interview as I was laughing too hard.
The Great Man Theory is one extreme, its critics are somewhere in the middle and 'the
history of the people' is at the other end of the spectrum. Despite this, we are still
fascinated by great leaders. That is human nature. Whether we are slaves at heart, or lack
self-confidence or some other explanation is endlessly debatable. However, the fact remains
that we are fascinated by great leaders and our inability to understand them further disproves
the accepted theories.
Adolph Hitler is the ultimate example of our fascination with a great man. According to Alex
Ross's "The Hitler Vortex," [Link]
tens of thousands of books have been written about Hitler. "Books have been written about
Hitler's youth, his years in Vienna and Munich, his service in the First World War, his
assumption of power, his library, his taste in art, his love of film, his relations with women,
and his predilections in interior design ('Hitler at Home')."
Tens of thousands of books failed to explain Hitler. Ross, too, does no better when he
writes, "What set Hitler apart from most authoritarian figures in history was his conception of
himself as an artist-genius who used politics as his métier. It is a mistake to call him
a failed artist; for him, politics and war were a continuation of art by other means." WTF? Are
we to believe Hitler was simply an artist who used the world as his canvas? Equally pointless
is the notion that, "Hitler debased the Romantic cult of genius to incarnate himself as a
transcendent leader hovering above the fray."
Although he was a brilliant orator, Hitler's failures are too innumerable to list.
[Link] He
was certainly a failure as a painter and his General staff considered him an incompetent
military strategist (fortunately for the Allies.) However, Hitler was merely the right man at
the right time and place to achieve power. As Ross explains, Hitler was , "the result of a
large protest movement colliding with complex patterns of elite self-interest, in a culture
increasingly prone to aggressive mythmaking and irrationality." That sounds all too close to
home, doesn't it?
Enter Donald Trump; the right man at the right time and place. He's a brute, a bully, and a
demagogue, but he understands the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times and he adjusts his message
to appeal to his base.
I have known many bullies; on the playground and in the boardroom. A bully may achieve
short-term gain, but for long-term pain. It is very easy to destroy corporate culture, but
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mend a toxic workplace after the bully was
dismissed. Now, extrapolate this to the world under Donald Trump.
John Feeley is the former U.S. Ambassador to Panama portrayed in The New Yorker magazine
article "The Diplomat Who Quit the Trump Administration." [Link]After his first meeting with Trump, he wrote that Trump "saw every unknown person as a threat
and that his first instinct was to annihilate that threat. 'He's like a velociraptor. He has to
be boss, and if you don't show him deference he kills you.'"
Feeley fears that "the country was embracing an attitude that was profoundly inimical to
diplomacy 'If we do that we will become weaker and less prosperous.'" He is correct in that
regard. China is building a large, new embassy at the mouth of the Panama Canal visible to
every ship "as they enter a waterway that once symbolized the global influence of the United
States."
Feeley is also correct in warning that the Trump administration's gutting the diplomatic
corps will have negative repercussions. Throughout Latin America, leftist leaders are in
retreat, and popular movements reject corrupt governance. Yet, America is losing "the greatest
opportunity to recoup the moral high ground that we have had in decades." Instead, the U.S. is
abandoning the region to China. Feeley calls it "a self-inflicted Pearl Harbor."
China is replacing U.S. influence in Latin America and Chinese banks "provided more than a
hundred and fifty billion dollars in loan commitments to the region In less than two decades,
trade between China and Latin America has increased twenty-seven-fold." Although that began
long before Trump, "We're not just walking off the field. We're taking the ball and throwing a
finger at the rest of the world."
Feeley says that he felt betrayed by what he regarded as "the traditional core values of the
United States." Sorry, Feeley, but America lost its core values long before Trump was elected.
Trump is not the cause; he is the symptom, the result of the declining American Empire.
Hunters know that one of the most dangerous animals is a wounded one. The same is correct
about failing empires because they are a danger not only to others but to their own citizens as
well. The elites are running out the clock in order to loot as much as they can before it hits
the fan.
We dirt people will continue to suffer from stagnant wage growth while the so-called
increase in national wealth goes to a tiny minority.
[link]
Moreover, nobody wins a trade war that raises consumer prices even if Trump eventually
triumphs.
The economy staggers under the weight of phony wars, fake finances, fake GDP, fake CPI, fake
employment, fake pensions and fake everything.
[Link] The national debt increases $1 trillion every year, consumer debt is at an all-time
high
[Link] while the tax cuts benefit only the ultra-wealthy. Also, the fake news tells us
everything is wonderful. Don't believe it. "If everything is so awesome, why are Americans
drinking themselves to death in record numbers?"
[Link]
It is said that every few generations, money returns to its rightful owners. That is what's
happening now.
America emerged relatively unscathed from the Second World War whereas many other countries
were bombed back into the Stone Age. The Marshal Plan helped rebuild countries that were to
become both America's future customers and its competitors. America's busy factories
transformed from war production to consumer goods, the demand for which was created by "the
Father of Spin" Edward Bernays' marketing propaganda. [Link]
As well, the U.S. stole the gold that the Nazis had stolen from others, [Link]
and that wealth in addition to robust, productive capacity temporarily propelled the U.S. far
ahead of other nations. However, it would not last. Eventually, the undeserved prosperity of
the 1950's and '60's began to run out of steam as other nations rebuilt and competed with the
U.S. President Nixon defaulting on the dollar in 1971 by "closing the gold window" signaled the
end of America's good times . The subsequent debt creation now unconstricted by a gold basis
helped to cushion the blow for several decades, but wealth was now flowing to Asia along with
factory jobs.
For 5,000 years, China was a world superpower with only a short, two-century hiatus that is
now ending as China again emerges as an economic superpower. Such a massive shift in wealth
cannot be attributed to either leadership or the people below. It is a painful reversion to the
mean. All the finger-pointing and wailing and gnashing of teeth not even bombastic Trump and
his tariffs can stem the tide and make America great again as money continues to flow back to
its rightful owners.
The USA is a declining, bankrupt, warmongering police state and most of its indoctrinated
citizens think they live in a free, peaceful country.
China is a corrupt police state, but most of its citizens know it.
We have met the enemy, and he is us. The future awaits.
The United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe that the Kremlin
sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association (NRA) by having two
Russian citizens take out life memberships in the organization with the intention of corrupting
it and turning it into a mouthpiece for President Vladimir Putin.
Both of the Russians – Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin – have, by the way,
long well documented histories as advocates for gun ownership and were founders of Right to
Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence front organization of some kind and is rather a genuine
lobbying group with an active membership and agenda.
Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can own guns but the
licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to Bear Arms,
modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.
Maria Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in solitary confinement in a
federal prison, having been charged with collusion with Torshin and failure to register as an
agent of the Russian Federation. It is unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed to
register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but she has not been granted bail
because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee
the US and return home. It is to be presumed that she is being pressured to identify others
involved in her alleged scheme to overthrow American democracy through NRA membership.
Indeed, in any event, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would consider the NRA to
be a legitimate intelligence target. It only flexes its admitted powerful legislative muscles
over issues relating to gun ownership, not regarding policy on Russia. In short, Butina and by
extension Torshin appear to have done nothing wrong. Both are energetic advocates for their
country and guns rights, which they appear to believe in, and Butina's aggressive networking
has broken no law except not registering, which in itself assumes that she is a Russian
government agent, something that has not been demonstrated. To put the shoe on the other foot,
will every American who now travels to Russia and engages in political conversations with local
people be suspected of acting as an agent of the US government? Once you open the door, it
swings both ways.
One might dismiss the entire Affair Butina as little more than a reflection of the
anti-Russia hysteria that has been sweeping the United States since Hillary Clinton lost the
2016 election, but that would be unfair to those remaining honest FBI agents who may have
investigated Butina and Torshin and come up with what they believed to be a plausible case for
an indictment . There were possibly suspicious money transfers as well as email intercepts that
might be interpreted as incriminating.
But two important elements are clearly missing.
The first is motive. Did the Kremlin seriously believe that it could get anything
substantial out of having a gun totin' attractive young Russian woman as a life member in the
NRA? What did the presumed puppet masters in Moscow expect to obtain apart from the sorts of
group photos including Butina that one gets while posing with politicians at the annual NRA
convention? Sure, the photo might even evolve into a cup of coffee together, but what is the
end game?
Second is the lack of any of the hallmarks of an intelligence operation, which is referred
to in the business as tradecraft. Spies meet secretly or at least outside the public eye with
prospective agents whereas Maria operated completely in the open and she made no effort to
conceal her love for her country and her desire that Washington and Moscow normalize
relations. Spies also communicate securely, which means that they use encrypted systems or
various cut-outs, i.e. mis-directions, when maintaining contact with those who are running
them. Again, Maria did none of that, which is why the FBI has her emails. Also spies work
under what is referred to as an "operating directive" in CIA-speak where they have very
specific information that they seek to obtain from their contacts. There is no indication
that Maria Butina in any way sought classified information or intelligence that would relate
either to the security of the United States or to America's political system. And finally,
Maria made no attempt to recruit anyone and turn them into an actual controlled Russian
agent, which is what spies eventually seek to do.
It has come down to this: if you are a Russian and you are caught talking to anyone in any
way influential, there is potentially hell to pay because the FBI will be watching you. You are
automatically assumed to be part of a conspiracy. Once "evidence" is collected, you will be
indicted and sent to prison, mostly to send a message to Moscow.
It is the ultimate irony that how the old Soviet Union's judiciary used to function is now
becoming standing operating procedure in the United States.
Chittum's work makes more sense than either of the books reviewed here. The two books
discussed above are good for the Harry Potter set but in no way conform to 2018 reality.
I frequently reread Chittum's work and am amazed at how he correctly analyzed the future into
what is contemporary USSA.
LOOK NO further, than the incipient election of a reparation Democrat governor in Georgia and
a like minded legislature,come November, for validation of Chittum's hypotheses. The one
weakness in his predictions is the belief that there will be a patriotic core in the local
police and national military that could be relied on to protect the lives and property of
traditional Americans. This just won't happen. The FBI, CIA, ATFE, Homeland Security Police
and like activities set the pace, call the shots and control the funds and the locals provide
a conditioned response.
Chittum writing 20 years back could not see the rise of the mass surveillance and correct
thought propagation that we increasingly welcome or endure today.
My bet is Unz Review will totally access denied after the massive Democrat election gains in
November.
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
"... Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work? ..."
Let me stipulate at the outset that the phrase, "Max Boot," should be consider
as a new synonym in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word inane moron or
imbecile are other plausible possibilities.
Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy have we witnessed such a bizarre,
vicious level of red-baiting and smearing. Max Boot, have you no decency?
You will understand the context of my introductory observations after you
view the following video. Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened
(Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a
country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work?
"... Of course, in the 21st century, we no longer torture and assassinate people as we used to, we simply discredit trouble-makers by way of the Press. Above all, there is no more Soviet Union, and consequently no more stay-behind network. But the personnel we used and who were replaced have had to be recycled. ..."
"... A number of elements attest to the fact that these agents first of all led the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then, today, against Russia [ 8 ], to the point where they are labelled by the FBI as Gladio B [ 9 ]. The efficiency of this network in the " Greater Middle East " over the last 17 years needs no further proof. ..."
Nonetheless, we may remember that during the Cold War, the United States and the United
Kingdom had created, in all of the allied states, a service designed to combat Soviet influence
– without the knowledge of the national institutions. This system is known to historians
as the stay-behind, and to the public by the name of its Italian branch, Gladio. All over the
world, it was under the joint command of the CIA and MI6, via the World Anti-Communist League
(WACL) [ 3 ],
except for Europe, where it was connected to NATO [ 4 ]
The main operational officials of this stay-behind network (in other words, capable of
becoming clandestine in the case of a Soviet invasion) were the ex-officials of the Nazi
repression. While the French people know that SS captain and head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Klaus
Barbie, became the official representative of the stay-behind network in Bolivia working
against Che Guevara, they do not know, for example, that the Police Prefect for Paris, the
collaborator Maurice Papon, who massacred a hundred Algerians on 17 October 1961, was one of
the leaders of the network in France, working against the FLN [ 5 ]. Here in Damascus where I live,
people remember another SS officer and director of the camp at Drancy, Alois Brunner, who was
placed as an advisor to the Syrian secret services by the CIA and MI6 in order to prevent the
country from swinging over into the Soviet camp. He was arrested by President Bachar el-Assad
as soon as he came to power.
In France, when the stay-behind turned against France, accused it of leaving Algeria to the
Soviets, organised the coup d'état in 1961 and financed the OAS (Organisation de
l'Armée Secrète), President De Gaulle recuperated certain of its agents in order
to form a militia to work against the militia - the SAC (Service d'Action Civique) [ 6 ].
Despite appearances, these stories are not as old as all that - the world of politics still
hosts personalities who were part of the stay-behind network. For example, the current
President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Junker, was the head of Gladio in Luxembourg
[ 7 ].
The first General Secretary of " En Marche ! ", Ludovic Chaker, is allegedly an agent of
the DGSE. He is said to have hired – by accident – a friend of Jawad Bendaoud, "
Daesh's landlord, " as a bodyguard for the candidate Macron. Today he works at the
Elysée where he " doubles " the anti-terrorist task force of Prefect Bousquet de
Florian.
Of course, in the 21st century, we no longer torture and assassinate people as we used to,
we simply discredit trouble-makers by way of the Press. Above all, there is no more Soviet
Union, and consequently no more stay-behind network. But the personnel we used and who were
replaced have had to be recycled.
A number of elements attest to the fact that these agents
first of all led the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then, today, against Russia
[ 8 ], to the
point where they are labelled by the FBI as Gladio B [ 9 ]. The efficiency of this network in
the " Greater Middle East " over the last 17 years needs no further proof.
Precisely, the question of the fight against terrorism – or its manipulation - was
handled by the United States secret service, which the Elysée was preparing to
replicate. Oddly enough, the Elysées anti-terrorist task force, directed by Prefect
Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, is already doubled by a " cell " entrusted to an executive of
the President's chief of staff, Admiral Bernard Rogel. According to L'Opinion , this
executive, Ludovic Chaker – who hired Benalla – is a " veteran " agent of the
Direction Générale de la Sécurite Exterieure (DGSE) [ 10 ]
We are not attempting to compare Alexandre Benalla with Maurice Papon, but to enquire
whether an element of an illegal force of repression is in the process of being (re)created in
Europe. Article
licensed under Creative Commons
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited,
their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND ).
Source : "The Elysée and " Gladio B " ", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete
Kimberley, Voltaire Network , 29 July 2018, www.voltairenet.org/article202201.html
"... Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work? ..."
Let me stipulate at the outset that the phrase, "Max Boot," should be consider
as a new synonym in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word inane moron or
imbecile are other plausible possibilities.
Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy have we witnessed such a bizarre,
vicious level of red-baiting and smearing. Max Boot, have you no decency?
You will understand the context of my introductory observations after you
view the following video. Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened
(Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a
country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work?
"... During his election campaign, Donald Trump reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of US laws? ..."
"... Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was, and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy". ..."
So the US news
media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and
a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon
for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.
Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which
took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this
American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical
gibberish-style.
However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion
by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.
US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or
foreign nationals.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the
presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.
The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that
Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House
against Democrat rival Hillary
Clinton .
Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are
preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American
prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the
presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.
The Russian lawyer, Natalia
Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US
media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She
denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on
her business of approaching Team Trump.
In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy
in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source
admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to
be a violation of US law.
If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign
assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?
During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher
Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the
pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It
was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated
US media and politics for the past two years.
Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the
same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to
declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.
In other
words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration,
as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale
that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.
The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American
secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential
elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far
more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious
resignation back in the mid-1970s.
The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the
2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they
have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.
The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among
others, has
commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all
proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of
American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a
political power grab.
Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian
interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign
interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal
scale.
As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in
US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".
Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of
lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain
that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.
Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly
calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.
During his election campaign, Donald Trump
reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon
Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of
US laws?
Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the
Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with
Palestinians.
Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich
Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to
shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is
also documented to be
a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.
Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are
promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and
systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is
stupendously ignored by the American media.
Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective
measure, negligible.
The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want
to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected
political forces.
Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was,
and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies
working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up
those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".
Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own
domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes.
What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to
the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
This article was originally published by " Sputnik "
-
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Counterintuitively, the apostle of nonviolence was inspiring the psychological liberation
of black people in such a way that a certain percentage felt empowered to act out their
repressed anger. So when King determined to bring half a million followers to Washington, DC
and stay there until the feds pulled out of Vietnam and declared a real war on poverty, the
Colonel and his friends immediately envisioned the nation's capital erupting into mass
violence that could spread nationwide on a scale many orders of magnitude beyond what had
happened during 1967's Long Hot Summer, perhaps precipitating a real civil war culminating in
the revolutionary overthrow of the American State. This, the Colonel explained to Pepper, was
the primary reason King had to be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Predictably, the Deep State's murder of Dr. King did not solve the racial violence
problem. The assassination itself set off a wave of new riots in cities including Chicago,
Baltimore, and -- sorry, Colonel -- Washington, DC. White-dominated forces of the State
retaliated with escalating repression. Black communities felt increasingly under siege, and
have continued to feel that way until the present day.
"National Socialism made use of various means in dealing with various classes, and made
various promises depending upon the social class it needed at a particular time. In the spring
of 1933, for example, it was the revolutionary character of the Nazi movement that was
given particular emphasis in Nazi propaganda in an effort to win over the industrial workers,
and the first of May was "celebrated," but only after the aristocracy had been appeased in
Potsdam. To ascribe the success solely to political swindle, however, would be to become
entangled in a contradiction with the basic idea of freedom, and would practically exclude the
possibility of a social revolution. What must be answered is: Why do the masses allow
themselves to be politically swindled? The masses had every possibility of evaluating the
propaganda of the various parties. Why didn't they see that, while promising the workers that
the owners of the means of production would be disappropriated, Hitler promised the capitalists that
their rights would be protected?"
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"It did not take National Socialism long to rally workers, most of whom were either
unemployed or still very young, into the SA [Sturmangriff, Stormtroopers, "brown shirts"]. To a
large extent, however, these workers were revolutionary in a dull sort of way and still
maintained an authoritarian attitude. For this reason National Socialist propaganda was
contradictory; it's content was determined by the class for which it was intended. Only in its
manipulation of the mystical feelings of the masses was it clear and consistent.
In talks with followers of the National Socialist party and especially with members of the
SA, it was clearly brought out that the revolutionary phraseology of National Socialism was the
decisive factor in the winning over of these masses. One heard National Socialists deny that
Hitler
represented capital. One heard SA men warn Hitler that he must not betray the cause of the
"revolution." One heard SA men say that Hitler was the German Lenin . Those who went over to
National Socialism from Social Democracy and the liberal central parties were, without
exception, revolutionary minded masses who were either nonpolitical or politically undecided
prior to this. Those who went over from the Communist party were often revolutionary elements
who simply could not make any sense of many of the German Communist party's contradictory
political slogans. In part they were men upon whom the external features of Hitler's party,
it's military character, its assertiveness, etc., made a big impression.
"Open avowal of dictatorship is much less dangerous than sham democracy. The first one can
fight; sham democracy is insidious."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Even more
essential, however, is the identification of the individuals in the masses with the
"führer." The more helpless the "mass-individual" has become, owing to his upbringing, the
more pronounced is his identification with the führer, and the more the childish need for
protection is disguised in the form of a feeling at one with the führer. This inclination
to identify is the psychological basis of national narcissism, i.e., of the self-confidence
that individual man derives from the "greatness of the nation."
The reactionary lower
middle-class man perceives himself in the führer, in the authoritarian state. On
the basis of this identification he feels himself to be a defender of the "national heritage,"
of the "nation," which does not prevent him, likewise on the basis of this identification, from
simultaneously despising "the masses" and confronting them as an individual. The wretchedness
of his material and sexual situation is so overshadowed by the exalting idea of belonging to a
master race and having a brilliant führer that, as time goes on, he ceases to realize how
completely he has sunk to a position of insignificant, blind allegiance.
The worker who is conscious of his skills -- he, in short, who has rid himself of his
submissive structure, who identifies with his work and not with the führer, with the
international working masses and not with the national homeland -- represents the opposite of
this. He feels himself to be a leader , not on the basis of his identification with the
führer, but on the basis of his consciousness of performing work that is vitally necessary
for society's existence."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"It was one
of the greatest errors in evaluating dictatorship to say that the dictator forces himself on
society against its own will. In reality, every dictator in history was nothing but the
accentuation of already existing state ideas which he had only to exaggerate in order to gain
power"
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Race
theorists, who are as old as imperialism itself, want to achieve racial purity in peoples whose
interbreeding, as a result of the expansion of world economy, is so far advanced that racial
purity can have meaning only to a numbskull."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Power, no matter what kind of power it is, without a foundation in truth, is a
dictatorship, more or less and in one way or another, for it is always based on man's fear of
the social responsibility and personal burden that "freedom" entails."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"The word fascism is not a word of abuse any more than the word capitalism is. It is a
concept denoting a very definite kind of mass leadership and mass influence: authoritarian,
one-party system, hence totalitarian, a system in which power takes priority over objective
interests, and facts are distorted for political purposes. Hence, there are "fascist Jews,"
just as there are "fascist Democrats."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Finally, we arrive at the question of the so-called nonpolitical man. Hitler not only established his
power from the very beginning with masses of people who were until then essentially
nonpolitical; he also accomplished his last step to victory in March of 1933 in a "legal"
manner, by mobilizing no less than five million nonvoters, that is to say, nonpolitical people.
The Left parties had made every effort to win over the indifferent masses, without posing the
question as to what it means "to be indifferent or nonpolitical."
If an industrialist and large estate owner champions a rightist party, this is easily
understood in terms of his immediate economic interests. In his case a leftist orientation
would be at variance with his social situation and would, for that reason, point to irrational
motives. If an industrial worker has a leftist orientation, this too is by all mean rationally
consistent -- it derives from his economic and social position in industry. If, however, a
worker, an employee, or an official has a rightist orientation, this must be ascribed to a lack
of political clarity, i.e., he is ignorant of his social position. The more a man who belongs
to the broad working masses is nonpolitical, the more susceptible he is to the ideology of
political reaction. To be nonpolitical is not, as one might suppose, evidence of a passive
psychic condition, but of a highly active attitude, a defense against the awareness of
social responsibility. The analysis of this defense against consciousness of one's social
responsibility yields clear insights into a number of dark questions concerning the behavior of
the broad nonpolitical strata. In the case of the average intellectual "who wants nothing to do
with politics," it can easily be shown that immediate economic interests and fears related to
his social position, which is dependent upon public opinion, lie at the basis of his
noninvolvement. These fears cause him to make the most grotesque sacrifices with respect to his
knowledge and convictions. Those people who are engaged in the production process in one way or
another and are nonetheless socially irresponsible can be divided into two major groups. In the
case of the one group the concept of politics is unconsciously associated with the idea of
violence and physical danger, i.e., with an intense fear, which prevents them from facing life
realistically. In the case of the other group, which undoubtedly constitutes the majority,
social irresponsibility is based on personal conflicts and anxieties, of which the sexual
anxiety is the predominant one. [ ] Until now the revolutionary movement has misunderstood this
situation. It attempted to awaken the "nonpolitical" man by making him conscious solely of his
unfulfilled economic interests. Experience teaches that the majority of these "nonpolitical"
people can hardly be made to listen to anything about their socio-economic situation, whereas
they are very accessible to the mystical claptrap of a National Socialist, despite the fact
that the latter makes very little mention of economic interests. [This] is explained by the
fact that severe sexual conflicts (in the broadest sense of the word), whether conscious or
unconscious, inhibit rational thinking and the development of social responsibility. They make
a person afraid and force him into a shell. If, now, such a self-encapsulated person meets a
propagandist who works with faith and mysticism, meets, in other words, a fascist who works
with sexual, libidinous methods, he turns his complete attention to him. This is not because
the fascist program makes a greater impression on him than the liberal program, but because in
his devotion to the führer and the führer's ideology, he experiences a momentary
release from his unrelenting inner tension. Unconsciously, he is able to give his conflicts a
different form and in this way to "solve" them."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"When, then, the Social Democrat worker found himself in the economic crisis which degraded
him to the status of a coolie, the development of his revolutionary sentiments was severely
retarded by the conservative structuralization that had been taking shape in him for decades.
Either he remained in the camp of the Social Democrats, notwithstanding his criticism and
rejection of their policies, or he went over to the NSDAP [Nazi party] in search of a better
replacement. Irresolute and indecisive, owing to the deep contradiction between revolutionary
and conservative sentiments, disappointed by his own leadership, he followed the line of least
resistance. Whether he would give up his conservative tendencies and arrive at a complete
consciousness of his actual responsibility in the production process, i.e., at a revolutionary
consciousness, depended solely on the correct or incorrect leadership of the revolutionary
party. Thus the communist assertion that it was the Social Democrat policies that put fascism
in the saddle was correct from a psychological viewpoint. Disappointment in Social
Democracy, accompanied by the contradiction between wretchedness and conservative thinking,
must lead to fascism if there are no revolutionary organizations. For example, following
the fiasco of the Labor party's policies in England, in 1930–31, fascism began to
infiltrate the workers who, then, in the election of 1931, cut away to the Right, instead of
going over to communism."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Hence, what he wants -- and it is openly admitted -- is to implement nationalistic
imperialism with methods he has borrowed from Marxism , including its technique of
mass organization. But the success of this mass organization is to be ascribed to the masses
and not to Hitler . It was man's
authoritarian freedom-fearing structure that enabled his propaganda to take root. Hence, what
is important about Hitler sociologically does not issue from his personality but from the
importance attached to him by the masses. And what makes the problem all the more
complex is the fact that Hitler held the masses, with whose help he wanted to carry out his
imperialism, in complete contempt."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"As bitter as it may be, the fact remains: It is the irresponsibleness of masses
of people that lies at the basis of fascism of all countries, nations, and races, etc. Fascism
is the result of man's distortion over thousands of years. It could have developed in any
country or nation. It is not a character trait that is confined specifically to the Germans or
Italians. It is manifest in every single individual of the world. The Austrian saying "Da
kann man halt nix machen" expresses this fact just as the American saying "Let George do
it." That this situation was brought about by a social development which goes back thousands of
years does not alter the fact itself. It is man himself who is responsible and not "historical
developments." It was the shifting of the responsibility from living man to "historical
developments" that caused the downfall of the socialist freedom movements. However, the
events of the past twenty years demand the responsibility of the working masses of people.
If we take "freedom" to mean first and foremost the responsibility of each
individual to shape personal, occupational, and social existence in a rational way, then it
can be said that there is no greater fear than the fear of the creation of general
freedom. Unless this basic problem is given complete priority and solved, there will never
be a freedom capable of lasting more than one or two generations."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"It did not
take National Socialism long to rally workers, most of whom were either unemployed or still
very young, into the SA [Sturmangriff, Stormtroopers, "brown shirts"]. To a large extent,
however, these workers were revolutionary in a dull sort of way and still maintained an
authoritarian attitude. For this reason National Socialist propaganda was contradictory; it's
content was determined by the class for which it was intended. Only in its manipulation of the
mystical feelings of the masses was it clear and consistent.
In talks with followers of the National Socialist party and especially with members of the
SA, it was clearly brought out that the revolutionary phraseology of National Socialism was the
decisive factor in the winning over of these masses. One heard National Socialists deny that
Hitler
represented capital. One heard SA men warn Hitler that he must not betray the cause of the
"revolution." One heard SA men say that Hitler was the German Lenin . Those who went over to
National Socialism from Social Democracy and the liberal central parties were, without
exception, revolutionary minded masses who were either nonpolitical or politically undecided
prior to this. Those who went over from the Communist party were often revolutionary elements
who simply could not make any sense of many of the German Communist party's contradictory
political slogans. In part they were men upon whom the external features of Hitler's party,
it's military character, its assertiveness, etc., made a big impression.
"National Socialism made use of various means in dealing with various classes, and made
various promises depending upon the social class it needed at a particular time. In the spring
of 1933, for example, it was the revolutionary character of the Nazi movement that was
given particular emphasis in Nazi propaganda in an effort to win over the industrial workers,
and the first of May was "celebrated," but only after the aristocracy had been appeased in
Potsdam. To ascribe the success solely to political swindle, however, would be to become
entangled in a contradiction with the basic idea of freedom, and would practically exclude the
possibility of a social revolution. What must be answered is: Why do the masses allow
themselves to be politically swindled? The masses had every possibility of evaluating the
propaganda of the various parties. Why didn't they see that, while promising the workers that
the owners of the means of production would be disappropriated, Hitler promised the capitalists that
their rights would be protected?"
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
"Yet, it was precisely our failure to differentiate between work and politics, between
reality and illusion; it was precisely our mistake of conceiving of politics as a rational
human activity comparable to the sowing of seeds or the construction of buildings that was
responsible for the fact that a painter who
failed to make the grade was able to plunge the whole world into misery. And I have
stressed again and again that the main purpose of this book -- which, after all, was not
written merely for the fun of it -- was to demonstrate these catastrophic errors in human
thinking and to eliminate irrationalism from politics. It is an essential part of our social
tragedy that the farmer, the industrial worker, the physician, etc., do not influence social
existence solely through their social activities, but also and even predominantly through their
political ideologies. For political activity hinders objective and professional activity; it
splits every profession into inimical ideologic groups; creates a dichotomy in the body of
industrial workers; limits the activity of the medical profession and harms the patients. In
short, it is precisely political activity that prevents the realization of that which it
pretends to fight for: peace, work, security, international cooperation, free objective speech,
freedom of religion, etc."
― Wilhelm Reich , The Mass Psychology of
Fascism
New McCarthyism allows
corporate media to tighten grip, Democrats to ignore their own failings Alan MacLeod
The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many ( Independent ,
11/5/16 ).
To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th
president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political
establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium
confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC 's
Rachel Maddow ( 10/17/16 ) said
it could be a "Goldwater-style landslide."
Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively
attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate
to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even
before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning
strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.
With Clinton claiming , "Putin would rather have a puppet
as president," Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates (
FAIR.org ,
10/13/16 ), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized
upon the theme, with Paul Krugman ( New York Times , 7/22/16
) asserting Trump would be a " Siberian
candidate," while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden ( Washington Post ,
5/16/16 ) claimed Trump would be Russia's "useful fool."
The day after the election, Jonathan Allen's book Shattered detailed, Clinton's team
decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored "fake news" online was the primary reason
for their loss.
Within weeks, the Washington Post (
11/24/16 ) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com , which purports to help users
differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news
( FAIR.org , 12/1/16
, 12/8/16 ).
The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the "mainstream
media," the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of
Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention
and war with Russia, that's evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake
news.
The Washington Post (
11/24/16 ) was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on Russian
"fake news."
PropOrNot claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that "routinely peddle Russian
propaganda." Included in the list were Wikileaks , Trump-supporting right-wing websites
like InfoWars and the Drudge Report , libertarian outlets like the Ron Paul
Institute and Antiwar.com , and award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical)
left-wing sites like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism . Thus it was uniquely news
sources that did not lie in the fairway between Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that
were tarred as propaganda.
PropOrNot calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its creators see
the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as a frequently asked question on
their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because "we are not accusing anyone of
lawbreaking, treason, or 'being a member of the Communist Party.'") However, this new
McCarthyism does not stem from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment
center.
That the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal their identities or
funding did not stop the issue becoming one of the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media
talk of fake news sparked organizations like Google , Facebook , Bing and
YouTube to change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.
However, one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets that
challenge the status quo. The Interceptreported a 19 percent reduction
in Google search traffic, AlterNet63 percent and Democracy
Now!36 percent. Reddit and
Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the
"AdPocalypse," YouTube began demonetizing videos from independent creators like
Majority Report and the Jimmy Dore Show on controversial political topics like
environmental protests, war and mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN
did not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists that questioned aspects
of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté, were accused of being
agents of the Kremlin ( Shadowproof ,
7/9/18 ).
The effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of alternative media that
question the corporate state and capitalism in general, and to reassert corporate control over
communication, something that had been loosened during the election in particular. It also
impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by employing sufficiently bellicose and
anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they also be tarred as Kremlin agents.
Thomas Friedman ( Morning Joe ,
2/14/18 ) pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to with major
wars.
When it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted by a US grand jury
for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes on Facebook , the response
was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures declared it an "act of war." Clinton
herself described Russian interference as a "
cyber 9/11 ," while Thomas Friedman said that it was a "
Pearl Harbor–scale event ." Morgan Freeman's viral video, produced by Rob Reiner's
Committee to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage: "We have been attacked," the actor
declared ; "We are at war with Russia." Liberals declared Trump's refusal to react in a
sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was Putin's puppet.
The McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the liberal center. Green
Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused to endorse the Russia narrative, leading
mainstream figures like Rachel Maddow to
insinuate she was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein's connection to
Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton staffer Zac Petkanas announced :
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
"Commentary" that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the RussiaGate theory,
claiming it is "clear
to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and
intends to be involved in 2018." Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented
as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (
11/12/17 ) asking its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of
Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?" The message is clear: The
progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
Outlets like Slate (
5/11/18 ) warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and Russia.
It is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents, witting or unwitting;
virtually every major progressive movement challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in
the same way. Multiple media outlets, including CNN (
6/29/18 ), Slate (
5/11/18 ), Vox ( 4/11/18
) and the New York Times (
2/16/18 ), have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin, insinuating
the outrage over racist police brutality is another Russian psyop.
Others claimed Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian trolls promoted
the Standing Rock environmental protests.
Meanwhile, Democratic insider Neera Tanden retweeted a
description of Chelsea Manning as a "Russian stooge," writing off her campaign for the Senate
as "the Kremlin paying the extreme left to swing elections. Remember that." Thus corporate
media are promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely a Kremlin-funded
astroturf effort.
The tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly
presenting evidence). Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was
uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting , "The Russian
authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both
decisive and proportionate."
The British press was outraged -- at Corbyn's insufficient jingoism. The Sun 's front
page ( 3/15/18 )
attacked him as "Putin's Puppet," while the Daily Mail (
3/15/18 ) went with "Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge." As with Sanders, the fact that Corbyn
endorsed the official narrative didn't keep him from being attacked, showing that the
conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia behind everything has little to do with evidence-based
reality, and is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment's political enemies.
The Atlantic Council
published a report claiming Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not
expressions of popular frustration and disillusionment, but "the Kremlin's Trojan horses,"
undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing scant evidence, the report went on to link
virtually every major European political party challenging the center, from right or left, to
Putin. From Britian's UKIP to Spain's Podemos to Italy's Five Star Movement, all are charged
with being under one man's control. It is this council that Facebookannounced
it was partnering with to help promote "trustworthy" news and weed out "untrustworthy" sources
( FAIR.org ,
5/21/18 ), as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the largest
corporate outlets, like the New York Times , CNN and News Corp , to help
develop a system to control what content we see on the website.
"We are at war," Morgan Freeman
assures us on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia.
The utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman's aforementioned
video . After asserting that "for 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to
the world of what we can all aspire to" -- a tally that would count nearly a century of chattel
slavery and almost another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement -- the actor
explains that "Putin uses social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces
people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political process."
The obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to be trusted, and
would be trusted were it not for Putin's propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and
the deep inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and movements on
both left and right pressing for radical change across Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin
himself. In other words, "America is already great."
For the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and not scrutinize why
they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the
election, there is no need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the Sanders
wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists on the left, who are Putin's
puppets anyway. The party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks in
American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat from both left and right,
the Russia narrative allows them to sow distrust among the public for any movement challenging
the dominant order.
For the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their faculties and develop a
state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal
trust in institutions like the FBI has
markedly increased since 2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in
Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast increases in the US military
budget and attacking Trump from the right.
For corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative is highly useful,
allowing them to reassert control over the means of communication under the guise of preventing
a Russian "fake news" infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are censored,
defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to
portray themselves as arbiters of truth. This strategy has had some success, with
Democrats' trust in media increasing since the election.
None of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other countries' elections,
a tactic that the United States has employed even more frequently ( NPR ,
12/22/16 ). Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the detriment
of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility for those in power.
Around 35 years ago, I was sitting in my college dorm-room closely reading the New York
Times as I did each and every morning when I noticed an astonishing article about the
controversial new Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir.
Back in those long-gone days, the Gray Lady was strictly a black-and-white print
publication, lacking the large color photographs of rap stars and long stories about dieting
techniques that fill so much of today's news coverage, and it also seemed to have a far harder
edge in its Middle East reporting. A year or so earlier, Shamir's predecessor Menacham Begin
had allowed his Defense Minister Ariel Sharon to talk him into invading Lebanon and besieging
Beirut, and the subsequent massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps had outraged the world and angered America's government. This eventually led to
Begin's resignation, with Shamir, his Foreign Minister, taking his place.
Prior to his surprising 1977 election victory, Begin had spent decades in the political
wilderness as an unacceptable right-winger, and Shamir had an even more extreme background,
with the American mainstream media freely reporting his long involvement in all sorts of
high-profile assassinations and terrorist attacks during the 1940s, painting him as a very bad
man indeed.
Given Shamir's notorious activities, few revelations would have shocked me, but this one
did. Apparently, during the late 1930s, Shamir and his small Zionist faction had become great
admirers of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis, and after World War II broke out, they had
made repeated attempts to contact Mussolini and the German leadership in 1940 and 1941, hoping
to enlist in the Axis Powers as their Palestine affiliate, and undertake a campaign of attacks
and espionage against the local British forces, then share in the political booty after
Hitler's inevitable triumph.
Now the Times clearly viewed Shamir in a very negative light, but it seemed
extremely unlikely to me that they would have published such a remarkable story without being
absolutely sure of their facts. Among other things, there were long excerpts from the official
letters sent to Mussolini ferociously denouncing the "decadent" democratic systems of Britain
and France that he was opposing, and assuring Il Duce that such ridiculous political
notions would have no future place in the totalitarian Jewish client state they hoped to
establish under his auspices in Palestine.
As it happens, both Germany and Italy were preoccupied with larger geopolitical issues at
the time, and given the small size of Shamir's Zionist faction, not much seems to have ever
come of those efforts. But the idea of the sitting Prime Minister of the Jewish State having
spent his early wartime years as an unrequited Nazi ally was certainly something that sticks in
one's mind, not quite conforming to the traditional narrative of that era which I had always
accepted.
Most remarkably, the revelation of Shamir's pro-Axis past seems to have had only a
relatively minor impact upon his political standing within Israeli society. I would think that
any American political figure found to have supported a military alliance with Nazi Germany
during the Second World War would have had a very difficult time surviving the resulting
political scandal, and the same would surely be true for politicians in Britain, France, or
most other western nations. But although there was certainly some embarrassment in the Israeli
press, especially after the shocking story reached the international headlines, apparently most
Israelis took the whole matter in stride, and Shamir stayed in office for another year, then
later served a second, much longer term as Prime Minister during 1986-1992. The Jews of Israel
apparently regarded Nazi Germany quite differently than did most Americans, let alone most
American Jews.
... ... ...
Over the years I've occasionally made half-hearted attempts to locate the Times
article about Shamir that had long stuck in my memory, but have had no success, either because
it was removed from the Times archives or more likely because my mediocre search
skills proved inadequate. But I'm almost certain that the piece had been prompted by the 1983
publication of Zionism in the
Age of the Dictators by Lenni Brenner, an anti-Zionist of the Trotskyite persuasion
and Jewish origins. I only very recently discovered that book, which really tells an extremely
interesting story.
Brenner, born in 1937, has spent his entire life as an unreconstructed hard-core leftist,
with his enthusiasms ranging from Marxist revolution to the Black Panthers, and he is obviously
a captive of his views and his ideology. At times, this background impairs the flow of his
text, and the periodic allusions to "proletarian," "bourgeoisie," and "capitalist classes"
sometimes grow a little wearisome, as does his unthinking acceptance of all the shared beliefs
common to his political circle. But surely only someone with that sort of fervent ideological
commitment would have been willing to devote so much time and effort to investigating that
controversial subject and ignoring the endless denunciations that resulted, which even included
physical assaults by Zionist partisans.
ORDER IT NOW
In any event, his documentation seems completely airtight, and some years after the original
appearance of his book, he published a companion volume entitled 51 Documents: Zionist
Collaboration with the Nazis , which simply provides English translations of all the raw
evidence behind his analytical framework, allowing interested parties to read the material and
draw their own conclusions.
Among other things, Brenner provides considerable evidence that the larger and somewhat more
mainstream right-wing Zionist faction later led by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was
almost invariably regarded as a Fascist movement during the 1930s, even apart from its warm
admiration for Mussolini's Italian regime. This was hardly such a dark secret in that period
given that its main Palestine newspaper carried a regular column by a top ideological leader
entitled "Diary of a Fascist." During one of the major international Zionist conferences,
factional leader Vladimir Zabotinsky entered the hall with his brown-shirted followers in full
military formation, leading the chair to ban the wearing of uniforms in order to avoid a riot,
and his faction was soon defeated politically and eventually expelled from the Zionist umbrella
organization. This major setback was largely due to the widespread hostility the group had
aroused after two of its members were arrested by British police for the recent assassination
of Chaim Arlosoroff, one of the highest-ranking Zionist officials based in Palestine.
The cover of the 2014 paperback edition of Brenner's book displays the commemorative medal
struck by Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, with a Star-of-David on the front face and
a Swastika on the obverse. But oddly enough, this symbolic medallion actually had absolutely no
connection with the unsuccessful attempts by Shamir's small faction to arrange a Nazi military
alliance during World War II.
Although the Germans paid little attention to the entreaties of that minor organization, the
far larger and more influential mainstream Zionist movement of Chaim Weizmann and David
Ben-Gurion was something else entirely. And during most of the 1930s, these other Zionists had
formed an important economic partnership with Nazi Germany, based upon an obvious commonality
of interests. After all, Hitler regarded Germany's one percent Jewish population as a
disruptive and potentially dangerous element which he wanted gone, and the Middle East seemed
as good a destination for them as any other. Meanwhile, the Zionists had very similar
objectives, and the creation of their new national homeland in Palestine obviously required
both Jewish immigrants and Jewish financial investment.
... ... ...
The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel's establishment is difficult to
overstate. According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier cited by Brenner, between
1933 and 1939 over 60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany. The
worldwide impoverishment of the Great Depression had drastically reduced ongoing Jewish
financial support from all other sources, and Brenner reasonably suggests that without Hitler's
financial backing, the nascent Jewish colony, so tiny and fragile, might easily have shriveled
up and died during that difficult period.
Such a conclusion leads to fascinating hypotheticals. When I first stumbled across
references to the Ha'avara Agreement on websites here and there, one of the commenters
mentioning the issue half-jokingly suggested that if Hitler had won the war, statues would
surely have been built to him throughout Israel and he would today be recognized by Jews
everywhere as the heroic Gentile leader who had played the central role in reestablishing a
national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine after almost 2000 years of bitter
exile.
This sort of astonishing counter-factual possibility is not nearly as totally absurd as it
might sound to our present-day ears. We must recognize that our historical understanding of
reality is shaped by the media, and media organs are controlled by the winners of major wars
and their allies, with inconvenient details often excluded to avoid confusing the public. It is
undeniably true that in his 1924 book Mein Kampf , Hitler had written all sorts of
hostile and nasty things about Jews, especially those who were recent immigrants from Eastern
Europe, but when I read the book back in high school, I was a little surprised to discover that
these anti-Jewish sentiments hardly seemed central to his text. Furthermore, just a couple of
years earlier, a vastly more prominent public figure such as British Minister Winston Churchill
had published
sentiments nearly as hostile and nasty , focusing on the monstrous crimes being committed
by Bolshevik Jews. In Albert Lindemann's Esau's Tears , I was surprised to discover
that the author of the famous Balfour Declaration, the foundation of the Zionist project, was
apparently also quite hostile to Jews, with an element of his motivation probably being his
desire to exclude them from Britain.
Once Hitler consolidated power in Germany, he quickly outlawed all other political
organizations for the German people, with only the Nazi Party and Nazi political symbols being
legally permitted. But a special exception was made for German Jews, and Germany's local
Zionist Party was accorded complete legal status, with Zionist marches, Zionist uniforms, and
Zionist flags all fully permitted. Under Hitler, there was strict censorship of all German
publications, but the weekly Zionist newspaper was freely sold at all newsstands and street
corners. The clear notion seemed to be that a German National Socialist Party was the proper
political home for the country's 99% German majority, while Zionist National Socialism would
fill the same role for the tiny Jewish minority.
In 1934, Zionist leaders invited an important SS official to spend six months visiting the
Jewish settlement in Palestine, and upon his return, his very favorable impressions of the
growing Zionist enterprise were published as a massive 12-part-series in Joseph Goebbel's
Der Angriff , the flagship media organ of the Nazi Party, bearing the descriptive
title "A Nazi Goes to Palestine." In his very angry 1920 critique of Jewish Bolshevik activity,
Churchill had argued that Zionism was locked in a fierce battle with Bolshevism for the soul of
European Jewry, and only its victory might ensure amicable future relations between Jew and
Gentile. Based on available evidence, Hitler and many of the other Nazi leaders seemed to have
reached a somewhat similar conclusion by the mid-1930s.
During that era extremely harsh sentiments regarding Diaspora Jewry were sometimes found in
rather surprising quarters. After the controversy surrounding Shamir's Nazi ties erupted into
the headlines, Brenner's material became the grist for an important article by Edward Mortimer,
the longtime Middle East expert at the august Times of London , and the 2014 edition
of the book includes some choice extracts from Mortimer's February 11, 1984 Times
piece:
Who told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that "each country can absorb only a limited
number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many
Jews"?
No, not Adolf Hitler but Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization
and later still the first president of the state of Israel.
And where might you find the following assertion, originally composed in 1917 but
republished as late as 1936: "The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both
physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness
of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline"?
Not in Der Sturmer but in the organ of the Zionist youth organization, Hashomer
Hatzair.
As the above quoted statement reveals, Zionism itself encouraged and exploited self-hatred
in the Diaspora. It started from the assumption that anti-Semitism was inevitable and even in
a sense justified so long as Jews were outside the land of Israel.
It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to join
the war on Germany's side in 1941, in the hope of establishing "the historical Jewish state
on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich."
Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister of Israel chose to
join.
The very uncomfortable truth is that the harsh characterizations of Diaspora Jewry found in
the pages of Mein Kampf were not all that different from what was voiced by Zionism's
founding fathers and its subsequent leaders, so the cooperation of those two ideological
movements was not really so totally surprising.
However, uncomfortable truths do remain uncomfortable. Mortimer had spent nineteen years at
the Times , the last dozen of them as the foreign specialist and leader-writer on
Middle Eastern affairs. But the year after he wrote that article including those controversial
quotations, his
career at that newspaper ended , leading to an unusual gap in his employment history, and
that development may or may not be purely coincidental.
Also quite ironic was the role of Adolf Eichmann, whose name today probably ranks as one of
the most famous half-dozen Nazis in history, due to his postwar 1960 kidnapping by Israeli
agents, followed by his public show-trial and execution as a war-criminal. As it happens,
Eichmann had been a central Nazi figure in the Zionist alliance, even studying Hebrew and
apparently becoming something of a philo-Semite during the years of his close collaboration
with top Zionist leaders.
Brenner is a captive of his ideology and his beliefs, accepting without question the
historical narrative with which he was raised. He seems to find nothing so strange about
Eichmann being a philo-Semitic partner of the Jewish Zionists during the late 1930s and then
suddenly being transformed into a mass-murderer of the European Jews in the early 1940s,
willingly committing the monstrous crimes for which the Israelis later justly put him to
death.
This is certainly possible, but I really wonder. A more cynical observer might find it a
very odd coincidence that the first prominent Nazi the Israelis made such an effort to track
down and kill had been their closest former political ally and collaborator. After Germany's
defeat, Eichmann had fled to Argentina and lived there quietly for a number of years until his
name resurfaced in a celebrated mid-1950s controversy surrounding one of his leading Zionist
partners, then living in Israel as a respected government official, who was denounced as a Nazi
collaborator, eventually ruled innocent after a celebrated trial, but later assassinated by
former members of Shamir's faction.
Following that controversy in Israel, Eichmann supposedly gave a long personal interview to
a Dutch Nazi journalist, and although it wasn't published at the time, perhaps word of its
existence may have gotten into circulation. The new state of Israel was just a few years old at
that time, and very politically and economically fragile, desperately dependent upon the
goodwill and support of America and Jewish donors worldwide. Their remarkable former Nazi
alliance was a deeply-suppressed secret, whose public release might have had absolutely
disastrous consequences.
According to the version of the interview later published as a two-part story in Life
Magazine , Eichmann's statements seemingly did not touch on the deadly topic of the 1930s
Nazi-Zionist partnership. But surely Israeli leaders must have been terrified that they might
not be so lucky the next time, so we may speculate that Eichmann's elimination suddenly became
a top national priority, and he was tracked down and captured in 1960. Presumably, harsh means
were employed to persuade him not to reveal any of these dangerous pre-war secrets at his
Jerusalem trial, and one might wonder if the reason he was famously kept in an enclosed glass
booth was to ensure that the sound could quickly be cut off if he started to stray from the
agreed upon script. All of this analysis is totally speculative, but Eichmann's role as a
central figure in the 1930s Nazi-Zionist partnership is undeniable historical fact.
Just as we might imagine, America's overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry was hardly
eager to serve as a public conduit for Brenner's shocking revelations of a close Nazi-Zionist
economic partnership, and he mentions that his book agent uniformly received rejections from
each firm he approached, based on a wide variety of different excuses. However, he finally
managed to locate an extremely obscure publisher in Britain willing to take on the project, and
his book was released in 1983, initially receiving no reviews other than a couple of harsh and
perfunctory denunciations, though Soviet Izvestia took some interest in his findings
until they discovered that he was a hated Trotskyite.
His big break came when Shamir suddenly became Israel's Prime Minister, and he brought his
evidence of former Nazi ties to the English-language Palestinian press, which put it into
general circulation. Various British Marxists, including the notorious "Red Ken" Livingstone of
London, organized a speaking tour for him, and when a group of right-wing Zionist militants
attacked one of the events and inflicted injuries, the story of the brawl caught the attention
of the mainstream newspapers. Soon afterward the discussion of Brenner's astonishing
discoveries appeared in the Times of London and entered the international media.
Presumably, the New York Times article that had originally caught my eye ran sometime
during this period.
Public relations professionals are quite skilled at minimizing the impact of damaging
revelations, and pro-Israel organizations have no shortage of such individuals. Just before the
1983 release of his remarkable book, Brenner suddenly discovered that a young pro-Zionist
author named Edwin Black was furiously working on a similar project, apparently backed by
sufficient financial resources that he was employing an army of fifty researchers to allow him
to complete his project in record time.
Since the entire embarrassing subject of a Nazi-Zionist partnership had been kept away from
the public eye for almost five decades, this timing surely seems more than merely coincidental.
Presumably word of Brenner's numerous unsuccessful efforts at securing a mainstream publisher
during 1982 had gotten around, as had as his eventual success in locating a tiny one in
Britain. Having failed to prevent publication of such explosive material, pro-Israel groups
quietly decided that their next best option was trying to seize control of the topic
themselves, allowing disclosure of those parts of the story that could not be concealed but
excluding items of greatest danger, while portraying the sordid history in the best possible
light.
ORDER IT NOW
Black's book, The Transfer Agreement , may have arrived a year later than Brenner's
but was clearly backed by vastly greater publicity and resources. It was released by Macmillan,
a leading publisher, ran nearly twice the length of Brenner's short book, and carried powerful
endorsements by leading figures from the firmament of Jewish activism, including the Simon
Weisenthal Center, the Israel Holocaust Memorial, and the American Jewish Archives. As a
consequence, it received long if not necessarily favorable reviews in influential publications
such as The New Republic and Commentary .
In all fairness, I should mention that in the Foreword to his book, Black claims that his
research efforts had been totally discouraged by nearly everyone he approached, and as a
consequence, he had been working on the project with solitary intensity for many years. This
implies the near-simultaneous release of the two books was purely due to chance. But such a
picture is hardly consistent with his glowing testimonials from so many prominent Jewish
leaders, and personally I find Brenner's claim that Black was assisted by fifty researchers far
more convincing.
Since both Black and Brenner were describing the same basic reality and relying upon many of
the same documents, in most respects the stories they tell are generally similar. But Black
carefully excludes any mention of offers of Zionist military cooperation with the Nazis, let
alone the repeated attempts by Shamir's Zionist faction to officially join the Axis Powers
after the war had broken out, as well as numerous other details of a particularly embarrassing
nature.
Assuming Black's book was published for the reasons I suggested, I think that the strategy
of the pro-Israel groups largely succeeded, with his version of the history seeming to have
quickly supplanted Brenner's except perhaps in strongly leftist or anti-Zionist circles.
Googling each combination of the title and author, Black's book gets eight times as many hits,
and his Amazon sales ranks and numbers of reviews are also larger by roughly that same factor.
Most notably, neither the Wikipedia articles on "The Transfer Agreement" and
"The
Ha'avara Agreement" contain any mention of Brenner's research whatsoever, even
though his book was published earlier, was far broader, and only he provided the underlying
documentary evidence. As a personal example of the current situation, I was quite unaware of
the entire Ha'avara history until just a few years ago when I encountered some website
comments mentioning Black's book, leading me to purchase and read it. But even then, Brenner's
far more wide-ranging and explosive volume remained totally unknown to me until very
recently.
Once World War II began, this Nazi-Zionist partnership quickly lapsed for obvious reasons.
Germany was now at war with the British Empire, and financial transfers to British-run
Palestine were no longer possible. Furthermore, the Arab Palestinians had grown quite hostile
to the Jewish immigrants whom they rightfully feared might eventually displace them, and once
the Germans were forced to choose between maintaining their relationship with a relatively
small Zionist movement or winning the political sympathy of a vast sea of Middle Eastern Arabs
and Muslims, their decision was a natural one. The Zionists faced a similar choice, and
especially once wartime propaganda began so heavily blackening the German and Italian
governments, their long previous partnership was not something they wanted widely known.
However, at exactly this same moment a somewhat different and equally long-forgotten
connection between Jews and Nazi Germany suddenly moved to the fore.
Like most people everywhere, the average German, whether Jewish or Gentile, was probably not
all that political, and although Zionism had for years been accorded a privileged place in
German society, it is not entirely clear how many ordinary German Jews paid much attention to
it. The tens of thousands who emigrated to Palestine during that period were probably motivated
as much by economic pressures as by ideological commitment. But wartime changed matters in
other ways.
ORDER IT NOW
This was even more true for the German government. The outbreak of a world war against a
powerful coalition of the British and French empires, later augmented by both Soviet Russia and
the United States, imposed the sorts of enormous pressures that could often overcome
ideological scruples. A few years ago, I discovered a fascinating 2002 book by Bryan Mark Rigg,
Hitler's Jewish Soldiers , a scholarly treatment of exactly what the title implies.
The quality of this controversial historical analysis is indicated by the glowing jacket-blurbs
from numerous academic experts and an extremely favorable treatment by an eminent scholar in
The American Historical Review .
Obviously, Nazi ideology was overwhelmingly centered upon race and considered racial purity
a crucial factor in national cohesion. Individuals possessing substantial non-German ancestry
were regarded with considerable suspicion, and this concern was greatly amplified if that
admixture was Jewish. But in a military struggle against an opposing coalition possessing many
times Germany's population and industrial resources, such ideological factors might be overcome
by practical considerations, and Rigg persuasively argues that some 150,000 half-Jews or
quarter-Jews served in the armed forces of the Third Reich, a percentage probably not much
different than their share of the general military-age population.
Germany's long-integrated and assimilated Jewish population had always been
disproportionately urban, affluent, and well-educated. As a consequence it is not entirely
surprising that a large proportion of these part-Jewish soldiers who served Hitler were
actually combat officers rather than merely rank-and-file conscripts, and they included at
least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, and another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same
high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering's powerful
second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe.
Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims,
perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.
Admittedly, the racially-elite SS itself generally had far stricter ancestry standards, with
even a trace of non-Aryan parentage normally seen as disqualifying an individual from
membership. But even here, the situation was sometimes complicated, since there were widespread
rumors that Reinhard Heydrich, the second-ranking figure in that very powerful organization,
actually had considerable Jewish ancestry. Rigg investigates that claim without coming to any
clear conclusions, though he does seem to think that the circumstantial evidence involved may
have been used by other high-ranking Nazi figures as a point of leverage or blackmail against
Heydrich, who stood as one of the most important figures in the Third Reich.
As a further irony, most of these individuals traced their Jewish ancestry through their
father rather than their mother, so although they were not Jewish according to rabbinical law,
their family names often reflected their partly Semitic origins, though in many cases Nazi
authorities attempted to studiously overlook this glaringly obvious situation. As an extreme
example noted by an academic reviewer of the book, a half-Jew bearing the distinctly non-Aryan
name of Werner Goldberg actually had his photograph prominently featured in a 1939 Nazi
propaganda newspaper, with the caption describing him as the "The Ideal German Soldier."
The author conducted more than 400 personal interviews of the surviving part-Jews and their
relatives, and these painted a very mixed picture of the difficulties they had encountered
under the Nazi regime, which varied enormously depending upon particular circumstances and the
personalities of those in authority over them. One important source of complaint was that
because of their status, part-Jews were often denied the military honors or promotions they had
rightfully earned. However, under especially favorable conditions, they might also be legally
reclassified as being of "German Blood," which officially eliminated any taint on their
status.
Even official policy seems to have been quite contradictory and vacillating. For example,
when the civilian humiliations sometimes inflicted upon the fully Jewish parents of serving
half-Jews were brought to Hitler's attention, he regarded that situation as intolerable,
declaring that either such parents must be fully protected against such indignities or all the
half-Jews must be discharged, and eventually in April 1940 he issued a decree requiring the
latter. However, this order was largely ignored by many commanders, or implemented through a
honor-system that almost amounted to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," so a considerable fraction of
half-Jews remained in the military if they so wished. And then in July 1941, Hitler somewhat
reversed himself, issuing a new decree that allowed "worthy" half-Jews who had been discharged
to return to the military as officers, while also announcing that after the war, all
quarter-Jews would be reclassified as fully "German Blood" Aryan citizens.
It has been said that after questions were raised about the Jewish ancestry of some of his
subordinates, Goring once angrily responded "I will decide who is a Jew!" and that attitude
seems to reasonably capture some of the complexity and subjective nature of the social
situation.
Interestingly enough, many of part-Jews interviewed by Rigg recalled that prior to Hitler's
rise to power, the intermarriage of their parents had often provoked much greater hostility
from the Jewish rather than the Gentile side of their families, suggesting that even in
heavily-assimilated Germany, the traditional Jewish tendency toward ethnic exclusivity had
still remained a powerful factor in that community.
Although the part-Jews in German military service were certainly subject to various forms of
mistreatment and discrimination, perhaps we should compare this against the analogous situation
in our own military in those same years with regard to America's Japanese or black minorities.
During that era, racial intermarriage was legally prohibited across a large portion of the US,
so the mixed-race population of those groups was either almost non-existent or very different
in origin. But when Japanese-Americans were allowed to leave their wartime concentration camps
and enlist in the military, they were entirely restricted to segregated all-Japanese units, but
with the officers generally being white. Meanwhile, blacks were almost entirely barred from
combat service, though they sometimes served in strictly-segregated support roles. The notion
that an American with any appreciable trace of African, Japanese, or for that matter Chinese
ancestry might serve as a general or even an officer in the U.S. military and thereby exercise
command authority over white American troops would have been almost unthinkable. The contrast
with the practice in Hitler's own military is quite different than what Americans might naively
assume.
This paradox is not nearly as surprising as one might assume. The non-economic divisions in
European societies had almost always been along lines of religion, language, and culture rather
than racial ancestry, and the social tradition of more than a millennium could not easily be
swept away by merely a half-dozen years of National Socialist ideology. During all those
earlier centuries, a sincerely-baptized Jew, whether in Germany or elsewhere, was usually
considered just as good a Christian as any other. For example, Tomas de Torquemada, the most
fearsome figure of the dreaded Spanish Inquisition, actually came from a family of Jewish
converts.
Even wider racial differences were hardly considered of crucial importance. Some of the
greatest heroes of particular national cultures, such as Russia's Alexander Pushkin and
France's Alexandre Dumas, had been individuals with significant black African ancestry, and
this was certainly not considered any sort of disqualifying characteristic.
By contrast, American society from its inception had always been sharply divided by race,
with other differences generally constituting far smaller impediments to intermarriage and
amalgamation. I've seen widespread claims that when the Third Reich devised its 1935 Nuremberg
Laws restricting marriage and other social arrangements between Aryans, non-Aryans, and
part-Aryans, its experts drew upon some of America's long legal experience in similar matters,
and this seems quite plausible. Under that new Nazi statute, pre-existing mixed-marriages
received some legal protection, but henceforth Jews and half-Jews could only marry each other,
while quarter-Jews could only marry regular Aryans. The obvious intent was to absorb that
latter group into mainstream German society, while isolating the more heavily-Jewish
population.
Ironically enough, Israel today is one of very few countries with a similar sort of strictly
racially-based criteria for citizenship status and other privileges, with
the Jewish-only immigration policy now often determined by DNA testing , and marriages
between Jews and non-Jews legally prohibited. A few years ago, the world media also carried
the
remarkable story of a Palestinian Arab sentenced to prison for rape because he had
consensual sexual relations with a Jewish woman by passing himself off as a fellow Jew.
Since Orthodox Judaism is strictly matrilineal and controls Israeli law, even Jews of other
branches can experience unexpected difficulties due to conflicts between personal ethnic
identity and official legal status. The vast majority of the wealthier and more influential
Jewish families worldwide do not follow Orthodox religious traditions, and over the
generations, they have often taken Gentile wives. However, even if the latter had converted to
Judaism, their conversions are considered invalid by the Orthodox Rabbinate, and none of their
resulting descendants are considered Jewish. So if some members of these families later develop
a deep commitment to their Jewish heritage and immigrate to Israel, they are sometimes outraged
to discover that they are officially classified as "goyim" under Orthodox law and legally
prohibited from marrying Jews. These major political controversies periodically erupt and
sometimes
reach the international medi a.
Now it seems to me that any American official who proposed racial DNA tests to decide upon
the admission or exclusion of prospective immigrants would have a very difficult time remaining
in office, with the Jewish-activists of organizations like the ADL probably leading the attack.
And the same would surely be true for any prosecutor or judge who non-whites to prison for the
crime of "passing" as whites and thereby managing to seduce women from that latter group. A
similar fate would befall advocates of such policies in Britain, France, or most other Western
nations, with the local ADL-type organization certainly playing an important role. Yet in
Israel, such existing laws merely occasion a little temporary embarrassment when they are
covered in the international media, and then invariably remain in place after the commotion has
died down and been forgotten. These sorts of issues are considered of little more importance
than were the past wartime Nazi ties of the Israeli prime minister throughout most of the
1980s.
But perhaps the solution to this puzzling difference in public reaction lies in an old joke.
A leftist wit once claimed that the reason America has never had a military coup is that it is
the only country in the world that lacks an American embassy to organize such activities. And
unlike the U.S., Britain, France, and many other predominately-white countries, Israel has no
domestic Jewish-activist organization filling the powerful role of the ADL.
Over the last few years, many outside observers have noted a seemingly very odd political
situation in Ukraine. That unfortunate country possesses powerful militant groups, whose public
symbols, stated ideology, and political ancestry all unmistakably mark them as Neo-Nazis. Yet
those
violent Neo-Nazi elements are all being bankrolled and controlled by a Jewish Oligarch who holds dual
Israeli citizenship. Furthermore, that peculiar alliance had been mid-wifed and blessed by some
of America's leading Jewish Neocon figures, such as Victoria Nuland, who have successfully used
their media influence to keep such explosive facts away from the American public.
At first glance,
a close relationship between Jewish Israelis and European Neo-Nazis seems as grotesque and
bizarre a misalliance as one could imagine, but after recently reading Brenner's fascinating
book, my perspective quickly shifted. Indeed, the main difference between then and now is that
during the 1930s, Zionist factions represented a very insignificant junior partner to a
powerful Third Reich, while these days it is the Nazis who occupy the role of eager suppliants
to the formidable power of International Zionism, which now so heavily dominates the American
political system and through it, much of the world.
"... "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit -- terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group -- that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!" ..."
"... "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU -- and with it, potentially, western civilisation," ..."
"... "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ..."
"... "at the back of the queue" ..."
"... "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!" ..."
"... " highly probable " ..."
"... "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ." ..."
"... "Russian troll factory," ..."
"... "very low levels of engagement" ..."
"... "conspiracy theorist" ..."
"... "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him." ..."
"... "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," ..."
"... "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money " ..."
"... "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," ..."
You'd have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh. The news that US billionaire
Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day that YouTube said they found
no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit. Repeat After Me (with robotic arm movements):
"Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit -- terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A
£400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group -- that's
no problem; it's helping our democracy!"
You don't have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from
Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and
thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we've been bombarded with
Establishment-approved conspiracy theories -- peddled in all the 'best' newspapers -- that
Russia somehow 'fixed' Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning plot
by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the 'free world.'
Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms,
seemed taken in by it. "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of
the break-up of the EU -- and with it, potentially, western civilisation," the noble Lord
declared in July.
Never mind that we don't have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures
saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly
what The Vlad is thinking.
And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are "propaganda arms of
the Russian government," ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who
told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got
Britain to vote 'leave.' The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference
in Brexit. But it didn't come from Moscow.
Or Obama actually visiting the U.K. to urge people to vote Remain. Imagine if Putin did
the same for Leave!
The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the
Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that
if Britain exited the EU it would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with
the US
.
Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.
Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital.
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the 'Britain Stronger in Europe'
group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley -- £250,000 each.
Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): "This is not foreign interference
This is not foreign interference!"
You've got to see the funny side of this: all that hysterical fake news about 'Russian
interference' in Brexit & here we have one side receiving £400K from a US
billionaire who is part of the US political establishment. Is that not 'interference' ?!!
https://t.co/URzrB3ciLd
The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a
malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of
humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors
to explode.
Let's think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben
Bradshaw told Parliament that it was "
highly probable " that Russia had interfered with Brexit.
Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube's public
policy, Juniper Downs, said her company "had conducted a thorough investigation around the
Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference
."
Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a
"Russian troll factory," which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit -- amounting to
less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received
"very low levels of engagement" from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets
to persuade us to vote 'leave,' they didn't really put much effort into it, did they?
Finally, Facebook said that only three "Kremlin-linked" accounts were found which spent the
grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater
"interference" ? 72p or £400K? Erm tough call, isn't it?
You might have thought, given his concern with 'foreign interference' in British politics,
that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging 'Best for Britain' to return George Soros' donation.
Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily
Telegraph, and the BBC's coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about 'Russia
meddling in Brexit' but not Soros' intervention aren't concerned about 'foreign interference'
in UK politics, only 'foreign interference' from countries they don't approve of.
Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout
"conspiracy theorist" (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from
others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said:
"Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to
stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do
with him."
That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except
to shoot the messenger.
If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has
been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The
unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by 'liberals'
and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. "I don't know that the public understands the
gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States.
They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," film director Rob Reiner
said
.
But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the
affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.
While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over 'Russiagate' and
getting terribly excited over 'smoking guns' which turn out -- surprise, surprise -- to be damp
squibs, there's been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe Biden on
how he got the allegedly 'independent' Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor general in a
few hours. "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money "
"I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," Biden
said during a meeting of
the US' Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired."
Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he
used financial inducements to get another country's Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a
tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson
could be heard discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new 'democratic' government of
another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of
State doing exactly that in 2014 -- and the 'Russia is interfering in the Free World!' brigade
were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.
It's fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that's currently on
show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian
interference -- Bad. Proven interference from other external sources -- Good. What's your
problem?
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many
newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star,
Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The
Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also
appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder
of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at
www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers :
March 3, 1937
"Comrades!
From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that
we are dealing with the following three main facts.
First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among
whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly
all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.
Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into
lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.
Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only
failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved
to be so careless, complacent, and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting
agents of foreign states to responsible posts.
These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the
discussions on them "
I think that scarno may have a point. Take a look at the image at the beginning of the
article of Gabbard and then compare it with the one of one of her opponents – Shay Chan
Hodges. That is a tell right there. Gabbard has her faults but the willingness to go to Syria
and see for herself what the actual situation itself was not one of them.
I note too that that OPCW report on the chemical attack was used against Gabbard in this
article. I remember that "attack" which got discredited six ways to Sunday. That was the one
where Jihadists in flip-flops were standing in a crater full of "toxic" chemical weapon
residue taking samples for the OPCW. And the OPCW believed their chain of custody claims.
The Intercept may be a serious publication but I note that it was a newly-minted journalist (
https://theintercept.com/staff/aidachavez/ )
that wrote this story and you certainly wouldn't trust the Intercept to protect you if you
came to them with a hot story – as Reality Winner found out to her cost.
The Intercept is a venue that prints what dot-com scam-billionaire Omidyar asks of
it, or without such instructions, what it's editors' positions happen to be. I think some of
their pieces are well-reasoned and others quite specious, and often enough they are willing
to print what I think is propaganda. Like you, I try to take arguments and evidence as they
come, adjust my analytical framework when necessary, and seek out truth. The process isn't so
different with WaPo or NYT then it is with the Intercept, is it?
The article I linked discusses a primary challenge to Congresswoman Gabbard, who has been
endorsed by Our Revolution, PP; who resigned her vicechair of DNC in 2015 in protest of what
she saw as the sidelining of left interests in the presidential race. Hardly someone who is
likely to face a primary challenge from the left. The article admits, in fact, that she has
no serious primary challengers, yet the article highlights the her un-serious "progressive"
challenger, who is upset that Tulsi has the temerity to oppose US intervention in Syria and
elsewhere. It's typical blob logic: if you oppose murderous war in wherever, you despise
human rights.
Read it. It's a hit piece. And why is it published at all? Omidyar is Hawaii's richest
resident. But perhaps that has nothing to do with it.
It's a well written piece, containing what appear to be accurate assessments of the 2
candidates' stances on a few issues. The author pointed out early on that the opponent is
native Hawaiian, and that Gabbard is not.
It drips with implications about Gabbard's foreign policy views; the only coverage of her
representation of her district is in a quote from her opponent, who claims she spoke to
constituents and "found" they couldn't point to anything Gabbard had done for them. Gabbard's
whiteness was used very skillfully against her, along with a few dog whistles about her
military background and anti-jihadist views.
It was a skillful, Identitarian hit piece. The haute doyens of left coast "leftist"
propriety do not like Gabbard.
"Outside of cultivating her image as an anti-interventionist, however, Gabbard has urged a
continuation of the so-called war on terror. She's also won the approval of some
conservatives and members of the far right. Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon
reportedly arranged her November 2016 meeting with President Donald Trump, and former Ku Klux
Klan grand wizard David Duke has praised some of her foreign policy positions."
The first sentence is a sensible criticism. The rest is innuendo, guilt by association. Is
that serious?
The Labour is in the midst of an "antisemitism crisis" orchestrated by the media, pro-Zionist Jewish groups, and the party's Blairite
faction bent on ousting Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.
The UK's media is overwhelmingly rightwing and pro-Israel. Even the BBC, terrified of being donated to Rupert Murdoch in a Tory
privatization, is pro-Tory and pro-Israel in its news reporting, all its professions of "objectivity" notwithstanding.
Corbyn has been their constant target since he became the party's leader, and the "antisemitism" smear is the latest installment
in this rightwing effort to discredit him.
Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, whose editorial line on Israel is led by the staunch Zionist Jonathan
Freedland, is resolutely anti-Corbyn.
No leader of a major political party has been as resolute as Corbyn in defending Palestinian rights. The
Observer newspaper put this succinctly: "As a long-term and ardent critic of Israel's policies and staunch supporter of
Palestinian causes, he has always been distrusted by the Jewish community".
Pro-Zionist Jewish groups fear that under his leadership Britain will become much more like Ireland (which recently banned the
import of products made in the illegal Israeli settlements) in its disposition towards Israel.
A clue to the motivation of these pro-Zionist UK Jewish groups was provided by the recent public protest in London against Labour's
"antisemitism"– many protesters carried the Israeli flag and "Israel we stand behind you" signs, thereby making it clear that their
concern for Zionist Israel was highly instrumental, and perhaps primarily so, in their presence at this rally against Labour's "antisemitism".
Several Blairite Labour MPs were present at this demonstration.
The Blairite faction in Labour has already made one attempt to overthrow Corbyn when it made him submit to an unprecedented reelection
shortly after he became party leader.
Corbyn went on to win this challenge with a percentage exceeding Blair's when the latter was elected Labour leader.
Labour's Blairite bloc know that Corbyn has to lose the next general election if they are to survive as a force within the party.
If Labour (under Corbyn) wins this election, they will have little choice but to take the option already being talked about by some
of these Blairites, that is, splitting from Labour and forming a new "centrist" party.
Their eminence grise, Tony Blair himself, has already talked about creating this "centrist" party.
So, paradoxically, Labour's Blairites would rather have the Conservatives win the next general election as their ticket to survival
within their own party!
Predictably, one of these Blairites, Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, jumped on the "crisis" bandwagon by
saying
that Labour faces "eternal shame" over antisemitism.
Of course, there are pockets of antisemitism in Labour, as is the case in nearly every non-Jewish British walk of life, including
the Tories (though dressing up in Nazi uniform and chanting "Sieg Heil!" at parties, as opposed to upholding Palestinian rights,
is their forte).
A few days ago, it was revealed that the senior Tory politicians Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg had recently
met in secret with Steve Bannon, who runs Breitbart News , a haven for antisemitic views. The British media, and the Blairite
Labour MPs hounding Corbyn, have said nary a word about these meetings. Nor have the vociferous UK Jewish organizations.
The notion that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, let alone one amounting to a "crisis", is a red herring.
The most recent purported manifestation of this crisis pivots on the decision of Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) to
adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's "non-legally binding working definition" of antisemitism, but not the
"illustrations" which accompany it. The definition states:
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions
and religious facilities."
The "illustrations" which accompany this definition include some which are uncontroversial for any fair-minded and relatively
rational person, and others which are highly problematic for such a person.
The uncontroversial "illustrations" of antisemitism:
+ advocating the killing or harming of Jews for ideological or religious reasons;
+ making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such;
+ holding Jews as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group;
+ Holocaust denial;
+ using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to
characterize Israel or Israelis;
+ holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;
+ accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
The controversial "illustrations" of antisemitism (and non-coincidently they all have a bearing on the Palestinian cause):
+ accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations;
+ claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour;
+ applying double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
+ drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
A close examination of this latter set of "illustrations" shows that Labour is absolutely right to resist the immense pressure
from Zionists and their supporters to accept these latter "illustrations" as part of the definition of antisemitism.
There are examples of Jewish US citizens being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their country.
The casino mogul Sheldon Adelson donated $25 million to Trump's 2016 campaign ($82 million in total to Republicans in 2016), and
$5 million towards his inauguration. Earlier this year Adelson donated $70 million to Birthright, the organization that brings young
Jews to Israel for nothing (he's donated $100m in total to Birthright). He also donated $30 million to Republicans after Trump withdrew
from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Adelson spent $150m in the 2012 election in a futile attempt to unseat the "anti-Israel" Barack
Obama.
Adelson's aim in all of this is to swing Trump behind his friend Netanyahu's "Greater Israel" political agenda. To this end Adelson
pushed hard for the US's withdrawal from the Iran deal, appointing the arch-Zionist John Bolton as a Trump adviser, recognizing Jerusalem
as Israel's capital (in contravention of international law), and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson has succeeded in all
of these objectives.
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and "envoy" for a "peace" deal in the Middle East, has made it clear that any such deal will
have to be compatible with Likud's "Greater Israel" political agenda.
According to The New York
Times , Kushner's family real estate company "received a roughly $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, an insurer
that is one of Israel's largest financial institutions".
The same NYT article also reported that "the Kushners had teamed up with at least one member of Israel's wealthy Steinmetz
family to buy nearly $200 million of Manhattan apartment buildings, as well as to build a luxury rental tower in New Jersey".
More from the same article: "Mr. Kushner's company has also taken out at least four loans from Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim,
which is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes".
Kushner's family foundation also donates to an illegal settlement in the West Bank.
Meanwhile , US military aid to Israel amounts to $3.8 billion annually, or $23,000 per year for every Jewish family living in
Israel for the next 10 years.
At the same time, 40 million Americans live in poverty, seniors and veterans are sleeping rough, and teachers have to buy school
supplies, and in some cases food, for their students.
Given these two examples of prominent Jewish individuals with loyalties divided between the US and Israel, with Israel acquiring
much and the US gaining so little from their actions, it is arguable whether it is "antisemitic" to broadcast the information detailed
above.
Claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is likewise hardly antisemitic. The recently passed Israeli
Nationality Law confirms why.
According to the law, Israel's full name is "Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people". The law stipulates that Eretz Israel
(historical Palestine) is the homeland of the Jewish people, while the state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.
As such, only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel. Hebrew is the only official language, with Arabic no longer
considered an official language.
The nationality law enjoins that future Jewish settlement in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is a supreme national
objective (in contravention of international law).
The law also grants Jewish communities the right to a segregated territory in the state(in practice legalizing exclusive villages
and towns for Jews).
The nationality law effectively deprives Arabs of any official semblance of their national identity, and confirms Israel's status
as an apartheid, i.e. racist, state. Saying this is certainly anti-Zionist, but only a dogmatist would insist that it is ipso facto
"antisemitic".
The IHRA "illustration" maintaining that it is antisemitic to apply double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected
or demanded of any other democratic nation is likewise extremely awkward in formulation and also in practice.
The 2017 Democracy Index used 4 categories
to assess countries– full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime.
The following countries were ranked by the Index as full democracies: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and
Uruguay.
Israel was listed as a flawed democracy, as was the US.
Israel's leaders have always touted their country as "the only democracy in the Middle East", as if their country stood on a par
with the 19 countries ranked as full democracies by the 2017 Democracy Index.
Is it "antisemitic" to hold Israel to a standard deemed to be achieved by Mauritius and Uruguay?
Or to say that Israel is really an "ethnocracy", as opposed to being a democracy?
The Israeli political geographer Oren Yiftachel argued in his 2006 book Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics
in Israel/Palestine that an ethnocracy is a regime promoting "the expansion of the dominant group in contested territory
while maintaining a democratic façade".
When it comes todrawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, it all depends on the basis used in making
the comparison between Israel and the Nazis.
Having gas chambers for mass exterminations, then certainly not.
However, nearly everyone who believes that comparing Israel with the Nazis is "antisemitic" invariably takes the concentration-camp
gas chambers as the implicit norm, whether out of bad faith or ignorance, for making such comparisons.
The Nazi "final solution", vast as it was, had many strands, with horror piled upon horror. This multiple-layering must be considered
when making the Israel-Nazi comparison.
Encircling and starving-out an entire community in a ghetto (Warsaw?), then yes, the comparison is valid– this is precisely what
is taking place in Gaza.
The Nazis confiscated Jewish property wholesale; the Israelis are doing the same to Palestinian houses and land in order to "clear"
them for the expansion of the illegal settlements, and for alleged military purposes. B'Tselem, Israel's human rights watchdog, confirms
this on their website . So, yes, in this case the comparison between
Israel and the Nazis is valid.
Jews were prevented from leaving German-occupied Poland by the SS. Similarly, Palestinians are prevented from leaving Gaza (even
for medical treatment) by the combined efforts of Israel and the Egyptian dictatorship. So, yes, in this case the comparison between
Israel and the Nazis is valid.
German Civil Police K-9 Units were used by the SS to assist in the roundup and deportation of Jews in WW2. Similarly, the Israeli
army uses attack dogs on
unarmed Palestinians when raiding their homes, and when
arresting
peaceful demonstrators. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.
It is difficult to see why comparing Israel to the Nazis on these latter bases, while scrupulously eschewing the gas chambers
as a basis for comparison (the Palestinians have not been sent to gas chambers en masse), necessarily makes one an "antisemite".
The Israeli historian Ilan Pappé describes Israel's policy regarding Gaza as "incremental genocide", in contrast to the Nazi's
absolute genocide. The final outcome however is not in doubt.
The distinguished Oxford jurist Stephen Sedley (himself a Jew) has saidthat "there is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet
several of the "examples" that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel
irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: "It is not antisemitic
to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent"."
Corbyn, under siege from the media and Jewish groups (who say, with risible hyperbole, that he poses an "existential threat" to
British Jews), has apologized for not doing enough to root out antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Corbyn's apology was unnecessary. Not just because it was not merited by the real circumstances underlying this manufactured "crisis",
but also because every step he takes now is dismissed as "meaningless" and "too little, too late" by his opportunistic opponents.
Instead Corbyn should have given an immediate forensic analysis of the IHRA's flawed "examples" of "antisemitism", indicating
that Labour was wise not to incorporate these, root and branch, in the definition of antisemitism it adopted.
Corbyn should also have come out earlier with his pledge to deal firmly with those justifiably guilty of antisemitism in the Labour
party.
Corbyn has many admirable qualities, but perhaps doing forensics is not one of them. However, he has many surrogates capable of
undertaking this task, and they should be entrusted with it immediately.
The late and much missed Robin Cook, the former Labour minister who demolished Blair's rationales for the Iraq war in the House
of Commons debate on Blair's push for the war, would have been perfect for the job.
The Ministry of Plenty ( Newspeak : Miniplenty ) is in control of
Oceania's planned
economy .
It oversees rationing of food , supplies , and goods . As told in Goldstein's book, the
economy of Oceania is very important, and it's necessary to have the public continually create
useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the
means of
production .
This is the central theme of Oceania's idea that a poor, ignorant populace is
easier to rule over than a wealthy, well-informed one. Telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able
to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down (see §
Ministry of Truth ).
The Ministry hands out statistics which are "nonsense". When Winston is adjusting some
Ministry of Plenty's figures, he explains this:
But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not
even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of
the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world,
not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as
much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of time
you were expected to make them up out of your head.
Like the other ministries, the Ministry of Plenty seems to be entirely misnamed, since it
is, in fact, responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty , scarcity and financial shortages.
However, the name is also apt, because, along with the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of
Plenty's other purpose is to convince the populace that they are living in a state of perpetual
prosperity. Orwell made a similar reference to the Ministry of Plenty in his allegorical work
Animal Farm
when, in the midst of a blight upon the farm, Napoleon the pig orders the silo to
be filled with sand, then to place a thin sprinkling of grain on top, which fools human
visitors into being dazzled about Napoleon's boasting of the farm's superior economy.
A department of the Ministry of Plenty is charged with organizing state lotteries . These are very popular among the
proles, who buy tickets and hope to win the big prizes – a completely vain hope as the
big prizes are in fact not awarded at all, the Ministry of Truth participating in the scam and
publishing every week the names of non-existent big winners.
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
Mueller proceeds.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
Iraq.
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
story.
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
institutions?
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
Source: gulfbusiness.com
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
via free
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
Russia.
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
affair
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
currently in.
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
that murdered
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
Americans.
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
prosperity.
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
"... The peculiar dialectic between power and powerlessness is shadowed by a necessary third component, the perfect target. These are the people who are identified as the threat that the powerful and the powerless must come together to defeat. ..."
"... The U.S. is not in a pre-fascist period. Globalization is forcing fundamental structural changes on American society, affecting the economy as well as personal life. One key question involves a president's vision and the practices of his administration. Do fundamental social changes foster greater efforts to protect (and increase) the wealth and social power of the privileged or does it signal a sea change -- like the post-WW-II consumer revolution -- that enhances the quality and longevity of the lives of the many? ..."
"... With hollow bravado, one with apparently little thought about consequences, Trump Tweets new federal policies, offers false apologies and ceaselessly attacks on the media. For Trump and his administration, all information questioning a Trump Team statement suggests possible treason. ..."
"... For two-plus centuries, the U.S. has been a battleground between power and powerlessness. Through each era of contestation, a perfect target has been identified and exploited to help assure the position of those contesting for power. Four of the most revealing "perfect targets" are the Native People, African-American slaves and free people, Catholics and Communists. Each illuminates the social struggle between the powerful and powerless, thus providing a valuable snapshot into America's evolving culture. ..."
"... The Know Nothing movement grew out of the Second Great Awakening or the Great Revival of the 1830s and became the American Party that flourished during the late-40s and early-50s. It got its name when members where asked the party's positions and simply said, "I know nothing." It drew together Protestants who felt threatened by the rapid increase in European immigrants and, most especially, Catholics, flooding the cities. Catholics became the perfect target. ..."
"... The post-WW-II period was the age of Sen. Joe McCarthy, of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and New York's Archbishop Francis Spellman -- and Roy Cohn, Trump's consigliere ..."
"... The dance of power/powerlessness shadowed by the perfect target is being exploited by Trump and his followers. Trump knows how to play this dialect given his narcissistic personality and likely compensation for learning disabilities. ..."
"... David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected] ; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com . ..."
Now a year-and-a-half into the Trump presidency, it's become a truism that the president's
support is anchored in a deep sense of social and political powerlessness felt by many
Americans, especially older, white men. An early 2016
Rand poll comparing Donald Trump and Ted Cruz supporters found that those who agreed with
the statement "people like me don't have any say about what the government does" preferred
Trump -- and by a whopping 86.5 percent majority.
This sense of powerlessness turned out to be a more reliable predictor of Trump support than
all the other issues that dogged the 2016 campaign, including immigration, income, education,
the economy and his abusive sexual exploits. And it still does.
In 1941, the then-radical psycho-theorist, Erich Fromm, published Escape from
Freedom . In it, he warned:
The annihilation of the individual self and the attempt to overcome thereby the unbearable
feeling of powerlessness are only one side of the masochistic strivings. The other side is
the attempt to become part of a bigger and more powerful whole outside of oneself, to
submerge and participate in it. This power can be a person, an institution, God, the nation,
conscience, or a psychic compulsion.
Like Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, Fromm was then worried about the growing threat of
totalitarianism. In particular, these thinkers, among others, were concerned about how the
deepening sense of powerlessness among what was then referred to as "the masses" had
contributed to the enormous increase in the power of the leader, whether Hitler, Mussolini,
Franco or Stalin.
The peculiar dialectic between power and powerlessness is shadowed by a necessary third
component, the perfect target. These are the people who are identified as the threat that the
powerful and the powerless must come together to defeat. In pre-WW-II Germany, the perfect
target were the Jews, communists, homosexuals and gypsies, people that Nazi's claimed were
different, thus threatening the purity of ordinary Germans' "Saxon heritage." The threat can
come in any form, be it class, race, nationality, religion or political ideology -- or whatever
is a distinguishing characteristic of those targeted.
Pres. Trump has up to now played the perfect-target dance with great success. As a candidate
and now in the Oval Office, he's ranted successfully against "illegal" immigrants, whether
long-time residents, married to a citizen and with American children, have a criminal record,
served in the military or recent arrivals. In one Tweet, he opined: "They [Democrats] don't
care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and
infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win on their terrible policies, so they view them as
potential voters!"
Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no
matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can't win
on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!
The Trump administration may have recently overplayed its perfect-target hand with the
forceful separation of seized immigrant parents from their children, no matter at what age.
From purely bureaucratic and media-relations perspectives, it's been a mess. No matter whether
the immigrants might be "illegal," they are still people, parent and child, and -- in Christian
America -- family still matters. Equally revealing, the Congress has yet to underwrite building
a wall separating the U.S. from Mexico.
The U.S. is not in a pre-fascist period. Globalization is forcing fundamental structural
changes on American society, affecting the economy as well as personal life. One key question
involves a president's vision and the practices of his administration. Do fundamental social
changes foster greater efforts to protect (and increase) the wealth and social power of the
privileged or does it signal a sea change -- like the post-WW-II consumer revolution -- that
enhances the quality and longevity of the lives of the many?
Trump is effectively exploiting the power/powerless minuet to maximize his own wealth and
that among others of the 1 percent. His -- and his administration's -- efforts are designed to
(moderately) upset the post-WW-II alliance between the federal government and private corporate
interests. The alliance has long been a revolving door for both Democrats and Republicans --
and the Trump Team is spinning the door.
The Trump apparatus is pushing the revolving door further to the right. Every federal
department and agency, including the Supreme Court, appears to include, if not run by, someone
drawn from the military, a corporation or bank, an industry association, a lobbying firm, a
religious group or a conservative thinktank.
Trump and his administration, ably assisted by a get-what-you-can Republican-controlled
Congress and Senate, seem more like that of Herbert Hoover and the great denial of what
everyone knew was coming rather than that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the making of a modern
super-state. With hollow bravado, one with apparently little thought about consequences,
Trump Tweets new federal policies, offers false apologies and ceaselessly attacks on the media.
For Trump and his administration, all information questioning a Trump Team statement suggests
possible treason.
***
For two-plus centuries, the U.S. has been a battleground between power and
powerlessness. Through each era of contestation, a perfect target has been identified and
exploited to help assure the position of those contesting for power. Four of the most revealing
"perfect targets" are the Native People, African-American slaves and free people, Catholics and
Communists. Each illuminates the social struggle between the powerful and powerless, thus
providing a valuable snapshot into America's evolving culture.
No clearer or more honest statement as to the social role of the perfect target was made by
Pres. Andrew Jackson on December 6, 1830, in his Message to Congress, "On Indian Removal." It
was issued seven months after he signed the removal law that authorized to grant unsettled
lands west of the Mississippi to Anglos or white people in exchange for Indian lands within
existing state borders. He stated, in part
:
It [the act] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites;
free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and
under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening
their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and
through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an
interesting, civilized, and Christian community.
Four European states -- Netherlands, Great Britain and France as well Spain -- invaded and
conquered parts of what was once the vast North America territory and was then home to
innumerable tribes of Native Peoples.
The first African slaves arrived in North America in 1619 in Jamestown. Over the following
four centuries many Americans believed that Africans -- and their descendants,
African-Americans -- were not fully human, but rather subhuman. It was long an essential belief
among colonial revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson as well as Confederate secessionists and
those of the today's alt-right. As Jefferson wrote
:
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct
race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the
endowments both of body and mind. This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of
faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.
The U.S. Constitution embodied this racism in granting African and African-American males
3/5 th voting rights compared to white citizens.
The Know Nothing
movement grew out of the Second Great Awakening or the Great Revival of the 1830s and became
the American Party that flourished during the late-40s and early-50s. It got its name when
members where asked the party's positions and simply said, "I know nothing." It drew together
Protestants who felt threatened by the rapid increase in European immigrants and, most
especially, Catholics, flooding the cities. Catholics became the perfect target.
Know-Nothing adherents felt that Catholics, as followers of the Pope, were not loyal
Americans and were going to take over the country. It had strong support in the North that
witnessed large-scale Irish immigration after 1848. The American Party captured the
Massachusetts legislature in 1854 and, in 1856, backed Millard Fillmore for president, who
secured nearly 1 million votes, a quarter of all votes cast.
And then there were
communists . It's nearly impossible to image just how awful it was for those who challenged
the nation's official belief system during the post-WW-II era of 1945 to 1960. Alleged
"communists" included Soviet Union agents, non-party trade unionists as well as professors,
teachers, publishers and nonviolent civil-rights activists. And then there were the
pornographers, homosexual and other alleged deviants who challenged the status quo.
The post-WW-II period was the age of Sen. Joe McCarthy, of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
and New York's Archbishop Francis Spellman -- and Roy Cohn, Trump's consigliere . It
saw hundreds lose their jobs, dozens arrested and jailed. And the powerful found their perfect
target in two innocent New Yorkers, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who they arrested, convicted
and executed -- they were prosecuted by Cohn.
***
The dance of power/powerlessness shadowed by the perfect target is being exploited by
Trump and his followers. Trump knows how to play this dialect given his narcissistic
personality and likely compensation for learning disabilities. Since the campaign, his
perfect perfect target has been non-documented immigrants. He's also targeted
Democrats, the news media and NATO.
Trump needs a perfect enemy. In this way he is very much like other authoritarian leaders,
whether all-powerful rulers like Hitler, Stalin or Mao or merely a failed petty tyrant like
Nixon or -- pick your favorite Latin American, African or Asian dictator.
So, keep your eyes on Trump's ever-changing perfect target for it signals where the pin-ball
bouncing around in his brain lands. And where it lands sets national policy by targeting those
he thinks can distract Americans from understanding his profound failings. Who's next?
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: David Rosen
David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion: The Transformation of 1950s New
York's Forbidden into America's New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015). He can be reached at [email protected]
; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com .
"Ex-FBI agent: Trump got elected, thanks to Russia" [
Yahoo News
]. • One thing to remember about RussiaRussiaRussia -- R 3 ? -- is that it's very profitable to be a talking head.
"DOJ Announces Public Release of the Cyber-Digital Task Force's First Report; Impact on and Role of the Private Sector Likely
to be a Focus in the Coming Months" [
Compliance and Enforcement ]. "[Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] lauded 'self-policing' efforts to remove 'fake accounts'
and encouraged companies to 'consider the voluntary removal of accounts and content' that are linked by the FBI to foreign agents'
activities, which he said 'violate terms of service and deceive customers.'" • What could go wrong?
"The Death of Truth" by Pulitzer-Prize winning book critic Michiko Kakutani explores the waning of integrity in American
society, particularly since the 2016 elections. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion,
but not to his own facts," is more timely than ever, Kakutani says: "polarization has grown so extreme that voters have a hard
time even agreeing on the same facts." And no wonder: Two-thirds of Americans get at least some of their news through social media
-- a platform that has been overwhelmed by trolls and bots, and which uses algorithms to decide what each of us gets to see.
Executives ignore the cultural shift away from honesty at their peril.
I would put the start date for the cultural shift away from honest at 2008; every one knew what caused the financial disaster,
knew who the culprits were (and are), saw them get away with grand theft and govt protection, and knew they were being lied to
by the sort of bs excuses like WF's "it was a computer glitch" that done it. Once it was clear the govt was going to protect the
robbers, the new paradigm of dishonesty in high places trickled down. Ohhh, so that's how trickle down works.
"Living in the Age of the Big Lie" [Stephen Gold, Industry Week ]. Gold is
President and Chief Executive Officer, Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and
Innovation (MAPI):
All this has created the potential for an American cultural crisis of distrust,
authoritatively captured in two recently published analyses.
In "Truth Decay," [cute! –lambert] the RAND Corporation lays the blame for the
deteriorating role of facts and data in public life on four primary causes:
1. The rise of social media
2. An overtaxed educational system that cannot keep up with changes in the "information
ecosystem"
3. Political and social polarization
4. And -- perhaps due to all of these factors -- the increasing tendency of individuals to
create their own subjective social reality, otherwise known as "cognitive bias."
"The Death of Truth" by Pulitzer-Prize winning book critic Michiko Kakutani explores the
waning of integrity in American society, particularly since the 2016 elections. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan's observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his
own facts," is more timely than ever, Kakutani says: "polarization has grown so extreme that
voters have a hard time even agreeing on the same facts." And no wonder: Two-thirds of
Americans get at least some of their news through social media -- a platform that has been
overwhelmed by trolls and bots, and which uses algorithms to decide what each of us gets to
see.
Executives ignore the cultural shift away from honesty at their peril.
Social media has its own problems, gawd knows -- break them up and outlaw the algos, and
they'd be a lot more like the public utilities they should really be -- but it's amazing how
vague hand-wringing pieces like this ignore at least four seismic events since 2000, all of
which involve perceived legitimacy and the nature of truth: (1) Bush v. Gore, (2) Iraq WMDs,
(3) Obama's "hope and change" campaign, followed by (4) the crash, the bailouts, the free
passes for bankers, and a brutal recession. The official narrative and its maintainers didn't
lose credibility because of trolls and bots, who might be regarded as opportunistic infections
overwhelming an already weakened immnune system.
Grassroots and/or AstroTurf?
Our Famously Free Press
"The Press Doesn't Cause Wars -- Presidents Do" [
The Atlantic ] • One of a ginormous steaming load of revisionist and defensive
articles prompted by Trump's tweet that the press can "causes War." Anyone who was present for
the build up to the Iraq War knows that Trump's claim is true; in fact, the "media critique"
that began then was prompted by the Iraq WMDs scam, in which the press -- *** cough *** Judy
Miller ***cough*** -- was not merely compliant or complicitous, but active and vociferous,
especially in shunning and shaming skeptics. Of course, everybody who was wrong about Iraq was
wrong in the right way, so they all still have jobs (David Frum, Bush speechwriter and Hero of
the Resistance, at the Atlantic, among hundreds of others). So revisionist history is very easy
for them to write.
Class Warfare
"The New Class-Blindness" [ Law and Political Economy ]. "It
is true that class-based discrimination does not trigger heightened scrutiny under equal
protection in the way that race-based and sex-based discrimination do . Some judges -- even
some Supreme Court Justices -- have begun to argue that it is constitutionally impermissible
for courts to take class into account under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit reached
this conclusion a few years ago in the Whole Woman's Health case, in which it asserted that
judges could consider only obstacles created by "the law itself" when determining whether a law
unduly burdens the right to abortion -- a category that excluded obstacles such as lack of
transportation, childcare, days off from work, and money for overnight stays. When Whole
Woman's Health reached the Supreme Court, some of the Justices (in dissent) expressed support
for this approach."
"Vermont's Striking Nurses Want A Raise for Nonunion Workers Too" [ Labor
Notes ]. "Yet when 1,800 nurses and technical staff struck for better wages July 12-13 at
the state's second-largest employer, the University of Vermont Medical Center, the people of
Burlington came out in force to back them up. 'We had policemen and firefighters and UPS
drivers pulling over and shaking our hands' on the picket line, said neurology nurse Maggie
Belensz. 'We had pizza places dropping off dozens of pizzas, giving out free ice cream.' And
when a thousand people marched from the hospital through Burlington's downtown, 'we had
standing ovations from people eating their dinners,' she said. 'It was a moving experience.'
One reason for such wide support: these hospital workers aren't just demanding a raise
themselves. They're also calling for a $15 minimum wage for their nonunion co-workers, such as
those who answer the phones, mop the floors, cook the food, and help patients to the
bathroom."
"What Are Capitalists Thinking?" [Michael Tomaskey, New York
Times ]. "I write today with some friendly advice for the capitalist class about said
socialists. You want fewer socialists? Easy. Stop creating them . I understand completely why
it's happening. Given what's been going on in this country, it couldn't not have happened. And
if you're a capitalist, you'd better try to understand it, too -- and do something to address
the very legitimate grievances that propelled it." • Finally, reality begins to penetrate
the thickened craniums of the better sort of liberal
"In 2008, America Stopped Believing in the American Dream" [Frank Rich,
New York Magazine ]. (The "American Dream" being one of the official narratives.) "It's not
hard to pinpoint the dawn of this deep gloom: It arrived in September 2008, when the collapse
of Lehman Brothers kicked off the Great Recession that proved to be a more lasting existential
threat to America than the terrorist attack of seven Septembers earlier. The shadow it would
cast is so dark that a decade later, even our current run of ostensible prosperity and peace
does not mitigate the one conviction that still unites all Americans: Everything in the country
is broken. Not just Washington, which failed to prevent the financial catastrophe and has done
little to protect us from the next, but also race relations, health care, education,
institutional religion, law enforcement, the physical infrastructure, the news media, the
bedrock virtues of civility and community. Nearly everything has turned to crap, it seems ."
• Ditto
I think I would put it much earlier than that. Anyone who watched Newt Gingrich during his
Contract on America days, who watched Max Cleland be attacked by Saxby Chambliss,
who watched as Clinton deregulated the media in favor of Rupert Murdoch even as they slagged
him, knew something was afoot.
"I have mixed feelings about this socialism boomlet. It has yet to prove itself
politically viable in general elections outside a handful of areas, and by 2021 we could wake
up and see that it's been a disaster for Democrats."
What is a Democrat? Are they inherently good? Is failing the Democrats OK, if doing so
improves the lives of the 90%?
Mr. Tomasky seems to have missed that Democrats throwing out the concerns of the working
class to court wealthy donors for its Clintonian politics boomlet has been distinctly, well
not all that long term politically viable. It has been a disaster for the Democrats. There
were signs prior to 2000, but it took starting an unpopular and largely unsuccessful war and
attempting to undermine Social Security for the Democrats to make a come back. That their
success was pretty much over by 2010, with the exception of the Presidency is very clear in
the massive loss of Governorships, State Houses and yes Congress leading up to the 2016
debacle when they foolishly nominated the Grand Dame of that 'can't give me lots of money
– suck on it' political position to be their Presidential nominee.
But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative meant to convince the rubes to
continue voting for polticians who have no interest in their concerns because of the right
pronouns and Russia!
The biggest cause is spin , that has become an art form, a business and career
path.
Telling the truth in public is an invitation to cut short your career. The only time when
officials tell the truth is when they are comfortably retired.
Especially with economists and journalists (the conscience keepers), it is not so
important what they are saying, but why they are saying it (basically lack
of trust in the narrator).
I personally blame Bill Clinton. The turning point was the report that he told Lewinsky
"deny deny deny there's nothing they can do."
Which is true but that was the point in the timeline when a critical mass of people began
to live like that. Or when it became obvious to me. Perhaps it was exactly like that for a
long time before and it is not BC's fault.
It's cheering that coal shipment and use in the US has declined. The good news for our
coal industry is that coal exports January to June 2018 have risen, in particular to Africa,
Asia (largely to India which is voracious) and South America.
The current Administration can thank the previous one for increasing our capacity to
export coal, I believe.
Sarah Jeong is a piece of work, is her desk next to Judy Miller's?
Good grief, the cultural differences between different parts of SE Asian Countries can be
profound let alone the cultural differences between countries.
I'm reminded of a boss who told me that monopolies increase competition, with a straight
face.
My impression is that Ms. Jeong's job is and will be to start plenty of cultural "fires",
so
that while the citizenry is distracted with them, the looting and pillaging of the many by
the few can continue.
But to answer the question you actually asked the Federated timeline includes your local
timeline, which itself includes your home timeline. So if you want to see it all, just use
the federated timeline. If you only want to see people you follow, use the home timeline,
etc.
What's an Asian woman doing criticizing a white guy for commenting on a predominantly, but
not exclusively, black art form? I mean, why is she even speaking English and how about that
name Sarah for an egregious example of cultural appropriation? And, as I have previously
queried on this site: how is it even permissible for Yo-Yo Ma to play Bach on the cello? And
in case you ask: yes, identity politics has finally driven me insane. Or is it they who are
mad?
She (Sarah Jeong) wrote: "After a bad day, some people come home and kick the furniture. I
get on the Internet and make fun of The New York Times." "I don't feel safe in a country that
is led by someone who takes Thomas Friedman seriously." "Hannah Rosin shatters ceiling by
proving women writers can be as hackish as Tom Friedman, too." "[David] Brooks is an absolute
nitwit tho." "Notajoke: I'm being forced to read Nicholas Kristof. This is the worst." "if I
had a bajillion dollars, I'd buy the New York Times, just for the pleasure of firing Tom
Friedman ."
combining the articles, it sounds like she's got a lot of opinions. Good for an aspiring
pundit but also opening herself up for a greater possibility of errors.
it's amazing how vague hand-wringing pieces like this ignore at least four seismic
events since 2000, all of which involve perceived legitimacy and the nature of truth: (1)
Bush v. Gore, (2) Iraq WMDs, (3) Obama's "hope and change" campaign, followed by (4) the
crash, the bailouts, the free passes for bankers, and a brutal recession.
Good list to which I would add the Katrina debacle.
The New Class-Blindness" [Law and Political Economy]. "It is true that class-based
discrimination does not trigger heightened scrutiny under equal protection in the way that
race-based and sex-based discrimination do . Some judges -- even some Supreme Court Justices
-- have begun to argue that it is constitutionally impermissible for courts to take class
into account under the Fourteenth Amendment.
================
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in
the streets and steal loaves of bread. Anatole France
Not much concern over the disconnect between voter preference and policy outcome which was
documented in the 2014 Gilens/Benjamin study or Jimmy Carter statement that the U.S. is a
defacto oligarchy, or the massive voter fraud that is part and parcel of our voting system
(see https://www.gregpalast.com/ ),
or the disclosure of HRC/DNC collusion documented in wiki leaks and Donna Brasil's "tell all
book", not much concern their at all.
Do you find it curious this obsession of the MSM with Russia meddling in our
elections?
"Do you find it curious this obsession [ ] w/ Russia meddling [ ]?" The Russian meddling
isn't the curious part; Russia tries it in every election west of the river Pina. The
abnormal part is a sitting US President, on Twitter, accused his son of a felony aka
violating 52 U.S. Code § 30121 (a)(2), soliciting contributions [things of value] from a
foreign national. Talk about "Blue on Blue" fire. Nothing "friendly" about that. Especially
given the prima facie evidence of violating 18 U.S. Code § 3, accessory after the fact,
by dictating Don the Younger's response to the story.
I read the book Q a couple of years ago. It's real good. Especially if you're into the
gory details of European religious history. There's a lot of things they didn't mention in my
confirmation classes
Social media has its own problems, gawd knows The official narrative and its maintainers
didn't lose credibility because of trolls and bots, who might be regarded as opportunistic
infections overwhelming an already weakened immnune system
Well said. The official narrative, the swamp, is very good at blaming effects and ignoring
causes.
Qanon seems like a honeypot site(s) for retribution futures. Read anything, go into a
database for future reference. Unz and others have likely multiple uses and followers,
NOC/NotForAttribution and other.
On decline in coal shipments: look what is happening elsewhere! "Germany had so much
renewable energy on Sunday that it had to pay people to use electricity!",
https://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-much-renewable-energy-on-sunday-that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/
"Power too cheap to meter," just like nuclear was promised to be! And that is an old 2016
article. I saw another piece, I believe in Business Insider or Bloomberg, complaining that
the big energy companies are facing "profit stress" because of grid-ties from solar and wind
requiring them to pay people for energy in excess of the load. And having, gasp! to shut down
coal fired plants, each closure being a pretty expensive anti-profit center! I would tend to
think of it being a re-internalization of costs that the power companies have dumped on us
(health effects from heavy metal and carcinogen emissions, smog, CO2/climate interruption.
Too bad the paybacks won't come from clawbacks of CEO paydays or any of the lobbying money
spent to bribe legislatures, deceive the public/consumers, spent on getting legislative
approval for nuclear power plants that WILL NEVER BE BUILT like Duke Energy has done (and
besides, they get to cllect a billion or more from customers to "pay for" those plants that
will never be built. Kind of like an ISDS "judgment" in favor of a megacorporation because
'regulation and market conditions' impaired said corporations' "expectations of profit "
Well, that green-energy surfeit may have something to do with the combination of a
record-smashing heat wave in a country where A/C systems have not been needed at scale,
historically speaking. But good on them if they are in fact doing it sustainably.
Of course, a good bit of that "trade" includes genetically modified soybeans. Monsanto is
happy to sell their "intellectual property," immune from consequence of course, pure profit
all the way down.
And of course there are NO POSSIBLE RISKS OR CONCERNS about the propagation of
gene-fiddled stuff like soybeans and canola, " Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm
Fields,
August 6, 2010 , https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499
, just for example, I mean it's not like the World Health Organization has not kind of
flagged some things that "policymakers" might want to keep in mind when confronted by the
Cropporate Corrupters wanting to peddle their 'risk free innovations:'
"Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods
May 2014
Posting this because sometimes it's more about WHO is saying it, rather than what is being
said. It's not often I look at a Rick Newman column and say, 'wow, he's really making a
strong case'.
The chickens are raised covered in their own filth and along with the filth comes
salmonella. They attempt to contain the infection with antibiotics.
And if the conditions in the "chicken factory" aren't filthy enough the slaughterhouse
ensures that the end product comes with salmonella by running the line speed so fast that
punctured intestines insure that the end product comes out covered in salmonella-containing
fecal matter. Which they try to contain with a chlorine bath.
If you like eating chicken shite eat store chicken. If you don't, and if you can, raise
your own. Raising chickens for meat is a lot of work but they taste better and you won't be
eating chicken shite.
Jeez, Frank Rich needs to get out of New York City more. Everything has been completely
broke around Memphis since 2006. It just mostly broke before that.
Was it Trump's election, the rise of Bernie/AOC, Obama's $32 million worth of
post-presidency houses, 60,000 people dying from opiods, or the broken subways in NYC that
caused Frank Rich's awakening?
"Obama didn't cause that broken spirit any more than Trump did."
Obama made it perfectly clear that the Democratic party was going to do nothing to correct
2008. Instead he put the very same people that wrecked the world economy back in charge. I
will no longer vote for the "have no alternative" Democrat. I will vote for those that are
going to enact the polices that will fix this mess. If that means we get twenty Trumps a row
– so be it.
Re: On average for the year-ended this May, 58.5 percent of the job gains were in
counties that backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 , and this excerpt from that
Associated Press link:
The jobs data shows an economy that is as fractured as the political landscape ahead of
the 2018 midterm elections. As more money pools in corporate hubs such as Houston,
San Francisco or Seattle , prosperity spills over less and less to smaller towns and
cities in America's interior. That would seem to undercut what Trump sees as a central
accomplishment of his administration – job creation for middle class and blue-collar
workers in towns far removed from glitzy urban centers.
Looking at those cities noted, especially Seattle and San Francisco – both of which
now have an inhuman level of inequality and homelessness -- a further dive into the details
is necessary.
Specifically, are those job gains ™ out of state imported employees from: Ivy
League Schools (predominately under 26, mostly white males from elite families); along with
H-1B, and Opt Program ™ imported employees (predominately under 26, mostly
males from mostly upper middle class Asian families, paid far, far less than those Ivy
Leaguers) [1]; while the displaced unemployed -- yet, highly qualified for employment --
residents in those cities are continually being forced out (if they can afford the move
and have somewhere they are able to move to), or made homeless.
[1] Admittedly, I'm not sure whether they are included in those job gains, but if
the job gains are based on ADP reports, it might well be likely that they are; of course a
search on two search sites brought up no answer to my query.
I find Mastodon's user interface to be fairly unintuitive myself. Presumably it would be
possible to make your own "mixed" view as it's open source and based on open protocols, but
not sure if Mastodon supports it out of the box.
AOC is one of their candidates, as are Cynthia Nixon, Ayana Pressley etc. There is a
prevalence of Democrat buzzwords, but I think they are aiming to be agnostic regarding left
factions:
We're excited to make gains in 2018, but Indivisible 435 isn't just about notching wins.
Our organization is not a wing of the Democratic party. While we care deeply about electing
officials to oppose the Trump agenda, we care just as much building a strong progressive
community nationwide and pushing the conversation back to the interests of the people.
This would be well off message for establishment Democrats.
I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, but still
watch what they do.
I would posit that most of the job gains in the last decade maybe even two were probably
in areas that voted for Clinton. That the Texas boom and the oil boom in the Dakota's were
exceptions not the rule. I would also posit that the few Trump areas that did see job growth
in that decade saw that growth in minimum wage low to no benefit jobs. (That last one wasn't
much of a stretch since that has been the majority of jobs created during both the Bush 2 and
Obama administration.)
Things like this have led me to comment in the past and every comment on this particular
subject has failed to print. I figure I am tripping some kind of auto-filter.
So I will try again with indirect spelling.
We need a new word for this sort of thing. It would emerge from the new acronym we
need.
The letters would be . . . arrr peee ohhh ceee
that stands for . . . rayciss purrsuns ovv cuhluhr.
"Dockless bike, scooter firms clash with U.S. cities over regulations"
I have a solution to these tech-companies which strew towns and cities with their bikes
without coordinating or even asking to enter such a town and let the town try to adapt to
their needs. It is called an impound lot. You have city workers pick them up and cart them
there. If that company wants their bikes back again, they will have to pay to spring them
from the lot. Rinse and repeat until that tech company gets the message. If that tech company
doubles down, announce a $5 bounty for any bike driven to the impound lot till the company is
ready to negotiate.
"How a Pair of Kentucky Pols Are About to Legalize Hemp"
Please help me here. Hemp can be sold in all 50 states. The 2014 Farm bill allowed each state
to decide whether hemp oil could be sold for medicinal purposes w/i that year. My first
package sent to me was from a reputable company and was mailed through Amazon from Kentucky.
I was experiencing severe pain and now have a better alternative.
"How to keep young people from fleeing small towns for big cities"
Not so hard. See that there are jobs for them. You cannot do much in modern society
without money and a job provides this. A job provides dignity, discipline and the money it
provides lets a young person to satisfy not only their needs but many of their wants as well.
It is hard for a young guy to take a girl out but having no money to do so and a job's money
will help a couple set up a household and marry and have children. The drop in marriage rates
as well as the birthrate speaks volumes of the lack of decent paying jobs for young people,
even those that have achieved credentials. Supply good paying jobs and most kids will stay
put. Not so hard to work out.
Re. "Trump v. Fed" [Money and Banking], bolds mine: "Last month, interrupting decades of
presidential self-restraint, President Trump openly criticized the Federal Reserve. Given the
President's penchant for dismissing valuable institutions, it is hard to be surprised
investors are reasonably focused on the selection of qualified academics and individuals with
valuable policy and business experience the President's comments are seriously
disturbing and -- were they to become routine -- risk undermining the significant
benefits that Federal Reserve independence brings."
As Lambert would say, for some definition of 'valuable', 'benefits' and
'independence'.
Zuckerberg states that Facebook will have a huge "counterterrorism" team. Any counterterrorism
team doubles as anti-dissidents team.
Notable quotes:
"... The team is comprised of 200 people, who he said are just focused on counterterrorism. Zuckerberg said content reviewers also go over flagged information. ..."
"... "I think we have capacity in 30 languages that we are working on and in addition to that, we have a number of AI tools that we are developing like the one's that I mentioned that can proactively go flag the content," he said in response to a question from Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana. ..."
Actually there were a couple of moments in this dog and pony show where truth surfaced
;-)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers today that his company has a counterterrorism
team.
The team is comprised of 200 people, who he said are just focused on counterterrorism.
Zuckerberg said content reviewers also go over flagged information.
"I think we have capacity in 30 languages that we are working on and in addition to that,
we have a number of AI tools that we are developing like the one's that I mentioned that can
proactively go flag the content," he said in response to a question from Rep. Susan Brooks of
Indiana.
She asked Zuckerberg how the team stops terrorist groups from recruiting and
communicating.
He said the team first identifies those groups' patterns of communicating. They then
design systems that proactively flag the messaging, so those accounts could be removed.
The company outlined its counterterrorism approach in 2017 in a
blog post , where it
said that the team included "academic experts on counterterrorism, former prosecutors, former
law enforcement agents and analysts, and engineers."
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
"... Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved to be so careless, complacent,and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting agents of foreign states to responsible posts. ..."
Comrade Stalin speaks from the grave, in support of Kommissar General Clinton supporting
her brave fight against wreckers, spies, provocateurs, diversionists, whiteguards, kulaks
.who are trying to infiltrate and destroy, OUR Democratic Party!
Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers :
March 3, 1937
"Comrades!
From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that
we are dealing with the following three main facts.
First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among
whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly
all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.
Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into
lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.
Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only
failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved
to be so careless, complacent,and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting
agents of foreign states to responsible posts.
These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the
discussions on them "
Wrecking (Russian:
вредительство
or vreditel'stvo, lit. "inflicting damage", "harming"), was a crime specified in the criminal
code of the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. It is often translated as "sabotage"; however,
"wrecking", "diversionist acts" , and "counter-revolutionary sabotage" were distinct
sub-articles of Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) (58-7, 58-9, and 58-14 respectively), The
meaning of "wrecking" is closer to "undermining".
These three categories were distinguished in the following way:
Diversions were acts of immediate infliction of physical damage on state and cooperative
property.
Wrecking was deliberate acts aimed against normal functioning of state and cooperative
organisations, such as giving deliberately wrong commands.
Sabotage was non-execution, or careless execution, of one's duties.
The definition of sabotage was interpreted dialectically and indirectly, so any form of
non-compliance with Party directives could have been considered a 'sabotage'."
Sabotage was non-execution, or careless execution, of one's duties.
The definition of sabotage was interpreted dialectically and indirectly, so any form of
non-compliance with Party directives could have been considered a 'sabotage'."
So no deviating from being, or at least appearing as, an ultra obedient group-thinking
conformist drone. Gotcha. Anyone the higher ups didn't like would be guilty of something,
rather like how Americans today commit multiple felonies each day because it is
unavoidable.
I never followed up on it, but I read years ago that virtually all the original members of
PNAC and American Enterprise Institute were Trotskyites. Specifically Irving Kristol (Butcher
Bill's father), and Gertrud Himmelfarb (his mother).
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers :
March 3, 1937
"Comrades!
From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that
we are dealing with the following three main facts.
First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among
whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly
all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.
Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into
lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.
Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only
failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved
to be so careless, complacent, and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting
agents of foreign states to responsible posts.
These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the
discussions on them "
"... BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence. ..."
"... Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion. ..."
"... Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War. ..."
"... Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked. ..."
BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong,
it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views.
Notably:
the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo .
That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence.
As to Fred Hiatt's network, some insight is given by the acknowledgements in Robert
Kagan's book Dangerous Nation , where Kagan writes:
I [Robert Kagan] have also been lucky to enjoy the comradeship and wise counsel of dear
friends
Fred Hiatt, Bill Kristol, Leon Wieseltier, Reuel Gerecht, Ed Lazarus, and Joe Rose ...
Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy!
And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed
page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion.
So this has been popping up on my screen for the last week, so I finally decided to watch it.
Cohen, of course, was the voice of reason. Boot is an idiot and a disrespectful one at
that. All true.
The problem is that the bulk of the population is going to go with Boot. That is, the bulk
of the population that give a damn about Russia or foreign policy, which as the recent poll
testifies is a mighty small group.
However, that group includes most of the Democrats. So Boot is going to walk away claiming
a win and Anderson Cooper is never going to claim otherwise, either, because he is on Boot's
side.
Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist",
and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia
and the history of the first Cold War.
In a debate, that isn't enough. WE think Cohen "schooled" Boot. The Democrats won't. And
the undecided's won't either.
Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how
you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when
attacked.
Now how you do that can vary. You can either be a sneering scumbag like Boot, or you can
be a cold assassin that simply blows him away with calm, but vicious ridicule.
I'm reminded of a joke video I saw a while back. Check it out.
To a certain extent Facebook success is the success of narcissism and herd mentality. There is not much of value in Facebook and
the level programming at least several years ago was really primitive (although implementation was not -- due to giant scale they faced
all king of complex problems)
In a way people who use Facebook for email are idiots. People who post all kind of personal information on their Facebook pages
are sick (ersatz collectivism at one time popular among adolescents).
Who help Zuckerberg to grow the company to this level is a very interesting question indeed. If definitely is a part of Prism like
Google, Yahoo and Hotmail?
His testimony before the Congress raises certain questions.
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress - watch live is
very educational listering to any Facebook user. It is essentially intelligence company masking as a social site with advertizing as
the core business model.
I wrote just
one post last week and it centered around the dangers posed to society by U.S. tech giants . I specifically called out Facebook,
pointing out how company executives are currently groveling to politicians in order to prevent legislation that might deem it a monopoly
and curtail its power.
I explained how U.S. politicians prefer to use the power and reach of tech giants for their own ends rather than take them down
a notch. Politicians aren't at all concerned about the outsized influence of centralized tech behemoths engineering society using
secret algorithms, they just want to be in control of how this power is abused.
Meanwhile, today's biggest news is the uniform move by three U.S. tech giants to de-platform Alex Jones and his Infowars website.
The main companies involved are Apple, Facebook and Google (via YouTube), as reported in
The Guardian
:
All but one of the major content platforms have banned the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as the companies raced
to act in the wake of Apple's decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website.
Facebook unpublished four pages run by Jones for "repeated violations of community standards", the company said on Monday.
YouTube terminated Jones's account over him repeatedly appearing in videos despite being subject to a 90-day ban from the website,
and Spotify removed the entirety of one of Jones's podcasts for "hate content"
Facebook's and YouTube's enforcement action against Jones came hours after
Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The
timing of Facebook's announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.
Put aside what you think of Alex Jones for a moment. If they can do this to him and not fear the repercussions, they can do it
to anybody. This is about power, and these platforms together account for a massive share of content distribution in the U.S. Ultimately,
this is just a particularly muscular and in your face example of what's known as
Silicon
Valley's cultural imperialism .
I know a lot of people think the answer is to get Congress to do something, as if those monumentally corrupt donor puppets have
any interest in helping the public.
... ... ...
I'd also like to point out that Facebook's stock was up over 4% today, completely shrugging off any potential backlash from users.
Executives assume its users are all addled junkies unwilling to give up convenience and their addiction no matter what the company
does. Are they right?
Speaking of which, on the same day the move against Jones was announced we learn Facebook is in talks with mega banks to get your
financial information.
The social media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including
card transactions and checking account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.
Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends.
The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp to discuss potential
offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.
Facebook executives don't actually care about anything besides their profits and power, so the only way you can take any individual
action against the company is to delete your account. I haven't engaged with Facebook since 2012, so permanently deleting it wasn't
a personal sacrifice, but I did it anyway earlier today.
... ... ...
Don't wait for other people to change things for you, stop whining and take some individual responsibility. If you agree that
Facebook's primarily a nefarious narcissism-factory wasteland masquerading as a platform just delete it... before it deletes you.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly
Patron , or visit the
Support Page to show your appreciation for
independent content creators.
"... The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in the documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin. ..."
"... This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State, including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year. ..."
"... Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin). ..."
"... Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon. ..."
"... from the period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media ..."
"... they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality. ..."
"... And how it only took, you know, certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we are. They essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall of communism and the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her. ..."
"... Foreign Policy Initiative is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. ..."
"... Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the Obama era. ..."
"... the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran. ..."
"... That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say, hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe. ..."
"... So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you think the effect of that was? ..."
"... Because, and this is important to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so relatively obscure They're not household names. ..."
"... The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S. media was doing. ..."
"... And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane? ..."
Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams.
Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right
political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]
Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more
aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and
related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They
further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for
'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action.
[3]
The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The
9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy
choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims
and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in
the basement.'[4]
The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and
the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as
strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but
they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the
world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in
depth in the documentary series, A Very
Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.
In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor
Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere
in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality
which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .
This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep
State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and
aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome
of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State,
including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly
maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.
Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with
his sister Abby Martin of Media
Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from
Fluorescent Grey (Robbie
Martin).
Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture
practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us
as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in
Eugene, Oregon.
Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018
... ... ...
And of course, right after the Sochi Olympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine,
it kind of boiled over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over
Euromaidan – basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a
coup which many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. State Department.
And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of contro , and from the period between 2014 to 2018, it
was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before
the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and
frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.
I know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a
long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon
influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that
constructed the blueprints to the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing
this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.
And how it only took, you know, certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we
are. They essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall
of communism and the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too
long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made
it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried
to smear her while she was working for RT.
... ... ...
RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the
psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was
going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put
through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the
span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure
she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and
this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon
think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.
So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the
Foreign Policy Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the
Foreign Policy Initiative
is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think
tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I
realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably
every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring,
very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me
into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank
videos for weeks on end.
Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from
the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more
candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more
clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the
Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of
fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when
I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found
him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war
hawks that would go on Fox News.
But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so
fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder
if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.
... ... ...
But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is
because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed
to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy
consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and
make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community
into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with
the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but
see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these
neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact
that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because
that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to
cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say,
hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go
after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially
convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.
So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people
now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see
much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which
is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a
non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election
when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever
they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.
That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's
because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you
don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody
is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.
GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you
personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost
like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're
talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the
neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early
2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people
are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is
something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit
before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my
generation and the world that I'm living in now
But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind
of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk
about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some
odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider
narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.
So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don
and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour
period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright
calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we
should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the
effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you
think the effect of that was?
RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer
that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this
short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping
up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus
was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something
that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important
to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding
America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor,
a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe
that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being
heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are
two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq
surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David
Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are
some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so
relatively obscure They're not household names.
So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force
raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to
hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the
planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the
U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they
don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the
actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what
they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if
they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.
And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now
that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this,
I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run
throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for
the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I
find that very strange.
And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into
that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating
the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were
still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S.
media was doing.
So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we
should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that
badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the
only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing
through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s
saying that before on record.
And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you
were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what
would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would
have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?
GR: Right. Yeah.
RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush
Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax
infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by
that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.
GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his
documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the
neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role
of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at
averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin.
For the Global Research News Hour, I'm Scott Price.
-end of transcript-
Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5
"... BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong, it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views. Notably: the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo . That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence. ..."
"... Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy! And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion. ..."
"... Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist", and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia and the history of the first Cold War. ..."
"... Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when attacked. ..."
BUT, the deeper problem, IMO, isn't just that Boot get so many issues wrong,
it is that he is given such a massive platform for propagating his wrong views.
Notably:
the platform Fred Hiatt has given him at WaPo .
That's the real issue, that his opinions are given such undeserved prominence.
As to Fred Hiatt's network, some insight is given by the acknowledgements in Robert
Kagan's book Dangerous Nation , where Kagan writes:
I [Robert Kagan] have also been lucky to enjoy the comradeship and wise counsel of dear
friends
Fred Hiatt, Bill Kristol, Leon Wieseltier, Reuel Gerecht, Ed Lazarus, and Joe Rose ...
Deep State my a**, this is the Kosher Konspiracy!
And notice how many of those names have found a prominent place on the WaPo Op-Ed
page, and other prominent media venues, shaping and driving American opinion.
So this has been popping up on my screen for the last week, so I finally decided to watch it.
Cohen, of course, was the voice of reason. Boot is an idiot and a disrespectful one at
that. All true.
The problem is that the bulk of the population is going to go with Boot. That is, the bulk
of the population that give a damn about Russia or foreign policy, which as the recent poll
testifies is a mighty small group.
However, that group includes most of the Democrats. So Boot is going to walk away claiming
a win and Anderson Cooper is never going to claim otherwise, either, because he is on Boot's
side.
Why can Boot claim a win? Because he sneered at Cohen and called him a "Russia apologist",
and Cohen, while visibly irritated, could only say his credentials for understanding Russia
and the history of the first Cold War.
In a debate, that isn't enough. WE think Cohen "schooled" Boot. The Democrats won't. And
the undecided's won't either.
Cohen needed to respond IN KIND to Boot's disrespect. Because paradoxically, that is how
you get "respect" on the street - you respond in kind and to a greater degree when
attacked.
Now how you do that can vary. You can either be a sneering scumbag like Boot, or you can
be a cold assassin that simply blows him away with calm, but vicious ridicule.
I'm reminded of a joke video I saw a while back. Check it out.
"Ex-FBI agent: Trump got elected, thanks to Russia" [ Yahoo
News ]. • One thing to remember about RussiaRussiaRussia -- R 3 ? -- is
that it's very profitable to be a talking head.
"DOJ Announces Public Release of the Cyber-Digital Task Force's First Report; Impact on
and Role of the Private Sector Likely to be a Focus in the Coming Months" [
Compliance and Enforcement ]. "[Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] lauded
'self-policing' efforts to remove 'fake accounts' and encouraged companies to 'consider the
voluntary removal of accounts and content' that are linked by the FBI to foreign agents'
activities, which he said 'violate terms of service and deceive customers.'" • What
could go wrong?
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the
analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking
because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering
on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're
believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock
you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say.
The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling
Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists,
especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news"
and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists
into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content
are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners
who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the
analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking
because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering
on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're
believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock
you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say.
The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling
Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists,
especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news"
and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists
into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content
are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners
who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
"... "My film itself is essentially was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints for the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality." ..."
"... – Robbie Martin, from this week's program. ..."
"My film itself is essentially was tracking the neocon influence and how the
neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints
for the Iraq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0
mentality."
"... "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group – that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!" ..."
"... "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation," ..."
"... "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ..."
"... "at the back of the queue" ..."
"... "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!" ..."
"... " highly probable " ..."
"... "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ." ..."
"... "Russian troll factory," ..."
"... "very low levels of engagement" ..."
"... "conspiracy theorist" ..."
"... "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him." ..."
"... "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," ..."
"... "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money " ..."
"... "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," ..."
You don't have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from
Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and
thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we've been bombarded with
Establishment-approved conspiracy theories – peddled in all the 'best' newspapers –
that Russia somehow 'fixed' Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning
plot by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the 'free world.'
Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms,
seemed taken in by it. "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of
the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation," the noble
Lord
declared in July.
Never mind that we don't have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures
saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly
what The Vlad is thinking.
And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are "propaganda arms of
the Russian government," ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who
told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got
Britain to vote 'leave.' The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference
in Brexit. But it didn't come from Moscow.
Or Obama actually visiting the U.K. to urge people to vote Remain. Imagine if Putin did
the same for Leave!
The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the
Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that
if Britain exited the EU it would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with
the US
.
Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.
Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital.
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the 'Britain Stronger in Europe'
group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley – £250,000 each.
Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): "This is not foreign interference
This is not foreign interference!"
You've got to see the funny side of this: all that hysterical fake news about 'Russian
interference' in Brexit & here we have one side receiving £400K from a US
billionaire who is part of the US political establishment. Is that not 'interference' ?!!
https://t.co/URzrB3ciLd
The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a
malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of
humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors
to explode.
Let's think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben
Bradshaw told Parliament that it was "
highly probable " that Russia had interfered with Brexit.
Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube's public
policy, Juniper Downs, said her company "had conducted a thorough investigation around the
Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference
."
Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a
"Russian troll factory," which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit – amounting
to less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received
"very low levels of engagement" from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets
to persuade us to vote 'leave,' they didn't really put much effort into it, did they?
Finally, Facebook said that only three "Kremlin-linked" accounts were found which spent the
grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater
"interference" ? 72p or £400K? Erm tough call, isn't it?
You might have thought, given his concern with 'foreign interference' in British politics,
that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging 'Best for Britain' to return George Soros' donation.
Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily
Telegraph, and the BBC's coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about 'Russia
meddling in Brexit' but not Soros' intervention aren't concerned about 'foreign interference'
in UK politics, only 'foreign interference' from countries they don't approve of.
Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout
"conspiracy theorist" (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from
others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said:
"Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to
stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do
with him."
That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except
to shoot the messenger.
If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has
been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The
unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by 'liberals'
and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. "I don't know that the public understands the
gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States.
They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," film director Rob Reiner
said
.
But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the
affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.
While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over 'Russiagate' and
getting terribly excited over 'smoking guns' which turn out – surprise, surprise –
to be damp squibs, there's been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe
Biden on how he got the allegedly 'independent' Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor
general in a few hours. "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money "
"I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," Biden
said during a meeting of
the US' Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired."
Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he
used financial inducements to get another country's Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a
tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson
could be heard discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new 'democratic' government of
another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of
State doing exactly that in 2014 – and the 'Russia is interfering in the Free World!'
brigade were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.
It's fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that's currently on
show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian
interference – Bad. Proven interference from other external sources – Good. What's
your problem?
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit."
When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had.
At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won.
Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom.
Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all.
Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"... The author is a prominent American Christian conservative who was a presidential candidate for the paleoconservative Constitution Party in 2008, when he was endorsed by Ron Paul. ..."
"... He is the pastor of Liberty Fellowship, a non-denominational church in Montana, and he is a popular radio host and columnist . His weekly sermons are available on his YouTube channel. ..."
"... He is a relentless foe of neoconservatism and frequently criticizes the neocon hostility towards Russia. His views are representative of an influential and substantial part of Trump's popular support. ..."
"... Here is an archive of his excellent articles which we have published on Russia Insider , when they were relevant to the debate over Russia. ..."
"... The War on Terror ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"... The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East ..."
"Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map
of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims ..." Chuck Baldwin Wed, Aug 1, 2018 | 14,261
389 MORE: HistoryRevisionist HistoryThe author is a
prominent American Christian conservative who was a presidential candidate for the
paleoconservative Constitution Party in 2008, when he was endorsed by Ron Paul.
He is a relentless foe of neoconservatism and frequently criticizes the neocon hostility
towards Russia. His views are representative of an influential and substantial part of Trump's
popular support.
What if everything we've been told about 9/11 is a lie? What if it wasn't 19 Muslim
terrorist hijackers that flew those planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon? What if the
Muslims had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11? What if everything we've been
told about the reasons we invaded two sovereign nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) is a lie?
What if the 17-year-old, never-ending "War on Terror" in the Middle East is a lie? What if
our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have given their lives in America's "War on
Terror" died for a lie? What if G.W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been nothing but
controlled toadies for an international global conspiracy that hatched the attacks of 9/11 as
nothing more than a means to institute a perpetual "War on Terror" for purposes that have
nothing to do with America's national security? Would the American people want to know? Would
the truth even matter to them?
The sad reality is that the vast majority of Americans who would read the above paragraph
would totally dismiss every question I raised as being unrealistic and impossible -- or even
nutty. Why is that? Have they studied and researched the questions? No. Have they given any
serious thought to the questions? No. They have simply swallowed the government/mainstream
media version of these events hook, line and sinker.
It is totally amazing to me that the same people who say they don't believe the mainstream
media (MSM) and government (Deep State) versions of current events -- which is why they voted
for and love Donald Trump -- have absolutely no reservations about accepting the official story
that the 9/11 attacks were the work of jihadist Muslims and that America's "War on Terror" is
completely legitimate.
These "always Trumpers" are dead set in their minds that America is at war with Islam; that
Trump's bombings of Syria were because President Assad is an evil, maniacal monster who gassed
his own people; and that Trump's expansion of the war in Afghanistan is totally in the
interests of America's national security.
BUT WHAT IF ALL OF IT IS A BIG, FAT LIE?
What if the Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
What if Bashar al-Assad did NOT gas his own people?
What if America's "War on Terror" is a completely false, manufactured, made-up
deception?
What if America's military forces are mostly fighting for foreign agendas and NOT for
America's national security or even our national interests?
What if America's war in Afghanistan is a fraud?
What if the entire "War on Terror" is a fraud?
The Trump robots have bought into America's "War on Terror" as much as Obama's robots and
Bush's robots did. Bush was elected twice, largely on the basis of America's "War on Terror."
Obama campaigned against the "War on Terror" and then expanded it during his two terms in
office. Trump campaigned against the "War on Terror" and then immediately expanded it beyond
what Obama had done. In fact, Trump is on a pace to expand the "War on Terror" beyond the
combined military aggressions of both Bush and Obama.
But who cares? Who even notices?
America is engaged in a global "War on Terror." Just ask G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald
Trump, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the vast
majority of America's pastors and preachers. They all tell us the same thing seven days a week,
twenty-four hours a day. Liberals scream against Trump, and conservatives scream against Maxine
Waters; but both sides come together to support America's never-ending "War on Terror."
But what if it's ALL a lie? What if Obama and Trump, the right and the left, the MSM and the
conservative media are all reading from the same script? What if they are all (wittingly or
unwittingly) in cahoots in perpetuating the biggest scam in world history? And why is almost
everyone afraid to even broach the question?
Left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, secular or Christian, no one
dares to question the official story about the 9/11 attacks or the "War on Terror."
And those who do question it are themselves attacked unmercifully by the right and the left,
conservatives and liberals, Christians and secularists, Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews. Why is
that? Why is it that FOX News and CNN, Donald Trump and Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and Ted
Cruz equally promote the same cockamamie story about 9/11 and the "War on Terror?"
Why? Why? Why?
Tell me again how Donald Trump is so different from Barack Obama. Tell me again how Ted Cruz
is so different from Chuck Schumer. They all continue to perpetuate the lies about 9/11. They
all continue to escalate America's never-ending "War on Terror." They are all puppets of a
global conspiracy to advance the agenda of war profiteers and nation builders.
The left-right, conservative-liberal, Trump-Obama paradigm is one big giant SCAM. At the end
of the day, the "War on Terror" goes on, bombs keep falling on people in the Middle East who
had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the money keeps flowing into the coffers of the
international bankers and war merchants.
All of the above is why I am enthusiastically promoting Christopher Bollyn's new blockbuster
book
The War on Terror .
Of course, Bollyn is one of the world's foremost researchers and investigators into the
attacks on 9/11. He has written extensively on the subject. But unlike most other 9/11
investigators, Bollyn continued to trace the tracks of the attacks on 9/11. And those tracks
led him to discover that the 9/11 attacks were NOT "the event" but that they were merely the
trigger for "the event." "What was the event?" you ask. America's perpetual "War on
Terror."
As a result, Mr. Bollyn published his findings that the attacks on 9/11 were NOT perpetrated
by Muslim extremists but by a very elaborate and well financed international conspiracy that
had been in the planning for several decades. Bollyn's research names names, places and dates
and exposes the truth behind not just 9/11 (many have done that) but behind America's "War on
Terror" that resulted from the attacks on 9/11.
IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT!
And Christopher Bollyn's investigative research brings out the truth like nothing I've read
to date. His research connects the dots and destroys the myths.
Mr. Bollyn's research is published in a book entitled (full title):
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East . I mean it when I say that if
enough people read this book, it could change the course of history and save our republic.
This is written on the book's back cover:
The government and media have misled us about 9/11 in order to compel public opinion to
support the War on Terror.
Why have we gone along with it? Do we accept endless war as normal? Are we numb to the
suffering caused by our military interventions?
No. We have simply been propagandized into submission. We have been deceived into thinking
that the War on Terror is a good thing, a valiant struggle against terrorists who intend to
attack us as we were on 9/11.
Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map
of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the
military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to
understanding the deception that has changed our world.
Folks, 9/11 was a deception. The "War on Terror" is a deception. The phony left-right
paradigm is a deception. FOX News is as much a deception as CNN. The "always Trump" group is as
much a deception as the "never Trump" group. America has been in the throes of a great
deception since September 11, 2001. And this deception is being perpetrated by Republicans and
Democrats and conservatives and liberals alike.
I do not know Christopher Bollyn. I've never met him. But I thank God he had the
intellectual honesty and moral courage to write this book. I urge readers to get this explosive
new book. If you don't read any other book this year, read Mr. Bollyn's investigative
masterpiece:
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East .
Again, I am enthusiastically recommending this book to my readers, and I make no apologies
for doing so. The truth contained in this research MUST get out, and I am determined to do all
I can to help make that possible.
Order Christopher Bollyn's blockbuster book The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The
Middle East here:
I am confident that after you read this book, you will want to buy copies for your friends
and relatives. The book is under 200 pages long and is not difficult reading. However, the
facts and details Bollyn covers are profound and powerful. I have read the book three times so
far and I'm not finished.
Frankly, Bollyn's book made so many things make sense for me. His book dovetails and tracks
with much of my research on other topics. Truly, his book helped me get a much fuller
understanding of the "big picture."
What if everything we've been told about 9/11 and the "War on Terror" is a lie? Well,
Bollyn's book proves that indeed it is.
Again, here is where to find Christopher Bollyn's phenomenal new book The War On Terror:
The Plot To Rule The Middle East :
Worked that out, when following events in Ukraine. All main events, since my birth and
long before then, were no more than Operation Gladio false flags. It takes a lot to get
your head around that, without feeling blind fury to your Governments, of each and every
day. Plus media manipulation.
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours. ..."
"... You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows... ..."
"... Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial,
economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest
single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself.
While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than
" a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you
didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was
"deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated
by DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't
need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
While neocons definitely agitated for invasion and were well represented in Bush Ii
government, this statement might be not true. As Greenspan said it was about oil.
Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the
strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."
In Britain, Tam Dalyell, a longstanding Labor member of Parliament, expressed a similar view.
Tony Blair, he opined, was listening too much to a "cabal" of Jews around President Bush that
included Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; an under secretary of defense, Douglas
Feith; Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, director of
Middle East Affairs in the White House; and the former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer.
"Those people drive this policy," Dalyell said.
Dalyell was "worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik-Sharon
agenda" by British Jews close to Blair.
-- -- -- -- -- -
Earlier this year, Representative James Moran, a Democrat, said that "if it were not for the
strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."
In Britain, Tam Dalyell, a longstanding Labor member of Parliament, expressed a similar view.
Tony Blair, he opined, was listening too much to a "cabal" of Jews around President Bush that
included Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; an under secretary of defense, Douglas
Feith; Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board; Elliott Abrams, director of
Middle East Affairs in the White House; and the former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer.
"Those people drive this policy," Dalyell said.
Dalyell was "worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik-Sharon
agenda" by British Jews close to Blair.
The way , this war has played out, the way Oslo has been shredded, the way Iran deal has
been gutted, the way Blair spoke in Bush's ranch and took money form and awards from Israel,
the way attacks on Lebanon and Syria have been allowed and helped , the way Libya have been
made a failed country, the way billions have been poured on Israel, the way dissent against
war has been suppressed, the way Corbyn was attacked prove one thing – only one thing
that is the author was entirely wrong .Moran Japanense and British minister are and were
correct.
"... -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on. ..."
"... In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian" hacker. Here's how we know that: ..."
"... Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred. ..."
"... The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia, which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world.... ..."
"... @Pluto's Republic ..."
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... third run ..."
"... ~~Author Unknown ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
Russiagate may technically be about Trump, but in fact most of the "traitors" and Putin Puppets are progressives on the left.
Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before
the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin
Russiagate never was actually about Russia. It's the Democrats' version of Obama's birth certificate. As
Caitlin Johnstone puts it, Russiagate is 9/11 minus 9/11.
TWIT:
Kurt Eichenwald
@kurteichenwald
Bottom line: You either support the patriots in our intelligence community and law enforcement who work endlessly for our
national security, and all of the intelligence agencies of our allies, or you support Putin.
You're either a patriot, a traitor or an idiot. Choose.
10:51 AM-16 Jul 2018
In reality, Russiagate started with Ralph Nader and the
2000 election .
They said a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. You have a moral duty to vote for the Democrat and to be pragmatic. Your Naderite
purity came at the expense of the poor. Only affluent selfish white guys could afford this type of virtue signaling. In fact,
maybe some of these people were really Republicans in disguise. There were no Russian bots to blame just yet, but clearly some
liberals are unable to imagine good faith criticism of Democrats coming from the left.
The terms " virtue signaling", " purity pony", and of course "White Berniebro" weren't coined yet, but the the stereotype they
describe was formed in 2000. Gore lost and Nader and all his voters, in swing states or not, were vilified. They were worse than
Republicans. They were traitors. Of all the factors that caused Gore's loss, the only one that Democratic partisans really cared
about was Nader.
People that voted for Nader became responsible for the Iraq War, while Democrats who voted for Bush and the Iraq War got a free
pass. Liberals, besides their obvious double-standards when allocating responsibility, made the dubious claim that morality requires
being pragmatic in your voting. And then, as if to prove the basis of their claims to be false, they approach their target audience
in a non-pragmatic way.
The anger on open display is the opposite of pragmatic politics. They don't try to persuade people to vote for the Democrat. They
demand it. It is a moral litmus test, or rather, a judgement of one's very soul. Good people know they have to vote for the Democrat.
Bad people vote for Republicans and the very worst people of all claim to be left, but vote for Stein or maybe even voted for
Clinton, but criticized her. Democratic partisans have no interest in what you say about an issue if they perceive it as in any
way an attack or a criticism of a Democrat. If you are a third party advocate you can forget about being taken seriously on any
issue because you have already self identified as a Satanist and you need to be exorcised from the body politic. Even if you say
you support the Democrat as the lesser evil, you speak as one of the damned and deserve no mercy. Sanders played the game in 2016
exactly the way people said Nader should have played it and he and his supporters were still dismissed.
Like Nader before her, Stein is the absolute
worst traitor of all . Worse than Trump himself.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent. https://t.co/qkDUe6yADd
Maddow cast suspicion on Stein's silence over alleged Russian attempts to interfere with the election to benefit Donald Trump, who
she claimed during her own campaign would govern no differently than Hillary Clinton.
"So everybody's like, 'Wow, how come this like super, super aggressive opposition that we saw from these third-party candidates
-- how come they haven't said anything since this scandal has broken?'" Maddow said.
"I don't know, Jill -- I can't pronounce it in Russian," Maddow said, with apparent sarcasm.
Bernie Sanders, OTOH, did everything he was told he should do. He supported the Democratic establishment candidate, and believed
the Russiagate story.
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
That's because you, Russia, funded riots in Ferguson. See 0 hour I have your connections to Trump archived via Schiller and
Scavino https://t.co/aTUDlCGkYi
If you are still confused about what is treason and what isn't, ask yourself the question: Does the issue advance the narrative
that the Democratic Party is a force for absolute good?
Oh my god: this is how deranged official Washington is. The President of the largest Dem Party think tank (funded in part by
dictators) genuinely believes Chelsea Manning's candidacy is a Kremlin plot. Conspiracy theorists thrive more in mainstream DC
than on internet fringes pic.twitter.com/e8g314iQHT
We still have the 2018 election, and then the long lead-up to the 2020 election. There is nothing to indicate that the rhetoric
won't get a lot more insane. The general indifference of the public doesn't seem to discourage the media and pundits. So how will
it likely look in Fall 2020? Probably like it looked in
1952 .
The purpose of advancing the Communist issue was not to fix the Communist problem -- it was to exploit that problem for political
and ideological advantage. That is how the Republican Party could produce its unhinged 1952 platform, which charged that the Democrats
"have shielded traitors to the Nation in high places," "work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism," and "by
a long succession of vicious acts, so undermined the foundations of our Republic as to threaten its existence." (Does that kind
of talk strike you as overheated? Then you, too, are failing to take the Russia issue seriously.)
There is little to no danger for conservatives and Republicans. All of the danger is for progressives and socialists, and the
angry mob is the Democratic establishment trying to silence left-wing ideas. In comparison, the danger of the GOP to the left-wing
is trivial.
Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.
I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that people keep posting it as common knowledge and factual -- especially on this
site. Old dkos habits are hard to break, I guess. The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network.
Not from Russia, or from a van parked down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used
to do so, because it would blow the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.
The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network. Not from Russia, or from a van parked
down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used to do so, because it would blow
the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.
There was NO hack.
emphasis in original.
The term usually used by the perpetrator classes for this sort of thing is: "inside job" . And, as
with all other inside jobs, the question really is: "Who's the insider?"
"The easiest way to raise a revolutionary army is to use someone else's; especially if it belongs to your enemy." -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory
I've seen an article debunking the "hack was a leak" story, but it makes no difference anyway. In my book, the leak/hack just
created a more informed electorate, and that's good for American democracy.
@Deja
The truth is contained in the emails, not in their journey. Remember who else is telling you that the contents of the emails is
less important than how they got there - the Democrats.
@Deja
hypothesis has problems. Don't get me wrong, I think it holds more promise than the 'hack' hypothesis. But right now, really,
we got shit for proof either way? Would honestly look forward to your proof either way, sans the critique of the essayist. Might
I suggest that you criticize the point, not the person, please? Questions remain.
- DNC leak vs hack remains unproven (servers not provided)
- one party consent is complicated. On the tape, there was 3rd party on speaker phone. Were they in one party consent jurisdiction
as well?
- How was CNN able to confirm that this tape was recorded in NY?
in it. This is the point that matters to me. Assange has stated that the emails didn't come from Russia. Craig Murray said
that he was involved with the person who got the information from the DNC computers and that there was no connection to Russia.
The CIAs Vault 7 shows how evidence on computers can be manipulated to make it seem like someone's dawg did the deed. I think
it'd be very sloppy for trained hackers to leave their own footprints on the scene don't you think?
Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where
he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed
Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on.
It matters profoundly. Knowing the facts surrounding critical political events or social earthquakes can be
epigenetic events. Hard truths can trigger conscious evolution while we are alive and your advanced gene expressions can be
physically inherited, changing the species.
By exercising our own critical thinking and working very hard to see through narratives to the core realities in the universe
and in all things -- we are physically evolving the species into better and more enlightened generations of humans.
In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us
that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated
copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian"
hacker. Here's how we know that:
Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was
emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the
American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter
downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred.
The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue
their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this
has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia,
which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all
other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world....
If that is what your instincts tell you, you should trust them. It's a biological imperative.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single
continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you
are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude
toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
meaning the 'Russia Ruse'--IMO, has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system
geared toward major social media 'censorship,' and, a face-saving exercise for FSC--just in case she decides to make a third
run in 2020. Heaven forbid!
Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will
be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving." ~~Author Unknown
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments
are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
"... has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system geared toward major social
media 'censorship,'
Yup. Dan Coates directory of national intelligence came out and accused Russsia of engaging in a "messaging campaign". So how
does one stop this messaging campaign. Well, back in the day, the answer was to answer bad speech with more and better speech.
Well, with Russiagate both the media and dem/gop establishment have to come to demand censorship from the major social media
platforms. And they have responded. At first they actually didn't and thought the Russia charges were trivial. Until that is,
they were theatened by House and Senate reps. And then they hopped to it.
And just a number of days ago, Facebook proudly announced they took down some nefarious pages who seemed to be engaging in
a message campaign. And turns out they shut down a real group organizing an anti-fascist rally. There are other examples like
this.
The censorship will continue becoming more and more brazen. (BTW, youtube started ths process earlier demonitizing and hurting
a lot of popular, but alternative voices.)
BTW--the Young Turks showed the Coats clip and claimed "see the Russians are still hacking our elections".
I'm truly getting concerned regarding the direction our government appears to be taking when it comes to 'freedom of expression/speech.'
Strangely, many on the 'left' don't seem very concerned. Indeed, because the MSM is so intent on going after DT, many so-called
progressives--including the supposedly more liberal (cough, cough) lawmakers--have become major cheerleaders of the corporatist
media. Go figure.
Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went." ~~Will Rogers
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments
are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
as well as every other person in Trump's administration that is working against him. This is insubordination and if Trump continues
to let them run their mouths then I believe that he is in on this scam and is playing along with it. Why? Look at what has been
happening since he became president. From the increasing Russian sanctions to the internet censorship to the increased military
budget with money that goes to fighting cyber warfare and many other things that are being done because of this new and improved
false flag.
As you stated YouTube has been removing lots of videos, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring alternative media sites that
are not playing along with Russia Gate and Google changed its algorithms so that traffic to those sites are down up to 90% according
to WSWS.
I once thought that this would eventually be exposed for the scam it is, but not any more. It's here to stay. And just like
in 1984 where there was that place where history was changed to fit the narrative of the day, we are seeing that here. Things
that happened last decade are being blamed on Russia hacking. I wouldn't be surprised if the KKK and Jim Crow were blamed on Russia.
This is how out of control it's gotten. And I was so looking forward to seeing Rachel trying to explain to her viewers how she
got things so wrong.
@snoopydawg
His erratic actions are the perfect distraction for the capitalist pigs the same as the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Communist
Fascist Socialist Radical Leftist Feminazi SJW" crap that went on during the last capitalist puppet presidency. Either way, the
world still burns and the pigs make out like bandits in the process. Keeping the plebs at each other's throats is just a bonus
for them.
@snoopydawg
Remember whom you are discussing. Alas, you must be a Russian wolfhound to think R. Madcow could ever be wrong. Apologize, then
stand in the corner until after the midterms when the GRU hauls off recalcitrant Dims and Repugnants failing to swear fealty to
Vladimir Vladimirovich.
"Russiagate is like a mirage. It looks so real from a distance you'll swear it's there and mock anyone who says otherwise,
but once you get up close and examine its component parts you find it's made of nothing but innuendo, spin, unsubstantiated claims
and dishonest omissions.
2:45 PM · Aug 3, 2018"
"
@caitoz
·
Aug 3
Nothing wrong with wanting a full investigation. There's something very, very wrong with pressuring a US president to continually
escalate dangerous cold war tensions with a nuclear superpower without ever backing down based on an "idea" with no evidence.
"
@snoopydawg
Bernie will not be able to say "Oh evil Russia but let's not go to war with them." Diplomacy itself finally became full criminalized
and made tresonous when Trump meet Putin in Finland. Any level of moderation will be attacked as soft on Putin and treasonous.
And I write "pro-war" and not "anti-Russian". One cannot be anti-Russian in any moderate way. Being anti-Russian means supporting
a harsh and aggressive military stance toward their nation. The Russians are after all destroying Western civilization and this
cannot be meant with diplomacy.
And from what I can, every national democratic candidate for House and Senate will follow suite.
For reference, these are the only 10 senators who voted AGAINST giving Trump a $717 billion war budget:
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Ed Markey
Kirsten Gillibrand
Dick Durban
Kamala Harris
Jeff Merkley
Ron Wyden
Mike Lee (R)
Marco Rubio (R)
So much for #Resistance huh?
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't
seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply
involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by
DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need
a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
for the John S. McCain 2019 National Defense Authorization Bill ( subtitled 'The Sneeze
Wrong, We're Comin' to Fuck You Up Act' ). Here's the very lengthy summary of provisions
in the House version from govtrack.us , although it may
have changed slightly since the House and Senate conference agreements.
Let's start with the House: 'House Democrats vote for record US military spending', Patrick
Martin, 28 July 2018, wsws.org
"By an overwhelming bipartisan vote Thursday, the US House of Representatives approved the
largest military authorization bill in American history. The National Defense Authorization Act
approves $716 billion to fund US military aggression around the world, and gives President
Trump the power to order cyberwarfare attacks on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea without
further congressional action.
... ... ...
"Particularly ominous are the sections of the NDAA on cyberwarfare. The bill
authorizes the Pentagon to conduct "unattributed" cyber operations without having to comply
with the usual restrictions on covert operations, such as requiring a Presidential Finding
which is submitted to key leaders of Congress. According to the bill "clandestine military
activity or operation in cyberspace shall be considered a traditional military activity.
It pre-authorizes US military cyber operations if the president determines that (1) there is
"an active, systematic, and ongoing campaign of attacks against the Government or people of the
United States in cyberspace, including attempting to influence American elections and
democratic political processes" and (2) that Russia, China, North Korea or Iran are
responsible. In that event, the president may order US cyberwar forces "to take appropriate and
proportional action in foreign cyberspace to disrupt, defeat, and deter such attacks."
This provision effectively gives Trump and any successor, Democrat or Republican, the power
to launch a full-scale cyberwar without further congressional authorization , merely on his own
declaration that the United States is under attack."
Sounds like we continue to waste a ton of borrowed cash on last generation tech.
One new US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
Two new Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines armed with atomic weapons
13 other new warships
77 new joint strike fighters
Basically Trump's bought himself his own shiny new aircraft carrier battle group.
I'm sure it will be a simply fantastic fleet.
The best fleet ever in the history of the oceans.
I hear they want to call the carrier 'Trump class'.
That'll show China who's boss in the
Western Pacific.
Just one thing though:
The Virginia-class was intended in
part as a less expensive alternative to the Seawolf-class submarines ( $1.8 billion vs $2.8
billion), whose production run was stopped after just three boats had been completed. To
reduce costs, the Virginia-class submarines use many "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS)
components, especially in their computers and data networks.
Sounds totally secure to me!
I'm sure the Russians or Chinese EW is nowhere near powerful enough to
hack/disable/commandeer the 'off-the-shelf-tech' that runs our latest generation nuclear
powered submarine.
To reduce costs, the Virginia-class submarines use many "commercial off-the-shelf"
(COTS) components, especially in their computers and data networks.
Sounds totally secure to me!
The idea that we're dependent on Microsoft Windows to operate our current Naval
vessels, with little or no manual over-ride even available much less trained or used, makes
my skin crawl!
The only way that this can happen is if a whole lot of people get really desperate really
fast. So expect more cuts to education, health care for civilians, and all sorts of new exciting
waivers that will allow us to form our own Legion Etangere.
And everybody knows there will be an "incident" at the Trump military parade. It's
practically guaranteed, and you know the CIA is going to have a full three months to cook
something up. Hell, they've been waiting for this kind of chance for years.
I remember reporting years ago that the imperialism budget had surpassed a trillion per
year. Estimates prior to Obama's sequester budget were around 1.2 trillion per year for total
costs. Wrote many an article about it and yet here we are, still writing and reading articles
about it and not doing shit to stop it.
Boycott the duopoly, boycott this political system, demand democracy, demand power to the
people. It's so far past time for talking it's pathetic.
Gawd knows that the officers are getting too much money and perks without putting their
asses on the line.
The bill "restates our commitment to NATO and our partners," Smith said. "It extends the
prohibition on military cooperation with Russia. It declares that Russia violated the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Okay. No working with Russia on defeating ISIS. Not that we're doing this, just the
opposite. We're funding and protecting ISIS from Syria and Russia. But what chemical weapons
has Russia used in recent times? This country has been the ones using them in our various
wars. Stupid congress.
TASS reported that August 1 was the
five year anniversary of Edward Snowden's being granted temporary asylum in the Russian
Federation. This happened after his release of an enormous trove of information showing
clandestine and illegal practices being carried out by the US intelligence agencies to gather
information on just about anyone in the world, for any – or no – reason at
all.
Edward Snowden, 35, is a computer security expert. In 2005-2008, he worked at the
University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of Language sponsored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) and at the global communications division at CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia. In 2007, Snowden was stationed with diplomatic cover at the US mission to
the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. In 2009, he resigned from the CIA to join the Dell
company that sent him to Hawaii to work for the NSA's information-sharing office. He was
particularly employed with the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm.
In June 2013, Snowden leaked classified information to journalists Glenn Greenwald and
Laura Poitras, which revealed global surveillance programs run by US and British intelligence
agencies. He explained the move by saying that he wanted to tell the world the truth because
he believed such large-scale surveillance on innocent citizens was unacceptable and the
public needed to know about it.
The Guardian and The Washington Post published the first documents concerning the US
intelligence agencies' spying on Internet users on June 6, 2013. According to the documents,
major phone companies, including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint Nextel, handed records of their
customers' phone conversations over to the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
who also had direct access to the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Skype,
YouTube, Paltalk, AOL and Apple. In addition, Snowden's revelations showed that a secret
program named PRISM was aimed at collecting audio and video recordings, photos, emails and
information about users' connections to various websites.
The next portion of revelations , which was published by the leading newspapers such as
The Guardian, Brazil's O Globo, Italy's L'Espresso, Germany's Der Spiegel and Suddeutsche
Zeitung, concerned the US spying on politicians. In particular, it became known that the NSA
and Great Britain's Government Communications Headquarters intercepted the phone calls that
foreign politicians and officials made during the G20 summit in London in 2009. British
intelligence agencies particularly tried to intercept then Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev's phone calls. US intelligence monitored the phone calls of 35 world leaders,
including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
According to the disclosed information, the NSA regularly gathered intelligence at the New
York and Washington offices of the European Union's mission. The agency also achieved access
to the United Nations' internal video conferences and considers the Vienna headquarters of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as one of its major targets for spying.
The leaks also uncovered details about the Blarney and Rampart-T secret surveillance
programs. Blarney, which started in 1978, is used to collect information related to
counter-terrorism, foreign diplomats and governments, as well as economic and military
targets. Rampart-T has been used since 1991 to spy on foreign leaders. The program is focused
on 20 countries, including Russia and China.
Snowden also let the world know that Germany's Federal Intelligence Service and Federal
Office for the Protection of the Constitution used the NSA's XKeyScore secret computer system
to spy on Internet users, monitoring their web activities. In addition, the NSA and Great
Britain's Government Communications Headquarters developed methods that allowed them to hack
almost all the encryption systems currently used on the Internet. Besides, the leaked
documents said that the NSA had secretly installed special software on about 100,000
computers around the globe that provided access to them and made cyber attacks easier. In
particular, the NSA used a secret technology that made it possible to hack computers not
connected to the Internet.
Portions of the information Snowden handed over to Greenwald and Poitras continue to be
published on The Intercept website .
According to edwardsnowden.com – a website commissioned by the Courage foundation
(dedicated to building support for Snowden), a total of 2,176 documents from the archive have
been published so far.
The NSA and the Pentagon claim that Snowden stole about 1.7 mln classified documents
concerning the activities of US intelligence services and US military operations. He is
charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense
information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information
to an unauthorized person. He is facing up to ten years in prison on each charge.
As can be seen, Mr. Snowden's work is of extreme importance now in the connected Internet
age. But how is his life in Russia now?
Anatoly Kucherena, Edward Snowden's lawyer, has revealed some details of the renowned
whistleblower's life to Sputnik. According to him, Snowden has found a job, is actively
traveling around Russia and is continuing to learn the language.
Kucherena added that Snowden receives visits from his girlfriend, Lindsey Mills, and his
parents. When asked about the whistleblower's favorite place in Russia, his lawyer said that
he likes St Petersburg "a lot."
"He is doing alright: his girlfriend visits him, he has a good job and he's continuing to
study Russian. His parents visit him occasionally. [They] have no problems with visas. At
least they have never complained about having any trouble," the lawyer said.
After Snowden released classified NSA documents, he fled first to Hong Kong, then, on June
23, 2013, arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. The whistleblower remained in the transit zone of
Sheremetyevo Airport until he was granted temporary asylum in Russia, which was later
prolonged to 2020.
So the US neoliberal establishment tried to sabotage Trump-Putin summit in doer to pursue "business as usual". In other words military-industrial
complex is in control of the USA government...
Notable quotes:
"... It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran. ..."
"... At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who, inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas. ..."
"... The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful. ..."
"... In opposition to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "), but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war. ..."
"... Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex? ..."
While the International Press distorted the content of the NATO Summit, the US establishment perfectly understood the unique
issue – the end of enmity with Russia. Thus disturbing the bilateral summit in Helsinki between the USA and Russia became its priority.
By all means possible, it had to prevent any rapprochement with Moscow.
We need to talk about everything, from commerce to the military, missiles, nuclear, and China " - this was how President Trump
began at the Helsinki Summit. " The time has come to talk in detail about our bilateral relationship and the international flashpoints
", emphasised Putin.
But it will not only be the two Presidents who will decide the future relationships between the United States and Russia.
It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President
of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by
hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused
of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy
to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to
the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the
alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf
not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran.
At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged
the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueï Skripal and his daughter, who,
inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas.
The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian
President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition
in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though
they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful.
What Putin tried to obtain from Trump is both simple and complex – to ease the tension between the two countries. To that purpose,
he proposed to Trump, who accepted, to implement a joint enquiry into the " conspiracy ". We do not know how the discussions on the
key questions will go – the status of Crimea, the condition of Syria, nuclear weapons and others. And we do not know what Trump will
ask in return. However, it is certain that any concession will be used to accuse him of connivance with the enemy. In opposition
to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "),
but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the
establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war.
It will not be the words, but the facts, which will reveal whether the climate of détente of the Helsinki Summit will become reality
- first of all with a de-escalation of NATO in Europe, in other words with the withdrawal of forces (including nuclear forces) of
the USA and NATO presently deployed against Russia, and the blockage of NATO's expansion to the East.
Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or
will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex?
One thing is certain – we in Italy and Europe can not remain the simple spectators of dealings which will define our future.
Manlio Dinucci
The conflict between transnational financial capitalism and productive national capitalism has entered into a paroxystic
phase. On one side, Presidents Trump and Putin are negotiating the joint defence of their national interests. On the other, the major
daily newspaper for the US and the world is accusing the US President of high treason, while the armed forces of the US and NATO
are preparing for war with Russia and China.
You have attacked our democracy. Your well-worn gamblers' denials do not interest us. If you continue with this attitude, we will
consider it an act of war." This is what Trump should have said to Putin at the Helsinki Summit, in the opinion of famous New
York Times editorialist Thomas Friedman, published in La Repubblica . He went on to accuse the Russian President of having
"attacked NATO, a fundamental pillar of international security, destabilised Europe, and bombed thousands of Syrian refugees, causing
them to seek refuge in Europe."
He then accused the President of the United States of having " repudiated his oath on the Constitution " and of being an " asset
of Russian Intelligence " or at least playing at being one.
What Friedman expressed in these provocative terms corresponds to the position of a powerful internal and international front
(of which the New York Times is an important mouthpiece) opposed to USA-Russia negotiations, which should continue with the
invitation of Putin to the White House. But there is a substantial difference.
While the negotiations have not yet borne fruit, opposition to the negotiations has been expressed not only in words, but especially
in facts.
Cancelling out the climate of détente at the Helsinki Summit, the planetary warmongering system of the United States is in the
process of intensifying the preparations for a war reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific:
After the landing of an US armoured brigade in Anvers, totalling a hundred tanks and a thousand military vehicles, a US aerial
brigade landed in Rotterdam with sixty attack helicopters. These forces and others, all of them USA/NATO, are deployed along the
borders of Russian territory, in the framework of operation Atlantic Resolve , launched in 2014 against " Russian aggression.
" In its anti-Russian function, Poland asked for the permanent presence of an armoured US unit on its own territory, offering
to pay between 1.5 - 2 billion dollars per year.
At the same time, NATO is intensifying the training and armament of troops in Georgia and Ukraine, candidates for entry into
membership of the Alliance on the frontiers with Russia.
Meanwhile, the US Congress received with all honours Adriy Parubiy, founder of the National-Social Party (on the model of
Adolf Hitler's National-Socialist Party), head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary formations employed by NATO in the Maïdan Square putsch.
NATO command in Lago Patria (JFC Naples) – under the orders of US Admiral James Foggo, who also commands the US naval forces
in Europe and those in Africa – is working busily to organise the grand-scale exercise Trident Juncture 18 , in which will
participate 40,000 military personnel, 130 aircraft and 70 ships from more than 30 countries including Sweden and Finland, which
are NATO partners. The exercise, which will take place in October in Norway and the adjacent seas, will simulate a scenario of
" collective defence " - naturally enough, against " Russian aggression. "
In the Pacific, the major naval exercise RIMPAC 2018 (27 June to 2 August) is in full swing - organised and directed
by USINDOPACOM, the US Command which covers the Indian and Pacific oceans – with the participation of 25,000 sailors and marines,
more than 50 ships and 200 war-planes.The exercise – in which France, Germany and the United Kingdom are also participating –
is clearly directed against China, which Admiral Phil Davidson, commander of USINDOPACOM, defines as a "major rival power which
is eroding the international order in order to reduce the access of the USA to the region and thus become hegemonic."
When Trump meets Chinese President Xi Jinping, Friedman will no doubt accuse him of connivance not only with the Russian enemy,
but also with the Chinese enemy. Manlio Dinucci
"The Facebook intervention is a qualitative escalation of the McCarthyite offensive."
Facebook has assumed additional political police powers, disrupting a planned counter-demonstration against white
supremacists, set for August 12th in Washington, on the grounds that it was initiated and inspired by "Russians" as part of
a Kremlin campaign to "sow dissention" in the US. The Facebook intervention is a qualitative escalation of the McCarthyite
offensive launched by the Democrat Party and elements of the national security state, and backed by most of the corporate
media, initially to blame Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat on "collusion" between Wikileaks, "the Russians" and the Trump
campaign to steal and publicize embarrassing Clinton campaign emails.
After failing to produce one shred of hard evidence to support their conspiracy theory, the anti-Russia hysteria mongers
switched gears, focusing on the alleged purchase of about $100,000 in Facebook ads by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a
St. Petersburg-based Russian company, over a multi-year period. The problem was, most of the ads had no direct connection
to the presidential contest, or were posted after the election was over, and many had no political content, at all. The
messages were all over the place, politically, with the alleged Russian operatives posing as Christian activists, pro- and
anti-immigration activists, and supporters of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller was forced
to flip the script,
indicting 13 Russians
for promoting general "discord" and undermining "public confidence in democracy" in the United
States – thus creating a political crime that has not previously been codified in the United States.
"Mueller was forced to flip the script."
In doubling down on an unraveling conspiracy tale, the Mueller probe empowered itself to tar and feather all controversial
speech that can be associated with utterances by "Russians," even if the alleged "Russians" are, in fact, mimicking the
normal speech of left- or right-wing Americans -- a descent, not into Orwell's world, but that of Kafka (Beyond the Law)
and Heller (Catch-22).
Facebook this week announced that it had taken down 32 pages and accounts that had engaged in "coordinated and inauthentic
behavior" in promoting the August 12 counter-demonstration against the same white supremacists that staged the fatal "Unite
the Right" demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, a year ago. Hundreds of anti-racists had indicated their intention
to rally against "Unite the Right 2.0" under the banner of Shut It Down DC, which includes D.C. Antifascist Collective,
Black Lives Matter D.C., Hoods4Justice, Resist This, and other local groups.
Facebook did not contend that these anti-racists' behavior was "inauthentic," but that the first ad for the event was
purchased by a group calling itself "Resisters" that Facebook believes were behaving much like the Internet Research
Agency. "At this point in our investigation, we do not have enough technical evidence to state definitively who is behind
it," said Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's
head of cybersecurity policy
. "But we can say that these accounts engaged in some similar activity and have connected
with known I.R.A accounts."
"The Mueller probe empowered itself to tar and feather all controversial speech that can be associated with
utterances by 'Russians,' even if the alleged 'Russians' are, in fact, mimicking the normal speech of left- or right-wing
Americans."
Chelsea Manning, whose prison sentence for sending secret documents to Wikileaks was commuted by President Obama, said the
counter-protest was "organic and authentic"and that activists had begun organizing several months ago. "Folks from D.C. and
Charlottesville have been talking about this since at least February,"
Manning told
The New York Times.
"This was a legitimate Facebook event that was being organized by Washington, DC locals," says
Dylan
Petrohilos
, of Resist This. Petrohilos was one of the defendants in the Trump inauguration "riot" prosecutions. He
protested Facebook's disruption of legitimate free speech and assembly. "DC organizers had controlled the messaging on the
no UTR fb page and now FB made it harder for grassroots people to organize," he tweeted. The organizers insist the August
12 counter-demonstration -- "No Unite the Right 2 – DC" -- is still a go, as is the white supremacist rally.
Whoever was first to buy a Facebook ad – the suspected Russian "Resisters," or Workers Against Racism, who told the Daily
Beast they decided to host their own anti-"Unite the Right 2.0" event because they thought "Resisters" was an
"inexperienced liberal organizer" – there was no doubt whatsoever that the white supremacists would be confronted by much
larger numbers of counter-demonstrators, in Washington. Nobody in Russia needed to tell US anti-racists to shut the white
supremacists down, or vice versa. The Russians didn't invent American white supremacy, or the native opposition to it. Even
if Mueller, Facebook, the Democratic Party and the howling corporate media mob are to be believed, the "Russians" are
simply mimicking US political rhetoric and sloganeering – and weakly, at that. The Workers Against Racism thought the
"Resisters" weren't worth partnering with, but that the racist rally must be countered. The Shut It Down DC coalition
didn't need the "Resisters" to crystallize their thinking on white supremacism.
"Chelsea Manning said the counter-protest was 'organic and authentic."
The Democratic Party and corporate media, speaking for most of the US ruling class – and actually bullying one of its top
oligarchs, Mark Zuckerberg – is on its own bizarre and twisted road to fascism. (Donald Trump's proto-fascism is the old
fashioned, all-American type that the white supremacists want to celebrate on August 12.) With former FBI Director Robert
Mueller at the head of the pack, they have created a pseudo legal doctrine whereby "Russians" (or US spooks pretending to
be Russians) can be indicted for launching a #MeToo campaign of mimicry, echoing the rhetoric and memes indigenous to US
political struggles, while the genuine, "authentic" American political voices – the people who are being mimicked – are
labeled co-conspirators in a foreign-based "plot," and their rights to speech and assembly are trashed.
That's truly crazy, but devilishly clever, too. If "Russian" mimics (or cloaked spooks) can reproduce the vocabulary and
political program of US dissent, then all of us actual US lefties can be dismissed as "dupes of the Russians" or
"co-conspirators" in the speech crimes of our mimics -- for sounding like ourselves.
"... Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy ..."
"... The War and Peace Report ..."
"... Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy ..."
"... Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy ..."
"... If you want to organize a protest out of the eyes of the government, the worst thing you can do is use Facebook or Twitter in that effort, right? ..."
"... Look, any police department, any state security service anywhere in the world that doesn't infiltrate protest groups or, you know, activist groups that way is foolish, right? It's so easy. Facebook makes surveillance so easy. ..."
"... It's great for motivating people to get into the street, but don't be surprised if there are a couple guys with crew cuts in the crowd with you. ..."
...We speak with Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects
Us and Undermines Democracy." He is a professor of media studies and director of the Center for
Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia.
AMY GOODMAN : Facebook has been at the
center of a number of controversies in the United States and abroad. Earlier this year,
Facebook removed more than 270 accounts it determined to be created by the Russia-controlled
Internet Research Agency. Facebook made that move in early April, just days before founder and
CEO Mark Zuckeberg was question on Capitol Hill about how the voter-profiling company Cambridge
Analytica harvested data from more than 87 million Facebook users without their permission in
efforts to sway voters to support President Donald Trump. Zuckerberg repeatedly apologized for
his company's actions then.
MARK ZUCKERBERG : We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a
big mistake. And it was my mistake, and I'm sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I'm
responsible for what happens here.
AMY GOODMAN : Today we spend the hour with a leading critic of Facebook, Siva Vaidhyanathan,
author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy .
He's professor of media studies and director of the Center for Media and Citizenship at the
University of Virginia. We're speaking to him in Charlottesville.
Professor, welcome to Democracy Now!
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Oh, thanks. It's good to be here.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, let's begin with this latest news. There are hearings today that the
Senate Intelligence Committee is holding, and yesterday Facebook removed these -- well, a bunch
of pages, saying they don't know if it's Russian trolls, but they think they are inauthentic.
Talk about these pages, what they mean, what research is being done and your concerns.
... ... ...
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Yeah. Look, Cambridge Analytica was a great story, right? It finally
brought to public attention the fact that for more than five years Facebook had encouraged
application developers to get maximal access to Facebook data, to personal data and activity,
not just from the people who volunteered to be watched by these app developers, but all of
their friends -- right? -- which nobody really understood except Facebook itself and the
application developers. So, thousands of application developers got almost full access to
millions of Facebook users for five years. This was basic Facebook policy. This line was lost
in the storm over Cambridge Analytica.
...You know, Steve Bannon helped run the company for a while. It's paid for by Robert
Mercer, you know, one of the more evil hedge fund managers in the United States. You know, it
had worked for Cruz, for Ted Cruz's campaign, and then for the Brexit campaign and also for
Donald Trump's campaign in 2016. So it's really easy to look at Cambridge Analytica and think
of it as this dramatic story, this one-off. But the fact is, Cambridge Analytica is kind of a
joke. It didn't actually accomplish anything. It pushed this weird psychometric model for voter
behavior prediction, which no one believes works.
And the fact is, the Trump campaign, the Ted Cruz campaign, and, before that, the Duterte
campaign in the Philippines, the Modi campaign in India, they all used Facebook itself to
target voters, either to persuade them to vote or dissuade them from voting. Right? This was
the basic campaign, because the Facebook advertising platform allows you to target people quite
precisely, in groups as small as 20. You can base it on ethnicity and on gender, on interest,
on education level, on ZIP code or other location markers. You can base it on people who are
interested in certain hobbies, who read certain kinds of books, who have certain professional
backgrounds. You can slice and dice an audience so precisely. It's the reason that Facebook
makes as much money as it does, because if you're selling shoes, you would be a fool not to buy
an ad on Facebook, right? And that's drawing all of this money away from commercially based
media and journalism. At the same time, it's enriching Facebook. But political actors have
figured out how to use this quite deftly.
AMY GOODMAN : "Every Breath You Take" by The
Police. This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report .
We're spending the hour with professor Siva Vaidhyanathan, who is author of Antisocial
Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy . He's speaking to us from
Charlottesville, from the University of Virginia, professor of media studies and head of the
Center for Media and Citizenship at UVA . Your book, Antisocial Media: How Facebook
Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy .
I want to go back to the beginning of this interview, where we talked about Facebook taking
down more than 30 pages, saying that they are not authentic. We immediately got responses from
all over saying the protest against the Unite the Right rally in Washington, D.C., in August,
around the anniversary of the attacks at your university, University of Virginia, are real.
These protests against Unite the Right are real. So, this goes to a very important issue,
Professor, that you now have Facebook, this corporation, deciding what we see and what we don't
see. It's almost as if they run the telephone company and they're listening to what we say and
deciding what to edit, even if some of the stuff is absolutely heinous that people are talking
to each other about -- the idea of this multinational corporation becoming the publisher and
seen as that and determining what gets out. So, yes, there's a protest against Unite the Right.
That is very real. They've taken down one page, that might not have been real, organizing the
protest against Unite the Right. And the Unite the Right rally is supposed to be happening.
What, for example, would happen if there was a protest against Facebook, Siva?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Yeah, you can't use Facebook to protest against Facebook, by the way.
You can't even use Facebook to advertise a book about Facebook, for actually one --
AMY GOODMAN : What do you mean?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Well, they will not allow a group or a page or an advertisement to
contain the word "Facebook." And it's not just to insulate themselves from criticism. That is a
nice bonus for them. But it's really because they don't want any sort of implication that the
company itself is endorsing any group or page or product. So, the use of the word -- look, the
only way Facebook operates is algorithmically, right? It has machines make very blunt
decisions. So the very presence of the word "Facebook" will knock a group down or knock a page
down. And so you can't use Facebook to criticize Facebook, not very effectively.
AMY GOODMAN : So what about your book, which has the word "Facebook" in it?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Right. I can't -- I can't buy ads on Facebook about it. But that's OK.
I think I'll do OK.
... ... ...
But in addition, Facebook has the ability to get hijacked, because what it promotes mostly
are items that generate strong emotions. What generates strong emotions? Well, content that is
cute or lovely, like puppies and baby goats, but also content that is extreme, content that is
angry, content that is hateful, content that feeds conspiracy theories. And this hateful, angry
conspiracy theory collection doesn't just spread because people like it. In fact, it, more
often than not, spreads because people have problems with it. If I were to post some wacky
conspiracy theory on my Facebook page today, nine out of 10 of the comments that would follow
it would be friends of mine arguing against me, telling me how stupid I was for posting this.
The very act of commenting on that post amplifies its reach, puts it on more people's news
feeds, makes it last longer, sit higher. Right? So the very act of arguing against the crazy
amplifies the crazy. It's one of the reasons that Facebook is a terrible place to deliberate
about the world. It's a really effective place if you want to motivate people toward all sorts
of ends, like getting out to a rally. But it's terrible if you actually want to think and
discuss and deliberate about the problems in the world. And what the world needs now more than
anything are more opportunities to deliberate calmly and effectively and with real information.
And Facebook is working completely against that goal.
by around 2002, Google figured out how to target ads quite effectively based on the search
terms that you had used. By about 2007, Facebook was starting to build ads into its platform,
as well. And because it had so much more rich information on our interests and our connections
and our habits, and even, once we put Facebook on our mobile phones, our location -- it could
trace us to whatever store we went into, whatever church or synagogue or mosque we went into;
it could know everything about us -- at that point, targeting ads became incredibly efficient
and effective. That's what drove the massive revenues for both Facebook and Google. That's why
Facebook and Google have all the advertising money these days, right? It's why the traditional
public sphere is so impoverished, why it's so hard to pay reporters a living wage these days,
because Facebook and Google is taking all that money -- are taking all that money, because they
developed something better than the display ad of a newspaper or magazine, frankly. But there
was just no holding back on that. As a result, once Facebook goes big, once Twitter emerges
around 2009, you start seeing --
... ... ...
Right now, there are 220 million Americans who regularly use Facebook. That's
pretty flat. But there are 250 million people in India who regularly use Facebook, so more than
in the United States. And that's only a quarter of the population of India. So, not only is the
future of Facebook in India, the present of Facebook is in India. So let's keep that in mind.
This is a global phenomenon. The United States matters less and less every day.
Yet the United States Congress has inordinate power over Facebook. The fact that its
headquarters is here, for one thing. The fact that the major stock markets of the world pay
strong attention to what goes on in our country, right? So we have the ability, if we cared to,
to break up Facebook. We would have to revive an older vision of antitrust, one that takes the
overall health of the body politic seriously, not just the price to consumers seriously. But we
could and should break up Facebook. We never should have -- excuse me -- allowed Facebook to
purchase WhatsApp. We should never have allowed Facebook to purchase Instagram. Those are two
of the potential competitors to Facebook. If those two companies existed separately from
Facebook and the data were not shared among the user files with Facebook, there might be a
chance that market forces could curb the excesses of Facebook. That didn't happen. We really
should sever those parts. We should also sever the virtual reality project of Facebook, which
is called Oculus Rift. Virtual reality has the potential to work its way into all sorts of
areas of life, from pilot training to surgeon training to pornography. In all of these ways --
to shopping -- right? -- to tourism. In all of these ways, we should be very concerned that
Facebook itself is likely to control all of the data about one of the more successful and
leading virtual reality companies in the world. That's a problem. Again, we should spin that
off. But we should also limit what Facebook can do with its data. We should have strong data
protection laws in this country, in Canada, in Australia, in Brazil, in India, to allow users
to know when their data is being used and misused and sold.
Those are necessary but, I'm afraid, insufficient legislative and regulatory interventions.
Ultimately, we are going to have to put Facebook in its place and in a box. We are going to
have to recognize, first of all, that Facebook brings real value to people around the world.
Right? There are not 2.2 billion fools using Facebook. There are 2.2 billion people using
Facebook because it brings something of value to their lives, often those puppy pictures or
news of a cousin's kid graduating from high school, right? Those are important things. They are
not to be dismissed. There are also places in the world where Facebook is the entire media
system, or at least the entire internet, places like sub-Saharan Africa, places like Myanmar,
places like Sri Lanka, and increasingly in India, Facebook is everything. And we can't dismiss
that, as well. And so, we are -- AMY GOODMAN : Well, I mean, the government works with
Facebook. For example, you talk about --
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN : -- Myanmar, Burma. It's more expensive to get internet on your phone if you're
trying to access a site outside of Facebook.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : That's right.
AMY GOODMAN : It's free to use Facebook services on your phone.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Right, Facebook -- use of Facebook does not count against your data cap
in Myanmar and in about 40 other countries around the world, the poorest countries in the
world. So, the poorest places in the world are becoming Facebook-dependent at a rapid rate.
This was -- Facebook put this plan forward as a philanthropic arm. And one could look at it
cynically and say, "Well, you were just trying to build Facebook customers." But the people who
run Facebook are true believers that the more people use Facebook for more hours a day, the
better humanity will be. I think we've shown otherwise. I know my book shows otherwise. And I
think we've built -- we've allowed Facebook to build this terrible monster that is taking great
advantage of the people who are most vulnerable. And it's one reason I think we should pay less
attention to what's going on.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, but, Professor Vaidhyanathan, I think also, though, the
importance of your book is that while you concentrate on Facebook, you make the point over and
over again that it's not just Facebook. I think in the conclusion to your book -- I want to
read a section where you talk about technopoly. And you say, "Between Google and Facebook we
have witnessed a global concentration of wealth and power not seen since the British and Dutch
East India Companies ruled vast territories, millions of people, and the most valuable trade
routes." And then you go on to say, "Like the East India Companies, they excuse their zeal and
umbrage around the world by appealing to the missionary spirit: they are, after all, making the
world better, right? They did all this by inviting us in, tricking us into allowing them to
make us their means to wealth and power, distilling our activities and identities into data,
and launching a major ideological movement" -- what Neil Postman, the famous NYU critic, called
technopoly. And then you go on to say, "'Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state
of mind. It consists of the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its
authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from
technology.'" You could say this about Uber, about Airbnb, about all these folks that are
saying that data and technology will save the world.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : That's right. It's a false religion. And what we really need is to
rehumanize ourselves. That is the long, hard work. So, I can propose a few regulatory
interventions, and they would make a difference, but not enough of a difference. Fundamentally,
we have to break ourselves out of this habit of techno-fundamentalism -- trying to come up with
a technological solution to make up for the damage done by the previous technology. It's a very
bad habit. It doesn't get us anywhere. If we really want to limit the damage that Facebook has
done, we have to invest our time and our money in institutions that help us think, that help us
think clearly, that can certify truth, that can host debate -- right? -- institutions like
journalism, institutions like universities, public libraries, schools, other forms of public
forums, town halls. We need to put our time and our energy into face-to-face politics, so we
can look our opponents in the eye and recognize them as humans, and perhaps achieve some sort
of rapprochement or mutual understanding and respect. Without that, we have no hope. If we're
engaging with people only through the smallest of screens, we have no ability to recognize the
humanity in each other and no ability to think clearly. We cannot think collectively. We cannot
think truthfully. We can't think. We need to build -- rebuild, if we ever had it, our ability
to think. That's ultimately the takeaway of my book. I hope we can figure out better, richer
ways to think. We're not getting rid of Facebook. We're going to be with it -- we're going to
have it for a long time. We might even learn to use it better, and we might rein it in a little
better. But, ultimately, the big job is to train ourselves to think better.
AMY GOODMAN : So, Siva, let me ask you about WeChat in China. I mean, WeChat is everything
there. It's Yelp, PayPal, Google, Instagram, Facebook, all rolled into one. You write, "With
almost a billion users, WeChat has infused itself into their lives in ways Facebook wishes it
could."
... ... ...
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : The other part of their long-term strategy is, Mark
Zuckerberg wants to get into the Chinese market. That is the one place in the world where he
can't do business effectively. He would love to take on WeChat directly. But here's the big
difference. WeChat, like every other application or software platform in the People's Republic
of China answers to the People's Republic of China. There is constant, full surveillance by the
government. WeChat cannot operate without that. Facebook seems to be willing to negotiate on
that point. If Facebook became more like WeChat, it's very likely that around the world it
would have to cut very strong agreements with governments around the world that would allow for
maybe not Chinese level of surveillance, but certainly a dangerous level of surveillance and
licensing. And so, again, we might not sweat that in the United States or in Western Europe,
where we still have some basic civil liberties -- at least most of us do -- but people in
Turkey, people in Egypt, people in India should be very worried about that trend.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What about the issue, that's been much publicized, of the role of
Facebook and Twitter and other social media in protest movements, in dissident movements around
the world, whether it's in Egypt during the Tahrir Square protests or other parts of the
world?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : I think one of the great tragedies of this story is that we were misled
into thinking that social media played a direct and motivating role in the uprisings in 2011.
In fact, almost nobody in Egypt used Twitter at the time. The handful of people who did were
cosmopolitans who lived in Cairo. And what they did, they used Twitter to inform the rest of
the world, especially journalists, what was going on in Egypt. That was an important function,
but it wasn't used to organize protests. Neither was Facebook, really, for the simple reason
that the government watches Facebook, right? The government watches Twitter. If you want to
organize a protest out of the eyes of the government, the worst thing you can do is use
Facebook or Twitter in that effort, right? In addition, when we think about the Arab
Spring, the alleged Arab Spring, we often focus on --
... ... ...
AMY GOODMAN : The Guardianreports
today, quote, "A trove of documents released by the city of Memphis late last week appear to
show that its police department has been systematically using fake social media profiles to
surveil local Black Lives Matter activists, and that it kept dossiers and detailed power point
presentations on dozens of Memphis-area activists along with lists of their known associates."
The report reveals a fake Memphis Police Department Facebook profile named "Bob Smith" was used
to join private groups and pose as an activist. We have just 30 seconds, Siva.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Yeah. Look, any police department, any state security service
anywhere in the world that doesn't infiltrate protest groups or, you know, activist groups that
way is foolish, right? It's so easy. Facebook makes surveillance so easy.
My friends who do activism, especially human rights activism, in parts of the world that are
authoritarian, the first thing they tell people is get off of Facebook. Use other services to
coordinate your activities. Right? Use analog services and technologies. Right? Facebook is the
worst possible way to stay out of the gaze of the state. It's great for motivating people
to get into the street, but don't be surprised if there are a couple guys with crew cuts in the
crowd with you.
As part of the propaganda campaign to discredit and isolate Russia, the UK and the Ukraine,
stalwart flunkies of Washington, accused Moscow of assassinations by poison and bullets. Both
alleged victims appeared live and well in due time!
On March 4, 2018, the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May claimed that Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Russian secret agents. Foreign Secretary Boris "Bobo"
Johnson called the poison, 'the most-deadly agent known to man' (sic) – Novichok.
According to "Terry and Bobo" the poison kills in 30 seconds. Two months later Sergei and Yulia
were seen taking a stroll in a park.
The fake charges were promoted by the entire Anglo-Americans mass media. The UK proceeded to
charge Putin with 'crimes against humanity' , backed additional diplomatic and economic
sanctions, increased military spending for homeland defense and urged President Trump to take
forceful action. Once the 'victims' 'rose from the dead' the media never questioned the
regime's claim of a Russian conspiracy planned at the highest level.
The UK scored a few trivial merit points from Washington, which, however, did not prevent
President Trump from slapping a double-digit tariff on British steel and aluminum exports (with
more to come)!
The Ukraine joined the line of toadies trying to secure President Trump's approval by
cooking up another Russian murder plot. This time Ukraine leaders claimed Kremlin agents
assassinated one Arkady Babchenko, an anti-Russian journalist and self-proclaimed exile in
Kiev.
On May 29, 2018, Arkady was found 'murdered' or so said the Ukraine President Petro
Poroshenko and repeated, embellished and circulated by the entire western mass media.
On May 31, a wide-eyed 'Arkady' turned up alive and claiming his 'resurrection' was a
planned plot to catch a Russian agent!
Western regimes systematic use of lies, plots and conspiracies are central to the imperial
drive for world power.
In Syria, the US accused Damascus of using poisonous gas against its own people in order to
justify NATO's terror bombing of Aleppo's civilian population!
In Libya, Obama and Clinton claimed President Gaddafi distributed Viagra to his armed forced
to rape innocent civilians, precipitating the US-EU terror bombing of the country and rape and
murder of President Ghaddafi.
The question is whether western leaders will seek papal recognition of CIA directed
resurrections to coincide with Easter?
Perhaps the defining trait of neoconservatives like Max Boot is that they –
for whatever reason – feel free to opine on subjects about which they know little, if
anything.
Having no knowledge of history, cheap polemicists like Boot resort to ad
hominem attacks when confronted by serious scholars like Cohen while cable news anchors
sit by and scoff.
Max Book demonstrates typical neocon Chutzpah (Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan) and attacks like rabid
dog. Intelligcully he is nto equl to Cohen.
Q: What's the difference between a rabid dot and Max Boot? A: You think there is difference
Perhaps the defining trait of neoconservatives like Max Boot is that they –
for whatever reason – feel free to opine on subjects about which they know little, if
anything.
Having no knowledge of history, cheap polemicists like Boot resort to ad
hominem attacks when confronted by serious scholars like Cohen while cable news anchors
sit by and scoff.
One thing I don't understand about MAGA. The rallying cry is to make America great again,
but the actions are to revert the government and tax system to when America wasn't that
great.
The height of American civilization was the 50s or 60s, but all the actions are to bring
the state back to how it was in pre-WW1 or the 1920s. It was the stronger labour controls and
high taxes of the 50s that coincided with American dominance. The kind that if someone tried
to introduce them today they'd be called socialist.
" Indeed, socialism sounds good but, when practiced, leads to disaster"
Im sure the author is thinking of Venezuela. But Venezuela, like all of South America, is
a cartel infested, militaristic, corrupt country run by a megalomaniac. It's more oligarch
than socialist.
He should ask the question: if socialism in a stable society, like say Sweden, means free
health care & education, why do people say the US has a low tax rate? Just add that cost
right to your taxes, and bim bam boom the US tax rate is probably more than a 100%, because,
lets be honest, the average $55k/year for a family of 4 will NEVER EVER cover the $1 million
it would take to send your kids to college debt free.
Max Book demonstrates typical neocon Chutzpah (Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan) and attacks like rabid
dog. Intelligcully he is nto equl to Cohen.
Q: What's the difference between a rabid dot and Max Boot? A: You think there is difference
"... No, my new theory about why Americans want conflict with Russia is because we know in our heart of hearts that the world is ending soon because of climate change. ..."
"... Nick Pemberton is a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is currently employed by Gustavus Dining Services. Nick was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
And I think about killing myself
And I love myself way more than I love you, so
-- Kanye West, I Thought About Killing You
For the past two years, I have been wondering why Americans have been so ready, if not
eager, to reengage the Cold War with Russia, despite Russia showing no desire to do so. A war
between Russia and the United States, given the nuclear arsenals, political allegiances around
the world, and the unhinged nature of our President, could destroy the entire species. And for
what? Russia's alleged crime of election meddling, is negligible at best when in comparison to
what America has done in Russia, or what rich Americans have done in America. Xenophobia,
historical revisionism, and an embrace of fake news are all on the rise in the age of Trump,
and are surely all factors for blaming Russia. But lying and bigotry, while practiced
routinely, is often shameful, not something to get excited about.
No, my new theory about why Americans want conflict with Russia is because we know in
our heart of hearts that the world is ending soon because of climate change. Just as
born-again Christians flock to Trump as they yearn for a Revelations-style apocalypse, liberals
want a showdown with Russia. If the world is ending anyways, let's end it on our own terms
seems to be the rationale. Other countries have reacted with a more rational response to the
potential of the world ending -- namely doing something about it. The Republican Party stands
alone, in terms of rich countries, in its blatant denial of climate change. This is why Noam
Chomsky correctly calls them the most dangerous organization in human history. The Democratic
Party, their hapless and willing enablers, are a close second.
The Republican Party though has seemed to stand alone in their tendency to live in an
'alternative facts' universe. As bad as Democrats are, they know better ways to lie. But since
the election of Donald Trump, the Democrats have become just as paranoid and dishonest as their
friends across the aisle. The Republicans may see a communist behind every corner, but the
Democrats see a Russian behind every corner. This makes sense because Russia, or at least the
Soviet Union, was seen as communist the first time around. And the Democrats have always been
scared of communism too. Now Russia isn't communist, or even close, but what world power is?
Poor Mr. Putin. He has tried so hard to be a ruthless capitalist, in fact he has succeeded at
this goal, but it appears that America is too hotheaded to care.
In the age of Barack Obama, those who deal with life superficially could forget the coming
Armageddon. If one could get by his arrogance and kill lists, Mr. Obama seemed like a pretty
cool guy. And when it came to Russia, a better diplomat. One has to wonder if the fear of Trump
has become so irrational that we are scared of anything he does, and that by simply forcing him
into the opposite, we will be better off. There also is surely a part of the American psyche
that is just rooting for Mr. Trump to fail. And who wouldn't want that? Anything that gets him
out of office as soon as possible should be welcomed, no matter the undemocratic implications
of Robert Mueller's agenda. Trump failing while in office though? It is unclear who this helps
besides the anti-Trump resistance who may be more interested in being morally superior than
stopping Trump's vicious agenda.
Regardless, what Donald Trump brings to America is the sense that we are powerless. He is
unpredictable, reckless, stupid and vengeful. We now live in constant fear, and for good
reason. But the legitimate fear of Trump manifests as illegitimate fear of Putin, even though
there is little implication they actually like each other. We fear Putin's authoritarian state,
when it is Donald Trump who is bringing authoritarianism home. Why? Well, many of the
resistance are imperialists. We want an enemy we can bomb and scapegoat, not one that pervades
all of our own crumbling American institutions. It is the same reason why Republicans blame
immigrants that Democrats blame Russia. Someone to blame, not something to change.
This powerlessness we feel may remind us of our powerless future that can easily be
forgotten in the age of mass distraction. However, with Donald Trump, he is both the
distraction and the problem. He is useful to the rich because he distracts, but perhaps he is a
little too close to the real problem to be the calming relaxer that our smartphones are. One
can turn on the TV and see Trump said blank, or Russia did that, but any person could quickly
be reminded that not only is Trump a petty scandal, but a serious one.
Such is the reason for this extreme level of neurosis. There is endless piffling Trump
material to focus on, but the material is based in something far more alarming not yet examined
in a serious way. Thus, Trump, while ever present, remains enticing simply because we are not
yet at the root of our fear. Many Americans may fear Donald Trump will grope them, insult them
or embarrass them but the real fear is that he is deregulating and privatizing everything, and
killing us all in the process. This is not the focus of discourse though. In part because mass
media and their ties to polluting companies won't allow it. But also in part because it is no
longer fun gossip.
Russia somehow remains fun gossip. The game of bringing down Donald Trump continues. He
messes up, we scold, nothing happens. Until we drop the bomb, it's all fun and games. It's
endless flirtation without a lot of action. I imagine it is how Ted Cruz deals with his sexual
urges. It is a whole lot of fun talking about them, but he knows he is going to hell if he ever
does them. Likewise, Russia is fun to talk about, but if we ever act on our claim that they are
the greatest threat to democracy since 9/11, we will be bringing the end times early.
If Donald Trump was impeached, what would war-mongering corporate liberals talk about?
Expect them to ask Russia to rig it even harder in 2020 for Mr. Trump.
Trump has reminded us of the real cause for alarm: the mass extinction thundering towards
us. We feel so uneasy, but what can we do? Climate change is depressing and horrifying and we
can seemingly do nothing about it on an individual level. We then opt for the only thing that
we have left to control: how we all die. Foolish, I think. As bad as Trump is, there is
something left to live for, and if Trump were to blow up Russia, it would not be on our terms,
but on his. In fact, he is only likely to blow up Russia if he feels he is being out-machoed by
the neoliberal corporate class in combative rhetoric. As it stands, America is egging on this
madman for no other purpose than a sense of control over our own demise. If anything lets Trump
and the corporate overlords win, this is it.
It is worth detailing what has happened in the Russia scandal, if only to show nothing has
really happened. The first charge, which is denied by the accused firm, is that a Russian
company known as Internet Research Agency funded 'millions of dollars' in advertisements. There
has been no link established between this company and the Russian government. The accusation,
if it is true, is no different from the private American companies who invest billions in
elections, sometimes illegally, but often legally. The second charge is related to the Russian
government and the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Once again, this is
only a charge, but the information released by hackers was potentially damaging to Hillary
Clinton and the Democrats, simply because it was true. The irony is that the damaging
information for the DNC was that they had rigged their own primary. The accused riggers only
crime is exposing the proven riggers. There are allegations of state and local hacking too, but
those were present before 2016. Did Russia do it? is hardly our biggest story now. For whatever
it is, even if it did prevent the corporate warmonger Hillary Clinton from
winning, it should be far less concerning than the obsessive, neurotic,
fear-mongering, scapegoating, ominous mood in the United States since the 2016 election.
Why were Democrats tearing their hair out over a Trump-Putin meeting last week that seemed
to offer zero conclusions about how Trump felt about anything? The whole week, which was
typical Donald, was just another week of bullying the weak and submitting to the strong. Putin
may be able to push some buttons in his own country, but when Trump, who never apologizes for
anything, ran back his own words, it was clear that NATO would live to see another day, no
matter the scattered thoughts of a wimpy man in over his head. The deranged response to the
deranged Donald was enough for me to think long and hard about a theory given to me by a
right-wing woman this past week.
Her theory was that God had in fact sent us Donald Trump. My first thought: highly unlikely.
This man lacks the morals of the people God sends to us. In fact, I can hardly think of a worse
human being. There may actually be no human being worse than Trump, save maybe Charles Koch,
David Koch and whoever funds Adam Sandler movies. But I thought of the alternative the
corporate media was telling me: Vladimir Putin is the real President of America and the real
reason the entire country is undemocratic, poor, hungry, and in prison. Also, highly
unlikely.
Yet the pamphlet this woman handed me at least admitted there was no rhyme or reason to this
theory other than some guy hearing it from God: "I, like many of you, was shocked by the word I
received regarding Donald Trump. Trust me when I say it was given with fear and trembling." Has
the fear and trembling gone away?
The only biblical evidence of this theory the pamphlet provided was 1 Corinthians 15:52: "In
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." and 1 Thessalonians 4:16: " For
the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the
archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." The
problem with being a fundamentalist in the age of Trump is that you are taking a book word for
word that you haven't even read. If you are going to take it literally, at least look for that
capital T in trump, otherwise you have to take every trumpet player as a prophet. Next thing
you know Trumpettes will be swapping out their Johnny Rebel records and replacing them with Lee
Morgan. Still, the trail left by the Trumpettes was no less convincing than Robert Mueller's.
There was as much evidence of Trump in the Bible as Trump in Putin's pocket.
It should come to no one's surprise that Donald Trump has not exactly been pro-Russia. A
broken clock may strike right twice a day, but a doomsday clock never strikes right. Glen
Greenwald points out that Barack Obama was actually more pro-Russia than Trump: "you look at
President Obama versus President Trump, there's no question that President Obama was more
cooperative with and collaborative with Russia and the Russian agenda than President Trump.
President Trump has sent lethal arms to Ukraine -- a crucial issue for Putin -- which President
Obama refused to do. President Trump has bombed the Assad forces in Syria, a client state of
Putin, something that Obama refused to do because he didn't want to provoke Putin. Trump has
expelled more Russian diplomats and sanctioned more Russian oligarchs than [Obama] has. Trump
undid the Iran deal, which Russia favored, while Obama worked with Russia in order to do the
Iran deal." Once again, liberals give Mr. Trump too much credit. He has no friends. He gets
along with no one. There is no coherent plan here other than corruption.
As liberals resist Putin-Trump with homophobic memes, one has to wonder, how mad are these
people? Do they realize that Donald Trump is crazy, even crazier than them? Why on earth do
they want Trump armed and angry?
Anyone who can still bear to follow the news knows that the corporate media is still
attempting to paint Russia as an aggressive and unreasonable foe. This is all with Mr. Trump as
the President! It is hard to believe that anyone is more unreasonable and aggressive than
Trump, but once again, the liberals let him off the hook. Despite military on Russia's borders,
years of war-mongering rhetoric and hostile economic activity, meddling in Russia's own
elections, and constant racism, Russia remains a reasonable actor in its relation to the United
States. One wonders why Russia tries to reason with us at all, but the nuclear weapons
certainly make things a little more complicated.
For all the talk about Putin destroying American democracy, no one mentions the real threats
to U.S. democracy that led to Trump's election -- absurd campaign financing, a sensationalist
profit-driven corporate media, and voter suppression. No one mentions that there was a proven
election scandal in the United States in 2016. This scandal was the DNC rigging its primary for
Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. If the United States was a democracy, Bernie Sanders would
be President right now.
Finding no comfort or coherence in the liberal narrative, I turned once again to my new
right-wing friend. She told me that all these recent storms were punishment for the sins of a
liberal society. Almost, actually. But her anti-choice, anti-immigrant complaints showed me she
was as far from the truth as anyone else. Still, I found this to be a fascinating denial of
climate change. It was not so much that she denied that it is happening, she just denied human
involvement. Which goes to show, as climate change becomes increasingly hard to ignore,
religion may be the only method left to explain it away.
I have always thought the war over public opinion is a losing battle though. After all, what
is the prize if you win? It is far more rewarding to fight hunger, poverty, deregulation,
incarceration and war. Beat those things and we will all be too cozy to have a worthwhile
opinion anyways.
The public opinion debate too often turns into a qualification of other people's mental
health, as if any skepticism deserves to be medicated by the liars who tell you that you need
their drugs. Climate change skeptics should have a place in public discourse. The skeptics do
at times have a financial interest in keeping us fooled, but then their problem isn't their
skepticism, but their dishonesty, which almost proves the real skeptics right. Otherwise, these
are sincere believers who are right to be skeptical of science, which has brought us eugenics,
unnecessary mental health treatments, nuclear power, and the very pollutants we now oppose, and
would have kept at it without government checks and populist skeptics. If only the same amount
of skepticism could be applied to Fox News and the corporate hacks Donald Trump appoints.
In the spirit of skepticism, let's look at what Trump has done on climate change and the
coming end of the world. As Noam Chomsky puts it, the Republicans are racing to the precipice.
Among the recent sins by Mr. Trump:
1. Rolling back the Endangered Species Act.
2. Cutting NASA Climate monitoring.
3. A move to make details of scientific studies public, making sure that scientists will
have to choose between privacy rights and conducting a study.
4. Rollback of car emissions standards
5. Repeal of Water of the United States rule, which threatens clean water for 117 million
Americans.
6. Repeal of lead-risk reduction program
7. Reduction of chemical bans for methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and
N-Methylpyrrolidone
8. Stripping rules for coal ash waste removal.
9. Pardoning despicable ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond
10. Appointing anti-EPA Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
11. Pushing for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
If anything, God sent us Trump to punish us for our sins, not to save us from them.
Alas, while a worthwhile exercise to imagine that God indeed sent us Donald Trump, I was
only reminded that the right-wing is just as bonkers as the neoliberal wing. A week of watching
CNN will have you believing anything; even pushing one to believe that God really did send
Donald Trump. But I will confirm, for anyone so tempted by a new way of thinking, the glove
just doesn't fit. God did not send us Donald Trump. I can't prove it, but I am fairly certain.
I then was left with one mystifying question: if God did not send Donald Trump, what does the
corporate media have against him?
The common variable between Trumpettes and Russiaphobes is the end of the world narrative.
Is it a reaction to climate change that both must make up stories about how the world will end?
Is it the only power any of us have left? Is it the cancer patient learning they have a year to
live and then shooting up a school just so they can end it on their own terms? Sorry, to all
Cold War Warriors and all Donald Doomers, some of us just are not ready to die. There is, one
has to believe, a rose growing in the concrete somewhere that makes these prophecies not worth
an early exit. At the very least, must we go out on such fabricated and petty terms? Surely
there is something worth dying for besides hating political correctness or Putin's soccer
ball.
What is that nuclear taste? Is reviving Hillary's corpse really worth it? Or has the entire
country given up and opted for a death they can blame on someone else? It is not so dissimilar
from the apocalypse envisioned by the Trumpettes, who can blame every storm that Trump makes
worse on the sins of a liberal society. If Trump and Putin were to blow each other up tomorrow,
liberals would die on top. However, if we are to die slightly slower due to climate change, the
entire industrialized world will have to know we played a part. And there will be those pesky
Trumpettes who blame it on liberalism, not capitalism. To all this I say, who cares. Yes, we
messed up. We shouldn't have drained the earth of all its resources, we shouldn't have elected
Trump. But no need to feel guilty and embrace the end of the world! There is still good work to
be done. Who will be laughing when the world dies by nuclear (a Russiaphobe wet dream) or fire
(a Trumpette wet dream). There will be no moral high ground at that point. The apocalypse will
be the great equalizer. Even in the age of Trump, the world is worth sticking around for,
although She might as well be done with us as soon as She can be.
Surely the principle of lesser evilism still has a place, no? Can't we all agree that dying
tomorrow is better than dying today? Who is more looney, the apocalyptic Trumpettes or the
Russiaphobic corporate class? We will find out soon enough. While it is very likely that Trump
will win reelection (poll numbers in the Republican Party for him are very positive), it is
just as likely that the new Cold War will continue until Trump is gone, whether that be in 2
years, 6 years, or 14 years (Ivanka). The premise is that we will either have Trump's
apocalypse or we will blow up Russia. There must be a winner. Given Trump's flair for
winning and upending the liberal class, who would be surprised if it was he who ended up
blowing up Russia, not for our reasons, but for his own. Therefore, it is equally important to
get Trump, the Republicans and Democrats out of power as quickly as possible.
We are once again pawns to the powers that be. Sensing the end is coming, they wish to go
out with a bang. It is true, the end is coming, whether that be by climate change, nuclear
weapons or God Himself. The battle over how we end is worth fighting for. I for one have no
interest in being killed by Trump, the neocons, or the ecocide maniacs. If God must take me, I
will let Him, but giving the establishment the satisfaction of having the last word is too much
to bear. To hear Hillary's cackle at my funeral with the words "We came, we saw, he died"
across the headstone would be a tragedy too great for even a species sprinting towards the
precipice. If Donald were to preside over my grave, he would simply say "I won, you tiny
loser", but I would resent this option equally. If God exists, and wants the last word for
Himself, He should start by kicking all with nuclear fever to the curb. For we all are
dangerously close to becoming the latest item on America's war-mongering resume. Let's just
hope Donald doesn't take the bait and one-up the liberals one last time.
Even if God doesn't exist, one would have a better chance reasoning with Him than either
Donald or his yuppy resistance groupies. So I thanked my right-wing friend today. For even if
she was no more sane than the neoliberals prattling to the abyss, she at least had a nice place
to send me after the world ended; that is assuming, I was born in America, had as many babies
as ejaculations, and voted for God's unconventional servant, Donald J. Trump. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Nick Pemberton
Nick Pemberton is a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is currently employed by
Gustavus Dining Services. Nick was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. He can be reached at
[email protected]
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply by accusing them of being Russian
sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league
with Russia was enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy
fired his first shot on February 9, 1950,
proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing
but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making
accusations of treason without sufficient evidence. Other
definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or discredit
an opponent, and subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed thousands of lives over the next four years
simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist." Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy
answered that this was "the most positive
proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used by others as well: the
Lavender Scare , which
concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their
perversions, was an offshoot of McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals" charges.
State legislatures and school boards
mimicked McCarthy. Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded.
The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther
King Jr. had communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political thinking to exclude communism.
President Trump was later then normal to take to his Twitter account this morning, but nevertheless
provided a triumvirate of tweets that doubled down on his views of the Russia probe and what should
be done about it.
Trump began with a two-fer tweet, quoting Alan Dershowitz:
"
FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day
one.
He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those
are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed
to remain in the FBI while he himself was being investigated.
This is a real issue. It
won't go into a Mueller Report because Mueller is going to protect these guys. Mueller has an
interest in creating the illusion of objectivity around his investigation.
"
And then Trump took aim at his own AG,
demanding the probe be shut down "right now"...
Sessions, who has recused himself from supervising the Mueller investigation, didn't immediately
respond to the president's tweet. Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department,
declined to comment.
Trump said last summer he would have chosen a different attorney general had he known Sessions
would recuse himself from supervising the investigation of election interference. Trump has
periodically launched barrages of public attacks on Sessions related to the special counsel's
investigation.
Trump's tweet was immediately condemned by some Democratic lawmakers as a blatant attempt to
obstruct justice:
"The President of the United States just called on his Attorney General to put an end to an
investigation in which the President, his family and campaign may be implicated," Representative
Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on
Twitter. "This is an attempt to obstruct justice hiding in plain sight. America must never
accept it."
However, Trump was not done as he made sure the American public understand his relationship with
Paul Manafort...
"These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion - a Hoax!"
And once again pinned the blame on the real colluders..."
The Democrats paid for the phony
and discredited Dossier which was, along with Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his lover, the lovely Lisa
Page, used to begin the Witch Hunt. Disgraceful!
"
What about getting Browder and his fraudulent crime gang to
Putin as a symbol good faith? Great movie about Browder's
actual goings on in Russia. Banned of course, can't have a
spook enterprise revealed.
Rotten to the core.
History will quickly expose Sessions for the
sellout he is.
Horses ass face Mueller is so blatantly
obviously corrupt, it's amazing he is even tolerated.
But there must be very strong
evidence yet undisclosed.
Something serious enough to raid
Cohens office. Nobody signs up for
that without utmost serious and
extremely powerful material
evidence. Ecuador dumping Assange
points to some powerful evidence
connected to him too.
The undisclosed evidence likely
pins Sessions pawn, as the chess
analogy goes.
Some top Republicans must know of
the strength of the undisclosed
evidence, as they have repeatedly
validated the investigation as
having merit.
Sessions knows he f'd up recusing himself,
but he feels he can't take it back. I
disagree, I think he can. Rosenstein's
conflict on the FISA warrant gives him
plenty of reason, not to mention the manor
of Mueller's appointment. Sessions is a
man of integrity, one of the few in the DC
swamp that actually has it. Trump needs
to declassify those FISA warrants. I
suspect he's going to play that card
soon. I don't know if it will be this
month, next, or an October surprise..but
you have to figure it's coming. Remember
he knows more about this than any of us.
Trump's correct, it's causing serious disruption
to the social fabric of the nation.
Sessions
has proven he's really an ignorant hillbilly
from Alabama catering to the Jews. He's now
preaching about his religion, that no one is
taking his religion seriously. There is supposed
to be a separation between Church and State.
He's a Zionist Christian. Israel over America
and he only supported Trump to administer his
Zionist hate for people of color. It's a racial
caste system of Jews on top, then whites like
Sessions and people of color and whites who
don't follow this mutated religion of hate on
the bottom.
Another insane Sessions policy was to ramp up
stealing people's money based only on suspicion.
Another one is cannabis, he had a man who was
the first drug Csar who now works in the drugs
testing business make a public recommendation to
drug test everybody.
So we have many constitutional laws broken,
using the office of USAG forcing his religious
belief, confiscation of people's money when
Congress had to vote to say no(the government is
doing it anyway because they know Sessions will
do nothing to them), and an insane drugs testing
policy for some low life doctor who's making a
fortune on it.
Sessions is a real low life and we can all
see. This is another Republican forced pick on
Trump.
There are Republicans behind the scenes and
it's in our face trying to destroy Trump, like
Bush, because we can't have a 9/11
investigation, recall Trump questioned the
government's version of 9/11. If Trumps success
and power grows then later maybe a second term
the question of 9/11 could be opened back up
since the majority don't believe the governments
version.
So everyone who is guilty is trying to take
Trump out. Is Mueller guilty of crimes? yes. Is
Rosenstein guilty of crimes? yes and so on, from
Bennan to Clapper.
They're all guilty. So we can see, Sessions
is as crooked as they come and he professes to
being a Christian and whined just recently that
his religion is no longer accepted.
He believes it's because of a loss of
religious freedom, no it's because less than 10%
attend church. See, he thinks he can use the
government to force his belief system on us.
It's unprecedented.
If the majority reds in
congress managed to find some balls they would hold
Irrelevant General Sessions in contempt.
The will not because they are afraid of 17 angry
blues...on the opposing fucking team!
Tick tock - midterms are coming.
Democrats are ANGRY at the wrong people.
This Trump derangement syndrome means they
need help & a little look within. We wouldn't have Trump right now if
Democrats had not stolen the primary from
Sanders and forced a war criminal sociopath
down our throats .
Why is no one saying anything about the
FBI LYING to the FISA court Judge in that
they didn't tell him that the dossier was a
political hit piece paid for by Clinton & the
DNC??
tht is where you are wrong because you think
they act like conservatives when they are
pissed. They will have loonie tantrums and
scream and tweet and say meaningful "hurtful
things" about the other side, but won't do
anything because they are lazy, limp, wet
noodles.
For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has
been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.
Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of
droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie
and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.
"... Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright. ..."
"... Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The
American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America
doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial
ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American
empire," outright.
Gottfried writes (abridged):
Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the
provocative title The Virtue of Nationalism, I encountered a distinction drawn by the late
Charles Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the
editors of the Weekly Standard, for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was
unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the U.S. actively spread its
own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said,
he and those who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to
accuse them of "imperialism."
Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even
if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory.
Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist
position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in
demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without
outright annexation.
The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's
response (which I suspect would have been more devastating had Hazony not been afraid of
losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?
It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both
morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a
"value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race.
Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building.
The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give
it.
For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has
been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.
Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of
droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie
and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.
STEPHEN COHEN: ...Are the Russians still targeting our elections?" This is in the category "Are you still beating your wife?"
There is no proof that the Russians have targeted or attacked our elections. But it's become axiomatic. What kind of media is that,
are the Russians still, still attacking our elections.
And what Michael McFaul, whom I've known for years, formerly Ambassador McFaul, purportedly a scholar and sometimes a scholar
said, it is simply the kind of thing, to be as kind as I can, that I heard from the John Birch Society about President Eisenhower
when he went to meet Khrushchev when I was a kid growing up in Kentucky.
...to stage a kangaroo trial of the president of the United States in the mainstream media, and have plenty of once-dignified
people come on and deliver the indictment, is without precedent in this country
"... As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives. ..."
"... Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers. ..."
Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.
Sort of.
While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled
as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.
Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won't arrive at the Republican convention with enough
of them to secure the nomination outright.
If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican Party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which
would rightfully be his.
It's been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being "torn asunder."
Some Republicans say they simply won't vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party "conservative" candidate.
However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney's anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it's that
refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.
Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let's backtrack a bit and try to put this man's candidacy
into context. If possible, a Catholic context.
American "exceptionalism"
Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have
hubristically argued that it is America's duty to advance "freedom" and "democracy" to "the people" of the world, all in the name
of bringing about a lasting "peace."
Of course, when these men speak of "freedom" what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when
these men speak of "democracy" what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not "the people" get to pick.
(See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)
Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing
about this so-called "peace" is a dirty business.
For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.
Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they're assassinated. Of course,
the more diplomatic way to put it is "so and so has to go! "
And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like
Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to "moderate rebels" in countries most people can't locate on a map.
As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined
in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands,
if not millions, of lives.
The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised
decades ago they wouldn't do) so that "liberal democracy" can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly,
in Russia.
Globalism
Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing
a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats
and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.
While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state's rights these war hawks hijacked
the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international
elites.
Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals
was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan's warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2)
the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4)
the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of
the corporate media.
Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than
cogs in the globalist's wheel.
Enter Trump
Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can't give specifics to half the
things he talks about. And I don't trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American
Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does
.
For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.
At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected.
No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.
People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the
frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards
the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social
and economic decay of the United States.
Against the neocons
Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies
that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.
In
an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from
the war hawks in his party.
First, according to Mcadams Trump states "the obvious" when he says "the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative
movement" and that it was a "total disaster" for the rest of us who "are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination."
Second, Trump wants to "actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out
without a potentially world-ending nuclear war."
Third, although Trump is "arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel" he is "nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role
in the Israel/Palestine issue the US side should take a neutral role in the process."
Fourth, Trump is also calling out the "idiotic neocon advice" that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya that has led
to "the red carpet" being "laid down for ISIS" in that failed state.
And lastly, Trump is "suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want
to just sit back and let that happen for once."
Push back
The ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.
By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human
and monetary, spreading "freedom" and "democracy" necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya,
Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes
voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.
By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a "thug," Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President
as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having
a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading "liberty."
Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.
Furthermore, by taking a "neutral" stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist
interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as
others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit
against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with,
you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.
Going forward
Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for
a short while.
To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry
Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don't know.
But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic
neocon community. Read
here .
Now, don't expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious.
We've already seen how quickly they brought up "the 1930s." Additionally, more than 100 self-identified "members of the Republican
national security community" have signed an
open letter
excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Unsurprisingly, some of them have said
they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.
So much for party loyalty.
In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America's economic and foreign policy.
Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear
to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.
Indeed, far from being a "breaking" of the GOP in two, wouldn't a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party
to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of global elites?
I utterly despise Neocons, whether in Politics & Government or as Catholic Church Commentators.
This is why I come to akacatholic.com, The Remnant Newspaper & Catholic Family News.
In Politics, Conservatives would use The Bomb, while Neocons would engage in "Protective Reaction", whatever that means.
In The Case of Louie, Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Dr John Rao & Ann Barnhardt, one is told the truth as it occurred.
There are no "Sweeps Week Specials" by People who are financed by Fat Cats & sound like Shills for said Fat Cats, while broadcasting
from a Miniaturized Version of The CBS Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, from a Suburb of The Motor City, who tells everyone
that what The Pope Said was a Mistranslation, while making Hay of Cardinal Dolan, passing wind on the Uptown Platform of the IND
6th Avenue Subway, all while the Polemicist is telling the World that The SSPX is in Schism. No, THAT Guy, despite the Bells &
Whistles, is a Neo Catholic, who in many cases, cannot get his facts straight.
The NeoCatholics are the ones telling people that Girl Altar Servers are OK because the Pope says so. Ditto, Sancte Communion
A Mano & Altar Tables facing the Congregation.You know WHO They Are.
But something I have noticed is that when it comes to Intelligent Conversation on the message boards, the Neo Catholics will
not tolerate dissent vis a vis their position. The one with his broadcast centre is a classic example, with commenters practically
forced to pay homage to The Fearless Leader's Position, even when not well researched.
Those who hold the Traditional Catholic Position, allow True Discussion on matters Catholic.
Traditional Catholic is true Freedom, without being patronizing. I cannot say that for a certain site, which charges $10 per
month for Premium Membership.
You've reminded me of how the totally neocon and cuckservative National Review now rigorously–with all the fanaticism of the Stasi–polices
its comments section. It's unreal.
"... Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American empire," outright. ..."
"... Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
Author and professor Paul Gottfried writing at The
American Conservative , amplifies the words of Yoram Hazony, that just because America
doesn't want to annex the territories of foreign nations, doesn't mean it carries no imperial
ambitions. In fact, says Gottfried, uber-neocon War Dog Max Boot has called for "an American
empire," outright.
Gottfried writes (abridged):
Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the
provocative title The Virtue of Nationalism, I encountered a distinction drawn by the late
Charles Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the
editors of the Weekly Standard, for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was
unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the U.S. actively spread its
own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said,
he and those who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to
accuse them of "imperialism."
Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even
if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory.
Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist
position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example, has been quite open in
demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without
outright annexation.
The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's
response (which I suspect would have been more devastating had Hazony not been afraid of
losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?
It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both
morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a
"value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race.
Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building.
The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give
it.
STEPHEN COHEN: ...Are the Russians still targeting our elections?" This is in the category "Are you still beating your wife?"
There is no proof that the Russians have targeted or attacked our elections. But it's become axiomatic. What kind of media is that,
are the Russians still, still attacking our elections.
And what Michael McFaul, whom I've known for years, formerly Ambassador McFaul, purportedly a scholar and sometimes a scholar
said, it is simply the kind of thing, to be as kind as I can, that I heard from the John Birch Society about President Eisenhower
when he went to meet Khrushchev when I was a kid growing up in Kentucky.
...to stage a kangaroo trial of the president of the United States in the mainstream media, and have plenty of once-dignified
people come on and deliver the indictment, is without precedent in this country
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Philippics are good, but at some point they faile to exite. The key question that Phipip forgot to ander is: Dore Izreal acts
a alobbist of the US MIC or it hasits own l(local agnda) that conflicts the MIC interests in the region.
So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment
that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence
in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being
"others" that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media
has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and
the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are
reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.
Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located
in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere,
including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements
in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in
Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been
applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.
So how do the Chinese "others" bring about "change" short of a full-scale invasion by the People's Liberation Army? I do not know
anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected
government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.
First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt
the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA),
which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject
to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government
have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.
The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly
connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational
purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese
Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.
Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session.
They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative
offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship
with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.
As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for
that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful
everything is in the People's Republic.
Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery
of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed
as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of
the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.
The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names
like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign
coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards
and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit
about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been
accused of doing.
And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers
and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective
of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public
will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does,
ideally beginning to refer to it as the "only democracy in Asia" and "America's best friend in the whole wide world." Once the indoctrination
process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to
pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.
When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the
dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing
Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also
in your pocket, putting everything in place for the "slam-dunk." You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist
and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the
Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead
duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have
won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America's politics alluded
to by Donald Trump.
Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using
that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating
elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel
when he made his offhand comment about "others," the shoe perfectly fits that country's subjugation of many of the foreign and national
security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently
boasted
about how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.
The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary
intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale
in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.
To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump's campaign staff and transition team but
Israel did so over a vote on its illegal
settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.
Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government
and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are
taken to Israel on generously funded "fact finding"
tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel's nearly total control over
the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists
who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson,
who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America's most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC
to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice
that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.
Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and
all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the
U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives
26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who
are
"prepared to die" for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have
likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even
discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.
And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress
making
it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law,
which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.
And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are
true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel's interference in our
elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.
The New York Times should change its name to Tel Aviv Times. Everyday, it interferes in virtually every US election, on behalf
of Israel, attacking candidates who do not support Israel or those who are patriotic and want to ban immigration.
Same with CNN, WaPo, the Economist (a Rothschild publication), etc.
Our Congressmen are Gazans. They are forced to sign pledges supporting Israel, and forced to destroy their country through
3rd world immigration, or risk destruction of their careers, mockery or defamation by the Zionist controlled media, loss of campaign
contributions from their biggest donors, or even risk being framed.
When Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the pledge, she was forced out. When another freshman Congressman simply wanted to delay
a vote in favor of Israel, he was attacked, taken to Israel where he was softened up and now is totally under the Jewish Lobby's
control.
"... With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions. ..."
An answer was needed, so one was created: the Russians. As World War II ended with the U.S.
the planet's predominant power, dark forces saw advantage in arousing new
fears . The Soviet Union morphed from a decimated ally in the fight against fascism into a
competitor locked in a titanic struggle with America. How did they get so powerful so quickly?
Nothing could explain it except traitors. Cold War-era America? Or 2018 Trump America? Yes, on
both counts.
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply
by accusing them of being Russian sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate
were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league with Russia was
enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy fired his first shot on February
9, 1950, proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for
the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making accusations
of treason without sufficient evidence. Other definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to
adhere to conformist politics or discredit an opponent, and subverting civil and political
rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed
thousands of lives over the next four years simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist."
Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy answered that this was "the
most positive proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used
by others as well: the Lavender
Scare , which concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who
were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their perversions, was an offshoot of
McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals"
charges. State legislatures and school boards mimicked McCarthy.
Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded. The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther King Jr. had
communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political
thinking to exclude communism.
Watching sincere people succumb to paranoia again, today, is not something to relish. But
having trained themselves to intellectualize away Hillary Clinton's flaws, as they had with
Obama, about half of America seemed truly gobsmacked when she lost to the antithesis of
everything that she had represented to them. Every
poll (that they read) said she would win. Every
article (that they read) said it too, as did every
person (that they knew). Lacking an explanation for the unexplainable, many advanced
scenarios that would have failed high school civics, claiming that only the popular vote
mattered, or that the archaic
Emoluments Clause prevented Trump from taking office, or that Trump was insane and could be
disposed of under the
25th Amendment .
After a few trial balloons during the primaries under which
Bernie Sanders' visits to Russia and
Jill Stein's attendance at a banquet in Moscow were used to imply disloyalty, the fearful
cry that the Russians meddled in the election morphed into the claim that Trump had worked with
the Russians and/or (fear is flexible) that the Russians had something on Trump. Everyone
learned a new Russian word: kompromat .
Donald Trump became the Manchurian Candidate. That term was taken from a 1959 novel made
into a classic Cold War movie that follows an American soldier brainwashed by communists as
part of a Kremlin plot to gain influence in the Oval Office. A
Google search shows that dozens of news sources -- including
The
New York Times , Vanity
Fair ,
Salon ,
The Washington Post , and, why not, Stormy Daniels' lawyer
Michael Avenatti -- have all claimed that Trump is
a 2018 variant of the Manchurian Candidate,
controlled by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin.
The birth moment of Trump as a Russian asset is traceable to MI-6 intelligence
officer-turned-Democratic opposition researcher-turned FBI mole
Christopher Steele , whose "dossier" claimed the existence of the pee tape. Supposedly,
somewhere deep in the Kremlin is a surveillance video made in 2013 of Trump in Moscow's
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, watching prostitutes urinate on a bed that the Obamas had once slept in. As
McCarthy did with homosexuality, naughty sex was thrown in to keep the rubes' attention.
No one, not even Steele's alleged informants, has actually seen
the pee tape. It exists in a blurry land of certainty alongside the elevator
tape , alleged video of Trump doing something in an elevator that's so salacious it's been
called "Every Trump Reporter's White Whale." No one knows when the elevator video was made, but
a dossier-length article in
New York magazine posits that Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987.
Suddenly no real evidence is necessary, because it is always right in front of your face.
McCarthy accused
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of being communists or communist stooges over the
"loss" of China in 1949. Trump holds a bizarre press conference in Helsinki and the only
explanation must be that he is a traitor.
Nancy
Pelosi ("President Trump's weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the
Russians have something on the president, personally, financially, or politically") and
Cory Booker ("Trump is acting like he's guilty of something") and
Hillary Clinton ("now we know whose side he plays for") and John Brennan ("rises to and
exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous.
Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin") and
Rachel Maddow ("We haven't ever had to reckon with the possibility that someone had
ascended to the presidency of the United States to serve the interests of
another country rather than our own") and others have said that Trump is
controlled by Russia. As in 1954 when the press provided live TV coverage of McCarthy's
dirty assertions against the Army, the modern media uses each new assertion as "proof" of an
earlier one. Snowballs get bigger rolling downhill.
When assertion is accepted as evidence, it forces the other side to prove a negative to
break free. So until Trump "proves" he is not a Russian stooge, his denials will be seen as
attempts to wiggle out from under evidence that in fact doesn't exist. Who, pundits ask, can
come up with a better explanation for Trump's actions than blackmail, as if that was a
necessary step to clearing his name?
Joe McCarthy's victims faced similar challenges: once labeled a communist or a homosexual,
the onus shifted to them to somehow prove they weren't. Their failure to prove their innocence
became more evidence of their guilt. The Cold War version of this mindset was well illustrated
in movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the classic Twilight Zone episode "
The Monsters Are Due on
Maple Street ." Anyone who questions this must themselves be at best a useful fool, if not
an outright Russia collaborator. (Wrote one
pundit : "They are accessories, before and after the fact, to the hijacking of a democratic
election. So, yes, goddamn them all.") In the McCarthy era, the term was "fellow traveler":
anyone, witting or unwitting, who helped the Russians. Mere skepticism, never mind actual
dissent, is muddled with disloyalty.
Blackmail? Payoffs? Deals? It isn't just the months of Mueller's investigation that have
passed without evidence. The IRS and Treasury have had Trump's tax documents and financials for
decades, even if Rachel Maddow has not. If Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987, or even
2013, he has done it behind the backs of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and NSA. Yet at the same
time, in what history would see as the most out-in-the-open intelligence operation ever, some
claim he asked on TV for his handlers to deliver hacked emails. In TheManchurian
Candidate , the whole thing was at least done in secret as you'd expect.
With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the
equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries
claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against
Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions.
There is no evidence the president is acting on orders from Russia or is under their
influence. None.
As with McCarthy, as in those famous witch trials at Salem, allegations shouldn't be
accepted as truth, though in 2018 even pointing out that basic tenet is blasphemy. The burden
of proof should be on the accusing party, yet the standing narrative in America is that the
Russia story must be assumed plausible, if not true, until proven false. Joe McCarthy tore
America apart for four years under just such standards, until finally public opinion, led by
Edward R. Murrow , a
journalist brave enough to demand answers McCarthy did not have, turned against him. There is no
Edward R. Murrow in 2018.
When asking for proof is seen as disloyal, when demanding evidence after years of
accusations is considered a Big Ask, when a clear answer somehow always needs additional time,
there is more on the line in a democracy than the fate of one man.
Peter Van Buren, a
24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and
Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War
: A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .
"... It is time to realize, however, that the real dangers to America today come not from the newly rich people of East Asia but from our own ideological rigidity, our deep-seated belief in our own propaganda. ..."
"... Blowback , Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire ..."
"... The Common Good ..."
"... Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo Chamber ..."
In a sense, blowback is simply another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.
Although people usually know what they have sown, our national experience of blowback is seldom
imagined in such terms because so much of what the managers of the American empire have sown
has been kept secret.
It is time to realize, however, that the real dangers to America today come not from the
newly rich people of East Asia but from our own ideological rigidity, our deep-seated belief in
our own propaganda.
― Chalmers Johnson,
Blowback , Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
There are no more leaps of faith, or get out of jail cards left anymore. The first casualty of
war is truth.
Lofty heights of defining the first amendment are just overlooks onto the crumbling mythology
of a democracy, where the people – citizens -- vote for laws directly. We have a republic,
a faulty one, the source of which is the power derived from billionaires, financiers, arms
merchants, K-Streeters and the attendant moles allowing the government to break every charter of
human concern. So, in that regard, we in this corptocracy have the right to be fooled every
minute, suckered to not know a goddamned thing about democracy in big quotes.
The very concept of manufactured consent and a controlled opposition destroys much of the
power of agency and so-called freedom of assembly, association and travel.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
But, alas, we have blokes who see the world not as a black and white dichotomous illusion of
the for v. against bifurcation, but a world of flowing back to what words should mean, a world
that allows the filters to be smashed like high polished glass and instead deploying a magnifying
glass to point toward the very source of the blasphemies and strong arm robberies that have been
occurring in the Republic the very first moment the beaver hat was put on and the first treaty
scripted by the powdered wigs of Washingtonian Fathers and broken, ripped to shreds, seeded with
the dark force that is the white race.
Here comes Tools for
Transparency into the mix of triage to uphold the declaration of independence, and the few
tenets of the constitution that are supremely directed to we-by-for-because of the people, AND
not the corporation, monopoly,
Military-Retail-Finance-Ag-Energy-Pharma-Prison-Medical-Toxins-IT-Surveillance-Legal Complex.
This project is the brainchild of a former Marine who "came to life late in the world" of pure
skepticism about the powers that be and his own questioning of the motivations and machinations
of his government and political representatives.
... ... ...
...we talked about Mad
Men , the Edward
Bernays and Milton Friedman
schools of propaganda, framing stories (lies) and setting out to paint good people as bad, heroic
politicians like Salvador Allende of Chile as Commie Baby Killers. Even now, Bush, the instigator
of chaos in the Middle East, with all the cooked up lies and distractions of his own stupidity
(like Trump), and, bam, W is reclaimed (in the mainstream mush media) as something of a good
president, and especially by the likes of the Democratic Party misleadership
.
... ... ...
His Tools for Transparency
cuts through the opinion, and as he proposes, makes the world news and the even more Byzantine
and elaborate proposed legislation and lobbying groups behind "the news" approachable, again,
consumable.
He taps into his college days taking courses in industrial organizational psychology,
seemingly benign when the American Psychological Association gets to mash the term into a
three-fold brochure by defining it for prospective students as business as usual for
corporations, and humanity is better because of this sort of manipulative psychology, but . .
.
In reality, it's the science of behavior in the workplace, organizational development,
attitudes, career development, decision theory, human performance, human factors, consumer
behavior, small group theory and process, criterion theory and development and job and task
analysis and individual assessment. It's a set of tools to keep workers down spiritually and
organizationally, disconnected, fearful, confused and ineffectual as thinkers and resisters, and
inept at countering the abuse of power companies or bureaucracies wield over a misinformed
workforce.
The shape of corporations' unethical behavior, their sociopathic and the draconian workplace
conditions today are largely sculpted and defined by these behavior shapers to include the
marketers and the Edward Bernays-inspired manipulators of facts and brain functioning. This begs
the question for Hanson, just what are today's hierarchy of needs for the average American?
Physiological; Safety; Love/Belonging; Esteem; Self-Actualization.
... ... ...
Brian believes there is an awakening today in this country, and that the examples of movements
such as those in Portland where youth are out yelling against the police state, and then how we
are seeing individual officers returning firing with violence against those youth:
We talk a lot about the devaluing of language and intentional discourse which includes the
abilities of a society to engage in lively and cogent debate. For me, I know the forces of
propaganda are multi-headed, multi-variant, with so much of American life seeded with lies,
half-truths, duplicitous and twisted concepts, as well as inaccurate and spin-doctored history,
which has contaminated a large portion of our society, up and down the economic ladder, with mind
control.
Unfortunately, our language now is inextricably tied to emotions, as we see leftists (what's
that?) and so-called progressives screaming at the top of their lungs how Trump is the worst
president ever. Black
so-called activists , journalists, stating how the
empire (sky) is falling because Trump talked with Putin . Imagine, imagine, all those
millions upon millions of people killed because of all the other presidents' and their thugs'
policies eviscerating societies, all those elections smeared, all those democracies mauled, all
those citizens in the other part of the world hobbled by America's policies, read "wars,
occupations, embargoes, structural violence." It is a daily reminder for us all that today, as
was true yesterday, that we are ruled by masters of self-deception and our collective society
having a feel good party every day while we plunder the world. Doublethink. Here:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one
admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge;
and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Herein lies the problem – vaunting past presidents on pedestals while attacking this
current deplorable, Donald Trump. The reality is the US has been run by an elite group of
militarists, and by no means is Trump the worst of the worst, which is both illogical and
unsupported by facts:
Yet, we have to mark the words and wisdom of those of us who have been marking this empire's
crimes, both internal and external, for years. Here, Paul Edwards over
at Counterpunch hits a bulls-eye on the heart of the matter:
After decades of proven bald-faced crime, deceit and the dirtiest pool at home and abroad,
the CIA, FBI, NSA, the Justice Department and the whole fetid nomenklatura of sociopathic rats,
are portrayed as white knights of virtue dispensing verity as holy writ. And "progressives" buy
it.
These are the vermin that gave us Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, Chile, the Contras, Iraq's WMD,
and along the way managed to miss the falls of the Shah and Communism.
Truly an Orwellian clusterfuck, this. War Party Dems misleading naive liberal souls sickened
by Trump into embracing the dirty, vicious lunacy Hillary peddled to her fans, the bankers,
brokers, and CEOs of the War Machine.
Trump is a fool who may yet blunder us into war; the Dems and the Deep State cabal would
give us war by design.
... ... ...
Paul Kirk Haeder has been a journalist since 1977. He's covered police,
environment, planning and zoning, county and city politics, as well as working in true small
town/community journalism situations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico and beyond. He's been
a part-time faculty since 1983, and as such has worked in prisons, gang-influenced programs,
universities, colleges, alternative high schools, language schools, as a private
contractor-writing instructor for US military in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington. A
forthcoming book (Dec. 15, 2016),Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo
Chamber, looks at 10 years of his writing atDissident Voice, and
before, to bring defiance to the world that is now lobotomizing at a rate never before seen in
history. Read his autobiography, weekly chapter installments, atLA Progressive.
Read other articles by
Paul , or visit Paul's
website .
"... AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration to lead the investigation. ..."
"... Former FBI Director and Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related scandals to dissolve. ..."
It's Official: The US is in a Constitutional Crisis – Only President Trump Can Save the Nation Now!The US is now in a constitutional crisis. Yesterday Attorney General
Sessions announced that he was refusing to set up a special investigation into FBI and DOJ wrongdoing even though the evidence
of corruption, illegalities and cover ups of Obama and Clinton scandals is rampant. A year ago Sessions had no problem with the creation
of an unconstitutional investigation into President Trump when no crimes were committed.
Mueller's illegal Trump-Russia investigation moves on while investigations into obvious corruption and criminal activities in
Obama's FBI, DOJ and State Department are ignored. We asked in October what does the
deep state
have on AG Sessions causing him to ignore the constitution and his duty to serve the American people? It's now clear that Sessions
must go and a new team be brought in to clean up the FBI, DOJ and other deep state led government departments.
How did we get here?
During the 2016 election one of the biggest chants at Trump rallies was – Drain the swamp!
Americans were tired of the corruption and criminal acts perpetrated by the government under the Obama administration but no one
guessed how corrupt it really was. The sinister Obama administration had the audacity to spy on the Trump campaign using the entire
apparatus of the US government and then framed the incoming President once he won.
AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration
to lead the investigation.
Former FBI Director and
Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related
scandals to dissolve. Emailgate, Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton emails, Uranium One, and the IRS scandal
all fizzled with no wrong doing identified over Mueller's years with the FBI. Mueller also was best friends with disgraced and fired
leaker former FBI Director James Comey. Mueller should have never taken the job to lead the investigation due to his numerous conflicts
of interest.
We know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and money they received from Russia in return for giving Russia 20%
of all US uranium. Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010, the FBI had evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir
Putin. The
FBI approved the deal anyway. We also know that Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward.
This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.
Mueller brought in
a team of Obama and Clinton lackeys to form his investigative team who had no intention of performing an independent and objective
investigation. The entire team is corrupt lefties who have represented the Clinton Foundation or let Hillary go in her obvious crimes
related to her email scandal. This included the texting FBI scoundrels Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Some suspect that their efforts
are as much to cover past wrong doings as to frame the current President for unethical acts.
We know that Mueller's team
illegally
obtained emails related to the Trump transition team as reported in December and these emails were protected under attorney-client
privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this but the investigation moves on.
Unconstitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
Not only is the Mueller investigation corrupt, it is unconstitutional. We learned
in January that Paul Manafort was suing Mueller, Rosenstein and Sessions as Head of the DOJ due to the Mueller investigation
being unconstitutional.
Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote when initially Mueller brought charges against Manafort that Mueller is tasked with finding a
crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
In addition Jarrett stated-
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate
crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017),
Rosenstein directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated
with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett.
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller
powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute
" any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized
by DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Nor is it an
ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
In addition to Jarrett and Manafort's arguments above, Robert Barnes wrote this past week at
Law
and Crimes that –
Paul Manafort's legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any
investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign.
I agree with this take on Mueller's authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority
to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that
clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller's
requested interview with President Trump.
Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related
to obstruction of Mueller's investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the
Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases
would be exercising Sessions' court-recognized Constitutional
obligation to "direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to
act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort
now rightly complains about.
Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public
faith that democratically elected officials.
One thing to remember about Sessions'
recusal : Sessions only recused himself from "any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the
campaigns for President of the United States." This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions' recusal to the 2016 campaigns;
it does not authorize Sessions' recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a "
duty to direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory
obligations for cases that are not related to the "campaigns for President."
Not only is the Mueller investigation run by former FBI and DOJ criminals and bad cops but it is unconstitutional in the way it
was created and in the way it is currently being managed outside the scope of Sessions' recusal while incorporating Sessions duties
as AG.
The only solution
There's a lot of speculation from some Americans and Trump supporters who believe that AG Sessions is behind the scenes working
on cleaning the swamp, but this is all speculation. Little if any evidence supports these hopes.
We must look at the facts. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Rosenstein was somehow recommended and hired
as Assistant AG. With a background of multiple conflicts of interest related to
Uranium One and having
signed off on at least one FISA warrant to spy on candidate and future President Trump, Rosenstein never should have been appointed.
In spite of his conflicts, Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate President Trump and continues in his oversight role. Sessions',
Rosenstein's and Mueller's actions are unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.
We are currently in a constitutional crisis. AG Sessions will not uphold the law. He must be replaced with an aggressive, competent
and fair AG who will uphold the constitution. This is something we haven't had in at least a decade.
Only President Trump can save America. Only President Trump can replace AG Sessions and now it's time.
You're right. But the reality is being right doesn't do squat for Sessions very little credibility. For good reason...his actions
merit distrusting him. It's the height of arrogance and simply smells to high heaven that a "Man of the highest integrity"...would
knowingly allow himself to be confirmed one day and recuse himself the next day......without first telling his boss the POTUS.
That excuse dog is not going to hunt no matter how long or whomever blows that dog whistle. It's an insult to not only the
intelligence of folks but their common sense as well.
Bluntly, he is a disaster for the country and POTUS. The problem is NO THINKING ADULT TRUST SESSIONS ANY FARTHER THAN THEY CAN
THROW HIM! What he did disqualifies him for the position he took under false pretenses. That is is Deception...not...Integrity.
PERIOD!
We are in a war. Nice guys don't win wars. They clean up afterwards. He acts like Mr Magoo and not the nations Chief Law Enforcement
Officer. We are in a war and the equivalent of the Military Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Law Enforcement has gone
missing.
Sessions is the classical..."Fool me once..your fault; Fool me twice, my fault"
My deadline for him is June 20, 2018 at the maximum. Nothing significant by then....it will be a confirmation he is part of the
problem....and always has been....a plant of the "Deep State"
Tom Fitton: "When you read the letter its pretty clear Huber isn't charged with prosecuting anyone. Sessions is not going to
appoint a special counsel to investigate anything having to do with the Obama FBI or Hillary Clinton. I don't think [Huber] has
empaneled a grand jury or is doing a prosecution, he's just looking at the record and may suggest additional resources. Nothing
is going to be done. There is no public indication of any serious investigation by the DOJ."
Had I not come across the following, I would absolutely agree with you. But below is what is really occurring behind the scenes.
They ARE fighting the Deep State which has existed for decades, but rest assured POTUS and his team of patriots are on it. If
you take the time to really go through it, you can almost predict what POTUS will do next.
It seems unbelievable at first but it checks out as the story unfolds and Q predicts things before they happen... Also, Trump
has signalled the truth of it; do you think he said "tip top tippety top" just for the heck of it at Easter speech? (He was asked
by an anon to use this in something to verify validity of Q.) It won't make sense unless you start at the beginning in Oct and
read posts from there. (And disregard MSM reports that Q is false; if he was, why even bother trying to discredit?)
Think about it - is it like POTUS to keep someone so "obviously inept" around as Sessions? Does that really sound like POTUS?
Trump and team have handled this beautifully...they even have conservatives screaming for Sessions' head. He is neither uninvolved
nor clueless as is being portrayed. It's the Art of the Deal. Many are going down and POTUS and Q team are bringing us to it live
through the posts.
I promise you, this will open your eyes to the long game that POTUS and Sessions are playing out. Check it out - it will be
the best read of your life. So many things that never made sense, so many lies, massive corruption...be prepared.
Once you've gone through Q, you will truly know that POTUS meant every single word, literally, in this short link.
Biggest problem after watching the video of Lou Dobbs tonight is that Rod Rosenstein is still acting in an oversite position.
He will never let anyone be convicted of any crime because he is a sitting member of almost every crime that was committed. I
don't think Sessions is that smart in the first place, I believe that Rosenstein is running the show and that is all it is a Dog
and Pony show for the masses. All of them should be fired
Au contraire-All you Sessions sycophants are the ones who'll have an uncomfortably full stomach! That man's public actions
are NOT those of a sly old law and order prosecutor maintaining "radio silence" while tirelessly working behind the scenes! They're
the actions of a compromised Attorney General who is NOT performing his Constitutional duties and is actively covering for known
lawbreakers and Obstructing Justice--NOT demanding it!!
"... Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees. ..."
"... He is protected by the US media which are the mouthpiece of the Deep State. ..."
"... 'Truth is to WASHINGTON DC, as Sunlight is To Dracula' http://www.johnccarleton.or... ..."
"... he lied the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and the WTC demolition. ..."
"... Politics is the profession where scum rises to the top faster than all the others combined. ..."
Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing
to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and
the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees.
He's a public disgrace and should be behind bars, not running a bogus Russian Meddling investigation that is pure hoax and political
conspiracy.
Mueller is a professional liar, traitor and scumbag. He is not even a good liar but he is a prolific one. ... That he lied
the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and
the WTC demolition.
The fact that he is not only at large, but in charge of the coup against Donald Trump is a tragedy of immeasurable proportions
for the long-suffering US people. The good news is, one way or another, it may be their final tragedy.
Please, keep the anti-American thing down to a roar. Ya'll by now see that the people do not control their gov at all. They,
the cabal, did 9-11 on us and spy on us. It's the cabal at the top which does us in too - Pearl Harbor another e.g.
"... Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. ..."
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years. ..."
"... Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence. ..."
"... I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him. ..."
"... CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). ..."
"... As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface. ..."
"... No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev. ..."
Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible
to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can't
be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments.
If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding
a way to work through or around them.
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals
like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any*
change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The
US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before
Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in a way that would allow a proper
dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests
for those responsible for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint: it's not Trump,
unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing
the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased
the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference.
Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin
rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces
goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize
Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was
about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). These are just
two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate
it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing
terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
The summit was announced by the White House and the Kremlin on June 28. The Finnish hosts probably knew about it a few days earlier.
That leaves only three weeks for preparation.
The summit itself lasted one day. Putin arrived late and after lunch and diplomatic niceties there was only 2-3 hours for actual
talks.
That's not a problem if everything is already carefully negotiated and the presidents just sign documents and smile for the
cameras. But it seems very little was agreed on beforehand.
I'm all for world leaders meeting and talking. The more the better. But I really don't see the point of hastily calling a summit
where nothing is agreed upon. At least not that we know of.
The "uncivil war" within the US neoliberal elite is getting a lot hotter... The problem for the American establishment is that it
doesn't like the way democracy worked out.
The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
Notable quotes:
"... Written by Eric Margolis ..."
"... But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted to hear the truth. ..."
"... In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve). ..."
"... Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war. ..."
"... For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations. ..."
"... It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks. ..."
"... The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them on CNN, snarling away at President Trump. ..."
"... Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching US TV one might think so. ..."
"... Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence. ..."
Comedy? Disaster? Mental disorder? Hearing loss? Even days after President Donald Trump's bizarre appearance in Moscow alongside
a cool, composed President Vladimir Putin, it's hard to tell what happened. But it certainly was entertaining. In case anyone in
the universe missed this event, let me recap. Trump met in private with Putin, which drove bureaucrats on both sides crazy. So far,
Trump won't reveal most of what was said between the two leaders.
But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts
to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence
agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted
to hear the truth.
In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the
Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim.
The whole thing was black comedy. Maybe it was due to Trump's poor hearing or to jet lag and travel fatigue.
Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted
her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had
rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve).
Yet many Americans swallowed this canard. If Russia's GRU military intelligence was really involved in the run-up to the election,
as US intelligence reportedly claimed, it's alleged buying of social media amounted to peanuts and hardly swung the election.
Back in the 1940's, GRU managed to penetrate and influence Roosevelt's White House. Now that's real espionage. Not some junior
officers and 20-somethings on a laptop in Moscow.
Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US
political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party
was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war.
For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary
of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover
political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia,
Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations.
Democrats and Republican neocons are in full-throat hysteria over an alleged Russian threat – Russia, whose total military budget
is smaller than Trump's recent Pentagon budget increase this year.
What we have been seeing is the fascinating spectacle of America's war party and neocons clamoring to oust President Trump. Included
in their ranks are most of the US media, led by the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and TV's war parties, CNN and
NBC.
It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds
total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state
operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them
on CNN, snarling away at President Trump.
Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals
tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching
US TV one might think so.
Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed
to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this
is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence.
"... This is the proverbial case where the real " action is in the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. ..."
"... What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. ..."
"... Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like these... ..."
"... What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing . ..."
"... By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. ..."
"... The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups. ..."
"... I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters. Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place. ..."
"... I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too. ..."
"... From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire. ..."
"... the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction. ..."
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. ..."
"... Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story. ..."
"... He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of Russia. ..."
"... It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous. ..."
Oh sure, there were a number of general statements made about "positive discussions" and the
like, and some vague references to various conflicts, but the truth is that nothing real and
tangible was agreed upon. Furthermore, and this is, I believe, absolutely crucial, there never
was any chance of this summit achieving anything. Why? Because the Russians have concluded a
long time ago that the US officials are "
non-agreement capable "
(недоговороспособны).
They are correct – the US has been non-agreement capable at least since Obama and Trump
has only made things even worse: not only has the US now reneged on Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (illegally – since this plan was endorsed by the
UNSC ), but Trump has even pathetically backtracked on the most important statement he made
during the summit when he retroactively changed his "
President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be " into "
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia " (so much for 5D chess!).
If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take
anything he says seriously?! Besides, ever since the many western verbal promises of not moving
NATO east "
by one inch eastward " the Russians know that western promises, assurances, and other
guarantees are worthless, whether promised in a conversation or inked on paper. In truth, the
Russians have been very blunt about their disgust with not only the western dishonesty but even
about the basic lack of professionalism of their western counterparts, hence the
comment by Putin about " it is difficult to have a dialogue with people who confuse
Austria and Australia ".
It is quite obvious that the Russians agreed to the summit while knowing full well that
nothing would, or even could, come out of it. This is why they were already dumping US
Treasuries even
before meeting with Trump (a clear sign of how the Kremlin really feels about Trump
and the US).
So why did they agree to the meeting? Because they correctly evaluated the
consequences of this meeting. This is the proverbial case where the real "
action is in
the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its
propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject
hysterics. I could list an immense number of quotes, statements and declarations accusing
Trump of being a wimp, a traitor, a sellout, a Putin agent and all the rest. But I found the
most powerful illustration of that hate-filled hysteria in a collection of cartoons from the
western corporate media posted by Colonel Cassad on this page:
What we see today is a hate campaign against both Trump and Russia the likes of which
I think the world has never seen before: even in the early 20th century, including the pre-WWII
years when there was plenty of hate thrown around, there never was such a unanimity of
hatred as what we see today. Furthermore, what is attacked is not just "Trump the man" or
"Trump the politician" but very much so "Trump the President". Please compare the following two
examples:
The US wars after 9/11: many people had major reservations about the wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire GWOT thing. But most Americans seemed to agree with the "we
support our troops" slogan. The logic was something along the lines of "we don't like these
wars, but we do support our fighting men and women and the military institution as such". Thus,
while a specific policy was criticized, this criticism was never applied to the institution
which implement it: the US armed forces. Trump after Helsinki: keep in mind that Trump made no
agreement of any kind with Putin, none. And yet that policy of not making any
agreements with Putin was hysterically lambasted as a sellout. This begs the question: what
kind of policy would meet with the approval of the US deep state? Trump punching Putin in the
nose maybe? This is utterly ridiculous, yet unlike in the case of the GWOT wars, there is no
differentiation made whatsoever between Trump's policy towards Putin and Trump as the President
of the United States. There is even talk of impeachment, treason and "high crimes &
misdemeanors" or of the "KGB" (dissolved 27 years ago but nevermind that) having a hand in the
election of the US President.
What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what
is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for
what it is. There are a few exceptions, of course, even in the media (I think of Tucker
Carlson), but these voices are completely drowned out by the hate-filled shrieks of the vast
majority of US politicians and journalists. Even such supposed supporters of President Trump
like Trey Gowdy who has
fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like
these...
What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but
now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is
calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are
only increasing .
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many
times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works
miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. This is particularly true of US politicians
and journalists who have long become the accomplices of the deep state (especially after the
9/11 false flag and its cover-up) and who now cannot back down under any circumstances or treat
President Trump as a normal, regular, President. The anti-Trump rhetoric has gone way too far
and the US has now reached what I believe is a point of no return.
The brewing constitutional crisis: the Neocons vs the "deplorables"
I believe that the US is facing what could be the worst crisis in its history: the lawfully
elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral
process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the "deplorables" who
dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.
The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main
categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and,
second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only
bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but
also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other
groups.
I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their
armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters.
Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that
happen are now horrified by what is taking place.
I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and
their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress,
especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so
many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public
eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers
such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. A perfect example of this can be found
in Nancy Pelosi's official statement about a possible invitation from Trump to Putin:
"The notion that President Trump would invite a tyrant to Washington is beyond belief.
Putin's ongoing attacks on our elections and on Western democracies and his illegal actions
in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine deserve the fierce, unanimous condemnation of the
international community, not a VIP ticket to our nation's capital. President Trump's
frightened fawning over Putin is an embarrassment and a grave threat to our democracy. An
invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress should be bipartisan and Speaker Ryan must
immediately make clear that there is not – and never will be – an invitation for
a thug like Putin to address the United States Congress."
Another example of the same can be found in the unanimous 98-0 resolution by the
US Senate expressing Congress's opposition to the US government allowing Russia to question
US officials. Trump, of course, immediately caved in, even though he had originally declared
"fantastic" the idea of actually abiding by the terms of an existing 1999 agreement on mutual
assistance on criminal cases between the United States of America and Russia. The White House
"spokesperson", Sarah Sanders, did even better and stated : (emphasis
added)
"It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump
disagrees with it. Hopefully, President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to
the United States to prove their innocence or guilt "
Talk about imperial megalomania! The US will not allow the Russians to interrogate anybody,
but it wants Putin to extradite Russian citizens. Amazing
Every single day, I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump
personally, financially, & politically? The answer to that question is that only thing
that explains his behavior & his refusal to stand up to Putin. #ABetterDeal.
Pretty clear, no? "Trump is a traitor and we have to stop him".
By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from
the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with
having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now
apparently also want it de-jure too. The real question is this: are there any forces
inside the US capable of stopping the Neocons from completely taking all the reins of power
and, if yes, how could a patriotic reaction to this Neocon coup manifest itself? I honestly
don't know, but my feeling is that we might soon have a "President Pence" in the Oval Office.
One way or another, a constitutional crisis is brewing.
What about the Russian interests in all this?
I have said it many times, Russia and the AngloZionist Empire (as opposed to the United
States as a country) are at war, a war which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and
only 5% "kinetic". This is a very real war nonetheless and it is a war for survival simply
because the Empire cannot allow any major country on the planet to be truly sovereign.
Therefore, not only does the AngloZionist Empire represent an existential threat to Russia,
Russia also represents an existential threat to the Empire. In this kind of conflict for
survival there is no room for anything but a zero-sum game and whatever is good for Russia is
bad for the US and vice-versa.
The Russians, including Putin, never wanted this zero-sum game,
it was imposed upon them by the AngloZionists, but now that they have been forced into it, they
will play it as hard as they can. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the massive
systemic crises in which the Neocons and their crazy policies have plunged the US are to the
advantage of Russia.
To be sure, the ideal scenario would be for Russia and the US (as opposed
to the AngloZionst Empire) to work together on the very long list of issues where they share
common interests. But since the Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the
sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand
that. Furthermore, since the US constitutes the largest power component of the AngloZionist
Empire, anything weakening the US also thereby weakens the Empire and anything which weakens
the Empire is beneficial for Russia (by the way, the logical corollary of this state of affairs
is that the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons
– and that makes them de-facto allies).
It is not my purpose here to discuss when and how the Neocons came to power in the US, so I
will just say that the delusional policies followed by the various US administrations since at
least 1993 (and, even more so, since 2001) have been disastrous for the United States and could
be characterized as one long never-ending case of imperial hubris (to use the title of
here
). The long string of lost wars and foreign policy disasters are a direct result of this lack
of even basic expertise. What passes for "expertise" today is basically hate-filled hyperbole
and warmongering hysterics, hence the inflation in the paranoid anti-Russian rhetoric.
The
US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying
countries and alienating the rest of the planet. They are still the most expensive and bloated
armed forces on the planet, but nobody fears them anymore (not even relatively small states,
nevermind Russia or China). In technological terms, the Russians (and to a somewhat lesser
degree the Chinese) have found asymmetrical answers to all the key force planning programs of
the Pentagon and the former US superiority in the air, on land and on the seas is now a thing
of the past. As for the US nuclear triad, it is still capable of accomplishing its mission, but
it is useless as an instrument of foreign policy or to fight Russia or China (unless suicide is
contemplated).
[Sidebar: this inability of the US military to achieve desired political goals might explain
why, at least so far, the US has apparently given up on the notion of a Reconquista of
Syria or why the Ukronazis have not dared to attack the Donbass. Of course, this is too early
to call and these zigs might be followed by many zags, especially in the context of the
political crisis in the US, but it appears that in the cases of the DPRK, Iran, Syria and the
Ukraine there is much barking, but not much biting coming from the supposed sole "hyperpower"
on the planet] The US is now engaged in simultaneous conflicts not only with Iran or Russia but
also with the EU and China. In fact, even relationships with vassal states such as Canada or
France are now worse than ever before. Only the prostituted leaders of "new Europe", to use
Rumsfeld's
term , are still paying lip service to the notion of "American leadership", and only if
they get paid for it.
The US "elites" and the various interest groups they represent have now
clearly turned on each other which is a clear sign that the entire system is in a state of deep
crisis: when things were going well, everybody could get what they wanted and no visible
infighting was taking place. The Israel Lobby has now fully subordinated Congress, the White
House, and the media to its narrow Likudnik agenda and, as a direct result of this,
the US has lost all their positions in the Middle-East and the chorus of those with enough
courage to denounce this Zionist Occupation Government is slowly but steadily growing (at least
on the Internet). Even US Jews are getting fed up with the now openly
Israeli apartheid state (see
here or
here ). By withdrawing from a long list of important international treaties and bodies
(TPP, Kyoto Protocol, START, ABM, JCPOA. UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council, etc.) the United
States has completely isolated themselves from the rest of the planet. The ironic truth is that
Russia has not been isolated in the least, but that the US has isolated itself from the rest of
the planet.
In contrast, the Russians are capitalizing on every single US mistake – be it the
carrier-centric navy, the unconditional support for Israel or the simultaneous trade wars with
China and the EU. Much has been made of the recent revelation of new and revolutionary Russian
weapon systems (see here
and here
) but there is much more to this than just the deployment of new military systems and
technologies: Russia is benefiting from the lack of any real US foreign policies to advance her
own interests in the Middle-East, of course, but also elsewhere. Let's just take the very
latest example of a US self-inflicted PR disaster – the following "tweet" by
Trump: (CAPS in the original)
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL
SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE
ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE
CAUTIOUS!
This kind of infantile (does he not sound like a 6 year old?) and, frankly, rather demented
attempts at scaring Iranians (of all people!) is guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect
from the one presumably sought: the Iranian leaders might snicker in disgust, or have a good
belly-laugh, but they are not going to be
impressed .
The so-called "allies" of the US will be embarrassed in the extreme to be "led"
by such a primitive individual, even if they don't say so in public. As for the Russians, they
will happily explore all the possibilities offered to them by such illiterate and
self-defeating behavior.
Conclusion one: a useful summit for Russia
As a direct consequence of the Helsinki summit, the infighting of the US ruling classes has
dramatically intensified. Furthermore, faced with a barrage of hateful attacks Trump did what
he always does: he tried to simultaneously appease his critics by caving in to their rhetoric
while at the same time trying to appear "tough" – hence his latest "I am a tough guy with
a big red button" antics against Iran (he did exactly the same thing towards the DPRK). We will
probably never find out what exactly Trump and Putin discussed during their private meeting,
but one thing is sure: the fact that Trump sat one-on-one with Putin without any "supervision"
from his deep-state mentors was good enough to create a total panic in the US ruling class
resulting in even more wailing about collusion, impeachment, high crimes & misdemeanors and
even treason. Again, the goal is clear: Trump must be removed.
From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office
or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the
AngloZionist Empire. The Russians simply don't have the means to bring down the Empire, but the
infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will
further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by
itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction.
Conclusion two: the Clinton gang's actions can result in a real catastrophe for the
US
Trump's main goal in meeting with Putin was probably to find out whether there was a way to
split up the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership and to back the Israeli demands for Syria.
On the issue of China, Trump never had a chance since the US has really nothing to offer to
Russia (whereas China and Russia are now locked into a
vital symbiotic relationship ). On Syria, the Russians and the Israelis are now negotiating
the details of a deal which would give the Syrian government the control of the demarcation
line with Israel (it is not a border in the legal sense) and Trump's backing for Israel will
make no difference. As for Iran, the Russians will not back the US agenda either for many
reasons ranging from basic self-interest to respect for international law. So while Trump did
the right thing in meeting with Putin, it was predictable at least under the current set of
circumstances, that he would not walk away with tangible results.
For all his very real failings, Trump cannot be blamed for the current situation. The real
culprits are the Clinton gang and the Democratic Party which, by their completely irresponsible
behavior, are creating a very dangerous crisis for the United States: the Neocons and the
Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if
the US political system by itself is also put at risk. Furthermore, the Neocons have now
completely flipped around the presumption of innocence – both externally (Russian
"attack" on the US elections) and internally (Trump's "collusion" with Putin). As for Trump,
whatever his good intentions might have been, he is weak and cannot fight the entire US deep
state by himself. The Neocons and the US deep state are now on a collision course with Russia
and the people of the United States and while Russia does have the means to protect herself
from the Empire, it is unclear to me who, or what could stop the Neocons from further damaging
the US. Deep and systemic crises often result in new personalities entering the stage, but in
the case of the US, it is now undeniable that the system cannot reform
All of this seems profoundly depressing, but it appears to be how things are. I was
disappointed by Trump's efforts to cave into the deep state on his statements. The fact he
can't even control his justice ministry reveals his weakness. I'm of the view history shows
that once spy agencies reach a critical mass in power they become the absolute rulers of a
structure and the rule of law becomes a facade, then is sidelined completely.
Trump was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in
2015. He had no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of
governance, a solid foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating
skills of an 8th grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably
not even a majority of Republican politicians.
The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the
Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has
been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level.
His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business
but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a
vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to
bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job
of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international
tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with
virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain
his credibility before the public.
Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very
eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and
peaceniks, in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal
with the real world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media,
expect the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another
tomorrow. The situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to
Hillary Clinton and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of
ersatz "democracy." Her husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm
pretty sure Trump had a higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy
what you can't have like a petulant child.
the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the US and the people
of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto
allies
I think it would be more accurate to say that the people of Russia had the same
enemy.
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as
many times as needed.
It's like trial lawyers say: if the facts are on your side and the law is not, then argue
the facts; if the law is on your side and the facts are not, then argue the law; and if
neither the facts nor the law are on your side, then bang your fists on the table and shout
as loud as you can! That's exactly what the neo-clowns are doing here.
the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how
destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at
risk.
All of which just helps to further discredit the empire. Even with all the insanity in the
media, I still thank God every day that Hellary did not become president.
The above h0moerotic caricature of Putin and Trump is quite revealing in what it tells us
about what drives the emotional life of White Liberals and White Leftist. They are driven by
powerful urges to impose homosexuality-pedophilia-pederasty on both Christian Russia and the
Working Class Native Born White American Christians.
Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in
jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story.
I think because Trump postulated himself as a candidate, then got nominated the Republican
candidate and worst of all, despite the huge campaign against him, won the elections, without
the blessing of the Deep State and the neocons. So now they want to teach him (and anyone
else who might think about doing the same) a lesson: "Anyone who tries to become president
without our approval will be crushed", so it never happens again.
something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria?
And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
That Trump is a wrecking ball is a hypothesis I've held since the first GOP debate, when I
also realized he would (probably) win not only the election, but may even succeed at the far
more difficult challenge of bringing the Empire to a sufficiently soft landing that the
nation survives. I'm less convinced of the latter now, largely because I underestimated the
centrifugal forces driving the fault lines in the American body politic. The nation,
tragically may not survive the Empire's twilight, but I've seen nothing that makes me want to
change my hypothesis.
He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large
part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first
their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign
and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push
as it heads for the edifice.
As for the summit, I frankly wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of it was staged for
maximum hysteria-inducing effect. Their 2hrs spent alone probably was little more than
comparing notes. After all, what can Trump promise that he can also deliver under the
circumstances? He can only promise to keep doing what he's doing.
In any case, they both know the Empire has to go, and they both want the American nation
to be a player after it goes. A vibrant America is as critical to the multipolar world as it
is to Americans. Maybe more so.
Collusion? Maybe, but the Trump phenomena, IMHO, has all the earmarks of regime change
done right. With or without collusion, the hystericals can't quite put their finger on
what happened, which drives further hysteria, which pushes the wrecking ball even faster,
which drives....
now undeniable that the system cannot reform itself
Yes, Saker and that puts US politics behind European fascism of 70+ years ago. Mussolini was booted out by a fascist committee, Franco paved the way for a constitutional
monarchy, but all Americans get is Bozo the Clown/President.
The destruction of the US working class amazes me in its absence from all serious debate.
First subverted by the CIA then rendered null by outsourcing (which is still undercounted)
the "deplorables" have no mechanism for resistence except the unthinkable one: Hope for total
breakup of the United States. Or hope for a foreign invasion.
Makes one wonder. When Egyptians greeted Alexander the Great as a liberator as he
conquered them, it was a fairly pungent comment on the ruling Persians. Will blue-collar
former-Yanks be cheering for liberating Chinese or Russian troops anytime soon? Henry
Kissinger once predicted something of the sort.
Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice
He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him
are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they
don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of
Russia.
All they come up with is terrible ideas which they in their generosity are way too eager
to share with the world – against the wishes or the best interests of the world. Like
the multiculturalism. It's bad enough that they came up with that awful idea, but then they
had to force it down the throats of the stupid Europeans.
Then when Merkel showed enough brains to challenge their idea, they forced her to make 180
turn and to welcome over a 1 million refugees from the imperial misadventures.
Well, Saker did put, this time, some good points here.
Of course, they were well mixed with the usual Kremlin propaganda, but that's now like "good
morning" with his writing. Probably all public members of "Team Russia" have that clause in
their contract.
The usual spin "Russia is great, winning, and all is not only good but simply getting better
for Kremlin and the Great Leader".
He does point to this "thing" with MSM and public figures in West re the summit.
I agree, it's surreal. If I were watching this in a serious movie I'd change the channel/walk
out. If I were reading a serious book with the "thing" as a part of the plot I'd stop
reading. I think there IS something there.
It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled
hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's
something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous.
I guess we have entered a zone beyond geopolitics into mass psychology. Not my area of
expertise at all, but simply feel there is something there. It feels as watching, hard to express it, hysterical people? Now, on my level, whenever I dealt with such people I simply walked away, most of the
time. A couple of times, when I couldn't walk away I simply floored them (or so I say). Both
men and women (talking about being a gentleman , a). With women, it's even easier, just one
strike, weak hand even. With men a full combination, even with a takedown and
..anyway. Joking. Sort of. Besides, I was younger then. But how can you take out people who control, in essence, US power, nuclear weapons in
particular? You simply can't . That is what makes, IMHO, this so dangerous. I simply can't recollect anything similar in relationship between superpowers. I am not so optimistic re the collapse of The Empire, multipolar world etc.
This "thing" can, I concede, deliver a couple of goods:
People, at last, realizing who, or better what, are our "betters".
The real power of The Empire diminishing because of the mess and chaos those species
..created.
Those two things creating an opportunity to, somehow, do something about this
abomination.
But, and a big but, there is the flip there.
People simply not paying attention. And, those hysterics really getting the levers of power
in their hands. While they are in that state, that is.
As I've said several times here so far (doesn't matter a bit, of course) Trump supporters
fucked up.
Not him; he didn't expect to win and when he did he found himself in a really bad
position.
His supporters. As soon as he won they walked home. A mistake.
A terrible mistake. I feel we'll all pay, dearly, for it.
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his credibility before the public. ..."
"... Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial designs ..."
"... Private corporations have become global, have acquired many public resources, and are now in control of whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world. This makes them as big as or bigger than the nations states that gave birth to them. America is just a small part of the private corporate wealth generating reach of the private domain. What corporations don't control is left to government. What's wrong with that? ..."
"... The USA has become a transfer mechanism and a transport company. Those in power are transferring massive arrays of public rights, duties, and resources to private corporate opulence. The elite (Pharaoh and his private corporation) have not been more secure, but Americans have reached the extended edge of insecurity. Leadership now consist of two masters: Public elected government 40% and privately owned corporations 60%. ..."
"... Every empire in history, after conquering its future colonies, ruled those colonies with a good degree of acceptance by the colonised population. Now the US claims that it is a global empire, the biggest one in history, but I know of no country which likes to be even man-handled let alone managed by US. ..."
"... Here is the specific threat to CIA impunity behind the US propaganda hysterics. Russia is turning over the rocks where CIA hides its moles in the US government. Russia knows what the perps are up to, so US state secrets don't protect them as they do at home. ..."
"... The CIA focal points that Fletcher Prouty told us about decades ago, they're still infesting the government, dug in deeper than ever. Russia proposes to question them. It's the American public's first look at the secret dotted-line reports CIA uses to control the US government. ..."
"... The US agents Russia singled out for questioning: Browder, Steele, McFaul (CIA war propaganda against Russia,) Jonathan Wiener (Lockerbie fabricator and DoS focal point,) David J. Kramer (ran Russian agents from DoS DRL and CIA's Freedom House), Kyle Parker (CIA mole on Senate staff) Todd Hyman, Schvartsman (CIA's DHS moles.) and Jim Rote, a garden-variety CIA spook rather than an agent, and CIA's transnational organized crime boss Robert Otto. ..."
"... Many millions of patriotic conservative, nationalist, and libertarian people working in "white-collar" jobs voted for Trump (as well as some more lefty white-collar folks who couldn't abide the DNC's rigging the primaries against Sanders and/or her obvious personal corruption, incessant warmongering, and loyalty to very rich folks in the finance/banking and entertainment fields). ..."
Trump
was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in 2015. He had
no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of governance, a solid
foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating skills of an 8th
grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably not even a majority
of Republican politicians.
The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the
Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has
been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every
level.
His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business
but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a
vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to
bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job
of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international
tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with
virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his
credibility before the public.
Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very
eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and peaceniks,
in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal with the real
world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media, expect
the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another tomorrow. The
situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to Hillary Clinton
and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of ersatz "democracy." Her
husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm pretty sure Trump had a
higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy what you can't have like a
petulant child.
If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to
take anything he says seriously?!
I think this is tanken too seriously; the Russians definitely appreciate Trump's courage
in taking a step toward them in an era of such hysteria. Trump is being beaten down by the
propaganda arm of the deep state (the MSM) but his tenacity is paying off. Already poles are
indicating that the majority of people are not taken in by the charade. As with the 2016
election, a sizable portion of the population just ain't buying it.
I dunno whether citing Nancy Pelosi on anything is relevant. Never had courage on anything
during the Dubya Years, and now she's pretty gone, a political career robot with decaying
functions.
You can practically see the cabling coming out of the spine, she's probably having herself
dominated
remotely via TeamViewer by MS-13 members, too.
I agree with your comments. I wish to emphasize one point: Trump was NEVER given a chance.
The establishment HATED him from his candidacy. That hatred has become more pathological by
the day.
It's gone beyond "agreeing"/ "disagreeing" with Trump: this is a sickening assault on U.S
democracy.
The Democratic Party IS guilty of treason. The US establishment – the deep state, if
you like is -- criminally INSANE.
I think there is an element of truth to your views. However, I can't get past the fact
that the head of this Trump hating psychotics are native born white Americans. Yes, they
pander to "minorities" but it's merely a means to their own piggish elite ends. Minorities
are also "useful idiots" .
the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons
– and that makes them de-facto allies
There's definitely something to this statement. I think the Russian people can definitely
commensurate with the "deplorables" as they too have (and to some extent continue to) spend
many decades under Jewish dominated Nomenklatura.
Trump did not do anything different in this meeting with Putin than any other leader, who had
in the past met with the Russian leader. It was not what was done; it was the reaction to
what was presumed to have been done, and wasn't..
The entire Mueller investigation is being conducted, and will continue for all the years
of the Trump Presidency, to be sure, to insure that Trump does not do what he promised to do
during his campaign – cooperate with Putin and get out of the mid-east. It is very
obvious that so far, Trump has shown to have completely reneged on his campaign promises in
this regard (eg. putting military bases in Syria, evacuating ISIS commandos, bombing Syria,
recognizing Jerusalem as the state capital, continuing the war in Afghanistan, arming to the
teeth Saudi Arabia, etc. and some of the actions he has taken were based upon patent and
obvious lies (eg. bombing Syria ..twice).
If one listens carefully to the concerns of Trump in the Putin meeting, it was
predominantly the "security" of Israel vis a vis Iran. It was not the Untied States, but
Israel that was his major concern, and if you listen even more carefully, anyone could have
heard some key words, "Putin is a big fan of BeeBee", which means what? It means that these
mid-eastern wars are never, never. never going to end.
All this noise coming from the right and left is only that .noise. Because really nothing
under the sun has changed.
the lawfully elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn,
delegitimizes the electoral process which brought him to power and, of course, it also
excoriates the "deplorables" who dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.
Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial
designs,
that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand that.
transition from ::to
From. one nation ::to-1-many colonies, protectorates, puppet regimes+comprador-run vassal
states
From peaceful instigators ::to-2. barkers of orders and abusers of the use of force
From policy experts :: to-3. private monopoly powered corporate war monger and
propagandize
From best of its kind :: to-4 a wasted has been; w/o air, sea or land military
superiority
From rational global leader :: to-5 chaotic commanders engaged in simultaneous
conflicts
From a cooperating society :: to-6 a segmented fight raging society of multiple conflict in
fighting society
From a popularist state :: to-7 a Apartheid-Israeli Lobby lead state
From respected word keepers :: to-8 untrustworthy abdicators, abandoning agrmts as it suits
the situation.
From positive leadership :: to-9 infantile, demented, embarrassing, threatening
outburst
But I think the ruling classes intensity is a result of copyright and patent laws and
other devices too numerous to list here have been taken to privatize the public resources
held in trust by the USA into the hands of Pharaoh and his right arm corporations.
Essentially American public assets were entrusted to the USA, and its corporate elected
leaders pieced the public assets up, and sold them to the highest bidder. Now the successful
bidders are trying to get control or ownership over the remaining few assets that still held
in the public [USA} trust, when that is finished America will be wasted and the USA will
become a dictatorship.
Privatization is the first and foremost internal problem; unless it is fixed, nothing will
change.
What do I mean by privatization? Whole segments of the national USA and global economy now
belong to one or a few private enterprises: by contract, by rule of some law, or by ownership
of assets that were taken, or that are controlled by contract, or agreement, the public
domain was reduced and the private domain was increased. Substantial economic power and most
political power h\b transferred into private hands.
Private corporations have become global, have acquired many public resources, and are now
in control of whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world. This makes them as
big as or bigger than the nations states that gave birth to them.
America is just a small part of the private corporate wealth generating reach of the private
domain. What corporations don't control is left to government. What's wrong with that?
Private corporations (PCs) conduct their affairs independent of national laws and politics,
but the political systems and the people that depend on those political systems are highly
dependent, not on government, but on these private corporations.
Privatization means a part of the public domain has been transferred to the private domain
(mostly corporations). Water franchises, health care, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, military
arms production, transportation (airlines and ships used to be public owned or highly
controlled quasi-governmental entities), energy production and distribution, private armies,
public research discoveries converted by rule of law and investment capital into private
properties, global manufacturers of important and necessary software or hardware systems or
components ; energy, water, gas production and distribution, and services such as garbage,
jail management, education, and so on, are public services provided by private
corporations.
Just as British Colonial Aristocrats and their massive corporations were doing in 1776,
today's elites are busy transferring public government and American assets, resources, and
governing powers to their private selves.
The USA has become a transfer mechanism and a transport company. Those in power are
transferring massive arrays of public rights, duties, and resources to private corporate
opulence. The elite (Pharaoh and his private corporation) have not been more secure, but
Americans have reached the extended edge of insecurity. Leadership now consist of two
masters: Public elected government 40% and privately owned corporations 60%.
Pieces of the public government were carved out and given to private corporate enterprises.
Each transfer from public government to private corporate government; provides elites more
power, and the government that represents the public less power.
The problems the Saker presents are all results of the private taking from public.
If the media truly hated Trump as much as they say they did, they would never have put him
front and center during the primary and given him all that publicity. They would have Ron
Pauled him into public oblivion. They had complete control, but instead of ignoring him, they
put him front of center.
And those polls? If they were rigged, the media knew they were rigged, and would have
conducted one in secret. And why would Hillary have a schedule of campaign stops, half of
which were lies. Why was she lying about her campaign schedule? His election was a surprise
to no one, except those they wanted to fool – the public.
The "surprise" of his election was nothing more than part of the grand theatre we see
being played now.
There was collusion all right during this election, but it certainly wasn't with the
Russians.
Every empire in history, after conquering its future colonies, ruled those colonies with a
good degree of acceptance by the colonised population. Now the US claims that it is a global
empire, the biggest one in history, but I know of no country which likes to be even
man-handled let alone managed by US.
Therefore, I fail to understand where this claim to
empire comes from. Yes, the behaviour appears empirial (for example requesting delivery of
some "12 Russians" that some third-rate US horse-face pretend-policeman identified as
perpetrators of a crime which never happened), but every Napoleon in my local asylum for the
insane behaves empirially.
As to Pellosi and the gang who suck the dicks of Netanyahoo and MbS, the real mass
murderers, like little bunny rabbits suck bottles of milk, their words on Putin are words of
frustration due to the fact that Putin will never offer his member to be similarly
sucked.
Let me summise it simply: what an amazing fuck up US is under its Jewish ownership.
Here is the specific threat to CIA impunity behind the US propaganda hysterics. Russia is
turning over the rocks where CIA hides its moles in the US government. Russia knows what the
perps are up to, so US state secrets don't protect them as they do at home.
The CIA focal points that Fletcher Prouty told us about decades ago, they're still
infesting the government, dug in deeper than ever. Russia proposes to question them. It's the
American public's first look at the secret dotted-line reports CIA uses to control the US
government.
From Meduza: "The list of names also includes Homeland Security Department official Todd
Hyman (who testified in a deposition against Prevezon, a Russian company accused of
laundering proceeds from the fraud uncovered by Sergey Magnitsky), Svetlana Engert (who
supposedly stole criminal case materials from Russia), Alexander Shvartsman (who supposedly
oversaw Browder's stay in the U.S.), Jim Rote (a supposed CIA agent acting as Browder's
"financial manager"), Robert Otto (who supposedly served as deputy director of a U.S.
intelligence agency until January 2017), David Kramer (who recently served as an adviser to
the U.S. State Department), Jonathan Wiener (a long-time aide to John Kerry and an adviser on
national security), and Kyle Parker (a recent U.S. State Department official), according to
Kurennoi."
The US agents Russia singled out for questioning: Browder, Steele, McFaul (CIA war
propaganda against Russia,) Jonathan Wiener (Lockerbie fabricator and DoS focal point,) David
J. Kramer (ran Russian agents from DoS DRL and CIA's Freedom House), Kyle Parker (CIA mole on
Senate staff) Todd Hyman, Schvartsman (CIA's DHS moles.) and Jim Rote, a garden-variety CIA
spook rather than an agent, and CIA's transnational organized crime boss Robert Otto.
Russia is showing us how CIA infiltrates and controls the entire US government.
(1) continuing indefinitely the war in Afghanistan
(2) bombing Syria twice for reasons which he knew or should have known were false.
(3) putting a military base in Syria as an invader
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/u-s-forces-set-up-new-base-in-syria-s-manbij-despite-turkish-threats-1.6073192
something no President dared do in the past.
(4) appointing neo-con war mongers in all key cabinet positions
(5) telling police (on video for all the world to hear) to confiscate guns and "worry about
due process later" (13 states have followed this advice) This statement tramples upon not
only the second amendment, but the fifth and fourteenth as well
(6) saying absolutely nothing about Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, censuring all right
wing groups, showing that he doesn't give a hoot about anyone's lst amendment rights,
including his supporters.
(7) recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (at a cost of thousands injured and dead
Palestinians during Israel's celebration)
(8) sanctioning Russia at least three times since he has been in office; with sanctions more
severe than those imposed by Obama.
(9) having the US military evacuate ISIS commandos in Syria
(10) breaching the agreement with Iran at a time when the only party with continuing contract
obligations was Iran who was abiding by the contract (he certainly was not going to get back
the Obama money,w hich is the only thing he complained about during his campaign)
(11) fully funding planned parenthood (now trying to undo this Congressional action with an
Executive Order which compounds the problem in his attempt to usurp the powers of Congress,
violating Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution)
(12) not building the wall
(13) lying about his gross immorality (keep in mind that if the Senate impeached Clinton for
committing fellatio in the Oval Office with a foolish young girl in her early twenties, Trump
would never have dared to run for office with his background)
(14) lying about the economy (saying there was 4 percent unemployment when all the big
retailers employing hundreds of thousands went out of business on the heels of his
statement)
(15) proposing to reward millions of immigrants who have broken our laws
Yet, his supporters are still on the street with those silly hats reciting their mantra
that he is making America great again.
What he is doing in fact is continuing unjustified wars (military Keynesian economics that
will destroy the US) while simultaneously and quietly taking away our constitutional rights.
Those are his biggest "accomplishments"
I'd just quibble that it's unlikely that the majority of Trump's voters were "blue
collar", if that's what we mean by working class.
Many millions of patriotic conservative, nationalist, and libertarian people working in
"white-collar" jobs voted for Trump (as well as some more lefty white-collar folks who
couldn't abide the DNC's rigging the primaries against Sanders and/or her obvious personal
corruption, incessant warmongering, and loyalty to very rich folks in the finance/banking and
entertainment fields).
Unfortunately, if we're counting manufacturing and assembly jobs as "blue collar" or
"working class", there just aren't enough of those jobs left in the USA for their holders to
constitute a majority even of Trump voters. That was part of Trump's appeal, right, the
endless loss of good-paying jobs actually making things of tangible usefulness and value?
What "we" have is a corrupt US (global) elite. An elite, primed in the 80′s &
let entirely off the leash in '91.
Benevolent despots ? A concept with only the vaguest comprehension.
No – these US/ Globalist elites just KNEW history was on THEIR side. Take the brakes
off, & spin the capitalist coin: heads – class war; tails imperialism. Win -win.
(Can't remember his name – guy who runs Hathaway-something: "there is class war, &
my class is winning". Damn few business men are as worshipped as this bloke) And yes, just
look at the 90′s, the Yeltsin years, the Clinton years looked like it was all working
out.
Well, contradictions will "out". And here we are.
A ruling class descending into sociopathology.
A public unable to fully comprehend the toxic brew bubbling just beneath the surface ( the 6
o'clock news, comfortable, day in day out, pay the damn bills, the kid's teeth need braces
& the car a new exhaust).
I won't mention climate change – few here who believe, let alone give a fuck ?
We are in diabolical trouble but fuck it – instinctively we all know it's a Panglossian
universe .& the devil take the hindmost.
Both the USA and Russia are much less "Christian" than you make out. But you're right, of course, that our enemies seem especially motivated to destroy any
nation with a meaningful vestige of Western (Greco-Roman-Anglo-European) Civilization and/or
Christian mores.
The Democratic Party Voting Bloc is now effectively-demographically majority post-1965
nonwhites+American Blacks .
True enough but they aren't necessarily against the "Deplorables". For example Alexandra
Ocasio-Cortez who recently won a Democratic primary in New York (against heavy odds)
describes herself as a "Democratic Socialist" for affordable single-payer national
healthcare, tuition free education in high schools and universities ,with a downsized MIC
& Deep State and realistic corporate taxation helping pay for it.
And on the Gaza border shooting of Palestinians she recently said, "This is a massacre. I
hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass
shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human
dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." She opposes the
Likudniks, AIPAC, Netanyahu and wants a two state solution.
Democratic Socialism and Elite Globalist Zionism seem to have a problem living together in
the Democratic Party.
The strains are also visible in the UK where Jeremy Corbyn could also be described as a
Democratic Socialist with much the same platform as Ocasio-Cortez and a good chance of
becoming Prime Minister.
Trump – good & evil. But his base need to take to the streets before he has a
"problem in Dallas" or the dickless wonders in Congress finally get the gumption to impeach
(hard as that's to believe of the Dem-castrartie party .)
The US has been a very succesful country, an amazing empire . In barely a century and a half
expanded enormously thanks to Northern European protestant immigration and to the occupation
of Mexican territories .
In 1945 the USA was on top of the world , it was " the shining city of the hill " , the
only city shining in the hill in fact , it had 50% of the world GDP . while the rest of the
world was in ruins . The decadent Europeans had destroyed themselves in two world wars . .
The Russians had suffered the horrors of the communist revolution and the two world wars . The
Japanese although defeated had destroyed Asia , specially China which also endured a civil
war and a communist revolution .
So , in 1945 the world was in ruins , and the USA was indeed the only "shining city on the
hill " . The USA never suffered the world wars destruction on its own territory , had few casualties in the world wars , and had 50% of the world GDP. Besides the USA inherited
economically and politically the British Empire that England, exhausted by the two world
wars could not maintain .
In the 60`s the USA was still the " shining city on the hill ", Kennedy wanted to do some
changes , I do not know which ones, and he was killed ( by the deep State ? ), the world
was shocked .
In the 70`s Nixon finished the Vietnam war ( a colonial heritage of the French ) it was an
American defeat, and the " shining city in the hill " impeached him ( the deep State does
not accept defeat ) . Europe , the USSR , Japan , China , had recovered from the wars and
wanted to have their shining little villages in the hills too.
Presently the USA has 20% of the GDP , that`s a lot , the USA is a very powerful country ,
probably the most powerful country of the world , but 20% is not 50% . Probably Kennedy and
Nixon realized that this day would come , and Trump sees that this day is arrived . Probably
the american deep State would like to freeze time in 1945 , as well as the french deep State
would like it to freeze history in 1805 in Austerlitz with Napoleon , or the Spanish deep
State would like to freeze history in 1492 when Spain completely expelled the moors from
Spain after seven centuries of fighting and discovered America , with the Catholic Kings
.
The deep States are always sick of imperial nostalgia , they are the war party , they
would like to make war to anyone to threatens its 1945 imperial glorious moment . And the
Kennedys , Nixons and Trumps of this world are the party of peace, they want to adapt to a
changing reality less glorious than the magic orgasmic moments that all empires have had ,
but more constructive, more adapted to an ever changing world .
All the Empires that the earth has seen have passed though this dilemma : party of war vs
party of peace . At the end the parties of peace end up prevailing, but the parties of war
can make a lot of damage both to their own country and to others .
I still think the best explanation of Merkel's immigration policy is her belief that
indeed the Germans are guilty of two world wars and the holocaust.
Therefore 'ein neuer Mensch', a new German, must be created through mass immigration, as a
German commentator explains.
His book should be ready by now.
His prediction is that just the E European countries, Hungary, Poland, etc., will remain
European.
Writing this, one may expect that they will turn politically to Russia, also a catholic white
country.
" The decadent europeans had destroyed themselves in two world wars . . "
The USA destroyed Europe in two world wars.
Do not remember if it was here that I read what Mark Twain said or wrote 'it is easier to
fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled'.
About WWI:
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War,
1938)
FDR's preparations for WWII:
Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in
responsibilities', New Haven, 1946
Charles A. Beard, 'President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances
and realities', New Haven, 1948
"Russian leaders provoked popular sentiment in numerous countries to join NATO, no doubt
abetted by their unfavorable experiences under Russian occupation"
You mean USSR occupation, of course.
Perhaps Russia might discuss any number of issues when the US removes it's illegal forces in
Syria, stops supporting the crypto--Nazi coup government in Ukraine, withdraws it's missiles from Poland etc (oh, we'll protect
you from non existent Iranian nuclear weapons) & pulls back it's conventional forces,
stops proving up invasions like the Georgian invasion of Sth Iapetus, stops interfering in
what remains of the democratic processes of the former USSR states, stops supporting
terrorists across the ME, stops interfering in the energy business of its allies in the EU,
stops it's lies & threats against Russian allies such as Iran & stops iys criminal
sanctions on Russia .Well, that scratches the surface, anyway .
3.The US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money,
destroying countries and alienating the rest of the planet.
Alienating the rest of the planet: Wasting immense sums of money: The U.S. War Industry Raked in $5+ Billion Worth of Foreign Military Sales in June
2018
July 27, 2018 / Christian Sorensen /
"The U.S. war industry raked in $5,408,112,575 worth of foreign military sales (FMS)
during June 2018. Notable items included $1.12 billion worth of Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft
for Bahrain and "
An uncommonly excellent analysis.
High quality comment threads and sites that allow for reactions/debate/introduction of public
discourse are my gold standard. Unz is exceptional and much appreciated. Just because it's unlikely that I might post here often
I would like to suggest Dr. Judith Curry's blog to anyone like me who enjoys going deeper
into subjects than most 'normal' people would ever find time for. It's a climate blog. It's brilliant. Curry is a genuinely exceptional human and scientist.
The comment threads are pure mind candy..
are u ok ? Russia occupying her province of Kaliningrad ? maybe your country is occupying illegally California , Arizona , Nevada , Colorado , Utah
, New Mexico , Oklahoma and Texas ? Get your nato out of Europe , Europe is fed un with your 80.000 yankee occupation troops
.
Even baltics are missing Russians, Baltics` population is going down since they left CCCP
, they are fed up with American warmongers , they do not want to be cannon fodder for the
well paid eccentric American militarists .
Trump won 20% of the Black male electorate. If he can increase that percentage, then the
Democratic coalition becomes black females, post-1965 immigrants, and white New Class
managerial types. He might get blacks to side with him over immigration, which has cut out the support for
lower-skilled wages across the board.
That's kinda over the top. Continental suicide was on the books for the Great Continental War (I don't know how it
comes it is called "World War") as general desire of revanchism, political nastiness,
prussian militarism, yougoslav apsirations, decaying empires and the British desire for a
continental balance of power met head-on with war tool mechanization. The US came online
rather late.
As for "Word War II", it was mainly about two socialist systems facing off, and Japan
irking the US with a bout of late-onset colonialism. Also everyone going crazy with
operations research and even more mechanization. So it should be called "Socialist War I with
Colonialism on the side.".
They should have destroyed Germany after WWI, or come to a just Peace. They did neither,
slightly weakening it and strongly pissing it off.
After the Soviets went out of business, the US neither welcomed it to the brotherhood of
nations, nor destroyed it so it could not be a threat. Letting the looters loose upon it sure
did piss a lot of people off though. Your point is well taken.
First reaction. All I can think of whenever I read another allegation of Russia influence,
control of Trump or anyone else, or of Putin coming to Washington is Israel. Over and over:
these people simply keep ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't care about the Pekinese:
there's an elephant right there! Look at it! Yes, a Russian businessman once gave a Trump
advisor (since dismissed) fifty thousand dollars. Israel partisans were the leading
contributors to both candidates; Sheldon Adelson alone gave Donald Trump thirty five
million dollars. Shall we talk about what we're doing as a consequence; how we're
remorselessly driving Iran to the point where there will be no choice but war -- and at whose
behest we're doing this?
No let's fret and fantasize about 'Russian influence.' Never mind that the body bags won't
be coming back from Latvia, but from Iran.
Second reaction: this one's more optimistic. Yes, the attacks are increasingly hysterical;
but they're also coming from an increasingly narrow base. More and more, people on both the
right and the left just don't buy them anymore: see, for example, the denunciation of
all this nonsense at the impeccably 'progressive' Mondoweiss.
I perceive the remaining anti-Trump partisans as still possessing a grip on the
traditional media outlets. However, more and more, they simply speak for no one but
themselves. In fact, this may account for the note of hysterical exaggeration; underneath it
all is the sneaking suspicion that no one believes them, or is even listening. After all,
look at Trump's poll numbers. The media keeps announcing that 'now he's blown it' -- and his
numbers keep inching up. I like tracking a rolling average of the last ten polls. When I
started the figure was around 38. Now it's moving past 43. Neither 'babygate' nor
'Russiagate' perceptibly affected this at all.
So to sum up, 'Russiagate' isn't the problem, and it's questionable if many actual
Americans even think it is. This remains true whatever the ravings coming out of The
Washington Post, or The New Yorker , or USA Today . All the evidence is
that these organs speak for fewer and fewer people, and fewer and fewer are even
listening.
Basically, I think most Americans don't even care about all this nonsense.
They know that if Trump is awful, the alternatives were even worse, and they know that the
economy's doing well. No one's saying 'if only Hillary coulda won '
The USA came into WWI from the very beginning.
Without buying USA food and weapons on credit GB and France could not have fought at all.
Moreover, the USA was not neutral, the USA allowed the British blockade of Germany.
As to continental suicide, there was no such thing.
GB wanted war.
WWII, how many times must be repeated what Lindbergh already said before Pearl Harbour,
that 'jewry and GB wanted war'.
FDR was brought into politics by Bernard Baruch, who already in 1928 prevented his friend
Churchill from going into business, because 'he saw great things for Churchill in the
future'.
These great things came, Churchill waged an unnecessary war, and destroyed the empire.
Quote: " do you know the evolution of population in the baltic countries after they left the
Soviet Union in 1990 ?"
Yes, the decreases in population can easily be explained primarily by Russians, who used
to live there, having moved back to Russia. Additionally, there might have been small
population flows of Lithuanias to Poland, Latvians to Sweden, and Estonians to Finland, given
the close relationships. Nothing nefarious.
interesting that Russia has been called to defend itself in England. There its Novichok
the instant death substance arguably produced in London by USA controlled labs or taken from
the old USSR when it fell apart.
Putin vs British government case: Putin charged with poisoning an ex Russian spy and his
daughter, unfortunately for the media and the British corporate Zionist both Russians
survived,
Russia has called the British liars to the carpet.. Russia demands an investigation but the
Banksters and their corporations refuse to allow the British Government to open its
"so-called" investigation to Russian questioning.
Keep your eyes focused on Nord II. the one road one belt, Turkey moving in support of
Syria and Yemen against Saudi Arabia, BRICS and concern yourself with the fact that Russia
not only does not own any USA debt, but Russia also has a non federal reserve approved
monetary exchange operation, SCO is growing in strength, China Gold backed bonds are
available for anyone to buy and convert the face value of the bond to gold. These are game
changers.
Stay tuned for more privately owned advertising supported corporate media productions
showing on "FREE THEATER". M 16, (criminal instigating Association) CIA and Mossad employees
are busy writing new propaganda, budget is not a problem, the Russian's will be made to pay
for the articles, movies etc. so everything is free. Enjoy!
Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick
move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war
propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454
) but in CIA crimes against humanity – specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly
illegal acts."
David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point,
then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain
Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow
Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.
Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we
have common interests in Syria."
Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a
knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the
crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture. The US was five years
late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on
inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights. So Kramer had to think fast and
make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape, death by dryboard suffocation,
and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest bulb, but that's not a hard
job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was say, "The US does not
Torture," robotically over and over.
So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital
interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the
hook.
Really? Why? What's to hard to fully comprehend?
This ain't quantum physics. Not enough time in busy lives to spend some effort on the topic?
Yeah .But enough time for shopping, social media, online entertainment and such.
Etc.
No. Yes, the elites are corrupted.
But, the masses are corrupted too.
THAT is the problem here.
Or, Trump support base is corrupted too. Not as bad/evil/malicious. As weak.
W ..e a k. And weak always get ruled by strong.
What did/do they think? That the same people who can slaughter hundreds of thousands
Iraqis without missing their lunch are just going to give up their power like that? That the
half an hour of voting "effort" will change that game of power?
What are they doing now? How can one expect to challenge that power by sitting at home and waiting for one man to
go against all that?
Bullshit.
I've been told that "Trump base" doesn't do mass demonstrations.
I still don't get why not?
What's so hard to do, WHENEVER Dems/progs pull their numbers on the street, the "Trump base"
does the same? That's reactive. Go active.
Whenever Trump pulls some of his moves which flips the Dems/progs his support base floods the
streets From the little town in Midwest to New York.
What's so hard about that? The same people have no problem going out .watching games being
outdoors..whatever.
Oh, yes, it could get what .dangerous? Really?
What? Fistfights? Shooting? What happened to that "brave" in the "land of ."?
Don't get this post wrong. Not directed at you. It's directed at lazy and weak people who
are out of their depth.
Wouldn't be a problem save what's going to happen when Dems/progs get their person in White
House.
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)). ..."
"... The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media. They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil. ..."
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies,
the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since
before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status
quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will
never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made
any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia"
playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in
a way that would allow a proper dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in
the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests for those responsible
for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint:
it's not Trump, unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy
alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk
neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in
the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election
interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just
saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his
administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run
media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme
to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us
is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating
that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000
children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be
liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to
kill). These are just two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we
elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething
hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian
leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
I have read Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder, which exposes him
as the corrupt thug he is. Browder is no more interested in "democratizing" Russia than the
U.S. Deep State is in protecting the integrity of the U.S. election process! That Browder was
the "star witness" for the Congress before it overwhelmingly passed the latest sanctions bill
against Russia shows why it is important that he be exposed.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about the networks and
individuals acting to prevent a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.
"... [ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ] ..."
"... "I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion" ..."
"... Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or ..."
[ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please
click here ]
"I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can
lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark
places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is."
― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion"
In January 2015 I received a book titled "Red Notice" written by Bill Browder, once a hedge
fund manager running Hermitage Capital the largest foreign-owned hedge fund in Russia. In the
past, my path had crossed with Browder's on two occasions. In 2005, I was invited to his
presentation, only days before he was expelled from Russia. On that occasion Browder surprised
me because he was the first credible person I ever heard speaking positively about Vladimir
Putin. The next time I met Browder was in 2010 during an investment conference in Monaco. This
time he was very anti-Putin. When I received his book, it was recommended to me as an excellent
read.
Through his book, Browder presents himself in glowing colors. By contrast, he portrays
Russia as a sinister, backward tyranny and President Putin as the greediest, most ruthless
tyrant since Genghis Khan. The book's main plot shapes up as an appealing story about the
struggle of good against evil, about a lone maverick (Browder himself), taking on a powerful
network of dangerous criminals and corrupt government officials in selfless pursuit of justice.
It would be a beautiful story – if only it were true.
I was familiar with Parts of Browder's story, so his tale seemed fishy to me. A few days
after reading it I had to re-read it from the beginning. Sure enough, I discovered quite a
number of things that didn't add up which prompted me to do some research of my own. Much about
it bothered me enough that I ended up writing a whole book which I titled "The Killing of
William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." In August of this year I
finally finished it and self-published it on Amazon.com.
My book's main object is to unmask Browder's brazen and dangerous deception. Beyond this,
I've also sought to put his story into proper context by including a rather detailed account of
the relevant events that led to the collapse of the USSR, Russia's subsequent transition from
Communism to Capitalism and what
17 years of Vladimir Putin's leadership have changed . I've also included a section
discussing the person and character of Vladimir Putin (since Browder relentlessly demonizes
him). The book's last chapter discusses the history of the relations between the U.S. and
Russia from the beginnings of the 19 th century, including the U.S.
Civil War when Russia came to Abraham Lincoln's aid and played the key role in preserving the
Union and what the future relations between the U.S. and Russia might, or should be.
As it turned out, my book was surprisingly well received by its readers and during the first
few weeks it received very encouraging reader reviews (seven five-star and one four-star
review). Unfortunately, by mid-September "The Killing of William Browder" came up on Browder
team's radar and my problems began. It seems that in the free world, the freedom of expression
comes with some restrictions. Exposing Bill Browder is one of them.
On 13 th September, University of Tulsa professor Jeremy Kuzmarov cited some of
the materials from my book in his own Hffington Post article about Bill Browder, titled
"Raising the Curtain on the Browder-Magnitsky Story." I was flattered by that article, but
Huffington Post scrubbed it from their website within hours. A week later, Amazon's publishing
company, CreateSpace "suppressed" my book, purging it from Amazon.com website and from its
Kindle store.
CreateSpace explained that a third party claimed that my book "may contain defamatory
content," and that to resolve the issues I needed to contact Mr. Jonathan M. Winer, Mr.
Browder's legal counsel. Mr. Winer's word was all that was necessary for Amazon to oblige and
remove my book from its bookstore. My protest and subsequent communications with CreateSpace
had no effect and my only venue was to "work" with Browder's lawyers to "resolve the issues."
In other words, I was put in the situation to have Browder censor my book and decide on whether
it could be published or not. At first I rejected idea and refused to contact Mr. Winer
offering instead my book for free to whoever requested a copy. But subsequently I decided to
write to Mr. Winer anyway to find out what, if anything went wrong. So far, I have received no
response.
This is not the first time Bill Browder – and whoever is backing him – has
effectively censored what the Western public may or may not know about his story. In 2016,
Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov made the documentary film, "The Magnitsky Act – Behind
the Scenes."
Over the years, Nekrasov had built a reputation for producing documentaries that were
critical of the Russian government, and with the Magnitsky affair, he initially followed
Browder's narrative of the events and even envisioned Browder as the film's narrator. But his
research into the subject turned up a number of problems with Browder's story. Nekrasov reached
out to him for an explanation, but was unable to get in touch with Browder for several months.
Nekrasov finally tracked down Browder at a book signing event where he tried and failed to get
clarifications from him. Ultimately however, Nekrasov managed to meet with Browder and with the
cameras rolling, he began to lay out his findings. As he did so, Browder became visibly vexed
until at one moment he abruptly interrupted Nekrasov with an accusation that he was spreading
Russian propaganda.
When Nekrasov's film was completed, Browder took aggressive action to block its screenings.
With threats of lawsuits, he prevented an already scheduled screening to a group of Members of
the European Parliament in Brussels. He did the same with another screening in Norway, and even
managed to pressure the Franco-German television network "Arte" to call off the showing of
Nekrasov's film on its channel. In June 2016, Browder tried to force The Newseum in Washington DC to cancel the screening of
Nekrasov's film. Thankfully, The Newseum, whose laudable mission is to promote freedom of
expression and "the five freedoms of the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution," refused to
be cowed by Browder's intimidation and showed the film to a Washington audience.
No, unfortunately this did not happen. Freedom of expression – which should be
sacrosanct – is dangerously compromised in the west.
Open, civilized societies seek resolution of contentious issues by allowing proponents of
different sides in any dispute to present their respective points of view. An informed, open
debate is by far the best mechanism of conflict resolution because we can only arrive at
constructive solutions to problems by taking different stakeholders' points of view into
consideration. Browder's approach is contrary to that of civilized societies: he seeks to
silence all points of view but his own. He seeks to persuade not by initiating an informed
debate, but by suppressing all debate. This is not the conduct of a truth teller pursuing
elevated objectives like human rights, justice, and truth. Truth does not need such forceful
defense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, " Truth is tough. It will not break, like a
bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at
evening. " Browder is clearly anxious that his story cannot take any kicking at all.
Meanwhile in the western world, we appear to be at the mercy of lawyered-up elites for what we
are allowed to know and what we are not.
In the end, I have no doubt that truth will prevail and that Bill Browder will lose his
battle to keep his deception going. It is because there's something sacrosanct about truth and
most people will reject a lie once they are aware of it.
This shocking tale of alleged Russian official corruption and brutality drove legislation
that was a major landmark in the descent of U.S.-Russian relations under President Barack
Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
.But what the film shows is how Nekrasov, as he detected loose ends to the official story,
begins to unravel Browder's fabrication which was designed to conceal his own corporate
responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story
collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud
who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical
condition.
The cinematic qualities of the film are evident. Nekrasov is highly experienced as a maker
of documentaries enjoying a Europe-wide reputation. What sets this work apart from the
"trade" is the honesty and the integrity of the filmmaker as he discovers midway into his
project that key assumptions of his script are faulty and begins an independent investigation
to get at the truth .
The reason nekrasov has a following among European liberal snowflakes is that his
documentaries have had a sarcastic jaded and negative tinge with respect to Russia (even BBC
News has aired his documentaries as recently as 2016). He is rather pessimistic regarding
Russia. That's what makes this revelation that even he (Nekrasov, a darling of the debauch
liberals of the west, and Putin critic) found browder to not be credible. Coming from
Nekrasov, that allegation and documentary would really destroy the battering ram (and useful
fraud) that browder had provided the Western establishment.
Nekrasov is now getting a painful reality check as to how sophisticated the West's
totalitarian nature is: they are not crude like the Chinese who will arrest small time
nobodies for being too honest or critical, the West focusses it's blunt oppression for high
value targets; just as outlined in 1984, the higher up you are and the greater your reach,
the greater the scrutiny and the more blunt the instrument used to keep you in line. One must
admit that the Anglo empire and their hypocrit vassals/covert-competitors in the EU, have
refined this to an art and are far more efficient at it than their poor understudies in CCP
China, or the Soviet Union.
Krainer is right though, the truth is going to prevail and eventually browder will be
exposed (especially when the deep state decides he's too much of an annoying liability
– as times progresses or as the deep state finds browder's agenda and his supporters
getting in the way of the state's own agenda).
There is one thing that no one has clarified: Why was magnitsky allowed to die, why was he
denied medical treatment, who was responsible for that? What are the facts around magnitsky's
death?
Hi RC – a few great point. In Nekrasov's defence, I think I can understand him. I'm
Croatian and if we started discussing Croatia, you'd find me very critical. My inclination
would be to expose negative developments – not because I'm anti-Croatian but becauseI
would want to draw public attention to problems that need to be addressed. To his credit,
when he realized truth was different from what he initially believed, he made a turn to
pursue truth when he could have made the film that would have been far better for his career.
I agree with you that Browder will probably end up thrown under the bus. That's what I'm
afraid of (and the #1 reason for my book's title). But they will try to first make Browder a
household name (crusader for human rights and justice, bla, bla..) with their Hollywood
movie. Then they'll try to make it look like Putin had him killed.
As to why Magnistky died – that's a mystery. It was definitely a massive cock-up on
the part of Russian law enforcement, but there's also the angle that his death was VERY
convenient for Browder and his goodfellas.
I think that Magnitsky was such a pain in the ass ( he made 450 complaints about the
prison-conditions during 358 days in prison, most ofwhich nobody could solve without a much
larger budget) that doctors and staff prefered to not hear or to look the other way when
Magnitsky came into a psychosis. He got into this psychosis after a court case from where he
returned very disappointed. Future looked a lot worse than he had expected.
Parry's article
mentions that he viewed the film on Vimeo, using a password provided by Piraya Film, the
Norwegian production company.
This is a fairly standard way that independent producers shop their films around, looking
for a distribution deal. I.e., a journalist or distributor contacts them, and they are given
a Vimeo link and password for a private, limited-time viewing of the film. Journalists get
this access because their writing helps to promote the film. The simplest distribution deal
would then be through a subscription-based streaming platform. DVDs are more complicated and
usually happen later.
However, in this case, the film is a co-production with four other companies, including
ZDF and ARTE, which are large European networks, and all of whom have been threatened with
litigation, presumably by Browder's lawyers.
In effect, then, the film in its original version has been censored. It is not available,
unless or until somebody pirates it. There are several scammy-looking streaming sites that
claim to have it, but they want your credit card number and they might just have the same
Russian-dubbed version that you can watch for free via the link posted above.
I suspect the version of the film with the Russian voice-over was not done by Piraya Film,
as the production of the sound doesn't seem very high compared to the quality of the
original. This might have been done with authorization of Piraya, but if not, it means
somebody has a illegitimate copy of the film to which they added the Russian voice-over. This
means, they could also post the film in its original form. If they really want to increase
awareness in the West of how the new Cold War is playing out, such a move could help.
Given the legal threats and the fact that few small distribution companies have the
resources to fight legal battles, this might be a situation in which we are waiting for
somebody to pirate the film, somebody who has access to the original, and to distribute it
via a torrent.
I wonder whether Nekrasov himself knows of the level of interest (at least in some quarters)
in seeing the film, and could find a way to make one available somehow. . .
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
How much does Google really know about you? We did a deep-dive into the data the company
collects to find out...
Google might just know you better than anyone.
Thanks to the data the tech giant collects in order to sell ads, Google has a wealth of
information on you -- from what you look like to where you live and where you've traveled. The
corporation may even be able to guess your favorite food.
Just how does Google know all of this? Jump to our
infographic for a quick overview of everything Google knows about you, or check out our
full guide by clicking on the icons below.
Although "Google it" has officially entered the cultural lexicon, the mega-corporation is
much more than a search engine. It's through its apps, internet-related services, acquired
companies and more that the technology company collects data on you. Below, we've broken down
the most common app, product or service Google uses to track data, as well as an overview of
the specific data collected.
From what you've searched online and the websites you've visited to who your contacts are
and what you talk about, Google knows a lot about you. The company is then able to take this
information and make informed decisions regarding what you might be interested in, which they
show you in the form of ads.
Google's apps give the company a wealth of information on you, from the personal details
that make up who you are to your interests, your past travels and your future goals.
Who
You Are
From facial recognition to audio recordings and intuitive search, Google is able to create a
comprehensive -- and unnervingly correct -- profile about what makes you, you.
Your appearance
Thanks to facial recognition in Google Photos, the search engine probably has a pretty good
idea of what you look like. In fact, you can create a "label" within Google Photos that's
essentially a tag for each person in your images, and Google is able to separate out that
person from every photo you upload -- even if the photo only includes a partial picture or is
obscured.
Your voice
If you've ever used voice commands with Google Home, an Android device, or any other Google
product or device, the site has a log of it. In fact, not only can you view your past voice
commands in the " Voice and Audio " section
of Google's My Activity section, you can hear them as well. The site keeps a full history of
your audio commands, including voice recordings.
Your religious/political beliefs
Have you searched Google for how to donate to a political campaign? Visited a candidate's
website? Watched a sermon on YouTube? Google uses all of this information to build a
comprehensive profile that covers everything from whether you're more religious or spiritual to
who you're probably voting for in the next election.
Your health status
If you use Google Fit, the company probably has a pretty good overview of your health, from how
active you are to the calories you burn a day to your fitness goals. But even if you don't use
this Google app, the site probably has a pretty good understanding of the state of your immune
system -- or at least how you view it -- from your Google searches. In fact, compiling search
engine data and cross-referencing it against patterns may even allow Google to tell if you're
getting sick or dealing with a medical issue.
Your personal details
Searched Google for the best lactose-free milk? For what to expect when you're expecting? For
how to learn Spanish fast? Everything you search is tracked by Google, which can be used to
better understand personal details about your life, from whether you have dietary restrictions
to what languages you speak.
Everywhere You've Ever Been
Location tracking is one of the areas Google excels in -- thanks to advanced location
recognition technology, the company knows everything from where you went on vacation two
summers ago to what restaurant you eat at most often.
Your home and office
Android phones, which run off of Google's services, and Pixel, Google's own phone, track and
record your location through several means, including Wi-Fi, GPS and cellular networks. This
means that the phone knows everywhere you are, every day, and how long you're there for.
Google is able to interpret that data and draw conclusions from it -- for example, where you
live is probably where your phone is for the majority of nights and weekends. In fact, it
may only take Google Now three days to determine where you live. For those on Apple devices
or other operating systems, Google Maps works in a similar way.
Places you visit
In addition to collecting information about where you live and work, Google is able to track
the other places you visit most often. Do you have a favorite coffee shop? A running route? A
daycare center you use every weekday? Google probably knows about it.
Places you've traveled
Google doesn't just know the ins and outs of your everyday life. The tech company knows where
you've traveled too, be it a weekend getaway or a month-long trip to a different country.
Not only can Google track the places you've traveled to, it can see what you did while you
were there. If you visited a museum in Paris or went line-dancing in Texas, Google knows --
down to the exact time you arrived, how long you stayed, and how long it took you to get from
one destination to another. The location tracking can even tell the method of transportation
you used, like if you walked or took a train.
Additionally, Google's acquisition of Waze means the site can collect data on where you've
been even if you're not connected to Maps or on a Google device.
Who Your Friends Are
Between your contacts and conversations in Gmail and Hangouts and the appointments you make
in Google Calendar, the company knows everything from who you're talking with to when and where
you're seeing them.
Who you talk to
If you use Gmail for your personal or work email, Google has a list of all your contacts,
including who you talk to the most: navigate to Google's " Frequently contacted " section to see which of your
Gmail contacts you spend the most time conversing with (and to check if Google's assessment of
who you like the most aligns with your own). Android and Pixel users also give Google access to
their phone contacts and text messages.
Where you meet
Meeting a friend for coffee later? If it's on your Google Calendar, the company knows about it
-- and, thanks to location tracking, can map your trip from your house to the coffee shop and
back. If you take a picture with your friend at the shop and upload it to Google Photos, Google
can use facial recognition to add them to their own specific photo album. You can also tag the
location the photo was taken as well.
If, years later, you're trying to remember who you grabbed coffee with that day, Google can
help you remember.
What you talk about
Does Google keep track of what you talk about over Gmail? It's an issue up for debate -- the
company announced in
2017 that they would stop reading emails for the purposes of creating targeted
advertisements. Whether they've actually stopped reading them altogether is another
matter.
What You Like and Dislike
Google is in the business of knowing what you're into -- it's how the search engine creates
and sells such a personalized advertising experience. From your favorite movie genre to your
favorite type of food, Google knows your preferences.
Food, books and movies
Google can use search engine data, like recipes you've researched or book titles you've
searched for, to form an idea of what you like and dislike. Certain apps like Google Books,
which keeps tracks of the books you've searched and read, deepen this knowledge. Additionally,
Google owns YouTube, which means they know which movie trailers you've been seeking out.
Google uses this information, as well as the websites you've visited and the ads you've
clicked on, to create a profile of the subjects they think you're interested in. You can see a
full list of who they think you are -- down to what shows you watch and what hobbies you pursue
in your free time -- in their ads
dashboard .
Where you shop and what you buy
If you've ever used Google Shopping to compare the prices of online vendors, Google knows about
it. They also know what products you've searched and clicked on through Google Search and can
track your website visits and what products you've viewed on retailer websites through Google
Chrome.
Your Future Plans
Google's knowledge isn't limited to what you've done in the past or are doing in the
present. The company can also use data from their applications and search engine to make
predictions about what you'll be doing in the future.
What you're interested in buying, seeing or eating
Interested in seeing a new movie? Checking out a new restaurant or taking a weekend trip to a
new city? If you've used Google Search to look up the movie times, make an online reservation
or scout out the best tourist activity, Google knows.
Upcoming trips and reservations
Have you searched restaurants to eat at and shows to go to in the city you're visiting? Have
you created an itinerary in Google Calendar? Google can collect that data in order to assess
your upcoming trips. Google also scans your emails to see what flights you have coming up and
can automatically add restaurant reservations to your schedule based on confirmations that have
been sent to Gmail.
Future life plans
Have you been searching about homeownership? About when the best age to have children is? About
tips for travelling to China? Google uses this information to understand more about you and
what you want in the future, to better tailor online advertisements to your needs.
Your
Online Life
At its most basic, Google is a search engine and internet services company. So, it's no
surprise that in addition to knowing a wealth of your personal details, the site also knows
everything there is to know about what you do online.
Websites you've visited
Google keeps a comprehensive list of every site you've visited on Chrome, from any device. The
site also keeps a running tab of every search you've run, every ad you've clicked on and every
YouTube video you've watched.
Your browsing habits
From how many sites you have bookmarked to how many passwords Chrome auto-fills, Google has a
comprehensive understanding of your browser habits, including:
Your apps from the Chrome Web Store and the Google Play Store
Your extensions from the Chrome Web Store
The browser settings you've changed in Chrome
Email addresses, addresses and phone numbers you've set to autofill in Chrome
All the website addresses you've ever entered in the address bar
The pages you have bookmarked in Chrome
All the passwords you've asked Chrome to save for you
A list of sites you've told Chrome not to save passwords for
All the Chrome tabs that are open across your devices
The number of Gmail conversations you've had
How many Google searches you've made this month
If you're unnerved by the amount of information Google has on you, there are several steps
you can take to get around the company's relentless tracking.
1. Use a VPN
A Virtual
Private Network (VPN) is a secure option to keep Google from tracking you while you're
online. Although virtual private networks can't completely keep the company from accessing
your data, they do hide your IP
address , encrypt your internet traffic and make your browsing history private, keeping
your online actions much more secure.
2. Use private browsing
Use Google's Incognito Mode to ensure that the pages you access won't show up in your
browsing history or search history. Be aware, however, that other websites can still collect
and share information about you, even when you're using private browsing.
3. Adjust your privacy settings
Check out Google's Activity Controls to change what
data is stored about you and visit your Activity Page to delete stored history and
activity.
4. Turn off location reporting
In Google Maps -- as well as in your Android and Pixel device settings, if you use those
products -- disable location reporting to keep Google from tracking where you are and where
you go. If you use Google Maps or Waze for directions, though, the company can still collect
location data on you when you're using those apps.
5. Use a different browser and search engine
To stop Google from tracking your searches and website visits, you can use another browser
and search engine, like Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Bing. However, this will only stop
Google from tracking you -- Microsoft (or whatever company owns the browser you switch to)
will get your data instead.
6. Delete your Google accounts
To truly stop the tech giant from tracking you, you'll need to take drastic measures --
namely, disavowing the use of any of the company's products. That means deleting any apps
linked to the company, including Gmail, Google Drive and any Android devices, and moving to a
different browser and search engine.
Google has made life a lot simpler in many ways. Google Search has made answers just a click
away. Google Maps has made directions easy to find and understand. Google Drive has made
working across multiple platforms seamless.
This convenience comes with a price: privacy. If you're concerned about how Google is
tracking you -- and what they're doing with the data -- follow the steps above to keep yourself
safe, and visit Google's Privacy
Site for a more comprehensive overview of what data Google is tracking and how they use
it.
"... When monopolies are allowed flourish, giants develops. Giants tend to covet the source of their monopolies. In the case of Information monopolies, removing available information and omitting it from search engine searches and public indexes, often start as a means to offer access in exchange for money , but soon evolves into using technology to control the entire information environment . ..."
"... Gating access to information and controlling one's information environment allows to engineer a persons culture, sense of self, and level of satisfaction (as in pacification) this is done much the same way a psychiatrist might do to a rat caged in a research lab. ..."
re: 37 .. get Tor Browswer use Duckduckgo.com which I believe is free from tracking .
Google Facebook MSN, and Twitter are all highly suspect.. as is email that is secretly
maintained by our largest communications giant. IMHO. the biggest danger to democracy I see is not trade corruption between leaders of nation states,
but on-going removal of available information from view of the common ordinary people (denial
of access is one thing, but denial of awareness that certain information might exist is
quite another ).
At the moment the American Disabilities act is forcing colleges and educational institutions to
remove educational materials from public access and denying the public the use of such
educational materials.
When monopolies are allowed flourish, giants develops. Giants tend to covet the source of
their monopolies. In the case of Information monopolies, removing available information and
omitting it from search engine searches and public indexes, often start as a means to offer
access in exchange for money , but soon evolves into using technology to control the
entire information environment .
Gating access to information and controlling one's information environment allows to
engineer a persons culture, sense of self, and level of satisfaction (as in pacification) this
is done much the same way a psychiatrist might do to a rat caged in a research lab. .
There are two faces of Google: evil (systematic collection of user data, collision with the
intelligence agencies( Snowden revelations about PRISM, Gmail) and good (Googlemap (rumored to be
a present from the US military), Youtube, Google translator, Google scholar, and several other
projects).
It documents that Eric
Emerson Schmidt , the Executive Chairman of Alphabet – an American multinational
conglomerate that owns a lot and among them Google – is working on "de-ranking" alleged
propaganda outlets such as Russia Today, RT – the world's third largest television
network – and Sputnik.
Who is Eric Schmidt?
On the Wikipedia link you can read more about Mr. Schmidt , one of the
richest person on earth, an advocate of net neutrality, a corporate manager and owner of a lot,
a collector of modern art, etc. And you can read about his heavy involvement with Hillary
Clinton's recent campaign and the Obama administration and about Schmidt's involvement with
Pentagon, too.
Eric Emerson Schmidt's name is associated with the world's largest and most systematic data
collecting search engine , Google, that millions upon millions use. School children, teachers,
parents, media people, politicians and you and I all daily "google" what we need to know.
While we do that, Google tracks everything about us and if you are searching for a thing to
buy, say a camera, be sure that camera ads will shortly after turn up on your screen. And they
know everything we are interested in through our "googling" including political interests and
hobbies.
Playing God
This very powerful corporate leader with a open political orientation has decided - as will
be seen 58 seconds into the video – that the Internet and his hugely dominating search
engine a) shall cave in to political pressure, b) de-rank at least these two Russian media
organizations because c) he knows they are "propaganda outlets" (it isn't discussed at all or
compared with US or other countries' media) and d) in the name of political correctness it is
OK to limit the freedom of opinion-formation.
In fact, he says in a few words that he – well, not he himself but a computer program
and mechanism called an algorithm – shall decide what you are I shall be able to find.
Google as Good, Google as God.
Conspicuously, his de-ranking – read censorship – policy shall not hit media (as
far as we can understand from this clip at least and not from
this backgrounder either) that have, for instance, been using fake news and planted
stories, omitted facts and perspectives and sources and told us propaganda and worse about,
say, US wars around the world.
It's Russia's media. And naturally you ask: Whose next? And where does that end? ("Wherever
they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings." – Heinrich
Heine).
Obvious human rights violation
This type of political paternalism is not only totally unethical and foolish, it's a
violation of human rights. It cannot be defended with the argument that other countries and
media outlets also use propaganda. The Western world – the U.S. in particular –
calls itself 'the free world" and gladly, without the slightest doubts, fights and kills to
spread that freedom around the world and has done so for decades.
We humans have right to information without interference – at least if international
law counts. Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states states that "Everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers."
You abuse power, Mr. Schmidt
Mr Schmidt, you are blatantly and clearly interfering in the rights of millions, if not
billions, to know. To seek information. To shape their opinions.
With your few words you abuse your almost unlimited digital, political, economic and
'defence' power – much much worse than if you had sexually abused just one woman for
which older men today are fired or choose to resign.
This has to be stated irrespective of whether we like or dislike Russia and its media. That
is not the issue here. This has to be fought against because it is slippery slope, Mr
Schmidt.
You ought to stand up and use your powers with principles and vision: To protect the
Internet against every and each reduction of freedom. Freedom for all, also the fake
news-makers however we define them. Yes, there is another solution for that problem and it is
not your paternalism.
It just cannot be for you to decide what is good for others and collect data about us all
which is only good for you.
Has the West really become so insecure about itself?
Censorship – de-ranking – and information warfare is not the solution to
anything. A strong society or culture that believes in its own moral value and vitality does
not censor. Dictatorships – "regimes" – do.
Mr. Schmidt has much more power than many state leaders but he is not up to it and how would
he be able to re-rank themes and media again in the future.
Has the West, the US and Western culture become so weak, so trembling at the sight of the
global future and so morally deranged that it cannot live with – does not believe it can
compete factually and intelligently with – other views? With fake? With propaganda by
others? If so, that is where the Soviet Union was in the early 1980s. And if so, watch the
writing of the Western walls!
Education and trust
There are much better solutions – if you think. Mr. Schmidt may also google them
It's education – education of young and old to learn to identify what is trustworthy
and what is not. Learning to learn on the Internet. It is dialogue and it is dignity –
instead of succumbing to the lowest of levels that he accuses others of being at.
And there is more solutions.
Making democracy, freedom and human rights stronger – by believing in human beings,
their intelligence and solidarity. When Google de-ranks, it de-humanises. It offends the
intelligence of the world's users of the Google search engine.
It sinks to the low level where fakers and liars are – devoid of morals but passionate
about selling a particular message even if totally unfounded.
What are you so afraid of,
Mr. Schmidt?
If I were Eric Schmidt, I think I would be afraid of being perceived as a "useful idiot" or
an an evil operator on behalf of US militarism – since he is targeting Russia in a the
new Cold War atmosphere.
After all is/was a
member also of various US government security and Pentagon related boards. And after all,
he spoke at the Halifax Security
Forum filled with military defence people and hardliners who see only Russia, North Korea
and Iran as problems, never the US itself. One of the panels deals with the "Post-Putin
Prep"!
Regime change in Russia too in the future and with truthful news from Google?
Mr. Schmidt and his corporate fellows should also be afraid that millions will become more
sympathetic to Russia Today, Sputnik and even Russia itself precisely because of his words.
There are no wars on the ground without information war. If Schmidt's Google fights
political wars with de-ranking, many of us will be de-parting to more peaceful,
rights-respecting and ethical search engines than his. ...
Right, considering Schmidt is known to have hung out at the Playboy manor and has loved up
more than his share of the babes... No proof, but this sounds like damage control.
Never understood why Google went anywhere. It wasn't superior to anything search-wise
until the mid 2000s and earlier in the decade was little more than a joke with a curious
name. "PageRank" was nothing particularly interesting, and was generally too computationally
complex to implement anyways. Almost nothing was uniquely invented at Google, a company that
mostly leveraged open source software created elsewhere. So what is Google really? And why do
they have such a cult following?
Yahoo atrophied in the face on millions of websites, Alta Vista conquered that but the
user still had read thru wads of results, then Google came along and it was a breath of fresh
air, then Google accrued too much power and became Goolag.
By clicking 'Sign Up,' I acknowledge that I have read and agree to Hachette Book Group's
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
What's Inside
Prologue
Oakland, California
I
t was February 18, 2014, and already dark when I
crossed the Bay Bridge from San Francisco and parked my car in downtown Oakland. The streets were
deserted, save for a couple of homeless men slumped in a heap against a closed storefront. Two police
cruisers raced through a red light, sirens blaring.
I approached Oakland's city hall on foot. Even from a distance, I could see that something unusual
was going on. A line of parked police cars ran down the block, and news anchors and TV camera crews
scampered about, jockeying for position. A large group of people milled near the entrance, a few of
them setting up what looked like a giant papier-mâché rat, presumably intended as a symbol for
snitching. But the real action was inside. Several hundred people packed Oakland's ornate high-domed
city council chamber. Many of them carried signs. It was an angry crowd, and police officers flanked
the sides of the room, ready to push everyone out if things got out of hand.
The commotion was tied to the main agenda item of the night: the city council was scheduled to vote
on an ambitious $11 million project to create a citywide police surveillance hub. Its official name
was the "Domain Awareness Center" -- but everyone called it "the DAC." Design specs called for linking
real-time video feeds from thousands of cameras across the city and funneling them into a unified
control hub. Police would be able to punch in a location and watch it in real time or wind back the
clock. They could turn on face recognition and vehicle tracking systems, plug in social media feeds,
and enhance their view with data coming in from other law enforcement agencies -- both local and federal.
1
Plans for this surveillance center had been roiling city politics for months, and the outrage was
now making its presence felt. Residents, religious leaders, labor activists, retired politicians,
masked "black bloc" anarchists, and reps from the American Civil Liberties Union -- they were all in
attendance, rubbing shoulder to shoulder with a group of dedicated local activists who had banded
together to stop the DAC. A nervous, bespectacled city official in a tan suit took the podium to
reassure the agitated crowd that the Domain Awareness Center was designed to protect them -- not spy on
them. "This is not a fusion center. We have no agreements with the NSA or the CIA or the FBI to access
our databases," he said.
The hall blew up in pandemonium. The crowd wasn't buying it. People booed and hissed. "This is all
about monitoring protesters," someone screamed from the balcony. A young man, his face obscured by a
mask, stalked to the front of the room and menacingly jammed his smartphone in the city official's
face and snapped photos. "How does that feel? How do you like that -- being surveilled all the time!" he
yelled. A middle-aged man -- bald, wearing glasses and crumpled khakis -- took the podium and tore into the
city's political leaders. "You council members somehow believe that the Oakland Police Department,
which has an unparalleled history of violating the civil rights of Oaklanders and which cannot even
follow its own policies, be it a crowd control policy or a body camera policy, can somehow be trusted
to use the DAC?" He left with a bang, yelling: "The only good DAC is a dead DAC!" Wild applause
erupted.
Oakland is one of the most diverse cities in the country. It's also home to a violent, often
unaccountable police department, which has been operating under federal oversight for over a decade.
The police abuse has been playing out against a backdrop of increasing gentrification fueled by the
area's Internet boom and the spike in real estate prices that goes along with it. In San Francisco,
neighborhoods like the Mission District, historically home to a vibrant Latino community, have turned
into condos and lofts and upscale gastro pubs. Teachers, artists, older adults, and anyone else not
making a six-figure salary are having a tough time making ends meet. Oakland, which for a time was
spared this fate, was now feeling the crush as well. But locals were not going down without a fight.
And a lot of their anger was focused on Silicon Valley.
The people gathered at city hall that night saw Oakland's DAC as an extension of the tech-fueled
gentrification that was pushing poorer longtime residents out of the city. "We're not stupid. We know
that the purpose is to monitor Muslims, black and brown communities and protesters," said a young
woman in a headscarf. "This center comes at a time when you're trying to develop Oakland into a
playground and bedroom community for San Francisco professionals. These efforts require you to make
Oakland quieter, whiter, less scary and wealthier -- and that means getting rid of Muslims, black and
brown people and protesters. You know this and so do developers. We heard them at meetings. They are
scared. They verbally admit it."
She had a point. A few months earlier, a pair of Oakland investigative journalists had obtained a
cache of internal city-planning documents dealing with the DAC and found that city officials seemed to
be interested more in using the proposed surveillance center to monitor political protests and labor
union activity at the Oakland docks than in fighting crime.
2
There was another wrinkle. Oakland had initially contracted out development of the DAC to the
Science Applications International Corporation, a massive California-based military contractor that
does so much work for the National Security Agency that it is known in the intelligence business as
"NSA West." The company is also a major CIA contractor, involved in everything from monitoring agency
employees as part of the agency's "insider threat" programs to running the CIA's drone assassination
fleet. Multiple Oakland residents came up to blast the city's decision to partner with a company that
was such an integral part of the US military and intelligence apparatus. "SAIC facilitates the
telecommunications for the drone program in Afghanistan that's murdered over a thousand innocent
civilians, including children," said a man in a black sweater. "And this is the company you chose?"
I looked around the room in amazement. This was the heart of a supposedly progressive San Francisco
Bay Area, and yet the city planned on partnering with a powerful intelligence contractor to build a
police surveillance center that, if press reports were correct, officials wanted to use to spy on and
monitor locals. Something made that scene even stranger to me that night. Thanks to a tip from a local
activist, I had gotten wind that Oakland had been in talks with Google about demoing products in what
appeared to be an attempt by the company to get a part of the DAC contract.
Google possibly helping Oakland spy on its residents? If true, it would be particularly damning.
Many Oaklanders saw Silicon Valley companies such as Google as being the prime drivers of the
skyrocketing housing prices, gentrification, and aggressive policing that was making life miserable
for poor and low-income residents. Indeed, just a few weeks earlier protesters had picketed outside
the local home of a wealthy Google manager who was personally involved in a nearby luxury real estate
development.
Google's name never came up during the tumultuous city council meeting that night, but I did manage
to get my hands on a brief email exchange between a Google "strategic partnership manager" and an
Oakland official spearheading the DAC project that hinted at something in the works.
3
In the weeks after the city council meeting, I attempted to clarify this relationship. What kinds
of services did Google offer Oakland's police surveillance center? How far did the talks progress?
Were they fruitful? My requests to Oakland were ignored and Google wasn't talking either -- trying to get
answers from the company was like talking to a giant rock. My investigation stalled further when
Oakland residents temporarily succeeded in getting the city to halt its plans for the DAC.
Though Oakland's police surveillance center was put on hold, the question remained: What could
Google, a company obsessed with its progressive "Don't Be Evil" image, offer a controversial police
surveillance center?
At the time, I was a reporter for
Pando
, a small but fearless San Francisco magazine that
covered the politics and business of Silicon Valley. I knew that Google made most of its money through
a sophisticated targeted advertising system that tracked its users and built predictive models of
their behavior and interests. The company had a glimpse into the lives of close to two billion people
who used its platforms -- from email to video to mobile phones -- and it performed a strange kind of
alchemy, turning people's data into gold: nearly $100 billion in annual revenue and a market
capitalization of $600 billion; its cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had a combined personal
wealth estimated to be $90 billion.
Google is one of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world, yet it presents itself
as one of the good guys: a company on a mission to make the world a better place and a bulwark against
corrupt and intrusive governments all around the globe. And yet, as I traced the story and dug into
the details of Google's government contracting business, I discovered that the company was already a
full-fledged military contractor, selling versions of its consumer data mining and analysis technology
to police departments, city governments, and just about every major US intelligence and military
agency. Over the years, it had supplied mapping technology used by the US Army in Iraq, hosted data
for the Central Intelligence Agency, indexed the National Security Agency's vast intelligence
databases, built military robots, colaunched a spy satellite with the Pentagon, and leased its cloud
computing platform to help police departments predict crime. And Google is not alone. From Amazon to
eBay to Facebook -- most of the Internet companies we use every day have also grown into powerful
corporations that track and profile their users while pursuing partnerships and business relationships
with major US military and intelligence agencies. Some parts of these companies are so thoroughly
intertwined with America's security services that it is hard to tell where they end and the US
government begins.
Since the start of the personal computer and Internet revolution in the 1990s, we've been told
again and again that we are in the grips of a liberating technology, a tool that decentralizes power,
topples entrenched bureaucracies, and brings more democracy and equality to the world. Personal
computers and information networks were supposed to be the new frontier of freedom -- a techno-utopia
where authoritarian and repressive structures lost their power, and where the creation of a better
world was still possible. And all that we, global netizens, had to do for this new and better world to
flower and bloom was to get out of the way and let Internet companies innovate and the market work its
magic. This narrative has been planted deep into our culture's collective subconscious and holds a
powerful sway over the way we view the Internet today.
But spend time looking at the nitty-gritty business details of the Internet and the story gets
darker, less optimistic. If the Internet is truly such a revolutionary break from the past, why are
companies like Google in bed with cops and spies?
I tried to answer this seemingly simple question after visiting Oakland that night in February.
Little did I know then that this would take me on a deep dive into the history of the Internet and
ultimately lead me to write this book. Now, after three years of investigative work, interviews,
travel across two continents, and countless hours of correlating and researching historical and
declassified records, I know the answer.
Pick up any popular history of the Internet and you will generally find a combination of two
narratives describing where this computer networking technology came from. The first narrative is that
it emerged out of the military's need for a communication network that could survive a nuclear blast.
That led to the development of the early Internet, first known as ARPANET, built by the Pentagon's
Advanced Research Projects Agency (known today as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or
DARPA). The network went live in the late 1960s and featured a decentralized design that could route
messages even if parts of the network were destroyed by a nuclear blast. The second narrative, which
is the most dominant, contends that there was no military application of the early Internet at all. In
this version, the ARPANET was built by radical young computer engineers and playful hackers deeply
influenced by the acid-drenched counterculture of the San Francisco Bay Area. They cared not a damn
about war or surveillance or anything of the sort, but dreamed of computer-mediated utopias that would
make militaries obsolete. They built a civilian network to bring this future into reality, and it is
this version of the ARPANET that then grew into the Internet we use today. For years, a conflict has
raged between these historical interpretations. These days, most histories offer a mix of the
two -- acknowledging the first, yet leaning much more heavily on the second.
My research reveals a third historical strand in the creation of the early Internet -- a strand that
has all but disappeared from the history books. Here, the impetus was rooted not so much in the need
to survive a nuclear attack but in the dark military arts of counterinsurgency and America's fight
against the perceived global spread of communism. In the 1960s, America was a global power overseeing
an increasingly volatile world: conflicts and regional insurgencies against US-allied governments from
South America to Southeast Asia and the Middle East. These were not traditional wars that involved big
armies but guerrilla campaigns and local rebellions, frequently fought in regions where Americans had
little previous experience. Who were these people? Why were they rebelling? What could be done to stop
them? In military circles, it was believed that these questions were of vital importance to America's
pacification efforts, and some argued that the only effective way to answer them was to develop and
leverage computer-aided information technology.
The Internet came out of this effort: an attempt to build computer systems that could collect and
share intelligence, watch the world in real time, and study and analyze people and political movements
with the ultimate goal of predicting and preventing social upheaval. Some even dreamed of creating a
sort of early warning radar for human societies: a networked computer system that watched for social
and political threats and intercepted them in much the same way that traditional radar did for hostile
aircraft. In other words, the Internet was hardwired to be a surveillance tool from the start. No
matter what we use the network for today -- dating, directions, encrypted chat, email, or just reading
the news -- it always had a dual-use nature rooted in intelligence gathering and war.
As I traced this forgotten history, I found that I was not so much discovering something new but
uncovering something that was plainly obvious to a lot of people not so long ago. Starting in the
early 1960s in the United States, a big fear about the proliferation of computer database and
networking technologies arose. People worried that these systems would be used by both corporations
and governments for surveillance and control. Indeed, the dominant cultural view at the time was that
computers and computing technology -- including the ARPANET, the military research network that would
grow into the Internet we use today -- were tools of repression, not liberation.
In the course of my investigation, I was genuinely shocked to discover that as early as 1969, the
first year that the ARPANET came online, a group of students at MIT and Harvard attempted to shut down
research taking place at their universities under the ARPANET umbrella. They saw this computer network
as the start of a hybrid private-public system of surveillance and control -- "computerized
people-manipulation" they called it -- and warned that it would be used to spy on Americans and wage war
on progressive political movements. They understood this technology better than we do today. More
importantly, they were right. In 1972, almost as soon as the ARPANET was rolled out on a national
level, the network was used to help the CIA, the NSA, and the US Army spy on tens of thousands of
antiwar and civil rights activists. It was a big scandal at the time, and the ARPANET's role in it was
discussed at length on American television, including
NBC Evening News
.
This episode, which took place forty-five years ago, is a vital part of the historical record,
important to anyone who wants to understand the network that mediates so much of our lives today. Yet
you won't find it mentioned in any recent book or documentary on the origins of the Internet -- at least
not any that I could find, and I read and watched just about all of them.
Surveillance Valley
is an attempt to recover part of this lost history. But it is more
than that. The book starts in the past, going back to the development of what we now call the Internet
during the Vietnam War. But it quickly moves into the present, looking at the private surveillance
business that powers much of Silicon Valley, investigating the ongoing overlap between the Internet
and the military-industrial complex that spawned it half a century ago, and uncovering the close ties
that exist between US intelligence agencies and the antigovernment privacy movement that has sprung up
in the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks.
Surveillance Valley
shows that little has changed over
the years: the Internet was developed as a weapon and remains a weapon today. American military
interests continue to dominate all parts of the network, even those that supposedly stand in
opposition.
As recounted by the commentator Garret Epps in The
Atlantic in March 2018, "In 1973, the great Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn coined
the term 'Gulag Archipelago' to denote the Soviet system of political prisons and labor camps.
In the last 25 years, the United States has, without fanfare, brought into being a kind of
Enforcement and Removal Operations '
Archipelago -- secretive, loosely supervised, and, in human and constitutional rights terms,
deeply problematic. And the 'system' will, if the current administration carries forward its
enforcement plans, grow significantly larger year by year." The US gulag archipelago is firmly
in place.
But in the minds of so many of the Western world, that have been ever-so-gently brainwashed
over the years of the New Cold War, 'gulags' are forever Russian, and they are ready for pitch
invaders.
Cold War Two is thriving, having been initiated and fostered by West and especially by the
Pentagon and much of Congress, whose members benefit enormously from cash donations by weapons'
manufacturers whose generosity so far this election cycle has totaled $19,332,442 in
traceable hand-outs. The Pentagon
is reported as having calculated that "overseas weapons sales by US firms rose $8.3 billion
from 2016 to 2017, with American arms makers moving a total of $41.9 billion in advanced
weaponry to foreign militaries last year." There is profit in supporting confrontation.
Development of the new Cold War was
described succinctly in February 2018 by Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian
Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, in that "[President] Clinton pursued winner-take-all
policies consistent with viewing Russia as a defeated power, presiding over a massive intrusive
crusade to shape that former rival into 'the Russia we want'; beginning the expansion of NATO,
now on Russia's borders; and bombing Moscow's traditional Slav ally Serbia in 1999, despite
Yeltsin's protests. Indeed, the extreme vilification of Putin by former members of the Clinton
administration, including Hillary Clinton, who equated him with Hitler, are not unrelated to
their unwise Russia policies of the 1990s -- loudly applauded, it should be added, by media
journalists now also in the forefront of demonizing the current Kremlin leader."
The Western media and what is now called the ' deep state
' -- the power clique, somewhat akin or even complementary to the military-industrial
complex spotlighted by President Eisenhower almost sixty years ago -- are intent on
portraying Russia as a warmongering expansionist state, but they never mention the fact that,
as recorded in the
2018 World Report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute "In 2017 the USA
spent more on its military [$610 billion] than the next seven highest-spending countries
combined. . . . at $66.3 billion, Russia's military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than
in 2016."
The New York Times summed up the Washington Establishment's attitude to the
Putin-Trump July 16 talks with the headline "Trump
Opens His Arms to Russia. His Administration Closes Its Fist." Entirely coincidentally, three
days before the meeting, Washington's best and brightest announced that twelve Russians had been
indicted for allegedly interfering with the US elections in 2016. The word "allegedly" was
rarely used by the West's mainstream media, and the fact that no evidence of any sort has been
presented to backup up the allegations has been completely ignored. The automatic verdict is
that Russia is guilty of whatever charges might be levelled, just as in Britain the blame for
an
incident of poisoning has been laid firmly at Russia's door without a shred of proof that
Russia was involved.
Make no mistake: the man Trump is the worst president the US has ever had. He is, in the
well-chosen words of the commentator Robert
Reich , a "selfish, thin-skinned, petulant, lying, narcissistic, boastful megalomaniac."
But -- it seems he wants to talk and negotiate with Russia, rather than indulging in
ceaseless confrontation.
Trump has long expressed interest in improving ties with Russia, and the recent summit was
his first real opportunity for doing so. Yet it will be difficult for this progress to have any
permanence with so many in the Military-Industrial Complex uniting to undermine it. The Deep
State's fury and bitterness will not die down, and its propaganda campaigns will continue to
fuel the Second Cold War. Exporting weapons is most lucrative, and many big-ticket items are
scheduled to be sold to European countries, which is why it's important to keep Russia as an
enemy. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Brian Cloughley
Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay
sur Cure, France.
The article is long but very important and is worth a careful read. It shows that the
military/security complex has woven itself so tightly into the American social, economic, and
political fabric as to be untouchable. President Trump is an extremely brave or foolhardy
person to take on this most powerful and pervasive of all US institutions by trying to
normalize US relations with Russia, chosen by the military/security complex as the "enemy" that
justifies its enormous budget and power.
In 1961 President Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned us
about the danger to democracy and accountable government presented by the military/industrial
complex.
You can imagine how much stronger the complex is 57 years later after decades of Cold War
with the Soviet Union.
The Russian government, Russian media, and Russian people desperately need to comprehend how
powerful the US military/security complex is and how it is woven into the fabric of America. No
amount of diplomacy by Lavrov and masterful chess playing by Putin can possibly shake the
control over the United States exercised by the military/security complex.
Professor Roelofs has done a good deed for the American people and for the world in
assembling such extensive information documenting the penetration into every aspect of American
life of the military/security complex. It is a delusion that a mere President of the United
States can bring such a powerful, all-pervasive institution to heel and deprive it of its
necessary enemy.
For many people the "military-industrial-complex (MIC)" brings to mind the top twenty
weapons manufacturers. President Dwight Eisenhower, who warned about it in 1961, wanted to call
it the military- industrial-congressional-complex, but decided it was not prudent to do so.
Today it might well be called the military-industrial-congressional-almost-everything-complex.
Most departments and levels of government, businesses, and also many charities, social service,
environmental, and cultural organizations, are deeply embedded with the military.
The weapons industry may be spearheading the military budget and military operations; it is
aided immensely by the cheering or silence of citizens and their representatives. Here we will
provide some likely reasons for that assent. We will use the common typology of three national
sectors: government, business, and nonprofit, with varying amounts of interaction among them.
This does not preclude, though it masks somewhat, the proposition that government is the
executive of the ruling class.
Every kind of business figures in the Department of Defense (DoD) budget. Lockheed is
currently the largest contractor in the weapons business. It connects with the worldwide MIC by
sourcing parts, for example, for the F-35 fighter plane, from many countries. This helps a lot
to market the weapon, despite its low opinion among military experts as well as anti-military
critics. Lockheed also does civilian work, which enhances its aura while it spreads its
values.
Other types of businesses have enormous multi-year contracts -- in the billions. This
despite the constitutional proviso that Congress not appropriate military funds for more than a
two year term. Notable are the construction companies, such as Fluor, KBR, Bechtel, and Hensel
Phelps. These build huge bases, often with high tech surveillance or operational capacity, in
the US and abroad, where they hire locals or commonly, third country nationals to carry out the
work. There are also billion-funded contractors in communications technology, intelligence
analysis, transportation, logistics, food, and clothing. "Contracting out" is our modern
military way; this also spreads its influence far and wide.
Medium, small, and tiny businesses dangle from the "Christmas tree" of the Pentagon,
promoting popular cheering or silence on the military budget. These include special set-asides
for minority-owned and small businesses. A Black-owned small business, KEPA-TCI (construction),
received contracts for $356 million. [Data comes from several sources, available free on the
internet: websites, tax forms, and annual reports of organizations; usaspending.gov (USA) and
governmentcontractswon.com (GCW).] Major corporations of all types serving our services have
been excellently described in Nick Turse's The Complex. Really small and tiny businesses are
drawn into the system: landscapers, dry cleaners, child care centers, and Come- Bye Goose
Control of Maryland.
Among the businesses with large DoD contracts are book publishers: McGraw-Hill, Greenwood,
Scholastic, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Elsevier, and others. Rarely have the biases
in this industry, in fiction, nonfiction, and textbook offerings, been examined. Yet the
influences on this small but significant population, the reading public, and the larger
schooled contingent, may help explain the silence of the literate crowd and college
graduates.
Much of what is left of organized industrial labor is in weapons manufacture. Its PACs fund
the few "progressive" candidates in our political system, who tend to be silent about war and
the threat of nuclear annihilation. Unlike other factories, the armaments makers do not
suddenly move overseas, although they do use subcontractors worldwide.
Military spending may be only about 6% of the GDP, yet it has great impact because:
1. it is a growing sector;
2. it is recession-proof;
3. it does not rely on consumer whims;
4. it is the only thing prospering in many areas; and
5. the "multiplier" effect: subcontracting, corporate purchasing, and employee spending
perk up the regional economy.
It is ideally suited to Keynesian remedies, because of its ready destruction and
obsolescence: what isn't consumed in warfare, rusted out, or donated to our friends still needs
to be replaced by the slightly more lethal thing. Many of our science graduates work for the
military directly or its contractee labs concocting these.
The military's unbeatable weapon is jobs, and all members of Congress, and state and local
officials, are aware of this. It is where well-paying jobs are found for mechanics, scientists,
and engineers; even janitorial workers do well in these taxpayer-rich firms. Weaponry is also
important in our manufactured goods exports as our allies are required to have equipment that
meets our specifications. Governments, rebels, terrorists, pirates, and gangsters all fancy our
high tech and low tech lethal devices.
Our military economy also yields a high return on investments. These benefit not only
corporate executives and other rich, but many middle and working class folk, as well as
churches, benevolent, and cultural organizations. The lucrative mutual funds offered by
Vanguard, Fidelity, and others are heavily invested in the weapons manufacturers.
Individual investors may not know what is in their fund's portfolios; the institutions
usually know. A current project of World Beyond War ( https://worldbeyondwar.org/divest ) advocates
divestment of military stocks in the pension funds of state and local government workers:
police, firepersons, teachers, and other civil servants. Researchers are making a
state-by-state analysis of these funds. Among the findings are the extensive military stock
holdings of CALpers, the California Public Employees Retirement System (the sixth largest
pension fund on earth), the California State Teachers Retirement System, the New York State
Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Employees Retirement System, and the New York
State Common Retirement Fund (state and local employees). Amazing! the New York City teachers
were once the proud parents of red diaper babies.
The governmental side of the MIC complex goes far beyond the DoD. In the executive branch,
Departments of State, Homeland Security, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior; and CIA, AID, FBI,
NASA, and other agencies; are permeated with military projects and goals. Even the Department
of Agriculture has a joint program with the DoD to "restore" Afghanistan by creating a dairy
cattle industry. No matter that the cattle and their feed must be imported, cattle cannot graze
in the terrain as the native sheep and goats can, there is no adequate transportation or
refrigeration, and the Afghans don't normally drink milk. The native animals provide yogurt,
butter, and wool, and graze on the rugged slopes, but that is all so un-American.
Congress is a firm ally of the military. Campaign contributions from contractor PACs are
generous, and lobbying is extensive. So also are the outlays of financial institutions, which
are heavily invested in the MIC. Congresspeople have significant shares of weapons industry
stocks. To clinch the deal, members of Congress (and also state and local lawmakers) are well
aware of the economic importance of military con- tracts in their states and districts.
Military bases, inside the US as well as worldwide, are an economic hub for communities. The
DoD Base Structure Report for Fy2015 lists more than 4,000 domestic properties. Some are
bombing ranges or re- cruiting stations; perhaps 400 are bases with a major impact on their
localities. The largest of these, Fort Bragg, NC, is a city unto itself, and a cultural
influence as well as economic asset to its region, as so well described by Catherine Lutz in
Homefront. California has about 40 bases ( https://militarybases.com/by - state/), and is home to major
weapons makers as well. Officers generally live off-base, so the real estate, restaurant,
retail, auto repair, hotel and other businesses are prospering. Local civilians find employment
on bases. Closed, unconvertible installations are sometimes tourist attractions, such as the
unlikeliest of all vacation spots, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
DoD has direct contracts and grants with state and local governments. These are for various
projects and services, including large amounts to fund the National Guard. The Army Engineers
maintain swimming holes and parks, and police forces get a deal on Bearcats. JROTC programs
nationwide provide funding for public schools, and even more for those that are public school
military academies; six are in Chicago.
National, state and local governments are well covered by the "insecurity blanket;" the
nonprofit sector is not neglected. Nevertheless, it does harbor the very small group of
anti-war organizations, such as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans for Peace, World Beyond
War, Peace Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for International Policy, Catholic
Worker, Answer Coalition, and others. Yet unlike the Vietnam War period there is no vocal group
of religious leaders protesting war, and the few students who are politically active are more
concerned with other issues.
Nonprofit organizations and institutions are involved several ways. Some are obviously
partners of the MIC: Boy and Girl Scouts, Red Cross, veterans' charities, military think-tanks
such as RAND and Institute for Defense Analysis, establishment think-tanks like the American
Enterprise Institute, Atlantic Council, and the flagship of US world projection, the Council on
Foreign Relations. There are also many international nongovernmental organizations that assist
the US government in delivering "humanitarian" assistance, sing the praises of the market
economy, or attempt to repair the "collateral" damage inflicted on lands and people, for
example, Mercy Corps, Open Society Institutes, and CARE.
Educational institutions in all sectors are embedded with the military. The military schools
include the service academies, National Defense University, Army War College, Naval War
College, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, Defense Acquisition University,
Defense Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Information School, the medical
school, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the notorious School of the
Americas in Fort Benning, GA, now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation. "In addition, Senior Military Colleges offer a combination of higher education
with military instruction. SMCs include Texas A&M University, Norwich University, The
Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Virginia Tech), University of North Georgia and the Mary Baldwin Women's Institute for
Leadership" ( https://www.usa.gov/military-colleges ).
A university doesn't have to be special to be part of the MIC. Most are awash with
contracts, ROTC programs, and/or military officers and contractors on their boards of trustees.
A study of the 100 most militarized universities includes prestigious institutions, as well as
diploma mills that produce employees for military intelligence agencies and contractors (
https://news.vice.com/article/these-are-the-100
- most-militarized-universities-in-america).
Major liberal foundations have long engaged in covert and overt operations to support
imperial projection, described by David Horowitz as the "Sinews of Empire" in his important
1969 Ramparts article. They have been close associates of the Central Intelligence Agency, and
were active in its instigation. The foundation created and supported Council on Foreign
Relations has long been a link among Wall Street, large corporations, academia, the media, and
our foreign and military policymakers.
Less obvious are the military connections of philanthropic, cultural, social service,
environmental, and professional organizations. They are linked through donations; joint
programs; sponsorship of events, exhibits, and concerts; awards (both ways); investments;
boards of directors; top executives; and contracts. The data here covers approximately the last
twenty years, and rounds out the reasons for the astounding support (according to the polls)
that US citizens have conferred on our military, its budget, and its operations.
Military contractor philanthropy was the subject of my previous CP reports, in 2006 and
2016. Every type of nonprofit (as well as public schools and universities) received support
from the major weapons manufacturers; some findings were outstanding. Minority organizations
were extremely well endowed. For many years there was crucial support for the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from Lockheed; Boeing also funded the
Congressional Black Caucus. The former president and CEO of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, is now on
the Board of Trustees of Northrop Grumman.
General Electric is the most generous military contractor philanthropist, with direct grants
to organizations and educational institutions, partnerships with both, and matching
contributions made by its thousands of employees. The latter reaches many of the
nongovernmental and educational entities throughout the country.
Major donors to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (listed in its 2016 Annual
Report) include the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cisco Systems, Open Society Foundations, US
Department of Defense, General Electric, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Lockheed
Martin. This is an echo of the CEIP's military connections reported in Horace Coon's book of
the 1930s, Money to Burn.
The DoD itself donates surplus property to organizations; among those eligible are Big
Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball,
and United Service Organizations. The Denton Program allows non-governmental organizations to
use extra space on U.S. military cargo aircraft to transport humanitarian assistance
materials.
There is a multitude of joint programs and sponsorships. Here is a small sample...
The American Association of University Women's National Tech Savvy Program encourages
girls to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) careers, with sponsorship
from Lockheed, BAE Systems, and Boeing.
Junior Achievement, sponsored by Bechtel, United Technologies, and others, aims to train
children in market-based economics and entrepreneurship.
Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts is partnered with Northrop Grumman for an
"early childhood STEM 'Learning through the Arts' initiative for pre-K and kindergarten
students."
The Bechtel Foundation has two programs for a "sustainable California" -- an education
program to help "young people develop the knowledge, skills, and character to explore and
understand the world," and an environmental program to promote the "management, stewardship
and conservation for the state's natural resources."
The NAACP ACT-SO is a "yearlong enrichment program designed to recruit, stimulate, and
encourage high academic and cultural achievement among African-American high school
students," with sponsorship from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman et al. The national
winners receive financial awards from major corporations, college scholarships, internships,
and apprenticeships -- in the military industries.
In recent years the weapons makers have become enthusiastic environmentalists. Lockheed was
a sponsor of the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation Sustainability Forum in 2013. Northrop
Grumman supports Keep America Beautiful, National Public Lands Day, and a partnership with
Conservation International and the Arbor Day Foundation (for forest restoration). United
Technologies is the founding sponsor of the U.S. Green Building Council Center for Green
Schools, and co-creator of the Sustainable Cities Design Academy. Tree Musketeers is a national
youth environmental organization partnered by Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
Awards go both ways: industries give awards to nonprofits, and nonprofits awards to military
industries and people. United Technologies, for its efforts in response to climate change, was
on Climate A list of the Climate Disclosure Project. The Corporate Responsibility Association
gave Lockheed position 8 in 2016 in its 100 Best Corporate Citizens List. Points of Light
included General Electric and Raytheon in its 2014 list of the 50 Most Community-Minded
Companies in America. Harold Koh, the lawyer who as Obama's advisor defended drone strikes and
intervention in Libya, was recently given distinguished visiting professor status by Phi Beta
Kappa. In 2017, the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility recognized 34 Young
Hispanic Corporate Achievers; 3 were executives in the weapons industry. Elizabeth Amato, an
executive at United Technologies, received the YWCA Women Achievers Award.
Despite laborious searching through tax form 990s, it is difficult to discover the specifics
of organizations' investments. Many have substantial ones; in 2006, the American Friends
Service Committee had $3.5 million in revenue from investments. Human Rights Watch reported
$3.5 million investment income on its 2015 tax form 990, and more than $107 million in
endowment funds.
One of the few surveys of nonprofit policies (by Commonfund in 2012) found that only 17% of
foundations used environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in their investments. ESG
seems to have replaced "socially responsible investing (SRI)" in investment terminology, and it
has a somewhat different slant. The most common restriction is the avoidance of companies doing
business in regions with conflict risk; the next relates to climate change and carbon
emissions; employee diversity is also an important consideration. Commonfund's study of
charities, social service and cultural organizations reported that 70% of their sample did not
consider ESG in their investment policies. Although 61% of religious organizations did employ
ESG criteria, only 16% of social service organizations and 3% of cultural organizations
did.
Weapon industries are hardly ever mentioned in these reports. Religious organizations
sometimes still used the SRI investment screens, but the most common were alcohol, gambling,
pornography, and tobacco. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a resource for
churches, lists almost 30 issues for investment consideration, including executive
compensation, climate change, and opioid crisis, but none concerning weapons or war. The United
Church (UCC) advisory, a pioneer in SRI investment policies, does include a screen: only
companies should be chosen which have less than 10% revenue from alcohol or gambling, 1% from
tobacco, 10% from conventional weapons and 5% from nuclear weapons.
The Art Institute of Chicago states on their website that "[W]ith the fiduciary
responsibility to maximize returns on investment consistent with appropriate levels of risk,
the Art Institute maintains a strong presumption against divesting for social, moral, or
political reasons." Listed as an associate is Honeywell International, and a major benefactor
is the Crown Family (General Dynamics), which recently donated a $2 million endowment for a
Professorship in Painting and Drawing.
Nonprofit institutions (as well as individuals and pension funds of all sectors) have heavy
investments in the funds of financial companies such as State Street, Vanguard, BlackRock,
Fidelity, CREF, and others, which have portfolios rich in military industries ( https://worldbeyondwar.org/wp -
content/uploads/2016/11/indirect.pdf). These include information technology firms, which,
although often regarded as "socially responsible," are among the major DoD contractors.
In recent years foundations and other large nonprofits, such as universities, have favored
investments in hedge funds, real estate, derivatives, and private equity. The Carnegie
Endowment, more "transparent" than most, lists such funds on its 2015 tax form 990 (Schedule D
Part VII). It is unlikely that Lockheed, Boeing, et al, are among the distressed debt bonanzas,
so these institutions may be low on weapons stock. Nevertheless, most of them have firm
connections to the MIC through donations, leadership, and/or contracts.
Close association with the military among nonprofit board members and executives works to
keep the lid on anti-war activities and expression. The Aspen Institute is a think-tank that
has resident experts, and also a policy of convening with activists, such as anti-poverty
community leaders. Its Board of Trustees is chaired by James Crown, who is also a director of
General Dynamics. Among other board members are Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Javier
Solana (former Secretary-General of NATO), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman. Harman
"received the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the CIA Seal Medal in
2007, and the CIA Director's Award and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service
Medal in 2011. She is currently a member of the Director of National Intelligence's Senior
Advisory Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations." Lifetime Aspen
Trustees include Lester Crown and Henry Kissinger.
In recent years, the Carnegie Corporation board of trustees included Condoleezza Rice and
General Lloyd Austin III (Ret.), Commander of CENTCOM, a leader in the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
and also a board member of United Technologies. A former president of Physicians for Peace (not
the similarly named well-known group) is Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen, formerly Commander of the
US Middle East Force and not a physician.
TIAA, the college teachers' retirement fund, had a CEO from 1993-2002, John H. Biggs, who
was at the same time a director of Boeing. TIAA's current board of directors includes an
associate of a major military research firm, MITRE Corporations, and several members of the
Council on Foreign Relations. Its senior executive Vice President, Rahul Merchant, is currently
also a director at two information technology firms that have large military contracts: Juniper
Networks and AASKI.
The American Association of Retired Persons' chief lobbyist from 2002-2007, Chris Hansen,
had previously served in that capacity at Boeing. The current VP of communications at Northrop
Grumman, Lisa Davis, held that position at AARP from 1996-2005.
Board members and CEOs of the major weapons corporations serve on the boards of many
nonprofits. Just to indicate the scope, these include the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, Newman's Own Foundation, New York Public Library, Carnegie Hall Society,
Conservation International, Wolf Trap Foundation, WGBH, Boy Scouts, Newport Festival
Foundation, Toys for Tots, STEM organizations, Catalyst, the National Science Center, the US
Institute of Peace, and many foundations and universities.
The DoD promotes the employment of retired military officers as board members or CEOs of
nonprofits, and several organizations and degree programs further this transition. U.S. Air
Force Brigadier General Eden Murrie (Ret.) is now Director of Government Transformation and
Agency Partnerships at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. She maintains that
"[F]ormer military leaders have direct leadership experience and bring talent and integrity
that could be applied in a nonprofit organization. . ."
(seniormilitaryintransition.com/tag/eden-murrie/). Given the early retirement age, former
military personnel (and reservists) are a natural fit for positions of influence in federal,
state, and local governments, school boards, nonprofits, and volunteer work; many are in those
places.
Perhaps the coziest relationships under the insecurity blanket are the multitudes of
contracts and grants the Department of Defense tenders to the nonprofit world. DoD fiscal
reporting is notoriously inaccurate, and there were conflicting accounts between and within the
online databases. Nevertheless, even a fuzzy picture gives a good idea of the depth and scope
of the coverage.
From the TNC 2016 Annual Report: "The Nature Conservancy is an organization that takes care
of people and land, and they look for opportunities to partner. They're nonpolitical. We need
nongovernment organizations like TNC to help mobilize our citizens. They are on the ground.
They understand the people, the politics, the partnerships. We need groups like TNC to
subsidize what government organizations can't do" (Mamie Parker, Former Assistant Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arkansas Trustee, The Nature Conservancy).
Among the subsidies going the other way are 44 DoD contracts with TNC totaling several
million for the years 2008-2018 (USA). These are for such services as Prairie Habitat
Reforestation, $100,000, and Runway and Biosecurity upkeep at Palmyra Atoll, HI, $82,000 (USA).
For the years 2000-2016, GCW lists a total of $5,500,000 in TNC's DoD contracts.
Grants to TNC for specific projects, not clearly different from contracts, were much larger.
Each is listed separately (USA); a rough count of the total was more than $150 million. One $55
million grant was for "Army compatible use buffer (acubs) in vicinity of Fort Benning military
installation." Similar grants, the largest, $14 million, were for this service at other bases.
Another was for the implementation of Fort Benning army installation's ecological monitoring
plan. Included in the description of these grants was the notice: "Assist State and local
governments to mitigate or prevent incompatible civilian land use/activity that is likely to
impair the continued operational utility of a Department of Defense (DoD) military
installation. Grantees and participating governments are expected to adopt and implement the
study recommendations."
TNC's Form 990 for 2017 states its investment income as $21 million. It reported government
grants of $108.5 million, and government contracts of $9 million. These may include funds from
state and local as well as all departments of the federal government. The Department of the
Interior, which manages the vast lands used for bombing ranges and live ammunition war games,
is another TNC grantor.
Other environmental organizations sustained by DoD contracts are the National Audubon
Society ($945,000 for 6 years, GCW), and Point Reyes Bird Observatory ($145,000, 6 years, GCW).
USA reports contracts with Stichting Deltares, a Dutch coastal research institute, for $550,000
in 2016, grants to the San Diego Zoo of $367,000, and to the Institute for Wildlife Studies,
$1.3 million for shrike monitoring.
Goodwill Industries (training and employing the disabled, ex-offenders, veterans, and
homeless people) is an enormous military contractor. Each entity is a separate corporation,
based on state or region, and the total receipt is in the billions. For example, for 2000-2016
(GCW), Goodwill of South Florida had $434 million and Southeastern Wisconsin $906 million in
contracts. Goods and services provided include food and logistics support, records processing,
army combat pants, custodial, security, mowing, and recycling. Similar organizations working
for the DoD include the Jewish Vocational Service and Community Workshop, janitorial services,
$12 million over 5 years; Lighthouse for the Blind, $4.5 million, water purification equipment;
Ability One; National Institute for the Blind; Pride Industries; and Melwood Horticultural
Training Center.
The DoD does not shun the work of Federal Prison Industries, which sells furniture and other
products. A government corporation (and thus not a nonprofit), it had half a billion in sales
to all federal departments in 2016. Prison labor, Goodwill Industries, and other
sheltered-workshop enterprises, along with for- profits employing immigrant workers, teenagers,
retirees, and migrant workers (who grow food for the military and the rest of us), reveal the
evolving nature of the US working class, and some explanation for its lack of revolutionary
fervor, or even mild dissent from the capitalist system.
The well-paid, and truly diverse employees (including executives) of major weapons makers
are also not about to construct wooden barricades. Boards of directors in these industries are
welcoming to minorities and women. The CEOs of Lockheed and General Dynamics are women, as is
the Chief Operating Officer of Northrop Grumman. These success stories reinforce personal
aspirations among the have-nots, rather than questioning the system.
Contracts with universities, hospitals, and medical facilities are too numerous to detail
here; one that illustrates how far the blanket stretches is with Oxford University, $800,000
for medical research. Professional associations with significant contracts include the
Institute of International Education, American Council on Education, American Association of
State Colleges and Universities, National Academy of Sciences, Society of Women Engineers,
American Indian Science and Engineering Society, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists,
Society of Mexican-American Engineers, and U.S. Green Building Council. The Council of State
Governments (a nonprofit policy association of officials) received a $193,000 contract for
"preparedness" work. Let us hope we are well prepared.
The leaders, staff, members, donors, and volunteers of nonprofit organizations are the kind
of people who might have been peace activists, yet so many are smothered into silence under the
vast insecurity blanket. In addition to all the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the
military establishment, many people with no connection still cheer it on. They have been
subject to relentless propaganda forthe military and its wars from the government, the print
and digital press, TV, movies, sports shows, parades, and computer games -- the latter teach
children that killing is fun.
The indoctrination goes down easily. It has had a head start in the educational system that
glorifies the violent history of the nation. Our schools are full of in-house tutoring, STEM
programs, and fun robotics teams personally conducted by employees of the weapons makers. Young
children may not understand all the connections, but they tend to remember the logos. The JROTC
programs, imparting militaristic values, enroll far more children than the ones who will become
future officers. The extremely well-funded recruitment efforts in schools include "fun"
simulations of warfare.
There is a worldwide supporting cast for the complex that includes NATO, other alliances,
defense ministries, foreign military industries, and bases, but that is a story for another
day.
The millions sheltered under our thick and broad blanket, including the enlistees under the
prickly part of it, are not to blame. Some people may be thrilled by the idea of death and
destruction. However, most are just trying to earn a living, keep their organization or rust
belt afloat, or be accepted into polite company. They would prefer constructive work or income
from healthy sources. Yet many have been indoctrinated to believe that militarism is normal and
necessary. For those who consider change to be essential if life on this planet has a chance at
survival, it is important to see all the ways that the military-
industrial-congressional-almost everything-complex is being sustained.
"Free market economy" is a myth. In addition to the huge nonprofit (non-market) sector,
government intervention is substantial, not only in the gigantic military, but in agriculture,
education, health care, infrastructure, economic development (!), et al. For the same trillions
we could have a national economy that repairs the environment, provides a fine standard of
living and cultural opportunities for all, and works for peace on earth.
* * *
Joan Roelofs is Professor Emerita of Political Science, Keene State College, New Hampshire.
She is the author of Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (SUNY Press, 2003)
and Greening Cities (Rowman and Littlefield, 1996). She is the translator of Victor
Considerant's Principles of Socialism (Maisonneuve Press, 2006), and with Shawn P. Wilbur, of
Charles Fourier's anti-war fantasy, The World War of Small Pastries (Autonomedia, 2015). A
community education short course on the military industrial complex is on her website, and may
be used for similar purposes.
The Trump Tower meeting was arranged by Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone, who said during
Congressional testimony reviewed by
Breitbart that he believes the June 9, 2016 meeting was a "bait and switch" by a Russian
lobbyist who promised "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, and admitted that he used hyperbolic language
on purpose to ensure that the meeting would take place.
"I, therefore, used the strongest hyperbolic language in order to secure this request from
Donald Trump Jr. based on the bare facts I was given," said Goldstone, a UK publicist and music
manager.
"It was an example of, I was given very limited information, and my job was to get a
meeting, and so I used my professional use of words to emphasize what my client had only
given bare-bones information about, in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump Jr. " -Rob
Goldstone
Goldstone then said " it appeared to me to have been a bait and switch of somebody who
appeared to be lobbying for what I now understood to be the Magnitsky act," - which sanctions
Russian officials thought to be involved in the death of a Russian tax accountant.
Fusion GPS associate Natalia Veselnitskaya, an attorney for Russian businessman and Fusion
GPS client Denis Katsy, said that Emin Agalarov - the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov -
told her to contact his representative, Irakly "Ike" Kaveladze to set up the Trump Tower
meeting, which Kaveladze attended.
While both Agalarov and Katsyv opposed the Magnitsky act, Veselnitskaya worked only for
Katsyv, while approaching Agalarov and his associates to participate in the Trump Tower
meeting. Of ntoe, Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when it was
partially owned by Donald Trump.
Veselnitskaya said Agalarov told her to get in touch with Kaveladze about the meeting
because he had connections with the Trump team.
Veselnitskaya said she made a point of asking Goldstone -- who she mistakenly thought was
a lawyer -- whether it was OK to include Akhmetshin, given that he was a registered lobbyist.
Goldstone told her it was fine, she said. -
NBC News
On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent an email to Trump Jr. on behalf of Emin Agalarov to set up
the meeting. Goldstone was described last July as "associated with Fusion GPS" by Mark Corallo
- spokesman for Trump's outside legal counsel, according to the
Washington Post .
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS , a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives
to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele
dossier" -Mark Corallo
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting
offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump -- helped along by Aras and Emin.
Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone that " if it's what you say I love it especially later in the
summer ."
Breitbart News previously
reported that Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, who attended the meeting
with Veselnitskaya, evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial
firm's co-founder Glenn Simpson , according to Akhmetshin's testimony before the same
committee. -
Breitbart
Fusion's fingerprints are all over this...
Hours before Veselnitskaya attended the Trump Tower meeting to lobby Trump Jr. about the
Magnitsky act, she met with Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn Simpson .
While most people know that Fusion GPS was paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the
infamous "Steele Dossier" - assembled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, Fusion was also
working for a Russian businessman who wanted the Magnitsky act repealed, Denis Katsyv, and
Veselnitskaya was his lawyer who was given special permission by the Obama DOJ to enter the
U.S. to represent him.
In late November of 2017, The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported that
heavily redacted Fusion GPS bank records reveal DNC law firm Perkins Coie
paid Fusion a total of $1,024,408 in 2016 for opposition research on then-candidate Donald
Trump - including the 34-page dossier.
Ross also reported that law firm Baker Hostelter paid Fusion $523,651 between March and
October 2016 on behalf of a company owned by Katsyv
to research Bill Browder , a London banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act.
Keep in mind, Veselnitskaya really doesn't like Donald Trump based on several archived
Facebook posts:
I'm unsure of the zeitgeist being proposed here but it sure sounds like you are offering
up the theory that the Deep State actually wanted Trump.
Yet he..."colluded"...among outside parties like the DNC funded Fusion, Perkins Coie, MI6
and then the FBI, the CIA, DNI and the DoJ to manufacture FALSE EVIDENCE.
In order to produce that "evidence" to a FISA court, in order to "legally" surveil (with
taxpayer funds, of course) the very same man (and his associates).
So as to, gather incriminating evidence against him (Trump) so he could be removed from
office in disgrace (almost immediately) because he is actually the one the Deep State wants
in office, as President of the United States.
The only one telling a different story is the guy who's trying desperately to stay out of
prison. Not the best witness. Particularly since he didn't remember for two years prior.
Reasonable doubt anyone?
So hold on this chick is employed by Fusion GPS- who was paid to concoct a dossier against
Trump- using Russian sources and UK intelligence, has dinner with the head of Fusion GPS the
night before the meeting, she gets the meeting offering information- within minutes changes
the course of the meeting- realizing something was wrong, Donald Trump Jr ends the meeting-
and the crime is Trump may have known about it??
It's a set up plain and simple. These fucking people are dirty AS SHIT- including the
Brown Clown Kenyan.
The big story is using opposition research- paid for- submitted to the court as proof to
secure a FISA warrant, and if they didn't know the information was false and paid for- what
the fuck is the "I" in FBI for??
April 2018...."Michael is in business, he is really a businessman, a fairly big business,
as I understand it. I don't know his business." He "also practices law." And, "I have many
attorneys. Sadly, I have so many attorneys you wouldn't even believe it." Cohen handled only
a "tiny, tiny little fraction of my overall legal work."
According to Adam Davidson of the New Yorker, Cohen was not part of the Trump
Organization's Legal Team in any sense. Alan Garten was the Trump Org's attorney on real
estate matters and Marc Kasowitz usually represented Trump in important cases.
Cohen's legal education was not stellar by any sense of the word. Cohen often told this
joke:
Q: "What do you call a lawyer who graduated with a 2.0?"
A: "Counselor."
Would Trump actually hire a guy like this to be his "personal" attorney? He was
effectively a trip-and-fall attorney up to the point he was brought into the organization by
Trump Sr. In truth, Cohen was a fairly savvy real estate investor and, as such, was appointed
Trump's "deal maker" for international projects. He was also Trump's personal "fixer." Cohen
made things 'go away.' You don't need to be an attorney to "make things go away."
It's doubtful that there was a legitimate "attorney/client" relationship there.
In any case, reports are out tonight that the Trump Organization's CFO has been subpoenaed
to testify in the Cohen investigation. Why? Allen Weisselberg's name came up in the recording
that Lanny Davis released yesterday. While everyone was getting their thongs in a twist about
who said "cash," the Weisselberg mention was actually the biggest shoe to drop on that tape.
Weisselberg has a thorough knowledge of all Trump's deals, payments and income.
It was setup by Democrats trying to tie Trump to Russia
The Russian lawyer was briefed before and after the meeting by Fusion GPS
The lawyer was offering dirt on Clinton, but lied and had another agenda
What people should care about, is that Democrats were attempting to frame Trump, in the
dirtiest campaign trick in my lifetime, and using it as a pretext to get the government to
spy on Trump. But you're right that the Dems care about it, because they think (magically)
that it means Trump was colluding with Russia. LOL Consider, wouldn't Trump be doing the USA
a great favor by obtaining Hillary's emails from Russia, which would prove that Putin was
blackmailing her and Obama. The Democrats are completely ignoring this narrative, as if it's
Trump's fault Putin has her emails. LOL
You're a funny guy...The perverse inquisition by the Purple Inquisitors strike again.
Nothing but a pathetic Op to "Sting" Trump by the Psyop Deep State Dip Shits. Cohen squeals
on cue, check his Cayman Isle bank account. Mr Mueller is beyond desperate as you should be
well able to relate to. Ha F'n Ha, but you'll always have Hillary's " "Precious" pee pee
dossier...
Trump knew about a meeting re: oppo research on Hellary. Which is the same crime Hellary
and the DNC did with the bogus Russo 8ntel from the Steele Dossier against What is good for
the goose not good for the gander.
It's like a George Webb wayback machine.
Also funny how no one ever mentions that the Podesta Group closed shop immediately after
George Webb filed his lawsuit against them.
Who were in bed with Fusion... who were in bed with the DNC... who were in bed with Awan.
Also funny how that fake ass Rosenstein Russian indictment stole George Webbs lawsuits
actblues paragraph almost word for word, but substituting Russians for Awan.
The Awan who also downloaded terabytes of congressional data From Pakistan, ffs.
My, what a wicked web they weave.
Cohen is a plant. The guy was in no danger of anything happening to him. Once the DOJ took
everything they broke the law for lawyer client confidentiality. Cohen could just stfu and
say nothing and no judge would prosecute him given he never broke a law... So why is he
singing like a bird? Because its all a fucking setup.
Who knows, maybe he disliked Trump, Maybe his bitch wife made him do it at the end of the
day its his word against a bunch of other people.
Incredible what they are allowing Mueller to do. He basically makes it clear to the person
that if they do not say what they want to hear they are going to ruin them financially, so
people say tell me what you want me to say, and Mueller backs off. I am blown away this
charade is being allowed to go forward. Mueller has done more to destroy the faith people
have in our justice system than any other figure in our modern history. Truly, Mueller should
be rotting in prison for a very long time since it is clear that he is attempting a silent
coup, the US and the American public be damned. This is all about Mueller and appeasing his
puppet masters.
But slowly, ever so slowly, this charade is unraveling. This is throwing his constituents
a bone.
How do I really feel? FUCK YOU, Mueller. Fuck you and your outsized ego.
Was just reported Cohen has already testified to Congress under oath Trump didn't know and
Lanny Davis is accusing the Trump team of leaking this made up story...Cohen getting the
treatment by Trump..
President Trump's former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is prepared to tell
special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Donald Trump knew in advance about the June
2016 Trump tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Fusion GPS associate Natalia
Veselnitskaya - who is not a fan of Trump Sr., and several other individuals - including Cohen
who says he was there, reports
CNN .
Allies Against Russia & Iran
Main U.S. allies are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Israel, & Nazis
Eric Zuesse
July 27, 2018
4,900 Words
58 Comments
Reply
🔊
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Add to Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Today's Axis (the fascist powers) are
the heirs of Hitler's failed Operation Barbarossa to conquer the Soviet Union. After World War II, America's
CIA, along with Britain's MI6 and other governmental agencies, plus the Vatican, produced "rat lines" for
key Nazis (including their collaborators in other countries) to resettle in U.S., Argentina, and
Canada
(and in other countries, too, as
the CIA-edited and written account
at Wikipedia
focused upon
), and for these 'former' Nazis (who actually remained ideologically as nazis or racist
fascists, and the CIA knew and welcomed this) to continue working to conquer the Soviet Union. These secret
nazis carried out secret assignments not only for their new country's military and against the Soviet Union,
but also domestically against labor unions of all sorts, and against anything that the owners of the largest
U.S.-and-allied international corporations wanted to be targeted.
This was and is an officially secret
extension of the internationally coordinated farthest far-right, the few people who actually control the
international corporations. It consists of the operations on behalf of the Deep State, but the agents who
carry out these instructions are
only agents
; consequently, everything that they know regarding what
they are instructed to do is told to them only privately on a need-to-know basis, so that only the members
of the Deep State itself are aware of what the broader objectives of any given operation are. For example,
the CIA's operations aren't part of the Deep State but particular ones of these operations
represent
the Deep State -- the instructions they execute on these operations come from the Deep State; the CIA is an
agency for the international Deep State, but not all of what the CIA does represents the Deep State. Not
even the U.S. President himself is necessarily aware of what the agents of the Deep State are doing -- not
even of what the Deep State's agents who are on the federal payroll are doing.
For example, as soon as Franklin Delano
Roosevelt died in 1945, the Deep State (the controlling owners of the largest international corporations)
started to take over, and not everything that it was doing was known at the time by the leaders of the
official (elected) American government. Even U.S. President Harry S. Truman -- though the sign on his desk
said "The BUCK STOPS here!" and he meant it -- was kept in the dark, and was occasionally deceived, about
some things that the OSS (precursor to the CIA) and the CIA were doing. For example, Truman probably didn't
know that
in 1948 the CIA perpetrated its first coup and this coup in Thailand established the off-the-books funding
of the CIA from the international narcotics traffic
(more on that is also
here
), so that the CIA's actual budget wouldn't be restricted simply to the on-the-books funding, from
U.S. taxpayers. This illegal funding-source has been crucial for many of the CIA's operations, and makes
bribes untraceable.
A subversive right-wing coup, centered in
the United States but operating throughout all U.S.-allied countries, thus gradually took over in the
formerly anti-Nazi U.S.-allied countries. This slow coup was internationally coordinated amongst aristocrats
(the controllers of international corporations) from all participating countries. But it was internationally
led by America's aristocrats, starting when FDR died.
Some of the major operations of the
international Deep State were courageously reported in
a rare and classic BBC documentary, in 1992, shown in this video
. As it makes clear, these agents of the
Deep State considered themselves to be revolutionaries. They were heroes, in their own eyes. Here are two
brief excerpts from that video:
8:35-9:00:
"As the
[Nazi]
Germans withdrew, they left secret agents in the countries they had occupied. For the retreating
Germans, they were the staunchest elitists. They were selected from the SS and the fascist Black Legions.
They were to become the footsoldiers in the next war, about to begin.
10:25-10:55:
"Then
[OSS
second-in-command]
Jim Angleton
[James Jesus Angleton]
appeared in August
[1945]
. He
started recruiting fascists, because he said that the best way to control the communists was to hire
fascists. One of the most tough ones was Prince Valerio Borghese, who ran what was known as the tenth
flotilla. These are the guys that would execute partisans
[anti-fascists]
and hang them from lamp
posts all over Italy."
So: within just months of FDR's 12 April
1945 death, The West's Deep State was already in full start-up mode, to achieve ultimately a fascist
victory, not only against the U.S.S.R., but also against Western countries themselves. This is the
historical reality, about The West, after WW II.
As liaison officer between the O.S.S.
and the Fifth Army he assisted the military‐government mission in Italy and captured codes, card files
and documents important to American security.
After the war he returned to Italy and worked for the restoration of Italian business and industry and
for a stable, democratic government.
He was for many years president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Italy.
Instead of his having been born in 1917,
he had actually been born in 1889, which is believable.
So, one can reasonably infer that in
1945, the 56-year-old Hugh Angleton passed along to the 28-year-old Jesus Angleton, his contact list of
approximately 3,000 secret operatives of Hitler and of Mussolini in Europe, and that this son (Jesus)
proceeded promptly to recruit these secret Nazis and Fascists to work for the OSS. The father could retire
rich, while the son went on to grow and harvest his crops, for America's war against Russia (
not
actually against communism -- which was the cover-story
).
When the Soviet Union broke up and
ended its communism in 1991 and thereafter, their former Warsaw Pact military alliance became gradually
absorbed into America's NATO alliance -- and now
even a former part of the Russian Federation itself within the former Soviet Union (and which thus is no
mere Warsaw Pact ally), Ukraine, is being invited into NATO
, and is preparing for admission into the
anti-Russia military pact -- into the U.S. alliance against Russia -- and
hopes to conquer Russia totally
. The name for the broader U.S. plan here (
of
which the takeover of Ukraine is only a part
) is "Nuclear Primacy" -- the U.S. Government's goal is U.S.
victory in a nuclear war against Russia, and this goal can be achieved only if the U.S. nuclearly
blitz-attacks Russia, and if that blitz-attack eliminates Russia's retaliatory weapons (sufficiently to meet
the U.S. Government's top-secret standard of what would constitute acceptable damage to the U.S. from a
Russian retaliatory attack). This is the ultimate strategic plan (and all details of it are prohibited from
being made public).
"Nuclear Primacy" replaces the prior
meta-strategy, which was called "Mutually Assured Destruction" or "M.A.D." -- the belief that the purpose of
nuclear weapons is to prevent a World War III, not to win a WW III. This new meta-strategy starts from the
assumption that the number of people killed in the U.S. and allied countries by a counter-attack from Russia
responding to a sudden and unannounced blitz nuclear invasion of Russia, by the U.S. and its allies, will be
worth that (currently secret) cost.
Some experts say that since
even the proponents of "Nuclear Primacy"
have ignored instead of discussed nuclear winter, the only
reason for the continuation of the 'Cold War' (the potential for an intentional nuclear war between America
and Russia) after the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact and of its communism, is in order to
advance the stock-values of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, SAIC, and the other international corporations whose
sole main sources of income are the U.S. Government and its allied governments. These government-dependent
corporations have taken over the government,
just like U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower publicly warned the American people against at the very end of
his two terms of office
, at a time when the process was, by then, already almost complete, and he
himself had actually been the person who had done the most that anyone had yet done to advance the
military-industrial complex. His famous
"military-industrial complex"
speech (and
here is its broader context
) urged future Presidents to try to undo what he himself had actually already
set inevitably into motion in America. It was as if he was warning to close the barn door so that the horse
won't get out, but the horse had already been stolen and was no longer even subject to this person's
control. Sales of weapons that American corporations market to the American Government, and to its allied
Governments, thus came to wag the tail of America's future
'democracy'
; nobody any longer could stop this process from being completed.
Now that the 'anti-Islamic-terrorist'
excuses for selling and buying their weapons and services are declining, the focus is, yet again,
increasingly against Russia and its allies, in order that the owners of those corporations (the category of
corporations
that depend the most
upon their Government) will continue to grow in wealth, and not to
lose value of their investments. As the anti-Jewish writer Philip Giraldi said accurately (though I think he
misunderstands how the Deep State, of which he used to be an operative, actually functions),
"Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund
their campaigns."
He interprets the corruption in a tribal way, rather than as corruption itself and of
any type, as being the reason why the United States continues to try to achieve 'Nuclear Primacy'. But that
explanation would not explain why nuclear winter is not being discussed by the proponents of 'Nuclear
Primacy'.
None of the publicly available
estimates, behind the 'Nuclear Primacy' meta-strategy, even discusses nuclear winter, which physicists say
would follow such a nuclear war between U.S. and Russia, and would virtually eliminate agriculture and
produce mass-starvation throughout the entire world, including in any 'victor' country. It threatens all
tribes. The published studies regarding the possibility of "nuclear winter"
all concern the likely effect of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan
, or other and even lesser
pairings. Whether or not the U.S. Government has ever commissioned a study of what the likely effects of a
nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would be, is not publicly known. Possibly, this subject has been
examined but the findings are not disclosed; but, also possibly, the U.S. Government does not want such a
study to be done, at all, so that no one will know what the findings might turn out to be. The latter
possibility might, for example, be the case if America's weapons manufacturing and marketing firms control
the U.S. Government. If constant increases in their sales is the objective that drives the U.S. Government,
then there would be sound reason for the U.S. Government to prevent or at least suppress any such analysis
of the global effects, inasmuch as its findings could crash those corporations' stock-values, and the
billionaires who
control those firms and the U.S. Government
, might suffer enormous losses. This assumes that the U.S.
Government represents those owners and not the public. But in any case: marketing weapons that are suitable
only for traditional, non-nuclear, wars, such as against regular jihadists, has apparently run its course
and produced all of the sales-growth that that business-plan is likely to achieve; and, therefore, as has
been the case since at least the time of the Obama Administration, the U.S.
is actively gearing up for an invasion of Russia
. The U.S. Government is behaving as if America's
weapons-producers own it. The weapons-producers (that is, the owners of the weapons-producers) seem to be in
control of the U.S. Government.
Whereas Giraldi and most other writers
against U.S. imperialism -- against development of control over the entire world by U.S. billionaires --
allege that the origin of this imperialism is "Jews" (and specifically the Jews who joined together under
the banner of "neoconservatism" after 1960), insufficient public attention has been devoted to the
possibility that an even more crucial role in the Middle Eastern portion of the U.S. Government's plan is
being played by
the world's wealthiest family
, the royal Saud family of Saudi Arabia, who have the same obsession to
conquer Iran that Israel's Government does. Israel's powerful lobby in the United States is pressing the
same things that the Saud family do; each of the two (Israel and the Sauds) pushes the invade-Iran theme,
and each is at least accepting of all the rest of the other's foreign policies; but, whereas lobbyists for
Jews are viewed somewhat sympathetically by the American public, no lobbyists for Muslims have anything like
the same level of acceptance by the U.S. public. For a U.S. Senator or Representative to be championing
Israel is accepted by the American public far more than is for that same person to be championing the Saud
family, who own Saudi Arabia, or to be championing any of the 7 royal families who own UAE, or etc. (Kuwait,
Qatar, or even non-Arab governments, such as Pakistan). Whereas the Gulf Cooperation Council of
fundamentalist-Sunni Arab kings constitute, by far, the lion's share of foreign buyers of U.S.-made
weaponry, Israel not only doesn't have such enormous financial resources, but it even receives from U.S.
taxpayers $3.8 billion in U.S. donations to Israel's Government, each and every year, in order for Israel to
be able to afford to buy from U.S. makers the weapons that it does buy. In contrast to Israel's relative
pauper-status there, U.S. President Donald Trump personally sold to the Saud family $350 billion of U.S.
weapons shortly after becoming President, and
increased that to $400 billion soon afterwards
. His sale, to the Sauds, of U.S. weaponry, is
overwhelmingly the largest military sale in all of world history. It is Trump's major achievement thus far
in his Presidency. (Trump can meet privately with King Saud, and with Netanyahu, but the Deep State calls
him a 'traitor' for meeting privately with Putin.)
On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day,
commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was
held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.
Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This
mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima.
The United States Government was already
preparing for the time when the then-raging U.S. military buildup in order to deal with terrorism would need
to be supplanted with a return to the major-power, strategic nuclear, weaponry, which could carry U.S.
weapons-manufacturers back to the good old days of unlimited 'defense' spending, and unlimited war-profits
to these firms. Dr. Chossudovsky continued:
The Privatization of Nuclear War: US
Military Contractors Set the Stage
The post 9/11 nuclear weapons
doctrine was in the making, with America's major defense contractors directly involved in the
decision-making process.
The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had
set the stage for the "privatization of nuclear war". Corporations not only reap multibillion-dollar
profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons industry, which
includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery systems, etc., is controlled
by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon
and Boeing in the lead.
These are weapons-systems that cost in
the billions of dollars, rather than in the millions of dollars. America's generals and national-'security'
advisors and other individuals who take part in the U.S. Government's planning and weapons-purchases, rotate
between official government posts and international corporate boards; and, basically, as professionals in
their line of work, they play both sides of that revolving door (between the government and 'the private
sector') so as to maximize their own future likely income streams. They are not peace-planners. That's not
really what they get paid to do -- avoid weapons-buildups and invasions. The people who get paid to do the
peace-job don't have nearly as much to sell, and they've got far fewer and poorer buyers for their services
(maybe the public?). This is the reality of 'the free market'. Another word for it is: "corruption."
Whenever and wherever wealth is extremely concentrated in a few, corruption reigns, the public does not. For
a country to have vast inequality of wealth is to have vast corruption, and to be ruled by it.
The CIA-controlled Wikipedia article on
"Nuclear Winter"
is written to deceive about the subject; and, therefore, for example, it opens one of
its sections with a blatantly propagandistic title and introduction:
Soviet exploitation
[edit]
See also: Soviet influence on the
peace movement § Claims of wider Soviet influence
In an interview in 2000 with Mikhail
Gorbachev (the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985–91), the following statement was posed to him: "In
the 1980s, you warned about the unprecedented dangers of nuclear weapons and took very daring steps to
reverse the arms race", with Gorbachev replying "Models made by Russian and American scientists showed
that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on
Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act in that
situation."[216]
However, a 1984 US Interagency
Intelligence Assessment expresses a far more skeptical and cautious approach, stating that as the
hypothesis is not scientifically convincing.
Though the Wiki article discusses
several studies that had been done in the 1980s modeling the consequences of an India-Pakistan nuclear war
and comparably small ones, it mentions only dismissively the far-more-recent and inclusive study:
In a 2012 "Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists" feature, Robock and Toon, who had routinely mixed their disarmament advocacy into the
conclusions of their "nuclear winter" papers,[18] argue in the political realm that the hypothetical
effects of nuclear winter necessitates that the doctrine they assume is active in Russia and US,
"mutually assured destruction" (MAD) should instead be replaced with their own "self-assured destruction"
(SAD) concept,[200].
The propaganda is strictly by Wikipedia
there, not at all by Robock and Toon,
whose article
does
not
argue to replace "MAD" with "SAD" nor with anything at all, but instead
documents and affirms M.A.D. -- yes, Wikipedia outright lies, when it must -- and their article summarizes
studies published between 1980 and 2010, none of which modeled a U.S.-Russia war, but all of which were
consistent with the authors' conclusion; namely, that even those, much smaller, wars, would make things
vastly worse for both sides (both sides would enormously lose) and would also produce mass-starvation in
broader areas of the planet. Then, the article -- which, as noted, was current as of 2012 (not just as-of
those
earlier
periods) -- summarily stated, as follows, all work that had been done on the subject, up
till that time (and not since supplanted):
The new models show that a
full-scale nuclear conflict, in which 150 million tons of smoke are lofted into the upper atmosphere [the
minimum that a U.S.-Russia war would do], would drastically reduce precipitation by 45 percent on a
global average, while temperatures would fall for several years by 7 to 8 degrees Celsius [13 degrees
Fahrenheit] on average and would remain depressed by 4 degrees Celsius after a decade (Robock et al.,
2007a). Humans have not experienced temperatures this low since the last ice age (Figure 2). In important
grain-growing regions of the northern mid-latitudes [including both U.S. and Russia, as well as most of
Europe], precipitation would decline by up to 90 percent, and temperatures would fall below freezing and
remain there for one or more years.
The number of weapons needed to
initiate these climate changes falls within the range of arsenals planned for the coming decade (Toon et
al., 2008). For instance, the use of 4,000 weapons (the rough total for US and Russian arsenals in 2017
under New START), each with a yield of 100 kilotons (a typical yield for submarine weapons, but at the
low end for most nuclear weapons), against urban or industrial targets would produce about 180 million
tons of soot [30 million higher than that 150 million estimate]. A single US submarine carrying 144
weapons of 100-kiloton yield could produce 23 million tons of smoke if these weapons were used on densely
populated Chinese cities.
The effects of the nuclear contamination
itself are in addition to that estimation of the smoke-damages.
The U.S. weapons-manufacturers and their
agents might not want the public to know this (and so Wikipedia lies about it), but not only would both
sides lose from a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, but the entire planet would lose -- and drastically. The
cigarette-manufacturers long hid the harms of their business, but today's privatized weapons-manufacturing
firms dwarf the corruption and harm that the tobacco-industry perpetrated. The liars get well-paid, but the
truth is far grimmer, and far deadlier -- especially in this matter.
Unlike the CIA-Wikipedia fictionalized
version, M.A.D. wasn't "Soviet exploitation" -- it was instead the reality recognized by both sides, and is
the reality even today, despite what the U.S. weapons-manufacturers and their enormous sales-forces have
been deceiving their publics to believe since 2006.
Consequently, I infer, from the
evidence, that the leaders, of the operation to conquer Russia, are the controlling owners of America's
large 'defense' contractors, and of those individuals' largest non-U.S. customer, the Saud family. The
Sauds' biggest competitors in the international-energy markets (which are their own main markets) are:
Russia and Iran.
It makes sense for the Sauds to be the
#1 foreign buyers of American-made weapons. Not only do they get the weapons, but they get control over the
U.S. Government, which, in turn, determines which nations will be America's 'enemies' (the
'military-industrial complex's targets), and which nations will be America's 'allies' (the
'military-industrial complex's markets). The Sauds buy their allies wisely. Their business-plan includes, as
the most important ally, America's aristocracy; and (as a crucial ally to add greatly to the impact of
America's aristocracy, supplementing them to win the U.S. policies the Sauds need) Israel's aristocracy. The
combination of those two control-levers over the U.S. Government is powerful. Perhaps in the sudden global
cooling from nuclear winter, the Sauds' region will even become one of the world's greenest and most
fruitful. If anyone still exists then, at all.
Where does the EU, and where does the
anti-Russia NATO alliance, fit into this reality? Some of Europe's aristocrats are benefiting from alliance
with the U.S., but others are not. And, of course, America's aristocrats benefit enormously from having
their support -- i.e., from buying their support, bribing them in the legal ways. However, Europe's
aristocratic nazis weren't supposed to have been the winners of WW II. So: nazi Europeans are Europe's
enemies, not its friends -- just as nazi Americans aren't friends but instead enemies to the American people.
That hasn't changed, and can't change.
Only Europeans can decide what to do
regarding nazi Europeans. And only Americans can decide what to do regarding nazi Americans. (One idea might
be to refuse to vote for nazis, but, under existing circumstances, how would that even be possible?) Without
constant deceit, this situation couldn't exist anywhere. And if people are constantly deceived, they are
powerless. Deceit is the chief weapon of Operation Barbarossa II, the American aristocracy's war, not the
German aristocracy's war (which was more overtly physical -- military -- and was only secondarily based upon
deceiving the public).
When the Sauds became America's allies
in 1945 via the secret "Quincy Pact" between FDR and Saud, FDR probably expected that it would move Saudi
Arabia gradually toward democracy. What instead happened is that the Saud family and the losers of Operation
Barbarossa became carried forward toward ultimate victory over The West, by an alliance between the Saudi
and the American aristocracies. The Sauds and America's aristocrats won; FDR and his democratic legacy and
the American people ourselves, lost. The subterranean fascist forces turned out to be far more potent than
FDR imagined. Perhaps the OSS had been deceiving him.
Incidentally, any secret treaty
(including the Quincy Pact) is unConstitutional. None of this happened democratically. It was
a slow coup
. That's what created today's alliances, and today's targets.
To understand the Deep State, its basic
ideological principles need to be recognized. Under Hitler, hereditary rights and obligations were publicly
recognized; and democracy, the rule over a land by the residents on that land, was publicly condemned. Not
only the hereditary principle, but the imperialistic principle, the right of foreign conquest, was publicly
honored. The two principles go naturally together. The main reason why the Sauds and the other (all of them
fundamentalist Sunnis) Arab kings, want to conquer Iran, is that
Shia Islam denies the right of hereditary rule
. (This is also why in Syria, Bashar al-Assad claims no
hereditary right to rule; if he were to do otherwise, he'd violate Shia Islam and he would be rejected by
Iran.) The main reason why America's aristocracy wants to conquer Russia (other than the latter's
natural-resources wealth, which has always been a reason) is that
Vladimir Putin insists that only the residents in a land should possess sovereignty there, but the U.S. and
British aristocracies insist upon the right to conquer foreign lands
. As an ideology, nazism totally
affirms both the hereditary principle, and the imperialist principle. This is what the U.S.-Saudi alliance
likewise affirms. And that is why, for example, the CIA has always favored monarchies and opposed
democracies (or at least authentic ones, which the U.S. aristocracy cannot control).
I think this article goes much too far with the Nazi stuff but the simple fact that Saudi Arabia is the
third biggest military spender in the world, bigger than Russia, should inform people as to how much
influence Saudi has. Yet it is rarely mentioned.
The Saudis were just puppets installed by the British. It seems to me that the real "nazis", then and now,
are the banksters. Now as before they fund both sides of the conflicts that they initiate and after
digesting their profits they own what remains. As Tacitus wrote, solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. They
make a desert and call it peace
During WWII FDR was informed that in 30 years time USA
oil would be exhausted, so Harold L Ickes at the end of 1944 made Saudi Arabia THE USA's oil supplier.
To make the deal more official, FDR, in the beginning of 1945, received the Saud of the time aboard the
cruiser Quincy on the Bitter Lakes near the Suez canal.
As FDR said in his last speech to congress, seated, 'ten minutes with Saud had learned him more about
zionism than hundreds of letters from rabbi's'.
He also stated that he had promised Saud to limit jewish immigration into Palestine.
Both these statements do not seem to be in the offical record, they also were not in the text prepared for
him:
Robert E. Sherwood, 'Roosevelt und Hopkins', 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948)
In 1947, from memory, the then Saud published an interesting article on the folly of 'returning' in a USA
newspaper or periodical.
The Saudi regime just exists because of USA support, is my opinion.
Nothing special, all Muslim rulers in the ME are dependent on USA support, Quatar is the USA military
headquarters of the USA.
Iran is the exception.
Now it is possible that for the moment Israel is willing to cooperate with Saudi Arabia for the purpose
of destabilising the whole ME, present objective Iran.
The Iran regime quite well understands that Big Satan Sam controls a large part of the ME, thus they see the
Saudi regime as enemy.
If, if it succeeds, Iran has been destroyed, Israel is willing to cooperate with Saudi Arabia, I wonder.
Israel sees all neighbouring Muslim countries as threats.
If the Israeli destabilisation plans include the destabilisation of the European nations, more and more
people wonder.
Why does Soros want to force Muslim immigrants on Hungary ?
Brussels fears a new ME war, they fear the new wave of immigrants.
They do want these immigrants, a 2009 Brussels document states that the EU needs 60 million, but the
citizens of the member states more and more realise the burden of these migrants, they cost some € 30.000
per migrant per year in social security, thus it will lead to the collapse of social security, cultural
antagonies are more and more realised, as crime rates.
So a new ME war may be the end of the EU.
Therefore Brussels warned Netanyahu about Iran, also because of huge investments by European companies such
as Total in Iran.
I do hope that Trump will save us in Europe, also of course the people of Iran, from a new ME war.
He stated that immigration is destroying the European cultures.
Just want to add a comment on this Nazi-USA-Israel friendship. When I read the memoirs of Reinhardt Gehlen
(The Service, The Memoirs) there was one interesting place. Gehlen predicted in a meeting the exact time of
the Israel attack in the Six Day War some time before it. He comments in the book that he had sent to Egypt
old Nazi intelligence people and these people knew precisely what weapons Israel had before this 1967 war.
Apparently they knew of the coming attack (since Gehlen did) and that Israel would surely win if there came
a war (as German military, they could count the strengths), but they did not hint anything to the Egyptians
so that they could have had some planes in the air or tried to avoid a war (this failure to do so must have
been intentional).
This essay has an X-files feel to it. I find it hard to believe that Roosevelt and Truman didn't know that
Mega-Corporations were running the show.
Yes, there are a collusion of special interests. But no need for "spooky action at a distance" claims.
It's all very up front. This is why I don't buy the claim of Roosevelt and Truman being innocent puppets.
Roosevelt for sure came from the Oligarch class.
The POTUS effectively acts as a corporate lawyer for the Mega-Corporations whose job is to explain to the
MEGA-CEO just what they are able to get away with without provoking violent Peasant Revolt across the
US ..at any given point in time. The Ludlow massacre was a close one.
This illegal funding-source has been crucial for many of the CIA's operations, and makes bribes
untraceable.
Illegality is the main function of covert operations. If they were legal, there would be no reason for
them to be covert. Laws or legalisms (written behavior restrictions), are put in place by the powers that
be, whoever they are, to restrict the behavior of the masses. Not to restrict themselves.
Again. Ask yourself who you cannot criticize. Then you will know who they are. And have been, all along.
"Israeli arms are being
sent to a heavily armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine. IWI markets the Tavor as the "primary weapon" of the
Israeli special forces.
Fort, the Ukrainian state-owned arms company that produces the rifles under license, has a page about the
Tavor on its website. The Israel Weapon Industries logo also appears on its website, including on the "Our
Partners" page."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MywW6mOquSk
"A photo on Azov's website also shows a Tavor in the hands of one of the militia's officers. The rifles
are produced under licence from Israel Weapon Industries, and as such would have been authorized by the
Israeli government:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QopTJkI3_Fs
Inc.'s Fawning Response to James Gunn Scandal Reveals Where Its True
Loyalties Lie •
It's the classic man-bites-dog story; a Leftist artist suffered a career setback because of
his statements on social media. The person in question is Guardians of the
Galaxy director James Gunn, who lost his gig directing Disney's next installment in
the film series after independent reporters such as Mike Cernovich highlighted his "jokes"
about the sexual exploitation of children. Senator Ted Cruz, among others, was outraged and
suggested Gunn's comments even bordered on illegality.
Hollywood celebrities are defending Gunn and even demanding that he be rehired [
Chris Pratt
and more break silence after James Gunn fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ,' by
Lisa Respers France, CNN, July 23 2018). However, one can't help but notice the same
celebrities defending or telling graphic "jokes" about sexually exploiting children are also
the people who want careers ended for Politically Incorrect comments directed at privileged
classes such as women, homosexuals, or nonwhites [
Note: Hollywood Finds Child Rape Hilarious , by John Nolte, Breitbart, July
22, 2018].
It's not clear why Disney, a company dependent on its appeal to children, would ever employ
someone who thinks horrific crimes are comedic fodder. After all, as Gunn himself once
tweeted:
Yet it isn't just Leftist celebrities who are suddenly eager to defend the sacred right of
free speech when it comes to pedophilia. Shockingly, some Conservativism
Inc. luminaries, particularly those who love to showily brag about their
Christianity and social
conservatism , have chosen this hill to die on as well.
David French, one of the most prominent
Never Trump activists of
the 2016 election, rushed to Gunn's defense, saying:
Similarly, S.E. Cupp, who has a long career as one of CNN's token conservatives , decided this of all
things was something that she couldn't remain silent about. She endorsed French's tweet in
support of Gunn and added:
Yet only two months ago. when mob rule on Twitter decided Roseanne's fate, Cupp gleefully
piled on. Like NR 's French, she faulted ABC for hiring Roseanne in the first
place.
Remember, this is a woman who was an early supporter of birtherism, has compared Muslims
to Nazis, took to Twitter regularly to attack citizens both private and public, floated wild
conspiracy theories and bullied Trump opponents with racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic
insults.
Minicon Ben Shapiro , another
opponent of Trump during the primaries, is also among Gunn defenders. Shapiro acknowledged
Gunn's tweets were "loathsome" but said "that doesn't mean he should have lost his job at
Disney". [ Should
James Gunn have lost his job at Disney ? Daily Wire, July 20, 2018]
Roseanne, however, was different: "Roseanne played herself in the series, so when she made a
new racist reference about Valerie Jarrett, her persona was inseparable from her
character," Shapiro wrote. " Roseanne was Roseanne."
Erick Erickson is another
Never Trumper whose views about respectability have mysteriously changed within two months.
When Roseanne was driven off the air, Erickson self-righteously proclaimed: "Her joke was not
in poor taste. It was racist" [
Roseanne's behavior is not defensible , The Maven, May 30, 2018]. Yet regarding Gunn,
he said:
The last comment is revealing. It's hard to imagine in what ways conservatives are "winning"
-- Trump supporters are regularly attacked on the street and expelled from businesses. Random
white people are humiliated by the Main Stream Media and
fired
from their jobs
for calling the police. [
BBQ Becky, Permit Patty and why the Internet is shaming white people who police people 'simply
for being black' , Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY, July 18, 2018] Meanwhile, even as the
Democrats become ever more radical, they continue to enjoy all but unanimous support from the
MSM and are leading the polls. Insofar as the American Right has won any major victories in the
recent past, it was President Trump's election -- something Erickson and his Never Trump
co-conspirators fought every step of the way.
Yet the strange connection between Never Trump and defending James Gunn is easily explained.
All of the figures above rely on Leftist media, and the
powerful mafias that dominate it , to grant them fame and legitimacy as "leading" American
conservatives. For that reason, Never Trump conservatives share a common interest with System
media outlets in making sure only certain people have access to a mass audience -- certainly
not independents like Mike Cernovich [
How Pizzagate Pusher Mike Cernovich Keeps Getting People Fired , by Luke O'Brien,
Huffington Post, July 21, 2018].
For ideological and ethnic reasons, Never Trumpers are desperate to purge the American Right
of any authentic populist and nationalist tendencies that can't be controlled from the top
down. Their power relies on their audience remaining corralled within a certain ideological
space and not hearing dissident ideas such as the biological reality of race or the political
insanity of expecting nonwhites to vote for "limited government." These Beltway Right hacks
have a positive interest in making sure that websites and platform outside Conservatism Inc.,
although equally or more critical of supposed common enemies on the Left, are marginalized and
stripped of resources.
Thus, Cupp, French, Shapiro, Erickson et. al will always be far more eager to purge the
Conservative movement than to combat Leftist control of key cultural institutions. To a Never
Trump conservative dreaming of future bylines in The New York Times and television
appearances on CNN, a far-Left Hollywood degenerate poisoning the minds of America's youth
isn't even a problem, let alone an enemy. The problem for Conservatism Inc. remains Donald
Trump and what he represents -- a fighting American Right, united behind nationalism, and
willing to do what it takes to win power.
After all, the point of that fighting Right is not to get a sinecure in the enemy's System.
The point is to destroy it entirely.
"... There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value. ..."
"... Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet. Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from Russia. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much use outside of some
specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage, but with regard to
Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they prefer the term
"intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you look at
things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps. In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that
torturing prisoners is a good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders,
not professional spies, sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was
no such thing before US intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence. There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies
working in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that
supposedly super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down
doesn't work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state." Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars
to interpret this sentence, or he can just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their
best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is
nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into
the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has
more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing
that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by
Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight
face and clearly enjoyed the moment. He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a
clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the
Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were
forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save
American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are
the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign. In response, the US
Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US officials. And instead of
issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed, at least one US official
made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US instead. Again, which part of
61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional
definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to
provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of
defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint
notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
Their objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on. One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled.
A light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying!
They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In
order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they
stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is
available, is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2017 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet
to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can
legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their
claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts. Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a
continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia
while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came
together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First , we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and
that the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average,
toward an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine
that such incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being
called out for their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community
has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial,
economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and
futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever
known.
How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
If Zero Hedge commenters represent a part of the US public opinion Clinton neoliberal are in
real trouble. This is real situation when the elite can't goverm as usual
Notable quotes:
"... it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans ..."
"... Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt. ..."
"... For those of you who have not seen this...This has been in the works since April...... https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/criminal-referral.pdf ..."
"... Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge. ..."
News of the resolution comes after weeks of frustration by Congressional investigators, who
have repeatedly accused Rosenstein and the DOJ of "slow walking" documents related to their
investigations. Lawmakers say they've been given the runaround - while Rosenstein and the rest
of the DOJ have maintained that handing over vital documents would compromise ongoing
investigations.
Not even last week's
heavily redacted release of the FBI's FISA surveillance application on former Trump
campaign Carter Page was enough to dissuade the GOP lawmakers from their efforts to impeach
Rosenstein. In fact, its release may have sealed Rosenstein's fate after it was revealed that
the FISA application and subsequent renewals - at least one of which Rosenstein signed off on ,
relied heavily on the salacious and largely unproven Steele dossier.
In late June, Rosenstein along with FBI Director Christopher Wray clashed with House
Republicans during a fiery hearing over an internal DOJ report criticizing the FBI's handling
of the Hillary Clinton email investigation by special agents who harbored extreme animus
towards Donald Trump while expressing support for Clinton. Republicans on the panel grilled a
defiant Rosenstein on the Trump-Russia investigation which has yet to prove any collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
"This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said of
Mueller's investigation. "Whatever you got," Gowdy added, " Finish it the hell up because this
country is being torn apart. "
Rosenstein pushed back - dodging responsibility for decisions made by subordinates while
claiming that Mueller was moving "as expeditiously as possible," and insisting that he was "not
trying to hide anything."
" We are not in contempt of this Congress, and we are not going to be in contempt of this
Congress ," Rosenstein told lawmakers.
Congressional GOP were not impressed.
" For over eight months, they have had the opportunity to choose transparency. But they've
instead chosen to withhold information and impede any effort of Congress to conduct
oversight," said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a sponsor of Thursday's House
resolution who raised the possibility of impeachment this week. " If Rod Rosenstein and the
Department of Justice have nothing to hide, they certainly haven't acted like it. " -
New York Times (6/28/18)
And now, Rosenstein's fate is in the hands of Congress.
I got directed to Meadows Twitter feed earlier and I couldn't believe some of the comments
from the Hilary crowd. Either they actually believe the CNN/MSNBC "Russia did it" bullshit or
they've decided to roll with that narrative regardless of what reality shows because they
think it gives them some kind of leverage if they keep spewing those accusations. Those
people are really sick in the head.
Somewhat. Yes, sometimes cowards need a good swift kick in the ass to get em
going...lol.
But you gotta place yourself into the mind of a bureautocracy kleptocrat like Rosenstein
to discover where his head was at (or whatever bureaucrat, pick any one)...this was "business
as usual"...for EIGHT SOLID YEARS they were able to delay/obstruct Congressional oversight at
will into any number of things, from "recycled hard drives" to "rogue agents" to "smashed
Blackberries" to "Bleachbit" to "illegal servers" to "spontaneous protests in Benghazi" to
"Car Czars" to "the benign tracking of weapons into Mexico" (lol...my personal favorite) et
fucking cetra so...there was no reason whatsoever that Rosenstein would suspect that
oversight would..."change".
See, all of this nation ending angst, hate, ill-will, divide & conquer, the rending of
clothes and gnashing of teeth could have been completely avoided if the People would have
just complied with their betters, the elites, the educated, the non-deplorables and used that
gift of, ahem, "democracy" (lol) that the rich & powerful are so insecure in trusting us
with...none of this would have happened.
There would have been a "historic" coronation of our new Queen Hillary! There were royal
wedding plans even!
And we, the deplorables, the plebes, the low-lifes, had to go and mess up their plans of
sweeping it all under the rug ;-)
Why in the Sam hell do you think they're jawboning this thing to death ..
swmnguy Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:39 Permalink
"They'll move to impeach Rosenstein just as they voted to repeal ObamaCare 50 times or
however many. And, just like when they got the chance to re-do ObamaCare altogether and had
not the foggiest notion what to do, if they get to impeach Rosenstein they won't have any
idea how to proceed."
This ..
Damned Kabuki, will be answered! With more Kabuki ..
Also a big problem, was his CHOICE to not recuse himself from being involved in appointing
Mueller, when he was heavily involved in the investigations, such as signing a FISA warrant
to spy on Trump campaign staff when there was allegedly (in the FISA warrant) Russian
collusion.
What is the swamp hiding? This latest revelation by Republicans looking into Spygate
offers us some tantalizing clues. In this episode I address the growing efforts by the swamp
to sweep the scandal under the rug.
"Is they don't want to get into who pushed the Information into the Trump Team orbit. And,
the questions surrounding Joseph Mizut. Who was the initiator, I should say, of the
Papadopoulos, "they have dirt on Hillary story."
"If this guy was working for Western Intelligence Agencies, this whole case is going to
explode." "It's already exploding. But it's going to explode at just Nuclear Levels."
"Right?"
"Now they're starting to realize that, that may be a problem too. So, now there's a third
track. The third track Joe, is going to be:
"Verification is not necessary." "They're starting to creep this out there now."
"Remember what I told you about the "Woods Procedure." "The Woods Procedure" is a
procedure in the FBI & DOJ to verify information before it goes in front of the FISA
Court, right?"
"The new line of attack is going to be:
"Well, that's really not necessary. This thorough verification of all the information."
"Why they're going down that track I can't give you a conclusive explanation. I can only tell
you that, my guess here, is that they're realizing that whatever fork they take in the
road."
"Cater Paige who was spied on. With no verified information. Not good. Papadoplolus, who
we Prosecuted despite the fact that a potential "Western Connected Intelligence Asset,"
pushed the information into Papadopoulos. Meaning he was framed. That's not good either."
"They know there's no way out. So what are they going to do? Now, they're going to
push:
"Well, lets go back to Cater Paige. But let's say, "Alright, we may have made a mistake
but Verification is really not necessary. We were really worried he (Carter Paige) was a
terrorist or a spy. So we had to just run with it."
"Folks, they have no where to go."
"Now, how does this tie into the Bryon York piece. Remember, that they're are people up in
the House. Nunes & other folks in these Committees. Don't forget this. They're folks,
Republicans in the House & on the Senate side too who have seen the Declassified,
Unredacted documents about why this whole case stated."
"They've seen that now. They haven't seen all of the DOJ or FBI records. That is where
this fight is brewing. But the FISA application. They have seen most of what's in it. The
redacted copy the one you've seen. Obviously, has blacked out information. Hence, the
redactions. They dropped a hint yesterday. They want disclosed Joe. And, I'm quoting Bryon
York here:
"What is on pages 10-12 & 17-34. of the FISA application."
"He says, this is York:
"That is certainly a tantalizing clue dropped by the House Intel Members. But it's not
clear what is means. Comparing the relevant sections from the initial FISA application in
October & the third renewal in June much appears the same. But in pages 10-12 the date
the Republicans want redacted. Of the third renewal. There's a sightly different
headline:
"The Russian Governments coordinated effort to influence the 2016 Presidential Election."
Plus a footnote seven lines long that was not in the original."
"Folks, the Republicans know something. They have seen these redactions. now, based on
some research. I can't tell you because I have not seen the unredacted copy of the document.
I can only tell you based on research surrounding the case & some Information I've been
working hard to develop. That it may disclose, those footnotes may disclose some connections
for information streams. Again, that were not related to formal Intelligence Channels."
"In other words, the theory from the start that we've been operating on is that this case
was not developed through standard protocol. If you develop Intelligence in a Five Eyes
Country & Intelligence cooperated with the UNITED STATES against Donald Trump. You pass
that information to your domestic Intelligence Agency who passes it Central Intelligence
Agency. They vet the information before it makes it to the Presidents desk."
"That is not the way this case worked. May I suggest to you that the redactions describe
other channels. Other channels of information that developed outside of those standard
channels."
"Are we clear on this? I want to make clear what we're talking about. Standard way to do
this is Intel Agency to Intel Agency. Vet it, vet the information, check the information
before it makes it to the President. The only reason you would go outside of that network
with Intelligence, specifically against a Political Candidate in the UNITED STATES is because
you want to launder the information without vetting it. You want to clean it to make it seen
legitimate."
"We already know, based on Public admissions by State Department Officials on the Obama
Administration that they used The State Department. We already know, that there where people
working for the Clinton Team that met with people on The State Department. May I suggest that
this describes an alternative information channel outside of the standard "modus operandi"
here that is going to expose The whole thing was an information laundering operation. The
Republicans know something here folks."
Woods procedure IS required, it's not optional. And we have the FBI self-admittedly not
adhering to their own procedure. If they had, Steele would have been paid. The FBI stiffed
him.
Further, it's the Judge's responsibility to insure the Prosecutors and Agents followed the
procedure, and additionally that they vetted the sources - not just the informant. The
informant's sources. They were criminally negligent on that point as well. The Judge was no
victim here, the Judge had to be complicit in the conspiracy.
Totally illegal in their own country, so they have another country do it for them. Can it
be prosecuted as Espionage? What about when it's used in Conspiracy to commit Sedition? What
about failure to prosecute a crime of this magnitude, a direct attack on our govt by
FVEY?
What will the punishment be, nothing, be fired for incompetence, that's all. Why are they
being stubborn dicks and not handing over the information because if fucking proves they are
incompetent and gets them fired.
So either way they are fired, they just suck up more inflated salary for longer by holding
off as long as they can and fuck everyone else, fuck the government, fuck Americans, fuck
justice, they will stay there as long as they can sucking up quite a large salary well over
$100,000 per year, plus perks, plus super and we are not talking dicking around for days but
months.
Fired months and months later for not releasing the information versus fired within days
of the information being released. As simple as that and as far as they are concerned fuck
all other US citizens, they will not leave their spot at the trough of corruption until
forced.
Trump hired him but I don't think he's Trump's guy. Although it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin
since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans. It is all theater, you got that
right, just not sure what the plot is.
Zerohedge readers might want to read this article from
theconservativetreehouse.....Rosenstein and Sessions may be up to more than meets the eye;
i.e., drain the swamp by catching the leakers:
Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an
investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt.
Rosenstein signing off on the FISA documents means he should have recused himself from the
Mueller investigation instead of overseeing it. That's what is going to take him down.
Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't
even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a
mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge.
True... but WTF is Trump thinking??? He should use this action to FIRE Rosenstein's
traitor's ass NOW. Include the useless Sessions and Wray and, obviously, McCabe and Ohr.
DiGenova for AG, David Clarke for FBI head... Maybe Andy McCarthy for new Special Counsel
to prosecute Hillary and all the rest of the Barry Obongo criminals... especially pigfart
Brennan.
"... For many years some have seen the US as a form of corporatism* - as a country run in the interests of the corporations and those who lead them. There is considerable evidence that in many senses they are correct. However to see Trump as the epitome of this 'rule by corporations' I think misses something important. Trump is different from what went before in important respects. ..."
"... The government of Donald Trump is different. It is a selective plutocracy , and with one important exception that plutocracy is selected by Trump. In that way it can also be seen as a democratic dictatorship , where the complexity of government requires some delegation of power to other individuals. Like many dictatorships, some of those individuals are the dictator's family members. ..."
"... The photo above is taken from an extraordinary recent event (watch here ) where Trump walks down a line of senior executives, who in turn stand up and say what they are doing for the US and pledge to do more. Each statement is applauded with a positive statement by Trump, as his daughter trails behind. These are top companies: IBM, Microsoft, General Motors etc. It is all a show, of course, but of a kind the US has never seen before. It seems indicative that this is not just a continuation of past corporatism but something quite different. These are corporate executives doing the President's bidding for fear or favour. ..."
For
many years some have seen the US as a form of corporatism* - as a country run in the interests
of the corporations and those who lead them. There is considerable evidence that in many senses
they are correct. However to see Trump as the epitome of this 'rule
by corporations' I think misses something important. Trump is different from what went before
in important respects.
The way business influenced politicians in the past was straightforward. Campaigns cost a lot
of money (unlike the UK there are no tight limits on how much can be spent), and business can
provide that money, but of course corporate political donations are not pure altruism. The
strings attached helped influence both Republican and Democratic politicians. It was influence
that followed the money, and that meant to an extent it was representative of the corporate
sector as a whole. The same point can be made about political lobbying.
The government of Donald Trump is different. It is a selective
plutocracy , and with one important exception that plutocracy is selected by Trump. In
that way it can also be seen as a democratic
dictatorship , where the complexity of government requires some delegation of power to
other individuals. Like many dictatorships, some of those individuals are the dictator's family
members.
A dictatorship of this form would not be possible if Congress had strongly opposed it. That it
has not is partly because the Republican party chooses not to oppose, but also because Trump
wields a power over Congress that can override the influence of corporate money. That power
comes from an alliance between Trump and the media that has a big influence on how Republican
voters view the world: Fox News in particular but others as well. The irony is that under these
conditions democracy in the form of primaries gives Trump and the media considerable power over
Congress.
The distinction between traditional corporate power 'from below' and the current Trumpian
plutocracy can be seen most clearly in Trump's trade policy. It would be a mistake to see
past US trade
policy as an uninterrupted promotion of liberalisation, but I think it is fair to say that
trade restrictions have never been imposed in such a haphazard way, based on such an obviously
false pretext (US surpluses good, deficits bad). Trump's policy is a threat to the
international trading system that has in the past been lead by the US, and therefore it is a
threat to most of corporate USA. Yet up till now Congress has done very little to stop Trump's ruinous policy.
The photo above is taken from an extraordinary
recent event (watch here ) where Trump
walks down a line of senior executives, who in turn stand up and say what they are doing for
the US and pledge to do more. Each statement is applauded with a positive statement by Trump,
as his daughter trails behind. These are top companies: IBM, Microsoft, General Motors etc. It
is all a show, of course, but of a kind the US has never seen before. It seems indicative that
this is not just a continuation of past corporatism but something quite different. These are
corporate executives doing the President's bidding for fear or favour.
All this matters because it creates a tension that could at some stage drive events. So far the
Republican party has been prepared to allow Trump to do what he wishes as long as didn't
require their explicit approval (i.e their votes in Congress), but it has not as yet bent its
collective agenda to his. (Arguments that it already has tend to look at past
Republican rhetoric rather than actions.) This uneasy peace may no longer become tenable
because of developments on trade, or Russia, or the mid-term election results. If enough
Republicans think their future is safer by opposing Trump rather than indulging him, they still
have the power to bring Trump to heel. But the longer the peace lasts, Trump's influence on the
Republican party will only grow.
* Readers outside the US may be confused by my use of the term corporatism: it is one of those
terms with many meanings. I'm using it in the fourth and final sense described
here .
"... The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas, it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors. ..."
"... According to an email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ... ..."
"... So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States. ..."
The United Arab Emirates created a "slush fund" using money meant for domestic economic development
projects and funneled it to a high-profile think tank in the United States, emails obtained by The
Intercept show.
Last week, The Intercept
reported that the UAE gave a $20 million grant to the Middle East Institute, flooding a well-regarded
D.C. think tank with a monetary grant larger than its
annual budget
. According to an email from Richard Clarke, MEI's chairman of the board, the UAE got the money from
offset investments -- development investments by international companies that are made as part of
trade agreements.
The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas,
it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry
or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer
programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest
in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors.
Offsets provide a way to sell weapons at inflated prices, when companies offer juicier offset
packages. Critics say the lack of transparency in how offset investments are carried out leaves a
window open for a form of legalized corruption. The emails lift a veil on what has long been an obscure
element of the arms trade.
According to an
email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial
firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the
Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the
Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of
promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ...
So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant
for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States.
"... By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms of ostracism have become a new normal. ..."
"... She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence, or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased. ..."
"... One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets. ..."
"... Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through. ..."
"... Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form. ..."
"... One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them ..."
"... I am increasingly encountering extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation. ..."
"... Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that things would really change. ..."
"... The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years. ..."
"... Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's always the weather. That's universal. ..."
"... On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment." ..."
"... The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... my point is that she enforces dogma and insinuates disloyalty in any heretic. ..."
"... It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .???? ..."
"... I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources. ..."
"... Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists ..."
"... fairness and decency ..."
"... Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers. ..."
An oft-repeated bit of
advice in America is never to talk about religion or politics. Sadly, the reason is that Americans are dreadful at talking across
political lines. When I lived in Australia in the early 2000s and adopted a pub, by contrast, I found the locals to be eager to debate
the topics of the day yet remain civil about it. That may be because Australians in generally have mastered the art of being confrontational
by lacing it with humor and/or self deprecation.
By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social
spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that
many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms
of ostracism have become a new normal.
And now that we have anger over Trump directed at not the best or most useful objects, like Russia! Russia! as opposed to his packing
of the Federal bench, or his environmental policies, or even his push to privatize Federal parks, a lot of educated people expect,
even demand, that their friends be vocal supporters of the #Resistance.
For instance, at the San Francisco meetup, I spent a fair bit of time with a woman who had held elected offices in her community.
She was clearly distressed by the fact (without using such crass terms) that her friends had turned into pod people. They all believe
that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker are authoritative. When she tried arguing with them about what they've
read in these outlets, they shoot back, "Oh, so you believe in fake news?" She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective
in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence,
or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased.
One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated
Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters
story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets.
She also said they would not consider foreign sources, even the BBC or Der Spiegel or Le Monde.
Readers also discussed their frustrations in Links over the weekend. For instance:
"Shame" looks to me like the word of the week. I've heard from liberal/Democrat friends that they are "ashamed" of this
President. They are embarrassed by his behavior at NATO and Helsinki. I asked, "Who are you embarassed in front of? What does
that mean?" Then I got a link to a Thomas Friedman article .
I'm not sure how to answer my friends with grace. I don't want to be condescending by saying "Really, you read Tom Friedman
without a red pen in your hand?" What should I say? "I had no idea you were a globalist although you are kind of anti labor,
right?" Any suggestions for talking to Dems about this last week?
My usual answer is "I don't know why we need NATO now that the Cold War is over. Bush I promised Gorbachev not to expand
NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Putin wanted to join NATO. Russia, especially the populous West is more European
than Asian. So why don't we have Russia join NATO. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
on talking to democrats. LOL. you and me both. Haldol as a prophylactic, perhaps. The Berners are a lot easier but the "mainstream" dem people have been difficult to talk
to for some time too many triggers and blind spots. They've become as reactionary as the tea party.. The aversion to figuring
out what we're FOR must be overcome.
Montanahaven, great post, and I don't know the answer on how to talk to Dems or the general gammit of duopoly supporters, but
I have been working on refining a technique I heard Tim Black talking about: "drop a few lines, and walk away". I am working
on inserting a few judgment free comments without argument, however it requires patience in listening to the ramble of the
other side. A few examples in my recent life:
Hillary Dem: "But Mueller found Russia was hacking. Blah Blah, Blah, 17 intelligence agencies"
Me: Did you know in 2003 Mueller helped lead us into Iraq and testified before Congress pushing WMD intel. [I did not
follow with anything about along the lines of "Is this guy trustworthy."]
Trump Repub: "People are killing each other in the streets, blah blah freeloaders, murder rate going up, blah
blah, this country is not the same, what happened to our country"
Me: "People are desperate, Americans are addicted
to opiates and will get it however they can, but someone peddling marajuana will get 10 years in prison, but the Sackler
family who wantonly pushed opiates on all of America are worth billions" [I could have argued that American crime rate has
gone down since the 80's, but I just wanted to divert their attention to a part of the current problem, not to start an
argument]
A few weeks later these folks repeated these talking points as their own, which is a win in my book. I have been trying
to drop stuff as subtly as possible and hope they find their own way. People get more entrenched on their viewpoint while
arguing, and more words often means less average impact per word. My sample size is admittedly low right now, so I will
continue observation.
Another approach, although it takes a great deal of patience, is to go Socratic and ask the true believers in your circle to provide
the support for their views. You may still be stuck with the problem that they regard people like Louise Mensch or Timothy Synder
or (gah) James Clapper as unimpeachable.
Of course, not everyone is dogmatic. On my way back to New York, I sat next to a Google engineer (PhD, possibly even faculty member
at Cornell since he'd gotten some major grant funding for his research, now on an H1-B visa and on track to have to leave the US
in the next year+ due to Trump changes in the program) who held pretty orthodox views. He wanted to chat and we were able to discuss
the Dems and even Russia. He even thanked me for the conversation as he was getting off the plane. But I knew I was lucky to find
someone who wasn't deeply invested in his views, or perhaps merely not invested in winning arguments.
Any further tips or observations would be helpful to everyone. Things will only get more heated as the midterms approach.
This is true. This is why I like Hamford's idea of information nuggets. You have to let people think you are on their side
while they come around to your ideas more or less on their own. If you give someone a good nugget that they take in as their own,
then you have more leverage to convince them of something grander.
And listen. Just listen. You don't have to agree with people to give them time and space to be heard. They are more likely
to reciprocate if you do.
Letting people "talk it out" works for strangers and acquaintances. They'll eventually run out of road or realize they've monopolized
the conversation and give you a chance to react, even if only out of politeness.
I find closer friends and family will chew your ear off mercilessly, and once they start, you're trapped. If you start poking
holes in their beliefs after they've gone on for a while, they'll feel betrayed. I find it best to say "that's nice" and walk
away to maintain your sanity. Don't mess with tribalism, you'll always lose.
Ha ha these posts resonate with me – my mother is a committed Rachel Maddow watcher and my best friend is a Trump supporter.
And both of them are otherwise very nice people and rather similar in terms of personality, interests, and outlook aside from
red team/blue team foolishness.
What I like to do with both of them is use the term BushBamaTrump. And at the slightest bit of pushback just jump right in
to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three. It never gets through and you really can't change
people, but still. Gives me a bit of pleasure to at least throw a little wrench into their silly partisan blinkered world view
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and
I find it really hard to understand how someone else's does.
I find it difficult to break this construct without coming off as arrogant or cynical. I readily admit this feature in
myself could be a bug.
jump right in to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three
Yes. Even though disagreements appear to be about issues, there's an underlying personal partisanship that often drives conversational
breakdown. This is particularly true for people on the right. Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump
can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through.
Hamford's approach is one that I have used with the people I live around(supermajority Repubs, altho much of that is habit
and/or single issue apathy is the only growing demograph)
Introducing doubt, "short, sharp shock", and then they worry over it for a day or a week, and later they seem to have incorporated
it into their weltanshauung.
That is, indeed, a win.
I've much more experience, given my habitus(central texas wilderness) with culture jamming and otherwise undermining the orthodoxy
of republicans. To talk about important things with them, one must avoid numerous trigger words that cause salivation or violent
conniptions.
Finding these rhetorical paths has been enlightening, to say the least. like talking about unionism by using the Chamber of
Commerce as an example, or playing on their own memories of the Grange or the Farmer's Co-Op or even going directly at the cognitive
dissonance, as in "hey, wait a minute if we have freedom of religion, aren't I by necessity free to be a Buddhist?"
Similarly, I've found that using the language of Jesus gets results, unless my interlocutor is too far gone into the whole
warrior Christ thing. I'm still working on how to do this with Team Blue.
Like with the R's, the D's have an emotional attachment, and a psychological need, to avoid believing that their party is in
any way less than pristine and above board.
Similarly, I remember a discussion of the Puma's (Hillary's 08 supporters) wherein they were so caught up with Herstory(!)
that an attack on (or even criticism of) Hillary was an attack on their Identity.
Stages of Grief applies the acceptance we wish for is a big step for most people, because the manifest problems are so huge
and complex and intertwined that acknowledging them feels like giving in and even giving up.
It's a big problem, and I thank you for addressing it.
The forces arrayed against civil discourse are huge and well funded(which is, in itself, a sort of indictment and indicator)
Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether
or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form.
One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into
practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them.
I have come to believe that the Russiagate attacks on Trump are driven not by reason but by pure hatred, a sin which always
blinds. While there are many reasons to oppose much of Trump's policies and actions, we must not allow ourselves to wallow in
personal hatred of the man himself. If Jesus doesn't work here for some of Team Blue, MLK, who taught the same message, is an
excellent alternative. Take away the visceral hatred of Trump, and he will be opposed, much more reasonably, ethically, and effectively.
I agree: whenever possible, Trump the individual should be ignored, since too many people seem unable to separate the man from
the systems, processes and interests in play.
When it's all about Trump, he wins. You'd think people would have realized that by now, but take a look at Alternet, where
it's literally "All Trump All The Time," and you see how trapped in their fears and illusions liberals are.
As Lambert and others insist, make it about issues and policy; that's how people can (eventually, hopefully) be reached over
time. As the saying goes, they lose their minds in crowds/herds, and will only regain their sanity one at a time.
The added benefit is that ignoring Trump's provocations goes a ways toward depriving him of oxygen. Ignoring him is one of
the few ways to drive him crazy(er), takes away much of his effectiveness, and provides the personal satisfaction of being able
to do something against him, even if just passively.
I'm really hopeful that Michael Hudson's upcoming book on the roots of Christianity will open up a whole new conversation for
people of all views, particularly the role of debt and 'what we owe to one another'. Or when we should, and what we shouldn't,
owe one another.
IMVHO, Trump is the apotheosis of a debt-based form of greed, which conventional politics mostly exalts and exacerbates, but
doesn't seem to really understand -- and papers over its social costs [see also: FoxNews, CNBC]. In this form of (leveraged) debt,
the debtor owes absolutely nothing to society, irrespective of the social dislocations that his/her debt creates.
I find that people who get caught up in Dem/Repub conflicts are unreachable on political terms, but if the conversation shifts
to economics, to outrage at financial shenanigans, to who 'owes' what to whom, the emotional tone shifts and the conversations
are much more engaged.
The R's that I know tend to affiliate with 'lenders', but have an abhorrence of debt. They seem weirdly incapable of grappling
with the social and political implications of debt. To them, debt is a sign of weakness. I find myself struggling to grapple with
their worldview on the general topic of 'debt'.
The D's that I know tend to at least be able to think about debt as a means to an end: an education, a home, a business idea.
But they seem to experience debt as a form of guilt, or powerlessness, a lot of the time. The people in my life who fall into
this category are very careful with money, but they are also capable of carrying on a conversation about social meaning of debt.
I don't think it is any accident that the two most articulate, informed voices in current politics are on the 'left', and their
expertise and focus is on debt: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I suspect that is because debt is one of the most fundamental
social-political-cultural issues of our time.
I do come across as a bit of a nutter, and bloodthirsty to boot. However, in my defense, I am increasingly encountering
extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political
spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation.
The Third Way 'faux left' movement is running out of steam as the inequality that it was designed to enable takes hold, and
disenchants those that the movement required to at least be neutral in order for it to do its 'work.' The Right wing has always
cultivated a sense of being oppressed in order to cultivate the sense of 'belonging' to a 'special' and 'chosen' people. I have
been called "dirty socialist" and even less salubrious terms so many times, I've developed somewhat of a thick skin to the insult.
The problem with that is that those who are doing the insulting are dead serious in their obloquy. This can escalate into actions.
Therein lies the rub. the step from verbal abuse to physical abuse must be guarded against and, if encountered, short circuited.
Hence, the comment about the probable bad results of trying to crash someone's SHTF refuge.
I have worked with several ex-cons during my work life. Jail is the pressure cooker of power relations for Western society.
All the ex-cons said that threats, even when coming from obviously superior physical specimens must be responded to quickly and
decisively. As one man put it, "Even if you have to take a beat down. Make the point that you will fight. Once is usually enough.
After that, people in jail will leave you alone." Another man related the tale of a small man in prison who was being groomed
for 'bitchdom' by a much bigger man. "The big guy poked the little guy in the chest and started to say something. The little guy
grabbed the finger and broke it. Then this tiny tornado tore into the big guy. Man! Nobody f -- -d with the little guy again.
He was crazy everybody said. Some of the older cons said that he was smart."
It may not be relevant yet, but America certainly does seem to be sliding into a full blown Police State. As such, the etiquette
of prison is slowly being imposed on the civil society. Pure power relations are becoming the norm. This manifests in our more
genteel disputations.
So, my present reply to people who take me to task for not voting for Her Royal Highness is to say; "Thank you for giving us Trump.
Without your gallant efforts, we would have had a decent government, under Bernie." Then, as one of the above comments suggests,
I walk away, and make sure our Urban Bug In Bag is ready.
That is a frightening observation and I believe it is unfortunately accurate. Relations in the workplace certainly have resembled
this since 2008. Civil society was next.
A brilliant compaction. And nice (fascinating being even better desc.) to see the longer version as well. Skynet apparently
liked it too.
My poor wife has somewhat 'come around' (been dragged along) because many of the predictions (that I get from NC)seem to materialize
in one way or another, but on the flip side we have lost what we thought were real friends (fortunately few), largely because
of my inability to shut up (at least I don't do it until asked some hard to get out of question) combined with insufficient command
of a given subject – alas, all given subjects it seems.
We do find out who our 'real' friends are when we go a little 'off the reservation' with subjects having a significant emotional
content. I have found that I also discover personal biases by observing what subjects being 'rejected' by others give me pain.
I have been surprised at some of my personal biases. Don't be too hard on yourself about those things that you need to study more.
Everyone has those kinds of subjects. I certainly do. Yesterday's thread on the lowly apostrophe was such a wake up call to me.
It seems to me that the longer the person has supported the Democratic Party the more they are resistant to changing their
views. The affiliation comes to resemble that of a football fan to her favorite team. People who've changed their political affiliation
over the course of their lives, and especially those who have done so relatively recently, are more open-minded and willing to
consider evidence contrary to their current views.
Not to quibble, but your observation takes on the appearance of a 'chicken or egg' problem. As the Political Fundamentalists
showed, politics is a long term game. That's one reason that Lamberts comment about the Democrat party and their 'missing' ground
game is so pertinent.
Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise
staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem
Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to
Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that
things would really change.
The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand
in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put
up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of
primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years.
I think there are many out there, struggling like I did. They'll show. Eventually. I'd say that the famous line about the center
not holding applies here, but I'm likely missing a ton of context.
My 'turn' was when Nancy P. swiped "impeachment" off the gilded table in 2006, Right • After • The • House • Elections. So,
when shortly there after, while listening to Obama give his inaugural address, all I could say was "we'll see ??" . Then came
his cabinet appointments, and from then on the d-party lost me with their passive-aggressive "We'll have to $ee what's in it AFTER
WE VOTED FOR IT" FU tactics.
Mediation in kindergarten words: Listen, Talk, Ask, Agree, Write.
Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among
strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's
always the weather. That's universal.
Which blogger was it, trying to change the world when he realized he was only reaching the 5% who thought like he did, & stopped?
Think how hard it is to undo economics class learnin' and understand MMT.
Politically, these are not going to be new customers. I can't find number of new voters for AOC, but turnout was less than
1 in 5. She gained trust by knocking on doors. You can't reach the frontal lobes if the amygdala is signalling threat.
If you find points of agreement, you can move the conversation to universal. Then to concrete and material.
This dovetails with hamsher above, whose defiines success as hearing his talking points adopted by those he has dropped them
on. The key is to be nonjudgmental .
there are two statements which have worked in my recent exchanges with liberals:
1)
Obama has bombed more nations than Bush
2) no one person did more to put donald trump in office than hillary clinton (extreme, indisputable malfeasance against sanders
in the primary)
although many seem completely ready to discard 'russian collusion' i still hear 'why is he trying to be friends with putin?'
on a regular basis.
any criticism of obamacare is immediately discarded, even though many know someone who has health insurance but doesn't have
health care.
i keep trying to argue that democrats are best served if abortion is constantly under threat. that most democratic politicians
strongly prefer this situation, as it would otherwise be close to impossible to motivate people to get out to the polls. (or,
likewise, republicans and gun rights) so far, this doesn't seem to work.
calling out tesla as a nonsense scam is working pretty well, though. (monorail!)
also, pointing out that new research shows that
wifi/cellphone exposure increases miscarriage risk is starting to gain traction. i cringe everytime i see a toddler playing
with an i-pad. (obviously not a liberal issue, but it helps to dispel the fog of complacency)
Here is my general approach, good or bad towards Hillary "liberal" or establishment think or whatever you may call it. I think
it helps put the burden of proof to the fake news'ers
On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been
presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us
Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."
I ask them to "show me the money" if they can point to any evidence to support the claim Russia hacked. Depending on how much
time I have, I can shoot it down (like the click bait social media example that is full of holes) but there is so much non-sense
out their I am always up on the latest.
Re: discussing what's happening with people I just gave up. Partially because I couldn't keep calm in the face of being labeled
a "white cis gendered Russia loving hate monger." Partially because the medium for debate my friends and I were using was Facebook,
which is really not a great tool for serious discussions. Partially because it took so much time and energy and garnered no rewards.
Most of my circle of friends ardently believe the following:
(1) the Democrats are significantly different from the Republicans and suggesting otherwise is lying. This gets you the most
violent reactions from most people.
(2) all or most of what Trump is doing is a significant departure from the Obama administration.
(3) withholding votes or voting for other candidates than "electable Democrats" is equivalent to voting for fascists.
(4) US citizens who live in depressed economic areas are to blame for their own problems because they vote against their own
interests and won't move to better places.
(5) increased immigration, increased globalism, and free trade agreements like TPP are policies we should support.
(6) Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc. are not monopolies and anti-trust law should not be used to break them
up.
(7) solutions to inequality in public education should not include busing children from poor areas to wealthy areas. Or vice
versa.
(8) our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must continue.
(9) we need identity politics in this country.
(10) the world would be better off if Hillary was president. P.S. she was robbed by Russians, misogynists, and electoral manipulation
from the fascistic Trump campaign.
When I try to mention that all of those points are debatable at best, and admittedly I do that with varying degrees of success,
they do not accept it. Any of it. They find discussions of what happened during the Obama administration which either lead to,
or was similar to, what Trump is doing now tiring and painful. Mentioning how poorly the HRC campaign was run, how HRC laundered
money through local state dem orgs, the wasted millions in consultants, the lack of campaigning in key states, globalism, etc.
get you a soulful vomiting of Russia/Misogyny/Fascism. They will ask why you focus on the Democrats, and not the Republicans.
It's the Republicans fault we're here and their voters deserve rock suffer.
Humor or analogy doesn't work on this topic either. If you mention something like both parties blame outsiders for their troubles,
except Republicans blame people from Mexico and Democrats blame people from Michigan, you get angry stares. If you mention both
parties want to go back in time to a better, safer place, except for Republicans it's an imaginary 1950 something and for Democrats
is an imaginary 2006, you'll end up drinking alone.
I realized that the only thing I was doing was aggravating my friends and hurting my cause. They're all too high strung to
have discussions. They don't want to consider that the status quo ante that they think was great was only "great" for a select
portion of the country. They might have admitted that progressives and leftists weren't happy with the Obama administration in
2016. They have no space for that kind of thinking now. So I logged out of FB and Twitter, deleted the apps and spend the time
doing other things. I will talk to people about this stuff if they're interested and if it's in person. I stop when I see their
body language shift to 'uncomfortable.'
The other thing I've been doing is working to support local candidates who believe in th kind of policies I want to see in
my community. I think that's a much better way to use my time and political energy.
Good luck to anyone who wants to try and fight this battle with words. No one is reading or listening anymore. They just want
red meat and a torch to join their preferred mob. And with what's happening if you post something a boss or other person finds
objectionable, I strongly recommend the virtues of self censorship and keeping your mouth shut until this time passes.
These were all people who I know and associate with off line. What surprised and saddened me was that they couldn't leave an
argument behind.
I can leave an FB discussion on FB. I have other topics to discuss when I'm with my friends. They can't do that anymore.
It was that fact more than anything that lead me to believe there was no benefit in trying to post articles or participate
in social media discussions. No one is listening. Everyone in my socal circle is feeling too raw to have measured discussions
about how we got here and where we could go next.
I've experienced the same from long time friends or who I thought were friends. For months after the election all they could
talk about was 'Hillary was robbed.' I let them vent because it seemed like a grieving time for them. After six months or so,
when they still could not talk about anything else even if I tried shifting the conversation to family or gardening or something,
then I knew they were caught up in more than grieving. I'm starting to wonder if this is the fury of people who suspect they've
been conned and are determined to prove they were not conned. 'The most qualified candidate ever' was a terrible campaigner.
From 2016: https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11
My outlook now is that people determined to prove they were not conned then will need to find their way back to calmness.
In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 , there was a passage about people, many of them on the left,
who view those who disagree with them as truly evil people.
What comes next explains a lot about what we've seen since the election. Quoting Stone:
"This is a very immature worldview that produces no coping skills."
Yes! Plz someone tell me a way to discuss immigration at the border and separating families. The word on the street that 10k
of those 12k children being separated were ACTUALLY being 'trafficked' and WITHOUT their REAL parents in the first place.
There are a lot of Dem Nuts on facebook that harrassed the heck out of me and since I posted #walkaway, as an astute BERNIE
supporter, this has SHOCKED many and I been unfriended 5 times.
8 million MISSING children and our FBI has only reunited/found 526?
Please don't post such serious charges about trafficked children without sources. As far as I know not even the Trump administration
in its own defense is claiming to have identified trafficked children at those levels.
I'm going to try to put together a comment later today about what we know of the current situation, the need to understand
what was happening pre-Ttrump, and what may be happening to the children now after separation. It will probably be on the links
thread, as it's not directly related to the coping issue of this thread.
So, I made the below comments in today's LINKS. But I will emphasize a different aspect here – in the Links comment my point
was the reporter was wrong (about Obama representing the 1% – I think he did). Here my point is that she enforces dogma and
insinuates disloyalty in any heretic.
fresno dan
July 24, 2018 at 7:25 am
Why So Many Reporters Are Missing the Political Story of the Decade Washington Monthly. Versailles 1788.
Frankly, someone needs to tell this guy (i.e., Bernie Sanders) to sit down and shut up for a while. Reinforcing the notion
that a party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent contributes to the divide
and reinforces Republican lies.
====================================================
party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent
BESIDES believing that Obama DIDN'T represent the 1%, I'm sure this reporter believes:
1. The earth is flat
2. Elvis is alive
3. The living head of John F. Kennedy is kept at the CIA
4. There are 2 Melania Trumps
5. that Hillary got more white women voters than Trump .
other examples are welcome
on that inability to confront the less stellar record of Obama: it's the same process that happened(and is happening, I'd argue)
on the Right .and that happens, over and over, when science chips out another block in the wall of religious certainty.
Fear of the disenchantment of having been wrong, or fooled they'll resist tooth and claw from admitting being descendants of apes
.even when they feel/know in their secret hearts that it's true.
With the Dems(non-Berner subspecies), it's acute right now.
They must defend the paradigm at all costs, because to do otherwise is to open the door to a frightening and incomprehensible
world that would demand their attention and resolve. For so long, the ire was safely directed at the Right it's their fault we
can't have nice things, they are a regressive existential threat, omgomgomg. This is rendered tolerable by the belief that the
Dems are their team, on their side and the polar opposite of the hateful Right.
This latter set of assumptions was thrown into existential even ontological doubt by numerous reports, surveys and even by plain
old look-out-the-window observation.
The belief and the Reality couldn't be reconciled(America is not already great for a whole bunch of folks) and the Nature of the
newly perceived Reality was so ugly, and so huge, that they recoil into paradigm defense.
a giant edifice of bullshit is inherently unstable, it turns out.
The challenge, as I see it, is to acknowledge that the Way We Do Things is falling apart, and that it should fall apart, if
we really believe all the high minded rhetoric we perform to each other and then to try to figure out what system/paradigm we'd
like to replace it to use the chaos and destruction of the trump era to our advantage.
So more and more, in lib/dem/prog* social spaces, I'm asking "what are we for?"
(* the confusion of tongues here is both instructive and disheartening and encouraging(!). asking folks to define such things
is resulting in less fury and spittle and froth, and more with either silence or thought and honest questioning. at least in my
little circles )
I can't beat what notabanker said:
notabanker
July 24, 2018 at 8:26 am
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and I
find it really hard to understand how someone else's does ..
==============================================
"Independent" self sufficient Americans .join groups called political parties that as a rite of passage evidently require the
adherents to believe idiotic, inconsistent things.
But another thing is that the number of people who even belong to political parties isn't that great. But they set the agenda.
It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of
course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary
and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .????
NOW, of course there were real differences between Obama and Bush .Obama droned a LOT more.
Thank you, Yves and the community. This situation applies in the UK, too. It's amazing to meet people who took time off to
protest against Trump, but won't against homelessness or austerity.
Yes, the Irish media used to be moderately independent, but they are getting in line too. Over the weekend I nearly threw my
copy of the Irish Times away in disgust at reading some of the articles from writers I'd consider pretty clear minded normally.
They are just gradually absorbing the message by osmosis I think.
When someone here rants about Trump, I usually say something like 'well,what exactly has he done thats worse than anything
Obama did to, say for example, Libya, or Honduras?' I'd love to say I get a thoughtful response, but thats rarely the case. Interestingly,
I find that its the people who profess themselves as non-political or don't read the newspapers much who are more open to discussion.
I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held
beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to ' self-correct
'.
It's been very painful to realize that ' things ' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
Over many decades, both the ' other teams ' have pointed fingers at each other and invited us to believe that our
problems originated on the other side of the fence, when in reality, as many of us now understand, our two political parties have
all the while, worked in collusion to forward the interests of the rich and powerful, the result of which has been wide spread,
and extreme economic hardship for most of us.
This failure of our politics has engendered a wide spread visceral hatred of our leadership class, that so far, has remained
loosely in the control of the two political parties, but, and I think this a good thing, there is a dawning understanding among
a significant number of us, that the hatred of Hillary, and her party, is well deserved, and rooted in exactly the same reality
as the hatred of George 'W', and his party.
All that hatred of the political parties and their leadership has so far, resulted in Trump, which in an odd sense is evidence
supporting optimism that the two parties strangle-hold on our lives is not invincible, and that there exists a wide-spread thirst
for change.
I think that thirst for change is the point where we have an opportunity to make conversation fruitful, and find common ground.
I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held
beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to 'self-correct'.
It's been very painful to realize that 'things' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
================================================
I don't know how many times I have heard that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away"
REALITY, that voting for a democrat* or a republican is throwing your vote away, never seems to sway anyone.
* maybe there are individual democrats that are worth voting for, but that is usually due to some screw up by the party apparatchiks
I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the
delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources.
There's a guy running for local city council whose campaign I intend to work for, and anyone campaigning on Medicare-for-All (free
at the point of care, of course!), a minimum wage humans can live on, and anything else beneficial to people who work for a living
will get my jealously-guarded vote. But the rest looks more and more like the re-arranging the proverbial deck chairs.
I also think that this is not the time to try to argue. Many people (liberals) seem to have been shocked to their core by Clinton's
loss and the arrival of the barbarians. The world has come unhinged, it appears to them.
That is a deeply unsettling feeling that can induce a deep distress and panic. I think it's also new to most liberals because
things in America had proceeded pretty much sensibly, even during the Bush years. Also, I suspect many are at a stage in life
when they have settled their own sense of their lives on a platform of comfort with the status quo as personified by the liberal
consensus; or they are deeply committed ideologically for other reasons of self-identity.
The liberal establishment everyday is whipping the flames of people's panic and resulting outrage, and has created a huge firestorm.
The "resistance" gives people a way to make sense of the world again. They will hold onto the "resistance" with all their power
because admitting that the "resistance" is in any way flawed throws them back into a chaotic world. So any argument about this
stuff derives from a deep place and is not conducive to reasoning. You threaten them, if you try to take away their "resistance"
bear.
I also think it is better to put energy into other things, like building positive political movements or structures of life
that extend "under" the current debate. (If you go down below general political buzz words, you can sometimes find agreement across
political barriers.)
I still make general comments non-locally, but I do not engage with people individually about this. It's useless right now.
– Humans usually have a strong need to identify with a tribe
– In stressful times humans seem to want to simplify their lives, which can be done by joining a tribe, which allows you
to NOT think for yourself
– There are a lot of physical and mental benefits (and perceived benefits) to being a member of a tribe
– Humans have a remarkable ability to do things that are, in the long run, not to their own benefit
– Humans will too often defend their own self image to the death, because they don't have the self respect that comes with
a developed personality, and thus support their self-value through the groups they have chosen to identify with, the tribes
they feel they belong to
– Tribalism unfortunately seems to be mostly about screwing other tribes
Some additional tribes: Wall St bankers, corporate CEOs, police, teachers, Congress, your town, your state, sports fans, etc.
Very relevant commentary to which I can completely relate. I had to leave a certain FB group because it became increasingly
apparent that these mostly PhD, higher education types were not really interested in being the resistance or fighting fascism.
No, what they really want is a safe space/echo chamber in which they can whine about everything that has gone to shit while completely
ignoring how they themselves and the 'Democrat' party facilitated said shit's construction. The level of cognitive dissonance
was simply mind boggling.
No rational thought about how going along to get along contributed to the current situation, that the lesser of two evils still
gets you to the same destination. My working theory is they suffer from social detachment disorder due to their comfortable government
(many tenured professors) jobs. As I attempted to explain to one of them, the economic damage created by the policy responses
following the GR directly contributed to the door opening for Trump or something like him. These PhD types seem to be completely
willing to overlook the social injustice of the Obama tenure, growth of the surveillance state, economic monopolies etc.
Many of these people have not had to worry about a paycheck for some time, thus the complete disconnect from the realities
of the current economy. They talk a good game about fighting for social & economic equality, but when push comes to shove many
of them are willing to throw their working neighbor under the bus so they can keep their comfortable (not rich mind you) tenured
positions and lifestyles. If nothing else, the level of cognitive dissonance in this group certainly made me think about tenure
from a much different perspective. Certainly not an encouraging picture of higher ed for sure.
Thomas Frank has repeatedly pointed out that credentialed professionals were the most reliably Republican voting block in America
for decades. Now they're firmly democrat. Did their politics/interests change? Doubtful
The decades-long purge of any hint of leftists from the American university system (which started right here in California
in the 50's then spread out) has led to our extremely conservative tenure class of professors.
I've had the same experience with these credential class types. Their politics are uniformly anti-labor and elitist. There's
no convincing them.
I think that it is seldom clear in discussions what differentiates credentialed class from not. Just a bachelors degree? Bachelors
degree attainment is over 30% now among young people. They are luckier than many who don't have the degree, but with every white
collar job wanting a bachelors degree (often for fairly lowly work that didn't used to) and with a bachelors degree no guarantee
of anything (nope not even that white collar job) I'm not sure its all that. (BTW I don't have a bachelors degree, but I'm in
no good shape economically at all, if I had a degree maybe I'd be allowed to live, that is all .. so I consider it but without
illusion at 40 something).
I think what really protects people's jobs etc. is licensed professions (lawyers, doctors, CPAs, landscape architects etc.)
and in some cases those requiring post-bachelors attainment including years of additional training (physical therapists etc.).
Well and unionization in the public sector obviously and tenure in academia.
it's not in their class interest to care, well the tenured ones, the adjuncts it depends on who they identify with, with the
working class or with the tenured ones whose life they can't get anyway.
The average office worker would be more likely to care, although usually not political, and though they usually pretend otherwise,
and though they are taught to sympathize with the bosses, there is a chance they might at some level ultimately know the are pawns
in a game that they don't control and that can eat them alive (unlike those protected with tenure).
Ask the professors at Vermont Law School, 75% of whom just had tenure stripped unceremoniously. It's coming for them all. I
give it less than 10 years. These tenured types total lack of solidarity within their group or any other will finally come home
to roost.
My dear friend has been slogging through the trenches of the adjunct lifestyle for the better part of a decade and it's only
now at this late date starting to dawn on him that he'll never get regular work at the university. Those waves and easy smiles
from tenured faculty hid what they were thinking all along, "Better you than me pal!"
Not my country, but this is less a question of talking to "liberals" (who have their own problems) than of talking to conspiracy
theorists. All over the world, certain groups of people are finding that history has suddenly, in the last few years, veered off
in directions it has no right to. Since they refuse to believe they are responsible, however distantly, and since they seek, as
we all do, simple explanations for complex problems, it must be a conspiracy. And anyone who questions the existence of a conspiracy
is by definition part of it.
Because conspiracy theories serve essentially emotional and ideological purposes, rational discussion is by definition useless,
and studies show that pointing out that people are factually wrong actually makes them more likely to cling to their beliefs.
I'd recommend a site which discusses and dissects conspiracy theories (www.metabunk.org), and which has discussion threads
on how to argue with conspiracy theorists.
I was a Keynesian. I thought that meant the same as being a Democrat. Obama cured me of that mistake. Now, I'm in the Modern
Money camp. Explaining that to paygo liberals is an even bigger chore.
Yes, although I've found that when I simply explain basic MMT concepts to either repub or dem friends, I come across as non-political.
Because neither dems or repubs support it.
And I gain instant credibility/solidarity with them when I agree with their knee-jerk reaction that state/local governments
ARE constrained.
Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists
That's spot on. Perhaps it has to with out lack of a set class structure which makes people socially insecure. Plus the rise
of the meritocracy means that the worse thing you can call someone these days is "stupid" meaning uneducated. Life experience
gets little credit at a time when knowledge has been overly formalized.
However we can take some comfort in a history where periods of intense conformity such as the 1950s provoke periods of more
liberated thinking as in the 1960s. Things do seem to be changing–hopefully not for the worse. Patience with those vehement NYT
and WaPo readers may be necessary until the fever breaks.
My concern is that we have a poisoned public space, as it is hard to find the facts in the press or the body politic. Hard
to find common ground to discuss or solve problems. I think our democracy, what is left of it, is in deep trouble. I agree that
we need to talk to our neighbors about issues of the day. It is hard to overcome the do not talk about politics meme of the last
30 years.
I try really hard these days to talk about the system. Trump is a product of the system that we created and we need to change
to better everyone.
I try to be compassionate above all else. Trump supporters are not evil or selfish. They believed the lies of someone telling
them he was going to save jobs. We, as a nation, believed the lies of Obama's "hope and change" and it got us nowhere except a
little more hopeless. Its not about political affiliation. Its about the world oligarchs having entire control. I refuse to be
divided by what they want me to be divided by.
A fascinating and often painful subject. Being mostly a dismal failure in my own attempts, I've been keenly interested in and
come up with several 'types' (hardly exhaustive) that seem gifted with varying degrees of success in communicating though
I'm not sure about convincing others. Making others sit up and think (I should say 'having that effect' rather than 'making')
might be as far as most in this select group will ever get but I strongly suspect such exchanges can ultimately be very powerful
(meaning the 'other' will almost always do the changing of pov, or the expansion of understanding, under their own steam and in
their own time).
Trite as it may seem, those who have a strong core of honesty, or who always tend to gravitate toward truth, have the most
success in the above. They are the ones who seem to make headway under the most ridiculously difficult or impossible conditions.
That they often have a strong command of their subject seems (to me) to be a natural outcome of the affinity for truth rather
than truth being a result of knowledge breadth. They aren't always likeable but are often admirable.
After that, there are the 'warm intellectuals' and note that this categorization does not preclude honesty. My father was such.
He had a way of making all present feel welcome and valuable despite the intricacy of the discussion. One usually had to ferret
out his opinions or his 'take' on something as he rarely made an issue of it. But his conversation and 'presence' always made
fairness and decency seem cool; the natural order of things, and I know for a fact he had a profound influence on at
least some people – some hard core ones as well.
The ability to bend and compromise for a greater good (or in some cases for another purpose) is yet another 'type' who I see
as potentially having considerable power in their exchanges with others. I see them as having emotional energy and an ability
to see through the 'facts' or to 'suspend' them for a period. This is obviously a tricky – perhaps flawed (although in reality
they are all flawed) – category, home to intellectuals inclined toward the Machiavellian as well as do-gooders quickly judged
and relegated -not always justly- to the lot of suck-asses, and I image it has mixed results. It includes but is not the sole
domain of those with the facility to put themselves in anther's shoes (and occasionally get lost in so doing).
I am only describing those who can influence others of extreme or highly contrary positions and beliefs, not the relatively
larger group who can be eloquent in their own right but are not of note in dealing with made-up minds. Since we are all banging
about under varying degrees of illusion , the truly or profoundly successful ambassador, along with his/her close cousin
the successful negotiator, even the mundane every-man commenting on a blog or at a social gathering that provokes others to reassess,
is a rather unusual individual indeed. That there is some preponderance of such individuals on NC does not contradict the rarity
in general.
Perhaps just a very long winded way of saying, "Don't be too hard on yourself."
What I meant to say in the last sentence is, "I won't be too hard on myself ", but put in the general form while thinking
of it applying to me. I don't presume to give others such advice (though I imagine it holds for others as well ).
Also, since the process of changing or simply being influenced, always takes time, it is almost impossible to see or assess;
an unhappy circumstance for those who try at it rather than let it be an outcome..
Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the
work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people
do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers.
Sarcasm is not to be confused with irony, which allows people to react mildly along "ha, ha, ha, oh my, what a world we live
in". You can always escape from irony but a good, hard sarcasm put the moral dilemma right out there and people cannot escape
their own crap poorly founded opinions.
Political talk has really become a competition as opposed to a conversation. If the conversation decends into competition I'll
try to ask "are there are any rules to this game?". When all else fails, go Socratic. Their answers can be enlightening.
I think it can be effective to do a virtual cannonball into the kiddie pool of their belief system. Like Maddow squared but
willing to connect the dots.
'Of course the Russians put Trump in, but the whole hacking story is part of a scam and a distraction. There's barely a
connection between the leaked emails and the election results. They are a sideshow to get Assange. No, the real story is that
the Russians had a high level operative inside the DNC. That's how the emails leaked. That is why the campaign was diverted
away from Wisconsin, for example, in favor of Arizona. It is why the campaign pulled strings to get airtime for Trump during
the GOP primary. It is why the DNC relied on bad software models and ignored experienced campaigners. Heck, it is why the DNC
ran Hillary, even though she was over 43% animatronic by the end of the primary.'
Then you reveal that the mole is Mook.
The more facts you can weave into an acceptable narrative, the more secret landmines you can slip into their bubble, until
the critical mass of cognitive dissonance causes a rupture
Watch out for the response being a psychotic break. I have had that happen when I got too carried away with 'weaponized humour'
in my arguments.
I mean not just angry outbursts directed in my direction but actual punches. These times are becoming physically dangerous.
I will generally, when I encounter a true believer Left or Right, let them get comfortable, agreeing with their critique of
the Other until they say something grotesquely hypocritical or patently false or deranged, and then I will call out the hypocrisy/bs
by way of pointing to it in their own party, then segway into something like 'MSNBC is part of the DNC, CNN is mockingbird CIA/DEEP
STATE, and FOX is Rupert Murdoch's geriatric limp dick. Sometimes I call myself an anarchist, because I am liberal about some
things and conservative about others and hypocrisy sucks. Wtf are Americans left and right going to pull their heads out of their
buttz and realize the country has been gutted and the people put in debt servitude to globalist corp, bank, billionaire and eternal
profiteering war/surveillance machine? Oh, and capitalism looks like a death cult if you are a pollinator or an ecosystem, so
wtf about your bloody party ."
Which rant I can sustain as long as the person can hear it. Sometimes with liberals though I just ask why they think Hillary
would have been a better president, and they usually realize at some point they have tied themselves in knots.
One quibble: It should be "Russia!Russia!Russia!", not "Russia!Russia!" – it makes the Jan Brady jokes a little funnier.
Anyway, with some people, I'm not sure if people should really be trying to "talk to" liberals, with the intent of changing
their minds. I remember similar discussions going on in Daily Kos around 2006 or so, but there they discussed how to "talk to"
conservatives, or people in rural areas, or "low information voters," as they liked to call them. It does seem a little condescending
– some people believe what they believe, and you're not going to be able to argue them out of their positions. As macnamichomhairle
posted above, the election of Trump really seems to have caused a psychic break in certain segments of society. I'm not sure if
agitating them any further would really be that helpful. It's gotten to the point that I wonder (only half-jokingly) if Trump
Derangement Syndrome will be included in the next volume of the DSM.
So, if you want to argue with people about something, make it sports. It seems that Americans are much more civil and mature
when it comes to arguing about that topic. That is, unless they're from Philadelphia.
when facing russia! putin! arguments, i usually retort with a big "i don't care" and paraphrase Mohammed Ali: "ain't no vladimir
putin ever set the middle east on fire and crash the global economy".
At first I was going to suggest using a lead pipe on so-called liberals as a coping strategy but I think that this is too serious
to joke about. Think about this. The US midterms take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 and only 16 days later you will have
Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving tables
this year?
Look, it is a real bad idea to tie your identity to any political party. Too much putting your faith in princes here – or princesses
too for that matter. I don't think that the US voting system helps either where they want you to register for Party A or Party
B which, when you think about it, kinda defeats the purpose of a secret ballet.
If people with phds are drinking the kool-aid and are not using their critical thinking skills, then how can you expect average
people to be convinced? I am not sure that you can but what you can do is undermine their beliefs. Don't let them shape the battlefield
of argument ('Or course everybody knows Russia did it!') or else it is a losing game. In any case, this whole thing reeks of the
old identity game where those in power set two sides to fiercely combat each other while skimming profits all the way to the bank.
An example of this? Democrats and Republicans hate each other's guts but when it come time to vote $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest
people in the country then it was bipartisan all the way, baby.
My birthday comes shortly after the election. I'm thinking of throwing a party for myself and inviting liberal Democrats, libertarians,
Republicans, Greens, independents, and those who refuse to be classified.
Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving
tables this year?
hmmm if the MSM determine too many of the midterm winners are the *wrong* sort of people then watch out for more MSM, Thanksgiving
weekend, crazy stories, as in 2016. Properly speaking or not. ;)
For a discussion to occur, both sides have to be willing and able to listen. While most people claim both, in my experience
especially the latter (able to) is a learned skill which majority lacks (of all bents, not just liberals etc.).
Hence after this was tested, I do not discuss anymore, I rant, if I feel like it.
Talk about small, but 'respectably' sourced news stories instead of whatever's dominating the current news cycle – stories
where the DNC spokespeople haven't already poisoned the well by telling people "This is your team's official position, there's
no need to make up your own mind."
Give the liberal a chance to make up their own mind on the small story. Chances are that they sympathize with the underdog
in that story – showing how 'liberals care'.
Then – if you're in the mood – spring the trap:
"You're absolutely right to be concerned about the underdog in [story A]. The compassion -that's why people like liberals!
By the way, why do you think that [famous dem spokesperson] doesn't show the same compassion regarding [morally analogous but
more mainstream news controversy B]?"
"Russian meddling, eh? That's a scary country. I've been reading about Russia in the 90s. The average life expectancy of the
whole country went down by years after the communist government collapsed. Old people dying alone in their apartments from easily
treatable illnesses. Yeah, it IS terrible. Yeah it IS disgusting and immoral. Oh by the way, that's around the time they switched
to a for-profit medical system like we have. Weird huh?"
The inability to talk politics with others of differing views is hardly limited to the US even if it expresses itself in different
ways. I have family in France (je suis une pièce rapportée – in-law) and it's almost identical to the US. As even my wife is somewhat
of a 'guest' when we go over now, You simply avoid subjects where you know it could get too hot and so do they among themselves.
Things are not at all as cut and dry as they were (at least seemed) back in the late 60's early 70's when students AND workers
united massively in common cause.
A few years ago, I had a discussion that turned into an argument with a friend visiting from France who is an economist by
training but made his pile (of comfortable not gargantuan size) in real estate. It turned around Jeremy Corbyn with my argument
that as long as people are really hurting, social/political/economic justice movements will thrive and often succeed in radical
change and his argument that 1) he is an economist and therefore knows what he is talking about and 2) Corbyn is simply
unacceptable and unworkable in todays economy , c'est tout!
How horribly frustrating for me not to have a good command of the subject, getting hot under the collar is not a compelling
argument, (though I didn't let him get away with the, being an economist, braggadocio), but on the good side, our friendship survived
the bout and we holstered our pistols for the rest of their visit.
I find arguments of systemic problems, corruption, absence of actual solutions, divide conquer, class war, rather than D vs
R work best.
Example:
Ask anyone who has a problem with immigrants why not one politician demands an arrest of a ceo and board members for illegal hiring
practices. Put them in jail just for a weekend and things would dramatically change over night. We don't need to cage many thousands
of desperate people, just a few greedy ones. Like them or not, quit blaming desperate poor people for crawling through a nasty
river and horrific desert to get a crappy job. If the illegal hiring didn't exist they wouldn't come. As for children and adults,
once 'we' have them captured, under our control, how they exist is all about us, not them.
And then I shut up. You have to know when to shut up.
At other times I love reminding D's or R's and especially those who are neither, the D's and R's are at best 27 percent of
the eligible voters. Independents are far greater in number than they are and 'refuse to vote' for any of them are greatest of
all. The D's and R's both have a super majority against them for good reasons which are being ignored at all our peril. That they
are not listening, not asking, not representing. They are owned and we are all being played like a two dollar banjo. Fighting
for either one of them is exactly what they want and need to keep the con alive.
I keep reminding people this is not professional football, you don't have to watch, much more you are not forced to pick between
two teams, please choose neither like most of us are doing because we need an entirely new game. Issues, not personality. Because
all owners are always a winner, cashing in, if you do.
More generally speaking, there are actually clinical trials of ways to be persuasive. Doctors need this for the difficult patients:
the heart patients who don't want to take their meds, the addicts who don't want to quit, etc. It's worth looking up:
Motivational Interviewing . The link is to a course
offered by Citizens' Climate Lobby, designed to help their members deal with climate change denial.
The key, they say, is forming partnerships. Disagreement can take the form of fights, arguments or partnerships, with only
the last providing some prospect for relief.
So providing the "perfect squelch" or putting down one's opponent is the very last thing you want to do. Finding areas of agreement
and building on those is the royal road to something more positive.
I've also found some of the worst offenders in the environmental community. These are often former bureaucrats who want to
keep the (bankrupt) process in place, but encourage a different outcome. They want to be the "good guys," and judge the environmental
"bad guys" rather than make a significant change.
I tend towards the Socratic approach, both for establishment Democrats and the larger universe of people I disagree with in
person. It generally means doing more listening than talking, which I know is a downside for some, but letting people talk things
out in front of you with occasional nudges in the right direct does a decent job of moving them gradually in the right direction,
and leaves them with an impression of you as a friendly good-listener with whom they have some disagreements rather than that
asshole yelling about nonsense.
I'm going to throw out my tips that I've used for years to talk politics in various environments (office, family gatherings,
etc).
1) Keep context in mind if you're in the office, keep encounters brief and cordial, couple of news headlines as you breeze
by for a couple of minutes. Crack a couple of jokes and try to keep it light. But choose your topics with care, especially if
you don't know the person really well.
2) Find common ground: with trumpers you can rail against clintons, obamas, and dem hypocrisy. with clintonites you can talk about how excited you are that Ted Cruz has a real challenge, Paul Ryan's retiring, all the damage
Trump is doing to the establishment repubs, etc. Tell them the positive thing about Trump winning is that ALL THE OTHER REPUBS
LOST .badly!
3) As far as genuinely changing minds .THESE THINGS TAKE TIME! Some minds aren't open to being changed, some will periodically
open and close, and some of us are genuinely trying to figure out WTF is going on in the world (which is why we come to NC!) In
any case, minds get changed over weeks and months, not a couple of hours.
4) Understand and remember that you DO NOT have all the answers and think about all things you've changed your mind about over
the years and it helps to open minds to SHARE stories with people about what changed your mind and why. If you're not sure why
you think what you think, go figure out why! :)
5) Once you've got a certain comfort level, don't be afraid to crack a joke that aggravates the other person, but don't overdo
it and don't do a lot of public mocking/shaming.
6) When someone else uses 5) on you, practice to make sure you DO NOT get too mad about it. Get thicker skin, if you can't
do it .then you aren't ready to talk politics.
7) Yes, that includes people saying ignorant stuff. That doesn't mean you have to grin and bear it, you don't and you shouldn't.
Drop a mild rebuke (no more and no less) and change the subject. Don't ostracize or shame. Keep interacting with people, as much
as they want to do so. We've all said stupid $h!t at one time or another, we can and should all be able to forgive/forget. I've
certainly said my fair share. But also, people do change their minds over time. It's helpful if you can guide them in a positive
direction.
8) Talk about the context in which things happen and put yourself in other people's shoes. This is something I've learned a
lot in the last few years and people forget to step back and look at things from a high level. I've been amazed at how much more
sense things can make when you think more about context.
My coping method is mostly avoidance, but if I did intervene it would be something like this:
I agree Trump is ill-suited to the job and has horrible policies.
If Russia (or Russians) interfered with the election, if Trump and his cronies participated in that, or if Trump and cronies
had other dealings with Russian that are illegal, Mueller is the right person to figure it out. His whole career has been defending
and strengthening the pre-Trump status quo, the "norms" of the military-industrial-corporatist-security complex. If there's a
way to push us back in that direction, there may be no one on earth more committed to that job.
Our job is to examine the impacts of current Trump policy, the roots where applicable in those status quo "norms",
issues other than Russia that weaken and corrupt our electoral system, failures of centrist Democrat policies to solve problems;
and to promote alternative policies and politicians. None of this will be adddressed by any negative Mueller consequences to Trump,
and maybe to a few of those around him.
Whether it's committed liberals (eg, super strong Big D voters) or committed conservatives, there's really not much point in
"talking."
I accidentally said something truthful about Trump's/the Republicans' recent tax law, and my super conservative sister launched
into a tirade that came right out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. I hadn't meant to stir the pot, either, and what I said was pretty
nothingburger. I let her rant for a few minutes; explained my side very graciously and calmly (mainly that MY taxes have been
raised, not lowered as advertised), and then I changed the topic.
I know a very few D voter friends who are starting to pay more attention – it's taken a while but they are – and they're starting
to see that Big D is NOT their savior, at least, not as they currently exist. Of course, I have Big D friends who revile Bernie
Sanders as the worst of the worst, and they're HORRIFIED that he's a socialist!!!111!!!!! Well, there's nothing to say there.
Mostly if I'm thinking about it, I'll drop in a few salient points – as some other commenters have suggested, above – and then
mostly walk away.
The Big Fat Propaganda Wurlizter has done it's job, and HOW. And it's not just about conservatives ranting out the usual Fox/Rush
rightwing talking points. Now it's so-called liberals ranting out the latest from, I guess (no tv, never watch), Rachael Maddow
and similar.
I can barely ever listen to what passes for "nooz" on NPR, but possibly they get their talking points from there, as well.
Some of those talking points now come up regularly in the weekend game shows. I duly noted that "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" had
James EFFEN Comey on last weeked. R U Kidding ME???? Of course, I didn't listen.
So, go figure.
Both sides are being heavily brainwashed by our M$M. For me: No TV at all and precious little radio (mostly music stations).
And judicious nooz paper reading.
Get my real info at sites like this one.
Thanks to all who comment logically here in reality-land.
In general, the way I deal with the liberals, partisan Dems, Hillary crowd or whatever you call it, is in person (I'm not on
FB) with this type of statement:
"Not one single piece of evidence has every been presented showing Russia meddled in the election. Not one. We don't even have
grounds to investigate such a thing. And what evidence we do have points away from Russia. The same agencies that said WMD in
Iraq are now saying Russia meddled in the election, have you learned nothing? Russiagate is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."
That usually silences them because they don't have any evidence and some even know that. If they offer "evidence" (like the
social media click bait adds) I am usually familiar enough show how silly the examples given are.
I hike regularly w/my buddy who is a 73 year old Nam vet, I am a 65 year old conscientious objector he is blue collar for generations,
I am college educated family for generations New Deal Dems forever.
Our concerns in life are the same, the well being of our adult children and grandchildren, our relationships w/our spouses,
how to manage our retirements. But Oh do we talk politics! He teases me that I'm a Trumpster because of my deserved critiques
of Clinton, Obama and my anger at that gang of liars, as if that means I think Trump and his band of "obligerant" oligarchs are
great! (oblivious and belligerent)
The executive branch is a huge about-to-become-extinct dinosaur w/the brain of a tiny reptile, little realizing only the little
mammals will survive, while still imagining itself to be king of the place forever.
What difference will this make to Brennan and the others? Granted a security clearance is
life blood to a mid-level or high level government employee who intends to start a second
career as a contractor in the classified DC government arena, but once you're retired who
gives a rat's ass.
Comey just said he doesn't have one and he's still yapping. I don't think McCabe has
one either. I don't know about the others. These guys are going to keep talking,
clearance or no clearance, unless Trump takes them into custody and puts them in Gitmo.
Or he could just stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes and shout la, la, la la
la...
You are right. The lack of a clearance to read US classified information will mean
nothing to these particular malefactors. Their value to employers is in their notoriety
and what is in ther heads. I was de-briefed from TS cat-3 acess plus 45 or so SAPs and
other HUMINT, SIGINT and even more exotic stuff when I left DIA in 1994. I had no
clearances while I was in the business world and that meant nothing to me in terms of
income. Several years after 9/11 parts of the government started asking me to do things
for them. For me to do that my clearances had to be restored as they applied to the
specific work. None of the renewed access had anything to do with the subject matter of
SST. Based on my voluminous security dossier the adjudicators did that in 48 hours. I
asked to be debriefed from all access in the very narrow areas I consulted in for DoJ,
DoD and the NIC in May, 2015. IMO a system should be devised for granting very temporary
access to annuitants or "formers" from government whose expertise is needed for specific
projects. Government leaders like Brennan, Clapper etc should not be allowed to have
standing clearances that they can use to continue to have access through old colleagues.
that should be stopped. When you leave, you should really leave,
a bill of attainder specifies an individual by name. If that's okay then maybe we start
with the Mark Zuckerberg tax act then lean in to Sheryl Sandberg's money next.
You say:
quote
Whether
the U.S. Constitution by its text even permits agency regulations and
that they can have legal effect is a real and interesting question,
which no one will touch with a 10-foot pole.
endquote
Sounds like something said by opponents of FDR back in 1932.
A good place to start reading (including links to many who have analyzed the subject
thoroughly) is
Update : The responses have begun. James Clapper spoke on CNN this
afternoon, calling Trump's actions "a petty way of retribution."
"Well, it's interesting news. I'm reading it and learning about it just as you are. I think
it's off the top of my head it's a sad commentary,"
Clapper said. "For political reasons, this is a petty way of retribution, I suppose for
speaking out against the president, which I think, on the part of all of us, are born out of
genuine concerns about President Trump."
"It's frankly more of a courtesy that former senior officials and the intelligence community
are extended the courtesy of keeping the security clearance. Haven't had a case of using it.
And it has no bearing whatsoever on my regard or lack thereof for President Trump or what he's
doing," he continued.
* * *
President Trump is exploring ways to strip several former Obama officials of their security
clearances over politicized statements, including John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Susan
Rice, and Andrew McCabe, according to White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Responding to a question about comments tweeted earlier in the day by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
that former CIA Director Brennan should have his clearance stripped, Sanders replied:
"Not only is the President looking to take away Brennan's security clearance, he's also
looking into the clearances of Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice and McCabe," said Sanders, reading
from a prepared statement, "because they've politicized, and in some cases, monetized their
public service and security clearances. Making baseless accusations of improper contact with
Russia or being influenced by Russia, against the President, is extremely inappropriate."
"The fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides
inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence."
Earlier in the day, Senator Rand Paul tweeted: "Is John Brennan monetizing his security
clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media
with his attacks on @realDonaldTrump ?"
Brennan, a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, said that
President Trump's comments following the Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin
"rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors," adding "It was nothing
short of treasonous."
James Clapper, meanwhile, is an employee of CNN, while former FBI Director James Comey has
been traveling around the country peddling his book, telling people to vote Democrat - just not "
Socialist Democrat. "
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
Rand Paul blocks Sanders's Russia resolution, calls it 'crazy hatred' against Trump
By Jordain Carney
Sen.
Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) on Thursday
blocked a resolution from Sen.
Bernie
Sanders
(I-Vt.) that backed the intelligence community's assessment of Russian election interference and demanded
President Trump
speak with special
counsel
Robert Mueller
.
Sanders
asked for unanimous consent to try to pass his resolution, saying senators "must act" if they are "serious about
preserving American democracy."
"The Congress must make it clear that we accept the assessment of our intelligence community with regard to
Russian election interfering in our country and in other democracies," Sanders said during a Senate floor speech.
Under Senate rules, any one senator could block his request.
"The hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance," he
said.
Paul questioned why senators would not want to have relations with Russia.
"We should stand firm and say 'Stay the hell out of our elections,' but we should not stick our head in the ground
and say we're not going to talk to them," he said.
But Sanders fired back that Paul's objection was unrelated to
his resolution, which he noted doesn't push for cutting off talks with the Russians.
"What the senator said is totally irrelevant to what is in this resolution," Sanders said.
The resolution comes as Congress is weighing how to push back against Russia after Trump sparked bipartisan backlash
during his meeting with Putin on Monday in Helsinki, Finland.
Trump refused to condemn Russia for interfering in
the 2016 presidential election during a joint press conference on Monday. He then tried to walk back his comments on
Tuesday, saying he accepted the intelligence community's findings but added that "other people" could have been
involved too.
I saw a
Twitter thread between two journalists the other day which completely summarized my
experience of debating the establishment Russia narrative on online forums lately . Aaron
Maté, who is in my opinion one of the clearest voices out there on American Russia
hysteria, was approached with an argument by a journalist named Jonathan M Katz.
Maté engaged the argument by asking for evidence of the claims Katz was making,
only to be given the runaround.
I'm going to copy the back-and-forth into the text here for anyone who doesn't feel like
scrolling through a Twitter thread, not because I am interested in the petty rehashing of a
meaningless Twitter spat, but because it's such a perfect example of what I want to talk about
here.
Katz : Are you aware of what Russian agents did during the 2016 presidential election, by
chance?
Maté : I'm aware of what Mueller has accused Russian agents of --
are we supposed to just reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors &
intelligence officials now, or is it ok to wait for the evidence? (as I did in the tweet
you're replying to)
Katz : Why are you even asking this question if you're just going to discard the reams of
evidence that have supplied by investigators, spies, and journalists over the last two
years?
Maté : Why are you avoiding answering the Q I asked? If I can guess, it's
cause doing so would mean acknowledging your position requires taking gov't claims on faith.
Re: "reams of evidence", I've actually written about it extensively, and disagree that it's
convincing.
Katz : Yeah I'm familiar with your work. You're asking for someone to summarize two years
of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from independent analysts, give agencies both
American and foreign, and on and on just so you can handwave and draw some vague
equivalencies.
Maté : No, actually I've asked 2 Qs in this thread, both of which have been
avoided: 1) what evidence convinces you that Russia will attack the midterms 2) are we
supposed to reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors & intel officials now, or
is it ok to wait for the evidence?
Katz : See this is what you do. You pretend like all of the evidence produced by
journalists, independent analysts and foreign governments doesn't exist so you can accuse
anyone who doesn't buy this SF Cohen Putinist bullshit you're selling of being a deep state
shill.
Maté : Except I haven't said anything about anyone being a "deep state shill",
here or anywhere else. So that's your embellishment. I'm simply asking whether we should
accept IC/prosecutor claims on faith. Mueller does lay out a case, that's true, but no
evidence yet.
Katz : No. You should not accept a prosecutor's claims on faith. You should read
independent analyses, evidence gathered by journalists and other agencies, and compare all it
to what is known on the public record. And you could if you wanted to.
Katz continued to evade and deflect until eventually exiting the conversation .
Meanwhile another journalist, The Intercept 's Sam Biddle, interjected that the debate was
"a big waste of" Katz's time and called Maté an "inverse louise mensch", all for
maintaining the posture of skepticism and asking for evidence. Maté invited Katz
and Biddle to debate their positions on The Real News , to which Biddle replied , "No thank you,
but I have some advice: If everyone has gotten it wrong, you should figure out who really did
it! If not Russia, find out who really hacked the DNC, find out who really spearphished
American election officials. Even OJ pretended to search for the real killer."
If you were to spend an entire day debating Russiagate online (and I am in no way suggesting
that you should), it is highly unlikely that you would see anything from the proponents of the
establishment Russia narrative other than the textbook fallacious debate tactics exhibited by
Katz and Biddle in that thread. It had the entire spectrum:
Gish gallop
-- The tactic of providing a stack of individually weak arguments to create
the illusion of one solid argument, illustrated when Katz cited unspecified "reams of
evidence" resulting from "two years of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from
independent analysts, give agencies both American and foreign." He even claimed he shouldn't
have to go through that evidence point-by-point because there's too much of it, which is like
a poor man's Gish gallop fallacy.
Argumentum
ad populum -- The "it's true because so many agree that it is true"
argument that Katz attempted to imply in invoking all the "journalists, independent analysts
and foreign governments" who assert that Russia interfered in a meaningful way in America's
2016 elections and intends to interfere in the midterms.
Ad hominem
-- Biddle's "inverse louise mensch". You have no argument, so you insult the other
party instead.
Attempting
to shift the burden of proof -- Biddle's suggestion that Maté
needs to prove that someone else other than the Russian government did the things Russia is
accused of doing. Biddle is implying that the establishment Russia narrative should be
assumed true until somebody has proved it to be false, a tactic known as an appeal to ignorance
.
I'd like to talk about this last one a bit, because it underpins the entire CIA/CNN Russia
narrative.
As we've
discussed previously , in a post-Iraq invasion world the confident-sounding assertions of
spies, government officials and media pundits is not sufficient evidence for the public to
rationally support claims that are being used to escalate dangerous cold war
tensions with a nuclear superpower . The western empire has every motive in the world to
lie about the behaviors of a noncompliant government, and has an extensive and well-documented
history of doing exactly that. Hard, verifiable, publicly available proof is required.
Assertions are not evidence.
But even if there wasn't an extensive and recent history of disastrous US-led escalations
premised on lies advanced by spies, government officials and media pundits, the burden of proof
would still be on those making the claim, because that's how logic works. Whether you're
talking about law, philosophy or debate, the burden of proof is always on the party
making the claim . A group of spies, government officials and media pundits saying that
something happened in an assertive tone of voice is not the same thing as proof. That side of
the Russiagate debate is the side making the claim, so the burden of proof is on them. Until
proof is made publicly available, there is no logical reason for the public to accept the
CIA/CNN Russia narrative as fact, because the burden of proof has not been met.
This concept is important to understand on the scale of individual debates on the subject
during political discourse, and it is important to understand on the grand scale of the entire
Russia narrative as well. All the skeptical side of the debate needs to do is stand back and
demand that the burden of proof be met, but this often gets distorted in discourse on the
subject. The Sam Biddles of the world all too frequently attempt to confuse the situation by
asserting that it is the skeptics who must provide an alternative version of events and somehow
produce irrefutable proof about the behaviors of highly opaque government agencies. This is
fallacious, and it is backwards.
There are many Russiagate skeptics who have been doing copious amounts of research to come
up with other theories about what could have happened in 2016, and that's fine. But in a way
this can actually make the debate more confused, because instead of leaning back and insisting
that the burden of proof be met, you are leaning in and trying to convince everyone of your
alternative theory. Russiagaters love this more than anything, because you've shifted the
burden of proof for them. Now you're the one making the claims, so they can lean back and come
up with reasons to be skeptical of your argument. Empire loyalists like Sam Biddle would like
nothing more than to get skeptics like Aaron Maté falling all over themselves
trying to prove a
negative , but that's not how the burden of proof works, and there's no good reason to play
into it.
Until hard, verifiable proof of Russian election interference and/or collusion with the
Trump campaign is made publicly available, we are winning this debate as long as we continue
pointing out that this proof doesn't exist. All you have to do to beat a Russiagater in a
debate is point this out. They'll cite assertions made by the US intelligence community, but
assertions are not proof. They'll cite the assertions made in the recent Mueller indictment as
proof, but all the indictment contains is more assertions. The only reason Russiagaters confuse
assertions for proof is because the mass media treats them as such, but there's no reason to
play along with that delusion.
There is no good reason to play along with escalations between nuclear superpowers when
their premise consists of nothing but
narrative and assertions . It is right to demand that those escalations cease until the
public who is affected by them has had a full, informed say. Until the burden of proof has been
met, that has not even begun to happen.
* * *
The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , which will get you an
email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if
you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
The Russiagate conspiracy is exposed as a seditious fraud. The FISA warrant was attested
to by a who's who of these clowns. they swore the bogus, unvetted basis of the warrant had
been validated.
It no longer much matters what the MSM consumer, demo true believers think. It's headed to
prosecutions. The revocation of clearances threat is opening publicity shot on the
process.
We in the USSA live in what can rightly be called a target rich environment. I believe
that the corruption of not just the government (all levels) but the culture too -
particularly the MSM, Hollyweird, etc. - is so immense that pulling the plug on all the bad
guys would cause the country to crash. I keep hoping that it is simply a matter of picking
one target at a time and crushing it before moving on to the next one. Going along, for the
time being, with the "war on drugs" and lavishing $ on MIC could then be seen as a way of
mollifying certain opponents until the time to attack them rolled around.
If my suspicions are correct, there just aren't enough uncompromised good guys around to
tackle all the corruption at once. My big fear is that there are not enough uncompromised
good guys in positions to do anything at all.
"... There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public commodity. ..."
"... The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought. ..."
"... As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's "neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to list any more. ..."
"... This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been taught to feel" has become extremely difficult. ..."
"... But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth. ..."
"... Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies, Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there. ..."
"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but
degenerated to Vice." – Frederick Nietzsche , Beyond Good and Evil
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has
happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little
hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or
scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen." –
D. H. Lawrence , Lady Chatterley's Lover
"The so-called consumer society and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a
second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The
need for possessing, consuming, handling and constantly renewing gadgets, devices, instruments,
engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of
one's own destruction, has become a 'biological' need." – Herbert Marcuse , One
Dimensional Man
There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen
Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied
to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as
such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of
its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life.
There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of
totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most
readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political
repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a
country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the
entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public
commodity.
The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the
omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public
living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online
obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a
prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought.
And
consumed by getting, spending, and selling. Flicked into the net of Big Brother, whose job is
make sure everything fundamentally human and physical is debased and mediated, people become
consumers of the unreal and direct experience is discouraged. The natural world becomes an
object to be conquered and used. Animals are produced in chemical factories to be slaughtered
by the billions only to appear bloodless under plastic wrap in supermarket coolers. The human
body disappears into hypnotic spectral images. One's sex becomes one's gender as the words are
transmogrified and as one looks in the mirror of the looking-glass self and wonders how to
identify the one looking back.
Streaming life from Netflix or Facebook becomes life the movie.
The brilliant perverseness of the mediated reality of a screen society – what Guy Debord
calls The Society of the
Spectacle – is that as it distances people from fundamental reality, it promotes that
reality through its screen fantasies. "Get away from it all and restore yourself at our spa in
the rugged mountains where you can hike in pristine woods after yoga and a breakfast of locally
sourced eggs and artisanally crafted bread." Such garbage would be funny if it weren't so
effective. Debord writes,
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by
images .Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings
and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.
Thus sex with robots and marrying yourself are not aberrations but logical extensions of a
society where solipsism meets machine in the America dream.
As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called
Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now
mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover
and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass
on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they
are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's
"neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to
list any more.
Orwell called Big Brother's language Newspeak, and Hemingway preceded him when he so
famously wrote in disgust In a Farewell to Arms ,
"I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice, and the expression
in vain. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene "
This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that
from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen
and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total
electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of
literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what
you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been
taught to feel" has become extremely difficult.
... ... ...
But as we learn in 1984 and should learn in the U.S.A. today , "seemed" is the
key word. Their triumph was temporary. For sexual passion reveals truths that need to be
confirmed in the mind. In itself, sexual liberation can be easily manipulated, as it has been
so effectively in the United States. "Repressive de-sublimation" Herbert Marcuse called it
fifty years ago. You allow people to act out their sexual fantasies in commodified ways that
can be controlled by the rulers, all the while ruling their minds and potential political
rebelliousness. Sex becomes part of the service economy where people service each other while
serving their masters. Use pseudo-sex to sell them a way of life that traps them in an
increasingly totalitarian social order that only seems free. This has been accomplished
primarily through screen culture and the concomitant confusion of sexual identity. Perhaps you
have noticed that over the past twenty-five years of growing social and political confusion, we
have witnessed an exponential growth in "the electronic life," the use of psychotropic drugs,
and sexual disorientation. This is no accident. Wars have become as constant as Eros –
the god of love, life, joy, and motion – has been divorced from sex as a stimulus and
response release of tension in a "stressed" society. Rollo May, the great American
psychologist, grasped this:
Indeed, we have set sex over against eros, used sex precisely to avoid the
anxiety-creating involvements of eros We are in flight from eros and use sex as the vehicle for
the flight Eros [which includes, but is not limited to, passionate sex] is the center of
vitality of a culture – its heart and soul. And when release of tension takes the place
of creative eros, the downfall of the civilization is assured.
Because Julia and Winston cannot permanently escape Oceania, but can only tryst, they
succumb to Big Brother's mind control and betray each other. Their sexual affair can't save
them. It is a moment of beauty and freedom in an impossible situation. Of course the
hermetically sealed world of 1984 is not the United States. Orwell created a society in
which escape was impossible. It is, after all, an admonitory novel – not the real world.
Things are more subtle here; we still have some wiggle room – some – although the
underlying truth is the same: the U.S. oligarchy, like "The Party," "seeks power entirely for
its own sake" and "are not interested in the good of others," all rhetoric to the contrary. Our
problem is that too many believe the rhetoric, and those who say they don't really do at the
deepest level. Fly the flag and play the national anthem and their hearts are aflutter with
hope. Recycle old bromides about the next election when your political enemies will be swept
out of office and excitement builds as though you had met the love of your life and all was
well with the world.
But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the
national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For
the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has
primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines
as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings
of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth.
In "Defence of Poetry," Percy Bysshe Shelley writes:
The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our nature, and an identification of
ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man,
to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the
place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasure of his species must become his
own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.
We are now faced with the question: Can we escape the forces of propaganda and mind control
that run so very deep into American life? If so, how? Let's imagine a way out.
Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how
Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies,
Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is
reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by
Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there.
This is
true for the schooled and unschooled. In fact, those more trapped by the instrumental logic,
disembodied data, and word games of the power elite are those who have gone through the most
schooling, the indoctrination offered by the so-called "elite" universities. I suspect that
more working-class and poor people still retain some sense of the old language and the
fundamental meaning of words, since it is with their sweat and blood that they "earn their
living." Many of the highly schooled are children of the power elite or those groomed to serve
them, who are invited to join in living the life of power and privilege if they swallow their
consciences and deaden their imaginations to the suffering their "life-styles" and ideological
choices inflict on the rest of the world. In this world of TheNew York Times ,
Harvard, The New Yorker , Martha's Vineyard, TheWashington Post , Wall
St., Goldman Sachs, the boardrooms of the ruling corporations, all the corporate media, etc.,
language has become debased beyond recognition. Here, as Orwell said of Newspeak, "a heretical
thought should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express." The intelligently orthodox, he
adds, must master the art of "doublethink" wherein they hold two contradictory ideas in their
minds simultaneously, while accepting both of them. This is the key trick of logic and language
that allows the power elites and their lackeys in the U.S. today to master the art of
self-deception and feel good about themselves as they plunder the world. In this "Party" world,
the demonization, degradation, and killing of others is an abstraction; their lives are
spectral. Orwell describes doublethink this way:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink . For by using
the word one admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one
erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
truth.
... ... ...
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor
to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website
is http://edwardcurtin.com/ .
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media
and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been
such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits
compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and
9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to
Kristallnacht , while
polls revealed the American people reallydidn't care .
Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers –
the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every
outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to
embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin.
Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse –
as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one
seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of
describing that press conference.
The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that
he murders
journalists , breaks
international agreements , uses bannedchemical
weapons ,
kills women and children
in Syria , and, of course,
meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking
lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same
talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement"
issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson
Cooper?
The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running
high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one
MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included
some footage of kids
behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that
served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to
do something.
Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the
president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations
with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest
warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This
would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two
realize what a has-been Brennan is.
Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring
the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in
her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in
case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with
him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two
heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon
has invested a lot of time and money in
positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice
with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the
American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable
hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.
Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press
conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have
made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the
climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was
running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence
Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the
media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets.
On to the Playmates .
Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment.
Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his
high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after
a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens
remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.
*
Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers
politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism
from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University.
Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .
"... There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public commodity. ..."
"... The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought. ..."
"... As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's "neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to list any more. ..."
"... This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been taught to feel" has become extremely difficult. ..."
"... But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth. ..."
"... Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies, Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there. ..."
"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but
degenerated to Vice." – Frederick Nietzsche , Beyond Good and Evil
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has
happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little
hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or
scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen." –
D. H. Lawrence , Lady Chatterley's Lover
"The so-called consumer society and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a
second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The
need for possessing, consuming, handling and constantly renewing gadgets, devices, instruments,
engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of
one's own destruction, has become a 'biological' need." – Herbert Marcuse , One
Dimensional Man
There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen
Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied
to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as
such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of
its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life.
There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of
totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most
readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political
repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a
country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the
entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public
commodity.
The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the
omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public
living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online
obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a
prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought.
And
consumed by getting, spending, and selling. Flicked into the net of Big Brother, whose job is
make sure everything fundamentally human and physical is debased and mediated, people become
consumers of the unreal and direct experience is discouraged. The natural world becomes an
object to be conquered and used. Animals are produced in chemical factories to be slaughtered
by the billions only to appear bloodless under plastic wrap in supermarket coolers. The human
body disappears into hypnotic spectral images. One's sex becomes one's gender as the words are
transmogrified and as one looks in the mirror of the looking-glass self and wonders how to
identify the one looking back.
Streaming life from Netflix or Facebook becomes life the movie.
The brilliant perverseness of the mediated reality of a screen society – what Guy Debord
calls The Society of the
Spectacle – is that as it distances people from fundamental reality, it promotes that
reality through its screen fantasies. "Get away from it all and restore yourself at our spa in
the rugged mountains where you can hike in pristine woods after yoga and a breakfast of locally
sourced eggs and artisanally crafted bread." Such garbage would be funny if it weren't so
effective. Debord writes,
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by
images .Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings
and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.
Thus sex with robots and marrying yourself are not aberrations but logical extensions of a
society where solipsism meets machine in the America dream.
As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called
Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now
mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover
and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass
on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they
are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's
"neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to
list any more.
Orwell called Big Brother's language Newspeak, and Hemingway preceded him when he so
famously wrote in disgust In a Farewell to Arms ,
"I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice, and the expression
in vain. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene "
This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that
from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen
and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total
electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of
literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what
you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been
taught to feel" has become extremely difficult.
... ... ...
But as we learn in 1984 and should learn in the U.S.A. today , "seemed" is the
key word. Their triumph was temporary. For sexual passion reveals truths that need to be
confirmed in the mind. In itself, sexual liberation can be easily manipulated, as it has been
so effectively in the United States. "Repressive de-sublimation" Herbert Marcuse called it
fifty years ago. You allow people to act out their sexual fantasies in commodified ways that
can be controlled by the rulers, all the while ruling their minds and potential political
rebelliousness. Sex becomes part of the service economy where people service each other while
serving their masters. Use pseudo-sex to sell them a way of life that traps them in an
increasingly totalitarian social order that only seems free. This has been accomplished
primarily through screen culture and the concomitant confusion of sexual identity. Perhaps you
have noticed that over the past twenty-five years of growing social and political confusion, we
have witnessed an exponential growth in "the electronic life," the use of psychotropic drugs,
and sexual disorientation. This is no accident. Wars have become as constant as Eros –
the god of love, life, joy, and motion – has been divorced from sex as a stimulus and
response release of tension in a "stressed" society. Rollo May, the great American
psychologist, grasped this:
Indeed, we have set sex over against eros, used sex precisely to avoid the
anxiety-creating involvements of eros We are in flight from eros and use sex as the vehicle for
the flight Eros [which includes, but is not limited to, passionate sex] is the center of
vitality of a culture – its heart and soul. And when release of tension takes the place
of creative eros, the downfall of the civilization is assured.
Because Julia and Winston cannot permanently escape Oceania, but can only tryst, they
succumb to Big Brother's mind control and betray each other. Their sexual affair can't save
them. It is a moment of beauty and freedom in an impossible situation. Of course the
hermetically sealed world of 1984 is not the United States. Orwell created a society in
which escape was impossible. It is, after all, an admonitory novel – not the real world.
Things are more subtle here; we still have some wiggle room – some – although the
underlying truth is the same: the U.S. oligarchy, like "The Party," "seeks power entirely for
its own sake" and "are not interested in the good of others," all rhetoric to the contrary. Our
problem is that too many believe the rhetoric, and those who say they don't really do at the
deepest level. Fly the flag and play the national anthem and their hearts are aflutter with
hope. Recycle old bromides about the next election when your political enemies will be swept
out of office and excitement builds as though you had met the love of your life and all was
well with the world.
But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the
national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For
the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has
primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines
as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings
of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth.
In "Defence of Poetry," Percy Bysshe Shelley writes:
The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our nature, and an identification of
ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man,
to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the
place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasure of his species must become his
own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.
We are now faced with the question: Can we escape the forces of propaganda and mind control
that run so very deep into American life? If so, how? Let's imagine a way out.
Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how
Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies,
Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is
reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by
Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there.
This is
true for the schooled and unschooled. In fact, those more trapped by the instrumental logic,
disembodied data, and word games of the power elite are those who have gone through the most
schooling, the indoctrination offered by the so-called "elite" universities. I suspect that
more working-class and poor people still retain some sense of the old language and the
fundamental meaning of words, since it is with their sweat and blood that they "earn their
living." Many of the highly schooled are children of the power elite or those groomed to serve
them, who are invited to join in living the life of power and privilege if they swallow their
consciences and deaden their imaginations to the suffering their "life-styles" and ideological
choices inflict on the rest of the world. In this world of TheNew York Times ,
Harvard, The New Yorker , Martha's Vineyard, TheWashington Post , Wall
St., Goldman Sachs, the boardrooms of the ruling corporations, all the corporate media, etc.,
language has become debased beyond recognition. Here, as Orwell said of Newspeak, "a heretical
thought should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express." The intelligently orthodox, he
adds, must master the art of "doublethink" wherein they hold two contradictory ideas in their
minds simultaneously, while accepting both of them. This is the key trick of logic and language
that allows the power elites and their lackeys in the U.S. today to master the art of
self-deception and feel good about themselves as they plunder the world. In this "Party" world,
the demonization, degradation, and killing of others is an abstraction; their lives are
spectral. Orwell describes doublethink this way:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink . For by using
the word one admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one
erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
truth.
... ... ...
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor
to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website
is http://edwardcurtin.com/ .
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media
and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been
such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits
compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and
9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to
Kristallnacht , while
polls revealed the American people reallydidn't care .
Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers –
the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every
outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to
embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin.
Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse –
as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one
seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of
describing that press conference.
The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that
he murders
journalists , breaks
international agreements , uses bannedchemical
weapons ,
kills women and children
in Syria , and, of course,
meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking
lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same
talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement"
issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson
Cooper?
The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running
high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one
MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included
some footage of kids
behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that
served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to
do something.
Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the
president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations
with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest
warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This
would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two
realize what a has-been Brennan is.
Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring
the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in
her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in
case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with
him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two
heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon
has invested a lot of time and money in
positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice
with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the
American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable
hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.
Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press
conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have
made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the
climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was
running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence
Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the
media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets.
On to the Playmates .
Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment.
Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his
high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after
a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens
remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.
*
Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers
politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism
from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University.
Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .
"Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute"
Notable quotes:
"... CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized clandestine operations, like killing JFK. CIA protects its criminal protégés with their chartered impunity. ..."
"... RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime until CIA whacked him. That's why his book was made to sink without a ripple. ..."
"... Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover illegal moles are embedded in our own government. Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who report to CIA handlers without the other agency's knowledge. ..."
"... Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power. ..."
"... Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're enough to destabilize the CIA Reich that has ruled America since 1949. ..."
Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's
permanently governing technocratic party, in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.
Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested
by another and then sent off to the imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us Anglosphericals
are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.
Yup. Furthermore, CIA is organized crime and organized crime is CIA. CIA recruits and runs agents in favored criminal syndicates
in every illicit trade: drugs, child sexual trafficking, arms, fraud, bustouts, extortion, money laundering. Their purpose is
not to interdict the trade but to control it.
CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized clandestine operations, like killing
JFK. CIA protects its criminal protégés with their chartered impunity.
They call off law enforcement with the magic words national security or 'sources and methods.' If the plan gets exposed, CIA's
criminal cutouts insulate the agency from exposure.
RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime until CIA whacked him. That's
why his book was made to sink without a ripple.
Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover
illegal moles are embedded in our own government. Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who
report to CIA handlers without the other agency's knowledge.
Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power.
Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're enough to destabilize the CIA
Reich that has ruled America since 1949.
"... "Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) ..."
"... On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ." ..."
"... Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." ..."
"... That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions." ..."
"... The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government. ..."
"Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much
work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) So I thought I'd throw together some usage examples of
the term to see if I could find more significant readings than my own reaction, and then draw out some implications from that reading.
But first, let's look at how often that term is used, and where. We turn to
Google Trends
:
Some caveats: Google doesn't have enough data to track "our intelligence community," or so it says, so the search is for "intelligence
community" only.
Further, the search is for 2008 to the present, again because Google, or so it says, doesn't have enough data for
shorter time frames.[1] However, I think the chart shows that interest in the intelligence community is not general in time or space:
It spikes when there's gaslighting with reader interest in particular stories, and spikes along the Acela Corridor, in
Washington and New York. (We might also speculate,
based on HuffPost/YouGov
voter data , that interest in the today's stories about the intelligence is limited not only in space, and time, but in scope:
Primarily among liberal Democrats.[2]) With that, let's turn to our usage examples.
I used Google to find them, and of course Google
search is crapified and all but useless -- for example, it insists on returning examples of "intelligence community" along with "our
intelligence community" in normal search, even with when the search string is quoted -- but it is what it is; readers are invited
to supply their own examples.
On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller
was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence
community ."
No. Mueller provided no evidence and the case is unlikely to go to trial; the capability consists in the naming, not in the proof.
Verdict: Credulity .
The
intelligence community
determined
that the Kremlin intended to "denigrate" and "harm" Clinton, and "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic
process" while helping Trump.
And the same claim, July 10, 2018, Washington Post:
The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost Trump's candidacy
No. If you click through, you'll find that this is the "17 agencies"/"high confidence" report, whose agencies and analysts were
hand-picked by Clapper; that's just not the "intelligence community" as a whole[3]; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was not
involved in the analysis, for example. (I don't see how it's normal that such an important topic not to be the subject of a Presidental
Finding, but perhaps people were in a rush.) Verdict; Misinformation .
FLAKE: We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community . We need to say
that in the Senate. Yes, it's symbolic, and symbolism is important.
And a similar formulation, July 22, 2018, Senator Marco Rubio (R),
CBS News
:
We need to move forward from that with good public policy and part of that is, I think, standing with our intelligence
community .
Posturing aside, to my sensibilities, it's pretty disturbing when "support the troops" bleeds over into "support the spies," and
when supporting the conclusions of an institution bleeds over into supporting the institution itself, as such. (The whole of the
Federalist Papers argues against the latter view:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Verdict: Authoritarian followership .
WE UNIFY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER NATION
No. The DNI mistakes the hope for the fact; were the intelligence community in fact
unified
, Clapper would not have hand-picked agencies for his report, and a Presidential Finding would have been made. (And given the
source, "our" is doing even more work there than it usual does; it reminds of liberal Democrats talking about "our Democracy." Whose,
exactly?) Verdict: Wishful thinking .
Example 5, July 16, 2018, John Sipher (interview),
PBS
:
I do think the intelligence community is quite resilient. They put their head down and they do their work, but they
take this very seriously. And they see the president as their primary customer and they will do almost anything to get the president
the information that he needs to do his job.
No. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" -- was formulated by the Roman poet
Juvenal (d. 138AD) in the late first or early second century,
[checks calculator], about 1880 years ago. It's absurd to assume that "the intelligence" community has always served its "primary
customer" -- see the Bay of Pigs invastion at "
groupthink " -- or that they will
in the future, especially considering the enormous stakes involved today. Verdict: Historical ignorance .
Today I voted for H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. This
important legislation funds our Intelligence community and provides them the resources they need to effectively defend
our nation "This legislation makes sure that the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the Intelligence Community [caps
in the original] are fully equipped to fulfill their mission."
No. While Sipher urges (
as does Clapper
) that the intelligence community is in the business of serving customers, Comstock, through her language ("dedicated
men and women who serve our nation") identifies it with the military. That's pretty disturbing when you realize that the intelligence
community has a domestic component (and when you think back to Obama's 17-city crackdown on Occupy, or Obama's militarized response
to #BlackLivesMatter). Verdict: Militarization
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, head of the U.S. intelligence community , reaffirmed his conclusion
that Russia had indeed tried to sway the election in a statement published after Trump's remarks.
No. The U.S. has 17 intelligence agencies; the DNI is in no sense their head.
From the DNI site :
The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful
intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence
so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from
the IC to make educated decisions.
If you boil that bureucratic porridge down -- the Russian word for porridge is
kasha , in case kompromat has
worn thin for you -- you'll see that the 17 intelligence agencies do not have a reporting relationship to the DNI. Hence, the DNI
is not their head. QED. Verdict: Authoritarian followership
[BRENNAN:] What Mr. Trump did (Monday) was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA and NSA and others and betray the
American public. That's why I use the term, this was nothing short of treason, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He's giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Leaving aside Brennan's broad definition of enemy -- apparently a sovereign state with interests different from our own, as opposed
to a nation against whom Congress has declared war -- note that Brennan treats the agencies as individual entities, not as "unified,"
presumably betraying DNI Coats). More:
BRENNAN:] I still shake my head trying to understand what was discussed during the two-hour one-on-one, what was discussed
between the two sides in their bilateral meeting. We only saw what Mr. Trump said during the press conference. I can't even imagine
what he said behind closed doors. I can't imagine what he said to Mr. Putin directly. I am very concerned about what type of impact
it might have on our intelligence community and on this country."
No. Note well: What (
torture
advocate ) Brennan says contradicts the other two models expressed in this aggregation. If the President is the customer, it's
not Brennan's concern what that customer does (any more than it's Best Buy's concern what I buy in Starbucks after I pick up my flat-screen
TV). And if the intelligence community is a branch of the military, it's not their concern what their Commander-in-Chief does; he'll
tell them what they need to know.) Seriously, why does the Praetorian Guard need to know what the emperor is doing. Now, one could
argue that Brennan's ambition is counteracting Trump's ambition; well and good, but then one needs to think through the consequences.
And if Brennan, et al., really believe that Trump committed treason, then they -- as the good patriots they presumably are -- need
to indicate a path to removing him. If that path does not include full disclosure of the evidence for whatever charges are to be
made, then the country will have to deal with the consequences -- which I'd speculate won't be pretty -- of
a change in the Constitutional order where the "intelligence community" can remove a President from office based on its own internal
consensus . Praetorian
Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he
described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke,
in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable
for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the
late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."
One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting
behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions,"
Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:
That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads
containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons
and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt
was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in
9-11.
The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post, Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections,
wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted
for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we
had made the wise choice.
But as the evidence pours in the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence; David Kay's interim report on
the failure to find WMD in Iraq; an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board's critique; thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly; and
investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,
we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who
believed the intelligence were wrong . Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the
Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.
But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD,
connected the dots to the wrong conclusions . If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers,
including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty
about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Let me add that policymakers -- including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information
being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.
The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked
by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor,
exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional
leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow,
exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community
says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes
are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward
a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government.
Why are we doing that? Well, if you look at the verdicts after each of the quotes I've found, taking the quotes as a proxy for
elite opinion, one reason might be that the portion of our elites involved in the Russia narrative -- who, let us remember, are limited
in space and scope -- are:
Credulous Misinformed Prone to authoritarian followership Historically ignorant Militarized Praetorian
If power is lying in the street, beware of who picks it up. Matters might not improve.
NOTES .
[1] The hit count (100 for the spike in January 2017) is oddly low; sadly, although 100 looks like a blue link, we cannot click
through to check the data. However, even if the aggregates are low, I think we can assume that both the shape of the trend line and
its geographic distribution are directionally correct, because the spikes occur at reasonable places for them to occur. Sidebar:
Note the horrid user interface design, which uses inordinate amounts of screen space to no purpose, disrespecting the time-pressed
professional user.
[2] We might even go so far as to speculate that -- given these limitations in space -- that while "our" asserts Democrat leadership
as a National party, Democrats are in fact a State party. Removing the hyphen from "nation-state" is a neat way
of encapsulating our current legitimacy crisis.
[3] "Intelligence community," like "deep state," connotes unity among institutions that are in fact riven by faction.
ADDENDUM: Scott Horton
I didn't add this material to the post proper, because I only had screen shots, and I wasn't able to find the post in time using
Google, or Facebook's lousy search. So after ten minutes of plowing through Facebook's infinite scroll, here is the embed* from Scott
Horton that I sought:
And a screen shot personally taken by me:
Note the lead: "European intelligence analysts ," so reminiscent of Bush's "British intelligence has learned " (the
sixteen words ). What they "learned," of course,
was the faked evidence on Niger yellowcake. Go through my list of "verdicts," starting with "credulous," and see what does
not
apply to Horton.
Horton is a Contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine,
has a law practice in New York, and is affiliate with Columbia Law School and the Open Society Institute.
The key point, for me, is this: "Liberal Democrats do not view anyone outside of places like Orange and Lexington County (whom
they go all-out to court) as people fit to make their own choices." It's important to watch for outright denial of agency,
to others, not merely lack of agency. That's true for Horton, it was true for Clinton's "deplorables" comment, and it was true for
Obama's "bitter"/"cling to" Kinseley gaffe.
It would be nice if Senator Sanders didn't signal boost this stuff. Here's another usage example of "intelligence community":
Or, to put this another way, Sanders needs to get his supporters' backs, and fast, with messaging that doesn't take a "duck and
cover" approach by repeating the catchphrases of the current onslaught, but contextualizes and decontaminates it. I didn't say that
would be easy
NOTE * I like the picture the Time chose very much; apparently, the evul left is young, female, swarthy, and/or black.
No suburban Republicans here! The "AbolishICE" t-shirt -- and not, say, #MedicareForAll -- is also a nice touch.
"... PT is correct. Any Russian anywhere who has ever spoken to any American for any reason is now considered attempting to "undermine American democracy." When in reality, we're doing it just fine ourselves. The hypocrisy and paranoia is breathtaking - and extremely dangerous. ..."
I noticed this situation some months ago when Torshin was accused of donating money to the NRA in order to help Trump get elected.
Apparently he is a member of the NRA and as such is perfectly entitled to make donations to the organization.
What I noticed in the article about this is that the one piece of information left out was the amount of the donation. Since
the NRA spent $50 million trying to get Trump elected, unless Torshin's donation was some significant percentage of that $50 million,
it would make no sense for his donation to be considered significant, if it was little more than what a normal NRA member might
be expected to contribute.
Which is, of course, why that figure was deliberately left out of the article - and several other articles on the subject.
An article at ABC News finally acknowledged what the "donation" was:
Last month, a lawyer for the NRA told ABC News that Torshin had, indeed, donated membership dues of between $600 and $1,000
to the organization.But the lawyer, J. Steven Hart, said that was the extent of money coming from Russians.
"We have one contribution from a Russian," Steven Hart, outside counsel to the NRA, said in an interview with ABC News before
Friday's sanctions announcement.
Hart said it was the "life membership payment" made by Torshin, which went to the NRA's non-profit parent organization,
which is not required by law to disclose the donation. Hart added, "The donation was the person's membership dues" and was
not used for election-related activities. "That was not a major donor program," he said.
PT is correct. Any Russian anywhere who has ever spoken to any American for any reason is now considered attempting to
"undermine American democracy." When in reality, we're doing it just fine ourselves. The hypocrisy and paranoia is breathtaking
- and extremely dangerous.
A Russian donating to the NRA - that is going to make liberal heads explode! Snowflakes, run do not walk to the campus safe
spaces before they fill up!
"Since the NRA spent $50 million trying to get Trump elected, unless Torshin's donation was some significant percentage of
that $50 million, it would make no sense for his donation to be considered significant, if it was little more than what a normal
NRA member might be expected to
contribute."
And just how significant was the $100,000 that clickbait firm from St. Petersburg spent on Facebook ads in 2016? We're through
the looking-glass now, friend! Logic doesn't matter anymore.
The Narrative here faces serious Questions... Poor Trade-craft is obvious using insecure Communications, Chit Chat with supposed
'Handler' to name a few... The Note left about the FSB - FSB being INTERNAL Agency of RF begs yet more Questions...
The NYT Article about it brings up another one I think I should Highlight:
"Prosecutors sought criminal charges after agents reported over the weekend that she was moving money out of the country,
had her boxes packed, looked into renting a moving truck and had terminated her apartment lease. "
If she was an Agent of the Government and preparing to leave the Country due to increased Attention - she would hardly waste
her Time sorting her Affairs and Possessions in the US - This would be considered Government write off effectively.
Her actions however screams someone trying to preserve personal Possessions and Earnings..
I can suggest two 'soft' theories on this whole Affair -
A) She is a naive Girl who genuinely believed what she was doing, found a sponsor whom guided her, maybe even persuaded her
to thinking she was working for Russian Government or elements within and thus her naive and very unprofessional behavior has
obvious explanation.
B) Much of what is suggested she wrote has been playful Jest, the Types of Jokes my Friends and I have made countless Times
when visiting Foreign Countries and taken for whatever reason utmost seriously by Investigators....
Even this Explanations feels forced - The alternative hard Theories may be something far worse as PT suggests
Having lived in a few Western Countries for varied Times, I feel vindicated having returned to Russia - Though I still travel
constant for work, this serves as careful reminder that the very qualities I once admired in the Western World are potentially
at highest risk and as a Russian - maybe best to be careful...
This poor naive girl has been imprison by a bunch of cowards. This insanity has gone so far over the top with this relentless
drive toward armed conflict with a nuclear superpower that it forces me to believe there is a more organizing principle than just
TDS. They openly defy a elected President and plan his coup. Assange will be arrested next. The conspiracy will use his arrest
against Trump as a bludgeoning tool and force his extradition to the US. Just another political prisoner in the Land of the Free.
I'm sure you're right: there's more at work here than just TDS. The establishment was obviously planning something big, and
Hillary was in on it. I can't say for sure what it was, but if I had to take a wild guess, I would say she was going to invade
Syria, which would have almost certainly led to a war with Russia. But now that Trump is president instead, they're threatened
with the specter of peace!
By this indictment's logic every foreign national helping planned parenthood is trying to "influence American politics". I
wonder if speeches to chambers of commerce or economic clubs or universities by former Presidents of Mexico also make one guilty
of this crime?
It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union purported to be a democracy - the country held elections and the government and
the news media told the people that they lived in the greatest democracy in the world.
I have a friend who grew up in the Soviet Union. Until he was 12 years old he believed he lived in the greatest country in
the world. Then his mother went to England on a trade mission (an opportunity that very few Soviet citizens ever had), and when
she came back she told her son what she had seen there. It was only then that he started to figure out the truth.
Scarey. Foreign nationals will no doubt take note. But she is getting a court hearing, at least. Will it extend to Western
citizens living and working in their home countries?
It already has. In England, in Australia, on the Continent and in the States there are many such examples. Seldom coming before
the Courts. The use of government agencies to harass undesirables has long been standard - using the tax authorities mostly, as
far as one can see, but sometimes other agencies.
For the average citizen it's never made a lot of odds. Those targeted are usually big names who are making waves or might do.
The ordinary citizen has no fear that because he or she holds the view that Government's activities are wrong some official's
going to turn up on the doorstep.
If ordinary people are vulnerable, as this case indicates even though this particular ordinary person is a foreigner, then
we may begin to feel a trifle uneasy. But these are uneasy times in any case.
We are already seeing censorship of social media under the pretext of protecting the country from the supremely powerful Russian
bots. I do not see this de-escalating, despite the best efforts of the Russians not to escalate.
Since the general consensus among Russia "experts" in policy-making circles is that they'll get regime change if only Russia's
wealthy are harassed sufficiently, the logical next step would be to start arresting the children of wealthy Russians who are
studying at US universities.
Trump's intent for dialogue with the Russians and Putin's intent to maintain his 'Putin the Statesman' brand should preclude
a very dangerous spiral of retaliation. We think.
"... The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon . It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign and then sabotage the presidency that resulted. ..."
"... she offered a bombshell confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen (keep in mind that there are many yet to be released). ..."
"... The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters. ..."
"... We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber , who is investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes. That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury sessions, if summoned. ..."
The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI
officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation
that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon
. It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure
the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign
and then sabotage the presidency that resulted.
Earlier reports indicated that Page has been answering questions from the House Judiciary
Committee quite frankly and may even have
cut a deal selling out her ex-lover Peter Strzok over their professional misbehavior (and
quite possibly worse) in targeting the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump with the
intelligence-gathering tools of the FBI.
Last night, John Solomon of
The Hill revealed that he has obtained information from sources who heard Page's testimony
in two days of sworn depositions behind closed doors that she offered a bombshell
confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen
(keep in mind that there are many yet to be released).
[T]here are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok
exchanged, that you should read.
That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. "There's no big there there," Strzok
texted.
The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy
Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein
named special counselRobert Mueller to oversee an investigation
into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to
the evidence against the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say – but Page,
during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way
that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple
eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome
powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving
the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was "there."
The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus
accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's
term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters.
We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber ,
who is
investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes.
That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering
questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury
sessions, if summoned.
The glacial pace of this probe is frustrating for Trump-supporters. But doing it right and
observing the ethical and legal constraints takes time and does not generate leaks.
Nevertheless, I am deeply encouraged by this leak to Solomon, as it seems to indicate that the
truth will come out.
Appearing on Hannity last night, Solomon elaborated: watch video
here .
Demonstrating that he continues to learn about the application of governmental politics,
Senator Rand Paul said that he plans to meet with president Trump today, 23 July 2018, and
request that John O. Brennan's security clearance be revoked--
He asks: "Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions
of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on @realDonaldTrump?"
This important issue is rarely stated, much less discussed as a topic in itself, and is not
limited in relevance to Brennan. Paul asked back in January 2018 if FBI agent Peter Strzok and
FBI attorney Lisa Page still had security clearances. Arrogantly delaying exactly three months
to reply, the FBI liaison for congressional affairs tap danced in a letter and gave no real
answer (a non-answer answer)--
Strzok was asked at the recent Congressional hearing if he had a security clearance, to
which he answered in the affirmative. However, an article reported that the clearance was
"limited" for purposes of the hearing--
A person keeping a security clearance after leaving government employment is not a bad thing
on its face, but when an individual with that privilege appears to make dubious or less than
candid statements before congress (to say it diplomatically), or to the public, that privilege
should be canceled and revoked. In addition to Brennan, this issue can be thought about
regarding others, such as former NSA directors Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander. Remember the
little hearing from 2012, when Representative Henry C. Johnson, Jr. (Dem., Georgia), talked to
Alexander?
Instead of struggling with the cumbersome procedures involved when holding a witness before
Congress in contempt or issuing articles of impeachment, the House and Senate could simply
either pass a law denying a certain person a security clearance, or ask the president to revoke
a person's clearance as part of the negotiation process regarding legislation. After all, horse
trading in Congress seems to apply to almost everything.
Although executive order 13526 is seen as the primary authority for classified information
[1] -- an interesting situation since it is an "executive order" -- Congress could modify or
repeal it. Just as Congress created most government departments and agencies, such as the CIA
and Department of Homeland Security, it can modify them or close them down.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the collection of regulations created by government
departments and agencies. In general, these are the rules that can and have caused problems, as
part of the "bureaucracy" and "administrative state". Federal regulations are not supposed to
conflict with the law passed by Congress that authorized their creation. Whether the U.S.
Constitution by its text even permits agency regulations and that they can have legal effect is
a real and interesting question, which no one will touch with a 10-foot pole.
In volume 32, CFR, part 2001 is where the regulations about national security information
are found [2]. Also relevant is direction from the Information Security Oversight Office
(ISOO), in its "Marking Classified National Security Information" [3].
Not to get off the subject too much, but concerning the conduct of former Secretary of State
and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and her private, home-brew e-mail server, you can
read through the regulations -- especially regarding "derivative classification" and the
"electronic environment" [4] -- as well as executive order 13526 and the ISOO handbook on
marking classified information, and decide for yourself.
"... This short communiqué is to my friends who are trapped in hating Donald Trump so much that any "alternative fact" (as long as it is against President Trump) is virtue to them. They are not realizing that the feud among the 1%, regardless of their Party affiliation is a family feud. The extreme right wing politicians and billionaires run both the Democratic and Republican parties. Their arguments are not about our state of healthcare, education or jobs. ..."
"... Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above
This short communiqué is to my friends who are trapped in hating Donald Trump so
much that any "alternative fact" (as long as it is against President Trump) is virtue to them.
They are not realizing that the feud among the 1%, regardless of their Party affiliation is a
family feud. The extreme right wing politicians and billionaires run both the Democratic and
Republican parties. Their arguments are not about our state of healthcare, education or
jobs.
Friends who are dissatisfied with the current political situation (instead of organizing
against the reactionary policies of the current administration or question the congress for
approving the Tax Cut for the rich) are competing in posting the Democratic Party
hysteria against Russia on the social media. They are distracted by the false narrative that
"American Democracy" is under "attack" by one man in Russia, President Putin who has Mr. Trump
in his "pocket".
Those who believe such an absurd storyline rely on the U.S. Intelligence agencies reports
and findings! These are the same agencies that informed Americans that Saddam Hussein had
Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are the same people who justified war against Iraq in 2003
which opened the gates of hell in that region for decades. Now, after they had succeeded in
blowing up people and countries in the Middle East on false information, the ladies and
gentlemen of the U.S. intelligence agencies have found a new bogeyman to scare the American
people. This is just another DISTRACTION , period.
The fascistic minded President of the U.S. is not in anybody's pocket. As a matter of fact,
today it is the political pocket pickers in Washington who are robbing the American working
people and holding us as hostages. When was the last time that you saw the White House or
Congress address the working people's real needs and problems? Some friends are mesmerized by
the nastiness of the 1% cultural values. However exposing Mr. Trump sexual affair with a "Porn
Star" will not help the American people's struggle for the Minimum Wage or Protecting
Environment, Immigration and so on. This is just another DISTRACTION .
Under bright light, President Trump and his opponents play out their childish, embarrassing
show against each other in front of the corrupt media, while in the shadow of
DISTRACTION they are limiting our FREEDOM OF SPEECH and taking away our democratic
rights. Both parties are afraid of the energy and determination of workers, farmers, women and
youth which eventually could challenge the entire existing miserable system. Historically, they
are well aware of the potential of revolt by people who are organized and conscious. The ladies
and gentlemen in charge of the U.S. foreign and domestic policy are incapable of solving our
social or political problems; the only thing they are good at is to create decoys and
DISTRACTION . The gossip shows on the corporate media are blindfolding us to see the
slaughters in Gaza or Yemen or the devastating consequences of the Trump administration Trade
War drive against the EU and China 1 on American farmers and workers.
Independent and democratic minded people SHOULD NOT take any side between the different
factions of the 1%. We should not allow the 1% use us as their pawns to propagate their hate
and disunity among people.
The White House and Congress are obsolete. Independent and democratic minded people should
UNITE, ORGANIZE and seek a new operating system – a system that puts people's need over
profit.
*
Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the
United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27 March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you." And, he did keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .) ..."
"... They want another Barack Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest). But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the disaster of 2016? ..."
"... Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt driven to do in 2016). ..."
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is
called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political
center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson
Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and
billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with
millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the
narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the
Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he
actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27
March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you.
I'm protecting you." And, he did
keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .)
They're at it, yet again. On July 22nd, NBC News's Alex Seitz-Wald headlined
"Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it." And
he described what was publicly available from the 3-day private meeting in Columbus Ohio of The
Third Way, July 18-20, the planning conference between the Party's chiefs and its billionaires.
Evidently, they hate Bernie Sanders and are already scheming and spending in order to block
him, now a second time, from obtaining the Party's Presidential nomination. "Anxiety has
largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the
major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop the Vermonter if he runs for
the White House again." This passage in Seitz-Wald's article was especially striking to me:
The gathering here was an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising
Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare
opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to
win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, cohosted the event
and addressed attendees twice, underscored that this group is not interested in the class
warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be
rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to
laughs.
I would reply to congressman Ryan's remark: If you want to be rich, then get the hell out of
politics! Don't run for President! I don't want you there! And that's no joke!
Anyone who doesn't recognize that an inevitable trade-off exists between serving the public
and serving oneself, is a libertarian -- an Ayn Rander, in fact -- and there aren't many of
those in the Democratic Party, but plenty of them are in the Republican Party.
Just as a clergyman in some faiths is supposed to take a vow of chastity, and in some faiths
also to take a vow of poverty, in order to serve "the calling" instead of oneself, anyone who
enters 'public service' and who aspires to "be rich" is inevitably inviting corruption
-- not prepared to do war against it . That kind of politician is a Manchurian
candidate, like Obama perhaps, but certainly not what this or any country needs, in any case.
Voters like that can be won only by means of deceit, which is the way that politicians like
that do win.
No decent political leader enters or stays in politics in order to "be rich," because no
political leader can be decent who isn't in it as a calling, to public service, and as a
repudiation, of any self-service in politics.
Republican Party voters invite corrupt government, because their Party's ideology is
committed to it ("Freedom [for the rich]!"); but the only Democratic Party voters who at all
tolerate corrupt politicians (such as Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State) are actually
Republican Democrats -- people who are confused enough so as not really to care much about what
they believe; whatever their garbage happens to be, they believe in it and don't want to know
differently than it.
The Third Way is hoping that there are
enough of such 'Democrats' so that they can, yet again, end up with a Third Way Democrat being
offered to that Party's voters in 2020, just like happened in 2016. They want another Barack
Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest).
But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the
disaster of 2016?
Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the
Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate
is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the
Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt
driven to do in 2016).
The Third Way is the way to the death of democracy, if it's not already dead . It is no answer
to anything, except to the desires of billionaires -- both Republican and Democratic.
The center of American politics isn't the center of America's aristocracy. The goal
of groups such as The Third Way is to fool the American public to equate the two. The
result of such groups is the contempt that America's
public have for America's Government . But, pushed too far, mass disillusionment becomes
revolution. Is that what America's billionaires are willing to risk? They might get it.
Trey Gowdy is calling on the President and Americans to believe that Russia interfered in our
election and that they are our enemy. When did the war start? I missed it. He is wrong.
He should not be encouraging people to believe things when no evidence is produced, and
when the showing of "interference", or better, "attempted" interference made so far is
preposterous.
1) Russians campaigned for Trump on the internet AFTER the election was over
2) Russians put in campaign ads for all candidates
3) Russians hacked the DNC on the strength of the word of a partisan private organization who
actually worked for the DNC and allegedly examined the computer, when the FBI who had every
right to inspect the computer didn't, and on the strength of the Russian government leaving
the name of its first KGB agent in the metadata in Cyrillic letters.
This is to say nothing about the blatant bias and bad faith by the organizations saying
they interfered.
That is the showing made to the American people of Russian interference, or better,
"attempted" interference, and it is preposterous, stupid and wholly unworthy of belief.
What is Gowdy asking the American people to do. He is asking them dumb-down to the level
of retardation to believe this story. I'd just as soon go to Guantanamo Bay and have those
goons break open my skull and leave me brain damaged. Only then would I perhaps believe
it.
Those people who still think Trey Gowdy is some sort of great conservative warrior are
about as annoying as those who still do not realize that Steve Bannon is nothing but a
bloviating, Deep State douchebag.
Note: The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier
of political affiliation. To be a real Progressive: one must be Anti-War, except in the most dire
of circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one must be Pro-Justice
as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant and willing to listen to
others; and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum as the smoke screen for
increasing inequality
The so-called "insurgents" are no such thing. That's a standard Democrat scam to keep
potential apostates roped in. Bernie Sanders always has been a con artist. Not that it's any
secret: His entire senate record is of worthless grandstanding and zero real monkey-wrenching
or grid-locking action .
As for his campaign, from day one he proclaimed he was a loyal Democrat soldier and that
he would support Clinton and do all he could to deliver his supporters to her. He dutifully
kept that promise. Along the way and since the 2016 election he's done zero toward building
any kind of grassroots alternative. That's because he never intended to be part of any real
alternative in the first place. And that's why the DNC always has supported his "independent"
senate campaigns - he does an excellent con-job on behalf of their agenda.
And today he's fully on board with the Russiagate campaign, doing all he can to rope in
"progressives" who might be having doubts about the anti-Russia lunacy. His usual job.
As for the latest wave of progressive heroes, for just one typical example I'll observe
that Ocasio-Cortez immediately after her primary win lost no time scrubbing the anti-war
plank from her site and publicly retracting her previous statements on behalf of the
Palestinians. The Democrat con always runs like clock-work.
And as the post describes, with Russiagate the fake insurgents provide a new service to
the Party: To serve as bogeymen for internally-directed Party propaganda, as an
organizational vehicle to "get out the vote" among establishment loyalists.
There's no way forward with the Democrat Party. It always has been a death trap for all
progressive, let alone radical aspirations. The Party and its partisans must politically
perish completely, as a prerequisite for any good transformation of America.
"... Dave Lindorff is an award-winning US journalist, former Asia correspondent for Business Week, and founder of the collectively-owned journalists' news site ThisCantBeHappening.net. ..."
Socialism as a political force has never had an easy time in the US, a country that
mythologizes the go-it-alone entrepreneur and the iconoclastic loner. For a brief time in the
period between the two world wars, socialism was popular enough among US workers that American
Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs was able to win almost a million votes for president in 1912
(about 6 percent of the popular vote at that time). But after two brutal government anti-red
campaigns in the '20s and '50s that included Debs' arrest, the blacklisting of many actors,
teachers and journalists in the 1950s on charges of being Communists, and finally decades of
government and media propaganda equating socialism with Communism, Bolshevism and Maoism,
socialism has had few adherents and little public acceptance among most Americans.
Until now, that is.
Things started to change in late 2015 and the spring of 2016 when the independent US Senator
Bernie Sanders, who has long called himself a "democratic socialist," surprised
everyone by running a popular grass-roots primary campaign that nearly defeated Hillary Clinton
for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. (Many believe hidden favoritism and
sabotage by the leadership of the Democratic Party may have stolen that primary from
Sanders.)
Now, in part because the Sanders campaign has made socialist ideas like national healthcare
and free college education – once not on any Democratic candidate's campaign agenda
– suddenly acceptable topics for political discourse, his millions of enthusiastic
youthful supporters from that campaign are openly considering socialism as a possible answer to
the economic problems they face.
And as those young people, and older folks too, look for answers, more and more candidates
are willing to espouse them. And like Ocasio-Cortez and the four socialists who won primaries
in Pennsylvania, they are showing that proposing or supporting socialist programs, and even
calling oneself a socialist, can be a winning strategy.
One sign that this sudden popularity of socialist politics and ideas is not just a
short-time phenomenon is that it's showing up most among younger people, many of whom hadn't
shown much interest in politics before. A Harvard University study
published in April for example, found that 51 percent of those between the ages of 18-29
disliked capitalism, with a majority preferring socialism as a political system. A year
earlier, the conservative magazine National Review wrote with alarm that in the wake of the
Sanders campaign, a
poll by the conservative American Culture and Faith Institute had found 40 percent of
Americans saying they favored socialism over capitalism.
... ./.. ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Dave Lindorff is an award-winning US journalist, former Asia correspondent for Business
Week, and founder of the collectively-owned journalists' news site
ThisCantBeHappening.net.
So those Facebook ads posted by Russians in 2016 were just like Pearl Harbor, just like
9/11. It's war, says General Hertling! Get those boats in the water! And Trump is Putin's
tool!
I just put forth a hypothesis in the other comments thread which could also apply to
General Hertling, in my opinion, since he appears to be Catholic:
Hertling was born on September 29, 1953 in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended Christian
Brothers College High School in Clayton, Missouri, graduating in 1971 -- he is also a
member of the CBC Alumni Hall of Fame, having been elected in 2010.
Christian Brothers College High School (CBC High School) is a Lasallian Catholic
college preparatory school for young men in St. Louis, Missouri . It is located in the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Louis and is owned and operated by the De La Salle
Christian Brothers Midwest District.
Most of these guys are Catholic; Brennan, Hayden, Panetta, Morell, etc.
I just wanted to explain why, I believe, them being Catholic is relevant in this
context.
My guess is that most of these guys' parents were likely supporters of Sen. Joseph
McCarthy, since his biggest support base was among Catholic Democrats, so they probably
grew up in a very anti-Soviet/Communist/Russian environment and households.
I believe their obsession with alleged, large-scale Russian interference in the election
and their McCarthy-like attitude and tactics might stem from and be a carryover from their
upbringing.
"This war in which we are now engaged is not -- cannot -- be a war between America's
two great political parties. As I have often said in the past, certainly the millions of
loyal Americans who have long voted the Democrat ticket love America just as much and hate
Communism just as much as the average Republican." -- McCarthy speech to the Irish Fellowship
Club, 1954
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
The is question about whether that information was classified was really important, but if take classification at face value Clinton
and her associated are guilty in obstruction of justice...
DAAAAAMMMNNN ... IT ... COMEY IS A LIAR ... DAMN IM SICK OF THIS BASTARD LYING !!! ... HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW BIG TIME ... HES
GOING TO BE UNDER THE JAIL !!! ... SON OF BITCH ... LET ONE OF US EVEN TRY TO THINK ABOUT BREAKING ONE OF THOSE CRIMES WE WOULD
BE IN GITMO ... WHAT THE F
Please write to the DOJ fellow Trump Supporter.. Here is a link you send the request to Attorney General.. I have been asking
for a Special Prosuctor to look into Hillary/Comey Hillary Clinton Foundation/Podesta / Russia (He had ties to Russia) And Obama
Hello They are all so damn corrupt.
This is seriously PISSING ME OFF!!!!!!!!!! James Comey is a lying bastard and needs to be fired immediately!!! He is either involved
or completely paid off!
AMERICANS JAMES COMEY WORKED FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE HE WAS DIRECTOR OF FBI . DOES THIS EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THAT NOGGIN
? I AM TALKING TO THE LIBTARDS . I WONDER HOW HE GOT HIS PROMOTION ? HHHHHMMMM
Comey's entire testimony and the whole of this investigation is a complete farce and he's made a mockery of one of the highest
and most elite law enforcement agencies in our nation as a result. WHY he is still the director of the FBI is beyond me... his
credibility was obliterated with this ONE case and he will NEVER regain it. As far as most Americans are concerned, everything
that comes out of the FBI and/or Comey's mouth is as worthless as shit on the bottom of your shoe.
+Brian Cunningham -- President Trump is doing HIS OWN job.. running the country. THIS is the job of the Justice department.
IF Comey is "committing perjury", then the Justice Department - NOT the President - will deal with him. Meanwhile, the
hearings have to be completed first . QUIT saying that Trump "isn't doing his job, as he IS. Not every function of our
government is *President TRUMP'S job!!*
*I give up*. Clueless....... +Brian Cunningham , PLEASE learn how our government works. Stay in school - or use the Internet in
front of you to learn something - like, how our government works, for example... that's a start... Please. Please!
+Frank Marshall -- Exactly -- I reported the title as misleading.. Go up above where it says "more"..click, and "report" comes
up. The click bait false titles (and this one is slanderous towards Congressman Gowdy) will NOT stop until enough people
get to reporting them and the uploader is warned to stop it by You Tube themselves... things like that and the filthy language
people use in comments in general. It's ALL out of hand..thus I started reporting it all. It HAS to start somewhere to shut it
down. Take care, have a good week!
In 2015 the Clinton Foundation had $225 million and 2000 employees. The decision to suspend future operations is blamed on (mostly
foreign) unfulfilled donor pledges . I wonder why? The layoff of 22 employees recently made headlines. Gonna be a lot of screaming
for termination bonus' from the rest. Any wagers they'll fall on deaf ears?
Are you kidding me. They and that is the Clintons,Comey should be put in prison then the will follow. Different strokes for different
folks that is what is destroying this country. The big shoots can do whatever they want. If it was the regular Joey they would
have been imprisoned long ago.......thats why this country is crumbles. No rule of law. Well there is for the regular citizens
but not are voted in politicians they can do whatever they want why Illinois sucks.
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.
"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This
president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great
middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
Unless we assume the FBI went completely rogue, it is inconceivable that the deployments of
personnel to spy on the Trump campaign and make provocative contact with its lesser members
could have occurred without the full knowledge and control of the occupants of the Oval
Office.
Obama may claim a scandal-free administration, but after Fast and Furious, the targeting of
the Tea Party by the IRS, the Benghazi cover-up, Hillary's emails, to name a few, Spygate is
just the latest. I use the plural "occupants" because while Barack Hussein Obama may have been
nominally the president of the United States, at the heart of every one of these scandals and
virtually every administration move was Valerie Jarrett, who arguably could be considered
our first female president . Jarrett, born in Iran to American parents, has been with the
Obamas since her days as deputy chief of staff in the office of Chicago mayor Richard Daley,
the younger. She hired Michelle Obama, then Michelle Robinson, to fill an opening in the
mayor's office. As WikiLeaks describes the beginning of a long
relationship (citations omitted):
In 1991, as deputy chief of staff to Mayor Richard Daley, Jarrett interviewed Michelle
Robinson for an opening in the mayor's office, after which she immediately offered Robinson
the job. Michelle Robinson asked for time to think and also asked Jarrett to meet Robinson's
fiancé, Barack Obama. The three ended up meeting for dinner. After the dinner,
Michelle took the job with the mayor's office, and Valerie Jarrett reportedly took the couple
under her wing and "introduced them to a wealthier and better-connected Chicago than their
own." Jarrett later took Michelle with her when Jarrett left the mayor's office to head
Chicago's Department of Planning and Development.
The rest, as they say, is history. Not only did Valerie Jarrett become a mentor to the young
Barack Obama, but she soon became what some have called
Obama's Rasputin , someone who had more security than our personnel did in Benghazi.
She receives more protection than our Libyan ambassador, calls the president by his first
name, dines and vacations with the First Family and had the power to call off three strikes
against Osama bin Laden.
Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House
senior adviser and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett reportedly had a full Secret Service
detail on vacation in Martha's Vineyard.
"Jarrett seems to have a 24-hour, around-the-clock detail, with five or six agents full
time," Democratic pollster Pat Caddell said in an interview recently with Breitbart news. If
Stevens had a similar escort, he'd probably be alive today. Such protection isn't usually
available to senior advisers, but Jarrett is no ordinary adviser[.]
Indeed, she is not. She arguably has had more influence over Obama than anyone with the
possible exception of
Michelle Obama herself :
Her influence is shown by an account in Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The
Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him."
It relates that at the urging of Jarrett, Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin
Laden on three occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL mission. Seems
she was concerned about the possible political harm to Obama if the mission failed[.] ...
Edward Klein, author of the best-selling book about Obama, "The Amateur," once asked Obama
if he ran every decision by Jarrett, and the president responded, "Absolutely." A former
foreign editor of Newsweek and editor of the New York Times Magazine, Klein describes Jarrett
as "ground zero in the Obama operation, the first couple's friend and consigliere."
If Obama ran every decision past Jarrett, the decision to plant spies in the Trump campaign
certainly was among the most important. Obama's legacy was important to Jarrett, perhaps even
more important than to Obama himself. She had to preserve it and ensure that the fundamental
transformation of America continued. If Hillary could not win, Trump must be destroyed.
In a Tuesday appearance on Fox News , Newt Gingrich said that he
believed former President Barack Obama and some of his top officials – including
Valerie Jarrett – were involved in spying on Donald Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign[.] ...
"Presently, someone will figure out to ask what did Valerie Jarrett know and when did she
know it?" Gingrich said. "What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Because what
you're seeing happen is, on every single level – and this is what happens with really
big scandals – they keep on folding and they keep on folding and they keep on
folding."
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday he believes it's highly
unlikely that President Obama did not know an FBI informant was in the Trump campaign.
"We need to know why did it begin, who authorized it and what role did Barack Obama have.
Did he know the FBI had informants there? I'll guarantee you the answer is yes. No FBI would
put informants in another presidential campaign without permission from the White House,
including the president," he said on "Outnumbered."
Can it be believed that, as key players in the Obama administration like Strzok and Page, as
well as FBI director James Comey
, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
, number four at Justice Bruce Ohr, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and many others were linked
in a vast criminal conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the
White House, Barack Obama was blissfully unaware of all this? Rather, it can be plausibly
argued that he was orchestrating it – perhaps not directly or by explicit orders, but
rather by discussing the threat to his legacy Trump represented with his progressive minions
and then simply saying, as crime bosses throughout history have done, "You know what needs to
be done. Do it."
This scandal did not occur in a vacuum any more than did the weaponizing of the IRS to
target the Tea Party and other conservative groups before Obama's 2012 re-election campaign
occurred in a vacuum. The agencies under Obama's control have been politicized before and used
to intimidate and destroy his political opponents
This fish is also rotting from the head. Back in April 2016, President Obama gave an
interview in which
he seemed to have foreknowledge that Hillary Clinton would be exonerated for her
"carelessness" and did not "intentionally" mishandle classified emails, words that Comey would
use just a few months later:
President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed "carelessness" by using a private
email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not
endanger national security, while also vowing that an ongoing FBI investigation into the
matter will not be tainted by politics.
In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Obama seemed to prejudge the outcome of the
ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton's email scandal, and he disputed the notion that any of the
emails contained classified information of true importance.
"She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy," he said. "What I also
know is that there's classified and then there's classified. There's stuff that is really top
secret top secret, and then there's stuff that is being presented to the president, the
secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire."
National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy has long argued that
Obama was the ringleader in obstructing justice in the Hillary email investigation:
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton-emails
caper was President Barack Obama's call – not the FBI's, and not the Justice
Department's[.] ... The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a
pseudonymous email account , had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her
private, non-secure email account.
Why would Obama use a fake email account to communicate with Hillary Clinton? Granted,
classified communications between a president and a secretary of state are normal, but not via
a fake email account. Were they discussing the fix that was in during her email investigation?
McCarthy
suggests just such a reason :
If Clinton had been charged, Obama's culpable involvement would have been patent. In any
prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton-Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the
prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent)
mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton's defense, they would show that
Obama was complicit in Clinton's conduct yet faced no criminal charges.
After Trump's victory, Jarrett moved
in with Obama and Michelle in their new Washington-area home with the express purpose of
organizing the "resistance." Obama's D.C. home was to serve as the nerve center to the
resistance to the presidency of Donald Trump. As the
Daily Mail reported:
Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital
– just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the
mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.
Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency
either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.
And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie
Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the
former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.
Her power and influence extended from staffing the White House to virtual veto power over
foreign policy decisions. Valerie Jarrett undoubtedly had significant input into President
Obama's Munich-like deal with Iran, which kicked the nuclear can down the road to assured
detonation over Israel, which Iran continues to threaten to wipe off the map when it is not
wishing "death to America." Her
influence over President Obama is legendary:
The Iranian-born Jarrett (her parents were American-born expatriates) is the only staff
member who regularly follows the president home from the West Wing to the residence and one
of the few people allowed to call the president by his first name.
Noam Scheiber, writing in the
November 9, 2014 New Republic, called Jarrett "The Obama Whisperer," noting her power and
influence and the fear she instilled in other staffers:
Even at this late date in the Obama presidency, there is no surer way to elicit paranoid
whispers or armchair psychoanalysis from Democrats than to mention the name Valerie Jarrett.
Party operatives, administration officials – they are shocked by her sheer longevity
and marvel at her influence. When I asked a longtime source who left the Obama White House
years ago for his impressions of Jarrett, he confessed that he was too fearful to speak with
me, even off the record.
This is not as irrational as it sounds. Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major
decision, something current and former aides corroborate. "Her role since she has been at the
White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in
the West Wing," says Anita Dunn, Obama's former communications director. Broader, even, than
the role of running the West Wing. This summer, the call to send Attorney General Eric Holder
on a risky visit to Ferguson, Missouri, was made by exactly three people: Holder himself, the
president, and Jarrett, who were vacationing together on Martha's Vineyard[.] ...
Jarrett holds a key vote on Cabinet picks (she opposed Larry Summers at Treasury and was
among the first Obama aides to come around on Hillary Clinton at State) and has an outsize
[sic] say on ambassadorships and judgeships[.] ...
And Jarrett has been known to enjoy the perks of high office herself. When administration
aides plan "bilats," the term of art for meetings of two countries' top officials, they
realize that whatever size meeting they negotiate – nine by nine, eight by eight, etc.
– our side will typically include one less foreign policy hand, because Jarrett has a
standing seat at any table that includes the president.
Valerie Jarrett's hold over President Obama is as mysterious as it has proven dangerous. She
is Obama's Rasputin and will have great influence as the former community organizer wages
guerrilla warfare from his Washington, D.C. bunker, an operation that includes Spygate.
Correction: Valerie Jarret worked for Chicago Mayor Daley the younger
Daniel John Sobieski
is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily ,
Human Events , Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other
publications. Unless we assume the FBI went completely rogue, it is inconceivable that the
deployments of personnel to spy on the Trump campaign and make provocative contact with its
lesser members could have occurred without the full knowledge and control of the occupants of
the Oval Office.
Obama may claim a scandal-free administration, but after Fast and Furious, the targeting of
the Tea Party by the IRS, the Benghazi cover-up, Hillary's emails, to name a few, Spygate is
just the latest. I use the plural "occupants" because while Barack Hussein Obama may have been
nominally the president of the United States, at the heart of every one of these scandals and
virtually every administration move was Valerie Jarrett, who arguably could be considered
our first female president .
Jarrett, born in Iran to American parents, has been with the Obamas since her days as deputy
chief of staff in the office of Chicago mayor Richard Daley, the younger. She hired Michelle
Obama, then Michelle Robinson, to fill an opening in the mayor's office. As WikiLeaks describes the beginning of a
long relationship (citations omitted):
In 1991, as deputy chief of staff to Mayor Richard Daley, Jarrett interviewed Michelle
Robinson for an opening in the mayor's office, after which she immediately offered Robinson
the job. Michelle Robinson asked for time to think and also asked Jarrett to meet Robinson's
fiancé, Barack Obama. The three ended up meeting for dinner. After the dinner,
Michelle took the job with the mayor's office, and Valerie Jarrett reportedly took the couple
under her wing and "introduced them to a wealthier and better-connected Chicago than their
own." Jarrett later took Michelle with her when Jarrett left the mayor's office to head
Chicago's Department of Planning and Development.
The rest, as they say, is history. Not only did Valerie Jarrett become a mentor to the young
Barack Obama, but she soon became what some have called
Obama's Rasputin , someone who had more security than our personnel did in Benghazi.
She receives more protection than our Libyan ambassador, calls the president by his first
name, dines and vacations with the First Family and had the power to call off three strikes
against Osama bin Laden.
Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House
senior adviser and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett reportedly had a full Secret Service
detail on vacation in Martha's Vineyard.
"Jarrett seems to have a 24-hour, around-the-clock detail, with five or six agents full
time," Democratic pollster Pat Caddell said in an interview recently with Breitbart news. If
Stevens had a similar escort, he'd probably be alive today. Such protection isn't usually
available to senior advisers, but Jarrett is no ordinary adviser[.]
Indeed, she is not. She arguably has had more influence over Obama than anyone with the
possible exception of
Michelle Obama herself :
Her influence is shown by an account in Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The
Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him."
It relates that at the urging of Jarrett, Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin
Laden on three occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL mission. Seems
she was concerned about the possible political harm to Obama if the mission failed[.] ...
Edward Klein, author of the best-selling book about Obama, "The Amateur," once asked Obama
if he ran every decision by Jarrett, and the president responded, "Absolutely." A former
foreign editor of Newsweek and editor of the New York Times Magazine, Klein describes Jarrett
as "ground zero in the Obama operation, the first couple's friend and consigliere."
If Obama ran every decision past Jarrett, the decision to plant spies in the Trump campaign
certainly was among the most important. Obama's legacy was important to Jarrett, perhaps even
more important than to Obama himself. She had to preserve it and ensure that the fundamental
transformation of America continued. If Hillary could not win, Trump must be destroyed.
In a Tuesday appearance on Fox News , Newt Gingrich said that he
believed former President Barack Obama and some of his top officials – including
Valerie Jarrett – were involved in spying on Donald Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign[.] ...
"Presently, someone will figure out to ask what did Valerie Jarrett know and when did she
know it?" Gingrich said. "What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Because what
you're seeing happen is, on every single level – and this is what happens with really
big scandals – they keep on folding and they keep on folding and they keep on
folding."
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday he believes it's highly
unlikely that President Obama did not know an FBI informant was in the Trump campaign.
"We need to know why did it begin, who authorized it and what role did Barack Obama have.
Did he know the FBI had informants there? I'll guarantee you the answer is yes. No FBI would
put informants in another presidential campaign without permission from the White House,
including the president," he said on "Outnumbered."
Can it be believed that, as key players in the Obama administration like Strzok and Page, as
well as FBI director James Comey
, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
, number four at Justice Bruce Ohr, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and many others were linked
in a vast criminal conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the
White House, Barack Obama was blissfully unaware of all this? Rather, it can be plausibly
argued that he was orchestrating it – perhaps not directly or by explicit orders, but
rather by discussing the threat to his legacy Trump represented with his progressive minions
and then simply saying, as crime bosses throughout history have done, "You know what needs to
be done. Do it."
This scandal did not occur in a vacuum any more than did the weaponizing of the IRS to
target the Tea Party and other conservative groups before Obama's 2012 re-election campaign
occurred in a vacuum. The agencies under Obama's control have been politicized before and used
to intimidate and destroy his political opponents
This fish is also rotting from the head. Back in April 2016, President Obama gave an
interview in which
he seemed to have foreknowledge that Hillary Clinton would be exonerated for her
"carelessness" and did not "intentionally" mishandle classified emails, words that Comey would
use just a few months later:
President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed "carelessness" by using a private
email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not
endanger national security, while also vowing that an ongoing FBI investigation into the
matter will not be tainted by politics.
In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Obama seemed to prejudge the outcome of the
ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton's email scandal, and he disputed the notion that any of the
emails contained classified information of true importance.
"She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy," he said. "What I also
know is that there's classified and then there's classified. There's stuff that is really top
secret top secret, and then there's stuff that is being presented to the president, the
secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire."
National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy has long argued that
Obama was the ringleader in obstructing justice in the Hillary email investigation:
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton-emails
caper was President Barack Obama's call – not the FBI's, and not the Justice
Department's[.] ... The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a
pseudonymous email account , had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her
private, non-secure email account.
Why would Obama use a fake email account to communicate with Hillary Clinton? Granted,
classified communications between a president and a secretary of state are normal, but not via
a fake email account. Were they discussing the fix that was in during her email investigation?
McCarthy
suggests just such a reason :
If Clinton had been charged, Obama's culpable involvement would have been patent. In any
prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton-Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the
prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent)
mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton's defense, they would show that
Obama was complicit in Clinton's conduct yet faced no criminal charges.
After Trump's victory, Jarrett moved
in with Obama and Michelle in their new Washington-area home with the express purpose of
organizing the "resistance." Obama's D.C. home was to serve as the nerve center to the
resistance to the presidency of Donald Trump. As the
Daily Mail reported:
Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital
– just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the
mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.
Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency
either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.
And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie
Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the
former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.
Her power and influence extended from staffing the White House to virtual veto power over
foreign policy decisions. Valerie Jarrett undoubtedly had significant input into President
Obama's Munich-like deal with Iran, which kicked the nuclear can down the road to assured
detonation over Israel, which Iran continues to threaten to wipe off the map when it is not
wishing "death to America." Her
influence over President Obama is legendary:
The Iranian-born Jarrett (her parents were American-born expatriates) is the only staff
member who regularly follows the president home from the West Wing to the residence and one
of the few people allowed to call the president by his first name.
Noam Scheiber, writing in the
November 9, 2014 New Republic, called Jarrett "The Obama Whisperer," noting her power and
influence and the fear she instilled in other staffers:
Even at this late date in the Obama presidency, there is no surer way to elicit paranoid
whispers or armchair psychoanalysis from Democrats than to mention the name Valerie Jarrett.
Party operatives, administration officials – they are shocked by her sheer longevity
and marvel at her influence. When I asked a longtime source who left the Obama White House
years ago for his impressions of Jarrett, he confessed that he was too fearful to speak with
me, even off the record.
This is not as irrational as it sounds. Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major
decision, something current and former aides corroborate. "Her role since she has been at the
White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in
the West Wing," says Anita Dunn, Obama's former communications director. Broader, even, than
the role of running the West Wing. This summer, the call to send Attorney General Eric Holder
on a risky visit to Ferguson, Missouri, was made by exactly three people: Holder himself, the
president, and Jarrett, who were vacationing together on Martha's Vineyard[.] ...
Jarrett holds a key vote on Cabinet picks (she opposed Larry Summers at Treasury and was
among the first Obama aides to come around on Hillary Clinton at State) and has an outsize
[sic] say on ambassadorships and judgeships[.] ...
And Jarrett has been known to enjoy the perks of high office herself. When administration
aides plan "bilats," the term of art for meetings of two countries' top officials, they
realize that whatever size meeting they negotiate – nine by nine, eight by eight, etc.
– our side will typically include one less foreign policy hand, because Jarrett has a
standing seat at any table that includes the president.
Valerie Jarrett's hold over President Obama is as mysterious as it has proven dangerous. She
is Obama's Rasputin and will have great influence as the former community organizer wages
guerrilla warfare from his Washington, D.C. bunker, an operation that includes Spygate.
Correction: Valerie Jarret worked for Chicago Mayor Daley the younger
Daniel John Sobieski
is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily ,
Human Events , Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other
publications.
"... Comey and the rest know who paid for Dossier but can't say because they know it will bring charges to Hillary and Obama and if they go down so do the rest of them...Mueller and Rosenstien even Sessions knows who paid for the Dossier. ..."
"... The sleazy crossdressing so-called agency was not created for the benefit to the citizens...it was created as a shield for the deep state to hide their dirty deeds...would love to see The U.S Marshal Service raid their putrid dens...but then again...the Marshals might be a part of the swamp as well.... ..."
The FBI has become little more than a corrupt political protection racket for the Clintons
and the Obamas. It is time for President Trump to pump this Cesspool of corruption and
incompetence.
Comey and the rest know who paid for Dossier but can't say because they know it will bring
charges to Hillary and Obama and if they go down so do the rest of them...Mueller and
Rosenstien even Sessions knows who paid for the Dossier... Come on...keep up the good work
guys...I can't see any of the corrupt mungrals giving over anything though ...they wanted
more time to try cover up...Obama was part of it...
Shouldn't the players in all of this corruption be removed from from the FBI, put on leave
until it all gets settled? This is a failed state , who has the right to shut them
down?
The sleazy crossdressing so-called agency was not created for the benefit to the
citizens...it was created as a shield for the deep state to hide their dirty deeds...would
love to see The U.S Marshal Service raid their putrid dens...but then again...the Marshals
might be a part of the swamp as well....
Who would the people be that are giving this a thumbs down this guy is getting to the
truth and finding out how crooked are FBI and Department of Justice is and somebody wants to
give it a thumb down like you don't want to know the truth that's crazy but then again
liberalism is a disease so maybe that's it
The Justice Department released more than 400 pages of top-secret documents late Saturday
evening related to the 2016 application for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant
taken out on Page, in addition to three renewal applications -- much of which were
redacted.
"Here's what we will never know: We'll never know whether or not the FBI had enough without
the dossier, the unvetted, DNC-funded dossier, because they included it and everyone who reads
this FISA application sees the amount of reliance they placed on this product funded by Hillary
Clinton's campaign and the DNC," Gowdy, R-S.C., said on "Fox News Sunday" after calling Page
"more like Inspector Gadget then he is Jason Bourne or James Bond."
Time for Trump to realize that his expecting the left and deep state to be fair and
honest is NOT going to happen.
Time for Trump to stop waiting for the witch hunt to end.
Time for Trump to end it..he is the only person who can...and they know it. As far as
McCain feigning death to avoid prosecution but standing on the sideline cheering on the
Democrats. Time to prosecute him!!
Gowdy still disappoints! Don't play with Christian Russia, who was continually
threatened that if Clinton won, first on her agenda was war with Russia! No, they're not
our friends even tho we interfere in as many elections as possible, but we can be ok
being the pot calling the kettle black! Instead we should play with that creepy pervert
circus from Great Britain who flies the snarky attempt at humiliation of our elected
President. We should be friends with Canada and the nambla master himself, we should
listen to the bought out as to with whom we can associate with. Gowdy used to impress;
now he seems like the guy who tries to sound for real on a few things so he can fudge up
the rest.
Trey Gowdy: "We will never know whether blah blah,..
Meanwhile,..
Carter Page was an FBI asset in March of 2016 .
and yet somehow by October the same year he was a foreign agent, acting on behalf of
mother Russia, and deserving of a FISA Title-1 Surveillance Warrant.
In 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of New York, announced an
indictment against a Russian Operative Evgeny Buryakov.
In March of 2016 Buryakov pleaded GUILTY:
Carter Page was an FBI cooperating asset in 2013, and remained the primary FBI
witness through May of 2016 throughout the duration of the Buryakov case.
If Carter Page was an FBI asset and witness, responsible for the bust of a high level
Russian agent in 2013, and remained so throughout the court case UP TO May of
2016,...
*How the f**k it is possible that on October 21st, 2016, Carter Page is put under a
FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?
Conclusion: He wasn't.
The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division, knew he
wasn't a Russian agent.
The DOJ-NSD and FBI flat-out LIED to the FISA court.
Slow walking providing the evidence they need to do their oversight is obstruction of
justice. The question is, how long will the committee put up with it? They are still
being denied what they have asked for and Gowdy is stalling justice.
No Trey... We know. We've known for a long, long time. It wasn't.
Isn't it funny how you always are so tough, in your angst tinged questioning but then,
every time, you're the deep state frontman for why 'we'll never know' excuses as the
clock keeps ticking and the statute of limitations speed to their running out time?
Just last week... or was it two(?)... Trey... you said you feared that no prosecutor
could bring or was it win(?) a case against Hillary Clinton now because Comey exonerated
her twice... puhleeze... Trey, you already announced you're quitting and your deep state
friends don't care... However, we do and frankly... Just like Comey's ridiculous "no
reasonable prosecutor" statement.... Hillary's (& many others) irrefutable, multiple
felonies are a easy slam dunk, if only you cowards would actually serve justice and the
people, rather than yourselves and the Global Cabal.
Your not fooling as many people as you think Gow·dy.
IMO, Trey Gowdy can not be trusted. The guy is really good, when he digs into to
someone. But then he contradicts everyone's read on him. The way he is acting leads me to
have much suspicion of him being compromised. Think of a fighter who is being forced to
trough a fight. But during fight, every now and then, reflexive competitive instincts
triggered, only fo a flash. Then he realizes and try to overcompensate the other way.
IMO, that's Gowdy.
"we will never know"
We already know that the special counsel was part of a counter intelligence operation to
remove Trump from office. Only a blind fool would believe the line of partisan crap from
the FBI and DOJ. We will have direct evidence if operation Crossfire Hurricane is fully
declassified and the records have not been totally destroyed.
There was an operation going on even before Crossfire Hurricane. Page 8 of the just
released documents shows the FISA application shows 'surveillance' started March 2016,
referencing a meeting with George Papadopoulos -sourced from Christopher Steele- NOT with
the official opening of 'Crossfire Hurricane' on 7/31/16.
I think the operation started long before 7/31/16 and that is the information that Rod
Rosenstein refuses to give congress. Why should I believe the "official date" provided by
known liars? The spying was totally illegal before 7/31/16 and a total fraud
afterwards.
That doesn't matter, you idiot. The dossier was a LIE from the beginning so the court
relied on a LIE to grant a warrant. What a f-ing fool this guy is.
I have to admit, I don't know any of the details of the Steele dossier, who Carter
Page is or what Trey Gowdy is or isn't doing..... All I know is Hillary is behind this
shit and the bitch is still stealing our air!!!
The day before Trump's inauguration, I did a post about the latest
addition to the CNN line-up of reporters. Taking over as CNN's Justice Department correspondent
was none other than Laura Jarrett – ValJar's daughter. How convenient.
While her mother was settling into her new home living with the Obamas in Washington, DC,
Laura Jarrett was on the scene at the thoroughly compromised DOJ. Makes you wonder. Who was
Laura Jarrett giving her scoops to? CNN? Or Mama Jarrett? The other day over at American
Thinker, Daniel John Sobieski posited that
Jarrett and Obama are behind Spygate .
Now, certainly, he isn't the only one who thinks this. In fact, I was certain that the
Obamas and Valerie Jarrett were staying in DC not for Sasha's schooling, but for something a
little more nefarious. In March of 2017, in my post called The creepy, seditious tale of
Barack and Val , I pointed out that the Daily Mail was reporting that the new Obama
house was turned into headquarters for Operation Sedition. From the Daily Mail :
Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital
– just two miles away from the White House – into the nerve center of the mounting
insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.
Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency
either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.
And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie
Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with the
former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.
At the time I wrote:
Call me crazy. But that seems like a far more scandalous tale than then-Senator Jeff
Sessions meeting the Russian Ambassador on two very public occasions.
What's more seditious? A member of the Senate Armed Service Committee meeting with
ambassadors – including the Russian Ambassador? Or the former President and his creepy
side-kick shacking up to plot the destruction of the sitting President?
I saw this report, and I have to tell you, I was stunned. How the hell is this not a
bigger story?! Okay, I know the answer to that.
The Enslaved Press isn't going to report on a former President actively plotting to
destroy a sitting President. Especially when they're hoping that former President
succeeds.
What shocked me most about this report in the Daily Mail is the fact that the entire eight
years the Obamas were in the White House, Valerie Jarrett actually lived with them.
The Wall Street Journal
continues to counter the liberal
mainstream media's Trump Derangement Syndrome , dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs and
refusing to back off its intense pressure to get to the truth and hold those responsible,
accountable (in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as 'Alt-Right' or
'Nazi' or be 'punished' by search- and social-media-giants) .
And once again Kimberley
Strassel - who by now has become the focus of social media attacks for her truth-seeking
reporting - does it again this morning, as she points out - after his 'treasonous' outbursts,
that Obama's CIA Director John Brennan acknowledges that it was him egging on the FBI's probe
of Trump and Russia.
The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to
doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent
Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still
describes as "horrible" and "disgusting." This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey
tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.
But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency
Director John Brennan . He's accused President Trump of "venality, moral turpitude and
political corruption," and berated GOP investigations of the FBI. This week he claimed on
Twitter that Mr. Trump's press conference in Helsinki was "nothing short of treasonous." This
is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.
That's what Mr. Brennan is -- a partisan -- and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is
in some ways more concerning than the FBI's. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules,
breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier that
the FBI's Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some
partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA
director, he served as a close Obama adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his
position -- as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world -- to assist Hillary
Clinton's campaign (and keep his job).
Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House
Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became "aware of
intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons." The
CIA can't investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that "every information and bit of
intelligence" was "shared with the bureau," meaning the FBI. This information, he said,
"served as the basis for the FBI investigation." My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was
overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he was an Obama-Clinton
partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.
More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was
interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump - which quickly evolved into the
Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of
the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively
pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't buy it. He publicly refused to say who was
responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn't get the FBI to
sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at
disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.
The CIA director couldn't himself go public with his Clinton spin -- he lacked the support
of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S.
politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate
minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump
advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to
support such a claim.)
But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a
letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. "The evidence of a direct
connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues
to mount," wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton's Russians-are-helping-Trump
theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous
Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use "every resource available to investigate this
matter."
The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative
into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media
allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News's Michael
Isikoff ran the headline: "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and
Kremlin." Voilà. Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence
that the FBI was investigating.
In their recent book "Russian Roulette," Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say even Mr. Reid
believed Mr. Brennan had an "ulterior motive" with the briefing, and "concluded the CIA chief
believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information
about the possible links to the Trump campaign." (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to
leak damaging information.)
Clinton supporters have a plausible case that Mr. Comey's late-October announcement that
the FBI had reopened its investigation into the candidate affected the election. But Trump
supporters have a claim that the public outing of the collusion narrative and FBI
investigation took a toll on their candidate .
And as Strassel so poignantly concludes:
Politics was at the center of that outing, and Mr. Brennan was a ringmaster. Remember that
when reading his next "treason" tweet.
This all boils down to one simple thing: A failed coup d'état.
I really is just that. Once that very concept begins to take root in the populace, it'll
counter the 'conspiracy theory' mumbo jumbo dismissals the MSM keeps pushing.
This was a power grab that failed, and as each day unfolds, we see that the very top of
the power structure was attempting to subvert the will of the people, and destroy a duly
elected President. This is nothing short of sedition and treason. I cannot wait until the
tables turn on the pundits and powerful elites. When the ground swell accepts this very
simple fact, no amount of shit shoveling excuses and dismissals will be enough.
"we are headed for some Bladerunner style dystopian future Hitler could only dream of"
Good post, all true including Japan being forced to attack Pearl Harbour by Eisenhouwer's
economic sanctions, EXCEPT you need to seriously question your information on Hitler's role
in WWII.
Check out the amazing revisionist history series on WWII "HITLER: THE GREATEST STORY NEVER
TOLD" by Dennis Wise:
Mrs Clinton lost. That was the shot heard 'round the world. Everything before Nov 8 was
maneuvering for position in her administration, or buying a seat at the table. Since then
it's been outraged denial and maneuvering for an escape route.
Her not winning was the unspeakable thing. Bill knew though.
Bigger than sedition - it is massive conspiracy to use every branch of government &
MSM to reach Brennan's goals - as Schumer said - these guys get what they want -
John Dulles had Intel Agencies control for JFK's murder but not every branch of
government
Bobby was going to reopen the Warren Commission which Dulles was the defacto head and
controlled the discovery, data and conclusions - The Martin Luther King Murder was used a
diversion - back to back - from the single purpose to get Bobby stopped
Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening a polity, effort or organization
through subversion, obstruction, disruption or destruction. One who engages in sabotage is a
saboteur. (Wiki)
Brennan is the REAL SOURCE of the Russian Election meddling story. And Brennan is a water
boy for the British Royals, who still run everything behind the scenes along with their
banker buddies.
If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound
political disunity within the elites pop out:
1. The overt politicization of the central state's law enforcement and intelligence
agencies: it is now commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a
sitting president of treason in the mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics
is now nothing but politics.
2. The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would
stand up in a court of law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and
exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are ceaselessly promoted--the classic definition
of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the governed.
... ... ...
The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have
characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp--currently
the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the
"Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us" narrative--and a much less public,
less organized "rogue Progressive" camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of
the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay
of the nation's moral/political center.
That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. "There's no big there there," Strzok
texted.
The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein
named special counselRobert Mueller to oversee an investigation into
alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to
the evidence against the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say -- but Page, during a
closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the
message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple
eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers
of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the
investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was "there."
By the time of the text and Mueller's appointment, the FBI's best counterintelligence agents
had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a
dossier funded by Hillary Clinton 's campaign -- which contained
uncorroborated allegations -- to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa
Page).
They sat on Carter Page's phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence
that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that
their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey , was
forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained
substantially uncorroborated.
In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish,
Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of
dollars and months of political strife.
The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be
inferior : A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing
during the election;
each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles
with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia
collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the
FISA warrant against Carter Page.
That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source,
is known in spy craft as "circular intelligence reporting," and it's the sort of bad product
that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.
But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe
for which, by his own words, he knew had "no big there there."
The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at
least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails
and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.
It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether
they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant
director (AD) or join Mueller's special counsel team.
"Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?" Strzok wrote, weighing the
merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: "An
investigation leading to impeachment?"
Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in.
"We should stop having this conversation here," she texted back, adding later it was
important to examine "the different realistic outcomes of this case."
A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: "You and I both
know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate
in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative -- as well as Rosenstein's
decision to appoint Mueller -- apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to
"nothing" and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of
impeachment.
Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional
investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation
forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional
training told them it had "no big there there."
And that, by definition, is political bias in action.
How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred
for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI
cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don't think occurred,
but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your
job.
Who directed, encouraged Rosenstein to authorize the probe? Did he do it on his own accord
based on previous investigations, was he pushed by Comey? Just where did the idea come from
and based upon what? (I forgot or never really knew)
It all starts with Brennan, and the people he answers to.
Then there's this:
'Intel Operative who Altered Obama's Passport Records Turned FBI Informant on Boss John
Brennan, Then Turned Up Murdered in D.C.'
"A key witness in a federal probe into Barack Obama's passport information stolen and
altered from the State Department was gunned down and killed in front of a District church in
D.C.
Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was
found late at night slumped dead inside a car. He was reportedly waiting to meet with FBI
agents about his boss John Brennan."
The other fascinating thing is, Strzoks dad , who he was, where he has been and doing in
the past.
He was in Iran when the revolution happened working for, ahem, Bell Helicopter. He was
also in Burkina Faso doing "charity work" just as he was the Director later on for Catholic
Relief Services in...now wait for it...Haiti....lol.
In the infamous words of Tom Brokaw & Charlie Rose "We really don't know who he is or
what he believes." ;-)
Y' all have good comments as usual and you're generally right, but there's a big problem
in that almost 60% of 'murica is not paying attention. Half of those are airheads more
worried about the minivan having enough gas to get to all the soccer games tomorrow and which
McDonald's is closer to the fields. They have four buttons on the radio set to NPR and thus
the resultant brain rot. The other half are libtards with no brains to rot. They could find
Hillary with a bloody knife in her hand standing over five dead children and convict her of
nothing more than having strange ideas about breakfast.
Brennan is pushing back for one reason - he's guilty as sin and doesn't want what he's
done found out. Trying to setup Trump with spies, spying on Trump's campaign, and covering up
for the hacking of Hillary's server, acts of treason, are likely his lesser sins.
Watergate times a billion: The use of a fully weaponized police state against a domestic
political opponent. They committed numerous serious crimes in the process, and being arrogant
pricks, left a wide paper trail....a trail that leads to the White House as well as Her Fury,
Hillary Clinton.
We need the meeting notes. Brennan ran the thing out of Langley. I'm sure they kept as
many notes as the Stasi did.
Jarrett and Rice, the most likely conduits to Obama and Biden.
The real question now is, Did Mueller get rid of the lovebirds because of their texts or
because they didn't think there was any there there and he need people that would be willing
to find a there where there was no there there?
Think two friends anywhere else in the USA discussed a Trump impeachment when news came
out on an investigation? Think they came to the conclusion there is nothing there and
impeachment wouldn't happen? I can testify it happened in my simple household.
Strozk's comment " If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question." infers that he
wasn't "there". This conversation points to nothing except their personal distaste for Trump
which we already knew. I still see nothing showing any wrong doing. Think Elliot Ness was
happy whenever they got evidence on Capone? Think they never talked about getting him over
lunch with fellow agents? Prosecutors and investigators don't have to like the people they
are looking at and usually probably don't. It is only a problem if it caused them to be
impartial in the investigation which the IG says there is no evidence of in this case.
The bottom line i get from your side is that no one who is partisan should have any role
in investigating someone on the other side. Should we just limit it to people who support
that side? if we can find intelligent, fair people who are not partisan shouldn't we make
them our leaders and just let them decide everything?
Who should be able to investigate something like the NRA using a spy to funnel money to
someones campaign? Rudy?
I don't have a link and I don't think anyone here is going to doubt it, but I read today
where new emails indicate the Obama White House started illegally investigating Trump in
2015.
So many outrageous activities are being uncovered on an almost daily basis I doubt this
gets much traction but what an outrage.
I don't have a link and I don't think anyone here is going to doubt it, but I read today
where new emails indicate the Obama White House started illegally investigating Trump in
2015.
So many outrageous activities are being uncovered on an almost daily basis I doubt this
gets much traction but what an outrage.
The FBI M.O. is the use of Form 302 interrogations to entrap suspects. Using the threat of
prosecution to compel auxiliary parties to become witnesses for the DOJ. It's very simple:
interview several people about what was said or transpired at an earlier time. If there are
any disagreements you could prosecute any of them for lying to the FBI. Worse, as was seen
with McCabe/Flynn, the FBI will claim you said something, which you might deny at trial, but
the jury will believe the two FBI lying FBI agents who questioned you without a
recording.
Struck had been on the Trump Collusion Case for about a year before he said "there is no
there there."
About a year earlier (2016), he had just finished up clearing Hillary and was headed off
to London to start trying to hang Trump---probably to meet Steele, or maybe the fat turd
professor they hired to hustle the Trump hangers-on.
Then, he was excited then to be going after Trump. He texted Page then that "THIS
MATTERS"!
What did he find in that first year? NOTHING.
Same thing Mueller has found in the second year and into the third. NOTHING.
I just finished reading the letters of Thomas Mann, who's an exemplary figure in this
regard. Leading up to World War I, he was a fairly standard old-school conservative
militarist/nationalist. That continued until the end of the war. After the war, he became a
dedicated liberal defender of Weimar. Once the Nazis took over, his liberalism morphed into a
humanist anti-fascism. By the end of the war, that antifascism had come to include overt
sympathy with communism and the Soviet Union (he even praised Mission to Moscow on aesthetic
grounds!) That continued into the late 1940s, when he supported Henry Wallace for president and
was outspoken in his opposition to HUAC .
But then, around 1950 or so, you begin to see, ever so slightly and subtly, Mann's opinions
starting to change once again. He never comes out in defense of McCarthyism, but you begin to
feel a chill and distance toward the left. His criticisms of the repression in the US begin to
modulate and moderate. Till finally, in a 1953 letter to Agnes Meyer, his close friend and
matriarch of The Washington Post, he confesses that he has decided not to publicly oppose
McCarthyism in the New York Times. He reports to her that when he was asked -- "probably by
someone on the 'left'" -- what he thinks about the censorship and restrictions on freedom in
the US, this was his reply: "American democracy felt threatened and, in the struggle for
freedom, considered that there had to be a certain limitation on freedom, a certain
disciplining of individual thought, a certain conformism. This was understandable." Though he
adds some sort of anodyne qualification at the end of that.
It just about broke my heart. That "left" in scare quotes (previously Mann had seen himself
as a part of the left), the clichés about freedom and the Cold War, the betrayal of all
that he had said and done in the preceding decades -- and most important, the seeming inability
to see that he was betraying anything at all.
... ... ....
During the McCarthy years, Arendt wrote in a letter to Jaspers how terrified she was of the
repression. It wasn't just the facts of the coercion she saw everywhere. It was how quickly it
happened, how the mood of the moment had gone so suddenly from a generous and capacious
liberalism to a cramped anticommunism. "Can you see," she wrote, "how far the disintegration
has gone and with what breathtaking speed it has occurred? And up to now hardly any resistance.
Everything melts away like butter in the sun." Victor Klemperer notices and narrates a similar
shift among his friends and colleagues in his diaries of Nazi Germany.
One of the core truths about clever people is that they are very good at coming-up with
clever justifications for whatever it is they happen to believe.
People who were lambasting that kind of politics in 2016 are now embracing it -- without
remarking upon the change, without explaining it, leaving the impression that this is what
they believed all along.
Amusingly, and for essentially the same reasons, a symmetric movement has taken place in
France, with many people self-identifying as socialist (at least nominally) two years ago now
fully behind flat taxes on capital gains, detention of minors up to 90 days if their parents
are undocumented and privatization of passenger trains (three ideas that have historically
been considered outside of the spectrum of reasonnable political opinion, even by the former
mainstream right-wing party).
But coincidentally, I was re-reading Bourdieu's On the State these last weeks so
I'm not so surprised, especially as I don't think that believe is quite the right word
to describe how political and social positions are embraced (and in that respect, I believe
that intellectuals are different only in their vociferous protestations to the contrary, and
their somewhat superior ability to identify with the domineering side).
"In modern societies, the State makes a decisive contribution towards the production and
reproduction of the instruments of construction of social reality. [ ] The State thereby
creates the conditions for an immediate orchestration of habitus which is itself the
foundation for a consensus on this set of shared self-evidences which constitute common
sense ."
So when shifts and breaks in the structure of the field of State power happen, it is
perhaps not so surprising that schemes of perceptions also quickly change so that
single-payer universal health care/the suppression of a capital gain tax can move in a couple
of months from worthy to mention only to summarily dismiss as absurd to common sense.
Glen Tomkins 07.05.18 at 1:48 pm (no link)
I don't understand the problem. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Always. Simple
fact. What's to explain?
Alex Ameter 07.05.18 at 1:49 pm (no link)
American culture is terrifyingly guilty of this. The inability for an empire's people to
understand the concept of blowback when their nation's military incursions into the
surrounding world create deep sources of instability and trauma is one marker of empire in
decline.
That being said, the fact that free will is tenuous at best and humans are so easily
manipulated en masse gives me hope that the species might pull off long-term survival if it
finds the right balance between setting up mutually reinforcing beneficial mechanisms to
guide most human psyches and cultures into generally sustainable behavior and the chaos of a
free reality without socially enforced categorizations or narratives.
Bard the Grim 07.05.18 at 2:02 pm (no link)
I've never liked the wording of the proverbial "When the facts change ." Speaking as a
scientist and pedant, facts don't change. Circumstances, which are facts as a function of
time, can change. Evidence, which is fact revealed by observation, can change. When
discussing how opinions and interpretations change, it's helpful to make those distinctions.
Yan 07.05.18 at 2:50 pm (no link)
Political football @32: "we'd need to know who has changed "in the media, on social media,
among politicians, activists, and citizens"."
"A couple of comments reprimanded me about how Thomas had moved to the right in the 1950s, on
a path similar to Thomas Mann's. [ ] The pressure exerted during McCarthyism was immense and
it took almost superhuman strength to resist it"
I recently read a biography of Bayard Rustin, partially in the hope of getting some
insight into how to integrate civil rights / racial justice and comprehensive
social-democratic reform into one program. One might object: Rustin drifted towards the
neoconservative right in his later years -- did his theoretical framework already carry the
germ of accommodation in the 1960s/70s? But: how easy was it to resist the
neoliberal/Reaganite tide?
SusanC 07.05.18 at 3:37 pm (no link)
Yes, I agree the phenomenon is really interesting.
On the other hand, what other people think can be one of the facts that changed. This is
particularly true of variants of the "lesser evil argument" which were very much in evidence
before the last UK general election and the US presidential election.
If someone was saying, "Look, I know the left of the Democrats prefer Sander's policies,
but the important thing is defeating Trump, and Clinton has the best chance of doing that",
then they can in good faith claim that new facts -- we now know that Clinton didn't win
against Trump -- has caused them to have changed tactics, but their overall objective --
supporting anyone who looks like they could defeat Trump -- is basically unchanged.
The Guardian newspaper became significantly less anti-Corbyn once the general election
results were out (although it still regularly features attack pieces), which looks like
another instance of this.
This entire piece seems to be about big changes in attitude and opinion, leaving me a little
puzzled by the remark about "micro-shifts". But I guess the general drift is this:
the subtle coercions of new opinion, the ever-finer movements we all make to keep up
with the flow, so as not to be left behind.
You want to be engaged with the world, to be part of the conversation, which means you can
be influenced by the conversation, which means you may very well be exposed to some pressures
to conform.
Much like the later Thomas Mann, I have difficulty talking about the left without
quotations (though I'm more likely to use the adjective "lefty"). The present-day right is
certainly a mess, it may indeed have always been a mess (which as I take it is Corey Robin's
main theme) but there were times in the past when the left was also decidedly a mess (and in
some respects it still is [1])–
Why would you be shocked at the lack of intellectual integrity of someone who was a
Stalinist on into the 1940s? Myself, I have a lot of respect from someone like Chomsky who's
managed to be left-wing his entire life without indulging in apologies for Stalin or Mao.
These days, periodically you see someone try to do a i-was-a-righty-until-trump piece but
many people seem to view these with suspicion and regard them as phony ploys for attention of
some sort. We pay lip service to the idea that people should be open to intellectual
change– who could forget the genre where the author demonstrates open-mindedness with
ritual lists of "things I've changed my mind about" (um I see John Quiggin went there)–
but when actually confronted with someone who has changed their mind, the reaction is often
not very positive.
I have a tendency to use the Iraq war as a pundit-litmus test: In principle I'm willing to
continue reading a pro-invasion pundit, but I want to see them recant, and I want to read
their excuses– but really there isn't anything they can say that's going to impress me.
If they're blowing in the wind this badly, if they can ignore the obvious for the sake of
fitting in with the pack, it's unlikely they've got anything of value to add on anything.
[1] my standard example of present-day left-wing madness is the anti-nuclear power stance:
if Jerry Brown were really serious about global warming, he would not have had the Diablo
Canyon plant closed. I would feel happier about Ocasio-Cortez if she were in favor of clean
energy, rather than just "renewable".
Corey: "mainstream liberal opinion -- in the media, on social media, among politicians,
activists, and citizens micro-shifts that happen under the pressure of events the most
pressing fact that seems to change people's opinions is other people's opinions."
1. Most intellectuals aren't guided by intellect but by emotion like everyone else, and so
there is a lot of herd instinct especially in regard to politics.
2. I am not convinced that the media catalogue of mainstream opinion truly reflects the
most widely-held opinions. What is happening out here in the low-income suburbs seems more
amorphous and changeable.
3. A lot of the microshifts are evidence of a political emergence because a compromising
centrist Democrat failed, the new President is no such animal, and the Republican Party is
revealed to centrists as policy obstructionists with lots of false promises, now freely
aiming to destroy the safety-net and distort the justice system. My sense of it is that
consequently a lot more people now see that the time for compromising moderation is over
because it will never be reciprocated by the Republicans in Congress.
This goes along with our old thesis that both parties are breaking up; the only question
was which one would go first. Trump is destroying the Republicans and it opened the cracks
wider in the Democratic Party. Question now is whether the centrist Democrats have the brains
to accept the newbies.
4. Little noticed is that the "intellectuals" and Bernie supporters committed malpractice
by never emphasizing, enough to make it through the media noise, that Sanders' and now
Ocasio-Cortez's "socialism" is not "gov't ownership of the means of production" but rather
New Deal-style social democracy like any sane country. (Bernie's people acted as if everybody
should know this already, but of course they don't.) Next up, will the "intellectuals"
continue to commit malpractice by not helping Ocasio-Cortez explain through the media noise
how it can work?
Speaking as a social democrat who is anti – everything to do with neoliberalism and its
destruction of labour relations and economic safety nets, I was scolded relentlessly by a
brogressive pro-Sanders friend throughout the year of the US election (I'm an Australian, so
is he, so the level of animus was astonishing.) Some of the tropes thrown at me were: Since
you think HC is the least worst candidate, it means you endorse everything she's ever done,
it means you are in favour of neoliberalism, it means you just want to vote for a woman even
though we say Bernie's a better candidate, it means you are pro-war and want to kill Syrian
children, it means you're an elitist who just wants to support the haute bourgeoisie.. on and
on and on.
So fast forward to last week and guess what? of course I'm delighted by a self-described
social democratic (or democratic socialist which seems to be the current wording) winning a
primary. My principles haven't changed. They were just distorted and misrepresented by the
brogressive left. My friend would eagerly adopt the framing employed in the OP (that I've
belatedly seen the light about preferring a social democratic candidate), because of course
that makes him look wise and consistent, and me uneducated and fickle. I completely reject
that frame; it's false.
Mario 07.06.18 at 10:42 pm (no link)
The problem with the modern left is that it has very little political capital (oh, the word!)
apart from principles and morals. Back in the day there was a realistic alternative political
project, which, in principle, had something for everyone. Nowadays though there just isn't
such a project and the result is that all that is left really just is bare morals and
principles, and the resulting piety contests.
As a consequence, the left has, in practice, accepted capitalism as the baseline scenario
and is playing by its rules while pretending something else. (Back when the Damore memo hit
the waves, what really struck me was the idea that the google campus was a "liberal
environment". That was like reading that the death star in star wars was staffed by
budhists.)
The modern left can't provide a constructive answer to the problems of, say, the working
class. Such things are not even much on the radar. Note how trans rights and gender issues
(issues completely irrelevant to the wider population) absolutely dominate the discussion,
while the plight of the working poor, or the well-being of families, is mostly ignored.
Furthermore, many on the modern left use principles and morals as branding tokens (like
wearing Nike shoes, being vegan or driving a hybrid), and don't give much of a damn about
outcomes. That's why they can change opinions overnight without feeling much remorse: it's
not as if these ever were sincere opinions.
But gender is still a construct, no matter how desperately attached to performing their
preferred gender a given person is. That's where people go off the rails. We'll get back
there fairly soon, I'm sure. There are far too many cis men who want to be nice to their
kids and cis women who have ambition toward their careers for us to put up with this gender
role nonsense much longer.
If you pardon me – how do you suggest we negotiate who gets to get pregnant and/or
breast feed?
That "role nonsense" you so attack has reasons to exist. It's not just a whim of the folks
that just happened to be around recently on the planet. A political project that does not
acknowledge that is just plain misanthropy.
mclaren 07.08.18 at 2:23 am (no link)
Does Corey Robin admit how colossally and stupendously wrong he got the entire 2016
zeitgeist?
No? Well, then maybe we shouldn't listen to anything Corey Robin says.
One aspect of his argument that's completely unfair and unrealistic is that people have to
decide on whether to elect a politician or enact a social policy or an economic scheme before
they have any real experience-based empirical information of what the consequences will
be.
Consider: neoliberal globalization was proposed and debated on the basis of books like the
Toffler's Future Shock which got the future entirely wrong. The theory behind these
kind of futurist predictions sounded plausible. Ever-increasing rates of technological change
will result in people constantly moving around the country to new jobs, work will shift from
manufacturing to knowledge work, industries will die off and constantly be replaced by new
ones, the U.S. will offload its manufacturing to 3rd world countries and move to high-profit
knowledge work that will vastly increase the income of the average U.S. worker, and so on.
All completely wrong.
Mobility of workers in the USA has dropped to record lows because the interior of the USA
is now depopulating and mired in poverty and chronic drug addiction due to the destruction of
the middle class by shipping all the high-paid blue collar jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the
areas with high-paying jobs are on both coasts, where housing and everything else has become
so expensive average people can't afford to live there. But the high-paying coastal jobs are
really only for people with artificial licensing barriers to entry that protect their
professions, like doctors or lawyers or lobbyists or defense contractor liaisons who need
special security clearance or financial traders who need to live within 10 blocks of the
stock exchange because any farther away and their high-speed trading internet links will have
too much latency to execute 50,000 trades per second. And so on.
Nobody foresaw that knowledge work would collapse because entire movies or ebooks or music
CDs could be digitized and downloaded and sprayed all over the world with bittorrent. Nobody
foresaw that textbooks and tutorial videos could be digitized and sent to third world
countries where their population would whip our asses by producing centers of technological
innovation like Shenzen or Guangdong or the whole island of Taiwan. No one foresaw that
manufacturing processes prove essential to the very act of technological innovation, so that
when America offshored its factories to Asia, we also lost our ability to innovative
technologically, to the point where even if the USA wanted to bring back industries like iPad
manufacturing to the continential U.S., we couldn't do it because we don't have the essential
process technology engineering knowledge and skills.
So globalization sounded completely reasonable and sensible when it was proposed in the
1970s. Converting the USA to knowledge work seemed like a good economic model. Only in
retrospect does it become clear what a gigantic trainwreck it turned out to be, and why.
Likewise, I supported Obama when he ran in 2008. Obama ran on a bunch of progressive
policies. Single-payer healthcare. Shutting down the drug war. "Not doing stupid stuff." Then
Obama abandons single-payer for a disastrous mandate for-profit ACA system with zero cost
controls guaranteed to raise health insurance premiums limitless forever, and he starts
blowing up wedding parties with drones and prosecutes more whistleblowers than all other
presidents put together. That's not what I signed up for.
But how are voters supposed to know what a politician will really do until he's in office?
The people who voted for FDR voted for a moderate pol who ran on a policy of balancing the
budget. They got a radical progressive who experimented with all sort of wild policies,
including packing the Supreme Court, to find something that would work. That's not what
voters signed up for but it happened to be very successful.
The people who voted for Herbert Hoover voted for a world-famous humanitarian who was
renowned for his 1921 famine relief efforts. Anyone who studied Hoover's life would predict
that he would do a great job spearheading relief efforts for impoverished average workers
thrown onto the street when the Great Depression hit. Instead, Hoover sat around and tried to
rein in the tidal flow of red ink while the U.S. economy crashed and burned.
People change their minds because we live in a fog of uncertainty. No one has the
slightest idea of what the actual results of social or economic policies will be. For
example: crime has plummeted since 1990 in the U.S., but no one has the slightest idea why.
Crime was a huge issue in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s, and now it's turned out to be a
problem that mysteriously disappeared on its own. No experts predicted this, no experts have
been able to explain it. An awful lot of American history seems to work like this. People
convulse in frenzies of worry over some huge problem that then just disappears. (Cue the
deadly threat of the USSR or Erlich's "population bomb" of the 1960s or Thomas Malthus' dire
predictions or the myth of "future shock" or the worries of eugenics prophets of the 1920s or
the "yellow peril" predictions of late 19th century colonialis or our allegedly inevitable
rush toward thermonuclear armageddon because of the arms race of the 1950s/60s etc.)
Highly-educated experts with PhDs have demonstrated zero ability to predict the actual
real-world results of current trends or technology or socioeconomic policies. We live in a
world dominated by the Cobra Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
Efforts to pass this off on the high-school-educated population of the USA as some kind of
irrationality ("How eerie and unsettling it can seem when people change their minds") seem
infantile and jejune. How about: "How eerie and unsettling it can seem when highly educated
Ivy League PhDs' predictions and policies turn out to be gigantic trainwrecks that produce
the exact opposite of what was claimed and what was calculated in highly sophisticated
mathematical models"?
Larry Summers, anyone? The man responsible both for the rise of Putin (Summers and his
Harvard team blew up & wrecked the Russian economy in an epic debacle from 19911-1998)
_and_ Trump (Summers infamously urged Bill Clinton to deregulate the financial system and ram
through bad "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that turbocharged globalization and destroyed
the U.S. middle class, leading to a 1930s-style financial crash and mass impoverishment of
Americans exactly the kind of circumstances which, in the 1930s, led to the rise of fascism.
Which of course is what's happening today.
Yet our leaders still listen to ignorant incompetent clowns like Larry Summers with the
utmost respect and reverence. Maybe that's what really "eerie," not people changing their
minds when they discover that the results of the policies proposed by our elites turn out to
be the kind of destructive idiocy at which even a brain-damaged three-year-old would
rebel.
nastywoman 07.08.18 at 7:33 am (no link)
– and the following might be really worth repeating:
"Ever-increasing rates of technological change will result in people constantly moving
around the country to new jobs, work will shift from manufacturing to knowledge work,
industries will die off and constantly be replaced by new ones, the U.S. will offload its
manufacturing to 3rd world countries and move to high-profit knowledge work that will vastly
increase the income of the average U.S. worker, and so on. All completely wrong".
Mobility of workers in the USA has dropped to record lows because the interior of the USA
is now depopulating and mired in poverty and chronic drug addiction due to the destruction of
the middle class by shipping all the high-paid blue collar jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the
areas with high-paying jobs are on both coasts, where housing and everything else has become
so expensive average people can't afford to live there".
Yes?
"Converting the USA to knowledge work seemed like a good economic model".
Not – for anybody who know how few jobs "knowledge work" creates.
"So 'globalization sounded completely reasonable and sensible when it was proposed in the
1970s".
It's still "completely reasonable" for any "Producing Country" – where well paying
manufacturing jobs were kept.
"Only in retrospect does it become clear what a gigantic trainwreck it turned out to be,
and why".
Only in "Consuming Countries" -(like the US) – where the inequality of high paying
"knowledge work" and "Finance" and poor paying "service jobs" let to the trainwreck and the
funny idea that it is the fault of "trade" – while trade created million an million of
better and better paying jobs in "Producing Countries" – which could lead us to Mario
and @135
"For example, while it is mostly an illusion, the right offers jobs"
Yes –
it's mostly a illusion – as only "Producing Countries" offer jobs – while
"Consuming Countries" -(with their right wing idiots) – don't – or better said
they NEVER-EVER will offer enough "good" jobs to make our workers happy -(again)- and that's
why we need politicians like AOC!
And that IS – because we actually DON'T live in a fog of uncertainty??!
-(saying: Nearly everybody on CT knows how well "Social-Democratic Producing Countries"
work)
bruce wilder 07.11.18 at 8:53 am (no link)
many very interesting comments, but i find myself puzzled by the OP's implicit premises
concerning what politics as philosophical discourse is (the nature of the beast), and what it
would mean for an individual person to be "consistent" over time.
it seems to me that political discourse is a stream into which it is not possible to step
into at the same place twice. and, it also seems to me that political discourse always
reflects the panoply of human ambivalence amidst deep uncertainty about the consequences of
public choices conditioned against private actions. could anyone strive to either embody the
full range of ambivalence or be "right"? i think not.
our political opinions are in the nature of hedges: expressions of some thing we think we
"know" balanced against a background of things we choose not to focus on or fully consider.
and we bet our hedges socially, aligning with others on the basis of some portfolio of
salients, and in historical time, ephemeral salients at that. dare i add, for and against?
push-pull marching in step
the split that opened in the Democratic coalition in the 2016 primaries was just as
startling and rapid as the current spate of coming together.
It is significant that Presidents Putin and Trump have both spoken out against "haters"
among America's political establishment who would rather see conflict between Russia and the
United States instead of a normalization of bilateral relations.
Following their landmark, successful summit this week in Helsinki, Putin and Trump
separately made public comments deploring the hostile hysterical reaction emanating from broad
sections of the US political establishment and its dutiful, controlled news media.
Speaking in Moscow to his diplomatic corps, President Putin warned that there were "powerful
forces" within the US which are ready to sacrifice the interests of their country and indeed
the interests of world peace in order to pursue selfish ambitions.
For his part, Trump also slammed opponents in the US who "hated" to see him having a good
meeting with Putin. "They would rather see a major confrontation with Russia, even if that
could lead to war," said the American president.
That's it in a nutshell. Rather than welcoming the opening of a cordial dialogue between the
US and Russia, the American political establishment seems to desire the deepening of already
dangerous tensions between the world's two nuclear superpowers. If that's not deranged, then
what is?
Significantly, the hostile reaction was overwhelmingly on the American side. Russians, by
and large, welcomed the long-overdue summit between Trump and Putin, and the potential
beginning of a new spirit of dialogue and partnership on a range of urgent global problems.
Problems including arms control, nuclear proliferation, and working out political settlement to
conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Korea Peninsula.
Few people would believe that these problems can be resolved easily. But the main thing is
that the leaders of the US and Russia are at least attempting to open a dialogue for
understanding and political progress. That in itself is a breakthrough from the impasse in
bilateral relations which have frozen into a new Cold War since the previous US
administration.
We dare say that most citizens of the world would also endorse this effort by Trump and
Putin at improving the relations between the US and Russia.
Significantly too, according to recent polls, most ordinary Americans seem to be agreeable
or neutral about Trump's diplomatic engagement with Russia. According to a Gallup poll out this
week, the vast majority of US citizens are far more concerned by economic woes than they are by
anything untoward in American-Russian relations.
Thus, what we are seeing in the explosion of hostility towards the Trump-Putin summit is
twofold. It is an American phenomenon, and secondly, it is an angst that animates only the
political class in Washington and the news media corporations. This constituency, it is fair to
say, is an elite faction within the US, albeit extremely powerful, made up of Washington
politicos, the state intelligence apparatus, the corporate media and think tanks, and the deep
state establishment of imperial planners and strategists. In short, this constituency is what
some observers call the "War Party" that transcends the US ruling class.
Any reasonable person would have to welcome the friendly rapport engendered between Trump
and Putin, and at least their initial commitment to working together on major matters of global
security. The dangerous impasse of recent years in which dialogue was absent must be overcome
for the sake of world peace.
Nevertheless, what has become crystal clear this week following the Helsinki summit is the
"War Party" within the US is more determined than ever to sabotage any rapprochement with
Russia.
No sooner had Trump returned to the US, he was assailed with a tidal wave of vilification
for having met Putin in a mutual, agreeable manner. The most disturbing aspect was the
recurring slander denigrating Trump as a "traitor". The hysterical name-calling was conveyed by
all the major news media, citing former intelligence officials and politicians from both
Democrat and Republican parties.
Which again shows that in the US there is really only one party, the War Party.
President Trump was evidently forced into making an embarrassing U-turn over his views
expressed in Helsinki. He made an unconvincing disavowal of statements made alongside Putin.
Trump had been pilloried for appearing to dismiss allegations of Russian interference in the US
elections while he was in Helsinki. Within 24 hours, he was forced into making a retraction,
saying that he did – kind of – believe that Russia had meddled in US democracy.
What Trump was subjected to by the US establishment was akin to the worst years of
McCarthyite Red-Baiting as seen during the Cold War in the 1950s and 60s, when Americans were
mercilessly humiliated and ostracized for being "Communist sympathizers". Today, official
American paranoia is back with a vengeance. In truth, it never went away.
To be fair to Trump he has not completely capitulated to the American derangement syndrome.
He has since said that he is looking forward to holding a second meeting with his Russian
counterpart and continuing their promises of partnership as announced in Helsinki.
However, it is instructive that the American president is, in effect, being held hostage by
powerful elements in the US ruling class who view any kind of detente with Moscow as an
unforgivable betrayal.
Trump's instincts are correct that the whole so-called Russia-gate mania is a phony
contrivance. That has been orchestrated by the US establishment based on its refusal to accept
Trump's democratic mandate, as well as being based on an abiding hostility towards Russia as an
independent world power.
The object lesson here is that the scope for improving US-Russia relations is limited, in
spite of Trump's favorable personal inclinations.
An entrenched animosity towards Russia remains among the American War Party, and the current
president has evidently little room for implementing his avowed policy of normalizing
relations.
Russia therefore cannot place too much faith in making progress towards peaceful relations,
because all-too apparently President Trump has actually very little freedom to exercise his
democratic mandate. That is a damning indictment on the charade of American formal democracy. A
president is elected partly on the basis of peaceful engagement, but the unelected
powers-that-be have another agenda of conflict which they are pursuing come hell or high
water.
What's more, the American derangement syndrome is becoming even more virulent, as can be
adjudged from this week's hysterical backlash over the successful Helsinki summit.
Trump's willingness for dialogue with Russia is a welcome development. But the far more
disturbing development is the full-tilt belligerence and derangement on display among the
American political class. This American political chizophrenia is a clear and present danger to
world peace. American citizens are as much a victim of the madness as are Russians and the rest
of the world.
One positive aspect of the new phase of Cold War is that before it was largely concealed,
and deceived, as a simplistic bifurcated confrontation of Americans versus Russians. Today it
is evidently a situation of an American deranged elite versus the rest of the world, with the
latter including ordinary American citizens who have much more to gain from standing in
solidarity with Russian citizens.
"... By the way, I should note the date of that exchange with Jay: October 2008. We were still in the Bush era. The entire discussion -- of lies and facts, the disregard for facts, and such -- was framed by the Iraq War and the epic untruths that were told in the run-up to the war. It should give you a sense that the world of fake news that so many pundits seem to have suddenly awakened to as a newborn threat has been with us for a long time. The Bush era may seem like ancient history to some, but in the vast, and even not so vast, scheme of things, it was just yesterday. ..."
"... Once the facts aren't a threat to power, they can generally be revealed. ..."
"... Bush appeared confident the facts won't matter, after the invasion. They did matter–if you're just talking about the truth. The non-existence of the WMDs wasn't widely denied (though a few in the administration would try) –the fact was simply swept away because they weren't politically relevant anymore. ..."
"... Isn't that why everyone is saying we're in a 'post-truth' moment? ..."
"... Prior to this, an unsavory or humiliating or shameful or dangerous truth was extremely salient, and would be fuel for a response. It's partly the power of gaslighting – denying the obvious creates a sufficient level of confusion to let you keep going when normally others would stop you. ..."
"... I understand the difference between the two types of truth, truths of logic vs empirical facts that are contingent, but I think the difference between the liar and the sophist is mostly nonexistent. People who lie about empirical facts are also unwilling to follow chains of logic if they don't want to accept the necessary conclusion. ..."
As Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism , "The ideal
subject of totalitarian rule ... [are] people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction
(ie the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (ie the standards of
thought) no longer exist."
By the way, I should note the date of that exchange with Jay: October 2008. We were still in
the Bush era. The entire discussion -- of lies and facts, the disregard for facts, and such --
was framed by the Iraq War and the epic untruths that were told in the run-up to the war. It
should give you a sense that the world of fake news that so many pundits seem to have suddenly
awakened to as a newborn threat has been with us for a long time. The Bush era may seem like
ancient history to some, but in the vast, and even not so vast, scheme of things, it was just
yesterday.
Ray Vinmad 07.16.18 at 8:11 am (no link)
"Should enough people come to believe the liar's claim, the facts about which he lies could
be lost from the world forever. "
This isn't what happens, usually. When the interests connected to the lies change, then
the truth is usually admitted. In the US, the truth often becomes irrelevant, even if real
horrors are admitted to. Americans are fairly disinterested in the dirty particles of most of
the nation's past.
Once the facts aren't a threat to power, they can generally be revealed.
That's not to say that certain false narratives won't be retained, but the revival of
these is generally shaped to current interests, and even if lies are borrowed from the past,
the main way they get a hold on the present is because they serve certain interests.
Bush appeared confident the facts won't matter, after the invasion. They did
matter–if you're just talking about the truth. The non-existence of the WMDs wasn't
widely denied (though a few in the administration would try) –the fact was simply swept
away because they weren't politically relevant anymore.
In these cases, it seems that salience or irrelevance is a better way to understand what's
driving the weak practical impact of the facts rather than truth or falsity.
Isn't that why everyone is saying we're in a 'post-truth' moment? Trump's trick is to make his story the salient
story, and his denials have a way of disabling or thwarting action, even when people are fully aware of the truth. Except for
the total fanatics, Trump's enablers are vaguely or even completely aware they are operating on a lie. What matters isn't that
the claims are factual disprovable but that they drive action toward the pursuit of particular interests, and disable action
that harms those interests.
Prior to this, an unsavory or humiliating or shameful or dangerous truth was extremely
salient, and would be fuel for a response. It's partly the power of gaslighting – denying
the obvious creates a sufficient level of confusion to let you keep going when normally
others would stop you.
There's something odious and misleading in the way you distinguish between types of truth and
their role in politics, though I can't put my finger on it, and perhaps whatever error I
can't quite describe might explain why you fell for Trump so neatly, but perhaps part of it
can be easily seen here:
Having staked his presidency on the claim that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction, he's going to have to wage war against Iraq in order to eliminate those
weapons.
This gets the nature of Bush's lies completely wrong. He wanted to invade Iraq and he knew
he could lie his way into it because of the way American politics rewards muscular action and
militarism, and because of the recklessness of his political supporters. He didn't stake his
presidency on a lie, he staked his presidency on a war and lied his way into it. In 2008 did
you really believe bush had been sincere about his belief in wmds?
This definition of lies here seems weird and unnecessary.
Donald 07.16.18 at 4:18 pm (no link)
I understand the difference between the two types of truth, truths of logic vs empirical
facts that are contingent, but I think the difference between the liar and the sophist is
mostly nonexistent. People who lie about empirical facts are also unwilling to follow chains
of logic if they don't want to accept the necessary conclusion.
That aside, I think politics is full of lies because the system collapses otherwise. I
think this ties in with the endless debate people have here about Trump and Trump's
opposition. Like Hidari in the other thread, I think Trump's war crimes ( listed below) are
far more significant morally speaking than Russiagate, but in our political system collusion
with a foreign power in dirty tricks during a political campaign is much easier to attack
than war crimes and US complicity in genocide. Both political parties would collapse if we
started holding politicians of both parties along with various government officials
accountable. We have a functioning democracy by some definition of " functioning" precisely
because we allow the biggest crimes to be treated as policy choices and not crimes, while
pretending that the worst crime an American politician has or could commit would be to
collude with a foreign power in stealing some emails to embarrass the other party.
For those curious, Trump's biggest war crimes are the bombing of civilians in Iraq and
Syria and the assistance to the Saudi assault on Yemen. According to the Airwars site the
killing of civilians by our bombs increased dramatically under Trump, probably because of
loosened restrictions. The policy in Yemen continues what Obama did. In both cases it isn't
just the President who is guilty, unless Obama and Trump singkehandedly carry out all
functions of our government in the Mideast. Holding them accountable would mean holding a lot
of other people accountable.
michael 07.16.18 at 6:06 pm (no link)
This is the first intelligent thing Robin has written, in my view. It also helps me formulate
more explicitly some of my longstanding discomfort with Arendt, which is rooted in the way
her predilection for natality leads her to posit a rather simplistic political ontology.
After all, we do not enter politics with a given floor and horizon; politics is about which
floor and which horizon does and should exist. This is what makes factual truth coercive: not
its validity, but its tendency to impose rather than set out from a set of political givens.
Which is to say, natality is always already operating within the status quo; it is not
introduced there by "politics."
I know I have in the past quoted from Twitter (which would seem to be where the most
interesting conversations are nowadays, as opposed to the blogosphere) but Branko Milanovic
has some interesting insights (he also has the inestimable advantage of not coming from the
UK/US/Australasia AKA the 'Anglosphere': he has more of a cosmopolitan sensibility).
His basic point is that you really can't understand Trump unless you look at what came
before his (Frederic Jameson: 'Always historicise!'). Since Thatcher/Reagan (and Clinton and
Blair were not really much different) we have been taught to look up to 'entrepreneurs' as
'wealth creators'. Or, to put it another way, to obsequiously grovel to semi-earned wealth
and power. But politics, we were told, floated above the grubby world of 'material interests'
like a soap bubble.
Trump tears the veil aside. He doesn't govern on behalf of capitalists as Thatcher/Blair
and the rest did. He IS a capitalist. And he self-evidently became President to help his
business interests (including, yes, those in Russia. But that's probably as far as the Russia
thing goes). This is terribly disturbing for liberals, who have been taught to see
'capitalist' ('liberal' is normally the euphemism) 'democracy' as being merely a neutral
description of the 'mode of production' of our current set up, as opposed to being a harsh
description of political realities: politicians are allowed to govern insofar as their
policies benefit capitalists.
Hence to talk about Trump lying is like talking about an advert 'lying'. Do adverts 'lie'?
Of course to a certain extent. But then they were never supposed to tell the truth. Their
purpose is to sell a product. Truth is irrelevant.
Every word that comes out of Trump's mouth is to help Trump PLC. It's true (sic) that some
of his statements are false. But to assess it in these terms is like to point out that
Heineken is not, in fact, probably the best lager in the world, or that one should not, in
fact, necessarily Drinka Pinta Milka day.
Again, I think this is what disturbs people. Bush et al, consciously lied. Trump I don't
think he knows what truth is, and I don't think he cares. What boosts profits that's what's
good and true.What doesn't isn't good (or true).
But these are the value of capitalism, and Trump is, in this sense, the logical end
product of where Western society has been heading since 1979 (1981 in the 'States).
Orange watch, the order of the claim seems important to me. Stumbling into a war because you
told a lie about a possible cause of a war ends all the other options to deal with it dried up
is one thing; setting up a war and lying your way into it is a different thing. Eg you decide
to cheat on your wife and set up an incredibly thin lie to do it, versus you have a habit of
lying to your wife that ultimately ends with you having a chance at an affair.
Also the empirical difference between these types of liar seems irrelevant. Everyone who
lied about the true cause of the war also lied about basic facts like global warming. As the
commitment to one kind of lie has grown so has the magnitude oft he other kind. Why waste
time distinguishing? And why did Arendt? The liars of her time lied in both ways as well.
AND somebody -(even if it is "not actually being a U.S. citizen) needed to point to "the
truth" of this:
"He wanted to invade Iraq and he knew he could lie his way into it" – as lying in
politics is (sadly) nothing but "another tool" or "another strategy" to get what any
-"political actor" (even some of the lesser evil) – want.
And the Sawyer-Bush example is about the best example for this fact:
"Sawyer: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed
to the possibility that he [Saddam] could move to acquire those weapons.
Bush: So what's the difference?"
For somebody who wants to start a war – or wants to become US President? – and
who realizes that the best "strategy" in ending up with "a war" or "becoming US President"
-is lying -(day and night) – lying becomes just a a very "practical solution"
– (especially if the liar is dealing with a bunch of people who might believe that "France
isn't France anymore" – if just a Clownsticks tells them)
And I fear that by conflating the above described type of liar with "the type of liars
described in the OP – WE may have allowed the virtues – or at least the charms
– of the ones to obscure the vices of the others.
In "Lying in Politics," Arendt writes:
A characteristic of human action is that it always begins something new, but this does not
mean that it is ever permitted to start ab ovo, to create ex nihilo. In order to make room
for one's own action, something that was there before must be removed or destroyed, and
things as they were before are changed. Such change would be impossible if we could not
mentally remove ourselves from where we are physically located and imagine that things might
as well be different from what they actually are. In other words, the ability to lie, the
deliberate denial of factual truth, and the capacity to change facts, the ability to act, are
interconnected; they owe their existence to the same source, imagination."
So she directly links lying to natality. And this paragraph, like much of her work,
describes what she takes to be the ontological conditions of politics. That is what she is
doing when she invokes "something that was there before," furnishing the ground for action.
And this in turn commits her to a view of the "already there" which is not itself political,
as she herself defines the term.
I completely agree that Stevenson likely has it all wrong meta-ethically. But my point was
that I was offering an explanation to describe what Trump, Giuliani, etc. are engaging in,
even if they don't know they're doing it. Emotivism is an attempt to explain what we usually
denote as moral language and behavior. It maintains that moral language and action amount to
the expression of emotional attitudes and nothing more. Therefore, beyond the fact that an
individual or group has some attitudes, there is nothing left for morality to do but for
individuals and groups to try and influence one another in attitude–to achieve
agreement in attitude. Any means to do so–lies and bullshit–are legitimate to try
and achieve agreement in attitude. Just listen to Trump's crowds. They don't care what he
says, or what he does, they just feel that he "gets" how they feel–shared attitudes. If
that's the case, then the Trump phenomenon might be best explained as reflecting a practical
embrace of such expressivism. Again, I have no claim to anything approaching political
expertise here–I'm just advancing a way of looking at the Trump phenomenon conceptually
to see if it's at all helpful.
16: "Such change would be impossible if we could not mentally remove ourselves from where
we are physically located and imagine that things might as well be different from what they
actually are. In other words, the ability to lie, the deliberate denial of factual truth, and
the capacity to change facts, the ability to act, are interconnected; they owe their
existence to the same source, imagination.""
This reminds me a lot of modern management speak: "Everybody said it was impossible
until someone came along who didn´t know that .. and just did it!"
To me, Arendt's claim makes no sense. Yes, mentally removing oneself from reality to
imagine a different one is difficult but it's not lying, it's not denial of reality.
Imagination isn't synonymous with delusion. I'll counter this weird idealistic view with Rosa
Luxemburg's materialism (quoting Ferdinand Lassalle): "Wie Lassalle sagte, ist und bleibt es immer die revolutionärste Tat: "laut zu sagen,
was ist"".
The most revolutionary act is to say loudly what is (what is true).
Btw Michael what do you mean by "natality"? It literally means birth rate, no?
Any means to do so–lies and bullshit–are legitimate to try and achieve
agreement in attitude.
It is empirically obvious that people use lies and bullshit in attempts to try and achieve
agreement in attitude; but the statement quoted is made different from that empirical
observation by the introduction of the word 'legitimate', which in this context is moral
language. Those who affirm that it is legitimate to use lies and bullshit to achieve
agreement in attitude reveal their moral bankruptcy. On an emotivist theory, that statement
expresses my moral attitude; what I have to say about that is that yes, it does express my
moral attitude, and if your moral attitude differs from mine on that point, what do you
suggest we do about it?
Arendt's NYRB piece, kindly linked @13, holds this very interesting nugget [for footnoting
-- see original]: As regards the domino theory, first enunciated in 1950 and permitted to survive, as it has
been said, the "most momentous events": To the question of President Johnson in 1964, "Would
the rest of Southeast Asia necessarily fall if Laos and South Vietnam came under North
Vietnam control?" the CIA's answer was, "With the possible exception of Cambodia, it is
likely that no nation in the area would quickly succumb to Communism as a result of the fall
of Laos and South Vietnam." When five years later the Nixon Administration raised the same
question, it "was advised by the Central Intelligence Agency that [the United States] could
immediately withdraw from South Vietnam and 'all of Southeast Asia would remain just as it is
for at least another generation.' "According to the study, "only the Joint Chiefs, Mr. Rostow
and General Taylor appear to have accepted the domino theory in its literal sense,"and the
point here is that those who did not accept it still used it not merely for public statements
but as part of their own premises as well.
Insightful but who do you believe?? James does make many good points but without confirmation from another or two people, i.m
just wondering who is telling the truth. Still something fishy here and I think both parties are full of BS and probably James
as well. But only time will tell when historians can weed through all the smoke and mirrors
This is an interesting read. In years gone I wouldn't have been interested but the current political climate in the US is such
that I felt it worth a read. The polarity in the system and its players appears beyond what I'd expected and while there appears
to be corruption in most systems, it's amazing the Americans have been able to present an appearance of decency and leadership
this long. I guess the vail is down now and the current administration is showing just how broken and morally bankrupt the place
is and has been for a long time.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, the desire for power corrupts the very fabric of humanity
I think the title says it all, Comey has only one true loyalty and that is to himself. I enjoyed this book. It was insightful
trip through the mind of a psychopath. His deviations from procedure, his lies, half truths and lawyerisms litter the book and
highlight the forces that have corrupted this nation and agencies we rely on.
Its clear that Comey did not act independently but with the tacit guidance and approval of those above him. He makes no admission
of guilt about his demonstrated lies, but rathers blames others. His self inflated ego is too commonplace to those who have worked
in Washington DC among various political agencies and dens where politicians and their allies lurk. The book betrays no empathy
for those he shamelessly prosecuted. The book is laden with attempts at manipulation through lies, half truths, and gross distortions.
On one hand I highly recommend this book because it is sure to become the "textbook" on psychopaths and their characteristics.
On the other hand this book serves as a cautionary warning about ambition run wild, corruption at the highest levels of government,
the abuse of power. No author could pen such a novel. As an exhibit it ranks with 1984 as a warning of what evil men do in the
name of "a higher good."
This is a lying, childish, self-serving, narcissistic, money grab from a partisan author who can't even keep his story straight.
His interviews contradict his book and this book is probably illegal in that it talks about an ongoing sham "investigation" that
isn't even an investigation, it's an investigation to find something to investigate.
I went into this book with an open mind after seeing Mr Comey on alot of the morning shows. I didn't like the way he seemed
to be trying to be "holier than thou" regardless of which political he was answering to. It did, in the other hand, explain what
he was thinking on some of his decisions on some of the moves he made during the election season. But truly it just read like
he was making a lot of excuses and sour grapes. I didn't enjoy this book at all. I had to force myself to finish it. I just didn't
think it was very well written.
There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it
If you read the "Author's Note" on the first page of this book, it will tell you all you need to know about this smug arrogant
self righteous man. It reads, "WHO AM I TO TELL others what ethical leadership is?" If you read the book, you may come to the
same conclusion as I did. There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it.
You could read that first sentence and be done with it and you would get as much out of the book without reading more.
Just a book filled with Hatred of a former employee. The people who defend this guy are the same people who accused him of
violating the Hatch Act when he announced a few days prior to the election that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation.
I must admit I was touched at nearly drawn to tears when he details the lost of his newborn son. However that does not change
the fact that Comey is a liar. James Comey:'I don't leak.'(In a memo that he leaked.)
This book is second only to What Happened by Hillary Clinton in self-serving drivel. It started out interesting enough with
Cindy's work history, but once he got to the subject of his (supposed) interactions with President Trump, it was downhill from
there. It will be interesting to see what he has to say now in light of the FBI's possible spying on the Trump campaign. I'm just
glad I read it in Overdrive and didn't waste my own money.
A higher loyalty would be to the country - not the ego of a sad individual that hates the president. Love him or hate him the
president is leading the country in a direction that shows promise. The electorate can throw him out after 4 years, just like
it rejected the previous 8 years. In the meantime all Americans should be praying for the president's success and the success
of the country. That's loyalty......
Don't waste your money, Jim wants go for sainthood
Comey is extremely bright, and knows how ( or thinks he does) how to convince his readers he is one step down from sainthood.
I am not that naieve. He could have done away with the first ten chapters, where he was born and what he wore growing up was irrelevant.
I knew what he was doing. It annoyed me. He is absolutely blameless in everything.
Having dinner with Donald ALONE four times, making sure he made a EXTENDIVE note of it and gave it to another " means nothing.
The head of the FBI does NOT meet with the president alone. Saying he did not know what to do each time insults my intelligence.
He is sport on correct what he wrote " in my opinion " about Trump, but, everyone knew all this and it was on the last 4 chapters.
Jim wanted to tell his story, simple as that. Don't waste your money, I did there is not one thing that you do not already
know, if you know politicks .
I really liked the first part of this book, learning about Comey and his background. At some point though, he started to rationalize
and justify his actions and seemed to get on a high horse about defending the reputation of the FBI no matter what. I disagree
with the premise that the honor of the FBI is more important than truth and integrity.
Comey explains that he did the things he did for the greater good of the FBI. Look where we are now. By his actions alone,
Trump won the election and is now daily attacking the FBI and the DOJ. Is this the outcome Comey really wanted? And where is he
beloved FBI's reputation now?
Comey is an excellent writer. No errors or mistakes and a very readable book. He has a sense of humor, but is a little full
of himself. When he got into the rationalization of his actions, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading.
I really didn't enjoy this book very much. Only the last two chapters were addressed to the problems with Trump. The rest of
the book was rather boring, mainly talking about how his career progressed, etc. If I had known what this book contained I would
never have bought it. Comey's many TV interviews were misleading in what the majority of the content was. I do not recommend this
book at all.
China is enjoying this as the Dems distract us without real evidence about Russia collusion
we are being blindsided by them. Funny how Brennan a former communist sympathizer who voted
for Gus Hall in 1976 is crying treason. Wow.
Brennan, who voted for the US Communist Party candidate in the 1976 election, is screaming
the treason hyperbole because the CIA is most likely the origin of the Russia Collusion
farce:
"According to one account, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer
2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at
"director level". After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and
intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation."
BTW, Hannigan resigned for the usual "family reasons" the Monday after Trump was sworn
in.
It now appears that there were three dossier versions, all coming via different unofficial
channels, outside the intel community channels which was therefore unvetted. Many suspect
they were all from the same source coming in from different angles to create a false
impression of legitimacy.
What we are going to find out when Trump declassifies everything after the mid-term
election, regardless of whether or not the Dems take the House and try to impeach him, is
that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act put in place after the revelations of
COINTELPRO wasn't adequate protection against the serious misuse of power.
The reason Trump won't declassify now is obvious – if you think screams of
interference/obstruction are loud now, just watch after he does that, something which would
harm the Reps in the mid-terms because any revelations buried within would take time to dig
out and would suppressed as much as possible by the incredibly biased media.
The DOJ/FBI stalling in providing the documents demanded by Congress is an obvious
stalling tactic in the hope that the Dems take the house in the mid-terms. If Clinton had won
as everyone expected, we'd have never heard about any of this which is why they thought they
could get away with it.
Why is anyone surprised ? Peter Strzok is still employed by the fbi and now works in the
human resources department where he can determine the fitness of prospective agents to do their
job with integrity and accuracy . The rat determines who will get a raise and promotion based
on their performance within the fbi ? This would be morbidly humorous if it wasn't the sick
truth .
If he's not doing the quarterly training, then legally he does NOT have Top Secret
clearance. I have a Top Secret Security Clearance and if I come within 2 weeks of the quarterly
training deadline, I get warning after warning until it's done. Since he's not employed by the
Feds anymore, I can't see any way he can legally have the clearance.
John Brennan running psyops. Psychological operations are planned operations to convey
selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and
objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and
individuals. Cia and deep state totally corrupt
Yes Tucker he is a 25 year veteran of the CIA who served under Clinton and Bush and Obama.
You seemed to forget that fact. And he is a Independent another fact you forgot. Just like you
forgot to mention how you and the rest of Fox praised him when he served under Bush during the
Enhanced Integrations. And I never heard you complain once about a former C.I.A Director keep
his Security Clearance while he sat on the Caryle group with Bin Ladens father and who's son
was President of the United States in George Bush.
Brennan, Clapper and Hayden are a threat to our national security. These 3 disgraced clowns
are an example of how low America's intelligence agencies have sunk. The US intelligence
community has become politically weaponized and is working against the interests of US
citizens. The president needs to take action NOW!
You know what? I love POTUS BUT this is unacceptable Mr. President. You have the power to
revoke all these violations of security clearances. You have the power to declassify all the
documents and memos! Please Mr. President! Stop listening to your attorneys and look at this
situation with the grit and common sense the world trusts you have!
If only we had more Senators like Senator Rand Paul. He has common sense & it gives me
hope for my children & grandchildren. The world is unstable (Africa refugees & So
America) after Obama & Bush years. BTW Bruce Ohr is still in the FBI. see White House Soft
Coup (Sekulow)
He visited Kaaba; non-muslims are not allowed there. HENCE, it's true that he is a secret
convert (when he studied at the American University in Cairo, Egypt in 1970s)
Brennan is pissed off because his work has been rejected and not wanted!!! The underworld is
now awake!! And can't let the religious terrorism dominate the world!! Europe needs to wake up
instead of supporting the terrorist Islamic medieval Regime of Iran by the misuse of JCPOA!!!
40 yrs of terror and massacre is enough!! Dont you think so???
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and
the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a
(virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.
One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A
situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far
still does not add up to the
disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.
The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the
military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want
more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital
does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support
Trump and his policies:
[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters
when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said
they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a
hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled
the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded
these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties
conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.
The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and
long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated
target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless
weapons.
Trump does not buy the
nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not
believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.
Trump grand foreign policy is following a
realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese
camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia
out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better
tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.
Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes"
in holding a friendly summit with Putin.
It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire
political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.
Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for
a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five
assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit
now".
Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John
Kelly rallied
others against him:
According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not
respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker
Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.
Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia
included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed
interview for that:
The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's
team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare
him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and
was comfortable talking with her.
Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment
-- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides
present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the
intelligence community.
FBI Director Wray also
undermined his boss' position:
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a
"straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat
remained active.
A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his
president's policy:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement
about new military aid to Ukraine:
"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its
illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish
to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to
Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations
with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."
Pat Lang
thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who
is overseeing the Mueller investigation.
My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in
Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and
is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter
stage.
But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political
appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.
The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who
leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in
that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for
him.
Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but
publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their
rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the
lawful policy directives of their higher up.
All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies.
But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and
doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating
their policies to him.
It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work
'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these
people or the borg will have won.
The iron law became a central theme in the study of organized labour , political parties , and pluralist
democracy in the postwar era. Although much of this scholarship basically confirmed Michels's
arguments, a number of prominent works began to identify important anomalies and limitations to the
iron law framework. Seymour Lipset , Martin Trow,
and James
Coleman 's analysis of the International
Typographical Union (ITU), for example, showed that sustained union democracy was possible
given printers' relative equality of income and status, mastery of communication skills, and
generalized political competence, which underpinned the ITU's unusual history of enduring
two-party competition (Independents and Progressives), which mirrored the American two-party system . In the
party literature, Samuel Eldersveld argued that the power of organizational elites in Detroit
was not nearly as concentrated as the iron law would suggest. He found party power relatively
dispersed among different sectors and levels, in a "stratarchy" of shifting coalitions among
component groups representing different social strata.
"... Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? ..."
"... There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason? ..."
Who is actually in charge over there, among the Borg? And how much in charge? They cannot function yet as the collective electronic
mind of science fiction, can they?
Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? That looks very
much like an act of desperation. There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but
who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public
supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason?
Who are the 'globalists' actually and which is their chain of command? Which positions do Soros, Bezos, CIA-MI6 have? What
is the role of Mossad?
As it appears, after the ascendance of Trump, the actors are not sure themselves anymore about any of this, that is about who
is in charge, or in particular about how much authority and insurance their actual real-life handlers do possess and vouch for.
They waver, in the case of media hysterically so.
"The Intelligence Community", in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the circus, in collaboration with MI6 and
the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that
they are perhaps little more a paper tiger by now? If this fact, with the help of Trump and allies, would be perceived clearer
by the political classes of the USA, much good would be the result.
Throughout the day before the
summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: "Just by
Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead."
The Sunday headline was in harmony with the
tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the
dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is "an implacably
hostile foreign adversary."
Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme.
Mainline U.S.
journalists and top Democrats often bait President Donald Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary
Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her
tweet
Sunday night:
"Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?"
A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not
give it a second thought -- and that makes it all the more hazardous.
After President George
W. Bush declared "You're either with us or against us," many Americans gradually realized what was
wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.
Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent
of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro -- "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark,
usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition," in the words of Wikipedia.
The
Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and
victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).
Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way.
But other selectively
fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and
Russia as an angelic victim.
Those governments and their conformist media outlets are
relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist
I.F.
Stone
observed long ago, "All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed." In
other words: don't trust, verify.
Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such
key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia's borders since the fall of
the Berlin Wall, or the
brazen
U.S. intervention
in Russia's pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government's 2002
withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases
overseas -- in contrast to Russia's nine.
For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last
week by The Nation magazine:
"No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the
consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a
thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not
worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false."
The initial 26 signers of the open letter "
Common
Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security
" included Pentagon Papers whistleblower
Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill
Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame,
activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House
counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F.
Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor
Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services
Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)
Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from
a
petition
already
signed by 45,000 people
. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the
digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now "vulnerable to would-be hackers based
anywhere" -- and for taking "concrete steps to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers."
We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won't be
initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make
their voices heard.
The lives -- and even existence -- of future generations are at stake in the
relationship between Washington and Moscow.
Many of the petition's grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are
a few of my favorites:
* From Nevada: "
We all share the same planet! We better learn how to do it safely or
face the consequences of blowing ourselves up!
"
* From New Mexico: "The earth will not survive a nuclear war. The weapons we have today are
able to cause much more destruction than those of previous eras. We must find a way to common
ground."
* From Massachusetts: "
It is imperative that we take steps to protect the sanctity
of our elections and to prevent nuclear war anywhere on the earth
."
* From Kentucky: "Secure elections are a fundamental part of a democratic system. But this
could become meaningless in the event of thermonuclear war."
* From California: "
There is only madness and hubris in talk of belligerence toward
others, especially when we have such dangerous weapons and human error has almost led to our
annihilation already more than once in the past half-century
."
Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably
the
"Russiagate"-obsessed
network
MSNBC
,
keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism
. The line of
march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey
Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of
militarism."
Meanwhile, as Dr. King said,
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence
or violent coannihilation."
My Father in law is one of the last of the Iwo Jima Marines...he is still of
sound mind, enough to say,
it takes far more courage for a man to solve a
conflict peacefully then to end it violently.
What sickness lies in the
hearts and minds of these people beating the drums of war is beyond me,
especially knowing none of them would ever risk their own lives. Add that to your
definition of Tyranny.
"Fun experiment: of those old enough, how many today who believe the "Trump is a Russian
asset" story, in 2003 believed the Iraq has WMD story? 'Cause the source who lied to you in
2003, the intel community, is your same source today."
Growing up as I did in the Nixon/Vietnam era, I developed a skepticism of the 'official'
story, something that served me well through Iran contra, incubator babies being tossed to
the floor, and WMD's (a skepticism reinforced at the time by Scott Ritter, among others). As
I recall, the WMD story was less a failure of intelligence as much as an administration
insisting on so-called 'stovepiped' intelligence to sell their war to an American public
through a mostly compliant MSM.
Regardless, my conclusion that Trump is a "Russian asset" is a result of my belief that
Trump- who has yet to disclose the financial information that would disprove that belief- is
reliant on Russian money, some or all of it organized crime related, to sustain his 'empire',
and that there is significant overlap between the Russian mob and the Russian government.
His actions as president haven't done anything to dispel me of my belief that he is a
'Russian asset', including his traitorous behavior this past week.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
"... By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and power remains safe and sound. ..."
It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or
story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows for
simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without
examination.
Here's an ad about COCs (PDF) from
1942. They're used for tanning leather, in soaps and perfumes, as insect repellents, for
dying cloth, as antiseptics, and for many, many other commercial and industrial
purposes.
Damn those Syrian butchers for dropping perfume on civilians!
Fake News is the 21st century version of Conspiracy Theory.
It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or
story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows
for simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without
examination.
@The Voice In the
Wilderness In the dim reaches of pre-history, when Walter Cronkite was reporting, a
real journalist wouldn't report that someone launched a chemical weapons attack unless the
journalist had at least two credible, independent sources providing solid evidence that the
story was true. Newspaper editors and television producers knew their reputations were on the
line and that their competitors would make sure the egg on their face stuck if they reported
something blatantly wrong.
Nowadays, there are no competitors, because journalists and news outlets are mostly
hanging out together in one big cheery cartel, every member of which will defend every other
member to protect the reputation of the whole. The goal is not to outdo competitors and gain
more eyeballs or a greater distribution or greater authority over public opinion. The goal is
to defend the status quo by any means necessary, while somehow maintaining the credibility of
the press.
But no, they shouldn't have published a story that Assad had launched a chemical weapons
attack unless they had a significant amount of solid evidence that it was true.
I have a hard time understanding how people can even begin to credit this crap, given how
close it is to what they told us about Saddam Hussein. But it's actually even worse, because
at least Hussein did, at one time, use chemical weapons on the Kurds. I mean, at least he did
it once, even if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction ready to aim at Israel, or the
Saudis, or the U.S.
#7
It was big news. But failure to report it as false with just as much (or more) attention
and timing was journalistic malpractice. They should have been outraged to have been
conned into spreading false propaganda. IF they were legitimate journalists.
@Cant Stop the
Macedonian Signal
I don't know that anyone waits for confirmation anymore. And the two sources could
be the CIA and VOA or one of their tame journalists.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. After they all jumped on Saddam's WMD one can
hardly compare them with Cronkite.
I do remember web blogs asking to please wait for the UN inspectors report. When that
report did come out, anyone with integrity, even if not a professional journalist, would have
highlighted that report and retracted the original and not figuratively bury it on page
56.
But we are substantially together on this. They reported is as fact not as an
unsubstantiated claim.
Chomsky's Five News Filters: A little dated but a good starting point.
The first filter is Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. Mainstream
media is essentially owned by corporations and the government, because those are the very
agents who fund them. Any favourable studies, studies or information that the government or
corporations want the public to know (or don't want them to know) either ends up being aired
or buried as a result.
The second filter is Advertising License to do Business. Mass media isn't interested in
attracting viewers to educate them, but rather to sell them on something. They're more
interested in engaging an audience with higher buying power than actually making a difference
through education and information. Chomsky provides an excellent example, explaining: "CBS proudly tells its shareholders that while it "continuously seeks to maximize audience
delivery," it has developed a new "sales tool" with which it approaches advertisers: "Client
Audience Profile, or CAP, will help advertisers optimize the effectiveness of their network
television schedules by evaluating audience segments in proportion to usage levels of
advertisers' products and services." In short, the mass media are interested in attracting
audiences with buying power, not audiences per se."
The third filter is Sourcing Mass-Media News. Whatever is aired on mass media needs to be
100% credible, meaning it's viewers need to completely trust what's being aired, without the
need of them using their critical thinking skills. Since the majority of the public trusts
the government and mass corporations, AKA the propaganda machines, most of the "news worthy"
content comes from them. Plus, whatever's aired needs to be approved by corporations or the
government and/or mass media must avoid airing anything that would offend their contributors
and funders.
The fourth filter is Flak and the Enforcers. "Flak" refers to negative responses to a
media statement or program aired on the network. Perhaps the most influential producers of
flak are corporations and the government. Corporations have created large scale organizations
whose sole purpose is to produce flak. The government is also a large producer of flak, as it
constantly corrects or threatens the media based on their interests.
The final filter is Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism. Everything at home seems to be a
lesser evil if there's something on the news that seems much worse (fake terrorist attacks,
false enemies, and/or "radical" states). Anything that sounds too left can also be dismissed
if it sounds too much like "communism." By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the
elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and
power remains safe and sound.
@fakenews
namely big, opinion-policing non-profits and their lobbyists and followers, ranging from
religious denominations, to AIPAC and the NRA, to the ADL and SPLC.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
Looks like MIC is a cancel of the society for which there is no cure....
While this jeremiad raises several valid point the key to understanding the situation should
be understanding of the split of the Us elite into two camp with Democratic party (representing
interests of Wall Street) and large part of intelligence communality fighting to neoliberal
status quo and Pentagon, some part of old money, part of trade unions (especially rank and file
members) and a pert of Republican Party (representing interests of the military) realizing that
neoliberalism came to the natural end and it is time for change which includes downsizing of the
American empire.
This bitter internal struggle in which neoliberals so far have an upper hand over Trump
administration and forced him into retreat.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia. ..."
"... The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect. ..."
"... Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant. ..."
"... They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. ..."
"... The Supply-Side Revolution ..."
"... When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care." ..."
"... Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War. ..."
"... Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. ..."
"... There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief. ..."
"... The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. ..."
"... Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. ..."
"... What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is. ..."
"... The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. ..."
"... As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton. ..."
"... So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged. ..."
"... Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned. ..."
"... Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. ..."
"... It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor. ..."
The US Democratic Party is determined to take the world to thermo-nuclear war rather than to
admit that Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election fair and square. The Democratic Party
was totally corrupted by the Clinton Regime, and now it is totally insane. Leaders of the
Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, my former co-author in the New York
Times, have responded in a non-Democratic way to the first step President Trump has taken to
reduce the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia that the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama
regimes created between the two superpowers.
Yes, Russia is a superpower. Russian weapons are so superior to the junk produced by the
waste-filled US military/security complex that lives high off the hog on the insouciant
American taxpayer that it is questionable if the US is even a second class military power. If
the insane neoconservatives, such as Max Boot, William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon scum
get their way, the US, the UK, and Europe will be a radioactive ruin for thousands of
years.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Minority Leader of the US House of
Representatives, declared that out of fear of some undefined retribution from Putin, a dossier
on Trump perhaps, the President of the United States sold out the American people to Russia
because he wants to make peace: "It begs the question, what does Vladimir Putin, what do the
Russians have on Donald Trump -- personally, politically and financially that he should behave
in such a manner?" The "such a manner" Pelosi is speaking about is making peace instead of
war.
To be clear, the Democratic Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives has accused
Donald Trump of high treason against the United States. There is no outcry against this
blatantly false accusation, totally devoid of evidence. The presstitute media instead of
protesting this attempt at a coup against the President of the United States, trumpet the
accusation as self-evident truth. Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with
Russia.
Here is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) repeating Pelosi's false accusation: "Millions
of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous
behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President
Trump." If you don't believe that this is orchestrated between Pelosi and Schumer, you are
stupid beyond belief.
Here is disgraced Obama CIA director John Brennan, a leader of the fake Russiagate campaign
against President Trump in order to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia and, thus, by
making the world safer, threatening the massive, unjustified budget of the military/security
complex: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the
threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were
Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are
you???"
NOTICE THAT NOT ONE WESTERN MEDIA SOURCE IS CELEBRATING AND THANKING TRUMP AND PUTIN FOR
EASING THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TENSIONS THAT WERE LEADING TO NUCLEAR WAR. HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW
CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?
The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of
the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of
the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a
collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte,
and the CIA itself.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt
filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and
investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of
the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics
business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that
the insouciant American voters think that they elect.
Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting.
Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and
conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American
people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security
complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump
and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant.
They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer,
McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the
Western press, encourages. Trump can be assassinated or overthrown in a political coup for
selling out America to Russia, as members of both political parties claim and as the media
trumpets endlessly. Putin can be easily assassinated by the CIA operatives that the Russian
government stupidly permits to operate throughout Russia in NGOs and Western/US owned media and
among the Atlanticist Integrationists, Washington's Firth Column inside Russia serving
Washington's purposes. These Russian traitors serve in Putin's own government!
ORDER IT NOW
Americans are so unaware that they have no idea of the risk that President Trump is taking
by challenging the US military security complex. For example, during the last half of the 1970s
I was a member of the US Senate staff. I was working together with a staffer of the US
Republican Senator from California, S. I. Hayakawa, to advance understanding of a supply-side
economic policy cure to the stagflation that threatened the US budget's ability to meet its
obligations. Republican Senators Hatch, Roth, and Hayakawa were trying to introduce a
supply-side economic policy as a cure for the stagflation that was threatening the US economy
with failure. The Democrats, who later in the Senate led the way to a supply-side policy, were,
at this time, opposed (see Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply-Side Revolution , Harvard
University Press, 1984). The Democrats claimed that the policy would worsen the budget deficit,
the only time in those days Democrats cared about the budget deficit. The Democrats said that
they would support the tax rate reductions if the Republicans would support offsetting cuts in
the budget to support a balanced budget. This was a ploy to put Republicans on the spot for
taking away some groups' handouts in order "to cut tax rates for the rich."
The supply-side policy did not require budget cuts, but in order to demonstrate the
Democrats lack of sincerety, Hayakawa's aid and I had our senators introduce a series of budget
cuts together with tax cuts that, on a static revenue basis (not counting tax revenue feedbacks
from the incentives of the lower tax rates) kept the budget even, and the Democrats voted
against them every time.
When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the
legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped
me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security
complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just
establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more
government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure
stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care."
My emergence from The Matrix began with Thurmond's pat on my shoulder. It grew with my time
at the Wall Street Journal when I learned that some truthful things simply could not be said.
In the Treasury I experienced how those outside interests opposed to a president's policy
marshall their forces and the media that they own to block it. Later as a member of a
secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from
ending the Cold War.
Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the
military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute
media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order
that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to
protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby,
funds the elections of those who rule us. Trump, like Reagan, was an exception, and it is
the exceptions that accumulate the ire of the corrupt leftwing, bought off with money, and the
ire of the media, concentrated into small tight ownership groups indebted to those who
permitted the illegal concentration of a once independent and diverse American media that once
served, on occasion, as a watchdog over government. The rightwing, wrapped in the flag,
dismisses all truth as "anti-American."
If Putin, Lavrov, the Russian government, the traitorous Russian Fifth Column -- the
Atlanticist Integrationists -- the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans think that any
peace or consideration can come out of America, they are insane. Their delusions are setting
themselves up for destruction. There is no institution in America, government or private,
that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is
stupid beyond belief.
The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by
John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two
reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove
Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party.
President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North
Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and
arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. And Trump cannot indict Hillary for her
numerous unquestionable crimes in plain view of everyone, or Comey or Brennan, who declares
Trump "to be wholly in the pocket of Putin," for trying to overthrow the elected president of
the United States. Trump cannot have the Secret Service question the likes of Pelosi and
Schumer and McCain and Lindsey Graham for false accusations that encourage assassination of the
President of the United States.
Trump cannot even trust the Secret Service, which accumulated evidence suggests was
complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
If Putin and Lavrov, so anxious to be friends of Washington, let their guards down, they are
history.
As I said above, Russiagate is an orchestratration to prevent peace between the US and
Russia. Leading military/security complex experts, including the person who provided the CIA's
daily briefing of the President of the United States for many years, and the person who devised
the spy program for the National Security Agency, have proven conclusively that Russiagate is a
hoax designed for the purpose of preventing President Trump from normalizing relations between
the US and Russia, which has the power to destroy the entirety of the Western World at
will.
If Putin doesn't listen to him, Russia is in the trash can of history.
Keep in mind that no media informs you better than my website. If my website goes down, you
will be left in darkness. No valid information comes from the US government or the Western
presstitutes. If you sit in front of the TV screen watching the Western media, you are
brainwashed beyond all hope. Not even I can rescue you. Nor God himself.
Americans, and indeed the Russians themselves, are incapable of realizing it, but there is a
chance that Trump will be overthrown and a Western assault will be launched against the handful
of countries that insist on sovereignty.
I doubt that few of the Americans who elected Trump will be taken in by the anti-Trump
propagana, but they are not organized and have no armed power. The police, militarized by
George W. Bush and Obama, will be set against them. The rebellions will be local and suppressed
by every violation of the US Constitution by the private powers that rule Washington, as always
has been the case with rebellions in America.
In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy,
freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional
protections of due process and habeas corpus. Today there are no countries less free than the
United States of America.
Why do the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists want to join an unfree Western world? Are
they that brainwashed by Western Propaganda?
If Putin listens to these deluded fools, Putin will destroy Russia.
There is something wrong with Russian perception of Washington. Apparently the Russian
elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the
neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy
Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. The Russian government somehow, despite all
evidence to the contrary, believes that Washington's hegemony is negotiable. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
is big question even if Trump wants peace at all. Trump has shown his real face on the very
beginning when he said that they are going to talk about "his friend" Xi, making Putin very
uncomfortable and throwing some worms in Russia~China relationship in front of cameras for
all to see
Trump came to the meeting in hope to impress Putin with his cowboy arrogance, He now says
that he'll be Putin's worst enemy ( if he don't bow to him I guess : ). all Trump cares about
is his ego, nothing else too sweat mouthed sleazy person
Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and
other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble
rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before
Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe
McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major
government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel
community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society,
which the US is.
The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate
political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the
next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. Trump is portrayed by these
crooks as a "traitor." In the US, traitors usefully deserve death. If these political Mafiosi
don't bring down Trump "legally," they will hire a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald who "shot"
JFK.
As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools
even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for
which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime
Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton.
Let's wait and see what happens in the upcoming mid-term elections. If the Dems win both
Houses of Congress, Trump is done. The obstructionists will have the upper hand. If they
can't remove him from office "legally," there will be a hitman out there somewhere.
President smugly making peace with the Russian nation that was supposed to be the evil enemy
in a 3rd and final brother war to devastate the white race beyond recovery.
Little upstart in the Democrat party making left wing politics less palatable to the
masses with her heavy handed socialist rhetoric. All while preaching BDS and anti-Israel
sentiment too, representing Frankenstein's CultMarx monster turning on it's creator.
And fewer and fewer people on all sides buying what the American Pravda is selling with
each passing day. The resulting hysteria is both par for the course and downright
delectable.
" Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable
of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative
determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. " My idea is that many
in Russia understand quite well, this is why they demonstrate Russia's military capabilities
frequently. Why does Putin support Assad and Syria ? Not because he likes these countries,
but because he understands that if these countries also get the USA yoke the position of
Russia and China deteriorate.
Putin is careful not to give USA public opinion more 'reason' to fear Russia. Already a
few years ago something fell into the E part of the Mediterranean. It was asserted that
Russia had intercepted a USA missile fired from Spain to Syria. USA and Israel declared that
an excercise had been held. Putin said nothing.
Despite all that NATO does at Russia's borders Putin does not let himself be provoked.
MH17, I suppose Putin knows quite well what happened, Russia has radar and satelites, yet
Putin never gave the Russian view.
So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to
control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind.
In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to
Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even
mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged.
Good to see PCR accepting comments again. It's not just the Dumbocruds, it's the Rupuglicunts
too. Follow the money, it's coming from the same sources. Gore Vidal said there's only
one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true
today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good
for Israel? And the American people be damned.
Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia? The Democrats say he is
The Democrats -- and their wholly-owned MSM -- will call Trump any name that'll stick. It
means little. Even if Trump got everything he wanted on immigration, that particular
toothpaste is already out of the tube and unless we send back some of the millions of
illegal third-world squatters we've no hope of recovering the United States of America.
If you want to talk treason, you need look no further than the Hart-Celler Act of 1965,
whereby the plan was laid to replace the population of this nation with third-world refuse,
which guaranteed cheap labor for GOP capitalists and endless political support for Democrat
traitors.
As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were
somehow able to link to a functioning version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get
my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I finally managed to
read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing
the film could do so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after
which you had to request a password from another individual affiliated with the film.
I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for
the full 2 hours. It was riveting, to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about
making it available to others. Due to the pressures by Browder and his lawyers, however,
Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this
limitation by making it available for private viewing only. And to prevent a private viewer
from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly placed a watermark on each film, indicating
the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen. I was surprised to
see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this
did not deter the individual tied to that number from uploading it and being the one
identified as doing so. That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available as it should be
viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder
really is and how the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be
reversed.
"Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting."
Tens of thousands of years. At one count per second, 31,687 years and a few months.
"In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead --
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom
of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the
Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus."
True. That is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That is what the WASP Empire delivers, and
it does so to destroy more conservative national and local cultures so their peoples are
tossed into the melting pot and reduced into a goop easy to rule.
Oliver Cromwell taking Jewish money, allying with Jews so he would have the funds to wage
permanent war against the vast, vast majority of non-WASP whites within his reach: that is
the definition of WASP culture; that picture tells you what it always will do.
make something serious about Obama and Hillary destroying whole African country of Libya
killing Colonel Gaddafi on the street, which is greatest war crime in the 21st century so far
or, Bill Clinton bombing Bosnian Serbs '95 opening the door to jihadis to continue behead
people in the middle of the Europe or, Bill Clinton and Nato bombing Serbia '99 to give
"Kosovo" independence killing many civilian and destroying infrastructure on purpose or
Madeline Albright confessing killing half of million Iraqi kids on the camera or, Bush and or
Bushes or those such Bill Browder are just small dirty fish who in comparison is almost not
worth filming I appreciate the effort but get seriously real if you are about to get truth to
people
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Trump and Putin made a mistake. I do not understand how it could have happened. They should
have issued communiqué that they have agreed to work toward peace and relieve tensions
and suppress conflicts around the world. (I do not have a time for now to write more.)
(sorry)
If Rosenstein & Mueller had done what they did with the publication of the indictments a
few days before the summit -- and were North Koreans -- they'd be in front of a firing squad
within 24 hours. Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this
has gone on for a year and a half. This is not a strength of democracy.
The US today is like Venezuela was shortly after Maduro was elected (by a narrow margin)
-- after Chavez's death -- and before violence eventually broke out. The losing opposition
refused to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or after Morsi was elected in Egypt and before the military coup. The victory was narrow,
the opposition refused the to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or maybe like Bush vs Gore. Bush was kinda saved by 9/11 which completely changed the
atmosphere.
Who knows what will happen. It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his
opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled
down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a
chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and
if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor.
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never
witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss
that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War.
We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.
The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a
squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new
Apartheid state.
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"
Wait; what?
From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions,
to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a
provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government,"
etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing
Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.
If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably
would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?
Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown.
If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have
to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are
currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one
is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting
viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and
silly.
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor
to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and
Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the
pattern.
Don't blame all Americans. Forty-eight percent of us voted for Trump; it is very likely
that more than half of the rest voted for Hellary only with great reluctance, owing largely
to the unprecedented campaign of vilification directed at Trump. The point is: a very large
majority of people in this country are nowhere near as insane as the media and elites are --
in fact, we're still nowhere near insane enough for their taste!
Winston Churchill said all there is to say about political summits with his quote: "Jaw jaw
is better than war war." That is the thing to bear in mind when examining the rights and wrongs
of the The Trump-Putin summit: Two leaders of two of the world's most powerful nations, in
Trump's words "competitors" sorting out differences eyeball to eyeball. Both men share
Churchill's approach, with Putin saying: "As nuclear powers, we bear special responsibility"
for international security.
Putin said Russia (as a devout Christian country) considered it necessary for the two
countries to work together on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation – and to avoid
weapons being placed in space. "Even during the tensions of the Cold War, the US and the
Soviets were able to maintain a strong dialogue (with now Russia)," said Trump. "But our
relations (with now Russia) have never been worse than they are now. However that changed as of
about four hours ago." He added: "nothing would be easier politically than to refuse to engage"
which would "appease partisan critics, the media" and the opposition."
Donald Trump correctly reiterated the significance and importance of holding a meeting with
Putin, despite the widespread criticism from within his own country and most notably from the
mainstream media who are very now clearly controlled entirely by what has popularly become
known as the "Deep State."
And what was the response in America to the summit? The most vitriolic insult came from the
odious former CIA Director, John Brennan. The not so funny irony is that Brennan literally
voted for the then Soviet Union dominated US Communist Party to take power in the United States
of America.
... ... ...
As a Brit, a keen observer of American politics for decades, it appears astonishing that a
father and son, Americans Ron and Rand Paul seem to be representative of only a few sane voices
that debate logically and objectively on the subject of Russia, acknowledging, as Trump put it,
that they are our competitors not enemies. On Monday on CNN Wolf Blitzer was aghast that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
spoke on his programme saying that critics of Trump, Putin summit have "Trump Derangement
Syndrome." Blitzer almost angrily asking the Senator "Let me get right to the questioning. Do
you believe that President Trump's meeting with Putin made America safer?"
The Senator answered "You know, I think engagement with our adversaries, conversation with
our adversaries is a good idea. Even in the height of the Cold War (with the Soviets), maybe at
its lowest ebb when we were in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, I think it was a good
thing that Kennedy had a direct line to Khrushchev. I think it was a good thing that we
continued to have Ambassadors to the Soviet Union even when we really objected greatly to what
was going on, especially during Stalin's regime. So I think , yes, that it is a good idea to
have engagement."
... ... ...
"... It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of "resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on, promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018. ..."
"... But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times ..."
"... On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin." ..."
"... Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That mouth has to cover his ass. ..."
"... Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election. ..."
"... Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two administrations. ..."
"... Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire. One way or another, the empire will strike back." ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
He accuses Trump of treason. But what's his bluster really about?
•
It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of
"resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on,
promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018.
But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as
one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who
to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape
the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial
killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John
Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least
since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times puff piece sweeps all that
away as a "troubling inheritance."
On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It
was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the
pocket of Putin."
Because it is 2018, Brennan was never asked to explain exactly how a press conference
exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution sets for impeachment,
nor was he asked to lay a few cards on the table showing what Putin has on Trump. No,
Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what
a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United
States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged.
Brennan slithers alongside those like Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker who said Trump is
controlled by Russia, columnists in the New York Times who called him a traitor, an
article (which is fast becoming the Zapruder film of Russiagate) in New York Magazine
echoing former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in speculating that Trump met Putin
as his handler, and another former intelligence officer warning that "we're on the cusp of
losing the constitutional republic forever."
Brennan's bleating has the interesting side effect of directing attention away from who was
watching the front door as the Russians walked in to cause what one MSNBC analyst described as
a mix of Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht. During the 2016 election, Brennan was head of the CIA.
His evil twin, James Clapper, who also coughs up Trump attacks for nickels these days, was
director of national intelligence. James Comey headed the FBI, following Robert Mueller into
the job. Yet the noise from that crowd has become so loud as to drown out any questions about
where they were when they had the duty to stop the Russians in the first place.
The excuse that "everybody believed Hillary would win" is in itself an example of collusion:
things that now rise to treason, if not acts of war, didn't matter then because Clinton's
victory would sweep them all under the rug. Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary
to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally
thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan
would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative
consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That
mouth has to cover his ass.
Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election.
Remember how recounts were called for amid (fake) allegations of vote tampering? Constitutional
scholars proposed various Hail Mary Electoral College scenarios to unseat Trump. Lawsuits
claimed the Emoluments Clause made it illegal for Trump to even assume office. The media set
itself the goal of impeaching the president. On cue, leaks poured out implying the Trump
campaign worked with the Russian government. It is now a rare day when the top stories are not
apocalyptic, rocketed from Raw Story to the Huffington Post to the New York Times .
Brennan, meanwhile, fans the media's flames with a knowing wink that says "You wait and see.
Soon it's Mueller time."
Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine
journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running
the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan
admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two
administrations.
The IRS, meanwhile, has watched Trump for decades (they've seen the tax docs), as have
Democratic and Republican opposition researchers, the New Jersey Gaming Commission, and various
New York City real estate bodies. Multiple KGB/FSB agents have defected and not said a word.
The whole Soviet Union has collapsed since the day that some claim Trump first became a Russian
asset. Why haven't the FBI, CIA, and NSA cottoned to anything in the intervening years? Why are
we waiting on Mueller Year Two?
If Trump is under Russian influence, he is the most dangerous man in American history. So
why isn't Washington on fire? Why hasn't Mueller indicted someone for treason? If this is Pearl
Harbor, why is the investigation moving at the pace of a mortgage application? Why is everyone
allowing a Russian asset placed in charge of the American nuclear arsenal to stay in power even
one more minute?
You'd think Brennan would be saying it is time to postpone chasing the indictments of
Russian military officers that will never see the inside of a courtroom, stop wasting months on
decades-old financial crimes unconnected to the Trump campaign, and quit delaying the real
stuff over a clumsy series of perjury cases. "Patriots: Where are you???" Brennan asked in a
recent tweet. Where indeed?
Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A
Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of
national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real
enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire.
One way or another, the empire will strike back." James Clapper is confirming reports that
Trump was shown evidence of Putin's election attacks and did nothing. Congressman Steve Cohen
asked, "Where are our military folks? The Commander-in-Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Treason, traitor, coup, the empire striking back -- those are just words, Third World stuff,
clickbait, right? So the more pedestrian answer must then be correct. The lessons of Whitewater
and Benghazi learned, maybe the point is not to build an atmosphere of crisis leading to
something undemocratic, but just to have a perpetual investigation, tickled to life as needed
politically.
Because, maybe, deep down, Brennan (Clapper, Hayden, Comey, and Mueller) really do know that
this is all like flying saucers and cell phone cameras. At some point, the whole alien
conspiracy meme fell apart because somehow when everyone had a camera with them 24/7/365, there
were no more sightings and we had to admit that our fears had gotten the best of us. The threat
was inside us all along. It is now, too.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which
presidents can be impeached.
And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.
Trump's refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin's claim at Helsinki that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton's
campaign has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former
director of the CIA.
Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia's hacking of the DNC "an act of
war" comparable to Pearl Harbor.
The
New York Times
ran a story on the many now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is
blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.
Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: "Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.
Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a "conscious agent of the Communist
conspiracy" have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream,
today it is the establishment itself bawling "Treason!"
What explains the hysteria?
The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is
hard to credit. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!" they have cried "Fascist!" too many times to be taken seriously.
A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought
them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans.
Other commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.
If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the
levers of power ever again.
Using Occam's razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America's elites have been driven
over the edge by Trump's successes and their failures to block him.
Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme
Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.
Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along
with Vladimir Putin.
"Over our dead bodies!" the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.
Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin's poodle, fascist, demagogue,
traitor, Nazi.
Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders whether the haters are considering the impact of the
words they so casually use. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs
far less toxic than this.
The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president's enemies, but the depth of their
determination to destroy him.
They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted, and prosecuted, and the
agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.
Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: "The Fake
News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war," he
tweeted. "They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I'll probably have a good relationship with Putin."
Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine
U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin's pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie
Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.
Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.
Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and
conflicts with Russia and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this
country.
Yet should he attempt to carry out his agenda -- to get out of Syria, pull troops from Germany, and take a second look
at NATO's Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never
heard of -- he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.
This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.
By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump
is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most: irrelevance.
For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book,
Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a
President and Divided America Forever
. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators
writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
There's a small but vocal group of American scholars who say that anti-Russian hysteria is
on the rise. We met with two of them to hear their admittedly unpopular case for the rightness
of Russia.
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian
handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has
not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his
Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe.
NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian
Gestapo.
The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping
Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling
jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.
And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent
paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal
from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this
point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just
perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are
moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing
in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.
In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its
mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular
baby concentration
camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or
how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate
media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled
brains of Western liberals, but given
the
imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally
televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).
Those measures and the resulting uncertainty are prompting some European countries to go
their own way on major industry projects, including the development of a next-generation
fighter jet, potentially leaving U.S. firms behind.
"I think it is forcing Europe together in ways that have unanticipated consequences for the
U.S. defense industry," said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners.
The aerospace and defense industry is a huge driver of U.S. jobs and economic growth. In
2017 alone, it generated $865 billion, supporting 2.4 million high-paying American jobs. The
industry produced a positive trade balance of $86 billion in 2017, the largest of any U.S.
industry, which reduced the country's trade deficit by 10 percent.
It is also an important component of U.S. foreign policy. Arms sales are key to
strengthening security partnerships and improving military cooperation with allies.
"Partners who procure American weaponry are more capable of fighting alongside us and
ultimately more capable of protecting themselves with fewer American boots on the ground,"
Peter Navarro, the White House director of trade policy, said during an April press
conference.
So it came as no surprise when the Trump administration announced the decision to send a
large delegation to help sell U.S. products at Farnborough, including top officials such as
Navarro. The administration also used the opportunity to roll out the Conventional Arms
Transfer (CAT) Policy, also known as the "Buy America" plan, an initiative to improve U.S. arms
transfer processes and increase the competitiveness of U.S.-made products.
But the U.S. government showing at Farnborough was disappointing from the start of the
weeklong exhibition Monday. Navarro pulled out at the last minute, as did Ellen Lord, the
Pentagon's top weapons buyer; Heidi Grant, the U.S. Air Force's head of international affairs;
and other U.S. government officials. At the show itself, only five U.S. military aircraft
appeared on static display in the Defense Department corral that normally showcases products
built for the armed services by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other U.S. defense giants.
"... The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept. ..."
"... American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. ..."
"... The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene ..."
"... There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship. ..."
"... There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is "normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact. ..."
"... A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true. ..."
The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to
survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No
such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.
American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative
doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of
other countries. The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement
with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and
Australia.
The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the
extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across
the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene. Putin is incorrect that
US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the
two parties. The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump's effort
to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald
Jeffries reminds us .
The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing. Only a few experts, such as
Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock , President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, have
spoken out in support of Trump's attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear
powers. Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.
There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena.
The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he
declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship.
Not for any other reason.
There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia
unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations
neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is
"normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of
normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.
A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate.
Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put
Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump
is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump
stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not
interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in
Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.
"... Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in America's deep state playbook. ..."
"... Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim. ..."
"... Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington. Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies. ..."
Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in
America's deep state playbook.
Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets
most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim.
Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America's political process –
nothing.
Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia
did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir
Putin unfavorably.
Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before,
they're easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of
repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in
lockstep with the official falsified narrative.
America's dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests
– acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again
instead of informing them responsibly.
CNN
presstitute Poppy Harlow played a clip on air of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asking Putin
in Helsinki the following question:
"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials
to help him do that?"
Putin said: "Yes," he wanted Trump to win "because he talked about bringing the US-Russia
relationship back to normal," as translated from his Russian language response.
Here's the precise translation of his remark:
"Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the need to normalize US-Russia
relations," adding:
"Isn't it natural to have sympathy towards a man who wants to restore relations with your
country? That's normal."
Putin did not address the fabricated official narrative notion that he directed his
officials to help Trump win. Yet CNN's Harlow claimed otherwise, falsely claiming he ordered
Kremlin officials to help Trump triumph over Hillary.
He did nothing of the kind or say it, nor did any other Kremlin officials. No evidence
proves otherwise – nothing but baseless accusations supported only by the power of
deceptive propaganda.
Time and again, CNN, the NYT, and rest of America's dominant media prove themselves
untrustworthy.
They consistently abandon journalism the way it's supposed to be, notably on geopolitical
issues, especially on war and peace and anything about Russia.
After rejecting, or at least doubting, the official narrative about alleged Russian meddling
in the US political process to aid his election, Trump backtracked post-Helsinki –
capitulating to deep state power.
First in the White House, he said he misspoke abroad – then on CBS News Wednesday
night, saying it's "true," deplorably adding:
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, and he "would" hold Russian President
Vladimir Putin responsible for the interference – that didn't occur, he failed to
stress.
GLOR: "You say you agree with US intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in
2016."
TRUMP: "Yeah and I've said that before, Jeff. I have said that numerous times before, and
I would say that is true, yeah."
GLOR: "But you haven't condemned Putin, specifically. Do you hold him personally
responsible?"
TRUMP: "Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country. Just like I consider myself
to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a
country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."
GLOR: "What did you say to him?"
TRUMP: "Very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling. We can't have any of that
– now look. We're also living in a grown-up world."
"Will a strong statement – you know – President Obama supposedly made a strong
statement. Nobody heard it."
"What they did hear is a statement he made to Putin's very close friend. And that
statement was not acceptable. Didn't get very much play relatively speaking. But that
statement was not acceptable."
"But I let him know we can't have this. We're not going to have it, and that's the way
it's going to be."
There you have it – Trump capitulating to America's deep state over Russia on national
television.
From day one in power, he caved to the national security state, Wall Street, and other
monied interests over popular ones.
The sole redeeming part of his agenda was wanting improved relations with Russia and
Vladimir Putin personally – preferring peace over possible confrontation, wanting the
threat of nuclear war defused.
Despite tweeting post-Helsinki that he and Putin "got along well which truly bothered many
haters who wanted to see a boxing match," his remarks on CBS News showed he'll continue dirty
US business as usual toward Russia.
Anything positive from summit talks appears abandoned by capitulating to deep state power
controlling him and his agenda.
Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington.
Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's
hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and
populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices
harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies.
Will Americans go along with sacrificing vital freedoms for greater security from invented
enemies – losing both? Will US belligerent confrontation with Russia inevitably follow?
Will mushroom-shaped denouement eventually kill us all?
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US
Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html "
"... Read the first piece in Patrick Cockburn's latest series, 'Catastrophic drought threatens Iraq as major dams in surrounding countries cut off water to its great rivers', here . ..."
"... Part II, 'For this Iraqi tribe massacred by Isis, fear of the group's return is a constant reality', here ..."
"... Part III, 'After series of calamitous defeats, is Isis about to lose its last town?', here . ..."
"... Part III, 'Iraq unrest: Chaos reigns in the country even Saddam Hussein 'found difficult to rule', here. ..."
"The people want an end to the parties," chanted protesters, adapting a famous slogan of the
Arab Spring , as
they stormed the governor's office and the international airport in the Shia holy city of
Najaf.
Part of the wave of demonstrations sweeping across central and southern Iraq, they demanded
jobs, electricity, water and an end to the mass theft of Iraq's oil wealth by the political parties.
Beginning on 8 July, the protests are the biggest and most prolonged in a country where
anti-government action has usually taken the form of armed insurgency.
The demonstrations are taking place in the heartlands of the Shia majority, reflecting their
outrage at living on top of some of the world's largest oilfields, but seeing their families
barely survive in squalor and poverty.
The protests began in Basra, Iraq's third largest city which is at the centre of 70 per cent
of its oil production. A hand-written placard held up by one demonstrator neatly expresses
popular frustration. It read:
"2,500,000 barrels daily
Price of each barrel = $70
2,500,000 x $70 = zero !!
Sorry Pythagoras, we are in Basra"
The protests quickly spread to eight other provinces, including Najaf, Kerbala, Nasariya and
Amara.
In several places, the offices of the Dawa Party, to which the Prime Minister Haider
al-Abadi belongs, were burned or attacked, along with those of parties whom people blame for
looting oil revenues worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the 15 years since the overthrow
of Saddam Hussein.
As the situation deteriorated, Mr Abadi flew to Basra on 13 July, promising to make $3bn
available to improve services and provide more jobs. After he left, his hotel was invaded by
protesters.
The credibility of almost all Iraqi politicians is at a low ebb, the acute feeling of
disillusionment illustrated by the low 44.5 per cent turnout in the parliamentary election on
12 May that produced no outright winner.
The poll was
unexpectedly topped by the Sairoun movement of the populist nationalist cleric, Muqtada
al-Sadr, who has encouraged his followers to start protests against government corruption and
lack of services since 2015.
The Sadrists, who emphasised their socially and economically progressive programme by
allying themselves with the Iraqi Communist Party in the election, are playing a role in the
current protests.
The demonstrations are also backed by the prestigious Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. At ground
level, political activists and tribal leaders have set up a joint committee called "the
Coordination Board for Peaceful Protests and Demonstrations in Basra", its purpose being to
produce a list of demands, unite the protest movement, and keep their actions non-violent.
"The ends don't justify the means," says the committee in a statement. "Let us, being
oppressed, not lead to the oppression of others."
A list of 17 demands is headed by one asking for a government timetable for supplying water
and electricity, both of which are short at a time of year when the temperature sometime
exceeds 50C, making it one of the hottest places on earth.
Local people claim that the last time that the port city of Basra, once called the Venice of
the Gulf, had an adequate supply of drinking water was in 1982. Iran had been supplying some
extra electricity, but has cut this back because of its own needs and failure of Iraq to pay on
time.
The second demand of the protesters is for jobs with "priority to the competent sons of
Basra", the discharge of foreign labourers and employment for a quarter of people living in the
oilfields.
Lack of jobs is a source of continuing complaint all over Iraq. Much of its oil income
already goes on paying 4.5 million state employees, but between 400,000 and 420,000 young
people enter the workforce every year with little prospects of employment.
Anger towards the entire political class is intense because it is seen as a kleptocratic
group which syphoned off money in return for contracts that existed only on paper and produced
no new power plants, bridges or roads.
Political parties are at the centre of this corruption because they choose ministries,
according to their share of the vote in elections or their sectarian affiliation, which they
then treat as cash cows and sources of patronage and contracts.
Plundering like this and handing out of jobs to unqualified people means that many
government institutions have become incapable of performing any useful function.
Radical reform is difficult because the whole system is saturated by corruption and
incompetence. Technocrats without party backing who are parachuted into ministries become
isolated and ineffective.
One party leader told The Independent that he thought that the best that could be
done "would be to insist that the parties appoint properly qualified people to top jobs."
The defeat of Isis in 2017 with the recapture of Mosul means that Iraqis are no longer
absorbed in keeping their families safe so they have they have more time to consider
"corruption" – a word they use not just to mean bribery but the parasitic nature of the
government system as a whole.
There is a general mood of cynicism and dissatisfaction with the way things are run.
"Bad government, bad roads, bad weather, bad people," exclaimed one Iraqi friend driving on
an ill-maintained road.
Corrupt motives are ascribed to everything that happens: a series of unexplained fires in
Baghdad in June were
being ascribed to government employees stealing from state depots and then concealing their
crime by setting fire to the building and destroying it.
Given that the Iraqi security forces are primarily recruited from the areas in which the
protests are taking place, the government will need to be careful about the degree of
repression it can use safely.
The armed forces have been placed on high alert. Three regiments of the elite
Counter-Terrorism Service, which led the attack on Mosul and is highly regarded and well
disciplined, has been ordered south to cope with protests and away from places where there is
still residual activity by Isis.
The protests are largely spontaneous, but the Sadrists, whose offices have not been attacked
by crowds, want to put pressure on Mr Abadi, Dawa and other parties to form a coalition
government with a reform programme.
Many protesters express anti-Tehran slogans, tearing up pictures of Iranian spiritual
leaders such as Ayatollah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. They blame
Iran for supporting
corrupt parties and governments in Iraq.
Protesters have so far escalated their actions slowly, gathering at the entrances to the
major oil and gas facilities, but not disrupting the 3.6 million barrel a day production. If
this happens, it would affect a significant portion of world crude output.
Iraq's corrupt and dysfunctional governing system may be too set in its profitable ways to
be reformed, but, if the ruling elite wants to survive, it must give ordinary Iraqi a larger
share of the oil revenue cake.
Read the first piece in Patrick Cockburn's latest series, 'Catastrophic drought
threatens Iraq as major dams in surrounding countries cut off water to its great rivers',
here .
Part II, 'For this Iraqi tribe massacred by Isis, fear of the group's return is a
constant reality',
here
Part III, 'After series of calamitous defeats, is Isis about to lose its last town?',
here .
Part III, 'Iraq unrest: Chaos reigns in the country even Saddam Hussein 'found difficult
to rule',
here.
"Oh for the good old days when Saddam was running things."
Electricity production in Iraq overall is superior to what it
was during Saddam's rule. But availability is not 24/365, which is presumably what they're
demanding:
Prewar Baghdad had electricity 16 to 24 hours per day and was favored for distribution.
The remainder of Iraq received 4–8 hours of electricity per day.[6] Post war, Baghdad
no longer has priority and therefore both Baghdad and the country as a whole received on
average 15.5 hours of electricity per day as of February 2010.[7]
If they want some facsimile of Saddam's rule back, they could easily elect the Sunni Arab
parties to power. Which they haven't. Demonstrations were rare during Saddam's reign because
he killed the opposition and consigned those he did not kill to Abu Ghraib, where they were
raped and/or beaten to within an inch of their lives.
Shiites were unhappy with American occupation because they thought the only thing keeping
them from becoming a Shiite version of Saudi Arabia, economically-speaking was an American
plot to steal their oil and sow division in the country. After GI's left, they discovered,
through ISIS's long record of victories, that Sunni Arabs really, really don't like being
ruled by Shiites, and that Iraq's Sunni Arabs really are better at military endeavors than
the Shiites or the Kurds. They are fortunate that Uncle Sam came to their rescue, yet
again.
It's becoming clear that the Iraq's Shiite Arabs and Kurds could never have lifted the
Sunni Arab foot from their necks by their own efforts. The question is whether their history
books will ever reflect this truth.
"... Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly annexing territory. Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for example , has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright annexation. ..."
"... The belief that the U.S. is a supremely good nation founded on universal principles has consequences that go well beyond electoral politics. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and co-owner of the website Townhall.com, extols American exceptionalism, which he says springs from American values. ..."
Neoconservatives like Max Boot are fooling themselves if they think imposing 'values' on the rest of the world isn't a matter
of empire.
Recently while reading a book by an Israeli scholar named Yoram Hazony with the provocative title
The Virtue of Nationalism , I encountered
a distinction drawn by the late Charles
Krauthammer between empire building and American global democratic hegemony. Like the editors of the Weekly Standard ,
for which he periodically wrote, Krauthammer believed it was unfair to describe what he wanted to see done, which was having the
U.S. actively spread its own form of government throughout the world, as "imperialism." After all, Krauthammer said, he and those
who think like him "do not hunger for new territory," which makes it wrong to accuse them of "imperialism."
Hazony responds with the obvious answer that control can be imposed on the unwilling even if the empire builders are not overtly
annexing territory. Meanwhile, other neoconservatives have given the game away by pushing their imperialist position a bit further
than Krauthammer's. Max Boot, for
example , has been quite open in demanding "an American empire" built on ideological and military control even without outright
annexation.
The question that occurred to me while reading Krauthammer's proposal and Hazony's response (which I suspect would have been more
devastating had Hazony not been afraid of losing neoconservative friends and sponsors) is this one: how is this not imperialism?
Certainly the use of protectorates to increase the influence of Western powers in the non-Western world goes back a long time.
As far back as the Peloponnesian War, rival Greek city-states tried to impose their constitutional arrangements on weaker Greek societies
as a way of managing them politically. According to Xenophon, when the Athenians then surrendered to the Spartan commander Lysander
in 403 BC, they had two conditions imposed on them: taking down their great wall ( kathairein ta makra teixe ) and
installing a regime that looked like the Spartan one. Thus is arguing that territory has to be annexed outright in order for it to
become part of an American empire so utterly unconvincing.
One reason the views offered by Krauthammer and Boot did not elicit more widespread criticism -- and have enjoyed enthusiastic
favor among Republicans for decades, culminating in the oratorical wonders of George W. Bush -- may have been the embrace of another
neoconservative doctrine: "American exceptionalism." The belief that the U.S. is a supremely good nation founded on universal
principles has consequences that go well beyond electoral politics. Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated talk radio host and co-owner
of the website Townhall.com, extols American exceptionalism, which he says springs from American values.
Those values have "universal applicability,"
according to Prager, and are "eminently exportable." Glenn Beck has taken up
the same theme of "American exceptionalism"
as
an exportable "idea " that is meant for everyone on the planet. The "ideas" or "values" in question are variously defined by
the neoconservative media as "human rights," "universal equality," or just making sure everyone lives like us. Whatever it is, we
are told that to withhold it from the rest of the human race would be uncharitable. Our efforts to bring it to others therefore cannot
be dismissed as "imperialism" any more than the Spanish government of the 16th century thought it was doing wrong by forcing its
religion on indigenous people in the Americas.
Although I'm hardly a fan of his political views, former president Barack Obama once said something that I thought was self-evident
but that offended even members of his own party. According to Obama, "Americans believe they're exceptional. But the Brits and Greeks
believe they're special too." Obama was merely observing that it's okay for others to believe they're special, even if they're not
Americans imbued with "the idea." Yet his statement was received with such uproar that he felt compelled to backtrack. Speaking later
at West Point,
he made it clear that "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being." This from someone whom Fox News assures
us hated America and spent every minute of his presidency denying our greatness! (And, yes, I've heard the rejoinder to this: Obama
was only pretending to believe in the creed he dutifully recited.)
It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both morally superior and less dangerous than
ethnically defined societies because we advocate a "value" or "creed" that's accessible to the entire human race. But this is hardly
a recipe for peace as opposed to what Krauthammer called a "value-driven" relationship with the rest of the world. Australian journalist
Douglas Murray, in his intended encomium Neoconservatism: Why We Need It
, tries to praise his subjects but ends up describing a kind of global democratic jihadism. While Douglas admits that "socially,
economically, and philosophically" neoconservatism differs from traditional conservatism, he insists that it's something better.
He commends neoconservatives for wishing to convert the world to "values." Their primary goal, according to Murray, is the "erasing
[of] tyrannies and [the] spreading [of] democracy," an arduous task that requires "interventionism, nation-building, and many of
the other difficulties that had long concerned traditional conservatives."
Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks
the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He
is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
Probably not so much to short-circuit democratic process that was short-circuited long before
them, but clearly they acted as the guardians of the neoliberal state.
Which confirm the iron law of oligarchy in the most direct way: not only the elite gradually
escapes all the democratic control, they use their power as oranized minority to defend the
status quo, not stopping at the most dirty dirty methods.
Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages
between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and his garrulous
girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the end
of this article.)
Despite his former job as chief of the FBI's counterintelligence section, Strzok had the
naive notion that texting on FBI phones could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through
"Surity 101." Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page cannot be happy
at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to conduct
their affair(s).
It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding
texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they
thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for
the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost
10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that.
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were
trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context
the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to
rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community,
shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State.
... ... ...
Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has
been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of
breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the
White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama
administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time
gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity."
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian
handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has
not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his
Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe.
NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian
Gestapo.
The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping
Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling
jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.
And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent
paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal
from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this
point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just
perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are
moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing
in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.
In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its
mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular
baby concentration
camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or
how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate
media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled
brains of Western liberals, but given
the
imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally
televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).
"... Both cases, the inclusive and the extractive, tend to reinforce themselves through time by a process known as institutional drift. This is an historical tendency for institutions to maintain, strengthen, and reproduce themselves over time similar to the biological processes involved in genetic drift. ..."
"... Importantly the authors also take the time to mention Robert Michel's seminal idea concerning the iron law of oligarchy ..."
"... Neo-Paternalism ..."
"... The Origins of Political Order. ..."
"... In short, much like the earlier Michel, Fukuyama sees present day democracies drifting towards ever more nepotistic patterns of behavior where elites seize power and reward and distribute the fruits of that power to their close associates within their networks of influence. ..."
"... In effect, both men, see, as did Marx before them, the "constitutional democracies" as a sham as a kind of theater behind which the levers of power are exercised authoritatively with little regard to the true interests of the masses below them. ..."
"... In such an environment of centralized elite control, "media openness" can do little to rout out the opaque workings of carefully, surreptitiously orchestrated power. ..."
What are the necessary elements for the success of a modern nation state?
According to one justifiably popular and well-written book, Why Nations
Fail , it all has to do with inclusive political and economic institutions which
foster technological change which in turn leads to increasing prosperity for the many.
Two key aspects upholding such institutions are a strong centralized state and the rule of
law. Without these two, a nation cannot hope to advance socially, politically, or
economically. The negative of this rosy picture are nations which maintain and promote extractive
political and economic institutions which serve the interests of a narrow elite.
Both cases, the inclusive and the extractive, tend to reinforce themselves through time by a
process known as institutional drift. This is an historical tendency for institutions
to maintain, strengthen, and reproduce themselves over time similar to the biological processes
involved in genetic drift.
Importantly the authors also take the time to mention Robert Michel's seminal idea
concerning the iron law of oligarchy which explains the historically documented
tendency that large, complex organizations of any kind (democratic, socialist, conservative)
fall under the sway of a small elite exercising absolute if cosmetically hidden power.
Our authors optimistically suggest that this law is not destiny and can be
sufficiently controlled by ever expanding democratic institutions in civil society.
Opposed to this buoyant idea of increasing mass prosperity and political participation is
Francis Fukuyama's discussion of Neo-Paternalism in his thought provoking magnum opus
The Origins of Political Order.
In short, much like the earlier Michel, Fukuyama sees present day democracies drifting
towards ever more nepotistic patterns of behavior where elites seize power and reward and
distribute the fruits of that power to their close associates within their networks of
influence.
In effect, both men, see, as did Marx before them, the "constitutional democracies" as a
sham as a kind of theater behind which the levers of power are exercised authoritatively with
little regard to the true interests of the masses below them.
In such an environment of centralized elite control, "media openness" can do little to rout
out the opaque workings of carefully, surreptitiously orchestrated power.
Thus, a superficial reading of history might lead us to believe that we live in an
increasingly "inclusive" society reflecting a rising tide of technological progress and
economic prosperity. However, a closer look, might reveal a modicum of beneficence bestowed
upon the many; while the Machiavellian few have managed behind a facade of democracy and
nationalism to achieve unheard of sums of wealth, power, and influence once only dreamed of by
despots, dictators, and demagogues of the past.
"... We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
Peter van Buren discusses the media reaction to President Trump's recent meeting
with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He compares the entire story of Russian collusion to the
birther conspiracy
movement , in that swaths of Americans have been swept up in a campaign against the
president with very little real evidence presented to support the claims. Van Buren argues that
the divisiveness about Trump being a Russian agent is harmful for the country, and at this
point Robert Mueller and the intelligence community need to "put up or shut up" -- either
present the clear evidence that Trump worked with the Russians, or admit that there is no such
evidence. He goes on to discuss the DNC email leak, Hillary Clinton's private email server, and
the recent indictment of 12 Russian operatives.
"EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT
provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary
for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers" (
Daily Mail )
Consortiumnews Volume 24, Number 199
-- –Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995 -- –July 18, 2018
US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference July 16, 2018 •
316 Comments
The media's mania over Trump's Helsinki performance and the so-called Russia-gate scandal reached new depths on Monday, says Joe
Lauria
By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News
The reaction of the U.S. establishment media and several political leaders to President Donald Trump's press conference
after his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday has been stunning.
" There are exactly two possible explanations for the shameful performance the world witnessed on Monday, from a serving American
president.
Either Donald Trump is flat-out an agent of Russian interests -- maybe witting, maybe unwitting, from fear of blackmail, in
hope of future deals, out of manly respect for Vladimir Putin, out of gratitude for Russia's help during the election, out of
pathetic inability to see beyond his 306 electoral votes. Whatever the exact mixture of motives might be, it doesn't really matter.
Or he is so profoundly ignorant, insecure, and narcissistic that he did not realize that, at every step, he was advancing the
line that Putin hoped he would advance, and the line that the American intelligence, defense, and law-enforcement agencies most
dreaded.
Conscious tool. Useful idiot. Those are the choices, though both are possibly true, so that the main question is the proportions
never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another
country over those of his own government and people."
As soon as the press conference ended CNN cut to its panel with these words from TV personality Anderson Cooper: "You have been
watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of a Russian leader, surely,
that I've ever seen."
David Gergen, who for years has gotten away with portraying himself on TV as an impartial political sage, then told CNN viewers:
" I've never heard an American President talk that way but I think it is especially true that when he's with someone like Putin,
who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests of his own institutions
that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government, he's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses
them and retreats into this, we've heard it before, but on the international stage to talk about Hillary Clinton's computer server
"
" It's embarrassing," interjected Cooper.
" It's embarrassing," agreed Gergen.
Cooper: "Most disgraceful performance by a US president."
White House correspondent Jim Acosta, ostensibly an objective reporter, then gave his opinion: "I think that sums it up nicely.
This is the president of the United States essentially taking the word of the Russian president over his own intelligence community.
It was astonishing, just astonishing to be in the room with the U.S. president and the Russian president on this critical question
of election interference, and to retreat back to these talking points about DNC servers and Hillary Clinton's emails when he had
a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he didn't do it."
In other words Trump should just shut up and not question a questionable indictment, which Acosta, like nearly all the media,
treat as a conviction.
The Media's Handlers
The media's handlers were even worse than their assets. Former CIA director John Brennan
tweeted : "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors,.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not
only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"
Here's where the Republican Patriots are, Brennan: " That's how a press conference sounds when an Asset stands next to his Handler,"
former RNC Chairman Michael Steele tweeted.
Representative Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, said on Twitter: " As a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion
of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security."
All these were reactions to Trump expressing skepticism about the U.S. indictment on Friday of 12 Russian intelligence agents
for allegedly interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election while he was standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at
the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki.
" I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump said. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people,
but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, of
stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage the candidacy
of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with the clear intention
of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so.
Over the weekend Michael Smerconish on CNN
actually said the indictments proved that Russia had committed a "terrorist attack" against the United States. This is in line
with many pundits who are comparing this indictment, that will most likely
never produce any evidence, to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The danger inherent in that thinking is clear.
Putin said the allegations are "utter nonsense, just like [Trump] recently mentioned." He added: "The final conclusion in this
kind of dispute can only be delivered by a trial, by the court. Not by the executive, by the law enforcement." He could have added
not by the media.
Trump reasonably questioned why the FBI never examined the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee to see whether
there was a hack and who may have done it. Instead a private company, CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic Party studied the server
and within a day blamed Russia on very
dubious grounds.
" Why haven't they taken the server?" Trump asked. "Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social
media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?"
But being a poor communicator, Trump then mentioned Clinton's missing emails, allowing the media to conflate the two different
servers, and be easily dismissed as Gergen did.
At the press conference, Putin offered to allow American investigators from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who put
the indictment together, to travel to Russia and take part in interviews with the 12 accused Russian agents. He also offered to set
up a joint cyber-security group to examine the evidence and asked that in return Russia be allowed to question persons of interest
to Moscow in the United States.
" Let's discuss the specific issues and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change for this internal political
struggle," Putin said.
On CNN, Christiane Amanpour called Putin's clear offer "obfuscation."
Even if Trump agreed to this reasonable proposal it seems highly unlikely that his Justice Department will go along with it. Examination
of whatever evidence they have to back up the indictment is not what the DOJ is after. As I
wrote about the indictments in detail on Friday:
" The extremely remote possibility of convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception
of Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations, presented as though it is established
fact. Once that impression is settled into the public consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished."
Still No 'Collusion'
The summit begins. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
The indictments did not include any members of Trump's
campaign team for "colluding" with the alleged Russian hacking effort, which has been a core allegation throughout the two years
of the so-called Russia-gate scandal. Those allegations are routinely reported in U.S. media as established fact, though there is
still no evidence of collusion.
Trump emphasised that point in the press conference. "There was no collusion at all," he said forcefully. "Everybody knows it."
On this point corporate media has been more deluded than normal as they clutch for straws to prove the collusion theory. As one
example of many across the media with the same theme, a New York Times
story on Friday , headlined, "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?," said Russia may have absurdly
responded to Trump's call at 10:30 a.m. on July 27, 2016 to hack Clinton's private email server because it was "on or about" that
day that Russia allegedly first made an attempt to hack Clinton's personal emails, according to the indictment, which makes no connection
between the two events.
If Russia is indeed guilty of remotely hacking the emails it would have had no evident need of assistance from anyone on the Trump
team, let alone a public call from Trump on national TV to commence the operation.
More importantly, as Twitter handle "Representative Press" pointed
out: "Trump's July 27, 2016 call to find the missing 30,000 emails could not be a 'call to hack Clinton's server' because at that
point it was no longer online . Long before Trump's statement, Clinton had already
turned
over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice." Either the indictment was talking about different servers or it is
being intentionally misleading when it says "on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for
the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office."
This crucial fact alone, that Clinton had turned over the server in 2015 so that no hack was possible, makes it impossible that
Trump's TV call could be seen as collusion. Only a desperate person would see it otherwise.
But there is a simple explanation why establishment journalists are in unison in their dominant Russian narrative: it is career
suicide to question it.
As Samuel Johnson said as far back as 1745: "The greatest part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they
are in fashion since vanity and credulity cooperate in its favour."
Importance of US-Russia Relations
Trump said the unproven allegation of collusion "has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers
in the world. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous what's going on with
the probe."
The American president said the U.S. has been "foolish" not to attempt dialogue with Russia before, to cooperate on a range of
issues.
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct," Trump said. "Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards
the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of
peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
This main reason for summits between Russian and American leaders was also ignored: to use diplomacy to reduce dangerous tensions.
"I really think the world wants to see us get along," Trump said. "We are the two great nuclear powers. We have 90 percent of the
nuclear. And that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing."
Preventing good relations between the two countries appears to be the heart of the matter for U.S. intelligence and their media
assets. So Trump was vilified for even trying.
Ignoring the Rest of the Story
Obsessed as they are with the "interference" story, the media virtually ignored the other crucial issues that came up at the summit,
such as the Middle East.
Trump sort of thanked Russia for its efforts to defeat ISIS. "When you look at all of the progress that's been made in certain
sections with the eradication of ISIS, about 98 percent, 99 percent there, and other things that have taken place that we have done
and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects," he said.
Trump here is falsely taking credit, as he has before, for defeating ISIS with only some "help" from Russia. In Iraq the U.S.
led the way against ISIS coordinating the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. But in the separate war against ISIS in Syria, Russia,
the Syrian Arab Army, Kurdish forces, Iranian troops and Hizbullah militias were almost entirely responsible for ISIS' defeat.
A grand deal? (Photo: Sputnik)
Also on Syria, Trump appeared to endorse what is being
reported as a deal between Russia and Israel in which Israel would accept Bashar al-Assad remaining as Syrian president, while
Russia would work on Iran to get it to remove its forces away from the northern Golan Heights, which Israel illegally considers its
border with Syria.
After a meeting in Moscow last week with Putin, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he accepted Assad remaining in power.
" President Putin also is helping Israel," Trump said at the press conference. "We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would
like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like
to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."
Trump also said that the U.S. and Russian militaries were coordinating in Syria, but he did not go as far as saying that they
had agreed to fight together there, which has been a longstanding proposal of Putin's dating back to September 2015, just before
Moscow intervened militarily in the country.
" Our militaries have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years," Trump said. "Our militaries do get along
very well. They do coordinate in Syria and other places."
Trump said Russia and the U.S. should cooperate in humanitarian assistance in Syria.
" If we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and on a humanitarian basis that's what
the word was, a humanitarian basis," he said. "I think both of us would be very interested in doing that."
Putin said he had agreed on Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron on a joint effort with Europe to deliver humanitarian
aid. "On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver humanitarian cargo. Today, I brought up this issue with President
Trump. I think there's plenty of things to look into," Putin said.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street
Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at
[email protected]and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
I'm really hard pressed to come up with anything to be optimistic about given the dire nature of our current global and national
predicaments combined with the bat-sheet crazy nature of our current version of the mass psyche. About the only bright spot I
can find is that it is really encouraging to read the overall high quality of the comments here at CN, which suggest that I can
look forward to taking part in some wonderful future conversations in "the camps."
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 1,011 registered voters throughout the United States, including 453 Republicans
and 399 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points."
Independents/anaffiliated make up more than 42% of the registered voters currently in the USA.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 pm
"medium = Social / source = Twitter"
Babyl-on , July 17, 2018 at 9:35 pm
I think we should take heart that they are such a small group – loud yes, they have the corporate press, but it is not a big
group and they have already lost the narrative. This has to be the end for them, they have no political support for impeachment
after all this screeching articles can't even get introduced mostly the "resistance" isn't even trying – they know they don't
have evidence.
The scream these words TREASON and COLLUSION but they are powerless politically to do anything. So a "treasonous" president
goes on. Clearly they are at their wits end their heads have actually exploded. The powerful "liberal" cabal which has run Washington
for decades is disintegrating before there very eyes. Clinton is the witch – Trump is the water.
A , July 17, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Okay , I get it, I will go down , but I am not going down by the orange shit head. You guys win, you wanted your Cheeto to
give us some love, and tax breaks , favorable trade deals, get rid of people like me , be besties with Russia, kill everyone from
central America. Cool. You guys win. I hope you are happy , apparently you have achieved what you wanted.
Thanks, Drew and Realist, i just read Finian Cunningham's essay at Information Clearing House. Yes, this is indeed scary. It
does appear a coup is being planned. All the more reason for us to speak up. The thought of Mike Pence is scarier than Trump.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
I was a Sanders supporter and donor who voted for Trump because he promised diplomacy, whereas Hillary wanted a no-fly zone
in Syria, and her proven track record of supporting illegal regime change in Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine and Syria. She was
a faux progressive and ultimate racist in that she has the blood of countless brown people (mostly women and children) on her
hands. What is really scary and disheartening is that the pro-WW3 propaganda seems to be working if the reader comments from the
NYT and WaPo are accurate gauges of public perception. The verdict of commenters in corporate media websites is unanimous: Trump
is a traitor for committing the crime of détente. Consortium news readers are informed because we search truth in alternative
media. I hope it's not naïve to believe we are the silent majority and most Americans still possess the common sense and critical
thinking skills necessary to see through the hysteria even if they don't venture to sites like Consortium news.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Don't worry yourself too much. The highest rated MSM news shows only garner about 1.2 million viewers. That's far less than
1% of the American population.
The MSM fancy themselves what they have not been in decades; Relevant.
That was good, mrbt (not enough vowels for me). Yes, we are in a jalopy headed for a cliff. Instead we get a cliffhanger with
this Mueller intel fiasco. I misspoke with the bank bailout, of course, it was 2009 just after Obama got into office; he told
those banksters, "I'm the only one between you and the pitchforks". Now it seems like we're on a roller coaster ready to jump
the track!
mrtmbrnmn , July 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This disgraceful and obscene display of pants-wetting by the MSM over the Trump-Putin meeting and press conference was pre-planned
and essentially pre-scripted to advance the deep state regime change op against Trump (and ultimately Putin). I was trying to
imagine these journalistic malpracticers prepped to embarrass and humiliate Obama in a similar setting by asking questions like:
"Mr Obama, which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken bones?"
It is clear beyond doubt that we are helpless passengers in the back seat of the out of control jalopy that is America, barreling
helter skelter down the highway bound to hell and total collapse. The Dementedcrats need to get off the crack pipe and the unconscionable
CIA thug John Brennan might benefit from a frontal lobotomy to get him to chill out.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
the best description i've read of this insanity is : 'the MSM is (p-faced) drunk on its own p . . . " with appreciation
to the commentor who wrote that !
It sounds like Lisa Page is, unlike Strzok (remember him, from late last week ?) cooperatively providing information which
might implicate China as the 'party which got the 30,000 emails'. Perhaps this is what Trump & Putin talked about ? In which case,
The Donald's walking back his press conference comments may be only a temporary feint. If true, Lisa will need excellent protection
and a new name !
Something big may be in the works, as Stephen says. Now Veterans Today says that a move on Iran by the US was discussed at
Helsinki, and they think that Putin would capitulate in some sort of trade-off -- what, to get off their backs? Putin is much
smarter than that. Zero Hedge just reports that Russia has dumped all their US Treasury bonds, further stating that Russia's close
ties to China indicate a trial run on the market preparatory to China dumping their pile, too. What many feel the big event is
really another economic meltdown, as nothing was done in the 2008 Obama crisis except bail out the banks, which went right back
to their chicanery. The western Deep State always sets up for war to divert attention from internal crisis.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
I get far more concerned when the press, intelligence agencies and various other DC gangsters lavish praise on Trump. Judging
by their reactions, it seems likely that Trump must have actually brought us closer to peace.
Stephen J, excellent verse as usual, "Blame It On Putin". It was reported that "the lights went out" in the White House when
Trump did his U-turn on Russian election meddling. Was that supposed to be symbolic of something?
Thanks Jessika. I believe something big is in the works. The powers that be have had things their own way for so long. The
corporate media monopoly are their mouthpieces and are barking like dogs in a frenzy in case they lose their bones. The bones
being the millions dead from planned wars and blood soaked profits that attained to the corporate cannibals. Enemies are needed
to continue the corrupt system. The War Criminals are getting desperate, the gangsters war is just starting. Unfortunately we
are all Prisoners of "Democracy" https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Antiwar7 , July 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm
David Gergen says Trump acts "against his [Trump's] own country's interests of his own institutions [including] these intelligence
agencies."
There's the rub, isn't it? The interests of our country and of those institutions: are they the same?
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
Also worth, sorry for broken record but, using Trump's unique "awfulness" as justification for vigilante-style "trial in the
press" or manipulated/propagandized "public opinion" there's a deep deep antidemocratic anti-due process or rule-of-law desperation
here which has had "liberal" (or "illiberal") precedent we've already seen in "political correctness" and #metoo (emanating from
the "progressive camp" often justified by the awfulness / despicable-ness of those they despise.
This is a very very sad devolution (or arguably the unmasking) of the Democratic Party (I vote the latter).
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump mumbled some sort of half maybe apology about questioning Russian meddling. But he will contradict that apology just
as quickly. They are really having trouble pinning this guy down on anything. His enemies want to nail him, but he just keeps
moving. For a fat guy, he is pretty nimble.
Now, Trump says he misspoke and "accepts US intel on Russian election meddling"! I guess he got anothet 'trip to the woodshed',
as Skip Scott has often said. James Howard Kunstler is right, it's a "Clusterfuck Nation". Well, the Russians are smart enough
never to trust the US.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 9:49 pm
He got the truth out first and for that I have to give him kudos.
He probably knew backtracking and its attendant issues was
Inevitable. Very nice that power went out while he said he misspoke.
as WaPo itself says, "Truth Dies in Darkness".
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Look, this is getting frightening.
Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a group think/mob mentality like what's occurring over Russiagate and the overriding
Russophobia fueling it all. This is washing over virtually all planks of the political spectrum. We just had a damaged and awful
president try to do one of the very few things he actually gets right: make rapprochement with Moscow; he was subsequently browbeaten,
smeared and viciously attacked by every single mainstream Western media outlet on the planet. Not just news media, but also the
entertainment media are completely on board -- Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Maddow, etc.
To say one kind word about Putin or the modicum of detente that Trump just unsuccessfully tried to pull off is to be mocked,
ridiculed, scoffed at and laughed at by liberal leaning friends, colleagues and acquaintances.
The militarist-corporate propaganda during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War pales in comparison to this new and scary McCarthyism
that has permeated everything.
I'm 47 y.o. and never experienced anything like this.
The liberal intelligentsia who are falling for this and propagating this have some of the hottest places in heII waiting for
them.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 5:31 pm
If you think the overwhelming majority of the US cares about what the press and politicians think, then I would suggest you
spend less time with Democrats. I dont agree with many Republican platforms, but on the reliability of media, they are far more
prescient than the Democrats. I wonder if it is because they have more first-hand knowledge than the Democrats because they tend
to send their kids to the meat grinder oil, wars more frequently than Democrats.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:40 pm
The best thing we have going right now Deniz is the cynical and skeptical attitude of much the hardworking American population.
The Russians certainly aren't the ones who foisted this unconscionable inequality on the U.S. population, nor was it the Russians
who caused the American heartland to deteriorate into a wasteland of service sector employment and Oxy dependence. It wasn't Putin
who mired recent American college grads in deplorable debt in the range of $30,000 to $400,000, nor was it Putin who demanded
that millions of Americans go without adequate healthcare coverage.
It's economic inequality and it's political enablers who are stalking the towns and cities of America, not the Russian military.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 6:37 pm
That is the real problem, so why arn't kids, their parents and the poor out on the streets like those of my generation during
the Vietnam war stiring things up. Is it social media which kills the urge to go out and protest and make yourself heard? Get
the money and business influence out of modern day politics, Raise hell !
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:15 pm
There was a DRAFT during the Vietnam war. That made a huge difference.
And, I think we were actually better informed than today's young people.
Bringing the war live into people's living rooms was New Thing back then,
and we paid attention. Now, we are habituated and just tune out bad news,
unless it happens to be a domestic shooting spree or other home turf stuff.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm
Irina below is right. The draft was the difference. People would wake up and engage if we had the draft. We have an economic
draft today. It's the only option for poor and lower class kids who will never afford college. It's unfortunate that identity
politics doesn't include the socioeconomic bias of targeting of poor kids being used as cannon fodder
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:12 pm
And moreover, the draft was based on a birthdate lottery.
All in the luck of the draw. (And of course, economic standing
since there were college deferments, etc. etc.)
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:49 pm
I'm 71, Drew, and can tell you that the darkest days of the Vietnam War were not as scary. Our power structure has taken McCarthyism
as practiced during the Korean Conflict and doubled down on it, directing its kinetics at the office of the presidency. This is
as close to a civil war or an actual coup d'etat that I have ever seen, much more divisive and explosive than Nixon and Watergate.
Someone claiming authority they do not have may soon make a move against Trump. They've stirred up enough hate by the mob to mask
their motives.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for kicking some historical info to this Gen Xer. You make some very interesting (and quite scary) points.
Over at 'Information Clearing House' the always excellent Finian Cunningham has just penned a dynamite and trenchant essay
on a possible pending coup against Trump.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 6:32 pm
Thanks. I always read your spot-on posts at the ICH website, Drew.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 8:36 pm
Thanks Realist.
In solidarity,
Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Yes. This excellent article by Finian Cunningham really nails it.
Monoloco , July 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Trump derangement syndrome is so powerful, it turns liberals into neocons.
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Drew your absolutely correct, this is a unprecedented groupthink & dangerous propaganda on a scale that's never existed before!
It's mass hysteria on steroids! And all because of the simple fact that Trump, a man who was never supposed to win the Election
over the anointed candidate, crooked Hillary Clinton occurred! Trump must be removed by a slow motion coup by any means possible?
Whether it's by undermining his authority or belittering his character. If that doesn't work they will take the JFK removal method?
As Stalin stated, death is the solution to all problems, no man, no problem? It's frightening where all this fake Russiagate nonsense
is going to lead us, it's almost as if they want to start the next great extinction event by starting WW3 & a Nuclear War with
Russia? The arrogance of America & its Deepstate, Propagandist MSM & political system is going to be the death of us all!
I don't know that to say. Whatever was left of the republic is either gone or doomed. If we have a mainstream media that is
so nakedly attempting a coup d'état or calling for one with such universal fury based on little evidence and just embroidering
one myth over another then I will have to just focus my energy elsewhere. My comrades on most of the left have, despite decades
of proof that the media is deeply dishonest and constantly howling for one war after another the only hope is to batten down the
hatches and just survive the next decade through local efforts. The sad part is I oppose many of Trump's policies but this isn't
about policies–this is about re-invigorating American militarism and imperialism.
I've been around a lot of crises but nothing like this madness.
As usual the "media impostors" and propaganda pushers blame Putin.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
January 10, 2017
"Blame It" On Putin
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
"Blame it" on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an "aggressor"
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, "Blame it" on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They "Blame it" on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They "Blame it" on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that "their democracy" is "lost in transmission"
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They "Blame it" on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of "an act of war"
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
"Blame it" on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, "Blame it" on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:46 pm
This just in: (NYT headline / top of page)
Trump Backtracks on Russian Meddling
Under Fire, He Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm
and then
Guardian:
Trump flips – then flips again – a day after downplaying Russian interference
President says he supports US intelligence consensus on 2016 election – but then says 'it could be other people also'
I heard him say that. He meant that Russia did it and others could also have been involved.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps New York magazine has it right? "The president isn't a traitor: He's just constitutionally incapable of processing
simple information, or prioritizing the national interest above his own egoistic desires." or more maybe New York's earlier article
from last week suggesting Trumpkin has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 is true.
One thing's for sure: Trumpkin borrowed 100's of millions from shady Russian bankers and other oligarchs, some of whom seem
to have laundered a bunch of money through Trump's real estate holdings by buying condos for dollars on the penny. If you foliks
don't see that as being at least somewhat on the same level as Dick Cheney holding those un-exercised Halliburton stock options
at the time Haliburton was servicing the Iraq invasion
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm
Or Hillary exchanging access to the State department for donations
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:40 pm
"Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a
war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two
occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits."
Profiting from the death and destruction of a heinous war of aggression that Cheney himself played a key role in instigating
can in no way be compared with shady business dealings. I harbour disdain for shady businessmen who cheat property owners, honest
contractors or workers. But that type of wrongdoing pales in comparison to the wicked malfeasance of Cheney (or the Bush family
for that matter).
Before you "process" any more simple "information" from New York magazine Will, I suggest you take note of the GIGO truism
and check yourself for leakage.
It seems President Lenin Moreno of Ecuador might have the perfect solution for his "problem" in London.
Free Julian Assange, Allow him to walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy with all the proper rights available for any innocent
man or woman on Earth.
Immediately upon Mr. Assange's exit, allow William (Bill) Browder to enter and occupy the same room at the Ecuadorian Embassy
– whereupon Mr. Browder will reside at that address until July 2024, punished under the identical treatment and conditions as
Julian Assange.
"Problem solved" – President Moreno!
David Otness , July 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Not much to say but the USA has gone bat-shit cray-cray.
I'm going to be delighted to be excised from many so-called "friends" – friends of mob mentality.
The US media and Intel complex have induced a national psychosis and a likely Constitutional crisis.
Keep yer powder dry.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:04 pm
I'd guess half the country considers this -- in the end -- just more partisan theatrics sad to suspect that they actually are
the "sane ones" It's ennui versus cynicism as to which is more deadly .
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
The scary thing is, Americans second amendment right to bear arms against enemies both domestic & foreign! There's a Edward
Abbey saying that a days "a Patriot must always be ready to defend his Country against his Govt"! How long will it be before American
citizens reach a tipping point where they recognise that it's enemies are its own domestic leaders & institutions such as the
false corporate propagandist MSM & corrupt Politicians in both Republican & Democratic Parties who are undermining & sabotaging
their human rights as free people! How long will it be before they say enough's enough we can't stomach this anymore?
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
In the Odyssey a witch-goddess named Circe turned Odysseus' men into pigs. I think Trump is a modern day sorcerer. In the GOP
primaries he turned his more intelligent and more experienced competitors into incoherent cartoon characters. He has done the
same to the entire Democratic establishment, and he has done it to the entire mainstream press. There is no effective opposition
because politicians and the media have become stark-raving mad – wild swine, just as dangerous as the monster they oppose. We
are in America's darkest hour and only half the blame goes to the vulgarian in the White House.
The Ministry of Truth has declared that seeking détente with Russia is an act of treason. And peace is war. Long live Oceania!
jsinton , July 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm
I love it.
BobS , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
The POTUS stood on foreign soil and announced to the world that the leader of one of our historical adversaries was more credible
than the US intelligence services.
If it walks like a traitorous duck, and quacks like a traitorous duck, ..
anon , July 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm
Then it is a traitorous troll.
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
That's rich! Do please grace us with an explanation as to why "credible" is an adjective aptly applied to either the FBI or
the CIA.
Dario Zuddu , July 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Excellent piece. Fortunately, there is still someone here retaining sanity.
The only thing I have to add is that, most regrettably, it is not only the media and opportunistic politicians that have lost
their minds on this matter.
Large segments of the public appear to have too.
Just take a look at the readers' comments on the very same type of press coverage that is indicted by Mr. Lauria.
They overwhelmingly level the same one sided, unbalanced, shallow, wrong-headed and hysterical attacks on Trump as the press articles
they comment – and for the same completely questionable reasons.
Accusations of Trump "surrendering to Putin", being a "traitor" for siding with Russia instead of the US intelligence community
(on a totally unproven matter, by the way; and since when the US intelligence community is necessarily more reliable than foreign
leaders on these matters?) are the norm in the readers' comment (as well as in the mostly recommended ones).
Incredibly, the same public that lambasted at the intelligence community for its appalling record on Iraq, now does not even want
to consider that same community's obvious self interest in Russia-bashing.
In the USA, who stands the most to loose from a possible pacification of foreign relations with the biggest military counterpart,
i.e., well, Russia?
This question just rings as troubling now as it did at the onset of the cold war.
Yet, nobody seems to wonder it.
It's just over for those of us on the old left. The Orwellian nature of the media has taken hold and we are powerless against
it. We have a population utterly uncurious of facts or history, logic or science, rationality or erudition. It's over. People
want to belong, want to share their anger at whatever enemy there is no matter how ludicrous is that threat from the enemy. This
is how the oligarch has decided to use Trump's election–first to divide us on tribal grounds and second to invent some enemy that
uses all the mythology of Hollywood villains with Russian accents. It's working and it means the oligarchs are unassailable and
now are able to control public opinion with a bunch of gestures on the screen and the population will bark on command. Goebbels
is, somewhere, cackling with delight.
We will be lucky if we avoid war, fortunately the professional military understands the situation much better than the civilian
leaders and have put brakes on our drift into permanent major war everywhere.
Paula Densnow , July 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm
The US media tries to browbeat Trump into saying that he stole the 2016 election with the help of Putin, and when he refuses
to do that, they call him a traitor.
We live in an insane asylum.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:31 pm
No, trump is clearly a traitor.
Beard681 , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 pm
To who? The military industrial complex? Bill Browder who renounced his citizenship to avoid Taxes? Certainly not average US
people for whom Russia poses no credible threat.
Robin Harper , July 17, 2018 at 10:31 pm
Gee, if this is all made up, explain this: (And keep in mind, to get an indictment, you MUST have proof.)
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller's probe:
Total of indictments (so far) – 35.
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements
to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money
laundering, and false statements -- all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He's
pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and
bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort's longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges
to Manafort. But in February he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller's team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge
and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of
identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies
involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a "Russian troll farm," and two other companies that helped finance
it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency's employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments,
and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick
Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who's currently based in Russia, was charged
alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort's pending case this year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia's military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to
the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats' emails in 2016.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians:
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty
No, Trump didn't 'steal' the election. The presidency was handed to him – by Putin.
skipNclair , July 17, 2018 at 2:01 pm
The US media lost its mind long ago.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 pm
What has happened on this trip of President Trump is simple. The axis Washington-EU/NATO has been thrown under the bus., It
has been replaced by the axis Washington-Moscow. Whether that is a cause to rejoice remains to be seen. Rejoicing now is wildly
premature. Axes can break.
There will be expectations of better lives by the Russian people. What if that does not happen? There have been far more uprisings
and revolutions in Russian history than in ours.
lizzie dw , July 17, 2018 at 1:34 pm
To respond to one commenter's suggestion that the US get rid of the electoral college; if one looked at the map of the US on
post-election morning, one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue. If we went the
"popular vote" route, every president would be elected by the coastal states because that is where most of the people live. The
coastal population does not represent the country. In my opinion, since we want to have a representative government we need the
electoral college so that each state gets to vote. The people in each state can direct the vote of their state.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sorry Lizzie. The population of all states represent our nation. That is why the vote count, while it does not elect the President
and Vice President, is not wholly without meaning. Governing totally against the views of the majority of voters implies that
they are wrong and stupid. That is my view. It is also arrogant.
strngr-tgthr , July 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Thanks you! The MAJORITY should ALWAYS rule. There should be no acceptions especially for President of the United States. Too
few people speak this TRUTH! In this day an age there is no reason to have any system or institutions in place that does not speak
for the MAJORITY! Electoral College down!
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Never heard of the "tyranny of the majority", eh? It's a genuine problem with democracy it's quite possible that many issues
would never have reached majority status -- slavery would never have been abolished (so much fuss about a regional "peculiar institutution"),
""The notion of the tyranny of the majority was popularised by the 19th century political thinkers Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy
in America) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It refers to a situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged
minority through the democratic process.""
The vote of far too many would be rendered irrelevant if there were no proportional representation mechanism in place too much
of those disenfranchised by the elimination of the electoral college are already amongst the have-nots of our country, at the
further hungry end of income inequality (some do better than other by providing "services" -- vacation homes/destinations and
cheap labor -- to the oligarchs. -- those coasts are where the money and jobs are wealth
The electoral college DOES NOT prevent the "tyranny of the majority" because you do not have equal voting. If every state cast
the same number of votes then you have equal voting. Because each state has different number of electoral votes based on their
populations, candidates can spend their time in a few states while ignoring others.
A national popular vote restores equality
A national popular vote means 3rd party candidates can win because there is no more electoral strategy or asinine argument
of red state / blue state.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:12 pm
We've never had such a system, wise guy. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, based on states' rights, not one man one vote.
Moreover, judges are not elected but appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. Having the president chosen
by the Congress, as is done in all parliamentary systems, would be "tidier" ("fairer?") than the present system, but we've lived
with this mess since 1789 and several times have been governed by a "minority president" without the world coming to an end. The
rules were no excuse for a coup d'etat then, nor are they now.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:22 pm
The Constitution allows Amendments to change with changing times. The vote has been given to free men without property, freed
slaves and women. More than 10% of Presidents did not win the plurality of votes. If people truly want their votes to count more,
they can work to amend the Constitution, or vote with their feet and move to states where their votes count more.
A much bigger issue is the lack of proportional voting practiced by most real Democracies around the world. Gerrymandering districts
can result in the party getting the least votes (of the two) in a state still winning the most representatives. Proportional voting
would eliminate this problem, but was outlawed by LBJ in favor of first-past-the-post, winner takes all Districts.
Sorry, Didi, but our federal constitutional republican form of government is neither stupid nor arrogant.
It is a well designed construct that binds together the entire nation, not only the people but the states, into an organic
being. The electoral college consciously factors in the fact that we are a union of states, not only a union of "demos" (people).
That is why the "New Jersey plan" at the Federal Convention was a high point in your high school civics class. The states are
intended to mean something in our federal republican form of government.
Indeed, for those who view the massive growth of our federal government into an imperial hegemon over the past century or so,
it is no small coincidence that the balance constructed by the founders was tipped in favor of Washington, and BIG MONEY, by the
passage of the 17th Amendment in 1912. That amemdment (for the popular election of Senators instead of their being appointed by
state legislatures as written in the constitution) inexorably led to the growth of our imperial state; immediately thereafter
came the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, enactment of a the personal income tax to replace import tariff's to fund the federal
government, our engagement in WW 1, and increasing alliance with the British Empire that lasts today in our "special relationship",
the NATO alliance, and the Anglo American hegemon.
It is also no coincidence that the root source of "Russia-gate" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a sustained effort by British
Intelligence, in cahoots with US deep state intelligence that works not for the people of the US but for the Anglo-American empire
of western capital centered on Wall Street and the medieval City of London. That is why the "golden shower dossier" was written
by a British intelligence officer (Steele), that the basis for the deep state rat Strzok to spy on Trump was an Australian "diplomat"
(read spy) Downer, friend of the globalist Clintons, and US deep state intelligence operatives attempted entrapment of Trump campaign
supporters (such as by Stefan Halper, an Mi-6 and CIA asset).
The entire attack to undermine the results of the Electoral College triumph of Donald Trump is directed by Anglo-American deep
intelligence assets, working for the globalist western capitalist cabal, that cannot permit a mere president to alter their globalist
plans; ergo, deep state rats Brennan and 10 hand picked analysts come up with "Russian collusion", unleasigh Mueller (protector
of the Whitey Bulger Winter Hill Gang), Strzok, Rosenstein, etc. to to find a basis to neuter, if not impeach, the constitutionally
elected President.
Indeed, Pres. Washington foresaw such an eventuality of foreign influence tainting our Republic; see his Farewell Address at
Paragraphs 32-39. Indeed, his prescience amazing; read these warnings:
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which
is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained,
and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And
it
gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of
a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened
and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards
a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence
to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another
cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on
the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its
tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
Indeed, if any nation can be found to be interfering in our domestic politics and seeking to influence the actions of the President,
or more precisely to have him removed from power, it's not Russia, its the United Kingdom.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Interesting, thank you. I will read up on the 17th. I've blamed the "federalization" of politics for a lot of the apparent
decline in citizen interest in Democracy as state and local influence "on people's lives" seemed to have been ceded over to the
fed not entirely a bad thing (when it comes to civil rights, equal opportunity and federal funding for stuff states could never
afford) still, I think something encouraged a complacent electorate even if the educational values of unions (voting for your
interests rather than against) signifies.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Jim in NH – brilliant post! Thank you. Everybody should read it.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 pm
If three million more voted for Hillary than Trump, then majority of voters are wrong and stupid. Good thing the Electoral
College saved us from ourselves.
" one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue."
Right, "only the coasts". The ones where nearly 50% of the US population live.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:09 pm
And that 50% mostly live in big cities which would not survive long
without the rural areas which provide the resources to support them.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:09 pm
They actually think food comes from the supermarket Irina.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm
And you buy it with EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards.
JoeD , July 17, 2018 at 3:06 pm
The coasts were not blue. Clinton got the west coast. Trump won most of the east: FL, GA, SC, NC and they split Maine. Trump
won 30 out of 50 states. There were also less people who voted in 2016 than did in 2012 and in 2008.
So it does not follow Clinton would win if there was a National Popular vote.
Our electoral system(s) have very serious problems voter access (and apathy) and gerrymandering probably top the list, but
that "neoliberal income inequality" appears to color/overlay everything
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 1:33 pm
Great article and commentary CN, many thanks. There is an excellent comment by Craig Murray at his site and one should not
miss the commentary there either
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They voted a Russian bribery hag Hillary and now go far-right John Birch in drumming
up war with Russia -- just because Trump hurt their feelings by beating Hillary. Sad!
I was impressed on the eve of 2016 election how ineffective Clinton's constant beating on Obama's drum wrt to Russia-Russia-Russia
had been I don't remember the polls but the numbers for "major concern" iirc were low, around maybe 12% (after months and months)
I think the media is drunk on their own piss . I remember feeling frustrated when Gore (who had a better case for "stolen electoin"
imho) walked away my suspicion is that on completion of the Mueller inquiry this is going backfire badly . even if Manafort gets
decades in prison for money laundering
Anon , July 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a "Danger to America" or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?
Glenn Greenwald and another thoughtful dude, Joe Cirincione. All substance and strong disagreements without shouting or personal
attacks.
Greenwald:
I also think that that last point that Joe made is actually an important one, and it does put people like me into a difficult
position, which is, you know, on the one hand, of course I don't think that Donald Trump is well intentioned and is going to have
the diplomatic skill to negotiate complicated new agreements of trade and of arms control with very sophisticated regimes like
the one in North Korea, or at least complicated regimes in North Korea, or in Russia. On the other hand, as we've been discussing,
unfortunately, he's the only game in town. There is nobody else who's saying that we ought to question NATO. Democrats, when you
say we ought to question NATO, act like you've committed blasphemy. There is nobody else talking about tariffs and the unfairness
of free trade agreements, except for a couple of fringe people within the Democratic Party. Just like this week, when he said
that the European Union was a foe, what he said was something that for a long time on the left was really kind of just uncontroversial
orthodoxy, which is that of course the European Union is an economic competitor of the U.S., and a lot of what their trade practices
are do harm the American worker. We put up barriers against Chinese products entering the U.S., and yet the EU buys them and then
sells them into the U.S., indirectly helping China circumvent those barriers in a way that directly harms U.S. workers. This is
something that people like Robert Reich and Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders have been talking about for a long time. So it does
make it very difficult when the only person who's raising these kinds of issues and talking about these things-we need to get
along better with Russia and China, we need to reform these old, archaic, destructive institutions-is a megalomaniac, somebody
who's completely devoid of any positive human virtue, which is Donald Trump. So it puts you in the position of kind of trying
to agree with him, while knowing that he's really not going to be able to do anything about those in a positive way.
On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable being aligned with people like Bill Kristol and David Frum and all of those Bush-era
hawks who are now the best friends of MSNBC and the Democratic Party, either, because they're not well intentioned, either. And
so, what I try and do is use Donald Trump and the kind of shifting alliances, that we started off by talking about, to open up
a lot of the debates, that will remain closed if you only look at U.S. politics through the prism of the 2016 election and Republicans
versus Democrats. And I think the most important point is the one that, as I said, Joe made just this week, which is that until
the Democratic Party figures out-and this is true not just of Democrats but of center-left parties all throughout Europe and here
in Brazil-until they figure out how again to reconnect, not with the highly educated class and the rich and the metropolitan enclaves,
but with the working class of these countries, that feel trampled on and ignored, and for that reason are turning to demagogues,
we're going to have more Donald Trumps and worse Donald Trumps, not just in the United States, but throughout the world. And that
is, for me, the greatest problem that we face politically
This is the best article I've read on the topic, hands down.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am
No question about that, TIEDE, but considering the pitifully low standards applied to what emanates from the wreckage of the
American mass media, Mr. Lauria really didn't have much competition to beat. Of course, no matter how deserved, he will not be
winning any Pulitzers, since mediocre groupthink, especially of the warmongering variety, is the new standard of excellence in
American letters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm
As others have noted, it "treason" isn't impeachable, what is? If not now, when?
Should we go off and invade Somalia in retaliation? The anti-Trump/Democrats are undermining their own credibility -- not to
mention the press, whose credibility might reach nosedive if they still had much of an audience .
More ridiculous than GWB after 09/11 . which reminds me that Trump keeps reminding me of want-to-share-a-beer-with GWB but
stupider and with less "fund of knowledge"
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm
And how are these "others" defining "treason?" Whatever they say it is, and without any evidence that it genuinely occurred?
This is not a case of treason, it is a case of attempted mob rule, like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The
vile media acts as the bull horn of the seditionists, they show some insurrectionists making a hullabaloo on your television screen,
and the coup plotters point and say, "see, it's treason, off with his head!" Meanwhile, your government has been stolen yet again
because some insiders didn't like the results.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:42 pm
To have treason you must have a declared war and a declared enemy. If you look at the list of people convicted of treason in
the US, there are what, a dozen?
The President has broad powers of foreign policy (and immigration) which may be a bad thing, but I applaud Trump's peace overtures
to North Korea and Russia as well as Obama's (reviled by many of the same warmongers) deal with Iran. Unfortunately all these
deals are President-specific and undercut by un-elected Intelligence agencies with agendas of their own, and politicians taking
money from the MIC and foreign lobbyists with war profiteering agendas. No one can believe a President no matter how well meaning
and sincere. Clinton abrogated Reagan's deal with Gorbachev, almost destroying Russia, as did Obama reneging on the deal with
Gaddafi, destroying Libya. Clearly the best option is to build up a cache of nuclear arms and to use them if necessary to protect
sovereignty.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
At least Cooper used a small window – there haven't been many U.S. Russia summits – but Fallows? Uh, 9/11 and the Saudis anyone?
More evidence there than Russian collusion and three Presidents – including Trump – have given that a pass.
Treason-schmeason, Dave! You don't seem to know much about the real history of the US government, only the manufactured one
of the powers in charge. Pick up a copy of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick's book "The Untold History of the United States".
As for the vaunted democracy these talking bobbleheads and puppet politicians go on about, we don't hear them speaking about
lobbying, do we, or Citizens United or McCutcheon vs Buckley decisions of the Supreme Court? It's not even the Electoral College
that skews the vote and takes democracy out of the citizens' decisions -- it's lobbying, which is legalized fraud and bribery.
No, they go on and on about Russia, Russia, Russia, all to make sure folks look somewhere else while they continue the hijacking.
Dave , July 17, 2018 at 10:35 am
What is amazing is how you and so many GOP are actually defending Russia! This was treason!
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
What is amazing is the extent that the Democrats are lied to, and the extent that they believe those lies. I am awestruck by
the complete and utter brainwashing of a democratic, educated country by the CIA. Getting Republicans, who are inclined to think
negatively of foreigners is one thing, but Liberal Democrats, who profess to believe in education and equality becoming the brown
shirts, it never occurred to me that was possible.
By the way, i am speaking as a former Democrat, Obama voter.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:58 am
Yes, it is quite frightening. I think Trump is dangerously inept but reading the intelligence report on Russia released Jan.,
2017 was the most frightened I have ever been as an American. It provided no evidence (apparently keeping things top secret is
more important than alleged election tampering which should give cause to thought right there) and instead laid out a game plan
for attacking dissenters of U.S. foreign policy.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:18 am
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I am one too, but it seems the country must be full of former Democrats (and thoroughly
disillusioned Obama voters), or at least we should be if we want to survive over the long term. Hillary was just another pack
of lies (and threatened violence) too far, which is why she lost. Had NOTHING to do with Russians hacking elections, influencing
the vote or stealing our democracy. That is simply the revisionist bullshit in the aftermath of her self-inflicted debacle, as
she persists in dragging down the party, the country and maybe the world out of self-centered petulance.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:24 am
Unless you are trying to be sarcastic, Dave, you added an extraneous letter to the word you should really want. What Mr. Lauria
has written here is pure "reason," not "treason." Go back and consider all the relevant issues again, this time accurately.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm
I guess Dave forgot that our intelligence agencies have lied us into war in the past.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm
And YOU are prosecuting Russia on what EVIDENCE? None! That is madness and the ticket to war. You are just the sort of pawn
to make Goebbels tremble with delight, Dave.
Samuel , July 18, 2018 at 12:34 am
I am not American but like so many out there, am concerned by what is going on in your once beautiful country. It amazes to
realize that people have chosen to bury truth and reason for hatred's sake. How can one hope to build a secure, prosperous democracy
based on a fraudulent lie? If one can pick a leaf from the Iraqi war it is that one should never believe unquestioningly everything
that comes from the intelligence community. That deception resulted in perhaps millions dead. This time round it might result
in billions dead including Americans. Is that what people like Dave want? Could this be a secret conspiracy to bring destruction
to the entire universe? To what ends?
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:00 am
Trump's actual treason:
-- turning environmental policy over to the biggest polluters
-- turning financial regulation over to parasitic elites
-- turning education policy over to anti-public, pro-charter grifters
-- turning the FCC over to the big telecoms
-- turning the Iran-nuke deal over to Netanyahu
What gets Trump called a traitor by the Beltway blob:
-- wanting to talk with Russia, and holding a Soviet/Russia summit just like every president since FDR
Wotta country!
Karen , July 17, 2018 at 11:06 am
Exactly!
BrianS , July 17, 2018 at 7:54 pm
Don't relish the me too, or "same here" moniker, but: Exactly!
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 9:39 am
The enemies of Peace, having failed to prevent the Putin/Trump summit, are now busy saying that it was a disaster, and that
it was meaningless – two seemingly discordant observations. The real religion of America is WAR. Anything that smacks of peace
is Heresy!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 am
"The stories of how North Korea is now violating an imaginary pledge by Kim to Trump in Singapore are even more outrageous,
because big media had previously peddled the opposite line: that Kim at the Singapore Summit made no firm commitment to give up
his nuclear weapons and that the 'agreement' in Singapore was the weakest of any thus far."
Yeah. The lunatics would have the world believe that Trump was a cowardly traitor because he didn't i) berate President Putin
to his face for rigging the election in his favor (as did the impertinent network goon Chris Wallace whom Putin totally pwned,
though absolutely unbeknownst to the American jingoist corp) and ii) summarily declare war on the Russian Federation to cap everyone's
day of fun and games. Insults and war seem to be what the imbeciles so passionately want. I wish I could give them their suicidal
war that didn't involve me, my relatives, friends and other innocent bystanders, but that's not how it works and they will eagerly
take us all down if given the chance. We are seeing war fever sweep across a crazed nation led astray by the worst demagogues
to come down the pike since the "Greatest Generation" got an invite from Uncle Sam to Hitler's big dance. Everybody is a flag
waving blood-lusting maniac, from the corporate boardrooms, to the residue of what is left skulking around the fake newsrooms,
to the cocky stand-up comedians now inhabiting every late night channel spewing trash and attitude without having the first clue.
Must be as invigorating as sucking in the cordite-perfumed air of Berlin circa 1939. The pity is that this time the glorious experience
will be so short once the rockets are launched. Almost seems a waste to squander the experience on a bunch of lame brains who
probably assume they can get their ticket price back if they don't fully enjoy the show.
Realist, As always, your comments are stunningly accurate, and have literary flavor as well. It is really getting there as
you have described.
As Gore Vidal wrote long ago, this brainwashing started long time ago during the nineteenth century when they started inoculating
the innocent American population against socialism and all that, the ideas which were sweeping across Europe in that century.
Here we are now, it is almost a crazed Nation. My wife reads L.A. Times religiously and being a Hillary fan has been watching
CNN, MSNBC, Judy Woodruff and other channels like these.
It is not going to end up pretty, the atmosphere is frightening.
Doran Zeigler , July 17, 2018 at 9:32 am
I consider my politics as beyond progressive, and I am definitely not a Trump cheerleader, but I must say that this article
by Consortium News is by far the most balanced and fair article I have read on the Trump/Putin press conference. Did the Russians
hack Clinton's emails? Most likely. Were the hacks responsible for Clinton's defeat -- not on your life. Hillary offered nothing
other than the same old tired rhetoric and hostilities toward Russia. She basically defeated herself.
The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by three million should dispel any notion that the Russian hacks were effective.
What this does say is that we should get rid of the antiquated and unfair Electoral College. The press conference was not the
venue to grill or attempt to embarrass Putin, besides, Putin could hurl those same accusations at the US for not only interfering
in the Ukraine election, but also contributing millions of dollars to it. Putin, if he wanted, could point to NATO creeping up
to Russian borders when NATO had promised years ago not to go beyond unified Germany. The Russians have a multitude of complaints,
but are more diplomatic than the provocative Americans and would rather not solve these problems in the press.
Is Trump a bumbler -- no doubt. The conference was not the place to air America's dirty laundry or bring up his usual complaints.
All of this hoopla is a dog and pony show, a theatrical media event to distract the American people from their real problems like
a collapsing economy made worse by Trump's tariffs, like the bloated military budget, the horrific income inequality, the rise
of poverty, and an endless stream of worsening problems of which neither party has a solution. It is the old sleight of the hand
trick -- watch the hand I wave in front of you face, but pay no attention to the hand that is stealing you blind.
I am at least happy to see a media outlet that has broken from the pack of running lemmings that are not heading for a cliff,
but are running in a small circle.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Where is the evidence that Russia, rather than an insider like Seth Rich, released the emails?
Assange has all but verbally confirmed it was Seth Rich, not Russia.
Zinny , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Begs the question; Why doesn't the NSA either confirm or deny the download?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:50 pm
Why doesn't Mueller offer Assange immunity to testify? Sounds like Mueller may offer the Podestas (Manafort's partners in crime
in the Ukraine) immunity to testify against Manafort.
TragiCom , July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am
You'd be forgiven if you thought Brennan's rant was an episode from 'Who is America'!!
Brennan & co. behaving absolutely like unaccountable gangsters. Very dangerous gangsters. Nuclear armed gangsters.
"The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence,
of stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage
the candidacy of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with
the clear intention of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so."
The most blatant and desperate effort to date to sabotage détente, any effort to cooperate on crucial issues. The media and
its sources are hysterical but scary as hell. Using words like treason without a peep from the media or anyone in Washington is
also scary as hell.
Didn't watch much of the news but curious about CNN, turned it on to watch Blitzer and Rand Paul exchange. Last question do
you trust our security folks or Putin. The patriots versus the devil. Rand Paul ignored it and earlier pointed to our less than
Simon pure history of trying to meddle in elections. Hell we ran the campaign of the greatest thief in Russian history, Yeltsin.
Bottom line, folks will do anything to stop the President's efforts to improve relations with Russia. It began before the inauguration
and has not let up since.
There is reason to use the word treason but it is not Trump's.
It's a bizarre world when Donald Trump is actually the voice of reason in the USA. The corporate media (including our "public"
networks) are running around with their hair on fire at the thought of the two nuclear nations having a rational relationship.
Why can't the public see the insanity of what's going on?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Sedition is the more accurate word for those in the Intelligence agencies seeking a soft coup.
richard vajs , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
The US Media lost its mind about two years ago. After all this time they are still trying to change the 2016 election. It was
plain then – a dirt-bag vs. a fool. The US Media had a dog in that fight – the dirt-bag. What is driving them insane is that the
"fool" has survived their best efforts to destroy him – should have been easy, but it is not. So the insane manipulators are going
for the throat now – TREASON. It is all ridiculous – America has deep economic problems that need to be addressed, namely the
terminal income inequality that exists. Killing the fool and re-elevating the dirt-bag will accomplish nothing but give the U
S Media and the elites they represent another fifteen minute stroll on the decks of the Titanic
Charron , July 17, 2018 at 8:24 am
The corporate press has been shocked that President Trump would not believe the findings of his own intelligence. Never once
has anyone in the Corporate press ever noted that out intelligence sources, the CIA in particular lied when they said Iraq had
WMDS. It was a terrible lie. And even if you prefer to believe that the intelligence community had merely made a mistake, our
invasion cost us over 3trillion dollars, cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, and ended up causing the death of hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has ignited the middle east, resulting in the rise of ISIS. But no one in the corporate press
sees fit to even mention the fact that the CIA claimed were a "slam dunk." Nor has anyone in the corporate press mentioned the
fact that James Come, when he was in the FBI, who headed up the Anthrax investigation fingered the wrong man, though he had said
when questioned if he had the right man, said he was absolutely certain that Hatfiield was the man who spread the Anthrax. The
government settled the false charges against Hatfiled for 5.82 million, as it turned out a fellow named ivans. P.S. Robert Mueller
was the head of the FBI during most of the investigation. And let me make this clear, I also think Trump is a scoundrel, but the
members of our corporate press are scoundrels too.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 am
That the parroted information that got us into Iraq was a lie was widely reported and the intelligence debunked in independent
media at the time. There was no mistake. The information was out there but went ignored by the mainstream media. But it goes back
further. Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War erroneous reporting on such issues has been consistent at CNN.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm
You could not be more wrong about the Anthrax.
Comey and co. ignored a material witness in that case (me) that caught Hatfill snooping around my house in November of 2001. Approx.
a month and a half after I received an anthrax letter. Mr Comey's Anthrax investigation was no such thing. It was just like Hillary's
email investigation. It was a "matter" not an investigation.
An investigation would have included having agents pay a visit to the man (me) that gave them Hatfill's last name 7 months before
his name became public. I was able to do that b/c I when I caught him snooping around my house he was arrogant enough to wear
his army jacket. Guess what is on your army jacket? Your last name.
MR. Comey's Anthrax matter also ignored when I informed the FBI that Ottillie Lundgren and Cathy Nugyen had posted on the same
internet message board at the same time and to the same article that I did.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller lied then and are lying now.
For kicks and giggles you can hear Hatfill admit that he was in North Carolina at the time I caught him snooping around my
house in NC here . https://youtu.be/fSfcIh1WCdg?t=1640
Mike , July 17, 2018 at 8:01 am
"The queen of diamonds the queen of diamonds"
padre , July 17, 2018 at 7:41 am
You ain't seen nothing yet, wait till your allies come tot their senses!
Well now I feel silly. I just saw the ZeroHedge piece and understand that Robert Parry wrote often about Browder, so presumably
most visitors of this site are familiar with the name. I'll have to look for those articles. Is Browder in the same league as
Soros?
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 1:25 pm
Webb: "Trump and Putin are closing in on this Brennan/Browder gang; that's why you had that incredible reaction from Brennan
"
Putin tried to make the point that private citizens are not the state in a country. A private citizen doesn't speak official
government words.
Russian billionaires perhaps poured money into election campaigns. If so, the head of state is not to blame, nor is the crime
done by authority of the government.
Putin said Browder evaded Russian taxes and laundered $1.2 bn into USA, and moved one-third = $400 mn to Clinton's campaign.
Netted him $800 mn. With one-eighth of that Browder bribed Congress to enact Magnitsky (sp) proclamation to spur sanctions.
Russia filed criminal warrants with US under the 1999 treaty (Putin cited) to question Browder and bring charges; unlawfully
ignoring them, US violated treaty.
Browder money 'meddling' in 2016 campaigns is NOT 'Putin dunnit' and NOT 'Kremlin dunnit' and NOT 'Russia dunnit.' Only truthfully,
'Russian Browder dunnit.'
Trump's right for peace, but deplorable (almost) every other way.
If he did 'collude and conspire' that seems the least of his crimes. Impeach him for being morally unfit. Cripes, he was named
in Florida court indictments as co-defendant against charges of rape and abuse of 13- and 14-yo girls; his partner Jeffrey Epstein
was convicted and did time. Forget Russia, Trump's is a sex pervert, racist, and fascist -- unfit for office.
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump
No link but find July 10 item at ClubOrlov.com titled, Taking Refuge in Insanity. It may be solace for Joe, in a way, and moreover
a general understanding of media cohort insanity.
If understanding is possible.
And MOST I stopped to say Thank You, thank you Joe Lauria. Your work brought me deep relief and it's refreshing.
_____
PS, I predict the 12 indicted Russians do get their day in US courtroom to defend themselves with lawyers rightfully allowed
to question (Mueller's) prosecution witnesses and testimony, and to present defense , and (Mueller's) prosecution loses there.
PPS, any rich moneybags domestic or foreign who aimed to spend in 2016 to hurt Hillary or help Donald be elected,
put all the money into Bernie's campaign: split the left vote and the rightist candidate skulks into office. Vice versa, Dems
in 2020 may prop up a Republican candidate on the left of Trump; split the R's vote between soft and hard rightwingers.
exiled off mainstreet , July 17, 2018 at 2:25 am
Who are the traitors? Those who seek war with a nuclear power or those who wish to solve the problems. What about Browder's
$400,000,000 to the Clinton campaign. Putin wouldn't make such a statement if there were nothing to back it up, though Mueller
is willing to lay unsubstantiated charges which go against proven evidence that the DNC leak was from a thumb drive, not internet
transmission. In any event, why is it so bad that the crimes of the DNC were revealed? I guess the truth is dangerous to the yankee
form of "managed democracy."
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 2:10 am
I don't know if it's true or not, but I once read that Nicholas II actually ordered the de-mobilization of the Russian army
on the eve of WWI, but that his order was ignored by his subordinates who were eager for war. Trump in his interview with Hannity
implies at one point that he doesn't have full control over the military -- that the belligerent rhetoric has been having practical
and dangerous consequences. Frightening. Starting at ca. min. 5. https://youtu.be/dRMW4knpiUo
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:22 am
Just for sh*ts & giggles, try listening to prophecy preachers like Bro. Stair at
http://www.overcomerministry.org (Do NOT belive them!) Such folks
have radically different assumptions. Listening will clear your intellectual pallette, so to say.
David G , July 17, 2018 at 1:11 am
Others may not feel the connection strongly, but watching today's (yesterday's now) media meltdown flashed me back to the day
of Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD presentation to the U.N.
I watched that live, and even at the time – before the specific fabrications were exposed – it was such a self-evidently lame
effort that I was genuinely surprised and confused when all the media people instantly hailed the its supposedly irresistible
power in making the case for the coming war. And it's not like I went into the day with such a high opinion of the corporate media.
As with Trump in Helsinki, it was clear the media was activating a pre-arranged narrative (approval then, opprobrium now) rather
than genuinely reacting to what they had seen and heard.
Jared , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
That is an excellent assesment.
That is the dumbfound aspect the blatantly preconceived and coordinated attack on the public dialog.
I feel certain the media is being required to sacrifice its reputation for the purpose of distracting the public from some issue.
I dont thing the anderson coopers realise that this is the purpose they belive they are simply acting as political assasins of
the enemy.
Maybe is niave of me but is it possible this is simply to defray discussion of dnc communications and dnc conspiring by which
they pretty much destroyed the democratic brand? Of course there are also the globalists concern with nationalism and populism
and mic with concern fear of outbreak of peace.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:23 am
The average journalist, mostly print but even regional TV, statistically makes less money than school teachers. It's quite
different at the national TV level. They are paid ridiculously well and maybe coincidentally (maybe not) removed from the ground
work among the masses. The system has rewarded them so there is natural bias toward the status quo (something that exists to a
degree in objective journalism to begin with). They likely aren't aware but they are hired and keep their jobs based on questions
they are not likely to ask. It's corporate America. Just as in low level administrative job hiring at large companies, blandness
and safe get the jobs.
Chumpsky , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and
stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
A page taken out of JFK's playbook.
No wonder the democrats/MSM/Deep State are so disturbed and ready to shoot the messenger. He's encroaching on their sanctified
turf!
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity
to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to
risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Question for those who have seen the video: were these prepared remarks, or were they spontaneous?
I appreciate them either way, but if Trump crafted those lines on the fly I really might have to give the cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing
shitgibbon (thank you, Scotland!) a fresh look.
Nora De Groote , July 17, 2018 at 3:44 am
I was thinking the exact same thing when reading that quote. That doesn't seem like his rhetoric at all. The "good thing bad
thing" is where you have his level of "eloquence" again. Regardless, even if he had to memorize the statement beforehand, he still
scored in my book.
Vivian O'Blivion , July 17, 2018 at 7:10 am
"cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing, shitgibbon" as a Scotsman I can only apologise for my compatriots sickeningly sycophantic language.
We are normally less diplomatic in our appraisals. In Scotland, if you hear the word "f**k", it's just to let you know a noun
is coming.
Zim , July 17, 2018 at 9:00 am
It's hard to believe that statement came out of Trumps mouth. But I believe it to be spot on.
To Chumpsky : A very courageous statement of Trump! He is no fool . You can't tell a bonk from its cover,
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:12 pm
Lauria: "The media's handlers were even worse than their assets."
Zing! Props to you, Joe.
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
I haven't read the article or the comments yet, but I want to chime in now:
I've been watching MSNBC on and off all day, and the summit has clearly caused their brains (already in parlous condition)
to completely liquefy.
"Treason! Worse than Watergate *and* 9/11!!"
Demented.
tom , July 17, 2018 at 10:07 am
+1
Lois Gagnon , July 16, 2018 at 10:38 pm
Once again, the hypocrisy of the media is on full display. Every president including this one pays total fealty to the criminal
state of Israel which we know has interfered in the US political process, not to mention sinking a US naval vessel. But heaven
forbid there be diplomatic talks with Putin who has bent over backwards to accommodate the US when he can. So far all he's gotten
is sand kicked in his face.
The behavior of the media and its fellow juvenile delinquents in Washington are an embarrassment. They are without realizing
it, making Trump look presidential. You can't make this sh*t up.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
The Evil Monsters destroying our world with their greed and violence are being flushed into the open. But will the brainwashed
masses be able to see this? That is the crucial test that humanity faces at this time. The Rulers will go all out to spin this
in their favor, and if that fails, they will probably try to assassinate this dangerous man, President Donald Trump.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Meanwhile, while everyone is focused on Trump and Putin's summit, the real power of collusion is hard at work.
I'm posting this, because while it's appropriate we talk at length about the disgraceful reception Trump got for his trying
to wage peace, we should not lose sight to what country is using the U.S, as it's useful idiot.
Besides that, an article such as what Phil Giradi wrote should not go unnoticed thank you once again MSM for being the jerks
you are. Did the MSM ever hear of the word 'reporting'? Thank you Joe Lauria & the Parry family for being here when we need you
the most. I don't know what I'd do without the Consortium. Hey kudos to you too Robert Parry, your still number one with me.
For trying to restore a note of sanity and balance in the crucible of journalistic/political dialogue between Russia and the
US centers of power, where we sense the truth will be lost in white hot bombast, and the accepted narrative of reality will be
decided by the heads pushing the correct emotional buttons to fit their nationalistic needs, and their needs for continued employment.
Who can forget the last time all 17 intelligence services were of one mind on weapons of mass destruction – that turned out to
be nonexistent! Let's hope we can catch our breath before we trip into a patriotic war that destroys civilization.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Excuse me, but the intelligence service was turned upside down by Bush and his team inserting their own officials to sensor
what was released. The Agencies were very upset that the truth wasn't coming out, and you had the Valerie Plame incident also.
From Slate: "Trump and Putin Met in Helsinki's Hall of Mirrors. Here Are the Highlights." ends with the following:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
On a related note, Rob Goldstone, the British publicist who set up that Trump Tower meeting by promising Trump's son that it was
"part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," just tweeted that Putin had lied earlier in the day when he said
he did not know that Trump would be in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.
Rob Goldstone @GoldstoneRob
President Putin just stated that he had no idea Donald Trump was in Moscow in 2013. I know for sure that he did and tell the full
story in my soon to be released book "Pop Stars, Pageants & Presidents: How an Email Trumped My Life"
1:16 PM – Jul 16, 2018
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
There may not have been collusion but I think we can say there probably was interference, voting machines and misinformation spread
by agents throughout the social communications media of today. And Putin did admit late, that he was for Trump not Hillary.
If there was funding from Russia to the Democrats as some say, and Putin is truthful that he preferred Trump then why did they
give money to the Democrats? Was it to designed to undermine Hillary through its exposure.
Others complain about the timing of the 12 Russian agents, but that was no different from the timing of the Hillary email story
release shortly before the election.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 am
"Putin Stole the Election" is fantasy fiction, just like "Obama is a Kenyan" was.
Typingperson , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 am
So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries like
Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?
If lawfully using a govt server, Hillary"s emails would be subject to FOIA petitions. By USA citizen taxpayers and reporters.
Her emails as Sec of State are the property of the American people, who paid her salary. That's what people still don't get.
She used a private server to keep secret the illegal, pay-to-play arms deals–in return for payola bucks to Clinton Foundation.
And Obama turned a blind eye for 4 years. His specialty: Suck-up talking while turning a blind eye.
To Hillary"s incompetence and murderous corruption, to his weekly drone-murders, and to accelerated deportation of innocent
immigrants–and ICE separating parents from kids.
While starting 5 new wars on top of Iraq and Afghanistan–including ongoing genocide of Yemen.
Obama was a good boy for the deep state / war profiteers. And he collected his $60M "book contract." Bribe.
Bill , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
"So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries
like Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?"
How is that different from Trumpkin or Bush doing much the same thing?
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:50 am
Maybe it doesn't make sense because Russia never really worked for either side.
Ron Johnson , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
Tracing who, exactly, did the hacking is always difficult because the evidence left behind is usually impossible to trace.
In the case of the hacking or attempted hacking of certain states' data, the only evidence that it was the Russians came from
Russian language characters in the code. Slam dunk, right? Well no, since our CIA/NSA admitted to using exactly such techniques
to misdirect researchers away from their own hacking.
If you read deeper into the story of how the Russians funded Clinton, you'll find that it was not the Russian government. Putin
pointed out that the money was made 'illegally' in Russia and sent out of the country 'illegally', ending up in Clinton's campaign.
There are a number of differences between the indictments of the Russians and the release of information in the Hillary e-mail
investigation. First, there is no chance the Russians will ever end up in a U.S. court so it is an indictment with no future.
Second, Comey, a supporter of Hillary, made the announcement and subsequently cleared her, probably to save his own career because
the field office that was doing the investigating was about to go public with his dereliction of duty in the Clinton investigation.
Subsequent investigations have revealed how the highly politicized FBI and DOJ went out of their way to protect Clinton. Mueller's
indictments, on the other hand, are just pure political malfeasance.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm
Zhu Ba Jie, I never said that Russia influnced the results of the election. It probably didn't. But what I do think is that
the Russians are probably laughing at how didvided America has become. Neoliberalism which caters to busines rather than liberalism
which caters to the people and the country as a whole is destroying society. People need to get on the streets and voice their
concerns, Get together and form rallies like those who spoke out against the Vietnam War.
Is it social media that makes people babble and rave rather than be active out there getting the much needed attention?
Gather fo support a greener world, a fairer more benevolent world. To get local economies going putting money in needy people's
pockets is far better than trickle down or financing and support for big business. The poor will spend it locally and that's good.
Get out there and make a stir. Trump ain't going to help you. Get rid of PACs, superPACs and other big donor money pots for a
start start. Bernie Sanders and now some new young people are seeing the light. Get in there and help them along. Get out on the
streets and shout for change!
Throw away the smart phone and get marching!
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Also, Ron Johnson , I'm not American, I didn't know the full story of the mob money and Hillary. My choice was Bernie Sanders
never Hillary or Trump. My fear is, the way things are going, it's like the period between the great wars and the effects of poverty
and big business. Support for the needy and the busting up of big business were two steps which helped the world climb out of
the mire. Perhaps we need to add robotics to the list. People need work and a purpose.
Larry Gates , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
Donald Trump is a vile human being, and I disagree with 98% of what he says and does, but today he was right and everyone else
was wrong. I've been on a trip in my car most of the day, listening to public radio. It was an endless orgy of misinformation
and deep-state propaganda. PRI was as insane and dangerous as Fox News on a really bad day. I'm starting to think that nuclear
war is a more immanent danger than global warming. It isn't just Rachel Maddow who has gone off the deep end. It is the entire
national media. What kind of country have we become? Pray for peace.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Larry – Don't buy the Trump CoolAid He is completely wrecking are world order. Last month was Kim, this month was Putin and
now this! Look:
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
He is meeting with all the dictators of the world now! Guaranteed he will have Assad at the White House before we can get him
impeached. This is 100% out of Putin's play book. He is a trader to American Values. Never have we sunk so low, dissing are true
allies and honoring thugs, killers and despots! 110% vile!
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
Do you mean like Pinochet, Somoza, Galtieri, Rios Montt, Suharto, Mobuto, shall I go on?
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:02 pm
And it is about time there are direct talks with the Taliban. The U.S. has lost in Afghanistan. It has to try to get something
out of it.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
We are in Afghanistan for woman's rights! "Hillary: justified by the desire to emancipate Afghan women." And we have all seen
the concern that Trump has for woman (Billy Bush – Babies at the Border, shall I go on?) 120% vile!
You are totally deluded, Mr. Man Without Vowels in His Name, if you think we are in Afghanistan to promote women's rights.
I'm sure you still faithfully watch the Jay Leno Show to stay apprised of Mrs. Leno's featured assessment of that crusade. Ranking
light years ahead of your purported reason for the last 17 years of war in the Hindu Kush are i) the planned oil and gas pipelines*,
ii) the proven deposits of rare earth elements essential to modern electronic devices, and iii) the immediate proximity to Iran,
Russia, China and Pakistan giving Washington the ability to raise hell from its many military bases in Afghanistan on a moment's
notice (all part of Obama's infamous "Pivot to Asia," which implied far more than a new cadre of Peace Corp workers–more like,
we can buy any locals we need with the pallets of Franklins we now air drop on a routine schedule).
* Read "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden" by Brisard and Dasquie, it's
still relevant 17 years later, while Hillary's "feminist" credentials remain completely irrelevant.
Gene Poole , July 17, 2018 at 5:48 am
An analysis of this contributor's writing style reports a 98.3% likelihood that he/she is Donald Trump.
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 8:04 am
The United States has been "honoring thugs, killers, and despots" at least since Allen Dulles became the director of the CIA
in the 1940s. America is an expansive empire, controlled by our corporate oligarchy. It's all about their money and power. They
talk about human rights, but that is just a cover for their greed. Much of Trump's foreign policy is bad, but it is simply a logical
continuation of the foreign policies of Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Negotiations with Putin is a step in the right direction and
the Orange Beast deserves credit for it. It looks to me like it is you, not me that has swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:02 am
The Taliban, in the last week – 10 days, has said they will not negotiate as long as the USA occupies Afghanistan This was
abbreviated in most headlines to say that the Taliban refuse to negotiate.
The Americans have launched the "time to negotiate with the Taliban" trial balloon before -- "tragically" coming to nothing.
We (USA) interfere when the Baghdad government attempts their own negotiations. (or simply do things that encourage retaliatory
attacks) . Now ISIS in the mix.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:47 am
We've become a theater state. A powerful performance is what matters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:08 am
Indeed. The histrionics of the last 48 hours have been beyond belief and credulity. The hardcore news-as-scandal-addicted will
stay tuned, but I lost respect for some "stars" of the news in ways that won't be forgotten I keep expecting Maddow to either
use hand puppets or present "crime reenactment" videos, along with her other show-and-tell visual aids.
BBC is just as bad in terms of prejudice but at least present a professional facade .DW and France 24 are alternatives as is
the (much too short, almost every hour on the hour) RT headline news. RT's interview and talk shows are excellent and quite sober.
It's not that they aren't slanted, they're just not insulting to the audience.
HiggBo , July 17, 2018 at 10:10 am
Maybe now you will think about the things these very same people said about him. Maybe they arent true either.
Hint: The vast majority arent.
Deniz , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
They are losing their minds over Putins announcement of the $400 milion that was transferred Clinton through Browder.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:01 am
Seems Hillary learned a lot from Chinagate (where the Clintons paid the illegal donations from a foreign nation back AFTER
winning the Election). And China only received military technology, offshored jobs and permanent favored nation trading status
in return. Win-win.
You can be sure Hillary will claim that $400 million, if ever traced to her despite bleach bitting all her records, was for the
Clinton Foundation Campaign and it was just an inadvertent mixup.
PuddinNTain , July 16, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Thank you for this reasoned piece amidst a plethora of madness. Most of my friends and colleagues who identify as Democrats,
liberals, progressives, haters of Trump, etc, people I have the most in common with, politically speaking, have completely lost
their freaking minds over this stuff. Critical thinking? Who needs it! Mueller and the intelligence community have surely seen
the light since the "Iraq has WMDs" days.
Exactly when did the intelligence community, the sellers of lies and perpetrators of regime change world-wide, become a friend
to the American people?
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"He had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy,.."
What democracy? 99% of the candidates' campaigns have been almost completely funded by Wall Street, the blood thirsty giant
defense contractors, or paranoid and hegemonic Zionist sociopaths.
It's been proven in a recent academic study by Princeton political scientists (and long lamented before these guys got on the
case by such luminaries as Michael Parents, S. Wollin, James Petras, N. Chomsky, Vidal, Hedges) that the American citizenry has
absolutely no influence whatsoever regarding poltico-economic decisions that emanate from Washington, they're drowned out by big
business and the imperialist ruling elites.
So I ask this warmongering Russophobic talking head once again: what democracy? What democracy do you speak of? The same democracy
that mires millions of newly college grads with $30,000 to $500,000 in student loan debt, or the same democracy that's witnessing
close to 50% of the entire population living close to the poverty level, or that has tens of millions of its denizens without
adequate healthcare coverage
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:55 pm
typo: such luminaries as Michael Parenti, S. Wollin, James Petras
The editor regrets the error.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Trump ain't going to help you on that one. You need to get together with others work to get rid of PACs and Super PACs. In
most western countries they wouldn't be allowed.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 am
The political parties are also corrupt, taking donations fed back directly or indirectly from government funding of contractors.
These are extensive rackets supported by half the population, who have never worked for anything but a political gang operation,
and really believe in gangs.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:11 am
Why are you bringing up "ponies" that we will never have, when Hillary's private club (or so the judge ruled when Bernie's
supporters tried to fight their fraud, saying private clubs can do what they please, particularly picking potential presidents)
was hacked into by those supercompetent Russians? Much akin to the Nigerian guy who's been trying to help me collect money from
some dead rich relative I didn't know I had. Still waiting, but I'm sure if this was a fraud Mueller and our Intelligence agencies
would be all over it, just like Hillary's Private Club, the DNC. The Russians didn't steal any money from Hillary, as far as I
know, or there would have been War!
gcw919 , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
These media "pundits" are truly an embarrassment. They become apoplectic about "possible" Russian hacking in our elections,
but one can search in vain for their comments about our own interference in Ukrainian politics, and many other countries around
the globe. (eg, Victoria Nuland, Hillary's pit bull, gloating about the US spending $5 billion in "support" of Ukrainian democracy).
Its as if real concerns, such as nuclear annihilation, or catastrophic climate change, were afterthoughts. We are certainly living
in mystifying times.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I think the same thing. The whole "election meddling" hoopla, even if it was true, pales to insignificance in light of what
we are actually doing.
We have a base – a military base – in Syria. We weren't invited. We didn't get permission to set up a base. But we set up a
military base in another country while announcing that that country's leader "must go." And now – with a total absence of evidence
– we have the gall to condemn Russia for "meddling in our democracy."
What is wrong with these people? Can't they see the utter hypocrisy in it all?
AZ_bob , July 16, 2018 at 11:29 pm
I tell people all the time, if Russia did put their thumb on the scale, then hey – I guess "What Goes Around, Comes Around"
huh? If you CAN'T take it, DON'T dish it out. Quite simple, really
irina , July 17, 2018 at 1:28 am
The US media's hysterical (in the unfunny sense) response to "Russian meddling"
is very like the husband who catches his wife cheating on him and goes totally postal,
although he himself has been cheating on her ever since their courting days . . .
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:53 am
No they don't see the hypocrisy. A large percentage of the population suffers from a severe Irony Deficiency and that can't
be cured.
Layne , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
I beat my head against the wall with the very same question! Thanks for sharing..
Tristan , July 16, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Thank you for doing the real journalism needed for readers to gain perspective and understanding. It is important to call out
propaganda in the face of facts. One thing that stands out significantly is the statement by Trump, "I would rather take a political
risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." Even if only partially pursued, the goal of peace is indeed
a very worthy endeavor. In fact, this is one of the first times in recent memory that a US president has used the word "Peace".
I don't like the majority of what the Trump administration is doing, it is important to stick to the facts and support efforts
that could lead to a reduction of the tensions and hostility which dominate current US / Russia relations.
F. G. Sanford , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
"A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world."
I could hear in the inflection of that sentence the profoundly courageous and confidently certain voice of John F. Kennedy.
Gergen, Amanpour, Cooper, Cheney, Brennan, Clapper and the rest of them be damned. The usual suspects, the bought and paid-for
mouthpieces of the "deep state" raised their reptilian ire in the expected reprehensible fashion. War is what keeps them on the
"payroll", and they'll tell any lie it takes to keep those checks rolling in. Despicable. It seems likely that their vitriol may
stem as much from fear of exposure as anything else.
I think President Trump gave a laudable and compelling performance. It's a tragedy that this article will probably not get
the circulation it deserves. Thanks to Joe Lauria for having the guts to write it.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:43 pm
Amen.
jaycee , July 16, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Cheers. I noticed the same JFK echo in that sentence.
Brennan and the whole lot of those pundits sound exactly like the paleolithic right from the 50s and 60s, the ones who insisted
MLK was a communist and were so effectively personified by Sterling Hayden in the Dr Strangelove film.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
Here ya go F.G. your on par with Paul Craig Roberts.
I recall about 16 years ago when the U.S. media almost unanimously reported, with absolute certainty, that Saddam Hussein was
harboring numerous weapons of mass destruction. I also recall their fervent calls for regime change because Hussein was a threat
to our national security. There were a few voices who spoke against it, but they were drowned out by MSM. It would appear that
U.S. media is adamantly against anyone who is opposed to war. Is it because war is so profitable for the media, or is it because
war is so profitable for their masters?
Hey, Johnmichael, you must know that the US is headed by an oligarchy, UK too, France, etc. What runs the world is banks and
multinational corporations. The US could actually be called a corporatocracy, because the people have very little say in their
government. Yes, media bashers do bash media when they lie because they are supposed to ferret out facts but they don't, they
serve their money masters. They all use "Goebbels style" messaging, Putin the least, i notice. It's a western script.
Steve , July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Everything the Main Stream media says about Trump applies ten times over to themselves, the presstitutes that they are useful
Idiots of the Corrupt New World Order.
Bob In Portland , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
A look at Mueller's career will go far in explaining why Mueller is handling this and what he won't see while investigating:
I did Bob, and I'm encouraging more to read it. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 am
Bob – Yes, I have read the article about Mueller's career.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 5:08 am
Bob in Portland – excellent read! Thank you. Mueller is like a fixer, a sweeper, someone who cleans up and, as you said, moves
investigations away from the CIA.
"He knew where to look and where not to look."
No doubt he's a valuable asset to the Deep State. Not a nice man.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:39 am
Great work!
Yes, Mueller's a master of misdirection. Was it Parry who noted (likely others as well) that reporting is now less about lying
than deliberate omission. Hard to fact-check what ain't there (vs. a lie which lays out data which can be tested) Knowledge IS
power: we are not to have knowledge.
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 9:34 am
Thanks to all in this thread. I filed this statement recently here, and it was edited out. I'll try again because it's appropriate.
A relatively vibrant Press was modified violently in the days and weeks following November 22, 1963. Some careers were enhanced,
some lives were lost. If some contemporary student of History or Journalism wanted to study the decline of American Democracy
they might begin by reading all of the linked article below about a Journalist named Penn Jones
As much as I loathe Trump, I have to admit this is one time I agree with him. No matter how much Trump screws up, the simple
fact is that no one is 100% wrong, and it's important to recognize when they are not wrong.
I don't agree that the Russians are our enemy. I don't believe they are our friends, but there's a large gap between an enemy
and a friend and I place the Russians somewhere in that gap. I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database, but that doesn't
rise above my threshold of significance and certainly doesn't hold a candle to all the U.S. interference in the politics of most
of the world's nations (which includes deposing democratically elected presidents). And finally, I don't believe in gunboat diplomacy
and I agree that it's better to talk with the Russians than it is to beat the war drums and seek more confrontation.
Having said that, I deplore Trump's behavior toward our European, Canadian and Mexican friends, and his domestic policies are
the worst of any in the last 100 years. But as much as I deplore this buffoon, I believe that he is right in attempting to normalize
relations with Russia.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database,"
Well, you should, because there is zero evidence of a Russian hack.
On what basis in the world do you so confidently assert that you "do not deny" something that is untrue?
The evidence is of an inside leak.
Please, learn the difference between the two, a hack and a leak.
Another indication of the insidious power of the media over common sense.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 3:22 am
Of course it is entirely within the interests of America to have free and friendly relations with Russia. Why? Not only because
peace beats the hell out of war, especially the nuclear variety, but because we, along with the rest of the world, need Russia's
vast resources in a planet rapidly being depleted of everything essential to modern technology. If they don't sell their products
to the West on the open market because Washington thinks it can steal them after some kind of "regime change," all those essential
goodies will go to China, India and the other peoples of the East whom we look down upon, and are also fixing to mess with.
From all I have gleaned, Russia has always aspired to be a part of the West, ever since Peter the Great opened Russia to Europe,
but Washington thinks that being a member of team West means being a totally subservient vassal to it and only it. Look at how
shamelessly Washington has abused the interests of the EU in its efforts to subjugate Russia. There is mostly one party that threatens
the future of Western prosperity and moral values: the United States, or rather its government. Its motives are uncontested power
and greed to benefit its small clique of decadent aristocrats.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Why would anyone believe the Liars' Club (the CIA) about anything? Their successes are more shameful than their failures.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:43 am
Ah, but successes and failures are not ours to judge, no, it is for the ruling elite to judge, and given that their power and
wealth has but steadily increased it is safe to say, under their measuring, that the CIA has been quite successful.
Johnmichael2 , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
Putin brilliantly heads an Oligarchy. Trump obsequiously admires Putin because he too, by all of his actions to date, aspires
to the same power. To all of you media bashers, who are on a very strange campaign of denial, don't forget that Trump and his
Goebbels style messaging received prime time from the electronic media throughout the campaign and was probably key to the win.
The real Deep State is the multinational world order of capitalism, which doesn't care what type of government it owns. Yet
CN seems totally oblivious to their existence. If the media is to blame for anything, it is that their coverage tends to be controlled
by ratings; in other words, by money, and the Deep State controls the money.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:52 pm
The US has oligarchic since 1789.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Goebbels was far smarter and articulate than Trump.
Danny , July 17, 2018 at 9:57 pm
the free $2B from the same media now screeching for his head? (Fox excepted) the 35-40 minutes dedicated to his empty podium
while Sanders talked? I have some REALLY bad news for you 'bout who was behind that
I highly recommend reading James Howard Kunstler's piece on Russia Insider, "Idiotic Russia Meddling Hoax Kept Alive by Trump-Putin
Summit". On his blog 'Clusterfuck Nation' he titles it "12 Ham Sandwiches with Russian Dressing". Kunstler is a great cynicist
humorist called a dystopian by the NYT. This piece he just published is one of the best and will undoubtedly be picked up by others.
Has a funny cartoon on Russia Insider for a musical based on the Mueller never-ending saga. At least it's a few cynical laughs
for this sorry affair.
Mass hysteria is a frightening spectacle to behold. The power with which it grips the minds of virtually everyone is beyond
belief. As I watched the media coverage of Helsinki unfold, it seemed the media minions were perceptibly working themselves into
a collective frenzy, a totally berserk, bonkers group who were bidding the price of tulips up to a million each. The ironic aspect
of all this to me is that even if the commie bastards did what we say they did would it have made any difference? And if indeed
it was they who hacked HC's "personal" email files and made them available to Wikileaks, I'm glad as Hell they did.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:56 pm
It would not make any difference. We Americans are to blame for our own follies and mistakes.
KiwiAntz , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
It's Washington & the MSM's mass hysteria, not the common folk who couldn't give a rats ass about this lunacy? Ask the ordinary
citizen in the US or Worldwide what they care about? It's not the never ending Russiagate BS spewed out by the MSM or corrupt
DEMS! It's about, how will my Family be housed, Fed, & cared for! How will I support myself & my Family's needs & wants! THATS
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FAKE RUSSIAGATE NONSENSE & it's BS! But what do these MSM idiots know, they think
their smarter than those who voted for change & are getting that with Mr Trump!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 12:01 am
Right on, Lester D.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:39 pm
I'm starting to get hopeful about Trump after a lot of doubts.
Whatever his limitations, he at least has some common sense. This is something we would never have seen happen with Crooked Hillary
Clinton, ever. Somebody had to listen to Putin, who actually has quite a lot of sensible things to say about this, and is a very
intelligent and articulate politician.
Given enough time, Trump might actually figure things out in Washington before he leaves office and sees all the treasonous forces
in the permanent security state. I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump in '16 but if he listens to Putin and gives peace a
chance, this will mend all cracks with me.
Maybe they should put up a fence around CNN headquarters and call in a battalion of psychs to provide mental health treatments
to the war profiteers and talking heads.
I voted for peace. I want to see peace. Kudos to Trump and Putin for bringing an oasis of sanity to the world. Nuclear war is
bad for our kids. I am very relieved to see this happening. Even General Eisenhower could not buck the Military Industrial Complex
in 1959 when he tried to reach detente with Khrushchev. Trump will go down in history as a great president if he can pull this
off.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 8:38 pm
The incredible ugliness of the media, spy agencies, military figures, and politicians is unfortunately only the tip of a huge
iceberg. Underneath all that is the deep state oligarchs, who are willing to sacrifice billions of lives and the very continuation
of life on our precious planet – just to fulfill their insatiable greed for wealth and power. These evil monsters are the real
enemies of Humanity.
Lolita , July 16, 2018 at 8:29 pm
Not only the U.S. Media, but also the Canadian, French, British etc that is, the agitprop tools for NATOland/Soros, ready for
selective and well rehearsed indignation, on cue.
Tonight CBC The National managed to invite a "balanced" panel to discuss the Trump-Putin press conference: a researcher from
Stratfor and a journalist from the Washington Post!!!! LOL
Lolita , July 17, 2018 at 5:32 pm
And when CBC's narrative and their fake-debate in the National is challenged in the comment section the CBC sycophants know
only one action:
"Your account has been banned until 10/15/2018. Reason: We have banned this account for 90 days because we believe it is in
violation of our Terms of Use, specifically repeated off-topic comments, uncivil comments, and personal attacks. For more information,
please visit: http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html
."
All of this to mask political censorship
In my last posts, I quoted Joe Lauria and they did not like it one bit:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Good Bye ICIJ
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 2:16 am
And add NZ's Media to that shameful list of Propagandists telling lies & expecting us to belithis tripe!
The calls of President Trump being a traitor mimic those of the calls that President Eisenhower was a traitor back in the 1950s.
But what can you expect from the cult followers of the former Goldwater girl who have done their best to turn the Party of Gene
McCarthy into the Party of Joe McCarthy?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:59 pm
Dems have GOP lite for a long time, at least since Reagan.
Pandas4peace , July 16, 2018 at 8:22 pm
Americans need to turn off their damn television sets.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
I canceled my cable subscription three months ago and haven't missed it one bit.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:53 am
One needs to keep apprised of the lies that the enemies of humanity so effectively spread through their propaganda in order
to counter them.
Besides, if you ever need a good emetic, there is always the opportunity to tune in Rachel Maddow until your stomach upchucks
its contents.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:51 am
Ha ha! The Rachel Maddow weight loss program!
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Good idea. I quit watching regularly in the '70s. But does make one somewhat alienated from everyone else.
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Actually I have Direct TV and for a change I can tune in to channel 321 RT America and listen to some real news instead of
the 24-hr fake news on the rest of the channels.
Skip Scott , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
Last night I blocked CNN on the TV where I am currently forced to reside. I am the only one with the p/w to unblock it. Take
that CNN!!!
Well said, as always, Realist, but the scary part is to read the vitriolic anti-Trump responses indicating the 'liberals' would
actually rather risk war! I just read a few of them and honestly wonder if there's any hope for this country, maybe we will have
to take some harsh lessons that will be meted out. They do not realize that they are assisting in bringing down every one of us
with their hate. The controllers who play them love it.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:47 pm
The danger is that they will bring their war hysteria into the next election and get someone elected that is even worse than
Hillary would have been.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:02 pm
I'm not convinced that anyone is control. "Time and chance come to them all."
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:46 am
My, how we have come full circle, Jessika. So, now it's the "liberals" who would rather be "dead" than "red?" That used to
be the far right John Birchers back in my youth. (Not that anyone anywhere on the planet is a genuine "communist" any longer,
not even in Cuba or North Korea.) I just wish there was some mechanism to allow them to self-immolate without killing or harming
the rest of us nearly 8 billion human beings. They have some potent demons colonizing what passes for their minds. Perhaps they
could use a convincing exorcist to drive the Hillary entity out of their system.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
All comes in cycles. Dixiecrats, anyone?
Brad Owen , July 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm
EXACTLY. Actually, FDR was the "Bernie Sanders" of his day, and completely turned the Party upside down with his "New Deal
for the forgotten man" (Labor and farmers). The traditional D-Party was the party of southern plantation aristocracy and their
money handlers on Wall Street, and the original R-Party contained the fire-breathing radicals within its ranks.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm
It is my understanding that Russia and US are holding approximately 90% of nuclear weapons worldwide. In a sane world, The
US media should be commending Trump for trying to reach an agreement regarding denuclearization with Putin. Nonetheless, Trump
is being grilled for doing what almost the entire planet is seeking: a world free of nuclear weapons. Indubitably, US national
media are very busy undermining Trump's efforts to reduce the scorch of nuclear war. Do the US media think that in a nuclear exchange
humans will survive? We will all lose.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:54 pm
No, the elites on both sides of the political spectrum are living in a mythical Hollywood rich man's fantasy world believing
that the worst that can happen to them is they will retreat to their luxury underground cities and live out the nuclear war, communicating
with their nuclear subs, while the rest of us paeons fry. They don't care about us, at all. They are congenital psychopaths.
It sounds crazy because it is, and it is hard for the rest of us to believe they could be so foolish. They are fatally misguided
in their beliefs that this would ever work and be good for them.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm
I think your right. Joe
Jean wyman , July 16, 2018 at 9:53 pm
Good comment Jose. In answer to your observations, I'd pose a question: what was Obusha thinking when he proposed a 3TRILLION
dollar upgrade of America's nukes? Who exactly was it that he was placating and that T-rump isn't.
Skip Scott , July 16, 2018 at 8:09 pm
When the talking heads said that Trump trusted Putin more than his own Intelligence Agencies, I screamed at the TV, "ME TOO!".
I can think of no clearer sign that the CIA is still embedded with the MSM. Discussion of the history of our Intelligence Community
in both the near and distant past, and it's utter lack of trustworthiness, is a forbidden topic. My only hope is that enough people
actually listened to what Putin said, instead of the talking heads' rantings, and saw for themselves that Putin is a rational
and fair-minded leader. The near hysteria of Anderson Cooper and his ilk is a sure sign that their grip on the narrative is slipping.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
I concur with your post. Personally, I rather listen to Putin than the US national media. You are correct to assert that "Putin
is a rational and fair-minded leader" You would have to be mentally retarded to pay any heed to US national media that have proven
to be a tool of those controlling the livers of power. Well done, Skip.
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 9:04 pm
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:07 pm
Anderson Cooper, the grandson of Gloria Vanderbilt, and great-grandson of robber baron railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt
is CIA trained in Operation Mockingbird. https://youtu.be/w8NTLVOjas8
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
I said that once, and got booed out of the room. Joe
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Skip I hear ya, but allow me to tell you what I saw, and heard today. So after Trump made his remarks about trusting, or not
trusting, certain intelligence data, I while driving in my car heard callers calling in to the local talk show. The callers who
expressed themselves the way we do on this comment board were berated by the callers who thought this kind of talk (like we here
on CN talk) was treasonous by all known treasonous standards. The callers who sounded like we do here were labeled as their being
crazed Trump supporters, and yet all of them said of how they don't even necessarily like Trump, but right is right and left is
now warmongering. None of the other opposing callers bought this denial of Trump, as they just fluffed it off, as Trump supporters
hiding behind whatever it was their suppose to be hiding behind. Facts are painfully ignored, especially when it comes to analyzing
Trump.
I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. The discontent is about where we were back during the Vietnam years,
as the only thing missing are the peace marchs. This time our civil war will be fought strictly on a social level, aided by an
instigating MSM, as division messes up any real citizen advocacy as the citizen may require to straighten out any of this disconnection
of their society or that's at least the way I see it.
We citizens are officially at war with each other. We will all look back upon this period of our evolvement, and laugh over
the Facebook censorship, and dream of a time when it was merely just about politics, and taxes. We are moving in a direction where
the National Security Deep State is beating up an outsider maverick, and this maverick is now in the Deep States crosshairs. It's
darn strange, and I swear if something awful were to happen to President Trump that the MSM would encourage us Americans to make
Trump's ugly fate a new national holiday . I think there are many among this Deep State cabal who still celebrate with joy the
sad happenings of November 22nd, 1963.
The empire is finally going down, and we are all witnessing it first hand. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 4:14 am
"I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. . . ."
Good observation Joe. It already started happening some time back in our home. A truce was reached with a compromise that my
wife would not watch CNN, MSNBC . . . when I am around the house and I will not read CN and make comments, at least when she is
around. This morning my wife went to our retired neighbor's house to watch these channels with her. Both of them have been feeling
today as if some tragedy has happened.
That is what this two years of Russia Gate hysteria fueled by the Media and Politicians has done to the people. Today was probably
the worst day; they are really messing up the population. It is even worse than those cold war days of 1950's which I have read
about. And there is no end in sight.
Killary had a crap platform. That is why she lost. If the platform was something progressives could support, then people would
come out and vote for her. Her record of dependability is crap; just a double talking republican liar. No good. That's why she
lost. I didn't vote for her and won't vote for her if she is forced on us again. Lyle Courtsal
http://www.3mpub.com
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:20 pm
You are correct Lyle about Hillary's lost. I would like to add the following:Vladimir Putin has not meddled in the US election,
Hillary Clinton has. Leaked emails reveal that the popular socialist Bernie Sanders had his chance of becoming president stolen
from him by Hillary Clinton and her associates at the Democratic National Committee. If defrauding democracy is worth going to
war over, certainly it is worth going to jail over. Millions of Americans had their votes stolen.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:34 pm
Yes, I listened to some of her campaign speeches, and they were embarrassingly awful, and empty of ideas except inciting horror
of "Le Trump"! She was truly pathetic in her confidence that she was in the in-group, addressing others in the "in-group," thus
not needing to actually campaign.
Recently Hillary was awarded the Radcliffe medal, and she spoke at Radcliffe Day. I was horrified that she was given this honor.
I heard that she read from a Teleprompter. That indicates to me that she was and is indeed not physically up to the challenges
of the office, quite apart from her many other deficits.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 am
I wouldn't vote for a mass murderer. If you cannot fundamentally be for peace then all else, no matter how wonderful it sounds
(it could be) has nowhere to anchor.
John V. Walsh , July 16, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Great column.
There is no doubt that the Summit moved us away from confrontation with Russia which holds the grave danger of going nuclear.
Bravo for Trump and the brave words he spoke.
Now it is up to us.
If we wish the process to continue which these meetings with Putin initiated, let us raise our voices in support.
If we wish to let the neocons, "Deep State," Dem and GOP elites to stop the process, let us stay silent.
I read the New York times and the comments to the editorial. This is my comment.
The comments here sound like a lynch mob working themselves into a frenzy to hang someone. Proof? Who needs any dang proof.
Clapper the guy who admitted lying to Congress under oath said Trump was guilty and thats good enough for the people who commented
here. The Intelligence Agencies that lied to get the USA to invade Iraq with their WMD claims say he is guilty, well that must
be proof then.
This goes to show that Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. But a whole nation suckered into believing this
nonsence about Russia having Trump elected with not one shred of evidence presented? Even Barnum would have been shocked and surprised
at that one.
Well, I guess that influential people on the inside figure that the "reign of terror" worked out so well in effecting regime
change during the French Revolution that they'd give it another go approximately two centuries later approximately a hundred years
after the Bolshevik Revolution, so maybe this is a natural phenomenon with a periodicity of about 100 years. Perhaps Hillary thinks
she's gonna pick up the pieces as the next Napoleon after the revolution burns itself out. More like her fate will be as the next
Robespierre, hoisted on her own guillotine.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:11 am
Yes, the cycle is tied to the controlling currency, the USD in current day form. That control is rapidly slipping away. The
crooks are pulling the fire alarms in the bank and running out the back door and the public is looking for safety from the crooks'
army (MSM, "authority figures" etc.).
There is nothing left to say.
The summit only leaves one to speculate.
Realist , July 16, 2018 at 7:57 pm
It would seem that there is not a single independent, unbought, honest, objective journalist left working for the corporate
mass media in America. They are all mere puppets delivering the propaganda and fake analysis demanded of them by the oligarchy
that owns them. It's absolutely stunning how lock-step they all are in maintaining the false narrative cooked up by the careless
and arrogant tyrants who threw away a sure thing (Hillary's coronation) by pressing too hard to give her what they thought was
the biggest patsy (Trump) in the clown show called the presidential election. They were so confident they actually allowed the
ballots to be counted and have been scrambling to undo the results using every possible mechanism and pretext ever since. If there
is one thing the American people can count on in the future, it is that no election will ever again be semi-free, fair and not
rock-solid rigged with the contrived results agreed upon months before the charade of elections ever goes on.
A rational mind might say, well, give us more reasonable candidates, those in tune with the problems of the voters (mostly
caused by government), and give us more of them, more parties, more platforms, more options. That is exactly what they intend
to avoid. They tried to force feed us Hillary as the only acceptable figure running for the position, but enough people saw through
that and chose the fellow they wanted us to abhor after they deliberately built him up to help the despised Hillary. Now absolutely
every loyal apparatchik in the elite establishment, and most especially the media–the essential propagandists, are working 24/7
for regime change in Washington, what they perceive as the necessary first step towards regime change in Moscow and later Beijing.
Only then will the NWO–in which they give all the orders and control everything and everybody–be complete.
I tell you, the reach of their tentacles and the uniformity of response amongst their minions is impressive in a most foreboding
way. They will brook NO peaceful co-existence with any geopolitical "partners" or competitors and will not give even the slightest
iota of respect to our own elected leader, not even to his office out of formal courtesy. Rather than "going high" when he "goes
low," they choose to up the ante in ad hominem insults and political thuggery. The power structure in this country has become
irretrievably warmongering neo-con and ruthlessly imperialistic. The most catastrophic consequence will be to see the dissolution
of civilisation itself as the myriad of environmental, population and resource crises hit the planet full on as the century unfolds,
for thuggery, tyranny and simplistic political slogans are not the solutions for escaping the impending bottleneck with an actual
future still remaining for humanity.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Hey Realist you brought back memories of the 2016 presidential election to when Trump was given 4.9 billion dollars worth of
free air time (JP Sottile quoted the 4.9). As it has been written about of how early on the Clinton campaign thought Trump was
the best to run up against, because who in their right mind would take the Trumpster serious, was the go to mindset among the
DNCer's. So the MSM turned on the cameras at Trump rallies believing that given enough rope that Trump would hang himself. The
backlash that came from this, was mind boggling on many levels. One no one likes Hillary, number two no one likes the MSM. So
with that the MSM, and Hillary's bend strategy was what loss the election for the Democrats, and oh yeah then there's Bernie.
I don't think in total we Americans are all living on the same planet. Joe
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:55 pm
I am absolutely appalled by the behavior of the American media. They are acting like Trump is a disgrace to the country but
the MSM is a disgrace to journalism.
I don't even like Trump but – to me – he is coming out better in this exchange.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:17 pm
Excellent statement.
Sam F , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
Indeed the US mass media are no more than propagandists for the arrogant tyrants of its government. But despite US bluster
and economic arm-twisting, educated people know that BRICS cannot be dominated so imperialism is theater not policy. Over 20-40
years, the US can only choose cooperation or self-embargo. Few educated people believe the recycled hysteria of invisible threats.
The enmity of the PTB toward Russia and Korea always starts with and returns to the Mideast and centers upon Israel, which
controls the US mass media and both political parties, and thereby appoints the politicians who control the military budget and
agenda. Indeed "no election will ever again be semi-free." The MIC is large and will attack small countries anywhere, but it is
the servant of Israel.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 2:22 am
People who complain aboutIsrael somehow never mention Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, etc.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 6:26 am
Thank you for mentioning those; I did not have room in that comment.
Israel also substantially controls the Christian z leaders.
I thought Mueller was playing politics to announce the indictments of 12 Russians mere hours before Trump met Putin more and
more I'm losing faith in Mueller and the Democrats who have damn near destroyed their party themselves
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:17 am
If the fact that the Dems managed to undermine the people's choice for president (Sanders) isn't enough to convince you that
the Dems are destroyed then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm almost certain that the CIA had a hand in that: consider their infiltration into the MSM (ensuring that Sanders was not
talked about). Not only was the CIA involved in trying to derail Trump, but it was active in preempting Sanders. For sure, having
meddling in BOTH parties would likely bring out real pitch forks: when it's just one party it's easy to use the other party to
offset the anger. Joe, if you're reading these comments (still), I'd love to get your take on this "theory."
Thanks for this report, Mr. Lauria; you're certainly of stronger mettle than me. I would not have withstood the noxious exhalations
of the US newsmedia (which itself now openly includes newly "retired" intelligence agents as commentators) you've described in
this article; the anecdotes alone almost had me hurling my phone across the room.
Thank you for performing a valuable public service with this report. Peace.
Welcome to what passes for "reality" in 2018 America. If the stakes for humanity were not so frightfully high these bizarre,
slapstick, nonsense comments from the MSM talking heads would be knee-slapping hilarious in their total off the charts lunacy
and patent absurdity. What can one say? Wow – off the freaking charts! You simply can't make this stuff up! Words are inadequate
in an age of mass delusion posing as sanity!
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 7:34 pm
I think your words "total off the charts lunacy and patent absurdity" are as adequate as they come in this situation.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:42 pm
Not only absurd, though, but also deeply isulting, treasonous, really horrendous that our national-level journalists arrogate
to themselves the right to diss, insult, accuse, charge, condemn, vilify, etc. the president of the United States. I don't like
trump either, I hate waht he is doing in Israel, supporting the rabid Zionists there and here. BUT, standing up to the media and
intelligence onslaught took guts, and he came out of the meeting looking pretty good, I think. The meeting also gave Putin an
opportunity to score a few points for reason, thus an international platform he might otherwise not have had.
I LOVE the Putin points re Browder $$$ (rather, rubles) to Hillary. I do so hope that this topic is taken up and richly sucked
and considered and tasted and finally chewed and swallowed and digested and the real . . . finally is delivered to the AMerican
people regarding Hill's $$$ shenanigans. If that happens it could point once again to an investigation of her emails and those
of her assistant Huma Abedin. Remember her? When do we get the full investigation of this very compromised woman?
These people have no shame, as they take their massive paychecks for lying to keep the fools in line. Well, thanks to websites
like this one and others, there aren't so many fools anymore. They are pathetic, and days of Cronkite, Murrow et al who reported
news objectively are dead and buried.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Probably they believe their own nonsense, at least when they say. Much as crooked preachers do.
Jean , July 16, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Cronkite wasn't so objective, Jessika. He was pretty bought into the glory of our Viet nam adventuring until the war protesters
(whom he did not represent objectively either) opened Amerika's eyes.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 7:01 pm
FOR ONCE, I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH OUR PRESIDENT.
irina , July 16, 2018 at 7:17 pm
Roger That.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:14 pm
Ditto
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Me, too. An act of extraordinary political courage.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That took guts, Mr. Trump. I didn't know you had it in you. Congratulations for standing up to your (deadly) opponents. They
are now showing themselves to be the evil scum they really are.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 6:57 pm
There is one small problem with this article. While I trust Consortium News far more than the New York Times, there are those
who trust the latter. And the article is far too long for those who already believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia.
A shorter article by Consortium News with a one two punch is what is needed.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Oh, go pound sand, would you?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm
People don't change their minds because of rational arguments. Russiagate will go on, in spite of logic and evidence, much
as Birther nonsense does.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:54 pm
I just listened to NBC nightly news, and CNN. They are screaming treason! And the end of America! They are absolutely aghast
that Trump is making peace moves with Putin. Doesn't he know that America is a Warfare State?? To talk peace is against everything
we hold sacred. Beware Mr. Trump, the CIA hit squads will be champing at the bit to field one of their "lone assassins on you".
Pray for the Donald not being gunned down for doing the right thing (for once).
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:37 pm
I still fear someone will do the president harm as a result of this. Trump is taking chances with the mafia that runs this
shadow permanent government, given this level of hysteria. They just have too much at stake. They are used to getting their way.
I hope I'm wrong. The last time a president took on the entire establishment to this extent was JFK. I wish I could be more optimistic.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:44 pm
"They are screaming treason! "
How dare they???
they are the treasonous ones.
These crazed zombies are terrifying.
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 6:52 pm
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Bravo Mr. President.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Great quote Gregory. Joe
Bruce Dickson , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
A JFK-worthy quote, that.
And, to quote its deliverer, "Who would think..?"
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:23 pm
That one statement will go down in history, mark my words.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:40 pm
"never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people."
Really? You obviously haven't been paying attention to the US's obeisance to Israel. I can think of no other country that puts
another country's wishes ahead of their own the way the US does with Israel.
"he had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he
didn't do it."
And he was wise not to do so. The United States has far more blatantly interfered with Russian elections than what the idiots
in our alphabet soup of intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of now. The reason you call Putin a thug is not because he is
one but because he won't let you get away with that kind of crap. Putin has made it clear that American regime change is off the
table and he intends to see to it that it stays off the table.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm
""never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people.""
Is that why he wants NATO to beef up? Is that why he complained about Germany's energy dependence on Russia?
He is not putting Putin above the American people. He is just not accepting the lies told by the FBI which is really pretty
much still controlled by Obama.
JesseJean , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Bravo, Jeff!
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:34 pm
If the allegations are true – of GRU officers successfully phishing for HRC campaign dirt from Chairman Podesta's emails –
then the officers are guilty as charged. As I understand it, this was the avenue through which Wikileaks obtained the content
of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs. That confirmation of what most already suspected to be true – that Hillary had
been pledging fealty to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the people – probably contributed to Hillary's defeat at the polls.
So, I say "more power to 'em". Those officers show common cause with the common man and woman in America. Hillary was never going
to release those transcripts on her own!
And that same phishing – if true – was certainly no "terrorist attack" or "act of war' or other hyperbolic nonsense like "the
undermining of democracy in America". We have no democracy – only an oligarchy – much like the Russians under Boris Yeltsin. Maybe
the phishing undermined oligarchy here, which would be a good thing. Oligarchy is at the heart of the cruel neo-liberal order
which tyrannizes the people.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Julian Assange has consistently said he did not get the files from Russia. Assange has yet to be caught in a lie. The US is
a serial liar and doesn't even look embarrassed when caught in a lie.
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Thanks Jeff, maybe I don't understand the transfers to Wikileaks very well. I wonder if the FBI/Justice Department really knows,
like they say they do.
LarcoMarco , July 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Well, if DNC's servers and Hillarious' stealth servers and Podesta's email were hacked, the NSA has Hooverd up all the evidence
(if it exists). The Dumpster should demand this material be revealed and also demand disclosure of proof that RussiaGate is more
than Deep State designs.
Something must be done to release Assange! Trump: do something.
backwardsevolution , July 16, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Frederike – I think Trump will release Assange. Patience.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
911 ushered in the post-truth era.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Maybe they got the information because Hillary took home classified documents and recklessly-knowingly exposed them to hackers
in her private basement server?
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:56 pm
"If the allegations are true". Well we probably will never find out will we. Putin was shrewd to offer to have Mueller and
his investigators come to Russia to investigate the indited GRU officers and offering full cooperation with Russian Law enforcement.
Putin and Trump both know that Mueller will make every excuse in the book of why that can't happen. Mueller must be craping his
pants wondering if he will somehow be forced to take his investigation to Russia and have it publically exposed for the fraud
that it is.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Freedom lover – yes, what a great move by Putin! "Come on, let's work together to get to the bottom of this." Mueller must
just be dying! Unfortunately, Trump is really in danger now.
"I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people." Translation: He has little confidence in Obama and Bush intelligence people.
Good for him.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:32 pm
Wow, that was explosive! Just imagine how bad things would be right now if someone other than Putin were in charge of Russia.
We should count ourselves as lucky.
"... Amen to the part about Google. Once upon a time I could start a Google search with a high probability of finding something useful. These days I have to darned near know the result before I'll find anything. ..."
"... I agree that Google search is not as good as it once was but it could be that the web itself has changed with far more commercial and bubble gum content. There was a time long ago when only nerds used computers. ..."
"... I find Google regularly overriding specific search terms, particularly when I put in a short phrase in quotes, which means Google is supposed to deliver results that match that exact phrase. First page, even the very first result, regularly violate the search criteria. Never happened before ~ 2 years ago. ..."
"... "Isikoff checked the facts for his new book so hard, they were carried off unconscious, and remain in a coma" ..."
I am a blogger. It is my job to blog, which I've been doing on a daily basis since 2003.
Reading and writing is what I do all day. I'm lucky to be able to survive doing it, and I'm
happy to be doing it[1]. I hate Google because it tries to make me a stupid reader. I hate
Twitter and Facebook because they make me a stupid writer. I've been wanting to get this off my
chest for some time, so allow me to explain.
Let's where I start, with reading. As a blogger, I need to process and filter enormous
amounts of newsworthy content hours a day, every day (as does Yves). I am like an enormous
baleen whale nourished by krill. So here is how the insanely stupid and wasteful Google News
helps me -- and you, dear readers! -- do this:
(I've erased the Weather box at top right, which is Google's little way of letting me know
it's tracking my location even though cookies are off.) First, look at the page, which is a
complete screenful on a laptop (i.e., on the screen of professional content creator who values
his time, not a teensy little cellphone screen). In the news links column at left, there are a
grand total of nine (9) stories. Please, can we get the steam-era list of blue links back,
where we could scan 30 or 40 headlines in a single second's saccade? And note the sources: CNN,
HuffPost, Fox, WaPo, NBC News, NPR, CNN, and the WSJ. This is an ecoystem about as barren as my
neighbor's lawn! (And if you click on the laughingly named "View full coverage" link, you'll
see a page just as empty and vacuous though slightly less barren, with more obcure sources,
like Reuters. Or Salon.) You will also note the obvious way in which the page has been gamed by
gaslighters and moral panic engineers, who can drive every other story off the front page
through sheer volume Finally, you'll note that the fact checkers include organs
of state security , in the form of polygraph.info , "a fact-checking website produced
by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty."
Now let's try to use Google News for search. (I find Google proper, though still crapified,
better for news, especially if I limit the search by time.) I chose "start treaty," for
obvious reasons. Here is the results page:
Yes, on a complete, entire laptop page, there are in total five (5) hits, 3 from the
impoverished ecosytem noted above, and one from an organ of state security
(RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty). The last hit, from Vox, is twelve (12) days old .
Surely there's something more current? Note also the random ordering of the hits: Today,
yesterday, 6 days ago, 2 days ago, 12 days ago. (There is, of course, no way to change the
ordering.) A news feed that doesn't organize stories chronologically? That doesn't surface
current content? What horrible virus has rotted the brain matter of the Google engineers who
created this monstrosity? And one more thing:
Famously, the normal Google search page ends with "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next." Crapified
though Google search results are, if you spend some time clicking and scanning, you'll
generally be able to come up with something useful five or ten pages in, maybe (if you're
lucky) from a source you don't already know exists. Not so with Google "News." When the page
ends, it just ends. When the algo has coughed up whatever hairball it's coughed up, it's done.
No more. Again, this is news? What about the same story a week ago? A month ago? What does "our
democracy" have a free press for, if Google gets in the way of being able to find anything?
So, the Google News experience is so vile and degrading in its stupidity and insolence that
I use another tool for reading the news: Twitter. And despite its well-deserved reputation as a
hell-site, Twitter -- carefully curated -- does the job, as long as you don't ask too
much of it, like news that's more than a month or so old. My beef with Twitter is not as a
reader, but as a writer. Here is how you create a tweet in Twitter:
I'll have a sidebar on those miserably inadequate writing tools, at left, in a moment. For
now, look at the bottom right: Those disruptive Silicon Valley engineers have innovated the
paragraph :
When you click that plus sign, you get A second Tweet, connected to the first, in an
easy-to-close-accidentally modal dialog box!
Here, I remind you of the steam age of Blogger, where you could -- hold onto your hats,
here, folks -- create a post, composed of paragraphs -- or, if you were a poet, lines; or an
artist, images and captions; or an accountant, tables -- all with at least some degree of
"flow" and ease. You could even have subheads, to divide your content into sections! The
billionaire brainiacs at Twitter have managed to create that first, minimal functionality --
the paragraph -- but without the ability to re-arrange, or even to edit your paragraphs after
posting! Does Jack laugh alone at night?[2].
Amen to the part about Google. Once upon a time I could start a Google search with a high
probability of finding something useful. These days I have to darned near know the result
before I'll find anything. Google News used to have a dense list of news stories. I don't
have a bookmark to the place anymore, relying instead on blog headlines and the like.
Since I've heard nothing good about Facebook I'm agreeable to the notion the site isn't
something for me. Never tried "tweeting" and have no plans to do so.
I agree that Google search is not as good as it once was but it could be that the web
itself has changed with far more commercial and bubble gum content. There was a time long ago
when only nerds used computers.
But I don't agree that Google News was ever very useful. Google always admitted that it
was edited by algo and it seemed to be a kind of Headline News news summary–the
opposite of what a hard core news junkie would want.
RSS is still around and IMO the most useful tool for keeping track of a large number of
websites. For off the beaten path links that may not show up on a favorite site there are
websites like this one (thanks Yves and Lambert and Jerri-Lynn).
I find Google regularly overriding specific search terms, particularly when I put in a
short phrase in quotes, which means Google is supposed to deliver results that match that
exact phrase. First page, even the very first result, regularly violate the search criteria.
Never happened before ~ 2 years ago.
Google in recent years has optimized for:
Shopping
Recency
"Authoritativeness" of sites. The latter criterion, as interpreted by Google = MSM
above all. Academic sites get downranked too.
So much truth here. Similar story with YouTube: even though Jimmy Dore Is my most watched
YouTuber by a long shot, notifications for new vids NEVER, ever, ever appear in my
notification thingy or at the top of the page. Never. Google engineers are braniac math
scientists (as Jimmy Dore might say), so this is a feature, not a bug. This is deliberate
suppression. Inverted totalitarianism.
I can attest to the same thing. And when I type jimmy on the search box, I always get
jimmy Fallon as the first option even though I constantly search for Jimmy Dore.
YouTube, for whatever reason, splits the functionality into two parts: subscribing and
notifications. If you "just" subscribe, you will not get a number badge indicating a
notification at the top right of your YouTube page -- you have to click the "notifications
bell" in order to get notifications.
On the YouTube Settings | Notifications page you can also choose to get email messages
regarding notifications and choose some other options regarding notifications for YouTube
activity. On that same page, if you click Manage all subscriptions (which is buried in the
text under Channel subscriptions ), you can see all your subscriptions and which ones have
the bell clicked or not.
If you click the hamburger (three bar) icon on the upper left, next to the YouTube logo,
that toggles a pane where you can see your history, your subscriptions, your settings and
some other things. Even if you haven't clicked the notifications bell, you can see, under
Subscriptions , the number of not-yet-watched videos you have, listed by individual channel
you've subscribed to. (That's how I generally know that there is a new Jimmy Dore video since
I am subscribed to the channel but I don't have notifications turned on.)
All of this is such poorly implemented usability that I hesitate to call it deliberate
anything but I won't discount it, either.
As of September 28th, Alphabet (a/k/a Google), Facebook and Twitter will join an all-new
Communications Services sector. Its core is the old Telecommunications Services sector, which
has shrunk to but three companies in the S&P 500 (Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink).
Also joining Communications Services will be media and cable companies -- a full roster of
corporate villainy, as it were. The complete list of 22 constituents appears here:
A Communications Services ETF is already trading in advance of the sector's official debut
in September. Owing to the exit of seven current Information Technology stocks (including
Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter, the targets of Lambert's ire) and 16 Consumer Discretionary
stocks (including Comcast, Disney and Netflix), these sectors will change in composition on
Sep 28th.
In this exclusive chart, the new post-Sep 28th sectors are backcast as if they all existed
today:
Communications Services had been lagging the S&P 500 until last month, when government
approval of AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner set off a frenzy in other media stocks
which might be bought or merged. With Alphabet and Facebook making up 44.3% of Communications
Services by weight, these two giants will tend to dominate its performance.
The future is federated. Individual instances, hosted by whoever wants to set one up, that
can link to each other, for a fully customizable experience. I like Mastodon (a bird-site
replacement), and my particular instance at social.coop, even though it doesn't have any of
your writerly tools either. But it's open source, so the ability to add them is there:
Lambert, you can get back your Old Google News format (pre-AI change) by using this link
instead as follows: https://news.google.com/news/feeds?output=rss&q=%
It doesn't take away Google's attempt at controlling our information flow with its new AI
Gnews format But it should help you get your blue links & sections back ;) – with
the caveat that you can't click on said headlines/sections' "see real time coverage" (in
which case you go back to our Ministry of Information's AI approved interface). However you
can expand on the little down arrow next to each headlines and click on the working
links.
If you are letting algorithms decide what you watch or read, you are basically giving up.
At least use a search engine like Duck Duck Go and never read the news on FB or Twit.
Duck Duck Go has its own news section which I've used a few times, and it seemed to have
way more links than Lambert's screenshot of Google News. Don't know what sites DDG includes
but maybe it could be an alternative.
Sadly though I find the same problem with DuckDuckGo. Meaning, it returns the results it
wants, rather than what I asked for. Even if I ask for results from the past week I get stuff
from 8 years ago. And if I ask for something like Stereo Speakers I get things like "speakers
at this years conference ..", etc. Just pure garbage. And the key complaint I have is that
Amazon shows up every other result for page after page. If I search for "how to best
fertilize tomatoes in Colorado", I get a result showing tomatoes available on Amazon.com. And
at the top of every search is a "ribbon" of results from Amazon almost exclusively and with
"Prime" in the results box. I hate Amazon and wish I could never see that word again, or the
words Jeff Bezos. Sigh.
I have the same issue with DDG. My understanding is that it is not different from Google
in terms of search results, but simply that it won't surveil you:
Their ad campaign: "Same s*&$ results as Google, but no one will know you're
looking!"
What about Qwant? I do not like how it feels it has to open links and images in a separate
tab automatically, and it takes forever to load images, but I have heard good things about
the search engine.
I've been using other methods like -siteihate.com or site:.edu to find papers etc on a
topic. For geopolitics I try to find a human rights group nearby to see what they say. News
is hard to sift through
I don't do Twitter, thank you, but Facebook has News? Hoocoodanode? It's not something I
would ever think of using, but one of my friends (who is always threatening to unfriend me)
once ranted that she knew the Russians interfered with our election because she saw the bots
and memes. When I asked her how she knew a bot she never answered. She's a solid Russiagate
cult believer. I suspect she must get her news from FB.
I've noticed it's really, really tough now to find via Google any serious, longform blogs
on investing, energy, etc. Almost everything that comes up when I search a topic is a
listicle/clickbait, a Salon article, some horrible startup platform with only 10-50 active
users, or something locked behind a paywall.
I always thought the best metaphor for this is the end of the "Old West" – all the
territory is fenced off and none of the owners want you trespassing on their land. I actually
do think the best internet tools were all de-centralized – "federated" as one of your
commenters put it.
For instance, wasn't it great when you could make an RSS feed out of literally any series
of sites and just click on what you find interesting? Granted, I still think that's possible
but I don't see nearly as many websites pushing that compatibility anymore. Instead it's all
SEO and racing to be "discoverable" by the big platforms. Information, writing, and the
exchange of ideas have suffered as a result.
I've been very happy since switching to Duck Duck Go. Occasionally I can't find something
and think, "I'm going to actually go into google.com and see if it runs a better search" and
it almost never does.
To me the more interesting point here is Lambert's second/third one, which is that,
although both Twitter and Facebook decry the rise of fake news, their format is an especially
hard one to write a nuanced critique in. It's difficult (if not impossible) to put a string
of URLs in a Facebook post without actually putting the whole jumbled up 200-character
strings of the URLs in – instead of just hotlinking a word! – and you can't
format headings, sections, and subsections easily – so any discussion just basically
devolves into "No, read this!" "Well, read this!" "What about this!", etc. And they don't
always post comments chronologically, or in an order I can make sense of anyway, so you can't
follow the ongoing discussion clearly anyway.
Interestingly, as apparently the default, Firefox gives me a drop down list of "Latest
News" headlines (? at least 50) which are I think entirely from the Guardian and BBC. Not
great, too much human interest and soccer scores, and the articles are too often small or
video, but god knows better than NYT and WaPo, and I can and do go on from there to the rest
of the Guardian site. I don't know if that is configurable, if I could replace it with
al-jazerra, Asia Times or RT
But I also have Jacobin Naked Capitalism and Counterpunch in quick buttons and I spend my
time there. Should nuclear war start, I would want analysis before headlines. I am content
with being a few days or week behind.
When Google News changed to whatever it is now I stopped using it entirely. It's not an
aggregator in any sense at all, to me. I used to use Google as the home page and hit up the
news page and felt like I had a newspaper to go with my morning coffee. It's ludicrous now. I
just go directly to NC links and watercooler actually, and find my way around from there and
from my local online paper. "Sad!"
Google News has been slipping for a couple of years now, and has gotten exceptionally bad
since it deployed the new layout. I now check it once or twice a week at the most and mainly
just to read the headlines in order to find out what I'm supposed to believe.
The first site I open every morning is this site, read the articles of the titles that
catch my interest (most) and then settle in with a cup of coffee or two and the Links
Page.
The only serious problem I have with Naked Capitalism and its Links Section is that I'm
often late for work as a direct result of opening the Links page (which reminds me, It's
getting near my semi-annual donation :-)
This is a good opportunity for me to get something off of my chest, something that
infuriates me.
I don't know what entity is responsible for designing the auto-correct function in (most,
if not all) internet comment fields, but the result is shockingly bad.
First, it is fundamentally flawed. When the system offers a possible correction, it should
allow the user to ignore the suggestion and continue typing. Instead, having implemented the
tool completely backwards, it forces the user to close the suggestion, resulting in an
obvious waste of time. The arrogance of assuming that the program is likely to be correct is
compounded tremendously by the fact that – unbelievably – it does the exactly
same thing for words that are capitalized!
I am dumfounded that anyone could be so stupid as to implement a program that attempts to
correct proper names.
The fact that those involved in the initial design haven't yet discerned these obvious
flaws, and there hasn't been widespread outrage over this issue, reflects very poorly on all
involved.
I can attest that I usually run into spell check functions with abysmally poor
vocabularies. (I just noticed that 'spell check' has connotations of Ye Darke Artes.) I have
become inured to leaving those wavy red underlines in place when I 'post' a comment.
As for stupidity .
I knew something was up when every embedded(i guess) spellcheck i ran across couldn't
spell Nietzsche and insisted that i always capitalise walmart(and cease using cambridge
spelling immediately!).
i usually ignore the red squiggly, too
the worst was a samsung phone my wireless company gave me as an "upgrade". the text function
had a "learning" spellcheck/autocorrect that you were supposed to just keep using so that it
could eventually figure out what you were trying to say so at the beginning, every single
word opened up a sort of square flower thing of unrelated(as a rule) words.
it was impossible I gather more so due to my habit of using archaic and obscure language and
after you disabled it, it turned itself back on.
as a convenience.
It all goes back to Unix days, and DWIM. Do what I mean. According to the Hacker's
Dictionary, the guy who invented DWIM has a permanent death sentence on assigned to him
;-)
Nice to see the Hacker's Dictionary quoted. It's a wonderful resource, and a reminder that
not all programmers suck (just the ones riding scooters to their regulatory arbitrage
start-ups in Silicon Valley).
Agree entirely. Alas, it is often not the "program" doing this. My ipad has a popup
touchscreen keyboard (courtesy of iOS) that tries to enforce English spellings in every
text-entry situation including non-English webpages. As Lambert says, hilarity ensues.
My smartypants phone has detected me reading Voltaire (copyright-free Kindle for sitting
and waiting) and decided when I stammer texts to communicate with under-50s that I must be
speaking French. So my word-salads are bi-lingual. But the youth of today don't think I'm
erudite, they think I'm crazy. Dunno why, monolingual stammering isn't much better. But
unless I get a Trump-style thumb job, I can't type on my telephone (which is as it should be,
but I'm so old I remember when people answered their phones).
I did a C-list version of what Lambert does during that golden period of blogging he
mentions. He doesn't really give enough shrift to the amount of time he spends reading each
day, and it would be impossible to know how much effort goes into his interpretive remarks
that all too often spare me the bother of reading establishment tripe.
This is the gold standard for aggregation blogging: ample links, clarifying remarks,
snark. Reading this blog turned my old blog into a watered down version of this blog. I stole
a lot from Lambert Strether because he does this better than anyone else. (Pro tip: don't
steal from crappy writers)
I suspect Robot Wisdom as a prior influence, but now we're talking super old-timey
stuff.
Never read Robot Wisdom! I came in after that point. I first encountered the blogosphere
when Paul Krugman mentioned Atrios in one of his columns and I went to look. And that was
that. I was unemployed at the time, and spent most of my time reading blogs instead of
looking for work
Thanks for including labeled screen shots in your critique of FB, Goog, Twit. For those of
us who don't use those sites, it really helped comprehension.
Great post. I guess there really are a million ways to discourage people from thinking
clearly, including bs silicon valley editing tools.
I'm re-writing a historical romantic drama that i first completed in 1985, set mostly in
Paris and Vienna in the 1870s. I did major rewrites in the 1990s for a major star, who soon
got a contract to earn tens (or maybe hundreds of times) what a low-budget art house film
would have paid and promptly walked the project. As soon as your star is gone, your project
isn't one of the walking dead, it's totally graveyard dead.
The Internet was just coming into its own in the mid-1990s, and I have dozens of pages of
incredibly useful research material I downloaded from the web.
Fast forward to 2018, and a studio is again interested in the project. But it wants the
script rewritten from the female protagonist's viewpoint.
I again turned to the Internet to research the era.
Guess what?
No matter what set of keywords I use, no matter how I structure my Boolean searches, I get
hundreds and hundreds of links to commercial sights, advertisements for Viennese and Parisian
stores popping up left right and center.
Out of 100 links, maybe one has useful information.
Fortunately, not yet having had an intervention on an episode of HOARDERS, I managed to
locate in a mislabeled several thousand pages I photocopied from out-of-print books on the
subject.
God bless the Brooklyn Public Library and their hard-working Reference Desk librarians.
There's a special place in Heaven for them.
But their worldview already inclined them in the direction management wished them to go.
(And sometimes management doesn't even know what it wants anyhow.)
I noticed when I looked up Elon Musk Mars trip. I went through page after page of links to
how great it was that he launched a car into outer space with no reference that he actually
missed Mars.
I do things the old-fashioned way by compiling feeds from a list of 15, or so, sites into
a js reader on my website. I don't use Google at all and have no use for any corporate
website. What I will do, however, is browse the yahoo news stream just so I can get a feel of
the day's mood but I never follow a link. The only site that I visit not via my news reader
is NC.
Never heard of that one before now. I just checked it out all the news promoting Cold War
2.0 right at your fingertips at least that's the way it looks tonight.
I'm deep in the pit of learning about SEO optimization, and I can tell you that Google's
search algorithms–together with Google AdWords–are to blame for the lousy quality
of Google searches these days.
Google gives priority to websites based on:
t1) site speed (which means that unless you pay extra $$$ for superior hosting and upgraded
cloud services, your site will drop in the rankings. And hey, guess who owns one of the
fastest worldwide cloud hosting services? Google.)
2) Rules that force you to write "stupid" (or at least with zero flair and style) in order to
get your website onto the first page of a search. The keyword has to be right up top, the
header and meta-text have to be written just so, and within a character limit. You can't be
arch or subtle or creative. Break a rule and you get no mercy from Google's ranking
algorithm. You're just buried in the back.
3) Speaking of back, Google prioritizes sites and pages for backlinks, that is, for other
sites that link back to your website or article. While that may seem to be a way of pushing
quality websites to the top of a search, in actual practice this backlink thing is a game. My
site has backlinks from the New York Times, CNN, National Geographic, Conde Nast Traveler,
and a host of other very authoritative high quality sites. However my competitor has a
greater NUMBER of backlinks from more domains, and that counts for more, even though the
links are from unknown travel bloggers.
4) Finally, the biggest drag on Google Search is the ads, which can take up the first half of
the page before you get to a "real" search result.
It occurred to me the other day that scrapping or saving Net Neutrality may not really
matter all that much. Google is so powerful that effectively they function like a commerce
gateway, keeping out small businesses and websites that can't afford to hire the expensive
software engineers and experts that you need nowadays to tweak and craft your site's backend
so that it will show up in a Google search. Not to mention the added cost of fast hosting
servers.
And the time suck of having to become familiar with all this stuff just so I can stay
alive as a business!
For real – it's gone down the crapper almost entirely.
One blog we started in 2005 was a gold mine for five to eight years. Then the revenue
tumbled – for no logical reason to us. We were dissed. Maybe we didn't change the
keywords or whatever to "keep up with the times," but good original content that wasn't pop
culture or groupthink was shunned.
Fast forward to 2018, as we try to start up another new blog (this time promoting on the
top four major "social media" sites), it's been tough going.
It seems that people don't want to find interesting, common sense oriented, critical
thinking based content anymore.
If you're not talking about some utterly useless celebrity or bone-headed politician or
dreadful sad story – no one cares to exercise those wonderful abilities they have to
contemplate and reflect anymore. Deep thinkers are a dying breed.
Even searching for simple things on Google has gotten horrific.
I'm with others here. RSS reader (we use InoReader – awesome). When you stumble on a
quality site – instantly subscribe. Your own curated "timeline" or "newsfeed."
Read all the articles on those sites you subscribe to, because they often link to other
quality sites you can add to your museum of good publications.
Even if they're not exactly your ball of wax – keep them anyway. Not every post has
to be up your alley.
The independent publisher with unique thoughts is an endangered species. Not because we're
dying off – but because they're trying to kill us off via financial starvation.
There has to be a change of the tide eventually. Hopefully before it's too late.
My Twitter feed is extremely carefully curated. I do not subscribe directly to the usual
sources (like CNN, etc.)
So I hear about a story only when someone I trust brings it to my attention, not when they
do.
In addition I have a large number of quirky people with a wide skillset.
I originally joined Twitter to follow Black Lives Matter. It was invaluable, and not only
because I got news and images I could get nowhere else, but because Black Twitter is really
neat.
And this is what happens when we let billionaires control what we see and do on the net. I
have been a newshound for years and use to go through Google News and then a few favoured
sites. These days I have reversed it around as Google News has become so crappified, so
stripped of content and so cumbersome to use that I have switched it around.
As for Facebook and Twitter – not on your nelly though I know lots of people have to
use it for professional reasons or for staying in contact with groups that do not have a
presence elsewhere. The past several years I have found that I visit a lot of Russian sites
as I tend to find more news of interest there which five years ago I would have found weird.
The times they are a changin'.
Want to know what the future will be like. Take a look at the following clip from the film
"Rollerball" – the first one – and you will see. The main character goes to visit
the world computer for information as all of it is stored there. Upon arrival he finds that
the computer has "lost" all the information on the 13th century in talking to the lead
scientist. Here is that clip of our future-
I hate the "editor" in Facebook, too, but because there's no way to format anything. That
big type you call their default? That goes away when you type three lines or so. It's only
been there a couple of years and I don't know what they were thinking of when they added it.
Why can't I choose my type size? Why can't I make text bold or italic? NC at least has those
options. Other blogs let me enter most HTML formatting tags. Those "disruptive" engineers
must be pretty weird people. Why would I want my post to be in HUGE type if I'm only posting
one or two lines?
Thing I wanted to ask, how do you make google search time periods. Is that something
they've added? A few years ago, after many people entered "I have the same question" they
admitted they had no way to do so. Is it something you have to use advanced search for?
Because I think I remember seeing something there, but I haven't used it for many years.
I just checked Google. I could be missing it. What I do see is simpler, less precise, and
not as useful as the previous time period search. I use to use to be to chop off precisely
the exact dates I wanted searched. For example any articles, websites, or just news on the
Humbolt Squid from 1/1/1984 to 1/2/1986.
If I missed that option please tell me as it was useful.
Procopius,
Yes, your memory is fine as Google did make it fairly easy to search periods of time and to
use Boolean search terms. Brief tutorials and instructions easy to find. Googleborg has been
getting less useful for using the interwebs but it is easier to find stuff to buy. Strange is
it not?
Lambert,
When I think about the crapification of Google et al I also think about the siloing of
economics, political science, history and other fields, which are stripped of anything
considered extraneous, and reduced to dry misinformative stats, formulae, and over simplied
stories. Going from the broad interconnected field of anthropology to what is misleading
labeled "economics" is like going from a real forest full of life to a museum diorama
consisting of some ratty stuff animals, plastic plants, and some awfully painted background
and being told both are comparable.
I think what used to be political economics, but now just economics, was still not broad
enough but the current field of economics had everything not describing and validating
neoliberal capitalist free market economics removed. Adam Smith's own complete writings would
get him labeled a socialist. I cannot think that the deliberate, and it was deliberate, to
simplify away all inconvenient facts, ideas, and theories from what is laughing called
economics so that only a few pre-approved answers to the approved narrative is like Google,
Twitter, and Facebook's near uselessness.
I was actually working with FB (as a vendor) when they implemented that big-type
"feature". They were concerned that it was becoming almost mandatory to include a picture
with your posts – essentially every ad on the site has a picture, links to articles and
most any URLs automatically include a picture, and users were including more and more
pictures themselves as most people switched their Facebook time to smartphones. As a result,
if you posted a short, tweet-length text only message, it was easy to miss. So they inflated
the font size to make short messages take up a similar amount of space as longer ones or ones
with pictures.
It's not my preference at all, stylistically (especially with those hideous colored
backgrounds) but, well A/B testing told them it resulted in increased eyeballs on those short
posts.
Facebook demanding you to enable cookies is not only for the advertisers, but it's
required by the server so that it can do some essential things that are required to deliver
an interactive web page. For example when you try to post a message on Facebook your browser
will send a request to Facebook server. That request must be accompanied by the cookie so
that server knows that the request came from you and not from someone else.
If you don't want cookies tracking you, you can still enable them, but you can delete all
cookies before you close your browser. Many browsers will allow you to automatically delete
cookies when you close the browser.
Have you tried Feedly ? Until 2013 it
was owned by Google (where it was known as Google Reader) but it was actually a decent piece
of software so of course they had to get rid of it. IMNSHO it leaves the competition in the
dust and is still, by far, the best news aggregator available.
I am officially adopting the policy of understanding the word "check" in "fact check", to
have the same meaning as when it is used in the context of ice hockey, i.e. "Isikoff
checked the facts for his new book so hard, they were carried off unconscious, and remain in
a coma"
I blogged on blogger for 5 years, after which I had maybe 200 hits a day, most of which
were bots. Unless you googled my full name, the blog would never be listed.
Facebook was never meant to be anything but a ghetto, to put people in pens to make a few
people rich rich rich.
Twitter was always about making people twits. See: Trump, Hillary-bots, the
sports/movie/tv complex .
Great piece, it reminds me of Edward Tufte's classic "The Cognitive Style of
PowerPoint".
Of course, in spite of ET's popularity as a corporate tent revivalist, packing hotel
ballrooms at $250 a seat, there's been no interruption in the steady dumbing down of
communication, both written and graphic.
Damnit. My comment disappeared.
I ended it asking if Naked Capitalism would become financially secure were it to own its own
Servers that operated for profit regardless of content supported?
IT professionals Serve the Servers.
Drug dealers don't have to advertise.
Servers don't have to advertise, is what I thought.
I read the article. I read the comments. An idea appears above my eyes
between my eyebrows. 'Am I right or am I wrong?'
I love Naked Capitalism. Thanks
On the morning of the summit, Charles M. Blow, maestro of alliteration and subtlety, in
The New York Times (which, we must remember, holds itself to the highest journalistic
standards and in no way resembles a rabble-rousing tabloid), published this impassioned piece
entitled "
Trump, Treasonous Traitor ," accusing the President of "betraying the nation," and
basically demanding that he be tried for treason. "America is under attack," Blow announces,
"and its president absolutely refuses to defend it."
If Mother Jones ' David Corn has his way, Senator Rand Paul, who Corn denounces as "a
traitor," would also be taken outside and shot for the crime of noting that the Attack on
America® Russia allegedly perpetrated is fairly standard clandestine behavior, engaged in
by most developed nations, including the United States of America,
whose history of election interference, coup-fomenting, assassinations, and other, more
hamfisted forms of regime change is common knowledge, or at least it was, until the ruling
classes and the corporate media turned the majority of Western liberals into paranoid
McCarthyite fanatics denouncing anyone who questions the honesty of the US Intelligence
Community as a "traitor," and seeing Russians and Nazis coming out of the woodwork.
As the Snowden documents and David Sanger's great new book and other books make plain, and
as U.S. officials are wont to brag, the U.S. intelligence services break into computers and
computer networks abroad at an astounding rate, certainly on a greater scale than any other
intelligence service in the world. Every one of these intrusions in another country violates
that country's criminal laws prohibiting unauthorized computer access and damage, no less
than the Russian violations of U.S. laws outlined in Mueller's indictment...
It is no response to say that the United States doesn't meddle in foreign elections,
because it has in the past - at least as recently as Bill Clinton's intervention in the
Russian presidential election of 1996 and possibly as recently as the Hillary Clinton State
Department's alleged intervention in Russia's 2011 legislative elections .
And during the Cold War the United States intervened in numerous foreign elections, more
than twice as often as the Soviet Union.
Intelligence history expert Loch Johnson told Scott Shane that the 2016 Russia electoral
interference is "the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades,
whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote."
The CIA's former chief of Russia operations, Steven L. Hall, told Shane: "If you ask an
intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is
no, not at all." Hall added that "the United States 'absolutely' has carried out such
election influence operations historically, and I hope we keep doing it."
Nothing gets the phony "Resistance," corporate media and neocons more hysterical than when
Trump isn't belligerent enough while meeting with foreign leaders abroad. While the pearl
clutching was intense during the North Korea summit, the reoccurring, systematic outrage
spectacle was taken to entirely new levels of stupidity and hyperbole during yesterday's
meeting with Putin in Finland.
The clown parade really got going after compulsive liar and former head of the CIA under
Barack Obama, John Brennan, accused Trump of treason on Twitter -- which resistance drones
dutifully retweeted, liked and permanently enshrined within the gospel of Russiagate.
Some people hate Trump so intensely they're willing to take the word of a professional liar
and manipulator as scripture.
In fact, Brennan is so uniquely skilled at the dark art of deception, Trevor Timm, executive
direction of the Freedom of the Press foundation described him in the following manner in a
must read 2014
article :
"this is the type of spy who apologizes even though he's not sorry, who lies because he
doesn't like to tell the truth." The article also refers to him as "the most talented liar in
Washington."
This is the sort of hero the phony "resistance" is rallying around. No thank you.
It wasn't just Brennan, of course. The mental disorder colloquially known as Trump
Derangement Syndrome is widely distributed throughout society at this point. Baseless
accusations of treason were thrown around casually by all sorts of TDS sufferers, including
sitting members of Congress. To see the extent of the disease, take a look at the show put on
by Democratic Congressman from Washington state, Rep. Adam Smith.
"At every turn of his trip to Europe, President Trump has followed a script that parallels
Moscow's plan to weaken and divide America's allies and partners and undermine democratic
values. There is an extensive factual record suggesting that President Trump's campaign and
the Russians conspired to influence our election for President Trump," Smith, a top Democrat
on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an official
statement .
"Now Trump is trying to cover it up. There is no sugar coating this. It is hard to see
President Trump siding with Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence community and our
criminal investigators as anything other than treason."
Those are some serious accusations. He must surely have a strong argument to support such
proclamations, right? Wrong. Turns out it was all show, pure politics.
In an interview with The Seattle Times, Smith expanded on his "treason" comment, saying
Trump legally did not commit treason but has committed other impeachable offenses.
"Treason might have been a little bit of hyperbole," Smith
told The Seattle Times . "There is no question in my mind that the United States has the
need to begin an impeachment investigation."
It says a lot that the resistance itself doesn't even believe its own nonsense. They're just
using hyperbolic and dangerous language to make people crazy and feed more TDS.
Here's yet another example of a wild-eyed Democratic Congressman sounding utterly
bloodthirsty and unhinged. Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee is openly saying the U.S. is at war
with Russia.
"No question about it," Cohen told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising" when
asked whether the Russian hacking and propaganda effort constituted an act of war.
"It was a foreign interference with our basic Democratic values. The underpinnings of
Democratic society is elections, and free elections, and they invaded our country," he
continued.
Cohen went on to say that the U.S. should have countered with a cyber attack on
Russia.
"A cyber attack that made Russian society valueless. They could have gone into Russian
banks, Russian government. Our cyber abilities are such that we could have attacked them with
a cyber attack that would have crippled Russia," he said.
This is a very sick individual.
While the above is incredibly twisted, it's become increasingly clear that Russiagate has
become something akin to a religion. It's adherents have become so attached to the story that
Trump's "wholly in the pocket of Putin," they're increasingly lobbing serious and baseless
accusations against people who fail to acquiesce to their dogma.
I was a victim of this back in November 2016 when
I was falsely slandered in The Washington Post's ludicrous and now infamous PropOrNot
article.
More recently, we've seen MSNBC pundit Malcom Nance (ex-military/intelligence) call Glenn
Greenwald a Russian agent (without evidence of course), followed by "journalist" David Corn
calling Rand Paul a "traitor" for stating indisputable facts .
Calling someone a traitor for stating obvious facts that threaten the hysteria you're trying
to cultivate is a prime example of how this whole thing has turned into some creepy D.C.
establishment religion. If these people have such a solid case and the facts are on their side,
there's no need to resort to such demented craziness. It does nothing other than promote
societal insanity and push the unconvinced away.
It's because of stuff like this that we're no longer able to have a real conversation about
anything in this country (many Trump cheerleaders employ the same tactics) . This is a deadly
thing for any society and will be explored in Part 2.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit the Support Page to show your
appreciation for independent content creators.
"... US is a mess with so many derangement syndromes, even amongst the elite. Trump is something like a catalyst that causes the elite, and much of the US to separate into two distinctly different groupings of derangement syndrome. ..."
Daniel
I'm of a different mind when it comes to the elites/money. Was it you or somebody commented
some time back that the US elite is not a monolith? No matter, I think Trump is part of a
faction of the elite rather than a groomed puppet. There are a number of factions in the US,
who mostly act in unison, but now, As anywhere the factions will overlap in interests, as in
many with Iran derangement syndrome will overlap with those who have Russia derangement
syndrome and so forth. US is a mess with so many derangement syndromes, even amongst the elite. Trump is
something like a catalyst that causes the elite, and much of the US to separate into two
distinctly different groupings of derangement syndrome.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 17, 2018 11:35:02 PM |
188
Peter AU 1 @184. I have written, and do still absolutely believe that the 0.01% is not a
monolith, and that they do compete, sometimes with absolutely disastrous effects on
humans.
I just don't see this Trump vs. "Deep State" or whatever as an example of that. The 0.01%
and their MSM who we are told is "the resistance" helped create and bolster the Trump Brand,
and are profiting mightily from his Administration.
I just saw an article showing Goldman Sachs' profits have gone up 44% since Trump. Again,
not "The Grand Coincidence" that Trump stuffed the swamp with more GS creatures of the black
lagoon than any other President in history.
Or, are GS now anti-globalists, playing along with Trump's brilliant 5-D chess? ;-)
Seriously, what AZ Empire elitists have suffered under the Trump Administration?
The extraction industries are flying high. The MIC is raking it in. The supra-national
banksters.... well, they always do well, but they're obviously thrilled as is Wall Street in
general.
As I noted above, even the failing media of the NY Times and MSDNC are in boon times!
Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert were in the ratings cellar until Trump, now they're tops in
their slots. Michael frigging Moore and U2 are relevant again! ;-)
Seriously, I had asked who benefits. But the easier question has to be who suffers?
Daniel
Trump's swamp is very different from what most of us here at b's see as the swamp. Trump's
swamp is what Pat Lang at SST terms as the borg. It is the pidgins strutting around shitting
on the chessboard (Putin), the Zbig foreign policy 'ex-spurts' blinded by Russia derangement
syndrome.
Methinks the media pot is calling the Trump kettle black; or is it the other way around?
They're interchangeable; they're like a jacket that has two sides one can wear when the other
side looks too dirty.
Same thing with the Washington duopoly. When one starts to look transparent; the other one
takes over.
It's all a racket people. Stop buying into the media and duopoly system and it'll lose its
power. They exist on your desperation, your need for illusion and your insanity i.e. doing
the same thing over and over expecting a different result when you know it's clearly not
working!
Trump is the master illusionist du jour even topping Obama, who was like the charming
preacher minus the performing snakes. Perhaps the only true statement to come out of
Hillary's mouth was about her rival.: "The skies will open, the light will come down,
celestial choirs will be heard and the world will be perfect.
She should know; she peddles the same.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...err...once.
Circe @| 173, why does the Zionist owned and controlled media in Israel LOVE Trump, but the
Zionist owned and controlled media in the US/EU HATE him?
And that is one of the (many) reasons why I do not believe the MSM narrative that Trump is
an outsider whom they hate. Trump fans know the MSM lies to us about everything, big and
small. And yet, they totally believe the MSM narrative about Trump and their relationship
with him.
I am reminded of the atheist challenge to believers in a monotheistic religion. "You are
atheistic about all the other gods except one. I am merely atheistic about one more god than
you."
Well, I disbelieve one more MSM narrative than most.
"... No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections. ..."
"... Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for anything, he said: ..."
"... Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago. ..."
"... VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is
being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections.
Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for
anything, he said:
"I hold both countries responsible (for dismal bilateral relations). I think that the
United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish And I think we're all to
blame."
Regarding election meddling, he said:
"There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. And people are being brought out to
the fore. So far that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign. And they're going
to have to try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign."
"My people came to me and some others (T)hey think it's Russia President Putin said it's
not Russia. I will say this: I dont see any reason why it would be."
" President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
Trump is wrong about most things, not this. No evidence, nothing, proves Russian meddling in
the US political process.
If it existed, it would have been revealed long ago. It never was and never will be because
there's nothing credible to reveal, Big Lies alone.
Trump's above remarks were in Helsinki. In response to a raging Russophobic firestorm of
criticism back home, he backtracked from his above comments, saying he misspoke abroad.
He accepts the intelligence community's claim about Russian US election meddling –
knowing it didn't occur.
Russiagate was cooked up by Obama's thuggish Russophobic CIA director John Brennan , media
keeping the Big Lie alive.
DNC/John Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked – an indisputable fact media
scoundrels suppress to their disgrace.
Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray earlier explained that
"(t)he source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all," adding:
"I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in
Washington."
"The source of these emails (came) from within official circles in Washington DC. You
should look to Washington, not to Moscow."
"WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from
any proxy of the Russian government. It's simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert
attention from the content of the material" and its true source.
The Big Lie alone matters when it's the official narrative. The Russian meddling hoax and
mythical Kremlin threat to US security are central to maintaining adversarial relations with
America's key invented enemy.
It's vital to unjustifiably justifying the nation's global empire of bases, its outrageous
amount of military spending, its belligerence toward all sovereign independent states, its
endless wars of aggression, its scorn for world peace and stability, its neoliberal harshness
to pay for it all, along with transferring the nation's wealth from ordinary people to its
privileged class.
America's deeply corrupted political process is far too debauched to fix, rigged to serve
wealth, power and privilege exclusively, at war on humanity at home and abroad.
It's a tyrannical plutocracy and oligarchy, a police state, not a democracy, a cesspool of
criminality, inequity and injustice, run by sinister dark forces – monied interests and
bipartisan self-serving political scoundrels, wicked beyond redemption, threatening humanity's
survival.
Today is the most perilous time in world history. What's going on should terrify everyone
everywhere.
Washington's rage for global dominance, its military madness, its unparalleled recklessness,
threatens world peace, stability, and survival.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
"... Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition. ..."
"... When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created " blowback " that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative. It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically. ..."
"... "It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in our world." ..."
"... "Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia." ..."
"... Jack Hunter is the former political editor of ..."
Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria
And like his father, the senator found himself on the wrong end of the media mob this week.
When Mitt Romney called Russia America's "
number
one geopolitical foe
" during the 2012 election campaign, Barack Obama
mocked
him:
"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Vice President Joe Biden
dismissed
Romney as a "Cold War holdover." Hillary Clinton
said
Romney was "looking backward." John Kerry
said
"Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching
Rocky IV
."
But that was then. This week the Cold War seemed to be back in full force for many former Obama supporters, as
President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the wake of 12 Russian agents
being indicted
for
allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.
In the midst of this hysteria, Senator Rand Paul was
asked
by CNN's Jake
Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling.
"They're not going to admit it in the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian
elections or the Russian election," Paul
replied
. "So all countries that can
spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they try." Paul insisted that U.S.
and Russian meddling are not "morally equivalent," but said we must still take into account that both nations do this.
That's when "Rand Paul" began trending on Twitter.
"Rand Paul is on TV delivering line after line of Kremlin narrative, and it is absolutely stunning to watch," read
one tweet
with nearly 5,000 likes. Another
tweet, just as popular,
said
, "Between
McConnell hiding election interference and Rand Paul defending it, looks like Russia's already annexed Kentucky." A Raw
Story headline on Paul's CNN interview read, "
Stunned
Jake Tapper explains why NATO exists to a Russia-defending Rand Paul
."
But was Paul really "defending" Russia? Was he even defending Russian meddling in U.S. elections? Or was he merely
trying to pierce through the hysteria and portray American-Russian relations in a more accurate and comprehensive
context -- something partisans left and right won't do and the mainstream media is too lazy to attempt?
Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition.
When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created "
blowback
"
that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul
didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there.
We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
No one in the GOP wanted to hear what Ron Paul had to say because it challenged and largely rebutted Republicans'
entire political identity at the time. Paul was roundly denounced. FrontPageMag's David Horowitz called him a "
disgrace
."
RedState
banned
all Paul supporters.
The American Conservative
's Jim Antle would
recall
in 2012: "The optics were
poor: a little-known congressman was standing against the GOP frontrunner on an issue where 90 percent of the party
likely disagreed with him . Support for the war was not only nearly unanimous within the GOP, but bipartisan."
Rand Paul now poses a similar challenge to Russia-obsessed Democrats. Contra Jake Tapper sagely explaining "why NATO
exists" to a supposedly ignoramus Paul, as the liberal Raw Story headline framed it, here's what the senator actually
said:
There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative.
It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had
Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism
will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically.
Do you think Jake Tapper Googled "George Kennan"? That's about as likely as Giuliani Googling "blowback."
"It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul
told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at
understanding and trying to have peace in our world."
As for Russian spying -- was Paul just blindly defending that, too? Or did he make an important point in noting both
sides do it?
"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the
New York Times
reported in February. "But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert
operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view."
The
Times
continued: "'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something
bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he
was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has carried out such election influence operations
historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing it.'"
The U.S. will no doubt keep meddling in foreign elections. Russia will do the same, just as it did during the
Obama administration and years prior
. The cries against diplomacy and for war will ebb, flow, flip, and flop,
depending on who sits in the White House and how it makes the screaming partisans feel. Many Democrats who view Trump's
diplomacy with Russia as dangerous would have embraced it (and did) under Obama. Many Republicans who hail Trump's
diplomatic efforts
wouldn't
have done so were he a Democrat. President Hillary Clinton could be having the same meeting with Putin and
most Democrats would be fine with it, Russian meddling or no meddling.
So many
headlines
attempted to portray Paul as the partisan hack on Sunday when the opposite is actually true. It's the left, including
much of the media, that's now turned hawkish towards Russia for largely partisan reasons, while Paul was making the same
realist
foreign policy
arguments
regarding
NATO
and
U.S.-Russia relations
long before the Trump presidency.
Responding to Romney's anti-Russia, anti-Obama comments in 2012, Thomas de Waal, a Russia expert at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace,
told
the
New York Times
, "There's a whole school of thought that Russia is one you need to work with to
solve other problems in the world, rather than being the problem." Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through
these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia."
But think they won't and sabers they'll rattle, as yesterday's villains become today's heroes and vice versa.
There's the elephant in the room, of course. Nobody seems to want to touch it yet, but everybody knows that
Israeli meddling in US elections puts Russian meddling in the shade. Still, it's fascinating watching the
reporting and waiting to see who will break the silence.
In the meantime, wake me up when there's something
called "the Russia-American Political Action Committee" in DC. Wake me up when US politicians vie to win its
favor, as they vie to win the favor of AIPAC, and win the huge financial contributions that result from getting
its support. Wake me up when Russian oligarchs contribute even a fraction of what Israel donors like Sheldon
Adelson already contribute to US political campaigns – and wake me up when they get results like an American
president moving the US embassy to Jerusalem or an America president sending American troops to stand between
Israel and its enemies Russia may have moved a few thousand votes here or there, but Israel gets American
politicians to send America's children to die in Middle East wars. At the moment, Russia can only dream of
meddling with that degree of success.
Yep – American elections have been corrupted by foreign countries for a long time. Russia's only problem is
that it hasn't learned who to pay off, and how much. Next time Mr. Netanyahu visits Mr. Putin (and he visits
him fairly often), he can give him a few pointers. And then Mr. Putin will be invited to give speeches to joint
sessions of Congress. Just like Mr. Netanyahu. And freshmen US congressmen will be frog-marched to Russia for
instructions, just like they're already frog-marched to Israel.
Russia has been engaging in international espionage dating back at least to Peter the Great. As such, they play
the game as well as, or possibly better, than anyone. They, like we, will do what is necessary-even to the
point of injecting themselves in the internal affairs of another country–if they deem it in their interest to
do so or, as the cliche has it, "in the interest of state". Not very nice but–that's the way the game is
played.
Thank you, Rand Paul and Mr. Hunter, for injecting some much needed sanity into this debate.
There is no need to demonize the Russians. Their country has
national interests and goals. If they are patriots, the Russians will seek to advance those interests and
goals.
We also have interests and goals, and if we are patriots, we seek to advance them (though we disagree on
what our real interests are and what our goals should be).
When our interests concide with that of Russia we collaborate. When they clash, we seek to undermine each
other.
The Russians seem to have been doing it, as their interests now clash with ours. Nothing to be worked out
about. That's how the game is played.
Which does not mean that we should defend ourselves strenuously from such undermining. And the President is
precisely tasked with defending this country and advance its interests. This he seems to be unable to do.
Do not hate the Russians. Do not demonize them. But be aware of what they are doing, because we are NOT in a
Kumbayah moment with them.
Well done, Mr. Hunter. It's a shame that the Pauls' position on foreign policy is not shared by ostensibly
"libertarian" commentators who value DC cocktail parties above all principles.
The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement.
The real problem with Russia is that it exists, and it is too big for us to control. The real problem with
Putin is that he is the first strong leader Russia has had since the fall of the Soviet Union, and he is
messing up our plans for world hegemony.
As one who grew up during the Cold War (the real one) and lived
through the whole thing (the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact, the crushing of Hungary, communists behind every
door and under every bed), I find it very hard to take all the current hysteria about Russia very seriously.
Sane, reasonable comments. Totally agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, since we live in a
3-ring media circus, so few people will listen or pay heed. In a world possibly even more dangerous than any
time since the Cold War, the act of demonizing one of the two greatest nuclear powers on earth is surely
madness.
CNN etc. headlines are not even thinly veiled editorials against Trump. Not related to just publishing the
news. But telling readers how to think. Mainstream media has an M&M type coating. Remove the outer shell and
you find the good old boys and girls as ever-lurking and ever vigilant Neocon Nation pushing their one and only
agenda on the American people. They are insatiable as long as they do not do the fighting and dying. Stay tough
Trump and realize short of complete capitulation you cannot satisfy these people.
Donald Trump took a step towards peace. Of course, not everyone likes this. As can be seen, Donald Trump has
many enemies, even among Republicans. They want war. These are people dangerous to America and the world.
What is better: peace with Russia, or a global nuclear war?
The Book of Revelation warns: "And another horse, fiery red, came out, and the one who rode it was granted
permission to take peace from the earth, so that people would butcher one another, and he was given a huge
sword." (6:4) "The great sword" – what does it mean?
Jesus gave many important details: "Terrors [φοβητρα] both [τε] and [και] unusual phenomena [σημεια –
unusual occurrences, transcending the common course of nature] from [απ] sky [ουρανου] powerful [μεγαλα] will
be [εσται]." (Luke 21:11)
Some ancient manuscripts contain the words "and frosts" [και χειμωνες] (we call this today "nuclear
winter"), and in Mark 13:8 "and disorders" [και ταραχαι] (in the sense of confusion and chaos). There will be
also significant tremors, food shortages and epidemics along the length and breadth of the regions as a result
of using this weapon.
This weapon will also cause climate change, catastrophic drought and global famine. (cf. Revelation 6:5, 6)
So here we have a complete picture of the consequences of the global nuclear war. Is there any sense in
speeding up this war?
He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and foreign policy officials during the
Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a declining nuclear and regional power,
as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit.
I'm glad to see adults in the room, at long last. The Sixties are over, baby. Good riddance.
"Of course the Paul's are right as they always are."
Always?
"A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a
pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national
holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time
again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate
Whitey Day."[2][16][17] During the 2008 and 2012 presidential election campaigns, Paul and his supporters said
that the passages denouncing King were not a reflection of Paul's own views because he considers King a
"hero".[18][19][20″
That last sentence is a hoot. Talk about "hysteria", but, go ahead, repeat Paul's lies that he knew nothing
about his own newsletter.
Johann:
"The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement."
Like the NRA, The American Conservative needs to open "The Russian Conservative" chapters in Putin's
conservative Russia to protect Putin's murderous government.
It could be that the "Left", whatever that is in addlepated minds, merely desires a little real politik in
our relations with relations with Putin's Russia.
It's hard to tell the difference between ex-KGB Putin and ex-republicans like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.
The latter two make "full of crap" seem mild praise.
Off the top of my head, a few egregious examples in which the US government has "meddled" in other countries
during the last 100 years:
Mexico (Woodrow Wilson had thousands of US troops occupying Mexico until calling
them back to "meddle" in Europe's War to End All Wars, setting the stage for an even worse war 20 years later.)
Russia (Woodrow Wilson used the US military to "meddle" in the Russian revolution after the War to End All
Wars.)
Korea (undeclared war)
Vietnam (undeclared war)
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and much of the rest of Central and South America.
Iran (helped overthrow its government in the 1950s and install the Shah of Iran, setting the stage for the
Iranian revolution.)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt.
Yemen (huge humanitarian disaster as I write this. US government fully supporting head-chopping Saudi
Arabians in their campaign to starve, sicken and blow to bits hundreds of thousands of people. Support includes
US planes in-flight fueling of Saudi fighter/bomber jets.)
And let us not forget the enormous "meddling" in numerous US government elections and policy debates by . .
. Israel.
"He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and
foreign policy officials during the Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a
declining nuclear and regional power, as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a
pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit."
It's important to understand what the US intelligence community is calling "interference in our election."
There has been no accusation that the Russians hacked into our electronic voting and changed results. Rather,
they did what we have done in other countries–the Russians ran an influence campaign. They bought ads and
created bots to spread the word. This is so utterly tame . . . there is nothing out of the ordinary US playbook
here.
Hacking the DNC server and revealing underhanded DNC doings? Hey, that's on the DNC for being both venal and
incompetent.
Anybody in 1962 shouting wild paranoid conspiracy theories about
THERE ARE RUSSIAN SPIES EVERYWHERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA
These people in 1962 would be (correctly) dismissed as Right Wing conspiracy kooks, now it's just standard
Lib Dems, RINOs, Neo Conservatives and fake news lying press.
We commissioned this Farstar comics with this theme – I mean like who in 2018 is really scared that Russians
like Anna Kournikova are going to take over America –
Unfortunately, Rand Paul is acting, but not on principle or in good faith. If he really wanted to stand against
manufactured hysteria, he would not accept the US "intelligence" agency claims and refer to their record – e.g.
on Iraq and before regarding stability of the Soviet Union – he would question the staggering difficulties of
attribution and forensics for networked, digital attacks (the main reason why any claims about who hacked whom
have to be read with skepticism), he would point to the corruption of our foreign politics by Saudi and Israeli
interests and money within the Trump-Kushner clan, and both parties, and he would compare the alleged – and
allegedly ineffectual – attempts to influence an already ridiculous election to the very real, pervasive and
corrupting impact of GOP voter disenfranchisement and bipartisan gerrymandering in service of incumbents and
their networks.
Rand Paul is the man who was going to stand against the Haspel appointment. He is a phoney,
but he serves as a weather vane for niche politicians on how the winds are turning.
Nothing about New START, no word about how George Bush made a promise that might have been in bad faith, how
Gorbachev was foolish enough to accept it, and how Bill Clinton broke it across the board, and piled on by
targeting Serbia in the Balkan conflict. Kennan did not refer to the Ukraine on his missive.
If Rand Paul is our last best hope, we are in deep trouble.
Jack Hunter " Senator Rand Paul was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should
demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling."
(0:01) TAPPER: 48 hours ago the US government, the Trump
administration, said the top Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a massive hack to affect the
US election. How much do you want President Trump to try to hold Putin accountable for that?
PAUL: I think really we mistake our response if we think it's about accountability from the Russians.
They're another country. They're going to spy on us. They do spy on us. They're going to interfere in our
elections. We also do the same. Dov Levin at Carnegie Mellon studied this over about a 50-year period in the
last century and found 81 times that the US interfered in other countries' elections. So we all do it. What we
need to do is to make sure that our electoral process is protected. And I think because this has gotten
partisan and it's all about partisan politics we have forgotten that really the most important thing is the
integrity of our election. And there are things we can do and things that I've advocated: Making sure it's
decentralized all the way down to the precinct level; making sure we don't store all the data in one place,
even for a state, and that there's a back-up way so that someone in a precinct can say, 'Two thousand people
signed in, this was the vote tally I sent to headquarters.' There's a lot of ways that we can back-up our
election. Advertising, things like that, it's tricky. Can we restrict the Russians? We might be able to in some
ways, but I think at the bottom line we wanted the Russians to admit it. They're not going to admit it in the
same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections or the Russian elections. So
all countries that can spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they
try."
TAPPER: It sounds as though you are saying that the United States has done the equivalent of what the
Russians did in the 2016 election, and it might sound to some viewers that you're offering that statement as an
excuse for what the Russians did.
PAUL: No, what I would say is it's not morally equivalent, but I think in their mind it is. And I think it's
important to know in your adversary's mind the way that they perceive things. I do think that they react to our
interference in both their elections. One of the reasons they really didn't like Hillary Clinton is they found
her responsible for some of the activity by the US in their elections under the Obama administration. So I'm
not saying it's justified
TAPPER: But surely, Senator Paul, the United States has never done what the Russians did.
PAUL: I'm not saying they're equivalent, or morally equivalent, but I am saying that this is the way that
the Russians respond. So if you want to know how we have better diplomacy, or better reactions, we have to know
their response. But it's not just interference in elections that I think has caused this nationalism in Russia.
Also, I think part of the reason is is we promised them when James Baker, at the end when Germany reunified, we
promised them that we wouldn't go one inch eastward of Germany with NATO, and we've crept up on the borders,
and we still have neocons in both parties who want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO.
That's very, very provocative and it has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan
predicted this. In 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction, he said, if you push
NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you
may get someone like a Putin, basically.
George Kennan predicted the rise of Putin in 1998. And so we have to understand that for every action we
have, there is a reaction. And it's a big mistake for us -- not to say that we're morally equivalent or that
anything that Russia does is justified – but if we don't realize that everything we do has a reaction, we're
not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in the world (3:38)
Bernie Town Hall Tonight: Changing The Narrative Again By Using His Platform To Give People's Stories A Chance to Be Heard
Where Corporate Media Utterly Fails
Mark from Queens on Mon, 07/16/2018 - 9:18pm This is gonna be quick. I just remembered that Bernie Sanders is holding another
one of his excellent town halls tonight. This one is called "CEO's vs. Workers."
Before the negativity comes in, let me say clearly that this isn't a Bernie is our savior bit or arguing for electoral salvation
or whatever. It's simply a recognition of someone with a platform putting in the time to make sure these stories are seen and documented
for posterity, despite whatever limitations inherent in the broadcast's reach. I see this as highly commendable - and potent.
The story here that made me turn on the computer and hit "new essay" was from a young woman working for Disneyland in Anaheim,
who tells of how brutal it is trying to survive on $12 an hour, having to cram roommates in to barely make the rent.
Then she mentions that some of her co-workers are living in their cars. Many have lost their homes and/or living in motels.
There's also a Tent City, which extends to a larger Orange County problem, where more Disney co-workers are living. One of here co-workers
was so ashamed of her situation that she told nobody that she was living in her car - and went missing and later found dead in it.
She then admits a great fear of losing her home, saying there are no resources to be found if you're in that position. (Her story
begins around the 18min mark).
Quite frankly, it's fucking heartbreaking and angering to listen to these people humbly tell their stories to the public without
shame.
People in this country are not hearing these stories . And because of it, are easily kept distracted by corporate media
manufactured controversy and divide and conquer by partisan ideologues. They're not having their own realities reflected back to
them; are instead bred to be in a constant state of fear about things that don't effect their everyday lives and led to believe relatively
inconsequential things are more important than fundamental ones that do effect their daily lives.
Every one of these Bernie townhalls (I've seen two others) have been riveting. This guy is single-handedly trying to give a platform
to marginalized and dispossessed voices. Nothing like this ever gets on tv. Anytime there's a corporate attempt to do something similar
it's a highly controlled, stilted affair. His are the opposite.
To me this is an example of how to change the narrative, which is the linchpin to everything. Why can't we get more people at
a quicker pace to align themselves in solidarity to what we think and espouse here? Because there isn't a forum for the downtrodden,
the castaways, the ripped off, the overworked and underpaid, the isolated, to tell their stories on a large scale. When people here
stories firsthand there is a much better chance of building the kid of empathy and compassion at the heart of forming coalitions
and/or support for those outside of one's life's station or class.
Of course it's all relative. And Bernie, despite being the most popular politician by far, doesn't have the reach of CNN. But
it is something. And if this could inspire more of these types of panel discussion that dignify the working class it could revolutionize
how narratives
get built.
This is the difference between people reading about this stuff and moving on, and having to look into the eyes of the afflicted
and being moved to act.
If this can't work on the American public to rile up indignation and compassion we're completely hopeless.
Simply put, firsthand stories are so potent. He's really onto something with these townhalls giving folks the opportunity to
speak their truth. No pundits, annoying talking heads, slick stage set.
No matter what you think of him, there's nobody in politics who comes close to what he's done to change the narrative. He continues
to impact and expand it to include the real issues of people's lives (lack of healthcare, joblessness, being underpaid and overworked,
etc.) that are completely ignored by the MSM.
Change The Narrative. Propaganda. What is the public corralled into talking about next? Almost always something to distract
from how bad things really are.
Simply put, firsthand stories are so potent. He's really onto something with these townhalls giving folks the opportunity to
speak their truth. No pundits, annoying talking heads, slick stage set.
No matter what you think of him, there's nobody in politics who comes close to what he's done to change the narrative. He continues
to impact and expand it to include the real issues of people's lives (lack of healthcare, joblessness, being underpaid and overworked,
etc.) that are completely ignored by the MSM.
Change The Narrative. Propaganda. What is the public corralled into talking about next? Almost always something to distract
from how bad things really are.
But Burnme is not.
Once again he refuses to broadcast the spectacle of american political corruption while laying the blame on russia.
Rather than make clear that interference in our elections is unacceptable, Trump instead accepted Putin's denials and cast
doubt on the conclusions of our intelligence community. This is not normal.
@Pricknick is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing
small children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
But Burnme is not.
Once again he refuses to broadcast the spectacle of american political corruption while laying the blame on russia.
Rather than make clear that interference in our elections is unacceptable, Trump instead accepted Putin's denials and cast
doubt on the conclusions of our intelligence community. This is not normal.
@SancheLlewellyn
And PLEASE don't misunderstand me, I'm NOT dismissing their plight. I'm glad that someone is showing the desperation of people
whose problems are NOT from their life choices i.e. prison, drugs, dropping out of High School.
Move to the Midwest. Housing is expensive here too, but $750,000 is a mansion. In my Chicago Suburb there are still houses
under $150,000, usually small (1200-1500 sq ft) 1950's tract houses. There are 20 houses right now for sale between $250,000 and
$300,000, quite nice houses built in the last thirty years. There are even 14 houses between $400,000 and $500,000 that look so
upscale I can only dream about them (and dream of affording them). Illinois minimum wage is only $8.25 but even McDonald's is
paying $12.
Taxes are regressive and horrendous. And the Weather sucks big time. But it's better than trying to live on $12 an hour in California.
The coasts are now only for the elite and their servants.
The weather is better in the South, but society and politics are extremely conservative.
#2 is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing small
children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
@SancheLlewellyn I'm sorry but come on now. As for this being normal you'd be correct but it surely wasn't only Trump
that normalized this, it's been normalized for a long damned time but most simply don't look at it, especially when it's a "Democrat"
at the helm with a pretty smiling face assuring us that everything will be fine as long as we play along with them.
Hell is already here but buying into that Russia crapola is a cop out - Russia didn't cut high end taxes repeatedly while the
rest of the country went to shit. Russia didn't bail out the banks at taxpayer expense and tell the taxpayers to pound sand and
STFU. Russia is not fighting wars for global domination all over the planet and it does not have almost 1000 foreign bases all
over the world.
Can Bernie save us? He'd best get off that Russia crap as even he knows good and damned well that our continued "defense" budgets
cannot continue alongside Medicare for All, etc, etc, etc. THAT is the elephant in the room that apparently even Bernie is simply
not willing to address.
#2 is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing small
children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
@lizzyh7
That part is disputable but the rest is absolutely correct.
Remember, in politics, whether local or global, there doesn't have to be a good guy and a bad guy. Most often there are two
(or more) bad guys.
#2.1 I'm sorry but come on now. As for this being normal you'd be correct but it surely wasn't only Trump that normalized
this, it's been normalized for a long damned time but most simply don't look at it, especially when it's a "Democrat" at the helm
with a pretty smiling face assuring us that everything will be fine as long as we play along with them.
Hell is already here but buying into that Russia crapola is a cop out - Russia didn't cut high end taxes repeatedly while the
rest of the country went to shit. Russia didn't bail out the banks at taxpayer expense and tell the taxpayers to pound sand and
STFU. Russia is not fighting wars for global domination all over the planet and it does not have almost 1000 foreign bases all
over the world.
Can Bernie save us? He'd best get off that Russia crap as even he knows good and damned well that our continued "defense" budgets
cannot continue alongside Medicare for All, etc, etc, etc. THAT is the elephant in the room that apparently even Bernie is simply
not willing to address.
This comment is just another example of the trump hysteria that has taken over.
#2 is the phrase "This is not normal." We are a fascist state, and it IS normal, just as the kidnapping and torturing small
children by Trump's Gestapo is normal. (We might want to do something about it?)
Ditto Trump's obsequious ass kissing of Putin in Helsinki, proving he is a Russian asset the same way Frank Burns (on MASH)
was a North Korean asset.
Bernie, however, points out the obvious (or what would be obvious if anyone cared to look), that even "blue states" hide an
economic hellscape. Obama's bailout of the banks and reinflation of the housing bubble enriched the One Percent but left everyone
else behind. Those who can't afford $750,000 crap shacks either end up homeless or get stuck with hours-long commutes to reach
their jobs. Here in Portland we have so many tent cities you would think you stepped back into the 1930s.
Welcome to Hell. Maybe Bernie and others can show us the way out. If only we listen this time.
expressing what I also believe is Bernie's intent. The deep state might be able to keep him from being president, but they
have not yet silenced him. They ensure the msm doesn't cover his town halls, but they are found and spread far and wide anyway.
When I was a manager, I would tell my employees that if I didn't know something was broken, I couldn't fix it. Bernie continues
to publicize what is broken.
It is up to we, the people, to fix it through revolution. It's the only way.
I'm glad you posted this. Bernie is one of a handful of D.C. politicians that addresses the plight of the working poor. Most
Democrats talk about the difficulties of the middle class since that's a "safe" topic.
@karl pearson
Most of the working poor think they are lower middle class and not at all like welfare people. Often, they are the most conservative.
It's easy to have that outlook when things are always going against you. Most haven't caught on that the Democrats are no longer
their friends and haven't been for around half a century. Some realize that the Republicans never have been. Others think if one
side (D) has a black hat the other (R) must have a white hat. They actually think that Trump is their friend. "If he's Hillary's
enemy, he must be my friend."
Most of you must have heard of the Magnitsky Act or even maybe of William Browder himself. You
probably know that Browder was a British businessman who founded Hermitage Capital Management
investment fund which Sergei Magnitsky represented as a lawyer
and auditor. Finally, you must have heard that Magnitsky died (was killed) in a Russian jail
while Browder was placed by the Russian government on a black list and denied entry. For the
vast majority of you, that is probably as much thought as you ever gave this topic and I have
to confess that this is also true for me. I never bothered really researching this issue
because I knew the context so well that this, by itself, gave me a quasi-certitude that I knew
what had happened. Still, when I read this book I was amazed at the fantastically detailed
account Krainer provides to what is really an amazing story.
In his book Alex Krainer offers us the truth and truly shows us how deep the rabbit hole
goes....
As Congress still swoons over the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky narrative, Western political and
media leaders refuse to let their people view a documentary that debunks the fable, reports
Robert Parry.
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation,
the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people are now seeing the light, only the
people with skin the game or those far too controlled through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters
are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
Propaganda
Comey and Senator Warner
basically are calling for a coup because of the FALSE claim that it is
'treason' to doubt the IC.
Honestly, it's past joking about. The rabid dogs are now snarling in
our front yard. Circling the house.
But it wasn't the Intelligence Community that said 'Russia hacked the
DNC'... a play that was about getting you to ignore the CONTENT of
Hillary/DNC emails. (Thus the quip 'Russia rigged our elections by exposing
how our elections are rigged.').
It was Brennan and Clapper and a dozen 'handpicked' analysts from just 3
agencies. Even then the NSA boys only said 'moderate confidence' which is
analyst speak for 'we have no real evidence.' The CIA and FBI analysts,
relying on the DNC-linked CrowdStrike analysis of a server they never
examined, said 'high confidence' which means 'we can't prove this but we
totally believe it was Russia's government because wouldn't it be just like
those aggressive Russkis?'
Trump needs to order a full intelligence agency review of
Clapper's report.
Someone lose to him needs to scream this
into his ear.
SCREAM IT.
Listen boys, that covers Trump from all directions. A full intelligence
agency review no matter what it says helps him. MOREOVER, as part of that,
any serious IC assessment of CLAPPER'S report will show that it was
contrived. Political. Not how such assessments are normally done.
So even if it's conclusions ended up being correct... the report itself
would be exposed as complete bullshit. Which points one to Clapper, and
Brennan... and Obama.
Hey listen, playtime is over. Comey and Brennan and the neocons and
media are basically using Trump's very reasonable doubt as 'treason' and
have turned the rhetoric up to 11. They are suggesting a coup based on
Deep State/Dem/MIC lies. This is intolerable and we may be at a point
where sending the Marines to CIA headquarters to take documents and arrest
some folks is in order. What would the media do - go nuts?
Why didn't Clapper invite DIA to the party?
If its military (SO/SF) versus the spooks - guess who wins?
The CIA is for the most part a collection of drig and guns mafias. They
operate outside the law with unlimited funding. Squeeze that funding -
grab some of their operators off the fucking street and interrogate
them...
You have Senator Cohen actually suggesting a coup because Trump doubts
the IC which Schumer said has many ways to 'get you.'
REPORTER AP: President Trump you first. Just now President
Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in
2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did...
So, this is a lie. It's the 'all intel agencies' lie even the NY
Times at least at one loint admitted was a lie.
This is super important.
It was a dozen or so 'handpicked analysts' - NOT a full IC review.
Now why wouldnt Obama, Brennan and Clapper want a full, actual Intel
Assessment?
And Clapper had final edit power. I mean its a fucking joke and the
complete lack of MSM scrutiny of the problems tells me the media is
truly, no kidding, captured by interests who can completely suppress
basic journalism (I know there's long been *bias* - this is deliberately
not reporting on a highly unusual intel assessment by a guy who hates
Trump relying on a private firm founded by a guy who hates Putin which
has extensive ties to the DNC.
It really isnt a Red Team Blue Team thing and you don't have to like
Trump. This is about whether a small group of spooks with ties to one
party and effective media cobtrol get to undo an election to pursue war
in Ukraine and Syria and to justify ever more spending by acting
aggressively toward Russia along its borders then framing every response
as 'Russian aggression.'
We are in an incredibly dangerous time eith senators and former fbi
and cia heads more or less openly calling for a coup because Trump
doubts Brennan/Clapper's horseshit report.
I know I repeat myself. I have to. I'm very alarmed by this stuff.
Trump
needs to order a full IC assessment of Clapper's report and of Russian
alleged **hacking** ASAP.
(the clickbait stuff is so silly
its frankly not worth addressing right now).
Secret Service should also detain and question Cohen and Comey over
their remarks. Trump needs to flex a little muscle now with people
talking coup.
I'd not seen the AP reporters question that triggered this before. It
looks like the reporter was trying to embarrass both Putin and Trump
but wound up getting his ass, Clinton's ass, and the asses of the
intelligence community handed to him instead.
too right. If I remember correctly, it was in the context of Putin
saying Russia is open to have FBI guys come to question the 12 GRU
guys indicted (no proof yet) by Mueller.
In return, he then said
Russia would like to ask a few questions to the US officials
believed to have HELPED Browder funnel 400 mill to Clinton and
probably avoid paying tax on 1.5 billion in Russia AND the US...
Browder has to be on top of the US wanted list in the not too
distant future or there really is no fuckin justice.
The problem is everyone is stuck in the "lesser over greater evil" construct and that's
what makes the American Zionist-influenced duopoly so powerful. Trump is part of that failed
system that Americans are so dependent on and that always leads to the same place. People
should fight this lesser vs greater evil construct, even if Americans are too stupid at this
time to get out of it. It means they'd have to choose outside the box, outside the media's
choices example Fox and other Rightist outlets for Trump. CNN, MSNBC - Hillary, but the media
is all Zionist run and specializes in the brainwash on both sides. It's all part of the same
sham. The duopoly.
It starts with primaries for representatives and choosing a candidate that demonstrates
independence and integrity; especially those that the media wants to ignore; that's not
beholden to special interests or financed by Zionists.
Most importantly when America goes wrong and it's royally f...cked up right now, the rest
of the world, the web has to push back against their ignorance and their stupid choices,
because those choices hurt others as much as they hurt them only they're still too
brainwashed to see it. Americans had the right idea to turn on the establishment, but Trump
was the perfect Zionist anti-establishment decoy, a fraud, a pretender just like Obama was
for the Left.
In the past election, the only viable contender was Bernie who got railroaded by
Democratic Zionists like Wasserman and Podesta. I think Bernie was more authentic than the
two evils, Hillary and Trump, and although his Zionist roots are always a concern; he was run
out precisely because he was a rogue Jew and Zionists couldn't trust him. He wasn't in the
pocket of Zionist financiers although he was running with the Democrats, but in the current
status quo he had no choice but to use the Democratic Party as a means to an end and they did
him in. If Hillary were not on the ticket who knows what could have been. He was a start in
the right direction away from the Zionist financed duopoly.
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
"... Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's "main" consultant on these matters: ..."
"... Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of the people all of the time they would simply be out of work. ..."
"... The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but the communist alternative they used had a life of its own. ..."
"... When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment. ..."
I posted this in another ZH article, but wanted to spread awareness about these matters:
I cracked up when MSNBC kept showing the headline, "Former CIA Director Calls Trump Treasonous", yet they didn't use Brennan's
name. Plus all the "guests" they had on were intel officers who either served under Obama, Mueller, or both. Definitely attempted
CYA going on.
Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for
openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's
"main" consultant on these matters:
Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most
controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of
the people all of the time they would simply be out of work.
The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US
over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was
the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts
beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but
the communist alternative they used had a life of its own.
When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian
resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved
Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption
and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers
clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment.
Remember, how the US-Anglo-Zionist establishment reacted to the ousting of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the end of Western
control of Iranian oil and gas. That nation has been on the hit list ever since.
Trump is either not sincere in dealing with Putin and the US-led axis will pull something off very shortly, or he is doing
something quite revolutionary and wants rapprochement.
I didn't vote for Trump. His handling of the Iran deal, Palestine and regurgitation of Likudnik talking points, many of his
appointments... these aren't America First positions. They smack of Adelson and Bibi and using the MEK to foment moar regime change
should trouble everyone.
However, I always conceded that he was better than Hillary. I almost voted for GJ but live in MA so why bother.
But he has my vote next time.
This isn't about Trump anymore - it's about the ability of a shadow government to undo elections with fisa and intel abuse
and with the help of a controlled, CIA-minded legacy media.
I also think these 'deep state' types are determined to get major wars going, and determined to keep flooding the country with
debt serfs and cannon fodder all while attacking our sovereignty and promoting endless wars that benefit the banks and MIC.
I think we are in an incredibly dangerous time and that Brennan and Clapper need to be indicted and arrested for sedition ASAP.
Ditto Hillary, and others, including Obama.
In simple terms its the Republic versus the Empire, and if you support the Republic, I don't care if we deeply disagree on
lots of other stuff - I am on your side.
And if the Left marches on Washington as some are calling for, I think patriots need to go out and meet them with a peaceful
show of our numbers.
$400,000,000 doesn't stay in a campaign, it is spent or transferred (if it made it that
far?). So where did it go, who received it? Surely it was reported if true? If
not................? Putin is not likely to put his questionable integrity out to dry in
front of the world. Mueller is all over it already?
Critical piece of the statement: " Intelligence agents funneled"
(Clinton>State>Embassy>CIA (Brennan).
divingengineer -> two hoots • Mon, 07/16/2018 - 17:34 Permalink
You are right, that was a PRETTY BIG STATEMENT, right in front of the world. I wonder what
was said in that two hour talk between him and Trump? Man, I would love to have been a fly on
the wall. Things are going to get spicy now.
Putin just nailed the US intelligence establishment. Up until now they've been cynically trying to limit Trumps freedom of action by laying out
allegations of Russian collusion. Now they're in a spot of bother when every time they start
to wind up the anti-Russia campaign someone points out that they've got a vested money
interest.
I'd love to see the FBI and CIA cleaned out from top to bottom over this, trials of
hundreds of sleazeballs with their assets confiscated and pensions cancelled. Although its
pretty obvious you'd need a lot of security on your side to deal with that.
If you've been watching Putin since the year 2000, you'd know he's not exactly known for
throwing around wild accusations. Less so, very precise accusations. He will be asked about that and he will not mumble words but likely expand. The Browder Affair is well known so I don't really know why anyone is remotely
surprised.
This is a perfect opportunity for the Social Justice Warriors to INSIST that all foreign
contributions to domestic US politicians or political parties be immediately outlawed or they
will march on Washington IMMEDIATELY!!
While they're at it....they should also include all contributions made by multi-national
corporations both public and private.
and while they're at it...they should also include all contributions made by foreign
governments or agents of foreign governments.
Browder, Rothschild, Clinton. Remember this back when Rothschild et al got their butt hurt from Putin? "As is known, despite the public promise not to engage in political activity after his
release from prison, former Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been actively involved
in the financing of various media and political projects. The structures of Khodorkovsky
actively communicated with the international fraudster William Browder and helped to lobby
for the adoption of anti-Russian sanctions in the US Congress. However, the projects of
Khodorkovsky, as it turned out, have more high patrons and sponsorship streams than only the
means of the former oligarch."
Now we understand why some of the intelligence agencies are bending over backwards to
incriminate Russia along with Brennan, et al., crying treason when in reality it was those
people and agencies actually doing it. This is way beyond fucked up and the damn MSM is
ignoring every bit of it.
Trump needs to take some sort of action that draws this so far out into the open that it
can't be denied. The fucking GOP senators that were out today bad talking Trump need to be
indicted for their likely crimes as well. Fuck these creeps!
The Looking Glass warned us 2016 would be a pivotal election where the People would
finally realize the CIA (really MI6) runs our country with a complicated web of compromise,
corruption and illegal funding. Too bad it was off by a few years...
Putin has a thousand times more credibility and honor than Mueller. Mueller is a stinking
crook. He was instrumental as head of the FBI in certifying to the Bush administration that
Saddam had WMDs. He covered up the real (and known) anthrax terrorists while he went on a
witch hunt against Hatfield -which eventually resulted in the US Government paying Hatfield
$8 million for defamation of character. Mueller is pure scum -a fiend and traitor who belongs
in prison for the rest of his miserable life.
... that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain
and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails ... the conversation we need
to be having [about lies/corruption from the deep state and powerful actors acting against US citizens interests, and decline
of institutions that support US citizens' freedom], but we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on
Vladimir Putin.
I agree with Mish on all this, including " Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria
from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise" though he doesn't qualify/define "Left and Right" as the Left and Right establishment
aka. the Uniparty. The statement wouldn't have applied to say the Left and Right establishment that existed when our founders
created the country and were united to create a government that defends our lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness with an
extremely limited (by today's standards) government. You don't see the Freedom Caucus getting hysterical about Trump's meeting
Putin.
Mass hysteria is exactly what it is, because it threatens their gravy train that comes from money taken by force from taxpayers.
the citizens voted against the establishment, and the establishment is fighting back along with their MSM cronies.
I've never been enthralled with Neil Cavuto due to considering him inferior as a host on things financial. Today he just crapped
in his mess kit with me. He has to be dirty, the way he was defending the wonderful intelligence "community" of the USA, and was
hinting that treason may not be a strong assessment of Trump with Putin. He is a real POS along with girly-man Shepard Smith.
Not one criticism of any Cabalist about graft and corruption, and especially no mention of the uranium to Russia by Obama's and
Hillary's REAL treason.
I repeat, all of you goofy imbeciles, Trump is sucking you down into the depths of embarrassment once the hammer drops. I expected
the fruity Smith but must admit the Cavuto stupidity is a bit of a surprise. Someone has pics of that dumb fuck in a compromising
situation.
Putin statement about $400 million 'donation' to Hillary Clinton by MI6-connected Bill Browder in his Helsinki presser is
obviously of great interest. This has given some new insights into the DNC false flag operation dynamics.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. ..."
"... IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol. ..."
"... What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means to do this. ..."
PT, regarding your questions: "How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC
and DCCC servers", "what is the source of the information?",
"how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?", I believe
the answers are implicit in the first part of this news article:
It describes in considerable detail how, STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015, the FBI tried
strenuously to alert the DNC to the fact that it was being hacked by Russia, but the DNC,
remarkably, chose to ignore these warnings.
Here's how the article begins:
When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the
Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its
computer network, he was transferred, naturally [ sic! ], to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C.
had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named "the Dukes," a
cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the
Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and
even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government's best-protected networks.
BTW, I sincerely thank TTG for providing this link in one of his previous comments.
The FBI warned the DNC of the Dukes (aka APT29, Cozy Bear) in September 2015. These are
the hackers that the Dutch AIVD penetrated and warned the NSA in real time when they attacked
Pentagon systems in 2015. Their goal seemed to be intelligence collection as one would expect
as the Dutch said they are affiliated with the SVR.
The Fancy Bear hackers (aka APT28) are the ones referred to in the recent indictment of
the GRU officers. They penetrated the DNC systems in April 2016 and weren't discovered until
CrowdStrike identified them. They're the ones who took data and released it through DCLeaks,
Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks as part of a coordinated information operation (IO). I'm not at
all surprised that the GRU would lead this IO as a military operation. The FBI would get
info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network
logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI
investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info
directly. There is absolutely no need to take physical possession of the servers.
The detail of some of the GRU officers' online activity indicates their computers were
penetrated by US or allied IC/LEA much like the Dutch AIVD penetrated the FSB computers. This
was probably a main source for much of the indictment's evidence. That the IC would release
information about this penetration for this indictment is extraordinary. Normally this stuff
never sees the light of day. It sets the precedent for the release of further such
intelligence information in future indictments.
IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did
propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this
incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist
and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol.
What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and
then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that
Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means
to do this.
Now we also see a DNC motivation of keeping the content of affected servers from FBI eyes
-- Browder money.
Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave
them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.
That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her
staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.
Strzok was told that by the Intelligence
Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl
Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!
Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy
in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.
The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in
2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.
The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those
two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view
them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
Within minutes MSM had the theme to broadcast. It was from their puppet masters in the FBI/CIA. They're told what to say. There's
no doubt about that now.
Also, there's no doubt that they are pushing for war with Russia, within months or a few years, depending on what happens to
Trump.
The Russians will know this now. All the post WWII wars were done in the same way: demonizing leaders, "defending democracy",
false flag ops. But this present push is for the end game of killing the host; which is the life strategy of the parasitoid. The
complete destruction of humanity and total ecocide.
The parasitoid corporate fascists are now in full control of the media and their disease vector politicians/bureaucrats, not
just in the US but the EU/NATO as well.
A parasitoid is an organism that lives in close association with its
host and at the host's expense, and which sooner
or later kills it. Parasitoidism is one of six major
evolutionary strategies within
parasitism . Parasitoidism is distinguished by the fatal
prognosis for the host, which makes the strategy close to
predation .
In epidemiology , a disease vector is any agent that
carries and transmits an infectious pathogen into another
living organism; [1] [2]
"... Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel ..."
"Part of my mission was to investigate, discover, and expose all acts of "waste, fraud,
and abuse" by Terrorist Financing Operations Director Dov Zakheim who was my senior
supervisor. It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to
be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller."
Scott Bennett
Gregory Herr , July 15, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Double WOW. Great catch Joe.
"Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11,
2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in
N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack
on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the
Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of
overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political,
cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel."
Both individuals are sociopaths, but Mueller is even less trustworthy than Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together." ..."
"... Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case. ..."
"... Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job. ..."
"... Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning. ..."
"... Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings. ..."
President Trump's lawyers believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller is overstepping his bounds in his investigation into Russian
interference in the election. Now, Trump's lawyers are compiling a list of Mueller's numerous conflicts of interest, The Washington
Post reported.
Judge Jeanine Pirro perfectly explains one of Mueller's largest conflicts of interests–his close relationship with the former
FBI director James Comey.
... ... ...
"The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close]
with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together."
As Pirro explained, one of Robert Mueller's primary tasks is to determine whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired
James Comey.
However, Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case.
Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President
Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job.
Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed
into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning.
Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing
President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert
Mueller waiting in the wings.
Now, Comey's old friend Mueller is taking over the mission Comey started in November–to impeach President Trump.
We cannot let this witch hunt continue. We need to stand with our duly elected President and let him know that he has our trust.
Trump is the first president in a long time to put America first. He is no foreign agent.
Money quote: "This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs [scam]" And people fell for it."
The cat fight between two factions of the US elite would be funny, if it was not so dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering? ..."
"... We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on. ..."
"... You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. ..."
"... Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from Brennan. ..."
"... While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions. Trump doesn't push back. ..."
"... Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something ..."
"... @lizzyh7 ..."
"... What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen and shattered on Washington steps. ..."
"... Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States. ..."
"... What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first Mueller indicted. ..."
"... The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means. ..."
"... Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts. ..."
The FBI never examined the DNC server. And even if they had, we learned from the vault 7 wikileaks that the CIA can leave evidence
of any country they choose when they hack into a system. I can't believe my normally rational friends can be so brainwashed as
to buy into the whole Russiagate narrative. T-rump has caused them to lose their ability to think.
The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the
primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering?
We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the
law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their
foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on.
Jimmy accuse people of thinking with their lizard brains...I fear he is right.
You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came
from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would
win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. As to what Russia is accused of doing Obama, Brennan
and others have stated that no votes were changed from Hillary to Trump no were any voting machines hacked. Funny thing about
that though. 3 states have said that they did see signs of some entity trying to hack into their state's voting data bases but
it came from the DHS. Not a foreign country.
Could it be that Mueller is acknowledging something important here without stating it? There is no real victim in "Russiagate."
So, where is the crime? Was anyone harmed? No. Was a U.S. Navy battleship resting at anchor blown up? No, again. Not a scratch
to anything except the reputations of those who were shown to have rigged the Democratic primaries so that the DNC Chair's
favored candidate won.
Putin said that he would welcome the US investigation into those 12 military officers if the US would send someone to interview
them in Russia since the two countries have a treaty to do just that. Will anyone take him up on that offer? Anyone? Bueller?
After Trump's meeting with Putin neocons are doubling down and accusing Trump of doing all kinds of shady things.
Mueller indictments strengthen case that Trump's win was stolen. What's new? a) Strong possibility Russians monkeyed w/
voter rolls, affecting the 11/8/16 outcome and b) Trump's fall strategy may have been driven by stolen Democratic analytics.
My column: https://t.co/io2B8Nhjs7
Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been
prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda
since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from
Brennan.
Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors."
It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican
Patriots: Where are you???
A few other tweets from the joint press conference.
I'm pretty sure that no one will ask Putin a follow up question about what he meant by this.
While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions.
Trump doesn't push back. pic.twitter.com/dDt2TTV24E
Debunked? I don't see that this was debunked. In fact I don't remember anyone ever talking about the content of the emails
that showed that the primary was rigged.
Asked if he believes US intel agencies or Putin about Russia's interference in the 2016 election, Trump immediately starts
pushing debunked DNC & Hillary conspiracy theories.
"I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump says, affirming he believes Putin's denials.
pic.twitter.com/uciAoRxbxA
PUTIN doesn't deny having blackmail material on Trump
"When Trump was in Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was there. I treat him with utmost respect, but back then
when he was private person, a businessman, nobody informed me"
What we saw *today* was collusion. Trump's refusal to treat Russian sabotage of our democracy as the crime that it is encourages
Putin to keep it up. https://t.co/9OTDPQUmpWpic.twitter.com/efyNriYSwy
Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is
being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something
....
I kept waiting for the day Russia Gate exploded and became known for the farce it is. I really wanted to see Rachel's reaction
and see how she would explain to her viewers that she had just made everything up. But now I'm don't think that is going to happen.
The PTB have invested to much into it and they won't let their agendas be derailed. This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs." And
people fell for it.
What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting
coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen
and shattered on Washington steps.
Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each
other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since
Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States.
What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within
US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led
to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first
Mueller indicted.
The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means.
Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's
unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts.
I could see Civil War in weeks. Completely terrifying.
@detroitmechworks He ostensibly went to seek advice on how to do his confirmation hearing for SOS. What actually happened
is the Medusa told him who to retain and what policies to pursue. Pompeo had no intention of adopting her policies (except Neocon
points) but he got valuable clues as to Clinton allies in the DOS. He then began purging them. Stupid HRC! But I hope she runs
in 2020.
"... For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case. ..."
"... we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them. ..."
"... Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail. ..."
"... William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. ..."
Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President
Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million )should be $400K) in illegally
earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British
financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The
scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said
"accompanied and guided these transactions."
Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced
Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of
tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning
over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.
After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their
investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to
investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of
Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in
Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to
the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the
campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case.
It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was
illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied
and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.
Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the
American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert
Parryboth think
that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder,
a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities
trading.
Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about
international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional "expert testimony"
contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the
fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his
renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British
citizen.
Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and
Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as
unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.
Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a
selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for
anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that
his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million
tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in
fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his
death in a Russian jail.
Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact
concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately
bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in
absentia.
William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to
Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released
the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS.
According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations
apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times,
Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to
discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a
lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided
by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia
became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive
and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United
States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his
ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly
ran away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under
oath.
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid
taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen
operating in what was a wild west business environment.
My question is, "Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the
vitally important US-Russia relationship?" The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir
reports
that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major
force behind the Magnitsky Act.
The Dems. and journalists are jumping all over themselves to fawn over the intelligence
services as the defenders of democracy.
What is the journalism equivalent for 'regulatory capture'?
And even assuming that everything in the indictments are 100% true, then the DNC were
grossly negligent in handling their communications. And Clinton too, with her email
server. And the Obama administration for letting this happen.
I just finished reading Donna Brazile's book, Hacks .
According to Brazile, the DNC's IT department was alerted by the FBI. This was back in
2015 when a G-man called the DNC headquarters and was transferred to the DNC's help desk,
which had been outsourced to a Chicago-based company called The MIS Department. And, you
guessed it, this company had connections to Obama.
Well, it gets worse. The help desk guy who answered the phone thought it was a crank call.
And, after a cursory examination of the DNC computer network, he concluded that there was no
hack.
Watching the various media commentary on Russia and Vladimir Putin I am beyond stunned by
the ignorance, insanity and stupidity that grips the vast multitude of talking heads and
so-called reporters as they opine on the upcoming summit. The memes are simple:
Vladimir Putin is a KGB Thug (he probably taught us how to waterboard nuns),
Vladimir Putin is under great political pressure at home (yeah, he only enjoys a 55%
approval rating, but how can that be? Doesn't he control the media?)
Russia's economy is in the tank.
Russia is isolated internationally.
Russia is backing a mass murderer in Syria.
You got the drift. Now let us get back to reality.
Putin and Russia will welcome improved relationships with the West, especially the United
States. But they will not sell out their soul and they will not acquiesce to our lies. Here is
one simple truth and reality that lurks in the background--despite all of our chest thumping
about Russia involvement in Syria, we are in daily coordination with the Russian military on
deconflicting air space and upcoming ground operations. This does not get covered in the media
therefore it does not exist within the consciousness of the American public.
Russia is appropriately and correctly leery of the United States and its sanctimonious
bullshit. Consider the uproar here over "Russian meddling." The U.S. has a long and blood
soaked history of intervening in other countries and ousting elected leaders. Prominent on that
list are Iran, Guatemala, Chile and Vietnam. Our protests against alleged Russian meddling are
like a whore protesting the fact that a high school cheerleader lost her virginity on prom
night.
The Russians have not forgotten our role in developing and launching the Stuxnet virus in
2010. Although it was supposed to only target the Iranian nuclear reactors, it infected the
Russian Space Station and
a Russian nuclear plant . The ground truth is that the United States, through the
activities of the CIA, the NSA and the Department of Defense, has the largest, most robust
computer network operations aka hacking activity, in the world. We live in the biggest damn
glass house.
Syria? We, the United States, along with the Brits, the Turks, the Saudis and the Qataris,
funded, organized and armed Islamic extremists in Syria. We were giving arms to terrorists. It
was the Russians who intervened to stablize the Syrian regime and turn the tables on all of the
rebel groups. We are just sore damn losers. We were out fought and out thought by Russia in
Syria and have been loath to admit the facts.
How about the question of foreign intervention? Let's put Syria to the side. The U.S. has a
far more disgraceful, shameful history on this point. Since December of 1989, we have invaded
Panama, Iraq (twice), Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria. At the same time we have broken our
promise to the Russians to not expand NATO into the former member of the Soviet Union. In fact,
U.S. and British intelligence operatives played a crucial (albeit covert role) in organizing
the Euromaidan:
These protest led ultimately to the ouster of the democratically and legally elected
Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych. In stark contrast to
the alleged meddling of Russia in our 2016 election, the United States actually succeeded in
helping oust an elected President. Vladimir Putin has not forgotten that fact.
The Deep State keeps harping on the "Russian invasion" of Crimea. As I noted in my previous
piece,
Nato, A Naked Emperor , the Russians did not invade. There was a referendum. I am sure that
Putin will point out the fact that the United States continues to "lease" Guatanamo Bay in Cuba
without the legitimacy of an election. The Cubans want us out but we insist that we have a
legal right to be there. Unlike Crimea, which historically was part of Russia, we have no
historic claim to Cuba other than our own greed.
The Deep State also wants Trump to get the Russians to do something about Iran. Do not be
surprised if Vladimir Putin takes time to explain to Donald that Iran's rise in the Middle East
is not because of Russian support. Nope. It is a direct consequence of the U.S. 2003 invasion
of Iraq.
How about future cooperation? The Russians already are playing Lyft driver for U.S.
astronauts as they ferrying us to and from the Space Station. On the nuclear front, Putin
withdrew in 2016 from a treaty , on the disposal of plutonium, in anger over the U.S.
breaking of its promise to not grow NATO and increase military exercises on Russias border.
Putin does not have alzheimer's. He is not going to back off on this point.
At the core of the U.S. mythology about Russia is the lingering resentment of how the
Soviets treated Jews in the former Soviet Union and our self-delusion that we, the United
States, defeated the Nazis. The largest tank battle in history was not the Battle of the Bulge.
It was Kursk and that was led by a Russian General. The West has refused to acknowledge the
critical role that Russia played in defeating the Nazis. Without the incredible stands at
Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the West probably would have lost the war and we would be
living under a true fascist regime.
History is not a strong suit for Americans. Embarrassing ignorance is our currency. And we
our flush with that cash.
Thanks! So many excellent points. I sure wish someone would create a television network
that did provide good historical analysis of current topics. I'm so tired of screaming at
my television. Fox News is no exception. It may not be as stupid as the others, but it
certainly isn't unbiased as it claims to be.
During my late teenage years The Ugly American was a must read. I'm sad that it may
have had some influence in creating the mindless progressive lefties. But I am even more
upset that it didn't make the right smarter and less defensive and also self
congratulatory (for little reason) about the U.S.'s involvement in the rest of the
world.
I will have to print off your post to carry with me when I am confronted about foreign
events. Sadly, however, few people now ever do discuss politics or current events both
national and foreign. Everyone is afraid to become involved in an unpleasant
confrontation.
"On the nuclear front, Putin withdrew in 2016 from a treaty, on the disposal of
plutonium, in anger over the U.S. breaking of its promise to not grow NATO.."
I recently read an old Jan 2016 NYT article about the pentagon being in the testing
phase of a range of dial a yield delivery systems. Russia pulled out of the disposal
treaty around October 2016.
I see these dial a yield gadgets are included in the 2018 NPR and their conditions of
use. Pentagon now has much more shock and awe to play with. Pentagon also saying
production of plutonium cores needs to be stepped up.
I am beginning to wonder if the Nazi's shifted west. Operation Paperclip of course, but
they already had support from people within the US and the UK. Is the current US/Russia
conflict a phase 2 of WW2 between the descendants of Nazi's that inflitrated the West and
Russia?
Russian suspension of the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PDMA) was
because USA breached the agreement.
Here's a decent summary:
quote
The
decision to suspend the agreement had been expected. The US was supposed to fabricate MOX
fuel from its plutonium costs for building a facility at the Savannah River Site in South
Carolina but costs spiraledout of control. It prompted the administration to use a
cheaper reversible process instead - a "dilute and dispose" alternative that would simply
mix the plutonium with inert materials and store underground making it more difficult to
recover and dispose of it as waste.
According
to the "downblending" method, the Savannah River Site facility would be used to dilute
plutonium and dispose of it at the waste isolation pilot
plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico, instead of transforming plutonium into nuclear fuel. There
is a problem here - the disposal approach would not
change the mix of isotopes in the plutonium to make it more difficult to reuse in
weapons. Changing the disposition method requires formally amending the agreement, which
cannot be done without Russia's consent. In an open breach of the agreement, Moscow has
not been consulted.
Unlike
the United States, the Russian Federation has carried out its obligations. Russian state
nuclear corporation Rosatom has already started producing MOX fuel. A MOX fuel facility
in the city of Zheleznogorsk in Eastern Siberia. BN-600 and BN-800 fast neutron reactors
have been built to use MOX fuel made of weapons-grade plutonium and ensure it is unusable
for nuclear warheads.
Russia had warned the United States about the violation. The Russian president
expressed its concern over the US unilateral move in April, shortly after a nuclear
security summit held in the US.
Back
then, he noted that that the United States was not honoring the agreement by disposing of
plutonium in a way that allowed it to retain its defence capabilities. Washington was
warned.
Zbig giving a lecture. His views on Russia start at the 10 minute mark. If this is what
is being taught - a cultural hatred, blind hatred of Russia - at universities and places
of higher learning in the US.....
"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."
"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."
"... Fox News reported ..."
"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."
Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing
Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not
follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
(ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going
through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her
emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI
official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG
investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but
nothing else.
Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.
When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker
had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it
four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an
impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the
face.
In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican
leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the
"Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats
immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.
Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his
reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I
think the inspector general has to be very careful here."
McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told
Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he
would be one of the first two fired, he was told.
Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is
information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets
and informants working with the U.S. government.
John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor :
Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's
"unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true
names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse,
some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.
It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.
In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia,
China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the
protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of
pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook.
It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.
Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world
can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone
else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.
Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a
lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich,
not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our
old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during
the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that
your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.
And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.
I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination,
but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and
we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all
wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock
and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was
also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.
I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you
that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.
I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a
casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump
in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep
State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and
doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.
But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II
a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated
that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions
of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of
service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against
fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.
What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties.
But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than
shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties
by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that
there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.
Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State.
Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.
Which brings us to the courts.
There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people
don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from
the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?
Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our
American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman
with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966,
three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle
name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath
of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard
Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder
there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world.
You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's
family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who
hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out
of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.
Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He
became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K.
Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program
and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally
control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong,
coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later
wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to
a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.
When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.
One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's
"terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles
agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked
to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in
the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental
behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of
the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad
Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black
militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader
in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The
SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.
I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed
her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return
to Patty Hearst shortly.
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He
prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was
a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling
without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.
For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that
brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given
the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying
twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for
al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation
was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation
Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.
Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the
time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly
be circumstantial.
There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in
London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing
flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew
gave them the warning.
There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate
American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were
returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings
of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.
That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.
He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine
he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom
Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas.
One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton.
At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson
later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.
Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in
time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated
BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though
fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money
chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did
not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's
equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes
into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane
was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was
prosecuted at Huffman.
Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.
Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building
within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead,
he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the
equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly
"committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two
of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest,
the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist,
the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search.
For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone
or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.
***
It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any
consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of
the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given
the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation
into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION
CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon
Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops
in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob
Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA
and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.
I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike
Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump,
like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the
great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there.
Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered
as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to
me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be
obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a
means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.
When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors,
judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may
not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.
There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked
as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal
trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later
work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a
shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise
also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San
Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence.
"Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before
he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously
opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above
the law.""
When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.
That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.
I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government
that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.
My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.
It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.
LOL.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
@arendt even
considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters
and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.
Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that
went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.
Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed
to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up
through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...
Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...
Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure
on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...
For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing
scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with
our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out,
the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and
the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is
never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man
until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain
category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out
to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect"
and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it.
He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another
man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a
certain category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are,
the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by
the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies
wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?
Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called
"a right wing attempt to bring them down."
I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which
I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.
But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling
overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.
Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.
from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John
Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.
Joe posted this
linkthat explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary
forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."
Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.
conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the
Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm
sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in
February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers
for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the
firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order
to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed
on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe
that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or
are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly
recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going
to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they
did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents,
but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.
Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia
that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what
Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was
that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere
with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front
pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive
statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason
why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're
blatantly lying in their statements.
Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted
to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround
Russia's borders.
The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the
election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian
lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.
#13#13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people,
or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted,
but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..
It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than
you are.
If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller
has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers
just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference,
so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and
spying.
Oops. From the article ..
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
off the hook. @snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots
a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case
closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR
stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin.
It's ridiculous.
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than
a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I
posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the
protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of
pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook.
It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.
Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world
can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone
else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.
Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a
lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich,
not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our
old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during
the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that
your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.
And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.
I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination,
but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and
we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all
wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock
and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was
also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.
I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you
that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.
I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a
casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump
in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep
State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and
doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.
But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II
a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated
that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions
of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of
service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against
fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.
What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties.
But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than
shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties
by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that
there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.
Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State.
Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.
Which brings us to the courts.
There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people
don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from
the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?
Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our
American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman
with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966,
three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle
name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath
of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard
Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder
there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world.
You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's
family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who
hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out
of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.
Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He
became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K.
Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program
and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally
control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong,
coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later
wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to
a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.
When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.
One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's
"terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles
agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked
to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in
the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental
behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of
the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad
Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black
militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader
in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The
SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.
I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed
her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return
to Patty Hearst shortly.
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He
prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was
a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling
without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.
For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that
brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given
the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying
twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for
al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation
was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation
Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.
Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the
time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly
be circumstantial.
There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in
London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing
flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew
gave them the warning.
There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate
American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were
returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings
of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.
That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.
He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine
he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom
Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas.
One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton.
At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson
later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.
Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in
time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated
BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though
fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money
chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did
not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's
equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes
into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane
was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was
prosecuted at Huffman.
Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.
Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building
within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead,
he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the
equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly
"committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two
of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest,
the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist,
the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search.
For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone
or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.
***
It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any
consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of
the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given
the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation
into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION
CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon
Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops
in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob
Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA
and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.
I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike
Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump,
like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the
great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there.
Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered
as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to
me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be
obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a
means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.
When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors,
judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may
not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.
There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked
as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal
trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later
work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a
shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise
also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San
Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence.
"Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before
he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously
opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above
the law.""
When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.
That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.
I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government
that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.
My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.
It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.
LOL.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
@arendt even
considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters
and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.
Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that
went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.
Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed
to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up
through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...
Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...
Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure
on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...
For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing
scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with
our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out,
the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and
the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is
never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man
until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain
category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out
to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect"
and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it.
He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another
man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a
certain category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are,
the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by
the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies
wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?
Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called
"a right wing attempt to bring them down."
I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which
I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.
But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling
overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.
Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.
from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John
Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.
Joe posted this
linkthat explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary
forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."
Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.
conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the
Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm
sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in
February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers
for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the
firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order
to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed
on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe
that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or
are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly
recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going
to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they
did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents,
but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.
Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia
that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what
Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was
that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere
with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front
pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive
statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason
why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're
blatantly lying in their statements.
Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted
to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround
Russia's borders.
The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the
election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian
lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.
#13#13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people,
or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted,
but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..
It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than
you are.
If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller
has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers
just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference,
so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and
spying.
Oops. From the article ..
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
off the hook. @snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots
a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case
closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR
stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin.
It's ridiculous.
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than
a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I
posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
While "marriage of governmental and corporate interests is the very definition of fascism" this marriage also occurs under neoliberalism,
so the author augment is weak, although some of his observations are astute and have a distinct value. Fascism imply far right nationalism
and far right nationalist party in power, often under false pretext of "saving nations from a coming collapse".
Neoliberalism while is also displays high level of merger of corporate and state interests operation of globalist agenda (or at
least used to operate before Trump, who invented "national neoliberalism" regime, aka neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization)
Can Trump "national neoliberalism" be called a flavor of neo-fascism? Hillary probably will tell you yes ;-) But it is impossible
to deny that the US Deep state launched color revolution against Trump (with CIA under Brennan as a coordinating center and FBI as "muscles")
and, essentially emasculated him in just first three month of his Presidency by appointing Mueller as a Special Prosecutor.
So we can talk about gradual sliding into national security state under neoliberalism, but it is not necessary take form of neofascism.
Classic neoliberalism, for example, is cosmopolitan ideology and as such is hostile to nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Remember, people used to scoff at the notion of a Deep State (a.k.a. Shadow Government), doubt that fascism could ever take hold in America , and sneer at any suggestion that the United States was starting to resemble Nazi Germany in the years leading up to Hitler's rise to power. We're beginning to know better, aren't we? The Deep State (" a national-security apparatus that holds sway even over the elected leaders notionally in charge of it ") is ..."
"... Indeed, to anyone who's been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we're already under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State, a powerful cabal made up of international government agencies and corporations. ..."
"... It is as yet unclear whether the American Police State answers to the Global-Industrial Deep State, or whether the Global-Industrial Deep State merely empowers the American Police State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically enmeshed and interlocked. ..."
"... Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the technology sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, and the pharmaceutical industry. ..."
"... All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels to increase their profit margins: Walmart, Alphabet (formerly Google), AT&T, Toyota, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Lockheed Martin, Berkshire Hathaway, UnitedHealth Group, Samsung, Amazon, Verizon, Nissan, Boeing, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup these are just a few of the global corporate giants whose profit-driven policies influence everything from legislative policies to economics to environmental issues to medical care. ..."
"... The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T's massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies." ..."
"... Now magnify what the U.S. government is doing through AT&T on a global scale, and you have the " 14 Eyes Program ," also referred to as the "SIGINT Seniors." This global spy agency is made up of members from around the world (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, India and all British Overseas Territories). ..."
"... War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best buyers and sellers . In fact, as Reuters reports, "[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry ." ..."
"... The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70% of the countries worldwide). ..."
"... A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State ..."
"There are no nations. There are no peoples There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those
are the nations of the world today. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of
business."
There are those who will tell you that any mention of a New World Order government -- a power elite conspiring to rule the world
-- is the stuff of conspiracy theories
.
I am not one of those skeptics.
What's more, I wholeheartedly believe that one should always mistrust those in power, take alarm at the first encroachment on
one's liberties, and establish powerful constitutional checks against government mischief and abuse.
I can also attest to the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have studied enough of this country's history -- and world history -- to know that governments (the U.S. government being no
exception) are at times indistinguishable from the evil they claim to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of
terrorism ,
torture, drug trafficking
,
sex trafficking , murder, violence, theft, pornography,
scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.
And I have lived long enough to see many so-called conspiracy theories turn into cold, hard fact.
Given all that we know about the U.S. government -- that it treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to
be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; that it repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the
laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; and that it wages wars for profit, jails its own people
for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad -- it is not a stretch to suggest that the government has
been overtaken by global industrialists, a new world order, that do not have our best interests at heart.
Indeed, to anyone who's been paying attention to the goings-on in the world, it is increasingly obvious that we're already
under a new world order, and it is being brought to you by the Global-Industrial Deep State, a powerful cabal made up of international
government agencies and corporations.
It is as yet unclear whether the American Police State answers to the Global-Industrial Deep State, or whether the Global-Industrial
Deep State merely empowers the American Police State. However, there is no denying the extent to which they are intricately and symbiotically
enmeshed and interlocked.
This marriage of governmental and corporate interests is the very definition of fascism. Where we go wrong is in underestimating
the threat of fascism: it is no longer a national threat but has instead become a global menace.
Consider the extent to which our lives and liberties are impacted by this international convergence of governmental and profit-driven
interests in the surveillance state, the military industrial complex, the private prison industry, the intelligence sector, the technology
sector, the telecommunications sector, the transportation sector, and the pharmaceutical industry.
All of these sectors are dominated by mega-corporations operating on a global scale and working through government channels
to increase their profit margins: Walmart, Alphabet (formerly Google), AT&T, Toyota, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Facebook, Lockheed Martin,
Berkshire Hathaway, UnitedHealth Group, Samsung, Amazon, Verizon, Nissan, Boeing, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup these are
just a few of the global corporate giants whose profit-driven policies influence everything from legislative policies to economics
to environmental issues to medical care.
The U.S. government's deep-seated and, in many cases, top secret alliances with foreign nations and global corporations are redrawing
the boundaries of our world (and our freedoms) and altering the playing field faster than we can keep up.
Global Surveillance
Spearheaded by the National Security Agency (NSA), which has shown itself to care little for constitutional limits or privacy,
the surveillance state has come to dominate our government and our lives.
Yet the government does not operate alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs
of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the
corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy.
Take AT&T, for instance. Through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government
with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. According to The Intercept , "The NSA considers
AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company's 'extreme willingness to help. '
It is a collaboration that dates back decades.
Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T's customers. According to the NSA's documents, it values AT&T
not only because it 'has access to information that transits the nation,' but also because it maintains unique relationships with
other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T's massive
infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies."
Now magnify what the U.S. government is doing through AT&T on a global scale, and you have the "
14 Eyes Program ," also
referred to as the "SIGINT Seniors." This global spy agency is made up of
members from around the world (United States, United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Israel, Singapore,
South Korea, Japan, India and all British Overseas Territories).
Surveillance is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these global alliances, however.
The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated
to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth. For example, while erecting a security surveillance state in the U.S., the
military-industrial complex has perpetuated a worldwide military empire with American troops stationed in 177 countries (over 70%
of the countries worldwide).
Although the federal government obscures so much about its defense spending that accurate figures are difficult to procure, we
do know that since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $1.8 trillion in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (
that's $8.3 million per hour ). That doesn't include
wars and military exercises waged around the globe, which are expected to
push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053 .
It's not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.
Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons
better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America's military empire abroad
and domestically, calling on Congress to approve
billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs
that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in
its clutches.
Global Policing
Glance at pictures of international police forces and you will have a hard time distinguishing between American police and those
belonging to other nations. There's a reason they all look alike, garbed in the militarized, weaponized uniform of a standing army.
There's a reason why they act alike, too, and speak a common language of force.
Then you have the
Strong Cities Network program .
Funded by the State Department , the U.S. government has partnered with the United Nations to fight violent extremism "
in all of its forms and manifestations " in cities and communities across the world. Working with the UN, the federal government
rolled out programs to train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as
address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal. The cities included in the
global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo. What this program
is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.
It sounds like a good idea on paper, but the problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing
and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.
When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source:
racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. In other words, police -- acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations -- will
identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.
Of course, the concern with the government's anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise
lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist. Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American
"extremists" will carry out their objectives -- to identify and deter potential extremists -- in concert with
fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies,
behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance,
facial recognition,
predictive policing , biometrics, and behavioral
epigenetics
(in which life experiences alter one's genetic makeup).
... ... ...
And then, as I make clear in my book
A Government of Wolves:
The Emerging American Police State , if there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march
towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of communities and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics
and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
"... the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing. In the case of the Central Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe. The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source. ..."
"The systematic attempts to get the president on one's side inevitably are more
successful with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to
measure the power points they are seeing against"
I recall how a friend of mine who once served as a senior Pentagon intelligence briefer
described what he called "breaking in" a new president. Today, incoming presidents receive some
intelligence briefings so that they do not land in office on a cold January day totally
unprepared for what awaits them. But generally speaking, the real surprises are unveiled during
the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both
to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing. In the case of the Central
Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to
convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe.
The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or
being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source.
The thinking is that if you get the new president on board in his first few days he will be
yours forever, signing off on budget increases year after year while also providing political
cover when things go wrong. While the Defense Department and intelligence community benefit
from the process and are frequently able to get the president's ear because they are able to
unveil some sensational "secrets," other government agencies also competing for dollars do not
have that appeal and do not do so well. State Department, for example, rarely makes much of an
impression because its work is basically prosaic.
The systematic attempts to get the president on one's side inevitably are more successful
with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to measure the
power points they are seeing against. President George H. W. Bush, emerging from years spent as
a naval officer, a congressman and CIA Director, is unlikely to have been much influenced by a
briefing. President Bill Clinton, harboring a negative perception about CIA, did not even see
his Director James Woolsey for over a year. But, on balance, most new presidents are willing to
be seduced by the inside-the-Beltway establishment as represented by the Pentagon and the
intelligence community.
Donald Trump in particular appears to have succumbed, deferring to generals and intelligence
chiefs much more often than not, but he has also taken the message of American omnipotence too
much to heart. Trump, with no military or government experience, defers to the national
security advocates without any sense of the hard reality that all actions have
consequences.
The Pentagon is still planning for a military parade in Washington on Veterans' Day in
November, a huge waste of resources that will do little more than stroke the presidential ego.
And the open admiration for the armed forces makes it easy for Trump to think first of using
weapons and coercion instead of diplomacy, to launch cruise missiles and endorse an admitted
torturer as the new CIA Chief. The president is very much wedded to the idea that the United
States can go it alone if necessary and the rules that constrain other nations need not apply,
a very dangerous conceit.
There have been several ominous developments in Syria, which could bring the U.S.
nose-to-nose with Russian forces in the country. A recent
Israeli airstrike , initially credited to Washington, appears to have killed 52 Syrian
soldiers. There have also been rumors in Washington that the Administration is preparing for
something "big" in Syria, possibly related to warnings from the Pentagon that Syrian forces
have been threatening the unilaterally declared "de-escalation zone" in the country's
southeast. This suggests that the U.S. will block attempts by the government in Damascus to
regain control of areas until recently dominated by terrorists. Trump has also quietly restored
funding to the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group much loved by Hollywood and
Congress.
All of these steps in Syria serve no real American interest. More ominously, Trump has now
revealed that he has ordered the Pentagon to create a
military Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces. He explained " Our destiny,
beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security.
It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance
in space."
How other nations will adapt to American rule over outer space and the planets is difficult
to predict, but if the past seventeen years of Washington's assertion of its supremacy are
anything to go by, the result will be very, very bad. And it is quite unsettling to also
observe that a nation that clearly cannot provide access to decent health care for its citizens
is now aspiring to turn the moon into a fortified bastion.
There are 16 intel agencies in the US. Is this necessary or a waste of money when they
all failed to predict or stop 9/11 or even know for sure if Russia meddled in the 2016
election? Are they tripping over one and other to get Trump's ears or have they got
competing agendas? Who should the President listen to? Its madness.
This is one of the reasons Americans of all colors and stripes will not receive the the benefits of the powers of economic equality,
transparency, literal meanings of the health of the economy and economic freedom.
Because they will remain blinded by partisan worship of the presidents. We agree with Obama's criticism of big banks or of Bush's
conducts of the war. We agree with Trump's criticism of the wars raging in the ME . We agree with his take on illegal immigrants.
Instead of holding their feet to the fire, we condone, ignore, and then come out in support of them when they fail miserably and
intentionally on other vital areas or when they go against the election promises.
We believe he shits about economy coming out of FOX CNN MSNBC NYT NY POST because we worship the candidates they support or don't
support , or because the support or don't support our views on other areas .
American economy has been growing without the accompanying growth of the worker's compensation for 45 years . Nothing new . Presidents
have no role for the existing condition of the economy . Presidents may claim some success down the line years after presidency is
over . Our economic knowledge is doled out by the same psychopaths who dole us out the knowledge and the faith about wars and about
other countries from the unclean perches of the media . Yes its a handout Its a dole because we have all along built up our world
view and our view of US as told by these guys dictated to us and shoved down us . The folks whose income have suffered and hours
have increased don't have the time or the brains to explore and verify . They are just happy to know that they heard this "Trust
but verify " and heard this " make America Great Again " . They are happy to go to war because a lesbian was killed in Uganda or
in Syria or a girl was raped in Libya or gas was smelt in Dara and Hara , Sara Bara and Laora - just throw some names any name, and
these folks will lend their names and sign up .
This is the underlying mindset and the intellectual foundation which explain our deepest attachment to liar like Obama and to
Trump. Combined with helplessness ,this experience of reality can be disorienting and can lead to Stockholm Syndrome .
If this president wants no immigration to EU, he should stop supporting France's exploitation and military adventures in Africa,
stop adding to war efforts in ME and will pay the restitution for ravaging those countries . He should focus on US and stop talking
about EU's immigration.
" If this president wants no immigration to EU, he should stop supporting France's exploitation and military adventures
in Africa, stop adding to war efforts in ME and will pay the restitution for ravaging those countries. He should focus on US
and stop talking about EU's immigration. "
THE great cause of migrants coming to Europe is the USA, the wars in and destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria Mali,
as far as I know hardly anyone comes from Mali to us. Sudan was split by the USA, oil, the USA is building a drone base in Nigeria,
oil again...
Possibly Brussels now understands that an attack on Iran will cause a new flood of migrants, Netanyahu has been warned. A new
flood is the deadsure end of the EU.
Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives today that,
rather than confirming the case of "Russian meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the
major oddities:
How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access
to the servers/computers?
Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when, according to the indictment, they completely
and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?"
Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator?
Please go read the indictment ( here ) for yourself.
I have taken the time to put together a timeline based on the indictment and other information already on the public record. Here
is the bottomline--if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the DNC, why did it take US officials more than
six months to stop the activity? The statement of "facts" contained in the indictment also raise another troubling issue--what is
the source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they
know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
Here is the timeline:
18 April 2016--The Russians hacked into the DNC using DCCC computers and installed malware on the network. (p. 10, para 26)
22 April 2016--The GRU (Russian military intelligence) compressed gigabytes of data using X-tunnel and moved it to a GRU computer
located in ILLINOIS. (p. 11, para 26a)
28 April 2016--The Russians stole documents from the DCCC and moved them on to the computer in Illinois. (p. 11, para 26b).
Late April - 5 May 2016--DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations
chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity. That evening, she spoke with Michael
Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a formerfederal prosecutor who handled
computer crime cases, called Henry, whom he has known for many years. (
Ellen Nakashima's 14 June Washington Post article ) (see p. 12, para 32 of th
13 May 2016--The Russians deleted logs and files from a DNC computer. (p. 11, para 31)
25 May - 1 June 2016--the Russians hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from DNC employees.
(p. 11, para 29).
8 June 2016--DCLeaks.com set up, allegedly by the GRU (no proof offered).
Also created Facebook and Twitter accounts (pp. 13-14, paras. 35, 38, 39)
10 June 2016--Ultimately, the [Crowdstrike] teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office. (
Esquire
Magazine offers a different timeline )
22 June 2016--Wikileaks contacts Guccier 2.0 stating, "send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher
impact than what you are doing."
14 July 2016--The GRU, under the guise of Guccifer 2.0, sent Wikileaks an attachment with an encrypted file that explained how
to access an online archive of "stolen" documents.
15 August 2016--Guccifer, alleged to be the GRU, has email exchange with Roger Stone.
22 July 2016--Wikileaks publishes 40,000 plus emails (note, the Indictment INCORRECTLY states that the number was 20,000).
September 2016--The GRU obtained access to a DNC server hosted by a third party and took "data analytics" info. (p. 13, para 34)
October 2016--A functioning Linux-based version of X-agent remained on the DNC server until October. (p. 12, para 32)
Another great curiosity is the timing of the announcement of the indictments. Why today? There was no urgency. No one was on the
verge of fleeing the United States. All of the defendants are in Russia and beyond our reach.
A careful read of the indictment reveals a level of detail that could only have been obtained from intelligence sources (which
means that information would be invalidated if the defendants ever decide to challenge the indictment) or it was provided by an unreliable
third party.
I was shocked to discover, thanks to the indictment, how inept Crowdstrike was in this entire process. Not only did more than
30 days lapse before they attempted to shutdown the Russian hacking by installing new software and issuing new email passwords, but
their so-called security fix left the Russians running an operation until October 2016. How can you be considered a credible cyber
security company yet fail to shutdown the alleged Russian intrusion? It does not make sense.
The most glaring deficit in the indictment is the lack of supporting evidence to back up the charges levied in the indictment.
How do we know that computer files were erased if the FBI did not have access to the computers and the servers? How do we know the
names of the 12 Russian GRU officers? The Russians do not publish directories of secret organizations. Where did this information
come from?
It would appear that the release of the indictment today was a deliberate political act designed to detract and distract from
the Trump visit to the UK and to put pressure on him to confront Vladimir Putin. I have heard from many of my former colleagues who
are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge
from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
A report appeared yesterday on the 'True Pundit' site entitled 'Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit
Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated.'
''George Webb sued John Podesta in 2017, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel
but today, exact language, accusations and content from Webb's suit appeared in the Justice Department's indictment. Beyond
strange.
'Mueller swiped Webb's hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply flipped them -- almost word for word – and made
the exact allegations against Russian operatives.'
The reference is to a class action brought last November against John Podesta and others by one George Webb Sweigert and
so far anonymous others against John Podesta and others.
It has long seemed to me that it is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to the activities of
the Awans. However, I do not feel able to take an informed view on whether the 'True Pundit' report and the material presented
by Sweigert reflect accurate information fed by discontented insiders, genuine 'fake news', or some combination of both.
I would be most interested in what others make of this.
Steven Wasserman, Brother of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to Oversee Awan Family Investigation Jul 27, 2017
https://squawker.org/all/st...
Louie Gohmert, June 5, 2018
"'We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family...
for heavens sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job'"
In his opening remarks, Gohmert, a former prosecutor, argued that Rosenstein was "disqualified from being able to select
or name" a special counsel because he had counseled Trump on the matter; therefore, Rosenstein would be a material witness.
The truepundit article is fake news IMO. The only 'plagiarism' cited in it is the use of a domain name similar to the Dems
fundraiser site;
actblue.com
. The class action against Podesta alleges the domain was set up by Awan and the DOJ indictment alleges it was set up by the
GRU. Having now read them both, aside from references to 'spearphishing' - a well know hacking technique - I cannot see another
example of significant repeat language.
Thanks for researching! My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read thru generally boring legal docs. Since I had not encountered
Truepundit before, I read some of the other articles on their front page and realized it's a conservative news site. There
are more and more of those lately. Much needed as a balance to the mostly liberal MSM. I put on my "skeptical spectacles" for
both.
My educated guess as to the answer to your three questions is the same as you imply: 1. everything they have they have through
hearsay from Crowdstrike. 2. See #1. 3. Wikileaks is the only party who would actually respond to the indictment and seek discovery,
so leaving them out means they're not in danger of actually having to produce any evidence.
The timing of this announcement illustrates how badly the deep state desires to sabotage Trump's plan to improve US-Russia
relations. Since they have been playing the Russia card for so long with no real results and to the detriment of their credibility,
the urge to try to obstruct Trump at the 11th hour must have been overwhelming.
Between Trumps experience dealing with shady characters in his prior career (esp the casino industry) and what he has no
doubt learned about his enemies in the borg since getting elected, I'm guessing he has contingency plans. And if not, he has
great Road Runner-like instincts :)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Mueller, Rosenstein and others are a stalking horse for a complete reorganization of the
DOJ and FBI. By that I mean it appears to now be beyond reasonable doubt that the above have demonstrated that they are highly
political organizations, dripping with partisan agendas.
The question then becomes "how can justice be blind in the USA in the face of incontrovertible evidence it ain't?". To me
that sounds like a call to action for President Trump.
I suspect it is more a case of ineptitude than political bias. They were charged with finding meddling, so they are finding
meddling by using imagination rather than evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to conclude a two-year investigation
by saying, "Sorry, we found nothing" at the end? We don't have to imagine, since that's what happened after the Clinton email
investigation.
I think you could be right. If any agreements are made at the Helsinki summit, Trump will have to reign in the deep state to
implement them. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a complete house cleaning at DOJ and FBI yet. Perhaps Trump is waiting
for them to "jump the shark" so blatantly that when it finally comes it will be seen as the end of their long farce by everyone
but the true believers, who by that point will be seen as delusional by the general public. Trump is the master of the game
of perception. If he pulls it off the Democrats get crushed this fall. If not, we get president Pence next spring. Game on.
I think Rosenstein is bucking to be fired by Trump. This will then allow the Democrats, to claim obstruction of justice, justifying
impeachment. ( Assumption being the Democrats win control of Congress and Senate ) He's been deeply provocative giving ample
reason for said dismissal, Trump has resisted up until now. As long as he resists the temptation Congress will eventually impeach
Rosenstein. As this article went to print documents for his impeachment are being drawn up for release on Monday possibly,
of course subject to politics. ( Please edit the link if you feel it's inappropriate )
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
PT,
Please excuse me if this is a far out idiotic thought re the timing of the indictment, but doesn't this at least possibly give
Putin some power over Trump? Putin could threaten Trump with having one of the accused "confess" to the hacking per a "collusion"
agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign. If that happened, Trump would be promptly impeached. It would be a whirlwind
circus.
Thx for the confirmation. Sometimes I "war game" these things over a couple of Scotches. I come up with all sorts of notions,
but this one seemed reasonable.
1. How did Mueller arrive at his conclusions? There is no exposition of that in the indictment.
2. Has Mueller established a precedent? Wouldn't other countries use this indictment as an example to indict NSA and other
US intelligence personnel for conducting "normal" intelligence activities.
3. Rosenstein in his press conference reiterated what is written in the indictment that no US person was involved, and that
it did not change the outcome of the election. Does that imply that Mueller & the DOJ are stating that there was no collusion
between the Russian government & the Trump campaign? If that is the case what is the remit of the Mueller special counsel?
4. Why is this indictment handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution rather than Mueller taking it to the court? Isn't the DOJ
NSD implicated in the FISA abuse being investigated by IG Horowitz?
5. The Russian intelligence agents are innocent until convicted by a court. An indictment is only the prosecution's story.
In this case the prosecution has yet to provide the level of evidence required for a conviction.
6. As is the case with the Russian trolls indicted by Mueller, these agents could ostensibly hire counsel and cause Mueller
much embarrassment by requesting evidentiary discovery. Mueller is now backtracking on the Russian troll case as he either
has no evidence to back the indictment or is unwilling to provide defense counsel with the same which means the prosecution
goes no where.
7. Was this indictment primarily a political document for the TDS afflicted media and people at large? Are Mueller and the
Deep Staters assuming that this indictment goes no where as the Russians will not contest the indictment, so it is a cost free,
politically beneficial indictment?
My personal favourite part is this one :"All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation
intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the
Russian military." Mueller & Co haven't a clue.
For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on
specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
I believe the NSA records and stores metadata for all Internet traffic, so the FBI asked the NSA for whatever the NSA has
for the DNC/DCCC computers then excluded legitimate sources/destinations for the data before analyzing the rest. Once you have
loaded all the data into a database, it's not difficult.
I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal
the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
The GRU is part of the military so Putin should order one or two "over the top" to "attack" the Mueller organization. Russia
should be able to afford the best defense lawyers in the United States and should be able to circumvent all and any Treasury
Dept. attempts to block any funding.
I thought immediately that Rosentstein's announcement of this indictment was strangely timed. Your analysis indicates it
was put together hurriedly. Therefore, my first thought was that perhaps Rosenstein was attempting to prevent Trump from meeting
with Putin, as many of the opposition media have suggested Trump should not meet with Putin because of the announcement of
the indictment. After all, they say a POTUS should not hang around with the likes of Putin.
However, most anyone who has followed Trump lately would guess that Trump would not change his planned schedule and would
surely keep his schedule and would indeed confront Putin about the indictment.
Then, if that is what they were hoping, it puts Trump in a spot. If Putin denies the entire story and provides Trump with
a plausible denial and Trump then wants to investigate further, Trump could be accused of doing what the opposition has claimed
all along--"colluding." with the baddest Russian of all.
I think Trump would not be stupid enough to accept either Rosensteein's story or Putin's denial without investigating.
It's Rosentstein's word against the Russians' word in that case, and Trump is caught in the middle and in the same place
he's been all along.
I do hope one or all of the accused do ask for a trial. No way, however, would I look forward to that media circus for weeks
and weeks.
I personally felt the story was made up when Grucifer was mentioned and purported to be Russian. I thought it convenient
that the Russians in America who had been first reported as harmlessly trying to meddle while in the U.S. would be back in
Russia and accused just now. Our FBI is truly inept if that is the case. They let the Boston bombers get away with their attack.
They let the Pulse night club jihadist get away with his, and they let the "professional school shooter" fulfill his destiny.
There are so many tangled webs from those who have practiced to deceive that we are faced with never finding the truth in
our lifetimes.
My only hope for relief from this now, strangely,Lisa Page. I do hope she has been burned badly enough by being stupid enough
to become involved with a married co-worker, who is obviously in love with only himself, that she somehow provides us some
answers.
I know that I will surely be happier when this horror story is over.
If the 12 indicted are actually Russian military intelligence officers then wouldn't it be a simple matter for their superior
to order them to front up and demand their day in court?
Sure, there is a risk that they will be convicted, but spooks willingly undertake far more hazardous missions than this.
A promise could be made that if they are found guilty the Russian government will move heaven and earth to arrange a spy-swap
to get them back and a fabulous recompense for their trouble, so the reward is worth the risk.
Honestly, the prosecutor showed terrible judgement when he included Concord Management in a previous indictment, only to
see that company's lawyer calling his bluff. He appears to be under the impression that naming only Russian persons and not
Russian companies will prevent that from happening again.
Thank you PT for your analysis and commentary on this subject.
It seems this indictment is similar to the indictment filed earlier this year against the Russian astroturfers. And in that
instance, one of the companies charged is defending itself in US court. Not only that, it opted to exercise its right to a
speedy trial!!!
From what I've read, the Mueller team was totally caught off guard since it didn't expect any of the Russians to mount a
defense. According to Andrew McCarthy at National Review who's been diligently commenting on the Mueller probe and related
matters, the special counsel's team made the mistake of filing the indictment when it was evidently unprepared to go to trial.
Mueller's team has consequently asked for delays because it can't produce the DISCOVERY that the defendant has a right to review.
I don't know what the latest news is about the case but at one point the Mueller team provided a HUGE cache of internet postings
allegedly made by the defendant BUT THEY WERE IN RUSSIAN. How on earth did that influence American voters?
Overcome by events. They already are, and the event in question hasn't even happened yet. They are also claiming the this indictment
"proves" treason by Trump, even though it does not even suggest that Trump was involved.
They waited TWO YEARS to produce this "evidence" - which is without evidence, merely assertions.? That in itself condemns
it to complete hogwash.
As for the NSA, they could have produced this stuff at any time in the last two years without compromising any "methods
and sources" since we all know since Snowden and Binney how much they capture and retain. Instead, they had only "moderate
confidence" of Russian "meddling" in the January, 2017, "assessment."
They allegedly had to rely on the Dutch to penetrate the hackers? And that story was hogwash from the get-go.
As for how they "know" that certain files were erased, that could have come from the "certified true images" provided by
CrowdStrike to the FBI - but since CrowdStrike is utterly compromised due to the anti-Russian status of its CEO, that's worthless
"evidence."
If Wikileaks was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, then why did James Clapper expend effort trying to shut down the DoJ negotiations
with Assange who offered "technical evidence" that would prove the Russians had nothing to do with the Wikileaks DNC emails?
Sincerely hope Sy Hersh gets his hands on an actual copy of that FBI Seth Rich report, because if he does, the FBI and the
DoJ are going down. Literally everyone in top management of those agencies (and likely at CIA as well, and possibly NSA) will
be up on charges and headed to jail for actual treason.
They have no choice now but to go all in on this stuff because otherwise everyone involved is going to jail.
You missed the obvious corollary: CrowdStrike is obviously a subsidiary of the GRU. Clever moves disguised as bumbling incompetence!
I second the motion to have one of the Russians "volunteer" to come to the US to clear his name, except that the poor guy will
probably end up in Gitmo.
The Witchfinder General has excelled himself this time. Would I be correct in concluding that more sources & methods have
been burnt here? "KOVALEV deleted his search history" for example is intel that has to have come from inside a GRU computer,
assuming it is true of course.
I'd also just like to highlight that a significant part of this indictment is dedicated to the involvement of both Wikileaks
and Bitcoin. It appears to me that a secondary aim here is to bolster Congressional support to outlaw both.
So, the DOJ is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party in politicking against the President and Congress
controlled by the other party. Is this correct?
How else is one to read this indictment, its coordination with the Democratic leadership ("he must pull out of the Putin
meeting" squawk), and the "unrelated" matter of attacking Rep. Jordan about 25 year old "abuse" charges dating from his time
at OSU? Who was responsible for those "untraceable" attacks-the MSM, the DOJ, the Democratic Party? Is there any light between
these institutions at this point? The attack seems to have been successfully fought off, and Jordan is now parrying with a
direct attack at Rosenstein.
The pace of all this is dizzying. Is anyone else wondering where it leads to?
By indicting foreign intelligence agents has the USA crossed a line so that now USA intelligence agents are fair game in the
courts of foreign lands?
Looking at this deception over the past few years I have always believed its a game of tit-for-tat where the USA hands are
not clean either and that there was a mutual understanding amongst parties that there is a limit to retribution.
"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."
"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."
Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing
all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin
said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT
RUSSIA
(excerpts)
"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were
going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert
said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette
McMillan, to brief Strzok
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread
The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile
foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community
Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
Strzok: I do not.
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette
McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this
time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from
the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not
recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to
those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had
found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for
four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It
was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do
you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don't.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.
Strzok: No.
Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an
unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said
here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all
that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary
Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but
you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
"... The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department. ..."
As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is
this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?
The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the
other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case,
the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State
Department.
House GOP members led by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (NC) have drawn up articles of
impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, according to
Politico
.
Conservative sources say they could file the impeachment document
as soon as Monday
,
as Meadows and Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) look to build Republican support in
the House. One source cautioned, however, that the timing was still fluid. -
Politico
GOP legislators could also try to hold Rosenstein in contempt of Congress prior to actual
impeachment.
The knives have been out for Rosenstein for weeks, as Congressional investigators have
repeatedly accused the DOJ of "slow walking" documents related to their investigations. Frustrated
lawmakers have been given the runaround - while Rosenstein and the rest of the DOJ are hiding
behind the argument that the materials requested by various Congressional oversight
committees would potentially compromise ongoing investigations.
In late June, Rosenstein along with FBI Director Christopher Wray clashed with House Republicans
during a fiery hearing over an internal DOJ report criticizing the FBI's handling of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by special agents who harbored extreme animus towards Donald Trump
while expressing support for Clinton. Republicans on the panel grilled a defiant Rosenstein on the
Trump-Russia investigation which has yet to prove any collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin.
"This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said of
Mueller's investigation. "Whatever you got," Gowdy added, "Finish it the hell up because this
country is being torn apart."
Rosenstein pushed back - dodging responsibility for decisions made by subordinates while
claiming that Mueller was moving "as expeditiously as possible," and insisting that he was "not
trying to hide anything."
"We are not in contempt of this Congress, and we are not going to be in contempt of this
Congress," Rosenstein told lawmakers.
Republicans, meanwhile,
approved a resolution on the House floor demanding that the DOJ
turn over thousands of requested documents by July 6
. And while the DOJ did provide
Congressional investigators with access to a trove of documents, House GOP said
the
document delivery was
incomplete
, according to
Fox News
.
That didn't impress Congressional GOP.
"
For over eight months, they have had the opportunity to choose transparency. But
they've instead chosen to withhold information
and impede any effort of Congress to
conduct oversight," said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a sponsor of Thursday's
House resolution who raised the possibility of impeachment this week. "
If Rod Rosenstein
and the Department of Justice have nothing to hide, they certainly haven't acted like it.
"
-
New
York Times
(6/28/18)
Rep. Meadows, meanwhile, fully admits that the document requests are related to efforts to quash
the Mueller investigation.
"Yes, when we get these documents,
we believe that it will do away with this whole
fiasco of what they call the Russian Trump collusion because there wasn't any
,"
Meadows said on the House floor.
Meanwhile, following a long day of grilling FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte blamed Rosenstein for hindering Strzok's ability to
reveal the details of his work.
"Rosenstein, who has oversight over the FBI and of the Mueller investigation is where the buck
stops," he said. "Congress has been blocked today from conducting its constitutional oversight
duty."
While Rosenstein's appears to be close to the chopping block, whether or not he will actually be
impeached is an entirely different matter.
I think this attempt to impeach Rosenstink is
ridiculous. First of all, it is bound to failure as it
would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Second, the
impeachment clauses in the constitution were designed for
a sitting president who was granted immunity from
traditional prosecution for committing crimes.
Rosenstink serves
at the pleasure
of Trump, who apparently, at least in "reality" shows, is
quite adept at firing people for incompetence and
malfeasance. Let Trump fire him and then impanel a grand
jury to indict him. I think upon conviction he should be
required to eat the 12 ham sandwiches which fellow
conspirator Mueller recently indicted.
""We must speak with one voice in making clear to Vladimir Putin: 'We will not allow you
to interfere in our democratic processes or those of our allies,'" Sanders wrote in a tweet
on Friday."
Gee, I seem to recall the HRC Campaign and the DNC doing far more proven damage to
the electoral process than anything Russia's allegedly done. Where was Sanders denouncement
of HRC and the DNC then?! Clearly, even more than in 2016, Bernie Sanders is a gigantic
fraud every bit as disgusting as HRC, perhaps even more so given the number of people
deluded by his actions. People like him a big part of the problem and have no part in the
solution.
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another
exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was
installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents
describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who
should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign
country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC
documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of
their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting
the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This
is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to
Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI
did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is
said about Dmitri
Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at
Why
Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough
dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were
provided by CIA ;-)
4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee
("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees,
implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails
and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.
5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials
stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."
7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had
previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The
Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around
November 2016.
8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used
false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection,
the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United
States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.
... ... ...
13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV
(Лукашсв
Алексей
Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant
in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used
various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016,
LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated
individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV
(Моргачев
Сергей
Александрович)
was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a
department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking
tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks,
MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware
implanted on those computers.
15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек
Николай
Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian
military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of
monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and
monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April
2016.
16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов
Павел
Вячеславович) was a
Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around
2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent
malware before actual deployment and use.
17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев
Арт е м
Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the
Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety
of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored
X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.
18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK
(Осадчук
Александр В
ладимирович) was a Colonel in
the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22
Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455
assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the
promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media
accounts operated by the GRU.
19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN
(Потемкин
Алексей
Александрович)
was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a
department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used
in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S
department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through
the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.
21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a
technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their
computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals
affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and
sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account
"John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a
"URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the
spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered
the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user
to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or
about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the
chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.
Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing
emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,
including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016,
LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing
emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1
and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from
Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their
association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations,
LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and
thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of
these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the
Conspirators through DCLeaks.
On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a
one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The
Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more
than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his
co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled
"hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers
to a GRU-crcatcd website.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign
throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators
attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a
third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also
targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Hacking into the DCCC Network
23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing
efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and
vulnerabilities.
For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the
DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC
network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet
protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the
Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and
managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.
a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or
about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC
Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email
from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the
link.
b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple
versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor
individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC
network.
c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims'
computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server
as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the
AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to
capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators
to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.
d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's
keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course
of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications
with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach
projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog
and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee
2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal
topics.
25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely
configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS
panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred
to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the
connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20,
2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle
server and receive directions from the Conspirators.
Hacking into the DNC Network
26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through
their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types
of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a.
On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot
functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network
using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately
thirty-three DNC computers.
In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network,
including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured
data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot
results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC
Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.
Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents
27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks
that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or
about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that
included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders,
including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information
such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.
28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the
Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the
DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to
move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.
a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data
from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed
DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.
b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer
located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer
to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC
Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and
managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS
software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen
different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.
31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks
by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the
Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the
Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel,
including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks
32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May
2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1
took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version
of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on
the DNC network until in or around October 2016.
33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain
access to the DCCC and DNC networks.
a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1
and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.
34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the
Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using
the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks
35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the
online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about
April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators
registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds
used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that
the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the
operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used
to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton
Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.
36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which
they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site
received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks
was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the
Conspirators.
37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated
with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other
spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from
individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.
38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website
was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media
account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page,
the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such
as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators
accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.
39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The
Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other
efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators
used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they
encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with
the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.
Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0
40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online
persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the
allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and
managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for
certain words and phrases, including:
Search terms
"some hundred sheets"
"some hundreds of sheets"
dcleaks
illuminati
широко
известный
перевод [widely known translation]
"worldwide known"
"think twice about"
"company's competence"
42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0
published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked
by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had
searched for earlier that day (bolded below):
Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]
I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.
F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]
[Company 1] !!!!!!!!
43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain
individuals.
a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request
for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's
opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred
approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist
and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal
identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.
On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter
stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by
discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their
release.
44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the
release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential
campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in
the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i
can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the
Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online
and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire
presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."
45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping
computer infrastructure and financing.
a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used
the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to
lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server
to host the dcleaks.com website.
On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter
account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC
and DNC networks.
On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S.
reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The
Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected
portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.
46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0
WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had
"totally no relation to the Russian government"
Use of Organization 1
47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the
Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the
Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the
release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to
heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to
"[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much
higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you
have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the
DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters
behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we
think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and
hillary is interesting "
b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1
that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC
documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive"
and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."
48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other
documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately
three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not
disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through
Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators
hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the
chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators.
Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately
thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton
Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another
exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was
installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents
describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who
should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign
country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC
documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of
their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting
the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This
is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to
Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI
did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is
said about Dmitri
Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at
Why
Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough
dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were
provided by CIA ;-)
4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee
("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees,
implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails
and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.
5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials
stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."
7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had
previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The
Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around
November 2016.
8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used
false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection,
the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United
States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.
... ... ...
13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV
(Лукашсв
Алексей
Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant
in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used
various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016,
LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated
individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV
(Моргачев
Сергей
Александрович)
was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a
department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking
tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks,
MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware
implanted on those computers.
15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек
Николай
Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian
military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of
monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and
monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April
2016.
16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов
Павел
Вячеславович) was a
Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around
2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent
malware before actual deployment and use.
17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев
Арт е м
Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the
Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety
of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored
X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.
18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK
(Осадчук
Александр В
ладимирович) was a Colonel in
the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22
Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455
assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the
promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media
accounts operated by the GRU.
19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN
(Потемкин
Алексей
Александрович)
was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a
department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used
in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S
department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through
the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.
21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a
technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their
computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals
affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and
sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account
"John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a
"URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the
spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered
the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user
to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or
about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the
chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.
Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing
emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,
including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016,
LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing
emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1
and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from
Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their
association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations,
LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and
thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of
these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the
Conspirators through DCLeaks.
On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a
one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The
Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more
than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his
co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled
"hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers
to a GRU-crcatcd website.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign
throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators
attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a
third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also
targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Hacking into the DCCC Network
23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing
efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and
vulnerabilities.
For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the
DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC
network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet
protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the
Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and
managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.
a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or
about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC
Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email
from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the
link.
b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple
versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor
individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC
network.
c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims'
computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server
as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the
AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to
capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators
to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.
d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's
keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course
of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications
with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach
projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog
and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee
2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal
topics.
25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely
configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS
panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred
to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the
connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20,
2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle
server and receive directions from the Conspirators.
Hacking into the DNC Network
26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through
their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types
of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a.
On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot
functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network
using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately
thirty-three DNC computers.
In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network,
including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured
data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot
results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC
Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.
Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents
27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks
that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or
about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that
included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders,
including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information
such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.
28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the
Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the
DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to
move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.
a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data
from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed
DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.
b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer
located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer
to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC
Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and
managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS
software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen
different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.
31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks
by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the
Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the
Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel,
including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks
32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May
2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1
took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version
of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on
the DNC network until in or around October 2016.
33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain
access to the DCCC and DNC networks.
a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1
and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.
34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the
Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using
the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks
35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the
online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about
April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators
registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds
used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that
the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the
operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used
to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton
Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.
36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which
they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site
received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks
was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the
Conspirators.
37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated
with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other
spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from
individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.
38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website
was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media
account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page,
the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such
as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators
accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.
39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The
Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other
efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators
used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they
encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with
the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.
Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0
40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online
persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the
allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and
managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for
certain words and phrases, including:
Search terms
"some hundred sheets"
"some hundreds of sheets"
dcleaks
illuminati
широко
известный
перевод [widely known translation]
"worldwide known"
"think twice about"
"company's competence"
42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0
published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked
by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had
searched for earlier that day (bolded below):
Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]
I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.
F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]
[Company 1] !!!!!!!!
43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain
individuals.
a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request
for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's
opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred
approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist
and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal
identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.
On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter
stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by
discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their
release.
44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the
release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential
campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in
the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i
can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the
Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online
and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire
presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."
45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping
computer infrastructure and financing.
a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used
the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to
lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server
to host the dcleaks.com website.
On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter
account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC
and DNC networks.
On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S.
reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The
Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected
portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.
46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0
WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had
"totally no relation to the Russian government"
Use of Organization 1
47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the
Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the
Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the
release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to
heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to
"[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much
higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you
have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the
DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters
behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we
think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and
hillary is interesting "
b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1
that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC
documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive"
and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."
48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other
documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately
three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not
disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through
Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators
hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the
chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators.
Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately
thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton
Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.
"... When one believes that patriotism and defense of empire must be synonymous, and that skepticism of international conflict implies sympathy with a foreign power, it is easy to see why someone would seek out the most nefarious answer. ..."
"... But when one is an empire, the indispensable nation, rules just don't apply to it like they do to other, lesser countries. "He [Rohrabacher] is widely suspected of having an ulterior motive." What Chait means is his cocktail party peers widely suspect it. ..."
"... But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order imposed at the point of a gun. ..."
"... Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc. ..."
"... It's like a prostitute getting out from under her John and complaining in all seriousness about who a man is looking at her legs. It's positively bizarre. ..."
"... Posting Trump as a decision maker is making fun of the global deplorables as being dull. He is an insider joke, as Hillary, in case someone might misfire. ..."
"... As for Brennan, corporate animals as Brennan do strictly nothing that is grounded in original thought, has any kind of career risk, requires physical courage. Corpses keeping corpses warm. Ah, what a time in history to be a journalist, an artesan of linear fairy and horror. How far away from any meaningfulness. The middle classes, digging their own demise. ..."
"... In fact, the crooked Russians Trump knows are small fry among the CIA agents that looted Russia under CIA's puppet ruler Yeltsin. Felix Sater bragged about it, till they shut him up. Trump aided Russian capital flight by helping Russian crooks and traitors launder their money in real estate (because you don't get to be president without running lots of errands for CIA.) It is a truism that the best oppo is slightly distorted tales of the candidate's dirty work for CIA. That way party dupes foam at the mouth demonizing their enemy figurehead and forget about CIA, who runs them all. ..."
"... As for John Brennan, the walking conspiracy machine, he is the godfather of the U.S. intelligence (civilian) war against outsider Trump. ..."
The former intelligence official Chait trots out as an example is John O. Brennan, who has
gone on the record saying there is something fishy about the Trump-Russia relationship that
might even breach on treasonous. "While the fact that the former CIA director has espoused this
theory hardly proves it, perhaps we should give more credence to the possibility that Brennan
is making these extraordinary charges of treason and blackmail at the highest levels of
government because he knows something we don't." Contrary to that impression, Brennan's
statements should make one very skeptical. Or at least that's the logical conclusion of anyone
outside the establishment groupthink previously described. If the former CIA director knows
something the public doesn't, why has no action been taken? If there is solid, irrefutable
evidence that Donald Trump has been compromised by a foreign power, why is John Brennan keeping
it secret? Congress should be alerted, and Vice President Pence sworn in under the Twenty-fifth
Amendment. But in two years since the original start of the investigation, Brennan has
presented no such evidence. In fact, using Brennan as the example shows how blind one can be
when only seeing life through the establishment paradigm. As CIA director, John Brennan not
only provided a real-guard defense
of torture , but oversaw U.S.
military aid to Syrian jihadists allied with Al-Qaeda. If Donald Trump is a traitor to his
country, what does that make Brennan and his aiding and abetting of America's sworn enemy? The
actions of the Obama administration are widely sourced and admitted by public officials, but
Chait pays no mind. That's because people like Chait don't see crimes committed in defense of
the empire as real crimes.
Chait opens his chronology in the year 1987, when Donald Trump both visited Moscow on a
business trip and began voicing open political sentiments. Trump's comments focused on the
United States' relationship with its allies, saying Americans were getting a raw deal. "The
safest assumption is that it's entirely coincidental that Trump launched a national campaign,
with himself as spokesman, built around themes that dovetailed closely with Soviet
foreign-policy goals shortly after his Moscow stay." Chait is nothing short of duplicitous
here, admitting that the whole premise reaches nothing above coincidental while simultaneously
trying to poison the waters. As Trump said, why shouldn't countries that can afford to defend
themselves do so? Why does the burden fall on the American taxpayer to defend the economically
rich people of Germany and Japan? The answer, Chait says, is to defend the "liberal
international order" of the postwar era. An order that requires U.S. military domination of the
planet. Having other countries defend themselves would take away from U.S. preeminence, and
most importantly, U.S. power. The idea of Americans protecting America only would at first
glance to be the logical, even pro-American answer. But it is certainly the anti-hegemony
answer, and to Chait that puts it in the category of a pro-Soviet goal.
In a single sentence, Chait tries to both summarize and dismiss the downturn in
Russian-American relations that accelerated during Barack Obama's second term. "During the
Obama administration, Russia grew more estranged from the United States as its aggressive
behavior toward its neighbors triggered hostile responses from NATO." Perhaps it would be
unreasonable to expect Chait to detail Russian relations with the West over the past 25 years,
such as NATO expansion eastward in contradiction to
previous promises , the U.S. withdraw from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, or the 2008 Russo-Georgian War with violence initiated by
the latter . But to not only ignore the February 2014 coup in Ukraine that initiated recent
hostilities between the U.S. and Russia, but to also put the blame on the latter's "aggressive
behavior," is at best laughable and at worst dishonest. In February of 2014 the democratically
elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the United States
government, an event Chait and his peers do their best to forget .
Russia's subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula (containing the Russian naval base at
Sevastopol) was a wholly reactive measure. To say the recent estrangement was triggered by
anything else than western aggressive behavior is factually inaccurate.
A deep-dive into Paul Manafort's past relationships fills the middle of the article, along
with Chait's biased perceptions. "This much was clear in March 2016: The person [Manafort] who
managed the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine was now also managing the campaign
of a pro-Russian candidate in the United States." What makes Donald Trump pro-Russian? "Well I
hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying it
for years. I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good
relationships with Russia. That's very important," says the President. Donald Trump has not
proposed any kind of military alliance with Russia, giving it financial aid of any kind, or
granting it favored-nation status. Simply to want "good" relations with a country is enough to
be pro-Russian, in Chait's characterization. Does that make Trump pro-any country he doesn't
wish to bomb? Is Donald Trump equally pro-Peruvian, pro-Nepalese, and pro-Tanzanian as he is
pro-Russian? Shouldn't it be the proper view of the United States to try to have good working
relations with all foreign powers, especially if that power has thousands of stockpiled nuclear
weapons? A better description of that view would be pro-American .
It is important to emphasize and explain these seemingly small choices of language because
of how much they reveal of Chait's worldview. When one believes that patriotism and defense
of empire must be synonymous, and that skepticism of international conflict implies sympathy
with a foreign power, it is easy to see why someone would seek out the most nefarious
answer. Chait is willing to overlook obvious, mundane explanations to imply Trump has
committed wrong because to Chait, he already has by opposing the international order's chosen
script. "It is possible to construct an innocent explanation for all the lying and skulduggery
[sic], but it is not the most obvious explanation. More likely, collusion between the Russians
and the Trump administration has continued beyond the campaign." Or, perhaps, politics is
naturally a game for liars and the political world is specially made to house them. "Why would
Manafort, who has a law degree from Georgetown and years of experience around white-collar
crime, behave like this? Of all those in Trump's camp, he is the furthest thing from a true
believer, and he lacks any long-standing personal ties to the president or his family, so what
incentive does he have to spend most or all of his remaining years in prison rather than betray
Trump?" The most obvious answer would seem to be that there is nothing to betray; if there is
no grand conspiracy of Russian collusion, Manafort has not spilled the beans for any reason
more inexplicable than there is nothing to spill. Or if that's too boring, there's always the
answer Chait is giddy to suggest. "One way to make sense of his behavior is the possibility
that Manafort is keeping his mouth shut because he's afraid of being killed." Creativity knows
no bounds.
Chait seeks comfort in those who might be even further down the establishment paradigm than
he is. He describes an exchange between House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin
McCarthy in the summer of 2016 where they joke about Trump and California Congressman Dana
Rohrabacher being on Russian President Vladimir Putin's payroll. While criticizing the GOP
leaders' joke as in bad taste, he describes the foreign policy positions taken by Rohrabacher.
He once again uses the phrase "pro-Russian" to describe them, falling into the same verbal trap
as before. Of interest, Chait mentions Rohrabacher's denouncement of U.S. opposition to the
Crimean annexation as "hypocrisy" considering America's foreign policy. The implication is that
this is some sort of hokum, but it is nothing more than showing American self-awareness. Verbal
reproaches to Russia by the U.S. government are drown out by the facts, including the overthrow
of the Ukrainian government just days before Russian actions in Crimea, and the 2003 invasion
of Iraq which stands to this day as the biggest crime of the 21 st century. But
when one is an empire, the indispensable nation, rules just don't apply to it like they do to
other, lesser countries. "He [Rohrabacher] is widely suspected of having an ulterior motive."
What Chait means is his cocktail party peers widely suspect it.
What follows is a description of Trump's actions as President regarding Russia, which seem
to belie Chait's point of a special closeness. Trump was apparently "apoplectic" when political
realities compelled him to sign new sanctions on Russia in the summer of 2017. Since those
sanctions ran counter to the explicit platform Trump campaigned and won on, that would seem to
be a normal reaction to any policy reversal. Trump says he thinks Russia should be allowed back
into the G7. The idea that a geopolitical power player that approaches nuclear parity with the
United States should be involved in such a global forum doesn't require further explanation.
During that G7 conference Trump expressed the belief that Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia
because the people there speak Russian. He's not wrong; the people of Crimea are ethnically
Russian, speak the language, and culturally identify with Russia proper. The people of Crimea
should have the right to vote in a fair, internationally monitored referendum on whether to be
a part of Ukraine or Russia. That's the right of self-determination, an American goal if there
ever was one. Chait says Putin engineered the end of the U.S.-South Korea military exercises
during the recent negotiations with North Korea. Such an insinuation, outright ignoring the
months of talks that have been taking place between North and South Korea, the stated goals of
the Moon Jae-in administration, and South Korean public opinion, is naïve to the highest
degree. That sort of western-centric view, that the United States is always the decision maker,
is further proof of the establishment imperialistic mindset Chait has written his entire
article from. He concludes with the foreboding note that Trump is about to meet with Putin in a
special summit next month. Somehow Trump meeting with Putin 19 months into his presidential
term is scandalous, while George Bush meeting Putin 5 months into his term, and Barack Obama 6
months into his term (in Moscow no less!) garnered so such suspicious coverage.
Chait, to his credit, almost makes it through the entire article without pulling out one of
the most overused, most debunked
storylines of "Russiagate." The storyline that anyone who says Russia was not behind the 2016
Democratic National Committee hack (or leak )
is " contradicting the conclusion of every U.S. intelligence agency." That conclusion was
reached not by the U.S. intelligence community but handpicked analysts from only four of
seventeen agencies. "But who is bending the president's ear to split the Western alliance and
placate Russia? His motive for these foreign-policy moves is obviously strong enough in his
mind to be worth prolonging an investigation he is desperate to terminate." It cannot be that
good relations with Russia is self-evidently beneficial to the United States, or that Donald
Trump is a genuine believer in that policy. Jonathan Chait is so enamored with established
Washington foreign policy that no disagreement can be anything other than odious.
To reiterate, Jonathan Chait is not convinced that what he wrote is the truth. He admits
that there is no conclusive evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian intelligence asset in 1987
or any other year. But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world
order imposed at the point of a gun. The biases of his language towards permanent military
hegemony run through his writing. This leads to the discoloring or even misrepresentation of
the facts.
Hunter DeRensis is a senior at George Mason University majoring in History and
minoring in Public Policy & Administration. You can follow him on Twitter
[@HunterDeRensis]
But what he is convinced about is the utility of the U.S. led liberal world order
imposed at the point of a gun.
He's channeling Lenin/Trotsky:
But what they were convinced about was the utility of the Bolshevik led soviet world order
imposed at the point of a gun.
Same people, same totalitarianism, same repression – the difference is that the U.S.
totalitarians don't quite yet have the absolute power they need to liquidate the
"Deplorables".
The truly absurd thing about all this is that people profess concern about Russia influencing
our poloitical process. If she does, it's in various ways so haphazard, trivial, marginal,
and ineffectual as to verge on the illusory.
Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel
controls our politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on
her behalf, openly buys both presidential candidates, etc.
It's like a prostitute getting out from under her John and complaining in all
seriousness about who a man is looking at her legs. It's positively bizarre.
If only Russian influence was all we had to worry about. Let's get that Israeli implant
out of our cerebral cortex -- then think about whether that Russian fungus on our toenail
really is a problem.
Doesn't the story of the little boy who cried wolf apply here?
Yes, but point being that this seems to be the consensus among the many factions –
mostly of the left (aka soft neoliberals --NNB) , and the retarded left(those who think the
Democratic Party has their back, known as RL – Retarded Left). But some on the hard
right are on board too.
As many contrary, but not mainstream, articles have pointed out – it's faith based,
like a religion. No hard evidence is ever needed, and that is why it keeps getting more
cult-like the more time goes by. Soon there will be a condition named for all the
nonbelievers, and medications prescribed.
Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our
politics, tells Congress what bills to pass, frog-marches us into wars on her behalf,
openly buys both presidential candidates, etc.
It would be interesting to see a poll of how many Americans really understand that? 1%
maybe? I don't know, but that's the rub – how effective the corporate owned media has
over the mass mentality of their captive audience.
Yesterday evening, here in the Netherlands, I saw a former Obama adviser interviewed, who
complained about the Atlantic alliance having been built up in 70 years destroyed in a few
days.
Knowing nothing about history and obvious facts seems to be the rule these days.
Until 1917 Europe had intensive trade with Russia.
Why not resume this trade ?
Meaning, since there is nothing much to write about in the heat of the Northern
hemisphere, anything goes. A classic example of inducing irrelevant thought in braindeads.
Trump, true or not? Well, Trump does not matter.
Posting Trump as a decision maker is making fun of the global deplorables as being
dull. He is an insider joke, as Hillary, in case someone might misfire.
As for Brennan, corporate animals as Brennan do strictly nothing that is grounded in
original thought, has any kind of career risk, requires physical courage. Corpses keeping
corpses warm. Ah, what a time in history to be a journalist, an artesan of linear fairy and
horror. How far away from any meaningfulness. The middle classes, digging their own
demise.
This summer will see more then usual "snatch a bone" and have the pack run with it.
Amen.
Trump visits unsteady, dilapidated Moscow in 1987. He notices that the USSR is not the
all-powerful mega-threat it may have been in the 70s.
Trump also visits various glistening European capitals and notices the much higher level
of development.
He then reads that America is paying for the defence of Europe against the USSR. He
notices that this doesn't make sense. Europe has more than enough capacity to defend itself.
America might better spend that money elsewhere.
Two decades later New York Times writer insinuates that Trump could be a sleeper Soviet
agent for coming to this conclusion. Even though Trump was proven right by events.
Here is an interesting historical look at how the United States responded when it believed
that Russia/the USSR was using propaganda against Washington:
I really didn't read very far in this. But let's stop and end with Chait's comment:
"Russia was already broadcasting its strong preference for Trump through the media."
Well hmmm. Considering that Hillary was all but declaring war on Russia and an even-bet to
get us into a shooting war with them, and considering that nearly all the other Republicans
were members of NeoCon incorporated, and considering that Jewish media hysteria about Russia
was ramping up by the day, and considering that Trump was the ONLY candidate poking holes in
the NeoCon narrative, then Russia would have been pretty stupid NOT to prefer Trump.
Yeah, I might prefer the candidate who was far and away the least likely to drop nuclear
bombs on my nation too.
It's simply amazing how such extreme story telling is allowed to avoid the fact that the US
is wasting its resources on pointless conflicts thruout the world while the nation decays.
Also surprising? The fact that supposedly sane political and military leaders can continue
to demand ever more conventional military spending based on a fantasy that war with
China/Russia wouldn't go nuclear.
Where are the liberals with any principles? Or is that a contradiction in terms? Why not
support Trump against the warmongers and fix the country instead?
The linchpin of the TrumpRussianSpy!!1! notion is identifying the Russian mafiya with the
Russian government. Every crooked Russian gets the epithet Putin-linked, close to Putin, or
some variant.
In its purest form you see Amy Knight writing in CIA house organ Daily Beast, "The real
question is where does the Russian criminal state end and the criminal underworld begin, and
how do they work together in what amounts to a new murder incorporated?" This is classic
projection by CIA. It's CIA that recruits every kind of organized crime as agents and
cutouts. They project this trait onto the entire Russian state.
In fact, the crooked Russians Trump knows are small fry among the CIA agents that
looted Russia under CIA's puppet ruler Yeltsin. Felix Sater bragged about it, till they shut
him up. Trump aided Russian capital flight by helping Russian crooks and traitors launder
their money in real estate (because you don't get to be president without running lots of
errands for CIA.) It is a truism that the best oppo is slightly distorted tales of the
candidate's dirty work for CIA. That way party dupes foam at the mouth demonizing their enemy
figurehead and forget about CIA, who runs them all.
"As CIA director, John Brennan not only provided a real-guard defense of torture, but oversaw
U.S. military aid to Syrian jihadists allied with Al-Qaeda. If Donald Trump is a traitor to
his country, what does that make Brennan and his aiding and abetting of America's sworn
enemy? "
Alinsky/Clinton rule: Always accuse your opponent of what YOU are doing.
Why does no one believe the signals intelligence arms of USA allies, even if they say they
stumbled upon communications between the Trump campaign and Russia (as far back as 2015) and
became concerned enough to alert their US counterparts?
I respond to your question with an observation.. the intelligence arms of most of the
nations are interlocked globally. The so called Intelligence groups have done so many regime
changes, false flag operations, tv fake interviews, and contributed to so much false and
misleading and war attitude generating propaganda, that no one believes . If an intelligence
group were to say it was raining outside, those outsiders interested to know, would have to
go look for themselves.
As long as leaders of nations, elected, military, contractor, or bureaucrat operate in
secret, make people who work for them sign NDAs, criminalize truth speaking whistle blowers,
operate as super top secret projects, redirect public socially needed money to fund war
machines, use technology and access to spy on people, or threaten the lives or well being of
human beings who happened to live in a nation that is unfriendly, for no apparent or valid
public stated reason, no reasonable person will ever believe the signal intelligence arms of
USA or its allies.. Colin Powell comes to mind! Secrecy, intentional falsity, 24/7
surveillance, controlled, limited and gated access to knowledge or information, and silence
maintained when the facts should have been make known, has produced a "public enemy at large"
response.
if these agencies presented a hungry angry wolf in plain view, most people would wonder
"what is it" in disguise. One of the first rules in taking over a nation, is to prevent those
who lead from being heard. So not having reliable information constitutes a very dangerous
situation, but it is one that cannot be easily remedied until 9/11, Holocaust, and all kinds
of global events are completely and fully disclosed, and those responsible held
accountable.
It was a speech given to veterans before the election in which she nearly promised
military confrontation with Russia in response to supposed cyber attacks. Shown on YouTube,
ignored by MSM.
"Yet at the same time it's quite out of the question to discuss how Israel controls our
politics "
Yep. It is also third rail to discuss how Israel and Saudi Arabia often work in tandem to
influence U.S. foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has the mountain of cash; Israel has the Mossad.
Jeffrey Epstein is an example of this influence operation at work. As for John Brennan,
the walking conspiracy machine, he is the godfather of the U.S. intelligence (civilian) war
against outsider Trump.
"... The world today is controlled by a small elite group that has been increasingly concentrating power and wealth in their own hands. There are many observable facets to this power structure, including the military security complex that president Eisenhower warned against, the fossil fuel interests, and the neocons that are promoting U.S. hegemony around the world, but the most powerful and overarching force is "the money power" that controls money, banking, and finance worldwide. It is clear that those who control the creation and allocation of money through the banking system are able to control virtually every other aspect of global society. ..."
"... Tragedy and Hope ..."
"... " the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."[ii] ..."
"... The End of Money and the Future of Civilization ..."
"... Thomas H. Greco, Jr . is an educator, author, and consultant dedicated to economic equity, social justice, and community empowerment. He specializes in the design and implementation of private and community currencies and mutual credit clearing networks. His latest book is The End of Money and the Future of Civilization. His main website is https://beyondmoney.net/ . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... A New Approach to Freedom ..."
"... The Essence of Money ..."
"... Disruptive Technologies Making Money Obsolete ..."
The world today is controlled by a small elite group that has been increasingly
concentrating power and wealth in their own hands. There are many observable facets to this
power structure, including the military security complex that president Eisenhower warned
against, the fossil fuel interests, and the neocons that are promoting U.S. hegemony around the
world, but the most powerful and overarching force is "the money power" that controls money,
banking, and finance worldwide. It is clear that those who control the creation and allocation
of money through the banking system are able to control virtually every other aspect of global
society.
Having taken control of the political leadership in North America and western Europe, they
are determined to use military force, if necessary, to create a unipolar world order in which
the power elite enjoy "full spectrum dominance." Based on a long established pattern of covert
and overt interventions, it is evident that they are willing to employ, either directly or
through proxies, a wide range of tactics, including propaganda, bribery, cooptation, deception,
assassinations, false-flag attacks and war. Large segments of the media and entertainment
industries, education, and the military power have been captured to help manufacture public
consent.
Be that as it may, I believe that the natural course of human evolution tends toward a
multi-polar world order based on honesty, openness, compassion, cooperation, and fairness, but
that requires a well-educated and informed populace and "broad spectrum" participation in the
political process. Fortunately, the internet and world wide web have enabled people to be
better informed than ever before and to engage with one another directly, bypassing
intermediaries that control and limit what people can share. On the other hand, the political
machinery has been so thoroughly taken over by the power elite that the will of the people has
thus far been of little consequence in deciding the course of world affairs.
So what can be done to turn the tide? How can we the people empower ourselves to effectively
assert our desires for a more fair, humane and peaceful world order? Is it possible to
influence the behavior of those in power? Or is it possible to install new leaders who will act
more responsibly and in accordance with the popular will? Or is necessary, or even possible, to
reinvent and deploy political and economic structures by which people can more directly assert
themselves?
It seems reasonable to assert that action must be taken on all levels, but I am inclined to
believe that the greatest possibility of bringing about the desired changes lies in economic
and political innovation and restructuring.
The monopolization of credit
I came to realize many years ago that the primary mechanism by which people can be, and are
controlled, is the system of money, banking, and finance. The power elite have long known this
and have used it to enrich themselves and consolidate their grip on power. Though we take it
for granted, money has become an utter necessity for surviving in the modern world. But unlike
water, air, food, and energy, money is not a natural substance -- it is a human contrivance,
and it has been contrived in such a way as to centralize power and concentrate wealth.
Money today is essentially credit, and the control of our collective credit has been
monopolized in the hands of a cartel comprised of huge private banks with the complicity of
politicians who control central governments. This collusive arrangement between bankers and
politicians disempowers people, businesses, and communities and enables the elite super-class
to use the present centralized control mechanisms to their own advantage and purpose. It
misallocates credit, making it both scarce and expensive for the productive private sector
while enabling central governments to circumvent, by deficit spending, the natural limits
imposed by its revenue streams of taxes and fees. Thus, there is virtually no limit to the
amounts of resources that are lavished on the machinery of war and domination.[i]
In today's world, banks get to lend our collective credit back to us and charge interest for
it while central governments get to spend more than they earn in overt tax revenues, relying on
the banking system to monetize government debts as needed. These two parasitic drains on the
economy, interest and inflationary monetization of government debts, create a growth imperative
that is destroying the environment, shredding the social fabric, and creating ever greater
disparities of income and wealth. At the same time, this scarcity and misallocation of money,
which belies the abundance that exists in the real economy, leads to violent conflicts and
provides the power elite with the means to pursue policies of domination, even at the risk of
global nuclear war.
What most people still fail to recognize is that regardless of the nominal form of their
government, their political power has been neutralized and exhausted by the political money and
banking system. Democratic government in today's world is more an illusion and a hope than a
reality. As Prof. Carrol Quigley wrote in his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966),
" the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than
to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political
system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be
controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by
secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."[ii]
In the succeeding decades since Quigley's revelation, their control mechanisms have been
refined and extended to include the intelligence services and military power, political think
tanks, the media, and virtually every segment of society. The U.S. agenda of regime change over
the past several years[iii] is not so much about taking mineral and petroleum resources, that
is a side benefit. By examining the pattern of interventions by the U.S. and NATO powers, it is
clear that the primary objective is to force every country of the world into a single global
interest-based, debt-money regime. No exceptions will be tolerated. Thus, Saddam Hussein had to
go, Gaddafi had to go, Assad has to go, and Putin has to go (but deposing Putin will not be so
easy). The war against Islam is also related because a significant proportion of Islamists are
serious about eliminating riba (usury) which is an essential feature in the creation of all
political money throughout the world today. The United States military is the enforcer that is
used when threats, bribes, cooptation and covert operations prove insufficient. Thus, the
United States, Britain and their NATO allies have become the greatest perpetrators of
state-sponsored terror in the post-World war II era.
Fortunately, we the people have in our hands the means of our own liberation. It is
the power to allocate our credit directly without the use of banks or political money. How to
effectively assert that power is the main theme of my most recent book, The End of
Money and the Future of Civilization .
Over the years there has been a long parade of "reformers" who wish to take the power to
create money away from the banks. This is an admirable objective that I wholeheartedly endorse.
But the alternatives that they propose have been either to revert to commodity money, like
gold, which has proven to be inadequate, or to transfer the money-issuing power to the central
government -- what I call the "greenback solution." The latter harks back to Abraham Lincoln's
scheme for financing the Civil War. That proposal calls for the federal government to bypass
the Federal Reserve and the banks by issuing a national currency directly into circulation from
the Treasury. At first glance that may seem like a good idea, but there are many flies in that
ointment. First of all, the greenback solution does not propose to end the money monopoly but
merely to put it under new management. But it is a gross delusion to think that the Treasury
is, or might become, independent of the interests that now control the Federal Reserve and the
major banks. Consider the fact that most of the recent Treasury secretaries have been former
executives of Goldman Sachs, the most powerful financial establishment in the country. It is
naïve to expect that they will serve the common good rather than the money power that has
spawned them.
Second, central planning of complex economic factors has been shown to be unworkable. That
is especially true with regard to money. Neither the Fed nor the treasury is qualified to
decide what kind of money and how much of it is necessary for the economy to function smoothly.
The issuance and control of credit money should be decentralized in the hands of producers of
needed and desired goods and services. Thus the supply of money (credit) must automatically
rise and fall in accordance with the quantity of goods and services that are available to be
bought and sold. If private currencies and credit clearing exchanges are allowed to develop and
grow without interference from the vested interests in political money, their superiority will
quickly become apparent.
Third, the greenback solution does nothing to eliminate deficit spending and inflation which
are enabled by legal tender laws. As long as political currencies are legally forced to
circulate at face value, the abusive issuance of money, the debasement of national currency
value, and the centralization of power will continue. All government programs, including social
programs and the military budget, ought to be funded by legitimate government revenues, not by
the underhanded means of monetary debasement. Centralized control of credit money and the
imposition of legal tender laws enable the hidden tax that is called inflation. Salmon
P. Chase , who as Lincoln's Treasury Secretary presided over the issuance of greenbacks, argued
later as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the issuance of greenback currency was
unconstitutional and exceeded the powers of the federal government. He said,
"the legal tender quality is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty."
Finally, the political process has been so thoroughly corrupted and taken over by the power
elite that political approaches to solving the money problem have virtually no chance of
passage anyway.
... ... ...
*
Thomas H. Greco, Jr . is an educator, author, and consultant dedicated to economic
equity, social justice, and community empowerment. He specializes in the design and
implementation of private and community currencies and mutual credit clearing networks. His
latest book is The End of Money and the Future of Civilization. His main website is https://beyondmoney.net/ . He can be reached at
[email protected] .
Notes
[i] As E.C. Riegel put it in his book, A New Approach to Freedom , "
as long as our governments are vast counterfeiting machines, Mars can laugh at peace
projects."
[iv] An animated video that makes clear the credit nature of money and its sound basis is
The Essence of Money , https://youtu.be/uO7uwCpcau8 .
[v] My 15 minute video, Disruptive Technologies Making Money Obsolete , https://youtu.be/ty7APADAa8g , describes how
communities and businesses can escape the debt trap and become more resilient and
self-reliant.
If, like me, you were impressed by the magisterial comprehensiveness of a chart that accompanied
New
York 's cover story , in which Chait outlined his theory that President Trump has
been an agent of the Russian government since 1987, you might assume that he cannot have
missed this crucial personage and is sitting on the info until more becomes clear.
Noble as his intentions might seem, I am not so sure that the revelations can wait this
long. Allow me, in the interest of national security, to rehearse the facts. On April 5,
2013, more than two years before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, Donald Trump
made a cryptic reply to a tweet from an account with the handle @_Mickey_Mouse. "Thanks
Basil," the then-businessman wrote. Unfortunately the tweet to which our future president was
responding seems to have disappeared, along with any information about the account's
provenance. Whoever this "Basil" was, he seems to have covered his tracks exceedingly
well.
But not well enough. Consider the clues that remain in plain sight. "Basil" is, of course,
a Westernized version of "Vasily," one of the most common Russian male first names. St.
Basil, who has given his name to the cathedral that is the single most iconic piece of
Russian architecture, is also the patron saint of Russia and a popular symbol of reactionary
nationalism. A Kremlin operative, of course, would be careful not to select a Twitter handle
easily associated with his employer; he would pick something anodyne and American-sounding.
What could answer better to these descriptions than a cartoon character who helped to win
World War II? If only, you might be thinking, Trump himself were more careful, he would have
avoided using this operative's actual codename in a public forum.
But this is a misapprehension. If there is anything we have learned about the pattern of
Trump-Russia collusion and the antics of the coterie of online nationalists, white
supremacists, anime Nazis, and 4chan memers, it is that they cannot resist making their
little in-jokes and dropping seemingly clever references into their communications. Consider
the wider significance of the date of Trump's tweet. On April 5, in the Year of Our Lord
1242, the great Russian general Alexander Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Knights at Lake Pepius
in the famous Battle of the Ice, an event of enormous significance for nationalists who see
the knights as representative of a proto-liberal globalizing tendency already present in the
European culture of the Middle Ages.
But why that day in 2013, of all years? What is the significance of that gap of some 771
years? Please. To the uninitiated layman this no doubt seems baffling. To someone who
understands the tech-obsessed culture of online neoreactionary pranksters, it is an obvious
(and somewhat amusing) throwback. As any programmer knows, 771 is the code page used in DOS
to produce text in the Russian alphabet. It is, in other words, a retro racist joke, the kind
of thing whose importance would no doubt have been lost on Trump himself while seeming hugely
important (and absolutely hilarious) to "Basil."
But all of this is a distraction from the real question of what exactly Trump and Basil
were discussing. Alas, it may be a long time indeed before most of us know, but that doesn't
mean Bob Mueller doesn't already. It appears that Basil's account has been suspended by
Twitter, which may be the result of a subpoena. It is possible that sources close to Mueller
have told Chait that it would be for the best if Basil, whose communications with the
president and other Kremlin-linked Twitter accounts are in the process of being recovered and
analyzed, remained a secret for the time being. On the other hand, it is possible that this
exchange has escaped both Chait's and Mueller's attention, in which case I draw attention to
it here in the hope of a little-noticed but obvious example of collusion -- one more piece in
the giant, seemingly unsolvable puzzle.
I give voice to the above lunatic fancy, which I was able to concoct with almost minimal
effort in a matter of about 30 seconds with the use of Twitter, Google, and Wikipedia, in the
hope of reminding readers how easy it is to put together a plausible-sounding hypothesis if
you are already convinced of certain premises. In this case, that premise is the fact that
despite the lack of any real evidence, there exists or existed a high-level conspiracy
between Trump and various members of his 2016 campaign and various agents of the Russian
government, up to and potentially including Vladimir Putin himself, to elect Trump president
of the United States two years ago.
This premise has been widely adopted and reiterated in American media on the basis of a
six degrees of Kevin Bacon-like game involving persons as unlikely as a model who once had an
affair with an oligarch who was acquainted with a former Soviet-era ambassador who knows the
president of Ukraine, for whom Paul Manafort once did lobbying many years before his brief
employment by the Trump campaign (phew), and by the appellation of vague but
sinister-sounding adjectives ("Kremlin-linked," "Russia-backed").
Add to this perfervid climate of speculation people's concerns about the species of online
nerd culture known as the "alt-right" and you can pretty much accuse anybody who has ever had
anything to do with Trump of anything. A week before Chait's article appeared, thousands of
persons became convinced that a hitherto-unnoticed press release from the Department of
Homeland Security was
actually a coded neo-Nazi message because the brief declarative sentence in the headline
reminded some observers of a racist slogan that also contains 14 words and because in one
statistic used in the story the natural number 88, which is associated with admirers of Adolf
Hitler, appeared. Did I mention that, like neo-Nazism, which, has its so-called "14 words,"
the press release also contained 14 of what could be considered points, although only 13 of
them appear alongside typographical bullets? Even MSNBC's Chris Hayes, a vociferously
anti-Trump but otherwise level-headed journalist, briefly fell for this nonsense.
The easy flow of ill-gotten Russian money into the economies of Western Europe and the
United States is one of the great unsung evils of the post-Cold War era. The oligarchs do not
particularly care who does their dirty laundry or sells them luxury apartments. This is why
it would be just as
easy , if not in fact
easier , to make a chart like Chait's showing the connections between Hillary Clinton,
Russian business interests, and the Kremlin. Barack Obama's insistence to Dmitry Medvedev that he would
have "more flexibility" after the 2012 election is, considered out of context, subject to the
least generous or responsible interpretation, far more sinister than anything of which Trump
or anyone in his circles has been accused. But the truth is that none of these connections
are especially significant. We are all connected somehow to Russia, just as we are all
complicit in the spoliation of the Third World and the abuse of indigenous peoples because we
all buy products made abroad and use the internet and own stock.
Likewise, there is so much information available about so many people that it has never
been easier to insinuate connections and intentions and conspiracies into meaningless
coincidences. Imagine what Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney who unsuccessfully
prosecuted an area businessman for his supposed involvement in a nonexistent conspiracy to
assassinate President John K. Kennedy, would have been able to accomplish with the resources
of the internet at his disposal. The ease with which we can access information has made it
easier than ever for semi-intelligent persons to concoct lurid stories. It should also make
it easier for those of us who are sensible to dismiss them out of hand.
This is why I do not think it is worth calling New York magazine irresponsible
for publishing conspiracy theories. Bores and scolds might suggest that at a time when the
president seems to be getting away with painting any media outlet that criticizes him as
"fake news," it might be a good idea to stick to facts and leave this kind of thing to
ResistanceHole . I disagree. New York has no duty to its readers except
that of entertainment. If squinting to try to tell the difference between the red line
connecting two oligarchs and the green one linking an unknown Florida-based GOP hack to a
longtime party donor is your idea of fun, knock yourself out. But don't pretend that what
you're reading is journalism.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Here it comes, the moment we've been waiting for, when Trump and Putin meet in Helsinki to
officially launch the Destruction of Democracy, and very possibly the Apocalypse itself. That's
right, folks, once again, it appears we're looking at the end of everything, because according
to the corporate media, on July 16, 2018, Trump is probably going to
disband NATO so that Putin can invade the Baltic states, then Germany, then the rest of
Europe, and then presumably order an all-out thermonuclear strike on the United States, which
will pretty much end civilization as we know it. Or perhaps the plan is to do away with NATO,
withdraw
all American troops from Poland , let Putin rape and pillage Western Europe, and then have
North Korea nuke both coasts of the US mainland (and Canada, of course) so that a
Putin-Nazified Middle Amerika will have carte blanche to exterminate the Mexicans and make
women wear those "Handmaid" costumes, or some other ridiculously paranoid scenario, possibly
involving Susan Sarandon as some kind of Putin-Nazi triple agent.
Tragically, the global neoliberal establishment is completely powerless to stop Trump and
Putin from carrying out this evil scheme (whatever it turns out to be in the end), because even
the US Intelligence Community has to obey the law, after all, and not do anything sneaky, or
unethical, not even with the fate of democracy at stake. No, unlike the Russians, who go around
blatantly
poisoning people with novichok oatmeal more or less whenever they like, the global
capitalist ruling classes' hands are tied by their own integrity. All they can do is watch in
horror as these two Hitlerian megalomaniacs destroy their entire global empire and establish a
thousand-year Putin-Nazi Reich.
Thank God at least the corporate media are raising their collective voices in protest. In
a recent piece in The Washington Post , Max Bergmann of the Center for American
Progress warns that "this is a summit about appeasement, and we should be terrified that Trump
is going to sell out America and its allies." According to Bergmann, Trump might "accidentally"
share state secrets with Putin, or promise to reduce support for
our freedom-loving Ukrainian Nazis , or stop trying to overthrow the Syrian government so
that Syria, with the help of Russia and Iran, can launch a sneak attack on Israel and drive
"the Jews" into the sea. Worse still, Bergmann speculates, he might make "secret agreements"
with Putin without telling the editors of The Washington Post , which God help us all if
that ever happened.
Not to be out-apocalypsed by The Post ,
Roger Cohen of
The New York Times
published a full-blown dystopian vision wherein Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and a
variety of other globalist-hating Hitler-alikes form "the Alliance of Authoritarian and
Reactionary States" (the "AARS"), disband the European Union and NATO, impose international
martial law, and start ethnically cleansing the West of immigrants. Matteo Salvini and Horst
Seehofer, decked out in full Putin-Nazi regalia, personally supervise the genocidal purges,
which frightened Europeans come to support after Putin's irresistible "fake news" bots
brainwash them into believing that a little Russian girl named "Tatiana" has been abducted by
Moroccan migrants off a beach along the Costa del Sol.
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
The kookification of the "mainstream"
continues, with none other than Jonathan Chait – the most conventional sort of boring corporate
liberal –
producing
an
unhinged diatribe
purporting to prove
that Donald Trump has been a Russian agent since 1987
–
and that his path to the presidency was paved by his Russian handlers, who were planning it all
along.
And not to be outdone, formerly rational person Marcy Wheeler, whose investigations
as "emptywheel" won her some renown,
is
now claiming
that she not only has definitive proof of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin, but
that, as a result, she was forced to turn one of her sources into the FBI for some vague
cloak-and-dagger-ish reason.
I looked in on the Chait production, and came upon his reiteration of the Alfa Bank computer
link – this was a story, you'll recall, that
claimed there was a stream of communications
between this "Kremlin-connected" bank and the Trump organization.
This, we were told, was
almost certainly Vladimir Putin sending instructions to his zombie-agents in the Trump White House.
Yes, this was actually the story, backed up by several computer "experts" – except it turned out to
be
advertising spam
.
Chait repeats this story,
adding it on top of the several dozen other conspiracy factoids
he throws in the mix – but without mentioning that the computer signals were simply ad-bots.
On the basis of this, and a string of other "interactions" with Russians, we are supposed to
believe that the omnipotent Russian intelligence agencies hatched a plot 30 years ago to put Trump
into the White House. This is a conspiracy theory that's so shoddy and far-fetched that not even
Alex Jones would touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Which brings us to an interesting question: do these people really believe their
own craziness?
In some instances, it's
pure psychopathology.
That's the case, I believe, for
Marcy Wheeler, Louise Mensch, and the more active online Twitter-paranoids. These people have been
so shocked by the unexpected – the election of Trump – that they have been forced into a dubious
mental state bordering on insanity.
However, in the case of Jonathan Chait, it's pure viciousness and cynicism.
He
even says
of his own theory that it's "unlikely but possible."
It's just a show for
the suckers. The same is true for most of the other journalists who have enlisted in #TheResistance
and given up any pretense at objectivity: they are simply doing what they do best, and that is
taking dictation from their spookish sources. The treatment of Russia-gate in the media parallels
precisely what occurred with Iraq's storied "weapons of mass destruction" – reporters are taking it
all on faith, and they don't even necessarily believe it. Thus the biggest hoax since Piltdown Man
is reported as "fact." And of course all this is coming to the fore as Trump takes on NATO and our
European "allies."
For anti-interventionists, Trump's trip to Europe could not be more timely or
enlightening.
He went to the NATO meeting with a few admonitory
tweets
up
front
,
complaining that America pays far more than a fair share of the alliance's monetary costs, and no
sooner does he get off the plane than he
notes
that
for all the anti-Russian rhetoric coming out of our allies, the Germans are cuddling up to the
Russians on the energy front with the Nord Stream II pipeline. Merkel shot back that Germany is,
after all, an independent country and can do what it likes. True, but then why the weird
contradiction between claiming that Russia is a military threat and also setting up the mechanism
of energy dependence?
Before getting on the plane for his European sojourn, the President
reiterated
his
longstanding position:
"We pay far too much and they pay far too little. The United States is spending far more
on NATO than any other country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable."
And the cost is not just measured in monetary terms: there's also the incalculable cost
of risking war, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which obligates us to come to the aid of a NATO
ally that's under attack, or at least that claims to be under attack.
In which case, the
government of tiny Montenegro, with a population of a bit over half a million, could declare that
the Russians are trying to pull off a coup, and US troops would be in country "defending" it
against an incursion that may not even exist.
Take a look
at the
Euro-weenies squirming in their seats at that "bilateral breakfast," which was turned into a
lecture by the President about why the burden of empire should not fall only on our shoulders.
Pompeo and Kay Bailey Hutchinson don't look happy, either, but that's just too bad, now isn't it?
The President is speaking truth to the once high-and-mighty – and more power to him!
Meanwhile, the main event is going to be in Helsinki: NATO is just a sideshow.
After all, militarily the alliance is really nothing but the United States and a few Brits: the
Europeans carry little actual weight. The really serious business will take place with Putin,
although there is a relentless propaganda campaign in progress to prevent Trump from making the
Helsinki summit a success.
What must be addressed in Helsinki is the backsliding of both countries when it comes to
preventing a nuclear catastrophe. The program to find and secure loose nukes, which became a
problem after the breakup of the Soviet Union, needs to be renewed, in addition to the mutual
disarmament agreements that have
fallen
by the wayside
, with the US and the Russians
re-arming
.
As tensions between Washington and Moscow rise, the possibility of a nuclear conflict increases,
along with the chances of an
accidenta
l nuclear exchange.
The nuclear death
machine is on automatic, with all kinds of scenarios where it could be set off by something other
than an enemy attack
: a terrorist strike in Washington, D.C., or anywhere, involving
nuclear material, or simply a computer software glitch. Americans would be horrified to learn just
how close we are to an extinction event.
The Trump-haters would rather the President fail than give him credit for securing
the peace.
They would much prefer to wage a new cold war with Russia than put an end
to the horrific threat of utter annihilation that's cast a dark shadow over the world for all this
time. In preferring universal ruin to the vindication of their enemies, they fit the very
definition of what it means to be evil.
Trump is out to transform US foreign policy by – finally! – recognizing the reality that's been
in place since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The old
structures that served us when Communism was thought to be a threat to Europe are no longer
functional, and haven't been for quite some time.
NATO today is nothing but a gigantic
subsidy to two major beneficiaries: our European "allies" and the big arms manufacturers such as
Boeing, Raytheon, etc. The current arrangements allow the European welfare states to huddle under
the US nuclear shield while dispensing all kinds of goodies to their citizens. It's quite a racket
for all concerned: as NATO countries must continually update their military equipment to meet
rising standards, American taxpayers are footing most of the bill.
I have a good friend. Intelligent, usually quite well balanced, but
a bad case of TDS. She keeps falling back on "where there is smoke
there must be fire....we keep hearing about Russia and Trump, so it
must be true."
I have yet to point out to her that is precisely
what was behind Goering's philosophy of "tell a lie often enough and
people will believe it to be true". After all, she is also jewish,
and the Goering reference might make her head explode.
RussiaGate was spawned as Trump was calling her out for her
crimes, the ties to the Uranium One scam were obvious and
public. So in typical fashion she paints her opponent with
the the false brush of her crimes to deflect the reality.
Besides the MI6 need to smear the Russians was first on the
agenda anyway, can't have the Russians looking good on
anything.
Thank Q for exposing all the closet zionists. When you
replace the word "Russiagate" with "Israelgate", then all
the 'fire & fury' over the Trump presidency actually
starts to make sense.
No it's just a hollow divide and conquer meme, to keep the
sheeple arguing about nonsense and keep the flow of fake
news at a high level. Don't give the sheeple a moment of a
break, they might start to think for themselves.
I think deep down these people know it's nonsense, they just hate
Trump so much they feel the need to be dishonest just to try and
hurt him.
It blows my mind because these are the same people who would
have a meltdown if a prosecutor went after a black man with these
tactics. Somehow they feel that a malicious prosecution is
acceptable just this one time.
Ancient hatred of ethnic Russians from the old Khazarian empire,
now known as 'Ukraine'...
It is no wonder, nor surprise that
Khazarian cockroaches who infest the halls of U.S. foreign policy
are apoplectic regarding any warming of common-sense relations
with Russia.
Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder induced hysteria. So, crazy. And
yet, many are some of the most cynical creatures you'll ever meet- true
misanthropes. So there's that.
how about something interesting.You know about dick eater McAffe and
the crypto world.We all know the dem/lib shit about Russia and Trump
is already complete bullshit.
Yes, the Libtards that think they're smarter than everyone else are
the most trapped by their ego.
Present fact, logic and reasonable
discourse and these geniuses lose their sheet and produce fallacy,
fake news, and eventually run away from the conversation or end up in
tears.
The anti-Russia hysteria comes from all over the Left as well as parts
of the Right...
But as with Chait, Mensch, Kristol, Appelbaum, Gessen
and on and on and on you find Jews wildly over-represented in the Putin
bashing (which is one thing - he's a politician in bed with some bad
hombres and not at all above criticism) and Russia itself.
It's a hell of a LONG list the evil bastards have going-to try to
destroy western civilization with cutesy little names to deflect from the
truth about what they REALLY support.
But hey, what do I know?
I'm sure there are a lot people who can easily add to my list. Have at
it.
I actually like Russia and hope for a good relationship with them, but the
US must fail and Russia is the best cheer-leading on this site has become
unbearable.
I see lots of folks here who want both the US and Russia to succeed.
That's one of the reasons we support the President and his policy of
peace, commerce and honest friendship with old Cold War enemies. It's
not 1949/1950 anymore.
So the Russians realized that US equipment is crap and can be handled by
what they already have.
No real surprise there. U.S. military equipment
is in many cases relying on electronic components from the 70's and 80's
rather than upgrading their electronic systems.
Special counsel Robert
Mueller is again asking for a delay in the sentencing of former national security adviser
Michael Flynn, according to court documents filed Friday.
The special counsel and attorneys for Flynn are asking for two more months before scheduling
his sentencing, requesting to file another status report by Aug. 24.
"Due to the status of the Special Counsel's investigation, the parties do not believe that
this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time," states a joint
status report filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
This is the third time that prosecutors have asked to delay sentencing for Flynn, who
pleaded
guilty in December to lying to FBI agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016
election.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the clergyman who defied the German Nazi regime and got executed for his
resistance, once observed that "war is not the opposite of peace, 'security' is the opposite
of peace." I might also add it is the opposite of freedom and civilization as well, because
both require trust.
Mifsud was most probably MI5 asset. So we can speak about entrapment of people connected to Trump campaign.
The same probably is true for Goldstone.
Notable quotes:
"... The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge observed last month , "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." ..."
"... There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times ..."
"... According to his charge sheet , Flynn falsely told agents that he did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions "in a reciprocal manner" because the incoming Trump team "did not want Russia to escalate the situation." Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure). ..."
"... The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post ..."
"... Donald Trump Jr. is often faulted for accepting Goldstone's overture to begin with, since it floated damaging information from a foreign power. He is also faulted for initially providing a misleading statement about the meeting to the media. But lying to reporters is not an indictable offense, and neither is showing a willingness to obtain foreign dirt. During the 2016 contest, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign accepted help from Ukraine and paid for the salacious and outlandish Steele "dossier" from across the pond. ..."
"... By now the details are well known: About $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads, more than half of that after ..."
"... Yet prominent media and political voices have portrayed the ads as a major component of a "sophisticated" Russian interference campaign akin to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On his current book tour, former national-intelligence director James Clapper has declared that, taken together, the Russian ads and stolen Democratic e-mails handed Trump the presidency . ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Mueller's indictment reinforces Facebook's initial conclusion. The defendants "used the accounts to receive money from real US persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements" on their social-media pages, for a fee of "between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post." And not only does Mueller say that the troll farm had no ties to the Trump campaign, he doesn't even allege that it worked with the Russian government ..."
"... One of the indicted firms is challenging the case in court, accusing Mueller of inventing "a make-believe crime" in order to "justify his own existence" and "indict a Russian -- any Russian." Whether the troll farm's indictment is make-believe or not, Mueller has yet to indict anyone -- let alone any Russian -- for Russiagate's underlying crime: the theft of Democratic Party e-mails. And more than a year after they accused the Russian government of carrying it out, intelligence officials have yet to produce a shred of proof. ..."
"... The January 2017 intelligence report begat an endless cycle of innuendo and unverified claims, inculcating the public with fears of a massive Russian interference operation and suspicions of the Trump campaign's complicity. The evidence to date casts doubt on the merits of this national preoccupation, and with it, the judgment of the intelligence, political, and media figures who have elevated it to such prominence. ..."
A year of investigations has led to several guilty pleas, but none of them go to the core of the special counsel's mandate.
The Mueller Indictments Still Don't Add Up to Collusion | The Nation
n just over one year, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia has generated
five guilty pleas, 20 indictments, and more than 100 charges. None of these have anything to do with Mueller's chief focus: the Russian
government's alleged meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign's suspected involvement.
While it's certainly possible that Mueller will make new indictments that go to the core of his case, what's been revealed so
far does not make a compelling brief for collusion.
The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump
campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge
observed last month
, "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Instead, Manafort and Gates are accused
of financial crimes beginning in 2008, when they worked as political operatives for a Russia-leaning party in Ukraine (and for which
Manafort was previously investigated, but not indicted).
There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow.
But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to
be the case. The New York Times recounts that Manafort
"pressed [then–Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country
closer to the West -- and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine's membership." If that picture is accurate, then Manafort's
activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were diametrically opposed to the Kremlin's agenda.
Manafort's employment of Konstantin Kilimnik, who was indicted last week on obstruction charges in Manafort's case, is seen as
another Kremlin link. Kilimnik studied as a linguist at a Soviet-era military school and went on to become Manafort's translator
and fixer in Ukraine. According to Mueller, Kilimnik has "ties to Russian intelligence" that were active during the 2016 campaign.
The evidence to support that assertion is sealed. For his part, Kilimnik
denies
being a Russian agent . Ukrainian authorities investigated him in August 2016 but did not bring charges.
According to The Atlantic , "insinuations" that Kilimnik worked for Russian intelligence then "were never backed by
more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence."
While Manafort's alleged offenses (aside from the new obstruction charges) occurred well before the 2016 campaign, those of former
national security adviser Michael Flynn came after. Flynn admitted to making "false statements and omissions" about his conversations
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. According to
his charge sheet , Flynn falsely told agents that he
did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions "in a reciprocal manner" because the incoming Trump team "did not want Russia
to escalate the situation." Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security
Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately
rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure).
The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his
conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post
reported , FBI agents who "reviewed" the calls with Kislyak had "not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the
Russian government."
Like Flynn, George Papadopoulos has also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI after the election. Although he is the lowest-level
member of the Trump campaign to be charged, his case has emerged front and center. In the months since Papadopoulos's October indictment,
we have been told that the FBI
launched an investigation , code named "
Crossfire Hurricane ," because of him. We also recently learned that the FBI
enlisted an
informant , Cambridge Professor Stefan
Halper , to make contact with Papadopoulos and two other campaign officials, Carter Page and Sam Clovis, in a bid to pry loose
information on potential campaign ties to Russia.
In charging Papadopoulos, Mueller's team raised the prospect that Papadopoulos was told about stolen Democratic e-mails before
the theft of DNC e-mails was publicly known. According to the Statement of Offense, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud informed
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The two spoke in April
2016, before the first DNC e-mails were released. Papadopoulos volunteered to agents his information on Mifsud's offer; he pleaded
guilty to misrepresenting the timing of when he spoke to Mifsud. All of this would be more explosive if, as the Mueller team suggested,
Mifsud actually "had substantial connections to Russian government officials," and recently "met with some of those officials in
Moscow."
And yet there were ample reasons to question whether Papadopoulos was a plausible conduit for Trump-Kremlin collusion. He was
an unpaid volunteer known for
embellishing
credentials ; who not only didn't land a job in the Trump administration post-election but couldn't even get his
travel
expenses reimbursed during the campaign.
It is also quite possible that Mifsud was referring to the 30,000 State Department e-mails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private
server, by that point a well-publicized controversy. Papadopoulos's wife, Simona Mangiante,
now says that Papadopoulos believes
that to be the case. She also says that Papadopoulos has no knowledge of collusion and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI only because
Mueller threatened to charge him for having been an unregistered foreign agent of Israel.
If Papadopoulos offers Mueller nothing on collusion, the other main staple of collusion allegations -- the infamous June 2016
meeting at Trump Tower -- is an unlikely alternative. The music publicist who set up the meeting, Rob Goldstone, e-mailed Donald
Trump Jr. with an offer of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia," -- not,
it should be noted, stolen e-mails. But because Goldstone also wrote of "very high level and sensitive information," as "part of
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," his message has been quoted endlessly as Exhibit A for a Trump-Russia plot. There
were already reasons to question whether an e-mail sent by a kooky publicist is plausible groundwork for such a high-level conspiracy.
The
recently released transcripts of Goldstone's congressional testimony give us more. Goldstone explains that he set up the meeting
on behalf of Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop singer who employed Goldstone as a publicist, and whose father, Aras Agalarov, is a billionaire
who partnered with Trump on the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
Goldstone recounts that Emin gave him "limited information" -- and that was a problem. Emin had told him that a "well-connected
Russian attorney," Natalia Veselnitskaya, had met with his father and "told him that they had some interesting information that could
potentially be damaging regarding funding by Russians to the Democrats and to its candidate, Hillary Clinton." Goldstone's follow-up
attempts to get "more information" from Emin yielded nothing more. So Goldstone drew upon his professional tools. As he told the
Senate Judiciary Committee: "I had puffed it and used some keywords that I thought would attract Don Jr.'s attention." In his field,
he explained, "publicist puff is how they get meetings."
By his telling, Goldstone was not being a Kremlin intermediary; he was being a good publicist. His Russian pop-star client had
passed on vague information based on what his father had told him about what a Russian lawyer said. His "publicist puff" secured
the meeting. All parties contend that the meeting ended quickly after the assembled Trump representatives struggled to understand
what Veselnitskaya was talking about, which included none of the advertised incriminating information. Veselnitskaya says she tried
to discuss repealing the Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russia, which is not hard to believe given that Veselnitskaya and her client,
Prevazon Holdings, have fought those sanctions for years.
Donald Trump Jr. is often faulted for accepting Goldstone's overture to begin with, since it floated damaging information from
a foreign power. He is also faulted for initially providing a misleading statement about the meeting to the media. But lying to reporters
is not an indictable offense, and neither is showing a willingness to obtain foreign dirt. During the 2016 contest, the Democratic
National Committee and the Clinton campaign
accepted help from Ukraine
and paid for the salacious and outlandish Steele "dossier" from across the pond.
This brings us to the last major indictment, and the first one to include Russian nationals: 13 Russians and three companies accused
of running a US-aimed social media campaign out of the St. Petersburg–based Internet Research Agency (IRA). By now the details are
well known: About $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads, more than half of that after the November 2016 vote. The bulk of the
remaining $46,000 in ads ran during the primaries. The majority of the ads did not even reference the election and got little traction.
Yet prominent media and political voices have portrayed the ads as a major component of a "sophisticated" Russian interference
campaign akin to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On his current book tour, former national-intelligence director James Clapper has declared
that, taken together, the Russian ads and stolen Democratic e-mails
handed Trump the presidency
.
Now that we can
see all of the ads for ourselves , it is difficult to argue with
Facebook executive Rob Goldman , who said
that "swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal." The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found,
according to The Washington Post , before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats:
"A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested
that they weren't working for a foreign government."
Mueller's indictment reinforces Facebook's initial conclusion. The defendants "used the accounts to receive money from real
US persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements" on their social-media pages, for a fee of "between 25 and 50 U.S.
dollars per post." And not only does Mueller say that the troll farm had no ties to the Trump campaign, he doesn't even allege that
it worked with the Russian government. The IRA's owner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is said to be close to Putin. But even if the ads
came right from the Kremlin, does anyone think that the bizarre offerings -- from
Buff Bernie to pro-Beyoncé and
anti-Beyoncé to the juvenile
attacks
on
Hillary Clinton
-- impacted the US voters who saw them?
One of the indicted firms is challenging the case in court,
accusing Mueller of inventing "a make-believe crime" in order to "justify his own existence" and "indict a Russian -- any Russian."
Whether the troll farm's indictment is make-believe or not, Mueller has yet to indict anyone -- let alone any Russian -- for Russiagate's
underlying crime: the theft of Democratic Party e-mails. And more than a year after they accused the Russian government of carrying
it out, intelligence officials have yet to produce a shred of proof.
The January 2017 intelligence report begat an endless cycle of innuendo and unverified claims, inculcating the public with
fears of a massive Russian interference operation and suspicions of the Trump campaign's complicity. The evidence to date casts doubt
on the merits of this national preoccupation, and with it, the judgment of the intelligence, political, and media figures who have
elevated it to such prominence.
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to
carry out "targeted assassinations."
Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events
point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.
Are you stupid enough to believe that American voters elected Trump president because
Vladimir Putin influenced them to vote for Russia's candidate? The US Senate Intelligence (sic)
Committee is that stupid. This collection of nitwits actually produced a report that a few ads
allegedly placed online on Putin's instructions, ads that did not cost one-hundredth of one
percent of the huge sum spent by the candidates themselves, both national committees and
everyone else, were decisive in influencing voters who never saw the ads in the first place or
read or responded to tweets.
That a Senate Committee would expect anyone to believe such a far-fetched story shows that
the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee has no respect whatsoever for the people who elected
President Trump, or, for that matter, for anyone else at home or abroad.
This Senate report is the most incredible bullshit I have every encountered in my life.
There is no evidence whatsoever in the report. Only assertions. And most of these are based on
"open-source" internet postings by trolls and bots financed by the military/security complex
and Democratic Party.
What the report actually tells us is that no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has
enough intelligence or integrity to serve in the US Senate. It is the Senate Intelligence
Committee that is a disgrace to America and to the entire human race.
Newly popular Democratic politician hero and nominee for a seat in the U.S. Congress
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used to have these words on her website:
A Peace Economy
"Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and
occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently
involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and
Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the Legislative
body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have never once been voted
on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops home
and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and
occupation throughout the world."
Now they're gone. Asked about it on Twitter, she replied:
"Hey! Looking into this. Nothing malicious! Site is supporter-run so things happen --
we'll get to the bottom of it."
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez will/can maintain her position on Israeli
crimes. Public figures have a long history of backpedaling after getting the riot act read to
them from the hebrew masters.
If people want to use polls I suggest they use the gold standard WPOP fielded by the Unv
of Maryland instead of polls like Pew which are funded by the Pew Charitable Trust , which is
basically a 'Think Tank" that then presents its polls to congress trying to affect political
decisions on issues. People need to be wary of what is an 'opinion maker' instead of just an
opinion taker.
Here is a more detailed accurate picture ..bear in mind also that evans are only 10% of
the population and other factors like party affiliation affect their views. One also has to
wonder "IF" the evans as well as the other public were exposed to the real story on Israel
and not the slanted version of the US med how that would affect the numbers.
What Americans (especially Evangelicals) think about Israel and the Middle East
Evangicals, International Action, Israel, Middle East / North Africa, Views on
Countries/Regions December 4, 2015,
A new poll shows that in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overall, an
overwhelming 77% of Evangelical Republicans want the United States to lean toward
Israel as compared to 29% to Americans overall and 36% of non-Evangelical Republicans.
In contrast 66% of all Americans and 60% of Non-Evangelical Republicans want the United
States to lean toward neither side .
This pattern holds on other aspects of US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
If the UN Security Council considers endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state, only
26% of all Americans and 38% of non-Evangelical Republicans favor the US voting against it.
However six in ten Evangelical Republicans say that the US should vote against it, thus
vetoing the move.
Evangelical Republicans also differ in that they pay far more attention to a candidate's
position on Israel. When considering which candidate to vote for in Congress or for president
just 26% of all Americans and 33% of non-Evangelical Republicans say they consider the
candidates position on Israel a lot. Among Evangelical Republicans 64% say they consider it a
lot.
Views of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also vary dramatically. Among the general
public just 32 percent have a favorable view of Netanyahu, as do 47 percent of
non-Evangelical Republicans. Favorable views rise to 66% among Evangelicals.
When asked, in an open-ended question, to name a national leader they most admire 22 percent
of Republican Evangelicals chose Netanyahu, far more than any other leader.
Among Non-Evangelical Republicans 9 percent named Netanyahu and 6 percent for the public as a
whole. Evangelical Republicans represent 23% of all Republicans and 10% of the general
population.
"There are of course partisan differences on Middle East policy in American public attitudes,
but what's most striking is that much of the differences between Republicans and the
national total disappears once one sets aside Evangelical Republicans, who constitute 10% of
all Americans " said Shibley Telhami, the poll's principal investigator. "The Israel
issue in American politics is seen to have become principally a Republican issue, but in
fact, our results show, it's principally the issue of Evangelical Republicans."
One possible explanation for Evangelical Republicans' attitudes is their religious views.
Sixty-six percent of Evangelical Republicans say that for the rapture or Second Coming to
occur it is essential for current-day Israel to include all the land they believe was
promised to Biblical Israel in the Old Testament, with 35% holding this view strongly.
The poll was sponsored by the Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland, and conducted in
cooperation with the University's Program for Public Consultation, and released at the
Brookings Institution. It was fielded by Nielsen Scarborough November 4-11, 2015, among a
nationally representative sample of online panelists of 875, plus an oversample of
Evangelicals/Born-Again Christians of 863. The margin of error is 3-4%.
Other Select Findings:
Overall, twice as many Americans say the Israeli government has too much influence (37%) than
say too little influence (18%), while a plurality (44%) say it's the right level. Among
Democrats, about half (49%) say Israel has too much influence, compared with 14% who say
Israel has too little influence, and 36% who say it's the right level; Among Republicans,
slightly more people say that Israel has too much influence (25%) than say it has too little
influence (22%) with a slight majority (52%) saying it's the right level. The percentage of
people who think that Israel has too little influence increases with age: 8% of 18-24 year
olds feel this way in contrast to 17% of 25-44 year olds, 20% of 45-64 year olds, and 22% of
those who are 65 years of age and older.
Given five options to explain the escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence the largest
number–31%–attributes it to the absence of serious peace diplomacy, while 26%
blame continued Israeli occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank, and the same
number blame Palestinian extremists. Only 6% each blame Israeli extremists and Palestinian
authority ineffectiveness
Concerns about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are driven more by considerations related to
human right and international law than US interests. Offered five options to explain their
concern, the largest number -- 47%– say human rights or international law, while 32%
say America's interest. Thirteen percent say cite religious beliefs, while 8% express concern
for Israel's interests .
Overall, 37% of Americans (and 49% of Democrats) recommend punitive measures against
Israel over its settlement policy (27% recommend economic sanctions, and 10% recommend taking
more serious action); 31% recommend that the U.S. limits its opposition to words, 27%
recommend that the U.S. do nothing.
American views of Muslims are strikingly partisan. While 67% of Democrats express favorable
views of Muslims, only 41% of Republicans do.
73% of Evangelicals say that world events will turn against Israel the closer we get to the
rapture or end and 78% say that the unfolding violence across the Middle East is a sign that
the end times are nearer.
WHEN IS MUELLER GOING TO INVESTIGATE AIPAC MEDDLING IN EVERY ELECTION?
Thanks for the excellent article, like usual, Mr. Giraldi. Great points. Both parties are
on the payroll of AIPAC. USA is banana republic, of Israel.
It is amazing the fake news network called CNN talks about the fake Russian interference
in the last election the whole day, but AIPAC interferes in every election of virtually every
candidate and virtually every President. When is Mueller going to investigate the biggest
foreign lobby in USA -- AIPAC?
Discussion on another thread of motives Israel might have had for killing JFK included
suggestions that the Kennedy brothers attempts to get Zioniist lobbyists to register as
foreign agents might have been very serious for Israel. Without doing the research which a
lawyer being paid for his opinion would put into it I nonetheless formed a confident view
that the argument had no legs.
No it appears AIPAC isn't a foreign lobby. If you don't like what it does you would say it
is much worse – but untouchable by Mueller.
It is perhaps peripheral to your comment but I suggest that the reality is that the same
rich Americans who have long supported Israel have set up perfectly legal American
organizations that happen to reflect Israeli policy in their lobbying without being legally
controlled or controllable by Israel.
but it's a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met
with the same opprobrium.
Also the intentional starving of children in Yemen. And the huge pile of dead babies in
Iraq, Libya and Syria. All of them murdered by Imperial Washington.
I much prefer President Trump to any of the candidates he defeated in the primaries and
general election. But I regret that he is a Jew.
says: July 3, 2018 at 11:23 pm
GMT 500 Words John McCain was a traitor and collaborator, while being held captive. He was
given preferential treatment, due to the fact that his captors felt he was 'royalty', due to
his family 'connections'.
His "shoot down" was self-induced, as he DISOBEYED ORDERS and flew well below the 'floor',
getting himself shot down. There were several other jets on that particular mission and HE was
the only one shot down, because the others obeyed their orders!
His ENTIRE life has been one of disrespect of orders and authority, believing himself
bullet-proof, due to his 'family name' and his dad and grand dad being HIGH ranking Navy
Admirals!
His 'nickname' in his HS yearbook was "Punk" and he displayed that behavior as he went on to
the USNA, where he robbed someone, more deserving, of a slot in his class, due to the
'influence' of his father.
He SHOULD have been expelled, several times, but the folks at USNA did not want to go up
against dad. He graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM in his class . . but STILL ended up going to
Pensacola for flight training!! His classmates who actually 'made the grade' were aghast when
he showed up down there.
His flight grades were well below acceptable and he should have been run out of there too . .
he was an ABYSMAL aviator . . crashing on base leg at Corpus for carrier qualification
training. . he had been out drinking the night before and FELL ASLEEP after turning base leg
and 'configuring' for landing . . he crashed 'wings level' and straight ahead into Corpus
Bay.
He destroyed two other A/C after arriving in the Fleet . . before being shot down.
His nickname in Hanoi was "Songbird". . due to the information he willingly gave his captors. .
tactical stuff. .like 'routes, altitudes', etc., that our guys used to fly from the boat to
their targets and he got several aviators shot down and killed. He recorded 32+ propaganda bits
(a la Tokyo Rose) to be played for our enlisted troops . . to undermine their moral.
The bogus 'story' about not coming home early, when he could have, is just common sense. He
KNEW he would have been 'court-martialed' IF he had accepted any kind of early release, based
upon his 'family connections'.
After his release, his Navy 'flying career' SHOULD have been over, based upon his permanent
injuries, but, his dad intimidated a flight surgeon and he wrongly got back his flight medical
status, when ANYONE else would NOT have 'passed' with his 'condition'. He was 'awarded' the
position of XO at the Navy's largest training squadron, VA-174 at NAS Cecil and when the CO
moved on, he was 'selected', over MANY more qualified officers, to become CO. .he used his
position as XO and CO to take young (junior) female pilots on X-Country flights and screwed
their brains out.
THAT is ILLEGAL in the military and he SHOULD have been convicted at Court Martial for
'fraternization' . .INSTEAD . .daddy got him moved out of the squadron and put in charge of the
Navy's "Liaison" in DC . . along with a VERY early promotion to Captain . . the rest, as they
say, is history.
John McCain is a scum bag . . a DISGRACE to the uniform he wore and his spots did not change
when he became a politician!
As an aside, John McCain's admiral "daddy" was instrumental in the cover-up of the deliberate
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) in 1967. Maybe "the apple didn't fall far from the
tree". Read More Agree: Cloak And Dagger
ChuckOrloski Writing
apparently as a patriotic & principled American military veteran, RVBlake said:
"I do not recall seeing any U.S. followup to the (Vincennes) atrocity."
Hi RVBlake,
Above, neither do I!
Nonetheless, a sincere thanks for your "higher" service to our very sick society & your
having honorably called the U.S. Navy's attack upon the defenseless Iranian passenger airplane
what it really was -- an "atrocity."
Around the year 2006, I do recall a dreaded sense of shame when faux "war hero," Senator
John McCain, modified the popular Beach Boys song lyric to "Barbara Ann," and to the delight of
his Zio indoctrinated political supporters (at a rally), he fiendishly intoned, "Bomb, bomb
Iran!"
Fyi, RVBlake, a few months ago, author & U.S. military veteran, Philip Giraldi, wrote a
great U.R. article about our "Zionized military."
On Independence Day Eve, you will ever more so appreciate P.G.'s higher service to our
country. Thanks again!
Yes, you are correct about that. The Yugoslav attack was on March 24, 1999. It was three
weeks later than the last Purim – March 3 – Shushan Purim (walled city Purim
– Jerusalem). Erev Purim (Eve of Purim) March 1 and March 2 – Purim. It wasn't
exactly on the date of Purim as the middle east attacks in 1991 – Iraq, 2003 Iraq and
2011 Libya. But near enough to it for the Neocons.
Charles Krauthammer, a neocon who recently died, wanted civilians to be attacked in
Yugoslavia in the 1999 NATO attack and he got his wish. This is his lovely quote.
"Finally they are hitting targets – power plants, fuel depots, bridges, airports,
television transmitters – that may indeed kill the enemy and civilians nearby."
The'Balkan Action Committee' formed during the NATO 1999 attack on Yugoslavia consisted of
neocons who lobbied hard for war against Yugoslavia. Committee members included these neocons
– Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld – three men would later lobby
again for another war in Iraq.
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to
carry out "targeted assassinations."
Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events
point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.
In an exclusive interview, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh talks about his recent
report on the assassination of Osama bin Laden, what the Obama administration will not let the
public know and the holes in the presented narrative. Watch the interview with RT's Anya
Parampil.
Shoot, Bin Laden died in a cave in Tora Bora 14 years ago or something from kidney
failure. This raid was fake, fake, fake. For one thing, a dessert people have a tradition of
burial at sea? Come on. Footage used of Bin Laden was all old, and he was yellow from kidney
failure in the late 1990's. The most of the SEAL team was wiped out in what can only be
called a murder by proxy, as they were sent into a known hot zone with a crappy helo.
Coverup. I don't trust anything in the government or the MSM, Watch the Corbett Report from
yesterday to see how we operate. Sickening.
"Obama did authorize a raid to get Bin Laden and the American SEAL Team Six DID fly into
Pakistan and killed Bin Laden and after that everything is simply not true" WTF Hersh? OBL
been dead since 2001 or so. I hope he's just mistaken w/ his 'sources' and not being an
intentional gatekeeper!
I just can't shake the confusion of how much this man sounds and looks like a mix of Alan
Alda (M*A*S*H) and Hickok45. As for the story, if true then all parts of the US government
that were involved in this deserve no better than what Bin Laden got. As for all the people
shouting that Bin Laden was already dead, maybe you should all check your sources, for the
info that this conclusion was based on is not all that reliable/credible either. This version
of events now put forward by Hesh makes more sense than most other theories so far. At least
to those who actually know some about what is happening on the world theatre away from the
public eye. The White House can deny all they want, the net will eventually close around
them.
"Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year old living at his parents' house in US state of Florida, is
accused of posing online as "Australi Witness," an IS supporter who publicly called for a
series of attacks against individuals and events in western countries.
An affidavit sworn at the time of the arrest says that, between August 19 and August 28,
Mr Goldberg "distributed information pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives,
destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of an activity that
constitutes a Federal crime of violence".
US Attorney Lee Bentley III, said Goldberg instructed a confidential source how to make a
bomb similar to two used in the Boston Marathon bombings two years ago that killed three
people and injured more than 260 others.
"Goldberg further admitted that he believed the information would create a genuine bomb,"
Agent Berry alleged.
In the leadup to an exhibition in Garland, Texas, at which pictures of the Prophet
Mohammed were to be displayed, "Australi Witness" tweeted the event's address and reposted a
tweet urging people to go there with "weapons, bombs or with knifes".
Yes, Jews can be evil little sh*ts just like Muslims and indeed anyone can. It is the
trend that matters, as nothing is all or nothing, but I repeat myself!
Anyway, I've got a question for you KA, to see if you can be consistent and whether you
possess the supposedly stereotypical Middle Eastern shame mindset of all or nothing.
I'm a British anti-imperialist and I firmly believe that millions of British people should
not start moving to Arab and Muslims countries and colonise them.
As I am an anti-imperialist I also believe that millions of Arabs and Muslims should not
be allowed to move to Britain and furthermore that those who have already come here should go
home.
Do you agree with me? Are you a consistent anti-imperialist? Or are you just playing for
your team to win and conquer all?
In my last post, I mentioned the fake news that suddenly appeared to undermine President
Trump's peace effort with North Korea. I now learn the sole source of this "news" is Ken
Dilanian, the former national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He was
fired for having a "collaborative relationship" with the CIA . Ken Dilanian was publicly
fired from a major newspaper for inventing fake news in collaboration with the CIA, yet was
hired by NBC News! Now NBC allows him to write national security articles citing unnamed
intelligence sources! The worst part is that dozens of other corporate news organizations cite
his NBC stories. If they insist on repeating fake news, they should print this disclaimer at
the beginning of his articles:
Warning: This writer was fired by the Los Angeles Times for producing fake news in
secret cooperation with the CIA.
The derangement of the anti-Trumpers, which encompasses many
Democrats and some neo-conservative Republicans, has entered crazy land, especially when Trump
critics try to draw parallels between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler and/or Benito Mussolini.
The ignorance and stupidity displayed by this so-called thought process would be understandable
if those spewing the nonsense were 18 year olds with a public education. But they are not. We
are talking about men and women with college and post graduate education.
One of the earliest examples of this bizarre smear came courtesy of Newsweek:
At the Emmy awards ceremony on Sunday night, Transparent creator Jill Soloway compared
Donald Trump to Adolf
Hitler . Many others have made the same comparison before her: the front page of the
Philadelphia Daily News in December 2015; the Council on America-Islamic Relations;
the Holocaust survivor Zeev Hod. . . .
What makes the comparison between Hitler and Trump so poignant is not just the rhetorical
marginalization of groups, lifestyles or beliefs, but the fact that both men represent their
personal character as the antidote to all social and political problems.
Neither Hitler nor Trump campaign on specific policies, beyond a few slogans. Instead, both
promise a new vision of leadership. They portray the existing political systems as
fundamentally corrupt, incompetent, and, most importantly, unable to generate decisive action
in the face of pressing problems.
Was I asleep in 2008 or did Barack Obama also promise "a new vision of leadership?" I recall
all of the "specific policies" that
President Obama promised to implement :
Exit the bad war in Iraq. Win the good war in Afghanistan. Close Guantánamo. Ban
torture, and pursue a "reckoning" for the torturers, in the words of Obama's soon-to-be
attorney general, Eric Holder. What's more, Obama said he would reform the habit of unnecessary
state secrecy that had given rise to such malignant policies.
After 8 years in office Obama still had not won the "good war," Guantanamo was still open,
his Justice Department gave everyone associated with the CIA torture program a pass and he
pursued more journalists for having the audacity to report on classified material. Oh, and he
helped start a new war in Syria; one that has left tens of thousands dead and more than a
million displaced.
Then there is the additional fact that Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, got a
free pass from the Obama DOJ despite there being clear evidence that she violated Federal law
by putting classified material on her unclassified server. Not only did she use her status as
Secretary of State to enrich herself and her husband, but she led the way in betraying Muamar
Qaddafi and starting a new war in North Africa.
Trying to claim that Trump's campaign rhetoric, which was at times crass and
confrontational, was Hitlerian, displays a fundamental lack of what Hitler was and what he did
to ascend to power.
After the elections of March 5, 1933, the Nazis began a systematic takeover of the state
governments throughout Germany, ending a centuries-old tradition of local political
independence. Armed SA and SS thugs barged into local government offices using the state of
emergency decree as a pretext to throw out legitimate office holders and replace them with Nazi
Reich commissioners.
Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed holding
pens. Old army barracks and abandoned factories were used as prisons. Once inside, prisoners
were subjected to military style drills and harsh discipline. They were often beaten and
sometimes even tortured to death. This was the very beginning of the Nazi concentration camp
system.
At this time, these early concentration camps were loosely organized under the control of
the SA and the rival SS. Many were little more than barbed-wire stockades know as 'wild'
concentration camps, set up by local Gauleiters and SA leaders.
How many political opponents has Trumped imprisoned in the 18 months that he has been in
office? (I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with HERO). How many concentration camps has he set
up? Yep. Correct. NONE.
Rather than follow in Hitler's footsteps and suspend the Constitution and declare himself
the Führer, Trump has opted for the Twitter Tsunami and working on defeating the Democrats
at the polls come November. After March 1933 Hitler never troubled himself with elections
again.
In Mein Kampf , Hitler used the main thesis of "the Jewish peril", which posits a
Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. [8] The narrative describes
the process by which he became increasingly antisemitic and militaristic , especially during his years in
Vienna. He speaks of not having met a Jew until he arrived in Vienna, and that at first his
attitude was liberal and tolerant. When he first encountered the antisemitic press, he says, he
dismissed it as unworthy of serious consideration. Later he accepted the same antisemitic
views, which became crucial to his program of national reconstruction of Germany.
Mein Kampf has also been studied as a work on political theory . For example, Hitler
announces his hatred of what he believed to be the world's two evils: Communism and Judaism .
In the book Hitler blamed Germany's chief woes on the parliament of the Weimar Republic , the Jews,
and Social Democrats , as
well as Marxists , though
he believed that Marxists, Social Democrats, and the parliament were all working for Jewish
interests. [9] He announced that he
wanted to completely destroy the parliamentary system , believing it to
be corrupt in principle, as those who reach power are inherent opportunists .
Trump? The Art of the Deal (which was written with the help of a journalist) shares nothing
in common with Hitler's Mean Kampf. Hitler was an angry, frustrated man who had never known
success in life. Trump? Big, brash and successful, both in real estate and in marketing Trump.
Unlike Hitler, who made it very clear that he intended to wipe the world of Jews and
Communists, Trump's world view for business success is summarized in 11 pithy points :
Think big
Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
Maximize your options
Know your market
Use your leverage
Enhance your location
Get the word out
Fight back
Deliver the goods
Contain the costs
Have fun
Hitler made it quite clear that he was going to embark on global conquest:
And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of
our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless
German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long
last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the
soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her
vassal border states. (Joachim C. Fest (1 February 2013). Hitler . Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt. p. 216. ISBN0-544-19554-X .)
Trump, by contrast, spent a lot of his campaign talking about withdrawing U.S. forces from
military engagements and focusing U.S. resources, instead, on making America great again. His
dismissive statements about NATO, seeking reapproachment with the Russians and the Chinese, and
getting out of the nation building mission in Syria simply enraged the foreign policy
establishment, especially the neo-conservatives.
It is more accurate to view Trump as the anti-Hitler. He is not consumed with taking over
other countries. He simply wants the United States to stop getting the short end of the stick
when it comes to trade or immigration.
Hitler hated Jews and oversaw the Holocaust. Trump's beloved oldest daughter is a Jew and
Trump is a fav among the Hasidic community. Polar opposites on the Jewish question.
The anti-Trumpers seem to imagine that they are the 21st Century version of Colonel
Claus Schenk Graf von
Stauffenberg – the key figure in the 1944 " 20 July plot " to assassinate Adolf Hitler . Hitler led
Germany into a world war. Trump? Talking peace with North Korea and trying to make nice with
the Russians.
If you dare to equate Trump with Hitler let me make it very clear that you are a cretin. It
shows that you lack any understanding of the history of Germany in the 20th Century and, by
making such an analogy, you are shitting on the memory of those who actually fought against
genuine evil. (If you want a quick but thorough education on the subject I recommend the 2009
Academy award winning documentary, The Restless Conscience .)
If Donald Trump is anything he is an obnoxious version of the Road Runner (the Warner
Brothers' cartoon character). Instead of "beeping" he is tweeting and running rings around the
anti-Trumpers, who increasingly appear to resemble Wylie Coyote. The anti-Trumpers are working
furiously to attack Trump at every opportunity. Yet, their schemes, both the simple and the
complex, keep blowing up in their faces or putting them on the defensive. Think of Maxine
Waters as the anvil that Wylie tried to drop on the Road Runner. Result? It landed on the
Democrats and she is now in the process of becoming the face of the Democrat party for the
November election. And God, what a face (put that mug on a bill boards and it is a sure fire
cure for teen age pregnancy--who can pop wood with Maxine glaring at you).
If Democrats want to be smart and have a chance of beating Trump, they need to stop with the
Nazi and Hitler insults and start respecting Trump. Once they respect him and realize that he
actually is a formidable politician and that he had genuine success as a marketing genius they
might be able to formulate a plan to actually beat him. But, like I said, "if they are smart."
With Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schummer running the show the word smart is merely an oxymoron.
Beep, beep.
The problem is that this is pure propaganda. Intended to agitate one's base. Donald
Trump is a great used car salesman (i.e. NY real estate). He won because he could
sell to European descendants their old myths and legends. After the Vietnam War and
1970's wage inflation, the little people were thrown under the bus by the global elite.
They are in debt, addicted and can't afford to have families. How great the Western
economy is right now is total BS. A rational discussion of the rise of populism in the
West is avoided. My problem with Donald Trump and why I will never vote for him is that
he is anti-science. He has no grasp of reality only magical thinking. A bull in
the china shop has no plan, no goal, just destruction. His opponents, the media moguls,
war profiteers, and global oligarchs, will go nuclear when tariffs and economic
disruption start cutting their bonuses. The fallout when giants go stomping after each
other will destroy middle America.
The only chance for Americans to survive is to restore the rule of law, strong borders
and treat each other equally; especially the wealthy ones who are free, now, to do
whatever in the hell they want.
I can't get behind him because I believe his lying will undo every good thing he does.
That lying enrages his opponents by the precise path those who lie and exaggerate
criticisms of him does. There seems little doubt he is a genius in manipulating people
and the media, but his method may well prove ultimately self-defeating.
Some are applying this bit of Catch-22 to Trump:
"It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue
and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into
philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and
sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely
required no character."
They aren't all wrong. Outrageous populism is a high wire act, without a net.
Yup! Trump refers to it as "hyperbole" and is consciously aware he's doing it. Plus he
enjoys fucking with the minds of the people that annoy him. Yes indeed, our president is
an expert at trolling.
True dat ;) And Trump has made enemies as a consequence of his behavior. At his age I'm
sure he's aware of this too. But somehow he keeps on going... like a supersized energizer
bunny. And sometimes enemies shift to being colleagues or at least less hostile over
time.
One of those consequences is the silly baby Trump balloon that will be flying over
London while he's there. Very impressive protest, eh? (/snark)
Roger Waters knows a thing to two about memes. Respected him even more when I read last
year how he refused to be another celebrity supporting the White Helmets (he was
approached). He called them out as propagandists.
Here's the Trump baby balloon. Another great example of collective transference.
London anti-Trump protestors get permission to fly massive crowdfunded blimp of the
president depicted as a big baby in a diaper when he visits UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
Merely? Perhaps, but I will opine all politicians BS, but lying is a different category.
Not speaking epistemology, but how people generally react to those two closely related
but nevertheless distinct beasts.
The dem elite uses the Hitler reference as election sloganeering to goose up the "base",
i.e., the coastal portion of it, not the lifelong dems in the upper Midwest, aka the
deplorables who voted for Trump in 2016, . Hey, if they were really concerned about those
folks, they would have to address policy considerations like deindustrialization and
resulting income inequality. But they don't want to go there.
What does the dem elite really think of this new Hitler? Well, Schumer and Pelosi
recently supported giving the so called Herr Trump a massive defense spending
increase.
Just ask them, if they truly consider Trump is Hitler why would they give him those
tools?
What is "pure propaganda?" And, "anti-science?" What the hell are you talking about? A
very bizarre comment. The only thing that is clear from your comment is that you dislike
Trump.
Your response is an example of why the USA is well on its way towards a second civil
war. Civil Discourse is ending. Calling Donald Trump "Adolf Hitler" is agitprop
propaganda intended to stir up their partisans.
As you point out it is not true. The President is anti-science. He is doing his best to
try to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are banned
from using the terms "evidence-based" and "science-based". The White House is actively
dismantling science-based health and safety protections, sidelining scientific evidence,
and undoing recent progress on scientific integrity. What is slowing him down is that
these protections for human and environmental safety are written into the law and federal
regulations.
I'm trying to engage you in a substantive discussion and you are losing your mind.
Dismantling the EPA (which he has not) and NOAA (also still in place, still funded and
still operating) does not make someone "anti-science." There are some clear thinking folk
who find the these Government agencies as guilty of overreach. Opposing some of their
policies, which Trump has done, is not anti-science. Yet, you cry like a beaten dog when
challenged substantively on this and try to blame it on Trump. You are the one being
unreasonable and closed minded. Look in the mirror.
And agitprop? Seriously? The people calling Trump Hitler are anti-Trumpers who
genuinely believe what they are saying. Do you have contradictory evidence? Please
share.
"And agitprop? Seriously? The people calling Trump Hitler are anti-Trumpers who genuinely
believe what they are saying. Do you have contradictory evidence? Please share."
As stated above, a majority of the dem elite recently voted with the repubs to give
the new Hitler a significant defense spending increase. They know full well that calling
Trump the new Hitler is for the rube base come election time.
I agree though--that sort of cynical partisan sloganeering has consequences. Once the
partisan base hops on that train, it's hard to hop off. Hey, but if the dem elite score
big in November that's all that matters to the establishment, unforseen consequences be
damned.
EPA, NOAA and the CDC are regulatory agencies. There was a political decision to ban the
terms "evidence based" and "science based" in Budget documents. Neither the agencies nor
science have been destroyed. "Undoing recent progress on scientific integrity" do you
actually have any proof of that being done by Trump? The publicly available information
is that the "integrity" was rather dubious as there is increasing evidence that numerous
scientific studies can not be replicated as documentedby the NYT in 2015
VV,
And yet Trump is funding or encouraging all kinds of space exploration. However, rather
than getting into an example slinging match with you, I'll just point out that calling
Trump "anti-science" is just about right up there with calling him "Hitler". The EPA and
NOAA = the culmination of human scientific endeavor? If you don't like those agencies you
seek to destroy "science"? Come one, man. That's some intense hyperbole and confirmation
bias in action right there. Maybe he just doesn't like the EPA's negative impact on
business. Could that be it?
He's not anti-science, that's just another ridiculous bit of propaganda from the
so-called left. He is simply a businessman who is not a fan of environmental regulations,
like so many others. Doesn't have the same cost-benefit mindset that environmentalists do
because he has a different worldview.
America, the best bus builders on Earth. Why 43 years after the Vietnam war the darn
thing is just running over poor people left and left; it's almost like they have no
agency, No ability to say "no". If only our school teachers could teach individual
responsibility and initiative as well as they teach how many genders there are and which
bathroom to use. Sadly the only chance for America is new Americans who can get out of
the way of run away busses and do the jobs American Americans won't do - and vote for
politicians who won't run them over with a bus.
PT, IMO, the hardcore Democrat base has past the point of no return. They are too
invested in Trump = Hitler, etc. Their egos are on the line, their emotions. Many people
are incapable of saying "I was wrong" until they have hit rock bottom. I worry what rock
bottom might look like, but it's going to have to happen. And we can see them doubling
down in acts like Perez (DNC Chair) backing the Democratic Socialist Party candidate (aka
Crazy Eyes) in NYC. The platform - stated on line - is to abolish bail, prisons, profit
and borders. Perez says that this is the future of the party. So anyone to the right of,
say, Fidel Castro or Che Guevera is going to be "Hitler" for the foreseeable future. On
the bright side, there is a new #walkaway movement, that may be an info op, but seem to
be picking up steam. In this movement moderate democrats have found a forum in which they
agree that they have been misled and then abandon the Democrat party, never Trump
activists et al. I guess that is an opportunity to save face. Smart move by whoever set
it up.
Also, when you listen to the videos you realize it's not only moderates leaving. One
woman refers to herself as having been an SJW prior. I don't think this is entirely an
"info op" as Brandon seems very authentic. He had his awakening last year and then
eventually decided to make his video and start this movement.
OTOH, what happened between his awakening last year and the releasing of this video is
not that clear. It could well be that a conservative operative (Log Cabin Republicans) in
the gay community encouraged him. But that does not delegitimize the sentiments of the
WalkAway-ers.
I have been following the #WalkAway movement. I walked away 10 years ago and have been
fascinated by all the personal stories about the reasons they walked away. The Democratic
party is in trouble, having no message except anger and hate based on impotence followed
by socialism.
Here's the best article I found on it in case others here have not come across it yet.
It was founded by a gay man from NYC. His video is in this article.
Viral 'Walk Away' Videos Highlight Growing Movement of Democrats Leaving the Party
https://m.theepochtimes.com...
Brandon has copied some amount of the walkaway videos from their Facebook page to
YouTube. Since I don't have my own FB page (use my husband's to view family & friend
updates) I was glad he did that. There are more minorities and gays represented that you
would expect. It's not a "white movement". These videos are typically 6-10 minutes
long.
She will be the cause of an epidemic of Shrivelization of civilization, American style,
natch. As for NATO, the jury is out on whether that institution will undergo immolation
through the auspices of the Trumpster, or, if you will allow, the Trumpsterization of
that institution.
The #resist crowd just won't care about the actual facts or history in my experience
rather they function as cult. Cults shut down thinking.
As for Trump I don't care for his style at all but hoped he would be disruptive to the
deadlock of long standing narratives and he has. Lately I've been more hopeful that he is
working a plan.
Every empire has to adjust, recognize the natural limit to their power or try for
endless expansion until they collapse and die. The British did a fine job of gracefully
dismantling their empire when the US emerged after WW2. Now China is emerging and the US
can recognize a multi-polar world and carve out it's place within it or keep battling for
world dominance as the military arm of globalization. Trump vs. Clinton was clear about
which approach would be used.
Couldn't agree more, except I can't agree about the fine job. We screwed up a lot of
places when we decamped and the evidence is strewn all around. I don''t see that empire
as being some sort of big deal like say the Roman. It wasn't. Naval supremacy and our
being well ahead of the crowd with an industrial society did a lot but it didn't do as
much as all that. Maybe three quarters of the globe wasn't coloured red and the big
continental empires plus the colonial empires of other European countries weren't of
course under our rule. The Russian imperial expansion had I'd guess far more effect on
local populations; in some areas of the British Empire it could be that the locals
scarcely knew we were there. They still got caught up in the chaos we left behind.
I don't believe we can talk of an American "Empire" but we can talk of quasi-imperial
outreach. That US outreach is far more extensive and goes much deeper than in the days of
the British and other colonial empires. The military outreach is also far more extensive.
If it's true that the Americans are seeking to disengage, and one does hear that a lot,
then one hopes they are better at it. Else, as we did, they'll leave a lot of places
worse than they found them.
"Vladimir Putin has positioned himself as the leader of an
authoritarian, white-supremacist and xenophobic movement that wants to
break up the EU, weaken America's traditional alliances and undermine
democracy," Clinton said in a lecture at Trinity College Dublin, where
she received an honorary doctorate.
But I have yet to check the videos of Trinity College. Appreciating help to find the
relevant passage.
*******
More seriously what percentage of people does take the "Hitler card" still seriously
considering its overuse in the post 9/11 universe? He's 73 years dead by now.
The Putin remark starts at the 12:50 mark. Her effect seems really flat, especially when
she is talking about fond memories of previous visits and trying to muster up a bit of
empathy or passion.
This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over
the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian
techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth . It will demonstrate, contrary to official
narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not
decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the
Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured
real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers.
I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was
much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.
In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in
total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under
Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his
megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour's last year in power before handing over the reigns
to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought
against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate
of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the
EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.
Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008,
Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape
regulations. To give you an idea:
Creating a nuclear explosion
Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy
duck or Japanese knotweed
To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
Disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer
Obstructing workers from carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
Offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
Allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
A ship's captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the
International Grain Code on board
Scallop fishing without the correct boat
Breaking regulation number 10 of the 1998 Apple and Pear Grubbing Up Regulations
Selling Polish Potatoes
There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil
liberty.
One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new
legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus
and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time,
this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means
that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if
they can brand your activities as "terrorist" or "extremist." Although these laws were
ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of "far
right" and "extremist" demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.
Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn
longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to
eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to
colour-blind policing.
Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has
encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for
example, in which a man was arrested for "hate speech," then tried and made to pay a fine for
telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was
found guilty of being "grossly offensive" for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram
account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in
mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests
against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities
of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another
Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest "far right" or "extremist."
"Gaslighting" is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to
achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:
They tell blatant lies.
They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
They wear you down over time.
Their actions do not match their words.
They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
They know confusion weakens people.
They project.
They try to align people against you.
They tell you or others that you are crazy.
They tell you everyone else is a liar.
The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public
since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for
Quillette , I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.
This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the
Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on
both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive
effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This
is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence
Has Declined . In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by
44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the
continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed
their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in
police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent
crime in Sadiq Khan's London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime,
78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in
theft and 30% in child sex crime. But this story told by The Guardian – of a general
trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike
– is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.
In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being 'tough on crime, tough on the causes
of crime'. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to
comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. "New Labour" were famous for
the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr.
Blair's complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass
destruction" in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or
otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime
in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin,
needed to find a way to show on paper that their "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"
agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way
crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard' (NCRS). Up
until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and
convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to
be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people
aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show
ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are
not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it
produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:
This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the "tough on the causes of
crime" part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of
offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it
was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against
minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take
place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of
course, so-called "victimless" crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in
this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious
why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In
fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared
with numbers before 2002.
In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be
underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4
million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a
matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a
deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the
real crime rate might be. And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the
Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political
party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to
substantiate narrative against another. "Post-truth" did not start with Vladimir Putin or
Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.
However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are
somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and
Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons
library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of
the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary
for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with
the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.
In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that
either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.
The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to
62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England
and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime
convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.
Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for
persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in
keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population
growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360
offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were
8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2
million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.
For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would
have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that
overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall
convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise
in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims
through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.
If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful
comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty . As we have seen,
the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a
population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the
comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of
20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state
had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or
around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to
the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by
2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore
is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the
repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of
criminals.
It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less
personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has
become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased
coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now
behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.
People seem to mistake monarchy for a police state, unlike in a democracy a monarchy
doesn't need to pretend it's the sole ruler of the land and can therefore allow its
'subjects' more liberty in return and even has a vested interest in the well being of the
subject so that not only can they be productive but can also defend the monarch (hence be
armed) as well.
The more democratic the UK has become the more liberty it has lost.
The Rothschilds bought Reuters and UPI in the late 1800's. Jews, for centuries, have owned
most publishing houses. Freemasons used to have special books printed up for its members.
After Napoleon, Rothschild said "give me control of a nations money supply, and I care no
who sits on the thrown". The point is that (((BBC))) has been under kosher management since
its inception.
Really, perception management is about controlling those who control the others. The
Elites. And the jews have invaded London and interbred with British nobility for centuries.
These people ran British media right down to BBC for over a century, and through Judaism the
owned the British Elites.
The poor working British stiff never had a prayer. Boer War, Opium Wars, WWI, WWII, and
how many others? All to advance Judaism on behalf of Jewish owners.
England has become a police state because that is what its owners want.
It becomes clear why Boorish Johnson and Sea Hag Theresa May were desperately warning UK
football fans away from attending the World Cup. There was a risk that the carefully
constructed Russia-as-evil-empire narrative would collapse before the eyes of each fan that
made the trip. That is exactly what has been happening.
It should then come as no surprise that, as the anti-Russia narrative began to crumble,
there was a need to reanimate the novichok chimera. Note well that the Return of the Son of
Novichok incident comes not only just before the dreaded Trump-Putin summit, but also just
after the release of a certain report by Britain's parliamentary Intelligence and Security
Committee. Although the Committee's inquiry faced substantial obstruction and stonewalling,
the report was able to determine that, despite years of outright lying about it, the UK
government gleefully participated in the torture and rendition program initiated by the Dick
Cheney regime.
The leadership of every nation in Europe are globalist puppets.
The Brexit vote was 2 years ago and the British government is just now starting to work
out the details of what permissions they might negotiate with Brussels.
Sovereign nation you dipshits.
Permissions are not needed.
Our parents generation planned executed and exited WWII in 48 months.
I think The UK "became" an Orwellian state when George Orwell was writing his prescient
novels back in the 1940s. He saw then how his once great country had already fallen under the
thrall of its (((hidden satanic usury rulers))). Even the main traitor in "1984" was Emmanuel
Goldstein. Do ya think old Georgie was trying to tell us something?
Orwell was a member of the secret British spy system in Burma and saw some of the future
plans for the peeps then wrote about it as a "fictional state" of fully controlled automaton
people.
The key to creating a police state is creating the DEMAND for a police state. Allow an
influx of conflicting cultures, especially those overtly hostile, and then allow chaos to
reign. People will vote all day for a police state to restore ORDER.
Expendable...: yours is a very interesting comment.
If these carefully selected young people are the brightest and the best how come hardly
any of them fail to fall into the trap? How come so few of them realize that they are being
used? How come so few of them have any loyalty to their own nations? How come they do not
realize that what they are doing will lead to the enslavement not only of their own people
but also of themselves and their children? One must presume that they are promised wealth and
power and sell out, but Wilson, for example, never became wealthy. OTOH are even the most
intelligent among us so susceptible to indoctrination?
There must be some incredibly effective incentive, or some incredibly effective threat,
which can subvert them.
Young minds are impressionable and easily manipulated by satanic seductive coersion. Yet
both Dr Kitty Little (UK) and G Edward Griffin (US) rejected their indoctrination and EXPOSED
it publicly so no doubt others rejected it too. (But their efforts and others, are censored
by MSM).
Clearly there are many deviant personalities that are FLATTERED by their SPECIALNESS in
being an 'elite group' ABOVE the rest of us 'plebs' and some selected 'idealists' who swallow
the "end of all wars if we have a global government" meme.
Its not so surprising - look how corrupt the whole of US Congress/Senate is. Not one of
them UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. And all of them SUBMIT TO ISRAEL, and bow and scrape to
satanyahoo, and ensure Americans' good young men DIE for The Greater Israel Project (of
expansionism and supremasism).
Having no 1st Amendment right to free speech, or constitutional separation of church and
state doesn't help. Then, again, we seem to be headed down the same path, at a more leisurely
pace,
Obama has used Espionage Act more than all previous administrations
You're right. It's down to the quality of the people.
Bullshit. Once again it's the MEDIA..... working in conjunction with the
establishment/Globalists to LIE, CHEAT, DECEIVE and generally fuck everyone over.
It can't be long before someone considers taking the media 'out' in a Charlie Hebdo
fashion for they sure as hell don't deserve any support from the people. Fake news, failure
to report on issues that really effect people (child abuse), instigating unrest (Russia,
poison gas etc), unquestioning support for Government policies (pro-EU, pro-immigration etc).
And I haven't even touched on specific US-related issues..... FFS.
Yeah, the politicians have a lot to answer for but the media have NO EXCUSE for kowtowing
to these traitors let alone pushing their twisted agenda. They either get with the
'populists' uprising or they set themself up for a fall. So, all you media outlets out there
- what's it to be?
Since the Great British Empire evaporated in 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, Great
Britain wanted to be more like its bastard child America, a police state. Just ask any Brit
today if America is just "Great". The only thing left to ask the British, when will they
become America's 51st state?(That should humiliate them even more).
Decay implies weakness. The ability of the State to easily erode civil rights makes clear
that is not the case. If you describe 'politics of fear' to mean agitating the public to want
more repressive laws to feel 'safe' then you could be correct.
Allowing the true levels of crime to be known would simply expose that these more
repressive laws are not having the promised effect. Quite the opposite effect because of
other causes. You can probably figure out what they are.
I'm no Leftie, but Britain became a police state because their internal apparatus for
colonial repression had nothing to do, no one to suppress after the end of colonialism, and
more recently the end of 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland and the end of the IRA,
sontheyvturned these tools of repression on their own people which is the way Empires alwaays
die.
This is History, this is reality, this is the explanation.
The only difference from the past, that unlike the Gladiator and other memes, there is no
exile, there is no place to go to retire and wait out the bastards.
And this from the peoples that gave the world Magna Carta, brought civilization to much of
the world, ended the fascism of the National Socialist German Workers' Party of the 1930's
and did the most to end human slavery.
Sadly, you get what you vote for and there were good reasons that voting was initially a
privilege granted only to those with a stake in the outcome.
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is,
this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have
been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive
corruption in the highest echelons of power.
Agree entirely -- a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional
and not) is a direct result of liberalism as a whole.
The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end,
Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this
in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have
suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.
"... Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres, such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian language. ..."
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
It is not "misunderstood"–it is a complete caricature which now blows into the faces
of those who helped to create it. Western Russia "expertise" is pathetic and some exceptions
merely confirm the rule. Generally, the term "Russia scholar" when applied to most, in
our particular case American, experts should be treated as a bad joke. This is not to mention
that most of those "scholars" (with the exception of predominantly Jewish Soviet emigres,
such as moron Max Boot) can not even speak, forget a complete command, Russian
language.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money.
Very true but they are multidimensional and only some of them are not crazy, Ralph Peters,
Max Boot or many other rabid Russophobes are genuinely mad. Enough to take a look at their
reactions and behavior, I omit here a complete military-political delirium they propagate,
which in itself a fruit of a sick imagination.
So it is both for very many of them. After the death of Richard Pipes I received
communications from person who studied under him, this person has Ph.D in history, he
describes him going completely mad, from going hi pitch in his voice, almost screaming, to
sweating profusely, once the word Russia and Russians were uttered.
The hatred of Russia was palpable. Guess what, Pipes was hailed as America's greatest
"Russia scholar". It is never one thing. Moreover, pathological lust for political power
which afflicted so many is in itself a good indication of a borderline disorder.
If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying
to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash we
are repeatedly getting.
If we consider lust for power as a sign of mental affliction, not a single person trying
to become US president is completely normal. Might be true, considering the kind of trash
we are repeatedly getting.
Combined West and its "electoral" and educational institutions completely stopped
production of real statesmen already in 1970s. We saw last pool of real statesmen depart the
scene with Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Current Western so called "elites" do not even
qualify for the term mediocrity. Many of then are simply degenerate such as European Greens
or American, so called, Left, albeit the nominal Right also doesn't shine with any traces of
intellect.
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of
mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money. Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike
Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid
to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. The same
applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. The
greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who wanted to loot
the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and
Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended loot.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right."
Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington
Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and
Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:
10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is
based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to
problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and
mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law
only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive
rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established
facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal
democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with
practical programs grounded in fact and reason.
Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their
status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a
permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that
globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along!
what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a
tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!
So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of
((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind
the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless
suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going
down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class
Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a
transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
They are not. Lobbing for MIC does not require to be Jewish, although many Jews are talented
propagandists. Neocons and Zionists are more closely related, with Zionists being a subset of
Neocons
The "deep state" has always existed everywhere, and always will. It's a feature, not a
bug, depending on whether its interests coincide with the people's, or not. For example, many
of the Romanovs were installed via "deep state" palace coups.
But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews"
instead?
From the article:
>Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI) leaders include former John McCain foreign policy
advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former
chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
Every. Single. Time.
Oh, and about those Brits, I found it really interesting to know that all of the Royal
Family's men are circumcised, and it's not done medically as in the USA, it's done by a
Rabbi.
_at_ Quartermaster
>done in Ukraine
That was done by the USA. One of the primary architects of it was Victoria Nuland. She's
Jewish, in case you were wondering.
But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews"
instead?
no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles
And I say worst, because at least the Jews are doing what they consider to be 'best for
the Jews', as they foment war, and loot the US treasury of billions of dollars every year to
benefit their tribe.
Whereas the Gentile neocons are serving the Jewish supremacists at the direct of their own
tribe and nation.
Scum like Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, George Will, the entire membership of the GOP in
good standing with 'conservative Inc., Paul Ryan deserves a mention of his own, John McCain
and Lindsey, and all the rest of the rotten neocon Gentiles, who're far, far worse human
beings than Max Boot or William Kristol.
this is perhaps the most contemptible man alive. (even possibly edging out McCain!)
listen how at 1:38 -- 1:42 he advocates taking out all of Syria's defenses, which would of
course lead to the utter destabilization and ultimate carving up of Syria.
what this POS doesn't mention is that he, (and Dick Cheney and other Gentile scum)
are on the strategic board of Genie Energy, which is poised to make trillions of dollars
pumping oil out of Syria's Golan Heights. Which today is universally considered Syrian
territory. But if Assad falls, then that all changes in a heartbeat.
also look at him at 51 seconds in, drooling over the planned destruction of Lebanon by the
ZUS.
here he admits that he's an investor in 'energy and national security matters'
can you imagine a rich man advocating for the slaughter of untold innocents, including
American service men and women, in order to illegally and immorally steal a nations territory
so that he could profit by it with a few shekels more?
There aren't words..
He also was part of John McCain's presidential campaign.
The Jewish neocons are babes in the woods when it comes to the raw, treasonous evil of men
like Woolsey.
All of the verbage to tell us what we already know? That the alliance between the soft
neoliberal, the media and the neocons is all about the Jewish supremacist agenda.
That is to use the might of the US against those who oppose the plan for Greater Israel to
dominate the world thru endless wars and financial manipulation.
To destroy the entire Middle East to steal land, to control the political process in ALL
the countries on Earth particularly the West.
Look at the fake media ownership, the journalists, the "comics" , the sports owners,
academia. All jewish controlled and financed.
Putin is in the way. He's lucky to be alive still.
It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of
course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies
parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all
physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live
in.
From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime
change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in
the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun.
They can and do provide
fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of
the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence
the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated -- just as it has for the last
500+ years.
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. that's why
Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains in propaganda and Hollywood movies.
To me it is all quite simple. FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and
a smaller Britain. Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government,
in my view. Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons
are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingness to realise that it could no longer
maintain the empire. This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standards became too
expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half. What a half war
accomplishes we see in Syria. Alas, seldom in history did reason rule. If it will in the
present USA, I doubt it.
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have
turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control
and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their
psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world,
but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of
this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader
they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and
dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.
Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting
individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.
"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."
And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it
existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of
the Federal Reserve.
There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the
former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool
right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then
virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.
The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver
Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made
precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white
Christian cultures and identities.
That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever
they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and
World War 2.
What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major
voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original
junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.
But the original alliance is the same.
You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon
problem without also solving the WASP problem.
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since
1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR
agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the
Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.
Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in
point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in
the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists
have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and
historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia
in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist
communists.
The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person
knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.
From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the
name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the
whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they
accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25
years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't
do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence"
budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's
their incompetence.
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading.
Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true
believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US
elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to
be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse
"righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and
bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right"
and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot
and resent being thwarted from stealing even more.
Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various
countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the
US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years,
with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents
going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about
inevitable course of history.
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best.
Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as
Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater
Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria
Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white
men), and the working class is languishing.
It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are
a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way,
profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them
that are being exploited.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world
in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and
spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey
no argument there!
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.
India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places)
are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other
vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those
respective lands.
Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other
places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their
countries are reduced to shitholes.
If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India,
then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in
America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.
As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like
Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the
typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi
Arabia, respectively.
The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal
hatred.
It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.
It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from
the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like
the last Zio-century.
That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that
gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation
behind the wars.
The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of
pure, raw, insatiable greed.
Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.
The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two
pillars of Satanic iniquity.
I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But
the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.
This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet
look at how they abase themselves
It's not just the media. The late night talk show hosts are doing their bit too, as I
heard last night on a Jimmy Kimmel rerun (of a recent show). Can't remember the context as I
was doing the dishes, but did hear him say the usual "Russian illegally annexed Crimea"
standard phrase, immediately followed by "and then invaded Ukraine". The latter just casually
tossed off as a given. People hear these memes constantly repeated and, regardless of their
veracity (suspect to say the least) it becomes part of their worldview.
Who is behind the political preaching of hosts like Jimmy Kimmel ? Inquiring minds want to
know !
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm
You know what irina, seeing these late night talk shows go all crazy over Putin makes me
think of the Zio-Media executives, and where their allegiance to power resides. Joe
irina -- I quite agree. The same is true of the former Daily Show crew members who now
have their own shows. Several have shown themselves to be quite the little imperialist war
mongers when it comes to gleefully repeating the CIA sponsored Syrian regime change and
Russiagate propaganda. Samantha Bee & John Oliver kept triggering my gag reflex with
their propaganda lines until I found a simple but effective solution and stopped watching
them altogether. We have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the U.S. One can
chose to either get one's "pro-war regime change propaganda" delivered with barely concealed
racism and misogyny from Fox News, or instead opt for hearing the same nonsense delivered
with pretentious blather and catchy jazz interludes at PBS. American democracy is all about
having "choices."
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 7:57 pm
I quite agree. I knew the minute that they started calling RT a propaganda outlet that, in
fact, the USG was running a full scale propaganda operation. I don't know if I simply wasn't
paying enough attention or if they have, in fact ramped the operation up, but I can hardly
read any MSM outlet's output without calling bullshit on it.
irina , July 6, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jimmy Kimmel actually used to be funny and there is a really good clip (somewhere on
youtube no doubt) of him reading a 'doctored' Dr. Seuss
book to The Donald (a live guest) during his primary candidacy.
But since The Donald's election Kimmel has opened almost every show with 'ten minutes
hate' segment on The Donald. I still watch (or at least listen) occasionally because I want
to know what is being fed to The Public.
You are absolutely right though, "we have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in
the US". The average person maybe has 30 minutes to devote to the news, between getting home
and having dinner; they watch some sort of news show and think they are 'informed'. But it
actually takes MANY hours and a knowledge of alternative websites to even begin to piece
together an approximation of what might, in reality, be going on.
The Russians used to say that, at least they knew they were being propagandized.
Unfortunately, probably due to 'American Exceptionalism', most Americans think the MSM is
bringing them 'the truth'. But nothing could be further from The Truth.
"... "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." ..."
"... Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a month later. ..."
The personal viciousness of the Neocons' attacks on Putin and Russia may have something to do
with ancient memories (however false they may be), but the geopolitical & geo-economic
challenges that the US & West faces compels even good old-fashioned Anglo-Imperialists to
say nasty things about Russia.
Since Putin came to power, Russia has been working the Plan. Its strategic objectives are
to rejuvenate and consolidate the "Russian World" in Mackinder's Heartland, and from there to
leverage its enormous geographical size & natural resource base to become the
central power on the Eurasian continent. It's unique position culturally and geographically
allows it to aspire to being the Grand Arbiter of Eurasian affairs, the only nation able to
link the two ends of the continent geographically, economically and culturally.
When Wolfowitz wrote his now infamous words
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that
posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new
regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from
dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to
generate global power."
he was channelling Mackinder who said
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.
Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial
conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a
month later.
The manner of the Wolfowitz Doctrine's emergence was a harbinger of the sort of half-assed
attempt at empire the US embarked on. When it comes to Empire building, one is well advised
to either Go Big, or Go Home. In the event, stretching its half-baked, incoherent doctrines
to the breaking point, a series of inevitable fiascos followed and what we're seeing now is
the last desperate attempts to keep its satraps onside by bamboozling their publics and
making it difficult for clear sighted politicians to lead their countries away from the
increasingly loud sucking sound coming out of Washington. As even that tactic is now failing,
the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.
Exactly. "Elites" are doing it. They own Hollywood, too. Republicans like Trump, Ryan,
Graham aren't groveling before organized Int'l Jewry when they take orders from
"billionaires," not at all. It's Chamber of Commerce nerds they secretly answer to, you see,
not Int'l Jewry's Wall Street and Fed, whose business is tricking a profit from honest
American labor wherever it's found, while (apparently for laughs) calling this extortion the
efficient allocation of scarce financial resources. It's all so farcically obvious at this
point yet Conservatism Inc is telling us it's all MAGA magic. Have to love this new face of
Conservatism Inc, too -- a fruitcake whose sexuality derives from an obsession with male
defecation to the extent his kind ingest feces and genital excreta and call it luv.
Nonetheless, the CUFIs will be sending their sons to die and lose their limbs to turn the ME
into one big Tel Aviv and in the process leave poor Moloch seeming like Mickey Mouse in
comparison.
the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option,
unless one wants to start a global war. But I in general agree with your thesis.
Yes, Stalin was not Jewish, but what would you say was the Jewish role (if any) with the
Bolshevik revolution (and the Holodomor and the rest of the horrors visited upon Russia and
beyond, -as described by Solzhenitsyn- by Jewish finance, intrigue, treachery and genocidal
villainy)?
Look first at the list of first Sovnarkom, for starters. Jewish finance and interests were
important but only, again, as part of the puzzle. I do not consider Solzhenitsyn a good
writer, even less a competent Russia historian, not to mention him being a complete amateur
in any affairs pertaining defining military and political factors which led to two Russian
Revolutions (in fact, three, once 1905 is considered). So, I am not interested in discussing
the work of falsifiers.
If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you
think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?
The ongoing White Goyim Genocide project is proof positive that the Tribe is holding the
reigns. Our own gentile "elites" are getting played into this suicide just like everyone
else. Only the lies differ. They don't know that their seat of "power" is at the kiddie table
and that it has an expiration date.
Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews
and noble Russian Orthodox Christians.
obviously
In fact, it is infinitely more complex.
I've delved a bit into it. Read some books and such. But my education is always
incomplete, and I'm an eternal student.
But if you want to view it as one unstoppable Jewish juggernaut against Christ-loving
Russians, who am I to suggest to you otherwise.
naw, that's not how I see it.
The reason I bring up Jews is because I see them as often times bad actors that are
causing dire problems right now, today, in this world. And menacing things I value, like
peace, when peace is practicable.
When you talk about the infinite complexity of Russia's history, so too is that history
tied to her neighbors, and Ukraine's history as well. (I suspect you know where I'm going
with this ; )
So what some very clever and sinister people might do, is use that history and certain
fault lines in the Russian and Ukrainian narratives, to foist strife and death and misery and
war. You see?
Now you may say that Poroshenko is not a Jew, and as far as I know, that's right, (or not,
I don't really know or care), but what I do know, and do care about, is the way neocon Jews
(and goyim stooges) in my country have cynically used those historic fault lines to foment
strife and war.
The way I see contemporary Russian history is one that following the collapse of the SU,
Russia was looted during Yeltin's drunken reign by Rothschild agents known as the "Russian"
oligarchs, (a few of which seem to have been actual ethnic Russians), and from there how
Putin heroically wrested the destiny of Russia from these bad actors.
Then it was on to a bright future, except then Putin grew alarmed by what he saw happening
to Libya, to be followed by Syria and what was it Gen. Clark said.., seven other
countries?
So he put the kibosh in Syria's destabilization, and by doing so, earned the wrath of the
Zionists.
Whereupon neocon Jews like Nuland installed Jews like Yatz in a coup that here in the ZUS
they called "democracy".
The reason ((they)) did that, was to stick a pointed stick into the Russian bear, for
defying ((their)) agenda in the greater Levant.
That's why they blamed Putin for MH17.
That's (probably) why they lowered the price of oil, to harm Putin (and Venezuela and
others)
That's why our media are 24/7, 365 screeching that PUTIN IS HITLER!!!
Because, as far as I can tell, it is Putin that is the only resistance to whatever Bibi
wants.
Because what I can tell you, is that Russia or no Russia, Bibi gets what ever he wants
from "our" fecal government, always.
And so because of this dire paradigm, I do sometimes mention that it is Jewish
supremacists that are foisting these wars. And causing great strife between Russia and the
rest of the world.
I don't fulminate about Jewish supremacists because they stole my twinkle, no.
I talk about Zionist intrigue because that is exactly why the world is demanding that
Putin return Crimea. And pay for the deaths on MH17, and why thousands have died in Donbas,
etc..
These things didn't happen in a vacuum. There are actors involved, and geopolitics, and
Machiavellian intrigues and machinations that should be exposed IMHO.
If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you
think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?
Western Liberalism doesn't have Jewish roots, unless one wants to associate capitalism
with Jews only, which is not the case. This liberalism is flesh and blood of the
Enlightenment and Europe's current problems have roots in this liberalism, together with the
post-WW II cultural shock. It is also rooted in the United States emerging from this war
unscathed. So, no it is not just the tribe, it is the whole clockwork of Western Civilization
and its leader, the United States, which drives it into the gutter. Jews here are just for
the ride and chutzpa–US and Jews were created for each-other. "Rothschild's Fed" in
this case but one of many institutions which was created to enrich a rather substantial (to
put it mildly) American strata of radically not-Jewish waspies who are now trying to find any
justification (and excuses) for them screwing their own country into the increasingly grim
future. Per tribe, ask yourself a question WHO owns this site and who allows, including very
many openly mental people, to freely and openly express their opinions? Is Ron Unz, who is a
real cultural American asset (even though I do not always agree with him) a tribe or not?
Guess who is the most vocal and courageous fighter against anti-Russian madness in US?
Professor Stephen Cohen, is he a tribe?
Here is a great British historian for ya:
"This swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to exploit the empire were
not owing to some inevitable senescent process of history .That cause was a political
doctrine .The doctrine was liberalism, which criticized and finally demolished the
traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and
asserted instead the primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no
more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws .It was Adam
Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to
exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power .Adam Smith attacked the traditional
"mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting "
"The Collapse Of British Power", Correlli Barnett. William Morrow & Company, Inc. New
York, 1972. Page 91.
Now ask yourself a question–IS the United States a nation-state?
The liberalism of the Enlightenment meant that we should all use our rationality to
question the dogmas (and the leaders) of the day, and put them to the test of reason.
That's why it's also known as the Age of Reason.
You obviously intent on ignoring economics of the issue and transition from one mode of
production to another. It was this thing which predetermined all others. I do have 1929
(IIRC) version of Paine's Age of Reason.
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option
I know, and should probably have made it clearer that when faced with that decision, the
US will have to go home. The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits of the box
they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the world as it
is and will be.
Madeleine Albright's famous question to Gen. Powell 'What's the point of having this
superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' can now be re-worded to
ask "What's the point of having this enormous military edifice and expenditure if it isn't
superb, or even effective?" The answer is that there is no point. Much of it can be
jettisoned without affecting the US' real strategic situation, and almost all of it if
its mandate were to be shrunk to defence of its homeland and close allies.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to
have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home". I can't even imagine
how they're gonna do this in an organized way, but it's in everybody's interest that it
happens as smoothly as possible. That those two seem to have built a professional rapport and
even understanding is heartening.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely
to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home"
Most likely, at least Dunford, unlike most of US establishment is professional. Look up
Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:
Frankly, I always read Rostislav Ischenko with interest. After all, he worked for the
Ukrainian government, including Ukrainian Foreign Affairs ministry, until 2014, when it
became abundantly clear that project "Ukraine" is an abject failure. He has a lot of inside
knowledge, although he sometimes predicts as imminent things that happen a year or two after
his predictions. But in most things he tends to be right.
jumping the shark ...revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received .. For all your research can you not see a false flag, i.e. manufactured event for public
consumption
confused see Operation Gladio
Lots of quite intelligent people choose not to follow political issues very closely. Let's
call them casual voters. Come election time, many casual voters simply consider whether matters
for which the election winner will have some say are currently going well or poorly & if
they think matters aren't going well, they'll simply vote against the incumbent or the Party
the retiring incumbent represented.
In the same vane, having recently elected this 'new' person, they'll stick with that choice
for a decent interval to see if things improve.
For 'casual' Trump supporting voters such as those I've just tried to describe, it may well
be too early to turn against Trump. However, turn against him many of them will as the chaos
& damage of his actions will cause accumulate.
The general adaptation syndrome, he said, unfolded in three stages: alarm, resistance,
and exhaustion.
First thought was that's what political party elites use to keep their base from changing
their party elites policies: 'alarm' the base about the horribleness of the 'other side',
rally the base to 'resist' any actions by 'the other side' (while not changing course and not
offering policies the base wants/needs), and finally, 'exhaust' the base with resistance
movements designed not to succeed politically but to exhaust the base so they'll 'adapt' to
whatever the party elites dictate as policy.
OK, I'm trying to force a comparison here, straining the metaphor, which is stressful.
;)
If we assume that this is true: "Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely
poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental
incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun
far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia."
Then Ukrainian armed forces should drastically improve after several years of fighting.
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were. ..."
"... Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2... ..."
If the Obama administration ordered Ukraine not to fight for Crimea on the assumption they could force Russia to give
it back via sanctions, they miscalculated badly.
The Russians believe Crimea rightfully belongs to them and they saw control of it as vital to their national security. There
were some serious shenanigans going on in Kiev, which the Russians interpreted as an American engineered coup. The Russians reacted
to what they believed was a major threat to their national security. The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider
how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were.
There is no way the Russians will ever give up Crimea, especially under pressure from the US, NATO and the EU. No Russian politician
could do that and hope to survive. Besides, the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to endure suffering and hardships
much greater than the capacity of Western nations to endure and the sanctions showed that Russia was far less vulnerable to pressure
than Western politicians assumed.
Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time
2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by
Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching
military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia.
SurfaceBook •
4 hours ago I disagree with mr kerber's assesment on Crimean ops being the largest air assault in history. Operation Market
Garden in WW2 was the largest Air assault involving divisions of paratroopers from US/UK/Poland into german occupied drop zones
(in conjuction with a land assault forcing it's way to Arnhem).
One other curiousity , Washington 'ordered' Ukraine ? a sovereign nation under orders ? just who is in charge of ukraine at
that time ? see more
To answer your question: Victoria Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs during the Obama administration.
In other words, she was the American proconsul for Eastern Europe.
Bottom line? "The Fog of War".........All these scenarios mean nothing after the first "shot" is fired. If any US "enemy" cannot
crush US air power they are finished from the gitgo. Not a fan of our foreign policies but we can "crush" the enemy; we just can't
"rule" them.
Would really like to hear the other side. Where does he get his information from? The Ukrainians? All this Russia-is-evil-and-scheming-to-do-more-evil
is ... slightly over the top. I don't say it's impossible that Russian regular troops have been involved in Donbas but he makes
it sound like Unternehmen Zitadelle
IMHO, beware taking too many lessons away from this conflict. The Ukranian's don't have anything close to the SEAD/DEAD/EW/airpower
capability of the US. What worked against their aviation won't necessarily work against ours. Once mid-high altitude air defenses
are down, enemy jammers will have a short lifespan.
His comments that even light infantry should have the means to get away when under attack, and sufficient armor to counter
attack point to the inadequacies of Army IBCTs (Infantry, not "Interim").
IMHO, IBCTs should have 100% vehicular mobility, and have the option of attaching an independent tank battalion. Cobbling together
random HMMWVs from div/corps just seems silly. Make vehicles part of the core TOE.
see more
You are assuming that we are working within our own timeline. Yes with enough time and blood, we can peal back their defense
network with airpower. The question is, who buys us that time?
Russians (and the Chinese) ground forces trained to fight in contested airspace. The US Army assumes we have it.
Sol, Thanks for posting the link and asking for discussion. One thing that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
is how much of this is being shared with the PLA and worse the DPRK? They are pretty smart and probility can figure lots of this
out on their own. Is there any PLA observers up front with the RuFA or exchanging TTPs in an AAR? Or professional papers and presentations
at staff school level or higher? I am just a grunt and red leg, but how does the EW and fires part impact the navy? A step is
being taken:
http://soldiersystems.net/2... I wonder when this is part of OPFOR at NTC or 29 Palms?
see more
NO! thank you for sharing !!!!! this is like getting a seat at the Army War College and getting to hear what is never shared
with the troops or the public.
to be honest what i heard in that video was downright shocking. i won't say scary cause i won't be facing that shit but if
i was i'd be beyond concerned.
to answer your question you can bet your last dollar that the Chinese are getting briefings on this. you can bet that they're
not only studying the above vid but getting info from the subject matter experts in Russia.
this guy is senior but i would so love to hear an assessment of Marine Corps chances if war were to break out in Norway or
surrounding countries (we still have the flank). how would a Marine Expeditionary Brigade standup to those type tactics. we're
talking about a lighter formation than the US Army equivalent but with integrated air.
oh and a side note. as much as i think the US Army and Marine Corps would be in a hurtlocker can you imagine what would happen
to any of our European allies if they were somehow isolated and attacked?
my only regret about this whole thing is that i wanted to sit back and drink in serious conversation about this video. instead
i'm getting the usual trolling. i can tolerate that on the majority of subjects i cover here but this one is different. i wanted
to hear from serious individuals doing serious thinking about what the Dr presented.
such is life. if you run across anything else PLEASE send it. i find this fascinating!
he slide at 12.44 is also interesting it shows Russia's "desire" for "friendly relations" with the west and its neighbours.
But i guess like in the cold war there is no shortage of naives that think that Russia understands anything else but sanctions
or force. see more
Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely
to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable
tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2...
My conclusions -- Western/ US allies/Nato armies will need to have:
- integrated air defence at every level from platoon to regimental.(manpads, spaag,
- mass fire/steel rain capabilities cheap and heavy MLRS also MLRS launched antiradiation missiles)
the israelis launched AGM Shrikes with boosters from trucks to target Syrian Radars
- Field Army EW sigint/elint/jamming/defense capabilities
- EW munitions (currently russia has tube artillery launched jammers don't know about the US or NATO)
- Small and light SPGs like the Gvozdika
Whilst I agree Russia does tend to export it's kit extensively. Also some of the potential uses such as GPS jamming drones, could
be more than merely inconvenient on very small budgets.
If we assume that this is true: "Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely
poor shape by the time 2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental
incompetence by Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun
far reaching military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia."
Then Ukrainian armed forces should drastically improve after several years of fighting.
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were. ..."
"... Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME. https://foreignpolicy.com/2... ..."
If the Obama administration ordered Ukraine not to fight for Crimea on the assumption they could force Russia to give
it back via sanctions, they miscalculated badly.
The Russians believe Crimea rightfully belongs to them and they saw control of it as vital to their national security. There
were some serious shenanigans going on in Kiev, which the Russians interpreted as an American engineered coup. The Russians reacted
to what they believed was a major threat to their national security. The fact that the US leadership didn't even stop to consider
how the Russians might react shows just how arrogant, hubristic and incompetent Obama and his national security team really were.
There is no way the Russians will ever give up Crimea, especially under pressure from the US, NATO and the EU. No Russian politician
could do that and hope to survive. Besides, the Russians have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to endure suffering and hardships
much greater than the capacity of Western nations to endure and the sanctions showed that Russia was far less vulnerable to pressure
than Western politicians assumed.
Beyond that, the Ukrainians had no realistic option to defend Crimea. Their military was in extremely poor shape by the time
2014 rolled around thanks to more than two decades of neglect, monumental corruption and even more monumental incompetence by
Ukrainian politicians and military leaders, while the Russians had well prepared contingency plans and had already begun far reaching
military reforms as a result of their experiences in Chechnya and Georgia.
SurfaceBook •
4 hours ago I disagree with mr kerber's assesment on Crimean ops being the largest air assault in history. Operation Market
Garden in WW2 was the largest Air assault involving divisions of paratroopers from US/UK/Poland into german occupied drop zones
(in conjuction with a land assault forcing it's way to Arnhem).
One other curiousity , Washington 'ordered' Ukraine ? a sovereign nation under orders ? just who is in charge of ukraine at
that time ? see more
To answer your question: Victoria Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs during the Obama administration.
In other words, she was the American proconsul for Eastern Europe.
Bottom line? "The Fog of War".........All these scenarios mean nothing after the first "shot" is fired. If any US "enemy" cannot
crush US air power they are finished from the gitgo. Not a fan of our foreign policies but we can "crush" the enemy; we just can't
"rule" them.
Would really like to hear the other side. Where does he get his information from? The Ukrainians? All this Russia-is-evil-and-scheming-to-do-more-evil
is ... slightly over the top. I don't say it's impossible that Russian regular troops have been involved in Donbas but he makes
it sound like Unternehmen Zitadelle
IMHO, beware taking too many lessons away from this conflict. The Ukranian's don't have anything close to the SEAD/DEAD/EW/airpower
capability of the US. What worked against their aviation won't necessarily work against ours. Once mid-high altitude air defenses
are down, enemy jammers will have a short lifespan.
His comments that even light infantry should have the means to get away when under attack, and sufficient armor to counter
attack point to the inadequacies of Army IBCTs (Infantry, not "Interim").
IMHO, IBCTs should have 100% vehicular mobility, and have the option of attaching an independent tank battalion. Cobbling together
random HMMWVs from div/corps just seems silly. Make vehicles part of the core TOE.
see more
You are assuming that we are working within our own timeline. Yes with enough time and blood, we can peal back their defense
network with airpower. The question is, who buys us that time?
Russians (and the Chinese) ground forces trained to fight in contested airspace. The US Army assumes we have it.
Sol, Thanks for posting the link and asking for discussion. One thing that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
is how much of this is being shared with the PLA and worse the DPRK? They are pretty smart and probility can figure lots of this
out on their own. Is there any PLA observers up front with the RuFA or exchanging TTPs in an AAR? Or professional papers and presentations
at staff school level or higher? I am just a grunt and red leg, but how does the EW and fires part impact the navy? A step is
being taken:
http://soldiersystems.net/2... I wonder when this is part of OPFOR at NTC or 29 Palms?
see more
NO! thank you for sharing !!!!! this is like getting a seat at the Army War College and getting to hear what is never shared
with the troops or the public.
to be honest what i heard in that video was downright shocking. i won't say scary cause i won't be facing that shit but if
i was i'd be beyond concerned.
to answer your question you can bet your last dollar that the Chinese are getting briefings on this. you can bet that they're
not only studying the above vid but getting info from the subject matter experts in Russia.
this guy is senior but i would so love to hear an assessment of Marine Corps chances if war were to break out in Norway or
surrounding countries (we still have the flank). how would a Marine Expeditionary Brigade standup to those type tactics. we're
talking about a lighter formation than the US Army equivalent but with integrated air.
oh and a side note. as much as i think the US Army and Marine Corps would be in a hurtlocker can you imagine what would happen
to any of our European allies if they were somehow isolated and attacked?
my only regret about this whole thing is that i wanted to sit back and drink in serious conversation about this video. instead
i'm getting the usual trolling. i can tolerate that on the majority of subjects i cover here but this one is different. i wanted
to hear from serious individuals doing serious thinking about what the Dr presented.
such is life. if you run across anything else PLEASE send it. i find this fascinating!
he slide at 12.44 is also interesting it shows Russia's "desire" for "friendly relations" with the west and its neighbours.
But i guess like in the cold war there is no shortage of naives that think that Russia understands anything else but sanctions
or force. see more
Caveat emptor. Karber is a flamboyant blowhard. This is not to dismiss Russia's invasion or or act of war in Ukraine but merely
to state that this guy is essentially a Tom Clancy cut out. I like a lot of his slides (I wonder who made them?) and his valuable
tactical observations (even if it does sound, at times, like a shopping list for Ukrainian military aid) but he is no SME.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2...
My conclusions -- Western/ US allies/Nato armies will need to have:
- integrated air defence at every level from platoon to regimental.(manpads, spaag,
- mass fire/steel rain capabilities cheap and heavy MLRS also MLRS launched antiradiation missiles)
the israelis launched AGM Shrikes with boosters from trucks to target Syrian Radars
- Field Army EW sigint/elint/jamming/defense capabilities
- EW munitions (currently russia has tube artillery launched jammers don't know about the US or NATO)
- Small and light SPGs like the Gvozdika
Whilst I agree Russia does tend to export it's kit extensively. Also some of the potential uses such as GPS jamming drones, could
be more than merely inconvenient on very small budgets.
"Five signers were captured by the
British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary
army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary
War.
These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation
owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty
could be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home
and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags." "What really happened?"
------------
I had a lot of ancestors in that war, some Continentals, some militia. One man in Boston raised his own regiment of militia at
his own expense. He commanded it throughout the war. A lot of these soldiers were old broke down grunts by the end, They made new
lives for themselves. I revere their memory. pl
"All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could
be death if they were captured."
They were men of character. They were willing to lose everything for their convictions and beliefs. These are men to be revered.
Thank you Col. Lang for remembering them.
IMO, as a people we no longer have this character. We have allowed big & bigger government over the decades who have usurped
our sovereignty and essential liberty through mass surveillance, civil forfeiture, state secrets doctrine as the cornerstone of
deceit, and now the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence for domestic political purposes.
These were indeed hard and principled men. I offer the example of one of the founding fathers of my hometown. Gideon Hotchkiss
was a new light Puritan receiving a commission as an ensign in a Waterbury militia company in November 1756. He was at Saratoga
in August 1757 when he wrote home about "the melancholy news of our upper fort" referring to the loss of Fort William Henry and
the ensuing massacre. In July 1758 he took part in the battle of Fort Carillon as a lieutenant. He served another year as a captain
in 1760 along with two of his sons.
Leading up to the War of Independence, he served on the local committee of inspection. He sent two sons and a grandson to serve
in the war and organized a troop of light horse cavalry to respond to British incursions such as the raids on Woodbridge and Danbury.
After the fall harvests were completed, his company of veterans served through the winter months when they were most needed.
Once while working in his fields, he heard the sound of battle to the south. He mounted his horse and, along with a servant
boy, rode to meet the British at Westville, north of New Haven. His servant was struck by a cannon ball. Gideon placed the boy's
body in a concealed place, sent his horse back to his farm and joined the battle. This was the British raid on New Haven in July
1779. He was sixty-three years old at the time.
After the War, he was appointed deacon of the church of Columbia Parish, now Prospect. One of his many sons became a Methodist
minister. This Puritan deacon first disowned his son, but he soon forgave and embraced him. One of Gideon's descendants moved
to the Shenandoah Valley. He was Jedediah Hotchkiss, cartographer and staff officer to General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.
Speaking of the signers, only three lived to see America's 50th Anniversary. Thomas Jefferson was unable to attend a reunion organized
by the mayor of Washington, and this article provides the full text of his letter of RSVP.
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal
of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and
to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded
exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. these are grounds of hope for others."
End Quote
It also cites this list of Jefferson quotes on the right to bear arms:
The Americans are treating this like some kind of random event, as if the Fascist monster
somehow happened to get awakaned from its cave by a seismic rumble, to then by accident
stumble into the US Republic for another round of fighting. The unfortunate reality of your
economic system, which refuses to give people their freedom of land, refuses to have laws
against limitless concentration of wealth, is that power will slowly but surely centralize,
until you either are a tirannical class society, or until you have another war that
overthrows the ownership structure to restart the problem from an earlier position, or until
you finally learn what freedom means.
It's not an accident, the Fascist monster didn't get awakened by chance: the problem is
within you, within your own heads, within your laws, in your beliefs, as the consequence of
your system. You are the enemy you fight, even if you don't seem to realize it, and therefore
it is your destiny to experience what the Roman Republic always ultimately becomes.
The Roman Republic falls into dictatorship, into Fascism and war, Empire, mass looting of
external and internal peoples. Your weakness and your ignorance is the strength of the
Fascist system. If you mended with weakness, Fascism would melt as if it never existed. If
you don't, it will overtake and destroy you.
I'm a conservative and a Constitutionalists. I support capitalism and free markets. That
being said, I'm impressed at least one leftist talking head got a good definition for
fascism. The problem is, modern day socialism is also the merging of government and
corporations, with violence used against political opposition.
So, who are the "fascists"? The people that want to be left free in a Constitutional
Republic, or the redshirt ANTIFA that cause violence against conservatives and want the
government to merge with corporations under the guise of "redistribution"?
It sounds to me, through cultural Marxism, the left has bamboozled an entire generation of
ignorant kids that will regurgitate whatever they are told.
Henry Wallace was right he said that fascist called them selfs patriots but hate everything
the us ever stood for they say they love the west yet they hate democracy.
Trump has already deceived his middle class voter. I see Trump as a fascist. Organizations
like Freedom Works, American's for Prosperity, State Policy Network, American's for Tax
Reform, ALEC, if you look at their literature you see that there objective is to turn the
average person against their own government and their own best interests. The 5 Republican
Supreme Court Justices put forth Citizens United in convoluted rhetoric to say that
CORPORATIONS are PERSONS. These justices cemented corporate rule in America unbeknownst the
American Public this hideous act put forth by Citizens United. Supreme Court Justices are not
above the law and on this act should be disbarred, and removed from office. The charge under
the U.S. Conspiracy Fraud Statute, through corporate outside influence manifest the
alteration of the functioning of our government against its own citizens. (Example, the Koch
Brothers, orchestrating the shutdown of the peoples government, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the
House their gofer in Congress.)
"... Joe Mifsud is the key to the path that leads all the way through MI6 and back to Hillary Clinton and the 'permanent state'. Take a peek. ..."
"... Nothing was permissable, that is, that might impede the deep state's pursuit of world hegemony. ..."
"... The procedure used was the same as that used in 2003 – most likely because the order to prepare it was an Executive, not an Intelligence Community decision. That's what they're trying to keep under wraps, and that's why Rosenstein is stonewalling Congress. ..."
"... Those of the US elite pushing this steaming load of a propaganda campaign (and a really scurrilous one the latest is), for all their learning and experience, are either incredibly stupid or just plain psychotic. ..."
"... Thank you for a very informative piece. You are clearly a diplomat. Only a diplomat could refrain from saying: And the most important politician in the country, the President, completely and utterly failed in his obligation to exercise critical judgement of the advice that he had been given and foolishly and dangerously imposed sanctions on a nuclear equal based on this political hit job of an analysis which hasn't been shot down in flames only by virtue of an incessant invocation of classification. ..."
"... The only more amazing thing is that the US government has been so monumentally stupid that it has kept the sanctions in place even though the basis for the sanctions has been thoroughly discredited. ..."
"... I recall Jack Matlock relating the following anecdote; right around the dissolution of the USSR, the Soviet ambassador to the UN told Matlock, "This will be bad for us, but worse for you. We've just taken away your best enemy." ..."
"... They also overestimated the power of the media, which traditionally has had much sway over which neoliberal candidate gets elected President. Turns out that said industry has gradually lost the public trust over time, which condition happened to reach a critical mass at any inconvenient juncture. ..."
Thank you John Matlock The fraud of this allegation has been apparent from day one. The
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein started this witch hunt and Sessions permits him to
continue. The stone walling of Congress is an insult to everyone watching. Yet the farce
continues. It seems Rod Rosenstein is the president of the permanent state and Trump is a
token president of the yankee snake oil corporation.
Please USA the world is weary of the permanent state script and hollywood movie based on
the farce. Is Sessions a protected species or just a convenient foil while the Awans,
Clintons, Comeys, Wasserman-Shultz team run past the statute of limitations finish line?
Trump is a failure on this most important measure. He might fool Kim Jong Un (or vice versa)
but he doesn't fool the world.
Joe Mifsud is the key to the path that leads all the way through MI6 and back to Hillary
Clinton and the 'permanent state'. Take a peek.
jacobo , July 4, 2018 at 12:33 am
After the Nov'16 election when Hillary Clinton, instead of acknowledging that she alone
was to blame for her defeat (what with, among her other mistakes, her labeling a segment of
the working class' as deplorables) resorted to attributing said defeat to Russian/Putin
interference in America's "sacred" electoral system.
Clearly, thereby, she was signaling that
her post-defeat game would consist of nothing but scapegoating.
Soon thereafter, though, as
the deep state joined the hate Russia/Putin chorus, it was apparent that this scapegoating
had as much to do with preventing Donald Trump from making good on his promises, however
vague, to improve US-Russian relations + getting our nation out of the business of regime
changing.
Nothing was permissable, that is, that might impede the deep state's pursuit of
world hegemony. Subsequent events re: government hearings along with democratic party
politics and MSM coverage of same have only confirmed, not only that the above initial
observations were correct, but that the scapegoating is aimed not only at maintaining the
status quo vis-a-vis US foreign policy, but to prevent any leftward shift in the Democratic
Party – that the duopoly be preserved. .
F. G. Sanford , July 3, 2018 at 9:23 pm
The procedure used was the same as that used in 2003 – most likely because the order
to prepare it was an Executive, not an Intelligence Community decision. That's what they're
trying to keep under wraps, and that's why Rosenstein is stonewalling Congress. I suspect
that James Clapper has nothing to worry about. It wasn't his idea in the first place.
Joe Tedesky , July 3, 2018 at 10:47 pm
F.G. are you saying the order came down from the president (Obama)? Joe
Sorry for the repeated posts, but this is a significant issue for me. Since 1990, when we had
the perfect opportunity to cement a bilateral relationship with Russia (maybe even one of
those "special" ones the UK, Germany, Japan, and Israel love reminding everyone of), the US
has done nothing but pull this kind of petty, mean spirited BS when all Russia has been after
is peaceful, profitable coexistence.
Those of the US elite pushing this steaming load of a propaganda campaign (and a really
scurrilous one the latest is), for all their learning and experience, are either incredibly
stupid or just plain psychotic. Eff them and the preening mandarins posing as national news
outlets.
I agree with all the statements in this analysis. And so far, what Mueller has put together does not come close to the charges he was
supposed to investigate. Maybe he will later. But why is it taking so long? He has been in business for over a year
now.
Jeff Harrison , July 3, 2018 at 7:44 pm
Thank you for a very informative piece. You are clearly a diplomat. Only a diplomat could
refrain from saying: And the most important politician in the country, the President,
completely and utterly failed in his obligation to exercise critical judgement of the advice
that he had been given and foolishly and dangerously imposed sanctions on a nuclear equal
based on this political hit job of an analysis which hasn't been shot down in flames only by
virtue of an incessant invocation of classification.
The only more amazing thing is that the
US government has been so monumentally stupid that it has kept the sanctions in place even
though the basis for the sanctions has been thoroughly discredited.
robjira , July 3, 2018 at 7:31 pm
I recall Jack Matlock relating the following anecdote; right around the dissolution of the
USSR, the Soviet ambassador to the UN told Matlock, "This will be bad for us, but worse for
you. We've just taken away your best enemy."
DFC , July 3, 2018 at 7:52 pm
MBOB, I used to hate Fox News, which I thought was a lunatic screech-fest against
anything Obama did, even when it was reasonable. I am not saying everything Obama did was
reasonable, but Fox portrayed everything he did in the worst possible light. As far as
Breitbart was concerned, I had not even heard of that organization until after the 2016
election. The way I ran into Breitbart was when I was trying to sort out why every single
reputable news agency that I was reading said HRC was going to be the next President and then
I read that there was one that reported the opposite (Breitbart). So, I guess the question I
asked myself was: am I going to continue to read news sources that got the 2016 presidential
election so wrong, or start to read Breitbart? And what else were they getting wrong? So, the
first week I was on Breitbart, they were talking Trump's "movement" and how it was related to
Brexit (no clue who Nigel Farage was at the tine) and how big Trump's crowd sizes had been at
his rallies. I was literally blindsided by all this; being a regular consumer of WaPo, CNN,
NYT, etc, I felt like I was totally left in the dark. Breitbart actually informed me about
what really happened and what was going on (how the world was undergoing a populist
revolution) vs having to swallow the idea that Putin and a bunch of xenophobic misogynistic
racists had taken over the United States. I finally gave up entirely on my old news sources
when time after time something I read in them would be debunked 3 days later (why spend all
those reading hours to become informed when I was being misinformed?). Anyway, I still have
not warmed up to Fox News entirely (if it were not for Tucker Carlson, it would be hard to
tune in at all, and I suppose Hannity has been right about Trump-Russia but he is so far over
the top ) and that is how I drifted here to Consortium News.
*I am not saying Breitbart is a balanced source of news, but can be indispensable at
times.
David G , July 3, 2018 at 5:55 pm
I've read elsewhere as well that the State Department's INR has historically yielded some
of the best intelligence analysis in the U.S. government. Perhaps not coincidentally, it also
lacks the big budget and swagger of the other agencies.
voteforno6 , July 3, 2018 at 5:52 pm
For me, the giveaway on this report was that half of it was boilerplate security tips, the
sorts of things that people see in their annual security training. It's almost like they were
writing a college paper, and had to hit a certain page count, so they included anything they
could.
Bill , July 3, 2018 at 5:26 pm
Yes the report is bad. I came to that conclusion just reading the contents. They didn't
have enough words to fill all of the pages. Now the question is, when is the GOP going to go
after Clapper for it?
mrtmbrnmn , July 3, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Intelligence Agencies "assessment" is weasel word for not exactly lying, just sayin'. The
MSM malpracticers, on the other hand, have decided, in the total absence of ANY evidence in
this long-running farcedy, to simply DECLARE their lies are truth. Paging George Orwell!! And furthermore: http://news.jornal.us/article-681288.-THE-REAL-PUTINGATE-.html
Zim , July 3, 2018 at 5:05 pm
Thanks for the info. This reinforces how corrupt the DNC/DLC/HRC cabal truly are.
Antiwar7 , July 3, 2018 at 4:55 pm
What a cogent, well-written piece. Shows a clear pattern of politically-motivated deception, implemented by a few appointees
at the top (of a few agencies). Plus, why did the FBI never request access to Hillary
Clinton's servers?
I hope Mr. Matlock becomes a frequent contributor. I think he has a lot more to say beyond
the subject he addresses.
John Kirsch , July 3, 2018 at 4:22 pm
Excellent article.
My understanding is that the FBI didn't examine the DNC computer that was allegedly
hacked.
I find that very curious.
John Neal Spangler , July 3, 2018 at 4:20 pm
It was a coup attempt and the FBI/CIA plotters must be held accountable if we are going to
regain a Democracy, instead of letting a few senile oligarchs dictate policy. Comey, Clapper,
Brennan and some lesser figures must go to prison for all the disturbance that Russiagate has
caused.
ranney , July 3, 2018 at 4:12 pm
Fabulous article with so much important info! THANK YOU!!!
But Ambassador Matlock, what took you so long??? Didn't it occur to you that we needed to
know this months ago?
Thank you for for finally sharing your very important expertise. And thanks to Ray McGovern
and Bill Binney for encouraging you to do so.
Sally Snyder , July 3, 2018 at 3:01 pm
As shown in this article, apparently it is not a two-way street when it comes to
Russian/American propaganda:
Washington has a very, very thin skin when it comes to outside nations criticisms of its
agenda.
jaycee , July 3, 2018 at 2:56 pm
There used to be a reasonably clear separation between objective news reporting and the
expression of opinion – i.e. in print, news and editorial opinion appeared in distinct
sections while on television there was hard news through the week and opinion and analysis on
the Sunday morning programs.
Fox News and right-wing talk radio was effectively responsible for clouding these
distinctions, presenting opinion (informed and uninformed) in a format usually understood as
factual reporting. It used to be a common observation fifteen years ago that Fox News viewers
cognitive understanding of objective reality diminished according to their degree of
consumption of the Fox product. (see the documentary film "Outfoxed"). But nowadays, most if
not all of the mainstream/legacy/corporate news media operate using the Fox model whereby
factual reporting and opinion have dissolved into one another – and opinion becomes
fact without the consumer being quite aware of it. It has been a major step backwards
socially and politically, and a real eye-opener for those who once believed in the ever
upward trajectory of human progress.
Joe Tedesky , July 3, 2018 at 6:16 pm
Your comment jaycee should not go unnoticed. More Americans should study and contemplate
the dynamics of what you point to, as our news isn't at all news reporting in as much as our
news is slanted opinion based propaganda. This control method is why Robert Parry left the
MSM, so as he could inform the voter as to allow the voter to have the knowledge required to
make an informed decision . & here we are. Good comment. Joe
robjira , July 3, 2018 at 2:45 pm
I first became aware of Jack Matlock via an interview on Democracy Now. Somehow I don't
think Amy Goodman will be having him on again anytime soon to discuss this issue.
Democracy Now and Counterpunch have both shilled the CIA regime change propaganda aimed at
Syria. One expects such things from the NYT's and mainstream media, but I found this quite
amazing given both DN and Counterpunch used to be valuable "progressive sites." My suggestion
is that they consider combining forces. They could appropriately call the new joint venture
either: "Counter Democracy," or better yet, "Democracy Punch."
Realist , July 3, 2018 at 2:42 pm
The deep state figured that the much-loathed Trump was the perfect patsy for Hillary to
roll in the general election, so they didn't prevent him from getting the Republican
nomination, in fact, with the considerable aid of the mass media, they promoted his case. The
puppet masters in Washington, Arlington and Langley never believed for a moment that Hillary
would lose. They simply miscalculated on how much she, also, was hated by the public. They've
orchestrated a soft, slow motion coup attempt ever since their bubble was popped on election
night. What will happen to Trump is still uncertain, probably depending on how he continues
to dance to their tune and walk back every promise made during the campaign. What is certain
is that these shadows behind the scenes will never again allow an "outsider," someone they
did not create and entirely control, to receive the nomination of either major party ever
again.
Joe Tedesky , July 3, 2018 at 6:08 pm
Realist good to hear from you, and yes Trump was the decoy candidate whom Queen Hillary
would run over with a stampede of her voters, but whoops then there was the Electoral College
damn the details. There by with Hillary's surprising loss, all the long knives of the Deep
State were drawn to take down the orange haired tv reality star turned president down. Now, I
have a theory, and my theory all though it can be disputed, is that I believe Trump out did
his rivals with his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. With this honor so bestowed
upon the disruptive Zionist Trump rallied his Calvary to his rescue or something like
that.
Kick it around Realist. Joe
KiwiAntz , July 3, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Trump's a "useful idiot" as a President & as long as he dances to the Deepstate &
MIC tune, he will be left in place & not suffer the same fate as JFK! Trump's backdown of
his Election promises confirm that he has been totally bought & paid for, by his DS
masters & now follows that warmongering agenda of plunder for Elitist gain! Russiagate is
the biggest, Propagandist lie that has ever been proported as Truth, despite 2 yrs of zero
evidence & fabricated reports such as this latest nothingburger of a Intelligence Report!
But they have to keep this nonsense going because to much time & money & energy has
been invested, to preserve this propagandist lie that they can't back track from it! Is it
any wonder that the general population are starting to despise & distrust all Politicians
& the US Govt & it's institutions because of their immoral behaviour! And the RT
Channel or Sputnik cannot be blamed for exposing this corruption which the MSM has failed to
do!
GM , July 3, 2018 at 9:06 pm
They also overestimated the power of the media, which traditionally has had much sway over
which neoliberal candidate gets elected President. Turns out that said industry has gradually
lost the public trust over time, which condition happened to reach a critical mass at any
inconvenient juncture.
I'm sure they'll address the problem next time round with strategies involving censorship,
blacklisting, and the deployment of covert armies of online disinformation teams, all of
which we have already begun to see take shape.
"... The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us." ..."
"... I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was: ..."
"... To steal the nationalized oil ..."
"... To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver. ..."
"... To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF. ..."
"... I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped. ..."
Hello There! I'm curious to know if any readers have comments about a recent Sy Hersh
interview. In response to a question about Russian interference in the last US presidential
election Hersh replied:
"I have been reporting something, I've been watching something since 2011 in Libya, when we
had a secretary of state that later ran for president, and I will tell you: Some stories take
a long time. And I don't know quite how to package it. I don't know how much to say about it.
I assure you that there's no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC,
Podesta e-mails. That did not happen. I can say that.
I can also say Russia learned other things about what was going on in Libya with us and
instead of blowing -- [. . . lots cut out here before returning to the topic . . . ]
The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the
American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the
government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy
about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in
America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and
financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to
us."
I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid
Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was:
To steal the nationalized oil
To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver.
To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete
with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF.
I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling
Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there.
Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find
even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped.
If I come up with more after listening, I'll post again.
Looks like Brennan abused his power as a head of CIA and should be held accountable for that.
Notable quotes:
"... Did the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? ..."
"... it is not that ..."
"... even that is misleading ..."
"... the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it ..."
"... The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. ..."
"... Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published. ..."
"... Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication. ..."
"... "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." ..."
"... DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ..."
"... Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. ..."
Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
Posted on by JackDid the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election?
Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of
Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to "Russian interference" as a fact and asks whether
the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election
are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. "intelligence community" proved Russian
interference. In fact, the U.S. "intelligence community" has not done so. The intelligence
community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that
community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as "proof" of "Russian
interference."
I spent the 35 years of my government service with a "top secret" clearance. When I reached
the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National
Security, I also had clearances for "codeword" material. At that time, intelligence reports to
the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I
developed at that time a "feel" for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American
intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6. 2017 report of three
intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment," but in fact it is not
that . A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the
relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions.
Individual agencies did not hesitate to "take a footnote" or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the
"intelligence community" if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI,
and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of
relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process
generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told
the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by "two dozen or so analysts --
hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies." If you can hand-pick the
analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what
Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their
careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper
followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam
Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to
inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any
intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by
Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its
duty is "to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities."
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports
from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included
unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might
have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express
an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The
exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military
forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian
military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ
most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn't say.
The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not
have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it
comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department's intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it
reported accurately on Gorbachev's reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev
had the same aims as his predecessors.
This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and
politicians should have asked is "Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion?
If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
"classified information." But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a
conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn't the public deserve to
know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their
analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the
reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?
As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express
it . So the January report was not one of the "intelligence community," but rather of
three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence
to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to
intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the
content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA
(if it is military) or the State Department's INR (if it is political).
The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views
of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The
heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military
officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except
in the fields of cryptography and communications security.
One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January
report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never
posed regarding the position of the State Department's INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let's put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first
page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of
the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the
intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.
Now, how can one judge whether activity "interfered" with an election without assessing its
impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not
be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and
politicians from citing the report as proof that "Russia interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of
"capabilities" but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is
"explained" by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without
revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with "high confidence" or occasionally,
"moderate confidence." Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term "high
confidence" is what most normal people would call "our best guess." "Moderate confidence" means
"some of our analysts think this might be true."
Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of
the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and
conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or
foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with
NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.
Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and
have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally
downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion
that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication.
The report's assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but
its final statement in this regard is important: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not
contain any evident forgeries." In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So,
Russians are accused of "degrading our democracy" by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix
the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses
to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre
-- to put it mildly–concept of democracy.
Most people, hearing that it is a "fact" that "Russia" interfered in our election must think
that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a
particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful
sanctions. But this is the one thing that the "intelligence" report of January 6, 2017, states
did not happen. Here is what it said: " DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses
that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote
tallying ."
This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of
foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the
study? Or -- was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.
Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically
motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the
pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block
any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with
common dangers is vital to both countries.
This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have
become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don't rise, I'll be musing about
other aspects soon.
Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Booneville, Tennessee
June 29, 2018
"... Obviously, redistribution is the main problem for neoliberal capitalists. In the 50's and 60's the west had the redistribution capitalist formula with capital controls and high taxes on the very rich which forced them to spend profits on expanding productive enterprises that produced jobs and benefits/wages that reduced corporate profits and corporate taxes, and a healthy middle class with spending power allowed their businesses to grow. ..."
Secure transaction histories provided by blockchain (same technology as Bitcoin)
allows for internet-based direct democracy.
Under such a system, there will still be the need for government services like police, fire,
inspection, schools, etc. but many (all?) of these can be outsourced. Auditors can report on
their compliance/progress. Auditors can be themselves be audited, and a "government" that is
responsive to the people would also support whistle-blowers instead of f*cking them over.
Direct democracy could greatly increase efficiency of public services and make government
respond to the people instead of oligarchs and industry groups.
Defense? LOL! What is popularly termed "Defense" is offensive to the intelligence of any
critical thinker.
Jackrabbit'I don't know much about blockchain but blockchain democracy sounds good.
Defense as in a force that only defends a country's sovereign territory, not this so called
defending a country's interests which is no more than a politically correct term for
aggression.
Diplomacy as a first line of defense.
"Socialism is clearly based on two fundamental precepts: empowering the long-oppressed
with democratic rights, and massive state-organised economic redistribution, which is
anathema in capitalism. Thus, socialism is both a structure of government and an economic
policy. Therefore, Iran certainly has socialism."
This might be the clearest definition of socialism I have read.
Obviously, redistribution is the main problem for neoliberal capitalists. In the 50's
and 60's the west had the redistribution capitalist formula with capital controls and high
taxes on the very rich which forced them to spend profits on expanding productive enterprises
that produced jobs and benefits/wages that reduced corporate profits and corporate taxes, and
a healthy middle class with spending power allowed their businesses to grow.
Globalism coupled with neoliberalism ended the Golden Age and those countries who try and
reproduce social justice and reject globalism and free trade are sanctioned as enemies, or
even worse, attacked or subject to regime change
1.Human societies are complex abstract systems.
2.The system is a set of rules (thus abstract) that govern how members of the society
interact with each other, in order to collectively provide the necessities of life.
3.Government is the body (i.e. group of people) accepted by the members of the society at
large to tend the system (i.e. to develop it, manage it, operate it, change it as required,
etc.). Without a government there is no system, and no society.
4.Societies work best when the rules are set up to maximize the aggregate benefit of all
members. This is best achieved when the members of the society collectively (i.e.
democratically) choose the people (i.e. government) who develop and manage the rules that
govern them.
5.Large societies require large complex systems. High societal performance requires high
levels of complexity.
6.To function effectively, very large, highly complex abstract systems requires that
authority be distributed throughout the system, and be based on the person's role within the
system.
7.The most important function of societal governance is to organize the production and
distribution of the necessities of life for the society's members, i.e. the economic
system.
8. For those parts of the economic system that are not natural monopolies, markets are very
effective tools for economic planning and organization.
9.Markets are, by definition, a set of rules. Markets work best when the rules are set by in
an unbiased fashion to provide a fair playing field for all participants.
Some thoughts on what has gone wrong in the U.S.
1.The members of the U.S. society no longer collectively choose their leaders. Because the
democratic system has been corrupted by money, a very small, very wealthy elite (many of them
not even American), limit the choice to those who will serve the interests of the elite. The
U.S. has turned into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'. The turning point was the election of
Ronald Reagan in 1980.
2.This 'Oligarchic Dictatorship' works for the benefit of the elites, not the aggregate
benefit of the society as a whole. Thus the system (while optimized for the few) is, in
aggregate, sub-optimized.
3.Dictatorships are based on centralized authority, where as complex systems require
distributed authority. The U.S.' oligarchic dictatorship, unable to handle complexity, tries
to simplify the entire political-economic system. The result of trying to simplify the
system, in order to make it compatible with centralized authority, is a system that
increasingly fails to meet the needs of the people and is unable to effectively change and
adapt as required to changing circumstances.
4.Market deregulation has not changed the fact that the markets are, by definition, a set of
rules. It has only changed who makes the rules, from the government to market participants
themselves. And in this case, as always, the 'Golden Rule' applies - he who has the gold
makes the rules. And when market participants make the rules themselves, for the benefit of
themselves, markets always tend towards monopoly. The U.S. economy is no longer a 'Market
Economy' but rather a system of serial monopolies.
What can be done to redress the problems?
Until the people of the U.S. reclaim their democracy – Nothing!
The U.S.' system of government is not the problem. The problem is that the system has been
hi-jacked and turned from a democracy into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'.
How much time and study have gone into the observations posted just in this one thread. Many
Americans I meet just aren't able to investigate that much. I find most people in the small
american town that I live in, are just intersted in exchanging banal pleasantries, which
isn't too bad in its own way, but provincial perhaps at best.
And amongst all the current epoch's american instiutionally educated I feel there is a
lack of some indefineable quality of "experience," which I just don't have the wisdom to
grasp in its entirety, but I kind of think of it as some people, if they can't see it
directly, they just aren't capable of comprehending it. If you were to try to explain it to
them, in the manner of these posts, they would become irriated or bewildered, or think you
were eccentric .
Unfortunately, it's this same principal used by individuals and corporations, governments,
which is, if they don't tell you, it won't harm you and you won't ever know. It's here where
there's a problem I think, because it's been my experience that to be kept in the dark, is
far more harmful, then it is to have delusions upended, as painful as that might be.
PS
The US is at 16 on the CPI Corruption Perception Index for 2017. But keep in mind perception
is something that can be manipulated. I think the US should be lower and and cheer when it
moves lower because it could mean more are getting the idea of the nature of the beast. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017
Curtis , Jun 30, 2018 9:50:17 AM |
78b4real , Jun 30, 2018 10:02:35 AM |
79
@55 Peter
"It is not so much a delegating of authority but having someone to mediate between views
and find a solution that is acceptable to all."
Respectfully, it is absolutely a delegation of authority. When that delegation is not
tightly constrained to one particular issue it will be usurped by corrupt individuals. IMO
elections are good for one purpose only and that is to identify the psychopaths among us who
should not ever be allowed near the reins of power.
@57 Jen
"A national government is needed to approve going to war (or using diplomacy instead of
war...
Your premise is based upon what I am arguing against, the existence of an entrenched
government. While I fully concede that genie will not be put back in the bottle any time
soon, it is government that allows the greed and evil of a few to disrupt and complicate the
lives of the many.
All individuals are ultimately responsible for their own well being and safety. To depend
upon the actions of others when your life or livelihood is threatened is foolish.
It is not possible to dismiss my argument using examples that exist today under an
entrenched government.
Criminals are released from prison every day and relocate to new communities (or not) and
continue their crimes. Vendettas between families are commonplace everywhere today. Crips,
bloods, the mexican mafia, ms13, etc are present in almost every city in the usa. Just an
FYI, but I have found that beating the shit out of people who invade my space has been very
effective. It also dissuades others from trying the same. I live in a rough neighborhood, and
this is simply a fact of life for me.
It is the laws of the 24/7 rule makers which allows them to strengthen and prosper.
A 'new' bridge recently collapsed in Miami killing and I can guarantee you, "No one could
have foreseen" and there will be no consequences for those whom profited in its construction.
This under existing government.
I appreciate your response, (you are one of my favorite posters) but I believe you along
with the majority are too dependent on a structure that does not ever have your best
interests at heart.
@59 Ashley
"When I talk to Anarchist friends they ALWAYS go silent when I mention railways
and..."
I would say to you I have no problem with people who want railways building them and
maintaining them. Should I choose to ride one, I would gladly purchase a ticket. I see no
contradiction or hypocrisy in such. What I would object to is people who have no intention of
utilizing it, being forced to subsidize it, lose their homestead in its construction and
again being forced to subsidize it when the inevitable mismanagement of said train (due to
greed) causes it to become unprofitable.
Hillary 'lost' six BILLION during her stint at state.
The Pentagon cannot account for between 6.5 and 21 TRILLION dollars of taxpayer money.
Americans are subject to prison should they decide the government has not been a good
custodian of their funds and decline to contribute any longer. They will take everything you
have acquired and everything you may acquire in the future should any "free" american take
this decision and act upon it.
@69 Russ
"Thomas Paine was right in the first place when he pointed out that the vast majority of
people would be better off without governments and other trappings of centralized
civilization, which of course are designed to subjugate the many to concentrate wealth,
power, and luxury for the few."
This.
@71 Lysias
(another of my favorite posters)
" Most state positions were occupied by citizens chosen by lot for limited terms"
This would only slow the corruption not curtail. Now if "violation of the public trust"
became a capital offense with public execution becoming mandatory upon conviction a democracy
might have a chance to succeed. It really is that simple. I think Thomas Jefferson may have
mentioned something about that...
@all
It was not my intent to hijack this thread.
To get back on topic, it should have been apparent to any thinking individual that Obama
and Congress failure to prosecute the bush/cheney regime would lead to a continuation of the
war crimes they unleashed. It is called precedent, and when Obama decided to look forward
rather than reinforce the rule of law, he left the door open for a recurrence of torture by
American soldiers. I can assure you that the full story is not being told, in regard the
torture and disappearance of people in Yemen. Especially with trump stating that he has no
qualms about using such means.
In a similar instance, congress voted to retroactively legalize illegal warrantless
surveillance by the telecoms in 2007. I was not surprised when Snowden revealed the extent to
which this process had grown. It is the same with the torture of Yemen people. It is the
corruption that is inherent in people which gravitate to these positions. Hillary not being
prosecuted for running her private server, (too many people do not understand the difference
between using a personal email address and running a personal server) and I am certain that
there is some other (non) surprise coming in the future by another government official for
doing something similar or more extreme. Comey has already been found to have been using a
gmail addy for government business.
It is their nature and will be proven time and time again. Also people, these are only the
things they do which become known. Can you imagine what they are doing and have done that
remains secret?
b4real
PeacefulProsperity , Jun 30, 2018 11:45:16 AM |
80
All roads of evil in this world lead to the City of London, as some of the commenters have
already pointed out here on many occasions. The US is only the muscle man taking orders from
the Brutish Crown Corporation and its peado-satanic "elites".
The butcher of Iraq, with Nazi family roots, gen. Schwarzkopf was knighted by Her fucking
"Majesty" for his services for the global empire in destroying that ME country, just as many
US commanders, officials before him and after him. Iran's P Mossadegh was removed by the CIA
on orders by the BP, one of the most evil companies in the world. Much more sinister, dark
company is SERCO, a name that only few people hear from the MSM:
At the same time the US is being managed by the British agents who monitor and influence,
often shape, manage, distract the public opinion as needed: Frost, John Oliver, Simon Cowell,
any more.
London have always been a cozy, safe home for many "divide and conquer" radical propaganda
agents of the Empire: SOHR, Chowdhary, Qardawi, Osama bin Laden, Khomeini, Muslim
Brotherhood, many more...
The most densely populated by millionaires, billionaires and security cameras.
That's were global trade of oil, finance "engineering", gold manipulation have been taking
place.
Rooted in John Dee necromancy, Jewish Kabala, Francis Bacon group (aka "William
Shakespeare") created anglosphere, in opium wars,...
Trump will end this Brutish anti-human global empire, that's why they are so hell-bent on
destroying him...
Kudos for great reporting and comments!
PS Germany lost the last game in World Cup on purpose, they did not want to win, look
carefully again - something's up on the global geopolitical stage...
astonishing .. the "liberal" media MSM or the corporate establishment press has always
gone along with all the coverups. Babyl-on. on torture.
.. a recent poll showing US citizen support for torture that proved the misinformed
nature of the public responding to the poll..... karlof, 30.
MSM (W, particularly Anglo, but not only..) is 100% on the side of the most hateful and
sadistic parties / entities / orgs. / crowd. Simultaneously, a driver, motivator and a
mirror.
This stance has infected and brainwashed USA citizens, who per their history and mind-set
-- free market, revanchard immigrants, genocide, slavery, opportunities for incredible
exploitation - have lost what one might call an 'integrative' mind set, where 'integrating'
ppl in to *join* (as in the original touted melting-pot which wasn't what it was purported to
be) is no longer of any value, interest.
Concurrently, collectivism (might be called community solidarity or other friendly terms,
not argh communism!) is reduced to local contact on specific issues (protecting a park),
p-to-p efforts (food bank, donations to charity) or very weak and useless pol moves.
Individualism and tribalism (the two actually go together) leave no room for any general
societal schemes - including anarchism! weird.. -- > empathy becomes limited to close
friends and family accompanied by the adoption of purely functionalist reasoning, very
reductive, sketchy, as all other view-points are eliminated, scotched.. (A leads to B to C
etc.)
Torture is good because it forces confessions that can save other lives. Separating
families is necessary, it deters others from coming. Prisons need to be expanded, evil
violent robbers, rapists shouldn't freely roam the streets, etc. Yes and even family bonds
are subject to exclusion, blame, hate, violence
I upped the traits to make a point. You all get the picture.
"Third world people look to the government hoping
to able to apply for a benefit and, of course, they do receive certain benefits of the
government.
Really? That's funny, everywhere I've looked throughout my adult life I've seen the rich
and big corporations looking to the government for benefits, and hoo boy do they get
them.
"Third world people look to the government hoping to able to apply for a benefit and, of
course, they do receive certain benefits of the government. Really? That's funny,
everywhere I've looked throughout my adult life I've seen the rich and big corporations
looking to the government for benefits, and hoo boy do they get them.
I certainly agree that the richies have increasingly had the inside track on government
economic support, however the poor people in Mexico still hope and expect that the government
will provide them with benefits, as it has in the past.
"The education policy of President Lázaro Cárdenas's six-year term
originated scholarships and opportunities to underprivileged youth, underscoring an implicit
belief that the last Indian in the sierra is a Mexican as well, and that a person of humble
origens might become President of the Republic, or a great man or woman of letters, or a
creator or a collaborator of enormous importance to the Mexican nation.
The rural normal schools were founded to help the poorest among the poor to gradually rise
from the miserable pains of marginalization to better living conditions for themselves and
their families. The mission of these schools was the instruction of their students in
theoretical-practical knowledge of biology, literature, history, mathematics, and pedagogy,
to train and prepare the normalists to alphabetize the population; so to speak: to liberate
it. In those years, wherever a normal school was opened, it became a modernizing agent, it's
mission was to teach future teachers to plant the alphabet and other basic forms of social
knowledge in the arable population, with the expectation that their future students might
become morally free."
...
What can be done to redress the problems?
Until the people of the U.S. reclaim their democracy – Nothing!
The U.S. system of government is not the problem. The problem is that the system has been
hi-jacked and turned from a democracy into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'.
Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30, 2018 8:34:19 AM | 74
I agree with much of what you wrote to support this conclusion however, it seems that The
People in AmeriKKKa would rather whinge about their govt than take action to reform it. The
fact that they swallowed the indigestible trope that McCain is a War Hero, without a whimper
of protest, suggests that Wimpiness is alive and well in the US of A.
The UK's victims of Oligarchical Dictatorship (and the subject of this thread) on the
other hand, don't take kindly to being treated like docile obedient morons. And this latest
example of Criminal Executive Malfeasance will be angrily discussed and added to a growing
list of similar outrages.
If revolution comes to AmeriKKKa it is more likely to come from without, rather than
within. If the Brits kick up a big enough stink about what their govt thinks it can get away
with then AmeriKKKans will notice and begin to realise they are in the same boat. When
Americans wanted Britain's jackboot removed from their neck, the Revolutionary French were
happy to oblige. Funnier things have happened than the looming prospect that AmeriKKKans will
be inspired, by Brit efforts to remove a home-grown jack-boot, to do likewise to relieve
their own frustration.
Revolution doesn't have to be violent. It can be achieved by citizens uniting behind an
effort to 'encourage' the govt to adopt a shortlist of reforms which will grant citizens the
right to have grievances considered, acknowledged, and rectified by govt.
Switzerland has such a system. Here's a brief summary...
Switzerland has a tradition of direct democracy. For any change in the constitution, a
referendum is mandatory. For any change in a law, a referendum can be requested by the
people. In addition, the people may present a constitutional Popular Initiative to introduce
amendments to the federal constitution. The people also assume a role similar to the
constitutional court, which does not exist, and thus act as the guardian of the rule of
law."
"Defense" becomes a racket as soon as it prompts others to increase THEIR "defense". The
only answer to guns is more guns. It is a self-licking I've cream cone that is exploited by
neocons, Zionists, MIC, and others to the detriment of everyone else.
Security forces are, by their nature, non transparent and therefore subject to corruption.
Proper governance would REMOVE incentives for corruption. Examples: legalize drugs,
prostitution, and gambling; create strong, respectful alliances, and deal fairly with other
countries.
Absent adequate safeguards, security forces will quickly grow to a size where they serve
themselves FIRST. Serving powerful elites is part of that.
We now have the technology to fundamentally change how we are governed. The establishment
will fight that change tooth and nail.
PS Even the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is a protect racket. You must believe (as
proved by donations and other visible support) or you will go to hell or be accused of being
a witch or devil worshipper.
We have to understand and come to grips with the fact that we are now ruled by a corrupt
establishment. It is composed of many groups that have gotten cozy with each other: mafia,
"cartel", industry groups whose foot soldiers are "lobbyists", CIA, MIC, neocons, oligarchs,
etc. each has a grip that is reinforced by the others.
AFAICT, Direct Democracy offers the only way to break the pervasive, pernicious grip that
they collectively hold on society.
I thought the biggest club was the disenfranchised, Jackrabbit@88.
According to some comments above only the very few enlightened atheists rise above the
fray, us dumb unwashed peons who believe everything we hear, see, read. Well, good for you,
but good for the rest of us as well. We are not so dumb as you make out. We are not as you
have characterized us. We actually think! We actually make up our own minds, and lots of what
we think and decide for ourselves comports with what you think and decide! And in addition,
for goodness sake, some of us have faith. I know it's hard for you to fathom, but I assure
you it is so.
The few are those currently in control, who have wrested power away from the people and do
not serve them, the ones who refuse to let the truth be told, such as the PM in the UK, as
the report makes Some folk suppose Americans are brain washed, revealing their own
shortsightedness. One might say that about the citizens of any country, if all you see is
what the media of that country presents to you.clear. It really has nothing to do with
religion or the lack thereof, or even with the mass media.
Sorry, should have been "as the Report makes clear." And erase the 'clear' at the end of the
penultimate sentence. (Hiccup occurred with copy and paste.)
@ PeacefulProsperity | Jun 30, 2018 11:45:16 AM | 80
OT:
"PS Germany lost the last game in World Cup on purpose, they did not want to win, look
carefully again - something's up on the global geopolitical stage..."
Sounds interesting. I looked carefully again but could not see anything mentionable. could
you please be a bit more specific?
Decades back, the
KUBARK Manuael from 1963 a CIA torture training manual, was made public. It includes all
the techniques that so "outraged" the US Congress when CIA torture was revealed during the
Bush II regime, and are now "outraging" the British Parliament today.
But of course, not only were these torture techniques not new in 2005, they were not knew
in 1963 either. The "arts" of torture extend back to prehistory, but can fairly be described
as having become a science during the Nazi era.
A woman named Gudrun Burwitz recently died at age 88. If the name doesn't ring a bell,
perhaps it would help if we referred to her by her father's family name. For she was the
daughter of top Nazi, Heinrich Himmler, Commander of the SS (Schutzstaffel), and claimed to
be the author of the entire racial cleansing, "Final Solution," Holocaust program.
We are also told that Himmler somehow took a poison pill while in prison awaiting his
execution, thereby "cheating justice." But this is about his daughter and the thread that
leads to the Report on British torture.
Ms. Burwitz never disavowed Nazism and defended her father's reputation. She remained
prominent in far-right politics throughout her life. She was reported to be a prominent
member of Stille Hilfe (Silent Help), a secretive group known to provide legal and financial
support to former SS members. She was also known to attend other neo-Nazi events and rallies
before her death.
Oh, and she did hold jobs, too. She worked at BND (West German Secret Police/Intelligence)
headquarters during the time the organisation was under the control of Reinhard Gehlen. Nazi
General Reinhard Gehlen, of course, had headed the Russia Desk in the Oberkommando der
Wermacht (OKW - Hitler's Supreme Headquarters). Later, he had been recruited by OSS/CIA
Director Allen Dulles in the closing days of WW II and brought to service in the US.
@ b4real with his call for some level of anarchism
Do you agree that humans are community oriented beasts at some level? What do you call
that level of organization and how does one scale it...or is that a bad idea to you?
Is it anarchy all the way down?
I am fine to move this to the next open thread and feel some responsibility for my ongoing
contextualization of stuff.
I agree that the Internet provided an awesome medium for the spread of information, much
of which had only been available to readers of low-circulation alternative sources. We were
witness to a "Golden Age" of largely unrestricted information flow.
And that is why the Internet in Europe and the US is being clamped down. Private companies
people relied on, like youtube and facebook are deleting accounts and "throttling" traffic.
Google is "deranking" sites such that some have seen traffic drop by 75%. "Net neutrality"
has been overturned, so all of this and more is about to become much worse in the US.
A reminder for those who sometimes fall into a Pollyanna hopefulness.... as bad as our
Western internet censorship is becoming, it's still a beacon of freedom compared to what
China already has.
Jen @57. Thanks for interjecting some real world examples into the theoretical "utopian"
government/no government ideas being floated.
I'd add that internet voting has not shown itself to be trustworthy. Right now Estonia (or
e-Estonia as it's now calling itself) is establishing an entirely internet-based life way.
Everyone gets a bio-ID card. All financial transactions will go through that card, as is
voting, medical records, education, etc. etc. etc.
Is this really "hack-proof?" If/when someone's entire life is hacked, will we even be
allowed to know it happened?
China is developing their "social score" system similar to e-Estonia. In their case,
they're bragging that whatever black box is keeping score will have the authority to prevent
people from purchasing property, or boarding a train, or going to school, or voting or really
anything at all.... all based on some algorithms programmed by some faceless bureaucrats.
Back to the "Venus Project" which someone linked earlier, such high-tech autocratic
societies may be a big improvement for most people's lives. Maybe I'm some sort of Luddite to
prefer things like paper ballots, filled out in ink and hand counted multiple times with
observers from any interested parties.
But that still looks like a technology that isn't broken, and so doesn't need to be
"fixed."
@ Daniel
When in China I could not access anything google. Google browser, google search, google
blogs. As I mostly used yandex everything else was fine. I could access all western
propaganda and alternative news/blogs that were not on a google platform. I take it google
was blocked because they were heavily involved in color revolutions and regime change
operations.
Peter AU 1. I think you're reading too much literalism into the folk tales written down by
bronze age nomads as they took up an agrarian lifestyle. You might enjoy the book, "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. He is
a bit too "evo/psych"" for my tastes, but overall his description of the current
understanding of the archaeological, anthropological, paleographical and historical evidence
is quite well presented.
Pat Lang: "Anybody can claim anything. The power of description is a mighty power. If the leaks are right at the top is that
break-down in discipline? It may be a continuation of Brennan and Clapper's people left behind to sow chaos."
Notable quotes:
"... "pour encourager les autres." pl ..."
"... By now, it seems amply clear that many people in the 'intelligence communities' both in the United States and Britain have believed that because they had 'friends in high places', and in particular were confident that their preferred candidate could, with their help, win the Presidential election, they could safely attempt to subvert the constitutional order in the United States. ..."
"... Far be it from me to suggest that, in current conditions, shooting would be an appropriate punishment for such scum. I cannot however see how the constitutional order can be expected to survive, unless drastic sanctions -- public exposure and obloquy, combined with and reinforced by long custodial sentences -- are imposed. ..."
"... This seems to be a media operation designed to thwart the rapprochement with North Korea. It would make no sense for Kim to destroy all his nukes at this stage of the negotiations. It would only make sense as the culmination of a period of good relations and maybe even the reunification with the south. ..."
"... Exactly...all of us could see this coming...but I think at this point they are overplaying their hand...I don't think the people are in the mood right now for this kind of sniping from the shadows...especially when POTUS is making VERY LARGE things happen on the world stage... ..."
"... I am astounded that after all that we have learned, it doesn't seem that AG Sessions has had Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe and Loretta Lynch testifying to a grand jury. I find it incredulous that DAG Rosenstein said in congressional testimony that he signed a FISA application without reading it and that there is no action to that revelation. ..."
"... The top 1% are above the law. From exploiting the world to wars for profit, multi-national corporations are above mundane Nation-States and Constitutions. If caught, they pay a fine, the cost of doing business. ..."
"Per
Reuters and
NBC News , US intelligence officials (albeit ones speaking under the cover of anonymity)
believe that Kim may care a little bit more about the long-term survival of his regime than
being flattered with Trumpian
propaganda videos , and so may have told a few white lies about whether or not he is
continuing to move forward with his nuclear weapons program. Specifically, reports suggest that
while North Korea has stopped testing nukes or missiles for now, they are continuing to enrich
uranium and stockpile the relevant materials." Gizmodo
********
"Four other officials agreed that North Korea is intentionally trying to deceive the US
about its ongoing nuclear capabilities, NBC News reported, and others said intel suggests that
North Korea is continuing to operate more secret uranium enrichment sites than previously
believed." Gizmodo
------------
Well, pilgrims, unauthorized disclosure of classified information of any kind and especially
the results of satellite photography is a federal felony subject on conviction to sentencing to
mandatory prison terms. You can be sure that these Deep State operatives within the
Intelligence Community received NO permission to disclose this information to Gizmodo and the
numerous other media outlets for whom they spied.
The Deep State continues to wage war against President Trump. There should be a massive
manhunt to find these violators of the Espionage and Illegal Disclosure laws and imprison them
"pour encourager les autres." pl
Leaving aside the Deep State propaganda campaign against Trump, my question is: even if
Kim agreed to "denuclearize", did he agree to stop enriching uranium immediately?
The Agreement signed by Trump and Kim merely states, "the DPRK commits to work toward
complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." It says nothing about when and
how.
What is needed is something along the lines of the Agreed Framework in 1994. That
specified that North Korea would (in exchange for two light water reactors (LWR), fuel
oil, a non-aggression agreement with the US, and normalization of relations):
Freeze all graphite-moderated nuclear reactors (5MWe reactor and 50 & 200 MWe
under construction)
Remain a party to the NPT
Take steps to implement 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula
Dismantle graphite-moderated reactors when LWR project is completed
Move toward full normalization of political and economic relations
Note that the same accusation was used to torpedo the Agreed Framework. Wikipedia
notes:
Quote
In October 2002, a U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly
visited North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the U.S. assessment that they had
a uranium enrichment program.[37] The parties' reports of the meeting differ. The U.S.
delegation believed the North Koreans had admitted the existence of a highly
enriched uranium program.[38] The North Koreans stated Kelly made his assertions in an
arrogant manner, but failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and
they responded by denying that North Korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using
enriched uranium. They went on to state that as an independent sovereign state North
Korea was entitled to possess nuclear weapons for defense, although they did not possess
such a weapon at that point in time.[8][39][40] Relations between the two countries,
which had seemed hopeful two years earlier, quickly deteriorated into open
hostility.[14]
The HEU intelligence that James Kelly's accusation is based on is still controversial:
According to the CIA fact sheet to Congress on November 19, 2002, there was "clear
evidence indicating the North has begun constructing a centrifuge facility" and this
plant could produce annually enough HEU for two or more nuclear weapons per year when it
is finished. However, some experts assessed that the equipment North Korea
imported was insufficient evidence of a production-scale enrichment program.
End Quote
There seems little doubt that the current accusation is intended to derail the US-NK
diplomatic process and that this is being fueled by a faction of the US intelligence
community (and probably some Republicans and Democrats.)
A large faction of US Intell WANTED and still wants NK to have nukes. The Bush the Dumber
Admin, with its moronic Axis of Evil ad campaign and actions described above forced NK's
hand. Nothing changed during Obama's time.These people don't want peace breaking out.
It's bad for bidniz. Geopolitical hotspots are what these ghouls fetishize over, desire
and live for.
It may be of interest to look at comments on Voltaire's epigram about the execution of
Admiral Byng by the authors of important recent studies of the period, both American and
British.
From a discussion by George Yagi, an American scholar who has produced a monumental
history of the Seven Years' War, in the course of which Byng was executed, and which was
central to the shaping of the contemporary United States:
'Upon learning of the execution, the French writer, philosopher and playwright
Voltaire satirically wrote that the British needed to occasionally execute an admiral
from time to time, "in order to encourage the others."
'Although his comments were written as a form of mockery, surprisingly, the
observation was entirely accurate. Byng's role in the Minorca fiasco led to what was
darkly termed in the Royal Navy the "Byng Principle," which meant that "nothing is to be
undertaken where there is risk or danger."
'This sardonic term served as a cautionary reminder to naval officers of the sort of
conduct that should be avoided in battle. And just or not, Byng's death was to instill in
them an aggressive fighting spirit that would succeed in turning the war in favour of
Britain.'
According to the leading contemporary historian of the Royal Navy, N.A.M. Rodger,
the effects may have been much more long-lasting:
'There was more truth in the epigram than perhaps [Voltaire] knew, for the execution
of Byng had a profound effect on the moral climate of the Navy, and sharply reversed
the effects of the battle of Toulon. The fates of Matthews and Lestock had taught
officers that misconduct with support in high places had nothing to fear; the fate of
Byng taught them that even the most powerful political friends might not save an
officer who failed to fight. Many things might go wrong with an attack on the enemy,
but the only fatal error was not to risk it. Byng's death revived and reinforced a
culture of aggressive determination which set British officers apart from their foreign
contemporaries, and which in time gave them a steadily mounting psychological
ascendancy. More and more in the course of the century, and for long afterwards,
British officers encountered opponents who expected to be attacked, and more than half
expected to be beaten, so that they went into battle with an invisible disadvantage
which no amount of personal courage or numerical strength could entirely make up
for.'
By now, it seems amply clear that many people in the 'intelligence communities'
both in the United States and Britain have believed that because they had 'friends in
high places', and in particular were confident that their preferred candidate could, with
their help, win the Presidential election, they could safely attempt to subvert the
constitutional order in the United States.
Far be it from me to suggest that, in current conditions, shooting would be an
appropriate punishment for such scum. I cannot however see how the constitutional order
can be expected to survive, unless drastic sanctions -- public exposure and obloquy,
combined with and reinforced by long custodial sentences -- are imposed.
This seems to be a media operation designed to thwart the rapprochement with North
Korea. It would make no sense for Kim to destroy all his nukes at this stage of the
negotiations. It would only make sense as the culmination of a period of good relations
and maybe even the reunification with the south.
It is clear from all these leaks that there is a faction in the intel community that
want permanent belligerence and a state of fear that enhances their power and their
ability to act with impunity in the dark. I agree with your characterization of this
group that also includes elements in the media and political complex as the Deep State.
Unaccountable and using the rubric of state secrets to obfuscate their nefarious
activities.
If there is any credence to media reports of Trump planning a Kim-style arrangement
with Putin that could begin the process of our disentanglement from our near permanent
state of covert and military activities destabilizing the world, we could see a ramp up
of information operations by the Deep State.
Jack says...'...we could see a ramp up of [dis]information operations by the Deep
State...'
Exactly...all of us could see this coming...but I think at this point they are
overplaying their hand...I don't think the people are in the mood right now for this kind
of sniping from the shadows...especially when POTUS is making VERY LARGE things happen on
the world stage...
Let's see how the Donald-Vlad powwow plays out...whatever happens [or doesn't] in
terms of real substance...I think the optics are going to be awesome...Trump is on a big
roll...I think the deep state and their #resistance is just digging its own grave at this
point...
Have we reached the point wherein if one is high up the government totem pole in law
enforcement and intelligence you are above the law and consequently can act with
impunity?
I am astounded that after all that we have learned, it doesn't seem that AG
Sessions has had Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe and Loretta Lynch testifying to a grand
jury. I find it incredulous that DAG Rosenstein said in congressional testimony that he
signed a FISA application without reading it and that there is no action to that
revelation.
OTOH, if you're an ordinary citizen, the DOJ and FBI give you no break and can ruin
you financially and your reputation. And the fact is that the judiciary is largely not
independent and by and large buy into the government prosecutors' story line. It is very
rare that a judge acts with independence like the Bundy case.
It seems a strong case can be made that we no longer have a republic.
To answer your question: yes, provided that you have sufficient influence and authority.
Keep in mind that the criminal laws in the United States today are sufficient broad
and deep in scope that an aggressive prosecutor can always find an excuse to bring
charges against anyone. The decision whether or not to prosecute largely depends on how
much juice the putative target has.
The top 1% are above the law. From exploiting the world to wars for profit,
multi-national corporations are above mundane Nation-States and Constitutions. If caught,
they pay a fine, the cost of doing business.
Although corporate media avoids discussing it, this attack on the President for
deescalating tensions in Korea by illegally releasing classified information is one more
example of the seams of the nation being pulling apart without any punishment. Until,
plutocrats and their contractors start doing jail time for their crimes, the West will
continue its descent.
I agree. These leakers are on the edge of treason, BUT. When the FBI's "star" CI agent is
a teenage texter (OPSEC, anyone?), these leakers are pretty safe.
Hell, the Feebs couldn't find Robert Hanssen, right under their nose. On top of that
the AG - Sessions - makes Rip Van Winkle look like a olympic sprinter.
The reason this US intel sewage is able to rise to the top of the Korea issue is that the
Koreans have lost the narrative. The April 27 Panmunjon Declaration, endorsed at the
recent Trump-Kim summit, includes:
South and North Korea affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean
nation on their own accord and agreed to bring forth the watershed moment for the
improvement of inter-Korean relations by fully implementing all existing agreements and
declarations adopted between the two sides thus far.
Since then we've had the freeze-for-freeze but where is the news on the full
implementation of existing (and new) agreements? What have Russia and China been doing
regarding progress on the issues coupled to a reduction in sanctions as required? A
steady drum-beat of Korean talk on progress is needed, endorsed by Russia and China,
coupled with UNSC motions, otherwise the intel sleaze-bags take over the narrative, as
they have just done. We need to experience the "watershed moment" that Moon and Kim said
they would bring forth.
Well we don't have Jesus but we now have Bolton with a plan, which is wondrous (to
me).
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's national security adviser said Sunday the U.S.
has a plan that would lead to the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs in a year.
John Bolton said top U.S. diplomat Mike Pompeo will be discussing that plan with North
Korea in the near future. Bolton added that it would be to the North's advantage to
cooperate to see sanctions lifted quickly and aid from South Korea and Japan start to
flow. . .
here
Suppose, for argument, there is no leaking of classified docs, that the IC Muckety Mucks
feeding the reporters are just inventing? that no useful pics, from space or otherwise,
exist, no air filtration samples show anything... during 1943-44 Oak Ridge drew enough
electricity to power Detroit at the same time, but nowadays Bitcoin miners are the only
big juice hogs so that proof is out.
Lying about NK's nuke activity is just as useful as actual stolen documentation. The
stenographer/'reporters' get their hair-raising stories, the public, insofar as it gives
a damn, gets alarmed and eventually the story recedes, lingers in the public's memory
until the Borgistas stoke it up again.
And in the end, So What? Did anyone seriously expect the NK's to go into hibernation?
So they've got a metric ton of enriched uranium more than they had X months ago. Maybe
there's an emerging market for the stuff in south Asia and Kim wants to corner it.
Sir,
Terrible. Simply terrible the wider damage that these people are willing to risk just to
get at Trump.
I have noticed you more willing to use the term "Deep State" lately. Have you changed
your mind about it's existence/level of influence (as opposed to "Borg")? Or is this just
the deployment of a lingua franca to communicate with a wider audience?
It's my understanding that "Deep State" (and not necessarily in the Turkish sense) is now
an accepted concept in political science.
Question: what you say "this conspiracy nonetheless exists", do you mean a
"conspiracy" in the sense of an uncoordinated group of people with shared motives, or in
the sense of "hey, let's you and me and Bob down at State meet up for lunch and do this
to topple Trump!"
Are you sure this is classified information? Several articles are only referring to
it as an unreleased assessment. The 38 North web site, part out by the Henry R.
Stimson center put out a fairly detailed assessment along with annotated commercial
satellite imagery a few days ago. However, if this was a classified report, the
leakers should definitely be arrested and charged. For at least five intelligence
officials to leak classified information, there would have to be a complete and
deliberate breakdown in discipline in the IC. And that would need to be corrected.
The danger in publishing this kind of information, even if it was not classified,
is that it risks embarrassing Trump. That would enrage him and could lead to his
reverting to his "little rocket man" and "fire and fury" rhetoric. That is not
helpful. The nukes are still there, but the situation is still greatly improved. It
would be better if Trump could comfortably maintain the narrative that there is no
longer a nuclear threat from NK. This is not the time to point out the emperor is
naked.
From the NBC article: "NBC News agreed to withhold some details of the latest
intelligence assessment that officials said could put sources at risk."
Yes 38 North uses open source satellite imagery, but NBC News seem to have been
given an intelligence assessment, at least part of which could put sources at risk.
You will know better than me, but surely this type of intel must be classified? Worst
of all, the MSM are now effectively making judgments about source protection. Seems
to me this won't give potential new sources of intel a whole lot of confidence in
trusting the US IC - leaking like a sieve as it currently does.
As to the risks of embarrassing Trump, it seems clear there are many in the IC who
are perfectly happy to risk a very great deal in order to achieve this end. Some
encouragement to engender better behavior is well overdue.
TTG...commercial sat imagery and 'analysis' by the Stimson stinktank..?
Come on man...you pulling my leg..?
Sat imagery 'analysis' might as well be tea leaves...as far as the public's ability to separate truth from fiction...Stimson
like all the other DC stinktanks is funded by the usual deep state fronts...ie Carnegie, Ford etc...not to mention heavy funding
from FOREIGN countries that are deeply invested in the US MIC...even the dirtbag NYT took notice of this...
This is plainly an agit-prop pushback from the Borg...whatever the technicalities I would say that the POTUS could decide to
crack the whip... the 'law' in DC is a very amorphous thing...it can be and is twisted in any way that suits whoever is wielding
the big stick...
Trump, now that he is winning the regime change war, needs to start putting people in jail...wouldn't be too hard...
"... Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base," identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. ..."
Other than shouting about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of Donald Trump's
most frequently proclaimed promises on the 2016 campaign trail was the launching of a
half-trillion-dollar plan to repair America's crumbling infrastructure (employing large
numbers of workers in the process). Eighteen months into his administration, no credible
proposal for anything near that scale has been made. To the extent that the Trump
administration has a plan at all for public investment, it involves pumping up Pentagon
spending, not investing in roads, bridges, transportation, better Internet access, or other
pressing needs of the civilian economy.
Not that President Trump hasn't talked about investing in infrastructure. Last February,
he even proposed a scheme that, he claimed, would boost the country's infrastructure with
$1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. With a typical dose of hyperbole, he
described it as "the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American
history."
Analysts from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania -- Trump's alma mater
-- beg to differ. They
note that the plan actually involves only $200 billion in direct federal investment, less
than one-seventh of the total promised. According to Wharton's experts, much of the extra
spending, supposedly leveraged from the private sector as well as state and local
governments, will never materialize. In addition, were such a plan launched, it would, they
suggest, fall short of its goal by a cool trillion dollars. In the end, the spending levels
Trump is proposing would have "little to no impact" on the nation's gross domestic product.
To add insult to injury, the president has
exerted next to no effort to get even this anemic proposal through Congress, where it's
now dead
in the water .
There is, however, one area of federal investment on which Trump and the Congress have
worked overtime with remarkable unanimity to increase spending: the Pentagon, which is slated
to receive more than
$6 trillion over the next decade. This year alone increases will bring total spending on
the Pentagon and related agencies (like the Department of Energy where work on nuclear
warheads takes place) to $716
billion . That $6-trillion, 10-year figure represents more than 30 times as much direct
spending as the president's $200 billion infrastructure plan.
In reality, Pentagon spending is the Trump administration's substitute for a true
infrastructure program and it's guaranteed to deliver public investments, but neglect just about every area
of greatest civilian need from roads to water treatment facilities.
The Pentagon's Covert Industrial Policy
One reason the Trump administration has chosen to pump money into the Pentagon is that
it's the path of least political resistance in Washington. A combination of fear, ideology,
and influence peddling radically skews "debate" there in favor of military outlays above all
else. Fear -- whether of terrorism, Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea -- provides one
pillar of support for the habitual overfunding of the Pentagon and the rest of the national
security state (which in these years has had a combined
trillion-dollar annual budget). In addition, it's generally accepted in Washington that
being tagged "soft on defense" is the equivalent of political suicide, particularly for
Democrats. Add to that the millions of dollars spent by the
weapons industry on lobbying and campaign contributions, its routine practice of hiring
former Pentagon and military officials, and the way it strategically places defense-related
jobs in key states and districts, and it's easy to see how the president and Congress might
turn to arms spending as the basis for a covert industrial policy.
The Trump plan builds on the Pentagon's already prominent role in the economy. By now,
it's the largest
landowner in the country, the
biggest institutional consumer of fossil fuels, the most
significant source of funds for advanced government research and development, and a
major investor in the manufacturing sector. As it happens, though, expanding the
Pentagon's economic role is the least
efficient way to boost jobs, innovation, and economic growth.
Unfortunately, there is no organized lobby or accepted bipartisan rationale for domestic
funding that can come close to matching the levers of influence that the Pentagon and the
arms industry have at their command. This only increases the difficulty Congress has when it
comes to investing in infrastructure, clean energy, education, or other direct paths toward
increasing employment and economic growth.
Former congressman Barney Frank once labeled the
penchant for using the Pentagon as the government's main economic tool "weaponized
Keynesianism" after economist John Maynard Keynes's theory that government spending
should pick up the slack in investment when private-sector spending is insufficient to
support full employment. Currently, of course, the official unemployment rate is low by
historical standards. However,
key localities and constituencies , including the industrial Midwest, rural areas, and
urban ones with significant numbers of black and Hispanic workers, have largely been left
behind. In addition, millions of "discouraged workers" who want a job
but have given up actively looking for one aren't even counted in the official unemployment
figures, wage growth has
been stagnant for years, and the inequality gap between the 1% and
the rest of America is already in Gilded Age
territory.
Such economic distress was crucial to Donald Trump's rise to power. In campaign 2016, of
course, he endlessly denounced unfair trade agreements, immigrants, and corporate flight as
key factors in the plight of what became a significant part of his political base: downwardly
mobile and displaced industrial workers (or those who feared that this might be their future
fate).
The Trump Difference
Although insufficient, increases in defense manufacturing and construction can help areas
where employment in civilian manufacturing has been lagging. Even as it's expanded, however,
defense spending has come to play an ever-smaller role in the U.S. economy, falling
from 8%-10% of the gross domestic product in the 1950s and 1960s to under 4% today. Still, it
remains crucial to the economic base in defense-dependent
locales like southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington state. Such places, in turn,
play an outsized political role in Washington because their congressional representatives
tend to cluster on the armed services, defense appropriations, and other key committees, and
because of their significance on the electoral map.
A long-awaited Trump administration "defense industrial base" study should be considered a
tip-off that the president and his key officials see Pentagon spending as the way to
economincally prime the pump. Note, as a start, that the study was overseen not by a defense
official but by the president's economics and trade czar, Peter Navarro, whose formal title
is White House director of trade and industrial policy. A main aim of the study is to find a
way to bolster smaller defense firms that subcontract to giants like Boeing, Raytheon, and
Lockheed Martin.
Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it
in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically
cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base,"
identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. The CEO of the
Aerospace Industries Association, one of the defense lobby's most powerful trade groups,
underscored Navarro's point when, in July 2017, he insisted that "our industry's
contributions to U.S. national security and economic well-being can't be taken for granted."
(He failed to explain how an industry that absorbs more than
$300 billion per year in Pentagon contracts could ever be "taken for granted.")
Trump's defense-industrial-base policy tracks closely with proposals put forward by Daniel
Goure of the military-contractor-funded Lexington Institute in a December 2016
article titled "How Trump Can Invest in Infrastructure and Make America Great Again."
Goure's main point: that Trump should make military investments -- like building naval
shipyards and ammunition plants -- part and parcel of his infrastructure plan. In doing so,
he caught the essence of the arms industry's case regarding the salutary effects of defense
spending on the economy:
"Every major military activity, whether production of a new weapons system, sustainment of
an existing one or support for the troops, is imbedded in a web of economic activities and
supports an array of businesses. These include not only major defense contractors such as
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, but a host of middle-tier and even
mom-and-pop businesses. Money spent at the top ripples through the economy. Most of it is
spent not on unique defense items, but on products and services that have commercial markets
too."
What Goure's analysis neglects, however, is not just that every government investment
stimulates multiple sectors of the economy, but that virtually any other kind would have a
greater ripple
effect on employment and economic growth than military spending does. Underwritten by the
defense industry, his analysis is yet another example of how the arms lobby has distorted
economic policy and debate in this country.
These days, it seems as if there's nothing the military won't get involved in. Take
another recent set of "security" expenditures in what has already
become a billion-dollar-plus business: building and maintaining detention centers for
children, mainly unaccompanied minors from Central America, caught up in the Trump
administration's brutal security crackdown on the U.S.-Mexico border. One company, Southwest
Key, has already
received a $955 million government contract to work on such facilities. Among the other
beneficiaries is the major defense contractor General
Dynamics , normally known for making tanks, ballistic-missile-firing submarines, and the
like, not ordinarily ideal qualifications for taking care of children.
Last but not least, President Trump has worked overtime to tout his promotion of U.S. arms
sales as a jobs program. In a May 2018 meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at
the White House (with reporters in attendance), he typically
brandished a map that laid out just where U.S. jobs from Saudi arms sales would be
located. Not coincidentally, many of them would be in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Ohio, and Florida that had provided him with his margin of victory in the 2016 elections.
Trump had already crowed
about such Saudi deals as a source of "jobs, jobs, jobs" during his May 2017 visit to Riyadh,
that country's capital. And he claimed
on one occasion -- against all evidence -- that his deals with the Saudi regime for arms and
other equipment could create "millions of jobs."
The Trump administration's decision to blatantly put jobs and economic benefits for U.S.
corporations above human rights considerations and strategic concerns is likely to have
disastrous consequences. Its continued
sales of bombs and other weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for
example, allows them to go on prosecuting a
brutal war in Yemen that has already killed thousands of civilians and put millions more
at risk of death from famine and disease. In addition to being morally reprehensible, such an
approach could turn untold numbers of Yemenis and others across the Middle East into U.S.
enemies -- a high price to pay for a few thousand jobs in the arms sector.
Pentagon Spending Versus a Real Infrastructure Plan
While the Trump administration's Pentagon spending will infuse new money into the economy,
it's certainly a misguided way to spur economic growth. As University of Massachusetts
economist Heidi Garrett-Peltier has demonstrated ,
when it comes to creating jobs, military spending lags far behind investment in civilian
infrastructure, clean energy, health care, or education. Nonetheless, the administration is
moving full speed ahead with its military-driven planning.
In addition, Trump's approach will prove hopeless when it comes to addressing the
fast-multiplying problems of the country's ailing infrastructure. The
$683 billion extra that the administration proposes putting into Pentagon spending over
the next 10 years pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars the American Society of
Civil Engineers claims are needed to modernize U.S. infrastructure. Nor will all of that
Pentagon increase even be directed toward construction or manufacturing activities (not to
speak of basic infrastructural needs like roads and bridges). A significant chunk of it will,
for instance, be dedicated to paying the salaries of the military's massive cadre of civilian and
military personnel or health care and other benefits.
In their study, the civil engineers suggest that failing to engage in a major
infrastructure program could cost the economy $4 trillion and 2.5 million jobs by 2025,
something no Pentagon pump-priming could begin to offset. In other words, using the Pentagon
as America's main conduit for public investment will prove a woeful approach when it comes to
the health of the larger society.
One era in which government spending did directly stimulate increased growth,
infrastructural development, and the creation of well-paying jobs was the 1950s, a period for
which Donald Trump is visibly
nostalgic . For him, those years were evidently the last in which America was truly
"great." Many things were deeply wrong with the country in the fifties -- from rampant
racism, sexism, and the denial of basic human rights to McCarthyite witch hunts -- but on the
economic front the government did indeed play a positive role.
In those years, public investment went far beyond Pentagon spending, which President
Dwight Eisenhower (of " military-industrial
complex " fame) actually tried to rein in. It was civilian investments -- from the
G.I. Bill to increased
incentives for housing construction to the building of an interstate highway system --
that contributed in crucial ways to the economic boom of that era. Whatever its failures and
drawbacks, including the ways in which African-Americans and other minorities were grossly
under-represented when it came to
sharing the benefits, the Eisenhower investment strategy did boost the overall economy in a
fashion the Trump plan never will.
The notion that the Pentagon can play a primary role in boosting employment to any
significant degree is largely a myth that serves the needs of the military-industrial
complex, not American workers or Donald Trump's base. Until the political gridlock in
Washington that prevents large-scale new civilian investments of just about any sort is
broken, however, the Pentagon will continue to seem like the only game in town. And we will
all pay a price for those skewed priorities, in both blood and treasure.
integer @35. Not a fan of George Soros? Ready to peak into the rabbit hole?
Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in
properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO
suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).
After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran
OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.
So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic
Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.
And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a
long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.
With Mueller Trump is on a very short leash indeed, so I doubt that he has great freedom of maneuver.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War. ..."
"... John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is! ..."
"... People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed. ..."
"... Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc. ..."
"... Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time. ..."
"... My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced. ..."
"... A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit. ..."
On a gestalt basis it seems to me from all the bits and pieces of information and rumor that DJT is attempting "The Deal of the
Century!" (an episode or two of his soon to be award winning series on the subject of "The Greatest President.")
Russian cooperation in this is clearly needed. Trump is blessedly lacking in ideological fervor. His Deplorable base is also a
bit short on ideology being focused on wages, prices, taxes and other everyday living issues. Their patriotism expresses itself in
devotion to the flag and the anthem and a willingness to serve in the armed forces, something increasingly absent in the "resistance."
Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal
with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal
of the Cold War.
John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting
with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging
the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out
rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is!
Trumps is IMO trying for a grand ME bargain to be achieved with Russian help:
Peace in Syria in the context of abandonment of regime change. Trump the pragmatist recognizes that the R+6 forces have won
the civil war and, therefore he wishes to accept the sunk costs of previous American ineptitude in Syria and to walk away. US Embassy
Amman has signaled to the FSA rebels in SW Syria that they should not expect the US to defend them. This is a traditional American
stab in the back for guerrilla allies but the warning indicates to me that some group in the US Government (probably the CIA) has
enough conscience to want to give warning. As soon as that warning was issued the rate of surrenders to the SAA rose.
The US has thus made it clear that the SAA and Russian forces in Syria have a free hand in the SW and it seems that Israeli
air and missile attacks are unlikely against the SW offensive. This has been insured through a Russian mandate that Hizbullah and
IRGC dominated Shia militias stay out of the fight in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces.
The Egyptians have been talking to Hamas about their willingness to enter into a hudna (religiously sanctioned truce) with
Israel. Hamas has frequently offered this before. Such truces are renewable and are often for 10 years. Kushner's team thinks it
has attained Natanyahhu's support for this. The deal would supposedly include; a Gaza-Egyptian industrial zone in the area of Raffa,
an airport, a seaport. In return Hamas would be expected to police the truce from their side of the border. People on SST who have
deep access in Israel doubt the sincerity of apparent Israeli assent, but there is little doubt I think that DJT considers this part
of the Grand Bargain he is attempting to forge.
Nowhere in any of this is anything concerning Iran and I assume that regime change remains the policy. Nor is there anything about
Saudi Arabia and the UAE's mercenary manned war in Yemen. Ah, well, pilgrims, everything in its time. pl
People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made
noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked
twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed.
Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être
, and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on
Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc.
No, I mean the Army is especially invested in Europe and has been. I attended C&GSC at the peak of Vietnam and in exercises they
were still mostly concerned with the Fulda Gap, division trains, etc. Big Army. Similar to how Army is going now, back to their
roots so to speak. Even when they claimed they were short of funds, they found a way to send forces to Europe based on the claims
that after Crimea, Russia was (and is) a threat to. . .the U.S.?
Peace with Russia would be a severe blow to Army especially
with the shift to Indo-Pacific which involves Navy and Marines, and Army not much. I know Army was greatly involved with island
operations in WWII, but China is not Japan regarding imperialism, IMO, and anyhow island invasions are not popular in Army.
So I look for a beefed up "Russia threat" campaign to counter Trump, and insider Bolton to be a big part of it.
Good analysis of the political implications of having Bolton establishing a summit as it worked with Pompeo. Always keep your
friends close and your enemies closer good way to clean up the nest of venomous asps.
Gen Sisi must have made an offer too good to resist. We know the House of Saud will finance it. Are they going to political legitimatize
Hamas, turn Gaza in a statelet ? Perhaps Hamas sees, or is being threaten with the money spigot being turned off ? The only way
to get money will be their share of offshore Natural Gas ? All for Hamas perhaps ? Nothing buys peace faster then lining a whole
lot of pockets. With more money and Airports and a Shipping port, opens dangerous doors. Is Israel ready for that ? How will that
be monitored ? So many damn questions. This may prove more problematic then the status quo, in the long run. Something does have
to be done, the conditions in Gaza are unacceptable.
Excellent analysis. In related news, a week or so ago semi-official Russian Vzglyad made a first media shot across the bow for
Iran in which it stressed that the manner of Iran's "presence" in Syria is a complicating factor.
Russia doesn't want to "dislodge" Iran from Syria but she needs Iran out of the border area with Israel. This is the key to a
new arrangement, including, in the long run, Iran's security.
Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?
First two are important but are not clear and present danger for Russia for a number of reasons. Militarization of space is
more important now. The last point, however, is extremely important because either there will be some kind of new geopolitical
arrangement or we will see probability of a global military conflict grow exponentially.
Iranians do not need to be at the border area. All they need is to deploy their true and tested method of arming Syria with tens
of thousands of precision rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel-Aviv. It worked for North Koreans.
No global peace is in the works.
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars.
Let us hope it be different this time.
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there
was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be
different this time.
It must be different, plus I disagree with historic parallel--two entirely different paradigms both in warfare, geopolitical
balance and media.
Well I certainly wish The Greatest President luck. Who knows, I'm done underestimating the guy.
My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements
in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun &
other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced.
The point of maximum danger appears to be at hand, given your characterization of the Daraa op as "betting the farm". Today's
grant of new powers to the OPCW to apportion blame (designed to side-step the Russian veto at the UNSC) now means this body can
effectively determine casus belli . Let us pray the OPCW will not have reason to exercise its new powers in Syria.
A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to
spike the upcoming Putin summit.
On topic #2. If the SAA isn't feeling it's oats by now, forcing them fight a major battle that culminates a campaign by themselves
would seem to be the ideal way to exorcise any remaining self doubts and engender a lasting esprit de corps. Stupid is what stupid
does... Once these guys finish up in the SW and head east enforce it'll be show time.
The New York Times and Washington Post this week published reports of a
private meeting last month between eight major technology and social media corporations and the
US intelligence agencies, to discuss their censorship operations in the lead-up to the November
2018 mid-term elections.
The meeting was convened at Facebook's Menlo Park, California, headquarters on May 23, and
was attended by representatives from Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Snap, Twitter and Oath,
owner of Yahoo! and a subsidiary of the telecommunications giant Verizon, along with agents
from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
The Post described the meeting, organized at the request of Facebook, as a "new
overture by the technology industry to develop closer ties to law enforcement." Both articles
were based on anonymous statements by individuals who attended. One attendee told the
Post that the conversation was a "back-and-forth, with both sides talking about how
they were thinking about the problem and how we were looking for opportunities to work
together."
The meeting is yet another testament to the increasing integration of the technology giants
with the US military/intelligence apparatus. These companies, which provide a growing share of
the technical infrastructure for the repressive apparatus of the state, increasingly see the
censorship of left-wing, anti-war, and progressive viewpoints as an integral part of their
business strategy.
"... The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century. ..."
"... Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts. ..."
"... However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%. ..."
Credit-Card Wars
Today's War-Financing Strategies Will Only Increase Inequality
By Stephanie
Savell
In the name of the fight against terrorism, the United States is currently waging "
credit-card wars " in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Never before has this
country relied so heavily on deficit spending to pay for its conflicts. The consequences are
expected to be ruinous for the long-term fiscal health of the U.S., but they go far beyond the
economic. Massive levels of war-related debt will have lasting repercussions of all sorts. One
potentially devastating effect, a
new study finds, will be more societal inequality.
In other words, the staggering costs of the longest war in American history -- almost 17
years running, since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 -- are being deferred to the
future. In the process, the government is contributing to this country's skyrocketing income
inequality.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent
$5.6 trillion on its war on terror, according to the Costs of War Project, which I co-direct, at Brown
University's Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs . This is a far higher number than the Pentagon's
$1.5 trillion estimate,
which only counts expenses for what are known as "overseas contingency operations," or OCO --
that is, a pot of supplemental money, outside the regular annual budget, dedicated to funding
wartime operations. The $5.6 trillion figure, on the other hand, includes not just what the
U.S. has spent on overseas military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, but
also portions of Homeland Security spending related to counterterrorism on American soil, and
future obligations to care for wounded or traumatized post-9/11 military veterans. The
financial burden of the post-9/11 wars across the Greater Middle East -- and still
spreading , through Africa and other regions -- is far larger than most Americans
recognize.
During prior wars, the U.S. adjusted its budget accordingly by, among other options, raising
taxes to pay for its conflicts. Not so since 2001, when President George W. Bush launched the
"Global War on Terror." Instead, the country has accumulated a staggering amount of debt. Even
if Washington stopped spending on its wars tomorrow, it will still, thanks to those conflicts,
owe more than
$8 trillion in interest alone by the 2050s.
Putting the Gilded Age to Shame
It's hard to fathom what that enormous level of debt will do to our economy and society. A
new Costs of War study by political scientist and historian Rosella Capella Zielinski
offers initial clues about its impact here. She takes a look at how the U.S. has paid for its
conflicts from the War of 1812 through the two World Wars and Vietnam to the present war on
terror. While a range of taxes, bond sales, and other mechanisms were used to raise funds to
fight such conflicts, no financial strategy has relied so exclusively on borrowing -- until
this century. Her study also explores how each type of war financing has affected inequality
levels in this country in the aftermath of those conflicts.
The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination
of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking
inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels
of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new
Gilded Age , reminiscent
of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of
the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century.
Capella Zielinski carefully breaks down what effects the methods used to pay for various
wars have had on subsequent levels of social inequality. During the Civil War, for example, the
government relied primarily on loans from private donors. After that war was over, the American
people had to pay those loans back with interest, which proved a bonanza for financial elites,
primarily in the North. Those wealthy lenders became wealthier still and everyone else, whose
taxes reimbursed them, poorer.
In contrast, during World War I, the government launched a war-bond campaign that targeted
low-income people. War savings stamps were offered for as little as 25 cents and war savings
certificates in denominations starting at $25. Anyone who could make a small down payment could
buy a war bond for $50 and cover the rest of what was owed in installments. In this way, the
war effort promoted savings and, in its wake, a striking number of low-income Americans were
repaid with interest, decreasing the inequality levels of that era.
Taxation strategies have varied quite significantly in various war periods as well. During
World War II, for instance, the government raised tax rates five times between 1940 and 1944,
levying progressively steeper ones on higher income brackets (up to 65% on incomes over $1
million). As a result, though government debt was substantial in the aftermath of a global
struggle fought on many fronts, the impact on low-income Americans could have been far worse.
In contrast, the Vietnam War era began with a tax cut and, in the aftermath of that disastrous
conflict, the U.S. had to deal with unprecedented levels of inflation. Low-income households
bore the brunt of those higher costs, leading to greater inequality.
Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals
and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in
October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set
of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President
George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and
Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally
alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which
passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream
for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts.
In other words, in this century, Washington has combined the domestic borrowing patterns of
the Civil War with the tax cuts of the Vietnam era. That means one predictable thing: a rise in
inequality in a country in which the income inequality gap is already heading
for record territory.
Just to add to the future burden of it all, this is the first time government wartime
borrowing has relied so heavily on foreign debt. Though there is no way of knowing how this
will affect inequality here in the long run, one thing is already obvious: it will transfer
wealth outside the country.
Economist
Linda Bilmes has
argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars.
In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were
incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been
funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas
Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a
slush fund
that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later
since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be
offset elsewhere in the budget.
According to Bilmes, "This process is less transparent, less accountable, and has rendered
the cost of the wars far less visible." As a measure of the invisible impact of war funding in
Washington and elsewhere, she
calculates that, while the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense discussed war
financing in 79% of its hearings during the Vietnam era, since 9/11, there have been similar
mentions at only 17% of such hearings. For its part, the Senate Finance Committee has discussed
war-funding strategy in a thoroughgoing way only once in almost 17 years.
Hidden Tradeoffs and Deferred Costs
The effect of this century's unprecedented budgetary measures is that, for the most part,
the American people don't feel the financial weight of the wars their government is waging --
or rather, they feel it, but don't recognize it for what it is. This corresponds remarkably
well with the wars themselves, fought by a non-draft
military in distant lands and largely
ignored in this country (at least since the vast public demonstrations against the coming
invasion of Iraq ended in the spring of 2003). The
blowback from those wars, the way they are coming home, has also been ignored, financially
and otherwise.
However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of
their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and
the moneys that go into the expanding
national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else
from infrastructure
investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending
increased by
50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%.
How exactly does this trade-off work? The National
Priorities Project explains it well. Every year the federal government negotiates levels of
discretionary spending (as distinct from mandatory spending, which largely consists of Social
Security and Medicare). In 2001, there were fewer
discretionary funds allocated to defense than to non-defense programs, but the ensuing war on
terror dramatically inflated military spending relative to other parts of the budget. In 2017,
military and national security spending accounted for 53% of discretionary spending. The 2018
congressionally approved omnibus spending package allocates $700 billion for the military and
$591 billion for non-military purposes, leaving that proportion about the same. (Keep in mind,
that those totals don't even include all the money flowing into that Overseas Contingency
Operations fund). President Trump's proposals for future spending, if accepted by Congress,
would ensure that, by 2023, the proportion of military spending would soar to
65% .
In other words, the rise in war-related military expenditures entails losses for other areas
of federal funding. Pick your issue: crumbling bridges, racial justice, housing, healthcare,
education, climate change -- and it's all being affected by how much this country spends on
war.
Nonetheless, thanks to its credit-card version of war financing, the government has
effectively deferred most of the financial costs of its unending conflicts to the future. This,
in turn, contributes to how
detached most Americans tend to feel from the very fact that their country is now eternally
at war. Political scientist and policy analyst Sarah Kreps argues that Americans become
invested in how a war is being conducted only when they're asked to pay for it. In her
examination of the history of the financing of American wars, she
writes , "The visibility and intrusiveness of taxes are exactly what make individuals
scrutinize the service for which the resources are being used." If there were war taxes today,
their unpopularity would undoubtedly lead Americans to question the costs and consequences of
their country's wars in ways now missing from today's public conversation.
Pressing for a real war budget, though, is not only a mechanism to alert Americans to the
effects (on them) of the wars their government is fighting. It is also a potential lever
through which citizens could affect the country's foreign policy and pressure elected
officials to bring those wars to an end. Some civic groups and activists from across the
political spectrum have indeed been pushing to reduce the Pentagon budget, bloated by war,
corruption , and
fear-mongering . They are, however, up against both the power of an ascendant
military-industrial complex and wars that have been organized, in their funding and in so many
other ways, not to be noticed.
Those who care about this country's economic future would be remiss not to include today's
war financing strategy among the country's most urgent fiscal challenges. Anyone interested in
improving American democracy and the well-being of its people should begin by connecting the
budgetary dots. The more money this country spends on military activities, the more public
coffers will be depleted by war-related interest payments and the less public funding there
will be for anything else. In short, it's time for Americans worried about living in a country
whose inequality gap could soon surpass that of the Gilded Age to begin paying real attention
to our " credit-card
wars ."
After Peter Strzok
failed to address the concerns of Republicans by trying to explain away his anti-Trump texts as "just an intimate conversation"
with his mistress (former FBI lawyer Lisa Page) during yesterday's marathon closed-door session, President Trump chimed in this morning
with a tweet claiming that Strzok had been given "poor marks" on the hearing because he "refused to answer many questions."
The president also reaffirmed that there was "no Collusion and the Witch Hunt, headed by 14 Angry Democrats and others who are
totally conflicted, is Rigged!"
The president then turned his attention to the DNC Server, asking once again why the FBI wasn't allowed to closely examine it?
The DNC never furnished an explanation, despite Wikileaks emails revealing that former spy Christopher Steele had once filed a memo
claiming that "
Russian agents within the Democratic party structure itself" were involved with the theft.
This guy. This fucking guy. Still drawing a salary. That's what is incredible here.
The wheels of justice grind slowly and exceedingly fine. As a Marine I sometimes escorted Marines to courts martial hearings.
They were still drawing their pay, still eating in the mess hall, maybe they were sleeping on a bunk in a holding cell. But, they
were still Marines until the sentence was pronounced and any appeals exhausted. Some were still Marines afterwards just a little
poorer and missing some stripes. But, they got what were largely fair hearings for the military. Strzok is going to get his Justice
unless someone a little more impatient splatters his brains all over the sidewalk.
Gregg, yesterday you were raising hell saying the Marines will save the day. I need to tell you and I know it's hard to believe.
There are young Marine social justice warrior communist. I've met them. Not one or two many Marines and Army, vets in general.
So not all of the Marine Corps is right wing conservative. That was the impression you gave and I didn't have time to add the
data of the Marines that I've met who are in the activist movement of the social justice warrior communist. This is a generational
issue, our generation is in conflict with their generation.
I don't blame them because of the high level of corruption in this nation, perhaps the shock of 9/11 being a fraud, I don't
know, but I noticed this back in 2010.
The 9/11 event had a big impact on many young peoples mind, the trust of government issue is big.
And another anecdotal is a young 82nd Airborne soldier who kept asking me at work about what was behind the curtain, like one
world government etc. he wanted to know everything, so young people are not following the line of reasoning we followed and MSM
parrots.
Yes, prior service older vets like you are important to us, but I want to make sure you understand, just because someone is
a Marine or 82nd soldier doesn't mean they're politically reliable for our way of thinking. That's concerning when five police
officer were killed and many wounded in Dallas by a radicalized vet.
That's the danger, and we think the army of vets in this nation will automatically side with us in a race/civil war. The military
skills demonstrated in Dallas was a warning of things to come. The other component, the number of vets still killing themselves
each day is around 30-40 and suicide is increasing, not decreasing in the overall population.
So much for the idea that Strzok is co-operating with the investigation. It's pretty clear that he isn't and that this whole
meme that Priestap, Page, et al are co-operating witnesses is pretty much bullshit, unfortunately.
PS "Texts taken out of context"
PS "While emotional over the election, I conduct myself w/ upmost integrity w/o bias while undertaking any such investigation,
especially a high-profile case against the POTUS."
PS "In hindsight, it was a bad idea to openly discuss my feelings, but, in no way did those feelings impact my ability to conduct
a fair and proper investigation - we followed where the "facts" took us."
PS "I decline to answer that question on advice from counsel."
: When you state "where 'facts' led us" - what 'facts' are you referring to? To date, there has been zero evidence of any such
collusion or connections between the Trump campaign and Russia." In fact, the only facts discovered thus far have been between
the Clinton camp and Russia and other foreign groups ."
PS "On advice of counsel, I decline to answer that question"
PS "Because of the ongoing investigation, such answers may violate the security of such investigations ."
: "Mr S, I believe nobody here is buying what you are selling. I believe there was/is a serious effort on the part of people more
senior than you to remove Mr Trump from office out of fear of what this Administration may uncover. I believe you are being dishonest
in your answers and frankly shocked you agreed to come here today. I believe everyone on this panel (minus those from the other
side of the aisle) knew exactly what your answers would be and if you think we are going to sit here and accept these answers
you would be a foolish. We are also following the facts and once we uncover more (which we will) we will act accordingly. I'm
glad you retained counsel - you'll need one and hopefully they are very good."
.
A more constructive new on neocons is as well-paid MIC lobbyists. The fact that many Jews
are talented lobbyists can explain the concentration of this particular nationality far better,
although initially neocons really were mostly turn coat Trotskyites.
The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world
superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership
by force if necessary.
Sounds very similar to another nation that rules over the USA and uses our military for
their private merc army, Israel, who claims they have a divine right to Palestine and can
kill as many Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians as they want.
After all, their G-d declared them to be his pet project and you don't want to go against
G-d, do you?
Not all Jews are neocons, but damn near every neocon is a Jew.
Irving Krystol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism," is just one example. If you search
YouTube you can find a Brian Lamb Booknotes episode where he interviews Krystol about this
book, "Neoconservatism; an Autobiography."
He admits in this interview, as well as in the book, that he and most of the early neocons
were former Trotskyites.
The first generation of neocons -- Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, Gertrude
Himmelfarb, etc. Maybe Norman Podhoretz, but he was always more of a 'main chance' guy.
The rallying cry of world revolution has filtered down after a fashion to their heirs.
It's still all war all the time. And at the end of the day, when the wars have subdued the
planet, who will be chosen to grasp the reins of world government? One guess.
It was and is Jewish and Zionist at its core, without any question.
Wilton was a highly respected journalist whose claims seem to be reflexted in statements
by various, and equally maligned/suppressed writers of the time.
It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They
used to trumpet it, though.
There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals themselves celebrating
their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, et al were
communists.
Moreover, they were communists of the international revolution variety–the flavor
known as Trotskyism.
Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times,
titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:"
"I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was
the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth
International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not
"Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we
called them, of the day)"
Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of
neocons:
On the one hand, it has lately become common to hide the Judaism of various figures; 'I
wonder if he's Jewish' can turn into quite a hunt.
On the other hand, some parties seem to label all and sundry as 'Jews.'
Speaking for myself, I wish I just didn't care. Certainly as of twenty years ago, I could
have honestly said I didn't. However, Israel and the fact of our support for her, and the
fact that most Jews ultimately support Israel to one degree or another, make the question
relevant.
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the
part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to the Jewish fear that
the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a piece in the Washington
Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on
ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European
Communism.
The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues,
since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically
incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist
parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again
subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they
aren't too keen on Catholicism either.
It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be
mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal
Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism. I hope this taboo is
successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as the
only Christian power left in the world.
"... The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails. ..."
"... If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data. ..."
"... Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out. ..."
Did Sen. Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate? June 27, 2018 •
68 Comments
The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey
ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the
DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News
An explosive
report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday's edition of
The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director
James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing "technical
evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]" in the controversial leak of Democratic
Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials
would have given Assange "limited immunity" to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit
through redactions "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," according
to Solomon, who cited "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate
investigators." Solomon even provided a
copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.
But Comey's intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal,
Solomon says, quoting "multiple sources." With the prospective agreement thrown into serious
doubt, Assange "unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare
capabilities for a long time to come." These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA
Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service."
Solomon's report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on
Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.
Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter
Erichsen)
The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it
came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did
not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as
saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not
WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails.
If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a
cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk,
rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC
leak.
The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence
that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.
Missteps and Stand Down
In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange's pro
bono attorney who acted as the intermediary in the talks, asked Warner if the Senate
Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other
issues. Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner's stoking of Russia-gate.
Warner contacted Comey and, invoking his name, instructed Waldman to "stand down and end the
discussions with Assange," Waldman told Solomon. The "stand down" instruction "did happen,"
according to another of Solomon's sources with good access to Warner. However, Waldman's
counterpart attorney David Laufman , an accomplished federal prosecutor picked by the
Justice Departent to work the government side of the CIA-Assange fledgling deal, told Waldman,
"That's B.S. You're not standing down, and neither am I."
But the damage had been done. When word of the original stand-down order reached WikiLeaks,
trust evaporated, putting an end to two months of what Waldman called "constructive, principled
discussions that included the Department of Justice."
The two sides had come within inches of sealing the deal. Writing to Laufman on March 28,
2017, Waldman gave him Assange's offer to discuss "risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA
documents in WikiLeaks' possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in
hostile jurisdictions," in return for "an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement."
On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that
point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA
files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into
computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving
so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the
"Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.
Misfeasance or Malfeasance
Comey: Ordered an end to talks with Assange.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former
Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called
attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked -- not "hacked" by Russia or
anyone else (and, later, our suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to
speak).
In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI
Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the
so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its
key
findings with supporting data.
Two month later , VIPS published the results of
follow-up experiments conducted to test the conclusions reached in July.
Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers
in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers?
(Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than
an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out.
Asked on January 10, 2017 by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-NC) whether
direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation,
Comey replied
: "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server
that's involved, so it's the best evidence."
At that point, Burr and Warner let Comey down easy. Hence, it should come as no surprise
that, according to one of John Solomon's sources, Sen. Warner (who is co-chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee) kept Sen. Burr apprised of his intervention into the negotiation with
Assange, leading to its collapse.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA
analyst for a total of 30 years and prepared and briefed, one-on-one, the President's Daily
Brief from 1981 to 1985.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
This is a very superficial view. Israeli interests are taken into account as long as they are
coincide with interests of military-industrial complex and the Us imperial/neoliberal foreign
policy agenda. There is some flexibility, of course, and Israel might be able in certain cases do
push more, but for example to say that invasion of Iraq was done due to Israeli lobbying would be
inaccurate. yes neocons in the US government were active, but that main reason was access to oil
which considered with Israeli geopolitical ambitions in the region.
One might well think that the only serious foreign policy imperative of the Donald Trump
administration is to defend Israel. A president elected because he promised to put United
States' interests first has turned out to be little different than his predecessors, bowing to
the power of various lobbies and constituencies to carry out their wishes while simultaneously
pretending to be serving poorly defined policies to promote the security and well-being of the
American people.
Israel possesses, to be sure, the most powerful foreign policy lobby operating not only in
the United States but as well in Western Europe and Australasia. When Israel makes its
incessant demands, politicians from Washington to Canberra and Wellington pause to listen. In
Britain, fully 80% of Conservative parliamentarians are members of the Conservative Friends of
Israel.
Israel benefits from a large, influential and wealthy community of diaspora Jews that is
willing to do its bidding and which also possesses easy access to the media and to politicians,
many of whom are more than willing to be corrupted by money. This has led to the creation of an
"Israeli narrative," most particularly in the United States, which glamorizes the state of
Israel through the incessant reiteration of expressions like "the only democracy in the Middle
East" and "America's best friend and closest ally," both of which assertions are completely
false.
It should surprise no one that the Trump administration is packed with Israel-firsters from
top to bottom. Those who deal with Israel directly – Ambassador David Friedman, Chief
Middle East Negotiator Jason Greenblatt, and Special Envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner are all
Orthodox Jews with long standing ties to Israel and its leadership. They are major financial
supporters of Israeli "charities," to include projects on the occupied West Bank, which are
both illegal under international law and contrary to long established U.S. policy. It would
seem, without being too hyperbolic, that Israeli interests are at least as important to them as
are the American interests that they ostensibly represent and are being paid by the taxpayer to
support.
Within the White House, there is virtually no pushback against Israeli pretensions even when
American interests are being damaged. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly voiced his
support of the Jewish state and his animosity towards that state's enemy of choice Iran.
National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time neoconservative, has never distanced himself
in any way from complete identification with the policies being promoted by Israel and its
increasingly right wing and racist governments. Donald Trump himself has declared that he will
be the best president for Israel ever, a pledge that he has worked to honor by moving the U.S.
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in spite of the damage that it does to actual regional
American interests.
But the most vocal advocate for Israel within the Administration is Nikki Haley, U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, who has consistently taken the hardest of all possible lines
against Israel's claimed enemies while also fully endorsing the most brutal actions undertaken
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Haley's most recent action reveals that
the United States has truly lost its sense of direction and moral compass. If one were
religious, it might be suggested that it has lost its soul.
Haley's most recent foray into her own style of what she might refer to as statesmanship
came on June 1 st . Kuwait had brought a resolution to the United Nations Security
Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to help protect the people of Gaza, who were
being bombed, gassed and shot dead by Israeli Army sniper fire. Nikki Haley, however, was
thinking of something quite different, a resolution she had drafted to denounce Hamas for the
alleged volleys of rockets that were launched into adjacent Israeli controlled areas in
response to the Israeli gunfire and bombings. Votes on the two resolutions followed,
with Haley failing to obtain any votes on her resolution except her own.
Haley again voted alone when she vetoed the Kuwaiti resolution to protect the Palestinian
people. And it was not Haley's first such bit of unilateralism. She had
walked out of a previous Security Council meeting on Israel's killing of Palestinian
protesters as a deliberate insult to their representative who had risen to begin to speak.
Haley unfortunately represents America. America the home of the free and brave?
Bullshit.
Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent removed from Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's Russia investigation over anti-Trump bias, appeared before a closed door session in
front of two House committees on Wednesday, where he tried to explain anti-Trump text exchanges
with his FBI mistress as " Just an intimate conversation between intimate friends, "
according to Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee , quoting Strzok's description of the
controversial messages.
While Jackson Lee gladly accepted Strzok's answer, Republican Mark
Meadows of North Carolina wasn't buying it:
While Jackson Lee said she believed Strzok's account that his "intimate" messages didn't
reflect political bias in his work, Republican Representative Mark Meadows said, " None of my
concerns about political bias have been alleviated based on what I've heard so far ." -
Bloomberg
" If you have intimate personal conversations between two people, that normally would show
the intent more so than perhaps something that would be said out in public ," said Meadows.
Meadows said that some of the questions on Wednesday revolved around "who knew what when -
and what was the genesis of the Russia collusion investigation," into Trump's campaign.
Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL) wasn't buying it either, as Sara Carter details : "
It was a waste -- Strzok is full of it and he kept hiding behind [the] classified information
excuse."
Others had similarly disappointed reactions: Freedom Caucus & Judiciary Committee
member, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) attended today's deposition and reacted to Strzok's testimony,
telling the Sean Hannity Radio Show, that " I am shocked at the lack of curiosity with Robert
Mueller. I mean Sean, if you were in Mueller's shoes, and you had found these text messages, I
would think that you would want to ask whether or not they impacted the investigative decisions
that were made, whether there was bias, whether there was contact with other members of the FBI
regarding the investigation and where it was going and who was making the critical judgment
calls," the Florida Congressman said. " I just cannot believe the lack of curiosity on the part
of Robert Mueller. It was the strongest reaction I had today from Peter Strzok's
testimony."
* * *
Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page - known as the FBI "lovebirds" - harbored extreme
political bias for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump while actively involved in cases
against each candidate during the 2016 US election.
Their raging hatred of Donald Trump was discovered in a trove of over 50,000 texts between
Strzok and Page which were discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. While Strzok
was relegated to the HR department and marched out of his FBI office in mid-June, Page
tendered her resignation in May.
In one of the most controversial text exchanges - perhaps because the DOJ withheld it until
it came to light in the Inspector Genera's report, Page asks Strzok whether Trump will ever
become President:
Page: "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it. "
After the Inspector Genera's report came out in mid-June, President Trump tweeted: "The IG
Report totally destroys James Comey and all of his minions including the great lovers, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful Witch Hunt against so many innocent
people."
The Judiciary Committee will be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI
Director Christopher Wray on Thursday to discuss the OIG report. Moreover, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan
of Ohio is expected to bring a House floor vote demanding that the DOJ turn over documents.
Also Thursday, a Republican resolution demanding that Rosenstein and the Justice
Department turn over more internal documents is expected to be brought to the House floor for
a vote. It will be a test of how widely Republicans back the push by party conservatives to
probe inner workings of the FBI and Justice Department and cast doubt on the legitimacy of
the continuing Russia probe. -
Bloomberg
"All we are asking for are documents we deserve to get -- and they are giving us the
finger," said Jordan.
Meanwhile, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to protest Jordan's
resolution on "emergency bias," as they say that it shows the committee "has been hijacked by
its most extreme majority members at the expense of upholding longstanding committee rules and
minority rights."
It was not exactly clear how Congress asking the DOJ to see documents related to a massive
political scandal constitute a hijacking.
No one ever mentions how fucking stupid the FBI idiots must be to have ever text this
stupidity with each other. These people are overpaid clowns. Get rid of them ALL.
"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions
to emigrate is overlooked is wars.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial
wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness
of the trade union and solidarity movements.
We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to
the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.
Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration
The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood,
housing and communities and undermining there security.
As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries
would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.
Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor
to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.
Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the
West.
Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the
Gulf states and Iran.
Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship
and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of
Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed
toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.
The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee
across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant
parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class
turned anti-immigrant.
Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and
the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.
Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and
civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.
Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America
US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 –
2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by
spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists
were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.
The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.
US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama
and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and
wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants
to the US.
The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage
maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US
'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military
aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.
The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human
rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or
across the border.
US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health
insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.
Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants
into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.
Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living
standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.
Conclusion
Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran
President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington
and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.
The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international
law.
To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client
terrorists.
ORDER IT NOW
Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets
and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led
to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion
of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.
The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the
midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather
than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace
and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout
the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among
popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical
social democracy.
No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring
collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George
Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to
Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he'd heard about such dirt but
never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime,
they reek of entrapment
Mueller's
Fruit of the Poisonous TreeIt makes no difference how honorable he is. His
investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016. By David B. Rivkin
Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley June 22, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET Special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias.
The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, unearthed
a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Some of their communications, the report says, were "not only indicative of a biased state of
mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral
prospects." Although Mr. Horowitz could not...
This is a very superficial view. Israeli interests are taken into account as long as they are
coincide with interests of military-industrial complex and the Us imperial/neoliberal foreign
policy agenda. There is some flexibility, of course, and Israel might be able in certain cases do
push more, but for example to say that invasion of Iraq was done due to Israeli lobbying would be
inaccurate. yes neocons in the US government were active, but that main reason was access to oil
which considered with Israeli geopolitical ambitions in the region.
One might well think that the only serious foreign policy imperative of the Donald Trump
administration is to defend Israel. A president elected because he promised to put United
States' interests first has turned out to be little different than his predecessors, bowing to
the power of various lobbies and constituencies to carry out their wishes while simultaneously
pretending to be serving poorly defined policies to promote the security and well-being of the
American people.
Israel possesses, to be sure, the most powerful foreign policy lobby operating not only in
the United States but as well in Western Europe and Australasia. When Israel makes its
incessant demands, politicians from Washington to Canberra and Wellington pause to listen. In
Britain, fully 80% of Conservative parliamentarians are members of the Conservative Friends of
Israel.
Israel benefits from a large, influential and wealthy community of diaspora Jews that is
willing to do its bidding and which also possesses easy access to the media and to politicians,
many of whom are more than willing to be corrupted by money. This has led to the creation of an
"Israeli narrative," most particularly in the United States, which glamorizes the state of
Israel through the incessant reiteration of expressions like "the only democracy in the Middle
East" and "America's best friend and closest ally," both of which assertions are completely
false.
It should surprise no one that the Trump administration is packed with Israel-firsters from
top to bottom. Those who deal with Israel directly – Ambassador David Friedman, Chief
Middle East Negotiator Jason Greenblatt, and Special Envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner are all
Orthodox Jews with long standing ties to Israel and its leadership. They are major financial
supporters of Israeli "charities," to include projects on the occupied West Bank, which are
both illegal under international law and contrary to long established U.S. policy. It would
seem, without being too hyperbolic, that Israeli interests are at least as important to them as
are the American interests that they ostensibly represent and are being paid by the taxpayer to
support.
Within the White House, there is virtually no pushback against Israeli pretensions even when
American interests are being damaged. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly voiced his
support of the Jewish state and his animosity towards that state's enemy of choice Iran.
National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time neoconservative, has never distanced himself
in any way from complete identification with the policies being promoted by Israel and its
increasingly right wing and racist governments. Donald Trump himself has declared that he will
be the best president for Israel ever, a pledge that he has worked to honor by moving the U.S.
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in spite of the damage that it does to actual regional
American interests.
But the most vocal advocate for Israel within the Administration is Nikki Haley, U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations, who has consistently taken the hardest of all possible lines
against Israel's claimed enemies while also fully endorsing the most brutal actions undertaken
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Haley's most recent action reveals that
the United States has truly lost its sense of direction and moral compass. If one were
religious, it might be suggested that it has lost its soul.
Haley's most recent foray into her own style of what she might refer to as statesmanship
came on June 1 st . Kuwait had brought a resolution to the United Nations Security
Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to help protect the people of Gaza, who were
being bombed, gassed and shot dead by Israeli Army sniper fire. Nikki Haley, however, was
thinking of something quite different, a resolution she had drafted to denounce Hamas for the
alleged volleys of rockets that were launched into adjacent Israeli controlled areas in
response to the Israeli gunfire and bombings. Votes on the two resolutions followed,
with Haley failing to obtain any votes on her resolution except her own.
Haley again voted alone when she vetoed the Kuwaiti resolution to protect the Palestinian
people. And it was not Haley's first such bit of unilateralism. She had
walked out of a previous Security Council meeting on Israel's killing of Palestinian
protesters as a deliberate insult to their representative who had risen to begin to speak.
Haley unfortunately represents America. America the home of the free and brave?
Bullshit.
I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the
various western Trot. groups at the time.
It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it
was only of claimed affilliates to the nonsenical 'Fourth Internatiaoal'.
Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and
Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they
ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.
Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU,
cabinets in many European nations, etc.
Even without that, the chart and attached notes are bizarre enough.
The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among
themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not
understanding the content at all.
Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are
like those of the worst cult religionists.
I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundrd metres from my
house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until
recently. no more. I would buy it at times.
Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the
national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for
such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and
sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.
I thought that perhaps I had tuned into John Oliver or to Saturday Night Live in error, but
no doubt about it, there was an unmistakable President Donald Trump speaking before an audience
at the National Space Council. He was saying that on his own presidential authority "I'm hereby
directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to
establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. We are going to have the Air
Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal."
Before signing Space Policy Directive 3 mandating the change and abruptly departing, Trump
went on to explain that "My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's
greatest space-faring nation. The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons
and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national
identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American
presence in space. We must have American dominance in space."
The Air Force, which already has a Space Command, will no doubt object to the new
arrangement, preferring instead to roll the expanded responsibilities and money into its
already existing framework. Secretary of Defense James Mattis is also reported to be against
the expansion, explaining in a speech last year that "The creation of an independent Space
Corps, with the corresponding institutional growth and budget implications, does not address
our nation's fiscal problems in a responsive manner."
And Donald Trump will have to get over a couple of bureaucratic hurdles to get his nifty new
interstellar command up and running. First of all, it will require an Act of Congress to create
a new branch of the military. That might not be difficult to do as the expansion is being
packaged as "national security," which Republicans will support reflexively and Democrats will
also get behind not wanting to appear weak before the elections in November. And both parties
will also be willing to line up to benefit from the political contributions coming from defense
contractors as well as the creation of new military support facilities providing jobs in
congressional districts.
And then there is the money, alluded to by Mattis. Start-up funding a new, coequal military
branch would mean a huge increase in the defense budget. As long as the dollar remains the
world's reserve currency and the treasury can print money without any real backing it is
possible to ride the wave, but there are currently significant challenges to the dollars
survival in that role. If its supremacy ends, there goes the economy taking the unrestrained
government spending with it and sinking the Space Command together with much, much more.
Major defense contractors, all of whom were present to hear Trump's speech, were immediately
seen to be drooling over the prospect of a new cash cow. And at the Pentagon champagne corks
were popping at the thought of a couple of hundred new flag officer positions that will have to
be invented and filled as well as the full complement of civilians to staff the bureaucracy.
And think of the uniforms that will have to be distinct from those used by the other branches
of the service, maybe copying those formerly in vogue on the Starship Enterprise or as seen in
the movie Starship Troopers.
The reality is that the United States does indeed have a major national security interest in
protecting its network of satellites in orbit as well as related infrastructure, but there is
still quite a lot in the Trump remarks that is disturbing. Trump is basically saying two
things. The first is that he will be weaponizing outer space and the second is that he is doing
so because he intends for the United States to become dominant in that domain. It is a complete
ass-backwards approach to the problem of potential development of threats coming from beyond
the atmosphere. Instead of arming outer space, Washington should be working with other
countries that have capabilities in that region to demilitarize exploration and both commercial
and government exploitation. Everyone has an interest in not allowing outer space to become the
next site for an arms race, though admittedly working with other countries does not appear to
be something that the Trump Administration enters into lightly. Or at all.
And Trump should also abandon his insistence that the United States develop "dominance" in
space. The use of such language is a red flag that will make any agreement with countries like
Russia and China impossible to achieve. It virtually guarantees that there will be a
competition among a number of nations to develop and deploy killer satellites employing lasers
and other advanced electronic jamming technologies to protect their own outer space
infrastructure.
Trump appears to have internalized a viewpoint that sees the United States as surrounded by
threats but able to emerge victorious by being hyper-aggressive on all fronts. It is a posture
that might unnerve opponents and bring some success in the short term but which ultimately will
create a genuine threat as the rest of the world lines up against Washington. That day might be
coming if one goes by the reaction to recent U.S. votes in the United Nations and Trump's
behavior at G-7 are anything to go by.
No one in his right mind would allow Trump to dominate outer space based on Washington's
track record of irresponsible leadership since 9/11. It has wrecked the Middle East, South Asia
and North Africa, killing possibly as many as 4 million Muslims in so doing. It has bullied
allies into joining its projects in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while also
disparaging foreign governments and entering into trade wars. It has bankrupted itself in all
but name, systematically dismantled the rights of its own citizens, and has become a rogue
nation by virtually every measure.
And when you have firmly established the principle that might makes right and all the
universe is at the disposal of Washington, what comes next? Antarctica and the arctic region
are by some accounts rich in natural resources. Will we Americans be seeing an Antarctic
Command with a mandate to dominate the polar regions to enhance national security? Stay
tuned.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
"... The adage from the past that everyone could relate to -- "A nuclear war cannot be unleashed, because there will be no winners" -- is now absent from the political statements that are being heard. It is clear that forces have taken the upper hand on Capitol Hill that are still incapable of imagining the consequences of a nuclear Armageddon. Such a path, even if this scenario proves unlikely, will inevitably lead to a potential undermining of the already fragile non-proliferation regime and a breakdown in the negotiations on establishing control over nuclear facilities, which -- and this is not news -- very few countries are taking part in at the present time. ..."
"... For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by Washington, in the interests of preserving global stability. In order to achieve this goal, the strategic guidelines for inflicting a first "preemptive and preventive" nuclear strike, as well as the continuing premise of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which have remained unchanged since 1945, must be completely eliminated from American nuclear strategies. ..."
It seems odd that the US still does not understand the basic tenets
of Russia's nuclear posture. And it must be said that this is not the first time that Western
analysts have taken such an unprofessional approach. This has become especially glaring in the
run-up to the next NATO summit, which will take place July 11-12 in Brussels.
On the other hand, the
newest US nuclear doctrine , which was approved last February, specifies 14 justifications
for the use of nuclear weapons, including "low-yield" warheads, which is how US arms experts
classify nuclear warheads of 5.0-6.5 kilotons and below. These are precisely the sea- and
air-launched warheads the Pentagon intends to utilize in accordance with its new concept of
"escalating to de-escalate." Under that theory, low-yield nuclear warheads can be employed by
US nuclear forces on an increasing scale in a variety of regional conflicts, with the aim of
"de-escalating" them, which might be accomplished with the help of a nuclear first strike.
This practice could cause a chain reaction in the use of nuclear weapons, involving not only
"low-yield" warheads, but also more powerful nuclear explosives.
The practice being described -- the potential use of low-yield nuclear weapons, which is a
real fixation for the current US administration and is being discussed with increasing
frequency in the US -- suggests that America's military and political leaders are committed to
dramatically lowering the minimum threshold for their use and expanding the list of acceptable
reasons to utilize them under real-world conditions.
The adage from the past that everyone could relate to -- "A nuclear war cannot be unleashed,
because there will be no winners" -- is now absent from the political statements that are being
heard. It is clear that forces have taken the upper hand on Capitol Hill that are still
incapable of imagining the consequences of a nuclear Armageddon. Such a path, even if this
scenario proves unlikely, will inevitably lead to a potential undermining of the already
fragile non-proliferation regime and a breakdown in the negotiations on establishing control
over nuclear facilities, which -- and this is not news -- very few countries are taking part in
at the present time.
For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by
Washington, in the interests of preserving global stability. In order to achieve this goal, the
strategic guidelines for inflicting a first "preemptive and preventive" nuclear strike, as well
as the continuing premise of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which have remained
unchanged since 1945, must be completely eliminated from American nuclear strategies.
These are not ultimatums, as someone defending US nuclear policy has already tried to
portray them. This is a completely natural, logical, and sensible step, which would no doubt be
positively received all over the world.
That is what it's all about. MIC Oligarchs getting rich. Vietnam was a business not a war.
The MIC insiders made a fortune off that fake war.
For all these reasons, a dangerous future practice like this needs to be reexamined by
Washington, in the interests of preserving global instability. That instability keeps murican
arms dealers in business.
Empire doesn't like sovereign countries. Brits still have that empire mentality, the upper
crust's shit don't stink.
It's neocon hubris. They are desperate to nuke someone. Of course the counter strategy is
very simple; escalate to the brink and leave Washington with 2 choices: BTFO or die. These
people are stupid and will eventually get us all killed for nothing.
I'm wondering whether he may have been posing as a heroic whistleblower for all these years
when the whole time the Pentagon Papers were extremely useful for the CIA in hiding their drug
smuggling operation in Southeast Asia and for the FBI hiding COINTELPRO while also bringing
down Nixon. And whether he could since be using his status to befriend all these whistlebowers,
who he would then have great influence over (eg. Kirakou, Snowden both love him, Freedom of the
Press Foundation) . And the surely CIA-sponsored film The Post, which minimised the journalism
done by the NYT, and hugely backed the WaPo. With their new "democracy dies in darkness" slogan
it seems like they're honeytrapping whistleblowers like The Intercept with Reality Winner etc,
while simultaneously bigging up Ellsberg as a hero.
which removes a reference to Ellsberg's high security clearance after serving in Vietnam, at
the RAND corporation, for the given reason: "Ellsberg says he didn't have a high security
clearance while in Vietnam: I can't find explicit support for it in the citation".
But the removed part wasn't talking about when he was in Vietnam.
which removes a comment about Ellsberg being at the Gulf of Tonkin, reporting the incident
to McNamara, because:
"Ellsberg says this isn't true (and it should probably come out regardless -- if it's only
worth a parenthetical it's probably not sufficiently notable/interesting to be in the
article".
But in Ellsberg's own memoir he writes about the incident, and how he was the first to
receive the cable from the courier about the Gulf of Tonkin:
It all seems very suspicious to me and I think it could use some more attention, Valentine
is incredibly knowledgeable about the CIA and I think he makes a good case.
An excellent even headed analysis of events and major hypothesis about the assassination.
Remarkable conclusion: " So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely
fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from
the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have
lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of 'Our American Pravda.' "
Notable quotes:
"... As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. ..."
"... Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media. ..."
"... Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. ..."
"... While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. ..."
"... A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened? ..."
"... While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president ..."
"... On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination. ..."
"... Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act. ..."
"... As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary. ..."
"... Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide. ..."
"... An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. ..."
"... if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace. ..."
"... If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce. ..."
"... Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up. ..."
"... A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so. ..."
"... Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago. ..."
"... The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. ..."
"... So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda." ..."
A strong dam may hold back an immense quantity of water, but once it breaks the resulting
flood may sweep aside everything in its path. I had spent nearly my entire life never doubting
that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy nor that a
different lone gunman took the life of his younger brother Robert a few years later. Once
I came to
accept that these were merely fairy tales widely disbelieved by many of the same political
elites who publicly maintained them, I began considering other aspects of this important
history, the most obvious being who was behind the conspiracy and what were their motives.
On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of
nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm
conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high
likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our
exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious
speculation.
From such a considerable distance in time, a bird's-eye view may be a reasonable starting
point, allowing us to focus on the few elements of the apparent conspiracy that seem reasonably
well established. The most basic of these is the background of the individuals who appear to
have been associated with the assassination, and the recent books by David Talbot and James W.
Douglass effectively summarize much of the evidence accumulated over the decades by an army of
diligent assassination researchers. Most of the apparent conspirators seem to have had strong
ties to organized crime, the CIA, or various anti-Castro activist groups, with considerable
overlap across these categories. Oswald himself certainly fit this same profile although he was
very likely the mere "patsy" that he claimed to be, as did Jack Ruby, the man who quickly
silenced him and whose ties to the criminal underworld were long and extensive.
ORDER IT NOW
An unusual chain of events provided some of the strongest evidence of CIA involvement.
Victor Marchetti, a career CIA officer, had risen to become Special Assistant to the Deputy
Director, a position of some importance, before resigning in 1969 over policy differences.
Although he fought a long battle with government censors over his book, The CIA and the Cult
of Intelligence , he retained close ties with many former agency colleagues.
During the 1970s, the revelations of the Senate Church Committee and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations had subjected the CIA to a great deal of negative public scrutiny,
and there were growing suspicions of possible CIA links to JFK's assassination. In 1978
longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with
an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the
assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a
former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue
agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues. Marchetti published the resulting
story in The Spotlight , a weekly national tabloid newspaper operated by Liberty Lobby,
a rightwing populist organization based in DC. Although almost totally shunned by the
mainstream media, The Spotlight was then at the peak of its influence, having almost
400,000 subscribers, as large a readership as the combined total of The New Republic ,
The Nation , and National Review .
Marchetti's article suggested that Hunt had actually been in Dallas during the
assassination, resulting in a libel lawsuit with potential damages large enough to bankrupt the
publication. Longtime JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane became aware of the situation and
volunteered his services to Liberty Lobby, hoping to use the legal proceedings, including the
discovery process and subpoena power, as a means of securing additional evidence on the
assassination, and after various court rulings and appeals, the case finally came to trial in
1985.
ORDER IT NOW
As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy
generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt,
but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in
the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her
role had been strictly peripheral. And although Hunt continued for decades to totally deny
any connection with the assassination, near the end of his life he made a series of video-taped
interviews in which he admitted that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination and
named several of the other conspirators, while also maintaining that his own role had been
merely peripheral. Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007
Rolling Stonearticle
and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely
ignored by the media.
Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups,
had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate
Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards
President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and
afterward. Therefore, there is a natural tendency to regard such animosity as the central
factor behind the assassination, a perspective generally followed by Talbot, Douglass, and
numerous other writers. They conclude that Kennedy died at the hands of harder-line
anti-Communists, outraged over his perceived weakness regarding Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam,
sentiments that were certainly widespread within right-wing political circles at the height of
the Cold War.
While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from
certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events
were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set
matters into motion had different motives. So long as all the conspirators were agreed on
Kennedy's elimination, there was no need for an absolute uniformity of motive. Indeed, men who
had long been involved in organized crime or clandestine intelligence operations were surely
experienced in operational secrecy, and many of them may not have expected to know the
identities, let alone the precise motives, of the men at the very top of the remarkable
operation they were undertaking.
We must also sharply distinguish between the involvement of particular individuals and the
involvement of an organization as an organization. For example, CIA Director John McCone was a
Kennedy loyalist who had been appointed to clean house a couple of years before the
assassination, and he surely was innocent of his patron's death. On the other hand, the very
considerable evidence that numerous individual CIA intelligence officers and operatives
participated in the action has naturally raised suspicions that some among their
highest-ranking superiors were involved as well, perhaps even as the principal organizers of
the conspiracy.
These reasonable speculations may have been magnified by elements of personal bias. Many of
the prominent authors who have investigated the JFK assassination in recent years have been
staunch liberals, and may have allowed their ideology to cloud their judgment. They often seek
to locate the organizers of Kennedy's elimination among those rightwing figures whom they most
dislike, even when the case is far from entirely plausible.
But consider the supposed motives of hard-line anti-Communists near the top of the national
security hierarchy who supposedly may have organized Kennedy's elimination because he backed
away from a full military solution in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis incidents. Were
they really so absolutely sure that a President Johnson would be such an enormous improvement
as to risk their lives and public standing to organize a full conspiracy to assassinate an
American president?
A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on
Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his
margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks
might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him
with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the
militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so
desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened?
ORDER IT NOW
Based on extremely circumstantial evidence, Talbot's 2015 book The Devil's Chessboard
, something of a sequel to Brothers , suggests that former longtime CIA Director Allan
Dulles may have been the likely mastermind, with his motive being a mixture of his extreme Cold
Warrior views and his personal anger at his 1961 dismissal from his position.
While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a
seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a
brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft
of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media,
and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including
his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's
duly-elected president , an unprecedented act utterly different in nature than trying to
unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests? Surely, using his
extensive media and intelligence contacts to leak embarrassing disclosures about JFK's
notorious sexual escapades during the forthcoming presidential campaign would have been be a
much safer means of attempting to achieve an equivalent result. And the same is true for J.
Edgar Hoover and many of the other powerful Washington figures who hated Kennedy for similar
reasons.
On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness
of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And
once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been
extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a
role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But
such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential
assassination.
Just as with the hard-line national security establishment, many organized crime leaders had
grown outraged over the actions of the Kennedy Administration. During the late 1950s, Robert
Kennedy had intensely targeted the mob for prosecution as chief counsel to the Senate Labor
Rackets Committee. But during the 1960 election, family patriarch Joseph Kennedy used his own
longstanding mafia connections to enlist their support for his older son's presidential
campaign, and by all accounts the votes stolen by the corrupt mob-dominated political machines
in Chicago and elsewhere helped put JFK in the White House, along with Robert Kennedy as his
Attorney General. Frank Sinatra, an enthusiastic Kennedy supporter, had also helped facilitate
this arrangement by using his influence with skeptical mob leaders.
However, instead of repaying such crucial election support with political favors, Attorney
General Robert Kennedy, perhaps ignorant of any bargain, soon unleashed an all-out war against
organized crime, far more serious than anything previously mounted at the federal level, and
the crime bosses regarded this as a back-stabbing betrayal by the new administration. Once
Joseph Kennedy was felled by an incapacitating stroke in late 1961, they also lost any hope
that he would use his influence to enforce the deals he had struck the previous year. FBI
wiretaps reveal that mafia leader Sam Giancana decided to have Sinatra killed for his role in
this failed bargain, only sparing the singer's life when he considered how much he personally
loved the voice of one of the most famous Italian-Americans of the 20th century.
These organized crime leaders and some of their close associates such as Teamster boss Jimmy
Hoffa certainly developed a bitter hatred toward the Kennedys, and this has naturally led some
authors to point to the mafia as the likely organizers of the assassination, but I find this
quite unlikely. For many decades, American crime bosses had had a complex and varied
relationship with political figures, who might sometimes be their allies and at other times
their persecutors, and surely there must have been many betrayals over the years. However, I am
not aware of a single case in which any even moderately prominent political figure on the
national stage was ever targeted for assassination, and it seems quite unlikely that the sole
exception would be a popular president, whom they would have likely regarded as being
completely out of their league. On the other hand, if individuals who ranked high in Kennedy's
own DC political sphere set in motion a plot to eliminate him, they might have found it easy to
enlist the enthusiastic cooperation of various mafia leaders.
Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the
conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in
their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely
possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized
crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they
surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would
there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from
investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act.
If a husband or wife is found murdered, with no obvious suspect or motive at hand, the
normal response of the police is to carefully investigate the surviving spouse, and quite often
this suspicion proves correct. Similarly, if you read in your newspapers that in some obscure
Third World country two bitterly hostile leaders, both having unpronounceable names, had been
sharing supreme political power until one was suddenly struck down in a mysterious
assassination by unknown conspirators, your thoughts would certainly move in an obvious
direction. Most Americans in the early 1960s did not perceive their own country's politics in
such a light, but perhaps they were mistaken. As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden
world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion
directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and
the most obvious beneficiary.
The two Talbot books and the one by Douglass, totaling some 1500 pages, devote merely a few
paragraphs to any suspicions of Johnson's involvement. Talbot's first book reports that
immediately after the assassination, the vice president had expressed a frantic concern to his
personal aides that a military coup might be in progress or a world war breaking out, and
suggests that these few casual words demonstrate his obvious innocence, although a more cynical
observer might wonder if those remarks had been uttered for exactly that reason. Talbot's
second book actually quotes an apparent low-level conspirator as claiming that Johnson had
personally signed off on the plot and admits that Hunt believed the same thing, but treats such
unsubstantiated accusations with considerable skepticism, before adding a single sentence
acknowledging that Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice.
Douglass and Peter Dale Scott, author of the influential 1993 book Deep Politics and the
Death of JFK , apparently seem never to have even entertained the possibility.
Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence.
Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the
unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his
passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs
have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been
blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional
landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their
fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.
Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensively hostile personal rivals, but there seem to
have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures
in JFK's government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous
embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a
conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an
assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial
villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably
including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.
An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass,
and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book
publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become
passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot's strong reputation,
his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and
attracted The Free Press as his very respectable publisher, while later drawing a
strongly positive review by a leading academic scholar in the New York Times Sunday Book
Review and an hour long television segment broadcast on C-Span Booknotes . But
if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered
by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would
have ensured that his book sank without a trace.
However, if we cast off these distorting ideological blinders and the practical
considerations of American publishing, the prima facie case for Johnson's involvement
seems quite compelling.
Consider a very simple point. If a president is struck down by an unknown group of
conspirators, his successor would normally have had the strongest possible incentive to track
them down lest he might become their next victim. Yet Johnson did nothing, appointing the
Warren Commission that covered up the entire matter, laying the blame upon an erratic "lone
gunman" conveniently dead. This would seem remarkably odd behavior for an innocent LBJ. This
conclusion does not demand that Johnson was the mastermind, nor even an active participant, but
it raises a very strong suspicion that he at least had had some awareness of the plot, and
enjoyed a good personal relationship with some of the principals.
A similar conclusion is supported by a converse analysis. If the plot succeeded and
Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they
would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even
a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed
that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to
sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive
acquiesce.
Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK
assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was
not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up.
ORDER IT NOW
But the specific details of Johnson's career and his political situation in late 1963
greatly strengthen these entirely generic arguments. A very useful corrective to the "See
No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed
Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political
operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the
sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he
had strong reasons to do so.
Among other things, Stone gathers together an enormous wealth of persuasive information
regarding Johnson's decades of extremely corrupt and criminal practices in Texas, including
fairly plausible claims that these may have included several murders. In one bizarre 1961
incident that strangely foreshadows the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" finding, a federal
government inspector investigating a major Texas corruption scheme involving a close LBJ ally
was found dead, shot five times in the chest and abdomen by a rifle, but the death was
officially ruled a "suicide" by the local authorities, and that conclusion was reported with a
straight face in the pages of the Washington Post .
Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held
low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the
wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of
over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate
benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little
remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I
mentioned it to him a decade ago.
ORDER IT NOW
The Dark Side of Camelot strongly suggest that personal blackmail was a greater
factor than geographical ticket-balancing. In any event, Kennedy's paper-thin 1960 victory
would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column,
and election fraud there by Johnson's powerful political machine seems almost certainly to have
been an important factor.
Under such circumstances, Johnson naturally expected to play a major role in the new
administration, and he even issued grandiose demands for a huge political portfolio, but
instead he found himself immediately sidelined and treated with complete disdain, soon becoming
a forlorn figure with no authority or influence. As time went by, the Kennedys made plans to
get rid of him, and just a few days before the assassination, they were already discussing whom
to place on the reelection ticket in his stead. Much of Johnson's long record of extreme
corruption both in Texas and in DC was coming to light following the fall of Bobby Baker, his
key political henchman, and with strong Kennedy encouragement, Life Magazine was
preparing a huge expose of his sordid and often criminal history, laying the basis for his
prosecution and perhaps a lengthy prison sentence. By mid-November 1963, Johnson seemed a
desperate political figure at the absolute end of his rope, but a week later he was the
president of the United States, and all those swirling scandals were suddenly forgotten. Stone
even claims that the huge block of magazine space reserved for the Johnson expose was instead
filled by the JFK assassination story.
Aside from effectively documenting Johnson's sordid personal history and the looming
destruction he faced at the hands of the Kennedys in late 1963, Stone also adds numerous
fascinating pieces of personal testimony, which may or may not be reliable. According to him,
as his mentor Nixon was watching the scene at the Dallas police station where Jack Ruby shot
Oswald, Nixon immediately turned as white as a ghost, explaining that he had personally known
the gunman under his birth-name of Rubenstein. While working on a House Committee in 1947,
Nixon had been advised by a close ally and prominent mob-lawyer to hire Ruby as an
investigator, being told that "he was one of Lyndon Johnson's boys." Stone also claims that
Nixon once emphasized that although he had long sought the presidency, unlike Johnson "I wasn't
willing to kill for it." He further reports that Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and
numerous other prominent political figures in DC were absolutely convinced of Johnson's direct
involvement in the assassination..
Stone has spent more than a half-century as a ruthless political operative, a position that
provided him with unique personal access to individuals who participated in the great events of
the past, but one that also carries the less than totally candid reputation of that profession,
and individuals must carefully weigh these conflicting factors against each other. Personally,
I tend to credit most of the eyewitness stories he provides. But even readers who remain
entirely skeptical should find useful the large collection of secondary source references to
the sordid details of LBJ's history that the book provides.
Finally, a seemingly unrelated historical incident had originally raised my own suspicions
of Johnson's involvement.
U.S.S. Liberty , our most advanced intelligence-gathering ship, to remain offshore in
international waters and closely monitor the military situation. There have been published
claims that he had granted Israel a green-light for its preemptive attack, but fearful of
risking a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet patrons of Syria and Egypt, had strictly
circumscribed the limits of the military operation, sending the Liberty to keep an eye
on developments and perhaps also to "show Israel who was boss."
Whether or not this reconstruction is correct, the Israelis soon launched an all-out attack
on the nearly defenseless ship despite the large American flag it was flying, deploying attack
jets and torpedo boats to sink the vessel during an assault that lasted several hours, while
machine-gunning the lifeboats to ensure that there would be no survivors. The first stage of
the attack had targeted the main communications antenna, and its destruction together with
heavy Israeli jamming prevented any communications with other U.S. naval forces in the
region..
Liberty and drive off the attackers, each time they were recalled, apparently upon
direct orders from the highest authorities of the U.S. government. Once the Israelis learned
that word of the situation had reached other U.S. forces, they soon discontinued their attack,
and the heavily-damaged Liberty eventually limped into port, with over 200 dead and
wounded sailors and NSA signal operators, representing the greatest loss of American servicemen
in any naval incident since World War II.
ORDER IT NOWW
Liberty survivor, risked severe legal consequences and published Assault on the
Liberty in 1979 .
As it happened, NSA intercepts of Israeli communications between the attacking jets and Tel
Aviv, translated from the Hebrew, fully confirmed that the attack had been entirely deliberate,
and since many of the dead and wounded were NSA employees, the suppression of these facts
greatly rankled their colleagues. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the
NSA for Ronald Reagan, later shrewdly circumvented the restrictions of his political masters by
making those incriminating intercepts part of the standard curriculum of the Sigint training
program required for all intelligence officers.
In 2007 an unusual set of circumstances finally broke the thirty year blackout in the
mainstream media. Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to
Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the
Tribune CompanyLos Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune , investing merely
a sliver of his own money, with the bulk of the financing coming from the pension funds of the
company he was acquiring. Widely heralded as "the grave dancer" for his shrewd financial
investments, Zell publicly boasted that the deal gave him nearly all of the upside potential of
the company, while he bore relatively little of the risk. Such an approach proved wise since
the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed,
the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive
layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country's largest and most
prestigious newspapers. Perhaps coincidentally, just as this business turmoil hit in late 2007,
the Tribune ran a massive 5,500 word
storyyLiberty attack, representing the first and only time such a comprehensive
account of the true facts has ever appeared in the mainstream media.
By all accounts, Johnson was an individual of towering personal ego, and when I read the
article, I was struck by the extent of his astonishing subservience to the Jewish state. The
influence of campaign donations and favorable media coverage seemed completely insufficient to
explain his reaction to an incident that had cost the lives of so many American servicemen. I
began to wonder if Israel might have played an extraordinarily powerful political trump-card,
thereby showing LBJ "who was really boss," and once I discovered the reality of the JFK
assassination conspiracy a year or two later, I suspected I knew what that trump-card might
have been. Over the years, I had become quite friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, and
the next time we had lunch I outlined my ideas. Although he had always casually dismissed JFK
conspiracy theories as total nonsense, he found my hypothesis quite intriguing.
Liberty incident certainly demonstrated the exceptionally close relationship between
President Johnson and the government of Israel, as well as the willingness of the mainstream
media to spend decades hiding events of the most remarkable nature if they might tread on
particular toes.
These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most
explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the
late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of
circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with
their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.
For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed
towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination
conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for
the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the
Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960
election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly
lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to
Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane
and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy,
with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as
Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as
pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally
unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were
hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.
ORDER IT NOW
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy described the
extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel to allow international
inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona, and thereby prevent its
use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli
Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered
similar ground.
Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political
conflict between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had
represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made nuclear
non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John McCone,
Kennedy's choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy Commission under
Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor
to produce plutonium..
ORDER IT NOW
The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy
Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's
founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost
entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same
year.
Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel had previously
documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed itself following Kennedy's
assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at the time.
Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often
noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy and
Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible motive.
Although this analysis seems largely correct, America's behavior towards Israel and its nuclear
weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern..
An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of
the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies.
During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group of wealthy
Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered enormous financial
support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy. Kennedy managed to
fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident so troubling that the next
morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his closest friends, and expressed
his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under the control of partisans of a foreign
power, promising that if he became president, he would rectify that situation. And indeed, once
he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney General, the latter initiated a major legal
effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves as foreign agents, which would have
drastically reduced their power and influence. But after JFK's death, this project was quickly
abandoned, and as part of the settlement, the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to
reconstitute itself as AIPAC.
ORDER IT NOW
Final Judgment went through a number of a reprintings following its original 1994
appearance, and by the sixth edition released in 2004, had grown to over 650 pages, including
numerous long appendices and over 1100 footnotes, the overwhelming majority of these
referencing fully mainstream sources. The body of the text was merely serviceable in
organization and polish, reflecting the total boycott by all publishers, mainstream or
alternative, but I found the contents themselves remarkable and generally quite compelling.
Despite the most extreme blackout by all media outlets, the book sold more than 40,000 copies
over the years, making it something of an underground bestseller, and surely bringing it to the
attention of everyone in the JFK assassination research community, though apparently almost
none of them were willing to mention its existence. I suspect these other writers realized that
even any mere acknowledgement of the existence of the book, if only to ridicule or dismiss it,
might prove fatal to their media and publishing career. Piper himself died in 2015, aged 54,
suffering from the health problems and heavy-drinking often associated with grim poverty, and
other journalists may have been reluctant to risk that same dismal fate.
As an example of this strange situation, the bibliography of Talbot's 2005 book contains
almost 140 entries, some rather obscure, but has no space for Final Judgment , nor does
his very comprehensive index include any entry for "Jews" or "Israel." Indeed, at one point he
very delicately characterizes Sen. Robert Kennedy's entirely Jewish senior staff by stating
"There was not a Catholic among them." His 2015 sequel is equally circumspect, and although the
index does contain numerous entries pertaining to Jews, all these references are in regards to
World War II and the Nazis, including his discussion of the alleged Nazi ties of Allen Dulles,
his principal bête noire . Stone's book, while fearlessly convicting President
Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes "Jews" and "Israel" from the
long index and Final Judgment from the bibliography, and Douglass's book follows this
same pattern.
Furthermore, the extreme concerns that the Piper Hypothesis seems to have provoked among JFK
assassination researchers may explain a strange anomaly. Although Mark Lane was himself of
Jewish origins and left-wing roots, after his victory for Liberty Lobby in the Hunt libel
trial, he spent many years associated with that organization in a legal capacity, and
apparently became quite friendly with Piper, one of its leading writers. According to Piper,
Lane told him that Final Judgment made "a solid case" for a major Mossad role in the
assassination, and he viewed the theory as fully complementary to his own focus on CIA
involvement. I suspect that concerns about these associations may explain why Lane was almost
completely airbrushed out of the Douglass and 2007 Talbot books, and discussed in the second
Talbot book only when his work was absolutely essential to Talbot's own analysis. By contrast,
New York Times staff writers are hardly likely to be as versed in the lesser-known
aspects of the JFK assassination research community, and being ignorant of this hidden
controversy, they gave Lane
the long and glowing obituaryy that his career fully warranted.
When weighing the possible suspects for a given crime, considering their past pattern of
behavior is often a helpful approach. As discussed above, I can think of no historical example
in which organized crime initiated a serious assassination attempt against any American
political figure even moderately prominent on the national stage. And despite a few suspicions
here and there, the same applies to the CIA.
By contrast, the Israeli Mossad and the Zionist groups that preceded the establishment of
the Jewish state seem to have had a very long track record of assassinations, including those
of high-ranking political figures who might normally be regarded as inviolate. Lord Moyne, the
British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated in 1944 and Count Folke
Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator sent to help resolve the first Arab-Israel war, suffered
the same fate in September 1948. Not even an American president was entirely free of such
risks, and Piper notes that the memoirs of Harry Truman's daughter Margaret reveal that Zionist
militants had tried to assassinate her father using a letter laced with toxic chemicals in 1947
when they believed he was dragging his heels in supporting Israel, although that failed attempt
was never made public. The Zionist faction responsible for all of these incidents was led by
Yitzhak Shamir, who later became a leader of Mossad and director of its assassination program
during the 1960s, before eventually becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1986.
ORDER IT NOW
Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by
journalist Ronen Bergman suggests that no other country in the world may have so regularly
employed assassination as a standard tool of state policy.
ORDER IT NOWW
There are other notable elements that tend to support the Piper Hypothesis. Once we accept
the existence of a JFK assassination conspiracy, the one individual who is virtually certain to
have been a participant was Jack Ruby, and his organized crime ties were almost entirely to the
huge but rarely-mentioned Jewish wing of that enterprise, presided over by Meyer Lansky, an
extremely fervent supporter of Israel. Ruby himself had particularly strong connections with
Lansky lieutenant Mickey Cohen, who dominated the Los Angeles underworld and had been
personally involved in gun-running to Israel prior to the 1948 war. Indeed, according
to Dallas rabbi Hillel Silverman , Ruby had privately explained his killing of Oswald by
saying "I did it for the Jewish people."
JFK film should also be mentioned. Arnon Milchan, the wealthy Hollywood producer who
backed the project, was not only an Israeli citizen, but had also reportedly
played a central role in the enormous espionage projectt to divert American technology and
materials to Israel's nuclear weapons project, the exact undertaking that the Kennedy
Administration had made such efforts to block. Milchan has even sometimes been described as
"the Israeli James Bond."JFK scrupulously avoided presenting any of the details
that Piper later regarded as initial clues to an Israeli dimension, instead seeming to finger
America's fanatic home-grown anti-Communist movement and the Cold War leadership of the
military-industrial complex as the guilty parties.
Summarizing over 300,000 words of Piper's history and analysis in just a few paragraphs is
obviously an impossible undertaking, but the above discussion provides a reasonable taste of
the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence mustered in favor of the Piper Hypothesis..
Final Judgment struck me as quite persuasive, a good fraction of the names and
references were unfamiliar, and I simply do not have the background to assess their
credibility, nor whether the description of the material presented is accurate.
Under normal circumstances, I would turn to the reviews or critiques produced by other
authors, and comparing them against Piper's claims, then decide which argument seemed the
stronger. But although Final Judgment was published a quarter-century ago, the
near-absolute blanket of silence surrounding the Piper Hypothesis, especially from the more
influential and credible researchers, renders this impossible.
However, Piper's inability to secure any regular publisher and the widespread efforts to
smother his theory out of existence, have had an ironic consequence. Since the book went out of
print years ago, I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my
collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on
the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily
checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or
phrases..
This edition actually incorporates several much shorter works, originally published
separately. One of these, consisting of an extended Q&A, describes the genesis of the idea
and answers numerous questions surrounding it, and for some readers might represent a better
starting point.
There are also numerous extended Piper interviews or presentations easily available on
YouTube, and when I watched two or three of them a couple of years ago, I thought he
effectively summarized many of his main arguments, but I cannot remember which ones they
were.
The Kennedy assassination surely ranks as one of the most dramatic and heavily reported
events of the twentieth century, yet the overwhelming evidence that our president died at the
hands of a conspiracy rather than an eccentric "lone gunman" was almost entirely suppressed by
our mainstream media during the decades that followed, with endless ridicule and opprobrium
heaped on many of the stubborn truth-tellers. Indeed, the very term "conspiracy theory" soon
became a standard slur aimed against all those who sharply questioned establishmentarian
narratives, and there is strong evidence that such pejorative use was deliberately
promoted by government agencies concerned that so much of the American citizenry was
growing skeptical of the implausible cover story presented by the Warren Commission. But
despite all these efforts, the period may mark the inflection point at which public trust in
our national media began its precipitous decline. Once an individual concludes that the media
lied about something as monumental as the JFK assassination, he naturally begins to wonder what
other lies may be out there.
Although I now consider the case for an assassination conspiracy overwhelming, I think that
the passage of so many decades has removed any real hope of reaching a firm conclusion about
the identities of the main organizers or their motives. Those who disagree with this negative
assessment are free to continue sifting the enormous mountain of complex historical evidence
and debating their conclusions with others having similar interests.
However, among the cast of major suspects, I think that the most likely participant by far
was Lyndon Johnson, based on any reasonable assessment of means, motive, and opportunity, as
well as the enormous role he obviously must have played in facilitating the subsequent Warren
Commission cover-up. Yet although such an obvious suspect must surely have been immediately
apparent to any observer, Johnson seems to have received only a rather thin slice of the
attention that books regularly directed to other, far less plausible suspects. So the clear
dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by
a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid
recognizing the most likely perpetrator.
Final Judgment provided an enormous mass of circumstantial evidence suggesting a
major, even dominant, role for the Israeli Mossad in organizing the elimination of both our
35rd president and also his younger brother, a scenario that seems second in likelihood only to
that of Johnson's involvement. Yet Piper's hundreds of thousands of words of analysis have
seemingly vanished into the ether, with very few of the major conspiracy researchers even
willing to admit their awareness of a shocking book that sold over 40,000 copies, almost
entirely by underground word-of-mouth.
So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over
"Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history
of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades
within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda."
Q: Who fired the shot that killed Mussolini?
A: A thousand Italian marksmen.
Johnson has been my perennial favourite as the person who had the most to gain, but he
could not have done it without his Texas machinery, not the least of which was KBR, and they
certainly had a lot to gain by elevating their boy to the pinnacle of power if the rumours,
that JFK planned to scale back in Viet Nam, were true. Coincidence that it happened in
Dallas? Hardly, in that scenario.
Other interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush, who, unlike
most Americans, can't quite remember where he was when the President was shot. Was he behind
it? Almost certainly not, but he may have been an unwitting co-conspirator by doing something
tangentially connected, e.g. delivering cash. This is pure speculation, but it is interesting
that he rose out of relative obscurity to become a Texas oilman, partnered with a former CIA
operative, with oil interests in a number of international hotspots, and that formed the
basis for him to build a fortune as well as launch a long and storied political career that
saw him elected to Congress, then appointed to the head of the CIA, and ultimately crowned as
President.
I particularly loved it when Trump tried to connect Ted Cruz's father to Oswald. It is not
entirely out of the question, given his father, while a anti-Batista rebel turned
refugee-student at the U of Texas might have crossed paths with Oswald while in Texas .
Yes, all roads seem to lead to Texas, except for that one that goes to NOLA, but that
isn's so far from TX, and it seems like the kind of place oil industry types might go to cat
around and conspire on a coup. It's also one of the few places in the South where Israelis
might not appear to be so out of place.
As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective
control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type
who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising
the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil
assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more
valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?
Very nice. Just one thing, though- anyone who was an adult during the Cold War understands
the immense importance of propaganda and 'optics' as they say now. In 1981 the French
Communist Party won 15% of the Presidential vote. Together with the Socilaist Party that was
a combined 40%.
Much of what constituted American' political theater' in the Cold War era consisted of
'double bank-shot' efforts to convince a somewhat cold and borderline hostile European public
to support the trans-Atlantic alliance and the American system which underlay it, a difficult
proposition given that European leftists were ideologically opposed to America's capitalist
system, while seemingly natural-ally European rightists were often repulsed by the gauche
nature of American culture, critical of unrestrained 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, plus resentful
of American pop-cultural 'imperialism' as well.
In such a climate the cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary
concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would
have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was
CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting
possibilities, though.
Something to consider is that these people in the intelligence agencies are supposed to
protect America , but they can't even spot an assassination when it occurs right under
their noses with a pile of evidence stacked to the ceiling. The majority of Americans can see
it, but not the people tasked with "keeping us safe."WTF?
In the RFK assassination we have video and photos of CIA assassins in the hotel when it
occurs, but they can't see that either.
We have endless crime shows on TV with forensic experts tracking killers, but our real law
enforcement officials can't see anything wrong with the way WTC building 7 implodes.
We are talking about treason and it is ongoing, not simply in the past. Trump delayed
release of the Kennedy files yet again.
A remote viewer psychic came up with an interesting notion as to why JFK was murdered. The
power brokers believed he was reckless and a danger to the whole world.
It's a miracle that the Cuban missile crisis didn't end the world. USSR sub commanders had
immediate authority to use nuclear weapons if attacked – and they were depth
charged.
LBJ had a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help.
They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived:
If this is to be believed, the Birch society was in bed with the Zio crew, which might be
believable, because the crusade against Russia was mostly utilizing the bitterness of the
Trotskyites against Stalin's siezure of the Russian state, and thus a natural alliance
between the Zio and Birch groups:
On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise,
of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm
conclusion.
Perhaps. One thing that becomes more clear over time is who benefited. Look closely at
those who were put into positions to enable the coverup, people like George Joannides
and Richard Helms. Who was promoted?
The Israel angle is interesting, but Israel doesn't work for me. My government owes
me an explanation. They have a duty to uphold the constitution. They swear an
oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. It is their duty to protect America
from All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
The late Harold Weisberg once told me exactly the same thing: figuring out precisely who
was in control of the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of 11/22/63 was the
key to unraveling the cover-up.
U. S. Military authorities ran that thing and made every single damned decision. (Not RFK
or Jacqueline Kennedy.)
Hell, there is credible, provocative and reasonably persuasive evidence the no less a
figure than the legendary USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay flew in to Bethesda and was
playing a major role in directing the autopsy.
The (suspiciously undated) autopsy report was re-written after Ruby shot "Oswald" on
Sunday morning, and the original "draft notes" were burned. The hand-written version was then
edited with very significant changes, most infamously the original wording that JFK had a
"puncture" wound in his neck – WHICH MEANT A SHOT FROM THE FRONT! – was changed
in the typed version as "much smaller".
These changes were not because Humes, Boswell and Finck demanded them. These changes were
done at the behest of military brass, for reasons known only to themselves.
The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S.
Military.
By the way, LeMay was the inspiration for the General Buck Turgidson in "Dr.
Strangelove".
"... The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets ..."
While commenting at the Part I I had similar thoughts concerning the 9/11 as you. The
preponderance of mutually contradictory technical theories of JFK assassination completely
detracted anybody from looking at the qui bono which inevitably would lead to Israel.
It occurred to me that 9/11 may share a similar fate.
This thought was very depressing. Relatively recently we have learned about the term of
the 'cognitive infiltration' from Cass Sustain. It seems clear to me that exactly this
cognitive infiltrations were successfully carried out in the case of JFK truthers.
In writing my article, I'd forgotten to mention that in 1946 Zionist groups led by future
Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had apparently planned to
assassinate British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. There's a link to a 2003 article from the
Daily Telegraph:
Interestingly enough, the British government files also claim that an American Jewish
activist named Rabbi Korff planned to organize some sort of aerial terrorist bombing attack
against London around the same time. Korff later enjoyed a moment of considerable fame as a
very high-profile supporter of President Richard Nixon shortly before his resignation during
the Watergate Scandal.
I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of
controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet
to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the
multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.
"I really doubt that anyone, even the US vice president or director of the CIA has the
authority to order anything like a political assassination of a sitting President."
Authority is not the word you're looking for. The appropriate term, depending on your
point of view, is either absolute sovereignty or impunity. A US Secretary of State formally
defined sovereignty in absolute life-and-death terms repudiated two millenia ago by the
Germanic tribes of pre-modern Europe. The entire world has negated this viewpoint by
acclamation, so the USA's a throwback.
In universally-acknowledged law, sovereignty is responsibility. But the US government
thinks state responsibility is bullshit, and always did do. The US government has been
assiduously undermining it ever since WWII. The US fights tooth and nail to make sure its
citizens have no recourse to actions of the state, lawful or not.
Congress wrote absolute sovereignty into municipal law in the Central Intelligence Agency
Act, various bureaucratic loopholes, and secret confidential legal pretexts. They gave it to
CIA. The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine
right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets . So you misunderstand,
or misrepresent, the government bureaucracy when you imagine that there's that someone CIA
would be scared to kill. They do what they want. And you do what they tell you to, or
else.
What we have in the case of the Zionist movement and Israel is a pattern of a serial
perpetrator of murder, mass murder and terror. This is a well established fact. That
pattern started well before the creation of Israel, see eg the murder of Jacob Israël
de Haan on 30/6/1924 or the King David Hotel bombing on 22/7/1946. That murderous pattern
continued after the creation of Israel, see for the early days for example the murder of
Folke Bernadotte on 17/9/1948 and then read "Israel's sacred terrorism" based on Moshe
Sharett's Personal Diary:
Since the early days of Zionism there are so many proven Zionist and Israeli state
sponsored murders that it is hard to keep tracking them all. The murderous pattern of
Israeli behaviour continues to the very recent time, think for example of the attampted
assassination of Khaled Mashal on 25/9/1997, the car bomb killing Imad Mughniyah on
12/2/2008, the murder of Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman on 1/8/2008 (which was just recently
proven by US documents to be an Israeli job), the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on
19/1/2010 or the recent serial murder of Iranian scientists.
The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan proves that the Zionist movement targeted also
jews. It was not a single case. Naeim Giladi wrote in detail about his role as a Zionist in
attacking Iraqi jews on behalf of Israel in his book: Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the
Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. We also know from things like Operation Susannah
and the attempt to sink the USS Liberty that Israel also has already attacked US targets in
the past.
Generally I'ld say Israeli murders and terrors fit in two motive categories: either
Israel committed state sponsored murders to get rid of anactual or perceived enemy like
Khaled Mashal or Imad Mughniyah or someone deemed otherwise harmful to Israeli interests
like Folke Bernadotte, or Israel committed acts of terror and murder with the intention of
blaming the crime on someone else, ie perpetraiting "false flag operations", like it was
the case with attacking Iraqi jews or Operation Susannah. One regular motivation for
Israeli false flag ops was to enlist the US in fighting Israel's real or perceived enemies,
ie starting US-led wars of aggression in the service of Israel. AIPAC/WINEP operatives
publicly talk about using such "options" in the service of starting wars Israel wanted to
get started:
A typical Israeli method to ensure false blame was faking signal intelligence. Victor
Ostrovsky wrote about how the Mossad did falsely blame Libya of terror in his time with
radio signal boxes placed by the Mossad in Libya for that purpose. In the case of the
Ghouta chemical false flag terror attack, Israel simply provided the US with faked signal
intelligence, essentially saying to Obama: now you must go to war, because we proved hereby
that Syria crossed your chemical red lines.
So, now comes the funny thing. Despite this whole record of serial Israeli murder,
terror and false flag terror targeting likewise enemies and friends, terrorists and
innocents, Arabs and Westerners, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Syrians and Americans, and
clear motives for Israel to perpetrate the crimes, there still exists a big taboo of
talking about and investigating a possible Israeli sponsorship of the JFK murder and 9/11.
It's even deemed anti-semitic to speak about this.
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination
say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic
I think the "neocons" tried to get their wars started under Clinton with the USS Cole
attack October 12 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor, that they also
blamed on Al-Qaeda.
Sounds very similar to USS Liberty eh? Same people again, same story .
I guess Clinton refused to go along even after ((((Lewinsky))) sex blackmail, and false flag
attack on USS Cole. So they knew they had to get a Republican into office, thats why there
was such a fuss about that election, should also tell you where the Supreme Court stands
9/11, WTC planning, demolition rigging, probably started soon after USS Cole false flag.
It all adds up when you start thinking about it.
and I don't doubt Johnson played a huge role, he obviously did, I also believe some in CIA
played a role as well as in Military/MIC, and probably even Wall St/Banking, Big Oil, that is
what makes it a CONSPIRACY!
But I think the head honcho is Israel/Zionist intrests, and their plan of world
domination.
One important aspect of Piper's book is that his overwhelming focus on Israel and the Mossad
provides a very helpful corrective to the CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many
"conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful
controlling force.
For example, in Appendix Six, Piper suggests that Mossad may have assassinated former CIA
Director William Colby, as well as John Paisley, another former high-ranking CIA
official:
I certainly don't know enough about these cases to comment, but the NSA is supposedly also
a pretty powerful intelligence organization, and lots of NSA people were killed or wounded
during the Liberty attack, with absolutely no apparent consequences. And if top CIA people
could also occasionally be killed with relative impunity, maybe that organization also isn't
really so all-powerful.
Furthermore, one of Piper's major arguments is that long-time CIA counter-intelligence
chief James Angleton had effectively become a Mossad intelligence asset at least by the
1960s, and he seems to provide a great deal of circumstantial evidence in favor of this
notion. Therefore, he points toward Angleton as the likely CIA figure who spearheaded the CIA
involvement in the JFK assassination.
One nice thing about my HTML Book software is that it allows full text searches of the
books in question, controlled by the little Search icon next to the Email button. Or you can
use this link:
"..CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to
believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force."
The CIA was also the "easy" and "obvious" culprit after 9/11. It came under an incredible
amount of criticism from the "courageous" media, and George Tenet, its director at the time,
was almost forced to resign.
It turned out later that the CIA had previously warned G. Bush about the increased risks
of terror attack, and that their warnings were dismissed by Rumsfeld and the NeoCons, who a
contrario were never blamed for anything.
This really shows who is higher up the food chain.
Jack Ruby was running guns and ammunition from Galveston Bay to Fidel Castro's
guerrillas in Cuba about 1957, a former poker-playing partner of the Dallas nightclub owner
told The News Thursday.
James E. Beaird said he waited until 1966, almost three years after the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, and "nothing had come out so I called them (FBI) just to find
out why I was curious. However, they didn't see fit to even mention it to me again, so I
never heard of anything they ever opened up on it."
Beaird said the FBI finally "sent a man out in 1976. I don't know why they did it
then."
The FBI agent who interviewed Beaird in 1976 didn't mention in his report that Beaird
had volunteered information about Ruby's gunrunning to the bureau in 1966. The report
stated that since the 1963 assassination, "there had been so·much speculation as to
possible foreign connections and he (Beaird) thought it better not to mention his knowledge
of Jack Ruby in Kemah (southeast of Houston on Galveston Bay)."
The Warren Commission in 1964 investigated numerous allegations of gunrunning by Ruby
but concluded that no factual information existed.
Beaird told the FBI that he "personally saw many boxes of new guns, including atltomatic
rifles and handguns," stored in a 2-story house near the channel at Kemah and loaded on
what looked like a 50-foot surplus military boat.
"He stated each time that the boat left with guns and ammunition, Jack Ruby was on the
boat," the FBI report said.
Beaird, who was an automobile dealer in Houston from 1955 to 1957, said Ruby "was in it
for the money. It wouldn't matter what side, just one that would pay him the most I don't
even know who the ship belonged to. But he was in command of it. He went out every time it
went. It was meeting a connection down there (in Cuba), that's all I ever heard."
Ruby would show up in Kemah, generally on weekends, to play poker and "just killing time
until the boat was loaded," Beaird said, and usually was there not more than one or two
hours.
"They loaded up at least twice while I was down there," be said. "Pickup trucks would
carry it from the house over to this boat."
By 1959, Castro had taken control of Cuba and Ruby was beginning to switch sides as
Castro threatened to force Mafia-backed professional gamblers out of the casinos in
Havana.
Dallas Morning News, 18 Aug 1978
What was Ruby's connection to the splinter groups of left-over Cubans in Dallas? Was he
selling them guns? Was he hiring them for odd jobs? Did he hear of the crazy violent commie
anglo Oswald through his connections to these Cubans?
[Hide MORE]
What were these Israeli goats doing in Cuba shortly after the revolution that brought
Fidel Castro to power? It turns out that Castro had taken notice of Israeli goats and was
just waiting for the chance to taste their milk following the establishment in 1960 of
diplomatic relations between the two countries.
"Fidel thought there were goats in Israel that produced milk like cows," recounted
Clarita Malhi, who worked at the Cuban embassy in Israel. "He was really enamored by the
technical progress Israel had made in the field of agriculture."
The Cuban ambassador in Israel was a Jewish millionaire revolutionary by the name of
Ricardo Wolf (Ricardo Subirana y Lobo in Spanish), who decided to fulfill the dream of his
boss who had sent him to Israel. The ambassador went looking for goats that "produced milk
like cows" and could be shipped far across the ocean.
Yitzhak Zilber, a Cuban Jew and a member of Kibbutz Gaash, was chosen for the mission.
Zilber, 89, sent Haaretz photos in which he is seen with the goats he found, waiting for a
plane at the airport and travelling around Cuba.
Ultimately, when the goats for the mission were found, they were brought together at the
airport, awaiting the moment when they could be airlifted to Cuba. An El Al plane landed in
Israel from Cuba with new immigrants from the Cuban Jewish community who had decided to
flee Castro's revolution. They came as part of an agreement under which Cuba effectively
exchanged the immigrants for the goats.
The Haaretz archives contain a piece of information that might buttress the story about
Castro and his Israeli goats. In an article in July 1961, it was reported that the Israeli
Agriculture Ministry had sent an expert to Cuba to help the Cubans improve goat
breeding.
Wolf, who was born in Germany, emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s and became a close
associate of Castro. As a wealthy industrialist, he gave a large sum of money to finance
the revolution. He later politely declined the offer of a cabinet position, but asked
Castro to appoint him ambassador to Israel. Castro assented and Wolf arrived in the country
in 1960 as Cuba's first – and only – ambassador. The trade involving the goats
and the new immigrants was funded by Wolf personally.
'Twas not ever thus. Not only did Cuba establish ties with nascent Israel in 1949, but
Castro dispatched a key supporter, Ricardo Wolf, as his ambassador to Israel in 1960.
Dworin says Wolf, who made his fortune as a pioneer in the metal industry, helped
finance the purchase of the yacht Granma, the cabin-cruiser built for 12 that ferried the
Castro brothers, Che and 80 other revolutionaries from Mexico to Cuba in 1956 -- on the
voyage that would culminate in the overthrow of Batista.
"What can I do to repay you?" Castro, once installed in power, asked Wolf, in Dworin's
telling. "I want to be ambassador to Israel," he replied.
Was Ricardo Subirana Y Lobo (Ricardo Wolf), a Cuban Jew and supporter of Castro, the
bridge between Castro and Mossad? Castro originally offered Wolf the post of Minister of
Finance in the communist government, but Wolf preferred to be Ambassador to Israel.
Hello Ron, I found your comment about growing up with the belief in the lone gunman
official story interesting. I grew up in a communist country which was not part of the USSR
block and I grew up with a belief in the official story that CIA was the main culprit in
the JFK assassination although without a direct mention of LBJ. I would be interested to
learn also what the official story inside the Eastern block was.
Even to this day, I have to admit that this official story was actually very close to the
truth. So many years later and even after reading your high quality article I tend to believe
that LBJ was heavily involved but at arms length distance, that CIA has done all of the
ground work, that Mossad probably assisted and that Oswald did not even shoot let alone kill
anyone.
Why is a local belief relevant? Well because whoever killed Kennedy tried to point blame
at communists, those of USSR and Cuba. What I was lead to believe in this instance proves the
old saying audi alteram partem – do not form any belief before you hear both
sides. This applies to practically all strange events of history. Historical, geographical
and ideological distance make quite a difference in the beliefs that we grow up with.
Next, the culprits would probably be mirrored in the case of 911, where the Israelis have
done most of the ground work, whilst the dual citizens and the US agencies they control
played the supporting and enabling role.
Obviously, the logistics of 911 dwarfs the logistics of the Kennedy assassinations, but it
would be the same team, different era and with a different emphasis. The acts becoming more
self-confident and brazen.
The account you are responding to has Macnamara ordering back nuclear armed planes which
obviously had nothing to do with seeing off Israeli fighters and gunboats.
The more "mainstream" account that has been widely reported is that squadrons of U.S. jets
were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty, and then twice recalled based on top-level
instructions from D.C.
I've sometimes seen another account floating around on the Internet that the Johnson and
the Israelis had concocted a plan to have the latter sink the Liberty with all hands,
after which Johnson would blame the attack on Egypt and launch a nuclear attack against Cairo
in retaliation. Frankly, I find this scenario *extraordinarily* implausible, and until
someone provides a credible source, I would just dismiss it. And by a "credible source" I
mean something more than some random guy making the claim somewhere in some book.
The 'bad-apples' disinformation relies on the idea that compartmentation and plausible
deniability are incompatible with strict hierarchy. CIA lets a thousand flowers bloom when it
makes a directive, but its assets are always strictly controlled with inducements, coercion,
and compromise. The multiple JFK plots show CIA's telltale M.O. for important programs, not
hordes of sneaky bad apples.
All the mafia-did-it disinformation relies on a sharp distinction between CIA and
organized crime. Anywhere CIA is, they farm crime for agents and cutouts. Robert Kennedy Jr.
makes this point in his book American Values (and that is why it sank without a ripple.)
And of course Johnson had foreknowledge. He was at Clint Murchison's party, in the little
closed-door conclave where CIA green-lighted the coup. So was Rockefeller henchman John
McCloy. CIA arranged to implicate lots of influential people.
The key point here is CIA impunity. CIA did it because CIA can get away with it. That
makes Johnson a figurehead, not a potential threat.
Here's what we all have to face. All of us grew up under an autocratic CIA regime that
hires and fires presidents, legislators, and judges. Kills them, too. They still kill or
torture anyone they want. Ask Gina.
I too have read Stone's book and, while he did not in any way "prove" that LBJ had JFK shot,
he certainly laid out a plausible case for his involvement. Any one who has read Caro's
series of books on LBJ will come away with the realization that he (Johnson) was capable of
having him assassinated as well as having the means and the motivation. The man had no
principles or scruples whatsoever.
I can't comment on any Israeli involvement, but praise for Ron Unz for adding his voice to
those who believe LBJ almost had to have played a role in that event. Like others here, I was
not a JFK fan either. But johnson's elevation to the presidency was an unparalleled disaster
for the USA.
The late Col. Fletcher Prouty was assigned to the Pentagon in charge of Air Force support of
CIA operations in the years leading up to the assassination. His boss there was Gen. Edward
Lansdale, nominally Air Force but actually undercover CIA, father of Special Forces and the
engineer of the coup in the Philippines in the mid-fifties. Those familiar with the JFK
treachery will recall the clear press photos of "the three tramps", men arrested in the
railroad yard behind the grassy knoll, who were led away and never seen again. Two of those
men were Howard Hunt (CIA) and Charles Harrelson (Texas mafia assassin). One of these photos
shows a suited man passing by casually, seeming to reassure the three men. Col. Prouty, who
worked closely with Lansdale for years, positively identified him and this was affirmed by
Gen. "Brute" Krulak, who was at the time commander of MAAG in South Vietnam. The distinctive
shape of his head and his West Point ring are clearly visible. Go to the website dedicated to
Col. Prouty's works at http://www.prouty.org for this and much else directly from the
horse's mouth. By the way, toward the end of the nineties, the only fingerprint on the sixth
floor of the book depository that was not identified after the assassination was matched to
Malcolm Wallace, Lindon Johnson's hitman, reportedly executing at least three murders for
him.
Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting,
the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking
back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film
clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted
to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of
the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no
motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group,
which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no
additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will.
the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the
contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At
best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let
alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration
of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.
What pathetic bollocks. You should write for CNN.
If the doctors attending on Kennedy at the Parklands Hospital, men experienced with
gunshot wounds, all agreed, as they did, that Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the front of
his head, then he was not killed by bullets from the Texas School Book Depository window
where Oswald is alleged to have been. Therefore, the Warren Commission Report is based on
lies. In particular, a phony autopsy report and a rewriting of the autopsy report findings by
none other than President-to-be, Gerald Ford. That's not a matter of plausibilities or
possibilities, liklihoods or non-certainties. It's as hard evidence as you ever likely to get
in a court of law.
But Israel didn't do it! LOL. Who said Israel did do it? Only some of the nutters that
comment freely here.
What would be interesting, if anyone would take the trouble to do it, is to delve more
deeply into the political connections of the people in the CIA who organized the crime. If
LBJ was the greatest beneficiary, it is nevertheless likely that there were Republicans on
side with the killing, otherwise the CIA would surely not have acted. That E. Howard Hunt,
Mexico City CIA station chief at the time of the assassination appears to have been connected
with the event through (a) Oswald's visit to the Mexico City CIA office, and (b) Hunt's
alleged presence in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, suggests that Hunt's role
in the Watergate burglary was to see what information the Democratic Party may have had
relating to the assassination that could have been used to damage Richard Nixon in his run
for re-election.
All of this seems pretty interesting and completes my suppositions as to what happened to JFK
and RFK and who was responsible and, perhaps even more importantly, who benefited "cui bono"
a usual criterion in determined who instigated a murder.
" Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice."
Lyndon Johnson's long-standing friendship/strategic partnership with J. Edgar Hoover
points to the "passive supporter" role. Act of Treason (1991), by Mark North, documents
Hoover's knowledge of, but not active participation in, the JFK hit. Hoover's job was to
provide bureaucratic support of the coup d'état and to ease his friend Lyndon into the
White House.
The prime mover in the assassination was the Allen Dulles cabal at CIA: The presence of
Lee Harvey Oswald speaks of James Angleton's involvement. But the details of the network that
took the operational role still seems to be in question. There was that group of U.S.
intelligence officers and Mafia figures that began during the second world war. And now the
new research that suggests an Israeli role on one hand, and Fourth Reich elements on the
other. (Fourth Reich elements being the Otto Skorzeny network known as Die Spinne or Odessa
that had ties with MacArthur's WW2 intelligence chief Charles Willoughby.)
So the mystery continues. But however the network that assumed the operational role in the
JFK hit was configured, Allen Dulles was the godfather.
Nice summary of the salient points of the assassinations. A couple of things that did not get
mentioned:
The "wink" as LBJ was being sworn in. It clinches it.
Marion Brown's statement that LBJ, her lover, told her well in advance that JFK was going to
be killed.
Peter Dale Scott stated: The door to the assassination is through Jack Ruby.
Ruby's phone calls were looked at by the FBI and Justice Dept., and catalogued. Almost all
were to Jewish mafia figures–not Italians. When the House Assassinations Committee
asked for these transcripts, they were told they no longer existed! But old copies were
eventually found. Someone in DOJ tried to scrub them from the records.
One of the best books on the assassination IMHO is Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last
Investigation."
Piper's book is essential reading, but he focuses only on Israel and the Jewish connections.
Because of its lack of "balance", it should not be read as a stand-alone treatise on the JFK
assassination.
Among my top ten books are–admittedly a list long out of date:
On the Trail of the Assassins
The Last Investigation
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
JFK and the Unspeakable
Final Judgment (with above reservations)
Probably more important would be a list of books absolutely NOT to be read–among
them Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."
As a general rule, you can consider ANYONE arguing that Unz is full of s$#t and Oswald did
it as a crazed lone assassin, is a paid TROLL. The assassinations are grounded in solid
research that has been going on since the 1970s, when I attended a four-hour lecture by David
Lifton at SUNY Stony Brook–an event that literally toppled my world. It has never
recovered.
You might want to find a copy of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I think it is a really good read about a
side story to the JFK assassination about the goings on in New Orleans and the CIA.
It matters only because the truth always matters, and until it is satisfied it will always
be a pebble in the shoe. The past is only past because it has happened, but in its own
strange way its always with us. Events that occurred 200 years ago affect today, as well as
those events from 500 years ago. And sometimes things need to be covered up for very good
reasons.
As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of
us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.
You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing
LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have
them killed?
I very much doubt that. Johnson died at the beginning of 1973, a very widely despised and
hated figure, and surely few people feared any retaliation much after that, let alone Talbot
and Douglass writing forty years later.
I suspect there were several factors, mostly the ones I outlined in my discussion.
First, most JFK researchers were strong liberals or otherwise admired "Camelot," and it
surely would have been very difficult for them to psychologically accept that most of JFK's
top people were perfectly willing to continue working for LBJ, if the latter had murdered the
former.
Also, "LBJ Killed JFK" might sound like such a ultra "crazy conspiracy theory" to
publishers and editors who overwhelmingly may still believe that a "lone gunman" killed JFK.
So writers who considered making such a claim might fear having their careers totally ruined.
I think fear of humiliation, reputation-loss, and the resulting financial damage is a far
greater factor than fear of physical harm.
Here's another factor. Having a vice president come to power by assassinating his
predecessor is the sort of thing that just doesn't happen in developed First World countries.
Offhand, I can't think of even a single case in any major country over the last couple of
hundred years. It would probably be pretty embarrassing for even a Third World
banana-republic. What respectable American historian would want to admit that the politics of
our own country at the height of its international prestige during the early 1960s may have
actually made Guatemala look like a shining example of orderly, constitutional
government?
As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None
of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.
"Culture" is not a subset of "nation". The American culture has changed -- all culture
changes in accordance with external influences. America, as a nation founded under a set of
Enlightenment principles, has ended. There remains a huge morass/aggregation of conflicting
cultures, overseen and manipulated by a horrificly corrupt government.
McClennan is the son of one of Johnson's attorneys
I read them both along with Piper's book.
They make a lot more sense that the right wing atmosphere of hate Dallas PD including
officer Tippett another of Oswald's Victims and president bush & cia fbi secret service
army navy Air Force departments of agriculture and every other government department and of
course the man directing the military ambush by 15 shooters, umbrella man.
Have fun with your myths legends and fairy tales, naive credulous gullible idiots.
And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, what had they to cover up? Government
complicity in the assassination of JFK, obviously. So who, in particular, was involved. Well
obviously that branch of government that does assassinations, the CIA. But that does not mean
that the CIA went rogue.
The CIA serves the powers that be, so whatever the antagonism of some individuals within
the Agency, the CIA would not have acted on the assassination of JFK without bipartisan
political support.
LBJ, the obvious beneficiary, had every reason to give the CIA the nod, but someone on the
other side of the aisle had to be complicit too. Who?
Well Nixon had been the Republican Presidential candidate in the previous election, so he
was the effective head of the party and thus the man to go to.
As I argue
here , Nixon's guilty knowledge of the assassination may have been the real cause of his
downfall. Nixon's Vice President, Gerald R. Ford had been appointed to the Warren Commission
by LBJ and it was he who made a critical falsification of that report, therby casting
responsibility for the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald.
It is likely, therefore, that Ford had the goods on Nixon and blackmailed him into
resignation over the Watergate inquiry.
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I
could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic
Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed
unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place , and
forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state
obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve
Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario,
don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most
inner circles ?
Where from did Mr. Andrew Adler, who was forced to resign later, get the idea of killing a
president so he would be replaced with Israel friendly VP? Did Mr. Adler study JFK
assassination and LBJ policy with respect to Israel? Or is it a common knowledge and common
Jewish modus operandi: kill whoever does not like Israel? Do Jews think and talk about
assassinating of American presidents who are unfriendly to Israel? Do Jews believe that the
Deep Sate in Israel considers assassinations and act on it when necessary?
"You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing
LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have
them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to
distract from the "mastermind" assassin?"
You have the reason already in Maurice Joly's Dialogues. The opposition media is created
to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want
silenced. Even the opposition, which always picks up on everything, agrees with this issue,
so it accepted by all. Much of the alternative media has nothing to fear as it is not
alternative media in anything but appearance. But with the Internet it is getting harder to
do this. Finally they fail.
"As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective
control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type
who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising
the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil
assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more
valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?"
So, LBJ just wanted to promote Texas oil and to become the President, no special Israel
connection? And the Israelis just joined the cabal and who can blame them?
I found it very interesting that young LBJ was helping in the Galveston project. Galveston
somehow reminded me of Jacob Schiff. And I also found it fascinating that young Allan Dulles
was the guy who produced the very copy of Joly's Dialogues from which Ohrana plagiarized the
Protocols. Both were working for the dark side from their youth.
I recently learned of another smoking gun. After JFKs Limo arrived at Parkland hospital, many
people looked it over and took photos. There was a bullet hole through the front windshield.
It entered from the front, yet was never discussed afterwards by anyone. The Limo was hauled
away to Washington within hours and secretly repaired. There are lots of links about this,
such as:
Prouty was the source for Mr. X in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Prouty was an air force pilot
in WWII. He flew missions around the world and witnessed history as it happened. After WWII,
he worked in the pentagon as a liaison officer between the military and the CIA. He saw the
original documents authorizing military support of CIA operations around the world.
As Prouty explains it, throughout human history war was a means of killing the other guy
and taking his stuff. The preparation for war and the prosecution of war provided an
organizing principle for human society that gave people the motivation to develop their own
societies, lest the other guy become more powerful than you and kill you.
As he describes it, with the detonation of atomic weapons at the end of WWII, conventional
war was instantly understood to be obsolete. In any future conventional war, if one side was
about to win a decisive victory, the potentially losing side would simply go nuclear, and
everyone would lose.
With the end of conventional war, and the impossibility of nuclear war, the global power
elite invented the proxy war as the new means for the continuation of war as an organizing
principle of society. In the U.S., the CIA was the tool for starting and prosecuting proxy
wars.
Prouty describes how, at the end of WWII, he was flying supply missions to Okinawa for the
staging of the invasion of Japan. The military bases in Okinawa were overflowing with every
conceivable type of materiel necessary to support more than a million man invasion.
After the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan had surrendered, Prouty claims that he asked
a supply officer if they were just going to send all the supplies back to the states.
The officer said no. He said that all the materiel was going to be divided in half, and
that half was going to Seoul, Korea, and that the other half was going to Hanoi, Vietnam.
Prouty believes that by 1945 Korea and Vietnam had already been decided to be the sites of
the first proxy wars, and that the CIA was already involved in planning the wars.
Kennedy was planning to dismantle the CIA, and Prouty recounts in his books, lectures, and
videos how the JFK assassination reversed the course of history.
The JFK assassination is an endless rabbit hole of history. If you jump in, you won't come
out the same way.
This article is a nice overview that explains the problem. There were many powerful groups
who wanted Kennedy killed, and probably several plots were underway. Allow me to suggest "The
Secret Team" by Col. Prouty to your reading list.
Your last post resulted in too many posts to read, but one pointed to an outstanding video
of Lee Oswald's life, showing facts that make it clear he was a CIA operative. Note that
after he returned from Russia after openly committing treason, he was never arrested, and
granted a spousal visa for his Russian wife. That undeniable fact itself is proof he was a
CIA plant. Oswald hoped to become an official CIA officer and federal employee, but remained
a low-level paid operative until his death. Oswald expressed concern in New Orleans that
operatives were considered disposable.
In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that
the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton (Louisiana) in late
August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay
Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an
undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the
assassination".[65]
The CIA also admitted that Clay Shaw had worked for them in some capacity. See quote
below.
During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms,
former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of
the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his
travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[70] Like Shaw, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and
journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS by the mid-1970s.[70] [nb 1] In
February 2003, the CIA released documents pertaining to an earlier inquiry from the
Assassination Records Review Board about QKENCHANT, a CIA project used to provide security
approvals on non-CIA personnel, that indicated Shaw had obtained a "five Agency" clearance
in March 1949.[72]
More interesting information below.
New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews testified to the Warren Commission that while he was
hospitalized for pneumonia, he received a call from "Clay Bertrand" the day after the
assassination, asking him to fly to Dallas to represent Lee Harvey Oswald.[28][29]
According to FBI reports, Andrews told them that this phone call from "Clay Bertrand" was a
figment of his imagination.[30]
In his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison says that after a long search of
the New Orleans French Quarter, his staff was informed by the bartender at the tavern
"Cosimo's" that "Clay Bertrand" was the alias that Clay Shaw used. According to Garrison,
the bartender felt it was no big secret and "my men began encountering one person after
another in the French Quarter who confirmed that it was common knowledge that 'Clay
Bertrand' was the name Clay Shaw went by."[\
So it appears likely that Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw knew each other. Which is sort of
strange.
Then there's George de Mohrenschildt, a very complex and interesting character. I wonder
if anyone here could tell me more about the nature of his relationship with Oswald.
I believe the Zionists in Israel placed the order and Freemasons in the American Deep State
executed the order. It's also quite possible that Zionist terrorists did the actual shooting
as they had the experience in killing Western high profile targets (Moyne, Bernadotte, King
David Hotel bombing, etc) but more likely that elements of the Deep State in America who
hated JFK did the actual shooting. In either case, Oswald was not lone-nut and the case is
certainly not closed. We know this because Trump recently reclassified the sealed JFK
assassination records which were mandated to be released in October, 2017. He stated that he
did so to protect "national security" (aka protect the Deep State and Israel) and to protect
the "names and addresses" of individuals still alive. Trump, far from being an opponent of
the Deep State, is actually working hand-in-hand with them (the Mueller "investigation" is
actually smoke and mirrors to distract the Sheeple from the fact that Trump is actually part
of the Deep State).
I've heard Stone talk about Nixon's reaction to seeing Ruby shoot Oswald, but this surely
wasn't an eyewitness account, as Stone was in 6th grade at the time. His career as a
political operative goes back about 45 years to volunteering for CREEP as a college student
in 1972, somewhat less as an influential one.
Apparently Johnson's mistress said he told her in so many words that the assassination was
going to happen. I think there's little doubt that he was aware and acquiescent, perhaps an
active participant. Ruby probably was his man, and he and Ruby both likely were Israel's men.
A few years later Johnson was blood in the water for the mainstream media shark tank over
Vietnam and civil disorder. If he were the prime mover of the JFK assassination, I doubt that
the media would uniformly have laid off the subject. Only Israel, it would seem, could have
orchestrated such a massive and continuous cover up.
Another well-reasoned and highly-detailed article. I agree that we'll probably never know
many of the important details of how the assassination was planned and who was involved,
given almost all the participants and witnesses are long since dead. However, we can almost
certainly conclude that there was a conspiracy that involved many important individuals from
the establishment, including President LBJ.
What are your thoughts on Seymour Hersh and his book "The Dark Side of Camelot"? I recall
his book received very negative coverage by the MSM, but I can't really judge how credible
his claims happen to be. It's a very shocking book though.
You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing
LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have
them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to
distract from the "mastermind" assassin?
So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a
conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which
has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.
Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK
assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.
says:
June 25, 2018 at 8:09 am GMT 100 Words For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is a stabilized,
panoramic version of the Zapruder film. With this, you can get a clearer idea of the scene and
what really happened. For me at least, it removes a lot of the mystery, revealing that the
physical event itself was not that remarkable, no matter who did it.
Read More Replies:
@JohnnyWalker123 Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.
Which was remarkable.
Watch Rather lie here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc ,
@TonyVodvarka Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds
of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur
is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is
a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that
attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the
chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were
no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group,
which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no
additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will. ,
@Heros Every time I see that Zapruder film I am reminded by the Kinks song "Give the people
what they want":
When Oswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
Yet still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while killer takes aim.......
Hey Mom there go the pieces of the Presidents Brain
Both Kennedy assassinations were also a massive psyop, and they remain so today. All the
talk shows, all the movies, all the images flashing on screen, all the background music. But
the scandal, is always used to push the sexualize and destroy the family agenda. Kennedy
publicly had so many lovers, including Maralyn Monroe, another psyop herself.
It is the same with Clinton's famous cigar. This obsession with perverse sex is a very
strong indicator of where the scandal is emanating. All the dogs not barking that point to this
place are evidence too.
Debsisdead @43. I love your piece detailing things I've seen you post here. You've got my CT
juices flowing more this time, though.
But regarding your query about CounterPunch, I've been a reader for a long time. Then,
shortly after Bernie Sanders announced his campaign, CP began running what ended up being
dozens of articles denouncing him.
Now, I was very slow in endorsing Sanders. I was aware of his record, and once he announced,
I really dug into it, and found even more troubling stuff. Mostly it was his rather spotty
foreign policy record. But eventually, I decided that he was not so much a 'lesser evil" as the
"best good" that the Democratic Party could ever nominate. Having campaigned for alternative
candidates many times, I decided to give this "Occupy the DP" thing a chance.
But since I was delving into his record as CP was writing these articles, I noticed that
they misstated, exaggerated and sometimes out and out lied about Sanders. I won't f*ckbook, so
didn't reply to them, but did post their statements with citations to the correct information
all over the place.
For everywhere I went, I conversed with other lefties about giving Bernie a chance in the
Primaries. Sure, maybe he'll sheepdog if he loses, but why not help him win and not have to
deal with that? Surely getting even a "democratic socialist" in would awaken much of the public
who would then say "I'll have some more of that, thank you very much." But everywhere I came
across people citing CP and other "lefty" sites that denounced him as "not pure" enough.
Just before the actual election, St. Clair
actually wrote an entire book on how " Sanders campaign faltered, undone by the missteps of
its leader and by sabotage from the elites of the Democratic Party."
Well, the DP and the lefties who denounced Sanders and ridiculed his followers might have
played a role, eh?
They did publish an "In Defense of
Caitlin Johnstone" the next week, but the meme that Johnstone was some sort of shill for
the alt-right had been planted, and is still sprouting shoots to this day.
But even though they'd published Johnstone before, they refused to publish the rebuttal she
and Cobb wrote to the piece smearing them.
And of course, as regards your post, Caitlin is one of the most active defenders/supporters
of Julian Assange.
Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar going
by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say that some
of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as "conspiracy
theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received). But, she also
wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.
"... Trump was trumped up as the foil, same as Sanders, to sweep up all the anti-establishment sentiment on the other side of the isle, and really as an ace in the hole for Hillary, as he was considered a completely unelectable buffoon who would do nothing but make a laughingstock out of all Republicans. If you recall, Hillary and the establishment press were actually giving Trump all the love early, to make him the strongest poison pill possible. Of course, much later when there began to be fears that he was actually a threat (largely because of Hillary being so painfully phony and unlikeable), all political and press guns were turned against him, but since he had positioned himself as anti-establishment, this had the unexpected effect of actually increasing his popularity. ..."
"... Any time Trump gets off script (which is what makes me think he might have had some actual populist tendencies), he is quickly "corrected." So in the end, the Deep State doesn't have to actively field sleeper candidates; it has become so entrenched that it knows it can ultimately control whoever wins, and so while it has its preferences (Hillary), and will actively assist them, I don't think it feels the need to fear those it doesn't control at the outset. ..."
As early as January, Catlin voiced suspicion when she tweeted:
There's good conspiracy theory and there's bad conspiracy theory. #QAnon is bad
conspiracy theory. It's either a really good LARPer or a really bad psyop. Informed
insiders do not leak via 4chan. Does not happen. It's an anonymous message board for
trolls. Always has been.
But Catlin recently goes a bit further, warning that:
This administration is advancing longstanding neoconservative agendas with increasing
aggression, perpetuating the Orwellian surveillance state of Bush and Obama, and actively
pursuing the extradition and imprisonment of Julian Assange. Ignore the narratives and
watch the behavior, and he [Trump] looks very much like his predecessor. So cut out the
narratives. Cut out the manipulators. Cut out QAnon from the equation and look at what's
really happening here.
My take [on Qanon] : it is similar to the Obamabots promising good things to
come. Those 'good things' never came, of course.
Further proof, IMHO, that Trump is the Republican Obama. The play book is the
same.
I've written, here and at my blog (over a year ago!), that Trump and Obama both follow
the same political model , that of the faux populist leader . They both claimed to
be outsiders. They both faced crazy opposition that called into question their loyalty to
America. They both had amorphous apologists (Obamabots, Trumptards) that excuse any
betrayal.
Furthermore, I've said that it is logical to assume that the election of these faux
populists have been arranged (by the Deep State). We have many tantalizing clues that
this is so, like:
The nature of the US political system.No real populist has a chance in our
money-driven political system
Non-starter opponents.McCain, Hillary are the embodiment of the
establishment that everyone loves to hate.
Clear manipulations.In a time of great dissatisfaction, there were only
TWO populists that ran for President in 2016 - Trump and Sanders. Sanders was a
'sheepdog' (bogus candidate) who pulled many punches and betrayed his base.
Very different stated agendas, yet staying true to Deep State goals.Tax
cuts, military adventures, etc.
Forgiveness."No drama Obama" refused to pursue legal action against Bush
Administration officials and, immediately upon his election, Trump said that he would not
pursue Hillary, saying that they Clintons had been thru enough.
@ Jackrabbit
"I've said that it is logical to assume that the election of these faux populists have been
arranged (by the Deep State)."
While this is of course possible, and likely sometimes happens (might have been true with
Obama's first run), I think the Deep State has such firm grip on power they aren't really
worried about their ability to co-opt and control whoever wins. It's more about bleeding off
steam from the masses, preserving the illusion of democracy. So "populists" serve a useful
function, dividing would-be contenders, which along with general voter disgust means it
actually takes a very small number of votes to control the ultimate outcome of the
election.
Sanders was allowed to continue to energize pissed off people of the left, with the PTB
knowing that when he was eventually canned and turned the vast bulk of his voters would
either not vote at all or vote for their completely owned Hillary. But his presence in the
Democratic mix meant the Democrats could at least pretend to have some relation to the more
socially minded Dems of old.
Trump was trumped up as the foil, same as Sanders, to sweep up all the
anti-establishment sentiment on the other side of the isle, and really as an ace in the hole
for Hillary, as he was considered a completely unelectable buffoon who would do nothing but
make a laughingstock out of all Republicans. If you recall, Hillary and the establishment
press were actually giving Trump all the love early, to make him the strongest poison pill
possible. Of course, much later when there began to be fears that he was actually a threat
(largely because of Hillary being so painfully phony and unlikeable), all political and press
guns were turned against him, but since he had positioned himself as anti-establishment, this
had the unexpected effect of actually increasing his popularity.
No worries. Plenty of preemptive sabotage had been implanted prior to the election, such
that long before he was even sworn in any actual populist tendencies he may have had (I
suspect some were real, some were electioneering) were completely hamstrung. The Deep State
flexed its muscles, and once again the US had its "populist," but the Deep State was again
holding the reigns. Any time Trump gets off script (which is what makes me think he might
have had some actual populist tendencies), he is quickly "corrected." So in the end, the Deep
State doesn't have to actively field sleeper candidates; it has become so entrenched that it
knows it can ultimately control whoever wins, and so while it has its preferences (Hillary),
and will actively assist them, I don't think it feels the need to fear those it doesn't
control at the outset.
J Swift,
I dont' know if that is completely true. Although maybe the higher ups believe that. You can
tell by the texts they really didn't want Trump. At least the lower level grunt workers in
the deep state. Probably because they aren't completely sure he won't go off script. I do
believe if they thought he would be a problem they would just kill him.
...
Incidentally, along the same lines and to revive some of the Korea discussion, here's an
interesting article discussing how the Deep State is ramping up its opposition to real peace
in Korea.
(link omitted by HW)
Posted by: J Swift | Jun 24, 2018 12:57:43 PM | 14
That thought bubble seems to contradict the paragraph immediately preceding it.
i.e. The Deep State/ Swamp wants to perpetuate tensions with NK/ China to keep arms
sales flourishing and it's worried that Trump will cause peace to break out (which he will do
- and make it look like either an accident, or (that old Right Wing Chestnut) Someone Else's
Fault.
You make some good points. There was a time when I also believed that Hillary and her
cronies had masterfully set up the election so that she could win. But as it became clear how
much Trump's politics resembled Obama's, I began to believe that TRUMP was meant to win all
along.
My view is underscored by what I believe was a need to turn the page on the Obama years.
Hillary could not have done that because she was so closely associated with Obama. This is
especially true wrt USA's support for extremist proxies. A 'political reversal' can best
excuse what many extremist supporters would otherwise see as a 'betrayal'. (Note: The
elevation of MbS may also be a part of the necessary 'shift' - the alternative was conflict
with Russia/WWIII) .
I think the Deep State has such firm grip on power they aren't really worried about
their ability to co-opt and control whoever wins.
That may be. But even that mild view indicates that the US govt has a legitimacy
problem. A problem that they would be acutely aware of.
It seems very likely to me that the role of the President is so key that it must be
secured by someone that is sure to "play ball". That means an ambitious money-driven,
narcissist social climber that explicitly agrees to serve the establishment (as per
our 'inverted totalitarian' form of government).
Trump was trumped up as the foil, same as Sanders ...
Maybe. One could make a case that this is how it was planned to be but Hillary's email
troubles (and the need to "turn the page" on the Obama years) caused the establishment
to turn on her. In fact, the efforts to paint Trump as a dupe of Putin via the 'Trump
dossier' began in earnest in Spring 2016 after it was clear that Hillary's email troubles
could not be swept under the rug (which prompted Bloomberg's offer to run so as to prevent
the 'disaster' of Trump or Sanders winning the Presidency) .
By June 2016 Trump was no longer a foil (if he ever was). Trump pushed back HARD on
Hillary after the Orlando Pulse Nightclub attack. He didn't defer to Hillary's experience and
the Democratic Party's ties to the gay community.
In July 2016, Hillary made herself even more hated by hiring a disgraced DWS into a high
position in her campaign. That is as self-defeating as using a private email server for State
Dept business. Such 'sloppiness' calls into question her desire to win the Presidency.
Trump also said, at one point, that he could kill someone in Times Square without
consequence. That is a very strange statement to make. Anyone that says such a thing is
either looney or believes that he has full and complete support from powerful interests.
Lastly, Hillary is simply not a populist and has too much baggage. The 'smart move' for a
Deep State that is fully in control is to 'hire' someone that can perform as a faux populist.
In fact, Hillary might be viewed as dangerous because Clinton loyalists that constitute a
political machine.
Jackrabbit. The very best I can say to defend the narrative we were told during and about the
2016 election is that the 0.01% were going to win whether Trump or HRC moved into the White
House.
But like you, I long ago came to think it more likely that Trump was the chosen one from
before he even took his escalator ride down into history (where paid actors wearing MAGA gear
given to them cheered and jeered on cue).
Everyone knew this was the "election of rejection." Establishment politics was no longer
acceptable by either the "left" or the "right." The Democratic Primary was so crooked that
even many Democratic partisans couldn't bring themselves to support HRC. Especially after she
doubled down with DWS and Tim Kaine.
In retrospect, the entire show appears to have been what they call in professional
wrestling, "a work." A brilliant piece of propaganda.
No, Trump was not the chosen one. Hillary had been schooled and trained specifically for
this. Trump was considered perfect opposition - dumb-ass but clever and likely to score with
a few punches - unlike the miserable row of other Republicans. Trump is merely a symbol of an
Empire coming to an end. Do you not get this?
Yep, Lockhearn @29, I read all that stuff, and totally believed it myself right up until
about the time of the Conventions.
There it was right there, HRC's team demanding MSM to promote Trump as the "pied
piper."
It was all laid out so brilliantly. We were almost all led down that pied piper path,
following all the bread crumbs laid out for us to "discover," and feel so smart for having
read the "hacked" emails and DNC documents (the latter of which were actually published by
that Guccifer 2.0 creation).
We're to believe that CNN's Jeff Zucker did everything in his power to stop Trump. The
same Jeff Zucker who broke into live programming to show Trump's escalator ride (the ONLY
candidate who got live coverage of his announcement). Then, CNN aired hour after hour of live
and uninterrupted coverage of Trump rallies.
"Uninterrupted" is the key word there as it puts to lie the claim he did it for "ratings."
No advertising sold means ratings were not the goal. Besides, Sanders was drawing larger
crowds, so if Jeff wanted ratings, he would have shown Sanders rallies, too.
Oh, and that same Jeff Zucker used to be CEO of NBC, back when it was wholly owned by GE
(one of the world's largest military contractors). And he gave Trump his very own Reality TV
Show which imprinted the Trump character on the minds of USAmerica. And even though its
ratings dropped year after year, Jeff kept pumping more and more resources into the Trump
Project.
Oh, but Jeff made fun of Trump you say. And he also ridiculed Trump supporters.
Bearing in mind that polls before the Primaries showed that at best 1/3 of USAmericans
trusted the MSM, and hated MSM for condescending to us and telling us what to believe and
do....
How would the brilliant propagandists behind MSM expect voters to react to being ridiculed
on national TV?
You're quite intelligent enough to engage your critical thinking and reconsider the past
few years of MSM coverage on all things leading up to the campaign and the campaign and Trump
Administration.
Once again I ask, "what would a propaganda designed for people who know the MSM is
propaganda look like?"
I think it's important to note that even within the clever and long practiced trickery of
the powers that be, everything changes. Every move that they make means one less time that
the same move can be made in the future.
Every time they perceive how the people feel, and run another lie to accord with this
feeling, they come closer to burning out the entire system of trickery and foolery. And no
one knows quite how burned it is today.
To think that the PTB have it all under control is - in my opinion - an error on the same
scale of magnitude as thinking that the people of the US are going to keep taking it forever.
Actually, no one knows what will happen. There's a lot of calculation of risk that goes into
deception, and frankly I don't see the current elites as possessing much acumen in this risk
evaluation. Hubris saturates deep into the bone, as deep as the state.
I haven't seen the PTB do one thing right in the last few years. They misunderstand the
forces of history marching against them. Or rather, they are completely wary of these forces
but don't know how to learn new ways to triumph in the face of them. They are separated from
the source-beds and aquifers of real experience which feed learning. So they keep screwing
up. In my view, although I don't think it matters much either way, it's more likely that
Trump is in office because they screwed up than because they brilliantly planned and executed
it that way.
Grieved @39. I absolutely agree that TPTSB are quite ready and willing to make changes to
their tactics in response to reactions "on the ground." Of course, as both Milton Friedman
and Rahm Emanuel said, a crucial part of their planning is to have alternative plans already
in place. Like in chess, it's often a matter of how many possible moves ahead they have
planned.
But if a plan really "goes south" on them, they are quite able to step in and do whatever
is necessary. And yet, no matter how much we're told the "Deep State" hates Trump, well,
there he is. And his supporters even get to use the Obama-bots' 8-year long apologia that The
President is being FORCED to continue/escalate US policies by those dark forces.
Similarly, I think it wrong to assume that TPTSB are some sort of monolith. Within any
group there are competitions and sometimes those are very severe differences. Recently we
reread Winston Churchill's 1920s oped about the "International Jewish Conspiracy." He posited
that even they were divided into the globalist Bolsheviks and the nationalistic Zionists (and
that Britain should back the Zionists).
You write, "I haven't seen the PTB do one thing right in the last few years."
But of course, you are assuming you know what were their goals. I don't pretend to know.
I'm mostly listing facts - things we can all see that have happened. And I ask cui bono?
Again, the 0.01% were going to win whichever of their candidates was (s)elected. But
looking back at everything from the suddenly greatly increased MSM racial divisionism and
Russia-demonizing starting in 2013/2014, right up to the present non-stop hysteria about the
latest shocking Tweet (while no one notices Congress pass another record-breaking military
budget), and I am suspicious of the official MSM narrative.
And I find it fascinating that both Trump supporters and Trump haters are completely
sucked into the story the MSM presents us.
But having us divided over everything sure does help TPTSB.
Debsisdead @43. I love your piece detailing things I've seen you post here. You've got my CT
juices flowing more this time, though.
But regarding your query about CounterPunch, I've been a reader for a long time. Then,
shortly after Bernie Sanders announced his campaign, CP began running what ended up being
dozens of articles denouncing him.
Now, I was very slow in endorsing Sanders. I was aware of his record, and once he
announced, I really dug into it, and found even more troubling stuff. Mostly it was his
rather spotty foreign policy record. But eventually, I decided that he was not so much a
'lesser evil" as the "best good" that the Democratic Party could ever nominate. Having
campaigned for alternative candidates many times, I decided to give this "Occupy the DP"
thing a chance.
But since I was delving into his record as CP was writing these articles, I noticed that
they misstated, exaggerated and sometimes out and out lied about Sanders. I won't f*ckbook,
so didn't reply to them, but did post their statements with citations to the correct
information all over the place.
For everywhere I went, I conversed with other lefties about giving Bernie a chance in the
Primaries. Sure, maybe he'll sheepdog if he loses, but why not help him win and not have to
deal with that? Surely getting even a "democratic socialist" in would awaken much of the
public who would then say "I'll have some more of that, thank you very much." But everywhere
I came across people citing CP and other "lefty" sites that denounced him as "not pure"
enough.
Just before the actual election, St. Clair
actually wrote an entire book on how " Sanders campaign faltered, undone by the missteps
of its leader and by sabotage from the elites of the Democratic Party."
Well, the DP and the lefties who denounced Sanders and ridiculed his followers might have
played a role, eh?
They did publish an "In Defense of
Caitlin Johnstone" the next week, but the meme that Johnstone was some sort of shill for
the alt-right had been planted, and is still sprouting shoots to this day.
But even though they'd published Johnstone before, they refused to publish the rebuttal
she and Cobb wrote to the piece smearing them.
And of course, as regards your post, Caitlin is one of the most active
defenders/supporters of Julian Assange.
Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar
going by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say
that some of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as
"conspiracy theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received).
But, she also wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.
To think that the PTB have it all under control is - in my opinion - an error ...
"PTB" is a shorthand that conflates many different power centers (Banks, MIC,
AIPAC, etc.).
While its true that they can't control everything, they don't have to. They don't have to
control every member of Congress, for example. But the Presidency - which is the linchpin of
foreign policy as well as holder of the "bully pulpit" - is important enough that some degree
of control would make sense. Especially when the country is stressed and discontent is high.
Then, MAYBE, you don't want to leave anything to chance. MAYBE, you want a guy that will lie
well, and do what he's told.
J Swift @14 tempers Jack's post and goldhoarder @16 goes one step further. (No criticism,
just another view. See also Jack @26.) More:
The expression Deep State: implies a 'state' which the various strands of power behind the
scenes are not; the word 'deep' implies hidden, again, not specially, at least some vague
description can be made.
The US is a corporate oligarchy and the politicians are brokers of influence and votes (in
congress, senate, and from their constituents..) They are paid to 'support' or 'champion'
this or that in a complex criss-cross of relationships and money/favor exchanges. The
complexity makes for obscurity. The fake Dem-Rep duopoly in fine rests only on a kind of
tribal preference linked to cultural issues (abortion, sex, race, identity politics, hate of
communism, religion, splinter oddities, etc.) as touted to Joe Public.
Behind the scenes, in no order of importance:
Banking and Finance, Big Energy/Oil, Military-industrial (entwined with the two previous),
Social (medical, insurance, Big Pharma, education, all partly controlled by non-Gov. and/or
privatised to the max), Real Estate + Territorial (linked to banking and finance, water
control, mining, energy and transport), Big Agri (Monsanto, etc.) Manufacturing is not up
there (see Trump trying to correct) except in small splintered stakes. For ex. one might
speak of a Security Industry which includes TSA employees (fastest growing employment)
to airbags (car industry) to anti-virus programs to Guns sales who are they supposed to pay?
etc.
The joker in the pack is the MSM coupled with a section of the performance arts
(Hollywood) and communications in general (internet, Silicon Valley, etc.)
Overall, the free-wheeling secretive corrupt system of deal-making and pretend-governance
makes it that the USA has not a Gvmt for the people and is thus, it follows
inexorably, extremely vulnerable to any outside influence. First is of course the Israel
lobby/infiltration, but others, very varied, try the same tricks and succeed. Globalisation,
in a kind of supposedly 'more moral', purely greed-based, i.e. commercial vein, move, is
implemented to re-create a better, different Empire (as compared to the British, too heavy
handed..) is another facet of the picture. That is now failing.
Noirette@62 - Well said. Deep state is a hopelessly nebulous term, but one I have
grown fond of using lately precisely because of the qualifier deep . The 'problem'
with the U.S. government should be defined by the mechanism of it's vulnerability to
usurpation , not the individual psychopathic oligarchs or agents of foreign
governments/potentates that invariably line up to exploit that vulnerability. Start listing
all the players, and US citizens' eyes will glaze over in - oh - 15 seconds, give or take.
That mechanism is beyond the comprehension (or the willingness to comprehend) of most of
us in the US. No matter, as we would only try to fix the problem with the two tools of
democracy intentionally corrupted to be incapable of fixing it: voting and the law.
That's not to say that concepts of voting and the law are inherently flawed - that's just an
observation of their current debased and useless form in the US for fixing our government.
Which is why the Deep State has no problem encouraging a mindless, religiously slavish
devotion to them, i.e., "We are a nation of laws. It's your responsibility to vote. How
dare you question the power of the divine tools bestowed upon you by the magnanimous God of
State!"
Deep State at least emphasizes the intentionally hidden aspect. I'll settle for the
effect of that less-than-precise, but comic book-simple single concept to stick in the
minds of my fellow Americans. Where we would go from there is anyone's guess, but we're in no
danger (at least in the US) of having to worry about that anytime soon. I mean, if there ever
was a treasonous, seditious deep state here, then the FBI would be furious and arrest them
all. Thank God! See? Impossible...
Guerrero @66: WHAT is the source of the badness of the current system?
You're right that corruption is not new. IMO What's different is the extent of
mal-investment, disenfranchisement, and control.
>> ME wars : trillions of dollars, thousands of US lives lost and millions of
local lives lost or disrupted
>> New Cold War : trillions to upgrade nukes and maintain an aggressive
posture;
>> Ponzi Finance : Global Financial Crisis is estimated to have cost on the
order of 1 year of global gdp (trillions)
>> "I got mine!" price gouging and corporate welfare :
- healthcare It is estimated that Americans pay four times as much for healthcare as other
developed countries;
- environment: Monsanto, and other chemical/agricuture companies destroy our environment (bye bye
bees, hello gmo); global warming (or the potential for global warming) is largely
ignored;
- finance: legal usury in the form of payday loans and credit card interest rates; Dodd-Frank
rules were mostly written by the financial industry and even those weak protections are
now being rolled back.
- defense: over-priced weapons systems; virtually impossible to close bases or reduce the defense
budget;
- and more! Virtually every industry gets their profit-maximizing perks.
Furthermore, I've said that it is logical to assume that the election of these faux populists
have been arranged (by the Deep State). We have many tantalizing clues that this is so, like:
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 24, 2018 10:38:59 AM | 10
I have several objections here. One is "nature or nurture" problem, how political leaders
divert from popular positions that they were promising, were they already
"brainwashed/trained" before political campaigns in which they claimed those positions or
afterwards. I do not have enough empirical data either way, but upon reaching an elected
office politicians are swamped with information and they must rely on "filters" in the form
of staff etc., moreover they get media attention with concomitant media pressure. And under
that pressure and perceived "consensus" their positions evolve in the rotten direction.
Rather painfully, many "training moments" are well documented. As the First Lady, Hillary
Clinton was polite when hosting the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafats which got her
vilified for years. Giving speeches to AIPAC meetings is much less traumatic. Obama tried to
move Israel/Palestinian situation in a positive direction for something like a year, and then
he gave up when it look futile and seemed to conflict with "other priorities". Very recently
we could observe "training" of Jeremy Corbyn resulting in admission that "of course he does
not trust Russia" and some perfunctory purge of "anti-Semites".
Basically, without a supporting and lasting political movements solidifying their
positions, politicians abandon those positions or are eliminated. This allows to keep some
hopes about "Corbynism", and in the case of USA, a more remote hope that a wider progressive
and/or sensitive movements will grow beyond their current narrow niches.
I have no intention to promote populism/nationalism. I am simply stating that when one
strips a population of its sovereignty and democracy, as the 'Globalist' project does,
eventually it leads to a revolt.
At this point the revolt is being led by the 'populists/nationalists'. As the devastation
that is being caused by the 'Globalist' project continues there will be fewer and fewer
people who to drink the 'Globalism' kool-aid.
Teh author stated: "The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence
fabrication scheme hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including
journalists in Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers
dossier ; the sequel can be followed here . "
Over weeks and months of last year, Adam Waldman (lead image, left), a Washington lobbyist
with ties to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, tried to lure Julian Assange (second
from left) into making incriminating admissions to benefit the Democrats' campaign alleging
Russian collusion in Clinton's defeat by President Donald Trump. Assange tried to use Waldman
for a deal with the US Department of Justice, exchanging an offer to withhold disclosure of
classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents and trade other secrets, some Russian,
in exchange for a grant of immunity from US prosecution.
At the same time, Oleg Deripaska (third from left), the oligarch in control of the Russian
aluminium industry, paid Waldman to offer US prosecutors information about the Trump election
campaign manager Paul Manafort and others connected to the Trump campaign, including Russians,
in exchange for a US Government promise not to impose sanctions on Deripaska. Last week Luke
Harding (right), a reporter for the Guardian, a London newspaper, sold the story of Waldman's
meetings with Assange and Deripaska as a conspiracy to advance a scheme by President Vladimir
Putin to control the US Government.
Four plotters; more than four schemes; money in Waldman's and Harding's pockets; not a shred
of truth.
The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence fabrication scheme
hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including journalists in
Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers
dossier ; the sequel can be followed here .
The story of Deripaska's engagement of Waldman as his lobbyist with Hillary Clinton at the
State Department and other officials in the Obama Administration has been running for nine
years. Deripaska's payments to Waldman have averaged half a million dollars a year; that's a
total to date of about $5 million. The failure of every one of Waldman's operations on
Deripaska's behalf can be read at this click .
A semi-annual report of Waldman's lobbying activities for Deripaska is required to be
disclosed by the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); the record is accessible at the
FARA unit of the Justice
Department in Washington. For example, details of which US officials Waldman met and what he
wanted them to do for Deripaska were accessible in the FARA filings for 2011
here .
Since then the filings can be followed at six-monthly intervals through December 15, 2017.
In last December's filing Waldman claimed to the Justice Department that, among the purposes of
Deripaska's engagement, he was being paid for selecting animal welfare charities and promotion
of a Russian vaccine for ebola.
Waldman claims on his company website that "Endeavor acts as a core member of its Client's
[Deripaska] holding company executive team, and is the sole representative of its Client's
myriad interests before the U.S. government." Today the FARA dossier on Waldman's Russian
clients shows this:
Source:
https://efile.fara.gov/ When Waldman registered himself as lobbying for the Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, he was doing Deripaska's bidding; Lavrov usually
does .
This means that Waldman's registration as Deripaska's agent in Washington remains active and
he continues to be paid, even though the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
ordered all US individuals and institutions to cease doing business with Deripaska and his
companies from April 6.
The US Treasury did not sanction Deripaska for supporting animal welfare and an ebola
vaccine. The reasons for Deripaska's sanction, according to the Treasury, were that "having
acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, a senior official of the
Government of the Russian Federation, as well as pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
energy sector of the Russian Federation economy. Deripaska has said that he does not separate
himself from the Russian state. He has also acknowledged possessing a Russian diplomatic
passport, and claims to have represented the Russian government in other countries. Deripaska
has been investigated for money laundering, and has been accused of threatening the lives of
business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official, and taking part in extortion and
racketeering. There are also allegations that Deripaska bribed a government official, ordered
the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group." For more on the
US action against Deripaska, read
this .
Waldman has sidestepped the ban on taking money from Deripaska by changing his registration
from Endeavor Group -- a lobbying company covered by the OFAC sanction – to "Endeavor Law
Firm PC". That's a one-man company whose only employee is Waldman; it isn't mentioned by the
Endeavor Group's website. As a law firm acting for Deripaska, Waldman isn't banned by the new
sanction.
In February of this year the Murdoch media reported that on Deripaska's instructions,
Waldman was attempting to arrange appearances before the US Senate Intelligence Committee for
Deripaska and for Christopher Steele, one of the authors of the Golden Showers dossier. Both of
them wanted the Democratic minority on the committee to issue the invitations and secure
advance undertakings in writing from the Committee, including immunity from
US prosecution .
Waldman's telephone texts were exchanged with Senator Mark Warner, a former governor of
Virginia; Democratic Party runner for president; and at present vice-chairman of the
Intelligence Committee. The messages were leaked by Republicans in Congress to the Murdoch
media, and then confirmed by Warner himself.
Deripaska, Waldman told Warner, was trying to negotiate his testimony at the Intelligence
Committee against Manafort and the Trump presidential campaign in exchange for protection from
US Government sanctions. Exactly what Deripaska told Waldman he was ready to tell the Senate
Committee about Russian Government involvement with Manafort and the Trump election campaign
has not been disclosed because Waldman failed to get any concession for Deripaska from either
the Senators or from the Justice Department officials whom he was lobbying at the same
time.
Interpreting the series, a Fox News reporter claimed: "Over the course of four months
between February and May 2017, Warner and Waldman also exchanged dozens of [telephone] texts
about possible testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Deripaska, Waldman's primary
Russian billionaire client .In the dozens of text messages between February 2017 and May 2017,
Waldman also talked to Warner about getting Deripaska to cooperate with the intelligence
committee. There have been reports that Deripaska, who has sued Manafort over a failed business
deal, has information to share about the former Trump aide. In May 2017, the Senate and House
intelligence committees decided not to give Deripaska legal immunity in exchange for testimony
to the panels. The text messages between Warner and Waldman appeared to stop that month." Trump
responded by tweeting: "All tied into Crooked Hillary."
For the full story of Deripaska's relationship with Manafort, read this .
Assange was first mentioned by Waldman in a message to Warner on February 15, 2017. By then,
according to Ecuadorian Embassy meeting logs exposed only now, Waldman had met Assange
three times in January, and was planning to meet him again in March. Waldman told Warner that
for this he was acting "pro bono"; that's to say, Assange wasn't paying Waldman's bill. To
protect himself, Waldman also claimed that if US officials, including Warner, didn't appreciate
the value of Waldman's negotiations with Assange, he would stop them. In retrospect, Waldman
continued meeting Assange for another nine months. Waldman's trips to London and his expenses
there for at least some of those occasions were charged to other clients of Waldman's.
The significance of Waldman's messages about Assange were ignored in the US at the time of
their first release because US reporters were focused on Waldman's Russian connexion, and the
potential for damage the reporters believed this might do to Trump. Likewise, Waldman's reports
of what Assange told him have been ignored in the London media until the Guardian revealed the
Ecuadorian government reports on Assange and the visit logs. The Guardian's purpose, like the
earlier Murdoch media reporting, was to find a Kremlin connection.
In retrospect, the Waldman-Warner texts reveal that it was Assange's intention to use
Waldman to make a connection, not to the Kremlin, but to the US Government, trading Wikileaks
for Assange's freedom. Assange was requesting, so Waldman told Warner, safe passage to
Washington and release from threats of US prosecution in return for information regarding
"future leaks" and a promise not "to do something catastrophic for the dems, Obama, CIA and
national security". Waldman wrote that to Warner on February 16, 2017, adding: "I hope someone
will consider getting him to the US to ameliorate the damage".
On March 7, 2017, Wikileaks released publicly what Assange had already described to Waldman.
This was the start of publication of the CIA's Vault-7 and Vault-8 files. The files, claimed
Wikileaks, were "the largest ever publication of confidential documents by the agency." They
revealed the extent, cost and penetration, inside the US as well as globally, of CIA
cyber-warfare operations of many kinds, including hacker attacks which the CIA created as false
flags, making them appear to originate from Russian sources.
"Since 2001," Wikileaks announced , "the CIA has gained political and budgetary
preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not
just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force --
its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to
disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in
order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division,
which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000
registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and
other 'weaponized' malware."
Assange was quoted in the Wikileaks release as saying: "There is an extreme proliferation
risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled
proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with
their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of 'Year Zero' goes
well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from
a political, legal and forensic perspective."
This was what Assange had told Waldman, days earlier, was the "something catastrophic" he
was planning. But Assange told Waldman more. He was willing to deal if the Justice Department
would agree to a quid pro quo. Waldman's messages to Warner confirm this; they also reveal that
Waldman got no swift response from Justice Department officials, so he asked Warner for his
help. Assange then started his slow release of the Vault-7 archive, one week at a time:
Assange's last publication in the CIA Vault series was on November 9. Waldman's last
meetings with Assange were in the same month.
What exactly were the terms Assange asked Waldman to trade with the Justice Department and
Warner's Intelligence Committee? Was he telling Waldman that he would stop the release of more
CIA Vault-7 documents in return for immunity from prosecution? Did he reveal to Waldman enough
information for the CIA and Justice Department to identify the source of the CIA documents?
Last week, on June 18, the US Attorney's office in Manhattan
announced that it had indicted a former CIA software engineer,
Joshua Schulte (right), as the source of the Wikileaks releases. Read the 14-page indictment
here .
Schulte, 29, had worked in the CIA's Engineering Development Group, which designed the hacking
tools used by its Center for Cyber Intelligence. In late 2016, he left the Agency and moved to
New York to work for Bloomberg. The prosecutors have charged thirteen counts against Schulte;
nine of them relate to the Wikileaks releases, and carry a total of 90 years' imprisonment on
conviction. Schulte has pleaded not guilty.
Bloomberg has
reported Schulte's indictment and court appearance, noting that after he left the CIA in
November 2016 he "worked briefly for Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News,
leaving the company in March 2017." Bloomberg has not been charged with gaining unlawful
advantage from Schulte's expertise. US media reporting the Schulte charges claim his
disclosures were one of the worst losses of classified documents in the CIA's history. Earlier
document releases through Wikileaks by Edward Snowden in 2013 came for the most part from the
National Security Agency (NSA), for which Snowden had been a contractor. He has been charged by
US prosecutors with espionage, and been granted asylum in Russia.
Wikileaks isn't named in the Schulte indictment; instead, it is referred to as
"Organization-1 which posted the Classified Information online". Schulte, the court papers
imply, obtained the classified information during 2016, in the months leading up to his
departure from the CIA in November of that year. Two months later Assange had the files,
because he told Waldman about them during their January meetings.
By the time in March, when Assange started publishing from Vault-7, investigators from the
CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had already identified Schulte as their
suspect. In last week's court papers it is revealed that Schulte was first interrogated by the
FBI within days of the first Wikileaks publication.
How did the FBI find its way so swiftly to Schulte? Had Waldman's contacts with the Justice
Department in February, relaying what Assange had told him, helped pinpoint Schulte as the
Wikileaks source?
Assange's current barrister in London is Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers . She and a press spokesman,
Elina Gibbons-Plowright, were asked to clarify the meetings between Waldman and Assange which
had taken place in 2017. In addition to multiple telephone-calls to their offices, the
questions were recorded on Robinson's answer-phone and emailed. She and Gibbons-Plowright were
initially reluctant to respond.
Julian Assange and Jennifer Robinson during London court proceedings in 2011. Assange
took refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in June 2012; he was granted diplomatic asylum by the
Ecuador Government in August 2012, and Ecuadorian citizenship in December 2017. US threats to
have the UK Government arrest him and extradite him have been renewed by the Schulte indictment
of last week.
Then on Friday Robinson replied by email: "Mr Assange is cut off from phone and internet,
and is only permitted legal visits, so the only way I can put your questions to him is to
physically go into the embassy. I have no scheduled visits until next week. I trust you
understand the difficulties of his current circumstances and the impact of this in terms of
ability to provide comment and will acknowledge this in however you report this story."
I replied: "The Waldman-Assange meetings commenced, with your knowledge and counsel for your
client, more than a year ago. The SMS texts were published four months ago. Consequently, the
questions are for you to answer. You will know that Mr Waldman purports to be the one-man
employee of the Endeavor Law Firm PC, as well as the principal of Endeavor Group, a lobbying
firm. You knew that he and Mr Assange discussed matters of law and proposals for the US
Department of Justice."
The questions for Robinson were: 1. After meeting with Mr Assange in mid-February 2017, Mr
Waldman sent an SMS to Senator Mark Warner saying Mr Assange wanted "safe passage from the USG
to discuss the past and future leaks". Please explain what "safe passage" meant then. 2. In
February Mr Assange told Mr Waldman that he was planning "something catastrophic for the dems,
Obama, CIA and national security" – was that the Vault 7 disclosure? 3. Mr Waldman also
quoted Mr Assange as saying he wanted to go to the US "to ameliorate the damage" – what
did Mr Assange mean by "ameliorate the damage"? 4. Mr Waldman says Mr Assange agreed to
"serious and important concessions" for Mr Waldman to take directly to the US Department of
Justice and discuss with those officials. What were these concessions? 5. Within hours or days
of the first Wikileaks publication of the Vault 7 files, the FBI went to interview Joshua
Schulte. Did Mr Assange give Mr Waldman information or promise information about Mr Schulte to
help the FBI and CIA to identify him as a source for the Vault 7 files?
Robinson has not answered.
In Washington Waldman hides from email and telephone contact. His website contact email
address is secured behind a password barrier set up in Germany. His office telephone number
202-715-0966 provides an extension number 1006 for Waldman, but no message can be left on the
answer-phone. Waldman himself does not pick up during office hours. Neither is there an office
receptionist. The telephone directory number, like the email address, is a blind.
Questions were sent to Waldman's personal email address, which he has used to communicate
with me in the past. Waldman was asked to "clarify what were the client relationships and
purposes you held out to Mr Assange which the latter believed to be in his interest to pursue
as often with you as he appears to have done?" Waldman refuses to answer.
Harding, a Guardian correspondent in Moscow between 2007 and 2011, reported last week that
"US intelligence agencies concluded with 'high confidence' last year, in an unclassified
intelligence assessment, that the Kremlin shared hacked emails with WikiLeaks that undermined
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as part of its effort to sway the 2016 election in
favour of Donald Trump." For identification of the faults of the US intelligence agency report,
read
this .
For months after the election in November 2016, Harding has suggested by innuendo, the
visits Waldman made to Assange from January to November 2017 – ten reportedly counted
from secret logs
obtained from the Ecuadorian Government -- indicate that Waldman, Assange and Deripaska
were scheming to advance Russian interests in the defeat of the Democratic Party campaign
against Trump.
"It is not clear why Waldman went to the WikiLeaks founder or whether the meetings had any
connection to the Russian billionaire, who is now subject to US sanctions", Harding reported,
then drawing his own conclusion: "But the disclosure is likely to raise further questions about
the extent and nature of Assange's alleged ties to Russia." This was Harding's cue for the
answer he has already decided – Waldman was Assange's back-channel to the Kremlin. In
November 2017, Harding had published a book with this conclusion in the
title, "Collusion – How Russia [sic] Helped [sic] Trump [sic] Win the White House". The
Latin qualifier has been added to identify the innuendoes for which Harding has reported no
conclusive evidence.
The headline claims the Ecuadorian surveillance reports on Assange count nine visits by
Waldman. In Harding's text, he reports three Waldman visits to Assange in January 2017; two in
March; three in April; and two in November. If accurately counted, they add up to ten. Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/ The Waldman telephone texts to Senator Warner which have been
published start in February 2017, and refer to contact with Assange which Waldman had had
already. In March, when Waldman met Assange twice, he told Warner he had "convinced him to make
serious and important concessions and am discussing those w/DOJ [with US Department of
Justice]."
The web and print displays of the story don't provide evidence for the reported connection
between Deripaska and Assange on which Harding sets store. Assange refused to reply to the
questions Harding had sent him; Waldman and Deripaska likewise.
Harding believes Assange met Waldman as a go-between through Deripaska to Moscow. It did not
occur to Harding that Assange was negotiating with Waldman for a deal with Washington.
"... This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much of the world as possible. In addition to the banking families, the 'Globalists' include any number of extremely wealthy people, (Industrialists, Tech Entrepreneurs, Middle-East Sheiks, Saudi Royals, and Nouveaux Riches such as Soros, Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs, etc.). The 'Globalists' directly control virtually all Western NGOs (Soros), think tanks and major media. ..."
Thanks, everyone, for all the book recommendations – several I had not read. I would
add "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn, "The Shame of the
Cities" by Lincoln Steffens, and "Who Will Tell the People" by William Greider, and
in that order.
I agree with your points, but would like to build on them a bit.
The 'Banking and Finance' cartel behind the U.S. deep state is said to consist of eight
families, half American and half European. (The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families,
Dean Henderson, Global Research, May 19, 2016)
This banking and finance cartel (which, as you say, is interlocked with big oil, the
military/industrial, big tech, etc.) forms the core of what are called the 'Globalists', an
international financial elite that use their wealth to exert political control over as much
of the world as possible. In addition to the banking families, the 'Globalists' include any
number of extremely wealthy people, (Industrialists, Tech Entrepreneurs, Middle-East Sheiks,
Saudi Royals, and Nouveaux Riches such as Soros, Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs, etc.). The
'Globalists' directly control virtually all Western NGOs (Soros), think tanks and major
media.
The 'Globalists' control not only the U.S. Deep State, but also the European Union
structures. They also have purchased a large number of politicians throughout the Western
World. Through this control they have stripped sovereignty from both the U.S. and Europe, and
converted them into effective 'Oligarchic Dictatorships'. These dictatorships are set-up for
the benefit of the 'Globalists' themselves, and have little interest in the well-being of
their citizens. This is seen in the impoverishment and societal collapse rapidly progressing
in both the U.S. and Europe.
Globalization is the 'Globalists' project of Global Governance, which effectively strips
nation-states of their sovereignty (and democracy) and transfers it to 'Global Institutions'
(IMF, World Bank, International Trade Agreements, U.N., Climate Agreements, etc.), enforced
by U.S. military might.
The 'Project for a New American Century' was the 'Globalists' blueprint to 'Globalize'
over the parts of the world that they did not already control. Almost all current and recent
international conflicts, from the Middle-Eastern Wars, to Ukraine, the Korean crisis, the
cornering of Russian and Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' are all related to this project.
Unfortunately for the 'Globalists', Global Governance is extremely harmful to citizens
that are subject to it. That is why we see 'populism/nationalism' rising throughout the U.S.
and Europe, in an attempt to block the stripping of these citizens' democracy, their nations'
sovereignty and their personal security and well-being.
I believe that President Trump is part of this populism/nationalism movement, and almost
all of his actions can be interpreted as an attempt to counter Globalization, to restore U.S.
sovereignty and to redevelop the U.S. economy, which has been devastated over the past four
decades by the 'Globalist' elites.
I second those 3!! Greider's Secrets of the Temple is a good primer on The Fed.
The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick documents the first undeclared war of
too many, this one with France during its revolutionary period prior to Napoleon. The
Seminoles and other Floridian tribes were used as proxies to force the Spanish out of the
Floridas; and too many forget that Louisiana was Spanish before its very short ownership by
France. Jefferson's purchase and dispatch of Lewis and Clarke educated him as to the
wide-open, unregulated nature of the Executive under the 1787 Constitution, which represents
the current plague on our planet today.
But the initial germ beyond Tordesillas of a continent spanning empire was the brain child
of one Richard Hakluyt whose ideas for planting North America infected many other English
elites. His idea was incorporated into the Charter for the Virginia Company--it went all the
way to the as yet undiscovered boundary of the Pacific Ocean.
This slide shows the continental extent of the charters grated Virginia and New
England.
One last book endorsement for two of Bernard Bailyn's many works: The Ideological
Origins of the American Revolution and The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson . If you
have a good university library close by, it ought to have the entire work, Pamphlets of
the American Revolution , from which Ideological Origins was just the
introduction.
One of my research methods was to find an author whose authority I trust, like Bailyn,
then read everything he wrote since I can't have him tutor me--and follow his footnotes to
where he got his information. Sure, that leads to a very extensive reading list; but if
you're going to become a historian, reading lots of books and journals is what you do. Same
thing with Chomsky; all his works are rife with footnotes. And don't just read the radical or
leftist historians; you must read the Court Historians too and thus discover their many
omissions--we all know history's manipulated, but that's not sufficient: just how and why are
necessary.
reply to:Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 25, 2018 5:01:46 PM | 79
"The 'Project for a New American Century' was the 'Globalists' blueprint to 'Globalize' over
the parts of the world that they did not already control."
I agree, their plan is to open up the Schengen region to ALL of Africa destroying/diluting
all allegiance to nations in Europe under the 2018 Marrakesh Declaration
(ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/20180503_declaration-and-action-plan-marrakesh_en.pdf)
signed by the EU and 40 African nations thereby ushering in the return of feudalism under UN
2050 plan.
Well worth a read if you are not familiar with it, it will chill your blood, chilled mine
anyway.
Now halfway into the 2 nd year of the Trump presidency it is clear that what
seemed to be a severe national hissy fit being thrown by bitterly-defeated leftist Democrats
after the 2016 election, gradually morphing into a chronic collective temper tantrum, has in
fact turned out to be one of the most severe cases of mass psychosis in modern history.
This all-too-real mental derangement is manifested in seething, unhinged, pathological rage
that has utterly consumed the entire Democrat party and countless authoritarian leftist
malcontents across America, who have literally lost their minds thanks to Donald Trump's
stunning victory. Their inability to control or contain it, even as it is becomes their steady
undoing on a national scale, only makes it that much more disturbing.
The Democrat party's legion of arrogant simple-minded fake news media propagandists have
only made matters worse for their fellow traveler politicians. No matter how badly their
clumsy, malignant subversions are backfiring in their faces (the Russian collusion hoax being
Exhibit A), no matter how sloppy, desperate and even absurd their ham-handed manipulations have
become, apparently they will simply never cease their vicious crusade to inflict malicious harm
on and, if possible, destroy the lives of their political opponents.
President Trump's strongest supporters and closest allies have the misfortune of being the
central targets of their psychotic obsession and their most vile, degenerate misbehavior. In
one sense it is a badge of honor to be a target of the seditious American left. But it is also
a serious challenge to live a normal life at the top of their political kill list. Life as a
highly-prized, ruthlessly-hunted target of a rage-driven leftist Democrat/corporate media/deep
state lynch mob is no picnic.
"Greenberg", whose real name turned out to be Gennady Vasilievich Vostretsov, solicited a
meeting with me through my longtime colleague and fellow diehard Trump loyalist Michael
Caputo.
I took the meeting. It barely lasted 20 minutes before I walked out, having neither given
nor received anything whatsoever from Vostretsov, who I never saw or talked to again. My sole
comment after the meeting was to text Michael Caputo that it had been waste of time. We never
discussed it again.
Until a few weeks ago, I had not even recalled having the meeting, given that it was the
only contact I have ever had with Vostretsov and the result was zilch.
Vostretsov's Russian nationality was of no consequence at the time of the meeting and is of
no consequence today, EXCEPT in how it has conveniently created yet another fake news cycle
opportunity wherein the media lynch mob could screech for awhile about how a "Trump ally met
with a Russian!!!!"
(In case you missed the memo, apparently now it is a crime just to meet with anyone even
remotely Russian. Same goes for considering any offer of opposition research .it's all ILLEGAL,
no??).
My short-lived one-off meeting with Vostretsov is of no relevance to anything or anyone
outside of the fake news unreality that is the Russian collusion delusion world.
Just because Democrats and the media cooked up this hoax to sustain their perpetual campaign
of public disinformation and personal destruction doesn't mean sane people have to buy into
it.
There is no dispute that the meeting with Vostretsov was a non-starter and I summarily
walked away from any involvement with him. The substance of the meeting (or more accurately the
lack thereof) is 100% exculpatory of me.
Beyond this, no one has the slightest obligation to entertain or otherwise indulge this
Russian collusion madness merely because some cabal of Democrat spinmeisters and their media
whores are consumed with chasing their own hoax and dragging the world along with them.
Clearly this cabal is willing to twist any and every conceivable circumstance however it
suits their mania to persecute any Trump allies they can. Their attempts to frame and defame
their political opponents are, frankly, pure rubbish, along with their histrionic chest-beating
in favor of their sleazy objectives.
This story, however, does have a real bombshell. It is not that Vostretsov is a Russian
national but that he was an FBI informant for at least 17 years prior to the time he
solicited a meeting with me.
Even more explosive is Vostrestov's extensive criminal history, including violent crimes
that landed him serious prison time in both Russia (10 years) and the United States.
The bombshell becomes nuclear when one considers how Vostretsov's criminal past would have
excluded him from ever being in the United States at the time he tried to lure me into
purchasing campaign intelligence, unless he had some sort of U.S. government
dispensation such as is given only to criminal informants who are doing the bidding of
their FBI patrons and handlers.
These extremely-relevant details, however, have quite deceitfully been either omitted or
glossed over by the leftist media megaphonies, in a brazenly-deceitful attempt to re-cast a
nothing-nowhere one-time meeting I had over two years ago as some sort of puzzle piece in their
disintegrating Russian collusion hoax.
Leftstream media manipulators have purposefully disregarded the most relevant and revealing
facts in order to dishonestly reduce their reporting to: "Stone met with a Russian!!!"
Incredible detail and documentation about Vostretsov's murky past and his decades of work as
an FBI stooge may be found at the website democratdossier.org
Now the FBI is righteously under massive fire for its unprecedented, undeniable
politicization and abuse of its extraordinary law enforcement powers in order to protect
Hillary Clinton from prosecution, despite her clear cut crimes, while conspiring to frame
Donald Trump and those around him with this bogus Russian collusion rap that the kill-Trump
media have been gleefully peddling for nearly two years now.
From democratdossier.org:
" In a
remarkable 2015 court affidavit (attached), Vostretsov admitted that he is FBI informant
who worked for the agency for more than 17 years. He appears to have traded information about
criminal activity for temporary visas provided to him by the FBI. We were able to collect 14
different Significant Public Benefit Parole (SPBP) documents allowing him to enter the US. This
type of visa waiver is made available to international persons participating in a law
enforcement action as an informant. The steady flow of these special waivers, with upgrades
like multi-entry status and extensions, indicate his involvement and success in FBI informant
projects. While Vostretsov claimed in the 2015 affidavit he sent to an immigration judge that
he stopped working for the FBI that year, it would be safe to assume that if a criminal alien
with his immigration background is still in the US today, he is only here with the support from
the US government and is still working with the FBI."
So, to summarize: in May 2016 a person using the alias Henry Greenberg solicited a meeting
with me, claiming they had information of importance to the presidential race. When I met with
this person (who incidentally dressed up like a Trump campaign volunteer) he made no mention of
Russia or Russian affairs and said he wanted $2M for what he had and, further, that he expected
it would be paid for not by me but by Donald Trump himself.
I immediately suspected this was some sort of shakedown and told the person I was not
interested, ending the meeting barely 20 minutes after it began. I never had any contact with
this person again.
Two years later, this individual's name comes up, again via my colleague Michael Caputo, and
I was reminded of this brief, one-off meeting, so wasteful of my time and pointless, from my
view, that I never even recalled it. But then this is the case with 100's upon 100's of
glancing encounters I've had with strangers over the course of a nearly two-year presidential
campaign, not to mention my other professional and personal pursuits, from filming a
documentary to writing multiple books to organizing efforts to beat back the establishment GOP
machinations against Trump in the lead-up to the convention.
I most certainly had not thought at the time of the meeting that is was anything in the same
universe as doing business with a "Russian", as opposed to being solicited by some random
grifter whom I knew little about, either before or after the meeting, and from whom nothing
came but a total waste of my time.
Once I recalled this meeting and pieced it together as something far more sinister than I
had ever thought, with far greater implications than merely a glancing contact with some
shakedown artist, I notified the House Intelligence Committee, and the information was
simultaneously provided to the Washington Post.
A normal, rational, objective observer would conclude from all this that 2 years ago, in the
midst of a whirlwind presidential campaign, I had a single 20-minute meeting with a random con
man who used an alias, who may have been Russian, and about whom I knew literally nothing
else.
Further, the meeting produced literally nothing, I took no further action, there was no
further contact and I had no further thought about or even recall of it until the individual's
name came up recently and took onfar greater dimension once we pieced together what was really
going on (an attempted FBI set-up), after which I reported the truth about Mr. Vostrestov's
(that he was yet another FBI "lure") to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.
Seems pretty simple, yes?
Well, not according to the Clinton-Obama leftist media juggernaut, which not only spun this
meeting as 'another contact with Russia by a Trump loyalist', but even twisted my own
pro-active revelation of it into some sort of proof that I had lied previously. Some of the
more brazen propagandists went so far as to misportray my voluntary disclosure as a murky
scheme to somehow conceal (in plain sight, no less) long-absent proof they so far have had to
manufacture as they go, in order to prop up their Russian collusion conspiracy theory.
Predictably, the most nasty, malicious and pathologically-deceitful partisan media
manipulators, epitomized by the glib, shifty leftist ambulance chaser and wannabe Watergate
hero narrative flamekeeper Ariel Melber, immediately set about spouting their sanitized
half-truth version of this story out of the usual Clinton-Obama propaganda defamation outlets,
like MSNBC.
A full complement of fake news artists seized on my revelation of this incident as yet
another cheap opportunity to mislead their audiences and, yet again, fire up their tired,
repetitious false narrative, based solely on the same manipulative insinuations and factual
distortions they have used before in an attempt to cast me as having somehow engaged in some
sinister conspiracy.
These media hyenas will never miss a chance to peddle their fabricated version of reality,
even where it completely flies in the face of demonstrable facts (unless, of course, you have
the clairvoyance to read between the lines, aided by a giant pair of leftist lunatic
lenses.)
Rather than highlight that I walked away from this meeting after maybe 20 minutes, never
looking back, taking no action to avail myself of what was offered or even to pass it along to
anyone in the Trump Campaign to pursue, Melber and his fake news wannabes twisted their
coverage of it into a 10 minute roundtable spouting off ways in which they think I have somehow
lied, not been fully honest or am a Soviet spy.
Naturally they simply ignored, or summarily dismissed as mere speculation and a ploy on my
part, the most relevant data point of all -- that "Mr. Greenberg" turned out to be a
17-year FBI informant , who just so happened to be inspired in May 2016, of all times, to
approach someone close to Donald Trump to sell information he supposedly had.
Returning to Melber and his stunted panel of forgettable nobodies looking for their 15
minutes of fame, these bullshitters epitomize the dishonesty and unhinged animus I described
above. These are cheap partisan propagandists who do not report news or analyze facts or
illuminate their audience with insights, but instead manipulate data points and spin the
conclusions that suit their partisan orthodoxy.
Were it not for the Russian collusion hoax, what ever would the likes of Melber and his
fellow dreck peddlers do to fill their airtime? Perhaps when the witch hunt is finally
exhausted and their fake scandal finally falls apart, and I continue to walk the earth a free
man, Ari Melber will have the opportunity to go out and get a real job and do some real work,
rather than further pollute the world with his phony malicious propaganda.
I know beyond question that it is the absolute, unalterable operating premise of leftist
lynch mobsters in anything and everything they either say, write, report or do concerning me
that NOTHING that I say, or have ever said, will not be automatically presumed to be a lie, and
that NOTHING I do, or have ever done, even in the most mundane and transparent of day-to-day
activities, will not automatically be construed as some sort of criminal act or part of some
larger criminal conspiracy (i.e. anything and everything I do or say is, per the jackass media
manipulators, RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!).
No matter what is said, no matter what facts come to light, no matter how many defamatory
leftist fabrications about me are serially and conclusively debunked, no matter how
consistently my statements all along are subsequently validated as truthful and correct none of
it matters because deceitful leftist attackbots and cheap Democrat propagandists will
cherry-pick, parse or otherwise manipulate the facts and twist my statements to cast me as a
suspicious villain.
No amount of debunking of their defamatory hoax-peddling spin and lies will dissuade them
from persisting in their deceitful malpractice and their continued pollution of the airwaves
and print outlets with their wildly-false, reckless, baseless allegations and defamatory
suspicion-manufacturing. This is just the bottom line with these news fakers.
From the moment they first hatched their cynical, vindictive partisan charade against the
American people (and sanity generally), almost 2 years ago, the leftist Democrats' sleazy
Russian collusion hoax peddlers, along with their fake news media collaborators, have been
nothing if not consistent.
In their spastic mania to prop up and prolong their Trump-Russia collusion fantasy they have
proven themselves consistently deceitful, consistently manipulative, and consistently consumed
with propagating and perpetuating a pure fiction they know damn well is not simply erroneous or
exaggerated, but in fact is a complete and total fabrication, unparalleled in the amount of
wanton malevolence that is behind it.
Underhanded and calculating as the leftist Democrats' manufactured torrent of breathless
sensationalism, phony outrage and fake news recycling may be, these political bunco artists are
not fooling anyone, at least who has an iota of common sense and rational discernment.
In fact, I doubt that the Russian collusion hoax is genuinely believed even by many of the
vicious profane malcontents who lap up this sort of leftist sewage and hatefully spew it
anywhere and everywhere possible, from social media to the family dinner table.
Of course, leftist Democrats and the Trump-hating national media are far too arrogant and
self-serving to limit their deceitful machinations to merely concocting and proliferating a
cynical treason hoax as a partisan weapon to take down a duly-elected President of the United
States. No, they must also be able to cast their seditious skullduggery as some sort of high
holy public service, saving America from itself by torpedoing the hated president it had the
gall to elect.
[It is precisely this variety of boundlessly hypocritical self-regard that pretty much sums
up the leftist attitude towards everything they do in their ceaseless lust to seize
and wield supreme power.]
Back in reality, no one with even half of a functioning brain buys this patently-absurd
notion that preening partisan pygmies from the megalomaniacal left actually give a rat's ass
about serving the public interest or preserving the sanctity of our Republic.
Only the left's most repulsive partisan parasites (see e.g. Adam Schiff; Eric Swalwell) and
deceitful media propagandists (see e.g. Ari Melber; Don Lemon; MSNBC; CNN; NY Times; WaPo .too
many to possibly list) actually seem to believe there is some high holy civic purpose behind
their endlessly-malicious, pathologically-dishonest scheming to frame, shame and defame
President Donald Trump.
It would take a truly-mindless hoaxster to think they are somehow serving their country by
conspiring to give constant false cover and perverted quasi-legitimacy to a lawless corrupt
bureaucratic hit squad of Trump-hating Hillarybot lawyers and power-crazed federal bullies set
loose, like a pack of rabid hyenas, to gleefully wage a ruthless legal jihad against President
Trump, his family members, staff, political associates, loyal longtime supporters and anyone
even marginally connected to his amazing 2016 victory and his (so far) stunningly- successful
presidency.
Even the seditious trash perpetrating this Russia collusion scam know all too well what
Trump's presidency and, above all, his singular leadership portend for the continued survival
of the undeserved power and illegitimate control that these lowlife self-dealing elites
consider to be theirs by divine right. (Suffice to say, it is not a pretty picture for
them.)
The bottom line is that Russian collusion hoaxsters serve no higher or more noble purpose
than to exact malicious petty revenge on the hated Trump and his allies, and fraudulently undo
the epic smackdown that America handed them and their corrupt fellow swamp dwellers in November
2016 -- once and for all smiting the repulsive amoral witch their party has in the greedy
self-entitled criminal hag Hillary Clinton.
Whether the Russia collusion hoaxsters like it or not, whatever minuscule shards of
credibility, believability and basic dignity they might have once had long ago vaporized into
their own toxic smoke-and-mirrors shit cloud of seething partisan malevolence and brazen
underhanded deceit. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of scoundrels
The corporate media is reporting intrepid crusader Robert Mueller is preparing to do a
Pontius Pilate on his special council investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign.
According to WaPo, Mueller has beefed up his team with a number of prosecutors and the job
of prosecuting Russian nationals for supposedly influencing the 2016 election will be fobbed
off on them.
"The Post reports that the new hires are the first indication of Mueller preparing for the
end of his investigation," WaPo reported.
The Trump component is in the process of performing a disappearing act in slow motion. The
investigation petered out months ago. Democrats continued to pound on it. Because it's all they
have. The establishment Resistance run by Pelosi and Schumer is treading water and looking
toward the midterms.
It's like simple math. There is no evidence Trump or his associates colluded with Putin and
the Russians to somehow - through the exaggerated influence of social media - throw the
election in his favor.
This nonsense was dispelled early on.
It's true. Enterprising Russians ran a lucrative clickbait scheme on social media - just
like hundreds of other entrepreneurs. It took the the Democrats - fresh off a humiliating
defeat to a casino and real estate windbag - to make up a fantasy deserving of a novel discount
bin.
Establishment Dems counted on the corporate media to whip up the required hysteria and
frenzy among already hysterical and frenzied liberals. Many apparently sought trauma counseling
after the election.
Even with the media lavishing coverage on the Mueller investigation, it has failed to do
much of anything except get Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and others in trouble - not for
working under Putin's direction to get the MAGA candidate elected, but for alleged bank fraud
and violation of campaign finance laws.
This is pretty routine stuff in Washington.
Mueller doesn't have a case and he knows it. Now he will save face by passing off the
investigation to underlings.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get respite - until the next drummed up load of horse manure
masquerading as high crimes and misdemeanors appears on the scene.
Not to worry. There are always stories of political intrigue to fascinate the proles - for
fifteen minutes at least - and distract from the real issues: endless war and a bankster rigged
economy slowly turning America into a third world cesspool.
I am celebrating this decision.
I am celebrating that it will mostly disappear from the news cycle.
I am celebrating petulant Democrats suffering another defeat and also celebrating denying
self-righteous Republicans a chance to climb up on their soapboxes.
Of course, they'll come up with something else, they always do.
The establishment political class is not about to stop rolling out distractions that are
poorly planned political theater stunts that could use better writing and managerial
skills.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not
cater to gays.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the
accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a
gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into
total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster
American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any
enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are
hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers,
and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't
communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as
evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism.
The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives
I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not
quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a
heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way
are they actual communists?
"I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any
enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians
are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international
bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous
are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and
hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against
both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with
the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So
our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this
policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.
I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is
what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly,
have married outside our religion of birth.
I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a
historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German
medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the
great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book.
Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper
class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary-
right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a
romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy
Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his
generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his
friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out,
barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced
Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and
observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in
reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.
oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the
50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission
that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath,
since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal
he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch
in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.
"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal
advocacy such as this."
False characterization.
"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer
that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational
hatred. It is not."
It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the
purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that
diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda
machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed
into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact
human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own
accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a
snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume
that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other
group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind
control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the
masses.
"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their
own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to
define hate speech and racism."
That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a
particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You
have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind"
have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those
protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as
"racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October
2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired
30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over
the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of
Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to
machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the
water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be
brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a
President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have
on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador
Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward
Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own
service members and their families"
That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a
religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of
Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the
Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will
claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this
knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.
Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly)
for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a
tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.
The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable
to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For
Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a
religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges
the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.
Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions
of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically
Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of
suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they
ran much
of Hollywood , were among the
principal peddlers of porn in America , had
massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout
to determine
who holds many of the other seats in Congress .
None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and
an American-firster.
WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship
and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the
Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the
crucial WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating
around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has
evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to
the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed
that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to
Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian
government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in
advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would
have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.
"Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the
crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you
suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies
abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot):
"People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public
Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is,
that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are
entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this
country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers
among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for
Jewry in the US and EU?
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to
be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America
with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic
cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get
Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions
into smoking ashes.
"and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and
religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the
world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was
the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies
of the Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance,
restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown
institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a
"philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in
philosophy and instructs students in this field.
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and
federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in
the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory:
Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help,
at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the
aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries
which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full
constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and
engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities
have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In
Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past
thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of
Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular,
modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of
Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."
The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very
simply:
What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and
naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?
You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli
false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.
This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.
Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple
visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote
possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.
Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out
what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude
involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept
completely secret.
The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian
targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.
Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined
air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual
observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.
So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?
Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military
leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major
and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to
risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.
How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military
intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred
either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because
the local command went rogue.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin
a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish,
as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN
100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split
second about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took
IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to
pin it on Egypt.
(1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY
set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took
place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years
later.
(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined
air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.
The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War
trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.
CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing
high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.
If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of
radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.
QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt,
other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?
as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and
importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya,
and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your
logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the
excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian
natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy,
considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the
despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against
ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress,
"conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.
Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be
traced back to them within hours at the latest.
then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?
that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to
sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.
and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly,
murderous treason.
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military
forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is
happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of
Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US-
Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what
was going on. Duh.
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty"
of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of
people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by
Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.
We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were
called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not
once, but twice.
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that
purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about
it, we'll likely never know.
"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington
eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's
demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that
purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about
it, we'll likely never know.
This interpretation is at least internally consistent. It is also consistent with my
earlier observation that nobody could seriously claim that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for
even a split second about who launched the attack.
Putting the known factors together, we are left with two viable hypotheses as to the
Israelis' reason for sinking the USS Liberty:
(1) To eliminate a mortal threat to Israel's national security in a time of war, e.g.
because the USS Liberty was feeding intelligence information to Egypt and the Arabs.
(2) As an intentional false flag operation, with express (or at least hinted) support
from the Pentagon for the purpose of publicly "justifying" a U.S. war against Egypt.
This would necessarily mean that the sailors and staff on the USS Liberty were
intentionally betrayed and sacrificed by Johnson and McNamara.
In either case, the Israeli leadership would have been painfully aware that it could NOT
mislead the U.S. as to its authorship of the attack, whatever the Pentagon or Israel might
later say in public later.
"Jet aircrafts came in firing and strafing our ship," he said. "Within minutes they took
out hundreds of antennae and all of our .450-caliber machine guns. We were
defenseless."
But all those aboard were not without hope. Utilizing true American ingenuity and never
giving up their fighting spirit, Tourney described a miraculous effort.
"About half-an-hour into the attack," he said, "one of our men stretched a long wire so
that we could transmit a message to the Sixth Fleet: 'Under Attack by Unmarked Fighters.
Send Help.' A number of ships received this SOS, and soon Capt. Joseph Tully of the USS
Saratoga ordered planes to rescue us."
However, in an act that goes well beyond betrayal into the realm of full-fledged
treason, Tourney laid out how Liberty became a ship without a country.
"Defense Secretary Robert McNamara contacted the Saratoga and recalled the fighters,
telling them not to aid our ship," he said. "But, showing true courage, Tully re-launched
the jets, without authorization . . . After the second set of fighter jets were dispatched,
the president of the United States -- Lyndon Johnson -- personally recalled them," said
Tourney.
Tourney says Johnson told Tully: "I don't give a [expletive] if that ship goes to the
bottom and every sailor is lost. We will not embarrass our ally, Israel."
A day or two later as Liberty limped toward a port in Malta, Adm. Isaac Kidd assembled
the survivors in small groups and, after removing his stars, demanded to know what
occurred.
After learning the truth, a red-faced Kidd pinned his stars back on his uniform and
said, "If any of you ever repeat a word, I'll make sure you end up in the penitentiary, or
worse," Tourney said.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance,
restraint, privacy and secularism
It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American
Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they
were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.
The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier
ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.
"... A Stigler Center panel examines the influence of Big Five tech firms over political discourse and the marketplace of ideas. ..."
"... "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." ..."
"... "We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community." ..."
"... "Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect the process of competition." ..."
"... "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world." ..."
At one point during Mark Zuckerberg's
Senate hearing in April , the Facebook CEO had the following peculiar exchange with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
Graham: But you, as a company, welcome regulation?
Zuckerberg: I think, if it's the right regulation, then yes.
Graham: You think the Europeans had it right?
Zuckerberg: I think that they get things right.
Graham: . So would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry?
Zuckerberg: Absolutely.
Graham: Okay. Would you submit to us some proposed regulations?
Zuckerberg: Yes. And I'll have my team follow up with you so, that way, we can have this discussion across the different
categories where I think that this discussion needs to happen.
Graham: Look forward to it.
This telling bit of dialogue was part of an overall pattern: the hearing was meant to hold Facebook (and Zuckerberg himself, as
the company's founder, CEO, and de facto
single ruler ) accountable for the
mishandling of
millions of people's private data. Yet
one after
another , the senators were asking an evasive Zuckerberg if he would be willing to endorse their bills and proposals to regulate
Facebook. This mode of questioning repeated itself (to a somewhat lesser extent) during the House's
tougher questioning of Zuckerberg the following day.
Needless to say, most company CEOs grilled by Congress following a major scandal that impacts millions of people and possibly
the very nature of
American democracy are not usually treated in this way -- as private regulators almost on equal footing with Congress.
Facebook, however, is not a typical company. As
a recent Vox piece noted, with its vast reach of more than two billion users worldwide, Facebook is more akin to
a government or a "powerful sovereign," with Zuckerberg -- due to his unusual level of control over it -- being the "key lawgiver."
Zuckerberg acknowledged as much himself when he said, in a
much-quoted moment of candor
, that "in a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company." More than other technology companies,
he added, Facebook is "really setting policies."
The notion that corporations can become so powerful that they are able to act as a "form of private government" (to quote
Zephyr Teachout )
has long been part of the antitrust literature. Indeed, as the Open Market Institute's Barry Lynn and Matt Stoller recently noted
during a panel at the Stigler Center's Digital Platforms and Concentration antitrust conference, it is deeply rooted in the
rich tradition of antimonopoly
in America.
That digital platforms are major political
players has also been
well documented
.
Once disdainful of politics, in the past two years Google, Facebook, and Amazon have dramatically ramped up their lobbying efforts,
as the public and media backlash against their social, economic, and political power intensified. Google, which enjoyed
unprecedented access to the Obama White House, is now the
biggest lobbyist in Washington, with other tech platforms not far behind.
Market power begetting political power is
not new in itself. As the participants
of the Stigler panel noted, it is the immense power
that concentrated digital intermediaries like Google and Facebook wield over digital markets, human interaction and the marketplace
of ideas, particularly when it comes to the distribution of political information, that presents a unique challenge. As Lina Khan
(also of Open Markets)
recently
noted , the current landscape of Internet media is one in which a handful of companies "are basically acting as private regulators,
as private governments, over the dissemination and organization of information in a way that is totally unchecked by the public."
The latter part, at least, seems to be changing rapidly, as Americans (and millions more worldwide) grapple with
ongoing revelations showing the profound
impact that digital monopolies have on political opinions and outcomes, in the US and across the world. As Congressman John Sarbanes
(D-MD) said during Zuckerberg's House hearing
in April: "Facebook is becoming a self-regulated superstructure for political discourse."
Left to right: Scott Cleland, Ellen Goodman, Matt Stoller, Barry Lynn, Guy Rolnik
The exact nature of tech platforms' political power, its roots, and how to best deal with it -- all questions debated during the
Stigler Center panel -- are complex and varied. But the key question seems rather simple. As Sarbanes put it during the same Congressional
hearing: "Are we, the people, going to regulate our political dialogue, or are you, Mark Zuckerberg, going to end up regulating the
political discourse? ״
A Private Regulator of Speech
Facebook, said Rutgers Law School professor Ellen Goodman, operates as a private speech regulator. As such, much like public governments,
it "privileges some [forms of] speech over others." Unlike governments, however, which as regulators of speech purport to support
public good, Facebook has adopted a "First Amendment-like radical libertarianism" through which it has so far refused to differentiate
between "high- and low-quality information, truth or falsity, responsible and irresponsible press."
Facebook, famously, argues that it is not a media company, but a technology company. "It's not a player, it's not a [referee],
it's just the engineer who made the field," said Goodman, the co-director of the Rutgers Institute for Information Policy & Law.
The purpose of Facebook's "First Amendment rhetoric," she noted, is "to maximize data flow on its platform," but by doing so, "it
implies, or even says explicitly, that it's standing in the shoes of the government."
Facebook and other platforms, said Goodman, have benefited from the process of deregulation and budget cuts to public media --
a process that has predated the Internet, and led to Washington essentially "giving up" on media policy. The government effectively
"exempted these platforms from the kind of ordinary regulation that other information intermediaries were subjected to." With "platforms
in the shoes of government, [and] government out of media policy," the concentration of platform power over information flows was
allowed to continue undisturbed.
The problem, however, is that much like fellow FAANGs Amazon and Google, Facebook is not just an impartial governor, but a market
participant interested in "monopolizing the time of its users," with a strong incentive to privilege its own products and business
model that "eviscerates journalism."
"It also tunes its algorithm to favor certain kinds of speech and certain speakers," added Goodman. "There's almost no transparency,
save for what it selectively, elliptically, and sometimes misleadingly posts on its blog."
"People Live in Fear"
In a seminal
1979 essay on what he termed the "political content" of antitrust, former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky argued that "political
values," such as "the fear that excessive concentration of economic power will foster anti-democratic political pressures," should
be incorporated into antitrust enforcement. In recent years, this view has been
echoed by a
growing number of
antitrust scholars
, who argue that the way antitrust enforcement has been conducted in the US for the past 40 years -- solely through the prism of
"consumer welfare" -- is ill equipped to deal with the new
threats posed by digital platforms.
The Unites States, remarked Lynn during the panel, was born "out of rebellion against concentrated power, the British East India
Company." The original purpose of antimonopoly in America, said Lynn, was the protection of personal liberty from concentrated economic
and political power: "to give everybody the ability to manage their own property in the ways that they see fit, manage their own
lives in the way that they see fit. To be truly independent of everybody else. To not be anybody else's puppet." Liberty and democracy,
he added, "are functions of antimonopoly."
A state in which Facebook and Google wield enormous influence over the flow of information -- where, to quote
a recent piece by Wired
's Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein, "every publisher knows that, at best, they are sharecroppers on Facebook's massive
industrial farm" -- is antithetical to this ethos, said Lynn, and is firmly rooted in the "absolute, complete failure" of antitrust
in the United States. "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon
-- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." These digital
intermediaries, he added, are "using their power in ways that are directly threatening our most fundamental liberties and our democracy."
"Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly
more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company."
The blame for the outsize influence that Facebook and other digital platforms have over the political discourse, said Lynn, rests
squarely on the shoulders of the antitrust community: "For 200 years in this country, antimonopoly was designed to create freedom
from masters. In 1981, when we got rid of our traditional antimonopoly and replaced it with consumer welfare, we created a system
that has given freedom to master."
In today's concentrated media landscape, he contended, "people live in fear. We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our
newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear
[that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community."
"We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people
who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that?
It's the people in the antitrust community."
Lynn went on to quote from Thompson and Vogelstein's Wired piece: "The social network is roughly 200 times more valuable
than the Times . And journalists know that the man who owns the farm has the leverage. If Facebook wanted to, it could quietly
turn any number of dials that would harm a publisher -- by manipulating its traffic, its ad network, or its readers."
"This was hidden in the middle of the article," said Lynn. "[Thompson], as a journalist, felt obliged to put this out there He
was crying out to the people in this community, in the antitrust community. He's saying 'protect me, the publisher, the editor of
this magazine. Protect me, the reporter. Please make sure that I have the independence to do my work.'"
The "Code of Silence" Has Been Broken
Recent
changes
to Facebook's newsfeed have caused referral traffic from Facebook to media companies' websites to
sharply decline , once again raising concerns about the significant impact that the company has on the media industry. The satirical
news site The Onion , for instance, has launched a public war against Facebook, calling it "an unwanted interloper between
The Onion and our audience." "We have 6,572,949 followers on Facebook who receive an ever-decreasing amount of the content
we publish on the network," the site's editor-in-chief, Chad Nackers, told
Business Insider .
The
backlash by major news outlets and
politicians across
the
political spectrum against the power of Facebook and other tech platforms as de facto regulators of speech on the Internet is
a new phenomenon, said Guy Rolnik, a Clinical Associate Professor for Strategic Management at the University of Chicago Booth school
of Business, during the panel. Until not too long ago, he said, Internet monopolies were the "darlings of the news media." Less than
a year ago , he noted, Zuckerberg was even
touted
by several media outlets as a viable presidential candidate. "The idea that a person who has unprecedented private control over personal
data and the public discourse at large would also be the president of the United States was totally in the realm and perimeter of
what is legitimate," he said.
What has changed? "In many ways, what has changed is that many people associate Facebook today with the election of Donald Trump.
This is why we see so much focus on those issues that were very salient and important for years," Rolnik maintained. Trump's election,
and Facebook's role in the lead-up to it, broke the "code of silence."
Nevertheless, newsrooms today, he said, still do everything in their power "to make sure that everything is shareable on Facebook."
In the words of Thompson and Vogelstein, they are still "sharecroppers on Facebook's massive industrial farm."
Google has "Politically Hijacked the US Antitrust Enforcement Process"
Scott Cleland, president of the consultancy firm Precursor LLC and former deputy US coordinator for international communications
and information policy in the George HW Bush administration, has long warned that concentration among digital platforms will negatively
impact the US economy and society at large.
In 2007, Cleland testified
before the Senate on the then-proposed Google-DoubleClick merger, calling upon antitrust enforcers to block the merger and warning
that lax antitrust enforcement (of the kind that ultimately led the Google-DoubleClick merger to be approved) would allow Google
to become the "ultimate Internet gatekeeper" and the "online-advertising bottleneck provider picking content winners and losers"
-- both of which came true. In 2011, he published the book Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc . , in which he warned readers of Google's surveillance-based business
model and its "unprecedented centralization of power over the world's information."
US antitrust enforcers, he said, were initially "very tough" on Google during the first years of the George W. Bush administration.
Between 2008 and 2012, both the Bush II and Obama administrations brought "strong and consistent antitrust scrutiny and enforcement
to Google." Then, in 2013, the Federal Trade Commission decided to drop its case against the company, despite the
conclusion of its
staff that Google had used anticompetitive tactics. Following Obama's reelection, which Google at the time was credited with delivering,
antitrust enforcement against Big Tech firms essentially ceased. "They shut down all those investigations and they did nothing for
the last five years. DOJ went from very active -- four or five major antitrust actions -- to nothing. Crickets."
Back then, Google and Facebook were still "fiercely competing," he said. Google was going after Facebook's territory with Google
Plus, and Facebook countered by going after Google search with Yahoo and Bing. But then, in 2014, something happened: the large tech
firms "mysteriously stopped competing."
"Yahoo returned to working with Google. Apple dropped Bing for Siri and moved to Google search. Apple and Microsoft dropped their
patent suits, and then Microsoft and Google made peace after scratching each other's eyes out. Google went from 70 percent share
of search and search advertising in the PC market to 95 percent of that in both of those markets today," said Cleland.
What happened? Cleland points to the what he calls the "Google School of No-Antitrust," a narrative with which according to him
Google had been trying to "influence public opinion, the media, elected and government officials, and US and state antitrust enforcers,
to make the public believe Google (and other Internet platforms) have no antitrust risk or liability, because they offer free innovative
products and services, and to make conservatives believe that the Google School of No-Antitrust and the Chicago School's consumer
welfare standard and application are the same, when they are not."
Google, he asserted, "not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to
protect the process of competition." It did so, he argued, by "politically hijacking the most important market, which is information."
"Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect
the process of competition."
Cleland, who identifies as a free market conservative, argued that the current Internet is far from a free market. "Who thinks
it's a good idea that all of the world's information goes through one bottleneck?" he asked, adding that "all the bad things that
you're seeing right now are the result of policy."
One such policy is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provided Internet companies with legal immunity
for the content their users generated or shared and is
often
credited with enabling the creation of the Internet as we know it today. Cleland sees Section 230 as "market structuring" and
has compared it to the libertarian concept of creating artificial islands outside any governmental territory, known as "
seasteading ."
"Section 230 says -- I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it says -- that US policy recognizes that the Internet is a free market
that should be unfettered by federal and state regulations," said Cleland. "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They
got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world."
"Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative.
What they wanted was a no-government world."
Much of today's problems regarding the conduct of digital platforms, he said, results from this policy. "Twenty-two years ago,
we as a nation immunized all interactive computer services from any civil liability. We said, 'It is OK. There is no accountability,
no responsibility for you looking the other way, when your platform or things that are going on on your platform harm others.'"
Section 230, he maintained, "basically created 21 st -century robber barons. Those guys know they have the full weight
of the government. If they go to court, they're going to win, and they have almost all the time."
Antitrust Is "One Part of the Answer"
When it comes to addressing these threats to free speech and democratic discourse, said Goodman, antitrust is only "one part of
the answer." The other part, she asserted, is regulation.
"The First Amendment that we have, that we know and love today," she said, "was not born in 1789 in Philadelphia. It developed
in the latter part of the 20th century against a particular set of industrial and social practices that mitigated some of the costs
of free speech and spread the benefits."
Lawmakers and policymakers, she argued, should "retrieve and resuscitate the vocabulary of media policy," focusing on three core
values: "freedom of mind and autonomy; non-market values of diversity and localism/community; and a concept of the public interest
and fiduciary responsibility."
Whenever someone makes an argument for using antitrust or regulation as a way to structure markets of information, Stoller cautioned,
there are those who will argue that this amounts to censorship. When asked how to avoid censorship when discussing the use government
power over speech, Goodman was conflicted: "There is no way around that. There's a real tension here between absolute liberty of
speech and controls on speech," she said. We cannot have this whole conference with us fantasizing about various regulatory possibilities
that involve use restrictions -- limits on the flow of data, limits on the collection of data -- without acknowledging that under
our First Amendment doctrine right now, probably none of that passes muster."
However, Goodman pointed to the Northwest Ordinance as a possible roadmap. "Nobody would say, or maybe they did, that [the Northwest
Ordinance ] was an anti-private property rule. It was structuring the market so that more people could own property. That's what
the history of media regulation in this country has been: structuring speech markets so that more people can speak."
Disclaimer: The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts
represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its
faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket
Blog Policy .
says:
May 21, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT 200 Words While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies
for "destroying our democracy," an obscene spectacle of persecution of the most important
whistleblower of our times continues.
"Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
"Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret
supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone
this guy." According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is
"unprecedented in scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought
for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's
ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US
declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release
of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it
was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge,
Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in
matters of national security." This is a kangaroo court."
"... Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation. ..."
"... Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director George H.W. Bush ( Ray Cline denied the spying took place). ..."
"... Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton." Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." - The Federalist ..."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he'll issue subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, but the panel's top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA) has to agree to it per committee rules. Grassley also said
he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.
"I will want to subpoena him," Grassley said of Comey during an appearance on C-SPAN's Newsmakers ."
The Iowan added that committee rules require that he and Feinstein "agree to it, and at this point I can't tell you if she
would agree to it. But if she will, yeah, then we will subpoena . " -
Politico
Feinstein may be hesitant to sign on, as she says she thinks Comey acted in good faith - which means she thinks Congress shouldn't
have a crack at questioning a key figure in the largest political scandal in modern history.
"While I disagree with his actions, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Comey acted in bad faith or that he lied about any of his
actions," said Feinstein during a Monday Judiciary panel hearing. Former Feinstein staffer and FBI investigator Dan Jones, meanwhile,
continues to work with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS on a
$50 million investigation privately funded by George Soros and other "wealthy donors" to continue the investigation into Donald
Trump.
Also recall that
Feinstein
leaked Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson's Congressional testimony in January.
Comey skipped out on appearing before Grassley's committee this week following the June 14 release of DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz's (OIG) report on FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation - which dinged Comey for being "insubordinate"
and showing poor judgement. Horowitz is conducting a separate investigation into the FBI's counterintelligence operation on the Trump
campaign, including allegations of FISA surveillance abuse.
Maybe Comey also decided to bail after Horowitz admitted on Monday that
he's under a separate investigation for mishandling classified information after leaking a memo to the press documenting what
he felt was President Trump obstructing the FBI's probe into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - which was conducted
by the FBI under dubious circumstances, and for which evidence may have been
tampered
with .
Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation
headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Loretta Lynch, on the other hand , was dinged in the IG report over an "ambiguous" incomplete recusal from the Clinton email "matter"
despite a clandestine 30-minute "tarmac" meeting with Bill Clinton
one week before the FBI exonerated
Hillary Clinton .
All part of the bigger picture...
Despite IG Horowitz ultimately concluding that pro-Clinton / anti-Trump bias among the FBI's top brass did not make its way into
the Clinton email investigation, his report revealed alarming facts about FBI officials handling parallel investigations into each
candidate who received vastly different treatment.
For starters, it's clear that the FBI rushed to wrap up the Clinton email investigation before the election, while at the same
time the agency launched an open-ended counterintelligence operation against those in Trump's orbit.
We also know that opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton was used by the FBI to justify surveilling the Trump campaign
- while new facts point to a multi-pronged campaign of espionage and deceit spanning several continents, governments and agencies
which was deployed at the highest levels in an effort to undermine Donald Trump before and after the 2016 U.S. election.
Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge
professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation.
Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the
former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also
spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director
George H.W. Bush (
Ray Cline denied the spying took place).
From 2012 - 2017, the Pentagon under Obama awarded Halper over
$1 million in "research" contracts - nearly half of which was awarded during the 2016 US election .
Then there's the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud - a key witness in the Mueller investigation who
disappeared last fall , and who told Trump aide George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos would
drunkenly repeat the rumor to seasoned Australian diplomat (and
Clinton ally ) Alexander Downer in a London Bar, only to be construed by the FBI as potential collusion in order to justify their
counterintelligence operation against Trump.
And just Monday Trump advisor Roger Stone said that a
second FBI informant , Henry Greenberg, tried to entrap the Trump campaign with an offer to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange
for $2 million.
While the entire mosaic of events is multi-faceted and requires perhaps the world's biggest corkboard - here's a basic timeline
of various espionage or other spycraft conducted against the Trump campaign.
Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials."
Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton."
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." -
The Federalist
May 10, 2016 - Papadopoulos tells this to former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged "
drunken barroom admission ."
Late May, 2016 - Roger Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton
July 2016 - FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one
of many encounters.
July 31, 2016 - the FBI officially launches operation
Crossfire Hurricane , the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
September, 2016 - Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and
dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.
While the FBI has yet to find any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, they were able to use information Mifsud
planted with Papadopoulos to launch a
counterintelligence operation .
And as new facts and revelations continue to emerge, and IG Horowitz continues to unravel the FBI's counterintelligence operation
on Donald Trump, several rank-and-file FBI employees say
they want Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and testify against Comey and Andrew McCabe.
Funny - for two "innocent" people, Comey and Lynch want the exact opposite!
~Grassley also said he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.~
Screw you, Chuck. No one gets immunity. Stay the fuck out of what should be the business of a federal criminal grand jury.
Diane has enough trouble of her own with the leaky aide.
No, I think she will. They have the goods on her for leaking like a sieve through her aide and on to the entry level Pulitzer
Prize media whore (remember, they raided the newspaper. The goods are still there).
Rumor has it there is a subpoena waiting for DiFi out there. It would be best if she complied.
If two or more
persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States , conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States , or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder,
or delay the execution of any law of the
United States , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the
United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both.
We don't need Commey and Lynch questioned by those losers on Capitol Hill, that is a waste of money and time. What is required
is a DOJ inquiry, or better yet, a special council for the HRC Mail Server and Corruption in the Meuller probe.
I am normally against a special council, but in this case the DOJ is clearly biased. They should get to the bottom of the crimes
committed by hillery on her mail server including realated crime transacted on the server like uranium one. That is what the FBI
would do to us, and they should be no different. Equal protection under the law means equal punishment under the law as well.
An additional special council should be formed to get to the bottom of the FISA warrant to used for surveillance on the Trump
team and find out if there was any malfeasance obtaining those warrants. This would also bring up the question of whether the
meuller probe obstructed justice by obscuring exonerating evidence that the probe was established with junk evidence.
If a good prosecutor was used, there is enough evidence in the public forum now to throw a bunch of the obama administration
in prison for political corruption and the higher echelon members of the FBI in jail for bribery. That's right, the FBI can't
take gifts, even if the media are offering them. This is corruption of the highest order and our country will not survive this
if it is not prosecuted properly.
IF WE WANT THE SWAMP DRAINED PEOPLE HAVE TO GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE TO PUT THE FEAR OF GOD AND THE PEOPLE BACK INTO BUTEAUCRATS.
[Hayden] is another legacy of George W. Bush, who appointed this buffoon to the CIA and
the NSA.
Actually, Hayden was initially a Bill Clinton appointee (in 1999), before his
reappointment by Bush.
Further, he was not merely appointed, but appointed out of order. Hayden was the second
consecutive USAF DIRNSA.
Here is
the list of DIRNSA's (I have attempted to show some sort of pattern in the
appointments):
USA (Canine), USAF (Samford), USN (Frost),
USAF (Blake), USA (Carter), USN (Gayler),
USAF (Phillips), USAF (Allen (Phillips only served 2 years before he got kicked upstairs
to run the USAF Systems Command)), USN (Inman),
USAF (Faurer), USA (Odom),
USN (Studeman), USN (McConnell),
USAF (Minihan), USAF (Hayden),
USA (Alexander), USN (Rogers), USA (Nakasone).
So the question is: Why did Clinton pick Hayden in 1999, rather than an Army
general?
I read a profile of Hayden in WaPo where he was depicted as doing the cooking in
the family.
Maybe that endeared him to the Clinton administration decision-makers.
And, if I recall correctly, in his memoir Playing to the Edge , he writes of his work to advance the careers of
women.
No doubt a real plus in some administrations.
As a point of information, WaPo has a pretty extensive profile of Hayden (but not
the one I remember) here:
"Test of Strength"
by Vernon Loeb (who IMO was a quite good reporter on the IC), WaPo , 2001-07-29 (i.e, before 9/11)
It goes into some detail on why and how Hayden transformed the NSA.
BTW, back in the 1970s NSA was divided into groups, A, B, G, S, R, T, ....
Some were mission-specific, some were function-specific.
Somewhat of a matrix organization.
Evidently that organization was deemed inadequate.
Let me bring up another issue here:
Compartmentation versus information-sharing.
In those days compartmentation was quite strict.
People walked around with metal tags attached to their lanyards,
showing which compartments they had been read into,
and thus which parts of the building they could enter.
The 9/11 report faulted such compartmentalization, calling it "stovepipes".
So now we Snowden, say, having access to a vast area of information.
I wonder if it was a bad decision to break down the compartments,
and if the old days of compartmentation should be restored.
Among the array of nasty USAF intelligence generals I dealt with as an SES in DIA I don't
remember Haydon at all. They tended to be filled with animus against the Army and
determined to take over all joint organizations. Maybe he cooked at backyard parties?
Hayden transformed the NSA when he was there. He moved it from just sucking signals out
of the air to vacuuming up all manner of digital information. It was a needed and
successful transformation. Of course it also led to the excessive collection of US
communications.
Right. Just ask Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, Ed Loomis and Thomas Drake about how Hayden
"transformed" the NSA. He's a corrupt bastard in my book more keen on playing politics
than doing the right thing.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed publicly Monday that his
office is investigating James Comey for his handling of classified information as part of memos
he shared documenting discussions with President Trump.
The inspector general's comments confirmed reports dating back to April that the ex-FBI
director was facing scrutiny, amid revelations that at least two of the memos he shared with
his friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman, contained information now deemed
classified.
The confirmation came during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Horowitz and
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified on the findings in the IG's report on the handling of
the Hillary Clinton email probe.
"We received a referral on that from the FBI," Horowitz said, in response to questioning
from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about the Comey memos. "We are
handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete and consistent
with the law and rules." Comey, back in April, confirmed to Fox News' Bret Baier that the IG's
office had interviewed him with regard to the memos, but downplayed the questions over
classified information as "frivolous" -- saying the real issue was whether he complied with
internal policies.
Grassley, though, told Horowitz on Monday, "I don't happen to think that is frivolous."
Comey, in testimony before Congress last year, acknowledged he shared the memos with the
intention of leaking to the press and spurring the appointment of a special counsel.
In April, Fox News initially learned that Horowitz was looking into whether classified
information was given to unauthorized sources as part of a broader review of Comey's
communications outside the bureau -- including media contact.
Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied that sharing the memos with his legal team
constituted a leak of classified information. Instead, he compared the process to keeping "a
diary."
"I didn't consider it part of an FBI file," Comey said. "It was my personal aide-memoire I
always thought of it as mine."
In his testimony last year before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said he made the
decision to document the interactions in a way that would not trigger security
classification.
But in seven Comey memos handed over to Congress in April, eight of the 15 pages had
redactions under classified exceptions.
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
Pertaining to your question about evidence of CIA and other deep state forces using cash
from illicit drug sales, b, if you have time check out a wiked documentary series called
"Cocaine Cowboys".
The first is a glimpse into how things got started in Miami, and is more of entertainment
value than anything else. The second, however, describes exactly how the CIA introduced and
established a massive crack cocaine market in California. It has a lot to do with the Ollie
North "Iran Contra affair", and how the CIA was allowed to circumvent the traditional begathon
for money from congress.
In fact back in the day it was public knowledge. Only congress remained blind.
Our joint favorite reporter, who passed away recently, wrote about it extensively. God bless
Parry. W. Bush pardoned Ollie North, by the way. I am always blown away by the fact these
assholes keep straight faces.
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
"... the progressive left has been destroyed. All that's left is the Democratic Party which CALLS ITSELF "progressive" but actually acts in a way that undermines progressive ideals. ..."
"... Both Obama and Trump are faux populists. Both were probably thrust upon us in very slick operations. Proof? In hindsight, their political opponents (McCain, Hillary) were so flawed as to be ridiculous, especially because they were each the very embodiment of an establishment that most people KNOW works against them. In our current, money-driven political system electing a real progressive is virtually impossible. ..."
This shows how hypocritical and partisan the left is in the U.S. That's because the progressive left has been destroyed. All
that's left is the Democratic Party which CALLS ITSELF "progressive" but actually acts in a way that undermines progressive ideals.
karlof1 is right. Revolutions happen from the bottom up. Not by electing those who have been selected to run for office.
Both Obama and Trump are faux populists. Both were probably thrust upon us in very slick operations. Proof? In hindsight, their
political opponents (McCain, Hillary) were so flawed as to be ridiculous, especially because they were each the very embodiment
of an establishment that most people KNOW works against them. In our current, money-driven political system electing a real progressive
is virtually impossible.
The establishment agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:
neo-feudalism : low taxes on the wealthy and roll-back of social programs;
legal usury : very low interest rates for best credit / very high interest rates to ordinary people;
neolib taking of the commons ; Example from the neolib Sith Lord himself:
Obamaland
Fiasco Worsens
A presidential library became Obamaland... The center will not be a presidential library because Obama's archives
and documents won't be there there and it won't be federally run.
[Furthermore] The taxpayer bill for the Obama Center to be built on Chicago's Southside is now $224 million, not
$172 million as initially reported, and it's certainly not privately funded as initially promised.
global hegemony via massive spending on military & spying; It's for the children. No, not YOUR children.
divisive politics to keep lower classes occupied; Let's talk about bathrooms and statues and "rocketman".
militarized police & massive propaganda . You are now a consumer of government services not a citizen. Have a nice day.
Bible clutchers. Last time I looked AIPAC in the US consisted of roughly half Israeli's or
Jews and half protestant evangelicals. A few years back I read the stats on the religion of
US voters by percentage. I think that showed close to 25% of US voters evangelicals.
While looking for those stats to provide a link, I ran onto
this WP article on the Trump election and ecumenicals. According to the article, 20% of
US voters are evangelicals. That is a huge zionist voting block and the majority voted for
Trump.
"... the 'news' media don't care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness -- they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there. ..."
"... accepted the request from Syria's Government, for assistance in protecting Syria's Government, ..."
Both President Trump and former President Obama are commonly said in America's 'news' media
to be or to have been "ceding Syria to Russia" or "ceding Syria to Russia and Iran," or similar
allegations. They imply that 'we' own (or have some right to control) Syria. That's not only a
lie; it is a very evil and harmful one, dangerously goading the US President to go even more
against Russia (and Iran) (and, of course, against Syria ) than has yet been done --
but the 'news' media don't care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness --
they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious
war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there.
And the fact that none is exposing the fraudulence of the others on this important matter, is a
yet-bigger additional scandal, beyond and amplifying the media's common lying itself. Because
they all function here like a mob, goading to more and worse invasions, and doing it on the the
basis of dangerous lies -- that America, and not the Syrians themselves, own Syria.
These lies simply assume that America (probably referring to the US Government, but
whatever) somehow "has" or else "had" Syria (so that America can now 'cede' it, to anyone); and
this assumption (that the US somehow owns Syria) is not only an imperialistic one
(which is bad, and wrong, in itself), but it reduces to nothingness the rights (in the minds of
the American public) of the Syrian people, to control their own land . That lie is
what America's 'news'media won't expose, but instead they all cooperate with it, when they're
not actually participating, themselves, in spreading these lies.
What they are doing is also to slur Russia, and to slur Iran, for having accepted the
request from Syria's Government, for assistance in protecting Syria's Government, against
the tens of thousands of jihadists who had been recruited throughout the world by the
Saudi-American alliance, to overthrow and replace Syria's Government, to replace it with one
that would be appointed by the Saud family ('America's ally'), the fundamentalist-Sunni royal
family who (as the absolute monarchy there) do actually own Saudi Arabia -- a monarchical
dictatorship, which the US Government calls an 'ally'.
The evilness of this imperialistic assumption, which is being constantly spread by the
US-and-allied 'news'media, is as bad as is its falseness, because "America" (however one wishes
to use that term) never had, never possessed, any right whatsoever to control Syria. Of course,
neither does Russia possess such a right, nor does Iran, but neither Russia nor Iran is
asserting any such right; both instead are there to protect Syria's national
sovereignty, against the invaders (including the US, and the Sauds' regime). But the
US-and-allied 'news'media don't present it that way -- the honest way -- not at all. Such
truths are instead suppressed.
I was immediately struck by this false and evil assumption that the US owns Syria, when
reading the June 15th issue of The Week magazine. It contained, under its "Best
Columns" section, a piece by Matthew Continetti ( "Obama Too Good for
America" ), which says, among other falsehoods, "Obama was wrong about a lot of other
things, too, like ceding Syria to Russia." That phrase, "ceding Syria to Russia" rose straight
out from the page to me as being remarkable, stunning, and not only because it suggests that
America owns that sovereign nation, Syria. I was especially struck by it because the CIA has
several times attempted Syrian coups and once did briefly, in 1949, overthrow and replace
Syria's democratically elected President. But is that really something which today's America's
'news'media should encourage the American public to be demanding today's American
politicians to be demanding from today's American President? How bizarre, even evil, an idea is
that? But it is so normal that it's a fair indication of how evil and untrustworthy today's
American 'news'media actually are. I just hadn't noticed it before.
Publishing such a false and evil idea, without any accompanying commentary that truthfully
presents its context and that doesn't simply let the false and evil allegation stand
unchallenged -- that instead lets it be unchallenged both factually and morally -- is not
acceptable either factually or morally, but then I checked and found that it's the almost
universal norm, in today's US 'news'media. For examples:
On 17 April 2018, CBS News headlined
"Lindsey Graham 'unnerved' after Syria briefing: 'Everything in that briefing made me more
worried'" and presented that US Senator saying, "It seems to me we are willing to give
Syria to Assad, Russia, and Iran." He was criticizing President Trump as being "all tweet and
no action." He wanted more war, and more threat of war. But when President Obama had repeatedly
denied in public that only the Syrian people should have any say-so over whom Syria's
leaders ought to be, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon repeatedly contradicted the US
President's viewpoint on this, and he said,
"The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people." If the American people have
become so dismissive of international law as this, then is it because the US 'news'media start
with the ridiculously false presumption that "America" (whatever that refers to) is the arbiter
of international law, and therefore has the right to dictate to the entire world what that law
is, and what it means? Is America, as being the dictator over the whole planet, supposed to be
something that Americans' tax-dollars ought to be funding -- that objective: global
dictatorship? How does that viewpoint differ, then, from perpetual war for perpetual 'peace' --
a dictum that's enormously profitable for America's big 'Defense' contractors, such as Lockheed
Martin, but that impoverishes the general public, both in America, and especially in the
countries (such as Syria) where 'our' Government drops bombs in order to enforce its own will
and demand, that: "Assad must go!"
In fact, as any journalist who writes or speaks about the Syrian situation and who isn't a
complete ignoramus knows, Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair Presidential
election in Syria, against any contender. His public support, as shown not only in
the 2014 Syrian Presidential election , but also in the many
Western-sponsored opinion-polls in Syria (since the CIA is always eager to find potential
candidates to support against him), show this.
On 17 December 2016, Eric Chenoweth, a typical neocon Democratic Party hack, headlined
"Let Hamilton Speak: Recapturing American Democracy" , and he wrote: "Trump's statements
and appointments make clear he intends to tilt American policy to serve Russian interests:
ceding Syria to Russia by ending support to pro-Western rebels; possibly lifting economic
sanctions and recognizing the annexation of Crimea; proposing an alliance with Russia in the
war on terror while remaining uncommitted to the defense of NATO allies, in particular the
Baltic countries vulnerable to Russian aggression. Restoring American Democracy When they meet
on December 19, Republican Electors who reflect on their constitutional duty should not then
affirm Trump's election." Those
"pro-Western rebels" in Syria were actually led by Al Qaeda's Syrian branch. Without them, the
US regime wouldn't have had any "boots on the ground" forces to speak of there. In fact,
the US regime has
actually been fronting for the Saud family to take over control of Syria if and when Syria's
Government falls. The Saud family
even selected the people who in the U.N. peace talks on Syria represent 'the rebels' -- the
Sauds, who have been Syria's enemy ever since 1950, selected 'Syria's opposition', who were now
seeking to take over Syria if and when 'America's moderate rebels' succeed. Both Al Qaeda and
ISIS are actually fundamentalist-Sunnis, like the Saud family are, and Assad's Government is
resolutely non-sectarian. Assad himself is a non-Islamist Alawite Shiite secularist, which
virtually all fundamentalist Sunnis (such as the Sauds are) are taught to despise and to hate
-- especially because he's Shiite. The US regime knows that neither it, which is considered
Christian, nor Israel, which is theocratically Jewish, could practically succeed at imposing
rule in Syria, but that maybe the Sauds could -- so, they are the actual leaders of the
'pro-Western' forces, seeking to replace Syria's secularist Government. Overthrowing Syria's
Government would be their victory. It would be the Saud
family's victory. But this fact is kept a secret from the American public, by the US
'news'media.
Already by late September of 2015, even prior to Russia's having been requested by President
Assad to enter the war in order to speed up the defeat of what Washington still calls 'the
rebels', it was clear that Washington (actually Riyadh) wasn't going to take over Syria; and
Americans were -- and are -- being taught by the 'news'media, that this was because Obama was
'weak' and didn't care enough about 'human rights' in Syria, and about 'democracy' in Syria.
So, on 28 September 2015, Matt Purple at the libertarian
"Rare Politics" site, headlined
"Pentagon admits that the Syrian rebels it trained handed over weapons to al Qaeda" , and
he wrote "Neoconservatives wail that President Obama is ceding Syria to Russia -- but the
reason the Russians are taking the lead is precisely because America has sidelined itself." But
the US regime hadn't at all "sidelined itself"; it continued -- and it continues to this day --
its invasion and occupation of that land. Trump's
policy on Syria is basically a continuation of Obama's -- and it's not at all "ceding Syria to Russia," or "ceding Syria to Russia and
Iran."
Because of America's 'news'media, it still isn't "ceding Syria to the Syrians" -- as Ban
ki-Moon and international law would. That wouldn't be profitable for Lockheed Martin etc.
(whose biggest customers other than the US Government are the Sauds, and
Trump alone sold $400 billion of US weapons to them ); so, it's not done.
Syria's sovereignty is utterly denied by the US regime, but if the US regime were to
succeed, the big winners would actually be the Saud family.
Do the American people have sovereignty, over 'their' ( our ) Government? US
'news'media effectively ban that question. Perhaps what controls the US Government is
the
Saudi-Israeli alliance: the Sauds have the money, and the Israelis have the lobbyists. Of
course, the US 'news'media are obsessed whether Russia controls the US Government.
That diversionary tactic is extremely profitable to companies such as General Dynamics, and
America's other weapons-manufacturers, which thrive on wars -- especially by selling to the
Sauds, and to their allies (and, obviously, not at all to Russia).
When I saw that Shawn Walker Tweet, and the mostly brilliant take-down responses, I hoped b
would mention it. I can think of no one better suited to address this particularly putrid
propaganda. Bravo! And to the (almost) universally excellent barfly commentariat.
BBC created a whole genre of Russian World Cup scare mongering. One they did was on the
deadly threat of "Russian Football Hooligans." RT did an excellent 4 minute job of combining
journalism with humor to expose that bit of 100% Fake News.
The Media is a complete weapon for propaganda. The "writers" are propagandists. There never
is a report on Russia from the Western media that does not vilify or demonize Russia or
Russians in some way.
The World Cup is experienced by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Russia. They are
going to be the truth-tellers.
The event, like Sochi Winter Olympics will stand for itself. It will be splendid.
And the lies will die.
Never expect the truth from the Media.
Always expect the Russian people to be extraordinary. They have demonstrated it for a
century.
The problem the MSMs have is that the World Cup so far has been a success.
Notable quotes:
"... Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip & slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds. ..."
"... The claims he makes are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel. ..."
"... The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those nations back. ..."
"... The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their shareholders ..."
"... It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei. ..."
"... The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold on to the past. ..."
And another thing - the other day I came a cross an interesting tidbit, I would include a
link if I can remember where I saw it, it may in fact have even been the graun. It goes like
this:
A few years back the FBI raided the FIFA HQ in Switzerland eventually arresting and charging
many FIFA commissioners alleging they were taking backhanders and at the time I, along with
many other sort of assumed that the amerikans shoving their stickbeaks into an organisation
which was none of their damn business was down to an announcement from FIFA president Blatter
that if the Israeli army and police didn't cease harassing the Palestinian team preventing
players from getting to international games by holding the players up at checkpoints, sometimes
for days, FIFA would have no choice but to penalise the Israeli football team who had already
been granted special dispensation by FIFA to play in the Euro conference rather than the ME one
that their geography should have demanded.
Nuttytahoo did his usual 'antisemite' victim whine so it was a reasonable assumption to think
the fed raid the next week was connected.
It may have been the issue which caused the amerikan sheet sniffers to move, but the actual
investigation was caused by something completely different. Two nations competed for the 2018 world cup hosting rights. One was Russia and the second one
was . . .drumroll. . . England! Yep the perfidious poms had put in their bid and one of the tools in their 'kit' was none other
than the old fibber Christopher Steele, who just as with the Trump investigation, did his
'inquiry' by remote control as he is persona non grata in Russia.
Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip
& slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds.
The claims he makes
are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with
tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never
any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a
bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup
venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine
tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel.
The other big lie was that while the Russian president was in Qatar finalising the joint gas
pipeline deal he cut another deal of the 'you vote for us we'll vote for you' as world cup host
in 2018 and 2022 respectively. Yeah that sounds just like President Putin tossing Russia's
economic future to the side while he organised a few soccer games - not.
The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer
sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well
just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their
wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions
into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the
Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those
nations back.
The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising
the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their
shareholders.
No one should begrudge these guys the few quid they grabbed, I know puritans hate it but in
a truly tolerant society we should expect that a few otherwise dedicated types will always
'tickle the peter'. I used to get pissed about it in the union movement but the amounts are
usually small compared to turn-over and I'd rather have a dodgy member of the proletariat who
grabs a little in a position of power than a slimy neolib forever manouvering to flog the
entire kit & kaboodle off to a bunch of anonymous 'financiers'.
It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of
suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for
this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who
were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who
are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei.
The UK hates the idea that the EU that they left would turn to Russia for friendship. Their
propaganda goes along with the USA that shares this apprehension. Now that Trump has
humiliated the EU, the EU is turning toward Russia despite the UK...
The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian
branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold
on to the past.
I'm glad you linked to C J Hopkins. I am impressed with his wit, intelligence and writing
style. He got booted off Counterpunch as I understand and is now published by the Unz Review,
a rather strange but interesting site that picks up talented writers and thinkers from the
left and from the right and appears to pay them.
I say strange because, judging by the
comments, the alt-right appear to imagine that like zero hedge it is their forum and attack
perfectly good articles because they do not fit in with their ideological mindset.
There is a
sort of muddiness in the identity of the site (unlike MOA), but I am pleased that people like
C J Hopkins may get something for their brilliant efforts. Diana Johnstone, someone I have
huge regard for, is another who appears on Unz.
"... For Mattis to lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting Washington. ..."
"... Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's "actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals." ..."
"... It is classic "in denial" ..."
"... "What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with," ..."
"... "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of its own criminal foreign conduct." ..."
"... "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen." ..."
"... Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of sociopaths." ..."
Jun 20, 2018, RT Op-ed The statements, views and opinions expressed
in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
It's parallel
universe time when US Pentagon chief James 'Mad Dog' Mattis complains that America's "moral
authority" is being undermined by others – specifically Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
This is the ex-Marine general who gained his ruthless reputation from when illegally occupying
US troops razed the
Iraqi city of Fallujah in the 2004-2005 using "shake and bake" bombardment of
inhabitants with banned white phosphorus incendiaries.
A repeat of those war crimes happened again last year under Mattis' watch as Pentagon chief
when US warplanes obliterated the Syrian city of Raqqa, killing thousands of civilians. Even
the pro-US Human Rights Watch
abhorred the repeated use of white phosphorus during that campaign to "liberate"
Raqqa, supposedly from jihadists.
These are but two examples from dense archives of US war crimes committed over several
decades, from its illegal intervention in Syria to Libya, from Iraq to Vietnam, back to the
Korean War in the early 1950s when American carpet bombing killed millions of innocent
civilians.
For Mattis to
lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being
eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting
Washington.
According to Mattis, the problem of America's diminishing global reputation has
nothing to do with US misconduct – even though the evidence is replete to prove that
systematic misconduct. No, the problem, according to him, is that Russia's Putin is somehow
sneakily undermining Washington's moral authority.
Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic
model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's
"actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise
our belief in our ideals."
The US Secretary of Defense doesn't elaborate on how he thinks Russia is achieving this
dastardly plot to demean America. It is simply asserted as fact. This has been a theme recycled
over and over by officials in Washington and Brussels, other Western government leaders and of
course NATO and its affiliated think-tanks. All of which has been dutifully peddled by Western
news media.
It is classic "in denial" thinking. The general loss of legitimacy and
authority by Western governments is supposedly nothing to do with their own inherent failures
and transgressions, from bankrupt austerity economics, to deteriorating social conditions, to
illegal US-led wars and the repercussions of blowback terrorism and mass migration of refugees.
Oh no. What the ruling elites are trying to do is shift the blame from their own culpability
on to others, principally Russia. American political analyst Randy Martin says that Mattis'
latest remarks show a form of collective delusion among Western political establishments and
their aligned mainstream news media.
"What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with,"
says Martin. "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it
has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of
its own criminal foreign conduct."
The analyst added: "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself
to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically
prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and
openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep
in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen."
Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European
allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow
arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of
sociopaths."
This week, three headline-making issues speak volumes about America's declining moral
authority.
... ... ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with
articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a
Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including
The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his
columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of waiting for the Hitlerian
nightmare that the corporate media promised us was coming back in 2016. Frankly, I'm beginning
to suspect that all their apocalyptic pronouncements were just parts of some elaborate
cocktease. I mean, here we are, a year and half into the reign of the Trumpian Reich, and,
well, where are all the concentration camps, the SS units with their death's head insignia, the
Riefenstahlian parades and rallies? Trump hasn't even banned the Democratic Party, or annexed
Canada, or invaded Mexico, or made anybody wear color-coded armbands. If he doesn't start
Hitlering relatively soon, the oracles of the corporate media are going to have some serious
explaining to do.
I don't think I'm overreacting. After all, back in 2016, The Guardian promised us an
"
Age of Darkness ," and the end of "civilized order" as we know it. "
Globalization is dead, and white supremacy has triumphed ," one of its more hysterical
pundits proclaimed. "
Donald Trump is actually a fascist ," Michael Kinsley assured us in The Washington
Post . Charles Blow of The New York Times warned that Trump's election was "the
beginning of the end," the descent of the republic into "
racial Orwellianism ," whatever that's supposed to mean. Thomas Friedman called it "
a moral 911 ." Paul Krugman predicted nothing short of " a global
recession with no end in sight ." Jonathan Chait, after heroically vowing not to flee the
country with his terrified family, but to stay and fight to the bitter end, guaranteed us that
the "monster," Trump, would "
shake the republic to its foundations ."
Perhaps my seismometer is on the fritz, but I haven't detected much foundation shaking. Yes,
Trump repulses me, personally. I do not like the man. I never have. I was based in New York for
fifteen years, in the 1990s and early 2000s, before he became a game show host, when he was
still just a
shady real estate mogul with alleged ties to organized crime who occasionally appeared on
Wrestlemania and just generally went about the city making a narcissistic ass of himself
and plastering his gold-plated name onto everything. So I have no illusions about his character
the man is an inveterate snake oil salesman with the moral compass of a Tijuana pimp. All I'm
saying is, we were promised Hitler, or Mussolini at the very least, and it seems like all we're
getting so far is just regular old narcissistic Donald Trump.
Of course, he could just be laying low and holding back on the Hitler stuff as part of the
evil master plan personally developed by Vladimir Putin to systematically brainwash Americans
(with state-of-the-art mind-control Facebook ads) into embracing all-out National Socialism and
marching through the streets in full Nazi regalia singing Amerika Über Alles at which
point Trump will rip off his mask, reveal his true Hitlerian face, Steve Bannon will suddenly
reappear in the turret of an M1 Abrams tank at the head of a division of rebel infantry flying
giant Confederate flags as they hideously rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Putin-Nazi
Holocaust will begin.
Or maybe the extremely serious, Pulitzer Prize-winning political pundit David Leonhardt is
onto something. In
a prominent op-ed in The New York Times , he wonders if Putin's "secret plan" is for
Trump to destroy "the Atlantic alliance" by arriving late for the G7 meeting and "picking
fights over artificial issues," not to mention insulting the Canadian prime minister, which, it
doesn't get much more hair-raising than that. OK, I know you're probably thinking that sounds
like the hopelessly paranoid jabber of some conspiracy theorist nut on YouTube, but we're
talking The New York Times here, folks, and a bona fide "respectable pundit" who wrote a
whole 15,000-word ebook and has been interviewed by Stephen Colbert, among his many other
distinguished accomplishments.
Examined in the context of other blatantly loony theories the corporate media are currently
attempting to ram down our throats, Leonhardt's theory kind of makes sense. The Guardian
, another very serious newspaper, in addition to covering the repercussions of its coverage of
Corbyn's Nazi Death
Cult , is hot on the trail of the soon-to-be-infamous Putin-Banks-Brexit
Connection . According to "documents seen by The Observer ," a Guardian
sister publication, Arron Banks, a "Brexit bankroller," allegedly
had brunch with the Russian ambassador three times , instead of just once, as he had
claimed. He was also allegedly offered a piece of some shady gold deal in exchange for the
number of someone on Trump transition team, which for some reason it was otherwise impossible
to obtain. Or whatever. It doesn't really matter what happened. The point is, Putin
orchestrated the Brexit, presumably as part of his secret plan to destabilize the Atlantic
alliance, and then blackmailed Trump into running for president with
that "pee-tape" the Democrats paid a former British spook to allege exists .
Paul Krugman of The New York Times concurs. In
his latest extremely serious piece of totally respectable grown-up opinionating , he once
again calls Trump "a quisling" (he's developed a fondness for this term, which goes over well
with New York Times readers) and reiterates that Trump is "a de facto foreign agent" and
that "America as we know it is finished." Tragically, according to Krugman, the FBI, CIA, and
other Guardians of Western Democracy are utterly powerless to deal with this quisling, and his
evil puppet master, Putin, because it turns out the entire Republican Party is "hopelessly,
irredeemably corrupt." Yes, it appears the only chance we have to save the world from
Trumpzilla, and imminent Putin-Nazi Holocaust, is to elect a buttload of Democrats to office,
and eventually an Obama-like Democratic President, so they can launch an all-out thermonuclear
war against Russia and North Korea that'll teach these Putin-Nazis to screw around with our
trade agreements!
Oh, and also, we need to cancel the Brexit, and do away with all these "populist" movements
that Putin has fomented all over Europe. For example,
according to billionaire George Soros , the refugee-hating League in Italy is likely
another Putin-backed front, part of his scheme to "dominate the West." One can only assume that
the AfD, the FPÖ, Rassemblement National, and every other extreme-Right party exploiting
people's rage and fear in Europe are parts of Putin's grand conspiracy (except, of course, for
the Ukrainian Nazis the
Western alliance put into power ). Soros, like billionaire Bruce Wayne before him, tired of
waiting for the West to strike back, is taking matters into his own hands. Not only has he been
tirelessly laboring to prevent Donald Trump from "
destroying the world ," now
he's financing "Best for Britain," a campaign to de-brainwash the British people, who,
obviously, only voted for Brexit because they'd been brainwashed by the Putin-Nazis.
I'm not sure how much more bizarre things can get. This level of bull goose loony paranoia,
media-generated mass hysteria, and mindless conformity would be hysterically funny if it
weren't so fucking horrifying in terms of what it says about millions of Westerners, who are
apparently prepared to believe almost anything the authorities tell them, no matter how nuts.
That famous Voltaire quote comes to mind "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make
you commit atrocities," he wrote. Another, more disturbing way of looking at it is, people
willing to believe absurdities, to switch off their critical thinking faculties in order to
conform to an official narrative as blatantly ridiculous as the Putin-Nazi narrative, are
people who have already surrendered their autonomy, who have traded it for the comfort of the
herd. Such people cannot be reasoned with, because there isn't really anyone in there. There is
only whatever mindless jabber got injected into their brain that day, the dutiful repetition of
which guarantees they remain a "normal" person (who believes what other normal persons
believe), and not some sort of "radical" or "extremist."
These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly, as if
what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how Putin
is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people, some of
whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like me in
return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me marched into
prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly,
as if what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and
how Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these
people, some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who
genuinely like me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by
and watch me marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.
I've got the same friends. Liberal Putin haters. Dupes, and suckers.
It's true that some of this is a matter of loony cultish shibboleths imposed to enforce
conformity. But there's more to it. This hysterical vilification of Trump is rational and
purposive. The system depends on everybody blaming the other party for what CIA does to you.
CIA has impunity and an illegal state of emergency based on secret law. They can kill anybody
they want and get away with it, including the presidential puppet ruler, ask JFK, oh wait,
you can't, he's dead. That absolute sovereignty means CIA's in charge, the buck stops there.
So it's crucial to keep the public's attention and emotional energy fixed on the puppet.
Russia does pose a threat, but it's not what we're told. Tying the demonized political
enemy to Russia is CIA's way of disguising the real threat Russia poses. Russia is the
world's most effective advocate for black-letter rule of law, including human rights law that
would destroy the CIA police state. The CIA regime's fulla-shitness is obvious to everyone in
the world except the American public.
Russia complies with international law. The USA does not. The largest bloc Russia leads is
not the SCO or the BRICS, it's the G-192, the rule-of-law advocates in UNCTAD, UNESCO, and
the General Assembly. People are now discussing Uniting for Peace as a means to counter US
abuse of veto impunity in the UNSC. Uniting for Peace was originally devised in response to
Soviet obstruction, so the tables have turned in a striking way. The free world is ~USA, and
they're going from strength to strength under the Russian nuclear umbrella. They're going to
break down the Iron Curtain and let us out.
Vlad Putin is the leader of the free World, most popular leader in the World, his people like
what he's doing and that would be delivering them a better life while minding his own
business internationally. Again I ask "what has Russia ever done to the USA"?
The left is sinking fast these days, most people aren't interested in being over run with
immigrants or watching the faggots make fools of themselves or having the State in their
business all the time. Time to pave the roads, give us decent schools and Hospitals, put the
junkies into leaky boats and send them out to Sea and make sure everyone gets fed. That's
what we want, fuck that war shit, nobody wants that. America is nothing but a Thug Nation, at
least Trump is something different, anything would be better than the status quo down
there.
Never mind, they'll be broke soon and the World will be wrecked for ten years, worth it I
say.
Agree.
In their feverish desire to be correct in the eyes of their paymasters, the
ever-opportunistic Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the ever-opportunistic "psychologist"
David Brooks, and the "progressively" profiteering Rachel Maddow of MSNBC have crossed all
barriers of decent behavior. They are the product of Rovian creation of reality , when
facts -- the documented facts -- have no weight anymore.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities," indeed.
Meanwhile, in Syria, "Drivers Behind the War on Syria and the Impoverishment of Us All:"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/drivers-behind-the-war-on-syria-and-the-impoverishment-of-us-all/5644381
"We know that the Western narratives about the war on Syria are entirely false, so what are
some of the real reasons that are driving this overseas holocaust, and who is benefiting from
it?
To be blunt, Western policymakers seek to destroy secular democracy in Syria, along with its
socially uplifting political economy, with a view to installing a compliant fascist Wahhabi
government. The end result is chaos, the enrichment of the transnational "oligarchs" and the
impoverishment of Syria.
In doing this, the policymakers are also impoverishing the vast majority of people in Western
countries1, destroying nation-state sovereignties, and endeavouring to create a totalitarian
World Order.
International financial institutions see local banking as a threat. Consequently, in Aleppo,
Syria, terrorists destroyed local banking institutions."
– Same as in Libya. The banking cabal had led the US/EU coalition of war criminals to
murder hundreds of thousands of people in order to destroy Libyan banking system and to
satisfy Israel's aspirations for Ertez Israel: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38009.htm
"America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis," by Stephen F. Cohen:
ttps://www.thenation.com/article/americas-collusion-with-neo-nazis/
"– That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
-- That the Azov Battalion of some 3,000 well-armed fighters, which has played a major combat
role in the Ukrainian civil war and now is an official component of Kiev's armed forces, is
avowedly "partially" pro-Nazi, as evidenced by its regalia, slogans, and programmatic
statements, and well-documented as such by several international monitoring organizations.
[The Azov Battalion was financed by a Jewish oligarch Kolomojsky]. (
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com%2Fsites%2Finsider%2Ffiles%2F-DaRo81rUvA.jpg&f=1
" -- That stormtroop-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other "impure"
citizens are widespread throughout Kiev-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches
reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s. And that
the police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist
acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kiev has officially encouraged them by
systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German
extermination pogroms and their leaders during World War II, renaming streets in their honor,
building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more."
– None of the 52 main Jewish American organizations raised their voices to condemn the
revival of neo-Nazism (banderism) in Ukraine. Is this because of the ethnicity of the State
Dept. organizers of the putsch, Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt? Or is it because of the zionists'
visceral hatred towards Russia that has been protecting the sovereign state of Syria from the
supremacist Israeli thugs?
I loved this article! Funny as hell! I do not have quite the negative view of Trump – I
do think he has matured some from his playboy days and clearly is serious about doing some
good things – but the author's depiction of the posturing buffoons of the media is spot
on. Hitler indeed! Ha ha!
When Hillary started ranting about Trump being "Putin's Puppet", I wondered "Where did that
come from?". I decided that she probably had a pot of evil warming on the stove and needed a
scapegoat to go along with it. Later events haven't proven me wrong.
I just discovered the brilliant Shadia Drury, one of the best resources on the Neocon and
Straussian concept of the 'Noble Lie', and the enemy (previously War On Terror, now Russia
Threat) to unite the nihilism of liberal society and prevent it from disintegrating.
trump derangement syndrome here with Hopkins. Trump was a showman, like thousands of others.
He also enjoyed celebrity , again, only this time, like millions of others.
He likes women, especially in a state of undress. Who doesn't? Women as much as men, like
to look at pictures of naked ladies, maybe more than men.
Maybe the whole article by Hopkins is a joke.
What I do not fully understand, and Hopkins does not help is how lunatic-hatred on the
part of liberals has become so powerful.
I talked some race, as in global North and global South and natural selection, to a
liberal gal the other day, and she thought it made sense. But she still hates Trump.
Or take the current moral Outrage over baby Mexicans at the border. None of it makes any
sense, especially inasmuch as Mom and Pop can just keep family together by going home, which
is not an option for the average burglary suspect, etc. here at home.
Trump has become the default target for every aggrieved world-hating liberal sap. The
world must be changed! I demand it!
It may have something to do also with the perception that maybe they picked the wrong
team, and that various career choices may have been wrong, in terms of jobs/career and so on.
Given the armies of professional liberals wearing badges of Equality but scrambling for
Privilege, Trump's laughter at their expense must drive them nuts.
And/or, the SJW types of youngsters (like I was at the time of Vietnam Slaughters) Trump
is the Absolute Negation of everything they dream about the Perfect World, and their own
badges of Revolutionary Correctness/Rectitude which they desperately seek to pin on their
chests/breasts.
( curiously, many young women bare their breasts in protest about something or other. More
sexual politics, I guess, especially if they have nice tits.)
I am you and you are me and we are all together. Milan Kundera has a great image in one of
his novels about the Revolution in Hungary (?), the communist Revolution that is: A circle
dance of young pioneer dancers spiraling up into the sky, like the Ascent of Christians to
heaven. He admitted that he was of that delusion at the time. Hope morphed into Belief.
The Delusions of Race Equality are also at hand. And even though Trump declares himself
politically correct on that score, the Trump Deranged syndrome SJW children and their
parents, deny that Trump is a fellow true-believer. Trump is a Racist! really, and so on.
After a half-century of blatant failure of Blacks to improve the Content of Their
Character, never mind getting grades good enough to get into college without privileged
access, quotas, etc. older liberals, at least, smell Failure. Disillusion dreams dying hard
contributes to the hatreds afoot.
The kids vote for Bernie, but the parents are also disillusioned about socialism, yet the
kids luv Bernie and even now blame Billary, etc. for Trump. Who can blame the kids what with
the economy punishing their generation like we have not seen for generations
(The ten year cycle of recessions is about to recycle another recession, if history means
anything in this regard. Trump is not out of trouble and his standard issue GOP economics is
not going to save him if a recession roars in. Wages are still super low, etc, etc and will
plummet in another recession, never mind Mexicans.)
So, the desperation of adult liberals is two-fold, or three-fold. Socialism failed. Racial
Equality has failed. They know it but cannot admit it to one-another. Trump has won, a
repudiation of Everything they Luv.
Hatred simmers in the melting-pot, acrid fumes enter the Body Politic. Liberals stagger
while genuine conservatives have adjusted over the last couple decades to the stench of
liberalism, all the while buying guns and waiting for the Tipping Point.
Maybe this begins to account for the hatreds swirling out there. I have not even mentioned
the hatreds of Blacks who are the most aware of their Failure, and register it for example in
their admiration of Elijah Muhammed, Reveredn Wright, and of course, the Obama Zip.
Trump is just the Beginning as the American and European peasantry grab their pitchforks
and head for Brussels and D.C.
On origins of the Russia Threat: just more 'perpetual war' to rescue society from the
inherent nihilism of liberalism:
This is made clear in Strauss's exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss's On
Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt's The Concept of the Political (reprinted in
Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented
the animalisation of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialisation of life. All three of
them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy
politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups
willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man's humanity
depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only
perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and
"creature comforts." Life can be politicised once more, and man's humanity can be
restored.
This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the
neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities
of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss
advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists
willing to fight and die for their God and country.
You're right, Drury did give good insight into Strauss & his impact. Whoever compiled
these clips, from Drury on Strauss to the Wolfowitz interview just after 9/11, made all the
right connections.
And the chain of attitudes and actions can be examined in both directions, backward, to
Strauss's expectations of Jew-power in Weimar -- he expected Jews to be the elite overseers
of the "vulgar masses" who resented being resented by said vulgar masses.
It's projection. They fantasize about doing the same things they falsely imagine Trump will
do to them, but to their enemies. They are dangerous. The internet has also allowed the
masses to see just how utterly incompetent the Ruling Class is. Neopotism, networking, and
geography got them their positions, not talent or erudition.
"These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly, as
if what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how
Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people,
some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like
me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me
marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest."
They can never be allowed to come to power. Ever. Their hysteria over Trump has let the
mask slip too much. They have been revealed. It is no different than if Hitler had announced
the Holocaust before taking office. At that point, it would have been morally correct to deny
him regardless of the vote. We may very well have to consider this in 2020. Do you really
want to hand your fate over to these people? They have made their psychotic feelings plain.
On top of that, they are incompetent buffoons.
Correct.
Meanwhile, the anonymous "nazi-hunters" at stopantisemitism.org have produced another
anti-First Amendment battle cry, this time again a professor at Columbia University, who
dared to speak the truth about The Lobby: http://hamiddabashi.com
The "nazi-hunters" at stopantisemitism.org should visit the Nuland-liberated Ukraine,
where the activities of the US Zionists (specifically, Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt) have brought
about a revival of neo-Nazism (banderism) and the consequent rise in real anti-semitism --
not the one invented by the Jewish vigilantes at stopantisemitism.org
If the "nazi-hunters" from stopantisemitism.org are serious about the memory of the WWII,
they should better start investigating the pro-Nazi activities of the Kagans' clan first and
foremost (see the "liberated" Ukraine) and then proceed with investigating the Israeli
citizen Kolomojsky, who was the main financier of the openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
" the Azov Battalion of some 3,000 well-armed fighters is avowedly pro-Nazi, as evidenced
by its regalia, slogans, and programmatic statements, and well-documented as such by several
international monitoring organizations."
"... Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there. ..."
"... Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party #Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump. ..."
"... Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. ..."
"... You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the opinion sections and then log off. ..."
"... I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable journalism. ..."
"... The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell.. ..."
"... If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50. ..."
"... Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift, Waugh. ..."
"... I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again. ..."
"... Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective. ..."
"... As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz', because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle. ..."
From George Orwell's "Inside the Whale," 1940, on the mental atmosphere of English writers
in 1937 (slightly updated):
By 2018 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Establishment thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Trumpism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Russia and the politicians supposedly friendly to Russia was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in America was not such
Twitter spats as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds on Instagram, but the immediate
reappearance in respectable circles of the mental atmosphere of the McCarthy Era. The very
people who for 65 years had sniggered over their own superiority to Kremlin hysteria were the
ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1950. All the familiar wartime
idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Trumpist?), the
retailing of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
By 1937 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Left-wing thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Fascism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Germany and the politicians supposedly friendly to Germany was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in Spain was not such
violence as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds behind the lines, but the immediate
reappearance in left-wing circles of the mental atmosphere of the Great War. The very people
who for twenty years had sniggered over their own superiority to war hysteria were the ones
who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1915. All the familiar wartime idiocies,
spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Fascist?), the retailing
of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party
#Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump.
I like the acting ability of the Welsh guy tormenting the English guy from the Burton/Hurt
version of 1984. John Hurt could have done a great O'Brien and Richard Burton could have done
a smashing Winston Smith.
...Orwell and Boxer and Whites Without College Degrees from 2017:
I know what happened to Boxer -- Russian working class -- the work horse in George
Orwell's Animal Farm. Boxer busted his arse building the farm back up to snuff after it had
undergone the revolution and other problems. The pigs -- Stalinists -- rewarded Boxer by
carting him away to the glue factory. Poor Boxer finally realized he was going to the glue
factory while in the truck, but he was so exhausted from his labors in working on the farm
that he didn't have enough strength to kick the truck to pieces to escape.
Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs) are the new Boxer of the present day. The
Stalinists are now the Globalizers. The Globalizers have decided that all the hard work and
all the soldiering over generations by the WWCDs will be rewarded with deliberate attacks
and sneaky ways to harm them. From mass immigration to de-industrialization to hooking the
WWCDs on drugs, the Globalizer pigs have used every trick in the book to destroy Whites
Without Colllege Degrees. Two academics have described this demographic phenomenom as the
WHITE DEATH.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has
gone.
You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I
got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it
through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the
opinion sections and then log off.
Somehow, though, the Left persuaded itself early on that "1984″ was a prophecy of
the Trump Era. IIRC the book actually saw a jump in sales, and a stage adaptation was mounted
in New York.
I was thinking along your lines (and as yet unaware of the above-mentioned trends) when I
saw someone reading it on a commuter train. I cautiously passed a word to him thinking I
might be making contact with a fellow Rightist; but was quickly disabused of the notion when
he responded with some "resistance" B.S., in the nasally whine typical of the species.
I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current
treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media
properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and
advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable
journalism.
The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell..
Yes, most Britons would agree that Orwell needs updating: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." He sounds awfully American here.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a
committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess
which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a
common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50.
Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift,
Waugh.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their
hysteria.
This is true, and then some. Just as today, the mainstream media was in on promoting the
leftist agenda, though maybe to a lesser degree. Here's the New York Times' obituary
(or, more accurately, eulogy) for Joseph Stalin back in 1953. Yes, they acknowledge some of
his murderous tendencies, but it seems hard for them to condemn such a great guy for such a
minor flaw. The headline reads, Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia
Into Mighty Socialist State . That's the tone of the the whole article, generally
speaking. It's hard for them to conceal their reverence.
The EU is attempting to surreptitiously ban criticism of the Ruling Class using some
copyright/link tax nonsense that will essentially ban memes and expose anonymous critics. The
mask slips ever more.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart.
Wrong.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. –Winston Churchill
And just two years later, the anti-fascist rhetoric was completely reversed and became
anti-anti-fascist with the Nazi-Soviet pact. And two years after that, it went back to being
anti-fascist when Hitler broke the pact.
Quite
Orwell was clearly moving to the right being very anti Communist ( and fellow travellers )
but at all times he was first and foremost an English nationalist . Certainly he was no
supporter of Left solidarity
In his time perhaps it was still maybe just possible to consider oneself to be of the left
and to be a nationalist.
That era has long finished.
I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of
major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete
shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is
movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis
was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again.
The left is getting more skilled at it, too, and is significantly helped by the
suppression of right-wing accounts on social media platforms since November 2016. Trayvon was
an early example of this, and they have only gotten better at using the tactics. The
propaganda is often a mix of true and false components.
Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this
recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the
SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to
bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective.
As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz',
because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except
instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle.
A 29-year-old former CIA computer engineer, Joshua Adam Schulte, was indicted Monday by the
Department of Justice on charges of masterminding the largest leak of classified information in the spy agency's history .
Schulte, who created malware for the U.S. Government to break into adversaries computers, has been sitting in jail since his August
24, 2017 arrest on unrelated charges of posessing and transporting child pornography - which was discovered in a search of his New
York apartment after Schulte was named as the prime suspect in the cyber-breach one week after WikiLeaks published the "Vault 7"
series of classified files. Schulte was arrested and jailed on the child porn charges while the DOJ ostensibly built their case leading
to Monday's additional charges.
[I]nstead of charging Mr. Schulte in the breach, referred to as the Vault 7 leak, prosecutors charged him last August with
possessing child pornography, saying agents had found 10,000 illicit images on a server he created as a business in 2009 while
studying at the University of Texas at Austin.
Court papers quote messages from Mr. Schulte that suggest he was aware of the encrypted images of children being molested by
adults on his computer, though he advised one user, "Just don't put anything too illegal on there." -
New York Times
Monday's DOJ announcement adds new charges related to stealing classified national defense information from the Central Intelligence
Agency in 2016 and transmitting it to WikiLeaks ("Organization-1").
The Vault 7 release - a series of 24 documents which began to publish on March 7, 2017 - reveal that the CIA had a wide variety
of tools to use against adversaries, including the
ability to "spoof" its malware to appear as though it was created by a foreign intelligence agency , as well as the ability to
take control of Samsung Smart TV's and surveil a target using a "Fake Off" mode in which they appear to be powered down while eavesdropping.
The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for the agency. Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint"
that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity .
...
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen'
from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution
by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from .
Schulte previously worked for the NSA before joining the CIA, then "left the intelligence community in 2016 and took a job in
the private sector," according to a statement reviewed in May by
The Washington Post .
Schulte also claimed that he reported "incompetent management and bureaucracy" at the CIA to that agency's inspector general
as well as a congressional oversight committee. That painted him as a disgruntled employee, he said, and when he left the CIA
in 2016, suspicion fell upon him as "the only one to have recently departed [the CIA engineering group] on poor terms," Schulte
wrote. - WaPo
Part of that investigation, reported WaPo, has been analyzing whether the Tor network - which allows internet users to hide their
location (in theory) "was used in transmitting classified information."
In other hearings in Schulte's case, prosecutors have alleged that he used Tor at his New York apartment, but they have provided
no evidence that he did so to disclose classified information. Schulte's attorneys have said that Tor is used for all kinds of
communications and have maintained that he played no role in the Vault 7 leaks. - WaPo
Schulte says he's innocent: " Due to these unfortunate coincidences the FBI ultimately made the snap judgment that I was guilty
of the leaks and targeted me," Schulte said. He launched
Facebook and GoFundMe pages
to raise money for his defense, which despite a $50 million goal,
has yet to r eceive a single donation.
The Post noted in May, the Vault 7 release was one of the most significant leaks in the CIA's history , "exposing secret cyberweapons
and spying techniques that might be used against the United States, according to current and former intelligence officials."
The CIA's toy chest includes:
Tools code named " Marble " can misdirect forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to
their agency by inserted code fragments in foreign languages. The tool was in use as recently as 2016. Per the
WikiLeaks release:
"The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator
was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators
even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, --- but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages."
iPads / iPhones / Android devices and Smart TV's are all susceptible to hacks and malware. The agency's "Dark Matter" project
reveals that the CIA has been bugging "factory fresh" iPhones since at least 2008 through suppliers. Another, " Sonic Screwdriver
" allows the CIA to execute code on a Mac laptop or desktop while it's booting up.
The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawn comparisons with George Orwell's 1984, but "Weeping Angel",
developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB)
, which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.
The Obama administration promised to disclose all serious vulnerabilities they found to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other
US-based manufacturers. The US Government broke that commitment.
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities used in
the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
In addition to its operations in Langley, Virginia the CIA also uses the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt as a covert base for its
hackers covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate (
"Center for Cyber Intelligence Europe" or CCIE)
are given diplomatic ("black") passports and State Department cover.
Instant messaging encryption is a joke.
These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking
the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
The CIA laughs at Anti-Virus / Anti-Malware programs.
"Joshua Schulte, a former employee of the CIA, allegedly used his access at the agency to transmit classified material to an outside
organization . During the course of this investigation, federal agents also discovered alleged child pornography in Schulte's New
York City residence ," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman.
On March 7, 2017, Organization-1 released on the Internet classified national defense material belonging to the CIA (the "Classified
Information"). In 2016, SCHULTE, who was then employed by the CIA, stole the Classified Information from a computer network at
the CIA and later transmitted it to Organization-1. SCHULTE also intentionally caused damage without authorization to a CIA computer
system by granting himself unauthorized access to the system, deleting records of his activities, and denying others access to
the system . SCHULTE subsequently made material false statements to FBI agents concerning his conduct at the CIA.
Schulte faces 135 years in prison if convicted on all 13 charges:
Illegal Gathering of National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(b) and 2
Illegal Transmission of Lawfully Possessed National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and 2
Illegal Transmission of Unlawfully Possessed National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e) and 2
Unauthorized Access to a Computer To Obtain Classified Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(1) and 2
Theft of Government Property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
Unauthorized Access of a Computer to Obtain Information from a Department or Agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)
and 2
Causing Transmission of a Harmful Computer Program, Information, Code, or Command, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5) and 2
Making False Statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2
Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 2
Receipt of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B), (b)(1), and 2
Possession of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and 2
Transportation of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)
Seems like everyone has kiddy porn magically appear and get discovered after they piss off the deep state bastards.
And the best part is that it's probably just the deep state operatives' own private pedo collections that they use to frame
anyone who they don't like.
I was thinking about the advancement of the technology necessary for that. They can do perfect fake stills already.
My thought is that you will soon need to film yourself 24/7 (with timestamps, shared with a blockchain-like verifiably) so
that you can disprove fake video evidence by having a filmed alibi.
Ironically, every single ex gov whistle blower (/pedophile) has the exact same kiddie porn data on their secret server (hidden
in plane view at the apartment). Joe CIA probably has a zip drive preloaded with titled data sets like "Podesta's Greatest Hits",
"Hillary's Honey bunnies" or "Willy go to the zoo". Like the mix tapes you used to make for a new gal you were trying to date.
Depending upon the mood of the agent in charge, 10,000 images of Weiner's "Warm Pizza" playlist magically appear on the server
in 3-2-1... Gotcha!
These false fingerprint tactics were all over the trump accusations which started the whole Russia Russia Russia ordeal. And
the Russia ordeal was conceptualized in a paid report to Podesta by the Bensenson Group called the Salvage Program when it was
appearant that Trump could possible win and the DNC needed ideas on how to throw the voters off at the polls. Russia is coming
/Red dawn was #1 or #2 on the list of 7 recommended ploys. The final one was crazy.. If Trump appeared to win the election, imagery
of Jesus and an Alien Invasion was to be projected into the skies to cause mass panic and create a demand for free zanex to be
handed out to the panic stricken.
Don't forget Black Lives Matters. That was idea #4 of this Bensenson report, to create civil unrest and a race war. Notice
how BLM and Antifa manically disappeared after Nov 4. All a ploy by the Dems & the deep state to remain in control of the countrys
power.
Back to the topic at hand. Its a wonder he didn't get Seth Riched. Too many porn servers and we will begin to question the
legitimacy. Oh wait...
You won't find any kiddie porn on Hillary's or DeNiros laptop. Oh its there. You just will never ever hear about it.
The Vault 7 release - a series of 24 documents which began to publish on March 7, 2017 - reveal that the CIA had a wide
variety of tools to use against adversaries, including
the ability to "spoof" its malware to appear
as though it was created by a foreign intelligence agency ....
It probably can spoof child porn as well.
Is he charged with copyright infringement for pirating child porn?
The intel community sure has a knack for sussing out purveyors of child pornography. It's probably just a coincidence govt
agencies and child pornography are inextricably linked.
It's very easy for a criminal spook to plant child porn on some poor slob's machine - especially when they want to keep him
on the hook to sink his ass for something bigger in the future. Who knows... this guy may have done some shit but I'm willing
to bet he was entirely targeted by these IC assholes. Facing 135 years in prison... yet that baggy ass cunt Hillary walks free...
Funny how they always seem to have a "sting" operation in progress when there's anyone the DC rats want to destroy but strangely,
or not, silent as the grave when one of the special people are fingered.
Of all these things the C_A can do, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that planting CP on a computer of someone you
don't like would be a piece of cake, comparatively speaking.
Of all these things the C_A can do, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that planting CP on a computer of someone you
don't like would be a piece of cake, comparatively speaking.
The "Spoofing" or Digital Finger Print & Parallel Construction tools that can be used against Governments, Individuals, enemies
& adversaries are Chilling.
The CIA can not only hack into anything -- they can download any "evidence" they want onto your phone or computer. Child pornography,
national secrets, you name it. Then they can blackmail you, threatening prosecution for whatever crap they have planted, then
"found" on your computer. They can also "spoof" the source of such downloads -- for instance, if they want to "prove" that something
on your computer (or Donald Trump's computer) came from a "Russian source" -- they can spoof the IP address of a Russian source.
The take-away: no digital evidence the CIA or NSA produces on any subject whatsoever can be trusted. No digital evidence should
be acceptable in any case where the government has an interest, because they have the complete ability to fabricate and implant
any evidence on any iphone or computer. And worse: they have intentionally created these digital vulnerabilities and pushed them
onto the whole world via Microsoft and Google. Government has long been at war with liberty, claiming that we need to give up
liberty to be secure. Now we learn that they have been deliberately sabotaging our security, in order to augment their own power.
Time to shut down the CIA and all the other spy agencies. They're not keeping us free OR secure, and they're doing it deliberately.
Their main function nowadays seems to be lying us into wars against countries that never attacked us, and had no plans to do so.
The Echelon Computer System Catch Everything
The Flagging goes to Notify the Appropriate Alphabet,,,...Key Words Phrases...Algorithms,...It all gets sucked up and chewed
on and spat out to the surmised computed correct departments...That simple.
Effective immediately defund, Eliminate & Supeona it's Agents, Officials & Dept. Heads in regard to the Mass Surveillance,
Global Espionage Spying network & monitoring of a President Elect by aforementioned Agencies & former President Obama, AG Lynch
& DIA James Clapper, CIA John Breanan.
Since 911, they've been "protecting" the shit out of us. "protecting" away every last fiber of liberty. Was watching some fact-based
media about the CIA's failed plan to install Yeltsin's successor via a Wallstreet banking cartel bet (see, LTCM implosion). The
ultimate objectives were to rape and loot post-Soviet Russian resources and enforce regime change. It's such a tired playbook
at this point. Who DOESNT know about this sort of affront? Apparently even nobel prize economists cant prevent a nation from failing
lol. The ultimate in vanity; our gubmint and its' shadow controllers.
This is because people who are smart enough to write walware for the CIA send messages in the clear about child porn and are
too dumb to encrypt images with a key that would take the lifetime of the universe to break.
Next his mother will be found to have a tax problem and his brother's credit rating zeroed out.
Meanwhile Comey will be found to have been "careless".
Yeah I don't believe for a second that this guy had anything to do with child porn. Not like Obama and his hotdogs or Clintons
at pedo island, or how bout uncle pervie podesta? go after them, goons and spooks. They (intelligence agencies) falsely accuse
people of exactly what they are ass-deep in. loses credibility with me when the CIA clowns or NSA fuck ups accuse anyone of child
porn; especially one of their former employees who is 'disgruntled'. LOL. another spook railroad job done on a whistleblower.
fuck the CIA and all 17 alphabet agencies who spy on us 24/7. Just ask, if you want to snoop on me. I may even tell you what I'm
up to because I have nothing that I would hide since, I don't give a shit about you or whether you approve of what I am doing.
"Yeah I don't believe for a second that this guy had anything to do with child porn."
Speculation by my part: He was running a Tor server, and the porn originated from other Tor users. If that is the case ( it
would be easy for law enforcement to just assume it was his) law enforcement enjoys a quick and easy case.
It really doesn't matter if someone wants to hide. That is their right. Only Nazi's like our spy agencies would use the old
Gestapo line, "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Or better yet, you should let me turn your life
upside down if you have nothing to hide. " Bullshit! It's none of their fucking business. How bout that? Spooks and secret clowns
CAN and DO frame anybody for whatever or murder whomever they wish. So why WOULDNT people be afraid when government goons start
sticking their big snouts into their lives??? They can ruin your life for the sake of convenience. Zee Furor is not pleased with
your attitude, comrade.
"... Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." ..."
"... Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15. ..."
"... Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged "with a crime unrelated to the election in order to silence him," and that he anticipates the meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against President Trump (leaving no Stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do. ..."
"... There were several times during the Roman Empire when the Praetorian Guard murdered the Emperor and then auctioned off the Emperor's position to the highest bidder. We're probably close to that point ourselves where the FBI and CIA just dispense with the pretense and murder the President and auction it off themselves to the highest bidder. ..."
Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo say that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian appears to
have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On
his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said.
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
Aftter the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration - showing the Post evidence that
Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, " had provided information to the FBI for 17 years, " based on a 2015 court
filing related to his immigration status.
He attached records showing that the government had granted him special permission to enter the United States because his presence
represented a "significant public benefit."
Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter the United States under a so-called
"significant public benefit parole." The documents list an FBI agent as a contact person. The agent declined to comment.
Greenberg did not respond to questions about his use of multiple names but said in a text that he had worked for the "federal
government" for 17 years.
"I risked my life and put myself in danger to do so, as you can imagine," he said. -
WaPo
"Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to" the FBI, Greenberg told The Post . " I cooperated
with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger . Based on my information, there is so many arrests criminal from drugs and
human trafficking, money laundering and insurance frauds ."
Stone and Caputo say it was a "sting operation" by the FBI:
" I didn't realize it was an FBI sting operation at the time, but it sure looks like one now ," said Stone.
"If you believe that [Greenberg] took time off from his long career as an FBI informant to reach out to us in his spare time,
I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you," Caputo said in an interview.
Greenberg told WaPo he stopped working with the FBI "sometime after 2013."
In terms of the timeline , here's where the Greenberg meeting fits in:
April 26, 2016 -
Maltese
professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly tells Trump campaign aide George Paoadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton
Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton."
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." -
The Federalist
May 10, 2016 - Papadopoulos tells former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged "
drunken barroom admission " that the Russians had information which "could be damaging" to Hillary Clinton.
Late May, 2016 - Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton
July 2016 - FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one
of many encounters.
July 31, 2016 - the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane , the code name given to the counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign.
September, 2016 - Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and
dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.
Foggy memory
Stone and Caputo say they didn't mention the meeting during Congressional testimony because they forgot, chalking it up to unimportant
"due diligence." Apparently random offers for political dirt in exchange for millions are so common in D.C. that one tends to forget.
Stone and Caputo said in separate interviews that they also did not disclose the Greenberg meeting during testimony before
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because they had forgotten about an incident that Stone calls unimportant
"due diligence" that would have been "political malpractice" not to explore . -
WaPo
While Greenberg and Stone's account of the meeting mostly checked out (after Greenberg initially denied Stone's account), Greenberg
said that a Ukrainian friend named "Alexi" who was fired by the Clinton Foundation attended as well, and was the one asking for the
money - while Stone said Greenberg came alone to the meeting.
"We really want to help Trump," Stone recalled Greenberg saying during the brief encounter.
Greenberg says he sat at a nearby table while Alexei conducted the meeting. " Alexei talk to Mr. Stone, not me ," he wrote.
The Clinton Founation has denied ever employing anyone with the first name of Alexi.
Caputo's attorney on Friday sent a letter amending his House testimony, and he plans to present Caputo's account of the Greenberg
incident to the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, which has announced it is examining the FBI's use of
informants during the Russia probe. Stone said his attorney has done the same. -
WaPo
Second FBI informant
Caputo hinted at the interaction in late May when he said that there were multiple government informants who approached the Trump
campaign:
"Let me tell you something that I know for a fact," Caputo said during a May 21 interview on Fox News. " This informant, this
person [who] they tried to plant into the campaign he's not the only person who came into the campaign . And the FBI is not the only
Obama agency who came into the campaign."
" I know because they came at me ," Caputo added. " And I'm looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public.
This is just the beginning. "
Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged "with a crime unrelated to the election
in order to silence him," and that he anticipates the meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against
President Trump (leaving no Stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do.
There were several times during the Roman Empire when the Praetorian Guard murdered the Emperor and then auctioned off the
Emperor's position to the highest bidder. We're probably close to that point ourselves where the FBI and CIA just dispense with
the pretense and murder the President and auction it off themselves to the highest bidder.
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention
of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)
Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in
1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two
arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999),
you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup'
(Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer,
and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward
was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup
d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs -- CIA operation. Bob Woodward was
apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet
minimal standards.
'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big
distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was
admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at
the London Ecuador Embassy, faker
Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald
posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers',
etc.)
Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill
Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime
bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure,
Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When
Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' -- the
bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its
highly pre-vetted White House occupants.
Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have
to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon
landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March
1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel
Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good
time for Unz debunking
Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by
a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged
'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40%
removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
"... Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy doing that had to be stopped? ..."
One of the main reasons why "conspiracy theory" is used in the pejorative sense:
After JFK was killed, there were many articles and books written claiming a conspiracy.
And then nothing happened.
At some level, most Americans are still convinced that the police and prosecutors are
looking out for them: If it really were proved that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, of
course the conspirators would be prosecuted, right?
The same is true of the "suicide" of Gary Webb, the man who uncovered Iran Contra. He was
found with an alleged suicide note, and two gunshot wounds to the back of the head. The
coroner ruled his death a suicide. Case closed.
The thing is, the kind of high-level people who're generally accused of wanting to murder
poor, poor, innocent JFK both knew that at worst, he'd be gone by January 21, 1969, and knew
more than enough about him to come up with a much better plan. Getting "Dr. Feelgood," with
or without his conscious cooperation, to give JFK a "hot shot" would do the trick just fine,
as would sending in a "bimbo" with a cyanide injector in her beehive hairdo. First rule of
this as in many other things -- KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)
The kinds of scenarios I've seen from conspiracy believers are so complicated and iffy
that they make Jimmy Carter's "Operation Eagle Claw" look like a sure-fire, can't-lose
winner. Having Oswald be the only shooter makes sense, and comports with what we know of
Oswald's personality. The men who've murdered other presidents were generally attention
sponges with an exaggerated view of their importance in the scheme of things. Oswald thought
he was rightfully a world-shaking hero, instead of the twerp he was, but compared to Charles
Guiteau (who shot James Garfield) Oswald was a shrinking violet.
In criminal investigations the first question always is 'who benefits'.
The weird thing in political suspicious deaths is that this question is seldom asked.
This is the case with, to name a few, Sikorsky, Kennedy, Palme, Anna Lyndh,
Hammarskjöld, Diana, Hess, Pearl Harbour, Sept 11, MH17, MH370, Bernadotte, Barschel,
there must be more.
In the Kennedy case, he was killed some two weeks after he had threatened Israel not to sell
weapons any more, if they continued building the atomic bomb.
Both patsies Harvey Lee Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were selected with respect to the legends,
real or synthetic, that could be used in the post assassination story spin off. In both cases
the legends were to deflect the attention form the actual conspirators. In the case of Oswald
it was his defection to the USSR. Involvement of Soviets in the assassination was an option
that was not played in the media in the end but it could have been if the lone nut assassin
narrative for some reason could not gain the traction. In the case of Sirham his legend as a
disgruntled Palestinian who was upset with RFK's alleged support for Israel was played to the
full extent. It was done for two reasons: (1) to decouple JFK assassination from RFK
assassination; crazy lone nut Texan American and crazy lone nut Arab Palestinian had only one
thing in common: being a crazy lone nut, and (2) paint RFK as a martyr for his pro Israel
views. The second spin off was risky because it brought Israel into the story, nevertheless
the conspirators thought it was important and took the risk so the could make out of RFK the
first (and the only one so far afaik) American politician who died for his pro Israel
position. This certainly pushed away any suspicions that Israel might have been involved or
could have benefited from his assassination. Sirhan Sirhan legend was also used to foreshadow
Palestinian terrorism that began to grow in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967.
Try taking a look at 'Prayer Man', most likely the image of Lee Harvey Oswald on the front
steps of the TSBD building shortly after the shooting. A good introduction can be found at
http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination
The 1991 Oliver Stone movie unblocked many Americans to think about and consider the
conspiracy behind the assassination. Still four years earlier Stanley Kubrick was reinforcing
the meme of Lee Harvey Oswald in Full Metal Jacket:
Excellent article, Ron. Thankyou for writing this.
On his deathbed, CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt confessed to being involved in the JFK
assassination. He implicated other intelligence agents and Vice-President LBJ. Watch this
short video here in which he confesses.
If anyone wants to understand the JFK assassination in more detail, I highly recommend
watching Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Here's a very good part of the movie that explains how
Oswald couldn't have shot JFK, as Oswald was behind JFK and JFK's head snaps back and to the
left. So the true assassin must've been in the front (his shot knocked JFK's head back)
– and couldn't have been Oswald. Watch the video below. "Back and to the left."
Here's an interesting video on how many JFK assassination witnesses died mysterious
deaths. Start watching this video from 1:50. Particularly interesting is that on the day when
the House tried to get George De Mohrenschildt (a close friend of Oswald and a very prominent
socialite in Dallas) to testify, he was found death. The death was ruled a suicide.
Jack Ruby (the Dallas club owner who assasinated Oswald) claimed that LBJ had JFK
assassinated. See video below.
He also claimed a conspiracy was keeping him from speaking. See video below.
When JFK was assassinated, there was a man with an umbrella who was right next to the
president. It was an extremely sunny day in Dallas on that day. Why was the man holding the
umbrella? Reporter Bill O'Reilly reports evidence that the "Umbrella Man" may have used the
umbrella to fire a dart into JFK. Interestingly, the CIA had developed a dart weapon before
that date. See this video below. Starts at 40 seconds.
Dr. Charles Crenshaw (who treated JFK's bullet wound and went on to become ) claimed that
the entry points of 2 of the wounds he observed were in the front of JFK's throat. Therefore,
the assassin must've been in the front and couldn't have been Oswald. He also claimed that
the wound was tampered with to make it seem the bullet came from behind.
"Dark Journalist" has a very good video on the JFK assassination.
Here's an interesting video of Dan Rather lying about the JFK assassination. This news clip
was made shortly after the assassination. Dan Rather told the American viewing public that
JFK's head went forward after he was shot. Later, it would be revealed that Dan Rather had
lied that day.
By the way, you always hear the Warren Commission found that there was no conspiracy and
that Oswald was the "lone gunman." However, in 1976, the House of Representatives
investigated the matter and concluded that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK
assassination. The assasination involved multiple gunmen. The media never reports this.
The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was
established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther
King, Jr. The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the
following year, concluding that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. In addition to acoustic analysis of a police channel dictabelt recording,[1]
the HSCA also commissioned numerous other scientific studies of assassination-related
evidence that corroborate the Warren Commission's findings.[2]
Here's a very persuasive History Channel video on how LBJ had JFK killed.
Also, the military-industrial complex wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam.
By the way, it's sort of interesting how the mysterious Gulf of Tonkin incident led to a
huge war in Vietnam.
This video demonstrates how wildly implausible it was that Oswald pulled the trigger. The
FBI couldn't replicate Oswald's supposed shooting with their best shooters.
FBI didn't find a palm print on Oswald's rifle. Then, a week later, a Dallas policeman
found a palm print on the rifle.
"We're through the looking glass people. White is black – and black is white."
Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention
of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)
Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by
a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged
'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40%
removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup'
(Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer,
and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward
was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup
d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs – CIA operation. Bob Woodward
was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to
meet minimal standards.
'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big
distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was
admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at
the London Ecuador Embassy, faker
Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald
posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers',
etc.)
Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill
Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime
bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure,
Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When
Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' – the
bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its
highly pre-vetted White House occupants.
Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have
to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon
landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March
1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel
Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good
time for Unz debunking
Follow the Jack Ruby trail: If Oswald was "just a patsy," the first thing to do is to
investigate on the man who silenced Oswald, thereby preventing any doubts being raised in a
court case. Strangely enough, no one (not even Ruby's biographer Seth Kantor) seem to care
that Jack Ruby's real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein.
Allow me to quote from my earlier
article, and add a few details: Ruby, the son of Jewish Polish immigrants, was a member of
the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had
known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka
Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated.
Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist
cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually
pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun
war". Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he
even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los
Angeles Police Department. So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen,
to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false
flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after
Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the
underworld. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he
had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same
confession when visiting Ruby in jail.
Probably as a cryptic message to Johnson, whom he expected to pardon him, Ruby made the
following odd statements to the Warren Commission: "There will be a certain tragic occurrence
happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer
because of what I have done." He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some
falsehood about some of the Jewish faith."
According to a declassified US State Department document, Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir
reacted to the news that Ruby had just killed Oswald with this sentence: "Ruby is alive, Oy
vaaboy if we get caught!" (quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism , vol. 2, p. 279).
Make it three assassinated Kennedys, with JFK Jr. Hell, make it four, counting his unborn
child : On July 20, 1999, the New York Daily News published a piece by Joel Siegel
titled: "JFK Jr. Mulled Run for Senate in 2000". The page seems to have just been deleted,
but I had saved it, so I reproduce the first lines : "A private poll in 1997 found that John
F. Kennedy Jr. was by far the state's most popular Democrat, and two friends said yesterday
they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the
best-kept secret in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen.
Daniel Moynihan " Moynihan was a former Kennedy associate, so it is likely that he would have
supported JFK Jr.'s bid. And recall that the same seat had once been held by RFK. So JFK Jr.
was walking on his father's and his uncle's footsteps. They saw him coming, and decided to
eliminate him before his ambitions even became public. Guess who won the seat, after JFK Jr.
died in a mysterious plane crash: Hillary Clinton.
What would JFK Jr. have done next if he had been allowed to walk this path? Well, if you want
to know what was on his mind, check some of the covers of his magazine George on
https://www.vfiles.com/vfiles/16372 You will see
that he was obsessed with "conspiracy theories":
In a special "Conspiracy Issue", October 1998, George published a piece by Oliver
Stone, director of the film JFK, titled "Paranoid and Proud of it". Earlier in December 1996,
the cover announces an article on "TWA Conspiracy Theories" (about TWA 800). And in March
1997, another conspiracy theory under the title "Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak
Rabin?". And so on.
Considering that JFK Jr.'s unborn child also died with him, and if we follow the logic of
Ronald Kessler, author of The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He
Founded (1996) (a message to JFK Jr.?), then three generations of Kennedys were punished
for "the sins of the father". That fulfills Exodus 20:5: "I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous
god and I punish a parent's fault in the children, the grandchildren, and the
great-grandchildren among those who hate me."
People conspire all the time. A board of directors gathering for their annual meeting is
literally a conspiracy: they are conspiring to plan the company's trajectory over some period
of time.
Do people ever conspire nefariously? Well, what is the first thing investigators will do
when looking into a company like Enron? That's right, they will subpoena email records,
because despite the negative connotation surrounding the term "conspiracy theory," people
implicitly sense and really know that *this is exactly the kind of shit that happens all the
time*.
For example, the Seth Rich murder, as its official story goes is literally a conspiracy.
Two MS-13 members conspired to rob Mr. Rich while he was walking home from a bar. Why is it
that people will believe that two people will conspire over a few hundred bucks, but refuse
to believe powerful people will conspire over tens or hundreds of billions? Only because of
media programming.
Once you unplug from the Matrix, so much that never made sense comes into clarity. Thanks,
Mr. Unz for your tireless work and financial contributions to the American Pravda series.
I've learned so much and it has been integral to my eyes being opened over the last four
years.
I think we all know the JFK-assassination was a conspiracy. Oswald was the patsy.
But, we do not know for sure who participated in the conspiracy.
The report by the Warren commission was a cover up. CIA Director McCone was "complicit" in
a Central Intelligence Agency "benign cover-up" by withholding information from the Warren
Commission, according to a report by the CIA Chief Historian David Robarge released to the
public in 2014.[24] According to this CIA report, CIA officers had been instructed to give
only "passive, reactive, and selective" assistance to the commission, in order to keep the
commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth' -- that Lee
Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy."
Witholding evidence in order to cover up a crime is usually done because of involvement in
the crime. Thus, it is most likely that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy
Assassination.
What evil consumes the innocents?
What witch stages these mind control spectacles? I add one bread crumb to the Ron Unz Trail, through the deep dark forest of the fairy tale of our lives.
No matter who you are, we have a vector for you!
"Lane, it should be noted, was in U.S. Army intelligence in post-war Germany in 1945-47.
This is the branch that became the C.I.A. after the war. Lane was paid some $5 million in
legal fees by the Liberty Lobby, according to a veteran of the lobby. None of this is widely
known among the people who read and support American Free Press. It is important because it
shows how a Zionist Jew from the C.I.A. can actually control a movement that purports to be
working for the American patriot audience. "
Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his
article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy
doing that had to be stopped? Fifty-five years have passed without any conspirator's deathbed
confession. Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of J. F.
K. seemed convincing to me when I read it many years ago. One fact that struck me as
specially persuasive was that the kindly Quaker woman who was sheltering Marina Oswald and
baby saw an ad in the paper for a job at the Book Depository building and pointed it out to
Oswald who applied for the job and got it sometime before the route of the Kennedy drive past
the building was chosen and published. Perhaps Mr. Unz might share his opinion of Posner's
book with us.
Take the pain to read actual eyewitness testimonies from medical personnel who attended
President Kennedy when taken to Parkland hospital after being shot.
That may stop you from embarrassing yourself defending the ludicrous lone gunman
theory.
Wonder if anyone read the Warren Report.
Reading it I got the same feeling as, in the seventies, when I still believed mainstream
history, reading Churchill's memoirs: too good to be true.
Harold Weisberg, 'Whitewash – the report on the Warren Report', 1965, 1966, New York
tears Warren to shreds.
It is a sad comment on mental pliability of US public that someone as perspicacious as Ron
Unz could have for so long subscribed to "single gunman" (alright, he was not single, Oswald
was married) "theory".
I came of age much more recently and my encounters with JFK and RFK's assassinations were all
about supposed conspiracies. If anything, there seems to be a conspiracy to make you think
there's a conspiracy.
Furthermore, it is pretty easy to kill someone so, if there was a conspiracy to kill those
two, goodness knows why the conspirators would not just use more subtle methods
All of these types of theories always seem to end up with their hypothesiser pointing out
inconsistencies in the historical account of incredibly complex events while, at best, only
proposing a much more inconsistent alternative.
Conspirator super genius: how shall we kill him?
Conspirator normal: we could give him an aneurysm so he dies in his sleep in the middle of
the night. It would be utterly untraceable and medically unsuspicious. Indeed, if we do it
when he has one of his girls round, then that will stop further questions.
Conspirator super genius: no, we should stage an assasination in the open. With bullets
that might miss, a patsy who might blab or get away and our target could easily survive and
take revenge. It will also make everyone suspicious and will need endless effort to keep
quiet.
If you examine the first page of JFK's death certificate, (easily done on your search engine)
you will see that the President died of "gunshot wounds to the head and neck." and that he
was killed by a "High Velocity Rifle". At that time a High Velocity Rifle had a muzzle
velocity speed of 2500/600 feet per second, now I believe it is up to 3000 feet per second.
The only weapon associated with Lee Harvey Oswald on the day of the assassination was a
Manlicher Carcano 6.5mm as agreed by the Warren Commission, Pozner (Case Closed) and
Bugliosi. This rifle is not only notoriously inaccurate but has a muzzle velocity of 2000
feet per second and therefore could not have inflicted the wounds to JFK's head and neck that
killed him.
Oswald may have tried to kill the President (personally I doubt it) from the sixth floor
of the Book Depository overlooking Dealy Plaza but he didn't because JFK was killed by a High
Velocity weapon and Oswald didn't have one.
"... Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years ..."
"... If the first two dozen pages of the Talbot book completely overturned my understanding of the JFK assassination, I found the closing section almost equally shocking. With the Vietnam War as a political millstone about his neck, President Johnson decided not to seek reelection in 1968, opening the door to a last minute entry into the Democratic race by Robert Kennedy, who overcame considerable odds to win some important primaries. Then on June 4, 1968, he carried gigantic winner-take-all California, placing him on an easy path to the nomination and the presidency itself, at which point he would finally be in a position to fully investigate his brother's assassination. But minutes after his victory speech, he was shot and fatally wounded, allegedly by another lone gunman, this time a disoriented Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan, supposedly outraged over Kennedy's pro-Israel public positions although these were no different than those expressed by most other political candidates in America. ..."
"... All this was well known to me. However, I had not known that powder burns later proved that the fatal bullet had been fired directly behind Kennedy's head from a distance of three inches or less although Sirhan was standing several feet in front of him ..."
"... With two Kennedy brothers now dead, neither any surviving members of the family nor most of their allies and retainers had any desire to investigate the details of this latest assassination, and in a number of cases they soon moved overseas, abandoning the country entirely. JFK's widow Jackie confided in friends that she was terrified for the lives of her children, and quickly married Aristotle Onassis, a Greek billionaire, whom she felt would be able to protect them. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Sunday Book Review ..."
"... the latest of many intelligent critics who have set out to demolish the tottering credibility of the Warren Commission and draw attention to evidence of a broad and terrible conspiracy that lay behind the assassination of John Kennedy -- and perhaps the murder of Robert Kennedy as well. ..."
"... Summarizing a half-century of conspiracy research, the Talbot and Douglass books together provide a wealth of persuasive evidence that elements of organized crime, individuals with CIA connections, and anti-Castro Cubans were probably participants in the assassination plot. Oswald seems to have been working with various anti-Communist groups and also had significant connections to U.S. intelligence, while his purported Marxism was merely a very thin disguise. With regard to the assassination itself, he was exactly the "patsy" he publicly claimed to be, and very likely never fired a single shot. Meanwhile, Jack Ruby had a long history of ties to organized crime, and surely killed Oswald to shut his mouth. ..."
"... Many others may have suffered a similar fate. Conspirators daring enough to strike at the president of the United States would hardly balk at using lethal means to protect themselves from the consequences of their action, and over the years a considerable number of individuals associated with the case in one way or another came to untimely ends. ..."
"... Less than a year after the assassination, JFK mistress Mary Meyer, the ex-wife of high-ranking CIA official Cord Meyer, was found shot to death in a Washington DC street-killing with no indications of attempted robbery or rape, and the case was never solved. Immediately afterwards, CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angelton was caught breaking into her home in search of her personal diary, which he later claimed to have destroyed. ..."
"... Dorothy Kilgallen was a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist and television personality, and she managed to wrangle an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby, later boasting to her friends that she would break the JFK assassination case wide open in her new book, producing the biggest scoop of her career. Instead, she was found dead in her Upper East Side townhouse, having apparently succumbed to an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills, with both the draft text and the notes to her Jack Ruby chapter missing. ..."
"... From childhood, it's always been obvious to me that the MSM is completely dishonest about certain things and over the last dozen years I've become extremely suspicious about a whole range of other issues. But if you'd asked me a couple of years ago whether JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I would have said "well, anything's possible, but I'm 99% sure there's absolutely no substantial evidence pointing in that direction since the MSM would surely have headlined it a million times over." ..."
"... The National Guardian ..."
"... Rush to Judgment ..."
"... A Citizens Dissent ..."
"... , The New York Times ..."
"... Conspiracy Theory in America ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... President John F. Kennedy was indeed killed by a conspiracy, and we are sorry we spent more than a half century suppressing that truth and ridiculing those who uncovered it. ..."
Among other things, occasional references reminded me that I'd previously seen my newspapers
discuss a couple of newly released JFK books in rather respectful terms, which had surprised me
a bit at the time. One of them, still generating discussion, was JFK and the
Unspeakable published in 2008 by James W. Douglass, whose name meant nothing to me. And
the other, which I hadn't originally realized trafficked in any assassination conspiracies, was
David Talbot's 2007 Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , focused on the
relationship between John F. Kennedy and his younger brother Robert. Talbot's name was also
somewhat familiar to me as the founder of Salon.com and a well-regarded if
liberal-leaning journalist.
None of us have expertise in all areas, so sensible people must regularly delegate their
judgment to credible third-parties, relying upon others to distinguish sense from nonsense.
Since my knowledge of the JFK assassination was nil, I decided that two recent books attracting
newspaper coverage might be a good place to start. So perhaps a couple of years after watching
that Oliver Stone film, I cleared some time in my schedule, and spent a few days carefully
reading the combined thousand pages of text.
I was stunned at what I immediately discovered. Not only was the evidence of a "conspiracy"
absolutely overwhelming, but whereas I'd always assumed that only kooks doubted the official
story, I instead discovered that a long list of the most powerful people near the top of the
American government and in the best position to know had been privately convinced of such a
"conspiracy," in many cases from almost the very beginning.
The Talbot book especially impressed me, being based on over 150 personal interviews and
released by The Free Press , a highly reputable publisher. Although he applied a
considerable hagiographic gloss to the Kennedys, his narrative was compellingly written, with
numerous gripping scenes. But while such packaging surely helped to explain some of the
favorable treatment from reviewers and how he had managed to produce a national bestseller in a
seemingly long-depleted field, for me the packaging was much less important than the product
itself.
To the extent that notions of a JFK conspiracy had ever crossed my mind, I'd considered the
argument from silence absolutely conclusive. Surely if there had been the slightest doubt of
the "lone gunman" conclusion endorsed by the Warren Commission, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy
would have launched a full investigation to avenge his slain brother.
But as Talbot so effectively demonstrates, the reality of the political situation was
entirely different. Robert Kennedy may have begun that fatal morning widely regarded as the
second most powerful man in the country, but the moment his brother was dead and his bitter
personal enemy Lyndon Johnson sworn in as the new president, his governmental authority almost
immediately ebbed away. Longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had been his hostile
subordinate, probably scheduled for removal in JFK's second term, immediately became
contemptuous and unresponsive to his requests. Having lost all his control over the levels of
power, Robert Kennedy lacked any ability to conduct a serious investigation.
According to numerous personal interviews, he had almost immediately concluded that his
brother had been struck down at the hands of an organized group, very likely including elements
from within the U.S. government itself, but he could do nothing about the situation. As he
regularly confided to close associates, his hope at the age of 38 was to reach the White House
himself at some future date, and with his hands once again upon the levels of power then
uncover his brother's killers and bring them to justice. But until that day, he could do
nothing, and any unsubstantiated accusations he made would be totally disastrous both for
national unity and for his own personal credibility. So for years, he was forced to nod his
head and publicly acquiesce to the official story of his brother's inexplicable assassination
at the hands of a lone nut, a fairy tale publicly endorsed by nearly the entire political
establishment, and this situation deeply gnawed at him. Moreover, his own seeming acceptance of
that story was often interpreted by others, not least in the media, as his wholehearted
endorsement.
Although discovering Robert Kennedy's true beliefs was a crucial revelation in the Talbot
book, there were many others. At most three shots had allegedly come from Oswald's rifle, but
Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent in the passenger seat of JFK's limousine, was sure
there had been more than that, and to the end of his life always believed there had been
additional shooters. Gov. Connolly, seated next to JFK and severely wounded in the attack, had
exactly the same opinion. CIA Director John McCone was equally convinced that there had been
multiple shooters. Across the pages of Talbot's book, I learned that dozens of prominent,
well-connected individuals privately expressed extreme skepticism towards the official "lone
gunman theory" of the Warren Commission, although such doubts were very rarely made in public
or on the record.
For a variety of complex reasons, the leading national media organs -- the commanding
heights of "Our American
Pravda" -- almost immediately endorsed the "lone gunman theory" and with some exceptions
generally maintained that stance throughout the next half-century. With few prominent critics
willing to publicly dispute that idea and a strong media tendency to ignore or minimize those
exceptions, casual observers such as myself had generally received a severely distorted view of
the situation.
If the first two dozen pages of the Talbot book completely overturned my understanding
of the JFK assassination, I found the closing section almost equally shocking. With the Vietnam
War as a political millstone about his neck, President Johnson decided not to seek reelection
in 1968, opening the door to a last minute entry into the Democratic race by Robert Kennedy,
who overcame considerable odds to win some important primaries. Then on June 4, 1968, he
carried gigantic winner-take-all California, placing him on an easy path to the nomination and
the presidency itself, at which point he would finally be in a position to fully investigate
his brother's assassination. But minutes after his victory speech, he was shot and fatally
wounded, allegedly by another lone gunman, this time a disoriented Palestinian immigrant named
Sirhan Sirhan, supposedly outraged over Kennedy's pro-Israel public positions although these
were no different than those expressed by most other political candidates in America.
All this was well known to me. However, I had not known that powder burns later proved
that the fatal bullet had been fired directly behind Kennedy's head from a distance of three
inches or less although Sirhan was standing several feet in front of him . Furthermore,
eyewitness testimony and acoustic evidence indicated that at least twelve bullets were fired
although Sirhan's revolver could hold only eight, and a combination of these factors led
longtime LA Coroner Dr. Thomas Naguchi, who conducted the autopsy, to claim in his 1983 memoir
that there was likely a second gunman. Meanwhile, eyewitnesses also reported seeing a security
guard with his gun drawn standing right behind Kennedy during the attack, and that individual
happened to have a deep political hatred of the Kennedys. The police investigators seemed
uninterested in these highly suspicious elements, none of which came to light during the trial.
With two Kennedy brothers now dead, neither any surviving members of the family nor most of
their allies and retainers had any desire to investigate the details of this latest
assassination, and in a number of cases they soon moved overseas, abandoning the country
entirely. JFK's widow Jackie confided in friends that she was terrified for the lives of her
children, and quickly married Aristotle Onassis, a Greek billionaire, whom she felt would be
able to protect them.
Talbot also devotes a chapter to the late 1960s prosecution efforts of New Orleans DA Jim
Garrison, which had been the central plot of the JFK film, and I was stunned to
discover that the script was almost entirely based on real life events rather than Hollywood
fantasy. This even extended to its bizarre cast of assassination conspiracy suspects, mostly
fanatically anti-Communist Kennedy-haters with CIA and organized crime ties, some of whom were
indeed prominent members of the New Orleans gay demimonde. Sometimes real life is far stranger
than fiction.
Taken as a whole, I found Talbot's narrative quite convincing, at least with respect to
demonstrating the existence of a substantial conspiracy behind the fatal event.
Others certainly had the same reaction, with the august pages of The New York TimesSunday Book Review carrying the strongly favorable reaction of presidential historian
Alan Brinkley. As the Allan Nevins Professor of History and Provost of Columbia University,
Brinkley is as mainstream and respectable an academic scholar as might be imagined and
he
characterized Talbot as
the latest of many intelligent critics who have set out to demolish the tottering
credibility of the Warren Commission and draw attention to evidence of a broad and terrible
conspiracy that lay behind the assassination of John Kennedy -- and perhaps the murder of
Robert Kennedy as well.
The other book by Douglass, released a year later, covered much the same ground and came to
roughly similar conclusions, with substantial overlap but also including major additional
elements drawn from the enormous volume of extremely suspicious material unearthed over the
decades by diligent JFK researchers. Once again, the often bitter Cold War era conflict between
JFK and various much harder-line elements of his government over Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam is
sketched out as the likely explanation for his death.
Summarizing a half-century of conspiracy research, the Talbot and Douglass books
together provide a wealth of persuasive evidence that elements of organized crime, individuals
with CIA connections, and anti-Castro Cubans were probably participants in the assassination
plot. Oswald seems to have been working with various anti-Communist groups and also had
significant connections to U.S. intelligence, while his purported Marxism was merely a very
thin disguise. With regard to the assassination itself, he was exactly the "patsy" he publicly
claimed to be, and very likely never fired a single shot. Meanwhile, Jack Ruby had a long
history of ties to organized crime, and surely killed Oswald to shut his mouth.
Many others may have suffered a similar fate. Conspirators daring enough to strike at
the president of the United States would hardly balk at using lethal means to protect
themselves from the consequences of their action, and over the years a considerable number of
individuals associated with the case in one way or another came to untimely ends.
Less than a year after the assassination, JFK mistress Mary Meyer, the ex-wife of
high-ranking CIA official Cord Meyer, was found shot to death in a Washington DC street-killing
with no indications of attempted robbery or rape, and the case was never solved. Immediately
afterwards, CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angelton was caught breaking into her
home in search of her personal diary, which he later claimed to have destroyed.
Dorothy Kilgallen was a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist and television
personality, and she managed to wrangle an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby, later boasting
to her friends that she would break the JFK assassination case wide open in her new book,
producing the biggest scoop of her career. Instead, she was found dead in her Upper East Side
townhouse, having apparently succumbed to an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills, with both
the draft text and the notes to her Jack Ruby chapter missing.
Shortly before Jim Garrison filed his assassination charges, his top suspect David Ferrie
was found dead at age 48, possibly of natural causes, though the DA suspected foul play.
During the mid-1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations held a series of
high-profile hearings to reopen and investigate the case, and two of the witnesses called were
high-ranking mafia figures Sam Giancana and Johnny Rosselli, widely suspected of having been
connected with the assassination. The former was shot to death in the basement of his home one
week before he was scheduled to testify, and the body of the latter was found in an oil-drum
floating in the waters off Miami after he had been subpoenaed for an additional appearance.
These were merely a few of the highest-profile individuals with a connection to the Dallas
assassination whose lives were cut short in the years that followed, and although the deaths
may have been purely coincidental, the full list is rather a long one.
Having read a couple of books that completely upended my settled beliefs about a central
event of twentieth century America, I simply didn't know what to think. Over the years, my own
writings had put me on friendly terms with a well-connected individual whom I considered a
member of the elite establishment, and whose intelligence and judgment had always seemed
extremely solid. So I decided to very gingerly raise the subject with him, and see whether he
had ever doubted the "lone gunman" orthodoxy. To my total astonishment, he explained that as
far back as the early 1990s, he'd become absolutely convinced in the reality of a "JFK
conspiracy" and over the years had quietly devoured a huge number of the books in that field,
but had never breathed a word in public lest his credibility be ruined and his political
effectiveness destroyed.
A second friend, a veteran journalist known for his remarkably courageous stands on certain
controversial topics, provided almost exactly the same response to my inquiry. For decades,
he'd been almost 100% sure that JFK had died in a conspiracy, but once again had never written
a word on the topic for fear that his influence would immediately collapse.
If these two individuals were even remotely representative, I began to wonder whether a
considerable fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the respectable establishment had long
harbored private beliefs about the JFK assassination that were absolutely contrary to the
seemingly uniform verdict presented in the media. But with every such respectable voice keeping
so silent, I had never once suspected a thing.
Few other revelations in recent years have so totally overturned my understanding of the
framework of reality. Even a year or two later, I still found it very difficult to wrap my head
around the concept, as I described in another note to that well-connected friend of mine:
BTW, I hate to keep harping on it, but every time I consider the implications of the JFK
matter I'm just more and more astonished.
The president of the US. The heir to one of the wealthiest and most powerful families in
America. His brother the top law enforcement officer in the country. Ben Bradlee, one of his
closest friends, the fearless crusading editor of one of the nation's most influential media
outlets. As America's first Catholic president, the sacred icon of many millions of Irish,
Italian, and Hispanic families. Greatly beloved by top Hollywood people and many leading
intellectuals.
His assassination ranks as one of the most shocking and dramatic events of the 20th
century, inspiring hundreds of books and tens of thousands of news stories and articles,
examining every conceivable detail. The argument from MSM silence always seemed absolutely
conclusive to me.
From childhood, it's always been obvious to me that the MSM is completely dishonest
about certain things and over the last dozen years I've become extremely suspicious about a
whole range of other issues. But if you'd asked me a couple of years ago whether JFK was
killed by a conspiracy, I would have said "well, anything's possible, but I'm 99% sure
there's absolutely no substantial evidence pointing in that direction since the MSM would
surely have headlined it a million times over."
Was there really a First World War? Well, I've always assumed there was, but who really
knows? .
Our reality is shaped by the media, but what the media presents is often determined by
complex forces rather than by the factual evidence in front of their eyes. And the lessons of
the JFK assassination may provide some important insights into this situation.
A president was dead and soon afterward his supposed lone assassin suffered the same fate,
producing a tidy story with a convenient endpoint. Raising doubts or focusing on contrary
evidence might open doors better kept shut, perhaps endangering national unity or even risking
nuclear war if the trail seemed to lead overseas. The highest law enforcement officer in the
country was the slain president's own brother, and since he seemed to fully accept that simple
framework, what responsible journalist or editor would be willing to go against it? What
American center of power or influence had any strong interest in opposing that official
narrative?
Certainly there was immediate and total skepticism overseas, with few foreign leaders ever
believing the story, and figures such as Nikita Khrushchev, Charles DeGaulle, and Fidel Castro
all immediately concluded that a political plot had been responsible for Kennedy's elimination.
Mainstream media outlets in France and the rest of Western Europe were equally skeptical of the
"lone gunman theory," and some of the most important early criticism of U.S. government claims
was produced by Thomas Burnett, an expatriate American writing for one of the largest French
newsweeklies. But in pre-Internet days, only the tiniest sliver of the American public had
regular access to such foreign publications, and their impact upon domestic opinion would have
been nil.
Perhaps instead of asking ourselves why the "lone gunman" story was accepted, we should
instead be asking why it was ever vigorously challenged, during an era when media control was
extremely centralized in establishmentarian hands.
Oddly enough, the answer may lie in the determination of a single individual named Mark
Lane, a left-liberal New York City attorney and Democratic Party activist. Although JFK
assassination books eventually numbered in the thousands and the resulting conspiracy theories
roiled American public life throughout the 1960s and 1970s, without his initial involvement
matters might have followed a drastically different trajectory.
From the very first, Lane had been skeptical of the official story, and less than a month
after the killing, The National Guardian , a small left-wing national newspaper,
published his 10,000 word critique, highlighting major flaws in the "lone gunman theory."
Although his piece had been rejected by every other national periodical, the public interest
was enormous, and once the entire edition sold out, thousands of extra copies were printed in
pamphlet form. Lane even rented a theater in New York City, and for several months gave public
lectures to packed audiences.
After the Warren Commission issued its completely contrary official verdict, he began
working on a manuscript, and although he faced enormous obstacles in finding an American
publisher, once Rush to Judgment appeared, it spent a remarkable two years on the
national bestseller lists, easily reaching the #1 spot. Such tremendous economic success
naturally persuaded a host of other authors to follow suit, and an entire genre was soon
established. Lane later published A Citizens Dissent recounting his early struggles to
break the total American "media blackout" against anyone contradicting the official conclusion.
Against all odds, he had succeeded in sparking a massive popular uprising sharply challenging
the narrative of the establishment.
According to Talbot, "By late 1966, it was becoming impossible for the establishment media
to stick with the official story" and the November 25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine ,
then at the absolute height of its national influence, carried the remarkable cover story "Did
Oswald Act Alone?" with the conclusion that he probably did not. The next month , The New
York Times announced it was forming a special task force to investigate the assassination.
These elements were to merge with the media furor soon surrounding the Garrison investigation
that began the following year, an investigation that enlisted Lane as an active participant.
However, behind the scenes a powerful media counterattack was also being launched at this same
time.
In 2013 Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, past president of the Florida Political Science
Association, published Conspiracy Theory in America , a fascinating exploration of the
history of the concept and the likely origins of the term itself. He noted that during 1966 the
CIA had become alarmed at the growing national skepticism of the Warren Commission findings,
especially once the public began turning its suspicious eyes toward the intelligence agency
itself. Therefore, in January 1967 top CIA officials distributed a memo to all their local
stations, directing them to employ their media assets and elite contacts to refute such
criticism by various arguments, notably including an emphasis on Robert Kennedy's supposed
endorsement of the "lone gunman" conclusion.
This memo, obtained by a later FOIA request, repeatedly used the term "conspiracy" in a
highly negative sense, suggesting that "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" be
portrayed as irresponsible and irrational. And as I wrote
in 2016,
Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points,
with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA
guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread
throughout the American media, with the residual impact continuing right down to the present
day.
This possible cause-and-effect relationship is supported by other evidence. Shortly after
leaving The Washington Post in 1977, famed Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein
published a 25,000 word Rolling Stonecover story entitled "The CIA and
the Media" revealing that during the previous quarter century over 400 American journalists had
secretly carried out assignments for the CIA according to documents on file at the headquarters
of that organization. This influence project, known as "Operation Mockingbird," had allegedly
been launched near the end of the 1940s by high-ranking CIA official Frank Wisner, and included
editors and publishers situated at the very top of the mainstream media hierarchy.
For whatever reason, by the time I came of age and began following the national media in the
late 1970s, the JFK story had become very old news, and all the newspapers and magazines I read
provided the very strong impression that the "conspiracy theories" surrounding the
assassination were total nonsense, long since debunked, and only of interest to kooks on the
ideological fringe. I was certainly aware of the enormous profusion of popular conspiracy
books, but I never had the slightest interest in looking at any of them. America's political
establishment and its close media allies had outlasted the popular rebellion, and the name
"Mark Lane" meant almost nothing to me, except vaguely as some sort of fringe-nut, who very
occasionally rated a mention in my mainstream newspapers, receiving the sort of treatment
accorded to Scientologists or UFO activists.
Oddly enough, Talbot's treatment of Lane was also rather dismissive, recognizing his crucial
early role in preventing the official narrative from quickly hardening into concrete, but also
emphasizing his abrasive personality, and almost entirely ignoring his important later work on
the issue, perhaps because so much of it had been conducted on the political fringe. Robert
Kennedy and his close allies had similarly boycotted Lane's work from the very first, regarding
him as a meddlesome gadfly, but perhaps also ashamed that he was asking the questions and doing
the work that they themselves were so unwilling to undertake at the time. Douglass's 500 page
book scarcely even mentions Lane.
Reading a couple of Lane's books, I was quite impressed by the enormous role he had
seemingly played in the JFK assassination story, but I also wondered how much of my impression
may have been due to the exaggerations of a possible self-promoter. Then, on May 13, 2016 I
opened my New York Times and found
nearly a full page obituary devoted to Lane's death at age 89, the sort of treatment these
days reserved for only the highest-ranking U.S. Senators or major rap stars. And the 1,500
words were absolutely glowing, portraying Lane as a solitary, heroic figure struggling for
decades to reveal the truth of the JFK assassination conspiracy against an entire political and
media establishment seeking to suppress it.
I read this as a deep apology by America's national newspaper of record. President John
F. Kennedy was indeed killed by a conspiracy, and we are sorry we spent more than a half
century suppressing that truth and ridiculing those who uncovered it.
Re Aaron Mate It's entirely possible he reads you regularly and saw your post when you first published, but
on
2/20/18 :
AARON MATÉ: Let's talk about the indictment, Max. Reading through it, the prosecution
alleges some clear political motives, a preference, basically, for Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump and a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton, also support for some, also, the
encouragement of Russian trolls to disparage Republicans like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
There
does appear to be some political motives there in whatever the Russians, whatever these
alleged suspects were doing. But also, there's a strong commercial component in the sense
that the accounts that the Russians are accused of creating were used to essentially, as a
scheme in which vendors would pay them money for retweets at sometimes $25 to $50 a pop.
It
seems to me that there is both a commercial motive here as well as a political imperative, as
well. I'm wondering your thoughts on what this indictment tells us.
So your Tweet on 6/5/18 wasn't telling him anything he hadn't already said publicly.
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
"a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau"
Which is what the FBI looked like at the time and over the last two years, the
anti-Clinton faction seeming to be centered in New York, and the anti-Trump faction in, what,
D.C.?
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will.
IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal
and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic
regulations.
This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as
exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination
of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate
behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing
aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama
administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.
There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance
in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the
current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by
"foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of
their job(s).
I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to
discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being
Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is
no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role
in the 2016 election."
SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me
"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the
Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very
competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should
make all of us uneasy.
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it
should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain
Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations."
Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she
and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the
election.
If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in
the outcome of a criminal probe.
Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying
about the same behavior?
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up
their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally
apply to any other human organization.
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy
in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were
the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people
in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the
time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.
At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper
execution of their jobs.
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case.
Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the
decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no
grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided
that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way
she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely
off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably
informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been
fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder.
Not ol' Hillary though.
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a
coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump
factions inside the Bureau. "
More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.
Michael Kenny
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as
innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump
if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about
these things is a tacit admission of guilt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were
innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a
crime would speak up being spied upon.
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a
chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."
What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically
biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased
decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the
explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz
admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other
decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the
procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!
To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as
willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us
knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general?
) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held
accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to
business as usual in DC.
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her
highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian
economy is smaller than Texas.
But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and
chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump
another Democrat will move into the White House.
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week
with the release of the IG report.
They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that
fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a
generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even
as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).
A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been
dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to
have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they
seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.
(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could
confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His
prophet.)
They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're
competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will
simply do it better next time.
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and
ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key
members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.
The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet
badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security,
which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.
If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go
hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.
Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received
political justice. 🙂
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated
for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated
for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.
In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
June
15, 2018The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally
feared.
It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email
investigation really means.
While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey
as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this:
the FBI influenced the election of a president.
In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who
previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's
Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the
presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to
re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding
Russiagate.
In a damning
passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and
insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department
norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair
administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for
Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch
though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early
indications.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public
perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI
investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and
to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her
decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the
situation."
The report also
criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging
Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts
"brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one
exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No.
No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document
stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least
one secret message."
Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for
Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their
new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President"
and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend
her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by
Clinton.
Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility
toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise
makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like
"adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the
conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."
But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found
no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster
terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding
drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.
The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey
shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days
before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now
celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and
insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.
A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not
much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the
report for possible
prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal
more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls
for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a
can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.
One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of
prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just
seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as
tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing
Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing
Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about
the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for
Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss'
job.
It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there
is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a
role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they
meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and
anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up
the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA
warrants and pseudo-legal
warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition
research from the
Steele Dossier , and so on.
The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if
one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not
intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are
available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we
have already met the enemy and he is us.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
The current anti-Russian hysteria is the attempt to unite the society which become hostile to neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever, and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. ..."
"... In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world. ..."
"... All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog" get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake? ..."
"... As we've been discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. ..."
"... It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing. Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff. ..."
"... You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care. ..."
At a graduation ceremony for the US Naval War College (barf), US Secretary of Defense James Mattis
asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin "aims to diminish the appeal
of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority," and that "his actions are designed not to challenge
our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever,
and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia
narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and
the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. If you accept the idea that
the exchange is anything close to 50/50, with Russia giving back more or less what it's getting and simply protecting its own interests
from the interests of geopolitical rivals, it no longer makes any sense to view Putin as a leader who poses a unique threat to the
world. If you accept the idea that the west is actually being far more aggressive and antagonistic toward Russia than Russia is being
toward the west, it gets even more laughable.
In order to believe that the US has anything resembling "moral authority" you have to shove your head so far into the sand you
get lava burns, but that really is what is needed to keep western anti-Russia hysteria going. None of the things the Russian government
has been accused of doing (let alone the very legitimate questions about whether or not they even did all of them) merit anything
but an indifferent shrug when compared with the unforgivable evils that America's unelected power establishment has been inflicting
upon the world, so they need to weave a narrative about "moral authority" in order to give those accusations meaning and relevance.
And, since the notion of America having moral authority is contradicted by all facts in evidence, that narrative is necessarily woven
of threads of fantasy and denial.
Establishment anti-Russia hysteria is all narrative, no substance. It's sustained by the talking heads of plutocrat-owned western
media making the same unanimous assertions over and over again in authoritative, confident-sounding tones of voice without presenting
any evidence or engaging with the reality of what Russia or its rivals are actually doing. The only reason American liberals believe
that Putin is a dangerous boogieman who has taken over their government, but don't believe for example that America is ruled by a
baby-eating pedophile cabal, is because the Jake Tappers and Rachel Maddows have told them to believe one conspiracy theory and not
the other. They could have employed the exact same strategy with any other wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy narrative and had just
as much success.
In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or
absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower
because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being
some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world.
Of equal interest to the Defense Secretary's "moral authority" gibberish is his claim that Putin's actions "are designed not to
challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
I mean, like what? So Russia isn't challenging America militarily and isn't taking any actions to attempt to, but it's trying
to, what, hurt America's feelings? All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting
like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog"
get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake?
I'm just playing. Actually, when Mattis says that the Russian government is trying to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," he is saying that Moscow is interrupting the lies that Americans are being told about their government by the plutocrat-owned
media. As we've
been
discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear
establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and
vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that.
More and more, the threads of the establishment narrative are ceasing to be unconsciously absorbed and are being increasingly
consciously examined instead. This development has ultimately nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with our species
moving
out of its old relationship with mental narrative as it approaches evolve-or-die time in our challenging new world. I am greatly
encouraged by what I am seeing.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish.
My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This is so right on that it is scary. The only problem, while more are questioning, is the fact that the majority of Americans
actually believe the bullshit that people like Mattis says. And, with a nickname like Mad Dog, it's a wonder that he hasn't been
put down yet.
Even today I had to deal with a typical American – 'swallow-it-hook-line-and-sinker' – idiot.
"The stock market is honest and above board.' 'All immigrants don't belong here.' 'It's fine if the government violates your
civil rights' 'Oh and immigrants don't have any.'
I could go on, but I learned long ago to say my piece and move on. For some people, there is no changing their minds, nor even
opening them up to considering the truth. There are the descendants of those who were protested against in the 1960s. The 'My
country right or wrong' people. Most likely they never had the balls, as children, to speak back to their parents, when those
adults were in the wrong. I always wondered whether intellectual blindness is a learned trait. I'm pretty sure that it must be.
William / June 17, 2018
Much or most of what you write about the American narrative is true. However, you weave it into a narrative that ignores central
historical facts and themes. Examples; Russia's behavior in Poland after WW2, the Hungarian revolution, the Check invasion and
oppression, the take over of Manchuria in the last weeks of WW2.
Stalin killing 20-40 million of his own people, Chechnya, the
Korean war, the Berlin wall. Not to mention recent assassinations of its own citizens. Yes, America has done cruel and horrific
things in many countries, but it pales to what the Russians have done throughout the ages. It would be akin to comparing what
the Nazis did to what the French underground did in response. Both killed, both did things that were horrific, but the French
did it in response and not nearly in the same magnitude. Historical contrast is very important when viewing these issues. It is
very easy to criticize one's own country but balance is called for. Was Russia justified in taking Crimea, perhaps, but then was
Hitler justified in taking the Sudetenland?
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
What Lee Yates just did there is a beautiful example of Advantageous Comparison defense in Bandera's Moral Disengagement Theory.
Yes, the US is morally bankrupt, but so what? The Soviets or Hitler or somebody else was worse. Sorry, that is bullshit.
What did the US overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran have to do with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Nothing. And he brings
up Russian Crimea, which voted 95% to rejoin Russia, an example of democracy in action.
william / June 17, 2018
The so what is this: when dealing with monsters one has to stoop as low to defend against it. What happened in Iran was Brittain's
provocation. They approached Eisenhower once previously and he refused to intervene. It was only after they convinced him that
it was a Russian plot to take over the oil fields that he relented. So yes it was wrong and even monstrous but put in the historical
perspective at the time, it made sense. At that time, France was in danger of collapsing and with it the rest of Europe. I am
of Middle Eastern ethnicity so I too am sensitive to Western colonialization of the region. However, things are not always as
simple as we would like them to be.
I really enjoy when people lower themselves to using vulgarities because they disagree with a point of view-most flattering and
intelligent.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Just more evasive moral disengagement. So the Dulles boys finally duped Ike into giving the green light to the overthrow of democratically
elected Mossadegh installing a bloodthirsty tyrant that ended up destabilizing the Middle East for the next 50years and running,
based on the pretext of Russia hysteria.
Was it true the Russians were really going to take over the oilfields? I never heard
that story before. I doubt it very much. History teaches a different lesson. Mossadegh had the temerity to want to share oil profits
with the Iranian people who owned it. Thats too much democracy for any country.
Just like Truman was tricked into Korea. Or Johnson was duped into Vietnam.
And so how do you explain why the CIA overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala beginning a reign of terror with genocude lasting 50 years
against unarmed peasant villages? East Timor? Chile? Brazil and Argentina? Greece? Angola?
This is just more Advantageous Comparison to justify moral bankruptcy. Sorry, sometimes things are as simple as they look.
No I respectfully disagree. If these seem like difficult moral choices to you, I pity you.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Although I must apologize for not recognizing your rank as a cut above the usual G-7 troll with your knowledge of the advanced
techniques of argument for moral disengagement, defending your country against the indefensible. Tough job that calls for an expert.
You must be one of those G-12 trolls called to fill in for overtime duty on fathers day. I'm sorry your wife and kids are going
to be missing you today. You can make it up to them tomorrow.
William / June 18, 2018
Funny thing, I agree that the overthrow was wrong, and horrible. I also think it was wrong and perhaps criminal when we invaded
both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of my relatives were killed by tyrants in the Middle East and much of what has happened there
is ugly. But again, I do not stoop to personal disparagement. It has no place in honest debate. Same tactic used by the deplorable
. Trump and McCarthy for that matter, and of course, now you. As for Mossadegh, he was truly a statesman. England owned the oil
fields and he went to the UN to mediate the purchase of the oil fields at market value. The English refused and tried to convince
Eisenhower that it was a Russian plot. He tried again and finally Eisenhower relented, wrongly I might add. But do remember, that
Eisenhower also stopped the English and French when they wanted to invade Egypt to take over the Suez.
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
Thank You, JRGJRG. I did not know that I knew that much philosophy. What I said was more in light of current events circa the
1990s. Our "bankers" went to Russia and "helped" them get capitalism. Well they got it, and now their gangsters/bankers are just
as wealthy and sophisticated as ours, or more so. Politically, I cannot really blame Putin for holding a grudge about our meddling
in Russia and general promotion of Boris Yeltsin. Still I doubt that he would make it easy for us to install another Yeltsin or
buy all of Russia's resources either, so why would we make it easy for him to meddle in our country, or do what we do overseas?
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
This is what you're doing, even if you don't recognize it. If you understand this you will begin to understand the errors of your
own ways. This is how totalitarianship develops. Read and learn.
Take off the blinders and fully explain how the U.S. genocide of native Americans – and the ongoing horrific treatment of them
– pales in comparison to anything except, possibly, the unnecessary dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Sorry, but your
dissertation of an excuse just doesn't cut the mustard – or maybe your mother never told you that two wrongs don't make a right.
Or in the case of the U.S., dozens of never ending wrongs. Unless you really open your eyes and mind and understand the truth,
you will never come off as anything more than an apologist for the top 1/10th of the top 1%.
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This was a reply to William, but comes off looking as an original comment and criticism of Caity, with whom I am in complete agreement
on todays article.
jrgjrg / June 18, 2018
Not just the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, but remember that Gen. LeMay firebombed every city in Japan before the bombs
were dropped, causing at least another half million deaths. Robert MacNamara said in an interview that if the US had lost the
Second World War they both would have been tried as war criminals, and it would be right. See:
Always impressed by Caitlin driving a bulldozer through lying narratives. We need more Caitlin's; we need an antiwar mass movement
of Caitlin's. But the antiwar movement is very weak and it is divided against itself.
In the 1990's there was a coming together of the Chronicles paleoconservatives and the CounterPunch progressives against the
US/NATO attack on Yugoslavia. But today Thomas Fleming and Chronicles have retreated and those controlling CounterPunch have explicitly
rejected an alliance with the 'right' against the US march to war.
I wish I could share the Caitlin enthusiasm for the future but I am depressed and fearful for the future. The US public is
asleep. The US is gearing up for war in Europe and Asia. Starting with Clinton each president has murdered about a million souls.
They are gearing up for a bigger war in the MENA and even Eastern Europe with Iran as the major target and will likely claim another
million+.
From Jungian psychology I learned that unless the opposites come close together change (a birth out of the tyranny of the status
quo) will not happen. The elites in control of the US use the fake dialectic of the major two parties to keep us apart. Those
in charge of each pole of the fake dialectic derive power from defending it against the 'other' and see alliance with the 'other'
as a diminution of their power (a good example is those in control of CounterPunch arguing against antiwar alliance with the 'right';
that they are captured by their power drive is plain to see).
Liberals (neolibs) and many progressives have walked straight into a trap set by the CIA that engineered a Cold War v2. They
knew the neocons would come along. The CIA, Wall Street, military, NSA are marching to war. They thirst for their holy war. They
are the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' while the rest of the world is unexceptional and dispensable.
If the left and right do not come together in an antiwar alliance then how can the warmongering trajectory of the US change?
geoffreyskoll / June 17, 2018
It's just like you, Caitlin, to bring up such quibbles as genocide, slavery, torture, and a few others too minor to even mention.
We're talking IDEALS here. You know like complete global domination, slavish catering to the most exploitive class in human history–the
stuff that makes America great!
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
I agree that the U.S. is Imperialist and has been for a long time. However, it is false that Russia opposes the US kleptocracy
or represents anything other than the same bankster/gangsters that run the West. They came into the fold after the end of the
Soviet Union, and there they remain, probably not too happy about it, but neither are we right. The elites from all over launder
money, hide wealth enjoy power and luxury beyond our imagination. A small spat between them is death sentence for the rest of
us, but they will make up and enjoy their stolen wealth again.
The moral authority that the West or USA enjoys is a hollow thing,
much like Christianity at the height of the Church's power. But the words are still there maybe some day a true believer will
come along and do something about them.
Forgive me, I could not get beyond the 'undermine America's moral authority'. I take it, Mattis means the 'moral authority' to
starve the Yemenis to death and deny them medicine while they are dying . aided by our French Poodle and a mad woman from the
Isles! Or maybe the 'moral authority' of Albright when she said killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children 'was worth it'.
Or maybe it was 'moral authority' of Clinton, giggling over the sadist murder of Kaddafi. Some how, as an American I don't feel
'moral authority' , all I feel is the pain of inhumanity.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No, no, no, you're still not getting it. Let me explain it to you. It means the authority of the autocrats to determine what's
moral for you. They themselves are above morality, like Nietzsche taught, remember? Authoritarianism.
Now do you understand?
elkojohn / June 17, 2018
As was hinted at by the FBI-IG report, neither political party in the criminal U.S. government is complying with law (domestic
nor international). The U.S. government system is an organized crime syndicate of liars, thieves and murders. The ruling class
and the inside players of the secret government consider the common folk to be deplorable, trailer-park trash.
That's the mind-set of the "holier-than-thou" professionals working inside the U.S. government. Whatever trust, loyalty and
respect citizens had for this government has been completely squandered – and voters (not Putin) gave the FU finger to the status
quo by electing Trump.
The treasonous, seditious, murdering 2-party dictatorship has absolutely NO ONE to blame but themselves. The time has come
to eliminate and defund the secret espionage agencies that run our government, – and which have morphed into crime syndicates.
Ditto the two political parties. Until we see all the top level law-breakers in jail (i.e., Clinton, Bush, Obama), until we witness
2/3's of the House and the Senate being purged and replaced, until we witness the complete dismantling of the FED, until we witness
ALL military bases around the world being closed and our troops brought home, until we witness the M-I-C's budget cut down to
1/4th and used ONLY for national protection, until we witness a purge of the CIA/FBI cartel, until we witness manufacturing being
restored to this country, until we witness the USA cutting all special interest lobbying (in particular, Israel and Saudi Arabia),
until we witness the break-up of the death grip that Wall St. and the banking monopoly has on our economy, until we witness the
full restoration of the "rule of law" in our government, – until then, it will be the absolute, open, in-your-face, tyrannical,
24/7, lawlessness of the U.S. government that destroys this nation.
So I disagree with James Mattis, that the U.S. holds the moral high ground.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. They're playing the "I'm rubber and you're
glue" game. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't
care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
Mattis didn't realise how well he described Trump. When you look at what Trump's regime has done since taking office last year,
it 'trumps' [pun intended] Putin's efforts, such as they are, by a mile. Putin could never hope to achieve so much in such a short
time, if that's what he wanted to do.
It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing.
Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff.
All one has to do is change a few names in the narrative – replace Putin with Trump, Russia / China with USA. That's it. Easy.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they
are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying he/they use it as a defense, but that they don't realize how close it
is to what it (the USA) is doing.
Believe me, I have no respect for Mattis & that mob, nor Putin for that matter. None of them deserve respect.
I agree with you on the dirty rotten lying, too. They do know they are lying, but don't know how close to the truth it is when
applied to them.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No worries. We are in the "post-truth era." That sounds crazy, I know. The plutocrats are discussing this exact topic this year
at the Bilderberg Conference.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would
run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would
threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany.
Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could
provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in
Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and
that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to
the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 - A Europe-wide
diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions
targeting Russia, as fears mount that ...
We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export
to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the
dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without
interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed
by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because
that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany,
Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and
contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been
added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push.
Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German
world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement
between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such
an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases,
nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in
Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always
backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change
that.
Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they
get weaker over time.
There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is
possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad
dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming
more united in the process.
Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty
of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.
And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether
this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).
On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that
they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then
Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate.
Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.
Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre
Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt
es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet
sind.
Rough translation:
" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German
policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who
that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "
There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.
Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in
different parts of the world change history.
I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the
migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's
fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.
It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.
Rumors about the death of the US global neoliberal empire are probably slightly exaggerated.
Trump did damaged it, but the neoliberal system proved to be really resilient in 2008 and might
prove this again.
Notable quotes:
"... The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader. ..."
"... However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family. ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition. ..."
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white
men), and the working class is languishing. It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are
a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way,
profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them
that are being exploited.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world
in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and
spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey
no argument there!
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.
India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places)
are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other
vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those
respective lands. Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other
places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their
countries are reduced to shitholes.
If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India,
then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in
America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.
As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like
Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the
typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi
Arabia, respectively.
The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal
hatred.
It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.
It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from
the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like
the last Zio-century.
That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that
gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation
behind the wars.
The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of
pure, raw, insatiable greed.
Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.
The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two
pillars of Satanic iniquity.
I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But
the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.
This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet
look at how they abase themselves
"... "We are going to do the worst thing we can do to you. We are going to take your enemy way from you." ..."
"... "There's no way I would ever agree to give [Russia] that legitimacy," ..."
"... "The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the evil it represents is alive and well in Putin's Russia." ..."
"... "He is no friend of the United States," ..."
"... "He's dismembering democracies everywhere and trying to do so in our own backyard." ..."
"... In order to put to rest this tortured Soviet ghost, it needs to be reminded that the business of "dismembering democracies" ..."
"... "move to re-Sovietize the region." ..."
"... "In respect of Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory." ..."
"... "recapturing the Soviet position on the world stage." ..."
"... "America's Putin apologist" ..."
"... "The intelligence committees have never produced any evidence," ..."
"... "They never even did a forensic exam of the DNC computers." ..."
"... "genetically driven to co-opt." ..."
"... "The parting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be long and difficult," ..."
"... "We must acknowledge that many will not believe or agree with the death warrant written in Minsk and confirmed in Alma-Ata." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Listening to Western media and politicians these days, you would never guess that nearly
three decades ago the Soviet hammer and sickle lowered for the last time over the Kremlin,
replaced by the Russian tricolor. Ironically, the collapse of the Soviet Union - an empire made
up of 15 republics encompassing some 12 million
square miles - has been far more difficult for the West to come to grips with than it has
been for the Russian people, who witnessed the decline and fall firsthand. Indeed, many
Westerners are ardent believers that the Soviet Union is still alive and kicking.
This apparent paradox was foreseen many years ago by the Soviet political scientist, Georgi
Arbatov, when he told a
US diplomat shortly after the collapse: "We are going to do the worst thing we can do to
you. We are going to take your enemy way from you."
Thirty years later the West still revisits the grave of its former Soviet nemesis, yearning
for its rise from the ashes. Just this week, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham conjured up the
spirit of America's ex arch-enemy when responding to Donald Trump's suggestion that Russia be
readmitted into the G7.
"There's no way I would ever agree to give [Russia] that legitimacy," Graham
said
. "The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the evil it represents is alive and well in
Putin's Russia."
"He is no friend of the United States," he continued. "He's dismembering
democracies everywhere and trying to do so in our own backyard."
In order to put to
rest this tortured Soviet ghost, it needs to be reminded that the business of "dismembering
democracies" has been solely the purview of the US and its NATO allies. At a time when the
world lacked a countervailing force to check Western military aggression – which the
Soviet Union duly provided – the West eagerly pursued a regime-change agenda
that not only destroyed viable governments, like Iraq and Libya, but set in motion a migrant
crisis that the European Union is
at pains to control today. Read more Russia should be
back in G7 as 'we spend 25% of time' talking about it anyway – Trump
For its part, Russia has resorted to military action against a foreign country on just one
occasion. In August 2008, in response to a deadly attack on Russian peacekeepers in South
Ossetia, Russian forces entered Georgian territory. Even the EU
concluded that the government of ex Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, was to blame
for sparking the five-day conflict.
So, what is the reason for Graham's gross distortion of the historical record? And why the
apparent need to conflate modern, democratic Russia with the vanquished Soviet Union? For the
answer, it is always helpful to follow the money trail, and unsurprisingly it leads straight to
the door of America's largest defense contractors.
It is no secret that Lindsey Graham – perhaps second only to John McCain - is one of
the most notorious war hawks in Washington. During his failed run for the 2016 presidential
elections, the Super PAC supporting his bid collected $2.9 million, the bulk of which came from the
coffers of defense contractors.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, another darling of the military industrial complex, who
raked in just under $500 million from the defense industry for her presidential bid, was
portraying Russia as some sort of Soviet-style menace as early as 2012.
Discussing Vladimir Putin's efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia,
Clinton
depicted the venture as a "move to re-Sovietize the region." Unfortunately, no one
challenged the Democrat to explain how one of the largest capitalistic ventures in the world
could be confused with communism.
Clearly, Western leaders are intentionally dragging up memories of the bygone Cold War-era
in order to incite an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty - the ultimate stimulant for military
spending, corporate profit-taking and, last but not least, NATO sprawl up to Russia's border.
For defense sector lobbyists, the rhetoric is music to the ears.
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but
very few outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of
Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
The threat of peace
does not boost the bottom line of the defense contractors, who represent some of the most
influential people in Washington, while the politicians who are most hawkish on foreign policy
are richly rewarded. In short, it is a marriage made in hell, with a 'honeymoon' somewhere in
the Middle East. Russia, due to its stunning resurgence, which was put on full display in Syria
as it foiled another Western scheme for regime change, has also appeared on the radar.
Thus, we see Western politicians and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic attempting to
make a strained connection between Russia and the Soviet Union, and even more now with
'Russiagate' and the Skripal saga in full hysteria mode. This is clearly being done in an
effort to isolate Russia on the global stage.
Britain's Ambassador to the United Nations Karen Pierce, for example, in a heated debate
with her Russian counterpart, Vassily Nebenzia, lectured Russia for its 'regrettable behavior'
in Syria, saying : "In respect of
Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on
many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical
weapons on Syrian territory."
One wonders how such a high-ranking official could possibly understand what is happening in
Syria today when the collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have escaped her attention.
Meanwhile, perennial Russophobes, which make up the overwhelming majority of fellowship
positions among US think tanks, regularly argue that Russia is somehow 'nostalgic for empire,'
and determined to 'restore the glory of the Soviet times.'
Anne Applebaum, a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, gave a distorted version of reality on
Ukrainian television, arguing that Vladimir Putin is interested in "recapturing the Soviet
position on the world stage." There is just one problem with that position: Not a single
thing the Russian leader has done or not done to date would reasonably support that thesis. But
good luck finding an academic to challenge such misguided notions.
Whenever the tiny cadre of Western academics strays from the reservation and argues from the
Russian perspective, they are exiled to academia's version of the Gulag Archipelago seldom to
be heard from again. Stephen Cohen, emeritus at Princeton University and NYU, is referred
to as "America's Putin apologist" among his peers for daring to suggest there might
just be an alternative reality to the mainstream media madness we are being fed about 'Putin's
Russia' on a daily basis.
Speaking on the subject of 'Russiagate,' Cohen acknowledged what so few academics have the
intellectual courage to say: there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Putin ordered the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016. "The intelligence committees have
never produced any evidence," Cohen said
. "They never even did a forensic exam of the DNC computers."
Obviously, this sort of 'crazy talk' is not well received in US policy circles, and if it
were not for Cohen's serious credentials as a leading expert on Russia he would be simply
'exiled' from the mainstream discourse. That is because the US has entered a dark,
unrecognizable place where top officials, like James Clapper, the former Director of National
Intelligence, can actually describe the Russian people
in racist overtones, saying they are "genetically driven to co-opt."
The reality is that the West is acquiring a dangerous totalitarian mindset (genetically
driven?) in that it has become – similar perhaps to the Soviet times - nearly impossible
to question anything that the mainstream media, think tanks and academia disseminates.
"The parting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be long and
difficult," Izvestia
warned with uncanny foresight. "We must acknowledge that many will not believe or agree
with the death warrant written in Minsk and confirmed in Alma-Ata."
Indeed, nostalgia for the Soviet times – complete with a new cold war and lucrative
arms race - is so rampant in the West that its roots are beginning to crack through the
surface. Such a repressive climate chokes off all any discussion that presents a challenge to
the official narrative which proclaims, as absolute fact, that 'Russia is aspiring for
Soviet-style empire,' a groundless assertion that is every bit as ridiculous as it is
dangerous.
If the current trend towards the homogenization of thought continues - like a chapter torn
from Orwell's 1984 - Westerners will awake one sunny morning to a shiny new totalitarian state
of their own design and making, complete with jackboots on the streets, under an awning falsely
proclaiming 'democracy'.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow
News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013.
Democrats can lament all they want, but they did have a very good candidate that they allowed to be thrown under the bus. That
was Bernie Sanders. Despite his "socialist" leanings, (for you conservatives), he was really fresh blood to the Democratic party.
And even though Jimmy Carter is old, he has a very good working mind, better than all that are currently in the Democratic party.
Clinton turned the Democratic party into a Mafia organization, taking orders from her, paving the way for her, knocking
off anyone that looked like potential trouble, like Seth Rich, John Ashe, Joe Montano, Victor Thorn, and Shawn Lucas. All five
of these guys died within 6 weeks of each other. Strange? Not if you are operating an old style mafia organization. Democrats
need to resign the party, and form something new, that has fresh ideas, and people who are not there for self-coronations. The
most honest democrat you have left is Jimmy Carter. Democrats are not honest today.
They need to purge the leadership of the DNC - Perez, Clinton and the gang, they are the ones that shoved Hillary Clinton down
Democrats throats instead letting Bernie Sanders, the real nominee, win the nomination. The DNC fucked over themselves, no one
else is to blame.
Howard Dean is the one that got Obama elected the first time. From 2005 to 2009, he headed the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and successfully implemented the 50 State Strategy, which aimed for Democrats to be competitive in places considered Republican-dominated
territory. As a result, during the midterms in 2006, Democrats won the House back and gained seats in the Senate. In 2008 Barack
Obama also used the same strategy to win his presidential bid.
Just like the DNC and Democratic bourgeoise fucked over Bernie, they fucked over Howard Dean. Obama didn't select Howard Dean
for his cabinet for Secretary of Health and Human Services - even though he was a successful governor, is a medical doctor, and
was one of the main reasons Obama won in 2008.
Obama has always been about himself. I mean who publishes a memoir about yourself when you're just a nobody? Even Obama knows
a loser when he sees one...the Democratic Party. He did more for the Republican Party than any Republican could ever do. One of
the Greatest Presidents in my lifetime for the conservative movement.
The Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place. The result of losing 1000s of seats nationwide since 2010 means you've
got no farm system to develop politicians/leaders. It's no different than any sports franchise. The successful ones have a deep
bench and prospects to knock off old, overpaid, underachieving veterans. If the Dems trot out Obama, he will be a death sentence
for the Dems' chances in November. Guy is hated by almost everyone. Don't believe the approval ratings from CNN. He got more popular
towards the end when people realized he was finally leaving.
Obama and the Clinton's have DESTROYED the Democrat party!!! Leaders of the current Democratic party apparatchik, Schumer,
Pelosi, Schiff, et al , are fucking idiots!!! I see a Red tsunami wave for the mid-term election!
...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4,
2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan.
2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term
a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."
He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is
buried...
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece: http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/ The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.) ..."
"... A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy". ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. ..."
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
"... Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. ..."
"... The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. ..."
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along! What a clever little schemer he was! Pretending
all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the
neocons to his own advantage! So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were
being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along
who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal
aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of
working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and
others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel - at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition. The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going
on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education
system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of
persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM.
Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our
Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I
recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug
addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy
mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's
wrong with the coverage.
Regarding this excerpt:
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist
and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick:
The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening
ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim
immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a
subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to
reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than
attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable:
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage,
across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros
Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with
present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has
transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of
"lazy".
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body
politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it
wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a
massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.
Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional
and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. The crisis is systemic and Jews
are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran
but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms --
he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of
those are. Just an example.
Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of
mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money.
Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but
they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum
paid to do the hatched job.
The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against
Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who
wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea,
China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended
loot.
"... Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit. ..."
Six days after the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) revealed that it had staged the
supposed murder of the anti-Kremlin journalist Arkady Babchenko, the Ukrainian government
continues to seek to exploit the case for the anti-Russia campaign even as contradictions and
lies concerning the state operation pile up. (See: "
The New York Times and the murder that wasn't ")
Last Tuesday, the Ukrainian and Western press was filled with media reports about the
killing of Babchenko in Kiev. The journalist, who supported the US-backed far-right coup in
Kiev in early 2014 and the war of the Kiev regime in eastern Ukraine against pro-Russian
separatists, had fled Russia in early 2017 after receiving death threats.
Ukrainian officials and Western media outlets, including the New York Times ,
immediately rushed to blame the killing of Babchenko on Russia. Yet in a stunning turn of
events on Wednesday, Babchenko and the head of the Ukrainian Secret Service held a press
conference to announce that the murder had been staged in a "special operation" allegedly
designed to disclose a murderous plot against Babchenko by the Russian secret service, the
FSB.
At the press conference, Babchenko described how he had faked his fall, put on a T-shirt
that had been shot through to show bullet wounds, and was then covered in pig's blood. His
wife found him lying on the floor and called the ambulance. He was pronounced dead in the
ambulance and brought to a morgue where he started to watch news coverage of his alleged
murder.
The story since presented by the SBU to justify the faked murder and describe the alleged
Russian plot to kill Babchenko resembles a poorly written spy novel, filled with glaring
inconsistencies and blatant lies.
Only two suspects have been identified by the SBU. Boris German is allegedly the man
tasked by the Russian FSB to kill Babchenko. He is the executive director of the
Ukrainian-German weapon manufacturer Schmeisser. There have been reports, but no official
confirmation, that he was in fact working for Ukrainian counterintelligence.
The hit man allegedly hired by German is Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk, who had previously fought in
the civil war in eastern Ukraine for the fascist Right Sector on the side of the Kiev regime.
No explanation has been offered for why Tsimbalyuk, by all appearance an ardent Ukrainian
nationalist and opponent of Russia who has described the killing of Russian soldiers as "an
act of mercy," decided to change sides to kill Babchenko.
The Ukrainian general prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, said that the staging of the murder led
to the disclosure by the suspect of a list of 30 names of journalists whom Russia planned to
kill in Ukraine. This number has since been revised upward, to 47. German was supposedly also
tasked to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. How all of these plots were
connected and how they were to be executed by a handful of people has not been explained.
The SBU also published as proof of Russian involvement the "dossier" the Russian FSB had
allegedly compiled on Babchenko for his "killer." Yet, as the journal meduza has
pointed out, almost the entire biography of Babchenko in the dossier was copied from
Babchenko's Wikipedia article, while all other information had been published by Babchenko
himself on various social media platforms.
The dossier included no information about Babchenko's phone number or address in Kiev,
both of which would have been important for the "killer" and easy for any secret service to
obtain. The only private information in the dossier was Babchenko's registered Moscow address
and his Russian identification and passport numbers, all of which could have been (and in all
likelihood were) revealed by Babchenko to the SBU, but appear to be of no immediate use to a
hired killer in Ukraine.
These contradictions are in addition to more minor lies in the Ukrainian government's
account. For instance, Babchenko, in a very dramatic gesture, apologized to his wife at the
press conference last Wednesday for having made her believe that he was dead. Yet on Thursday
it was revealed that his wife had been in on the plot.
The Ukrainian government has not revealed whether it was aware that the killing had been
faked when it declared that Russia was to blame for Babchenko's "murder."
Babchenko and the Ukrainian government have staunchly defended the media hoax and continue
to seek to use it to whip up the campaign against Russia.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko hailed the staged murder as a "brilliant operation"
and said on Ukraine television, "The whole world saw the real face of our enemy It is not
Ukraine you should condemn, but Russia."
He promised that Babchenko and his family would receive around-the-clock protection,
arguing that "Moscow would hardly calm down" and that the Ukrainian secret services were
growing stronger in "fighting Russian aggression."
The advisor to the Interior Ministry Anton Gerashchenko wrote on Facebook: "Even Sherlock
Holmes successfully used the method of faking his own death to effectively investigate
difficult and complicated crimes, however painful that may have been for his relatives and
for Dr. Watson."
Babchenko, who worked for the Russian army in both Chechen wars in the 1990s, posted a
series of vulgar and aggressive comments on Facebook to denounce his critics. In one post, he
pledged "to die at 96 while dancing on Putin's grave."
Responding to criticism in the British press, he wrote: "Dear British press, will you
please go fuck yourselves. If you want to do something useful, you can give me a British
passport and British sanctuary. Then you will have earned the right to lecture me on how I
should save myself and my family. Fucking smart arses!"
He also wrote: "I wish all these moralisers could be in the same situation -- let them
show their adherence to the principles of their high morals and die proudly holding their
heads high without misleading the media."
Babchenko's boss at the Crimean Tatar television network ATR, Ayder Muzhdabayev, described
the journalist's critics to Al Jazeera as "vermin." Muzhdabayev had been the first
to report on Babchenko's alleged death last Tuesday.
Several pro-Western Russian journalists who are close to the liberal opposition have
published op-eds defending Babchenko. However, a few voices also raised concerns.
An editorial by Pavel Kanygin in the pro-liberal Novaya Gazeta argued that
Babchenko had "died as a journalist by breaking professional ethics and engaging in an
unprecedented collaboration with secret services." Another op-ed in the same newspaper
ridiculed the operation as a "parody" on Soviet spy novels and films.
The Russian business daily Vedomosti , which is associated with the Financial
Times and the Wall Street Journal , wrote in an editorial that the Babchenko
operation had "blurred the border between truth and fiction" and would lead to more distrust
in the media.
Similarly, numerous opinion pieces in Western outlets such as the Guardian and
the German Spiegel , which have been heavily involved in the anti-Russia and
anti-Putin campaign, raised concerns about the Babchenko operation and its consequences for
the credibility of the media. The Guardian noted that "by faking Babchenko's murder,
Ukraine has smeared itself," and that it had "handed Russia a massive propaganda
victory."
The New York Times ran an article on Sunday as an exercise in damage control that
was headlined "Faked Killing of a Putin Critic Can't Get Much Murkier. And Yet It Does."
Numerous Western politicians, including German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, have also
criticized how the Ukrainian government handled the case.
Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to
do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by
a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further
discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western
journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit.
"... More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared, "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security." ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous. ..."
"... Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance. ..."
"... Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war, employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist agenda. ..."
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly
stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to
use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up
a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to
show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with
Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to end.
The World Socialist Web Site , in an editorial board statement published the next day,
declared the brief for war "the latest act in a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism and
deceit." War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction." Rather,
"it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that
center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could
have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations
-- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a
doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there
"is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the
capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more
recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media
accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one million
people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again,
the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government
-- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been
relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
The argument presented by the American media is that the alleged existence of a fly-by-night
operation, employing a few hundred people, with a budget amounting to a minuscule fraction of
total election spending in the US, constitutes a "a virtual war against the United States
through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda" ( New York Times ).
In the countless articles and media commentary along this vein, nowhere can one find a
serious analysis of the Mueller indictment of the Russians itself, let alone an examination of
the real motivations behind the US campaign against Russia. The fact that the indictment does
not even involve the Russian government or state officials is treated as a nonissue.
While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about
"weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is
exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic
fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting.
More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the
dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major
nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline
using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National
Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national
security."
Russia is seen by dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus as a principal
obstacle to US efforts to control the Middle East and to take on China -- and it is this that
has been at the center of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Trump
administration.
There have already been a series of clashes in recent weeks between the world's two largest
nuclear-armed powers. On February 3, a Russian close-air support fighter was shot down by
al-Nusra Front fighters, which are indirectly allied with the United States in its proxy war
against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Then, on February 7 and 8, Russian soldiers were
killed in US air and artillery barrages in Deir Ezzor, in what survivors called a "massacre."
Both the US and Russian governments have sought to downplay the scale of the clash, but some
sources have reported the number killed to be in the hundreds.
Even as US and Russian forces clashed in Syria, representatives of the Kremlin and the
Pentagon sparred at the Munich security conference this weekend over the deployment and
development of nuclear weapons. While accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Washington this month issued a nuclear posture review envisioning
a massive expansion of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.
The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military
aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for
censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted
under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to
believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political
dissent effectively treasonous.
Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching
measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results
and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it
has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance.
Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic
principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The
target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling
elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at
home.
The working class must draw the necessary conclusions from its past experiences. In 2003,
the Democratic Party supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and provided it with
the necessary political cover. Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the
organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war,
employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all
popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist
agenda.
Pathological Russophobia of neocons is explanation by two factors: (1) they are lobbyists for
MIC and this is the way MIC wants the US foreign policy to be execute; (2) this is the way of
earning money for people, many of whom are good no nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes)
adopted
new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere
in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically
placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter
or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.
The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the
American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any
standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.
That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the
contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist
Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable
attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP
mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the
question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained
the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.
One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of
and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of
these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the
pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who
could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy
theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top
legislation.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right."
Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington
Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and
Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or
the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin,
calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the
German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally
left the Fox News network in March 2018 )
When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters
provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters
immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was
a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .
Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media.
Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the
Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or
disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was
head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad
nauseum ).
Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the
grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's
nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time
financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip
Giraldi and Robert
Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir
Putin.
For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if
nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even
arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.
Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives
descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the
pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin
and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and
apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until
Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially
translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the
commentary
]
Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is
a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and
those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish
persecution for the Neocons.
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and
homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The
End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously
in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants
from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle
"holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert
national traditions and Christian identity;
for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia
seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox
Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time"
religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and
"extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and
equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board
equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast
as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic
considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and
Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the
nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's
important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them
Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its
president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!
Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining
international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one
of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped
"has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has,
understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or
in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the
largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring
nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time
allies such as Syria.
Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors
and allies?
More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic
terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the
horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin
has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic
terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul
Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't
need your assistance or intel."
And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received.
But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there
is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with
equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its
traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have
witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall
an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition
problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy
mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's
wrong with the coverage.
Regarding this excerpt:
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist
and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick:
The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening
ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim
immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a
subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to
reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than
attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable:
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage,
across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros
Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the
positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistically references the Cold War period with
present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has
transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of
"lazy".
To me it is all quite simple.
FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain.
Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in
my view.
Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons
are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingless to realise that it could no longer
maintain the empire.
This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standars became too expensive, the one
fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.
Alas, seldom in history did reason rule.
If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. Putin's mistake
was in thinking he could reason with the Neoconservatives. The Neocons are not guided by
pragmatic or rational concerns. Of course, many are starting to think Putin was just "part of
the show" all along, as evidenced by his recent capitulation to Netanyahu.
The American Government are a bunch of morons. I ask again "what has Russia ever done to the
USA"? A real thin book as far as I can see, time to grow up and be big boys, there's money
over there.
The American diplomat, Bruce P Jackson, who is credited with expanding NATO, made a statement
several years ago. He heavily criticized Putin, saying he was responsible for "the largest
theft of Jewish property since the Nazis."
Excellent analysis by Dr. Cathey of the roots of the anti-Russian hysteria. This is also
reflected in popular culture – Hollywood movies and the various spy/covert ops novels
of people like Ted Bell and Brad Thor, who has hinted that he may run against Trump in the
2020 Republican primaries. Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains.
Was Jackson referring to some of the oligarchs who had fallen out with Putin and was he
suggesting Putin rather than the state benefitted? Would he have included the Orthodox
Khordokovsky as Jewish?
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have
turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control
and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their
psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world,
but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of
this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader
they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and
dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.
Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting
individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.
I wonder what jewish property Putin stole.
In the USSR there was hardly any private property.
What was stolen, sold for ridiculously low prices, was state property, to former USSR
managers, and/or foreign 'investors'.
As far as I understand it, some crooks have been persecuted.
Any foreigner who, after 1990, went to live in a former USSR state can explain it.
Some did to me.
Possibly Jackson is referring to how Putin threw out Soros, and his Open Society
indoctrination organisation.
Hungary just now also threw him out.
Timmermans of the EU again threatened the E European nations, for refusing to let migrants
enter.
Soros wants multi ethnic countries
"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."
And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it
existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of
the Federal Reserve.
There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the
former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool
right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then
virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.
The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver
Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made
precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white
Christian cultures and identities.
That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever
they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and
World War 2.
What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major
voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original
junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.
But the original alliance is the same.
You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon
problem without also solving the WASP problem.
This is true only in the loosest sense. There is a huge difference between holding church
membership, or attending church, and being a Christian. Putin may have done the 1st two, but
the last is utterly unknown to him.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there,
some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is
possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is
likely he knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form
iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly,
that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist
appropriate as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path,
he impoverishes his people even more.
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since
1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR
agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the
Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.
Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in
point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in
the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists
have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and
historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia
in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist
communists.
The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person
knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.
While I defer to no one in my loathing and contempt for the WASPs of the Northeastern
U.S., whose career of mischief began with the brutal war of conquest against my native South,
I'd would like to point out what I see as some problems in your assigning to Oliver Cromwell
to baleful title of WASP the first.
To wit: "Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and
privileges."
This simply isn't true. Menasseh ben Israel did indeed present a "Humble Address on Behalf
of the Jewish Nation" to the Lord Protector and the Counsel of State in 1655. Readmission was
opposed by most of the English people and of the Puritan pastorate. However, there was no Act
of Parliament, proclamation by Cromwell or notice from the Council of State allowing
readmittance. Some historians have "deduced" that Cromwell have Menasseh "verbal assurance
that they'd be allowed it, but those are deductions and speculation and no more. As far as sa
subsequent petition for Jews to be allowed to practice Judaism in their homes and have a
burial place outside the City of London, Cromwell referred that to the Council of State,
which took no action.
Who did grant the Jews religious tolerance and naturalized a number of Jews by an Act of
Parliament? Why, Charles II – after the Restoration.
You wrote: "made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate
non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities."
I can only assume you are referring to the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which began in
May 1649. I assume you're aware that Ireland had been engulfed in a bloody and brutal civil
war since 1641; indeed, one of the precipitating causes of the English Civil War was the
matter of who would control the army raised to suppress the rebellion (Charles I or
Parliament). Also as you know, England was swept by fear that Charles meant to bring an Irish
army to England to suppress Parliament (and, indeed, there's probably more evidence that this
was the actual case than there is that Cromwell cut a deal with the Jews). At any rate, there
is no one single shred of evidence or even contemporary speculation that the Cromwellian
conquest was at the behest of the Jews. It should be instead regarded in the context of the
17th century wars of religion, rather than 21st century conspiracy theory. Cromwell ended the
civil war and pacified Ireland – in a brutal fashion, of course, but probably less
vicious than Wallenstein in Germany.
Or are you referring to the Scots, crushed at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester? Again, the
quarrel with the scots was over the matter of church governance, and the English
unwillingness to impost the Presbyterian system on England. If Cromwell stood for anything,
it was religious tolerance for the various sects that exploded after the Civil War; the sort
of forced conformity demanded by the Scots displeased him (see the letters to Major Crawford
in 1643).
And while both the New Englanders and English are labeled "Puritan," may I point out that
the Puritan movement was a large one, with considerable variance. Cromwell favored tolerance
and theologically tended toward a sort of univeralism (to judge by his pastors, eg Jeremiah
Burroughs); I imagine that if he had gone to New England, he'd have been chased out along
with Sarah Hutchinson and Roger Williams by the fanatical shits of Boston.
Boston is the "urgrund" of the WASP plague; not Cromwell. And while there's any number of
things to fault him for, creation of the WASP was not one of them. In theological and
existential terms, Cromwell and the New Model were probably closer to the Puritan "pioneers"
of the Appalachian and Southern frontiers – many of whom were descended of troops
planted in Ireland by Cromwell – and who of course made up the rank and file of the
Confederate States Army.
You might want to take a look at the history of the Unitarian movement. You'd find
everything you need to support your dislike of the WASP plaque there; I certainly have.
1 undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Think of Israel. But no don't think of Isreal. That is anti Semitism
2 "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has
had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum)."
Think of US – harking back to the past of Roosevelt and Reagan and Eisenhower or to
Monroe
Think of Pap Bush working for CIA
Thinks of thousands of people – leaders, trade unionists, communist, socialists killed
by USA
3 Bill Browder, the grandson of -- – have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious
personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin."
Think of -
be afraid of the screwing the neocons They will move to China or India and denounce US sue
the country, and poison the well of the democracy and the well of the justice ,media,
religious organizations to get back at US
4 James Kirchick: -- efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants "
Think of the perversions of the beliefs and attitudes within the psyche of this false
man
He is of the same mindset that encourages Islamophobia among the clueless , zealous fervent
bible thump er and among the poor indigent uneducated misinformed white populations of France
USA Australia and Poland . He does same to the military and leftists secular outfit of
Richard Dawkins .
He then encourages to dismember Arabs countries . The half-baked moron Richard Dawkins type,
and military, and the white trash fall for it and get ready to pick up the gun for the
invisible pervasive psychopathic chants of Kirchick. He also makes sure that each and every
members of the opposite conflicting groups never stray way from kowtowing to Zionism who is
the enemy of the Islam and the Christianity and the of the respective people.
Jews definitely feel comfortable in all weather and among the separates and in all kind of
geography
The more Christian that country and its leaders become, the more the atheistic west hates
them. Too bad "Uncle Joe" wasn't still the Premier. We would treat that murderous atheist as
a beloved relative, maybe even hand him over half of eastern Europe like we did last time.
Instead, we send in LGBT protesters to disturb their new found faith.
From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.
Also waiting for that other nut who always comes with his tirades about "surrendering ukraine
to Putin", no matter what article is about.
Mike something, was it?
"talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had
committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator."
Classic garbage in, garbage out.
fact: Hitler and the Germans did not, could not have committed the crimes they are
alleged to have committed.
"we've often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And
to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in
Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do?
We didn't have the evidence."
- so called "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous
'holocaust' storyline is the message.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
"Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go
back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally
welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest
supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka
and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II."
There is no proof of these "pogroms" and the fake "wave of anti-semitism after World War
II".
The source of such claims are Jews who benefit / profit from making such claims.
The umpteenth serving of the classic US hegemonist pro-Putin/anti-EU line. The distinction is
thus not between those who favour the maintenance of US global hegemony and those who oppose
it. It is whether Putin is still useful as a battering ram to destroy the EU precisely so as
to maintain US global hegemony into the indefinite future. The most logical explanation of
the known facts surrounding the Ukrainian coup is that Victoria Nuland was in cahoots with
Putin. Behind Nuland, of course were the US neocons. The split came when Putin waded into the
Syrian civil war on Assad's side. By doing so he made himself a threat to Israel and, for the
neocons, the whole point of maintaining US global hegemony is to prop up Israel. Logically,
therefore, their priority became Putin's defeat and removal. The other side of the US
hegemonist camp, which seems to be motivated by something like hubris or a master race
delusion, still believes that Putin can be used to break up the EU. That's the position Mr
Cathey is arguing.
I don't think Putin is still viable as an anti-EU battering ram. The American groups that
have been financing far-right nationalism in Europe have got caught in the web of their own
contradictions. On the one hand, they preach national identity and sovereignty to us but
then, as Mr Cathey is doing here, they justify Putin's refusal to respect Ukrainian
sovereignty and the Ukrainian national identity. Secondly, European nationalism is
essentially "anti-other". That means that it is inherently anti-American, which makes newly
nationalist Europe the inevitable enemy of US domination. It also means that anti-Semitism is
inherent in European nationalism, which is probably what has Soros up in arms. The final
contradiction is that, very often, the same people who preach nationalism at us in Europe
preach white nationalism in the US. If white Americans are a single ethnic group and entitled
to live in a single political entity, then we white Europeans must also be a single ethnic
group and should also live in a single political entity (the EU, for example).
I never cease to be amused at the way in which the various American anti-EU scams cut across
each other and cancel each other out!
"WASP" in the "USA" refers fairly specifically to the Protestants of New England and New
York who as a result of the War of Northern Aggression attained complete power over the
development of the American empire. Their interests were concentrated in banking, railroads,
industry and so on. While descended from the Puritans of New England, most of them had lost
any traditional religious fervor by, oh, 1700 or so and gradually moved into loopy,
nonsensical ideologies like Transcendentalism, Unitarianism, the Social Gospel, and various
other creation-fixing endeavors like temperance, abolitionist, progressivism and so on. To
them can be attributed the Gnostic notion of the United States as God's appointed righter of
wrongs around the world, with quite coincidentally matched up with their commercial
interests. On the whole about as nasty and horrible group of people that ever walked the
earth; however. WASP does not include the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Appalachia, the
Deep South, Texas and so on. The Bush family are WASPs. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Jake is
correct to disdain them; he's wrong in saying Cromwell was the archetype.
@ Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement.. yes but the Lenin
crowd were from Salonkia (1908) and Hertzl's Germany @ many above Exactly, the by name, rank
and serial number identification including dual nationalities, corporate by name ownership,
board membership, and positions, management, advisory positions or whatever.
Deeper yet into the deep state might identify the corporate officers, directors and
outside auditors who serve the needs of those identified. Bureaucrat who echo deep state
intentions might be a problem?
Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support
the neocon ideology on the Internet? Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which
processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user security), which
makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that
negotiate the bits between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the
user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence units.
At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers) . expensive war equipment makers,
oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire
mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on
the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into
propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and
access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians,
media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.
As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected
government authority to support its neocon capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to
switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed sheep
. No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without
neocon-ism open competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights
and patents would disappear and prices would move from controlled levels to competitive
levels.
But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues" ; unless lawless disregard for
humanity in search of profit, is an ideology. I am not even sure they are tightly organized,
they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible or
intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control. They will write laws, or get
nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect
their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all
of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. I look at them as capitalist,
who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who
independently profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce
a common collective set of extremely effective outcomes.
Interesting, the video asserts that part of Leo Strauss's philosophy was the introduction of
Plato's 'Noble Lie', which, in this case, was the bugaboo of an evil Russian Empire as a foil
to bring Americans together and avoid the inevitable collapse of liberalism into nihilism. I
wonder if anyone can confirm this as part of Strauss's gift the the neopsychoticons?
Also, pretty obvious reason for hatred of Russia is the closeness of the State and the
Church. Strauss here talks about how the secular sphere has but one purpose, providing room
for the meddlers to thrive:
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the
name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the
whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they
accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25
years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't
do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence"
budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's
their incompetence.
James Kirchick: by encouraging balkanization of ME per the plans advocated by PNAC now FDD
and Friends of Syria or SITE -Sharon-Netanahyu Joe Lieberman Kirchick favorite White Helmet
or Jishs Fishas Islam Whitewash ludicrous Jihadist and cemented in stone by Yoneen Yidod ( or
what ever is the name of that Jew ) sends those same muslims he encourages the "deplorable"
to feel suspicious and hate and same time advocating the acceptance by the countries .
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:
10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is
based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to
problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and
mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law
only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive
rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established
facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal
democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with
practical programs grounded in fact and reason.
Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their
status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a
permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that
globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.
I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the
drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the
USA .
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality".
more so even than any concern for Jewish supremacy or glorification of sodomy or all the
other shibboleths oozing out of the gaping orifices of Jewish fudge packers like Kirchick, is
a visceral, unearthly animosity (hatred) for the Western world and its (comparatively)
beautiful, well-adjusted, happy and prosperous people.
Indeed, it is the 'happy' part that drives them insane with stinging malice and seething,
rancorous rage.
I remember as a kid celebrating Christmas, and how the Jewish children I knew were not
allowed. This is all part of the carefully constructed paradigm that the Jewish elite impose
on their people to keep them resentful and envious. Eventually metastasizing into a
deep-seated hatred.
They want to see all those ruddy-cheeked Christians pay! for their pain during those
terrible years.
Like the boy who was picked last for sports or never 'got the girl', they develop a
psychological imperium of wrath, which their religion bolsters in spades.
That is why when ever they get the drop on the Gentiles (who tormented them with
good-natured hails of 'Merry Christmas!, which stung to their core, because all that love and
happiness was not for them. ) – regardless of the obvious sincerity of the
Christians. – [which made it even worse]
Eventually it roils and burns in their ids like an acid. And they want revenge. And
that's why the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese are menaced day and night.
That's why the Russians and Ukrainians and Estonians and Poles, and so many others
suffered to monstrously under the cruel Jewish, Bolshevik yoke.
It has nothing to do with fear over a re-ascendant Russia. Hardly. That's laughable.
Rather, the reason they can't abide Russians going to church and thriving and prospering,
is because it means the Russians have become happy again, and that drives them
absolutely bonkers with murderous, Talmudic rage.
Good description of them. Basically I see all their anti Russian crap, as a revenge minded
attitude so often seen from jews. They tried to overtake the largest nation, of mainly Whites
and Christians, at least once prior to 1917 jewish revolt against Russia. That was I believe
in 1905, it ended when the $$$ ended. But with another better funded, by usa and german
fellow jew banksters, attempt in 1917.
Those Bolshevik jews took over Russia first, then every eastern nation which also was
mainly a White and Christian peoples nation's. They did so basically by mass Murdering aprox
1/2 of orig populations in those nations. And now 100 years later, after Russian soviet
commies has crashed, and a huge return to prior Christian ways etc, is going gangbusters Due
to Bolsheviks and jews for the most part getting that Big Boot Out jews are so famous
for.
So now here in America we have inherited most of those Children and especially Grand Kid
jew commies of the Orig 100 years ago Russian Bolshevik butchers, torturers, and mass
murderous bastards. And besides infiltrated into All what matters in usa society and govnt
and culture, they also have as a "side agenda" of sorts a massive huge Lusting for typical
jewish blood thirsty revenge upon Russia and its Christian Whites,and of course its leader
Putin. Those jews had Russia in palm of hand, then totally Lost it. They began with around
8.5 to maybe 10-million jews in Russia/Poland soviet and today have around less than 27o,ooo
total jews within Russia iirc.
Likely it was Putin more than all other issues or reasons those, mostly jewish swindlers,
finally were also Booted Out and their scammed assets from their Raping of Russia resources
etc Taken away from them Being such mamon/money worshipers they are also so famous for, no
other thing would so piss them scamming jews off eh.
I also believe that after the jewish 1917 revolt in Russia, when top control jews there
with plans to use control of Russia as largest nation on earth, to gain their foamed at mouth
lust of a JWO control made reality. That it finally dawned on them that in order to Rule as a
JWO one world govnt of jewry Vs all gentile others, they could never do so without a huge
Navy like usa has.
You must have Navy ships to Carry Jet fighter planes To distant areas you wish to rule
over, because most other nations wont simply agree to being jew-ruled with a JWO clan of
fanatical jewry. Ergo you need also Ocean Waters, warm waters to Park said ships and navigate
those waters to get to those other reluctant nations. Russia failed for such scheme plans for
jewry.
So since so many of the tribe were in usa already .Just join fellow tribe in usa, and turn
America and its military etc into a huge Tool of international jewry so to complete jwo plans
that Russia didn't fulfill.
And both the agenda of jewish revenge, as well as their desired jwo plans probably play an
equal part within those evil nasty minds that they are also so famous for having.
In response to your query, the difference between the US and Russia is that in geopolitics
the latter has performed well above the cards it has been dealt with.
And where, dear sir, can we find any "religious fervor" in the likes of that beau ideal of
the Southern antebellum statesman, John C. Calhoun? Calhoun began life as a Calvinist (a
Presbyterian) and ended it as a kind of Unitarian. This is almost the exact trajectory as the
religious life of the Boston Yankee culture. The Old Nullificator was backcountry
Scotch-Irish – as opposed to WASP – but Unitarian crap is Unitarian crap no
matter where it exists.
Calhoun was, of course, a giant among those of the 1830s and '40s who pushed the South
from the 18th century American conception of slavery – as something that should be
contained until its eventual death – to a new conception that exclaimed, vigorously,
that slavery was a legitimate part of the American way of life. No, no. I cannot abide this
poison. If you all want to condemn Hamilton and Sumner and all, go ahead. I'll agree. But
when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as
the protection of slavery, he was right. And he was neither fanatical nor alone in his view.
To this day, we tend to conflate Lincoln and the anti-slavery bloc with the radical
Republican abolitionist bloc. This is unfair.
General Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was condemned by the radical Republicans in
Congress because of their hatred for Lincoln. Some unity there.
The Anti-Federalist Marylander Luther Martin was right to criticize the powerful framers
for allowing the slavery problem to go on, for enshrining it in the Constitution. Too many
antebellum Southern elites decided that the likes of Martin were wrong.
You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few
miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin. One was even born
in Pennsylvania, and fought in his own hometown during Lee's invasion.
But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. No one in the North
forced the Southern elites to accept a conception of black slavery as a "positive good" (i.e.
James Henry Hammond). The idea of a "War of Northern Aggression" is convenient and cute, but
I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have.
And it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then
it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the
Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types
in the South as there were in Boston.
P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described
himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading.
Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true
believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US
elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to
be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse
"righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and
bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right"
and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot
and resent being thwarted from stealing even more. Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to
be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own
currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The
hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal
aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like
all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.
Wally, by keeping Americans always focused on Hitler and Nazis and SS storm troops, they
will not have time, nor ever find out what the Real True 20th century crimes against humanity
were. When starting in 1917 JEWS that invented communism, and Used it as main means to mass
murder almost 1/2 of eastern euro nations and Russia itself Those crimes and mass killings
jewry should get blame for makes whatever bads or evils done by Hitler and Nazis Pale in
comparison, and makes german Nazis look like small kindergarten kiddies at play in back yard
sand box with wooden swords.
Thanks to internet over past 15 years, many usa folks are waking up and getting very
jewized up.
Which we know is main reason such massive attempts at internet censorship has been
occurring. And is happening at a furious pace like no other agenda we have seen in our lives.
Plus the EU and Canada nations non stop Prison terms for truth tellers of any jew issues.
Soon to arrive here in usa with 99.9% of us senate and congress full approval votes when
pressed by AIPAC and 599 Other jewish usa orgs.
We can toss out our sun glasses as our American future does Not look bright at all. Unless
we see soon a massive wake up call and enough armed citizens willing to take back America.
That too looks very dim so far.
I think Jake should say WASP elites rather than just WASP. The majority of the US Anglo-Saxon
stock are working class and middle class who, along with the Catholic Irish, German, and
Italian, have made this country what it is; and in their demographic decline we see the
decline of the United States. The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
In every political question we should remember to look past grandiose abstractions and see
the operative gut loyalties, both our own and those of the competing sides. What is going on
with Russia is simply Jewish mania to prevent Russia from being Russian and keep it under
Jewish or surrogate rule. Similarly, NATO and the EU are now just enforcers of political
correctness. The Slavs and other illiberal peoples of central and eastern Europe are to be
re-subjugated now that Communism is not there to persecute the priests and re-educate the
sexists. The author, in citing ancient persecutions of Jews to excuse the machinations of
current Jews, attempts to meet his critic half-way. Some day perhaps we will be able to state
the truth without the dance of apology.
Here is an analogy: Suppose in the 90s we thought it critical to weigh in on the Northern
Irish Question. Suppose we had a Department of Irish Affairs to formulate US policy, and it
was staffed by Clancy, Reilly, Finnegan, O'Toole and O'Meara. Would anyone hesitate to raise
the issue of objectivity? Or suppose our middle-eastern team consisted of 5 guys named
Muhammad. Do you think there might be questions?
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along!
what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a
tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!
So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of
((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind
the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless
suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going
down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class
Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a
transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best.
Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as
Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater
Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria
Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria
Thanks for your eloquent response. A few thoughts:
1. I wouldn't extend Calhoun's religion, ot the lack thereof, to the "common soldier" of
the Confederacy. You might take a look at Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" history of Texas; he
understands the "puritanism" of the South.
2.
But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the
American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right.
–> sorry, I don't think "original sin" is attributable to nations. History is a
bloodbath, and always will be, and the whole notion that slavery is some sort of "sin"
demanding atonement is quite ridiculous. That's the sort of gnosticism practiced by the
Bostonians that played sure a huge part in causing the War of Nort.. er. War for Southern
Independence. Far as antebellum slavery itself, might I recommend the work of Genovese and
Fogelberg on the character of American slavery? A review of how exactly the victorious
Yankees and their Republican bosses provided for the liberated slaves after Appomattox is
enlightening.
3.
But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter.
Saint Abe himself admitted he connived South Carolina into opening fire.
4.
I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I
have.
So we have that in common!
5.
nd it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had,
then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and
the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone
types in the South as there were in Boston.
This is speculation on your part, so hardly the truth. Stonewall Jackson, of course, would
have been happy to bring fire and sword to the North. Probably Edward Ruffin, too. But at the
same time, the South was primarily acting a defensive capacity during the war, not as a force
of invasion.
5.a: "
Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were
in Boston."
hellfire and brimstone in what sense?
6,
P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described
himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.
-- yes, AND? What's your point? what's this to do with anything? When the Confederate
memorial in Beaumont, Texas was dedicated around the turn of the last century, the local
rabbi gave opening remarks. Different creeds tended to get along somewhat better in Dixie.
That's a well known fact.
7.
You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few
miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin.
Why would I find that controversial? Are you suggesting I was arguing for a "celtic
south"? I always thought the notion ridiculous. I know Grady McWhiney and others push it, but
it's inaccurate to say the least.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
"... Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted. ..."
James Comey once
described his position in the Clinton investigation as being the victim of a "500-year flood."
The point of the analogy was that he was unwittingly carried away by events rather than
directly causing much of the damage to the FBI. His "500-year flood" just collided with the
500-page report of
the Justice Department inspector general (IG) Michael Horowitz.
The IG sinks Comey's narrative with a finding that he "deviated" from Justice Department
rules and acted in open insubordination.
Rather than portraying Comey as carried away by his
biblical flood, the report finds that he was the destructive force behind the controversy. The
import of the report can be summed up in Comeyesque terms as the distinction between flotsam
and jetsam. Comey portrayed the broken rules as mere flotsam, or debris that floats away after
a shipwreck. The IG report suggests that this was really a case of jetsam, or rules
intentionally tossed over the side by Comey to lighten his load. Comey's jetsam included rules
protecting the integrity and professionalism of his agency, as represented by his public
comments on the Clinton investigation.
The IG report concludes, "While we did not find that these decisions were the result of
political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and
dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of
the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."
The report will leave many unsatisfied and undeterred. Comey went from a persona non grata
to a patron saint for many Clinton supporters. Comey, who has made millions of dollars with a
tell-all book portraying himself as the paragon of "ethical leadership," continues to maintain
that he would take precisely the same actions again.
Ironically, Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok and
others, by their actions, just made it more difficult for special counsel Robert Mueller to prosecute Trump for
obstruction. There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey
violated core agency rules and undermined the integrity of the FBI. In other words, there was
ample reason to fire James Comey.
Had Trump fired Comey immediately upon taking office, there would be little question about
his conduct warranting such termination. Instead, Trump waited to fire him and proceeded to
make damaging statements about how the Russian investigation was on his mind at the time, as
well as telling Russian diplomats the day after that the firing took "pressure off" him.
Nevertheless, Mueller will have to acknowledge that there were solid, if not overwhelming,
grounds to fire Comey.
To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the
firing of an "insubordinate" official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely
this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others.
The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again
featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page
again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both
Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump , that Trump
is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he won't.
We'll stop it."
The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when
the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical
player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the
investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as
Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails "potentially indicated or created the
appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." This
includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton
investigation. The IG states that "[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this
decision by Strzok was free from bias."
However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not "find
documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias,
directly affected the specific investigative decisions." Thus, there was bias reflected in the
statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative
reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey
firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the
act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey's own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about
his motives.
Many of us who have criticized Comey in the past, including former Republican and Democratic
Justice Department officials, have not alleged a political bias. As noted by the IG report,
Comey's actions did not benefit the FBI or Justice Department but, rather, caused untold harm
to those institutions. The actions benefited Comey as he tried to lighten his load in heading
into a new administration. It was the same motive that led Comey to improperly remove FBI memos
and then leak information to the media after he was fired by Trump. It was jetsam thrown
overboard intentionally by Comey to save himself, not his agency.
The Horowitz report is characteristically balanced. It finds evidence of political bias
among key FBI officials against Trump and criticizes officials in giving the investigation of
Trump priority over the investigation of Clinton. However, it could not find conclusive
evidence that such political bias was the sole reason for the actions taken in the
investigation. The question is whether those supporting the inspector general in reaching such
conclusions would support the same approach by the special counsel when the subject is not
Comey but Trump.
Comey is simply two-legged pond scum. He did what he thought would preserve his privileged
position. No way a POS like him would go against the wishes of Barry, Loretta and Hillary.
The question I have is this: were those three acting in concert to beat Trump or did Barry
direct Jimmy to do in Hillary with that late-stage reopening of the inquiry? Barry would have
hated to have Hillary replace him, because - if she actually lived through it - she would
probably have reduced him to a minor historical footnote. His ego couldn't handle that. Heck,
I wouldn't even exclude the possibility that Bubba's meeting with Loretta, perhaps including
a phone call with Barry, was about keeping Hillary out of the White House. It might have
cramped Bubba's style, being first dude and all and under close scrutiny.
Although damning in many respects, the IG's report falls short in identifying prosecutable
actions on the part of FbI / DoJ officials... There may be some firings, but that's about
it...
Comey will get to skate with the $$$ from his book tour / Trump bashing tour, Stroczk
and Page sail off into the sunset and likely go to work for some Dim think tank, the rank and
file all go back to work thinking, phew, that one was close...
McCabe is going to be the
poster child that gets the stick, while at the same time the underlying bias in these two
agencies will continue unabated...
This report whitewashed the worst crimes.... The OIG reports recommendations and what they
chose to ignore is reminiscing of Comey's now infamous indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton from that 2016 press conference.
The FBI takes bribes from the media for secret insider information and used the media
connections for disinformation to twist the narrative for Clinton. Hundreds of interactions
with MSM, bribes being handed out. These jerks must feel their power to be the unnamed
sources, looks like they've dug their own grave. Literally hundreds of contacts, recorded
bribes and an extreme close relation with CNN and New York Times. This is the source of all
the disinformation, lies, rumors and destruction to our nation. The FBI is the enemy with
their unlawful alliance with communist and homosexuals in the media. I wonder how many FBI
agents are communist and homosexuals?
The key in all this is the political slush fund of over a $100 billion which everyone
ignores, the Clinton Foundation will make or break politicians for a corrupt elitist
communist agenda for the next generation. It's being protected from investigation because of
the previous crimes of Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and who knows how many others. The Clinton
Foundation was bribed by foreigners for access, favors and the plan to use the money to take
over the US government.
Uranium One is just one covert operation which ensnares all of these opportunist. The
Haitian relief money, remember Bush II sat right next to Clinton stating the reason or his
purpose was to prevent the Haitian money from being stolen. That was on national full
throated MSM. Are there murders connected to the Clinton Foundation? Considering
Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz most likely ordered an FBI agent to look into Seth Rich,
Pakistanis infiltrating the highest level of leadership, Iranian cocaine smuggling network
the FBI was prepared to take down stopped by Obama because it would interfere with the Iran
nuke deal. None of this is being added to the equation, incredible FBI and overall government
corruption.
It's worse than a swamp, it's an army aligned against us with no honor, decency or even
allegiance to this nation, only their gang, allegiance to an organization, a gang covering up
to continue to do the same. Each agency of the federal government is of this culture, the
break down in this country is apart of every aspect of the government.
Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and
Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted.
Slow-walking an investigation resulting in no charges being filed despite clear evidence
of multiple crimes -- I would call THAT clear obstruction. McCabe and Comey have conspired to
try to dump this on Strzok. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.
What can you expect from Comey, paid $7 million a year by HSBC, the bank that laundered
some $12 billion in narco trafficker (read CIA proxy) narcotic money? Lock him up in SuperMax
in a narrow cell next to jewboy Rosenstein.i
The thing is, Trump was his boss, and if he decided the Russia coup was a waste of FBI
time, he has every right to fire the head of the FBI, for continuing to waist time and money,
purposely trying to undermine the election.
Remember, this is before there was a special counsel, and if after a year of investigating
there's no there there, there sure as shit wasn't anything back then to investigate!
There is nothing illegal about the President telling Comey to knock it off, or else.
He should tell the press what they want to here. Of course the phony Russia scam played a
part in getting Comey fired, rightfully so. Then stand with his fist in the air shouting Fuck
the Prestitutes!
For a year now, they've been in a search for something, anything, to investigate.
He should fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, TODAY, and watch their heads
explode!
There is an evil intent in all this, beyond the obvious.
Many believe WWG1WGA means, "Where we go one we go all".
A Ponzi always collapses the minute it stops growing, it's a 100% certainty. From the
start, ~100 years ago, the Oligarchs who gathered on Jekyll Island knew that their debt money
would grow right up to the day it suddenly collapsed, and planned it with all it's allure,
hooks, and traps, to consume everything, before that day, so that all would be in the same
boat when it collapses. They planned it to fail from the start. It's a mutual suicide Trap,
set up to consume the world, consolidate power, then collapse all the Nation's currencies in
one fail swoop!
For in a single hour such fabulous wealth has been destroyed!
They'll have their grand New World Order, and a knew single currency waiting in the wings,
to rescue the useful idiots from the disaster they've planned.
They'll attempt to number us all, track everything, and dictate how you buy and sell -
through them of course. But not just what you buy with, but what you buy, who you buy from,
how much you buy, and how much you will pay!
That is their plan. How far they'll get nobody knows. I suspect they'll fail miserably,
but the truth is, they're already a long way down this road.
It did not just impact perception. It factually altered the FBI protocol. Comey was high on power of co-running the deep state and subverting justice and the
Constitution. This is high treason, covering high crimes and attempting to unseat Trump at every
juncture.
The FBI isn't and you still think J.Edgar was an aberration ? The FBI is the swamps gamekeeper, nurturing the critters, weeding out the weak, until
only the foulest and strongest they can be unleashed on us. Take two red pills and report back in the morning.
During their push to turn public opinion against Mueller, Trump's lawyers, led by Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani, have engaged
in selective leaking, including back in early May when they leaked
a list of 49 questions
purportedly turned. As one lawyer who spoke with Bloomberg pointed out, the ongoing negotiations have turned into "a bit of a
game." Others have claimed that the leak
was intended to pressure Mueller into killing the interview (of course, we all know how that turned out).
"It's a little bit of a game," said Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor who's now a partner with law firm Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler. "Mueller could subpoena the president but probably doesn't want to. He faces some litigation risk. Trump
could fight the subpoena, but he also faces a political risk."
The interview is key to Mueller's investigation into whether Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the
2016 U.S. election and whether Trump acted to obstruct the probe, one official said.
Meanwhile, Giuliani claimed late last month that he and Trump have
already been rehearsing for an in-person interview with Mueller after the special counsel summarily rejected the Trump legal
team's request to conduct some of the interview in a written format.
However, since FBI agents raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen's home, office and hotel room and are reportedly preparing to charge
him with a crime, the president has grown increasingly wary of an interview.
One problem for Trump, though, is that if Mueller wins at the Supreme Court, he could compel Trump to sit for a Grand Jury for
as long as he wants, and subject Trump to questions on a range of topics without providing any advanced warning.
"I think the Supreme Court will rule in Mueller's favor, but we don't really know," Sandick said. "If Mueller wins, he can
actually put Trump in the grand jury without his lawyer for as long as he wants and ask about any subject he wants."
Furthermore, if Trump chooses the court battle route, Mueller's probe would encounter further delays, as the ruling likely wouldn't
arrive until October at the earliest, after the Court returns from its summer recess. That would mean the investigation likely wouldn't
wrap up until late this year - or early next year - at the very earliest. It also would open the Republican Party up to a high degree
of political risk, because the Court's final ruling could arrive just before the midterms.
But since the beginning of the probe, the biggest obstacle to a direct interview is Trump. The president's legal team came within
a hair's breadth of an agreement back in January. But as Trump got cold feet, his team sent Mueller a 20-page letter arguing that
Trump isn't entitled to answer Mueller's questions as they invoked Trump's executive privilege.
Regardless of whether the interview happens, Mueller has told Trump's team that he will prepare a report summarizing his findings
that will be turned over to the DOJ and, eventually, Congress. Then it will be up to Congress whether to release the report.
That will ultimately depend on the outcome of the midterm vote.
This is becoming the biggest shit show in the US. There is no evidence of Russian collusion at all Mueller has nothing. There's
nothing to find but it drags on and wastes tax payer dollars.
You can't impeach a President for performing his duties as set out in the Constitution. Firing Comey was perfectly legitimate,
especially now that the facts are coming out that the FBI needs to be completely purged from top to bottom.
Mueller needs to pack his bags and conclude this sucker and admit there was never anything to find, either that or arrest Hillary
for the actual collusion with Russians plus go after her for the hacked email server.
Watched an interview with Rudy tonight. He started going after Weismann and the other corrupt thugs Mueller hired. Always a
plan within and it was tailored for IG report today...I expect Trump to crank it up on this obvious Deep State axis of hitmen
populating DOJ and FBI...Rosenstein was getting pummeled today as well....
In politics, as in professional wrestling, it's always important to have a heel.
Trump understands this.
Hillary was the perfect heel in 2016.
>The lack of a single heel in 2018 was always going to be a challenge for him, but media/Mueller etc are doing an incredible
job of filling that role.
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to
discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little
risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy
by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to
an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation
just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain,
France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was
considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one
reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if
the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as
their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been
a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of
other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major
corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look
like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable
speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016
national elections in the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major
alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald
Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations
carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time.
The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all
according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels
succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the
attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to
avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the
evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring
instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation
of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will
apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible
motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations
made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely"
Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical
weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful
enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared
to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in
London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included
the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe
that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion
suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the
CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like
it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit
of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate
and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
Many Trump supporters, and even some on the left, like to talk about the "Deep State"
secretly having complete control of our government, thus rendering our elected leaders to be
nothing more than meaningless figureheads. Let's investigate.
Long before the term 'Deep State' became popular, the term "Military Industrial Complex" was
coined by President Dwight Eisenhower.
He gave his now famous Military Industrial Complex (MIC) speech on Jan 17, 1961.
During his ominous farewell, Ike mentioned that the US was only just past the halfway point
of the century and we had already seen 4 major wars. He then went on to talk about how the MIC
was now a major sector of the economy. Eisenhower then went on to warn Americans about the
"undue influence" the MIC has on our government. He warned that the MIC has massive lobbying
power and the ability to press for unnecessary wars and armaments we would not really need, all
just to funnel money to their coffers.
Jump to Ike's warning about the "unwarranted influence... by the Military-Industrial
Complex" at 8:41
His warning though proven correct, was sadly not heeded. Within a few years JFK was
assassinated shortly after giving his "Secret government speech" warning the American people
about "secret governments and secret organizations that sought to have undue control of the
government.
JFK was in his grave for less than 9-months before Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a
series of outlandish lies about a fictitious attack on a US naval ship that never happened,
which caused the US to enter the Vietnam war.
President Johnson lied his way into a war with North Vietnam and within less than a year
would joke that "maybe the attack never happened". By the time the war ended in 1973, Johnson's
bundle of lies had killed 2.45 million people.
The MIC however, saw the Vietnam war as a great victory and a template for the future
success to their objectives. Ever since the Vietnam War, the MIC has urged the government to
enter into as many ambiguous and unwinnable wars as possible, since unwinnable wars are also
never-ending. Never-ending wars equate to never-ending revenue streams for the war
industry.
Eisenhower warned us about the concept of one particular industry taking control of our
government, but sadly his predictions fell of deaf ears.
Since Eisenhower's time several other over "Industrial Complexes" have followed the MIC
example and taken control of our government to suit their needs as well. Their objective is to
buy out politicians in order to control the purse strings of Congress and they have been highly
successful.
The list of these ÏC industries includes, but is not limited to the companies
below:
1. The Drug Industrial Complex. (DIC)
The prescription drug industry has massive control of our government and our health care
system. A recent Mayo Clinic study concluded that 70% of Americans are on at least one
prescription drug.
The most tragic example is opioids, though similar arguments can also be made in reference
to the anti-depressant epidemic, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
The sicker America is, the better it is for the DIC.
The drug lobby is 8x larger than the gun lobby and is indirectly responsible for the deaths
of between 59.000 and 65,000 people in 2016 alone, but if we dig deeper, that number could
easily be 2 or 3 times higher, Since deaths related to opioids from infection related to opioid
related infections are extremely common Anti-depressants are being prescribed 400% more than
they were in the 1990's. They are commonly prescribed to adolescent women and we live up to the
name "Prozac Nation" when we realize that 1 in 5 women between the ages of 40 and 59 are taking
antidepressants. The list of other prescription medicines to enhance the DIC revenue streams is
extensive.
There are two primary industrial complex rules when it comes to prescription drug centric
treatment:
Firstly, no curing is allowed, ever. Treatment of conditions with temporary benefits is
allowed, but healing is not permissible, since it interrupts revenue streams.
And second, any and all "natural" or homeopathic treatment whether it be related to diet,
supplements vitamins, anti-oxidants or physical exercise/meditation should all be relegated
to "quackery." Doctors who do not adhere to the prescription drug method of treating patients
should also be referred to as adherents to "quackery" and should be reprimanded, fined and in
extreme cases have their medical licenses revoked.
2. Real Estate Industrial Complex. (RIC)
Goal: Keep housing prices rising as much as possible, year after year after year.
How this is implemented: Endorse the borrowing of money to entice people into buying
excessively large homes in order to promote the "dream" of home ownership. Once people buy into
this scheme, they are then saddled with massive home taxes to their city and the burden of the
taxes utilities that go along with owning an excessively large home. Stigmatize anyone who is
over the age of 25 and lives in the same domicile as a parent or grandparent.
Make sure all media channels repeat over and over incessantly that high real estate prices
are "signs of a great economy," while ignoring the crippling effect high home prices have on
working class families who can barely pay their mortgage.
3. College Industrial Complex
(CIC)
The average tuition in 1971-1972 was $1832.00 and now it is officially over $31,000.00.
There are over 60 colleges and universities where the tuition has already exceeded
$60,000.00 per/year.
A college education used to be something that people saved and paid cash for, but now there
has been a cultural shift where students are expected to take out loans that are often in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain a college degree.
Why is this all so expensive? When we look at our universities and colleges, we see an
obsession with elaborate new buildings and sports stadiums, more than actual learning.
There are several emerging/innovative ideas to make a college education better, faster and
far more affordable. Such concepts probably won't take hold until the inevitable collapse of
the entire educational system takes place.
4. Health Insurance Industrial Complex
(HIC)
Much of the US healthcare system is now governed by the "Healthcare Affordability Act"
passed by the Obama administration in 2010.
The HIC proved how powerful they were when Congress was not allowed to read the legislation
before voting for it, publicly displaying that the HIC who wrote the bill behind closed doors
is more powerful than Congress itself.
What transparent public committees were behind this important legislation?
In reality, there was no transparency at all, this is stated clear as day by Healthcare
Affordability Act primary architect Jonathan Gruber stated: "Lack of transparency is a huge
political advantage, Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically,
that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
The Speaker of the House at the time was Nancy Pelosi, who famously said from the leadership
podium as House Speaker: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'
Our elected officials were not allowed to read the most important legislation of the past 30
years before voting for or against it. There is no greater testimony to the level of
dysfunction in Congress than the Healthcare Affordability Act, formed by secret committees and
then not allowing Congress to read it before voting.
* * *
Let's think back to 1961 when Eisenhower warned us about what would become the Vietnam War.
The American people's ignoring his warning caused arms manufacturers and big business to assume
nearly complete control of US government.
If we had listened to Ike, millions of people would not have died in the wars of the last 57
years and we would have trillions of dollars less in debt. Perhaps we still have time to heed
his warning before our entire country collapses under the weight of corruption, crippling debt
and never-ending wars, let's hope so.
* * *
Kevin Paul is the founder of Alternativemediahub.com, which refers to itself as "The
megaphone of independent journalism." Born in MA, he came within 2% of winning the R party
nomination to oppose Ted Kennedy in 2006 and holds degrees in business and political
science.
Oh it's way more than that.
That is the kind of language Oliver Wendell Holmes would have used back in the
day. It also brings to mind Samuel Clemens. This is a very sharp team indeed.
Mule-er basically drew to an inside straight, and got busted. The Russkies
called his bluff, and his hand is 7-8-10-Jack-four. Sorry, Ereberto,
no nine, just a "nein." Discovery is a bitch! I suspect that further
developments are going to be highly entertaining. Judge: "can we see your
evidence of wrongdoing." Mule-er: "That's highly classified."
In its earliest English uses, "pettifogger" was two separate words: "pettie
fogger." "Pettie" was a variant spelling of "petty," a reasonable inclusion in
a word for someone who is disreputable and small-minded.
Who would have believed decent Americans would ever applaud Russians
kicking the shit out of federal law enforcement? Do I hear "The World
Turned Upside Down" in the distance? Should Mueller change his name
to Cornwallis?
How about "corrupt" shill? Remember, Mueller headed the FBI before and
after the 9/11 attacks. Did Mueller's FBI investigate? No; they covered up
for 9/11 perpetrators. Thanks a lot Mueller.
If I were the judge, I would refuse any motion Mueller makes to avoid
releasing evidence, and if he doesn't do it within a matter of hours, his
entire staff would be getting perp walked for contempt. Let Mueller manage
his investigation from a prison cell, like some drug kingpin.
The US government has already wasted $200 million on this stupid "pettifoggery".
Some one, any one, put an end to this ridiculous dog and pony show.
Mueller, and the Justice Dept. are now the laughing stock of the world. We
need to save a little face, and have this SOB shot for the good of the
nation. This Prick doesn't give two shits for the American people, or the
nation that he is paid to serve.
These guys were likely just pushing click-bait on Facebook. And since it is
election season, it is easy for them to riff off the candidates.
Mueller
giving it any legitimacy shows he is either out of touch with how the internet
works or has his own special case of Trump derangement syndrome.
Accuse others for which you are guilty is in the dnc handbook. The only
illegal activity involved the DNC, team Hillary, and operatives in the FBI,
CIA, DOJ, and the IRS.
This indictment is a total fujkin joke. In Mueller's world he can charge
you with a crime but refuse to show the evidence. Proves that he has no
interest in serving justice. His goals are to defame and bankrupt enemies
of the deep swamp.
When the truth comes out and i was Russian company or individual affected
by this assholes i would sue US for lost business and for defamation and
demand reparations and let THe black Jesus and Clinton Killer Gang and
their lackies pay for it.
Yes, very good links but, this is different in my opinion.
Mueller attempted to bring a criminal
domestic
case
against
international
personas that he is now
unwilling to go through the
discovery process with
(his claim) because of...wait for it...national security.
He never intended or wanted for
this case
to go to trial (but he had to show "something" for
his efforts) it is malpractice (at the American bar level)
and he knew it when he filed it.
When a prosecutor files charges against anyone (here) he
is in essence saying
"We have the evidence to
prosecute your honor and we are going to show it to you."
now he is saying he can't or will not produce that evidence
in the venue he chose to prosecute in.
Probably because he (and his crack Hillary lawyers)
didn't do the homework required until after filing charges
(idiot
fucktard that he and they are...lol)
as Concord's
new CEO is none other than one Dimitry Utkin, founder of the
Wagner Group, a Rodnover, for whatever thats worth ;-)
It's not just embarrassing it's criminal. He wants unlimited scope to
find "something". He indicts Russians knowing they won't show up for
court or so he thought and now he wants to limit the evidence because
he has no hand. Don't interfere with your enemy when he's mucking it
up. Mueller is going to be indicted for all of this, Uranium One
being the least of his problems. If Mr. Mueller wants to question me
the first thing I say is how much money did you give Whitey Bulger?
Muller got caught, tried to make headlines with Real Russians thinking they
would not show up and one did he is now in a PANIC - Muller needs to
produce the evidence or shut up and go away with his band of 13 anti Trump
staff.
"The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to
be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media
in order to sow discord among American voters."
Cough cough, none of that is illegal, 1st Amendment, even for
Russians
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a
Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election,
according to
Bloomberg .
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the
delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of
three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing
propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters .
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into
the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's
active "interference operations" against the United States.
"The substance of the government's evidence identifies uncharged individuals and entities
that the government believes are continuing to engage in interference operations like those
charged in the present indictment," prosecutors wrote.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates,
which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus
undermining ongoing and future national security operations ," according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with
crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and
co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors wrote. -
Bloomberg
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with
the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
And Concord Management decided to fight it...
As
Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was
perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would
appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have
obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for
interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the
Mueller Switch Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges.
In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith
firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting . Josh
Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here
. -
Powerline Blog
Politico' s Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, " Concord could force
prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that
might undermine the prosecution's theories ."
In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller's team tried to delay the trial -
saying that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case , wrapping
themselves in a "cloud of confusion" as Powerline puts it. "Until the Court has an opportunity
to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial
appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea
entertained."
The Judge, Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee, didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in
the high-profile trial.
The Russians hit back - filing a
response to let the court know that " [Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as
provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea
of not guilty . [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the
summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel's motion is pettifoggery. "
And the Judge agreed ...
A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller's request to delay the first
court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens
with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the
2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no
explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the
scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms
charged in the case . -
Politico
In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing
him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment , potentially jeopardizing the
PR aspect of the entire "Trump collusion" probe.
And now Mueller is pointing to Russian "interference operations" in a last-ditch effort
.
Of note, Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the
"pro-Trump" Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day
of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising
purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they
was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans", something which Americans have been quite
adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth,
income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.
The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists
online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American
voters .
...
"knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Wait a minute, hold on - what exactly is the 'crime' here? Facebook ads that said Clinton
sucks? That's a crime now? I'm missing something obviously - I just don't know what. Anyone
willing and able to shed light on the crime alleged here?
How about CNN and NYT absolutely slanted and biased coverage? [And no - 'the press' in the
1st Amendment meant and means still the written word, not news corporations].
So far as I know "meddling" isn't a crime outside of Scooby Doo cartoons and MSNBC
I believe that Mueller is, rightly, being told to "Put up or shut up"? The discovery phase
should be very interesting and the only way to avoid that is to drop the charges, which will
indeed completely destroy Mueller's PR strategy. And with it, what remains of his
credibility...
I can picture Mueller sitting at the poker table with a huge stack. As he looks over his
hand, with a sly look on his face and a wink, he goes all in. Surprise suprise, they call his
bet. Now we wait for the reveal except that Bobby is screaming, wait, no fair, it was an
accident, I didn't mean to go all in. Turn those machines back on! The dealer then looks him
dead in the eye and says "Tough shit" as he turns over Mueller's losing hand.
mueller, you are so screwed. so supremely and royally screwed. now your investigation is
coming to a crashing halt without POTUS having to step in. all that was ever needed is
transparency. and now the good guys will have the IG report, Session's investigation, the
declassification of spy-gate materials and discovery from your Keystone cop operation all at
once.
best timeline ever.
take it from janus, extracting a troll from the interwebs and thinking you can crush him
IRL ALWAYS blows up in your face.
the only way you can win the game is with the deck stacked like a tower in your favor and
warping the rules to effect a desired outcome. tptb, you are up against superior people with
superior minds animated by an indomitable will. devastating defeat is inevitable.
That is part of the defense's argument. Many are asking "what is the actual crime" being
charged. Mueller charged them with campaign finance violations and failing to register as a
foreign agent. These crimes have a high burden of proof in that they require the state to
prove that the defendant knowingly broke the laws. No foreign corporation has ever been
charged with these crimes before. And the defense argues that there is nothing in the
indictment to show that they knew they were breaking these laws - hence no way to prove the
case against them. They also raise the 1st Amendment as defense saying political speech is
protected.
Did/do these companies have any other function besides buying $500 worth of "I Like Trump"
ads like selling something? So only Americans can have free speech in America, unless you
identify you and your coworkers as foreign free speech speaker-people? It sounds too tricky.
Only a progressive could figure out the legalities involved, as they are the free speech
professionals. The rest of us must get permission first, and then it will only be grafted IF
we say things that are officially approved by the free speech Nazi party.
Just think if these Ruskies could have voted! It would have been 30-40 more Trump votes
and he would have really really won bigly.
Can't Mueller be prosecuted himself if he knows there is no collusion or whatever... No
Russian anything, yet he continues to steal tax payer monies to fabricate false leads? He has
no incentive to be honest or to limit the investigation and if having the case remain open
benefits his party affiliates and he himself financially. If I got hired to do a one day job
and lied to make it a one year job, wouldn't that be theft of services?? The cuss must show
or he must go!
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to "subpoena" GOP members of the House
Intelligence Committee during a tense January meeting involving committee members and senior
DOJ/FBI officials, according to emails seen by
Fox News documenting the encounter described by aides as a "personal attack."
That said, Rosenstein was responding to a threat to hold him in contempt of Congress - and
the "threat" to subpoena GOP records was ostensibly in order for him to be able to defend
himself.
Rosenstein allegedly threatened to "turn the tables" on the committee's aggressive document
requests, according to
Fox .
" The DAG [Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] criticized the Committee for sending our
requests in writing and was further critical of the Committee's request to have DOJ/FBI do the
same when responding ," the committee's then-senior counsel for counterterrorism Kash Patel
wrote to the House Office of General Counsel. " Going so far as to say that if the Committee
likes being litigators, then 'we [DOJ] too [are] litigators, and we will subpoena your records
and your emails ,' referring to HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and
Congress overall."
A second House committee staffer at the meeting backed up Patel's account, writing: " Let
me just add that watching the Deputy Attorney General launch a sustained personal attack
against a congressional staffer in retaliation for vigorous oversight was astonishing and
disheartening . ... Also, having the nation's #1 (for these matters) law enforcement officer
threaten to 'subpoena your calls and emails' was downright chilling." -
Fox News
The committee staffer suggested that Rosenstein's comment could be interpreted to mean that
the DOJ would " vigorously defend a contempt action " -- which might be expected. But the
staffer continued, " I also read it as a not-so-veiled threat to unleash the full prosecutorial
power of the state against us. "
But really - Rosenstein appears to have been warning the GOP Committee members that he would
aggressively defend himself.
G-Men Hit Back
A DOJ official said that Rosenstein "never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal
investigation," telling Fox that the department and bureau officials in the room "are all quite
clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false, " and that Rosenstein was
merely responding to a threat of contempt.
The FBI, meanwhile, said that they disagree with " a number of characterizations of the
meeting as described in the excerpts of a staffer's emails provided to us by Fox News. "
"The Deputy Attorney General was making the point -- after being threatened with contempt --
that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the
right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages
and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false ," the official
said. "That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he
hopes they did so. (We have no process to obtain such records without congressional
approval.)"
Details of the encounter began to trickle out in early February, as Fox News' Greg Jarrett
tweeted: "A 2nd source has now confirmed to me that, in a meeting on January 10, Deputy A-G
Rosenstein used the power of his office to threaten to subpoena the calls & texts of the
Intel Committee to get it to stop it's investigation of DOJ and FBI. Likely an Abuse of Power
& Obstruction."
Rosenstein, translated: "I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned
to the ground!"
Seriously, for the grown-ups here... Is there really ANY doubt what he said was anything
other than a threat? Didn't think so. If he had said "Come at me, bro!" it couldn't be any
more clear. He is ready to use the full resources of his office to respond to any attempt of
Congress to oversee his activities, regardless of the fact that they have a legal right and
responsibility to do so.
For anyone to think that this wasn't a threat is a fool. The only reason that he'd be
charged with contempt is because he didn't do his job and turn over the documents.
They're all dirty, and the banksters must be deeply regretting their policy of hiring
stooges just intelligent enough to foolow orders, but too stupid to question those orders.
They all think they have the backing of their bankster overlords, not realizing that they are
merely decoys. And the banksters are now seeing that enough of the populace is aware to the
point that too many people have figured out the hoax, for the exposition to be shouted down.
Complicate that with the fact that the only believers left are far too stupid to present a
coherent position, and it all equals meltdown. Going to be an interesting summer.
Seems like Comey was not the only insubordinate one? Congress has a constitutional
oversight duty over DOJ and yet, even though the applicable members have the necessary levels
of security clearance, DOJ is fighting them every step of the way, presumably because
something or someone(s) is being covered up. Rosenstein should be fired, although that should
have happened long ago. Where is Sessions?
There is a LOT that is being covered up, with the main - not the only - crime being an
attempted coup d'etat.
The 8chan Q Research board has 24/7 input on all these developments and those autists are
a colorful, talented bunch.
Huber is working with Horowitz and the 'flipping' - particularly with key players like
Priestap - will ensure as smooth and complete a demolition of the Deep State as possible.
A significant component of this process will be to have tens of millions of Americans who
loathe Trump accept these outcomes as both true and fair.
Obama is now strongly implicated in ALL the minutia of this plot.
The executive branch is only supposed to execute whatever the legislative branch, unless
it gets vetoed. And, the judicial branch is supposed to be the final check on those powers,
even though the judiciary is appointed by executive nomination with congressional approval.
So, the real question now is: was that 'strike three, you're out', or 'ball four: take a
walk'.
That this pissing contest is still going after Trump told the DOJ to turn over the
documents to congress really demonstrates the power of the Deep State.
According to Q, the IG report is going to be heavily redacted and Trump will use an EO to
declassify everything in due time. He will wait until after the IG report on the Clinton
Foundation is released. Catch everything at once. We shall see.
Your insight is an important one. He's snarling and showing teeth -- that means that he's
either 1) out of maneuvering room or 2) the larvae he protects are nearby and/or in
danger.
And you can't just bluff your boss- rosey HAS TO follow through. It's his only dominant
strategy.
Unless they're idiots, Congress must issue an asymmetrical response and do it
preemptively.
There are still quite a few people who trust and watch TV news stations like CNN, ABC,
MSNBC ect
None of those news stations report the truth, that the top of the DOJ, FBI and CIA were
corrupt.
Arresting the previous president within the first year of taking office is asking for
riots.
The only way to do it, and protect the public individuals as much as possible, is to allow
the information out piece by piece, remove bad actors one by one. There are a lot of people
who live with their head in the sand, and exposing them to something as shocking as arresting
a previous president for treason, it... might be too much all at once.
If, indeed, Rosenstein is the 'gatekeeper of the deep state' and the deep state has been
surveilling everything organic for years, then they have something on every tom, dick, harry
and jane, which means all 3 branches are compromised. I can just imagine the massive
blackmail that has gone on for years which is why Washington has turned into a cesspool. So
many turds floating in the piss, that a regular Sodom and Gomorra event may have to occur to
clean up this disgusting mess.
...he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant
emails and text messages...
OK, so as a "citizen" he claims to have the "right" to "request" from duly elected
officials what can legitimately be classified communications. Yet, he as a political
appointee and not directly answerable to an electorate claims the right to tell these same
individuals to pound sand when they request legitimate findings he is required by law to
provide them with?
The fact is, they are the ones, as elected officials that are in the position to tell him
as a mere appointee to pound sand. There are no "tables to turn", the fact is he is on the
end of the downhill slope. Now, if he has evidence that some legislators have appointed
personnel within their personal offices guilty of crimes, then put up or shut up.
This charade has gone on far too long. The best we can hope for is a real time lesson in
Constitutional law that will right this ship of state again and place all these imbeciles in
custody and out of circulation permanently. This clown show is disgusting!
The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream mediaIn short: because they are rapidly losing the propaganda monopoly by system failure
No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find a source to inform me about the exact origin
(who and when) of the term 'fake news'. Generally, the term became mainstream during the last
years, and especially after some shocking events for the Western neoliberal establishment, like
Trump's presidency and Brexit.
Very briefly, it appears that the term was suspiciously invented by the neoliberal apparatus
to discredit people who supported such events, through social media and other Internet
platforms completely independent from the mainstream media control. Of course, one can easily
discredit this perception as 'conspiracy theory' or even 'fake news', as well.
While it's true that there has been a lot of hyperbole, misinformation and hard propaganda
circulated inside the cyberspace, it seems that the 'fake news' term was expanded somehow to
include even opinions and positions outside the dominant neoliberal orthodoxy expressed by the
political center in the West.
What's perhaps most interesting in the whole story, is that the term 'fake news' eventually
backfired against the establishment, as it was immediately adopted by the political 'extremes'
outside the neoliberal center, to include the misinformation and the smearing campaigns by the
mainstream media against those who didn't comply with the neoliberal narratives. Mainstream
media propaganda is what brought us numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades,
after all.
numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades, after all.
Now, a
relatively new technology with its origins in the beginning of the previous decade,
seems that it spreads a sort of panic among the mainstream media, often described as
'information apocalypse'.
What is new is the democratisation of
advanced IT, the fact that anyone with a computer can now engage in the weaponisation of
information. 2016 was the year we woke up to the power of fake news, with internet
conspiracy theories and lies used to bolster the case for both Brexit and Donald Trump. We
may, however, look back on it as a kind of phoney war, when photoshopping and video
manipulation were still easily detectable. That window is closing fast. A program developed
at Stanford University allows users to convincingly put words into politicians' mouths.
Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos. Quite soon it will be all but impossible for
ordinary people to tell what's real and what's not. What will the effects of this be? When a public figure claims the racist or sexist audio of
them is simply fake, will we believe them? How will political campaigns work when millions
of voters have the power to engage in dirty tricks? What about health messages on the
dangers of diesel or the safety of vaccines? Will vested interests or conspiracy theorists
attempt to manipulate them? Unable to trust what they see or hear, will people retreat into
lives of non-engagement, ceding the public sphere to the already powerful or the
unscrupulous? The potential for an "information apocalypse" is beginning to be taken seriously. The
problem is we have no idea what a world in which all words and images are suspect will look
like, so it's hard to come up with solutions. Perhaps not very much will change –
perhaps we will develop a sixth sense for bullshit and propaganda, in the same way that it
has become easy to distinguish sales calls from genuine inquiries, and scam emails with
fake bank logos from the real thing. But there's no guarantee we'll be able to defend
ourselves from the onslaught, and society could start to change in unpredictable ways as a
result.
The perspective described here is indeed frightening. Yet, what's really impressive in this
article and in other similar articles by the big media on the Internet, is that there is a type
of information elitism, implying that there is a media priesthood, which has the copyright of
Truth. You can tell that by the fact that the article completely ignores the possibility that
this technology could be used by the mainstream media too, to manipulate the public.
Inside this increasingly artificial reality, is there really anyone today who holds the keys of
the 'ultimate' truth? I don't think so.
So, this bizarre panic around the mainstream media about this new, and indeed frightening
technology, is not coming from their concern that you will be heavily misinformed. It's coming
from the fact that they want the monopoly to misinform you. Because they know that after
decades of lies and propaganda being upgraded to a literally scientific level, their
credibility today has reached a record low.
Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos by anyone. I don't like it. I don't think is
right.
Personalities should be protected and perhaps we need a new legislation code to achieve
that.
But what about the mainstream media pundits who will use this frightening technology to grab
the consent of the masses for another devastating war with millions of dead?
"... Soros and his band of colluding commodities fund managers have done more damage in the world than any communist, socialist, or American exceptionalist. These soulless pathological misers' need to accumulate endless wealth leads to their trampling the rules and laws of free nations, bought off by their ownership of the regulatory apparatus. ..."
"... I speak from first hand knowledge. This is no fantasy. What IS a fantasy is that it is any religion or group ("the Rothschilds," "the Joos") who are behind this clique. It is the heads of the largest funds and money managers who work together like sharks on the body politic. Some are Jews, but far more are not. Greed knows no religion, no country, no creed or color. ..."
"... Bill and Hillary are at the vanguard of this group. Bill's administration did more to abet the metastatisis of this group than any other. Hillary tried to cash the IOU but failed because of her transparent venality, and Trump's appeal. ..."
In the latest revelation concerning the "mysterious Maltese Professor," Joseph Mifsud, and
his involvement in the "Russiagate" saga, Disobedient Media can additionally reveal that Mifsud
interacted on a number of occasions with individuals tied to think tanks known for engaging in
"pay to play" behavior for the purposes of pushing specific policies on behalf of donors. The
involvement of these institutes, which include the Atlantic Council, Brookings Institute and
Open Society Foundation raises questions about whether or not certain private parties were
involved with efforts to target Donald Trump's presidential campaign for their own political
benefit.
Disobedient Media broke coverage of Joseph Mifsud's connections to UK intelligence and was
also the
first outlet to report on the findings of UK political analyst Chris Blackburn, who
recounted evidence that included reference to Mifsud's close relationship with Italian Senator
Gianni Pittella. Pittella has been deemed in leaked documents to be a "
reliable ally " of George Soros' Open Society Foundation.
Mifsud's Interaction With Think Tank Members
Joseph Mifsud has routinely and consistently interacted with various members of think tanks
and institutions that as a general rule support internationalist policies. In the aftermath of
the 2016 US Presidential Election, these interactions intensified as both think tanks and
establishment media outlets began to increase their coverage of alleged "Russian collusion"
narratives in an effort to justify ongoing investigations to the public.
On June 21st and 22nd, 2009, Mifsud was listed as a participant in the Italian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs-hosted " G8 and
Beyond " convened with the Brookings Institution, Aspen, Club de Madrid and LINK Campus.
The event was also attended by Strobe Talbott, the President of the Brookings Institution.
Disobedient Media has previously highlighted research by Chris Blackburn, tying members of
cyber-security firm Crowdstrike to the LINK Campus in Rome. Crowdstrike founder Dmitri
Alperovitch acts as a
Senior Fellow for the Atlantic Council .
Mifsud has routinely aligned himself with pro-European Union parties and attended multiple
events where members of the Atlantic Council and Open Society Foundation were also involved
within the last several years. On June 28, 2016, Mifsud was listed as a signatory to a
statement released by the European Council on
Foreign Relations (ECFR) in response to the UK's Brexit vote. Other signatories included
David Koranyi , Director of the Atlantic
Council's Eurasian Energy Future Initiative, Jordi Vaquer , Director of the Open Society Initiative for
Europe, Goran Buldioski , Director of the
Open Society Initiative For Europe and George Soros. Since March 2018, the ECFR has removed Mifsud from
their List of Members in
an apparent attempt to distance themselves from this troubling affiliation.
On May 7th through May 9th, 2017, Mifsud was a participant in a panel discussion as part of
the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation-sponsored " G7 International
Forum " at the LINK Campus in Rome along with Andrea Montanino , a Chief Economist at the Atlantic Council.
On May 21st, 2017, Mifsud spoke at the Riyadh Forum On
Countering Extremism And Fighting Terrorism hosted by the King Faisal Center for Research
and Islamic Studies and the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition. The event also
featured multiple speakers from the Atlantic Council, including Nonresident Senior Fellow
Elisabeth Kendall and Ashton B. Carter , who is listed as
an Honorary Director at the Atlantic Council.
On the 26th and 27th of June 2017 Mifsud attended the 10th annual council meeting of the
European Council on Foreign
Relations . Also present at the event was David Koranyi , the Director of the Atlantic Council's Energy
Diplomacy Initiative. George Soros also appeared at the meeting along with his son, Alex
Soros.
The Involvement Of Think Tanks In "Pay For Play" Propaganda Peddling
The Atlantic Council is a NATO-supported think tank that is known for pushing pro European
Union, anti-Russia narratives, including " black propaganda " claiming that Russia was likely involved with
attempts to "hack" the 2016 US Presidential Elections and that Wikileaks is a pawn of the
Russian government. However,
Disobedient Media has previously reported that the Atlantic Council and other think tanks
have a troubling history of taking money from foreign special interest groups and government
agencies in return for pushing propaganda to support various initiatives around the globe.
The New York Times has named the
Atlantic Council along with the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International
Studies as being think tanks which have made undisclosed "agreements" with foreign
governments. The article denounced the Atlantic Council for having "opened a whole new window
into an aspect of the influence-buying in Washington that has not previously been exposed."
Multiple legal experts cited by the New York Times said that these relationships with foreign
powers may constitute a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act .
In May 2016, a report by the Associated
Press identified the Atlantic Council as one of a number of think tanks which had received
funding from the Ploughshares Fund. The Ploughshares Fund is financed by George Soros'
Open Society Foundation . A May 5, 2016 article by the New York Times revealed that the Ploughshares Fund was a major
player in efforts to sell the Iranian nuclear deal to the American public. The deal has been
generally criticized as a foreign policy
failure which resulted in the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran without any
concessions in return and has failed to prevent Iran from continuing to illegally test long range ICBM missiles in violation of both
the deal and international sanctions.
The Atlantic Council has released a number of glowing reviews of Soros' "philanthropic" work and proudly lists a jaw-dropping number of various
special interest groups, government agencies, foreign governments and well connected, wealthy
individual patrons among its donors. Highlights include the foundation of Ukranian oligarch
Victor Pinchuk, The Open Society Foundation, the United Arab Emirates, Bahaa Hariri, the
billionaire brother of Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.,
NATO, the United States Department of State, and Lockheed Martin Corporation. A donor list from 2015 also names the Turkish
Ministry of Energy & National Resources, whose head Berat Albayrak was the subject of leaks released by publishing giant
Wikileaks exposing increasing
political oppression in Turkey and the involvement of the Ministry in providing material support to the terror group ISIS.
The Brookings Institution's
Contributor List also mentions many of the same donors who fund the Atlantic Council.
Common supporters include Victor Pinchuk, The Open Society Foundation, The Rockefeller
Foundation, Lockheed Martin Corporation and The Boeing Company. Brookings has also played a
central role in helping to stoke the flames of the "Russiagate" story. Its staff includes
Benjamin Wittes , a Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institution who admitted to
leaking information given to him by James Comey about President Donald Trump to the New York Times .
The heavy emphasis placed on narrative pushing by the Atlantic Council and Brookings
Institution is hardly surprising and has only intensified in 2018. In May 2018, a panel
convened by the
Council on Foreign Relations openly endorsed the use of propaganda on Western populations
to combat what they claim to be "disinformation and fake news."
Consistent Interactions Create Concerns About Claims Of Collusion
The consistent interactions and connections between Mifsud and individuals tied to think
tanks with a vested interest in pushing specific policy narratives leads to skepticism about
claims that Russia systemically interfered with American elections. The damage that has been
done not only to the reputation of hardworking intelligence professionals but to the very
ideals of Western democracy internationally will take some time to fully repair.
While much attention has been given to the identities of the intelligence and government
officials involved with the "Spygate" scandal, very little has been said about the private
parties who may have used them for their own benefit. There is a plethora of international
groups such as the Open Society Foundation, NATO and other individuals and organizations around
the world which support these think tanks that have a proven history of pushing propaganda on
behalf of their beneficiaries. Mifsud's ties to such groups that support an internationalist
political agenda which has been disrupted by political events over the past several years raise
serious questions about the identities of the actual parties who interfered with democratic
processes and institutions in the United States.
Soros and his band of colluding commodities fund managers have done more damage in the world than any communist,
socialist, or American exceptionalist. These soulless pathological misers' need to accumulate endless wealth leads to their
trampling the rules and laws of free nations, bought off by their ownership of the regulatory apparatus.
I speak from first hand knowledge. This is no fantasy. What IS a fantasy is that it is any religion or group ("the
Rothschilds," "the Joos") who are behind this clique. It is the heads of the largest funds and money managers who work
together like sharks on the body politic. Some are Jews, but far more are not. Greed knows no religion, no country, no creed
or color.
Bill and Hillary are at the vanguard of this group. Bill's administration did more to abet the metastatisis of this group
than any other. Hillary tried to cash the IOU but failed because of her transparent venality, and Trump's appeal.
But, Trump isn't a pimple on their ass. He will come and go, and they will still be with us. They co-opt useful idiots like
Comey and McCabe, and will laugh as their heads, most deservedly roll. But until the corrupt financial complex is brought to
justice, nothing will change.
I don't normally write about historical anniversaries. They're usually well covered by a
plethora of writers much better than I. But today's date marks an event which intersects a
project I began working several months ago on the history of nuclear weapons and related
policies. Fifty five years ago, today, June 10, President John F. Kennedy delivered a
commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C. on what he considered to be the
most important matter of his time, indeed for all time: world peace. I read through it a couple
of months ago and found it to be well worth remembering, not only for its particular content,
but for the direction that Kennedy indicated in those remarks of where he wanted the world to
go in.
To begin with, Kennedy clearly rejected the kind of "peace" that the geopoliticians have
been taking us towards in recent years. "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we
seek?" he asked rhetorically. "Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of
war. Not a peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I'm talking about genuine peace
– the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living – the kind that enables
men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not
merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely in our time but
peace for all time."
Remember, this was about eight months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was very
acutely aware of the danger that nuclear weapons represented. Weapons of such power made no
sense, he said, and the accumulation of weapons that could never be used except to keep the
peace couldn't possibly be the only way, much less the most efficient way, to keep the peace.
"I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men," he said.
Kennedy called on his audience to not only look at the leadership of the then-Soviet Union,
but also to look inward at our own attitudes "as individuals and as a nation – for our
attitudes are as essential as theirs." He rejected the notion that peace was impossible. "By
defining our goal more clearly – by making is seem more manageable and less remote
– we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly
towards it."
Secondly, Kennedy rejected demonization of the Soviet Union. While he found Communism
repugnant, he said "we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements – in
science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage." He
also made a number of points which are even more relevant today. "Almost unique among the major
world powers we have never been at war with each other," he said. "And no nation in the history
of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World
War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or
sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two-thirds of its industrial base,
was turned into a wasteland – a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east
of Chicago."
Today, Kennedy went on, it is the US and the Soviet Union that are in the most danger of
devastation. "All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24
hours," he said. "So, let us not be blind to our differences," Kennedy advised, "but let us
also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which these differences can
be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe
for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit
this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all
mortal."
The remainder of Kennedy's remarks dealt with the arms control efforts of his administration
which culminated in his declaration that the US would no longer conduct nuclear tests in the
atmosphere. "Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty – but I hope
it will help us achieve one."
Glenn Seaborg, who was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission at the time, reports in his
1981 book "Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Test Ban," that the genesis of the speech came from a
discussion that Kennedy had with the journalist Norman Cousins. Cousins had been engaged in a
series of candid discussions with Khrushchev and had related the content of these discussions
to the White House. "I advocated making a breathtaking offer to the Russians and the President
said he would think about it..." Cousins recalled.
I was 23 when Kennedy died. I remember him as a rather ineffective president more popular
abroad than in the US who was elected through his father's adroit and ruthless use of his
money with labor union leaders and his mob connections. Kennedy had style but not a lot
of substance. Let us remember the filthy way he treated the beautiful and cultured woman
who had married down with him. The only really good thing one can say about him was that
Johnson was worse.
I don't know I quite admire the pragmatism to use the mob and zionist money to get
elected, but then once in office to turn round and attempt to destroy them because they
had that unhealthy power. Arrogant and inexperienced initially, but no lack of substance.
His comments on Vietnam, Algeria, the Middle East and the Soviet Union showed the
broader education his background allowed, and perhaps an Irishman's ability to understand
the underdog.
Tell me how he attempted to destroy the Zionists. Tell me. The underdog? Sentimental
claptrap. He was Joe Kennedy's son and like him was a Harvard man.
RFK was having the DoJ force the ZOA to register under the FARA Act, Ben Gurion resigned
over JFK's hostile relations with Israel, as well his pressure over Dimona. We know JFK
pledged to destroy the Israel lobby and his actions in office support this.
It would have been interesting to have seen what would have happened in regards to
Vietnam, the Cold War and the Middle East if JFK had served his second term, as it is you
and the world got LBJ.
I was 2 when Kennedy died so I have no memory of his administration. My dad, who
joined the John Birch Society after Goldwater lost in 1964, probably would have agreed
with you. It'll probably take me two years to go through the documents comprehensively
but the impression I have so far, on the nuclear issue at any rate, is of a president
struggling mightily to be in control of his presidency, rather than be controlled by
events and outside forces. But how completely can we really judge a presidency that was
cutoff after only two and-a-half years?
"Kennedy's assassination two months later brought to and end any chance of a follow
through on that treaty..."
Cui bono? Who benefits from that assassination? Nuclear weapons are very expensive and
we've done nothing but spend trillions more on them since and Obama wanted and Trump
wants to spend more.
JFK's approach for peace re-emerged in China around 2008 and is what Xi has been
promoting for some time, but what a difference - a one time speech by JFK before he is
assassinated vs. 10 years into a fully supported strategic plan that spans two different
leaders.
"The win-win strategy of opening up is the key foundation of win-win cooperation.
"Implementing the win-win strategy of opening up" was initiated in the "Proposals for the
11th Five-Year Plan on National Economy and Social Development" passed in the 5th Plenary
Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee. Inheriting and developing the concept of
"equality and mutual benefit," the proposals highlighted the strategic importance of
"mutual benefit and win-win outcomes." The Report to the 17th National Congress of the
CPC, mentioning "win-win outcomes" five times, promised that China would "unswervingly
follow a win-win strategy of opening up." When attending the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)
in October 2008, then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao delivered a speech entitling "Sharing
Weal and Woe, Promoting Mutual Benefit."
BEIJING -- Chinese President Xi Jinping has ratcheted down Beijing's heated rhetoric
and called on the government to expand its foreign policy agenda through cooperation and
diplomacy.
China should "promote the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes between
countries through dialogue and consultation and oppose the wilful use of threat of
force", Mr Xi said in a major policy address this weekend, said a report by the official
Xinhua news agency late on Saturday.
"We have advocated the building of a new type of international relations underpinned
by win-win cooperation," he told a meeting of top leaders convened by the Communist Party
to discuss foreign policy. China championed "a new vision featuring common,
comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security".
I believe there was more substance to Kennedy than is commonly known. A pivotal period in
his life was apparently the fall of 1951. He was still in the House of Representatives
but was preparing to run for the Senate against the incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge II. In
order to burnish his foreign policy credentials he and his brother
Robert, who was fresh out of law school, took a seven week trip to the Far East, South
Asia and perhaps other areas. Being the male offspring of Joe Kennedy it's hard to
believe they didn't atronize various fleshpots along the way, but they did serious work
as well, meeting with heads of government and chiefs of state such as Sukarno of
Indonesia and Nehru of India.
According to writers such as James Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable and
James DiEugenio in Destiny Betrayed , Kennedy came away from these encounters with
the assessment that most of these first generation leaders of the post-colonial era
genuinely sought to establish and nurture democratic institutions in their countries.
However in terms of economics they were at various points along the capitalist-socialist
spectrum. Kennedy appeared to have arrived at the view that it was in the best long-term
interest of the USA to nourish these countries efforts in this direction, and to do so
even in the cases of the ones whose economies were socializing considerable elements of
their economies. He also appeared to advocate not leaning them too forcefully to follow
in lock-step behind USA leadership in world affairs.
Kennedy defeated Lodge in November, 1952, no doubt with a lot of help from his
father's money and connections. That same election, however, installed General Eisenhower
as President and just as importantly the Dulles brothers as heads of the State Department
and the CIA.
In his book entitled The Brothers Stephen Kinzer describes how the
"self-righteous prude" and the "charming libertine" (as John Foster and Allen,
respectively, are characterized in the dust jacket blurb) capitalized on their close
sibling relationship and similar views to dominate the Republican administration's
foreign policy. With regard to the USSR and China that policy was Manichean, but in the
rest of the world, the economic colonialism that the USA had been practicing in Latin
America and the Philippines since the turn of the century was extended to south Asia and
Africa. According to the author, the brothers rarely went into a national security
meeting without coordinating their advocacy of their positions beforehand.
Kennedy's voice, albeit a muted one, was one of the few raised on the Senate floor in
opposition to the "If you're not with us you're against us" words and actions of the
Eisenhower/Dulles administration. After all JFK already had his eye on the Oval Office
and it was tactically unwise to deviate very far from the herd. One such occasion was
when he spoke out was in opposition the administration's decision not to send an observer
to the first ever conference of non-aligned countries at Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. The
USSR was not a participant but did send observers and was active in the lobbies when the
conference was not in session. Mainland China was a articipant.
One stop on JFK's and RFK's itinerary in 1951 was Saigon. As Douglass relates, they
were minded there by a young Foreign Service officer whom JFK had previously known from
school days named Edwin Gullion. Among the touring politician's appointments was one with
the commanding French general, who gave Kennedy a rosy presentation full of statistics on
how the French were winning and it would be only a matter of time until the Vietminh was
done for. That evening the two Kennedys and Gullion adjourned to the roof of the Hotel
Continental and at dinner Kennedy asked Gullion for his take on "what's really going on."
The diplomat debunked the French narrative saying the conflict was fundamentally one of
colonial liberation, that the Vietminh's adoption of communism was motivated mainly to
get the support of the USSR and China (it's my impression that as time went on the more
doctrinaire communists in the movement came to dominate) and also discussed the tenacity
and resilience the Vietnamese people had developed over centuries fighting off domination
from their neighbor to the north. Gullion also told the brothers how the revolving door
governments of metropolitan France of that era were losing the will and ability to
support the increasingly costly war. Finally he offered his opinion that if the USA got
directly involved we'd likely get worn down as well. Gullion's input made a profound
effect on the Kennedy brothers that they carried with them all the way into and through
JFK's presidency.
"... Soros and his band of colluding commodities fund managers have done more damage in the world than any communist, socialist, or American exceptionalist. These soulless pathological misers' need to accumulate endless wealth leads to their trampling the rules and laws of free nations, bought off by their ownership of the regulatory apparatus. ..."
"... I speak from first hand knowledge. This is no fantasy. What IS a fantasy is that it is any religion or group ("the Rothschilds," "the Joos") who are behind this clique. It is the heads of the largest funds and money managers who work together like sharks on the body politic. Some are Jews, but far more are not. Greed knows no religion, no country, no creed or color. ..."
"... Bill and Hillary are at the vanguard of this group. Bill's administration did more to abet the metastatisis of this group than any other. Hillary tried to cash the IOU but failed because of her transparent venality, and Trump's appeal. ..."
In the latest revelation concerning the "mysterious Maltese Professor," Joseph Mifsud, and
his involvement in the "Russiagate" saga, Disobedient Media can additionally reveal that Mifsud
interacted on a number of occasions with individuals tied to think tanks known for engaging in
"pay to play" behavior for the purposes of pushing specific policies on behalf of donors. The
involvement of these institutes, which include the Atlantic Council, Brookings Institute and
Open Society Foundation raises questions about whether or not certain private parties were
involved with efforts to target Donald Trump's presidential campaign for their own political
benefit.
Disobedient Media broke coverage of Joseph Mifsud's connections to UK intelligence and was
also the
first outlet to report on the findings of UK political analyst Chris Blackburn, who
recounted evidence that included reference to Mifsud's close relationship with Italian Senator
Gianni Pittella. Pittella has been deemed in leaked documents to be a "
reliable ally " of George Soros' Open Society Foundation.
Mifsud's Interaction With Think Tank Members
Joseph Mifsud has routinely and consistently interacted with various members of think tanks
and institutions that as a general rule support internationalist policies. In the aftermath of
the 2016 US Presidential Election, these interactions intensified as both think tanks and
establishment media outlets began to increase their coverage of alleged "Russian collusion"
narratives in an effort to justify ongoing investigations to the public.
On June 21st and 22nd, 2009, Mifsud was listed as a participant in the Italian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs-hosted " G8 and
Beyond " convened with the Brookings Institution, Aspen, Club de Madrid and LINK Campus.
The event was also attended by Strobe Talbott, the President of the Brookings Institution.
Disobedient Media has previously highlighted research by Chris Blackburn, tying members of
cyber-security firm Crowdstrike to the LINK Campus in Rome. Crowdstrike founder Dmitri
Alperovitch acts as a
Senior Fellow for the Atlantic Council .
Mifsud has routinely aligned himself with pro-European Union parties and attended multiple
events where members of the Atlantic Council and Open Society Foundation were also involved
within the last several years. On June 28, 2016, Mifsud was listed as a signatory to a
statement released by the European Council on
Foreign Relations (ECFR) in response to the UK's Brexit vote. Other signatories included
David Koranyi , Director of the Atlantic
Council's Eurasian Energy Future Initiative, Jordi Vaquer , Director of the Open Society Initiative for
Europe, Goran Buldioski , Director of the
Open Society Initiative For Europe and George Soros. Since March 2018, the ECFR has removed Mifsud from
their List of Members in
an apparent attempt to distance themselves from this troubling affiliation.
On May 7th through May 9th, 2017, Mifsud was a participant in a panel discussion as part of
the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation-sponsored " G7 International
Forum " at the LINK Campus in Rome along with Andrea Montanino , a Chief Economist at the Atlantic Council.
On May 21st, 2017, Mifsud spoke at the Riyadh Forum On
Countering Extremism And Fighting Terrorism hosted by the King Faisal Center for Research
and Islamic Studies and the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition. The event also
featured multiple speakers from the Atlantic Council, including Nonresident Senior Fellow
Elisabeth Kendall and Ashton B. Carter , who is listed as
an Honorary Director at the Atlantic Council.
On the 26th and 27th of June 2017 Mifsud attended the 10th annual council meeting of the
European Council on Foreign
Relations . Also present at the event was David Koranyi , the Director of the Atlantic Council's Energy
Diplomacy Initiative. George Soros also appeared at the meeting along with his son, Alex
Soros.
The Involvement Of Think Tanks In "Pay For Play" Propaganda Peddling
The Atlantic Council is a NATO-supported think tank that is known for pushing pro European
Union, anti-Russia narratives, including " black propaganda " claiming that Russia was likely involved with
attempts to "hack" the 2016 US Presidential Elections and that Wikileaks is a pawn of the
Russian government. However,
Disobedient Media has previously reported that the Atlantic Council and other think tanks
have a troubling history of taking money from foreign special interest groups and government
agencies in return for pushing propaganda to support various initiatives around the globe.
The New York Times has named the
Atlantic Council along with the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International
Studies as being think tanks which have made undisclosed "agreements" with foreign
governments. The article denounced the Atlantic Council for having "opened a whole new window
into an aspect of the influence-buying in Washington that has not previously been exposed."
Multiple legal experts cited by the New York Times said that these relationships with foreign
powers may constitute a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act .
In May 2016, a report by the Associated
Press identified the Atlantic Council as one of a number of think tanks which had received
funding from the Ploughshares Fund. The Ploughshares Fund is financed by George Soros'
Open Society Foundation . A May 5, 2016 article by the New York Times revealed that the Ploughshares Fund was a major
player in efforts to sell the Iranian nuclear deal to the American public. The deal has been
generally criticized as a foreign policy
failure which resulted in the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran without any
concessions in return and has failed to prevent Iran from continuing to illegally test long range ICBM missiles in violation of both
the deal and international sanctions.
The Atlantic Council has released a number of glowing reviews of Soros' "philanthropic" work and proudly lists a jaw-dropping number of various
special interest groups, government agencies, foreign governments and well connected, wealthy
individual patrons among its donors. Highlights include the foundation of Ukranian oligarch
Victor Pinchuk, The Open Society Foundation, the United Arab Emirates, Bahaa Hariri, the
billionaire brother of Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.,
NATO, the United States Department of State, and Lockheed Martin Corporation. A donor list from 2015 also names the Turkish
Ministry of Energy & National Resources, whose head Berat Albayrak was the subject of leaks released by publishing giant
Wikileaks exposing increasing
political oppression in Turkey and the involvement of the Ministry in providing material support to the terror group ISIS.
The Brookings Institution's
Contributor List also mentions many of the same donors who fund the Atlantic Council.
Common supporters include Victor Pinchuk, The Open Society Foundation, The Rockefeller
Foundation, Lockheed Martin Corporation and The Boeing Company. Brookings has also played a
central role in helping to stoke the flames of the "Russiagate" story. Its staff includes
Benjamin Wittes , a Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institution who admitted to
leaking information given to him by James Comey about President Donald Trump to the New York Times .
The heavy emphasis placed on narrative pushing by the Atlantic Council and Brookings
Institution is hardly surprising and has only intensified in 2018. In May 2018, a panel
convened by the
Council on Foreign Relations openly endorsed the use of propaganda on Western populations
to combat what they claim to be "disinformation and fake news."
Consistent Interactions Create Concerns About Claims Of Collusion
The consistent interactions and connections between Mifsud and individuals tied to think
tanks with a vested interest in pushing specific policy narratives leads to skepticism about
claims that Russia systemically interfered with American elections. The damage that has been
done not only to the reputation of hardworking intelligence professionals but to the very
ideals of Western democracy internationally will take some time to fully repair.
While much attention has been given to the identities of the intelligence and government
officials involved with the "Spygate" scandal, very little has been said about the private
parties who may have used them for their own benefit. There is a plethora of international
groups such as the Open Society Foundation, NATO and other individuals and organizations around
the world which support these think tanks that have a proven history of pushing propaganda on
behalf of their beneficiaries. Mifsud's ties to such groups that support an internationalist
political agenda which has been disrupted by political events over the past several years raise
serious questions about the identities of the actual parties who interfered with democratic
processes and institutions in the United States.
Soros and his band of colluding commodities fund managers have done more damage in the world than any communist,
socialist, or American exceptionalist. These soulless pathological misers' need to accumulate endless wealth leads to their
trampling the rules and laws of free nations, bought off by their ownership of the regulatory apparatus.
I speak from first hand knowledge. This is no fantasy. What IS a fantasy is that it is any religion or group ("the
Rothschilds," "the Joos") who are behind this clique. It is the heads of the largest funds and money managers who work
together like sharks on the body politic. Some are Jews, but far more are not. Greed knows no religion, no country, no creed
or color.
Bill and Hillary are at the vanguard of this group. Bill's administration did more to abet the metastatisis of this group
than any other. Hillary tried to cash the IOU but failed because of her transparent venality, and Trump's appeal.
But, Trump isn't a pimple on their ass. He will come and go, and they will still be with us. They co-opt useful idiots like
Comey and McCabe, and will laugh as their heads, most deservedly roll. But until the corrupt financial complex is brought to
justice, nothing will change.
Fueling hysteria about "Russian disinformation," "Russian meddling," and "Russian
propaganda" has quickly become a lucrative pastime. Now NATO's Atlantic Council has gathered
the leading proponents under one umbrella.
"Russian's everywhere, everywhere Russians" – that's long been the mantra of NATO's
propaganda wing, the Atlantic Council. And, since 1961, the American lobby group's raison
d'être has been to convince the world that Moscow presents an existential threat to
the rest of Europe.
And as NATO has expanded, the "think tank's" agitprop has evolved from the "reds in the bed"
whispers of the Soviet-era to today's new racket: "disinformation."
This week, Atlantic Council
announced a new initiative known as the "DisinfoPortal."
Their latest wheeze is pitched as "an interactive online guide to track the Kremlin's
disinformation campaigns abroad." Something you can take to mean pretty much everything which
contradicts NATO-friendly messaging, whether accurate or not.
This is prophetic article, no question about it. "National neoliberalism" and interesting term.
Notable quotes:
"... Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. ..."
"... By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism. But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives, appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism differs most starkly from its European cousins. ..."
And why the world is about to get much more dangerous The election of Donald Trump "represents a triumph of neoliberal
thinking and values." (Photo: Carlo Allegri/ Reuters) Many writers and pundits are currently framing Trump's election in terms of
a dispossessed and disenfranchised white, male working class, unsatisfied with neoliberal globalization and the insecurity and hardship
it has unleashed -- particularly across regions of the United States that were formerly manufacturing powerhouses (like the Rust
Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, four states believed to have cost Hillary Clinton the election). While
there is much truth to this perspective and substantial empirical evidence to support it, it would be a mistake to see Trump's election
wholly in these terms.
"What Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state."
Trump's election is in some ways a neoliberal apex, an event that portends the completion of the U.S. government's capture by
wealthy corporate interests. While in my opinion Trump's election does not signal the beginning of a rapid descent into European-style
fascism, it appears to be a key stage in the ongoing process of American democratic disintegration. American democracy has been under
attack from large and wealthy corporate interests for a long time, with this process accelerating and gaining strength over the period
of neoliberal globalization (roughly the early 1970s to the present). This time period is associated with the rise of powerful multinational
corporations with economic and political might that rivals that of many national governments.
In terms of the political consequences of these trends in the U.S., certain thinkers have argued that the U.S. political system
is not democratic at all, but rather an "inverted totalitarian" system. Political commentator Chris Hedges notes: "Inverted totalitarianism
is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in
the faceless anonymity of the corporate state." Citing the American political theorist Sheldon Wolin, Hedges continues, "Unlike the
Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and poor, inverted
totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an insecure
workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers." Our inverted totalitarian system is one that retains the trappings
of a democratic system -- e.g. it retains the appearance of loyalty to "the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press,
[and] the independence of the judiciary" -- all the while undermining the capacity of citizens to substantively participate and exert
power over the system.
In my view, what Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate state. Trump gives inverted totalitarianism
a persona and a face, and perhaps marks the beginning of a transformation from inverted totalitarianism to totalitarianism proper.
In spite of this, it makes no sense to me to call the system toward which we are heading (that is, if we do not stand up and resist
with all our might right this second) "fascism" or to make too close comparisons to the Nazis. Whatever totalitarian nightmare is
on our horizon, it will be uniquely American. And it will bear a striking resemblance to the corporate oriented system we've been
living in for decades. Indeed, if the pre-Trump system of inverted totalitarianism solidified in the context of global neoliberalism,
the period we are entering now seems likely to be one characterized by what I call "national neoliberalism."
Trump's Election Doesn't Mean the End of Neoliberalism
Trump's election represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values. Perhaps most importantly, we should all keep in mind
the fact that Americans just elected a businessman to the presidency. In spite of his Wall Street background and billionaire status,
Trump successfully cast himself as the "anti-establishment" candidate. This configuration -- in which a top-one-percenter real estate
tycoon is accepted as a political "outsider" -- is a hallmark of neoliberal thinking. The fundamental opposition between market and
government is a central dichotomy in the neoliberal narrative. In electing Trump, American voters are reproducing this narrative,
creating an ideological cover for the closer connections between business and the state that are in store moving forward (indeed,
Trump is already using the apparatus of the U.S. federal government to promote his own business interests). As states and markets
further fuse in coming years, this representation of Trump and his administration -- as being anti-government -- will help immunize
his administration from accusations of too-cozy relationships with big business. Trump's attempts to "drain the swamp" by imposing
Congressional term limits and constraints on lobbying activities by former political officials will also help to hide this relationship.
(Has anyone else noticed that Trump only addresses half of the "revolving door," i.e., he plans to limit the lobbying of former politicians,
but not the political roles of businessmen?)
"Whatever totalitarian nightmare is on our horizon, it will be uniquely American."
Trump's Contract with the American Voter, his plan for the first 100 days in office, discusses policies and programs many of which
are consistent with neoliberal thinking. (I understand the term "neoliberalism" to emphasize at its core the importance of private
property rights, market-based social organization, and the dangers of government intervention in the economy.) Trump's plan redirects
the activities of the U.S. government along the lines touted by neoliberal "market fundamentalists" like Milton Friedman, who advocate
limiting government's role to market-supportive functions like national defense (defense stocks are doing very well since the election)
and domestic law and order (Trump's proposals have a lot to do with altering immigration policy to "restore security"). Trump also
plans to use government monies to revitalize physical infrastructure and create jobs. Other government functions, for example, health
care provision and education as well as protecting the environment and public lands, are open for privatization and defunding in
Trump's agenda. Under Trump, the scope of federal government activities will narrow, likely to infrastructure, national defense,
and domestic policing and surveillance, even if overall government spending increases (as bond markets are predicting).
Trump also seems content to take neoliberal advice in regard to business regulation (less is best) and the role of the private
sector in regulating itself (industry insiders understand regulatory needs better than public officials). Trump's plan for the first
100 days specifies "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated." As of the
time of this writing, his selection of cabinet appointees illustrate a broad willingness to appoint businesspeople to government
posts. As of mid-December 2016, a Goldman Sachs veteran, Steven Mnuchin, has been appointed Secretary of the Treasury; billionaire
investor Wilbur Ross has been appointed Secretary of Commerce; fossil fuel industry supporter and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott
Pruitt has been appointed as EPA administrator; and fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder has been appointed as Secretary of Labor. Trump's
business council is staffed by the CEOs of major U.S. corporations including JP Morgan Chase, IBM and General Motors. To be fair,
the "revolving door" between government and industry has been perpetuated by many of Trump's predecessors, with Trump poised to continue
the tradition. But this is not to say that neoliberalism will continue going in a "business as usual" fashion. The world is about
to get much more dangerous, and this has serious implications for patterns of global trade and investment.
Trump's Election Does Mean the End of Globalism
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan
outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself
as a global citizen. Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading
network. In other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized
system (this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization
trends around the world). I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape
of U.S. allies and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.
Trump's Contract with the American Voter outlines several policies that will make it more expensive and riskier to do business
abroad. All of these need not occur; I think that even one or two of these changes will be sufficient to alter expectations in business
communities about the benefits of certain cross-border economic relationships. Pulling the United States out of the TPP, along with
threats to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement and attempts to renegotiate NAFTA, is already signaling to other countries that
we are not interested in international cooperation and collaboration. A crackdown on foreign trading abuses will prompt retaliation.
Labelling China a currency manipulator will sour relations between the two countries and prompt retaliation by China. As Trump goes
forward with his anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, he will alienate the United States' traditional allies in
Europe (at least until Europe elects its own nationalist and xenophobic leaders) and communities across the Global South. The U.S.
election has already undermined performance in emerging markets, and bigoted rhetoric and policy will only increase anti-American
sentiment in struggling economies populated largely by people of color. Add to this the risk of conflict posed by any number of the
following: his antagonizing China, allying with Russia, deploying ground troops to stop ISIS, and pulling out of the Korean DMZ,
among other initiatives that seem likely to contribute to a more confrontational and violent international arena. All of this is
to say that Trump will not have to intervene directly in the affairs of business in order to nationalize it. The new global landscape
of conflict and risk, combined with elevated domestic spending on infrastructure and security, will bring U.S. business and investment
back home nonetheless.
National Neoliberalism and State-Market Relations
Fascist states are corporatist in nature, a state of affairs marked by a fusion of state and business functions and interests,
with an often significant role for labor interests as well. In the fascist states on the European continent in the 1930s and 1940s
-- systems that fall under the umbrella of "national socialism" -- the overwhelming power of the state characterized this tripartite
relationship. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin writes in Democracy, Inc. in regard to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy
(as well as Stalinist Russia), "The state was conceived as the main center of power, providing the leverage necessary for the mobilization
and reconstruction of society".
By contrast, in Trump's America -- where an emergent "national neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt
and obvious totalitarian politics -- we can expect a similar fusion of state and market interests, but one in which the marketplace
and big business have almost total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in this configuration). State
and market in the U.S. will fuse further together in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European fascism.
But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives,
appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the business community's need for protection abroad will bring
them closer. Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations are commanded to, but rather because the
landscape of risk and reward will shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be where a budding U.S. totalitarianism
differs most starkly from its European cousins.
Sasha Breger Bush is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado–Denver and author of Derivatives
and Development: A Political Economy of Global Finance, Farming, and Poverty (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
"... But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor will they ensure a freer and more just future. ..."
This article is from Dollars & Sense : Real World Economics, available at
http://www.dollarsandsense.org
Last winter, in the wake of the 2016 Presidential election, I wrote an article for
Dollars & Sense in which I argued that Trump's election represented a transition
toward "national neoliberalism" in the United States ("Trump and National Neoliberalism:
Trump's ascendance means the end of globalism -- but not of neoliberalism," January/February
2017).
I argued that this emergent state of affairs would be marked by a completion of the takeover
of the U.S. government by corporate interests. I saw the election of Trump -- a top
one-percenter and real estate tycoon firmly rooted in the culture and logic of big business,
who has somehow convinced many Americans that he is an anti-establishment "outsider" -- as an
"unmasking" of the corporate state, a revelation of the ongoing merger between state and market
that has arguably been ongoing since the 1970s. In short, I envisioned a movement away from
"global neoliberalism," a state of affairs characterized by the increasing preeminence of
transnational corporate capital in a relatively open global political-economic system, and
towards "national neoliberalism," a state of affairs in which transnational corporate dominance
is cemented in the context of an ever more fragmented and dangerous global system.
About ten years ago, political theorist Sheldon Wolin published Democracy
Incorporated , diagnosing American democracy with a potentially fatal corporate disease.
Referring to the specter of "inverted totalitarianism," Wolin writes in his preface:
Primarily it represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political
demobilization of the citizenry. Unlike the classic forms of totalitarianism [e.g. Germany,
Italy], which openly boasted of their intentions to force their societies into preconceived
totality, inverted totalitarianism is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or
objectified in public policy. Typically it is furthered by power-holders and citizens who often
seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions. There is a certain
heedlessness, an inability to take seriously the extent to which a pattern of consequences may
take shape without having been preconceived. Wolin paints a picture of a gradual process of
change in which many different actors, some wealthy and powerful and others not, unwittingly
push the country's politics, bit by bit in piecemeal fashion, towards an undemocratic,
corporate-controlled end. Many of these actors may have good intentions. Many of them may see
themselves as champions of the people. Many of them may actually speak out against the very
interests that they in other ways empower.
This framework for thinking about the plight of the United States, which has for me been
legitimated over and over again during Trump's first year in office, conditions how I think
about President Trump and the Republican Party, and how I think about our opportunities for
nonviolent social transformation, freedom, and social justice. It's hard not to point to
President Trump and blame him for our problems. He is a bigot who has struck out at immigrants,
Muslims, Arabs, African-Americans, Mexicans, women, LGBT people, and disabled people. He lacks
the basic knowledge of politics and foreign policy that are a necessary condition for competent
leadership. He picked up a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan in December 2016,
disrupting relations with China, and called North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un "short" and
"fat." He is a paranoid and narcissistic demagogue who has scorned and marginalized
journalists, and made the terms "fake news" and "alternative facts" household words. He is a
corrupt businessman who is using the levers of power that he controls to enrich Big Business,
as well as his cronies, his friends, and himself. I could go on.
It's also hard not to point to Republicans in Congress. After the election, there was hope
that the "never Trump" Republicans would win out and that Trump's agenda would be blocked. This
has not happened. While some in Congress, like Senators McCain (R-Ariz.), Corker (R-Tenn.),
Collins (R-Maine), Flake (R-Ariz.) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) have defied Trump in certain
contexts (e.g. on foreign policy), on many issues congressional Republicans have simply fallen
in line (e.g. with tax reform). Today, the Republican Party is often discussed by liberals in
the same breath as Trump, with everyone hoping for good news in 2018 and 2020.
But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of
American democracy rather than the cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially
problematic. Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible
for the country's ills, covers up the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided
over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the
U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are
currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality,
introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex,
defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. But
let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of
empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary
Americans.
President Obama presided over the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a process that
President Trump is continuing. As William Hartung recently reported in Mother Jones ,
"There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the massive U.S. arsenal: It has more to do
with the power and profits of weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic
considerations." President Obama also helped corporations get richer and more powerful in other
ways. He negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade deal that, if Trump had
not withdrawn us, would have expanded U.S. corporate access to overseas markets and given
multinational corporates new policy leverage over governments (via investor-state dispute
settlement mechanisms). (See Robin Brand, "Remembering the 'Tokyo No'," Dollars &
Sense , January/February 2015.) In 2012, as he was running for his second term, Obama
proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 28%, not much different from the bill just
passed by Congress. He also lobbied Congress for the $700 billion Wall Street bailouts after
the Great Recession, continuing on the policy path set by his Republican predecessor, President
Bush. (Obama received huge campaign contributions from finance, insurance, and real estate.) In
terms of income inequality, CNBC had to reluctantly conclude that the gap widened under Obama,
in spite of all his powerful rhetoric about equity and equality.
President Clinton negotiated and signed NAFTA into law, a trade agreement that created
hardship for millions of American manufacturing workers and farmers, and generated large
profits for multinational industrial and agricultural corporations. Clinton also pushed for
welfare reform, signing into law a "workfare" system that required recipients to meet strict
job and employment related conditions. Millions of people became ineligible for payments under
the new system, and poverty increased especially among households in which members were
long-term unemployed. Clinton's 1997 tax proposal advocated cutting estate taxes and capital
gains taxes, and did not favor lower-income Americans. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities noted, "Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the
Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same
amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a
tax plan proposed by a Democratic President."
All of this is to say that I'm considerably less excited about 2018 and 2020 than many
others -- on what counts as the U.S. left -- appear to be. Democratic Party victories at the
ballot box would certainly reduce some of the pressures on a variety of marginalized groups who
are suffering mightily under President Trump. This is, of course, a good thing. But, Democratic
victories will not "fix" the structural problems that underpin our current political crisis nor
will they ensure a freer and more just future.
I plan to support third-party candidates at the ballot box in coming years, in the hopes of
contributing to the creation of a new kind of political infrastructure that can help us to
unmake the corporate state.
SASHA BREGER-BUSH is an assistant professor of political science at the University of
Colorado–Denver.
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
"... I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green, but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone tells you it is possible he might have won. ..."
"... Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos) gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either. ..."
I saw a compelling statistic the other day. Apparently, 12% of Sanders supporters
eventually went on to vote Trump. If true, a very good argument can be made that this is by
far the biggest "upset factor" in the election. So why can't our MSM see that?
My initial reaction to Russia-gate still holds true today: It's an easy way to deflect
self-examination by the Dems on "why" they lost the election, while simultaneously smearing
Trump and the Russians all in the same sentence! I felt that, in a word, Russia-gate was
"bullshit".
Al Pinto , June 8, 2018 at 2:01 pm
Here's a link the referenced voting statistics for SOS (Sell Out Sanders):
"More important, in the three critical states that tipped the election, Sanders-to-Trump
voters ultimately gave Trump the margin he needed to win:
-- In Wisconsin, roughly 51K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 22K
votes.
-- In Michigan, roughly 47K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 10K
votes.
-- In Pennsylvania, roughly 116K Sanders voters backed Trump in a state he won by just 44K
votes."
Yes, Sanders could have run as independent and probably still won the election over RHC
and DJT, at least in my view
Disclaimer: I've changed my party affiliation just to vote for Sanders in the primary. To
say that I've been disappointed in him to cave in for HRC is an understatement .
mbob , June 8, 2018 at 3:01 pm
Sanders would *not* have won. The US and the media were not ready for a third-party
candidate in 2016. (Yes I know that Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992. Sanders might
have done better, but not enough better to win.)
Given that, he was damned either way. Had he run, your own numbers show he would have
taken more from Clinton than from Trump. Trump would still have won. And Sanders (and his
supporters) would have been blamed. There'd be no Russiagate: there'd be a Sandersgate. Given
the magnitude of the purely made up Russiagate hysteria, can you begin to imagine what the
democrats and the media would have done to Sanders and his supporters?
His political career would be over, but much more importantly, the Sanders-inspired
progressive movements would have been stopped before they could even start. The democratic
party would be even more Clinton-controlled and even more attached to their
neoliberal/globalist agenda. Instead, Sanders is the most popular politician in the US and
his supporters are growing in numbers and in strength. Sanders-inspired candidates and
Sanders-inspired initiatives are making inroads.
Given the failure in 2016 of the two-party system to produce a candidate that the public
wanted, it's even possible the US will be ready for a third-party candidate in 2020. It'd be
terrific if that candidate was Sanders or someone who shares his agenda.
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Alaska's 2018 race for governor is shaping up to be an actual 3-way race,
after former Senator Mark Begich threw his hat in the ring at the last minute,
filing as a Democratic candidate. Now the incumbent team of Bill Walker and
Byron Mallot are planning to run as Independents (they would have run on the
Democratic ticket if nobody filed). And there are several candidates jostling for
the Republican nomination. This will be an interesting litmus test for 2020 !
Al Pinto , June 8, 2018 at 4:36 pm
You are probably correct and it's been just my wishful thinking
On the other hand, the media had not been ready to accepted DJT for POTUS and yet, he has
been elected. This indicates that people have their own evaluation method, at least a sizable
number of them, instead of listening to the media.
Knowing that the MSM media is owned outright by oligarchs, it's hard to imagine that it
will ever be ready for a third-party candidate. While this might be acceptable on the state
level, the federal level probably requires more time than couple of years.
And even if the MSM will be ready in 2020, I would not vote for Sander. As the old saying
goes, "If you burn me once, shame on you "
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:45 pm
You spell out Sander's realistic decision with crystal clarity, something I've not seen
done so lucidly before. Sanders would have destroyed the progressive movement had he bolted
from the Democratic party, which he promised to support when he entered the campaign, thereby
giving the election to Trump. Trump won without any help from Bernie. In fact, all
indications are that Bernie would have won as a Democrat, but not yet as an independent.
Still far too much mindless loyalty (and chits owed) to the party. The Dems screwed
themselves by sabotaging his campaign to secure the nomination for the unpopular acid-tongued
Clinton. Now is when he should become the truthteller and deliver a full broadside against
Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and the other party insiders who are the actual culprits in
destroying the party's future with their attempted soft coup.
Sam F , June 8, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I suspect that Sanders knows that the DNC would not back him, because he is not pleasing
to their oligarchs. Likely he will continue to sheepdog liberals to the zionist/WallSt/MIC
candidate. So he is not what he seems, which is his job.
mbob , June 8, 2018 at 11:04 pm
Thank you. I agree that Sanders would likely have won had he been the Democratic nominee,
but not otherwise. I understand and share the profound disappointment many have that he's not
our president. But I don't understand the anger directed at him. Given that he wasn't
nominated, he had no choice but to do what he did. He didn't betray anyone. Nor did he cost
Clinton the election.
On the other hand, I *do* think that the Democratic party did betray us. So, after 40+
years of being a registered Democrat, I left the party and registered as Independent.
Lastly, why does Obama get a pass, but not Sanders? Sanders gets criticized in ways Obama
never was. Obama is an admitted globalist and neoliberal. The TPP he pushed so vigorously
would have been a betrayal of all Americans who work. Obama blatantly favored Clinton,
another neoliberal/globalist, as his successor.
Sanders, while admittedly imperfect, was on the right side of the TPP and most other
issues. He's worked with amazing vigor to revive the progressive movement that languished
under Obama. His efforts are receiving tangible results. Obama never did anything of the
sort. Neither did Biden, who may be Democrat's 2020 presidential candidate.
So why so much hostility toward Sanders and so little toward Obama?
Realist , June 9, 2018 at 1:35 am
I'm with you again on your analysis, mbob. I've been a registered Dem myself for fifty
years in three different states. I haven't changed my registration because I want to give
them a message in their primaries that the direction they have been taking is distinctly
wrong and will not be rewarded in the general elections. I don't think I will have much
impact in the coming campaign, however, based on the analysis by Mike Whitney (below) that
the Dems are currently skewing towards hard core military and intelligence agency candidates
and running away from progressives:
"The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its
progressive wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to
compete with Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal
politicians to center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader
plan to rebuild the party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall
Street, big business, and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to
eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should promote issues that are
important to working people and replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more
responsive to the needs of business. The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to
create a center-right superparty comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the
national security state who can be depended on to implement the regressive policies required
by their wealthy contributors. Here's more background from Patrick Martin at the World
Socialist Web Site " (Citation attached)
Whitney doesn't give Sanders a pass, basically characterising him as a Judas goat
misleading progressives to vote for neoliberal Wall Street candidates, as SamF says. But
then, he doesn't give Obama or Biden a pass either. Actually, there is a lot of "dislike" out
there for Obama and the whole crew he recruited into his administration, e.g., Biden,
Clinton, Gates, Rice, Power, Carter and Nuland, gangsters all. They campaigned as progressive
peaceniks but proved themselves to be neoliberal warmongers. I will never vote for their ilk
again even if Bernie begs pretty please. I don't follow messiahs or party orders. Bernie
still has the support of his people who are NOT mainstream Dems of this era, but that faction
of the party has little clout regardless of their appeal at the ballot box.
Skip Scott , June 9, 2018 at 7:05 am
Mbob-
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
"... our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ..."
"... The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. ..."
"... "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home." ..."
"... "Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , ..."
"... "The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side. ..."
A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals
don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that
their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed
crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed
authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and
occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous
governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed,
sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.
Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49
nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as
"dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba,
and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about
Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent
of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba,
Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most
politically aware people," Whitney wrote:
"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for
foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military
assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi
Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our
nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our
government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They
are the rule ."
The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated
from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with
misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious
right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .
The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is
that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home
while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked
invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the
twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic.
She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the
helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at
home."
"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian
Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template
for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red
Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on
the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows
in his latest book, In the Shadows of the
American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process --
internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices abroad and
justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" -- has recurred ever since. Today, the
rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National Security Agency has
cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and Obama44, not just
under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as beyond the
U.S.
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever
been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary
dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless
Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the
rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on
our side.
The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its progressive
wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to compete with
Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal politicians to
center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader plan to rebuild the
party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall Street, big business,
and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning
candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people and
replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more responsive to the needs of business. The
ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised
almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to
implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors. Here's more
background from Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as
widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as
many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power
in the lower chamber of Congress .
it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters
or other "left"-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the
221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as
"progressive." None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election." ("The CIA
Democrats, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right
functionaries who will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade
policy, and supporting the foreign wars. This new wave of fiscally-conservative Democrats will
execute their tasks in a party that serves as the political wing of the federal bureaucracy.
Democrat leaders have long-abandoned the idea that a party should be a vehicle for political
change. Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists
and liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions that impact corporate
profitability. Here's more on the Dems' attack on its liberal base from an article by Patrick
Martin:
"The New Jersey Democratic Party establishment successfully imposed its choice in
contested congressional nominations, brushing aside several candidates backed by Bernie
Sanders and his Our Revolution group. Nearly every Sanders-backed candidate in other states
-- for governor of Iowa and congressional seats in Iowa, Montana New Mexico and California --
suffered a similar fate." ("US primary elections in eight states confirm rightward shift by
Democratic Party", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
As a result "Only a handful of candidates running under the Bernie Sanders banner survived
primaries held in six states on Tuesday. As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates
endorsed by Our Revolution -- - had been declared winners." (USA Today)
Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon. Even so,
Sanders role vis a vis the Democratic Party has always been a bit of a ruse. Here's how author
Tom Hall sums it up:
"The major political function of Sanders' campaign is to divert the growing social
discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to
contain and dissipate it. His supposedly 'socialist' campaign is an attempt to preempt and
block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class." ("Is Bernie Sanders a
socialist?", July 16, 2015), Tom Hall, World Socialist Web Site)
Sanders task will become increasingly more difficult as progressives realize that
the Dems are building a party apparatus that sees activism as a fundamental threat to their
strategic objective, which is to create a secure environment where business can flourish.
Sanders has helped the party by seducing leftists with his fake liberalism, but he has
undermined the aims of working people who need an independent organization to advance their own
political agenda. As long as Sanders continues to sell his populist snake oil from a Democratic
soapbox, liberals are going to continue to hope that the party can be transformed into an
instrument for progressive change. The evidence, however, suggests the party is moving in the
opposite direction. Here's more from Patrick Martin's:
"The Democratic Party's promotion of a large number of military-intelligence candidates
for competitive districts represents an insurance policy for the US ruling elite. In the
event of a major swing to the Democrats, the House of Representatives will receive an influx
of new members drawn primarily from the national security apparatus, trusted servants of
American imperialism The preponderance of national security operatives in the Democratic
primaries sheds additional light on the nature of the Obama administration (which) marked the
further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party .
The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that
takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and
representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and
covert, on behalf of American imperialism. .
The upper-middle-class layer that provides the "mass" base of the Democratic Party has
moved drastically to the right over the past four decades, enriched by the stock market boom,
consciously hostile to the working class, and enthusiastically supportive of the
military-intelligence apparatus which, in the final analysis, guarantees its own social
position against potential threats, both foreign and domestic. It is this social evolution
that now finds expression on the surface of capitalist politics, in the rise of the
military-intelligence "faction" to the leadership of the Democratic Party." ("The CIA
Democrats", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
The dramatic metamorphosis of the Democratic party hasn't taken place in a vacuum but in a
fractious and politically-charged environment where elements within the intelligence community
and law enforcement (FBI) are attempting to roll back the results of the 2016 presidential
elections because their preferred candidate (Hillary Clinton) did not win. And while these
agencies have not yet produced any hard evidence that their claims (of collusion with Russia)
are true, there is mounting circumstantial evidence that senior-level officials at these
agencies were actively trying to entrap members of the Trump campaign to justify more intrusive
surveillance in the hopes of uncovering incriminating evidence that could be used in
impeachment proceedings.
As more information surfaces, and we learn more about the "unmasking", wiretapping, National
Security Letters, FISA warrants, paid informants and other surveillance abuses that were
directed at the Trump campaign, we should think back to 2005 when the New York Times first
reported that the National Security Agency had been eavesdropping on Americans inside the
United States "without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."
("Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts", New York Times) That incident was reported
just 13 years ago and already we can see that the infrastructure for a permanent Orwellian
police-state –that uses its extraordinary powers of surveillance to sabotage the
democratic process and maintain its stranglehold on power– has already arisen in our
midst. And while Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already
being used against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and
their military allies so they continue to prosecute their war against personal liberty and the
American people.
"The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty
comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be
depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors."
If by "regressive" you mean a move away from a mixed economy to a more fundamentalist
market-based approach, then yeah, I would agree.
"Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists and
liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions "
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do with
economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality. The
cultural-Marxist troika.
" Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already being used
against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and their
military allies "
You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their
warmongering in the liberal media. Currently the Democrats are inflamed with identity
politics; more than likely this infection will continue to fester for another two election
cycles. Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict,
civil war.
The Democrat party is a high-low coalition of the fringes. The ultra rich use the poor to
attack the middle so they can distract everyone else from uniting and doing something like
raising taxes on the rich or deporting minorities to democrat neighborhoods. So, it's not
surprising that the high part of the coalition would strike back.
This only further strengthens my desire to see a secession movement. When statist
democrats are in power, they will surely abuse this growing national security state to keep
us down. It's time to break up the USSA ASAP before it's too late.
"Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should
promote issues that are important to working people."
Note to M. Whitney: the New Deal coalition is dead. Left/Progressives today despise
working people. Didn't you get the memo? Working people are deplorable! Antifa, BLM, the
Women's Studies Dept, the sex lobby, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore – they all hate working
people.
"Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right functionaries who
will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade policy, and supporting
the foreign wars."
Note to M. Whitney: Progressives today love free trade and advocate war against Russia.
Didn't you notice when pro-war progressives kicked you off the Counterpunch website? Today's
Progressives love War! Punch the Nazi!
"Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon"
Note to M. Whitney: The progressive bandwagon exists solely for identity politics
hysteria, and it is not derailed. Haven't you noticed the race and gender, baiting and
slander bandwagon barreling down the highway? It's getting louder all the time.
Stop holding out hope that someday there will be a groundswell of progressives on the left
who are on the side of the little guy. Progressives are an elite crowd of identity politics
ideologues. Radical reformers are misanthropes – they don't like social norms because
they don't like basic human nature. They will never like working stiffs. They will never care
about 3rd world villagers getting bombed.
The fault line here is race and gender politics. You are on the right side on war and
economic issues and you are on the wrong side on race/sex/gender issues. Don't blindly accept
the dogma that differing group outcomes are caused by Bad White Males. Trust in facts and
reason. Don't feel you have to grovel because you're white or male. Change your mind on these
issues – it's called learning.
It brings power to its practitioners. Which is the whole point.
You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their
warmongering in the liberal media
Why wouldn't they? Warmongering has been a "liberal" preoccupation for a century, since
the income-taxing suffragist Wilson. Remember Bob Dole's "Kinsley gaffe" in the 1976 debate
with Walter Mondale.
"... A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely source of today's leafletting. ..."
DOJ Watchdog Finds Comey "Defied Authority" And Was "Insubordinate"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/06/2018 - 22:44 763 SHARES
The Department of Justice's internal watchdog has found that James Comey defied authority
several times while he was director of the FBI,
according to ABC , citing sources familiar with the draft of a highly anticipated OIG
report on the FBI's conduct during the Clinton email investigation .
One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word "insubordinate" to
describe Comey's behavior . Another source agreed with that characterization but could not
confirm the use of the term.
In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's
personal email server, the sources said. -
ABC
President Trump complained on Tuesday of "numerous delays" in the release of the Inspector
General's report, which some have accused of being slow
walked or altered to minimize its impact on the FBI and DOJ.
"What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery
James Comey," Trump said on Twitter. "Hope report is not being changed and made weaker!"
"It's been almost a year and a half and it is time that Congress receives the IG report,"
said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who has been on the front lines of the battle against
the DOJ and FBI's stonewalling of lawmakers requesting documentation. "This has gone on long
enough and the American people's patience is wearing thin. We need accountability," said
DeSantis.
Another congressional official, who's been fighting to obtain documents from the DOJ and
FBI, said it is no surprise that they are putting pressure on Horowitz. According to the
official, "They continue to slow roll documents, fail to adhere to congressional oversight
and concern is growing that they will wait until summer and then turn over documents that are
heavily redacted."
ABC reports that there is no indication Trump has seen - or will see - the draft of the
report prior to its release. Inspector General Horowitz, however, could revise the draft report
now that current and former officials have offered their responses to the report's conclusions,
according to the sources.
The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring
objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days
before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe,
according to sources . Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.
Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official
told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate
longstanding department policy , and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the
disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told. -
ABC
During an April interview, Comey was asked by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos "If
Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter, would you have sent it?"
"No," replied Comey. "I believe in the chain of command."
Deputy Attorney General slammed Comey's letter to congress while recommending that Trump
fire Comey last year - saying it "was wrong" for Comey "to usurp the Attorney General's
authority" when he revealed in July 2016 that he would not be filing charges against Hillary
Clinton or her aides (many of whom were granted immunity).
"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement," Rosenstein wrote in a
letter recommending that Comey be fired. "At most, the Director should have said the FBI had
completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
The draft OIG report dings Comey for not consulting with Lynch and other senior DOJ
officials before making his announcement on national TV. Furthermore, while Comey said there
was no "clear evidence" that Hillary Clinton "intended to violate" the law, he also said that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her "handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information."
And as we now know, Comey's senior counterintelligence team at the FBI made
extensive edits to Clinton's exoneration letter, effectively decriminalizing her behavior
.
"I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice
or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say," Comey said on
live TV July 5, 2016.
By then, Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI's
recommendations in the case, after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton
sparked questions about her impartiality.
Comey has defended his decisions as director, insisting he was trying to protect the FBI
from even further criticism and "didn't see that I had a choice." -
ABC
"The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but ... I think given what I knew at
the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the
institutions," Comey told ABC News. " I still think it was the right thing to do. "
Comey is currently on a tour promoting his new book, " A Higher Loyalty."
About that delay...
As many wonder just where the OIG report is after supposedly being "finished" for a while,
the Washington Examiner 's Chief political correspondent, Byron York, offers some keen insight
(tweeted before details of the draft were leaked):
• Byron York
A series of tweets on what to expect from the much-anticipated inspector general report on
DOJ/FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation... 1/
10:42 AM - Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
First, looks like it might be delayed yet again. Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a June
5 hearing to discuss IG report.
After delay, had to be rescheduled for next Monday, June 11.
Now looks like might be delayed again.
10:42 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Why delays? Feet are clearly being dragged. There are snags over classified information.
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information, interviewed
new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about. 3/
10:43 AM-Jun6, 2018
Byron York
@ByronYork
Replying to @ByronYork
So, when IG report is finally released-looking like mid-June -- what will it cover? Don't
know its conclusions, but here are some subjects you can expect to be reading about: 4/
10:43 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of 6/27/16 Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting on tarmac in Arizona. IG has
done extensive investigation.
What was said? What were the intentions of those involved? Expect it to be covered
carefully. 5/
10:44 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of James Comey's decision to begin drafting an exoneration memo for
Hillary Clinton long before the FBI had even interviewed her, or at least a dozen other key
figures in the case.
Also: Why hand out so much immunity? 6/
10:45 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Comey's intentions when he announced reopening of Clinton investigation
on 10/28/16, shortly before election day. Democrats specifically asked IG to investigate
that.
10:45 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of Clinton
emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on information? If so, why?
What did Comey know? 8/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion on rationale for Comey's controversial 7/5/16 statement announcing no
charges would be filed against Clinton.
To say it was unorthodox would be an understatement. What was he doing? 9/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Lynch's refusal to recuse herself from investigation or to appoint
special counsel. Plus, look for discussion of why McCabe waited so long to recuse himself
even after public reporting of Clinton-related political contributions to his wife. 10/
10:47 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Finally, don't expect to learn much new about McCabe 'lack of candor' situation re:
leaks.
Not clear whether IG will reveal much beyond what has already been released in wake of
McCabe firing. End/
10:48 AM-Jun 6, 2018
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information,
interviewed new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about.
How many more new witnesses with new information will crawl out of the woodwork at the
most opportune moment to delay releasing the report. I'm guessing they interviewed McCabe's
hairdresser at Sport Clips to see which direction he combs.
If the strongest language in this report to describe Comey's actions is merely
"insubordinate" and "defied authority", then it's a big, fat, nothingburger... Not a GD thing
is going to happen, lift rug, sweep vigorously...
If the blue team leaked this, then they're trying to get ahead of damaging
information. If it's the red team, then you're right Keyser and a behind the scenes agreement has been
reached letting both teams off the hook for some unleaked transgression.
"Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of
Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on
information"
I wouldn't sit on anything related to Weiner or his LAPtop.
A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated
directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely
source of today's leafletting.
Your lips to God's ears! This is ridiculous! Insubordinate? That's it? 90% of the people in DC need a good wearing out with a belt! This politically correct nonsense has to end. Call it what it is you lily-livered pansies!
It's treason and sedition. It's a den of snakes!
You want to see America bounce back as a strong and proud nation? START HANDING OUT REAL
PUNISHMENT! Otherwise, it will be the same old sleazy crap over and over again.
agree...that's why we need to stay diligent and demand the proper dissemination of the
impartial facts...
with McCabe seeking immunity...and Comey playing 'Patriot'...and Brennon being and old
lair...and Clapper portraying all previous actions were 'honorable'...we have to ask
ourselves a question...
Anything I hear/see involving Clapper and Brennan I figure is a fictitious psyop. Brian
Cox and Albert Finney already portrayed them in the Bourne films.
SEVERAL Ex FBI agents and current FBI Agents are BEGGING to be subpoenaed, WHY hasn't this
happened, THEY want this MESS OUT in the open, yet TRUMP does nothing?. I would have Congress
do it asap, under OATH and with Criminal repercussions. Horowitz is a EUNUCH.
Exactly. That's why Lockheed Martin paid him $6 million a year. Does anyone think they hired him for his abilities as an attorney when he lacked any
experience in corporate law? Then he went on to Ray Dalio's Bridgewater associates. Wonder how much they paid him
there. What experience did he have for working as an attorney for a hedge fund?
Then he leaves these extremely lucrative jobs to go back to government at $170,00 a
year.
I'd be insubordinate too if Satan's Slut Hillary was breathing hellfire down my neck.
Comey probably likes living as much as the rest of us. Now that the noose is getting tighter,
will he give up the slut???? Hopefully a few of these pukes will turn on her in unison. The
Magical Homo will be tougher to snare.
The former ever-so-sanctimonious FBI Director, classified document leaker and Clinton
water boy Jimmy Comey was "Insubordinate?" Who could have guessed? But remember, Trump fired
the asswipe in order to "obstruct justice." Jail Jimmy without delay.
While we are on the subject, this shows you the type of "friends" that Saint Mueller
keeps.
If reports are true, then IG Horowitz is fudging Coney-Lynch's real crimes; namely the
events leading up to the July whitewash of Killary which include drafting the exoneration
letter before interviewing Clinton, twisting the facts to decriminalize Clinton's offenses
and pressuring FBI agents to alter reports regarding the Clinton investigation.
If the IG brushes past these matters, whatever else he says is worthless. Just tarnishes
Comey's image a tad bit and will be forgotten.
This sounds like they are trying to decriminalize Comey's actions, not indict him. How the fuck does the headline equate
to a criminal charge? Maybe they (OIG) are trying to let this asshole off the hook? What's he going to get? A severe tongue
lashing because he was insubordinate?
Neoliberals are a flavor of Trotskyites and they will reach any depths to hang on to power.
Notable quotes:
"... Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving money to their friends. ..."
"... Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us. ..."
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful
groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving
money to their friends.
And when the conservative "Christians" form a neoliberal government, the results are toxic for all, except themselves and their
coterie.
Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake
parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us.
Neoliberals are a flavor of Trotskyites and they will reach any depths to hang on to power.
Notable quotes:
"... Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving money to their friends. ..."
"... Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us. ..."
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful
groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving
money to their friends.
And when the conservative "Christians" form a neoliberal government, the results are toxic for all, except themselves and their
coterie.
Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake
parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us.
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super
PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities"
in 2018. According to a New York Times
report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica,
the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence
voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave
millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.
There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the
personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was
using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC
received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we
were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."
What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of
the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed
and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told
the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he
added.
"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering
advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The
relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up
talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.
"... Hopefully that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but only discuss one of those investigations in public . ..."
A Higher Loyalty drops on Tuesday, but, in keeping with longstanding publishing tradition, the good bits have already been
selectively leaked to outlets in advance. We've learned that the former FBI director compares Trump to
a mafia boss , that
Trump's "leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty," and that Comey admits that the widespread belief that
Clinton would become president may have
played a role in his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening an investigation into her use of a private email server
less than two weeks before the election.
We also learn that Trump was
obsessed
with the "pee tape," the most salacious allegation in the infamous Steele Dossier. Comey writes that Trump "strongly denied the
allegations, asking -- rhetorically, I assumed -- whether he seemed like a guy who needed the service of prostitutes. He then began
discussing cases where women had accused him of sexual assault, a subject I had not raised. He mentioned a number of women, and seemed
to have memorized their allegations."
Trump took the bait, sending out two tweets attacking Comey on Friday morning.
James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he
did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under
OATH. He is a weak and.....
....untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI. His handling of the Crooked Hillary
Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst "botch jobs" of history. It was my great honor to
fire James Comey!
But of course, Trump admitted, only days after Comey's dismissal, that he really fired Comey over the Russia investigation.
... ... ...
The Republicans are scared of James Comey.
The Republican National Committee just unveiled a new website, LyinComey.com
, to counter whatever allegations the former FBI director levels against President Donald Trump in his new book, which goes on sale
next week. As CNN reports, the RNC is also buying digital ads and sending talking points sent to GOP politicians. This counter-information
campaign is a sign of how worried Republicans are about Comey's potential to inflict political damage -- and is wholly unconvincing.
For example, the RNC's Comey site says that he "stated under oath that he never posed as an anonymous source to leak information
to the press," then notes that he "later testified that he 'asked a friend of [his] to share the content of the memo with a reporter.'"
The presentation makes these two factual statements seem contradictory when they're not. Comey
testified in a May 3, 2017, congressional hearing that he had never been an anonymous source; he
told lawmakers
the following June that he sent his bombshell memos to The New York Times through an intermediary only after his
May 9 ouster.
Those memos laid the groundwork for allegations that Trump obstructed justice by firing the FBI director. "Comey may use his book
tour to push the phony narrative that President Trump obstructed the Russia investigation," the website warns, citing Comey's testimony
last June in which he said Trump never ordered him to halt the Russia investigation. The framing is somewhat misleading, since legal
experts believe the obstruction question
instead revolves
around Comey's firing itself.
The website's release comes after Comey taped an interview with ABC News that's set to air on Sunday night. Axios
quoted an unnamed source present during the interview who said that Comey "answered every question" posed to him. Hopefully
that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and
the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but
only discuss one of those investigations in public .
The
New York Times
reported on Monday that federal agents seized "records related to several topics including
payments to a pornographic-film actress," presumably referring to the $130,000 payments Cohen
made to Stephanie Clifford -- who is known professionally as Stormy Daniels -- during the 2016
campaign. According to the Times , the search warrants were obtained by the federal
prosecutor in Manhattan after receiving a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller.
Executing a search warrant against any attorney's office, let alone a personal lawyer for
the president of the United States, is no small matter. Attorney and legal blogger Ken White
noted that
the federal guidelines require prosecutors
to seek approval from the Justice Department's upper echelons before applying for a warrant
targeting a lawyer's office. That DOJ officials approved the raid suggests that the U.S.
attorney's office in Manhattan had an extremely good reason to search Cohen's workplace.
This is the first public indication that Cohen is involved in a federal investigation that's
unrelated to Mueller's inquiry into Russian election meddling. The Washington Post
reported last month that Mueller had
requested documents and other materials related to Russian interference, but added that
there was "no indication" that Cohen is a subject or target of the special counsel's
investigation.
That'll likely come as little relief to Cohen himself as he now faces a federal
investigation of his own. One possible avenue of inquiry for federal prosecutors is whether the
president compensated Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Clifford during the 2016 campaign as
part of a non-disclosure agreement about her alleged past sexual liaisons with Trump. If he
wasn't reimbursed, Cohen may have run
afoul of federal campaign-finance laws, since the payment could be considered an in-kind
donation to Trump's campaign beyond the individual legal limit.
Such a deep provisionalism and burning desire to revive McCarthyism. "Russians under each bed" type of story... To
this guy if you are not CIA agent, then you agent of GRU or FSB. And he does not understand that Manafort essentially pushed
Yanukovich into Joe Biden hands.
If we consider all people who left Ukraine after EuroMaydan as Putin's agents, then it is unclear how EuroMaydan managed to
sucessed with such an wast netwrok of Russian spies.
Also it is unknown to Foer that Yanukovich was a moderate Ukrainian nationalist, who flirted w and supported far right parties
such as Svoboda and organizations, rise of which under his Presidency was the instrumental in his demise.
But
then
, last winter, Robert Mueller described Kostya as a "long-time Russian colleague of Manafort's" with "ties to a
Russian intelligence service." The reference came in a casual aside, buried in a brief arguing that Manafort should be
subjected to stringent bail conditions. It was a strange way to inject such a crucial fact. But Mueller
repeated
the allegation a few months later, as if to remove ambiguity. These ties weren't vestiges of a distant past,
but were said to be active through 2016. In a footnote, Mueller asked for permission to submit evidence substantiating the
charge in a sealed filing.
All the while, Manafort and Kilimnik remained attached to each other. During the past few months, Manafort's
inner circle has collapsed. Rick Gates, his primary American deputy for the past decade, pleaded guilty and began supplying
evidence against him. Manafort's ex-son-in-law also cut a
deal
to cooperate with Mueller. Through it all, Kilimnik has continued to trail after Manafort. When Manafort allegedly
hatched a ploy to tamper with witnesses this past February, Kilimnik seems to have served as his loyal co-conspirator. When
Manafort wanted a dose of positive press, Kilimnik attempted to arrange an op-ed in the
Kyiv Post.
When I recently emailed Kilimnik, he responded quickly. He wanted to let me know that he disapproved of the
media's coverage of Manafort, including my own, which he ascribed to "a hatred against certain people in the US
Government." He told me, "I don't want to play a role in this zoo." I replied and asked Kilimnik about his present
whereabouts, a question he left hanging. In December, Robert Mueller hinted, in passing, that Kostya had relocated to
Russia. When I asked around Kiev, nobody had any evidence to the contrary. It was a prospect that Kostya suggested was a
possibility last year in a
text
to Christopher Miller. "I hope I am able to get out of the country. Before 'patriots' start hunting me down."
Fleeing the accusation of spying for Vladimir Putin, he has apparently taken refuge with him.
Franklin Foer
is a national
correspondent for The Atlantic. He is the former editor of The New Republic and the author of
World Without Mind
.
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super
PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities"
in 2018. According to a New York Times
report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica,
the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence
voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave
millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.
There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the
personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was
using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC
received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we
were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."
What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of
the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed
and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told
the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he
added.
"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering
advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The
relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up
talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.
Further down the thread, 'Weakaspiss' makes a pertinent observation; " government has
forgotten they govern for all, and have a primary duty for those who are least able to
prosper."
In fact, they've "forgotten" nothing.
Instead, they've fallen for the self-serving blandishments of Libertarian dogma.
Where have I learned of these ?
By reading the posts of GA's resident Libertarians.
The sub-texts of which are wonderfully instructive.
1. Nothing is more important than the individual.
2. And as an individual and a Libertarian, I am infinitely superior to you.
3. Plus I resent paying taxes, which are outright theft.
4. Since I believe, utterly without basis in reality, that taxes levied on hard-working,
wonderful freedom-loving ME, sustain the likes of lazy, parasitical YOU.
5. Meanwhile, govt, if it cannot be destroyed, must always be demonised and underfunded. And
so-called 'programs of public benefit' for the parasites--like Medicare, or the ABC-- must be
sold outright to the private sector.
6. No I don't want to debate about it, if there's a chance I'll lose the argument.
My ego demands I win every time..
7. Certainly not with losers of lower social status, who were 'educated' in a union-run
public school.
8. And don't even come near me, losers. Yuk ! You're probably not even white !
9. Because I socialise only within my own tribe, thank you very much.
10. Besides, you're probably living off my taxes.
11. Did I mention taxes somewhere ?
12. Taxes are theft.
Our conservatives have "forgotten" NOTHING.
Instead, they've fallen for a sociopathic ideology which tells them their least attractive
impulses are positively praiseworthy.
Hence the nasty, ego-driven tone of current political life.
Injected directly into the bloodstream of our body politic by a Lying Rodent.
Its philosophy may be simply stated
Does your policy shit all over people you never cared for anyway ?
THEN DO IT.
The other great con is convincing the public that voting for anyone but the two major parties
is "wasting your vote". This political duopoly means only those interests are ever
represented and that has also led to Australia's systematic decline. Yes it's true that the
majors hold majority in parliament but we've already seen that voting below the line can
work- Labour had to take notes from the Greens last time they held power. Despite how
hopeless it all seems we do still have the power to affect change as long as we- all of us-
stop swallowing the lies.
The current two party system is like a coin. On one side we have the head of Malcolm Turnbull
and on the other Bill Shorten. When it comes to the toss up the corporations and wealthy get
to call heads.
Half the population prefers a politics that is racist and unethical, that demonises the poor
and idolises the rich, that eschews community and embraces amoral individuality. These people
don't care about the economic inconsistencies of neo-liberalism, they are far more attracted
to the divisive societal aspects of free market fundamentalism.
Fascism is the word that most interests me when looking a the present trajectory in
Australia
We're not there yet
And there's no one on the government benches who's a new Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini
But the next generation ..............
They make me uncomfortable. Some of the younger and as yet unheralded apparatchiks on the
conservative fringe worry me. They're smart. Know the advertising and selling the message
strategies. Have money and are well connected to the barons/oligarchs who pull the strings
and they're ambitious.
Paradoxically a collapse of the Liberal Party will help them. In spite of it all we need a
fiscally conservative, slightly socially conservative political movement in Australia but the
drift to extremism is quite pronounced and profoundly worrying, especially in a time where
climate change poses existential questions about our future.
This next election will not be a cakewalk. It'll be as bitterly fought as any in a
generation and the consequences of a loss will be, for progressive forces, catastrophic.
"Although people with low expectations are easier to con, fomenting cynicism about democracy
comes at a long-term cost. Indeed, as the current crop of politicians is beginning to
discover, people with low expectations feel they have nothing to lose."..... Yes, but that's
part of the Devilish Plan: Why do you think that the Neoliberals and Conservatives spend so
much time nurturing their relationship with both Police and the Army?.... They want to be
sure that if their Neoliberal-Conservative project goes truly belly up, they will be the ones
holding the guns.
Yes, it's sinister.... it's dangerous.... it's a time bomb, and we can only defuse it with
the help of a majority of Australians waking up, standing up and Democratically vote against
Fascism.
Despite the huge changes in communication in the last several decades
and the ever increasing levels of education in our society, politics have
failed to engage the vast majority and that cohort of the cynical, the alienated,
the disinterested, the lazy, the simply care less continues to grow.
In the last decade the only cause that evoked passion and engaged a larger
number, finally forcing our elected members to act was same sex marriage
.....a crescendo that took years to generate.
With the complicity of our media and the decline of that part of education
that teaches analysis, social psychology and political philosophy (let alone
teaches about basic political structures and mechanisms) our level of disengagement
from the political process appears to be at an all time high. The performance
of our legislators has become increasingly unaccountable and purely self interested
.... we have re-created the "political class" of pre-war times where alienation
was based on a lack of education and awareness and a sense of inferiority and
powerlessness DESPITE our vastly improved communication, access to information
and educational standards (not to mention affluence).
Basically, we have "dumbed down" to the extent where passion and ideology in
politics is now the preserve of fewer and fewer. In a democracy this trend is of
massive concern and a threat to its sustainability.... it also completely suits those
that are focused on concentrating power and wealth... the more that don't give
a toss the less likely you are to be encumbered by limitations, social considerations,
ethics and morality.
Until we re-engage far larger numbers into the political process, raise the levels
of awareness of political thought and choices, stop dumbing down and re-inject
some broader passion and participation into our political processes then vested
interests will continue to dominate.....and democracy will become increasingly
undemocratic !
I believe we are prisoners of so-called "democracy"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"
Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter which political party was in power,
or what name it went under, they all had one ruling instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless
appetite for taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all kinds of entitlements.
In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse
all paid for by the compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
"... The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as "American exceptionalism." Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon. ..."
"... Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders. ..."
"... The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater ..."
"... Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial. ..."
"... The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future. Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology. But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow descend into a backwater across the Atlantic. ..."
"... Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:" "I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)" ..."
"... Here's a good PBS movie lauding these "intellectuals:" http://www.pbs.org/arguing/about.html ..."
"... There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate: ..."
"... 1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor. ..."
"... 2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians. ..."
"... 3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an end-of-life crisis. ..."
"... To some extent you're mistaking your target here. I'll readily agree the neo-cons amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel. On the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and Bolshevism should be checked. ..."
"... Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism ..."
"... For example a piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European Communism. ..."
"... The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues, since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they aren't too keen on Catholicism either. ..."
"... It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism ..."
"... my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback. ..."
"... I think that people can be inclined to claim that everyone they don't like is a Jew. I also think that while Jews were certainly disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks and the leftist revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century in general, these movements weren't overwhelmingly Jewish, nor even necessarily mostly Jewish except in the case of Hungary. ..."
"... With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex international problems. However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela. The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach. ..."
First of all not all neocon are Jews and not all jews are neocons. neocons are first and
foremost lobbyists for MIC. This job does not require any ethic component. but it is very
attractive for intellectuals who are not good for anything else, including many Jewish
intellectuals ( Max Boot is
a nice example of this trend; Rephrasing Tucker Carlson remark we can say that he is a neocon
because he does not want to paint houses ;-)
Also the role on Jews in Russia during Perestroika and the dissolution of the USSR was
enhanced by the fact that they were one of the few with strong connection to relatives in the USA
who emigrated earlier under the USA pressure and this they have larger financial resources to
operate with which was of tremendous importance during privatization. It is unclear how many of
them were simply puppets of foreign interests, not an independent players. For example William
Browder was probably closely connected to MI6.
It would interesting to see on the USA in 30 years -- in 2050. I wish I would be one of those
people who do understand what is going on and were the USA is moving. I am not. The worst outcome
based on current trends is that in 30 years from now the USA might turn into a country similar to
large Latin American countries: demographically messy and ungovernable, with weak infrastructure,
but above all quasi-provincial. Looks like the the US neoliberal elite (including Silicon Valley
techno-elite) now tenaciously cling to the idea of "world superpower" and at the core that means
maintaining technology superiority along with the controlling oil and gas deposits, first of all
in the Middle Easts (with Israel and Saudi help) as well as weakening and, possibly, dismembering
of Russia and China as two dangerous competitors alliance between which is very undesirable
outcome for the USA and can make the USA irrelevant for Europe. Euromaidan was an important step
in this direction on Russia front, a bold and brilliant political move if you ask me. Poor
Ukrainians do not understand how they were played.
Having just returned from a trip to Russia, I am pleased to report that the Russian people
and the officialdom that I encountered displayed none of the vitriol towards Americans that I
half expected as a response to the vilifying of Moscow and all its works that pervades the U.S.
media and Establishment. To be sure, many Russians I spoke with were quick to criticize the
Trump Administration for its hot and cold performance vis-à-vis the bilateral ties to
Moscow while also expressing mystification over why the relationship had gone south so quickly,
but this anger over foreign policy did not necessarily translate into contempt for the American
people and way of life that characterized the Soviet period. At least not yet.
Somewhat to my surprise, ordinary Russians were also quick to openly criticize President
Vladimir Putin for his autocratic tendencies and his willingness to continue to tolerate
corruption, but everyone I spoke to also conceded that he had generally acted constructively
and had greatly improved life for ordinary people. Putin remains wildly popular.
One question that came up frequently was "Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?" I
responded that the answer is not so simple and there are a number of constituencies that, for
one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be
unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need
the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help
sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk
just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to
keep everyone "safe."
And then there are the neocons. As always, they are a distinct force for creative
destruction, as they put it, certainly first in line with their hands out to get the funding of
their no-expenses-spared foundations and think tanks, but also driven ideologically, which has
made them the intellectual vanguard of the war party. They provide the palatable intellectual
framework for America to take on the world, metaphorically speaking, and constitute the strike
force that is always ready to appear on television talk shows or to be quoted in the media with
an appropriate intelligent sounding one liner that can be used to justify the unthinkable. In
return they are richly rewarded both with money and status.
The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world
superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by
force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as "American exceptionalism."
Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves
little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that
everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you
do not have a neocon.
The founding fathers of neoconism were New York Jewish "intellectuals" who evolved (or
devolved) from being bomb throwing Trotskyites to "conservatives," a process they self-define
as "idealism getting mugged by reality." The only reality is that they have always been faux
conservatives, embracing a number of aggressive foreign policy and national security positions
while also privately endorsing the standard Jewish liberal line on social issues. Neocon
fanaticism on the issues that they do promote also suggests that more that a little of the
Trotskyism remains in their character, hence their tenacity and ability to slither between the
Democratic and Republican parties while also appearing comfortably on disparate media outlets
considered to be either liberal or conservative, i.e. on both Fox news and MSNBC programs
featuring the likes of Rachel Maddow.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WWII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia
should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17
show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant
reminders.
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade
with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the
railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater
more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to
many Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable,
weak infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial.
The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future.
Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology.
But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up
Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow
descend into a backwater across the Atlantic.
It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They
used to trumpet it, though. There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals
themselves celebrating their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving
Kristol, et al were communists. Moreover, they were communists of the international
revolution variety -- the flavor known as Trotskyism.
Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY
Times, titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:" "I was graduated from City College in the spring of
1940, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the
Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly, and
correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not "Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the
official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we called them, of the day)"
Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of
neocons:
I am currently reading "The Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky. Trying to understand this
Trotsky neocon link better and to determine to what extent it makes sense. One connection is
certain: (1) Trotsky was completely insane. (2) Neocons are completely insane.
The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the
cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party
was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder,
grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously
proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes.
Earl Browder was not, so far as I know, born a Jew. While living in the Soviet Union he
married a Russian Jewess named Raisa Berkman. One of their sons, Felix, married another
Jewess, Eva Tislowitz, and Bill Browder was their son. He is matrilineally Jewish.
Apart from this minor quibble, the description of Bill Browder's career seems quite
accurate.
There are probably five big reasons for all the Russia hate:
1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external
aggressor.
2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians.
3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It
isn't just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are
having an end-of-life crisis.
4. Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets,
undercutting our Ruling Class's cut.
5. Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists
beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. Back when Russia
started their anti-gay thing, American leftists went nuts on them. Of course, Saudi Arabia is
much worse but we didn't hear anything about them because they aren't white and being
critical in such a case would be waycist.
To some extent you're mistaking your target here. I'll readily agree the neo-cons
amount to a Zionist cabal bent on perverting US conservatism into a tool to serve Israel. On
the other hand, I think that spectacular figures dating from 1920 concerning Jews and
Bolshevism should be checked.
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to
nationalism on the part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to
the Jewish fear that the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a
piece in the Washington Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet
invasion of Czechoslovakia advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so
bad: it kept a lid on ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for
eastern European Communism.
The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues,
since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically
incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist
parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again
subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they
aren't too keen on Catholicism either.
It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be
mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal
Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism . I hope this taboo
is successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as
the only Christian power left in the world.
I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the
various western Trot. groups at the time.
It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it
was only of claimed affiliates to the nonsensical 'Fourth International'.
Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and
Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they
ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.
Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU,
cabinets in many European nations, etc. Even without that, the chart and attached notes are
bizarre enough.
The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among
themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not
understanding the content at all.
Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are
like those of the worst cult religionists.
I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundred meters from my
house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until
recently. no more. I would buy it at times.
Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by
the national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support
for such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural
and sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants)
blowback.
' That's not how research works. You're searching for a low figure which will
magically be reliable, right?'
I think that people can be inclined to claim that everyone they don't like is a Jew. I
also think that while Jews were certainly disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks
and the leftist revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century in general, these
movements weren't overwhelmingly Jewish, nor even necessarily mostly Jewish except in the
case of Hungary.
Finally, I think the press tends to exaggerate, and that particularly in 1920, claiming
that the Bolsheviks were Jews would have been a good way of vilifying the movement. After
all, it remains one to this day.
So for all these reasons, while as I have said it is possible the figures are
accurate, I don't think they should be accepted on faith.
It's all an interesting question. On the one hand, we have 'data' of dubious reliability.
On the other hand, there's a decided reluctance among modern researchers to go into the
question in detail.
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many
NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name
for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7 Voted for me 1 (myself only) I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (republican votes) 4 I win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.
What I miss is USA fear that the European states, as they did before 1917, will resume
trade with Russia. Contrary to popular opinion, the Dutch Golden Century was not golden by
trade to east or west Indies, but because we were halfway between the Iberian peninsula and
the Baltic Sea.
This fear, I fear, now is intensified by the China Russia Iran railway facilities, with
the Khazakstan dry port. If the important European countries turn around, the USA will become
an economic backwater.
Just yesterday USA ambassador Pete Hoekstra tries to sell us expensive USA gas, 20% more
expensive, to punish Russia for MH17. Another statement that shows that Russia had no
interest whatsoever in shooting down MH17.
Pete does not seem to understand that he's urging the Netherlands to punish itself.
I'm ashamed, Pete must be a Frysian, like me, w're supposed to be intelligent persons.
There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of
Communism played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The
role of Jews in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston
Churchill in his 1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party
members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the
20s and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the
terms of the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to
involve at least the willingness to use force to remove the burden.
The democratic parties were insufficiently decisive and would likely have succumbed to
Communist agitation or at best preserved a very unpleasant status quo. The weakness of
Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and the material dimension. It demands
the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual dimension of life.
Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in addition to the
national need to escape from poverty. Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a
quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this
initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between
themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality!
With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs
non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country
with those of the US as an Empire. It is in the best interests of the US as a country to
maintain good working relationship with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic
prosperity and to solve complex international problems. However, as an Empire, the US does
not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even
Venezuela. The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational,
more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being
destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach.
"... Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is quickly discovering. ..."
"... John Adams warned that democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." ..."
"... James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ..."
"... Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred ..."
"... What we've got now is the tyranny of the ..."
"... minority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation. Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future policy. ..."
"... If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple: minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government, the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber stamp. ..."
"... One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity grows, the less self-governing it remains. ..."
Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is
quickly discovering.
Something has gone wrong with America's political institutions. While the United States is,
on the whole, competently governed, there are massive problems lurking just beneath the
surface. This became obvious during the 2016 presidential election. Each party's nominee was
odious to a large segment of the public; the only difference seemed to be whether it was an
odious insurgent or an odious careerist. Almost two years on, things show little signs of
improving.
What's to blame? One promising, though unpopular, answer is: democracy itself. When
individuals act collectively in large groups and are not held responsible for the consequences
of their behavior, decisions are unlikely to be reasonable or prudent. This design flaw in
popular government was recognized by several Founding Fathers. John Adams warned that
democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not
commit suicide."
James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale
democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in
general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise
government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public
down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred : "It is one of the
evils of democratical governments, that the people, not always seeing and frequently misled,
must often feel before they can act right; but then evil of this nature seldom fail to work
their own cure," Washington wrote. "It is to be lamented, nevertheless, that the remedies are
so slow, and that those, who may wish to apply them seasonably are not attended to before they
suffer in person, in interest and in reputation."
Given these opinions, it is unsurprising that the U.S. Constitution contains so many other
mechanisms for ensuring responsible government. Separation of powers and checks and balances
are necessary to protect the people from themselves. To the extent our political institutions
are deteriorating, the Founders' first instinct would be to look for constitutional changes,
whether formal or informal, that have expanded the scope of democracy and entrusted to the
electorate greater power than they can safely wield, and reverse them.
This theory is simple, elegant, and appealing. But it's missing a crucial detail.
American government is largely insulated from the tyranny of the majority. But at least
since the New Deal, we've gone too far in the opposite direction. What we've got now is the
tyranny of theminority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation.
Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular
control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary
over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to
ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future
policy.
But now we confront a puzzle: the rise of the permanent government did coincide with
increased democratization. The administrative-managerial state, and its enablers in Congress,
followed from creative reinterpretations of the Constitution that allowed voters to make
decisions that the Ninth and Tenth amendments -- far and away the most ignored portion of the
Bill of Rights -- should have forestalled. As it turns out, not only are both of these
observations correct, they are causally related . Increasing the scope of popular
government results in the loss of popular control.
If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of
oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social
scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple:
minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is
true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government,
the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This
required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political
insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which
was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy
enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger
government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was
predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a
permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber
stamp.
The larger the electorate, and the more questions the electorate is asked to decide, the
more important it is for the people who actually govern to take advantage of economies of scale
in government. If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need
for a behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing
political projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become
essential for technocratic experts and career politicians.
One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is
unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity
grows, the less self-governing it remains. This is why an upsurge of populism won't cure
what ails the body politic. It will either provoke the permanent and unaccountable government
into tightening its grip, or those who actually hold the power will fan the flames of popular
discontent, channeling that energy towards their continued growth and entrenchment. We have
enough knowledge to make the diagnosis, but not to prescribe the treatment. Perhaps there is
some comfort in knowing what political health looks like. G.K. Chesterton said it best in his
insight about the relationship between democracy and self-governance:
The democratic contention is that government is not something analogous to playing the
church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping
the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at
all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own
love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if
he does them badly . In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important
things must be left to ordinary men themselves
The first step towards renewed self-governance must be to reject the false dichotomy between
populism and oligarchy. A sober assessment shows that they are one in the same.
Alexander William Salter is an assistant professor in the Rawls College of Business at
Texas Tech University. He is also the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU's Free
Market Institute. See more at his website: www.awsalter.com .
This was going fine until the author decided to blame civil servants for our nation's
problems. How about an electoral system that denies majority rule? A Congress that routinely
votes against things the vast majority want? A system that vastly overpriveleges corporations
and hands them billions while inequality grows to the point where the UN warns that our
country resembles a third world kleptocracy? Nope, sez this guy. It's just because there are
too many bureaucrats.
He avoids the 17th amendment which was one of the barriers to the mob, and the 19th that
removed the power of individual states to set the terms of suffrage.
Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Katy Stanton could simply have moved to Wyoming.
It might be useful to only have property taxpayers vote.
And the problem is the left. When voters rejected Gay Marriage (57% in California!) or benefits
for illegals, unelected and unaccountable judges reversed the popular will.
I find your use of the word populism interesting. Inasmuch the word is generally used when the
decisions of the populace is different from that which the technocrats or oligarchs would have
made for them. The author being part of the technocratic elite thinks that he and his ilk know
best. This entire article is just a lot of arguments in support of this false and self serving
idea.
Making the federal government "small" will not solve the problems the author describes or
really alludes to. The power vacum left by a receding federal government will just be occupied
by an unaccountable corporate sector. The recent dismantling of Toys R Us by a spawn of Bain
Capital is the most recent manifestation of the twisted and pathological thought process that
calls itself "free market capitalism." A small federal government did not end child labor,
fight the Depression, win WW II or pioneer space exploration. Conservatives love the mythology
of a government "beast" that must be decapitated so that "Liberty" may reign. There are far
more dangerous forces at work in American society that inhibit liberty and tax our personal
treasuries than the federal government.
1) The US is not and never has been a ' democracy ' It is a Democratic Republic ' which is not
the same as a ' democracy ' ( one person -- one vote period ) of which there is only one in the
entire world . Switzerland
2) A large part of what has brought us to this point is the worn out well past its sell by
Electoral College which not only no longer serves its intended purpose .
3) But the major reason why we're here to put it bluntly is the ' Collective Stupidity of
America ' we've volitionally become : addled by celebrity , addicted to entertainment and
consumed by conspiracy theory rather than researching the facts
It's time to end the pretension that we live in a democracy. It maybe useful to claim so
when the US is trying to open markets or control resources in 3rd world countries. It's at that
time that we're 'spreading democracy'. Instead it's like spreading manure.
The managerial state arose to quell the threat of class warfare. Ironically those who sought to
organize the proletariat under a vision of class-based empowerment clamored for the same. The
response over time was fighting fire with fire as the cliche goes becoming what the opposition
has sought but only in a modified form.
If we were able to devise a way for distributive justice apart from building a bloated
bureaucracy then perhaps this emergence of oligarchy could have been averted. What
alternative(s) exist for an equitable distribution of wealth and income to ameliorate poverty?
Openly competitive (so-called) markets? And the charity of faith-based communities? I think
not.
Democracy, like all systems requires maintenace. Bernard Shaw said that the flaw of pragmatism
is that any system that is not completely idiotic will work PROVIDED THAT SOMEONE PUT EFFORT IN
MAKING IT WORK.
We have come to think that Democracy is in automatic pilot, and does not require effort of
our part See how many do not bother to vote or to inform themselves.
Democracy is a fine, shiny package with two caveats in it "Batteries not included" And "Some
assembly required" FAilure to heed those leads to disaster.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. We don't have a democracy in any real
way, so how can it have failed?
Despite massive propaganda of commission and omission, the majority of the American people
don't want to waste trillions of dollars on endless pointless oversees wars. The public be
damned: Trump was quickly beaten into submission and we are back to the status quo. The public
doesn't want to give trillions of dollars to Wall Street while starving Main Street of capital.
The public doesn't want an abusively high rate of immigration whose sole purpose is to flood
the market for labor, driving wages down and profits up. And so on.
Oswald Spengler was right. " in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the
preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it
the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the
franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune."
"If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need for a
behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing political
projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become essential
for technocratic experts and career politicians."
True, but this implies retarding government power as is will lead to an ultimate solution.
It will not. The sober truth is that a massive centralized national government has been
inevitable since the onset of the second world war or even beforehand with American
intervention in the colonoal Phillippines and the Great War. Becoming an empire requires
extensive power grabbing and becoming and maintaining a position as a world power requires
constant flexing of that power. Maintaining such a large population, military, and foreign
corps requires the massive public-works projects you speak of in order to keep the population
content and foreign powers in check. Failure to do so leads to chaos and tragic disaster that
would lead to such a nation a collapse in all existing institutions due to overcumbersome
responsibilities. These cannot be left to the provinces/states due to the massive amounts of
resources required to maintain such imperial ambitions along with the cold reality of state
infighting and possible seperatist leanings.
If one wishes to end the power of the federal government as is, the goal is not to merely
seek reform. The goal is to dismantle the empire; destroy the military might, isolate certain
diplomatic relations, reduce rates of overseas trade and reduce the economy as a whole, and
then finally disband and/or drastically reduce public security institutions such as the FBI,
CIA, and their affiliates. As you well know, elites and the greater public alike consider these
anathema.
However, if you wish to rush to this goal, keep in mind that dismantling the American empire
will not necessarily lead to the end of oppression and world peace even in the short term. A
power vacuum will open that the other world powers such as the Russian Federation and the PRC
will rush to fill up. As long as the world remains so interconnected and imperialist ambitions
are maintained by old and new world powers, even the smallest and most directly democratic
states will not be able to become self-governing for long.
Well, when, statistically speaking, half of the population has an IQ of less than 100 (probably
more than half now that USA has been invaded by the Third World) then a great number of people
are uninformed and easily manipulated voters. That is one of the great fallacies of democracy.
In an era when the word "democracy" is regarded as one of our deities to worship, this article
is a breath of fresh air. Notice how we accuse the Russians of trying to undermine our hallowed
"democracy." We really don't know what we mean when we use the term democracy, but it is a
shibboleth that has a good, comforting sound. And this idea that we could extend our
"democracy" by increasing the number of voters shows that we don't understand much at all.
Brilliant insights.
I believe we are prisoners of so-called "democracy"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"
Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter
which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling
instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for
taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all
kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his
entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the
compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Amid 'Russiagate' Hysteria, What Are the Facts? | The Nation
"W
hom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
That saying -- often misattributed to Euripides -- comes to mind most mornings when I pick up
The New York Times
and read the latest "Russiagate" headlines, which are frequently featured across two or three columns on the front
page above the fold. This is an almost daily reminder of the hysteria that dominates our Congress and much of our
media.
A glaring example, just one of many from recent months, arrived at my door on February 17. My outrage spiked
when I opened to the
Times
'
lead editorial
: "Stop Letting the Russians Get Away With It, Mr. Trump." I had to ask myself: "Did the
Times
' editors perform even the rudiments of due diligence before they climbed on their high horse in this
long editorial, which excoriated 'Russia' (not individual Russians) for 'interference' in the election and
demanded increased sanctions against Russia 'to protect American democracy'?"
It had never occurred to me that our admittedly dysfunctional political system is so weak, undeveloped, or
diseased that inept Internet trolls could damage it. If that is the case, we better look at a lot of other
countries as well, not just Russia!
The New York Times
, of course, is not the only offender. Its editorial attitude has been duplicated or
exaggerated by most other media outlets in the United States, electronic and print. Unless there is a mass
shooting in progress, it can be hard to find a discussion of anything else on CNN. Increasingly, both in Congress
and in our media, it has been accepted as a fact that "Russia" interfered in the 2016 election.
So what are the facts?
It is a fact that some Russians paid people to act as online trolls and bought advertisements on Facebook
during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Most of these were taken from elsewhere, and they comprised a
tiny fraction of all the advertisements purchased on Facebook during this period. This continued after the
election and included organizing a demonstration against President-elect Trump.
It is a fact that e-mails in the memory of the Democratic National Committee's computer were furnished to
Wikileaks. The US intelligence agencies that issued the January 2017 report were confident that Russians hacked
the e-mails and supplied them to Wikileaks, but offered no evidence to substantiate their claim. Even if one
accepts that Russians were the perpetrators, however, the e-mails were genuine, as the US intelligence report
certified. I have always thought that the truth was supposed to make us free, not degrade our democracy.
It is a fact that the Russian government established a sophisticated television service (RT) that purveyed
entertainment, news, and -- yes -- propaganda to foreign audiences, including those in the United States. Its
audience is several magnitudes smaller than that of Fox News. Basically, its task is to picture Russia in a
more favorable light than has been available in Western media. There has been no analysis of its effect, if
any, on voting in the United States. The January 2017 US intelligence report states at the outset, "We did not
make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election."
Nevertheless, that report has been cited repeatedly by politicians and the media as having done so.
It is a fact that many senior Russian officials (though not all, by any means) expressed a preference for
Trump's candidacy. After all, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had compared President Putin to Hitler and had
urged more active US military intervention abroad, while Trump had said it would be better to cooperate with
Russia than to treat it as an enemy. It should not require the judgment of professional analysts to understand
why many Russians would find Trump's statements more congenial than Clinton's. On a personal level, most of my
Russian friends and contacts were dubious of Trump, but all resented Clinton's Russophobic tone, as well as
statements made by Obama from 2014 onward. They considered Obama's
public comment
that "Russia doesn't make anything" a gratuitous insult (which it was), and were alarmed by
Clinton's expressed desire to provide additional military support to the "moderates" in Syria. But the average
Russian, and certainly the typical Putin administration official, understood Trump's comments as favoring
improved relations, which they definitely favored.
There is no evidence that Russian leaders thought Trump would win or that they could have a direct
influence on the outcome. This is an allegation that has not been substantiated. The January 2017 report from
the intelligence community actually states that Russian leaders, like most others, thought Clinton would be
elected.
There is no evidence that Russian activities had any tangible impact on the outcome of the election. Nobody
seems to have done even a superficial study of the effect Russian actions actually had on the vote. The
intelligence-community report, however, states explicitly that "the types of systems we observed Russian actors
targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying." Also both former FBI director James Comey and NSA
director Mike Rogers
have testified
that there is no proof Russian activities had an effect on the vote count.
There is also no evidence that there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign (hardly a
well-organized effort) and Russian officials. The indictments brought by the special prosecutor so far are
either for lying to the FBI or for offenses unrelated to the campaign such as money laundering or not
registering as a foreign agent.
So, what is the most important fact regarding the 2016 US presidential election?
The most important fact, obscured in Russiagate hysteria, is that Americans elected Trump under the terms set
forth in the Constitution. Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with a minority of
popular votes to become president. Americans were those who gerrymandered electoral districts to rig them in favor
of a given political party. The Supreme Court issued the infamous
Citizens United
decision that allows
corporate financing of candidates for political office. (Hey, money talks and exercises freedom of speech;
corporations are people!) Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic, since it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was American senators who
established non-democratic procedures that allow minorities, even sometimes single senators, to block legislation
or confirmation of appointments.
Now, that does not mean that Trump's presidency is good for the country, just because Americans elected him. In
my opinion, the 2016 presidential and congressional elections pose an imminent danger to the republic. They have
created potential disasters that will severely try the checks and balances built into our Constitution. This is
especially true since both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which itself represents
fewer voters than the opposition party.
I did not personally vote for Trump, but I consider the charges that Russian actions interfered in the
election, or -- for that matter -- damaged the quality of our democracy ludicrous, pathetic, and shameful.
"Ludicrous" because there is no logical reason to think that anything that the Russians did affected how people
voted. In the past, when Soviet leaders tried to influence American elections, it backfired -- as foreign
interference usually does everywhere. In 1984, Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader then, made preventing Ronald
Reagan's reelection the second-most-important task of the KGB. (The first was to detect US plans for a nuclear
strike on the Soviet Union.) Everything the Soviets did -- in painting Reagan out to be a warmonger while Andropov
refused to negotiate on nuclear weapons -- helped Reagan win 49 out of 50 states.
Support Progressive Journalism
If you like this article, please give today to help fund
The Nation
's work.
"Pathetic" because it is clear that the Democratic Party lost the election. Yes, it won the popular vote, but
presidents are not elected by popular vote. To blame someone else for one's own mistakes is a pathetic case of
self-deception.
"Shameful" because it is an evasion of responsibility. It prevents the Democrats, and those Republicans who
want responsible, fact-based government in Washington, from concentrating on practical ways to reduce the threat
the Trump presidency poses to our political values and even to our future existence. After all, Trump would not be
president if the Republican Party had not nominated him. He also is most unlikely to have won the Electoral
College if the Democrats had nominated someone -- almost anyone -- other than the candidate they chose, or if that
candidate had run a more competent campaign. I don't argue that any of this was fair, or rational, but then who is
so naive as to assume that American politics are either fair or rational?
Instead of facing the facts and coping with the current reality, the Russiagate promoters, in both the
government and the media, are diverting our attention from the real threats.
I should add "dangerous" to those three adjectives. "Dangerous" because making an enemy of Russia, the other
nuclear superpower -- yes, there are still two -- comes as close to political insanity as anything I can think of.
Denying global warming may rank up there too in the long run, but only nuclear weapons pose, by their very
existence in the quantities that are on station in Russia and the United States, an immediate threat to
mankind -- not just to the United States and Russia and not just to "civilization." The sad, frequently forgotten
fact is that, since the creation of nuclear weapons, mankind has the capacity to destroy itself and join other
extinct species.
In their first meeting, President Ronald Reagan and then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed that "a
nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Both believed that simple and obvious truth and their
conviction enabled them to set both countries on a course that ended the Cold War. We should think hard to
determine how and why that simple and obvious truth has been ignored of late by the governments of both countries.
Everything is so convoluted. Sometime I have impression that I am reading depiction of the operations of
Meyer Lansky not a government agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines. ..."
"... So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it. ..."
"... Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior). ..."
"... In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up. ..."
"... Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation. ..."
"... Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it. ..."
"... Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. ..."
"... Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position. ..."
"... With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities. ..."
"... Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work. ..."
FBI Counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, will sit down for a closed-door session with lawmakers on Tuesday, according to
John Solomon of The Hill .
Priestap will be answering questions about the Hillary Clinton email case as well as the counterintelligence operation on the
Trump campaign - both of which he oversaw . Priestap was the direct supervisor of Peter Strzok - the FBI agent whose anti-Trump /
pro-Clinton bias was revealed after 50,000 text messages to his FBI-attorney mistress, Lisa Page, were discovered by the DOJ's Inspector
General, Michael Horowitz.
All accounts say that Priestap is a cooperating witness . In other words, if there's one person who can confirm that the FBI counterintelligence
operation on the Trump campaign was politically motivated - or that malfeasance occurred during the process, it's Bill Priestap.
Note how excited Solomon looks breaking the news of Priestap's testimony...
Solomon: "I think tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day. I think Congress is going to learn a lot of new information tomorrow
during these interviews."
Dobbs: He is going to be speaking candidly about his employer, the FBI, and those who were running the agency during that period.
Solomon: He was very high up. Had a bird's-eye view of everything that went on in both of these investigations.
While the session will be closed-door, we imagine leaks will be forthcoming as seems to be standard operating procedure these
days.
Just who is Bill Priestap really?
The Conservative Treehouse presented an in-depth analysis in February. We recommend reading this before deciding on what size
popcorn to buy:
***
The game is over. The jig is up. Victory is certain... the trench was ignited... the enemy funneled themselves into the valley...
all bait was taken everything from here on out is simply mopping up the details. All suspicions confirmed.
Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative?
All questions are answered.
Fughettaboudit.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member
Chris Stewart appeared on Fox News with
Judge Jeanine Pirro, and didn't want to "make news" or spill the beans, but the unstated, between-the-lines, discussion was as subtle
as a brick through a window. Judge Jeannie has been on the cusp of this for a few weeks.
Listen carefully around 2:30 , Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make
news and is unsure what he can say on this...
...Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian
Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a
twitter thread about him last year and wrote
about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.
E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone
in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything
about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy
Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap
would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations. FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically
in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according
to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight
about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because
the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important
detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate
it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight" of any counterintelligence
operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began,
oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want
to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent
Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy".
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory
oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently,
according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation
simply by recommending he doesn't do it.
Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility
in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began
in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see
FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance
operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the
same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why
should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the
operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme
team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill
Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct
21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian
Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn't happen. Heck,
James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap's importance. Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.
Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted
twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly
invisible – still in position.
The reason was obvious. Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap
is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC
home; she comes from a family of money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward
more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was
happening around them. Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what? With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability
with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki
quit, Priestap went back to work.
Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.
It's over.
I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever going to write about him unless
it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former
political social network if they recognize what's going on. BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.
The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict
maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
America had dramatically changed since John F. Kennedy seduced voters with the promises of
the New Frontier. A young family, the campaign jingles, the embrace of television, and the
prospect of America's first Catholic president injected a sense of patriotic adrenaline into
the 1960 campaign. There were "high hopes" for Jack and a sense of cultural validation for
Catholics who remembered Al Smith's failed presidential bid in 1928. In 1960, the Everly
Brothers and Bobby Darin crooned through the radio, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird
proved a national sensation, and Americans flocked to movies like Spartacus in
magnificent downtown theaters.
But the frivolity and innocence, however illusory, were shattered on November 22, 1963.
Kennedy's assassination violently shifted America's cultural fault lines. One afternoon
accelerated the nation's sociological maladies, intensified its political divisions, and
evaporated its black-and-white contentment. Americans proceeded on a Technicolor path of
disruption, one that had transformed the nation by the time of Bobby's announcement on March
16, 1968. It was that year when The Doors and Cream blasted from transistor radios, John
Updike's Couples landed on the cover of Time , and 2001: A Space Odyssey
played in new suburban cinemas. The country had experienced a dervish frenzy, and Bobby was
fully aware of his nation's turbulent course.
The country was rocked by young students protesting a worsening war in Vietnam. Racial
tension exploded and riots destroyed urban neighborhoods. America's political evolution forever
altered its electoral geography. Bobby was embarking on a remarkable campaign that challenged
the incumbent president, a man he despised for many years. But the source of this strife
stemmed from the White House years of Bobby's brother. "While he defined his vision more
concretely and compellingly than Jack had -- from ending a disastrous war and addressing the
crisis in the cities to removing a sadly out-of-touch president -- he failed to point out that
the war, the festering ghettos, and Lyndon Johnson were all part of Jack Kennedy's legacy,"
wrote Larry Tye in his biography of Bobby.
For the 1968 primary, Kennedy metamorphosed into a liberal figure with an economic populist
message. Kennedy's belated entry turned into an audacious crusade, with the candidate
addressing racial injustice, income inequality, and the failure of Vietnam. He balanced this
message with themes touching upon free enterprise and law and order. Kennedy hoped to appeal to
minorities and working-class whites. He quickly became a messianic figure, and the press
embellished his New Democrat image. By late March, Johnson announced that he would not seek
reelection during a televised address. Through his departure, Johnson worked to maintain
control of the party machine by supporting Hubert Humphrey, his devoted Vice President. But in
the following weeks, Kennedy built momentum as he challenged McCarthy in states like Indiana
and Nebraska. His performance in both states, where anti-Catholic sentiments lingered,
testified to Kennedy's favorable electoral position.
In April 4, Kennedy learned that the Rev. King had been assassinated. He relayed the civil
rights leader's death in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis. His words helped spare
Indianapolis from the riots that erupted in cities across the country, ultimately leading to
nearly 40 people killed and over 2,000 injured. MLK's assassination served as an unsettling
reminder to Kennedy's family, friends, campaign aides, and traveling press. During Kennedy's
first campaign stop in Kansas, the press corps stopped at a restaurant where the legendary
columnist Jimmy Breslin asked, "Do you think this guy has the stuff to go all the way?"
"Yes, of course he has the stuff to go all the way," replied Newsweek's John J.
Lindsay. "But he's not going to go all the way. The reason is that somebody is going to shoot
him. I know it and you know it. Just as sure as we're sitting here somebody is going to shoot
him. He's out there now waiting for him. And, please God, I don't think we'll have a country
after it."
Despite what happened in 1963, the Secret Service had yet to provide protection of
presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees during the 1964 election or the 1968
primary. But all the signs were there that Kennedy needed protection. The frenzied crowds
increased in size, taking a physical toll on the candidate. In one instance, "he was pulled so
hard that he tumbled into the car door, splitting his lip and breaking a front tooth that
required capping," writes Nye. "He ended up on a regimen of vitamins and antibiotics to fight
fatigue and infection For most politicians, the challenge was to attract crowds; for Bobby, it
was to survive them." In California, just 82 days after his announcement, Kennedy met the fate
that so many feared.
♦♦♦
Bobby Kennedy was a complicated figure from a family that continues to engage America's
imagination. In his autobiography, the novelist Philip Roth, who recently passed away,
reflected on Kennedy's assassination:
He was by no means a political figure constructed on anything other than the human
scale, and so, the night of his assassination and for days afterward, one felt witness to the
violent cutting down not of a monumental force for justice and social change like King or the
powerful embodiment of a people's massive misfortunes or a titan of religious potency but
rather of a rival -- of a vital, imperfect, high-strung, egotistical, rivalrous, talented
brother, who could be just as nasty as he was decent. The murder of a boyish politician of
forty-two, a man so nakedly ambitious and virile, was a crime against ordinary human hope as
well as against the claims of robust, independent appetite and, coming after the murders of
President Kennedy at forty-six and Martin Luther King at thirty-nine, evoked the simplest,
most familiar forms of despair.
For those schoolchildren and their parents in June 1968, Kennedy's campaign offered a sense
of nostalgia. They remembered the exuberance of his brother's campaign, the optimism of his
administration, and the possibilities of the 1960s. For the nation's large ethnic Catholic
voting bloc, another Kennedy reminded them of that feeling of validation in the 1960 election.
Of course, it had been a tumultuous decade for these voters. They lived in cities that had
precipitously declined since JFK's campaign visits in 1960. Railroad stations ended passenger
service, theaters closed, factories shuttered, and new highways offered an exodus to suburbia.
As Catholics, they prayed for the conversion of Russia, adapted to Vatican II reforms, and
adjusted to new parishes in the developing outskirts. Young draftees were shipped off to a
catastrophic war, which only intensified their feelings of disillusionment. Their
disenchantment raised questions about their sustained support for Democrats. Kennedy may have
proved formidable for Nixon in the general election, but the Catholic vote was increasingly up
for grabs.
Pat Buchanan understood this electoral opportunity for Republicans. In a 1971 memo, Buchanan
argued that Catholics were the largest bloc of available Democratic voters for the GOP: "The
fellows who join the K.of C. (Knights of Columbus), who make mass and communion every morning,
who go on retreats, who join the Holy Name society, who fight against abortion in their
legislatures, who send their kids to Catholic schools, who work on assembly lines and live in
Polish, Irish, Italian and Catholic communities or who have headed to the suburbs -- these are
the majority of Catholics; they are where our voters are."
In subsequent presidential elections, Catholic voters flocked to Democrats and Republicans.
Their electoral preferences were driven by the issues of the moment and often by location. The
geographical divide of our politics has only intensified. The 2016 presidential election
encapsulated this trend. Voters in Appalachia and the Rust Belt overwhelmingly supported Donald
Trump that year. Many of these voters previously supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In
1968, these voters likely appreciated Kennedy's campaign message. But the tragedy of the nation
is now a loss of optimism -- the belief that tomorrow will be a better day. Americans are
overwhelmed by ideological tension and socio-economic angst. The prosperity enjoyed by large
metropolitan regions has not spilled over into the heartland. There is no nostalgia for 1968
because countless Americans understand that the nation has failed to address income inequality,
job displacement, urban decline, and mass poverty. It was so long ago, but America did lose its
innocence on November 22, 1963. Bobby Kennedy's death in 1968 served as a reminder that it
would never return.
Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on
Twitter at @CFMcElwee
.
"... Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development. ..."
"... If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade. ..."
More troublingly, Robert Kennedy's death occurred within five years of his elder brother's,
and under similar circumstances. It is important to recall how unprecedented their deaths were
to the generation who witnessed them. If time has removed the shock of the assassinations of
the Kennedy brothers, it should not obscure just how anomalous they are. Bad luck may be part
of the mythos of the Kennedy family, but lightning does not strike the same place twice, and
political assassinations are exceedingly rare in American history. Both Kennedy brothers hurled
themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time -- Israeli nationalism
and anti-communism -- and both appeared to have paid a heavy price.
In the first place, I don't think that failure of Robert Kennedy had anything to do with a
substantial limitation of the liberal world view, but with another concept, or argument:
The end cannot justify the means because it is the mean, which is a process, which
conditionates the end, in itself only an outcome.
Robert Kennedy supported violence made by the Zionist movement, turned into a State, and
if you ask me, it was that violence which -no pun intended- backfired against him.
Now, about the out balance between loyalty and allegiance homeland/nation, I think it
should be looked at from Sirhan perspective. Yes, he had escaped from what, in his
perspective, was zionist persecution, just to end in a country where that persecution was
supported actively by some high profile politicians. I am not going to say that murder is
right, but some how it had to feel for him as if that anti palestinian israely persecution
had reappeared very near to his home.
From that point of view, he wasn't a refuge anymore; the country where he was living had
become an acomplice of that persecution.
Maybe, if Robert Kennedy had considered a less bellicist way to support Israel, like
sending military support without delivering neither the means nor the command decissions to
the government of Israel, but keeping it in the hand of the U.S., who knows.
This article doesn't quite try to justify Oswald's or Sirhan's actions. But it places them
firmly in a political context rather than a criminal one.
It also suggests that JFK and RFK both went too far – that they "hurled themselves
into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time" and thus bear a degree of
responsibility for their own fates.
If we want to debate the merits of arming Israel, or undermining Cuba, then let's have
that debate. But this is altogether the wrong way to frame it. I, for one, don't ever want
the Overton window on such issues to be shifted by the acts, or even the potential acts, of
an assassin.
Israel twice begged Jordan not to join the war that it was already fighting with Egypt and
Syria – a war of aggression and genocide, where Nasser boasted of the impending total
destruction of Israel, Egyptian state media spoke of a road from Tel Aviv to Cairo paved in
Jewish skulls, and Israel's rabbinate consecrated national parks in case they had to be used
for Jewish mass graves.
Sirhan Sirhan's entire identity was wrapped up in the frustrated need for Jewish servitude
and inferiority, the bitterness that a second Holocaust had failed. He was exactly like the
Klan cops in Philadelphia, Mississippi, murdering Freedom Riders who tried to deprive them of
their most cherished resource: assured superiority over their traditional designated victim
group.
Hinted at but ignored is another aspect by which 1968 presaged 2018. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy
waited until after Gene McCarthy had challenged LBJ and LBJ had withdrawn from the race
before entering. For many (most?) McCarthy backers, Kennedy was an opportunistic, privileged
spoiler. In the same way, many of Bernie Sanders' supporters looked upon Hillary Clinton as
the privileged spoiler of a Democratic Party establishment that had tried and failed to move
the party to the right. The McGovern was followed by Carter, who was followed by Mondale, who
was followed by Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. For Democrats, then, it's
been fifty years of struggling to find a center, a struggle Republicans pretty much found in
Ronald Reagan.
John Wilkes Booth was wrapped up in bitterness, defeat & a warped loyalty to his
homeland, too.
It's interesting I guess to examine assassins' motives, but to what point?
Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky.
Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear
weapon development.
Let the many who criticize TAC for not printing pro Israeli essays read this one. Also, read
the numerous blogs supporting this thrust. The "small nation" phrase was a tip-off to the
author's loyalties. I think this article is more worthy of the New York Times. Let us not
forget June 8, 1967, is another anniversary, when the sophisticated and unmarked aircraft and
PT boats using napalm of the author's "small nation" attacked the USS Liberty in
international water, with complete disregard to the ship's American markings and large US
flag. http://www.gtr5.com/ This event
received scant coverage on P19 of the aforementioned NYT. "Small nation"; indeed!
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their
victims.
Sirhan Sirhan is Jordanian – a nation that was invented specifically to be an
apartheid state with no Jews at all, forever closed to Jewish inhabitation or immigration.
That is his view of normalcy. I'm sorry it's also yours.
This is pure bunk. The idea that Sirhan Sirhan was the assassin of RFK has been categorically
disproven by the analysis of the fatal bullets, which none of came from Sirhan's gun. And RFKs friends and close advisors all knew that he had no love for Israel. Whatever he
said in support of Israel was for the media purposes only.
Having worked in Jordan and watched Israelis do business and as tourists (Jewish shrines)
there, I saw and heard no antisemitism. From my perspective, there seemed to be a positive
relationship. Elat and Aqaba are like sister cities. In fact, there seemed to be high-level
cooperation. Keep looking you will find bigotry to justify your positions.
I completely agree with Steve Naidamast. This article is indeed "pure bunk" because Sirhan
Sirhan is a side story. That's why this article, with such an angle, should simply never have
been published.
If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and
could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by
bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition,
sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held
8 shots. So let's stop this charade.
TTT -- yo weren't just talking about Sirhan. I wasn't talking about him at all. I have no
sympathy for people who practice terrorism, whether it is done by Palestinians, Jordanians,
or the IDF.
All this is an interesting information. But Trump folded long ago. So why they continues so relentlessly pursue him.
Some of the statements are iether naive, or incorrect, or both. For example: ""The Anglo-American response to this development can
be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014,
overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western
satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia. " also " We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American
swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions. He apparently chose the wrong side
by fighting against a Nazi coup. The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on
Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant"
Notable quotes:
"... Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion. ..."
"... The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events. ..."
"... Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him. ..."
"... Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia. ..."
"... Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President. ..."
"... Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service. ..."
"... What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration and subsequently? ..."
"... Steele and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services. ..."
"... It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect. ..."
"... David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership in Arizona. ..."
"... Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence. ..."
The Real Story: Issues of War, Peace, and the Future
Beginning with an announcement of President Xi Jinping, at a conference in Kazakhstan in July of 2013, China has set into motion
an entirely new dynamic in the world, a new paradigm of cooperation between nation states, to build vital modern infrastructure allowing
nations in the former "developing sector" to reach their full economic potentials.
Xi Jinping's vision of the New Silk Road or "One Belt, One Road" project has been endorsed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Russia and China are joining in projects which will fully develop the Eurasian landmass, creating a "new financial architecture"
in the Asia-Pacific region.
On July 16, 2014, the BRICS group of nations meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, joined by the Latin American heads of state, agreed
with Xi Jinping's proposal on the creation of an entirely new economic and financial system, representing a fundamental alternative
to the casino economy of the present system of globalization.
The Anglo-American globalist system is based on maximized profit of the few, and the impoverishment of billions of people.
In the new paradigm, financing for joint great projects is to come from development banks, such as the newly created Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, ending dependence on such globalist institutions as the IMF or World Bank.
Globalization as administered by the IMF and World Bank is effectively a system of imperial debt slavery, keeping the nations
dependent on their loans in primitive economic conditions, while their raw materials are looted.
As Prime Minister Narenda Modi from India remarked,
"The BRICS is unique as an international institution.
In this first instance, it unifies a group of nations, not on the basis of their existing prosperity or common identities, but
rather their future potentials.
The idea of the BRICS itself is thus aligned with the future.
"
It is not incidental to this remark that Russia, China, and India have set future goals for space exploration, including most
specifically exploration of the Moon and possible exploitation of Helium 3 on the Moon, which has the potential of finally realizing
nuclear fusion power as a primary energy source powering the world.
China has made clear that no small part of this initiative is inspired by the work of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
The methods employed echo the ideas of political economy first developed by Alexander Hamilton, and deployed by Abraham Lincoln
and Franklin Roosevelt -- ideas uniquely developed and expanded by Lyndon LaRouche.
Xi Jinping has asked the United States to join this great venture, which could produce thousands of productive jobs and jump-start
infrastructure projects in this country.
Obama adamantly refused Xi's offer, and did everything in his power to block and defeat the Chinese initiative.
President Trump has indicated an openness to the proposition.
These 2013-2014 events were and are a direct challenge to the British imperial system.
They directly challenge the monetary system which is the source of Anglo-American domination of the world.
They directly challenge fundamental British strategic policy extant since the days of Halford Mackinder.
Under the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, joined with Russia's Eurasian Union, Mackinder's "world island" of Eurasia and Africa
will be developed, crisscrossed with new high-speed rail links, new cities, and vital modern infrastructure, based on the mutual
benefit of all of the nation states existing there.
Under the British geopolitical model, this area of the world has been subjected to endless instability, war, and raw materials
looting.
Xi Jinping has also attacked the geopolitical axioms by which the United States and the British have operated.
He proposes instead a model of "win-win" cooperation in which nation states collaborate for development based on the common aims
of mankind.
The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National
Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych,
because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia.
Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape
dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion.
The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against
Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events.
Think about former DNI Clapper's unhinged speech in Australia of June 7, 2017. Clapper ranted that it was in Putin's and Russia's "genes" to attack the United States. Since Trump pursues better relations and shared intelligence with Russia on terrorism, Clapper ranted, Watergate (where Richard
Nixon committed proven crimes) paled in comparison to Russiagate (where both Clapper and Comey have testified that to date the President
has committed no crimes). Clapper told the Aussies also to target China, accusing the Chinese, without any offer of proof, of meddling in Australia's elections.
Former FBI Director James Comey backed Clapper in his testimony on June 8, 2017, attempting to wax eloquent in response to Senator
Joe Manchin, about how Putin exists with one purpose in mind -- to shred and dismember the United States. But China and Russia have completely outflanked these cretins, and the new paradigm is rapidly coming to life with "shovels in
the ground" everywhere.
In response, the Anglo-American elites have absolutely nothing to offer the world except the same dying, decadent globalist "order."
This explains why many in official Washington let loose their inner alien monster every time the President mentions a desire for
better relations with Russia, or evinces his friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.
This is why Hillary Clinton has literally gone insane, raving like Lady Macbeth, and obsessing about Putin's "man-spreading."
That is why, also, they would risk World War III rather than see the "Belt and Road," the New Silk Road, go forward with its "community
of principle" idea of relations among nations.
What Did Trump Do?
Like LaRouche, Trump represents an existential challenge to the post-War British-dictated monetarist and imperial order.
In his campaign platform he called for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall banking separation.
This would end the casino economy which is about to blow up again -- the real economy never having recovered from the collapse
of 2008.
He wants to build huge modern infrastructure and revitalize the manufacturing sector of the economy with modern manufacturing
techniques.
He wants to return the United States to space exploration and the funding of fundamental science, recognizing the optimistic national
morale which will result from that.
In his public speeches, Trump has repeatedly invoked what he understands as "The American System" of political economy, a concept
developed and elaborated in recent history by only one man, Lyndon LaRouche.
This centers economic systems in nation states, rather than global institutions, and calls for harnessing the resources of the
nation state to develop the economy to higher and higher levels of physical productivity and human culture.
While Trump has features in his version of the American System which LaRouche would not endorse as historically accurate or politically
wise, even the use of the term, invoking Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, is a direct challenge to the free
trade, small-government nostrums foisted on the United States by a parade of British agents during the Twentieth Century.
The British, up to this point, have been largely successful in burying the actual ideas of Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Roosevelt,
and burying the fundamental advances in these ideas resulting from original discoveries by LaRouche.
Through deliberate miseducation of Americans, the British have made their economic theories and systems, against which Americans
explicitly fought in our Revolution, appear to be universal laws of human behavior.
As his recent speech to the United Nations emphasized, Trump envisions a system of sovereign nations, each striving to develop
and enrich their populations, engaged in cooperative trade relationships, reciprocal in nature and targeted for the benefit of each
party.
His U.N.
speech echoed the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, a policy which forbade our nation from "going abroad, seeking monsters
to destroy." This is the very opposite of the imperial-gendarme, perpetual-war policy long favored by the British for the United
States.
Trump's positive vision, under present circumstances, requires active collaboration with Russia and China.
To stop the coup, the President's team and his supporters must stop reacting defensively.
He must act on the aspects of his program -- Glass-Steagall, large scale infrastructure development funded by national banking
mechanism devoted to that purpose, space exploration, fusion power development, and joining the "One Belt, One Road" program with
China, which can actually save the economy and produce high paying jobs.
At the same time, they should look at the actual crimes involved in the coup which are already on the public record, investigate
them -- including in the Congress -- and prosecute them.
With respect to Mueller, they should investigate his obstruction of the investigation into the crimes committed on 9/11, together
with a full public unveiling of the Saudi and British role in international terrorism.
In aid of such an effort we present seven crimes implicated in the events in the coup against the President to date.
Seven Actual Crimes
The crimes outlined below make clear that a Special Counsel, not Robert Mueller, should be investigating the U.S.-British response
to China's Belt and Road Initiative, beginning with the illegal coup in Ukraine which has resulted in the targeting of Paul Manafort.
In the British account of the American election, largely published in pieces in the Guardian, they began warning their American
counterparts about the dangers of Donald Trump's accommodating views toward Putin and Russia in 2015.
These warnings were followed by the specific claim that the Democratic National Committee's servers had been hacked by the Russians
as of July of 2015.
According to the British account, their American counterparts were slow to respond, although the FBI says it notified the DNC,
which did nothing about the alleged Russian hack until June of 2016.
The obvious should be stated here.
If the British were developing dossiers on Trump and his associates as early as 2015, Trump and his associates were under surveillance
as of that date or sooner by British GCHQ and/or the NSA.
We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his
Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions.
He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup.
The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to
the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant.
What was the FBI affidavit which justified the 2014 Manafort, Podesta FISA court surveillance warrant, and what was the British
role in obtaining it? What role did the British play, including GCHQ and MI6, in the Manafort counterintelligence investigation?
What were the British "concerns" about Trump communicated to U.S.
intelligence as early as 2015? What was the specific British warning about hacks of the DNC computer in July 2015? By December
of 2015, according to James Clapper's dodgy January, 2017 report on alleged Russian meddling in the election, hundreds of paid Russian
trolls associated with the St.
Petersburg, Russia, Internet Research Agency had begun to advocate for Trump's election.
At the same time, Michael Flynn attended a dinner at RT in Russia, sitting across the table from Putin.
Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going
after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him.
Is this the date when surveillance on Flynn actually began, or did it begin sooner? What was the British role in this surveillance?
Carter Page has also been a subject in Mueller's Russiagate hysteria.
He apparently walked in to volunteer for the Trump campaign without any prior association with the President, and was disavowed
by the campaign soon after.
He went to school in London, had a variety of business dealings in Russia, and had volunteered for the Trump campaign as a foreign
policy advisor by simply walking in the door.
Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures,
and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia.
Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and
into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's
January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President.
According to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, in September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked
with countering foreign propaganda, which worked with the U.S. military in Europe to interfere with websites considered to be distributing
Russian propaganda. This project ultimately morphed into NATO's Strategic Communications Service, tasked with suppressing any news
or person favorable to the Russian position concerning strategic topics, but particularly Ukraine. From its inception, the NATO Strategic
Communications Service incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Service.
Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic
analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's
Digital Forensic Service.
News about Russian trolls operating out of the IRA and poisoning the Western mind filled the British press in 2015. In line with
this NATO project is the Information Warfare Initiative in the U.S., centered at the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis
and founded by Washington Post neo-con Anne Applebaum. It is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. intelligence
community, and has concentrated its attacks on the Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik.
2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uc-JTs2BkDw?wmode=opaque&controls=&rel=0
Watch LaRouchePAC's full interview of former CIA Officer Ray McGovern and the VIPS report.
William Binney has insisted from the first reference to Russian hacking as the source of the WikiLeaks Podesta/DNC documents,
that if such an event had occurred, the NSA would have traced it and could say so with certainty. In their report, the VIPS point
out that the CIA's "Marble Framework" program allows for obfuscation of cyberattacks and false flag attribution to other state actors.
WikiLeaks has consistently claimed that the source of its dossier was an inside leak from the DNC, implying that Seth Rich, a DNC
data management staffer who supported Bernie Sanders, was one of its sources.
Rich was murdered in July of 2016 in Washington, D.C., in a crime which remains unsolved at this date.
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) recently met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and states that he has evidence confirming that
the WikiLeaks DNC/John Podesta email trove was the result of a leak, not a Russian hack.
(3). The Trump Tower Meeting -- Entrapping a Presidential Campaign
On June 9, 2016, a meeting took place in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, at the time the campaign manager
for the Trump Presidential campaign, Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and five other people. As opposed to media accounts,
only one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting was a Russian, the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. By all accounts provided
by participants, the meeting was very short, and involved the Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress on certain Russians.
Many consider these 2012 sanctions to be the opening shot of the New Cold War. This meeting has attracted extensive attention
from Special Counsel Mueller, as the media has painted it as a "smoking gun." The emails setting up the meeting do not reflect
what actually happened at the meeting.
Instead, they bear all the marks of an intelligence-agency entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr., designed to fix the "Manchurian
candidate" label on Trump early in the general election campaign. The emails setting up the meeting specifically offered "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton to be provided by the Russian government itself.
On July 15, 2016, at the same time as the FBI was opening an investigation of the Russians for interfering in the U.S.election
and of the Trump campaign for colluding with them, another British intelligence operative, Bill Browder, was filing a complaint with
the U.S.
Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities,
namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject
and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the British government's Trump file already included a full
history of Donald Trump's sponsorship of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and its players, Trump's real estate dealings with
Russians anywhere in the world, all of candidate Trump's conciliatory statements toward Russia, and complaints that campaign advisor
Michael Flynn was soft on Russia, and a rebel against the U.S. intelligence establishment from within that establishment.
The file also included surveillance of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was considered an outright enemy of Anglo-American
interests given his political work for the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, and Trump's
relationship with Felix Sater, a Russian-American and high level FBI informant.
3 The official British government file also probably included surveillance of apartments at Trump Tower associated with a then
ongoing investigation of a Russian organized crime ring said to operate there and figures involved in the FIFA corruption investigation
who also lived there. The FIFA investigation was worked by the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Strike Force and Christopher Steele.
So, even before the Trump Tower meeting, we find following intelligence services in motion and attempting to concoct illicit dirt
about Trump and Putin: British intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, the DNI and the CIA in the United States, the FBI, and NATO's
Strategic Communications Service and its U.S. offshoots.
But wait, as they say in infomercial sales, that's not even close to all involved. According to Foreign Policy Magazine
and others, on July 11, 2017, a hacker going by the name of "Johnnie Walker" published a trove of emails from the private account
of Lieutenant Robert J.Otto, who is tasked to a secretive unit in the U.S.State Department focused on Russia. Newsweek magazine states
that Otto is the nation's "foremost" intelligence guy concerning Russia. The emails have not been authenticated. However, they contain
an email purported to be on the day of the Trump Tower meeting between Otto and Kyle Parker, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
featuring a picture of Russian attorney Natalia Velselnitskaya's house in Russia.
Parker credits himself as the actual author of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and a close friend of Bill Browder.
Velselnitskaya claims that her children have been threatened as a result of her participation in a legal case questioning the bona
fides of Bill Browder and the factual foundations of the Magnitsky Act. The picture of her house in this context suggests another
level of intense surveillance directed at Trump Tower on the day of the meeting, and the possibility that threats to her family were
actually governing Veselnitskaya's behavior.
The Set-Up
On June 3rd, Trump Jr.was emailed by publicist Ron Goldstone, a British national who operates out of the U.S., whose first career
was as a British tabloid journalist. Goldstone's Facebook account appears to indicate that he is presently on a break from his businesses
and on a world tour of gay bathhouses in which the proudly obese Goldstone takes pictures of himself wearing various strange hats
and shirts in the company of young men.
Who is financing this tour apparently outside the reach of Grand Jury subpoenas? Goldstone has also been photographed with Kathy
Griffin, who famously posted a picture of herself with President Trump's severed head. Goldstone emailed Donald Trump, Jr.
that Aras Agalarov wanted Goldstone to set up a meeting with Trump, Jr. in which sensitive Russian government files about Hillary
Clinton's dealings with Russia would be provided to the Trump campaign as a gesture of official Russian government support of the
campaign. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting. Goldstone is the publicist for Emin Agalarov, an Azerbarjani pop star. Aras Agalarov
and his son Emin partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The base of operations for the Agalarov family
is the Moscow regional government, not Putin's Kremlin.
The actual twenty-minute meeting involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who did most of the speaking by all accounts;
Rinat Akhmetshin, a well-known Washington D.C.-based lobbyist and American citizen; Ike Kaveladze, a U.S. citizen and vice-president
at one of the Agalarov's companies; Ron Goldstone; and the translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, Anatoli Samochornov. Samochornov
is also an American citizen who worked with Veselnitskaya frequently, since she does not speak English. He has also worked extensively
for the FBI and the U.S. State Department.
Although Akhmetshin has been linked to Russian counterintelligence repeatedly in the news media, that all appears to be based
on his bragging about his two-year stint in the Russian military as a young man.
The topic addressed by Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, which resulted from a campaign conducted
by violently anti-Putin British operative William Browder, allied with Senator John McCain and the D.C. public relations firm Ashcroft
and Glover.
Any sound investigation about this meeting would focus on who, out of the small army of intelligence operatives watching this
meeting, designed and implemented the clear entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr. for later use.
Since it was surveilled and recorded by multiple intelligence agencies tripping all over one another at the time, (you get the
image of Keystone cops), why was it only surfaced as the "smoking gun" recently? Natalia Veselnitskaya had been paroled into the
United States to serve as the Russian lawyer in a legal case in the Southern District of New York based solely on money-laundering
allegations made by Bill Browder against her Russian clients.
At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, however, Veselnitskaya was traveling on a business visa issued by the U.S. Department
of State after having been previously denied such a visa, and after efforts by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York to prevent any free travel by her in the U.S. at all. Immigration attorneys I have spoken to describe this situation as extremely
strange.
(4). Obama's Final Days In Office -- Insurrection Against the President-Elect, Felonious Leaks
In an apparent effort to influence the Electoral College vote following the election, the Obama Administration leaked a preliminary
intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians had hacked the Democrats' computers and otherwise intervened to swing the election
to Donald Trump.
According to the New York Times of March 1, 2017, Obama and his national security colleagues additionally spent the months after
the election and prior to President Trump's inauguration dropping a trail of "leads" in official documents and leaking information,
in the effort to delegitimize Trump and to continue their policies against Russia and China.
Certainly, there is a document trail on this process which appears to be confined to a period of a little over two months.
Evelyn Farkas, formerly of the Defense Department's Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Desk and the Atlantic Council, virtually admitted
to MSNBC in March that she had participated in this process. This is where the illegal unmasking of names in FISA and E.O. 12333
surveillance occurred, when these crimes were committed. Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador, was reportedly involved in 260 unmasking
requests bearing little relationship to her function. Other targets of the House Intelligence Committee concerning illegal unmasking
and leaks include Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Ben Rhodes.
On December 15, 2016, DNI James Clapper signed new procedures allowing the NSA to distribute raw intercept data throughout the
entire intelligence community. These procedures became official on January 3, 2017 when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off
on them.
At issue is modification of secret procedures under E.O. 12333, deemed by Edward Snowden and others as the most significant authority
for our present, completely unconstitutional surveillance state. Previously, the NSA was required to filter and redact information
regarding U.S. citizens monitored in foreign counterintelligence activities. DNI Clapper had also implemented a cloud intelligence
data platform accessible by all intelligence agencies, and obliterating many paper and digital access trails and safeguards.
Were these new procedures implemented in any way based on a desire to facilitate leaks and obscure their origin to future investigators?
(5). The January Blackmail/Extortion Attempt
On January 6, 2017, according to James Comey's June 8th Congressional testimony, the intelligence chiefs went to Trump Tower to
present the Obama Administration's report on Russian hacking, hoping to convince the skeptical President-elect to abandon his campaign
promise for better relations with Putin and Russia.
Following that briefing, in a pre-arranged move with the rest of Obama's intelligence directors, Comey cleared the room of everyone
but himself and Trump.
He presented Trump with the Steele dossier's most salacious allegations, namely that Trump had engaged in sexually perverse acts
with Russian prostitutes while visiting Moscow, and Putin had taped it. This is exactly what the infamous J.Edgar Hoover did -- blackmail
Washington politicians with FBI dossiers, assuring them that he could protect them so long as they did as Hoover wished.
In fact, Comey described this as a "J.Edgar Hoover moment" in answers to questions by Senator Susan Collins on June 8th. Dick
Morris describes the entire affair as "just about as close as you can get to a political assassination without holding a gun to the
President's head." Trump appears to have demanded that the entirely fake dossier be investigated, and refused to back down
in efforts to achieve better relations with Russia. In fact, Trump denounced the intelligence community publicly as acting like Nazis.
He also denounced the McCarthyite hysteria they were generating.
While Comey recorded the President-elect's responses on a classified computer moments after leaving him, Buzzfeed, which had frequently
published raw Clinton/Obama "oppo" stories, published the December 2016 British/Clinton dodgy dossier in full.
The U.S.
intelligence community, particularly Obama's ghoulish grand inquisitor, CIA head John Brennan, proceeded to give it credibility
by leaking that both President-elect Trump and President Obama had been briefed on its contents.
Publication of the Trump Russian sex allegations accompanied James Clapper's factless "official intelligence community assessment"
that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and that they did so to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
Put together by analysts "hand-picked" by the CIA's John Brennan, that assessment was backed by no actual evidence.
It has now been thoroughly debunked as "the hack that wasn't" by the analysis presented by the Veteran's Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity.
John Brennan subsequently explained to Congress and the public that he does not "do evidence."
The Democrats, the news media, and their Republican allies led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, went berserk over the factless
Obama Administration "assessment," demanding special prosecutors and Congressional investigations, and sneering that "other shoes"
were about to drop.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, having clearly lost it, claimed that Russia had committed an "act of war," presumably seeking
to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
(6).
The President Calls Out Comey, Brennan et al.
for Wiretapping Him, They Lie About It To Congress
On March 4, 2017, after General Flynn was fired, and after a deluge of leaks of classified surveillance of members of Trump's
transition and national defense teams, President Trump interrupted the entire fake media narrative by tweeting what had become obvious:
that Obama had him "wiretapped" in Trump Tower prior to the election, and that what was happening to him reeked of McCarthyism.
The media, which had been publishing allegations about FISA warrants and intercepts of Trump or his associates for months, erupted
in what has to be one the most shameless demonstrations of the Big Lie ever known.
They declared that Trump was offering wild claims with no evidence, essentially circling back on their very own reporting and
labeling it, "fake news."
Now it has been revealed that FISA warrants existed on Paul Manafort from 2014 through some period in 2016, and from some period
in 2016 through this year, conveniently omitting the period when he was Trump's campaign manager.
Manafort lives in Trump Tower, and was originally investigated under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his Ukraine activities.
It is fairly obvious that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was the subject of massive surveillance.
It is also abundantly clear from the leaks which occurred concerning contacts with the Russians by Trump's campaign officials
and supporters, that the Trump Tower offices of his transition were subject to massive surveillance, either as the result of extant
FISA warrants or under E.O.
12333.
James Comey and James Clapper were both asked directly in their appearances before Congressional Committees whether there was
any evidence at all to substantiate the President's wiretapping claims.
Both of them gave emphatic answers that there was not, and went out of their respective ways to paint the President as a paranoid
wacko.
So now, Robert Mueller is investigating the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, because he fired an FBI
Director who lied to Congress.
Really?
(7).
The Comey Firing-Attempted Entrapment of the President
On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director Comey breathed new life into what was, by then, an insurrection which had run out of steam.
People were simply tired of Democrats, like Adam Schiff,
4 Schiff has a watermelon face combining features of the comic Charlie Brown and a Conehead; his personality is like the grasping
and crazy personality of Peanuts cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt.
As a prosecutor it took him three tries to convict the hapless former FBI agent Richard Miller of espionage despite overwhelming
and salacious evidence. trying on McCarthyite tinfoil hats before TV cameras and pontificating about the outrage du jour.
Comey, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, made it officially public, for the first time, that the
FBI had been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election since July of 2016.
He opined that the FBI counterintelligence investigation (which had been leaking like a sieve since its instigation in July, without
producing any verifiable facts about either Russian interference or Trump campaign collusion) could continue for many more months,
if not years.
He refused to say whether the President himself was under investigation, despite the fact that he had told the President that
he was not, and had told Congress the same thing behind closed doors.
Despite the daily press instructions about events which the public must view as scandalous (why scandalous was never explained),
and highly publicized Congressional hearings concerning "Russia! Russia! Russia!" all of President Obama's men, at this late date,
had only managed to arrange the human sacrifice of Michael Flynn for lying to the Vice-President about his conversations with the
Russian ambassador in December.
5 Flynn's scalping itself was the result of the unmasking of Flynn's name and illegal leaks of same to the press as a result
of classified surveillance.
This fact was obliterated by sensational press coverage of the hyperventilated visit of Obama Assistant Attorney General Sally
Yates to the White House to warn, nonsensically, that Flynn had been "compromised" by the Russians because he lied to the Vice-President.
Exactly how this makes any sense at all we have not been told.
As Shakespeare's MacBeth intoned, "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They had
also generated ethics, foreign intelligence registration, and tax questions about their other Trump campaign targets -- typical of
what happens when an entire life is put under a microscope, in a dedicated search for something, anything, that could be construed
feasibly as wrongdoing.
Ask yourself, what have any of these people allegedly done? Spoken with the Russians? Talked about lifting sanctions imposed because
Putin reacted to a coup Obama ran against the duly elected government of Ukraine? Lobbied on behalf of foreign governments? Really?
The actual testimony of Obama's intelligence officials before Congressional Committees, shorn of the media hype surrounding it,
was that there was absolutely no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S.
elections.
In fact, on March 15, 2017, Comey himself had told Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein behind closed doors, that the President
was not a target of his investigations, despite planted press stories to the contrary.
Comey had otherwise continually stone-walled Grassley concerning the Senator's persistent questions about the FBI's relationship
to British operative Christopher Steele.
While unable to produce any saleable legal goods, the illicit investigations had significantly bogged down the President's political
agenda, while fostering an increasingly toxic and divisive national political environment.
The strategy of official Washington, the Republicans who opposed the President's election, the Obama/Clinton Democratic establishment,
and the intelligence agencies operating on behalf of British strategic policies and axioms is clear -- use complicit Republicans
to trap the President in failed and obnoxious policies, such as the healthcare bill; hope that the President's silent majority remains
exactly that -- silent; hope that some of the smelly stuff they are throwing up against the wall actually sticks; distract, distract,
distract the President, and prevent him from working with Russia and China to develop the world, end wars, and implement the massive
infrastructure and space exploration projects which will actually save our economy.
On May 3, 2017, Comey followed his March drama-queen performance before the House, with even more theatrical speechifying before
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He bloviated that despite the fact that his unprecedented disclosures and handling of the Clinton email investigation may have
impacted the election, and it made him nauseous, he, Mr.
Eagle Scout and True Crime Detective rolled into one, would do the same thing all over again.
He exaggerated the significance of the Anthony Weiner computer discovery by stating that it contained thousands of new Clinton
emails, not previously produced, some of which were classified -- a statement the FBI had to subsequently correct.
As Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rightly argued, Comey violated numerous Justice Department regulations and ethical
norms in his outrageous actions in the Clinton email investigation.
It is the Attorney General's job to prosecute cases -- to open and close them -- not that of the FBI.
At the same Senate Judiciary hearing, Comey refused to state publicly that President Trump was not under investigation, despite
repeatedly assuring the President of that fact privately.
He knew this allowed the media and Democratic party "color revolution" to continue.
He refused to confirm that there was any investigation into the torrent of illegal classified leaks at the center of the media
campaign.
On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, setting the stage for Robert Mueller's appointment as Special Prosecutor.
At the center of Mueller's inquiry will be a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against the President for firing James Comey,
along with any so-called process crimes he can find during his investigation -- registration offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act, tax offenses, or false statements to FBI agents or Congress.
As he builds his case, Mueller will follow his standard playbook, putting unrelenting psychological pressure on those Trump loyalists
he can implicate in the process crimes.
He will continue to target and investigate the President's family for similar offenses in order to destabilize the President himself.
He will continue the relentless demonization of the President, in order to ensure that neutral officials in Washington who witnessed
key events will testify not according to the truth, but according to what they see as future career prospects.
Following his firing, Comey and friends leaked to the press notes which he had allegedly taken following most of his encounters
with the President.
With each encounter, Comey's leaked account says, he returned to discuss what was said and its implications with a close circle
of his FBI comrades.
He prepared for each encounter with the President based on "murder boards" conducted by his FBI colleagues.
In the course of their meetings, Comey says, the President asked for his loyalty, which Comey portrayed like the request of some
mafia don in a bad Hollywood movie.
If it happened, such a request, in the context of what appeared to be an open insurrection against the President by the intelligence
community, is hardly surprising.
The President denies that it happened.
On the day after the President fired Flynn, according to Comey, the President cleared the room and went one on one with him, expressing
the "hope" that Comey could let the matter of Michael Flynn go.
Comey whines that he took the President's "hope" as an "order," giving rise to concerns about possible obstruction of justice.
This line of reasoning was thoroughly eviscerated by Senator James Risch in the Senate Judicary Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.
Senator Risch forced Comey to admit that Trump never ordered him to let the Flynn matter go, but only expressed a "hope" that
he would do so, and no prosecution that Comey knew of ever went forward, based on someone expressing "hope" for something.
While the President denies he ever asked Comey to let the Flynn matter go, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and famed trial lawyer
Alan Dershowitz writes that the President would be fully within his legal and constitutional prerogatives to order Comey to back
off Flynn.
He could have simply told Comey, I am going to pardon Flynn.
So, it is clear by James Comey's own account that he was trying to set the President up, to entrap him -- an escapade which was
"crudely" interrupted when the President fired him.
Again, confirming this, Comey told Senator Susan Collins in his testimony, that the reason why he did not stop the President from
improper interactions, if he thought they were such, the reason he concealed the alleged improper and possibly illegal conduct from
his superiors at the Justice Department, and the reason he did not resign, was because his encounters with the President were of
"investigative interest" to the FBI.
Otherwise, Comey's leaks reveal a man so leery of even shaking the President's hand (or being photographed doing it) that once
in January he tried to hide himself in the White House drapes in the hopes that Trump would not see him.
The problem for Robert Mueller's obstruction case, among others, is that both Comey and his Assistant Andrew McCabe have previously
testified, under oath, to Congress that there was no pressure to end the FBI's investigations from anyone in the Trump Administration.
And, Comey confirmed in his testimony that prior to his firing, Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia, obstruction,
or any other offense.
Further, Comey has proved that he is willing to violate professional norms and Justice Department regulations, if not laws, by
leaking government documents.
The question is, what else was leaked by Comey and his FBI circle? Finally, we now know that Comey lied to or misled Congress
about the "wiretaps" on Trump Tower -- the Manafort FISA warrants prove the case.
Senator Grassley has asked the FBI: Why, if you were wiretapping a close associate of the President, wouldn't you warn the President
about him as is customarily done? The true answer is that the President himself was and is the target of an unprecedented and illegal
coup-attempt conducted by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.
Those familiar with the relationship between Comey and Robert Mueller describe them as "joined at the hip," "cut from the same
cloth" (can't help thinking of the Union Jack), close personal friends, and mentor (Mueller) to mentee (Comey).
The problem with this relationship is that Department of Justice conflict guidelines specifically bar prosecutors (Mueller) from
investigating issues where close friends (Comey) have a significant role, such as material witnesses.
Official Washington knows all of this and yet touts this investigation as somehow "independent," "apolitical," and "unconflicted."
Will You Help Us End This Coup?
So, now you know.
Since the election and before, we have been stuck in a very elaborate and dangerous British hoax, gambling the future of our nation
in a cold coup against an elected president.
Actual crimes have been committed -- not by the President -- but against the President and the Constitution.
What has happened is that political differences, ideas, have been criminalized, the very danger most provisions of our Constitution
and its Bill of Rights were explicitly designed to guard against.
We have shown you the prosecutorial robot named Robert Mueller, whom others have always pointed to shoot, and why he has been
deployed to take out the President of the United States.
We have told you the real reasons why the President has been attacked by a foreign power, the British and their allies in our
country.
We have shown you that many of the same people and methods were deployed on a smaller scale to deprive the world of the beautiful
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.
Now, at a point where this President, freed of Mueller and adequately advised, could join with China's Belt and Road and usher
in a new renaissance for mankind, shouldn't we really, finally, win our future, this time?
"... Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination was originally published 20 years ago in January. Michael Collins Piper in this book argued that the Israelis killed Kennedy. Vanunu endorsed Piper's book. ..."
"... A JFK researcher once wrote that Piper was on to something in his research linking Israel to the assassination of President. But he said that we had to proceed with caution. Because to be accused of anti-Semitism is about the same as being accused of being a child molester. ..."
Mordecai Vanunu was the original whistleblower. In 1986 he told the world that Israel had
nuclear weapons publishing photos of the secret Dimona works in the British press. He said
Prime Minister Ben Gurion ordered the assassination of JFK because the President opposed
Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Ben Gurion resigned in protest over JFK's Israeli
policies. Vanunu also wrote a letter in 1997 saying that there was even a link between the
assassination of Kennedy and Israel's launching of the 1967 war.
Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination was originally published 20
years ago in January. Michael Collins Piper in this book argued that the Israelis killed
Kennedy. Vanunu endorsed Piper's book.
The Oliver Stone movie JFK was the kosher version of the assassination. Piper does not
dispute that Clay Shaw had connections to the CIA. But the film neglects Shaw's connections to
the heart of the Israeli nuclear program. He was on the Board of Directors of Permindex, a
Swiss assassination bureau. Permindex is an Israeli front and were not run by the CIA as Oliver
Stone had said. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of
Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. That bank
was used by Meyer Lansky to launder hot money. Permindex was owned by CMC of Rome, which was
founded by a Hungarian Jew named George Mandel who had deep connections with Israel and the
Mossad. Mandel was the first man to start rumors about Auschwitz being a death camp. The
Chairman of the Board at Permindex was Louis Bloomfield, a Canadian Jew and close associate of
Edgar Bronfman. He also had long standing connections with the Rothschilds dating back before
WW II.
The Stern family funded Clay Shaw's defense. They can be traced back to the Purple Gang of
Detroit. The Stern family owned WDSU radio and TV stations in New Orleans. They ran stories on
Lee Harvey Oswald who was a member of an FBI front group called the Fair Play for Cuba
Committee. This gave Oswald the cover of being a Leftist while spying on American liberals. The
Stern family was heavily invested in the NUMEC nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which was the
source of Israel's first nuclear bomb. NUMEC also dumped nuclear waste in Pennsylvania.
Piper said Clay Shaw might have had more to do with CIA-Mossad attempts to assassinate
Charles De Gaulle than he did with the assassination of President Kennedy.
Ed Asner played Guy Bannister, the private detective, in the movie JFK. Bannister was a good
friend ofKent and Phoebe Courtney. Bannister and the Courtneys were active in conservative
politics. But the Courtneys did frustrate the work of people on the Right that the
Anti-Defamation League did not like. Joe Pesci played David Ferrie in the movie JFK. He was a
pilot and a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Bannister, Ferrie and Oswald spied on Leftists in New
Orleans. Guy Bannister also was a friend of Botnick who was the head of the New Orleans of ADL
office. The Courtneys, Bannister, Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald were actively spying on Leftists
in New Orleans for the ADL and Botnick.
The producer of JFK was the Israel spy Arnon Milchan who sold nuclear triggers to Israel. A
J Weberman, an Israeli citizen, was the first to say that District Attorney Jim Garrison had an
unpublished manuscript that charged Israel was behind the assassination of President
Kennedy.
John King offered Jim Garrison a judgeship to stop his investigation of Clay Shaw. King was
a business partner of Bernie Cornfeld whose Investors Overseas Service was a 2.5 billion dollar
fraud. It was a subsidiary of Permindex and was linked to Tibor Rosenbaum and the Mossad.
The London Jewish Chronicle denounced President Kennedy's UN delegation position that
displaced Palestinians had the right to return to the land that Israel had illegally taken from
them during the 1948 war. The Jewish Chronicle published this in London on November 22,
1963.
Adlai Stevenson, a former Presidential candidate, was the American UN ambassador at the
time. Stevenson's son was also a Senator and opposed Israel's excesses. He was critical of
Israel sinking the USS Liberty in the 1967 war, which killed 34 American sailors.
Lyndon Johnson said he wanted the USS Liberty to sink to the bottom of the Mediterranean
even while the Israelis were attacking the ship. LBJ was sleeping with a former Irgun
terrorist, Mathilde Krim. Her husband was one of LBJ's many Jewish advisers.
A JFK researcher once wrote that Piper was on to something in his research linking
Israel to the assassination of President. But he said that we had to proceed with caution.
Because to be accused of anti-Semitism is about the same as being accused of being a child
molester.
The suggestion that LBJ was shacked up with a Zionist when Israel attacked and tried to sink
the USS Liberty in 1967 is not used here as a metaphor, as in "strange bedfellows;" it is meant
literally as in shacked up. You see, he was 'close friends" with Arthur and Mathilde Krim and
Johnson even built a little cottage on his ranch called "Mathilde's house." No one has a tape
of Johnson's doings in his bedroom that night, with the possible exception of J Edgar Hoover,
who was famous for such things, and Hoover's secretary destroyed "those" files when he
died.
We know LBJ had a different mistress , and in his usual crude
manner said he could shall we say "get more sex" than JFK. So was he shacked up with the pretty
Zionist or not? You will have to judge on probabilities. In a way, that is not is the big
scandal, anyway.
The big scandal is that Israel attacked the USS Liberty as a false flag, to blame it on
Egypt at the start of the Six Day War and thus draw the U.S. in openly on Israel's side. The
big scandal is that LBJ ordered other ships to NOT help them and 34 men died in a vicious
attack that, save for a miracle, did NOT send the ship to the bottom of the sea, killing all on
board.
Was she genially attracted to Johnson, or she was on "special mission"?
This "pretty woman" was a former member of Irgun, no more no less: "Danon spent his time
"recruiting and carrying out secret Irgun operations throughout Western Europe," and his wife
used her bicycle to transport explosives across international borders bound for the Irgun in
Palestine– "a seemingly innocent petite and pretty blonde out for a bicycle ride," Neff
says."
Also: "At the University of Geneva, Mathilde was a brilliant student of biology and genetics.
Appalled by newsreels of Nazi concentration camps in 1945, she sought out Jewish activists,
joined the Zionist underground Irgun and spent a summer smuggling guns over the French border for
resistance [ sic ] fighters against British rule in Palestine." "Mathilde became so
enamored of the Jewish struggle and of Danon's daring undercover operations in Europe that she
converted to Judaism and married Danon. Then she, too, became an Irgun agent."
If we approach JFK assassination from cue bono principle it is clear the Israel can be viewed
as a few beneficiaries of his death. Especially taking into account the level of Links of LBJ and
Israel lobby.
Notable quotes:
"... Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East ..."
On January 15, Mathilde Krim, a scientist and socialite, died on Long Island at 91, and the
obituaries described her courageous leadership in the fight against AIDS. Krim was incensed by
the widespread stigmatization of AIDS victims as somehow deserving the disease, and she worked
to lift prejudice that kept our society from taking the illness seriously. (I saw her work for
myself, attending a fundraiser at her East Side townhouse back in the 90's).
What the news has not told you about is Krim's other great achievement: helping to swing the
White House to Israel's side in the 1960's. The no-daylight policy of U.S. alignment with the
Israeli government, so obvious today in Trump's deference to Netanyahu, was born under Mathilde
Krim's dear friend Lyndon Johnson. In the feverish weeks surrounding the 1967 war, Krim, who
had once emigrated to Israel, and her husband Arthur, a leading fundraiser, were continually at
Johnson's side, and advised him on what to say publicly.
"Johnson was the pivotal president for our relationship with Israel and I think Mathilde
Krim's sway over Johnson was such that it turned the entire relationship, allowing Israel to
continue on, especially after the Six Day War, in a manner that defied not only the U.N. but
the whole world with regard to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians," says Martin Brod, a
retired systems analyst in New York who has long studied the role of Israel's American friends
in cementing the special relationship. Here is that story.
Mathilde Krim was a person of depth, intrigue and compassion. Born Mathilde Galland in 1926
in Italy to parents of Swiss, Italian and Austrian background, she moved with her family to
Switzerland as a girl and went on to be a brilliant student, earning a Ph. D. in genetics from
the University of Geneva.
When she learned about the Holocaust as a teenager, Krim identified with Jews. She felt as
she did for AIDS victims 40 years on, a need to protect them against bigotry, abandonment, and
rejection from the wider community.
These feelings led Krim to support Zionist militants during and after the war. The New York
Times
obituary by Robert D. McFadden includes one reference to her Zionist zeal:
Appalled by newsreels of Nazi concentration camps in 1945, she sought out Jewish
activists, joined the Zionist underground Irgun and spent a summer smuggling guns over the
French border for resistance fighters against British rule in Palestine.
After earning a bachelor's degree in 1948, she married an Irgun comrade, David Danon, a
Bulgarian medical student, and converted to Judaism.
Danon had been exiled by the British from Palestine for his Irgun activities, and Krim saw
him as a "dashing and heroic figure" dedicated to a noble cause that had used terrorism to
achieve its ends, she said in an interview with the late Donald Neff, a former Time Magazine
correspondent, for his book Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle
East (1984).
Krim said she was moved by the "despair" of the Zionists. The blowing up of the King David
Hotel in 1946 and the assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944 "represented the depth of the
convictions of Danon and the Irgunists, the measure of both their commitment and their
despair," Neff related. Danon spent his time "recruiting and carrying out secret Irgun
operations throughout Western Europe," and his wife used her bicycle to transport explosives
across international borders bound for the Irgun in Palestine– "a seemingly innocent
petite and pretty blonde out for a bicycle ride," Neff says.
Mathilde Krim in the lab, undated photo
She and Danon had a daughter and moved to Israel in 1953, but there the marriage ended, and
Krim didn't stay an Israeli that long either. She was working as a geneticist at the Weizmann
Institute south of Tel Aviv when board member Arthur Krim came to visit. Arthur was a leading
entertainment lawyer and studio executive, a former chairman of United Artists and Orion
Pictures, and assiduously political. He was an adviser to several Democratic presidents due to
his fundraising network, backing traditional Jewish causes: Israel and the U.S. civil rights
movement.
"The story was that the head of the Weizmann Institute introduced Mathilde to Arthur Krim,
suggesting that he might find her interesting because she spoke many languages and was a very
attractive woman," Brod says. "It developed into a romance after she showed him around the
institute."
Arthur and Mathilde Krim with President Kennedy, May 1962, at the Krim residence in NY.
Photo by Cecil Stoughton.
The two married in 1958, when Mathilde was 32 and Arthur was 48. Mathilde soon moved to New
York, and went to work at Sloan Kettering as a researcher. And Arthur became chair of the
Democratic National Finance Committee.
Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday, Mr. President in Madison Square Garden in 1962.
It was on that account that Mathilde formed one of the most important relationships of her
life. In May 1962 Arthur Krim helped assemble Hollywood names for the famous fundraising gala
at the Madison Square Garden at which Marilyn Monroe sang Happy Birthday, Mr. President to Jack
Kennedy (a few months before her death). The after-party was held at the Krim mansion, Mathilde
Krim related later in an
interview with the LBJ Library; and Vice President Lyndon Johnson was an outsider at the
party. Mathilde empathized with Johnson and befriended him as he sat on a staircase.
I think he was a great man, that's the best word. And he was imposing. He was not only
physically an imposing man, and great. He had a great heart, he had a great intelligence, and
he put them both to work, in fantastic ways.
Brod believes that Mathilde Krim was strategic in forming the friendship.
From the day they first met which was at the party for JFK at the Krim residence in the
city– from that day forward she speaks proudly of having nurtured a relationship with
Johnson because Johnson was not part of the JFK inner circle. I don't think it was an
accident that she approached Johnson and developed this ongoing relationship. I have a
feeling that from her entry into the United States if not before there was a plan of how she
could best serve Israel and she began serving them when she was living in Switzerland in her
first marriage and her work with the Stern gang. She had a strong stomach to involve herself
with that kind of terror, and she certainly lived up to it here.
The transition from Kennedy to Johnson in 1963 was an important moment in the history of the
special relationship.
Kennedy had bridled at the pro-Israel influence. In 1960, his campaign was in trouble when a
group of Jewish leaders gave him $500,000 at the Pierre Hotel in New York, and then
"interrogated Kennedy stringently on matters affecting Jews and Israel," (as
Abba Eban later related ). "As an American citizen [Kennedy] was outraged" by the effort to
take "control" of JFK's Middle East policy, his friend the newspaperman Charles Bartlett told
Seymour Hersh.
As president, Kennedy maintained some distance from the Israeli government. He supported the
right of return of Palestinian refugees and vigorously opposed Israel's acquisition of nuclear
weapons. The CIA had obtained evidence of the Israeli nuclear project in the desert at
Dimona– claimed to be a fabric factory, Brod says– and in the year before he was
assassinated, Kennedy had pushed Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi
Eshkol, to account for the activities.
His successor had fewer scruples about backing Israel. Johnson's political career was
interwoven with Jews, as his wife later reflected, and he saw that nuclear nonproliferation
"made for bad politics," as Hersh says in The Samson
Option , because it alienated the Jewish community. Johnson ultimately suppressed
intelligence reports that Israel was becoming a nuclear power. "By 1968, the President had no
intention of doing anything to stop the Israeli bomb," Hersh writes.
Mathilde Krim dances with Johnson at January 20, 1965, inaugural ball following his
reelection in 1964.
Mathilde Krim was undoubtedly a factor in that policymaking. Throughout his presidency, the
Krims were among Johnson's very closest friends. They had a room in the White House and built a
house on Lake Lyndon B. Johnson in the Texas hill country so as to be near his ranch in
Stonewall when he was on vacation there. Johnson stayed at their house in New York.
It has been suggested that Mathilde Krim was LBJ's lover. "It was a barely hidden secret in
leading government circles in Israel and the United States at the time that Mrs. Krim was
extremely close to Lyndon Johnson," Helena Cobban wrote in her blogpost on Krim last
week. While Brod points out that Johnson was a "competitive womanizer," according to
his
aide Bill Moyers, and certainly the president had social opportunities alone with Mathilde
Krim.
Mathilde Krim and Lady Bird Johnson with President Johnson in a helicopter en route to the
LBJ Ranch from the Krim Ranch, November 1966. Photo by Mike Geissinger of the White House.
But the essence of the relationship was political; and the Krims' influence was apparent
throughout the days leading up to the 1967 war, when Johnson signaled to Israel that it had a
yellow light to go ahead with the war, a signal "tantamount to a green one," in the view of
scholar William Quandt, as it let the Israelis know that the U.S. would not condemn them for
launching the war, and if they got into trouble the US would come to their side.
Mathilde Krim was a "key channel" for the Israelis to signal their plans to Johnson and to
get signals in return, Cobban writes:
The huge role that Mrs. Krim played in 1967 is well-known to everyone who has seriously
studied US-Israeli relations at that time. After all, she was an integral part of a
well-oiled pro-Israeli influence movement at the heart of the US political system, and the
DC-Tel Aviv signaling process that she was part of worked strongly in Israel's favor to
transform not just the Middle East but the whole shape of global politics.
Donald Neff also says that Mathilde Krim's influence swayed American policy: Johnson "left
himself more open to a passionately partisan voice than was prudent or even healthy during the
accelerating crisis."
Neff's book documents Mathilde Krim's steady presence at Johnson's side that spring. Ten
days before the war began, Johnson spent Memorial Day weekend 1967 at his ranch in Texas with
the Krims, and regularly received communications about the mounting crisis in the Middle East
from Eshkol with the Krims close at hand.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Arthur Krim, A.W. Moursund, Lady Bird Johnson, Mathilde Krim.
At a ranch near Kingsland, Texas, April 13, 1968. White House photo by Mike Geissinger.
"We talked with him all the time about Israel," Krim told Neff. Johnson admired the Israelis
because he was a rancher dealing with dry land, she said, and "he had an entirely emotional
liking for Jews, for what they had suffered, for the way they had been discriminated against,
as he felt he had been discriminated against by the Eastern Establishment."
On June 3, the following Saturday night, the Krims were Johnson's company at a fundraiser at
the Waldorf Astoria in New York, intended in part to shore up his support in the Jewish
community. Arthur Krim hosted the fundraiser; and Johnson sat between Mathilde Krim and Mary
Lasker, another huge contributor to the party (and widow of Albert Lasker, an Israel backer).
The legendary fundraiser Abe Feinberg was there, and served as a conduit for the Israeli war
plans, reports William Quandt in his book Peace Process .
"[H]e leaned over and whispered in his ear: 'Mr President, it can't be held any longer.
It's going to be within the next twenty-four hours."
Two days later, on the morning of June 5, Mathilde Krim was in her bed in her room on the
third floor of the White House when Johnson came in to tell her the war had begun. In his book
1967, Tom Segev reported that Johnson was accompanied by two security men and that Krim opened
the door in her nightgown. Johnson said, "We are at war," then turned around and left.
According to Segev, Johnson was angry. "Until the end of his life he viewed the war as a
mistake." (That regret about the war seems to be footnoted by Segev to former national security
adviser Walt Rostow's archive).
Later that afternoon, the Jewish community was angered when State Department spokesperson
Robert J. McCloskey said at a press conference: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and
deed." The statement suggested that the U.S. would do to Israel what it had done under
Eisenhower in 1956, and force the country to withdraw from lands it seized in war.
Over the next few days Johnson came under intense pressure to deny McCloskey's assertion.
"Seldom, if ever, had a president been subjected or allowed himself to be subjected, to such a
concerted campaign as Lyndon Johnson that Wednesday. It was all pro-Israel; Arabs seemed to
have no advocates," Neff notes acidly.
Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas phoned Johnson, and Mathilde Krim dictated memos to the
president, urging him to repair the damage that McCloskey had done with Jewish Americans.
In one memo that LBJ later read to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Krim called on the president
to make a speech calling "for a permanent peace settlement." Those words meant that the U.S.
would not demand an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.
In another memo, Krim told the president he did not understand "the resentment still
lingering [among Jews] after the McCloskey statement" and the political dangers inherent. She
channeled the Israelis and American Jews:
"There are reports of very strong anti-American feelings in Israel -- that Israelis feel
they have won the war not with the U.S. but despite the U.S. In the Jewish community it is
very difficult to explain the coincidence of the statement and the beginning of hostilities.
The Jews are a people with a persecution complex and they understood the statement of the
State Dept. to mean that in an hour of gravest danger to them that this country disengaged
itself That is why they reacted so violently
"There is great danger that the Jewish rally to be held tomorrow in Lafayette Square here
will be anti-Johnson, rather than a pro-Israel demonstration. Even Minister [Ephraim] Evron
[at the Israeli embassy] says things are going out of hand."
She advised Johnson that he could "salvage" the situation if he made a "very strong
statement." Krim then went back to New York City, but her last call to the White House June 7
was at a minute before midnight, Neff reports.
She was back at Johnson's side on the weekend, which he spent at Camp David preparing a
speech that he would give on Monday, June 12, "which was to establish the nation's official
policy in the Middle East," Neff says. Johnson read drafts of his speech Saturday night at
dinner with the Krims and others, "inserting additions and making changes, also accepting
comments and suggestions from all at the table," according to notes in the Presidential Daily
Diary. Also commenting at that dinner: Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt. Such was Mathilde
Krim's status.
Johnson gave the speech on Monday morning, and issued five principles of peace in the
region, beginning with "security for all nations in the region." And though the list included
"justice for the refugees," Johnson did not call on Israel to withdraw– not till all
principles were attained.
The FBI has obtained 'indisputable evidence' that Obama-era CIA officials paid British spies to fabricate the Trump-Russia dossier
in order to justify wiretapping the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him. ..."
"... It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset. ..."
"... The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House. ..."
The U.K.'s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive "intelligence" allegedly
linking Trump to Russia.
The sources believe that John Brennan and James Clapper used highly classified intelligence channels to create a trail of fake
evidence linking Trump to Russia.
George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him.
It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that
Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset.
The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House.
"Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald
Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives..
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected
Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of
information, they added."
The most valuable part is the comments. They, while biased, given a very good overview of the complexity of the issues and the
US political system and political clans that seen power within it.
I think more powerful interests the Israel were involved. Israel would never do this on their own. Now more then 50 years after JFK assassination I have suspicion that probably this murder will never be solved
although several plausible hypothesis were already establish (the role on LBJ and CIA, especially Angleton, are two
most prominent). The theory tht Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin theory is discredited, but there is no consensus about what
should replace it other then consensus that CIA played an important role and there was understand that LBJ will cover this up.
A really interesting quote from comments: " I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt
on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the
other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.
Notable quotes:
"... In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for ten years ..."
"... Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President's security ..."
"... And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997). ..."
"... Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangements were made for two French Intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States. Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. ..."
"... "President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. [ ] the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence." ..."
"... Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film, despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the "grassy knoll" well in front of the President, not from the School Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from. ..."
"... He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his motivation as a family feud. ..."
"... In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible to reopen the case of his brother's assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John's murderers. They had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind. We begin with Robert's assassination. ..."
"... Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses, Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. ..."
"... In 2008, Harvard University professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of "high hypnotizables," acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion: "His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic hypnotic behavior and coercive control." [17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/ ..."
"... We know that in the 1960s, American military agencies were experimenting on mental control. Dr Sidney Gottlieb, son of Hungarian Jews, directed the infamous CIA MKUltra project, which, among other things, were to answer questions such as: "Can a person under hypnosis be forced to commit murder?" according to a declassified document dated May 1951. [18] Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg ..."
"... hypnotize him into becoming ..."
"... programmed killer" ..."
"... If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes? ..."
"... Robert had not been, in his brother's government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming itself AIPAC) [21] The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/ . ..."
"... Robert Kennedy's death had not been a bad thing for the precious "American-Israeli relationship." Rather, it was a great loss for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him. ..."
"... But there is plenty of evidence that Angleton, who was also the head of the CIA "Israel Office," was a Mossad mole. According to his biographer Tom Mangold, "Angleton's closest professional friends overseas [ ] came from the Mossad and [ ] he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death." [24] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318. No less that two monuments were dedicated to him at memorial services in Israel during ceremonies attended by chiefs of Israeli Intelligence and even a future Prime Minister. [25] Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153. ..."
"... Oswald's assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. ..."
"... there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld. ..."
"... a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine, and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. ..."
"... Five months later, Kennedy's death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program. Faced with Johnson's complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: "When I cannot get the President to read my reports, then it's time to go." ..."
"... Kennedy's determination to stop Israel's Dimona project was only part of the "Kennedy problem". During his first months in the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated: ..."
"... "Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser's missiles and his Soviet MIGs. [ ] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.'" [43] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51. ..."
"... After Kennedy's death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined. ..."
"... Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination. It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of State after Kennedy's death, would cover them. ..."
"... Johnson's privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting up and in the cover-up of the plot. ..."
"... Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). ..."
"... at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy's autopsy was performed, after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy's skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy's body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds. ..."
"... It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson's personal secretary, Bobby Baker, was charged in the same case. ..."
"... Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his upcoming reelection campaign. ..."
"... President's visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson's removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November 22 nd : "Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson." Instead, Johnson became president that very day. ..."
"... According to his biographer Robert Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting "for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will." ..."
"... Jack Ruby, whom Nixon identified a one of "Johnson's boys," according to former Nixon operative Roger Stone ..."
"... He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith," but added that "maybe something can be saved [ ], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me." [49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill the beans about Israel's involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson to pardon him. ..."
"... It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger ( A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965), that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post , and strong supporters of Israel. ..."
"... Thanks to JFK's death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally in the Middle East. ..."
"... During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel's attack, and even authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy them in just a few hours. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew, despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS. ..."
"... The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel's spurious "targeting error" explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas ranch. What's more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately flowed to Tel Aviv. ..."
"... Let's now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel. ..."
"... Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State , Progressive Press, 2014 , and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land Clash of Civilizations , 2018. ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556). ..."
"... With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct, but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role. But the issue was the bomb. ..."
"... I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up. ..."
"... Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let's remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said: "England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence." ..."
"... In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn't achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who's research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington ..."
"... Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no. ..."
"... Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time. But here is what is essential: if Israel and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind it all. ..."
"... This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? ..."
"... LBJ's negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he didn't stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba's responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia. ..."
"... John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews. They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex. ..."
"... They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans. ..."
"... In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities ..."
"... I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy. ..."
"... Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts ..."
"... Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about "secret societies" and backing off the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one to try that. ..."
"... I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime. ..."
"... Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton. ..."
"... Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s. ..."
"... The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys -- which on any objective reading they clearly were not -- is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. ..."
"... Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn't try to kill Walker. ..."
"... The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn't an "either/or" with the Mossad vs the CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted to end JFK's efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to the CIA which most definitely did not want to be "splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds" – you have a set of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths. ..."
"... The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated post-WWII. ..."
"... all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other's secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake. ..."
"... the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html And I liked Janney's book. ..."
"... Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through the other alternatives and discard.) ..."
"... Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld . were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets. ..."
"... It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point. ..."
"... And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile. ..."
"... That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291 ..."
"... According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined "acquisition" by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent's primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause 'substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world. ..."
"... Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America's interests – not Israel's interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy. ..."
"... Here's just one example of the CIA trying to clean out the jewish Israeli agents at the CIA. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/355/661/500422/ ..."
"... JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence, but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it. ..."
"... [It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop this sort of bad behavior.] ..."
"... In case of JFK it is pretty obvious that Israel was the greatest beneficiary of his death because of JFK determination to stop Israel's nuclear program. Some correspondence of JFK with PM's of Israel is available on line. Israel defense doctrine was formulate to be based on what later was called Samson Option. In 1963 Israel still cooperated with France on its secret nuclear program. ..."
"... JFK definitively was set on stopping Israel nuclear program which Israel was conducting in secret cooperation with France. After strong letter on May 18, 163 letter PM Ben Gurion preferred to resign than to answer the letter ..."
"... During that same 1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). The Committee uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel, operated a massive network of financial "conduits" which funnelled funds to U.S. Israel lobby groups. As a result, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign funded lobbying activity in the United States. The attempt was subsequently thwarted first by the Israel lobby itself and then by the death of President Kennedy which lead to growing concerns regarding the impact of the ever-growing Zionist influence on U.S. policy making decisions. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright -- who lost his Senate seat the following year -- had no qualms about boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that : "Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. -- somewhere around 80% -- is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government." ..."
"... While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That's idiotic. It also happens to be CIA's boilerplate excuse for all their grave crimes. There's nothing new up there. What's worse, it's plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads. It's not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way. ..."
As Lance deHaven-Smith has remarked in Conspiracy Theory in America:
"It is seldom considered that the Kennedy assassinations might have been serial murders. In fact, in speaking about the murders,
Americans rarely use the plural, 'Kennedy assassinations'. [ ] Clearly, this quirk in the Kennedy assassination(s) lexicon reflects
an unconscious effort by journalists, politicians, and millions of ordinary Americans to avoid thinking about the two assassinations
together, despite the fact that the victims are connected in countless ways."
[1] Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy
Theory in America , University of Texas Press, 2013,kindle 284-292.
John and Robert were bound by an unshakable loyalty. Kennedy biographers have stressed the absolute dedication of Robert to his
elder brother. Robert had successfully managed John's campaign for the Senate in 1952, then his presidential campaign in 1960. John
made him not only his Attorney General, but also his most trusted adviser, even on matters of Foreign or Military affairs. What John
appreciated most in Robert was his sense of justice and the rectitude of his moral judgment. It is Robert, for example, who encouraged
John to fully endorse the cause of the Blacks' civil rights movement
[2] John Lewis' testimony is in the
PBS documentary American Experience Robert F. Kennedy. .
Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated?
Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been
killed by the same force, and for the same motives. It is, at least, a logical working hypothesis that Robert was eliminated from
the presidential race because he had to be prevented from reaching a position where he could reopen the case of his brother's death.
Both his loyalty to his brother's memory, and his obsession with justice, made it predictable that, if he reached the White House,
he would do just that. But was there, in 1968, any clear indication that he would?
The question has been positively answered by David Talbot in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years
, published in 2007 by Simon & Schuster. Robert had never believed in the Warren Report's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the
sole assassin of his brother. Knowing too well what to expect from Johnson, he had refused to testify before the Warren Commission.
When its report came out, he had no choice but to publicly endorse it, but "privately he was dismissive of it," as his son Robert
Kennedy, Jr. remembers [3] Associated
Press, "RFK children speak about JFK assassination," January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com . To close friends who wondered why
he wouldn't voice his doubt, he said: "there's nothing I can do about it. Not now."[4] David Talbot, Brothers: The
Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 278-280, 305.
From 22 November 1963, Robert was alienated and monitored by Johnson and Hoover. Although still Attorney General, he knew he was
powerless against the forces that had killed his brother. Yet he lost no time beginning his own investigation; he first asked CIA
director John McCone, a Kennedy friend, to find out if the Agency had anything to do with the plot, and came out convinced that it
hadn't. In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for
ten years, and whom he suspected of having taken revenge on his brother. Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to
search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President's security[5] David Talbot, Brothers, op.
cit. , 2007, p. 21-22. . And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents
in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997).
In fact, a mere week after JFK's death, November 29, 1963, Bill Walton, a friend of the Kennedys, travelled to Moscow and passed
to Nikita Khrushchev, via a trusted agent who had already carried secret communications between Khrushchev and John Kennedy, a message
from Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy; according to the memo found in the Soviet archives in the 90s by Alexandr Fursenko and Timothy
Naftali ( One Hell of a Gamble , 1998), Robert and Jackie wanted to inform the Soviet Premier that they believed John Kennedy
had been "the victim of a right-wing conspiracy," and that "the cooling that might occur in U.S.-Soviet relations because
of Johnson would not last forever."[6] David Talbot, Brothers, op.
cit., p. 25-7.
ORDER IT NOW
Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This
British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangements were made for two French Intelligence
operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States.
Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months
before his own assassination in June of 1968. After Bobby's death, the last surviving brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, showed no
interest in the material. The investigators then hired a French writer by the name of Hervé Lamarr to fashion the material into a
book, under the pseudonym of James Hepburn. The book was first published in French under the title L'Amérique brûle, and was
translated under the title Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK . Its conclusion is worth quoting:
"President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake
mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. [ ] the plotters were correct when they guessed
that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence."
[7] James Hepburn, Farewell
America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.
Robert had planned to run for the American Presidency in 1972, but the escalation of the Vietnam War precipitated his decision
to run in 1968. Another factor may have been the opening of the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967.
Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film,
despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the "grassy knoll" well in front of the President, not from the School
Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from.
When talk of the investigation began, Kennedy asked one of his closest advisors, Frank Mankievitch, to follow its developments,
"so if it gets to a point where I can do something about this, you can tell me what I need to know." He confided to his friend
William Attwood, then editor of Look magazine, that he, like Garrison, suspected a conspiracy, "but I can't do anything
until we get control of the White House."[8] David Talbot, Brothers, op.
cit., p. 312-314.He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation
was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his
motivation as a family feud.
In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible
to reopen the case of his brother's assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John's murderers. They
had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy
assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind. We begin with Robert's
assassination.
Just hours after Robert's assassination, the press was able to inform the American people, not only of the identity of the assassin,
but also of his motive, and even of his detailed biography.
[9] Extract of TV news in the documentary
film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before , 01:11:42 Twenty-four-year-old Sirhan Bishara
Sirhan was born in Jordania, and had moved to the United States when his family was expelled from West Jerusalem in 1948. After the
shooting, a newspaper clipping was found in Sirhan's pocket, quoting favorable comments made by Robert regarding Israel and, in particular,
what sounded like an electoral commitment: "The United States should without delay sell Israel the 50 Phantom jets she has so
long been promised." Handwritten notes by Sirhan found in a notebook at his home confirmed that his act had been premeditated
and motivated by his hatred of Israel.
That became the story line of the mainstream media from day one. Jerry Cohen of the Los Angeles Times wrote a front page
article, saying that Sirhan is "described by acquaintances as a 'virulent' anti-Israeli," (Cohen changed that into "virulent
anti-semite" in an article for the The Salt Lake Tribune ), and that: " Investigation and disclosures from persons
who knew him best revealed [him] as a young man with a supreme hatred for the state of Israel." Cohen infers that "Senator
Kennedy [ ] became a personification of that hatred because of his recent pro-Israeli statements." Cohen further revealed that:
After September 11, 2001, the tragedy of Robert's assassination was installed into the Neocon mythology of the Clash of Civilizations
and the War on Terror the story. Sirhan became a precursor of Islamic terrorism on the American soil. In a book entitled The Forgotten
Terrorist, Mel Ayton, who specializes in debunking conspiracy theories, claims to present "a wealth of evidence about [Sirhan's]
fanatical Palestinian nationalism," and to demonstrate that "Sirhan was the lone assassin whose politically motivated act
was a forerunner of present-day terrorism" (as written on the back cover).
In 2008, on the 40 th anniversary of Robert's death, Sasha Issenberg of the Boston Globe recalled that the death
of Robert Kennedy was "a first taste of Mideast terror." He quotes Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz (best known as Jonathan
Pollard's lawyer), as saying:
The fact that Sirhan was from a Christian family was lost on Dershowitz. The Jewish Forward took care to mention it on
the same occasion, only to add that Islamic fanaticism ran in his veins anyway:
"But what he shared with his Muslim cousins -- the perpetrators of September 11 -- was a visceral, irrational hatred of Israel.
It drove him to murder a man whom some still believe might have been the greatest hope of an earlier generation."
This leitmotiv of the public discourse begs the question: Was Bobby really a supporter of Israel? But before we answer that question,
there is on more pressing one:
Did Sirhan really kill Bobby?
If we trust official statements and mainstream news, the assassination of Robert Kennedy is an open-and-shut case. The identity
of the killer suffers no discussion, since he was arrested on the spot, with the smoking gun in his hand. In reality, ballistic and
forensic evidence show that none of Sirhan's bullets hit Kennedy.
According to the autopsy report of Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Thomas Noguchi, Robert Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the
brain, fired from behind the right ear at point blank range, following an upward angle. Nogushi restated his conclusion in his 1983
memoirs, Coroner . Yet the sworn testimony of twelve shooting witnesses established that Robert had never turned his back
on Sirhan and that Sirhan was five to six feet away from his target when he fired.
Tallying all the bullet impacts in the pantry, and those that wounded five people around Kennedy, it has been estimated that at
least twelve bullets were fired, while Sirhan's gun carried only eight. On April 23, 2011, attorneys William Pepper and his associate,
Laurie Dusek, gathered all this evidence and more in a 58-page file submitted to the Court of California, asking that Sirhan's case
be reopened. They documented major irregularities in the 1968 trial, including the fact that the bullet tested in laboratory to be
compared to the the one extracted from Robert's brain had not been shot by Sirhan's revolver, but by another gun, with a different
serial number; thus, instead of incriminating Sirhan, the ballistic test in fact proved him innocent. Pepper has also provided a
computer analysis of audio recordings during the shooting, made by engineer Philip Van Praag in 2008, which confirms that two guns
are heard. [13] Frank Morales, "The
Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!" June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; watch on YouTube, "RFK Assassination 40
th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN."
Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses,
Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. More importantly, Sirhan has always claimed, and continues to
claim, that he has never had any recollection of his act:
"I was told by my attorney that I shot and killed Senator Robert F. Kennedy and that to deny this would be completely futile,
[but] I had and continue to have no memory of the shooting of Senator Kennedy."
Psychiatric expertise, including lie-detector tests, have confirmed that Sirhan's amnesia is not faked. In 2008, Harvard University
professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded
that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of "high hypnotizables," acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion:
"His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic
hypnotic behavior and coercive control."
[17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan,
assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/
If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian
blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to
kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes?
The dilemma rests on a misleading assumption, which is part of the deception. In fact, Robert Kennedy was definitely not
pro-Israel. He was simply campaigning in 1968. As everyone knows, a few good wishes and empty promises to Israel are an inescapable
ritual in such circumstances. And Robert's statement in an Oregon synagogue, mentioned in the May 27 Pasadena Independent Star-News
article found in Sirhan's pocket, didn't exceed the minimal requirements. Its author David Lawrence had, in an earlier article entitled
"Paradoxical Bob," underlined how little credit should be given to such electoral promises: "Presidential candidates are
out to get votes and some of them do not realize their own inconsistencies."
All things considered, there is no ground for believing that Robert Kennedy would have been, as president of the US, particularly
Israel-friendly. The Kennedy family, proudly Irish and Catholic, was known for its hostility to Jewish influence in politics, a classic
theme of anti-Kennedy literature, best represented by the 1996 book by Ronald Kessler with the highly suggestive title, The Sins
of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.[20] Ronald Kessler, The Sins
of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
Robert had not been, in his brother's government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders
by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering
the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938,
which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming
itself AIPAC) [21] The Israel Lobby
Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/ .
In conclusion, it is only with outstanding hypocrisy that The Jewish Daily Forward could write, on the 40th anniversary
of Bobby's death:
Robert Kennedy's death had not been a bad thing for the precious "American-Israeli relationship." Rather, it was a great loss
for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him.
Of course, the fact that the Zionist media lied when granting Robert Kennedy some posthumous certificate of good will toward Israel,
and thereby provided Israel with a fake alibi, is not a sufficient reason for concluding that Israel murdered Robert. Even the fact
that the masterminds of the plot chose as their programmed instrument an anti-Zionist Palestinian, and thereby stirred a strong anti-Palestinian
feeling among Americans at the same time as getting rid of Robert, does not prove that Israel was involved. What is still lacking
for a serious presumption is a plausible motive.
The motive of Robert's assassination must be found, not in what Robert publicly declared in an Oregon synagogue during his presidential
campaign, but rather in what he confided only to his most close friends: his intention to reopen the investigation on his brother's
death. Our next question, therefore, is: What would an unbiased investigation, conducted under the supervision of Robert in the White
House, have revealed?
It is obvious to anybody just vaguely informed that a genuine investigation would first establish that Oswald was a mere "patsy"
, as he said himself, a scapegoat prepared in advance to be blamed for the crime and then be slaughtered without a trial.
We will not here review the evidence that contradicts the official thesis of the lone gunman. It can be found in numerous books and
documentary films.
Just as notorious is the theory that the plot to kill Kennedy originated from a secret network within the CIA, in collusion with
extremist elements in the Pentagon. That conspiracy theory looms the largest in books, articles and films that have been produced
since John Kennedy died.
That CIA-Pentagon theory, as I will call it (add the military-industrial complex if you wish) has a major flaw in the motive ascribed
to the killers: besides getting rid of Kennedy, the theory goes, the aim was to create a pretext for invading Cuba, something the
CIA had always pushed for and Kennedy had refused to do (the Bay of Pigs fiasco). With Oswald groomed as a pro-Castro communist,
the Dallas shooting was staged as a false flag attack to be blamed on Cuba. But then, why did no invasion of Cuba followed Kennedy's
assassination? Why was the pro-Castro Oswald abandoned by the Warren Commission in favor of the lone nut Oswald? Those who address
the question, like James Douglass in his JFK and the Unspeakable , credit Johnson with preventing the invasion. Johnson, we
are led to understand, had nothing to do with the assassination plot, and thwarted the plotters' ultimate aim to start World War
III. This is to ignore the tremendous amount of evidence accumulated against Johnson for fifty years, and documented in such groundbreaking
books as Phillip Nelson's LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010) or Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy:
The Case Against LBJ (2013).
Another weakness in the CIA-Pentagon theory is the lack of agreement about the mastermind of the plot. In fact, one of the names
that comes up most often is James Jesus Angleton, the head of Counter-Intelligence within the CIA, about whom Professor John Newman
writes in Oswald and the CIA :
"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton
was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind
to manage this sophisticated plot."
[23] Michael Collins Piper,
False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.
Another aspect must be taken into account: if the trail of the CIA is such a well-trodden path among Kennedy researchers, it is
because it has been cut and marked by the mainstream media themselves, as well as by Hollywood. And that began even before the assassination,
on October 3, 1963, with an article by the New York Times' chief Washington correspondent Arthur Krock. The article denounced
the CIA's "unrestrained thirst for power" and quotidian unnamed "very high official" who claimed that the White House
could not control the CIA, and that:
In such a way, The New York Times was planting a sign, a month and a half before the Dallas killing, pointing to the CIA
as the most likely instigator of the upcoming coup. The sign said: "The President is going to fall victim of a coup, and it will
come from the CIA."
One month after Kennedy's assassination, it was the turn of the Washington Post to use a very similar trick, by publishing
an op-ed signed by Harry Truman, in which the former president said he was "disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its
original assignment." "I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations,"
at the point of becoming across the globe "a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue [ ] there are now some searching
questions that need to be answered."[27] "Harry Truman Writes: Limit
CIA Role to Intelligence," Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA
in the Murder of JFK , Skyhorse Publishing, 2011 , p. 246. Truman was hinting at the CIA's role in toppling foreign
governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad. But given the timing of his article, one month to the day after Dallas, it
could only be understood by anyone with ears to hear, and at least subliminally by the rest, as an indictment of the CIA in the Kennedy
assassination. This article, widely reprinted in the 1970s after the creation of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee
on Assassinations, is regarded as Truman's whistleblowing. Yet its mea culpa style is quite unlike Truman; that is because
it was not written by Truman, but by his longtime assistant and ghostwriter, a Russian born Jew named David Noyes, whom Sidney Krasnoff
calls "Truman's alter ego" in his book, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego (1997). Truman probably never saw
the article prior to its publication in the Washington Post morning edition, but he may be responsible for its deletion from
the afternoon print runs. [28] Thomas
Troy, "Truman on CIA," September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego,
Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.
So the two most influential American newspapers, while ostensibly defending the official theory of the lone gunman, have planted
directional signs pointing to the CIA. Most Kennedy truthers have followed the signs with enthusiasm.
In the 70s, the mainstream media and publishing industry played again a major role in steering conspiracy theorists toward the
CIA, while avoiding any hint of Israeli involvement. One major contributor to that effort was A. J. Weberman, with his 1975 book
Coup d'État in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, co-authored by Michael Canfield . According
to the New York Jewish Daily Forward (December 28, 2012), Weberman had "immigrated to Israel in 1959 and has dual American-Israeli
citizenship," and is "a close associate of Jewish Defense Organization founder Mordechai Levy, whose fringe group is a spin-off
of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane's militant right-wing Jewish Defense League." Weberman acknowledged Neocon Richard Perle's assistance
in his investigation. [29] Michael
Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67. The Weberman-Canfield book contributed
to the momentum that led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to reinvestigate in 1976 the murders of JFK and Dr.
Martin Luther King.
It is also in this context that Newsweek journalist Edward Jay Epstein published an interview of George De Mohrenschildt,
a Russian geologist and consultant for Texan oilmen who had befriended Oswald and his Russian wife in Dallas in 1962. In this interview,
De Mohrenschildt admitted that Oswald had been introduced to him at the instigation of Dallas CIA agent J. Walton Moore.
[30] James Douglass, JFK and the
Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , p. 46. That piece of information is dubious for several
reasons: First, Moore was officially FBI rather than CIA. Second, De Mohrenschildt was in no position to confirm or deny the words
that Epstein ascribed to him: he was found dead a few hours after giving the interview. In fact, De Mohrenschildt's interview published
by Epstein contradicts De Mohrenschildt's own manuscript account of his relationship to Oswald, revealed after his death.
[31] George de Mohrenschilldt,
I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm De Mohrenschildt's death was ruled a suicide. The
Sheriff's report mentions that in his last months he complained that "the Jews" and "the Jewish mafia" were out to
get him. [32] Read the Sheriff's
Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt Needless to say, Epstein didn't mention anything about this. More suspicions
arise from the fact that Epstein's main source for his 1978 book, Legend: the Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald , was James
Jesus Angleton, who was actively spreading disinformation at the time of the HSCA, defending the theory that Oswald was a KGB agent
with CIA connections.
By a strange paradox, the authors who stand for the consensual conspiracy theory of a CIA plot against Kennedy build their case
on the biography of Oswald, while at the same time claiming that Oswald had almost nothing to do with the killing. If Oswald was
"just a patsy," as he publicly claimed, the quest for the real culprits must logically begin by investigating the man who silenced
Oswald.
Oswald's assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was
the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen,
whom he had known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka Bugsy Siegel, one of
the bosses of Murder Incorporated . Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I
got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this
Irgun war".[35] Mickey Cohen,
In My Own Words , Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92. Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief,
with whom he even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department.
So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem
Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's
arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld.[36] Michael Collins Piper, Final
Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , American Free Press, 6 th ed., ebook 2005, p. 133-155,
226. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and
Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same confession when visiting Ruby in jail.
[37] William Kunstler, My Life
as a Radical Lawyer , Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, "Lee Harvey Oswald's Killer 'Jack Ruby' Came From Strong Jewish
Background," The Forward , November 17, 2013, on forward.com
That is not all. At every levels of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, we also find the fingerprints of the Israeli deep state. JFK's
trip to Dallas, being officially "non political," was sponsored by a powerful business group known as the Dallas Citizens Council,
dominated by Julius Schepps, "a wholesale liquor distributor, member of every synagogue in town, and de facto leader of the Jewish
community," as described by Bryan Edward Stone in The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas.[38] Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen
Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200. Kennedy was on his way to the reception organized
in his honor when he was shot.
The "host committee" inviting Kennedy was chaired by another influential figure of the wealthy Jewish community in Dallas: advertising
executive and PR man Sam Bloom. According to former British Intelligence Officer Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, it was Bloom who suggested
to the Police "that they move the alleged assassin [Oswald] from the Dallas police station to the Dallas County Jail in order
to give the newsmen a good story and pictures." Oswald was shot by Ruby during this transfert. Hughes-Wilson adds that, "when
the police later searched Ruby's home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone number on it."[39] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An
American Coup d'État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.
After the Dallas tragedy, Israel's sayanim were also busy fabricating the official lie. Apart from its chairman Earl Warren,
chosen for his figurative role as Chief Justice, all key people in the investigative Commission were either personal enemies of Kennedy
-- like Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by Kennedy in 1961 -- or ardent Zionists. The man who played the key role in fabricating
the government lie purveyed by the Warren Commission was Arlen Specter, the inventor of what came to be called the "magic bullet"
theory: a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine,
and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Specter, who with an ironic touch
of chutzpah titled his autobiography Passion for Truth, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, and, at his death in 2012,
was mourned by the Israeli government as "an unswerving defender of the Jewish State," and by AIPAC, as "a leading architect
of the congressional bond between our country and Israel."[40] Natasha Mozgovaya, "Prominent
Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82," Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.
So, at all stages of the plot, we find a Zionist cabal including business men, politicians and Irgun-connected gangsters, not
forgetting media executives, all devoted to Israel.
The most plausible motive for Israel to kill Kennedy has been revealed by two books: Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option
in 1991, then Avner Cohen's Israel and the Bomb in 1998, and the lead has been followed up in 2007 by Michael Karpin in
The Bomb in the Basement. What these investigators reveal is that Kennedy, informed by the CIA in 1960 of the military aim pursued
at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert, was firmly determined to force Israel to renounce it. With that purpose in mind, he replaced
CIA Director Allen Dulles by John McCone, who had, as Eisenhower's chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), leaked to The
New York Times the truth about Israel's Dimona project; the story was printed on December 19, 1960, weeks before Kennedy was
to take office. As Alan Hart writes, "there can be no doubt that Kennedy's determination to stop Israel developing its own nuclear
bomb was the prime factor in his decision to appoint McCone."[41] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real
Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009 , p. 273. Then Kennedy urged Ben-Gurion
to allow regular inspections of Dimona, first verbally in New York in 1961, and later through more and more insistent letters. In
the last one, cabled June 15, 1963 to the Israeli ambassador with instruction to hand it personally to Ben-Gurion, Kennedy demanded
Ben-Gurion's agreement for an immediate visit followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise "this Government's commitment
to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized."[42] Warren Bass, Support any
Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219. The result was unexpected: Ben-Gurion
avoided official reception of the letter by announcing his resignation on June 16. As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol
took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963, to no avail. Did Ben-Gurion resign in order to deal with Kennedy
from another level?
Five months later, Kennedy's death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program.
Faced with Johnson's complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: "When I cannot
get the President to read my reports, then it's time to go."
Kennedy's determination to stop Israel's Dimona project was only part of the "Kennedy problem". During his first months in
the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the
right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be
circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated:
After Kennedy's death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson
cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the
total of all previous years combined.
For 50 years, the Israeli trail in the Kennedy assassination has been smothered, and anyone who mentioned it was immediately ostracized.
American congressman Paul Findley nevertheless dared write in March 1992 in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs :
"It is interesting to note that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel's intelligence agency,
the Mossad, has never been mentioned." One single author has seriously investigated that trail: Michael Collins Piper, in his
1995 book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. Piper was largely ignored by the mainstream
of the Kennedy truth movement. But his work has made its way nevertheless. In 2013, Martin Sandler wrote about Piper's work in his
edition of letters by Kennedy, which included those addressed to Ben-Gurion about Dimona: "Of all the conspiracy theories, it
remains one of the most intriguing." It is, in fact, a theory widespread in Arab countries.
[45] Listen to Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi on the topic on www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV4kvhs8I8E
Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination.
It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of
State after Kennedy's death, would cover them. The context of national crisis enabled him to bully both Justice and the press
while achieving his life's ambition. Johnson not just benefitted from the plot; he participated in its elaboration. As a former senator
from Texas, he could mobilize high-ranked accomplices in Dallas to prepare the ambush. Johnson also had his men in the Navy. In 1961,
Texan senator John Connally had been appointed as Navy Secretary at the request of Johnson. When Connally resigned eleven months
later to run for governor of Texas, Johnson convinced Kennedy to name another of his Texan friends, Fred Korth.
Johnson's privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting
up and in the cover-up of the plot. First, contrary to a widespread but erroneous belief, Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited
by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
Secondly, it is at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy's autopsy was performed,
after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the
fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy's skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital
staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy's body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from
behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds.
It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption
case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before
the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract
for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson's personal secretary, Bobby Baker,
was charged in the same case.
Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his
upcoming reelection campaign. [46] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 372. While in Dallas the day before
the President's visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson's removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November
22 nd : "Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson." Instead, Johnson became president that very day.
Many Americans immediately suspected Johnson's involvement in the Dallas coup, especially after the publication in 1964 of a book
by James Evetts Haley, A Texan Looks at Lyndon , which portrayed Johnson as deeply corrupt. According to his biographer Robert
Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting "for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate
and dominate them, to bend them to his will."[47] Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ:
The Mastermind, op. cit. , p. 17.
"If you don't take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you
will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen." "There will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take
my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done."
He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith," but added that "maybe
something can be saved [ ], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me."
[49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm
With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill
the beans about Israel's involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson
to pardon him.
Yet Johnson did nothing to get Ruby out of jail. Ruby's sense of betrayal would explain why in 1965, after having been sentenced
to life imprisonment, Ruby implicitly accused Johnson of Kennedy's murder in a press conference: "If [Adlai Stevenson] was Vice-President
there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy."[50] See on YouTube, "Jack Ruby Talks."
Ruby died from a mysterious disease in his prison in 1967.
Ruby is not the only link between Johnson and Israel, far from it. In truth, Johnson had always been Israel's man. His electoral
campaigns had been funded since 1948 by Zionist financier Abraham Feinberg, who happened to be president of the Americans for Haganah
Incorporated, which raised money for the Jewish militia. It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made
the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is
in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy." Bartlett recalls that
Kennedy was deeply upset and swore that, "if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it."[51] Seymour Hersh, The Samson
Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy , Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.
It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger ( A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965),
that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher
and columnist of the Washington Post , and strong supporters of Israel.
[52] Arthur Schlesinger,
A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op.
cit., p. 257. Schlesinger doesn't reveal Graham and Alsop's arguments, and states that Kennedy's final decision "defies
historical reconstruction" -- a curious statement for a historian so well informed on the topic. But Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy's
personal secretary for twelve years, had her own idea about it. She believed that Kennedy was blackmailed with proofs of his many
infidelities to his wife: " Jack knew that Hoover and LBJ would just fill the air with womanizing." Whatever the details of
the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson, "I was left with no choice
[ ] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don't need more problems."[53] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The
Mastermind, op; cit. , p. 320.
In 2013, Associated Press reported about newly released tapes from Johnson's White House office showing LBJ's "personal and
often emotional connection to Israel," and pointed out that under Johnson, "the United States became Israel's chief diplomatic
ally and primary arms supplier." An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?"
recalls Johnson's continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: "President Johnson firmly pointed
American policy in a pro-Israel direction." The article also mentions that, "research into Johnson's personal history indicates
that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was
a member of the Zionist Organization of America." And, in an additional note: "The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back
three generations in Lyndon Johnson's family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish."[54] Morris Smith, "Our First Jewish
President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!," 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.
Whatever was the reason of Johnson's loyalty to Israel, it is a fact that, thanks to Johnson, Israel could continue its military
nuclear program undisturbed, and acquire its first atomic bomb around 1965. Historian Stephen Green writes: "Lyndon Johnson's
White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964."[55] Stephen Green, Taking Sides:
America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
Thanks to JFK's death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed
by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate
of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally
in the Middle East.
During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate
defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel's attack, and even
authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy
them in just a few hours.
Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too
soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its territorial objectives. On June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, a NSA spy ship stationed
in international waters off Sinai, was bombed, strafed and torpedoed during 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and three torpedo boats,
with the obvious intention of sinking it without leaving any survivors. (Even the rescue channels were machine-gunned.) Meanwhile,
Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew,
despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS.
The attack would have been blamed on Egypt if it had succeeded, that is, if the ship had sunk and its crew had all died. The operation
would then have given Johnson a pretext for interveening on the side of Israel against Egypt.
But it failed. The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief
of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel's spurious "targeting error"
explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas
ranch. What's more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately
flowed to Tel Aviv.
This failed false flag attack is evidence of the secret complicity of Johnson and Israel, implying high treason on the part of
Johnson.
Let's now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations
have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel.
First, their deaths are precisely framed by Johnson's presidency, which was also the context for other political assassinations,
such as Martin-Luther King's. Johnson was in control of the State during the two investigations on John and Robert's murders.
Secondly, in both cases, we find the fingerprints of Israel's deep state. In the case of Robert, it is the choice of the manipulated
patsy, which was obviously meant to disguise Robert's assassination as an act of hatred against Israel. In the case of John, it it
is the identity of the man asked to kill the patsy, a Jewish gangster linked to the Irgun.
Johnson and Israel, the two common elements in the Kennedy assassinations, are themselves closely linked, since Johnson can be
considered as a high-level sayan, a man secretly devoted to Israel, or owned by Israel, to the point of committing high treason
against the nation he had been elected to lead and protect.
The causal link between the two assassinations then becomes clear: even if Robert had been pro-Israel, which he was not, Israel
and Johnson would still have had a compelling reason to eliminate him before he got to the White House, where he could -- and would
-- reopen the investigation on his brother's death.
What should have been obvious from the start now appears brightly clear: in order to solve the mystery of the assassination of
John Kennedy, one has simply to look into the two other assassinations which are connected to it: the assassination of Lee Harvey
Oswald, the man whose trial could have exposed the hoax and possibly put the plotters into the light, and the assassination of Robert
Kennedy, the man who would have reopened the case if he had lived. And both these assassinations bear the signature of Israel.
At his death in 1968, Robert Kennedy left eleven orphans, not counting John's two children, whom he had somewhat adopted. John's
son, John F. Kennedy Jr., aka John John, who had turned three the day of his father's funeral, embodied the Kennedy myth in the heart
of all Americans. The route seemed traced for him to become president one day. He died on July 16, 1999, with his pregnant wife and
his sister-in-law, when his private plane suddenly and mysteriously nose-dived into the ocean a few seconds after he had announced
his landing on the Kennedy property in Massachusetts.
John John had long been portrayed as a superficial, spoiled and harmless young man. But that image was as misleading as young
Halmet's in Shakespeare's play. John had serious interest in mind, and, at age 39, he was just entering politics. In 1995 he founded
George magazine, which seemed harmless until it began to take an interest in political assassinations. In March 1997, George
published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the convicted assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The article
was supporting the thesis of a conspiracy by the Israeli far-right. So JFK Jr. was eliminated while following in the footsteps of
his father, entering politics through the door of journalism and taking an interest in the crimes of the Israeli deep state. Canadian-Israeli
journalist Barry Chamish believes John Kennedy Jr. was assassinated precisely for that.
[56] Barry Chamish, "The Murder of
JFK Jr – Ten Years Later," www.barrychamish.com (also on: www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm).
The nonsensical notion of a mysterious curse on the Kennedy family is an obvious smoke screen. The unsolved murders of JFK and
his two legitimate heirs -- his younger brother and his only son -- require a more rational explanation. The sense that the official
stories about their deaths amount to a huge cover-up is obsessing the American psyche, a bit like a repressed family secret affecting
the whole personality from a subconscious level.
President John Kennedy and his brother are heroic, almost Christ-like figures, in the heart of a growing community of citizens
who have become aware of the disastrous longtime effect of their assassinations. Only when the American public at large come to grips
with the truth of their deaths and honor their legacy and sacrifice will America have a chance to be redeemed and be great again.
[9] Extract of TV news in
the documentary film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before , 01:11:42
[10] Jerry Cohen, "Yorty
Reveals That Suspect's Memo Set Deadline for Death," Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html.
Jerry Cohen, "Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite," The Salt Lake Tribune , June 6, 1968, on
www.newspapers.com. See also Harry Rosenthal, "Senator Kennedy's support
for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan," The Telegraph, March 5, 1969, on news.google.com
[11] Sasha Issenberg, "Slaying
gave US a first taste of Mideast terror," Boston Globe, June 5, 2008, on
www.boston.com
[12] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember
What Bobby Kennedy Died For," Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, "First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK,"
Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com
[13] Frank Morales, "The
Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!" June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca;
watch on YouTube, "RFK Assassination 40 th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN."
[14] Philip Melanson,
The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books , 1994, p. 25. For
a full overview, watch Shane O'Sullivan's 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy.
For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008. See
also Don Schulman's testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.
[15] In a parole hearing
in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time. Watch on YouTube, "Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsm1hKPI9EU
[16] Shane O'Sullivan,
Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.
[17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan
Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011,
on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/
[18] Colin Ross, Bluebird:
Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on
www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg
[19] David B. Green, "Brainwashing
and Cross-dressing: Israel's Assassination Program Laid Bare in Shocking Detail," Haaretz, February 5, 2018.
[20] Ronald Kessler,
The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
[22] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember
What Bobby Kennedy Died For , " op. cit. .
[23] Michael Collins Piper,
False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.
[24] Tom Mangold, Cold
Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318.
[25] Michael Howard Holzman,
James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153.
[26] "Assassination studies
Kennedy knew a coup was coming," on Youtube. Image of Arthur Krock's article is shown on
www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE161QnL1U at 1:36.
[27] "Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role to Intelligence," Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the
CIA in the Murder of JFK , Skyhorse Publishing, 2011 , p. 246.
[28] Thomas Troy, "Truman
on CIA," September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes:
Story of a President's Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.
[29] Michael Collins Piper,
False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67.
[30] James Douglass,
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , p. 46.
[31] George de Mohrenschilldt,
I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm
[32] Read the Sheriff's
Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt
[33] Meir Doron, Confidential:
The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi.
[34] Stuart Winer, "Hollywood
producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent," The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on
www.timesofisrael.com ; Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret
Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi
[35] Mickey Cohen, In
My Own Words , Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92.
[36] Michael Collins Piper,
Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , American Free Press, 6 th ed., ebook 2005,
p. 133-155, 226.
[37] William Kunstler,
My Life as a Radical Lawyer , Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, "Lee Harvey Oswald's Killer 'Jack Ruby' Came From
Strong Jewish Background," The Forward , November 17, 2013, on forward.com
[38] Bryan Edward Stone,
The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200.
[39] John Hughes-Wilson,
JFK-An American Coup d'État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.
[40] Natasha Mozgovaya,
"Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82," Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on
www.haaretz.com.
[41] Alan Hart, Zionism:
The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009 , p. 273.
[42] Warren Bass, Support
any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219.
[43] Quoted in George and
Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992,
p. 51.
[44] Philip Muehlenbeck,
Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy's Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.
[51] Seymour Hersh,
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy , Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.
[52] Arthur Schlesinger,
A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2,
op. cit., p. 257.
[53] Phillip Nelson,
LBJ: The Mastermind, op; cit. , p. 320.
[54] Morris Smith, "Our
First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!," 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.
[55] Stephen Green,
Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible
that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So no dog in any fight. But I am alerted
to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best
known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations
should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent
lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).
Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal record of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination.
A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended
to Cuba and "gangsters".
A recent TV series (not mentioned here) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying
for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the
end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet
was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.
The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written
by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.
A very good article. With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct,
but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role.
But the issue was the bomb.
The truth is that Robert Kennedy was much despised by Israel and its Jewish-American lobby of the time, the American Zionist Council
(AZC) and was considered a major foe. After many months of back and forth, on Oct 11, 1963 the New York law firm representing
the AZC received a formal written demand from Attorney General RFK's office to immediately (72 hours) proceed to register as foreign
agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Forms for said registration accompanied the letter. This would have
upended the AZC's operations and rendered it or any subsequent Israeli lobby (AIPAC) – near powerless.
The JFK assasination is a very interesting whodunnit and the couple of books I have read on it led to me to the very same conclusion
as the author. A lot of credit must go to Piper. I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination
attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were
looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.
Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests
of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone
killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let's remember what the fake father of Modern
Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said: "England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence."
A parallel could also be established between the killing of JFK and the "Six-Day War" of 1967
In 1954, Israeli teamed with the Muslim Brotherhood to plant explosives in American and British offices to start a civil war
to prompt the presence of British troops. The failed terror plot was known as the "Lavon Affair".
In 1956, Israel (supported by Britain and France) invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. Deterring
Nasser who had crushed the Muslim Brotherhood (a British machination aimed at keeping Muslim nations backwards culturally and
economically ( https://bit.ly/2J06YDO )) was also another primary objective.
Einsenhower was the one who tenaciously worked on removing Israel from Egypt but it didn't come easy:
1956-1957: England and France removed their troops following Einsenhower's advise but Israel did not. As a result, Eisenhower
joined the 75 countries at the UN General Assembly (February 1957) to pass a resolution against Israel's occupation of Egyptian
territory. Despite that, Israel still refused to remove its troops. It made Einsenhower reach out to the Congress but it was heavily
bought out by Zionists and the end-result was to no avail.. When that failed, Einsenhower met with congressional leaders to gather
support but even they were in support of Israel. Einsenhower then went on TV to make the case public. After which he threatened
Israel with sanctions (including the $40M of tax deductible donations and $60M of private bonds). Making the case public and threatening
economically worked – Israel withdrew its troops.
The failed invasion was a major blow to Britain (who's PM resigned) France and Israel (who destroyed everything on its way
out).
In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked
its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn't achieve in 1948 and deterring
Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein,
who's research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington
The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.
The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other
Arab nations.
And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower's
repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.
We all know who followed JFK. None other than absolute bent-over to Israel, Lyndon Johnson.
-- -- --
If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it's "interesting" how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major
plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel. One has to only remember the
airplane hijackings, Munich, etc. Coincidentally, most of those Palestinians were all led by the infamous Abu Nidal – who was
never apprehended while the rest of the Palestinians were either killed or arrested.
The case of 9/11 wasn't any different. The five dancing Israelis, who were "documenting the event" from New Jersey proclaimed
– while being arrested:
"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."
Ari Ben-Menashe, in his book "Profits of War : Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network" spoke of the CIA and the Mossad
covertly training Palestinians in Yugoslavia to have them attack Western targets. The ultimate goal was to draw negative attention
and sentiment against their cause.
Most of the information was from the book Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That
Brought Down the Kennedys , by Peter Evans.
In December 1971 Aristotle Onassis's ex-wife Tina met with their daughter Christina to ask her to stop bad-mouthing her current
husband Stavros Niarchos, a man long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Christina was Niarcho's niece and step-daughter, since he had
been married to Tina's sister Eugenie and was now married to Tina herself. Among the accusations that Christina kept repeating
about Niarchos was that he had murdered Eugenie. In order to give Christina a broader perspective, Tina informed Christina that
her father Aristotle had financed the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
The next day Christina passed this information on to her brother Alexander Onassis, who subsequently placed some related papers
into a safe-deposit box. After that, Alexander told his lover Fiona Thyssen that these papers would prevent his father Aristotle
from harming Fiona, a woman long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Since Fiona was 16 years older than Alexander, Aristotle considered
her to be a gold-digger and wanted her out of Alexander's life.
Several months later Alexander showed some of his papers to Yannis Georgakis, a lawyer who was close to the entire Onassis
family. The papers included photocopies of pages from the notebooks of Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy. During
the weeks before the assassination, Sirhan would place himself into a hypnotic state and write stream-of-conscious thoughts into
a notebook. On one page Sirhan had written at the center of a roundel, amid Arabic writing, the single name Fiona . On
another page he had written 2 Narkos! . On a third page, between the lines One Hundred thousand Dollars and Dollars
and One Hundreds , Sirhan had written in Arabic: they should be killed , next to which he had written the number
three .
It was obvious to Tina, Christina and Alexander that for some reason Sirhan had been hypnotized into a fixation on killing
three people -- Fiona Thyssen, Stavros Niarchos, and Robert Kennedy -- who had long been fiercely hated by Aristotle Onassis.
=====
[MORE]
In the fall of 1974 a 34-year-old photographer Helene Gaillet was stranded in Paris on her way to a job in Africa, because the
job was canceled. A year earlier she had met Aristotle Onassis at a dinner party in New York, and he had told her to call him
if she ever needed a place to stay in Paris. She called his number but was told he was away on his private island, Skorpios, in
the Aegean Sea. Several minutes later, however, Onassis returned her call and invited her to join him in Skorpios. He would fly
her there at his own expense. She accepted his invitation and subsequently spent several days with him there.
During that time they had a short affair, which included a series of intimate conversations about their lives. By that time
his health was failing (he died four months later), so he was in a confessional mood. During one of those conversations he told
her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."
=====
In May 1968 the above-mentioned lawyer Yannis Georgakis was serving as the chief executive officer of Olympic Airways, which
was owned by Aristotle Onassis. Georgakis was informed by a Mossad official serving in Israel's embassy in Paris that Onassis
was meeting regularly in Paris with a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari. About a week later Onassis informed Georgakis
that a Palestinian terrorist group had demanded $1.2 million in protection money from Olympic Airlines, threatening to blow up
the company's airliners if the money was not paid. Onassis said he had reached an agreement with Hamshari and now needed $200,000
from the company's funds to pay the first installment of the protection money. Onassis assured Georgakis that the subsequent installment
payments would be arranged "off the books" and channeled through Onassis's Panama corporations.
Reluctantly, Georgakis agreed to provide the $200,000. He asked to be included in any future negotiations between Onassis and
Hamshari, but Onassis assured him that the entire agreement had already been settled and that no further negotiations should occur.
Onassis flew to New York with the $200,000 in cash. He put all the money into a shopping bag and gave it to his long-time chauffeur,
Roosevelt Zanders, who personally delivered the money to someone in an apartment at United Nations Plaza. As instructed by Onassis,
Zanders did not ask for a receipt for the money.
To be continued.
Continued from my previous comment at 7:08 a.m.
=====
In January 1954 Aristotle Onassis signed a secret agreement with Saudi Arabia's finance minister. The agreement basically said
that Onassis would provide Saudi Arabia with its own fleet of oil tankers. Saudi Arabia expected that its ownership of such a
fleet would help that country to become independent of Western petroleum companies, to earn a fuller share of profits, and eventually
to nationalize the entire industry on its territory. Onassis expected to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for his role in
the arrangement.
Despite the secrecy, however, the US Government soon learned of the deal and during the following months employed a variety
of methods to undermine it. The US Justice Department found fault with Onassis's past purchases of oil tankers and subsequently
seized his tankers and also money he had earned from those tankers. In February 1954 the Justice Department arrested Onassis himself
and charged him with criminal conspiracy to buy the tankers illegally. The State Department pressured the Saudi government to
disassociate itself from Onassis. Arrangements were made for Peru to seize nine of Onassis's whaling ships. One of Onassis's business
associates was pressured to sue Onassis for swindling him out of $200,000 and to accuse Onassis of paying a $350,000 bribe to
the Saudi finance minister. Eventually in October 1954 King Saud decided not to sign the agreement, which therefore became void.
All these developments almost bankrupted Onassis.
Most of Onassis's anger about the collapse of the Saudi deal was misdirected toward Robert Kennedy, who in 1954 was a 29-year-old
attorney working on the staff of a Senate subcommittee. One of Kennedy's investigations for the subcommittee had raised accusations
about shipping business that some Greek companies conducted with Red China, but this issue did not involve Onassis in particular.
Kennedy did not play any apparent role in the seizure of Onassis's assets or in his arrest. The business associate who sued Onassis
hired as an expert witness an accountant who had worked for Robert's father Joseph Kennedy for many years, but that accountant
had no direct association with Robert Kennedy himself.
In fact Robert Kennedy had nothing at all to do with the US Government's discovery of Onassis's Saudi deal. The CIA station
in Athens had been informed about it by another Greek shipper, Stavros Niarchos, who was Onassis's brother-in-law (the two men
were married to two sisters). Niarchos had heard about the deal from Onassis's wife Tina, who was involved in a love affair with
Niarchos.
In order to protect the real source of its information, the CIA cleverly encouraged Onassis's initial reaction that the deal
had been exposed during Kennedy's investigation of the Greek shippers who did business with Red China. For example, the accountant
of Robert Kennedy's father was apparently moved into and out of the lawsuit in order to inflame Onassis's suspicions about Kenned's
role in the matter. Niarchos himself certainly collaborated in the continuing effort to divert Onassis's anger away from himself
and onto Kennedy. And in the following years Kennedy himself publicly criticized Onassis on many occasions, which further enraged
Onassis.
=====
In the early 1960s Onassis became closely involved in several business enterprises with a fellow Greek ex-patriot, Spyros Skouras,
who had immigrated to the United States in 1912. Skouras became a movie producer and during that career, he clashed angrily several
times with Joseph Kennedy, who was also a movie producer. In May 1962 Skouras's movie studio was losing millions of dollars in
the filming of Cleopatra and Something's Got to Give . The latter movie starred Marilyn Monroe, who was extraordinarily
capricious and absent during the filming. In conversations with Onassis, Skouras blamed Monroe's misbehavior on Robert Kennedy,
her secret lover. Skouras knew about this affair (and about Monroe's earlier affair with John Kennedy) and informed Onassis.
Exasperated by the problems and losses caused by these two films, Skouras decided to leave the movie business and to establish
a shipping business. Onassis invested $10 million in Skouras's shipping business, which intended to introduce new loading and
unloading technology that would require far fewer longshoremen. Because of this manpower issue, Onassis became involved in negotiations
with Jimmy Hoffa, the chief of the Teamsters labor union and also a hater of Robert Kennedy, who was then the US Attorney General.
During this same time, Onassis began a love affair with Lee Radziwill, the younger sister of Jacqueline Kennedy. Lee and her
husband Prince Stanislas Radziwill were each divorced from previous spouses when they married each other, so they married in a
civil wedding instead of a Roman Catholic wedding. Since John Kennedy was now President of the United States, Robert Kennedy used
the family's prestige to try to convince the Catholic Church to annul the Radziwills' previous marriages. This effort (and the
Kennedy family's reputation) was endangered by publicity about Lee's affair with Onassis, and so Robert Kennedy phoned Onassis
directly and asked him to stay away from Lee. Onassis responded with the words, "Bobby, you and Jack fuck your movie queen [Monroe]
and I'll fuck my princess [Radziwill]." Onassis thus revealed to Robert Kennedy that he knew about the Kennedy-Monroe affairs,
which were still very secret.
Also during this same time, Hoffa learned (perhaps from Onassis) about the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Monroe and so he
bugged Monroe's home and telephones to record related conversations. Through these recordings, Hoffa learned that Monroe and Robert
Kennedy had met in Monroe's home on August 4, 1962, a few hours before she died of an overdose and that some of Kennedy's associates
had subsequently entered her house during the period between her death and the notification of the police. Hoffa apparently hinted
to Onassis about the existence of these tape recordings, since Onassis asked Monroe's publicist whether he knew anything about
them, offering to pay big money to buy them.
=====
During the following months Robert Kennedy communicated subtle threats in order to pressure Onassis to stay away from Lee Radziwill.
The main thrust of these threats was that Kennedy would exploit his position as US Attorney General to cause legal problems for
Onassis and his businesses. This pressure backfired, as Onassis arranged for Radziwill to live blatantly with him on his yacht.
The feud escalated dramatically in September 1963, when Jackie herself also moved onto the yacht for a few weeks in order to convalesce
from a miscarriage. Robert Kennedy responded by continuing his subtle threats against Onassis, and Onassis responded by seducing
Jacqueline on the yacht.
Refreshed by her affair with Onassis, Jacqueline returned to the White House. A few weeks later, on November 22, 1963, John
Kennedy was assassinated. At Jacqueline's invitation, Onassis came and stayed in the White House during the funeral days. Robert
Kennedy confronted Onassis in the White House, and they eventually engaged in a ridiculous argument that embarrassed Onassis in
front of the other guests. Kennedy wrote up a written statement for Onassis to sign, promising to donate half of his wealth to
the poor, and Onassis signed the paper with Greek words that nullified the promise.
In the months following the assassination, Jacqueline wanted to quickly marry Onassis, but this desire was discouraged by Robert
Kennedy, who now headed the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy managed to prevent the marriage as long as he lived. He was assassinated
on June 5, 1968. Onassis then married Jacqueline on October 20.
=====
To be continued.
Continued from my previous comments.
=====
In January 1968 David Karr arranged for Mahmoud Hamshari, also known as Dr. Michel Hassner, to be introduced to Aristotle Onassis.
Karr introduced Dr. Michel Hassner to Onassis's circle as an expert in aviation finance who would propose a restructuring of the
debt of Onassis's Olympic Airline. Eventually, Hamshari (aka Hassner), using money provided by Onassis, arranged for Sirhan Sirhan
to assassinate Robert Kennedy.
David Karr had known Onassis since 1956. Karr worked in many varied jobs during his life, but at that time he managed a public
relations company that specialized in helping companies that were involved in proxy fights in corporate takeovers. It might be
more accurate to say that Karr was specialized in performing dirty tricks for his clients. He collected and distributed (or threatened
to distribute) scandalous information about his clients' opponents. By 1967 Onassis was using Karr for a variety of secret tasks;
in that year, for example, he asked Karr to ask Soviet officials about possibly supplying crude oil for a refinery he considered
building near Athens. Onassis's closest associates wondered about that assignment, because Karr had no expertise related to the
petroleum business or to the Soviet Union. Onasssis's trust in Karr was a mystery.
At some point in his own past, while working as a movie producer in Hollywood, Karr had become acquainted with William Joseph
Bryan, Jr., a local hypnotist. Bryan's American Institute of Hypnosis treated people in the film industry for alcohol and drug
additions, and he had served as the technical adviser on the filming of the movie The Manchurian Candidate. Karr gave Bryan's
phone number to Hamshari and advised him to visit Bryan. Karr later said he referred Hamshari to Bryan because Hamshari complained
that he suffered headaches whenever he visited Los Angeles, which he did frequently during 1967 and 1968.
==============
In the summer of 1979 Karr contacted Leslie Linder, a former movie agent, whom Karr had known while he worked in the movie
business. Karr wanted Linder to represent his proposed memoirs, which would include a revelation that Onassis had played a key
role in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Linder was interested and scheduled another discussion of the proposal again with
the added participation of Oscar Beuselinck, a London lawyer.
In the meantime, Karr departed for a business meeting in Moscow, where he planned to open a big hotel. He remarked that he
had all the evidence of the Onassis story in Paris, and he promised to call Linder and Beuselinck as soon as he returned from
Moscow.
Karr was found dead in his Paris apartment on the morning of July 7, 1979. He had a fractured larynx, and blood was found on
his pillow. A forensic examination concluded he had died of a heart attack, but his widow Evia Karr and his business partner Ronnie
Driver insist that Karr was murdered by agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Continued from my previous comments
=====
Mahmoud Hamshari was born in a village near Jaffa in 1939 and eventually became an important official in the Palestinian Fatah.
In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, he attended a Fatah meeting in Damascus to discuss further strategy. The meeting's participants
represented a broad scope of attitudes within Fatah, and Hamshari appeared to be among the most aggressive. When he spoke, he
focused his anger on US support of Israel and proposed actions that would attack the US. In particular, he proposed the Fatah
"kill a high-profile American on American soil" in order to make the US "think twice about backing the Jews."
This proposal seemed to earn little explicit support at the meeting, so Hamshari then proposed that the organization greatly
increase its fund-raising activities in the US, in order to manipulate the US to support the Palestinians too. Fatah apparently
adopted this proposal and assigned Hamshari himself to implement it, operating under the supervision of Fatah's intelligence chief,
Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef). In the following months, Hamshari began to travel to Europe and the United States, using several false
names, including Dr. Michel Hassner. Late in 1967 a Fatah official gave Hamshari a list of Palestinian immigrants living in Los
Angeles. The list had been acquired from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had records on the Sirhan family, then
living in Los Angeles.
=====
In some unknown circumstances, Dr. Hassner (Hamshari) began to associate frequently with David Karr, a mysterious associate
of Aristotle Onassis. Karr did not introduce Hassner to Onassis directly, but instead introduced him indirectly into Onassis's
nner circle as an investment consultant for Arab Bank, specializing in the restructuring of airline debts. Such expertise was
of interest because Onassis's Olympic airline was struggling with debts. A meeting between Hassner and Onassis was scheduled for
a day in January 1968 in Paris, but Onassis left for Athens unexpectedly right before the meeting. Therefore Hassner met instead
with several members of Onassis's inner circle. The airline's chief executive officer, Yannis Georgakis, was not informed about
the meeting by Onassis and so did not participate.
At this meeting, Hassner revealed to the group that he had been approached by a Palestinian terror group who demanded that
the airline pay $350,000 to the group so that they not blow up bombs on Olympic airliners. Hassner said he was acting only as
an honest broker, a facilitator, and did not know the identities of the terrorists, who had contacted him through the Palestine
National Fund.
After Onassis returned to Paris, he began to meet frequently in Paris with Hassner, the two alone. Between meetings, Hassner
sometimes traveled to Los Angeles and back. Karr says that during this period he gave Hassner the phone number of a Los Angeles
hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, Jr.
Georgakis, the CEO of Olympic, heard about Hassner for the first time in May 1968. He heard about him not from Onassis, but
from a Mossad official stationed at the Israeli embassy in Paris. Onassis himself informed Georgakis about a week later, saying
that he had already decided to pay $1.2 million (no longer just $350,000) to Hassner and that Georgakis should provide the first
$200,000 in cash from Olympic funds. Georgakis complied, and Onassis subsequently flew with the cash to New York, where his chauffeur
delivered it to an apartment at United Nations Plaza.
=====
To be continued.
Allow me to conclude with one more passage.
=====
On the evening of June 4, 1968, an itinerant Christian preacher named Jerry Owen (he himself said) parked a horse trailer outside
the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Robert Kennedy's campaign organization had scheduled its anticipated victory following
the California primary elections. Later that night, Sirhan assassinated Kennedy in the hotel. The next day, Owen reported to the
Los Angeles police that he had picked up Sirhan and a young woman hitchhiking on June 3. During the course of that meeting, Owen
said, Sirhan had agreed to buy a horse from Owen on the night of June 4 in the hotel parking lot. That deal, explained Owen, was
why he himself had parked his horse trailer in the parking lot and why Sirhan had four one-hundred-dollar bills in his pocket
when he was arrested. Owen further surmised that Sirhan intended to use the horse trailer as a get-away vehicle.
The Police basically dismissed Owen's report as a publicity stunt. (In 1970 this incident was examined in a lawsuit that Owen
filed against a television station. During that trial, several witnessed testified that Owen had become acquainted with Sirhan
at the Corona race track, where on one occasion a few weeks before the assassination Owen had given Sirhan a large wad of cash)
Immediately after he was arrested, Sirhan declared that "I did it for my country." Within a few minutes, though, he began avoiding
any discussion of his motive. He instead wanted to talk with the investigating policemen about Albert DeSalvo, the so-called Boston
Strangler. Later, Sirhan claimed that he had no memory of anything about the assassination, about his intention, about his notebooks,
or about the act itself. During his trial he reluctantly allowed his lawyers to construct a legal defense of diminished responsibility
due to mental illness.
Sirhan was not hypnotized by himself or anyone else in order to manipulate him to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Even without
the hypnosis, Sirhan was willing and eager to assassinate Kennedy because of the latter's support for Israel. The initial purpose
of Sirhan's self-hypnosis was to focus his mind and bolster courage for this difficult mission. Eventually, though, the hypnosis
served also as a legal excuse to try to avoid execution. The notebook served as evidence that he was often in deep trances and
so plausibly had no memory of the assassination. Also, the hypnosis deflected political blame from the Palestinian cause as Sirhan's
main motivation.
Sirhan hoped that if he could avoid execution, then eventually he would be freed in a prisoner swap forced by Palestinian terrorists.
He was sentenced to death, but later that sentence was commuted when the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.
Sirhan mentioned Albert DeSalvo repeatedly in his notebooks and at the police station immediately after his arrest. DeSalvo
had been hypnotized by a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. After he died in 1977, a couple of prostitutes whom
he frequently hired told investigators that he sometimes bragged that he had hypnotized Albert DeSalvo and Sirhan Sirhan.
They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel's continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs.
They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear
weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet
could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.
But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution,
the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never
ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to
suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen
in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing
that immediately after the war they twisted Germany's arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and
ships.
Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate.
It is a scourge to all humanity.
JFK had also told an aide that Israel would have the 'bomb' over his dead body. Well, Israel has the bomb and control of the
USA, thanks to their murders of the Kennedy's and the masterminding of the 9/11 False Flag.
But if you point this out, you'll get hit with a barrage of anti-Semite slurs, accusing one of being a neo-Nazi or worse, all
the while never discussing what you just wrote.
"A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended
to Cuba and "gangsters"."
Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel.
Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators
it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.
Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not
see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time. But here is what is essential: if Israel
and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's
WASP Deep State was behind it all.
Once this guy writes, "Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy
assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests
that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives," there is really no point in reading further.
If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with? Two women
tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975; does "basic common sense suggest" that they represented "the same force"? Robert Kennedy and
Martin Luther King were both killed in 1968; does that suggest their murders were related? This guy belongs on Infowars.
I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive
order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed
by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that
removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement
for Federal Reserve notes.
At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.
It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy
himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills
if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy."
Whatever the details of the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson,
"I was left with no choice [ ] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don't need more
problems."
I wonder if Trump is confiding in anyone? If he is, it would be interesting to hear what he's saying.
"We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can't possibly be any connection
between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative."
Maybe the Magic Bullet got Bobby too.
In any case, the involvement of Israel would explain why the complete JFK assassination files will never see the light of day.
Even the CIA doesn't have that kind of clout.
My comment was about the author's failure to take account of one of tbe best sources for what RFK thought and proposed. Obviously
that suggests the question whether it was sloppy research or dishonest suppression.
As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or
his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And
anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger
"Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.
Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which
might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?
Not only did Israel kill JFK and RFK but they also killed JFKjr. with a bomb on his plane and the Israelis did 911 and by the
way the Israeli attack on the USS LIBERTY where 34 dead and 174 were wounded in brutal attack on an American ship and every one
of these diabolical act proved over and over again that Israel and the Zionists control America lock stock and gun barrel.
America is an Israeli slavery colony and the America military is a proxy arm of the IDF to fight Israels wars .
This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.
If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed
with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently
change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.
Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to,
say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).
No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world,
the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.
This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression,
the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War
Hmmm – sounds like a family of winners. So how do I sign up with them?
Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S. Knock off one president and reap multiple benefits.
Lansky was a fanatical Zionist as well as a crime boss. The JFK hit is all about Permindex and the Lansky-Marcello connection.
The following is from 'Final Judgement' by Michael Collins Piper. "Tibor Rosenbaum was one of the godfathers of the state of
Israel and the first director for finance and supply for Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad. Rosenbaum was a prime financial
angel behind the Permindex corporation. His Swiss banking concern, the Banque De Credit International, also served as the chief
European money laundry or the global crime syndicate of Miami-based crime chief Meyer Lansky."
Yaras, a friend of Jack Ruby, was the hitman. Oswald was heavily intertwined as well.
Lyndon Johnson must have completely known that the hit would take place because he immediately dropped all operations JFK implemented
regarding Israel.
"Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were
unrelated? If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up
with?"
I do not find it silly at all. Assuming that the Kennedys were close (which is most probably true), then if JFK was worried
about Israel's atom bomb program, Robert almost certainly knew about it and shared JFK's opinion. He may not have known who was
behind the JFK assassination, but he would very probably have opened the case. If the case is honestly studied, it is immediately
seen as a conspiracy. I confirmed it easily to myself by analyzing the Dictabelt data: more than one shooter. As the likely culprit
is very probably to be found by checking what changed in the US policy (and what changed was the US attitude to the Israel bomb),
the argument of the article becomes quite strong: the purpose of the second assassination was very possibly to cover the first
assassination. I find it purely logical, not silly.
Biff wisely reflected: "I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story."
Hi Biff,
This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence,
and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.
Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, "Mary's Mosaic." He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton's Israeli-cozy
career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.
F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you're aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.' ex-wife
and JFK flame?
Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK's killing escaped Peter Janney's survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet's
very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton's mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the
dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.
Subsequently, I do not endorse a "Rush to Judgement" that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.
They threatened to assassinate 0bama if he got out of line: Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher
suggesting that U.S.-based Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United States.
On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to "order
a hit" on the president of the United States. In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu would need to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to
Israel." The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state
"obliterate its enemies." Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea "has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles."
He threatened the fake Jews narrative on Hitler too:
From JFK diary. The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's bunker only months
after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of
the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote in his diary in 1945.
"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about
him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff
of which legends are made."
"The room where Hitler is supposed to have met his death showed scorched walls and traces of fire," he wrote. "There is no
complete evidence, however, that the body that was found was Hitler's body."
"The Russians doubt that he is dead," Kennedy added. JFK was visiting Europe after a stint in the Navy.
Screwed up world we live in when these frauds are our #1 ally, according to the traitors in DC.
We shoulda destroyed them after USS Liberty incident, 9/11 and the mass murder that followed would have been prevented.
To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave
the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits
the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so
long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and
that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also
grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity
of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized
such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the
Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However,
during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained
in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2
To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963
with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer
the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills
to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations).
The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left
only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O.
11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
Secretary.2
E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose
of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury
ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and
in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson
and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However,
by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2
In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was
to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with
a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that
gave the Fed still more power?
If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it's "interesting" how they always found themselves in the spotlight of
major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel.
But not 9/11 that was perpetrated by inconveniently Saudi terrorists hosted thousands of miles away from Palestine in Nowheresville,
Afghanistan.
Great article. Well-researched and well-presented. It's a convincing case. It reveals the CIA was compromised in favor of Israel.
That was then and this is now.No doubt the Israeli termites have completely consumed the structure. I would have to imagine at
this point the CIA is a dupe division of Mossad and it's so inundated with Israeli Moles to rid the undemocratic organization
of the infestation would be tantamount to playing whack-a-mole. The only option is to burn it to the ground. Destroy it, end it,
and jail the majority of its members, past and present, for High Treason.
One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons , not often stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States
.
THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999
Johnson, IMHO, worst President in US history. HE DID MORE LASTING DAMAGE than even Obama. But the Kennedy myth is overdrawn.
If JFK had lived he would have been reelected but not by a Johnsonian o landslide. Consequently, Congress would have kept him
in check. If HHH had been his VP, Kennedy would have got less out of Congress than with Johnson ( who knew where the bodies were
buried).
The real tragedy is not that Kennedy was so good; it was that Johnson was so bad. Had Bobby won in 1968, he would have torn the
country apart worse than Johnson. There are so many loose ends in this feature it is hard to find where to start. But it is clear
that this person believes that for a few years we Americans had Gods living amongst us.
The curse of the whole Kennedy family was raised by Teddy while successfully avoiding blame and guilt for Mary Jo's unfortunate
accident. However, the author brings the curse to life again while seeming to reject it concerning JFK, junior's plane crash disappearance.
Could pilot error by lack of experience and failure to heed weather forecast advice have had any role in this family's continuing
misadventures?
Is there any explanation for anything negative happening to this clan that can not be blamed on Jews, right-wing extremists, Cosa
Nostra, CIA, the Navy, military intelligence or talk radio?
you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind
it all.
Certainly complicit. The article does seem to give a pass to the CIA, but if the CIA is everything it's cracked up to be, it
had to know about this and the author even indicates some of its more influential agents were cooperative with Mossad so in the
least it was compromised and therefore complicit in High Treason. If it didn't know, the CIA should have been abolished then &
there but it certainly should be abolished now.
Who hasn't been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ's mistress in the 1960s. She
also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter
of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels
of the Israeli government.
I would have loved to hear the "pillow talk" between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and
flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant
supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ
about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).
Mathilde Krim's husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA.
Mathilde Krim's relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was "overlooked" by him because of its huge
value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere
in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)
The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but "wisely" chose to ignore it
just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.
You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her
friends.
I've often wondered to what extent the CIA is Zionized and acting in concert with Israel, and how long it has been that way.
Anecdotally: I had two students at the University of Wisconsin who interviewed with the CIA. Both were NY Jews who ardently supported
Israel, and I do mean ardently. This piece was an eye opener for me. I read all about Angleton in The Devil's Chessboard, but
nothing about his connection with Israel. And LBJ a Jew??
This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? Surely this
article (which contains numerous basic errors (for example, there were never two entry wounds seen on the front of JFK's body,
only a neck wound) is either written by an ignorant hack or more likely a CIA hack's imaginative narrative designed to confuse
the idiots. For a start try the Kennedy and King website hosted by Jim D'Eugenio and spend a few years getting the facts before
taking this rubbish seriously.
Its actually quite easy. Promise your first born and swear complete and total obeisance, and you are in the club. But remember,
never refuse to partake in the ceremonies and sacrifices. And don't ever even think about backing out of your oath to give up
your first born, otherwise expect the same as what happened to Heath Ledger or Kurt Kobain.
When Langley wants to take that CIA smell off their official line, they use a foreign source. Guyenot's act is boilerplate disinfo,
reinterpreting the obvious with double-reverse psychology.
Like, Truman's editorial, assiduously suppressed by Dulles himself, was a diabolical head-fake. And But but but no invasion
of Cuba followed Kennedy's assassination!! CIA framed Cuba not to justify an immediate attack on Cuba, but to force Warren to
bend over for the official story. LBJ's negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he
didn't stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba's responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia.
And more standard CIA argumentum ad ignorantiam: you don't know who the CIA mastermind was, so it was Israel. You don't know
who the mastermind was because CIA flouts the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.
Guyenot applies Occam's sledghammer to prove that it wasn't the guys who had military, commercial, and criminal cutouts nationwide,
extensive illegal domestic operations including blanket surveillance, arbitrary classification authority, and impunity in municipal
law. It was Israel, who cleverly put one over on the dumb ol' CIA, nyuk nyuk nyuk. And CIA couldn't do nuthin' about it. This
is how stupid they think you are.
JFK blah blah blah. CIA's your CHEKA. They've ruled your country since inception. They kill and torture whoever they want.
What are you gonna do about it?
Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? LHO was a devotee of Casto and when he visited the Cuban Consulate in Mexico and was denied permission
to travel to Cuba Oswald stormed out. The Kennedys were trying to kill Castro, and Oswald,, who had narrowly missed killing
Edwin Walker months before, and found himself in a job that provided a shot on the JFK parade route, killed JFK for his anti communism.
Kennedy had almost taken the world to WW3 in the Cuba crisis, which was Nikita Khrushchev's response to JFK's insane revival of
Eisenhower's plan to give Germany a say in Nukes (to save the US taxpayer money basically). Perhaps it is just as well that Marine-trained
rifleman Oswald put an end to Kennedy when he did.
John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora
Jews. They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis
on issues of race and sex.
They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their
support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification
of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic
Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.
The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:
In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously,
Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced,
Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian
counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite,
almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly
distributed among the various ethnicities.
In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites"
being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet
Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.
Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically
the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were
no longer "good for the Jews".
In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the
Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist
eastern Europe – Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even
his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's
exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".
Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who
ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness
to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of
the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).
Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural
norms of traditional Christianity – to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique
.
Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too
was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.
Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various
convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.
Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.
Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.
Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.
Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism,
enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.
They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs – but that is pure fantasy.
I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David
Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys -- both of which articles
are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract
(and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about
any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed
not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe
-- they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown
tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with
their siege mentality.
What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There
is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the
intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course.
Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.
I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved
with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that
they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not
need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot
be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.
Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence
Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts. A Cancer to Humanity. It reminds me of a scene from Rosemary's Baby.
Considering that you belong to the resident Hasbara brigade, your position fits well with the hypothesis of this piece – the
"limited hang-out" of the U.S. "deep state" to cover up the Israeli connection.
Dimona was clearly a major point of contention – and it is very unlikely that JFK would have aided and abetted the shenanigans
surrounding the war of 1967. Israel had plenty of reason to do away with him.
"the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert's brain had not been shot by Sirhan's revolver,
but by another gun, with a different serial number; "
The author seems blankly ignorant of guns, apparently believing that a serial number can be determined from a bullet. He sounds
as though he has some vague recollection that marking left by lands and grooves on bullets are unique to the gun firing them,
and somehow confuses this with serial numbers. Amateurish research does not breed confidence in conclusions. Does he give a link
to which labortory and its report?
Well researched and written article! Additional and further research is needed in the following possibilities raised by the people
living outside of the US in 1960's:
1. JFK's opposition to the planning of Israelis initiating a war against the Arab states in 1967
2. Killing 2 birds with one shot by falsely accusing an Arab for killing RK before he reopens the assassination case of his brother
3. Destruction of the world media from the 1967 war to the assassination of RK
4. Involvement of LBJ in both assassinations since he is a Zionist from his mother side
Yes, the JFK assassination was a public execution, but why would that incriminate the deep state rather than Israel? I would
rather think the opposite. I think you also miss a point that you could perhaps get by reading James Douglass: JFK considered
it his most important task to abolish nuclear weapons. It was possible then. So it makes sense to believe that his determination
to stop Dimona was very, very strong.
No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood.
The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial
number of Sirhan's gun (as indicated on another official report.
Thank you Laurent Guyénot. This is a long(ish) article, and obviously complex.
So, in breaking down this theory, one must first admit, in light of what is known of the Kennedy assassinations, consideration
of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective as a potential prime operative, is reasonable, based on the
prime-facia motives .
Specifically:
1. the intention of registering the American Zionist Council (AZC subsequently AIPAC ) as a "foreign agent" subject to
the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
2. the Kennedy's determination to stop Israel [secretly, like many things] developing its own nuclear bomb
3. Kennedy committed to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees
Anybody familiar with the trends of the last 200 years of the activities and well- [self]- published political motivations
of Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective , notably pro-zionists and their leading spokes people,
would be aware that each one of the listed intentions, if validated , would be considered ample justification
for another political assassination, from such an extremist ideological perspective.
The thornier, but potentially more revealing issue is capability .
But one must ask oneself, who in the world, could have the capability to kill a sitting U.S. president and a leading presidential
nominee?
In consideration of this question, one can greatly reduce the number of potential suspects, since the range is extremely
small, and I would suggest, probably included the collaboration of several of the very few limited candidates.
For example, does anyone think that the Soviet Union could possibly have managed this alone, or even more ridiculously, Fidel
Castro?!
I personally think it at least on the verge of absurd.
Capability continued
Frequently, I find myself drawn back to Gilad Atzmons excerpt from testimony, as expert witness on Jewish Identity politics,
at 'hate crime" trial of Arthur Topham 20151108-20151109
Sourced originally at: http://blog.balder.org/?p=1673
"When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc') some Jews are "racially offended" in spite of the
fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the
argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious
teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple,
yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and
racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary
3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress
any possible criticism."
But most particularly, " Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress
. ""
I am also reminded of Noam Chompsky's model (explanation), as described in Manufacturing Consent for what he
describes as a passive media skewing mechanism (my words), along the lines of, systemically, many slight slanted/nudged
editorial decisions, which aggregated, may well completely distort an accurate picture of events.
By not being able to identify one clear, discrete actor/provocateur, the system, the way it operates, will be incapable
of actually making a determination and assignment of cause.
Now, if one followed a operational model of negative sum gain gaming of systems to always gain advantage, one
might have identified this weakness in the system, and employed a quantum-mechanics like distribution of a fifth column in the
system to effect the political change one desired.
That's a good point but it still doesn't explain how Sirhan Squared fired the fateful shot from behind Kennedy when he was
always in front of Kennedy.
Fyi, I have always felt horrible for Sirhan Squared. So much so, I named my dog after him and it's a female dog. You should
see the reaction when I take her to the vet and they ask her name and I say it's Sirhan Sirhan. The look is priceless. My next
dog's name will be Jesus. I'm sure it will go over equally as well with the hoi polloi.
Does anyone really believe that if a POTUS decided to eradicate Israel's nuclear weapons program and cut off all funding to
Israel that said POTUS wouldn't be assassinated before he/she could make it happen? Trump has been egregiously disrespectful to
the Intelligence Community and yet he's still alive, but what if Trump was egregiously disrespectful to Israel instead of kissing
Israel's ass as the first Jewish POTUS that he is? What if Trump ended all American aid to Israel and went to the United Nations
and put forth a resolution for Israel to eliminate its nukes because if Iran and North Korea and Ted Nugent can't have them, neither
can Israel. If Trump got elected on such a platform, which he never would have by the way, he would have been assassinated before
he or any POTUS could implement such a plan. Israel has made it clear many times over, it will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING it has
to do to protect itself existentially and I'm sure that includes assassinating the POTUS if need be and all else fails.
Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs
legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not
interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about "secret societies" and backing off
the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one
to try that.
"As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him
and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In
1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his
friend Schlesinger "Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.
Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might
have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?"
I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire
there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from
books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had
a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and
had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime.
There is no reason for "Cubans and gangsters" to be a code word for Israel as Cubans and gangsters were almost certainly involved
in the JFK assassination.
I think Robert Kennedy did know of the Israel atom bomb project and he did not like it, same as JFK. Robert Kennedy probably
did not know if Israel was involved in the JFK assassination but was going to investigate who was. It might have lead to Israel.
There was this danger.
You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as "he is[sic] a Zionist
from his mother [sic] side". You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person
makes to be a Zionist (for which you don't even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It's even sillier than people saying Rupert
Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.
Interesting and well-researched article, but ultimately, as commenter Wizard of Oz notes, it serves the author's "confirmation
bias."
Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton.
It is true, as the author notes, that Angleton had deep ties with Mossad. It is also true that since the end of the second world
war, Israeli skullduggery in the US and Europe has been massive. But these two political murders were planned and executed by
the above Dulles cabal.
Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald
to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false
defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s.
The grooming and handling of Sirhan Sirhan in California in the mid 1960s speaks of a well-entrenched domestic network of CIA
assets. He was picked for patsydom for a number reasons, and Angleton, again, a prince of an ally for Mossad, liked Sirhan's Palestinian
background, which amped up the Arab threat, in the eyes of the US audience, to his Israeli friends. The author is correct that
Thane Caesar was the real assassin of RFK. Previous to the RFK hit, Caesar work for the Hughes corporation in Burbank. The sprawling
Howard Hughes business empire had served as a CIA cover since the 1950s.
Why would the Dulles gang want to murder the Kennedy brothers? JFK: revenge for the Bay of Pigs betrayal and the subsequent
firing of Dulles. RFK: a man who worked closely with the Agency in the early 1960s on the Castro project. David Talbot's book
Brothers, referenced by the author, makes clear that RFK had an absolutely clear conception of who killed his brother. There was
no way he was going to reach the White House.
Both brothers also sought to wind down the profitable war in Vietnam. RFK was especially vocal about his goal of ending the
war on the'68 campaign trail. And then there's Richard Nixon: a national security state favorite since his time as congressman
during the so-called Red Scare of the early 1950s, Nixon was their favored candidate in the '68 election. RFK's death sealed the
deal for Nixon. Nixon would go on to incur the wrath of his former national security state allies with his secret negotiations
with China and the USSR while president. Because of his previous good works for them, a political death was arranged rather than
a violent physical one.
Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.
I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect
their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible.
Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage
an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined
any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone)
continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even
if all the world were converted to their opinion.
They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But
this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present
moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists
to make saints out of the Kennedys -- which on any objective reading they clearly were not -- is by itself sufficient to discover
the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole
American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so
as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very
politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if,
peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots
are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.
The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and
lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious
occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.
PTI, but just wanted to make a quick observation. Is it just me or have others noticed that there have been quite a number
of Presidents upon whom this honorary title has been bestowed, including:
LBJ
Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
(Bill Clinton and George W Bush should receive honorary mention).
I should have mentioned that Jeff Gates goes into the LBJ/Krim relationship, NUMEC, McCain father and son, the USS Liberty,
with a measure of Jeff Flake in his book. It bears rereading, now if only I can find it.
Well you have just proved what a hopeless amateur you are as conspiracy theorist and as analyst.
What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason
to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a
US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed
forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained
assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic.
There is indeed no need for "Cubans or gangsters" to be code for "Israel" but again you have shot yourself in the foot by your
missing the point completely. My obvious point, which you managed to get confused about, was that Bobby Kennedy had no reason
not to mention Israel to his confidant Schlesinger so his use of the words "Cubans" and "gangsters" meant that he didn't have
Israel in mind
The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall
Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn't an "either/or" with the Mossad vs the
CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted
to end JFK's efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to
the CIA which most definitely did not want to be "splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds" – you have a set
of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths.
The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about
helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated
post-WWII.
The oligarchic power blocs in Europe, the U.S., the U.K. and Israel have all benefited from the assassinations of the
Kennedy brothers and the policy shifts that were then possible by their permanent removal from political office. Chasing the –
"was it the Mossad, or was it the CIA"- train, leaves us grasping at phantoms like "the girl in the polka dot dress," or "the
second Oswald," and simply distract from the obvious reality that all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other's
secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake.
I did not mean to exonerate the CIA. I tried to be as brief as I could, so I didn't get into the detail of CIA involvement.
CIA had to be involved to some extent in order to be blackmailed into powerlessness. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind
and I wanted to point out that the mainstream media were pointing to the CIA, which is in itself very significant: it is like
when the mainstream media say "the CIA controls the media". I am actually inclined to agree with Gary Wean's thesis (as Piper
seemed to do) that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed.
This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11.
http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html
And I liked Janney's book.
I agree about the plane crash inserted into the article. It was a combination of an unusually thick fog and an inexperienced
pilot. There was a thread recently in which John Jrs plane crash was discussed. A couple of pilots who flew the same Plane write that
in that kind of fog with a pilot unskilled in flying by instruments it was not shot down but just happened.
Another poster write that he was in the area that night and it was one of the worst fogs he'd ever seen.
Of course he does. He is part of that dwindling demographic which believes whatever they are told by the kosher mainstream
media, i.e., CBS, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Fox, the History Channel, NBC, ABC, etc. There may be variations, but the
narrative remains within the acceptable kosher parameters.
An individual who believes in the official version of 9/11 will have no trouble at all believing in the "lone nut" theory of
Oswald or Sirhan. For want of a better term, I would call it "Mainstream Delusionism." It affects all of those who choose to accept
the bogus liberal/conservative bifurcation of mainstream politics here in the US.
"What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason
to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a
US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed
forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained
assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic."
1) The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy because there were more than one shooter. This is shown by analyzing the Audiograph
and the Dictabelt, and the Zapruder film shows that one shot came from the front. You have two pdf files by me in this link
2) Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The
USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through
the other alternatives and discard.)
3) Finally make a scenario who could have done the assassination. As the Audiograph was manipulated in 1970ies, there was someone
with access, like CIA (or FBI? etc). There was Ruby, so there was a link to Jewish gangsters leading to Lansky, who was the high
boss of organized crime. Much points to LBJ. So, I got this scenario:
Totally agree about the Jewish role in JFKs assassination. As for Oswald, he was an avowed communist and the American communist
party and all the far left groups were very, very, Jewish at the time. It was impossible to be a goyishe leftist and not meet
a lot of lefty Jews at the time.
Oswald always told people he became interested in communism when he was living in NYC age 11 & 12. It was the time of the Rosenberg
atomic spy trials.
"Old Jewish ladies" in his Bronx neighborhood were always handing out pamphlets defending the Rosenbergs.
Perhaps I missed it in the article but the "manufacturer" of the single bullet theory was Jewish Senator Arlen Specter of the
Warren Commission. Another point about the Kennedy's hatred of Israel .it was much greater than anyone thought especially from
the old man Joe. It evidently may have had something do with business dealings both legitimate and illegitimate.
Lyndon Johnson's great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish and Johnson helped smuggle Jews legally and illegally
into Texas ( http://www.5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/
). It always sounds antisemitic but rule one that is accurate about 97% of the time is that most of the political, economic or
social upheaval in the world always has something to do with Jews.
The Kennedy worship on display by Mr. Guyenot, like that of Oliver Stone, is remarkable. I'm not singling him out – a lot of people
share in it. But the notion that the Kennedys were some kind of unique family of righteous, justice-seeking heroes is ludicrous.
They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians. John was probably the best of them, and he seemed to have had a few
good instincts, but he was massively compromised by his libido, which opened him up to blackmail.
And the notion that John-John was killed by some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous. He was a light-weight and a dilletante.
I don't imagine anyone feared his political or literary ambitions. His was another case of DWK – driving while Kennedy. Nobody
in that family could be trusted behind the controls of any kind of vehicle. I wouldn't knowingly step in front of stroked-out
old Joe in his wheelchair.
Clearly LBJ did not run for a second term and keep control of the investigative agencies because he could be implicated in the
assassination of the Kennedy brothers. Or maybe people who think that way are spending too much time smoking hash in their mommy's
basement.
I've read the book Nemesis that claims Onassis paid for the murder of Robert Kennedy. It also claims Onassis and Jacqueline
agreed to marry on a cruise she took on Onassis' yacht a few months before JFK was killed.
The plan was when he either lost the 64 election or was re elected and his Presidency ended in January 69, she would divorce
JFK for his numerous adulteries and marry Onassis. Who knows? It's all enjoyable reading anyway.
My favorite genres are political, spy, detective, financial corruption and historical thrillers. So I enjoy all the Kennedy conspiracy books.
Every Marine is considered a "rifleman," even those who fail to qualify with the rifle. At the end of his tour Oswald tested
on the low end of 'marksman,' which is the lowest of three qualifying categories. Which means he wasn't a particularly good shot.
Thanks for this intelligent, insightful and courageous article.
It is exceptionally interesting and well-researched, and simply outstanding, considering the intellectual decadence and cowardice
of thoughts we have been dragged into. Thanks also for the sensitivity of your conclusion: John and Robert Kennedy's memory is cherished throughout the world. They
died because they wanted to make the world a better place for humankind. They will never be forgotten.
Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential
than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25%
among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of
American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld . were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets.
As regards Kennedy, it is true that he had strong positions re nuclear weapons, but, having in mind huge arsenals of US & Soviet
Union, and smaller ones of Britain, China..- Israel's nuclear program was not considered to be something spectacularly important,
especially at that stage. It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president,
just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point.
And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with
counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted
to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar
economy trying to survive & keep a low profile.
The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood
and lies and intellectual pollution
No one but a Jew and/or Israel supporter would make that statement.
Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder and they used some Jewish organized crime members to set it up. Only our
Israeli occupied congress, not the CIA, could have "controlled' the investigation to ensure it produced the conclusion it fed
to the public.
In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson's Middle
East policies:
First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel's principal arms supplier and sole unqualified
backer.
"Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson
guaranteed the 'escalation of an arms race
Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional
on Israel's signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental
objection to Israel's nuclear program.
"Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel's attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing
they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding.
From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing."
As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the
Johnson era in 'Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With A Militant Israel':
"By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included 'domestic political considerations,' Lyndon Johnson and his
team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become
the 51st state."
This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy's attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship
with Israel today.'
Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in 'A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli
Dispute', elaborated on Kennedy's attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: "President Kennedy
and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long," Curtiss comments:
"It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected
candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
"He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment
of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
"Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with
whom the previous administration's relations had deteriorated.
Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy's positioning in regard
to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through
its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the
very survival of the Jewish State .
Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel's diversion-from the Arab
States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel's retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel's pivotal role
in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel's insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.
"The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests
and Israel's interests were not always the same.
The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy's forthright stance:
"We know, "that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet
Union last spring and again recently in Cuba. Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential
of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
"Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel's. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would
like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East
when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the
UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States."
According to Seymour Hersh: "Israel's bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential
agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years."
In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the
CIA's Director on the highly controversial subject entitled "Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability."
According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined "acquisition" by Israel as either (a) a
detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that
it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent's primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause 'substantial
damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.
According to Green, "The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions" which were as follows:
"Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of
a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel's sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to
adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture
"We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel's policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough.
Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them
from making trouble on the frontiers."
In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would "make the most of the almost inevitable Arab
tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and
reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
"Israel," in Kent's analysis, "would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support,
its possession of nuclear capability."
In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States
to accede to Israel's nuclear intentions.
Stephen Green believes that Kennedy's position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: "It was a remarkable exchange, and
the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences
between U.S. and Israeli national security interests."
Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America's
interests – not Israel's interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
Kennedy's friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out 'secret
war' between Kennedy and Israel.
Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion's hated Kennedy because he consider
his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, "The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications
to the White House, began to refer to the President as 'young man.' Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters
to be offensive."
Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli "sons of bitches
lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability."
Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing
and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time." .Green
There seem to be a lot of small plane crashes which involve controversial politicians
such as, JFK ,Jr, Ron Brown, Wellstone, John Towers, Michael Connell, (Bush campaign it expert) to name but a few.
There use to be detailed analysis of the Martha's Vineyard crash on the web, but these seem
To have been scrubbed lately and only official MSM versions are easily available.
An exception to that rule is the book, Ron Brown's body: how one man's death saved
The Clinton Presidency.
Am very gratified when busy U.R. authors engage comments corresponding to their articles. Thank you!
Comment # 80, you wrote: "I did not mean to exonerate the CIA."
Above, I knew such was impossible since your mentioning having read James Douglass's classic, "JFK and the Unspeakable."
Also you wrote:. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind "
Above, so it appears you believe that CIA depended upon the Israeli intelligence Lowerarchy as the JFK assassination planning
/ operational "mastermind?"
Had he come squeaky clean, I intuit CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton might support such a view as yours.
Such smacks of how the ZUS military (Gitmo-based) tribunal deceptively presented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) as the 9/11 terror
attack "mastermind."
To conclude, am very pleased to have read this sentence: "And I liked Janney's book."
F.y.i., just last month while attending a Delaware Valley High School varsity baseball game, while in the stands, I spoke with
three (3) mother's who lived in nearby, Milford, Pa. One lady taught public school.
Regrettably, no one had any knowledge about Mary Pinchot Meyer's JFK affair, brutal murder on the Georgetown canal-trail, and
her Milford, Pa burial @ the Gifford Pinchot estate.
Thanks very much, Laurent Guyenot!
Continue to be honestly unflappable.
There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even
start to comprehend the adjective "patriotic".
He was a Texan (like Audie Murphy) and familiar with rifles from an early age. He was a trained rifleman who though not an
expert shot scored 49 hits and one miss at a target 200 yards away. LHO was seen practicing at a rifle range before Dallas, and
at a range of under 100 yards his performance in getting one fatal shot on Kennedy was good, not exceptional, even for a rusty
and mediocre shot (which he was not).
Charles Wittman was a Texan too, as was Chris Kyle.
I just have to say this about the Jew hasbara who insist people believe that the CIA is the 'deep state' when in fact the CIA
and the FBI are the ONLY gov arms that aggressively go after Israel and the Jew fifth column in the US ..and it is ONLY Congress
and/or the WH that has stopped them and interfered in their investigation time after time. As for the other retards who promote
this -- -you're are dangerously stupid .so stupid you dont even know who the real deep state is.
On December 13, 1999, Ciralsky was terminated from his job as a lawyer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On July 19,
2000, Ciralsky filed suit against the CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and nine of their employees and agents, alleging
that he had been "interrogated, harassed, surveilled and terminated from his employment with the CIA solely because he is a Jew
and practices the Jewish religion."
689 F. Supp. 2d 141 (2010)
Adam CIRALSKY, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 00-1709-JDS.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
February 26, 2010
Shortly after he began working at the CIA, the Agency initiated a reinvestigation of Plaintiff's security clearance, administering
a series of polygraph examinations and interviews to evaluate his fitness. On August 19, 1997, Plaintiff failed a polygraph examination.
In the month following this polygraph session, various CIA employees interviewed Plaintiff on four separate occasions. At one
of these interviews on September 11, 1997, Plaintiff was given a laptop computer and told to use it to document and explain issues
arising out of the failed polygraph session of August 19, 1997. Plaintiff returned this laptop to the CIA on September 29, 1997.
The veracity of Plaintiff's declarations in these interviews was tested through another polygraph examination on October 3, 1997.
Following the reinvestigation, the CIA advanced the process of revoking Plaintiff's security clearance. On October 20, 1997,
the CIA placed Plaintiff on administrative leave and informed him that an employee review panel ("ERP") would reconsider his access
to classified information. After Plaintiff submitted a memorandum defending himself, the ERP met on or about November 21, 1997,
and recommended that the CIA revoke Plaintiff's security clearance and terminate his employment. After reviewing two additional
memoranda submitted by Plaintiff in response to certain damaging information, the ERP maintained its initial recommendation when
it reconsidered the matter on March 6, 1998. Records of both ERP meetings describe the panel's concern to be Plaintiff's failure
to disclose information about and lack of candor regarding several contacts that were or may have been involved in the Israeli
security establishment. See Pl.'s Mot. for Disc. Attach. 1 and 2 (official summaries of ERP meetings).
"The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into
a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America."
As the article we are commenting mentions, JFK wanted inspections on Israel nuclear weapon program, which unlike those of UK
and France, was secret and denied. Israel was not yet the best friend of the USA. JFK had to ponder what should be the US-Arab
relations. Trump is now against North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, yet he is not opposing British and French nuclear weapons.
So, we know JFK was trying to stop the Israel nuclear weapon program and probably would have offered US protection instead.
JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI
and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia
that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like
JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ,
Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There
had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence,
but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it.
We do not need to know if the reason for the assassination was the Israel atomic bomb program (though it is likely and a sufficient
reason). We only need to know who could coverup the issue and especially cover it up in media.
I looked at this JFK stuff after accidentally watching a video by Donald B. Thomas, where he explained his echo analysis of
the Dictabelt. His paper was refuted by former members of the Warren Commission. I checked, did not fully agree with Thomas but
got more or less similar conclusions, I think I did it more correctly being much closer to the field than Thomas. The response
by these Warren Commission members was false, in my opinion intentionally, so I checked what might be their backgrounds. This
showed that echo analysis must always be done.
I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie
who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR
Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to
murder Kennedy
An interesting fact, when his car made the turn past the book depository LBJ ducked down to tie his shoe laces just as the
shooting started, strangely he also wanted Connolly to travel in his car not with JFK
There was at least one other plot to assassinate Kennedy, in the Chicago plot the patsy was to be another former Marine called
Thomas Vallee
Sorry, they were not Warren Commission members, they were members of a scientific panel, which refuted the House Select Committee
of Assassinations findings. Anyway, I checked their backgrounds as their paper was strangely wrong when there were Nobelists in
the group.()
The author made the point to me that English is not his first language, though he certainly writes it well, and that his mention
of serial numbers may have been misleading. It was, at least for me. In any event I retract my criticism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4 This
documentary goes into great detail about the many strange things going on the day of the JFK Jr's crash.
The missing seat, flying instructor's seat – taken out of the plane ? How long it took to find the plane? JFK jr was another Kennedy
assassination.
I totally agree with you. That's my take. Oswald the pro Castro life long communist worked right on the Kennedy parade route.
Sirhan's bother was killed by an Israeli bombing of a crowded intersection. His father was fired from a 25 year job with the
City of Jerusalem with no pension. Family rental property was confiscated with no compensation
When Sirhan was 4 armed Israeli soldiers invaded the family home and gave the family 1 hour to leave. No compensation of course.
Family moved from a nice 10 room house to a pilgrims hostel run by the Greek Orthodox Church to which they belonged.
Family ended up in Pasadena Ca. Summer of 1967 the papers were full of RFK's promises to Israel. Sirhan believed those articles.
So he shot that supreme scum bag RFK.
RFK was absolutely into the Democrat party War on Whites. He was marching with Cesear Chavez and worshipped MLK. He persecuted,
not prosecuted the White male Teamsters Union. Had he been elected he would have enforced affirmative action and pro Hispanic
& pro black activism as eagerly as 2 other anti White Presidents, Johnson and Nixon did. RFK was pro black from the day his brother
became president
Personally, I don't give a rats ass about who killed the pro Hispanic pro black enemy of Whites, RFK.
Just a side note: there is a surviving witness of the Robert Kennedy assassination , Paul Schrade.
He attended Sirhan's parole bid in 2016, and told the panel that he believed Sirhan shot him at the hotel, but that an unidentified
second shooter killed Mr Kennedy.
Interestingly, even hard core MSM report the inconsistencies within the official inquiry:
" But the autopsy showed the candidate was shot from behind, with evidence that indicated he was hit at close range . "
Murdoch's maternal grandfather was a Rabbi. That makes him and his mother Jewish. And I doubt a rabbi's daughter would raise
her children completely no Jewish whether religuous or tribal ethnic Jewish.
Red Scare?? If you can't read any of the numerous books written about the Verona Papers and Soviet KGB archives opened after
1990, at least ask Mr. Google about them.
Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched
in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.
Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God's
creation of the world 6,000 years ago?
[It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series
of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop
this sort of bad behavior.]
You're right. But there's also a lot of small plane ceashes that involve entertainment people especially musicians on tour.
Could it be that politicians musicians some businessmen and wealthier than average people use small planes more than the rest
of us who just drive and use airlines when traveling?
I don't watch YouTubes. If someone can't get it together enough to write a coherent account of their theories it's worthless.
There's a dozen YouTubes and internet articles about Kennedy's lack of instrument certification and the unusual fog of the
century that night.
If anyone killed him it would be Hildabeast. You Kennedy worshipers do realize that Joe Kennedy created a massive Kennedy worshipful
PR machines back in the 1920s and it's more powerful now than ever or do you?
joe Kennedy 3 is running for President. He is the one who nearly died of a heroin overdose on a plane trip. He is raising questions
about his father s death as a means of getting publicity and sympathy for his campaign from all the old baby boomers who remember
the Kennedy deaths
Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched
in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.
Yes, but McCarthy played it badly by going after too many people with tenuous connections with communists and radicals. Just
because your side is right doesn't mean your side should give into hysteria.
Also, by McCarthy came on the scene, most of the spies had been captured and Soviet intelligence had effectively been ended
in the US. So, McCarthy just kept looking for more and more suspects, and it got a bit ridiculous.
We saw the same problem after 9/11. Yes, the government had been lax in security and there needed to be more vigilance. But
Bush II and Co. over-played their hand and even used 9/11 as hysteria for war with Iraq.
Funny how RFK's kid comes out and acknowledges the obvious, that CIA whacked his family, and all of a sudden this frog Guyenot
shows up in multiple alt media with his Orientalism shtik saying, oh wait, it was the Zionazis.
You see, CIA was just kidding about murdering Kennedy but those crafty Jews got away from them and really did it, Oops! Just
like all those incompetent pilots got away from CIA on 9/11 and really did what CIA only pretended they could do so we could catch
them red-handed. Oops!
Cracks me up, CIA's still trying to shit you even though they're so utterly, hopelessly busted that they have to blame it on
the Jewish State, the most despised shithole on earth. CIA's running out of people who are more despicable and full of crap than
them.
Interesting. When Oswald was in boot camp he scored as sharp-shooter between 210 and 219 points out of 250. HE would fire 10
rounds slow fire from the off-hand (standing) position from 200 yards. Then later he would fire 10 rounds rapid fire in 60 seconds
from the standing to sitting position. So this hitting 49 of 50 rounds from 200 yards is a cock and bull story.
What is not a cock and bull story is a beer drinking session in spring 1959 with Sergeants Dean Nelson from Arkansas, Leroy Alsbury
and another Sergeant Dorsey from Illinois at enlisted club MCAS El Toro, California. Topic turned to a Marine who was at a near
by station called LTA. They knew him from Japan and said he was frequently in trouble and he was convinced that the US was corrupt
for among other things "using germ warfare in Korea". They said he was called Ossie Rabbit.
I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie
who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR. Once he returned from the USSR and
got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy.
Oswald needed some kind of Ism to give meaning to his marginal life. Playing Marxist radical gave his life meaning. It was
more about personality than ideology.
He hung around anti-communist types because he saw himself as a brilliant agent-provocateur who would play all sides in a 5D
chess. He was seriously deluded as a mover and shaker of history when he was a total non-entity. The fact is no one gave a damn
about him. Even Russians found him useless and didn't want him. When he defected to Russia, he thought he would be accepted as
a great hero. Russians just sent him to a factory to work. Back in the US, he wanted attention, but no one gave it to him. Radical
and Marxist groups had no use for him. He was too low, too un-intellectual.
So, he created his own Narrative as a man who would rub shoulders with all sides to make something happen. So, it was disingenuous
for him to bitch that he was just a 'patsy'. He put himself in places to play the role of 'patsy' to all sides. It's what he relished
as he wanted to be where the action is. But he was useless as a patsy.
So, he finally decided to do something big and kill JFK. But he didn't even have the guts to say he did it. He ran like a chicken
and killed a cop.
I suspect Ruby was sent by the Mafia to kill Oswald. Why? Even though mafia didn't order the hit, it feared that Oswald would
blab about the mafia because the idiot met some mafia types when he was dillydallying with anti-Castro factions.
renfro insightfully wrote:
"By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the
very survival of the Jewish State."
Hi renfro,
In contrast, & as you may might know, Ben-Gurion loved GOP, Richard M. Nixon, who became the 1st sitting-USrael president to
visit Israel!
F.y.i., On comeback trail, RMN wrote an interesting book titled "Leaders" in which David Ben-Gurion is deified.
Thanks for such thoughtful posts, renfro.
P.S.:
Below is a work of political-satire which was also posted by "The Smirking Chimp" web site, & afterward, the concerned editor
badgered me for anti-semitism, & subsequently, I became the Smirking Chimp's U-peel Shrimp!
Yes but I read a mobster's autobiography, Chauncey Holt, and he said tinkering with a guy's plane was a great way to off someone.
As you note plane crashes happen.
Despite my reservations about the statement, "Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder." , I find this
comment be very well organized and persuasive.
While I don't think intent to somehow disrupt the zionist occupier of Palestine lands acquiring nuclear weapons
capability and actual armaments as the only potential disposition of JFK, which would have made him a target of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud
global collective , I agree that even by itself, it would have.
Well, I agree with Wiz and Anon, that your post is sane . What is obvious, however, is that you either haven't done
your homework or are a sophisticated troll. James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable , which sums up decades of research
is a good place to start. Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK is also essential to get a sense of some
of the moving parts and the need for humility, in approaching the matter.
I agree. And have come to the conclusion that, once one gets very jewized up and comprehends just how involved international
jewry and its current political offspring of Zionists are, in so many events. That they really do represent also a true misfortune
for the entire world of non jewish goyim.
And furthermore, I have concluded that due to so many bad, wrong, evil ongoing events that are headed by or consist of an huge
number of jews involved within them. That at this late date point in time, it would almost be better when discussing various past
and current and even likely future events, as far as jewish involvments, to instead ask the question of
What Is there that history has proven as evil or wrong within such events, that jews have Not been involved in or with eh?
Because the deeper you go into such events and infos, and ergo the longer back in past times one delves into such issues The
more one learns of a constant jewish involvement throughout history going back at least 3,500 yrs ago! ..35-Centuries so far,
with most times each century getting worse and more evil due to their insidious craving of remaining stiff necked and stubborn,
and always unwilling to repent or change period.
And yes yes I know there are a few so called good jews But imho those good types number very very few when compared to jewry
as a whole. For I consider their huge silent bunch of tribe members as willing accomplices, and based upon the ever ongoing group
silence we see no matter which jews do wrongs and no matter how bad those wrongs are. No other logic nor sane conclusion can be
had.
And for immediate proof examples of how their majority tribe members always cover for, deny wrongs, toss out straw men, or
simply revert to the time tested method of Fully ignore all presented facts, and begin to use vile slanderous name calls of "Nazis"
and "Antisemite" etc. One only need read any of the many articles here on This forum, as well as all other website forums that
have become infested with Zionist jews and hasbara agents.
And for these reasons one must also conclude is the main reason that every time jews get booted from another host nation, the
entire bunch bar none get booted out. Yes that means those few good jews also get booted out, which some can argue is unfair But
after 109 host nations and around a total of 300+ boot outs since about 1800 yrs ago Well one can also understand why a host nation,
having no good method to determine accurately which are the few good ones, always ends up giving the big boot out to them all
eh.
And also one can conclude that most everything jews have complained about for that entire 3,500 years and still do today, has
been caused by jews themselves by their own disgusting ways and traits and evil criminalities etc ..There simply would be zero
so called antisemitism if there were zero jews within a nation period. But good luck in attempting to convince any jews of such
truths.
One of the very best and most accurate descriptions yet I have read or heard of regarding jewry and why they have been so despised
by so many distinctly different groups of gentiles, and in so many different locations and in so many eras of time has to be what
the new testament verses about them states (Paraphraseing here) "For they are the adversaries of God and of All of Mankind"!
That single short verse speaks volumes of past and present truths.
He has been consistently debunking political manipulation over the last 10 years. He does so with objectivity and measure,
and thanks to his hard work and erudition. He tries to avoid baiting into easy and stupid conspiracy theories, such as the ones
promoted by Michael Moore and Alex Jones.
Mr Guyenot has loyal and long-standing readers within the French-speaking world, where he is highly respected (and ignored
by MSM, which is a badge of honour).
He mostly publishes on a right-wing, populist website that attracts readers from all political shades, thanks to their more honest
and overt positions.
I just read from Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land ..and Clash Of Civilizations. The book is an excellent
history of the nefarious role played by Jews in the cycle of civilizations for thousands of years up to the JFK assassination
and 9/11 which feature Jews in supporting and initiating roles. These two mentioned events are arguably the endgame of the Anglo-Zionist
Empire. The destroyers indeed!
The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control. The dancing Israelis
and Abraham Zapruder were on site at the exact moment of the mortal event. What a coincidence the Jew Chorus shouts! I would like
to know more about Abraham Zapruder, born in the Ukraine in 1905. Did he know the Zionist founders of the apartheid state?
A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.
The question the conspiracy idiots don't consider is: If the "deep state" wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a
sex scandal forcing his resignation?
It would be (a lot) safer than a "conspiracy" composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would
make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure
he had favored.
The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker's stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November
22, 1963.
We see more and more articles about "the Jews killed the Kennedys." True or not, this is not good for the Jews. This opens the
floodgates to "the Jews did 9/11."
Defending 9/11 is problematic for the Jews. There are many many angles that are impossible to defend.
Wiz of Oz,
Are you a troll or a Zionist sympathizer? Giving birth by a Zionist the child is a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer even if he or
she doesn't acknowledge it! This can go back as far as 7 generations if you really like to know!
Your comments are worthless indicating you have nothing to say or to add to the subject matter! Bye!
RFK was NOT going to win the presidency in 1968. A few weeks before his death, he lost the Oregon primary to Eugene McCarthy.
RFK couldn't get enough votes beyond his black base to win a general election. A poll in late May 1968 had him running 10 points
behind Nixon. Robert Kennedy was about as out of touch with Middle America as George McGovern would be for years later.
Hubert Humphrey was way ahead in delegates and in those days the "bosses" still had control. Humphrey was better liked than
Bobby withing the party. The New York primary was going to give Bobby a poor result for his "home state."
Although, RFK won the California primary, his 46-42 margin was 3-4 points lower than expected and was due to a heavy black
and Mexican vote. Bobby still didn't do well enough with white voters.
If we reject the official versions of JFK and RFK assassinations and assume they were results of conspiracies with Oswald and
Sirhan as active players or patsies then we must go by the qui bono, cui prodest, cuius bonum legal principle which certainly
will not prove who were the conspirators but will point to the most likely conspirators.
In case of JFK it is pretty obvious that Israel was the greatest beneficiary of his death because of JFK determination to stop
Israel's nuclear program. Some correspondence of JFK with PM's of Israel is available on line. Israel defense doctrine was formulate
to be based on what later was called Samson Option. In 1963 Israel still cooperated with France on its secret nuclear program.
JFK definitively was set on stopping Israel nuclear program which Israel was conducting in secret cooperation with France.
After strong letter on May 18, 163 letter PM Ben Gurion preferred to resign than to answer the letter:
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/When-Ben-Gurion-said-no-to-JFK
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president warned that unless American inspectors
were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than
answering, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned. Kennedy's repeated emphasis on America's "deep commitment to the security of Israel"
was all well and good, but, as seen after Egypt's sudden expulsion of UN peacekeepers in 1967, Israel could not depend on anyone
– even the US.
Ben-Gurion's successor, Levi Eshkol received Kennedy's next letter, which upped the pressure, warning that the American
commitment and support of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized."
At the same time RFK as AG was considering forcing pro Israel lobbies to register as Foreign Agents. The last before JFK death
communication from DOJ was on 10/11/1963: DOJ Demanded for AZC Registration "the Department expects a response from you within
72 hours with regard to this matter." Six days later
http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/
"Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the
Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the
Zionist movement he did not believe his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was
an agent of a foreign principal. I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made
part of the Department's public files available for inspection by the public "
In DOJ internal memo on 4/30/1964 before replacing RFK as AG with Nicholas Katzenbach the following was stated: "This is the
most blatant stall we have encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because all of us here would call their records
before a grand jury." RFK resigns as AG in September 1964. When Katzenbach became acting AG and then AG exchanges between Jewish
lobby and DOJ continued but no action was taken by DOJ. Eventually on n 11/27/1967, four years and five days after JFK's death
AIPAC applies for a federal tax exemption. The lobby has won.
As far as RFK is concerned the conspirators could not allow him to become president, period. His assassination is predicated
on conspiracy of JFK assassination and subsequent cover up. If we assume that Sirhan was indeed hypnotized patsy conspirators
seem to overdid the cover story and the created legend (though it worked for most people who bought the story) by trying to bring
attention to Palestinians who were allegedly upset with RFK's strong pro-Israel stance. The problem with the story is that RFK
did not demonstrate that he had strong pro-Israeli position. Anyway, most people got a message that RFK got killed because he
was pro-Israel, so certainly Israel was off the suspect list, right?
Since the two assassinations dozens of theories were floated, including the most ridiculous ones, like that Onassis was behind
it, which got public exposure often in MSM. The only theory that can't get any traction in MSM is the one linking Israel.
Although this is actually an insightful comment, you overlook the fact that Organized Jewry has no problem turning on former
acolytes (even fellow Jews) who are not completely lockstep with the party line.
The tenuous connections were not all that tenuous. For instance Owen Latimore was indeed a soviet agent who influenced many
state department operatives.
The real reasons McCarthy was brought down was that the entire communist operation was so heavily Jewish. It's really a wonder
that the Rosenbergs were arrested and found guilty.
I read that silly RFK the dead messiah would have cured the problems thing you posted. What a crock.
JFK MLK RFK the holy trinity what a load.
Robert Kennedy jr is running for president. He just wants to get his name in the papers and the internet and get votes from
all the baby boomers who grow up when the media was so worshipful of the Kennedys and MLK.
I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher
David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys -- both of which
articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are
sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to
the the truth about any of it.
I would be disappointed if all the articles on unz.com were like this one; but it is better to have some articles that we might
consider moronic, than to expect Ron Unz to personally arbitrate between fact and fiction on readers' behalf – as the NYT and
WP do.
There will always be boundaries on what can be published, and IMHO in most media the boundaries are far too narrow. It is better
if the boundaries are over-broad than over-narrow. A possible downside with over-broad boundaries is that bad stories might "taint"
good ones, by association; on the other hand, a narrow scope might be taken to imply that the publisher endorses each article.
The same with commenters: IMHO it is better to have some that are odious, than to give moderators the job of removing any comments
that could reasonably be considered offensive. It is not difficult to scan the comments and skip past the ones that are not informative.
On the article itself, it did make us think about the headline question for half an hour – even if most of us agree that Betteridge's
Law Of Headlines applies in this case. I looked up the JFK Jr case again, remembering the official story that his plane crashed
into the sea during very heavy rain – only to find that this is not the official story at all (JFK Jr was supposedly disoriented
by conditions that were merely hazy). So who spread the "heavy rain" story and why? And if the Israelis killed JFK Jr, should
we remove his name from the "Clinton body count"?
Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that in the sixties the Israeli
nuclear weapons program was a shocking secret, and it remained so until 1986 when Mordechai Vananu told the story. JFK's opposition
to Dimona, and the possible Israeli reaction to it, must be seen in this context.
Michael Rivero has examined the many clues that JFK JR was assassinated. Here are some of clues that he found. We don't have
a "free" press in our MSM. Investigating or questioning the narratives given to us by our "free controlled press" is considered
"conspiracy theories".
Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public,
let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's plane evolved, and why it is suspect.
As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha's Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was
in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis
airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr's plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.
However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported
radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration
from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha's Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported
8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha's Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze
so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.
No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.
Here are some examples.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard,
radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.
PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions.
He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport.
He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also
false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.
PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the
New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with
individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and
careful pilot.
PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife
had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.
PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial
pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who
is more complacent.
PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile
visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes
out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up
not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar
image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared
VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha's Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather
could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!
PROPAGANDA: Martha's Vineyard is very dark and won't show through the haze.
FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha's Vineyard
Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they
are drawing complaints from island residents.
That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It's a given.
That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.
That our government lies to us, with the media's help, is a given.
There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.
During that same 1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened
hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). The Committee uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency, a
predecessor to the state of Israel, operated a massive network of financial "conduits" which funnelled funds to U.S. Israel lobby
groups. As a result, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign
funded lobbying activity in the United States. The attempt was subsequently thwarted first by the Israel lobby itself and then
by the death of President Kennedy which lead to growing concerns regarding the impact of the ever-growing Zionist influence on
U.S. policy making decisions. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright -- who lost his Senate seat the following year -- had no qualms about
boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that : "Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests
rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. -- somewhere around 80% -- is completely
in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign
policy] difficult for our government."
AIPAC eludes US law, part of international lobby for Israel
The most powerful and effective foreign-government lobby in Washington is so dominant that it has been able to avoid registering
for the past 55 years. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was last confronted by FARA when its predecessor organization
the American Zionist Council was pressured by John F. Kennedy's Justice Department in 1962 and 1963. Kennedy's death stopped that
effort -- and ended White House attempts to hold Israel accountable for the development of its secret nuclear weapons program
(which depended on nuclear material removed illegally from the United States with the connivance of a company located in Pennsylvania
called NUMEC).
A Jewish Defector Warns America:
Benjamin H. Freedman Speaks on Zionism
And no doubt your 'friend' could have fired the "magic bullet" as well. "Sex scandal"? LOL. That would have taken years to have had any impact, if at all. And since when do sex scandals force Presidents to retire. Given your logic, a sex scandal could have been used against Lincoln, therefore John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
I visited the Book depository when I was in Dallas for a week and noted that the distance was short, the window was way above
the street and it would have been an easy shot. I doubt a Marine would have missed.
What's really silly is the way people who've never held any type of gun in their lives keep insisting that Oswald's score on
the Marine marksman test proves he was a bad shot. Just because he didn't get the highest score doesn't mean he wasn't capable
of firing the shot that killed Kennedy.
Thanks for your perspective! I have read some of M. Guanot's work with interest.
While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what
Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with
it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That's idiotic. It also happens to be CIA's boilerplate
excuse for all their grave crimes. There's nothing new up there. What's worse, it's plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads.
It's not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way.
An engineer is highly trained, not highly educated. That might be why he applies bog standard old-fashioned Orientalism, which
originally applied to Jews, then didn't, and now does again – and voila, we've got a suspect that isn't CIA! Guyanot's Orientalism
is interesting because it highlights the Israeli state's exploitation of biblical myth as pretext for genocidal ideology. But
he's over his head when trying to re-interpret the documented conduct of the US command structure. Perhaps that's how he falls
into the CIA's propaganda line. Let's hope so.
A 20-page confidential letter from President Trump's legal team leaked to the New
York Times argues that President Trump could not have obstructed justice at any point
during his presidency due to his Constitutional authority, and that he cannot be compelled to
testify in front of Special Counsel Robert Mueller due to his Constitutional powers as
President.
The letter, crafted by Trump's legal team, reveals that the White House has been waging a
quiet campaign for several months to prevent Mueller from trying to subpoena the president -
contending that because the Constitution empowers him to "if he wished, terminate the inquiry,
or even exercise his power to pardon," Trump could not have illegally obstucted any aspect of
the investigation into potential collusion between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 US
election.
Mr. Trump's defense is a wide-ranging interpretation of presidential power. In saying he
has the authority to end a law enforcement inquiry or pardon people, his lawyers ambiguously
left open the possibility that they were referring only to the investigation into his former
national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn , which he is accused of pressuring the F.B.I. to
drop -- or perhaps the one Mr. Mueller is pursuing into Mr. Trump himself as well.
Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow outlined 16 areas they said the special counsel was scrutinizing
as part of the obstruction investigation, i ncluding the firings of Mr. Comey and of Mr.
Flynn , and the president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions's recusal from the
Russia investigation. -NYT
"It remains our position that the president's actions here, by virtue of his position as the
chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute
obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself , and that he could, if he
wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired," writes
President Trump's former attorney John Dowd, who left the team in March.
The leaked letter effectively reveals Trump's trump card in the event Mueller proceeds with
a subpoena.
"We are reminded of our duty to protect the president and his office," wrote the lawyers,
who stressed that " Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting
political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance. "
Translation - this is a clown show, go pound sand.
Mueller's office has told Trump's lawyers they need to speak with the president to determine
whether he criminally obstructed any aspect of the Russia investigation. If Trump refuses to be
questioned, Mueller will be forced to choose whether or not to try and subpoena him - which, as
Trump's lawyers have made abundantly clear, will result in a Constitutional crisis.
They argued that the president holds a special position in the government and is busy
running the country , making it difficult for him to prepare and sit for an interview. They
said that because of those demands on Mr. Trump's time, the special counsel's office should
have to clear a higher bar to get him to talk. Mr. Mueller, the president's attorneys argued,
needs to prove that the president is the only person who can give him the information he
seeks and that he has exhausted all other avenues for getting it. -NYT
" The president's prime function as the chief executive ought not be hampered by requests
for interview ," they wrote. " Having him testify demeans the office of the president before
the world ."
Trump's attorneys also argued that the president did nothing to technically violate
obstruction-of-justice statutes.
"Every action that the president took was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant
to Article II of the United States Constitution," they wrote of the part of the Constitution
that created the executive branch. "As such, these actions cannot constitute obstruction,
whether viewed separately or even as a totality."
According to legal experts cited by the Times , the president wields broad authority to
control the actions of the executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice and the
FBI. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that Congress can impose some restrictions on that
power, including limiting a president's ability to fire certain officials.
"As a result, it is not clear whether statutes criminalizing obstruction of justice apply to
the president and amount to another legal limit on how he may wield his powers ," notes the
Times .
About that Russia probe...
And while Trump's team works to make the case against testifying, media reports and
Congressional investigations have revealed what appears to be
grave misconduct by the FBI and Department of Justice in order to prevent Trump from
winning the 2016 US election, and then once he won - discredit him with a Russia allegations
fabricated by US Intelligence agencies, UK intelligence assets - in collusion with the Clinton
campaign and the Obama administration.
We now know that Trump campaign aides were likely
fed rumors that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and then used as
patsies by Clinton-linked operatives in what appears to have been a set-up, something Trump
once again hinted in his latest tweet, in which he also asked if the Mueller team or the DOJ is
leaking his lawyers' letters to the "Fake News Media."
Trump's attorneys have also attacked the credibility of former FBI Director James Comey,
while also contesting what they believe are Mueller's version of significant facts.
Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that Mr. Trump is telling the truth but that
investigators "have a false version of it, we believe, so you're trapped." And the stakes are
too high to risk being interviewed under those circumstances, he added: "That becomes not
just a prosecutable offense, but an impeachable offense." -NYT
They argue that Trump couldn't have intentionally obstructed justice anyway based on the
fact that he did not know that Mike Flynn was under investigation when Trump spoke to
Comey.
"There could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an 'investigation' that had been
neither confirmed nor denied to White House counsel," the president's lawyers wrote, adding
that FBI investigations generally do not qualify as the type of "proceeding" covered by an
obstruction-of-justice statute.
"Of course, the president of the United States is not above the law, but just as obvious and
equally as true is the fact that the president should not be subjected to strained readings and
forced applications of clearly irrelevant statutes," wrote Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow.
The Times, however, suggests that their argument may be outdated, as a 2002 law passed by
Congress makes it a crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet begun.
But the lawyers based those arguments on an outdated statute , without
mentioning that Congress passed a broader law in 2002 that makes it a
crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet started.
Samuel W. Buell, a Duke Law School professor and white-collar criminal law specialist who
was a lead prosecutor for the Justice Department's Enron task force, said the real issue was
whether Mr. Trump obstructed a potential grand jury investigation or trial -- which do count
as proceedings -- even if the F.B.I. investigation had not yet developed into one of those .
He called it inexplicable why the president's legal team was making arguments that were
focused on the wrong obstruction-of-justice statute.
Regardless, it appears Trump's team is going to tell Mueller to take a hike if he tries to
subpoena the president, and that it will simply further embarrass the United States on the
world stage.
"We write to address news reports, purportedly based on leaks, indicating that you may have
begun a preliminary inquiry into whether the president's termination of former FBI Director James Comey
constituted obstruction of justice," the June 2017 memo from Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz to
Mueller reads - while a more recent memo outlines the 16 areas they believe Mueller is focusing
on (via
CBS News )
Former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- information regarding his
contacts with Ambassador Kislyak about sanctions during the transition process;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's communications with Vice President Mike Pence regarding those
contacts;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's interview with the FBI regarding the same;
Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates coming to the White House to discuss same;
The president's meeting on Feb. 14, 2017, with then-Director James Comey;
Any other relevant information regarding former National Security Advisor Michael
Flynn;
The president's awareness of and reaction to investigations by the FBI, the House and the
Senate into possible collusion;
The president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from the Russia
investigation;
The president's reaction to former FBI Director James Comey's testimony on March 20,
2017, before the House Intelligence Committee;
Information related to conversations with intelligence officials generally regarding
ongoing investigations;
Information regarding who the president had had conversations with concerning Mr. Comey's
performance;
Whether or not Mr. Comey's May 3, 2017, testimony lead to his termination;
Information regarding communications with Ambassador Kislyak, Minister Lavrov, and Lester
Holt;
The president's reaction to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel;
The president's interaction with Attorney General Sessions as it relates to the
appointment of Special Counsel; and,
The statement of July 8, 2017, concerning Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting in Trump
Tower.
One interesting fact I don't see mentioned in this article, or the comments so far, is
that this letter from Trump's attorneys to Mueller was written and delivered to Mueller in
January, 2018. 5 months ago. One of the authors has since left the Trump team (Dowd). Mueller
does not appear to have shut up shop and left town.
The only new thing about this letter is that somebody, presumably from Team Trump, has
leaked it to the New York Times. Could easily be Giuliani.
This may very well end up at the Supreme Court. If that happens, I expect a 5-4 decision
to exempt the President of the United States from the rule of law. Won't that be fun when
somebody like Elizabeth Warren becomes President in 2, 6, or however-many years?
A lot of Republicans loved how George W. Bush amassed a lot of King-like powers, and then
bemoaned it when Barack Obama used those powers of the "Unitary Executive." That shoe cramps
badly on the other foot, doesn't it.
Uhm, so what you're saying is the Supreme Court, which IS the rule of law, will likely
interpret the Constitution correctly and UPHOLD the portions of the constitution that speak
to not allowing the President to be encumbered with frivolous, unfounded charges that render
him unable to execute the charge of his office while he is a sitting President, even though
those charges CAN be brought as soon as he steps down. So this RULING OF THE LAW would be
uncomfortable for you? Tough shit, you live in America where the Constitution reigns supreme.
Are you one of those that wants to toss the constitution into the garbage all based upon, but
but but we may not be able to bring our OWN unjustified, frivolous, unfounded charges on
Presidents we don't agree with and are SUPER angry they got elected?
CONGRESS amassed a bunch of King-like powers for Bush and Obama, ignorantly. The Supreme
Court does not give any powers to the President and I have no problem with that court being
the final word.
Mueller is assholes and elbows deep in his own stinky poo poo.
If the IG report is that damning, and a second council is appointed, Mueller should buy an
apple orchard, to feed his horse face, during his incarceration.
Trump should stay "light years" AWAY>from Mueller desperation's<
They remind me of roach nests where the vermin are always nesting cozy cozy together until
an opportunity arises that allows them to bug the s**t out of the rest of us.
And of course they produce nothing, and mooch off everybody else's work.
Except these DC Swamp roaches carry badges and guns.
Only the DC Swamp could produce such freaks.
They are a step below regular six legged roaches.
At least those roaches are better behaved than their DC cousins.
America doesn't need THEIR kind of protections if it requires a handful of people to run
amuck breaking every law they vowed to uphold simply because shits like YOU are so damn
stupid you couldn't even beat a clown like Trump. Why don't you people just admit it. You're
too damn stupid to accomplish anything anymore. You couldn't win what SHOULD have been the
easiest election to win in all of American history. THEN you couldn't even run an
intelligence op "intelligently". On top of THAT you all convict yourselves as you go on "book
tours" and "political commentary" junkets because your greed surpasses your stupidity.
You have no one but yourselves to blame for everything that upsets you.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple
pieces of information in a Fake Dossier, I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday,
Breanan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know much about the
Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Breanan doing this? Because
Breanan knows that the Dossier was his case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as
a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John Breanan started a
Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified.
John Breanan is going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show
you that Breanan has run from this Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And,
he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen to how he emphasizes on
the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him
with Chuck Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath
John Breanan admits the Fake Dossier Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was
done. That was presented to then...Pesident Obama & President Elect Trump."
Mueller reminds me of the 'preacher' character in the 'Right Stuff' movie. Death made
visible. A year and a half and the only result has been to damage a freely-elected president.
Mueller's end game is to drag this s - - - out until the midterms when it is hoped the Dems
can regain the House and impeach Trump.
Mueller should be issuing a subpoena to Comey for obstructing justice and the
theft/transference of classified government documents...lol...but of course, it is not in
"Muellers mandate" to pursue justice ;-)
You're correct. I just checked. CNN is hemorrhaging slobbering viewers.
Ow, my Ballz! Is still number one slot followed by Fox.
So the joy of CNN withering only goes so far when the only refuge is FOX and Ow, my
Ballz.
Fox and friends makes me violently ill - it's soooo saccharine sweet. Steve Docey is
tolerable but that dip shit Kilmeade is such a bloodthirsty war mongering chickenhawk and
airhead Ainsley reminds me of Barbies little sister Skipper who thinks every day is Summer
and wonderful. It seriously gives me the trots in the morning. Used to like Greta, super
smart but a face for radio so they ditched her. Still like Tucker but I seriously doubt he
will stay there long term.
The time has never been more ripe for someone to buck up and create a serious media
channel that is a red pilling machine gun. 100% Mockingbird and Sheeny free, too.
The Ukrainian government's staged assassination of anti-Putin journalist Arkady Babachenko has taken
an even stranger turn, as evidence has emerged that his would-be "Russia-ordered" assassin and the man
who supposedly hired him, both say they worked for Ukrainian counterintelligence, casting serious
doubt on the official story.
To review, Ukrainian authorities announced last Tuesday that Babachenko
had been assassinated after returning home from the store. On Wednesday, Babachenko appeared at a
press conference with Ukrainian authorities
who said that the faked assassination was an
elaborate sting to bust an actual hit planned by Russia
.
Only now we find that the hitman,
Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk
, is an outspoken critic of Russia who says he worked for Ukrainian
counterintelligence -
a claim Ukraine initially denied but later admitted to be true
.
Meanwhile the guy who supposedly hired Tsimbalyuk, Boris L. German, 50, also says he worked for
Ukrainian counter-intelligence, a claim Ukraine denies as its immediately destroys the carefully
scripted, if rapidly imploding, Ukrainian narrative meant to scapegoat Russia for what has been a
"fake news" story of epic proportions, emerging from the one nation that not only was the
biggest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation
, but has made fake news propaganda into an art
form.
Supposed "hitman" Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk
Boris German, suspected of organizing an attempted hit on anti-Putin Russian journalist Arkady
Babachenko sits in a cage during trial in Kiev, Ukraine
The
New
York Times
reports that Tsimbalyuk - a former Russia-hating priest was featured in a
10-minute documentary in January 2017 in which "
he called killing members of the Russian-backed
militias in eastern Ukraine "an act of mercy"
,
further calling into question why Russia
would hire him for the supposed assassination in the first place.
Facebook pictures also reveal Tsimbalyuk wearing a Ukrainian ultranationalist uniform from "Right
Sector," a group deemed to be neo-Nazis.
Given such strong and publicly avowed enmity toward Russia,
it is odd to say the
least that Mr. Tsimbalyuk would be selected to carry out the contract killing of a prominent
Kremlin critic
.
German claims he took orders from Moscow businessman Vyacheslav Pivovarnik - who he says works for
one of Putin's personal foundations.
Ukrainian officials also claim that German has a list of another 30 targets which Moscow wants
to wipe out - something he claims he has since passed onto Kyiv.
Prosecutors claimed German had been given a down payment of $15,000, half what he was promised
for carrying out the hit.
German said: 'I got a call from a longtime acquaintance who lives in Moscow, and in the process
of communicating with him it turned out that he works for a Putin foundation precisely to
orchestrate destabilization in Ukraine.' -
Daily
Mail
"
Six months ago, my old acquaintance contacted me, an ex-citizen of Ukraine, now living in
Moscow
," German told a Ukrainian court, adding "
He works in a personal foundation of
Putin's
- and is in charge of organizing riots in Ukraine and planned acts of terror at the
next presidential elections. He is called Vyacheslav Pivovarnik. This is not a fairy tale, there's
nothing mystical here, everything has been proved."
German's lawyer Eugene Solodko wrote on Facebook that his client was an executive director of
Ukrainian-German firm Schmeisser - the only non-state owned arms producer in the country.
Russia has denied German's claim, with a Putin spokesman saying "No such foundation exists in
Russia. Any allegations about Russia's possible complicity in this staging is just mudslinging. They
do not correspond to reality."
Meanwhile, senior Ukraine officials have been on the defensive since Wednesday, when the head of
security services announced they had staged the death of Babchenko so they could track his would-be
killers to Russian intelligence, a story the
International Federation of Journalists
slammed as idiotic, nonsensical and completely undermining
Ukraine's credibility.
I think that the Ukonazis must have been inspired by their friends at
MI6's and their brilliant execution of the Skripal father and
daughter hit. They needed Jihadi John Brennan to organize things for
them, but he seems to be tied up at the moment. And the Thai
Torturer is still getting comfortable in her new saddle. But I am
confident that she will be able to execute both fake and real
assassinations shortly.
Just when you thought that the US had become a banana republic.
The Ukrainian government, screws shit up as a US puppet that is
beyond belief. Putin is laughing so hard that he won't sleep for
days. Your right about Britain, they have been so influenced by
Soros that they screw everything up as well.
Is this the year that the left falls into the bottomless pit?
How can you screw everything up so bad and still live. Look at the
left in the US, failure upon failure. Their media proclaims
victory, yet know one believes them about anything. The
corporations are keeping them afloat. Not for long!
It's true though, the jews
never were really creative in the first place (that is why
there is no true innovation in the world, these fuckers hold
tight purse strings).
Because they
are
morons. The short-bus crowd seems to think that
every person on earth is as stupid as they; and that these are really smart,
fiendishly clever plots that in reality are Scooby-Do level theatrics at best.
Wouldn't shock me if some Ken doll™ wearing a blue ascot tore off this guy's
rubber mask to reveal Old Man Joe Biden who's scheme to set his idiot kid up
with the biggest Porsche dealership in Europe was foiled by 'those damn kids.'
"Why are so many people so desperately trying to make Russia look bad and
managing only to make themselves look like morons?"
Public is even dumber.
Just ask any joe or jane on the street. They think all this non-sense is
caused by the Russians, Assad uses chemical weapons, etc
Ukraine - The Babchenko Hoax Was Part Of A Corporate Raid
The case of the death and resurrection of the Russian journalist Babchenko in Kiev is even
more surreal than it seemed so far. According to Ukrainian sources and court documents the
whole hoax was part of an attempt to raid and take over a private company.
Babchenko himself and the man who was hired to "kill" him had cooperated with the main
branch of the Ukrainian national security service (SBU). The "operator", who is accused of
having hired the "killer" for Russia, appeared in court. He claimed to have cooperated with the
Ukrainian counter intelligence agency, which is side branch of the national security service.
The accused "operator" is an executive of a private joint venture and has been under pressure
over claims against his company. There are indications that the whole stunt may have been
staged to get him "out of the way" to then take over the company he leads.
The suggestion is that high levels of the Ukrainian security services staged the whole
affair not only to blame Russia but also for someone's personal gain.
In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open
hostility against its people , came
via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position. Babchenko
found a job
with ATR , a Crimean Tatar TV station. The fine-print on the ATR websitesays that it "was supported by the
Media Development Fund of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine".
On May 29 the Ukrainian government claimed that Babchenko had been assassinated. As usual
the death of a journalist hostile to Russia was used by NATO aligned media to blame Russia, the
Kremlin and Putin. That there was zero evidence that Russia was involved did not matter at all.
A photo of the allegedly killed Babchenko laying in his blood emerged.
The very next day the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine Yuriy Lutsenko and the head of the
National Security Service (SBU) Vasyl Grytsak (also written as Hrytsak) held a press conference
and
presented a very alive and happy Arkady Babchenko. He had not been shot at all. The whole
hoax, it was explained, was launched to find the people behind an alleged assassination
campaign originating in Russia. In this official version the Russians hired some Ukrainian
"operator" who then hired the "killer" to assassinate Babchenko. The hired killer told the
police about it and the hoax of Babchenko's death was staged to find the culprits behind the
plot.
All those western "journalists" who had believed Ukrainian government claims without any
evidence and wrote unfounded accusations against Russia were not amused. The Ukrainian
government exposed them as the mere propaganda tools and fools they are. The "journalist"
Babchenko himself,
interviewed by Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky, comes off as a naive and rather dim
light.
Yesterday the "hired killer", one Alexey Tsymbalyuk,
went
public . He is a Ukrainian nationalist who had fought against the the Russia supported
entities in eastern Ukraine. He has since become an orthodox priest.
Well done b, how the fok did you see that angle?
Nevertheless, the whole story defies imagination, I mean the scrips are wilder than a 3rd
rate Hollywood flick, but maybe the Ukrainian Idiot unservices watch.
Ukraine has debased itself (Further) with this, the already known connections to the vile
scumbag at Bellincat, Elliot Higgins, made people wary. Now they are not wary, but fully
aware of the lies.
If we keep on being bombarded like this, eventually I will doubt who I am.
funny how the US/UK-established vassal puppet regime in ukraine closely resembles the ones in
africa and south america. i guess you can export sociopathic ayn rand thinking anywhere and
have it turn out roughly the same.
good work. it's always fun to be reminded what actual journalism looks like.
thanks b... that is pretty impressive how insane and whacked out all of these ukrainian
nationals are, not to mention how they have succeeded in providing another example of how the
msm at present is a real joke... i am sure the reporters are not impressed though.. the fact
this story is as convoluted as it is tells me how messed up ukraine and the west are at this
point.. all there attempts to smear and frame russia are looking very unstable at this
point.. add this to the pile of bs that includes the white helmets, syrian defense, moderate
headchoppers, and etc. etc.. i think the point is already passed where ordinary people don't
trust the media as they might have in the past.. this story helps in that regard..
It is also possible that the Russian intelligence have cynically organized the fake murder
affair with the aim of ridiculing and discrediting the western media and the western
intelligence and their impatient leaders.
It could be Russia's revenge on the Skripal affair.
The EU should get serious about admitting Ukraine to the club. It would mean much less
paperwork for lonely European bachelors and there would be an immediate boom in the
camouflage clothing and partially used military equipment business.
If only Poland could be a bit more reasonable about Galicia.
Am a bit confused. Was it Boris Herman the German who headed the joint venture who is
referred to as 'German' in the following text? His fellow victims being SBU head Grytsak and
the Prosecutor General Lutsenko? The bad guys being unnamed creditors..?
Some insignificant imperfections:
line 5: ... As usual the death of a journalist hostile to Russia ...
line 27: ... the German (the count r y) company Schmeisser ...
line 45: ... was on l y one aspect ...
Other than that, another fine piece of investigative reporting!
Virgile, it is hard to imagine how the Russians would have been able to involve the Ukrainian
president, the head of the SBU and the prime minister among others. Those people made those
choices themselves. If those people are all plants of the Russian SVR (foreign secret
service) then they'd be mad to burn them in such a small scale plot and certainly not all at
once.
Wheels within wheels? Yet more evidence that Ukraine has not left the 1990s unfortunately.
Meanwhile, Airbus is palming off old CHC H225 helicopters (that oil workers refuse to fly
in after two catastrophic crashes killing everyone aboard) to the Ukraine.
On the plus side, they will be used by ' ...a variety of security agencies, including
the national police and border guard service.. ' so if they crash they'll mostly kill
scum. Pardon my French. Who's paying for it?
@mbur Am a bit confused. Was it Boris Herman the German who headed the joint venture who
is referred to as 'German' in the following text? His fellow victims being SBU head Grytsak
and the Prosecutor General Lutsenko? The bad guys being unnamed creditors..?
Herman/German is the name of Boris (H and G are often interchangeable in translations from
Russian). Boris is Ukrainian, not German (the country).
The SBU head seems to be on the side opposed to Boris German.
But I admit that I am not totally sure of that. I do not even know who is the bad guy
here.
Who is really raiding the company? Boris, who is the executive who leads the company, or
the former founder/creditor and his companions?
The case is confusing, the stories (not all are quoted above) contradict each other as do
the various people telling them.
It seems clear the Boris German has been under SBU pressure for some time over the company
and credit issue. Now he gets framed as a Russian asset by the SBU while he claims to have
worked for the Ukrainian counter espionage department which is nominally part of the SBU but
still a sort of separate service.
If the SBU wanted him "off the street" to let someone else take over the company they got
their wish fulfilled. The judge put him under 60 days pre-trial custody.
@6 dh
The EU should get serious about admitting Ukraine to the club.
Definitely. An agreement like "full membership for a guaranteed intake/redistribution of
100.000 refuges per annum" would be my favourite option. Only for the fun of it, of
course.
I am not sure that we can take Meduza.io's reporting all that seriously as its agenda is
anti-Russian and, like Arkady Babchenko's Crimean Tatar TV station employer, receives some
funding from the US or a US agency. Although I suppose that like the Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights, Meduza journalists do tell the truth occasionally so as to not to compete with
the BBC as a complete propaganda nutcase outfit.
Whether the publicity given to the Babchenko hoax murder in deceiving a gullible Western
news media will translate into success for the SBU in court is another thing. Boris Gherman
may be in pre-trial detention (perhaps for his own safety) but if the court finds in his
favour then what other stunt will the SBU try to pull off to shake him down? They can only
pull off a successful hoax murder stunt once or twice before everyone outside Ukraine becomes
suspicious and cynical.
Meanwhile real Russian journalists working in Ukraine, whether they support or don't
support Russia, probably just found their jobs and their lives more endangered by the SBU
than before.
Ukraine must be in really desperate straits to seize modest-sized industrial assets in the
tens of thousands of US dollars, Mafia-style. It can't be long now before the country's
economy and finances are put under direct control of the IMF if that organisation is to
recover its loans.
et Al @ 13: It will be fun watching Nazis trying to fly those helioopters and crashing them.
The downside is that if they crash in eastern Ukraine or near the border with Russia, you
know who will get the blame.
Britain appears to be the must Russophobic country at the moment, while at least some of the
U.S. elites appear to be more concerned about China. Guardian journalists Shaun Walker and
Luke Harding have conducted a vicious campaign spanning years, and one suspects both are
close to British intelligence (if you can call what they do intelligence). We know that
English hatred of Russia goes back centuries, but there must be something else. Any opinions?
Radiator @ 16: You mean Ukraine should agree to accept Jabhat al Nusra, ISIS and other
headchoppers currently holed up in Idlib once the Syrian Arab Army starts squeezing them into
Turkey and Turkey in turn squeezes them into Europe?
Should be fun watching the Nazis and jihadis fight each other when they're supposed to be
fighting the Donbass fighters.
Slightly off topic ( i apologize, but the various spellings and pronounciations of the actors
in this storey are far too difficult for my poor Newfoundlander's tongue) ...i have been
curious the last few years to find out:
"Who , if anyone, oversees the 'City of London'? I understand it has a special place due to
history of england ....and it seems to me that all of the Financial whoremongers of the world
set up shop in the 'City of London' to do their nefarious evil deeds ....but ...is there
anyone actually in control of the 'City of London', other than the 'COL' itself?
PLease , anyone?
Ukraine must be in really desperate straits to seize modest-sized industrial assets in the
tens of thousands of US dollars, Mafia-style. Posted by: Jen | Jun 1, 2018 5:01:58 PM | 17
We have tall tales explaining what happen, and the reality is too bizarre for some
sensible explanation. Nevertheless, the mechanism behind "sizing modest-sized industrial
assets" is not some nation-level policy, or even "SBU leadership", but most probably some
personal feud. In a classic novel "Dead Souls" that take place "somewhere in Malorossia",
written by Ukrainian born Gogol, the main character participated in a successful corrupt
shakedown that unravelled wh one partner call another "popovich" = a son of Orthodox
clergyman; the insult was probably in doubting membership to dvoryanstvo, the noble
estate.
Corruption fosters something like feudal lord-vassal system, with patrons and clients, an
insult to a client shows ill will to the patron, so disputes concerning smallish enterprises
can percolate toward the top.
Thank you b for a great morning read and laugh. Cynical laugh, that is.
@jen #17: "It can't be long now before the country's economy and finances are put under
direct control of the IMF if that organisation is to recover its loans."
Thanks jen I appreciate your input here. The IMF is the mafia and they are in control in
that they 'issue the permit' to minor oligarchs to steal in return for guaranteed arms
purchases from the IMF primary backers. This is a deeply corrupted system and it is truly
alarming.
I never did see a story on how those two enormous arms depots were destroyed in Ukraine
but it must have seriously damaged the Ukrainian economy as they were all likely headed to
the 'anti isis' fake war games in Africa or the ME.
Oh well any people 40 and under or thereabouts who use this site would be smart to pick their
corporation now, because this will be SOP if the evil arseholes prevail. Sovereign entities
in the form of geographically defined nation states will take a back seat as Google goes to
war with Instagram, snapchat with facebook in the hope that the former FB monolith can be
separated from it's now dominant overlord,
instagram .
Of course the fact that Google shareholders may have neighbors in their gated community whose
hedge fund is big in Instagram will make everything piquant for the un-allied masses who like
their grandparents never got around to 'registering' with any of the pr1cks.
Not sure if these new assertions are credible or not, but either way this escapade is full up
on crazy. When the west says that Ukraine has 'western values,' is this what they mean?
Does Newfoundland support Trust Funds or their like? Ask yourself why there is not public
reporting of the largest trust funds in our Western world....maybe the same reason you don't
know who pulls the strings behind the COL curtain.
To the subject of this posting by b, I think about how many other "two-bit players" the
elite have groomed for disruption of this, that or whatever is needed....public manipulation
by any means and morals are for weaklings sort of attitude.
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine, seeking to reassure its Western allies after faking the murder of
a Russian dissident to thwart what it said was a plot on his life, told them on Friday its
ruse led to the discovery of a hit-list of 47 people whom Russia planned to kill
abroad.
Знаєш, просто
серце
сжимається,
коли бачиш, як в
редакціях
телеканалів,
як в офісах --
сьогодні я
бачив реакцію --
я ж про це все
знав, а ніхто в
адміністрації
про це не знав.
You know, it pained my heart when I saw how in the TV channels' newsrooms, in the
offices -- I saw the reaction today -- you see, I knew everything about it, but nobody
in the administration knew about it.
My guess is that those army depots were deliberately allowed to deteriorate to the point
where the munitions "spontaneously" combusted. The Ukrainians are probably treating them as
write-offs, figuring that these can be replaced by free ammunition from the US, Canada or
other countries if they (the Ukrainians, that is) jump up and down often enough and loudly
enough about the encroaching Russian "menace".
The earlier answers were not correct. The Corporation of the City of London is controlled
by its 13 man (naturally!) board. This is known as 'The Crown'. People naturally assume that
term applies to the monarch but this is not the case, it is one of the many passive
deceptions played out on us. The Lord Mayor of the City is a ceremonial role rotated on an
annual basis.
To show who is really in charge consider this. Once a year the Queen turns up at one of
the City gates dressed in her ordinary clothes. She awaits the Mayor who comes out in his
full ceremonial regalia including chain of office. The Queen bows, thens begs permission to
enter the City. So who is sovereign there?
So there was not 'a' British empire as such, but two concurrent empires as the 'Crown
colonies' were all directly owned by the City and not by 'Britain'.
There are many layers of deception played out on us by these evil entities, and the status
of the City is one of them. It is an epicentre of evil in this world. Unsurprisingly we are
not taught any of this stuff at school, and there has never been a BBC documentary on the
matter.
I don't think I want to comment more on this ridiculous farce. It must be
obvious to even the daftest Brexiteer (They are uniquely stupid) that Ukrainistan is "FAIL
!!"
Even a bachelor myself :) I say thank you but NO! Off course there are decent people in
Ukraine, as there are in the US, we just can't hear them. I have met people from all parts of
the world and you can divide them in two: Arseholes and non-arseholes.
The arseholes we just send to Coventry, the non-arseholes are maybe not aligned with your
political opinion, way of life etc. but they always are respectful about their non-alignment,
as you should be to them.
I am a socialist, no a Socialist, and I have conservative friends, it is not a problem, to me
at least.
But Ukraine, sigh, what to do.... Well there is a nice place, where there is nature in
abundance, it is called Pripyat, so if we can export the remaining xx million neo-nazis to the
US and Canada, it can all be a nature reserve, under joint EU-Russian control.
And the US and Canada will be happy, their people have come home, maybe even Israel could be
persuaded to the same trick...
Imagine the Zio's would have free reign on a continent, they can fight or hold marches
together.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe , Jun 2, 2018 5:43:45 AM |
39
I don't think I want to comment more on this ridiculous farce. It must be obvious to even the
daftest Brexiteer (They are uniquely stupid) that Ukrainistan is "FAIL !!"
Even a bachelor myself :) I say thank you but NO! Off course there are decent people in
Ukraine, as there are in the US, we just can't hear them. I have met people from all parts of
the world and you can divide them in two: Arseholes and non-arseholes.
The arseholes we just send to Coventry, the non-arseholes are maybe not aligned with your
political opinion, way of life etc. but they always are respectful about their non-alignment,
as you should be to them.
I am a socialist, no a Socialist, and I have conservative friends, it is not a problem, to me
at least.
But Ukraine, sigh, what to do.... Well there is a nice place, where there is nature in
abundance, it is called Pripyat, so if we can export the remaining xx million neo-nazis to
the US and Canada, it can all be a nature reserve, under joint EU-Russian control.
And the US and Canada will be happy, their people have come home, maybe even Israel could be
persuaded to the same trick...
Imagine the Zio's would have free reign on a continent, they can fight or hold marches
together.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Jun 2, 2018 5:43:45 AM |
39 /div
On another note:
Denmark has had a May month with more than 350 hours of sun and almost warmest ever. Several
counties prohibited garden watering.
Malmoe town in Sweden cautioning people not to use sprinklers on their lawns, the waterworks
cant keep up in production. (Sweden has immense freshwater reserves, like Finland) and is a
large country with only 10 million.
And Orangeturd in the WH says climate change is a hoax... I hope to see his Florida Trumpland
in the swells of the Atlantic.
Another Russian oligarchs made by neoliberal reforms in the 1990s
Thomas Piketty
According to our estimates, the offshore assets alone held by wealthy Russians exceed one
year of GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official financial assets held by
Russian households. In other words, the natural wealth of the country, (which, let it be
said in passing, would have done better to remain in the ground to limit global warming)
has been massively exported abroad to sustain opaque structures enabling a minority to hold
huge Russian and international financial assets. These rich Russians live between London,
Monaco and Moscow: some have never left Russia and control their country via offshore
entities. Numerous intermediaries and Western firms have also recouped large crumbs on the
way and continue to do so today in sport and the media (sometimes this is referred to as
philanthropy). The extent of the misappropriation of funds has no equal in history.
There has been an attempt to turn Russian emigres against Russia by threatening their
capital - the sanctions basically warn oligarchs "
not to be close to Putin ".
The case of oligarchs' "closeness to Putin" is less obvious. Any discussion of it should
start with the term "oligarch," which, when it came into broad usage in Russia in the
mid-1990s, referred to a group of people who had succeeded at state capture. The reason the
Putin-era elite rejects the term is that the state turned the tables on those particular
people. Essentially, it captured their assets without confiscating them.
Britains main industry is financial services. Of course they have the main problem if
Russia is not playing by "the rules".
Over all, Russia is disappointing Western investors.
Western oil majors have been attempting to gain access to Russia's enormous oil reserves
since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but have often found themselves stymied by local
oligarchs and domestic politics.
Germany is different as they are not so much interested in financial services but
business. And that
business is seriously hit by sanctions not by the Russian state.
Regarding the City of London corruption cesspit: It's more apt to say that it runs Britain,
rather then the British government controlling it. Think of it as the traditional
world-looting centre of what's left of the English empire, still going strong, although the
empire is just a fag-end of what it was, and the imperial military machine is a shrunken joke
compared to its hey-day - but still killing people and destroying things overseas, and
operating as an assistant attack-dog for the Anglozionist empire in its global looting
operations, even now.
The City appears to operate as a handy top-of-the-range monetary and financial swindling
and laundering centre for the USukiznato-axis powers (and indeed for freebooter gangsters
from anywhere in the world, as long as they come with large sums of money in their hands; a
leading centre for laundering global drugs-trade money, for example); with Frankfurt as a
possible competitor, I suppose. It clarifies matters if you think of the City as a continuing
loot-source for the small English-raj class, who are still the entrenched controllers of most
of what goes or doesn't go in Britain; and think of the Conservative party in Paedominster
(the London parliament) as the political-wing of the raj, in the 'democratic' politics
theatre carried on there, solely to serve the rajistas' perceived interests.
The British tories and their various me-too clones in the other parties loathe like poison
any hint of real, popular, glasnostic democracy, of course, and are in politics to make sure
that it never takes hold in The Isles (Dáil Éireann in Eire being a rather
unwelcome growth in that respect, especially as the island of Eire slides slowly towards
re-unification; with the other rival national parliaments in The Isles, weak though they are
currently, being seen as further irritating thorns in the English-raj class's flesh). One
reason that Jeremy Corbyn and the grassroots support that he attracts are so loathed and so
virulently traduced currently is because they represent a genuine upsetting threat to this
centuries-old traditional arrangement. If JC makes it to Downing Street, expect to see coup
d'etat scams set going to neutralise him one way or another, including lots of CoL
shenanigans - though of course all done in the style of 'A Very British Coup' (qv).
Dear oh dear, seems the Keystone Cops are still alive and well in the Ukraine. Excellent
forensics on this latest insult to the intelligence, well for the minority in any case. I
suppose Ukraine still has a ways to go to get as smooth as the West in its false flags, but
we should in all fairness give a newcomer time to get up to speed. No doubt they will soon be
BS-ing with the best of them.
The British defending the free world: According to the Independent (prolly a lie) the Royal
nave sent a destroyer and a heli to "escort" a Russian "naval" vessel through the Channel...
WTF!!!!
The Channel, last I remembered is International Waterway, like the belts in Denmark, and
everybody can pass. Russian need no foking escort or to be harassed, they have the right like
anybody, to pass through.
The British are getting increasingly annoying, maybe I should ask my European MEP if they
have found a final solution to "The British Problem" namely tell them to fok off.
They are continuously trying to set of Europe in another conflict it does not want. I say we
go fighting, invade and start killing civvies in Birmingham and Chelsea and central London.
We will start at Westminster.
These guys are mad they will get us in another war. Which we abhor.
Foking Tory dimwits, when is the people going to wake up? Their beer is thin, their women
ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?
I can't wait to see the movie. This story has twists and turns worthy of a suspense thriller.
For comic relief, we have the western "news" media, behaving like dunces in the midst of all
this intrigue.
I have counterchecked the Meduza piece I quoted. It is basically a copy of an Interfax
report. The English Meduza version was simply easier to quote. The facts in it are also
confirmed by the longer piece I linked in comment 14.
@BreadonWaters @23 - is there anyone actually in control of the 'City of London', other
than the 'COL' itself?
PLease , anyone?
The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In
one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of
Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the
Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the
City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the
boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two
cities, one of which must unsee the other.
Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by
its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have
seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at
Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind
of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed
in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories.
@Piotr @24 - an excellent explanation.
@Palloy - That article needs a 1 paragraph who-what-when-why-where overview before the
detailed analysis starts, especially when the details are all so dubious.
I have added a bit at the top but I am not sure it helps. This stuff is so unbelievably
crazy that is difficult to summarize.
Den Lille Abe
You just described the fall of the Roman Empire and most other empires in history!
Ah there's hope yet! Cheered us all up no end. I'm with you bro.
Corporation is old English for council,it used to be slang for working for the
council.It was the first enterprise zone in modern parlance to develop the core of
London.
The original six Worshipfull Companies, or Trade Guilds own the CoL corporation.
It owns all the land within the CoL boundaries, its a landlord to the Banking scum,
not the scum itself.
As a member of one of the six Companies attending meetings at Guild Hall, its a combo
of a property managers conference/royal tea party.Hardly SPECTRE.
interesting how the conversation has spun over to the city of london.. i agree with the brief
history @41 somebody offers.. also @42 Rhisiart Gwilym and Den Lille Abe's comments on this
as well..
In the interest of networking, useful ground roots reporting and being less dependent on this
one fantastic site-Moa I'd suggest googling- '
Winter Oak Press. Totally different but heart in the right place !!!
B @ 49: Thanks for clarifying the source of Meduza.io's report.
Interestingly RT.com, quoting Ukranews.com, offers a different view: that Boris Gherman
was framed for plotting a hit on Babchenko after he refused an offer of lenient treatment by
law enforcement officers (for whatever he may have done or not done in the past, including
the recent past) in return for testifying against someone else. https://www.rt.com/news/428392-ukraine-fake-falling-appart/
"... According to ukranews.com, German was offered a deal by the investigators, who
offered him leniency in exchange of testifying against a person who was not named by the
officials. The source said he rejected the offer and also said the businessman works with
arms procurement for the Ukrainian army.
Strana.ua said its source confirmed that German had connections in the arms business.
It also added that he was apparently framed by the Ukrainian law enforcement, which offered
him to take part in a sting operation.
"It was a clear set up, a provocation. Now the man, who came to him with the
suggestion, has disappeared and the SBU claims he was working for the Russian intelligence,
but they don't have any clear evidence to prove it," the source is cited as saying
..."
It was bad enough to have read the vile comments of the toxic troll calling itself 'Den Lille
Abe' above, full of hateful, racist, mysogynist, terroristic and wannabe mass-murdering bile.
Bad enough that he wants to massacre me and countless other civilians in Britain (actually we
already have the UK state-backed ISIS trying to do that, thanks) but to see a whooping chorus
of approval from many other posters was just too much to stomach.
It's bad enough to have to put up with a sinister cabal of warmongering scumbags running
the West, with their corrupt and blackmailed presstitutes blaring out their lies, but when
one of the few places I had hoped to hear a credible and intelligent opposition is sinking to
this level I just despair. I really do.
How should I continue to persuade my countrymen to question the bellicosity of their
rulers? By showing them the vicious poison of Den Lille Abe and its cheerleaders and saying
"hey, these are my pals who are also opposing the empire?".
This creature and his supporters are as bad as the headchoppers themselves and their
powerful sponsors. The pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.
With a mass sentiment like this proudly on display I cannot continue to recommend this
site to anyone, or link to it. I realise that the internet is full of repulsive cretins like
Den Lille Abe, and that site owners are not responsible for some of the trash that is written
under their articles, but filth like that surely can only harm the excellent work Mr B does
(assuming he does not also agree with their position, and if he does I would be wracked with
guilt for having financially supported him).
It's called empathy! It seems OK to distroy other people's country but not our own?
Self defence is not violence.
Tens of millions killed by the west. But when someone hypathticly points out a picture of
your city being distroyed you suddenly wake up! You just got caught out. We are all equally
important in this world. So please stay and help stop the madness.
@59 I assume you are referring to Den Lille Abe's rather ignorant comment "Their beer is
thin, their women ugly, their climate awful, what makes them so docile?".
I don't see a 'whooping chorus of approval'. I thought it was pretty stupid myself but
anti-British sentiment runs deep here for some reason. I know a lot of people in the UK are
very unhappy about the state of things. I guess they just aren't sure what to do about it.
Perhaps DLA does have a point about docility but he could apply the same standard to
Scandinavia.
@62 The beer isn't bad at all and they import a lot anyway for fussy drinkers. The women do
tend to run a little on the heavy side these days. And the climate can be awful which is why
so many of them moved to Spain. That said I think DLA needs to reflect on his opinion.
" at its deepest level, consensual reality is a fragile thing that can very easily have
nothing to do with truth or fact or actual reality."
At its best - when no" special interests" are manipulating an entry - this describes
Wikipedia.
" the issue was going to be "who did it?" not "was it even done?"
Not even. The whodoneit was already "answered" in the very unveiling of the "news." The
issue was going to be "how are we - who are all goodness and light and truth and freedom -
going to "bring justice" to the perp?"
"See how little it occurred to any of us, even those who make a habit of interrogating
narratives, to ask whether or not it really happened."
And this is why I have been saying I have no reason to believe that the Skirpal poisoning
ever really happened.
If they were meant to be dead, they'd almost certainly be dead.
If they were meant to survive, then why take the chance of actually poisoning them,
regardless of what agent was allegedly used?
"
Meanwhile the guy who supposedly hired Tsimbalyuk, Boris L. German, 50, also says he worked
for Ukrainian counter-intelligence, a claim Ukraine denies as its immediately destroys the
carefully scripted, if rapidly imploding, Ukrainian narrative meant to scapegoat Russia for
what has been a "fake news" story of epic proportions, emerging from the one nation that
not only was the biggest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation , but has made fake news
propaganda into an art form.
"
"
Meanwhile, senior Ukraine officials have been on the defensive since Wednesday, when the head
of security services announced they had staged the death of Babchenko so they could track his
would-be killers to Russian intelligence, a story the International Federation of Journalists
slammed as idiotic, nonsensical and completely undermining Ukraine's credibility.
"
Hiya it is a grey sunday afternoon here with the view out my back window over the back
paddock obscured by a drizzle haze which is atypical for these parts where the weather at
this time of year is either wet in a absolutely p1ssing down but warmish way, or dry, sunny
and pink bits-shriveling cold.
I dunno what's up with that but the break from usual sunday arvo routines has given me time
between the weekly family catch ups via voip to try and learn what howlingpixel a site I have been
using in lieu of wikipedia is about.
I have learned sfa since a net search has only the site's own 'about' page which I will
not consider; being as I never trust that sorta self serving nfo sharing.
Does anyone know any of howlingpixel's history - who runs it, pays for it etc?
Posted by: V | Jun 3, 2018 1:17:51 AM | 70
Thanks V I had seen that as one of the few non howlingpixel references to howlingpixel I
could find - it appears to be some sort of net traffic counter website.
Posted by: Cortes | Jun 3, 2018 3:13:15 AM | 71
There is nothing new under the sun eh. Although must give Pohl his due, the whimper that
humankind seems likely to expire with, was much less predictable in 1953 than it is in
2018.
I'm still a little hopeful that the lack of common geographic proximity will make corporate
entities more difficult to unite mugs behind than nation states have found when cranking up
jingoism.
In 2017 Arkady Babchenko, despised in Russia for his open hostility against its people, came
via Israel to the Ukraine. He was welcome in Kiev for his anti-Russian position.
You mean he was adversarial to the Russian government. That hardly makes him "hostile" to
the Russian people, but that does put his life in danger. Just ask the six journalists from
Novaya Gazeta murdered during Putin's rein.
There is a major logical fallacy in using past criminal cases in justifying present
fakes.
PS:
*Babchenko in Vilnus, 'Open Russia', 12 April 2018 "...the one who is responsible is not
Putin's regime, but Russia", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGeiabB6kM
, 4:50 and 9:00
*Just ask the six journalists, -who?
Anna Politkovskaya (well known/look up), Yury Shchekochikhin (illness and suspected
poisoning, 'open verdict'); Baburova (journalist) and Markelov (lawyer, not journalist),
killed by a neo-Nazi couple who were caught and sentenced for life; Estemirova, run into
problems, kidnapped and killed in Chechnya. And number 6 is ?
Why would the suspect have hired the same hitman all at once to carry out multiple crimes
that were so different?
Ukraine's National Security Agency says Boris German (who was named the suspect in
Babchenko's case on May 31) was instructed to do even more than have 30 people killed: he
was also supposed to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. German's lawyer
says his client is the executive director of the Ukrainian-German company "Schmeisser" --
the only private arms manufacturer in Ukraine.
This might explain why Boris German would have been selected to arrange the secret
weapons caches, but it remains unclear why he would have been the man to entrust with the
organization of 30 murders. These two crimes -- the murders and the secret weapons caches
-- appear to be two separate projects.
From a
Meduza piece suggested after the Meduza article b linked above (the 'went' link).
Has anyone seen more information about these weapons caches? Is it true that Schmeisser is
the only 'private' arms manufacturer in the Ukraine?
If b's right that the interior logic of the assassination hoax is about ownership/control
of the company, what is the point of the weapons caches accusation? Perhaps this also gives
SBU cover to either "find" these weapons in the wrong hands or cover over/disavow past trades
they don't want acknowledged. (Makes me think about Paddock in Vegas or the kid caught with
all those guns in California who claimed to be with Omar Mateen and also set up... )
Or maybe this gives 'legal' cover to raid other places in search of those secreted
weapons?
Also, in the Zerohedge piece psychohistorian (~@68) linked, one picture shows Tsymbalyuk
wearing a top with an embroidered swastika. The NYT article b linked above (the Russophobic
link) is only willing to say that "some portray" Right Sector as neo-nazi.
So Denmark now erects fences to keep swine fewer out of Denmark. Cool and good. (Germans are
lax) but Trump is arriwing in London this summer? WTF Is fat piece of garbage to come in via
the idiot British regulations ? He is....
Had he been my pig we would have had him this Christmas, he is growing stale now and too fat,
only winter food is he good for. Gule ærter, Brunkål and so. Any pig will do for
those courses.
I don not live in the "paradise" called England, I live in Scandinavia. We are quite well
off thank you. We have not got much room for you English serfs. :) There you got it. We do
not respect you, because you have always voted "out". No foking go and die in obscurity.
Your idiot public shall bear the consequences as the Germans did in 1945, England is reduced
to a two bit whore, I rejoice personally, as I have ancestors who died at Brit hands 200
years ago-and no repentance!! Germany paid repentance at least morally.
So please fok off. Accordinf to stats you will soon anyway. You are just taking up oxygen
needed by other living stuff, snails etc.
It actually says " Like mobile version of Wikipedia" Then wikipedia rates it 'low/none'.
It appears to be one of those reference sites which scrapes some wikipedia pages as well as
other sources. I'm going to use it in preference to wikipedia esp for non-controversial stuff
eg it had a list of cabinet members of the June 1 Italian Government before anywhere else
(how I stumbled across it from a yandex search) until I know one way or another how objective
it is. I don't wanna give wikipedia any page clicks at all after the Phillip Cross bizzo. If
Howling Pixel is just as biased towards western propaganda I shall look for another source.
We still don't know who funds it. I use an ad blocker so I dunno if it tries to pop at me -
if it does, it doesn't whinge about the blocker.
In the end a reference source is still essential for background info.
Ha ha, great exposé b. - it all just gets nuttier. one couldn't make this up and put
it in a movie, no way.
Ukraine was the country that 'suffered' the most from the USSR dissolution. In terms of
GDP per capita, population, health, 'democratic advances' (depending on definition some are
no good etc.), schooling, flourishing culture, etc.
Why exactly idk, nor does anybody else imho, as there are dozens of partial
explanations.
I favor the happenstance of a collection of particularly crazed and rapacious oligarchs;
being 'rich and large' (thus a prey), and pehaps the East-West thing, in the sense that a
partition into two federated quasi-states might have saved it. Ukr. was color-revolutionized
Orange in 2004, a failure, always does great harm, and no doubt the failure infuriated the W
powers.
Since then it has been mad-cap downhill, its territory subject to carving. Crimea retuned
to Russia (ok), and in other circs. all would have been no prob. The Donbass is now a
separate territory (subject to the foreign-directed GWOT from Kiev), terrible situation, in
limbo, Russia cannot take it over and Kiev cannot re-integrate it, and it cannot become
independent without *massive* outside support which nobody will provide. Galicia seems to be
out of control of the Center as well. (Look up news articles.) In short, Ukraine provides a
terrain for 'proxy wars' as it is large and rich.
and to date US and Germany (>..EU) have lost in Ukr. - Crimea and de facto the
Donbass.
Bombing Yugoslavia, destroying and breaking it up sucessfully can't be repeated in
Ukraine. Which leads to anger, disdain, and victim blaming, and in fine stasis for a
while, and then abandonment. The IMF will continue to 'support' but they hate it.
"You mean he was adversarial to the Russian government. That hardly makes him "hostile" to
the Russian people, but that does put his life in danger."craigsummers@75
He appears to have made himself unpopular by dancing on the graves of the Choir which was
killed, en route to Syria, in a plane crash. Unpopular, that is, with most Russians, Putin
and decent people everywhere.
"Just ask the six journalists from Novaya Gazeta murdered during Putin's rein."
Are they the source of your information?
How many dozens of journalists were killed, every month, when the US, through Yeltsin reined
in Russia? In the past month we have seen three journalists and several medicos killed by
Israel in Gaza, with the enthusiastic support of the US government.
"... Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill ..."
"... A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened. ..."
"... "We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. ..."
"... John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe." ..."
"... The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation ("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was spearheading the investigation. ..."
A new report from John Solomon of
The Hill ties together several loose threads floating around over the genesis of the FBI/DOJ espionage operation against the
Trump campaign, who was involved in the "setup" of campaign aides, and how text messages between FBI employees suggest that the Obama
White House was not only aware of the operation - but possibly directing it .
Not only is the timeline moved up from the summer of 2016 to spring, Solomon provides clarification on early contacts between
the players involved in DOJ/FBI sting and Trump campaign aides.
The bridge to the Russia investigation wasn't erected in Moscow during the summer of the 2016 election.
It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, where foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the
FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders reveal. These contacts
in spring 2016 -- some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters -- occurred well before FBI headquarters
authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.
The new timeline makes one wonder: Did the FBI follow its rules governing informants? -
The Hill
" The revelation of purposeful contact initiated by alleged confidential human sources prior to any FBI investigation is troublesome
," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), an ally of President Trump and chairman of a House subcommittee that's taking an increasingly aggressive
oversight role in the scandal, told me. " This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were
they reporting to and why has the [Department of Justice] and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts ? "
Retired assistant FBI director for intelligence Kevin Brock also has questions. Brock supervised an agency update to their longstanding
bureau rules governing the use of sources while working under then-director Robert Mueller. These rules prohibit the FBI from directing
a human source to perform espionage on an American until a formal investigation has been opened - paperwork and all.
Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors
and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here
and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting
of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill
The Text Messages
A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent
Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened.
"We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London
and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. At the time, as John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with
simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe."
The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation
("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was
spearheading the investigation.
"Went well, best we could have expected," Strzok texted Page after an Aug. 5, 2016, meeting. "Other than Liz quote 'the
White House is running this.' " Page then texted to assure Strzok of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge: "We got emails that
say otherwise."
"... Let me just say this: the President used the word "wiretapping" but I think it was very clear to us that have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for "surveillance". ..."
"... When I was in senior position in CIA's counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There's a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in each other's organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there's a lot more cooperation than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that's rarely true. ..."
"... John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. ..."
The mighty CIA has fallen victim to a major breach, with WikiLeaks revealing the true scope of the Agency's ability for cyber-espionage.
Its tools seem to be aimed at ordinary citizens – your phone, your car, your TV, even your fridge can become an instrument of surveillance
in the hands of the CIA. How does the CIA use these tools, and why do they need them in the first place?
And as WikiLeaks promises even more revelations, how is all of this going to shape the already tense relationship between new
president and the intelligence community?
A man who has spent over two decades in the CIA's clandestine service – Gary Berntsen is on SophieCo.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Gary Berntsen, former CIA official, welcome to the show, great to have you with us.
Now, Vault 7, a major batch of CIA docs revealed by Wikileaks uncovers the agency's cyber tools. We're talking about world's most
powerful intelligence agency - how exactly did the CIA lose control of its arsenal of hacking weapons?
Gary Berntsen:
First off, I'd like to say that the world has changed a lot in the last several decades, and people are communicating in
many different ways and intelligence services, whether they be American or Russian, are covering these communications and their coverage
of those communications has evolved. Without commenting on the specific validity of those tools, it was clear that the CIA was surely
using contractors to be involved in this process, not just staff officers, and that individuals decided that they had problems with
U.S. policy, and have leaked these things to Wikileaks. This is a large problem, for the U.S. community, but just as the U.S. is
having problems, the Russia face similar problems. Just this week you had multiple members of the FSB charged with hacking as well,
and they have been charged by the U.S. government. So both services who are competitors, face challenges as we've entered a new era
of mass communications.
SS: So like you're saying, the leaker or leakers of the CIA docs is presumably a CIA contractor - should
the agency be spending more effort on vetting its own officers? Is the process rigorous enough?
GB: Clearly.
Look There have been individuals since the dawn of history. Espionage is the second oldest occupation, have conducted spying
and espionage operations, and there have been people who have turned against their own side and worked for competitors and worked
for those opposing the country or the group that they're working with. It's been a problem from the beginning, and it continues
to be a problem, and the U.S. clearly is going to have to do a much better job at vetting those individuals who are given security
clearances, without a doubt.
SS: The CIA studied the flaws in the software of devices like iPhones, Androids, Smart TVs, apps
like Whatsapp that left them exposed to hacking, but didn't care about patching those up - so, in essence the agency chose
to leave Americans vulnerable to cyberattacks, rather than protect them?
GB: I think you have to understand, in this world that we're operating and the number one target of our intelligence
community are terrorists. Since the attacks of 9\11, 16 years ago, the obsession of the American intelligence community is to
identify those planning terrorist attacks, collecting information on them and being able to defeat them. These individuals are
using all these means of communication. I have spoken with many security services around the world, since my retirement back in
2005-2006, a lot of them have had problems covering the communications of somebody's very devices and programs that you've talked
about - whether they be narcotraffickers or salafist jihadists, they are all piggybacking off of commercial communications. Therefore
the need for modern intelligence services to sort of provide coverage of all means of communications. And there's a price that
you pay for that.
SS: One of the most disturbing parts of the leaks is the "Weeping Angel" program - CIA hacking into
Samsung Smart TVs to record what's going on even when the TV appears to be turned off. Why are the CIA's tools designed to penetrate
devices used by ordinary Western citizens at home?
GB: Look, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with Western homes, because the CIA doesn't do technical operations
against American citizens - that's prohibited by the law. If the CIA does anything in the U.S., it does it side-by-side with the
FBI, and it does it according to FISA - the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act laws. It's gotta go to the judge to do those
things. Those tools are used primarily against the individuals and terrorists that are targeting the U.S. or other foreign entities
that we see as a significant threat to the U.S. national security, which is the normal functioning of any intelligence service.
SS: Just like you say, the CIA insists it never uses its investigative tools on American citizens
in the US, but, we're wondering, exactly how many terrorist camps in the Middle East have Samsung Smart TVs to watch their favorite
shows on? Does it seem like the CIA lost its direction?
GB: Plenty of them.
SS: Plenty?...
GB: I've travelled in the Middle East, Samsungs are sold everywhere. Sophie, Samsung TVs are sold all over
the world. I've spent a lot of time in the Middle East, I've seen them in Afghanistan, I've seen them everywhere. So, any kind
of devices that you can imagine, people are using everywhere. We're in a global economy now.
SS: The CIA has tools to hack iPhones - but they make up only around 15 % of the world's smartphone
market. IPhones are not popular among terrorists, but they are among business and political elites - so are they the real target
here?
GB: No. The CIA in relative terms to the size of the world is a small organisation. It is an organisation
that has roughly 20 or more thousand people - it's not that large in terms of covering a planet with 7 billion people. We have
significant threats to the U.S. and to the Western world. We live in an age of super-terrorism, we live in an age when individuals,
small groups of people, can leverage technology at a lethal effect. The greatest threats to this planet are not just nuclear,
they are bio. The U.S. needs to have as many tools as possible to defend itself against these threats, as does Russia want to
have similar types of tools to defend itself. You too, Russian people have suffered from a number of terrible terrorist acts.
SS: Wikileaks suggest the CIA copied the hacking habits of other nations to create a fake electronic
trace - why would the CIA need that?
GB: The CIA, as any intelligence service, would look to conduct coverage in the most unobtrusive fashion as
possible. It is going to do its operations so that they can collect and collect again and again against terrorist organisations,
where and whenever it can, because sometimes threats are not just static, they are continuous.
SS: You know this better, so enlighten me: does the he CIA have the authorisation to create the
surveillance tools it had in the first place? Who gives it such authorisation?
GB: The CIA was created in 1947 by the National Security Act of the U.S. and does two different things - it
does FI (foreign intelligence) collection and it does CA - covert action. Its rules for collection of intelligence were enshrined
in the law that created it, the CIA Act 110, in 1949, but the covert action part of this, where it does active measures, when
it gets involved in things - all of those are covered by law. The Presidential finding had to be written, it had to be presented
to the President. The President's signs off on those things. Those things are then briefed to members of Congress, or the House
Permanent Subcommittee for Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. We have a very rigorous process of review
of the activities of our intelligence communities in the U.S.
SS: But you're talking about the activities in terms of operations. I'm just asking - does CIA need
any authorisation or permission to create the tools it has in its arsenal? Or it can just go ahead
GB: Those tools and the creation of collection tools falls
under the same laws that allowed the CIA to be established. And that was the 1949 Intelligence Act. And also, subsequently, the
laws in 1975. Yes.
SS: So, the CIA programme names are quite colourful, sometimes wacky - "Weeping Angel", "Swamp
Monkey", "Brutal Kangaroo" - is there a point to these, is there any logic, or are they completely random? I always wondered...
GB: There's absolutely no point to that, and it's random.
SS:Okay, so how do you come up with those names? Who like, one says: "Monkey" and another one says: "Kangaroo"?...
GB: I'm sure they are computer-generated.
SS: Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him during the campaign Could the CIA have actually spied
on the president? It seems like the agency doesn't have the best relationship with Donald Trump - how far can they go?
GB: Let me just say this: the President used the word "wiretapping" but I think it was very clear to us that
have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for "surveillance". Because most people are on cellphones, people
aren't using landlines anymore, so there's no "wiretapping", okay. These all fall under the Intelligence Surveillance Act, as
I stated earlier, this thing existing in the U.S.. It was clear to President Trump and to those in his campaign, after they were
elected, and they did a review back that the Obama Administration sought FISA authorisation to do surveillance of the Trump campaign
in July and then in October. They were denied in July, they were given approval in October, and in October they did some types
of surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is why the President, of course, tweeted, that he had been "wiretapped" - of course
"wiretapping" being a synonym for the surveillance against his campaign, which was never heard of in the U.S. political history
that I can remember, I can't recall any way of this being done. It's an outrage, and at the same time, Congressional hearings
are going to be held and they are going to review all of these things, and they are going to find out exactly what happened and
what was done. It's unclear right now, but all we do know - and it has been broken in the media that there were two efforts, and
at the second one, the authorisation was given. That would never have been done by the CIA, because they don't do that sort of
coverage in the U.S.. That would either be the FBI or the NSA, with legal authorities and those authorities the problem that
the Trump administration had is they believed that the information from these things was distributed incorrectly. Any time an
American - and this is according to the U.S. law - any time an American is on the wire in the U.S., their names got to be
minimized from this and it clearly wasn't done and the Trump administration was put in a bad light because of this.
SS: If what you're saying is true, how does that fall under foreign intelligence? Is that more of
the FBI-NSA expertise?
GB: It was FBI and NSA - it was clearly the FBI and the NSA that were involved, it would never have been the
CIA doing that, they don't listen to telephones in the U.S., they read the product of other agencies that would provide those
things, but clearly, there were individuals on those phone calls that they believed were foreign and were targeting those with
potential communications with the Trump campaign. Let's be clear here - General Clapper, the DNI for President Obama, stated before
he left office, that there was no, I repeat, no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. This has been something
that has been dragged out again, and again, and again, by the media. This is a continuing drumbeat of the mainstream, left-wing
media of the U.S., to paint the President in the poorest light, to attempt to discredit Donald Trump.
SS: With the intelligence agencies bringing down Trump's advisors like Michael Flynn - and you said
the people behind that were Obama's loyalists - can we talk about the intelligence agencies being too independent from the White
House, playing their own politics?
GB: I think part of the problem that we've seen during the handover of power from President Obama to President
Trump was that there was a number of holdovers that went from political appointee to career status that had been placed in the
NatSec apparatus and certain parts of the intelligence organisations. It is clear that President Trump and his team are determined
to remove those people to make sure that there's a continuity of purpose and people aren't leaking information that would put
the Administration into a negative light. That's the goal of the administration, to conduct itself consistent with the goals of
securing the country from terrorism and other potential threats - whether they be counter-narcotics, or intelligence agencies
trying to breach our you know, the information that we hold secure.
SS: Here's a bit of conspiracy theories - could it be that the domestic surveillance agencies like
the NSA or the FBI orchestrated the Vault 7 leaks - to damage CIA, stop it from infringing on their turf?
GB :I really don't think so and that is conspiracy thinking. You have to understand something, in the
intelligence communities in the U.S., whether it be the CIA and FBI, we've done a lot of cross-fertilizations. When I was in senior
position in CIA's counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an
FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There's a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in
each other's organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of
diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there's a lot more cooperation
than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that's rarely
true.
SS: Generally speaking - is there rivalry between American intel agencies at all? Competition for
resources, maybe?
GB: I think, sometimes, between the Bureau and the CIA - the CIA is the dominant agency abroad, and the FBI
is the dominant agency in the U.S. What they do abroad, they frequently have to get cleared by us, what we do domestically, we
have to get cleared by them, and sometimes there's some friction, but usually, we're able to work this out. It makes for great
news, the CIA fighting FBI, but the reality is that there's a lot more cooperation than confrontation. We are all in the business
of trying to secure the American homeland and American interests globally.
SS: I'm still thinking a lot about the whole point of having this hacking arsenal for the CIA since
you talk on their behalf - the possibility to hack phones, computers, TVs and cars - if the actual terrorist attacks on US soil,
like San Bernardino, Orlando are still missed?
GB: Look. There are hundreds of individuals, if not thousands, planning efforts against the U.S. at any
time. It can be many-many things. And the U.S. security services, there's the CIA, the FBI, NSA - block many-many of these things,
but it is impossible to stop them all. Remember, this is an open society here, in America, with 320 million people, here. We try
to foster open economic system, we allow more immigration to America than all countries in the world combined. This is a great
political experiment here, but it's also very difficult to police. There are times that the U.S. security services are going to
fail. It's inevitable. We just have to try the best we can, do the best job that we can, while protecting the values that attract
so many people to the U.S.
SS:The former CIA director John Brennan is saying Trump's order to temporarily ban travel from some
Muslim states is not going to help fight terrorism in 'any significant way'. And the countries where the terrorists have previously
come from - like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, it's true - aren't on the list. So does he maybe have a point?
GB: John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. The countries that
Mr. Trump had banned initially, or at least had put a partial, sort of a delay - where states like Somalia, Libya, the Sudan,
Iran - places where we couldn't trust local vetting. Remember something, when someone immigrates to the U.S., we have what's called
an "immigration packet": they may have to get a chest X-ray to make sure they don't bring any diseases with them, they have to
have background check on any place they've ever lived, and in most of these places there are no security forces to do background
checks on people that came from Damascus, because parts of Damascus are totally destroyed - there's been warfare. It is actually
a very reasonable thing for President Trump to ask for delay in these areas. Look, the Crown-Prince, the Deputy Crown-Prince of
Saudi Arabia was just in the United States and met with Donald Trump, and he said he didn't believe it was a "ban on Muslims".
This was not a "ban on Muslims", it was an effort to slow down and to create more opportunity to vet those individuals coming
from states where there's a preponderance of terrorist organisations operating. A reasonable step by President Trump, something
he promised during the campaign, something he's fulfilling. But again, I repeat - America allows more immigration into the U.S.,
than all countries combined. So, we really don't need to be lectured on who we let in and who we don't let in.
SS: But I still wonder if the Crown-Prince would've had the same comment had Saudi Arabia been on
that ban list. Anyways, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA
GB: Wait a second, Sophie - the Saudis have a reasonable form to police their society, and they provide accurate
police checks. If they didn't create accurate police checks, we would've given the delay to them as well.
SS: Ok, I got your point. Now, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA and NSA chief, pointed out that the US intelligence
enlists agents in the Muslim world with the promise of eventual emigration to America - is Trump's travel ban order going to hurt
American intelligence gathering efforts in the Middle East?
GB: No, the question here - there were individuals that worked as translators for us in Afghanistan and Iraq
and serving in such roles as translators, they were promised the ability to immigrate to the United States. Unfortunately, some
of them were blocked in the first ban that was put down, because individuals who wrote that, didn't consider that. That has been
considered in the re-write, that the Trump administration had submitted, which is now being attacked by a judge in Hawaii, and
so it was taken into consideration, but the objective here was to help those that helped U.S. forces on the ground, especially
those who were translators, in ground combat operations, where they risked their lives alongside American soldiers.
SS: You worked in Afghanistan - you were close to capturing Bin Laden back in 2001 - what kind of
spying tools are actually used on the ground by the CIA to catch terrorists?
GB: The CIA as does any intelligence service in the world, is a human business. It's a business where we work
with local security forces to strengthen their police and intelligence forces, we attempt to leverage them, we have our own people
on the ground that speak the language, we're trying to help build transportation there. There's no "secret sauce" here. There's
no super-technology that changes the country's ability to conduct intelligence collections or operations. In Afghanistan the greatest
thing that the U.S. has is broad support and assistance to Afghan men and women across the country. We liberated half of the population,
and for women were providing education, and when the people see what we were doing: trying to build schools, providing USAID projects
- all of these things - this makes the population willing to work with and support the United States. Frequently, members of the
insurgence groups will see this and sometimes they do actually cross the lines and cooperate with us. So, it's a full range of
American political power, whether it's hard or soft, that is the strength of the American intelligence services - because
people in the world actually believe - and correctly so - that American more than generally a force of good in the world.
SS: Gary, thank you so much for this interesting interview and insight into the world of the CIA.
We've been talking to Gary Berntsen, former top CIA officer, veteran of the agency, talking about the politics of American intelligence
in the Trump era. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.
GreenPizza:
Just thinking here in the light of how things are unfolding with the CIA I am wondering since Federal crimes are committed
can the FBI investigate the CIA acting as America Federal Law Enforcement.
RedBlowDryer -> GreenPin
I think the US intelligent agencies are harming their country more than any enemy of the US.
CyanGrapes
There is a reason why JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA. This guy is lying.
PurpleWieghts
CIA needs hacking tools to make it look like it was carried out by another state simply for plausible deniability.
Carl Zaisser
a "force for good in the world"?...sounds like the American white hat-black hat myth...read Naomi Klein's "The Shock
Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". This is a detailed litany of America's various kinds of interventions in multiple
countries that cold hardly be described as "a force for good in the world"...a force for "America's values" (read with
ironically), perhaps
Carl Zaisser
WHO is responsible for the outbreak of chaotic warfare in Libya and Syria?
Should we trust the Saudi vetting services...think of who the September 11 bombers were? Was there another reason they were
not on Trump's banned countries list? Too big to mess with, i.e., oil and weapons sales?
GreenPin
Amazing how they justify their destructive behaviour in a way as they are serving America people and doing good around the
wold. You can sugar count your crimes against humanity as much as you can, but the reality of today' human misery speaks for
itself.
waterbearer
since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence
XXX
interesting, but begs the question "Can we really trust what this guy tells us?" If not, what parts can we trust, and what
parts can't we?
XXX
You'd have to deconstruct his talking points and I don't know how that is done. Intelligence probably knows how to do that. I
noticed he was becoming more zealous on hegemony and exceptionalism as the interview neared the end.
I agree. Bernsten is almost like-ably energetic, but he is, in the end, an uncompromising warrior of the empire.
XXX
if Trump is to be controlled--they gotta have some dirt--or threat against his family --it's how they operate---
XXX
Mr. Berntsen left out the very important NSC10/2 legislation, which gave the CIA free reign with deniability as the cover.
This needs to be repealed. With this legislation, the CIA answers to no one, and goes around the world wrecking havoc with the
governments and people where they like. We will never have peace until that legislation is repealed.
XXX
This is why interesting books to read about the history of the CIA.
The Dulles brothers,
David Talbot: The Devil's Chessboard,
Fletcher Prouty: The Secret Team.
XXX
I applaud former CIA and FBI Gary Bernstein for speaking out on the most powerful intelligence networks on the planet
regarding their surveillance activities. Every nation needs intelligence to safeguard but if we go beyond the call of duty and
get exposed .this leaves Pres Trump and his Adm with no option but to consider corrective measures with a visit to Langley
etc.. Here again the failures of Liberalism are coming up in the wash for cleaning up.
XXX
Liberalism has not been running the country for the last 54 years. We have been under a coup government and just got used
to it.
Hello. Ben Shapiro is highly intelligent and articulate. It is very good that he has
injected HRC's ties in the US State Department into the conversation. While US Secretary of
State HRC accepted foreign fund$ for influence. She also railed incessantly about "The
Russians"...then conjured up this maliciously false Anti-Trump campaign. Hmmm. President
Obama had to know. If not then he was negligent. Obama knew.
Federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office recently interviewed former FBI
director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether former FBI #2 Andrew McCabe broke
the law when he lied to federal agents, reports the
Washington Post .
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI
director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the
law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether
McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. -
Washington Po st
What makes the interview particularly interesting is that Comey and McCabe have given
conflicting reports over the events leading up to McCabe's firing, with
Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View .
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a criminal referral for McCabe
following a months-long probe which found that the former acting FBI Director leaked a
self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath. McCabe was fired on March 16
after Horowitz found that he " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked
candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney
to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St.
Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a
separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under
fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry
McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe was found to have leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that
Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then
lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
McCabe vs. Comey
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office were likely to be keenly interested in
Comey's version of whether or not he knew about McCabe's disclosure.
Comey and McCabe offered varying accounts of who authorized the disclosure for the
article. They discussed the story the day after it was published, and Comey, according to the
inspector general's report, told investigators McCabe "definitely did not tell me that he
authorized" the disclosure . -WaPo
"I have a strong impression he conveyed to me 'it wasn't me boss.' And I don't think that
was by saying those words, I think it was most likely by saying 'I don't know how this s---
gets in the media or why would people talk about this kind of thing,' words that I would fairly
take as 'I, Andy, didn't do it,' " Comey said, according to the inspector general.
During an April appearance on ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty
Loyalty, where he called McCabe a liar , and said he actually "ordered the [IG] report" which
found McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several
times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.
Following McCabe's firing, his attorney Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the
disgraced Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
McCabe vs. the DOJ
McCabe may also find himself at odds with the Department of Justice, as notes he kept
allegedly detailing an interaction with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raise questions
about a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey's firing. While Rosenstein's memo took aim at
Comey for his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation, McCabe's notes suggest that Trump
told Rosenstein to point to the Russia investigation. Rosenstein's recommendation ultimately
did not mention Russia.
McCabe's interactions with Rosenstein could complicate any potential prosecution of McCabe
because Rosenstein would likely be involved in a final decision on filing charges. McCabe has
argued that the Justice Department's actions against him, including his firing, are
retaliatory for his work on the Russia investigation. -WaPo
As the Washington Post notes, lying to federal investigators can carry a five-year prison
sentence - however McCabe says he did not intentionally mislead anyone. The Post also notes
that while Comey's interview is significant, it does not indicated that prosecutors have
reached any conclusions.
Lying to Comey might not itself be a crime. But the inspector general alleged McCabe
misled investigators three other times.
He told agents from the FBI inspection division on May 9, 2017, that he had not authorized
the disclosure and did not know who had, the inspector general alleged. McCabe similarly told
inspector general investigators on July 28 that he was not aware of one of the FBI officials,
lawyer Lisa Page, having been authorized to speak to reporters, and because he was not in
Washington on the days she did so, he could not say what she was doing. McCabe later admitted
he authorized Page to talk to reporters.
The inspector general also alleged that McCabe lied in a final conversation in November,
claiming that he had told Comey he had authorized the disclosure and that he had not claimed
otherwise to inspection division agents in May.
Michael Bromwich replied in a statement: "A little more than a month ago, we confirmed that
we had been advised that a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office had been made
regarding Mr. McCabe. We said at that time that we were confident that, unless there is
inappropriate pressure from high levels of the Administration, the U.S. Attorney's Office would
conclude that it should decline to prosecute. Our view has not changed.
He added that " leaks concerning specific investigative steps the US Attorney's Office has
allegedly taken are extremely disturbing ."
Whatever Comey told federal investigators, we suspect it eventually boiled down to "McCabe
didn't tell me," squarely placing responsibility for the leaks - and the lies, on McCabe's
shoulders.
As a reminder, Project
Maven was to use machine learning to identify vehicles and other objects from drone footage -
with the ultimate goal of enabling the automated detection and identification of objects in up
to 38 categories - including the ability to track individuals as they come and go from
different locations.
Project Maven's objective, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. John N.T. "Jack" Shanahan,
director for Defense Intelligence for Warfighter Support in the Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence, " is to turn the enormous volume of data available to DoD into
actionable intelligence and insights. " -
DoD
Well, good for those employees. An computer program figuring out targets to kill? No
thanks, I've seen that movie before, several of them.
This does make sense from the pentagon's point of view, though. Drone pilots constantly
burning out and having substance abuse problems because of the things they do from the air is
bad for business. Just put a computer program in charge, solves that problem. Plus, you don't
have to worry about the computer program talking to the media or giving remorseful interviews
about the kids they've killed, etc.
Did they throw their custom coffee drinks on the floor, talked in squeaky voices to each
other, raised their hands in anger, made some incoherent threats toward management in their
private conversations, scotched a few more Dilbert cartoons on the outer walls of their
cubicles? This kind of revolt?
Google employees rock.
I doubt the management will risk it by doing it secretly. But the military might find ways to
reverse engineer whatever Google produces. If they get caught and have to pay damages...hey,
it's taxpayers' money anyway they use against the people/humanity. They don't care.
"... The reports delivered during the four-hour meeting provided a devastating exposure of the connection between propaganda and censorship by the media and the warmongering of governments in Britain, the United States and across the world. ..."
"... Professor Piers Robinson (Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism) spoke on the rebranding of government propaganda as "public relations." Drawing on his research into the Iraq war, he cited material from the Chilcot Inquiry into the war confirming the systematic manipulation and exaggeration of "intelligence" on Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction. This included discussions between the US and British governments over how the 9/11 terror attacks could be used for regime change operations, under the slogan of the "war on terror", which Robinson described as a propaganda slogan for mobilising support for military operations. ..."
"... Stuart gave a presentation on his examination of film recorded by BBC personnel at Atareb Hospital in Aleppo on August 26, 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of a napalm-style bombing by Syrian government forces. The footage was broadcast the same evening that parliament delivered a shock vote against a military attack on Syria. He showed that much of it was staged. Not only did this potentially include the use of military casualty trauma simulations, but BBC personnel were travelling in vehicles displaying ISIS flags and alongside senior members of the western-funded White Helmets. ..."
"... It was impossible to have a functioning democracy without a functioning fourth estate, he said. This had been the gold standard but was no longer the case. Henningsen noted widespread popular opposition to war in the US that successive presidential candidates had sought to manipulate, only to betray once in power -- from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. ..."
"... The mainstream media have enormous assets and resources but claim democracy is threatened by "fake news", when they are the purveyors of fake news and the real threat to democracy. ..."
"Government propaganda and the war on terror from 9/11 to Syria"
Media on Trial held a successful event in Leeds on Sunday, in the face of sustained efforts
to prevent the meeting taking place.
The group was formed by Frome Stop War, based in Somerset. Working with academics,
investigative journalists and other interested parties and individuals, and drawing on the
illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, Media on Trial seeks to "cultivate public scepticism when faced
with establishment and corporate media's partisan reporting at times of conflict". It held
well-attended meetings in Frome and London last year. Its success in exposing the ongoing
regime-change operations in Syria, and government/media propaganda to this end, has made its
members the subject of an organised media smear campaign, culminating in efforts to silence it
altogether.
" Government propaganda and the war on terror from 9/11 to Syria" was booked at
Leeds City Museum. But in an assault on free speech, Labour-run Leeds City Council in West
Yorkshire cancelled the event .
Sheila
Coombes speaking at Media on Trial
Sheila Coombes (Frome Stop War) has reported that the ban, made on May 3 -- World Press
Freedom Day -- came after a series of attacks on several of the
featured speakers by the Huffington Post , Guardian and Times
newspapers as "Assad Apologists".
Among those targeted were Professor Piers Robinson
(University of Sheffield), Professor Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh) -- both of the
Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM) -- and investigative journalist Vanessa
Beeley.
Having travelled to Leeds to check out the venue, Coombes was told that Leeds City Council
had cancelled the event, suggesting that "security issues" were involved. She was informed that
it was a blanket ban and that no other council-run venue would host it.
Less than an hour after she had been informed, the Yorkshire Post ran an online
article welcoming the ban, followed by a similar report in the Huffington Post . The
speed of publication suggests that these media outlets were aware of the ban before Coombes
herself had been informed.
Piers Robinson speaking at the Media on Trial event
Coombes reports that she was in contact with police regarding security arrangements for the
event and that she had been informed by the police officer in charge that he had advised Leeds
City Council there was "no intelligence to assess a threat". A second alternative private venue
was also cancelled.
Media on Trial was forced to keep details of the third venue secret until shortly before it
was due to open and restrict entrance to those who had already purchased tickets. The panel was
eventually able to go ahead on Sunday at the Baab-ul-llm Islamic education centre, one of the
few venues prepared to stand in defiance of this campaign of censorship. Approximately 200
people attended.
The reports delivered during the four-hour meeting provided a devastating exposure of
the connection between propaganda and censorship by the media and the warmongering of
governments in Britain, the United States and across the world.
Professor Piers Robinson (Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism) spoke on
the rebranding of government propaganda as "public relations." Drawing on his research into the
Iraq war, he cited material from the Chilcot Inquiry into the war confirming the systematic
manipulation and exaggeration of "intelligence" on Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction.
This included discussions between the US and British governments over how the 9/11 terror
attacks could be used for regime change operations, under the slogan of the "war on terror",
which Robinson described as a propaganda slogan for mobilising support for military
operations.
Robert Stuart is an independent researcher whose presentation on the "irregularities" in the
BBC Panorama documentary, "Saving Syria's Children," encouraged film producer and
writer Victor Lewis-Smith to tear up his BBC contract in disgust.
Robert Stuart speaking at
the Media on Trial event
Stuart gave a presentation on his examination of film recorded by BBC personnel at
Atareb Hospital in Aleppo on August 26, 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of a napalm-style
bombing by Syrian government forces. The footage was broadcast the same evening that parliament
delivered a shock vote against a military attack on Syria. He showed that much of it was
staged. Not only did this potentially include the use of military casualty trauma simulations,
but BBC personnel were travelling in vehicles displaying ISIS flags and alongside senior
members of the western-funded White Helmets.
Professor Tim Hayward (Environmental Political Theory) questioned the morality of the media
presenting information that was untrue and its implications for democracy and society. He
questioned the media's complicity in glorifying jihadi figures, despite this being in
contravention of the British governments' own anti-terror laws. He drew attention to broadcasts
on Channel 4 that provided flattering accounts of British women signing up for jihad. The media
were guilty of inverting the truth and placing a "lockdown" on information that breached the
rudiments of journalistic integrity.
American journalist and broadcaster Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire), drew attention
to the unprecedented conditions in which the meeting was being held, "in secret, in a
tent".
It was impossible to have a functioning democracy without a functioning fourth estate, he
said. This had been the gold standard but was no longer the case. Henningsen noted widespread
popular opposition to war in the US that successive presidential candidates had sought to
manipulate, only to betray once in power -- from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Donald
Trump.
The mainstream media have enormous assets and resources but claim democracy is threatened by
"fake news", when they are the purveyors of fake news and the real threat to democracy.
Peter Ford is a former UK ambassador to Syria (2003–2006) and now Director of the
British Syrian Society. He noted that the government had been forced to convene the Leveson
Inquiry into the media after the phone-hacking scandal involving Murdoch's News of the
World . But those actions were trivial in comparison with the real charge sheet that
needed to be presented against the media: that of "war mongering and aiding and abetting war
mongering".
Vanessa Beeley is an international investigative journalist and photographer who had
reported from inside Syria (including East Aleppo), Egypt and Palestine. She played an
important role in exposing Syria's White Helmets as an arm of western propaganda and regime
change operations.
She delivered a moving account of the situation within Syria and the capital Damascus. In
addition to detailing the role of the White Helmets and other institutions financed and backed
by western governments, Beeley noted that, especially following the Second World War, pro-war
propaganda was deemed a threat to peace. The Nuremberg Trials in 1946 characterised propaganda
to facilitate war as a serious crime against humanity; one of the gravest that could be
committed. Today, those who advocate peace and the defence of international law are smeared and
silenced, while those who promote war are being lauded in the media.
In the short time available for questions, contributions were made, including the
possibility of practical action against war-mongering.
Julie Hyland, speaking for the World Socialist Web Site , was greeted warmly by the
audience for raising that the high point of the international campaign of smears and censorship
is the attack on Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who is in grave danger of eviction from
the Ecuadorian Embassy and extradition to the United States.
Henningson replied that the embassy had determined to cut Assange's internet access and
personal communications while Syria was being targeted for military strikes. "I don't
underestimate the influence of Julian Assange at those critical times. His own website was
taken offline as the air strike by the US, Britain and France were happening, along with
several other web sites". He added, "Julian Assange is being silenced because they don't want
someone like him to have a platform".
Video of the Media on Trial Leeds event can be viewed here
"... This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by The Federalist , after a series of leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. " ..."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has accused Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson of giving "extremely misleading"
testimony that may have been an "outright lie" regarding his post-election work conducting opposition research on the Trump matter.
Of note, when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked Simpson if he was still being paid for work related to the dossier,
Simpson refused
to answer .
" So you didn't do any work on the Trump matter after the election date; that was the end of your work? " Schiff asked.
Simpson responded, saying: " I had no client after the election. "
where we do have actual evidence of misleading testimony in Committee interviews, we should treat it seriously. For example,
when the Committee staff interviewed Glenn Simpson in August of 2017, Majority staff asked him: "So you didn't do any work on
the Trump matter after the election date, that was the end of your work?" Mr. Simpson answered: "I had no client after the election."
As we now know, that was extremely misleading, if not an outright lie . -Sen. Chuck Grassley
"Contrary to Mr. Simpson's denial in the staff interview, according to the FBI and others," Grassley notes, " Fusion actually
did continue Trump dossier work for a new client after the election ."
Grassley also noted comments made by Senate Intelligence Committee staffer Daniel Jones, who is conducting an ongoing,
private investigation into Trump-Russia claims is being funded with $50 million supplied by George Soros and a group of 7-10
wealthy donors from California and New York.
This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by
The Federalist , after a series of
leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI
investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious
and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. "
In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50
million war chest just revealed by the House Intel Committee report.
Simpson was commissioned by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign to perform opposition research on the Trump campaign during the
2016 election. Through their efforts they recruited former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to compile the salacious and unverified "Steele
Dossier" used in part by the FBI to apply for a FISA surveillance warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"So, despite the fact Mr. Simpson said he had no client after the election, he in fact did, and that client revealed himself to
the FBI," Grassley said.
Hey Grassley, We have had 2 years of obviously guilty people who never go to jail and are never punished in any way. It's time
to stop talking about what these people have done wrong and start doing something about it instead.
True.. when was the last time someone was prosecuted for Treason? For Sedition? How about 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow
of Government? How about Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the
United States , levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death......
March 29, 2018: Ep. 687 Another Bombshell Revelation
"I've already told you there was some White House Involvement in
this. Now how do we know that? What we learn in Sara's piece according
to her sources, is that there was a meeting in August of 2016. Between
a lead FBI investigator by the name of Jonn Moffa. He had a key role by
the way folks, in the Hillary exoneration letter. Remember the speech
by Jim Comey? That exonerated Hillary. They laid all this stuff out and
then said, oh..and by the way, we're not going to prosecute."
"So this is an upper level manager in the FBI. Follow the time line
here. This'll be quick. In August, early August he meets with the
White House Chief of Staff. Dennis McDonough to talk about this case,
against Trump. Against the Trump Team & probably about Hillary too."
"White House Chief of Staff. You're now a breath away from the
President of the UNITED STATES. Moffa meets McDonough in August. Why
is this time line August of 2016. Why is this significant? Because what
happens in August of 2016 too?"
"John Breanan. Aaaaa Joe! What did we say that the master of puppets
here might be John Breanan. Again, on the Don Bongino show. Yep! John
Breanan, in August of 2016. What does he do? He waltz's his butt up to
Capital Hill and gives a briefing to the gang of eight there....Harry
Reid included. About this case. Includes in the briefing which is
highly likely based on the letter Reid produces just days later. Briefs
them in the Dossier. He said he know nothing about in December. Which
is after August. So, in August. Just to be clear about what we're
talking about."
"For those Liberals out there that listen to the show. That think
the White House has no attachment to this scandal at all. In August of
2016. Senior high level managers at the FBI. Who had a role in
drafting the exoneration letter for Hillary Clinton. Meet with White
House Officials. The White House Chief of Staff. A stone throws away
from the President. In that very same month. The President's CIA
Director. A noted Political Hack. And, a lair in John Breanan. Brief
members of the Senate & the Congress. On a Dossier. He claims he knew
nothing about. And, just days after that briefing. Harry Reid fires off
a letter to the FBI requesting that they investigate Trump. Of which, by
the way, right after that. Strzok texts Lisa Paige. "Here we go."
Insinuating in the text that this was all planned the whole entire time.
"
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the
Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier, I should say
to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Breanan has insisted that to
multiple people by the way, that he didn't know much about the Dossier.
Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Breanan doing
this? Because Breanan knows that the Dossier was his case. And, the
minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of
the Intelligence Community. That John Breanan started a Political
Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not
verified. John Breanan is going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to
run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's
important. But just to show you that Breanan has run from this Dossier.
Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's
him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen to how he emphasizes on the
Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the
Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopath John Breanan admits the Fake Dossier Played
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence
Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...Pesident
Obama & President Elect Trump."
"... Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records. ..."
"... The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny. ..."
"... Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey continued . "And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School," Comey responded . ..."
Daniel Richman, the law professor who leaked classified FBI records to the media at Comey's request, refused to disclose
when exactly he became Comey's attorney.
Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University
, told The Federalist via phone on Tuesday afternoon that he was now personally representing Comey.
According to The New York Times
, the line of questioning from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller focused on memos that Comey wrote and later
leaked after he was fired from his job by President Donald Trump.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote
in a letter to the Department of Justice on January 3 that at least one of the memos Comey provided to his friend was classified.
"My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed
them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security," Grassley
wrote .
"The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified.
Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the 'SECRET' or 'CONFIDENTIAL' levels." "If it's true that Professor Richman
had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would
appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information," Grassley
noted in the letter.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally
representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records.
The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and
Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny.
Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman
was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share
the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey
testified last June in
response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because
I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey
continued . "And so I
asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School,"
Comey responded .
Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Comey never characterized Richman as his attorney, nor did he suggest that
his directions to Richman to leak the memos to the media were privileged attorney-client communications.
The news that Richman is now representing Comey raises questions about whether the special counsel may be investigating Comey
and Richman for their roles in leaking classified information to the news media in order to get revenge on Trump for firing Comey.
The tactic of using attorney-client privilege to shield potentially illegal communications from law enforcement scrutiny is not
a new one.
During the FBI investigation of then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton's potential mishandling of classified information, Cheryl
Mills, one of Clinton's top government aides at the State Department, also claimed that she could not testify about her communications
with Clinton on the matter because
she was also serving
as Clinton's personal attorney .
"I have nothing to say about any of this," Richman responded, when asked directly whether attorney-client privilege was being
asserted in order to shield his communications with Comey regarding the deliberate leaking of classified documents to the media.
Richman was first licensed to practice law in the state of New York in 1986, according to
public records , and his current law license in that state is valid through October 2018.
"... Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces ..."
"... By WashingtonsBlog ..."
"... February 25, 2016 ..."
"... With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it. ..."
"... "[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again. ..."
"... "When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces – we ..."
"... dismantled their army ..."
"... , and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was ..."
"... , and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – ..."
"... electrical plants ..."
"... water facilities ..."
"... – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was ..."
"... , leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all. ..."
"... By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Global Research, November 2006) ..."
Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli
thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break:
a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the
incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu . As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing
Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an
entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the
nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism "
***
The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning
with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.
With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan
and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it
suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria
and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of
Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded.
***
The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote it was Richard Perle – now
chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon . Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds
one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy .
***
Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US
thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy , August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of
Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers
portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise
Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton,
the under-secretary for arms control and international security.
A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory
board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas
Feith.
***
With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington,
the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more
achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to
achieve it.
(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people –
including Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views
during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the "Project for a New
American Century".)
Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut –
writes :
[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the
chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in
Washington and Tel Aviv .
***
One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the
territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet .
***
The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash
the target country's social matrix and physical infrastructure.
***
Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the
military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.
In short divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial
game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.
To those -- and I suspect there are still many out there -- for whom all this seems too neat
or too conspiratorial , I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:
a) the "Clean Break" manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996
and
b) the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper generated by The Project for a New American
Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the
aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of George Bush Junior to the White
House, to the most exclusive sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.
To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents -- which speak, in
the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel's
"strategic environment" and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of
US "forward bases" in the region .
To do so now, after the US's systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya -- two notably
oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or
out of government with more than passing interest in history -- , and after the its carefully
calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in
Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media's deafening silence
on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.
And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise
the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the
ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously
fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this
part of the world.
Iraq's fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I
pointed out again and again
in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate
states: the Shi'ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest,
and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion.
This was the War Party's
real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the
entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are
seeing today.
"[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush
it, so that it would never rise again.
"When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces
– wedismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other
institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not
reconstituted. The infrastructure waspulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized
society –roads,bridges,electrical plants,water
facilities,museums,schools– were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair.
Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to
function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – wasdissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.
" What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can
say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized."
Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why
deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors
were living in trees?
The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who
have advanced Israeli interests – at America's expense – at every opportunity. In "
A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of
neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg,
David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged
to "break out" of Israel's alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of "regime change"
across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the
exception of Iran – and that one's still cooking on the back burner – this is
precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq,
then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these "rogue states"
– Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party's target
list.
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the
Pentagon for more than 10 years .
What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the
institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the
elimination of Iraq as a country .
This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an
impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines .
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the
Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US
ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation
of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states" (Serbia, Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of
redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed
Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map
Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the
balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to
break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate
nation.
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry
allegedlywrote a book
expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units . Dissolution of
Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated : Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.As Michel Chossudovsky
points out :
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas
said :
Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As
long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.
Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of
the Iraq war – John Bolton –
said:
The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going
to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That's what ISIS has been able to
take advantage of.
I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the
eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical
Islamists. What's left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the
ayatollahs in Tehran. It's not anything we should try to aid.
In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said
that he has "a tough time" seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign
nations.
In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable
puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize . Better to divide and conquer than to
countenance a "rogue" (independent) neighbor.
So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are
making it plain that Plan A (" Assad Must Go ") is not
happening any time soon.
And SecState John Kerry confirmed
just yesterday that "Plan B" is to break Syria up into different states.
Memoria day is an anti-war holiday designed to remeber horrible number of Civil war dead. But now it is converted into
something like glorification of militarism day.
Neocons are renegade Trotskyites 'aligned' with US imperialism and how fighting for "world neoliberal revolution".
Pay for their revolutionary fervor is much better though.
Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects? ..."
"... Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. ..."
"... Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that. ..."
"... that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review. ..."
"... It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating. ..."
"... It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing. ..."
"... Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies matters. ..."
"... Maybe Bronstein himself was a delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated by some internationalist idealism. ..."
"... A well known saying in left wing activist circles in the UK was "Never trust a Trot." ..."
"... Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with the exception of Mongols. ..."
Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This
movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage
ruin the reputation of its architects?
Not in the case of Trotsky. He was such a brilliant Jew!
Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow
them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the
coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main
contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin.
Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well,
pots and kettles and all that.
If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies' intervention (and Canada's!), directly (1994, from
Burundi, mainly to prevent Hutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the Ugandan
army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million
Hutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus),
from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former
Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi's first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat)
coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the
death threat by former US secretary of state for
African affairs, Herman Cohen.
that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because
yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary,
then Nat Review.
It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British
Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating.
It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark
night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.
Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this
purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies
matters.
@The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.
Wasn't 'Trotskyism' 'aligned' with US imperialism from the very moment when he transported the Warburg-Schiff money to Russia
to carry on the 'permanent revolution'?
And when Stalin cut Trotsky's crap who jumped to his defense? The Dewey "Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon
Trotsky in the Moscow Trials". And who are the imperialist 'neo-cons' other than 'old Trotskyists'?
I did not read about the suspicion that Bron(f)stein in reality was a German agent. What one reads in these two books does not
make the suspicion go away
John W Wheeler-Bennett, 'Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918', 1938, 1963, London
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
If they weren't so nefarious, the trotsies wouldn't be worth reading, let alone mentioning. Maybe Bronstein himself was a
delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated
by some internationalist idealism.
Neocons are jewish supremacists aided by corrupt to the core goyim, plain and simple. They do have in common with their guru
one conviction, that the end justifies the means. That is the recipe of evil.
It's a pity that so many youth are misled still today in believing in the hoax that Trotskyism is somehow something moral.
Trotsky was himself a murderer. Killing is immoral. It sometimes is necessary and cannot be avoided as with regards to the psychotic
butchers who came from abroad to Syria and are known as ISIS but it is still immoral.
Normal people sense killing as immoral therefore psychopaths have to come up with stories such as Germans slaughtering Belgian
babies with bayonets, Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Serbs genociding Bosniaks or Albanians, Qadhafi readying
for genocide in Benghazi, Assad pulling children's fingernails or gassing them, Iran being responsible for 9/11 etc, all in order
to dehumanise the enemy of the moment and compel people to accept that killing "sub-humans" half way around the world is a moral
act. It isn't. Period.
Unlike all those fake atrocities, Western and Saudi trained, armed and financed foreign terrorists in Syria did film themselves
doing horrors. They videotaped themselves burning people alive, throwing people off building tops. They videotaped themselves
beheading children. Assad didn't make those videos, ISIS did, to brag. Only mentally ill people can support those "rebels" against
Assad. Yet, as a Christian, I don't consider killing them as moral, I consider it as necessary and unavoidable, but it is an act
that mandates penitence.
Trotsies ignore those qualms and, whether real or alleged followers, are sick people. End of story.
From Trotsky's doctrine of Permanent Revolution onward, the hallmark of Trotskyism has been a quest for intellectual purity in
revolution – no contradictions allowed. No mixed economies under socialism. No pragmatic alliances. No consideration of national
security. Stake everything on a worldwide wave of revolution. Every real-world tactical issue since 1939 has led to fracturing
of the Trotskyist movement, generally into a "pure" faction and a "get something done" faction. International Socialists represented
the "pure" faction after the 1939 split (after it spun off the forebears of the neoconservative movement). Its sole contribution
of significance was as an intellectual incubator for Christopher Hitchens. More "pure" factions spun off in the early 1960s, which
sooner or later degenerated into cults. Lyndon LaRouche made his mark leading one of the "pure" factions. The "get something done"
faction made its mark as highly effective organizers of protests against the war in Vietnam but started chasing silly fads of
the student New Left, trying unsuccessfully to connect them to a revolutionary strategy. Their "revolutionary" rationale for those
movements blew up when they went in a decidedly bourgeois-aligned bureaucratic direction and became adjuncts to the Democratic
Party. WSWS represents the revival of purist Trotskyism, which offers cogent critiques of the glorified left-liberal postmodernist
"Trotskyism" of Louis Proyect and Socialist Alternative, but seems to choke on the question of what they themselves actually intend
to accomplish.
The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich
to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American
interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the
war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.
If one wants to make the case that Trotsky was a German agent, they would have to explain his agitation for spreading the revolution
into Germany. You could make a stronger case that George Washington was a French agent against Britain. Revolutions have tended
to occur in the cracks and contradictions opened in the struggles between the great powers, including the revolutions in China
and Vietnam.
The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defender of a mass murderer.
The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such
an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he "writes well", which, she admires.
That one can "write well" and "speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn't occur to Ms Johnson.
The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.
"Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality "
No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.
The first European revolution – The French Revolution – was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial
killing of a people – People of Vendée – . The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.
It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc ) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries
the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.
Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts
are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher – A French Genocide: The Vendee.
"In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries"
Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.
Great article! Thanks to Diana Johnstone for writing such a fine article which blows right out of the water so much of the BS
being bandied about in relation to the Syrian War, Stalin, etc. Ms. Johnstone is a REAL intellectual. Wish there were more like
her in the Anglosphere nowadays.
President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family. Prior to this Saudi Terrorist
Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping .hardly signs of a baby killer or a 'chemical animal'.
Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not
theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with
the exception of Mongols.
Trotskyites and WASPs – who created the largest empire in world history – in bed together, with the evil House of Saud, could
destroy civilization.
I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative). The
purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements. My other theory is that they were a paychological
projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.
Fools and idiots come in various shapes and sizes, as do socialists and wildlife. The zebra stands out from afar, its stripes
give it away. Likewise, the Trotskyites stand out markedly in the fairly jumbled-up socialist landscape, given away by their towering
stupidity and luminous obstinacy. Whenever some wretched poor, weak country is being bombed by the West, these useful idiots of
empire jump up and down in merriment. Whenever a union anywhere is trying to extort more money for less work, these fools give
their support. The burning down of churches and the spreading of atheism at gunpoint is another trait of theirs. Christian Socialists
they hate with a special vengeance, taking their cue from Marx the great "visionary", whose vision was fairly deficient in many
ways.
Stalin had Trot's head badgered-in, if I recall. Well, with a head as stupid as Trotsky's, half the world would be itching
to bash it in. One of those good things that Stalin did, IMHO.
The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally–and
the NKVD specifically–from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.
I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk
about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand
the context in which they took place.
Syrians have told me that Bashar al-Assad was a decent chap. But taking his family shopping could not be different from John McCain
walking through Baghdad with one hundred soldiers around him and helicopters overhead to show how safe it was. If Bashar al-Assad
"went shopping" in Damascus (instead of London or Paris) then two thousand plain clothes were also shopping with him. And for
what would he "go shopping" in Damascus? Shopping for an illusion, that's what.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of
deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening
contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment
while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." [ -Tony McKenna ]
This is like cursing the pizza store owner who gives 'protection' money to the mafia, without cursing the mafia which extorts
him! As Johnstone later points out, back then Assad had little choice but to try and make his peace with Uncle Scam as best he
could, since the USSR was no longer around to protect Syria.
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the
rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or
any other advanced capitalist country?"
Ah yes: Louis Proyect. The one and only! It was he who recently defended the 'rebels' as proletarian Bolsheviks struggling
for a new, socialist Syria:
"The Syrian rebels are generally drawn from the poor, rural and unrepresented majority of the population, the Arab version
of John Steinbeck's Joad family. Despite the tendency of some on the left to see them as sectarians who rose up against a generous
Baathist welfare state because it supported a different interpretation of who was the true successor to Muhammad, the revolutionary
struggle in Syria was fueled by class hatred."
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They
are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this
brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.
Which is why, once they reach a certain age and a certain level of burn-out, rather than simply give up on politics entirely,
they usually tend to become neoconservatives , as did Chris Hitchens. For them, the Rockefeller/Rothschild 'new world order'
is the next best thing to Trotsky's 'world revolution'.
The thing that escaped the author is that Trotskyism is a dead horse. The number of Trotskyists in any country is as close to
zero as makes no difference. These deluded weirdos are outnumbered even by flat-Earthers.
I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped
in all the classic WASP institutions.
Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just
crazy.
Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet
you're reading propaganda.
If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.
Absolutely. Ghadafi was sodomized by bayonet and Clinton cackled over it with malicious glee.
The posing of Assad as some kind of monster is just lynch-mob rationalization. McKenna doesn't believe what he is saying any
more than Stalin believed show trial confessions obtained under torture.
It's all the more pleasurable to these psychopaths that they cloak their crimes with phony virtue. Hence, putting Assad out
there as this cartoon villian.
As if ISIS, who we fostered and nurtured, was any better? Or communist Kurds? My God how we forget each disaster from Afghanistan
to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria now the scorched-earth war and subsequent disease, etc.? These people thrive on death and mayhem.
Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations.
Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been
achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China
and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism.
The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.
There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open
borders and anti-nationalism.
Eh No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it's not a joke. Fully European, of European
people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution
was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the
French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals,
or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?
Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that's all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus,
a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.
The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.
You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.
They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our "struggle" is multi
millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.
In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged
aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.
I'm very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
It's not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.
Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in
English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too
Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they
surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans. There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau
maintained by some college history department.
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They
are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this
brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for
permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home
and mind their own business.
Trotsky was a danger to the survival USSR, because he was an internationalist as is the Israeli-allied globalist cabal that
runs the USA. His differences with Stalin and the nationalists inside the Kremlin was not a small disagreement, as you assert.
You must not have ever even picked up a book on the subject.
Would you be surprised to learn that Lenin too was conspiring with the Japanese in 1904-5?
'Revolutionary defeatism' was a central tenet of his worldview and of Trotsky's too.
As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality
from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects' willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.
Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of
Kuehn and Loeb.
Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.
Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause
of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin
restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the "Hymn of the Soviet Union" (now the
Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace "The Internationale."
In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their
temporary allegiance to their great American golem.
The origins of the Cold War (and today's Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between
the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.
This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions
This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions
Louis Proyect – this is a vile scribe, who blackens the pages of the Counterpunch. A part of the Trotskyite gang that took over
this once venerable magazine!
I remember with emotion the old days, where in Minnesota, the Communist Party with me among others, and the Trotskyist of the
WS with you, among others, if my memories are good, we were fighting inside the movement against the war from VietNam.
The Trotskyists said then that once peace is won, it would be necessary to work for the overthrow of the regime of "pro-Soviet
revisionist HoChiMinh".
Even today, most of the troskysts (and CPF Eurocommunists for that matter) still deny the socialist character of China, Viet
Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and so on.
And this is even more true since these countries are inscribing their economy in the continuity of Lenin's NEP!
We come to this fable of the end of History with "globalized capitalism", as we enter a multipolar world where the socialist
countries (China, VietNam, North Korea, Cuba, Kerala ) in alliance with the BRICS non-imperialist, take over.
Have you evolved from Minnesota, or are you still a fellow traveler on the WS Trotskyite?
Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If
we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.
What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the
American Revolution.
Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide
is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.
"The entire Human History is criminal" – It's false.
"We must understand, not look for criminals." Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions
are made by criminals Not just Robespierre, of course.
Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)
Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".
If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's
almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.
Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the
Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others.
And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many
bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.
Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs
cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).
What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution
had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier
than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was
dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.
If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal
the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other
considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place
to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the
dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of
them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But,
Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power
with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.
Kotkin's writing is readable and the details are interesting. But he appears to be a full on propagandist on the important
details, like the Tsar, the Czech and Austrian conflicts, as well as the Stalin purges.
You tell me, a man who purges millions for no apparent reason (Kotkin gives none other than paranoia) isn't an implied psychopath?
Frankfurt School ideology replaced Marxism as the driving ideology of the American Left during the 1960s. Nominal Marxists
tried to fudge that ideology into Marxism because they thought it would help to sell Marxism, but boy were they wrong! Marxist
theory instead became a talisman for selling the various identitarian ideologies used to divide and weaken the working class –
the exact opposite of what the opportunist-identitarian Marxists had anticipated. Their claims that identitarian movements were
somehow akin to the anti-colonial nationalist movements of the postwar era were diametrically wrong. They became tools of the
ruling class in their 40+ year neoliberal campaign to impose hyper-exploitive colonial conditions on the former imperial homelands.
We are all Third World now.
The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists,
such as Francis Parker Yockey:
There are, in my judgment, three great novels that explore American military life in the
twentieth century. They are, in order of publication, Guard of Honor (1948) by James
Gould Cozzens, From Here To Eternity (1951) by James Jones, and The Sand Pebbles
(1962) by Richard McKenna.
The first is a book about airmen, set at a stateside air base during World War II. The
second is a soldier's story, its setting Schofield Barracks in the territory of Hawaii on the
eve of Pearl Harbor. In The Sand Pebbles, the focus is on sailors. It takes place in
China during the 1920s when U.S. Navy gunboats patrolled the Yangtze River and its
tributaries.
As far as I can tell, none of the three enjoys much of a following today. Despite winning
the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Guard of Honor has all but vanished. To the extent that
the other two retain any cultural salience, they do so as movies, superb in the case of From
Here to Eternity , colorful but mediocre in the case of The Sand Pebbles.
Yet for any American seeking an intimate account of military service, all three novels
remain worth reading. Times change, as do uniforms, weapons, and tactics, but certain
fundamentals of military life endure. Leaders and led see matters differently, nurse different
expectations, and respond to different motivations. The perspective back at higher headquarters
(or up on the bridge) differs from the way things look to those dealing with the challenges of
a typical duty day. The biggest difference of all is between inside and outside -- between
those in uniform and the civilians who necessarily inhabit another world. Each in his own way,
Cozzens, Jones, and McKenna unpack those differences with sensitivity and insight.
Of the three, McKenna's novel in particular deserves revival, not only because of its
impressive literary qualities, but because the story it tells has renewed relevance to the
present day. It's a story about the role that foreign powers, including the United States,
played in the emergence of modern China.
Prompted in part by the ostensible North Korean threat, but more broadly by the ongoing rise
of China and uncertainty about China's ultimate ambitions, the American military establishment
will almost inevitably be directing more of its attention toward East Asia in the coming years.
To be sure, the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terrorism continues and appears
unlikely to conclude anytime soon. Yet the character of that conflict is changing. Having come
up short in its efforts to pacify the Islamic world, the United States is increasingly inclined
to rely on proxies, generously supported by air power, to carry on the jihadist fight in
preference to committing large numbers of U.S. troops. Almost imperceptibly, East Asia is
encroaching upon and will eventually eclipse the Greater Middle East in the Pentagon's
hierarchy of strategic priorities.
It's this reshuffling of Pentagon priorities that endows The Sand Pebbles with
renewed significance. If past is prologue, McKenna's fictionalized account of actual events
that occurred 90 years ago involving U.S. forces in China should provide context for anyone
intent on employing American military power to check China today.
Of course, the armed forces of the United States have a long history of involvement in East
Asia. Ever since 1898, when it liberated, occupied, and subsequently annexed the Philippines,
the United States has maintained an enduring military presence in that part of the world.
To the extent that Americans are even dimly aware of what that presence has entailed, they
probably think in terms of three 20th-century Asian wars: the first in the 1940s against Japan;
the second during the 1950s in Korea; the third from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s in
Vietnam. In each, whether as ally or adversary, China figured prominently.
Yet even before the attack on Pearl Harbor initiated the first of those wars, U.S. air,
land, and naval forces had been active in and around China. Dreams of gaining access to a
lucrative "China Market" numbered among the factors that persuaded the United States to annex
the Philippines in the first place. In 1900, U.S. troops participated in the China Relief
Expedition, a multilateral intervention mounted to suppress the so-called Boxer Rebellion,
which sought to expel foreigners and end outside interference in Chinese affairs. The mission
succeeded and the U.S. military stayed on. Army and Marine Corps units established garrisons in
"treaty ports" such as Shanghai and Tientsin.
Decades earlier, the U.S. Navy had begun making periodic forays into China's inland
waterways. In the early 20th century, employing small shallow-draft vessels captured from Spain
in 1898, this presence became increasingly formalized. As American commercial and missionary
interests in China grew, the Navy inaugurated what it called the Yangtze Patrol, with Congress
appropriating funds to construct a flotilla of purpose-built gunboats for patrolling the river
and its tributaries. Under the direction of COMYANGPAT back in Shanghai, small warships flying
the Stars-and-Stripes sailed up and down the Yangtze's immense length to "protect American
lives and property."
This is the story that McKenna, himself a YANGPAT veteran, recounts, focusing on a single
fictional ship the U.S.S. San Pablo. Known as "Sand Pebbles," the few dozen sailors
comprising the San Pablo's crew are all lifers. A rough bunch, their interests rarely
extend beyond drinking and whoring. In 1920s China, an American sailor's modest paycheck
provides ample funds for both pursuits.
Even afloat, life for the Sand Pebbles is more than agreeable. Onboard the San Pablo,
an unofficial second crew consisting of local Chinese -- "contractors," we would call them
today -- does the dirty work and the heavy lifting. The Americans stay topside, performing
routines and rituals meant to convey an image of power and dominance.
San Pablo is a puny and lightly armed ship. Yet it exists to convey a big impression,
thereby sustaining the privileged position that the United States and the other imperial powers
enjoyed in China.
The revolutionary turmoil engulfing China in the 1920s necessarily challenged this
proposition. Nationalist fervor gripped large parts of the population. Imperial privilege
stoked popular resentment, which made San Pablo 's position increasingly untenable, even
if the Sand Pebbles themselves were blind to what was coming. That their own eminently
comfortable circumstances might be at risk was literally unimaginable.
McKenna's narrative describes how the world of the Sand Pebbles fell apart. His nominal
protagonist is Jake Holman, a machinist mate with a mystical relationship to machinery. Jake
loathes the spit-and-polish routine topside and wants nothing more than to remain below decks
in the engine compartment, performing duties that on San Pablo white American sailors
have long since ceased to do. In the eyes of his shipmates, therefore, Jake represents a threat
to the division of labor that underwrites their comforts.
The ship's captain, one of only two commissioned officers assigned to San Pablo,
likewise sees Jake as a threat to the status quo. To my mind, Lieutenant Collins is McKenna's
most intriguing creation and the novel's true focal point. Although the Sand Pebbles are
oblivious to how they may figure in some larger picture, for Collins the larger picture is a
continuing preoccupation. He sees his little ship, the entire U.S. Navy, America's providential
purpose, and the fate of Western civilization as all of a piece. Serious, sober, and dutiful,
he is also something of a fanatic.
Collins dimly perceives that powerful forces within China pose a direct threat not only to
the existing U.S. position there, but to his own worldview. Yet he considers the prospect of
accommodating those forces as not only intolerable, but inconceivable. So in the book's
culminating episode he leads Jake and several other Sand Pebbles on a symbolic but utterly
futile gesture of resistance. Fancying that he is thereby salvaging his ship's honor (and his
own as well), he succeeds merely in killing his own men.
I interpret McKenna as suggesting that there is no honor in denying reality. Only waste and
needless sacrifice result. Today a national security establishment as blind to reality as
Lieutenant Collins presides over futile gestures far more costly than those inflicted upon the
Sand Pebbles. It's not fiction and it's happening right before our eyes.
So skip the movie. But read McKenna's book. And then reflect on its relevance to the present
day.
"... * Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. His latest book is A Whistleblower at the CIA . (City Lights Publishers, 2017). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org . ..."
by Melvin Goodman
25 May, 2018 President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to run away from a summit meeting
with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un should not be a surprise to anyone. The White House is
encouraging the notion that China's Xi Jinping is to blame for souring the notion of a
U.S.-North Korean summit and for toughening Kim Jong Un's negotiating position, and the
mainstream media is doing its predictable best to validate such a self-serving explanation. In
actual fact, the Trump administration was never prepared to discuss any issue that resembled
arms control and disarmament, and national security adviser John Bolton, the formidable
chairman of the new "war cabinet," was never agreeable to the idea of U.S.-North Korean
diplomacy.
Any exercise in arms control and disarmament involves two sets of negotiations: first is the
internal set within the administration itself; second is the external set with foreign
counterparts. Typically, the internal negotiations within any administration is the tougher
road. One of President John F. Kennedy's greatest successes was disciplining the Pentagon in
1963 in order to negotiate the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Over the past fifty years, there has
never been an arms control and disarmament treaty that the Pentagon has welcomed.
President Richard Nixon and national security advisor Henry Kissinger were particularly
skillful at disciplining the national security bureaucracy that found the civilian and
uniformed military leaders of the Pentagon opposed to any arms control negotiations with the
Soviet Union. Nixon and Kissinger had to win the bureaucratic battles before garnering the
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 1972. Nixon and
Kissinger also knew how to prepare for summitry, which finds the Trump administration
particularly clueless.
President Ronald Reagan learned important lessons in the 1980s when Secretary of Defense
Casper Weinberger and his senior advisor, Richard Perle, had to be defeated bureaucratically on
the way to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987. Weinberger and Perle were routed and
ultimately resigned. It is not an exaggeration to say that the internal negotiations on the
home front were just as difficult as the external negotiations with the Soviet Union. And in
some ways, negotiating with Soviet leaders Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev was less
problematic because they had a genuine interest in disarmament and they had more control over
their military establishments than their U.S. rivals.
In the case of the U.S.-North Korean summit, which probably would not have led to North
Korean denuclearization, there was a reasonable opportunity of arranging a serious deescalation
of U.S. and North Korean military activities on the Korean peninsula. National security adviser
Bolton has never shown any interest in deescalating military rivalries with any U.S.
adversaries, and the general officers around President Trump are not prepared to reduce the
U.S. military presence in South Korea or to temper U.S.-South Korean exercises that are so
threatening to the North Koreans. Communist military doctrine views such exercises as a
possible prelude to an actual attack.
Bolton is new to Trump's national security team, but he is clearly the major winner in this
diplomatic setback. Other members of the team, including the Secretaries of State and Defense
were not consulted prior to the sudden announcement on May 24, 2018, and there is no record of
any deliberations at the National Security Council for preparations for an historic meeting
with Kim Jong Un, let alone the possible trade offs in any disarmament discussion. In record
time, Bolton has taken charge of the national security and foreign policies of the Trump
administration, and has quietly built a neoconservative team of staffers at the NSC that will
take hardline positions on all items on the international agenda.
Inside and outside government, Bolton has typically surrounded himself with a like-minded
group of advisers and staffers who share his bellicose views and his bellicose manner that
deprived him of any chance to gain congressional confirmation for a senior position in previous
administrations. Bolton is already consulting with former members of the Pentagon's short-lived
Office of Special Plans (OSP) that was responsible for falsifying intelligence in 2002-2003 to
make the case for war against Iraq. In previous assignments at the United Nations and the
Department of State for the Reagan and Bush administrations, Bolton had a well-earned
reputation for falsifying intelligence on a variety of issues in order to justify hardline
positions and to argue against arms control negotiations.
Any connection to OSP is particularly revealing because of the results of a study by the
Pentagon's Inspector General that determined the office's major mission was to provide the
White House with "intelligence" to make the case for war. According to the IG, David Wurmser
was the creator of a provocative and specious Power Point presentation that linked Iraq and al
Qaeda for which there was no credible evidence. The phony intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and possible Iraqi-al Qaeda links were the keys to making the case for war. Wurmser
is now advising Bolton on staffing decisions at the NSC.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may not have been involved in the decision making to scuttle
the summit, but it is noteworthy that his first selection of an important ambassadorial post
was a senior uniformed officer and not a foreign service professional. One of Pompeo's first
decisions as secretary of state was to select Admiral Harry Harris Jr. as ambassador to South
Korea. It was predicted at the time that Harris would join Bolton and Pompeo in arguing against
the pursuit of a diplomatic bargain with North Korea. Admiral Harris was well known for his
hard line briefings over the years before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Obama
administration actually issued a "gag order" on Harris prior to President Barack Obama's
meetings with Xi Jinping.
The emergence of Bolton and the neoconservative staffing at the NSC points to more hardline
decision making that will be influenced by cherry-picked data, unexamined assumptions, and an
unwillingness to hold open debates on foreign policy options. President Trump survived his
first foreign policy crisis in Syria last month because of the effective and moderating role
played by Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Bolton's "success" in halting the diplomatic
minuet between Washington and Pyongyang points to greater instability in the near term with
U.S. allies as well as adversaries. And if Bolton's neoconservative allies dominate the debates
at the NSC, there will be little room for Secretary of Defense Mattis to operate and more room
for Bolton's pursuit of hardline foreign policies.
So Strzok was involved with this part of the story too. Strzokgate now has distinct British accent and probably was coordinated
by CIA and MI6.
Harper was definitely acted like an "agent provocateur", whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to
say things that would corroborate-or seem to corroborate-evidence that the FBI believed it already had in hand. It looks like among
other things Halper was tasked with the attempt elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier memo: "Russians
do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
London was the perfect place for such dirty games -- the territory where the agent knew he could operate safely.
"Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now
by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over
the White House."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times' ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
"... Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta? ..."
The New York Times'
4,000-word report last week on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to Russia
revealed for the first time that the investigation was called "Crossfire Hurricane."
The name, explains the paper, refers to the Rolling Stones lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane," from the 1968 hit "Jumpin'
Jack Flash." Mick Jagger, one of the songwriters, said the song was a "metaphor" for psychedelic-drug induced states. The other,
Keith Richards, said it "refers to his being born amid the bombing and air raid sirens of Dartford, England, in 1943 during World
War II."
Investigation names, say senior U.S. law enforcement officials, are designed to refer to facts, ideas, or people related to the
investigation. Sometimes they're explicit, and other times playful or even allusive. So what did the Russia investigation have to
do with World War II, psychedelic drugs, or Keith's childhood?
The answer may be found in the 1986 Penny Marshall film named after the song, "Jumpin' Jack Flash." In the Cold War-era comedy,
a quirky bank officer played by Whoopi Goldberg comes to the aid of Jonathan Pryce, who plays a British spy being chased by the KGB.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is therefore most likely a reference to the former British spy whose allegedly Russian-sourced
reports on the Trump team's alleged ties to Russia were used as evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Service Act secret warrant
on Trump adviser Carter Page in October 2016: ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele.
Helping Spin a New Origin Story
It is hardly surprising that the Times refrained from exploring the meaning of the code name. The paper of record has
apparently joined a campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Justice, FBI, and political operatives pushing the Trump-Russia collusion
story, to minimize Steele's role in the Russia investigation.
After an October news report showed his dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, facts that
further challenged the credibility of Steele's research, the FBI investigation's origin story shifted.
In December, The New York Times
published a "scoop " on the new origin story. In the revised narrative, the probe didn't start with the Steele dossier at all.
Rather, it began with an April 2016 meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Maltese professor named Joseph
Mifsud. The professor informed him that "he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had 'dirt'
on Mrs. Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.'"
Weeks later, Papadopoulos boasted to the Australian ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, that he was told the Russians had
Clinton-related emails. Two months later, according to the Times , the Australians reported Papadopoulos' boasts to the
FBI, and on July 31, 2016, the bureau began its investigation.
Further reinforcement of the new origin story came from congressional Democrats. A
January 29 memo
written by House Intelligence Committee minority staff under ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff further distances Steele from the opening
of the investigation. "Christopher Steele's raw reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation
in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September."
Last week's major Times article echoes the Schiff memo. Steele's reports, according to the paper, reached the "Crossfire
Hurricane team" "in mid-September."
Yet the new account of how the government spying campaign against Trump started is highly unlikely. According to the thousands
of favorable press reports asserting his credibility, Steele was well-respected at the FBI for his work on a 2015 case that helped
win indictments of more than a dozen officials working for soccer's international governing body, FIFA. In July 2016, Steele met
with the agent he worked with on the FIFA case to show his early findings on the Trump team's ties to Russia.
The FBI took Steele's reporting on Trump's ties to Russia so seriously it was later used as evidence to monitor the electronic
communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But, according to Schiff and the Times , the FBI somehow lost track
of reports from a "credible" source who claimed to have information showing that the Republican candidate for president was compromised
by a foreign government. That makes no sense.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is further evidence that the FBI's cover story is absurd. A reference to a movie about a British
spy evading Russian spies behind enemy lines suggests the Steele dossier was always the core of the bureau's investigation into the
Trump campaign.
Was Halper an Informant, Spy, Or Agent Provocateur?
Taken together with the other significant revelation from last Times story, the purpose and structure of Crossfire Hurricane
may be coming into clearer focus. According to the Times story: "At least one government informant met several times with
[Trump campaign advisers Carter] Page and [George] Papadopoulos, current and former officials said."
As we now know, the informant is Stefan Halper, a
former classmate of Bill Clinton's at Oxford University who worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Halper is
known for his good connections in intelligence circles. His father-in-law
was Ray Cline , former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Halper
is also reported to have led the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign team that collected intelligence on sitting U.S. President Jimmy
Carter's foreign policy.
So what was Halper doing in this instance? He wasn't really a spy (a person who is generally tasked with stealing secrets) or
an informant (a person who provides information about criminal activities from the inside). Rather, it seems he was more like an
agent provocateur, whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate --
or seem to corroborate -- evidence that the bureau believed it already had in hand.
It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things.
Halper met with at least three Trump campaign advisers: Sam Clovis, Page, and George Papadopoulos. The latter two he met with
in London, where Halper had reason to feel comfortable operating.
Halper's close contacts in the intelligence world weren't limited to the CIA. They also include foreign intelligence officials
like Richard Dearlove , the former head of the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence service, MI6. According to
a Washington Times report , Halper and Dearlove are partners in a UK consulting firm, Cambridge Security Initiative.
Dearlove is also close to Steele. According
to the Washington Post , Dearlove met with Steele in the early fall of 2016, when his former charge shared his "worries"
about what he'd found on the Trump campaign and "asked for his guidance."
London was therefore the perfect place for Halper to spring a trap -- outside the direct purview of the FBI, but on territory
where he knew he could operate safely. It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things that
corroborated the 35-page series of memos written by Steele -- the centerpiece of the Russiagate investigation -- in order to license
a broader campaign of government spying against Trump and his associates in the middle of a presidential election.
Halper Reached Out to Trump Campaign Members
Chuck Ross's reporting in The Daily Caller provides invaluable details and insight. As Ross
explained in The Daily Caller back
in March, Halper emailed Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 with an invitation to write a research paper, for which he'd be paid $3,000,
and a paid trip to London. According to Ross, "Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during the London trip," with one meeting
scheduled for September 13 and another two days later.
Ross writes: "According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking
the emails from Russia, right?' Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking." It seems Halper
was looking to elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier
memo : "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true.
Had Papadopoulos confirmed that a shadowy Maltese academic had told him in April about Russians holding Clinton-related emails,
presumably that would have entered the dossier as something like, "Trump campaign adviser PAPADOPOULOS confirms knowledge of Russian
'kompromat.'"
Another Trump campaign adviser Halper contacted was Page. They first met in Cambridge, England at a July 11, 2016 symposium. Halper's
partner Dearlove spoke at the conference, which was held just days after Page had delivered a widely reported speech at the New Economic
School in Moscow. According to another
Ross article reporting on Page and Halper's interactions, the Trump adviser "recalls nothing of substance being discussed other
than Halper's passing mention that he knew then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
Page and Manafort both figure prominently in the Steele dossier's July 19 memos. According to
the document ,
Manafort "was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." Page had also, according to the dossier,
met with senior Kremlin officials -- a charge he later denied in
his November
2, 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Evidently, he also gave Halper nothing to use in verifying the charges
made against him.
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and
now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to
take over the White House.
Using Spy Powers on Political Opponents Is a Big Problem
That portions of the American national security apparatus would put their considerable powers -- surveillance, spying, legal pressure
-- at the service of a partisan political campaign is a sign that something very big is broken in Washington. Our Founding Fathers
would not be surprised to learn that the post-9/11 surveillance and spying apparatus built to protect Americans from al-Qaeda has
now become a political tool that targets Americans for partisan purposes. That the rest of us are surprised is a sign that we have
stopped taking the U.S. Constitution as seriously as we should.
The damage done to the American press is equally large. Since the November 2016 presidential election, a financially imperiled
media industry gambled its remaining prestige on Russiagate. Yet after nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories
feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New
York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.
The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential
campaign.
There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could've easily checked, if it weren't
in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ's crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key
questions that the article raised with its revelation that "at least one government informant" met with Trump campaign figures.
So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names?
What were they doing?
Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James
Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John
Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta?
These questions are sure to be asked. What we know already is that the Times reporters did not ask them, because they
do not bother to indicate that the officials interviewed for the story had declined to answer. That they did not ask these questions
is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials
responsible for their crimes. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
"... As it turns out, George Papadopoulos made several new friends in London. There was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor living in London who has ties to British intelligence. It was Mifsud - who has since disappeared - who told Papadopoulos in March 2016 that the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... A cabal of CIA and FBI operatives, including the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, along with other members of the intelligence "community," prominently including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and various members of the Obama administration, colluded to undermine Donald Trump's campaign. ..."
"... It is banana republic behaviour, but it looks now as if those responsible for this effort to undermine American democracy and repeal the results of a free, open, and democratic election will be exposed. Let's hope that they are also held to account ..."
"... Certainly they will be able to do it with Comey, Brennen, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest of the sweet potatoes who got paid to set up candidate and then President Trump, don't they? ..."
"... "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power" - Orwell ..."
"... Anyone that's part of this anti-constitutional movement should be purged from government and barred for life from participating in government in any capacity. ..."
"... Don't forget Trump interviewed Mueller for the FBI position just days before Rosenputz made him the special counsel. That, in and of itself, is a conflict of interest. If that idiot Sessions had any balls, he would've stepped in and pointed that out. ..."
How highly placed members of one administration mobilised the intelligence services to undermine their successors...
Who, what, where, when, why? The desiderata school teachers drill into their charges trying to master effective writing skills
apply also in the effort to understand that byzantine drama known to the world as the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation.
Let's start with "when." When did it start? We know that the FBI opened its official investigation on 31 July 2016. An obscure,
low-level volunteer to the Trump campaign called Carter Page was front and centre then. He'd been the FBI's radar for a long time.
Years before, it was known, the Russians had made some overtures to him but 1) they concluded that he was an "idiot" not worth recruiting
and 2) he had actually aided the FBI in prosecuting at least two Russian spies.
But we now know that the Trump-Russia investigation began before Carter Page. In December 2017, The New York Times excitedly reported
in an article called "How the Russia Inquiry Began" that, contrary to their reporting during the previous year, it wasn't Carter
Page who precipitated the inquiry. It was someone called George Papadopoulous, an even more obscure and lower-level factotum than
Carter Page. Back in May 2016, the twenty-something Papadopoulous had gotten outside a number of drinks with one Alexander Downer,
an Australian diplomat in London and had let slip that "the Russians" had compromising information about Hillary Clinton. When Wikileaks
began releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in June and July, news of the conversation between Downer and
Papadopoulos was communicated to the FBI. Thus, according to the Times , the investigation was born.
There were, however, a couple of tiny details that the Times omitted. One was that Downer, an avid Clinton supporter, had arranged
for a $25 million donation from the Australian government to the Clinton Foundation. Twenty-five million of the crispest, Kemo Sabe.
They also neglected say exactly how Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer.
As it turns out, George Papadopoulos made several new friends in London. There was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor living
in London who has ties to British intelligence. It was Mifsud - who has since disappeared - who told Papadopoulos in March 2016 that
the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
Then there is Stefan Halper, an American-born Cambridge prof and Hillary supporter. Out of the blue, Halper reached out to Papadopoulos
in September 2016. He invited him to meet in London and then offered Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a paper on an unrelated topic.
He also pumped him about "Russian hacking." "George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper is said to have
asked him. He also made sure Papadopoulos met for drinks with his assistant, a woman called Azra Turk, who flirted with him over
the Chardonnay while pumping him about Russia.
Halper also contacted Carter Page and Sam Clovis, Trump's campaign co-chair. Is Stefan Halper, the "spy" on the Trump campaign,
at the origin of the Trump-Russia meme?
Not really. The real fons et origo is John Brennan, Director of the CIA under Obama. As Trump's victories in the primaries piled
up, Brennan convened a "working group" at CIA headquarters that included Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent, and James Clapper,
then Director of National Intelligence, in order to stymie Trump's campaign.
So much of this story still dwells in the tenebrous realm of redaction. But little by little the truth is emerging, a mosaic whose
story is gradually taking shape as one piece after the next completes now this face, now another.
There are details yet to come, but here is the bottom line, the irreducible minimum ...
A cabal of CIA and FBI operatives, including the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, along with other members of the intelligence
"community," prominently including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and various members of the Obama administration,
colluded to undermine Donald Trump's campaign.
Like almost everyone else, they assumed that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, so they were careless about covering their tracks.
If Hillary had won, the department of Justice would have been her Department of Justice, John Brennan would still be head of
the CIA, and the public would never have known about the spies, the set-ups, the skulduggery.
But Hillary did not win. For the last 16 months, we've watched as that exiled cabal shifted its efforts from stopping Trump
from winning to a desperate effort to destroy his Presidency. Thanks to the patient work of Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, and a handful of GOP Senators, that effort is now disintegrating.
What is being exposed is the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States : the effort by highly placed -
exactly how highly placed we still do not know - members of one administration to mobilise the intelligence services and police
power of the state to spy upon and destroy first the candidacy and then, when that didn't work, the administration of a political
rival.
It is banana republic behaviour, but it looks now as if those responsible for this effort to undermine American democracy
and repeal the results of a free, open, and democratic election will be exposed. Let's hope that they are also held to account.
If the proof is there, does America have the balls to indict, prosecute and then jail a former president who happens to have
black skin?
Certainly they will be able to do it with Comey, Brennen, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest of the sweet potatoes
who got paid to set up candidate and then President Trump, don't they?
Corruption! It's what's for breakfast. - Judas Sessions
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely
in power, pure power. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power"
- Orwell
Important to note that all of these illegal DOJ actions have been undertaken in the context of a political movement calling
itself "Resistance" whose openly stated goal is to destroy the candidacy and presidency of the people's chosen leader. And whose
implicit goal has been to ensure one-party rule, eliminate the people from involvement in self governance and implement an anti-American
globalist agenda.
Anyone that's part of this anti-constitutional movement should be purged from government and barred for life from participating
in government in any capacity.
Try going to work and announcing to your boss that you're part of a movement to destroy the company from within. See if you
keep your job.
Don't forget Trump interviewed Mueller for the FBI position just days before Rosenputz made him the special counsel. That,
in and of itself, is a conflict of interest. If that idiot Sessions had any balls, he would've stepped in and pointed that out.
[May 27, 2018] Turning on Russia by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
Who knew? Not me. The FBI does not discuss its operations with other agencies
of the US Government. Period. I made liaison with the FBI on many occasions when I was with DIA and they were always careful to make
it clear that whatever you might give them in the way of information they would give you exactly nothing in return. In retirement
from government I have often observed the FBI working in support of DoJ in court cases.
It has always been my understanding that when the FBI investigated you they searched through records, listened to your telephone,
read your E-mail and in the end interviewed you.
Now I learn that they also recruit "confidential sources" to speak to you about the subject of FBI interest WITHOUT bothering
to inform you that they are going to tell the FBI what you said about things. Some of these "confidential sources" are employed by
the FBI for long periods of time. The American professor now teaching at a UK university who was sent by the FBI to talk to several
Trump campaign people was one such. Other "confidential sources" are recruited for a particular case Sometimes they are recruited
from among the existing acquaintances or "friends" of the person targeted by the FBI. In other words if DoJ, the WH, or the Bureau
(FBI) want to know what I, or anyone else, really says about a given topic, they can recruit someone I know using pressure, persuasion
or money to "rat" me out.
Felix Dzerzhinsky would have been proud of their skills if they had been his men. pl
Of course the FBI uses confidential informants. So does the DEA, ICE and every state and local LEA. It's a staple of every TV
crime show and novel dealing with police. Every gangster, crook, drug dealer, pedophile, terrorist and spy is obsessed with the
idea that some snitch is going to rat him out. The rest of us are rightfully incensed that this could possibly happen to us. There
best be a solid paper trail behind every confidential informant used by all the various cops. And these paper trails need to be
examined by IGs or others outside these users of confidential informants.
To those of us in the intelligence field rather than the LE field, the use of US Persons to inform on other US Persons is anathema.
We are specifically prohibited from targeting US Persons without informing them of our USI affiliation except possibly under rare
and specific circumstances. In those circumstances we have to call in the FBI. The NSA once found the targeting of US Persons
to be beyond anathema. It was a mortal sin condemning one's soul to eternal damnation. That certainly changed after 9/11.
As far as the sharing of information with the FBI, CIA and even NSA goes, I had a very different experience than Colonel Lang
when I was in DIA. In digital operations, we shared information on a daily basis. Our operations were often intertwined and interdependent.
However, I doubt this extended beyond digital operations.
https://trevoraaronson.com/... the war on terror, for the FBI has been one giant entrapment free for all, fueled
entirely on informants of dubious trustworthiness at best.
"... The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson, an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and May 25. ..."
"... We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could have produced it, etc. ..."
"... I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria). ..."
"... If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive. ..."
"... when [Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate their claims, especially when intelligence is involved. ..."
"... I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University of Edinburgh) has issued a new briefing talking about this matter. ..."
"... Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they apparently commissioned it. ..."
"... If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning. ..."
"... More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we have been involved in wars in the Middle East. ..."
The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson,
an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria,
Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and
May 25.
Julie Hyland: What is your estimation of the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
by Russia, and how do they relate to the war in Syria?
PR: We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of
the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had
relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was
inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could
have produced it, etc.
I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of
territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader
propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria).
If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that
would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was
going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive.
It's not something you can pinpoint for sure at this stage because you don't have access to
the information. I don't think we will know the full truth of exactly what is happening for
some time. But you can make an informed judgement call.
What we do know is that the claims being made at the time were not tenable. So when
[Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned
the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of
course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles
was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate
their claims, especially when intelligence is involved.
I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because
Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice
restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University
of Edinburgh) has issued
a new briefing talking about this matter.
Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher
Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I
understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It
appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they
apparently commissioned it.
If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility
that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning.
More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used
for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle
East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we
have been involved in wars in the Middle East.
In a related area that people don't usually connect, the same psychological warfare methods
being used in the Middle East are being used in the attack on public education to privatize
education globally.
I've had a degree of dialogue with Piers on Facebook .
Despite the fact that he has done some important work here regards state propaganda and
Syria I have found his political positions very much the typical University sociology
professor , where bourgeois ideology and Post modernism runs rampant .
Not immune to running off a line of expletives and ad hominems as if they constitute an
argument, Piers came to the defence of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Bealey when I had the
audacity to make a distinction between the defence of Syria against US Imperialism and a
defence of Assad per se and Putin
Both engaged in a somewhat lumpen diatribe on the question, despite the fact that I
clearly never once promoted an Imperialist line . The situation was in fact reminiscent of
what in more recent times the WSWS faced in regards Iran , when it seemingly ''had the
audacity'' to support the Iranian working class against its own bourgeois rulers.
Political consultant Roger Stone, who served as a long-time political adviser to Donald
Trump, tried to dismantle the Russia investigation during an interview with Newsmax TV, saying the probe has roots in the "fabricated
dossier" put together about then-candidate Donald Trump.
Stone, who recently authored "
Stone's Rules: How to Win at Politics, Business, and Style, " appeared on Tuesday's "
America Talks Live
" and said the Russia probe is "the biggest, single political scandal in American history. In
essence, they used a fabricated dossier to justify state surveillance of the Republican
candidate for president of the United States.
"That's using the government's authority and capability to spy on the Trump campaign. And
now, incredibly, we've learned that they used the FBI to insert spies and infiltrate the Trump
campaign." Special counsel Robert Mueller is leading a Department of Justice investigation into
whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Stone has entered Mueller's radar because of
his alleged ties to WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. He was also a subject of FBI
surveillance in the early days of the counterintelligence operation against certain members of
the Trump campaign.
"We have two crooks running the Justice Department," Stone said, referencing Attorney
General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. "The fact that Jeff Sessions
will not hand over to Congress information regarding the FISA warrant surveillance of Roger
Stone, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page is criminal." It has been alleged
Stone had some sort of channel to the Russians, whether through WikiLeaks or otherwise, a
charge he denies.
"This is an egregious smear, and in all honesty, the question -- which I've answered again,
and again, and again -- grows tedious," Stone said.
Stone's roots in politics go back to the Nixon campaign, when he worked for his 1972
re-election campaign. He has since worked with countless other Republicans over the years,
including former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Regarding the Russia probe, Stone said he supports calls to
appoint a second special counsel to investigate how the FBI and DOJ started and conducted
the Trump campaign surveillance.
"We have text messages from [FBI agent] Peter Strzok saying [former President Barack] Obama
wanted to be briefed on everything," Stone said. "So, when it comes to the phony dossier, what
did Obama know and when did he know it? They're covering up the greatest scandal in American
history."
And he said the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s is peanuts compared to what the
government is alleged to have done to the Trump campaign.
"They were inserting moles to create faux evidence of Russian collusion as part of what FBI
agent Peter Strzok referred to as their insurance policy against Donald Trump's election,"
Stone said. "This makes Watergate look like a second-rate burglary. What we have here today is
far more egregious."
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
strngr
You cite quite a number of examples, presumably without detailed knowledge of few, if any. I
will not fall into the same trap.
The Brexit vote was an outbreak of mass hysteria amongst English and Welsh working class
voters. The sentiment that powered the grass roots "rebellion" against the perceived wisdom
of the ruling elite was understandable frustration at social and economic neglect. My guess
is that in this regard it was a mirror of the rise of Trumpism. Interestingly Scotland voted
to remain in the EU by a substantially stronger margin than England voted to leave, because
there was already established a vivid, informed, grass roots political discourse mainly based
on Scottish social media. The Brexit outcome was influenced by some pretty underhand digital
media manipulation, but those doing the manipulation were domestic and hard right wing, not
Russian. The Guardian cannot be considered a source of untainted information, it is
increasingly Atlantasist and Zionist.
The Scottish independence vote in 2014 was heavily influenced by digital media but it was
entirely indigenous and grass roots. There was no credible claim of Russian interference then
or since. The Daily Express is a far right rag owned at the time of the article you cite by a
pornographer, and deeply unpleasant Zionist.
Over to a more general discussion.
Is there on any level a Russian state programme using a digital platform to influence
politics and social cohesion in other states? Frankly I would be astonished if there
wasn't.
The UK has had the British Council working out of its embassies since the beginning of
time.
The American State Department has been creating and financing Atlantasist think tanks and
associations for decades to skew British politics to meet American ends.
I doubt there is a country on the planet that has not felt the malign influence of the
State Department or CIA.
In the circumstances, Russia would be entirely justified in operating troll factories and
similar vehicles.
Next, what would the objectives of a Russian cyber operation be in the run up to the
American Presidential election? All academic evaluation of content believed to originate in
Russia and to be presented as domestic American input, suggests that the goal of the
intervention was to sew discord and chaos in society. That is to say that the Kremlin did not
have a favoured candidate.
How effective would the efforts of the St Petersburg troll factory be in exasperating
social divisions? My guess is that it would have been analogous with taking a hair dryer
outside in a category 5 hurricane.
Let us consider the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian delegation. As Steve Bannon
stated, meeting with the Russians at a venue under Secret Service control was monumentally
stupid. Monumentally stupid is entirely believable of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner and possibly
Manafort, but the Russians can't have been that dumb. By meeting at a venue where their names
would be openly logged by the State, they would be sabotaging any serious attempt to "get
their man into the White House", if that was their true goal. Taking this into account, the
object of the meeting from a Russian perspective can only have been to generate chaos.
Seventeen months on in the new administration and if I were them I would be awarding myself
an A+.
Try this though experiment and subdue your moral indignation at Russian interference for a
minute. In the circumstances is Russia entitled to do that which it you accuse it of? I will
not offer an answer to the question I pose, I am genuinely asking that you try and project to
see an alternative perspective.
"The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be
contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside."
This part I cannot agree with, though. I do not think for one second that the FBI made an
"error". The whole lot of them conspired to get Hillary Clinton exonerated of her email
crimes, and then get her elected. They set out purposely and with intent to infiltrate
Trump's campaign, spy on him, leak information and disparage him as much as humanely
possible. Once he did get elected, they set out to impeach him any way they could. The media
has been on side.
This was all done with "intent". They knew from the get-go that there was no Russian
collusion. They made it up. Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the phony Steele dossier,
although this information was not made apparent to the FISA Court.
This has all been an attempted coup to unseat the President of the United States. Criminal
referrals have been made by Horowitz (the Inspector General). Heads are going to roll.
To paraphrase what Hillary said during the campaign: "If they find out what we've done,
we'll all hang."
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:29 am
Further more Conservatives and a leftie, (me) are convinced that the bad actors got busted
using the NSA database in April 2016(look up Admiral Rodgers) and they needed a cover to keep
spying on Trump and retro activly legitimize the NSA query abuse.
Read 70 page summary of FISA abust from judge Collier. .
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Tucker Carlson's three-minute interview with Don Di Genova, former U.S. attorney:
"We know that Hillary Clinton was illegally exonerated. We knew that a year ago. We know
that there was a substantial effort to frame the current President of the United States with
crimes by infiltrating his campaign and then his administration with spies that the FBI had
set upon them. We have learned that the crimes were committed by the FBI, senior members of
the Department of Justice, John Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey and others associated with
the Democratic Party, and that Donald Trump and his associates committed no crimes. [ ]
As of today, I understand that a referral for criminal prosecution has been made by Mr.
Horowitz [Inspector General] to Mr. Huber, who is investigating the FISA leaks, the
unmasking, the leaks of the unmasking, and everything we described tonight. Criminal
referrals have already been made.
l suggest that Mr. Brennan, who loves to make comment about the process, get himself a
good lawyer, not a good writer. [ ]
Yes, NBC News' consultant, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
most partisan hack leader of the CIA in history, needs a very, very good lawyer. [ ] Yes, a
criminal lawyer. He doesn't need a 'slip and fall' lawyer, although he's going to slip and
fall. He's going to be in front of a Grand Jury shortly."
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
"... " . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ." ..."
"... A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence ..."
"... " personally i blame clinton" Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another scapegoat-puppet. ..."
"... It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the division of the world into East and West. ..."
"... In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS. That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept. Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the republicans for the upcoming elections. ..."
Since day one, I felt the entire Russia-gate fiasco was horse excrement. It just never
passed the smell test. My suspicions were confirmed day by day as Mueller came up with
nothing. To my amazement, the MSM pushed the story to the limit with no objectivity, agenda
driven, politically motivated, journalistic suicide. They've shown themselves as the
propaganda outlets they always were, but we were loath to admit.
Robert Emmett , May 19, 2018 at 8:43 am
"They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime
against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame."
That may well be. And Robert Parry meticulously documented such a case. Nevertheless,
their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of
unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and
will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on
and on and on it goes. That's the nature of a infectious culture of lies. The cultured medium
explodes, escapes the lab and runs rampant, leaving those who initiated the whole mess to
scramble in a mad attempt to "save face". It wouldn't surprise me if the H-ill-re eventually
becomes the first, and last, U.S. woman CEO to drop the big one. If you sometimes hear a
faint glug-glug-glug pulsing in your ears, that's the sound of U.S. circling the drain.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:03 am
Very well stated Robert. I like the virus metaphor for propaganda. It's like gossip --
spreading, infecting the gullible with lies .
Rob , May 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Excellent point. As you say, their work is done. The Russiagate meme is now firmly
implanted in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, and nothing short of a public
confession by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that they fabricated the story and
fanned the flames in the media will dislodge it. I cannot envision any other means of killing
this particular virus. All contrary facts and logic will be brushed aside as fake news
created by Russian agents or stooges.
Dave P. , May 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm
Robert Emmet,
" . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been
planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average
consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up
the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ."
Yes. You have summarized it very well. That is how it is in our home too. My wife had been
listening to this for some time, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Putin , Putin, evil Putin
destroying our democracy, and so on on TV and in Newspapers, that it has gone into the
subconscious now. And I read that they, the Ruling Power Structures have done the same to
people in Western Europe too.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 7:54 am
While many of the particulars are correct regaring the paucity of evidence against
associates of the President, the author misses two key points, upon which the entire Mueller
coup operation rests. First, that the campaign against Trump started not in the Clinton
campaign or anywhere related, but rather in London with British intelligence, as the Guardian
itself has boasted. Not only did MI6's Steele prepare the document that formed the basis of
the allegations of "collusion" but it is well known that GCHQ's Hannigan met personally with
Brennan in the summer of 2016 to sound the alarm with a "not yet with it" US intel community.
Second, the basis of the investigation itself hinges on the alleged "hacking" of the
Clinton/DNC emailswhich showed her to be a craven puppet of Wall Street, released just prior
to the Democratic Convention. That entire scenario, that the source of the infamous emails
were a result of "Russian hacking," was conclusively and repeatedly demolished on this
website by fomer top NSA analyst William Binney, and his cohorts at the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Clinton campaign paid Steele to do his thing. Their operation against Trump began the
day after his surprise victory.
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:16 pm
Their operation began long before Trump's victory. It began in earnest just a few days
after Hillary Clinton was wrongfully exonerated, way back in July of 2016.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:29 am
The funniest part of all this nonsense is that the democrats are going to keep this
Illusion of RUSSIAGATE alive until the next elections!
So after the next loss in the upcoming elections we all know who to blame for another
democratic loss, right?!
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 3:34 am
You paint a nearly hopeless picture, Mike.
Let us all trust that Mr. Trump, who, despite the intentions of the Totalitarians outed in
Daniel Lazare's fine summary article, is the DULY ELECTED POTUS (by the common folk -- no one
has made a serious demonstration of vote counting fraud, from my recollections), continues in
office.
The American Experiment (in enlightened governance of, by, and for the governed) is in grave
jeopardy. The enemy of the Enlightenment's fine accomplishment is Monotheism, which is the
philosophical parent of Monarchy, which is the civic governing manifestation of said
religious thought patterns.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 8:52 am
I'll suggest that the "American Experiment" is threatened by money power, more than
religion, although many fundamentalists are deluded to support zionism. Religion is a problem
where it rationalizes simplistic political views, but the root causes are ignorance and
selfishness. Monotheism is not really the problem now that there are few monarchies. The
Enlightenment, and enlightenment of individuals, has many enemies.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:12 am
The enemies of good government are the greedy and powerful oligarchs who hate democracy,
and do everything to distort and destroy it. No need to drag monotheism into it.
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:25 pm
My career was spent working with local rural politics. Good governance is by far imperiled
by corrupt locals on the take.
Also, Stalin did his purging by setting up secret local committees of three, who fed him
names through a beaurocratic pipeline. The Big Guy gets the blame (or credit), but the little
fellas do the dirty work.
Sam F , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 pm
You are very right about local government corruption, which may have factions based upon
tribal loyalties, but is caused by poor moral standards throughout our society. Most local
officials are elected with little or no public knowledge of who they are, and as a result are
mere low-end power-seekers who will abuse whatever power they can get.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 2:50 am
"[The NY Times] article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the
Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000
State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. Instead of
spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was
referring to emails that were already in the news -- a possibility the Times fails to
discuss."
I've been shouting just this at my TV set (oddly, to little effect). And the same goes for
other allegedly damning references to "Clinton emails" in connection with the infamous Trump
Tower meeting and probably elsewhere.
But unfortunately, there are many people who don't care about evidence and rational
inquiry, and they prefer believing in evidencefree conspiracy theories that match their
prejudices. One accusation that is not backed up by any evidence is used to making other
accusations that are not based on evidence look more likely.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:49 am
:lol: " A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence " the good
old PROPAGANDA ! It's alive and kicking
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:47 am
Russia is in fact the only REAL EMPIRE in this world!
They hack and manipulate everything and everyone
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:26 am
Have you checked the number of US overseas military bases recently?
Do you know why the US Congress is called "Israel-occupied territory?"
Don't you love -- love! -- MSM.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Hello Anna!
I know that my written sarcasm is very bad sorry about that! And yes I do love MainShitMedia! Their the best.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 7:08 am
Try defining "hacking an election." The term pretends that a few techies tampered
machines.
In the US the election machine makers do that, no doubt, but not likely elsewhere. The US has a very long history of manipulating elections throughout the world and in the
US.
Even while it pretends to be "promoting democracy" it is installing dictators and faking
elections.
The ultimate election hack is allowing big money to control mass media and political
campaigns, as in the US.
Only when we restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited contributions will we
restore democracy.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 am
Washington and its media tools have hacked this guy's brain is what it amounts to.
They could tell the American public anything and have it believed, like, for instance,
that the ideal gas law does not apply to inflated footballs in cold weather.
Realist , May 21, 2018 at 3:32 am
Correction: All your unfounded assertions are bogus. Just read this one simple piece that just came out for the accurate course of events.
While I am fully on board with rubbishing Russia-gate as malignant nonsense, I do think it
may be a mistake to rely too much on there turning out to be no nefarious nexus between Trump
and Russia.
In Trump we have someone devoid of knowledge, sense, or character, an almost altogether
wrong guy -- very much including his views on U.S. foreign policy -- who for some reason has
a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and Putin (though, of course, he has
mostly gone along with the anti-Russia Beltway consensus in his actions as president when
pressured).
It's possibly it's just an isolated, unexplained instance of Trumpian sanity, but to me
it's at least as likely to be the result of greed or fear, based on some grubby link to
Russia that is as yet undisclosed.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:43 am
"who for some reason has a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and
Putin".
Maybe the reason is that Putin is one of history's penultimate statesman who presents the
strongest opposition to the global war/banking beast and last bastion of hope? Time
magazine's Most Powerful Man of the Year (or something like that as I wouldn't be caught dead
reading it.
So does that make Trump a puppet for Russia or a keen observer?
David G , May 19, 2018 at 11:54 am
Do you think Cheeto Dust really capable of appreciating Putin for the reasons you
cite?
"Keen" isn't a word that springs to my mind when I think of Trump.
backwardsevolution , May 20, 2018 at 2:32 am
David G -- maybe you need to oil your springs. When you're trying to navigate your way
through the swamp, you tend to notice capable players who are doing it and admire them for
it.
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:28 am
Let's begin with Uranium One and the $500.000 fee for a half-hour speech by Bill.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 pm
I am also a Green voter. When the choice became Hillary vs Donald that -- for me -- was
the last straw. I de-registered as a Democrat and registered as a Green.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:32 am
Good for you Mike. I refuse to be a part of the "lesser of two evils" gambit any longer.
Let's hope we can build a movement.
andrew , May 18, 2018 at 10:40 pm
the core accusations are
1. that the russians hacked the dnc, there is no evidence and no basis for this accusation.
none.
2. that the russians spread a deadly fake news virus that was incredibly damaging to
hillary's campaign. there is no evidence of this and it is a completely ridiculous idea if
one just stops for a moment to contemplate the astronomical amount of fake news available at
all times on the internet and television. what was the fake news lie that was so supremely
effective? nobody knows. there wasn't one. there was for hillary unfortunately a real news
truth about the dnc released by wikileaks but that was not from russians or a lie.
3. that the russians hacked the election. again absolutely no proof or evidence of this has
been offered.
it is in fact a political witch hunt that has been incredibly destructive. it has
distracted energy and attention away from real things that have happened. it has instigated
proxy warfare with russia in syria. it has discredited journalism. it has made an honest man
out of trump.
personally i blame clinton. this mendacious , self defeating , and bizarre ruse is so in
keeping with so many of her and bill's greatest hits. these two people continue to damage the
progressive movement . they won't go away it would seem. i hope after russiagate sputters to
a stop the clintons will finally be finished.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 am
well said, andrew
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:37 am
A Witch Hunt, alright! Not FOR a witch, but BY a witch.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:51 am
" personally i blame clinton"
Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another
scapegoat-puppet.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 11:41 am
Yes, all true but you fail to identify the cause, which goes well beyond naming Russia as
an excuse for Hillary's defeat. It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt
pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with
Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the
division of the world into East and West.
Jeff , May 19, 2018 at 11:59 am
Thanx, Andrew. You wrote the comment I was going to write. I do, however, have one nit.
Russia-gate has not made an honest man out of Trump. Nothing could make an honest man out of
Trump. He is nothing but an incompetent con artist whose real skill was getting people to
lend him money after he had blown it all on bad deals and lousy management. I personally
suspect that the connection between Trump and Russia is not with the Russian government but
with the Russian oligarchs who are laundering their ill-gotten gains looting Russian state
enterprises through Trump.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:28 pm
The slimy rats always indulge in phony alibis for their criminal tricks. They should be
investigated and charged with falsely accusing an elected President, in order to unseat him.
Anyone who votes for a "democrat" in the future is just a simple clueless idiot. Trump is a
horrible President, but this does not justify the criminal conspiracy to unseat him through
slander and innuendo lacking any evidence whatever. The appointment of a "special council"
was meant to change the result of the presidential election, and nothing else.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm
If Trump were to be impeached on the basis of this phony witch hunt, it would be the end
of whatever semblance we have of a democracy forever. The whole affair reminds me of the
criminal removal of the President of Brazil recently.
Al Pinto , May 19, 2018 at 11:01 am
In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS.
That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept.
Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the
republicans for the upcoming elections.
The results of the investigations, actual and/or
fabricated, will be invaluable campaign material for the democrats. Especially with the help
of the main stream media, it's going to very effective headlines to grab the limited
attention that most people in the US have for politics
Sam F , May 18, 2018 at 10:10 pm
The Russia-gate hysteria worked fine as a distraction from Israel-gate.
All of Hillary's top ten donors were zionists, and Trump appointed Goldman Sachs to run the
economy.
Not that KSA, the MIC, or WallSt et al lost any bribery chances.
Russia-gate also pressured Trump into the zionist camp. Just what Israel ordered.
Of course the US mass media are almost entirely owned by zionists.
Mission accomplished; time to backtrack; we never really said that.
"... Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI. The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news. ..."
"... Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it. ..."
"... I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super multi-million dollar lotto. ..."
"... The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia, and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking? ..."
"... No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals. ..."
It also seems that Yahoo also has the total (if not enthusiastic) support of Putin these
days. Pretty tough to buck Israel and achieve peace in the Middle East when it has the full
support of both the American Zionist oligarchs and the Russian Zionist oligarchs (who harbor
most of their wealth in the West and represent the Atlanticist faction in Russia, in other
words play for team USA) who probably comprise the largest and most influential power
factions in both countries. No wonder AIPAC is the most powerful lobby whose existence is
vehemently denied. If it comes to pass, World War III may essentially be fought because of
perceived grievances by thin-skinned megalomaniacs like Adelson and Browder and their ability
to wrap politicians around their pinkies using their billions in wealth. I think the Russians
especially dislike being played by con-men like Browder, who gets full support from the
bought-off American Congress.
Excellent in the facts and your conclusions. It is difficult to imagine what you have done
in so few words -- summarize so clearly what became a maze of groundless speculation early on
only to end as major byzantine monument to almost nothing but empty accusation, political
invective, widespread loose talk and media posturing/gossiping. You described, in the end, a
failed circus of second-rate illusions.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Times used to be a credible source of information. Now, I won't even read Times
article unless it is on an issue in which I am very well versed. I simply don't want to be
propagandized. And when I read an article in a matter in which I am well versed, I am often
outraged at the slants and selective omissions.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:22 am
I have come to the conclusion that they are all bad, and that this constant pounding of
Russia interference in our American political establishments is nonsense.
Whether it be Russia-Gate or Uranium One scandals, it always leads back to Russian
collusion, or how Putin is hell bent on subverting American democracy. It's like the word
come down from a Bilderberg high echelon get together where the supreme elite said, 'now you
political puppies go fight amongst yourselves but remember Putin is our target'. After all
Putin's handling of the Rothschild oligarchs is enough to get even the most least powerful
leaders into hot water, let a lone the world's other nuclear super power. So Putin must
go.
So while Palestinians this week died protesting their confinement, N Korea was insulted
away from the negotiating table over a Gaddafi inspired threat, as Europeans looked for
another currency to replace the U.S. Dollar, our American news media gave little time to
those news stories, as it stayed stuck on Russia-Gate, or as FOX is attempting to do with
their trying to launch a Hillary investigation into her poor use of computer servers added to
her selling off uranium stock, we Americans are isolated by what really should matter. Please
keep your eyes on the center ring, for what's around it doesn't matter, is the mantra.
What I'm saying, is that these scandals are in house fights, and that the MSM's
circumventing of any real news, is just another way to dumb us Americans down. Not to say
that investigating political chicanery isn't a priority, but should these investigations be
so overwhelmingly reported over any or all other news? If you answered no to that, then
should we next begin to wonder to what we are not being told, is exactly the very news we
should be talking about?
Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation
progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI.
The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting
anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news.
It's possible, I suppose, that Mueller will come up with something before November, but
there's no sense of inevitability. How could there be? Sixty three American citizens voted
for Trump. Bad news for the country, bad news for Clinton, bad news for the MSM, bad news for
the Deep State. Ironies abound.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm
The one comparison between 1973 and 2018, is that they have the exact same calendar dates.
In my mind, the only thing WaterGate has in common with Russia-Gate is that the MSM likes to
say that the two scandals are the same. And why not, when you are huckstering the news to
sell insurance and pharmaceutical commercials?
WaterGate was of course a break in, and finding Nixon's involvement was key. Russia-Gate
wasn't a break in, and as Mueller's Investigation is struggling to find Russian collusion,
Mueller gives the impression that he's on to something, when eventually we find out he has
nothing. I mean the WaterGate investigation started out with the knowledge that there was a
break in, but the Russia-Gate investigation began with lots of allegations with no proof to
be found. WaterGate didn't, at least in my opinion, start out as a fishing expedition, but
the Russia-Gate Investigation was not only a fishing expedition in as much as it has been a
deep sea fishing trip at its best.
You pointed out the voter support of Trump phillip but might I reference you to the many
who didn't vote, or at least the bunches of voters who left the presidential pick a blank?
America is broken phillip, every institution and every agency which operates inside of it is
too. In my estimation to make it right we Americans will need to go back to starting from
scratch. Let it begin!
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about
collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed
hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it.
What is comparable to Watergate, but a hundred times worse, is what is trickling out now
and what the media have gone out of their way to cover up -- the plot by James Comey and
other members of the FBI, John Brennan and others in the CIA, Clapper, the Department of
Justice (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton) to overthrow a
duly-elected President.
The Inspector General's report on the FBI and the Department of Justice's role in all of
this is apparently damning. Some of these people may end up in jail.
I think Russiagate was invented because, as Hillary said, "If they find out what we've
done, we'll all hang." She was trading favors with foreign governments in exchange for cash
into the Clinton Foundation. That's why she was using a private server. She didn't want to
use the government servers as they would have a back-up of her files, and when you're intent
on stealing, the last thing you want is a "back-up" of your dirty dealings.
All of this Russiagate insanity has been one great big deflection away from the true
crimes.
It looks like all of them are going to have a date with a Grand Jury.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:03 pm
I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a
free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe
that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as
Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super
multi-million dollar lotto.
The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the
Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7
anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia,
and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and
Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing
the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking?
I'm tired of the constant insinuating that Trump is a Putin puppet, as I'm also
experiencing fatigue over Hillary's being continually left off the hook. Although even more
so, I'm sick of all of them, I'm just venting over our sad state of us citizens being well
informed.
Good to hear from you backwardsevolution. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need
investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day,
is all I'm asking?"
Yes, you are so right, Joe, because those other issues are what the average American
really cares about: the price of health care and housing, and whether they're going to be
able to put food on the table.
Of course, had Donald Trump been colluding with the Russians, that certainly would have
been of importance to the country, but they've been looking under every rock for almost two
years now and haven't found anything. Well, Stormy Daniels did pop up, but, hey, Trump never
professed to be an angel. All they've done is tied him up in knots and prevented him from
dealing with the important issues. They have also left far too many Americans with the
impression that he's a traitor when he's not, and by holding these charges above his head,
they've probably pushed him into doing things that he wouldn't ordinarily have done.
If what I'm hearing about the Inspector General's report is anything close to the truth,
then these people (the Deep State people I mentioned above) tried to overthrow a sitting
President. These people are running a parallel government. That is very dangerous and will
have to be dealt with severely, with criminal charges.
Hey, Joe, on that happy note, you have a good night.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 10:37 pm
I'm suffering from RussiaGate fatigue, like I said. I never bought into the Russian
collusion thing. I'm more bothered by the forever nonsense the MSM has us on, where there is
no closure. I mean you sit and listen to people like Rachel go through their hysterics and
after 20 minutes per monologue she gives you nothing.
The Hillary crimes are frustrating because nothing comes of her getting to meet the hard
justice she deserves. Seriously this evil witch starts a civil war withinside of our
governments bureaucracy, and yet no one hears that much about it the way it's going down. On
the other hand Donald Trump for mostly the bad of it, gets news coverage beyond what any
America politician ever gets, and we're suppose to believe we are operating on normal.
No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of
itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good
guys, or gals.
I might add Trump's Middle East policies among his other hard nosed geopolitical endeavors
leaves me exhausted trying to figure him out. Hillary should no doubt be in jail, but here we
are still on the down low and nothing seems to be working as it should.
Thanks, I do value your opinion. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 11:38 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals."
Yes, I agree. One good thing about Trump's presidency is that it has exposed the Deep
State actors. These are the people who run the government, not the President, and it doesn't
matter who is elected. If you don't play along, you're Kennedy'd! That's why so few good
people ever vie for top positions; you get hammered.
Joe, the World Cup is coming and all is well! I'm going to knock off, watch some old
videos, and get myself psyched up. Good talking to you, Joe, as always.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:06 am
Watergate was focussed. Iran-Contra was focussed. Underlings were convicted in both on
charges directly related to the main issues. Nixon resigned and Reagan retired, the Congress
not having the will to impeach him, which would have been politically unpopular.
"Out-of-the-loop" Bushdaddy saved himself from later impeachment by pardoning some key
cabinet members under Reagan (most notably Caspar Weinberger). In contrast, Whitewater
blossomed into a full-blown fishing expedition, as has so-called Russiagate. Ken Starr didn't
just investigate a land deal or management of the White House travel office, but went over
the lives of both Clinton's with a fine tooth comb, eventually precipitating impeachment
charges over a stained blue dress. Now, I suppose, the Clinton's and their Democratic
adherents feel that turnabout is fair play, though it is undoubtedly just as divisive and
destructive to the country as their go round. The woman has obviously been traumatized during
her years in the public arena and in the aftermath of the election, but she does the country
a great disservice by pushing her vendetta.
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:09 am
The Clinton pass was always going to be a problem, and many people knew that going into
the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign. This didn't stop Hillary though. Why, many here on
this comment board wrote with good reason why the Clintons should remain in retirement, but
oh no Hillary was going to run come hell or high water. Only a sociopath would overlook so
many good reasons of why not to run.
Great perspective Realist. One would think you had a scientific mind . oh wait you do.
Joe
As I'm sure others commenters on this site will note, those guilty of trying to create a
lynch mob and encourage hysteria, will as with Iraq WMD's, emerge unscathed, even more
honored for their service to America. And with and increasing number of Americans, we will
feel more and more that you cant believe anything anymore and that is a disastrous position
to be in for a nation.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 9:59 am
Herman, it has always been a mistake to rely on belief without careful examination. Plato
said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Discerning the truth is intellectual work
-- something our false educational system does not teach us to do. Those who learn to sort
things out and demand the real truth are mostly self-educated. To wake others up who have
been taught to conform and accept authorities, is a lengthy and often thankless task. The
tenacity with which many hold onto their false beliefs, is a formidable obstacle to creating
a new and better society. I wish I knew a way to accomplish this awakening of our fellows,
but I do not. We are left with the option of shortcuts, which are no better than new forms of
propaganda to compete with those our subjects have already incorporated in their thinking and
character. Following a new leader or movement seems the most one can expect from our
brainwashed brothers and sisters
"... In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry. ..."
"... We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military. ..."
"... The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own the megaphone. ..."
"... From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party) into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout we are now on the hook for. ..."
"... How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors. ..."
"... So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War. ..."
"... The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all. ..."
"... Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah, sure, whatever you say. ..."
"... It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line. ..."
"... Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the off shore industry is. ..."
"... I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats " ..."
"... Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. ..."
The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which
was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain
more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy.
In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election
process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia
and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry.
We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation
or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into
a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and
contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military.
Trump won because the media cleaned up big time by playing the Super PACs for suckers just as deregulation of the big banks enabled
them to clean up by merging savings banks with investment banks which moved all the savings banks deposits into risky investments.
There is a clear and present danger born out and evidenced by former economic collapses that the media and the big financial institutions
will create public relations campaigns based on the mantra of deregulation to swindle Americans even further. They have a proven
ability to use their power to persuade Americans that some other reason is responsible for the latest swindle.
The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own
that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own
the megaphone.
From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government
into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party)
into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout
we are now on the hook for.
How many media/news organizations signed onto the Tea Party after the implosion of the banking industry and beat the drums to
grant tax breaks for billionaires? All of them.
How many of the media corporations beat the drums to blame Russia for the election results which resulted in sanctions against
Russia and a new Cold War with Russia which resulted in windfall profits for the defense industry? All of them.
How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY
Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors.
The facts are clear in all of these major failures of our free press to get it right. In every case the media have conspired to
fool most of the people into believing the lies of the government and the financial sectors published by main stream press as facts
which are giant falsehoods.
The result of this collaboration between the press and the wealth in our nation has been to deceive us and to lead us down paths
that twist our understanding to a new understanding that benefits the wealthy in times of prosperity and in times of crisis.
So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system
is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be
countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War.
The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on
savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia
Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all.
CitizenOne – "'They got it wrong' is a testament of their ability to fool us."
Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah,
sure, whatever you say. They can't come out and inform us that they lied from the get-go because that would prove intent to deceive,
so they cover up their tracks by saying they made an "error" whenever things fall apart, as they knew they would.
It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions
are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line.
Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Citizen One – Excellent post. Very informed comments indeed.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:15 am
Citizen One-
Great post. It reminded me of a joke I saw the other day:
"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there
is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Partier and says, "look out
for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."
munchma quchi , May 19, 2018 at 11:51 pm
re: "Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a
formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in
order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer: " [You (the author) did not include a disclaimer. please remedy this.]
F. G. Sanford , May 20, 2018 at 9:39 am
Ms. Quchi,
I think the disclaimer said that intelligence assessments are based on sources, methods and interpretations and rely on raw data.
It's raw, so it has to be properly marinated until it's fit for consumption. Addenda to the disclaimer indicate that the Intelligence
Community will not accept outrageous conspiracy theories, noting specifically that, "They hate us for our freedom, and those weapons
of mass destruction must be here somewhere." It's the standard "release from liability" which accompanies all official narratives.
Kinda like eating tuna fish: It's pretty good once you get past the smell.
Chet Roman , May 20, 2018 at 11:35 am
Page 13 of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017
explains: "High confidence does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong. Judgments
are not intended to imply that we have proof that show something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
robert e williamson jr , May 19, 2018 at 7:35 pm
Dan I really can not disagree with much you have to say here. Except there are a few things about this whole affair that bug
the hell out of me. For instance the fact that the village idiot from new york spent over $400 million in cash the last 9 years
before he ran for president.
Your effort here sounds quite a lot like whining about having nothing to report. Calm down these things take time. If Russia
isn't to blame fine but Mueller is not talking and seems to be conducting himself very professionally.
Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering
money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane
Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the
off shore industry is.
Trump like doing business with Russians during a time when Russian oligarchs were hiding the money they pulled from the Soviet
coffers. I think it has gotten him in trouble.
Also interesting is the accounts of what has happen with the Inslaw / PROMIS case and Bill Hamilton. Was this software and
early version of what CIA and NSA use to monitor the world now?
One last thing in your last paragraph here you claim the Dimocraps have gone off the deep end with the Russian Connection thing.
Dan the dimocraps went off the deep end with their undying allegiance to Israel. And they do little damned else.
When this is finished if CIA allows the release of the Dogdamned files maybe we will learn what happened. Chill my brotha !
kntlt , May 20, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Listen to this man.
drC , May 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm
"The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats" have committed FAR MORE than a mere "crime against journalism".
For kryssakes, this isn't a debating society at Yale! They have provoked international tensions, suspicions and distrust that
have pushed the world far closer to the brink of a third world war, damaging national economies across the globe & negatively
impacting the lives of millions.
jose , May 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm
I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this
administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms
to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik
to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative
to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats "
Since the US national media have been
aware of the lack of solid evidence against Russia allege meddling case, they now want to pretend it has not been their fault.
Their sheer dishonesty underscores their deviant reporting.
ranney , May 19, 2018 at 5:54 pm
Joe, Abe, Andrew, Sam, Mike,
You are all correct in blaming the MSM for ignoring Israel in all this and whitewashing the main cause of our problems in the
middle east. I agree that Russia has not been interfering in our politics any more than virtually all the other countries in the
world who have embassys here and things they want to "lobby" for. I believe spying is universal and the US does it more than most,
but everyone does it including Russia (and UK, France Germany Israel, Ukraine and on and on for everyone on the map).
What I find increasingly strange is the fact that the MSM and just about everyone else is ignoring the fact that Trump did indeed
have business with Russia. He was trying to get permission and financial backing for a Trump tower to be built in Moscow. and
he had been trying for a while before he even thought of running for president. THAT is what his now indicted lawyer was doing
initially, along with others in Trump's employ. That is why there is indeed evidence of contact with Russians during the pre-
campaign and during the campaign as well. Trump didn't want to lose this lucrative deal which, also involves money laundering
and other illegal, and/or shady dealings.
I can't figure out why Muller hasn't subpoenaed or somehow got hold of Trump's tax returns. I'm pretty sure he'd find all the
crimes we need to impeach him.
Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of
world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. And I can't help but wonder why Muller is slow walking this whole investigation.
I'm pretty sure he can see what I can see. Trump is a crooked, money launderer, ultra con man with his Trump towers and other
ploys, and too dumb and ignorant of history and science to understand how dangerous the game he plays is to the world when he
has the power of the presidency. But Muller knows that! So what else is really going on that explains why he has moved at snails
pace to stop the damage?
Does anyone have a good guess at that? I'd really like to read it.
Several FBI agents would like Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and
reveal dirt on former FBI Director James Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, reports the
Daily Caller , citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe
DiGenova.
" There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James]
Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like
[John] Brennan –who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political
intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told
The Daily Caller Tuesday.
" They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify ."
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent
him in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due to conflicts , has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by The Caller .
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower ,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
The subpoena is preferred, said diGenova, " because when you are subpoenaed, Congress then
pays for your legal counsel and the subpoena protects [the agent] from any organizational
retaliation . they are on their own as whistleblowers, they get no legal protection and there
will be organizational retaliation against them."
DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have long represented government whistleblowers.
Most recently, Toensing became council for William D. Campbell, the former CIA and FBI
operative that was
deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry - only to be smeared by the Obama
administration when he gathered evidence of two related bribery schemes involving Russian
nuclear officials, an American trucking company, and efforts to route money to the Clinton
Global Initiative (CGI) through an American lobbying firm in order to overcome regulatory
hurdles, according to reports by The Hill and Circa .
diGenova told the Daily Caller that asking for a Congressional subpoena is "an intelligent
approach to the situation given the vindictive nature of the bureau under Comey and McCabe . I
have no idea how to read Chris Ray who is not a leader and who has disappeared from the public
eye during this entire crisis. You know he may be cleaning house but if he's doing so, he's
doing it very quietly."
"I don't blame them," added diGenova. " I don't blame the agents one bit. I think that the
FBI is in a freefall . James Comey has destroyed the institution he claims to love. And it is
beyond a doubt that it is going to take a decade to restore public confidence because of Comey
and Clapper and Brennan and Obama and Lynch."
Meanwhile, the agent from the Washington field office says that rank and file FBI agents are
"fed up" and desperately want the DOJ to take action, according to transcripts of the
interview.
"Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey," said the
agent.
"The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a
whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership . Go against the Muslim
Brotherhood, you're crushed. Go against the Clintons, you're crushed. The FBI has long been
politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement."
The special agent added, " Activity that Congress is investigating is being stonewalled by
leadership and rank-and-file FBI employees in the periphery are just doing their jobs . All
Congress needs to do is subpoena involved personnel and they will tell you what they know.
These are honest people. Leadership cannot stop anyone from responding to a subpoena. Those
subpoenaed also get legal counsel provided by the government to represent them."
Meanwhile, the former Trump administration official who spoke with The Caller explained that
the FBI's problems go way beyond Comey and McCabe.
" They know that it wasn't just Comey and McCabe in this case. That's too narrow a net to
cast over these guys. There's a much broader corruption that seeped into the seventh floor at
the bureau ."
" They ruined the credibility of the bureau and the technical ability of the bureau, so
systemically, over the past several years, they're worried about their organizational
reputation and their professional careers."
Was Rosenstein-Comey-Mueller gambit so called "insurance" about which Strzok told Lisa Page ? It looks more and more
likely that it was. So Trump was declared illegitimate president by intelligence community even before he was elected. And
actions against him were actins typically done during color revolutions by the State Department and CIA. Role of FBI
in "regime change" efforts was to implement directives from those agencies. It is doubtful that FBI acted as an independent
player.
Notable quotes:
"... The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue. Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it. ..."
"Stopping Robert Mueller to protect us all" [Mark Penn (!), The
Hill ]. "Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation
became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who
ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again. Its prosecutions
have all been principally to pressure witnesses with unrelated charges and threats to family,
or just for a public relations effect, like the indictment of Russian internet trolls.
Unfortunately, just like the Doomsday Machine in 'Dr. Strangelove; that was supposed to save
the world but instead destroys it, the Mueller investigation comes with no 'off' switch: You
can't fire Mueller. He needs to be defeated, like Ken Starr, the independent counsel who
investigated President Clinton. Finding the 'off' switch will not be easy. Step one here is for
the Justice Department inspector general report to knock Comey out of the witness box. Next,
the full origins of the investigation and its lack of any real intelligence needs to come out
in the open." ( Penn was a
chief strategist and pollster for the 2008 Clinton campaign .)
"End Robert Mueller's investigation: Michael Mukasey" [
USA Today ]. "Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign
had gotten help unlawfully from Russia . Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had worked on
the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy -- Rod Rosenstein --
took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an
appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and
specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring
instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.
Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has
thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it.
In other investigations supposedly implicating a president -- Watergate and Whitewater
come to mind -- we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not
here . Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump
campaign's criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians." I missed that detail
about the lettre
de cachet aspect of the appointment memo
"The FBI Informant Who Wasn't Spying" [Editorial Board,
Wall Street Journal ]. "Could a Trump FBI task agents to look into the foreign ties of
advisers to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2020?"
"Hayden: The Intel Community and Presidents -- Facts vs. Vision" [
RealClearPolitics ]. Hayden on Presidential transitions and the intelligence community:
"HAYDEN : We knew that if it were to be a President Trump this [transition] would be a big
speed bump because these attributes I described over here, I think the creator gave him an
extra measure. He is inherently instinctive, spontaneous, not very reflective, prone to
action, has an almost preternatural view of his own preternatural confidence in his own a
priori narrative of how things work. So we well, this one's gonna be tough. To your point, it
is a national tragedy and a perfect storm that the first time we had to do that with the new
president, we knew it's always tough but it was gonna be especially tough with this one,
through no one's fault, it was on an issue as you described. An issue that other
Americans, not the intel guys, other Americans were using to challenge his legitimacy of
President of the United States ."
Facebook is hoping that a new alliance with the Atlantic Council -- a leading geopolitical
strategy think-tank seen as a de facto PR agency for the U.S. government and NATO military
alliance – will not only solve its "fake news" and "disinformation" controversy, but will
also help the social media monolith play "a positive role" in ensuring democracy on a global
level.
The new partnership will effectively ensure that Atlantic Council will serve as Facebook's
"eyes and ears," according to a company press statement. With its leadership comprised of
retired military officers, former policymakers, and top figures from the U.S. National Security
State and Western business elites, the Atlantic Council's role policing the social network
should be viewed as a virtual takeover of Facebook by the imperialist state and the council's
extensive list of ultra-wealthy and corporate donors.
The partnership is only the latest in a steady stream of announced plans by the Menlo Park,
California-based company to address controversy surrounding its role in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. The company has been mired in scandal stemming from the allegations of
"election interference" carried out through the social network – usually pinned on the
Russian government and ranging from the use of independent media to the theft of Facebook user
data by political consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica.
The announcement should sound alarm bells when one considers the Atlantic Council's list of
sponsors – including, but not limited to, war-profiteering defense contractors; agencies
aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; Gulf Arab tyrants; major transnational corporations;
and such well-loved Western philanthropic brands as Carnegie, Koch, Rockefeller, and Soros.
Even the name of the group itself is meant to evoke the North Atlantic Council, the highest
political decision-making body of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Full report: https://www.mintpressnews.com/facebook-partners-hawkish-atlantic-council-nato-lobby-group-protect-democracy/242289/
"... Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for. ..."
"... Presumably the op would have allowed HRC to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right? ..."
Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests
that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any
sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests
being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for.
That's what I'm thinking. It is apparent the "The Mueller Investigation" is - firstly - a
major distraction. It is also apparent that it doesn't make any headway, lead to any
conclusions or indictments of any big fish.
Re: Mueller. If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was
undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you
never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA
coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump.
Presumably the op would have allowed HRC
to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been
undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that
HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with
UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of
Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right?
The other possibility being that the operation was demanded by Trump winning the Republican
primary, as a kind of insurance policy. He being the only candidate who could not be
predictably counted on to follow the anti-Putin hard liners in the Military-intelligence
community, something needed to be done to ensure that, on the off chance that he won, the
anti-Russian measures already being planned for would not be affected.
So it is perhaps
unlikely that this op would have been necessary had, say, Jeb Bush or Rubio won the primary.
What made it necessary was the unknown quantity that Trump represented. This would mean,
again, that the op was not so much partisan (Dem v Rep) as it was about ensuring continuity
of military-intelligence decisions in face of relatively unknown entity. Had Bush won the R
nomination, there would have been no op because the Bush family like the Clintons are down
for whatever.
There is no question that Trump of over his head and folded early on, adopting the deep state
foreign policy in even more militant incarnation the under Obama.
All those moves about "Russiagate" now is an empty sound or a cat fight of the faction of the
US elite for contracts and sinecures in government.
Notable quotes:
"... Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal, immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc. ..."
"... From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the "deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like Mister Rogers? ..."
"... Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial "foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military adventurism for example? As far as I know, no. ..."
"... Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion. These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their screen. ..."
"... How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the first place. ..."
"... So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation" but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters, investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he loves the vacations, etc.? ..."
"... The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political theater. ..."
"... Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper. ..."
"... Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/ BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years, a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal. ..."
"... Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or challenge the establishment. ..."
"... If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them. ..."
"... In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level. ..."
"... Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very definition of a spy. ..."
"... The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them. ..."
"... Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began. ..."
"... That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition. ..."
So, help me out here – the only reason the NYT is even reporting on this is because
Congress was closing in on this turd's identity, right?
"F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they
received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the
campaign.
"Suspicious contacts" = Russians who talked to Trump's employees.
So the FISA surveillance, the national-security letters, the FBI informants and 18
months of relentless probing-harassment have all been justified on the basis of allegations
about Russia hacking that may or may not have happened at all??
The one silver lining to all of this is that the GOP can to absolutely DRAG the Democrats
about this in the next election. If the GOP is smart, they will not listen to a goddamn word
coming out of the mouths of the Democrats or their (((Big Media))) mouthpieces during the
2020 election. They will not respond to a single point they have to make, except to call them
hopelessly corrupt authoritarians who are unfit to govern until they come clean about their
malfeasance and cut the rot from their ranks, and then spout their other talking points and
drop the mic.
"According to people familiar with (General Michael) Flynn's visit to the intelligence
seminar, the source was alarmed by the general's apparent closeness with a Russian woman
who was also in attendance. The concern was strong enough that it prompted another person
to pass on a warning to the American authorities that Mr. Flynn could be compromised by
Russian intelligence, according to two people familiar with the matter."
*Facepalm*
These fucks are beyond parody now. We're literally ruled by corrupt morons, stooges, and
degenerates.
"The cockblocking/penis-envy concern was enough for Stasi agents to follow up "
I would be shocked if both political party's didn't have a myriad of spies in each other's
campaigns dating back to Lincoln! Grow up people, there's a ton of money here.
Rod Rosenstein is a traitorous weasel POS who never should've been appointed. Christopher
Wray worked as a deputy to James Comey and is highly likely dirty and another deep state
puppet. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, McConnell, Pompeo, John Kelly, Kirstjen Nielsen, Gina Haspel,
John Bolton, Nikki Haley, all are deep state puppets. Why does Trump keep appointing more
deep state puppets to take over from the other deep state puppets?
I cannot for the life of me understand why Jeff Sessions continues to stick up for
Rosenstein the weasel. My only explanation is that this whole thing is a coup set up by Deep
State and Mike Pence from the get go so Pence can be president, and Sessions is in on the
coup to keep his job.
I did not know it was Rosenstein's memo that prompted Trump to fire James Comey. Trump
needs to bring that out in the open and let everyone know Rosenstein set him up. This POS
weasel needs to go to jail. As long as he's still in the DOJ no real investigation of deep
state will ever take place. We've got the fox guarding the hen house.
It notes that all the corporate media knows it was Halper, but they obey the Deep State
and refuse to report this, pretending that evil Republicans are trying to out an innocent FBI
spy. Even today, their coverage is "alleged" informant. For some reason, NBC News was the
only "mainstream" team to ignore this absurd BS and report his name as part of the biggest
news story of the decade. Note that Halper is not a Democratic Party mole, but a Bush family
mole.
Doesn't Mueller have the self-respect to end his witch hunt and crawl back under a
rock?
A very strong move by President Trump. It is a fact that the FBI sent an informant, Mr.
Halper, to gather information on the Trump campaign. The FBI can plead it was to gather info
on alarming Russians, but the informant my gather other info just as easily. If the FBI can
send one, Halper, they can just as easily send another, or more unknown informants. This
RussiaGate nonsense has always been a matter to be tried in the court of public opinion, by
innuendo. Therefore President Trump's investigation can use the "have you stopped beating
your wife?" method. Every time the FBI says no to a question it looks like they are lying to
cover something bigger. Informants have Control Officers, who write reports to superiors, the
reports make reference to code words, places and dates. Reports generate memos and orders.
Everything becomes fuel for innuendo and the only out the FBI will have is "We honestly
thought .but no, we found nothing".
A point well made in qualification of the merits of the article. Surely the author knows
on reflection that no political party or campaign is going to forgo the chance of getting
inside information on what their opponents are up to, including crimes – and
spying.
Since Trump could do some shuffling so as to appoint an Attorney-General who wouldn't
recuse himself or get rid of Rosenstein by appointing him a judge, or ambassador just for
example maybe it is best to assume that the President doesn't feel immediately threatened and
is reasonably confident that he can find and time his countermeasures satisfactorily. It is
hardly beyond belief that there are Trump moles in Mueller's army who are assuring him that
his instinct is right: apparent witch hunting persecution by Mueller is actually a harmless
distraction and so good for him until the time is right to blow it up.
Considered in its entirety, this Trump/Russia business is indeed turning into the political
crime (& shame) of the century. Were someone who had died in the 50′s to suddenly
resurrect, they would suffer the equivalent of a psychotic episode or a bad LSD trip.
Its mind boggling to anyone even vaguely conscious .
Mr Trump needs to clean house: politiclly difficult, yes, but Trump needs to visit a Lehman
Bros' moment on the DOJ, CIA & FBI.
No doubt the above toxic agencies will (again) spew forth the magic word:
"Russia-Russia-Russia" to render all opposition impotent.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice the
stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and –
finally – act .
Trump has surrounded himself with lifer Deep Staters who no doubt tell him that
investigations and prosecutions will do grave harm to national security and, at the same
time, would appear to be his own politically motivated witch hunt, the kind one sees only in
third-world basket case countries, and that would reflect more poorly on him than on the
actual cabal attempting to overthrow him and overturn his election.
But the actual collusion has become so obvious that he has to pull the trigger, because
nobody else is going to. Sessions should have been all over this a year ago, but he too is a
long-serving government employee, which suggests he is also of the swamp. As for Congress, a
few brave souls, e.g. Nunes, have tried and have been exposed to withering fire from all
sides.
The purpose of the informant/spy was to "dirty" Page and Papadopoulos; to make them plausible
suspects so that full use of the NSA database could be used on the Trump team both pre- and
post-election and as far back in the past as they wanted to go. The warrants used on Page and
Papadopoulos were counterintelligence warrants that allow using NSA resources on anyone "two
hops" (two people) away from Page and Papadopoulos. "Two-hops" would easily include everyone
near Trump even if Page and Papadopoulos had only minimal contact with the campaign. This is
the heart of the crime. Page and Papadopoulos were used as place-holders to gather
information on everyone near Trump. The informer was used to set those two up.
Trump posting something on Twitter isn't "fighting back"–it's venting steam. As the
article correctly states, letting the DOJ investigate itself is a joke. So Trump needed a
Special Counsel of his own, and he needed him right after his inauguration. It may be that
Trump likes a dose of Russia Scare to push overpriced American weapons and LNG to clueless
Europeans. It may be that he's found out (or at least his people have) that he needs
Deep-State sleaze for his anti-Iran campaign. It may be that Trump well knows he's vulnerable
on nepotism, old NY Mob ties, and oh yeah some sexual peccadilloes, so he better play along
and color within the lines. Or it may simply be that Trump is a moron without the attention
span for anything beyond venting on Twitter.
It doesn't really matter now, the ship has sailed, he's gone too far in with "Putin-Assad
baby killers" to return to sanity now.
"After 18 months of withering attacks and accusations, Donald Trump has decided to get up off
the canvas and fight back."
If "they" are really out to "get" orange clown, why don't "they" go after him for his
impeachable war crimes in Syria, for example? Why don't "they" at least bring a lawsuit
against him for his illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation of Syria?
Generally speaking, when one party ostensibly dislikes another party, and apparently seeks
to "get" that party, isn't there usually some kind of plausible, identifiable reason for the
enmity?
Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations
and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with
Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of
pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal,
immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal
war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already
slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded
himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in
Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more
military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the
reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc.
From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the
"deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like
Mister Rogers?
"In any event, Trump has decided to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. He's
decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing them out
into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny."
Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being
impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial
"foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of
significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military
adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.
3D chess, 4D chess or what is it up to now, 14D chess? Trumpistas have too much faith in
their man. Trump is a businessman not a politician. He's in over his head. Just look at how
easily he was goaded into canning James Comey that set off this whole sorry affair.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice
the stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and
– finally – act.
Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion.
These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their
screen. Most Americans are brain dead sheeple.
"Has the "deep state" deployed a 'lone nut' against him? Apparently not. Is he being
impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial
'foreign policy'? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of
significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military
adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.
So how is anybody actually '[on] his back'?"
Answer: the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him
into a foreign policy that he did not want. He wanted an America First policy, but because of
political blackmail and dishonest allegations about collusion with Russia, Trump has felt
compelled to do what Zionists want in the Middle East. At home, massive legal immigration
continues, there will be no mass deportations, and the border wall will not be built. The
Democrats will be firmly entrenched after Trump is gone from the scene.
"the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him into a
foreign policy that he did not want. "
Or so goes the Trump apologists' claim. But that's pure unfounded speculation.
How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How
can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for
no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the
first place.
So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation"
but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters,
investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a
mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he
loves the vacations, etc.?
I think not. The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole
campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get
Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political
theater.
"In an earlier version of this article I stated that the FBI planted a spy INSIDE the Trump
campaign. This is not correct, which is why I asked editor Ron Unz to remove the article. The
informant was not part of the Campaign but sought information from members of the Campaign."
Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's approaches
were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits would have been
spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper.
Trump is head of the Executive Branch. The DoJ and FBI are part of the executive branch and
subordinate to Trump. He can send 30-40 US Marshals to FBI headquarters, and to DoJ
headquarters, and have them extract by force the necessary documents, and no one can say
"boo!"
I wish he would.
The downside of course is that everyone in the media and in Congress would scream
"tyrant!" So Trump currently is leaving them alone to continue digging their own grave with
the Mueller/Russia witchunt, as the country moves towards the midterm elections.
Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/
BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years,
a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal.
Stefan Halper is one of the creepy-crawly things that have been living under the rock
Donald Trump kicked over.
As Steve Sailer points out, Halper is the son-in-law of CIA man Ray. S. Cline, who was
instrumental in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real
power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All
the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they
step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your
anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and
never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or
challenge the establishment.
9/11 and silence from both sides with regard to a real investigation into the biggest
"terrorist" attack in US History, and the murder of 3000 Americans, this tells you who is in
power, the people that pulled it off. Neither party supports a real investigation into this
attack, they both work for the same people. The fact that the MSM still lies about it means
they are also controlled by the goons. The FBI, CIA lies about it, and Muellers coverup of
the crime tells you all of the "Intelligence" and "Law" enforcement agencies are also
controlled by the same cabal.
Until they start telling the truth about 9/11, you can bet the same goons are still in
charge, no matter who the president is, no matter which Democrat or Republican you elect, the
shadow government, deep state are still calling the shots. If you do vote, vote 3rd party.
The whole election system is rigged to keep out most anyone who might dare to challenge the
establishment, thats why we only get lowlifes like Mitt Romney or the Cintons running for
office year after year, out of millions of people the same dirtbags just won't go away.
Everything else is just noise, distractions from this reality. If Trump really wanted to
change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11
investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from
Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.
If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions
start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors,
all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.
In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real
political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems
quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a
petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It
really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level.
Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's
approaches were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits
would have been spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter,
someone other than Halper.
Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very
definition of a spy.
Hatunggal Muda Siregar, a spokesman for MNC, said the theme park and the Trump
properties are separate projects within the Lido development. The agreement with the
Chinese company to build the theme park does not include any financing for the project, he
said.
Mr. Trump's business dealings in Indonesia prompted scrutiny even before his
inauguration, and he pledged not to embark on any new deals while in office. But the Trump
Organization held onto the projects in Indonesia, saying the contracts with Mr. Hary were
signed in 2015 and were binding.
Yet another nothing burger. This an old deal made before he even ran for president. The
Chinese loan does not extend to building of the Trump properties.
As the article repeatedly pointed out:
There isn't any evidence that the agreement with the construction company was intended
to sway the Trump administration on any matters.
If there's no evidence, why report it at all? To give more ammo to people who are always
for looking for any reason to disparage Trump, and only bother to read headlines.
"It's worth noting, that the current Russia investigation is based on the dubious claim that
Russia hacked DNC computers."
Imran Awan is not Russian, he's a Paki. And he didn't need to hack the DNC, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz let him in and gave him the password. There, huge mystery solved.
"Anyone who refers to Trump as 'orange clown' is obviously partisan to the point of not
worth listening to."
You may be right about that; now that I think about it, it does seem too generous.
How about "teflon-don-the-con-man"; or, "the ignorant orange savage in the White House"?
Of course there's always the Biblical description to fall back on: "the beast from the earth"
(i.e. the second beast of Rev 13); will that work?
Meanwhile, at the same time we also learn that there is evidence that there really was
collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign powers that wanted to see it elected in
return for favorable policies. But, the problem that the Deep State has is that the foreign
powers were not the cartoon-pinup-all-purpose villan of the Russians. No, it was Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
The point of all of this is that the United States is supposed to be a democracy which
means that the government does what the people want it to do. The one thing that we are
seeing is that nobody in Washington wants that. The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of
democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've
instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to
try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them.
But, it turns out Trump was off cutting deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia that now seem
to have the USA headed straight into a disasterous war that was the last thing that voters
wanted. The voters keep electing candidates who claim to be against these wars. The problem
is that they whole bunch of them are a lot of liars, and the one and only thing they are
truly against is democracy and letting the people have a say.
America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all
of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties.
"He's decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing
them out into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny. It's a risky
strategy "
It's the only strategy he can pursue. If he doesn't take the fight out into the open,
where his enemies are vulnerable, they will bury him.
Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and
rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began.
It was a bit before the conventions when those emails leaked. Hillary certainly knew that
they could be the death of her lifelong quest to see how much she could steal as President.
If the Bernie voters were upset that the whole fake primary and caucus process had been
rigged all along and refused to support Hillary, then she was done as a Presidential
contender.
That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and
thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition.
You know it's funny, all those 'conservatives' screaming that Edward Snowden is a traitor,
that we should trust the US government to spy on us in secret because national security
demands it, etc. Because only bad people have something to hide, right?
And now we begin to see exactly what it means when the central government can essentially
spy on anyone for any reason not so wonderful after all, is it?
There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal
is a conservative who's been arrested. I guess a civil libertarian is a national security hawk that's been spied on.
I see your point, bread and circus for the people. I'm more worried about is Israel attacking
Lebanon, tbh, dragging the entire ME in to the conflict ending up with trump/bibi and Erdogan
stumbling us into a ww and/or financial breakdown.
America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all
of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties
Yes indeed we do. The Dems are using the corruption theme, but of course they are
hypocrites also and don't live up to ethical standards either.
Still, maybe an election platform based on ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID ..will open the eyes of
some of our more mentally challenged voters.
Hate always works – Tump pretended he was going to drain the hateful deep state swamp to
save his little people -- -so I guess the Dems can pretend they are going to kill the corrupt
to save the little people.
Democrats Roll Out Anti-Corruption Message for 2018
1 day ago – Instead, Democrats are returning to an anti-corruption message that A
decade later, Trump seized on a similar theme, directing voter ire at
Mueller is the only admirable man in this mess. Trump's problem is he is for once up against
an honest man, someone he cant threaten or bribe or bully.
Trump, as we say in the south, is white trash he is way out of his class with Mueller.
Mueller's investigation isn't going to 'wrap up' soon -- and Trump is still in peril
Anyone paying attention over the last year knows Mueller will not yield to political
pressure. His investigators haven't leaked; they have ignored vicious personal attacks; they
haven't veered in the slightest from prosecutorial professionalism.
So to "wrap it up," Trump would have to make a move, but will he?
The president and his lawyers are strategizing about whether he will agree to be
interviewed by Mueller, either voluntarily or under subpoena. If he were to refuse, as the
current swing of the pendulum suggests, and then try to end the probe, he would only seem
more guilty and undermine his support even among Republicans. If his refusal were to lead, as
expected, to a court battle, we would expect the Supreme Court to settle the issue. Any move
by Trump to preempt it would again only undermine his credibility.
In addition, the president and his circle are well aware of how fast the midterm election
is approaching and what effect an attempt to fire Mueller could have on the outcome. They
want to avoid any action that would help the Democrats flip the House. Such a shift would
change every calculation, not least because a Democratic majority could move to impeach the
president early next year.
Of course, Trump may calculate that he could get away with firing Mueller now, if he moved
quickly and the Republican leadership rallied to his side. But it is equally possible that
Congress would respond with legislation to reinstate Mueller. Again, the field of battle
would shift to the courts.
Most importantly, even a successful ouster of Mueller would not derail the investigation
at this point. Too much evidence has been gathered, and too many prosecutors, who have surely
considered and planned for the contingency, stand ready to carry on. Should Trump try to
shutter the entire special counsel's office, a much graver and politically and legally
riskier act than firing Mueller or Rosenstein, other divisions in the Department of Justice,
in particular the Southern District of New York, would also be ready to take up the
charge.
The strength of all that evidence, the careful work done thus far, and the indictments
already filed are the special counsel's protection against "witch hunt" tweets and
protestations that the investigation is already over with nothing to show for it.
In the course of the past year, we've learned not to underestimate what Mueller knows and
what bombshell he may have prepared. It may involve the Russians and the campaign, it may
involve obstruction of justice, but there are other relevant threads as well: the true motive
behind the Seychelles meeting between Trump associate Erik Prince and the head of a Russian
wealth fund, the hacking of Democratic Party emails and its links to Trump political advisor
Roger Stone, the recent sale of Russia's state owned oil company to Qatar.
Last week we discovered that Mueller was way ahead of us on the huge payments made to
Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen for access to the president. We don't yet know what
he's found out from cooperating witnesses, including Michael Flynn and Rick Gates, that might
point directly at the president. And there is still the possibility that Paul Manafort or
Cohen could decide to cooperate with the investigation.
None of these threads signals Trump's removal from office. A conviction in the Senate, no
matter what happens in the midterm, would require a good number of Republicans to turn
against the president, which seems remote absent a smoking gun that proves grave criminal
conduct. But it is more than plausible that the probe and associated investigations will
result in additional indictments of Trump associates -- including Jared Kushner and Donald
Trump Jr. -- and will leave Trump seriously wounded, an untenable candidate in 2020. Once he
leaves office, his legal exposure, both civil and criminal, would skyrocket.
The "wrap it up" crowd is indulging in wishful thinking. The first anniversary of the
Mueller investigation is unlikely to be the last.
Harry Litman teaches constitutional law at UC San Diego. He is a former U.S. attorney
and deputy assistant attorney general.
"... I am so ashamed of my vote for Trump. He is such a neocon draft dodging neocon coward! I thought I voted for the peace candidate and all we got was Hillary but with WWE style bravado. Thank God for Tulsi! Where is Ron Paul when we need him? I give Rand an A- ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few politicians left with some semblance of conscience. I say if the old men and women want a war so badly, let THEM go fight it, instead of devouring our young. ..."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) spoke on the floor today urging support for her amendment in the
2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that upholds Congress's constitutional power to
declare war. The congresswoman's amendment strikes the language of Section 1225 of the FY2019
NDAA that authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to develop and
implement a strategy to counter the "destabilizing activities of Iran" and only afterwards
inform Congress. The amendment will be on the House floor for a vote tomorrow, May 23.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said:
"Make no mistake – the authorization in Section 1225 of the underlying bill authorizes
our U.S. military to go to war with Iran, which is one of the main reasons why I voted against
this bill in committee. This provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State to 'develop and implement a strategy with foreign partners to counter the destabilizing
activities of Iran.'
"The provision does not define what destabilizing activities they want our troops and
taxpayer dollars to counter. It does not define a clear objective or end-state for our troops
to achieve. In addition, this provision shuts the American people out from this decision
entirely by circumventing Congress's constitutional responsibility to declare war and giving
unilateral power and unending authorization to 'counter Iran' to this and future
Administrations – without defining in any way, shape, or form what the objective really
is.
"It sidelines Congress and the American people entirely, with the only requirement being
that the Administration report to Congress after their plan is being implemented, and only for
the next 4 years, while the authorization for war has no expiration date.
"It gives after-the-fact license for what is already happening in the Middle East.
Since
2015 , without express Congressional authorization, US troops have been providing direct
military support to Saudi Arabia in Yemen through information sharing, logistical support, and
refueling Saudi warplanes which have dropped U.S.-made bombs on Yemeni civilians. The most
recent attack was on a Yemeni wedding party, with two rounds of bombing
killing
more than 20 people and wounding dozens of others . This Saudi-led interventionist war has
created one of the worst humanitarian disasters in history, worsening a situation that has led
to mass starvation,
cholera outbreaks , devastation, thousands of civilian deaths, and tens of thousands of
injuries.
"It gives total authority to the Administration to keep US troops in Syria, or any other
country in the Middle East, as long as they deem it necessary – an intention clearly
stated by members of this Administration. To name a few examples, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
said last month that
US troops would stay in Syria indefinitely until their goals are accomplished –
namely to counter Iran. National Security Advisor John Bolton said in a 2015 op-ed entitled 'To
Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran' that 'the United States could do a thorough job of destruction,
but Israel alone can do what's necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American
support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.' Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo recently advocated that the US will 'crush' Iran with economic and military pressure
unless it changes its behavior in the Middle East.
"It's clear that if left unchecked, war hawks in the Trump Administration will drag our
country into more Middle East wars, leaving destruction in its wake around the world and here
at home. Trillions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on these regime change wars in
the Middle East since 9/11. Rather than dumping more taxpayer dollars in these wars as this
provision authorizes, we should instead be investing in rebuilding our communities right here
at home.
"For too long, the US has engaged in military adventurism and interventionist wars, sending
our troops overseas, with no clear objective or end state. 'Countering Iran' is not an end
state that our military or diplomats can achieve. Without a clear objective, you end up in
endless war. So what is the objective of this authorization for war? Is it regime change in
Iran? Regime change in Syria? More war against Iran in Syria? Yemen? I strongly urge my
colleagues to consider the serious consequences of Section 1225 being enacted because it would
authorize any or all of these actions. It is Congress's responsibility and constitutional role
to declare war. The American people have a right to a real debate on such a declaration. I urge
my colleagues to support the passage of my amendment."
19 thoughts on
"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Urges Congress To Oppose Authorization for War Against Iran"jsinton says:
May 22, 2018 at 8:57 pm Tulsi is all alone out there. The Dems and Trump are running a
race to see who can be the bigger hawk, thus that's how we got the NDAA. They're all
cowards now.
Tom Callaghan says:
May 23, 2018 at 2:03 pm "Tulsi is all alone out there." Maybe its because people
who want to voice support for her can't clear "moderation" on this site.
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the best in US politics. Courageous,
intelligent, a leading voice for peace, I love her. I wish more Americans would listen to
her.
Tulsi Gabbard for president! Congress has abdicated it's
responsibility as the declarer of war. Our Founding Fathers didn't intend for the
president to declare war anyplace he wants, against anyone he wants, and for any reason
he wants. Trump swore to uphold the Constitution, but obviously has no regard for it. The
sooner he's out of the White House, the better off we'll be and the better off the world
will be.
For a politician or a media person if you are a relentless
cheerleader for Israel at all times on all matters life will be easy.
If you are willing to try, now and then, to do the right thing like Barack Obama did
with the Iran Deal AND like Ronald Reagan did in 1982 when he demanded Israel but a stop to
its massacre of civilians in Beirut you will be reviled as a "betrayer, a jew hater and an
antisemite."
Both of those Presidents were so attacked. For Reagan, check out his
Autobiography, Page 416. For Obama, visit any comment board any day in the last 10
years.
The Adelson-Netanyahu wing of the Israel Lobby is sitting in the catbird seat.
Trump is their useful idiot. Bolton and Pompeo are facilitators. Senators Cotton
and Cruz, cheerleaders.
If they conclude a war with Iran will save their bacon before the Mid Terms,
they'll get their way.
It's time for Democrats to put on their Woman and Man Pants.
I am so ashamed of my vote for Trump. He is such a neocon draft
dodging neocon coward! I thought I voted for the peace candidate and all we got was Hillary
but with WWE style bravado. Thank God for Tulsi! Where is Ron Paul when we need him? I give
Rand an A-
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few politicians left with some
semblance of conscience. I say if the old men and women want a war so badly, let THEM go
fight it, instead of devouring our young.
Anybody know where Walter B. Jones, Republican from North
Carolina's Second District, is on this? He represents the region where Fort Bragg and Camp
Lejeune are located.
After initially supporting W Bush's wars, he turned against them and has
been one of the few anti-war Republicans. Despite facing well-funded primary challengers,
backed by the Republican establishment, Jones wins easily over and over. He seems to
genuinely care about the fighting men he represents.
This is another interesting information about sanctimonious Comey
Obama once again proved that he is a real "CIA democrat"
Notable quotes:
"... American Thinker ..."
"... After the Daily Caller ..."
"... Whatever else is true, the CIA operative and FBI informant used to gather information on the Trump campaign in the 2016 campaign
has, for weeks, been falsely depicted as a sensitive intelligence asset rather than what he actually is: a long-time CIA operative with
extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential election.
..."
"... So the mole, Halper is "a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family" with deep CIA and MI6 connections.
..."
"... It's worth noting that the dossier by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele was allegedly commissioned originally by someone connected
to the Bush family, possibly Jeb Bush. The extending of the dossier's financing by the DNC in the summer of 2016 seemed strangely seamless.
..."
The Intercept should not have used "monitored".
Prof. Stefan Halper , a man
with deep CIA and MI6 connections, spied on the Trump campaign for the FBI. He wasn't an informant, he was an operator. Chuck Ross
of the Daily Callerreported
the story on March 25 and was the first to name Halper. Larouche Pub and the American Thinker also
ran the story and
expanded it further .
After the Daily Caller report came out the FBI tried to hide the name of its spy, telling Congress that revealing
the name would endanger the man as well as other 'informants' and secret investigations. The main stream media played along and the
anti-Trump 'resistance'
feigned outrage that anyone would attempt to look into this. But the name was out there all along for everyone to see, as was
the whole story.
Greenwald concludes:
Whatever else is true, the CIA operative and FBI informant used to gather information on the Trump campaign in the 2016 campaign
has, for weeks, been falsely depicted as a sensitive intelligence asset rather than what he actually is: a long-time CIA operative
with extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential
election.
For that reason, it's easy to understand why many people in Washington were so desperate to conceal his identity, but that
desperation had nothing to do with the lofty and noble concerns for national security they claimed were motivating them.
This is a hundred times worse than Watergate. The media will drown the story but Obama is just as bad, if not worse, than the
right had painted him to be. It's part of the reason that I am no longer a leftist. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
The Left has let us down.
Thank you b for your good works. I'm grateful when thoughtful people like you or Glenn Greenwald put your work in the public sphere.
I have hoped for years that someone like Stefan Halper be unearthed. Here is continuity from Nixon to the present day of the dirty
activity of the now-called "deep state". A handmaiden to Cheney, Rumsfeld and all republican presidents since Kennedy, he needs
to be safe-guarded for hostile debriefing before he is silenced. "October Surprise", Iran Contra, and now this FBI/CIA spying
activity... We need more honest investigative efforts. He and his cohorts are likely linked to other illegal activities.
(This is my 1st post to this community. B is my name too [Bernhard] and my favorite character is from the 1967 series "The
Prisoner")
So the mole, Halper is "a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family" with deep CIA and MI6 connections.
It's worth noting that the dossier by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele was allegedly commissioned originally by someone connected
to the Bush family, possibly Jeb Bush. The extending of the dossier's financing by the DNC in the summer of 2016 seemed strangely
seamless.
Also, of course, the then CIA director John Brennan used allegations in the Steele dossier as a justification for the Trump-Russian
investigations.
It looks like a lot people and organisations were working for the same goal, even though they were supposed to be independent
of each other, and even political rivals in the case of the Bushes and the DNC.
"John Brennan, James Clapper and Admiral Rogers stage-managed a paper in January, 2017 that
asserted that the Intelligence Community believed various things about Russian government
tinkering with the US election (much as the US does in other countries' elections)".
Except that:
1. The paper's assertion was untrue (and known by the authors to be untrue). Far from "the
intelligence community" believing any such thing, it was eventually admitted that a handful
of picked individuals from three agencies (of the 16) had cautiously expressed that "belief"
– with the proviso that they acknowledged that they knew of no supporting evidence.
Presumably a handful of picked (and anonymous) individuals would be highly susceptible to
bribery, blackmail, or a combination of the two.
2. The sentence quoted does not make it clear that, whereas the US government routinely
manages and controls other countries' political affairs (it goes a very long way further than
"tinkering") the alleged Russian "tinkering" was on a tiny scale, and had nothing to do with
the Russian government.
An assertion is less than an allegation. Both have some factual basis, however little that
factual basis may be.
A belief is less than an assertion. A belief is based on faith. A factual basis is not
necessary.
In other words, the document was a leap of faith.
Humint on Trump election campaign staff is a the last nail in the coffin of the US republic,
as we know it. This is essentially "national security state" mode of operation, where
intelligence agencies are primary political force.
CIA
and MI6 asset Stefan Halper as an FBI asset sent to infiltrate the Trump campaign has
social media abuzz today. Reactions have ranged from celebration to outrage, with little
inbetween.
To recap, after two weeks of hunting for a "mole" in the Trump campaign, the New
York Times and
Washington Post both printed incredibly detailed descriptions of Halper - printing all but
his name, solidly corroborating a March report by the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross about Halper's meetings with the Trump aides. Neither publication give Ross credit, of
course.
Somehow several anti-Trump intellectuals got their wires crossed, conflating President Trump
and Senate Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes' calls for transparency by the DOJ, with the
actual media outlets that exposed Halper.
Senior Brookings Institute fellow, and James Comey's close friend, Benjamin Wittes is beside
himself - angrily tweeting: " I have a whole lot to say about how the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee and the President of the United States teamed up to out an intelligence
source ...," adding in a subsequent tweet "But I am too angry to write right now -- and Twitter
is probably not the right forum. So I'll leave it at this for now: Important people defiled
their oaths of office for these stories to appear."
Two months
after Podesta joined the board, Joule managed to raise $35 million from Putin's Kremlin-backed
investment fund Rusnano. Not only did John Podesta fail to properly disclose this
relationship before joining the Clinton Campaign, he transferred
75,000 shares of Joule to his daughter through a shell company using
her address.
AlaricBalth
two hoots
PermalinkThe Caller - flying him out to
London to work on a policy paper on energy issues in
Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately
paid $3,000."
It would be interesting to find out through bank
transaction records who reimbursed Halper for the $3,000
he paid Papadopoulos for this policy paper, which was
clearly a ruse by Halper in an attempt to make
Papadopoulos comfortable with him.
"They will go down fighting trump six
ways to sunday."
-Since there was no "criminal" Russia Gate proof,
the Dem's & Deep State moved to an "illegal" counter
intelligence investigation against Trump.
-Bringing down Trump at any cost, fuck the
constitution or laws, is ok in the Dem books.
-The louder the Left shrieks, the guiltier they
are.
Sudden suicides, jumping off towers, car crashes
or exiting the US begin in 3...2...1...
Posa
LaugherNYC
Permalink
"What the
Times story makes explicit, with
studious understatement, is that the
Obama administration used its
counterintelligence powers to
investigate the opposition party's
presidential campaign.
That is, there was no criminal predicate
to justify an investigation of any
Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did
not open a criminal investigation.
Instead, the bureau opened a
counterintelligence investigation and
hoped that evidence of crimes committed
by Trump officials would emerge. But it
is an abuse of power to use
counterintelligence powers, including
spying and electronic surveillance, to
conduct what is actually a criminal
investigation.
The Times barely mentions the
word counterintelligence in its
saga. That's not an accident. The paper
is crafting the media-Democrat
narrative."
Kayman
AlaricBalth
Permalink
They sure ain't the Obamas and the Clintons. Pallets of Cash
purportedly flown to Iran, bullshit speeches for $500,000, millions thru
their dirty Canadian conduit. Life sure was grand, selling out your
country.
Thanks to Friday's carefully crafted deep-state disclosures by WaPo and the Times , along
with actual reporting by the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross, we now know it wasn't a mole at all - but 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor
Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by
the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election
.
the "American academic who teaches in Britain" described by The Times,
Seems like Carter Page knew what he was talking about in this May 11 tweet.
Carter Page, Ph.D. @carterwpage
No @JackPosobiec, not me. But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know
who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes
countries.
And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.
4:17 AM - May 11, 2018
I think Rudy's flipped seeking redemption for his role in 911.
The deep state is not going down quietly or without a fight and they are in full attack
mode. Multiple questionable instances yesterday to change news cycle, plus a week worths of
leaks by major media mouthpieces justifying their crimes.
What's great is they are so caught up in their nest of lies, each new lie just contradicts
previous ones and exposes more of the truth.
Now the question is: How do you bring these people to justice without starting a violent
backlash / Civil War?
The cognitive dissonance is very strong on the left and they've fallen victim to hive
mentality, simply regurgitating talking points they hear through pop culture and media. We
are so afraid of not fitting in (as a society) that we will willingly accept completely
contradicting "facts", defend them, and deride those who disagree. Further, there is no room
for disagreement, for they are the party of tolerance, and if you disagree with them, you are
intolerant, which cannot be tolerated in an open and free society (see how that works?).
The real hope is people are able to break the spell and think for themselves again. But I
worry it's too late. A generation of children assaulted with excessive vaccination are now
adults and it shows...
People in the USA better get a grip real fast and realize that it's not Russia, China or
Iran that is the real enemy of Americans, it's the British . . . the money gnomes in London
and the "Queens men". They've caused more problems for the USA in the last 100+ years than
the other three combined many times over.
Let's see. Money was exchanged, foreign govt agents and contractors hired. The FBI knew
about Hillary's criminal enterprises and illegal dissemination of classified documents and
apparently has been complicit in helping or protecting her. The NYT and WaPo along with the
network media regurgitated much of the anti-Trump rhetoric together in sync with the tsunami
of fake news, either in creating it or knowingly participating in it. No wonder the news
media in a sudden shift have been trying to paint themselves as now being on the other side
of this Russkie Fubar after they promoted it 24/7 for two years without let-up. What's the
penalty for trying to overthrow the President of the United States? Lots of folks here are
sitting on potential indictments for treason. Enough talk. With all they got from the
Congressional hearings, and now this, it's time!!!... for Trump to start draining.
Because that is what (((they))) want. Do a little research on how that came about in the
US you will find that the same ole (((culprits))) got the law changed to their benefit of
course.
"... Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . . ..."
"... Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation? ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible
bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone - leftist and right - should consider ... (that's
wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew
had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so
bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT
kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is
a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details
about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will
be outed. That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena .
They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence
operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was
delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did
inspire the CI investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment
is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in
our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew
about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved,
it means u know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive
hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign
was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts
did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York
Times apologia in which government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy
on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing
profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion
requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side
involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald
Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point
these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee's recent
Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI
had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul
Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law
enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama
that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion
turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the
opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged
FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher
Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two
particular Trump campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations
might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team
decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition
research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any -- were engineered in the spring,
summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful
of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all emanating from
the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with
whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could
mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and
that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs.
Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were
converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling
the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have
a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse
for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle
in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this
and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with
the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to
interfere with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper)
or if he refuses to answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is will be escorted to his office to
turn over all records gathered in the investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his findings and then is
fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to find evidence for your phony allegations with your top
investigator on the job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars. You failed because there was no crime
committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about.
I think it's more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with Trump the day before being appointed as SC
and this whole thing was nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their guy. This way they put all their
attention and energy into this investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the midterms when Trump is fully
vindicated by the guy all his enemies said was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on Mueller and every
MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next morning.
Mollie Hemingway's piece on a similar vein in The Federalist. Cunts leak like a sieve to their collusional media scum, but
woe-betied Congress getting access. Fuckers should be hanging from lamposts.
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone -
leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that,
BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get
in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's
bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the
Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation
far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers
are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying
was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed.
That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming
they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but
not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to
launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since
it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no
"official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31.
So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI
investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016,
a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it
all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure
everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few
details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u
know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday,
where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents
related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was
somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement.
Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this
week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump
campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government
"officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on
both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the
middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain
direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the
FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law
enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The
law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump
investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early
that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the
House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined
the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been
on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey
officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald
Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive
information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The
job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition
candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion
that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It
hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr.
Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump
campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the
duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them.
Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent
national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political
opposition research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any
-- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The
conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and
meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all
emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr.
Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the
other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean
government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early
July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But
given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and
Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some
wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence
Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was
the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public
have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no
excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need
you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my
campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election.
Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your
ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action
have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime
involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign
committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere
with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such
evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to
answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is
will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the
investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his
findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to
find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the
job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars.
You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what
it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's
more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with
Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was
nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their
guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this
investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the
midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said
was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on
Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next
morning.
The First Rule
bowie28
Permalink
Lemmings get what they deserve.
Almost always as the iron law of oligarchy implies. Period of
revolution and social upheaval are probably the only exceptions.
In 2018 there is no doubt that Trump is an agent of Deep State, and
probably the most militant part of neocons. What he the
agent from the beginning or not is not so important. He managed to
fool electorate with false promises like Obama before him and get
elected.
Ask yourself why Sessions ordered Rosenstein to resign and Trump
declined his resignation? Likely because Sessions was recused from
Russia investigation and could not be told Rosenstein was working for
Trump from day 1.
(Mueller also met with Trump the day before Rosenstein appointed him
SC.)
Also relevant, Rosenstein is Republican and in 2007/8 was blocked
from getting a seat on appeals court by Dems. Doesn't seem he would be
loyal to the Obama crowd and trying to take down Trump with a phony
investigation.
You better
believe it. What's happened to the NYC detectives who viewed
the "insurance policy" on Weiner's laptop? The kiddie stuff is
the real hot potato here. The power "elite" are pure
unadulterated filth.
Yes....when you start to add up various facts coming from this
investigation it is easy to argue that the prime beneficiary has
been Trump. Why would Trump even consider firing this guy? The
more Mueller digs the more crap surfaces about the Dems, and they
are in full support of it without any seeming awareness of the
results. They are so blinded by their hatred they cannot see
reality.
The info from Weiner's computer is really going to make for
major popcorn sales. All Hitlery's "lost" emails are in there. All
the names in his address book will also make for some interesting
reading. Just a guess but there are a lot of very nervous NYC
elected officials and pedos making sure their passports are up to
date. The Lolita Express to Gitmo....
You guys see everything through Trump colored glasses. Trump is dirty and just
because the evidence hasn't been shown to you doesn't mean it isn't there.
Mueller has the dirt on Trump. It will show. Does everyone here forget that
Watergate took 2 1/2 years to play out?
Being in the business he is in, there is little doubt that Trump has paid
out millions of dollars over the years in bribes and payoffs to greedy
politicians, regulators, and zoning commissioners given to filthy lucre in
return for building permits, zoning variances, and law changes.
I know he
is but what are they? This could be one reason the politicians, regulators,
and zoning commissioners hate him so much. He knows what they know.
Trump is no dirtier than other politicians and much less than some.
He is just dirty in a way (he was usually the payer, they were the payees)
that bothers the other ones.
There is no man or
woman who has or ever will run for office that is not dirty.
As Dershowitz so acutely pointed out, every one of them with an
opposition Special Counsel on his case, can find at least 3 crimes they
committed.
The only reason theBamster wasn't probed at all is because no one dared
go after the only black man to ever run and win for POTUS. HE instead, was
protected from any probes.
You're an idiot that doesn't know anything about what this is really all
about. Or pretending to. Or a troll. Fuck you for being any of them.
Obama has a history of taking out his opponents in their personal life, so
that he doesnt have to meet them in the political arena, just look at his
state campaigns, and then his senate campaign. Look at how he used the
bureaucracy during his admin to preempt opposition, not allowing opposition
groups to get tax exempt status and sending osha/fbi/treasury etc to harrass
people that were more than marginally effective.
With that context set I would like to know the following.
1. Did the brennan/comey/clapper cabal have investigations running on all
the gop primary front runners?
2. Did they promote Trump to win the GOP primary, to eliminate those
rivals from consideration, just to attempt to destroy him in the general with
the russian collusion narrative and his own words.
3. Was Comey's failure to ensure Hillary's victory due to incompetence or
arrogance? I say arrogance, because his little late day announcement of the
new emails was obviously ass covering so that he could pass whatever senate
hearing that would be required for his new post in the hillary administration.
Having to learn how to deal with mobbed-up lawyers and unions in NYC turns out
the be pretty damned good preparation to be President Of The United States. I
love watching this guy work.
The illegitimate liberal MSM is sucking all the oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticism of Trump. This Russian Collusion stormy daniels stuff is
a bunch of bologna, and it's making a smokescreen for Trump to carry out his
zio-bankster agenda.
Hegelian dialectic, Divide and conquer, kabuki
theater
For the most part I like Peter Schiff. I don't think he talks
enough about the criminal manipulation of commodities by the
banksters and the seemingly endless reluctance by our glorious
leaders to prosecute them.
On this topic: The lawlessness of
the 17 agencies is beyond the pale. They have set themselves
apart and for this they will have to pay eventually. I have no
doubt that in the minds of the Bureau principals there was motive
and there was opportunity. I don't believe anything that comes
out of their mouths. Robert Mueller is a three letter word for a
donkey. He is a criminal and a totally owned puppet of the deep
and dark state. Last I heard, the FBI planted a mole in the Trump
campaign. Iff true, that speaks volumes...
It is amazing that President Trump is still standing on his feet and still out
there swinging. The man is no coward. I'm glad I voted for him, although I am
disappointed in some of his failings.
"although I am disappointed in some of his failings."...
Yeah I know
just what ya mean...
The treason of war crimes he's committed exceeding all of his
predecessor(s) in his short assed existence as President and threatening
war on two nuclear superpowers that could easily wipe his office and 4
thousand square miles of CONUS "
off the map
"!...
Endorsing a torturer murder to head the CIA condoning her efforts in
public "thumbing his nose" at Article 3 Geneva the U.S. Constitution and
for his military to tacitly continue disobeying the UCMJ as a response
to that "selection"!...
Telling the parasitic partner that owns him through blackmail that
Jerusalem is the Capital of IsraHell as over 200 Palestinians are
murdered and 3 thousand others injured in joyous celebration of that
violation of international law which is the equivalent of pouring
"gasoline" on a building that has already been reduced to "ash"...
They didn't really think things through when they plotted against Trump and
figured Hillary would win and they could sweep this under the rug and then she
lost. Funnier is that many expected her to lose as she never won an election
in her life despite her being "The Most Qualified" candidate as her parrots in
the media lovingly called her. Now Trump and his team will stomp them all into
the ground. My guess is that he'll pinch others in her gang who have big egos
so that they'll talk and drop a dime which they will. The libtards are turning
on themselves in every area now. Look at Hollywood and the sexual harassment
cases in the pipeline.
It's just so pleasurable watching your enemy fall on their sword while you
sit back and enjoy life and smile....
Was the Trump campaign "Set-up"? It's just another way the oligarchy
is deflecting what the real problem is. Americans are fed up with the
political status quo in this country, and wanted a change. Neither political
party offers any change for the better. It is also why Bernie Sanders had a
huge following, but no one is calling his campaign a "set-up", and he would
have been the more likely choice the Russians would have helped.
It really doesn't make any sense why the Russians would have selected
Trump, but it makes a lot of sense why the oligarchy would want to discredit
Trump any means availble to them. And since they have always hated Russia so
much, that is the big tip-off of who comes up with these stupid stories about
Russians meddling in our elections.
We voted against the powers that be. With Truman, we got a decent man that
was manipulated by the Deep State. With Trump, we got a not-so-decent man,
but still manipulated by the Deep State. Sigh.
there needs to be a schedule drawn up of charges against individuals. it's
all very well talking and talking anf talking around the water cooler, but
until the charges are drawn up and a grand jury empowered, it is all
pissing into the wind.
the individuals range from obama through clinton,
through the loathsome slimebags in the alphabet soup, through foundations,
through DNC leaders/politicians, through Weiner, Abedin, Rice and the
witches cabal (Wasserstein Schulz etc), UK intel agencies, awan brothers,
pakistan intel supplying Iran with classified documents and so on.
there are charges (of treason, sedition, wilful mishandling of classifed
documents, bribery, corruption, murder, child trafficking, election
rigging, spying for/collusion with foreign powers, funding terrorism, child
abuse, election rigging/tampering, misappropriation of federal funds, theft
etc as well as general malfeasance, failure to perform duties and so on)
that are not being brought that are so obvious, only a snowflake would miss
them.
what charges can be brought against the MSM for propaganda,
misdirection, lying, fabrication and attempting to ovetthrow a legitimately
elected president using these techniques to further their own ends? there
is no freedom of the press to lie and further civil unrest.
a list of charges against individuals in the DNC/alphabet soup is what
is needed. if the DoJ is so incompetent or corrupt that it is unable to do
its job, private law suits need to be brought to get all the facts out in
the open.
someone needs to write the book and make it butt hole shaped to shove up
all those that try to make a living out of making up gossip in the NYT,
WaPo, CNN, BBC, Economist, Madcow, SNL, Oliver and so on.
these people are guilty of being assholes and need their assholes
(mouths) plugged with a very think fifteen inch book.
Trump might become a deep stater but he definitely wasn't one of
them. Google "offer to pay trump to drop out of election" and see
how many stories there were. Here is one of them.
I hope someone writes a book on this with all of the timing and all of the
"little" things that happened on the way to the coronation of Hillary.
Comey "interviews" Hillary on 4th of July weekend. Wraps up case by 9am
Tuesday after 4th of July. By noon, Hillary and Obama are on Air Force 1
to begin campaign. Within a few weeks Seth Rich is dead and DWS avoids
being "killed in an armed robbery gone bad" when she steps down as head of
DNC. Above article forgets to mention that GPS also hired the wife of
someone in the government as part of the "fact gathering" team.
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
"... In my opinion the key points are: - Obama spied on Trump and many other Senator's Congressmen, Judges, and the press without warrants they only did Trump warrants well after they started spying. ..."
"... This was to cover their a$$ because they had no warrants when the spying started. ..."
"... Obama spied using our allies (GCHQ) 5 eyes etc. and DOJ, IRS, FBI, CIA, Treasury and all the Alphabet Obamagate will be 10,000 x worse than Watergate, ..."
"... They're covering up an attempted coup. ..."
"... essions (via his absurd recusal) and Rosenstein allowed the Statute of Limitations to run out against Clapper without filing a perjury charge. ..."
"... It's a bit ironic that Comey has been the focus of so much ire from the Trump people. Brennan and Clapper, not Comey, were the Obama political hacks who were pushing the Russian collusion angle. ..."
"... They forced the FBI to open a Trump/Russia investigation, even though Strzok and Comey were skeptical that any real evidence existed. ..."
"... It's hard to believe that Clapper and Brennan (and Lynch, Yates, and Ohr from DoJ) cooked-up the scheme without the approval/direction of Obama. In fact, the sheer political evil genius of the Trump/Russia collusion plot, including how it "explained" the DNC hack, reeks of the only person capable of inventing it: that 'ol silver fox himself, Bill Clinton. ..."
"... I think it is Comey's sanctimonious self-righteousness that brings that reaction. It always does. No matter who the parties are or what event it is. Even though their crimes are greater, it is easier to tolerate the obviously slimy swamp critters like Clapper and Brennan than it is the pious hypocrite like Comey. ..."
"... The DNC was caught in the act of rigging the Primaries. Fact. ..."
"... And someone inside hacked their computers for all those emails, too. That's why they didn't turn over their computers to the F.B.I. because it would bear that out. ..."
"... Brennan and Clapper may have been the puppetmasters, with Comey, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr and Yates dancing to their tune, but Rogers didn't play nice and they didn't even invite the Defense Intelligence Agency to play. ..."
"... Rogers is a white hat in a sea of black hats who tried to fire him for being a patriot. Rogers is a true American hero, without whom the extent of this coup and treasonous plot may never have been fully uncovered. The big ugly awaits the traitors and hopefully, the great awakening begins. ..."
"... I believe the name you're looking for is "Seth Rich." ..."
"... Aside from the obvious crimes of espionage and certainly extortion and fraud, why was Imran Awan trying to flee the country just after Seth Rich's assassination? Was Rich spilling the beans about Debbie Schultz's Pakistani mole and not just the Hillary scam? ..."
"... Brennan and Clapper are dirty as can be. They are both corrupt deep state agents, and should go to prison for their lies and corruption. Adm. Rogers looks like the only straight-shooter in the bunch. ..."
"... There are 2 sets of Laws in America. One for the elite, power political people and one for the Joe Sixpacks ..."
"... Former FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons. ..."
"... FBI has had its ups and downs, certainly, but usually it found those low times due to some mishap or bad policy decisions based on matters of process by its upper management. But despite some of the worst 1970s conspiracy theories, rarely has the FBI been considered a bald-faced political actor until Director James Comey tarnished the shield by becoming a member of the Hillary Clinton's election campaign. ..."
"... If these yokels better knew history, they would better understand the dangers of fomenting revolution. ..."
Former CIA Director John Brennan's insistence that the salacious and unverified Steele
dossier was not part of the official Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election is being
contradicted by two top former officials.
Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded
memos did factor into the ICA . And James Clapper,
Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on "some
of the substantive content of the dossier." Without elaborating, he maintained that "we were able to corroborate" certain allegations.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page
summary of the dossier -- described as "the Christopher Steele information" -- was "added" as an "appendix to the ICA draft," and
that consideration of that appendix was "part of the overall ICA review/approval process."
His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of
its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton's campaign to help Donald Trump
win the White House.
Rogers
has testified that while he was sure the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton, he wasn't as confident as CIA and FBI officials that
their actions were designed to help Trump, explaining that such as assessment "didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same
level of multiple sources."
Here and in photo at top, from left, the National Security Agency Director, Adm. Michael Rogers; FBI Director James Comey; Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper; CIA Director John Brennan; and the Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lt. Gen. Vincent
Stewart, testifying before the
The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee
and Clinton's own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources. Still, the ICA has been viewed by much of the Washington
establishment as the unimpeachable consensus of the U.S. intelligence community. Its conclusions that "Vladimir Putin ordered" the
hacking and leaking of Clinton campaign emails "to help Trump's chances of victory" have driven the "Russia collusion" narrative
and subsequent investigations besieging the Trump presidency.
Except that the ICA did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. Clapper broke with tradition and decided not
to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts
from just three agencies -- the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland
Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process.
While faulting Clapper for not following intelligence community tradecraft standards that
Clapper himself ordered
in 2015, the House Intelligence Committee's
250-page report
also found that the ICA did not properly describe the "quality and credibility of underlying sources" and was not "independent of
political considerations."
In another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from
outside reviewers. "Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views
of an outside review group," said Fred Fleitz, who worked as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft national intelligence estimates
at Langley. "It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies," he added. "Why were DHS and DIA excluded?"
Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes
the process was "manipulated" to reach a "predetermined political conclusion" that the incoming Republican president was compromised
by the Russians.
"I've never viewed the ICA as credible," the CIA veteran added.
A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that
they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source.
Last year, Strzok was reassigned to another department and removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after anti-Trump
and pro-Clinton text messages he wrote to another investigator during the 2016 campaign were discovered by the Justice Department's
inspector general. Strzok remains under IG investigation, along with other senior FBI officials, for possible misconduct.
Strzok led the FBI's investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia during 2016, including obtaining electronic surveillance warrants
on Carter Page and other campaign advisers. The Page warrant relied heavily on unverified allegations contained in the Democratic
Party-funded dossier.
Brennan has sworn the dossier was not "in any way" used as a basis for the ICA. He explains he heard snippets of the dossier from
the press in the summer of 2016, but insists he did not see it or read it for himself until late 2016. "Brennan's claims are impossible
to believe," Fleitz asserted.
"Brennan was pushing the Trump collusion line in mid-2016 and claimed to start the FBI collusion investigation in August 2016,"
he said. "It's impossible to believe Brennan was pushing for this investigation without having read the dossier."
He also pointed out that the key findings of the ICA match the central allegations in the dossier. The House Intelligence Committee
concluded that Brennan, who previously worked in the White House as Obama's deputy national security adviser, created a "fusion cell"
on Russian election interference made up of analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, who produced a series of related papers for the White
House during the 2016 campaign.
Less than a month after Trump won the election, Obama directed Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian
involvement in the 2016 election and produce a single, comprehensive assessment. Obama was briefed on the findings, along with President-elect
Trump, in early January.
"Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from
a 'credible source,' which is how they viewed Steele," said the source familiar with the House investigation. "But they never corroborated
his sources."
Attempts to reach Brennan for comment were unsuccessful. Several prominent Washington news outlets had access to the dossier during
the 2016 campaign -- or at least portions of it -- but also could not confirm Steele's allegations. So they shied away from covering
them. All that changed in early January 2017, after CNN and The Washington Post learned through Obama administration leaks that the
CIA had briefed the president and president-elect about them. Then the allegations became a media feeding frenzy. On Jan. 11, 2017,
within days of the dossier briefings and release of the declassified ICA report, BuzzFeed published virtually all of the dossier
memos on its website.
The House committee found "significant leaks" of classified information around the time of the ICA -- and "many of these leaks
were likely from senior officials within the IC." Its recently released report points to Clapper as the main source of leaks about
the presidential briefings involving the dossier. It also suggests that during his July 17, 2017, testimony behind closed doors in
executive session, he misled House investigators.
When first asked about leaks related to the ICA in July 2017, Clapper flatly denied "discuss[ing] the dossier or any other intelligence
related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists." But he subsequently acknowledged discussing the "dossier with CNN
journalist Jake Tapper," and admitted he might have spoken with other journalists about the same issue.
On Jan. 10, 2017, CNN published an
article by Tapper
and others about the dossier briefings sourced to "multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings." Tapper shared
a byline with lead writer Evan Perez, a close friend of the founders of Fusion GPS, which hired Steele as a subcontractor on the
dossier project.
The next day, Clapper expressed his "profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press," while stressing that
"I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC." A month after his misleading testimony to House investigators, Clapper joined
CNN as a "national security analyst."
Attempts to reach Clapper for comment were unsuccessful.
Tom JonesLeader 3d
My, My, My.....what a tangled web they weave. Interesting that both Rogers and Clapper indicated the dossier was part of the assessment
and Brennan does not. All while Obama was assuring the public that in no way could Russia impact our elections. With the recent
allegations of a plant in the Trump campaign organization and the continued reluctance of the DOJ to release documents, it's becoming
more evident by the day of significant irregularities that took place. Certainly, one would hope that only under the most severe
probabilities would a President allow his intelligence agencies to spy on an opponents campaign....but it's looking more and more
like it was an intended political operation rather than a national security issue. And if so, it's a direct threat to our democracy
and should be addressed with the full power and legal impact of our judicial system. If it was political, EVERYONE involved should
be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law and they should spend significant time behind bars.
magic_worker 1d
In my opinion the key points are: - Obama spied on Trump and many other Senator's Congressmen, Judges, and the press without
warrants they only did Trump warrants well after they started spying.
This was to cover their a$$ because they had no warrants when the spying started. Did it start the second a billionaire
stepped on the escalator or before? - Obama spied using our allies (GCHQ) 5 eyes etc. and DOJ, IRS, FBI, CIA, Treasury and
all the Alphabet Obamagate will be 10,000 x worse than Watergate, Don't fall for the golly gee Obama knew nothing Schultz
defense. - Awan's were hired by Obama to run the DNC server, you really don't think Debbie hired them do you? ... See more
Rosa1984 Leader 3d
They're covering up an attempted coup. What we've witnessed the past 15 months is HORRIFIC, Deeply Disturbing, and a
Threat to the U.S. We CANNOT allow Democrats and Deep State to get away with this.
NoBS NoSpam Influencer 3d Edited
Did you know the President was in Nevada and Las Vegas during the Mandalay Assassination? Err, I mean the mass shooting by an
FBI informant, of course. We assume Trump is free to govern. Why? If the Deep State owns the FBI, CIA, NSA and the most powerful
weapon on Earth, the IRS. Martial Law of all Security clearance holders who are still alive "off" the books or not. Operative
word is "Ex" spooks and their active psychopath cousins in the Military Industrial Complex.
Peps Leader 3d
All of which means precisely nothing, because Sessions (via his absurd recusal) and Rosenstein allowed the Statute of Limitations
to run out against Clapper without filing a perjury charge. So, once again, if you are a high-ranking DC insider, you can
commit a felony for which any average citizen would be arrested, prosecuted and jailed, and do so with absolute, arrogant impunity,
regardless of which party is technically in charge of the Department of Justice.
KathyMcP 3d
What is the limitation period for a perjury charge???
carolinaswampfox Leader 3d
What is the limitations period for sedition, treason, conspiring to interfere with a presidential election, conspiring to overturn
the results of an American presidential election, obstruction of justice, illegal abuse of the FISA process, perjury in sworn
testimony and in the FISA process, etc.
Sam Hyde Leader 3d Edited
Mr. Clapper, did you leak any information on the briefings that took place with the President and President-elect? Clapper: Not
wittingly. How many times has this guy committed perjury and gotten away with it? lol
Carolinatarheel Leader 3d
Obama lowered the bar substantially for ethical standards and telling the truth! Our FBI is corrupt and dangerous! Mueller and
Comey are dirty cops! ...
chris_zzz Leader 3d
It's a bit ironic that Comey has been the focus of so much ire from the Trump people. Brennan and Clapper, not Comey, were
the Obama political hacks who were pushing the Russian collusion angle.
They forced the FBI to open a Trump/Russia investigation, even though Strzok and Comey were skeptical that any real evidence
existed. Congressional investigators as well as the relevant IGs need to look at whether Obama himself, as well as the White
House staff, engineered the Trump/Russia collusion hocus-pocus. It's hard to believe that Clapper and Brennan (and Lynch,
Yates, and Ohr from DoJ) cooked-up the scheme without the approval/direction of Obama. In fact, the sheer political evil genius
of the Trump/Russia collusion plot, including how it "explained" the DNC hack, reeks of the only person capable of inventing it:
that 'ol silver fox himself, Bill Clinton.
Greg Bed 2d
I think it is Comey's sanctimonious self-righteousness that brings that reaction. It always does. No matter who the parties
are or what event it is. Even though their crimes are greater, it is easier to tolerate the obviously slimy swamp critters like
Clapper and Brennan than it is the pious hypocrite like Comey.
GameTime68 Leader 3d
How much more of this are we going to have to read about before someone with authority begins investigating this entire sordid
mess? Until someone is indicated and charged with something, there is no incentive for the truth - just more media stories about
conflicting congressional testimony, colleague disagreements on the veracity of statements, and so forth. Those of us who sat
through Watergate were not naive enough to think it was a one-off. What is Sessions doing? Where is the special investigator for
Dossiergate?
NoBS NoSpam Influencer 3d
The DNC was caught in the act of rigging the Primaries. Fact. Do we really think they stopped at only the level of the
DNC Primaries? I wish to be that naive so my love for America was still alive and not dead like Seth Rich. The low lives could
not even cheat well, but not from lack of trying.
GameTime68 Leader span 3d
And someone inside hacked their computers for all those emails, too. That's why they didn't turn over their computers to the
F.B.I. because it would bear that out.
Old Paratrooper Contributor 3d
Brennan and Clapper may have been the puppetmasters, with Comey, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr and Yates dancing to their tune,
but Rogers didn't play nice and they didn't even invite the Defense Intelligence Agency to play. But I suspect the conspiracy
went to the White House. Didn't Page say that the President "wanted to know everything we do"? And I suspect that Susan Rice,
Valarie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes left fingerprints all over this crime.
chris_zzz Leader span oper 3d
The NSA director at the time, Adm. Rogers, reportedly visited Trump (without Clapper's authorization) during the transition to
inform Trump about the FBI's surveillance of his operation. The next day Trump tweeted that Obama was wiretapping Trump Tower.
carolinaswampfox Leader 3d
Rogers is a white hat in a sea of black hats who tried to fire him for being a patriot. Rogers is a true American hero, without
whom the extent of this coup and treasonous plot may never have been fully uncovered. The big ugly awaits the traitors and hopefully,
the great awakening begins.
carolinaswampfox Leader span oper 3d
--and BHO communicated with Hillary at her private email address. The computers were smashed and bleach bit and Comey and company
obstructed justice in whitewashing the Clinton investigation because all roads lead to BHO.
Right-Here; Right Now ! Influencer 3d
The cogent fact is that none of that matters since the entire premise is that the Russians hacked the emails.....the ENTIRE Russia
collusion theory collapses without the hacking of emails. And of course the Russians did not hack the DNC emails (time stamps
on the meta data PROVE that they were copied at speeds too fast for any internet hack) ....they were downloaded on site on to
a portable storage devise. We Know that the DNC denied law enforcement access to its server, (why would any "victim," of a crime
refuse to cooperate with investigators?) Even more remarkable, experts determined that the files released by Guccifer 2.0 have
been "run, via ordinary cut and paste, through a template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian
fingerprints." Brennan Clapper and Comey ALL testified to congress that the CIA...and many others.. had this capability to leave
"fingerprints" of whomever they wished to implicate. Moreover, for what it is worth, Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that
Russia "or any state actor" was the source of the stolen DNC data published by WikiLeaks...but rather a staffer who passed a portable
drive on the Mall in DC I think its safe to assume that the downloading was done by Imran Awan who we KNOW had access and we KNOW
downloaded material and we KNOW used unauthorized methods to access unauthorized areas of Congressional servers and TOTAL ...
See more
James Fitzpatrick Influencer span Right Now ! 3d Edited
I believe the name you're looking for is "Seth Rich." This is a case that requires a bull dog, not Droopy Dog. It's got
murder, blackmail, extortion, Deep State conspiracy, high treason, low-level corruption, perverted sex cults... c'mon! Why are
we still hearing about how a Senator met a Russian Ambassador at a meet-and-greet?! This is real drama!
NoBS NoSpam Influencer span atrick 3d
They are mocking Seth Rich as the Russian Hacker. They keep dragging this kids hard work through the mud!
JayTeigh Leader span Right Now ! 3d
I think you're right about Awan being the hacker. I now wonder if the somehow sold the emails to someone who sent them to Assange.
James Fitzpatrick Influencer 3d
Here are some things that need investigation:
Aside from the obvious crimes of espionage and certainly extortion and fraud, why was Imran Awan trying to flee the
country just after Seth Rich's assassination? Was Rich spilling the beans about Debbie Schultz's Pakistani mole and not just
the Hillary scam?
Russia expert Nellie Ohr was hired by FusionGPS during the launch of the Steele scam. But she was CIA. Was Fusion itself
a rogue CIA shell org? And nobody seems to get the connection to the CIA OpenSource hackers' toolbox that was leaked into the
wild, just as the "resist" people were expressing concern that THEY would lose access to these spying malware products and
could no longer spy on Trump. And who worked for the OpenSource project? Why, Nellie Ohr, of course. Funny.
pmidas span atrick 3d
Didn't Nellie state in some format that "i am going to be purchasing short-wave radios for our communications going forward"....?
James Fitzpatrick Influencer 3d
Yes. One of many attempts to dodge a trail for investigators, oversight and FOIA.
BorisBadinov Leader 3d
Brennan and Clapper are dirty as can be. They are both corrupt deep state agents, and should go to prison for their lies and
corruption. Adm. Rogers looks like the only straight-shooter in the bunch.
NoBS NoSpam Influencer span v 3d
General Flynn was the main crusader for our children's dignity. The son of a b*censured*ich is still fighting for them!
Grandmother of 7 Contributor 3d
May Brennan and all his cohorts, including Obama, rot from the inside out because I doubt anything we could punish them with would
be enough. They did more damage to the Republic than Osama bin Laden and his ilk ever could.
Mcgovern72 Leader 3d
The Clap-Man and Jimmy the B continue to be the best sources of intrigue on the whole collusion confusion, huh? Their legacy tarnished
by all the lies, they now get to spew it on 'fake news', further tarnishing the credibility of 'faux news'. Brilliant!!
Sam Hyde Leader span 3d Edited
DNI Clapper doing what DNI Clapper does best. I can see him rubbing his greasy egg head right now for not having his story straight.
dadling 3d
There are 2 sets of Laws in America. One for the elite, power political people and one for the Joe Sixpacks.....there
is NO Law in America...the people are still asleep and have yet to be roused. However, when they do wake up, pitchforks, tar &
feathers will be the order of the day for these criminals.
dawg1234 3d
Ouch! Quite a scathing article from Real Clear! Impressive! Brennan? Brennan? Calling Mister, John, Brennan! LOL, this is getting
fun!
cjones1 Leader 3d
The plot thickens!
leestauf4 Leader 2d
The democrats accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians to get elected, have ZERO proof of it after two years of trying to invent
it, and yet it is a proven fact that Hillary and the DNC, through the middlemen Fusion GPS and Steele, COLLUDED with and paid
high level Russian officials millions of dollars to produce the "salacious and completely unverified dossier" (Comey's words),
in an attempt to throw our election like they did in their own primary, and to then try to impeach a constitutionally elected
president with the same Russian supplied lies when that failed! So where was the actual collusion with the enemy? And why is Mueller
completely ignoring those facts?
jrc_mrc 2d
Former FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up
favorable to the Clintons. In 2001, following the original 9/11 mass murder by the Muslim jihadists, President Bush asked
the FBI to track the movements of likely Muslim jihadists; Comey and Mueller refused that request on the basis that such tracking
would be "un-American". The jihadist mass murders of Americans in Boston, Chattanooga, Orlando, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino
are therefore the direct result of that irresponsible refusal. In 2004 Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the
Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton
administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National
Archives. The documents were relevant to the accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the
9/11 terrorist attack. Back a year or two ago, FBI director Comey announced that despite the evidence of "extreme negligence"
by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through her unprotected private email server,
the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department since it was just a case
of innocent negligence.
jrc_mrc 2d
FBI has had its ups and downs, certainly, but usually it found those low times due to some mishap or bad policy decisions
based on matters of process by its upper management. But despite some of the worst 1970s conspiracy theories, rarely has the FBI
been considered a bald-faced political actor until Director James Comey tarnished the shield by becoming a member of the Hillary
Clinton's election campaign.
The FBI is no longer a legitimate or competent law enforcement agency. The FBI has become nothing more than a bunch of goons
for the DNC and the Democrat Party. The FBI should now be considered a domestic corrupt terrorist organization. Due to the FBI's
corruption and political affiliation with the Democrat Party, they should no longer have jurisdiction over a single American citizen.
Comey is now guilty of treason by default and association. He has violated his sworn oath and must be removed. "Yes – Hillary
Clinton is guilty but we will not recommend prosecution" – he declared to the congressional inquiry with a straight face. In other
words, and for all practical purposes our FBI had become the American KGB.
KenPittman 2d
Clapper, Brennan and Comey have al likely retained legal counsel as Nunes has brilliantly followed the trail methodically backwards
to the source. The Ohr couple, the intercepts of Strzok and the common denominators linking Stefan Halper are going to rock the
Deep State to its foundation. Thankfully there are enough patriots in Washington to continue to outflank the framing of the POTUS.
johnmike 2d
The butts of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey should be hauled before a Grand Jury by John Huber, the US Attorney, as stated by Joe
DiGenova. I believe all three are enemies of the US and the biggest threats to our constitutional republic. Brennan once voted
for a communist. All three are pathological liars...it's scary that these three scumbags held the highest and most critical intelligence
and law enforcement positions in the nation.
Ralph Lynch Contributor 1d
If these yokels better knew history, they would better understand the dangers of fomenting revolution.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers
informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier -- described as "the Christopher
Steele information" -- was "added" as an "appendix to the ICA draft," and that consideration of
that appendix was "part of the overall ICA review/approval process."
A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI
analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter
Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he
was one of the authors of the ICA," according to the source.
Clapper's Assessment Report was the third in series of reports – each building on the
other.
The first report, an assessment of Russian Intervention, was made in an October 7, 2016,
Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence noting the Intelligence Community was confident of Russian involvement in
our election.
Later testimony by our various Intelligence Directors confirmed that Russia is always
involved in Presidential elections.
This report was meant to directly tie Russian hacking to the election.
What the report actually did was use technical language to describe a generalized hacking
process – and the means by which hacking and phishing can be generally prevented.
I strongly encourage you to read the report. Its lack of actual detail is eye-opening.
3. John Brennan, James Clapper and Admiral Rogers stage-managed a paper in January, 2017
that asserted that the Intelligence Community believed various things about Russian government
tinkering with the US election (much as the US does in other countries' elections). The
paper was represented to be an IC wide opinion (like an NIE).
Clapper gave it his imprimatur as Director of National Intelligence but Admiral
Rogers at the National Security Agency could not get his people to express more than limited
confidence in the document. DIA, State Department INR, the Army, Navy, Air Force and other
agencies were either not consulted or did not deign to "sign on." Donald J Trump thinks this is
a "rum deal," a phony politically motivated procedure run by a group of "hacks". Why would he
not think that? The reaction of the Left is to excoriate him for his lack of "respect", for the
people who "cooked up" this document. We should remember that the people who "cooked" the
document have no legal or constitutional existence outside the framework of the Executive
Branch. Any president, in any circumstance could dismiss them all at will. No president is
under any obligation at all to accept their opinion or that of anyone in the Executive Branch
on anything. They are his advisers and subordinates, tools in his kit box, and that is all they
are.
The 2016 Trump Tower meeting set up to reveal dirt on Hillary Clinton "infuriated" Jared
Kushner, was a "waste of time" and had nothing to do with Clinton, according to transcripts of
interviews with the meeting's participants. The US Senate Judiciary Committee has released more
than 1,800 pages of transcripts, which provide new insight into the controversial meeting
during which Donald Trump Jr, along with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then campaign
chairman Paul Manafort, was expecting to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Overall, the newly-released documents seem to indicate that a short 20-minute meeting
resulted in hours of interviews and thousands of pages of documents for little reason.
In the transcripts, Trump Jr. said that he was skeptical that Rob Goldstone, the publicist
who had been the first to contact him about a meeting, had colleagues who possessed
incriminating information about Clinton, but said felt he should at least "hear them
out." Read more 'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
He also said that it was important to note that when he accepted the invitation to go to the
meeting there was "no focus on Russian activities" surrounding the campaign and
claimed that Goldstone had not even confirmed the names of the attendees who would join them at
the meeting.
Goldstone had set up the meeting on behalf of Russian musical artist Emin Agaralov, the son
of a wealthy Russian businessman, but revealed in his interview that he later told Agaralov
that the meeting was "the most embarrassing thing you've ever asked me to do" given
that it ended up having nothing to do with Clinton. Goldstone also revealed that
Veselnitskaya's apparently Clinton-free presentation in the meeting had "infuriated"
Kushner.
In another indication that the meeting was not supposed to be a top-secret attempt for the
Trump campaign to collude with Russia, Goldstone also revealed that he "checked in" to
Trump Tower on Facebook when he arrived.
In a supplemental interview, Goldstone also told investigators that Russian President
Vladimir Putin was not able to meet Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, but
invited him through a phone call with his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, organized by Agaralov, to
attend the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi instead. According to Goldstone, Peskov said Putin
would be happy to meet him there -- but that meeting did not end up happening.
Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian translator who attended the meeting, said that no one present
had said the Russian government either supported Trump or opposed Clinton for president. He
also said there were no offers from the Russian side to release hacked emails, hack voting
totals or anything else.
The other translator present, Ike Kaveladze, said he spoke to Agaralov about two hours after
the meeting and told him it was a "complete loss of time" and a "useless"
meeting.
The committee released the thousands of pages of transcripts along with hundreds of
additional pages of related material, including the interviews with Goldstone, Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translators Samochornov and Kaveladze.
The meeting has been the subject of controversy, particularly the question of whether
then-candidate Trump knew about it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has looked closely at the
meeting as part of his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which
has not yet turned up any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Following the publication of the documents, Trump Jr. said they showed that he "answered
every question asked" by the committee.
"I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its
inquiry," he said in a statement. "The public can now see that for over five hours I
answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee."
Note how NYT try to hide the fact that the meeting was most probably yet another a false flag operation (along with Steele
dossier) to implicate
Russia staged with the help of a person connected to British intelligence service, Mr. Goldstone,
a British music promoter. That in an interesting fact in additional to CIA mode within Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin. ..."
Most of the participants in the meeting have already publicly described their version of
events. Nonetheless, the records reveal some new details about the players involved and what
happened after the meeting was reported
by The New York Times last summer.
Among them: Six months after the Trump
Tower meeting , an intermediary contacted Donald J. Trump's office asking for a follow-up,
the newly released documents showed.
The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting
between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He
said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a
Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin.
The second session never took place. But the invitation shows the determination of Russians
with close Kremlin connections to convince the Trump team that the Magnitsky Act, which imposed
sanctions on a host of Russian officials for human rights abuses, was a mistake. The 2012 law,
which froze the bank accounts of some Russian officials and barred them from entering the
United States, infuriated Mr. Putin.
In a late November 2016 email to Mr. Trump's assistant, Mr. Goldstone, a British music
promoter, attached a three-page document marked "confidential" that called for "the launch of a
congressional investigation into the circumstances of passing the Magnitsky Act." He wrote that
Mr. Agalarov hoped the document would be delivered to "the appropriate team." Ms. Veselnitskaya
also attacked the
law in the June meeting.
The transcripts also highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage
the fallout by coordinating the statements of Mr. Goldstone and others.
In testimony, Donald Trump Jr. acknowledged that his father may have helped draft the
statement that he put out to the press after the meeting became public, but he said that they
had not discussed the meeting when it happened.
Now, the prime suspect in the breach has been identified: a 29-year-old
former C.I.A. software engineer who had designed malware used to break into the computers of terrorism
suspects and other targets, The New York Times has learned.
Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched the Manhattan
apartment of the suspect, Joshua A. Schulte, one week after WikiLeaks released the first of the C.I.A.
documents in March last year, and then stopped him from flying to Mexico on vacation, taking his passport,
according to court records and relatives. The search warrant application said Mr. Schulte was suspected of
"distribution of national defense information," and agents told the court they had retrieved "N.S.A. and
C.I.A. paperwork" in addition to a computer, tablet, phone and other electronics.
But instead of charging Mr. Schulte in the breach, referred to as the Vault
7 leak, prosecutors charged him last August with possessing child pornography, saying agents had found
10,000 illicit images on a server he created as a business in 2009 while studying at the University of Texas
at Austin.
Court papers quote messages from Mr. Schulte that suggest he was aware of
the encrypted images of children being molested by adults on his computer, though he advised one user, "Just
don't put anything too illegal on there."
In September, Mr. Schulte was released on the condition that he not leave
New York City, where he lived with a cousin, and keep off computers. He was jailed in December after
prosecutors found evidence that he had violated those rules, and he has been held at the Metropolitan
Correctional Center in Manhattan since then. He has
posted on Facebook under a pseudonym a series of essays
critical of the criminal justice system.
It is unclear why, more than a year after he was arrested, he has not been
charged or cleared in connection with Vault 7. Leak investigators have had access to electronic audit trails
inside the C.I.A. that may indicate who accessed the files that were stolen, and they have had possession of
Mr. Schulte's personal data for many months.
... ... ...
According to his family and
his
LinkedIn page
, Mr. Schulte did an internship at the National Security Agency while working on a bachelor's degree in computer
engineering. He worked in the C.I.A.'s Engineering Development Group, which designed the hacking tools used by its Center for
Cyber Intelligence. He left the agency in November 2016 and moved to New York to work for Bloomberg L.P. as a software engineer.
Most of the government's cyberespionage is carried out by the N.S.A., but the C.I.A. also employs hackers. The leaked Vault 7
documents came from the agency's Engineering Development Group and included descriptions and instructions for the use of agency
hacking tools, but only a small amount of the actual computer code for the tools.
From reader comments: If I had my way, I would bring back the draft with NO college
deferments. In fact, the sons and daughters of politicians would get called up first. Service in
the IDF doesn't count. ... ... "Yes, but expand that. Mandate that we first enlist, train, and promptly deploy any children and
grandchildren of all members of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet, federal judges, Federal Reserve Board of Governors,
and the CEOs/CFOs/CIOs etc. of military companies (including Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and their ilk). "
This is a very large "sinecure"
At a deeper level, military forces are agents/enforcers for the elite. Its primary role is the providing expansion and the
defense of the interests of the ruling elite against external and internal enemies. Without addressing the dominant social
interests in the state, a focus on shringking the military budget is quite inadequate.
I don't have a problem with 4% of GDP, but I have a big problem with what we're getting for
our money.
A quarter million for a four-star general is fine, if the general is any good (almost none
of them are by design). In theory a general is equivalent to a division manager in a Fortune
500 company, but COs in the US military have amazingly little power. They're not even free to
hire and fire their own subordinates in most cases. So our senior officers are really paid
generously to pretend they are great military commanders.
The average SAT score at West Point is only 1340 these days. Prior to the Vietnam War I
believe West Point was academically competitive with Ivy League schools, or at least that's
what Class of '68 veteran John T. Reed states.
The Naval Academy is 1322 and the Air Force Academy is 1370.
These aren't bad scores, but clearly these officers aren't elite academically.
The enlisted personnel seem adequate in quality thanks to the AFQT, other than women of
course. They're overpaid compared to what is available for them in the private sector.
The pension system, in addition to being overly generous, has perverse incentives. As any
service-member approaches that magical 20 year mark, any kind of independent thinking must
disappear (which the military already does so much to eliminate). Want your fat pension?
Better shut up and emulate your COs in every way possible. It should just be replaced with a
Thrift Savings Plan (gov't equivalent of a 401k).
One sixth of the force consists of women. Every last one of them subtracts from the
efficacy of the military.
One sixth of personnel are officers, which is far too many officers.
Then you have all the unnecessary EO officers, JAGs, and other political commissars.
I don't have an issue with the various recreational perks in the armed forces as they
contribute to espirit de corps. The private sector could use more of this, honestly.
The GI Bill is also politically objectionable as we should not be giving money to The
Enemy (colleges in this case).
This is the price a mercantile republic pays for an all volunteer fighting force.
When you have less than 5% of the population serving in the military and commitments all
over the globe, then you need to be prepared to pay for those professional services (yes, the
military is a profession like any other). If you're prepared to go back to a draft force, then we can start talking about changes to
the pay and benefit system.
Personally, I think service of some kind, be it military or community, ought to be a
requirement to vote. Service guarantees citizenship.
Maybe you can help me on the following ancillary matter? F.y.i., Mighty John Bolton passed on an opportunity to fight LBJ's atrocious war against
communism, in Vietnam. As PreZident Trump's present Iranophobe-warmongering N.S.A. Adviser, I tried (but failed)
to determine how much pay & "bennies" Bolton now gets from the bottomless Executive
Branch feeding trough.
Same scam, different tactics. 40 years ago we lived in Annapolis, MD in the lowest tier of a then – New housing
development concept. Our cramped townhouses were on the scrabble outer ring.
The most lavish houses were in the inner-ring, on a divided boulevard, extensively
landscaped and maintained. At least 3/4 of those homes were owned by "Double-Dippers"–
military retirees collecting military retirement pay while employed as civil servants in
Federal gov, with defense contractor consulting on the side.
"Thank you for your service,"– in cash, if you please.
I do not mind community service, but I object to military service and I do not want to
vote. Voting gives legitimacy to a system that I oppose. I was born in the geographical area
now ruled by the government of the United States of America. Perhaps, LT Dan, you would be in
favor of a status such as non-citizen resident. I was born in this area by a quirk of fate,
not any choice on my part. I do not usually agree with US government policy, nor do I want
the US government to represent me or "protect" me. It would be just for me to pay less taxes
since I do not desire and would gladly refuse most of the "services" the government provides,
especially those noted in the above article.
Neither me, my father, my grandfather, nor my great grandmother served in the US Military,
but one of the large defense contractors put bread on the table for four generations of my
family. My 90-year old grandmother is still collecting my grandfather's pension from that
firm and he's been dead for 30 years!
US is rich and the debt is high. Both can be true at the same time. But taxes are relatively low so if there is a
government debt crisis paying down the debt would just involve raising taxes. Just look at GDP per capita US which is very
high up there so I don't see how anyone can argue the US is not a very rich country.
Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are very good at creating
unbeatable new companies .etc., etc., etc .
Thanks for the laughs. You must be of the Maven-Krugman school of debt. You're all wrong, and it's obviously beyond your
understanding that though you can fool almost all of the goyim almost all of the time, you can't fool all of us all the time.
AEN, thank you for your fine input, but I suspect you're throwing pearls to swine who
don't even want to understand.
Even worse, when they claim that debt is good, they conveniently leave out the part about
who it's good for.
We dumb goyim have repeatedly proven ourselves to be pretty easy marks, but some of us
have a clue as to who's paying for it all, and its good to know that a few know who that
would be, so thanks again.
That was a jolting eye-catcher. So this general still receives a six-figure pension
check!? I've often marveled at the moral fiber exhibited by these gilded peacocks, who, when
faced with supporting criminal actions by their government, such as invading countries who've
done us no harm, click their heels and proceed. Instead of taking an instant retirement,
knowing their pensions are secure.
You would still be required to pay some kind of lease or tax for the land which you
occupy, but would otherwise be left alone. You would also be subject to the criminal laws of
the jurisdiction you occupied. You would also pay taxes for any consumption that requires use
of infrastructure or interstate commerce.
The United States is large enough that such an arrangement is still possible.
" US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but
considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Every productive dollar that's ever existed has been flushed down the MIC rathole. The
whole "budget "is an elaborate ruse to conceal the chains that bind you.
10's of trillions disappear with gleeful approval on a regular basis.
Mr. Girard, buon giorno. You must be my elder. In '68 I was paid $96 plus $26 combat pay
while in Nam.
Yea, things are out of control. Unfortunately, the store clerk you ran into the other day is
representative of how the majority of "we the people" think. Hence, don't expect change
anytime soon.
I have been a fan of yours for sometime now. Mostly at NEO, sometimes art Rense. I recently
began accessing UNZ and was pleased to see your name in the list of contributors. Sadly I
don't predict improvement in the majorities attitude. But, you do fine work, dom't quit just
yet. As long as we can keep the internet affordable reality may trickle down. I believe the
net is the reason the "fake news" moniker had to be. Sort if like "conspiracy theory". Same
party owns both copyrights.
Keep your head up.
Joseph
Foreign entanglements, searching for monsters to destroy, acting as the world police
– this is the main problem.
Yooge problems for sure, but playing Sugar Daddy to Izzie-land is the biggest one of all
in terms of dollars as well as moral capital, and it probably dwarfs welfare subsidies to
"defense" corporations.
When I joined the U.S. Army in 1965 my starting pay was slightly less than 100 dollars per
month. Soldiers then were said to be "in the service". Today they are "in the military".
Later in life I realized that I had been "in the service" of evil. Still later I learned that
the love of money is the root of evil.
The American Dollar Dies in New York – a Satire from Uganda:
JS, Since Rumsfeld admitted, the day before 911 when he helped murder 30 forensic
accountants plus a handful of Naval Investigators, you are 1 of the few I ever heard mention
the stolen money. Since the Clinton administration up to 2016 the number is now $21
$Trillions, from just 2 departments.
BB, I personally know a couple who are around seventy, very healthy and active, who have
parlayed multiple pension-qualifying careers between them in the armed forces, postal
service, teaching, and county government, into astounding lifestyles. Harley motorcycle,
Winnebago, big house, weekend cottage, cruises, the whole shebang.
They're very nice people, part of the local Puerto Rican ascendancy, first generation
descendants of the Puerto Ricans recruited by the now defunct local steel mills back in the
1950s.
I'm sure it can be said they worked for what they got, but, still . . . you gotta wonder
what's going on.
Military spending has one virtue, it is constitutional as it fulfills one duty of the
FedGov, one it has often shirked, defend the country.
Giraldi can whine all he likes, but the DOD is not an entitlement program, nor does the
Pentagon get all it wants. It never has gotten all it wants, no matter how much Giraldi
whines to the contrary.
I've never seen such a warped and delusional understanding of the voracious, insatiable,
wasteful and corrupt National Security State presented so succinctly
P.S. I have a feeling that War Machine accounts have written Quatermaster a lot of checks
over the years. I.e., he knows what side his bread is buttered on.
anon, tell it like it is. Everyone should also know the debt servce cost to our budget is
the interest Americans pay. What's 2% of 20 trillions? 40 billions? IDK l, but it's alot.
Well that's the federal reserve *a private corp.) income estimate for the yeat, which the
share holders, all 6 of them, pay no income tax.
Since the Clinton administration up to 2016 the number is now $21 $Trillions, from just
2 departments.
Can you explain to me how that even works, technically? E.g. the DoD is supposed to have
"stolen" a lot more money than its entire regular budget – how could they even lay
their hands on such sums? What accounts did that money sit in before it was siphoned off,
without anyone noticing?
The US military are the equivalent of the Roman Empire's honestiores, or upper classes. As
well as the benefits accruing from service, they had special legal treatment, like being
exempt from judicial torture. So Arthur Lichte merely gets part of his pension docked for
raping a woman. Nothing to see here , mate, move along. Even someone like Chelsea ( " They
call her Natasha, but she looks like Elsie" ) Manning spends a mere 7 years in prison and
gets the Defence Department to pay for "gender reassignment".
The point about judicial torture is important as America has recently revived the practice.
Would Assange be waterboarded if they got hold of him ? Would he have met a fatal "accident"
in custody?
Who knows ? But don't you even think about doing that to an American serviceman, even one as
degenerate as Manning.
That wasn't a response. It was just name calling. So if you aren't convinced by my
rebuttal it's certainly not because you had more intelligent analysis.
You use a lot of figures but not the appropriate statistics. What do big aggregate numbers
like 200k in debt per family really mean?
I look at the percentage of tax revenue v. GDP compared to other first world countries. US
is actually on the low side by this measure. That means it's possible to raise taxes and only
moderately harm the economic growth engine. And no one has addressed the advantages the US
economy has in particular having half of the world's Ashkenazim.
Rumsfeld admitted, the day before 911 when he helped murder 30 forensic accountants plus
a handful of Naval Investigators,
Thanks, it's nice to know that there are others who are wide awake. Trouble is, even those
who have a clue can't even imagine the .0001% of it, I'm sure.
What accounts did that money sit in before it was siphoned off, without anyone
noticing?
We'll probably never know. The system is not exactly designed for transparency, and
besides, guess where the missile, errr, "plane" hit the Penta-graft?
Wouldn't it be fun to ask Rummy the Smirking Dummy that question?
I bet this swinish character could provide a bit of insight with a little Nuremberg or Abu
Ghraib style info gathering as well, and here's a partial rap sheet
Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief
Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001. Dr. Zakheim has previously
served in a number of key positions in government and private business.
Most recently, he
was corporate vice president of System Planning Corp., a technology, research and analysis
firm based in Arlington, Va. He also served as chief executive officer of SPC International
Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting. During the
2000 presidential campaign, he served as a senior foreign policy advisor to then-Governor
Bush.
From 1985 until March 1987, Dr. Zakheim was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Planning and Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy). In that
capacity, he played an active role in the Department's system acquisition and strategic
planning processes. Dr. Zakheim held a variety of other DoD posts from 1981 to 1985.
Earlier, he was employed by the National Security and International Affairs Division of the
Congressional Budget Office.
Dr. Zakheim has been a participant on a number of government, corporate, non-profit and
charitable boards.
The United States military is a giant jobs program, Giraldi!
So what of it! Who cares. Conjure up those dollars out of thin air and let the troops have
some loot. Did the Founding Fathers warn us about large standing armies in their writings and
actions? Yes.
Did the Founding Fathers know that a large standing army would require a concentrated form
of governmental power to collect the loot to pay for that army? Yes.
Did we just pass the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta? Yes. Was the Magna Carta
about standing armies and concentrated government power, among other things?
Were the Founding Fathers somewhat ungrateful to the British Empire for its efforts in the
French and Indian War? Yes.
Would the Founding Fathers be surprised to find a Jew billionaire named Shelly Adelson
controlling the use of the US military in the Middle East and West Asia? The cynical and
smart ones wouldn't be surprised at all.
The GOP has the War budget and the US military and the Democrats have the public schools
and many other government workers. The GOP always promises to spend more loot on the War
budget and the US military and the Democrats always promise to spend more money on the public
schools and other government programs.
Giraldi has written a CLUNKER of a blog post, folks!
Giraldi should write about mass immigration, monetary extremism and the impossibility of
paying for the retirement of the baby boomers.
Mass Immigration: DEMOGRAPHY
Monetary Policy: DEBT
Baby Boomers: NATION WRECKERS
The American Empire is soon to go belly up in a manner similar to the upcoming demise of
treasonous rat John McCain.
The WASP /JEW ruling class of the American Empire knows this. A pleasant consolation is
that China, Japan and Europe are just as badly bankrupt as the American Empire is.
Raise the federal funds rate to 10 percent and implode the American Empire. Young people
must no longer be saddled with massive unpayable debt and the unpayable retirement of the
baby boomers. Pull the plug on the baby boomers now, and let the young people have a
future.
The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans will implode also. Use the nuclear deterrent and
offshore balancing to keep global peace.
Giraldi can whine all he likes, but the DOD is not an entitlement program, nor does the
Pentagon get all it wants.
If it isn't an entitlement program, then what would one look like? Do you know the meaning
of "sinecure?"
You can whine about Giraldi all you want but he's right and yer wrong, and thank G-d that
the Pantygon doesn't get all it wants. Can you explain whether it should and why?
PS: Read the comments regarding disabilities and retirement bennies and then get back to
us.
You really don't want affirmative action nurses looking after anymore than those Bombay
specials that the VA hires as doctors. It's not a perk, it's just free.
The VA is a train wreck because of these people. No one wants to say squat because you
have to point a finger at all the AA hires and that would get you labeled as a racist.
And oh they are paid, very, very well. The average RN makes over a $100k at the VA. I know
private sector nurses who went to work for the VA because of the pay and bennies. Plus you
can't get fired.
You do realize that "waterboarding" is part and parcel of SERE school in the military and
has been for a very long time. It's where the Pentagon/CIA got idea of applying to a bunch of
sand monkeys.
Anyone who is special ops gets waterboarded so are fighter pilots and the like. The MSM
always neglects this fact.
Dov Zakheim is a nasty Neo-Conservative Jew rat, that is widely known. Zakheim was one of the
Neo-Conservative rats who helped to drag the US military into the Iraq War debacle. Seems
Neo-Conservative rat boy Dov Zakheim also made himself a wealthy rat through his connections
to the WASP / JEW ruling class of the American Empire.
But,
Let's not forget nasty Neo-Conservative Jew rat Michael Chertoff and his pal General
Michael Hayden. Baby boomers Chertoff and Hayden have made out like bandits from their involvement in the
Deep State of the American Empire. I say the baby boomers are an evil generation of nation wreckers. Tweets from 2015:
At least half of our military bills should be sent to Israel. Practically all of our wars
these days are on their behalf. The other half should be paid by a war tax. All those who
support going to "necessary" wars overseas for "humanitarian" reasons or other will pay into
this tax, starting with the neocons and the media (not just mainstream liberal media but many
right wing neocon mouthpieces like National Review, Breitbart, DailyCaller).
Last but not least, any elected official who votes for or calls for war with any nation,
from Trump to Pence, Nikki Haley, John McCain, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo et al. should fork
out 100% of their salaries to pay for the war until it ends.
What evidence is there that the trade discussion is based on China reducing treasury
holdings rather than counter-tariffs on US agricultural goods and potentially in a number of
other areas like education services (blocking Chinese families from sending kids to lower
ranked US colleges)?
America's Republican politicians complain that "entitlements," by which they mean
pensions and medical care, are leading the country to bankruptcy even as they fatten the
spending on the Pentagon, which now takes 12 percent of the overall budget.
The US military budget should be $100 billion .do what you can.
"Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who
are very good at creating unbeatable new companies. Just look at how the half the 40 riches
entrepreneurs under 40 in the US according to Forbes are Jewish. Jews are producing so much
innovation in the US that it offsets a lot of the problems like military spending at 4% of
GDP and less productive sub-populations."
Average daily volume in the Treasury market is $500 billion, and the Federal Reserve
System is authorized to create unlimited quantities of currency to purchase Treasuries (and
other gov't securities) in any case.
This isn't the financial weapon of mass destruction people think it is.
The Chinese themselves know this, which is why they stopped adding to their position and
have gradually reduced it.
A more effective strategy would be to focus financial firepower where the Federal Reserve
isn't authorized to operate, such as the commercial paper market. Probably Congress itself
would then act, but if you can buy enough seats for hard money dweebs you might be able to
cause serious trouble.
I'm sure the Roman Empire had some version of waterboarding.
The Roman Army's form of punishment was known as decimation , a word now
commonly used by semi-literates to torture knowledgeable historians, philologists, and
wordsmiths, including not a few Baby Boomers , who apparently know a lot more than
you, and who also are smart enough to blame the guilty -- and not an entire generation -- for
the misdeeds or evil gains of a relatively few assholes.
But I know subtle nuance like that must be difficult to understand for those who can paint
-- or splatter -- only with a very broad brush.
As if remotely possible to do so, Realist recommended:
"The US military budget should be $100 billion .do what you can."
Hi (Sur)Realist,
A question. Above, who would meaningfully tell that to the ZUS Defense Department, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, & the military contractors? Sheldon Adelson? Netanyahu? Take heart! I trust Peter Aus will appear & bring your do-gooder passion into
practical reality. Thanks, nevertheless!
You make my point for me.
As I said, Judicial Torture was used on humiliores, and, indeed, in European Inquisitorial
Systems until the late C18th and early C19th.
A person or entity whose liabilities outweigh its assets, is not rich.
This is more true when the entity, like the US Fed Gov, has vastly more liabilities than
physical assets, let alone readily marketable assets.
The fed gov has promised to pay more each year than it has recently taken in as revenue,
and more than it has any realistic hope of generating anytime soon.
The fed gov is in hock more than 20 trillion in the books right now, and over 100 trillion
projected forward.
Yeah the fed gov is rich.
Looking at average and median private-household net worth will not make the picture much
rosier.
Commissaries, gyms, and hair salons on bases in the USA must end.
Pay the soldiers well, but have them live and try to get by in the same economy and world
as their employers -- WE THE TAXPAYERS.
Also, require soldiers to live off base and pay their own housing (boosting their cash pay
accordingly) OR start counting their housing as taxable income as it would be for the rest of
us mere TAXPAYERS.
Evil baby boomers in Europe, England and the United States have been protected by the
monetary extremism of the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve
Bank.
It is now time to financially liquidate the evil baby boomer generation. If the Federal
Reserve Bank raised the federal funds rate to 10 percent, and the ECB and BoE raised interest
rates similarly, the baby boomers in the USA, England and most of Europe would be financially
busted. The baby boomers have been the generation that benefited the most from the monetary
extremism of the last few decades, and especially since 2008.
The federal funds rate went over 20 percent in 1981, 10 percent now would wipe out the
asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate. Do it.
The baby boomers are an evil generation of nation-wreckers. Bill Clinton and George W Bush
are prime examples of evil globalizer baby boomers.
Tough shit that you don't like his tone. We don't like being systematically ripped off and
told it's patriotic.
We should start either taxing the military employees' housing allowance OR require them to
buy their own housing off-base. I'd be fine with increasing cash salary to make up for it.
Let's get an honest number on what their salaries really are and then debate whether they get
paid enough.
And by all means let's reform and reduce officer pensions. End this last-three-years
calculation and require more than 20 years "service" to get half or more of one's salary as
pension. They are desk jobs and they can and should work at least, say, THIRTY years before
being able to retire st that level of pension and work elsewhere.
Military is a wasteful fraudulent untrustworthy bureaucracy like any other in the fed gov
-- or worse because they get a free pass from a lot of people.
The oil and gas resources alone owned by the federal government are worth some $200
trillion. Then there's the fact that the taxing authority of the federal government makes any fiscal
deficit a matter of choice to begin with.
Am fairly sure you know about Donald Rumsfeld early political career, including his
special assignment as an ambitious congressman, & on behalf of the A.Z.C.
If not, below I link ZUS Defense Secretary "Shit Happens" treasonous letter to Robert F.
Kennedy.
And we need Russian equipment to get into space these days, apparently. That would be troublesome even if Russia were an ally, as perhaps they should be.
It's worse when our gov chooses to slander, threaten, sanction, and encircle the country
on whom we are relying.
Imagine China refusing to sell us what we need AND Russia refusing to let us use or buy
its space equipment.
For that matter, there's so much demand for oil and natural gas in India and China --
likely to keep increasing, too -- Russia eventually may be able to say "we will sell to
anyone EXCEPT companies and facilities in the USA, and anyone caught reselling to the USA
will join them on the blacklist." If Iran and, say, Venezuela or Nigeria did the same, watch
out.
Deliberate dishonest distraction. Whether the DOD got as much as it wanted, it gets much
more than our actual defense requires, and the people on the gravy train know it.
The fact that defense is a specifically enumerated duty and power of the fed government,
has nothing to do with the proper amount to spend on that function.
Money spent attacking countries that are not attacking us here in the USA, are not
preparing for imminent attack on us here in the USA, and are not aiding those who are
attacking or preparing to imminently attack us here in the USA is NOT part of that legitimate
constitutional function.
Same with money spent defending Israel or Saudi Arabia, helping the saudis kill Yemenis in
Yemen, helping islamists or anyone else overthrow the gov of Syria, etc.
Same with money spent defending (or controlling) Germany, France, South Korea, Japan,
etc.
Calling that "whining" is not an argument. It suggests that you lack an honest, logical
argument on this issue.
The threat is the Mexicans we have allowed in, not any credible military threat from
Mexico's armed forces.
Our military should be posted on the entire southern border with orders to kill all
invaders who do not heed warnings to turn back. Add a minefield, barbed wire fencing where
absent, and armed drones.
The clothing allowance is for purchase, upkeep, and repair of uniforms. There is a
bureaucratic mindset of having things clearly laid out which guarantees a lot of this
spending, especially when the time preferences of new enlistees bears out the wisdom of
having a specially set aside and clearly labeled clothing allowance. Many good critics with
detailed grievamces skip over the governmental addiction to trying to solve reality with
longer and longer rulebooks.
Radical Center proposed: "Russia eventually may be able to say "we will sell to anyone
EXCEPT companies and facilities in the USA, and anyone caught reselling to the USA will join
them on the blacklist."
Hi Radical Center,
Speaking with utmost respect for your typical sound-thought, have you ever approached the
issue from the Globalist's (ideal) "Radical Center" perspective where the planet's economic
& military Superpowers decide how crude oil & natural gas sale & distribution is
done?
Radical Center opined: "Our military should be posted on the entire southern border with
orders to kill all invaders who do not heed warnings to turn back."
Hi Radical Center,
The biggest problem I have with the solution (above) is your having used, in error, the
words, "Our military."
Were that the actual case, Jewish Lobbies, billionaire ZUS Jews, Congress, & PreZident
Trump would be very pissed at Mr. Giraldi's for provocatively having the gall to use the
description, "American military" in his article title.
Thanks again, Radical Center. By increment, you are getting there! So please simply
consider dropping the word "Our"?
Like one of the Maven Shama's "old grey mares, "That ain't what it used to be."
There are two standards one for enlisted personnel and the other for officers. During the
Grenada situation some enlisted personnel and officers were caught attempting to ship
captured AK-47 rifles back to the states. The enlisted personnel got "hard time" in
Leavenworth while the officers got "letters of reprimand". Double standard, indeed.
I might have made the military a career, but the disparities in both facilities and treatment
of officers vs. enlisted was a real turn-off. I completed my enlistment honorably and
returned to civilian life.
It is my humble opinion (and personal observation) that the commissioned officer rank
structure where there is concern for the enlisted troops ends with the rank of colonel. The
general staff is more akin to political office than it is to serving in the military and
taking care of their military subordinates.
As to "pay and allowances", when I was active duty (1969-1971) it was not much. In fact, at
the time, those of us in uniform were looked down upon and blamed for the prosecution of the
Vietnam conflict. Not only that, legislated job programs that were supposed to go to us
Vietnam veterans never materialized.
Yes, the all-volunteer forced made it necessary to increase "pay and allowances" to
relatively attractive levels.
If I had my way, I would bring back the draft with NO college deferments. In fact, the sons
and daughters of politicians would get called up first. Service in the IDF doesn't count.
You are correct. The rest of the world that falls under the USA "defense umbrella" can
afford extravagant social programs as they do not pay for their defense. In fact, WE are
required to pay rent on foreign bases in which to place our troops.
If I had my way, all foreign troop deployments would stop. Those countries requesting our
"protection" would have to pay for it.
Seems to me, that was one of President Trump's campaign promises–making foreign
countries pay for their defense.
You sir are an American hating leftist. The military, until the left decided it was the
government's job to provide cradel to grave care for everyone accounted for more than 75
percent of the federal budget. To complain that the military consumes 12 of the budget while
Medicaid consumes 50 percent is a straw man. Having been an infantry man I can tell you that
anyone who can do 20 or 30 years deserves a life long pension. Being a man is hard on the
body.
He's currently a court bailiff, a patronage job here, earning maybe in the low $30s. Plus,
his 20-year Army pension, plus his 20+-year postal service pension. He's a high school grad.
His wife is fully retired with a 20-year Army pension, and a teacher's pension with about 20
years in.
I'll take a wild guess their retirement income is no less than $100,000 a year in my very
low-cost area.
A go-figure sort of deal. Not just double-dipping. More than that, as you and other folks
here have said. It's a mentality, a mind-set. For some of the worst of those high-salary
government folks, there are only three types of Americans: Bill Gates and other billionaires,
government workers, and Americans who are too stupid to find a corporate or government milch
cow.
You're right, of course. These days I try to always write and say "the US government"
rather than "OUR government." I should have done the same with "US military."
Mandate that we first enlist, train, and promptly deploy any children and grandchildren of
all members of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet, federal judges, Federal Reserve
Board of Governors, and the CEOs/CFOs/CIOs etc. of military companies (including Northrup
Grumman, Boeing, and their ilk).
Looks like US military belong to the privileged class like it was in late Roman empire
Notable quotes:
"... This why career servicemen love the military, they are making 2-3 times more than comparable civilians, and they know it! Read my article if you are confused. Then many of these "retirees" leave at age 40 with nice retirement, then get a regular federal job, and put in for every minor ache and pain and get a thousand or more dollars each month in VA tax free "disability" pay. Sleep Apnea (aka snoring) is a popular disability to claim worth up to 50%. Some get 100% disability but you wouldn't know it if you met them, and still work for Uncle Sam full time! The LA Times reported that after Senator John McCain announced he was fit to run for President, he was getting military retirement, 100% tax free VA disability, his Senator pay and social security retirement! ..."
"... For me the pay and benefits aren't the core problem. We are paying to destabilize the world, kill US citizens, kill civilians, increase terror all for wars that don't benefit the American citizenry as a whole in any way. ..."
Today's United States has 2,083,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen on active duty
plus reserves. Now that the military is an all-volunteer rather than a conscript force, it is
understandable that pay and benefits should be close to or equivalent to civilian pay scales.
Currently, a sergeant first class with 10 years in service gets paid $3968 a month. A captain
with ten years gets $6271. That amounts to $47,616 and $75,252 a year respectively plus
healthcare, food, housing, cost of living increases and bonuses to include combat pay.
Though there are several options for retirement, generally speaking a soldier, sailor Marine
or airman can retire after 20 years with half of his or her final "high three" pay as a
pension, which means an 18-year-old who enlists right out of high school will be 38 and if he
or she makes sergeant first class (E-7) he or she will be collecting $2338 a month or more for
a rest of his or her life adjusted for cost of living,
Many Americans would be astonished at the pensions that general officers and admirals
receive, particularly since 80% of them also land in "retirement" generously remunerated
positions with defense contractors either in active positions soliciting new contracts from
their former peers or sitting on boards. General David Petraeus, whom
The Nation describes as the "general who lost two wars," pulls in a pension of $220,000
even though he was forced to resign as CIA Director due to passing classified information to
his mistress. He is also chairman of a New York City based company KKR Global, which is part of
a private equity firm Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts. He reportedly is paid in six figures plus
bonuses for "oversee[ing] the institute's thought leadership platform focused on geopolitical
and macro-economic trends, as well as environmental, social, and governance issues."
It apparently is difficult to take money away from general and flag officers. An Air Force
four-star general named Arthur Lichte was reduced in
rank to a two-star in 2017 after he was found guilty of having raped a lower ranking woman
officer. His pension went down from $216,000 to $156,000 due to the reduction. Normally,
however, America's 1,000 general and flag officers can look forward to comfortable
retirements.
But on top of that rather generous bit of cash there are the considerable other benefits, as
the old recruiting sergeants would put it, the "bennies." Military retirees can receive full
tuition and expenses at a college or technical school if they choose to go back to school. This
is why one sees so many ads for online universities on television – they are trolling for
soldier dollars knowing that it's free money. The retiree will also have access to heavily
subsidized medical care for him or herself plus family. The medical care is a significant bonus
under the Tricare system, which describes itself on its website as "the gold standard for
medical coverage, [that] is government managed health insurance." A friend who is retired
recently had a hip replacement operation that would have cost $39,000 for only a few hundred
dollars through Tricare.
What is significant is that even enlisted military personnel can start a second career on
top of their pension, given that many of them are still in their thirties. Some that have
security clearances can jump into highly paid jobs with defense contractors immediately while
others also find places in the bureaucracy with the Department of Homeland Security. Working
for the government twice is called "double dipping."
Some would argue that military personnel deserve what they get because the jobs are by their
very nature dangerous, sometimes fatal. Indeed, the number of maimed and PTSD-afflicted
soldiers returning from the endless wars is a national tragedy and caring for them should be a
top priority. But the truth is that only a very small fraction, by some estimates far less than
20% of Army and Marine personnel in so-called "combat arms," ever are in danger. Air Force and
Navy personnel rarely experience combat at all apart from bombing targets far below or
launching cruise missiles against Syrians. It is true that given the volatile nature of war
against insurgents in places like Afghanistan many soldiers in support roles can come under
fire, but it is far from normal and most men and women in service never experience a gun fired
in anger.
Some numbers-crunchers in the Pentagon have already raised the alarm that the current pay,
benefits and retirement levels for military personnel is unsustainable if the United States
continues its worldwide mission against terrorists and allegedly rogue regimes. And it is also
unsustainable if the U.S. seeks to return to a constitutional arrangement whereby the nation is
actually defended by its military, not subordinated to it and being bankrupted by its
costs.
Wait, so this is a lefty Democrat blog now, where The Nation is cited favorably?
Our men in uniform, particularly the grunts, make sacrifices that the others don't make.
Sure, some officers are corrupt and the military manages to manufacture demand for its
expensive products, but this article goes way too far.
Captains with just eight years in service rake in over $100,000 a year with nothing more than
a four-year degree in history! Senior enlisted can also make over $100,000 a year with a high
school diploma, plus free family health care and zero contributions to retirement. After just
four years of service, a married GI is making more than the average American college graduate
with 20 years of work experience! I wrote about this several years ago for those who still
fall for the draft era "poor GI myth".
Note our military spends billions of dollars on recruiting ads, but never mentions high
pay. If they did, Congress may end the annual pay boost and lines would form at recruiting
stations. Even most "experts" and reporters are confused because military lobbyists use the
inflated ECI index (which includes increased health care and workers comp costs) rather than
just wages, and pretend housing and food allowances are not income. Even the average military
pilot earns twice a much as the average airline pilot, based on facts not Pentagon spin
stories.
This why career servicemen love the military, they are making 2-3 times more than
comparable civilians, and they know it! Read my article if you are confused. Then many of
these "retirees" leave at age 40 with nice retirement, then get a regular federal job, and
put in for every minor ache and pain and get a thousand or more dollars each month in VA tax
free "disability" pay. Sleep Apnea (aka snoring) is a popular disability to claim worth up to
50%. Some get 100% disability but you wouldn't know it if you met them, and still work for
Uncle Sam full time! The LA Times reported that after Senator John McCain announced he was
fit to run for President, he was getting military retirement, 100% tax free VA disability,
his Senator pay and social security retirement!
Now before some ignorant servicemen whine about those serving in combat zones or deployed
on ships, note that fewer than 10% of GIs ever serve in a real combat zone, not the fake ones
like Bahrain. They rate their pay, but not those working soft office jobs in Hawaii or San
Diego or Florida. Keep in mind that we have a volunteer force, and our military must constant
prune the career force since far too many want to stay in as long as possible. No one leaves
because of poor pay, but because of political BS.
I usually share your disdain for The Nation magazine. But in the vein of stopped
clock correctness twice a day even it can sometimes be correct, witness its editor Steve
Cohen's completely admirable efforts to lend sanity and substance to America's Russian
foreign policy!
I've seen articles decrying that first-year married privates are eligible for food stamps.
Because their housing, medical, and the cost of living differential are not "income". They're
living on more than twice the reported income. So yeah, they have arranged the pay precisely
so that they are not subject to any income tax, and are in some cases eligible for food
stamps.
They have rec vehicles they can check out, boats and four-wheelers, snowmobiles and etc.,
special parks and land reservations, scenic cabins they can stay at with trifling fees or are
free. Ours has a golf course that must be staggering for upkeep. Gyms, facilities for parties
and events – stuff you'd pay a lot for in the private sector. The subsidized shopping
is still there, but is not the huge discount it was at one time, at the bases in this
state.
The state gives them all kinds of benefits like instant residency for hunting and fishing.
The stores give them discounts. Military appreciation days.
And frankly it isn't your STEM people, business and tech fields going into the military.
Their next best alternatives are a pittance by comparison. For who you are getting, the
quality of recruit, this is well paid.
I don't mind that so much as having three times the size we need to defend our borders,
which is what we should be doing and no more. Foreign entanglements, searching for monsters
to destroy, acting as the world police – this is the main problem.
4% of GDP, is it? Not sure about that but I do know it's 30% of federal tax revenue.
Military spending is about $1 trillion, if you include
all the various categories , per annum; whereas Federal receipts are about $3.3 trillion
per annum.
So about 30% of all Federal tax receipts – 30% of the money stolen from me at
gunpoint, which forces me to labor for months every year without pay – goes to corrupt
contractors, murderers and war criminals to oppress and murder people and destroy property
throughout the world in service to the Evil Empire, including, of course, Jew supremacist
Israel.
So since you think it's so "bearable", you Evil Empire supporter, why don't you kindly
give me back my 1 month of stolen labor every year to pay for your beloved Evil Empire's
perpetual Campaign of Death, Oppression and Destruction?
Clearly is if you look at your debt to GDP and deficit.
Interesting because the US has its history as part of the English tradition of no standing
armies, militias, all possible due to the favourable geography of having a strip of water, or
moat as Shakespeare put it, to deter potential invaders. The US military really is a WWII and
Cold War creation. That the US seems to be the only nation not have benefited from the end of
the cold war dividend in reduced military spending is an impressive feat by lobbyists and
neocon ideologues.
For me the pay and benefits aren't the core problem. We are paying to destabilize the
world, kill US citizens, kill civilians, increase terror all for wars that don't benefit the
American citizenry as a whole in any way. At one time they might have been for
corporations now they are for Israel.
You're spot on. By the Late Roman Empire, society was divided into 2 groups – the
humiliores ( lower classes ) and the honestiores ( upper classes ). Soldiers belonged to the
latter group, and most historians consider that the common soldier never had a higher status
in any society.
History doesn't repeat itself exactly, but modern day America has largely followed the Roman
route. Certainly, the sheer cost of the Roman Military was a factor in the decline and fall
of the Roman Empire.
The Roman soldier had a much more dangerous period of military service than the risk averse
modern American military. Roman veterans certainly earned their benefits.
What is the real "defense burden" (the percentage of our GDP spent on the military) sans
bullshit accounting tricks and "reclassification" of expenses.
For example, if we used accounting methods as used in some of the more efficient, less
bloated military establishments of our allies, what would be the actual cost to our economy
of our defense spending?
For all we know, military expenditures may actually be back to Reagan Cold War percentage
levels, or slightly more.
Article didn't mention the dependency allowance. I looked on military websites to find the
amount but you have to be registered military to find the amount
There is a clothing allowance, why? And the military is heavily affirmative action
Hispanic black and female I live near a big VA. Twice a day hundreds of VA employees drive
right past my house. Almost all are black. I drive through the VA often. Most everyone I see
is black except for the Indian immigrant Drs.
California vets get some kind of no down payment low interest mortgage. When they retire
they can get a loan for $50,000 to use for setting up a business or buying rental
property.
Our men in uniform, particularly the grunts, make sacrifices that the others don't
make.
Based on my experience as a young kid, and observations as an old fart, I call BS on that
unless "sacrifice" has acquired a new meaning on the street that I'm unaware of.
US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but
considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article.
The US is rich? Living on borrowed, stolen and extorted money and we're rich? The US has
become a huge third world strip mall republic, complete with an overstuffed and parasitic
military, and you think we're rich?The whole murderous,mendacious, thieving, and morally and
financially bankrupt enterprise is poor by any significant measure, so your "reasoning" is
what's weak.
Rank 'Ol Rummie spoke the truth once and it happened one day before the towers were
pulled.
Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
"The adversary is closer to home; it's the Pentagon bureaucracy "
- Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001
PS: For those who don't know where the missile, err, "plane" hit the Pentagon on 9/11, do
a tad of research and tell me, with a straight face, that it was some coincidence.
Federal Debt $20 trillion, Accumulated Balance of Trade Deficit since 1990 $12 trillion (
unadjusted for inflation ). That's not even including State and Local Debt, never mind
Private Debt.
The only thing preventing complete bankruptcy is that the Dollar is the World's Reserve
Currency- for now. Once China and others start dumping US Treasury Bonds, that will be
over.
Two of my friends own motorcycle dealerships in San Antonio. Gee. I wonder how they can
sell so many, compared to dealers in towns without major military bases
We spend more than the next ten nations, COMBINED. To "defend ourselves" from goat herders
that can't afford passports or air tickets. 800 bases scattered across the planet. But,
thinking about it, folks like somalians have been invading the US OH. WAIT! Federal refugee
programs have been importing somalis. NEVER MIND.
We fight them there so we can bring them here and put them on welfare/food stamps? Makes
perfect sense.
I was in the field and in a number of firefights during my year in Vietnam, 69 – 70,
and I find the idea of some store or VA clerk thanking me for my service offensive as all get
out because I know these well meaning strangers, who owe me nothing at all, are being played
for fools to serve the interests of America's worst enemy, Israel and its American fifth
column. I'm also disgusted by this new breed of soldier who's less any sort of manly patriot
than a skin-headed, "muh brothers, muh mission" wind-up martinet who mistakes the vain
daintiness of pumping iron as well as technical superiority's easy targets for manliness. As
for the Pentagon, it's the mother of all bureaucracies whose leaders but for the costumes are
no more warriors than the time-serving hacks in any other bloated bureaucracy, who couldn't
care less, as the facts make clear, about sending young Americans to die and be maimed so the
sons of their Israeli masters need not.
I used to feel smug after jumping from the US military to banking in the knowledge that my
starting pay was several multiples of my military pay and even outstripped that of the JCS
heads who I served under.
Somewhere along the way, probably in the 2000s during the so-called War for Talent,
Federal civilian and military pay got a significant uptick well in excess of what the KSAs
(Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities) of these folks as measured by OPM and DoD, and there has
been no looking back.
Giraldi might be right that the troops are overpaid, but that is just the tip of the
iceberg that is the Military Industrial Security Academic Complex.
Defense spending is allegedly 3.6% of GDP ($700B / $19,000B) but is actually over 5% if you
factor in the hidden Defense spending. VA benefits, over $100B, nuclear arsenal covered under
Dept of Energy (my favorite) over $30B, Defense portion of debt service over $100B, and other
places that I'd have to dig up.
Defense spending is over 30% of the budget, the low ball 15% is only if you include social
security and medicare which you should not because that is covered by dedicated payroll
taxes. If payroll taxes were eliminated, those programs would go away but the budget deficit
would not be impacted. This is a trick that defense consultants play to make Defense spending
look smaller.
Defense spending is over 50% if you also discount our annual debt service, this is why the
$1.3T featured $600B for domestic vs $700B for Defense.
I thought that singling out military pay was a tad mean spirited. Capping pensions that
disproportionately benefit Generals who then go onto consulting jobs for Defense contractors
and get paid positions on FOX might be a good idea but I didn't like the tone of this
column.
No serious person who says they care about budget deficits can approach them without
looking at Defense Spending.
- Chris Chuba
One of the disturbing actions of the soldier worshipping conservatives is the Wounded Warrior
scam which uses crippled and deformed GIs in ads aimed at the heartstrings of the American
public. The fact that so many soldiers are returning from useless wars in dire condition
should be the responsibility of the Department of Defense (War) and its Government which is
responsible for the mayhem and violence in so many parts of the world not a subject for
organized begging which often preys on the suffering of the young.
Re; Mr. Giraldi's brave & unspoken words: "(ZUS military) Pay and benefits are way out of
control"
With a long history of planning & implementation, below, presstv explains how radical
"citizens" were headhunted & placed in control as to when & how our hallowed ZUS
troop commanders do their Jewish job assignments.
US is rich and the debt is high. Both can be true at the same time. But taxes are
relatively low so if there is a government debt crisis paying down the debt would just
involve raising taxes. Just look at GDP per capita US which is very high up there so I don't
see how anyone can argue the US is not a very rich country.
Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are
very good at creating unbeatable new companies. Just look at how the half the 40 riches
entrepreneurs under 40 in the US according to Forbes are Jewish. Jews are producing so much
innovation in the US that it offsets a lot of the problems like military spending at 4% of
GDP and less productive sub-populations.
Good article, Phil. I served in the 1970s, tail end of Vietnam Stateside, and never heard a
shot fired in anger. I am grateful for the G. I. benefits I received.
No institution in a representative democracy ought to be above measured criticism. I have
a relative who volunteers at the local VA clinic, and there's some sketchy evidence that some
patients with very good group health insurance benefits are working the system and getting VA
treatment to avoid co-pays.
I personally found David Hackworth's criticism of the American military fairly persuasive.
Deep bureaucratization, tunnel vision, advancing officers for their inoffensiveness and
favor-currying chops, the whole mess.
Plus add the big three already mentioned by some folks above. (1) America's armed forces
are a Petri dish for social engineering, (2) corruption, (3) the political mafia-zation of
America's armed forces so that it's acting as a White House-directed quasi-mercenary
"enforcer" for corporate interests and various other sovereign interests.
"An Air Force four-star general named Arthur Lichte was reduced in rank to a two-star in 2017
after he was found guilty of having raped a lower ranking woman officer".
You say he was ***reduced in rank*** for raping a female subordinate?
Why wasn't he given 50 lashes, a dishonourable discharge, and a prison sentence? Even a
random civilian would get the prison sentence for rape. And for such a senior officer to
commit a crime like that is, of course far, far worse.
Israel and their ziocons control every facet of the U.S. gov and have used the U.S. army as a
proxy army of Israel to fight and die for Israel in the ME while they sit it out in their
ivory towers in Tel Aviv and New York City and London.
To add to the tragedy millions of civilians have been killed in these wars for Israel in
Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and Yemen and various other places through out the
ME, and all of this carnage for Israel.
Just like the Roman empire where the rulers paraded their conquering armies through Rome ,
Trump wants to parade his Israeli proxy armies through D.C. and take their review as a
Caligula. Trump is a puppet of the zionists and Netanyahu and his controllers the ROTHCHILDS
ie the RED SHIELD which is dripping with Americans blood.
Orwell was right, the wars never end in OCEANIA and we have become Oceania, and all
because of our zionist masters.
That was a very good article with lots of facts that I was unaware regarding the various
forms of compensation. I have not been in the miltary. I will tell you that I have seen how
things work on the procurement end, and that is the real shitshow, moneywise. The amount of
wasted money in personnel involved in trying to micromanage a contractor, the "generation" of
paperwork that must weigh 10X vehicle max-gross-weight in order to sign off on it, and other
things, ruin the job for the technician or engineer in any company making stuff for the US
military.
(BTW, that last sentence of mine brought up the only one (little tiny) thing that I didn't
like about the article. You KEEP USING "his and her", "he and she", etc. Enough of that crap,
please, Mr. Giraldi. Unz is one of a number of place on-line on which one doesn't have to be
PC. He can write as he pleases. The rest of your English is very professional,
so why this?).
Anyway, great article, just the facts and honest opinion without any hyperbole. Regarding
your very last paragraph, BTW, it's not just that the army is so costly, but if America ever
had to defend itself from one of the countries we buy parts from, cough, China , cough, cough,
that'll be a laugh. We are operating on borrowed money, as Jack S (#16) stated, AND foreign
supply lines. We're number 1! Yeah!
Among the lots of good comments on the thread so far, yours is kind of an outlier, to put
it nicely. No, you cannot be both rich and in debt (6 – 7 X more than your yearly
income) at the same time. . There are perhaps different definitions of broke that people
or families may use for themselves.
1) Out of spending cash – got assets, but awaiting more income before any spending
can resume. That's not too bad – it just shows lack of foresight or bad luck.
2) Broke even – got some assets, but owe the same amount – income is about the
same as expenditures expected. There are lots like this – they need to buckle down, but
will probably be OK.
3) Flat broke – can't borrow anymore due to bad payment history, even to friends and
family – not enough income to pay expenditures or even on this.
4) Broke like the US Feral Government – borrowing 1/3 of the money for the
$4,000,000,000,000 budget each year, as only 2/3 can be collected via personal
income/corporate income/excise/etc. taxes (just look near the back of the IRS 1040
instructions – they're not hiding this stuff). Total debt of $20,000,000,000,000 is 5 X
the budget each year and 6-7 X the income collected yearly. It is > 100 % of the total
GDP. There is no coming out of this hole without financial pain for almost everyone but those
with a Challenger or other large/medium-cabin business jet with precious metals stashed on an
island or S. American/Oriental country with a runway on your compound with armed guards.
"some"? Har-Dee-Har-Har. What percentage of people who separate from the military claim a
"service related disability"? With that designation they not only get the retirement benefit
bump but also set-asides for government jobs and contracts as well. Based on the number of
service related disability claims by veterans, the United States must have the most
physically fragile fighting force on the planet.
And in this age of stupid perpetual wars, every "disabled veteran" is assumed have been
shot up in the Middle East when if fact it's more likely they tripped on the steps on the way
back from lunch at Fort Leavenworth. That erroneous assumption of a combat related disability
is great for milking benefits from a sympathetic public.
And there's more. Sleep apnea claims as a service related disability by veterans have
exploded. Same with PTSD.
The web is saturated with advice on how to game the military disability system.
A vet I knew laughed as he told me he got a disability award for his knee. Only that
injury came from playing too much basketball at his U.S. base. Another "disabled veteran" I
know does Cross Fit to stay in shape. His most dangerous deployment was to southern Europe
where he met his wife. And yes, he advertises his disability on his business web site and
does qualify for government contract set-asides.
Too bad for the taxpayers though. Since the military has been sanctified by the powerful
Pentagon/MSM "Warrior-Hero" propaganda engine, challenging out of control military benefits
is a political and social third rail.
The web is saturated with advice on how to game the military disability system.
A vet I knew laughed as he told me he got a disability award for his knee. Only that
injury came from playing too much basketball at his U.S. base. Another "disabled veteran" I
know does Cross Fit to stay in shape. His most dangerous deployment was to southern Europe
where he met his wife. And yes, he advertises his disability on his business web site and
does qualify for government contract set-asides.
Too bad for the taxpayers though. Since the military has been sanctified by the powerful
Pentagon/MSM "Warrior-Hero" propaganda engine, challenging out of control military benefits
is a political and social third rail.
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our
foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly
about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage
that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel
after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.
Haley also risibly
claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:
"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today
suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.
The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do
not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded
enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's
government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has
been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention
to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.
"... A historically low percentage of our population -- less than half a percent -- actually serves in the military. Compare that to around 9% during the Vietnam War, and 12% during World War II. Remarkably few of us ever see combat, ever even know anyone who was in combat, ever get to hear firsthand stories of what went on or witness what life is like for such a returning veteran. Not surprisingly, America's wars now largely go on without us. There is no personal connection. Here in "the homeland" -- despite the overblown fears of "terrorism" -- it remains "peacetime." As a consequence, few of us are engaged by veterans' issues or the prospect -- essentially, the guarantee -- of more war in the American future. ..."
Memorial Day is over. You had your barbeque. Now, you can stop thinking about America's wars and the casualties from them
for another year. As for me, I only wish it were so.
It's been Memorial Day for me ever since I first met Tomas Young. And in truth, it should have felt that way from the moment I
hunkered down in Somalia in 1993 and the firing began. After all, we've been at war across the Greater Middle East ever since. But
somehow it was Tomas who, in 2013, first brought my own experience in the US military home to me in ways I hadn't been able to do
on my own.
That gravely wounded, living, breathing casualty of our second war in Iraq who wouldn't let go of life or stop thinking and critiquing
America's never-ending warscape brought me so much closer to myself, so bear with me for a moment while I return to Mogadishu, the
Somalian capital, and bring you -- and me -- closer to him.
Boom!
In that spring of 1993, I was a 22-year-old Army sergeant, newly married, and had just been dropped into a famine-ridden, war-torn
country on the other side of the planet, a place I hadn't previously given a thought. I didn't know what hit me. I couldn't begin
to take it in. That first day I remember sitting on my cot with a wet t-shirt draped over my head, chugging a bottle of water to
counter the oppressive heat.
I'd trained for this -- a real mission -- for more than five years. I was a Black Hawk helicopter crew chief. Still, I had no
idea what I was in for.
So much happened in Somalia in that " Black
Hawk Down " year that foreshadowed America's fruitless wars of the twenty-first century across the Greater Middle East and parts
of Africa, but you wouldn't have known it by me. That first day, sitting in a tent on the old Somali Air Force base in Baledogle,
a couple of hours inland from the capital city of Mogadishu, I had a face-to-face encounter with a poisonous black mamba snake. Somehow
it didn't register. Not really.
This is real , I kept telling myself in the six months I spent there, but in a way it wasn't or didn't seem to be.
After about a month, my unit moved to the airport in Mogadishu -- away from the snakes, scorpions, and bugs that infested Baledogle,
but closer to dangers of a more human sort. Within a few weeks, I became used to the nightly rat-tat-tat of machine gun fire
coming at us from the city. I watched the tracers streak by as we crouched behind our sandbagged fighting positions. We would return
from missions to find bullet holes in the skin or rotor blades of our Black Hawk helicopters, or in one case a beer-can-sized hole
that a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) round punched cleanly through the rear stabilizer without -- mercifully -- detonating.
And yet none of it felt like it was quite happening to me. I remember lying on my cot late at night, not far from the flight line
full of Black Hawks and Cobras, hearing the drone of low-flying American AC-130 gunships firing overhead for hours on end. The first
boom would come from the seaward side of the field as the gunship fired its M102 howitzer. A few seconds later, another
boom would mark the round's arrival at its target across town, sometimes with secondary explosions as ammunition stores went
up. Lying there, I remember thinking that those weren't the routine training rounds I'd heard a hundred times as they hit some random
target in a desolate training area. They were landing on real targets, actual people.
Two other memorable boom s come to mind -- one as we waited in the back of a sun-baked supply truck, heading out on a volunteer
mission to give inoculations to kids at a Somali orphanage. Boom . The ground shook to the sound of one of our Humvees and
the four Army soldiers in it being
blown apart by the sort
of remote-controlled bomb that would become a commonplace of insurgents in America's twenty-first century wars. And a second, the
loudest during my six months there, as a generator perhaps 20 feet from our tent exploded into flames from an incoming RPG round
that found its target in the middle of the night.
This is real . I kept saying that to myself, but truthfully the more accurate word would have been surreal . The
care packages I was receiving, the Tootsie Rolls and Cracker Jacks and letters from my wife back home telling me how much she missed
me might as well have been from another planet.
Our helicopters flew daily reconnaissance missions ("Eyes over Mog" we called them) above the Somali capital. We did battle damage
assessments, checking out pockmarked buildings the AC-130s had targeted the night before, or the shot-up safe house that Somali warlord
Mohamed Aidid -- our operation's target (just as the US would target Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and the leaders of various
terror groups) -- had reportedly been using as a control center. Once a beautiful mansion, it was now riddled with thousands of bullet
holes and TOW missile craters.
We flew over Mogadishu's bustling marketplace, sometimes so low that the corrugated metal roofs of the stalls would blow off from
our rotor wash. We were always looking for what we called "technicals" -- pick-up trucks with machine guns mounted in their beds
-- to take out. Viewing that crowded marketplace through the sight of a ready-to-rock M-60 machine gun helped reinforce the message
that all of this was beyond surreal.
Lives were ending violently here every day, and my own life, too, could have ended at any moment. Yet it was just about impossible
to believe that all of a sudden I was in the middle of a violent set of incidents in a third-world hellhole, the sort of thing you
might read about in the paper, or more likely, would never hear about at all. You'd never know about our near-nightly scrambles to
our fighting positions behind a pile of sandbags, as the AK-47s cracked and the tracers flew overhead. It wouldn't even register
as a blip in the news back home. In some bizarre way, I was there and it still wasn't registering.
A Soldier Just Like Me
Just days after returning home from Somalia, I (like so many others) watched the footage of dead American soldiers -- at least
one a Black Hawk crew chief -- being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by cheering Somalis. For the first time, I found myself
filled with a sense of dread, a profound that-could-have-been-me feeling. I imagined my mother looking at such a photo of me, of
her dead son's body -- as someone's mother was undoubtedly doing.
If my interior landscape was beginning to shift in unsettling ways, if the war, my war, was finally starting to come home, I remained
only minimally aware of it. My wife and I started a family, I got a civilian job, went to college in the evening using the GI Bill,
and wrote a couple of books about music -- my refuge.
Still, after Somalia, I found myself drawn to stories about war. I reread Stephen Ambrose's blow-by-blow account of the D-Day
landings, picked up Ron Kovic's Vietnam memoir, Born On The Fourth Of July , for the first time, and even read All Quiet
On The Western Front . And all of them somehow floored me. But it wasn't until I watched
Body of War , Phil Donahue's 2008 documentary about Iraq war veteran
and antiwar activist Tomas Young, that something seemed truly different, that I simply couldn't shake the feeling it could have been
me.
Tomas was a kid who had limited options -- just like me. He signed up for the military, at least in part, because he wanted to
go to college -- just like me. Yes, just like so many other kids, too -- but above all, just like me.
He, too, was deployed to one of America's misbegotten wars in a later hellhole, and that's where our stories began to differ.
Five days after his unit arrived in Iraq -- a place he deployed to grudgingly, never understanding why he was being sent there and
not Afghanistan -- Tomas was shot, his spinal cord severed, and most of his body paralyzed. When he came home at age 24, he fought
the natural urge to suffer in silence and instead spoke out against the war in Iraq. Body of War chronicled his first full
year of very partial recovery and the blossoming of his antiwar activism.
Just a few weeks after the film's release, however, it all came crashing down. He suffered a pulmonary embolism and sank into
a coma, awakening to find that he'd suffered a brain injury and lost much of the use of his hands and his ability to speak clearly.
The ensuing years were filled with pain and debilitating health setbacks. By early 2013, he was in hospice care, suffering excruciating
abdominal pain, without his colon, and on a feeding tube and a pain pump. Gaunt, withered, exhausted, he continued to agitate against
America's never-ending war on terror from his bed, and finally wrote a "
last letter " to former President George
W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, airing his grievances, which got
significant media
attention .
When I read it, I felt that he might have been me if I hadn't lucked out in Mogadishu two decades earlier. Maybe that's what made
me reach out to him that April and tell him I wanted to learn more about what had happened to him in the years between Body of
War and his last letter, about what it meant to go from being an antiwar agitator in a manual wheelchair to a bedridden quadriplegic
on a feeding tube and under hospice care, planning to soon end his own life.
A Map of the Ravages of War
When I finally met Tomas, I realized how much he and I had in common: the same taste in music and books, the same urge to be a
writer. We were both quick with the smart-ass comment and never made to be model soldiers because we liked to question things.
Each moment we spent together only connected us more deeply and brought me closer to the self that war had created in me, the
self I had kept at such a distance all these years. I began writing his story because I felt compelled to show other Americans someone
no different from them who had had his life, his reality, upended by one of our military adventures abroad, by deployment to a country
so distant that it's an abstraction to most of us who, in these days of the All-Volunteer Army, don't have a personal connection
either to the US military or to the wars it so regularly fights.
A historically low percentage of our population -- less than
half a percent
-- actually serves in the military. Compare that to around 9% during the Vietnam War, and 12% during World War II. Remarkably
few of us ever see combat, ever even know anyone who was in combat, ever get to hear firsthand stories of what went on or witness
what life is like for such a returning veteran. Not surprisingly, America's wars now largely go on without us. There is no personal
connection. Here in "the homeland" -- despite the overblown fears of "terrorism" -- it remains "peacetime." As a consequence, few
of us are engaged by veterans' issues or the prospect -- essentially, the guarantee -- of more war in the American future.
Tomas understood the importance of sharing the brutal fullness of his story. For him, there were to be no pulled punches. When
I told him I wanted others to learn of his harrowing tale, of his version of the human cost of war, that I wanted to help him to
tell that story, he responded that he had indeed wanted to write his own book. He'd scrapped the project because he could no longer
write, and even Dragon voice-to-text software wouldn't work because his speech had become so degraded after the embolism struck.
Instead, he shared everything. Tomas and his wife, Claudia, opened their lives to me. I slept in their basement. During my periodic
visits, he introduced me to an expansive mind in a shrunken world, a mind that wanted to range widely in a body mostly confined to
a hospital bed, surrounded by books, magazines, and an array of tubing that delivered medications and removed bodily wastes in a
darkened bedroom.
"I need to be fed," he said to me one day. "Do you want to see what that's like?" Then, he lifted his shirt and showed me the
maze of tubing and scars on his body. It was a map of the ravages of war.
He was unflinchingly honest, sensing the importance of his story in a country where such experiences have become uncommon fare.
Like his comic book heroes Batman and the Punisher, he wanted to make sure that no one would have to endure what he'd gone through.
An All-Too-Real Life and Surreal Wars
Tomas Young's war ended on the night before Veterans' Day 2014 when he passed away quietly in his sleep. His pain finally came
to an end.
The bullets that hit him in the streets of Baghdad in 2004 brought on more than a decade of agony and hardship, not only for him,
but for his mother, his siblings, and his wife. Their suffering has yet to end.
Stories of the reality of war and its impact on this country are more crucial now than ever as America's wars seem only to multiply.
Among us are more than
2.5 million veterans of our recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe it to them to read their accounts -- and an
increasing number of them are out there
-- and do our best to understand what they've been through, and what they continue to go through. Then perhaps we can use that knowledge
not only to properly address their needs, but to properly debate and possibly -- like Tomas Young -- even protest America's ongoing
wars.
It would have been perfectly understandable for Tomas to have faced the pain, frustration, and failing health of his final years
privately and in silence, but that wasn't him. Instead, he made his story part of our American record. To stay on top of important
articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com
here .
Mark Wilkerson spent eight years in the
US Army as an AH-1 Cobra and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crew chief with the 3rd Infantry and 101st Airborne Divisions. He was deployed
with the 101st to Somalia for six months in 1993. He is the author of Who Are You: The Life of Pete Townshend and co-wrote
Pearl Jam Twenty . He has three children: Alex, Nick and Sam. He lives in Louisville, Kentucky, with his wife, Melissa. His
latest book is Tomas Young's War
(Haymarket Books).
It is unclear to what extent Israel is given unfairly favorable treatment and to what extent it is the most useful
allies (along with KSA) of f the USA in the middle East securing energy supplies to the according to Carter doctrine,
Notable quotes:
"... The latest outrage against the First Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new hate speech law was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget. ..."
"... The legislation borrows from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as anti-Semitic. ..."
"... While the State Department definition is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the states universities and educational institutions. ..."
"... The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons, a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature." ..."
"... Normally foreign governments have what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the U.S. with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs, suing in American courts. ..."
"... Indeed, it is far more plausible that Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior knowledge. ..."
"... But, of course, no one would be allowed to sue Israel in an American court. The 9/11 Commission failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports stamped. ..."
"... Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system. ..."
"... As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven. ..."
"... This is partly the explanation of "military capitalism" deployed rather recently in insider circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth. ..."
"... American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". ..."
"... There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited. ..."
"... Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity. ..."
Time to question the loyalty of some legislators and judges
I have a number of times
discussed
how the U.S. and other governments have legislated and otherwise promoted Jewish and
Israeli interests in ways that most people would find unacceptable if they were aware of what exactly has
been going on. Here in the United States, special Medicare coverage and immigration status have been
granted, often concealed in other legislation, to benefit holocaust survivors and Russian Jews seeking to
emigrate. State legislatures and the U.S. Congress have meanwhile been working hard to pass legislation
that blocks and even criminalizes the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) protests
against Israeli behavior while universities have been banning anti-Israel demonstrators and groups on
campus because they apparently are offensive to the sensitivities of some Jewish students.
The latest outrage against the First
Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations
Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new
hate speech law
was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget.
The legislation borrows
from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or
applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other
democratic nation" as anti-Semitic.
While the State Department definition
is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that
criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the
states universities and educational institutions.
The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons,
a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's
biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature."
Supporters of the Bill of Rights have
been universally opposed to the bill, but pro-Israel groups have praised the initiative and are expecting
a "new wave" of legislation all across the United States blocking any criticism of the self-described
Jewish State. The Brandeis Center has
enthused
"This bill gives South Carolina the
tools to protect Jewish students' and all South Carolina students' right to a learning environment free
of unlawful discrimination. We are hoping this momentous step will result in another national wave to,
once and for all, begin defeating rising anti-Semitism."
Other states will undoubtedly follow
the South Carolina lead, so it would appear that any criticism of Israel will become illegal in the
public square if the many friends of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have their way. And they generally
do get what they want from the federal level all the way down to the states and local communities, so be
prepared.
Israel also is regularly exploiting
the American legal system to punish countries that it has defined as its enemies. Its government
sponsored lawfare organization called Shurat Hadin has initiated a number of lawsuits in U.S. courts to
punish Palestinians and Iranians. Ironically, it is currently seeking to demonstrate that Hamas is
committing
war crimes in Gaza
, where Israel has been using army snipers to kill unarmed demonstrators.
Other lawsuits filed on behalf of
mostly Jewish Americans in U.S. courts seeking compensation from Iranians and Palestinians are also
pending, with the tribunals in Manhattan particularly prone to being sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Last
week, at the Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan, Judge George Daniels
issued a default judgment
relating to his 2011 determination that Iran and Hezbollah materially and
directly supported al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to the hundreds
of family members of victims who are named in the case. The judge ordered Iran to pay $6 billion in
compensation – "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child, and $4,250,000 per
sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased. A 4.96 annual interest rate will also be applied to
the amount, starting from September 11, 2001 to the date of the judgement."
Normally foreign governments have
what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the
U.S.
with the passage of
the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted
individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in
international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against
Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs,
suing in American courts.
Though the lawsuit claimed, and Judge
Daniels agreed, that Tehran had supported the 9/11 hijackers with training and other assistance, most
authorities would question that judgement. Many would consider it to be ludicrous as Iranian Shi'ites
were considered to be kill-on-sight heretics by al-Qaeda. The idea that Iran was somehow involved in 9/11
is in reality a ridiculous Israel Lobby contrivance that
was first floated
in 2015 by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, a renowned Zionist stooge and conspiracy
theorist who is viewed by many as not completely in possession of all his marbles.
Indeed, it is far more plausible that
Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against
Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming
themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior
knowledge.
But, of course, no one would be
allowed to sue Israel in an American court.
The 9/11 Commission
failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to
compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did
investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of
certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports
stamped.
In his Farewell Address President
George Washington
warned that
" a passionate attachment of one
nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the
illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of
the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions;
by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and
a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to
ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to
betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity;
gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public
opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption,
or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly
alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot."
If one believes that deference to
the special foreign interest of one powerful and wealthy segment of the population is appropriate in a
democracy then I suppose the Jewish/Israeli pander has to be considered acceptable. I happen to believe
that, as our first president so clearly articulated, it is not, particularly as much of the concession
that Jews are somehow to be treated differently than the rest of the community due to their alleged
victimhood contributes to a criticism-free ride for an Israel which is eagerly seeking a new war in the
Middle East. It would be a war that the United States would inevitably get pulled into by Israel's
friends in Congress and the media. It would also be catastrophic for all parties involved and it all
starts with the belief that Israel should somehow be protected and its enemies punished while also being
exempt from being made accountable for its actions.
It's more than time to question, it's time to prosecute. If Alan Clemmons, or any other legislator, has
gone to Israel, with any assistance from Israel financial or otherwise, then Clemmons (and others) have
taken a bribe. Failure to prosecute, just as failure to enforce current immigration laws, is the road to
anarchy.
As for Judge Daniels, I guess I could cut him some slack, given it's a default judgment, but that goes
out the door if he was the judge that certified the case going forward in the first place. There is no
prima facie evidence of Iran's involvement in 9/11, and therefore, false statements made in the statement
of claim are a perversion of justice. A judge is supposed to rule on facts, not conjecture.
75 years ago, people hid Jews to protect them from imprisonment and possible death by European-led
jailers. Now in 2018, people are hiding Europeans to protect them from imprisonment and possible death
by Jewish-led jailers
89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel is right now being hunted by German police at the behest of Jewish
groups, because she did not show up at prison a few days ago, to serve a two-year-jail sentence for
questioning the official narrative of the Jewish killings in World War II It is recognised by Jews and
others that at her age, the long jailing may kill her
The 'International Auschwitz Committee' says German police should use 'high pressure' to find this
elderly woman and imprison her, even though it may kill her
And yet Jews who speak like this claim they do not understand why people develop antipathy to Jews
It is in fact the International Auschwitz Committee which is 'inciting anti-semitism', as they inspire
Germans to hide elderly people from Jews 'like Anne Frank was hidden from Germans'
However much Ursula Haverbeck might be in error in her historical opinions, this is appalling and
shocking treatment of a grandmotherly woman soon to be 90 years of age sending her very possibly to
death for her ideas regarding an era to which she is a living personal witness (Haverbeck was born in
1928, and will turn age 90 this 8 November)
This reminds of the case of a World War II Jewish witness, a rabbi's son, who was with the Russian
advance troops who liberated places like Auschwitz,
Joseph Ginzburg – Joseph G Burg, direct interrogator of Auschwitz and other camp survivors
The
fiercely anti-Nazi and very Jewish Burg, said the Holocaust was an exaggeration, a fraud fabricated by
Zionists, he wrote books on this, & had many of those books burned by the modern West German government
tho the old Bonn regime never had the stomach to jail rabbi's son Joseph Ginzburg (1908-90), despite his
holocaust denial
OT but since it seems Israel first stooge Insane McCain is finally going to meet Satan.
What I want to know is, has anybody announced how they intend to handle all the people who want to
piss on his grave? Will there be a lottery, will there be those "take a number" machines, will it be
first come first served or will there be some kind of contest, like writing an essay?
On the day of Sept 11, when I still, of course, believed the Muslim terror attack story, I said to my
wife 'just Israel benefits'.
I simply could not see how these Muslim attacks benefitted Muslims.
No idea, at the time, as Anatol Lieven also did not have at the end of the month, his article 'New Cold
War' in the then still independent Guardian, that these attacks would be used to justify wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq.
It was 2004 when Hollings made his famous speech, promising war to AIPAC for the jewish vote, 'that is
politics'.
I'm convinced the neocons will not pull this off
this time
. After many years of war a passive
public may be catching on. I expect the price of oil to jolt upwards this afternoon. When people begin
asking why the answers need to be that our "ally" Israel keeps threatening war if they don't get their
way and Trump doesn't tear up the P5+1 treaty.
A 90 year old woman must "serve a two-year-jail sentence for questioning the official narrative of the
Jewish killings in World War II "
This is surreal. Liberal democracy (what's left of it) down the rabbit hole. Imprisonment as a
consequence of
questioning
history ? Yes, I know, Germany has its sensitivities, but should
historical guilt excuse a vicious assault on core values & a vulnerable individual ?
No context to the article that matters. Lost in deviations.
The real issue: any transaction to and from Israel makes some Jewish and elite non Jewish Americans
accessory. Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a
physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system.
As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven.
One must realize that when the dollar, as is happening looses part of it's reserve status(currently
under way, partly global transactions start escaping the dollar accountability, thus leaving a smaller
margin of cooking the books), there need to be a trustworthy insertion point into the Yuan, any digital
currency, international financial markets, currency speculation for the elites of the West, evasion of
embargos for the exeptionals.
This is partly
the explanation of "military capitalism"
deployed rather recently in insider
circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe
using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this
contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth.
Israel is a Swiss knife for corporate international billionaires, no billionaires no Israel.
Would the JASTA act open the way for litigation against Israel's involvement in 9/11? Of course, there
would have to be a change in venue because the southern district of Manhattan is kind of evil's
homecourt.
Might be just the right crack in the absurdity, to investigate, prosecute and sentence the
perpetrators. I mean if they can go after a ninety year old woman, why not a geriatric Jerome Hauser, Dov
Zakheim, etc?
Just spit-balling here, I'll go back to my observational pessimism
American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines
regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority
of American "foreign aid".
This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents
of a foreign government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American
Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S
government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split
loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited.
Those holding
dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in
immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship
should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.
The American Presidents Johnson and Nixon were satisfied with the Israeli explanation that they would not
be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the mid east. Successive administrations accept this
declaration and are not interested in forcing them to join the IAEA.
Fair enough too given the history of their persecution and the massive contributions of Jewish
brainpower to America's bomb project and many prior and subsequent, scientific, medical, legal and
industrial efforts.
I hope not. There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
Thanks to Giraldi and all
the commenters here who want to see our government function on our behalf. Right now it's riddled with
treason. Despite large majorities of both parties consistently identifying money as corrupting our
politics, bribery became normalized in part so that Jewish politics could prosper. Now we no longer even
expect our representative to pretend.
He says he "didn't think it was going to become, you know, the 7-year devastating conflict that it became."
That is apparent. Libya was already descending into the F-UK-US "Mission Accomplished" with NATO bombers warming
up to finish the job. Perhaps Max's dad had assured him that Syria would follow the same pattern his emails with
Hillary Clinton show he had helped plan and define in Libya.
BTW: Has he ever addressed his father's role in the destruction of the once most prosperous country on the
African continent? I haven't read or heard anything from Max on Syd Blumenthal's pre-Qaddafi "removal"
explanation that Libya had to be destroyed to:
Steal their nationalized oil.
Confiscate the hundreds of tons of gold and silver Libya held.
Prevent Libya from establishing a gold-backed currency and pan-African development bank to compete with the
US petro-dollar and IMF, and lift Africa out of neo-colonial subservience.
Yeah. Max was "pretty quiet on Libya and not really - didn't really make any coherent statements on that
either."
That newspaper that Max publicly maligned and quit ("grandstanding" as he now says) "had taken an
anti-imperialist agenda." Did that paper ever reject any articles Max wrote defending "the Syrian revolution"? I
didn't think so. Who had "an agenda"? Because it sure sounds like it was Max who was so focused on his new book
release and two upcoming book tours that at the least he abandoned journalistic values. Or did he fear that
"being associated" with a paper that also published articles critical of "the revolution" could hurt book sales?
After all, he thought it was all going to be over soon anyway.
It would also be nice for Max to explain why, once he changed his position on Syria after Russia had helped
turn the tide, he, Ben and Rania scrubbed all their anti-Syrian/pro-"rebel" posts from the internet without
explanation. How Orwellian.
Syria isn't the only topic Blumenthal wrote lies about. Him, his cohort mentioned here, and many other
presstitutes destroyed their credibility to the point where no deed no matter how valorous can regain it for
them--By their actions, they committed journalistic suicide.
It appears greed yet again trumped integrity.
It's always for
A Few Dollars More.
My only concern is that if this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind and talking about it
does that discourage anyone else from doing the same?
They should apologise to those they maligned. But is a vilificatory focus on the insufficiency of their
repentance really helping the anti-imperialist cause?
Blumenthal, and his vocal support for the Palestinian people deserves kudos. If he has
changed his stance on the Syrian debacle, good. I don't know too many people who are always
prescient enough to get everything right from the get-go, so, even without an apology, he deserves credit for
finally getting it right.
I became familiar with Max Blumenthal through Democracy Now. His position on Syria was inexplicably appalling,
but at least he had the decency to eventually call them out:
b. I'm genuinely honored that you chose to post a comment of mine. Thank you. And thank you for correcting my
errors in spelling Al Akhbar and Ben Norton's actual surname.
Once I catch up on the "news," I'll be back to check comments.
I was a follower of Max before the 2011 turmoil. I thought he was OK. He knew what was going around in
Palestine and I was pretty sure he was an advocate for the better. I dont know what to think anymore. What is
right and what is wrong. Can someone enlighten me :-(
Thank you for putting down what most of us who have been following The Arab spring since Tunisia
know about those 3 turncoats aka Triumvirate.
@ Anon #5
Speak for yourself. Those who do follow the ME knew and realised what was the goal back in Dara'a in
February 2011. It has started since 1980's and Assad didn't want to be another b---h of the US. Colin Powell
thought he could sway him with threats back in 2003 and then Robert Ford - so called Ambassador went on with
his task when he got the job in Damascus together with Eric Chevallier who was MAN enough to realise what was
happening.
Posted by: Daniel | May 9, 2018 5:10:21 PM | 9
(Thanks to b for the recognition)
I agree with b. Your comment was thorough, well-articulated and verifiable.
...and flushed out some Moral Equivalence ideologues of the Thomas L Friedman variety.
Black Agenda Report of course has got it right since day one since Blacks more than any other group know not to
trust Western establishment narratives and discourses on human rights and humanitarian intervention. Their
articles on Libya from 2011 are but one proof of this.
Margaret Kimberley's latest on Trump and Israel is
excellent as always:
here.
Oh please! The first attack on Max Blumenthal was embarrassing enough. Moon of Alabama is very fortunate to
have gained as much respect as it has; it's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive
tripe. By the way I'm also offended by the fact that someone presumed to edit my Nom de Comment
"nationofbloodthirstysheep" when I made what I think was a useful comment on the Gulf of Scripal Incident. If I
had wanted to post under the name" nation of sheep" I would have done so.
Max Blumenthal's support for the Palestians, especially those in Gaza, has been solid. As we all know Gaza is
led by the Muslim Brotherhood. As we all should know is that it was the MB in Syria that began war against the
Syrian government. It took about a year for Islamists mercenaries to arrive and begin to dominate the
opposition to Assad's government. Of course, the Saudis and Qatar were financing the MB forces from the
beginning.
I noticed that many westerners who were involved in Palestinian's struggle for their rights
immediately backed the MB in Syria in the first year of the Syrian war. Recall how they came out and supported
the MB when they seized the Yarmouk refugee camp in opposition to the Syrian government. Many good hearted, but
absurdly naive, youthful people who supported the Palestians, came out and attacked Assad.
Max is one of those people. He is young and hopefully is capable of reform. We should accept his apology.
I wasn't aware of Max Blumenthal saying "Alternet Grayzone is the only progressive outlet questioning the main
line". I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect how these writers have changed their
minds and are sticking to it, but this statement leaves a bad taste in the mouth, considering the outlets that
have been questioning it since the beginning. Perhaps he meant "mainstream-alternative progressive outlets", or
"foundation-funded independent outlets". Thanks b and Daniel for the background of which I was not aware.
it is one thing for them to be wrong and another for them to never acknowledge
it.. it is kinda like bush 2 and his war on iraq... no acknowledgement and as obama used to say, instead of
accountability we just have to move on.. bullshit.. these folks would do well to acknowledge when they are
wrong.. i don't know that any of them have..
This all sounds childish to me. Fixation on the degree of sincerity of an apology is for the playground.
They had a view they changed their view from new evidence or by reflection or both. They may have done some
harm by simply being human as we all can and do regularly, we humans being human and all.
These people fully acknowledged their error and were suitably contrite. One should bear in mind the fog of
propaganda surrounding the so-called Arab spring; CIA Isis recruiters were very active in the pro-Palestinian
movements. I actually knew some young people on the streets of Oakland and Berkeley who had been convinced that
the Wahhabi Takfiris were a persecuted minority and were nearly swept away.
Let's be quite clear about this, even if it means going off-message. The Ba'thist regime is not very nice, but
it's a million times better than a jihadi regime in Damascus. It's why Asad has retained the support of
Syrians.
The Syrian students I know have been asked to repay their scholarships. Up to 300k euros. They can't
and so are forced to remain refugees. Even the Alawites. It's not improbable that Asad will forgive them in the
end, but suicides are in prospect. They could cope if it weren't for the war.
The war is going well, but hard on those conscripted. I wonder whether it isn't really a volunteer army now,
after all the deaths. The hardened army is very small, but enough to knock off Ghouta, and enough to put a big
hole in Idlib, some time ago. my opinion is that Idlib won't resist and will collapse, but we'll have to see.
While these three did get it wrong about Syria and may not have given the best explanations of what changed
their minds, they actually come off as pretty contrite, more than I thought they would be capable of. The
podcast is useful for exposing how the Syria issue has crippled the bds movement in North America and the role
of gulf state money in that process. I look forward to what they have to say about the particularly insidious
role of IS Trotskyism in destroying the anti-war movement in the anglophone world. Its fine to score points
against these people for their very real past mistakes, but from an organizing point of view, what matters more
is to understand the situation we're in now, and they are contributing. With formerly reliable outlets like
Counterpunch getting worse on this issue with every passing day, it seems odd to be attacking those who have
rectified their mistakes.
@24
"it seems odd to be attacking those who have rectified their mistakes. "
I certainly hope that it is just "odd". I would hate to have to think that the attacks were due to their
relative effectiveness and the expanded reach of what they have to say. It's sad to consider that in the best
case envy might be a motivation. The worst case is unthinkable.
Been a student of US History and its Empire since 1960s--50+ years--and I'm being told integrity no longer
matters. Can someone tell me when the USA lost its integrity regarding its own basic law and the UN Charter it
helped create, how hard it is to discover that fact, and why it matters? In our Orwellian Age, just how
important is one's credibility, and why should we trust someone who sold hers/his for
A Few Dollars More
?
Perhaps their heretofore "expanded reach" was dependent on their message of the moment's
usefulness to the existing power structure and their willingness to sing on cue? It wouldn't be the first time
political capital earned for good cause has been spent in favor of the enemy. Liberal "performative contrition"
is meaningless. If those three have done it once, they'll do it again. They are now of no service to the people
except as examples, and absolutely replaceable.
It's obvious you're trolling or shilling. Move on to your next assignment please.
Thanks Daniel for your comment and to B who elevated it to a full post. Daniel's comment should serve as an
inspiration to the rest of us!
While attacking Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Rania Khalek for their failure
to apologise to people they had previously slandered on their podcast show may seem poor form, I think that
what Daniel says and B adds is relevant information to consider "going forward", as the cliche goes, when next
the trio cover another or a new Middle Eastern issue, or even revisit the situation in Syria if that should
change. Will Blumenthal et al stand steadfast in their opinion or will they revert to supporting the forces
trying to topple Assad if they sniff that the tide is turning against the SAA and its allies?
@29 jen.. i agree... it is worth reading daniels comment @163 in 'trump ends the nuclear deal' thread as well
as @156 george lanes initial comments to this post of daniels too..
i usually try not to judge people by their family connections but blumenthal's dad is such a noxious neoliberal
asshole it's hard to believe the apple could have fallen
that
far from the tree.
a lot of the so
called "left" is also infected with the "every revolution is good cuz leaders are teh suck amirite?!?!?"
disease. whether it's - as a great article i recently saw suggests - the residue of marxism or just teen angst
writ large, they just assume any leader that isn't a 100% pinkwashed socialist-feminist-____ist should be
overthrown by the "wisdom of the masses". too bad they fail to see the hands of the "elite" behind every
protest and youtube meme.
this also explains the reflexive stupidity that oozes from western mouths every time putin is mentioned
(because high approval ratings and legit election wins don't count if it's backwards gay-hating slavs).
while he and the others do write about israel, that falls into the "so you want a damn cookie?" category.
opposing israel is opposing every foul part of human nature (especially historical european tendencies)
distilled in one arid shithole of a colony pretending to be a country. his hissy fits about gilad atzmon aren't
exactly profiles in courage either and offer a glimpse of the "third way" mentality he seems to have inherited
from his father.
@14
BAR is indeed great. they have morals and convictions and they actually stick to them consistently. freedom
rider is especially good and her recent piece on israel is as good or better than anything on mondoweiss or EI.
extra fun historical context:
the inhabitants of what is now called the GCC or gulf states or whatever were one of the heaviest users of
african slaves during the slave trade. this included the barbary pirates that the US marines were basically
created to destroy when they committed the dreadful sin of kidnapping
white
people from the southern
beaches of europe. that's where the marine song comes from and the "shores of tripoli" and etc. so the marines
have basically been killing muslims for hundreds of years.
as for why the arabian peninsula has so few black folks compared to the west: they castrated all the males.
oddly, one slave helped the moors conquer spain (the term "moors" being that time's "muzzies").
UserFriendly @2:
. . . If this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind . . .
Journos, pols, and other public figures that take
strategic positions
as it is convenient to them are
deplorable.
Anyone that was honestly wrong would be contrite.
= = = =
Richard C @3:
. . . Is a vilification focus . . . Really helping
Yes it is, especially for those taking
strategic positions
.
= = = =
Anon @5:
All have been wrong some time . . .
Morons, trolls, and opportunists are right as often as a broken clock.
= = = =
NOBTS @14:
. . . It's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive tripe
I guess you have no family or friends among the millions dead injured and displaced.
= = = =
Babyl-on @20:
They had a view they changed their view . . . being human and all
Not good enough Babyl-on. As a long time patron of the bar I think you should see that more clearly than
others.
= = = =
Peter Gose @24:
. . . They actually come off as pretty contrite . . . And they are contributing
I always feel that it is best to explain your mistakes and not simply apologize. Very instructive and
restores confidence. And if they were "burned" by being misinformed, they should be / would be vindictive
toward those that misled them.
@27
So... it suits the existing power structure that these people should be speaking relatively truthfully at this
point? If that's the case then I suppose the majority of Moon of Alabama's followers ( I contributed €50 by the
way) would be in the same boat. The only way I can see this working out for the ruling elite is if being on the
right side i.e. the left side, is totally marginal and pathetic, so thoroughly divided and conquered as to be
irrelevant.
I read Max's book Goliath recently. It's very damning of the rightward turn of the Israeli govt AND the Israeli
people. People in the US are nowhere near as xenophobic as a majority of Israelis are now. I admit I had not
paid much attention to support he would have had for the "Syrian rebels." But the point is to be made and it
would be interesting to know of his thoughts on his father's actions with respect to Libya. Maybe Max realizes
he's late to the party and is having a me too moment.
somebody 34
The Team Obama love affair with MB was obvious. I thought it interesting that the Egypt military put a stop to
their plans once they achieved power there. They were useful for the initial protest violence in Syria until
more support could arrive.
In a future piece, I will address what Trotsky stood for and
use that criteria to differentiate among the various groups that call themselves Trotskyist today.
Bruce @37, this is true. The proud Trotskyists at the WSWS are consistently anti-war and have called out
several socialist organizations for being pro-NATO intervention in Libya and Syria. I find their philosophical
positions woefully reductive and uninteresting (one of them told me once that both "analytic" and "continental"
philosophy are "non-sense" and that the only true philosophy is Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism, and also that the
Frankfurt school is the root of the perversion of Marxist philosophy), but nonetheless they do extremely
admirable and important work in reporting on the ground in places like Amazon distribution centers or
interviewing immigrant families terrorized by ICE. They have been speaking out loudly on Google censorship as
well, which is laudable.
On this topic of pro-intervention leftists, see Whitney Webb's response to the open
letter signed by Chomsky, Judith Butler, and others, calling for the humanitarian US military to save Rojava
and "increase support for the SDF":
here.
It now appears as though a war may have broken out between Syria and Israel. Israel claims that
"Iran" attacked it at the Syria/Israel border at the Golan Heights. See NOW (Syrian) News :
Notwithstanding Israel's attack on Syria, minutes ago, it should be noted, IMHO, that Max Blumenthal is simply
a "Limited Hangout". And in it for a "Few Dollars More". h/t Karlof1
So the Likudniks, who most resemble the Israelites from the first eight or nine books of the Torah, violent,
deceitful, putting the Philistines to the sword, taking their land and cattle and enslaving their women and
children, always falling away from the Commandments but always forgiven by YHWH, are building another brick BS
box to add to the structure that will, if the dual-citizens that stand atop our Imperial government have their
way, lead to some kind of "war on Iran."
I wonder what it feels like to get vaporized in a nuclear explosion... Expect it won't hurt for long -- less
painful than having to watch as the Fokkers who own us slow-walk all of us into economic and environmental
collapse, maybe quick-stepping now toward an answer to that neocon-naive question, "What good are all these
wonderful weapons for if we never USE them?" C;mon, all you Revelation Believers and Armageddonists, GET IT
OVER ALREADY, WILL YOU? THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING US!
I long ago rejected the notion that there will be some kind of retribution in some kind of "afterlife" where
the people who are bast@rds and sh!ts in this life have to atone, somehow. Anyone who might be a candidate for
eternity in the fiery lake obviously shares that disbelief. Fork 'em, if only we could reach them and stop them
somehow...
oh and let me aim a quote from pat lang - "Any sort of incident or provocation will be accepted by the US as
causus belli." that is indeed how low the usa has sunk to...
Sigh. You'd think that the left, whose only real power comes from solidarity, would be natural coalition
builders, but they aren't. I feel like all I ever see is ideological purity tests and an eagerness to shun and
expel people over differences rather than try and reach people where they are and work to change their views to
match your own. It just gets me so depressed because the right does not have this problem at all; the bible
thumpers showed up en mass for the pussy grabber. I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to procreate and
to commit suicide before the climate change shit hits the fan.
am i the only idiot here who thinks the idea of iran lobbing some missiles into israel from the golan heights
is like an oversized pack of lies? maybe i should take out a regular subscription to the times of israel to get
the '''real'''news..
This makes no sense at all. I can't even tell what we are supposed to be getting so angry about. Is it that
these three people sound insufficiently repentant? Is it their tone of voice we are judging? Or is it that they
took too long to reach their current positions? Personally I couldn't care less, as long as today they're
pushing the conversation in a positive direction. And I don't think there are many people out there
communicating more effectively than Blumenthal and Norton.
For JTMcPhee @44 regarding those "Revelation Believers and Armageddonists" who tipped the Electoral College
scales in the U.S., giving the world
All-About-Him
instead of
You-Know-Her
: sort of like a choice
between Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun (or Hen).
Left Behind by Jesus
Jesus loves the rich, you know
Ask them, they will tell you so
Help the poor? Why that's a crime!
Best to work them overtime
Off the books, though, lest they say
That you owe them extra pay
Jesus loves those tax cuts, too
Just for some, though, not for you
See a poor kid that's a clerk?
Send him to Iraq to work
Jesus loves the army, see?
Just the place for you and me
Not the rich, though, they don't serve
What a thought! What perfect nerve!
If you think this life's a pain
Wait till Jesus comes again
Then on Armageddon Day
He will take the rich away
Sure, you thought that you'd go, too,
Not that you'd get one last screw
Just like your retirement
That the rich already spent
Jesus with the winners goes
Losers, though, just get the hose
What on earth would make you think
That your lord's shit doesn't stink?
After all he left you here
With the rich, so never fear
They'll upon your poor life piss
In the next life and in this
Jesus loves the rich, so there!
Don't complain it isn't fair
Jesus said to help themselves
Then he'd help them stock their shelves
So they did and he did, too
What has this to do with you?
Jesus loves the rich just fine
Why'd you think he pours their wine?
Jesus votes Republican
Ask them: they'll say "He's the One!"
Still a few loose coins around
That the rich have not yet found
Gotta go now, never mind
If you end up left behind
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2006
This "solidarity" concept is stupid. There are people who call
themselves "leftists" who demand loyalty to Hillary. Um, no, we cannot have "solidarity" with Soros' minions.
We never needed "solidarity" to begin with. No significant social movement ever really depended on
"solidarity". We must think for ourselves, not just follow the party line.
@38 Wow, even the WSWS Trotskyists buy into that right wing shit about the Frankfurt School now? Man, that
'cultural marxism' conspiracy theory is so virulent even some Marxists believe it...
The only surprising thing here is how many pro trolls jumped in the defense of the spent trio. The three have
been used up, sacrificed by their owners and there is no going back. Most of the usual good commenters here
understand this well - credibility is a bit like virginity - one can go onto an operating table to regain it,
but it is never the same.
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many
regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some
important moment. Internet is full of such.
@38, Massinissa, yes they got a bit angry when I made that connection with right-wing libertarians and their
Cultural Marxism argument about the Frankfurt school being the source of the downfall of Western civilization.
To be fair, they would reject that whole argument as well, but they nonetheless hold the Frankfurt school to be
a perversion of Marxist thinking to be rejected entirely, with no usefulness or value whatsoever.
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
>>> blues
, May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 52
Clinton? left? LOL Thats the best laugh I've had in awhile. I meant the actual left.
/~~~~~~~~~~
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many regime agents pose as
anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment. Internet is
full of such.
Then ask: Is it really the case that "....many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists,
to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment"? Is that the case, or is it not? Because if it is,
in fact, the case, then we must address it. I mean, it would be kind of stupid to just ignore that, right?
Well I have seen it several times with my own eyes. So as one of "we the consumers" I cannot just go and
dismiss it as a "cat fight".
I remember the first time Trump attacked Syrian forces was over a chocolate cake with chines president. Could
this be the same treatment or a reply by Putin if he gave a green light to Syria they can reply in kind inside
Israel, while Nuty is the guest of honor in Moscow?
@kooshy
The ayrian government is not controlled by putin. They can choose to respond any way thry want to for the
ongoing aggression and zionist invasion they dont need a "green light" from mosow you only need tosee how rt is
covering the news to understand that russia has nothing to do with thi a
I don't assume a commenter is controlled opposition "until they
prove otherwise". But for anyone named "Hal Turner" (the FBI's honeypot blogger), I have severe doubts to begin
with.
What you say is true, sorry to say. One reason why it is true is that there has not been
a viable American political left for at least a half century now and probably longer. There were some stirrings
of legitimate left politics in a few of the civil rights groups (certainly not all) in the early 1960s, and for
a long time the Black Panthers represented by far the healthiest left movement in the US since the 1920s-30s.
But the mass potential for a real socialist politics came to an end, I think, with the assassination of King,
and the local pockets of black nationalist resistance were bombed or shot or disappeared by FBI and police
forces over the next decade. The remaining Vietnam anti-war movement was largely useless. Many of them are
today the aging equestrians of the professional liberal #Resistance.
Occupy had some promise but was easily dissipated. The Democratic primaries demonstrated that a moderate
social democrat could outearn corporate PAC financed tools via aattracting a huge number of small donations
from people earning between 35K-100K (which is a *relatively* piss poor class of people, politically speaking).
Some of this momentum carried over into socialist party gains and electoral victories in 2018, and in some
states motivated a younger social democratic ("progressive" I suppose they call themselves) insurgency against
Democratic Party empty suits. How lasting and successfull this development will prove to be is uncertain. My
hope is that the 2020 Democratic primary season is much more destructive for internal party structure than that
of 2016 was; ideally the party itself would implode, ceasing to exist altogether or remade entirely on an
explicitly socialist, or at least social democratic platform, the #Resistance crew jumping over to the
Republicans.
Just go away. You are not going to fool anybody round here into taking you seriously with such
comically C-grade troll phrases as "return to relevance" and "such a divisive post."
From Ben Norton via the link given by b above ("this episode"):
"We have been criticized, mostly by people who I think have been somewhat unfair, but I think there are
valid criticisms, in that early on in the conflict we were kind of knee jerk response supportive of the
opposition out of the idea that this is like some progressive revolution against an evil authoritarian regime
etc., you know believing a lot of those talking points which we now know are significantly more complex, if not
just flat out false."
First, thanks to many MoA barflies for the kind words. I am far more often than not impressed with the
knowledge and analytical abilities of those Bernhard has attracted to this site no doubt attracted by those
same qualities in b. I have learned, and continue to learn much from y'all. So getting props from people I
admire is really quite touching.
Most of the criticisms seem to be along the lines of 'we should not
criticize people who change their minds lest we scare off others."
Of course we should encourage everyone to cut through the propaganda in every way we can. We are all
swimming 24/7 in a 360 degree ocean of PR/Propaganda of a sort that Bernays and Goebbels could have only
dreamt. I have no doubt that right this moment I hold some disinformation that was deliberately fed to me, and
I hope that I am appreciative when someone else helps to lift a veil for me.
In fact, I have no doubt that some propaganda is designed for people like myself (and others here at MoA and
elsewhere), whom the propagandists know are aware of their work, and so we are on the lookout for it. I'll
return to that thought.
And when one has a breakthrough as profound as making a 180 degree turn on an issue so great as a war, I
absolutely agree that we should welcome that person with warmth and love.
But I also believe we should be skeptical of EVERY journalist/opinion maker who has a substantial platform.
For in all but the rarest of cases, the fact of having a substantial platform means having a substantial
financial backing. Not all financial backing is dubious of course, but I think we all agree that critical
thinking should always be engaged.
So, how should a journalist with a large following who is also a significant opinion maker handle reversing
directions on a war? Should that person scrub all previous work from the internet, and just start writing the
opposite?
Or should that person help others to have a similar epiphany (most especially those readers who had bought
the product this journalist had been selling for the previous 5 years)? In teaching there is a method termed
"guided discovery," whereby the teacher lays out a path for the students to use their own minds to come to the
correct conclusion. I can think of no better time to use this method than when one is actually having that very
same "discovery" process, or had just had it.
Max could have written articles revealing one piece of false propaganda after the other as he now says he
and his cohorts did privately amongst themselves. Today, they complain that "leftists/progressives" attack them
as "Assad apologists" and such. We all know that the first response to a new viewpoint that is opposite of one
already deeply held is almost always rejection. And when the person presenting this new information had for
years actually helped instill in the audience the opposite view, it's only normal for people to become suspect
of the journalist's motives.
But that's not the path Max, (and Ben and Rania) chose. Was this a case of being a poor teacher, or
something else possibly something a bit more sinister?
Let's consider other things in Max's record. ,
In an earlier comment, I described the disinformation in Max's book, "The 51 Day War" and in his
characterization of fellow Jewish writer, Gilad Atzmon. At the least, as a journalist, Max should know better
than to spread such incorrect and dangerous ideas.
And we cannot ignore that Max was amongst the first to blame a youtube video for the attack at the US
Embassy Mission that killed Ambassador Stevens, his aid and later, two former Navy Seals (read: mercenaries).
He wrote this even before the Obama Administration officially made that claim. How'd he know? And when his
daddy sent Hillary Max's OpEd (and again Max's daddy had worked with Hillary Clinton in understanding why Libya
had to be destroyed, and how to do that), Hillary wrote back,
Another author Max vociferously and wrongly labels an "anti-Semite" and liar is Allison Weir. Everyone
should read her in depth study of the origins of the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant, "Against Their
Better Judgement" and frequent her website, ifamericansknew.org.
BTW: It was Max who coined the JSIL term for Israel which I frequently use. We can be critical of a source
and still appreciative of useful and true information from that source. Even Controlled Opposition must reveal
some true information not found in MSM in order to build the trust that allows them to then feed disinformation
into our minds.
Check out this
4 minute video
to
see clearly how Max duplicitously slanders this good woman:
So, back to my earlier question, "what would a propaganda designed for people who already know the MSM is
propaganda look like?" I think I may have provided at least one answer.
¿When the Kent State Cambodian War protesters were shot in the back by the Natiinal Guard?
¿When Billy Graham exorted 'Bomb the Gooks for Jesus!' at the Lincoln Memorial during those protests, and
Time Magazine called him 'America's Preacher' while recently released tapes show Graham telling Nixon to nuke
Hanoi??
¿When thr Hells Angels beat that guy to death at Altamont while the Stones were pleased to introduce
themselves?
I actually earned a degree in journalism, even though I went to an undistinguished university and was
persecuted by the head of the department. I could never support myself as a journalist because unlike Max
Blumenthal, I didn't have the resources to travel to other countries and just do journalism. I had to do
something else to support myself. Nevertheless, I knew what was up in Syria the minute I saw that al Jazeera
had started churning out anti-Assad propaganda: this was early in 2011, while Libya was still in turmoil. There
is no excuse for anyone not to have paid attention to Libya--Thierry Meyssan barely escaped with his life after
NATO put out an order to kill him! And there is no excuse for anyone to have seen Syria as anything else than
an aggression by the U.S., NATO, the GCC and Israel. This is not about some naive kid (and Max Blumenthal is
neither young nor naive) falling for romantic propaganda: it is about the son of a highly placed CIA employee
who himself claims to be a journalist, and who was the closest advisor to Secretary of State Clinton on the
Middle East. As Sidney Blumenthal's son, Max had the best education, a hell of a lot of exposure to the deep
state, and is independently wealthy. With these privileges, why wasn't it him who was in Turkey reporting on
the U.S., NATO and the World Health Organization sending weapons and terrorists into Syria? Why was it Serena
Shim, someone that Turkey, with the nod of the CIA, could murder with impunity? And what is Blumenthal
reporting on right now? Nothing that will risk his neck or his reputation, God forbid. Taking risks is for
people like Shim, who lost her life, like Wassim Issa, who just lost both legs, like Vanessa Beeley, who has
had her name dragged through the mud by FBI agent Sibel Edmonds and the entire British media establishment.
The really funny thing here is you folks are ripping Blumenberg a new a**hole for "changing his mind" when you
guys are so wrong about Syria. Blumenstock and his friends were closer to the truth
before
their
conversion. That's right, the story you guys believe about Assad being a bit of a hard a** but a relatively
benign dictator is pure fantasy.
The Syrian Ba'athist regime is renowned for its savage brutality against even suspected dissenters. How you
people can explain away the well documented record of this violence says something about your echo chamber
state of mind. And yes the Syrian government and its Russian patron target civilian areas and hospitals. Again,
this is credibly documented. You are buying into a propaganda narrative. Vanessa Beeley, for example, is a
Ba'athist stenographer who is not telling the whole story. Before you all start hollering, and throwing
furniture let me ask how many Syrians post here? Right.
Nothing I can say will convince anyone to change their mind and that's okay because who am I and, besides,
everyone here has the internet and knows how to use search. If you are brave or not completely brainwashed yet
start with this article (you don't have to agree with everything in it) to get a sense of where your chosen
narrative is at its weakest.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-debate-over-syria-has-reached-a-dead-end/
Have fun!
I wonder if Syria were to regain the Golan Heights of Syria and then blitzkreig beyond in a New 7 Day War,
all the way to Haifa and beyond, whether the same Rabbinicals and Evangelicals who worship Zionism would defend
Syria's right to 'the spoils of war' and then turn a blind eye as Syria blockades Haifa into a concentration
camp the way Isreal has turned Gaza into one? Would they talk about Syrians being the New Chosen of Jaweh?
Would they throw away their yarmulkels, and wear black and white Hezbullah scarves, just to be among the
victors? Would Netanyahu be treated in the press like Arafat was treated, as a loser?
I tend to give thanks for small miracles, given the dire straights the world of journalism is in. Blessed are
those who repent and at least max, Rhania and Ben appear to have sincerely repented the error of their early
days, and max, in particular, has done some truly great work, exposing the Chemical false Flags and the White
helmets for what they were and are. Sure, he and others stood on the shoulders of some braver and more
perceptive souls such as Sharmine Narwani, Vanessa Beely and Eva Bartlett, among the very - so very - few who
dared question the dominant narrative starting in 2011.
I also think that perhaps people don't realize just
how difficult it was to be a western journalist/reporter and have any kind of career back in 2011/2012 while
questioning the dominant narrative. Very very few did in the west, if truth be said. yes, there were Syrian
connected reporters and opinionators like the Syrian perspective, MOA and a few, all too few, others. But one
could count the English reporters of truth on one finger. Not just Syria, but also Libya and probably even
Egypt. So, not everyone is super-brave from the get-go. not everyone has the analytic skills and integrity of
"b", but then b is not stuck with writing for the Guardian, is he? And he and Ziad fadel hand Sharwani and
those few others we heard from, many times did not earn their living from writing geopolitic (I think I need to
add The Saker to the list. I believe I discovered him only in 2013 or so).
So, if some who first wandered in the desert got some kahunas later, it's definitely better than never. IMO,
it's kind of small minded to excoriate those who failed to see the full picture back as it was happening. Me, I
see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and as I sit here i can only wish for more converts to the
truth. Say Monbiot of The Guardian? now, that would be nice, wouldn't it?
I also would like to remind people just how caught up so many western liberals were in the spectacle of the
Arab Spring (that wasn't much in the end, and we should think long and hard about why that was so). We - as in
many of us - projected our wishes upon the Arab millennials and students, but little did we do - as in any of
us - to research the sad, tragic realities in their own countries. The dependence of Egypt on tourism for
example all but doomed their spring to another long Winter. We, who have jobs and/or comfortable positions
somewhere and/or comfortable enough retirement that allows some to post here (and post well and thoughtfully
for many, which takes time and is definitely a luxury), how could we even imagine what it means to have so
little that to lose that meager income from tourists is a catastrophe? In the end the majority of the Egyptians
went for bread and butter or Sisi would not have prevailed (please don't read this as defense of the Sisi
regime. It's just me trying to understand why the revolution in Egypt did not succeed). But all this happened
back in 2011 to 2013, and Syria seemed like one more exclamation mark on some elusive "Arab Spring". Of course,
it was no such thing but I only knew that from reading far more widely than most people do, and I wasn't a
journalist trying to eke out a living either. As commenters we have the luxury of writing as we see fit,
without fear of being fired. Anonymously too, most of us. But for reporters out in the open, I reckon it must
have been a little harder.
Actually, I am trying to work up a little piece on the mysterious - and not so mysterious - reasons Syria
became such a red line for writers of all kinds, that to cross it back in 2012-2015 meant vitriol in the
mailbox and who knows what else. Sure it became easier in 2015 once the Russians stepped in, but I am trying to
figure out why that was the case. What was so special about 2016, other than that was the year the russians
really helped turn things around? and it was election season in the US too. Still, I am struglgling to wrap
arms around this strange conundrum of why Syria?
Finally, speaking about red lines and daniel's comment. Gilad Atzmon is the most obvious case of a red line
those who write in the open cannot cross. No matter how pro-palestinians and/or anti-zionists they are. Gilad
is a lithmus test and has been for quite a while now. Just another somewhat strange phenomenon, and snother
occasion for yet another piece (which I will write under still another name - for good reason. After all, the
mere mention of the name Atzmon could be enough to get one kicked out of "polite' society....and I do like the
free food and drinks served in those societies - now and then....).
This is not only suspiciously vindictive, it's a bore. Isn't there something more pernicious to explore than
Max Blumenthal's lack of perfection? 1) The implication that he changes his positions for financial gain is
laughable. If Max is trying to sell out, he's going about it all wrong. 2) He's under no obligation to explain
his father's actions. 3) You seem to be implying that he was quiet about Libya because of his father's
involvement. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a conflict of interest? 4) You don't like the
name "Moderate Rebels?" Dude your writing for a website called "Moon Over Alabama" Let's just agree to judge on
content rather than title.
Assad's opposition has turned him into a hero, not us. He is a veritable paladin next to the Jihadi
headchoppers that would take over if he fell.
And how has regime-change ever helped anyway? Toppling Saddam was a disaster for USA in terms of
international standing, financial cost, and the end result (increased Iranian influence). Libya after Qaddafi
is a nightmare where ISIS conducts slave auctions. Afghanistan's 18-year war is a quagmire of dumbfuckery so
profound that it is only talked about in hushed terms when reauthorizations are needed. In Ukraine, the West
'won' a money pit.
@73 daniel. your question "what would a propaganda designed for
people who already know the MSM is propaganda look like?" - the intercept?
@76 diana.. good post.. thanks..
@80 merlin.. thanks for your post.. i am still conflicted on the arab spring.. on the one hand it seemed
like a natural occurrence.. on the other hand it seems like the powers that be were waiting to take advantage
of it too, especially in the case of syria...i suppose we could give max, ben and rania a pass based on the
general view that the arab spring was upon the middle east and everyone knew what a brutal dictator assad was..
i think a few folks woke up during the ukraine shakedown 2014, and they might have got to thinking that indeed
the yinon plan was still on track or that general clarks comments which i quote here were indeed relevant.. "As
I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a
chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed
as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq,
then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
that arab spring thing seemed like good cover for any number of tricks, not to mention regime change.. i
have a hard time buying into the thought that someone who is supposed to cultivate critical thinking would
overlook this myself.. maybe investigative reporters are supposed to skip the critical thinking class? i don't
buy that myself.. i relate more to diana's comment @76 and think that it is fair to criticize max and any other
number of public journalists, or bloggers.. i do it with other posters here and i get it when folks do it with
b, as a few have here on this thread, even if i don't agree with them in this instance..
thanks to the many commentators here that continue to give me greater insight to overcome the blind spots
that i carry around without being fully or even partly aware of them.. it's ongoing..
I agree with your assertions about the paid shills of our
world....they are paid to get out in front of trains not of their creation and start a parade.
Your posting has brought a new "class" of trolls to MoA. Maybe we can open some of their minds and they will
quit their day jobs.
Although par for the course for most people, your short sightedness, your disregard for factual evidence and
your sheer inability for critical evaluation is exasperating.
It is because of people like you that offer sustenance to a predatory and exploitative elite that we find
ourselves in the bind we are in.
People like you have completely bought into the narrative of the ostensible benevolence of presumably
democratic governments. People like you have completely been sold on the desirability of the centralization of
power. People like you have gladly waded into the self defeating fable of the righteousness of centralized
education.
It is people like you that happily cheer-on our elites as they gradually divest society of their labor and
their wealth by lowering interest rates artificially.
It is people like you that merrily support our elites as they progressively reveal themselves to be mere
enforcers for predatory financial interests
It is people like you that rejoice in the orgy of government profligacy that gradually weighs down the
creativity, the productivity and the mere right to existence of individuals the world over.
It is people like you that revel in the self declared virtue of transnational political entities that, time
and again, are caught abetting and often, colluding with retrograde, sanguinary individuals the world over.
You are a deluded soul. Either that, or you have an agenda.
I know how hard it is for people to change their views, my self included. Sure you could say Max and Co. should
have known better but what does that say about 99% of journalists on this planet who still firmly sticks with
and probably believes the official NATO propaganda narrative?
I think having an article and debating this is
both helpful and informative. However resorting to name calling like "turncoats" implies playing for a team.
Tribalism and partisan hackery is something we should avoid at all costs. I've been accused of being a Putin
lover and Assad lover by those who cling to the NATO narrative. The truth is I think both as assholes but I
also understand the position they are in.
Is the Baath regime ideal? Fuck no. Would a Muslim brotherhood Regime be better? Highly doubtful. Would
Al-Nusra or and ISIS Regime bet better? WTF? are you kidding me?? There is no black and white here, but some
are much more gray that others. Same goes for journalists and people, none of us are without flaws. But the
ability to change your mind and correct course is a good property especially in a journalist. This "no true
Scotsman" mentality is a luxury we can't really afford in the fight against the onslaught of corporate pro WAR
media.
Serious tribalism here, quite ugly to see, no criticism is allowed.
People that are wrong must apologize lol,
I mean get off your high horse.
Also attacking Blumenthal, Khalek, Norton, its like a teenager trying to pick a fight with a bodybuilder,
and those who play with fire is going to be burnt himself by the same smearing.
Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are.
Democracy Now, pleeeeease the white wash agency for USA exceptionalism and other crimes against
humanity. Next you'll be quoting the Guardian. Reposting content from either of these two is like passing round
used toilet paper for another try.
I can understand the alround eagerness to condemn. It's a standard pattern of putting the bar very high for
others. It's as people have to demonstrate how good they are themselves by condemning others. Julian Assange is
far from perfect as well but he has done a huge service.
I think it was perfectly normal for a progressives to support the demonstrations and rebellion against Assad.
This fit in with the Arab Spring and there was a legitimate aspiration for more democracy. There was also a
violent component from the start , and there were strong exhortations to avoid all negotiations and avoid all
compromise because Assad certainly was going to fall. It's to Max Blumenthal's credit that he caught on to the
component which was there from the start and which quickly started to dominate: the intent , mostly from
outside, to destroy or degrade the state. I think Blumenthal has done very good work on many fronts and I
respect him.
I do not appreciate how he bashes people who have not caught on. It does not necessarily get
easier over time to change your mind. The amount of propaganda on the issue has also increased. Once you're on
the outside it's easy, but it is also easy to underestimate how hard it is to change your mind from the inside.
I understood the nature of the conflict from the start. Therefore I'm much smarter than Blumenthal. He
should listen to me.
I can believe that Blumenthal is obfuscating his change of mind. But I've known about his change of mind for
a long time from interviews so I never even noticed the obfuscation.
It's not pretty. Ok. So it's not pretty.
Fantastic piece by Daniel, it's nice to see that some people have some standards. Both Norton and Blumenthal
have lied about various issues, not just Syria, though the way Max, Ben and Rania all changed positions at the
same time on Syria is highly shady. Same with the deletion without explanation of their past work on Syria,
Libya etc. Max has helped his war profiteer, Clinton employee father sell lies on various issues, we should't
be grateful that he(or they) rebranded on Syria after he already did so much damage. We should be skeptical as
to why.
@ Anon who wrote: "Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are."
Unless you want to replace global private finance with totally sovereign finance you are not on my side. Are
you on my side Anon? Do you think Max B is on my side ?
Take your obfuscating BS to some other blog you come in and say is misguided.
As C @ 91 says, the fact that Max Blumenthal et al experienced their Damascene moment (cough, cough) at about
the same time is suspicious in itself. The timing of that moment too, with the Russian entry into the Syrian
war in September 2015 and the turnabout in Syria's fortunes that started soon after, must also be considered.
One might almost have guessed that Blumenthal, Norton and Khalek were planning and co-ordinating their move
together, and looking for the right moment.
They must surely know that they are playing the role of gatekeepers in demarcating how far dissent from the
official narrative about Syria is allowed to go. The fact that some commenters here have taken their contrition
at face value and question or criticise others who have reservations about the depth of the trio's actions
demonstrates the power of that role, and why some of us might be justified in doubting their motives for acting
the way they have.
Until Max Blumenthal does something that truly threatens the powers that be, like Thierry Meyssan and Serena
Shim, I will regard him as another Sibel Edmonds--a government infiltrator posing as a dissident. By the way,
if anyone wants to know what really happened at the beginning of the invasion of Syria, read Thierry Meyssan's
writings from Libya and Damascus at the time: "John McCain, conductor of the Arab Spring" is amazing. So is
another one Thierry published on Voltaire, The rebirth of the Syrian Arab Army
https://www.voltairenet.org/article190703.html
This pissing contest comes off very much like the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" in which members of
the People's Front of Judea badmouth the Judean People's Front. The ultimate insult was to call anyone with a
different opinion a "SPLITTER!" From my point of view, Max, Ben and Rania have their hearts in the right place.
(Has no one heard their saber-like takes on Ukraine?) They are not the enemy. In "Brian's" time, it was Rome,
and in our time it is the Western Empire. Let's all keep that in mind.
I agree with many posters here that the criticism of "prodigal children" of anti-imperialism should be
measured. This is a political cause, and we are not assembling an elite force that can smash most entrenched
enemies. Instead, we should strive to analyze the reality, spread the word and convert.
And we have to accept
that we differ on many issues, and very often we differ with our own past position. Back when the issue was
Kosovo intervention, I though that this is good idea. Now I know that "Beware the Greeks when they bring gifts
[Trojan Horse, for those deficient in classics]" should get another corollary "beware imperialists when they
care about human rights".
And it is not just vicarious imperialists or people who maintain civil relationship with members of Hamas
who may wrongly generalize. Assuming that Muslim Brotherhood is always and everywhere a force of evil violates
the good principle "location, location, location". Like Marxism, MB ideology has gamut of different trends, and
it is a bit to its credit that in Syria it did such a miserable job, being outplayed by Salafist -- they do not
do a good job as a warrior cult, they are actually too normal for that.
If moonofalabama has searchable archive, I was posting that it is immensely
speculative that Trump is a lesser evil than Clinton, in particular, his consistent praise of Bolton puts under
question mark all reasonable fragments of sentences that one could collect from his tweets and speeches.
Domestically, the guy is a wrecking ball, internationally -- it is still a bit open issue, I hope for malignity
mellowed by ineptitude, I mean, the outcome leave a chance for recovery. Then again, Clinton is much less smart
than some think her to be, so the grounds for opposing her more than Trump were illusionary.
I meant to add to my previous post (92) that requiring absolute ideological purity has been deadly to the left
ever since the left began. It is one of the main reasons why a broad-based leftwing movement has never taken
hold and lasted. A pox on these sectarian ideological squabbles. If the left wants to win, it must put them
aside once and for all.
Those who argue for leniency for Blumenthal and the others would have us overlook the MANY betrayals of other
so-called progressives. Such betrayals are too frequent to be just a matter of 'bad apples' or 'bad judgement'.
These "turncoats" take
strategic positions
on issues to advance their career. Hillary, the "progressive
that gets things done", and Obama, the "community organizer", are two notable examples. Another would be
Bernie's 'sheepdog' betrayal of his Movement - even after it was clear that Hillary and the DNC had conspired
against him. Such people slyly conflate progressive ideals with divisive identity politics. By throwing off the
moral core of progressivism they advance the interests of TPTB. Their many loyal sycophants and apologists rush
to defend the indefensible and try their best to muddy waters BUT WE KNOW THE GAME by now so fuck off! You
can't piss down our backs and tell us it raining anymore.
'Progressive' pundits and journalists that become useful idiots instead of watchdogs are even worse because
they claim to be truth-tellers. You don't get to lead the next parade after you've led people over a cliff.
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
Investigators stopped the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg at a New York-area airport
after he stepped off a private plane, according to the Times. They proceeded to search his
electronic devices and question him.
There is no indication that Vekselberg is suspected of wrongdoing. But the search and
interview suggests that Mueller's team is homing in on the Trump campaign and inauguration
committee's potential ties with Russians.
The shadow of 9/11 hangs over Mueller. The Deep State keeps him by the balls and wants
results. And that means impeachment.
CIA-democrats which now is the ruling wing of Democratic Party wants to get to power but they
have no that many viable candidates for midterm elections. If they overplay their hand then the
attempt to cover betrayal of ordinary Americans with former military CIA candidates might
backfire.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus Trump's impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions, would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict their targets on the evidence. Mueller and his team are the ones who need this interrogation. ..."
"... For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive proof of the foundational charge: that Trump's team colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC. ..."
"... Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation. How did Trump obstruct justice? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Should Mueller subpoena him, as he has threatened to do, Trump should ignore the subpoena
and frame it for viewing in Trump Tower.
If Mueller goes to the Supreme Court and wins an order for Trump to comply and testify
before a grand jury, Trump should defy the Court.
The only institution that is empowered to prosecute a president is Congress. If charges
against Trump are to be brought, this is the arena, this is the forum, where the battle should
be fought and the fate and future of the Trump presidency decided.
The goal of Mueller's prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap. If they can get him
behind closed doors and make him respond in detail to questions -- to which they already know
the answers -- any misstep by Trump could be converted into a perjury charge.
Trump has to score 100 on a test to which Mueller's team has all the answers in advance
while he must rely upon memory.
Why take this risk?
By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus
Trump's impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions,
would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict
their targets on the evidence. Mueller and his team are the ones who need this
interrogation.
For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive
proof of the foundational charge: that Trump's team colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to
hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC.
Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude
with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation. How did Trump obstruct
justice?
Did he suggest that fired national security advisor General Mike Flynn might get a pardon?
What was his motive in sacking FBI director James Comey? Did Trump edit the Air Force One
explanation of the meeting in June 2016 between his campaign officials and Russians? Did he
pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller?
Mueller's problem: These questions and more have all been aired and argued endlessly in the
public square. Yet no national consensus has formed that Trump committed an offense to justify
his removal. Even Democrats are backing away from talk of impeachment.
Trump's lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying, no
matter what subpoena he draws up or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress threatens
impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: impeach me and be damned.
Would a new Congress really impeach and convict an elected president?
An impeachment battle would be a titanic struggle between a capital that detests Trump and a
vast slice of Middle America that voted to repudiate that capital's elite, trusts Trump, and
will stand by him to the end.
And in any impeachment debate before Congress and the cameras of the world, not one but two
narratives will be heard.
The first is that Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and then sought
to obstruct an investigation of his collusion.
The second is the story of how an FBI cabal went into the tank on an investigation of
Clinton to save her campaign. Then it used the product of a Clinton-DNC dirt-diving operation,
created by a British spy with Russian contacts, to attempt to destroy the Trump candidacy. Now,
failing that, it's looking to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
In short, the second narrative is that the "deep state" and its media auxiliaries are
colluding to overturn the results of the 2016 election.
Unlike Watergate, with Russiagate, the investigators will be on trial as well.
Trump needs to shift the struggle out of the legal arena, where Mueller and his men have
superior weapons, and into the political arena, where he can bring his populous forces to bear
on the decision as to his fate.
This is the terrain on which Trump can win: an us-vs-them fight, before Congress and
country, where not only the alleged crimes of Trump are aired but also the actual crimes
committed to destroy him and to overturn his victory.
Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and securing her frontiers
against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and the agenda for which
America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the streets this time.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Pat is correct, Trump should try to avoid answering any questions as he is incapable of
keeping his lies straight. He can't even keep then straight in two consecutive sentences. A
couple of hours of answering questions will result in a incoherent transcript that will take
many teams of layers years to decipher.
"Trump's lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying,
no matter what subpoena he draws up or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress
threatens impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: impeach me and be
damned."
The Deep State, the mainstream media, Establishment Democrats, and (yes) Establishment
Republicans have been conspiring to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election
since the early hours of Nov. 9, 2016.
But we're not going to let that happen!
You're right, Pat, that "Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and
securing her frontiers against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and
the agenda for which America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the
streets this time."
Yes! If we have to go into the streets to protect our duly-elected President and our
country, then we will take the fight into the streets.
If we don't stand and fight now, we'll lose our country! It's that simple!
Pat is right: "The goal of Mueller's prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap."
A good example of this came this morning at the Paul Manafort trial in federal court in
Virginia, where Judge T.S. Ellis III scolded Mueller's prosecuters:
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting
information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his
prosecution or impeachment I don't see what relationship this indictment [against Manafort]
has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate."
Because Mueller's entire team consists of Democrats, who are presumptively partisan, his
investigation lacks even *prima facie* credibility.
It would be nice if Trump's team makes this point. Rudy G. could explain to dimwitted
journos, "That means 'on its face.' The point being, what kind of charade is this
investigation, and what kind of person doesn't think it's inevitably a charade?"
The longer the left pursues this impeachment strategy the bigger hole they are digging for
themselves. They never come forth with our Obama replacement or a plan.
FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
Notable quotes:
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President
Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences
in April.
According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.
The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network,
is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict
within the American ruling class and its state.
The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences
as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones
and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs
to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.
US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.
Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client
privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens
all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."
Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president
is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality
TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.
There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings
to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president --
or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control
of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.
That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic.
The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and
collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.
This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate
media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle
East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating
foreign-inspired "fake news."
These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result
of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.
The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past
several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal
response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation
of John Dowd in March.
This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward
Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred,
but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.
This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before
a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served
as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.
Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal
fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.
In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom
Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani
called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller
probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.
He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators
and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey,
a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times ,
along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.
On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."
Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000
in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own
funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.
It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on
this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually
nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp
out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax
cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing
subsidies for the poor.
This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming
midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.
There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate
policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions
and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.
This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling
class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over
Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's
ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.
The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis
of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist
two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding
war abroad and austerity and repression at home.
"... I am reading Taleb's recent book "Skin in the game" which has interesting material about the disconnection between risky behaviors and their consequences in modern USA. He also has a chapter about the mechanics involved in why minority viewpoints in our culture become dominant. It's an interesting read. ..."
"... Finally, the Police partially acknowledged their mistake and accused the Russians of not having been completely fair play. Indeed, these thuriferous bastards of Vlad the Impaler had put poison on the OUTDOOR handle of the front door of the house. It's infinitely subtle of these savages. The Brit Police did not suspect what strong part it had to make, the unexpected thwarting its learned calculations. Presumption, again and again. Nevertheless, the detectives are formal: the Russians did the trick well. The evidence is obvious. In this dramatic case, we are not going to make a comparison between insular and continental logic. The hour is too serious for these trifles. Lots of laughter. ..."
"... It's very difficult in any case to believe that such a notice could have been issued. Can't see why it would be needed. The scripting of the official story on such matters as this seems to be a joint enterprise between the media and the press officers. That's a time-honoured consensus so why would the media need bullying to stay in line? ..."
"... My personal view on all this is that the No. 10 press officers aren't that good at this new-fangled information stuff. They don't seem to have their hearts in it somehow. Time for them to go back to counting paperclips and for information campaigns to be handled by the experts. The BBC have a proven track record in this field and it's time that was officially recognised. ..."
Sir Mark, bless him, has told an MP during a committee meeting, that the armed forces, MI-5, MI-6 and GCHQ do not know who or
indeed what sickened the Skripals, pere et fille , in Salisbury. He doesn't seem to have mentioned the police. So, basically,
pilgrims, Teresa May, the queen's first minister has insistently and incessantly accused the Russians of a crime of which our British
cousins know precious little. In a closely related development, it is now revealed that the Britishers sealed up Skripal's house
after the poisoning event leaving the black Persian shown above and two guinea pigs to die of thirst and hunger within. It would
seem likely that they knew they were doing this since they would have searched the house first. No? Perhaps they thought that the
cat might be a threat as a being of possible Iranian descent. This is impressive stuff. pl
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-05-01/uk-has-not-yet-identified-skripal-poisoning-suspects
These false flag ops are all so shabby in their execution. The lack of thoroughness and imagination on the part of the governments
running them is really disappointing. For example, if I was running an investigation into the Skripal incident, I would have captured
the cat and rodents and run pathology tests on them to see what bio/chem agents might be in their systems. Also, because they
might escape and become a vector of further infection. That seems like it would be SOP. So I'd do it even if I knew the story
was BS to create the appearance of reality. Then, I could always state that the pets should signs of Russian engineered bio/chem
agents. Could even create a video of the pets dying some horrible death due to the agents. That's more better BS.
And yet, this appears to be a lie as well. An earlier piece in the British news claims the pets were taken to Porton Down for
examination and testing soon after the incident. Seems more likely they eliminated evidence and then came up with the cover story
about how the animals were "forgotten about" and locked in the house for a month, implying totally unimportant for the investigation.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/...
I hope she and Johnson pay the price for this folly. May it be steep! Very. very steep.
How these two suckered so many nations foolishly into sending diplomats home reflected respect for UK policy toward Russia.
These nations will need to think long and hard about following any such UK lead in future.
This week, the US took down the Russian flag flying over Russian real estate in Seattle. Shameful!
I don't know much about the dynamics of British politics but as a light observer of British news I wonder why Theresa May remains
prime minister? She became prime minister after the historic Brexit vote. Promptly takes the country to an election and botches
it for the Tories. Then bungles the Brexit negotiations. Runs a floundering government. Now comes up with accusations against
the Russians in the Skripal affair with no evidence presented but looking more foolish as her story comes under scrutiny.
I am reading Taleb's recent book "Skin in the game" which has interesting material about the disconnection between risky behaviors
and their consequences in modern USA. He also has a chapter about the mechanics involved in why minority viewpoints in our culture
become dominant. It's an interesting read.
2 cats and 2 guinea pigs were locked up for 9 days in Skipal's house, in the hope of proving that the Russians are guilty.
When the police reopened the house, they found four bodies. the veterinary faculty is positive, both cats died of starvation.
Guinea pigs, some say, began to be worked by hungry cats, accelerating their deaths. Unspeakable bloodshed. In this whole case,
it's THE revolting detail, among many others. Poor beasts.
Finally, the Police partially acknowledged their mistake and accused the Russians of not having been completely fair play.
Indeed, these thuriferous bastards of Vlad the Impaler had put poison on the OUTDOOR handle of the front door of the house. It's
infinitely subtle of these savages. The Brit Police did not suspect what strong part it had to make, the unexpected thwarting
its learned calculations. Presumption, again and again. Nevertheless, the detectives are formal: the Russians did the trick well.
The evidence is obvious. In this dramatic case, we are not going to make a comparison between insular and continental logic. The
hour is too serious for these trifles.
Lots of laughter.
Presumably there are bigger guns in the background if information that would really threaten national security or the lives
of serving officers is in danger of being released. The D-Notice system itself seems to be a more or less voluntary affair -
It's very difficult in any case to believe that such a notice could have been issued. Can't see why it would be needed.
The scripting of the official story on such matters as this seems to be a joint enterprise between the media and the press officers.
That's a time-honoured consensus so why would the media need bullying to stay in line?
My personal view on all this is that the No. 10 press officers aren't that good at this new-fangled information stuff.
They don't seem to have their hearts in it somehow. Time for them to go back to counting paperclips and for information campaigns
to be handled by the experts. The BBC have a proven track record in this field and it's time that was officially recognised.
"... Rep. Todd Rokita who is in a heated three-way primary in Indiana, appears to be the first Republican Senate candidate to include Mueller in a TV spot, telling GOP voters he will "fight the Mueller witch hunt" if he wins. ..."
"... they are using "fake news to try to destroy our president." ..."
Special counsel Robert
Mueller 's investigation is emerging as a new litmus test in key Republican Senate
primaries.
GOP hopefuls locked in nasty primary fights are increasingly denouncing the Russia probe as
they try to position themselves as the candidate aligned closest with President Trump
The volleys against the special counsel -- who has been investigating potential collusion
between Moscow and the Trump campaign for nearly a year -- come at a time when elections in
several battleground states have entered a crucial stretch.
Rep. Todd Rokita who
is in a heated three-way primary in Indiana, appears to be the first Republican Senate
candidate to include Mueller in a TV spot, telling GOP voters he will "fight the Mueller witch
hunt" if he wins.
The ad unfavorably compares the former FBI director, who is widely respected in the Beltway,
to House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly , saying they are using "fake
news to try to destroy our president."
Judge Mulls Dismissal Of Manafort Charges, "Sharply Questioned" Mueller Overreach
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:39 4.1K SHARES
Like most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort's was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win
the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller.
But after today's hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort's lawyers, it's looking
increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges - and be free of his ankle bracelets
- because in a surprising rebuke of Mueller's "overreach", Eastern District of Virginia Judge
T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, said Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute
over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russians.
Ellis said he's concerned Mueller is only pursuing charges against Manafort (and presumably
other individuals) to pressure them into turning on Trump. The Judge added that the charges
brought against Manafort didn't appear to stem from Mueller's collusion probe. Instead, they
appeared to be the work of an older investigation into Manafort that was eventually
dropped.
"I don't see how this indictment has anything to do with anything the special prosecutor is
authorized to investigate," Ellis said at a hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia,
concerning a motion by Manafort to dismiss the case.
It got better: Ellis also slammed prosecutors saying it appeared they were using the
indictment of Manafort to pressure him to cooperate against Trump. Manafort, 69, has pleaded
not guilty and disputes Mueller's assertion that he violated U.S. laws when he worked for a
decade as a political consultant for pro-Russian groups in Ukraine.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said. "You really care about
what information he might give you about Mr. Trump and what might lead to his impeachment or
prosecution. "
According to Bloomberg, Ellis is overseeing one of two indictments against Manafort.
Manafort is also charged in Washington with money laundering and failing to register as a
foreign agent of Ukraine.
* * *
Manafort's lawyers had asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed
against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller's
authority. The judge also questioned why Manafort's case there could not be handled by the U.S.
attorney's office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel's office, as it is not
Russia-related . A question many others have asked, as well.
Ellis has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was
complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can't come up with any, he may, presumably,
dismiss the case. Ellis also asked the special counsel's office to share privately with him a
copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein's August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of
Mueller's Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted.
At that point, should nothing change materially, Manafort may be a free man; needless to
say, a dismissal would set precedent and be nothing short of groundbreaking by potentially
making it much harder for Mueller to turn other witnesses against the president.
"... Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence. ..."
"... The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information" related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director James Comey , which the White House ultimately used to justify his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to charges of obstruction of justice. ..."
"... After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as special counsel to handle the Russia probe. ..."
"... Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed, according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure. ..."
"... He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable." ..."
"... "If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment, I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations. ..."
Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises By Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant - 05/03/18 06:00 AM EDT
2,577 63 Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever Trump- South Korean president
gives us all the credit Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking their own drafts'
White House dodges on Mueller questions Sanders: White House tries to 'never be concerned' with Adam Schiff White House talking to
Waffle House hero about Trump meeting White House says Trump is 'very happy' with chief of staff White House: Jackson no longer serving
as Trump's lead physician Chaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Pruitt's head of security resigns Trump’s
ex-doctor says Trump associates 'raided' his office Romney praises Trump's first year in office: It's similar to things 'I'd have
done' WHCD host: Sarah Sanders lies Netanyahu: iran deal flawed, based on lies WHCD host: Trump is not rich Conservative House lawmakers
draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein List reveals questions Mueller wants to ask Trump: report NBC: White House chief
of staff told aides women 'more emotional' than men McCain torches Trump in new book: He prioritizes appearance of toughness over
American values White House chief of staff denies report he called Trump an idiot Trump: Threats to pull out of Iran deal 'sends
the right message' Trump: We don't want to be the policemen of the world Trump campaign covered some of Cohen's legal costs: report
Democrats losing support of millennials: poll Cruz again questioning McConnell’s strategies Ex-Bush ethics official to run
for Franken's former Senate seat as Dem: report Parkland survivor calls out NRA for banning guns at convention Michelle Wolf pushes
back on criticism of Sarah Sanders jokes 7 targets Michelle Wolf took aim at during the White House correspondents’ dinner
Trump: If Dems win in 2018 midterms, they'll impeach me WHCD host calls Trump ‘cowardly’ for skipping event again Trump
threatens to 'close down the country' over funding for border wall GOP chairman 'doesn't have a problem' with Tester's handling of
Jackson allegations Election forecaster: Nunes seat no longer ‘safe’ Republican Washington’s heavy-drinking ways
in spotlight Stars of 'Veep,' 'West Wing' to lobby lawmakers ahead of White House correspondents' dinner Republican worries 'assassination
risk' prompting lawmaker resignations Gillibrand unveils bill to offer banking services at post offices Meehan resigns with promise
to pay back alleged sexual harassment claim Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking
their own drafts'
On Tuesday, the deputy attorney general
rebuked the nascent conservative effort to impeach him, likely exacerbating tensions with conservatives in the House. House Republicans
are demanding access to classified documents related to special counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation, including a heavily redacted
memo that spells out the scope of the investigation.
"There is really nothing to comment on there, but just give me the documents. The bottom line is, he needs to be give me the documents,"
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during an interview with
The Hill on Wednesday when asked about his response to Rosenstein.
"I have one goal in mind, and that is not somebody's job or the termination of somebody's job, it is getting the documents and
making sure we can do proper oversight," he said, adding that there are "no current plans to introduce an impeachment resolution."
Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of
President Trump's top allies in Congress, have
drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question
his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.
Conservatives have called the impeachment articles a last resort. Rosenstein dismissed the impeachment threat and went a step
further by suggesting the Justice Department's independence is being threatened. "There have been people who have been making threats
privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not
going to be extorted," Rosenstein said during an appearance at the Newseum. "I just don't have anything to say about documents like
that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and they leak in that way," he continued, after quipping earlier that the lawmakers
"can't even resist leaking their own drafts."
Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official, is widely respected in legal circles. He has been praised for his work leading
the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served in for 12 years,
spanning Republican and Democratic administrations. Rosenstein's years of service at the department came through in his public remarks,
lawyers say.
"With a guy like Rosenstein, you can't underestimate the deep connection that many career -- not all -- but many career Justice
Department officials have to the department," said Steven Cash, a lawyer at Day Pitney. "It defines their self image as participating
in ensuring the rule of law in a way you often don't see in other departments -- they are very, very proud of their association with
the department, its traditions, history and independence."
But Rosenstein has plenty of critics on Capitol Hill, where some Republicans accuse him of hindering legitimate oversight.
Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary
for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice
Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence.
The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment
in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information"
related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The charges appear to have caught the attention of the president, who threatened to get involved on Wednesday morning.
"A Rigged System -- They don't want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such
unequal 'justice?' At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved," Trump tweeted.
Since Trump appointed Rosenstein to serve as deputy attorney general, he has become a key player in the drama surrounding the
Mueller investigation.
It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director
James Comey, which the White House ultimately used to justify
his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to
charges of obstruction of justice.
Rosenstein has defended the memo on Comey, pointing to criticism from both parties about Comey's handling of the investigation
into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's use of
a private email server before the 2016 presidential election.
After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein
who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as
special counsel to handle the Russia probe.
Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a
broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies.
In addition, Rosenstein
reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation
that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed,
according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure.
Rosenstein took issue with allegations detailed in the impeachment draft, including the charge that he failed to properly supervise
surveillance applications.
He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they
presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen
and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable."
It's unclear yet whether an impeachment push will gain traction among rank-and-file Republicans; GOP leaders have remained silent
on the matter. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.), indicated Wednesday that he sees no reason to fire Rosenstein, as he said earlier this year. Some GOP lawmakers in
recent weeks have also said they've seen improvement from the Justice Department in responding to documents requests.
"If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment,
I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations.
Still, Rosenstein's remarks are sure to ramp up tensions between two sides. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said Rosenstein
came off as "cagey" in his defense and raised questions about what he may be trying to hide. "Everyone knows that this is heating
up and both sides are gearing up for a fight," O'Connell told The Hill.
"... The confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General by a lopsided 94-6 vote should have set off warning bells. It is odd that a Trump nominee would get much Democratic support, if any. ..."
"... A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it. ..."
"... Steele's discredited "research," which relied heavily on input from Russian sources, was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which puts Rosenstein in the position of aiding the efforts of one political party to overturn the results of an election won by the other political party by okaying domestic spying on an American citizen. ..."
"... Needless to say, Rosenstein did not grant Page's request to see the FISA application to determine how much it was based on Steele's fake dossier. Nor has he expressed any dissatisfaction with the Mueller witchhunt he was responsible for launching, ..."
"... In an interview with a local D.C. TV station , Rosenstein admired the monster he created, who now runs an alleged investigation into supposed Russia-Trump collusion but which quickly morphed into what amounts to a silent coup against a sitting President of the United States: ..."
"... Yes, Mr. Rosenstein, you certainly are accountable for the Mueller witchhunt. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton's Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors , an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advise to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all. ..."
"... A good question Rosenstein won't answer. Rosenstein is satisfied with Mueller, and why shouldn't he be? The two go back a long way and cooperated in the coverup of an FBI investigation into Russia's use of bribes, kickbacks, and money laundering to grab U.S. uranium supplies and real collusion with Hillary Clinton, only to resurface years later to chase phantom collusion between Team Trump and Russia. ..."
"... Mueller and Rosenstein were both involved in the FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary's collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin's Russia: ..."
"... Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015. ..."
"... If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair were not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, then what is? Rosenstein's goal apparently has long been to shield Hillary Clinton from prosecution for her crimes and to use any means to bring down the Trump administration he supposedly was appointed to serve. Now he has stooped so low as to employ a fake Russian dossier in a witchhunt the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy could only envy ..."
The
confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General by a lopsided 94-6 vote should
have set off warning bells. It is odd that a Trump nominee would get much Democratic support,
if any.
But his role in appointing his buddy Robert Mueller to lead a bogus Russian collusion
probe and his history of looking the other way when Hillary Clinton is involved shows the
Democrats had high hopes for Rosenstein, hopes realized by actions
documented in the four-page House Intelligence Committee memo:
A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J.
Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign
associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with
it.
The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe
that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent
The memo's primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to
adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for
surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator,
Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary
Clinton's presidential campaign
Steele's discredited "research," which relied heavily on input from Russian sources, was
paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which puts Rosenstein in the position of
aiding the efforts of one political party to overturn the results of an election won by the
other political party by okaying domestic spying on an American citizen.
When the newly departed Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified for seven hours before
the House Intelligence Committee, he was unable to report that the FBI had corroborated
anything in the Steele dossier, except for the fact that
Carter Page had visited Russia :
Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the
contents of the anti-Trump "dossier" and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to
identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources
said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to
Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had
verified the dossier's allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in
Moscow.
Based on the flimsiest of evidence in a fake Russian dossier paid for by Democrats the
surveillance of Carter Page began and was reauthorized by Rosenstein. Page has vehemently
denied the allegations in the dossier and has sought the release
of the memo to show its falseness and to show the DOJ of Rod Rosenstein and the FBI of
Andrew McCabe colluded with the Democrats to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald
Trump out of the White House:
The former Trump campaign adviser who was spied on by the U.S. government prior to the 2016
election is "very much" in favor of the release of a controversial congressional memo alleging
abuses of the surveillance warrant application process
Page pressed for the release the FISA application in a May
14 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
"If FISA warrants indeed exist as has been extensively reported, wide-ranging false
evidence will be inevitably revealed in light of the fact that I have never done anything
remotely unlawful in Russia or with any Russian person at any point in my life," he
wrote.
What remains unanswered about the application for the warrant on Page is how heavily it
relied on the dossier and whether the FBI and DOJ vetted the allegations made about him by
Steele
Page has vehemently denied the allegations made against him in the dossier, which was put
together by former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition
research firm Fusion GPS, and financed by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
In the 35-page dossier, Steele alleges that Page was the Trump campaign's main backchannel
to the Kremlin for the purposes of campaign collusion. Steele claims that Page was working
with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and that during a trip to Moscow in July
2016, he met secretly with two Kremlin cronies, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin.
The dossier also alleges that it was Page who "conceived and promoted" the idea of having
hacked DNC emails released through WikiLeaks in order to swing Bernie Sanders supporters away
from Hillary Clinton and into the Trump camp.
Page denies all of the claims. He says he does not know Manafort and has never spoken with
Sechin and Diveykin.
Needless to say, Rosenstein did not grant Page's request to see the FISA application to
determine how much it was based on Steele's fake dossier. Nor has he expressed any
dissatisfaction with the Mueller witchhunt he was responsible for launching,
In an interview with
a local D.C. TV station , Rosenstein admired the monster he created, who now runs an
alleged investigation into supposed Russia-Trump collusion but which quickly morphed into what
amounts to a silent coup against a sitting President of the United States:
The U.S. Department of Justice official who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to
investigate Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election said he is satisfied
with the special counsel's work
"The Office of Special Counsel, as you know, has a degree of autonomy from the Department
of Justice. But there is appropriate oversight by the department. That includes budget. But
it also includes certain other details of the office. It is part of the Department of
Justice. And we're accountable for it."
Yes, Mr. Rosenstein, you certainly are accountable for the Mueller witchhunt. Mueller has
picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton's Department of Justice. He
has picked a bevy
of Clinton donors , an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate
assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advise to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all.
Oh, what tangled webs Rosenstein and the FBI have woven! Republican lawmakers, needless to
say, are not amused at all this,
casting the obvious doubts on Rosenstein's praise of Special Counsel Mueller:
Several conservative lawmakers held a news conference Wednesday demanding more details of
how the FBI proceeded last year in its probes of Hillary Clinton's use of personal email and
Russian election interference. This week, the conservative group Judicial Watch released an
internal Justice Department email that, the group said, showed political bias against Trump
by one of Mueller's senior prosecutors .
"The question really is, if Mueller was doing such a great job on investigating the
Russian collusion, why could he have not found the conflict of interest within their own
agency?'' Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) asked at the news conference. Meadows, leader of the
Freedom Caucus, cited a litany of other issues that he said show bias on the part of the FBI
and Mueller, including past political donations by lawyers on Mueller's team.
A good question Rosenstein won't answer. Rosenstein is satisfied with Mueller, and why
shouldn't he be? The two go back a long way and cooperated in the coverup of an FBI
investigation into Russia's use of bribes, kickbacks, and money laundering to grab U.S. uranium
supplies and real collusion with Hillary Clinton, only to resurface years later to chase
phantom collusion between Team Trump and Russia.
Mueller and Rosenstein were both involved in the FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with
current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary's collusion, bordering on treason,
with Vladimir Putin's Russia:
Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving
Russia 20% of America's Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials
were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit
Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill
John Solomon and Alison Spann of
The Hill : Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian
nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept
emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm
with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court
documents show
From today's report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S.
Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General, and
then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under
Trump.
Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as
FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case
started in 2009 and ended in 2015.
If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair
were not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, then what
is? Rosenstein's goal apparently has long been to shield Hillary Clinton from prosecution for
her crimes and to use any means to bring down the Trump administration he supposedly was
appointed to serve. Now he has stooped so low as to employ a fake Russian dossier in a
witchhunt the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy could only envy
Rosenstein, Mueller, McCabe et al have used the office of special counsel and a
politicized the FBI and DOJ to conduct a silent coup against a duly elected president and are
unindicted coconspirators in Hillary's crimes. They should be the targets of their very own
special counsel.
Daniel John Sobieski
is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily ,
Human Events , Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other
publications.
"... The leak, and the cover up, shows the "collaboration between the media and the intelligence community in building up Russiagate," ..."
"... The report also states that Clapper "subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic." ..."
Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, who landed a job at CNN in
August 2017 after leaving the government, leaked information to CNN's Jake Tapper regarding the
infamous Steele dossier and its salacious allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump -
then denied his actions to Congress under oath.
The leak, and the cover up, shows the
"collaboration between the media and the intelligence community in building up Russiagate," Max
Blumenthal, a journalist and bestselling author, told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear.
... ... ...
The report also states that Clapper "subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper and
admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic."
Blumenthal explained that the dossier was the catalyst for the Russiagate scandal.
"I think this should be a bigger scandal than it is," he told hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
Mueller's proposed questions to Trump show that Trump remains Mueller's ultimate target
Notable quotes:
"... (1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made public. ..."
"... (2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target ..."
"... Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by prosecuting Counsel. ..."
"... (3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the Mueller probe ..."
"... the Russiagate investigation did become a criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry. ..."
"... When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..."
"... The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking to. ..."
"... The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal leaking. ..."
"... In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about which however see above. ..."
"... (4) The collusion narrative has collapsed ..."
"... The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt Russian children. ..."
"... In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts. ..."
"... Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much. ..."
(1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made
public.
Every single one of the questions is obviously drawn on information which has already been
made public and which has been widely discussed.
... ... ...
(2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target
Recently there have been media reports that Robert Mueller's investigators have informed
Donald Trump that he is not a target of the Mueller investigation.
The highly aggressive questions Mueller wants to ask Trump however tell a very different
story. The consistent theme behind them is of a Donald Trump who is very much at the centre of
all sorts of nefarious activities. Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an
investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by
prosecuting Counsel.
In light of this Trump's hesitation in submitting himself to an interview by Mueller in
which these sort of questions are asked is fully understandable.
I suspect his lawyers are advising him against it.
(3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the
Mueller probe
When around the time of former FBI Director James Comey's admittedly botched dismissal the
issue of obstruction of justice first arose, it seemed to me so farfetched that I could not
bring myself to believe that Mueller or anyone else would seriously entertain it.
As I pointed out at the time the Russiagate investigation was at that point in time still a
counterespionage inquiry rather than a crime inquiry, as had recently been confirmed by no less
a person than James Comey himself in his March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee.
As it happens it is a moot point when exactly the Russiagate investigation did become a
criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry.
My guess is that no such formal decision was ever taken, but that Mueller himself simply
decided as soon as he was appointed Special Counsel that he was conducting a criminal inquiry
as well as a counterespionage inquiry. The point is apparently being pursued by Paul Manafort's
lawyers in the case Mueller has brought against him. It will be interesting to see what comes
of it. Irrespective of this, the fact that the Russiagate investigation was apparently still a
counterespionage inquiry as opposed to a criminal inquiry when Comey was sacked made it
impossible for me to see how
Comey's sacking could amount to an obstruction of justice.
What I was of course at that time completely unaware of was of the discussions which had
previously passed between Trump and Comey about General Flynn.
A memo Comey wrote up after one of these discussions has been seized on by Trump's critics
as evidence that he attempted to block the FBI's investigation into whether or not General
Flynn had committed an offence under the Logan Act by talking whilst a member of the Trump
transition team to Russian ambassador Kislyak, and that this amounts to an obstruction of
justice.
When early accounts of the contents of this memo appeared I expressed my strong doubt that its contents as
they were being reported showed that there had been any obstruction of justice by Donald Trump
of the investigation of General Flynn
..since Comey's note shows Trump neither instructing Comey nor requesting Comey to drop
the investigation against Flynn, nor of Trump putting pressure on Comey to do so, but merely
shows Trump expressing the "hope" Comey would do so, in any sane world no charge of
obstructing
justice or of perverting the course of
justice brought upon it could possibly stick.
The redacted text of this
and of Comey's other memos has now been published, and the relevant sections of the memo read
as follows
He [Donald Trump – AM] began by saying he "wanted to talk about Mike Flynn". He then
said that although Flynn "hadn't done anything wrong" in his call with the Russians (a point
he made at least two more times in the conversation), he had to let him go because he misled
the Vice-President and, in any event, he had concerns about Flynn, and had a great guy coming
in, so he had to let Flynn go ..
..He then referred at length to the leaks relating to Mike Flynn's call with the Russians,
which he stressed was not wrong in any way ("he made lots of calls"), but that the leaks were
terrible.
I tried to interject several times to agree with him about the leaks being terrible, but
was unsuccessful. When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible
that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be
able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..
He then returned to the subject of Mike Flynn, saying that Flynn is a good guy, and has
been through a lot. He misled the Vice-President but he didn't do anything wrong in the call.
He said, "I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good
guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied by saying, "I agree he is a good guy", but said
no more.
(bold italics added)
The entirety of the memo in fact shows that the main subject of the conversation and Donald
Trump's major concern as of the time when the conversation took place was not General Flynn or
the case against him but the systematic campaign of leaks which were undermining his
administration.
The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey
resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and
that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way
to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking
to.
The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly
egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal
leaking.
In this Trump was undoubtedly right.
Over the course of this discussion – and obviously so as to emphasise the point -Trump
made the further point – which is no longer disputed by anyone – that Flynn had
done nothing wrong in his conversations with Kislyak, and had done nothing to deserve having
his career and reputation destroyed by illegal leaking.
The memo shows that it was in the context of these observations about the way Flynn was
brought down by illegal leaking that Trump made his comments about the investigation of
Flynn.
Trump's point was that the investigation of Flynn for committing an offence under the Logan
Act (initiated by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates). coming on top of the illegal
leaks which had destroyed his career, was tough on Flynn given that he had done nothing
wrong.
Accordingly Trump said to Comey that he hoped Comey would be able to find a way to "letting
[the case against Flynn] go".
It was a minor aside and it is unlikely Trump gave much thought to it. Certainly it was not
intended as any sort of instruction to Comey to drop the inquiry, and the entirety of the text
of the memo shows that Comey never thought it was.
In fact the memo shows that Comey agreed with Trump.
The words in the memo which I have highlighted ("I agreed very much that it was terrible
that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be
able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence") have attracted remarkably little attention.
However they show clearly that Comey also thought that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was
lawful.
No other explanation for his words as he himself has reported them in his memo – "he
needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence" – is possible.
In other words the memo shows that not only did Trump not instruct or request Comey to drop
the investigation of Flynn or put pressure on Comey to do so, but on the contrary he and Comey
had what was essentially a consensual conversation in which they both agreed with each other
that (1) leaks are terrible; (2) Flynn had been appallingly treated by having his career and
reputation destroyed by leaks; and (3) in his conversation with Kislyak Flynn had done nothing
wrong.
Given that this is so it is simply impossible to see how an obstruction of justice charge
can be put together from this material.
Nonetheless the drift of Mueller's questions to Trump suggests that this is still what
Mueller is trying to do.
A disproportionate number of Mueller's questions concern Trump's various interactions with
Comey. These include but are not limited to Trump's interactions with Comey which concerned
Flynn.
In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his
reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of
obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about
which however see above.
There is also a number of questions concerning Trump's sometimes fraught relationship with
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the clear implication of which is that Trump's widely known and
publicly expressed anger about Sessions's decision to recuse himself from the Russiagate
inquiry stems from anger that Sessions would no longer be able to protect Trump from it.
Even if that is so – which it probably is – I cannot see how it amounts to
obstruction of justice. Anger that Sessions had recused himself from the Russiagate inquiry and
would no longer be able to protect the President is surely no more than a thought crime even if it were true, which
it probably is.
Last I heard thought crimes are not actionable in America. However,judging from his
questions, Mueller still seems intent on pursuing this one.
(4) The collusion narrative has collapsed
By comparison with the disproportionate number of questions devoted to the obstruction of
justice allegations, the questions about the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia – the investigation of which was supposed to be the object of the Mueller inquiry
– look threadbare.
All of them cover old ground, in which all the facts are known.
The first two questions concern the now notorious meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016
between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The lack of substance
to this meeting, and the extent to which it is truly a non-story, has been brilliantly
explained by Ronald Kessler in The Washington
Times
When it comes to President Trump and the question of
collusion with Russia , there is indeed a smoking gun.
But it's not the June 2016 meeting that Donald Trump Jr. , along with
campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner,
held in Trump
Tower with a Russian lawyer.
The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by
claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It
turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she
wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt
Russian children.
The meeting, which lasted 20 minutes, was the sort any political campaign or media outlet
would have agreed to. Like investigative reporters, political operatives want to obtain tips,
even if most of the time the proffered information turns out to be of no value. In this case,
nothing came of the meeting. In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay
for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a
British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts.
According to journalistic standards that existed decades ago, the fact that such a meeting
took place would not have even been a story. The pretext for the meeting was a hoax, and
nothing resulted from it. To suggest by running a story that there was something nefarious
about it was unfair. But in today's politically charged media world, the meeting became an
immediate sensation as part of a narrative -- pushed by the media and Democrats -- suggesting
that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia .
I have nothing to add to this masterful analysis save to say that the fact that Mueller is
continuing to ask questions about a meeting at which exactly nothing happened is testimony to
the hollowness of the whole collusion narrative the investigation of which Mueller's inquiry is
supposed to be about.
Summary
When Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel I welcomed his appointment. What I had
heard about Mueller suggested that he would be a safe pair of hands who would put the whole
preposterous Russiagate conspiracy theory to bed. It is with frank embarrassment that
I
repeat what I wrote about him at the time of his appointment
.it is essential that with Comey gone the Russiagate investigation is put in the charge of
a safe pair of hands, and of someone who will not be seen as the President's defender, and
whose eventual findings are accepted, and Mueller seems by most accounts to be the sort of
person to do that ..
Mueller appears to be a good choice for the job. He was a well regarded FBI director,
staying in post from 2001 – when he was appointed by George W. Bush – until his
retirement in 2013, when Comey replaced him. During that period he resisted the George W.
Bush administration's attempts to introduce interrogation methods since characterised as
torture as part of the so-called 'war on terror'. As someone well known to the staff of the
FBI, he looks like the obvious person to do the job, and to steady the ship, and –
hopefully – to bring some sanity to this investigation.
Mueller's job will now be to bring order to the mess Comey has created, and to bring the
various investigations into Russiagate that Obama's Justice Department initiated to a proper
close. If he does his job properly – and if he is left alone to do it – it should
all be over by the summer.
It has long since become clear that far from Mueller being the safe pair of hands I took him
for, he is someone who sees his task as protecting the Justice Department and the FBI (which he
largely built up) from someone who he obviously considers to be an angry and potentially
vengeful President. His proposed questions show that he still has the President in his sights,
and that Mueller is pulling out all the stops to bring him down.
Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he
is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much.
"... Inside the Tent gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official narratives, but its these individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who the public are turning to for their analysis. ..."
"... After the lies told about Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us. ..."
"... We're at an 'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics where more and more people have found the courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no clothes!'. ..."
"... The elite have been lying to us and they know that we know they've been lying. The question is: what are we going to do about it?" ..."
"Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased
coverage, the British haven't bought it. Literally or metaphorically. Inside the Tent
gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official
narratives, but its these individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who
the public are turning to for their analysis.
Compare the number of retweets the former UK
Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray gets when he publishes on the Skripal case, with those
who try and denigrate him. My own Twitter following has increased by several thousands since
early March.
Citizen Halo got a big boost in followers after she was smeared by The Times.
After the lies told about Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us.
We're at an 'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics
where more and more people have found the courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no
clothes!'.
The elite have been lying to us and they know that we know they've been lying. The
question is: what are we going to do about it?"
Comey, who was FBI chief from 2013 to 2017, was quoting a line reputedly uttered by
Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that he would not recan t his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic
Church. Comey's quotation of himself quoting the father of the Reformation is par for the self-reverence of his new memoir, A Higher
Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership .
MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared,
"James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria , in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers like Comey,
declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they
were not... So Comey pushed back as much as he could."
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the heresies of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker,
found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values. Comey
approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.
Rather than ending the abuses, Comey repudiated the memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004,
Comey declared that
the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary ." Comey helped oversee crafting a new memo
with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report, Americans learned grisly details of the CIA torture
regime that Comey helped legally sanctify - including
death via hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens
of cases of innocent people pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy
the will and resistance of prisoners. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower
John Kiriakou.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise
he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that
"it was my job to protect the department
and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted
that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because
they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to convey sainthood.
Fl*ck Comey. OMG. I've been wanting to puke into a wastebasket over all of Comey's crap lately. Actually, wanting to puke is
one of my best bullshit barometers. He's a lying sack of shit, strutting his sanctimonious arrogance all over the tee-vee. Meanwhile
back home his family of women wear pink hats to protest Trump. Wonder if James the Great told his family members he approved torture?
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers".
His cabinet was handpicked by Citibank! He didn't need to be "kept in line" at all.
Sanders was arguably a moderate populist hoping to ameliorate the bad effects of
capitalism by addressing its more obvious social consequences of its logic in a way that has
already been done by every other developed nation. In all these nations he is a somewhat
hawkish centrist. But he did raise a TON of money without needing to take donations from mega
super PACs and oligarchs; hence his candidacy was a threat to the oligarchy's total ownership
of US politics. This ownership is what enables the Israel lobby and others to take hold so
easily in the first place, and so it was never going to end well for Sanders -- even assuming
he was not just a sheep dog.
I could live in a country where actual left leaning and right leaning people worked out
their differences via the democratic process. I am left leaning--well, way left leaning--but
I am perfectly willing to engage right leaning people in the procedures of political
compromise. But there is no such compromise available because the US is not a democratic
representative republic but an oligarchy, pure and simple.
"... disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has... ..."
"... The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. ..."
"... I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests. ..."
"... IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero. ..."
"... Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire. ..."
Not that there was much doubt who was behind it, but two days after "enemy" warplanes
attacked a Syrian military base near Hama on Sunday, killing at least 11 Iranians and dozens of others, and nobody had yet "claimed
responsibility" the attack, US officials
told
NBC that it was indeed Israeli F-15 fighter jets that struck the base,
NBC News
reported .
Ominously, the officials said Israel appears to be preparing for open warfare with Iran and is seeking U.S. help and support .
"On the list of the potentials for most likely live hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is
at the top of the list right now," said one senior U.S. official.
The US officials
told
NBC that Israeli F-15s hit Hama after Iran delivered weapons to a base that houses Iran's 47th Brigade, including surface-to-air
missiles. In addition to killing two dozen troops, including officers, the strike wounded three dozen others. The report adds that
the U.S. officials believe the shipments were intended for Iranian ground forces that would attack Israel.
Meanwhile, as we reported yesterday, the Syrian army said early on Monday that "enemy" rockets struck military bases belonging
to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. According to several outlets, the strikes targeted the 47th Brigade base in the southern
Hama district, a military facility in northwestern Hama and a facility north of the Aleppo International Airport.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that Israel on Tuesday morning had four problems, one more than
the day before: "Iran, Iran, Iran and hypocrisy." The comment came one day after Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu "revealed" a cache
of documents the Mossad stole from Iran detailing the country's nuclear program, which however critics said were i) old and ii) not
indicative of Iran's current plans.
"This is the same Iran that cracks down on freedom of expression and on minorities. The same Iran that tried to develop nuclear
weapons and entered the [nuclear] deal for economic benefits," Lieberman said.
"The same Iran is trying to hide its weapons while everyone ignores it. The state of Israel cannot ignore Iran's threats, Iran,
whose senior officials promise to wipe out Israel," he said. "They are trying to harm us, and we'll have a response.
Iran's Defense Minister Amir Khatami threatened Israel on Tuesday, saying it should stop its "dangerous behavior" and vowing that
the "Iranian response will be surprising and you will regret it." Khatami's remarks came Following Netanyahu's speech which Khatami
described as Israeli "provocative actions," and two days after the strikes in Syria.
* * *
Meanwhile, in a potential hint at the upcoming conflict,
Haaretz writes that two and a half weeks after the bombing in which seven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards were killed
at the T4 base in Syria, Israel is bracing for an Iranian retaliation for the Syrian strikes (and if one isn't forthcoming, well
that's what false flags are for).
As Haaretz writes, the Iranians' response, despite their frequent threats of revenge, is being postponed, screwing up Iran's war
planning. It's also possible that as time passes, Tehran is becoming more aware of the possible complex consequences of any action.
Still, the working assumption of Israeli defense officials remains that such a response is highly probable.
The Iranians appear to have many options. Revenge could come on the Syrian border, from the Lebanese border via Hezbollah,
directly from Iran by the launch of long-range missiles, or against an Israeli target abroad. In past decades Iran and Hezbollah
took part, separately and together, in two attacks in Argentina, a suicide attack in Bulgaria and attempts to strike at Israeli
diplomats and tourists in countries including India, Thailand and Azerbaijan.
In any case, Lebanon seems all but out of bounds until the country's May 6 parliamentary elections, and amid Hezbollah's fear
of being portrayed as an Iranian puppet. The firing of missiles from Iran would exacerbate the claims about Tehran's missile project
a moment before a possible U.S. decision on May 12 to abandon the nuclear agreement. Also, a strike at a target far from the Middle
East would require long preparation.
* * *
For now, an Israeli war with Iran in Syria is far from inevitable: the clash of intentions is clear: Iran is establishing itself
militarily in Syria and Israel has declared that it will prevent that by force. The question, of course, is whether this unstable
equilibrium will devolve into a lethal escalation, or if it will somehow be resolved through peaceful negotiation. Unfortunately,
in the context of recent events, and the upcoming breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal, the former is looking like the most likely
outcome.
disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing
he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has...
The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they
can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria
and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. The Western-globalist-Zio-hawk Axis no doubt feels it has to act
now against Iran in case everything settles down in the ME with the Syrian war cooling off. Any expansion of Israeli turf or getting
control of resources to the north would be stymied with further waiting and allowing both Syrian and Iranian defense systems to
be further fortified. The Israelis appear to be completely confident that if they can instigate a war with Iran that it will be
backed by the US, the UK, France and other NATO nations.
That confidence could only come from the Western elites running things. However, after their last fizzled false-flag poison-gas
attack in Syria, the support by many NATO nations for more Axis aggression may not be that solid. So what does the Israeli tough
talk and threats mean at this time? Perhaps it means that Israel is in the process of concocting a massive and much more sophisticated
false-flag attack, like the taking out of a US war ship and blaming Iran for starting the war.
Remember Five points:
Isreal will fight to the very last American Soldiers Death.
The Zionist screams in Pain as he Stikes you.
The Yinon Plan.
Operation TALPIOT.
Qatari Pipeline Petro Dollar Vs. Russia / China Petro Yaun.
One bright aspect is the Anti-Isreal / Jew Zionist movement is gaining steam. More & more Individuals are speaking openly against
Israel's War Crimes, False Flag involvements, The Yinon Plan along with Pro Zionist immigrantion policy of migrating Muslim's
& Arabs to the EU & US without fear of retribution. Pro migration policy which supports territory boarder expansion via the Yinon
Plan & ethnic cleansing & migration of Arabs & Muslim's.
Not to mention the Billions in US foreign aid, AIPAC, ZioNeoConFascist NGO's & dual Israeli Citizen's which hold Political
Office in CONgress. Which must be outlawed.
As people become more disillusioned with Trump I think it's worthwhile to spend a moment to take stock of what happened in th
2016 election.
1) The US President is the primary determinant of US foreign and military power. The President is much weaker when addressing
domestic policy / internal affairs. Any small, paranoid nation with ambitious plans in its neighborhood would want ensure that
they have the President's ear ( or his balls). Too much at stake to take chances. And political influence is even easier when
you've developed close relation with an oil-rich ally (Saudis) with deep pockets.
2) US democracy is money-driven and no real populist stands much of a chance.
3) Despite a groundswell of discontent on both the left and the right, here were only two populists that ran in the election
(note: I'm not counting Rand Paul's because he didn't make an outright populist appeal - he merely spoke in a sensible way.
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers". Trump is kept in line by the allegation of Russian interference.
5) "Never Trump-ers" were mainly Jewish (AFAIK) and almost certainly pro-Israel. The Never Trump campaign began in earnest
with Kagan's Op-Ed in February 2016 ( some might date it to Bloomberg's public statement in January 2016 that neither Sanders
or Trump could be allowed to win).
6) AFAIK Pro-Israel oligarchs (like Saban, Soros, Bloomberg) are big donors to Democratic Party. Hillarry and DNC are known
to have colluded against 'sheep-dog' Sanders. Wouldn't Hillary just as easily collide FOR Trump (the Cinton's And Trump's are
known to have had close ties - and their daughters are still close).
I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that -
at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests.
IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and
thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero.
Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will
naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire.
I should point out that "kept in line" (point #4) appears to be a convenience needed to excuse the faux populist's betrayals.
Both Obama and Trump seem more than willing to do as they are told.
And don't bother citing Obama's Iran deal as "proof" that Obama was independent. IMO That deal was made simply to buy time
because regime-change in Syria was taking longer than expected. It is foolish to think that Obama did everything the establishment
wanted but refused IN THAT ONE MATTER.
The Deep State is still going after Trump, after all his concession to neocons. amazing
staff. This is a clear attempt of entrapment, similar to one that worked in Flynn case
Notable quotes:
"... Read the full list here . ..."
"... This article has been updated with more details on the questions and Trump's changing legal team. ..."
Special counsel Robert Mueller hopes to ask President
Donald Trump
dozens of open-ended questions as part of his inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016
election.
Many of those
questions , which were published by The New York Times on Monday, focus on determining if
Trump obstructed justice through his firings of FBI Director James Comey and national security
adviser Michael Flynn, or his attempts to fire Mueller himself, among other events. "What
efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?" reads
one of the queries supplied to the Times by an unnamed official separate from the president's
legal team. "What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special
counsel in June of 2017?" another asks. Read the full list
here . The questions shed light on what's been a tight-lipped investigation and show
Mueller is homing in on the president's behavior in office. Some of the inquiries hope to shed
light on Trump's interactions, if there are any, with Russian officials or those connected to
the Kremlin during the campaign. Trump himself has publicly said he'd be willing to talk with
Mueller and has vehemently denied there was any collusion with the Russians during the
campaign. He said in January he was "
looking forward " to speaking with the special counsel. But the president's lawyers have
cautioned against the interview and have sought to strictly limit the terms of any sit-down,
worried that Trump could go off-script and end up making false statements. The Times noted that
four people in the president's orbit have already
pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. The questions obtained by the Times are
said to be the result of months of negotiations between the special counsel and Trump's
squadron of lawyers. The Times noted that the back and forth led to Mueller providing his ideal
list to Trump's former lead lawyer in the Russia inquiry, John Dowd, in March. Dowd, who had
urged Trump to reject any request for an interview in the investigation, was reportedly even
more wary about a meeting after seeing the list. But the
lawyer resigned later in March amid reports that his
relationship with the president had frayed and that Trump planned to ignore his advice.
Dowd was replaced last week by former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani . Trump has ramped up his criticism of the special counsel's office in recent
weeks following
FBI raids at the home and offices of his longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen. "It's a
total witch-hunt . I've been saying it for a long time," Trump said at the time. The
president, however, has since moved to distance himself from Cohen, saying on "Fox &
Friends" last week that the lawyer handled only a " tiny,
tiny little fraction " of his overall legal work. Mueller's list of questions also includes
some involving Cohen's business deals in Moscow, according to the Times. This article has
been updated with more details on the questions and Trump's changing legal team.
Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen
it?
Is there corruption in DC?
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation
was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..
Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton
Foundation were declared.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine,
Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just
a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton
Foundation Investigation.
Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.
Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's
best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it??
Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir
Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.
Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself
to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943)..
while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..
Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than,
Rod Rosenstein.
Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order
on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most
strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information
to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!
Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation
from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?
No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward
to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department,
Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary
ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State
which was required by law.
He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State
Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State
Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey.
Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with
the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me
how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!
Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course
his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes
there. Nothing here to report --
Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the
DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.
The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself,
like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and
exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of
the American Justice System ..
Can you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey
leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide
cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the
Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud
in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018
article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web
Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not
been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal",
the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being
left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly
neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.
If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie
W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political
system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and
paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point.
He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC.
All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.
After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison,
smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues
to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist.
He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy
left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my
take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my
life that I gave serious money to.
Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the
plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think
the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they
have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.
------
For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal
Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive
campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat"
whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization
of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself
as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency
in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the
Clinton Administration.
Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an
influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity
in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials
in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make
billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the
party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.
In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its
favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District
has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In
it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party
bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general
election - continue pulling the strings.
The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were
elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.
Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or
D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.
Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless
willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are
guaranteed losses for Democrats.
Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan,
having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at
his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...
Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people
hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he
has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district,
and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around
the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted
for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of
their state?
Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience,
stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized
group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment,
etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win,
because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make
any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions
department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right,
but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when
we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.
The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive.
Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but
mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought
given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes:
"I Democrat, therefore I progressive."
Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit
to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That
is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)
I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being
slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized,
2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized.
The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from
the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.
Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.
leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948.
That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered
hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't
learn or weren't adequately taught it.
however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was
led by the nose to create the CIA.
I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon
warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?
That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the
left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives
look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely
no base in the U.S. today.
How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?
Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This
is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.
CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came
to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long
ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously,
you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place."
True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on
some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.
I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come
a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron.
Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not
your place." True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming
on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged.
The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away
from the fight that he had promised his people.
Sheep dog.
TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want
unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".
The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back
in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this?
Haven't heard a word.
Sheep dog.
As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled
Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.
You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.
"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."
This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would
do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.
What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after
learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows
that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.
Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember
how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.
Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do
is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing
their candidates, and collecting our taxes.
Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.
First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon
for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election
is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the
will of the people.
In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it --
is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the
vote was fake.
If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion
of legitimacy to the fake vote.
Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters.
In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe"
wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses.
Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them,
and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers
that be say about it!
For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy
to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do
it.
As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would
not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show.
Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we
keep voting back into power every two years.
Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.
"... In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725 million. ..."
Rupert Murdoch's the Times attempted a witch-hunt of UK academics who have
questioned the government's narrative on Syria. This scurrilous campaign, targeting Professor
Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh), Professor Piers Robinson (University of Sheffield) and
Lecturer Tara McCormack (Leicester University) as "Apologists for Assad," is a sharp expression
of how universities have become battlegrounds in the global drive to war.
As the ruling class work to militarise society in accordance with the recently outlined
Fusion Doctrine, higher education and research institutions are being transformed into
appendages of British imperialism.
The process is well underway. Contrary to the Times ' ravings about
universities being hotbeds of left-wing and anti-war sentiment, the institutions and their
leaderships are already deeply integrated with the armed forces and private military
contractors.
In 2007, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Fellowship of Reconciliation used a
series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal more than 1,900 military projects
conducted at 26 universities between 2001 and 2006, worth a total of £725
million.
The UK Government's military research establishment -- the Ministry of Defence (MoD),
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and Atomics
Weapons Establishment (AWE) -- were involved in a quarter of these projects. Arms
manufacturers, led by Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ, sponsored the remainder.
Between 2008 and 2011, according to research by the Huffington Post , the Russell
Group of 24 elite British universities received £83 million from the same sources listed
above. Imperial College London topped the list with £15.2 million, mainly from the AWE.
Imperial is joined by Bristol, Cambridge, Cranfield, and Heriot-Watt in a "strategic alliance"
with the AWE: The five universities received £15 million in the years 2010-12.
More recently, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, in
the past three years, 15 universities with prestigious engineering departments have received
£40 million in grants from military contractors. These grants have funded projects
including collaboration on military submarine technology between Rolls Royce and the University
of Leeds, a drone project worked on by Boeing and Bristol University, and a stealth drone
project at Manchester run by BAE.
While the money involved is relatively small when compared to total university research
funding, the military projects have a weight of influence beyond their size. Military funding
is concentrated in institutions and departments -- mainly engineering -- where the armed forces
and arms dealers have a special authority. Such funding is considered a prestigious source of
investment, from which other grants and opportunities will flow. Military contracts are
fiercely competed for and proudly advertised.
On the back of this commercial turn to the military-industrial complex, moreover,
universities are working closely with the armed forces to provide education and recruitment
opportunities. Fourteen institutions (including Aston, Birmingham, Cambridge, Imperial College,
Loughborough, Newcastle, Northumbria, Portsmouth, Southampton and Strathclyde) are in a
partnership with the MoD to provide the Defence Technical Undergraduate Scheme (DTUS). This is
a university sponsorship programme for students who want to join the Royal Navy, British Army,
Royal Air Force or Engineering and Science branch of the MoD Civil Service as technical
officers after they graduate.
There are roughly 800 of these students (who formally hold the ranks of Officer Cadet or
Midshipman in their respective reserve forces) in any one year, grouped into four regional
units: Taurus Squadron, Thunderer Squadron, Trojan Squadron and Typhoon Squadron. The
commanding officer of each unit has visiting lecturer status at the associated universities.
Graduates are required to serve in the armed forces or MoD for a minimum of three years after
graduating and completing Initial Officer Training.
University resources are thus put at the service of the military to train its key technical
staff. They return the favour by lending the armed forces' support to the running of student
life on campus, doubtless with the associated military ethos. Loughborough University describes
how its DTUS students "regularly support Open Days, Freshers' Fairs and other student
activities."
In addition to the DTUS programme, the Army, Navy and RAF provide a range of other
scholarships for prospective soldiers.
The Army offers 150 standard bursaries a year, worth £6,000, as well as Technical and
Enhanced Army undergraduate bursaries, worth up to £14,000 and £24,000
respectively. Students can also receive £5,000-10,000 a year through the Army Medical
Service Professionally Qualified Officer bursary. The Royal Navy also offers a standard
bursary, worth £1,500 a year and a Technical Bursary worth £4,000 a year. Future
RAF Medical Officers can get a grant to cover all their tuition fees.
All sponsorship requires three years of service in the armed forces after completing
education.
While at university, these and other students can participate in one of the University
Service Units -- the University Officer Training Corps, University Air Squadrons, or University
Royal Navy Units -- who maintain a permanent presence on numerous university campuses.
In 2015, there were 6,580 members of these organisations in Britain, spread across 19
Officer Training Corps units and 14 Air and Navy units. The fundamental purpose of these
groups, besides providing a path into the officer ranks, is to train propagandists for the
military within higher education and wider society. The University Royal Navy Unit at Cambridge
describes its role as being to "educate and inform society's future potential opinion formers
and leaders of the need for and role of the Royal Navy."
So great is the influence of the armed forces on campus that several universities have
established specific military-focused degree courses.
In 2011, the University of Wolverhampton created a BSc in Armed Forces, Armed Forces and
Combat Medicine, and Armed Forces and Combat Engineering. The list of universities currently
offering War Studies or related courses includes Queens Belfast, Glasgow, Kent, Coventry,
Swansea, Buckingham, Bradford, King's College London (KCL) and others. KCL is home to "the only
academic department in the world to focus solely on the complexities of conflict and security,"
comprising 95 academic staff and over 2,000 students.
Cranfield University offers courses in subjects like Military Economic Systems Engineering,
Military Aerospace and Airworthiness, Communication Electronic Warfare, and Explosives Ordnance
Engineering.
As well as providing training for the military, universities across the country are happy to
play host to recruiting sergeants at Freshers' Fairs and Welcome Weeks. In 2013, FOI requests
found that the armed forces had made 341 visits to universities in the previous two years.
None of these developments has gone unopposed. Demilitarisation campaigning groups are
active at many universities, with some institutions having banned visits from the armed forces
in response to student protests. Organisations like the Campaign Against the Arms and Trade and
Scientists for Global Responsibility have consistently exposed and opposed the involvement of
military forces in universities. All of this is testimony to the immense anti-war sentiment
which exists among the student body and academics.
To wage a successful struggle against the encroachment of the military on campus, however,
requires that this sentiment be consciously organised behind a socialist, anti-war perspective.
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) is dedicated to the formation
of such a movement on campuses across the country. Eric Sommer • 2 days
ago
Getting financial support and training for science and for university students sounds nice,
and being part of the 'royal' navy or 'royal' airforce seems appealing for some - until we
remember the purpose: To induct students into research and other support work for criminal
wars and war crimes involving the UK governments participation in military aggression against
helpless nations and which slaughters people who have never attacked or endangered Britain or
its people.
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators
with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic
rights. It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the press and freedom of speech as
fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not
espionage; that its work consists of publishing material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments,
giant corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure has made both the website and
its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past six years, since he fled there
to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret
grand jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death penalty. Since the end of March,
the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication
with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower
Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin
senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast" when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its military intelligence agency GRU to the
Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery:
the campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win
the Presidency."
"... ( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia ) ..."
"... nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ..."
The latest hot topic in the Russian media. Russian politicians are talking about it. Historical precedent and behavior of Western
media suggests that they are. The Saker Fri, Apr 22, 2016 |
52,080
195 MORE: Politics A major topic in the Russian media is
mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.
Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such
a disconnect with Western impressions.
Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign
to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.
The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin,
made similar remarks , telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia." The logic, they argue, is that
by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally,
by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself.
They also talk about regime change. They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination
which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce
this defamation into the news flow.
Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years
The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German
Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news,
including direct cash payments. Here are some examples they point to:
Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered a KGB defector to be murdered
with radiation poisoning.
Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing evidence.
Recent article in Newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one must confront him forcefully.
Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying him personally responsible
for murdering the victims of MH17.
And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.
RI sat down with The Saker , a leading analyst
of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:
-----------------------------------
So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for
now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that
fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".
And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...
So this is a US government program?
Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:
1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost Russia then
was a US colony like Ukraine is today and,
2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.
a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. this is a full-scale
political assault on Russia and Putin personally.
So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result
of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, basically, planted stories
Yes, absolutely
It seems like "Operation Mockingbird" all over again Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?
( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually
exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975
which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different
programs. Wikipedia )
Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public Putin's popularity is higher than ever
before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs
who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance
So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military
intervention
but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely
but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.
Warm and fuzzy...
So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians,
the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin's support base
Yes, that's right ... t here are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who
will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine
Putin.
Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?
Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don't appreciate there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian
elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists"
(those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).
The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries,
right?
Well its sort of like that, but not exactly
The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest
of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.
The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support
- but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.
Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?
I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes
journalists corrupt.
As the French philosopher Alain Soral says " nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ". There are, of
course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.
This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it
clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning
away those who don't.
If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.
There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.
Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin
America, etc.
Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.
As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read
the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or
EU today.
Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.
If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?
I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal
arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.
The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can
only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have
the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.
So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?
Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition
trims profits.
They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both
commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
In short, effectively, a Fascism.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.
Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind
a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even
nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed
state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe
that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central
bank, then there would be real war.
Bankers have no allegiance except to money
It is headed by Chicago-school wannabes who follow the dictates of a banking system aimed at preversving the US banks at the
expense of their onw country's economy.
Nabuliana (sp ?), the head of the Russian CB, knows she is on borrowed time but still keep favoring the US over Russia.
What is it they also say about dying Empires. The US did not retain Empire status for long, when you look at Russia and China,
they are just a toddler on the block?
Very interesting perspective.
I'm very curious to hear western comments on Russian conspiracy theories that Fed already owns Russia and current straggle is
a straggle for independence. It seems wild but for people who view Federal Reserve Bank as a direct enemy of humanity it doesn't
seem very far-fetched.
WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt. The nation owed $16.6 billion to the Rothschild-run
International Monetary Fund while its foreign debt to the Rothschild-controlled Paris & London Club Of Creditors was over 36 billion
dollars.
But Putin took advantage of the current boom in world oil prices by redirecting a portion of the profits of Russia's largest
oil producer Gazprom so as to pay off the country's debt. The continual surge in oil prices greatly accelerated Russia's capacity
to restore financial sovereignty.
By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia's debt to the Rothschilds. Russia's financial dependence on the Mafia financiers was now
over. I doubt they've gotten another hold since then.
You need to understand that President Putin's divorce is a private matter. In the Anglo World they stick their nose into these
private matters but in Russia they do not. Who knows; there have been people who got divorced so the spouse would not cop it in
the event of big problems. They even got married again later on. The Anglo World is also dumb, always behaving as if the removal
of ONE man would cure something, e.g. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad - nah. Or take Myanmar; if only the lady (whose name I cannot spell)
would rule the country, everything would be fine. Nah - she's extremely racist and will not utter the name of one tribe 'Rohingyas'.
There is definitely a campaign against Russia and President Putin. For Germany it's the
Atlantik-Brücke which steers the press, in Australia the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, something else in the other
countries, just like the late Brian Crozier masqueraded as a journalist but was CIA funded. The campaign needs to be ignored although
it is really peculiar that Bush Sr. was fine as CIA chief, and Putin as KGB officer was not. I'ts just the usual American double
standards.
(I think) .... Putin's divorce is not yours to wonder about or criticise.
'Sides, he said, at his last Q&A, he gets on better with his ex now than he did when he was married. That should be good enough
for you.
I THINK the time has come for RUSSIA to play HARDBALL with teh us gov and cia, nsa. etc...
and that is to OPENLY , REPEATEDLY -- RIGHT AT THE LEVEL OF UN AND INTERNATIONAL FORUMS - RIGHT INTO any ''talks" between EU/WEST/
and relations with other nations
always INCLUDE , INSERT -- part of discussions -- teh CIA/US GOV /ENTITIES
attempts against russia.
MAKE IT very prominent that it can NOT be ignored no matter what the USA TRIES...
in order to puit FRONT AND CENTER in the world the attention on THE CIA.
don't let it remain ''incidental" topic to ''major issues"
rather -- make it A CENTRAL topic in every instance and keep throwing t at the USA so that all international meetings ALWAYS
bring up
\
USA/CIA - USA,/CIA -- sabotage -- oh yet again another CIA operation in macedonia, oh another one in cnetral asia...etc....
let us remember --
2 cia emplyed ''pschiatrist/psychologists" who took care of the ''methodology" of CIA TORTURE are right now being sued in a
US court that is forced to open hearings -- on the suit by former tortured detainees...
the PORTUGUESE AMERICAN woman - SOUSA -- is ordered to appear in an ITALIAN COURT to face her charges for conspiracy to kidnap,
rendition , torture the arab/italian citizen
more and more will come, that is inevitable and the CIA ought to be BROUGHT BEYOND just ''topic of discussion" --but as the
DEEP STATE that it is -- out into the open -- calling out, searchng out its operatives, officers, policy makers, amerifcan officials
-- that' sort of thing...and the only way to do that is make it a WORLD GLOBAL CAUSE TO BRING UP in all matters of international
governance and relations -- in press conferences...assemblies, treaties, etc...
I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The
western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the
comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need
from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration
they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the
media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.
I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing,
festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others.
Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.
Sounds like American tv. But without all the series about serial killers, violence and perversion. What they have done to us
and our collective psyche here is sick, and demonic.
but this is not just a problem IN america -- germane TV as some of our friends here have said - getng shallower -- IS A PART
of the ''influence" of american ''way\" ..
to bring up mostly and primarily shallow past-times...that takes up LIFE HOURS...when you really count it,,,
ONE shallow pastime after another...the WORST imo,,,apart from these silly ''reality shows\" (which ARE copied throughout the
world unfortunately in that desire to be ''more american" -- even in CHINA ) -
are these ''game shows" -- trivia shows..that used to be just CHILD'S play n the backyard and really is where they OUGHT to
stay so children can be children...
but NATIONAL CULTURE? trivia shows? give me a BREAK!
but that's exactly what americana brings to societies..the HIGHLIGHTING AND GLORIFICATION OF SILLINESS and SHALLOWNESS as a
NATIONAL ETHOS.
and a sure-fire way of turning out , reshaping and ''winning hearts and minds" by making them exposed - without choice really
-- to ''the only games in town"
SILLY LITTLE GAMES that 'TRAIN the mind to become STUPID".
this - THIS is the great TRIUMPH of the american society over the world. where everything -- even WAR -- is now ''entertainment"
- to be ''packaged" - promoted sold, and switched around like cotton candy by the powers that be...and deeper critical thought
-- or honest simplicity of thought and discourse is ''NOT ALLOWED".
JUST - i hope -- you understand (and that's why sometimes SIX PACK gets mad at me -- NOT
HIS FAULT) -- when it has become habitual to generalize ''americans" ...but that is very hard
to avoid now after all that the USA has done to so many countries. in so many cruel ways.
but it IS understood that it NEVER means "'ALL AMERICANS"
@Sid2 11 a huge amount of the American populace is entirely disengaged from what's going on
The American populace was certainly involved when against all odds, against nearly every
"expert," Donald Trump not only bested a dozen politicians in his own party primaries but
then beat the odds-on favorite by far in the general election.
But that's an exception. The people get involved (of course) only when they have the
opportunity to do so. Generally speaking that's an opportunity to vote for one schmuck or
another periodically, and that's about it, in the so-called US "democracy." Citizens have no
opportunity for input otherwise on any matter of governance, so their lack of engagement is
imposed upon them, it's not their choice. It differs little in every country.
I must have missed the day in high school civics class when it was explained the best way to
resolve political differences in a democracy was to form an angry mob and engage in
widespread vandalism and arson.
I had seen an MSM piece on the disruptions in Nicaragua, which did mention that Social
Security reform was motivating the demonstrators - without mentioning that the protesters
were angry that the proposed reforms were not sufficiently cruel. In this way the Nicaraguan
protesters join those in Venezuela, who are angry that health and literacy programs exist,
and the Ukrainians who sparked a "revolution" so they could have a harsh austerity program
imposed on them.
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States. ..."
How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today "The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an
incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag"
-- take it from Philip Giraldi, a veteran of the CIA of 20 years
Philip Giraldi Sat, Apr
28, 2018 | 4,379
146
MORE: Politics False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries.
It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close
to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack. In
the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse
the opponent was considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one reverted to one's own
flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist
groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable
about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity
lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to
mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been
the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been
considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in
the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out
against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly
false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent
reported attack on April 7 th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually
in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one
might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting
until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that,
preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns
up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England
on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The
allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been
debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed
a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be
just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and
the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage.
Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually
a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it,
there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative
would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
The USA and other transgender members of the "international community" no longer require proof or evidence. They are conditioned
to believe whatever dogshit lies the Jew media's queer coiffed henchmen say. No matter how ridiculous.So as long as they re-enforce
the post-modern soullessness narrative of homosexual auto-eroticism.
There is a reason why TV shows like 'Dancing With The Stars' and 'reality' TV dominate the collective self-absorbed psyche
of meathead robots: one hundred years of Jungian and Freudian conditioning bullshit feed their need for fantasy - anything to
escape their reality of bad hair, 44" waist, drunkenness, base greed, and self-hatred. The Need for Greed.
Just cater to the uneducated swine's basest desires and they'll happily tongue their master's rectums.
The west is into scat porn, gay pride parades, "feeling good about yourself", self-help, getting pissed off at the Walmart
crackheads because they don't stock dildos with the correct curvature you desire, etc.
Tell me how a defunct species of automatic self-loathing shit-eaters with a victim-complex can do anything But believe the
sexy blonde bimbo with an Adam's Apple reciting today's talking points?
The craven papal Jew-worshiping west are quietly self-medicating into non-existence in their prophylactic hygienic masturbatory
GMO ass-perfumed bubbles. Occasionally one of them goes apeshit and shoots-up a school or something.
"...mind controlled automatons controlled through drugs and remote EM voices directing their behavior..."
That sounds like the job description of CIANN.
Dildos with the correct curvature .
Rothflmao
Been reading ya for years illya.
That was by far the most memorable line you've penned this year .
Great rant .
Everything you said Illyak, resonates with me. Your words intelligently crafted. It is a reflection of Western Society, where
virtual signalling has replaced honest discussion.
The Western media creates a vacuum and the masses get sucked into the void, they are in a vegetative state, they disengage
with reality. Even when basic common-sense hits you in the face, these people have the tenacity to accept as gospel the liars
and deceits of their Governments. If you hear BS repeatedly and you are of simple disposition, you will eventually eat the BS,
you will speak it and accept it as de-facto.
Much of the West live in a distorted reality field, these people have been embellished on tropes of 'Western Values' and failing
to operate within the parameters, will ultimately exclude you from the collective mainstream, thus rendering you a conspiracy
theorist or deranged person and further more you will be considered as a maverick person, who's unable to inflict upon thyself
'victim masturbation' or accept that there are other groups (Jews) more deserving than you.
anything that makes Anglosheeple disconnect more from reality, from their own instincts and biology, and from other people
is encouraged by the Empire of SLAVES
My only Flaw in your comment is the 44 inch waist as that is now about the size they Strive to Slim Down to now
A comment made on here about two year's ago has alway's stuck in my mind was "How come British Women's bottom's start behind Their
knee's"
as someone who spent more than a decade living in the US and as many years in the UK - I fully agree with your analysis. You
just forgot to mention religion - and sexual mutilation of baby boys (only in the US are boys routinely circumcised as far as
I know in all other places it's only Jews and Muslims who do it). Religion makes them slavish and fearful of their imaginary and
other masters from early childhood.
Love your Nabokovian Jeremiad by the way!
"Occasionally one of them goes apeshit and shoots-up a school or something."
That reminds me of Winston in Nineteen Eighty Four.
The net was there to catch the outliers. In fact, the state ran the
'resistance'
Not this American! I consider the tax extorting, mafia style Shameless Sam to be treasonous and should be on trial in an International
court and many of the serial lying neocons who have been pushing our tyrannous foreign policy executed. The past five POTUS including
Cheney and HRC should be held accountable.
No member of The Tribe will ever be held accountable for anything, ever....unless they try taking on Russia. Then they will
swing. And the world will rejoice.
This message is lacking viable alternative but still better than nothing.
"Falling" for Dr. Ron Paul would not be "dumb" at all.
It would have saved U.S. of coming collapse....But than why would I care?!
U.S. being aggressor Empire and all, they are doing me a favor really with their votes...
Trump
rimes
the swamp!
Yes, the same tricks keep being played by those in power, and they include more than just false flags.
Why should that be so? Because they still work.
Even the relative failures like the recent one in Syria (relative failure because millions know it was a fraud) give arrogant
leaders who want to do something a public excuse for doing it, even when the excuse is weak and subject to controversy. It is
their own people they are largely aiming at, people breathing the same atmosphere of misinformation and suspicion.
As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
the bigger problem is that most (or all ) Americans I know don't actually want to hear about what is really going on.
They have been brainwashed from very early to value UNREALITY much more than the actual reality. Once you convince sheeple to
think that way (and to actually fear reality) - they will happily lie to themselves - you don't even need to lie to them any more
Philip May, husband of Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May happens to be a senior executive
of Capital Group which is a major holder of both Lockheed Martin and British Aerospace
(BAE).
Theresa May's husband's Investment Firm made a financial killing from the bombing of
Syria
According to Investopedia, Philip May's Capital Group owned around 7.09% of Lockheed Martin
in March 2018 – a stake said to be worth more than £7Bn at this time.
...
Every single JASSM used in the recent bombing of Syria costs more than $1,000,000, and as a
result of their widespread use during the recent bombing of Syria by Western forces, the share
price of Lockheed Martin soared.
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which
would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing
the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.
With the still largely ignored Saudi slaughter in Yemen now in its fourth year, RT's
In The Now
has resurrected a
forgotten clip from a 2016 CNN interview with Senator Rand Paul, which is currently going
viral.
In a piece of cable news history that rivals Madeleine Albright's infamous words during a
1996
60 Minutes
appearance
where she calmly and coldly proclaimed of 500,000 dead Iraqi children that
"the price is
worth it,"
CNN's Wolf Blitzer railed against Senator Paul's opposition to a proposed $1.1
billion US arms sale to Saudi Arabia by arguing that slaughter of Yemeni civilians was worth it
so long as it benefits US jobs and defense contractors.
At the time of the
2016 CNN interview
, Saudi
Arabia with the help of its regional and Western allies -- notably the U.S. and Britain -- had
been bombing Yemen for a year-and-a-half, and as
the
United Nations noted
, the Saudi coalition had been responsible for the majority of the
war's (at that point) 10,000 mostly civilian deaths.
At that time the war was still in its early phases, but now multiple years into the
Saudi-led bombing campaign which began in March 2015,
the
U.N. reports at least
"5,000 children dead or hurt and 400,000 malnourished."
... ... ...
Senator Paul began the interview by outlining the rising civilian death toll
and massive refugee crisis that the U.S. continued facilitating
due to deep military assistance
to the Saudis
:
There are now millions of displaced people in Yemen. They're refugees. So we supply the
Saudis with arms, they create havoc and refugees in Yemen. Then what's the answer? Then we're
going to take the Yemeni refugees in the United States? Maybe we ought to quit arming both
sides of this war.
Paul then narrowed in on the Pentagon's role in the crisis: "We are refueling the Saudi
bombers that are dropping the bombs. It is said that thousands of civilians have died in Yemen
because of this."
CNN's Blitzer responded, "So for you this is a moral issue. Because you know, there's a lot
of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling war planes,
other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there's going to be a significant loss of jobs,
of revenue here in the United States. That's secondary from your standpoint?"
Paul countered, "Well not only is it a moral question, its a constitutional question." And
noted that Obama had partnered with the Saudi attack on Yemen without Congressional approval:
"Our founding fathers very directly and specifically did not give the president the power to go
to war. They gave it to Congress. So Congress needs to step up and this is what I'm doing."
* * *
For further context of what the world knew at the time the CNN interview took place, we can
look no further than the United Nations and other international monitoring groups.
A year after Blitzer's statements,
Foreign Policy published a bombshell report
based on possession of a leaked 41-page draft
UN document, which found Saudi Arabia and its partner coalition allies in Yemen (among them the
United States) of being guilty of horrific war crimes, including the bombing of dozens of
schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure.
The U.N. study focused on child and civilian deaths during the first two years of the Saudi
coalition bombing campaign - precisely the time frame during which the CNN Wolf Blitzer and
Rand Paul interview took place.
"The killing and maiming of children remained the most prevalent violation" of children's
rights in Yemen , according to the 41-page draft report obtained by Foreign Policy.
The chief author of the confidential draft report, Virginia Gamba, the U.N. chief's
special representative for children abused in war time, informed top U.N. officials Monday,
that she intends to recommend the Saudi-led coalition be added to a list a countries and
entities that kill and maim children , according to a well-placed source.
The UN report further identified that air attacks "were the cause of over half of all child
casualties, with at least 349 children killed and 333 children injured" during the designated
period of time studied, and documented that, "the U.N. verified a total of 1,953 youngsters
killed and injured in Yemen in 2015 -- a six-fold increase compared with 2014" - with the
majority of these deaths being the result of Saudi and coalition air power.
Also according
AP reporting at the time
: "It said nearly three-quarters of attacks on schools and
hospitals -- 38 of 52 -- were also carried out by the coalition."
But again, Wolf Blitzer's first thought was those poor defense contractors:
...Because you know, there's a lot of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense
contractors stop selling war planes, other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there's
going to be a significant loss of jobs, of revenue here in the United States.
* * *
This trip down memory lane elicited suitable responses on Twitter:
Honestly, with all these drug addicts, pedos, government dependents,
and fraudulent finance and advertising pieces of shit at home, I'd
really like to see some infighting here. No need to sell abroad.
Contextualizing the deputy attorney general's memorandum on the former FBI director
In a surprising move on Tuesday, President Trump abruptly fired James Comey, the director of the FBI and the official leading
the investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to sway the U.S. presidential election. In
his letter dismissing Comey , Trump told him: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that
I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively
lead the bureau."
The White House said that Trump
acted on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The longest letter
released was a memorandum to Sessions from Rosenstein laying out the case for Comey's dismissal. In the memo, Rosenstein criticizes
Comey for his handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and offers examples
of bipartisan condemnation of Comey's actions.
For context, we've annotated Rosenstein's letter below.
May 9, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past
year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department
of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department
of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's
handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the
nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone
agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives. Discussions
of James Comey's decisions leading up to the 2016 presidential election have been playing out since July. The Atlantic's
David A. Graham
and
Adam
Serwer both weighed in on that debate.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and
announce his
conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. A
New York Times
report from July summarized the announcement: "Mr. Comey's 15-minute announcement, delivered with no advance warning only
three days after his investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in the case, riveted official Washington and is likely to reverberate
for the rest of the campaign. In offices across the capital, all eyes turned to television screens to hear the outcome of a yearlong
investigation that could have thrown the 2016 presidential election into disarray and changed history."
It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed
its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he
believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict
requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's
most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding
the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information
about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. The above
New York Times
story continues: "Mr. Comey's announcement was believed to be the first time that the F.B.I. had ever publicly disclosed
its recommendations to the Justice Department about whether to charge someone in any high-profile case, let alone a presidential
candidate. His decision to announce the results of the investigation was made before the uproar over Ms. [Loretta] Lynch's meeting
with Mr. Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. He decided to make his findings public, the official said, because
he wanted to make the F.B.I.'s position clear before referring the case to the Justice Department." Derogatory information sometimes
is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid
out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example
of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
Comey trying to blackmail President using Steele dossier. Comey was also key figure in appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Mueller investigation is an impeachment investigation with Comey and Rosenstein as key players.
Notable quotes:
"... We know that the authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself, the targets of the leak. ..."
"... We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ..."
MSNBC' Chuck Todd keeps insinuating that Russia hacked the DNC emails without evidence to
back up. He has no idea who leaked the emails to Wikileaks. There were also many in the DNC
who were pissed off that citizens were sending hard earned campaign donations for Bernie
Sanders, and knew that the Clinton financed DNC was rigging the primaries.
We know that the
authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself,
the targets of the leak.
We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames
and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the
Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth
conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the
words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jan Wallace
Don't forget the Tarmac meeting...Lynch the AG, and Clinton mixing it up that is obviously not really about golf or
kids...She tells Comey to call it a "Matter" that is collusion.
George Stone
I just read that Dem's filed suit alleging that Russia, Trump & Wikileaks interfered with the 2016 campaign. I guess Dem's
haven't got the memo, There IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. Adam Schiff hasn't presented any evidence, James Comey
hasn't provided any supporting evidence, neither has the FBI or DOJ.
Why is anyone surprised Comey is a consummate phoney? You didn't think he gained his
position by being the best at what he does do you? Work at any large firm long enough and
you'll see his type. Working behind the scenes, lying, playing political games for advantage.
Eventually that person is promoted and proceeds to wreck the company that promoted him.
Comey's only talent IS being a weasel.
The Democrats are obstructing Democracy. There are also members of congress who have
leaked sensitive, if not classified information to the media to aid in this obstruction and
the DOJ needs to investigate these members to see if crimes have been committed. If the
Democrats believe that the President is not above the law then they too should be subject to
this same standards and scrutiny. A special council should be appointed to investigate them
and look into all their financial dealings both domestic and off shore.
I've been saying from the beginning Comey displays a very unhealthy level of infantile
behaviour. How someone like that ever managed to manoeuvre himself so far up, let alone in a
law enforcement agency, completely baffles the mind. He gives much credit to his wife. I'd
bet a lot she coached him through much of the process. He's not leadership material. On the
other side, more importantly even, if I were law enforcement in the USA I'd be taking a very
good look at this man's life when the lights go off.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
Comey career was damaged by his treatment of Hillary email scandal and derailing Sanders;
clearly the political role the FBI assumed. So this is a memoir of a politician who happened to
work in law enforcement, and should be treated as such.
An investigation of real Comey role in derailing Sanders and electing Trump still is a matter of the future.
"... Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president. ..."
"... I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect. ..."
"... Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. ..."
"... Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002. ..."
"... Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. ..."
"... He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN. ..."
"... Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President" ..."
"... Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant. ..."
"... Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation. ..."
"... Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. ..."
James Comey is articulate and makes his case in an interesting and effective manner. He
seems competent and well intentioned. Problem is he, like many, considers lying about a crime
a greater crime than the crime. It is not the case. If someone commits murder, is lying about
it worse than the murder?
He rightfully seems horrified that Trump demands loyalty, but Comey is more than willing on
several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the
FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president.
A justification of the Clinton email server investigation and a nonpartisan critique of
Trump's erosion of norms
A skillfully written and affecting memoir. Comey shares formative experiences: suffering a
random attack by a serial home invader as a teenager, being bullied and then bullying, losing
an infant son. There's a lot of detail about his decision to announce the reopening of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server right before the election. Given
that situation as he described it, had I been in his shoes, I can't say for sure what I would
have done. He means to reveal the ethical complexity and he does it well.
He speaks positively of working for President George W. Bush and then for President Obama,
but he has no such appreciation for President Trump. Contradicting longstanding norms of U.S.
government, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in his nonpartisan, ten-year term as the FBI
Director, and when Comey did not give it unconditionally and did not halt the investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump fired him. "We had that thing, you
know," Trump said to Comey, referring to the previous conversation in which he had asked for
loyalty. Comey's knowledge of La Cosa Nostra ("that thing of ours," the Mafia's name for
itself) adds a layer of meaning. Comey knows what Mafia guys are like, and he does not live
like them; he is not swayed by appeals to loyalty. That's how he became FBI Director and
that's also how he lost his job under Trump.
"I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served
presidents of both parties. What is happening now," he warns from his new position as a
private citizen, "is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay." For those who support
Trump's policy agenda because they believe it will benefit them personally somehow, Comey
delivers a reminder that "the core of our nation is our commitment to a set of shared values
that began with George Washington -- to restraint and integrity and balance and transparency
and truth. If that slides away from us, only a fool would be consoled by a tax cut or a
different immigration policy."
I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would
be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own
political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have
an effect.
If you watch the news at all or read the 1 star reviews by people who appear not
to have read the book you will be led to believe this is a book about Trump, and bashing him,
or outing him as unfit in some way.
Especially if you know that the RNC has gone out of their
way to create a website just ahead of the book release for the sole purpose of Comey bashing.
So let me bust that myth. This is not a book about Trump. There are no big jaw dropping Trump
secrets here.
This is a book about James Comey, from his early childhood until the here and
now. Comey touches on childhood memories, being bullied, later on participating or at least
turning a blind eye to bullyng himself. He speaks on his experience being home alone with his
brother when the "Ramsey Rapist" broke into his house. He tells you how and why he decided to
pursue law as a career instead of becoming a doctor. There are humorous anecdotes about his
first job in the grocery store and yes some about his final days as FBI director. You do not
have to be a fan of Comey or any of his decisions to enjoy this book. You may or may not be
satisfied with his explanation of why he decided to make such public announcements on
Hilary's emails, but that is a small part of this book. Personally I was not satisfied and he
does admit that others may have handled it differently. If you are only looking for
bombshells this book is not for you. By the time it gets to the visit to alert Trump to the
salacious allegations the book is 70% over, because as I said this is not a book about
Trump.
Even if I do not agree with Comey's decisions to publicly give his opinion on one candidate
while withholding the fact that there is an investigation surrounding the other even with the
"classified info" that he says we still do not know about I was still able to enjoy this
book. I agree with his assessment in the last televised interview he gave, that if Comey is
an idiot he is at least an honest idiot.
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey starts with sharing an experience of a
time his house was broken in by a robber while his parents were away and he was alone with
Pete. James Comey recounts his investigations of the Mafia. James Comey talks about having
Malaria and thanks his wife Patrice for taking him on the back of her motorcycle to the
Hospital. He mentions his family life and his new born son Collin who passed away in the
hospital after Doctors failed to give Collin treatment while Collin was already showing
abnormal behavior.
Comey goes on to talk about his role as FBI director during the Obama Administration.
He talks about Micheal Brown and how fake news caused a big up roar and hatred on police
by their distortion on what happened in Ferguson and thus caused great divisions.
Comey tries to justify the outcome of not prosecuting what clinton did with her private
email server which had classified government data by saying that even if her actions were bad
though a statute was broken and had lied to FBI officials about having classified information
but she did so carelessly.
He says that the Clinton campaign was calling the criminal investigation surrounding
Hillary Clinton a "matter" and he says that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was strangely
telling him to do the same when confronting the media.
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a tarmac he saw it not
as a big deal, though it was after this private meeting that the decision of not prosecuting
Secretary Hillary Clinton was decided . So this shows that the Clinton campaign had influence
on the outcome of the investigation concerning Clinton.
Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen
from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that
Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. Though Wikileaks has
already said that it was not Russia but someone living in the United States who sent the
emails to Wikileaks.
Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey
has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration.
Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the
investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary
Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in
the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January
2002.
Comey mentions the piss dossier as evidence "strongly suggesting that the Russian
government was trying to interfere in the election in 3 ways." He later admits the suppose
"evidence" as "unverifiable", this is the same "dossier" that was used to grant a FISA
warrant to spy on Clinton opponent Donald Trump which was paid by Hillary Clinton and her
campaign.
Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election
and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with
the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support
Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. Again this is all based on the
"unverifiable dossier" , even though the suggested "evidence" is unverifiable a tyrant
Government can use this to justify in going after ANYONE who speaks against the corruption
going within former director James Comey FBI.
He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her
opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why
she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and
CNN.
He says that his family were Hillary supporters and that they attended the "Woman's March"
which was more of a rally in protest to President Trump presidency. Before the election Comey
said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though
the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where
Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President"
Comey goes on to talk about Donald Trump inauguration and as FBI director fails to talk
about the riots and protestors blocking the entrance to the inauguration where they set a
limousine on fire, stores were broken in including a Starbucks. He compares Trump inauguration
to Obama but Obama had no rioters.
Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC
funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was
nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated
Bernie Sanders.
Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the
"Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and
unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet
Comey use it to get a FISA warrant.
Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law
enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying,
protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to
investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an
investigation.
A better title would have been " An American's Highest Loyalty"
This memoir is an important piece in the analysis of turn of the century politics in the
United States. It is unfortunate that the media hype for this book has been about the more
recent turmoil in James Comey's service to his country. True, the Trump administration is
different and in many ways dysfunctional. But it is only in the part of the book, that he
deals with it's dysfunction.
If one reads carefully, President Trump is only a more obvious
and verbal and transparent figure in his disdain for the judiciary and the justice
department. Dick Cheney and others in the Bush 43 administration are portrayed as far more
sinister in their actions to sublimate justice after 9/11.
His admiration for President Obama
is evident and little discussed in the media.
Comey had his issues with the Justice
Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. His
dealings with the Clinton email controversy is well outlined. His dilemma with his
communication regarding his investigation and its reopening was inadequately described in the
book and his naivety that its reopening would not influence the election is remarkable. He
supposes that the average American voter understands how the investigative system and justice
system works.
His demeaning comments about President Trump's physical flaws add nothing to the book. I
can understand why he wrote them in as these kinds of notations sell books. They added
nothing to the story he had to tell. He should have left them out.
I appreciate that he does not give loyalty to a person. What makes America great is that
we are loyal to an idea. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, we
can all be American. His loyalty seems to be to honesty and integrity which is admirable.
However the highest loyalty should be to one's reading of the Constitution. I just wished he
had said it.
"... Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit." ..."
"... This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.' ..."
"... 'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.' ..."
"... this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt. ..."
"... No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk. ..."
"... A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time. ..."
"... Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now. ..."
"... I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump. ..."
"... Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar. ..."
"... Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority? ..."
"... No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI. ..."
"... Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple.. ..."
"... Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us? ..."
"... Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough. ..."
"... Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test. ..."
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy (to quote James Comey liberally). He was interviewed tonight (Thursday, 26 April 2018) by Bret Baier on the Fox
6pm news show and it was shocking. Why? Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he
may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."
I want to direct you to look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier.
This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout.
Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer
don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not
sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties
were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there was:
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount
and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and
the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of
the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters?
Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go
for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained
in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing
the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even
a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from
a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took
that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
There was a time when I respected James Comey. No longer. Trump called him a liar today. I think President Trump has it right.
Comey is a liar. What is shocking to me is that someone who is supposedly so smart can be so downright stupid. His interview above
seals that fact for me.
"He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence
concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports."
As I have noted in earlier exchanges on these matters, in the press conference where he responded to the British request for
his extradition, the man Steele et al framed over the death of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, made the following claim
about what his supposed victim really thought of people like the man Comey appears so happy to believe:
'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It
is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri
Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic.
In the appearance on Russian primetime television where Litvinenko's father embraced Lugovoi, in addition to making the quite
implausible claim that Goldfarb had assassinated his son, he made the to my mind not implausible suggestion that the figure who
he was, in his turn, framing, was working for the CIA.
In the Q&A at the press conference, Lugovoi's supposed partner-in-crime, Dmitri Kovtun, made a claim parallel to Lugovoi's,
about British law enforcement, clearly referring to the supposed plot to assassinate Berezovsky with a 'poison pen', which back
in 2003 MI6 had used to frustrate Russian attempts to have the oligarch extradited.
(In this, I think it likely that the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office are quite correct to claim that Goldfarb and Litvinenko
played crucial roles.)
According to Kovtun:
'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain
you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever,
and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian
person it is all available and beneficial.'
Also in the Q&A, Lugovoi returned to his earlier claim about Litvinenko's contempt for people like Steele:
'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine
what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.'
(For the press conference, follow the link INQ001886 on the 'Evidence page' on the archived website of the inquiry presided
over by Sir Robert Owen, which is at
http://webarchive.nationala... .)
Whether or not Litvinenko made the remarks attributed to him – and I think it most likely that he did – this seems to me
clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people,
and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt.
As it happens, the type to which Steele, and also our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, patently belongs
– the worst kind of superannuated Oxbridge student politician – is one with which I have quite extensive knowledge, which even
if I had not followed the antics of Steele and Owen, would strongly incline me to think that Lugovoi's judgments were accurate.
No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk.
If people take a 'retard' seriously, then the natural inference is that they are themselves 'retards.'
I have largely lost count of the number of the people in the United States who appear to have taken Steele seriously. But it
seems clear that your intelligence, foreign affairs and law enforcement bureaucracies are as infested by 'retards' as are ours.
The notion of Putin as the sinister puppet master, pulling the 'strings' which caused people to vote for 'Leave' in the Brexit
campaign, or to support Trump, has always been BS.
A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are
still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours
we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time.
Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested
in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now.
I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have
mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would
have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related
to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never
pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump.
This is the nature of
people in power - they don't care what you think about what they said, so they say anything they want as long as it isn't something
so absurd as to make them look like fools directly - in the minds of the rest of the fools listening to them as if what they said
really mattered.
Parsing what these people say is a complete waste of time. What matters is what did they DO and what were the consequences
to the rest of us.
Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to
plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar.
Yes! But i think you really should have said highly convenient credulity. That is why an intelligence agency employs a man like
Steele. That is the key competancy they saw when recruiting. That "flexibility" with the truth is such an asset in the civil service.
I dont believe all players were idiots. I believe they were "fooled" like John Scarlett was fooled about WMD.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive prosecutor will always have a pretext
to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.
At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating
the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.
This does not mean that a shadowy cabal have secret meeting and take a ballot on whom we will persecute today. Rather, it refers
to people of influence and authority, and prosecutors, being, depending on how you look at it, glorified or perhaps degraded politicians,
are exquisitely sensitive to such things.
I deal with attorneys on a weekly basis. The percentage of them which are simply unqualified to wake up in the morning and charge
people for advice is mind boggling.
I am giggling still after reading your comments about our little Jimmy C. I watched the interview yesterday and came away feeling
that somehow I must be losing my marbles, so to speak, because I just could not make myself believe that this person had reached
the level of authority in our government that he had reached before deservedly being fired at last.
When the whole Clinton email situation was at its peak in the news cycle, I finally decided that Jimmy was a prime example
of the Peter Principle. He had reached his level of incompetence. But after watching the interview yesterday, I decided that he
had reached that level of incompetence long before becoming the Director of the FBI. Perhaps all the really intelligent, competent
people just didn't want to go into some sort of bureaucratic swampy environment that taking a management position would mean.
Maybe they all just kept pushing him up the ladder to keep him from going out into the field to do the real work of the FBI. Who
knows? One person--I forget who it was--did call him a malignant narcissist. And that he is. So, I hope he ends up in a federal
prison with his fellow malignant narcissists, though they tend more to violence than he does. I pity his daughters. They have
no hope of growing up to live rational lives.
I then thought the round table discussion afterward was a bit surreal. It's not that I thought the people weren't stating good
points. It was just that I thought they would all be laughing so hard and holding their sides and rolling on the floor laughing
at him.
God save our country if there are many more like Jimmy in high positions. I will have to pray extra hard at church this Sunday.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay".
Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority?
Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client
privilege". That being the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General
tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee". Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay"? Serve
as the official leaker of FBI documents? Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus
giving him "attorney client privilege". That would be the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. It is becoming more evident that the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding
with the Russian government was actually a cover for the far more insidious collusion of top officials in the Obama administration
including possibly Obama himself to use the resources and capabilities of the federal government to destroy a major party presidential
candidate from the opposing party.
Clapper once again being accused of lying to Congress and being a leaker of classified information. Brennan sure looks very
concerned. Let's see if the rule of law applies to high officials in government. I'm not holding my breath.
Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He looks like both a liar and fool to many of us.
Not surprisingly, there are many great political cartoons to be found on Comey over the past couple of years. It was hard to
limit myself to sharing 3 of them, but I didn't want to end up in the spam bin.
are any Americans in cahoots with the foreign intelligence of an adversary nation
Since when does the Director of the FBI get to decide American foreign policy and does he really understand the principles
of democracy? Donald Trump was clear throughout his campaign that he wanted better relations with Russia so the people who elected
him however flawed the process had an expectation that there would be better relations with Russia. People in the executive might
disagree with this as a policy but in a democracy they should not actively frustrate the will of the people; Trump should call
on anybody who has done so to resign as a matter of principle.
Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally
attract the dimwitted among us?
Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from
that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After
I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes,
smart enough.
It reminded me of similar awkward interviews here, from Mr Blair in the distant past to Boris Johnson's recent DW interview:
enough ingenuity to convince the most of us and too few of the unconvinced to matter. After all for such people, or I'd guess
in the environment Mr Comey has so far prospered in, there's no call for cast iron explanations. The plausible, as long as it
has some colour of reason, will carry the day.
Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging
by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine
Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test.
PT, I vaguely, very, very vaguely (not much) followed up on Fred's book alert on Comey and his book. I stumbled across a young
man's review (as old lady), whose name I had never heard before. Touched old chords somehow. Not sure if I may link here to--of
all possible places--Rolling Stone? And Garrett M. Graff, that is: James Comey's 'A Higher Loyalty' Is a Study in Contradictions,
Inside and Out. The former FBI director's memoir is about life, leadership and undoing all of the above
"... Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant. ..."
"... Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday (28 October 2016), with explosive results. ..."
"... In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state. ..."
"... The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted. ..."
"... Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and office. ..."
My current piece will be focused almost exclusively on Andy McCabe. He was fired, there was grumbling that this was unfair political
payback. And then we got a look at the Department of Justice Inspector General's report. Liar, liar pants on fire. Although the OIG
report is very poorly written (as you read through the 39 pages you'll feel like a young Yeshiva student pouring over some tendentious
exegesis by an elderly Hasidic Rabbi), it contains damning evidence of malfeasance on the part of McCabe. So let me simplify it for
you.
McCabe was fired because he lied about his role in leaking information in late October 2016 to Wall Street Journal reporter, Devlin
Barrett, who authored the article,
FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe . Barrett's article is not much better than the IG report in terms of simplicity
and clarity. It lacks both. It is poorly written and requires a compass and advanced land navigation skills to map out the story.
This is the bottom line of the article--Andy McCabe is accused of ordering FBI Agents to not investigate the Clinton Foundation because
his wife got money from Virginia Governor and Clinton confidant, Terry McAuliffe. Here are the salient points from that article:
The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton's email
use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the
Democratic presidential nominee.
The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command,
that
while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged
messages to a teenage minor , they had recovered a laptop.
Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents
could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially
relevant.
Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case
and notified Congress on Friday (28
October 2016), with explosive results.
Senior Justice Department officials had warned the FBI that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions
that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey's repeated public statements on the probe,
going back to his
press conference on the subject in July.
The Wall
Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from
the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor
in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When
he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government
work when she was secretary of state.
According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official (
Matthew Axelrod according to Zero Hedge) called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were
still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. . . .The Justice Department official was "very
pissed off," according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the
department considered dormant.
For Mr. McCabe's defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a
case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn't think much of the case, one person said.
When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come
from the deputy director -- Mr. McCabe.
Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors
in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn't
"go prosecutor-shopping."
This article triggered the investigation by the FBI's Inspection Division aka INSD, which then led to the 31 August 2017 investigation
by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General aka OIG. These are the critical facts/findings by the OIG:
Prior to the 30 October 2016 Devlin Barrett article, the FBI had neither confirmed nor denied that there was an investigation
of the Clinton Foundation.
On 23 October 2016 the WSJ's Barrett reported that McCabe's wife had received $675,000 from Virginia Democrats linked to Clinton.
This article sparked a public debate over whether McCabe should have any role whatsoever with investigations that touched on Hillary
Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.
25 October 2016, McCabe learns that Barret (WSJ reporter) is working on a follow up to the 23 October piece. McCabe then authorized
the Special Counsel (some say it was Lisa Page, not confirmed) and the Assistant Director of the Office of Public Affairs aka
AD/OPA (Michael Kortan) to talk to Barrett.
27 October 2016, McCabe is excluded from a meeting/conference call regarding a search warrant for a set of Clinton-related
emails.
On the same day the Special Counsel and the AD/OPA met with Barrett who informed the two FBI officials that his sources claimed
McCabe wanted to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation for "improper reasons."
On the same day the Special Counsel, after receiving guidance from McCabe, spoke with Barrett of the WSJ and informed him
of McCabe's 12 August conversation with the DOJ Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, which was very acrimonious and left
McCabe "pissed off."
Barrett's article about the battle between the FBI and DOJ over the Clinton Foundation was published online on Sunday, 30
October 2016 at 3:34 pm.
On the same day, shortly after the WSJ article hit the internet, McCabe made an angry call to the senior FBI Executives at
the Washington and New York Field Divisions to voice his outrage at the leaks and ordered those Executives "to get their houses
in order." McCabe did not disclose to either person that he had authorized the FBI Special Counsel to disclose that information.
31 October 2016, FBI Director Comey voiced his concerns about the leak to senior FBI staffers, which included McCabe.
May 2017 FBI INSD (i.e., the Inspection Division) opens investigation into the 30 October 2016 leak.
9 May 2017 McCabe is interviewed under oath by INSD and shown the 30 October 2016 WSJ article and specifically directed to
the report of the acrimonious exchange between McCabe and a senior DOJ official. McCabe said the report was accurate but that
he had no idea where the leak about the 12 August 2016 phone call with the PADAG at Justice came from.
Three days later (i.e., 12 May 2017), INSD emailed McCabe the draft Signed Sworn Statement for his review and signature. McCabe,
according to the OIG report, did nothing with the statement until three months later (18 August 2017).
Two months later, on 28 July 2017, the OIG interviewed McCabe under oath regarding "various FBI and Department actions in
advance of the 2016 Election," and was asked specifically if the Special Counsel had been authorized to speak to the Wall Street
Journal reporter who wrote the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe said, "Not that I'm aware of."
Four days later, 1 August 2017, McCabe called the Assistant Inspector General and stated, "he may have authorized the Special
Counsel to work with the AD/OPA and speak to Devlin Barrett."
7 August 2017, the Special Counsel was interviewed by INSD (the FBI) about the 30 October 2016 Barrett article. She admitted,
under oath, that she gave the information to Barrett but was authorized to do so by Andy McCabe.
Eleven days later (18 August 2017), INSD reinterviewed Andy McCabe about the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe admitted that
his sworn testimony from May was wrong and conceded that he had authorized the disclosure.
Andy McCabe was reinterviewed by the OIG on 29 November 2017 and admitted to the following:
he authorized the leak to the WSJ for the 30 October article;
he did not recall discussing the disclosure with Comey in advance;
he told Comey after the 30 October article that he had authorized the leak;
that other FBI executive managers knew he had authorized the leak
claimed he had not purposefully made previous false statements to INSD and OIG investigators.
There is still a big case of he said/she said to come that will pit McCabe against Comey. McCabe, under oath, insists he told
Comey, at least after the fact, and that Comey was okay with the leak. Comey is on the record, also under oath, saying that is not
true. Someone is lying. It is an appalling situation to be in a position of having to choose between the former number two guy in
the FBI and the former number one. They were supposed to be better than this.
Puts the whole case against Flynn in a new light. He has had his entire life ruined for saying something to the FBI that may not
have been true, but was not a statement under oath. Most Americans understand double standards and cheaters. America's premiere law
enforcement agency is now appearing to be worse than a crooked casino. Only house favorites win.
There is a private online forum where retired FBI Special Agents gather to discuss FBI related matters. The topics used to
be FBI health insurance, retirements, death notices, local newspaper articles, and ....well you get the idea. It is only a subset
of the entire retired population and the great majority of members are lurkers who do not actively participate. Still, it is the
best, if not only measure, of sentiment in this group. Unfortunately the matters you write about now dominate the discussions.
You may be interested to know that from my reading of it over the past 18 months, the overwhelming majority, by avalanche proportions,
possibly close to unanimity [previously unheard of in this organization in my generation on any topic] share your point of view
about the recent top Bu leadership. There is shock, disbelief, shame, and a great deal of anger at the recent/current top leadership
who got us into this situation. [as a point of reference, to measure seriousness, when I entered on duty a really serious matter
was "Bu agent, in Bu car, with Bu Steno (female employee), drunk"] [the penalty for which was usually fire the steno for lack
of moral character, and transfer agent to the New York office,] The good news is that this recent rot exists/existed only at the
very upper levels [maybe 10-20 people] of the HQ staff [approx 800]. The other 30,000 or so FBI employees were not involved.
That is not to say they won't be impacted; the last 18 months of drip by drip criticism must make work by the operational personnel
much more difficult. This is not a good thing as after all is said the FBI is still out there every day trying to catch corrupt
politicians, brutal policemen, kidnappers, bank robbers, terrorists,cyber criminals, organized crime members, and about 1000 other
types of criminals. I encourage you to make a distinction in your writing between the villains at the top and the rank and file
of the FBI.
Ah, but Nightsticker this is not a new phenomena, didn't the LDS faction always play by their own rules. I saw the careers destroyed
of those who chose to stand up to the Salt Lake City crowd, and didn't that bring us Waco and some humiliating revelations about
the Laboratory Division?
I would completely agree that the Steno's, the Ident clerks, and the Brick Agents were the hardest working of all Government
employees but there was always an element that operated purely for their own designs. Remember the old pound on the desk and shout
"No FBI Agent has ever been turned", whenever someone questioned the Bureau? Did they still say that after Whitey Bolger?
While your point that a distinction should be made between the rank & file and the villains at the top is well taken, there
have been several high profile cases of misconduct in the field offices. The Bundy case in Nevada being a recent one, where a
judge threw out the DOJ/FBI prosecution with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct.
Considering how much these types of misconduct and malfeasance gets hidden from the public under the rubric of "classified
information", it seems there are many more cases of such misconduct that has come out in the recent past. One has to feel sympathetic
towards the ordinary citizen when the full force of the DOJ/FBI are brought to bear against them, especially in a climate where
national security "concerns" trumps liberty and due process.
Do you think the character of the agents & prosecutors as well as the "command climate" have changed due to institutional pressures
over the last couple decades?
Do you believe this all took place without anyone lower in the hierarchy knowing about it or participating in it? Can secrets
be kept in such a large organization where most don't know what the bosses are up to?
In your point #3, the Special Counsel is Lisa Page, who was legal counsel to McCabe. With the criminal referral from the IG
we'll have to see if and when he's indicted.
The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a
legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems
to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted.
Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial
irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael
Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and
office.
In this context it will be interesting to see if the DOJ indicts McCabe. There's now increasing pieces of the puzzle being
uncovered that sheds more light on the incredible conspiracy among Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Sally Yates,
Susan Rice - essentially the top brass in the Obama administration who ran the intelligence, law enforcement and national security
apparatus who used their offices for political purposes to interfere and manipulate an election campaign and when that failed
to attempt a coup.
The foreign interference were these guys working with the British and Estonian intelligence to fabricate reports to launch
a fraudulent investigation on candidate Trump and his campaign.
The genie is out of the bottle. It will only be a matter of time when a GOP administration will use the intelligence and law
enforcement capabilities of an administration to play dirty tricks on the Democrats. The Democrats have made sure that the FBI,
CIA, ODNI, & DOJ have now become tools for vicious political fights.
Thanks for your ice clear update. Corporate media mostly ignores the "Pay to Play" governance that has enveloped Washington
DC with the decision in 2008 by the Obama Administration to foam the runways for Wall Street and not jail corporate crooks. The
FBI could not do a full investigation. The DOJ would never indict Hillary Clinton. Both James Comey and General Michael Flynn
should have kept their mouths shut. Yet, they rose near the top of the cess pool. I assume they simply couldn't acknowledge to
themselves the criminal sewer they were swimming in. An addition note on the sewer overflow; the President's Physician's nomination
to head the VA is in trouble due to drinking on the job and pushing pills.
Reports like these are our only hope of the restoration of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It's not just the leadership at the FBI. It is the whole kit and kaboodle when Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Yates, and the ladies
Rice, Powers, Farkas all had a hand in this. I'm a Depression Era baby and I've seen many a scandal in government but I can't
recall another time when an existing administration of a major party used the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to actively
do opposition research on the other major party candidate. And then conspire to influence and manipulate a presidential election
and frame that candidate as an agent of a foreign power considered an enemy in many quarters. This is beyond the pale even if
one abhors the candidate. You read about stuff like this happening in banana republics. But in the USA. I can't believe our institutions
have sunk so low just in my lifetime.
Two friends get arrested for murder. One of them had to have done it. They both finger the other guy - and they both get off because
nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did it. How convenient.
At this point it is hard to discern which of our institutions haven't been corrupted by power-mad philosopher kings.
There is an entire corner of [conservative] Twitter following the Borg political shitshow (and particularly the upcoming DOJ
OIG report) pretty closely and have been for some time. A lot of it seemed pretty far out there when I first came across them
(and may still be, there's no way to know for sure until there's a lot more clarity on some of these issues) but they have increasingly
tracked with a lot of what you have written about here and have generally been on the mark, if not superficially clairvoyant.
They're decidedly very pro-Trump but if you're interested (and use Twitter) here's a few of these characters: @_VachelLindsay_
, @drawandstrike , and @TheLastRefuge2.
Thank you. For us in the general public, who have to try to get through the day following the news, it's becoming a stomach-turning
activity. I've recently found myself thinking that only a bad script writer could have come up with all that is being broadcast
on the supposed "news" channels--especially those that do report much of what you have just summarized. I have felt so sorry for
Flynn and others caught up in this total dysfunctional system.
With the top people in the FBI acting so politically, it makes me wonder at some of the other events we've had to read about
regarding the FBI, such as the handling of information regarding the killer in the Florida Pulse nightclub, the dropping of the
ball, so to speak, in regard to the Boston Marathon bombers, the lack of interest in following up on the call to the FBI regarding
the school killer in Florida. And now I question the decision to give the guns back to the father of the shooter in Tennessee
at the Waffle House. Are the everyday working procedures now totally tained by politics also?
My inclination is to think that the regular FBI agents have their hands tied by politically motivated rules set at the top
that do not allow agents to do what they know is right.
Every time I hear Comey speak, I go into a state of cognitive dissonance because it seems as if somehow a ninth-grade student
with absolutely no ability to think logically was somehow promoted to the top office of the FBI.
"... Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast. ..."
"... Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime. ..."
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge
what is and what is not classified! As
the head of the FBI, he clearly has the
role of 'Originating Authority' on
determining classification of ANY
document. What it says is, that if
there's ANY doubt, whether it is
classified or not, it shall be
SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of
classification. And the ultimate
authority, is the President of the
United States, if the Originator is
Comey. So Comey took it upon himself
to declassify, classified documents
without the permission of the President
of the United States, who happens to be
his boss.
(c)
If there is
reasonable doubt about the need to
classify information, it shall be
safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall
make this determination within thirty
(30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate
level of classification, it shall be
safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination
by an original classification authority
,
who shall make this determination
within thirty (30) days.
Executive Order
12356--National security information
Source:
The
provisions of Executive Order 12356
of Apr. 2, 1982, appear at 47 FR
14874 and 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp.,
p. 166, unless otherwise noted.
10) other categories of
information that are related to the
national security and that require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure as determined by the
President or by agency heads or
other officials who have been
delegated original classification
authority
by the President
.
Any
determination made under
this subsection shall be reported
promptly to the Director of the
Information Security Oversight
Office
.
(b) Information that is
determined to concern one or more
of the categories in Section
1.3(a
) shall be
classified when an original
classification authority also
determines that its unauthorized
disclosure, either by itself or
in the context of other
information, reasonably could be
expected to cause damage to the
national security.
(c) Unauthorized disclosure
of foreign government
information, the identity of a
confidential foreign source, or
intelligence sources or methods
is presumed to cause damage to
the national security.
(d)
Information classified
in accordance with Section 1.3
shall not be declassified
automatically as a result of any
unofficial publication or
inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosure in the United States
or abroad of identical or similar
information.
[!!!!!!]
Comey is no different than any of those low lifes
you used to see get busted on Cops. He's a
confidence man. A crack head, high on his own
power. He's worse in fact because he betrayed his
fellow Americans en masse.
What nails him is over
confidence. Obama has it, Clinton has it. They all
think that they they're winners at the table and
that it's gonna go on forever. They are the worse
type because they think they deserve it. There is
not a gram of humility in the lot. Prisons are full
of these guys.
Interestingly enough, all these these players
use the same excuses those addicts with smack in
the center console use as they were getting cuffed.
"What? We were just talkin"
"I had no idea that was there"
"I don't remember"
"Some guy told me it was okay"
"I don't know"
"The other guy started it"
"That's my personal stuff. You got no right"
"Those aren't mine"
"Wasn't me"
"I'm not me I'm my younger brother" (nod to Ike
Turner for that one)
It's the sheer weight of these tired old answers
that makes it so obvious that Comey is scum. He has
an answer for everything. Put them all together and
you get a figure eight. He's a punk in the first
order and a henchman of a crime family. I'm hoping
he ends up somebody's punk when this is over.
Hey Cornholius, When you say "these pigs are as dirty as
they get" are you talking about Jeff "Reefer Madness"
Sessions? Because, if you are, I will agree with you.
I'm talking about all the fucknuts who steal the
fruits of your labor and claim to be "serving the
public". Sessions is definitely one of those pigs.
Taxpayers enable and support his behaviour.
This is a constitutional republic. They like
"democracy" because they can claim their crimes
legitimate as "mandates". Their actions are
unconstitutional. That is the law. Be nice if the
next time the military conducts exercises in a
domestic population center the local militia takes
them all prisoner. Train for this.
Maybe ideologically it is a constitutional
republic, but since March 9, 1933 when FDR
signed the Emergency Banking Act the United
States has been a private institution managed by
foreign investors.
"Since March 9, 1933 The
United States has been in a state of Declared
National Emergency ... Under the powers
delegated by these statutes the President may:
seize property, organize and control the means
of production, seize commodities, order military
forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and
control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise,
restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways
control the lives of American citizens. ... A
majority of the people in the United States have
lived all of their lives under emergency rule.
For forty years, freedoms and governmental
procedure guaranteed by the Constitution have in
varying degrees been abridged by laws brought
into force by national emergency." In Reg. US
Senate report No. 93-549 dated 11/19/73
Why Trump allows this, I can't figure out...either it's
part of a bigger plan, he's a dumb-ass, or he's being
forced to allow this shit-show to go into it's second
season.
Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the
prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to
prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all
the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales,
murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast.
And of course Hillary... decades of lies, murders, theft, and the
deliberate arming of terrorists in Syria, per her emails, to 'help Israel.'
These people aren't merely criminals, but domestic terrorists and traitors.
Trump and Sessions' failure to indict these people merits your attention
regardless of what you think of Trump these days.
The lack of prosecutions means a DOJ afraid of what dark secrets may be
revealed in the harsh light of investigation and prosecution.
We would likely, even as cynics, absolutely marvel at the thoroughness of
Washington's corruption if we saw it.
Maybe we'd think about treating DC as a zio/globalist occupied territory
that presents a clear and present danger to the several States.
Strzok
and Page are sacrificial
pigs who have apparently
only convicted
themselves of gross
stupidity. There is no
evidence of crimes being
committed in emails.
That is why both are
still employed. No
evidence either one was
having an affair,
either. Going to lunch
is not a crime.
The real action is
who and what else is
being concealed from the
world.......
FBI are all a bunch
of depraved FUCKS.
If FBI secrets were
to come out for everyone
to see, every criminal
prosecution in which FBI
Fucks were involved
could be dismissed,
overturned, reversed, or
withdrawn from Fed
Court. Gov does not have
enough $$$$$$ to pay the
damages.
So we all get fucked
and FBI cunts stay
employed.
Sso corrupt it is
UNIMAGINABLE !!!!
Close down the FBI
!!!! End the fucking
contest. Do it NOW !!!
Did his crack legal team tell him to shut the fuck up? He's basically cross
examining himself in a public forum.
The Clinton email thing is still
amazing. It's de jure illegal to handle the information the way they did
regardless of intent. No interview was necessary. No immunity to an
unnecessary interview needed to happen either. This is a miscarriage at its
most benign.
Only a boob would believe this "aw schucks" nonesense.
It is amazing he ran the FBI. He is completely delusional. Has no sense of the
rule of law or how to apply it. Has no sense of how the law applies to him. He
cannot see the consequences of his actions on people or how they would
interpret it. Complete narcissist that lacks any empathy. Truly a psychopath.
The level of absurdity of the former head of the nation's purportedly premiere
law enforcement agency giving unlimited interviews to promote a tell-all book
on still active investigations in which he was involved is so high that it
would it wouldn't even be fodder for satire. Sanctimonious "Cardinal" Comey
has become a caricature of himself. He is either bringing shame and disgrace
to the FBI that he purportedly loves, or conclusively demonstrating that it is
more politically corrupt than under Hoover; but without the competency it
displayed under Hooveresque directors. People like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and
Page sent scores of people to prison, ruining untold lives. How many of these
people would have been found guilty if even a fraction of this information had
been available to defense attorneys as exculpatory evidence? Manafort's
lawyers are going to have a field day with all of this (at least in the DC
case where Judge Berman Jackson - a former defense lawyer and ostensibly fair
jurist - is presiding; I pity Manafort's lawyers in front of Judge Ellis in
Alexandria). Every time that Comey opens his mouth, he is making multiple
inconsistent statements of varying degrees. His narcissism and greed are so
monumental that he doesn't even see the damage that he did, is and will
continue to do to his credibility. I do, however, have to end by commending
him for appearing on Fox, though I think that it was more his inability to
turn down a forum for self-promotion than out of any particular
bravery.
Comey said, "it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ
would bring."
That doesn't mean the hundred-plus FBI agents who actually
worked the case didn't believe Clinton should be prosecuted. Comey betrayed
FBI agents by not supporting them. Instead, he sided with politicize
prosecutors, including Attorney General Lynch, who weren't going to indict
Clinton no matter what the evidence showed. Comey is a limpid coward and a
disgrace to law enforcement officers throughout the land.
Does Bezos have Comey's book "Riding My High Horse" at number one on
Amazon, like he did with Clinton's book "What The Fuck Happened?" even
though it had only sold 62 copies?
Classified is classified, unless you work for a Clinton.
SO if you put classified information in your book, it is no longer
classified??????
Shit, a whole lot of ex CIA guys need to write books. How about, "Well
we knew that the most murderous and despicable Nazi was in Argentina all
along and lived there for 30 years after WWII but we never went and got
him, because he really didn't do most of the things we claimed he did."
forget the dossier. forget that she destroyed evidence. forget that she
fleeced world leaders for her little foundation. forget the outrageous
speaking fees of her disgraced ex president husband. forget the meeting on
the tarmac with the AG. forget that her campaign was laundering
contributions.
SHE SET UP A FUCKING ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER IN HER HOME AND
REDIRECTED GOVERNMENT TOP SECRET EMAIL TO THAT SERVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE
ALL HER CRIMES.
God these people are dirtier than a small time local politician. Jail
em all.
I have learned that there is a gaping deep and wide crevasse between a
'fact' and a 'truth'.
A 'truth' is, e.g., That tall oak out there is a
tree.
A 'fact' is, that depending on where you are standing, you can attest to
seeing less than a half of a tree, (unless you have developed the ability
to see around bends).
So when someone like the weasel Comey is says something is a fact, you
have every reason to doubt that he is telling you a truth.
I have a larcenous heart. I regret that I did not get into government,
seeing how much money can be made and how risk free the jobs are. Few----
compared to the many millions who have literally gotten away with murder,
gathered immense fortunes, and awesome behind the scenes power that is
invisible----have ever been arrested let alone accused, prosecuted and sent
to jail. You can count them on your fingers and toes.
So I have no objections to people buying his pack of lies and him making
some serious money on the advances, the book, and the eventual movie,
starring George Clooney as the hero, Comey.
The Department of "Justice", lost its way long ago. To persist in
calling it the DOJ when it is nothing of the sort, just another
disreputable, bureaucratic fuckup of a government agency, is a total lie.
Comey lies in the interview exposed plus the new Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page emails. Even what must be a very tiny percentage of their emails
during the covered time span have some very revealing contents which the
censors missed:
Interestingly, Comey said Republicans financed the Steele dossier before
Democrats. What if he's telling the truth? Trump is an Independent with an
"R" next to his name-Trump isn't their "Boy". Many Lifer Republicans in
fact are leaving office including House Speaker Ryan. If a Republican is
responsible for financing the dossier, my guess for one is Senator John
McCain.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mccain-associate-subpoena
I could not watch more than 25% of the first video without projectile
vomiting. This fucker should be shot for treason, as all the rest of the
swamp leaders. The one sailor went to jail for accidentally releasing a
pic in an engine room, and Petras went to prison for so much less.
It's time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of traitors to the
Republic...
"... As Orwell taught us in, Animal Farm , "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law. ..."
"... And as Bastiat writes in, The Law , today in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder. ..."
"... This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses. ..."
"... look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
Fox News host Bret Baier and James Comey sat down for a one-on-one interview Thursday night, in perhaps the most serious and direct
conversations with the former FBI Director to date.
Baier held Comey's feet to the fire on a wide variety of controversial topics - including the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary
Clinton before interviewing her, what Comey knew about the "Steele Dossier" used to obtain a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign
aide, and the memos Comey leaked to his friend which he hoped would lead to a special counsel investigation.
Clinton Exoneration
After starting the interview off with a joke about how Comey must find it "a little tougher to get around town without a motorcade,"
Baier pulled no punches - launching straight into asking the former FBI Director if it was true that his team decided to exonerate
Hillary Clinton before interviewing her .
In response, Comey said that because of all the prior investigative work the FBI had done on the Clinton email case, investigators
said "it looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutors will bring it," and that it's "fairly typical" for white
collar investigations to save interviews for last.
Comey: I started to see that their view was, it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ would bring .
Baier: Before the interview?
Sure, yeah, because they had spent ten months digging around, reading all of the emails, putting everything together, interviewing
everybody who set up her system. They weren't certain of that result, but they said "Look boss, on the current course and speed,
looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutor will bring it ."
On the topic of Peter Strzok - the anti-Trump counterintelligence agent deeply involved in both the Clinton and Trump investigations
along with his FBI attorney mistress, Lisa Page, Comey said he never witnessed evidence of bias working with the pair, but that he
was " deeply disappointed" when he saw some of the text messages exchanged between them.
"I can tell you this: When I saw the texts, I was deeply disappointed in them," Comey told Baier. " But I never saw any bias,
any reflection of any kind of animus towards anybody, including me . I'm sure I'm badmouthed in those texts, I'm just not going to
read them all. Never saw it."
Comey said that if he had been aware of the level of hatred Strzok and Page had for Trump, he "would have removed both of them
from any contact with significant investigations."
The "leaked" memos
When it comes to the leaked memos that kickstarted the Mueller probe, Comey maintains that the memos he created to document his
interactions with President Trump, seven in all and four of which have been deemed classified; two marked "confidential" and two
marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos to two other people who he said were members of his "legal team," including David
Kelly and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
"I gave the memos to my legal team after I gave them to Dan Richman -- after I asked him to get it out to the media," said Comey,
who likened the memos to his "diaries."
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it as
mine, like a diary"
Trump "just wrong"
Responding to a Fox & Friends interview in which President Trump said "Comey is a leaker and he's a liar. He's been leaking for
years," the former FBI Director responded " He's just wrong. Facts really do matter." Comey then claimed that because the FBI approved
the inclusion of the memos in his book, A Higher Loyalty , they are therefore not classified.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner provides an excellent breakdown of Comey's semantic absurdity
here .
The "Steele Dossier" and who paid for it
Baier asked Comey why the FBI used the Steele Dossier compiled by former UK spy Christopher Steele to obtain a FISA warrant on
a Trump campaign aide if it was "salacious," to which Comey replied that the dossier was part of a " broader mosaic of facts " used
to support the application.
And when it comes to who funded the dossier used in the FISA application, Comey claims he still has no idea whether Hillary Clinton
and the DNC funded it.
" When did you learn that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele's work? " Baier asked.
" Yeah I still don't know that for a fact ," Comey responded.
"What do you mean?" Baier replied.
" I've only seen it in the media, I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded ," Comey explained, "I knew it was funded
first by Republicans."
Baier quickly corrected Comey, noting that while conservative website Free Beacon had Fusion GPS on "a kind of retainer," they
"did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier," adding " That was initiated by Democrats ."
"Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can't define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
but doesn't understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He's either very sick or very
dumb. Remember sailor!"
...two marked "confidential" and two marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos...
As Orwell taught us in,
Animal Farm
, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They
simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law.
And as Bastiat writes in,
The Law , today
in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder.
This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the
Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses.
The recipe for a Nothing Burger, as created by the DoJ. Peddling bullshit like this on a daily basis must be soul destroying
for any of these weasel cunts that had a soul in the first place.
The really juicy ones are redacted to hell and gone, or text corrupted in all the right places.
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it
as mine, like a diary"
IDIOT. Those memos are a work product created while he worked for the FBI. HE does NOT get to arbitrarily judge what is and
is not classified. What HE considers personal is irrelevant.
Arrogant self-righteous douchebag. He should get at LEAST a deserved stay at a Club Fed for this.
"Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned
the title of "sanctimonious twit."
...
look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should
leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault.
Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He
is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose
panties were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there
was :
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to
mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia
and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one
of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI
Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy
Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of
Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information
contained in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating
on stealing the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have
even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came
from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that
he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge what is and what is not classified! As the head of the FBI, he clearly has the role
of 'Originating Authority' on determining classification of ANY document. What it says is, that if there's ANY doubt, whether
it is classified or not, it shall be SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of classification. And the ultimate authority, is the President
of the United States, if the Originator is Comey. So Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the
permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.
(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending
a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification
pending a determination by an original classification authority , who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.
A few thoughts on our disastrous trillion-dollar military:
It is unnecessary. It does not defend the United States. The last time it did so was in
1945. The United States has no military enemies. No nation has anything even close to the
forces necessary to invade America, and probably none the desire. A fifth of the budget would
suffice for any real needs.
"Our boys" are not noble warriors protecting democracy, rescuing maidens, and righting
wrongs. They are, like all soldiers, obedient and amoral killers. Pilots bombing Iraq or Syria
know they are killing civilians. They do not care. If ordered to bomb Switzerland, they would
do it. This is the nature of all armies. Glamorizing this most reprehensible trades is just a
means of usefully stimulating the pack instinct which we often call patriotism.
The militarily is America's worst enemy. It does enormous damage to the United
States while providing almost no benefit. Start with the war on Vietnam that cost hugely in
money and lives, ours and theirs, with no benefit. Iraq: high cost, no benefit. Afghanistan:
High cost, no benefit. Syria: High cost, no benefit.
The costs in lives and money do not include the staggering cost of weapons that do nothing
for America or Americans. Do you, the reader, believe that you are safer because of the F-35?
Do a dozen aircraft carriers improve the lives of your children? Will the B-21, an unbelievably
expensive new thermonuclear bomber, make your streets safer? Then add the bleeding of
engineering talent better spent on advancing America's economic competitiveness. The country
has many crying needs, falls behind China, but money and talent go to the military.
We cannot escape from the soldiers. The armed forces have embedded themselves so deeply into
the country that they have almost become the country. America is little more than a funding
mechanism for what clumsily may be called the military-industrial-intelligence-media-Israeli
complex. Some of these entities belong to the military (NSA). Some depend on it
(Lockheed-Martin). Some use it to their own ends (Israel), but the military is the central
infection from which the other symptoms flow. Congress? A storefront, a subcommittee of the
Knesset or, as P. J. O'Rourke put it, a parliament of whores. Factories, jobs, contracts, towns
depend on military spending. If the Second Marine Division folded, Jacksonville NC would dry up
and blow away. So would dozens of other towns. Without military spending, California's economy
would crash. Universities depend on military research funding.
The military has achieved its current autonomy by degrees, unnoticed. The Pentagon learned
much in Vietnam, not about fighting wars, which it still cannot do well, but about managing its
real enemy, the public. The media, which savaged the war on Vietnam, are now firmly controlled
by the corporations that own them. Thus we do not see photos of the horrors committed by
American aircraft bombing cities. While the existence of phenomenally expensive weapons like
the B-21 is not quite suppressed, coverage is so slight that most Americans have never heard of
it. This the Complex learned from the F-35 debacle. And of course Congress, thoroughly bought
and wanting jobs in its districts, allows no serious opposition to anything military. Neither
Congress nor the media point out the extent to which military expenditure dominates the
economy, draining resources from civilian needs.
Why does the military not win wars? In part because winning is not in the interest of the
Pentagon and those who feed on it. Wars generate profitable contracts for all manner of
supplies and equipment. Either winning or losing ends the gravy train. For example, the war on
Afghanistan of almost two decades has become an entitlement program for the arms industry,
accomplishing nothing, killing countless peasants, and lacking purpose other than maintaining
an unneeded empire and funneling money to the Complex.
How did the Complex free itself from civilian control? The crucial step in depriving the
public of influence was the neutering of the constitutional requirement that wars be declared
by Congress. The military thus became the private army of the President and those who control
him. Then came the All Volunteer Army, which ended inconvenience to or mutilation of the
children of people of importance, leaving the body bags to be filled by deplorables from
Memphis or Appalachia or Mexico. America's wars then became air wars and finally drone wars,
reducing casualties to very few. The public, both ignorant and uninvolved, became
acquiescent.
As I write, we wait to see whether Trump, and those behind him, will put America deeper into
the Mid-East and perhaps war with Russia. If he does, we will read about it the next day in the
newspapers. It will be expensive, dangerous, and of no benefit to anyone but the arms industry
and Israel.
Despite the asphyxiating economic presence, the military keeps aloof from America. This too
serves the purposes of the Complex, further preventing attention by the public to what is not
its business. In the days of conscription there was a familiarity with the armed services.
Young men from most social classes wore the uniform however ruefully and told of their
experiences. Not now. The career military have always tended to keep to themselves, to
socialize with each other as the police do. Now the isolation is almost hermetic. You can spend
years in Washington or New York and never meet a colonel. Military society with its
authoritarianism, its uniforms and its uniform government-issue outlook is not compatible with
civil society. To the cultivated, military officers seem simple-minded, conformist and well,
weird.
ORDER IT NOW
Add it all up and you see that the citizenry has no say–none–over the Complex,
which is autonomous and out of control. If the Complex wants war with Russia or China, we will
have-war with Russia or China. Ask people whether they would prefer a naval base in
Qatar–which most have never heard of, either the base or the country–or decent
heath care. Then ask them which they have.
The military destroys America and there is nothing–nothing at all–that you can
do about it.
Further, the Complex drives foreign policy, and in directions of no benefit to America or
Americans. For example, the contrived fury against Russia. Why this? Russia presents no danger
to America or anyone else. The Complex makes foreign policy for its own ends, not ours.
A rising Asia is challenging the America military Empire. The tide runs against the Complex.
North Korea faced Washington down and became a nuclear power. The Crimea went back irrevocably
to Russia. East Ukraine does the same. Iran got its treaty and becomes part of the world order.
In the South China Sea, China ignores the US, which once was supreme in all the seas. The war
against Afghanistan heads for its third decade and the war on Syria seems to have failed. Other
things go badly for the Empire. The dollar is under siege as reserve currency. China grows
economically, advances rapidly in technology and, doubtless terrifying to Washington, tries to
integrate Asia and Europe into a vast economic bloc. The Complex beats the war drums as its
fingers loosen on the world's collective throat.
Washington desperately needs to stop the rollback of American power, stop the erosion of the
dollar, block the economic integration of Eurasia and Latin America, keep Russia from trading
amicably with Europe. It will do anything to maintain its grip. All of its remote wars in
far-off savage lands, of no importance to America or Americans, are to this purpose. A
militarized America threatens Russia, threatens China, threatens Iran, threatens North Korea,
threatens Venezuela, expands NATO, on and on.
America has been hijacked.
Fred Reed is a retired news weasel and part-time sociopath living in Mexico with his
wife and three sueless but agreeable street dogs. (Republished from
Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative) ← Herding
Hamsters and Other Cosmic Refle...
Fred, a bit harsh in places. Having served for twenty-four years, '76-'00, active &
reserve, I can say with certainty that the men & women who comprise the armed forces are
a more complex & nuanced group than your brief description of them as "obedient and
amoral killers." The number that are amoral killers is probably about the same as those whose
main motivation for joining is patriotism, i.e. relatively small.
That said, I get what you're saying. The problem is that nature abhors a vacuum. If
America brings the troops home, closes all the bases and "raises the drawbridge" the various
bad-actors of the world will proceed to aggress against their neighbors much more so than
they already do. Would be an interesting experiment, though, for America to cease being the
world's policeman. I suspect that the rest of the so-called free world would be begging us to
resume the role almost immediately.
Sad to say, the principle "bad actor" in the world today, and the one committing the most
aggression, is the United States itself. The United States generates the most instability and
is the country that threatens world peace the most. I half expect to see the U.S. try to
torpedo the Korean peace talks, just to be able to maintain troops on the Korean
peninsula.
Fred's had two good articles in a row and his conclusion is spot on: the United States has
been hijacked.
because certain countries/people within the reach of "various bad-actors of the world"
would pay the price.Heavy price.
There is that prevalent mantra here about Russia/China being forces of good. Yeah ..
I've used the analogy here several times:
US is like Tywin Lannister. Russia Rose Bolton, China Slavers Bay.
Neither that good, but, definitely prefer the first.
We live in strange times. Back in 50s/60s, the Anglo-Right represented militarism &
empire while Jewish Left represented anti-war & peace with USSR. Today, the Real Right
oppose war & support peace while Jewish 'left' call for more empire, intervention, &
new cold war.
Sirs,y
I worked as an electrical inspector for the DCMA under contractors to the DCMA. I worked for
2 years in Iraq and 6 in Afghanistan. I meet and worked many honorable and competent military
people; I also had the misfortune to meet a great many who were not so good. Unfortunately,
the people that can't make in the military are sent over to the contractors who hire them
because of the old boys network and the vets perf. These are the worst.; if you are a
civilian working under LOGCAP without the military service you WILL NEVER get advancement .
The slugs from the military get all the gravy jobs and it is AA run wild. The ethnics stick
together and the dumb white guys who believe in merit end up in the crappy jobs doing all the
work and not getting any credit and the first to be laid off.
Not only that the LOGCAP program brinsg in Balkans and Indians to cut Americans out of
jobs. Indians make about 700 USD a month 4 times what they would make at home. Balkans,
around 4K 3 times what the make at home. These guys worm their way in and never leave; so
your average American contract employee shows up and he is getting screwed from the get
go.
The story I was told if you get 100K the contractor get 200-250K
Fred, you'd best look out the window to see who's at the door for the next few weeks. You may
have written too much truth for the military-industrial-intelligence-media-Israeli complex to
tolerate. Mossad has a few idle operatives in Mexico. Don't get too high-profile. They kill
people for a lot less.
The U.S. military is basically the right-wing/Republican version of the social welfare
state:
[...] Welfare's last stand Long in retreat in the US, the welfare state found a haven in an unlikely place –
the military, where it thrived for decades
[...]
– https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-us-military-became-a-welfare-state
Listen to Jennifer Mittelstadt explain the term "military welfare state" on The
Strategy Bridge's podcast :
[...]
America's all-volunteer army took shape in the 1970s, in the wake of widespread opposition
to the draft. Abandoning compulsory conscription, it wrestled with how to attract and
retain soldiers -- a task made more difficult by the military's plummeting prestige after
Vietnam. The army solved the problem, Jennifer Mittelstadt shows, by promising to take care
of its own -- the more than ten million Americans who volunteered for active duty after
1973 and their families. While the United States dismantled its civilian welfare system in
the 1980s and 1990s, army benefits continued to expand.
Yet not everyone was pleased by programs that, in their view, encouraged dependency,
infantilized soldiers, and feminized the institution. Fighting to outsource and privatize
the army's "socialist" system and to reinforce "self-reliance" among American soldiers,
opponents rolled back some of the military welfare state's signature achievements, even as
a new era of war began.
Right now, since unemployment is so low, recruiters have a harder time finding qualified
candidates:
Trump Wants To Beef Up The Military, But Recruiters Are Having Trouble Finding People
(HBO)
Booming military benefits
The cost of military pay raises and benefits programs, which have increased almost 90 percent
since 2001, have become the fastest-growing part of the Pentagon's budget and now account for
more than a quarter of all defense spending. Here is a look at the types of compensation
provided to active-duty troops and retirees, how those costs have grown and where they are
headed. – https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/booming-military-benefits/200/
OMG Yet another nitpicking, mean-spirited, petty, big-mouth,, intellectually bone-lazy
commenter. Do you actually carefully read and ponder what is written? Is your attention span
longer than a few minutes? Do you have any respect for an author–or for yourself? Has
it occurred to you that the author's main points are on the whole absolutely correct and even
self-evident? If you're going to take the trouble to critique, how about doing it with
intellectual and moral integrity, with some degree of thoroughness and, frankly, coherent
thought? Are you even capable of it? Wouldn't it have been better for you to exercise some
self-control and keep silent?
I'd suggest you read a little outside of what American MSM wants you to believe.
Russia is, as Fred has said, of no danger to anybody. I would add – to anybody who
leaves her alone.
As with poking a bear; if you leave it alone, it ignores you. Start hitting it, it rips you
to bits. Same analogy.
As to Ukraine, everyone now who still has 2 brain cells synapsing is aware that Ukraine was a
US organised, backed and paid for coup d'etat. IN fact, Putin gets a huge amount of crap from
many Alt-Med sites and commentators for NOT going in with tanks and levelling Kiev to the
ground, which she could have done in 1.5 days flat. Including tea breaks.
Russia has nothing to do with Moldova.
Georgia, with some encouragement from a few CIA types had an insane President, who launched
an unprovoked attack on South Ossetia, and fired on and killed Russian peacekeepers at 2 a.m.
one morning. Many in Georgia were being air-bombed. A young girl there visiting from America
with her aunt was rescued – by Russian soldiers. She tried to thank them on US tv, and
was cut off by the anchor!! Once the situation in Georgia had been resolved with the Georgian
troops returned to base, Russia left. Something America has never, ever, done. Where ever it
goes, it stays, like brown sticky stuff on your shoe.
So get your facts straight. Remember, Putin made a small comment that the Empire appears to
have overlooked. You should never, he said, corner anyone. Read up about what a cornered rat
did to him, and what he learned from it.
The Empire is pushing and pushing and pushing. Putin has warned and warned and warned.
Russia is no danger to anyone who leaves her alone – something the Ruling Regime of the
Fascist Empire of America seems unable to grasp.
Even assuming Vladimir Putin has such designs (I'm skeptical that he wants more ethnic
minority headaches than he has already), why is any of this the business of the United
States?
Fine job stating the obvious Fred. I mean that as a compliment. It is the obvious that is
most likely to be overlooked by my countrymen.
It's the foggy bottom. The District of Corruption. The seat of the Anglo/Zio Empire that
is the most dangerous enemy of the people of earth. The good news – the empire is in
steep decline. The bad news – it will reach peak madness just before it dies.
The US military just got an unneeded 10% budget boost because of spin that its budget was
cut, while it has increased each year. The only cuts were to the big increases demanded. The
Pentagon also lies and says that every military readiness issue is not caused by
incompetence, but a lack of money.
Watch the idiotic responses by Fox News propagandists when former Republican Congressmen
David Stockman recently informed them that the Pentagon budget should be slashed, not
increased.
Totally agree. The US is seen in most of the world as the bully of the nations, not the
policeman, even in the EU (don't be fooled by our leaders, we don't control them).
OMG, that "news" video. Not only do these "journalists" babble like first-graders –
they have even unlearned to present facial expressions appropriate for sentient human beings.
Turn off the sound and it's like watching "Finding Nemo".
No Isreal could'nt take over the Mid-East if we weren't around, they would either get
along with their neighbors or cease to exist,the world gained nothing in Korea except the
thousands and millions slaughtered,the world gained nothing with our false flag to get us
into Nam except for the thousands and millions slaughtered and then it was on to
Afghanistan,Yemen Syria,yes your right the world would be a safer place without out endless
wars, and if we can't fine one we create one, the Mid-East is more than proof of that, and
you know I don't know of any country or countries who are crying for us to be the policeman,
when we lack the capability to even control the whores in congress>>>
How did the Complex free itself from civilian control? The crucial step in depriving
the public of influence was the neutering of the constitutional requirement that wars be
declared by Congress . The military thus became the private army of the President and
those who control him.
If I'd come upon this paragraph first, I'd have thought I was reading an article by
Ron Paul . However,
most Americans don't want to hear the old boring stuff about "muh Constitution", right, so
they will never understand this.
Good column, Mr. Reed. About the only thing I see missing is the American elites' use of
the US military as a grand social experiment, which will make these forces not so effective
in a real war with a serious enemy. Being the big bully of the world will work out fine until
the first knock-out punch, or the money runs out. The latter will probably happen first
– (see peak neocon here and here .)
LOTS of ad hominem directed at Fred in these comments, without even the slightest refutation
whatsoever at the content of his article. There is clearly a strong emotional need to believe
that the US military is "a global force for good" among many commenters, since there shouting
down of Fred is emotional and without evidence of where he has made an error in his thinking.
And to the first commenter who thinks people of earth who would be begging to have the US
military back in their homelands should it ever leave: you have obviously never met a person
who is not from America. There is really nothing else I can say to such an insane, immature,
deliberately stupid remark. God help you. No country on earth wants the US military in it. If
any sizeable portion of the brainwashed, two-digit IQ, blaspheming american "christian"
population ever wakes up to the scam, it could be over in an election cycle, but it's
probably impossible. The crushing weight of universal propoganda and perfectly orchestrated
identity politics is just too much.
On a personal level, I have met many men who work for the war profiteers, some at fairly
influential levels. They are pure, straight evil; filled with more explosive anger and hate
than anyone you've ever met. They are as bad as bad gets. Trust me. To this day, I have never
met people like them.
That aeon article was stupid. The first half summarized the (prescient, in my view as a
one-and-done army officer) worry that adding all these social welfare bennies would turn the
army into a bunch of single mothers, which it did, and undermine readiness. The second half,
which I guess was the overall point of the article, was whining about how "boo hoo the
military is getting its bennies privatized, how are we going to care for all these single
mothers?"
Another hit-and-run one post wonder. Fred Reed's columns seem to be literally filled with
you deranged sockpuppets. One post and then poof -- you're gone, never to be seen
again. Quite interesting.
If Merkel refers to a total cessation of Iran's nuclear program, then she's technically
correct. Except, the deal wasn't made to attain that outcome as Iran was not going to
relinquish its rights under the NPT. And just what are "the problems with Iran" Merkel
alludes to? Iran's helping to defeat NATO's terrorists within Iraq and Syria? Insisting the
Outlaw US Empire obey International Law and abandon its illegal incursion into Syria? Trying
to awaken the real International Community to the massive crime being committed daily in
Yemen and the longstanding ongoing crime against Palestinian peoples by Zionists? Seems to me
those are Merkel's problems, not a problem with Iran.
Merkel is a symbol for Germany in this regard, a puppet to american interest, add to that
the sucking up o israel and the result
is a vassal neocon-zionist warbent regime.
Will Germany be part of another conflict of war, this time with Iran? Crazy state (no offense
to germans, this is the illogical behaviour by all of eu which of course not will follow
Germany and thus US in its new warmongering).
Watergate was the ultimate leftist deep state fake news story. Wash Post reporter
Bernstein out to avenge his communist parents' persecution by the Sen Nixon in the 50s.
CIA operatives Bradlee and his mentee Bob Woodward staged a coup.
Watch how unethical "the boys" are in their pursuit of the truth in the '76 movie version
of Watergate, "All the President's Men."
You are partially correct. There is more to the story. Mark Felt was "deep throat" and was
expecting to be appointed FBI director. When Nixon chose L. Patrick Gray as FBI director
instead of Mark Felt, all bets were off and he went after Nixon. The rest is history
...President Barack Obama, who had run a quasi-antiwar liberal campaign for the White House, had embraced the assassination program
and had decreed, "the CIA gets what it wants." Intelligence budgets were maintaining the steep upward curve that had started in 2001,
and while all agencies were benefiting, none had done as well as the CIA At just under $15 billion, the agency's budget had climbed
by 56 percent just since 2004.
Decades earlier, Richard Helms, the CIA director for whom the event was named, would customarily
refer to the defense contractors who pressured him to spend his budget on their wares as "those bastards." Such disdain for commerce
in the world of spooks was now long gone, as demonstrated by the corporate sponsorship of the tables jammed into the Grand Ballroom
that evening. The executives, many of whom had passed through the revolving door from government service, were there to rub shoulders
with old friends and current partners. "It was totally garish," one attendee told me afterward. "It seemed like every arms manufacturer
in the country had taken a table. Everyone was doing business, right and left."
In the decade since 9/11, the CIA had been regularly blighted by scandal-revelations of torture, renditions, secret "black site"
prisons, bogus intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq, ignored signs of the impending 9/11 attacks-but such unwholesome realities
found no echo in this comradely gathering. Even George Tenet, the CIA director who had presided over all of the aforementioned scandals,
was greeted with heartfelt affection by erstwhile colleagues as he, along with almost every other living former CIA director, stood
to be introduced by Master of Ceremonies John McLaughlin, a former deputy director himself deeply complicit in the Iraq fiasco. Each,
with the exception of Stansfield Turner (still bitterly resented for downsizing the agency post-Vietnam), received ringing applause,
but none more than the night's honoree, former CIA director and then-current secretary of defense Robert M. Gates.
Although Gates had left the CIA eighteen years before, he was very much the father figure of the institution and a mentor to the
intelligence chieftains, active and retired, who cheered him so fervently that night at the Ritz-Carlton. He had climbed through
the ranks of the national security bureaucracy with a ruthless determination all too evident to those around him. Ray McGovern, his
supervisor in his first agency post, as an analyst with the intelligence directorate's soviet foreign policy branch, recalls writing
in an efficiency report that the young man's "evident and all-consuming ambition is a disruptive influence in the branch." There
had come a brief check on his rise to power when his involvement in the Iran-Contra imbroglio cratered an initial attempt to win
confirmation as CIA director, but success came a few years later, in 1991, despite vehement protests from former colleagues over
his persistent willingness to sacrifice analytic objectivity to the political convenience of his masters.
Gates's successful 1991 confirmation as CIA chief owed much, so colleagues assessed, to diligent work behind the scenes on the
part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff director, George Tenet. In 1993, Tenet moved on to be director for intelligence
programs on the Clinton White House national security staff, in which capacity he came to know and esteem John Brennan, a midlevel
and hitherto undistinguished CIA analyst assigned to brief White House staffers. Tenet liked Brennan so much that when he himself
moved to the CIA as deputy director in 1995, he had the briefer appointed station chief in Riyadh, an important position normally
reserved for someone with actual operational experience. In this sensitive post Brennan worked tirelessly to avoid irritating his
Saudi hosts, showing reluctance, for example, to press them for Osama bin Laden's biographical details when asked to do so by the
bin Laden unit back at headquarters.
Brennan returned to Washington in 1999 under Tenet's patronage, initially as his chief of staff and then as CIA executive director,
and by 2003 he had transitioned to the burgeoning field of intelligence fusion bureaucracy. The notion that the way to avert miscommunication
between intelligence bureaucracies was to create yet more layers of bureaucracy was popular in Washington in the aftermath of 9/11.
One concrete expression of this trend was the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, known as T-TIC and then renamed the National Counter
Terrorism Center a year later. Brennan was the first head of T-TIC, distinguishing himself in catering to the abiding paranoia of
the times. On one occasion, notorious within the community, he circulated an urgent report that al-Qaeda was encrypting targeting
information for terrorist attacks in the broadcasts of the al-Jazeera TV network, thereby generating an "orange" alert and the cancellation
of dozens of international flights. The initiative was greeted with malicious amusement over at the CIA's own Counterterrorism Center,
whose chief at the time, José Rodríguez, later opined that Brennan had been trying to build up his profile with higher authority.
"Brennan was a major factor in keeping [the al-Jazeera/al-Qaeda story] alive. We thought it was ridiculous," he told a reporter.
"My own view is he saw this, he took this, as a way to have relevance, to take something to the White House." Tellingly, an Obama
White House spokesman later excused Brennan's behavior on the grounds that though he had circulated the report, he hadn't believed
it himself.
Exiting government service in 2005, Brennan spent the next three years heading The Analysis Corporation, an obscure but profitable
intelligence contractor engaged in preparing terrorist watch lists for the government, work for which he was paid $763,000 in 2008.
Among the useful relationships he had cultivated over the years was well-connected Democrat Anthony Lake, a former national security
adviser to Bill Clinton, who recommended him to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Meeting for the first time shortly after Obama's
election victory, the pair bonded immediately, with Obama "finishing Brennan's sentences," by one account. Among their points of
wholehearted agreement was the merit of a surgical approach to terrorist threats, the "need to target the metastasizing disease without
destroying the surrounding tissue," as Brennan put it, for which drones and their Hellfire missiles seemed the ideal tools. Obama
was initially balked in his desire to make Brennan CIA director because of the latter's all-too-close association with the agency's
torture program, so instead the new president made him his assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security, with an office down
the hall from the Oval Office. Two years into the administration, everyone in the Ritz-Carlton ballroom knew that the bulky Irishman
was the most powerful man in U.S. intelligence as the custodian of the president's kill list, on which the chief executive and former
constitutional law professor insisted on reserving the last word, making his final selections for execution at regularly scheduled
Tuesday afternoon meetings. "You know, our president has his brutal side," a CIA source cognizant of Obama's involvement observed
to me at the time.
Now, along with the other six hundred diners at the Helms dinner, Brennan listened attentively as Gates rose to accept the coveted
award for "exemplary service to the nation and the Central Intelligence Agency." After paying due tribute to previous honorees as
well as his pride in being part of the CIA "family," Gates spoke movingly of a recent and particularly tragic instance of CIA sacrifice,
the seven men and women killed by a suicide bomber at an agency base, Forward Operating Base Chapman, in Khost, Afghanistan, in 2009.
All present bowed their heads in silent tribute.
Gates then moved on to a more upbeat topic. When first he arrived at the Pentagon in 2007, he said, he had found deep-rooted resistance
to "new technology" among "flyboys with silk scarves" still wedded to venerable traditions of fighter-plane combat. But all that,
he informed his rapt audience, had changed. Factories were working "day and night, day and night," to turn out the vital weapons
for the fight against terrorism. "So from now on," he concluded, his voice rising, "the watchword is: drones, baby, drones!"
"A very senior civilian colleague in DIA once asked me why sophisticated weapons so often
malfunction or are otherwise defeated. I told her that it was simply a fact of life that in
actual warfare "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." She resolutely stated that this should
not be. "The manufacturers guarantee that they will work as advertised," she insisted. "
Another reason we can't win wars and we get into wars we shouldn't. Senior officials that
naive and uninformed about warfare.
Lockheed Martin got $35.2 billion from taxpayers last year. That's more than many
federal agencies.
Of Lockheed Martin's $51 billion in sales last year, nearly 70 percent, or $35.2
billion, came from sales to the U.S. government. It's a colossal figure, hard to
comprehend.
Boeing is in second place with annual sales of $26.5 billion in 2016, a year in which
the top five defense contractors -- including General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop
Grumman -- had total sales of nearly $110 billion to the U.S. government, according to
federal procurement data. The five biggest defense contractors took in more money from the
U.S. government than the next 30 companies combined.
But no one can touch Lockheed, the manufacturer of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The
company is so big that some have likened it to a government agency and have quipped that
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed's chief executive, is as powerful as a Cabinet secretary -- or
higher. When she gives her annual state of the company speeches, flanked by a pair of flags
-- one American, one with the company logo -- she looks, well, presidential.
In 2013, Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis, now the secretary of defense, told Congress, "If
you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition."
Analysts say that to make the Lockheed-Martin Marietta merger successful, the new
company will have to slash thousands of jobs.
" This merger can't create more revenue. It can only pay off through reduced
costs , and that means people" will be laid off, said Robert D. Paulson, who heads the
aerospace industry practice for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. in Los Angeles.
--
Norman Augustine was the focus of the article and head of the merged companies who was
expected to wield the "scalpel" in order make the merger financially viable.
Over the years I'd done some research on Augustine, so when I saw a video of Augustine
schmoozing with George W. Bush at the Cosmos Club celebrating Bush's inauguration early in
2001, I thought, Uh oh, the game's afoot.
Cutting staff simply was not producing the revenue stream Lockheed Martin needed to
support lavish lifestyles that even LM weapons sellers enjoyed, particularly when their major
clients were based in TelAviv, requiring visits of 5 to 8 months' duration.
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"Brennan/CIA democrats" can't talk about about anything else because they sold themselves under Bill Clinton to Financial oligarchy.
And stay sold since then.
Notable quotes:
"... do they honestly think that people that were just laid off another shift at the car plant in my home county give a shit about Russia when they don't have a frickin' job? ..."
Democrats in midwestern battleground states want the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to back off the Trump-Russia rhetoric,
as state-level leaders worry it's turning off voters.
"The DNC is doing a good job of winning New York and California," said Mahoning, OH Democratic county party chair David Betras.
"I'm not saying it's not important -- of course it's important -- but do they honestly think that people that were just
laid off another shift at the car plant in my home county give a shit about Russia when they don't have a frickin' job? "
Betras says that Trump and Russia is the "only piece they've been doing since 2016. [ Trump ] keeps talking about jobs and the
economy, and we talk about Russia. "
The Democratic infighting comes on the heels of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the DNC against the Trump campaign, Wikileaks
and several other parties including the Russian government, alleging an illegal conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 election in a "brazen
attack on American Democracy."
Many midwestern Democrats, however, are rolling their eyes.
"I'm going to be honest; I don't understand why they're doing it," one Midwestern campaign strategist told BuzzFeed. "My sense
was it was a move meant to gin up the donor base, not our voters. But it was the biggest news they've made in a while."
The strategist added "I wouldn't want to see something like this coming out of the DNC in October."
Another Midwest strategist said that the suit was "politically unhelpful" and that they havent seen "a single piece of data that
says voters want Democrats to relitigate 2016. ... The only ones who want to do this are Democratic activists who are already voting
Democratic."
Perhaps Midwestern Democrats aren't idiots, and realize that a two-year counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump which
appears to have been a coordinated "insurance policy" against a Trump win, might not be so great for optics, considering that criminal
referrals have been submitted to the DOJ for individuals involved in the alleged scheme to rig the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its
founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal
effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic rights.
It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the
press and freedom of speech as fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that
WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not espionage; that its work consists of publishing
material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments, giant
corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure
has made both the website and its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all
over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for
the past six years, since he fled there to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and
American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret grand
jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death
penalty. Since the end of March, the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure
from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published
secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of
McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast"
when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its
military intelligence agency GRU to the Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint
declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the
campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power
to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency."
Such language has had no place in official American public life since the right-wing
political gangster McCarthy left the scene in the late 1950s. Ultra-right groups like the
John Birch Society kept alive such smear tactics in ensuing decades, but they were relegated
to the fringes of the political system. Now the Democratic Party has sought to revive these
methods as the central focus of its bid for power in the 2018 elections.
In the targeting of WikiLeaks, the antidemocratic content of this campaign finds its
foulest expression. The DNC suit asserts, without the slightest evidence, that "WikiLeaks and
Assange directed, induced, urged, and/or encouraged Russia and the GRU to engage in this
conduct and/or to provide WikiLeaks and Assange with DNC's trade secrets, with the
expectation that WikiLeaks and Assange would disseminate those secrets and increase the Trump
Campaign's chance of winning the election."
According to Assange and WikiLeaks, however, the material from the DNC and from Clinton
campaign Chairman John Podesta that it made public in 2016 was provided by an anonymous
whistleblower whose identity WikiLeaks does not know because it observed its normal security
practices to preserve secrecy and protect its sources. Not a shred of evidence has been
presented to prove otherwise.
The DNC legal complaint cites the negative consequences of the WikiLeaks revelations in
passages worth quoting:
135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and
selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the
electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reached a peak
immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general
election.
136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the
effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen
materials also impaired the DNC's ability to support Democratic candidates in the general
election.
But the DNC lawsuit does not explain why the WikiLeaks material was so damaging.
On the contrary, it says nothing about the actual content of what was leaked, other than
claiming that it included "trade secrets" and other proprietary information of the Democratic
Party leadership.
The material published by WikiLeaks about the Democrats fell into two main categories.
First were internal emails and documents of the DNC showing that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and her top aides were engaged in a systematic effort to block Clinton's challenger
Bernie Sanders and make sure Clinton received the Democratic nomination. In other words,
while complaining that Russia was engaged in rigging the 2016 campaign, the DNC was seeking
to rig the outcome of the Democratic primary contest.
The second batch of documents came from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and
included the transcripts of speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton to financial industry
groups for fees as high as $300,000 per appearance. In these remarks, she reassured the
bankers that they need not be alarmed by any campaign rhetoric about punishing them for the
financial skullduggery that triggered the 2008 Wall Street crash and destroyed the jobs and
living standards of millions of working people. She made clear that a Clinton government
would continue the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration.
The DNC suit is a deepening of the effort by the Democratic Party to become the premier
party of the CIA and the military-intelligence apparatus as a whole. In targeting WikiLeaks
and Assange, the Democrats are embracing the smear by CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- now Trump's
choice for secretary of state -- that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence
service," allegedly allied with Moscow.
If, moreover, Assange is a traitor because he exposes the lies and crimes of the US
government, then by implication all those publications, websites and individuals who defend
him and challenge the government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media are
themselves complicit in treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
As the World Socialist Web Site has previously explained, the anti-Russia
campaign mounted by the Democrats is a reactionary concoction, backed by no factual evidence,
aimed at pushing the Trump administration to sharply escalate the war in Syria and adopt a
more aggressive policy against Russia. At the same time, it has been used as the
justification for a massive and coordinated campaign to censor the Internet. The manipulation
of search and news feed algorithms by Google and Facebook will be followed by more direct
efforts at the suppression of left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications.
The campaign has also served to position the Democrats as the party that stands up for the
"intelligence community" in its conflict with the Trump White House. This is now being
supplemented, in advance of the November midterm elections, by an influx of candidates for
Democratic congressional nominations in competitive districts drawn heavily from the ranks of
the CIA, the military, the National Security Council and the State Department (see: "
The CIA
Democrats ").
The conduct of the DNC demonstrates the reactionary and bankrupt character of the claims
by liberal and pseudo-left groups -- all of whom have maintained a complete silence on the
isolation and persecution of Assange -- that the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress
is the way to fight back against Trump and the Republicans. The truth is that the working
class confronts in these parties two implacable political enemies committed to war, austerity
and repression.
I suspect Goad is verboten on UR, but allow me to excerpt from "I Didn't Vote for
This" of recent Goad production.
I voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall. Fifteen months into his
presidency, the wall has not been built.
He promised to repeal Obamacare. It has not been repealed.
He promised to focus on domestic rather than foreign issues and pledged a huge program
to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure. No such program has materialized.
He promised to remove the nation's millions of illegal aliens. They are still here.
He promised to defund sanctuary cities. They have not been defunded.
He promised a complete ban on new Muslim immigration.
He promised to eliminate the massive federal debt in eight years. Rather than even
beginning to leave a dent in the debt, it is now over $1.1 trillion higher than it was the
day he took office.
One of the keystones of his campaign was that China was a currency manipulator and
therefore needed to be dealt with harshly. Only three months into his presidency, he
reneged and declared that China was not a currency manipulator.
On the campaign trail, he relentlessly hammered the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Only
three days into his presidency, he withdrew the US from the TPP. And now he's openly
considering rejoining it.
Cogent points, in Reed's context. The only consolation is recognition that a Clinton
presidency would have been much worse. Maybe so, huh?
Yes, but the order of magnitude ebbs. Not that I would make the trade, but dammit, what
happened to America? We've been fucked, and fucked ROYAL, yet all that climbs out of the
political woodwork is flying monkeys.
Aye, clobbering time it may well come to. But pray do not leave out the media whores when
loving ministrations are being meted out. The whole bunch of these lying, whoring, war
drumbeating progeny of Satan need special ministrations, perhaps even more care than the
flying monkeys. Stringing these bastards upside down from meat hooks in public squares may be
too ordinary a ministration, so better and brighter ideas need to be supplied by minds keener
than mine.
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
Nudge was the title of a book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein on how to manipulate
people in their supposed best interest, like in cafeteria lines, to put whole fruit before
desserts made with sugar.
If you liked Nudge , you'll love " cognitive infiltration ":
Conspiracy Theories
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled
epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best
response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas,
such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to
ignore them, are explored in this light.
Keywords: conspiracy theories, social networks, informational cascades, group
polarization https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Is not this what discerning MIC's all do these days, via FBI FB?
And of course we mopes have been "nudged" into pretty much that blind serfdom alluded to.
Back in the Cave, with not much chance of dispelling the belief in and subjection to the
shadows projected on the wall we are forced to face
I rather detest the notion of someone or entity 'nudging' me in the direction of some
behavior, especially in a paternalistic mode where the assumption is that they know better
than I what I 'should' be doing or thinking.
On one level, isn't that a working definition of advertising? On another, it smacks of
authoritarianism. Don't we have enough of this kind of thing already? Worse, what's the first
reaction one naturally has when they realize they're being manipulated? Seems to be a
strategy fraught with risk of getting exactly the wrong response.
If I'm to be encouraged to behave in a given way, show me the respect of offering a
conscious, intelligent argument to do so on the merits, or kindly go (family blog)
yourself!
In economics, the single most important thing to understand is debt.
If you understand debt; you won't have any debt.
Debt and freedom are the antithisis of each other.
Without debt; nudges have no influence.
"... The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of what Hillary's campaign was about. ..."
"... The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump. ..."
"... The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty. ..."
Recent move by Democrat Party to sue Trump, Russia and Wikileaks symptomatic as President
Trump's campaign shows up clean
The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact
that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own
primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw
their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also
opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of
what Hillary's campaign was about.
The only thing they shared in common was a (D) by their name as candidate.
In Michael
Goodwin's piece in the New York Post ,, the reason for the Democrat despair is given:
Mueller is simply not finding anything wrong with President Trump's election campaign, no signs
of collusion with Russian agencies or anything else. Mueller's bizarre and unbridled
investigation is reeling along from person to person, looking for something but coming up empty
save for minor process crimes which are themselves largely driven into existence by Mueller's
questioning, a.k.a. interrogation techniques.
The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real
meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert
Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump.
The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia
alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty.
Truth be told, party leaders are right to be disheartened by setbacks in the War against
Trump. For the second time, the president was told he is not a target of Mueller, this time
by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy assistant attorney general who created Mueller.
While Trump could still become a target, the odds of that happening decline by the
day.
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
Devin Nunes said today that after reviewing the electronic communication that launched the
counter intelligence investigation of Trump there was no evidence that warranted this
investigation. It is also interesting that Comey memorialized his discussions with Trump but
did not do that with others. His memos note that he only informed Trump on the salacious part
of the FusionGPS dossier and not the other parts. It looks like the conspiracy around the
smearing of Trump by the Obama administration is slowly coming out.
"An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the
American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did
collude with foreign powers to tip the election -- Hillary's."
In no way MSM will drop "Russiagate" theme. They are way too invested in it. Douma attack changes nothing at all, contary to
the author claims.
Notable quotes:
"... the Russian Conspiracy Theory -- rammed down the throats of everyone around the globe since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States -- has finally been laid to rest. ..."
"... Russia may or may not act, but it is rather unlikely that they will -- at least in the short term -- as the full combined might of the West is still an overwhelming force that no one nation can contend with. Russia knows this, and they are not stupid. But this is not to say that things cannot, nor will not, change in the future. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the chatter of Russian collusion, via the corrupt and dying MSM has petered out, as even those suffering from an extreme case of brainwashing find it hard to comprehend how a puppet can so easily slap its master across the face and get away with it. ..."
"... If President Trump was truly a puppet of Vladimir Putin -- or at least once was -- then parties in the know would have promptly released the evidence, destroying Trump in the process. The reason why it hasn't happened is simply because the evidence doesn't exist. ..."
"... Hilariously, it is the MSM who cry wolf about fake news and conspiracy theories, while at the same time, pushing their own half-truths, fake news and conspiracy theories. ..."
"... It is sad to see how far the "guardians of the truth" have fallen and how decadent the MSM has become. They are so greedy and corrupt that they have pushed us towards a path that places the West on the precipice of war with a global, nuclear power. ..."
"... The Demorats need impeachment to fire up their base and get their cash. They filed a lawsuit to generate propaganda points for the MSM to wallow in. ..."
"... The Main Stain Media are still pushing the Russia Narrative every chance they get, as a side show now, a little jab here a little jab there not really attached to anything. ..."
But the Russian Conspiracy Theory -- rammed down the throats of everyone around the globe
since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States -- has finally been laid
to rest.
With a resounding boom as the missiles landed in Syria, the hopes and dreams of the MSM
proving that President Trump is simply a Russian puppet were shattered in one swift tactical
strike.These strikes came at a great risk, as they hit key Syrian assets -- assets that President
Putin and his Russian forces vowed to protect. Acting together
with its joint allies , Britain and France, the United States struck out against Syria for
what the Western Intelligence community claims were chemical attacks against the Syrian
civilian population, orchestrated by its own government.
Whether or not these claims are true is debatable (and highly suspect) but regardless, the
chips have fallen, and we are now in a precarious position as the West once again plunges
itself, ham-fisted, back into the cold war era.
Russian leaders have vowed that there will be consequences for these acts against an ally
they have sworn to protect. Yet to this date, no retaliation has seemed to occur.
Russia may or may not act, but it is rather unlikely that they will -- at least in the short
term -- as the full combined might of the West is still an overwhelming force that no one
nation can contend with. Russia knows this, and they are not stupid. But this is not to say
that things cannot, nor will not, change in the future.
Still, this has come at a cost. Russia has once again been forced into further isolation, as
its Western peers condemn their actions and threaten them with even more trade sanctions.
Pushed to the point of desperation, who knows what actions they will take in the coming
years?
Meanwhile, the chatter of Russian collusion, via the corrupt and dying MSM has petered out,
as even those suffering from an extreme case of brainwashing find it hard to comprehend how a
puppet can so easily slap its master across the face and get away with it.
If President Trump was truly a puppet of Vladimir Putin -- or at least once was -- then
parties in the know would have promptly released the evidence, destroying Trump in the process.
The reason why it hasn't happened is simply because the evidence doesn't exist.
Hilariously, it is the MSM who cry wolf about fake news and conspiracy theories, while at
the same time, pushing their own half-truths, fake news and conspiracy theories.
It is sad to see how far the "guardians of the truth" have fallen and how decadent the MSM
has become. They are so greedy and corrupt that they have pushed us towards a path that places
the West on the precipice of war with a global, nuclear power.
The final nail in the Russian collusion coffin has been put in place, but at what cost?
A dumb article: The Russians have not vowed anything. As Lavrov has stated publicly, "there will be consequences" is a
factual observation, not a vow to revenge anything. Revenge does not help. It is not the way Putin thinks -- Putin thinks in
terms of interests and the trade off between risks/costs and benefits.
"With 4 indictments, 2 guilty pleas, not sure how anyone thinks it's over. AS for the Syria attack. . . "
Four indictments that have NOTHING to do with Trump colluding with Russia and are SOLEY upon the people indicted. Two
guilty pleas for "lying" which your side is advocating that lying is no longer an issue we should care about.
AS FOR SYRIA: Interesting you put the Syria strike on Putin when it was obviously led by Britain and France or are we now
to believe they along with Trump are Putin puppets too? However, you do seem to be FINALLY admitting your "NGO"'s are nothing
but state sponsored shams intent on manipulating the world wide masses to believe their propaganda. After all it was YOUR
people who claimed there was a supposed chemical attack and demanded retaliation.
Keep spinning in circles, as the dog who chases his tail is in a world all of his own making.
Reaper • Sat, 04/21/2018 - 09:58 Permalink
BS. The neo-cons know the strike was deliberately ineffective. The Demorats need impeachment to fire up their base and
get their cash. They filed a lawsuit to generate propaganda points for the MSM to wallow in.
JailBanksters • Sat, 04/21/2018 - 09:59 Permalink
The Main Stain Media are still pushing the Russia Narrative every chance they get, as a side show now, a little jab
here a little jab there not really attached to anything.
We haven't seen anything like this since the Russians were accused of hacking the Federal Election, over to you Bob.
Well that's right Jim, and now for something completely different.
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
Angela Merkel is not stupid - things are way worth than that.
She's got a PhD in physical chemistry, and what's rather mind-boggling in that context is the
fact that her husband Joachim Sauer is a professor of chemistry and one of the worlds
foremost experts in surface chemistry.
In the 2000s this guy was in the top 30 list of the worlds most extinguished chemists - let
that sink in for a second.
The couple Merkel/Sauer knows exactly how to evaluate that so-called evidence, yet... - as I
said the situation is way worse as generally anticipated.
A classified U.S. State Department cable signed by Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton reported that Saudi donors
were a major support for Sunni militant
forces globally, and some American officials worried that rebels being supported had ties to
Al Qaeda.[14]
Notable quotes:
"... Read more at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore ..."
Timber Sycamore 20/04/2018 Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and
training program run by the United StatesCentral Intelligence Agency
(CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services, most notably that of Saudi Arabia . Launched in
2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian
President Bashar
al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War . According to U.S.
officials, the program has trained thousands of rebels. President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to
begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013. [3] However,
the CIA had been facilitating the flow of arms from Libya to Syria "for more than a year" beforehand in
collaboration with "the UK ( United Kingdom ), Saudi Arabia and
Qatar ."
The program's existence was suspected after the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website
publicly solicited contract bids to ship tons of weaponry from Eastern Europe to Taşucu , Turkey and
Aqaba , Jordan. One
unintended consequence of the program has been to flood the Middle East's black market with
weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The U.S. delivered
weapons via Ramstein – supposedly in breach
of German laws.
In July 2017, U.S. officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out, with funds
possibly redirected to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL), or to offering rebel forces defensive capabilities.
... ... ...
According to American officials, the program has been highly effective, training and equipping thousands of U.S.-backed
fighters to make substantial battlefield gains.[2][19]
American officials state that the program began to lose effectiveness after
Russia intervened militarily in the
Syrian Civil War.[19]David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post, remarked
that while the CIA program ultimately failed in its objective of removing Assad from power, it was hardly "bootless": "The
program pumped many hundreds of millions of dollars to many dozens of militia groups. One knowledgeable official estimates that
the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years."[8]
... ... ...
U.S.-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's
al-Nusra Front, and some of the U.S.
supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when
the program was first proposed.[10]
... ... ...
The program remains classified,[14][10]
and many details about the program remain unknown, including the total amount of support, the range of weapons transferred, the
depth of training provided, the types of U.S. trainers involved, and the exact rebel groups being supported.[18]
However, The Canberra Times
reported that two thousand tons of Soviet era weapons were delivered to Aqaba as recently as April 2016.
Trump's Establishment Sin: Being an Open and Unabashed Devil
It's the open crassness of Trump as much as his policy substance that bothers establishment
operatives. Look at Trump's recent yucky White House sit-down with Mohammed bin Salman (MBS),
the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. You can view it on YouTube here . It's incredible. With MBS grinning
sheepishly next to him, the Insane Clown President held up posters showing all the big-dollar
weapons and war systems the Saudis are purchasing from the U.S. Trump brazenly boasted about
Washington's $12.5 billion arms deal with the most reactionary government on the planet.
"That's peanuts for you," Trump chided the crown prince while dangling the posters under his
nose. "Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, and they're going to give the United States some
of that wealth, hopefully, in the form of jobs, in the form of the purchase of the finest
military equipment anywhere in the world," Trump told reporters. MBS looked embarrassed as
Trump listed the prices of the weapons the U.S. was selling to the Saudis: "$880 million $645
million $6 billion that's for frigates."
The president sounded like a car dealer boasting about the bargains at Trump Ford-Mazda. It
was ugly and humiliating for everyone involved and has been condemned in the dominant corporate
media for its decadent unpleasantness.
"Trump administration plans to make the U.S. an even larger weapons exporter by loosening
restrictions on the sale of equipment ranging from fighter jets and drones to warships and
artillery. Reuters reveals that the new initiative will provide guidelines that
could allow more countries to be granted faster deal approvals, and will call on Cabinet
officials to help close deals between foreign governments and U.S. defense contractors The
role U.S. Cabinet officials may be asked to play in pushing arms exports abroad as part of
the new initiative, which will call for a 'whole of government' approach -- from the
president and his Cabinet to military attachés and diplomats -- to help draw in
billions of dollars more in arms business overseas."
So, do you think the Obama administrations sold arms to Saudi Arabia and other reactionary
governments around the world? Do you think it enlisted Cabinet officials and U.S. diplomats in
the project of advancing U.S. arms sales across a blood-drenched planet? If you answered "Hell
yes it did" to both questions, then you are correct. Here is a
forgotten story from the final days of the Obama administration, penned by
Motherboard 's Farid Farid, who was understandably underwhelmed by Obama's suspension
of the sale of one type of munition to the Saudis in early 2017:
Obama's Administration Sold More Weapons Than Any Other Since World War II
Many were sold to the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.
President Barack Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, will leave office in a few
weeks with the dubious honor of having sold more weapons than any other American president
since World War II. Most of the arms deals totaling over $200 billion in the period from 2008
to 2015 have ended up in the Middle East, according to a Congressional Research Service
report published in December Focusing on arms deals to developing nations, the extensive
report found that Saudi Arabia was the top arms importer with deals worth around $94 billion
from 2008-2015. Under Obama the overall sales, pending delivery of equipment and specialized
training for troops, to Saudi Arabia alone has ballooned to $115 billion.
Saudi Arabia is spearheading a coalition of Arab nations in a bombing campaign closing in
on two years against the insurgent Houthi militias in Yemen, who took over the capital Sanaa
in September 2014. The United States has sent special operations forces to assist the Arab
coalition in a grinding war that has seen over 10,000 killed, 2.2 million displaced and
nearly half a million children on the brink of famine from the ensuing crisis.
Earlier this month, the United States decided to halt future sales of precision-guided
munitions, which are supposed to hit specific targets and minimize collateral damage, to the
Gulf kingdom citing civilian deaths in Yemen. But experts are skeptical this will deter Saudi
Arabia from continuing to fuel its regional proxy wars.
"Frankly it was a really minor and temporary punishment. I don't view it as a major
consequence and it is more symbolic than anything," said Cole Bockenfeld, deputy director of
policy at Project on Middle East Democracy.
He pointed to the US partially suspending military aid to Egypt after the military
overthrew the unpopular government in July 2013 as another example of the lack of political
will of the Obama administration to rock relations with its allies. The Congressional report,
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations 2008-2015, noted that Egypt was the biggest
recipient of arms deliveries last year worth $5.3 billion.
"What's changed during the Obama administration is that increasing arms sales has become a
standardized component of diplomacy at all levels of government, not just in the defense
department," Bockenfeld told Motherboard. "For US diplomats to become the salesmen, that has
been a new element which really increased exports."
What's the main difference between Trump and Obama when it comes to U.S. arms sales abroad?
As the noted liberal arms trade analyst William
Hartung told DN's Amy Goodman this week , "Well, [Trump's] much more blatant about it.
He's shouting it from the rooftops . He's playing a very personal role .he held up a chart
[during his appalling meeting before reporters with MBS] that showed 40,000 jobs from Saudi
arms sales, and it showed the states, and they were all the swing states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Michigan, Florida. So, among other things, not only is this a business proposition for Trump,
but it's a blatant political move to shore up his base."
So here's an interesting question: which is worse – (a) quietly equipping the most
reactionary government on Earth and much of the rest of the world with lethal, high-tech means
of mass destruction while posing as some kind of progressive and noble peace agent or (b)
loudly equipping the most reactionary government on Earth and much of the rest of the world
with lethal, high-tech means of mass destruction while boasting about the resulting revenue and
jobs to reporters and your white-nationalist political base?
Something tells me the Yemeni victims of Riyadh's U.S.- made bombs, missiles, bullets, and
artillery don't care all that much either way.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
"Harvey" Oswald didn't shoot anyone -- his denial was perfectly plausible, and his murder
at Ruby's hands was a desperate stopgap measure to shut him up before he started naming his
handlers who had framed him. Badly.
They never planned to let "Harvey" survive to see an actual trial, because of the lack of
evidence against him, and therefore the evidence of a high-level conspiracy would then be so
obvious.
No trial, no test of the evidence against him.
"Harvey" was exactly what he claimed to be -- he was the patsy.
Judging from German press, Germany really looks like a US colony, not even vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party. ..."
"... Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. ..."
"... Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon brainwashing. ..."
The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non
participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn.
Time is working against Imperial Washington.
Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and
her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party -- she herself lacked both
the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted
over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling
allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.
Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of
the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on
Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same
time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever
mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections -- funny
how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.
Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for
breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.
Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her
party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon
brainwashing.
There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a
distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French
patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.
Merkel's party has no majority – actually her party's share of the vote is at
historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that
formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the
competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced
to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal "grand coalition". In spite of infighting, the new
"right-wing" AfD came in third in the last elections.
But of course, as you say, the people's failure to get rid of her is due in large measure
to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is
subliminally suggested that it atones for the "holocaust" etc. I don't read a single German
newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.
Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is
keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its
deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to
Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it
would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve
of Merkel.
What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.
You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I
have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause
the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops
degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that –
can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go
along for the next war so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.
The Corrupt U.S. Congress Cheers as the War Industry Steals Billions from the People's
Coffers !
Christian Sorensen | April 13, 2018
"Missile Production Capacity
In February, Newsbud reported on the war industry increasing its capacity to produce
Hellfire missiles.
Capacity to produce other missile types is expanding as well.
On 6 March 2018, BAE Systems received close to $13.7 million to help increase production
capacity of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). With its headquarters in
London, BAE Systems links the U.K. war industry to the United States, effectively
underpinning the 'special relationship' between the two countries.
On 19 March 2018, Raytheon received roughly $7.8 million to improve the production
capacity of AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles. Steps Raytheon might take to increase missile
production include adding more equipment, altering staffing levels, and upgrading its
facilities.
The war industry has been operating at full steam for the past seventeen years. Now, these
contracts tell us, the boardrooms of prominent war industry giants believe there is reason to
produce more Hellfire, APKWS, and Sidewinder missiles. Is it war with Iran? A bigger
offensive against President Assad's forces in Syria? Conflict in Korea?
The U.S. war industry is expecting more sustained, high-tempo hostilities in the near
future. You've been warned."
A massive battle is brewing between former FBI Director James Comey, and his deputy Andy
McCabe - as first noted a few weeks
ago by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross - over exactly who is lying about Comey knowing that
McCabe had been leaking self-serving information to the Wall Street Journal .
Comey stopped
by ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called his
former Deputy Andrew McCabe a liar , and admitted that he "ordered the report" which found
McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so. As a reminder, the Justice
Department's internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released a report last week
detailing his conclusions from the months-long probe of McCabe, which found that the former
acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath
.
In response, McCabe's attorney, Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced
Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
So to review , McCabe was fired when it was uncovered that he authorized an F.B.I.
spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal , just days before the 2016 election, that the
FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time
in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from
Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had
indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it
four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
Eleven GOP members of Congress led by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) have written a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, Attorney John Huber, and FBI Director Christopher Wray -
asking
them to investigate former FBI Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton and others - including FBI
lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
, for a laundry list of potential crimes surrounding
the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Recall that Sessions paired special prosecutor John Huber with DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz - falling short of a second Special Counsel, but empowering Horowitz to fully investigate
allegations of FBI FISA abuse with subpoena power and other methods he was formerly unable to
utilize.
The GOP letter's primary focus appears to be James Comey, while the charges for all include
obstruction, perjury, corruption, unauthorized removal of classified documents, contributions and
donations by foreign nationals and other allegations.
The letter also demands that Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein "be recused from any
examination of FISA abuse
," and recommends that "
neither U.S. Attorney John Huber
nor a special counsel (if appointed) should report to Rosenstein.
"
The letter refers the following individuals for the following conduct:
"Comey's decision not to seek charges against Clinton's misconduct s
uggests improper
investigative conduct
, potentially motivated by a political agenda."
The letter calls Comey out for leaking his confidential memos to the press. "
In
light of the fact that four of the seven memos were classified, it would appear that former
Director Comey leaked classified information when sharing these memos...
"
Comey "circulated a draft statement" of the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton for
mishandling classified information - a conclusion reached before the agency had interviewed key
witnesses. "At that point, 17 interviews with potential witnesses had not taken place, including
with Clinton and her chief of staff..."
The letter also seeks clarification on "material inconsistencies between the description of
the FBI's relationship with
Mr. Steele
that you [then FBI Director Comey] did
provide in your briefing and information contained in Justice Department documents made
available to the Committee only after the briefing."
Hillary Clinton - contributions and donations by foreign nationals
"A lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid
Washington firm Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier..."
"Accordingly, for disguising payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the
Federal Election Commission, we refer Hillary Clinton to DOJ for potential violation(s) of 52
USC 30121 and 52 USC 30101"
Loretta Lynch - obstruction, corruption
"We raise concerns regarding her decision
to threaten with reprisal the former FBI
informant who tried to come forward in 2016 with insight into the Uranium One deal
."
Of note, this refers to longtime CIA and FBI undercover informant
William D. Campbell
, who came forward with evidence of bribery schemes
involving Russian nuclear officials, an American trucking company,
and efforts to route
money to the Clinton Global Initiative
(CGI).
Andrew McCabe - false statements, perjury, obstruction
"During the internal Hillary Clinton investigation, Mr. McCabe "lacked candor -- including
under oath -- on multiple occasions," the letter reads. "That is a fireable offense, and Mr.
Sessions said that career, apolotical employees at the F.B.I. and Justice Department agreed that
Mr. McCabe should be fired."
"The DOJ Office of the Inspector General recently released a February 2018 misconduct
report... confirming four instances of McCabe's lack of candor, including three instances under
oath, as well as the conclusion that McCabe's decision to confirm the existence of the Clinton
Foundation Investigation through an anonymously sourced quite violated the FBI's and DOJ's media
policy and constituted misconduct."
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - obstruction, corruption,
"We raise concerns regarding their interference in the Hillary Clinton investigation
regarding her use of a personal email server."
Referring to a
Wall Street Journal
article from January 22, 2018 - "The report
provides the following alarming specifics, among others: "
Mr. Strzok texts Ms. Page to
tell her that, in fact, senior officials had decided to water down the reference to President
Obama to 'another senior government official
." By the time Mr. Comey gave his public
statement on July 5, both references - to Mr. Obama and to "another senior government official"
had disappeared."
"Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI personnel connected to the compilation of documents
on alleged links between Russia and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump known as the "Steele
dossier."
This section of the letter calls out Comey, McCabe, former acting AG Sally Yates, and former
acting Deputy AG Dana Boente regarding the Steele dossier.
"
we raise concerns regarding the presentation of false and/or unverified information
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in connection with the former Trump aide Carter
Page"
"Former and current DOJ and FBI leadership have confirmed to the Committee that
unverified information from the Steele dossier comprised an essential part of the FISA
applications related to Carter Page"
"Accordingly
we refer to DOJ all DOJ and FBI personnel responsible for signing the
Carter Page warrant application that contained unverified and/or false information"
The criminal referrals for the group allegedly responsible for FISA abuse include:
obstruction,
deprivation of rights
under color of law, corruption.
"... It turns out that news reports citing UOSSM tend *also* to cite or refer to "French intelligence," especially if the report has to do with local conditions or events within Syria. So perhaps the "partnership" between the UOSSM and the White Helmets in Syria represents, in large part, the coordination of British and French military propaganda/intelligence services ..."
"... I had already heard that French intelligence was using Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as cover in Syria, but was not aware that UOSSM in Syria is likely--at least in part--another French intelligence front. ..."
"... My own impression is that the NGO-ification of military and state intelligence of the degree and sophistication we see in Syria is a relatively recent phenomenon, predicated in part on the disseminating capacities of social media platforms. Is this right? ..."
"... My wife and I stopped donating to MSF a few months ago, based on their evident lack of neutrality in Syria. ..."
No, but you just sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole. From what I can tell, there is the already established link between
White Helmets and Mayday Rescue, which seems to be an extension of or front for the 77th.
It turns out that news reports citing UOSSM tend *also* to cite or refer to "French intelligence," especially if the report
has to do with local conditions or events within Syria. So perhaps the "partnership" between the UOSSM and the White Helmets in
Syria represents, in large part, the coordination of British and French military propaganda/intelligence services.
I had already heard that French intelligence was using Doctors Without Borders (MSF) as cover in Syria, but was not aware that
UOSSM in Syria is likely--at least in part--another French intelligence front. How common is this kind of multinational coordination
of intelligence/propaganda front groups, if that is what this is?
My own impression is that the NGO-ification of military and
state intelligence of the degree and sophistication we see in Syria is a relatively recent phenomenon, predicated in part on the
disseminating capacities of social media platforms. Is this right?
"How common is this kind of multinational coordination of intelligence/propaganda front groups, if that is what this is?"
The coordination and interoperability among these special operations units is intense and has grown rapidly over the last decade.
Even in the 80s this joint combined exchange training was the norm. Now it extends into live operations.
This 77th Brigade is an odd mashup linking civil affairs and PSYOP capabilities, but kept within the Tier 1 special operations
community. I never heard of it before, but it's a logical progression. We probably have a similar military capability, but i have
no idea what it is.
My wife and I stopped donating to MSF a few months ago, based on their evident lack of neutrality in Syria. The reply from their
Donor Relations office did nothing to dispel that impression. In it, MSF admitted that "extreme insecurity has forced us to remove
our medical teams from the front lines of the conflict. As a result, in order to do what we can to help alleviate the suffering
of Syrians, we have partnered with several hospitals and medical clinics to provide support, with medical supplies and expertise
from a distance...Though our teams may not be physically present on the front lines, we receive regular reports..."
I think we can guess who those "reports" are from.
In my opinion, the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality, that it's the
centre of the personality and in control. It's just the centre of the field of consciousness.
"The axiom of Maria. A precept in alchemy: "One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of
the third comes the one as the fourth."
Jung used the axiom of Maria as a metaphor for the whole process of individuation. One is the
original state of unconscious wholeness; two signifies the conflict between opposites; three
points to a potential resolution; the third is the transcendent function; and the one as the
fourth is a transformed state of consciousness, relatively whole and at peace."
"In my opinion, the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality, that it's
the centre of the personality and in control. It's just the centre of the field of
consciousness."
Stuart begins: Our ego is a vestigal organ, long since gone by the by, and all that
remains is a cell-wall-less gooey-plasma ready at the moment to luminesce and retire into
nothingness.
I take it as axiotmatic that our Whole Mind cannot lose it Self.
OK, Rob from Canada, now to your opinions:
One: "the ego becomes "mental" when it starts believing in duality".
Two: "(the ego is) the centre of the personality".
Three: "(the ego is) in control".
Four: "(the ego) is the centre of the field of consciousness".
Regarding Point One: Please explain how fracturing an entirely mistaken ideal can lead to
dualism and not chaos?
Two: "Who says?"
Three: "Of What?"
Four: An unconscious ideal cannot attain consciousness, except in illusions.
Hi Stuart! Here's my take on the issue of ego being mental, and from my own experience it is
correct. With very little practice one can observe his thoughts and internal dialogue. It
doesn't require meditation. It's simply a matter of paying attention to our internal
dialogue. We all talk to ourselves. That internal dialogue is the ego talking to itself. The
ego is a mental construction based on the brain's interpretation of it's experience since
birth. So what are we witnessing the ego's internal dialogue and thoughts with? That's where
our "spirituality" lies, regardless of religion or no religion. We all have immediate access
to the witness to our own ego but few use it. The "witness" is silent. It observes and knows,
but doesn't know how or why it knows. Call it "knowingness". That witnessing awareness is
silent. Zen Buddhists call it the practice of "no mind". In modern sports it's called being
in "The Zone". Though silent is is a very aware state of consciousness.
Instead of using our brain to think when we want to use it to think, we let the brain's ego
think us and think our lives for us. Our ego is our own worst enemy. The ego never sees the
"big picture" of all involved. The ego/mind is always insecure and spends it's life trying to
compensate is some way or another to overcome it's basic insecurity.
Humans for the most part, identify with their mental chatter (the ego). Any real spiritual
teaching, teaches us to identify, instead, with the observer of the ego, which is
transcending the ego.
All the problems we face on this planet are because of insecure individual egos, grouping to
form tribal egos, such as tribes of nationalism, tribes of religious beliefs, tribes of
political beliefs, tribes of sports team fans. Egos tend to be competitive and want to be
"one up" in some way. One can easily see that the party of Democrats has an ego identity as
does the party of Republicans. Egos are mental creations. Mental creations are not
necessarily true. They are beliefs about our perception, whether actually correct or not. The
witness or observer we all have and share knows the truth of the moment and the appropriate
action to take. Of all the books on Spiritual Practices I've read through the years (I'm 80),
I recommend Eckhart Tolle's "The Power Of Now". The best to you!
To Barry, thank you for your post. I have read Tolle's book too, about 8 years ago, and found
it really making good sense to me. Your explanation of our internal dialogue not being who we
really are, is very clear and well-said. These can be hard concepts to get one's head around.
You did an admirable job of it in your post.
Thanks again for posting your thoughts.
Barry, I pride myself in speaking to an octogenarian! "And from my own experience" .
"Here's my take on the issue of ego being mental, and from my own experience it is
correct. With very little practice one can observe his thoughts and internal dialogue. It
doesn't require meditation. It's simply a matter of paying attention to our internal
dialogue. We all talk to ourselves. That internal dialogue is the ego talking to itself. The
ego is a mental construction based on the brain's interpretation of it's experience since
birth."
Barry, the internal dialogue of what you speak, is to me, your conscience and your inner
self, not the ego talking to a hallucination of itself; for what can an illusion manifest but
more illusions of : it : self.
The ego is a misprojection from our higher mind; ergo, not mind, but misunderstanding,
illusion, maya, separate from reality, separate from us, not us, not anyone, just lost
awareness with no where to settle but nonexistence from which it came.
Cool. I´d take it a bit further, though. Putting the mind on emptiness, the place
without characteristics, in a deep meditative state. One sees the way things really exist,
the way consciousness creates our reality, the truth of emptiness and karma. Its called
entering the stream. The beginning of the transformation to the divine being. Its an
experience that changes you forever.
Beyond words. Meditation is essential.
On a side note I would add that 3-4 years ago when Ukraine was boiling, much of the
discussion by concerned people focused on countries outside of the US, and the damage caused by
the US. The US, in this context, was largely regarded as an evil but coherent entity.
But that coherence has now come more and more into question. Discussion shifted gradually,
as the US made more and more mistakes and lost battle after battle in so many theaters, and
revealed itself as a failing actor. And in the last year or two there's much more discussion
about the US itself, largely trying to pierce the obscurity of how that country is actually run
and by whom. This shift was already happening, and Trump of course added to the
fascination.
I was glad to see that gradual shift. To me it indicated the war itself was won, while many
battles were yet to be fought. I think it's true that Russia, China, Iran and others are
increasingly concerned with curtailing the damage that the US can still inflict. Every day they
increase in actual, effective power, and the US decreases in that power. Yesterday's battle
will be fought differently tomorrow, because the balance of that power will have shifted again
by then.
Syria has been an enormously useful magnifying glass to show us so much about the relative
power balances of many nations. And even as the US lashes out in its death throes, it is
increasingly cornered and stymied. The same is true of Israel. It's reaching the point - if not
already there - that every move made by the US will result in clear damage to itself, with no
gain, and no damage to its targets.
The other side has had sufficient time to wargame countless contingencies, and think them
through and make preparations for them. Increasingly, it gets to choose what damage to allow
and what to stop, because the costs of every action have now been calculated - and the passage
of time reduces the costs too, so the equation constantly updates.
This is true outside of Syria also, in all theaters and on many planes of
activity.
The US Deep State doesn't want to "conquer" any country. Then they'd have to pay the bill
for the destruction they caused... think an actual Marshall Plan, not the Iraq and Afghan
Debacles. It is not trying to "win". It is trying to destroy those countries' ability to
function outside the iron-fist influence of the IMF/BIS/etc. banks/economy.
... ... ..
As for US operations in Syria being handed off "to others", i.e. to Prince's latest
iteration of Blackwater/Xi/Academia, the last we heard of Erik was trying to sell a budget
airforce/drone system to countries in Africa. What a joke.
Not going to happen in Syria,
because Russia, Iran, Hezbolla and Syria would have no qualms about directly assaulting
Prince's Kurd/Arab/Wahabbist mercenaries... Eric may be a self-serving parasite, but he's not
stupid enough to directly take on the Russian military, or even the SAA for that matter.
Especially with no NATO air cover...
Killary is not around to unilaterally impose a Libya-style
no-fly-zone.
Trumpty Dumbdy is trapped, just trying to convince his base that he really is getting the US
out of being Israel's and the Rothschilds' bitch, but that is not a potential reality.
It would
involve dismantling the FED and cutting off the yearly $multi-billion military aid tap to
Israel. I doubt he is smart or informed enough to comprehend the situation he is in. Any sane,
intelligent person would walk away and tell the Zionist/Rothschild/Deep State to find another
patsy.
Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and
even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".
That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.
Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again
Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp
Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas
Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!
Addition, for the ones that want to see the Russian Tactics, I refer you to Polish movie
"Ogniem i Mieczem". You will see how Hetman Chmielnicki (Khmelnicky) deals with Polish
heavilly armed Hussars. Oh, yes Hetman is what we today would call Marshal (or not). I am
pretty sure he never read Sun Tzu, just used his smarts. He simply kept sending fake attacks,
thus keeping Polish Hussars awake and on their horses all night and then if this wasn't
enough, He used the rain, which made Polish attack to simply collapse "drowned in wet dirt"
and then he made his move and destroyed Polish army, which was on the paper heavier armed.
All he needed to do is wait.
And this is how it's done kids. Russian Great military traditions are not forgotten. Have
faith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA9ZW2Iiv3Q
The battle I am talking about is at about 43:00
Count on an inverted yield curve and Treasury Department derivative losses in the trillions
on interest rate swaps sold to Wall Street banks.
Wall Street banks have been buying surplus US government debt that the world doesn't want
to finance huge budget deficits over the last 10 years and the Treasury Department sold them
insurance protection against capital loses on that debt.
A lot of malinvestment in fracking and share buybacks with borrowed money has
overleveraged corporations. Personal debt, corporate debt and government debt compared to GDP
are at 1929 levels and a lot of that debt will be uncollectible.
The USA has kicked the financial can down the road for 10 years. It created a huge asset
inflation bubble with borrowed money ie all malinvestment via interest rate suppression by
the Fed that will blow up when the yield curve goes inverted signifying a financial panic is
underway. That is the demand for short-term money(to borrow) is greater than the supply of
money to short-term borrow.(to lend)
All I have to do is look at the SPX chart of the SP500 to know the US is FUKUS. The bull
market that started in 2008 has started a head&shoulders topping pattern. In 2019 I
expect 52-week lows to be hit and a bear market worse the 2008 financial crisis to be
underway.
People keep tossing out "The US economy is tanking, it is going to implode/explode/crumble
sooner or later" etc., etc. Such beliefs may be soothing to hold but they do not rest on
knowledge or economic literacy. Briefly, here is why.
Economies do not tank because of massive credit. Money Supply = M1 + M2 + M3, where M3 is
the outstanding credit in the economy. The US M3 is huge because the economy itself is huge.
Modern economies have moved away from paper notes and in future all money supply will
essentially be M2 + M3. M2 (total outstanding bank deposits) and M3 are in turn fusing into
one as credit card payments replace the practice of mailing out cheques.
Nor is high foreign indebtedness in itself a sign of future imminent collapse. Yes, it is
worryingly high presently, but no it is not imminent that some sort of disaster will befall
the US Treasury. No one forces the rest-of-the world to buy US treasuries, bonds, and stocks.
Yet governments, corporations, and individuals from all over the world line-up to buy these.
Ask yourselves why. The answer is: Money and Capital flows to low risk and high return zones.
This is how it always has been, and this is how it always will be. Why do Alibaba and the
other Chinese majors seek listing on American stock exchanges?
Yes, there are plenty of things wrong with the USA, and yes it may end up paying a dear
price for its arrogance, aggression, and cruelty all over the world (not to talk of its
collapsing morality, ethics and social cohesion at home) but there is nothing the matter with
its economy. Those who wait for its supposedly "Ponzi scheme" to collapse will wait to
eternity, I am afraid.
@guest. I think your conclusion that the US economy is not tanking is blinkered. The US
economy tanked in 2008 and would had crashed into a worse depression had not the Chinese held
up the US economy (the Chinese also held up Europe by holding up the German economy). Alibaba
is not the biggest Chinese company to list in the US. The biggest which is twice as
profitable, twice the market capitalisation of Alibaba(more than USD500 billion) and listed
on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, is Tencent.
The US economy and the US dollar was viewed as safe haven becuase there was no
alternative. The US dollar and the US economy became a bubble because of the global demand
for the US dollar resulting from there being no alternative. Besides the use of the USD is
enforced by the US military.
But, if you have been following the latest economic development, that had changed. The US
economy is no longer the biggest, certainly not the strongest. The US dollar is no longer
indispensable. It's value is now perched on the edge of a sharp slippery slope due to US
financial mismanagement and profligacy ala the late great USSR!
Its stupendous, useless, egoistic and hubristic military spending and other factors will
push the US economy down that very slippery slope to oblivion.
But China will be waiting at the bottom of that slope to cushion the fall!
No, it's not over Saker, but compared to 2007 victory is in sight.
First, my opinion is that the Russia/China asymmetric attack on US dollar hegemony will
create a second financial crisis next year, worse than the one in 2008.
Second, in my opinion, Russia and China are winning on the most important Grand
Strategic/Moral level of warfare for global public opinion. The UN votes are illustrative of
that moral victory. Also, Qatar, Turkey and the Philippines switching sides are examples of
moral victory.
"Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!"
That's the perfect strategy to defeat yourself.
"Those who defeat others are strong, those who defeat themselves are mighty." Lao Tzu
Napolean marched into Russia in 1812 with lot's of allies but left several months later
with none.
I agree with MK Bhadrakumar assessment of the strike on Syria over your assessment. It's a
moral defeat for the F#$%ing stupidest, exceptional nation on the face of the earth.
Well, I'm not sure what old Lao was smoking on that day but if we replace the word
"mighty" with "exceptional" then perhaps Trump fits the bill in a modern context.
Putin the Great vs Trump the Mighty (and Exceptional) who managed to defeat
himself.
Russia and China have stopped buying US Treasuries, in fact are selling down for gold. The
deficit if 1.3T will be more costly to fund, and the debt impossible to service. And China
with the petro-yuan has tolled the death knell. Added to that is the dysfunction of the US
political system. The mid-terms will be very interesting. I doubt Trump will see out 1 term,
never mind 2.
And yes, the so-called US allies are fair weather friend.
Rob is right: the coming economic crisis will be nothing like 2007, or like any depression
that occurred over the past century for that matter. It is the first time a cycle is ending
with interest rates so low, so the trick of lowering them further cannot be used this
time.
Even though hyperinflation is not happening because of globalised and cheap offer (Richard
Duncan), Western economies are slowly collapsing under the burden of debt (Prof Steve Keen,
Prof Michael Hudson).
The global Ponzi scheme will soon end, with major geopolitical consequence. The US, being
given their history, will probably go to full blown war where this can bring most economic
gains. The Chinese are fully aware of that, and are preparing for it All of their plans ( the
OBOR initiative, the petro-yuan) depend on a strong Russia, The Chinese will not let Russia
go down, their own survival depend on Russia.
All the best.
"... The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. ..."
"... If you read very carefully the articles written by high level advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they were, whether they were Russian or Chinese. ..."
Shame on Arabs and China! My personal experience with Chinese convinced me that the real God
for them is money. Beside collecting money by any means possible, these people have no other
issue to talk or discuss. They had shown zero interest in the geopolitics or the dire situation
of the planet, or suffering of humanity. They did not show any emotional or sentiment towards
what is happening in the World.
Majority of them express some kind of inferiority complex towards West. China Will soon or
later betray Russia, They do not think about any higher moral or human value, heroism,
solidarity, except for collecting money.
But the Number one betrayal came from Arabs, 22 Arab countries, and some 90% of them are
happy in their slave minded status. They are the biggest disgrace for humanity and Muslims.
Some of them are more aggressive then their masters in the West.
If not for the virus of Wahabism which infected the body of many Muslims, there could
emerge a true alliance of Orthodox Christians and True Muslims. Such an alliance would be
undefeatable, even without money worshiping China.
Antoni, you know obviously what you are talking about. Especially since I myself am Chinese,
and spent almost two decades coordinating the visit of Chinese officials and business folks
to US, on behalf of the US government. This was my previous career, before I abandoned it and
moved to Russia.
The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically
psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. One would not
want to speak too undiplomatically about the Chinese mentality, and the current state of
Chinese National psyche.
If you read very carefully the articles written by high level
advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a
significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a
point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president
Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they
were, whether they were Russian or Chinese.
The overseas Russian get very emotional at such trying times for their motherland. I more
than relate to that. But they show a natural tendency to idealize everything about Russia,
and gets instantly suspicious on hearing a different opinion. The same eagerness to believe
is now extended to the new great Asian ally of Russia. I wrote something a couple of days ago
to the same effect. The moderator even did not allow me to post. I hope now that this war
charade has temporarily abated, the moderator would regain a minimal level of calmness and
openness for dialogue.
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." – Mahatma Gandhi
Hizbullah, Persia, Russia vs China
The real power and fearlessness is not about numbers. It is about soul and its vibrant
energetic radiation.
How can a small movement of people like Hizbullah be more vibrant and fearless and outspoken
against oppression and international criminals then the so called giant nation of China?
How could Bolivia a small nation can be so to the point then China?
How can Iran (Persia) with its 70 millions people and totally surrounded by Kosher Nostra
mafia can be so brave and standing tall against the international oppressors of humanity in
compare to China, which doing practically nothing?
It is not about numbers, it is about power of soul, about life philosophy, about way of life,
about believe in true and one God. So that is way Persians historically influenced humanity
more then anything China can dream of.
There is reason why King Cyrus, is mentioned several times in Bible. There is a reason why
Saadi poetry about humanity is written in the entrance of UN:
Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you've no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain!
"Saadi Persian poet"
But perhaps, the most significant solid power and force which has not only the soul of
justice, solidarity and humanity, but even instrument of physical power and ability to fight
back a total war is Mother Russia. Despite its shortcomings, Russia is a gift from God,
Russia is the historic Rom of our time, mentioned in Sura 30 of Quran (30:1-5 "To Whom Power
Belongs" Declares the truth of the universe).
Russia may be is the second period of Zul-Qarnain mentioned in the Sura 18 of Quran.
Russia is an exceptional Caucasian (White race, i personally do not believe in race ) people,
(if we exclude Persians as Caucasians) which does not participate in the oppression of
non-Europeans and blocking the total subjugation of planet by Western and its minions.
When you talk with Russians and Westerners, you will immediately recognize the difference.
Russians are not arrogant and it is exactly what Quran describing a kind of Christians, who
are not arrogant, but a people with love and affection. I have no illusions, but i talking in
general terms, i talking about sum of all vectors and direction of this common vector.
Numbers are not important, historically majority always were wrong. Truth is still truth even
you are a minority.
So, the conclusion is that, if I am right and if Russia is righteous and just and hold on
rope of God, no force of this plant can defeat Russia. Russia does not need China, China is
not a nation of ideology, faith or religion, they only believe in money, which is also the
god of Western world and its minions. China is not a natural ally of Mother Russia, natural
ally of Russia is nations with believe in God, justice, solidarity, soul and judgment
day.
My personal encounter with Chinese convinced me that they have a completely different mindset
and I was completely disappointed.
With love and respect to Russia and its heroic people
Yow Darius my man, you speak the truth. It is fire and light in one's soul, and nothing else.
And if one might add, a preparedness to die, a simplicity and gentleness of character. Labels
mean nothing.
Degeneration afflicted many nations, comes in many forms, it can be a well-mannered and
finely dressed German so proud of himself, it can be an oily and greedy petty Chinese
businessman, it can be a Mercedes driving Arab in front of some big hotel in Dubai.
Globalism is a satanic cult of our times. They are huge in numbers, but their souls are
small, enslaved, and twisted. We have no fear of them. Keep well brother.
I agree with everything you said. I will take a more wait and see approach with China. I
hope for the sake of the world they jump onboard. Ultimately the issue is materialism. The
Anglo zios want to deal with a world in which everyone has a price on their head, so they can
be easy to buyout and compromised. Since the Zionists are the one with the most capital,
anyone who wants a piece of the world, will have to go through them. So that materialistic
outlook the Chinese have, can be a huge opening for the zios to exploit.
The state of the Arab leaders are even more pitiful. A bunch of animals who are enslaved
to their lusts, and desires. I would tell them to enjoy it, because their end will not be
good. Most of them have sold out to the highest bidder(Zionists) a ling time ago.
Now the Wahhabi movement, what's left to say about this devious, malicious cult. If you're
interested check this article out. It talks about the founder of the Wahhabi movement,
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and how he was in cahoots with British spy's who were looking for
a way to bring down the ottoman empire. I have to do more research on this article, however
as someone who has studied wahhabisim, I'm fairly certain it was a movement that had
malicious intent from the beginning, regardless of the article I linked below. It's just
somewhat hard to explain to non Muslim's because some of it deals with matters of theology.
Anyways I enjoyed reading you're post. Peace my friend.
Saker says "But what could the Russians have done?" is the right question.
Ans: Provide advanced defensive weapons well-ahead of time so that the Syrians themselves can
impose a cost.
In addition what the Russians have already done, why is Russia not selling advanced
anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons to countries in the cross-hairs of the West? Often, they
talk about selling S-300 to Syria. Now imagine, Syria has Bastion, anti-sub weapons, and
S-300. There will be costs to the West in this case. I think, this possibility is something
Russia can do. Why wait, as it is obvious that promises by the West are basically lies.
(Despite, dismantling the CW, the same argument is used to justify the attack. The Skripal
case uses this method against Russia itself.)
What has the Russians got by withholding the sale of such weapons? What is the Russian
calculus?
The attack was pretty clearly highly coreographed and followed strict rules that were not
violated. The US provided a turkey shoot for the Syrian AD restricting the missile flight
path to lanes with no typical deviations to confuse the AD. I'm sure this is what the
Russians required in order to guarantee no response from them.
So there are a number of important questions here.
There was insistence that an attack must occur, despite Russian objections. The US and
Russian militaries worked out a way for this to occur as safely as possible. Good that they
pulled it off safely as it implies a high level of competence and discipline on both
sides.
It seems likely from public behavior that the Pentagon thought this a bad idea and was
fully aware of the dangers.
Where is Trump on this and was he forced to acquiesce?
It also seems clear that the pressure on Russia has not diminished and that the 'allies'
intend to try and force an agreement on Syria through Geneva process that partitions the
country and likely deposes Assad.
The Russian side said that the president of Russia had been insulted/disrespected and that
there would be consequences for this action.
There has not been much effective push back in Europe to this policy of direct
confrontation.
China is wearing a mask in public but is not pleased and has offered some diplomatic
support in public.
I rate the situation as highly dangerous, unpredictable, with a great deal going on behind
the scenes.
As an addendum b over at moa has pointed out in his summary that while the US Defense Dept is
claiming only 3 targets Russian and Syrian sources claim many more, specifically airports. I
also read that B1s, I believe, used laser guided bombs in the attack and I have no idea what
the targets were as all discussion has focused only on the cruise missiles. Perhaps more
sites were targeted than was agreed upon.
Also, regarding the Skripal poisoning, Russia has obtained the evidence of BZ use from the
Swiss OPCW lab, perhaps through back channels. I see this as hopeful – Russia does have
friends in Europe, although the remain afraid or without the power to assist openly.
Postings in various places suggest that the US deviated from the agreed on plan and that the
Russian jets that scrambled near the end of the attack put a stop to further deviations.
Perhaps a broken promise like this led to the specific assertions of disrespect.
Thanks to the Saker especially and all the commenters for this forum and the robust
discussion.
However, I think Russian behaviour is consistent with the long game strategy. Syria lost
three buildings and its citizens were celebrating in the streets. The US had the bulk of its
missiles shot down. This is quite simply posturing by the Empire. I don't think the last 48
hours add to the perception the US can whatever it wants whenever it wants. If anything its
the opposite.
I think the US will try again. Its attempt will be no more powerful or successful than
what just occurred. They will continue to do so for many years yet. They will continue the
delusional narrative delivered ad nauseam to its own people for another decade at least.
My point is that as each month goes by, it matters less.
The American hrandstanding is becoming white noise.
I am encouraged by the last 48 hours. I admire Russian restraint. I have for years now and
I expect to continue to do so for some time yet.
As former analyses of you spoke of, the russians Lack the number of planes etc the
Wallstreet-fascists have. This time they will use to speed up the stuff they need. The stuff
Putin spoke off in his march speech. The provocation as much to to with it I guess.
And time Saker is not at the Side of the US, as the petro dollar Will be replaced and
their debts Will reach astronimical figures. Remember China is a creditor of this fascist
regime. Simply stop funding this moron shit. Why did China buy worthless state-papers from
the US??
The americans didnt dare to kill Any russian a hoge difference to the event Pompeo was
bluffing about. So ..?
China bought the worthless state-papers from the US because it give it's leader's the good
life and the illusion of great wealth. If they sell off the Treasuries than that illusion
with evaporate in hyperinflation. The Russians are only waist deep into the Global Economy,
they probably can crawl out with some effort -- the Chinese are up to their eyeballs in it,
they cannot.
China was being pragmatic and keeping its major market afloat. Little point in being the
factory of the world if the world stops buying what you produce through lack of
liquidity.
I have faith in the Chinese leadership–they are ordinary people like everyone else but
their culture and mindset gives them a clever edge that the west has lost, long ago.
It is indeed not over, because in history there is seldom a clear beginning and an end.
However, the Saker is being too pessimistic. The FUKUS coalition avoided the Russian
positions (ie showed a wariness and respect), and Syria did stand tall in defending
herself.
For Russia to have taken the bait and reacted reflexively would have been
counterproductive. As things stand, no escalation occurred, and Russia comes out looking
cool-headed and mature. In effect the good guys.
The US is in sharp decline. It's current behaviour demonstrates that it is in the final
stages of Empire. Time is on Russia and China's side. To engage the US unless absolutely
necessary would work to favour the US and against the rising powers of China and Russia.
Kevin Barrett re-posted a Gordon Duff censored article re the SAA capturing a Takfiri
chemical weapons facility in East Ghouta with western weapon components and reporting the
capture of AZ personnel:
Some excerpts:
"The Syrian Arab Army and with the help of Russian captured a shipment of chemical weapons
destined for the Eastern Ghouta. These were British weapons produced at Porton Down in
Salisbury.
"American, British and Israeli military personnel captured in Syria have confirmed they were
ordered to stage chemical attacks in East Ghouta by their governments.
"The Americans are still being held along with Israeli's while British prisoners are being
negotiated for. Sources in Damascus told us that representatives of Oman in Damascus
approached the Russian Office of Reconciliation on behalf of Britain for the return of
British chemical warfare personnel.
"The shells are identified as VX gas from British stockpiles.
"Russian officials in Syria informed Britain through Oman that they would have to directly
deal with Syria for the return of their personnel. We have received no further information
since, Damascus has remained silent on how or if negotiations were proceeding.
"Last week, VT Damascus received evidence that Americans, US Army Special Forces along with
Israeli chemical weapons officers had been captured in East Ghouta. We were told that not
only was a command facility captured with modern weapons but a stockpile of British made 81mm
poison gas mortar shells, numbering in the hundreds, was seized as well.
"Videos were viewed by former MOD weapons specialists who identified the green stripe on the
shells seized in East Ghouta as VX gas from British stockpiles."
Just pencil in that article.
My comment:
Regarding Russian response, my feeling is Russia recived plenty of assurance the US was
unwilling to hit Russian facilities, and got special corridors for attacks. The Russians
could sit this out and watch and the US failed in a major way again militarily against only
Syrian defenses. I think it is a wise principle for Russia to avoid the temptation to reveal
the real power of its weapons prematurely until there is a real need for them at which time
they may be a rather significant surprise.
-Martin
I view Russia's position as unassailable. After the bombing of Friday night is it even
conceivable that the US could ever gain air superiority over the Russian homeland? Yes the
attack was made with second-tier missiles at third-rate targets without the element of
surprise and poorly coordinated, but it was still easily repelled by a combination of
Soviet-era junk and modern EW equipment and radars. Even those in the West who are apathetic,
if they are listening at all before they change the channel, must at some unconscious level
realize that the US could not have a "perfect" air strike with over a hundred missiles and
destroy only three unoccupied buildings.
A conventional WWIII of any length of time will destroy the Global Economy. The Russians
will win easily simply because they are tougher and more prepared. They may not desire that
outcome, but of all people they probably have the best chance to survive. Except if the nukes
end up being released by accident or through escalation. So the Russians, being just about
the only moral actors around, have a moral responsibility not to fight back until there is no
other choice.
NOTE: Not that all western nations or the people within them are immoral actors, the
greater population and smaller countries are just bystanders.
I am not convinced the US used second-tier missiles. These were launched from active duty
warships and I can only assume it is the standard cruise missile weapon employed. There is
way too much not yet known about the details of this operation.
If, and it is a big "if", the missiles moved along agreed corridors, it is not surprising so
many were shot down.
As I say, so much is not yet known.
I always figure that the best stuff is under wraps, although available in no great quantity.
BTW, I think a technology that isn't discussed much is passive detection systems, which
may have taken the element of surprise away from standoff weapons.
Here comes this important question of purely tactical nature which many flag-waving
uber-patriots miss completely, while, I am sure, Pentagon and not only, is puzzled with what
went wrong. The question is not about excellent performance of Syrian AD–what and how
about this performance are being unveiled with each passing hour. Russian EW? Absolutely, no
doubt it. Massive shooting down of Tomahawks and Scalpel TLAMs? Absolutely. But, but what
about JASSMs. It is conceivable that these were they Trump was bragging about in his idiotic
twits when spoke about those "Smart" missiles that "are coming". There are still no firm
numbers about the number of intercepted JASSMs, what is clear, however, is the fact that many
of them were intercepted. If JASSM passes today for "Smart", it kind of puts good ol'
Tomahawks, logically, into the category of "Dumb". Obviously, as latest Syria's experience
shows, Tomahawks are not an overwhelming threat, as they were positioned as for decades, for
truly (not in Saddam Hussein's, or, rather US media, way) highly integrated and EW capable
air-defense system.
But JASSMs, "stealthy" and supposedly "Smart", even by preliminary data pouring in didn't
fare much better than Tomahawks and this was against Syrian AD assets which are pretty damn
old. So, what about "stealth"? Ah, but in the modern signal processing, including well
developed now sensor-fusion (or data-fusion) techniques it really doesn't matter for advanced
adversary. But that is purely technological aspect, however influential for operational and
strategic levels. Truly global, geopolitical issue is this, as Apps concludes:
Therein lies one of the greatest challenges of this situation. In 1990, after Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the George H. W. Bush administration was
relieved to find that Russia – then still in the hands of Mikhail Gorbachev – was
inclined to avoid turning the conflict into a Cold War-style standoff. In the years that
followed, successive U.S. presidents became used to acting without such worries. Putin has
now successfully signaled that those days are entirely over.
No it ain't over. It has just begun. Call it the great tribulation or Jacob's troubles or
whatever you like but understand we have another half dozen years to go. In any event Daniel
says Damascus will have terror fall upon it at night and become a smoking ruin byvmorning. So
Damascus will fall to align reality with prophecy. The ultimate vanity.
The recent events are complete theatre but the first act is about setting up the second
act.
In the second act, America's tough actions force Iran Russia and Syria to the negotiating
table where a grand accord is hammered out.
In the third act, the Empire cuts its losses and gets the fuck out of the ME because it no
longer has interests there. Israel BTFO. KSA BTFO. They are really the worst allies ever.
In the epilogue Russia becomes the main broker in the ME and balances out the competing
interests while keeping the peace. France and England BTFO. Nobody wants these douche bags
around anymore. America goes back to squabbling in South America and Asia where it arguably
does have strategic interests.
The world Zio-Massonic movement has just shown that it can not dispense with provocations and
plots that can unleash bloody world wars.
The United Nations are a farce and should be dismantled!
Just remembering, it is always England and Judea that press for war as they did in
1938-1939 or release the great and relentless butcher – the only true holocaust –
1914-1918 !
There is another possibility: These "empty strikes" were strictly intended for domestic
consumption. Consider: The US openly telegraphed the coming strikes. Syria and Russia cleared
some areas for the West to hit that would result in no injuries to personnel and limited
damage to infrastructure. The West dutifully hit those evacuated areas and proclaimed
"Mission Accomplished". Syrians danced in the streets for "surviving" the missile strikes
while Russia threatened consequences. What form those consequences take will tell us if these
countries are merely dancing a rather peculiar dance together or whether they are about to
starting fighting in earnest. So far Russia has been playing it cool as a cucumber, but these
strikes – empty as they might have been – demand some sort of response or Russia
will risk looking weak. The fly in the ointment is Israel and their attack on an Iranian base
within Syria that reportedly killed 20 Iranian officers. Will that loss of life influence
Russia's response after the West made every effort to avoid drawing blood?
Saker, many commenters here give me the impression that they will go to any lengths to
reassure themselves that we are not teetering on the brink of all out nuclear war. All of
their theories and reasonings seem to avoid facing that grim reality. Is that also your
impression, or have I misjudged your position?
I think this blog may have misread China. I think I can read the Chinese mind and the
'Western' more subtly since I am ethnic Chinese but educated in the 'West'. But I follow Sun
Tzu and therefore will not expound anymore on China's strategy as far as the Yanks are
concern lest they are wised up.
Suffice to say that a catastrophic decline of the empire ala the Ottoman Empire which led
to WW1 and WW2 due to fighting over the spoils, is on nobody's interests, not even
Russia's.
The best case scenario is to ease the Yanks into a break-up ala the late great USSR.
China's economic, diplomatic and political strength will be critically needed to do this
and to rebuild the new independent states of Western North America, Eastern North America and
the Southern Confederation.
Anonymous. No Chinese empire. The Chinese don't want to occupy other countries. Too
troublesome ruling them. Philippines president Duterte recently suggested half-jokingly that
the Chinese should just make the Philippines a Chinese province. China don't want that. Just
to make the Philippines more prosperous and stable in order to trade with it – which is
far better. If China wanted make the Philippines as its own province, She would have done so
600 years ago when Admiral Zheng He sailed his then unmatchable in the South China Sea and
onwards to India, Persian Gulf, Africa and possibly beyond.
Which means never, unless you're talking about the individual organism, is it "over".
So get over it never being over.
What would you (we) do if it were "over"? Contemplate our navels??
Oh, you mean stress inducing bluster , bluff and brinksmanship of a dying entity. What
else has it got, except blowing itself and everybody else up?
Patience, perserverance. Look at the reaction in the US. Don't forget this terrain, even
if Trump's Unreality Show self destructs.
Is there progress? I think there is. None but the most cretinous deplorables are so stupid
as to cheer the Donald in the last week. Most are dismayed.
And even Alex Jones is allowing open talk of Israel's Empire role in putting DT on this
war mongering course that those who buy his supplements refuse to buy .:
Although Dr P is the one to explicitly state that Israel is a total liability.
So I wouldn't quibble too much about AJ and his mistakes and prejudices. Weaker on Israel
than you would like but as good on Russia as you can expect.
Stupid on China. But Dr P isn't. And anyone watching can see that and see that AJ panders
to his base's fears and prejudices.
But if they are wising up on Israel (as they have!) they can wise up on China and the
whole picture, as well.
Who would want that process of improving consciousness to end, to be "over"??
To relax go back to what??
Actually, I like Snow Leopard's comment the most. And I am contemplating a surgical
procedure on my navel, soon. It's just that Action is part of Being, and I see certain
actions other than handwringing and brow wiping being more productive right now. Especially
in terms of encouraging the process in the US where increasing numbers of people are
realizing they have to think and act to grease the skids for the out of touch geriatrics like
McCain, Feintsein, Pelosi, etc .or DT will go out with them, if he keeps acting just as
ridiculously untruthful as they are.
'ridiculously untruthful' -- - that and deceit is the sea that the Donald has swum in his
entire life, do you really believe that he could recognise reality if it smashed him in the
face like a two ton truck?
Precious little chance of that happening in this lifetime, I'd say. It is by now part of his
cell make-up and ineradicable.
The US has backed Russia into a DEEP, DEEP corner . Sooner or later Russia will have to
respond to the AmeriKKKan madness or surrender and become a vassal State like Europe,
Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea .After Syria is Iran and China. If Russia goes so is
China. Now is the time to stand upp to AmeriKKKa (the empire of chaos)
Check out the work of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.org and Professor William Engdahl
All I can say at this stage is that Sun Tzu said not to fight out of anger, fear or enemy's
provocation to a fight. Russia should stay cool. Pick carefully the battlefield (not
necessarily a battlefield like Borodino), pick her own fight (not necessarily in the
battlefield with guns and missiles but just as decisive) and pick the issues to fight for.
This way retain the initiative and not let the enemy drive and maneuver Russia. Drive and
maneuver the enemy instead.
The full-frontal 'love-in' with the Germans in WW2 is a no no type of war to be avoided.
If unavoidable, must be very well prepared. But both the West and the semi-West seem addicted
to the prospect of such an 'orgasmic' love-in. They seems locked into the paradigm of such
logic. But beneath the rationalisation is simply a love for war.
Here is an extract from Richard Lovelace on the English Civil War. He reflects accurately
on what, me as an Oriental, views as what drives the West's and the semi-West's mindset to
war:
1) Tell me not (Sweet) I am unkind,
That from the Nunnery
Of thy chaste breast, and quiet mind,
To War and Arms I flee.
2) True, a new Mistress now I chase,
The first Foe in the Field;
And with a stronger Faith embrace
A Sword, a Horse, a Shield.
3) Yet this inconstancy is such
As you too shall adore;
I could not love thee, Dear, so much,
Loved I not War.
Some version replace the last line in stanza 3) with: "Loved I not Honour more". But you
get the drift. "war" and "Honour" (in or through war), are essentially the same.
Speaking of Borodino, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Russians not only repelled
Napoleon, but crushed him definitively in the end (thing somehow overlooked in 'histories' of
the 1812-14 war genre 'War and Peace') and reorganized Europe on their own terms. Of course,
it did not last too long (due to the usual British treachery), but the subsequent attempts to
destroy Russia ended in the same way. Now if Hitler has not learned anything from Napoleon,
how do you expect a Tramp like Donald, to learn anything from Hitler (and the Kaiser and
Napoleon, for that matter)?
I am in complete agreement with you Simon. All indications are that Mr Putin and team has a
firm grasp on reality also, whatever that may bring in the future. It may not be too pretty
for the western sphere but delusion and rank stupidity never has a pretty outcome.
Not over. Not even close. The reason this isn't over is that the causes and conditions
causing the root of the problem have not been dealt with. The cause of the problem can only
be dealt peacefully through diplomacy. In the Empire's current configuration diplomacy is
near impossible as there is no competent partner to negotiate with on this side. The Empire
will signal their openness to negotiation by removing Bolton aka Captain Crunch, Haley and
their ilk. This doesn't seem likely and I'm not sure who a competent replacement would be.
Russia needs to sell to Syria and to Iran ~30 nukes each plus delivery vehicles able to reach
New York (thus also Israel, Paris, London). Also S400 systems to protect nukes enough to
guarantee launch. Syria and Iran then declare next attack from any of the Gang of Four states
will mean a nuclear response to all.
You forgot to mention that without adults Mattis & Dunford, WW3 would have started the
last time they "bombed" Syria, now because of they talked the volatile, impulsive and
emotional Trump out of it, it landed on a compromise, on Moscow's terms.
The PRC is one of the only other 2countries that supported the Russian UN resolution, so it's
not clear to me what the Saker is referring to re "just standing by" ? Do you expect PRC to
send troops to Syria? has Syria or Russia made such a request or invitation? Do you know if
such a move by the PRC has wide support by the Chinese public? Please do not respond with
nonsense like public opinions don't matter in china. The Chinese government uses public
opinion polls frequently and widely. Fact is I believe majority of Chinese are also affected
by all the lies from the western msm, especially the well educated elites, most of whom
studied in the West. This explains why their Global Times pieces tend to be much more pro
Russia than their better educated elites
Diplomacy??? It degraded beyond recognition. We used to have the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Now we have geniuses like Samantha Powers and Nikki Haley. We also had a joke of an
ambassador to Saddam's Iraq that triggered 1-st Iraq war, although I tend to think (more and
more lately) that her blurb to Saddam was a deliberate in order to advance Bush's
understanding of his "new world order" idea.
Yes, but the previous UNSC meeting where Russia submitted a text requesting a full and
objective investigation of the chemical attack in Syria only Bolivia voted yes. China
abstained! So Russia looked isolated just prior to the attack
China abstained on the US-sponsored "poison pill" resolution which was set up to be vetoed,
and allowed the US to say they tried to resolve the chemical attack diplomatically but since
the resolution was vetoed the only avenue left is to retaliate by missile strikes. However,
China voted FOR the "clean" Russian-sponsored resolution to investigate but this seems to be
lost.
Yes you are right. So there we're a total 4 resolutions. 3 resolutions on chemical weapons
investigation and 1 on violation of international and UN charter.
For the chemical weapons: Russia submitted 2 resolutions and US 1. None of them passed.
China abstained on one, the US one, which Bolivia and Russia vetoed. Here are the links:
It is impossible to quickly overcome a ~30 years misguided attempt to impose physical
hegemony forever. No complex dynamical system deviates from stable trajectory for too long
and too far without breaking apart. And since nobody wants (or foolish enough not to be
afraid) of a WWIII (a.k.a. breaking the system apart), the US will be forced to change its
guiding principle of perpetuating its sole hegemony. Hopefully sooner than later and
peacefully.
Is Putin not putting himself at a huge disadvantage if he allows the carriers group now
crossing the Atlantic to get close to Syria and Russia. As this confrontation is obviously
not over should Russia not draw a red line at the straits of Gibraltar or somewhere?
I don't understand military issues but can see that the USA/UK/France cannot in the
slightest way, be trusted to do anything other than wait for what they perceive to be a
moment of advantage, then attack.
I understand he has a "Dagger" or six under his arm. Not only will that stop the Carrier
Group, it will place it where it belongs. At the bottom of the sea.
Another possible option would be to simply bring the Warsaw pact again new life.
The US in the past didnt dare to attack pact-members in the cold war. Now we have a
situation that the US considers other States as his toy for torture.
Syria, China Venezuela Belarus, and Donbass even North Korea should become members of
it.
Two days ago Vladimir Putin was handed the worst and most humilliating political (and
military) defeat of his entire life, something that in other, more normal times, would have
immediately forced a man in his stature to resign his post and go away (Chamberlain anyone ?)
yet his own adoring fans seem to be the only ones who haven`t noticed it, preferring instead
to keep living in that universe of denial they have been dwelling in for years already. What
shows best the extent of this attitude of denial is the fact that they were gloating about
the fact that Russia didnt even intervene–contrary to what the man himself had promised
he would do only a month ago if one of Russia`s allies was attacked. By now is evident that
his word is not worth the saliva that was wasted in saying it and that the US has absolutely
no respect for him or for Russia. There are just two things to notice to see the truth in
these words: a gloating, exulting Nimrata in the UNO, knowing well how cheap was for her and
her country, or rather her neocon masters, this victory was (Russia didnt do a thing, so no
WW3) and the headlines in the web "Russia furious". If there is still any doubt about this
conclusion, well, beware, the Gang Of Three now plans to present to the UNSC a proposition
celebrating the illegal attack on Syria of the 14th and they intend to invite ALL members of
it, including Russia, to accept it and take it as a fait accompli. But that will be only a
prelude for what is to come, which is of course the demand by the U.S. that the UNO accepts
her way of conducting business as the norm, as something they will be able to do in every
possible occasion they will wish to do it. Which means, more fake chemical attacks and more
bombing in Syria until Russia is thrown out of the country. So much for our master chess
player in the Kremlin. Only last year he was still insisting, against all caution and the
warning of people as knowledgeable as PCR, that his first priority in foreign policy was a
good relationship with Amerika, see how well he has done in this regard (Chamberlain anyone,
again ?) All in all, things wont become better but much worse after this devastating defeat
of the master chess player, they will only become worse until they get him and Russia
cornered and with only two possible options, which we all know well. This is not about Russia
being alone or being weaker than the US NATO gang, it is all about Putin`s deliberate policy
of putting above everything else his vain and useless attempts at being respected and even
liked by his worst enemies, the Western elites.
Regarding China. China it's a great and powerful nation with a vision and a strategy that
span far in the future. His policy has always been to go on with extreme caution and as low
as possibile exposure. First and foremost she takes care of his own interest, as any other,
however. His main opponent is, that for sure, the "western" empire. In this long term fight,
China finds herself in company of other nations who are fighting the same long term struggle.
Yes, China doesn't share the same cultural, historical, ethnical heritage with Russia, wich
in that regard is part of the Euro family, but shares a vital, long term surviving fight with
Russia (and Iran, Syria). This is a matter of fact that can not be underestimated. So, in
long term, and in spite of some annoying behavior, I'm quite sure that China will stand with
Russia. I read that Chinese warships were placed in front of Syria together with Russian
navy, maybe someone forgot that, this is a strong message to me.
I side with PCR. Only a public military humiliation can stop the Empire. Russia had a
golden opportunity to inflict such an humiliation yesterday and she missed that
opportunity.
Let's suppose that Russia downed as many attacking warplanes as possible, whatever their
location was, plus a few ships like the USS Donal Cook. What would happen next ? Would the
USA launch their strategic missiles on Russia ? I very much doubt it, since the US know as a
hard fact that they would be destroyed in retaliation. MAD has been restored. The would have
no military response at all and the whole world would see it. And this would have been the
end of the Empire, with many vassals leaving it.
Of course, such strikes will happen again. Let's hope that Russia will strike back
then.
The public is brainwashed because they are hooked to the mass media and they are the product
of our "educational" system. Americans are about sports and shopping. A good portrait is the
rabbits of Watership Down.
In 1958, I still believed that there was a significant intellectual difference between the
American bourgeosie and the cattle one sees peering between the slats of large trucks as they
contentedly munch hay on their way to the abattoir.–R. Oliver
Donald T' s inheritance was a loose canon. I'm sure he knew it when he ran, as a proved tower
– builder, against floating sands and the satanic Hillary-fan-club.
America is in psychiatric treatment since 2014 by the spirit of the north.
April 14 was a peace of the art of political wisdom, 'taking two to tango
above the triggers of the planet's doom
Saker, no it is not over by a long shot. Haley again today (it appears she is running US
foreign policy by herself) says empire gonna sanction Russia again via Treasury tomorrow. It
looks like empire trying to ride the false flag chem thing to build a coalition of the
"fools" against Russia or some kind of mass movement to give them cover for military action.
They are furiously trying to bring massive pressure on the Russian leadership so they will
back off and let them have Syria, admit US is almighty god and so they can then go after
Iran. It seems US and Brits so knocked off balance by Putin and his election victory and
weapons announcement that empire frantically trying to reassert that they and only they are
the "decider" of right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. This will go on all of April
and into May as Trump backs out of nuke deal with Iran. Then things will really get ugly and
fast. And that doesn't even factor in North Korea.
I notice that Russian MOD states that the "allies" were configured to launch 300 missiles
not the 110 that were sent. He indicates that they had poor planning and that no one was in
charge. But, it may be that they have decided to come back for another hit when the next
false flag chem attack is perpetrated probably soon. The chem thing is all they have that is
working for them and that isn't much. I finally got emails announcing anti-war protests by
ANSWER and I hope they will continue. I have been to some strong street actions with ANSWER
in the past although impacting these monsters is nearly impossible.
I agree with you that Russia should flood both Syria and Iran with anti missile systems
and they should do it now.
It looks like the Duma gonna finally sanction the US back with some pretty good things
including stuffing US "intellectual" property rights in the US ass by turning Russian
companies loose to use patents without paying license fees. They can also fuck up US space
program and rocket programs.
Actually, Saker, I think what US empire is really up to is to create enough mass hysteria
globally that they think they can build some kind of "coalition of the truly stupid" to
attack Russia and take it. I honestly think they are that stupid and desperate. Because if
that is not it then at some point they are going to have to back off, admit defeat and be
seen as the losers they really are. They just don't have the basic decency to do that.
Yes you are right about the U.S. intention to create mass hysteria , and a " coalition of the
truly stupid."
The lead item on RNZ news at 5 a.m. this morning referred to the silly little girl who is
currently P.M. of N.Z. condoning the U.K. /France / U.S. strike; presumably she will also
support the Israel strike against Iranian assets in Syria.
Every day , the lies and propaganda start in NZ, and are halfway around the world before the
truth gets out of bed.
Count on it. Thank you Rupert.
And Rupert's whores are at it in Australia as well, reporting on the grovelling snot bag
Turnbull's obsequious offering of more Australian lives to lubricate the Anglo Zionist
machine. I say lets put his kids in the first jet to attack Syrian positions and see if he
still thinks it is worth the cost.
In 2001 Australians have marched in their thousands to protest the imminent strike on
Irak.
Today they blabbered non stop about the the 'tampered ball' and protesting the punishment of
the cheaters and hounding the pedophile clergy.
I appreciate your comments but do not share you perceptions. Reportedly, the USA informed
Russia before they dropped the bombs. Does that make sense? Reportedly, they bombed a factory
which has not been in use since 2013. Reportedly, either no one was killed or 4 unfortunate
civilians were killed. Reportedly, no Russian personnel or equipment was affected.
Reportedly, the 3 attacking countries dropped 103 bombs and 71 or 73 or whatever were
intercepted, yet the USA said the complete opposite. "We are confident ..". Amazingly, the
USA has developed a bomb, or a method of bombing, which, if it hits a factory producing
chemical weapons and therefore is full of lethal substances, will not, repeat not, dissipate
these into the air, thereby insuring that no one will be affected!!! (emphasis mine) I agree
that some people might think that the attack actually did something, but who are they? Nobody
I know. My perception is that people working in the our government are isolated and out of
touch and they are the ones who had to be satisfied(?). I also think that Mr. Trump is so
surrounded by liars that he can trust no one. He stated he wanted the US to leave Syria,
then, shortly after, the USA performed this inane bombing attack. Maybe this is Mr. Trump's
response to the immense pressure I think he gets from those around him. It was very confusing
but certainly did not make me feel that our country is great again – I am just
embarrassed. I feel very badly for the citizens of Syria who unfortunately live in a country
located in the center of the world, surrounded by all that gas and oil.
I have seen reports that said they did, and I have seen reports that Moscow was furious
because they were not given notice on the deconfliction channel.
"The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be
announced 4 weeks in advance"
Even though you live in the US, you seem sadly out of touch with what Americans know and
believe. "America" is NOT your blog audience, any more than "America" is Donald Trump and the
US State Department.
I found out last Thursday that my own mother took seriously the idea that Assad gassed
people in Douma. So, yesterday I asked 4 of my coworkers what they thought about the US led
missile attack. I was actually more interested in finding out whether they believed Assad had
any culpability in Douma.
It turns out that everybody approved, including a guy that I knew for a fact was a Trump
supporter (who, as a candidate, would not have approved of meddling in Syria, or at least
pretended to be such). This particular guy explained by asking a question: "If you saw your
neighbor beating his wife to a pulp, would you jump in to stop him, or just stand around and
let it happen?"
The sense I got from everybody is that intervention was a moral act. Most zombies that I
have seen in movies are, at best, amoral (assuming they have no agency).
Consequently, you are misusing the term "zombified"!
The appropriate term is "brainwashed". They believe in a pseudo-reality.
That is why the absence of a 4th category in your graph is potentially tragic. You are
missing the category of communication/education, which would encompass benign (truthful)
propaganda and benign (truthful) psyops, targeting the American public directly (American
elites more indirectly). While this was better done as prevention, the resultiing
de-legitimization of the American War Party could be thought of as retaliation.
To a person looking at things in a detached manner, prevention (going forward) is better
than retaliation (looking backwards), but such considerations are secondary to solving the
problem of the ignorance and brainwashing of American citizens. Doing so would provide at
least fertile soil for the emergence of corrective political pressure from the bottom,
up.
Do you SERIOUSLY think your own efforts, plus Russian government efforts in the form of
rt.com and sputniknews.com, are sufficient to deprogram and educate Americans? (There is no
disrespect for you efforts intended by asking this question.)
Then please do the following: learn how to use the video feature on your smart phone, or
tablet; then do a walking video poll of passersby on some crowded street near you. (You
probably won't be allowed to do so in a shopping mall, but it might be worth a try.) I
suggest you use the same technique I used when doing a video poll of TPP awareness amongst
the public (which proved, to my satisfaction, that polls showing popular acceptance were a
complete fraud; most American HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE TPP, Pew notwithstanding). I asked
people "May I ask you 1 yes/no question?" About half the people won't give you the time of
day, even for that. Of those that do, maybe 1/3 will be interested in talking about it;
typically, they they will ask the same question of you.
Afterwards, tabulate the results, upload the video to youtube, and write it up here.
Better yet, do this and ask you audience to do the same. Then, include the links to their
youtube channels in your write-up.
You should try to get your results (which are almost sure to be similar to mine) to the
Russian government, because they act AS IF they had the same viewpoint as you.
Putin could reach millions of Americans by tweeting to @realDonaldTrump, but doesn't
bother. I have to wonder, why? If he assumed that the American public are all "zombies",
instead of containing moral but brainwashed citizens in their 10's if not 100's of millions,
then his lack of action would make more sense.
He'd be wrong, but at least his actions would logically follow from his mistaken
notions.
It is over. It was over in 2000 and the hammer came down in 2006. With the defeat of the
anglo/zionists in Lebanon by Hezbollah it marked the beginning of the end for the occultists.
Hezbollah was not actually fighting the iof but rather the combined forces of western zionist
imperialism. And they won.
Iraq, Libya and now Syria are a direct result of the ouster of the baby killers from Lebanon.
The chaos in the ME – the Arab bullshit spring – the propping up of the gulf
monarchy muppets is panic mode by the zionist oligarchy. There is no policy only blind
reactionary behaviour – this is evidenced even in the propaganda of the MSM which not
only makes no sense but speaks continuous transparent lies.
The west has been forced to use moderate and not so moderate head chopper orc mercs to fight
its battles. Proxy war by orc is a sign of desperation and with the collapse of the hegemon
on the horizon.
The Russians and the axis of resistance is simply trying to mitigate the damage that the
oligarchy can still do and keep the US and the western vassals from imploding.
I think the UK is exhibiting signs of genuine fear because it has dawned on the UK elite
after the miserable performance of their Three Amigo's missile strike that Russia has a
special present for instigators of ww3.
The great harlot is going to fall. A smoking ruin no man will ever wish to tread. England
has whored itself to the gallows.
N, it is not over, that much , we agree on. But the Chinese, I believe are not short sighted
nor are they stupid. The will probably not do much for Syria, but I think they will raise
their voice immediately if Russia is seriously threatened. China knows if Russia falls, she
is next. Iran knows this too. So I cant see other than these three will have to stand
together. But other may join India, possibly, Pakistan, possibly. And possibly further some
smaller countries.
But I am 100 % certain that in all these countries, the people, the knowledgeable of the
people, we know that if we end up, in a unipolar world, we will be slaves and remain slaves,
forever.
And those countries I just summed up are more than 3 Billion.
Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Who knows. But
Better die standing, than live crawling.
I think you underestimate how hated and despised the US is around the world. In most of
the non western world, the United States story of oppression and murder is very well known
and it is not forgotten. But fear keeps people in bondage, and the US has shown it will spare
no excesses to reach its goal, so when the battle comes it will be long bloody and
brutal.
And yes it will come.
From today's Global Times editorial, semi-official organ of the Chinese politburo:
"However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain
world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the
framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international
relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they
can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?
Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how
touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were
lynching Syria without due evidence "
What about a fourth type of retaliation, cleaning out the
financier/Zionist/pro-Western/liberal infestation inside Russia? This wouldn't require
China's approval, and would lead to a much healthier and stronger Russia in the long run.
In my view, China has done far more to get itself out of AZ control and on the path to
pursuing its national interests than Russia has. It is depressing to read most Russian blogs
as they keep harping on what needed to be done years ago.
The Chinese newspaper the Global Times agrees with the Saker:
"Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious
contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity. Trump, like scolding a
pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark
path." Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way.
Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak
economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space. That the West
provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace Western countries continue
bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack. Their arrogance
breeds risk and danger."
Yes, I also follow the Global Times editorials, and have friends in China
Simon Chow nails it, in my opinion
America is playing checkers (or some other child's game). Russia is playing Chess, and we
know how good they are at that. China is playing Chinese Chess and that is fking impossible
to understand for a westerner subtle does not cover it .. and China has the father
(godfather?) of all generals and military strategists, Sun Tzu . go figure
I agree, the fat lady is out there somewhere warming her vocal chords.
Talking about chess In my humble opinion all the suffering and foreign occupation of Syria
could end in less than a month if Russia would have the guts to threaten (behind closed doors
or overtly) that if the attacks and occupation of Syria will not stop Russia will provide the
weapons necessary to nullify the military superiority of Israel to all relevant enemy of
Israel and of course to Syria. The timed leak in the news that Russia considers providing
S-300 to Syrian is a good start but obviously not firm and strong enough, According to Paul
Craig Roberts "to restate the point once again, the passivity of the Putin government in the
face of Washington's aggressiveness is leading directly to nuclear war and the end of life on
earth". I think Russia can be "passive" by not attacking US but can be very engage by
threatening were it hurts the most the safety of Israel. Cheers
It is an old metaphor. I think it was used on Atimes years ago: Americans play Monopoly,
Russians play chess. Someone added (it could have been me) and Chinese play Go! That was a
response: Americans play poker, the game of the 'achievers'. The response was: Americans play
poker with loaded dices' and if their bluff is called, they pull the gun and 'take it all'.
If I am not mistaken, the verbal joust originated in Australia!
From the rules:
• Sacrifice: Allowing a group to die in order to carry out a play, or plan, in a more
important area.
Interesting
From the Global Times
'Drill a warning to secessionist forces'
The news that the People's Liberation Army will conduct live-fire military exercises in
the Taiwan Straits on April 18 has shocked Taiwan. It is a clear warning against recent
pro-independence activities on the island, especially head of Taiwan's administrative
authority Lai Ching-te's advocacy for independence.
Secessionists should not fantasize that the US will come to their rescue, even though the
US had passed the Taiwan Travel Act. National unity is in the core interest of China, which
is determined and capable of shattering any foreign intervention. Once Beijing decides to
take action, it won't be stopped by any other force.
We believe that if the mainland were to take a military strike against
"Taiwan-independence" forces, Washington would have no effective means other than
protest.
The planned military drills will be a reconfirmation of Beijing's bottom line. Let the
bombing and shooting drills alert Taiwan, rather than letting them actually occur on the
island. The mainland does not wish to end the Taiwan question with a military showdown,
however, how the situation develops depends on how much rationality remains in the Taiwan
administration.
The Ukraine, North Korea .. Sth China Sea .. Syria
Russia, cold war
China, trade war
America is somewhat busy at the moment.
Could it take on a direct confrontation over Taiwan?
I think Syria is too strategically important to be 'allowed to die' .. but, then, I cannot
play Go
What about the 'rumors' that China will build a base in Vanuatu? "We would view with great
concern the establishment of any foreign military bases in those Pacific Island countries and
neighbours of ours," Mr Turnbull said. Ahem!
Could America take on a direct confrontation over Taiwan?
If Taiwan is 500 kilometers off the coast from California, America just might give it a
try. But alas, Taiwan is 500 kilometer off the coast from Fujian Province. Only a deranged
America would take the bite. Let's see if America is deranged. Lately there are signs it is
down that slippery slope.
What I meant, is the China is choosing its timing and confrontation very carefully
America is the next door neighbour who has watched the plum ripen every day, fearing that
pesky Chinese neighbour will steal it and eat it
Not being careful, or just being plain dumb, the American knocked over a hornets nest and
and now too busy dealing with the angry hornets to keep an eye on the plum
Every single country (!) on this list- except for Bolivia – abstained in the latest
UNSC vote to stop aggression against Syria Russia, China, Bolivia voted in favor. USA, UK,
France vited against. With just ONE vote the resolution would have passed
Kazakhstan is a member of the SCO..why did they not join Russia and China to support this
resolution?? I am beginning to think the SCO is just hype.
One thing's for sure: I'm going to miss Bolivia when their term ends this year
The resolution was never going to pass. The US, the UK and France all posses the veto
power of a permanent member of the UNSC. Thus, it does not matter how many voted in favor.
The resolution was defeated.
I think I remember seeing at least one statement from another country that said that there
was purpose of voting in favor of a veto'd resolution. Why bother. Especially when the US is
infamous for blackmailing and armtwisting nations that vote against them. It was only a few
months ago that Nutti Nikki declared the US was 'taking names' of those who opposed the.
There isn't any reason to vote for a resolution that is already and certainly veto'd.
Actually, you see this alot also in bodies like the US Congress. Once a side has the votes to
know they won (or lost), then a single vote doesn't mean anything. Thus a congressperson can
vote a way that pleases the voters (or the lobbyists) and know that they are doing so with no
impact on whether the measure passes or fails. You sometimes see members of congress voting
for and against the same bill so they can take either position in the next campaign!
Anonymous, you are of course correct. It's the SC and not the GA so any veto will bring down
the resolution. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I also understand perfectly your point
about tactical voting.
However:
It would send a powerful message to the empire (and the world) if Russia were not so
isolated in her diplomatic efforts, even if a resolution is vetoed!..As Saker mentioned above
noone seems to care about the higher values of international law. By keeping a low profile
and abstaining these countries are basically confirming that there is no diplomatic way to
stop the aggression.
what is happening to Russia funnily reminds me of what happened to me as a kid – I was
maybe 9.
there was a bully in our neighborhood park where we used to play – he was 3 or 4 years
older than most of us. He used to beat all of us individually (I was the youngest in the
group) – but then I would come behind him when he was not looking and hit him with a
brick etc.
so one day all the kids gathered (not sure whose idea it was – not mine – but I
approved and joined them) and agreed to circle the bully and at 1..2..3..we were all to jump
at him and to start beating him I thought it was a great idea.
so we went there and did that – 1..2..3 – I jumped on the bully and started
kicking him – only to realize that everybody else just stayed where they were. I was
the only one fighting him Even my brother didn't join me.
I hope the same thing does not happen to Russia – but if it does – just be
prepared – and never trust psychopathic Anglo – west
Bolivia has a democracy that has elected governments that actually favor their people over
corporations, and god forbid, that don't favor foriegn (American) corporations over their own
people.
Thus, the US has already declared Bolivia an enemy. They don't seem to be number 1 on the
American kill list, but they are already on the list.
At this point in time, the UNSC is blocked to both sides. Neither side can pass a UNSC
resolution against the other. One side had 2 and now 3 vetos. The other side has 2 vetos.
Nothing is passing.
Which means that neither side can claim UNSC sanction for their wars. Which in turn really
makes any war illegal. Not that any of the Axis of Evil care about that. For the record,
Trump violated the US Constitution in two ways (at least) by attacking Syria, thus, if the
system were honest, he would now be impeached. Of course, the system is not honest, but it is
highly rigged.
Since Russia and China don't seem to be starting any wars of aggression, that lack of
ability to get a UNSC certificate for wars of aggression won't matter much to them. But, also
don't expect them to pass anything condemning the Axis of Evil through the UNSC.
The UNSC is now only for making speeches. Both sides then use these messages in their
psyOps operations. PsyOps is the right word because both sides now view propaganda as warfare
by other means.
Vietnam brought forth the term "hearts and minds." That's what they psyOps wars are
fighting over. The hearts and minds of everyone. Or at least those who are paying attention,
and of course getting more to pay attention to your psyOps is a part of the battle as
well.
The UNSC is thus a tool in these psyOps wars. The Russians make their case. Nutti Nikki
screams, rants and threatens. Each is then used as propaganda both at their own people at
home and at the rest of the world. It will stay that way as long as no one repeats the Soviet
mistake of the Korean War era and gets so fed up with it that they don't bother to show up
and cast their veto.
One interpretation of these comments is that diplomacy is just a bunch of fancy talk to
create fodder for psyops. While NATO and other military organizations may view it that way,
from another perspective, making speeches in a public meeting like this, where a resolution
is on the line, can serve to entrench or resolve conflict. As part of a larger diplomatic
strategy.
The 'hearts and minds' concept originated in the Malaya campaign in the
50's–counter-insurgency–and it was never about hearts and minds, it was about
'killing people in order to save them'– a precursor of 'humanitarian intervention'
–basic BS, in other words.
Part of the so-called psyop then was head-chopping of communist Chinese by the British
soldiers, I seem to recall.
Kazakhstan is one of the founding members of the Eurasian Economic Union. But it has always
made its position clear that its membership is based upon economic and not political union.
So its vote was not all that surprising. It's called hedging your bets.
Russia has a lot of options and none of them involve attacking US/NATO forces directly.
And General Rudskoy already hinted at one of them, the S300 to Syria and to possibly some
other countries. A great idea, but only one of Russia's options.
Following from that, the first thing Russia should do, a long with Iran, Hizbullah and
Syria, is exactly what it has been doing: securing more and more of Syria. Since the last
time AZ axis did this, Syria's situation on the ground is much improved. By the next time
they try, it will be much better still. Eyes on the prize.
Next, the S300. Russia has to impose a painful cost to the enemy without triggering a war.
That's where Israel comes in. Russia needs to help Syria (Russia should not do this herself)
to bring down a handful of Israeli jets and capture their pilots alive. You will see
immediately of the situation changes once 2, 3 or 4 of those most precious of souls are
captured. Your head will spin. They will trade whatever they have to to get them back.
Capturing American pilots would not have anywhere near the same effect. And British or French
pilots? Don't make me laugh. Nobody really cares about the hired help.
Russia also has the option of soft retaliation. The empire has troops all over the world
and faces insurgencies in many places. I'm just sayin'. Sometimes accidents happen when you
are fighting insurgencies.
Believe me, I understand how disgusted you are by the situation. But this has been
Russia's role in the world forever. Defending Europe and the world from the mongols, the
Prussians, the Swedes, Napoleon, the Turks, Hitler has earned Russia zero gratitude. But
nevertheless, many of us see. Even I, who am not a Christian, can see the analogy clear as
day.
Sinking gas/oil platforms of Levithian field by "unknown assistants" might be a similar
"symbolic" response. Similar to US attack of uninhibited buildings, this response by a third
party against an ally of US (nominally ally, in reality the master) would send the message,
without too much of a risk.
Your comments about the Israeli reaction to the loss of its planes and the capture of their
pilots is right. Read the Israeli press and especially the comments that follow the stories.
Israeli hubris is not to be believed. The commenters (much less the article authors)
can´t acknowledge that US missiles were shot down (albeit, with integrated modern
radars, electronic interference, etc, acknowledged) by Syrians with Soviet era junk.
"... Yes it is annoying that USA keeps bombing Syria, and yes it ruins the lives of the families that lose loved ones in such attacks. But they do not hinder the progress of the Syrian army. Which likely will have wrapped up everything that is politically easy to wrap up in Syria this year. The border with Israel, Idlib and the kurds being the last more politically difficult parts. ..."
The consequence has not come yet. Those that expected that Russia would sink every American
vessels and fire of off thermonuclear weapon at Washington, has no real connection to
reality.
Such an action would be the dream of neocons and liberals in the western world. Russia
will win as long as they can avoid a full on attack on Syria by USA and getting themselves
dragged into a conflict with USA or one of its clients.
Yes it is annoying that USA keeps bombing Syria, and yes it ruins the lives of the
families that lose loved ones in such attacks. But they do not hinder the progress of the
Syrian army. Which likely will have wrapped up everything that is politically easy to wrap up
in Syria this year. The border with Israel, Idlib and the kurds being the last more
politically difficult parts.
In reality, Russia and Assad won from this attack I think, it made them look good
internationally, it made USA look bad, Trumps supporters are in an uproar right now.. This is
not like last year when the democrats supported his attack and his base kinda thought it was
acceptable..
This time everyone thinks Trump is a lunatic, even his most fanatic supporters such as
Alex Jones that has been being over backwards to protect Trump have lost hope in him
When Russia unified with Crimea, it lost the international moral initiative which it had,
now, it is absolutely regained it. This attack while it caused no damage to Russia or the war
effort for Syria also gives Russia an excuse to do whatever it wants back.
The consequence of the USA strike could be something like.
1. Giving Syria better and "forbidden" in the style of S400 or S300.
2. Giving Syria more and more advanced pansirs.
3. Giving Syria advance anti-ship missiles, enabling them to take out every USA ship off
their coast.
4. Arming groups that oppose USA over the world state actors or non-state actors, either
covertly or openly with advanced weapons.
5. Revealing classified information about USA that perhaps USA got Russia to agree it would
not reveal. Could be anything, proof perhaps that the USA gold reserve is empty perhaps that
USA did 9/11, anything really.
6. A purge of USA backed fifth columnists inside of Russia.
The consequence will be something alone the line of causing long term severe consequence
for USA but causing no problem for Russia or even being beneficial.
These skirmishes (not skirmishes to those who live or die because of them), even ones that
are war crimes, as this was, seem to me to be in large part ways in which the major powers test
out their combat systems. I would think the Pentagon would like to test the Russian defense
systems, and the Russians can't be completely sorry they got the opportunity to see how those
new systems worked under operational conditions. The winners are the arms manufacturers. The
losers are everybody else.
Update : Interfax reports that the Russian military has discovered a rebel-owned chemical weapons lab in Douma.
The Russian Defense Ministry says that components for Mustard Gas production were discovered along with cylinders of chlorine
at a alb belonging to militants in Douma.
Additionally, Moscow has said it is stunned by a French statement that Russia is obstructing OPCW experts from entering Syria's
Douma (echoing Ambassador Ward's). the Russian foreign ministry confirms OPCW expoerts are already in Douma.
* * *
And on the game goes...
While Russia's foreign ministry warns that Western powers are interfering with OPCW's work in Syria (noting that the chemical
weapons experts' access to Douma is being hampered by remaining militants, supported by Washington),
as Caitlin Johnstone details , we are now being told by US officials (and I assure you I am not making this up) that if the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons doesn't find evidence that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack in Douma
last week, it's because Russia hid the evidence .
"It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site,"
reports U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward.
"It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission
to conduct an effective investigation."
I guess the idea is that this international top-level investigative team on which tremendous credibility has been placed by the
western world can be thwarted by Russians showing up with a Hoover and spraying some Febreze in the air like a teenage stoner when
mom comes home? I'm not sure, but given the immense dearth of evidence we've been seeing in support of the establishment Douma narrative
and the
mounting pile of evidence contradicting it, it sure does sound fishy.
The Independent 's Robert Fisk has published a report which affirms
the story so many westerners have been dismissing
as Kremlin propaganda for days now after interviewing a doctor from the hospital of the area where the Douma attack was supposed
to have occurred. Dr Assim Rahaibani told Fisk that what was in actuality an outbreak of respiratory distress among occupants of
a dusty oxygen-deprived tunnel was made to look like the aftereffects of a chemical weapons attack when a member of the White Helmets
started shouting about a gas attack in front of a bunch of video cameras. Everyone panicked and started hosing themselves down, but
in the video, according to Rahaibani, "what you see are people suffering from hypoxia -- not gas poisoning."
This report was independently backed up by a reporter from One America News Network named Pearson Sharp, who
gave a detailed account of his interviews with officials, doctors, as
well as many civilians on the street Sharp says he deliberately selected at random in order to avoid accusations of bias. Many people
hadn't even heard that a chemical weapons attack had taken place, and the ones who had said it was staged by Jaysh al-Islam. The
staff at the hospital, including a medic-in-training who was an eyewitness to the incident, gave the same story as the account in
Fisk's report.
The increasing confidence with which these unapproved narratives are being voiced and the increasing discomfort being exhibited
by empire loyalists like Ambassador Ward indicate a weakening narrative in the greater propaganda campaign against the Assad government
and its allies, but don't hold your breath for the part where Fox News and the BBC turn around and start asking critical questions
of the governments that they are meant to be holding to account.
The journalists who have been advancing the establishment narrative on Syria aren't about to start reporting that they've gotten
the entire Syria story assballs backward and have been promoting a version of events manufactured for the benefit of CIA-MI6-Mossad
agendas. You're not about to see CNN, who last year
staged a fake scripted interview with a seven year-old Syrian girl to manufacture support for escalations against Assad, suddenly
turn around and start asking if we're being told the full story about what's happening Syria.
Watch them closely. Watch how they steadfastly ignore the growing mountain of evidence and keep promoting the Syrian regime change
agenda that the western empire has been
working toward for decades . Watch them dismiss all evidence they can't ignore as Kremlin propaganda and shift the narrative
whenever things start to look bad for them. Those riding the crest of the wave of establishment media are too far gone into the blob
to ever admit error and change. The least among us aren't about to stop constructing a public reality tunnel which depicts them as
heroes of truth, tear it all down, and start advancing a narrative which makes them look like fools at best and villains at worst.
It will not happen.
Luckily for us, it doesn't need to. Internet censorship is still far from closing the door on our ability to network and share
information, and we've been very effective at sowing skepticism among the masses. The war propagandists are not nearly as good at
their jobs as they want to believe, and we can beat them.
They work so hard to manufacture support for war because they require that consent. If the oligarchs try to launch a war against
a disobedient nation amidst very clear opposition from the public, they will shatter the illusion of freedom and democracy that their
entire empire is built upon, and then they're exposed. Corporatist oligarchy has succeeded in weaving its web of dominance because
its oppression has thus far remained hidden and its depravity disguised as humanitarianism. They cannot expose themselves by transgressing
a loud NO from the public or else the masses will realize that everything they used to believe about their country, their government
and their world is a lie.
They won't risk that. We can force them into retreating from open war by circulating facts and information and keeping a healthy
level of skepticism circulating among the public. Watch them squirm, move goalposts and shift narratives, and point and yell about
it whenever it happens. We can win the media war against the propagandists. We have truth on our side.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my
website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish.
My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
That fact-finding body (OPCW) could change the whole paradigm IF it finds conclusive evidence this was a false flag event,
and IF they trumpet their findings to the world, and IF people get all the real ramifications of such a potential finding/announcement.
This said, I fully expect their "findings" to be a masterpiece of ambiguous language and weaslespeak.
This body after all is a creation of politicians and bureaucrats answering to many governments. They, almost certainly, will
"punt."
The OPCW had better release their findings if they contradict the "official" narrative before they fly out from Douma as they
could well end up like the passengers on MH17.
That in itself will be another problem because the "good guys" will know within minutes that Russia did it.
"No conlusive evidence was found" will be the finding which either side can spin to their desire.
Russia - there is no evidence so there was no attack
US - the evidence was no conclusive but only because enough time has passed that it degraded to the point where a good sample
could not be located.....and Russia kept the inspectors from the site in order for this to happen.
Ed Schultz: I was fired from MSNBC because I supported Bernie SandersThe
former anchor claims the network was in the tank for Hillary Clinton
MSNBC anchor-turned-Russia Today host, Ed Schultz, told National Review Monday that he believes
he was fired from the left-leaning cable news network because he openly supported Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. The network, he claims, was in the tank for
Hillary Clinton.
The interview itself is fascinating and a shocking look at the inner workings of MSNBC, even if
Schultz isn't exactly a reliable narrator. Schultz claims that MSNBC took a heavy hand in
dictating what went on air, and that he was often pushed in the direction of a story by
higher-ups, even if he felt his audience wouldn't be interested.
Schultz says his trouble at MSNBC started when he informed his bosses that he planned to cover
Bernie Sanders' campaign announcement live from Vermont, and that he would be airing the first,
exclusive, cable network interview with the progressive presidential candidate. They objected,
and even went so far as to tell Schultz to drop the story.
He refused. And was forced to cover a boring news story in Texas, he says.
Schultz is clear on whom he blames: Hillary Clinton.
" I think the Clintons were connected to [NBC's] Andy Lack, connected at the hip, "
Schultz told NRO host Jamie Weinstein. " I think that they didn't want anybody in their
primetime or anywhere in their lineup supporting Bernie Sanders. I think that they were in the
tank for Hillary Clinton, and I think that it was managed, and 45 days later I was out at
MSNBC. "
Schultz's stint at MSNBC came to a screeching halt in July 2015, just as the Democratic
primaries were heating up. That same week, the network also axed other underperforming shows,
but Schultz maintains that he was given the boot because they didn't want him speaking out
against Clinton in the heat of the primaries.
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
"... casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation ..."
"... repeated acts of violence ..."
"... could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention. ..."
The story we're told is simple: Syrian President Bashar Assad is an evil maniac who uses
poison gas on his citizens for the sheer entertainment value. As neocon think tank the Atlantic
Council
put it last week, when Assad gasses people, he is simply " indulging an addiction
" -- an addiction which he seems to have only recently acquired, given the fact that before
Syria's war began, American journalists were busy praising the "
educated " and " informed " Assad and marveling at the " phenomenal
" levels of peace and religious diversity within Syria.
In 2006 Diane Sawyer praised Assad during a trip to Syria for the "phenomenal" levels of
religious tolerance and peace in Syria. Funny how he turned into a monster at the exact
moment Washington decided it was time for regime change. https://t.co/24qy6UtFez
Anyway, so intense is Assad's newfound desire for watching Syrian babies foaming at the
mouth, that he is willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by deciding to use these
weapons despite knowing it would provoke worldwide outrage and potentially a major US military
effort to oust him. So, that's the story. Assad is a monster and the world must unite to stop
him.
There are plenty of people who are less than convinced by this narrative, however. One of
them is Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Ford told BBC Radio Scotland that " in all
probability " the alleged chemical attack never happened and that the video and image
evidence used as proof by the US and its allies was falsified. There are others who believe
that the attack could have been real, but that the perpetrators were anti-Assad rebels trying
to provoke fresh military action from the US -- in other words, it was very possibly a false
flag event which served its purpose perfectly.
One of the best questions to ask when something like this happens, is: Who benefits? Very
clearly in this case, Assad has not benefited at all, but the rebel groups fighting against him
have.
Whatever the truth about this alleged chemical attack, the notion of false flag events being
used to prompt military action should not be met with such skepticism. The US has a long
history of using lies (or 'fake news' you might call it) as a pretext for war. It is important
to look at recent events in Syria within that context.
Nayirah testimony
Perhaps the most famous of all examples was the heart-wrenching testimony to Congress of a
15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, which was used to sell the first Gulf War
to the American people in October 1990. An emotional Nayirah told the Congressional Human
Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving
them on the floor to die.
What Americans did not know, was that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to
the US and she had been coached by the American PR firm Hill and Knowlton. But before the
details of the stunt and false testimony became widely known, it had already been used to sell
America's war against Iraq in 1991.
In 1990 young Nayirah told of seeing Iraqi soldiers pull Kuwaiti babies out of incubators.
Today our delivery of atrocity propaganda is more sophisticated, yet public credulity remains
about the same. pic.twitter.com/l7UYmByl5D
In the 1960s, American military leaders devised plans to bomb US cities and
blame Cuban leader Fidel Castro in order to manufacture public and international support for a
war.
The plan was codenamed Operation Northwoods and what it advocated was nothing short of
horrendous. The American military suggested sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees, hijacking
planes and bombing Miami. The goal was to convince Americans that Castro had unleashed a reign
of terror upon them.
The top brass were even willing to cause US military casualties by blowing up an American
boat in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. Why? Because, as they put it, " casualty lists in
US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation " and help manufacture
support for war. The plans were quashed by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated one
year later, leading some to speculate on a link between those events.
Gulf of Tonkin
Top US officials also distorted
the facts in the lead-up to the Vietnam War and the media dutifully reported the official
narrative as absolute fact, helping launch perhaps the most disastrous war in America's
history.
On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack the USS 'Maddox' while it was on "
routine patrol " in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the US
Navy reported a second " unprovoked " attack on the 'Maddox' and the USS 'Turner Joy'
-- a second destroyer which had been sent in after the first attack. President Lyndon B.
Johnson told the American people on TV that " repeated acts of violence " against the
US ships must be met with a strong response. Soon after Johnson appeared on TV, Congress passed
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which pre-approved any military action that he would take from
that moment on.
The only problem was, there was no second attack on the US ships at all -- and the
allegation that the first attack had been " unprovoked " was also a lie. In reality,
the USS 'Maddox' had been gathering intelligence and providing it to South Vietnamese boats
which were attacking North Vietnam. As for the second attack, the US boats had misinterpreted
radio signals and radar images and spent two hours firing at nothing. Nonetheless, the "
attack " was used to convince the American people to support war.
3. Given the folly of the British government over Iraq and Libya, and its undoubted
misleading of the public over Iraq, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect it of doing the
same thing again. Some of us also do not forget the blatant lying over Suez, and indeed the
Gulf of Tonkin https://t.co/GLzyoPWaDG
Recently declassified
documents show yet more American false flag plotting, this time against the Soviet Union. A
three-page memo , written by
members of the National Security Council, suggested that the US government should acquire
Soviet aircraft which would be used to stage attacks and provide the pretext for war.
Such aircraft, the memo said, " could be used in a deception operation designed to
confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in
a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly
installations to provide an excuse for US intervention. "
The government even considered producing the soviet planes domestically in a massive covert
operation. They went so far as to acquire estimates from the Air Force on the cost and length
of time such an operation would take.
In a memo of undisclosed date, the US National Security Council suggested the government
should either buy or covertly produce Soviet aircraft and use them to launch fake attacks,
providing pretext for war https://t.co/d7fPLW6Fxwpic.twitter.com/tVnqbValPP
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Is there even any need to rehash the lies which were
told in the lead-up to the Iraq war? The media here again swallowed the government's lies, one
by one -- and 15 years later, the region is still suffering the consequences and very few
lessons appear to have been learned.
These are not conspiracy theories. They are cold, hard evidence that the US has no qualms
whatsoever about using false flag events and fake evidence to provide pretext for military
action.
Continued lack of critical inquiry from the media, given the severe potential consequences
of escalating the conflict in Syria, is tantamount to a crime.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
Daily Beast
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
broadcast.
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
.
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
emoji.
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
played out.
-
Daily
Beast
"
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
Making
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
.
Jana Winter of
The Beast
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
The View
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
True
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
."
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
to the
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
THE
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
than that.
Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy.
Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural
ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
Virginia.
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the
poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence
will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme
Court.
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
Jeff Sessions.
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of
limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could
provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump
hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
In reality Trump proved again that POTUS does not matter and presidential elections matter very little. In was he is like
drunk Obama, reckelss and jingoistic to the extreme. Both foreign and domestic policy is determined by forces, and are outside POTUS control, with very little input
possible. But the "deep state"
fully control the POTUS, no matter who he/she are.
Notable quotes:
"... To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda. ..."
"... Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being elected in US money-driven elections. ..."
"... Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root. Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail. ..."
To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader
dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda.
Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being
elected in US money-driven elections.
Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the
establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root.
Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail.
Rome had bread and circuses. We've got crumbs and tweets.
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
"... But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news", and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies. ..."
"... And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and conquered. ..."
"... a totally and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported. ..."
"... The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even more rubble, causing even more death and destitution ..."
"... the US economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon manufacturing. ..."
"... But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on humanity. ..."
Poison gas is not only deadly, it often provokes a slow suffocating death. That, perpetrated
on innocent children, is particularly cruel.
But when such poison gas attacks are mere false flags, or by the new term, "false news",
and are used to provoke war, perhaps an all annihilating war, then humanity has turned to what
it never should have become – a lowly-lowly herd of brainless zombies.
Is that what we have become – brainless, greedy, selfish beings, no sense of
solidarity, no respect for other beings; I am not even talking about humans, but any living
being.
Poison gas, the weapon of choice for fear.
Poisoning in Salisbury of the former Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter,
Yulia, visiting her dad from Moscow. Poisoning with a nerve gas, called Novichok that was
allegedly made in Russia. In the meantime, we know that nerve gas made in the former Soviet
Union, now non-existent in Russia, was military grade and deadly. The gas used for the alleged
attack was not deadly. We also know by now that the UK – all of their highest officials,
from PM May down the ladder, lied so miserably that they will have a hard time recovering. It
will backfire. Unlike the foreign secretary, Johnson boy pretended their secret bio-gas /
bio-weapon laboratory Porton Down, just 13 km down the road from Salisbury, where the pair was
allegedly found unconscious on a park bench, assured him the gas was made in Russia. Alas, the
laboratories chief chemists testified later to the media that they could not be sure that the
substance was made in Russia. No, of course not.
In fact, Porton Down, working in close collaboration with the CIA, is a highly sophisticated
chemical warfare facility that can easily make the gas themselves – at the grades they
please, deadly or not so deadly, if it should serve a "false news" purpose – which this
did.
Were father and daughter indeed poisoned? – This is a legitimate question. Who has
seen them since the alleged poisoning occurred on 28 March? – They disappeared from the
public eye. Apparently, they are both recovering, Yulia having been released from hospital a
few days ago, but has not been seen by anyone in public, nor been able to talk to the media,
lest she could say "something" the public is not allowed to know. Her father is also recovering
and may be released soon – released from where? – Is this all a farce?
An aunt talked to Yulia from Moscow, where she noticed that Yulia was not free to talk. The
aunt wanted to visit her niece in the UK but was obviously denied a visa.
Where are father and daughter? – Washington has "offered" them a new home and new
identity in the US, to avoid further poisoning attempts how ridiculous! A blind man or woman
must see that this is another farce, or more correctly, an outright abduction. The two won't
have a chance to resist. They are just taken away – not to talk anymore to anyone ever.
– That's the way the story goes. The lies are protected, and the "Russia did it" syndrome
will prevail – prevail in the dumb folded public, in the herd of pigs that we all have
become, as Goebbels would say.
And the saga continues. The saga to drum up war. That's the purpose of it all. Nothing
else – Russia, the evil nation, led by an evil leader, must be subdued and
conquered. But the empire needs the public for their support. And the empire is almost
there. It disposes of a vicious media corporate army – that lies flagrantly about
anything that money can buy. It's like spitting in the face of the world, and nobody seems to
care, or worse, even to notice.
* * *
On the other side of the Mediterranean is Syria. A vast and noble country, Syria,
with a leader who truly loves his people and country, a leader who has despite a foreign
induced war – not civil war – a proxy war, instigated and funded by
Washington and its vassal allies in Europe and the Middle East; Syria, a highly educated
socialist country that has shared the benefit of her resources, free education, free medical
services, free basic infrastructure, with her people. This Syria must fall. Such strength
cannot be tolerated by the all-dominating west. Like Iraq and Libya, also socialist countries
once-upon-a-time, and like Syria, secular Muslim nations, sharing their countries wealth with
the people, such countries must fall.
According to Pentagon planners and those Zion-neofascist thinktanks that designed the PNAC
(Plan for a New American Century), as the chief instrument of US foreign policy, we know since
Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied commander and Chief of NATO in Europe (1997-2000)
talked to Democracy Now in 2007, saying that within 5 years seven countries must fall, one of
them is Syria.
Since 2011, the Syrian people have been bombarded by US and NATO and Saudi funded
terrorists, causing tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees. Now, even more
blatantly, US bases are vying to occupying the northern third of Syria, totally illegally, but
nobody says beep. Not even the UN.
The recent fake gas attack on Douma outside of Damascus, has allegedly killed 80 to 120
people, mostly women and children.
Of course, that sells best in the propaganda theatre – women and children. Strangely,
like last time the infamous White Helmets discovered the gas victims, including a gas
canister-like bomb laying on a bed, having been shot through the roof of a house a totally
and unprofessionally staged event. As Russian military quickly discovered and reported.
They called on an independent investigation, one that could not be bought and corrupted by
Washington. President Assad invited a team of investigators to inspect the scene.
Instead of heeding this invitation, Trump, the bully, calls Mr. Assad an "animal" and a
"monster", twittering his brainless aggressions throughout the world. Tell you what, Mr. Trump,
Bashar al-Assad is a far better human being than you are a monster. You and your dark handlers
don't even deserve being called human. Mr. Assad has regard and respect for his people,
attempts to protect them and has so far succeeded with the help of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah,
recovering the last bits of Syrian territory from the terrorist, except of course, the northern
part, where the chief terrorist and the world's only rogue state has itself installed, the US
of A. – Why in the world would Mr. Assad choose to gas his own people? Especially, when
he is winning the war? – People, ask yourself, cui bono (who benefits?) and the
answer is simple: The western aggressors, who seek a reason to mass bomb Syria into even
more rubble, causing even more death and destitution . That's who.
While you, Donald, and those monsters that direct you from behind the scenes, have no, but
absolutely no respect for your people, for any people on this globe, for that matter, not even
for your kind, for your greed-no-end kind of elite, as you bring the world to the brink of an
all-destructive, all killing annihilating war.
Since the other fake event, 9/11, we are, of course, already in a "soft version" of WWIII,
but that's not enough, the United States needs a hard war, so badly it doesn't shy away from
destroying itself. That's how blinded your own propaganda has made you Americans, you generals,
you corporate "leaders" (sic-sic) – and all you Congress puppets. That is the sheer
truth. You better read this and wake up. Otherwise your dead sentence is hastened by your own
greed and ignorance.
Both Russia and the US drafted a Security Council Resolution – which of course are
both not approved, with Nikki Haley lambasting Russia, accusing them of being responsible for
the countless deaths in Syria – pointing again to the children and women, making up the
majority. Again, it sells best in the world of psychological propaganda, while evil Nikki Haley
knows very well who has caused all these deaths by the millions, destitution and refugees by
the millions, tens of millions throughout the Middle East and the world – her own
country, directly or through NATO, the European puppets allies and proxy wars, paid and funded
by Washington and by elbow-twisting her vassals.
On 9 April – UNSC – while Nikki Haley, repeats and over-repeats her lies and
fake accusations, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Vassily Nebenzia, listens. And then in
a twenty-minute statement of sheer intelligence, he dismantles all the lies, and lays bare the
truth, about all the fakeness being played out internationally. The depth with which he
addresses the assembly is concise and so brilliant, none of his UK, French and German
counterparts could have ever come close to a statement of this magnitude and excellence. Even
Ms. Haley can't help glancing over ever-so
often to Vassily Nebenzia, as he speaks . Her eyes reveal some kind of hidden admiration
for what he says. – After all, she can't be as dumb as she is paid for to look and
sound.
By now anybody who dares not just reading and listening to the mainstream presstitute "fake
news", but has the courage to dig into the truth news, RT, TeleSur, CGTN, PressTV – and a
few others, or websites like Global Research, The Saker Blog, ICH, NEO, Greanville Post
CounterCurrent, Dissident Voice and many other trustworthy sources – knows about the lies
and the only, but the very only purpose these false flags cum false news serve:
Provoking a war with Russia, subjugating and dividing Syria, and the Middle East and becoming
the hegemonic masters of the universe.
For the simple reason, and hardly anybody talks or writes about it – the US
economy is based on war, is based on weapon manufacturing and international banking which
finances weapon manufacturing and the exploitation of mineral resources coveted by weapon
manufacturing.
The entire war industry with all its associated civil services and industries, of banking,
electronics, aviation, mining . makes up more than half of the US GDP – but of course,
it's never broken down that way. The chosen people will control the world. Well, they do
already – financially at least the western part of our globe. But it's not enough. They
will not stop, before they burry themselves in their own-dug graves, or rather in one massive
mass-grave. But, please, do take all your fakeness, from money, to lies, to hypocrisy and
more lies and coercion and sanctions and blackmail with you – never to surface again. And
give peace a chance – for those who survive your (almost) terminal assault on
humanity.
Yet here is the even more unexplainable part of this sorry episode that amounts to the Deep
State waging the Donald. The remaining rebels capitulated on Sunday and the government re-upped
the evacuation deal. That is, the remnants of Jaish al-Islam are now all dead or have boarded
busses--along with their families---and are already in Idlib province.
That's right. There is no opposition left in Douma and it has been liberated by the Syrian
army, including release of the 3,200 pro-government hostages who had been paraded around the
town in cages by the Saudi Arabia funded warriors of Islam who had terrorized it.
According to the Syrian government, no traces of chemicals or even bodies have been found.
They could be lying, of course, but with the OPCW investigators on the way to Douma who in
their right mind would not wait for an assessment of what actually happened last Saturday?
That is, if you are not caught up in the anti-Russian hysteria that has engulfed official
Washington and the mainstream media. Indeed, the Syrian government has now even welcomed the
international community to come to Douma, where the Russians claim there is absolutely nothing
to see:
Speaking with EuroNews, Russia's ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizov, said "Russian
military specialists have visited this region, walked on those streets, entered those houses,
talked to local doctors and visited the only functioning hospital in Douma, including its
basement where reportedly the mountains of corpses pile up. There was not a single corpse and
even not a single person who came in for treatment after the attack."
"But we've seen them on the video!" responds EuroNews correspondent Andrei Beketov.
"There was no chemical attack in Douma, pure and simple," responds Chizov. "We've seen
another staged event. There are personnel, specifically trained - and you can guess by whom -
amongst the so-called White Helmets, who were already caught in the act with staged
videos."
In short, if they are lying, it would not be hard to ascertain. Presumably, the Donald could
even send Jared Kushner--flack jacket and all---to investigate what actually happened at
Douma.
Alas, the Donald has apparently opted for war instead in a desperate maneuver to keep the
Deep State at bay.
Either way, we think he's about done, and in Part 2 we will explore why what's about to
happen next should be known to the history books, if there are any, as "Mueller's War".
"... Next, there was an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called "western values" (democracy, rule of law, human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill. ..."
"... There was also a broad consensus that the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake. ..."
"... Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the "experts" was representing, or working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for the so-called "experts". Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing popular consensus. ..."
They all agreed that the AngloZionist (of course, they used the words "USA" or "Western
countries") was only going to further escalate and that the only way to stop this is to
deliberately bring the world right up to the point were a full-scale US-Russian war was
imminent or even locally started.
They said that it was fundamentally wrong for Russia to reply
with just words against Western actions. Interestingly, there also was a consensus that even a
full-scale US attack on Syria would be too late to change the situation on the ground, that it
was way too late for that.
Another interesting conclusion was that the only real question for
Russia is whether Russia would be better off delaying this maximal crisis or accelerating the
events and making everything happen sooner. There was no consensus on that.
Next, there was
an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common
sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported
by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called "western values" (democracy, rule of law,
human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill.
There was also a broad consensus that
the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts
are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh
measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris
Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake.
To my amazement, the
notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the
Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.
Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the "experts" was representing, or
working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also
know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for
the so-called "experts". Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing
popular consensus.
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
This is US specific bank of chickenhawks, who feed from MIC cramps. this breed is really entrenched in State Department too (Madeleine
Albright, Nuland, Powell, Haley, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria! ..."
"... It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names? ..."
War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it
appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria!
It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope
for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names?
"... There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here - and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing the MSM and/or our government. ..."
@ BM: My take on the situation in Germany: the MSM - leftish or rightish, doesn't matter -
mindlessly repeat what our US colonial masters are telling them to.
There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here -
and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing
the MSM and/or our government.
But what can you do when the published opinions are completely manufactured and anyone has
to suppose his neighbours all believe this idiocy?
That's a bit of a stretch. Germans were demoralized long before, as each sane person knew the war will end in
defeat from mid'42 on. Back in the days I had the somewhat questionable pleasure of talking to German ex-soldiers
(two of my grand-uncles) that were deployed to the Eastern Front. Compared to the kind of warfare that was going
on there, the fighting in the west and south was almost akin to being on vacation - I'm serious about that.
On average the Soviets, mainly comprised of todays Russian peoples, lost 16-18000 people a day, this is
evidence of the fierceness of fighting and, also, to what amount of a beating the Russians can take without
losing sight of their goal.
The Soviet Union did the real fighting against German forces. At all times there'd been about 85% of all
German forces deployed to the east, without this there would had been no bombing campaign against Germany simply
because the number of fighter aircraft available against allied bombers would had been overwhelming.
Except for a few elite units, hastily re-deployed from the east, the main force was inexperienced draftees
with both a lack of proper training and equipment. All other experienced units stayed east in a desperate attempt
to hold back the red army as long as any possible.
A very good friend of mine, who died a couple years back at age 84, was one of these unfortunate souls. When
he turned 17 in late Dec.'44 he received an official letter that read 'A gift from the Fuhrer' - it was his draft
note. That's been the kind of opponent the western allies faced late in the war, a bunch of badly under-equipped
troops consisting of exhausted regulars and youths, that were scared shitless (his words, not mine).
Russia's a different kind of animal. They won WWII - European theater almost singlehandedly but had to pay
dearly.
We have moved way beyond the Skripals case now. Simply put, if US shoots in Syria, Russia
will shoot back this time, yes back at US. USS Donald Duck has been placed as a bait to be
sent to the bottom of Mediterrenain sea by the Russians, similar to Arizona et al at Pearl
Harbour.
Many dissenter websites are currently under attack by the cyber forces of the Western
regimes and Israel, one of them being this one. Another site under attack is my favorite
johnhelmer.com. In addition to saying that he is under attack, the current message from John
is:
WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD
DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA MET IN
MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST
CONSEQUENCES". THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT
INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.
The West is utterly bankrupt, morally as well as financially and we are experiencing the
Western remedial plan and actions – war!
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
– The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major
war criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a
progeny of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is:
Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in 2004. Guess that the Russian attitude
towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90′s as mitigating circumstances into
account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
White Helmets was the greatest war propaganda invention since Goebbels "big lie"
The sheeple might realize that they were duped only when it's too late... It's all very darwinian: Elite is too nasty and common
people are too stupid and too busy with surviving in economic uncertainty to decipher lies
Notable quotes:
"... "the West is ruled by a gang of thugs" ..."
"... It is depressing to see that there are very few people in the MSM speaking out for reason. One of the few ones is Tucker Carlson. ..."
"... The US, British etc. taxpayer funded propaganda arm of Islamists, the media trained "white helmets" are delivering videos that look almost as real as Hollywood products and most of the sheeple in the western world don't question their propaganda narrative. ..."
"... Well here you go Dutti. Both Glen Greenwald and Amy Goodman are out there in media land championing the 'truth' for good old Isramerika. ..."
It is depressing to see that there are very few people in the MSM speaking out for reason. One of the few ones is Tucker Carlson.
Unfortunately, even among friends and acquaintances, the story about "evil Assad killing Children" is often readily believed.
The US, British etc. taxpayer funded propaganda arm of Islamists, the media trained "white helmets" are delivering videos that
look almost as real as Hollywood products and most of the sheeple in the western world don't question their propaganda narrative.
"... So the idea that the Israelis were trying to provoke a response directed against US assets in order to escalate the conflict seems plausible. But Syria didn't play. ..."
"... Seems like Israel was used to do the dirty work and get Trump out of the corner he had rapidly painted himself into. Trump's response to the fake Douma chemical attack was so over the top that he would have had to carry out a major attack on Syria to justify it. Major meaning much larger than the last one with 59 tomahawks. So probably a hundred tomahawks at least and against a more important target than last time. This the Russians have said they will not allow. So what to do? Have Israel launch a rather minor harassing attack against a base well away from Damascus and so relieve the pressure on Trump to do something. ..."
" Israeli officials have called on the US to attack the Syrian Army, following what they
called a "shocking attack" in Douma. Israel's own crackdown on Gaza protesters was
"self-defense" and not worthy of attention, they said.
Washington must launch a strike against Damascus in response to the alleged chemical
attack in the city of Douma, the Israeli Strategic Affairs and Public Security Minister Gilad
Erdan told the Army Radio on Sunday, commenting on the reports coming from anti-government
groups in Syria. Erdan also said he personally hopes that the US would take military action
against the Syrian government, which he blamed for the attack, the Jerusalem Post reports.
The minister added that the Douma incident shows the "need" for a US troop buildup in
Syria.
The Israeli construction minister and former IDF major general, Yoav Galant, went even
further and called for a military strike aimed directly against the Syrian president.
"[Bashar] Assad is the angel of death, and the world would be better without him," Galant
said. The Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog called on the US to take "decisive military
action" against Syria."
So the idea that the Israelis were trying to provoke a response directed against US assets
in order to escalate the conflict seems plausible. But Syria didn't play.
Confusion about the number, type, and source of missiles, and the fate of the synchronized
ISIS attacks in various accounts.
Seems like Israel was used to do the dirty work and get Trump out of the corner he had
rapidly painted himself into. Trump's response to the fake Douma chemical attack was so over
the top that he would have had to carry out a major attack on Syria to justify it. Major
meaning much larger than the last one with 59 tomahawks. So probably a hundred tomahawks at
least and against a more important target than last time. This the Russians have said they
will not allow. So what to do? Have Israel launch a rather minor harassing attack against a
base well away from Damascus and so relieve the pressure on Trump to do something.
So far I'd say it looks like this is what happened. If so then the Russians wisely allowed
Trump to save face. Hopefully that will allow things to blow over. Next couple days should
tell.
"... U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft . There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention. ..."
Unless you've been living under a rock, by now you know that the British government falsely claimed
that irrefutable evidence proved that the Russian government was behind the poisoning of a former
Russian double agent and his daughter using a "Novichok" nerve agent.
In response, the UK and US
carried out the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in history.
Now that the wheels have come off this farce, it is interesting to note previous examples of the
West falsely blaming Russia for bad acts.
Official German intelligence service documents show that, in 1994, the German intelligence
services
planted
(original
German
)
plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to
frame
Russia for exporting dangerous
radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals.
This frame-up job was so successful at
whipping up fear
that it
got German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to "help" secure Russia's
nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.
While everyone "knows" that the Kremlin poisoned Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko with
radioactive polonium, a very
high-level
French counterterrorism official, Paul Barril, alleges that French, US and UK intelligence worked
together to kill Litvinenko and to frame Russia:
And
see
this
.
U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017
admitted
that
a very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials – separate from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff – also discussed: The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft .
There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to
confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a
provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly
installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.
Newsweek
ran
an article headlined (all caps in original Newsweek title):
U.S. GOVERNMENT PLANNED FALSE FLAG ATTACKS TO START WAR WITH SOVIET UNION, JFK DOCUMENTS
SHOW
The article notes:
The U.S. government once wanted to plan false flag attacks with Soviet aircraft to
justify war with the USSR or its allies, newly declassified documents surrounding the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy show.
***
False flag attacks are covert operations that make it look like an attack was carried out
by another group than the group that actually carried them out.
Indeed, falsely blaming other countries for terrorism or violence is
the oldest way
to create a "justification" for war.
The governments have certainly learned how to mess with the thinking gear of people.
I spent most of my life working with inanimate objects not spending much time
figuring out how people think. Most of the people that I did try to figure out were
personally known to me. It was only in the last few years of my career that I paid
any real attention to how people are manipulated. I knew people were easily
manipulate for years, just think about how the war in Iraq in 2003 was so popular
amoung most people.
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on
top of other lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost
track. I am not sure if even MIC or Israel knows anymore.
"... Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida. ..."
"... Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference? ..."
One common sense thought: no one wants a bigger or wider war. There is no nation that can
handle it.
The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds. We know the
Kurds in Syria will not fight Assad's forces.
So, there are probably 30,000 fighters of
various sorts the US and Turkey are still feeding and using.
As for the air space over Syria, that will eventually close to the US. All Putin has to do
is move S 400 75-100 kms closer toward the East border from the West enclaves where they now
defend.
The US will be grounded, unable to support their 14+ bases, and will have to leave.
Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at
Daraa and Suweida.
But no one wants to put their Armed Forces into Syria.
So, what happens tonight and the next few days is missiles strikes, unless Bolton can
convince the Military to do something enormous with a huge air strike. How Putin handles this depends on casualties and losses of Russian forces.
Since Russian advisers, Military Police and Reconciliation Officers are all over Syria
North to South, West to East, it will be sheer luck that none are struck by cruise missiles
or other weapons if they come into play.
The Lord Has Risen, and the forces of evil are rabid for more Death and Destruction.
Not exactly sure. Putin can move S-400 close to US presence but in order to Ground US, he
needs to send a message saying that he can shoot them. And in all these episodes Putin never
showed the courage. So you could place S-500 on door step of US airbase but still they will
continue flying!
Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct
statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the
difference?
It is hard for me to put into words the utter disgust and anger I feel towards the zio con
clowns in wash dc being led by the nose by Israel/mossad. But I guess, what the hell-zios do
not care what average americas think or feel-they are the fodder..
Might be Israeli that pretends to be USA hoping that Syria or Russia will think it is USA and
fire at USA forces causing a wider war.. Israel has actually done actually this before.
"... Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida. ..."
"... Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference? ..."
One common sense thought: no one wants a bigger or wider war. There is no nation that can
handle it.
The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds. We know the
Kurds in Syria will not fight Assad's forces.
So, there are probably 30,000 fighters of
various sorts the US and Turkey are still feeding and using.
As for the air space over Syria, that will eventually close to the US. All Putin has to do
is move S 400 75-100 kms closer toward the East border from the West enclaves where they now
defend.
The US will be grounded, unable to support their 14+ bases, and will have to leave.
Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at
Daraa and Suweida.
But no one wants to put their Armed Forces into Syria.
So, what happens tonight and the next few days is missiles strikes, unless Bolton can
convince the Military to do something enormous with a huge air strike. How Putin handles this depends on casualties and losses of Russian forces.
Since Russian advisers, Military Police and Reconciliation Officers are all over Syria
North to South, West to East, it will be sheer luck that none are struck by cruise missiles
or other weapons if they come into play.
The Lord Has Risen, and the forces of evil are rabid for more Death and Destruction.
Not exactly sure. Putin can move S-400 close to US presence but in order to Ground US, he
needs to send a message saying that he can shoot them. And in all these episodes Putin never
showed the courage. So you could place S-500 on door step of US airbase but still they will
continue flying!
Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct
statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the
difference?
It is hard for me to put into words the utter disgust and anger I feel towards the zio con
clowns in wash dc being led by the nose by Israel/mossad. But I guess, what the hell-zios do
not care what average americas think or feel-they are the fodder..
Might be Israeli that pretends to be USA hoping that Syria or Russia will think it is USA and
fire at USA forces causing a wider war.. Israel has actually done actually this before.
Chemical false flag attacks is the traditional way Syria islamists are calling for the US air support. From comments: "After all
they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam must be having a great
laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists."
Anther interesting comment: "With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at
least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence."
And another " including their mouthpieces at the times manufacture
a chemical attack and claim Assad -- who has no reason whatsoever to do such things -- is some horrible monster that deserves to have
bombs rained down on him. How totally corrupt the MIC has become."
That act reported by White helmets looks like a classic MI6 provocation. Russian investigation has shown that no attack took place.
Moreover the rumors about this false flag were circulating long ago. Russians warned about this possiblity a month or so ago telling
the jihadists prepare such provocation. Looks like all that was needed for Trump is a plausible justification -- the desire to "decapitate"
Assad is too strong to resist.
Notable quotes:
"... Syria is a crappy place primarily because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that. ..."
"... With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence. ..."
President Trump on Monday denounced the suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in
Syria over the weekend as a "barbaric act," and said
he will make a decision in the next 24 to 48 hours about whether to retaliate militarily as he did to a similar assault last year.
Congress has skirted their responsibility to authorize war in Syria and Trump is suggesting taking actions that could drag
us into a deep and costly war. The American people deserve to hear this debated in Congress.
Retaliate? They don't even know for sure who it was, could well have been an ally. The place is a mess of competing outside
forces.
Retaliate - and therein lies the problem. Too much to ask that for once they think, discuss, decide a long term policy with
other countries. Last time the 45th tried 'me-big-man-with-bomb' there was no follow up, nothing was done, what was the point?
Look at me I have the biggest, noisiest fire cracker! Pathetic. Careless. Irresponsible. Uniformed. Murderous. The list is endless.
I suppose the President can launch a missile attack, or any military action, based on whatever authority from Congress permitted
the US military to be fighting in Syria in the first place. The more fundamental issue is that Congress long ago ceded to the
President its constitutional responsibility to declare war . This must be corrected with checks restored on the President's power
to deploy the military at will. Otherwise, the US will continue to be in a perpetual state of war, which may be good for the extended
military supply industry but damaging to country as a whole.
What if.....what if this chemical attack was sanctioned not by Assad but by a state or a non-state force that wants the U.S.
to retaliate?
Just why did this chemical attack follow Trump's announced desire to get out of Syria?
Why, also, is Israel urging us to attack now? Could it be to distract from the human rights catastrophe in Gaza?
We all know what John Bolton would have us do.
Where's the proof that this was Assad's work? More WMD ?
Trump wined and dined MBS of Saudi Arabia who has been conducting airstrikes on Yemen with hundreds of casualties, as high
as 68 civilian deaths in one day. It would be hard to imagine a better example of hypocrisy.
Syria is a part of a complex series of issues that make up the problem of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Trump does not have the
capacity to manage any of this. Selling arms to the Saudis to continue their war in Yemen added to the Syrian problem. The cholera
epidemic in Yemen is a form of biological warfare that is killing more civilians than chemical warfare in Syria. Starving the
population of Yemen is also warfare. By supporting the Saudis we have lost the moral high ground in Syria.
Was it the rebels again? Or is it chlorine again? Chlorine is used for several commercial and health purposes--to clean bottles,
to clean water, and for refrigeration. So it is quite easy for a bomb or explosive to hit a container and then there is a serious
gas problem. If pool acid and chlorine are stored together it might be worse when mixed. I do not believe Assad needs to use chemicals
because he has Russians who will do air strikes on his enemies. I call fake news.
The solution to Syria was obvious years ago, if you just wanted to see the obvious. And that was Syria as it had been for years,
in peace, secular, under a government of Assad who, eventually, knew it had to evolve into a more democratic regime . Now that
has changed, and all to Israel´s advantage. It seems as if the whole world has forgotten that the whole Middle East problem was
born, and is still the Occupation of Palestinian Land. Israel is a thorn in Arab Middle East.The only one that has attacked ALL
its neighbours !
We should do nothing. We need to leave Syria to the Syrian. We can't and musn't involve our military in every tragedy in the
world. There is no doubt in my mind that if we mistakenly and stupidly attack the Syrian Army we are aiding the Jihadist who planned
thit attack. After all they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam
must be having a great laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists.
The US government LIES about everything. We know this. This has been proved repeatedly.
Yet, here we are with the US government, and its stenographers in the mainstream media, i.e., the stuff that's not Fake News,
right, assuring us that Assad gassed his own people. Again.
Even if we could believe this, or even if we gave the government the benefit of the doubt for . . . what? . . . its integrity?,
we are after all exceptional, right, how is this America's business?
Yes, other countries shouldn't gas their own people. But countries shouldn't commit war crimes either, and that goes on every
day. America is as dirty as any other country. Despite our treaty obligations, even torture is legal here.
We're supposedly the richest country in the world, but we can barely keep our streets paved and lit. And not only that, but
it is a proven fact that one dollar invested in domestic economics brings back much more return than one dollar spent on bombs.
Trump is right. We need to stomp the madness in the Middle East. The oil companies can pay for their own security with all of
the money they don't pay in taxes.
Right now our cities are clogged with people living in tents and defecating on the sidewalks and in the streets. Look at old
pictures from the Depression. It looks the same today.
The left is seeing Russians responsible for every wrong in the world. The right sees itself as the rescuer of the wrongs of
the world. I pray that this does not move this country into a war with Russia.
This nation needs a "policy". Something with careful thought and backed by facts, expert analysis, and wisdom; Aim first and
carefully.
A "Shoot from the Hip" flourish that can be touted at the next Trump self congratulatory ego rally Will Not Do. Either this
nation has a leader or it doesn't - Trump's move!
One of the few things I liked about Trump was his anti-involvement stance in the middle east. We have SO MUCH to fix and worry
about at home. Nothing that Trump does on immigration, environment, or anything else will make me more angry than dragging us
into another war.
I don't see any ink being given to the very likely possibility that the gas attack was a ploy by rebels to get the US (and
their air cover) to stick around. If you ask the question, "Who benefits?" the Assad regime had nothing to gain by gassing a few
civilians -- they're about to win the war, so why would they? OTOH, the rebels need us badly, and know that we will reflexively
blame Assad.
Just a few days ago, Trump talked about withdrawing from Syria. Now, he says he will decide whether to attack Syria within
the next couple of days. One day we're out, the next day we're in. And just a few days ago, Trump said he didn't like to reveal
his military plans in advance. Now, he is announcing to the world that he is consideration retaliation against Syria. His contradictions
make the U.S. look as if it is led by a very confused commander in chief.
Yes, chemical weapons are barbaric, but who launched the attack? Which faction in this complicated civil war? How does trump
know the answer to this question when no one else does? Why would the U.S. "retaliate" based on speculation, especially after
trump recently said, "we need to get out of there and leave it to someone else"? What good would military action do at this point?
Are we anxious to put our "expensive new military" to the test? So many questions...and an administration unable / unwilling to
answer them. Too bad trump can't simply tweet his way out of this one...
The U.S. should respond militarily to Syria's gas attack only on two conditions:
1. The leaders of all key U.S. allies (European countries, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) sign a joint declaration
of support for the action.
2. Each of these countries pays a population-weighted share of the expense of the U.S. military operation.
We are either all in this together, or it's not worth doing.
Let's find out if our allies are willing to back up their pious declarations of condemnation.
I don't get it. Subjecting people, women, children and even men, to crushing, burning, lacerating and penetrating wounds is
par for the course. It's war after all. But poison! Oh the (in)humanity!
Also, anyone think it's weird that Assad does this just when the US is making motions to pull out?
It is impossible to know what is really going on as the world's powers continue to fight this proxy war. The only thing that
is certain is the continued suffering of the Syrian people - including the poor sods who will be conventionally incinerated by
American "retaliation" in a day or so.
The President should have no authority to declare war or commit troops, period. So far, there has been no urgent "national
emergency," as required by the War Powers Resolution, which would justify the President to effectively declare war unilaterally
and yet here we are, with presidents on both sides completely ignoring the Constitution, using the WPA as an enabler to bypass
the text which says that only Congress can declare war.
Saddam used gas on the Iranians and we were good with that. It is not clear about this gas in Syria. These "freedom fighters"
have no compunction about using civilians as human shields. How do we know the truth? They are various branches of Al Quaeda and
given their huge birth rate they don't seem to place much weight on human life in the here and now....maybe they focus on the
afterlife more. So why can't we just leave Assad alone and let him be the strong man there? Yes Syria is a crappy place primarily
because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving
the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that.
Trump says he was getting us out of Syria. Much to my relief to this endless war.
And I'm pretty sure the president of Syria, Assad, whose regime has been under attack by both the US supported Syrian rebels
and their ISIS allies did not want the US on their soil. So why would he do something like this? I don't believe he did. By the
way if the US was not meddling over in the M.E. there would be no refugees and fewer immigrants.
"Conventional" deaths by artillery and bullets are perfectly acceptable - when bodies are vaporized, ripped and torn apart
unrecognizably. But use a deadly gas and leave the corpses in "beautiful" condition - there you have crossed the line mister.
Lemme get this straight: The US policy doesn't care *how many* Syrians were killed; it only cares *how* they were killed? Nothing
good can come from such an ethically bankrupt policy.
As painful as it is, the possession of chlorine is not in violation of the standards we all signed in to to stop chemical and
biological weapons. Hence, the agreement under Obama, by almost all standards, worked well. Or at least unless we wanted a few
hundred thousands troop on the ground to search the entire country. This use of chlorine is. Maybe Trump will propose a huge tariff
on chlorine exports to Syria?
What is the logic for Assad to provoke the US right after Trump announces his intention to withdraw? Would it not be more strategic
for the regime to hold off until US troops were withdrawn and then go after the rebels? Does Assad assume that the US response
will be more moderate if we still have troops in country? Any chance this was a rogue action to delay or reverse US plans to withdraw?
If so, who benefits from US continuing to maintain troops in Syria?
With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have
anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence.
To
borrow from the British definition of an ambassador, United States military leaders are honest soldiers promoted in rank to champion
war with reckless disregard for the truth. This practice persists despite the catastrophic waste of lives and money because the untruths
are never punished. Congress needs to correct this problem forthwith.
General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, exemplifies the phenomenon. As reported in The Washington
Post , Dunford recently voiced optimism about defeating the Afghan Taliban in the seventeenth year of a trillion-dollar war that
has multiplied safe havens for international terrorists, the opposite of the war's original mission. While not under oath, Dunford
insisted, "This is not another year of the same thing we've been doing for 17 years. This is a fundamentally different approach [T]he
right people at the right level with the right training [are in place] "
There, the general recklessly disregarded the truth. He followed the instruction of General William Westmoreland who stated at
the National Press Club on November 21, 1967 that the Vietnam War had come to a point "where the end begins to come into view." The
1968 Tet Offensive was then around the corner, which would provoke Westmoreland to ask for 200,000 more American troops. The Pentagon
Papers and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty have meticulously documented the military's reckless disregard
for the truth throughout the Vietnam War.
Any fool can understand that continuing our 17-year-old war in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. The nation is artificial. Among
other things, its disputed border with Pakistan, the Durand Line, was drawn in 1896 between the British Raj and Afghan Amir Abdur
Rahmen Khair. Afghanistan's population splinters along tribal, ethnic, and sectarian lines, including Pushtans, Uzbeks, Hazara, Tajiks,
Turkmen, and Balochi. Its government is riddled with nepotism, corruption, ineptitude, and lawlessness. Election fraud and political
sclerosis are endemic. Opium production and trafficking replenish the Taliban's coffers.
The Afghan National Army (ANA) is a paper tiger. Desertion and attrition rates are alarming. Disloyalty is widespread. American
weapons are sold to the Taliban or captured. ANA soldiers will not risk that last full measure of devotion for an illegitimate, unrepresentative,
decrepit government.
The Taliban also has a safe haven in Pakistan. A staggering portion -- maybe up to 90 percent -- of United States assistance to
Afghanistan is embezzled, diverted, or wasted. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR),
related to Chatham House in London that "SIGAR was finding waste, fraud, and abuse nearly everywhere we looked in Afghanistan --
from the $488 million worth of aircraft that couldn't fly, to the navy the U.S. bought for a landlocked country, to the buildings
the U.S. paid for that literally melted in the rain ."
"The Taliban are getting stronger, the government is on the retreat, they are losing ground to the Taliban day by day," Abdul
Jabbar Qahraman, a retired Afghan general who was the Afghan government's military envoy to Helmand Province until 2016, told the
New York Times last summer. ISIS has now joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda in fighting the United States. Secretary of Defense
General James Mattis conceded to Congress last June that "we are not winning in Afghanistan right now," but added polyannaishly,
"And we will correct this as soon as possible." Only two months earlier, the Defense Department insisted that dropping the Mother
of All Bombs on Afghanistan would reverse the losing trend.
Upton Sinclair sermonized: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding
it." Thus do military leaders deceive themselves about futile wars to extract more spending, to maintain their professional reputations
and public stature, and to avoid the embarrassment of explaining to Congress and the American people that astronomical sums have
been wasted and tens of thousands of American soldiers have died or were crippled in vain.
To deter such self-deception, Congress should enact a statute requiring the retirement without pension of any general or admiral
who materially misleads legislators or the public about prospective or ongoing wars with reckless disregard for the truth. That sanction
might have prompted General Dunford to acknowledge the grim truth about Afghanistan: that the United States is clueless about how
to win that war.
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan and is the founding partner of Fein & DelValle PLLC.
Trump as a "false flag operation," That's rich ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... So the paradox is this: how are the elites herding people towards a new war, while at the same time encouraging thoughts and movements which will be a solid opposition block against military action? ..."
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be simply
PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and amplified
everything the establishment wanted. That much is clear and solidified now.
But here is the real strangeness in the situation:
A quick scan of Twitter and Facebook commentary on this new Syria situation shows that a
clear majority of Americans are opposed to anything that Trump touches. And this includes
military action in Syria, as evidenced from the social media postings. What was once a simple
matter of anti-war opposition has turned into a magnified anti-war plus anti-Trump
opposition.
So the paradox is this: how are the elites herding people towards a new war, while at
the same time encouraging thoughts and movements which will be a solid opposition block
against military action?
I think a rational explanation is that the elites simply got overconfident. They
overplayed their hand. It will indeed come back to bite them. The American people, whether
pro-Trump or anti-Trump, will resist any military action in Syria no matter what. The elites
will have to stop this movement and come up with a new strategy towards war.
"There is no doubt that Trump is an elite "false flag". Someone who was intended to be
simply PORTRAYED as being anti-establishment, but in reality, one who carried out and
amplified everything the establishment wanted. That much is clear and solidified now."
Exactly. The main reason trump is better than Clinton, in my opinion, is all that
opposition to Trump we see, would not be there against a Clinton regime. Both in the u.s. and
international in the west.
Concur.
Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing
tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his
profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily
stroked.
"... Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies are easily stroked. ..."
Concur. Clinton is sociopathic. Trump is narcissistic. The Deep State uses both. The
former willing tool, she cares nothing for anyone but herself. The latter, the psychologists
in CIA have his profile and manipulate him like a woman with a velvet glove. His inadequacies
are easily stroked.
"... Without sufficient domain knowledge, you have no immunity from MSM narratives. And, to acquire that knowledge you need to read non-MSM sources (or know people with first-hand experience). ..."
Reasonably intelligent people? Like this Iranian woman (in US) whose postings during the war
for Aleppo was full of righteous indignation for the rebels. when I told her that the people
whose fate she was bemoaning would do many evil things to her as a Shia Iranian woman; she
would not hear of it.
Couldn't agree with you more Babak. My dad is a 78 year old Orthopedic physician here in the
US. He would be considered intelligent by most people. And he is. Except when it comes to
Geopolitics. He believes everything the MSM parrots and I gave up long ago in voicing my
opinion to him. It's hopeless. And consider the vast majority of the citizens of my country
are far less intelligent than him. In my opinion, the forces that push for war know they are
lying and don't care if a small percentage are on to them. They have the microphone and we do
not.
Yes, people like that. Without sufficient domain knowledge, you have no immunity from MSM
narratives. And, to acquire that knowledge you need to read non-MSM sources (or know people
with first-hand experience).
The Brits blinked and did not punish the criminal liar Blair. Since then, the war
profiteering based on false flag operations has become a national British pastime.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. ..."
Hi, I am from the government. I am here to lie to you. I have so many lies on top of other
lies that sometimes they are true. Even the government has lost track. I am not sure if even
MIC or Israel knows anymore.
The problem for governments using false flag operations like this is many more people are
no longer trusting their own governments and quite rightly so. Human minds are reinforcing
the concept of untrustworthy governments that actually lasts far longer than the elected
period of time of those who purport to represent the population we now know to be a
deceit.
As example, take Blair ex-UK prime minister who concocted the whole Iraq dodgy dossier in
the UK who most people I know now call him a war criminal but nobody will put on trial in the
Hague. He has not been PM since 2007 but nobody forgets the criminal acts he instigated and
supported and will be remembered for a long time for this. So how do you make Blair appear
human again to the population?
You can apply this concept to so many elected criminals in the west ... join it up those
that rule us are in fact criminals not ordinary people. The psychos rule over us and to them
we are no more than dead meat.
Putin really dropped the ball on the Libya No-Fly Resolution trusting the evil empire. Now
the stakes
are even higher. The absolute worse news in all this is that Trump is bringing in Bolton as
his lunatic
wing man at the worst possible time when things were looking like they were wrapping up in
Syria.
Bolton is the male version of Hillary on steroids. Trump is going to hide behind Bolton's
mustache - you know, me good cop; Bolton bad cop; IOW, don't blame me for what needs to be
done. Trump gifted
Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and now he's going to gift him Syria too. The Iran deal will
also get scrapped soon and that's more gasoline on a fire that's about to get out of control.
Here's one way
to distract from the Mueller investigation; start a war and rally the county under
a common cause: war with Syria, ergo Russia and then Iran.
It's as I said from day one: Trump can't help himself; he's always been a Zio-con and
Adelson
is getting his money's worth. It's all going to happen as I always said it would. Trump was
the perfect puppet.
Trump will look like the savior of the realm; a role his big fat ego always dreamed of and
won't resist.
Now, there still might be a way out of this potential catastrophe. Admit it, wouldn't it
be nice if Putin
really was holding back something big regarding Trump?
*sigh* - if only! Very soon would be a good time to drop it. Manafort?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged Paul Manafort, President Trump's former Campaign Manager, for
working with former Ukrainian Presidnet Viktor Yanukovych in 2013.
Mueller failed to mention that he also worked with Yanukovych in 2013 six months before John Brennan,
John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and their EU partners, lead a bloody neo-nazi coup to overthrow the Yanukovych
government.
Last week a
memo
was released
showing Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directing the Mueller investigation to
look into allegations that Paul Manafort
"Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before
and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."
According to the
The Gateway Pundit
, in the memo there is no indication that Rosenstein or Mueller offered that
Mueller interacted with the former Ukrainian President as well. But then again, Rosenstein and Mueller have
so
many conflicts
of interest in this case that it is accurately labeled a "witch hunt".
Jack Posobiec tweeted out over night the link between Mueller and Yanukovych
Robert Mueller is prosecuting Manfort for doing work in Ukraine for Viktor
Yanukovych back in 2013
Here is Robert Mueller hanging out in Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013
The Ukrainian Embassy in the United States
shared
on Facebook
a picture of Robert Mueller with the President Yanukovych in 2013. The post was dated June
6, 2013
"We are grateful to American side for support of our efforts aimed at settlement of frozen conflicts,
ensuring control over conventional arms in Europe and combating trafficking. We count on further support
and cooperation with USA within the OSCE in order to enhance stability and security in the area which is
under jurisdiction of the given organization," the President said at the meeting with FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
The Head of State reminded that since the beginning of 2013, Ukraine had been presiding in the OSCE.
"We determined priorities of our presidency in close cooperation with member-states of the OSCE. I am
pleased to note that we have a constructive cooperation with Washington in this sphere," the President
emphasized.
"Ukrainian-American cooperation efficiently develops in many spheres of mutual interest. Your visit is
very interesting for Ukraine and relations between our law enforcement bodies have established good
traditions of cooperation and communication in the course of 20 years. I am confident that there is a
potential for further broadening of cooperation," Viktor Yanukovych said.
He stressed that Ukraine paid particular attention to the issue of combating terrorism. We have
adopted a number of documents aimed at increasing the efficiency of such work.
"The level of cooperation between central executive governmental bodies involved in anti-terrorist
actions is pretty high. The Security Service elaborated respective documents, they were reviewed and
approved by respective Presidential Decree," the Head of State noted.
The President emphasized that
Ukraine is very close to signing the Association Agreement with
the EU
in November. "There are
some preparations left but I hope that we will fulfill
everything
and sign the Agreement," he said.
In his turn, FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed gratitude to the President of Ukraine for the
assistance provided after the explosions in Boston. "I would like to focus on the most important issue
for us – the issue of combating terrorism. I would like to say thank you for the assistance provided to
us after the Boston Marathon," he noted.
FBI Director also informed that in the course of his meetings in Ukraine,
he planned to
discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.
Who only knows what the issues of mutual interest were!
This is
not
the first interaction Mueller
had with the Russians. In 2009 Mueller hand delivered uranium to the
Russians on an airport tarmac per the request of Hillary Clinton. Mueller also was Head of the FBI when
the Obama Administration sold 20% of US uranium to the Russians in the Uranium One deal.
Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax evasion
and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development. Yet, even very strong
institutions cannot control all situations that may allow for cheating. Well-functioning
societies also require the intrinsic honesty of citizens. Cultural characteristics, such as
whether people see themselves as independent or part of a larger collective, that is, how
individualist or collectivist a society is, might also influence the prevalence of rule
violations due to differences in the perceived scope of moral responsibilities, which is
larger in more individualist cultures.
If cheating is pervasive in society and goes often unpunished, then people might view
dishonesty in certain everyday affairs as justifiable without jeopardising their self-concept
of being honest. Experiencing frequent unfairness, an inevitable by-product of cheating, can
also increase dishonesty. Economic systems, institutions and business cultures shape people's
ethical values, and can likewise impact individual honesty.
I described Gachter and Schultz's work in April 2016, and thought I could immediately see a
problem with the interpretation that the authors placed on the results. Putting forward a
different perspective took a few days. Getting that new approach published has taken 2 years.
For how long will researchers put up with these absurd delays which impede the prompt
assessment of arguments?
The authors of this very interesting study, having revealed the cheats, interpreted the
national differences as being due to cultural factors, particularly whether there were
institutions in each society which encouraged honesty. Of course, this leaves open why one
society would have such institutions and another would not. Culture must come from somewhere. A
reasonable hypothesis is that the institutions of a county are built by the people who live
there. Here is our reply:
Honesty, rule violation and cognitive ability: A reply to Gächter and Schulz
Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, James Thompson.
Intelligence, Volume 68, May–June 2018, Pages 66–69.
Our argument is that both institutions and honesty are determined by the intelligence of
people, and that bright people can see the long-term benefits of honesty and of institutions
that support honest behaviour. Any institution with a code of conduct leads its members toward
probity, and shows prospective applicants what standards are expected of them. However, those
institution do not arise randomnly.
Gächter & Schulz assumed that institutional rules affect individual honesty.
We added cognitive ability as further factor explaining national differences.
Stronger effect of IQ (total 0.55) than of rule violation (total −0.34) on honesty.
Stronger effect of IQ (total −0.68) than of honesty (total −0.26) on rule
violation.
________________________________________
Abstract
Gächter and Schulz (2016) assumed an effect of institutional rule violation on
individual honesty within societies. In this reply we challenge this approach by including a
nation's cognitive ability as a further factor for cross-national variations in the
prevalence of rule violations and intrinsic honesty. Theoretical considerations,
correlational and path analyses show that a nation's cognitive ability level (on average
β = |.62|) better explains and predicts honesty and rule violation. While
institutional and cultural factors are not unimportant, cognitive factors are more
relevant.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
Cognitive ability seems to have the strongest causal effect on the honesty of a society:
The same pattern holds true if you assume that social levels of honesty intermediate
individual levels of honesty as shown by rule violation.
Either way, it seems that intelligence explains whether some societies cheat at games and
cheat in real life.
Society rots from top and doesn't matter who is at the top. It still remains valid even when
the so called least intellectually developed honest poor people get shafted for hundred of
years by so called high IQ nations who bring cheating,dishonesty,and violations of existing
laws and destruction of existing institutions without replacing them nationwide. Often these
newly created institutions are nothing but vehicle to whitewash the corrupting and corrupted
new system.
Public moral status has a lot to do with corruption at the top -both local and
international in these days of neoliberalism and post -colonization. It sounds painful and
hurtful though.
Interesting work! I am amazed academics have the patience to deal with such a long lag time
for letting arguments play out.
Is there any chance of you publishing a scatter plot matrix of the variables you used
and/or the data itself?
Do you have the correlation matrix for your variables? By any chance did you try single
and multiple variable models to try to predict rule violation from the other variables? It
would be interesting to see how much variance an assortment of those models explained.
Has anyone explored the idea of "cheater fraction" (analogous to smart fraction) to
explain dishonesty in societies?
It's an interesting question. Some years ago The Economist did a "European Honest Test "
leaving a wallet with a fair amount of cash in it (but also including clear contact details
of the owner), in capital cities around Europe.
The test was to see how many wallets were returned – and they found that the
Scandinavians returned almost all of them, and the Italians returned almost none – with
a clear North/South gradient in the results.
By coincidence, at about the same time, I found a wallet beside some rubbish bins with
€ 400 in it and some credit cards (one from my own bank). So on my next visit, I told
them about it and soon got a call from the owner ( a Spanish carpenter working in Germany).
His reaction was 1) to check that the money was still in the wallet 2) say that not many
people would return a wallet with € 400 in it 3) leave 2 bottles of wine at my front
gate.
I checked this reaction with my secretary at the time, and asked her what she would have
done, with the answer that it would be a "Regalo de Dios" (Gift of God), i.e. it was not
going to be returned to the owner, so there seems to be some anecdotal evidence for the
result.
China's position on the Intrinsic Honesty chart is puzzling both at the macro level
(remarkably honest, competent policy-makers) and at the individual level (above average IQ).
The Edelman Corporation, which has a lock on international surveys of personal and
institutional honesty has consistently found the Chinese to be among the most trusting people
on earth, as have World Values Surveys in their own, independent polls of the Chinese.
The source of the discrepancy appears to be the source of the data: "a n indicator of
political rights by Freedom House that measures the democratic quality of a country's
political practices; the size of a country's shadow economy as a proxy for tax evasion; and
corruption as measured by the World Bank's Control of Corruption Index (Supplementary
Methods)".
Relying on George Soros' Freedom House for information about China is akin to relying on
the neighborhood fox to keep an eye on your chickens while you go on vacation. Garbage in,
garbage out
I would rate Japan pretty high for getting things returned, but this ethic has eroded over
the past three or four decades.
Also, in the past you'd see adult males scolding unrelated misbehaving teens in public,
who'd slink away with their tails between their legs. This you do not currently see: men are
less masculine and assertive and some teens at least are more beligerant.
I think, David Perkins' findings about high IQ-people being also very tribal would make for a
nice addendum here, to better understand how IQ and honesty are related.
I refer to Jonathan Haidt's argument, that he bases explicitly on Perkins' findings, that
because of the tendency of high IQ-people to be even more tribal than the lower IQ ranks, ist
is so crucial, to understand with J. S. Mill's On Liberty (and I add: with Kant and
– – the Kantian Habermas' "Theory of Communicative Action"), that the core
achievement of modernity is the institutionalization of disconformation in the
democratic/liberal rational discourse and liberal public sphere (universities, the media,
etc.).
Here's Jonathan Haidt, referring to Perkins and Mill to make clear, how important the
institutionalization of disconformation actually is:
Correlation≠causation. Maybe honesty leads to brighter minds. Is it your knowing the right
answer that makes you follow it, or is it you looking at the situation, as it is, considering
evidence and proof, and getting the right answer through correct deductive reasoning, which
is then to be followed? You can't be honest and act ideologically, because by definition you
follow your observations of the world, not your ideas of the world. An honest person is bound
to direct observation, an intelligent person is not. Honesty is probably primary to an
accurate understanding of the world.
I think that 16 per cent is a bit arbitrary. In a class or caste dominated society you
might, if of a class which can choose to avoid countries, decide that it really doesn't
matter if your butler and housekeeper have to terrify the lower orders to stop them ripping
you off (and the butler and housekeeper have enough relations they want to place in
employment to keep them to the rules as to how much they cheat you).
I recently lost my wallet for a short time in a supermarket-plus-other-shops complex as I
wheeled my trolley to the car park. I thought my pocket had been picked so went to a nearby
poluce station to see if they could accelerate access to CCTV. Mr Plod was useless and
unhelpful. (Fortunately I didn't start cancelling credit cards immediately as he pretty well
demanded). Back in the shopping centre I was directed to a caretaker's office where a 30 ish
man of Pakistani origin had my wallet that had fallen out of my pocket as I went up a ramp.
He had taken the trouble to count the cash and wrap it separately with a note on it that the
amount was $915 or whatever. I never bothered to count it myself or even unwrap it for
several days. What does that say about the standard of civilisation in one of Australia's
biggest cities?
As anyone who has seen how inadequate religion is today to form moral young people may have
thought, the obvious starting point is to ask oneself how I bring up my children and what
moral rules I rub in (preferably by example as well as preaching). One knows children are not
going to be cunning ruthless sophisticates by nature – unless psychopaths – and
will not benefit from being taught to think immediately how they can get away with some theft
or lie. So you bring them up with rules which will help to make sure they are both trusted
and trustworthy – seeing you return the small amount of change over paid for exsmple to
rub in the message about rules they should still be obeying without thought when they have
children. Morality is about the customs of the tribe, its mores, and children are rarely done
any sort of favour by not being trained to be strictly moral (even if taught Christian
forgiveness, especially for the "poor in spirit"). However ..
It occurs to me that the place of intelligence in this may extend to what hss been called
Divergent Thinking (does this overlap with Lateral Thinking? Or imagination?)
A quick imaginative laterally thinking brain may think of several ways some dishonest
subterfuge may go wrong almost st the moment temptation arises. So honesty for him he quickly
concludes is the best policy. And so down the speculative path on which little evidence is to
be found. After all what is one to make of the arrogant lawyer that one reads about in the
big tax case who thought arrogantly he could get away with something and the Mr Plods of the
tax office would never sus him out and prove his wrongdoing to a court?
I was guided by my recollection of the modelling of neighbourhood crime risk, but it is a
sliding scale, I agree. I assumed, years ago, that at the 16-20% level one would begin to
notice a difference from base rate. See, in this particular example, Fig 2 and Fig 3
What does that say about the standard of civilization in one of Australia's biggest
cities?
It doesn't really say anything. You need some standardized parameters and a reasonable
sample size. Then you can draw some conclusions and assess the level of accuracy – like
The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment.
However , at the individual level, a continuing positive outcome would be the wallet owner
saying thank you, and being more inclined to return the favor one day.
It occurs to me that 5 per cent might be a horrible worrying prospect if you, as a lawyer
or doctor, thought it applied to the five or ten thousand you might come across as fellow
professionals in your city or state. But then it could be that you rarely gossip about others
and only regard as liars and cheats those who have done it to you (apart from the few who
have been busted for insurance fraud). Maybe 16 per cent sometimes fudge or fiddle something
but you don't know so you remain happily (and honestly) complacent, and proud of your
profession.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative consequences
of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put them in a
corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out ways to rip
off customers.
I've lost a wallet once and then I was visited home by shop owner, who carefuly tracked
where I could live by using data from the wallet. She wanted nothing in exchange.
On university, I also was also given back a wallet once; I got back also a cellphone
(which was quite expansive at the time) I left somewhere few years ago.
OTOH once I left a wallet with cash at university and it was not returned.
So, here you are my anecdotal evidence from Poland: three wallets and one cellphone, one
time not returned, two plus one times returned.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative
consequences of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put
them in a corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out
ways to rip off customers.
The purpose of the institution in question is to "figure out ways to rip off customers."
It's neither dishonesty nor cheating. The trick is not to have a culture that puts
corporate/employer concerns first.
Obviously smarter people are going to tend to be more moral; you need to
know what the fuck morality and ethics even are, and assess the circumstances, before
you can make your decisions. Retards can't even get to the point of making a decision. Stupid
people are great at missing the moral implications of their behavior. Smart people are the
ones who need to come up with rationalizations.
All "honesty" begins with the self. Lying to your self, about your self is the basis of
delusion and
in-authenticity. How can you know reality when reality is constantly reinterpreted to fit the
needs of a run-away ego ?
The general point, that intelligence is linked to long term thinking seems sound to me.
Dishonestly is often about immediate gratification: a question of gaining or avoiding
immediate pleasure/displeasure. Honesty is a strategy that "pays off" over the long term.
Honesty, or truth telling (in so far as one can) is also a factor in an Honour culture. The
liar is a "base" person, a person who has no sense (or no care about) their own social (self
conscious) standing. Honesty also has a close correlation with such things as "loyalty",
"promising" etc.
Oh yes !
That's the joy of the corporate structure: no one is responsible. EVERYONE acts because they
"owe" obligations to another. (Executives to higher executives; Higher executives to the
Board; the Board to Shareholders) Personal, moral responsibility becomes entirely lost in
this deliberately confected ethical melange. The Large organisation is the perfect
environment for crafting crimes safe from individual consequence.
It says you are damn lucky. If I had $ 915 in my wallet I'd super-glue the damn thing to
my chest. Rather lose a couple layers of skin than that kind of dosh.
Self honesty is a long tortuous process.
Ideology is a relief: it removes the constant anxiety of needing to "question".
Science is -- should be -- the strictest form of public honesty.
Its frightening how many reports we so often get now about the systemic "dishonesty" in the
scientific realm. (Dishonesty driven usually (not exclusively) by the demands of corporate
profits)
Sublime opportunism, entwined inside collective incentives, converges into supreme ethics,
moral behaviour.
Sadly, the convergence is beyond the gradients of our elites.
The why of hard-wired human elites as are, cannot transcend to long term survival strategies,
and society resembles a chicken coop.
To add another factor randomly, embedded into the above, it does not matter, how
intelligence plays out between individuals, because individual opportunity feeds back into a
pool of extended family, group, tribe, waves of culture and ad-hocs, lastingly and durably
not encased in cognitive ambition, itself a consequence of cognitive genetic effort. Colleges
and universities worldwide are a better example of petty games.
The "truth" and other concepts of "honesty" are a psychological, relative variant,
depending on context. The agnostic concept of real and it's pursuit is unknown to our
archaic, analogue brain without the preposition of a limited context, opportune in the
now.
I would be interested in how honesty was explicated. And the valuation of cross cultural
rules that note the value of said rule equally across cultures. Now perhaps, these are fully
layed out in the study, but I was unable to access the sight provided.
I would also be interested how the study rated honesty as a national value. Thus far the
model looks to be applied by survey data. As I was reading I kept thinking of the multiple
national scandals in which dishonesty played a central role. Once one figures out the
definition and meaning of what constitutes honesty among individuals and or societal groups
as agreed upon by those groups, then a model of measuring said honesty is built. This is
essential because the article indicates that the difference in variable is largely cultural.
So I have to conclude that a standard was established that recognizes what honesty is across
cultures.
Because even withing culture, honesty varies. If intelligence is the key demarcation than
one would expect those groupings with supposedly higher intelligence to have a higher degree
of honesty. But again, even withing culture an agreed upon understanding of honesty is
required.
Assuming intelligence matters to some set post of morality, in this case honesty -- could the
model replicate supposed intelligence to honesty withing a given system in which the rules
are more readily identifiable and agreed upon. Assuming that the students at the US military
academies rank higher in intelligence than say the students at any comparable sized
university would the students among the military academies rank higher or lower as to the
being or practicing honesty. Considering the value placed on meritocratic institutions such
as Harvard when measuring that intelligence grouping demonstrate a higher degree of honesty
than a comparable public university.
Assuming we agree what the rules are,
"The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others"
it could be interesting whether said tested data is measuring awareness verses
adherence.
Here are a bare list of some developed nation's honesty issues regarding rule
adherence.
Again assuming that the players agree on what the rules are across countries or cultures a
comparison of honesty across varying fields as to scandals and or practices might tell us
something regarding the impact of intelligence to honesty across said cultures.
Found the article interesting and just expressed to thoughts on the read.
Well, I'll speak (honestly) from the other perspective.
I used to ride my bike of a Sunday morning on a scenic route that boasted a few first
class restaurants. Twice I found wallets lying on the pavement just downstream from these
establishments. Apparently, the owners, a little tipsy, had set their wallets on top of their
cars while they fumbled for their keys and then drove off.
The first I took to the local police station. The second I took home and called the owner
(who lived in Canada) using their credit card number to pay for the call and left a message
reassuring her that her wallet (and money) was safe and sound, not to worry (because I knew
she would, having lost it outside her home country). I didn't want to take it to the police
because I figured they'd begin to suspect me of stealing the wallets if I kept showing up
with them.
She and her husband drove down to a prearranged place to meet me for the return. She was
very grateful.
The owner of the first lost wallet called me and asked if they could donate $100 in my
name to my favorite charity.
Another time I found a perfectly nice fleece-lined, leather aviation jacket lying in the
road just outside a golf course. Luckily there was a receipt from his fee for 18 holes in the
pocket. I called him and arranged to return the coat. We met. He treated me as though I had
stolen the jacket from his car. Not so much as a thank you.
I don't know if I'm inclined to honesty because I'm bright, it's just that I've lost my
wallet in the past and it's such a pain in the butt that I feel sorry for anyone who shares
that fate. Credit cards, ID etc. the money is the least of it.
"Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax
evasion and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development."
I'd argue that these institutions derive from a well-functioning, high-trust society and
are rarely a catalyst for more honesty in other societies.
As for the connection to intelligence, look at India and China to test your
hypothesis.
"Another time I found a perfectly nice fleece-lined, leather aviation jacket lying in the
road just outside a golf course. Luckily there was a receipt from his fee for 18 holes in the
pocket. I called him and arranged to return the coat. We met. He treated me as though I had
stolen the jacket from his car. Not so much as a thank you."
TC, yep. I found a wallet stuffed with cash and credit cards on the campus of our local
state university. A campus policeman was nearby so I turned the wallet over to him. He
cautioned me that people who recover lost or abandoned property are sometimes blamed by the
owners of that property for any real or imagined loss, damage, or inconvenience to the
owners.
My rough rule of thumb is that if the property can be readily linked to an owner, I return
it. If not, and the property has trivial value, say under USD $100, it's a judgment call.
Found a few bottles of liquor, seals unbroken, in a trash can. Kept them. Found an untagged
but well-kept dog once, which I judged to have strong sentimental value to its owner, so I
placed an ad in a local newspaper, got a response, and returned the dog. His children were
very grateful.
The Gachter experiment on rule violation is based on die throwing in sterile experimental
conditions where the financial incentives are trivial and more seriously there are no
competition between the participants and there are no mechanism to identify specific
individual cheating and no resulting blemish to ones' reputation. So how much of that are
relevant to real life situations?
Real life cheating data where there are great advantage to be gained and also with
consequences that might affect ones future are more appropriate to be studied. One aspect of
the OECD TALIS project dealt with real life cheating in 8645 schools and over 100K? teachers
globally,
Table 2.20.Web. School climate – Frequency of student-related factors
(cheating)
Percentage of lower secondary education teachers whose school principal reports that the
following student behaviours occurred 1 Never, 2 Rarely, 3 Monthly, 4 Weekly, 5 Daily in
their schools.
Answers 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be serious indicator of cheating in schools. With the
intention to mash the TALIS data with the PISA 2012 data, the primary school data were
excluded.
Many popular pre-conceived ideas about cheating in schools were not proven by the data. In
fact considerable efforts were needed to find any significant statistical trend. For example
at the national levels cheating were not correlated to the average PISA scores,
fraction of top or bottom PISA scores, teachers' practice of spliting the class to teach and
to test part of the class differently, etc.
The factor that show statistical significance is the proxy factor for competition or
meritocracy. Countries have adopted various shades of "no child left behind" policy and that
is reflected in the age profile of the class. In country that practice strict "no child left
behind", the students are automatically promoted to the next grade in the next academic year
regardless of the ability of the students with the results that the student will be exclusive
of the same 'academic age'. When meritocracy is practiced, poorly performing students might
have to repeat the same grade one or more times resulting in 'academic age' distribution in
class. Since the PISA project has data of percentage of 15 yo for that grade, the idea can be
tested. To be polite, the marked datapoints are not labelled. Two countries separated by a
narrow channel can have drastically different cheating levels.
The school cheating levels is statistically significant to be linearly dependent on the
percent of the 15 yo in class. The levels of cheating is dependent on the level of
meritocracy practiced. With automatic promotion to the next academic grade there is little
need for the students to cheat. The governments are doing the cheating instead. The
out-criers of cheating in other countries do not realized that they are in countries with
lesser meritocracy.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
This is what Jean Piaget concluded from his studies of Swiss children. He believed that
empathy was an integral part of a child's intellectual development. It doesn't follow,
however, that there is some kind of genetic linkage between intellectual capacity and the
capacity for empathy. These are two different mental traits. It's more likely that the same
selection pressure that favored an increase in intellectual capacity also favored an increase
in the capacity for empathy.
It's impossible to build an advanced society unless most of its members have a high
capacity for both intelligence and empathy. On an individual level, however, high
intelligence can co-exist with low empathy. There have been many cases of ruthless sociopaths
who are very intelligent and yet totally self-centered. Such people can be very successful as
long as they aren't too numerous. Otherwise, they'll destroy the very society that makes
their existence possible.
An advanced society requires a combination of high intelligence and high empathy, although
this may come about in different ways. In northwest Europeans, a high intellectual capacity
co-exists with high capacities for guilt proneness and affective empathy. In East Asians, a
high intellectual capacity co-exists with high capacities for cognitive empathy and
pro-social behavior. In other words, there is more emphasis in East Asian societies on
learning correct moral rules.
I am not following the credit gift of empathy to East Asians, or the connection of
morality and intelligence to the obeying of complex rules, because of the stolen oranges in
the Book of Rites and the counterfeit antiques that impressed the Emperor. The Chinese
literally explain how to lie in their moral teachings. "Lying" is right there among the
morality-guaranteeing complex rules. There are examples in the Talmud I will not specify, or
regard as unreasonable, but I will note that nobody saw the Talmud as less than a downright
complex system of rules. Some African tribes have rules so stringent (eg, no wet dreams) that
nobody could possibly obey them. If anything I would expect that systems of compelled
obedience to complex rules guarantee dishonesty. The only alternative is Billy Budd getting
the captain to take his side.
What I would start with is power. In China, even in periods of decay or civil war, power is
always centralized to a degree only approached in Europe by a few temporarily competent
monarchs, and with an effectiveness that has never been accomplished in Europe. I think this
and not math scores or cheap shoes is the basis of the elite adoration of the Han. The man
who observes that a cow is not a nightingale, or that two and two are four, when the opposite
is being claimed by an officer of the government (be it communist, imperial, or partisan) is
an idiot. He, and probably his family, maybe his hamlet, will be exterminated with efficiency
the European Enlightened Despots could only dream of. Truth, insofar as it is objective, is
the hair of Liberty. It cannot exist at all except in the empty space left by the rolling
back of power. The trick here is embracing negativism instead of falling into the
positivistic trap. We in the West accidentally stumbled across Liberty and Truth and Science,
not because we are good, objectively not because we are smarter, but because we just couldn't
get that mandate of heaven thing together, despite the unambiguous desires of numerous
monarchs. I predict that this will be an unpopular answer but it will not go away.
(but the Japanese are massively more ethical than the Chinese. Yeah. And they are also all
but European, especially in a lot of their political history. They dreamed of imitating
Chinese centralization but never came close.)
Also, how soon can we expect an update to that graph, now plotting IQ (or PISA, or tetris
scores, etc) against something like the Transparency Index? Apologies if this has already
been done and I missed it.
What can we learn about ourselves from the things we ask online? US data scientist Seth
Stephens‑Davidowitz analysed anonymous Google search results, uncovering disturbing
truths about our desires, beliefs and prejudices
Have no idea where the data come from, but scandals with Dutch politicians seem to increase
all the time, most with Rutte's VVD.
Condemned politicians for fraud etc., a novelty.
But until now just one behind bars.
But about honesty, our prime minister Rutte is nicknamed Pinocchio for his lies.
The VVD quickly rid itself of the chairman Keiser, who manipulated himself into possession of
the crematoria of the organisation he advised.
The Dutch tax authority presented him with a claim of € 12 million, our FIOD, the
authority for fiscal crimes is investigating him.
Condemned business men for fraud, more than we like.
Even the former Philips CEO Boonstra was condemned for trade with foreknowledge.
Solicitors also are not above suspicion any more.
At the recent municipality elections measures were applied to prevent criminals being
elected.
Unreliable policemen, also a novelty, the first serious conviction was a short time ago,
he sold information from police data bases to criminals.
How he was not discovered earlier, unbelievable, police salaries are insufficient for driving
Porsches.
Catholic bishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best: "It is much easier for an educated person to
rationalize evil".
All one has to do is look at abortion supporters who insist that abortion merely removes "a
clump of cells", when they damn well know better, that it is HUMAN LIFE that they are
destroying.
The old "ends justifies the means" excuse also comes into play, which is used by communist
societies to purge millions of those who oppose them, not unlike the purges in the old Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, and other communist "paradises".
I would state that it is easier for an educated person to rationalize evil–this
including dishonesty
Do I detect a matter of class? The golfer seems not to have been a gentleman belonging to
a golf club where proper behaviour was de rigeur, very likely passed from father, uncle and
club pro to son. The sort of chap who pays green fees could be a wannabe upwardly mobile
agent for subdivided swamp land
PS I gave up golf after my father died 20+ years ago. Not so much that I couldn't match
his ethical standards but that after two heart attacks and hip replacements he was still a
scratch golfer and all I could do was occasionally outdrive him if my slice or pull
allowed.
1. Perhaps smart people are just better at not getting caught?
2. Overall, there is one major factor in the honesty of a society, and that is poverty.
When an overpopulated third-world society is crushed into misery, when people cannot earn a
half-way decent living – or indeed, any living – through honest effort,
eventually they come to cheat. This has been demonstrated in all cultures and all races.
Does integrity promote prosperity? Surely. But the reverse is if anything more powerful:
poverty promotes corruption and nepotism. For people to behave honorably, yes there must be a
culture of this, but it must also be the case that behaving honorably is not cutting your own
throat. Because few people are saints.
"Found a few bottles of liquor, seals unbroken, in a trash can. "
Dumpster-diving is a different thing than keeping lost goods. I think you're *morally* in
the clear, there, even if sorely lacking in judgement. This doesn't seem very wise. Did it
not occur to you that they were probably in the TRASH for a reason? Probably not poisonous or
anything, since the seals were on. Probably some alcoholic decided to quit drinking. But do
you want to take the chance that this wasn't a bootleg batch full of lead? Obviously the
answer was yes. Your butt, I reckon
We have been flooded here at the University of Chicago by Mainland/Communist Chinese
students. There are lots of accusations that the Chinese Communist government assists these
students by cheating, getting other English language proficient students to take the English
part of the SAT tests.
There appear to be lots and lots of Mainland Chinese/Communist China students here who
supposedly aced the English SAT test but can't seem to speak English.
"like The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment."
But, The Economist is hardly a bastion of truth. I would tend to dismiss their entire
story of the wallet experiment as a fabrication, having caught their writers in so many
lies.
But certainly that accounts for the fact that politicians are dull, ignorant, dissemblers
at best.
In many governments the candidates for the highest stations are above the law; and, if
they can attain the object of their ambition, they have no fear of being called to account
for the means by which they acquired it. They often endeavour, therefore, not only by
fraud and falsehood, the ordinary and vulgar arts of intrigue and cabal; but sometimes
by the perpetration of the most enormous crimes, by murder and assassination, by rebellion
and civil war, to supplant and destroy those who oppose or stand in the way of their
greatness.
Honesty to me seems a cultural phenomenon.
Once people get away with dishonesty, others think 'why not me ?'.
The Dutch erosion, in my recollection, already began in the seventies, with leftist
people, at the time social democrats.
It was said then 'thinking left, filling pockets at the right'.
People as my father, life long socialists, left the party in great numbers.
It took a long time for THE socialist party, PvdA, to disappear, until the last parliamentary
elections.
The self destruction had much to do with EU support, socialism is at odds with globalisation,
even within the EU.
Few in the USA will have followed all the French scandals before the last presidential
elections.
Even Macron was accused of not declaring all his possessions.
And indeed, I also cannot understand how he spent or lost the millions he got while working
for the Rothschild bank.
Another well known politician, presidential candidate, cannot now remember the name,
disappeared after gifts for suits for some € 50.000 were published, there was also a
very expensive watch, the job his wife had, what she in fact did, nobody understands, and the
temporary jobs for his children.
When one sees the small castle where the family lives one understands that he could not buy
his suits himself.
Now at last there seems to be sufficient proof against Sarkozy.
Now many French presidents were persecuted after their immunity ended, when they no longer
were president.
But the frauds etc. they seem to have perpetrated seem worse and worse, in the Sarko case,
intimidating a judge, among other things.
When Hollande will be persecuted, I wonder.
He had a reputation for sacking editors in chief.
Ask Ghandi, alas he does not live, when Britain was an ethical country.
Just a few years ago, in BBCW Hard Talk, I saw an Indian minister getting quite angry 'the
British did not have to teach the Indians anything'.
Cindy, both gut and butt survived my "rescue" hooch. I did some due diligence: examined
the bottles, carefully tasted the contents, etc. My guess was a domestic quarrel in the
parking garage over the high-end vodka and liqueurs, perhaps over someone's drinking problem,
and the quarrel was settled by chucking the booze.
" . . . [S]orely lacking in judgment." Not really. My judgment turned out to be okay,
because I was informed by the totality of the circumstances and then made my call. Had the
booze been low-end stuff found in an unfamiliar location, etc., I might have judged
differently.
BTW-I didn't dumpster-dive. The booze was clearly visible at the top of the trash can.
How did they measure such 'honesty index' ?
Placing 100 wallets in a park and observe how many are returned to the owners ?
But when the anglos lie, they always lie big time !
Goebel famously oberved .
The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one
should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous
Waging wars by false pretexts surely is the highest form of duplicity ?
They dont call them perfidious albions for nuthin you know !
How does the author explain the link between the supposed highest IQ group – the Jews,
and their reputation for utmost dishonesty, greed and lust throughout history? Same goes for
the Chinese.
Propensity for Honesty is the biggest reason why we need to restrict immigration from low
trust cultures, i.e. all 3rd world countries. It's why they're 3rd world, because they are
low trust, everyone is dishonest from the top down, the few honest ones are called "stupid"
and get ripped off left and right. The more we import from these cultures, the more dishonest
our society will become, this includes all of Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Africa,
Southern & Eastern Europe esp. Russia. The only truly honest people in the world are
Northwestern Protestant Europeans, and maybe the Japanese. All other groups are
dishonest.
Interesting work? This article is a pure misuse of statistics, a fabrication and a classic
work of evil minded Eurocentrist attempting to give a new lease of life to their declining
rotten Eurocentrism in facing of the rising progressive, peaceful, and pragmatic East.
Look at the graph, its racist Eurocentrism is glaring, all the Western nations are on the
good side while rest of the world on the bad side. History has shown all those on the good
side are liars, cheaters, murderers, bandits, and pirates, while those on the bad side are
the victims of those perpetrators on the good side. The missing of the USA in the chart makes
this article an unapologetic white supremacy lie.
To study the link between brightness and honesty, it should pull data from the same pool
of population who are in the same environment, i.e. within a nation, then we even can study
whether cognitive ability, intellectual development, moral awareness, culture factor, and
institutions have any effect on honesty and their relationships.
Besides in spite of being bright, and having cognitive ability, intellectual development,
moral awareness, culture factor and strong institutions, the West still bombs, kills and
waterboards others on the fabricated phantom allegations as humanitarian intervention without
showing remorse; and recently the West lied about the poisoning episode in UK, and brought
the world to the edge of anther world war crisis, those evidences prove the Western societies
are not honest despite the qualities they processed as prerequisite for honesty, it seems it
proves the West is either hypocritical or innate psychopathic.
Ask Ghandi, alas he does not live, when Britain was an ethical country.
Exactly. What a pack of criminals. They were much worse and for a longer period of time,
than what they accused the Nazis of doing.
Churchill refused to divert supplies away from already well-supplied British troops at
the same time he allegedly blocked American and Canadian ships from delivering aid to India
either. Nor would he allow the Indians to help themselves: the colonial government forbade
the country from using its own ships or currency reserves to help the starving masses.
Meanwhile, London pushed up the price of grain with hugely inflated purchases, making it
unaffordable for the dying and destitute. Most-chillingly of all, when the government of
Delhi telegrammed to tell him people were dying, Churchill allegedly only replied to ask
why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
If all this is true -- and documents support it -- then Winston Churchill may well
have starved to death as many innocent people as Stalin did in the Ukrainian genocide.
Could the man who held out against Hitler really be capable of such an atrocity? Judging by
the rest of this list, it wouldn't be surprising.
I cannot play golf without committing a certain amount of larceny. In my mind a mulligan
is a reasonable option to excuse a particularly poorly played shot. And I have been known to
sweeten my lie on the not rare occasion, which, of course, is a form of lying.
I have often wondered if my ease at dishonesty on the links might suggest a propensity
towards darker deeds?
And don't even ask me about gimme putts. That for sure must reflect a lower
intelligence!
Who decides who cheats or being dishonesty? Is misleading advertising cheating? Is empty
campaign promises cheating? Is abusing legal loopholes cheating? Is putting one's
self-interest ahead of the ones they supposed to serve cheating? Is price fixing cheating?
Are cartels of all kind cheating? Are selective reporting, wrongful labelling, and spreading
ideology cheating? . . .
Mind you, the people involved in the above activities are all bright, well educated,
intelligent, having strong institutions, within well-functioning societies, and a sense of
moral responsibilities too, would they be more than 16% in the western societes?
The assumptions behind this are so fragile and unsupportable.
Honesty, as with most of the Judeo-Christian values, largely serves to keep the compliant
majority self-correcting while the predatory and parasitic top and bottom of society maintain
a more productive relativistic approach – long term dishonesty for the elites, short
term dishonesty for the undesirables. In-group honesty is always far more valued than
universal honesty – whether you're talking about stockbrokers or Romani.
The most intelligent in any class or group are far more likely to utilize dishonesty when
it best serves their needs. To do otherwise would be a clear sign of lack of
intelligence.
The idea that intelligent people are more likely to see the purpose of honesty in the long
term is not only an unsupportable assumption, it's also ignoring the countless undeniable
historical instances of intelligent leaders deploying adaptive fictions to achieve positive
social goals (anything from religion to the concept of inalienable rights).
Anyone who uses the phrase "speaking truth to power" can absolutely be counted upon to be
utterly dishonest when that power comes knocking.
As a boy I had the privilege to attend a Catholic grade school. Part of the education was to
go to confession. Admitting to a third party your wrongs, is very powerful. Forgiving the
past frees one. Being truthful builds character, and getting over the past is a blessing. It
was a struggle to be totally truthful all the time. As a mid to late teen, I fell away from
Catholicism.
In my early twenties I came back to believing that truthfulness is the best policy. I
attribute that to the Catholic culture and the confessional. I would not say that it was my
intelligence that led me.
Confession has nothing to do with honesty; it breeds psychopath, unrepentance,
irresponsibility and repeat offending. The churches use confession to cleanse perpetrators'
sins, so the perpetrators can repeat their crimes without moral burden; this is not
hypothesis, history bear witness of such fact. This is the trait of the Western culture, it
reflects in all aspects of the westerners' behaviour. Most common expression of such morally
defunct mentality is that the western governments and officials have no trouble to apologize
the wrongs they have done, but they keep on doing the same wrong over and over again after
apologizing. The Native Americans are the most abused victim of such morally defunct
practice.
The churches use confession to recruit and dominate its members (mentally colonized
serfs), expand their domains. Confession is one of the most effective mechanisms that corrupt
the basic decency of humanity.
Adam Smith apparently had their number when he was alive. It seems that little has changed
in the quality of politicians between the 19th and 21st centuries. If anything, today's
politicians are even more dimwitted and venal. The average Congress member is a moron, and
nearly inarticulate in unscripted speaking.
I really enjoyed reading Henry Mencken's observations on political campaigns of the early
20th century. He also seemed to enjoy making those observations as well. It comes through in
the way he describes the candidates.
The government of the UK seems completely unconcerned with ethics, in the same way the US
government is. Most members of both governments seem, to me, to be morally retarded.
Flash! Flash! Flash! Stop the press. This is not yet 1st April.
Currently there are a lot of news about cheating in sports, e.g. cricket. Out of a whim
the relationship of sports with academic cheating is tested. The OECD PISA project has data
on the percentage of students who exercise before or after school PctExercise, and
PctCheatRpt=+1.044*PctExercise-46.25; #n=29; Rsq=0.234; p=0.007889 ** (V Sig)
It is very statistically significant that PctExercise is positively highly correlated
to academic cheating. The effect is more than double that for the other percentage
variables whether they are statistically significant or not. If students spend too much time
on tracks and fields and little time at home studying the results can easily be inferred. Now
you know those loud mouths screaming about cheating in another countries and that the
students there spend too much time studying, they are on average themselves doing most of the
academic cheatings and they might be trying to divert attention away from them.
To be fair, the situation for the nerds should also be checked. The OECD PISA has data on
the percentage of students who have more than 4 hours per week of off-school maths tuition
PctMathTuitGt4hr,
It is statisticaly not significant. What about those academically very competitive, the
percentage who wanted to be the best PctWantBest,
PctCheatRpt=-0.445*PctWantBest+54.07; #n=29; Rsq=0.222; p=0.009944 ** (V Sig)
It is statistically very significant that PctWantBest negatively correlated with
cheating, i.e, on average the more academically competitive they are the lesser they will
cheat.
It is intuitively that most self-confident students will not cheat. The OECD data can be
transformed and normalized into confident quotient CQ similar to the IQ scale where CQ ≥
115 is considered to be over-confident. However,
Most common expression of such morally defunct mentality is that the western governments
and officials have no trouble to apologize the wrongs they have done, but they keep on
doing the same wrong over and over again after apologizing.
Amen!
What's even worse is the goofy idea that one is automatically "forgiven" if s/he's a
"believer." It's the works vs faith idea. Some of those people feel free to break every rule
in the book (even the 10 supposedly written in stone) with complete impunity.
Those people routinely engage in behavior that's as disgusting as those from the the tribe
who think they're "chosen."
G-wd's special ones, goy and non-goy, are forgiven in advance I guess.
If anything, today's politicians are even more dimwitted and venal. The average Congress
member is a moron, and nearly inarticulate in unscripted speaking.
True.
I think much the same could be said for all hierarchical systems and that includes
religious as well as academic ones. I've always been as much amused as amazed at how
dimwitted and venal priests and professors usually are.
Rereading this reaction comes to mind
Edward W. Said & Christopher Hitchens, ed., Blaming the Victims, Spurious scholarship and
the Palestinian question', 1988, London
How did these two 'ethical' countries keep churning out world class psychopaths as
leaders .since 1600 ?
Beg no longer, fine sir! This dude may have an answer.
Henceforth, Britain will do the bidding of her real masters ; she has
become the tool of the schemers against all she holds dear, namely, her
faith, her patriotism, traditions, civilisation. She grants the " returned "
aliens equality of civil rights ; they may and do become mayors over
Christian population, and within a short time Britain is ruled by a
Jewish Prime Minister, Disraeli, first and foremost a Jew and the
flunkey of the powerful Rothschild financiers.
One of the consequences of this disastrous political mistake is the
transformation of the national attitude of Great Britain and her
colonies into that of the British Empire. Disraeli who inspired it
knew what he was scheming for, the British people did not. But with
him, Zionism is carried up to the very heights of the British Throne, a Zionist World Empire is on the high road to realisation.
-Leslie Fry, "the Jews and the British Empire," 1935
In the light of what Jonathan Haidt in the above linked video says with regards to David
Perkin's findings, I tend to say this question of yours
Do Brighter Minds Incline to Honesty?
has to be answered: "Yes. But ."
The But has to do with the the history of the term "honesty".
People might say wrong things, while being (and feeling!) honest, because honesty is not
necessarily rooted in speaking the truth.
Honesty is a social category alltogether (with close ties to knighthood, chivalry and the
like). It therefor is a category, which in it's very core hints at obedience and fellowship,
and that's at times what keeps people away from speaking the truth – cf. David
Perkins and Jonathan Haidt above (ok – full circle).
Hit-and-run is common all over the world not just in China, it is a sign of moral decay,
confusion, and irresponsibility. Those perpetrators must be denounced.
But if one follows the West or the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it is easy to white
wash those hit-and-run crimes by saying the percentage of such crime in China is way lower
than in the US though the absolute number might be higher, so Chinese is more honest than
average in the world.
On the other hand killing people with car faces less consequences in the West, most
perpetrators in the West get slap on the wrist for such crime, such as suspension of driving
license, insurance company paid compensation, short term imprisonment, or get way free by
claiming medical conditions, but in China the perpetrators may have to pay their lives for
their crimes. It seems the West does not have a balanced morality, harsh on the victims and
lenient on the criminals.
In the honesty index graph,
Germany is higher than China, OK, thats fair.
As for the five eyes lies , their rightful place is right at the
bottom.
UK [half of fukus] the ethical country ? hehehehhe
Web Of Deceit: Britain's Real Foreign Policy
by Mark Curtis
In his explosive new book, Mark Curtis reveals a new picture of Britain's role in the
world since 1945 and in the 'war against terrorism' by offering a comprehensive critique of
the Blair government's foreign policy. Curtis argues that Britain is an 'outlaw state',
often a violator of international law and ally of many repressive regimes. He reasons not
only that Britain's foreign policies are generally unethical but that they are also making
the world more dangerous and unequal.
Why do you condemn over 100,000 years of homo sapiens behaviour. Destroying human lives
has been continuously the most effective natural way to achieve important utilitarian ends
tight up to today. And given the ancient Hebrew enthusiasm for genocide is it surprising that
God's Ten Commandments not only said nothing about abortion but assumed that limiting killing
was about the best that could be hoped for.
Did I mention the top 100 hoaxes of the century chart, kid ?
Here's a partial list,
Iraq WMD
IRAQ babies incubators
Racak 'massacre'
RUSSIAGATE,
Chinagate,
Indo./China war 1962
Indon genocide 1965
GCHQ fake foto
Tibet fake foto,
Tibet genocide,
Libya
Syria
Sinking of the Maine,
Gulf of Tonkin,
911
War OF terror,
R2p[lunder]
TAM 'massacre'
Tibet 2008
Xinjiang 2009
100 reasons why fukus should be at the bottom of the 'honesty' chart !
These are not just hit and run. In China you do not run until you make sure the victim is
dead. And if the victim is not dead you hit them second time to make sure he/she is dead and
then you run. This is very pragmatic and congruent with all Chinese philosophical systems.
That's why I suggested to your compatriot (denk) here that a bit of Christian mercy and
compassion would do Chinese some good.
As Amryata Sen has pointed out. The problem in Bengal was not a lack of food but the lack
of purchasing power by the poorest peasants. Hoarding by merchants is a traditional driver of
famine in India. The Punjab actually had a good harvest but Bengal ate rice. Churchill's
nvolvement was ncidental. India was governed com India, often by Indians. Churchill was an
outrageous racist but by no means representative of the British of the time. He lost the post
war election.
I am surprised that you posted that first link. Its 1500 tested people (selected how?)
from 15 countries simply reminded me that the "Climategate" emails also belonged to the
University of East Anglia.
I didn't take the time to understand WTF PUBG was all about (third link).
As to the second link it is indeed interesting to learn of what appears to be a formal
recognition by the Chinese Communist Party that part of what contributed to the earlier
economic success of the West was trust and comparative honesty (as Amy Wax might point
out).
First of all Christians have no mercy, and they only have crusade and conversion.
Christians are cult. The Christians have been committing crimes against humanity, crimes
against peace and war crimes using evil and sadist inquisition methods for a very very long
time. Their forte is racial and culture genocide. Before Columbus time they only did their
carnage between themselves and Muslims within the European continent and ME. After Columbus
they spread their plague all over the world.
The most unfortunate victims are the Americans (from North to South). Christian not only
took the American's land, and killed them into nearly extinct, they also burnt all books of
South Americans, so that there is no indigenous South American civilization left to tell
their history and to refute what the Christian casted them as savages.
In China during the late Qing time, the Christians treated Chinese culture and traditions
as witchcraft, backed by their governments' guns they used extraterritorial right to expand
their control of people and land with organized violence and insidious crimes. Their
unscrupulous activities forced Chinese to resist thru Boxer movement because Qing Court was
incompetent. The West labelled Boxer as terrorists and crashed them with Eight Nations
Alliance armed intervention, Christian was a major force that caused China Century
Humiliation.
Since WWII all wars were led by the Christians, their false Christian mercy calls paved
the way for the Western governments and war mongers to bomb, kill and waterboard on moral
high ground just like their barbaric Christian forebears who have done to the native South
Americans and rest of the world.
That kind of morally defunct drivers are not unique to China, they appeare in the West
too. In some incidences the driver in the West made sure nobody survives in the other car by
pushing the car over the road side, so they have better chance not to be convicted due to no
witness.
While guys using assault rifles mowing down tens of school kids for no reasons and claim
it is their constitution rights to do so, and tens of millions of killed, tortured and maimed
by the NATO false flag wars, why don't you suggest your compatriots in the USA and other NATO
nations that a bit of Christian mercy and compassion would do their souls some good? Is it
because Christian mercy is myth, fantasy and snakeoil?
You are being racist, propagating the pink skin pigs' trashes in HK irresponsibly. You
should know those noxious racist trolls in the SCMP are posted by the pink skin pigs and
their mentally colonized wannabes in HK out of resentment and frustration, because they lost
their colonial privileges in HK and they are being rejected as uneducated unscrupulous
colonials back home. They fell from master caste to the bottom of the society and become
worthless trash.
Japanese are unrepentant war criminals, their whole society are liars and they have been
lying since WWII about their war crimes, their past, their present and their future, they
even are lying about the massive toxic nuclear leaking in the Fukushima cripple nuclear power
plants that are causing millions of people died of cancer and extinction of marine creatures.
While the British is the mentor of the Japanese.
Britain was a ruthless global tyrant and liar, but you seem to believe that all the crimes
against humanity and peace and war crimes British committed around the world can be forgiven
and glossed over by claiming Britain a democracy; what a lie and morally defunct double think
evil psychopathic expression. People said British imitates the Romans and the American is
born out of the British, no wonder the American is adopting the same double think logic to
white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and peace they have been
committing around the world.
Winston Churchill was a classic imperialist with no moral bearing, he believed for the
empire everything goes. WWII is nothing but a dog-eat-dog play rough over the monopoly to
plunder the rest of the world; they squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing,
looting and murdering hundreds of millions of people all over the world in that
scrabbling.
About cheating in the exams you must have never seen what the Greeks and Indian are
capable of. PUBG is sour grape, they cannot beat the Chinese so they banned Chinese on the
fabricated allegation, just like the Opium Wars, the British could not beat Chinese
manufactured goods, so they used Opium and wars to steal and cheat Chinese wealth.
Why do you waste time displaying your prejudices without even acknowledging what question
was asked? Your English is up to it – just – so you have no excuse.
All Utu was pointing out is that deliberately killing someone with a car to escape
prosecution is pretty heinous behavior and does suggest something really wrong with the
Chinese culture at a fundamental level.
And the treatment of animals in China is generally deplorable compared with Western
standards with little concern for their well being. How does this obvious cruelty fit on the
ethical plane?
Ethical behavior among human beings is probably more unusual than we would like to believe
and we can all be better people. The Chinese are no exception to that rule. If Christian
ethics or Buddhist ethics can advance that cause, I support this.
I was intrigued to find on the listverse.com site some readable and/or intriguing stuff,
e.g. on Charles Darwin, but your particular, well debunked, choice of anachronistic and
inaccurate story to believe and post suggests to me that anyone whose intellectual standards
allow them to rely on one of those list (usually of 10) sites should not pollute UR. Are you
aware that people are paid $100 (with possibility of bonuses) for those lists?
You are wrong, not everybody demands the same quality, and Chinese provides different
quality for different needs in the market. Besides you get what you paid for, it is
fundamental principle of capitalism if you don't count the first principle of capitalism
which is monopoly which is charge as much as you can bear and cost is irrelevant, that is not
only cheating and it is also blackmailing and looting.
The video just claims but shows no proof what the guy claims. Chinese machinery and parts
are taking more markets around the world, this simply fact proves the video is made out of
bad faith, and pure propaganda.
Coins can stand up on Chinese High Speed Rail running more than 300km/hr, no German,
Japanese or any other nation can do that, it proves the bearing quality in China HSR is
unprecedented, it further proves the guys in the video is a troll out of jealous, resentful
and fear Chinese achievements.
In China you do not run until you make sure the victim is dead.
cuz you watch some videos from youtube, forchrissake !
Can you give me some credible statistics , the percentage of such alleged crimes in
China ?
How does such alleged crimes stack up against fukus state terrorism like double
tapping , sniping at women and chidlren, obliterating the whole neighborhood of a suspect
hideout just to make sure, ?
And .
How does this elevate fukus from its rightful position at the bottom of that honesty
chart, thats all I wanna know ?
It is propaganda. People tell me that the same stories were circulated when Japan
was becoming a tech powerhouse. It will probably take another 5-10 years before it
dissipates.
I merely point out the misconception about Christians supported by historical facts.
Indian treats animals even worse while China has humane protection laws, it seems you are as
impartial as utu.
Your first paragraph comes over as so silly that perhaps it shouldn't surprise that your
second paragraph is, to say the least, extremely puzzling. Where did Anonymous [216] say or
suggest that China eould collapse? The post you are replying to implies no such thing.
After every of your visit by you at unz.com I keep wondering to what degree your primitive
chauvinism is representative of China. How many millions primitive and hateful Joe Wongs are
there? Then I wonder that perhaps you are not Chinese. That you are employed by enemies of
China. That Chinese are too smart to show their cards that early in the game. If they really
hate they would not show it because only fools show hate.
You, see I carry a positive stereotype of Chinese which is supported by my personal
experience with them but you and your sidekick deng do everything possible to undermine it
and change it into: Yes, Chinese can be really stupid and thus more dangerous than we
thought. Watch, out for stupid and dangerous Chinese. Go to the Plan B: Poke NK and the
Rocket Man more to the point that Japan get so paranoid that it starts arming itself with
nukes. If there is to be a war let it start with the yellow races killing each other. They
hate each other anyway. Ask Joe Wong if you have any doubts.
So what is it? Are you Chinese or an agent of revanchist militarist unreformed Chinese
hating interests of Japanese imperialism? And then, if you are Chinese, how many more stupid
ones like you are there?
It seems your only defense for the Christians is denying historical facts, and stating
something that Christians are not.
Naïve? Are you saying the crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war
crimes committed by the Christians were carefully planned, deeply thought through, determined
and maturely decided like holocaust?
Bible is zero-sum based narrative, the fundamental dogma of Christianity is "you are
either with us or you are with the devil" therefore all Christians have a mission to convert
everyone else into "one of us" on the moral high ground with whatever means necessary,
Christians believe whatever the Christians do it is necessary with good intention, even
bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated allegations is humanitarian
intervention.
Christianity assumes humans are primitive and born evil, they need divine force to
threaten (go to hell) them not to do harm, and it is tribal. While some other civilizations
believe humans are sane, rational, intelligent and compassionate, humans do not need divine
force to tell them how to behave properly in order to achieve peace, harmony, cooperation,
development and mutual benefits, just logical explanation and some directions will be
suffice.
If the past can be any reference, the crimes have been committed against humanity in the
name of Christianity, it is doubtful that Christians have any morality, mind you it does not
mean the Bible does not have good points in it, there are other way better ways and means to
serve as a framework to guide human behaviour for the good.
Chauvinism is someone claims what he is not and based that false claim to demonize others
what they are not on the moral high ground, this is what the West has been doing since
1492.
Stating facts does not involve emotion, so please refrain yourself from sensationalize any
topic unnecessary that makes dialog on difficult issues impossible, Theresa May and Nikki
Haley are not your role model to follow.
For over seventy years the US has dominated Asia, ravaging the continent with two major
wars in Korea and Indo-China with millions of casualties, and multiple counter-insurgency
interventions in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The strategic goal has been to expand its military and political power, exploit
the economies and resources.
Before WWII, the American is just one of the Western imperialists ravaged and wreaked
havoc of Asia with barbaric wars, illicit drugs like Opium, slavery, stealing, robbing,
looting, plundering, murdering, torturing, exploiting, polluting, culture genocide, 'pious'
fanaticism, unmatchable greed and extreme brutality. In fact it is hard to tell the
difference between the American and the unrepentant war criminal Japanese who is more lethal
and barbaric to Asians until the Pearl Harbour incident.
If the past can be any reference, the crimes have been committed against humanity in
the name of Christianity, it is doubtful that Christians have any morality
Do you really believe this???? No morality in any Christians?
You are even more locked into hate and racism than I thought possible.
Have you attended any of the lectures by the anti-racist Tim Wise??
You might get some talking points from him that can help you in your future postings.
And keep up the good work, you have a bright future in any number of our MSM outlets.
And you have not even met the hardcore commies, who would like to explain that the only
thing that Mao did wrong, terribly wrong was that he did not kill nearly enough people.
And the answer to your question is that there are idiots in every country and race, though
in China they are mostly excluded from political positions(because insanity is not welcome),
so they troll online message boards within and without China.
Like various other fanatics and crazies, they can be entertaining in the appropriate
context. If you've been to Finland, he's the equivalent of the old drunk men yelling
propositions at girls in some train stations of the small towns. Entertaining in small
doses.
So you couldnt even give one good reason why UK should be on top of that 'honesty
chart' eh ?
well I can give you 100 why UK should be right at the bottom,
Perfidious albions
exhibit one
How to ethnic cleanse an entire island ? Declare the residents as tresspassers !
'What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir
Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be
very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain
ours.
There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a
handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill:
"Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays " Under the heading, "Maintaining the
fiction", another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating
population" and to "make up the rules as we go along".
@joe Wong You are a foolish, ignorant person. At least in regard to Christianity. The
perpetrators of the holocaust and genocide are Christians? You absolutely have no clue about
Christianity. Yes, they came from a Christian based culture but Nazis (and American war
criminals) have nothing in common with Christianity. The best countries in the world are ones
based on Protestant Christianity, meaning Christianity that is the closest to the Biblical
teachings. I admire Chinese culture and history (especially the technology which benefited
the West) but you need the ability to admit the faults of your culture which has some serious
problems.
Though I am convinced that honesty is more rational in the long term than lying, I definitely
don't believe that people with high IQ are more honest than those more modestly gifted with
intellectual talent. Smart people just know better to juggle with fallacies so they are more
likely to get away with it than dummies, that's all.
Logic does say that truth is lower maintenance, as it exists per se and is always consistent,
and lies so they are not exposed need to be cared of constantly, as they are always
intrinsically inconsistent with reality, but people are people, driven by the seven sins, of
which greed and vanity are possibly the worst, with the former being more evenly distributed
while the latter tends to affect the bright rather than the dim.
Logic and ethics are different categories. Equating them is a sign of, well, vanity.
Only a moron equate honesty = quality using ball bearing as example. There are countries
may be very honest like Bhutan, yet they don't produce high quality product.
The US top elites are very intelligent, are producing lots of quality products like Boeing
plane & precision weapons for murdering everywhere, yet their politicians & bankers
are known habitual liars, with British & French close behind, and Germans
reluctantly.
Japanese is producing high quality products, look how frequently their politicians are
caught outright lying, corrupted & nepotism, and researchers are now caught recently in
their published papers using fake data, with big corporates like Toshiba, Nissan, Steel
factories caught cheating systematically for long period.
Its true Germany make top notch quality, undisputed, better than Japan imo.
But look at the chart, beside Germany, who else is producing better ball bearings than
China, or precision tools that run aerospace, manned space craft, rockets, 5th gen J20,
satellites, nuclear plants(light water pebble), nuclear sub, FSR, a long list to go yet they
are rated more honest than China.
Fyi, only 2 countries are able to produce precision steel ball bearings for tiny ball
point pen tip, Germany & Japan. So China is importing billion of them for its ball point
pen production annually.
Why can't China factory produce it? There was some uproar in China media over this last
year. Guess what? Within a mth, some factory is churning out perfect ball bearings, but in
better material – ceramic that is cheaper & longer lasting. And the producer
explained, its not economical worth the effort & machining to produce those bearings as
they cost only $200K p. a. to import. But for national pride, they do it.
And i highly suspect you are either from HK or Taiwan with some bad memory of old China
that you simply like to smear China without taking a fairer stand that, out of 1.4B Chinese
how many % is doing those crimes, vs 400M murkans more serious crimes.
The new generation Chinese should not be continuously viewed through old communist color
lens & West propaganda, they are not responsible for the history but the future. Pres Xi
is a good example, he is leading China to their peaceful rise now. He suffered in culture
revolution, do you want to blame him for those history?
This chart simply look so questionable. Why not include US, France, Oz, Canada, Bhutan,
India, Brazil, Agentina, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, HK, Japan, Korea, HK, Taiwan, to give
a wider comparison. And how the author do his samplings to derive this graph is very much
questionable.
And to say brighter mind = honesty, just look at how honest are most world politicians
that are generally top intellectuals of their cohort. I would say more wise = more
honesty.
To use wallets returning as a test of honesty is also overly simplified. When a country is
poor, these are godsend present unless they are true perfect communist.
As a country get wealthier, their people generally get better education & well off,
become indoctrine with social norm of what is so called good behavior(persuaded by praise
& blame). They are more inclined to return a wallet found with money that aren't so
attractive to them compare to poor. But that can never be equate to genuine honest, im sure
most US Pres & UK PM will return wallets.
Take UK as the most glaring example, with its brightest in parliament are consistently
been outright shameless liars, such as Blairs lies for Iraq WMD war, and now May's lies of
Skripal case, which all getting near unanimous support from their parliament members speak
great volumes.
There is a Unz article written on how UK has been the mecca of paedophiles, global capital
in grooming children for sexual exploitation, with systematic covered up over decades by
their politicians because they & those powerful elites were all involved.
Their police chief even suggested not to criminalize Britons watching/owned child porno as
so high a proportion of their nation are doing will overwhelm their prisons & judicial
system.
So what honesty are we talking about here, UK as over 60% honest? Even their moral value
is highly questionable if you ask most UK white people.
And Malaysia getting 3rd highest honesty of near 80% is a great joke just shy from UK. Its
one of well known highest crimes & corruption that the West themselves criticized much,
even Spore ex-PM LKY openly condemn as violent crime infested. I never know violent criminal
is honest, may be yes for the author country when compared to their politicians.
The mainstream media deflects attention from where power resides: corporations, not with the
leaders of the free world. The arguments posed by Chris Hedges, that the U.S. is neither a
democracy nor a republic but a totalitarian state that can now assassinate its citizens at
will, are pertinent ones. Scary ones. Especially as consecutive governments seem equally as
impotent to invoke any real change for the States. If the media won't stand up to the
marionettes who pull the strings of the conglomerates causing deep, indelible polarisation in
the world abound; then so we must act. Together.
Listen to the full interview in our weekly Newsvoice Think podcast.
We were delighted to have Chris Hedges on an episode of the Newsvoice Think podcast as we seek to broadcast
perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum. Right, left, red, blue and purple.
In our interview with Chris, we discussed a range of topics facing the U.S. today as the
Trump administration looks back at a year in power, and forward to the November '18 midterms
where Democrats will be looking to make gains. Chris was scathing of that party describing them
as a "creature of Wall Street, which is choreographed and ceased to be a proper party a long
time ago." As a columnist with Truthdig, and a big advocate of independent media. Chris Hedges
was the perfect interviewee for us to draw on the benefits of crowdsourced journalism and the
challenges facing sites at the mercy of Facebook, Google and Twitter algorithms.
Chris's ire against the corporate interest of Facebook et al didn't let up saying dissident
voices were being shut down and that corporate oligarchs were only too happy to let them. The
neutralisation of the media platforms that seek to provide independent opinion on U.S. current
affairs is in full pelt.
North Korea was the hot topic in 2017. Commentators said it was like a return to the days of
the Cold War. But Hedges pointed that we need to remember what happened during the Korean
War -- how the North was flattened by U.S. bombs -- and that as a
result they, as a nation, suffer from an almost psychosis as a result. Trump, he said, is an
imbecile and only deals in bombast, threats and rhetoric.
Not surprisingly, Trump got it hard from Hedges. Describing his administration as a
"kleptocracy" who will seek to attack immigrants and up the xenophobia stakes as it distracts
and covers for the unadulterated theft of U.S. natural resources.
As young people look to estimable journalists, activists and politicians in the States to
help give them a voice, Hedges sees the democratic system as utterly futile. Encouraging mass
civil disobedience instead, the ex-NY Times foreign correspondent states that railroads should
be blocked and shutting down corporate buildings, for example, is the only way forward.
The perennial argument between Republicans and Democrats is just that; is the U.S. a
Republic or a Democracy? Hedges thinks neither. He told Newsvoice that the States is an
inverted totalitarian country where the government regards the public as "irrelevant".
Unlike Ben Wizner from the ACLU who sees hope in delaying Net Neutrality, at least until a
new administration is in power, Chris feels it is hopeless -- that it is a dead
duck, and as Net Neutrality slows down independent media platforms, the public will be at the
behest of corporate social media sites such as Facebook who'll increasingly deem what you do
and don't read or see.
You can read more of Chris' work at Truthdig where he has a weekly
column every Monday.
After the Skripal affair, is any more proof required that nothingin neoliberal MSM can be taken at face value? Looks like their
motto is "if at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again."
Notable quotes:
"... So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia." ..."
"... The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks. ..."
"... No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted and monitored. ..."
On Tuesday, Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the UK's chemical weapons facility, the Porton Down Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory, told Sky News that scientists had "not verified the precise source" of the material used in the attack in Salisbury on
March 4. Aitkenhead's statement came on the eve of the convening at Moscow's request of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) at The Hague, which would have exposed the UK government's case. But this resort to damage control only underscores
the monstrous hoax perpetrated by the British and American governments and their European allies.
May told parliament on March 12 that Porton Down was "absolutely categorical" that the "nerve agent" used on the Skripals had
come from Russia. "Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down," she said,
"the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible" for an "attempted murder" on British soil.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle on March 20 that "the people from Porton Down"
were "absolutely categorical" that the source of the nerve agent used against the Skripals was Russia. "I asked the guy myself,"
he said, "and he said 'there's no doubt.'"
So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out
on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia."
... ... ...
The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted
Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into
the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that
Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks.
No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past
month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times
raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the
lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political
purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted
and monitored.
Vermont Senator says business model of Democratic Party has been a failure for 15
years
Bernie Sanders has triggered a backlash by making comments interpreted as an attack on [Wall
Street/CIA troll] Barack Obama on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King. The senator for Vermont appeared to criticise the first black US President as he branded
the Democratic Party a "failure".
Speaking in Jackson, Mississippi, he said Democrats had lost a record number of legislative
seats. "The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so
has been a failure,'' said the Vermont Senator...Mr Sanders's comments were quickly branded
"patronising" and "deplorable".
Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the
media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers
conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is
ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").
The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm
Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?
We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake
air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere.
We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not
possible. http://themillenniumreport.com
It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.
The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver
orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been
breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope
for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way
to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media
is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of
the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up
by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a
catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in
the Middle East.
If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner
as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than
us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.
Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't
be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently
threatened that they would never be asked to come back.
Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors
know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with
a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina
I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After
class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting
that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every
American university.
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically
support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:
Interventionist wars;
The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing
"hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);
"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around
the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified
military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for
the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep
or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war)
describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"
Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic
Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists
from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including
Nicaragua and El Salvador."
-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become
truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.
It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin
to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American
"law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no
room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".
"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes
to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the
militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine
under penalty of law.
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year,
they made up, is):
Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling
families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.
Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in
books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.
If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.
Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling
for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining
it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep
the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some
commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by
the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled
media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.
But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles
I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.
We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting
Israeli collaborators out of our government.
Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington
Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will
dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.
You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.
What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do
we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?
My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.
You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.
8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly
not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration
without severely risking the security of Israel?
Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?
Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in
Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay
above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even
for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)
The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.
The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while
many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered
the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.
I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no
matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and
where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it
has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the
average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article.
Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers
deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the
facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible
war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands
Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has
caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective
response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the
costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only
about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has
carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much
from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local
pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been
abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies.
Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special
relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"
They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF,
58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.
But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a
deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?
The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and
all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.
Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?
Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically,
all fascists are socialists.
Fifteen countries voted against Russia's bid, while six voted for it and 17 abstained.
"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have two-thirds of the votes in support of that decision. A qualified majority was needed,"
Russian ambassador Alexander Shulgin told reporters, adding " Russia as well as other states that are members of the Executive Committee
have been pushed aside from this investigation ."
UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson brushed aside Russia's request, calling it a "ludicrous proposal" designed to "undermine"
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation.
"Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon -
to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ." Johnson also said that "none of us have
forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.
"After the OPCW-UN investigation found that the Syrian regime was responsible, Russia blocked that body from doing any more work,"
he said.
Russia wants to discuss a letter sent by UK Prime Minister Theresa May to the UN Security Council which says it's "highly likely"
that Moscow was behind last month's nerve agent attack.
Meanwhile ,
as we reported yesterday , the chief scientist from the UK's Porton Down military laboratory facility, Gary Aitkenhead, told
Sky News that they had been unable to prove that the novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from Russia.
"We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent," Aitkenhead said. " We have not
identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to government who have then used a number of other sources
to piece together the conclusions you have come to. "
**PAGING COLIN POWELL. IS THERE A MR. POWELL IN THE BUILDING?**
The Porton Down chief scientist said that establishing the Novichok's origin required "other inputs," some of which are intelligence
based and which only the government has access to.
Aitkenhead added: " It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that
it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured ."
So whose job is it to determine where the Novichok was manufactured?
That said, it was also noted that the nerve agent involved required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only
in the capabilities of a state actor," and that there is no known antidote to Novichok - nor was any administered to either of the
Skripals.
Aitkenhead would not say whether the Porton Down facility had manufactured or maintained stocks of Novichok - long rumored to
be the case.
" There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility ," said the chief.
Boris Johnson has come under fire since the Porton Down chief's statement, as Johnson lied, saying in an interview two weeks ago
that Porton Down officials told him there was "no doubt" that the nerge agent came from Russia .
The Foreign Office told Sky News that Johnson "misspoke," which is apparently UK officialspeak for "he totally lied, but nobody
will hold him accountable for it."
Perhaps Johnson "misspoke" in his rush to locate a hairbrush?
The evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damming Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents probably don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin.
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained
that "the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical
companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents.
So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan.
Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands
of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia.
There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of
the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed
in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian
military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such
research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
The use of the "projection" technique (essentially accusing your opponents of doing the very things you yourself are doing)
in official circles has become widespread. It's biggest proponent is, of course, Shitlery who, as an example, recently accused
Trump of using his position to enrich himself and his family (Um....?). Now BoJo has the chutzpah to accuse Russia of obfuscation
and lies. Same technique. Specifically:
" Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon
- to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ."
And, of course, psychopaths actually believe their projections which allows them to speak with a straight face. And the MSM,
naturally, just blindly "reports" what they say. The internet is the only source of real information and the true investigative
journalism of any integrity. Which is, of course, why they are trying so hard to censor and close the sources of truth.
you can see here their modus operandi - one of the first NSA leaks by Snowden/Greenwald. There is a slide there called the
Gambits For Deception - all the tricks are there - how to never admit when caught lying, how to cover the small move by the big
one - basically all the BS this fat ugly clown is using are there:
projection is everything. America banned the Huwawie Chinese cell phone because they thought it was a threat. What are all
those Apples in China? Not even to speak about domestic use.
Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the
media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers
conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is
ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").
The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm
Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?
We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake
air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere.
We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not
possible. http://themillenniumreport.com
It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.
The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver
orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been
breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope
for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way
to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media
is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of
the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up
by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a
catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in
the Middle East.
If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner
as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than
us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.
Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't
be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently
threatened that they would never be asked to come back.
Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors
know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with
a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina
I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After
class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting
that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every
American university.
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically
support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:
Interventionist wars;
The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing
"hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);
"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around
the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified
military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for
the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep
or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war)
describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"
Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic
Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists
from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including
Nicaragua and El Salvador."
-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become
truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.
It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin
to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American
"law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no
room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".
"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes
to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the
militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine
under penalty of law.
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year,
they made up, is):
Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling
families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.
Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in
books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.
If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.
Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling
for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining
it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep
the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some
commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by
the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled
media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.
But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles
I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.
We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting
Israeli collaborators out of our government.
Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington
Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will
dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.
You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.
What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do
we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?
My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.
You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.
8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly
not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration
without severely risking the security of Israel?
Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?
Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in
Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay
above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even
for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)
The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.
The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while
many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered
the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.
I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no
matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and
where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it
has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the
average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article.
Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers
deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the
facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible
war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands
Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has
caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective
response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the
costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only
about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has
carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much
from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local
pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been
abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies.
Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special
relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"
They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF,
58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.
But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a
deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?
The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and
all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.
Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?
Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically,
all fascists are socialists.
The record is clear that 'our' (that is, the ruling Establishment's) intelligence agencies,
such as the CIA, have lied to the public many times, actually lie routinely -- but these lies
are always revealed only decades later, by historians, which is too late, because the damage
was already done. Think, for example, of just two of the now-famous cases, Iran 1953 , and Chile 1973 , in both of
which instances the US Government ended a democracy abroad, and established a brutal
dictatorship there (the Shah in Iran, and Pinochet in Chile) -- but what good can a historian
do, when the Government and its 'news'-media were persistently lying, and they had fooled the
US public, at the time -- which is all that really counted (and ever
will count)? Can a historian undo the damage that the Government and its
propaganda-agencies had perpetrated, by means of their lies, and coups, and invasions? Never.
But this Government, and its propaganda-agents, claim to defend democracies, not to end them.
Can it actually be a democracy, if it's doing such things, and doing it time after time?
Something's deeply wrong here. Government by deceit, cannot be a democracy. And, yet, the
public still don't get the message, even after it has been delivered to us in history-books. By
then, it's no longer in the news, and so only few people really care about it. The message of
history is not learned. The public still accepts the ongoing lies -- the new lies, in the new
'news', for the new atrocities.
During the period after the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact military
alliance, all ended in 1991, the US-and-allied historical record (all now after the Cold War
has supposedly been over) is even worse, and is even more clearly evil, because the ideological
excuse that had formerly existed (and which was only the excuse, and not the reason,
in most cases, such as in Iran, and in Chile) is gone.
Iraq in 2003 was a particularly blatant demonstration of the US-Government's psychopathy
regarding foreign affairs. So: let's consider this example (hopefully, to learn a lesson from
it -- which still hasn't yet been learnt):
Bill Clinton's CIA chief George Tenet told President George W. Bush that convincing the American people
that Saddam Hussein had WMD, weapons of mass destruction, was "a slam-dunk." His job wasn't
to find the truth, but to authenticate the 'evidence' to back up the President, and Tenet did
just that. The American people went for it, even though no WMD actually remained in Iraq,
because the U.N. inspectors in 1998 had destroyed all of them, and because there was no
indication (other than hired and coerced testimony, and especially fabrications from
CIA-partnered anti-Saddam Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi ) that there had been restored
in Iraq any WMD program. A crucial date was
7 September 2002, when George W. Bush and Tony Blair both said that a new report had just
been issued by the IAEA saying that Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having a
nuclear weapon. The IAEA promptly denied that it had issued any such "new report" at all, and
the 'news' media simply ignored the denial, which the IAEA then repeated weeks later, and
it again was
ignored ; so, the false impression, that such an IAEA report had been issued, remained in
the publics' minds, and they favored invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein before there
would be,
as Condoleezza Rice warned the next day following Bush-Blair, on September 8th, a "mushroom
cloud" . It was all just lies -- lies that were believed, at the time, and even believed by
many for a long time after we invaded. Some of these lies were derived from torturing detainees
-- torturing them to say what the US and British regimes wanted them to say.
"We do not – I don't talk about techniques," Tenet replies.
"It's torture," Pelley says.
"And we don't torture people."
US President Donald Trump has
now appointed to lead the CIA the very same woman, Gina Haspel, who had operated, under Tenet,
under Bush, the CIA "black site" in Thailand, where Abu Zubaydeh was waterboarded 83 times and
otherwise tortured so that he lost his left eye. The reason why he was being tortured was
in order to extract from him testimony that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11, but
Zubaydeh didn't even know anything about any such matter, and tried desperately to say what he
thought his torturers wanted him to say, so as to stop these tortures, but he didn't know that
they were intending to torture him until he would implicate Saddam Hussein in causing the 9/11
attacks. And so the torturing just went on and on. The CIA's Haspel finally gave up, after
deciding that he'd die if they continued any further. The problem now was to hide him from the
public. So, Zubaydeh subsequently has been held incommunicado at Guantanamo since 2001, so that
he can't communicate with anyone in the outside world, and thus the crimes of George Bush and
his employee George Tenet and his employee Gina Haspel, can't be prosecuted. And, now, Trump
appoints her to Tenet's old spot, as the CIA Director. So: Bush had hired her, then protected
her. Obama protected instead of prosecuted her. And, finally, Trump now promotes her, to be the
CIA's new chief. She has demonstrated herself to be a reliable liar for whomever is her boss.
Trump therefore can trust her to vouch for whatever he wants her to 'prove', to whatever
American suckers still remain, as being American suckers.
Globally, there is a competition between aristocracies, and they are contending gangs.
That's no different than was
the case leading up to WW I . But WW III will end it all -- and all of us -- unless the
public wises up, and fast, and recognizes whom their
real enemies are (which are internal, not external). Without cooperation from the
news-media (owned by those aristocracies), to expose (instead of spread) the frauds, WW III --
the end of everything -- is in the cards. It's in the cards, right now. And, this time, it's
not a mistake. It won't need any wild
assassin to spark the conflagration . Instead, it's the plan
. It has actually been building ever since
24 February 1990 . And this has been even more confirmed now .
Patriotism is to the public, not to the rulers. Any rulers who expect it to be to them,
instead of to the public, are simply tyrants -- they are traitors, who happen to rule the
public. Do we live in a dictatorship, or
in a democracy? If it's a dictatorship ( such as the best available evidence shows that America is ), then
this, which we are now experiencing, is simply par for the course. But will we continue to
accept it? Or, will we, finally, learn from
history ? (And, if so, then will we do it fast enough, under the prevailing circumstances?)
The time to decide, and to act, could be short . Have
we had enough now, of that lying? Because, accepting just a little bit more of it, could mean
the end of everything. If it's not going to be the end of the liars, it will probably soon be
the end of everything. Because that's the path we now are on.
The obvious question came up: Should I buy a smartphone to replace my trusted Ericsson?
I tested several of the current top-of-the-line smartphones - Motorola, Samsung, Apple. They
were in the same relative price range as my old Ericsson was at its time. But they lack in
usability. They either have a too small screen for their multitude of functions or they are
bricks that require an extra pocket.
I do not want to give all my data into the hands of
some unaccountable billionaires and unknown third parties. I do not want my privacy destroyed.
So no - I decided not to buy a smartphone as replacement for my trusted Ericsson
companion.
It is a Chinese product sold in Germany under the Olympia
brand. It is a GSM quad-band 'dumb' phone with FM radio and a flashlight. The standby time is
140 hours and talk-time is 3+ hours. The battery is a standardized model and future
replacements will be easy to find.
Size and weight are nearly the same as the old Ericsson. The keys are much bigger,
illuminated and easier to handle, especially in the dark. It is a robust construction and the
sound quality is good.
It cost me €22.00 ($26.40).
Posted by b on April 2, 2018 at 03:28 PM | Permalink
I'm not convinced the new generation of retro dumb phones aka feature phones do not also have
all the same surveillance capabilities as their smart brethren - even though they don't
expose those capabilities as features to the end user.
b - I only scanned your post, but my answer is: NO!
Don't buy a "smart" phone (or anything else labeled "smart"). They are nothing more than
data collectors, part of the Internet of Things that, IMNSHO, is an existential threat to our
civilization.
I just decided to look back at the end of the post. and I see that you took my advice.
;-)
Well you have to ask yourself, Do i want to participate in a mass surveillance system for
one, Then you have to ask Is their any reason i would accept constant audio recordings being
made of my environment, then you have the camera angle to contend... Then your GPS location
is a major issue, add the ultrasonic beacon thing and the cell tower triangulation aspect to
consider.... the phone you have from 2001 is not anywhere near as proficient at many of these
tasks being built well before the 2006 legislation regarding this series of systems... If it
were me and i knew all about this stuff, i would pay a hell of a lot more than a new phone is
worth to keep the old unit in service for as long as you could... Any new phone is going to
do all the above to your privacy and then some the old one is very limited, so how concerned
are you with being an open book to who ever has access to your phone from the hidden parts
and functions you never get to use? Me? I have seen a ton of serious problems with the uses
of the tech being built into the modern smartphones, some models give you lots of functions
to use, some give you a basic lite experience, But ALL new devices give the state running the
system a HEFTY pack of features you will never know about until it's damage has been done.
Take my advice Keep the 2000 model going for as long as you can if you must have a mobile
phone. If you WANT to be the target of every nasty thing the state does with this new tech
investigator/spy then by all means get one of the smart type, Any new one is just as bad as
any other after 2006 legislation changes went into effect. 2001 was a very bad event for this
topic... I will not have one after the events that befell me. A high performance radio
computer with many types of real world sensors, using a wide spread and near unavoidable
network of up link stations is the states most useful weapon. Everyone chooses to have what
they have, You can also choose to NOT have, but few choose NOT, many choose the worst option
on old values of this sort of choice and never think about the loss they incur to have the
NEW gadget for whatever reason they rationalize it.
Smart phones are destroyers of information sovereignty. With a PC one can save a copy of
every page you visit whereas with the smart phone all you can practically do is view things.
It pisses me off.
Has anyone noticed how shallow the so called world wide web has gotten these days.,?
Search terms which would in the psst throw up hundreds if not thousands of webpages on the
subject matter now result in sometimes no more than 3 or 4 entries. Google has stolen the
internet of us all. The web is dead. Cunts like zuckerberg should be drop kicked into the
long grass.
The main espionage equipment in a smartphone or dumbphone is not the application processor
and the programs that run on it. It's the GSM/3G/UMTS/LTE/5G chipset which every single one
of them obviously has. "We kill with metadata" is the most important aphorism about phones,
no matter which kind, ever.
However, a smartphone gives you lots of convenience which your 22$ chinaphone doesn't give
you. A browser when on the road, a book reader, a map device.
You have to take a few precautions, e.g. use LineageOS, install AFWall and XPrivacy. Nothing
different from using a PC basically. And you certainly shouldn't shell out 500$ for one.
Every dollar/euro above ca. 100 has to be very well justified.
Sure, you can live in the 80s, nothing wrong with that. We lived fine back in those days
too, but why not take advantage of some of the improvements since then?
psychohistorian | Apr 2, 2018 4:23:43 PM | 15
Nice post b. Expresses my sentiments exactly.
I had to take my Nokia X2 out of the plastic bag I keep it in so it doesn't get wet to see what model it was....I keep the
battery out and pay T Mobile $10/year to have emergency minutes when I need them....I maintain and use a land line for all my
calls.
It is not like these devices couldn't be useful but like the desktop OS world, bloatware is a standard now. I have programmed
handheld devices since 1985 and my latest was a MS Windoze10/C# inventory management application with barcodes and such.
Prior to the Nokia I have now I was nursing along a Palm 720p until I couldn't get a carrier to support it anymore. So since
the Palm I have consciously gone back to a Weekly Minder type of pocket calendar which I had to use before the online
capability came along.
If our world were to change like I want it to by making the tools finance a public utility I might learn to trust more of my
life to be held by technology than the 5 eyes already know......Everyone has seen the movie SNOWDEN , correct?.....my Mac
laptop had tape over the camera as soon as I brought it home.....I have a nice Nikon Coolpix camera with the GPS turned off
and the battery out......grin
I understand your choice, but you should have looked for a basic phone not just with GSM
(2G), but also at least with UMTS (3G).
GSM is being wound down, and the frequencies reallocated to LTE (4G).
Many operators in several countries have already switched off their GSM networks
(Australia, USA...) This means that in about 3-4 years, you will have real difficulties using
your new mobile phone, at least in developed countries; in the Third World, GSM will probably
last a bit longer.
I have a cheapo Nokia 100 for calls and a YotaPhone 2 as a tablet. The Yota is Russian but I
don't mind the FSB 😃 Aldo it has two screens, one being a passive black and white for
use in full bright sun light.
I think b made a wise decision. Up till now I've also not needed a smart phone and the
continious "connection" or being hooked to the "matrix" would not only eat my valuable time
away but would also make me feel more bound.
"Another disadvantage of smartphones is enormous amount of personal data they
inevitably steal for uncontrolled use by third parties. The technical consultant Dylan Curran
studied this:
As soon as an Android smartphone is switched on Google will collect ALL data on every
location change and on anything done on the phone. Apple does likewise with its
iPhones."
That's the basic privacy nullification. There is also what can be described as the
invasive potential. Certain companies, next to intelligence agencies, have made it their
business to switch a victims own smart phone into a full blown active spy device. Obviously
the victims are particular persons of interests like Dilma Roussef. Whenever a person is
having a conversation, talks to himself out loud, has a meeting or is intimate, all sounds
and conversations can be recorded next to video when the phone is positioned well. As we
know, most people will not or can't part from their beloved smart phone.
I can not tell what to do. In fact, when buying a "smartphone", you have to get used that the
phone will be discharged during 1 or 1.5 days, you will become dependent to next USB source,
or a battery pack (which is somewhat heavy, 1 pound ca. but not too bulky.
Personally, I am using such a device since 5 yrs ca., first a 4.7" HTC one of my daughters
gave me. I soon installed Cyanogenmod (now LineageOS) and threw away all the bloat and
especially the Google and Facebook dirt and spyware. I do not have an email account on the
brick, rather a browser over which I may access the Web representation of my email account,
which is NOT gmail or similar. I do not use Google playstore.
The "killer apps" for me are mainly FBReader, a free ebook reader, VLC for audio and
video, and OSMand, an OpenStreetMap client. Some simple calendar, picture etc. apps are on as
well. My recent phone is a Samsung S4 mini, bought used for 50€.
This is a minimalistic setup, but makes tracking and spying other than by government
agencies difficult. LineageOS is updated nearly every week, so fairly safe against Android
malware.
With a "regular" smartphone, you will lack updates after a few years, have a lot of bloat
on board you cannot get rid of, be forced to have a Google account for access of the software
repository Google playstore, which is deeply integrated into Android. If one does not care to
be spied and sniffed not only by the FBI and NSA, but by Brin and Zuckerberg in addition,
ok.
Provided one has access to good public WiFi: It seems to me that Wifi and a tablet, or laptop
(with a good battery) + the use of a virtual proxy network, VPN, which are almost always
encrypted, is better than a smartphone. (Of course if the tablet is Android don't use the
Chrome web browser.)
Then just buy a 25 euro Samsung or LG flip phone for the talking part of phone use. It
won't last 17 years, but one can still get batteries for them.
Of course this approach doesn't work if you don't have solid public WiFi where you'd
normally use a smartphone in public.
@mh505 #27 Even with a SIM card not linked to your personal ID card it's fairly easy to
automatically tie your smartphone to your person whereby you end up in the drag net you try
to escape. Not in the least thanks to your close ones whom probably have you listed with your
full name + phone number (thus SIM) in their smartphone. And that's even besides you
connecting to all kinds of services offered by Google and the likes that know where you
personally hang out because of WIFI access points, GPS location (if enabled), connected IP
address where someone else connected to who has GPS enabled etc.
Unfortunately your list of EU countries that don't require personal ID to purchase a SIM
card is incorrect.
In USA it pays to be stupid. The choice I have is to use a smart phone with a monthly
charge ca. 100 dollars or a stupid phone with a monthly charge of 8 dollars (or is it 15? and
the phone for 8). And if you are old enough you can bear with hardships like memorizing the
map of the area were you live, having to check stuff on your own desktop computer before you
leave home etc. And the difference in costs can be spent on cigarettes, beer, donations to
OxPham, it is your pick.
Concerning surveilance, a stupid phone is used sparingly, so it definitely provides less
tracking info.
I'm a 53 year old dog and try to keep things simple for myself. Being paranoid about being
tracked and watched isn't my thing. I use my smart phone as a phone when I need to talk to an
asswipe at work or my only friend to schedule a meetup or the wife unit when she calls. I
have limited data so I usually wait until I'm home to view porn and news websites on the pc.
I don't do any financial tasks on the phone, rarely text anyone, rarely use the camera, have
only a few apps for things like weather and writing myself a note to remember to pick up milk
or dog food on the way home from work. My life is so boring and my bank account so empty I'm
not worth a bother to "them".
Lambert here: Readers will notice that Auerback seems to assume that Cambridge
Analytica's shenanigans with Facebook data shifted votes in 2016 (as do the links to which he
cites)*. His post summarizes the political and analytical state of play, but may be usefully
read in conjunction with
this 2017 post at NC by Marina Bart, who cautioned :
There is no question that modern social media facilitates highly segmented marketing.
There is no question that political campaigns can benefit from this. Figuring out who might
be receptive to your candidate and their policies, where they vote, and motivating them to go
to the polls is fundamental campaign work. But that is not at all the same thing as
manipulating people into voting against their interests, which is presumably what is feared
(and possibly secretly hoped for) by the fretful Democrats. There is no evidence Cambridge
Analytica did any psychological manipulations for Trump.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Big Data highly segmented psychological manipulation to
ever work. But it isn't happening now; there's no evidence it will work in the near future;
there are many, many obstacles to overcome; and there are two very basic reasons why it
cannot be the secret weapon I suspect the Democrats long for.
The most basic one is that voting is not the same as buying stuff . There is no
direct connection between casting a vote and getting anything in return, not even the
momentary pleasure of buying a candy bar.
(In other words, the current Cambridge Analytical scare is based on a category error.) Of
course, from a Wall Street "beauty contest" perspective, what Facebook can actually do may
matter less than what people think it can do. From my own perspective, I don't want Facebook's
filthy data-gathering proboscis nuzzling my personal affairs at all , regardless of
any effect it may have, and that goes for Google, too. Whether I'm an outlier in my revulsion
remains to be seen.
NOTE * Indeed, were evidence for this assumption to exist, one would assume it would already
have been produced. If it has been, I've missed it, and I do try to keep track.
Cambridge Analytica's systematic harvesting of Facebook user preferences to create detailed
models of voter emotions appears to have played a significant role in the election of Donald
Trump and the victory of the "Brexiters" on the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should
leave the European Union or not. There is shock and anxiety
at the revelations about how a few right-wing ideologues were able to exploit Facebook's
database and then use it to justify populist campaigns fronted by publicity hounds of dubious
moral and financial principles (Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage immediately spring
to mind).
Whether the Facebook fiasco conclusively proves either Russian involvement in the 2016
election (or the UK's Brexit referendum), or simply highlights the violation of campaign
finance laws, is yet to be determined. But what is certainly beyond dispute from the apparently
unauthorized use of Facebook's database
of some 50 million users is that longstanding Madison Avenue advertising techniques worked
equally well when applied to majority voting instead of employee practices or consumer
spending. One possible outcome is that centralized repositories like Facebook -- or Google, or
Amazon -- could become a ripe target for regulation and/or anti-trust action. Another
possibility is that the voluntary participation on which Facebook is built will collapse
spontaneously via consumer rejection.
In one sense, there is nothing new in what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have done. Way
back in 1957, author Vance Packard's The
Hidden Persuaders described
how :
"Large-scale efforts are being made, often with impressive success, to channel our
unthinking habits, our purchasing decisions, and our thought processes by the use of insights
gleaned from psychiatry and the social sciences. Typically these efforts take place beneath
our level of awareness, so that the appeals which move us are often, in a sense,
'hidden.'"
But in a world in which we have all become reliant on the internet for our information, our
searches and declared preferences are constantly recorded. Therefore an uncanny amount about us
can be learned in a manner that is far more centralized and prone to manipulation than
traditional forms of advertising. A wave of shrinkage in traditional advertising firms has
correspondingly occurred as the robotic, targeted advertising has become the new norm, largely
because it is both cheaper and more effective.
Facebook in particular is a social media way of harnessing interpersonal linkages through
the net. Its model must be using those links and the information they generate to create value
for advertisers. Any user of Facebook (or Amazon) can easily see how fast browsers insert ads
related to one's most recent searches. So it becomes manifestly clear that these companies are
tracking us for common advertising purposes.
Politics has always looked into the underlying motivations of voters to manage them. But
using the data as documented
by the Guardian , this went to a new level of political detail in 2016 that fueled the
faster cycle of hard-hitting Trump campaigning. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc., have
all become huge aggregators of this information. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's recent
apologies notwithstanding , the companies are either being naïve in proclaiming shock
that their data can be misused or, more likely, have been so obsessed with building market
share and watching their company market caps explode into the hundreds of billions of dollars
that they willfully ignored the scope for abuse. Either way, the information seems to have
reached a threshold of importance where governments will step in and disrupt the existing mode,
especially now that the full power of this database has been recognized and exploited by a
successful political candidate, whether via regulation or antitrust measures. Otherwise, the
demands will rise for Facebook to give the data to all, because it cannot guarantee that it has
been erased everywhere, which has disturbing implications for our privacy (as well as
threatening to destroy Facebook's business model, the success of which is predicated on the
exclusive use of the data aggregated from the user base).
However much someone like Brian Acton, who was made a billionaire courtesy of Facebook's
purchase of his company, might like others to embrace his #DeleteFacebook campaign, that
appears problematic, given how successfully the use of Facebook's model operated in the
political context. But there is growing international political momentum to strip the "
social network " and its
targeted advertising model of much of its abilities to record and use customer data. Former
President Barack Obama hinted at
this at a recent speech at MIT :
"I do think the large platforms -- Google and Facebook being the most obvious, Twitter and
others as well, are part of that ecosystem -- have to have a conversation about their
business model that recognizes they are a public good as well as a commercial enterprise.
They're not just an invisible platform, they're shaping our culture in powerful ways."
Obama did not explicitly state what he had in mind for these companies, but he did
suggest
that at a minimum, "the government should have 'rules of the road' to create a level playing
field." Even if users find they can't do without their daily Facebook fix, Google search, or
Amazon shopping spree, the former president is right. A price will be paid as these companies'
activities are increasingly scrutinized.
There are defenses that have been mounted in favor of an unregulated market for Big Data,
notably by People Analytics, an organization run by Alex Pentland and his colleagues at MIT's
Media Lab.
Pentland feels the very centralized nature of the aggregated data is what makes these
companies such excellent research targets:
"With the advent of big data and machine learning, researchers actually have enough data
and sufficient mathematical tools to build predictive mathematical models. If you talk to
other people and see what they are doing, you can improve your own performance, and as you
talk to more and more people, you continue to do better and better."
What is not to like? Better decision-making, higher productivity, more efficient
communication networks: It looks like a win-win all around. Of course, it was under the guise
of research that Cambridge Analytica allegedly got the Facebook data in the first place. It can
be used as cover for less benign purposes.
Going further, Pentland cleverly invokes a "New Deal on
Data" that allows for the "rebalancing of the ownership of data in favor of the individual
whose data is collected. People would have the same rights they now have over their physical
bodies and their money."
In theory, this allows the individual discretion as to how much he/she will share with
corporations and government regulators. Pentland goes on to suggest that, "the economy will be
healthier if the relationship between companies and consumers is more respectful, more
balanced. I think that's much more sustainable and will prevent disasters."
Pentland's optimism sounds somewhat naïve in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations,
as well as the current Facebook controversy. Of course, anything that further legitimizes this
intrusion on our privacy will be welcomed by these entities. How much do we, the owners of our
own personal data, actually control it? As far as the government goes, not much, Snowden's revelations (or
those of WikiLeaks) illustrated. And surely the current Facebook and Cambridge Analytica
imbroglio undercuts this benign picture that Pentland describes of a happy, informed consumer
who autonomously shares his data with various companies, with a view toward building a more
"balanced" relationship.
On the contrary, the Facebook fiasco highlights that there exists a thoroughly unequal
partnership between the aggregators of information and the information owners, making abuse
almost inevitable. Indeed, it is highly doubtful that most consumers and users are even aware
of the extent to which their habits, thoughts, and overall private space are monitored by these
companies (to say nothing of the more obvious government and law enforcement agencies, even if
we're not terrorists).
In general, the notion of a level playing field of information or data that the market can
freely and efficiently price has been debunked successfully by Nobel Laureates George Akerlof
and Joseph Stiglitz. Both have challenged the " efficient market hypothesis ,"
which holds that market prices or odds reflect all known information, mitigating the need for
intrusive government intervention/regulation. If information asymmetry exists, the obvious
implication is that there is a need for some form of overriding regulation to rectify this
imbalance. This would also seem to apply to Pentland's New Deal on Data.
Edward Snowden has made us question whether the data and corresponding privacy can be
adequately safeguarded from more scrutiny by governments. The more relevant question from the
point of view of, say, Silicon Valley and its high tech moguls is whether governments will move
more aggressively to control the aggregators themselves, and whether the revelations of their
abuses will provoke a backlash, which will impact their companies' growth and
profitability.
Already, as Reuters reported, "
Nordea, the Nordic region's biggest bank, will not let its sustainable funds buy more Facebook
shares for the time being." The European Union
has fined Facebook €110m "for 'incorrect or misleading' information regarding data
sharing between Facebook and WhatsApp" (even though Facebook acquired the latter). And the EU
has also proposed that "companies with significant digital revenues in Europe will pay a 3
percent tax on their turnover on various online services in the European Union," legislation
that will cover Facebook (as well as Amazon and Google). Although the tax doesn't actually
address the issue of the database abuse itself, the Cambridge Analytica scandal has dissipated
valuable political capital for these companies, which will make it harder for them to stop
these attacks on their business model and underlying profitability.
Indeed, the focus on taxing turnover, as opposed to profits, is telling, because sales
records are far more difficult to doctor and conceal via accounting subterfuge than profits. In
effect, this is tantamount to the EU stating to these tech giants, "Don't even think about
making a transfer payment to Ireland and leaving yourself with an operating loss in our
jurisdiction so you can pay no tax."
As the Brexit referendum illustrates, the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal itself
goes well beyond the U.S. Consequently, we can expect an attack on all fronts -- the U.S., the
EU, and likely Asia as well. At this point it is too early to judge if this will have any
impact on the ongoing Mueller investigation, but the economic implications already seem
evident. The U.S. equity boom has been partly in reaction to deregulation in banking and
elsewhere. The tech industry has largely escaped any kind of regulatory or antitrust scrutiny
and has benefited accordingly. As Edward Harrison of the site Credit Writedowns
has observed :
"Some of the best performing stocks in the US are the large Internet-centric technology
stocks like Facebook. There is even an acronym, FANG, to describe Facebook, Amazon, Netflix
and Google. Add Apple and, together, these five stocks account for one quarter of the
Nasdaq's total market capitalization. They are huge. And Facebook's data breach represents a
threat to them."
Could it be that public indignation at the Facebook profile harvesting scandal will lead to
new regulation that could impede the value of some tech-based advertising models? Will it lead
to a consumer backlash that slows the growth of the companies themselves? Certainly, it is
easier to attack a wealthy and powerful company, if and when it becomes Public Enemy #1, even
though many of these politicos will find themselves attacking the instruments of their own
political success (or fundraising sources). Facebook or Google would no doubt argue that their
platforms are just a facilitation of the communities inherent in the internet and that they
have benefited by exploiting first mover advantage . But a
centralized, monopolistic exploitation of these interpersonal links is inviting public
intervention, especially as the technology can also survive on a distributed, competitive
basis. In the eyes of many, these companies are unlikely to escape the opprobrium of helping to
allow the Trump disaster to descend upon us. Overseas, they could well be scapegoated if the
British economy falters as a result of leaving the European Union. On a broader scale, this
scandal may well destroy any last vestiges of "techno-optimism," seeing how it has highlighted
the misuses of technology and the human damage it can continue to inflict on us far more
profoundly than ever before.
"... Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China. ..."
"... Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!! ..."
"... I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm ..."
"... the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about anything. ..."
"... The US public are irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose). ..."
"That tells you all you need to know about the difference between modern Britain and
the government of Vladimir Putin. They make Novichok, we make light sabers. One a hideous
weapon that is specifically intended for assassination. The other an implausible theatrical
prop with a mysterious buzz. But which of those two weapons is really more effective in the
world of today?".
(Boris Johnson)
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one: does anybody
sincerely believe that "Putin" (the collective name for the Russian Mordor) really attempted to
kill a man which "Putin" himself had released in the past, who presented no interest for Russia
whatsoever who,
like Berezovsky , wanted to
return back to Russia , and that to do the deed "Putin" used a binary nerve agent? Question
two: does anybody sincerely believe that the British have presented their "allies" (I will be
polite here and use that euphemism) with incontrovertible or, at least, very strong evidence
that "Putin" indeed did such a thing? Question three: does anybody sincerely believe that the
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats will somehow make Russia more compliant to western demands
(for our purposes, it does not matter what demands we are talking about)? Question four: does
anybody sincerely believe that after this latest episode, the tensions will somehow abate or
even diminish and that things will get better? Question five: does anybody sincerely believe
that the current sharp rise in tensions between the AngloZionist Empire (aka the "West") does
not place the Empire and Russia on collision course which could result in war,
probably/possibly nuclear war, maybe not deliberately, but as the result of an escalation of
incidents?
If in the zombified world of the ideological
drones who actually remain in the dull trance induced by the corporate media there are most
definitely those who answer "yes" to some or even all of the questions above, I submit that not
a single major western decision maker sincerely believes any of that nonsense. In reality,
everybody who matters knows that the Russians had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, that
the Brits have shown no evidence, that the expulsion of Russian diplomats will only harden the
Russian resolve, that all this anti-Russian hysteria will only get worse and that this all puts
at least Europe and the USA, if not the entire planet, in great danger.
And yet what just happened is absolutely amazing: instead of using fundamental principles of
western law (innocent until proven guilty by at least a preponderance of evidence or even
beyond reasonable doubt), basic rules of civilized behavior (do not attack somebody you know is
innocent), universally accepted ethical norms (the truth of the matter is more important than
political expediency) or even primordial self-preservation instincts (I don't want to die for
your cause), the vast majority of western leaders chose a new decision-making paradigm which
can be summarized in two words:
"highly likely" "solidarity"
This is truly absolutely crucial and marks a fundamental change in the way the AngloZionist
Empire will act from now on. Let's look at the assumptions and implications of these two
concepts.
First, "highly likely". While "highly likely" does sound like a simplified version of
"preponderance of evidence" what it really means is something very different and circular:
"Putin" is bad, poisoning is bad, therefore it is "highly likely" that "Putin" did it. How do
we know that the premise "Putin is bad" is true? Well -- he does poison people, does he
not?
You think I am joking?
Check out this wonderful chart presented to the public by "Her Majesty's government"
entitled "A long pattern of Russian malign activity":
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is
demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations
(occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of
Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations. All that is missing here is the
mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret
"weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. You don't need a law degree to see that,
all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my
contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here
is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur 's famous " my
country, right or wrong " applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre
heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt
Solidarität also comes to mind.
Solidarity simply means that the comprador ruling elites of the West will say and do
whatever the hell the AngloZionists tell them to. If tomorrow the UK or US leaders proclaim
that Putin eats babies for breakfast or that the West needs to send a strong message to "Putin"
that a Russian invasion of Vanuatu shall not be tolerated, then so be it: the entire
AngloZionist nomenklatura will sing the song in full
unison and to hell with facts, logic or even decency!
Solemnly proclaiming lies is hardly something new in politics, there is nothing new here.
What is new are two far more recent developments: first, now everybody knows that these are
lies and, second, nobody challenges or debunks them. Welcome to the AngloZionist New World
Order indeed!
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of
it.
(John 8:44)
ORDER IT NOW
Over the past weeks I have observed something which I find quite interesting: both on
Russian TV channels and in the English speaking media there is a specific type of anti-Putin
individual who actually takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Empire has embarked on
a truly unprecedented campaign of lies against Russia. These people view lies as just another
tool in a type of "political toolkit" which can be used like any other political technique. As
I have mentioned in the past, the western indifference to the truth is something very ancient
coming, as it does, from the Middle-Ages: roughly when the spiritual successors of the Franks
in Rome decided that their own, original brand of "Christianity" had no use for 1000 years of
Consensus Patrum .
Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular, power produced both moral
relativism and colonialism (with the Pope's imprimatur in the form of the Treaty of Tordesillas
). The Reformation (with its very pronounced Judaic influence) produced the bases of modern
capitalism which, as Lenin correctly diagnosed, has imperialism as its highest stage. Now that
the West is losing its grip on the planet (imagine that, some SOB nations dare resist!), all of
the ideological justifications have been tossed away and we are left with the true, honest,
bare-bones impulses of the leaders of the Empire: messianic hubris (essentially self-worship),
violence and, above all, a massive reliance on deception and lies on every single level of
society, from the commercial advertisements targeted at children to Colin Powell shaking some
laundry detergent at the UNSC to justify yet another war of aggression.
Self-worship and a total reliance on brute force and falsehoods -- these are the real
"Western values" today. Not the rule of law, not the scientific method, not critical thought,
not pluralism and most definitely not freedom. We are back, full circle, to the kind of
illiterate thuggery the Franks so perfectly embodied and which made them so infamous in the
(then) civilized world (the south and eastern Mediterranean). The agenda, by the way, is also
the same one as the Franks had 1000 years ago: either submit to us and accept our dominion, or
die, and the way to accept our dominion is to let us plunder all your riches. Again, not much
difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the Second Rome in 1204
and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior.
Interestingly, the Chinese saw straight through this strategic psyop and they are now
sounding the alarm in their very official Global Times : (emphasis added)
The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior
motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression "perhaps it's true" to seize upon the
desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic
behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats
almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than
increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts ( ) The fact
that major Western powers can gang up and "sentence" a foreign country without following the
same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international
law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a
provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing
more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice. ( ) It is
beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a
frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows
how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western
nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need
to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking
the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications and come to value
their own judgment abilities. ( ) The West is only a small fraction of the world and is
nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within
the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding
is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.
As the French say " à bon entendeur, salut! ": the Chinese position is crystal
clear, as is the warning. I would summarize it as so: if the West is an AngloZionist doormat,
then the East is most definitely not.
[Sidebar: I know that there are some countries in Europe who have, so far, shown the courage
to resist the AngloZionist Diktat . Good for them. I will wait to see how long they can
resist the pressure before giving them a standing ovation]
The decision, therefore, lies here in the East; here must the Russian enemy, this
people numbering two hundred million Russians, be destroyed on the battlefield and person by
person, and made to bleed to death
(Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler)
Still, none of that explain why the leaders of the Empire have decided to engage in a
desperate game of "nuclear chicken" to try to, yet again, force Russia to comply with its
demands to "go away and shut up". This is counter-intuitive and I get several emails each week
telling me that there is absolutely no way the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire would want a
war with Russia, especially not a nuclear-armed one. The truth is that while western leaders
are most definitely psychopaths, they are neither stupid nor suicidal, and neither were
Napoleon or Hitler! And, yes, they probably don't really want a full-scale war with Russia. The
problem is that these rulers are also desperate, and for good cause.
Let's look at the situation just a few months ago. The US was defeated in Syria, ridiculed
in the DPRK, Trump was hated in Europe, the Russians and the Germans were working on North
Stream, the British leaders forced to at least pretend to work on Brexit, the entire
"Ukrainian" project had faceplanted, the sanctions against Russia had failed, Putin was more
popular than ever and the hysterical anti-Trump campaign was still in full swing inside the
USA. The next move by the AngloZionist elites was nothing short of brilliant: by organizing a
really crude false flag in the UK the Empire achieved the following results:
The Europeans
have been forced right back into the Anglosphere's fold ("solidarity", remember?) The Brexiting
Brits are now something like the (im-)moral leaders of Europe again. The Russians are now
demonized to such a degree that any accusation, no matter how stupid, will stick. In the
Middle-East, the US and Israel now have free reign to start any war they want because the
(purely theoretical) European capability to object to anything the Anglos want has now
evaporated, especially now that the Russians have become "known chemical-criminals" from Ghouta
to Salisbury At the very least, the World Cup in Russia will be sabotaged by a massive
anti-Russian campaign. If that campaign is really successful, there is still the hope that the
Germans will finally cave in and, if maybe not outright cancel, then at least very much delay
North Stream thereby forcing the Europeans to accept, what else, US gas.
This is an ambitious plan and, barring an unexpected development, it sure looks like it
might work. The problem with this strategy is that it falls short of getting Russia to truly
"go away and shut up". Neocons are particularly fond of humiliating their enemies (look at how
they are still gunning for Trump even though by now the poor man has become their most
subservient servant) and there is a lot of prestige at stake here. Russia, therefore, must be
humiliated, truly humiliated, not just by sabotaging her participation in Olympic games or by
expelling Russian diplomats, but by something far more tangible like, say, an attack on the
very small and vulnerable Russian task force in Syria. Herein lies the biggest risk.
The Russian task force in Syria is tiny, at least compared to the immense capabilities of
CENTCOM+NATO. The Russians have warned that if they are attacked, they will shoot down not only
the attacking missiles but also their launchers. Since the Americans are not dumb enough to
expose their aircraft to Russian air defenses, they will use air power only outside the range
of Russian air defenses and they will use only cruise missiles to strike targets inside the
"protection cone" of the Russians air defenses. The truth is that I doubt that the Russians
will have the opportunity to shoot down many US aircraft, at least not with their long-range
S-300/S-400 SAMs. Their ubiquitous and formidable combined short to medium range surface-to-air
missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Pantsir, might have a better chance
simply because it's location is impossible to predict. But the real question is this: will the
Russians shoot back at the USN ships if they launch cruise missiles at Syria?
My strictly personal guess is that they won't unless Khmeimim, Tartus or another large
Russian objective (official Russian compounds in Damascus) are hit. Striking a USN ship would
be tantamount to an act of war and that is just not something the Russians will do if they can
avoid it. The problem with that is this restraint will, yet again, be interpreted as a sign of
weakness, not civilization, by the "modern Franks" (visualize a Neanderthal with a nuclear club
in his fist). Should the Russians decide to act à la American and use violence to
"send a message", the Empire will immediately perceive that as a loss of face and a reason to
immediately escalate further to reestablish the "appropriate" hierarchy between the
"indispensable nation" and the "gas station masquerading as a country". So here is the dynamic
at work
Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of
weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions==>> The Empire feels humiliated and
escalates
Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would
do in this situation?
The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for
war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015.
For Russia this is really nothing new: been there, done that, and remember it very, very
well, by the way. The "western project" for Russia has always been the same since the
Middle-Ages, the only difference today is the consequences of war. With each passing century
the human cost of the various western crusades against Russia got worse and worse and now we
are not only looking at the very real possibility of another Borodino or Kursk, and not even at
another Hiroshima, but at something which we can't even really imagine: hundreds of millions of
people die in the course of just a few hours.
How do we stop that?
Is the West even capable of acting in a different way?
There is one actor which might, perhaps, stop the current skid towards Armageddon: China.
Right now, the Chinese have officially declared that they have what they call a "
comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation " later shortened to " strategic
partnership ". This is a very apt expression as it does not speak of an "alliance": two
countries of the size of Russia and China cannot have an alliance in the traditional sense --
they are too big and different for that. They are, however, in a symbiotic relationship, that
both sides understand perfectly (see this
White Paper for details). What this means in very simple terms is this: the Chinese cannot
let Russia be defeated by the Empire because once Russia is gone, they will be left one on one
with a united, triumphal and infinitely arrogant West (likewise I would argue that Russia
cannot afford to have Iran defeated by the Empire for exactly the same reasons, and neither can
Iran let the Israelis destroy Hezbollah). Of course, in terms of military power, China is a
dwarf compared to Russia, but in terms of economic power Russia is the dwarf when compared to
China in this "strategic community of interests". Thus, China cannot assist Russia militarily.
But remember that Russia does not need this if only because military assistance is what you
need to win a war. Russia does not want to win a war, Russia desperately needs to avoid a war!
And here is where China can make a huge difference: psychologically.
Yes, the Empire is currently taking on both Russia and China, but everybody, from its
leaders to its zombified population, seems to think that these are two, different and separate
foes. [We can use this opportunity to most sincerely thank Donald Trump for so "perfectly"
timing his trade war with China.] They are not: not only are Russia and China symbionts who
share the same vision of a prosperous and peaceful Eurasia united by a common future centered
around the OBOR and, crucially, free from the US dollar or, for that matter, from any type of
major US role, but Russia and China also stand for exactly the same notion of a post-hegemonic
world order: a multi-polar world of different and truly sovereign nations living together under
the rules of international law. If the AngloZionists have their way, this will never happen.
Instead, we will have the New World Order promised by Bush, dominated by the Anglosphere
countries (basically the ECHELON members, aka the "Five Eyes") and, on top of that pyramid, the
global Zionist overlord. This is something China cannot, and will not allow. Neither can China
allow a US-Russian war, especially not a nuclear one because China, like Russia, also needs
peace.
I don't see what Russia could do to convince the Empire to change its current course: the US
leaders are delusional and the Europeans are their silent, submissive servants. As shown above,
whatever Russia does it always invites further escalation from the Empire. Of course, Russia
can turn the West into a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes. This is hardly a solution since,
in the inevitable exchange, Russia herself will also be turned into a similar pile of
smoldering radioactive ashes by the Empire. In spite of that, the Russian people have most
clearly indicated by their recent vote that they have absolutely no intention of caving in to
the latest western crusade against them. As for the Empire, it will never accept the fact that
Russia refuses to submit. It therefore seems to me that the only thing which can stop
Armageddon would be for the Chinese to ceaselessly continue to repeat to the rulers of the
Empire and the people of the West what the wrote in the article quoted above: that " The
West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it
once thought it was" and "the silenced minorities within the international
community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a
realization by proving it to the world through action."
History teaches us that the West only strikes against those opponents it sees as defenseless
or, at least, weaker. The fact that the Popes, Napoleon or Hitler were wrong in their
evaluation of the strength of Russia does not change this truism. In fact, the Neocons today
are making exactly the same mistake. So telling them about the fact that Russia is much
stronger than what the western propaganda says and which, apparently, many western rulers
believe (you always end up believing your own propaganda), does not help. Russian "reminders of
reality" will do no good simply because the West is out of touch with reality and lacks the
ability to understand its own limitations and weaknesses. But if China stepped in and conveyed
that crucial message " The West is only a small fraction of the world " and that the
rest of the world will prove this " through action " then other countries will step in
and a war can be averted because even the current delusion-based "solidarity" will collapse in
the face of a united Eurasia.
Russia alone cannot continue to carry the burden of stopping the messianic psychopaths
ruling the Empire.
The rest of the world, led by China, now needs to step in to avert the war.
This plan for global dominance has been over 100 years in the making and has already cost
over 100 million lives so far. How likely is it for them to back off now? The Chinese are far
from stupid so it will be interesting to see how they view the situation and act.
I've stated previously that the people who really can put a halt to it are Americans
themselves but it won't be easy. The ideal situation would be a mass mutiny of US military
personnel and the line, The Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war should probably
read, The Israeli Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war. It would be useful to repeat
this ad nauseam until it truly sinks in for US military personnel that the US is a supplicant
to Israel and to understand who they will be fighting and dying for. A mass mutiny would be
the best way to save their families and future.
Again, not much difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the
Second Rome in 1204 and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the
best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
But all three Romes were empires too filled with lies.
But I think that if stupid westerners won't wake up, -- nobody will help. China is big and
possibly can think that in world where no Russia, no Europe nor US/Canada are exist, some
place will still be for China.
It's "higly posssible" a mistake, but if silly westerners will continue to munch their MSM
grass their shadows will be printed on the walls of history.
Actually they deserve to be.
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur's
famous "my country, right or wrong" applied to the entire Empire.
Kind of disappointed in the Saker here. Just like liberals, he omits the rest of Decatur's
famous toast: "Our country -- in her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be
in the right , and always successful, right or wrong. [ Emphasis mine. ]" Decatur
was not trying to encourage amoral behavior, such as that which we now see with the
AngloZionists running Washington.
By the way, I've heard the Russians are now telling a joke about Boris Johnson: they're
saying he was poisoned with durachok (bonehead)!
China has deep ties to the western empire. Russians would be drinking too deeply from their
own propaganda to miss this fact. Indeed, the latest crippling of Trumpist reform was lead by
heavily Chinese invested men Ryan and McConnell. Israel has a strong grip on US foreign
policy for obvious reasons, but Israel has no reason to see Russia bullied into submission.
China does.
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change alone.
China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant position,
one generation hence, is an independent Russia. Far better for the Chinese that Russia is
mortally wounded or harried into Chinese vassal status before the west breaks down into a
third world non-entity.
The real reasons for the expulsions is the revelation of Russia's next generation war
weapons. It was taken up as an invitation to fight, not to make peace, and making it as hard
as possible for Russians to either influence opinion or gather information.
Somebody wanted Skripal dead, and while it may be a useful false flag provocation, with
his involvement with the Steele Dossier a possible trigger, it could be serving more than one
purpose. As usual, we are assigning to the Russkies both more omnipotence and stupidity than
is merited. I supoose it is our own elites who believe their omniscience in surveilling all
of us means they are also smarter than the rest of us. Maybe
Well said and accurate. There is no consensus among the hoipolloi with the neocon push for
war. This will never come about. The west is desperate, no doubt, and will continue to beat
its chest, much to its own detriment. If the west intended on war, it would have come about.
Time is not on their side. The neocons have backed themselves into a corner and, therefore,
must create chaos, camouflage, obfuscation, in order to bamboozle the world until they can
safely go back into their holes. Most likely, they are looking for concessions. Remember the
Wasserman-Schuiltz spy scandal? Remember the many deadly false flags being exposed to the
public for what they are?
Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is
not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet
before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before
winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China.
USA ruling 1% was making a strategic choice year ago.
When Trump got elected he inherited the raging war. He could not stop it, obviously. Then
he turned it overboard. He started demanding so many wars at once that US Army got
overstretched and paralyzed. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Itan, Yemen, Korea, new European
garrisons . Trump send Army to prepare to war everywhere and now Pentagon can not scratch
together enough forces to attack anywhere specifically.
By his "clumsy and incompetent bravado" Trump neutralized the army, made and exposed it as
incapable pretend-force.
Now Trump can switch to his programme -- economic war with China.
And that is why Chinese diplomats and media run crazy. Now it is their war, not Russia's.
Now their tails are on the line. Now Russia mostly can move to backlines to lick wounds while
China would exchange blows and collect bruises.
This turned recent Chinese statements so bald and pushing. This, and not a concern for
Russia.
something the Russians might consider -- immediately cutting off all gas to Europe and
restoring such service for payment only in gold or the new "petrol yuan" . Europe depends
heavily on that Russian Gas, and such a move would re-align some European thinking. Replacing
it with US provided LPG would take far too long and be much more expensive having to be
shipped by sea
In fact, maybe if Russia, China, the other brics and aligned countries suddenly cut off
all ties to the west, it would hasten the coming economic collapse of the EU and US, and that
dreamed of multipolar world would arise from the ashes.
Better that than the ashes of a nuclear exchange I would think.
China is too smart to show its hand yet, they are building their economic & military
strength quietly, they don't want to scare the westerners yet with threats.
Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s
to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no
treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!!
I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country
in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically
throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about
promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm .
A couple centuries ago the phrase "The White Man's Burden" was used to explain why
citizens of Western nations must devote resources to civilize the world. Gore Vidal used "The
Yellow Man's Burden" to explain why citizens of Asian nations were devoting so much wealth to
keep the USA and much of Europe wealthy. If our citizens suddenly lost 30% of their annual
income due to tax increases and spending cuts needed to truly balance our national budgets,
they would be outraged. They might learn that this was the result of "free trade", which
might result in revolution and wars. Those who have profited off "free trade" by selling out
their citizens know its best to let the working class learn this truth slowly.
_____________________
Trump's proclamation to pull out of Syria may be good news, but probably not. He hired
psychopath Bolton, so we can assume the US military is just consolidating forces in Iraq to
hold off attacks whilst they bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. The Iraqis aren't our allies, they just
act to get free stuff, and they will know we are not bombing Iran to save Iranians. It might
be wise to get our troops out of Iraq too!
____________________________
To answer:
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one (thru five): does anybody sincerely believe
Yes, this bimbo does, and she's the State Department spokesman. The State Department is
still infected with Clinton-hysteria and uses sexy women to spin lies so the foreign press
doesn't laugh and scorn absurd BS too loudly. The American press are just stenographers and
eagerly copy her lies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9UxED4uuI
The problem is that Russia/USSR submitted once and the West think it can be achieved again.
Hence everything must be made clear. No partners word should be used and the West must be
clearly warned that violence of unimaginable level will be used if they dare and what will
follow if Russian force anywhere attacked and that any use of nukes against Russia means the
end of humanity.
Unfortunately acting adequately and carefully Russia never was able to avoid war. It is in
the books. Right now bets are life on earth hence being too careful and being perceived as
weak is a bad thing. Russia IMHO must act boldly. Respond to USA and UK harassment by cutting
diplomatic relations and giving straight terse warning.
I think what disturbs China about this whole situation regarding the ENTIRE Western world
(US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) is not simply that it is an overreaction to Russia,
but the whole idea that one particular people -- the Russian people -- have once again been
SINGLED OUT for collective intimidation and eventually for possible dismemberment.
China has very long and very bitter experience of this itself. In the 19th century, the
imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on China.
In other parts of the world, the experience of other backward peoples was with but ONE
particular Empire (ex. only the Americans vs the Amerinds, only the Spanish in South America,
only Great Britain in India and Australia, only Russians in Central Asia and Siberia, and
only Japanese in Korea. The British, French, Germans, Italians and Belgians each had separate
RIVAL spheres in Africa, and ditto for South-East Asia.
But when it came to China, ALL these competing powers set aside their differences. It's as
if they said to each other "Hey, China is so enormous and juicy, we should not fight among
ourselves, there's enough for everyone!" Unbelievably vicious.
And now, we see the same pattern. the whole Western world against Russia. I think in this
instance, the Han don't need anyone to tell them what to think -- it is 100% certain they do
not approve of what the collective West is doing.
But if China stepped in and conveyed that crucial message "The West is only a small
fraction of the world"
They can do better than this, and explicitly state that a nuclear war with Russia is a
nuclear war with China -- just to make it clear -- and let the US do some more realistic
calculations.
"war is a path of deceit. When you are strong -- pretend weak ."
Am familiar with Sun-tzu a well. But what are you saying here? That the UK is stronger
than Russia. I would definitely have to disagree with that proposition!
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change
alone. China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant
position, one generation hence, is an independent Russia.
Maybe, but the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it
succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about
anything.
The recent THREATENED tariffs have an INTERESTING TIMING to them. It is being used by
Washington to convince China to stay passive as the West takes down Russia. Conversely, if
China "bends the knee", then the West promises that the threats won't materialize. (The West
loves worthless promises). Washington calculates that the mere threat of tariffs will make
China stand by as a neighbor is destroyed. Any turmoil in your neighbor's house, spills over
into yours whether you want it to or not. A neighbor is a neighbor, period.
And THAT, IMHO, is why the protectionist threats are happening NOW. Don't get me wrong,
the tariffs were going to happen anyway, eventually. China, whatever it does, cannot escape
them.
But to threaten a trade war RIGHT NOW with the one power guaranteed to be Russia's
economic lifeline (we know that China couldn't care less what Russia does in its backyard, in
the Ukraine) while preparing to attack Russia itself? Well, the whole thing is WAY TOO
OBVIOUS.
And if someone like me can see, so can a lot of other people in Moscow and Beijing.
Washington thinks its being "smart", but they are so ridiculously easy to read.
No, not that UK is really stronger than Russia but appears weaker. It's that the West is
actually not capable of defeating Russia but loudly shouts that it CAN defeat them easily,
and tries to look powerful and intimidating to Russia. In this situation, the
weaker-positioned West pretends to Russia that we are stronger, and we want Russia to believe
us. That way, it won't come to actual war, and we think Russia will back down. It's an
extremely risky plan.
That could, perhaps, take minds of US citizens from shopping and social media to,
perhaps, more serious matters.
Won't hold my breath.
Taking everything into account, I think the you're right. The US public are
irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic
collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose).
In fact, it's very possible RUSSIA is NOT, at this time, the target of Western aggression.
Sure, the West shall SURELY try to destroy Russia, but the urgency is not there YET. Maybe
the real target right now is CHINA, shortly to have the world's largest economy in absolute
terms. They must be destroyed NOW! The West is trying to cut a deal with Russia: "Stab China
in the back, and bow down to us. You can live A LITTLE LONGER, before we come for you.
Otherwise we get pissed and kill you TODAY".
An entirely plausible master-plan from Washington, London and Paris. Also a pretty
transparent one, if it's the case. The problem with this "Divide and Conquer" plan, aside
from being easy to read, is that it counts on both Russia and China to be dumb enough to
believe they are not BOTH in the cross-hairs. How stupid does the West think China and Russia
are?
It would have a psychological effect, at most. Russia has 5,000 warheads, China only
admits to having around 500 or 600 strategic city-killers. They may have more, but if you
don't admit something it doesn't count for deterrence. Maybe a decade from now, as China
builds its arsenal, the statement could be much more effective.
No, the Chinese are surely disgusted with this bullying behavior of the West (even many
Europeans are, just read the comments to the news in the different media outlets) but China
cannot seriously confront the West. That would make them lose trillions of dollars in exports
and investments and put an abrupt end to their miraculous but still ongoing economic
development. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
The situation will continue to deteriorate until some sort of modus vivendi is reached
(like at the beginning of the first Cold War). Or perhaps it's just been too long since the
last World War and the time is ripe for the next one.
As for the Skripal murder attempt, it's hard to imagine Putin ordering it at this time and
in that manner but it's not that hard to imagine someone from the Kremlin sewers being behind
it.
In the somewhat less likely scenario of a false flag operation, I would consider an
Israeli asymmetrical response to the recent downing of their jet by the Syrians with obvious
help from the Russians. They have plenty of experience in extraterritorial assassinations and
more than enough knowledge to fabricate a Russian-like nerve agent.
I respect and value Saker as a commentator on Russian and military affairs. Those are his
areas of expertise and professional experience. I do not value him as a historian, because
there enters into his writing a clear bias. I respect the fact of his commitment to his
Orthodox faith, but I don't appreciate being almost hammerlocked into having to take a side
in his prejudices.
He has a way of lumping 1,000 years of exceedingly complex history into what amounts
practically to silly formulas that remind one of adolescent pique. West is characterized by
"thuggery," whereas the "East," is presumably the source -- and is possibly the monopoly --
of the virtues Saker has in mind, while Western-like manifestations of military violence and
conquest are unknown there.
And there is this pearl: "Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular,
power produced both moral relativism and colonialism " This is downright embarrassing in its
silliness. Of course, after deep study of Aquinas or Bonaventure the light comes on: moral
relativism! Clearly, subtlety and essential distinctions are not the Saker's strong points,
to say the least, when it comes to registering his annoyance and bitterness in his 1000 year
view of "the West," whereas sweeping and frankly spectacularly inept generalizations are. One
is really tempted to accuse him of a lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to these
matters.
At root, Saker is a highly emotional and touchy "rooter" for Orthodoxy. Fine, that's his
right, but he is no scholar. One looks in vain either for impartiality, for breadth and depth
of understanding and sympathy, and hence for generosity of spirit. Thankfully, there are many
great scholars of history, East and West.
In the 19th century, the imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on
China.
That's the opposite of reality. If they had ganged up on China, each would have taken
large piece for itself. In reality, they were overawed by China, and tried to preserve it
much as they tried to preserve Ottoman rule against both breakup and dismemberment by Russia.
The Ottomans were too far gone, so they failed in both respects. But they did manage to
prevent China's breakup while failing to keep Russia from annexing a large chunk of Chinese
territory.
Heck, they even helped China defeat the millenarian Taiping rebels who racked up a large
body count during their rebellion. Note that when the Jurchens detected internal rebellion
during the Ming dynasty, they waited until the imperial armies were occupied with rebel
suppression before delivering the coup de grace to the Ming dynasty. The Western powers were
too tied up competing with each other to really cooperate in anything more than avenging the
honor of their envoys and getting trading posts set up on Chinese territory.
By "ganging up" I refer to the way in which China was COLLECTIVELY FORCED to extend any
and all concessions granted any single Imperial Power to ALL Imperial powers. And all the
Imperial powers were on-board with this policy , again as a unified group.
For example, if Russia forced a railroad treaty on China, China by unequal, at-gun-point
"Treaty" with the Eight Powers (at the time Great Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Russia,
The United States, Austria-Hungary and Italy) would also have to grant EVERYONE railroad
concessions in their respective zones.
Or say if China was forced to open trade relations by America, China would automatically
be forced to open trade to EVERYONE ELSE , and even the instigators in that case, the United
States, would force China to do it. All in the name of the relevant Treaties, of course.
Also by mutual agreement among the imperial powers, they would not support China in any
efforts to get better terms in any negotiation with any other power . So Russia refused to,
say provide support for Chinese efforts to fend off the Japanese, though normally it might
have done so. This was because, both being part of the Imperial Powers grouping, Russia and
Japan had agreed to co-exist in mutual exploitation of China.
It was all designed so that China would have no ability to shift its favor diplomatically
from one power to another, but had to negotiate from a position of deliberately imposed
weakness. Diplomacy was the only tool available to China in that execrably weak state,
pathetic as that tool was. By collective agreement among the Empires, that tool was taken
away.
In effect, exploitation of China became a COOPERATIVE project between such disparate
rivals as Britain, France and Germany, or United States, Japan and Russia. Such a thing, of a
coordinated desire to apportion one country among many, was not seen anywhere else in the
Colonial Age .
That is my meaning when I referred to the Empires "ganging up" on China.
How absurd. The foremost producer of virtually all modern goods is irrelevant without
Russia? A weakened Russia is a boon to Chinese expansion into their desired role as Eurasian
leader state. The only irrelevant nations are in the West as their post-national suicide
becomes all the more certain.
Ridiculous, China needs Russia as Russia is a perfect complement to Chinas weaknesses. In
fact, neither China nor Russia could have picked a better strategic partner than each other
as neither country could confront the West on it's own but together the West cannot topple
either nation. No other combination between countries would provide near as much
synergies.
China is not looking to expand into Russia. Why would they when they have a shrinking
population. They are expanding into the SCS in order to keep their oil lines free.
The real strategic advantage Russia and China have with each other is the OBOR. This is
key to everything and is the reason why the West is targeting Russia so aggressively.
If Mackinder's Heartland theory is at play, and you want to cut China off from Europe,
taking down Russia would seem to be an enormous effort to accomplish that. There are much
easier ways. Why not just lobby your European "allies" not to trade at all with China?
Mission accomplished, and no war with Russia as a bonus. If the EU won't follow the Empire's
orders, you need to take out not only Russia, but probably Pakistan, and all the Central
Asian nations, plus Iran and Turkey. If not, and you only destroy one or a few of these,
China's One Belt One Road reaches Europe anyway.
Also don't forget the outright blockade of China's maritime trade to be conducted by the
U.S. Navy -- kind of an act of war in itself.
Seems far easier, if you want to slow China down, to just ORDER America's NATO allies to
stop all trade with China. The rest of the world all together won't be able to fill the gap,
not any time soon.
Voila, you lower China's GDP growth by some significant percentage, using just strong-arm
diplomacy in Europe.
Buys America another full decade as number one economy, maybe.
In the fevered dreams of Western strategists, they hope for Russia and China to turn on each
other, sparing the Atlantic powers the trouble. Then, they come in and pick up the pieces.
They hope to replicate the success of Britain in playing off France against Germany pre-World
War One. The problem is they have in fact encouraged the Sino-Russian strategic alignment,
not hindered it.
No matter, after all, there can never be such a thing, thought the British, of a long-term
common interest between France and Germany -- a "European Union" will never come about.
French and Germans naturally hate each other! Right?
And how did Britain make out with that thinking? How will America make out in coming
decades? In geopolitics, not that well. Not as long as we are short-sighted.
Those with the power, and the happily ruled, have always needed synonyms for "obedience."
Solidarity is a choice in line with our social-mediatic times and the related
communication standards.
I mean, like i said above, Johnson and other western politicians are not "boneheads"
(intellectually weak) as you said, no, they are smart (intellectually strong) and pretending,
faking their intellectual weakness (appearance of stupidity)
Answers:-
One and two. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there is no chance of a
mistake, and the standard necessary for thinking Putin responsible is less than what would be
needed for finding him guilty in a court of law. He cannot hide behind his country and
diplomatic immunity while claiming the protection of British Law for evidence necessary to
convict someone on trial for a capital offence.
Three. We want nothing from Russia , for indeed they have nothing to offer. To go away and
shut up is the most they can do, and that is why are sending the worst of the Russian goons
back were they came from, whether they want to go back or not (they would love to stay in
London*).
Four. Punishment is essential, otherwise they will see weakness.
Five. No chance of nuclear war or any other kind or war. Russia is destined to become the
lonely old man of Europe. It has nothing anyone wants at the price of being treated like an
imbecile, and our diplomats dislike living there*).
Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog
too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[MORE]
> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash fo prosperity -- but not for survival.
> Russia & China are working closely
Which does not mean China's role is making harsh diplomatic statements in favor of Russia.
At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either. Also remember that
Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts and aids" and then
requesting payback when they need it. Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting
any help from China unless it wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar
incapable of sustaining itself. And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly
critical I do not think Russia needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's
support of the kind -- it would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.
> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin
But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I doubt
it.
> China has been backing up with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds
of billions deal with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.
Which is very important, but is not diplomatic statements nor Chinese newspaper
articles.
That is exactly the Chinese role in this fight like i said many times before -- economic
and financial warfare is Chinese responsibility, while military and diplomatic warfare is
Russian's.
> Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to
propagate to English speaking world.
And here we are getting back to the topic. Why such a harsh, explicitly worded article did
appeared today? Was it because of Russia or of China itself? Was that article reaction to
some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself?
And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around
Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.
> China has sensed West is tightened noose around Russia to cut it off from world,
seeing from Olympic & now the Skirpal circus
Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped
Skripal wagon. Additionally, if Russia would be "cut off from Western world" -- what the West
did not dared to do even in 2014 on the height of Crimea and MH17 accusations and on the
hopes of "gas station" imminent and fast collapse, so would hardly dare now just because some
Skripal -- but if Russia would somehow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is
it for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West
would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia gets
much more limited in its options. Good (for China) development, why hurry to cancel it before
Russia even asked for ?
> Trade war will be too bloody for the world
Yes, but the said trade war is not having Russia as primary adversary -- Russian economy i
not that significant to the western world, and for USA in particular it has but zero
significance. The trade war we see igniting -- is the war against China. China can no more be
"wise monkey up the trees", when USA moved their chaingun aim from Russia onto China. Now
China is being shot at, and the article is Chinese response to China being attacked. Not to
anything around Russia.
> You are silly self center viewer
Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here. It is you who claim Russia being behind that
article in Global Time. It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and
wording of that article.
> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.
> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.
Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is employing
it?
> Lot of money pump in to sustain Syria war,
If they are, then China does it part of the fight, good. Like USA supplied money and
material to fighting European states during WW2. However that has no relation with the Global
Times article being discussed.
> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,
.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always. I wish i
would hear somethign remotely creative from you.
> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.
Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay,
repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.
And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China.
Don't forget that China has an enormous internal market too, which in time should be
larger than the U.S. and EU combined. European countries that stay out of this vast and
rapidly growing market will be cutting their own throats. Good luck convincing them to do
that.
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
"... The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude. ..."
"... The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. ..."
"... The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims. ..."
"... Cheesepopes be gaslighting ..."
"... Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true. ..."
by Srdja Trifkovic via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
There is a paranoid, hysterical quality to the public discourse on Russia and all things Russian
in today's America. The corporate media machine and its Deep State handlers have abdicated reason
and common decency in favor of raw hate and fear-mongering. We have not seen anything like it before,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War.
The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental
relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and
even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and
European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and
morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien
multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other
"issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude.
The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter
hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus,
in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. The result is a surreal narrative
that mixes supposedly unprovoked "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, hostile intent in the Baltics,
serial war crimes in Syria, political destabilization in Western Europe, and gross interference in
America's "democratic process". The result is an altogether fictitious "existential threat," which
has made President Trump's intended détente with Moscow impossible. He may have been serious about
turning over a new leaf, but the Deep State counterpressure proved just too great. A solid rejection
front emerged, left and right, conservative and liberal, which extends even into his own team and
finally inhibited him from making moves that could have appeared too friendly to Putin.
The Russophobes' narrative is unrelated to Russia's actual policies. It reflects a deep odium
of the elite class toward Russia-as-such. That animosity has been developing in its current form
since roughly the time of the Crimean War, when in his Letters From Russia the Marquis de Custine
said that the country's "veneer of European civilization was too thin to be credible."
"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant-in
short, as untrustworthy in every way-as the Russians," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1905.
John Maynard Keynes, after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1925, wondered whether the "mood of oppression"
might be "the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature." J. Robert Oppenheimer opined in 1951
that, in Russia, "We are coping with a barbarous, backward people." More recently, Sen. John McCain
declared that "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." "Russia is an anti-Western power
with a different, darker vision of global politics," Slate wrote in early 2014, even before the Ukrainian
crisis reached its climax.
This narrative has two key pillars. In terms of geopolitics, we see the striving of maritime empires-Britain
before World War II, and the United States after - to "contain" and if possible control the Eurasian
heartland, the core of which is of course Russia. Equally important is the already noted cultural
antipathy, the desire not merely to influence Russian policies and behavior but to effect an irreversible
transformation of Russia's identity. Some of the most viscerally Russophobic stereotypes come from
Russia herself, from those members of Moscow's "intelligentsia" who feel more at home in New York
or London than anywhere in their own country. The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles
Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature."
It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or
Muslims.
The Russophobic frenzy comes at a cost. It further devalues the quality of public discourse on
world affairs in the United States, which is already dismally low. It has already undermined the
prospects for a mutually beneficial new chapter in U.S.-Russian relations, based on a realist assessment
that those two powers have no "existential" differences - and share many actual and potential commonalities.
It perpetrates the arrogant delusion that there is a superior, "Western" model of social and cultural
thought and action that can and should be imposed everywhere, but especially in Russia.
Saddest of all, Russophobic mania prolongs the European civil war that exploded in July 1914,
continued in 1939, and has never properly ended - not even with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would
be in the American interest, as well as Russia's and Europe's, for that conflict to end, so that
the existential challenge common to all- that of resurgent jihad and Europe's demographic crisis
- can be properly addressed.
Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between
the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true.
..it seems like our foreign policy is like an angry poor, innocent "motorist", whacked out
on amphetamines, speeding over 100 mph and destined to drown in his liberal negro lottery swimming
pool.
The United States is closely watching a recent increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia,
a senior U.S. military official said on Sunday as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited an important
military base in Djibouti.
If I ignore your bullshit "but at the maximum..." implication:
So what do you conclude from that. Is it a bad thing to have rivals? Should we strive to turn
every remaining rival into a vassal? Is there a limit on methods allowed toward a rival?
I'll give you a green arrow to make up for the narrow-mindedness of the simpletons who all
gave you red arrows.
We don't need a war with Russia, and the US won't instigate one, either. The juice wouldn't
be worth the squeeze.
With all of that being said, Russia is a rival to the US in other parts of the world. The US
isn't the only country with a desire for influence around the world.
As much as there is a "Russo-phobia" being perpetuated in the US, you can bet a buck that there
is an "Ameri-phobia" being perpetuated out there.
The big difference is that in Russia, they don't have message boards full of people sh*tting
on their own country.
Well, that is kind of how major powers compete for influence. It takes two to tango. We can't
exactly engage in war by proxy if the Russians aren't involved in it, too.
I hate to say it but the so called "elites", in charge of our beloved deep state controlling
everything, are quite stupid -- This continuous news hysteria, against whatever subject du jour
our intelligentsia decides to float publicly, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that said "elites"
suffer from a combination of low IQ, partial education (at best !), and high self-delusion...
We might get to witness nuclear war, just because our "elites" are too idiotic to realize what
a nuclear war really is...
They stick their hook nose into everything because they want to own the whole 4th rock from
the sun. These people are ill, very ill and as I read these comments it's obvious that some just
don't get it yet.
All of this B.S. Russophobia evolved from a convenient distraction from the CONTENT of the
leaked DNC emails, and has been amplified because of the symbiosis with Neoconservative/Globalist
strategies.
What amazes me is how well the propaganda seems to be working. There's a bunch of old farts
(not that I'm really young!) at the gym every morning talking about how awesome it is that we
bombed Syria and it'll show that bastard Putin we're tough and mean business. "America, Fuck yeh!"
I wanted to ask them if they were mentally defective or just fucking retards...
Pretty much. Society has opted to run on emotion rather than fact, emotional manipulation being
the key part of the most popular forms of entertainment. Sadly this bleeds into our dealings with
each other which are increasingly emotional or insulting. Most of human behaviour and attitudes
are due to fear, particularly the egoic fear of inadequacy. As a control mechanism, fear is a
formidable tool. But fear is also a choice.
The Strategic Culture Foundation who published this piece has an evil agenda, and they are
not even friends of Putin. They are very subtle warmongers. You will see when the time comes.
Putin was duped by Iran in Syria, Iran got Syria, not Putin. Trump and Saudi can give Russia
what it needs to survive, if Putin stops being duped by deceptive hegemonial Iran.
This reminds me of when the ZerroHedge owners mentioned that Bloomberg article several months
back that involved an interview of a former Zero Hedge writer blowing the lid off this place.
He mentioned how pro-Russia the ZH owners were. This article suggests that he may have been right
after all!
Yea, we shouldn't be afraid of a country with nukes, that invades it's neigbours, has an uber
crony economy the size of Italy's, dominated by oligarchs in mining and the obligation to keep
friendly with the Kremlin or risk being put in jail and have your assets taken away on trumped
up charges. The country that murders it's opponents and critics with nasty stuff like Polonium,
even abroad, that interferes in others elections with misinformation campaigns and troll factories,
that is on the side of the ayatolla's of Iran and the mass murderer in Syria, helping him by bombing
hospitals and refugees, only to be "recognized as a player again on the world stage" A coutry
of alcoholics with one of the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Really, a model state.
As Paul Graig Roberts, the inhouse idiot here noted, Putin for the Nobel peace price!
Wikileaks has disclosed the tactic to blame Russia for the election results, Trump's collusion,
etc. back to spring of 2016 --- I remember when they started making those "Russia" comments. They
wanted to start the thoughts about him/his staff being in collusion with the Russians. That was
to hopefully make more decide not to vote for him and in case he won, use it to prove election
fraud, treason and somehow impeach him.
Those who know about the Globalists NWO agenda, Deep State, Neocons, etc. realize we've all
been lied to about Russia (among all the other lies) since the end of the Cold War. for "their"
agenda purposes - need for continuous wars for MIC, etc. also. Putin is not as portrayed at all.
Russia is not the "big bad Commie" beast that wants to take over the world as they want us to
believe to "justify" another war.
Putin is an Eastern Orthodox Chrsitian who protects Christians, hates and fights terrorists
and Globalism. He is not a Globalist. We have those goals in common and Pres. Trump and Putin
would be a fantastic duo that when united, terrorism and Globalism would finally be dealt death
blows,
Our enemies within know that and therefore they're trying to do everything they can to hurt
that relationship and not let it happen because it would mean finally - the end of their evil
world order plan.
Amount of pressure applied commensurate to strength of a country in question. For some of them
all it takes is a stern talk from the ambassador, Russia right now is safely beyond the US ability
to apply the required pressure, including the threat of Nuclear War. What is happening instead
is that world being interconnected the way it is, applying pressure at hardened point that is
Russia is also increasing pressure at other weaker points as well, pretty much all over the world.
EU and NATO are posturing against Russia in display of lunacy that is symptomatic for the West,
it seems that God is taking away humans ability to reason. Day 1, Russia announces indefinite
cuts of gas supplies to Europe, stocks crater, world economy craters, Russia and China who were
hoarding gold watch the West collapse like a house of cards while passing the popcorn. The End.
Afghanistan is about to go full retard again, as taliban cuts ussa out of heroin billions---
as our afghan troops turn their weapons on their masters[1]
The Jewish media has been obsessed with this business about Russia allegedly influencing the
recent 2016 U.S. election. This obsession has concealed the real problem with foreign influence
over the American electoral system. It isn't Russian influence that's the problem, it is Israeli
influence that's the problem.
Below is a list of stories showing how Israelis or Jews substantively connected to Israel have
been subverting the American electoral process.
You know we will have turned the corner when Donald Trump gives the American people a "Fireside
Chat" and tells the public the real reasons the media spearheads a constant barrage of hate filled
anti-Russian LYING PROPAGANDA filled rhetoric... BECAUSE
A) THEY ARE THE WORLDS LEADER IN OIL PRODUCTION B) HAVE NO DEBT C) HAVE THERE OWN BALANCE OF
PAYMENT CREDIT SYSTEM MIR THAT WILL REPLACE THE WESTERN CENTRAL BANK(S) SYSTEM "SWIFT"
And after he delivers that truthful message he will NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EVER AGAIN... He will
probably be shot like HOWARD BEALE in the movie NETWORK... Or WWWIII will be LAUNCHED!!!
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
The decorated cold-warrior Air Force Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty would have turned 100 last
June. Today few remember him, but those who do may recall him as an arch military
intelligence insider who alerted the nation to the capture of reins of government by the
intelligence establishment, from the Korean Conflict forward to this day. He served his
country under five presidents, first as an Army Air officer who saw service in Africa, South
Asia, and Japan in WWII, ending up an Air Force Major assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[1] As Chief of Special Operations there, he coordinated CIA and military activities
between JCS, directorates of the CIA, the National Security Council, and teams in the field.
A key player, Prouty was privy to top-secret planning and policy documents and lists of CIA
plants in civilian and military organizations, including CIA front companies. There was
little he didn't know about how the agency operated its clandestine operations and little
anyone around him knew more about. His Rolodex must have been amazing.
But then, having retired with accolades in
1964 to work as a banker and now and then a bit of a fixer, he wrote a book exposing it all
that ruffled a lot of institutional feathers. In almost unbearable detail, The Secret
Team (Prentice-Hall 1973) detailed how from the get-go, Allen Dulles' CIA insinuated
itself into national institutions to become a driver of policies and armed interventions that
few officials would or could resist. Both John F. and Robert F. Kennedy tried to rein in the
agency and tragically failed. Prouty's 1993 book, JFK: The CIA,
Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy , served as grist for Oliver Stone's
film JFK by methodically piecing together evidence for an inside job that brought the
president down.
[2]
That book's Epilog
(inexplicably missing from the paperback version) contains some fairly juicy tidbits,
assuming they weren't fake news. In it, Prouty describes a meeting at a "Businessmen's Club
in Manhattan at which unnamed bankers and defense contractors were in an uproar over the
rumor that JFK would decamp US forces from Vietnam:
An elderly member, who used to visit the Dulles family in their summer home on Henderson
Bay, leaned over toward the center of that small group and almost in a whisper said that
his boys had just completed a ten-year war in Vietnam. The total was in the thousands, and
the cost ran into the billions of dollars. Then he looked around the group of old cronies
and snarled, "That goddamn Kennedy bastard has been working all summer with some of Old
Joe's Irish Mafia and his favorite generals and they are planning every which way to get us
out of Vietnam. This can't happen. He's got to go. Right now he's a sure thing for
reelection and then there is Bobby and after him Teddy. I tell you that Kennedy has got to
go."
But it was The Secret Team that most occasioned the ire of the intelligence
establishment, especially for its workaday descriptions of the methods by which the CIA
usurped power and leveraged authority to become a self-selected branch of the Executive and
the military, using techniques borrowed from Machiavelli to J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to get its
way. Ineffectual attempts were immediately made to suppress the book, which was twice
reprinted. More successful was the campaign to deep-six the second edition, a paperback put
out in 1979 by Ballantine Books. Of the 100,000 printed, few remain available today, selling
on Amazon for $342 and up .
(Amazon sells used copies of the original hardback and a Kindle version of it for more
reasonable amounts.)
That notwithstanding, thanks to the efforts of Prouty's widow and acolyte Len Osanic (who
runs The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference
Site , from which part of this article was taken), the paperback was reissued in 2011 via
SkyHorse
Publishing , with a Foreword by Jesse Ventura. And, if the most recent version of
TST you crave, eager reader, you needn't bother to buy it.
Go straightaway to a convenient, complete, and free Web edition that ratical.org, has cached for your
inspection.
* * *
Prouty lived in Arlington Virginia, where he died at 84 and continues to occupy from
Arlington National Cemetery. He was writing articles and giving interviews up until the end.
Somehow I doubt he could have made it much past retirement without some protection from the
inside, out of concern for his files and Rolodex if nothing else. His texts continue to exert
influence despite concerted efforts to suppress them. In the Author's Note from what would
have been TST's third edition (taken from ratical.org ) he explains how he
came to publish his book and how the suppression manifested itself:
After I had given the manuscript of the original draft of this book to my editor at
Prentice- Hall, in 1972; and had received the galley proof of the first edition back from
him, he called me to suggest that I keep it in a safe place at all times. He told me that
his home had been broken into the night before, and he suspected it was an attempt to steal
his copy of that galley proof. He said, "They didn't get it. It was under the seat of the
Volkswagon."
A few days later a nationwide release by the well-known Washington columnist, Jack
Anderson, appeared across the country, "Book Bares CIA's Dirty Tricks". In that column,
Anderson reported that the CIA had contacted a well-known bookstore in Washington and asked
one of the employees to see if he could get a copy of the galley from me, and agreed to pay
him $500, if he did. I agreed to meet him at my home that evening.
I suspected his call, but invited him anyway. In the meantime I set up a tape recorder
in the umbrella stand near my front door and arranged for it to turn on when I switched on
the overhead on the front porch. With that arrangement, I recorded the whole visit
including his final burst, "They promised me $500.00, if I got that galley proof." I took
that tape to Anderson, and it was the basis of his March 6, 1973 column. The underground
attack didn't quit there.
After excellent early sales of The Secret Team during which Prentice Hall printed
three editions of the book, and it had received more than 100 favorable reviews, I was
invited to meet Ian Ballantine, the founder of Ballantine Books. He told me that he liked
the book and would publish 100,000 copies in paperback as soon as he could complete the
deal with Prentice-Hall. Soon there were 100,000 paperbacks in bookstores all around the
country.
Then one day a business associate in Seattle called to tell me that the bookstore next
to his office building had had a window full of books the day before, and none the day of
his call. They claimed they had never had the book. I called other associates around the
country. I got the same story from all over the country. The paperback had vanished. At the
same time I learned that Mr. Ballantine had sold his company. I travelled to New York to
visit the new "Ballantine Books" president. He professed to know nothing about me, and my
book. That was the end of that surge of publication. For some unknown reason Prentice-Hall
was out of my book also. It became an extinct species.
Coincidental to that, I received a letter from a Member of Parliament in Canberra,
Australia, who wrote that he had been in England recently visiting in the home of a friend
who was a Member of the British Parliament. While there, he discovered The Secret Team on a
coffee table and during odd hours had begun to read it.
Upon return to Canberra he sent his clerk to get him a copy of the book. Not finding it
in the stores, the clerk had gone to the Customs Office where he learned that 3,500 copies
of The Secret Team had arrived, and on that same date had been purchased by a Colonel from
the Royal Australian Army. The book was dead everywhere.
The campaign to kill the book was nationwide and world-wide. It was removed from the
Library of Congress and from College libraries as letters I received attested all too
frequently.
That was twenty years ago. Today I have been asked to rewrite the book and bring it up
to date. Those who have the book speak highly of it, and those who do not have it have been
asking for it. With that incentive, I have begun from page one to bring it up to date and
to provide information that I have learned since my first manuscript.
In the beginning, this book was based upon my unusual experience in the Pentagon during
1955-1964 and the concept of the book jtself was the outgrowth of a series of luncheon
conversations, 1969-1970, with my friends Bob Myers, Publisher of the New Republic, Charlie
Peters, founder of The Washington Monthly, and Ben Schemmer, editor and publisher of the
Armed Forces Journal, and Derek Shearer. They were all experienced in the ways and games
played in Washington, and they tagged my stories those of a "Secret Team." This idea grew
and was polished during many subsequent luncheons.
After my retirement from the Air Force, 1964, I moved from an office in the Joint Chiefs
of Staff area of the Pentagon to become Manager of the Branch Bank on the Concourse of that
great building. This was an interesting move for many reasons, not the least of which was
that it kept me in business and social contact with many of the men I had met and worked
with during my nine years of Air Force duties in that building. It kept me up-to-date with
the old "fun-and-games" gang.
After graduating from the Graduate School of Banking, University of Wisconsin, I
transfered to a bank in Washington where in the course of business I met Ben Schemmer. He
needed a loan that would enable him to acquire the old Armed Forces Journal. During that
business process I met two of Ben's friends Bob Myers and Charlie Peters. We spent many
most enjoyable business luncheons together. This is where "The Secret Team" emerged from a
pattern of ideas to a manuscript.
As they heard my stories about my work with the CIA, and especially about the role of
the military in support of the world-wide, clandestine operations of the CIA, they urged me
to write about those fascinating nine years of a 23-year military career. During the Spring
of 1970 I put an article together that we agreed to call "The Secret Team", and Charlie
Peters published it in the May 1970 issue of The Washington Monthly.
Before I had seen the published article myself, two editors of major publishers in New
York called me and asked for appointments. I met with both, and agreed to accept the offer
to write a book of the same name, and same concept of The Secret Team from Bram Cavin,
Senior Editor with Prentice-Hall.
After all but finishing the manuscript, with my inexperienced typing of some 440 pages,
I sat down to a Sunday breakfast on June 13, 1971 and saw the headlines of the New York
Times with its publication of the "purloined" Pentagon Papers. [Any reader of the "Pentagon
Papers" should be warned that although they were commissioned on June 17, 1967, by the
Secretary of Defense as "the history of United States involvement in Vietnam from World War
II [Sept 2, 1945] to the present" [1968], they are unreliable, inaccurate and marred by
serious omissions. They are a contrived history, at best, even though they were written by
a selected Task Force under Pentagon leadership.]
One of the first excerpts from those papers was a TOP SECRET document that I had worked
on in late 1963. Then I found more of the same. With that, I knew that I could vastly
improve what I had been writing by making use of that hoard of classified material that
"Daniel Ellsberg had left on the doorstep of the Times," and other papers. Up until that
time I had deliberately avoided the use of some of my old records and copies of highly
classified documents. The publication of the Pentagon Papers changed all that. They were
now in the public domain. I decided to call my editor and tell him what we had with the
"Pentagon Papers" and to ask for more time to re-write my manuscript. He agreed without
hesitation. From that time on I began my "Doctorate" course in, a) book publishing and, b)
book annihilation.
As we see, by some time in 1975 The Secret Team was extinct; but unlike the dinosaur and
others, it did not even leave its footprints in the sands of time. There may be some forty
to fifty thousand copies on private book shelves. A letter from a professor informed me
that his department had ordered more than forty of the books to be kept on the shelves of
his university library for assignment purposes. At the start of the new school year his
students reported that the books were not on the shelves and the registry cards were not in
the master file. The librarians informed them that the book did not exist.
With that letter in mind, I dropped into the Library of Congress to see if The Secret
Team was on the shelves where I had seen it earlier. It was not, and it was not even in
that library's master file. It is now an official non-book.
I was a writer whose book had been cancelled by a major publisher and a major paperback
publisher under the persuasive hand of the CIA. Now, after more than twenty years the
flames of censorship still sweep across the land. Despite that, here we go again with a new
revised edition of The Secret Team.
One last caveat. Don't expect to learn anything new on Wikipedia . His page has been
repeatedly doctored to remove any
reference to prouty.org and cast him as an unreliable source. Even in his serviceman's grave,
the longwinded Leroy Fletcher Prouty continues to be cashiered, but still heard.
Notes.
[1] Leroy Fletcher Prouty (January 24, 1917 – June 5, 2001) was Chief of Special
Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President John F. Kennedy in 1962-63. Prouty
earned the position after nearly ten years in the Pentagon providing military support to CIA
clandestine operations. Prouty was awarded the Legion of Merit for his efforts, and after his
retirement in 1964 was further awarded a Joint Chiefs of Staff Commendation Medal by General
Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the 1970s, Prouty became a writer
and historical commentator, focusing on Cold War history, the activities of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Kennedy assassination. The character "X" in Oliver Stone's
1991 movie JFK was based largely on Prouty, who acted as a consultant on the film. (From
proutypedia
.)
[2] Conservative Marquette University Associate Professor of Political Science John McAdams (currently
suspended for criticizing a graduate assistant on his blog for abridging a homophobic student's First
Amendment rights by preventing him from speaking in class) vociferously disagrees with Prouty
and other JFK assassination conspiracy theorists on his (Marquette) site Kennedy Assassination Home Page . See its subpage labeling Prouty as an
"All-Purpose Conspiracy Expert." Yet, McAdams takes the assessment of Prouty (that he has a
"wacky imagination") by General and regime-change expert Edward Lansdale at face value.
Prouty asserts that Lansdale was present at Dealy Plaza at the moment JFK was killed and had
unaccountably billeted Prouty to Antarctica at the time to chaperone a party of VIPs.
Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and
writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a
novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe,
completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at
progressivepilgrim.review.
Maybe it did expand my audience. I have no idea. About the only proven use I found was being
able to get on Tinder to get laid, as you cannot have a Tinder account without a Facebook
account. Thereafter I called it Fuckbook.
Facebook's problems are just getting worse, and now investors can add worker morale to the (bucket)
list of problems as the
New York Times
reports that employees furious over a
leaked 2016 memo
from a top executive seeking to justify the company's relentless growth and
"questionable" data harvesting - even if it led to terrorists attacks organized on the platform.
VP Andrew "Boz" Bosworth - one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's most trusted executives, wrote that
connecting people is the greater good even if it "
costs someone a life
by exposing
someone to bullies.
"Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools."
On Friday, the fallout from Bosworth's leaked memo - following several weeks of outrage over the
company's data harvesting practices,
has Facebook employees in an uproar
, according to
The
Times
.
According to two Facebook employees,
workers have been calling on internal message boards
for a hunt to find those who leak to the media
. Some have questioned whether Facebook has
been transparent enough with its users and with journalists, said the employees, who asked not to be
identified for fear of retaliation.
Many are also concerned over what might leak next and are
deleting old comments or messages that might come across as controversial or newsworthy
, they
said. -
NYT
One former Facebook employee, Alex Muffett, wrote on Twitter that Bosworth's memo was a "significant"
part of his decision to leave the company.
"Between overwork and leadership direction evidenced thusly, I could never stay,"
wrote Muffett.
"There are some amazing engineers working at Facebook, folks who care deeply about user privacy,
security, and how people will use the code that they write," Mr. Muffett said later in a message. "Alas
this episode may not help" to achieve more transparent internal product discussion, he said.
Buzzfeed article suppressed?
Following Buzzfeed's Thursday's publication of the "growth at any cost" leak, BuzzFeed reporter Ryan
Mac suggested Facebook was censoring the article - tweeting "Interesting that only about 14k views (about
2% of total) for our story have come through Facebook referrals. Facebook's users should be aware of
this, so feel free to share it on Facebook."
When
Vox
's Matthew Yglesias chimed in to corroborate Mac's observation, Facebook head of news
feed Adam Mosseri chimed in to say that the social media giant "
100% do not take any action on
stories for being critical of us.
"
Mark Zuckerberg responded to Bosworth's letter in a statement essentially disavowing the Boz, while
also noting that Facebook
changed their entire corporate focus
to connect people
and
"bring
them together"...
Boz is a talented leader who says many provocative things. This was one that most people at
Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly.
We've never believed the ends justify the
means
.
We recognize that connecting people isn't enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people
closer together.
We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year
.
Meanwhile, Facebook is rapidly becoming radioactive, inside and out.
The question is when will investors - and especially hedge funds, for whom FB was the second most
popular stock as of Dec. 31 - agree, and do what Mark Zuckerberg has
been aggressively doing in recent weeks
: dump it.
This is not a coordinated and concerted effort by Facebook execs to 'grow' the
company at any and all costs because stock options must be vested 'in the
money' and obscene amounts of 'compensation' are their god given right.
Nope, this is the work of a lone wolf exec VP who was drunk on power and out
of control.
<Well, it works for the CIA to explain away their latest domestic
terrorism operation or Presidential assassination attempt.>
Today Mark Zuckerberg announced the official name change of
FaceBook to GoëbbelsBook.
"Today marks the official change of our corporate name from
FaceBook to GoëbbelsBook in honor of the German NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) Reich Minister of Propaganda
(1933-1945) Dr. Joseph Goëbbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945).
Dr. Goëbbels revolutionary and visionary dream was that of the
total surveillance state. We have successfully implemented his
concept of the total surveillance state."
"When a client downloads the GoëbbelsBook application it
vacuums up everything from their computer and mobile devices.
It gobbles up everything they write, all their contacts, their
"likes"; in short every action they perform. The application
also digitizes all telephone conversations for upload. The
application then uploads everything to our corporate servers.
We then upload all user data to the "Five Eyes" Gestapo (Geheime
Staatspolizei) agencies that are our true original investors
and beneficial owners."
"It is truly a proud day for me and all of my servants here
at GoëbbelsBook that we have implemented the revolutionary
total surveillance state vision of Dr. Joseph Goëbbels. I'm
sure that he would be justifiably proud of our accomplishment."
It's a little more complex than just Gramma giving
up some data that she volunteers via a form. It's
sucking in everything that a user does or says and
selling that...everything. Same as Google.
In
many cases you will find people who weren't aware
that FB was selling user data, it's not really
clear, unless you read the TOS fine print it's not
clear. Even in the fine print what they do is
obscured by the way they write it.
If the announcement of what they do with the
data was in big bold letters at the top of FB every
time you logged in the participation would be
different.
This is one reason that although I've got a FB
account I've never provided anything more than the
de minimus information to have that account, and I
don't spend much if any time on it. It's been weeks
since I've logged in to FB.
You may be enjoying the mockery of FB users, but
your line of argument ignores reality.
FB users
indeed knew that the company was "selling
something": advertising. Advertising in the form
of "sponsored posts," newsfeed videos,
solicitations to "like" an advertiser's page,
notifications that someone in your network had
liked an advertiser's page, and on and on and on.
Every user viewed such advertising while using the
service.
And indeed, selling targeted advertising is the
dominant business model for providers of free
content, messaging, email, webhosting, and a host
of other internet services. It is exactly what a
reasonable person would expect FB to be doing,
based on its public disclosures and statements to
the business community, and consistent with privacy
laws. Even educated users would not expect the
company to be selling its user data to third
parties, let alone to government three-letter
agencies. No one would expect the phone app to
illegally log or record phone and message data for
communications outside the app.
Jumanji, I live in heart of silicon valley and the goobook
employees are so self important and associate working for the
goobook surveillance tracking digtal advertising monopolies as
a virtuous thing.
Let's call goobook what they are a
surveillance tracking company that doesn't share any of the
profits from your data with the owner: you.
My solution to these corporate pricks is to cut off their
oxygen: digtal advertising and refuse to let them monetize me
and others promoting using adblocking on mobile.
My solution is for everybody to immediately download brave
browser or equivalent adblocker solution (depending on your
tech knowledge).
Brave blocks advertising malware and tracking by DEFAULT on
any device and operating system rendering digital advertising
model useless.
Whoever controls the browser controls the money.
I use YouTube daily but run it out of brave browser. Zero
ads and you can listen with screen off or while browsing other
content.
We can destroy the value of digtal advertising by mass
adoption of brave browser.
What is digtal advertising worth if ads can't be sent,
viewed or tracked?
Let's take down the goobook surveillance tracking censorship
monopolies. Install brave or equivalent mobile adblocker
immediately.
I created a fake FB account, then 'deleted' it when FB demanded
I prove who I wasn't.
LOL
Does anyone wonder why FB only wants 'real' accounts? Data
mining is so much more profitable when you can assure the
purchaser the 'data' are grade A number one bleeders/spenders.
Which ties in nicely with the US demanding social media account details
with visa applications. You haven't said whether your work is us government
based, but it would be pleasingly ironic if it were.
I'm still confused
by that, actually: allegedly the NSA has all data, from everywhere, so why
ask for the visa applicant's data? Is it too hard to connect physical and
digital people, or are they just seeing if you will admit to your online
indiscretions?
14 day waiting period on facebook account deletes.
Some years ago I created a
facebook account and then deleted it. Deleting it was not easy. When I did the
final delete, it stated that all my data would be deleted, and would not be
recoverable ever. I was also told I would have to **not** log into my account for
14 days after which everything would be gone. If I did log in during that period
the account delete would not occur.
It has been some years and I still live in fear that if I was to "check" if my
account still exists by attempting to log into it I will get a "Welcome back"
message.
I suppose there are worse things. The account could be active and "owned" by
someone else.
The CIA put way too much time, money and effort into Facebook to just
let it fade away. Hell no, they will double down and figure out a way
to keep the concern going, if under a different guise.
But but but...they are listening! They even reformatted so their victims can moar
easily delete private information themselves instead of having to dig
down through twenty two screens to find it!
And Fuckerberg has a mansion. In
Hawaii. With a wall. Because he cares!
They even reformatted so their victims can moar easily delete
private information themselves.....
The funniest part of your comment is the fact people will actually believe
their information was 'deleted' because they push a button that said doing so
would delete the information.
Riiiiiight. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale that you can get for a
steal.
"people will actually believe their information was 'deleted' "
Well,
aside from birth and school records, most data will become 'stale' and
worthless to advertisers and agencies. I suspect that your 'old' data will
eventually become 'archived' in a storage array somewhere, essentially,
statistically more worthless as time goes by. Perhaps, adding to a
historical perspective on some future Documentary, about the collapse of
Facebook.
Info on your birth, school, medical, jobs, driving record ... the
authorities already have all that. Facebook is essentially worthless, other
than as a phone book with pictures.
It's amazing that FB employees were THIS NAIVE about what was going on in that
company, thinking it was just about "connecting people." Anyone on the street
with half a brain could see what was going on. Grow up and see the world for
what it is, people.
I think it is more "being ignorant". To me, being naive implies being "an
innocent". These people are hard core coders, computer scientists, network
engineers, etc. What they do is figure out how to do outrageously complex
technical things, and they are very successful at it. Like most scientists
and engineers however, they never stop to ask "should we be doing these
things". They stand on the shoulders of the scientist and engineers who
came before them and continue to progress the state of their art, but never
consider the ethics. I see it all the time at work. Can we develop this
new thing? Sure. Should we develop this new thing? That's not my problem
- management wants this new thing. They are no different than the guards
at a concentration camp herding people to the ovens. I was only following
orders.
Alphabet (the parent company of Google) spent the most as a company on
Lobbying. Facebook's spend on lobbying increased 5500% since 2009. They spent
most lobbying on changes to data privacy.
Have Zuckerberg and the rest of the asseclowns over there realized how
fuccked they really are? It is only a matter of time before class action and
individual lawsuits are filed not only against Facebook (fuck that) but them
personally, for intentionally and willfully creating a data mining operation
disguised as a social network. They will get sued for every penny they have
and will be lucky if they don't end up doing time.
The people who use this tripe are addicts, and like all addicts need rehab.
They couldn't say how many articles are in the US Constitution yet practically
know what Oprah eats for breakfast - and it ain't a Weight Watchers diet!
I got into the dotcom world in 97 got out in '11. Worked for a bunch of big
and small dotcoms. They are all so badly run its hard to describe. rampant
greed zero morality.. The VCs just want their 100:1 return. VCs are idiots.
some are just stupid many are just illegal accounting fraud capitalizing
expenses accelerating revenue recognition over stating audience. People
forget that Fb has already had a bunch of exposed numbers "mistakes". Hope it
goes to zero.
From an evolutionary standpoint, humans are extemely adapted to hiding
feelings, thoughts, plans, motivations, and intentions. This has enabled our
survival for millenia. Our ears don't move toward what or who we're listening
to, and we don't have tails or bristling fur or feathers that would display
our emotions. Facebook causes us to post all this stuff, then takes ownership
and uses it to make a profit any way they can. Social media is not something
that we are adapted to, and we're getting stomped on by the companies that
engineer it.
To me, what is really sad about this whole story is that there is nobody at
Facebook - now or previously - who doesn't know that their company makes its
money by harvesting data and selling it to anyone with a few bucks in their
hand. I believe these employees are all lying when they deny this plain fact.
I believe the same to be true of Google, but of course, Google at least has
never denied it, like Facebook is trying to do now that someone in the MSM has
bothered to report about it.
Anyone here ever work with chickens...the henhouse/chicken analogy is often
used with the facebook...when you walk into the henhouse sometimes the hens
they aren't expecting visitors and they get all fussy and show their agitation
through clucking and squawking and fussing about...but then after a few
moments they go back to what they were doing as if nothing ever happened. That
about what is going on here. Facebook users and employees will go back to work
for their owners in a few more days and it will have been all forgotten.
Since most users of Facebook are gossiping women and deeply closeted
homosexuals, I don't see this having a material impact on user growth. It may
even suck more of them in.
According to Thomas Paine, all the Facebook, Amazon, Google and Tesla are
products of the DOD and are losing their hidden government support. That is
the real reason that people like Zuckerberg and Soros are divesting.
People will forget about any Facebook scandal after another scandal surfaces
elsewhere in 3, 2, 1 and....... There goes the school of ADHD zombie fish-head
people onto another hook, the scandal of the next week. The next scandal will
hit the top of the pond and sink, and the fish-head school of people-fish will
swim over to it and stare at the scandal to see if it moves. People are
grotesquely simple minded.
fb will not recover from massive spying vs people will once again log on to
say something snarky, see another picture of their neighbor's cat and above
all else get a "like". OMG I'm important!
Soros has billions to funnel
through the resistance that is fb for the furtherance of his global agenda.
They may be down, but certainly not out.
So now the FB employees finally see what the bloodsucking Vampire
Zuckerberg and Frankenstein Bosworth really are: the enemy of the people.
Time for a mass revolt, pitchforks and torches to burn down the platform.
The Facebook Wall photograph is Photoshoped. While everyone else has
written in freehand in chalk, the "Maybe someone dies!?". "Why We Spy So
Much?" and "WTF?" posts are set in perfect computer type.
Facebook is a
monster of deceit. Why does this article need to lie with Photoshopped
photographs? If Facebook thinks we're rubes and yokels, so does this
article.
"We've never believed the ends justify the means
." ~
Zuckerfucker
Bull-EFFIN-Shit.
The Liberal Credo is
"THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS"
I can't tell you how many Liberals I've asked this very question and they
will flat out tell you that if you have to throw babies into a branch
chipper to get what you want,
YOU DO IT
. Lefties/Communists have
always believed in mass murder to get what they want - so - spying on a few
million people certainly doesn't give the pause.
"... Like Google, Facebook is ambiguous in its privacy policies as to how it will share information with third parties. A former CIA officer, speaking anonymously, confirmed the CIA's interest in Facebook as an intelligence and communications tool, noting that the agency's use of Facebook for operations is "classified." ..."
"... Christopher Ketcham is a freelance writer. You can write him at [email protected] or see more of his work at christopherketcham.com . ..."
Users with at least half a brain have long known that Facebook exploits their privacy and was probably from the start a vehicle
for full-blown surveillance by our spy agencies. I certainly suspected the latter. In 2009, I wrote up a pitch for an investigative
piece about Google, Facebook and their connections to the CIA. I published a piece in Counterpunch about the Google angle, but was
never able to report out fully what I suspected about Facebook. In the pitch, I wrote:
If personal data could be collected in more concentrated, focused form, with the additional advantage of efficiently collating
social networks, complete with personal photos, habits, activities and itineraries freely provided in a centralized system by
the users themselves well, that would be Facebook. The intelligence services' hand in Facebook is not direct, but publicly available
records suggest that venture capital was pumped into Facebook from investment firms whose board members cross-pollinate with a
company called In-Q-Tel.
Founded in 1999 to research and invest in new digital technologies focused on intelligence gathering, In-Q-Tel was part of
the push for the privatization of national security operations that would become endemic under the Bush Administration. Some $25
million in seed money during Google's start-up in 1999 arrived in part from the equity firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,
which works with In-Q-Tel to develop spy technology. In-Q-Tel-funded companies produced the eye-in-the-sky image database that
would become Google Earth. In mid-2005, In-Q-Tel's former director of technology assessment, Rob Painter, joined Google as "senior
federal manager," further cementing Google's bond with the intelligence community.
Like Google, Facebook is ambiguous in its privacy policies as to how it will share information with third parties. A former
CIA officer, speaking anonymously, confirmed the CIA's interest in Facebook as an intelligence and communications tool, noting
that the agency's use of Facebook for operations is "classified." The former CIA officer only went so far as to suggest the
CIA may be using the site for communications. "It's a perfect place to hide communications," says the former CIA officer. "You
don't need secret, expensive satellite systems anymore when you can hide in plain sight with millions of idiots sending photos
and inane messages to each other." When pressed on the subject, the source reiterated: "How it's employed by [the CIA] is classified,
and you shouldn't write about it." The Facebook angle for the proposed piece will require further reporting. What's widely known
is that the CIA has been using Facebook since 2006 as a recruiting tool for the clandestine services, which marks the first time
the CIA has employed online social networking for the hiring of personnel.
Ah, but denial is a powerful drug, one that produces amnesia, and I soon forgot my own reporting and marched as a guinea pig into
the Facebook surveillance system. We now know exactly how Facebook shares information with third parties.
Deleting my account, I join an exodus that requires no explanation given the Cambridge Analytica disclosures. Hopefully this is
the start of a movement that will drive the company's stock price down where we'll find greasy Mark Zuckerberg begging for a quarter
on the corner. Perhaps sooner, someone skilled with demolitions and with access inside the company can blow up the Facebook servers,
and we can be done with this menace altogether. More articles by:
Christopher Ketcham
Those companies are way too connected with intelligence agencies (some of then are
essentially an extension of intelligence agencies) and as such they will be saved in any case.
That means that chances that it will be dot com bubble burst No.2 exist. but how high they are is
unclear.
Trump is after Amazon, Congress is after Facebook, and Apple and Google have their problems
too. Should the world's top tech firms be worried?
rump is going after Amazon; Congress is after Facebook; Google is too big, and Apple is
short of new products. Is it any surprise that sentiment toward the tech industry giants is
turning sour? The consequences of such a readjustment, however, may be dire.
Trump lashes out at Amazon and sends stocks tumbling
Read more
The past two weeks have been difficult for the tech sector by every measure. Tech stocks
have largely driven the year's stock market decline, the largest quarterly drop since 2015.
Facebook saw more than $50bn shaved off its value after the Observer revealed that Cambridge
Analytica had harvested millions of people's user data for political profiling. Now users are
deleting accounts, and regulators may seek to limit how the company monetizes data, threatening
Facebook's business model.
On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission confirmed it was investigating the company's data
practices. Additionally, Facebook said it would send a top executive to London to appear in
front of UK lawmakers, but it would not send the chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, who is
increasingly seen as isolated and aloof.
Shares of Facebook have declined more than 17% from the close on Friday 16 March to the
close on Thursday before the Easter break.
Amazon, meanwhile, long the target of President Trump's ire, saw more than $30bn, or 5%,
shaved off its $693bn market capitalization after it was reported that the president was
"obsessed" with the company and that he "wondered aloud if there may be any way to go after
Amazon with antitrust or competition law".
Shares of Apple, and Google's parent company Alphabet, are also down, dropping on concerns
that tech firms now face tighter regulation across the board.
For Apple, there's an additional concern that following poor sales of its $1,000 iPhone X.
For Google, there's the prospect not only of tighter regulation on how it sells user date to
advertisers, but also the fear of losing an important Android software patent case with the
Oracle.
Big tech's critics may be forgiven a moment of schadenfreude. But for shareholders and
pension plans, the tarnishing of tech could have serious consequences.
Apple, Amazon and Alphabet make up 10% of the S&P 500 with a combined market
capitalization market cap of $2.3tn. Add Microsoft and Facebook, with a combined market value
of $1.1tn, and the big five make up 15% of the index.
Overall, technology makes up 25% of the S&P. If tech pops, the thinking goes, so pops
the market.
"We're one week into a sell-off after a multi-year run-up," says Eric Kuby of North Star
Investment Management. "The big picture is that over the past five years a group of mega cap
tech stocks like Nvidia, Netflix, Facebook have gone up anywhere from 260% to 1,800%."
The post office is a service for citizens. It operates at a loss. Being able to send a letter
across the country in two days for fifty cents is a service our government provides. Amazon
is abusing that service. It's whole business model requires government support.
Amazon's spending power is garnered simply from its massively overalued stock price. If that
falls, down goes Amazon. Facebook is entirely dependent on the postive opinion of active
users. If users stop using, down goes Facebook's stock price, and so goes the company. It's
extremely fragile. Apple has a short product cycle. If people lose interest in its newest
versions, its stock price can tank in one year or so. Google and Microsoft seem quite solid,
but are likely overvalued. (Tesla will most likwly go bankrupt, along with many others.) If
these stocks continue to lose value, rwtirement funds will get scary, and we could enter
recession again almost immediately. Since companies such as Amazon have already degraded the
eatablished infrastructure of the economy, there may be no actual recovery. We will need to
change drastically in some way. It seems that thw wheels are already turning, and this is
where we are going now - with Trump as our leader.
'Deutsche Bank analyst Lloyd Walmsley said: "We do not think attacking Amazon will be
popular."'
Lloyd Walmsley hasn't spent much time in Seattle, apparently. The activities of Amazon and
Google (but especially Amazon) have all contributed to traffic problems, rising rents and
property prices, and gentrification (among other things) that are all making Seattle a less
affordable, less attractive place to live. That's why Amazon is looking to establish a
'second headquarters' in another city: they've upset too many people here to be able to
expand further in this area without at least encountering significant resistance. People here
used to refer to Microsoft as 'the evil empire'; now we use it to refer to Amazon. And when
it comes to their original business, books, I and most people I know actively avoid buying
from Amazon, choosing instead to shop at the area's many independent book stores.
Dear Guardian,
why do you still sport the FB, Twitter, Google+, Instagramm, Pinterest etc. buttons below
every single article? Why do you have to do their dirty work? I don't do that on my webpages,
you don't need to do neither. Please stop it.
Not being a Trump supporter, however there is a lot of sense in some of the comments coming
from Trump,. Whether he carries through with them , is another subject.
His comment on Amazon:- " Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state or local
governments, use our postal system as their delivery boy (causing tremendous loss to the US)
and putting many thousands of retailers out of business."
Who can argue against that? Furthermore, the retailers would have paid some
tax!
Talk about elephants in the room. What about the elephants who were let out of the room
to run amuck ? Should it not have been the case of being wise before the event , rather than
after the event?
A quasi-battle of the billionaires. With Bezos, there's the immediate political element in
Bezos' ownership of the clearly anti-Trump Washington Post, which has gone so far as to
become lax in editorial oversight (eg, misspelling and even occasional incomplete articles
published in an obvious rush to be first to trash POTUS), but there are other issues.
Amazon's impact on physical retail is well-documented, and not so long ago (ie, before Trump
"attacked" Amazon"), it was sometimes lamented by those on the American left, and Trump is
correct in that critique, provided one believes it is valid in the first place. Amazon does
have a lot of data on its customers, including immense expenditure information on huge
numbers of people. What kinds of constraints are there in place to protect this data, aside
from lawyer-enriching class action suits? Beyond that, there's also online defense
procurement, worth hundreds of billions in revenue to Amazon in the years to come, that was
included in the modified NDAA last year. Maybe that is on Trump's mind, maybe not, but it
should probably be on everyone's mind. Maybe the Sherman Antitrust Act needs to be
reinvigorated. It would seem that even Trump's foes should be willing to admit that he gets
some things right, but that now seems unacceptable. I mean, look at the almost knee-jerk
defense of NAFTA, which way back when used to be criticized by Democrats and unions, but now
must be lionized.
If Amazon can get cheaper shipping than anyone else and enable manufactuers to sell direct,
they can sell more than anyone else as long as consumers only buy according to total price.
This means two things. One, all retailers as well as distributors may be put out of business.
Two, the success of Amazon may rely almost entirely on shipping costs. American consumers
also will need to forego the shopping experience, but if they may do so if they're sarisfied
with remaining in their residences, workplaces, and cars most of the time. This is the case
in many places. People visit Starbucks drive thrus and eat and drink in their cars. If Amazon
owns the food stores such as Whole Foods and Starbucks, it's a done deal. Except for one
thing. If this happens, the economy will collapse. That may have already happened. Bezos is
no rocket scientist.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
The furor is all about the "illegitimate" victories of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted
by political advertisements based on what they already believe?
No, because they already believe they're right, so what's wrong with a little confirmation bias? Most of us spend significant
amounts of energy seeking out sources of information confirming what we already believe; micro-targetting just makes our lives
that little bit less effortful.
The problems with Germany is that it does not have any independent press... German MSM are
probably worse then the USA MSM in being neoliberal stooges, if not to say prostitutes.
Also Merkel is a staunch neoliberal politician hell bent on neoliberal globalization and who
still cling to power and tried to use the USA as a leverage to stay in power
Notable quotes:
"... So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed. ..."
"... Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that? ..."
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the case of France is a little bit more complicated, because Macron,
who had a slightly different emphasis on the cooperation with the New Silk Road and China, than
Merkel, for example; the French Foreign Minister Yves Le Drian just announced that Macron will
go to Moscow in May. So I think that that looks a little bit different than Mrs. Merkel, who --
really, I mean, it's a complete shame, and obviously this new "Grand Coalition" government,
which is not so grand, given the fact that they are all falling in the polls like a stone; I
think this is really a reflection of the fact that there is presently no German elite worth
being called the name.
And I think that people in Germany should really not accept that. The history of the
German-Russian relationship, given the fact that there were two world wars, the Second World
War being an unbelievable memory in every Russian person; and then the fact that Russia agreed
to the German unification, without any shots being fired or tanks being deployed, -- you know,
in a peaceful way. Russia gave up East Germany and agreed to the unification, and received
promises at that time that NATO would never be expanded to the borders of Russia, a promise
which was broken. And then you had all these escalations.
So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind
of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always
asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in
any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed.
And I think the German people should go back to the kind of Ostpolitik, at minimum, which
was characteristic for German attitude for a very long time, to have a policy of
good-neighborliness, of peaceful dialogue, of cooperation. And I think this is really, really
important that the population in Germany does not fall in line with this aggressive British
policy which Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are
cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people
should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of
control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that?
It took a long time before the 2001 US anthrax attacks were solved. (The initial attribution
was totally wrong.) The ultimate explanation was that an anthrax scientist (Bruce Ivins) was
worried that funding for his research would be cut back. A similar motive cannot be excluded
out of hand for Skripals, especially given proximity of Porton Downs. Already, there has been a
huge infusion of cash into Porton Downs, as there was into anthrax research after Ivins'
attack. A quote from
https://www.wcpo.com/news/our-community/from-the-vault/from-the-vault-local-scientists-hatred-for-uc-sorority-led-to-national-panic-terror-attack.
FBI Director at the time, Robert Mueller -- yes, that Robert Mueller -- said Ivins'
livelihood was in jeopardy when the Department of Defense wanted to end anthrax vaccinations
because of side effects later called "Gulf War Syndrome." And when the U.S. was attacked on
Sept. 11, Ivins capitalized on the paralyzing fear sweeping the nation.
"The anthrax vaccine program to which he had devoted his entire career was failing,"
according to the "Amerithrax" report from the Justice Department. "Short of some major
breakthrough or intervention, he feared that the vaccine research program was going to be
discontinued."
After the anthrax attacks in 2001, however, Ivins' program experienced a rebirth.
b comments that the case against Ivins (yes, made by Mueller, that Mueller) was all bullshit.
At the time I too looked into the case that they had against him. What was completely wrong
was that Ivins had prepared the Anthrax spores in his personal lab. I too read the FBI report
that described the equipment in that lab. Having experience in this field, I found it was
very close to impossible for him to have prepared the samples that were used in the anthrax
attacks. However, the facilities at Fort Dietrick do have that capacity. If Ivins used those
facilities it would not have been possible for him to use them without accomplices or at the
least without witnesses to his use of those facilities.
That is what the Mueller report covered up at the very least. It remains quite possible
that Ivins was not involved at all.
B. and others have already noted that the official conclusion that Bruce Ivins committed
suicide is, in a word, bogus.
But I can't resist adding the piquant detail that the authorities claimed that he killed
himself with an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. Despite the presence of some codeine,
Tylenol is a truly odd choice for suicide. It is potentially toxic, and overdoses
cause liver damage that can be eventually fatal-- but overdoses are reportedly painful to
endure, and are by no means sure to be fatal.
We're expected to believe that Ivins was so distraught and irrational that he "chose" this
means because he wanted to "sleep", and was either oblivious or indifferent to the
above-cited drawbacks.
Yet, Ivins was a microbiologist, vaccinologist, and senior biodefense researcher at the
United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He presumably had, or
could easily acquire, an understanding of the effects of Tylenol-- and he had a laboratory
full of ultra-lethal toxins to boot. Yet when the moment of truth came, he reached for a
bottle of... Tylenol?
It's déjà vu all over again. How many "other ones" do Western authorities
think we have to pull?
b @20. Thanks for setting the record straight on the UNSOLVED Anthrax terrorist attack in the
US. FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible! That was
Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq. Once it became known that the
anthrax came from the US Army, he tried to pin it on an innocent man and then closed and
buried the case.
"... Kennedy, the Lobby and the Bomb: http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html ..."
"... Michael Collins Piper – Final Judgement -The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy: http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf ..."
"... Muammar Al-Gaddafi – Ben Gurion ordered JFK's death over Israeli Nuke Plant at Dimona: This may have angered them a bit too: http://time.com/4711687/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/ ..."
@redmudhooch Trump should call for a real 9/11 investigation, that would drain the swamp,
the American people would all be behind him, what better way to win over America than 9/11
justice that is way past due?
If this is democracy we need something else, if what we done to Libya, Iraq, Syria,
Afghanistan, Latin American countries is democracy, we need to rid ourselves of democracy
The entire system is 100% corrupt, including Judges, prosecutors, lawyers, the whole swamp.
Big money rules.
The media is with the deep state, they clearly have an agenda, and it doesn't seem to be an
American one, something has to be done to shut them up. Hell yes they're spying on us, They use the IRS and state revenue agencies to get back at
dissenters, I have experienced it...
Not only are they spying on us, they're spying on the politicians, judges, literally
everyone, and blackmailing the snot out of them. Using extortion to get their way. The
corruption needs to be punished, all of it, not just who deep state chooses to get back at.
They're all corrupt.
Look at the electoral map for 2016 election, it is nearly completely red, and all that red
is very well armed and very pissed off. If Trump does the things he got elected on, stops
kissing Netanyahus ass he'll be fine. All he would have to do is get on twitter and make the
announcement, tell the people to help him drain the swamp, shut it down, we can protest and
yell just as loud as the well funded made for tv protesters. People have had enough, we can't
go on this way, people feel threatened now, and they will do what needs to be done to protect
their families. We just need an organizer (Trump) to give the word. But if he keeps up the war
mongering and giving in to the establishment on all the issues that won him the election, hes
done.
Look at what happend to Jim Traficant when he got out of line, who goes to jail in DC?
People who do the right thing.. Heres another example of how they get their way: Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that U.S.-based
Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United
States.
On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that
Israel might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United States.
In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu would need to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president
deemed unfriendly to Israel." The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that
would help the Jewish state "obliterate its enemies." Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea "has been discussed in Israel's most inner
circles."
I think this is what happened to JFK when he tried shutting down CIA, cracking down on the
Israeli lobby, inspecting Israeli Dimona nuclear facility. END the Fed scam, take away the
blank check.
I think this is what happened to JFK when he tried shutting down CIA, cracking down on the
Israeli lobby, inspecting Israeli Dimona nuclear facility. END the Fed scam, take away the
blank check.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president
warned that unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any
military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering,
Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
John F. Kennedy Administration: Summary of Eshkol Reply To Kennedy Letter (November 9,
1963)
In the November 12 talks we hope through open and frank responses to convince the Israeli
representatives of our sympathetic interest in their security concerns and of our genuine
desire to help Israel to the best of our ability. We will press the view that U.S. ability to
deter aggression against Israel makes less imperative the need for Israel to maintain clear
military superiority over the U.A.R. in all fields and underlines the futility of large
expenditures of time, effort and money on a spiralling arms race. We will stress that
Israel's acquisition of missiles could result in a Soviet supply of missiles to the U.A.R.
and that a missile race increases the chance of a missile exchange in which Israel as a
small, compact target would inevitably suffer most.
Details of the JFK-RFK duo's effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli
foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.
The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's
bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred
that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote
in his diary in 1945.
"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the
world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that
will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff of which legends are
made."
This hypothesis about JFK preserves currency for along time: "When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the
Cold War with the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past). "
Notable quotes:
"... The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets. It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion of the Middle East. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
This hypothesis about JFK preserves currency for along time: "When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the
Cold War with the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past). "
Notable quotes:
"... The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets. It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion of the Middle East. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
When a friend invited me to join Googlemail over a decade ago, I accepted and used it as an
address for any organisation who might store or misuse my data.
Little was I to know that Android would rely on a Gmail address...
Having said that, my AdSense adverts still show me ads that are no way based on my online
activity so I wonder if the same people are behind the algorithms here as were predicting the
world economy in 2007.
Usage of Facebook is of cause a big mistake. It is simply stupid in most cases. But usage of
Wikipedia is not. Althouth probably NSA also gets information about pages you visited directly or indirectly.
Notable quotes:
"... consider the "internet of things" (IdiOT) directly intrusive ..."
"... how long will it remain technically feasible to opt out of the idiot stuff? ..."
While I love Wikipedia as a wonderful, creative application of social media, I've always been
spooked by Facebook and the like, and consider the "internet of things" (IdiOT) directly
intrusive ...
Does my resistance to the big-bro-data invasion classify me as a Luddite? And how long
will it remain technically feasible to opt out of the idiot stuff?
I recall a time some 20 or so years ago when many of us thought about and wondered how in the
world the Internet could survive if info and interactions were without monetary cost. It
seemed like a space within which we could freely move and think and engage. I recall driving
down the NJ Turnpike in 1993 Listening intently to a radio news report about the wonders of
the upcoming information super highway that was about to bring us all together and overcome
violence and racism and sexism and without any tolls. Al Gore himself was encouraging this
wondrous new world. We were about to be a part of World Wide Web love fest reminiscent of a
1967 Summer of Love Be-In.
Now we know how the Internet survived. Call it innovation. I call it a police state,
engineered by right-wing jerks at Stanford with a little help from their friends at Cal Tech,
MIT, and Harvard, and based in Silicon Valley. If that's the way you want it, well that's the
way you'll get it.
Neoliberalism and spying are connected at birth. anybody who think that Google or Facebook shenanigans are anomaly needs to
think again... Survellance Valley is the product of neoliberalism. As simple as that.
Notable quotes:
"... We need to take ownership of our information and data back again and regulate the internet as a utility. ..."
"... It may not have much affect on who knows what about those of us who have already given away our privacy, but it could protect future generations ..."
Actually, it's wonderful (though it's also full of lies, propaganda and bs).
But like all too many wonderful things, the greedy and the power hungry despoil it,
manipulate it to their own advantage, and use it to exploit others - often under the guise of
"security."
A new technology is developed, people start using it, and before they know it, they can't
live, work, or perform many daily tasks without it.
Oh, sure, all of us here could stop commenting online. We could abandon social networks.
But what about everything else that involves giving up our personal information to a
corporation and/or the government that has become part of how things get done in our
world?
That's a heck of a lot harder.
Add to that our collective intention since 1980 to weaken government regulation of
business' ability to do whatever it wants with our personal information, while increasing
government's ability to surveil us and invade our privacy, as well, and you have an internet
that is getting less and less wonderful by the day.
Oh, and don't forget those in business and government trying to destroy net neutrality, so
some (those who can pay for it) will be more equal than others in their ability to use the
internet.
We need to take ownership of our information and data back again and regulate the
internet as a utility.
It may not have much affect on who knows what about those of us who have already given
away our privacy, but it could protect future generations .
... Remember to look at the back of the your envelopes containing your personal mail - when
it's being scanned by your State it will have it's rear various pencilled initials. At one
time the departments in sorting offices were only allowed to deviate mail for twenty minutes
but now given that standards have dropped not such constraints exist. That's progress.
I recommend the new 'Brave' browser - it's primary focus is on privacy. It was created by
the former CEO of Mozilla (Firefox) and employs at least one engineer involved in the
development of the Tor browser (the one used for super-secure browsing on the dark web).
Its snappy performance is also a pleasant surprise.
19. One way to limit the amount of data that you are providing is to stop using Google
Chrome. It is a browser created by an advertising company specifically to harvest your
personal information. If you are logged in to gmail, using google for your searches, watching
Youtube and browsing on chrome, then you're making it easy for them. Try Firefox or one of
the other browsers out there, use a different search engine, and don't leave your account
logged in to google all day.
With every financial transaction, banks know the location, value and can estimate the goods I
buy. They could run AI algorithms to determine everything about my habits and preferences to
spend and sell this insight to shops and websites who could use this it to get me to part
with my money easier...but they don't.
Mobile operators poll my mobile phone constantly so always know my location, they know the
numbers I call and text so know my social network. They could run AI algorithms to determine
where I'll be when, and who I'll likely be with...but they don't.
Make their day, write something outlandish.
Decades ago, long before mobile phones were invented, we used to get crossed lines on our
landline regularly. We could hear other people in the background, and one day a nosy woman
listening to our conversation was relaying what we were talking about to her husband,
oblivious to the fact we could hear her, so we spiced up the conversation.
I started it by saying, "OK, but down to business, lets talk about next week". We made it
sound as if we were planning a heist. She was totally taken in, to the point of asking her
husband if she should tell the police! After a few minutes of leading her on, I said," Do you
think the nosy bitch listening in on the crossed line got all that? ".
She slammed her phone down.
"... If you wipe your phone every year, you learn which apps you need and which are just sitting in the background hoovering up data ..."
"... 14. Have as many social-media-free days in the week as you have alcohol-free days ..."
"... 16. Don't let the algorithms pick what you do ..."
"... 18. Finally, remember your privacy is worth protecting ..."
"... Increasingly, our inner lives are being reduced to a series of data points; every little thing we do is for sale. As we're starting to see, this nonstop surveillance changes us. It influences the things we buy and the ideas we buy into ..."
"... Being more mindful of our online behaviour, then, isn't just important when it comes to protecting our information, it's essential to protecting our individuality. ..."
"... It seems sensible to take steps to 'protect' ourselves from the data hoover that is google or Facebook. ..."
"... Our data is ours, and not theirs to sell onto or allow political freak shows to 'target' us for the suckers benefit, and not the suckees welfare. Who knows how many abusers have been able to hit on vulnerable family's with children! ..."
"... The internet is a colourful addictive place that most users have only a limited grasp of its potential, as nicely illustrated by our politicians being dumb to these recent events impact. Capitalist thinking, we know, is incapable of self regulation. ..."
You may well have downloaded your Facebook data already; it has become something of a trend
in recent days. Now take a look at what Google has on you. Go to Google's "Takeout" tool and
download your data from the multiple Google products you probably use, such as Gmail, Maps,
Search and Drive. You'll get sent a few enormous files that contain information about
everything from the YouTube videos you have watched, your search history, your location history
and so on. Once you've seen just how much information about you is in the cloud, you may want
to go about deleting it. I highly recommend deleting your Google Maps history, for a start,
unless you are particularly eager to have a detailed online record of everywhere you have ever
been. You may also want to stop Google from tracking your location history. Sign in to Google,
open Maps, then click on "timeline" in the menu. At the bottom, there's an option to manage
your location history.
... ... ...
10. Never put your kids on the public internet
Maybe it's fine to upload pics to a shared (private) photo album, or mention their day in a
group DM. But if it's public, Google can find it. And if Google can find it, it's never going
away. How are you going to tell your child in 16 years' time that they can't get a drivers'
licence because Daddy put a high-res photo of their iris online when they were two and now they
trip alarms from here to Mars?
12. Sometimes it's worth just wiping everything and starting over
Your phone, your tweets, your Facebook account: all of these things are temporary. They will
pass. Free yourself from an obsession with digital hoarding.
If you wipe your phone every year, you learn which apps you need and which are just
sitting in the background hoovering up data .
If you wipe your Facebook account every year, you learn which friends you actually like and
which are just hanging on to your social life like a barnacle.
14. Have as many social-media-free days in the week as you have alcohol-free
days
This can be zero if you want, but know that we're judging you.
15. Retrain your brain to focus
Save up your longreads using Instapaper or Pocket and read them without distraction. Don't
dip in and out of that 4,000-word article on turtles: read it in one go. Or maybe even try a
book!
16. Don't let the algorithms pick what you do
You are not a robot, you are a human being, and exercising your own free will is the
greatest strength you have. When that YouTube video ends, don't watch the next one that
autoplays. When you pick up your phone in the morning, don't just click on the stories at the
top of Apple News or Google Now. Exercise choice! Exercise freedom! Exercise humanity!
17. Do what you want with your data, but guard your friends' info with your life
Yes, you should think twice before granting that fun app you downloaded access to your
location or your photo library. Do you trust it not to do weird things with your pictures? Do
you know it won't track your every movement? But ultimately, those are your decisions, and they
are for you to make. But your friends' data isn't yours, it's theirs, and you are a trusted
custodian. Don't think twice before authorising access to your address book, or your friends'
profiles: think five or six times, and then don't do it.
18. Finally, remember your privacy is worth protecting
You might not have anything to hide (except your embarrassing Netflix history) but that
doesn't mean you should be blase about your privacy.
Increasingly, our inner lives are being reduced to a series of data points; every little
thing we do is for sale. As we're starting to see, this nonstop surveillance changes us. It
influences the things we buy and the ideas we buy into .
Being more mindful of our online behaviour, then, isn't just important when it comes to
protecting our information, it's essential to protecting our individuality.
Frenske 28 Mar 2018 23:58
I always use the wrong birthday when registering for accounts unless it is for financial
services and utility which may do credit check or are used in credit checks. If my real name
is not required I use a variation on my last name.
Jack Harrison 28 Mar 2018 22:33
Astounding that people are surprised about all this data hoarding and selling.
There's a reason Facebook, Google etc are worth BILLIONS. It ain't because of the ads you
ignore or are blocked.
FooBar21 -> cachito11 28 Mar 2018 21:31
"There billions of species on our own very planet that show us daily how life is not
about money."
In their case daily life is a constant struggle to evade an endless supply of predators
who are always looking to tear them limb to limb or swallow them whole, find whatever scraps
of food they can find to avoid starving to death, and compete with conspecifics for the right
to procreate. On a good day.
wascallywabbit -> Davinci Woohoo 28 Mar 2018 19:34
Thanks Davinci for the reasoned and balanced response.
I appreciate that it's not necessarily your view, but that there is a lot of history
behind it. However, to a European living in a modern democracy, it just seems to be a strange
and counter-productive attitude. For example, rather than paying taxes for pooled and
equitable public services, many of those services are run as profit-making businesses, thus
removing money from the system. It also reinforces class divisions, as the rich can pay, but
the poor cannot. As a result, many people cannot pay for medical care, cannot send their
children to university, and are forced to buy a car to move around.
Again, I'm not criticising you personally, just the mindset that you mentioned.
fatkevin 28 Mar 2018 19:25
It seems sensible to take steps to 'protect' ourselves from the data hoover that is
google or Facebook.
But should it be that way round? These cyborg organisations should frame their technology
and services that automatically displays social responsibilities towards those they are
currently sucking dry of personal information.
Our data is ours, and not theirs to sell onto or allow political freak shows to
'target' us for the suckers benefit, and not the suckees welfare. Who knows how many abusers
have been able to hit on vulnerable family's with children!
The internet is a colourful addictive place that most users have only a limited grasp
of its potential, as nicely illustrated by our politicians being dumb to these recent events
impact. Capitalist thinking, we know, is incapable of self regulation. Internet orgs
therefore need steep guidelines that imposes tight operating practices that ensures the
vulnerable (that's you and me) don't have to encounter the likes of these recent
catastrophes.
Putting lead into food a century ago was deadly until food standards were criminalised;
the same applies to the cyborgian world of the internet.
Facebook's dirty tricks have been exposed, they will never completely regain the trust of
users.
Alternatives are set to cannibalize the social media model, pioneered by Facebook.
Costs of security features, auditing information, and loss of ad revenue will make
Facebook less profitable.
Finally, Facebook ( FB )
has been exposed for the fraud that it is. There has never been such an inflated market cap
based on nothingness, just hype. Steve Jobs successfully hyped up Apple ( AAPL ) but unlike Fakebook, Apple actually
makes products, and they have a huge following. Here we will elaborate on several key points
that we've been saying for years, but now maybe the market is listening:
Facebook ( FB ) has a
weak underlying business model. Users do not like to see advertisements therefore management
will be driven to measures such as grey hat (or even black hat) methods to obtain data and
use data in ways in conflict with users.
Facebook ( FB ) is
ultimately and primarily a tool of the intelligence agencies (primarily but not exclusively
the CIA) and furthers a larger agenda as part of the DOD's "Information Awareness" program,
more than it is a hot business model.
There are thousands of social media networks , in fact Ning offers users a platform to create their own social network.
The only thing unique about Facebook ( FB ) is that it is the most used and trusted
network, but that all is hanging on the thin thread of users trust, which has now completely
evaporated.
Mark Zuckerberg is an unethical tricky leader that cannot change , he is detached from
reality, has no vision, no understanding of what his customers want, and perhaps most
importantly; stole Facebook ( FB ) from Winkelvoss .
Facebook became spammy in 2010 , the amount of bot manipulation is highly under-reported.
Fake accounts are bought and sold in a black market, software is sold that can create fake
accounts by the hundreds, thousands.
Based on the above, we believe the real value of Facebook ( FB ) is about $10 - $20 per share. Let's use the
'toplist' format as promoted by Facebook ( FB ) itself:
So if this trend continues - what should investors do? Sell , that's for starters. Contact
an attorney who knows Securities if you are a shareholder. That's the good news. Finally,
unless you like being tracked in your every move, delete your Facebook ( FB ) account. Because that's the only real
remedy. You can't block Zuck:
Remember one thing, Facebook ( FB ) users - you use FB with your consent. This author
deleted FB years ago, as have millions of others. If you really like the idea of social network
there are hundreds of others. Or set one up yourself for sharing family photos with Grandma.
JomSocial can turn any Joomla site into a
social media site.
The point here is investors that this is the beginning of a crap storm that has been brewing
for years but it didn't metastasize until now.
Facebook is going to zero. If you're long get out now before it drops further. There's
nothing supporting the stock except hopers and hot air.
One last thing, Fake News started on Facebook ( FB ) see articles here ,
here , and
here
. Since the Trump election there has been a backlash on 'Fake News' sites, which Facebook is #1
. It's a platform for Fake News!
News existed before Fakebook and will continue to exist. Facebook is to the internet was the
Laser Disc was to the home movie industry. It's outdated, it's bloated, it's hype - there's
nothing there. Move on, drones. Nothing to see here.
CIA-Facebook sucks. But this is not news. FB is service. The web has changed a great deal since it started. It was always
overpriced and overhyped but this is not at all unique. It reflects more on how pathetic, misguided and sick most the average neoliberal
"consumer" is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYFz1am9OO4
As long as there are attention whores, there will be some type of facebook
As long as there are attention whores, there will be some type of facebook. I tried it for a while until my page was hijacked
and someone put a picture of some black girl naked with a big booty under a waterfall as my profile photo. No shit, this really
happened. I went from 13 friends to hundreds of friend requests overnight.
People were emailing my wife and asking her if we split up or something. Now I am glad I quit that shit. To some people it
is like crack. My neighbor used to post pictures of himself pulling worms out of his garden or when he was in yoga class. I wanted
to tell him that no one really gives a fuck.
In response to the Facebook data harvesting scandal, Mozilla has launched an
extension for its Firefox Browser
which
helps you segregate your web activity from Facebook's prying eyes by isolating your identity into a separate "container." This makes
it far more difficult for Facebook to track your activity on other websites using third-party cookies.
Upon installation, the extension deletes your Facebook cookies and logs you out of Facebook. The next time you visit the social
media giant, it will open in a special blue browser "container" tab - which you can use to safely log in to Facebook and use it like
you normally would. If you then click on a link that takes you outside of Facebook, it will load outside of the container.
Should you click on any Facebook Share buttons on other browser tabs it will load them within the Facebook container. You should
know that when you're using these buttons information will be sent to Facebook about the website that you shared from .
If you use your Facebook credentials to create an account or log in using your Facebook credentials, it may not work properly
and you may not be able to login. Also, because you're logged into Facebook in the container tab, embedded Facebook comments and
Like buttons in tabs outside the Facebook container tab will not work. This prevents Facebook from associating information about
your activity on websites outside of Facebook to your Facebook identity. So it may look different than what you are used to seeing.
-
Mozilla.org
Think of it as a condom for Facebook.
Mozilla notes that it "does not collect data from your use of the Facebook Container extension," adding "We only know the
number of times the extension is installed or removed."
One Reddit user asks "why not just make every tab an isolated container? "There should be NO REASON for one tab to know or read
what another tab (aka cookies) are doing from another domain," states
/u/Pro2U
Lo and behold, the Mozilla programmer who created the extension popped into the thread and answered the question:
So there you have it - if you don't want Facebook harvesting most of your data and tracking you around the web, strap on the
Firefox extension and go to town.
In Firefox Options - Privacy section you can setup to
delete cookies and clear history at every browser exit.
Same with Internet explorer. Not sure about Chrome.
You can also accept or deny third party cookies.
Ghostery is a must, especially for ZH
C Cleaner is a nice utility for getting rid of excess crap.
I think this is what happened to JFK when he tried shutting down CIA, cracking down on
the Israeli lobby, inspecting Israeli Dimona nuclear facility. END the Fed scam, take away
the blank check.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president
warned that unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any
military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering,
Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
John F. Kennedy Administration: Summary of Eshkol Reply To Kennedy Letter (November 9,
1963)
In the November 12 talks we hope through open and frank responses to convince the Israeli
representatives of our sympathetic interest in their security concerns and of our genuine
desire to help Israel to the best of our ability. We will press the view that U.S. ability to
deter aggression against Israel makes less imperative the need for Israel to maintain clear
military superiority over the U.A.R. in all fields and underlines the futility of large
expenditures of time, effort and money on a spiralling arms race. We will stress that
Israel's acquisition of missiles could result in a Soviet supply of missiles to the U.A.R.
and that a missile race increases the chance of a missile exchange in which Israel as a
small, compact target would inevitably suffer most.
Details of the JFK-RFK duo's effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli
foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.
The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's
bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred
that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote
in his diary in 1945.
"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the
world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that
will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff of which legends are
made."
I have fuzzy feeling is that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." (Hamlet, Act 1,
Scene 4). Looks like Brennan machinations as a part of a larger trend.
So while those fears might look exaggerated, in no way they represent outlier in the spectrum
of the opinion of the commentarial. There are also people like Kevin Shipp who might agree with
me more then you do.
Moreover, the gradual shift toward some kind of "MIC leadership" was really noticeable in
Trump administration just my the number of retired generals inhis administration. It might be
just a beginning of the process of shifting the power, as military now are respected more then
elected representatives. And CIA will be the key player is any such shift.
Existence of almost five million people with security clearance creates kind of "state within
the state" situation. This is the point when quantity turns into quality.
Shipp expressed that the CIA was created through the Council on Foreign relations with no
congressional approval, and historically the CFR is also tied into the mainstream media (MSM.)
He elaborated that the CIA was the "central node" of the shadow government and controlled all
of other 16 intelligence agencies despite the existence of the DNI. The agency also controls
defense and intelligence contractors, can manipulate the president and political decisions, has
the power to start wars, torture, initiate coups, and commit false flag attacks he said.
As Shipp stated, the CIA was created through executive order by then President Harry Truman
by the signing of the
National Security Act of 1947.
According to Shipp, the deep state is comprised of the military industrial complex,
intelligence contractors, defense contractors, MIC lobbyist, Wall St (offshore accounts),
Federal Reserve, IMF/World Bank, Treasury, Foreign lobbyists, and Central Banks.
In the shocking, explosive presentation, Shipp went on to express that there are "over
10,000 secret sites in the U.S." that formed after 9/11. There are "1,291 secret government
agencies, 1,931 large private corporations and over 4,800,000 Americans that he knows of who
have a secrecy clearance, and 854,000 who have Top Secret clearance, explaining they signed
their lives away bound by an agreement.
"... The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm Langley and take the files, problem solved. ..."
This article is a tour de force of beating around the bush. It relates a campaign initiated
and led by CIA DCI John Brennan, prosecuted with illegal secret government surveillance,
coerced confessions, and suppressed investigation of the murder of Seth Rich. And it blames
the Plutocrat Class.
How many divisions does the Plutocrat Class have? Does the Plutocrat Class have impunity
for murder, torture, and denial of the rights of trial? Does the Plutocrat Class have
anything like these get-out-jail-free cards?
The Central Intelligence Agency Act, which
put CIA covert crime beyond the reach of any court. The Rogers-Houston MOU permitting the DCI
to abort DoJ investigations with the magic words 'national security.'
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes the identity of CIA criminals a
state secret. The operational files exemption to FOIA, which prohibits public scrutiny of
evidence of CIA crime.
The 'political questions' judicial doctrine which stops judicial review of CIA crimes
condoned, however vaguely or unwittingly, by Congress.
The article outlines criminal coup de main by domestic enemies, and sics us on cartoon
Rich Uncle Pennybags.
Don't get wrapped around the axle overthinking some rock-paper-scissors transitivity
relations of abstract political and economic power -- that's CIA-infiltrated Paris Review
bullshit. Impunity beats money every time. To understand this, just watch what happens when a
plutocrat gets in CIA's way. You see right away who's in charge. Plutocrat Ralph Nacchio
learned his lesson, didn't he?
Plutocrat Elliot Spitzer learned his lesson. Dynastic plutocrats John and Bobby Kennedy
didn't learn their lesson fast enough, but everybody else got the message.
The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and
keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm
Langley and take the files, problem solved.
The DOJ's Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced Wednesday that he is expanding his internal investigation into alleged
FBI abuses surrounding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications - and will be examining their relationship with
former MI6 spy Christopher Steele. The announcement follows several requests from lawmakers and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"The OIG will initiate a review that will examine the Justice Department's and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's compliance
with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person," the statement reads.
It should be noted that the OIG's current investigation and upcoming report - which led to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's
firing, is focused on the agency's handling of the Clinton email investigation. This new probe will focus on FISA abuse and surveillance
of the Trump campaign.
On March 1, House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions
that the FBI may have violated criminal statutes, as well as its own strict internal procedures by using unverified information to
obtain a surveillance warrant on onetime Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
Nunes referred to the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), which states that the "accuracy of information contained
within FISA applications is of utmost importance... Only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications
to the court."
A "FISA memo" released
in February by the House Intel Committee (which has since closed its Russia investigation), points to FBI's use of the salacious
and unverified "Steele Dossier" funded by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.
"Former and current DOJ and FBI leadership have confirmed to the committee that unverified information from the Steele
dossier comprised an essential part of the FISA applications related to Carter Page," Nunes wrote in his March 1 letter.
Meanwhile, a February 28 letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) requested
that IG Horowitz "conduct a comprehensive review of potential improper political influence, misconduct, or mismanagement" in relation
to the FBI's handling of counterintelligence and criminal investigations of the Trump campaign prior to the appointment of Robert
Mueller.
Steele in the crosshairs
The OIG letter also notes "As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the
FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source."
The source, in this case, is Christopher Steele.
The House Intel Committe's "FISA memo" alleges that the political origins of the dossier - paid for by Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) - were not disclosed to the clandestine court that signed off on the warrant request, as DOJ
officials knew Steele was being paid by democrats. Moreover, officials at the DOJ and FBI signed one warrant, and three renewals
against Carter Page.
Considering that much of the Steele dossier came from a collaboration with high level Kremlin officials (a collusion if you
will), Horowitz will be connecting dots that allegedly go from the Clinton campaign directly to the Kremlin.
Although the contents of the dossier were unable to be corroborated, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) court that Steele's reputation was solid - and used a Yahoo News article written by Michael Isikoff to support the FISA
application. The Isikoff article, however, contained information provided by Steele. In other words, the FBI made it appear to
the FISA court that two separate sources supported their application, when in fact they both came from Steele.
(interestingly, Isikoff also wrote a hit piece to discredit an undercover FBI informant who testified to Congress last week about
millions of dollars in bribes routed to the Clinton Foundation by Russian nuclear officials. Small world!)
So despite the FBI refusing to pay Steele $50,000 when he couldn't verify the dossier's claims, they still used it - in
conjunction with a Steele sourced Yahoo! article to spy on a Trump campaign associate. And to make up for the fact that the
underlying FISA claims were unverified, they "vouched" for Steele's reputation instead.
The crux of Phil Giraldi's call for the investigation of Brennan centers on the intelligence
provided by allied intel services concerning contact between Russian officials and some of
Trump's people. Did the allies share this kind of information as standard practice or did
Brennan somehow induce them to collect and report it? I agree that this question would fall
within the scope of Mueller's investigation. Whether Mueller investigates the provenance of
this allied intelligence is unknown. I hope he has already done so. If Brennan really thought
those contacts between Russian officials and Trump's people posed a potential CI risk, he
would have been derelict if he did not pursue the matter. After all, three Russian
intelligence officers were already convicted of trying to recruit Page who became one of
Trump's people.
Beyond L'Affaire Russe, there is much that needs to be investigated concerning the CIA's
capture-kill MO during the entire GWOT era. Brennan was in the thick of that, but that is not
a subject for Mueller.
You are quite right, Power Elite is more accurate description, but now that the
term Deep State has reached common parlance, is it useful to try to rebrand them?
Well, perhaps, because what we have now is a general misidentification (misdirection!) of
defining the Deep State. Some single out the Intel agencies, others blame think-tanks, some
even blame career civil servants (the 'bureaucrat' smear). Are these accusers really
gatekeepers for the deep money interests?
All the same, how would you do it, and is it worthwhile? We've had the same chatter about
the Fake News, i.e. MSM vs. Legacy News vs. Corporate News vs. Big News, etc. Some good work
is coming out under Deep State -
Misunderstanding the Deep State
CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government
The 'deep state' is not a 'conspiracy theory', it is a basic fact beyond debating. The deep
state by definition means the USA's military industrial complex, i.e. all of the massive
security agencies (Dept of Defense; CIA; State Dept; Pentagon; US Army; CentComm; Navy;
Marines; NSA; NSC; etc) combined with their partners in the corporate sector who sell them
the equipment: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, General
Electric, SAIC, Huntington Ingalls, etc. The 'revolving door' between these two sectors is a
key aspect of the deep state: top ranking brass leave public service to take top positions at
these defense corporations, or become lobbyists for them to continue their multi-billion
dollar contracts at the government trough. The top officials at the security agencies often
have careers spanning decades: these people are 'the deep state' personified. Presidents come
and go, they are window dressing. The deep state calls the shots.
Maybe better to say 'Deep State shoots, and wants far more shooting'.
Just this day a former member of the EU Commission, he did Foreign Affairs, retired, appeared
on the leading German tv channel, with deep doubts about May's assertions, and deep concern
where the anti Russia propaganda will lead to.
He had negotiated with Putin, who he described a very rational man.
He still was quite emotional about the western lies that lead to the attack on Iraq.
BBC, or BBCW, did not watch it myself, broadcast the same interview, also, today.
One cannot fool all people for all times.
BS. The "power elite" in the US is associated with a clearly identifiable group, which
doesn't even hide its own tribal interest and allegiances. A parasite lodged in a host. Its
messianic DNA slowly unfolds and takes over the host's vital functions. Loss of identity and
cognitive ability are only phases preceding total destruction. The complicit host is
apparently fully and gleefully embracing its fate.
Yeah. Distract them with the race issue. Kill extra couple of blacks. Provoke riots. Seen
some money to BLM. And have the right and alt-right and all Sailers write about race , IQ
until they dissipate all energy they got.
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people.
How far-off it it to naming the Jews as the powerbrokers?
How far-off is the JQ – one year – two, three, four?
Lol yep here we go again it must be Russia and Putin,I sure hope nothing happens to
either, for if it did you would have nothing to live for,that grand place you live in would
be awful lonesome with out either to whine about ,.
It seems you may have missed the main thrust of the article. It is that the Deep State is
directing what Trump does or doesn't do. Trump may not like what he is doing but he has
little choice but to eat crap and comfort himself with vacuous bluster on Twitter.
Deep state?
Sounds like what they called "corporate state" a century ago, especially since there's
little hidden and nothing profound about it. Should be called "mafia state."
The Deep State wielded preponderant power over this nation at least by the time Lincoln
was buried, and its main actors then were virtually all pure WASPs (the non-Wasps were all
Protestants of Continental Germanic ancestry, some of them Saxons, as was Martin Luther).
Jews didn't become the major power in the US Deep State until well after WW2. Probably
after the assassination of JFK. Of course, you also need to face the many implications of the facts that Anglo-Saxon
Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy and that archetypal Mr. WASP himself Oliver Cromwell made
the alliance with Jews concrete.
WASP culture is doing what it always was meant to do.
The Deep State was called The Shadow Government in the 9o's.
And its the same thing it always was people and groups with ideologies or money
interest or power interest or foreign interest ..all trying to direct the government to serve
their interest.
And for the most part they have been successful in doing that.
I don't think that "deep state" is a correct term or that "unelected officials" are so
crucial.
What you got here is typical of any country: power elite . This elite is, in most
modern countries, comprised of big money (different sources in different lands), dominant
media & controllers of intellectual discourse through academia, military infrastructure
plus professional politicians, various intelligence agencies etc.
Only, the power elite is not eternally homogeneous & can be engaged in internal
warfare, and sometimes collapse.
"... "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a 'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry." ..."
The Iraq War architects have been thoroughly rehabilitated and are planning
their next adventure, even as the catastrophic ramifications of their crimes continue to
reverberate around the world. Last week marked the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of
Iraq in 2003. April 9 will be the 15th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The consequences of
these events are still playing out today, from Mali to Niger, to the Philippines. Iraq has
never recovered and is only beginning to emerge from the trauma, while American officials plan
the next military adventure.
Writing in the New York Times, Iraqi novelist Sinan Antoon
observed : "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a
'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at
large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly
amnesiac citizenry."
The rehabilitation of the neocons
Indeed, the rise of Trump has provided the cabal of Iraq War architects with a rebranding
opportunity. After their utter failure in Iraq, these people were largely disgraced and no
longer taken seriously outside of right-wing circles. But Trumpism, and the desire of liberals
to oust the current president, has led to an anti-Trump coalition which includes at its helm
many of the instrumental figures behind the Iraq invasion. The list includes David
"axis
of evil" Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush and now a senior editor
at the Atlantic, as well as neoconservative think tanker Bill Kristol, and
George W. Bush , who is now celebrated as a pragmatic leader – even by nostalgic
Democrats who contrast him with Trump.
Trump's victory in the Republican primary on a seemingly isolationist platform, which was
obviously a facade, sent many of these neoconservatives running toward Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic nominee. Those who lined
up behind Clinton have since been embraced by the Democratic establishment, while the more
extreme neoconservative hawks who stuck by the Republican Party have effectively inserted
themselves into the Trump administration. The most recent and terrifying of these is John
Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the
intelligence that was used to mislead the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And
now he is Trump's national security advisor.
Bolton is a neoconservative extremist who has never seen a country he didn't want to bomb.
On the top of his hit list is Iran and North Korea, though Bolton has expended most of his
energy
agitating for the US to bomb Iran , which he seeks to hand over to the Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), a
cultish group of Iranian exiles that has received backing from Israeli intelligence and was
formerly classified as a terrorist organization by the United States.
In light of the Iraq war anniversary and the recent appointment of Bolton, it's a good time
to survey the damage that neocons such as Bolton caused in Iraq. The war left an estimated
1 million Iraqis
dead , 4.5 million displaced, 5 million orphaned, some 2 million widowed, and caused
birth
defects and cancer rates in some
Iraqi cities that are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of the Second World War.
The irony is that Trump's rise to the presidency is in many ways the fault of the Iraq War
architects. Their policies in Iraq, which were recycled in Libya and Syria, led to
the rise of Islamic State and the refugee crisis that fueled right-wing populists such as
Trump and his counterparts in Europe. The war in Iraq revived a jihadist movement that was dead
after the first few months of the war on Afghanistan, opening the floodgates to jihadists and
their supporters from around the world.
When the US dismantled the Iraqi state in 2003, instead of replacing it with a functioning
government it punished Sunni areas and installed a sectarian Shiite regime comprised of exiles
with no popular support in the country. The US essentially created a new category known as the
Sunni Arab and, where the state collapsed, it was Al-Qaeda who would fight on their behalf. The
inflammation of sectarian fears and lack of security resulted in a power vacuum that opened the
floodgates to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ignited a gruesome civil war . AQI eventually morphed into
the Islamic State of Iraq. Before morphing into ISIS, ISI established an Al-Qaeda
offshoot in Syria called Jabhat al-Nusra, the strongest and most disciplined armed opposition
group in the country.
ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups cultivate and thrive off of stateless zones as well as a Sunni
Arab victimhood narrative , which started with the execution of Saddam Hussein and has been
propagated throughout the region by popular gulf-funded
religious figures and media outlets such as Al Jazeera Arabic .
Beheadings became a hallmark of the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who,
unlike Osama bin Laden began to focus on fighting the near enemy -- the Arab dictatorships,
secular people and minorities -- as opposed to the far enemy of the infidel west. We would
later see these beheadings in ISIS propaganda videos aimed at terrifying the west. There was a
theory in the past in bin Laden's era that you should fight the far enemy, the west, before the
near enemy. But under this new and evolved Al Qaeda, whether in Iraq or Yemen or Mali, we saw
local franchises focused on slaughtering their fellow countrymen, with particular genocidal
hatred for Shias.
The American occupation of an Arab country fueled this Salafi jihadist movement on a global
scale. The occupation led to sympathy for this Iraqi jihad throughout the Muslim world, which
meant foreign fighters coming in and a huge amount of funding from the gulf.
This global war on terror framework was also implemented by the US in countries such as
Somalia and Yemen and across North Africa as well.
The Iraq War gave us Donald Trump
In spite of America's criminal disaster in Iraq, Barack Obama continued to implement regime
change policies in both Libya and Syria by funding and arming right-wing insurgencies made up
of none other than Al-Qaeda affiliates, the very ideology the US was supposedly fighting in its
global war on terror. Like in Iraq, US intervention led to the rise of a failed state in Libya
and in much of Syria.
In Syria, these failed state zones were then filled by thousands of foreign fighters coming
in from the Turkish border, which the US tolerated as a means to put pressure on the Syrian
regime, hoping the regime would offer concessions, which of course it never did. ISIS
eventually took over many of these failed state areas and began kidnapping westerners and the
group made millions of dollars in ransom money
as a result.
The massive refugee flows which resulted from the US encouraging war and regime change in
the Middle East led to the destabilization of much of Europe and to some extent, the rise of
Donald Trump, who campaigned on the fear-mongering of ISIS, refugees and Muslims. You can trace
all these and other terrible consequences to the US decision to encourage war and state
collapse rather than to prioritize stability and order in the Middle East. It all started with
the Iraq War.
The gift that keeps on giving
The ramifications of the Iraq War are still playing out today, having inspired Salafi
jihadist movements from the
Philippines to Mali and even
Niger , where US soldiers were recently killed by jihadists.
Moreover, the war in Iraq, according to the very people who architected it, has strengthened
Iran in the region. That isn't necessarily a bad thing given that Iran and its partners, such
as Hezbollah and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), were crucial to defeating ISIS in
Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But a strengthened Iran is a nightmare for the US as it threatens
American, Saudi and Israeli hegemony in the region. So, the Iraq war planners are using the
strong position of Iran – created by neoconservative policies – to push for a war
with Iran. They've also expanded their hit list to include Russia, who they're still hoping to
escalate against in Syria.
With Bolton as Trump's national security advisor, a war with Iran is now much more likely.
For the war industry and the neocons who lobby for it, the Iraq war they started is the gift
that keeps on giving.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Rania Khalek is an American journalist, writer and political commentator based in the Middle East.
"... It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is. ..."
"... So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. ..."
"... There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats ..."
"... Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office. ..."
"... Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement. ..."
"... And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about ..."
On Monday, the Monmouth University Polling Institute released the results of a survey that
found that "a large bipartisan majority feel that national policy is being manipulated or
directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials ..
[1] Public Troubled By Deep State, Monmouth University Polling Institute
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from March 2 to 5, 2018
with 803 adults in the United States. The results in this release have a margin of error of +/-
3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long
Branch, NJ.
According to the survey:" 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed
government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the
right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy.
Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold
too much sway in the federal government. ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)
The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our
elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast bureaucratic
machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and banks.
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about
elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who
ultimately benefits from it. Check it out:
" Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State ;" another 24%
are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when
the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly
manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of
apparatus exists in Washington. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist." Belief in the
probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan
group "
So while the cable news channels dismiss anyone who believes in the "Deep State" as a
conspiracy theorist, it's clear that the majority of people think that's how the system really
works, that is, "a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate or
direct national policy."
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication
of how corrupt the system really is.
The Monmouth survey also found that "A majority of the American public believe that the U.S.
government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S.
government could be invading their own privacy." .
"Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the
activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%)who say this activity is
widespread Few Americans (18%) say government monitoring or spying on U.S. citizens is
usually justified, with most (53%) saying it is only sometimes justified. Another 28% say
this activity is rarely or never justified ." ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State",
Monmouth.edu)
So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear
majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state
in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without
the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. Once again, the data suggests that the American people
know what is going on, know that the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil
liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by
invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions–but
their awareness has not evolved into an organized movement for change. In any event, the public
seems to understand that the USG is not as committed to human rights and civil liberties as the
media would have one believe. That's a start.
There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the
public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in
the bureaucracy follow their diktats. From the time Trump became the GOP presidential nominee
more than 18 months ago, a powerful faction of the Intelligence Community, law enforcement
(FBI) and even elements form the Obama DOJ, have vigorously tried to sabotage his presidency,
his credibility and his agenda. Without a scintilla of hard evidence to make their case, this
same group and their dissembling allies in the media, have cast Trump as a disloyal
collaborator who conspired to win the election by colluding with a foreign government. The
magnitude of this fabrication is beyond anything we've seen before in American political
history, and the absence of any verifiable proof makes it all the more alarming. As it happens,
the Deep State is so powerful it can wage a full-blown assault on the highest elected office in
the country without even showing probable cause. In other words, the president of the United
States is not even accorded the same rights as a common crook. How does that happen?
Over the weekend, former CIA Director and "Russia-gate" ringleader John Brennan fired off an
angry salvo at Trump on his Twitter account. Here's what he said:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over
you."
Doesn't Brennan's statement help to reinforce the public's belief in the Deep State? How
does a career bureaucrat who has never been elected to public office decide that it is
appropriate to use the credibility of his former office to conduct a pitch-battle with the
President of the United States?
Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The
American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people
may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office.
Not so, Brennan. Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since
Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the
outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even
admits as much in his statement.
And Brennan has been given a platform on the cable news channels so he can continue his
assault on the presidency, not because he can prove that Trump is guilty of collusion or
obstruction or whatever, but because the people who own the media have mobilized their deep
state agents to carry out their vendetta to remove Trump from office by any means possible.
This is the "America" of which Brennan speaks. Not my America, but deep state America.
And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat
Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they
are taking it back. That's what this is all about
"... As Curran points out, people would be outraged if they discovered the government was monitoring them to this extent. But when Google does it? People hardly bat an eye. ..."
"... Need to ditch Microsoft operating system soon also. Something about giving away Windows 10 felt like Microsoft's in bed with government spying. The automatic updates blow. ..."
"... I've done a lot of hardening, and extensive work on the registry, services and task manager for windows 10. I also use "Windows Firewall Control". Nice program. Catches all connection attempts to internet and a log file so you can see what is connecting and what address and port. The program is an interface for the system firewall. Cortana, explorer, all microsoft office applications, error reporting, back ground task host are the busiest trying to connect. Some exe files that I've deleted, show up again, so now I just block the connection for the. ..."
"... Windows 7 has telemetry and also patches that install telemetry during updates. ..."
"... The real problem is with the smartphone. Unless you are going to go flip phone, you are freaking screwed. Those things suck up your whole life, and if you have an android phone, google play services is basically big brothering all your apps. I'd be highly surprised if our phones aren't logging EVERYTHING that is typed into the virtual keyboard. ..."
The Cambridge Analytica scandal was never really about Cambridge Analytica.
As we've pointed out, neither Facebook nor Cambridge Analytica have been accused of doing anything
explicitly illegal (though one could be forgiven for believing they had, based on the number of
lawsuits and official investigations that have been announced).
Instead, the backlash to these revelations - which has been justifiably focused on Facebook - is so
severe because
the public has been forced to confront for the first time something that
many had previously written off as an immutable certainty
:
That Facebook, Google
and the rest of the tech behemoths store reams of personal data, essentially logging everything we do.
In response to demands for more transparency surrounding user data, Facebook and Google are
offering users the option to view all of the metadata that Google and Facebook collect.
And as Twitter user Dylan Curran pointed out in a comprehensive twitter thread examining his own
data cache,
the extent and bulk of the data collected and sorted by both companies is
staggering.
Google, Curran said, collected 5.5 gigabytes of data on him - equivalent to some 3 million
Microsoft Word documents. Facebook, meanwhile, collected only 600 megabytes - equivalent to roughly
400,000 documents.
Another shocking revelation made by Curran: Even after deleting data like search history and
revoking permissions for Google and Facebook applications, Curran still found a comprehensive log of
his documents and other files stored on Google drive, his search history, chat logs and other
sensitive data about his movements that he had expressly deleted.
What's worse, everything shown is the data cache of one individual. Just imagine how much data
these companies hold in total.
... ... ...
Google even saves a log of every log a user has ever viewed or clicked on, every app they've every
opened and every image they've every searched for - and every news article they've ever read.
... ... ...
Curran, who joked that he's "probably on an FBI watchlist" following his twitter thread, explained
that the data he highlighted - while some of it might seem obscure - could have thousands of
potentially compromising applications, including blackmailing a rival or spying on a spouse.
... ... ...
The question now is: Will this transparency actually change user's behavior? Or will Facebook's
hollow promises to change be enough to lull its legions of users back into a passive ignorance. As
Curran points out, people would be outraged if they discovered the government was monitoring them to
this extent. But when Google does it? People hardly bat an eye.
Honestly though, aside from a well deserved arresting of Zuck and dragging him
through the streets for treason, you people using FB have only yourselves to blame
if this privacy-attack thing of Facebook's is a surprise to you. It's like suing a
cigarette company for the holes in your cheeks and throat.
OK, final edit: I should not have said "you people", I should have said "those
people", since most of you ZHers are probably way too smart to have ever been on
FB.
I ain't freaked out because I don't use these voyeuristic platforms. Boycotts
work, folks. Starve the beasts. It's the only effective weapon we have at this
time. Other weapons will come into our hands as our power increases.
Dude discovered the moon.
I would advocate NOT deleting anything from
now on. Just put
fake information
on your accounts.
Just
poison the well
.
Destroy their data
quality
.
Isn't selling advertising their business model?
Don't they collect personal data so they can target market
advertising?
Don't they bury "opt-in consent" deep inside their user agreements
that nobody reads?
Haven't they published their methods which have been known for years?
Why is all this such a surprise?
Oh! I get it now.
All that was perfectly fine until Trump became POTUS.
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the
formation of public opinion.
- Joseph Goebbels
All right - I'm gonna fess up....I use facebook. I
know we all bash on it, and everybody here claims to
have never used it, but probably half of you are
lying. I have never loaded the facebook ap on my
android, and don't play games. (I also don't post
pictures of my breakfast....I use it for a few very
good groups that share information about hiking and
such, and I post a lot of photos of my hikes, sort of
like in the old days when you'd invite friends over to
show slides).
I downloaded the info zipfile. Yes, it was huge,
yes it had every photo and every comment I've ever
made on facebook, and yes, they even stored all the
messages I send and receive through facebook. But
so what, I wasn't surprised by that.... No, they did
not have records of my phone calls or
phone-text-messages, or any other information that I
hadn't given them. So - if you are judicious in what
you share, and expect that everything you put on line
is fully public (in spite of promises), you are likely
ok.
Edit:
Wow - even split on up/down votes. I didn't think
I actually said anything controversial, not sure what
the downvotes are for....
I'll add a bit more. In my opinion, facebook is
like a fairly boring 24/7 cocktail party. Everybody
is jabbering and only half-aware, and it goes on far
too long. The best thing to do in a cocktail party
is to find somebody who i've been wanting to talk to
anyhow, and sit and talk with them. Facebook can
serve the same purpose. ALSO - I avoid all the
political ranting on facebook....I find it to be
inappropriate...leave that for...er...zerohedge. My
daddy taught me long ago that you don't discuss
religion or politics at a cocktail party, and he was
right, so I don't discuss either on facebook.
You forgot to mention Apple. Pretty sure they
are doing the same. FB has info on everyone
unless you have never communicated with a FB
user. Same with Google.
Why the fuck
anybody
is on
Facebook is beyond me.
I value my
privacy, which is why I use an avatar and
phony name for my relatively small online
footprint. Most people don't do that.
They seem to want to spill their guts to any
and all, as if that gives their life meaning.
Idiotic.
All this such a surprise? NO.
Shouldn't be. It's part of their
business model and has been since
inception. It's been staring
everyone in the face all along.
Most of the sheeple have played
right into it. I can remember when a
typical American's attitude toward
attempts to get even the most benign
personal info was "none of your damn
business." Now everyone shares all
of their private lives in massive
public view, hoping for a "hit" of
attention to satisfy cravings
brought on by their Social
Validation Addiction.
zactly - same goes for the rest of
the social media top dogs which are
really just shadow guv front
companies. That is how they got to
be top dogs - playin ball with da
man.
Da Man: "You job is to be
our front man and we'll fund you
until we bust our all the legit
competition. Then we'll tell our 98%
owned media to endlessly tout you as
a genius. "
Da bitches : "Der...Ok"
Proof? All those "titans" of
industry that magically survived
years of burning cash somehow
managed to avoid "the hidden hand of
the market." Now the fuckers stand
atop the "capitalist" system and
lecture us about how to run a
company. Yeah right. Fuckem.
It can help people though. For example,
when my friends go through the passing of
a loved one, human or pet, the feedback
can help ease the pain, and I have seen
that numerous times in the last 8 years.
Since 2010 I have had 6 pets pass away,
and "spilling my guts" and getting
feedback did help ease the pain. So there
are positive aspects to it also. And like
with most things in life, moderate usage
is best.
Used the wife"s account a couple of times for the
marketplace part of it. As for anything else, NO I
don't have an account, nor plan on every making
one.
Google, that's a different story. Used it
quite extensively, although I'm starting to move
away from it slowly.
As far as search engines, google is king.
DuckDuckGo.com is my alternative with Firefox as
the browser.
Need to ditch Microsoft operating system soon
also. Something about giving away Windows 10 felt
like Microsoft's in bed with government spying. The
automatic updates blow.
I've done a lot of hardening, and extensive work
on the registry, services and task manager for
windows 10. I also use "Windows Firewall
Control". Nice program. Catches all connection
attempts to internet and a log file so you can
see what is connecting and what address and
port. The program is an interface for the system
firewall. Cortana, explorer, all microsoft
office applications, error reporting, back
ground task host are the busiest trying to
connect. Some exe files that I've deleted, show
up again, so now I just block the connection for
the.
Windows 7 has telemetry and also patches
that install telemetry during updates.
Got Google Chrome? Get rid of it. FireFox is
better and Tor Browser even better.
I second your comments. I've never used
Facebook, but Google has invaded everything. I'm
working on getting de-googled, particularly
after their recent youtube BS, but that is a
tough.
In some cases the alternatives are good. Protonmail is excellent and affordable. Signal
is a great messenger app.
Opera with scriptsafe
and ghostery works well. On a home PC you can
use install a good linux distro in a virtual PC
and browse through a VPN (Torguard takes crypto
as does Primary Internet Access). But I'm still
using gdrive (gestapo drive as I like to call
all google stuff) because alternatives aren't as
good and probably have the same privacy issues.
The real problem is with the smartphone.
Unless you are going to go flip phone, you are
freaking screwed. Those things suck up your
whole life, and if you have an android phone,
google play services is basically big brothering
all your apps. I'd be highly surprised if our
phones aren't logging EVERYTHING that is typed
into the virtual keyboard.
A co-worker went on vacation and I showed him
a site where he could see his trail in DC,
places he went. He acknowledged that is
exactly the places he visited. Red lines on a
map with his travels.Too funny.
Take my advice and delete ghostery. It is
compromised. And Adblock Plus is too memory
intensive. Get uBlock instead and adguard and
customize the filters. Much more lightweight
and gets the job done.
pretty much.
i used it, and I'm OK with the risk
of this. it's a free website that needs to make
money.
use it at your own risk. (e.g. have never used
my real name associated with any of those accounts;
I never use them to instant message; I have a rule
that I never ever use an 'app within an app' if an
app interests me I'll download the direct .exe for
a different laptop or device (that doesn't have any
Google or FB account on it). other small things,
that -- sure i'm sure they probably suspect my name
and track some info -- but it's mostly pointless
shit. especially no app or chat histories tho.
the real idiots are the people mad about this.
not Zuck. of course Zuck is gonna Zuck or Google is
gonna Google.
p.s. the fact that Twitter thread is 'news'
(despite being known for years) shows just how
blind and stupid people are.
p.s.s. and to be fair there are some benefits to
some of those features. the geo-location stuff can
be nefarious, but it also makes searching for local
businesses a lot easier, and provides security
(e.g. it's helpful that Google knows you always
log-in from a certain State cuz then it can block a
log-in attempt from Nigeria). again. not saying
it's WORTH IT (Don't like it, don't use it) but
there is a practical reason for it too.
You are ignoring the venality of the sorts of
people who will attempt to exploit this information
(governments, insurers, real estate agents, HR
fucktards - the whole shebang of parasites and
ticket-clippers... who are almost entirely made up
of C-students).
And you're ignoring Richelieu's
maxim:
Give me six lines written by the most honest
man: in them, I will find something with which
to hang him
I still have my flip phone so I can't received
texts, can't google to find anything & have to call
411 to get a number.
I too have Facebook but its
on an old windows 7 computer that I also go to just
for a group, similar to you but I've never posted a
personal picture. Even my kittykat that I had at
one time as my icon is one that I've got from
bing.com images. Its close enough.
As for Google? They're a search engine. They
have your IP address. Of course they're going to
keep track of everything you do from that IP
address/phone number if you use it. And before
bing.com outsourced their search to Google they
were a Microsoft search engine. Guess they got
lazy. When they did so I went to DuckDuckGo and
Yahoo. I know you can't do that on the android
phone because its almost hardwired in for Google so
the only advice I can give is go back to the flip
phone if you want any privacy because sadly....
Google will go out of business selling your
information before it never sells your information
& then the government will come in and declare
Google too big to fail with all that info & sweep
it into the NSA late one Friday night while
everyone is watching a version of Stormy & her 2
sisters
Some of you don't get it. If you communicated with a
Facebook or Google user, they got all your
communications as well.
And they probably have
Hillary's deleted emails.
And if you have a Smart TV, they can watch and
listen to you and your kids.
No.
If you communicate with a Facebook user, then FB
has your
email address or your phone number
.
That's not "all your communications". Not your
contacts, not your other email addresses, not your
other phone numbers.
Don't get me wrong: that's more than I want them
to have, but it ain't much in the grand scheme of
things.
You forgot to mention that they have the text of
your communications. I never said they had
everything if you did not have an account. I
don't have Facebook, but family members and
family do. They have posted photos and I have
communicated via text, email and phone. They
have those text messages and emails, and any
photos I texted and emailed, even though I never
clicked a little box to consent to their
terms.
just did some digging here myself. What I found:
minimally 8 Gb of data of all sorts. As a footnote:
I don't have/use: android phone, smart tv,
whatsapp/other messenger, almost always use
hooktube instead of youtube, VPN, mostly protonmail
(especially for personal info), no 'social' media
hardly ever login via 'social/google account (hand
full of exceptions).
I was a bit surprised they had this much (and
kept that much (even though have been a long time
skeptic of them)).
tmosley - I'm gonna guess "deletion" doesn't really get rid
of the data. Should have asked for it to be wiped with a
cloth. Posting all the stuff facebook collected about
one's self on twitter - did he do that just to be sure
everyone everywhere had seen his laundry.
In 1994, Wired magazine ran a short story entitled "Hack the spew" . This was back when Wired was
actually cutting edge and not the insufferable Silicon
Valley stroke job it became after Conde Naste acquired it. In it our antihero "Stark" finds
himself inexplicably recruited as a kind of data scout, looking for viable consumer trends
emerging from the fully immersive, all encompassing data field known as "The Spew".
"When a schmo buys something on the I-way it goes into his Profile, and if it happens to
be something that he recently saw advertised there, we call that interesting, and when he
uses the I-way to phone his friends and family, we Profile Auditors can navigate his social
web out to a gazillion fractal iterations, the friends of his friends of his friends of his
friends, what they buy and what they watch and if there's a correlation."
The Spew of course, was the near future analogy of where the internet was headed, and when I
went looking to link to it for this post, the piece turned out to be written by none other than
Neal Stephenson. That means I read "Hack The Spew" and it made an impression on me before I
even knew who Stephenson was or perhaps was on his way to becoming. Few would argue that
Stephenson has a gift for seeing the general ambience of our oncoming future. Cryptonomicon uncannily anticipated the impetus
toward crypto-currencies; the current systemic dysfunction of national sovereignty worldwide
was foretold in Snow Crash; so it follows
that all this will likely culminate in something that resembles The Diamond Age .
Today, "The Spew" is not equivalent to the Internet itself, but it is more accurately
analogous to say the social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, especially when combined
with the twin monopolies of Google and Amazon, collectively are: The Spew.
It is like a global garbage pile of digital flotsam and jetsam, over which peasants scurry
around and scour, looking for some morsel here, a crumb there, which can be monetized. If a
trend or a trait is detected, even better. Those can be aggregated, syndicated, federated, even
rehypothecated and at scale that can yield staggering financial payoffs and perhaps, even steer
the course the history.
At least that's the narrative since the Cambridge Analytica scandal blew up in Facebook's
face. After a long string of successive privacy fails (a.k.a a pattern of abuse?) this time
feels different, as if the chickens are finally coming home to roost for
Facebook.
Cambridge Analytica is not uniqueEver heard of Kareem Serageldin?
Probably not.
To date, he is the only banker to
have been sent to prison in connection with the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis for
his role in issuing fraudulent mortgage-backed securities (at least outside of
Iceland ). To be sure, he was a fall guy, a token sacrifice to demonstrate contrition for
what was a systemic, institutionalized effort to inflate a bubble whose implosion nearly
crashed the entire global financial system.
In this case while Facebook attempted to throw water on this crisis by ceremonially
banishing Cambridge Analytica from its system, the longstanding pattern of abuse remains, and
is perhaps now, finally, awareness of that is reaching critical mass with the public:
And while there were
key differences in the way data was used , (not to mention more informed consent) the
2012 Obama re-election campaign used the same data mining features and accessed the same data
as the Cambridge Analytica app
In fact it may be veritably baked into their ecosystem to such a degree that it is almost
impossible to develop and create an app on Facebook
that doesn't harvest your data
"At this point, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's pattern on privacy is clear. Launch new
stuff that pushes the boundaries of what people consider comfortable. Apologize and assure
users that they control their information, but rarely pull back entirely, and usually
reintroduce similar features at a later date when people seem more ready for it."
It becomes clear, as Futurist (and easyDNS member) Jesse Hirsh made this point on
Steve Pakin's "The Agenda" over the weekend: "Facebook ships with all privacy enhanced
settings disabled" -- further, my personal findings are that they use obfuscation
to make it harder to disable data sharing settings. You have to jump through hoops to do
it.
WhatsApp founder Brian Acton, who became a billionaire when Facebook bought his company
hasn't let that dissuade him from telling the world what he thinks of all this:
Should you? Should easyDNS? Here's my take on it:
If you are a business: keep your
page but don't be reliant on it
There is a difference between a business who uses Facebook as an antennae to provide
additional ways to stay in touch with customers and those whose business model is completely
dependent on Facebook. We started our Facebook page when we were pulled into the
Wikileaks Crisis as a way to stay in touch with our customers while that entire fiasco
played out. We maintain it today for the same reason, and people do frequently contact us
through that page looking for support.
You have to credit the guy with dominating his niche but I couldn't help wondering what
would happen to his business if something substantial changed at Facebook, or if some of his
readers would feel "used" if they understood some of the myriad tactics some of these sites
routinely use, via Facebook, to drive their own affiliate revenues.
It brings to mind 2 things:
My late friend and one of the original easyDNS customers Atul Chitnis who was among the first to
observe "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product"
My own maxim, which I introduced in the
Guerrilla Capitalism Overview that there are two kinds of companies, those that feed on
customer ignorance compared to those who prosper via customer savvy . I think it is obvious
to all, at least now, that Facebook needs customer ignorance to survive.
(Or as Zuck eloquently observed it back in his dormroom days)
YMMV on your personal
pages
I read a long time ago "don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to read in
the newspapers the next day", and that has served me well as a guide over the years.
My basic assumption is that everything I post to Facebook, including "private" messages are
wide open, being harvested, data mined, aggregated, used to target and retarget ads to me,
build a profile and otherwise compile a comprehensive dossier, even stuff I've "deleted". (If
you've ever watched "Terms and Conditions May
Apply" you'll know that Facebook actually keeps the stuff you "delete").
So I never say anything on Facebook or put anything on there that is remotely confidential
or proprietary. It's strictly a water cooler. I like it because it enabled me to reconnect with
various groups of my friends and peers over the years, from the kids I grew up and went to high
school with in Galt, Ontario to the misfits from the London underground music scene in college,
to the tech entrepreneurs from the mid-90's on.
Would I use it to send anything to anybody that I found myself hoping that it's never going
to leak or be used against me? Uh, no. That would be terribly naive.
So to that end, I'll probably keep my personal Facebook page, even though I sometimes catch
myself spending too much time arguing stupid pointless crap (like politics) with people I'd
otherwise never associate with. But that's a self-discipline issue, not a data soveriengty
issue (although it is
now also common knowledg e that Facebook deliberately codes the platform itself to be as
addictive as possible)
All that said
At least #deleteFacebook from your mobile devices
Facebook harvests your contact lists from your mobile devices (don't believe me, go here )
There are people in that list that I do not know. There are phone numbers from people who work
for my competitors in there. My daughter's (age 11) cell phone number is in there.
You can "delete" all this here : (but as you know Facebook never
actually deletes anything).
Then when you go to "delete" all your contacts you get a message
"We won't be able to tell you when your friends start using Messenger if you delete all
your uploaded contact info."
They say that like it's a bad thing. But there is also this curious sentence:
"If you have Continuous Uploading turned on in the Messenger app, your contact info will
be uploaded again the next time the app syncs with Facebook servers."
I had deleted the Facebook mobile app from my phone a long time ago. I kept messenger
installed because sometimes customers would contact easyDNS or Zoneedit via our Facebook pages
for support.
But Writing this I wanted to turn off "continuous uploading" in the app. Despite this Facebook help article
not explaining how to do it, while this third party
article from 2016 did.
It turned out I had already disabled continuous uploading but I was surprised to find that
the messenger app had defaulted permission to access my phone's microphone.
After this exercise I simply deleted the Messenger app from my phone as well.
Personal
Data Sovereignty is an idea who's time has come
I think it would be safe to assume, that barring some widespread public pushback (such as
the one happening right now), this is The New Normal.
People who may have been complacently oblivious to the fact that their social network was
pimping them as mere data points are realizing that they don't like it as they have their faces
rubbed in one data breach and privacy violation after another.
Given the outrages of Equifax, Facebook et al, we may have arrived at the crossroads and we
may only get this choice once.
Do we push back and say "NO", I own my own data, I control who gets it and what happens with
it. ?
Or, do we calm down after a few days, or weeks and then it's business as usual. Next year
Zuck will apologize for some other new breach of trust ahead of his 2020 presidential bid,
while us "shmoes" go ahead and vote for him.
Doesn't the entity we fear most already have access to all our data? Who is it that we
think we are hiding anything from? Just don't be stupid and put any new sensitive info out
there, anywhere, if you don't have to... but worrying about the info the the govt already has
on you? What would be the point?
So how do you reform the Secret Police? It is an interesting idea. The National Security
State has locked out any outside criticism and made reform almost impossible.
Then, there is also the whole indoctrination process. From hire to retire, these three
letter agencies indoctrinate their employees with esprit de corps and being a team player
with the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.
Claim made by high level persons in the link, suggest need for deep investigation into who in
the USA is getting paid to deliver or make available American taxpayer paid for resources to
foreign payee governments conducting terrorism and destabilization programs?
John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I
would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I
don't dare speculate what their real name is.
Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I
don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run
it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either.
President Trump should have declared war on the corporate propaganda apparatus and the
Deep State on day number one of his administration. Trump let the shysters who run the
corporate media and the treasonous rats in the Deep State off the hook.
President Trump won the GOP presidential primary and the presidency itself because Trump
promised to put the safety, security and sovereignty of America first. The largest vote
getter in terms of specific issues was the IMMIGRATION issue. Trump had the chance to fire
every damn treasonous rat in the Deep State and he didn't do it. Trump betrayed his voters
who wanted immigration reduced and illegal aliens deported.
President Trump should face a GOP presidential primary challenger. Maybe that will force
Trump to remove the Deep State, remove the current controllers of the corporate media and put
America first.
Trump should also call for an immigration moratorium and begin deporting all illegal
aliens immediately.
Trump's problems with the corporate media and the Deep State stem from the fact that Trump
didn't immediately remove them when he had the chance. Trump's voter base was more than ready
for a "burn the boats on the beach" battle plan to defend the United States against the
treasonous rats in the Deep State and the anti-White, anti-Christian shyster rats in the
corporate media.
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
Brennan is PROJECTING.
They have the goods on HIM, and will squeeze out of him every last second of influence
operations as long as he draws breath. Brennan will never be able to get off the HAMSTER
WHEEL alive.
More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."
Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal"
because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas
won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for
the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest.
I would suggest that John Brennan could be politically damaged the most by stating that
John Brennan supports open borders mass immigration. John Brennan and the rest of the Deep
State are dangerous to Americans because they all support open borders mass immigration. The
corporate media all supports mass immigration.
Over 60 million of us voted for Trump because Trump said he would stop the unnecessary
overseas wars, reduce immigration and scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams. We
voted for Trump to make the American Empire act more like a republic. We're stuck with the
American Empire until it croaks or is croaked in turn. And the empires all turn into rust
again.
The treasonous rats in the American Empire's Deep State all push nation-wrecking mass
immigration.
But was it CIA or DIA that helped to count Trump votes?
Hmmm, let's see here.
Counted Trump votes but not Clinton's?
Counted but reduced the number of Trump votes?
Counted all of the votes, but inflated Clinton's?
Successfully hacked the voting machines in some states to inflate Clinton votes and deflate
Trump votes?
How Brennon came to power, should draw questions. Was the dethroning of Gen. David Petraeus,
as CIA chief, a palace coup? Was Brennen spying on Petraeus? Was the NSA tapping his phones?
Did the idea that a military man was heading the CIA, anathema to the institution – so
they got rid of him?
Just how much actual power does the CIA have in the American permanent Deep State?
Congress is NO check on the CIA – all the politicians on the intel security
committees are handpicked dedicated worshipers.
The CIA is the most anti democracy organization on the planet. From its beginning, it has
played with, subverted, and toppled democracies and sovereign governments. Today it
assonates, tortures, and bombs people around the world. (Has Trump given them a free
hand?)
The commie cold war is over – let's not start another one. The CIA's covert
activities must stop.
Two reasons for the descent of 'the West' into neo-Nazism stand out. First, the West was
ALWAYS fascistic, racist, hyper-aggressive, destructive, parasitical and genocidal. Just
summon up the shades of the hundreds of millions killed, directly or indirectly, through
Western Imperialism, colonialism, settler genocide and economic exploitation even to the
extent of causing Holocausts of mass death through famine, as in India, and ask them about
the great and glorious West and its stinking 'Moral Values'. Not to forget the tens of
millions of Westerners themselves killed in Western internecine wars, or through class
hatred, or herded into gas-chambers or made to lie in mass graves then be shot along with
their children because they were of the wrong religion, or the same, but they crossed
themselves in the wrong direction. German Nazism simply expressed a rather pure essence of
true 'Western' moral values, and its mission, and many of its personnel and methods, were
simply taken over the USA after WW2.
Of course, the non-Western world was not a collection of lands of milk and honey, but by any
rational calculus Western ideology involves a qualitatively different and incessant
aggression and cancerous expansion, as manifest in that prototypical Western
creation-capitalism. There the lust and capacity for total destruction, as EVERYTHING, living
and inanimate is transmuted into the dead stuff of money, is unbounded, but this planet being
finite, and the exploiters not having yet escaped to bleed alien worlds anew white and
lifeless, capitalism has only succeeded in drowning us on this planet in the waste and filth
of its excesses, of which poisoning we will shortly succumb.
And, second, the rise to global dominance through control of Western politics, fakestream
media and the other brainwashing mechanisms and finance, of the Zionazi elite centred in
Israel, and in the Jewish Diaspora elites, has delivered a final coup de grace to the West,
and hence, the world that the West is now in the process of attacking, everywhere, for the
crimes of not obeying orders from the likes of vermin like Theresa May, John Bolton and the
execrable Macron.
These Zionazi elites are pretty unprecedented in their absolute arrogance and never-ending
demands. Currently they have embarked on a veritable firestorm of hatred, invective and false
accusations in order to destroy Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. If they cannot destroy Corbyn, they
are very happy to destroy UK Labour, because they no longer control it as they did under
their stooge, Blair. The whole stinking process is operating in open collusion with the UK
fakestream media hate-machine, the reeking corpse of the late UK Guardian leading the way.
The Jewish elite grandees leading the onslaught openly declare that it is UK Labour support
for the Palestinians and 'Leftwing policies' and criticism of Israel that is motivating their
typical exercise in Talmudic hatred. So, the work of hundreds of thousands of Labour
supporters invigorated by Corbyn, who have worked, honestly and determinedly, over years and
decades, to attempt to make the UK a better, more decent, society that the filthy dystopia
created by the Tories and Blairites, is to all be destroyed by a tiny cabal of racist
supremacists who see all goyim as their inferiors. A cabal that does not even represent all
Jews, although they typically claim that they do, a favourite tactic of these anti-goyite
thugs. Many Jews support Corbyn, knowing full well that he is a life-long anti-racist, unlike
the Zionazi thugs who traduce him, who are among the vilest racists extant.
This Zionazi thuggery, and numerous other examples like the criminalisation of the BDS
Movement or ANY criticism of Israel or Zionazism, as 'antisemitic', is bound to create a good
deal of hatred in return. But that is PRECISELY what the Zionazi elites WANT-hatred is the
very essence of their existence. Hatred of the Palestinians. Hatred of Arabs. Hatred of
Moslems. Hatred of any goyim that do not share these hatreds, or dare to oppose Zionazism.
These people, and they do only represent a fraction of Jewry, just as the worst of any
community are only a generally small fraction, are the most dangerous and destructive
creatures in existence, in my opinion. They hate Russia for thwarting their ambitions to
destroy Syria as they did Iraq and Libya. They hate China for not ever going to become supine
stooges like the Western kakastocrats. And, as Bibi, Bennett, Sharon, Begin and scores of
other hideous Zionazi psychopaths show, they mix a series of ancient and modern psychoses
into a maelstrom of hatred and destructiveness seen in policies like the Samson Option, the
Oded Yinon Plan and the drive for endless war against their myriad goy enemies, that simply
guarantees Israel's eventual destruction, and that, so they often promise, of us all.
Look beyond the superficial details of the West's hostile actions, and take heart. NOTHING
has changed about the West's intentions to Russia, other than that the pretence is over. West
is full of good people, but the leaderships kneel to a hidden power. It has been that way for
a long time.
The worst possible strategic position was for Russia not to know that, or to be divided by
an enduring pro-west movement.
Russia is now besieged, but it always was, without really knowing it. Now there is
clarity, and the country can unite.
So take heart. Even on this blog, some will not be able to come to terms today, with
West's treachery. As a Serb, I saw it all before, it is not new, it was always there. Russia
was always in the cross-hairs, and now it is their turn again.
There is one chain of command in the west, and it is indeed an empire. If Russia has
awoken from it's naivety, slumber, and need to believe in an imaginary friend, who always had
a hidden knife, then we are good.
I expect every effort will now be made to derail the world cup. Pardon the pun, but it
will be another own goal. Zog showed itself, and we can see its true intentions.
Yes, Russia was naive in it's belief that the US was their 'partner'. I cringe every time I
hear Putin say that. US is NOT their partner, does NOT want Russia to be sovereign, wants
only a vassal Russia, where everything is open to their taking. I'm glad that Putin and many
Russians are now losing some of their naivety and are finally realizing that US does NOT have
Russia's interests at heart at all, but is, in reality, a treacherous, envious rival that
would love to see all Russians bleed and die, if that meant US could take over the land and
assets. The vassal EU and the totally repugnant UK are willing to follow US lead anywhere it
takes them – even like lemmings over a cliff, which is what's happening now. The cliff
is WWIII of which there will be NO winners.
Putin was making an offer when he referred to the 'west' as partners. Take it in that regard.
Putin does not seem to be silly nor naive. But by referring to the west as partners, he was
extending an olive branch and make an offer to the west. That offer has by now obviously been
declined.
I knew the world cup was unlikely when the US was knocked out from qualifying by ..
Guatemala. It was the biggest dive ever in football. No complaints back home from a
cancellation, I thought.
The world cup is proceding as planned. A nuclear war might prevent it, but otherwise its
still on.
Notice that all that's been done is 'diplomatic boycotts'. That's a purely symbolic
measure, and all it means is that Russia won't have to host a group of government officials
who otherwise would take an all expense paid vacation to a futbol tourney.
The English football coach said very openly that he doesn't care what BoJoke says or
thinks. And there is no way the English would withdraw their futbol team. Germany is also
very unlikely to refuse to defend their championship. German fans are highly unlikely to pass
up a short trip to see their team play. And so far even German politicians aren't going the
symbolic diplomatic boycott route. Same with most other EU countries.
What is going on against Corbyn is disgusting, it seems they have gone now in a frontal
attack on all fronts.
It is a sign that something is nearing it's end phase.
The west funded and supported the Russian revolution and installed the communists. Those
communists were also harbored in the west before the revolution. Germany and the U.S. were
financially backing that coup.
1
5 0 On Monday, a number of European countries, as well as the United States and Canada,
announced they were expelling Russian diplomats over the Skripal case. Radio Sputnik discussed
the significance of the diplomatic response by the Western powers with Srdja Trifkovic, a US
journalist and writer on international affairs. Sputnik: What is your overall assessment about
what has happened with this diplomatic response by so many countries? How significant is it?
Srdja Trifkovic: The overall impression is that
rational discourse has given way to collective hysteria and that it is indeed remarkable.
The extent to which the bandwagon has successfully started rolling while we don't even have
elementary answers to the questions concerning the case itself.
The second important and discouraging aspect is that continental European countries have
followed the Anglo-American lead in Russophobia and this represents a further trial of the
Atlanticist domination over Europe. It is indeed remarkable when both Germany and France, the
putative leaders of independent European foreign policy, have been reduced to the status of
automatic followers of the lead supported by Washington especially when we bear in mind that
the initial round of sanctions in 2014 against Russia was dictated by the United States which
had nothing to lose in the proceedings and to the detriments of Europeans' interests.
So overall I think that, one we have the hysterical phase of Russophobic
discourse in the West which is not amenable to any rational arguments and two, we have a
successful degradation of European diplomacy to the status of pliant satellites comparable to
East Germany and Bulgaria vis-à-vis Brezhnev.
Sputnik: Do you think there was some classified evidence that was presented that proves
beyond a shadow of doubt that Russia was involved or do you think that the fact that there are
11 countries who have not joined in the protest perhaps hints at the fact that this was not the
case?
Srdja Trifkovic: Well, first of all, I would say that President Putin, Foreign Minister
Lavrov and others would not have made such categorical denials of Russian involvement if there
was any possibility of a smoking gun which could effectively show to the world that they were
not telling the truth.
And secondly, it is always possible to present some equivocal
evidence in the form that even if that indicates the modus operandi of intelligence
agencies nevertheless does not disclose outright state secrets. In fact, we've seen that in the
past and I don't think that it would be possible for such confidential information to be
disclosed to the diplomats and foreign ministers of EU countries as divergent as the 27 are,
without risking these very sources.
So I really believe that if you look at the countries which have taken measures against
Russia, they almost read like who is who of those who are prepared to follow the US lead and if
you look at those reluctant to do so, including Austria, Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, we are
looking at those who actually have a more independent foreign policy. So I don't think it's a
reflection of the quality of possible intelligence, it is simply a reflection of the
determination of decision-makers of those countries to preserve a modicum of independence.
Sputnik: What would you say about the level to which the actions that were actually taken by
individual countries? What can you say about the numbers game that's being played? What do you
think determined the number of diplomats?
Srdja Trifkovic: Some of these countries are absolutely insignificant countries like the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which also expelled one Russian and it's just a pathetic
non country. On the other hand in the United States obviously it is a matter of regret that
President Trump's initially stated intention to have detente with Russia has been subverted by
the deep state, it is a long story but now we have really reached the end of the road with the
appointment of Pompeo to State Department and Bolton as the national security adviser.
So we can really look at Trump as the would-be drainer of the swamp who has been swallowed
by the swamp. And I think that we are in for a long haul. I was in Moscow two weeks ago and
coming again next week and sometimes I am surprised that some of my Russian interlocutors are
insufficiently aware of the animosity or end of the rule Russophobic sentiment that currently
prevails among the Western elites, both political and academic and media. It's almost pathetic
when some Russians still use the term "our Western partners," because for partnership you need
to have a modicum of mutual respect and trust and these people really seriously want to destroy
Russia.
They want to delegitimize the Russian political system and process as we have seen with the
public commentary on President Putin's re-election and they want nothing short of regime
change, which would then lead to a permanent and irreversible change of Russia's national
character and possibly the country's partition along the lines allocated by Zbigniew
Brzezinski. With these people partnership is impossible and Russia needs to be prepared for a
long and sustained
period of confrontation .
The views and opinions expressed by Srdja Trifkovic are those of the speaker and do not
necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
"... "[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance," ..."
"... "America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," ..."
"... "If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on Russia," ..."
"... "getting tough on Russia." ..."
"... "The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's not acceptable," ..."
"... "Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas there is definitely not something we can accept.'" ..."
"... "We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," ..."
Once again, the West has tossed out the democratic baby with the bath water, scapegoating
Russia for a mysterious crime on UK territory without a shred of evidence. To understand why,
just follow the money. Any hope that Western capitals would come to their democratic senses and
demand that PM Theresa May provide some proof that Russia was behind an alleged assassination
attempt on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian intelligence officer turned British spy, were
dashed on Monday. Sixteen EU states fell in lockstep behind the US
and UK, taking the dramatic measure of banishing Russian diplomats.
Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian
mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover.
pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6
Meanwhile, back in the land of the free, Trump enthusiastically joined the inquisition,
saying he would expel 60 Russian diplomats 'personae non grata,' and shut down the Seattle
consulate. Good to see that the American leader practices cool-headed moderation in times of
uncertainty.
Short of an actual military conflict with Russia, it would be hard to imagine the situation
getting any worse. Most worrisome is the peddling of pulp-fiction conspiracy theories against
Russia, which compels Western officials to compensate for their wild imaginations with
hysterical, inflammatory outbursts that border on sheer madness.
How else to explain the comment by UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, who spoke like a
kid at the playground when he said Russia "should go away
and shut up;" or that of Boris Johnson, the British foreign minister, who had the audacity
and historical ignorance to compare Russia's hosting
of this year's World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany.
So, what is motivating self-satisfied Western countries, like the US and Britain, to forward
such slanderous claims against Russia without a hint of legal due process? After all, it cannot
be denied that Russia would have stood to gain nothing from targeting Skripal.
"[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should
Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If
he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance,"
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in an exclusive
interview with RT.
When we ask the question, 'Cui bono' – who stands to benefit the most from an
assassination attempt on a man of absolutely no consequence to Moscow – the most credible
answer always comes back to 'Russia's accusers.'
Follow the money
Since Washington has taken by far the severest steps against Russia over the Skripal
fallout, it would be fair to ask if the US stands to gain anything from the wave of Russophobia
now sweeping the West, which got its start, incidentally, as a direct result of
'Russiagate.'
Against the backdrop of the Skripal scandal are extremely lucrative gas contracts with EU
countries that Russia has dutifully fulfilled since the Soviet heydays. Today, Russia supplies
about 40 percent of Europe's gas. The US, however, with its fracking-backed liquefied natural
gas (LNG) program, is anxious to get a piece of the pie.
In July, Donald Trump paid a visit to Poland, where he pledged to boost exports of LNG to
Central Europe, as well as challenge Russia's market on energy supplies.
"America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy
supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," Trump told
reporters after talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comment was odd since, even at the height of the Cold War, Europe never froze due to its
gas being turned off in the middle of the night by Moscow.
Marek Matraszek, founder of the lobby firm CEC Government Relations, offered a very
disturbing comment about Washington's push to supply LNG to Europe.
"If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to
see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on
Russia," Matraszek said
.
I am very curious to know exactly what Matraszek had in mind when he spoke about
"getting tough on Russia." Would he approve of the current bilateral breakdown between
the nuclear powers? I certainly hope not.
In light of the massive prospects for gross profit on the European continent, would Western
capitals not be tempted – tempted, at the very least – to deny Moscow the benefit
of the doubt whenever highly suspicious criminal cases arise, like the present one regarding
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia?
In an effort to slander Russia and push it out of lucrative markets, they may be tempted to
milk the situation for all its worth – which is exactly what is happening now. To doubt
that possibility would require a deep misunderstanding of the geopolitical realities as they
have played out over the course of the last decade, complete with a massive propaganda campaign
aimed at everything related to Russia – from the Olympic Games to anti-terrorist
operations in Syria to criminal cases in
foreign lands.
Meanwhile, as the showdown between the US and Russia over EU gas supplies festers,
especially in light of Nord Stream 2, the German-Russia venture that would double direct Russia
gas supplies, the ongoing US sanction regime against Russia is beginning to look suspect.
Commenting on Trump's passage in August of brand new sanctions against Russia, then German
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel was brave enough to mention the elephant in the room.
"The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's
not acceptable," he
said .
"Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and
saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas
there is definitely not something we can accept.'"
Meanwhile, it is not only in the energy sector where the United States - and to a lesser
degree the UK - stands to gain from wrecked relations with Russia, but in the defense sector as
well.
The UK regularly
ranks as Europe's leading weapons exporter, behind the United States globally, which
remains the world's leading arms exporter. Much of the expenditure comes from NATO member
states, which were just put on notice by Trump to keep their military spending at 2 percent of
GDP, at the very same time Washington was going out of its way to portray
Russia as a belligerent nation, when it has been the West that has been hell-bent on fomenting
regime change around the world. Now that's certainly an interesting sales strategy.
Romanian Prime Minister @VioricaDancila said that the
government decisions to purchase #HIMARS missile
systems and multirole corvettes were important steps in improving the capability of the
Romanian armed forces as a @NATO and EU member #defencepic.twitter.com/EEYk4Sk5MR
Can this propaganda campaign against Russia work? I believe the answer is no, for many
reasons. First, it is not just the Russians who understand that they are being played by major
powers in a conspicuous attempt to gain geopolitical and economic advantage.
Thus far, nearly half of the EU's member states have refrained from
committing a gesture of "solidarity" with London, deciding not to expel Russian diplomats.
Those 'conscientious objectors' are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg,
Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
"We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," Austrian
government spokesperson Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal told RIA Novosti.
In many ways, this represents a victory for Russia – albeit a bittersweet one –
that London failed to get so many countries on board its anti-Russia juggernaut.
This needs to be emphasized. The majority of the EU countries did not join in this mass
expulsion. As for those that did, expulsions were mostly pro forma, undertaken in order to
keep the British happy. Why then the wildly disproportionate response from Trump? https://t.co/4FldvIS80W
Second, Russia is actively diversifying its economy away from Western markets in preparation
for a worse-case scenario. For example, the "$55bn Power of Siberia pipeline will start
carrying gas 3,000km to China next year. The company is also spending $13bn on a pipeline to
Turkey," the Financial Times reported.
Finally, as Russia understands that they are up against some very dishonest players, the
country has made tremendous inroads to producing many of the things it once depended upon
imports to have, and we are not just talking about cheese. The Russian authorities have even
prepared a backup plan in the
event that Russia is terminated from the SWIFT international payment system. Although, of
course, Russia would prefer not to have to take such drastic steps, the unfortunate situation
in many Western capitals, where otherwise intelligent people are pointing fingers and hurling
unfounded accusations at Russia, without critical evidence or due process – once
hallmarks of the Western judicial system – make such steps absolutely vital.
All things considered, Russia will survive this storm, as it has done so many other times in
the past against far graver enemies, and stronger than ever.
I have known both Brennan and Giraldi for a long time. They are examples of the worst
(Brennan) and the best (Giraldi) that the CIA has produced although I will remind that Giraldi
started in the Army and was lured to Langley when already a well known and respected person in
the intelligence community.
Brennan, at the beginning of his career was judged by CIA to be unsuited to be a field man
and was made an analyst. I first knew him when I was Defense Attache in Jiddah and he was
attached to Alan Fiers office. It was clear to me from the beginning that he was someone whom
you should not trust or turn your back on.
Giraldi here lays out the case for Brennan's turpitude. Let Sessions act on this! Let him
act! pl
1. That will undermines further the US political system (which already is weakened by
this slash and burn anti-Trump campaign, or color revolution, if you wish) and might open a
can of worms. For example, Brennan was a really big player in Obama administration and
probably was behind Nulandgate (UNZ comment):
JR says:
March 27, 2018 at 6:24 am GMT
Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian
army launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end
of February 2014.
2. Who might be able to do it ? Definitely not Trump Justice Department. They appointed
Mueller to investigate Trump. Which is an action in the opposite direction.
3. Brennan probably is the key person behind Russiagate and color revolution against
Trump that still is running unabated. And that means that he has influential friends in
high places. Including UK (the origin of Steele dossier, in which he was probably
personally involved too ). Attacking Brennan might be viewed as an attack of this trusted
ally. UNZ has several insightful comments on the topic. As Art said:
Art says:
March 27, 2018 at 8:38 pm GMT • 200 Words
How Brennan came to power, should draw questions. Was the dethroning of Gen. David
Petraeus, as CIA chief, a palace coup? Was Brennan spying on Petraeus? Was the NSA
tapping his phones? Did the idea that a military man was heading the CIA, anathema to the
institution – so they got rid of him?
Just how much actual power does the CIA have in the American permanent Deep State?
Congress is NO check on the CIA – all the politicians on the intel security
committees are handpicked dedicated worshipers.
The CIA is the most anti democracy organization on the planet. From its beginning, it
has played with, subverted, and toppled democracies and sovereign governments. Today it
assonates, tortures, and bombs people around the world. (Has Trump given them a free
hand?)
The commie cold war is over – let's not start another one. The CIA's covert
activities must stop.
(Spying is rational.)
4. After a short initial period intelligence agencies become untouchable and the tail
start wagging the dog (from the Art comment above): "Congress is NO check on the CIA
– all the politicians on the intel security committees are handpicked dedicated
worshipers. " Here we return to q.2 "Who might be able to do it ? " and we know the
answer.
"... My short visit only confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. ..."
"... Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, announced the formation of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each followed by their sect and ethnicity . Many of the Iraqis we spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade, went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world. ..."
"... The next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis. ..."
"... I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale, dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. ..."
"... Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter . ..."
Photo
A statue of Saddam Hussein
in front of the burning National Olympic Committee in Baghdad in 2003.
Credit
Tyler Hicks/The New
York Times
When I was 12, Saddam
Hussein, vice president of Iraq at the time, carried out a huge purge and officially usurped total power. I was
living in Baghdad then, and I developed an intuitive, visceral hatred of the dictator early on. That feeling only
intensified and matured as I did. In the late 1990s, I wrote my first novel, "I'jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody," about
daily life under Saddam's authoritarian regime. Furat, the narrator
,
was a young college student
studying English literature at Baghdad University, as I had. He ends up in prison for cracking a joke about the
dictator. Furat hallucinates and imagines Saddam's fall, just as I often did. I hoped I would witness that
moment, whether in Iraq or from afar.
I left Iraq a few months
after the 1991 Gulf War and went to graduate school in the United States, where I've been ever since. In 2002,
when the cheerleading for the Iraq war started, I was vehemently against the proposed invasion. The United States
had consistently supported dictators in the Arab world and was not in the business of exporting democracy,
irrespective of the Bush administration's slogans. I recalled sitting in my family's living room with my aunt
when I was a teenager, watching Iraqi television and seeing Donald Rumsfeld visiting Baghdad as an emissary from
Ronald Reagan and
shaking hands with Saddam
. That
memory made Mr. Rumsfeld's words in 2002 about freedom and democracy for Iraqis seem hollow. Moreover, having
lived through two previous wars (the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War of 1991), I knew that the
actual objectives of war were always camouflaged by well-designed lies that exploit collective fear and
perpetuate national myths.
I was one of about 500
Iraqis in the diaspora -- of various ethnic and political backgrounds, many of whom were dissidents and victims of
Saddam's regime -- who signed a petition: "No to war on Iraq. No to dictatorship." While condemning Saddam's reign
of terror, we were against a "war that would cause more death and suffering" for innocent Iraqis and one that
threatened to push the entire region into violent chaos. Our voices were not welcomed in mainstream media in the
United States, which preferred the pro-war Iraqi-American who promised cheering crowds that would welcome
invaders with "sweets and flowers." There were none.
The petition didn't make
much of an impact. Fifteen years ago today, the invasion of Iraq began.
Three months later, I
returned to Iraq for the first time since 1991 as part of a collective to film a documentary about Iraqis in a
post-Saddam Iraq. We wanted to show my countrymen as three-dimensional beings, beyond the binary of Saddam versus
the United States. In American media, Iraqis had been reduced to either victims of Saddam who longed for
occupation or supporters and defenders of dictatorship who opposed the war. We wanted Iraqis to speak for
themselves. For two weeks, we drove around Baghdad and spoke to many of its residents. Some were still hopeful,
despite being drained by years of sanctions and dictatorship. But many were furious and worried about what was to
come. The signs were already there: the typical arrogance and violence of a colonial occupying power.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial
board and contributing writers from around the world.
My short visit only
confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a
byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a
dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. We were still filming in Baghdad when L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the
Coalition Provisional Authority,
announced the formation
of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each
followed by their
sect and ethnicity
. Many of the Iraqis we
spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and
sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory
characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade,
went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world.
We
were fortunate to have been able to shoot our film in that brief period during which there was relative public
security. Shortly after our visit, Iraq descended into violence; suicide bombings became the norm. The invasion
made my country a magnet for terrorists ("We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," President
George W. Bush had said), and Iraq later descended into a sectarian civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds
of thousands of civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands more, irrevocably changing the country's
demography.
The
next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were
everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and
horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis.
My last visit was in April
2017. I flew from New York, where I now live, to Kuwait, where I was giving a lecture. An Iraqi friend and I crossed
the border by land. I was going to the city of Basra, in the south of Iraq. Basra was the only major Iraqi city I had
not visited before. I was going to sign my books at the Friday book market of al-Farahidi Street, a weekly gathering
for bibliophiles modeled after the famous
Mutanabbi Street book market
in Baghdad. I was driven around by friends. I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd
seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city
had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale,
dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. Nonetheless, I made a
pilgrimage to the famous statue of Iraq's greatest poet, Badr Shakir al-Sayyab.
One of the few sources of joy
for me during these short visits were the encounters with Iraqis who had read my novels and were moved by them. These
were novels I had written from afar, and through them, I tried to grapple with the painful disintegration of an
entire country and the destruction of its social fabric. These texts are haunted by the ghosts of the dead, just as
their author is.
No one knows for certain how
many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion 15 years ago. Some credible estimates put the number at more than
one million. You can read that sentence again. The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a
"blunder," or even a "colossal mistake." It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them
have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry. (A year ago, I
watched Mr. Bush on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," dancing and talking about his paintings.) The pundits and "experts"
who sold us the war still go on doing what they do. I never thought that Iraq could ever be worse than it was during
Saddam's reign, but that is what America's war achieved and bequeathed to Iraqis.
"... Much of what Cambridge Analytica claimed to be able to do for its clients has an exaggerated ring to it. As with the Steele dossier, several of the Cambridge Analytica documents are unintentionally funny, such as a letter from Aleksandr Kogan, the Russian-American academic researcher, suggesting that finding out if people used crossbows or believed in paganism would be useful traits on which to focus. ..."
"... What is lacking in these scandals is much real evidence that Russian "meddling" or Cambridge Analytica "harvesting" – supposing all these tales are true – really did much to determine the outcome of the US election. Keep in mind that many very astute and experienced American politicians, backed by billions of dollars, regularly try and fail to decide who will hold political office in the US. ..."
Many people who hate and fear Donald Trump feel that only political
black magic or some form of trickery can explain his election as US President. They convince
themselves that we are the victims of a dark conspiracy rather than that the world we live in
is changing, and changing for the worse.
Cambridge
Analytica has now joined Russia at the top of a list of conspirators who may have helped
Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. This is satisfactory for Democrats as it shows that they
ought to have won, and delegitimises Trump's mandate.
In the Russian and Cambridge Analytica scandals, dodgy characters abound who claim to have a
direct line to Putin or Trump, or to have secret information about political opponents or a
unique method of swaying the voting intentions of millions of Americans. The most doubtful
evidence is treated as credible.
The dossier by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, about Trump's
romps in Moscow, struck me when I first read it as hilarious but entirely unbelievable. The US
media thought the same when this document was first being hawked around Washington before the
election, and refused to publish it. It was only after Trump was elected that that they and the
US security agencies claimed to find it in any way credible.
Much of what Cambridge Analytica claimed to be able to do for its clients has an exaggerated
ring to it. As with the Steele dossier, several of the Cambridge Analytica documents are
unintentionally funny, such as a letter from Aleksandr Kogan, the Russian-American academic
researcher, suggesting that finding out if people used crossbows or believed in paganism would
be useful traits on which to focus.
We are told that Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users have been "harvested" (a
good menacing word in this context, suggesting that the poor old users are being chopped off at
the ankles), and that information so garnered could be fed into the Trump campaign to put him
over the top on election day. In reality, information gathered from such a large number of
people is too generalised or too obvious to be of much use.
What is lacking in these scandals is much real evidence that Russian "meddling" or Cambridge
Analytica "harvesting" – supposing all these tales are true – really did much to
determine the outcome of the US election. Keep in mind that many very astute and experienced
American politicians, backed by billions of dollars, regularly try and fail to decide who will
hold political office in the US.
It simply is not very likely that the Kremlin – having shown extraordinary foresight
in seeing that Trump stood a chance when nobody else did – was able to exercise
significant influence on the US polls. Likewise, for all its bombastic sales pitch, Cambridge
Analytica was really a very small player in the e-campaign.
The Russian "meddling" story (again, note the careful choice of words, because "meddling"
avoids any claim that the Russian actions had any impact) and the Cambridge Analytica saga are
essentially conspiracy theories. They may damage those targeted such as Trump, but they also do
harm to his opponents because it means that they do not look deeply enough into the real
reasons for their defeat in 2016, or do enough to prevent it happening again.
Since Clinton lost the election by less than 1 per cent of the vote in the crucial swing
states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, almost anything that happened in the campaign
can be portrayed as decisive. But there are plenty of common-sense reasons for her defeat which
are now being submerged and forgotten, as the Democrats and a largely sympathetic media look to
Russian plots and such like to show that Trump won the election unfairly.
It is worth looking again at Hillary Clinton's run-for-office in 2016 to take a more
rational view of why she unexpectedly lost. A good place to start is Shattered: Inside
Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign , by the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes,
which was published a year ago and is based on interviews with senior campaign staffers.
Ironically, the Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook based his approach on a similar sort of
analysis of vast quantities of data about voters that Cambridge Analytica claimed it could use
to great effect.
Mook's conviction that this data was a sure guide to where to invest the Democrats' best
efforts had disastrous consequences, even though Clinton outspent Trump by 2 to 1. For
instance, she did not campaign in Wisconsin after winning the nomination, because her election
team thought she was bound to win there. She put too little effort into campaigning in
Michigan, though her weakness there was underlined there in March when she lost the primary to
Bernie Sanders.
Traditional tools of electioneering such as polls and door-to-door canvassing were
discounted by Mook, who was absorbed by his own analytical model of how the election was going.
In major swing states, the book says that "he declined to use pollsters to track voter
preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign".
Clinton carried a lot of political baggage because she had been demonised by the Republicans
for 25 years. She had bad lluck, such the decision of the FBI director, James Comey, to send a
letter to Congress about her emails two weeks before the election – but Trump somehow
managed to survive even worse disasters, such as boasting of how he groped women.
Opponents of Trump tend to underestimate him because they are convinced that his faults are
so evident that he will implode when the electorate find him out. Somehow they never do, or at
least not those parts of the electorate which votes for him.
The very scandals that Trump's critics believe will sink him have enabled him dominate the
news agenda in a way no American politician has ever done before. The New York Times
and CNN may detest him, but they devote an extraordinary proportion of their news
output to covering his every action.
The accusation that the Kremlin and companies like Cambridge Analytica put Trump in the
White House may do him damage. But I suspect that the damage will mostly be among people who
never liked him and would never vote for him.
Perhaps the one thing would have lost Trump the election is if his campaign had truly relied
on Cambridge Analytica's data about the political proclivities of pagan crossbow
enthusiasts.
"... Of course the CIA 'interfered' in the 2016 Presidential election. But our Elites do not want that discussed as a mere possibility. We might also look more closely at the CIA and the JFK assassination. ..."
"... The CIA is the child of British imperial secret service, as are the Mossad and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse. ..."
"... Why Mueller? Brennan isn't a president, or even a government official at all. He's a former federal employee who is wide open to investigation by the DOJ. Brennan's past terms employment are an open book to the DOJ or to Congress. ..."
"... John Brennan may well be the most dangerous and dirty CIA director in the Company's history. ..."
"... If the USA empire could have been established and maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the expression for the British empire. ..."
"... Which brings us to John Brennan, the Central Intelligence Agency's chief under President Obama, who rushed to MSNBC this week to claim: "The fact that he has had this fawning attitude towards Mr. Putin and has not said anything negative about him, it continues to say something to me that he has something to fear and something serious to fear [from Russia]." ..."
"... Uh huh. Presidents have secrets but they also have power, so if you think they are easily blackmailable, Mr. Brennan may have a third-rate spy novel to sell you. What occurred to anybody who has followed matters closely was a different thought: Mr. Brennan, who has a few things to hide himself, has decided his best defense is a strong offense. ..."
"... For the truth is, Mr. Trump's version of the loudmouth demagogue is increasingly coming out on the better side of the emerging facts on Russia. The Kremlin wasn't the most consequential meddler in the 2016 election: It was James Comey's FBI, with Mr. Brennan standing obscurely at his elbow every step of the way. ..."
"... If a planted Russian intercept was instrumental in the fiasco of Mr. Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter, as numerous leaks indicate, then that intercept would have come from Mr. Brennan's CIA. What's more, it likely came not with a shrug, but with a clear expectation that Mr. Comey would act to protect a Clinton presidency from an alleged Russian plot. ..."
"... John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I don't dare speculate what their real name is. ..."
"... Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either. ..."
"... Is this trolling or naïvete? All US investigating agencies are complicit, so who is going to investigate investigators? ..."
"... Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal" because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest. ..."
Trump is clearly having a perilous time trying to put together a defense team. He is made to
look the fool on an hourly basis. It isn't even news anymore. Fans of his in the media were
complaining about the 60 Minutes broadcast asking isn't "there more" in terms of news
value?
It was with that pending backdrop that we heard from Brennan. It took no courage. Trump is
in the ring and he's battered. Make no mistake others heard what Brennan was making clear.
Yes, Trump is headed for the "dustbin" and it's just a matter of how. Brennan was telling
those that matter to back off and let it happen. Quality legal counsel trust Trump about as
much as Brennan does.
We saw the large number of Russians tossed out yesterday. Trump acquiesced, though made no
statement. The decision was probably taken while the president was preparing for his Florida
break and how best to react to his porn actress assignation, that never happened (in his
mind).
The system is obviously sick to the point of degeneracy yet some still proclaim that it
can still be "reformed" if we somehow manage to magically get the right guy into the
m̶o̶n̶a̶r̶c̶h̶y̶, I mean prezudensy.
'Taint gonna happen goys 'n squirrels.
It is a system that robs all who work for a living.
What, -- did I hear you say that this of which we have spoken, gives employment to lots
of people? That is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person, yet that statement
is excusable as long as we continue the existing business and political scheme. As things
now are, the main thing aimed at by the wealth grabbers is to use us -- to make of us mere
machines to wear out in producing wealth for them.
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Why is your country at war and what happens to you after the war,
and related subjects, p 36-7. (1917)
Thanks to President Truman for both the CIA and recognizing the spawning of Israel, two
demonic entities that have and continue to give both America and the world an endless amount
of trouble, while leeching money out of our economy.
Thank Mr. Giraldi for not babbling on about the latest washed up porn star who claims that
Trump bedded her, which makes for endless conversations among the rubes, while the CIA
continues on with its world-wide assassination program, moving paid for jihadists to Syria,
helping the head-chopping Saudi dictator remain in office, running opium out of Afghanistan
and making sure 90% of the MSM keeps feeding toxic slop to people in the guise of news.
Of course the CIA 'interfered' in the 2016 Presidential election. But our Elites do
not want that discussed as a mere possibility. We might also look more closely at the CIA and
the JFK assassination.
The CIA is the child of British imperial secret service, as are the Mossad and the
Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Morell:
"commitment to our nation's security: her belief that America is an exceptional nation that
must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding
that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use
force if necessary; and her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all: whether to
put young American women and men in harm's way."
What a fine chunk of bullsheat. I wonder how long it took him to come up with that.
Everybody with over 100 IQ knows who steers foreign policy, and they are not American
patriots.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, of course the director is a criminal, judged by common
standards.
If the CIA manipulated elections, I doubt, as nearly all military, they're not very
intelligent.
Only a mighty revolution will even begin to drain the massive D.C. swamp of the
deleterious scum and muck that fills it.
However it has to be a revolution of the spirit and it has to be continuous as you no
doubt already know.
Violent revolutions quickly burn themselves out and are soon co-opted by the usual sleaze.
It's very apparent it even happened to the much vaunted Am Rev, and we see the inevitable
results today. There never, ever, shall be any MAGA. It's merely circus time rhetoric and we
all know that there's a sucker born every minute.
"But while I beheld with pleasure the dawn of liberty rising in Europe, I saw with
regret the lustre of it fading in America
But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first
principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the
people as hereditary property."
THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
And particularly to the Leaders of the Federal Faction.
LETTER I, Nov 15, 1802
"Brennan should be thoroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, "
Why Mueller? Brennan isn't a president, or even a government official at all. He's a
former federal employee who is wide open to investigation by the DOJ. Brennan's past terms
employment are an open book to the DOJ or to Congress.
It probably wouldn't take a week for felony charges to be brought against him and he could
be in jail waiting for a trial. Any ordinary citizen is subject to being hounded by the FBI
and charged with multiple felonies, having charges piled up against him until he agrees to
bargain with a guilty plea.
That happens all the time to ordinary citizens. The same could be done to Brennan, who is
just another civilian now. I guess, though, that we would need to have an AG who would be
willing to target a fellow Swamp Creature.
The government will never investigate Brennan or any of the other deep state organs as they
are controlled by the Zionists who also control every facet of the gov, and this control was
proven by the fact that Israel and the deep state did 911 and got away with it.
They might as well call for a real investigation of 911, have a snowballs chance in hell
of getting that done.
You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a
sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.
First of all, Judo is a sport. It's not a "martial art". It's not meant to maim or injure
-- though of course, people do get injured because they get thrown. Every particular
technique that could inevitably result in injury has been culled from the sport. You don't
"practice" Judo, you "play" it -- literally, that's what they say when talking about
participation.
Practice sessions are democratic. Everyone practices against everyone else. Of course,
this results in mismatches as rank beginners will at some point be paired up with advanced
players. But this mismatch doesn't result in humiliation because the advanced take special
pains to play cleanly, pull their throws i.e. execute them perfectly so the person thrown can
land without injury to themselves and it also is an opportunity for every good Judoka to
teach the novices.
There are some people who come to Judo who don't fit in. They standout because they can be
seen really playing rough with those who are lower in rank than them. But this doesn't go
unnoticed. As people cycle through opponents during the practice session, the bully will
eventually be paired up with someone who is better than they are. And they will be taught a
lesson. Either they learn and conform to the rules or they never show up again. Judo weeds
out opportunistic bullies.
Now I hope the above helps people better understand Putin. To sum up: he is competitive
but will try to win fairly, within the prescribed rules. He won't tolerate bullying by the
stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the aid of the weaker. Has a strong sense of
tradition, of belonging to a school of thought and action that is greater than himself and
that is worth preserving for its own sake, believes and more importantly, knows through
experience, that belonging to such a school improves individual character. He is competent.
I've seen film of him in practice and his technique is quite good. His third degree black
belt was honestly earned, it wasn't an honorary award.
From the above it can be seen why he would have little respect for the current crop of
weak, cowardly, politicians who rule America, lacking as they are in discipline, integrity
and dedication to a larger, noble cause. He would, in fact, find it hard not to hold them in
contempt but, keeping his eyes on the long-term goals of what's good for his country, masters
his emotions when dealing with them face to face.
Not all CIA is bad believe it or not..
Meet CIA Intelligence Officer Michael Scheuer, says Parkland and Las Vegas shootings were
false flags and FBI is covering them up. Goes on to encourage Americans to arm themselves and
stockpile ammo, seems he knows something we don't.
Trump should hire this guy, he doesn't mince words when it comes to Israel either, he is da
man.
If only America had more guys like this in govt, how awesome would America be?
Former CIA Intelligence Officer Dr. Michael Scheuer
You have half a point, from my reading, Truman turned OSS into CIA. Do you think there was
some magical and instant change in the organisation?
On Israel, he may have been having his shoulders twisted, but his writings are very clear
that he found the proto-neocons to be very irritating, specifically the new arrivals from
Europe.
As an outside observer, and excepting the cruel continuing of LeMay's firebombing and the
two atomic bombs, the latter and former clearly war crimes, taking their records into
account, I can not think of one U.S.A. president who was any good since Harding. Perhaps
Coolidge.
They all have their moments, whether the moments are good, bad or meaningless, but the bad
is always outweighing the good.
Philip Giraldi wrote: "Time to find out if CIA interfered in the 2016 election."
Hi Phil,
If Brennan's CIA did not interfere in the volatile 2016 election, I'd be rather
disappointed in them. Will explain. CIA Directors are typically partisan to whichever
political party appoints them to serve. The agency has a long history of interference in
foreign government elections, and a willingness to serve major corporate interests and
foreign governments, i.e., Israel, those interests above & beyond dumb goyim basic
needs.
Consequently, when a solid argument (with evidence) is made that CIA interfered in the
2016 presidential election, the first thing that must be cleared up is the "smoke" that the
CIA works to defend the integrity of American "elections" which allot no other citizen option
but to tolerate and accept Jewish Lobbies who influence (determine) both the outcome of
Congressional & Executive offices.
No doubt, our country's sorry fate would be comforted by a high profile investigation into
Brennan. However, who will conduct such investigation. Robert Mueller who was FBI Director
during the uninvestigated 9/11 attacks?
And then we have 9/11′s CIA Director, George Tenet. I have no clue about CIA funding
for it's operations, but given the huge annual budget allotment to the ZUS Department of
Defense, how was it possible for ESPECIALLY the Pentagon to get victimized by a commercial
airplane attack.
Even moreso than Brennan, does ex-Director Tenet deserve to stand accountable to a serious
criminal coverup investigation, which of course would be the nation's first?
Below is a You Tube video that features an interesting interview with Mark Rossini,
former-FBI "Counter Terrorism" agent and who served under Robert Mueller's command.
Minus any reference to (well known) nefarious Mossad activities in the U.S., Mr. Rossini
tells a passionate story about his attempts to call attention to troublesome Saudi operations
in the "Homeland" prior to 9/11 and how his agency was "coddling the Saudis."
Yes, to expose ex-Director Brennan's more recent "lies" is very necessary. But the man
stood atop an agency that set an incredible example of "by deception we do war" and the
collateral damage is
mankind. "Let's roll!"
Thank you, Philip.
Selah, Great and Holy Tuesday Commemoration of the Ten Wise Virgins (Mt 25:14)
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
John Brennan may well be the most dangerous and dirty CIA director in the Company's
history. I think he was engaging in projection when he uttered the above comments.
The true darkness at the heart of the 2016 'hacked' election story is that the Podesta
emails revealed the existence of a pedophile cult in the upper echelons of D.C. society. And
that John Podesta, a long-time CIA asset, was running the cult as an influence and blackmail
operation. Brennan's hands were deep into that miasma, and he has been working overtime at
misdirection since the election.
No fan of Trump and his crew here, but the other team, the D.C. establishment, are much
worse.
We had our bipartisan corporate tax reduction, one of only two things our partisans can agree
on. The other is the ongoing war to make Israel Great. Rinse and repeat.
Depends on what you see as bad. If the USA empire could have been established and
maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the
expression for the British empire.
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003,
2007, Chalford -- Stroud
How an important British diplomat saw British control of the greater part of the world as
the natural order of things
Lord Vansittart, 'The Mist Procession, The autobiography of LORD VANSITTART', London
1958
Great pity that death prevented the biography from going furher than 1938.
The machinations of Vansittart during the thirties are described in
Philip M. Taylor, 'The Projection of Britain, British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda
1919-1939′, Cambridge 1981
and
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The ideas of Vansittart's friend Leeper one finds in
Sir Reginald Leeper, 'When Greek Meets Greek', London 1950
He more or less ruled Greece from 1945 to say 1950.
Holman Jenkins Jr, Wall Street Journal columnist, is a cranky writer who was wrong about
which faction to support in a New Hampshire supermarket war, but he is right when he suggests
that John Brennan has decided that a good offense is the best defense. Call it the John
Brennan attempt to replicate the Dan Fouts-era San Diego Chargers strategy of piling up the
passing yards and the points and hoping that you have more points at the end of the game than
your opponent.
Holman Jenkins Jr:
Which brings us to John Brennan, the Central Intelligence Agency's chief under
President Obama, who rushed to MSNBC this week to claim: "The fact that he has had this
fawning attitude towards Mr. Putin and has not said anything negative about him, it
continues to say something to me that he has something to fear and something serious to
fear [from Russia]."
Uh huh. Presidents have secrets but they also have power, so if you think they are
easily blackmailable, Mr. Brennan may have a third-rate spy novel to sell you. What
occurred to anybody who has followed matters closely was a different thought: Mr. Brennan,
who has a few things to hide himself, has decided his best defense is a strong
offense.
For the truth is, Mr. Trump's version of the loudmouth demagogue is increasingly
coming out on the better side of the emerging facts on Russia. The Kremlin wasn't the most
consequential meddler in the 2016 election: It was James Comey's FBI, with Mr. Brennan
standing obscurely at his elbow every step of the way.
If a planted Russian intercept was instrumental in the fiasco of Mr. Comey's
intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter, as numerous leaks indicate, then that
intercept would have come from Mr. Brennan's CIA. What's more, it likely came not with a
shrug, but with a clear expectation that Mr. Comey would act to protect a Clinton
presidency from an alleged Russian plot.
So how do you reform the Secret Police? It is an interesting idea. The National Security
State has locked out any outside criticism and made reform almost impossible.
Then, there is also the whole indoctrination process. From hire to retire, these three
letter agencies indoctrinate their employees with esprit de corps and being a team player
with the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.
Claim made by high level persons in the link, suggest need for deep investigation into who in
the USA is getting paid to deliver or make available American taxpayer paid for resources to
foreign payee governments conducting terrorism and destabilization programs?
John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I
would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I
don't dare speculate what their real name is.
Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I
don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run
it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either.
President Trump should have declared war on the corporate propaganda apparatus and the
Deep State on day number one of his administration. Trump let the shysters who run the
corporate media and the treasonous rats in the Deep State off the hook.
President Trump won the GOP presidential primary and the presidency itself because Trump
promised to put the safety, security and sovereignty of America first. The largest vote
getter in terms of specific issues was the IMMIGRATION issue. Trump had the chance to fire
every damn treasonous rat in the Deep State and he didn't do it. Trump betrayed his voters
who wanted immigration reduced and illegal aliens deported.
President Trump should face a GOP presidential primary challenger. Maybe that will force
Trump to remove the Deep State, remove the current controllers of the corporate media and put
America first.
Trump should also call for an immigration moratorium and begin deporting all illegal
aliens immediately.
Trump's problems with the corporate media and the Deep State stem from the fact that Trump
didn't immediately remove them when he had the chance. Trump's voter base was more than ready
for a "burn the boats on the beach" battle plan to defend the United States against the
treasonous rats in the Deep State and the anti-White, anti-Christian shyster rats in the
corporate media.
He won't tolerate bullying by the stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the
aid of the weaker.
Thanks for your comment. Now I think I have an idea about why he seems so competent, and
why said competence is especially enhanced when he's contrasted with the unmanly screwballs
we've been burdened with for a very long time.
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
Brennan is PROJECTING. They have the goods on HIM, and will squeeze out of him every last
second of influence operations as long as he draws breath. Brennan will never be able to get
off the HAMSTER WHEEL alive.
Charles Pewitt wrote: "John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns
Comcast."
Hi C.P., Above reflects the better part of Brennan' s character. More definitive is Mr.
Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal." Also, why can not you see that
"treasonous rats" rule? A learning deficiency? Thanks.
More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."
Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal"
because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas
won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for
the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest.
I would suggest that John Brennan could be politically damaged the most by stating that
John Brennan supports open borders mass immigration. John Brennan and the rest of the Deep
State are dangerous to Americans because they all support open borders mass immigration. The
corporate media all supports mass immigration.
Over 60 million of us voted for Trump because Trump said he would stop the unnecessary
overseas wars, reduce immigration and scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams. We
voted for Trump to make the American Empire act more like a republic. We're stuck with the
American Empire until it croaks or is croaked in turn. And the empires all turn into rust
again.
The treasonous rats in the American Empire's Deep State all push nation-wrecking mass
immigration.
To corporate giants like Facebook, leaks to rivals or the media are a cardinal sin.
That notion was clear in a new Wired
story about Facebook's rocky time over the last two years. The story talks about how
Facebook was able to find two leakers who told a Gizmodo reporter about its news operations.
But one source for the Wired story highlighted just how concerned employees are about how
their company goes after leakers. According to the story, the source, a current Facebook
employee, asked a Wired reporter to turn off his phone so Facebook
wouldn't be able to use location tracking and see that the two were close to each other for
the meeting .
The Wired's 11,000-word
wide-ranging piece , for which it spoke with more than 50 current and former Facebook
employees, gives us an inside look at how the company has been struggling to curb spread of
fake news; battling internal discrimination among employees; and becoming furious when anything
leaks to the media. Another excerpt from the story:
The day after Fearnow (a contractor who leaked information to a Gizmodo reporter) took
that second screenshot was a Friday. When he woke up after sleeping in, he noticed that he
had about 30 meeting notifications from Facebook on his phone. When he replied to say it was
his day off, he recalls, he was nonetheless asked to be available in 10 minutes. Soon he was
on a video-conference with three Facebook employees, including Sonya Ahuja, the company's
head of investigations. According to his recounting of the meeting, she asked him if he had
been in touch with Nunez (the Gizmodo reporter, who eventually published
this and
this ).
He denied that he had been. Then she told him that she had their messages on Gchat,
which Fearnow had assumed weren't accessible to Facebook. He was fired. "Please shut your
laptop and don't reopen it," she instructed him.
(reuters.com)
did not adequately secure the informed consent of its users . From a report: The
verdict, from a Berlin regional court, comes as Big Tech faces increasing scrutiny in Germany
over its handling of sensitive personal data that enables it to micro-target online
advertising. The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzvb) said that Facebook's
default settings and some of its terms of service were in breach of consumer law, and that the
court had found parts of the consent to data usage to be invalid. "Facebook hides default
settings that are not privacy-friendly in its privacy center and does not provide sufficient
information about it when users register," said Heiko Duenkel, litigation policy officer at the
vzvb. "This does not meet the requirement for informed consent."
(recode.net)BeauHD on Monday
February 12, 2018 @09:20PM from the shifting-demographics dept. According to new estimates by
eMarketer,
Facebook users in the 12- to 17-year-old demographic declined by 9.9 percent in 2017 , or
about 1.4 million total users. That's almost three times more than the digital measurement firm
expected. There were roughly 12.1 million U.S. Facebook users in the 12- to 17-year-old
demographic by the end of the year. Recode reports:
There are likely multiple reasons for the decline. Facebook has been losing its "cool"
factor for years, and young people have more options than ever for staying in touch with
friends and family. Facebook also serves as a digital record keeper -- but many young people
don't seem to care about saving their life online, at least not publicly.
That explains why Snapchat and Instagram, which offer features for sharing photos and
videos that disappear, are growing in popularity among this demographic. Overall, eMarketer
found Facebook lost about 2.8 million U.S. users under 25 last year.
The research firm released Facebook usage estimates for 2018 on Monday, and expects
that Facebook will lose about 2.1 million users in the U.S. under the age of 25 this
year.
(techcrunch.com)Onavo Protect, the VPN client from the data-security app maker acquired
by Facebook back in 2013, has now popped up in the Facebook app itself,
under the banner "Protect" in the navigation menu . Clicking through on "Protect" will
redirect Facebook users to the "Onavo Protect -- VPN Security" app's listing on the App Store.
We're currently seeing this option on iOS only, which may indicate it's more of a test than a
full rollout here in the U.S. Marketing Onavo within Facebook itself could lead to a boost in
users for the VPN app, which promises to warn users of malicious websites and keep information
secure as you browse. But Facebook didn't buy Onavo for its security protections. Instead,
Onavo's VPN allow Facebook to monitor user activity across apps, giving Facebook a big
advantage in terms of spotting new trends across the larger mobile ecosystem. For example,
Facebook gets an early heads up about apps that are becoming breakout hits; it can tell which
are seeing slowing user growth; it sees which apps' new features appear to be resonating with
their users, and much more. Further reading: Do Not, I
Repeat, Do Not Download Onavo, Facebook's Vampiric VPN Service (Gizmodo).
Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian army
launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end of
February 2014.
(theverge.com)BeauHD on Friday
March 16, 2018 @11:30PM from the violation-of-terms dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report
from The Verge: Facebook said late Friday that it had suspended Strategic
Communication Laboratories (SCL), along with its political data analytics firm, Cambridge
Analytica, for violating its policies around data collection and retention. The companies,
which
ran data operations for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign , are widely
credited with helping Trump more effectively target voters on Facebook than his rival, Hillary
Clinton. While the exact nature of their role remains somewhat mysterious, Facebook's
disclosure suggests that the company
improperly obtained user data that could have given it an unfair advantage in reaching
voters . Facebook said it cannot determine whether or how the data in question could have
been used in conjunction with election ad campaigns.
In a blog post, Facebook deputy general counsel Paul Grewal laid out how SCL came into
possession of the user data. In 2015, Aleksandr Kogan, a psychology professor at the University
of Cambridge, created an app named "thisisyourdigitallife" that promised to predict aspects of
users' personalities. About 270,000 people downloaded it and logged in through Facebook, giving
Kogan access to information about their city of residence, Facebook content they had liked, and
information about their friends. Kogan passed the data to SCL and a man named Christopher Wylie
from a data harvesting firm known as Eunoia Technologies, in violation of Facebook rules that
prevent app developers from giving away or selling users' personal information. Facebook
learned of the violation that year and removed his app from Facebook. It also asked Kogan and
his associates to certify that they had destroyed the improperly collected data. Everyone said
that they did. The suspension is not permanent, a Facebook spokesman said. But the suspended
users would need to take unspecified steps to certify that they would comply with Facebook's
terms of service.
(theguardian.com)umafuckit
shared this article from The Guardian: The data analytics firm that worked with Donald
Trump's election team and the winning Brexit campaign
harvested millions of Facebook profiles of U.S. voters , in one of the tech giant's biggest
ever data breaches, and used them to build a powerful software program to predict and influence
choices at the ballot box... Christopher Wylie, who worked with a Cambridge University academic
to obtain the data, told the Observer : "We exploited
Facebook to harvest millions of people's profiles . And built models to exploit what we
knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built
on."
Documents seen by the Observer , and confirmed by a Facebook statement, show
that by late 2015 the company had found out that information had been
harvested on an unprecedented scale . However, at the time it failed to alert users and
took only limited steps to recover and secure the private information of more than 50 million
individuals... On Friday, four days after the Observer sought comment for this story,
but more than two years after the data breach was first reported, Facebook
announced that it was suspending Cambridge Analytica and Kogan from the platform, pending
further information over misuse of data. Separately, Facebook's external lawyers warned the
Observer on Friday it was making "false and defamatory" allegations, and reserved
Facebook's legal position...
The evidence Wylie supplied to U.K. and U.S. authorities includes a letter from
Facebook's own lawyers sent to him in August 2016, asking him to destroy any data he held that
had been collected by GSR, the company set up by Kogan to harvest the profiles... Facebook did
not pursue a response when the letter initially went unanswered for weeks because Wylie was
travelling, nor did it follow up with forensic checks on his computers or storage, he said.
"That to me was the most astonishing thing. They waited two years and did absolutely nothing to
check that the data was deleted. All they asked me to do was tick a box on a form and post it
back."
Wylie worked with Aleksandr Kogan, the creator of the "thisisyourdigitallife" app, "who has
previously unreported links to a Russian university and took Russian grants for research,"
according to the article. Kogan "had a licence from Facebook to collect profile data, but it
was for research purposes only. So when he hoovered up information for the commercial venture,
he was violating the company's terms...
"At the time, more than 50 million profiles represented around a third of active North
American Facebook users, and nearly a quarter of potential U.S. voters."
(theguardian.com)They had records of a screenshot he'd taken, links he had clicked or
hovered over, and they strongly indicated they had accessed chats between him and the
journalist, dating back to before he joined the company. "It's horrifying how much they know,"
he told the Guardian, on the condition of anonymity... "You get on their bad side and
all of a sudden you are face to face with Mark Zuckerberg's secret police "... One European
Facebook content moderator signed a contract, seen by the Guardian, which granted the company
the right to monitor and record his social media activities, including his personal Facebook
account, as well as emails, phone calls and internet use. He also agreed to random personal
searches of his belongings including bags, briefcases and car while on company premises.
Refusal to allow such searches would be treated as gross misconduct...
Some employees switch their phones off or hide them out of fear that their location is
being tracked. One current Facebook employee who recently spoke to Wired asked the reporter to
turn off his phone so the company would have a harder time tracking if it had been near the
phones of anyone from Facebook. Two security researchers confirmed that this would be
technically simple for Facebook to do if both people had the Facebook app on their phone and
location services switched on. Even if location services aren't switched on, Facebook can infer
someone's location from wifi access points.
The article cites a 2012 report that Microsoft read a French
blogger's Hotmail account to identify a former employee who had
leaked trade secrets . And it also reports that tech companies hire external agencies to
surveil their employees. "One such firm, Pinkerton, counts Google and Facebook among its
clients." Though Facebook and Google both deny this, "Among other services, Pinkerton offers to
send investigators to coffee shops or restaurants near a company's campus to eavesdrop on
employees' conversations...
Al Gidari, consulting director of privacy at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society,
says that these tools "are common, widespread, intrusive and legal."
(sfgate.com)BeauHD on Friday
March 23, 2018 @08:50PM from the rough-week dept. Facebook has had a terrible week. Since it
was revealed that political data firm Cambridge Analytica
obtained information about 50 million Facebook users , the social media company has been in
damage control mode,
apologizing for its mistakes and
conducting forensic audits to determine exactly what happened. SFGate reports today that
Facebook "
has been hit with four lawsuits in federal court in San Francisco and San Jose thus far
this week." From the report: One lawsuit was filed by a Facebook user who claims the Menlo
Park company acted with "absolute disregard" for her personal information after allegedly
representing that it wouldn't disclose the data without permission or notice. That lawsuit,
filed by Lauren Price of Maryland in San Jose on Tuesday, seeks to be a class action on behalf
of up to 50 million people whose data was allegedly collected from Facebook by London-based
Cambridge Analytica. The lawsuit says that during the 2016 election, Price was "frequently
targeted with political ads while using Facebook." It seeks financial restitution for claims of
unfair business practices and negligence. Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are named as
defendants. Cambridge Analytica also announced today that the company will
undergo an independent third-party audit to determine whether it still holds any data
covertly obtained from Facebook users. "We take the disturbing recent allegations of unethical
practices in our non-U.S. political business very seriously," CEO Alexander Tayler writes . "The Board
has launched a full and independent investigation into SCL Elections' past practices, and its
findings will be shared publicly."
(zdnet.com)BeauHD on Tuesday
March 06, 2018 @08:20PM from the plot-twist dept. According to newly released documents by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, federal agents
would pay Geek Squad employees to flag illegal materials on devices sent in by customers
for repairs. "The relationship goes back at least ten years, according to documents
released as a result of the lawsuit [
filed last year ]," reports ZDNet. "The agency's Louisville division aim was to maintain a
'close liaison' with Geek Squad management to 'glean case initiations and to support the
division's Computer Intrusion and Cyber Crime programs.'" From the report: According to the
EFF's analysis of the documents, FBI agents would "show up, review the images or video and
determine whether they believe they are illegal content" and seize the device so an additional
analysis could be carried out at a local FBI field office. That's when, in some cases, agents
would try to obtain a search warrant to justify the access. The EFF's lawsuit was filed in
response to a report that a Geek Squad employee was
used as an informant by the FBI in the prosecution of child pornography case. The documents
show that the FBI would regularly use Geek Squad employees as confidential human sources -- the
agency's term for informants -- by taking calls from employees when they found something
suspect.
(theintercept.com)
it could also help the cybersecurity community discover previously unknown threats . The
Intercept: When the mysterious entity known as the " Shadow Brokers " released a tranche of stolen NSA
hacking tools to the internet a year ago, most experts who studied the material honed in on the
most potent tools, so-called zero-day exploits that could be used to install malware and take
over machines. But a group of Hungarian security researchers spotted something else in the
data, a collection of scripts and scanning tools the National Security Agency uses to detect
other nation-state hackers on the machines it infects. It turns out those scripts and tools are
just as interesting as the exploits. They show that in 2013 -- the year the NSA tools were
believed to have been stolen by the Shadow Brokers -- the agency was tracking at least 45
different nation-state operations, known in the security community as Advanced Persistent
Threats, or APTs. Some of these appear to be operations known by the broader security community
-- but some may be threat actors and operations currently unknown to researchers.
The scripts and scanning tools dumped by Shadow Brokers and studied by the Hungarians
were created by an NSA team known as Territorial Dispute, or TeDi. Intelligence sources told
The Intercept the NSA established the team after hackers, believed to be from China, stole
designs for the military's Joint Strike Fighter plane, along with other sensitive data, from
U.S. defense contractors in 2007; the team was supposed to detect and counter sophisticated
nation-state attackers more quickly, when they first began to emerge online. "As opposed to the
U.S. only finding out in five years that everything was stolen, their goal was to try to figure
out when it was being stolen in real time," one intelligence source told The Intercept. But
their mission evolved to also provide situational awareness for NSA hackers to help them know
when other nation-state actors are in machines they're trying to hack.
(medium.com)
Onavo Protect , a newly released VPN service from Facebook : I found that Onavo Protect uses a Packet
Tunnel Provider app extension, which should consistently run for as long as the VPN is
connected, in order to
periodically send the following data to Facebook (graph.facebook.com) as the user goes
about their day:
When user's mobile device screen is turned on and turned off.
Total daily Wi-Fi data usage in bytes (Even when VPN is turned off).
Total daily cellular data usage in bytes (Even when VPN is turned off).
Periodic beacon containing an "uptime" to indicate how long the VPN has been connected.
(theguardian.com)
but behind the cartoonish facade is a ruthless code of secrecy . From a report: They
rely on a combination of Kool-Aid, digital and physical surveillance, legal threats and
restricted stock units to prevent and detect intellectual property theft and other criminal
activity. However, those same tools are also used to catch employees and contractors who talk
publicly, even if it's about their working conditions, misconduct or cultural challenges within
the company. While Apple's culture of secrecy, which includes making employees sign
project-specific NDAs and covering unlaunched products with black cloths, has been widely
reported, companies such as Google and Facebook have long put the emphasis on internal
transparency.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and
strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can
see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company's
internal version of Facebook. "When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of
transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding
that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.
(businessinsider.com)
reported this week , speaks volumes of Facebook's core beliefs. Sample
this except from Business Insider : Facebook executives waded into a firestorm of
criticism on Saturday, after news reports revealed that a data firm with ties to the Trump
campaign harvested private information from millions of Facebook users. Several executives took
to Twitter to insist that the data leak was not technically a "breach." But critics were
outraged by the response and accused the company of playing semantics and missing the
point. Washington Post reporter Hamza Shaban: Facebook insists that the Cambridge
Analytica debacle wasn't a data breach, but a "violation" by a third party app that abused user
data. This offloading of responsibility says a lot about Facebook's approach to our
privacy. Observer reporter Carole Cadwalladr, who broke the news about Cambridge Analytica:
Yesterday Facebook threatened to sue us. Today we publish this. Meet the whistleblower
blowing the lid off Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. [...] Facebook's chief strategy officer
wading in. So, tell us @alexstamos (who expressed his displeasure with the use of "breach" in
media reports) why didn't you inform users of this "non-breach" after The Guardian first
reported the story in December 2015? Zeynep Tufekci: If your business is building a
massive surveillance machinery, the data will eventually be used and misused. Hacked, breached,
leaked, pilfered, conned, "targeted", "engaged", "profiled", sold.. There is no informed
consent because it's not possible to reasonably inform or consent. [...] Facebook's defense
that Cambridge Analytica harvesting of FB user data from millions is not technically a "breach"
is a more profound and damning statement of what's wrong with Facebook's business model than a
"breach." MIT Professor Dean Eckles: Definitely fascinating that Joseph Chancellor, who
contributed to collection and contract-violating retention (?) of Facebook user data, now works
for Facebook. Amir Efrati, a reporter at the Information: May seem like a small thing to
non-reporters but Facebook loses credibility by issuing a Friday night press release to
"front-run" publications that were set to publish negative articles about its platform. If you
want us to become more suspicious, mission accomplished. Further reading: Facebook's
latest privacy debacle stirs up more regulatory interest from lawmakers (TechCrunch).
(arstechnica.com)BeauHD on Sunday
March 25, 2018 @10:34AM from the book-of-secrets dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from
Ars Technica: This past week, a New Zealand man was looking through the data Facebook had
collected from him in an archive he had
pulled down from the social networking site. While scanning the information Facebook had stored
about his contacts, Dylan McKay discovered something distressing:
Facebook also had about two years worth of phone call metadata from his Android phone ,
including names, phone numbers, and the length of each call made or received. This experience
has been shared by a number of other Facebook users who spoke with Ars, as well as
independently by us -- my own Facebook data archive, I found, contained call-log data for a
certain Android device I used in 2015 and 2016, along with SMS and MMS message metadata. In
response to an email inquiry about this data gathering by Ars, a Facebook spokesperson replied,
"The most important part of apps and services that help you make connections is to make it easy
to find the people you want to connect with. So, the first time you sign in on your phone to a
messaging or social app, it's a widely used practice to begin by uploading your phone
contacts." The spokesperson pointed out that contact uploading is optional and installation of
the application explicitly requests permission to access contacts. And users can delete contact
data from their profiles using a tool accessible via Web browser.
If you granted permission to read contacts during Facebook's installation on Android a
few versions ago -- specifically before Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) -- that permission also
granted Facebook access to call and message logs by default. The permission structure was
changed in the Android API in version 16. But Android applications could bypass this change if
they were written to earlier versions of the API, so Facebook API could continue to gain access
to call and SMS data by specifying an earlier Android SDK version. Google deprecated version
4.0 of the Android API in October 2017 -- the point at which the latest call metadata in
Facebook user's data was found. Apple iOS has never allowed silent access to call data. You
are able to have Facebook delete the data it collects from you, "but it's not clear if this
deletes just contacts or if it also purges call and SMS metadata," reports Ars. Generally
speaking, if you're concerned about privacy, you shouldn't share your contacts and call-log
data with any mobile application.
What is interesting is a strong Brennan connections with UK and his possiblke role in Steel dossier creation and propogation. Which actually were typical for
many members of Trump administration. He also has connections with Saudi intelligence services
Notable quotes:
"... So Morell is by his own words clearly an idiot, which explains a lot about what is wrong with CIA and is probably why he is now a consultant with CBS News instead of serving as Agency Director under the beneficent gaze of President Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Back in 2013 John Brennan, then Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, had a difficult time with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still working at CIA. ..."
"... He claimed that he had only "raised serious questions" in his own mind on the interrogation issue after reading the 525 page summary of the 6,000 page report prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee which detailed the failure of the Agency program. Brennan's reaction, however, suggested at a minimum that he had read only the rebuttal material produced by CIA that had deliberately inflated the value of the intelligence produced. ..."
"... Surprisingly the subject of rendition, which Brennan must surely have been involved with while at CIA, hardly surfaced though two other interesting snippets emerged from the questioning. ..."
"... Brennan was not questioned at all about the conflict of interest or ethical issues raised by the revolving door that he benefited from when he left CIA as Deputy Executive Director in 2005 and joined a British-owned company called The Analysis Corporation (TAC) where he was named CEO. ..."
"... At the Center of the Storm ..."
"... Brennan certainly knew how to feather his nest and reward his friends, but the area that is still murky relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA Director and also quite possibly working hard to help Hillary get elected. He was still at it well after Trump got elected and assumed office. In May 2017, his testimony before Congress was headlined in a Washington Post ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. ..."
"... it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began. ..."
"... So, Mr. Brennan, for all his bluster and scarcely concealed anger, has a lot of baggage, to include his possible role in coordinating with other elements in the national security agencies as well as with overseas parties to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected. ..."
Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan, a Barack Obama friend and
protégé as well as a current paid contributor for NBC and MSNBC, has
blasted President Donald Trump for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory
in recent Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "afraid of the
president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that
he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have
something to fear and something very serious to fear."
It is an indication of how low we have sunk as a nation that a possible war criminal like
Brennan can feel free to use his former official status as a bully pulpit to claim that someone
is a foreign spy without any real pushback or objection from the talking heads and billionaire
manipulators that unfortunately run our country. If Trump is actually being blackmailed, as
Brennan implies, what evidence is there for that? One might reasonably conclude that Brennan
and his associates are actually angry because Trump has had the temerity to try to improve
relations with Russia.
It is ironic that when President Trump does something right he gets assailed by the same
crowd that piles on when he does something stupid, leading to the conclusion that unless The
Donald is attacking another country, when he is lauded as becoming truly presidential, he
cannot ever win with the inside the Beltway Establishment crowd. Brennan and a supporting cast
of dissimulating former intelligence chiefs opposed Trump from the git-go and were perfectly
willing to make things up to support Hillary and the status quo that she represented. It was,
of course, a status quo that greatly and personally benefited that ex-government crowd which by
now might well be described as the proverbial Deep State.
The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one since it is an easy mark to allege
something that you don't have to prove. During the campaign, one was frequently confronted on
the television by the humorless stare of the malignant Michael Morell, former acting CIA
Director, who wrote in a mind numbing August 2016
op-ed how he was proud to support Hillary Clinton because of her "commitment to our
nation's security: her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world
for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be
effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and
her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all: whether to put young American women
and men in harm's way." Per Morell, she was a "proponent of a more aggressive approach [in
Syria], one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold "
But Morell saved his finest vitriol for Donald Trump, observing how Vladimir Putin, a wily
ex-career intelligence officer "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to
exploit them" obtained the services of one fairly obscure American businessman named Trump
without even physically meeting him. Morell, given his broad experience as an analyst and desk
jockey, notes, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." An "unwitting agent" is a contradiction
in terms, but one wouldn't expect Morell to know that. Nor would John Brennan, who was also an
analyst and desk jockey before he was elevated by an equally witless President Barack
Obama.
So Morell is by his own words clearly an idiot, which explains a lot about what is wrong
with CIA and is probably why he is now a consultant with CBS News instead of serving as Agency
Director under the beneficent gaze of President Hillary Clinton.
Well, Trump's fractured foreign policy aside, I have some real problems with folks like
Michael Morell and John Brennan throwing stones. Both can be reasonably described as war
criminals due to what they did during the war on terror and also as major subverters of the
Constitution of the United States that has emerged as part of the saga of the 2016 election,
the outcome of which, ironically, is being blamed on the Russians.
Back in 2013 John Brennan, then Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, had a difficult time
with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still
working at CIA. He was predictably
attacked by some senators concerned over the expanding drone program, which he supervised;
over CIA torture; for the kill lists that he helped manage; and regarding the pervasive
government secrecy, which he surely condoned to cover up the questionable nature of the
assassination lists and the drones. Not at all surprisingly, he was forced to defend the
policies of the administration that he was then serving in, claiming that the United States is
"at war with al-Qaeda." But he did cite his basic disagreement with the former CIA
interrogation policies and expressed his surprise at learning that enhanced interrogation,
which he refused to label torture because he is "no lawyer," had not provided any unique or
actionable information. He claimed that he had only "raised serious questions" in his own
mind on the interrogation issue after reading the 525 page summary of the 6,000 page report
prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee which detailed the failure of the Agency program.
Brennan's reaction, however, suggested at a minimum that he had read only the rebuttal material
produced by CIA that had deliberately inflated the value of the intelligence produced.
Surprisingly the subject of rendition, which Brennan must surely have been involved with
while at CIA, hardly surfaced though two other interesting
snippets emerged from the questioning. One was his confirmation that the government
has its own secret list of innocent civilians killed by drones while at the same time
contradicting himself by maintaining that the program does not actually exist and that if even
if it did exist such fatalities do not occur. And more directly relevant to Brennan himself,
Senator John D. Rockefeller provided an insight into the classified sections of the Senate
report on CIA torture, mentioning that the enhanced interrogation program was both "managed
incompetently" and "corrupted by personnel with pecuniary conflicts of interest." One would
certainly like to learn more about the presumed contractors who profited corruptly from
waterboarding and one would like to know if they were in any way punished, an interesting
sidebar as Brennan has a number of times spoken about the need for accountability.
Brennan was not questioned at all about the conflict of interest or ethical issues
raised by the revolving door
that he benefited from when he left CIA as Deputy Executive Director in 2005 and joined a
British-owned company called The Analysis Corporation (TAC) where he was named CEO. He
made almost certainly some millions of dollars when the Agency and other federal agencies
awarded TAC contracts to develop biometrics and set up systems to manage the government's
various watch lists before rejoining the government with a full bank account to help him along
his way. Brennan also reportedly knew how to return a favor, giving his former boss at CIA
George Tenet a compensated advisory position in his company and also hosting in 2007 a book
signing for Tenet's At the Center of the Storm . The by-invitation-only event included
six hundred current and former intelligence officers, some of whom waited for hours to have
Tenet sign copies of the book, which were provided by TAC.
Brennan certainly knew how to feather his nest and reward his friends, but the area that
is still murky relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA Director and also
quite possibly working hard to help Hillary get elected. He was still at it well after Trump
got elected and assumed office. In May 2017, his testimony before Congress was headlined in a
Washington Post front page featured article as
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article stated that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up
to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe,
because it was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know
from Politico and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services,
including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the
forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by
Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence,
it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a
possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get
nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate
began.
So, Mr. Brennan, for all his bluster and scarcely concealed anger, has a lot of baggage,
to include his possible role in coordinating with other elements in the national security
agencies as well as with overseas parties to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected.
Brennan should be thoroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to include
subpoenaing all records at CIA relating to the Trump inquiries before requiring testimony under
oath of Brennan himself with possible legal consequences if he is caught lying
Authored Among
Western political leaders there is not an ounce of integrity or morality . The Western print
and TV media is dishonest and corrupt beyond repair. Yet the Russian government persists in its
fantasy of "working with Russia's Western partners." The only way Russia can work with crooks
is to become a crook. Is that what the Russian government wants?
Finian
Cunningham notes the absurdity in the political and media uproar over Trump (belatedly)
telephoning Putin to congratulate him on his reelection with 77 percent of the vote, a show of
public approval that no Western political leader could possibly attain. The crazed US senator
from Arizona called the person with the largest majority vote of our time "a dictator." Yet a
real blood-soaked dictator from Saudi Arabia is feted at the White House and fawned over by the
president of the United States.
The Western politicians and presstitutes are morally outraged over an alleged poisoning,
unsupported by any evidence, of a former spy of no consequence on orders by the president of
Russia himself. These kind of insane insults thrown at the leader of the world's most powerful
military nation -- and Russia is a nation, unlike the mongrel Western countries -- raise the
chances of nuclear Armageddon beyond the risks during the 20th century's Cold War. The insane
fools making these unsupported accusations show total disregard for all life on earth. Yet they
regard themselves as the salt of the earth and as "exceptional, indispensable" people.
Think about the alleged poisoning of Skirpal by Russia. What can this be other than an
orchestrated effort to demonize the president of Russia? How can the West be so outraged over
the death of a former double-agent, that is, a deceptive person, and completely indifferent to
the millions of peoples destroyed by the West in the 21st century alone. Where is the outrage
among Western peoples over the massive deaths for which the West, acting through its Saudi
agent, is responsible in Yemen? Where is the Western outrage among Western peoples over the
deaths in Syria? The deaths in Libya, in Somalia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Afghanistan? Where is the
outrage in the West over the constant Western interference in the internal affairs of other
countries? How many times has Washington overthrown a democratically-elected government in
Honduras and reinstalled a Washington puppet?
The corruption in the West extends beyond politicians, presstitutes, and an insouciant
public to experts. When the ridiculous Condi Rice, national security adviser to president
George W. Bush, spoke of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction sending up a
nuclear cloud over an American city, experts did not laugh her out of court. The chance of any
such event was precisely zero and every expert knew it, but the corrupt experts held their
tongues. If they spoke the truth, they knew that they would not get on TV, would not get a
government grant, would be out of the running for a government appointment. So they accepted
the absurd lie designed to justify an American invasion that destroyed a country.
This is the West. There is nothing but lies and indifference to the deaths of others. The
only outrage is orchestrated and directed against a target: the Taliban, Saddam Hussein,
Gaddafi, Iran, Assad, Russia and Putin, and against reformist leaders in Latin America. The
targets for Western outrage are always those who act independently of Washington or who are no
longer useful to Washington's purposes.
Orchestrations this blatant demonstrate that Western governments have no respect for the
intelligence of their peoples. That Western governments get away with these fantastic lies
indicates that the governments are immune to accountability. Even if accountability were
possible, there is no sign that Western peoples are capable of holding their governments
accountable. As Washington drives the world to nuclear war, where are the protests? The only
protest is brainwashed school children protesting the National Rifle Association and the Second
Amendment.
Western democracy is a hoax. Consider Catalonia. The people voted for independence and were
denounced for doing so by European politicians. The Spanish government invaded Catalonia
alleging that the popular referendum, in which people expressed their opinion about their own
future, was illegal. Catalonian leaders are in prison awaiting trial, except for Carles
Puigdemont who escaped to Belgium. Now Germany has captured
him on his return to Belgium from Finland where he lectured at the University of Hesinki
and is holding him in jail for a Spanish government that bears more resemblance to Francisco
Franco than to democracy. The European Union itself is a conspiracy against democracy.
The success of Western propaganda in creating non-existent virtues for itself is the
greatest public relations success in history. Tags Politics
"... Evidence of Israel's role in gas attacks in Syria was overwhelming even though Russia was blocked from presenting same to the United Nations time and time again. ..."
"... the Likudist extremists who run that nation are mostly former Russian gangsters and enemies of Russia's current leadership. ..."
"... As anger grew toward Cambridge Analytica on Monday after Britain's Channel 4 broadcast a report showing company executives boasting about their extreme propaganda strategies, including filming opponents in compromising situations with Ukrainian sex workers, authorities in the U.K. and the U.S. also questioned whether Facebook mishandled the alleged breach and it's now facing damaging investigations that will further tarnish its brand. ..."
"... Britain's information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, confirmed she was applying to the courts for a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices and said Tuesday morning that she has been left frustrated by the company's reluctance to cooperate with her investigation. ..."
Now
we know they not only kept files on 50 million Americans through Facebook, using the data there
to profile fears and emotions, targeting and manipulating millions but when Google added their
incredible mass of data, billions of illegally read emails and more, the American people became
little more than pawns.
Again we reiterate, Russia didn't do it. It was the tech companies, all working as is now
being made public, for Israeli intelligence and the mob. From the Daily Beast, March 20, 2018
by Jamie Ross:
"Facebook has been plunged into crisis over the allegations that Cambridge Analytica misused
data from more than 50 million people to help elect Donald Trump. Nearly $40 billion was wiped
off Facebook's market value Monday, an emergency meeting is due to be held Tuesday morning, and
CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been criticized for remaining silent during what some analysts are
describing as a threat to the company's existence.
Zuckerberg has been summoned to the British parliament to give evidence about the how it
handles people's personal data. The head of a British inquiry into 'fake news,' Damian Collins,
has accused Facebook of previously 'misleading' a parliament committee, adding: 'It is now time
to hear from a senior Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an accurate
account of this catastrophic failure of process.'"
What is being left out is more telling, that Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Facebook, has
long openly worked for Israeli intelligence and that evidence now exists that Israel not only
ran the program to rig the American election, as many believe it did in both 2000 and 2004,
leading to the destruction of Iraq, but that it did so again in 2016.
Few note the real policies of former Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama, the even
handedness in the Middle East and their use of leverage against Israel. Obama never accepted
wild claims made against Syria as Trump has and never attacked Damscus.
Evidence of Israel's role in gas attacks in Syria was overwhelming even though Russia was
blocked from presenting same to the United Nations time and time again.
But then we hypothesize, what are we speaking of when we talk of Israel? This is where so
many back off as anyone who questions Israel is smeared as an "anti-Semite" though the Likudist
extremists who run that nation are mostly former Russian gangsters and enemies of Russia's
current leadership.
The reason for what appears to be Israeli animosity toward Russia in reality originated when
Putin cleaned out the oligarchs that looted Russia for two decades, plunging that nation into
poverty and then fleeing to Tel Aviv or New York with endless billions of ill gotten gains.
This is real history, not the history written down in books or reported in fake news.
More on happenings in London as reported by Jamie Ross:
"As anger grew toward Cambridge Analytica on Monday after Britain's Channel 4 broadcast a
report showing company executives boasting about their extreme propaganda strategies, including
filming opponents in compromising situations with Ukrainian sex workers, authorities in the
U.K. and the U.S. also questioned whether Facebook mishandled the alleged breach and it's now
facing damaging investigations that will further tarnish its brand.
Britain's information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, confirmed she was applying to the
courts for a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices and said Tuesday morning
that she has been left frustrated by the company's reluctance to cooperate with her
investigation.
[ Editor's Note : There appears to have been the classic "fix" in at the British Court by
delaying for days the seizure of Cambridge's computer files, giving the needed time to remove
any incriminating evidence Jim W. Dean ]
Fears have also been raised that the investigation may have been compromised by the presence
of cybersecurity consultants from Stroz Friedberg -- the company hired by Facebook to audit
Cambridge Analytica on its behalf -- who were in the London offices on Monday evening, until
they were asked to leave by the information commissioner.
Asked if there was a risk of Cambridge Analytica or Facebook destroying evidence, Denham
said on Sky News: "As this point we're not satisfied with the cooperation we're getting from
Cambridge Analytica, so the next step is for us to apply to the court and to do an audit to get
some answers as to whether data was misused and shared inappropriately."
British Parliament Culture Committee Chairman Damian Collins said:
'This is a matter for the authorities. Facebook sent in data analysts and lawyers who they
appointed. What they intended to do there, who knows? The concern would have been, were they
removing information or evidence which could have been vital to the investigation? It's right
they stood down but it's astonishing they were there in the first place.'"
The issue now is one of accepting what is happening for all to see rather than absorbing the
fake narrative sold the world. For those unaware, it isn't just millions of Americans but
government officials as well, who form their opinions and prejudices against nations, races of
people, religions and even ideas themselves.
The are imprinted via fictional television shows like Homeland , whose writers and
producers are in actuality as complicit in psychological warfare as those who run Cambridge
Analytical, Google or Facebook, the groups now under the public microscope.
As for Mueller and his investigation, it is pure theatre. As for Trump, more theatre as
well, a buffoon long shown to be a mob asset, now wielding nukes and threatening the world,
holding it hostage to his bad brain chemistry and his criminal handlers.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and
POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a
senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine
"New Eastern Outlook."
I would not exaggerate the voodoo science behind Cambridge Analitica activities -- all this
crap about the Big Five personality traits borrowed from social psychology: openness,
conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
But it really can create "plausible lies" to targeted groups of voters in best "change we can
believe in" style. Essentially promoting "bat and switch" politics.
Notable quotes:
"... The Guardian ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... In July 2005, SCL underwent a dramatic transformation. It very publicly rebranded itself as a psychological warfare company by taking part in the UK's largest military trade show. ..."
"... The company's efforts paid off. Over the next ten years, SCL won contracts with the US Defense Department's Combatant Commands, NATO, and Sandia National Labs. ..."
"... Along the way it created Cambridge Analytica, a subsidiary firm which differs from SCL Group in that it focuses primarily on political campaigns. Its largest investors include billionaire Robert Mercer, co-CEO of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, who is best known for his advocacy of far-right political causes and his financial support of Breitbart News. Steve Bannon briefly sat on Cambridge Analytica's board of directors. ..."
"... Although Cruz ultimately failed, Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, claimed that Cruz's popularity grew largely due to the company's skillful use of aggregated voter data and personality profiling methods. ..."
"... Cambridge Analytica relies upon "psychographic" techniques that measure the Big Five personality traits borrowed from social psychology: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. ..."
"... In the US, Cambridge Analytica developed psychological profiles of millions of Americans by hiring a company called Global Science Research (GSR) to plant free personality quizzes. Users were lured by the prospect of obtaining free personality scores, while Cambridge Analytica collected data–and access to users' Facebook profiles. Last week, The Guardian ..."
"... Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet ..."
"... Twitter And Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest ..."
"... Roberto J. González is chair of the anthropology department at San José State University. He has written several books including American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain and Militarizing Culture: Essays on the Warfare State . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
In the days and weeks following the 2016 presidential elections,
reports surfaced about how a small British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica,
might have played a pivotal role in Donald Trump's surprise victory. The company claimed to
have formulated algorithms to influence American voters using individually targeted political
advertisements. It reportedly generated personality profiles of millions of individual citizens
by collecting up to
5000 data points on each person. Then Cambridge Analytica used these "psychographic" tools
to send voters carefully crafted online messages about candidates or hot-button political
issues.
Although political consultants have long used "microtargeting" techniques for zeroing in on
particular ethnic, religious, age, or income groups, Cambridge Analytica's approach is unusual:
The company relies upon individuals' personal data that is harvested from social media apps
like Facebook. In the US, such activities are entirely legal. Some described Cambridge
Analytica's tools as "
mind-reading software " and a " weaponized AI
[artificial intelligence] propaganda machine ." However, corporate media outlets such as
CNN and the
Wall Street Journal often portrayed the company in glowing terms.
Cambridge Analytica is once again in the headlines–but under somewhat different
circumstances. Late last week, whistleblower
Christopher Wylie went public , explaining how he played an instrumental role in collecting
millions of Facebook profiles for Cambridge Analytica. This revelation is significant because
until investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr published her exposé in The
Guardian , Cambridge Analytica's then-CEO Alexander Nix had adamantly denied using
Facebook data. And although Facebook officials knew that Cambridge Analytica had previously
gathered data on millions of users, they did not prohibit the company from advertising until
last Friday, as the scandal erupted. To make matters worse, the UK's Channel 4 released
undercover footage early this week in which Cambridge Analytica executives boast about
using dirty tricks–bribes, entrapment, and "beautiful girls" to mention a few.
The case of Cambridge Analytica brings into focus a brave new world of electoral politics in
an algorithmic age–an era in which social media companies like Facebook and Twitter make
money by selling ads, but also by selling users' data outright to third parties. Relatively few
countries have laws that prevent such practices–and it turns out that the US does not
have a comprehensive federal statute protecting individuals' data privacy. This story is
significant not only because it demonstrates what can happen when an unorthodox company takes
advantage of a lax regulatory environment, but also because it reveals how Internet companies
like Facebook have played fast and loose with the personal data of literally billions of
users.
From Public Relations to Psychological Warfare
In order to make sense of Cambridge Analytica it is helpful to understand its parent
company, SCL Group, which was originally created as the PR firm Strategic Communications
Laboratory.
It was founded in the early 1990s by Nigel Oakes , a flamboyant UK businessman. By the late
1990s, the company was engaged almost exclusively in political projects. For example, SCL was
hired to help burnish the image of Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid–but Oakes and
SCL employees had to shut down their operations center when SCL's cover was blown by the
Wall Street
Journal .
In July 2005, SCL underwent a dramatic transformation. It
very publicly rebranded itself as a psychological warfare company by taking part in the
UK's largest military trade show. SCL's exhibit included a mock operations center
featuring dramatic crisis scenarios–a smallpox outbreak in London, a bloody insurgency in
a fictitious South Asian country–which were then resolved with the help of the company's
psyops techniques. Oakes told a
reporter : "We used to be in the business of mindbending for political purposes, but now we
are in the business of saving lives." The company's efforts paid off. Over the next ten
years, SCL won contracts with the US Defense Department's Combatant Commands, NATO, and Sandia
National Labs.
Over the past few years SCL–now known as SCL Group –has transformed itself yet again. It no longer
defines itself as a psyops specialist, nor as a political consultancy–now, it calls
itself a data analytics company specializing in "behavioral change" programs.
Along the way it created Cambridge Analytica, a subsidiary firm which differs from SCL
Group in that it focuses primarily on political campaigns. Its largest investors include
billionaire Robert Mercer, co-CEO of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, who is best known for
his advocacy of far-right political causes and his financial support of Breitbart News. Steve
Bannon briefly sat on Cambridge Analytica's board of directors.
Cambridge Analytica first received
significant media attention in November 2015, shortly after the firm was hired by
Republican presidential nominee Ted Cruz's campaign. Although Cruz ultimately failed,
Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, claimed that Cruz's popularity grew largely due to
the company's skillful use of aggregated voter data and personality profiling methods.
In August 2016, the Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica as part of a desperate effort
to challenge Hillary Clinton's formidable campaign machine. Just a few months later,
reports revealed that Cambridge Analytica had also played a role in the UK's successful
pro-Brexit "Leave.EU" campaign.
Hacking the Citizenry
Cambridge Analytica relies upon "psychographic" techniques that measure the Big Five
personality traits borrowed from social psychology: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion,
agreeableness and neuroticism.
In the US, Cambridge Analytica developed psychological profiles of millions of Americans
by hiring a company called Global Science Research (GSR) to plant free personality quizzes.
Users were lured by the prospect of obtaining free personality scores, while Cambridge
Analytica collected data–and access to users' Facebook profiles. Last week, The Guardian reported that Cambridge Analytica collected data from more than
300,000 Facebook users in this way. By agreeing to the terms and conditions of the app, those
users also agreed to grant GSR (and by extension, Cambridge Analytica) access to the profiles
of their Facebook "friends"–totalling approximately 50 million people.
Psychographics uses algorithms to scour voters' Facebook "likes," retweets and other social
media data which are aggregated with commercially available information: land registries,
automotive data, shopping preferences, club memberships, magazine subscriptions, and religious
affiliation. When combined with public records, electoral rolls, and additional information
purchased from data brokers such as Acxiom and Experian, Cambridge Analytica has raw material
for shaping personality profiles. Digital footprints can be transformed into real people. This
is the essence of psychographics: Using software algorithms to scour individual voters'
Facebook "likes," retweets and other bits of data gleaned from social media and then combine
them with commercially available personal information. Data mining is relatively easy in the
US, since it has relatively weak privacy laws compared to South Korea, Singapore, and many EU
countries.
In a 2016
presentation , Nix described how such information might be used to influence voter opinions
on gun ownership and gun rights. Individual people can be addressed differently according to
their personality profiles: "For a highly neurotic and conscientious audinece, the threat of a
burglary–and the insurance policy of a gun. . .Conversely, for a closed and agreeable
audience: people who care about tradition, and habits, and family."
Despite the ominous sounding nature of psychographics, it is not at all clear that Cambridge
Analytica played a decisive role in the 2016 US presidential election. Some charge that the
company and its former CEO Alexander Nix, exaggerated Cambridge Analytica's effect on the
election's outcome. In February 2017, investigative journalist
Kendall Taggart wrote an exposé claiming that more than a dozen former employees of
Cambridge Analytica, Trump campaign staffers, and executives at Republican consulting firms
denied that psychographics was used at all by the Trump campaign. Taggart concluded: "Rather
than a sinister breakthrough in political technology, the Cambridge Analytica story appears to
be part of the traditional contest among consultants on a winning political campaign to get
their share of the credit–and win future clients." Not a single critic was willing to be
identified in the report, apparently fearing retaliation from Robert Mercer and his daughter
Rebekah, who is also an investor in the firm.
Not-So-Innocents Abroad
By no means has Cambridge Analytica limited its work to the US. In fact, it has conducted
"influence operations" in several countries around the world.
For example, Cambridge Analytica played a major role in
last year's presidential elections in Kenya, which pitted incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta of the
right-wing Jubilee Party against Raila Odinga of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement. The
Jubilee Party hired Cambridge Analytica in May 2017. Although the company claims to have
limited its activities to data collection, earlier this week Mark Turnbull, a managing director
for Cambridge Analytica,
told undercover reporters a different story . He admitted that the firm secretly managed
Kenyatta's entire campaign: "We have rebranded the party twice, written the manifesto, done
research, analysis, messaging. I think we wrote all the speeches and we staged the whole
thing–so just about every element of this candidate," said Turnbull.
Given the most recent revelations about Cambridge Analytica's planting of
fake news stories , it seems likely that the company created persuasive personalized ads
based on Kenyans' social media data. Fake Whatsapp and Twitter posts exploded days before the
Kenyan elections. It is worth remembering that SCL Group has employed disinformation campaigns
for military clients for 25 years, and it seems that Cambridge Analytica has continued this
pattern of deception.
The August elections were fraught with accusations of vote tampering, the inclusion of dead
people as registered voters, and the murder of
Chris Msando , the election commission's technology manager, days before the election. When
the dust settled, up to 67 people died in post-election violence–and Kenyatta ultimately
emerged victorious. Weeks later, the Kenyan Supreme Court annulled the elections, but when new
elections were scheduled for October, Odinga declared that he would boycott.
Given Kenya's recent history of electoral fraud, it is unlikely that Cambridge had much
impact on the results.
Anthropologist Paul Goldsmith , who has lived in Kenya for 40 years, notes that elections
still tend to follow the principle of "who counts the votes," not "who influences the
voters."
But the significance of Cambridge Analytica's efforts extends beyond their contribution to
electoral outcomes. Kenya is no technological backwater. The world's first mobile money service
was launched there in 2007, allowing users to transfer cash and make payments by phone.
Homegrown tech firms are creating a "Silicon Savannah" near Nairobi. Two-thirds of Kenya's 48
million people have Internet access. Ten million use Whatsapp; six million use Facebook; two
million use Twitter. As Kenyans spend more time in the virtual world, their personal data will
become even more widely available since Kenya has no data protection laws.
Cambridge Analytica doesn't need to deliver votes so much as to create the perception that
they can produce results. . .Kenya provides an ideal entry point into [Africa]. . .Embedding
themselves with ruling elites presents a pivot for exploiting emergent commercial
opportunities. . .with an eye on the region's resources and its growing numbers of
persuadable youth.
Recent reports reveal that Cambridge Analytica has ongoing operations in Mexico and
Brazil (which have general elections scheduled this July and October, respectively).
India (which has general elections in about a year) has also been courted by the company,
and it is easy to understand why: the country has 400 million smartphone users with more than
250 million on either Facebook or Whatsapp. India's elections are also a potential gold mine.
More than half a billion people vote in parliamentary elections, and the expenditures are
astonishing: Political parties spent $5 billion in 2014, compared to $6.5 billion in last
year's US elections. India also has a massive mandatory ID program based on biometric and
demographic data, the largest of its kind in the world.
Cambridge Analytica's global strategy appears focused on expanding its market share in
promising markets. Although many people might describe Kenya, Mexico, Brazil, and India as
developing countries, each in fact has a rapidly growing high-tech infrastructure, relatively
high levels of Internet penetration, and large numbers of social media users. They all have
weak or nonexistent Internet privacy laws. Though nominally democratic, each country is
politically volatile and has experienced episodic outbursts of extreme political, sectarian, or
criminal violence. Finally, these countries have relatively young populations, reflecting
perhaps a long-term strategy to normalize a form of political communication that will reap
long-term benefits in politically sensitive regions.
The capacity for saturating global voters with charged political messages is growing across
much of the world, since the cost of buying Facebook ads, Twitterbots and trolls, bots for
Whatsapp and other apps is cheap–and since more people than ever are spending time on
social media. Such systems can be managed efficiently by remote control. Unlike the CIA's
psyops efforts in the mid-20th century, which required extensive on-the-ground
efforts–dropping leaflets from airplanes, bribing local journalists, broadcasting
propaganda on megaphones mounted on cars–the new techniques can be deployed from a
distance, with minimal cost. Cambridge Analytica relies upon small ground teams to do business
with political parties, and partnerships with local business intelligence firms to scope out
the competition or provide marketing advice, but most of the work is done from London and New
York.
Weaponizing Big Data?
From its beginnings, Cambridge Analytica has declared itself to be a "data-driven" group of
analytics experts practicing an improved form of political microtargeting, but there are
indications that the firm has broader ambitions.
In March 2017,
reports emerged that top executives from SCL Group met with Pentagon officials, including
Hriar Cabayan, head of a branch which conducts DoD research and cultural analysis. A decade
ago,
Cabayan played an instrumental role in launching the precursor to the Human
Terrain System , a US Army counterinsurgency effort which embedded anthropologists and
other social scientists with US combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A few months later, in August 2017, the Associated Press reported that
retired US Army General Michael Flynn, who briefly served as National Security Director in the
Trump administration, had signed a work agreement with Cambridge Analytica in late 2016, though
it is unclear whether he actually did any work for the firm. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to
the FBI about his contacts with Russian operatives in late 2017, when he was working with
Trump's transition team. Given his spot in the media limelight, it is easy to forget that he
once headed US intelligence operations in Afghanistan, advocating for a big data
approach to counterinsurgency that would, among other things, include data collected by
Human Terrain Teams.
The connections between Cambridge Analytica/SCL Group and the Pentagon's champions of
data-driven counterinsurgency and cyberwarfare may be entirely coincidental, but they do raise
several questions: As Cambridge Analytica embarks on its global ventures, is it undertaking
projects that are in fact more sinister than its benign-sounding mission of "behavioral
change"? And are the company's recent projects in Kenya, India, Mexico, and Brazil simply
examples of global market expansion, or are these countries serving as laboratories to test new
methods of propaganda dissemination and political polarization for eventual deployment here at
home?
Here the lines between military and civilian applications become blurred, not only because
ARPANET–the Internet's immediate precursor–was developed by the Pentagon's Advanced
Research Projects Agency, but also because the technology can be used for surveillance on a
scale that authoritarian regimes of the 20th century could only have dreamed about. As Yasha
Levine convincingly argues in his book Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet , the Internet
was originally conceived as a counterinsurgency surveillance program.
Neutralizing Facebook's Surveillance Machine
It appears that many people are finally taking note of the digital elephant in the room:
Facebook's role in enabling Cambridge Analytica and other propagandists, publicists, and
mind-benders to carry out their work–legally and discreetly. As recently
noted by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai in the online journal Motherboard ,
Cambridge Analytica's data harvesting practices weren't security breaches, they were "par for
the course. . .It was a feature, not a bug. Facebook still collects -- and then sells --
massive amounts of data on its users." In other words, every Facebook post or tweet, every
g-mail message sent or received, renders citizens vulnerable to forms of digital data
collection that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The information can be used for
all kinds of purposes in an unregulated market: monitoring users' emotional states,
manipulating their attitiudes, or disseminating tailor-made propaganda designed to polarize
people.
"If your business is building a massive surveillance machinery, the data will eventually
be used and misused. Hacked, breached, leaked, pilfered, conned, targeted, engaged, profiled,
sold. There is no informed consent because it's not possible to reasonably inform or
consent."
Cambridge Analytica is significant to the extent that it illuminates new technological
controlling processes under construction. In a supercharged media environment in which
Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp (owned by Facebook) have become the primary means by which
literally billions of people consume news, mass producing propaganda has never been easier.
With so many people posting so much information about the intimate details of their lives on
the Web, coordinated attempts at mass persuasion will almost certainly become more widespread
in the future.
In the meantime, there are concrete measures that we can take to rein in Facebook, Amazon,
Google, Twitter, and other technology giants. Some of the most lucid suggestions have been
articulated by Roger McNamee, a venture capitalist and early Facebook investor.
He recommends a multi-pronged approach : demanding that the social media companies' CEOs
testify before congressional and parliamentary committees in open sessions; imposing strict
regulations on how Internet platforms are used and commercialized; requiring social media
companies to report who is sponsoring political and issues-based advertisements; mandating
transparency about algorithms ("users deserve to know why they see what they see in their news
feeds and search results," says McNamee); requiring social media apps to offer an "opt out" to
users; banning digital "bots" that impersonate humans; and creating rules that allow consumers
(not corporations) to own their own data.
In a world of diminishing privacy, our vulnerabilities are easily magnified. Experimental
psychologists specializing in what they euphemistically call "behavior design" have largely
ignored ethics and morality in order to help Silicon Valley companies create digital devices,
apps, and other technologies that are literally irresistible to their users. As the fallout
from Cambridge Analytica's activities descends upon the American political landscape, we should
take advantage of the opportunity to impose meaningful controls on Facebook, Google, Twitter,
and other firms that have run roughshod over democratic norms–and notions of individual
privacy–in the relentless pursuit of profit. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Roberto J. González
"... made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States, President Trump is Russia's man ..."
"... "precursor to a very sharp deterioration of relations" ..."
"... deep state opponents" ..."
"... "If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," ..."
"... "As far as I can see there is no investigation, ..."
"... "The verdict was declared before the investigation began and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations against Russia are baseless." ..."
"... "I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree," ..."
British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway has slammed Donald Trump's decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats
and close the Russian consulate in Seattle. Galloway regards it as tantamount to a "declaration of war." Galloway contrasted the
US' actions with those of EU member states. Those EU countries who rushed to follow the lead of Britain and the US in response to
the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal are simply acting as "vassal states," doing what they are told.
European states have " made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind
of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States,
President Trump is Russia's man ," Galloway told RT.
The former British MP said the decision to leave just 40 Russian diplomats to do their jobs in the US was either a "precursor
to a very sharp deterioration of relations" -- or alternatively a "charade " designed to make Trump's " deep state
opponents" lay off him over not being tough enough on Russia.
Galloway said Russia should not assume that being soft in response to Trump's action will have any desirable effect.
"If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way
satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," he said.
According to Galloway, the UK has not conducted a serious and unbiased investigation into the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter.
"As far as I can see there is no investigation, " he said. "The verdict was declared before the investigation began
and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations
against Russia are baseless."
Galloway said there are still many questions which have been left unanswered in the Skripal case.
"I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree,"
he said.
What is interesting is that Trump not only folded, but seeking self-preservation he voluntarily appointed
neocons to the top layer of his administration
Notable quotes:
"... This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state. ..."
"... But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding." ..."
"... his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren't looking? ..."
"... On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors. ..."
On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus
spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the
biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading Congressional Democrats
Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted -- and then some
-- will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will
deserve it.
Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony,
"there are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense,
forced -- if we want to build our military "
This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a
second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the
military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare
state.
But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of
Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing
to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost. And about the
militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference
that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history,
reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding."
He's right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is another big increase in military spending.
In fact the US continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries
combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we
somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last
Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we
weren't looking?
Of course not.
On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration,
which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. And so on. The
military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The
mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the
think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep
Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar.
That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.
While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president
announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become
his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man
who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined
conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.
Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a
senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies
of pre-emptive war.
Make no mistake: the neocons are back and looking for another war. They've got the
president's ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who's next for the warmongers?
diGenova has been on of Trump's most ardent defenders - speaking in January of a "
Brazen
plot
" by the deep state to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us
. what this story is
about - a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to
the way she handled classified information with her classified server.
Absolutely a crime,
absolutely a felony.
It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the
department of justice -
why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton. Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the
book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no
subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin village. It's a
farce.
-Joe diGenova via
Daily Caller
Does Mueller realize he is now doing more harm to the country than
any foe? His 10 month investigation of "got cha" is dividing us
and has uncovered little stuff the DOJ could have found without
the continuous spotlight of his "specialness counsel". It is time
he turns his findings over to DOJ and cease this unfortunate,
seemingly now, self-serving hunt. The nation is facing more
daunting task.
In the court of public opinion, treason is better.
Let Mueller argue the difference once Trump starts
using his name in the same tweet with treason. That
will be amusing.
Plus, with Mueller, it may well
be treason. Can you say Uranium One? That is the
deal he has to worry about. First, there is the I.G.
report due soon. Then, there is the real possibility
of another special investigation into the
investigators of the entire FBI/Clinton affair, and
Mueller will for sure be in the cross hairs. What a
great time to be a lawyer in DC.
This is a battle between 2 giants. One is going
down bigly, or maybe both.....or, Mueller has already
copped a plea, and is actually part of the I.G.'s investigation
of the FBI. Who knows? Right now, just about
anything is possible.
I believe it is actually sedition.
Treason would
involve another country.
Regardless Mueller is known for acting like a petulant
child.
I also note the budget just passed looks like a war
budget, so all this may not matter much into the future.
If you step back and try to look at the bigger picture you
have a better chance in seeing what is really going on. It
is clear that from the beginning, there was never any real
substance to the Russia collusion thing. Anyone with any
common sense could see that all of it was being orchestrated
by the deep state with the amplification and BS of the MSM
using the DNC and various hack politicians to keep things
going. The only relevant question was why?
To
impeach Trump? No. They knew from the get go there was no real substance
to the allegations.
To destabilize Trump's governance by keeping
him on the defensive with their constant MSM BS
collusion allegations?
Only a partial reason, because the groundless and totally
farfetched allegations were eventually bound to discredit
the perpetrators.
Mainly to bash Russia to prolong any attempts
by the new administration from a rapprochement with Moscow?
Again only a partial reason and clearly not enough to
justify the prolonged flogging of the dead horse
of Russian-collusion. Within the first few months we saw
Trump doing the bidding of the US-Zio deep state,
by appointing neocon pro-Israel, anti-Russian, anti-Iran,
anti-Syrian deep-state war hawks to his cabinet; ordering
a missile attack on a Syrian government installation;
threatening Iran; increasing economic sanctions
against Russia; deploying more US forces and military
equipment to Russian borders, etc. etc.
Mainly to discredit Russia
and
to divert American attention from the major hot spot in the
world - Syria?
Most likely. As long as the US deep state can keep
focusing its hostility towards Russia as separate as
possible from their own wrongdoings and aggression in Syria,
they can more easily continue with their escalation efforts
to fragment and partition that nation. Hence, the deep-state
efforts to distract the US and Western populations with fake
allegations of election interference, poisoning ex spies,
and whatever other false flags or vilifications against
Russia, or the Syrian government are to come. The last
thing the US deep state wants at the present time and
especially before the midterm elections is to make the US
support for their war against Syria a major political issue,
leading to an uncontrollable electorate directly opposing
their war effort. Russia is the backbone of the Syrian
defence. Constantly vilifying Russia with false allegations
and false flags deflects attention from the heinous
wrongdoings of Israel, the US, the UK, and NATO forces and
their terrorists and mercenary proxies in Syria.
Presently, US deep state operatives from the military and
the intelligence agencies are filling in slots in the
Democratic party to be candidates for the upcoming midterm
elections. This is clearly an indication that the US is
preparing for war, not only for an escalation in Syria but
more likely for some much greater conflict against Iran and
Russia. The sociopathic US deep state will no doubt not be
satisfied until they try out all their toys no matter how
much blood they shed and destruction they cause. That is
their history and they are a scourge against the entire
world.
Your first three observations are correct. Unfortunately,
the 4th premise being massaged merely by "The Deep
State." The US financial/military hegemony is faltering.
It stands up only because the central banks are in
collusion with each other. Those and Wall Street
manipulate and massage the financial markets in trying to
maintain their own hegemony.
But, many honest
economic/financial experts know it's only a matter of
time before the American empire cracks. Happens every
time throughout history. In this case it's China who is
moving away from the US$ and linking its trade/currency
with 50% of the world's population found in Asia/Eurasia,
and Latin American. A laborious exercise, for sure, but
watch carefully as the US continues its toxic downfall
via the military budget and the corrupt world of
finance/currency. It's only a matter of time.
Trump Unable To Hire diGenova, Toensing Over Conflicts, Mueller Strategy In
Limbo
My response
: This development is a disappointment.
I was looking for some honorable people to go into Washington DC and kick
some MUELLER BUTT and END the SPECIAL COUNSEL CHARADE that has been going
on for over a year.
Where the HELL is "OBOZO" these days? This circus in Washington DC needs
to be shutdown.
Amazing that they(diGenova & Toensing) admit to conflicts of interest but then
nearly the entire Mueller team is rife with people showing bias and COI and
they're still at it a year later. Hell, the bulk of the FBI top tier is
littered with biased assholes. If you went in and tried to clean house it'd be
like shooting fish in a barrel...with an RPG
.
but also why is this President & his team being help to a far
superior standard than the last. The conflicts in Muellers' team are too
innumerable to count, Sessions recusal, Rosenstein appointing special counsel,
Trump's clan being stymied with piss ant caught mis remembering lying to FBI
charges. diGenova is the shit as his wife too, since when have lawyers ever
given a rat's ass about conflict or even integrity, Gloria Aldridge comes to
mind. Is anyone tired of winning yet? Seems all by design. We are constantly
told it's 4D chess and yet Schumer gets 60 Billion for a tunnel and Donald
"the art of the deal" Trump get 1.6 B for paint & maintenance and specific
language prohibiting a wall. Tired of winning yet?
You do
realize that whoever
Trump names to
replace him REQUIRES
Senate
Confirmation....which
can be slow walked
for months.
Meanwhile the assy
AtG---Rosenstein with
be the ACTING ATTNY
GEN"
ANSWER: Not if
he puts someone from
a different cabinet
position who's
already been
confirmed in (aka
Scott Pruitt).
Pruitt can take
Sessions place, and
he wouldn't be
recused; which means
he takes over the
investigation from
that crooked Deep
Date scumbag
Rosenstein. Mueller
can then be fired
(and not a damn thing
Congress can do about
it other than b!tch
and whine to Libtard
news media).
Better still,
Pruitt can appoint a
second special
counsel to go after
the Deep State.
Mind you, there
are Mountains and
Mountains of evidence
of all the crimes
these Deep State
people committed.
All its going to take
is a second special
council, and its game
over.
Tonight at 7pm ET/PT,
60 Minutes
will air a controversial interview with Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, the
adult-film star who says she had an affair with Donald Trump. Daniels will talk to Anderson Cooper
about the relationship she says she had with Trump in 2006 and 2007, unveiling details that bring her
story up to the present. It will be the first - and so far only - television interview in which she
speaks about the alleged relationship.
The 60 Minutes interview will include an examination of the
potential legal and political ramifications of the $130,000 payment that Trump's attorney Michael
Cohen says he made to Daniels using his own funds. Daniels accepted the money in return for signing a
confidentiality agreement, although she recently violated the CA, claiming Trump never signed it.
The president has denied having an affair with Daniels, while Trump's legal team - in this case led
by Charles Harder who won a $140MM verdict for Hulk Hogan against Gawker - is seeking to move the case
to federal court and claims that
Stormy is liable
for up to $20 million in damages. This in turn prompted Daniels to launch a
crowdfunding
campaign to fund her lawsuit
against Trump, which at last
check had raised over $290K
.
Cooper conducted the interview earlier this month, shortly after Cohen obtained a temporary
restraining order against Daniels. Meanwhile, Daniels is seeking a ruling that the confidentiality
agreement between her and the president is invalid, in part because Mr. Trump never signed it. The
president's attorneys are seeking to move the case to federal court and claim Daniels is liable for
more than $20 million in damages for violations of the agreement.
On Thursday, the lawyer representing Daniels fired off a tweet with a picture of what appeared to
be a compact disc in a safe - hinting that he has video or photographic evidence of Clifford's affair
with President Trump.
"If 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' how many words is this worth?????" tweeted lawyer
Michael Avenatti.
Avenatti has been a frequent guest on cable news as he promotes Stormy's upcoming 60 minutes
tell-all about her alleged affair with President Trump. When CBS Evening News' Julianna Goldman asked
Avenatti if he had photos, texts or videos of her alleged relationship with Trump, he replied "No
comment," adding that Clifford just "wants to set the record straight." (which you can read more about
in her upcoming book, we're sure).
Previewing today's 60 Minutes segment, Avenatti purposefully built up the suspense, tweeting that,
among other things,
"tonight is not the end – it's the beginning"
And while it is highly unlikely that the Stormy Daniels scandal will escalate into anything of
Clinton-Lewinsky proportions, not to mention that Trump has enough other headaches on his hands, here
according to The Hill
, are seven things to watch for in tonight's interview:
1. Will she give details about the nondisclosure agreement?
Daniels has never spoken publicly about the nondisclosure agreement that purportedly bars her from
speaking about her alleged affair with Trump. But a lawsuit filed by Daniels earlier this month
confirmed the existence of such a document, arguing that it is invalid because it was never co-signed
by Trump himself.
Whether Daniels will discuss the details of the agreement in the "60 Minutes" interview remains to
be seen. Her lawsuit seeking to void the contract is still pending, and NDAs often prohibit
signatories from speaking about the agreements.
Daniels has hinted that is true of her NDA. During an interview with late-night host Jimmy Kimmel
in January, Kimmel pointed out that Daniels would likely be barred from discussing the agreement if
it, in fact, existed. "You're so smart, Jimmy," was her cagey response.
2. Will she talk openly about the alleged affair?
Daniels has implied she was paid $130,000 by Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen weeks before
the 2016 presidential election to keep quiet about the alleged affair.
Speaking openly about
her claims would certainly violate the terms of the disputed NDA, and could subject Daniels to legal
penalties.
In court papers filed earlier this month, Trump's lawyers said that Daniels could face up to $20
million in damages for violating the terms of the agreement. One question that remains is whether
Daniels could toss out the NDA completely in her "60 Minutes" interview, and provide details about her
alleged relationship with the president. The last time she spoke about it was 2011, when she gave an
interview to In Touch magazine that wasn't published until this year.
3. Will she mention possible video or photographic evidence?
Avenatti has repeatedly hinted that video or photographic evidence of Daniels's alleged affair with
Trump exists. The March 6 lawsuit filed by Daniels to void the nondisclosure agreement with Trump
refers to "certain still images and/or text messages which were authored by or relate to" the
president. While the NDA reportedly required her to turn over such material and get rid of her own
copies, Avenatti has suggested that Daniels may have retained it.
Avenatti hinted this week that he may be in possession of such material, tweeting a cryptic photo
of a compact disc inside of what appeared to be a safe. "If 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' how
many words is this worth?????" he wrote on Twitter.
4. Will she address whether she was physically threatened?
Avenatti prompted questions earlier this month when he said that Daniels had been threatened with
physical harm in connection with the alleged affair with Trump. Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether
Daniels had been physically threatened, Avenatti bluntly replied, "yes." Exactly who may have
threatened Daniels or what the nature of those threats may have been is unclear, and Avenatti has
declined to discuss the matter in greater detail. Daniels herself has not addressed any potential
physical threats that she may have gotten, leaving open whether she will discuss the topic in the "60
Minutes" interview.
5. Will she discuss whether Trump knew about the $130K payment?
Cohen himself has acknowledged making the payment to Daniels, but has insisted that the money came
from his personal funds and that Trump was never made aware of the transaction. White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said she does not believe Trump knew about the payment. But
Avenatti has argued otherwise, saying the fact that Cohen used a Trump Organization email address
backs up his claim that the real estate mogul was aware of the transaction. In an interview on
"Morning Joe" last week, Avenatti also suggested that he had more evidence that Trump knew about the
payment. Asked by Willie Geist if his "belief that the president directed this payment is based on
more than a hunch," Avenatti simply replied, "yes," but declined to provide any evidence.
6. Why does she want to talk about the affair now?
Daniels's lawsuit claims she expressed interest in discussing the alleged affair publicly in 2016
after The Washington Post published a 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape in which Trump could be heard
boasting about groping and kissing women without their permission. It was at this point that Cohen and
Trump "aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford," according to the lawsuit, which claims that the
$130,000 payment and nondisclosure agreement soon followed. But for more than a year after that,
Daniels was silent about the alleged affair, and it was only in recent months that the accusations
resurfaced. One thing to watch for is whether Daniels addresses her motives in the "60 Minutes"
interview, or answers questions about what she hopes will happen next.
7. What happens next?
There may be hints of what Daniels's next steps are in the interview. A planned court hearing for
Daniels's lawsuit is still months away. However, whatever Daniels reveals in the interview may force
the hand of Trump's own legal team. After news broke that CBS intended to air the "60 Minutes" segment
with Daniels, speculation swirled that Trump's lawyers would take legal action seeking to block the
broadcast. Such legal action would have been unlikely to proceed, because courts rarely allow such
prior restraint of speech, particularly regarding the news media.
But Trump's legal team has already signaled they're willing to fight Daniels on her claims. They
reportedly asked for a temporary restraining order against her last month and have asked to transfer
the lawsuit from California state court to a federal court in Los Angeles. But how Trump and his
lawyers respond to the interview after it airs will be closely watched.
Tags
Law
Crime
News Agencies
Internet Service Providers
Glasses, Spectacles & Contact lenses
Initially, this ridiculous scandal was mildly amusing.
Now, it
has become a tedious circus sideshow that serves to distract the
masses from much more important issues.
The disgusting fact that Trump chose to throw his dick into
this cum-dumpster skank is bad enough, but now that her lawyer
apparently has a Trump dick-pic or some other pornographic
evidence, he intends to exploit and extort as much publicity and
money that he can in an effort to embarrass the POTUS.
Is it any wonder that the USA has become the laughing stock of
the world?
Creating a malware application which masks itself as some kind of pseudo scientific test and
serves as the backdoor to your personal data is a very dirty trick...
Especially dirty it it used by academic researchers, who in reality are academic scum... An
additional type of academic gangsters, in addition to Harvard Mafia
Notable quotes:
"... By Ivan Manokha, a departmental lecturer in the Oxford Department of International Development. He is currently working on power and obedience in the late-modern political economy, particularly in the context of the development of new technologies of surveillance. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... The current social mobilization against Facebook resembles the actions of activists who, in opposition to neoliberal globalization, smash a McDonald's window during a demonstration. ..."
"... But as Christopher Wylie, a twenty-eight-year-old Canadian coder and data scientist and a former employee of Cambridge Analytica, stated in a video interview , the app could also collect all kinds of personal data from users, such as the content that they consulted, the information that they liked, and even the messages that they posted. ..."
"... All this is done in order to use data to create value in some way another (to monetize it by selling to advertisers or other firms, to increase sales, or to increase productivity). Data has become 'the new oil' of global economy, a new commodity to be bought and sold at a massive scale, and with this development, as a former Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff has argued , global capitalism has become 'surveillance capitalism'. ..."
"... What this means is that platform economy is a model of value creation which is completely dependant on continuous privacy invasions and, what is alarming is that we are gradually becoming used to this. ..."
"... In other instances, as in the case of Kogan's app, the extent of the data collected exceeds what was stated in the agreement. ..."
"... What we need is a total redefinition of the right to privacy (which was codified as a universal human right in 1948, long before the Internet), to guarantee its respect, both offline and online. ..."
"... I saw this video back in 2007. It was originally put together by a Sarah Lawrence student who was working on her paper on social media. The ties of all the original investors to IN-Q-Tel scared me off and I decided to stay away from Facebook. ..."
"... But it isn't just FB. Amazon, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Apple, Microsoft and many others do the same, and we are all caught up in it whether we agree to participate or not. ..."
"... Platform Capitalism is a mild description, it is manipulation based on Surveillance Capitalism, pure and simple. The Macro pattern of Corporate Power subsuming the State across every area is fascinating to watch, but a little scary. ..."
"... For his part, Aleksandr Kogan established a company, Global Science Research, that contracted with SCL, using Facebook data to map personality traits for its work in elections (Kosinski claims that Kogan essentially reverse-engineered the app that he and Stillwell had developed). Kogan's app harvested data on Facebook users who agreed to take a personality test for the purposes of academic research (though it was, in fact, to be used by SCL for non-academic ends). But according to Wylie, the app also collected data on their entire -- and nonconsenting -- network of friends. Once Cambridge Analytica and SCL had won contracts with the State Department and were pitching to the Pentagon, Wylie became alarmed that this illegally-obtained data had ended up at the heart of government, along with the contractors who might abuse it. ..."
"... This apparently bizarre intersection of research on topics like love and kindness with defense and intelligence interests is not, in fact, particularly unusual. It is typical of the kind of dual-use research that has shaped the field of social psychology in the US since World War II. ..."
"... Much of the classic, foundational research on personality, conformity, obedience, group polarization, and other such determinants of social dynamics -- while ostensibly civilian -- was funded during the cold war by the military and the CIA. ..."
"... The pioneering figures from this era -- for example, Gordon Allport on personality and Solomon Asch on belief conformity -- are still cited in NATO psy-ops literature to this day ..."
"... This is an issue which has frustrated me greatly. In spite of the fact that the country's leading psychologist (at the very least one of them -- ex-APA president Seligman) has been documented taking consulting fees from Guantanamo and Black Sites goon squads, my social science pals refuse to recognize any corruption at the core of their so-called replicated quantitative research. ..."
Yves
here. Not new to anyone who has been paying attention, but a useful recap with some good
observations at the end, despite deploying the cringe-making trope of businesses having DNA.
That legitimates the notion that corporations are people.
By Ivan Manokha, a departmental lecturer in the Oxford Department of International
Development. He is currently working on power and obedience in the late-modern political
economy, particularly in the context of the development of new technologies of surveillance.
Originally published at
openDemocracy
The current social mobilization against Facebook resembles the actions of activists who,
in opposition to neoliberal globalization, smash a McDonald's window during a
demonstration.
On March 17,
The Observer of London and The
New York Times announced that Cambridge Analytica, the London-based political and corporate
consulting group, had harvested private data from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million
users without their consent. The data was collected through a Facebook-based quiz app called
thisisyourdigitallife, created by Aleksandr Kogan, a University of Cambridge psychologist who
had requested and gained access to information from 270,000 Facebook members after they had
agreed to use the app to undergo a personality test, for which they were paid through Kogan's
company, Global Science Research.
But as Christopher Wylie, a twenty-eight-year-old Canadian coder and data scientist and
a former employee of Cambridge Analytica, stated in a video interview , the
app could also collect all kinds of personal data from users, such as the content that they
consulted, the information that they liked, and even the messages that they posted.
In addition, the app provided access to information on the profiles of the friends of each
of those users who agreed to take the test, which enabled the collection of data from more than
50 million.
All this data was then shared by Kogan with Cambridge Analytica, which was working with
Donald Trump's election team and which allegedly used this data to target US voters with
personalised political messages during the presidential campaign. As Wylie, told The Observer,
"we built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons."
'Unacceptable Violation'
Following these revelations the Internet has been engulfed in outrage and government
officials have been quick to react. On March 19, Antonio Tajani President of the European
Parliament Antonio Tajani, stated in a twitter message that misuse of
Facebook user data "is an unacceptable violation of our citizens' privacy rights" and promised
an EU investigation. On March 22, Wylie communicated in a tweet that he accepted
an invitation to testify before the US House Intelligence Committee, the US House Judiciary
Committee and UK Parliament Digital Committee. On the same day Israel's Justice Ministry
informed
Facebook that it was opening an investigation into possible violations of Israelis'
personal information by Facebook.
While such widespread condemnation of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is totally justified,
what remains largely absent from the discussion are broader questions about the role of data
collection, processing and monetization that have become central in the current phase of
capitalism, which may be described as 'platform capitalism', as suggested by the Canadian
writer and academic Nick Srnicek in his recent book
.
Over the last decade the growth of platforms has been spectacular: today, the top 4
enterprises in Forbes's
list of most valuable brands are platforms, as are eleven of the top twenty. Most recent
IPOs and acquisitions have involved platforms, as have most of the major successful startups.
The list includes Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, Instagram,
YouTube, Twitch, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Waze, Uber, Lyft, Handy, Airbnb, Pinterest, Square, Social
Finance, Kickstarter, etc. Although most platforms are US-based, they are a really global
phenomenon and in fact are now playing an even more important role in developing countries
which did not have developed commercial infrastructures at the time of the rise of the Internet
and seized the opportunity that it presented to structure their industries around it. Thus, in
China, for example, many of the most valuable enterprises are platforms such as Tencent (owner
of the WeChat and QQ messaging platforms) and Baidu (China's search engine); Alibaba controls
80 percent of China's e-commerce market through its Taobao and Tmall platforms, with its Alipay
platform being the largest payments platform in China.
The importance of platforms is also attested by the range of sectors in which they are now
dominant and the number of users (often numbered in millions and, in some cases, even billions)
regularly connecting to their various cloud-based services. Thus, to name the key industries,
platforms are now central in Internet search (Google, Yahoo, Bing); social networking
(Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Snapchat); Internet auctions and retail (eBay, Taobao, Amazon,
Alibaba); on-line financial and human resource functions (Workday, Upwork, Elance, TaskRabbit),
urban transportation (Uber, Lyft, Zipcar, BlaBlaCar), tourism (Kayak, Trivago, Airbnb), mobile
payment (Square Order, PayPal, Apple Pay, Google Wallet); and software development (Apple's App
Store, Google Play Store, Windows App store). Platform-based solutions are also currently being
adopted in more traditional sectors, such as industrial production (GE, Siemens), agriculture
(John Deere, Monsanto) and even clean energy (Sungevity, SolarCity, EnerNOC).
User Profiling -- Good-Bye to Privacy
These platforms differ significantly in terms of the services that they offer: some, like
eBay or Taobao simply allow exchange of products between buyers and sellers; others, like Uber
or TaskRabbit, allow independent service providers to find customers; yet others, like Apple or
Google allow developers to create and market apps.
However, what is common to all these platforms is the central role played by data, and not
just continuous data collection, but its ever more refined analysis in order to create detailed
user profiles and rankings in order to better match customers and suppliers or increase
efficiency.
All this is done in order to use data to create value in some way another (to monetize
it by selling to advertisers or other firms, to increase sales, or to increase productivity).
Data has become 'the new oil' of global economy, a new commodity to be bought and sold at a
massive scale, and with this development, as a former Harvard Business School professor
Shoshana Zuboff
has argued , global capitalism has become 'surveillance capitalism'.
What this means is that platform economy is a model of value creation which is
completely dependant on continuous privacy invasions and, what is alarming is that we are
gradually becoming used to this.
Most of the time platform providers keep track of our purchases, travels, interest, likes,
etc. and use this data for targeted advertising to which we have become accustomed. We are
equally not that surprised when we find out that, for example,
robotic vacuum cleaners collect data about types of furniture that we have and share it
with the likes of Amazon so that they can send us advertisements for pieces of furniture that
we do not yet possess.
There is little public outcry when we discover that Google's ads are racially biased as, for
instance, a Harvard professor Latanya Sweeney
found by accident performing a search. We are equally hardly astonished that companies such
as Lenddo buy access to
people's social media and browsing history in exchange for a credit score. And, at least in
the US, people are becoming accustomed to the use of algorithms, developed by private
contractors, by the justice system to take decisions on sentencing, which often result in
equally unfair and racially
biased decisions .
The outrage provoked by the Cambridge Analytica is targeting only the tip of the iceberg.
The problem is infinitely larger as there are countless equally significant instances of
privacy invasions and data collection performed by corporations, but they have become
normalized and do not lead to much public outcry.
DNA
Today surveillance is the DNA of the platform economy; its model is simply based on the
possibility of continuous privacy invasions using whatever means possible. In most cases users
agree, by signing the terms and conditions of service providers, so that their data may be
collected, analyzed and even shared with third parties (although it is hardly possible to see
this as express consent given the size and complexity of these agreements -- for instance, it
took 8 hours and 59 minutes for an actor hired by the consumer group Choice to read Amazon Kindle's terms and
conditions). In other instances, as in the case of Kogan's app, the extent of the data
collected exceeds what was stated in the agreement.
But what is important is to understand that to prevent such scandals in the future it is not
enough to force Facebook to better monitor the use of users' data in order to prevent such
leaks as in the case of Cambridge Analytica. The current social mobilization against Facebook
resembles the actions of activists who, in opposition to neoliberal globalization, smash a
McDonald's window during a demonstration.
What we need is a total redefinition of the right to privacy (which was codified as a
universal human right in 1948, long before the Internet), to guarantee its respect, both
offline and online.
What we need is a body of international law that will provide regulations and oversight for
the collection and use of data.
What is required is an explicit and concise formulation of terms and conditions which, in a
few sentences, will specify how users' data will be used.
It is important to seize the opportunity presented by the Cambridge Analytica scandal to
push for these more fundamental changes.
I am grateful for my spidey sense. Thanks, spidey sense, for ringing the alarm bells
whenever I saw one of those personality tests on Facebook. I never took one.
The most efficient strategy is to be
non-viable . They may come for you eventually, but someone else gets to be the canary,
and you haven't wasted energy in the meantime. TOR users didn't get that figured out.
Never took the personality test either, but now I now that all of my friends who did
unknowingly gave up my personal information too. I read an article somewhere about this over
a year ago so it's really old news. Sent the link to a few people who didn't care. But now
that they all know that Cambridge Analytical used FB data in support of the Trump campaign
it's all over the mainstream and people are upset.
You can disable that (i.e., prevent friends from sharing your info with third parties) in
the privacy options. But the controls are not easy to find and everything is enabled by
default.
I haven't FB'd in years and certainly never took any such test, but if any of my friends,
real or FB, did, and my info was shared, can I sue? If not, why not?
Everyone thought I was paranoid as I discouraged them from moving backups to the cloud,
using trackers, signing up for grocery store clubs, using real names and addresses for online
anything, etc. They thought I was overreacting when I said we need European-style privacy
laws in this country. People at work thought my questions about privacy for our new
location-based IoT plans were not team-based thinking.
And it turns out after all this that they still think I'm extreme. I guess it will have to
get worse.
In a first for me, there are surface-mount resistors in the advert at the top of today's
NC links page. That is way out of the ordinary; what I usually see are books or bicycle
parts; things I have recently purchased or searched.
But a couple of days ago I had a SKYPE conversation with a sibling about a PC I was
scavenging for parts, and surface mount resistors (unscavengable) came up. I suspect I have
been observed without my consent and am not too happy about it. As marketing, it's a bust; in
the conversation I explicitly expressed no interest in such components as I can't install
them. I suppose I should be glad for this indication of something I wasn't aware was
happening.
No keyboard search. I never so much as think about surface mount components; the inquiry
was raised by my sibling and I responded. Maybe its coincidental, but it seems quite odd.
I decided to click through to the site to generate a few pennies for NC and at least feel
like I was punishing someone for snooping on me.
Its been happening to me a lot recently on my Instagram, I don't like pictures or
anything, but whenever I have a conversation with someone on my phone, I start seeing ads of
what I spoke about
What we need is a total redefinition of the right to privacy (which was codified as a
universal human right in 1948, long before the Internet), to guarantee its respect, both
offline and online.
Are we, readers of this post, or citizens of the USA supposed to think there is anything
binding in declarations? Or anything from the UN if at all inconvenient for that matter?
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Platforms like facebook allow individuals to 'spy' on each other and people love it. When
I was a kid i always marveled at how some households would leave a police scanner on 24/7.
With the net we have this writ large with baby, puppy and tv dinner photos. Not to forget
it's a narcissist paradise. I have friends who I've tried to gently over time inject tidbits
of info like this article provides for many years and they still just refuse to try and get
it. If they looked over their shoulder and saw how many people/entities are literally
following them everywhere they go, they would become rabid gun owners (don't tread on me!)
overnight, but the invisible hand/eye registers not at all.
A side note: If Facebook and other social media were to assume ANY degree of
responsibility for content appearing on their platforms, they would be acknowledging their
legal liability for ALL content.
Hence they would be legally responsible just as newspapers are. And major newspapers have
on-staff lawyers and editors exquisitely attuned to the possibility of libelous content so
they can avoid ruinous lawsuits.
If the law were applied as it should be, Facebook and its brethren wouldn't last five
minutes before being sued into oblivion.
Non-liability is a product of the computer age. I remember having to agree with Microsofts
policy to absolve them of -any- liability when using their software. If they had their
druthers, -no- company would be liable for -anything-. It's called a 'perfect world'.
Companies that host 'social media' should not have to bear any responsibility for their
users content. Newspapers employ writers and fact checkers. They are set up to monitor their
staff for accuracy (Okay, in theory). So you can sue them and even their journalist
employees. Being liable (and not sued) allows them to brag about how truthful they are.
Reputations are a valuable commodity these days.
In the case of 'social media' providers, liability falls on the authors of their own
comments, which is only fair, in my view. However, I would argue that those 'providers'
should -not- be considered 'media' like newspapers, and their members should not be
considered 'journalists'.
Also, those providers are private companies, and are free to edit, censor, or delete
anything on their site. And of course it's automated. Some conservative Facebook members were
complaining about being banned. Apparently, there a certain things you can't say on
Facebook.
AFAIC, the bottom line is this: Many folks tend to believe everything they read online.
They need to learn the skill of critical thinking. And realize that the Internet can be a
vast wasteland; a digital garbage dump.
Why are our leaders so concerned with election meddling? Isn't our propaganda better than
the Russians? We certainly pay a lot for it.
. .. . .. -- .
Today, Musk also made fun of Sonos for not being as committed as he was to the
anti-Facebook cause after the connected-speaker maker said it would pull ads from the
platform -- but only for a week.
Musk, like Trump, knows he does not need to advertise because a fawning press will
dutifully report on everything he does and says, no matter how dumb.
A thoughtful post, thanks for that. May I recommend you take a look at "All You Can Pay"
(NationBooks 2015) for a more thorough treatment of the subject, together with a proposal on
how to re-balance the equation. Full disclosure, I am a co-author.
I saw this video back in 2007. It was originally put together by a Sarah Lawrence
student who was working on her paper on social media. The ties of all the original investors
to IN-Q-Tel scared me off and I decided to stay away from Facebook.
But it isn't just FB. Amazon, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Apple, Microsoft and many
others do the same, and we are all caught up in it whether we agree to participate or
not.
Anyone watch the NCAA Finals and see all the ads from Google about being "The Official
Cloud of the NCAA"? They were flat out bragging, more or less, about surveillance of players.
for the NCAA.
Platform Capitalism is a mild description, it is manipulation based on Surveillance
Capitalism, pure and simple. The Macro pattern of Corporate Power subsuming the State across
every area is fascinating to watch, but a little scary.
It was amusing that the top Google hit for the Brandeis article was JSTOR which requires
us to surrender personal detail to access their site. To hell with that.
The part I like about the Brandeis privacy story is the motivation was some Manhattan rich
dicks thought the gossip writers snooping around their wedding party should mind their own
business. (Apparently whether this is actually true or just some story made up by somebody
being catty at Brandeis has been the topic of gigabytes of internet flame wars but I can't
ever recall seeing any of those.)
" Two young psychologists are central to the Cambridge Analytica story. One is Michal
Kosinski, who devised an app with a Cambridge University colleague, David Stillwell, that
measures personality traits by analyzing Facebook "likes." It was then used in collaboration
with the World Well-Being Project, a group at the University of Pennsylvania's Positive
Psychology Center that specializes in the use of big data to measure health and happiness in
order to improve well-being. The other is Aleksandr Kogan, who also works in the field of
positive psychology and has written papers on happiness, kindness, and love (according to his
résumé, an early paper was called "Down the Rabbit Hole: A Unified Theory of
Love"). He ran the Prosociality and Well-being Laboratory, under the auspices of Cambridge
University's Well-Being Institute.
Despite its prominence in research on well-being, Kosinski's work, Cadwalladr points out,
drew a great deal of interest from British and American intelligence agencies and defense
contractors, including overtures from the private company running an intelligence project
nicknamed "Operation KitKat" because a correlation had been found between anti-Israeli
sentiments and liking Nikes and KitKats. Several of Kosinski's co-authored papers list the US
government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, as a funding source. His
résumé boasts of meetings with senior figures at two of the world's largest
defense contractors, Boeing and Microsoft, both companies that have sponsored his research.
He ran a workshop on digital footprints and psychological assessment for the Singaporean
Ministry of Defense.
For his part, Aleksandr Kogan established a company, Global Science Research, that
contracted with SCL, using Facebook data to map personality traits for its work in elections
(Kosinski claims that Kogan essentially reverse-engineered the app that he and Stillwell had
developed). Kogan's app harvested data on Facebook users who agreed to take a personality
test for the purposes of academic research (though it was, in fact, to be used by SCL for
non-academic ends). But according to Wylie, the app also collected data on their entire --
and nonconsenting -- network of friends. Once Cambridge Analytica and SCL had won contracts
with the State Department and were pitching to the Pentagon, Wylie became alarmed that this
illegally-obtained data had ended up at the heart of government, along with the contractors
who might abuse it.
This apparently bizarre intersection of research on topics like love and kindness with
defense and intelligence interests is not, in fact, particularly unusual. It is typical of
the kind of dual-use research that has shaped the field of social psychology in the US since
World War II.
Much of the classic, foundational research on personality, conformity, obedience,
group polarization, and other such determinants of social dynamics -- while ostensibly
civilian -- was funded during the cold war by the military and the CIA. The cold war was
an ideological battle, so, naturally, research on techniques for controlling belief was
considered a national security priority. This psychological research laid the groundwork for
propaganda wars and for experiments in individual "mind control."
The pioneering figures from this era -- for example, Gordon Allport on personality and
Solomon Asch on belief conformity -- are still cited in NATO psy-ops literature to this
day .."
This is an issue which has frustrated me greatly. In spite of the fact that the
country's leading psychologist (at the very least one of them -- ex-APA president Seligman)
has been documented taking consulting fees from Guantanamo and Black Sites goon squads, my
social science pals refuse to recognize any corruption at the core of their so-called
replicated quantitative research.
I have asked more than five people to point at the best critical work on the Big 5
Personality theory and they all have told me some variant of "it is the only way to get
consistent numbers". Not one has ever retreated one step or been receptive to the suggestion
that this might indicate some fallacy in trying to assign numbers to these properties.
They eat their own dog food all the way and they seem to be suffering from a terrible
malnutrition. At least the anthropologists have Price . (Most of
that book can be read for free in installments at Counterpunch.)
This is really deception as an art form: presenting a specially crafted false message to
group of voters bating them into voting for this candidate with explicit goal to deceive. This is
the same method pedophiles used to groom victims.
Notable quotes:
"... "CA was able to provide the campaign with predictive analytics based on more than 5,000 data points on every voter in the United States. From there, CA's team of political consultants and psychologists guided the campaign on what to say and how to say it to specific groups of voters." ..."
"CA was able to provide the campaign with predictive
analytics based on more than 5,000 data points on every voter in the United States. From there,
CA's team of political consultants and psychologists guided the campaign on what to say and how
to say it to specific groups of voters."
This is a vocal acknowledgement from Trump's data guru that he was able to change the
behaviour of American voters in favour of a Trump victory in the presidential election, but
unfortunately, the American deep state blamed Russia for hacking American democracy – a
claim which is totally baseless and untrue. In a total disingenuous move, American mainstream
media tried to link-up CA with WikiLeaks. While CA did contact Wikileaks, Julian Assange is on
the record as rebuffing CA's advances.
American warmongers within the deep state worked for a Hillary Clinton victory through their
control of American mainstream media, but they nevertheless failed to elect her. As a result,
Clinton's team blamed her loss on Russia, in order to accelerate hostility towards Moscow and
to apply pressure on President Trump so that he could not establish friendly relations with
Russia. They have succeeded in this regard as Trump surrendered to the war hungry deep state.
That being said, the fight within the deep state between FBI and CIA also helped Trump to use
the situation in his favour, as the FBI investigated Clinton after emails leaks scandal.
The CIA blamed Russia for hacking Hillary Clinton's DNC emails and allegedly passing them to
Wikileaks. The purpose of this blame was to influence the FBI investigation against her. To a
degree they succeeded. While she did not go to jail, she ended up losing the election. US
intelligence agencies propagated a myth that Wikileaks worked for Russia, but it is a fact that
Russia has no links with Wikileaks.
... ... ...
Recently Russian President Vladimir Putin held up a mirror to western global
manipulator elite and addressed their baseless 'blame campaign' against Russia. Speaking with
NBC news anchor Megyn Kelly, Putin said, "We're holding discussions with our American friends
and partners, people who represent the government, by the way, and when they claim that some
Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them and we did so fairly recently at a very
level, 'But you are constantly interfering in our political life'. Can you imagine, they don't
even deny it, you know what they told us last time? They said, 'Yes, we do interfere but we are
entitled to do it because we are spreading democracy and you're not, and you can't do it'. Does
this seem like a civilized and modern approach to international affairs? At the level of the
Russian government and the level of Russian President, there has never been any interference in
the internal political process of the United States."
President Putin further explained, "Not long ago President Trump said something, he said
that if Russia goal was to sow chaos it has succeeded, but that's not the result, that's the
result of your political system; the internal struggle, the disorder, and division. Russia has
nothing to do with it. Whatsoever we have nothing to do with it all. Get your own affairs in
order first and the way the question's been framed as I mentioned –that you can interfere
anywhere you want because you bring democracy but we can't –that's what causes conflicts.
You have to show your partners respect and they will respect you."
President Putin's statement clearly indicates that it is the USA who is behind the effort to
hack democracy and bring about regime changes throughout the world with the aim to install
puppet regimes in targeted states. Cambridge Analytica and its mother company SCL are working
for the strategic interests of the USA and its western partner NATO in order to achieve these
regime change ambitions. Hence, this is the reason that Facebook after the publication of my
previous article, suspended the CA/SCL group from its social media network by saying,
"Protecting people's information is at the heart of everything we do, and we require the same
from people who operate apps on Facebook. In 2015, we learned that a psychology professor at
the University of Cambridge named Dr. Aleksandr Kogan lied to us and violated our Platform
Policies by passing data from an app that was using Facebook Login to SCL/Cambridge Analytica,
a firm that does political, government and military work around the globe. He also passed that
data to Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, Inc."
Manipulating democracy -- brainwashing the public for a large fee
Cambridge Analytica, the data harvesting firm that worked for the Trump campaign, is in the
midst of a scandal that should make everyone who cares about a clean political process demand
major investigations of anyone who has procured the services of the company, major prosecutions
of those who have violated laws across multiple nations and a wholesale revitalisation of
electoral laws to prevent politicians from ever again procuring the services of unethical
companies like Cambridge Analytica.
Days ago, whistleblower Christopher Wylie went public about his time
working for Cambridge Analytica and specifically about how the firm illegally obtained the
public and private data, including the private messages of 50 million Facebook users. He also
exposed how Cambridge Analytica used this data to run highly scientific social manipulation
campaigns in order to effectively brainwash the public in various countries to support a
certain political candidate or faction.
Cambridge Analytica's dubious methods were used to meddle in the US election after the Trump
campaign paid Cambridge Analytica substantial sums of money for their services. The firm also
meddled in the last two Kenyan Presidential elections, elections in Nigeria, elections in Czech
Republic, elections in Argentina, elections in India, the Brexit campaign, UK Premier Theresa
May's recently election and now stands accused of working with the disgraced former
Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif in an attempt to reverse his judicial ban on holding public
office, while helping his PML-N party win the forthcoming general election.
Beyond the scandalous use of personal data from Facebook users and the illegal access to
people's private messages, Cambridge Analytica has now been exposed as a company that, by the
hidden-camera admission of its CEO Alexander Nix, engages in nefarious, illegal and outrageous
activities across the globe.
The UK Broadcaster Channel 4 just released a video of Cambridge Analytica's CEO and Managing
DIrector Mark Turnbull in a conversation with an undercover reporter posing as a Sri Lankan
businessman interested in meddling in domestic elections. During the conversation Nix boasted
of Cambridge Analytica's history of using entrapment, bribery and intimidation against the
political opponents of its wealthy clients. Furthermore, Nix boasted about his firm's ability
to procure Ukrainian prostitutes as a means to entrap adversaries while also procuring the
services of "Israeli spies" as part of dirty smear operations.
The activities that Nix boasted of using in the past and then offered to a prospective
client are illegal in virtually every country in the world. But for Nix and his world of
ultra-rich clients, acting as though one is above the law is the rule rather than the
exception. Thus far, Cambridge Analaytica has been able to escape justice throughout the world
both for its election meddling, data harvesting, data theft and attempts to slander politicians
through calculated bribery and entrapment schemes.
One person who refused to be tempted by Cambridge Analytica was Julian Assange. Alexander
Nix personally wrote to Julian Assange asking for direct access to information possessed by
Wikileaks and Assange refused. This is a clear example of journalistic ethics and personal
integrity on the part of Assange. Justice must be done
Cambridge Analytica stands accused of doing everything and more that the Russian
state was accused of doing in respect of meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election. While
meetings and conversations that Trump campaign officials, including Steve Bannon had with
Cambridge Analyatica big wigs were not recorded, any information as to what was said during
these exchanges should be thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and eventually made public
for the sake of restoring transparency to politics.
Just as the Hillary Clinton campaign openly conspired to deprive Bernie Sanders of the
Democratic Party's nomination, so too did Donald Trump's campaign pay Cambridge Analytica to
conspire against the American voters using a calculated psychological manipulation campaign
that was made possible through the use of unethically obtained and stolen data.
While Facebook claims it was itself misled and consequently victimised by Cambridge
Analytica and has subsequently banned the firm from its platform, many, including Edward
Snowden have alleged that Facebook knew full well what Cambridge Analytica was doing with the
data retrieved from its Facebook apps. Already, the markets have reacted to the news and the
verdict is not favourble in terms of the public perception of Facebook as an ethical company.
Facebook's share prices are down over 7% on the S&P 500. This represents the biggest tumble
in the price of Facebook share prices since 2014. Moreover, the plunge has knocked Facebook out
of the coveted big five companies atop the S&P 500. Furthermore, Alex Stamos, Facebook's
security director has announced that he will soon leave the company.
The Trump myth and Russia myth exposed
Donald Trump has frequently boasted of his expert campaigning skills as being the reason he
won an election that few thought he could have ever won. While Trump was a far more charismatic
and exciting platform speaker than his rival Hillary Clinton, it seems that for the Trump
campaign, Trump ultimately needed to rely on the expensive and nefarious services of Cambridge
Analytica in order to manipulate the minds of American voters and ultimately trick them into
voting for him. It is impossible to say whether Trump would have still won his election without
Cambridge Analaytica's services, but the fact they were used, should immediately raise the
issue of Trump's suitability for office.
Ultimately, the Trump campaign did conspire to meddle in the election, only it was
not with Russia or Russians with whom the campaign conspired, it was with the British firm
Cambridge Analytica. Thus one sees that both the narrative about Trump the electoral "genius"
and the narrative about Trump the Kremlin puppet are both false. The entire time, the issue of
Trump campaign election meddling was one between a group of American millionaires and
billionaires and a sleaze infested British firm.
Worse than Watergate
In 1972, US President Richard Nixon conspired to cover-up a beak-in at the offices of his
political opponents at the Watergate Complex. The scandal ultimately led to Nixon's resignation
in 1974. What the Trump campaign did with Cambridge Analytica is far more scandalous than the
Watergate break-in and cover-up. Where Nixon's cronies broke into offices to steal information
from the Democratic party, Trump's paid cyber-thugs at Cambridge Analytica broke in to the
private data of 50 million people, the vast majority of whom were US citizens.
Richard Nixon, like Donald Trump, was ultimately driven by a love of power throughout his
life. Just as Trump considered running for President for decades, so too did Nixon try to run
in 1960 and lost to John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while he also failed to become governor of
California in 1962 election. By 1968 he finally got into the White House at the height of the
Vietnam War. When time came for his re-election, Nixon's team weren't going to take any chances
and hence the Watergate break-in was orchestrated to dig up dirt on Nixon's opponent. As it
turned out Nixon won the 1972 by a comfortable margin, meaning that the Watergate break-in was
probably largely in vain.
Likewise, Trump may well have won in 2016 even without Cambridge Analytica, but in his quest
for power, Trump has resorted to dealing with a company whose practices have done far more
damage to the American people than the Watergate break-in.
New laws are needed
While existing laws will likely be sufficient to bring the fiends at Cambridge Analytica to
justice, while also determining the role that Trump campaign officials, up to and including
Trump played in the scandal, new laws must be enshrined across the globe in order to put the
likes of Cambridge Analytica out of business for good.
The following proposals must be debated widely and ideally implemented at the soonest
possible date:
-- A total ban on all forms of data mining/harvesting for political purposes.
-- A total ban on the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence in any political
campaign or for any political purpose.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in data mining/harvesting for
political purposes, after which point such a company would be forcibly shut down
permanently.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in the use of artificial
intelligence or algorithms in the course of a public political campaign.
-- A total ban on the use of internet based platforms, including social media by political
candidates and their direct associates for anything that could reasonably be classified as a
misinformation and/or manipulation scheme.
-- A total ban on politicians using third party data firms or advertising firms during
elections. All such advertising and analysis must be devised by advisers employed directly by
or volunteering for an individual candidate or his or her party political organisation.
-- A total ban on any individual working for a political campaign, who derives at least half
of his or her income from employment, ownership and/or shares in a company whose primary
purpose is to deliver news and analysis.
-- A total ban on anyone paid by a political candidate to promote his or her election from
an ownership or major share holding role in any company whose primary purpose is to deliver
news and analysis until 2 years after the said election.
If all of these laws were implemented along with thorough campaign finance reform
initiatives, only then can anything remotely resembling fair elections take place.
The elites eat their own
While many of the media outlets who have helped to publish the revelations of whistleblower
Christopher Wylie continue to defame Russia without any evidence about Russian linkage to the
2016 US election (or any other western vote for that matter), these outlets are nevertheless
exposing the true meddling scandal surrounding the Trump campaign which has the effect of
destroying the Russia narrative.
In this sense, a divided elite are turning against themselves. While the billionaire
property tycoon Donald Trump can hardly be described as anything but a privileged figure who
moved in elite public circles for most of his life, his personal style, rhetoric and attitude
towards fellow elites has served to alienate Trump from many. Thus, there is a desire on the
part of the mainstream media to expose a scandal surrounding Trump in a manner that would be
unthinkable in respect of exposing a cause less popular among western elites, for example the
brutal treatment of Palestine by the Zionist regime.
In this sense, Trump's own unwillingness or lack of desire to endear himself to fellow
elites and instead present himself as a 'man of the people', might be his penultimate undoing.
His rich former friends are now his rich present day enemies and many ordinary voters will be
completely aghast at his involvement with Cambridge Analytica, just as many Republicans who
voted for Nixon, became converts to the anti-Nixon movement once the misdeeds and dishonesty of
Richard Nixon were made public. Many might well leave the 'Trump train' and get on board the
'political ethics express'.
Conclusion
This scandal ultimately has nothing to do with one's opinion on Trump or his policies, let
alone any of the other politicians who have hired Cambridge Analytica. The issue is that a
company engaged in the most nefarious, dangerous, sleazy and wicked behaviour in the world, is
profiting from their destruction of political institutions that ought to be based on open
policy debates rather than public manipulation, brainwashing and artificial intelligence.
The issue is also one of privacy. 50 million people have been exploited by an unethical
company and what's more is that the money from the Trump campaign helped to empower this
unethical company. This is therefore as unfair to non-voters as it is to voters. Cambridge
Analytica must be shut down and all companies like it must restrict the scope of their
operations or else face the same consequence.
Look at this great interview with Adam Garrie. This is a must watch video.
This scandal is HUUUGE
He discusses Cambridge Analytica involvement in basically all elections, involvement of
Facebook and its Sugar daddy, UK ,US gov. How they tried to co-opt Mr.Assange and he said
FO.
How UK tries to cover it up . There is a whistleblower and soon more ,it seems
I ran onto something about that when researching SCL/Cambridge Analytica
The Mercer/Cambridge Analytica US wing of SCL put a lot of funding into the leave campaign
which was undeclared. Like a political campaign, donations above a threshold have to be
declared.
Threshold for declaring donations I think was around 3 to 7000 and CA put in over 300
000.
I have been researching SCL the last few days now. It is starting to look as though,
rather than being political mercenary's working for whoever pays, they seem to back
nationalist leaning groups or individuals. They have a political or geo-political agenda but
not sure what at the moment. Always anti Russia. Involved in operations in most of the ex
soviet countries to create a hatred of ethnic Russians and I think will work with non
nationalist types who are very anti Russia.
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/25/2018 - 13:00 371 SHARES
Julian Assange fired off a tweet Friday afternoon reminding people of the time Mark
Zuckerberg called his users "Dumb fucks" because they trusted him with their private
information.
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
The exchange,
originally published by Business Insider 's editor-in-chief Nicholas Carlson in 2010, was
an early instant messenger conversation then 19-year-old Zuckerberg had with a college friend
shortly after he launched "The Facebook" in his dorm room.
At the time Business Insider published the exchange, Facebook had "faced one privacy flap
after another, usually following changes to the privacy policy or new product releases."
But the company's attitude toward privacy, as reflected in Mark's early emails and IMs,
features like Beacon and Instant Personalization, and the frequent changes to the privacy
policy, has been consistently aggressive: Do something first, then see how people react.
And this does appear to reflect Mark's own views of privacy, which seem to be that people
shouldn't care about it as much as they do -- an attitude that very much reflects the
attitude of his generation.
After all, here's what early Facebook engineering boss, Harvard alum, and Zuckerberg
confidant Charlie Cheever said in David Kirkpatrick's brilliantly-reported upcoming book The
Facebook Effect.
"I feel Mark doesn't believe in privacy that much, or at least believes in privacy as a
stepping stone. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong."
Kirkpatrick had this to say about Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg in his book:
"Mark really does believe very much in transparency and the vision of an open society and
open world, and so he wants to push people that way . I think he also understands that the
way to get there is to give people granular control and comfort . He hopes you'll get more
open, and he's kind of happy to help you get there. So for him, it's more of a means to an
end . For me, I'm not as sure."
Zuckerberg reportedly hacked into people's email using their TheFacebook passwords...
At one point early on on Facebook history, Zuckerberg - nervous about an upcoming report in
the Harvard Crimson , used "TheFacebook" login data of Crimson staff to crack into their
Harvard email accounts to see if the paper was going to include a claim that he had stolen an
idea for a TheFacebook feature called "Visualize Your Buddy."
Tim and Elisabeth decided to drop John's claims from the story. But, this time, they
decided to go ahead and publish a story on ConnectU's claims against Facebook.
Mark Zuckerberg was not content to wait until the morning to find out if the Crimson would
include John's accusations in its story.
Instead, he decided to access the email accounts of Crimson editors and review their
emails. How did he do this? Here's how Mark described his hack to a friend:
Mark used his site, TheFacebook.com, to look up members of the site who identified
themselves as members of the Crimson . Then he examined a log of failed logins to see if any
of the Crimson members had ever entered an incorrect password into TheFacebook.com. If the
cases in which they had entered failed logins, Mark tried to use them to access the Crimson
members' Harvard email accounts. He successfully accessed two of them.
In other words, Mark appears to have used private login data from TheFacebook to hack into
the separate email accounts of some TheFacebook users.
In one account he accessed, Mark saw an email from Crimson writer Tim McGinn to Cameron,
Tyler, and Divya. Another email Mark read was this one, from Crimson managing editor
Elisabeth Theodore to Tim McGinn:
From: Elisabeth Susan Theodore
To: Timothy John McGinn
Subject: Re: Follow-up
OK, he did seem very sleazy. And I thought that some of his answers to the questions were
not very direct or open. I also thought that his reaction to the website was very very weird
. But, even if it's true so what? It's an [redacted] thing to do but it's not illegal, right?
- Business
Insider
Lo and behold, Mark's cavalier attitude towards Facebook user data is costing him billions
at a time he's actively shedding shares as part of a $12 billion liquidation which started
last
September .
... US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq
"to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it.
...who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles
Krauthammer, columnist and author.
Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to
acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is
going on ."
Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically
support Israel and its policies.
Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record -- Senate, May 20, 2004,
pages S5921-S5925. Also ""Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel
I was quite surprised when I heard what Brennan said. To me, it seemed mostly an angry
response to the election that had meant he would no longer have a position of power as he
might have had under HRC. And I felt he had been entirely too emotional and bitter about
that.
I guess I didn't think ahead to legal ramifications in regard to what he said. I just felt
as I might have if I had heard a friend or a student spout angry nonsense when they had lost
a job or had earned a low grade from another teacher.
But, you are absolutely correct. He should be sued. Furthermore, the people who paid him
to make those statements without themselves questioning what he said or countering him in any
way should also have to face repercussions.
I am so sick of the inability of the Democrats to accept that they lost to Trump and
"their" political officials' Whiny and mean-spirited pronouncements. They are all
pathetic.
Their behaviors makes it hard for some of us who aren't' always thrilled with Trump's
Tweets and his counter-punching, etc., to criticize him as we hope for more civility and
reason in our political discussions.
Brennan committed 'Sedition' against the Unites States when he used his lock-lips (called
foot in mouth syndrome) and actions behind the scenes, and stepped over the line. Sedition is
under the Treason Statute and there is no time limitations regarding prosecution for the act.
Brennan, anytime of the POTUS's choosing can be legally detained and sent to GITMO and
arranged before a Military Tribunal, and if found guilty taken out in the exercise yard and
shot by firing squad.
Colonel,
It looks it's official that Trump is replacing McMasters with Bolton as his advisor on the
NSC. Now we have one more pain-in-the-ass blockhead to worry about with Bolton on the NSC and
having the President's ear.
Col:
I would love to see Brennan and Clapper and Comey and McCabe and Strozk and all the rest of
the dimwits tried and convicted.
Its just that I don't have any faith in the swamp to do the right thing.
Take a look at this recent budget - all Democrat wins, Republicans bend over as usual.
Democrats - the evil party.
Republicans - the stupid party.
And all joined in the brotherhood of the "imperial city."
Clapper lied to Congress and nothing happened. Brennan should get sued so it can prove once
again that the private sector can generally do things better than the public sector.
Brennan, "A windbag and a fool."
-- Perhaps a claim to dementia will be the strongest point in his defense strategy. He is
more than a fool - he has been a dangerous and potent warmonger and the major rot that let to
violations of the US Constitution in the upper echelons of the US national security
apparatus.
There is also a grave issue of competence: Where had they been when Awans had an open access
to the classified documents on the congressional computers? Cooking the grandiose intrigues
while being "guided" by the Lobby?
Looking at Brennan and Clapper the question needs asking "why after esteemed careers (in
their minds) in govenment service rising to the pinnacle of their professions do they then
move on as commentators on CNN and NBC where whatever credibility they may have had is now
lost in being shown as just political hacks?
The President does seem to spend much Twitter time on Brennan which indicates Brennan is
either not worth that time or the President knows what Brennan has done and is waiting for
Justice to do its job.
Brennan certainly seems to be deflecting quite a bit so it means the onion is being peeled
back getting closer to him. His actions and statements indicate a lack of discipline.
Sue him, I would wait and let him run his mouth further then pounce.
Trump gave Brennan enough rope to hang himself, and Brennan with his foot-in-mouth-symdrome
has done just that. Brennan has committed Sedition which is under the Treason Statute, with
no statue of time limitations for prosecution. Trump has a treasure trove of evidence against
Brennan, and Trump knows it.
Trump is letting the rest of the nation see just how much of a dumb-ass Brennan really
is.
"... The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in St Petersburg. ..."
Now, at last, a real "election influence" scandal -- and, laughably, it's got nothing to do
with Russia. The protagonists are none other than the "all-American" US social media giant
Facebook and a British data consultancy firm with the academic-sounding name Cambridge
Analytica.
Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is being called upon by British and European
parliamentarians to explain his company's role in a data-mining
scandal in which up to 50 million users of the social media platform appear to have had
their private information exploited for electioneering purposes.
Exploited, that is, without their consent or knowledge. Facebook is being investigated by US
federal authorities for alleged breach of privacy and, possibly, electoral laws. Meanwhile,
Cambridge Analytica looks less an academic outfit and more like a cheap marketing scam.
Zuckerberg has professed "shock" that his company may have unwittingly been involved in
betraying the privacy of its users. Some two billion people worldwide are estimated to use the
social media networking site to share personal data, photos, family news and so on, with
"friends".
Now it transpires that at least one firm, London-based Cambridge Analytica, ran a profitable
business by harvesting the publicly available data on Facebook for electioneering purposes for
which it was contracted to do. The harvested information was then used to help target election
campaigning.
Cambridge Analytica was reportedly contracted by the Trump campaign for the 2016
presidential election. It was also used during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 when
Britons voted to leave the European Union.
This week the British news outlet Channel 4 broadcast
a stunning investigation in which chief executives at Cambridge Analytica were filmed secretly
boasting about how their firm helped win the US presidential election for Donald Trump.
More criminally, the data company boss, Alexander Nix, also revealed that they were prepared
to gather information which could be used for blackmailing and bribing politicians, including
with the use of online sex traps.
The repercussions from the scandal have been torrid. Following the Channel 4 broadcast,
Cambridge Analytica has suspended its chief executive pending further investigation. British
authorities have sought a warrant to search the company's computer servers.
Moreover, Zuckerberg's Facebook has seen $50 billion wiped of its stock value in a matter of
days. What is at issue is the loss of confidence among its ordinary citizen-users about how
their personal data is vulnerable to third party exploitation without their consent.
Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of an iceberg. The issue has raised concerns that other
third parties, including criminal identity-theft gangs, are also mining Facebook as a mammoth
marketing resource. A resource that is free to exploit because of the way that ordinary users
willingly publish their personal profiles.
The open, seemingly innocent nature of Facebook connecting millions of people -- a "place
where friends meet" as its advertising jingle goes -- could turn out to be an ethical nightmare
over privacy abuse.
Other social media companies like Amazon, Google, WhatsApp and Twitter are reportedly
apprehensive about the consequences of widespread loss of confidence among consumers in privacy
security. One of the biggest economic growth areas over the past decade -- social media --
could turn out to be another digital bubble that bursts spectacularly due to the latest
Facebook scandal.
But one other, perhaps more, significant fallout from the scandal is the realistic
perspective it provides on the so-called "Russiagate" debacle.
For well over a year now, the US and European corporate news media have been peddling claims
about how Russian state agents allegedly "interfered" in several national elections.
The Russian authorities have consistently rejected the alleged "influence campaigns" as
nothing but a fabrication to slander Russia. Moscow has repeatedly asked for evidence to verify
the relentless claims -- and none has been presented.
The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for
their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has
spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian
individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in
St Petersburg.
It still remains unclear and unconvincing how, or if, the supposed Russian hackers were
linked to the Russian state, and how they had any impact on the voting intentions of millions
of Americans.
Alternatively, there is plausible reason to believe that the so-called Russian troll farm in
St Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency, may have been nothing other than a dingy marketing
vehicle, trying to use the internet like thousands of other firms around the world hustling for
advertising business. Firms like Cambridge Analytica.
The whole Russiagate affair has been a storm in a teacup, and Mueller seems to be desperate
to produce some, indeed any, result for his inquisitorial extravaganza.
The amazing thing to behold is how the alleged Russian "influence campaign" narrative has
become an accepted truth, propagated and repeated by Western governments and media without
question.
Pentagon defense strategy papers, European Union policy documents, NATO military planning,
among others, have all cited alleged "Russian interference" in American and European elections
as "evidence" of Moscow's "malign" geopolitical agenda.
The purported Russiagate allegations have led to a grave deepening of Cold War tensions
between Western states and Russia to the point where an all-out war is at risk of breaking
out.
Last week, the Trump administration slapped more sanctions on Russian individuals and state
security services for "election meddling".
No proof or plausible explanation has ever been provided to substantiate the allegations of
a Russian state "influence campaign'. The concept largely revolves around innuendo and a
deplorable prejudice against Russia based on irrational Cold War-style Russophobia.
However, one possible beneficial outcome from the latest revelations of an actual worldwide
Facebook election-influence campaign, driven by an ever-so British data consultancy, is that
the scandal puts the claims against Russia into stark, corrective perspective.
A perspective which shows that the heap of official Western claims against Russia of
"influencing elections" is in actual fact negligible if not wholly ridiculous.
It's a mountain versus a hill of beans. A tornado versus a storm in a teacup. Time to get
real on how Western citizens are being really manipulated by their own consumer-capitalist
cultures.
"... The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100% under CIA control ..."
"... yes.... 100% right..... the servility of Germany with Merkel is disgusting and unbearable ..."
"... It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. ..."
I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and
100% under CIA control , has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I
didn't think it would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The
comments of this filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have
been way below any line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when
he talked about other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer)
Winston Churchill.
But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment.
"West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it
denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries
powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of
Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here,
especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may
not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with
the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no
way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain.
I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.
Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily.
In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the
Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What
Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air
defence.
Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the
Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they
are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history
doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to
fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.
This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week.
There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in
all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you
overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now
compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you
can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy
blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted
all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what
low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom
of the barrel.
Has Germany ever had an election without US interference? I would imagine that securing
power for anyone they choose in the EU has been a doddle for the US, even Hitler's daughter.
That would be a sick joke typical of US neocons.
As a former journalist in Germany I agree. All German news and current affairs are
sanitized. People who object to too much power in the hands of the US on German soil or who
are against the wars will be sidelined or blacklisted, depending on what their job is. "They"
prepare for a new war, or they would not need a new billion $ military hospital near
Ramstein. It said in one article that the German government could not prevent it and had to
contribute, too. Pawns.
On the whole, though, what they prepare is NOT a war by the West, it is by the US for Full
Spectrum Dominance. They rope in allies,sure, but I'd like to be optimistic. After the Iraq
and ME experiences the populations (also here in Australia) are not enthusiastic. So maybe
this time it will be US vs .... and they cannot hide behind a coalition.
The governments of Germany and Australia always kowtow of course. Ramstein and Pine Gap
are crucial for the warmongers.
Thank you for recognizing this, but you're wrong about the German alternative scene. I
think it is one of the strongest out there, it is just, well, German. Not so aggressive and
more analytical. If you ask me, what the world needs is German Spirit, but this spirit has
been oppressed (largely voluntarily, I admit) for the past 70 years or so, but it is still
there.
And when I say German, I mean the real meaning of it, so the cultural heritage of the
German language. Switzerland, Austria and others are definitely included. Do you speak
German?
It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been
crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. Most sit
there and view it all as a form of entertainment. Maybe it's the reason why many people in
the west are ambivalent.
"... Woah. What kind of bear is that? That's not on the approved play list. Nope, not a black bear, not a grizly bear, not even a teddy bear. What's that you say, all's fair in love and war? Well that means just one thing America. We have a ...... Bear Gap! Yes, a Bear Gap. ..."
"... I demand we take action to close the Bear Gap! and do it soon. We better look to our best and brightest, in the heart of the defense establishment, bowels of the think tanks the swamp. ..."
"... I suggest you try treating the neocons like bridesmaids at a wedding; because they all know they should be the one to marry the groom. ..."
So Coach Trump has brought in Bombing Bolton to strengthen the shooting line? He never did
win a peace but he sure knows how to leave a nation in pieces. Well, as the saying goes,
sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. I wonder what the opposing coach
is going to do? Say "hold my vodka" and surprise the US? That'll get the right wingers
laughing. Send in your best coach, go ahead, we dare ya.
Woah. What kind of bear is that? That's not on the approved play list. Nope, not a black
bear, not a grizly bear, not even a teddy bear. What's that you say, all's fair in love and
war? Well that means just one thing America. We have a ...... Bear Gap! Yes, a Bear
Gap.
I demand we take action to close the Bear Gap! and do it soon. We better look to our
best and brightest, in the heart of the defense establishment, bowels of the think tanks the
swamp. I'm sure there's something right there in the 1,200 page omni-bulls*&$ spending
bill you can use. Just say you read it in there somewhere - because nobody else read that damn
thing before they voted for it either. What do you think they are, responsible leaders? So take
the kind of action only you can do.
No, not that. This takes real strategy. I suggest you try treating the neocons like
bridesmaids at a wedding; because they all know they should be the one to marry the groom.
So give them just what they deserve:
Yep, that ought to do it. We may still have a Bear Gap, but if there is one thing we have no
shortage of in this age of soy-boys and cat ladies in waiting: it's cats. So toss them a bob.
That'll keep'm busy for awhile.
"... The presence of former military and intelligence officials in newsrooms was once thought controversial. In 2008, the New York Times wrote an investigative analysis outlining the George W. Bush administration's use of military analysts to shape terrorism coverage. ..."
"... Internal Pentagon documents referred to them as "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who could be counted on to deliver administration "themes and messages" to millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions." ..."
First appearance used to accuse Nunes of abusing role to protect
Trump
Former CIA Director John Brennan has been hired as a paid contributor by NBC and MSNBC, the
media company announced. He led the agency from 2013 to early 2017, under President Barack
Obama.
Brennan's appointment comes amid the outcry over the memorandum released by House
Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-California) alleging impropriety by the FBI and DOJ
while investigating claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
That Brennan previously lied to an NBC journalist about the CIA's attempts to thwart a
Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the agency's use of torture was apparently no
deterrent to his appointment.
... ... ...
The irony of Brennan's new post was not lost on journalist and The Intercept co-founder
Glenn Greenwald, who pointed out that it was a "little strange" for the network to
constantly denounce RT and Fox as "state TV" and then hire CIA Directors &
Generals as your "news analysts?"
... ... ...
The presence of former military and intelligence officials in newsrooms was once thought
controversial. In 2008, the New York Times wrote an investigative analysis outlining the George
W. Bush administration's use of military analysts to shape terrorism coverage.
Internal Pentagon documents referred to them as "message force multipliers" or
"surrogates" who could be counted on to deliver administration "themes and messages" to
millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions."
The largest contingent of analysts were affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN,
the investigation found.
Brennan is a bottom feeding cocksucker of the worst kind, he is a shining example of the
privileged ivy league businessman model of American society who claims his great patriotism
while simultaneously gutting the American Constitution, he's just a military industrial
complex suit and tie wearing POS...That a national news network employs him is a fucking
joke,,,,the CIA owns all of the national media!!!!!! The deep state has taken off the gloves
and have made themselves visible for the first time!
Hillary and the DNC were conned out of tens of millions of dollars by Fusion GPS and
Steele.. They gave her what she wanted so desperately but too bad it was all lies supported
by lies leaked to the MSM to corroborate what they were feeding her.. When it all blew up and
they became aware of the con it was too late and they had already locked a strategy based on
it with the implanted FBI and DOJ partisan traitors..
It seems the CIA is unhappy with the delivery the MSM is giving to the CIA created talking
points.. So now they put another insider to the front of the information war to deliver the
lines first hand..
Ultimately the CIA has controlled the media for decades but now they are doubling down and
determined to show their presence, a desperate and bold move!!!!!
Poop news creator, shadow president Brennan of the NWO intelligence service is back in
action. Watch out for the Amazon of dung balls hes' going to roll now.
In other words, neither men nor women have gained anything from this otherwise-well-intended
campaign against sexual improprieties. However, this is not the first time the West has allowed
raw emotions to knock the train of progress right off the tracks. History books are replete
with examples of Western campaigns rising out of sheer mass hysteria. But at least in those
wild times there was still some semblance of justice, complete with trials and investigations.
Now compare that with our 'modern' times, when all it took for the United States to win
approval for an illicit attack on Iraq was for Colin Powell to shake a vial of faux anthrax in
front of the UN General Assembly.
With these historical hiccups in mind, it is possible to argue that the West has truly
forgotten the lessons of history because they are certainly repeating them today.
By way of example, consider where the great bulk of US troops are encamped today – in
and around the Middle East – and then ask yourself how they got there.
The answer is by hook and by crook, and not a little public manipulation and chicanery. That
is because, in our insatiable desire to defend victims – the good guys, we are told
– we are allowing ourselves to ignore crucial evidence while placing blind faith in what
we are being told is the truth. Clearly that has not been the case to date.
From the accusations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction to launch against
innocent people, to the current claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Assad is using
chemical weapons against his own people, the West is gambling that claims based on zero
evidence will always work to fulfill ulterior motives. So far, the ploy seems to be working
with the gullible public, but sooner or later truth will catch up, indeed, as truth usually
does.
Just this month, for example, an assassination attempt was made against Sergei Skripal
– a former double agent who had moved to Salisbury, England following a spy-swap in 2010.
Any guesses as to who the British authorities have ruled – without a
trial, evidence or motivating factor – is the main culprit? Yes, Russia. Yet, even the
usually loyal British press has started
expressing reservations over the dubious claims.
This should come as no surprise since the UK, a member of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has staunchly refused to provide samples of the alleged
nerve agent to Russia for analysis. Why would it do that? Would anyone be surprised if this
investigation goes the same way it did for all those Russian athletes who were, unjustly,
banned from the
Winter Olympic Games this year?
Or perhaps the same way it went following the 2016 US presidential elections, when Russia
was accused of meddling on behalf of Donald Trump – zero evidence to back up the
slanderous accusations , which are responsible for putting US-Russia relations into a free
fall.
In conclusion, the unsightly spectacle of Western capitals backtracking on legal precedent
– from domestic cases to international – makes it all the more clear why it is so
anxious to win back the media mountaintops – it has no evidence whatsoever to support the
reasons behind its increasingly illicit behavior. It is therefore incumbent upon them to own
the narrative, as well as the justice system. How long this democratic charade can last is
anybody's guess.
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. "
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
Notable quotes:
"... For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. ..."
"... First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. ..."
"... Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
"... Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. ..."
"... With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US. ..."
"... As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war. ..."
"... Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage. ..."
"... The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. ..."
"... Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies. ..."
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear
war.
The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge
launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May . The Brits have claimed that Russian
secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England ,
threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been
presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase
tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a
military build-up.
A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this
anti-Russian animus.
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.
The Historical Context for Western Aggression
Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990's account for the current
surge in Western hostility to Russia.
First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal
state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.Secondly, Western elites pillaged
the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street
and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries Thirdly, the
US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent
"election" of Yeltsin. Fourthly, the West degraded Russia's military and scientific
institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia's borders. Fifthly, the West insured
that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe,
Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba,
North Korea, Libya etc.
With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia
regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes
were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster
capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.
Russia's historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence
shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia's recovery and control of its
economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.
As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and
militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages
of the 1990's. The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent
elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian
allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.
Russia's economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports.
President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO's funded
opposition parties and politicians.
As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a
systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal
for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and
defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.
The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western
public for heightened military confrontations.
Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further
a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to
return to vassalage.
President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is
the opposition of Yeltsin -- he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and
defends Russia's borders and allies.
Conclusion
In a summary response to the opening questions.
The Western regimes recognize that
Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the
EU, North America or their vassals.Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via
economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has
diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other
Western allies.
The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the
March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% . .Vladimir Putin
secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.
Russia's display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent
effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to
attack.
The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of
its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to
break with the EU.
President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and
Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda;
which do not include the UK.
In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and
contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to
join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.
Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin.
The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors -- and decide it is their better
judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.
*
Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the CRG.
The idea the Russians " "had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the
United States" which in reality in the result of deep crisis on neoliberalism, which started
in 2008 is a typical scapegoating. The essence of neo-McCarthyism if you wish.
"... But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective
was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on"
advertisements. Check it out: ..."
"... It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate
allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened.
He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly
that they know who stole the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney,
Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and
proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry
either. ..."
"... The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for
criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump
and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case
based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable.
..."
"... We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads,
tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter: ..."
"... Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for
Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the
attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface? ..."
"... I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to
support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what he's
wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets that
helps to support my theory: ..."
"... What's wrong with that? If Trump's enemies want to provide him with a
Get-Outta-Jail-Free card, then why shouldn't he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe
behind him? That's what most people would do. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against
"The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind
the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the
National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want, a
modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing
down around him. ..."
"... These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved
in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack
Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they
actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special
Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump
team? ..."
"... There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be
charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition of
"collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind of
crime. ..."
"... Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and
Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM (not
much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are supposed to
pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of them seem to
belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement it is. ..."
"... Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They like
the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of "socialism".
They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to the Armies of
Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't registered with them, and
never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against outside money, and immediately
afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds the deplorables' attention span, so
it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was
called in the Chicago movie. ..."
"... So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald
is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president ..."
"... So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald
John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I think
it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect a war in
Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both. ..."
"... The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and
disinformation. The real target is the American people. ..."
"... That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or
another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb 'Merkin
proles and peasants ..."
"... I was expecting more of a profile in courage under the tutelage of someone smarter than
Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in venality and stupidity. ..."
"... US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared a
'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources
subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work. ..."
"... Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC)
solidly on the side of Pence, probably not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down.
..."
"... The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup run
with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral
resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in Syria.
Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent danger of
suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an immediate attack
against Russian Federation. ..."
"... The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI
and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair,
CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as well
as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both ISIS and
neo-Nazis because banksters decided so. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on" advertisements. Check it out: ..."
"... It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney, Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry either. ..."
"... The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls "had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the United States." This seems to be a recurrent theme that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage capitalism. ..."
"... The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable. ..."
"... We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter: ..."
"... Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface? ..."
"... I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what he's wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets that helps to support my theory: ..."
"... Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he's not included too? Is that what he's saying? ..."
"... Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, 'Yeah, maybe Russia has been 'sowing discord', but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.'So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against "The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want, a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing down around him. ..."
"... These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump team? ..."
"... Trump's backers hope that he is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that that's what he has in mind ..."
"... Goldman, an executive at Zucc's Book, displayed evidence at a House Committee hearing of Russian bots trolling the US by portraying Sanders as 'sexy' and Trump as a hero. These memes were generally amusing but largely ineffectual. The idea of election meddling by Russia to elect Trump has largely been debunked, and both the Left and the Right now see it as a distraction to the real issue: Deep State malfeasance. ..."
"... Trump has to realize that he would be neutered by the continuance of the Mueller witchhunt, so I think that if it is a deal, it is tactical for the present. ..."
"... in my view, the Democrats overplayed their hand by calling this clickbait scam the "equivalent of Pearl Harbor" and make pushback more likely. ..."
"... Whitney can't bring himself to say Mueller has been, for decades, 'historically, criminally corrupt with longtime habit of maintaining a DoJ cover for CIA.' As well, why does Mike exclude mentioning Seymour Hersh and Kim Dotcom concerning the proposed fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? He sticks with a weak 'we really don't know' line of bs. ..."
"... Grassley wants the DoJ personalities to fall on their swords while Feinstein is besides herself, going crazy, as the investigation into President Skunk implodes around the Steele Dossier. It's like an exclusive 'serial-killers only' swingers' club where everybody is tired of the limited opportunity at couplings, yet their sex addiction requires everyone screwing everyone out of habit and everyone hates everyone's guts. At some point, the entire crew will resort to some new mass murder, like allowing war in Korea, to get it all back on track ..."
"... There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition of "collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind of crime. ..."
"... Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM (not much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are supposed to pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of them seem to belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement it is. ..."
"... Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They like the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of "socialism". They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to the Armies of Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't registered with them, and never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against outside money, and immediately afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds the deplorables' attention span, so it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was called in the Chicago movie. ..."
"... So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president ..."
"... So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both. ..."
"... The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people. ..."
"... That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb 'Merkin proles and peasants ..."
"... I was expecting more of a profile in courage under the tutelage of someone smarter than Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in venality and stupidity. ..."
"... US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared a 'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work. ..."
"... Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC) solidly on the side of Pence, probably not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down. ..."
"... The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup run with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in Syria. Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent danger of suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an immediate attack against Russian Federation. ..."
"... The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair, CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as well as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both ISIS and neo-Nazis because banksters decided so. ..."
Here's your legal koan for the day: When is an indictment not an indictment?
Answer– When there is no intention of initiating a criminal case against the accused.
In the case of the 13 Russian trolls who have just been indicted by Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, there is neither the intention nor the ability to prosecute a case against them. (They
are all foreign nationals who will not face extradition.)
But, if that's the case, than why would Mueller waste time and money compiling a 37-page
document alleging all-manner of nefarious conduct when he knew for certain that the alleged
perpetrators would never be prosecuted? Why?
Isn't is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but a
vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn't that the real purpose of the indictments, to add
another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven allegations of
Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel, he is acting in his
role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any means necessary.
Keep in mind, the subjects of the indictment will never be apprehended, never hire an
attorney, never be in a position to defend themselves or refute the charges, and never have
their case presented before and judge or a jury. They will be denied due process of law and the
presumption of innocence. Mueller's ominous-sounding claims, which were the centerpiece of his
obscene media extravaganza, made sure of that. In most people's minds, the trolls are guilty of
foreign espionage and that's all there is to it. Case closed.
But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective
was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on"
advertisements. Check it out:
"Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real
U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the
ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically
charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per
post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being
Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist."
That sounds like a money-making scheme to me not an attempt to subvert US democracy. So why
is Mueller in such a lather? Isn't this all just an attempt to divert attention from the fact
that the Nunes' investigation has produced proof that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ
were "improperly obtaining" FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump Campaign? Isn't that
what's really going on?
If we can agree that the indictments were not intended to bring the "accused" to justice,
then don't we also have to agree that there must have been an ulterior motive for issuing them?
And what might that ulterior motive be? What are the real objectives of the investigation, to
cast a shadow on an election that did not produce the results that powerful members of the
entrenched bureaucracy wanted, to make it look like Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton
fair and square, and to further demonize a geopolitical rival that has blocked Washington's
imperial ambitions in Syria and Ukraine? Which of these is the real driving force behind
Russiagate or is it 'all of the above?'
Nothing will come of the indictments because the indictments were not designed reveal the
truth or bring the accused to justice. They were written to shape public perceptions and to
persuade the American people that Trump cheated in the elections and that Russia poses a
serious threat to US national security. The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of
domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people.
It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate
allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually
happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have
stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails.
Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney,
Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and
proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry
either. Nor has he interviewed California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who met with
Assange personally and who has suggested that Assange may reveal the name (of the DNC "leaker")
under the right conditions. Instead of questioning witnesses, Mueller has spent a great deal of
time probing the online activities Russian trolls who were engaged in a money-making scheme
that was in no way connected to the Russian government, in no way connected to the Trump
campaign, and in no way supportive of the claims of hacking or collusion. None of this reflects
well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully incompetent or irredeemably
biased.
The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls "had the strategic
purpose of sowing political discord in the United States." This seems to be a recurrent theme
that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are
the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public
angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage
capitalism. Moscow has become the convenient scapegoat for the accelerated parasitism that
has seen 95% of the nation's wealth go to a sliver of people at the top of the foodchain, the 1
percent. (But that's another story altogether.) Here's a brief clip from the
portentous-sounding indictment:
"The general conspiracy statute creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire
either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or
any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose .
The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant
possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the
government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the
defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or
deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the
government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the
statements were false or fraudulent when made."
The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for
criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump
and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case
based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is
laughable.
There are a couple interesting twists and turns regarding the indictments that could be
significant, but, then again, maybe not. We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is
the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump
posted on Twitter:
"I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the
election was *NOT* the main goal."
Then there are the puzzling comments by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who said on
Friday:
"There's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And the
nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they
were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on
a virtual private network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that
first jump, they appeared to be Americans ."
Do you notice anything unusual about Rosenstein's remarks? There's no mention of Trump at
all, which is a striking omission since all of previous public announcements have been used to
strengthen the case against Trump. Now that's changed. Why? Naturally, Trump picked up on
Rosenstein's omission and blasted this triumphant message on Twitter:
"Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein stated at the News Conference: "There is no allegation in the
indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no
allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016
election." Donald Trump
So, what's going on here? Mueller and Rosenstein are smart guys. They must have known that
Trump would use the dates and the absence of anything remotely suggesting collusion as
vindication. Was that the purpose, to let Trump off the hook while the broader propaganda
campaign on Russia continues?
This is the great mystery surrounding the indictments, far from helping to establish
Trump's culpability, they appear to imply his innocence. Why would Mueller and his allies
want to do that? Are the Intel agencies and the FBI looking for a way to end this political
cage-match before a second Special Counsel is appointed and he starts digging up embarrassing
information about the involvement of other agencies (and perhaps, the White House) in the
Russiagate fiasco?
Just think about it for a minute: There is nothing in the indictments that suggests that
Trump or anyone in his campaign was involved with the Russian trolls. There is nothing in the
indictments that suggests Trump was acting as a Russian agent. And there's nothing in the
indictments that suggests the Russian government helped Trump win the election. Also, the
timeline of events seems to favor Trump as does Rosenstein's claim that the online activity
did not have "any effect on the outcome of the election."
Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for
Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the
attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface?
I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to
support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what
he's wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets
that helps to support my theory:
"I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said "it may be Russia, or China or
another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his
computer." The Russian "hoax" was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia – it never
did!" Donald Trump
Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he's not included too?
Is that what he's saying? Here's more in the same vein:
"If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S.
then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart
America!" Donald Trump
Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, 'Yeah, maybe Russia has been
'sowing discord', but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.'So Trump is not
opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where
he draws the line.
What's wrong with that? If Trump's enemies want to provide him with a Get-Outta-Jail-Free
card, then why shouldn't he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe behind him? That's what
most people would do.
The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against
"The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind
the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the
National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want,
a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system
crashing down around him.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved
in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack
Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they
actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special
Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the
Trump team?
All of these questions need to be answered in order to clear the air, hold the guilty
parties accountable and restore confidence in the government. Trump's backers hope that he
is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and
give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence
that that's what he has in mind . We'll see.
Goldman, an executive at Zucc's Book, displayed evidence at a House Committee hearing of
Russian bots trolling the US by portraying Sanders as 'sexy' and Trump as a hero. These memes
were generally amusing but largely ineffectual. The idea of election meddling by Russia to
elect Trump has largely been debunked, and both the Left and the Right now see it as a
distraction to the real issue: Deep State malfeasance.
Those Never Trumpers in the Dems and McCain camps are now left disgraced and humiliated
and their only allies are WaPo, NYT, CNN and a few other fake news outlets. The test for
Trump will be whether he can take a wrecking ball to the FBI and Department of State and to
truly cleanse the bureaucracy of ne'er-do-wells who have constantly been undermining him from
the beginning.
I think the author is correct in his assumptions. One area of hope, though, is that the
allegations are so ridiculous and others have pointed out, for instance, that the Australian
Labor party sent operatives to the US to help defeat Trump, and Trump has to realize that
he would be neutered by the continuance of the Mueller witchhunt, so I think that if it is a
deal, it is tactical for the present.
As the article indicates, Trump would lose a lot of his support if he follows through on
the deal. Also, pro-Trump websites are continuing on with the drumbeat against Mueller, and
in my view, the Democrats overplayed their hand by calling this clickbait scam the
"equivalent of Pearl Harbor" and make pushback more likely.
I think that one thing the indictment has accomplished is to reveal to anybody not paid to
think otherwise that the yankee imperium entered the post-legal era years ago, and that the
legitimacy of the yankee state has totally evaporated.
Isn't is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but
a vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn't that the real purpose of the indictments, to
add another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven
allegations of Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel,
he is acting in his role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any
means necessary [...] It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom
of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge
what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both
of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails.[sic][...] None of
this reflects well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully
incompetent or irredeemably biased
Misdirection here by Mike Whitney. Whitney can't bring himself to say Mueller has
been, for decades, 'historically, criminally corrupt with longtime habit of maintaining a DoJ
cover for CIA.' As well, why does Mike exclude mentioning Seymour Hersh and Kim Dotcom
concerning the proposed fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? He sticks with a weak 'we
really don't know' line of bs.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish
involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very
likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump
campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed
in their targeting of the Trump team?
Yeah, well Mike, 'hope springs eternal' is the apropos folk wisdom. Why not look at this
instead:
"Of course, none of this will be brought out by the Congressional intelligence
committees, to collapse the credibility of 'three amigos' Special Counsel Mueller, fired
Director Comey & present FBI boss Wray to help kill the 'Russia collusion' farce;
because all parties are complicit and tainted in the cover-up.Grassley wants the
DoJ personalities to fall on their swords while Feinstein is besides herself, going crazy,
as the investigation into President Skunk implodes around the Steele Dossier. It's like an
exclusive 'serial-killers only' swingers' club where everybody is tired of the limited
opportunity at couplings, yet their sex addiction requires everyone screwing everyone out
of habit and everyone hates everyone's guts. At some point, the entire crew will resort to
some new mass murder, like allowing war in Korea, to get it all back on track"
(See second link, preceding.)
There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be
charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition
of "collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind
of crime.
That's the purpose of endlessly repeating this vague term in pejorative rhetoric, without
ever referencing a criminal statute like the Foreign Agent Registration Act or whatever.
This gigantic diversionary twaddle has worked because the seditionists have still not been
stopped. I'm not real optimistic about it, but there are some positive developments. There is
a big disappointment in the offing with the Inspector General report coming out soon.
Horowitz is a deep state operative who has covered for the Clintons in the past. They have to
do something, so expect a limited hangout or partial whitewash. That way the drug and weapons
ratlines can continue to fund our unconscionable acts across the globe.
Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and
Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM
(not much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are
supposed to pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of
them seem to belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement
it is.
Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They
like the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of
"socialism". They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to
the Armies of Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't
registered with them, and never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against
outside money, and immediately afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds
the deplorables' attention span, so it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's
all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was called in the Chicago movie.
So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald
is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president . The question
remains if (just like Putin in Syria) he isn't trying to appease something which won't be
appeased–maybe Trump thinks he has a deal, but his enemies, while technically backing
off from the collusion claim, will still squeeze his relatives so hard on their finances and
other shenanigans that something breaks. I say: would serve Trump right for sleeping with the
dogs.
Intriguing if these 13 Russians turned up at US District Court for a chat with a Federal
Prosecutor with the International press in tow. It would be lovely to have Vlad present his
people for investigation and trial. Mueller set these 13 up, again, 'knowing' he would never
have to prove a damned thing and so, there are many embellishments. Mueller 'knows' he'll
never try them, but he also 'knew', as they ALL did, that Hillary was getting in and so these
crimes would never come to light.
Love to have Putin blow up yet another thing these folks thought they 'knew'. I'd
contribute to the GoFundMe for the best lawyers there are..
So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald
John Trump. That's where he draws the line.
Bingo. Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I
think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect
a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both.
It's all up to Nunes now. Let's hope he doesn't sell us out, too:
The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and
disinformation. The real target is the American people.
That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or
another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb
'Merkin proles and peasants , especially us stupid goyim.
The rest is mere detail. Understanding that saves a lot of time and energy.
"The test for Trump will be whether he can take a wrecking ball to the FBI and
Department of State "
He could have done that a year ago. Trump has left more people loyal to Obama in their
jobs than would have thought possible. His advisors are all seemingly pushing their own
agendas and haven't clued him in on the fact that he has Obama's bureaucracy snapping at his
ankles and he needs to go on a firing rampage.
I doubt that he even knows who he can fire outright and who would have to be moved into
another department.
According to the author, this troll farm had 90 employees assigned to the American market
who designed clickbait ads using titles that would attract doofuses wanting to read articles
on their favorite subjects related to the election.
If you surf the net without a good adblocker, you'll see all these clickbait ads with
titles like "Defeat Trump with one weird trick", or "What Trump said to Hillary off stage
will astonish you" in an attempt to get the reader to go to their site and buy something.
That's what these trolls were doing, and it had nothing to do with influencing voters.
Bingo. Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I
think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself.
Expect a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both.
It does really look like this is true. I was expecting more of a profile in courage
under the tutelage of someone smarter than Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in
venality and stupidity.
there have been thousands of such people in Balkans, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece,
who set up web pages and made money on advertising, who used the presidential election, as
honey pot. Mueller is such an idiot, that he does not know it. Sorry, he is so clever, to go
only after russian trace. you can start here:
send a couple of the indictees over to stand trial, and hire some lefty-lawyer like
Dershowitz to defend them
That was my initial reaction. But that assumes that a Washington court would not be a show
trial with emphasis on process minutia, e.g. 'identity theft' and some financial violations.
With media in overdrive proving their hyper-patriotism.
US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared
a 'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources
subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work.
We just have to let it go, it is now a 'crime' for foreigners to criticise US politicians
without first registering with Washington. Quite a beacon of freedom for the world.
Indicting foreign election interference trolls sets a precedent for prosecuting domestic
election interference trolls. The domestic election interference trolls spent hundreds of
millions and left very prolific financial and digital footprints. Jim Messina shouldn't be
sleeping easy.
Trump's failure to fire people by the truckload during the first week of his presidency is
a topic worth exploring. Probably we won't know why he failed to do this until after his
presidency sometime, but it is a curious choice given how widespread and intense was the
hatred of him.
We can know why now. Trump was kneecapped from day one in the Oval Office and he's
surrounded by treasonous people who'll either keep him in line or step out of the way of
Trump's political enemies. Pence and his ideologically (theologically, actually) aligned
Christian Zionist generals have it under control:
Meanwhile Trump is the perfect idiot to take the heat and end up holding the bag. The
momentary big, inside fight, is fundamentalist Christian Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for
upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC) solidly on the side of Pence, probably
not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down.
That fool actually believed he would be allowed to become President. Well, he was wrong.
He got the title, he gets the heat, but he'll never be allowed to exercise the power.
Trump belongs to the Ruling Class. If he didn't, the rulers never would have selected him
as president. I thought the producers had brought in the Trump character to change the
direction of the play. But no, still the same old Empire first, the rich second, and
everything else later. How much did the Trump family save from the new tax law? That's
another story all together.
Back in the day, when knights were bold, prosecutors for real, laws were understood by
all , they laid their turds beside the road, and walked away contented!
Sheesh anyhow, This Comey, and his side kick Mueller are doing pretty good job of what
they are charged with, (to do that is charged with a task.) of charging Russians, those dirty
Boris's and Natashia's over there in the dark forrest somewhere.
A ticket a tasket, the case is in a basket, (basket case, of course) and Comey and Mueller
are excellent in their roles, playing to a tough crowd, masterful impressions of Lerch and
Herman Munster.
What is the real job? could it be to extend childhood and adelescence (strike that) wrong
thought . dupdada here it is: could it be that the real job is to extend the election process
FOOD FIGHT, indeterminately, thus displacing the expectations normally accruing to a change
of administrations. That is a serious sounding term for adults, not for the kids.
ADMINISTRATION suit wearing mthfrkrs all around, all dry fake talk masking every possible
meaning and to what end?
That boat left the pier now the population is only to be amused, more of the same Food
Fight please!
You have an evolution of pollution of the process of regress into the
abstraction/distraction. Mad Hatter's Tea Party, now the new norm, and it seems to work,
We've grown too cynical for the likes of Columbo, or Perry Mason, etc.
The investigation like the Sword of Damocles may indeed get Pres Trump to further compromise
his agenda as per the campaign. However, those who lost the election have no intention of of
giving an inch. if at all possible, they intend to get rid of Pres Trump because he waylaid
there plans. Unfortunately they are incorrect, it was Pres Trump, it was their agenda and and
a solid opposition to it that defeated them during the election.
Since the attempt to remove him includes the Russia investigation and it various tentacles
I intend to defend the current President as much possible.
Major Sjursen and Dr. Bacivich – ya ya ya I know . . . he's a this and a that . . .
) seem to have reached the same conclusion – once in it's "heck to fight" the
preordained agenda.
The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup
run with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral
resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in
Syria. Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent
danger of suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an
immediate attack against Russian Federation.
The moneyed and powerful psychopaths-in-charge are enraged that the wealth of other
nations is still outside their reach becasue of Russian "stubborness." The US/UK banking
section is the main engine behind the supreme crimes of aggression in the Middle East and
Ukraine (the ongoing civil war there had been initiated on the CIA instructions in 2014; see
Brennan "secret" visit to Kiev on the eve of military actions against the civilian
populations of Eastern Ukraine:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-media-report-cia-director-held-secret-consultations-in-kiev-33897
).
The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI
and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair,
CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as
well as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both
ISIS and neo-Nazis because banksters decided so.
Germany invested a lot in the US project for the Middle East (the strategy of the
destruction of societies and states, conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, but noticeably
less in the British-US project for the " Arab Springs ". Since the Cold War, it has housed
and supported several headquarters for the Muslim Brotherhood, including that of the Syrians
in Aix-la-Chapelle. Germany took a part in the assassination of ex-Prime Minister of Lebanon,
Rafic Hariri. In 2012, it co-wrote the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional
capitulation of Syria. At present, Volker Perthes, director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und
Politik, the state think-tank, is advisor to Jeffrey Feltman at the UNO. [Jeffrey David
Feltman is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs. Feltman was born
to Jewish parents in the US he speaks Hebrew, English, Arabic, French, and Hungarian.]
For several years, the internal documents of the European External Action Service (EEAS)
are copied and pasted from Volker Perthes' notes for the German government. Volker Perthes
was at Munich with Jeffrey Feltman and their friends, Lakdhar Brahimi, Ramzi Ramzi, Steffan
de Mistura, Generals David Petraeus (the KKR was also represented by Christian Ollig) and
John Allen (Brookings Institution), as well as Nasser al-Hariri, the President of the High
Authority for Negotiations (pro-Saudi Syrian opposition), Raed al-Saleh, director of the
White Helmets (Al-Qaïda)and their Qatari sponsors, including Emir
Thamim."
There were also "three bosses – German BND (Bruno Kahl), British MI6 (Alex Younger)
and the French DGSE (Bernard Emié), who explained in a private room, in front of an
audience chosen for their naïveté, how nervous they were about the Turkish
operation in Syria. The three men pretended to believe that the combatants of the YPG
constitute the safest barrier against Daesh. Yet they were supposed to create the Frontier
Security Force with certain ex-members of Daesh . It's clear that the job of these three
super-spies is to know to whom they owe the truth, and to whom they can lie. Sustaining their
momentum, they hinted that the Syrian Arab Army uses chemical weapons – profiting from
the absence in the room of the US Secretary for Defence, Jim Mattis, who had testified a few
days earlier that proof of this claim is inexistent."
-- Lies, obfuscations, and crimes. The "three bosses" [of national security services] are
in service to Banksters, corporations, and arm dealers and producers. On the public dime, of
course And is not it touching that Jeffrey Feltman [a veritable Israel-firster] designs the
US military support for ISIS/Daesh in Syria?
The Government exists for the rich to control the slaves. The rich choose one of their own
to be President. The patriotic slaves, aka zombie morons left and right, vote for the slave
masters every four years. And argue over their merits. Oh, the Trump has a much nicer touch
with the lash than Obama.
The DNC data was leaked by an insider -- some say by the murdered Seth Rich. The Podesta
emails were hacked. And what that hack revealed was a network of wealthy pedophiles that
included both Podesta brothers, John and Tony, and other D.C. notables like Maeve Luzzatto
and James Alefantis. It's true that the PizzaGate conspiracy theory has been promoted by
Twitter nutcases, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it.
Obama CIA Director James Brennan's heavy involvement in the Russia/election conspiracy
theory might be a clue that the D.C. pedophile network might be a CIA blackmail operation,
much as Jeffrey Epstein's private Caribbean island was used as a Mossad honey trap.
"No greater friend of the Zionists than the fundamentalist Christians."
True. And thanks for using the term "Zionist" because not all Jews are Zionists and not
all Zionists are Jews. Most American Jews, while supportive of Israel, are not Zionists. Most
American Jews are a benefit to the communities they call home. Zionism is a globalist cult
that must be unmasked and destroyed.
"... According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years. Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that dossier. ..."
"... Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever more aggressive moves against Russia. ..."
"... A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China. ..."
"... China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future. At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. ..."
"... Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax. ..."
"... None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation. ..."
"... A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same reason. ..."
"... Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare. ..."
"... Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, ..."
"... Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame, when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. ..."
"... The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time. ..."
"... Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied by other countries, according to the press accounts. ..."
"... The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another. ..."
March 18 -- In this report, we will explore the strategic significance of major events in the world starting in February 2018.
Our goal is to precisely situate British Prime Minister Theresa May's March 12-14 mad effort to manufacture a new "weapons of mass
destruction" hoax based on the alleged Skripal poisoning, using the same people (the MI6 intelligence grouping around Sir Richard
Dearlove) and script (an intelligence fraud concerning weapons of mass destruction) which were used to draw the United States into
the disastrous Iraq War.
The Skripal poisoning fraud also directly involves British agent Christopher Steele, the central figure in the ongoing coup against
Donald Trump. This time the British information warfare operation is aimed at directly provoking Russia, while maintaining the targeting
of the U.S. population and President Trump.
As the fevered, war-like media coverage and hysteria surrounding the case make clear, a certain section of the British elite seems
prepared to risk everything on behalf of its dying imperial system. Despite the hype, economic warfare and sanctions appear to be
the British weapons of choice -- Vladimir Putin, as we shall see, recently called the West's nuclear bluff. With the British "Russiagate"
coup against Donald Trump fizzling, exposing British agent Christopher Steele and a slew of his American friends to criminal prosecution,
a new tool was desperately needed to back the President of the United States into the British geopolitical corner shared by most
of the American establishment. The tool they are using to do this is an intelligence hoax, a tried-and-true British product.
According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain
in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve
agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He
had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years.
Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's
British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed
from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that
dossier.
Theresa May and her foreign minister, Boris Johnson, insist there is only one person who could be responsible for the poisoning
-- described as an act of war -- and that person is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support this claim. No plausible
motive has been provided as to why Putin would order such a provocative murder now, ahead of the World Cup, when the Russiagate coup
in the United States has lost all momentum.
Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead
delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever
more aggressive moves against Russia.
Thus, as with Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump, the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free exercise
of raw power. The Anglo-American establishment instructs us: "trust this, ignore the stinky factless content presented in this dossier
-- just note that it is backed by very important intelligence agencies which could cook your goose if you object."
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London
Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia
and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight
back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs
a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational
statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at
securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
Russia and China have embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical
fantasies since the time of Halford Mackinder. China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the
largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future.
At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by
the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for implosion.
It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion, with over-the-counter
derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the coming derivatives collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support for peaceful collaboration with Russia during the campaign, and his personal
friendship with China's President Xi Jinping, have marked him for the relentless coup-drive waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new
physical principles, which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with
the vaunted first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on a new financial collapse,
its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
It is very clear that a strategic choice now confronts the human race. In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a very profound document,
"
Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. " In it, he developed the concrete basis for peace between the
two superpowers at the moment when the United States had adopted the LaRouche/Reagan doctrine of strategic defense. Both Reagan and
LaRouche had proposed that the Russians and the United States cooperate in building and developing strategic defense against offensive
nuclear weapons, based on new physical principles, thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
According to the LaRouche Doctrine, "The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) the unconditional sovereignty of each
and all nation states, and b) cooperation among sovereign states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate
in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all."
Both China, in President Xi's October Address to the Party Congress, and Russia, in Putin's March 1 address to the Federal Assembly,
have set a course to produce technological progress capable of being shared in by all. They both outline major infrastructure projects
and dedicating massive funding to exploring the frontiers of science, technology, and space exploration. Donald Trump, in both his
campaign and his presidency, has embraced similar views. The British and their American friends, however, are devotees of a completely
different and failing economic system, a system soundly rejected in Brexit, in the election of Donald Trump, and most recently in
the Italian elections.
Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack
dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax.
Exposure of British as U.S. Election Meddlers Weakens Anti-Trump Coup
On Feb. 2, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a memo demonstrating that the Obama Justice Department
and FBI committed an outright fraud on the FISA court in obtaining surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a volunteer for Donald Trump's
2016 presidential campaign. The bogus warrant applications relied heavily on the dirty British dossier authored by MI6's "former"
Russian intelligence chief, Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee
to paint Donald Trump as a Manchurian candidate -- as a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to the House Intelligence memo and other aspects of its investigation, Steele confided to Bruce Ohr, a high official
in the DOJ, that he, Steele, hated Trump with a passion and would do "anything" to prevent Trump's election. Steele was using the
fact of an FBI investigation of his allegations as part of a "full spectrum" British information warfare campaign conducted against
candidate Trump with the full complicity of Obama's intelligence chiefs. (See Peter Van Buren, "
Christopher Steele: The Real Foreign Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election? " The American Conservative, February 15, 2018.)
None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed
to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The House Intelligence Committee memo was quickly followed by a declassified letter on Feb. 5, in which Senators Chuck Grassley
and Lindsay Graham referred Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution, based on false statements
he made to the FBI about his contacts with the news media. No doubt the criminal referral sent chills down the spines not only of
Christopher Steele and his British colleagues, but also of those former Obama officials conspiring against Trump.
In the same week, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that he would be conducting investigations into the role of
the Obama State Department and intelligence chiefs in the circulation and use of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier. These investigations
have been widely reported to focus on John Brennan and James Clapper -- Brennan for widely promoting the dirty British work product,
and Clapper for leaks associated with BuzzFeed's publication and legitimization of the dirty British work product. Remind yourself
every time you hear media explosions against Trump by either Clapper (congressional perjurer and proponent of the theory that the
Russians are genetically predisposed to screw the United States) or Brennan (gopher for George Tenet's perpetual war and torture
regime and Grand Inquisitor for Barack Obama's serial
assassinations by baseball card). They are next in the barrel, so to speak.
The January 11, 2017 BuzzFeed publication of the Steele dossier was meant to permanently poison Trump's incoming administration,
and is the subject of libel suits both in Florida and London. In the London case, the British are ready to invoke the Official Secrets
Act to protect Christopher Steele. In the Florida case, Steele has been ordered to sit for deposition despite numerous delays and
stalling tactics.
The Congressional investigation of the State Department is focused on John Kerry, Kerry's aide Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland,
and Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Nuland utilized Christopher Steele as a primary intelligence source while running the U.S. regime
change operations in Ukraine in alliance with neo-Nazis. She greenlighted Steele's initial meetings with the FBI about Donald Trump.
Winer deployed himself to vouch for Steele to various news publications collaborating with British agent Steele and his U.S. employer,
Fusion GPS, in Steele's media warfare operations against Trump.
On March 12, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it had completed its Russia investigation. It stated that it
found "no collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." Its draft final report was to have been
provided to the Democrats on the Committee on March 13 for comment and then submitted to declassification review.
On March 15, four U.S. Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Thom
Tillis, called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ and FBI with respect to the Russiagate investigation.
They particularly focused on the use of the Steele dossier, FISA abuse, the disclosure of classified information to the press,
and the criminal investigation and case of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Separately, House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte have asked the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel on similar
grounds.
On March 16, James Comey's Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, was fired as the result of recommendations by the FBI's Office
of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR recommendation resulted from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's
investigation of McCabe's actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation and the Clinton Foundation. McCabe claimed that
this was part of a plot against himself, Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Horowitz, however, is an actual Washington
straight shooter appointed to his post by Barack Obama. The OPR is the FBI's own disciplinary agency. Horowitz's report is expected
to be extremely critical of McCabe, citing a "lack of candor" (i.e., lying) with respect to the investigation. Whatever the corrupt
media might claim, the facts here have been thoroughly investigated by McCabe's former FBI subordinates. They think his lies and
other actions disgrace the FBI and don't entitle him to a pension.
Horowitz's report on the Clinton investigations -- which have already unearthed the texts between former Russiagate lead case
agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, proclaiming their hatred of Donald Trump and the need for an "insurance
policy" against his election -- is expected to be released very soon. According to the House Intelligence Committee, the Strzok/Page
texts also reveal that Strzok was a close friend of U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Contreras sits on the FISA court,
took Michael Flynn's guilty plea, and then promptly recused himself from Michael Flynn's case for reasons which remain undisclosed.
Despite its exoneration of the President and thorough discrediting of the British Steele operation, the House Intelligence Committee
dangerously accepts the myth that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
and the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, and then provided the hacked information to WikiLeaks for publication.
Its final report states, however, that Putin's intervention was not in support of Donald Trump, as previously claimed by Obama's
intelligence chiefs. The Senators seeking a new Special Counsel also salute this dangerous fraud.
As we have previously reported, the myth that Putin hacked the Democrats and provided the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, has been
substantively refuted by the investigations of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). In summary, the evidence
points to a leak rather than a hack in the case of the DNC. Further, the NSA would have the evidence of any such hack or hacks, according
to former NSA technical director Bill Binney, and would have provided it, even if in a classified setting. It is clear that the NSA
has no such evidence. It is also clear that the United States and the British have cyber warfare capabilities fully capable of creating
"false flag" cyber war incidents.
North Korea Talks Planned, While Russia and China Continue to Create the Conditions for a New Human Renaissance
In addition to the fizzling of the coup, the Western elites suffered through February and March for additional reasons. To the
shock of the entire, smug Davos crowd, Donald Trump, working with Russia, China, and South Korea, appears to have gotten Kim Jong-un
to the negotiating table concerning denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Substantive talks have been scheduled for May. The
breakthrough was announced by President Trump and South Korea on March 8.
On March 1, President Putin gave his historic two-hour address to the Russian Federal Assembly and the Russian people. Like President
Xi's address to the Chinese Party Congress in October 2017, Putin focused on the goal of deeply reducing poverty in Russian society.
Xi vowed in October to eliminate poverty from Chinese society altogether by 2020. In addition, Putin emphasized that Russia would
undertake a huge city-building project across its vast rural frontiers and dramatically expand its modern infrastructure, including
Russia's digital infrastructure. He put major emphasis on directing funds to basic scientific and technological progress. He emphasized
that harnessing and stimulating the creative powers of individual human beings is the true driver of all economic progress.
China's Belt and Road Initiative also continued to advance. Great infrastructure projects are popping up throughout the world,
including most specifically in Africa, which had been consigned to be a permanent, primitive looting-ground for Western interests.
Among the recent breakthroughs is the great project to refill Lake Chad, a project known as "Transaqua," involving the Italian engineering
firm Bonifica, the Chinese engineering and construction firm PowerChina, and the Lake Chad Basin Commission, which represents the
African countries directly benefiting from the project. But the biggest strategic news of the last six weeks was contained in the
last part of President Putin's speech. He showed various weapons, developed by Russian scientists in the wake of the U.S. abrogation
of the ABM treaty and the Anglo-American campaign of color revolutions and NATO base-building in the former Soviet bloc. These weapons,
based on new physical principles, render U.S. ABM defenses obsolete, together with many U.S. utopian war-fighting doctrines developed
under the reigns of Obama and Bush. Putin emphasized that the economic and "defense" aspects of his speech were not separate. Rather,
the scientific breakthroughs were based on an in-depth economic mobilization of the physical economy. He stressed that Russia's survival
was dependent upon marshalling continuous creative breakthroughs in basic science and the high-technology spinoffs which result,
and their propagation through the entire population. He stressed that such breakthroughs are the product of providing an actually
human existence to the entire society.
Compare what Russia and China have set out to accomplish with respect to the physical economy of the Earth, with the second and
third paragraphs of Lyndon LaRouche's prescription for a durable peace in the LaRouche Doctrine:
The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic,
and political relations between dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as "developing nations."
Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace
on this planet.
Insofar as the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet
to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest.
This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of a durable peace between those
two powers.
This is the perspective which has the British terrified and acting-out, insanely. Were Trump, Putin, and Xi to enter into negotiations
based on the LaRouche Doctrine, a breakthrough will have occurred for all of mankind, a breakthrough to a permanent and durable peace.
No neo-liberal, post-industrial, unipolar order can match this, no matter how much Allister Heath, Ms. May, or Boris Johnson rant
and rave about it.
Christopher Steele's British Playground
As is well known by now, Christopher Steele was a long-time MI6 agent before "retiring" to form his own extremely lucrative private
intelligence firm. The firm is said to have earned $200 million since its formation. Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the
time Skripal was recruited. He also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there was to know about Skripal.
Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, worked for Steele's firm according to Miller's LinkedIn profile, and lived in the same town
as Skripal.
Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf.
The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding
and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation.
A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same
reason.
There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning prose:
Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian
oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It
is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized
crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare.
Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous
"sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for
the disastrous and genocidal Iraq War.
Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame,
when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. According to Jane Mayer's account, Steele called this "Project
Charlemagne," and completed his report on it in April 2016, just before he undertook his hit job against Donald Trump. In his
report, Steele claimed that Russia was interfering in the politics of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey.
He claimed that Russia was conducting social media warfare aimed at "inflaming fear and prejudice and had provided opaque financial
support to favored politicians." He specifically targeted Silvio Berlusconi and Marine Le Pen. Steele also suggested that Russian
aid was given to "lesser known right wing nationalists" in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, implying that the Russians were behind
Brexit, with an overall goal of destroying the European Union.
Leaving aside Sergei Skripal's relationship with the central figure in the British-led coup against Donald Trump, it is clear
that the May government's claim that he and his daughter were poisoned by a "novichok" nerve-agent, even if it is true, by no means
makes a case that Putin's government was responsible. (It is of interest that as we were going to press on March 19, the foreign
ministers of the European Union, after a briefing by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that indicted Putin as responsible,
issued a statement which condemned the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter, but pointedly failed to blame Putin or Russia.)
Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan who maintains contacts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote March
16 that Britain's chemical-warfare scientists at Porton Down, "are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture,
and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation of a type
developed by Russia, after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly
researching, in the novichok program, a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors
such as insecticides and fertilizers. This substance is a novichok in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop
of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China."
The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon
LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time.
"To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days," Murray continues. "The government has never said
the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation of a type developed by Russia was
used by Theresa May in Parliament, used by the U.K. at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most
tellingly of all, 'of a type developed by Russia,' is the precise phrase used in the joint communique‚ issued by the U.K., U.S.A.,
France, and Germany yesterday."
The main account of the chemical weapons cited by Theresa May was written by a Soviet dissident chemist named Vil Mirzayanov who
now lives in the United States and published a book about his work at the Soviets' Uzbekistan chemical-warfare laboratory. In his
much-publicized book, Mirzayanov sets out the formulas for the claimed substances. According to the March 16 Wall Street Journal,
that publicity led to the novichoks' chemical structure being leaked, making them readily available for reproduction elsewhere. Ralf
Trapp, a France-based consultant and expert on the control of chemical and biological weapons, told the Journal, "The chemical formula
has been publicized and we know from publications from then-Czechoslovakia that they had worked on similar agents for defense in
the 1980s. I'm sure other countries with developed programs would have as well."
But it does not seem that those "other countries" include Russia. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
the independent agency charged by treaty with investigating claims like those just made by the British government, certified in September
2017 that the Russian government had destroyed its entire chemical weapons program, inclusive of its nerve agent production capabilities.
In addition to Trapp's account, Seamus Martin, writing in the March 14 Irish Times, posits, based on personal knowledge, that novichoks
were widely expropriated by East Bloc oligarchs and criminal elements in the Russian economic chaos of the 1990s.
Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied
by other countries, according to the press accounts.
Further trouble for May's attempted hoax is found in the condition of the Skripals and of a police officer who went to their home.
All were made critically ill, although they are still alive. Yet the emergency personnel who treated the Skripals, allegedly the
victims of a deadly and absolutely lethal nerve poison, suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB
and FSB officer was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British-intelligence-directed oligarch Boris
Berezovsky in information warfare and other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations against any European
politician seeking sane relations with Putin.
Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the
case, which, of course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited
with a significant role in public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in organizing the murder of American
journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in Britain in mysterious
circumstances following the loss of a major court case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush
to judgment and pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian organized crime as alternative areas for investigation.
Had Corbyn added to that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on the right track. Corbyn also pointed
out that these oligarchs had contributed millions to May's Conservative Party. The reaction by the British media, May's Conservatives,
and Tony Blair's faction of the Labour Party was to paint Corbyn as a Putin dupe, including photoshopped images of the Labour leader
in a Russian winter hat in front of the Kremlin.
The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want
to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the
British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British
strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the
entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another.
"... According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years. Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that dossier. ..."
"... Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever more aggressive moves against Russia. ..."
"... A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China. ..."
"... China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future. At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. ..."
"... Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax. ..."
"... None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation. ..."
"... A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same reason. ..."
"... Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare. ..."
"... Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, ..."
"... Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame, when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. ..."
"... The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time. ..."
"... Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied by other countries, according to the press accounts. ..."
"... The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another. ..."
March 18 -- In this report, we will explore the strategic significance of major events in the world starting in February 2018.
Our goal is to precisely situate British Prime Minister Theresa May's March 12-14 mad effort to manufacture a new "weapons of mass
destruction" hoax based on the alleged Skripal poisoning, using the same people (the MI6 intelligence grouping around Sir Richard
Dearlove) and script (an intelligence fraud concerning weapons of mass destruction) which were used to draw the United States into
the disastrous Iraq War.
The Skripal poisoning fraud also directly involves British agent Christopher Steele, the central figure in the ongoing coup against
Donald Trump. This time the British information warfare operation is aimed at directly provoking Russia, while maintaining the targeting
of the U.S. population and President Trump.
As the fevered, war-like media coverage and hysteria surrounding the case make clear, a certain section of the British elite seems
prepared to risk everything on behalf of its dying imperial system. Despite the hype, economic warfare and sanctions appear to be
the British weapons of choice -- Vladimir Putin, as we shall see, recently called the West's nuclear bluff. With the British "Russiagate"
coup against Donald Trump fizzling, exposing British agent Christopher Steele and a slew of his American friends to criminal prosecution,
a new tool was desperately needed to back the President of the United States into the British geopolitical corner shared by most
of the American establishment. The tool they are using to do this is an intelligence hoax, a tried-and-true British product.
According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain
in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve
agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He
had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years.
Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's
British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed
from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that
dossier.
Theresa May and her foreign minister, Boris Johnson, insist there is only one person who could be responsible for the poisoning
-- described as an act of war -- and that person is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support this claim. No plausible
motive has been provided as to why Putin would order such a provocative murder now, ahead of the World Cup, when the Russiagate coup
in the United States has lost all momentum.
Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead
delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever
more aggressive moves against Russia.
Thus, as with Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump, the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free exercise
of raw power. The Anglo-American establishment instructs us: "trust this, ignore the stinky factless content presented in this dossier
-- just note that it is backed by very important intelligence agencies which could cook your goose if you object."
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London
Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia
and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight
back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs
a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational
statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at
securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
Russia and China have embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical
fantasies since the time of Halford Mackinder. China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the
largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future.
At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by
the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for implosion.
It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion, with over-the-counter
derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the coming derivatives collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support for peaceful collaboration with Russia during the campaign, and his personal
friendship with China's President Xi Jinping, have marked him for the relentless coup-drive waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new
physical principles, which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with
the vaunted first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on a new financial collapse,
its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
It is very clear that a strategic choice now confronts the human race. In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a very profound document,
"
Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. " In it, he developed the concrete basis for peace between the
two superpowers at the moment when the United States had adopted the LaRouche/Reagan doctrine of strategic defense. Both Reagan and
LaRouche had proposed that the Russians and the United States cooperate in building and developing strategic defense against offensive
nuclear weapons, based on new physical principles, thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
According to the LaRouche Doctrine, "The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) the unconditional sovereignty of each
and all nation states, and b) cooperation among sovereign states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate
in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all."
Both China, in President Xi's October Address to the Party Congress, and Russia, in Putin's March 1 address to the Federal Assembly,
have set a course to produce technological progress capable of being shared in by all. They both outline major infrastructure projects
and dedicating massive funding to exploring the frontiers of science, technology, and space exploration. Donald Trump, in both his
campaign and his presidency, has embraced similar views. The British and their American friends, however, are devotees of a completely
different and failing economic system, a system soundly rejected in Brexit, in the election of Donald Trump, and most recently in
the Italian elections.
Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack
dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax.
Exposure of British as U.S. Election Meddlers Weakens Anti-Trump Coup
On Feb. 2, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a memo demonstrating that the Obama Justice Department
and FBI committed an outright fraud on the FISA court in obtaining surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a volunteer for Donald Trump's
2016 presidential campaign. The bogus warrant applications relied heavily on the dirty British dossier authored by MI6's "former"
Russian intelligence chief, Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee
to paint Donald Trump as a Manchurian candidate -- as a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to the House Intelligence memo and other aspects of its investigation, Steele confided to Bruce Ohr, a high official
in the DOJ, that he, Steele, hated Trump with a passion and would do "anything" to prevent Trump's election. Steele was using the
fact of an FBI investigation of his allegations as part of a "full spectrum" British information warfare campaign conducted against
candidate Trump with the full complicity of Obama's intelligence chiefs. (See Peter Van Buren, "
Christopher Steele: The Real Foreign Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election? " The American Conservative, February 15, 2018.)
None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed
to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The House Intelligence Committee memo was quickly followed by a declassified letter on Feb. 5, in which Senators Chuck Grassley
and Lindsay Graham referred Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution, based on false statements
he made to the FBI about his contacts with the news media. No doubt the criminal referral sent chills down the spines not only of
Christopher Steele and his British colleagues, but also of those former Obama officials conspiring against Trump.
In the same week, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that he would be conducting investigations into the role of
the Obama State Department and intelligence chiefs in the circulation and use of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier. These investigations
have been widely reported to focus on John Brennan and James Clapper -- Brennan for widely promoting the dirty British work product,
and Clapper for leaks associated with BuzzFeed's publication and legitimization of the dirty British work product. Remind yourself
every time you hear media explosions against Trump by either Clapper (congressional perjurer and proponent of the theory that the
Russians are genetically predisposed to screw the United States) or Brennan (gopher for George Tenet's perpetual war and torture
regime and Grand Inquisitor for Barack Obama's serial
assassinations by baseball card). They are next in the barrel, so to speak.
The January 11, 2017 BuzzFeed publication of the Steele dossier was meant to permanently poison Trump's incoming administration,
and is the subject of libel suits both in Florida and London. In the London case, the British are ready to invoke the Official Secrets
Act to protect Christopher Steele. In the Florida case, Steele has been ordered to sit for deposition despite numerous delays and
stalling tactics.
The Congressional investigation of the State Department is focused on John Kerry, Kerry's aide Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland,
and Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Nuland utilized Christopher Steele as a primary intelligence source while running the U.S. regime
change operations in Ukraine in alliance with neo-Nazis. She greenlighted Steele's initial meetings with the FBI about Donald Trump.
Winer deployed himself to vouch for Steele to various news publications collaborating with British agent Steele and his U.S. employer,
Fusion GPS, in Steele's media warfare operations against Trump.
On March 12, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it had completed its Russia investigation. It stated that it
found "no collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." Its draft final report was to have been
provided to the Democrats on the Committee on March 13 for comment and then submitted to declassification review.
On March 15, four U.S. Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Thom
Tillis, called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ and FBI with respect to the Russiagate investigation.
They particularly focused on the use of the Steele dossier, FISA abuse, the disclosure of classified information to the press,
and the criminal investigation and case of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Separately, House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte have asked the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel on similar
grounds.
On March 16, James Comey's Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, was fired as the result of recommendations by the FBI's Office
of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR recommendation resulted from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's
investigation of McCabe's actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation and the Clinton Foundation. McCabe claimed that
this was part of a plot against himself, Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Horowitz, however, is an actual Washington
straight shooter appointed to his post by Barack Obama. The OPR is the FBI's own disciplinary agency. Horowitz's report is expected
to be extremely critical of McCabe, citing a "lack of candor" (i.e., lying) with respect to the investigation. Whatever the corrupt
media might claim, the facts here have been thoroughly investigated by McCabe's former FBI subordinates. They think his lies and
other actions disgrace the FBI and don't entitle him to a pension.
Horowitz's report on the Clinton investigations -- which have already unearthed the texts between former Russiagate lead case
agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, proclaiming their hatred of Donald Trump and the need for an "insurance
policy" against his election -- is expected to be released very soon. According to the House Intelligence Committee, the Strzok/Page
texts also reveal that Strzok was a close friend of U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Contreras sits on the FISA court,
took Michael Flynn's guilty plea, and then promptly recused himself from Michael Flynn's case for reasons which remain undisclosed.
Despite its exoneration of the President and thorough discrediting of the British Steele operation, the House Intelligence Committee
dangerously accepts the myth that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
and the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, and then provided the hacked information to WikiLeaks for publication.
Its final report states, however, that Putin's intervention was not in support of Donald Trump, as previously claimed by Obama's
intelligence chiefs. The Senators seeking a new Special Counsel also salute this dangerous fraud.
As we have previously reported, the myth that Putin hacked the Democrats and provided the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, has been
substantively refuted by the investigations of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). In summary, the evidence
points to a leak rather than a hack in the case of the DNC. Further, the NSA would have the evidence of any such hack or hacks, according
to former NSA technical director Bill Binney, and would have provided it, even if in a classified setting. It is clear that the NSA
has no such evidence. It is also clear that the United States and the British have cyber warfare capabilities fully capable of creating
"false flag" cyber war incidents.
North Korea Talks Planned, While Russia and China Continue to Create the Conditions for a New Human Renaissance
In addition to the fizzling of the coup, the Western elites suffered through February and March for additional reasons. To the
shock of the entire, smug Davos crowd, Donald Trump, working with Russia, China, and South Korea, appears to have gotten Kim Jong-un
to the negotiating table concerning denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Substantive talks have been scheduled for May. The
breakthrough was announced by President Trump and South Korea on March 8.
On March 1, President Putin gave his historic two-hour address to the Russian Federal Assembly and the Russian people. Like President
Xi's address to the Chinese Party Congress in October 2017, Putin focused on the goal of deeply reducing poverty in Russian society.
Xi vowed in October to eliminate poverty from Chinese society altogether by 2020. In addition, Putin emphasized that Russia would
undertake a huge city-building project across its vast rural frontiers and dramatically expand its modern infrastructure, including
Russia's digital infrastructure. He put major emphasis on directing funds to basic scientific and technological progress. He emphasized
that harnessing and stimulating the creative powers of individual human beings is the true driver of all economic progress.
China's Belt and Road Initiative also continued to advance. Great infrastructure projects are popping up throughout the world,
including most specifically in Africa, which had been consigned to be a permanent, primitive looting-ground for Western interests.
Among the recent breakthroughs is the great project to refill Lake Chad, a project known as "Transaqua," involving the Italian engineering
firm Bonifica, the Chinese engineering and construction firm PowerChina, and the Lake Chad Basin Commission, which represents the
African countries directly benefiting from the project. But the biggest strategic news of the last six weeks was contained in the
last part of President Putin's speech. He showed various weapons, developed by Russian scientists in the wake of the U.S. abrogation
of the ABM treaty and the Anglo-American campaign of color revolutions and NATO base-building in the former Soviet bloc. These weapons,
based on new physical principles, render U.S. ABM defenses obsolete, together with many U.S. utopian war-fighting doctrines developed
under the reigns of Obama and Bush. Putin emphasized that the economic and "defense" aspects of his speech were not separate. Rather,
the scientific breakthroughs were based on an in-depth economic mobilization of the physical economy. He stressed that Russia's survival
was dependent upon marshalling continuous creative breakthroughs in basic science and the high-technology spinoffs which result,
and their propagation through the entire population. He stressed that such breakthroughs are the product of providing an actually
human existence to the entire society.
Compare what Russia and China have set out to accomplish with respect to the physical economy of the Earth, with the second and
third paragraphs of Lyndon LaRouche's prescription for a durable peace in the LaRouche Doctrine:
The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic,
and political relations between dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as "developing nations."
Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace
on this planet.
Insofar as the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet
to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest.
This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of a durable peace between those
two powers.
This is the perspective which has the British terrified and acting-out, insanely. Were Trump, Putin, and Xi to enter into negotiations
based on the LaRouche Doctrine, a breakthrough will have occurred for all of mankind, a breakthrough to a permanent and durable peace.
No neo-liberal, post-industrial, unipolar order can match this, no matter how much Allister Heath, Ms. May, or Boris Johnson rant
and rave about it.
Christopher Steele's British Playground
As is well known by now, Christopher Steele was a long-time MI6 agent before "retiring" to form his own extremely lucrative private
intelligence firm. The firm is said to have earned $200 million since its formation. Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the
time Skripal was recruited. He also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there was to know about Skripal.
Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, worked for Steele's firm according to Miller's LinkedIn profile, and lived in the same town
as Skripal.
Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf.
The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding
and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation.
A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same
reason.
There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning prose:
Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian
oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It
is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized
crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare.
Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous
"sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for
the disastrous and genocidal Iraq War.
Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame,
when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. According to Jane Mayer's account, Steele called this "Project
Charlemagne," and completed his report on it in April 2016, just before he undertook his hit job against Donald Trump. In his
report, Steele claimed that Russia was interfering in the politics of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey.
He claimed that Russia was conducting social media warfare aimed at "inflaming fear and prejudice and had provided opaque financial
support to favored politicians." He specifically targeted Silvio Berlusconi and Marine Le Pen. Steele also suggested that Russian
aid was given to "lesser known right wing nationalists" in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, implying that the Russians were behind
Brexit, with an overall goal of destroying the European Union.
Leaving aside Sergei Skripal's relationship with the central figure in the British-led coup against Donald Trump, it is clear
that the May government's claim that he and his daughter were poisoned by a "novichok" nerve-agent, even if it is true, by no means
makes a case that Putin's government was responsible. (It is of interest that as we were going to press on March 19, the foreign
ministers of the European Union, after a briefing by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that indicted Putin as responsible,
issued a statement which condemned the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter, but pointedly failed to blame Putin or Russia.)
Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan who maintains contacts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote March
16 that Britain's chemical-warfare scientists at Porton Down, "are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture,
and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation of a type
developed by Russia, after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly
researching, in the novichok program, a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors
such as insecticides and fertilizers. This substance is a novichok in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop
of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China."
The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon
LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time.
"To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days," Murray continues. "The government has never said
the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation of a type developed by Russia was
used by Theresa May in Parliament, used by the U.K. at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most
tellingly of all, 'of a type developed by Russia,' is the precise phrase used in the joint communique‚ issued by the U.K., U.S.A.,
France, and Germany yesterday."
The main account of the chemical weapons cited by Theresa May was written by a Soviet dissident chemist named Vil Mirzayanov who
now lives in the United States and published a book about his work at the Soviets' Uzbekistan chemical-warfare laboratory. In his
much-publicized book, Mirzayanov sets out the formulas for the claimed substances. According to the March 16 Wall Street Journal,
that publicity led to the novichoks' chemical structure being leaked, making them readily available for reproduction elsewhere. Ralf
Trapp, a France-based consultant and expert on the control of chemical and biological weapons, told the Journal, "The chemical formula
has been publicized and we know from publications from then-Czechoslovakia that they had worked on similar agents for defense in
the 1980s. I'm sure other countries with developed programs would have as well."
But it does not seem that those "other countries" include Russia. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
the independent agency charged by treaty with investigating claims like those just made by the British government, certified in September
2017 that the Russian government had destroyed its entire chemical weapons program, inclusive of its nerve agent production capabilities.
In addition to Trapp's account, Seamus Martin, writing in the March 14 Irish Times, posits, based on personal knowledge, that novichoks
were widely expropriated by East Bloc oligarchs and criminal elements in the Russian economic chaos of the 1990s.
Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied
by other countries, according to the press accounts.
Further trouble for May's attempted hoax is found in the condition of the Skripals and of a police officer who went to their home.
All were made critically ill, although they are still alive. Yet the emergency personnel who treated the Skripals, allegedly the
victims of a deadly and absolutely lethal nerve poison, suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB
and FSB officer was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British-intelligence-directed oligarch Boris
Berezovsky in information warfare and other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations against any European
politician seeking sane relations with Putin.
Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the
case, which, of course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited
with a significant role in public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in organizing the murder of American
journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in Britain in mysterious
circumstances following the loss of a major court case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush
to judgment and pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian organized crime as alternative areas for investigation.
Had Corbyn added to that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on the right track. Corbyn also pointed
out that these oligarchs had contributed millions to May's Conservative Party. The reaction by the British media, May's Conservatives,
and Tony Blair's faction of the Labour Party was to paint Corbyn as a Putin dupe, including photoshopped images of the Labour leader
in a Russian winter hat in front of the Kremlin.
The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want
to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the
British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British
strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the
entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another.
So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded
with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the
ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?
Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the
21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen!
/sarc
Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to
start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton
is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as
a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin
was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.
Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan
(for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).
Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are
afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power
to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.
Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a
misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping
the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.
What is interesting that as there are 3.4K dislikes and only 1.2K likes. Looks like people start to decipher the NBC propaganda
machine and neoliberal propaganda machine in general (NBC is not an outlier in this respect; this is run of mill neoliberal outlet)
Looks like Putin really has steel nerves. Megyn Kelly was really disgusting pushing her talking points like there is
not tomorrow. Such a shill... . She also was organically able to listen. she has her prejudices can't shake them and actually does
not want to shake them (may be this is connected with her job security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian Insider is there in its totality. ..."
"... the moment i heard "American Democracy Under Attack" i stopped watching the video. ..."
"... Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. ..."
"... It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from Megyn part. ..."
"... I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. ..."
"... How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states' elections? The USA government is pure evil. ..."
"... "American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election. Come on people, don't be foolish. ..."
"... "You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys" sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating America's role in hijacking the Russian political system. ..."
Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian
Insider is there in its totality.
Mr. Putin, did you intervene in the US elections? No But did you intervene? No And when you intervened, did you intervene?
No Have you intervened with the oligarchs? No Did you help them intervene? No And in the US say you intervened you did it? No
But you did not interfere, huh? Yes Interfered? No
Where is the full interview? I had to go to a Russian government TV channel so I can watch the full interview. And you label
the Russian media as state propaganda. Shame on you.
"Cut and paste" the interview with an agenda of bashing Russia, using "some people say" or "some American experts say" as the
sources without any solid proof and evidence is shameful.
Please, please, please, any US citizen who is watching this, go watch the full interview, just in order to get an idea of what your
media is worth. Listen to the words, also pay attention to how it is filmed and
presented.You really need to know how much you are bullshitted to.
When he talked about principles, why didn't she believe? Please, know that there are many people in the world with principles,
who are not necessarily running and dying for capitalist money, brands, silly talentless pointless half-naked pop-stars, yachts
or florida-like beaches, etc. There are many people who are fine to live without all these but with principles and other values
, which are not that bad even they don't run around money!
Her first and fatal mistake was underestimating his intelligence, thinking she could trip him up with her aggressive tone.
Putin has forgotten more about politics than Kelly has yet to learn. It's easy to see why NBC hacked the interview to pieces -
she was pathetic and out of her league, just another brainwashed, deluded American shill.
Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. I wasn't a fan of Russia before this,
but you might be changing my mind by showing this edited crap. You're making things between the US and Russia worse not better
by showing this edited crap.
Wow, i am a Russian and i have to say you guys went too far with your propaganda. This is cut and edited beyond reason. Why
you do this? Stop making our president look like the ultimate villain. Honestly, it was such a pleasure to listen to Vladimir
Putin's reasonable approach. WTF NBC?
It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper
conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from
Megyn part.
In America, Our political & Media Elite managed to collude Our foreign policy with Democracy promotion.We use Democracy promotion
to achieved our foreign policy agenda.. In Libya we Used democracy promotion to achieve our foreign policy goal of getting ride
of Gadhafi, following the fall of Gadhafi we abandon Libya on moved on to OUR NEXT TARGET, SYRIA.... IN SYRIA, we formed an alliance
with non Democratic ARAB REGIMES to Overthrow A Circular government of ASSAD. when RUSSIA & IRAN INTERVEIN @ THE REQUEST OF THE
SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, we have an issue with that.. OUR FOREIGN POLICY is INCONSISTENT AND UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL INTEREST/Democracy.
& Corporate Media is a SCAM... HAD WE HAD alternative NEWS SOURCE LIKE(social media) WE DO TODAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE INVADED IRAQ
ON FAKE EVIDENCE /INTELLIGENCE God Bless America
NBC is the reason why the US and Russia will never be allies. They seem to want war. Putin is probably laughing at the hysteria
of the US media. Make no mistake, the MEDIA is getting in the way of peace with Russia. Putin is no saint, but keep in mind they
have more nuclear weapons than us. Wouldn't hurt to mend the relationship...
This is American propaganda in its purest most undiluted form. The interpreter is putting words into Putin's mouth making him
sound arrogant and brash. Its is Megyn Kelly who is the arrogant one just like the rest of the American mainstream media. I admire
Putin for his patience, one must have the mental stability of a yogi to tolerate the half literate moronic deluge that radiates
from Megyn's mouth. She was going too far, by interrupting Putin at every turn while Putin still has the decency to politely respond.
If she is so democratic, I would advise her to pay a visit to her government's Saudi "allies.
Putin is too smart for Megyn. Do you really think he's gonna tell you what you think when an American journalist asks you such
questions? I don't like Putin either but he's got balls. I bet he knows English too but he knows that speaking a foreign language
will put him at an disadvantage. Smart move by hiring an interpreter. By the way the US government throughout has done things
far worse than rigging election.
This isnt an interview more less the ' pressing' of 'false allegations & speculation'. Every response Putin gives is reasonable.
Putin didnt have to agree with doing this. She sounds like a failed lawyer & wanna be politician. America is not Perfect, Russia
is not perfect, I wish she would sit down with people in her own country & do the same but she doesnt. She acts as if she is asking
these questions on behalf of Americans when really it is based on 'her' own views and for the sake of 'her' interview. This interview
is flawed.
Don't spread lies NBC news. People should not believe this fake news! Glad to see there's more dislikes than likes, people
are starting to know the truth.
How disingenuous can NBC get? Actual quote from the interview: "Maybe, although they were Russian, they work for some American
company. Maybe one of them worked with one of the candidates. I have no idea about this. These are not my problems" And in the
headlines: "Putin on alleged US election interference: I don't care".
American Democracy is run by plutocrats Itching for war against Russia and China and Iran.. USA is a warmonger doing the bidding
for Israel.. As if Russia had Trump elected.. What a joke.. American mainstream media is trying to manufacture consent from its people
to go to war.. Watch and see..
United state have been interfering in African election forcing us to there evil democracy, killing Gaddafi for no reason. Look
at what you guys did in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that don't want to do your evil democracy. After lying to the shameless
United nations security council about Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction, Who fight you about that?.
This is quite possibly the WORST interview ever conducted. This one is NOT a journalist. If you want to be a respectable broadcaster,
fire this moron immediately. Horrendously non-factual, terribly edited - this interview is America in a nutshell. The world has
awoken in this age and won't stand still.
Remember that United States interferes in the affairs of other nations ALL THE TIME. The U.S. attempted to influence the elections
of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine,
Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.
I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right
thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. They actually are repulsed and
angry by the idea that we could be the bad guys. It has turned my family and friends against me. I am all alone...
Megyn Kelly? Pressure Putin? Should I cry or laugh! It's like watching Ahmedinajad destroying King! Even your questions has
no concrete clue to any Russian government connection! None!!!!! Are you really a journalist? Guys seriously if you wanna do tv
then do it right! You can't pressure Putin by saying they are Russians if you don't have any any any any clues on government connection!
You should really consider your questions next time!
There's no "Russian Connection". This is a lie. This whole "Russian interference in US elections" is a political sham invented
by the corrupt American system infiltrated by Zionists and Anti-Christian lobbyists.
Poor work by the journalist. She is supposed to have a dialogue, she is supposed to listen to the interviewee. Instead, it
was just a bunch of questions and it looked quite awkward.
How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states'
elections? The USA government is pure evil.
"American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election.
Come on people, don't be foolish.
"You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys"
sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating
America's role in hijacking the Russian political system.
All 1,472 employees of Facebook, Inc. reportedly burst out in uncontrollable laughter
Wednesday following Albuquerque resident Jason Herrick's attempts to protect his personal
information from exploitation on the social-networking site.
" Look, he's clicking 'Friends Only' for his e-mail address. Like that's going to make a
difference! " howled infrastructure manager Evan Hollingsworth, tears streaming down his
face, to several of his doubled-over coworkers.
" Oh, sure, by all means, Jason, 'delete' that photo. Man, this is so rich ."
According to internal sources, the entire staff of Facebook was left gasping for air minutes
later when the "hilarious" Herrick believed he had actually blocked third-party ads.
"... May, who referred to a "Russian mafia state," has blamed Moscow for the attack even though she made plain in her first speech that the investigation was still underway. ..."
"... She did not consider that Vladimir Putin's government would have no good reason to carry out an assassination that surely would be attributed to it, particularly as it was on the verge of national elections and also, more important, because it will be hosting the World Cup later this year and will be highly sensitive to threats of boycott. ..."
"... when Theresa May says that the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a reported Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and 1980s, she is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are, to a certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that might or might not have been used in Salisbury. ..."
I don't know what happened in Salisbury England on March 4th, but it appears that the
British government doesn't know either. Prime Minister Theresa May's
speech before Parliament last Monday was essentially political, reflecting demands that she
should "do something" in response to the mounting hysteria over the poisoning of former Russian
double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. After May's presentation there were demands
from Parliamentarians for harsh measures against Russia, reminiscent of the calls for action
emanating from the U.S. Congress over the allegations relating to what has been called
Russiagate.
This demand to take action led to a second Parliamentary address by May on Wednesday in
which she detailed the British response to the incident, which included cutting off all
high-level contacts between Moscow and London and the " persona non grata " (PNG)
expulsion of 23 "spies" and intelligence officers working out of the Russian Federation
Embassy. The expulsions will no doubt produce a tit-for-tat PNG from Moscow, ironically
crippling or even eliminating the MI-6 presence and considerably reducing Britain's own ability
to understand what it going on in the Kremlin.
May, who referred to a "Russian mafia state," has blamed Moscow for the attack even
though she made plain in her first speech that the investigation was still underway. In
both her presentations, she addressed the issue of motive by citing her belief that the
attempted assassination conforms with an established pattern of Russian behavior. She did
not consider that Vladimir Putin's government would have no good reason to carry out an
assassination that surely would be attributed to it, particularly as it was on the verge of
national elections and also, more important, because it will be hosting the World Cup later
this year and will be highly sensitive to threats of boycott. And it must be observed that
Skripal posed no active threat to the Russian government. He has been living quietly in Britain
for eight years, leading to wild tabloid press speculation that the Kremlin's motive must have
been to warn potential traitors that there are always consequences, even years later and in a
far-off land.
To provide additional buttressing of what is a questionable thesis, the case of the
assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 has been repeatedly cited by the media
on both sides of the Atlantic as evidence of Russian turpitude, but the backstory is not the
same. Litvinenko was an FSB officer who fled to the United Kingdom to avoid prosecution in
Russia. In Britain, he became a whistleblower and author, exposing numerous alleged Russian
government misdeeds. Would the Kremlin have been motivated to kill him? He was seen as a
traitor and a continuing threat through his books and speeches, so it is certainly possible.
The story of Skripal was, however, completely different. He was a double agent working for
Britain who was arrested and imprisoned in 2006. He was released and traveled to the UK after a
2010 spy swap was arranged by Washington and his daughter has been able to travel freely from
Moscow to visit him. If the Russian government had wanted to kill him, they could have easily
done so while he was in prison, or they could have punished him by taking steps against his
daughter.
There are a number of problems with the accepted narrative as presented by May and the
media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a nerve agent as "usually odorless organophosphate
(such as sarin, tabun, or VX) that disrupts the transmission of nerve impulses by inhibiting
cholinesterase and especially acetylcholinesterase and is used as a chemical weapon in gaseous
or liquid form," while Wikipedia explains that it is "a class of organic chemicals that disrupt
the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages to organs." A little more research online
reveals that most so-called nerve agents are chemically related. So when Theresa May says
that the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a
reported Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and
1980s, she is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are,
to a certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that
might or might not have been used in Salisbury.
Beyond that, a military strength nerve agent is, by definition, a highly concentrated and
easily dispersed form of a chemical weapon. It is intended to kill or incapacitate hundreds or
even thousands of soldiers. If it truly had been used in Salisbury, even in a small dose, it
would have killed Skripal and his daughter as well as others nearby. First responders who
showed up without protective clothing, clearly seen in the initial videos and photos taken near
the site, would also be dead. After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador and
demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of the
alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It was
a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway.
May's language also conveys uncertainty. She used "it appears" and also said it was "highly
likely" that Moscow was behind the poisoning of Skripal but provided no actual evidence that
that was the case, presumably only assuming that it had to be Russia. And her government has
told the public that there is "little risk" remaining over the incident and that those who were
possibly exposed merely have to wash themselves and their clothes, hardly likely if it were a
military grade toxin, which gains it lethality from being persistent on and around a target.
She made clear her lack of corroboration for her claim by offering an "either-or" analysis:
either Russia's government did it or it had "lost control" of its nerve agent.
As noted above, May's argument is, to a certain extent, based on character assassination of
Russians – she even offered up the alleged "annexation" of Crimea as corroboration of her
view that Moscow is not inclined to play by the rules that others observe. It is a narrative
that is based on the presumption that "this is the sort of thing the Russian government headed
by Vladimir Putin does." The British media has responded enthusiastically, running stories
about numerous assassinations and poisonings that ought to be attributed to Russia, while
ignoring the fact that the world leaders in political assassinations are actually the United
States and Israel.
There are a number of other considerations that the May government has ignored in its rush
to expand the crisis. She mentioned that Russia might be somewhat exonerated if it has lost
control of its chemical weapons, but did not fully explain what that might mean. It could be
plausible to consider that states hostile to Russia like Ukraine and Georgia that were once
part of the Soviet Union could have had , and might
still retain, stocks of the Novichok nerve agent. That in turn suggests a false flag, with
someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone
were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons
capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the
characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it
was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably
be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on
Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon
its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed
agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent
action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The
redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident
to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack
on New York City could be coming.
And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party. Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might assassinate
someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in the United
States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is considering the
possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a government to help
it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can be used to spark an
international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the ticket.
"... Media outlets based in the US and Britain have long enjoyed dominance in the global news market and have abused their position to manipulate audiences ..."
"... "People are naked against these media wars. They are victims of these media wars," ..."
"... "They are being driven into a certain way of emotions without even understanding that." ..."
"... "Anglo-Saxon media" ..."
"... "They are the most powerful, the most influential, and they have the widest possible reach globally," ..."
"... And, of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will to manipulate this monopoly. ..."
"... You can use this monopoly as a tool of delivering your point of view, whether it's right or wrong, it doesn't matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation -- to simply manipulate the [minds] of people throughout the world." ..."
Media outlets based in the US and Britain have long enjoyed dominance in the global news
market and have abused their position to manipulate audiences , a Kremlin spokesman told
RT in an exclusive interview. Russia is currently being targeted by an unprecedented campaign
in the West, aimed at undermining its resurgence, Dmitry Peskov told RT's Sophie Shevardnadze.
The media are playing a major part in it, as they are selling an anti-Russian narrative to the
people of Western nations. But what those outlets do is a disservice to their audiences, he
argued.
"People are naked against these media wars. They are victims of these media wars,"
he said. "They are being driven into a certain way of emotions without even understanding
that."
Peskov said that for decades "Anglo-Saxon media" enjoyed a virtual global monopoly
on delivering news about economy and politics.
"They are the most powerful, the most influential, and they have the widest possible
reach globally," he said. " And, of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will
to manipulate this monopoly.
You can use this monopoly as a tool of delivering your point of view, whether it's
right or wrong, it doesn't matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation -- to
simply manipulate the [minds] of people throughout the world."
He added that outlets like RT challenge this "huge machine" with alternative
narratives and facts that don't fit into how the Western media wants the world to see things. A
good example of this is coverage of events in Syria and Iraq, Peskov said.
Western media were all too eager to highlight civilian casualties of the operation in
Aleppo, which they blame solely on Russian and Syrian forces, but failed to extend this kind of
reporting to similar operations in Mosul and Raqqa, where the US-led coalition was in
charge.
So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded
with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the
ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?
Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the
21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen!
/sarc
Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to
start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton
is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as
a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin
was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.
Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan
(for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).
Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are
afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power
to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.
Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a
misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping
the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.
"... I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the 1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet. ..."
"... Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the Olympics. ..."
"... I just thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0 ..."
I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I
knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the
1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence
agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet.
Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the
Olympics. I already have my tickets for England v Panama in Nizhny Novgorod, as well as
a second round match in Moscow.
I don't care much for the Olympics, although I do like the Winter Olympics. I just
thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just
seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the
event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is
probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0
Levine's investigative reporting on the connection between the Silicon Valley tech giants and the military-intelligence community
has been
praised
by high-level
NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, and many others. [See my interviews of Drake here:
"Google has partnered with the United States Department of Defense to help the agency develop artificial intelligence for analyzing
drone footage, a move that set off a firestorm among employees of the technology giant when they learned of Google's involvement."
--
Gizmodo / March
6, 2018
Gizmodo's report on Google's work for the Pentagon has been making headlines all day. It's also thrown the normally placid halls
of Google's Mountain View HQ into chaos. Seems that Googlers can't believe that their awesome company would get involved in something
as heinous as helping the Pentagon increase its drone targeting capability.
But the fact that Google helps the military build more efficient systems of surveillance and death shouldn't be surprising, especially
not to Google employees. The truth is that Google has spent the last 15 years selling souped-up versions of its information technology
to military and intelligence agencies, local police departments, and military contractors of all size and specialization -- including
outfits that sell predictive policing tech deployed in cities across America today.
As I outline in my book
Surveillance Valley
, it started in 2003 with customized Google search solutions for data hosted by the CIA and NSA. The company's military contracting
work then began to expand in a major way after 2004, when Google cofounder Sergey Brin pushed for buying Keyhole, a mapping startup
backed by the CIA and the NGA, a sister agency to the NSA that handles spy satellite intelligence.
Spooks loved Keyhole because of the "video game-like" simplicity of its virtual maps. They also appreciated the ability to layer
visual information over other intelligence. The sky was the limit. Troop movements, weapons caches, real-time weather and ocean conditions,
intercepted emails and phone call intel, cell phone locations -- whatever intel you had with a physical location could be thrown
onto a map and visualized. Keyhole gave an intelligence analyst, a commander in the field, or an air force pilot up in the air the
kind of capability that we now take for granted: using digital mapping services on our computers and mobile phones to look up restaurants,
cafes, museums, traffic conditions, and subway routes. "We could do these mashups and expose existing legacy data sources in a matter
of hours, rather than weeks, months, or years," an NGA official gushed about Keyhole -- the company that we now know as Google Earth.
Military commanders weren't the only ones who liked Keyhole's ability to mash up data. So did Google cofounder Sergey Brin.
The purchase of Keyhole was a major milestone for Google, marking the moment the company stopped being a purely consumer-facing
Internet company and began integrating with the US government. While Google's public relations team did its best to keep the company
wrapped in a false aura of geeky altruism, company executives pursued an aggressive strategy to become the Lockheed Martin of the
Internet Age. "We're functionally more than tripling the team each year," a Google exec who ran Google Federal, the company's military
sales division, said in 2008.
It was true. With insiders plying their trade, Google's expansion into the world of military and intelligence contracting took
off.
"In 2007, it partnered with Lockheed Martin to design a visual intelligence system for the NGA that displayed US military
bases in Iraq and marked out Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad -- important information for a region that had experienced
a bloody sectarian insurgency and ethnic cleansing campaign between the two groups."
"In 2008, Google won a contract to run the servers and search technology that powered the CIA's Intellipedia, an intelligence
database modeled after Wikipedia that was collaboratively edited by the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other federal agencies."
"In 2010, as a sign of just how deeply Google had integrated with US intelligence agencies, it won a no-bid exclusive $27
million contract to provide the NGA with "geospatial visualization services," effectively making the Internet giant the "eyes"
of America's defense and intelligence apparatus."
"In 2008, Google entered into a three-way partnership with the NGA and a quasi-government company called GeoEye to launch
a spy satellite called GeoEye-1. The new satellite, which was funded in large part by the NGA, delivered extremely high-resolution
images for the exclusive use of NGA and Google."
A few years ago it started working with PredPol, a California-based predictive policing startup. "PredPol did more than simply
license Google's technology to render the mapping sys- tem embedded in its product but also worked with Google to develop customized
functionality, including 'building additional bells and whistles and even additional tools for law enforcement.'"
More from the book:
"Google has been tightlipped about the details and scope of its contracting business. It does not list this revenue in a separate
column in quarterly earnings reports to investors, nor does it provide the sum to reporters. But an analysis of the federal contracting
database maintained by the US government, combined with information gleaned from Freedom of Information Act requests and published
periodic reports on the company's military work, reveals that Google has been doing brisk business selling Google Search, Google
Earth, and Google Enterprise (now known as G Suite) products to just about every major military and intelligence agency: navy,
army, air force, Coast Guard, DARPA, NSA, FBI, DEA, CIA, NGA, and the State Department. Sometimes Google sells directly to the
government, but it also works with established contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and SAIC (Science
Applications International Corporation), a California-based intelligence mega-contractor that has so many former NSA employees
working for it that it is known in the business as 'NSA West.'"
The reason Hillary Clinton did not win despite the media and social media companies
doing everything they could to rig the election in her favor is because Facebook double
dipped and allowed Cambridge Analytica to use their surveying tools to collect user data on
tens of millions of users. This data was then used to target tens of millions of users with
political advertising using Facebook's ad platform based on psycholgoical profiles from
data they bought or acquired from Facebook.
Facebook is basically responsible for feeding the analytics system that enabled
Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign to be so targeted and effective with a minimal
budget.....
That's what happened, that's how Trump won. It wasn't the Russians, it was our own
social media companies who sold our data to the Trump campaign which they then likely used
to convince liberals not to vote in swing states.
It's both horrifying, and cleverly brilliant at the same time.
The funny thing is, Obama did something similar in 2012 and liberals celebrated. Not
so funny when the other team takes your trick and executes it more effectively now is
it?
In order for him [Sanders] to do anything, he would have to have a substantial,
functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have
to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress,
the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from the bottom.
Hours after the
resignation of John Dowd , President Trump's lead attorney handling the special counsel
investigation, Trump said he "would like to" testify in Robert Mueller's ongoing probe - a move
panned by some, including Fox's Judge Napolitano, as a
bad move .
The President's 180 comes after the White House legal team had reportedly been considering
ways that President Trump might be able to testify - including giving written answers - with
Trump's attorneys reportedly having been split on the terms of such a deal, reported the
Wall Street Journal earlier this
month.
But that's not Trump's style... After bringing on former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova on
Monday - a former Special Counsel himself who went after both the Teamsters and former NY
Governor Elliot Spitzer, Trump is reportedly taking the gloves off according to Vanity
Fair 's Gabriel Sherman.
Earlier this month, Mueller crossed one of Trump's stated "red lines" when he subpoenaed
Trump Organization business records. According to four Republicans in regular contact with
the White House, the move spurred Trump to lose patience with his team of feuding lawyers.
"Trump hit the roof," one source said. Today, Trump's personal lawyer John Dowd resigned
under pressure from Trump.
diGenova - who
said in January that the Obama administration engaged in a " brazen plot to exonerate
Hillary Clinton " and " frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy, " is
married to Victoria Toensing - who, as we've mentioned, is a former Reagan Justice Department
official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"She's a killer," one Republican who knows the couple told Sherman.
Toensing also happens to represent FBI whistleblower
William D. Campbell - who claims to have gathered evidence of a Russian "uranium dominance
strategy" which included millions of dollars routed to a Clinton charity. Campbell testified
before three Congressional committees in February.
The Campbell connection makes it all the more interesting since Trump is reportedly
considering adding Toensing to his legal team. In other words, Trump would be teaming up with
two veteran bulldog D.C. attorneys - one of whom ostensibly has evidence in the Uranium One
scandal. As Sherman points out in Vanity Fair , " The hiring of Toensing would be a sign that
Trump wants to flip the script and investigate his investigators . Appearing on Fox News,
Toensing has called for a second special prosecutor to investigate Mueller, the logic being
that he was F.B.I. director at the time that the Uranium One acquisition was approved. "
Following Mueller's subpoena of the Trump organization, Trump has been fuming. Last weekend,
Trump encouraged John Dowd to call for an end to the Russia probe, according to Sherman. "On
Sunday, Trump blasted Mueller as partisan, tweeting: " Why does the Mueller team have 13
hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans ?""
And with the hire of Joe diGenova - it's obvious that Trump is bringing out the big guns for
a direct confrontation with Mueller , after souring on his legal team's more diplomatic
strategy:
Trump's new offensive is a sign that he's unilaterally abandoning the go-along, get-along
strategy advocated by Dowd and Ty Cobb , the White House lawyer overseeing the response to
Mueller. Cobb's standing with Trump has been falling for months, after Cobb made the
now-infamous prediction that the Russia probe would be over by Thanksgiving 2017. Dowd
assured Trump that he had a "great relationship with Mueller" and could manage him ,
according to sources. That obviously hasn't happened. " Trump just wants something to change
and nothing was changing, " the outside adviser said. The genial and mustachioed Cobb has
always been somewhat of an odd fit for Trump, whose mental picture of a lawyer is Roy Cohn,
his early mentor. Sources said Trump reluctantly conceded to allow Cobb to play good cop .
"Trump is looking at this saying, I did it your way for months, now I'm fucking doing it my
way ," a former West Wing official said. (The White House did not respond to a request for
comment.) - Vanity Fair
diGenova was reportedly recommended to Trump by Dave Bossie and Jeanine Piro - both of whom
are outside advisors to Trump. That said, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Napolitano
thinks Dowd's resignation and the decision to put Trump in front of Mueller's team would be a
"disaster" for the President.
"... We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical. The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers. ..."
"... The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and the reasons behind it. ..."
"... To be continued ..."
"... I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the fight. ..."
"... Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war. ..."
We are glad to see you at the Foreign Ministry on this cold wintry day that nevertheless
carries a promise of spring.
We are grateful to you for responding so quickly to our invitation, which we issued only
yesterday.
The situation is indeed unusual. There is an urgent need for a non-politicised and highly
professional discussion of the Skripals' poisoning case. We have distributed a position paper.
We ask you to bring it to the notice of your governments.
The language of this position paper, just as any other such paper, is dry legalese with
technical details.
It would be wrong to invite you here just to say this. I propose that we hold an open
discussion in this closed diplomatic group.
Let us look at hard facts, beginning with the humanitarian aspects of the case at hand.
On March 4, 2018, two people, one of them Russian citizen Yulia Skripal, were attacked in
Salisbury, a flourishing city in the south of England.
Various versions of the circumstances of this tragedy have been voiced in the UK. They
highlight the use of chemical agents, which the British call Novichok, for some reason. All of
these versions do not stand up to any criticism.
In this situation, UK officials have laid the blame on Russia hastily, hysterically and
without presenting any evidence, and demanded explanations from us.
I would like to repeat that it was a Russian citizen who has been attacked in the UK. Logic
suggests two possible variants. Either the British authorities are unable to ensure protection
against such terrorist attacks on their territory, or they were directly or indirectly involved
in the preparation of this attack on a Russian citizen. There is no other alternative.
We are surprised, to put it mildly, that the British authorities had denied even consular
access to the Russian citizen who has been attacked contrary to the elementary norms of
civilised interstate relations. They are prevaricating, but at the same time they distribute
video footage from the hospital where the Skripals are allegedly being treated. But this only
raises more questions.
The British have refused to share the information obtained by their investigators and have
not replied to the Russian requests regarding Yulia Skripal. We have no reliable information
about what happened to this Russian citizen over the past two weeks and why this happened to
her. This is hard to comprehend: these events are unfolding in the 21st century in a country
that is considered civilised.
Naturally, demanding any explanations from Russia in this situation is simply absurd. Russia
does not owe anything to anyone in this context, and it cannot be held accountable for the
activities or inactivity of the British authorities in their national territory.
We see that the British authorities are becoming increasingly nervous, which is logical.
The clock is ticking. They have driven themselves into a corner. Ultimately, they will have to
answer a growing number of questions, but they have no answers.
The inference that they have made a mess of things but Russia is responsible anyway and
must be held accountable is the wrong kind of logic. This logic may be good for a British or US
movie, but it does not work in real life, especially in relations with Russia.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury is most
likely a clumsy staged provocation. We must expose those who have orchestrated this attack and
the reasons behind it.
Doubling down by the Empire. Russia is hardening up fast but still displaying manners and
offering goodwill! I'm afraid that is going nowhere excepting support is offered by the
traditional friends of Russia as usual.
So far, no answer to the question: "And what is next?"
Things on the war front? Well, the Empire wants their war dammit! And how dare Russia
deprive them of it!
I'm afraid tensions were only ratcheted up and the word de-escalation has been removed
from all Empire Dictionaries. Oh Boy!
I listened to all this. The idiot who represented the UK (actually not an idiot, she was just
doing her job and no doubt in private would admit it was stupid) just parroted out May's
previous words and never addressed any of the substantive questions raised; the EU and US
speakers merely talked about solidarity with the UK.
Telling was the fact that the Russian main man referred to the US rep as someone he had
never seen before, and was presumably from the State Dept.
None of the Russian requests for data or access to their citizens were dealt with.
The Russian side were well prepared, and the fact that they are pursuing this in this way
indicates they have nothing to hide and are pissed off.
I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time. It truly does feel
like a game of chess.
"I'm increasingly convinced that Russia is playing for a bit more time."
But why? IMHO the only possible reason could be gaining sufficient time to clear the
roaches from East Ghouta in Syria -- why? because it would eliminate one more of the possible
false flag locations, and possibly provide more time to beef up the defenses in Syria.
I get the feeling that Russia is adopting a posture, a bit like a boxer puts up his dukes
to guard against his opponents blows.
Kudos to the Venezuelan representative, who 1) stood up in Russia's defense against a
backdrop of "solidarity" with the UK (I guess meaning whatever story they concoct we will
pretend to believe) and 2) seems to be the only foreign diplomat in Moscow who bothered to
learn Russian.
"Concerned that Americans may be watching "foreign propaganda" (or something different
than what is offered on the mainstream media menu) Representatives Seth Moulton (D-MA) and
Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced the Countering Foreign Propaganda Act.
In practice, it would force RT to do even more reporting to the US government than it
currently does under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and will also force it to
broadcast every 30 minutes a message saying it is funded by, and is "under editorial control"
of, a foreign government. Apparently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will also
be the arbiter of who is under editorial control and who is not, because the BBC and France
24 would not be forced to disclose the origins of their funding, according to Foreign Policy
(FP) -- presumably, because their messaging is simply accidentally, sort of, in line with
that of the British and French governments respectively.
RT's stance on a potential crackdown in the US was summarized by its editor-in-chief,
Margarita Simonyan: "When the high from FARA is no longer hard enough, the representatives
switch to even harder legislation."
The US branch of RT came into the focus of the American mainstream public after the
election of Donald Trump as president. The channel starred in a controversial report by the
Office of the Director for National Intelligence, which alleged that RT's coverage of
American problems like fracking or the killings of black people by police amounted to
infringing on US democratic institutions."
Headline story on RT: "Peskov says ex-spy has zero value; no need to poison him."
Implication: "We only poison people of value."
If I were the spokesperson of Russia, I wouldn't even entertain the idea that Russia
poisons people. If I were a pro Russian television network, I wouldn't treat this story as
anything but Milli Vanilli.
Still think Margie "the true liberal" is your friend?
I would like to make an observation regarding the name given by Briton and others of this
lethal nerve agent, "Novichok". It seems to have appeared out of thin air, or the
imaginations of some. As has been pointed out, here in the conference, this was a fictional
name used in a TV show in Briton.
The point is this, "Novichok" is perhaps as to what the "Khorasan Group" was in the waning
days of the Obama regime. Do you remember the "Aboslute Terror!.com"(tm) that was surrounding
this fictional group of terrorists as trumpeted by Obama himself? Similarities are not
inconsequential in that a nefarious political goal is the point of the obfuscation and
lies.
What is that goal? I can't answer that question, but to speculate, I would guess that the
oligarchs of the West have decided that the potential for nuclear annihilation is worth
risking for unrestricted free market economic world domination in the short term.
I have not watched the whole video. Will watch later. It appears, UK is defining the
ground and terrain to fight, and Russia is obviously following. In that way, Russia is always
on the defensive of what UK is dictating.. even if it is false which it is and that is the
fight.
In that way, no matter what facts are presented (which is what Russia is doing) Russia
will always start from what they are accused of. Right there, UK is choosing what Russian
reaction would be.
Cut it short, Russia must realise that this is the new way to fight now. It cannot
rely on facts and international laws and conventions alone as a defense.. Its not enough like
the way it is doing now. It must quickly turn the situation around and determine the space to
fight and how UK is to fight this of course without going to war.
A very good point, well made. I've learned myself that conforming to Marquis of Queensbury
rules when engaged in a conflict with a street fighter can be somewhat counter-productive.
You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to truth. I wonder how these mouthpieces
reading their government's lines can truly sleep at night.
its heartbreaking watching this. It reminds me of the poaching of the great animals of Africa
-- Russia does everything right and just -- and the shameful poachers use nothing honorable
or decent in their wish to destroy. There has been nothing but dishonesty and untruth from
Britain (and the west) in this whole affair -- no one even knows where or how the victims of
this 'chemical attack' are -- and that there's only be two victims -- a chemical attack kills
multiple people
I shall listen to the whole thing to get a better grasp of the context of certain speeches,
remarks. TASS yesterday posted a report ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) that represents their
own summary: "Russian Foreign Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga."
While appreciating Russian humor, I dashed off a message to my German friends, as follows
(translated):
Incredible! -- No I believe it. Watch the selected-emphasized sections below. The Russians
have the knife in, and they are turning it, very slowly. Delicious!
"It is likely that this could have been orchestrated from across the pond. [Note
that Yermakov -- and he comes from the MoD, not the MFA -- throws May's "highly probable"
back into her face, but he provides indirect evidence, which May did not do. Note also that
it is indeed "likely". That has been my argument the whole time, except that I told you the
Americans -- the Trump-Americans -- set a trap for May and she walked into it. Yermakov is
saying the same thing: just watch and listen.]
„It is no secret to anyone that the UK's closest partner is the only state
officially keeping the largest arsenals of chemical weapons in the world." [How true, but ist
he USA theUK's "closest partner" really? Actually, since the British launched their
anti-Trump cvampaign -- with Christopher Steele / MI6 -- the two have been at war with one
another. Yermakov seems to play innocent on that point, even naive, but if the Americans set
the trap, then the British set themselves up by believing that what May did was wha their
closest partner wanted them to do. And now May is in deep sh**.]
Yermakov further,"is most likely a new grossly falsified and unlawful
provocation." Against Russia, yes, of course, fa false flag, and illegal. But also against
the UK? That is left ambiguous.?
"It only has to be solved who stood behind this and which goals pursued." -- Yes,
indeed, who was behind the false flag, and what were the aims? This hast o be solved,
clarified. Yermakov poses these questions openly and round about, not limited to Russia. Do
the British know who was behind the false flag, and what the aims were? Do they have any
interest in finding out? Yermakov does not launch counter-accusations at the British.
„Only one thing is clear that Russia has absolutely no complicity in this
at least for one simple reason: such a scheme is simply inadmissible and it is
disadvantageous for us by all parameters." Russia's innocence is clear, and, in fact, the
British know that themselves. It would be insulting to claim the British believe their own
propaganda. And,
"At the same time, Great Britain has quite a different track record," the senior
diplomat said, adding that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had openly admitted his lies
about the situation around Iraq." Ah, yes, Blair lying about Irak WMD, but whether he was
trapped into that lie or not, at least it is obvious he was doing it to justify actions that
were not in the first place British actions, it was Bush's war.
„"One only has to guess who and for what purpose is now trying to plunge
Great Britain into a new dirty and again losing venture for London from the very outset
against Russia *this time,*" -- "One" has to guess, and "one" can be Russian, some Russsian
who guesses, or it can be a Brit. And "one" is going to "guess" about who is plunging Britain
into a dirty and loosing venture against Russia. Wow! -- Let's unravel this. Russia has
nothing to do with intelligence war-maneuvers of the Americans against England. If -- that
thatg is "highly likely" -- the Americans set the trap, plunging Britain into a losing
venture agaisn Russia, implied not to be in British interests, the Russians did not
„collude" in setting the trap. Leave Russia out of the game. England is being dragged
into something. Yermakov has "empathy" for the British in this dilemma. The British may well
think that they were dragged into the Irak-WMD charade and the war, so who is dragging
Britain into a losing game „this time"?]
„"the British authorities are beginning to get ever more nervous" as "they
have driven themselves into a deadlock" -- [Really a pity, right? That really hurts, you are
invited / or dragged onto the gang-plank, thinking you are doing the right thing, and their
your "closest partner" steps off the plank and you plunge into the depths. Sure you get
nervous, sure you see you brought onto yourself, you are in a blind-alley. -- You can only do
what Yermakov did if you have the upper-hand and you know it. Russia via Yermakov is not out
for retaliation, Russia extends the open hand , Russia is merciful. Remember the scene in
Schindler's list, where a Nazi camp-commander was about to shoot a little boy because there
were still stains in the bathtub the boy was supposed to have cleaned? And Schindler tells
the Nazi: real power ist to forgive, and the Nazi, who thinks he is powerful and wans power,
lays down his rifle. How merciful the Russias are is ytilll to come. ]
Moscow considers the Salisbury attack to be an act of terror against Russian
citizens carried out on UK soil, he stressed. -- -- So Moscow wants access to the Skripals,
Yulia in particular.
Now comes the icing on the cake, the knife begins to turn. "The senior Russian
diplomat called on the British to put their hatred against Russia aside for a moment, as well
as their "island way of thinking." "I mean no offence, I think highly of the British
diplomacy and this is the reason why I feel ashamed for you when I hear such things,"
Yermakov added, stressing that in the past, Russian diplomats had learned much from their
British colleagues and British experts and now they were calling them for dialogue.. [Of
course the British hate the Russians, but don't let that hate get in the way of properly
assessing the British situation in this trap. If Russians are anything, they are professional
and objective. Of course, Russian diplomats learned from British diplomas: they know
double-dealing also, but Russians do it openly -- open double dealing, and that is what
Yermakov was doing the whole time. Why would Russia do that? -- It's simple: "to split
Europe." That is what the British accuse Russia of doing, but Russia is not doing it the way
the British think, they are going to split Europe because the British have handed over the
lever to do it, because the British are shaming themselves with their nonsense propaganda,
and they know they are losing because it is so shameful. The British were tricked, Russia
does not play tricks. The Russians win because they put truth on the table: if the British
continue with their shameful behavior, they have no chance to play any leaves in Europe. They
know it, that is why they are nervous, that is their own dead-end. Now, when Blair lied,
dragging Britain into the Iraq war, it unleashed destruction, which does not bother the
British as long as others are destroyed. But now they are on the receiving end, it is their
own destruction which is at stake.
wow -- the British diplomat in the audience has a brutal speech -- well written -- its so
hard to defend oneself against untruth -- when its calculated -- at 53:55
It is foolish to believe that explanation will bring to your side those who are implacably
oriented against you because they take it as a sign of weakness.
"A military grade, novichok, nerve agent developed by Russia". So they didn't make then ?
'Developing' isn't making, just in case your education didn't cover this rather unsubtle
distinction. "Barrage of distortion and disinformation" Have you looked in the mirror of late
?? Pathetic.
I think the UK representative went a bit off-script when she said "Russia produced" -- the
official script is "Russian developed". I suspect that she may get a reprimand for that.
One the one hand I am amazed, on the other hand, not. Has anyone listened to the full session
or read the TASS release? ( http://tass.com/politics/995445 ) If not, please do so,
and show some of what the Russians call "respect," which means just listen carefully.
I do not wish to offend, as the Russian "senior diplomat" said, but I am ashamed to hear
such baseless gossip as "It appears, UK is defining the ground and terrain to fight, and
Russia is obviously following" or "You cannot counter lies and medacity with an appeal to
truth" (cited examples being by no means exhasutive).
Do you realize, have you registered the *fact* that the Russians said "Russian Foreign
Ministry suggests US could have orchestrated Skripal saga"?, which a load of backup to that
suggesion.
The anger and righteous disgust by the chief RF MFA spokesman at around 1:45 from recall (I
did just skip to snippets -- but got stopped there) is worth seeing. He talks of the
Malaysian Boeing downed in Ukraine to the US rep in audience, pointing out US knows exactly
what happened because of its satellites directly overhead, and says something I'd never heard
-- repeated it a couple of times at least -- again in accusatory disgust -- that the first
accusations Russia shot down the plane came BEFORE the plane was hit!
This is true, the plane was still flying when the first accusations were made. The fact that
it hit the ground moments later belies the lies that Opolchensya and/or Russia did it. The
plane was not hit by a missile, there are entry and exit aircraft cannon holes in the left
cockpit outer skin. I have no doubts that the photos of that damning piece of evidence are
long gone but not to worry, I'm sure someone has them.
Auslander
MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged
was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser,
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation,
subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.
The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible,"
General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and
American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday,
just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia
of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.
Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's
willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and
while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar
statements.
The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about
the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back
from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future
attacks.
The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger
effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the
effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.
After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the
election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no
mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security
Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated
Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and
ultimately to support his candidacy.
Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American
intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of
our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the
2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a
conclusion.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the
session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the
facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.
The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered
by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's:
questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.
"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on
Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful
source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply
fantasies."
Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump
campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was
keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not
Russia. It is the United States."
robert e williamson jr , March 20, 2018 at 12:44 pm
Ray good stuff. Let us talk about the Israelis and the problems they have created in this
country. I'm 69 drafted in May 1968 no Vietnam, I was a spook attached to the 592nd Signal Co
of the Berlin Brigade. I got hooked and I haven't really been a "TRUE BELIEVER" since. I mean
that in the sense that I have suspected the activities of the state ever since.
I'm no genius and you may already gather that , no matter, but I know B.S. from Shinola
which was a famous shoe polish.
I have been anti-Israeli Government since I realized who they were. The Israelis
compromised J.J. Angleton and our country has been adversely affected ever since. They have
compromised our sovereignty ever since.
Shapiro spirited SNM-fissile out of the country. The Israelis I believe needed JFK dead so
they made sure he became deceased. He was in the way and with so many others hating him and
his brother after he challenged the CIA, his days were numbered. Then it was Bobbies turn.
The damned guy just wouldn't quit, so when it became obvious he was likely to be elected
president in 68 he had to go also. Nice Irish Catholic boy scout like him wasn't about to let
those who murdered his brother get away with it. But it much more involved than simply him
getting his brothers killers. RFK had front row knowledge of his brother battles with the
Israelis over their nuclear weapons program.
Sometime during 1967 John Hadden learned that Portsmouth Ohio HEU-235 was present in
Isreal. In April or May Helms contacted the attorney general about this and then the FBI
contacted him, Ramsey Clark, in May about opening an investigation in Zalmon Shaprio of NUMEC
fame. At that point in time I can see that RFK must go. If RFK had learned of the Portsmouth
Ohio U-235 in Israel he would have known immediately who had what to hide and why. His
friggin' security detail should have been beefed up. Nothing of the sort happened. So
depending on how you count the days from the time that CIA and FBI contacted the AG R Clark
about the U-235 in Israel and FBI contacted the AG was a matter or 30 or so days. RFK died on
June 6, 1968 and it was no Dogdamned coincident.
I have done limited research on the CIA machinations and FBI investigations connected with
the NUMEC saga. The pursuit of the investigation was hampered because "The Fix" was in and I
think you know this.
The present time is the best time I've seen in my life to expose this bullshit for what it
is. Keep up the great work.
Millions thanx, Bob H for this reminder of Michael Hastings' murder /// and of the
"Putin-esk" eliminations of truth tellers within our own borders.
How Come Their TOTAL SILENCE regarding Reality Leigh Winner???? !!!!!
What truth did She Uncover/Expose ?????
SPEAK !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!
Anon , March 20, 2018 at 8:21 am
Cut your disgusting bullying with capitalized words and bursts of punctuation marks. If
you have a point, make it calmly and rationally. Otherwise stay out of the debate.
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 1:57 am
Any time, Mr. H., that you come across an article pertaining to Michael Hastings, I need
to see it. So please carry on! I haven't seen this one.
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 2:05 am
Having read it now, I wouldn't expect too much from the Hoover Org. This, what I have
referred to as a drone attack or a remote vehicle hack, was done with the encouragement of
the man who Ray's article pertains to!
cmp , March 20, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Read the numerous stories' about Aubrey McClendon and his subsequent car crash. The crash
was on March 2nd of 2016, and it was very similar to M.H.'s; as well.
"... I agree that they are a big threat to life on earth. From the amount of ecological damage that our wars create, the number of people who we have killed or misplaced, to their planned war with Russia that could see the end of the human race and animals. That so many people are believing this Russian propaganda crap is beyond belief. These are the same people who used to question what the intelligence agencies were saying, but not any more. ..."
"... All Maxine "Lip Flappin" Waters does nowadays, like Adam Schiff, is ignore their districts in favor of Russiagate and get Trump out. They don't deserve their congressional positions. ..."
"... Ain't no one touching Schumer, and as for our president all he has to do is make another $10B donation to his favorite country and all this will go away. They done sold this country out many times over. ..."
"... The quaint idea that the public should "just trust" the "intelligence" (sic) "community" (sic) is trotted out by the propaganda media whenever anyone dares to question this gang of spies and dirty tricksters. As if these scum are somehow paragons of virtue and truthfulness! And the mass of Americans just swallow this rotten bait, and continue their profound sleep ..."
"... Yes, the secret agencies must be nearly abolished, as completely incompatible with democracy. ..."
"... I am wondering if Trump is going to make it out of this alive. ..."
"... I can see the pure evil in Brennan's eyes. He is dripping with hatred. Not that I like Trump, but our so-called intelligence agencies must be brought to heel if we are to have any hope for the future. People like Brennan need to be prosecuted and go to jail. ..."
"... Skip Scott -- Trump should keep his mouth shut, I know, but I can't blame the guy for speaking out, especially when he's been hounded by the press with something like 90+% negative coverage. He was right about his phones being "tapped", and everyone said he was out of his mind for saying such a thing. The Steele dossier is a phony, made-up dossier purposely invented to spy on Trump and bring in the Special Prosecutor. Everyone who had a hand in this should be behind bars. This has been an attempted coup against a duly-elected President. ..."
"... When the Inspector General's Report comes out, when Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy finally get the information they've been asking for, I think we're going to see people go to jail. They're now looking into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... These guys brought down the World Trade Center just to further their geopolitical agenda. Nothing is beyond their treachery. They don't have to assassinate the man, as they did the hapless Skripal's just to smear Russia one more time. They can bring down Airforce One and blame it on the Russians in some kind of grand two-fer, if they so choose (everyone knows those Russians just can't quit their evil ways). ..."
"... These spooks and their collaborators in the Pentagon, the MIC, Capitol Hill and the MSM have as effectively seized all power in this country as the Stalinists did in the Soviet Union. Idiots like Schumer sometimes unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and he was right in pin-pointing who runs this country and to what extent they will go to destroy you to maintain their stake in ruling the planet ..."
"... Realist, very true, and you have summarized it so well. I am afraid this Skirpal incident in U.K. has been staged as a prelude to attack on Syria by U.S., U.K., Israel, and France, with Germany and other Western Nations cheering from the side. ..."
"... Trump is completely safe & will not be taken out? Why? Because Candidate Trump has completely backtracked from every foreign policy statements he made such as seeking peace with Russia? It's no coincidence that Trump was made to pay a visit to the one of the Deepstate's intelligence agencies at the CIA? ..."
"... I wonder to what extent Trump is whistling past the graveyard. Most women understand the dynamic: When you know you are under threat, pretend not to notice anything untoward ..."
"... "Power also saw fit to remind Trump where the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." Didn't Michael Hastings piss off Brennan? ..."
"... Washington is like a continuing Soap Opera, as the real bad guys battle it out with the other really bad guys. We the people are mere pawns in their hands, to be influenced and duped to no end, as the lies swirl around and around until a citizen is completely buffaloed into submission. ..."
"... While reading this about John Brennan I could not help but think of JFK firing Allen Dulles. Again with the rhyming. ..."
"... "Former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom said that there was a plot among "high-ranking" people throughout government -- "not just the FBI," who coordinated in a plot to help Hillary Clinton avoid indictment. ..."
"... "I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted," Kallstrom told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. ..."
"... "I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole strategy -- they were gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven't heard anything about that yet. Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens." ..."
"... "Mike Whitney suspects that John Brennan was the mastermind behind Russia-gate." Looking at the pictures of Barack Obama with John Brennen, they seemed to have very cozy relationship. I wonder about Obama's role in this Russia-Gate. There are many unanswered questions about the top-echelons' role in this bizarre drama which may end up in many ominous consequences for the country and for the World. ..."
"... I think the intelligence agencies are the true source of nearly all of the problems..instead of gathering intelligence the IAs are effecting the events about which the intelligence is supposed to be about. Certainty Intelligence agencies can be credited with 9/11 and the war on Iraq. Interconnected between nations, shuffling in open-source form, secret sharing, false flag event production, and media delivered propaganda are activities which define the intelligence agencies. Secret means slave citizens are denied the knowledge that would allow them to understand how corrupt our societies are; so that the leaders of such societies can continue in the office that commands the power. ..."
"... Brilliantly stated, faraday's law. You've raised the all-important point that the intelligence agencies are are not simply gathering intelligence, they are also engaging in covert action, unlawfully, unaccountably, and unscrutinized. For all we know they could be spending their virtually unlimited funds on creating our enemies, thereby creating a need for our military industrial complex, the only entity that benefits from their work. ..."
"... Seems like the two wings of the Anglo-American establishment alliance are working in concert to defeat all who stand in their way and regain dominance over the western world. In Britain, Teresa May and the Tories -- who are losing popularity to the resurgent Labour party and its progressive leader Jeremy Corbyn -- are trying to blame Russia for a nerve agent attack. The blame game over there is evidence-free of course and the lies and weasel-word assertions are being effectively countered by, among others, ex-Ambassador Craig Murray ( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ ) in post after post. ..."
"... You present some interesting points, but John Brennan is no "Wild Bill Donovan" or even a William Casey with the backup of the fraternity of OSS which no longer has meetings. It seems to me that Brennan's and his diminishing followers' power lies with the media that has done the dance of "valued sources" and perception manipulation of the masses. Actually, "night of the long knives" occurred in Saudi Arabia when Prince "Bandar Bush" was captured and "interviewed" not by the FBI or the CIA, but most probably by individuals with videos of confessions which summarized the long history of the activities involving operatives conducting activities during the presidential administrations of both political parties but continuously for clans such as the Bush Dynasty and assorted associates within the institutions that are now domestically profiting from the policies of the President. ..."
"... But beyond this crisis is the larger one of how to harness the Deep State to reflect the nation's interests, not those few who run things now. Some say start to rid foreign intelligence of its operational arm which has been at the forefront of regime change and other mischief. ..."
"... Yes, the CIA operations division should be made small because it is abused for the hidden agendas of oligarchy, that the People would never approve. It should be monitored by an agency reporting directly to Congress. ..."
"... The Deep State, through the CIA, pursues a foreign policy that is often at odds with the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country ..."
"... Brennans screech confirms that Trump is not just smoke and mirrors. He really hit the bureaucracy where it hurts, their pensions -- brilliant move. ..."
"... Trump and Brennan represent equally criminal factions of the ruling class, divided over foreign policy, particularly in the civil war in Syria, and more generally towards Russia. ..."
"... Brennan and the Democrats speak for powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus embittered by the failure of US intervention in Syria and Trump's apparent abandonment of the Islamic fundamentalist groups armed by the CIA to fight the Russian and Iranian-backed government of President Bashar al-Assad. They want to push further into the Syrian slaughter, regardless of the risk of open military conflict with Russia, the world's second strongest nuclear power. ..."
"... That "moral turpitude" reference seems to imply that there is some -- yet to be revealed -- scandal held in abeyance, fully capable of delivering a decisive blow. And, the "deep staters" are merely waiting for the right moment to pull this shark-toothed rabbit out of the hat. ..."
"... Former heads of the nation's top intelligence organization do not attack sitting presidents, let alone in such a visceral vituperative and public fashion. This is indication of deep fissures, quite beyond politics as most citizens understand. As the World Socialist Web Site published today: "There is no recent parallel for statements and actions such as those of the past three days. One would have to go back to the period before the American Civil War to find equivalent levels of tension, which in the late 1850s erupted in violence in the halls of Congress before exploding in full-scale military conflict." ..."
"... Trump is a maverick outsider so it's hard to get a handle on what or who he represents, but the Brennan/deep state side of the dispute is very much aligned with the corporate DNC Democratic Party. That they seem, by Brennan's comments, to consider themselves as the representation of "America" as they abandon constitutional and etiquette norms and articulate visceral hatred towards political rivals should serve as fair warning. ..."
"... Kevin Zeese: "He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon." ..."
"... Thomas Hedges: "Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration, when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law." ..."
"... Brennan is history's most hilarious DCI. His grandiose hissy fit suggests that CIA continues the Dulles tradition of infiltrating the civil service with 'focal points -' illegal CIA moles infiltrating US government agencies -- and the IG fumigated one key out in firing McCabe. ..."
"... the MSM and the Left see the "crime" being that McCabe was fired, not that McCabe broke the law. Kind of like when they didn't see a crime in Hillary using her own personal servers, but saw the crime as being that the emails might have been hacked by a foreign government. That they had no evidence of this didn't matter. ..."
"... Brennan sounds like a desperate man. They must be getting closer to him. ..."
"... See how this works? The article is about Brennan. The comment is about Brennan's CIA. But immersive CIA propaganda immediately diverts the topic to CIA's synthetic warring factions, Hillary! Trump! Hillary! Trump! ..."
"... CIA runs your country. You're not going to get anywhere until you stop bickering about their presidential puppet rulers. ..."
"... The mention of John Brennan brings to mind the bizarre death of Rolling Stone's writer, Michael Hastings, who was reported to be working on a story about Brennan just before he had his "accident". ..."
"... Our MS Media is nothing more than Democrat Propaganda, and that situation will doom us to Russian interference. Every election the Russians can do the same as 2016: release the truth about justice not served. ..."
"... Israel has advised, trained and equipped, and ran "dirty war" operations in the Latin American "dirty war" conflicts in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Colombia. In the case of the Salvadoran "bloodbath", the Israelis were present from the beginning. Besides arms sales, they helped train ANSESAL, the secret police who were later to form the framework of the infamous death squads that would kill tens of thousands of mostly civilian activists. ..."
"... USMC activated. Well, I'd put my two-cents on POTUS. Just like we've all seen throughout our lives when the supposed tough guy starts making threats he is really scared Sh**less. Lots of these clowns are just going to disappear during the late night hours of the day never to be heard from again. ..."
"... Guys like Brennan are scared rats in a sinking ship, good riddance! ..."
"... What an amazingly illuminating article. Devin Nunes, who perfectly ok with wire taps as long as the target aren't from his party is somehow a noble individual. While I agree that Brennan should be in prison, it should be for torturing people ..."
Great article. I hope Brennan is running scared, along with Power. It's like the Irish
Mafia.
"Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state game of
intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended message:
"Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This is open,
all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch
him.'"
That sounds like something "Six Ways From Sunday" Schumer would say. In fact, I'd bet
money that it is the shyster himself. That guy should be removed from the Senate in leg
irons. He is a menace to society.
Abby , March 19, 2018 at 9:51 pm
I agree that they are a big threat to life on earth. From the amount of ecological
damage that our wars create, the number of people who we have killed or misplaced, to their
planned war with Russia that could see the end of the human race and animals. That so many
people are believing this Russian propaganda crap is beyond belief. These are the same people
who used to question what the intelligence agencies were saying, but not any more.
The fact that most of congress and people in other governments have made up the Russian
propaganda is what needs to be exposed. This is a huge crime against humanity, IMO. This
includes Bernie of all people. They are doing this so they can get their war on with Russia
and escalate the Syrian war.
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 3:02 am
Agreed. All Maxine "Lip Flappin" Waters does nowadays, like Adam Schiff, is ignore
their districts in favor of Russiagate and get Trump out. They don't deserve their
congressional positions. I wish to add a comment Coleen Rowley's piece. An update: Law
Professor Jonathan Turley says Andrew M. will still get his pension, just have to wait until
he's 57 (now 50). Can you understand this? What will it take to punish these arrogant evil
little punks? And why should we pay their pensions, especially when so many of us get
nothing!
Ain't no one touching Schumer, and as for our president all he has to do is make
another $10B donation to his favorite country and all this will go away. They done sold this
country out many times over.
Brad Owen , March 19, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The draining of the swamp has now begun, and battle is about to be joined. That's the word
from Alex Jones, Roy Potter and that youtube crowd of similar "guerilla journalists", who
fill in for the Deep State-captured and untrustworthy MSM.
The Deep State miscalculated the alignment of forces for the upcoming, somewhat covert,
civil war within the governing apparatus; Trump knows the military has his back, especially
the Marines, and they are part & parcel of the Constitution. The Deep State is a sick
Post-WWII mistake, rogue and criminal, and will be rolled up. There are a lot of jewels
hidden in their unacknowledged black programs of great benefit to the World, if we can
wrestle them away from these weaponizing psychopaths of the Deep State.
jean , March 20, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Unfortunately whistleblowers like Bill Binny and others can't get airtime on in corporate
media but can get a voice on Alex Jones.
William Binney High Ranking NSA Whistle Blower Interview with Alex. Video for Bill Binney
alex jones
? 34:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW-V-TOJVE8
Jun 14, 2017 -- Uploaded by N Jacobson
William Binney High Ranking NSA Whistle Blower Interview w/ Alex Jones 6-14-17 William
Binney, and ..
Whistleblower Reveals NSA Blackmailing Top Govt Officials -- YouTube
Video for Russ tice alex jones
? 22:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZoV52qdaOA
Jun 8, 2014 -- Uploaded by The Alex Jones Channel
NSA whistleblower Russell Tice was a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew
the lid off the
saveourliberty , March 20, 2018 at 8:35 pm
Attacks on Alex Jones might be warranted, but I find those trivial in comparison for how
he has awakened the masses and has given a bully-pit to those that have been silenced by the
MSM. Choose your battles. Jones isn't one I want to silence though we can never let our guard
down to co-option neither.
Andrew , March 20, 2018 at 7:04 am
An open threat to torch the POTUS and there are no consequences for making such threats?
Like Brennan's clear threat? No judicial system to deal with those threats?
mike k , March 19, 2018 at 7:46 am
The quaint idea that the public should "just trust" the "intelligence" (sic)
"community" (sic) is trotted out by the propaganda media whenever anyone dares to question
this gang of spies and dirty tricksters. As if these scum are somehow paragons of virtue and
truthfulness! And the mass of Americans just swallow this rotten bait, and continue their
profound sleep ..
Sam F , March 20, 2018 at 6:32 am
Yes, the secret agencies must be nearly abolished, as completely incompatible with
democracy.
Wolfbay , March 20, 2018 at 6:54 am
There are only 17 secret agencies. No room to cut.
toni , March 21, 2018 at 11:51 am
Why do you think that there all the shows on television and the movies where the good guy
is the cop, or some federal agent?
Skip Scott , March 19, 2018 at 8:06 am
I am wondering if Trump is going to make it out of this alive. I know they don't
want to tip their hand to the public, but if their media circus performance doesn't gain
sufficient traction, it'll probably be time for a "lone nut" assassin. I can see the pure
evil in Brennan's eyes. He is dripping with hatred. Not that I like Trump, but our so-called
intelligence agencies must be brought to heel if we are to have any hope for the future.
People like Brennan need to be prosecuted and go to jail.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 8:34 am
Skip Scott -- Trump should keep his mouth shut, I know, but I can't blame the guy for
speaking out, especially when he's been hounded by the press with something like 90+%
negative coverage. He was right about his phones being "tapped", and everyone said he was out
of his mind for saying such a thing. The Steele dossier is a phony, made-up dossier purposely
invented to spy on Trump and bring in the Special Prosecutor. Everyone who had a hand in this
should be behind bars. This has been an attempted coup against a duly-elected
President.
When the Inspector General's Report comes out, when Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy finally
get the information they've been asking for, I think we're going to see people go to jail.
They're now looking into Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.
Never mind the damage being done re relations between Russia and the U.S. and the possible
nuclear threat. These people truly are insane. I agree with you, these intelligence agencies
really have gone rogue and need to be "brought to heel".
laninya , March 19, 2018 at 11:22 am
The day Trump keeps his mouth shut or stops tweeting is the day he and his revolution will
be over. What do you think is smoking all these malefactors out into the open?
Steve Naidamast , March 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm
backwardsevolution
Former CIA Officer, Kevin Shipp, spoke out in an article I saw the other day that the FBI
is working very methodically on the investigations into the Clinton Foundation. He expects
that when it comes out so many "heads will roll" in the Congress and the Executive branch
that we will have a Constitutional crises portending a collapse of the US government.
Can't wait to see these fireworks :-)
Typingperson , March 19, 2018 at 9:33 pm
Not holding my breath -- but I hope so!
Abby , March 19, 2018 at 9:55 pm
I read this article and I too hope that Shipp is right about this. The Clinton foundation
and everything connected to them is rotten. They robbed Haiti's reconstruction funds and gave
their friends and family members special access to bilking them. Everyone knew that they did
that, yet no one said a word about it.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 1:27 am
Steve, I watched this Youtube video of Kevin Shipp talking to this Group of citizens, last
evening. It is really very informative. The title of the video was: "CIA Officer exposes the
shadow government" dated Feb 19, 2018. This video is really worth watching.
Realist , March 19, 2018 at 3:38 pm
These guys brought down the World Trade Center just to further their geopolitical
agenda. Nothing is beyond their treachery. They don't have to assassinate the man, as they
did the hapless Skripal's just to smear Russia one more time. They can bring down Airforce
One and blame it on the Russians in some kind of grand two-fer, if they so choose (everyone
knows those Russians just can't quit their evil ways).
These spooks and their collaborators in the Pentagon, the MIC, Capitol Hill and the
MSM have as effectively seized all power in this country as the Stalinists did in the Soviet
Union. Idiots like Schumer sometimes unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, and he was right
in pin-pointing who runs this country and to what extent they will go to destroy you to
maintain their stake in ruling the planet .
All this has been clear for a long time now, yet nothing is ever done about it, probably
because the task is too immense, these devils are too numerous and too deeply entrenched.
Everything they say or do before the public is simply stagecraft and dramatics, and that
includes all the gibbering that emanates from Congress each day, dispensed to you in a direct
feed by the propaganda organs of the mass media which now includes most of the internet. You
want to hear the truth? Go read a novel, maybe the publishing monolith will occasionally let
slip an accurate description of our world couched in metaphor, a glitch in the Matrix, if you
will.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Realist, very true, and you have summarized it so well. I am afraid this Skirpal
incident in U.K. has been staged as a prelude to attack on Syria by U.S., U.K., Israel, and
France, with Germany and other Western Nations cheering from the side.
Most likely, a false flag event will staged in Syria very soon to justify it. And there
will be some sort of action in Ukraine too. U.S., U.K., and France are deep in debt. China is
rising economically, and I am afraid that these Western Imperial Nations will not let go
their complete dominance over the planet without a fight.
Events may take a very sad and violent turn in no time.
Skip Scott , March 21, 2018 at 8:47 am
Realist.
That is a very scary scenario you propose about Air Force One, and quite conceivable. The
way things are heating up, I suspect something in that order of magnitude very soon.
KiwiAntz , March 20, 2018 at 12:02 am
Trump is completely safe & will not be taken out? Why? Because Candidate Trump has
completely backtracked from every foreign policy statements he made such as seeking peace
with Russia? It's no coincidence that Trump was made to pay a visit to the one of the
Deepstate's intelligence agencies at the CIA?
Trump would have been taken into a office & shown a continuous looped, Zapruder film
of JFK getting his head blasted apart, as a warning of what happened to the last President
who tried to destroy their power & influences? Remember Chuck Schumer's threat in 2017,
warning Trump that the Intelligence Agencies have a number of ways, to take you down, if you
rock the boat? Trump was shown what to expect if he doesn't toe the line & do what he's
told by his real masters? Confirmation of Trump's obedience to the Deepstate agenda is that
as he's now singing from the same song sheet that the Deepstate is singing from, completely
backtracking most of his his election promises, making America great again, not by diplomacy
but by endless war mongering & foreign interventions with no end in sight?
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 12:51 am
We have known for sometime that the CIA and Google (not to mention WaPo and Jeff's garage
sale site) are tight. Julian Assange's "When Google Met Wikileaks" is a go to for this. And
you know that Eric Schmidt and Hillary Clinton are close connivers.
Litchfield , March 20, 2018 at 9:17 am
I wonder to what extent Trump is whistling past the graveyard. Most women understand
the dynamic: When you know you are under threat, pretend not to notice anything untoward
. . . So as not to trigger something really bad happening. If the picture changed
dramatically -- say, with indictments of co-conspirators in the DNC shenanigans or the FBI
collusion, or the Russiagate farce -- Trump might do some kind fo about-face. The big
question, though, is his real relationship to and heartfelt convictions regarding
Netanyahu/Israel.
Gregory Herr , March 20, 2018 at 6:45 pm
"Power also saw fit to remind Trump where the power lies, so to speak. She warned him
publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." Didn't Michael Hastings piss
off Brennan?
Washington is like a continuing Soap Opera, as the real bad guys battle it out with
the other really bad guys. We the people are mere pawns in their hands, to be influenced and
duped to no end, as the lies swirl around and around until a citizen is completely buffaloed
into submission.
While reading this about John Brennan I could not help but think of JFK firing Allen
Dulles. Again with the rhyming.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 9:07 am
Two short interviews with James Kallstrom at this site:
"Former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom said that there was a plot among
"high-ranking" people throughout government -- "not just the FBI," who coordinated in a plot
to help Hillary Clinton avoid indictment.
"I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that
high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot
to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted," Kallstrom told Fox News' Maria
Bartiromo.
"I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole strategy -- they were
gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the
intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven't heard anything about that yet.
Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens."
Yes, very interesting interview with Kallstrom -- on mainstream media, which is important.
Seems too many people understand what's really transpired for Trump -- or anyone -- to be in
mortal danger. We'll see.
Brennan's tweet suggests he knows the walls are closing in on him.
I agree. If you're very strong, you don't bother making public threats against powerful
people. You just break their backs without comment. Brennan comes across like he's been
backed into a corner where he has no weapons and from which he knows there is no escape.
It is what I already sussed out, Paul. In reading Whitney's piece, it reminded me that
over the last eight years the State Department in their press gatherings continuously mocked
any RT reporters and disrespected them. You could easily surmise from this that they had a
hand in these propaganda smears and lies.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 1:53 am
"Mike Whitney suspects that John Brennan was the mastermind behind Russia-gate."
Looking at the pictures of Barack Obama with John Brennen, they seemed to have very cozy
relationship. I wonder about Obama's role in this Russia-Gate. There are many unanswered
questions about the top-echelons' role in this bizarre drama which may end up in many ominous
consequences for the country and for the World.
Dave P(et.al.) it's getting more involved every day. It is interesting that the interview
was on Fox as it indicates prominent Republicans may be leaning towards a more thorough
investigation. However, if the investigation includes an inquiry into Cambridge Analytica
they are likely to find that most of the fake news on Facebook that was influential in
throwing the election to Trump was the result of Breitbart strategy with no Russian
connection. Some Republicans may be willing to do this, but if it were conclusive I doubt
whether either the Democrats or the Trump administration would come out on top; there are
very few innocents that didn't add to the stench of the swamp. BTW: thanks for that valuable
link B.E.!
How will it end, or will it go on without end?
This feasting on blood that these demons depend
Will these diabolical devils ever be arraigned and indicted
And will we ever see the land of the free tried and convicted?
[more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/04/is-this-land-of-free.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- --
"It has become embarrassing to be an American. Our country has had four war criminal
presidents in succession. Clinton twice launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to
bomb the former Yugoslavia twice, both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war
crimes. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and
Yemen from the air. That comes to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya
and sent mercenaries to destroy Syria, thereby committing two war crimes. Trump attacked
Syria with US forces, thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime."
Paul Craig Roberts, Information Clearing House, April 15/16, 2017.
Yes, this "H.W., Kuwait" is the war crime that started the era of ruthless war-making in
which we are now trapped. It is the era of the kicked-down Vietnam Syndrome, where we are
free once again to enrich our mercenary corporations as we project our military force
'exceptionally' to 'creatively destroy' in our noble quest to guide the world to do things
our way. Some may recall how, back then, the pundit and Congressional classes deployed
propaganda that was the prototype for what we have since become accustomed to. "We are doing
this for peace, so all you dissenters shut up." Nobody then would acknowledge that we had
covertly -- and treacherously -- aided and abetted both Iran and Iraq during their 8-year war
that immediately preceded our war. (Hush, hush, wink, wink, said the media.) Thus, we had no
moral or legal standing to pronounce any country guilty of 'aggression', as we did Saddam's
country, who we had also green-lighted into settling his border dispute with force. That
alone was enough to reveal our collective disregard for Muslim life. The rules of engagement
that allowed water treatment plants to be bombed only confirmed our disregard. Warnings of
unintended (or intended?) consequences then, as later, went unheeded, such as the certainty
of blow back when one betrays so many peoples of the world who thought we had 'principles'.
Is it any wonder there was blow back, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? (By the
way, Rep. Dick Gephardt, criticized in this article, eventually led a valiant but futile
effort to derail the war momentum in the House.) Peace.
Paul Craig Roberts is a bit off. Each of the war crimes he mentions were waging wars of
aggression. But there were a multitude of lesser war crimes committed in each of those wars.
And his count is off. Bush's wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen did not cease
being wars of aggression in 2008 simply because 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue acquired new tenants
that year. Obama gets credit for the continuation of those four wars in addition to the wars
first launched while he was in office. And Trump likewise must be given credit for his
continuations of wars of aggression launched by his predecessors.
Michael Kenny , March 19, 2018 at 11:01 am
For over 50 years, I have applied the rule that I never take the word of anyone who has
ever been connected with the CIA.
Skip Scott , March 20, 2018 at 8:21 am
Bullshit. I've seen your posts going back months, and you are a typical MSM propaganda
apologist. If you know anything about "Operation Mockingbird", then you know that all of your
past comments are "connected with the CIA".
Realist , March 20, 2018 at 11:17 pm
I'm telling ya, the guy seems like the amazing schizoid man these days.
faraday's law , March 19, 2018 at 11:05 am
I think the intelligence agencies are the true source of nearly all of the
problems..instead of gathering intelligence the IAs are effecting the events about which the
intelligence is supposed to be about. Certainty Intelligence agencies can be credited with
9/11 and the war on Iraq. Interconnected between nations, shuffling in open-source form,
secret sharing, false flag event production, and media delivered propaganda are activities
which define the intelligence agencies. Secret means slave citizens are denied the knowledge
that would allow them to understand how corrupt our societies are; so that the leaders of
such societies can continue in the office that commands the power.
Linda Wood , March 20, 2018 at 6:24 pm
Brilliantly stated, faraday's law. You've raised the all-important point that the
intelligence agencies are are not simply gathering intelligence, they are also engaging in
covert action, unlawfully, unaccountably, and unscrutinized. For all we know they could be
spending their virtually unlimited funds on creating our enemies, thereby creating a need for
our military industrial complex, the only entity that benefits from their work.
Dr. Ip , March 19, 2018 at 11:17 am
Seems like the two wings of the Anglo-American establishment alliance are working in
concert to defeat all who stand in their way and regain dominance over the western world. In
Britain, Teresa May and the Tories -- who are losing popularity to the resurgent Labour party
and its progressive leader Jeremy Corbyn -- are trying to blame Russia for a nerve agent
attack. The blame game over there is evidence-free of course and the lies and weasel-word
assertions are being effectively countered by, among others, ex-Ambassador Craig Murray (
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
) in post after post.
Over here, where the establishment Democrats and their cabal of friendly old Republicans
(think: Mitt Romney) have lost their hold on direct power, they are trying to assert it
through their long-time henchmen in the intelligence services. Ever since Wild Bill Donovan
and the Dulles brothers, the intelligence services have been looking after their own survival
and proliferation (and the profits of their masters) while, as a side-benefit, the United
States got some security.
This clash of the services with Trump is only the latest in a series of clashes which
Presidents have mostly lost (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, even Obama backed
down after he became President) unless they were card-carrying members of the clan like Bush
the First. So, you can expect Trump to lose as well unless he has the armed forces behind him
and can purge the services of his enemies. We actually might have a night of the long knives
coming. The question is of course if Caesar can survive the knifings!
Not that this Caesar is an Augustus or Marcus Aurelius
You present some interesting points, but John Brennan is no "Wild Bill Donovan" or
even a William Casey with the backup of the fraternity of OSS which no longer has meetings.
It seems to me that Brennan's and his diminishing followers' power lies with the media that
has done the dance of "valued sources" and perception manipulation of the masses. Actually,
"night of the long knives" occurred in Saudi Arabia when Prince "Bandar Bush" was captured
and "interviewed" not by the FBI or the CIA, but most probably by individuals with videos of
confessions which summarized the long history of the activities involving operatives
conducting activities during the presidential administrations of both political parties but
continuously for clans such as the Bush Dynasty and assorted associates within the
institutions that are now domestically profiting from the policies of the President.
Yes, Pres. Trump and his advisers (such as Peter Thiel and even possibly Erik Prince and
individuals of varied backgrounds possibly to even include Rabbis, Cardinals and other wise
men not members of the Brookings Institution or the CFR) knew the obstacles and the nature of
the enemies that would unit against a Populist Movement. In addition to advisers aware of the
cyber world and the underworld of intelligence/counter-intelligence operations, advisers
aware of the functioning of institutions and how institutions change their "culture" were
absolutely necessary when the "resistance" was sending the message non-stop that Pres. Trump
was only a temporary resident of the White House, and he would follow the path of Nixon, but
in short order! Well, it seems that even the FBI is cleaning house internally and even
Brennan's supporters within the old intelligence community leadership are giving their
endorsement to the President's choice for CIA Dir. and she has a loyal following among the
rank and file members of that institution.
Yes, ministers of Egypt wanted to present documents on the Muslim Brotherhood and it's
relationship with the Obama Adm.; and Prince Salman will probably bring gifts during his
State Visit. Pres. Trump and his team will decide the time and date to unwrap the evidence
that will shatter the camera lens and stop the presses! No knives or guns, please!
"Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that
refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the
community".[1] This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th
century.[2]"
I guess the "community" Brennan was referring to was the Deep State. Not willingly but
perhaps fortuitously Trump finds himself on the battlefield playing David and Goliath is
there wearing a stone proof helmet. Obama liked to go after leakers, so long as the were
underling leakers. If Trump is successful, which is to be hoped for but unlikely, how will
the New York Times and Washington Post fill their editorial pages?
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is a paraphrase but apt.
But beyond this crisis is the larger one of how to harness the Deep State to reflect
the nation's interests, not those few who run things now. Some say start to rid foreign
intelligence of its operational arm which has been at the forefront of regime change and
other mischief.
Sam F , March 19, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Yes, the CIA operations division should be made small because it is abused for the
hidden agendas of oligarchy, that the People would never approve. It should be monitored by
an agency reporting directly to Congress.
Joe Wallace , March 19, 2018 at 3:32 pm
Herman and Sam F:
"But beyond this crisis is the larger one of how to harness the Deep State to reflect the
nation's interests, not those few who run things now. Some say start to rid foreign
intelligence of its operational arm which has been at the forefront of regime change and
other mischief."
"Yes, the CIA operations division should be made small because it is abused for the hidden
agendas of oligarchy, that the People would never approve. It should be monitored by an
agency reporting directly to Congress."
Not until Citizens United v FEC is overturned will we have a foreign policy that reflects
the nation's interests, administered by elected officials who actually represent the will of
the electorate. The Deep State, through the CIA, pursues a foreign policy that is often
at odds with the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country .
Sam F , March 20, 2018 at 6:55 am
Yes, but the judiciary that decided Citizens United are corruption leaders installed by
corrupt politicians installed by the dictatorship of the rich. Until the rich are overthrown
there will be no democracy in the US.
I believe the system has become corrupted. The same people who parrot the words "rule of
law" are according to numerous reports working hand in glove with terrorists. They even pass
"laws" against terrorism, while at the same time consorting with terrorists. I guess "our
hypocrite leaders" are above the law? The latest horrific terrorist bombing in Manchester
raises questions about the spy agency "MI5."
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/06/has-system-become-corrupted.html
mike k , March 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Our problem is how to shock the American public into awareness of who their real enemies
are: the Oligarchs, Deep State, Zionazis, MSM, MIC. What kind of major disclosure could start
the ball rolling? What kind of outrage would be too much for the zombified public to brush
off and continue sleeping? What the hell would it take to knock the middle class out of it's
putrid comfort zone?
Linda Wood , March 20, 2018 at 7:04 pm
zendeviant, I think it will come to a national refusal to fund illegal activity on the
part of our federal government. I don't think it will come to violence, which would
accomplish less than nothing. Instead, I think the American people will take legal action to
stop the hemorrhage of black funding.
Skip Scott , March 21, 2018 at 10:22 am
Linda-
Funding is not the issue. They just print the money and give it out. Our tax dollars are
just demanded to make sure we are in submission. The Pentagon isn't even audited, and at this
point would be impossible to audit. Legal action requires an uncompromised judiciary. Haven't
seen that in my lifetime. It will take real "boots on the ground" from the people to get any
real change. TPTB will only budge when their backs are against the wall.
Sam F , March 20, 2018 at 7:54 am
Fair question, Mike, although perhaps annoying at times to very well-meaning people.
Middle class comfort is indeed the security of a corrupt government, and so affluence
destroys democracy.
As you know, I have advocated a College of Policy Debate constituted to protect all points
of view, and to conduct moderated text-only debate among university experts of several
disciplines, of the status and possibilities of each world region, and the policy options.
Debate summaries commented by all sides are to be made available for public study and
comment.
The debates would require a higher standard of argument in foreign and domestic policy on
all sides, and would have much reduced the group-think that led to our endless mad wars since
WWII. Extreme and naïve politicians would be easier to expose, and media commentators
would have a starting point and a standard for media investigation and analysis.
While most politicians will ignore and attack careful analysis, and "the common man avoids
the truth [because] it is dangerous, no good can come of it, and it doesn't pay" (Mencken),
the CPD can bring the knowledge of society into public debate, educate the electorate,
discourage propaganda, and expose the wrongs of society and the corruption of government that
desperately need reform.
If such a rational mechanism fails to awaken the public and cause reform, then we are
doomed to overthrow of the dictatorship of the rich, requiring far greater degradation to
motivate the people, and greater violence than any previous revolution due to the advance of
technology. I fear that both will in fact occur, after a long era of US corruption.
Deniz , March 19, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Brennans screech confirms that Trump is not just smoke and mirrors. He really hit the
bureaucracy where it hurts, their pensions -- brilliant move.
orwell , March 19, 2018 at 1:15 pm
It's nice to see that everybody here agrees about this situation. Really refreshing, and
no pro-CIA/FBI TROLLS !!!!!!
I remember that Larry Johnson described this threat in detail more than a year ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkR_5Sesgg
It was on RT but he made a lot of sense. Appears to have been vindicated.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Herry Smith -- thanks for posting that interview. Larry Johnson was excellent, articulate,
and he's going to be proven right.
Gregory Kruse , March 19, 2018 at 2:05 pm
"Shortly before his re-election in 2012, Obama reportedly was braced at a small dinner
party by wealthy donors who wanted to know whatever happened to the 'progressive Obama.' The
President did not take kindly to the criticism, rose from the table, and said, 'Don't you
remember what happened to Dr. King?'"
Dr. Ip , March 19, 2018 at 3:06 pm
" Trump and Brennan represent equally criminal factions of the ruling class, divided
over foreign policy, particularly in the civil war in Syria, and more generally towards
Russia.
Brennan and the Democrats speak for powerful sections of the military-intelligence
apparatus embittered by the failure of US intervention in Syria and Trump's apparent
abandonment of the Islamic fundamentalist groups armed by the CIA to fight the Russian and
Iranian-backed government of President Bashar al-Assad. They want to push further into the
Syrian slaughter, regardless of the risk of open military conflict with Russia, the world's
second strongest nuclear power. "
It is imperative to bring about a cleansing of the FBI and DOJ, removing high-ranking
officials who place politics and personal agendas ahead of enforcing the law fairly and
without bias. Will that mean a "war" with the deep state? Or are there enough people within
the FBI and DOJ who WANT to remove the stains from their agencies? If so, we may see more
corruption exposed in the coming days.
A cleansing of the CIA or NSA is probably not feasible, even though it is sorely needed. If
the president tried, he would probably be regime-changed.
Bob Van Noy , March 19, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Craig Murray has been totally reliable on Russiagate from the beginning. There is an
excellent synopsis of his web reporting with commentary at Unz for those interested.
http://www.unz.com/article/russian-to-judgement/
JWalters , March 19, 2018 at 10:24 pm
Excellent link. Thanks very much. His theory that the murder of the ex-Russian spy in
England was an Israeli false flag operation seems to me the most plausible theory, for the
reasons he states. And it fits so well into the overall picture.
KiwiAntz , March 19, 2018 at 4:03 pm
What a Banana Republic America has become? Russia has just had it's election & we have
had all the usual negative comments by Western Leaders regarding Putin & Russia's
supposed lack of a democratic process in voting?
Russians, at least, voted for a well known individual in Putin with a proven track record,
so they know exactly what they can look forward to, secure in that knowledge of certainty?
Russia has no Deepstate puppeteer's pulling the strings behind the scenes!
Contrast that with America? The whole Political system is corrupt & dominated by
Corporate money paying off its Leaders? The sick joke is America claims it's a Democracy
which it isn't? It's a Fascist Oligarchy ruled by a unelected Deepstate, & it doesn't
matter what Party or Leader you voted for, the Deepstate, shadow Govt never just marches on
& rules?
It also raises the issue, is there any point in American's actually getting out &
voting every 4 yrs, they may as well just stay home & have a beer instead, as this
electoral process is a complete & utter farce! America's Deepstate Govt doesn't need or
care for your vote? Your vote doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things? And that, by
definition, is what America has become, a Banana Republic!
Typingperson , March 20, 2018 at 12:47 am
True. And sad.
Michael Wilk , March 19, 2018 at 4:06 pm
Speaking for myself, I'd love nothing more than to see that degenerate orange-painted
child take the intel agencies and their scum-willing leaders down several pegs, just to
remind them who is supposed to be working for whom. Alas, the Great Orange Dope hasn't the
brains to do anything but screw things up. But give the boy credit for trying, bless his
toupée-glue-crusted head.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 5:04 pm
Dumb like a fox: to be smart or cunning, but pretend you don't know what you're doing.
President Trump is letting them hang themselves. As someone said above, he is smoking them
out. It is working beautifully too. Who, besides Trump, could have or would have put up with
what he's had to contend with? It took a tough, hard-shelled individual who wouldn't cow,
someone who would hang in there long enough while the others (the Inspector General,
intelligence committees) could do their work.
I grant you that President Trump's brain is not like Slick Willy's or polished smooth like
the last Narcissist in Chief, but he's right about a lot of things: you can't have a country
without borders; you can't have a country without making your own steel and a healthy
manufacturing base; and you can't have a country run by the intelligence agencies.
I'm putting my money on Trump.
Michael Wilk , March 19, 2018 at 5:50 pm
That might be true if this country respected the borders of other nations or if it
actually brought back steel-making and a healthy manufacturing base. But Caligula Drumpf
never intended to bring any of that back, nor will he even try. Oh, he'll make a few token
statements bragging about his exaggerated actions having actually achieved success, but
that's all it will be is empty boasting. Let's face it: Drumpf supporters were had.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 6:11 pm
Too early to call. It took years to ship all of the jobs overseas (thanks, Slick Willy!),
and it will take years to bring them back. Did you think Trump was magical, that he could
bring the jobs back in one year with the wave of a wand or something? I mean, he's been a tad
busy fighting the intelligence community, hasn't he?
If given the chance, he will secure the borders, decrease immigration, institute a
merit-based immigration system, bring some jobs back (a lot are being automated). The
globalists are losing, but it takes time.
The Swamp will take time to drain as well, but it's proceeding along quite nicely.
But Drumpf won't even try to bring the jobs back. This is not a matter of how quickly he
can do something he's never going to do, but about his will to actually follow through on his
campaign promises. There's simply no reason to believe Drumpf will bother. Why would he? He's
got no stake in bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.
Bart Hansen , March 19, 2018 at 5:28 pm
That "six ways from Sunday" saying may keep Schumer in line; but for Trump, what could
they possibly have against him that would in the least embarrass or bother his voters,
himself or his family? Day after day he crosses a variety of moral red lines.
F. G. Sanford , March 19, 2018 at 6:22 pm
That "moral turpitude" reference seems to imply that there is some -- yet to be
revealed -- scandal held in abeyance, fully capable of delivering a decisive blow. And, the
"deep staters" are merely waiting for the right moment to pull this shark-toothed rabbit out
of the hat. I can't help but wonder what you suspect they'll try next, Ray but this
whole thing reminds me of an old friend's advice given to me during a dark and desolate
period of my own life: "If they had something really good, they'd have used it by now."
jaycee , March 19, 2018 at 7:23 pm
A word of caution -- the intensely partisan fighting may induce a certain fascination as a
spectator, like eye-witnessing the aftermath of a vehicle accident, but what is happening is
without precedent, at least in modern history. Former heads of the nation's top
intelligence organization do not attack sitting presidents, let alone in such a visceral
vituperative and public fashion. This is indication of deep fissures, quite beyond politics
as most citizens understand. As the World Socialist Web Site published today: "There is no
recent parallel for statements and actions such as those of the past three days. One would
have to go back to the period before the American Civil War to find equivalent levels of
tension, which in the late 1850s erupted in violence in the halls of Congress before
exploding in full-scale military conflict."
Trump is a maverick outsider so it's hard to get a handle on what or who he
represents, but the Brennan/deep state side of the dispute is very much aligned with the
corporate DNC Democratic Party. That they seem, by Brennan's comments, to consider themselves
as the representation of "America" as they abandon constitutional and etiquette norms and
articulate visceral hatred towards political rivals should serve as fair warning.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 8:25 pm
jaycee -- great post. I agree with what you've said: what is happening IS without
precedent, Brennan/deep state ARE aligned with the Democrats, and they believe only THEY
represent the true "America".
Dangerous game by very dangerous people who are systematically destroying the Constitution
in their quest to retain power.
Over and over I've heard people who know Trump well say that he listens to them, but then
makes up his own mind. They say he wants to stay true to what he promised to the American
people, that that is actually important to him. Of course he's willing to compromise some,
but he wants the basics of what he promised.
If the Swamp takes him out, the lid is going to come off.
Kevin Zeese: "He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli
foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call
him a neocon."
Ariel Gold: "He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions
movement and was very supportive of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York
state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that."
Thomas Hedges: "Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to
criticize the Obama administration, when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN
Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously upheld
since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated
international law."
Ben Norton: "Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic
resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US
didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it
to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who
criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd
rather affectively ally with Trump."
Thomas Hedges: "The most recent showing of that allegiance was [ ] when Schumer supported
Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also
strongly supported. [ ] But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his
decision to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, without which experts have warned, would put the
United States and Iran on a collision course."
Ben Norton: "Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to
oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is
the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about the nuclear
agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons
etc."
Thomas Hedges: "Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was
consulting the most credentialed men in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of
the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled its
democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war."
Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with
excellence.
Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat
again with Trump winning the election we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and
it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see come out of the
Trump administration.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening
for other undecided Democrats to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.
JWalters , March 19, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Spot on about Chuck Schumer. The following link, from a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website,
proves that Schumer lies to Americans for the benefit of Israel. He puts Israel's interests
above those of the US. He is an Israeli mole in the US government. "Schumer says he
opposed the Iran deal because of 'threat to Israel'"http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/schumer-opposed-because/
Opus Doi , March 19, 2018 at 7:40 pm
America will triumph over you. Wo wo wo. Wo wo wo. Doo doo-doo doo doo! ?
Brennan is history's most hilarious DCI. His grandiose hissy fit suggests that CIA
continues the Dulles tradition of infiltrating the civil service with 'focal points -'
illegal CIA moles infiltrating US government agencies -- and the IG fumigated one key out in
firing McCabe.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 8:35 pm
Opus Doi -- and the MSM and the Left see the "crime" being that McCabe was fired, not
that McCabe broke the law. Kind of like when they didn't see a crime in Hillary using her own
personal servers, but saw the crime as being that the emails might have been hacked by a
foreign government. That they had no evidence of this didn't matter.
Brennan sounds like a desperate man. They must be getting closer to him.
Opus Doi , March 20, 2018 at 7:56 am
See how this works? The article is about Brennan. The comment is about Brennan's CIA.
But immersive CIA propaganda immediately diverts the topic to CIA's synthetic warring
factions, Hillary! Trump! Hillary! Trump!
People need to come to grips with the fact that the past four presidents -- the ones you
hate and the ones you like -- were all drawn from CIA nomenklatura. DCI Bush; Bill Clinton,
recruited by Cord Meyer at Oxford; spy brat and hopeless Arubusto 'wildcatter' GW Bush; and
Obama, son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased into Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's
bagman, invisible student at Columbia, honored guest of the future acting president of
Pakistan before his career even started. Before CIA took over directly they thwarted (Truman,
Eisenhower's disarmament plan, Carter's human rights initiative,) purged (Nixon, Carter,)
shot at (Ford,) and shot (Kennedy, Reagan) their presidential figureheads.
CIA runs your country. You're not going to get anywhere until you stop bickering about
their presidential puppet rulers.
Kenneth Rapoza , March 19, 2018 at 8:46 pm
Who makes the laws? He who makes the laws can break the laws. I would bet my life that
Brenna, Hillary and all the "deep state" actors do not see one second in jail nor pay a
nickel in fines.
backwardsevolution , March 19, 2018 at 10:22 pm
Comey and McCabe were fired for breaking the law. Lots of laws have been broken. The only
thing separating the U.S. and a Third World country is the Rule of Law. Start breaking laws
and looking the other way on corruption and you've got a Banana Republic. Jail time coming up
for some of them.
E. Leete , March 20, 2018 at 1:29 pm
"Give me control over a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." -- Meyer A
Rothschild
Whoever controls the creation and destruction of money, as well as credit regulation (this
is the deep state; the massive financial matrix including the MIC -- all run by wealthpower
giants with their insatiable desires for power to control nothing less than the entire
planet) controls the government including the spook/spy agencies (this is the shadow
government).
the two are intimately connected, of course, and function thru unbridled unconstitutional
powers of secrecy -- empowered by the state secrets privilege
nothing changes until we once and for all time do away with the bankers having the power
to issue our money as debt
because, again, it all starts with private control of money creation -- the most enormous
farce in all of history and it rules yet today
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large
centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." -- Franklin Delano
Roosevelt
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no
allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." -- Theodore Roosevelt
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some
of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid
of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized,
so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not
speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson
The mention of John Brennan brings to mind the bizarre death of Rolling Stone's
writer, Michael Hastings, who was reported to be working on a story about Brennan just before
he had his "accident".
Imagine if a Trump tweet alleged that a man who was found guilty by the FBI was really
innocent. Imagine if Trump tweeted that a man was really guilty despite no evidence found
after almost 2 years of investigation.
What would be the response to either tweet be from the MS Media? Our MS Media is
nothing more than Democrat Propaganda, and that situation will doom us to Russian
interference. Every election the Russians can do the same as 2016: release the truth about
justice not served.
Skip Scott , March 20, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Michael-
I'm no fan of Trump, but Hillary had absolutely no intention to "address the needs of the
people". They are all globalizing warmongers who know how to say what needs to be said to get
elected, and then do whatever their paymasters tell them. Hillary's speeches to her banker
buddies unearthed via Podesta's email account show that she felt it necessary to have
"private views" separate from her "public views". How much plainer could it be than that!
j. D. D. , March 20, 2018 at 7:59 am
"Does one collect a full pension in jail?" Brilliant, provocative and persuasive, in the
way that any follower of Ray McGovern has come to expect.
Abe , March 21, 2018 at 11:38 am
As the Russia-gate fictions erode and Israel-gate emerges, the Hasbara troll army is
scraping the bottom of the propaganda barrel.
Here we have "j. D. D." and the shrill refrain of "BobS"
Comrade "BobS" and fellow Hasbara troll "will" are positively obsessed about Reagan era
"dirty wars" Central and South America. That's understandable.
Israel has advised, trained and equipped, and ran "dirty war" operations in the Latin
American "dirty war" conflicts in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Colombia.
In the case of the Salvadoran "bloodbath", the Israelis were present from the beginning.
Besides arms sales, they helped train ANSESAL, the secret police who were later to form the
framework of the infamous death squads that would kill tens of thousands of mostly civilian
activists.
McGovern certainly understands what sort of "ally" Israel can be.
So keep on yappin' "BobS". We got you.
IsItAnyWonder , March 20, 2018 at 11:10 am
USMC activated. Well, I'd put my two-cents on POTUS. Just like we've all seen
throughout our lives when the supposed tough guy starts making threats he is really scared
Sh**less. Lots of these clowns are just going to disappear during the late night hours of the
day never to be heard from again.
Our society is sitting on a knifes edge, anything at all happens to Trump and the entire
nation will just burn to the ground with literal blood in the streets. No one needs to pound
their chest and say what tough guy acts they will do since most of the heavy lifting is
already going on with Spec Ops and very soon USMC.
Most of us would not have the skills are knowledge to do what is needed. Foggy Bottom is
about to get a big enema along with the CIA to our benefit. Guys like Brennan are scared
rats in a sinking ship, good riddance!
geeyp , March 20, 2018 at 3:05 pm
Excuse me Mr. Williamson, I think you are precisely right. This indeed is the time to get
it all out. Expose it all. Lay it all out and go for it. These people have it coming to
them.
will , March 20, 2018 at 1:23 pm
What an amazingly illuminating article. Devin Nunes, who perfectly ok with wire taps
as long as the target aren't from his party is somehow a noble individual. While I agree that
Brennan should be in prison, it should be for torturing people ...
Abe , March 21, 2018 at 12:18 pm
As the Russia-gate fictions erode and Israel-gate emerges, the Hasbara propaganda troll
army keeps on sending in the clowns.
Comrade "will" and his fellow Hasbara troll "BobS" recite the same propaganda script,
going on and on about the war in Latin America.
Of course, the trolls never mention the fact that the US government, especially the CIA,
recruited an all-too-eager Israel to "support" the Central and South American military forces
and intelligence units engaged in violent and widespread repression during the Reagan and
Bush era "dirty wars".
Recently declassified 1983 US government documents have obtained by the Washington,
DC-based National Security Archives through the Freedom of Information Act. One such
declassified document is a 1983 memo from the notorious Colonel Oliver North of the Reagan
Administration's National Security Council and reads: "As discussed with you yesterday, I
asked CIA, Defense, and State to suggest practical assistance which the Israelis might offer
in Guatemala and El Salvador."
Another document, this time a 1983 cable from the US Ambassador in Guatemala to Washington
Frederic Chapin shows the money trail. Chapin says that at a time when the US did not want to
be seen directly assisting Guatemala, "we have reason to believe that our good friends the
Israelis are prepared, or already have, offered substantial amounts of military equipment to
the GOG (Government of Guatemala) on credit terms up to 20 years (I pass over the importance
of making huge concessionary loans to Israel so that it can make term loans in our own
backyard)."
The Reagan and Bush era "dirty wars" were bad enough. The Israeli-Saudi-US Axis jumped the
shark with Bush the Lesser and Obama wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Under Trump,
Israel remains only to happy to continue providing "support" for Al Qaeda and ISIS.
So keep on blabbin', Hasbara troll team mates "will" and "BobS". We got you.
Drogon , March 20, 2018 at 6:45 pm
"It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the
last two years or so" And this is supposed to be a bad thing? I'm sorry, but the more leaks
the better IMO.
Drogon, You're right; usually the more leaks the better ..BUT these are "AUTHORIZED" leaks
to co-opted journalists and PR people like Palmieri designed to give some "substance" to
Russia-gate, for example. ray
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged.
The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the
underlying principle from Nuremberg as "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his
Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law,
provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
John Brennan, who ran the CIA under President Barack Obama, made similar remarks on Tuesday
when asked about Haspel. The Bush administration had decided that its torture program was
legal,
said Brennan , and Haspel "tried to carry out her duties at CIA to the best of her ability,
even when the CIA was asked to do some very difficult things."
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"WASHINGTON BREAKS OUT THE "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS" NAZI DEFENSE FOR CIA DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE
GINA HASPEL"
Jon Schwarz
"... "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." ..."
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged.
The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the
underlying principle from Nuremberg as "the fact that a person acted pursuant to order
of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
This is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as
settled as anything possibly can be.
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a
legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just
following orders.
Specifically, they say Gina Haspel, a top CIA officer whom President
Donald Trump has designated to be the agency's next director, bears no responsibility for the
torture she supervised during George W. Bush's administration.
Haspel
oversaw a secret "black site" in Thailand, at which prisoners were waterboarded and
subjected to other severe forms of abuse. Haspel later participated in the destruction of the
CIA's videotapes of some of its torture sessions. There is informed
speculation that part of the CIA's motivation for destroying these records may have been
that they showed operatives employing torture to generate false "intelligence" used to justify
the invasion of Iraq.
John Kiriakou, a former CIA operative who helped capture many Al Qaeda prisoners, recently
said that Haspel was known to some at the agency as "Bloody Gina" and that "Gina and people
like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of
torture, not for the sake of gathering information." (In 2012, in a convoluted
case , Kiriakou
pleaded guilty to leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer to the press and spent a
year in prison.)
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"WASHINGTON BREAKS OUT THE "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS" NAZI DEFENSE FOR CIA DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE
GINA HASPEL"
Jon Schwarz
"... It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted." ..."
"... Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall [2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb . ..."
"... But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. ..."
"... John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail? ..."
"... Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. ..."
"... Brennan's words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Washington Post ..."
"... The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's lead article. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer's theorem stand. ..."
With former CIA Director John Brennan accusing President Donald Trump of "moral turpitude"
for his "scapegoating" of Andy McCabe, it remains to be seen whether a constitutional crisis
will be averted, writes Ray McGovern.
What prompted former CIA Director John Brennan on Saturday to accuse President Donald Trump
of "moral turpitude" and to predict, with an alliterative flourish, that Trump will end up "as
a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history"? The answer shines through the next sentence
in Brennan's threatening tweet : "You
may scapegoat Andy McCabe [former FBI Deputy Director fired Friday night] but you will not
destroy America America will triumph over you."
It is easy to see why Brennan lost it. The Attorney General fired McCabe, denying him full
retirement benefits, because McCabe "had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and
lacked candor -- including under oath -- on multiple occasions." There but for the grace of God
go I, Brennan must have thought, whose stock in trade has been unauthorized disclosures.
In fact, Brennan can take but small, short-lived consolation in the fact that he succeeded
in leaving with a full government pension. His own unauthorized disclosures and leaks probably
dwarf in number, importance, and sensitivity those of McCabe. And many of those leaks appear to
have been based on sensitive intercepted conversations from which the names of American
citizens were unmasked for political purposes. Not to mention the leaks of faux intelligence
like that contained in the dubious "dossier" cobbled together for the Democrats by British
ex-spy Christopher Steele.
It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the
last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times and
Washington Post. (At one point, the obvious whispering reached the point that the
Wall Street Journal saw fit to complain that it was being neglected.) The leaking can
be traced way back -- at least as far as the Clinton campaign's decision to blame the Russians
for the publication of very damning DNC emails by WikiLeaks just three days before the
Democratic National Convention.
This blame game turned out to be a hugely successful effort to divert attention from the
content of the emails, which showed in bas relief the dirty tricks the DNC
played on Bernie Sanders. The media readily fell in line, and all attention was deflected from
the substance of the DNC emails to the question as to why the Russians supposedly
"hacked into the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks."
This media operation worked like a charm, but even Secretary Clinton's PR person, Jennifer
Palmieri, conceded later that at first it strained credulity that the Russians would be doing
what they were being accused of doing.
Magnificent Diversion
On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our
democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist
Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former
officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be
conducted." (That time seems to be coming soon.)
Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall
[2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to
absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to
defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb
.
"But then we go back to Brooklyn [Clinton headquarters] and heard from the -- mostly our
sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in the intelligence sphere, and that's
where we heard things and that's where we learned about the dossier and the other story lines
that were swirling about; and how to process And along the way the administration started
confirming various pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing. So I do
think that the answer for the Democrats now in both the House and the Senate is to talk about
it more and make it more real."
So the leaking had an early start, and went on steroids during the months following the
Democratic Convention up to the election -- and beyond.
As a Reminder
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, or other activities directed against the Trump
campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure
thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal
activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison.
But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA)
threw down the gauntlet, indicating
that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in
order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. His words are likely to have sent
chills down the spine of yet other miscreants. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put
them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we
created."
John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full
pension in jail?
Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security
Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security
reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. Congressional committees have questioned
why Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power (as well as his national security adviser Susan Rice)
made so many unmasking requests. Power is reported to have requested the unmasking of more than
260 Americans, most of them in the final days of the administration, including the names of
Trump associates.
Deep State Intimidation
Back to John Brennan's bizarre tweet Saturday telling the President, "You may scapegoat Andy
McCabe but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you." Unmasking the word
"America," so to speak, one can readily discern the name "Brennan" underneath. Brennan's
words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the
deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two
years.
Later on Saturday, Samantha Power, with similar equities at stake, put an exclamation point
behind what Brennan had tweeted earlier in the day. Power also saw fit to remind Trump where
the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off
John Brennan."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state
game of intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended
message: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This
is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch him.'"
[sic]
The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was
the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A
quite different impression was conveyed by the
large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's
lead article.
Putting Down a Marker
It isn't as though Donald Trump wasn't warned, as are all incoming presidents, of the power
of the Deep State that he needs to play ball with -- or else. Recall that just three days
before President-elect Trump was visited by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Michael Rogers, Trump was put
on notice by none other than the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Schumer has been
around and knows the ropes; he is a veteran of 18 years in the House, and is in his 20th year
in the Senate.
On Jan. 3, 2017 Schumer said it all, when he told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that
President-elect Trump is "being really dumb" by taking on the intelligence community and its
assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday
at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying
President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let
Schumer's theorem stand.
With gauntlets now thrown down by both sides, we may not have to wait very long to see if
Schumer is correct in his blithe prediction as to how the present constitutional crisis will be
resolved.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents and nine
CIA directors and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
"... Well, the party lime is pretty different: "Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is. Whether the Skripal poisoning can be conclusively pinned on Moscow is beside the point." https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-09/u-k-spy-poisoning-treat-russia-like-the-terrorist-it-is ..."
"... The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person. ..."
"... In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be manufactured it any relatively developed country. ..."
"... It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the KGB successor of the successor of the VChK. ..."
"... Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union. ..."
I'm a socialist. I don't understand how a conservative is getting this so right! There is a mad
rush to judgment and anyone who wants to ask questions is getting accused of being unpatriotic.
Quite a sensible article. The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from
the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person.
In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a
known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a
minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas
has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be
manufactured it any relatively developed country.
It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by
the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the
KGB successor of the successor of the VChK.
At the end of 1980s there was a project started by KGB supposed (1) to detect possible channels
of security leakage, and (2) to begin spreading misinformation to potential adversaries.
Different names were used to test different security leaks. The name "NOVICHOK" used to
identify misinformation given to one of suspects, Vil Mirzayanov who was not chemist but rather
a clerk. Very soon this security leakage was detected, and tons of other misinformation
supplied to Mirzayanov, who was immediately secretly discharged from access to any real
project. Mirzayanov was allowed to publish this fake info in NYT (around 1992-95?), and then to
escape from Russia in 1995.
Since that time NATO has spent about $10 billions to develop protection tools against this
fake "NOVICHOK"
P.S. The Russian word NOVICHOK stands for "a newbie"; from Russian grammar point of view,
there is no chance such word to be assigned to any chemical weapon. It was assigned to
Mirzayanov who was "a newbie" to this sort of projects at that time.
Cui bono: every murder of a Russian dissident/defector/oligarch/critical journalist, cannot
possibly have happened on Putin's orders or with his tacit approval, because it reflects badly
on Russia.
So, we have two possible explanations: some Western intelligence agency is murdering those
people, probably without the knowledge of their own government (you'd have think that someone
in elected office would have stopped such a programme by now); or the Russian Putin opposition
is killing its own people, both in Russia and abroad. If the goal of such an operation is the
destabilization of the Putin regime through Western sanctions, it is obviously not working.
You say cui bono, I say Occam's razor. Putin takes out those who might threaten him, raises
his popularity, the sanctions are used to cover up his own disastrous economical policies, and
in the end nothing changes.
We *knew* Iraq had no nukes, and we knew that the Bush administration lied, and we knew that
"WMD" is the kind of BS we make up when there are no nukes.
Buchanan is not arguing in good faith. What Maine, Tonkin and WMD are about is *lies*, lies
in service of criminal acts of aggression, lies to facilitate a premeditated violation of the
Constitution as well as international law.
That is frankly a more important issue than the – justified and necessary –
doubts regarding the attempted Skripal assassination and the motives behind it.
This is also true of an ongoing campaign employing drones – some controlled by CIA
illegal combatants – and kill teams to implement collective punishment and ideological
cleansing by means of sustained assassination – based on "signatures" provided by the
likes of Google or Booz Allen. The US has no standing to judge the assassination attempts of
others, just as our government can no longer meaningfully speak out on aggressive acts of war,
collective punishment, and torture. A house divided cannot stand for anything.
You say that the burden of proof is on the accused? That works in many parts of the world,
but I hope that we here in the US have had a better standard of Justice. The burden of proof
falls upon the accuser, in this case Britain. There is no ther standard that America should
accept if we are to remain true to American principals. Not that I expect that our current
oligarchy will care about principals.
Exactly. Putin's long term strategy is an integrated Pan-Eurasian economic architecture in
which Europe would be a major customer segment. That is why the EAEU was stood up by Russia and
the BRI stood up by China. With supporting investment platforms like the AIIB to enable the
initiatives.
Given that objective, why would Russia/Putin seek to totally wreck its relationship with
Europe? More importantly what would be the motive and objectives for Russia to attack Poland
and the Baltic Republics – the fear-monger threats du jour? When an overrun of Poland
would create 30+ million subversive malcontents that Russia would have to govern, and when
there are only minority ethnic Russian populations in the Baltics?
The driving force behind the illogical and incoherent demonization of Russia is the
Washington War Party that froths up the political environment with the militarized
fear-mongering. Because as Fran Macadam notes, there's Big Money in it. And the Neocon
war-monger mouthpieces need some Big Enemies to keep themselves relevant, busy and living very
large on the $200K – $600K salaries they collect at the bought off Think
Pimp Tanks.
A crazed U.S. foreign policy that has been completely militarized is a train wreck waiting
to happen. And us taxpayers will yet again be stuck with the bills to clean up the
wreckage.
Sovietologists? Now this, more than anything else, explains the reflexive anti-Russia
hysteria. Who cares what historians dealing with the twentieth century Soviet Union think about
current events? Historians provide useful insight, yes, but that does not mean they are
conversant with current events. What you are doing is throwing in a fear laden buzzword.
Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from
what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union.
Our leaders are enthusiastic about being aggressive with the Russians, but the America Empire
has a problem attracting enough volunteers to join the military.
For example, the Air Force has a shortage of 2,000 pilots and the Navy has a shortage of
mechanics that they need to work on their on their aircraft.
The U.S. and Britain showed more respect to Joseph Stalin, the Butcher, than it has shown to
Putin. The demonization of Putin in all the mainstream media outlets is the tip-off to me that
Putin must be a pretty good guy doing some good things for Russia.
"If the world hates you know that it has hated me first. If the world loves you it is
because you belong to the world." -- Jesus Christ
>>Given the poison used it means one to two things -- either it was Russian secret
services or the Russians have lost control over their poisons. Either one is a nasty thought.
Why? It was presumably created 40 years ago. Pretty much to time for information to spread
around.
E.g., Kim's brother was presumably (again) poisoned by VX. Does it mean that it was MI-6? It's
a British invention after all.
In any case, this story stinks, pardon for a word pun. A 'military grade agent' and no
casualties. How could it be?
>>Why do it? To prove they can. To prove that no matter where you go they can get
you -- that there is no safety.
Safety from what? This guy was non-entity, nobody knew him. More importantly, he has been
already punished and pardoned, so double no sense.
>>I am sure Gary Kasparov is feeling a bit worried right now and Bill Browder is
thinking of moving somewhere new.
Well, I'd suspect that Rodchenko and Khodorkovskiy are more evident sacrificial targets.
Pat asks important questions. Unless we ever see the "evidence" to which Boris Johnson refers,
or other direct evidence that this hit (and others) in Britain was directed by the Kremlin,
it's worth continuing to ask them.
"Who benefits?" Indeed, it could be rogue Russian agents or Western agents attempting to
further drive a wedge between the West and Russia.
But it could also be Putin signalling that the Russia which held onto traitorous spies
between 2006 and 2010 is over.
It could be him simply trying to show that he can reach people inside the West, a pure flexing
of muscle, a warning to future would-be traitors and Western governments. It could be to
make America's allies nervous about Putin's relationship with his American puppet, Trumpolini.
It could be just Putin sowing chaos and attempting to create discord among Western
governments.
Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still applies. If it
growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Who could be so phillistine as to suggest, on the eve of the World Cup, that Premier Andropov's
KGB protege', Major Putin, would one day stoop to whacking a traitorous defector from the Party
Line ?
>>Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still
applies. If it growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Occam's Razor, my backside. Some guys from MI-5 tried to kill him like they killed David
Kelly and Gareth Williams before. It's as credible as it gets, exactly the same amount of
evidence.
There are way too many idiots. They will continue using it no matter what.
Notable quotes:
"... Readers report that Facebook keeps asking them to reactivate their accounts. Wolf confirms that and adds critically important point in his post: you can never escape Facebook. Facebook continues to sell your data even if you have "deleted" your account. ..."
"... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street ..."
"... With credit bureaus, consumers have no choice. They're forced to be part of the credit-bureau data bases. Their data is collected, and there is nothing they can do about it. Consumer protection should be the number one priority. When companies get hacked and this consumer data gets stolen, there should be harsh punishments against these companies if they're found to have been negligent. Arthur Andersen comes to mind. ..."
"... But with Facebook and other social media platforms, there is no coercion. Consumers submit their most private data voluntarily -- nay, eagerly. They jump through hoops to share this stuff with the rest of the world. So maybe they only want to share it with x and not with y, but heck, they're uploading it to the Internet. What do they expect? ..."
"... And there is another difference between Equifax and Facebook: Equifax was hacked and the data was stolen ..."
"... But they do have a major trait in common: An aggrieved consumer cannot delete the data these outfits have collected on that consumer. While Facebook allows you to "delete" items and "delete" your account, the data stays behind on the server. It's available for all purposes; it's just not publicly viewable. ..."
"... With Facebook, consumers are in total control: They can just refuse to open an account. And if they have already opened an account, they can delete the app on their mobile devices, clean the cache on their computers, and swear to not ever again sign back in. If enough consumers do that, the whole construct would come down. ..."
"... Meanwhile, these dang trillions are flying by so fast, they're hard to see. Read US Gross National Debt Spikes $1.2 Trillion in 6 Months, Hits $21 Trillion ..."
Readers report that Facebook keeps asking them to reactivate their accounts. Wolf
confirms that and adds critically important point in his post: you can never escape Facebook.
Facebook continues to sell your data even if you have "deleted" your account.
I doubt enough people are aware of that issue. Having delete mean delete, as in Facebook
wipes your data entirely, should become a key demand in the row over Facebook's information
"sharing" policies.
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and
author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf
Street
Things at Facebook came to a head, following the disclosure that personal data from 50
million of its users had been given to a sordid outfit in the UK, Cambridge Analytica, whose
business model is to manipulate elections by hook or crook around the world, and which is now
getting vivisected by UK and US authorities.
The infamous "person familiar with the matter" told
Bloomberg that the Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into whether
Facebook violated a consent decree dating back to 2011, when Facebook settled similar
allegations -- giving user data to third parties without user's knowledge or consent.
Bloomberg:
Under the 2011 settlement, Facebook agreed to get user consent for certain changes to
privacy settings as part of a settlement of federal charges that it deceived consumers and
forced them to share more personal information than they intended. That complaint arose after
the company changed some user settings without notifying its customers, according to an FTC
statement at the time.
If Facebook is found to be in violation of the consent decree, the FTC can extract a fine of
$40,000 per day, per violation. Given the 50 million victims spread over so many days, this
could be some real money, so to speak.
Facebook said in a statement, cited by Bloomberg, that it rejected "any suggestion of
violation of the consent decree." It also said with tone-deaf Facebook hilarity, "Privacy and
data protections are fundamental to every decision we make."
That Facebook is collecting every little bit of personal data it can from its users and
their contacts and how they react to certain things, their preferences, their choices, physical
appearance -- photos, I mean come on -- clues about their personalities, and the like has been
known from day one. That's part of its business model. It's not a secret.
That third parties have access to this data has also been known at least since 2011.
Advertisers also have had access to certain types of data to target their ads.
And yet, Facebook's user base has grown. More than ever, people put their entire lives on
Facebook -- maybe not the kids, as they've become enamored with other platforms, but their
moms. Babies are on Facebook long before they have any idea what Facebook is. There's a
generation growing up that has been on Facebook since birth.
When the Equifax hack occurred last year -- which Equifax disclosed
graciously and partially months after the fact on September 7 -- the personal data of what
has now grown to 145.5 million consumers was stolen. This included names, birth dates, Social
Security numbers, addresses, and "in some instances," driver's license numbers, and other
data.
This shocked the world that pays attention to this because the data breach could unleash a
tsunami of identity theft. But most consumers who saw it in the media simply shrugged and went
on. They could have put a credit freeze on their accounts with the credit bureaus, thus making
it nearly impossible for someone else to get a loan or credit card in their name (identity
theft). But few consumers put a credit freeze on their accounts. Many consumers still don't
know what Equifax is or what it does, and when you discuss the situation, they think you're
spouting off conspiracy theories.
But there is a difference between credit bureaus such as Equifax and social media platforms
such as Facebook.
With credit bureaus, consumers have no choice. They're forced to be part of the
credit-bureau data bases. Their data is collected, and there is nothing they can do about it.
Consumer protection should be the number one priority. When companies get hacked and this
consumer data gets stolen, there should be harsh punishments against these companies if they're
found to have been negligent. Arthur Andersen comes to mind.
But with Facebook and other social media platforms, there is no coercion. Consumers
submit their most private data voluntarily -- nay, eagerly. They jump through hoops to share
this stuff with the rest of the world. So maybe they only want to share it with x and not with
y, but heck, they're uploading it to the Internet. What do they expect?
And there is another difference between Equifax and Facebook: Equifax was hacked and the
data was stolen . Facebook gave away the data as part of its business
model.
But they do have a major trait in common: An aggrieved consumer cannot delete the data
these outfits have collected on that consumer. While Facebook allows you to "delete" items and
"delete" your account, the data stays behind on the server. It's available for all purposes;
it's just not publicly viewable.
So now there's a hue and cry in the media about Facebook, put together by reporters who are
still active on Facebook and who have no intention of quitting Facebook. There has been no
panicked rush to "delete" accounts. There has been no massive movement to quit Facebook
forever. Facebook does what it does because it does it, and because it's so powerful that it
can do it. A whole ecosystem around it depends on the consumer data it collects.
Yes, there will be the usual ceremonies that Equifax also went through: CEO Zuckerberg may
get to address the Judiciary Committee in Congress. The questions thrown at him for public
consumption will be pointed. But behind the scenes, away from the cameras, there will be the
usual backslapping between lawmakers and corporations. Publicly, there will be some
wrist-slapping and some lawsuits, and all this will be settled and squared away in due time.
Life will go on. Facebook will continue to collect the data because consumers continue to
surrender their data to Facebook voluntarily. And third parties will continue to have access to
this data.
With Facebook, consumers are in total control: They can just refuse to open an account.
And if they have already opened an account, they can delete the app on their mobile devices,
clean the cache on their computers, and swear to not ever again sign back in. If enough
consumers do that, the whole construct would come down.
The only act that would change anything is if consumers massively and forever abandon
Facebook and platforms like it, and never-ever sign on again. That would bulldoze the whole
problem away. But that's not going to happen because consumers don't want it to happen.
So as far as I'm concerned, people who are still active on Facebook cannot be helped. They
should just enjoy the benefits of having their lives exposed to the world and serving as a
worthy tool and resource for corporate interests, political shenanigans, election manipulators,
jealous exes, and other facts of life.
"... We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be. ..."
"... For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. ..."
"... (in English in the original text -- trans. ..."
"... Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities. ..."
"... Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth. ..."
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode.
I've been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those
parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including
athletes with disabilities ), with their "skripals" and ostentatious disregard of the most
basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically
combined with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their
epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia,
and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in
the Brexit-zone;
with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of
speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech
never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort
of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your
injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you.
You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those
amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came
to be.
For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and
analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive
arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn
history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their
empires. Only because of their arrogance.
(in English in the original text --
trans. )
But the only Empire, you have left, ignores history, it doesn't teach it and refuses to
learn it, meaning that it all will end the way it always does, in such cases.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him.
Before, he was just our President, who could be reelected. Now, he has become our Leader. We
won't let you change this. And it was you, who created this situation.
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
I agree with you, Margarita, and I am American! I remember as a child, being taught about
that horrid USSR - to be so feared, ready at any moment to bomb us into oblivion! I remember
the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. - not knowing the full details, but being told that Kennedy saved us
all from WWIII. As time went on, we'd watch humorous shows detailing the large percentage of
Russians in USSR wanting to AND defecting to America. We were shown Russians lined up around
city blocks to buy toilet paper, shoes (any size, any color would do). Russians naivety was
always made fun of, casting the majority of you as either clowns or criminals capable of all
heinous crimes. Then came the 90s. I watched Yeltsin tottering around drunk, watched in
horror as the USSR collapsed, wondering what had happened to you. Then came Putin - this
young man being handed the reins of your collapsed, ruined country. Suddenly it seemed, we
saw more and more of him. I remember watching his face when he had to explain to the tearful,
waiting parents and friends of the mariners from the Kursk. His remark that if he could go
down there himself and rescue them he would! I knew then, that this was a man to be watched,
because I admired him at that moment. Over the years, after one successful term after
another, I saw Russia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the USSR. I saw the pride
returning to the Russian faces, saw smiles returning to their faces, watched you regaining
your honor, your sovereignty as we started losing ours. Watching and listening, in horror and
fear as more and more of our rights were taken away after 9/11. Discovering that it was a
false flag (one of many, it seems), that took the lives of ordinary Americans and used their
deaths to start killing more people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack. More
time going by, more rights taken away here, yet for you, rising ever more to greater economy,
more business friendly environments in Russia, more world trade with an increasing number of
trading partners.
Then started the demonization again - not of USSR, but of Russia - same story, different
name. Putin - guilty of all crimes of mankind, blamed for everything under the sun, capable
and willing to kill people around the globe with impunity, using chemicals and all other
nefarious things! I watched the crimes committed in Ukraine, which deposed the legally
elected president, and that tried to kill him after a coup that put Nazis in his place. I
watched Crimea hold it's referendum, saw the fireworks display afterwards with all the happy
faces. Russia was demonized even more and sanctioned greatly for that. Now to 2017 - I prayed
that Putin would run again - (he waited a long time before stating he would run.) I knew that
Russia sorely needed him to remain at the reins, guiding Russia (and the world, it seems)
around the icebergs of hate, crimes against humanity, local wars, demise of any empathetic
feelings towards others as we are all dragged along to the next, last war. Putin has been the
one who has prevented it from happening in several situations, where it could have been
started. But the demonization continues - little wonder America has lost it's appeal to most
of you!
The deep state has us in thrall - (no Kennedy here now to protect us). I pray daily that
all of us will survive to realize our hopes - yours and ours, but feel on a deep level that
this time it won't happen. It seems that some people here truly want a war - feel they could
survive the strike and retaliate to ruin your country, but that ours would remain mainly
untouched. They think their bunkers will protect them - their expansive underground cities
built for the richest and 'best' of America, while the rest of us are collateral damage. I am
not rich - have no real savings, so am definitely not one of those to be saved - like so
others around me. I'm sure many of you are in the same position, have the same fears and
dreams as I do. I offer all of you my best wishes for a happy, healthy, free and safe world.
Maybe your Putin actually does have a rabbit in his hat, or that silver bullet - the magic
needed to save us all! I truly hope so.
As a Canadian, thank you for your excellent summary of what I have concluded for some
time. Sadly, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic as established by the founders; it
is not even a representative democracy. What the US has become is an Evil American Empire
that is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity in the US and throughout the entire
world. The good news is that a growing number of people in the US and the Western World
realize this and are working very hard to return America to its founding ideals. The first
stage in this process is the exposure of powerful members of the Deep State who have
infiltrated and corrupted the essential institutions of government, freedom and justice.
I used to be liberal before liberalism became a symbol of stupidity, war mongering and
affiliated with the Deep State and it's rush to rule the world by destroying every society
whose people chose to live life as they saw fit. The translation mechanism for understanding
US leadership is projection. If the mouthpieces ramble on about their values, the meaning is
that they are stating the values of their opponent or target country. If they're accusing a
country of terrorism, they're talking about their own support for terrorism for geopolitical
gains. If they're accusing a country of using chemical weapons, they're really talking about
their own use of chemical weapons to launch another war and destroy yet another country's
society. So one can easily see the true meaning of these psychopaths rantings and rhetoric by
merely using the simple mechanism of projection to determine the truth.
Many times I am completely confused by the use that Americans make of traditional
political or economic terms. "Socialism", for example, applied to Democrats? Calling
"Liberals" those who like to defy society's traditional customs? "Marxism" is no longer a
theory about the conflict of classes, or a dialectical understanding of society! Many
political discussions are due to the different interpretations that people give to the same
words. The US political science vocabulary is in chaos- along with many other US things!
Seventy years ago, George Orwell wrote the prophetic essay, "Politics
and the English Language," in which he noted that politicians,
journalists and academics were increasingly using meaningless words and
euphemisms to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and...
give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Source:
https://www.alternet.org/el...
Totally agree. Fundamental or Philosophical Liberalism has to be with the human being and
his liberties and rights.
Economic Liberalism has to be with the commodities trade and physical money, financial money,
and their privileges put over the human beings, of course this is a euphemism because whom
are really self conceded such privileges are the owners of those goods i.e. International
Usurers.
Economic Liberalism morphed into the worst; into Neo-(Economic)-Liberalism (They call it only
"liberalism" in order to confuse their enemies, all the people). Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things
including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as
their rightful commodities.
You're absolutely correct! We've had the worst of the worst running and influencing those
that run the country and this man was a psycho, but we have more, too many!
The arrogance of the man. I do hope he lives long enough to see the fruits of his labor
whilst the economy collapses around him. I guess when that happens he and his other hapless
miscreants will keep their heads down and rely on security to protect them from the karma
hurtling towards them.
Nothing this man has done has benefited the American people.
Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided
in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is
what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM
and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held
responsible for the factual truth.
"... "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you." ..."
"... Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan ; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan ; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 . He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion , (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
John Brennan was CIA director from March 2013 to January 2017. If there is a "deep state"
he's been a key figure in it in recent history. So it's particularly significant when he
tweets, addressing the president:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption
becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of
history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph
over you."
The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time. Yet,
it gets almost no coverage from the corporate media.
How often do network newscasts report on the 40 million Americans living in poverty, or that we have the highest rate of childhood
poverty of almost any major nation on earth? How often does the media discuss the reality that our society today is more unequal
than at any time since the 1920s with the top 0.1% now owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? How often have you heard the
media report the stories of millions of people who today are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case some 40 years
ago?
How often has ABC, CBS or NBC discussed the role that the
Koch brothers and other billionaires play in creating
a political system which allows the rich and the powerful to significantly control elections and the legislative process in Congress?
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask
Sadly, the answer to these questions is: almost never. The corporate media has failed to let the American people fully understand
the economic forces shaping their lives and causing many of them to work two or three jobs, while CEOs make hundreds of times more
than they do. Instead, day after day, 24/7, we're inundated with the relentless dramas of the Trump White House, Stormy Daniels,
and the latest piece of political gossip.
We urgently need to discuss the reality of today's economy and political system, and fight to create an economy that works for
everyone and not just the one percent.
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask: who owns America, and who has the political power? Why,
in the richest country in the history of the world are so many Americans living in poverty? What are the forces that have caused
the American middle class, once the envy of the world, to decline precipitously? What can we learn from countries that have succeeded
in reducing income and wealth inequality, creating a strong and vibrant middle class, and providing basic human services to everyone?
We need to hear from struggling Americans whose stories are rarely told in newspapers or television. Unless we understand the
reality of life in America for working families, we're never going to change that reality.
Until we understand that the rightwing Koch brothers are more politically powerful than the Republican National Committee, and
that big banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational corporations are spending unlimited sums of money to rig the political
process, we won't be able to overturn the disastrous US supreme court decision on Citizens United, move to the public funding of
elections and end corporate greed.
Until we understand that the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and that people cannot make it on $9
or $10 an hour, we're not going to be able to pass a living wage of at least $15 an hour.
Until we understand that multinational corporations have been writing our trade and tax policies for the past 40 years to allow
them to throw American workers out on the street and move to low-wage countries, we're not going to be able to enact fair laws ending
the race to the bottom and making the wealthy and the powerful pay their fair share.
Until we understand that we live in a highly competitive global economy and that it is counterproductive that millions of our
people cannot afford a higher education or leave school deeply in debt, we will not be able to make public colleges and universities
tuition free.
Until we understand that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all and that we spend far more
per capita on healthcare than does any other country, we're not going to be able to pass a Medicare for all, single-payer program.
Until we understand that the US pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because pharmaceutical companies
can charge whatever price they want for life-saving medicine, we're not going to be able to lower the outrageous price of these drugs.
Until we understand that climate change is real, caused by humans, and causing devastating problems around the world, especially
for poor people, we're not going to be able to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into sustainable forms of energy.
We need to raise political consciousness in America and help us move forward with a progressive agenda that meets the needs of
our working families. It's up to us all to join the conversation -- it's just the beginning.
March 20 marks a major anniversary. You'd be forgiven for not knowing it. Fifteen years
after we invaded Iraq, few in the US are addressing our legacy there. But it's worth recalling
we shattered that country.
We made it a terrorist hotspot, as expected. US and British intelligence, in the months
preceding the invasion, expected Bush's planned assault would invigorate Al-Qaeda. The group "
would see an opportunity
to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks," particularly "
in the US and UK ," assessments warned. Due course for the War on Terror.
Follow-up reports confirmed these predictions. "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause
celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and
cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," Washington analysts explained in
2006.
Fawaz Gerges
lists two groups this milieu produced: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), "a creature of the 2003
US-led invasion," and ISIS, "an extension of AQI."
There were good reasons for anyone -- not just jihadists -- to resent US involvement.
Consider sectarianism. "The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history
followed the 2003 US-led occupation," Sami Ramadani affirmed .
Nabil Al-Tikriti concurs , citing US
policies that "led to a progressive, incessant increase in sectarian tensions." The Shia death
squads "
organized by U.S. operatives" were one such decision.
The extent to which these squads succeeded is, in part, what scholars debate when they tally
the war deaths. Low estimates, like Iraq Body Count's, put civilians killed at just over 200,000. One research
team determined
some "half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war." Physicians for Social
Responsibility concluded "that the war has, directly or
indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq," plus 300,000 more in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Iraqis surviving the inferno confronted a range of nightmares. The UN " reported that over 4.4
million Iraqis were internally displaced, and an additional 264,100 were refugees abroad," for
example. US forces dealt with Iraqi prisoners -- 70-90% of whom were " arrested by
mistake " -- by "arranging naked detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;" "breaking
chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;" and "forcing groups of male
detainees to masturbate themselves," to list some of the ways we imparted , with the approval of top
Bush administration officials, democratic principles.
Then there are the generations of future Iraqis in bomb-battered cities: Fallujah, Basra. In
the former, "the reported increases in cancer and infant
mortality are alarmingly high" -- perhaps "
worse than Hiroshima " -- while "birth defects reached in 2010 unprecedented
numbers." In the same vein, "a pattern of increase in congenital birth defects" plagues Basra, and
"many suspect that pollution created by the bombardment of Iraqi cities has caused the current
birth defect crisis in that country."
This bombardment began decades before 2003, it's crucial to clarify. We can recall UN
Under-Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari's mission to Baghdad after Operation Desert Storm. He
and his team were familiar with the literature on the bombings, he wrote in March 1991, "fully
conversant with media reports regarding the situation in Iraq," but realized upon arrival "that
nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation"
-- "near-apocalyptic" -- "which has now befallen the country," condemning it "to a
pre-industrial age" for the foreseeable future. This was the scale of ruin when the UN Security
Council imposed sanctions. The measures were "at every turn
shaped by the United States," whose "consistent
policy " was "to inflict the most extreme economic damage possible on Iraq."
The policy was, in this respect, a ripping success. The UN estimated
in 1995 that the sanctions had murdered over a half-million children -- " worth it ," Madeleine Albright said --
one factor prompting two successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq to resign. Denis
Halliday
thought the sanctions "criminally flawed and genocidal;" Hans von Sponeck
agreed , citing evidence of "conscious violation of human rights and humanitarian law on
the part of governments represented in the Security Council, first and foremost those of the
United States and the United Kingdom."
Eliminating hundreds of thousands of starving children was just the prequel to the
occupation -- "the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed
Baghdad in 1258," in one writer's judgment
. But try to find more than a handful of commentators reflecting on any of these issues on this
dark anniversary. Instead, silence shows the deep US capacity for forgetting.
Nick Alexandrov lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He can be reached at: [email protected]
As it turns out, Ulbricht's lawyers were on to something.
In a blockbuster report published Tuesday in
the Intercept, reporter Sam Biddle cited several documents included in the massive cache of
stolen NSA documents that showed that the agency has been tracking bitcoin users since 2013,
and has potentially been funneling some of this information to other federal agencies. Or, as
Biddle puts it, maybe the conspiracy theorists were right.
It turns out the conspiracy theorists were onto something. Classified documents provided
by whistleblower Edward Snowden show that the National Security Agency indeed worked urgently
to target Bitcoin users around the world - and wielded at least one mysterious source of
information to "help track down senders and receivers of Bitcoins," according to a top-secret
passage in an internal NSA report dating to March 2013. The data source appears to have
leveraged the NSA's ability to harvest and analyze raw, global internet traffic while also
exploiting an unnamed software program that purported to offer anonymity to users, according
to other documents.
Using its ability to siphon data directly from the fiber-optic cables, the NSA managed to
develop a system for tracing transactions that went well beyond simple blockchain analysis. The
agency relied on a program called MONKEYROCKET , a sham Internet-anonymizing service that,
according to the documents, was primarily deployed in Asia, Africa and South America with the
intention of thwarting terrorists.
The documents indicate that "tracking down" Bitcoin users went well beyond closely
examining Bitcoin's public transaction ledger, known as the Blockchain, where users are
typically referred to through anonymous identifiers; the tracking may also have involved
gathering intimate details of these users' computers.
The NSA collected some Bitcoin users' password information, internet activity, and a type
of unique device identification number known as a MAC address, a March 29, 2013 NSA memo
suggested. In the same document, analysts also discussed tracking internet users' internet
addresses, network ports, and timestamps to identify "BITCOIN Targets."
...
The NSA's budding Bitcoin spy operation looks to have been enabled by its unparalleled
ability to siphon traffic from the physical cable connections that form the internet and
ferry its traffic around the planet. As of 2013, the NSA's Bitcoin tracking was achieved
through program code-named OAKSTAR, a collection of covert corporate partnerships enabling
the agency to monitor communications, including by harvesting internet data as it traveled
along fiber optic cables that undergird the internet.
...
Specifically, the NSA targeted Bitcoin through MONKEYROCKET, a sub-program of OAKSTAR,
which tapped network equipment to gather data from the Middle East, Europe, South America,
and Asia, according to classified descriptions. As of spring 2013, MONKEYROCKET was "the sole
source of SIGDEV for the BITCOIN Targets," the March 29, 2013 NSA report stated, using the
term for signals intelligence development, "SIGDEV," to indicate the agency had no other way
to surveil Bitcoin users. The data obtained through MONKEYROCKET is described in the
documents as "full take" surveillance, meaning the entirety of data passing through a network
was examined and at least some entire data sessions were stored for later analysis.
Naturally, once the NSA got involved, the notion of anonymity - whether with bitcoin, or
even some of the privacy-oriented coins like Zcash - was completely crushed.
Emin Gun Sirer, associate professor and co-director of the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies
and Contracts at Cornell University, told The Intercept that financial privacy "is something
that matters incredibly" to the Bitcoin community, and expects that "people who are privacy
conscious will switch to privacy-oriented coins" after learning of the NSA's work here.
Despite Bitcoin's reputation for privacy, Sirer added, "when the adversary model involves the
NSA, the pseudonymity disappears. You should really lower your expectations of privacy on
this network."
Green, who co-founded and currently advises a privacy-focused Bitcoin competitor named
Zcash, echoed those sentiments, saying that the NSA's techniques make privacy features in any
digital currencies like Ethereum or Ripple "totally worthless" for those targeted.
While bitcoin appeared to be the NSA's top target, it wasn't the agency's only priority. The
NSA also used its unparalleled surveillance powers to take down Liberty Reserve - a kind of
proto-ICO that was involved in money laundering. Though the company was based in Costa Rica,
the Department of Justice partnered with the IRS and Department of Homeland Security to arrest
its founder and hand him a 20-year prison sentence.
The March 15, 2013 NSA report detailed progress on MONKEYROCKET's Bitcoin surveillance and
noted that American spies were also working to crack Liberty Reserve, a far seedier
predecessor. Unlike Bitcoin, for which facilitating drug deals and money laundering was
incidental to bigger goals, Liberty Reserve was more or less designed with criminality in
mind. Despite being headquartered in Costa Rica, the site was charged with running a $6
billion "laundering scheme" and triple-teamed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Homeland
Security, and the IRS, resulting in a 20-year conviction for its Ukrainian founder. As of
March 2013 -- just two months before the Liberty Reserve takedown and indictment -- the NSA
considered the currency exchange its No. 2 target, second only to Bitcoin. The indictment and
prosecution of Liberty Reserve and its staff made no mention of help from the NSA.
Of course, several of the agency's defenders argued that the notion that the NSA would use
these programs to spy on innocuous bitcoin users is "pernicious", according to one expert
source.
The hypothesis that the NSA would "launch an entire operation overseas under false
pretenses" just to track targets is "pernicious," said Matthew Green, assistant professor at
the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. Such a practice could spread
distrust of privacy software in general, particularly in areas like Iran where such tools are
desperately needed by dissidents. This "feeds a narrative that the U.S. is untrustworthy,"
said Green. "That worries me."
But forget bitcoin: the notion that the NSA has been illegally feeding intelligence to other
federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been a watershed issue for civil
libertarians, with implications far beyond cryptocurrency money laundering . The process, known
as "parallel construction", would, if definitive proof could ever be obtained by a defense
attorney, render an entire case as inadmissible.
Civil libertarians and security researchers have long been concerned that otherwise
inadmissible intelligence from the agency is used to build cases against Americans though a
process known as "parallel construction": building a criminal case using admissible evidence
obtained by first consulting other evidence, which is kept secret, out of courtrooms and the
public eye. An earlier investigation by The Intercept, drawing on court records and documents
from Snowden, found evidence the NSA's most controversial forms of surveillance, which
involve warrantless bulk monitoring of emails and fiber optic cables, may have been used in
court via parallel construction.
The timing of the Intercept's report is also interesting.
We reported last year that a Russian national named Alexander Vinnick, the alleged
mastermind of a $4 billion bitcoin-based money laundering operation, had been arrested
following an indictment that levied 21 counts of money laundering and other crimes that could
land him in a US prison for up to 55 years.
And given the justice system's treatment of other cryptocurrency-related criminals, the
notion that Vinnick might spend multiple decades in prison is not beyond the realm of
possibility. Of course, if the case against him is built on illegally obtained evidence, one
would think his defense team would want to know.
Heavily redacted versions of the Snowden documents
are available on the Intercept's website.
"NSA Has Been Tracking Bitcoin Users Since 2013, New Snowden Documents Reveal"
Yep, I knew it! I've been trying to tell the crypto-enthusiasts that the gov't is on their
trail, but they are in utter denial. They think their tech is superior. Sad mistake.
So again I ask... can you say... "Poof it's gone!"
I don't believe the NSA knows the content of crypto transactions due to packet data
encryption. They do likely know the identities of frequent Bitcoin users via traffic
tracking. Infrequent users very unlikely. That's what the IT programmer in me says. But we're
talking Ed Snowden who knows a lot about networks and encryption. This suggests that NSA has
a man-in-the-middle attack.
Nobody cracked TOR and the code is open source. Identities were determined via the host
site communications not in TOR transit. The govt does have https keys - isp told me. But
software encrypted data in packets - no they don't. TOR and OpenPGP are very good to have
with govts and social media getting more abusive collecting/selling any data that will bring
a buck.
Western journalists, with a very small exception (real outliers), are experts at presenting
one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and evidence. Look at Meagan Kelly interviews for the inspiration.
They know how to wear down any dissident who does not buy into government talking points
If you spend any time on Twitter, you'll probably be familiar with the latest pathetic attempt to defend and insulate the U.S.
status quo from criticism. It centers around the usage of an infantile and meaningless term, "whataboutism."
Let's begin with one particularly absurd accusation of "whataboutism" promoted by
NPR
last year:
When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What,
you think our country is so innocent?"
This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" -- a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet
Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian
political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking
at the same time.
The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject
and pointing out one of Party A's faults -- "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)
It's not exactly a complicated tactic -- any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it
came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and
afterward, as Russia.
This is a really embarrassing take by NPR .
First, the author tries to associate a tactic that's been around since humans first wandered into caves -- deflecting attention
away from yourself by pointing out the flaws in others -- into some uniquely nefarious Russian propaganda tool. Second, that's not
even what Trump did in this example.
In his response to O'Reilly, Trump wasn't using "whataboutism" to deflect away from his own sins. Rather, he offered a rare moment
of self-reflection about the true role played by the U.S. government around the world. This isn't "whataboutism," it's questioning
the hypocrisy and abuse of power of one's own government. It's an attempt to take responsibility for stuff he might actually be able
to change as President. It's the most ethical and honest response to that question in light of the amount of violence the U.S. government
engages in abroad. If our leaders did this more often, we might stop repeatedly jumping from one insane and destructive war to the
next.
Had O'Reilly's question been about the U.S. government's ongoing support of Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen and Trump shifted
the conversation to Russian atrocities, he could then be fairly accused of changing the subject to avoid accountability. In that
case, you could condemn Trump for "whataboutism" because he intentionally deflected attention away from his own government's sins
to the sins of another. This sort of thing is indeed very dangerous, especially when done by someone in a position of power.
But here's the thing. You don't need some catchy, infantile term like "whataboutism" to point out that someone in power's deflecting
attention from their own transgressions. I agree wholeheartedly with Adam Johnson when he states:
He's absolutely right. One should never rely on the lazy use of a cutesy, catchy term like "whataboutism" as a retort to someone
who points out a glaring contradiction. If you do, you're either a propagandist with no counterargument or a fool who mindlessly
adopts the jingoistic cues of others. Responding to someone by saying "that's just whataboutism" isn't an argument, it's an assault
on one's logical faculties. It's attempt to provide people with a way to shut down debate and conversation by simply blurting out
a clever sounding fake-word. Here's an example of how I've seen it used on Twitter.
One U.S. citizen (likely a card carrying member of "the resistance") will regurgitate some standard intel agency line on Syria
or Russia. Another U.S. citizen will then draw attention to the fact that their own government plays an active role in egregious
war crimes in Yemen on behalf of the Saudis. This person will proceed to advocate for skepticism with regard to U.S. government and
intelligence agency war promotion considering how badly the public was deceived in the run up to the Iraq war. For this offense,
they'll be accused of "whataboutism."
The problem with this accusation is that this person isn't switching the subject to bring up another's transgression to deflect
from scrutiny of his or her behavior. In contrast, the person is putting the conversation in its rightful place, which is to question
the behavior of one's own country. When it comes to issues such as nation-state violence, the primary duty of a citizen is not to
obsess all day about the violence perpetrated by foreign governments, but to hold one's own government accountable. This is as true
for an American citizen in American as it is for a Russian citizen in Russia.
NPR explained how the Russian government used "whataboutism" to deflect away from it's own crimes, but Trump actually did the
opposite in his interview with O'Reilly. He wasn't deflecting away from his own country's crimes, he was pointing out that they exist.
That's precisely what you're supposed to do as a citizen.
The problem arises when governments deflect attention away from their own crimes for which they are actually responsible, by pointing
out the crimes of a foreign government. This is indeed propaganda and an evasion of responsibility. Calling out your own government's
hypocrisy in matters of state sanctioned murder abroad is the exact opposite sort of thing.
Noam Chomsky put it better than I ever could. Here's what he said
in
a 2003 interview
:
QUESTION: When you talk about the role of intellectuals, you say that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country.
Could you explain this assertion?
CHOMSKY: One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own
actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn't much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals
chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those
who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation,
because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become
contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents,
for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government
policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious
than in the case of official enemies.
Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of
the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention
that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many
intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist
acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the
crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.
Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it.
For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated
into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often
taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a "mistake" that began with
"benign intentions". But it goes too far to say that the war is not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral". the
position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The
same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts
that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And
there are innumerable other examples.
For saying the above, Noam Chomsky would surely be labeled the godfather of "whataboutism" by Twitter's resistance army, but he's
actually advocating the most ethical, logical and courageous path of citizenship. U.S. taxpayers aren't paying for Russia's military
operations, but they are paying for the U.S. government's. The idea that U.S. citizens emphasizing U.S. violence are committing the
thought-crime of "whataboutism" when it comes to foreign policy is absurd. Our primary responsibility as citizens is our own aggressive
and violent foreign policy, not that of other countries.
Naturally, this isn't how neocon/neoliberal and intelligence agency imperialists want you to think. Proponents of the American
empire need the public to ignore the atrocities of the U.S. government and its allies for obvious reasons, while constantly obsessing
over the atrocities of the empire's official enemies. This is the only way to continue to exert force abroad without domestic pushback,
and it's critical in order to keep the imperial gravy train going for those it benefits so significantly. How do you shut down vibrant
foreign policy debate on social media that exposes imperial hypocrisy? Accuse people of "whataboutism."
That's what I see going on. I see the weaponization of a cutesy, catchy term on social media in order to prevent people from
questioning their own government. It's completely logical and ethical for U.S. citizens to push back against those arguing for more
regime change wars by pointing out the evils of our own foreign policy.
In fact, the unethical position is the one espoused by those who claim the U.S. can do no wrong, but when an adversary country
does what we permit ourselves to do, they must be bombed into oblivion. These people know they have no argument, so they run around
condemning those trying to hold their own government accountable of "whataboutism." It's a nonsensical term with no real meaning
or purpose other than to defend imperial talking points.
Accusations of "whataboutism" amount to a cynical, sleazy attempt to stifle debate without actually engaging in argument.
It's also the sort of desperate and childish propaganda tactic you'd expect during late-stage imperial decline.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly
Patron
, or visit our
Support Page
to show your appreciation for
independent content creators.
Good God. How disgusting. You're suggesting that the plebeian mass of ignorant white trash
calling themselves the British nation should actually rule themselves by way of a
democratically elected parliament, their national loyalty centered on a constitutional
monarch who is head of the English national Christian church.
Good God, the first thing that scum would do is vote to send the immigrants home,
beginning with the mayor of London, followed by the rape gangs of Rotherham and
elsewhere.
Fortunately, that can never happen. The media and the K-to-middle-aged education system
tell the people how to despise themselves and their natural inclination to self-preservation,
while the political machines tell the people who they can have to represent them. Thus, the
so-called parliamentary representatives of the people are not representatives of the people
in government, but representative of government to the people. Propagandist, that is, i.e.,
traitors.
"... Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved. ..."
"... Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade. ..."
"... Car is lifted by straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I doing? Got a better tale? ..."
"... Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why would anyone take you seriously? ..."
"... People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what it has meant historically. ..."
"Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", TIMES Mar
14)' may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in
Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several
people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None
has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have
shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent
involved."
Stephen Davies. Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.
Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how
she found Ms Skripal..She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying "there was no
sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripals face or body."
The woman, who asked not to be named, told the NNC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.
she said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.
The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, hut added that
she "feels fine".
Some nerve agent.
We read that Vladimir Putin's passport was found three days later at the scene.
One wonders how the Skripals are right now. Have they recovered completely, or partially? Are
they still deathly ill? Has one or both of them died?
In any case, why have there been no public announcements of these important facts? It is
useless to cite privacy, when the government hastened to trumpet the case – and its own
dubious conclusions – as publicly as possible.
Just like MH17, or the alleged (but fake) poison gas attacks in Syria, the policy has been
to launch an initial barrage of accusations completely unsupported by the slightest shred of
evidence – and then drop the matter abruptly, leaving the public with a strong
impression of "Russian wickedness" although nothing has actually been proved.
Incidentally, I wonder where the Skripals are and why. Apparently the Russian government
applied for consular access to Yulia (who is a Russian citizen) but this was bluntly refused
– against all norms of international law and civilized behaviour.
Skripal and daughter cheap, convenient, collateral damage for the warmongers. A person
trained to handle organic nerve material introduces it into Skripal's car, they go for a
morning drive and stop to have a pizza. After pizza, they begin to feel a little queasy. Go
sit on a park bench. A passing citizen sees them, calls for medical assistance. Doctor says
probably poisoned by toxic agent. Doctor knows it was not highly refined military grade.
How does the doctor know this: He is just down the street from the British Nerve Agent
Factory and has been trained to recognize and treat real exposures to potent nerve agents. A
policeman ends up in same hospital as Skripal because he sees car parked overtime or
illegally, opens door to check for ownership gets zapped by toxic agent. Car is lifted by
straps so as not poison others and hauled to Potent Downs or whatever the Nerve Agent Factory
is called. Now it can be doctored to fit the crime and I don't mean the Russians. How am I
doing? Got a better tale?
Good, understanding that you are a joke is the first step on the road to possible
recovery.
Try for once to imagine a reverse scenario: an Englishman dies under suspicious
circumstances in a provincial town in Russia. (Or 3-4 of them over 15-20 years.) He was
considered a 'traitor' by UK for whatever reason. Immediately Russia declares that it was an
' unacceptable attack on Russia's sovereignty, that Britain did it, and that it is 'highly
likely' that Teresa May ordered it herself' . Russian government also says that they will
not disclose any details, show no evidence and will not even allow basis diplomatic protocol
for UK embassy. Why? For reasons of ' state security '. Wouldn't any rational outsider
consider that a joke?
Now, I do understand that you – and most Brits – think that you are
special. That there is one set of rules for you, and another for the ' others '. You
have been conditioned by propaganda to assert this without any shame and to demonise Russia
based on decades of half-witted stories (most taken out of context and exaggerated). Why
would anyone take you seriously?
People who walk around saying that they are exceptional, meaning they are 'Gods', or
that they talk 'to God', are generally ignored or kept in an institution. Claiming that you
are 'exceptional and special' is the same as claiming that you are divine – that's what
it has meant historically.
"... Not to mention that we are currently on version #5 (poisoned in the car, where apparently a British cop and more than 30 other people rode with him, if we are to believe previous statements). Only a hopeless moron can stage a provocation without inventing a coherent set of plausible lies beforehand. He did it, right in the middle of Britain in Salisbury, next to the British chemical weapons facility. Credo quia absurdum. ..."
"... Actually, having no definite story, and constantly updating the narrative with ridiculous red herrings, is probably the best way to go with a fake terror attack. With a different herring to pursue each day, the truth seeking citizen soon becomes exhausted and relapses back into the normal pattern of going to work and feeding a family, but with a reinforced sense of their own lack of power to either control, or even understand the world in which they live. ..."
"... This is the end time of democracy. We are now entering an age of psycho-totalitarianism. People do what the elite require because their brainwashed friends, neighbors, and children otherwise turn against them. They are demonized and humiliated as racists, anti-Semites, dog whistlers and all the rest of the bullshit lexicon of political correctness not for their actions but merely for their thoughts. ..."
Anon from TN
Yes, this is the British version of Russiagate, no doubt: no evidence, numerous versions
that contradict each other, lots of hot air and finger pointing. At the moment we do not
know what Skripal was poisoned with or by whom, we can't even be sure that anyone was
poisoned with anything. All we have is hot air, just like with Iraq WMD. From the same very
"reliable" sources: British intelligence services and British PM. Neither ever lies, just
ask Tony Blair. Not to mention that we are currently on version #5 (poisoned in the
car, where apparently a British cop and more than 30 other people rode with him, if we are
to believe previous statements). Only a hopeless moron can stage a provocation without
inventing a coherent set of plausible lies beforehand. He did it, right in the middle of
Britain in Salisbury, next to the British chemical weapons facility. Credo quia
absurdum.
Actually, having no definite story, and constantly updating the narrative with
ridiculous red herrings, is probably the best way to go with a fake terror attack. With a
different herring to pursue each day, the truth seeking citizen soon becomes exhausted and
relapses back into the normal pattern of going to work and feeding a family, but with a
reinforced sense of their own lack of power to either control, or even understand the world
in which they live.
This is the end time of democracy. We are now entering an age of
psycho-totalitarianism. People do what the elite require because their brainwashed friends,
neighbors, and children otherwise turn against them. They are demonized and humiliated as
racists, anti-Semites, dog whistlers and all the rest of the bullshit lexicon of political
correctness not for their actions but merely for their thoughts.
T he data analysis firm at the centre of a privacy scandal came under more pressure on
Monday when Channel 4 broadcast footage of Cambridge Analytica's chief executive discussing
using bribes, former spies and Ukrainian women to entrap politicians.
It emerged as the Information Commissioner said she was seeking a warrant to search its
computers and servers as part of investigation into the use of personal data of Facebook
users.
The controversy
wiped billions of dollars off Facebook's value as its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, faced
questions on both sides of the Atlantic about how a private company was able to gather personal
information of 50 million users.
"... "Businesses that make money by collecting and selling detailed records of private lives were once plainly described as "surveillance companies." Their rebranding as "social media" is the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of Defense." ..."
Well, there seems to be a new wrinkle in the Skripal hoax,
Adam Garrie muses :
"... whether the still evidence free accusations that Russia was behind the poisoning of a
former double-agent on UK soil, are not related to the breaking of the Cambridge Analytica
scandal. The revelations from Christopher Wylie were published by the New York Times and The
Observer (an off-shoot of The Guardian) on the 17th of March, just three days after the
British Prime Minister announced that she has found Russia guilty of murder, in spite of
failing to produce any real evidence. Logic would dictate that it took far more than three
days to produce and edit the piece about Wylie's revelations."
Assange, Snowden and others join Garrie in saying the real investigation ought to be of
Cambridge. Assange also notes on
his Twitter the massive mining the Obama campaign did via Facebook in 2012--an action it
appears Cambridge copied for Trump's campaign. Given the info on Assange's Twitter, Cambridge
and Facebook are both up to their necks in the illegal mining of personal data and worse.
"Businesses that make money by collecting and selling detailed records of private lives
were once plainly described as "surveillance companies." Their rebranding as "social media"
is the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of
Defense."
And an observation about the reports of Russian election ballot box stuffing -- none of the
reports I've seen say for which candidate the stuffing was for. Clearly, Putin didn't need
any help, so I suspect US/UK embassy staffers going around and trying to help their liberal
candidates get at least 1% of the vote. Russia's election authority did announce there were
irregularities including the stuffing, a fact omitted from the items I read, which all
implied it was Putin's team that did the deed.
"... in reality -- the security services have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it. ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against Trump ..."
"... When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America. America will triumph over you. ..."
"... Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." ..."
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? --
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do -- the SAS are absolutely charming -- ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that -- in reality -- the security services
have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the
firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack
against Trump :
" When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your
rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy
America. America will triumph over you. "
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
Barely a day after President Trump outraged his political opponents by calling out Special
Counsel Robert Mueller by name in a series of angry tweets,
the Washington Post is reporting that the president's legal team has provided written
descriptions of certain key moments to the Mueller probe as they push to limit the scope of a
presidential interview, should they agree to one.
According to the
report, Trump has reportedly told aides that he's "champing at the bit" to sit for an
interview. But his lawyers, who are carefully negotiating terms, have sought to restrain the
president, worried he might inadvertently perjure himself or - worse - accidentally walk into a
perjury trap.
Given the time-sensitive nature of the investigation (Trump and his allies would like it to
end as swiftly as possible) Trump on Monday
added storied Washington lawyer Joseph diGenova, the husband of former Reagan Justice
Department official and former Senate Intelligence Committee chief counsel Victoria Toensing,
to his legal team.
Various readers, fans, blog commenters, Facebook trolls, and
auditors twanged on me all last week about my continuing interest in the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria,
though there is no particular consensus of complaint among them -- except for a general "shut up,
already" motif. For the record, I'm far more interested in the hysteria itself than the
Russia-meddled-in the-election case, which I consider to be hardly any case at all beyond 13 Russian
Facebook trolls.
The hysteria, on the other hand, ought to be a matter of grave concern,
because it
appears more and more to have been engineered by America's own intel community, its handmaidens in the
Dept of Justice, and the twilight's last gleamings of the Obama White House, and now it has shoved
this country in the direction of war at a time when civilian authority over the US military looks
sketchy at best.
This country faces manifold other problems that are certain to reduce the
national standard of living and disrupt the operations of an excessively complex and dishonest
economy,
and the last thing America needs is a national war-dance over trumped-up grievances
with Russia.
The RussiaRussiaRussia narrative has unspooled since Christmas and is blowing back badly
through the FBI,
now with the firing (for cause) of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe hours short
of his official retirement (and inches from the golden ring of his pension). He was axed on the
recommendation of his own colleagues in the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, and they may
have been influenced by the as-yet-unreleased report of the FBI Inspector General, Michael Horowitz,
due out shortly.
The record of misbehavior and "collusion" between the highest ranks of the FBI, the
Democratic Party,
the Clinton campaign, several top political law firms, and a shady cast of
international blackmail-peddlars is
a six-lane Beltway-scale evidence trail compared to the
muddy mule track of Trump "collusion" with Russia.
It will be amazing if a big wad of criminal cases are not dealt out of it, even as
The
New York Times
sticks its fingers in its ears and goes, "La-la-la-la-la ."
It now appears that Mr. McCabe's statements post-firing tend to
incriminate his former
boss, FBI Director James Comey
-- who is about to embark, embarrassingly perhaps, on a tour
for his self-exculpating book,
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership
.
A great aura of sanctimony surrounds the FBI these days.
Even the news pundits
seem to have forgotten the long, twisted reign of J. Edgar Hoover (1924 – 1972), a dangerous rogue who
excelled at political blackmail. And why, these days, would any sane American take pronouncements from
the CIA and NSA at face value?
What seems to have gone on in the RussiaRussiaRussia matter
is that various parts of the executive branch in the last months under Mr. Obama gave each other tacit
permission, wink-wink, to do anything necessary to stuff HRC into the White House and, failing that,
to derail her opponent, the Golden Golem of Greatness.
The obvious lesson in all this huggermugger is that the ends don't justify the means.
I suspect
there are basically two routes through this mess
.
One is that
the misdeeds of FBI officers, Department of Justice lawyers, and Intel
agency executives get adjudicated by normal means,
namely, grand juries and courts. That
would have the salutary effect of cleansing government agencies and shoring up what's left of their
credibility at a time when faith in institutions hangs in the balance.
The second route would be for the authorities to ignore any formal response to an evermore
self-evident trail of crimes, and to
allow all that political energy to be funneled into
manufactured hysteria and eventually a phony provocation of war with Russia
.
Personally, I'd rather see the US government clean house than blow up the world over an engineered
hallucination.
Tags
Politics
Semiconductors - NEC
NSA whistleblower and former CIA employee Edward Snowden slammed Facebook in a Saturday
tweet following the suspension of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) and its political
data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, over what Facebook says was imporoper use of
collected data.
In a nutshell, in 2015 Cambridge Analytica bought data from a University of Cambridge
psychology professor, Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, who had developed an app called
"thisisyourdigitallife" that vacuumed up loads of information on users and their contacts.
After making Kogan and Cambridge Analytica promise to delete the data the app had gathered,
Facebook received reports (from sources they would not identify) which claimed that not all the
data had been deleted - which led the social media giant to delete Cambridge Analytica and
parent company SCL's accounts.
"By passing information on to a third party, including SCL/Cambridge Analytica and
Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, he violated our platform policies. When we learned
of this violation in 2015, we removed his app from Facebook and demanded certifications from
Kogan and all parties he had given data to that the information had been destroyed. Cambridge
Analytica, Kogan and Wylie all certified to us that they destroyed the data." - Facebook
Of note, Cambridge Analytica worked for Ted Cruz and Ben Carson during the 2016 election
before contracting with the Trump campaign. Cruz stopped using CA after their data modeling
failed to identify likely supporters.
In response to the ban, Edward Snowden fired off two tweets on Saturday criticizing
Facebook, and claimed social media companies were simply "surveillance companies" who engaged
in a "successful deception" by rebranding themselves.
Snowden isn't the first big name to call out Silicon Valley companies over their data
collection and monitoring practices, or their notorious intersection with the U.S.
Government.
In his 2014 book:
When Google Met WikiLeaks
,
Julian Assange describes Google's close relationship with the NSA and the Pentagon.
Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the "Enduring
Security Framework" (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley
tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies "at network speed." Emails obtained in 2014
under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin
corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF Reportage
on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: "General Keith . . . so great
to see you . . . !" Schmidt wrote. But most reports overlooked a crucial detail. " Your
insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base," Alexander wrote to Brin, "are
valuable to ensure ESF's efforts have measurable impact." -
Julian Assange
Kim Dotcom has also opined on social media's close ties to the government, tweeting in
February "Unfortunately all big US Internet companies are in bed with the deep state. Google,
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. are all providing backdoors to your data."
In 2013, the
Washington Post
and
The Guardian
revealed that the NSA has backdoor access to all major Silicon Valley social
media firms, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and
Apple - all through the notorious PRISM program which began in 2007 under the Protect America
Act. PRISM's existence was leaked by Edward Snowden before he entered into ongoing asylum in
Moscow. Microsoft was the first company to join the PRISM program.
The NSA has the ability to pull any sort of data it likes from these companies, but it
claims that it does not try to collect it all. The PRISM program goes above and beyond the
existing laws that state companies must comply with government requests for data, as it gives
the NSA direct access to each company's servers -- essentially letting the NSA do as it
pleases. -
The Verge
After PRISM's existence was leaked by Snowden, the Director of National Intelligence issued
a statment which stated that the only people targed by the programs are "outside the United
States," and that the program "does not allow" the targeting of citizens within US borders.
In 2006,
Wired
magazine published
evidence from a retired AT&T communications technician, Mark Klein, that revealed a secret
room used to "split" internet data at a San Francisco office as part of the NSA's bulk data
collection techniques used on millions of Americans.
During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabins were being
installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, he
said.
The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet
backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network
to or from other domestic and international providers , Klein said. -
Wired
"They are collecting everything on everybody," Klein said.
Well look on the bright side, only idiots are placing their most vital thoughts,
and innovations on Facebook or any social media for that matter. So basically
big brother has acres of databases full of idiotic things. Believe me, if it can
take humans a step into the future, its not on the web. So basically big brother
is mining through vast amounts of useless data. Here's your sign!
If you actually worked for the Navy for
any period of time, you should know that this government cannot tie its
own shoes. No way are any of your whacked-out conspiracy theories even
remotely possible.
Yes, Zuckerberg and the Winkelvoss twins came up with Facebook for
social reasons. The government spy agencies, who know a good opportunity
to use someone else's invention to serve their own ends when they see one,
co-opted it. It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
The fact of WHO did this is irrelevant. What matters is that we should
have understood what this meant from the begining. Many did, many more
did not. We complain of being treated like sheep, bleeting all the way
to our pens.
What we must accept is that there are many who could
care less about liberty, happy to live in a cell, as long as th
econveniences continue to poor in.
I wonder how livestock feel about living in a pen while receiving
free food and healthcare? I wonder if given the choice of freedom or
feed lot, which way they would go. I think we see the answer in the
inner cities of our nation (and others).
It's all well and good to be disgusted by surveillance, but it's
ever-encroaching, and soon you won't be able to function without complying.
Privacy will be impossible, except for the elite for whom privacy will be
another luxury that they get which you don't. Sort of like a gun.
I initially thought Snowden was a traitor. But over careful examination, he
exposed lying by Brennan and Clapper, unwarranted surveillance of Americans
and lot of complete lies told by the government to We The People.
Well look on the bright side, only idiots are placing their most vital
thoughts, and innovations on Facebook or any social media for that matter. So
basically big brother has acres of databases full of idiotic things. Believe
me, if it can take humans a step into the future, its not on the web. So
basically big brother is mining through vast amounts of useless data. Here's
your sign!
Tape over the user facing camera, don't use finger print to unlock, and dont
do voice search, it will buy you a bit more time before they can profile u
completely. Of course, stay away from FB. Install no script addon to your
Firefox browser.
That's where I'm counting on. Years of showing middle finger for every
potential partner related to potential use of this surveillance media. I
wanna piss everyone off big time, make myself active target, and to see what
happens.
Picture this: a civilization muzzled for decades upon decades by political
correctness, the pressures building inside people not being able to spout off
at the mouth. Then along comes the internet and socials where people can
imagine they're anonymously blabbing away at the keyboard. My point is that
most people mean very little of what they put on the web, it's just that the
dam broke with the onset of the web. That's another reason data collection is
useless.
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a
messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that
wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front
of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from
the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough
to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad. They spit out whatever the government
feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public. Damn, I
can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics
and truthfulness of the US gov't. Morons---
It makes little sense that Russia would assassinate someone using a technique that would immediately implicate them. I'm surprised
they didn't happen to "find" the assassin's Russian passport lying on the ground next to the victims! <
I disagree. If a government is going to terminate a spy they don't botch the job by letting him get to a hospital. In Putin's
Russia they know how to terminate most efficiently. I may be wrong but this is a pretext for something more aggressive/dangerous.
Senators Mark Udall and
Ron Wyden are upset about something, they just can't say what. In a
letter
sent to the National Security Agency this week about a fact sheet on its surveillance programs, the senators complained about
what they refer to only as "the inaccuracy". The inaccuracy is "significant". The inaccuracy could "decrease public confidence in
the NSA's openness and its commitment to protecting Americans' constitutional rights". But, because the information underlying it
is classified, the inaccuracy can't be described.
This is either a frustrating illustration of the absurdities of America's secrecy regime, or the start of a pretty solid vaudeville
act.
The frenzied public debate over the NSA leaks has
focused on the correctness of the government surveillance programs themselves. But America cannot properly debate these and future
surveillance efforts until it decides what can be debated.
As an official in the first Obama administration, I worked in jobs requiring top secret clearance. I know firsthand how essential
secrecy can be to effecting policy goals and how devastating leaks can be. I navigated diplomatic relationships threatened by the
indiscriminate release of WikiLeaks documents, and volunteered on the taskforce that sifted through them, piecing together the damage
done. But it is also true that a culture of over-classification has shielded too much from public debate and that more could be disclosed
without damaging the efficacy of intelligence programs.
Trillions of new pages of text are classified each year. More than 4.8 million people now have a security clearance, including
low level contractors like Edward Snowden . A committee
established by Congress, the Public Interest Declassification Board, warned in December that rampant over-classification is "imped[ing]
informed government decisions and an informed public" and, worse, "enabl[ing] corruption and malfeasance". In one instance it documented,
a government agency was found to be classifying one petabyte of new data every 18 months, the equivalent of 20m filing cabinets filled
with text.
It is difficult to argue that all or even most of that information should be classified. By keeping too many secrets, America
has created fertile ground for their escape. Already, the Obama administration has been forced to initiate six espionage prosecutions
for leaks – twice as many as every previous administration combined.
It has also left the American people disillusioned and mistrustful. This is especially true of a new generation raised in a networked
world that has made them expect far greater transparency from the institutions around them. According to a recent
Pew
Research Center/ USA Today poll , a clear majority of young people (60%) feels that the NSA leaks served the public interest.
The leaks illustrate how bad the lack of trust has become - and present an opportunity for greater disclosure.
There is no doubt that some secrecy is essential to the efficacy of surveillance programs like those revealed by the
NSA leaks. The specific sources and methods of such programs
should be protected. However, it is entirely possible to protect those specifics while also broadly disclosing to the public the
scope of information subject to collection, and the rationale behind doing so.
That level of disclosure should be the norm for future programs, and can still be instated in the case of the current NSA surveillance
programs. Two Congressmen – Democrat Adam Schiff, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican Todd Rokita – introduced
a bill last week that would call on the Department of Justice to declassify the legal justifications for NSA surveillance efforts.
Universal public disclosure of individual decisions could impede the efficacy of the program, but there is no reason the Department
of Justice can't disclose its generalized legal reasoning. That's a drawer in the stadium of filing cabinets that America can safely
open.
"You can't have 100% security and then have 100% privacy," President Obama said in the days immediately following the leaks. "We're
going to have to make some choices as a society." But the government can and should let Americans know what choices it is that they're
making. The intelligence community might find Americans, particularly young Americans most suspicious of government institutions,
more sympathetic to their delicate balancing act as informed participants.
"If We Should Have to Leave Our Bleached Bones on These Desert Sands in Vain, Then Beware the Anger of the Legions."
Quote Investigator
Notable quotes:
"... Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously spoke of the " fog of war ," the confusion created by and inherent uncertainty built into that complex human endeavor. As thick as that fog often is, in these years the fog of phony war has proven even thicker and more disorienting. ..."
A bizarre version of blitzkrieg overseas and an even stranger version of sitzkrieg at home could be said to define this peculiar
American moment. These two versions exist in a curiously yin-yang relationship to each other. For how can a nation's military be
engaged in warfare at a near-global level -- blitzing people across vast swaths of the globe -- when its citizens are sitting on
their collective duffs,
demobilized
and mentally disarmed? Such a schizoid state of mind can exist only when it's in the interest of those in power. Appeals to "patriotism"
(especially to revering "our" troops) and an overwhelming
atmosphere
of secrecy to preserve American "safety" and "security" have been remarkably effective in
controlling and stifling interest in the
country's wars and their
costs
, long before such an interest might morph into dissent or opposition. If you want an image of just how effective this has been,
recall the moment in July 2016 when small numbers of earnest war protesters quite literally had the
lights turned
off on them at the Democratic National Convention.
To use an expression I heard more than a few times in my years in the military, when it comes to its wars, the government treats
the people like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit.
The Fog of Phony War
Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously spoke of the "
fog of war ," the confusion created by and inherent uncertainty
built into that complex human endeavor. As thick as that fog often is, in these years the fog of phony war has proven even thicker
and more disorienting.
By its very nature, a real war of necessity, of survival, like the Civil War or World War II brings with it clarity of purpose
and a demand for results. Poorly performing leaders are relieved of command when not killed outright in combat. Consider the number
of mediocre Union generals Abraham Lincoln cycled through before he found Ulysses S. Grant. Consider the number of
senior officers relieved
during World War II by General George C. Marshall, who knew that, in a global struggle against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, subpar
performances couldn't be tolerated. In wars of necessity or survival, moreover, the people are invariably involved. In part, they
may have little choice, but they also know (or at least believe they know) "
why we fight " -- and generally approve of it.
Admittedly, even in wars of necessity there are always those who will find ways to duck service. In the Civil War, for example,
the rich could pay others to fight in their place. But typically in such wars, everyone serves in some capacity. Necessity demands
it.
The definition of twenty-first-century phony war, on the other hand, is its lack of clarity, its lack of purpose, its lack of
any true imperative for national survival (despite a never-ending hysteria over the "terrorist threat"). The fog it produces is especially
disorienting. Americans today have little idea "why we fight" other than a vague sense of fighting them over there (Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, etc.) so they won't kill us here, to cite George W. Bush's
rationale for launching the war on terror. Meanwhile, with
such a lack of national involvement and accountability, there's no pressure for the Pentagon or the rest of the national security
state to up its game; there's no one even to point out that wherever the U.S. military has gone into battle in these years, yet more
terror groups have subsequently sprouted like so many malignant weeds. Bureaucracy and mediocrity go unchallenged;
massive boosts in military spending reward incompetency and the creation of a series of quagmire-like "
generational
" wars.
Think of it as war on a Möbius strip. More money shoveled into the Pentagon brings more chaos overseas, more imperial overreach,
and undoubtedly more
blowback
here at home, all witnessed -- or rather largely ignored -- by a sitzkrieg citizenry.
Of course, for those fighting the wars, they are anything but phony. It's just that their experience remains largely isolated
from that of the rest of us, an isolation that only serves to elevate
post-traumatic stress disorder rates,
suicides , and the like. When
today's troops come home, they generally suffer in silence and among themselves.
America's New (Phony) National Defense Strategy
Even phony wars need enemies. In fact, they may need them more (and more of them) than real wars do. No surprise then that the
Trump administration's recently announced
National Defense Strategy (NDS) offers a laundry list of such enemies. China and Russia top it as "revisionist powers" looking
to reverse America's putative victory over Communism in the Cold War. "Rogue" powers like North Korea and Iran are singled out as
especially dangerous because of their nuclear ambitions. (The United States, of course, doesn't have a "rogue" bone in its body,
even if it is now devoting at least $1.2
trillion to building a new generation of more usable nuclear
weapons.) Nor does the NDS neglect Washington's need to
hammer
away at global terrorists until the end of time or to extend "full-spectrum dominance" not just to the traditional realms of
combat (land, sea, and air) but also to
space and cyberspace.
Amid such a plethora of enemies, only one thing is missing in America's
new defense strategy
, the very thing that's been missing all these years, that makes twenty-first-century American war so phony: any sense of national
mobilization and shared sacrifice (or its opposite,
antiwar resistance ). If the United
States truly faces all these existential threats to our democracy and our way of life, what are we doing frittering away more than
$45
billion annually in a quagmire war in Afghanistan? What are we doing spending staggering sums on exotic weaponry like the F-35
jet fighter (total projected program cost:
$1.45 trillion ) when we
have far more pressing national needs to deal with?
Like so much else in Washington in these years, the NDS doesn't represent a strategy for real war, only a call for more of the
same raised to a higher power. That mainly means more money for the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and related "defense"
agencies, facilitating more blitz attacks on various enemies overseas. The formula -- serial blitzkrieg abroad, serial sitzkrieg
in the homeland -- adds up to
victory , but only for the military-industrial complex.
Solutions to Sitzkrieg
Of course, one solution to phony war would be to engage in real war, but for that the famed American way of life would actually
have to be endangered. (By Afghans? Syrians? Iraqis? Yemenis? Really?) Congress would then have to declare war; the public would
have to be mobilized, a draft undoubtedly reinstated, and taxes raised. And those would be just for starters. A clear strategy would
have to be defined and losing generals demoted or dismissed.
Who could imagine such an approach when it comes to America's forever wars? Another solution to phony war would be for the American
people to actually start paying attention. The Pentagon would then have to be starved of funds. (With less money, admirals and generals
might actually have to think.) All those attacks overseas that blitzed innocents and spread chaos would have to end. Here at home,
the cheerleaders would have to put down the pom-poms, stop mindlessly praising the troops for their service, and pick up a few protest
signs.
In point of fact, America's all-too-real wars overseas aren't likely to end until the phony war here at home is dispatched to
oblivion.
A final thought: Americans tell pollsters that, after all these years of failed wars abroad, they continue to
trust the
military more than any other societal institution. Consistent with phony war, however, much of that trust is based on ignorance,
on not really knowing what that military is doing overseas. So, is there a chance that, one of these days, Americans might actually
begin to pay some attention to "their" wars? And if so, would those polls begin to change and how might that military, which has
experienced its share of blood, sweat, and tears, respond to such a loss of societal prestige? Beware the
anger of the legions .
Faith in institutions undergirds democracy. Keeping the people deliberately demobilized and in the dark about the costs and carnage
of America's wars follows a pattern of governmental lying and deceit that stretches from the
Vietnam War to the
Iraq Wars of
1991 and 2003
, to military operations in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere today. Systemic lies and the phony war that goes with them continue
to contribute to a slow-motion process of political and social disintegration that could result in a much grimmer future for this
country: perhaps an authoritarian one; certainly, a more chaotic and less democratic one.
Societal degradation and democratic implosion, caused in part by endless phony war and the lies associated with it, are this country's
real existential enemies, even if you can't find them listed in any National Defense Strategy. Indeed, the price tag for America's
wars may in the end prove not just heavy but catastrophic.
The text of the letter in French as it appeared in "Les Centurions" [LCJL] has been appended near the bottom of this post. Here
is the English language version published in the 1962 edition of "The Centurions" [TCJL]:
We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many
of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our
assistance and our civilization.
We were able to verify that all this was true, and, because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood,
to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by this frame of mind, I
am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty
and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and vilify our action.
I cannot believe that all this is true and yet recent wars have shown how pernicious such a state of mind could be and to
where it could lead.
Make haste to reassure me, I beg you, and tell me that our fellow-citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we
ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware of the
anger of the Legions!
Marcus Flavinius,
Centurion in the 2nd Cohort of the Augusta Legion,
to his cousin Tertullus in Rome
William Astore, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and history professor, is a
TomDispatch
regular . He blogs at Bracing Views .
I'm not sure why the US's actions overseas are called "wars". They're attacks upon weak 3rd and 4th world countries with little
capability to resist. The US has never fought a peer enemy despite all it's self-promotion. It moved in on the Germans at the
last moment after they were already on the ropes, despite all the WWII movie hype. All other enemies have been carefully chosen
for their vulnerability. But who actually wants a "real" war? Only an insane person wants that. These phony wars serve as an income
transfer scheme siphoning tax money upward from the masses to the upper classes. Funny how that works. An actual war with a country
that can defend itself and inflict real damage might have the effect of upsetting this racket they have going and they don't want
that. Of course the money spent for Afghanistan could be better put to use domestically for roads, medical research and other
ways of spending our money on ourselves but apparently that's not in the cards. What's important is to keep the hysteria going
so as to maintain the .1% in the style to which they're entitled. The people getting killed are the expendables and of no importance.
It's all just a money transfer. Ya have to be in the thick of things around DC, the Pentagon, the likes of Lockheed, the spooks
at NSA, certain aspects of Federal Law Enforcement, the whole Alphabet Soup. The dough is a-flowing and they're up to their hand-sewn
collars in it. Their mansions, their 5 BMWs or whatever, the Rolexes, the vacations, beautiful women at home AND on the road.
They intend to hand it all over to their children as their fathers handed it over to them. They are NOT giving this up. Ever.
Get in the way, Mr. Senator or Congressman or President? Here's what we have on YOU sir, usually a girlfriend or some depravity,
they're politicians after all. End of the day, these are the people that get richer every day by killing people. They're very
good at it. Even in Britain, the UK, even Russians aren't safe in the quest to keep it all going. Get in the way of the cabal
and their income streams in any way, they can disappear you and blame it on Putin. These are the people that kill people. Remember
that, you'll be well-served.
But: there IS sacrifice. All those trillions of dollars wasted on pointless winless foreign wars are coming out of the standard
of living of the United States, one way or the other. It's just indirect and hard to trace.
One is reminded that Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, suggested that we stop wasting all these trillions on
stupid wars, and spend it on ourselves. For this he was excoriated as "literally Hitler." A lot of Americans voted for him because,
propaganda aside, they are not stupid and they don't want this phony war nonsense. After the election, though, he finally caved,
and now it's back to business as usual. The elites really like their war profits and they will not shy away from playing dirty
to keep them. That's why these phony wars continue.
Remember: IN THE LAST ELECTION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST PHONY WARS. It's just that we don't live in a Democracy.
But there is an alternate view. One is reminded that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were only possible because the immigration
policy of the United States is increasingly open to people from unstable nations full of extremists. That attack could not have
happened a decade or so earlier.
Even if the United States had the most benevolent foreign policy imaginable, it's a big messy world. There will always be people
who hate the United States, for whatever reason. In the past these people would just stew in their own misery and kill each other.
Now they can come here no questions asked. Now every extremist group in Tyrannia or Fanatistan is our concern, and we need to
break up any potentially hostile organized faction anywhere in the world. So maybe – maybe – these stupid wars aren't that stupid
after all. Maybe these phony wars is just one more price for "there shall be open borders."
Minding our own business was never a strong suit of our ruling classes, but it would have saved the world a lot of grief. However,
it would have shaved the profits of the bankers and other war profiteers.
The "war for profit group" seem to labor under the impression that it is their war, and that it shall be their material
gain. That group, surely is the cause of wars
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Why is your country at war and what happens to you after the war, and related subjects" p77, (1917)
In the battle of Manchuria ( China ) , August 1945 , or " August Storm " , the Russians defeated the imperial japanese army
, the road to Japan was open for the Red Army and the chinese . Then the yankees threw the atomic bombs to Japan to threaten the
Russians ( who still did not have the atomic bomb at the time ) to not to invade Japan .
Japan was completeley defeated , there was not any military need to throw atomic bombs on Japan . The Americans have a sad
record for bombing unarmed civilians : Corea , Vietnam , Germany , Irak, Afganistan , Libia , Siria , Japan , etc ..
Americans are no longer allowed to see the reality of war, as some old movies showed. From my blog:
Jun 8, 2017 – Patriotic Nonsense
Do you become angry when you hear nonsense that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for our freedoms? Do you become
enraged when the death of soldiers is explained by claiming they protected us? This is nothing new, as shown in this short movie
clip with Korean War vet James Garner. Most blame the Generals and politicians, but he also blames the people back home for glorifying
wars, thus allowing the deadly ruse to continue. He stated: "It is always the war widows who lead the Memorial Day parade" as
though their husbands died by accident.
Back when Reagan was doing his impersonation of POTUS, the defense deficit was some measly amount and the cry went out to privatize
defense because the free market could do it for less. Pretty funny in retrospect.
They also fixed our inefficient corporations and markets, then went on to fix housing, inequality and end poverty. As if that
wasn't enough, they also fixed healthcare and banking. I'm surprised we're still afloat. I expect a Wiley Coyote moment soon.
The first time I realized how low things would likely get was when Ruth Marcus, deputy editor of the Washington Post
, sent out the following tweet in
March of 2017, squealing with delight at the thought of a new Cold War with the world's other nuclear superpower: "So excited to
be watching The Americans, throwback to a simpler time when everyone considered Russia the enemy. Even the president."
Not only did Marcus's comment imply that it was great for the U.S. to have an enemy, but it specifically implied that there was
something particularly great about that enemy being Russia.
Since then, the public discourse has only gotten nastier. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – who notoriously
perjured himself before Congress about warrantless spying on Americans –
stated on Meet the Press last
May that Russians were uniquely and "genetically" predisposed toward manipulative political activities. If Clapper or anyone else
in the public eye had made such a statement about Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, Jews, Israelis, Chinese or just about any other group,
there would have been some push-back about the prejudice that it reflected and how it didn't correspond with enlightened liberal
values. But Clapper's comment passed with hardly a peep of protest.
More recently, John Sipher , a retired CIA station
chief who reportedly spent years in Russia – although at what point in time is unclear – was interviewed in Jane Mayer's recent New
Yorker
piece
trying to spin the Steele Dossier as somehow legitimate. On March 6, Sipher took to Twitter with the following
comment : "How can one not be a Russophobe?
Russia soft power is political warfare. Hard power is invading neighbors, hiding the death of civilians with chemical weapons and
threatening with doomsday nuclear weapons. And they kill the opposition at home. Name something positive."
In fairness to Sipher, he did backpedal somewhat after being challenged; however, the fact that his unfiltered blabbering reveals
such a deep antipathy toward Russians ("How can one not be a Russophobe?") and an initial assumption that he could get away with
saying it publicly is troubling.
Glenn Greenwald re-tweeted with a comment asking if Russians would soon acceptably be referred to as "rats and roaches." Another
person replied with: "Because they are
rats and roaches. What's the problem?"
This is just a small sampling of the anti-Russian comments and attitudes that pass, largely unremarked upon, in our media landscape.
There are, of course, the larger institutional influencers of culture doing their part to push anti-Russian bigotry in this already
contentious atmosphere. Red Sparrow , both the
book and the
movie , detail the escapades of a female
Russian spy. The story propagates the continued fetishization of Russian women based on the stereotype that they're all hot and frisky.
Furthermore, all those who work in Russian intelligence are evil and backwards rather than possibly being motivated by some kind
of patriotism, while all the American intel agents are paragons of virtue and seem like they just stepped out of an ad for Nick at
Nite's How to be Swell .
The recent Academy Awards continued their politically motivated trend of awarding Oscars for best documentary to films on topics
that just happen to coalesce nicely with Washington's latest adversarial policy. Last year it was the White Helmets film
to support the regime change meme in Syria. This year it's Icarus about the doping scandal in Russia.
Aaron Maté of The Real News joins Scott to discuss two of his latest pieces for The
Nation, " Hyping the Mueller
Indictment " and " What We've
Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate ." Maté explains why he thinks the Trump-Russia
collusion case is much ado about nothing and how Trump's pre-election attempts to de-escalate
tensions with Russia have been misconstrued as collusion. Scott and Maté then discuss
how the centrist left, with the help of Facebook and corporate media, is using the Russiagate
conspiracy to double down on the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic party.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling
carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to
repudiate morality while laying claim to it ( ) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely
believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it
becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to
deny the existence of objective reality"
In an essay "The Decay of Lying" (1889), Oscar Wilde launched that famous sentence: "Life
imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".
In November 2017 British TV presented the 6th session episode 5 of 'Strike Back", a
British/American action-adventure/spy-drama television series based on a novel of the same
name by novelist and former Special Air Service (SAS) soldier Chris Ryan. In it the Section
20 ("a secretive unit of British military intelligence, a team of special operations
personnel conducting several high risk missions across the globe") foiled a terrorist attack
with the gas Novichok made by Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly killed his
colleagues who invented the gas. The team duly trace the labs where Markov continues to
produce more Novichok, in Ukraine and Belarus. The cast is full with the assorted jihadis,
Russian Mafia bosses with their cruel henchmen, Hungarian white supremacists and nasty
Serbians.
You find summaries of the episodes
@https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Back:_Retribution
"It is strange that a British-American intelligence TV drama Strike Back had several
episodes featuring Novichok nerve agent and Evil Russkies last year. Someone orchestrating
political theater in the UK watches a lot of TV, or is advised by its producers."
Nobody will miss the fact that the countries which emitted the 'Joint statement' blaming
Russia's aggression are the countries which repeatedly aggressed and invaded Russia or allied
themselves with Russia's enemies. None of them were ever invaded by Russia but in pursuit of
the repelled invaders. None of them were ever threatened by a Russian invasion.
"... For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. ..."
"... he British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. ..."
"... JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? ..."
"... My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. ..."
"... So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next. ..."
"... Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore. ..."
"... Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right. ..."
"... And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics. ..."
"... The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre ..."
"... With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity. ..."
For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his
own party. We discuss the case with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Ties between Russia and the West are at their lowest point since The Cold War,
and a new spat over a poisoning in Britain has sunk them even lower. The British government is blaming Russia for the poisoning of
former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British town of Salisbury.
The two remain in critical condition after ingesting what the British government says is a military-grade nerve agent made by
Russia. The British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of
the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. Speaking today in parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia's response
so far proves their culpability.
THERESA MAY: There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of
Mr. Skripal and his daughter. And for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday,
it has taken place against the backdrop of a well established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It
must therefore, be met with a full and robust response, beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr. Litvinenko
and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.
AARON MATÉ: As part of the measures against Russia, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, the single biggest such
expulsion in three decades. That drew a response from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who pressed May to hand over evidence.
JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes
that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken
through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the
necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under
Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack
to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence
as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?
AARON MATÉ: The dispute over the poisoning has gotten so serious, that there has been speculation of NATO invoking Article 5,
which bounds member states to defend others in the event of an attack. So far, Downing Street has tamped down talk of Article 5,
but Theresa May has been summoning support from key allies, including the US
Joining me is professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton. Welcome, Professor
Cohen.
You have been warning for a long time that we are in the midst of a new Cold War. What are your thoughts today as you see now
tensions escalating between Britain and Russia, with now Britain ordering the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the expulsions
that have happened in the US to Russian diplomats as a result of the Russiagate controversy?
STEPHEN COHEN: My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man.
It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. In the essence of what he said is Theresa May has no evidence,
and yet she's prepared to ratchet up already a bad relationship with Russia based on this. They haven't produced any evidence. Let's
put it like that. This alarms me because, I've said this before on your broadcast, but it's almost never said in the mainstream and
it's hard to get an American discussion of it, is that whether we call our relationship with Russia a new cold war or not, it certainly
is. The point is it's so much more dangerous than the preceding Cold War. I could even argue that the situation today is in some
ways more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say,
no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll
get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts
that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember
in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to
come next.
Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right
on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin,
unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic
attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get
this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very
quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore.
AARON MATÉ: One person who has been pillared in the media today is Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who we heard from before.
And I wanna play more of his speech of his comments today, to the British parliament.
JEREMY CORBYN: And while suspending planned high level contact, does the prime minister agree that it is essential to maintain
a robust dialogue with Russia in the interest of our own and wider international security?
AARON MATÉ: That's Jeremy Corbyn speaking today, calling today for. "a robust dialogue with Russia." So, Professor Cohen, for
saying that, Corbyn was widely mocked, including by members of his own party. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, the import
of that, not just for this specific case, but overall, this attitude towards having dialogue, calling for dialogue with Russia being
somehow worthy of scorn and contempt.
... ... ...
STEPHEN COHEN: But I've heard some of these people saying privately that we need this, but I don't hear them saying it publicly.
Look, I did live in England and get educated there partly many, many years ago, and I followed British politics. So, I don't have
great authority, but two things come to mind. Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's
holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia
related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search
for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right.
And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader
of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior
on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics.
AARON MATÉ: Well, that's a good segue to the next part of our discussion where we're gonna talk more about the role right now
of Russiagate in US politics. Professor Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York
University, thank you.
And thank you for joining us on The Real News.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism
and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo
massacre (See Youtube | StormCloudsGathering | 02m:43s " Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video " [
https://youtu.be/yJEvlKKm6og ])
With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class
of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally
everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity.
"... Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Curious fact. Although Russia stopped all its CW programmes in 1992, the UK & the US received specialists/defectors & documentation on these projects incl. so-called Novichok in mid-1990s, continued researching CW as evidenced by open sources ..."
"... .@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce suspected nerve agent. ..."
"... Craig Murray's excellent essay's been heavily attacked, and he's written a stimulating and educational response that further bolsters the initial essay. Quite interesting the so-called journalists supporting May's propaganda. ..."
"... Oh dear, in sacred Europe!! How about the West using nerve agents on a grand scale against its enemy Iran in the Middle East (since the Second World War)? Twenty thousand Iranians were killed on the spot by nerve gas, according to reports, with thousands of people hospitalized. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories. ..."
"... This is the same sort of "highly likely" language that has worked so well with the false-flag attacks in Syria. It's obviously "highly likely" that there is no actual evidence. ..."
In joint statement, world leaders agree Russia behind nerve agent attack on former spy
This is the joint statement of the whirled leaders:
We, the leaders of France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom, abhor the attack that took place against Sergei
and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK, on 4 March 2018. A British police officer who was also exposed in the attack remains seriously
ill, and the lives of many innocent British citizens have been threatened. We express our sympathies to them all, and our admiration
for the UK police and emergency services for their courageous response.
This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve
agent in Europe since the Second World War. It is an assault on UK sovereignty and any such use by a State party is a clear
violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of international law. It threatens the security of us all.
The United Kingdom briefed thoroughly its allies that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack. We
share the UK assessment that there is no plausible alternative explanation, and note that Russia´s failure to address the legitimate
request by the UK government further underlines its responsibility. We call on Russia to address all questions related to the
attack in Salisbury. Russia should in particular provide full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Our concerns are also heightened against the background of a pattern of earlier irresponsible Russian behaviour. We call
on Russia to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council to uphold international peace and security.
. .
here
Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Russia destroyed all of its chemical weapons arsenals by 2017, a fact attested by @OPCW.
No research, development or manufacturing of projects codenamed Novichok has ever been carried out in Russia, all CW programmes
were stopped back in 1991-92
-
Russian Envoy to the UN #Nebenzya: Curious fact. Although Russia stopped all its CW programmes in 1992, the UK & the US received
specialists/defectors & documentation on these projects incl. so-called Novichok in mid-1990s, continued researching CW as
evidenced by open sources
-
later:
-
.@RussiaUN: in 1992 Russia closed all Soviet chemical weapons programmes. Some of the scientists were flown to the West (incl
UK) where they continued research. To identify a substance, formula and samples are needed – means UK has capacity to produce
suspected nerve agent.
Craig Murray's excellent essay's been heavily attacked, and
he's written a stimulating and
educational response that further bolsters the initial essay. Quite interesting the so-called journalists supporting May's
propaganda.
. . . the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War
Oh dear, in sacred Europe!! How about the West using nerve agents on a grand scale against its enemy Iran in the Middle East (since
the Second World War)? Twenty thousand Iranians were killed on the spot by nerve gas, according to reports, with thousands of
people hospitalized. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in
many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that
Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi
chemical weapons factories.
. . . it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack
This is the same sort of "highly likely" language that has worked so well with the false-flag attacks in Syria. It's obviously
"highly likely" that there is no actual evidence.
With "principles" such as the end justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the
Ten Commandants all "for the greater glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with
the idea that there was no real, objective truth
Excuse me? What about western civilization before the ten commandments? Was it better or
worse in your eyes? What's so damn special about your ten commandments that their (forced)
acceptance by westerners should mark some sort of magical beginning of the true western
civilization? So we had no morality of any kind before this?
I can think of other civilizations that have nothing – and I mean nothing – to
be proud of. They make us look like amateurs in the rejection of real, objective truth.
"... Ask this, "who is pathologically obsessed with execution by gas?" Who is spearheading the "Russia is Evil" propaganda campaign? ..."
"... If Russian leadership wanted KGB/FSB/GRU/SVR to kill him, they'd done it while the man was in Russia in their custody. He would have never left the Russian prison alive, and nobody would be wiser. ..."
"... He is just not that important, that is why he was let out in a swap after spending only a few years in jail. The orchestrated hysterics and the oversize overreaction by the NATO gang is clear tell that they are the one who did it. ..."
"... Do you remember the Wikileaks about CIA having hacking tools whereby they could spoof cyber attacks form their computers yet have the signature they came from Russia (or some other country)? ..."
"... There is nothing uniquely Russian about the poison. There are no unique poisons or nerve agents. Everybody has the same things. All is being said is that the nerve agent is military grade. And England is refusing to give samples to Russia for analysis, so we don't know what it is. ..."
"... why wouldn't FSB off him by simply clubbing him to death and making it look like a mugging gone wrong: why use a military grade nerve agent of all things. Ridiculous that _anyone_ believes Russians did it. ..."
"... Boris Johnson confirmed widespread suspicions that the attack on Skripal was part of a recycled WMD hoax to justify another U.S. war of aggression, this time in Syria instead of Iraq. ..."
Because of the poison involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it. Just
because something like this is stupid doesn't mean it should be written off. Stupid things
happen.
As I constantly iterate, never attribute to complex conspiracy what can be easily
explained by gross stupidity. Look at the Billion plus followers of the lunatic ramblings of
a desert cave dwelling freak, or the State of Utah and Planet Kolob. But your Occam's Razor
analysis also fails the smell test.
If I want to assassinate someone, using a gas, in public, is about the dumbest way to go
about it. Russia may well have wanted to send a message "for the encouragement of others" not
to betray mother Russia, but why a gas rather than oral or injected poison? Why not the old
favorite of defenestration? Or a simple GSW using Russian manufactured firearm/ammo?
Ask this, "who is pathologically obsessed with execution by gas?" Who is spearheading
the "Russia is Evil" propaganda campaign?
If Russian leadership wanted KGB/FSB/GRU/SVR to kill him, they'd done it while the man was
in Russia in their custody. He would have never left the Russian prison alive, and nobody
would be wiser.
He is just not that important, that is why he was let out in a swap after spending only a
few years in jail. The orchestrated hysterics and the oversize overreaction by the NATO gang
is clear tell that they are the one who did it.
{Do I think Russia is involved with the Skripal hit? Of course.}
Based on what?
{Because of the poison involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it.}
Really?
Do you remember the Wikileaks about CIA having hacking tools whereby they could spoof cyber
attacks form their computers yet have the signature they came from Russia (or some other
country)?
There is nothing uniquely Russian about the poison. There are no unique poisons or nerve
agents. Everybody has the same things. All is being said is that the nerve agent is military
grade. And England is refusing to give samples to Russia for analysis, so we don't know what
it is.
{Just because something like this is stupid doesn't mean it should be written off.
Stupid things happen}
Well, yeah: stupid things happen, and smart individuals sometimes do stupid things –
but almost always for a reason, even if their actions are stupid. This should be written off,
for a very simple reason: what is the Russian motivation? This guy was released in 2010. He
was arrested in 2004: whatever damage he caused was very long ago. Why would Russian
leadership risk almost certain exposure? for what?
And as poster [Meyer] posits above in #23, why wouldn't FSB off him by simply clubbing him
to death and making it look like a mugging gone wrong: why use a military grade nerve agent
of all things. Ridiculous that _anyone_ believes Russians did it.
Speaking of "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies," in an article in the
Washington Post on Wednesday, Boris Johnson confirmed widespread suspicions that the
attack on Skripal was part of a recycled WMD hoax to justify another U.S. war of aggression,
this time in Syria instead of Iraq.
The fact that Prime Minister May has produced no evidence that Russia was behind the
attack on Skripal, and that Secretary of Defense Mattis admits he has no evidence the Syrian
government used sarin against its own people, doesn't deter Boris Johnson from blaming Russia
for chemical attacks in both England and Syria.
From Johnson's article:
How much easier does it become for a state [Russia] to deploy chemical weapons when its
government has already tolerated and sought to hide their use by others? I would draw a
connection between Putin's indulgence of Assad's atrocities in Syria and the Russian
state's evident willingness to employ a chemical weapon on British soil.
So a neocon-orchestrated Russiagate hoax merges with a neocon-orchestrated WMD hoax in
Syria. It's all coming together.
The neocon strategy of "regime change by jihadi" in Syria has failed, and they're now
forced to dust off the bogus WMD script that wreaked so much havoc on Iraq. Unfortunately for
the neocons, Vladimir Putin has decided that Russia has nothing to lose, and probably much to
gain, by taking a stand against imperialism now, in Syria, instead of later in Iran.
Now the world is both hostage and spectator to a game of nuclear chicken. If neither
player swerves in time, planet Earth dies.
If Trump orders a climb down, the neocons will impeach him for losing Syria. But more
appeasement by Putin would only embolden the neocons to further acts of aggression.
So Putin asks: "why do we need a world if Russia ceases to exist?" He is right to frame
the showdown in Syria as a fight for Russia's existence, and Trump knows it.
Trump will have to take his chances with Mueller and the neocon crazies. Maybe the neocons
will overplay their hand and bring about their own downfall, a happy outcome for all of
humanity.
"... the fact that freedom of speech is under threat shows that the rise of mere emotive speech is still a long way from dominant. Facts and logic can still be heard and make a difference. This is why the political media elite cannot tolerate reasoned evidenced argument and is so concerned to censor dissenting voices. ..."
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling
carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to
repudiate morality while laying claim to it ( )
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from
oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality"
Whilst there is much to be said in favour of the argument, the fact that freedom of speech is
under threat shows that the rise of mere emotive speech is still a long way from dominant.
Facts and logic can still be heard and make a difference. This is why the political media
elite cannot tolerate reasoned evidenced argument and is so concerned to censor dissenting
voices.
Up until now, I was in favor of Putin trying to keep cool demeanor and be reasonable. Time
works in favor of Russia, so simply trying to wait the Western collapse out is not
unreasonable strategy. But with the West starting to resort to something as extreme as
poisoning its own lapdogs and blaming Russia for it without presenting a single shred of
evidence, it might be a good time to reconsider and join the escalation train in earnest.
If we are in the age of ultimatums, then Moscow may want to start issuing a few of its
own. One would be to warn the West about its intention to abandon START framework within a
year and ultimately rearm to Soviet levels – 20000 strategic warheads at a minimum.
Another would be to ask Syrian government to outsource its air-defense to Russia, then issue
blanket no-flight order to all aircraft not authorized by Damascus.
Third, start arming insurgencies around the world that struggle against NATO/US presence.
Fourth, eliminate USD and GBP from its trade completely. Fifth, consider formalizing military
alliance with Iran.
There are many more steps that Russia can undertake. But whatever it chooses to do, the
somnolent posture it maintained until yesterday is no more feasible.
Respectfully, I think what he means is something that I've learned to do in the last few
years in a rather automatic fashion. Namely, it's to realise that, in the immediate aftermath
of any event, it's best to just sit back and wait a bit before you come to any sort of
conclusion about blame. In the very short term, the water, the stream is very muddy and
clouded as anybody and everybody who has – or think that they have – an interest
in the event du jour tries to spin it to their own advantage.
The truth will reveal itself inasmuch as the Internet is the World's best fact checker.
The initial story will *always* be shown to have a good deal of exaggerations,
contradictions, anomalies and omissions. But those revelations take a (usually relatively
short) bit of time. So better to look at whatever the immediate story might be with a good
deal of patient skepticism and not immediately fly off the rails in a fit of hand-waving,
eye-rolling and pearl-clutching hysterics.
Do this consistently, and I think you'll discover that:
-The truth of the matter is usually gray, with plenty of blame to go around.
-And/or you're being fed a line of pandering BS by people who think that you're a naive
and trusting idiot.
In short, act like an adult and not a dimwitted child. Use your brain and not your
emotions.
Hope this helps.
Just a thought.
VicB3
P.S. A pithy thought from Mike Rivero:
If it doesn't affect you directly, then it's either advertising or propaganda.
Re: "Almost from day one, the early western civilization began by, shall we say, taking
liberties with the truth, which it could bend, adapt, massage and repackage to serve the
ideological agenda of the day. It was not quite the full-blown and unapologetic relativism of
the 19th century yet, but it was an important first step. With "principles" such as the end
justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the Ten Commandants all "for the greater
glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with the idea that there was no real,
objective truth, only the subjective perception or even representation each person might have
thereof."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Saker is a good military analyst, but as a historian he is a laughable dilettante. He is a
very self-righteous, touchy Orthodox Christian ideologue and moralist.
As we approach the fifteenth anniversary of the unwarranted invasion of Iraq, which we are still paying for in so many ways, it
is important to remember the misuse of intelligence that provided a false justification for war. It is particularly important to
do so at this time because President Donald Trump has talked about a military option against North Korea or Iran (or Venezuela for
that matter). Since there is no cause to justify such wars, it is quite likely that politicized intelligence would once again be
used to provide a justification for audiences at home and abroad.
In 2002 and 2003, the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency collaborated in an effort to
describe the false likelihood of a nuclear weapons program that had to be stopped. In the words of Bush administration officials,
the United States was not going to allow the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." On September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney and
national security adviser Condi Rice used that phrase on CNN and NBC's "Meet the Press," respectively, to argue that Saddam Hussein
was "using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
In October 2002, the CIA orchestrated a national intelligence estimate to argue falsely that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger
for use in a nuclear weapon. Senior officials throughout the intelligence community knew that the so-called Niger report was a fabrication
produced by members of the Italian military intelligence service, and several intelligence officials informed Congressional and White
House officials that they doubted the reports of Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger. Nevertheless, the national intelligence estimate
spun a fictitious tale of a clear and present danger based on false reports of alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons;
nuclear weapons; unmanned aerial vehicles; and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that were nonexistent.
In December 2002, President George W. Bush found the CIA's case for war inadequate and asked for "something that Joe Public would
understand or gain a lot of confidence from." Bush turned to CIA director George Tenet and remarked, "I've been given all this intelligence
about Iraq having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Instead of being truthful, Tenet replied, "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"
Several days later, Alan Foley, the chief of the Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control Staff, told his analysts to
prepare a briefing for the president. "If the president wants intelligence to support a decision to go to war," Foley said, "then
it is up to the agency to provide it." In early January, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin gave the phony "slam dunk" briefing
at the White House.
The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans distributed the unsubstantiated and flawed intelligence that not even the CIA would vouch
for. The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith supplied bogus intelligence to the White House on Iraqi WMD and links
to terrorist organizations to make the case for war, and then "leaked" this intelligence to key journalists such as Judith Miller
at The New York Times . Miller had a front page article in the Times on September 8, 2002, citing administration
officials claiming that Saddam was seeking "specially designed" aluminum tubes to enrich uranium, the so-called "smoking gun." Several
days later, President Bush inserted the Times' claim in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
The aluminum tube issue was central to Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003, which was based on
the phony CIA estimate from October 2002. As Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson wrote in The New York Times in
February 2018, the secretary's "gravitas was a significant part of the Bush administration's two-year-long effort to get Americans
on the war wagon. It was CIA Deputy Director McLaughlin who lied to Secretary of State Powell about the reliability of the intelligence
in Powell's speech. McLaughlin was the central advocate for the phony intelligence on mobile biological laboratories that ended up
in that speech.
President Bush would have gone to war with or without intelligence, and once again we are confronted by a president who might
consider going to war with or without intelligence. Fifteen years ago, we had a CIA director from Capitol Hill who was loyal to the
president and unwilling to tell truth to power. Once again, we have a CIA director, Gina Haspel, who is a White House loyalist and
cannot be counted on to tell truth to power. She was one of the Agency's leading cheerleaders for torture and abuse, and sent the
message that order the destruction of the torture tapes. And former CIA director Mike Pompeo, a neoconservative hardliner, is now
secretary of state, who earned his new position by being a total loyalist who would never tell truth to power. Is there a voice for
moderation left in the White House?
Bush's war destabilized the entire Middle East. Any Trump war could lead to the use of nuclear weapons that would destabilize
the entire world.
"... I'd define coup in this case as a potentially "illegal seizure of power" in the form of a slowly unfolding, unresolved constitutional crisis that sticks over time. ..."
"... The 1933 coup plot was funded by Wall Street money in hopes of subverting the power of Franklin Roosevelt, a leader deemed by many wealthy men of the time to be a traitor to his blue-blood class. ..."
"... The Plot to Seize the White House ..."
"... "War is a racket. It always has been," is how Butler's booklet War Is a Racket opens. "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many." The little book ends this way: "Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. But victory will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity for all peoples." ..."
"... The Wall Street cabal's coup plot was based on the idea of insinuating a disciplined military man into a White House operation deemed irresponsible and out of control. The plan was to install Butler into a newly created cabinet-level position called the Secretary for General Affairs. Negative press would be arranged to inform the American people that the President of the United States was a cripple. The "man on a white horse" was there to save a problematic administration from itself -- all for the good of the country. ..."
"... Today's politics are very different; the similarity is in the troublesome situation of a sitting president deemed a national security problem. In FDR's case, it was weakness due to sympathy for the downtrodden; while in Trump's case, it's unprecedented governmental inexperience linked with a volatile narcissism contributing to chaos in the highest reaches of the government. ..."
I'd define coup in this case as a potentially "illegal seizure of power" in the form of
a slowly unfolding, unresolved constitutional crisis that sticks over time. Like the
oft-cited frog being boiled to death in a pot of water rising in temperature very slowly.
Center right Times columnist David Brooks had a column recently in which he compared Trump USA
to Berlusconi Italy and how, once democracy has been sullied by a right-wing populist like
Berlusconi (or Trump), getting democracy back within its previous (constitutional) lines is
difficult to impossible.
Some like to call the 2000 election of George W. Bush a "coup" legitimized by a conservative
Supreme Court. Whatever one calls the 2000 election, it did put a permanent stain on US
democracy. I have no doubt in this age of "fake news" and sophisticated PR that an unresolved
constitutional crisis cum coup in Washington D.C. would be spun by info wizards as a
pro-American, patriotic event. All this, of course, has helped ratchet up political
polarization to new heights.
Instead of seeing a military coup as restricted to melodramatic fiction like the film Seven
Days In May, it might be instructive, beneficial and even patriotic to think of it as possible
with at least one very real historical antecedent to consider.
The 1933 White House Plot
We don't hear much about the 1933 American "coup" -- here, put in quotes because it was
always ambiguous and it was thwarted. The plot has effectively been deep-sixed into historical
oblivion. Why might that be? Might it be because it amounted to just another example of the
dirty little secret that hovers over everything in America: the power of money married to the
power of violence? Just another day in the history of America. Maybe one has to be a
left-leaning antiwar activist born under the sign of the National Security State to understand
this. But, to me, the antiwar left is perennially at a loss in this equation: Not only is it
oriented on peace versus war, but it's also unarmed in the sense of an NRA obsession with guns.
Furthermore, the left tends to be crippled thanks to the Cold War that established left-leaning
ideas as association with subversion and the enemy.
The 1933 coup plot was funded by Wall Street money in hopes of subverting the power of
Franklin Roosevelt, a leader deemed by many wealthy men of the time to be a traitor to his
blue-blood class. Had the whistle not been blown on the plot by a Marine general named
Smedley Butler, it could have succeeded in politically crippling FDR and his New Deal
government. Had it gone differently, it could have changed history. (The 1933 coup attempt is
described by Jules Archer in a 1973 book titled The Plot to Seize the White House .
Also, The History Channel produced a 41-minute
documentary on the plot .)
As the depression set in, the nation watched the rise of fascism in Europe. FDR was opposed
on the right by people like the popular hero Charles Lindbergh who cozied up with the Nazis.
Much of this ugly, polarized political struggle has slipped from our popular history, in large
part due to the unifying power of World War Two that helped end the depression and ended up
consuming both sides of the right/left battle. The internal political struggles of the thirties
shifted into a focus on military dominance. The US ended up top of the heap at the end of World
War Two. It also ended up at odds with the other victor in the war, the Soviet Union. It was at
this juncture that US leaders formulated The National Security Act of 1947, thus creating the
National Security State we live under today.
MacArthur busting Bonus Marchers, Butler speaking to them and the Mussolini incident
Smedley Butler was raised a Hicksite Quaker in West Chester, Pennsylvania. One side of a
major 19th century split, the Hicksites saw "the inner light" contained within each of us as
the primary source of truth, while Orthodox Quakers were more like fundamentalist who saw The
Bible as the primary source of truth. The young, idealistic Butler learned the US Marines was
expanding and recruiting new officers. He lobbied his parents (his father was a US congressman)
to let him join, and in 1898 at age sixteen, a fresh Second Lieutenant Butler was dropped off
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was first exposed to hostile fire. He went on to the
Philippines. He fought in counter-insurgency wars in places like Nicaragua and Haiti. He
undertook spy missions in Mexico. His career was unique. At one point, he took leave of the
Marines and became police commissioner of Philadelphia, only to quit when he grasped the level
of corruption in the city. He was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor, and at the end of
his career he was court martialed by Secretary of War Stimson for calling Benito Mussolini a
bum in a speech. He, then, began speaking out in public, effectively undermining the charges.
Today, amongst leftist, antiwar activists he's considered a hero thanks to a small book he
wrote in 1935 called War Is a Racket. On the other hand, I mentioned him once to General
Stanley McChrystal at a book signing and the respected Iraq "surge" leader cited him back at me
as, in his mind, one of the great US military heroes. Both views paradoxically prevail. In
1939, he expressed opposition to war in Europe. But, then, he conveniently died in 1940. How he
would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor remains an intriguing question.
Butler got involved in the 1933 coup when he was asked by the Wall Street cabal to be their
"man on a white horse" to lead the plot. Due to his humility and his bravery, Butler was
beloved by the common soldier -- even when he pushed them. In one story, a soldier has fallen
out of a long march and General Butler, wearing no insignia of rank, gets the man back up and
walking by carrying his pack. The plotters' modeled their efforts on the rising fascist states
in Europe and the various colored-shirt thug organizations significantly made up of WWI
veterans. Fatefully, Butler was a terrible choice; he supported FDR. Smelling a rat, he played
along with the plotters' front-man, Gerald MacGuire, a fat, cigar-chomping stock broker paid to
go to Europe and study the various colored-shirt groups. The idea was to install Butler as the
commander of the American Legion, whose 500,000 members -- many disgruntled WWI vets -- had
been used to smash union strikers with baseball bats. The Legion outnumbered the US military at
the time. With the help of a reporter from the Philadelphia Record, Butler got the goods and
went to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which held hearings and exposed the
right-wing plot. (It's the very same HUAC that went on to notoriety as a prosecutor of the
left.) Those named in the coup all denied they were plotting anything, and the story
disappeared into obscurity. No charges were made.
Had the cabal, instead, set up General Douglas MacArthur as the "man on a white horse" --
who they had considered -- it might have turned out differently. MacArthur had an arrogant
"fascist" character, but he was not loved by the common soldier. Butler and MacArthur had
crossed paths in July 1932 during the Bonus March encampment in Washington DC. Butler was
sympathetic and spoke to the encamped veterans seeking their promised bonus for WWI service.
"They may be calling you tramps now, but in 1917 they didn't call you bums!" the cragey,
diminutive general hollered at them. "You are the best-behaved group of men in the country
today. I consider it an honor to be asked to speak to you." MacArthur, of course, led the
troops who burned the Bonus Marchers out, killing one veteran and wounding 50.
"War is a racket. It always has been," is how Butler's booklet War Is a Racket opens. "A
racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of
the very few, at the expense of the very many." The little book ends this way: "Secretly each
nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale.
But victory will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists. If we put them to
work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of
destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building a greater prosperity
for all peoples."
The Wall Street cabal's coup plot was based on the idea of insinuating a disciplined
military man into a White House operation deemed irresponsible and out of control. The plan was
to install Butler into a newly created cabinet-level position called the Secretary for General
Affairs. Negative press would be arranged to inform the American people that the President of
the United States was a cripple. The "man on a white horse" was there to save a problematic
administration from itself -- all for the good of the country.
Today's politics are very different; the similarity is in the troublesome situation of a
sitting president deemed a national security problem. In FDR's case, it was weakness due to
sympathy for the downtrodden; while in Trump's case, it's unprecedented governmental
inexperience linked with a volatile narcissism contributing to chaos in the highest reaches of
the government. In both cases, the overarching issue is a very dangerous world and the
need for experience and discipline. Is General Kelly today's "man on a white horse" insinuated
into the White House to represent the interests of the National Security State?
There are no neat or absolute answers to these questions. We tend to associate the idea of a
"coup" with coup d'etat in Third World nations. Our CIA and military have notoriously been up
to their eyeballs in foreign coups; there's classics like Iran 1953 and Guatemala 1954.
Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009 had the stink of US complicity, but they are more current and,
thus, there was lots of plausible deniability and lots of fog. And fog and doubt only get worse
in this internet age.
The National Security Act of 1947 codified the reality of the imperial American
military for the baby-boom generation and beyond. The War Department became the Defense
Department; the CIA we know today was formed from the Office of Strategic Services. The 1947
NSA document amounted to a formal re-arrangement of the country's priorities coming out of WWII
-- when the victorious United States of America became the "leader of the free world." We
forget that before World War Two changed everything, the US military was a shadow of what it
was to become.
Over these 70 years, the executive in the White House has ping-ponged back-and-forth between
the moderate left and the moderate right, between the Democratic and Republican Parties. (Trump
may be the exception in being far right.) Every four years there's a national "conversation" of
sorts about who's going to live in the White House and make executive decisions and who's going
to legislate in Congress. You couldn't come up with a better example to illustrate the idea of
a civilian political see-saw than January 20, 2016, the day Barack Obama handed the civilian
reins over to Donald Trump. Meanwhile, over those same 70 years, the National Security State
(as an institution led by the Pentagon) has existed as a steadily ascending through-line
leading to today's post-9/11 world. Our imperial military has been, and remains, virtually
untouchable through the electoral process that chooses civilian leadership. Just like assault
weapons on a small scale, the National Security State thrives beyond the reach of American
politics. In my mind, White House Chief of Staff and former four-star Marine General John Kelly
resides in this protected zone as a power behind the civilian throne.
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal
tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what
led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling
all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.
The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion.
According
to The Atlantic,
The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the
statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see
it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein
himself has been fired since making the statement.
Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let
it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that
implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in
CounterPunch :
The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless
the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."
And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating
US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom
NPR glowingly
described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer
in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard
line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back
off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've
had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We
have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."
Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved
her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida
suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR
reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress
called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture
center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped
up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt
it was their duty."
Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts
to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins
wrote in the New
Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,
When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs,
not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past,
as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision.
After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted (
March 13, 2018 )
Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs
without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin
complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7
Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides
black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's
bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail
for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.
The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain
and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of
torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't
let things like due process get in the way.
Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy.
Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of
reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in
Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.
Rattlesnakes have a terrible reputation. Here were I live, in Florida, we have the biggest
rattlesnakes on the planet, the Eastern Diamondback (
Crotalus adamanteus ). They are huge and can reach well over 2m (6ft) in length and
weigh up to 15kg (30lbs). The Eastern Diamondback's venom is not the most potent out there, but
they can deliver *a lot* of it. So, yes, it is a formidable creature. But it is also a gentle
creature and truly very shy one.
Eastern Diamonbacks are also a stunningly beautiful creatures. I confess that I absolutely
love them.
For all their reputation for nastiness, Eastern Diamonbacks will never ever attack you if
they can avoid it . I have seen a lot of these snakes on my hikes, I have manipulated them
(with a hook), and I have seen my German Shepherd come nose to nose with one (literally) and
that Eastern Diamondback did not strike. Why? Because these snakes will do everything they can
to avoid having to bite you.
First and foremost, they hide. Really well. You can stand right next to a large Eastern
Diamondback and never notice it. You can walk right by, and it won't move, or rattle its tail,
and you will never know that it was there. Camouflage is their first line of defense.
Then, if discovered, they will rattle their tails. If needed, very loudly. You can easily
hear the rattle from an Eastern Diamondback from 5m (15ft) away. More than enough distance to
easily avoid it.
Furthermore, if given the chance, the Eastern Diamondback will retreat and hide.
Finally, when cornered a lot of them try what is called a "dry bite": they do bite you, but
deliver no venom. Why? Because you are not prey, so what would be the point of envenomating
you? The Eastern Diamondback does not want you dead, it wants you to let it live!
I was once told by a park ranger in Arizona that the profile of a typical rattlesnake bite
victim is: white, male, with tattoos and the famous last words " hold my beer and watch
this! ".
Why am I telling you all this?
Because that is exactly what I see happening before my horrified eyes.
Russia is the Eastern Diamondback desperately trying to do all it can to avoid to have to
strike. The West is the drunk idiot full of hubris, arrogance and a very mistaken sense of
invulnerability saying " hold my beer and watch this! ".
Keep in mind that in a confrontation with a drunken human the Eastern Diamondback is most
unlikely to survive. And it knows that, and that is why it does everything it can to avoid such
a confrontation in the first place. But if cornered or attacked the Diamondback will strike.
Hard. Want to see what such a strike looks like?
Here's a thought: maybe the Soviet Union looked into the manufacture of these "novichoks" but decided that, nah, they don't work
all that well in practice e.g. mixing the binary components in the field isn't an exact science, so the end result can range from
Instant Death to Oh, Shit, Nobody Has Died And A Lot Of Innocents Are In Hospital.
Utterly unacceptable for any respectable KGB agent.
But some of the dudes who were working on those "novichoks" (dudes now out of work, remember) defected to the West with some
diagrams and some tall tales of how stupendously clever they are and how astonishingly lethal their wares.
So places like Porton Down test the chemistry in the laboratory and, sure enough, under lab conditions the chemistry is astonishingly
lethal.
They don't test it in the field because, well, why would they?
Fast forward to this week, and Someone has the Bright Idea to use some "novichoks" in a false-flag operation.
Why not? Everyone tells them that they are astonishingly lethal, and the lab tests back that up. What could go wrong?
So they do, and they find out what the Soviets found out decades ago.
Which is that this stuff is utter shit under field conditions: your target's don't die an instant death and innocent people
who come to their aid get very, very sick.
Because that is the point that everyone in the MSM won't talk about: if this was supposed to be a hit then it was badly botched.
The nerve agent didn't kill, the assassins didn't *confirm* the kill, the radius of the effect wasn't contained, and other people
were contaminated.
Hardly the hallmarks of an agency that DEVELOPED this nerve agent, is it. But maybe the hallmark of no-hopers who didn't really
understand what they were using.
Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced in the House of Commons that Russia was "highly likely" to have
been involved in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy and his daughter. The incident left Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter
Yulia, 33, critically ill in hospital.
As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes
, The UK has now announced that it will expel 23 Russian diplomats after
Russia failed to explain how a military-grade nerve agent
was used in the attack in Salisbury.
Even though the Kremlin has vehemently denied any involvement, insiders have said that
all signs point to Moscow and if that's
true, it raises some troubling questions ahead of the country's presidential election on Sunday.
Some observers have suggested that rogue elements of the Russian government could be responsible for the attack while others are
pointing their fingers firmly towards Vladimir Putin.
Even though there is no evidence that Putin gave the order to carry out a high-profile killing in public, the decision to use
nerve agents that could be linked to Russia carries considerable risk. Some have claimed that Putin might have arranged the attack
to engineer a confrontation with the west in order to improve turnout at the polls.
If the UK goes a step beyond expelling diplomats and imposes sanctions, Russia could find itself more isolated and that has proven
deeply unpopular with the country's electorate .
Putin
is expected to win Sunday's election easily and even if Russian media portrays the events in Salisbury as some kind of western
conspiracy to rally voters, the president's image is still likely to worsen internationally .
The most recent polling into how Putin is viewed abroad was conducted in August 2017 by the Pew Research Center. Even before the
events in Salisbury, Putin was very unpopular across the world.
In Poland where the relationship with Russia has never been easy, 89 percent of Pew's respondents said they have no confidence
in Putin doing the right thing regarding world affairs.
In France, the share was also high at 80 percent.
In the United Kingdom and the United Stated, 76 and 74 percent of people have no faith in the Russian president doing the right
thing on the world stage.
At the other end of the scale, Nigeria and India are more confident than not confident in Putin doing the right thing.
It seems the global propaganda machine has not been able to reach there quite yet.
If you don't have some appreciation of Putin's intellect and skill as a leader you're not paying attention. Additionally he's
shown real composure and self control given the provocations he has been subject to.
If he has indeed tossed out the Rothschild bankers he is a hero of the ages. That is no light work.
This is complete horseshit straight from the same people who give us WaPo and the New York Times. How does he not have Putin's
popularity in Russia. Where is that?
Also, The author's view of the world is extremely skewed.
No country disapproves of America more than Russia, where 82% of survey respondents said they disapproved of U.S. leadership.
This was also the worst rating from Russia in the history of the survey. While many Russians do not like America, residents of
many other countries do not approve of Russia. The median disapproval rating of Russian leadership was greater than the median
approval rating, the only country to claim this distinction. And while a majority of residents in 15 countries disapprove of the
U.S., a majority of residents in 42 countries disapprove of Russia's leadership. Russia's disapproval rating of U.S. leadership
worsened considerably from 2013, increasing 12 percentage points. Recently implemented U.S.-led Western sanctions on Russia have
likely intensified Russians' disapproval. According to historical data from the Levada Center, Russia's independent public opinion
tracker, negative attitudes towards the United States spiked during the invasion of Iraq and worsened again in 2008 after the
Russia-Georgia conflict. More recently, the U.S. sided with Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
The West doesn't make Statesmen anymore. It produces whores and pedophiles who sell to the highest bidders and don't have the
capacity to think beyond their tenures.
Because Western governments are dominated by cucks and sellouts, they feel threatened by Putin's unwavering determination,
backbone and geopolitical mastery, hence the concerted propaganda campaign to discredit him, which by the way is pretty fucking
pathetic.
"anything for israel..." http://politicalhotwire.com/world-politics/57199-american-soldiers-dying-israel.html
"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack
Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. ... According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of
the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11
Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the 'real threat' from Iraq was not a
threat to the United States. The 'unstated threat' was the 'threat against Israel', Zelikow
told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. 'The American government,'
he added, 'doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular
sell.'
That was then Today with have this situation: http://silentcrownews.com/wordpress/?p=5814
"Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel
with missile defense in times of war according to Haimovitch [Israeli IDF Brig. Gen.] "I am
sure once the order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our
deployment and team to defend the state of Israel"
General Clark, the US Army: "We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime
we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties
"
The timing is once again highly suspicious with the fifa world cup around the corner. The
Empire does not want Russia on center stage with the whole world watching. Trust me, we can
expect much more to come regarding this world cup. Boycotting, sanctions and more underhanded
tactics happening are what the next month has in store for us.
I wonder just how much more Russia is able to take before it decides not to turn the other
cheek. Eventually Russia will start saying that "hold on a second, we are being judged and
punished continuously so why dont we start doing some things to at least warrant all this
punishment?"
Also, the poison, Novichok, was stored by the Soviets in states on its borders, like
Georgia and Ukraine, and Baltic states, so after those republics broke off from the USSR
during its collapse the poison fell into the hands of anti-Russian countries. It is
inconceivable that western intelligence at the collapse of the USSR would not have swooped in
and grabbed what it could in those stockpiles. In fact, in 1999 American agents spent six
million dollars in decommissioning a plant that produced Novichok in the Uzbek city of Nukus.
If you don't think that they took a little for a false flag in the future you don't know our
intelligence services.
This week poroshenko has been trying to convince the EU to designate Russia as the
Aggressor nation and to attempt to end Minsk obligations.
Chumpsky , March 14, 2018 at 10:04 pm
The Russian presidential election is coming up on Sunday. A great opportunity now for the
CIA / MI6 / Mossad backed candidate to make some noise over Putin's near-guaranteed, shoe-in
victory by planting an illegitimate narrative.
The gassing, using Novichok (an open-source formula), is just another in a long list of
false flag events carefully crafted to turn Russia, and Putin in particular, into an
international pariah and bogeyman in particular. Such an event is an attempt to throw cold
water on Trump's thawing of relations by discrediting him now that Steele has been exposed as
a fraud.
"... nd, on June 26, 2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels." ..."
Venal Visors. And the all too easy convenience of Socializing The Costs, while Privatizing
The Profits.
Oliver North, while under oath during the IranContra Hearings: "..We didn't lose the
Vietnam war over there, we lost that war, in this city."
(..take your pick..) .. Too BIG to jail?
On April 8, 2005, CIA Director Porter Goss ordered an internal review of the CIA in order
to determine why doubts about Curveball's reliability were not forwarded to policy makers.
Former CIA Director George Tenet and his former deputy, John E. McLaughlin, announced that
they were not aware of doubts about Curveball's veracity before the war. However, Tyler
Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division, told the Los Angeles Times that
"everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening." .. A nd, on June 26,
2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist
who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible
tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels."
(..take your pick..) .. Too BIG to jail?
While Mueller Was Head Of The FBI -- Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment in
Denver with its servers in the bathroom, which of course, should raise some questions over
security of sensitive messages (the public's property) that she held.
(..take your pick..) .. Too BIG to jail?
And, is there a softer side -- to actively engaging in war?? .. James Le Mesurier, the
creator of the White Helmets, who just happens to be a British private security specialist
and a former British military intelligence officer, he has said very recently, "who would you
trust more than the fire brigade or a first response NGO?" And, as reported by Vanessa Beeley
in a recent Corbett Report interview: "James Le Mesurier, he is now recruiting in Brazil. We
know that the White Helmets have appeared in Malaysia and in Venezuela, and in the
Philippines."
~ Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927
"American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate
these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic.
And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is
permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting
stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will
be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people."
"... All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice ..."
Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech
rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as
editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth
about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly
underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that
federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks,
possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage
Act.
All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start
of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA
incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions
of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which
it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed
the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with
computer viruses.
When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher
such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or
should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state
hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive
honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history
by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.
President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or
traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration
when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is
itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should
heed that advice .
Individual are highly rewarded i f they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Rebels, individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
Notable quotes:
"... The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests". ..."
Jack, in my opinion, there is no "US". The "US" doesn't have an interest.
There are individuals who behave in their own individual self interest.
The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these
individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools
for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Its a monumental unconscious group-think based on individual self interest.
This is my understanding of "the Borg" and "US interests", "US foreign policy goals"....they are actually individual interests
shaped by what individuals who work in this realm believe they should believe and espouse to achieve their own goals. Rebels,
individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
What is US interest in the Middle East? I don't see any. We've got plenty of oil. And the
Canadians will happily sell us more.
The millenia old conflicts there are really no business of ours. The possibility that
we'll go to war with Russia and risk our own population to further Israeli perceptions shows
how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. The zionists "own" our political, media,
governmental establishments lock stock and barrel for this possibility to exist.
If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he
should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would
prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.
Honestly I have no idea what the firing of Tillerson and his replacement by Pompeo means.
Maybe it's because Tillerson called Trump a moron and Pompeo is an ass licker. Hillary,
Rubio, etc al wanted a no-fly-zone over Syria. That would have brought instant conflict with
Russia. If Nikki Haley's threats come to pass we'll get there.
Trump is attempting to change many past arrangements. One being trade where the US has
bled for decades running massive trade deficits. How the GOP does in the mid-terms will
influence his position on many issues.
"... Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of official secrecy. ..."
"... Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. ..."
"... With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. ..."
"... Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. ..."
"... He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet. ..."
"... "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life. ..."
"... Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist state. ..."
"... As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA, but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the latent qualities that would make him powerful. ..."
"... In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In 1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis. ..."
"... Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. ..."
"... The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to. Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden, Jr. and others. ..."
"... the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company. ..."
"... By October 1965, the AEC estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms. ..."
"... John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used it to build their nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. ..."
"... When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated diplomacy. ..."
"... Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life into the concept of the deep state. ..."
"... Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest Zionist of the lot ..."
Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its
internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet
penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even
be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of
collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial
shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of
official secrecy.
Let's not forget there are a dozen, at least a dozen such agencies based here in Washington.
The CIA with its $15 billion a year budget is the largest. The NSA with a budget of about $10
billion is the second largest. The Defense Intelligence Agency is about $4 billion. Then along
with some other obscure but still very large agencies like the NGIA. Never heard of the NGIA? I
didn't think so. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is a $4.9 billion a year agency.
Collectively, these agencies spend probably $50 billion to $60 billion a year, which make them
a very small but powerful potent sector in the American scheme of power.
Want to know how the NGIA spent your $4.9 billion? Good luck. Want to see a line item budget
of CIA activities in Africa last year? Move along. It's true that Congress nominally has
oversight powers over these agencies. Our elected officials do have their security clearances
that we don't have, so they can go in and look at selected operations. But the intelligence
oversight system is very weak as even its defenders will admit. The intelligence committees
polarized and politicized can't even agree on what kind of secret activities they're supposed
to monitor. The FISA court system is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance by their
government, but it largely functions as a rubberstamp of the secret agencies. A secret
government is the norm in America in 2018 which is why the discourse of the deep state has such
currency today.
Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. So who was he? Born in
December 1917, James Angleton grew up as the oldest son of James Hugh Angleton, a brash self-made American businessman who moved
to Milan, Italy during the Depression and made a fortune during the time Benito Mussolini selling cash registers. Angleton
attended private school in England. He went to Yale College, and then to Harvard Law school. He was a precocious good-looking
young man with sophisticated manners and a literary frame of mind.
As an undergraduate, he befriended his fellow expatriate – Ezra Pound – in
Italy. Pound was the modernist poet in the mad tribune of Mussolini's fascism. In their
correspondence, which I found at Yale, Angleton sometimes ape the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Ezra
Pound. For example, criticizing the Jewish book merchants who he thought overcharged for
Pound's books.
In 1943, Angleton was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services, America's first
foreign intelligence service stationed in Rome during and after World War II. He excelled at
secret intelligence work. I tell a story in The Ghost of how he rescued a leading Nazi and a
leading Italian fascist from postwar justice. Among other tasks, he reported on the flow of
Jews escaping from Germany and heading for Palestine. The revelations of the Holocaust
transformed his disdain for Jews into something of sympathy. He began to develop sources among
the leaders of the Jewish and Zionist organizations – including Teddy Kollek who was a
British intelligence agent, and a German operative named Arthur Pier who later became known as
Asher Ben-Natan.
With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the
CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence
staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. In those days, the
CIA was right here in the heart of Washington. It's hard for people to believe now, but the CIA
was located in a series of temporary buildings located along the reflecting pool next to the
Lincoln Memorial. The tempos, as they were called by CIA people, were drafty in the winter, hot
in the summer, and devoid of charm year-round. But this is where Angleton worked, at what was
known as the Office of Special Operations.
Angleton, while sympathetic to Jewish suffering, was still very wary of Israel when he
started his career at the CIA. Before the 1948 war, the Jewish army had been largely armed by
Czech arms manufacturers and communist Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was the first country
to recognize the state of Israel in 1948. Angleton initially feared that the Soviets would use
Israel as a platform for injecting spies into the West. The Israelis, for their part, were
looking to cultivate American friends. Stalin's anti-Semitic purges in 1948 showed that his
allegiance to the Jewish state was superficial at best.
In 1950 a man named Reuven Shiloah, the founder of Israel's first intelligence organization,
came to Washington. He visited the CIA and he came away very impressed with how it was
organized. He went back to Israel and in April 1951, he created out of a very fractious
collection of security forces what was known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special
Tasks – inevitably known as Mossad, Hebrew for institute.
In 1951 Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion came to the United States and brought Shiloah with
him. Ben-Gurion met privately with President Truman, and Angleton arrange for Ben-Gurion to
also have lunch with his friend Allen Dulles who would shortly become the director of the CIA.
The purpose of this meeting, Efrain Halevy, a retired director of the Mossad and a longtime
friend of Angleton's told me in an interview in Tel Aviv, the purpose was in Halevy's words to
clarify in no uncertain terms that notwithstanding what had happened between Israel and United
States 1948 and notwithstanding that Russia had been a key factor in Israel's survival, Israel
considered itself part of the Western world and would maintain the relationship with the United
States in this spirit.
Shiloah stayed on in Washington to work out the arrangements with Angleton. Shiloah,
according to his biographer, soon developed a special relationship – quote/unquote
– and Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. Angleton
return the favor by traveling to Israel often. He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of
counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet.
Manor headed up Operation Balsam which was the Israeli's conduit to the Americans. "They
told me I had to collect information about the Soviet bloc and transmit it to them," Manor
recalled about the Americans. "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving
them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use
Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they
should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad
relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life.
In 1963 a man named Isser Harel was succeeded as the chief of Mossad by a military
intelligence officer named Meir Amit. Amit found Angleton to be a little eccentric, but he
noted that his – quote – identification with Israel was a great asset for Israel.
Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement
role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's
closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's
Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist
state.
As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a
couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was
extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA,
but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the
latent qualities that would make him powerful.
Second, Angleton's creative intellect and his operational audacity inspired deep feelings of
loyalty among the Israelis. While Angleton's counterintelligence vision would become very
controversial within and bitterly divisive within the CIA, he was widely admired in Israel as a
stalwart friend. He still is to this day.
In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In
1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist
Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph
Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the
agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis.
Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be
seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the
region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on
the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. I tell a
lot of the story in The Ghost, but the story of Angleton in Israel is really so large and so
profound that it probably deserves its own book. I could certainly not do justice to it in the
18 minutes that I have, so I'm going to confine myself to one narrow question about the
tradeoffs that became implicit in this arrangement between the CIA and the Mossad and its
implications for us.
The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA
help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to
Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to.
Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a
subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate
himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden,
Jr. and others.
I want to just give you a sense of how this transpired. So the Nuclear Materials and
Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in
the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who
financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and
movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company.
At that time, the US government owned all of supplies of nuclear fuel which private
companies, like NUMEC, were allowed to use but ultimately had to return to the government.
Within a few years the Atomic Energy Commission noticed worrisome signs that the Apollo Plant
– NUMEC had a plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania – that the plant's security and
accounting were very deficient. Unexplained losses of nuclear material did happen at other
companies, but NUMEC's losses were proportionately much larger. By October 1965, the AEC
estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC
facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms.
John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely
with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment
of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used
it to build their nuclear arsenal. This story is now very well documented. In the spring of
1965, a technician working at the night shift at NUMEC went out on a loading dock for a breath
of fresh air and saw an unusual sight. Zalman Shapiro was pacing on the dock while a foreman
and truck driver loaded cylindrical storage containers, known as stovepipes, onto a flatbed
truck.
The technician saw a clipboard saying that the material was destined for Israel. It was
highly unusual to see Dr. Shapiro in the manufacturing section of the Apollo nuclear facility,
the technician said. It was unusual to see Dr. Shapiro there at night, and it was very unusual
to see Dr. Shapiro so nervous. The next day NUMEC's personnel manager visited the technician
and threatened to fire him if he did not keep his mouth shut, that's a quote, concerning what
he had seen. It would be 15 years before the employee told the story to the FBI.
What did Angleton know about NUMEC? Well, he knew that the AEC and the FBI were
investigating starting in 1965. As the Israel desk officer of the CIA, he talked about the
NUMEC case with liaison agent Sam Papich who was monitoring the investigation for the FBI. He
also spoke about it with his colleague John Hadden.
On the crime scene particulars, Hadden defended his former boss. "Any suggestion that
Angleton had help the Israelis with the NUMEC operation was totally without foundation," he
told journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn. But Hadden didn't deny that Angleton had helped
the Israeli nuclear program. Why would somebody whose whole life was dedicated to fighting
communism have any interest in preventing a very anti-Communist nation for getting the means to
defend itself, Hadden asked. The fact they stole it from us didn't worry him in the least, he
went on. I suspect that in his inmost heart he would have given it to them if they had asked.
Hadden knew better than to investigate any further. I never sent anything to Angleton on this
– the nuclear program – because I knew he wasn't interested, Hadden later told his
son, and I knew he'd try to stop it if I did.
With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first
nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and
still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought
collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. He believed that
the results proved his point. When he started as chief of the counterintelligence staff in
1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington – especially
at the State Department. When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held
twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and
the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by
expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated
diplomacy.
Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of
any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was
largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA
itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by
doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life
into the concept of the deep state.
I thought of this story when I visited one of the memorials to Angleton in Israel in 2016.
The memorial is located on a winding road outside the city of Mevaseret Zion, which is now
really a suburb of Jerusalem. Historically, control of this high ground has been seen as key to
the control of Jerusalem and of Palestine itself. A nearby ruins of a castle built by
12th-century Christian crusaders for exactly that purpose stands in mute testimony to the
importance of its strategic location.
The Angleton memorial consists of a pedestal of stones topped with a black plaque. To James
Angleton, a friend it says. This plaque was dedicated in 1987, a few months after Angleton
died, and it has been maintained by his Israeli friends ever since. It's still in perfect
condition. The location is no accident. In the course of his extraordinary career,
Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this
strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest
Zionist of the lot . Thank you.
Can Donald Trump be taken down? Life in Donald's America gets more farcical every day. We
cannot dump the Donald despite our collective desire to. At this point most Americans would
welcome any replacement. We are caught in a dangerous storm and we would trust near any
neighbor to take us in. Even one as creepy as Mike Pence. Who will give us shelter from the
storm? Lately it appears to be an aptly named porn star, Stormy Daniels. Porn is also the apt
comparison for the Donald saga. Absurd, painful and relentlessly climatic. Meanwhile on CNN and
more surreptitious browsers, porn rumbles on.
Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon released a YouTube video detailing some of the abuse they have
taken at the hands of the porn industry. Just weeks ago we learned of Donald Trump's affair
with porn star Stormy Daniels. Stormy has become the liberal media's latest sweetheart, perhaps
second only to FBI man Bob Mueller. The real storms and droughts that are ravaging the natural
world take a back seat to all scandalous details. Stopping the dismantling of environmental
protections by Donald Trump could in theory make all frivolous investigations worth it. That is
assuming that Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and co. are any better. I'd say don't count on it. With a
smoother operator in town Democrats would be even more hapless in fighting for the environment.
The Republican Party's libertarian commitment to dismantling the protections of the state would
continue. The only sort of protection the rich want are protections from the people. This is
done through militarizing the cops in poor communities. It is also done through taking away
impediments to profit. Who needs safety regulations or environmental protections when they
impede on the profits of the rich?
The mainstream media has paid little attention to Trump's war on the environment and has
instead focused on abstract values, most namely a "liberal democracy." Too often democracy,
especially a liberal democracy, is equated with capitalism. Freedom is defined by the
individual's right to make a profit and to form an identity from this profit. This freedom is
gained at expense of the earth and the people of the Global South. Global trade deals that
abuse workers of poor countries and strip protections from the environment are seen as an
expression of the never been freer global market. The right to find one's passion and voice is
seen as the greatest freedom here in America. The people of other countries and the earth we
stand upon get no voice. For every new invention and new expansion comes new exploitation and
new destruction of the earth.
At the same time the value of democracy is being questioned by the elites because the poor
supposedly brought us Donald Trump. The rich want to correct the mistakes of the poor through
unelected bureaucrats like Bob Mueller. The rich fail to understand that in our society money
means representation. The rich get the policies and politicians they want and the poor do not.
The concerns about campaign finance reform and inequality brought up by the Bernie Sanders
campaign and Occupy Wall St. are swept under the rug.
The dismissal of Sanders, Occupy and the like are part of a broader dismissal of young
people. Millennials are cast off as lazy when they don't come out to vote for hopeless
Democrats or heartless Republicans. On the contrary, I see the lack of young people voting as a
sign of hope. We understand that our liberal capitalist democracy is not working, regardless of
who runs the show. How we create a new world is a much more difficult question. I see denial of
the old one as a fine first step.
The mainstream media is so out of touch with young people it has become a joke to even
engage with the high brow liberal outlets, even the ones who are potentially quite thoughtful.
Take this recent New Yorker article with an intriguing title: "Donald Trump and the Stress Test
of Liberal Democracy". The author David Remnick quotes Yascha Mounk: "Mounk, who teaches
government at Harvard, points out that one reason for the increasing indifference to democratic
rule and the rising enthusiasm for authoritarian alternatives, particularly among young people,
is the widening historical distance from any direct experience of the horrors of German Fascism
or Soviet Communism." Huh? It has been the old people who are mislabeling Trump a fascist and
Obama a communist. The young people see that both men are capitalists. It is the old people who
are questioning the value of democracy. They are right to call Trump undemocratic in his
actions. But they get really confused when they try to explain his success. How did he do it
without the endorsement of established undemocratic American institutions they ask. They
naturally just blame the dumb people who elected Trump rather than the capitalists who took
away their education, jobs, and economic security.
To the author's point though I think that young people are seeing the limits of a an unequal
liberal democracy. We have elections and free speech, which is awesome. But we have no time or
money or long term security. The politicians answer overwhelmingly to corporate interests. How
are we supposed to become politically involved?
The broader question we are asking is: how valuable is a society that liberates the
individual at the expense of the society? This is the ideology of neoliberalism. Basically all
actions are done with the word "liberal" in mine. Liberate the markets through stripping
protections for workers and the planet. Liberate the Other in a distant land through military
intervention. Liberate each person so they can make a profit off of people if they work hard
enough or play dirty enough.
My only criticism of the millennial generation is that we have chosen to interact through
self-focused and inherently isolating social media, internet, and entertainment platforms. It
is very easy to construct a world of one's own online. Making a world that works for all of us
must be done away from our phones, laptops and headphones.
The porn industry is seen as one of the ways our society is more liberated than ever before.
Like other industries of consumption the conditions of the workers are ignored. If a product is
cheap for the consumer it is seen as liberating. They say we have never had so many options to
buy and consume things, which is true. But what about the people who make these things? What
about the people who cannot get jobs because of this newfound efficiency? What about the
resources we take from the earth as we consume? To each their own, the liberal democracy
answers.
There was some justified horror about the death threats that porn star Mia Khalifa received
from ISIS. ISIS is a child of the liberating American Empire but their actions are always
blamed on the Muslim community. We are told that the East hates women and that the West loves
women. We are told that "our" women are sexually free while "their" women are sexually
oppressed. We are told that porn is a way for women to empower themselves. Like all
relationships under the free market, the relationship between women and men are assumed to be
"free and equal."
What then to make of this latest story from Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon? They were forced to
eat apples to induce vomit from the blow jobs they were to give. The blow job induced choking
and despite signals from the actors, the man in the scene would not let up. Raven says: "I got
in trouble and was beat vigorously with the largest, strongest hands you can imagine," "I
proceeded to get slapped in the face, I proceeded to be slapped on my ass, my thighs, my inner
thighs, and at this point I begin to cry and now I'm not just crying because I'm deep-throating
a dick." ."He recognized the fact that my legs were shaking and he found it funny and he made
me sit up higher, which made it hurt a lot more," "I was being penetrated extremely, extremely
deep" "I was squeezing his leg, his left thigh, I think, as hard as I could while pushing away
and wincing in pain and tears coming down my face, and he would smack my hand away, say some
sort of 'dumb white bitch' comment." ."I'm pretty sure, like, the first thing that happens in
the intro video with Rico is he comes in and just slaps me across the face really hard, like
really hard." ."I couldn't breathe, it went black, I saw stars, I was stunned. Near
unconscious."
Why didn't they leave? Because they needed to pay rent. They feared repercussions, perhaps
sexual ones, from their superiors. This is not so uncommon now for millennials, as sex for rent
is something demanded by landlords too. As internet hero Jimmy McMillan tells us: the rent is
just too damn high.
What the rich do not realize is that to survive under capitalism one must do whatever it
takes to pay the bills. Incarcerating drug dealers who have no other way to make a living is
one prevalent example of the punishing of the poor in an unequal society. Ultimately these
stories are a result of the failure of the state to provide the basic needs for the individual.
Now is the time for a Universal Basic Income. No one should have to live like this to
survive.
Stormy Daniels is the latest beacon of hope for the liberals looking to take down Trump.
Let's hope she succeeds. But just as Bob Mueller was paraded through the headlines everyday
without a mention of the evils of the FBI, Stormy is brought up everyday without a mention of
the cruelty of the porn industry. There is no mention of the negative implications of watching
porn either. One would think there could be some links drawn between porn and the violence
against women exposed through the #MeToo movement. Although as I have noted before, domestic
violence remains an untouchable subject for the media. The toxic nature of porn has been
well-documented by many feminists, most notably, Andrea Dworkin. Porn tells us that it is a
freedom to be cruel to other people. Could anything better fit the mentality of Donald
Trump?
Don't look for the defenders of a free market democracy to help us either. As nice as it may
sound as a principle, the implications of such a self-centered society have been deadly. There
are few left in the mainstream who question the ultimate freedom that capitalism brings to us.
Stormy Daniels, Russia, or any other scandal may ultimately give us shelter from the storm of
Donald Trump. The rent for this shelter unfortunately still depends on the benevolence of those
with the freedom to exploit us under capitalism. Regardless of whether we survive Hurricane
Donald, liberal democracy has a leaky roof. It will be up to those of us interested in a
collective society to build something more durable.
Military Contractors have 400 lobbyists, revolving doors with military officers and
civilian officials, jobs in congressional districts; plus, corporations and their employees
contribute to election campaigns. Most importantly, they are part of the connected elite. You
are groomed to succeed and are paid handsomely if you belong to their exclusive club.
Unfortunately, today the system is corrupt and the global establishment has absolutely no
concern for the well-being of American citizens.
Blaming Russia for the 2016 election and Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatening U.S. troops in
Manjib Syria are signs of the House of Cards collapsing around us.
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
Our military record is not so great. Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a
millennia. The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific
Theater of WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian
work), or a miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco
(War Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".
You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning
their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.
The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces
wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent
killers of their host.
Neocons are like clogged arteries -- you know they will be a problem but failing to
comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.
You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do
what is needed to clean out and become safe.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
Trump's game looks more and more like a V2.0 of Obama's "bait and switch" game... Another "change we can believe in" scam to
artificially extend the shelf life of neoliberal as a social system.
Notable quotes:
"... My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in). ..."
"... DT has lost some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise, quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.) ..."
"... The rapidly degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT. (Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy, opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or 'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc. ..."
"... On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' ..."
"... The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident. ..."
"... The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them, where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How is that going to play out? ..."
I keep vague track of Trump support by consulting various sites. DT enthusiasts are all very
keen on GAB, the censorship on twitter - reddit - youtube and other pop. drives them totally
crazy.
My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't
visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in).
DT has lost
some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any
involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise,
quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.)
Technotopists are going out of fashion (> global warming disasters.) -- The rapidly
degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT.
(Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy,
opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or
'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc.
On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' as is always the
case in these kind of 'tribal' belonging scenes, they have dragged in family members / friends,
through the usual conduits of social influence in micro-circles. Which has been made
exceptionally easy by the terminal idiocy, blindness and contradictions of the MSM, Dems and
the PTB (incl. top Republicans, corporations, etc.) generally. Authoritarian impulses (which DT
embraces in part - the WALL is a good ex. - for the rest, hmm..) will flourish up to a
point.
The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of
top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers
of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident.
The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them,
where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their
fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How
is that going to play out?
About non-posts, I was going to go into the murder of Kim Jong-Nam (brother of today's Kim)
which ties two threads together - NKorea and murder by nerve gas. (Hoarse mentioned this in the
other thread.)
Posted on
March 10, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. As depressing and
predictable as it is to see Democrats yet again prostituting themselves to financiers, payback
may finally be coming. From Lambert in Water Cooler
yesterday :
Senate: Poll: Five Senate Dems would lose to GOP challenger if elections held today" [
The Hill ]. "New polls published Thursday morning in Axios show Sens. Claire McCaskill
(D-Mo.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi
Heitkamp (D-N.D.) would all lose reelection to GOP challengers if voters were heading to the
polls this week." Blue Dogs all. Why vote for a fake Republican when you can vote for a real
one?
So these Blue Dogs who are gutting the already underwhelming Dodd Frank may not be with us
much longer, at least politically. And even though the party is remarkably insistent on
adhering to a strategy of corporate toadying that has led it to hemorrhage seats at all levels
of government, if these seats all go red, it might be a message even the Democrats might not be
able to ignore.
By Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator. Originally published at
Alternet
This act of regulatory vandalism highlights everything that is corrupt about our
political system.
As if to maximize the possibility of another major financial crisis, the Trump
administration and the GOP have recently been busy undercutting the limited safeguards
established a decade ago via Dodd-Frank. The latest example of this stealth attack on Wall
Street reform is the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act,
appropriately sponsored by Republican Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, chairman of the Senate
Banking Committee. Appropriate, because this is literally a "crapo" bill. It provides a few
"technical tweaks" to Dodd-Frank in the same way in which protection payouts to organized crime
provide businesses with "insurance" against property damage. In reality, it is an act of
regulatory vandalism, which highlights everything that is corrupt about our political
system.
We have grown to expect no less from the GOP, whose sole r aison d'etre these days
seems to be filling the trough from which America's fat cats can perpetually gorge themselves.
What is truly disturbing, however, is that the Republican effort is being given bipartisan
cover by more than a dozen Democratic senators: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi
Heitkamp (N.D.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner and Tim Kaine (both from Va.), Claire
McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Chris Coons
(Del.), and Tom Carper of Delaware. To this esteemed group, we should also add Senator Angus
King (ME), an Independent who regularly caucuses with the Democrats. So, in reality, it's a
filibuster-proof "Baker's Dirty Dozen." Digging into the details, perhaps this is what Senator
Mitch McConnell had in mind when he predicted
more bipartisanship in Congress this year . In co-sponsoring this bill, the 13 senators are
providing cover for the GOP when the inevitable fallout comes, dissipating the Democrats'
political capital with the electorate in the process.
Yes, we get it: some of these senator incumbents are in red states that voted heavily for
Donald Trump in the last election. And
the latest polls suggest many are vulnerable in this year's elections. But the last time we
checked, there didn't seem to be an overwhelming wave of populist protest demanding regulatory
relief for banks. All 50 states -- red and blue -- suffered from the last financial crisis, and
it's hard to believe voters in Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana or Missouri would
be more likely to support Senators Tester, Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly or McCaskill because
they backed a bank deregulation bill (which in reality goes well beyond helping small community
banks). Nor do the 2018 races factor as far as Senators Warner, Coons, or Bennet are concerned,
given that none are up for re-election this year.
No, the more likely answer is money, plain and simple. The numbers aren't in for 2017, but
an analysis of the Federal Election Commission data from the 2016 election appears to explain
what is driving this newfound solicitousness toward the banks. The
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) points out that "nine of the twelve Democrats
supporting the deregulatory measure count the financial industry as either their biggest or
second-biggest donor." (At least now we have a better understanding as to why Hillary Clinton's
" responsibility
gene " induced her to select running mate Tim Kaine, who
received "large contributions from Big Law partners that represent Wall Street," as opposed
to a genuine finance reformer, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren is vigorously
opposing the new bill.)
"included among his 20 largest donors the mega Wall Street banks Goldman Sachs and
JPMorgan Chase. Goldman's employees and PACs gave Warner's campaign $71,600 while JPMorgan
Chase gave the Warner campaign committees $50,566 Senator Heidi Heitkamp is also up for
reelection this year and her number one contributor at present is employees and/or PACs of
Goldman Sachs which have contributed $79,500 thus far."
Naturally, all of the senators claim their motives are pure. With no hint of irony, a
spokesman
for Tim Kaine suggested that , "Campaign contributions do not influence Senator Kaine's
policy positions." Likewise, an aide for Mark Warner vigorously
contested the idea that campaign donations from Wall Street ever influenced the Virginia
senator's decision-making on policy matters. Sure, and it was shocking to find out that
gambling took place in Rick's Café.
It is true, as Senator Jon Tester (another co-sponsor)
notes , that the proposed changes introduced in the Crapo bill (notably the increase in the
asset size from $50 billion to $250 billion of those banks that are considered "systemically
important" and therefore subject to greater oversight and tighter rules) do not affect the
likes of Wall Street banks such as Citigroup, JP MorganChase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley, all of which are still covered by the most stringent oversight provisions
of Dodd-Frank. But the increased asset threshold does exempt the U.S. bank holding companies of
systemically significant foreign banks: Deutsche Bank, UBS and Credit Suisse, all of whom were
implicated in multiple violations of both American and international banking laws in the
aftermath of the 2008 crisis.
Deutsche Bank alone has paid billions of dollars for its role in perpetuating mortgage
fraud,
money-laundering and interest rate manipulation (the LIBOR scandal), which ideally should
invite more regulatory scrutiny, not less. Instead, a new law ostensibly crafted to provide a
few "technical fixes" for Dodd-Frank is now reducing the regulatory oversight of a bank that
has been
cited in an IMF report as one of Germany's "global systemically important financial
institutions." Translating the couched-IMF-speak, the report suggests that Deutsche Bank on its
own has the potential to set off a new global contagion, given the scale of its derivatives
exposure. Not only too big to fail, but evidently too big to regulate properly either, aided
and abetted by members of a party who claim to be appalled at the level of corruption in the
Trump administration.
Another side-effect of raising the regulatory threshold to $250 billion in assets is that it
diminishes the chance of obtaining an early warning detection signal from somewhat smaller
financial institutions. As the experience of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns illustrated,
smaller problems that remain hidden in the shadows can ultimately metastasize if left alone,
and become much bigger -- and more systemically dangerous -- later.
So when Senator Kaine nobly suggests
that he is merely providing relief for "small community banks and credit unions" in his home
state, or Jon Tester argues that he is only helping local banks suffering from Dodd-Frank's
regulatory overkill, both are being extraordinarily disingenuous. The reality is that
increasing the oversight threshold by 500 percent does not just help a few "small community
banks and credit unions" crawl out from a thicket of onerous and costly regulation. Even former
Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who favored some regulatory relief for community banks, felt that
$250 billion threshold
was excessive ly lax.
In fact, (
per the Americans for Financial Reform ), the increase "removes the most severe mandate for
25 of the 38 largest banks," which
together "account for over $3.5 trillion in banking assets, more than one-sixth of the U.S.
total." Additionally, as Pat Garofalo
writes : "The bill also includes an exemption from capital standards -- essentially the
amount of money that banks need to have on hand in case things go south -- that benefits some
big financial firms, and even more are lobbying to be included." In other words, this isn't
just George Bailey's friendly neighborhood bank that is getting some regulatory relief
here.
All of this newfound regulatory laxity comes at a time when many of the largest Wall Street
banks have again resurrected the same practices that almost destroyed them a decade ago. Bank
credit analyst Chris Whalen
observes : "The leader of this effort is none other than Citigroup (NYSE:C), which has
surpassed JP MorganChase (NYSE:JPM) to become the largest derivatives shop in the world. Citi
has embraced the most notorious product of the roaring 2000s, the synthetic collateralized debt
obligation or 'CDO' security, a product that fraudulently leverages the real world and
literally caused the bank to fail a decade ago."
Another example: Trump and his henchman, Mick Mulvaney, have also joined the big banks in
attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which by virtue of the Crapo act, will be
blocked "from collecting key data showing when and where families of color are being
overcharged for home loans or steered into predatory products."
Let's be honest here: even in its original form, Dodd-Frank was the bare minimum the
government could have done in the wake of the 2008 disaster. But lobbyists, paid-for
politicians and co-opted bank-friendly regulators have been busy "applying technical fixes" to
the bill virtually from the moment it was passed a decade ago. The upshot is that the
much-trumpeted Wall Street reform is a joke when compared to the comprehensive legislation
passed in the aftermath of the Great Depression (which set the stage for decades of relative
financial stability). Under Dodd, the banks are purportedly subject to "meaningful stress
tests" (
in the words of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell ), but the tests are neither
particularly stressful, nor do they adequately reflect today's twin dangers of off-balance
sheet leverage and the concentration of big banks' on-balance sheet assets in relatively
low-return loans.
What should have been done after the global financial crisis? Professors Eric Tymoigne and
Randall Wray
proposed the following :
"Any of the 'too big to fail' financial institutions that needed funding should have been
required to submit to Fed oversight. Top management should have been required to proffer
resignations as a condition of lending (with the Fed or Treasury holding the letters until
they could decide which should be accepted -- this is how Jessie Jones resolved the bank
crisis in the 1930s). Short-term lending against the best collateral should have been
provided, at penalty rates. A comprehensive 'cease and desist' order should have been
enforced to stop all trading, all lending, all asset sales, and all bonus payments until an
assessment of bank solvency could have been completed. The FDIC should have been called-in
(in the case of institutions with insured deposits), but in any case, the critically
undercapitalized institutions should have been dissolved according to existing law: at the
least cost to the Treasury and to avoid increasing concentration in the financial
sector."
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this whole sordid episode. An obvious one is that
our model of campaign finance is completely broken. While it is encouraging to see some
Democratic politicians increasingly adopting the Sanders model of fundraising,
swearing off large corporate donations , not enough are doing so. Democrats are united in
their concern pertaining to foreign threats that pose risks to the integrity of U.S. elections,
but the vigorous opposition to Vladimir Putin and the Russians isn't extended to the domestic
oligarchs destroying American democracy (and the economy) from within.
The whole history behind Senator Crapo's bill shows how quickly bank lobbyists can
routinely exploit their financial muscle to turn a seemingly innocuous bill into something
which pokes yet more holes into the Swiss Cheese-like rules already in place for Dodd. The
Baker's Dirty Dozen have accepted donations from Wall Street that not only constrain their
ability to implement genuine reforms in finance (and other areas) but also discourage the
mobilization of voters, who see this legislative horror show, and consequently opt out of
showing up to vote at elections because they know that the system is rigged and dominated by
corporate cash (making their votes irrelevant).
Ironically, no less a figure than Donald Trump exploited that voter cynicism in 2016. In
striking contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, and Wall Street (and made effective
mockery of Hillary Clinton's ties to Goldman Sachs) and thereby mobilized blue-collar voters in
marginal Rust Belt states, giving him his path to the presidency. Of course, we now know that
this was all bait-and-switch politics, likely facilitated by forces outside the U.S., along
with large corporation donations from domestic elites. We've probably reached the endgame as
far as this "
investment approach to politics " as it disintegrates into a cesspool of corruption and
further financial fragility. It may take another crash before this problem is truly fixed.
In the meantime, this bipartisan subversion of Wall Street reform not only risks making the
next crisis at least as bad as 2008, but also reinforces the notion that both parties are
equally corrupt,
catalyzing the collapse of the American political order . In a further sick twist of fate,
the twin corrosive forces of "golden rule politics" (i.e., he who has the gold rules) and a
rapidly deflating "bubble-ized" economy could all come to a head under the watch of Donald the
Unready. But he won't own this disaster alone, thanks to the help of compromised Wall Street
Democrats.
Jen
Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan from my deep purple state of NH both, voted to allow the bill
to proceed. And of course my esteemed congress critter, Annie Kuster, did her bit in congress. Only 968
days until I can exact my retribution on Shaheen at the polls, first and foremost for her vote in favor of
fast track, but damned if she doesn't give me another good reason on almost a daily basis.
The crisis of neoliberalism is at the core of current anti-Russian campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." ..."
"... As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources . ..."
"... The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers. ..."
"... Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on. ..."
The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it's attacking Russia's economy via sanctions and oil-price
manipulation. Second, it's increasing the threats to Russia's national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria
and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it's conducting a massive disinformation
campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a 'meddling aggressor' that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy.
(Elections)
In response to Washington's hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight
the world's biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia
wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate,
however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can
arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won't allow that, which is
why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice
of global security rests.
The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the
media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the
allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington's Full Spectrum Dominance
theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator
of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as
possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and
the Middle East. The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia's opposition to Washington's
destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon's "emerging rivals" list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.
Washington's war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the
fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations
to intervene on behalf of the "Whites" hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, the goal was "to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib."
According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:
" the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak .As
early as February 1918 Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops
in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually,
more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia
The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little,
if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end
of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers .British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern
Front but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were
withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain .
The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism." (Allied
Intervention in the Russian Revolution", portalus.ru)
The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First,
it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia's business more than a century. Second, it shows that–
while Washington's war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow– it has never completely ended.
The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia's global activities put
a damper on Washington's depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet
Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up
to a democratization program that allowed the state's most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for
pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow
to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to
"shock therapy" which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to
rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved
looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist
Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented
poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous
other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued firms didn't have the money to even pay their employees . they didn't
have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers .Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects
of life started to deteriorate. They didn't have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school
systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just
began to affect people in every dimension of their lives .
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with
more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people
than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few .But you had a shrinking
(economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell
by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices,
and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory.
But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then
western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." At the same time, Washington continued
its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and
industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev
that NATO would never "expand one inch to the east", the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of
them straddling Russia's western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia's doorstep, all of them posing an existential
threat to Russia's survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while
state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or
on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation
in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what
he said.
LAVROV– "Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal
partnership in international affairs .Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the
Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders
When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the
former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition.
However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create
the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders
– through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU's Eastern Partnership program
As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats
were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main
reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture
and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective.
It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global
economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources .
The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed .The new centers
of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions.
Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep
the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in
defense of their right to decide their own destiny ." (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)
The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's
enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in
the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging
reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and
seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making,
and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers.
Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the
vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn't want to see
Washington's wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?
Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.
Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on.
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex
scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a
moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few
former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either
event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress
will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.
In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without
breaking his hold on power.
Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be
shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S.
presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.
In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to
take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical
threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China
tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic
, intelligence
, and financial
networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat
Bill Clinton.
This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major
Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers,
including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts
and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most
notably James
T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and
Charlie Trie ). Several others fled
the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National
Committee was forced to return millions of dollars
in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).
It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of
Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of
collusion.
Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found
to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance
violations.
Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our
democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and
normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba,
Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that
radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in
his administration
forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S.
manufacturing workers.
Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well --
despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the
contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese.
And indeed, the companies in question were eventually
found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid
unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George
W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.
For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so
disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent
counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been "
bought ."
Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton
could not get rid of, having just
fired his predecessor ) publically called
for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with
investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La
Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno
-- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's
apparent obstruction.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for
nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the
president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at
every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.
This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital
affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that
Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the
State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there,
appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.
The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the
President's invocation of executive
privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury ,
subsequent
impeachment by the House,
acquittal in the Senate, and eventual
plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related
to the president.
Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite
continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both
the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle,
Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current
foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of
the last.
And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an
apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again
competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer
Flowers and Paula Jones both
posed for Penthouseafter their involvement with Clinton surfaced.
Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal are well-established in the industry.)
Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of
infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual
misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore,
although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to
testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the
legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such
theater is likely being overestimated as well.
The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that
Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and
outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize
their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward
the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time,
they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading
to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.
Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some
kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority
" thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?"
What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the
essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.
Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:
The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see
Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find
themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party
always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed
policy proposals, and little else.
Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning
the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.
Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to
bring Trump down.
Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races
tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a
"lesser of two evils" the public
tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats
don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.
A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it
looks like the president will even have
an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.
Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there
just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs
these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just
alienate the Democratic base.
The party's best bet is to instead focus on
mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should
vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump
with
a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama
districts that
Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who
sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the
party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.
If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex
scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating
"black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.
But, you say, isn't Trump the
least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one
(un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval
ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic
landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking
even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50
percent after his first year.
You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first
year in office? The
Democratic Party.
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at
Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .
"... the four largest banks in America are on average 80% bigger today than they were before we bailed them out because they were "too big to fail". Incredibly, the six largest banks in America have over 10 trillion dollars in assets, equivalent to 54% of the GDP of this nation . This is wealth, this is power, this is who owns America. ..."
"... Very conservative, anti-regulatory people hold the White House and key positions in the House and the Senate, and the first thing the industry does is gut regulation. Why? Because it makes the CEOs so wealthy to run these frauds and predation. It's not necessarily good for the banking industry, but it is extremely good for the most senior leaders and they are the ones, of course, who hire and fire the lawyers and the lobbyists, and effectively hire and fire key members of Congress. ..."
"... Apparently, our memories are indeed so short that we have learned nothing from the 2008 Wall Street crash. Bernie Sanders (and probably Elizabeth Warren to some extend), are left alone again to fight against the Wall Street mafia because, apparently, the rest of the US political class has been bought from it. ..."
The six largest banks in America have over 10 trillion dollars in assets,
equivalent to 54% of the GDP of this nation. This is wealth, this is power, this is who owns
America.
Ten years after the big crash of 2007-08, caused by the Wall Street mafia, sending waves of
financial destruction around the globe, the awful Trump administration that literally put the
Goldman Sachs banksters in charge of the US economy, wants to reset the clock bomb of another
financial disaster by deregulating the financial sector! And guess what: the corporate
Democrats followed again!
Putting aside that Russiagate fiasco, Bernie Sanders was one more time the only voice of
resistance against the Wall Street mafia in a hypnotized by the banking-corporate money US
senate.
As Bernie stated:
Just ten years ago, as a result of greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street,
this country was plunged into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The official unemployment rate soared up to 10% and the real unemployment rate jumped to over
17%. At the height of the financial crisis more than 27 million Americans were unemployed,
underemployed or stopped working altogether because they could not find employment. 15 million
families - as a result of that financial crisis - lost their homes to foreclosure, as more and
more people could not afford to pay their mortgages. As a result of the illegal behavior of
Wall Street, American households lost over 13 trillion dollars in savings. That is what Wall
Street did 10 years ago.
Believe it or not - and of course we are not going to hear any discussion of this at all -- the four largest banks in America are on average 80% bigger today than they were before we
bailed them out because they were "too big to fail". Incredibly, the six largest banks in
America have over 10 trillion dollars in assets, equivalent to 54% of the GDP of this
nation . This is wealth, this is power, this is who owns America.
If any of these financial institutions were to get into a financial trouble again, there is no
doubt that, once again, the taxpayers of this country will be asked to bail them out. Except
this time, the bail out might even be larger than it was in 2008.
Bernie is right, the facts are all there, except that, again, he is the only one who speaks
about it.
Recall that according to chapter 20 conclusions of the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, "As a result of the rescues and consolidation of financial institutions through failures
and mergers during the crisis, the U.S. financial sector is now more concentrated than ever in
the hands of a few very large, systemically significant institutions."
Recall
also that in December 1, 2010, the Fed was forced to release details of 21,000 funding
transactions it made during the financial crisis, naming names and dollar amounts. Disclosure
was due to a provision sparked by Bernie Sanders. The voluminous data dump from the notoriously
secret Fed shows just how deeply the Federal Reserve stepped into the shoes of Wall Street and,
as the crisis grew and the normal channels of lending froze, the Fed effectively replaced Wall
Street and money centers banks in terms of financing. The Fed has thus far reported, without
even disclosing specifics of its lending from its discount window, that it supplied, in
total, more than $9 trillion to Wall Street firms, commercial banks, foreign banks,
corporations and some highly questionable off balance sheet entities. (Much smaller amounts
were outstanding at any one time.)
Bill Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, states:
In the savings loan debacle, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, George Akerlof and Paul Romer, who
until recently was Chief Economist to the World Bank, wrote that economists didn't realize -
because they lacked any theory of fraud - that deregulation was bound to create widespread
fraud and a crisis. Now, we know better if we learn the lessons of this crisis, we need not
recreate it.
Very conservative, anti-regulatory people hold the White House and key positions in the House
and the Senate, and the first thing the industry does is gut regulation. Why? Because it makes
the CEOs so wealthy to run these frauds and predation. It's not necessarily good for the
banking industry, but it is extremely good for the most senior leaders and they are the ones,
of course, who hire and fire the lawyers and the lobbyists, and effectively hire and fire key
members of Congress.
Apparently, our memories are indeed so short that we have learned nothing from the 2008 Wall
Street crash. Bernie Sanders (and probably Elizabeth Warren to some extend), are left alone
again to fight against the Wall Street mafia because, apparently, the rest of the US political
class has been bought from it.
Looks like neocons represent a trap in which the US society got and out of which there is not easy end. That trap
which can be fatal.
Notable quotes:
"... American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points ..."
"... In the " Empire of Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. ..."
"... The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel ..."
"... In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc. ..."
Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire
The leaders of the Empire, along with their brainwashed ideological
drones , live in a world completely detached from reality. This is why Martyanov writes
that the US " still continues to reside in her bubble which insulates her from any outside
voices of reason and peace " and that Putin's speech aimed at " coercing America's
elites into, if not peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently
completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of a newly emerging
world ". Martyanov explains that:
American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever
attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious
military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear
weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are
simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force.
They simply have no reference points. Yet, being a product of the American pop-military
culture, also known as military porn and propaganda, these people -- this collection of
lawyers, political "scientists", sociologists and journalists who dominate the American
strategic kitchen which cooks non-stop delusional geopolitical and military doctrines, can
understand one thing for sure, and that is when their poor dears get a bulls-eye on their
backs or foreheads.
The fact that in the real world these elites have had a bulls-eye on their backs for decades
doesn't change the fact that they also managed to convince themselves that they could remove
that bulls-eye by means of withdrawing from the ABM treaty and by surrounding Russia with
anti-missile launchers. The fact that some (many? most?) US politicians realized, at least in
the back of their minds, that their ABM systems would never truly protect the US from a Russian
counter-strike did not really matter because there were some uniquely American psychological
factors which made the notion of an ABM system irresistibly attractive:
1) An ABM system promised the US impunity : impunity is, along with military superiority,
one of the great American myths (as discussed here ). From Reagan
with this "weapons which kill weapons" to the current crisis in Korea, Americans have always
strived for impunity for their actions abroad: let all countries drown in an ocean of fire,
murder and mayhem as long as our "homeland" remains the untouchable sacrosanct citadel. Since
WWII Americans have killed many millions of people abroad, but when 9/11 came (nevermind that
it was obviously a false flag) the country went into something like clinical shock from the
loss of about 3'000 innocent civilians. Soviet, and then later, Russian nuclear weapons
promised to deliver many tens of millions of deaths if the USSR/Russia was attacked and that is
why spinning the fairy tale about an ABM "shield" was so appealing even if it was
technologically speaking either a pipe-dream (Reagan's "Star Wars") or an extremely limited
system capable of stopping maybe a few missiles at most (the current ABM system in Europe).
Again, facts don't matter at all, at least not in American politics or in the US collective
psyche.
2) An ABM system promised a huge financial bonanza for the fantastically corrupt US
Military-Industrial Complex for which millions of Americans work and which made many of them
fantastically rich. Frankly, I suspect that many (most?) folks involved in the ABM programs
fully realized that this was a waste of time, but as long as they were getting their bank
accounts filled with money, they simply did not care: hey, they pay me – I will take
it!
3) The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or
self-sacrifice (for obvious reasons). The various variations of the ABM fairy tale make it
possible for Americans to believe that the next war would be mostly fought by pressing buttons
and relying on computers. And if real bombs start falling, let them fall somewhere else,
preferably on some remote brown people who, well, ain't quite as precious to God and humanity
as us, the White "indispensable nation".
Add to this a quasi-religious belief (a dogma, really) in the myth of American technological
superiority and you understand that the Russian leaders began to realize that their US
counterparts were gradually forgetting that they did have a bulls-eye painted on their backs.
So what Putin did is simply paint a few more, different ones, just to make sure that US leaders
come back to reality.
The goal of Putin's speech was also to prove both Obama ("the Russian economy is in
tatters") and McCain ("Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country") wrong. The Russian
message to the US ruling elites was simple: no, not only are we not lagging behind you
technologically, in many ways we are decades ahead of you, in spite of sanctions, your attempts
to isolate us, the dramatic drop in energy prices or your attempts at limiting our access to
world markets (the successful development of this new generation of weapons systems is a clear
indicator of the real state of fundamental research in Russia in such spheres are advanced
alloys, nanotechnology, super-computing, etc.).
To the warmongers at the Pentagon, the message was equally clear and tough: we spend less
than 10% of what you can spend on global aggression; we will match your quantitative advantage
with our qualitative superiority. Simply put, you fight with dollars, we will fight with
brains. US propagandists, who love to speak about how Russia always uses huge numbers of
unskilled soldiers and dumb but brutal weapons now have to deal with a paradigm which they are
completely unfamiliar with: a Russian soldier is much better trained, much better equipped,
much better commanded and their morale and willpower is almost infinitely higher than one of
the typical US serviceman. For a military culture used to mantrically repeat that everything
about it is "the best in the world" or even "the best in history" this kind of new reality will
come as a very painful shock and most will respond to it by going into deep denial. To those
who believed in the (historically completely false) narrative about the US and Reagan
bankrupting the USSR by means of a successful arms race, it must feel very strange to have sort
of "traded places" with the bad old USSR and being in the situation of having to face
military-spending induced bankruptcy.
Nothing will change in the Empire of Illusions (at least for the foreseeable
future)
Speaking of bankruptcy. The recent revelations have confirmed what the Russians have been
warning about for years: all the immense sums of money spent by the US in ABM defenses have
been completely wasted. Russia did find and deploy an asymmetrical response which makes the
entire US ABM program completely useless and obsolete. Furthermore, as Martyanov also points
out, the current force structure of the US surface fleet has also been made basically obsolete
and useless, at least against Russia (but you can be sure that China is following close
behind). Potentially, this state of affairs should have immense, tectonic repercussions:
immense amounts US taxpayer money has been completely wasted, the US nuclear and naval
strategies have been completely misguided, intelligence has failed (either on the acquisition
or the analytical level), US politicians have made disastrous decisions and this is all a total
"cluster-bleep" which should trigger God knows how many investigations, resignations, and
numerous sanctions, administrative or even criminal ones. But, of course, absolutely nothing of
this, nothing at all, will happen. Not a single head will roll
In the " Empire of
Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now
self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. And, in a way, that
is true.
The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will
understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites
who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have
way too much at stake to throw in the towel.
In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we
can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down.
So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and
outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my
attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized
public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud
US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we
stand! Etc. etc. etc.
"... The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime. ..."
I
AM UNDER ATTACK In the 40 years that I have spent in American Politics, I have never seen a
more hysterical lynch mob than the one at MSNBC , and other "Trump Hating" fake news
sites. If you read the Washington Post, Salon or Vice , they would have you
believe that I am on the verge of being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for
obtaining copies of the allegedly hacked DNC emails acquired and published by Julian Assange,
and passing them to Donald Trump and his campaign.
The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher
of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that
obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime.
There is only one little problem with this conspiracy theory. I never received anything from
Wikileaks, or the Russians, or anyone else. I never sent Donald Trump anything. In fact, I
never discussed the Wikileaks disclosures or allegedly hacked DNC emails with Donald Trump
before during or after the election.
I testified for four hours before the House Intelligence Committee months ago, debunking
this left-wing conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, although members of the Committee disparaged
me in public session, I was only allowed to respond behind closed doors. Suggestions by the
grumbling Democratic minority and amplified by Politico that my testimony was less than
honest are completely and categorically false.
Last week someone on the staff of the House of Intelligence Committee leaked a carefully
doctored and truncated screenshot of the direct message exchange I had with WikiLeaks. This
material was long ago supplied to the House Intelligence Committee and even in its heavily
edited form, proves yet again that I had no coordination or collaboration with WikiLeaks.
"... In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities. ..."
"... The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog" scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and military-industrial commercial interests. ..."
"... Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent, because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge ..."
"... When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed: "There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people." ..."
"... they simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to distract them. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned ..."
"... The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election ..."
"... Yet on March 16, 2017, Daniel Jones -- himself a team member of Fusion GPS, self-described former FBI agent and, as we now know from the media, an ex-Feinstein staffer -- met with my lawyer, Adam Waldman, and described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping the government," funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." My lawyer testified these facts to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Nov. 3. Mr. Soros is, not coincidentally, also the funder of two "ethics watchdog" NGOs (Democracy 21 and CREW) attacking Rep. Nunes' committee memo. ..."
"... A former Obama State Department official, Nuland, has been recently outed as another shadow player, reviewing and disseminating Fusion's dossier, and reportedly, hundreds of other dossiers over a period of years. "Deep State-proud loyalists" apparently was a Freudian slip, not a joke. ..."
In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a
fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a
political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public
by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a
war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a
false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line
keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities.
The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog"
scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly
small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in
shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and
military-industrial commercial interests.
When I attended the Munich Security Conference in
February, the extraordinary, coordinated message of a panel of U.S. senators was summarized by
moderator Victoria Nuland, former assistant secretary of state under President Barack Obama,
as: "Deep State-proud loyalists giv[ing] broad reassurance about continuity." One of the
panelists, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), said: "What the Breitbart crowd would call the
'Deep State' is what many of us would call 'knowledgeable professionals.'" The panel's uniform
message was essentially: Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent,
because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge .
When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for
defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed:
"There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent
of the interests of the people."
What has been inelegantly termed the "Deep State" is really this: shadow power exercised by
a small number of individuals from media, business, government and the intelligence community,
foisting provocative and cynically false manipulations on the public. Out of these
manipulations, an agenda of these architects' own design is born.
Unfortunately, I am personally familiar with this group. Before they moved to their current,
bigger ambitions of reversing the U.S. presidential election results, they scurrilously
attacked me and others from the shadows for two decades. The various story lines and roles they
have created for me don't survive close scrutiny and are internally inconsistent, yet they
simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to
distract them.
President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned : "Behind the ostensible government
sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility
to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between
corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task."
The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central
architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the
dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own
congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its
aftermath, to attack Russia and to "embarrass" me and cause trouble for the company I
founded.
This inconvenient disclosure necessitated a new story line. Former Democratic National
Committee chairwoman and CNN commentator Donna Brazile attacked
the memo prepared by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on
television as "the weaponization of classified information." It is ironic that someone who once
ran the organization that allegedly rigged the primary nomination process and who was fired
from CNN for allegedly rigging a presidential debate is now producing "Russian-rigging"
stories.
World War II hero and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) once
observed , in a different context: "There exists a shadowy government with its own
fundraising mechanism." Wagging the dog costs money. So, who is the "funding mechanism" of this
"shadowy government?"
Fusion GPS's Simpson, in a New York Times op-ed describing his own Judiciary Committee
testimony, claimed a neoconservative website "and the Clinton campaign" were "the Republican
and Democratic funders of our Trump research." The Judiciary Committee's Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) then unilaterally released, over the objection of committee chairman Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa), Simpson's testimony to "set the record straight." Fusion GPS "commended
Senator Feinstein for her courage."
Yet on March 16, 2017, Daniel Jones -- himself a team member of Fusion GPS,
self-described former FBI agent and, as we now know from the media, an ex-Feinstein staffer --
met with my lawyer, Adam Waldman, and described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping
the government," funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." My lawyer
testified these facts to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Nov. 3. Mr. Soros is, not
coincidentally, also the funder of two "ethics watchdog" NGOs (Democracy 21 and CREW) attacking
Rep. Nunes' committee memo.
A former Obama State Department official, Nuland, has been recently outed as another
shadow player, reviewing and disseminating Fusion's dossier, and reportedly, hundreds of other
dossiers over a period of years. "Deep State-proud loyalists" apparently was a Freudian slip,
not a joke.
Invented narratives -- not "of the people, by the people, for the people," but rather just
from a couple of people, cloaked in the very same hypocritical rhetoric of "freedom" and
"democracy" that those are actively undermining -- impede internationally shared efforts on the
world's most pressing, real issues, like global health, climate change and the future of
energy. My own "Mother Russia" has many problems and challenges, and my country is still in
transition from the Soviet regime -- a transition some clearly wish us to remain in
indefinitely.
But we need to stop this old movie.
Oleg Deripaska is the founder of UC Rusal, the world's leading producer of aluminum
using clean, renewable hydropower.
Russiagate is being used for a host of multipurpose items. Including the suppression of
any disagreement with the Mainstream Media, and any dissent with the official line.
"... In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian "hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice between government and the corporate world. ..."
"... And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling. ..."
"... There's no downside to making even the most absurd claims about Russia and Trump, no penalty for fabrications, misrepresentations, or getting facts wrong. If they were honest, their ledes might read: "This fictional news report is loosely based on a true story." Or: "Any resemblance in this story to real people and events is merely coincidental." ..."
In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian
"hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and
intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice
between government and the corporate world. Brennan was a well-known advocate for the
CIA's rendition and torture program, spying on its critics, and its use of drone bombings and
assassinations in the Middle East. And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he
was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate
staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM
apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling.
If the Russia "hacking" story has no legs, the more interesting piece of news is the
organized efforts of the Democrats and some Republicans to bring down Trump and turn over the
White House to theocrat Mike Pence. Mainstream pundits and reporters are churning out
unsubstantiated speculations about Russia and Trump by the hour. A number of Democrats,
military brass, and mercenary journalist (and former country club caddy) Thomas Friedman have
characterized alleged Russian intervention as a new "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11," thereby building
a case for war and for treason against the president. There's no downside to making even
the most absurd claims about Russia and Trump, no penalty for fabrications, misrepresentations,
or getting facts wrong. If they were honest, their ledes might read: "This fictional news
report is loosely based on a true story." Or: "Any resemblance in this story to real people and
events is merely coincidental."
"... ...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security. Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media. Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly veiled threats of the Attorney General and by their own fears about unemployment. ..."
"Empire" and "superpower" accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but
for that reason they obscure the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we
were to refer to "the Constitution of the American Empire" or "superpower democracy." The
reason they ring false is that "constitution" signifies limitations on power, while "democracy"
commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the
responsiveness of government to its citizens.
For their part, "empire" and "superpower" stand for the surpassing of limits and the
dwarfing of the citizenry. The increasing power of the state and the declining power of
institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The party system is a
notorious example.
...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been
short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them
responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and
wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of
corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security. Elections
have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an
electorate whose information about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through
corporate-dominated media. Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports
of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly veiled threats of the Attorney General and
by their own fears about unemployment.
What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the
inevitable discrediting of constitutional limitations and institutional processes that
discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic.
In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that
corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the
Republican Party
...At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of
capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and
technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive
.. a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing,
withdrawal or reduction of pension and health benefits; a corporate political system that
relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health benefits available,
especially to the poor. With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence,
it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism to employ a system of criminal justice that
is punitive in the extreme, relishes the death penalty and is consistently biased against the
powerless.
Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both
compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the
majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling
class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens
with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle
classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the
new economy recovers.
That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the
integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine
institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly
closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at
identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.
What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably
free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the
national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The
question for citizens is: Which way?
Sheldon Wolin Sheldon Wolin is the
author, most recently, of Alexis de Tocqueville: Man Between Two Worlds (Princeton). A
new edition of his book Politics and Vision is forthcoming. He is professor emeritus of
politics at Princeton University.
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike
still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
While McCain is a war veteran, his career was not in any way distinguished - rather he pretty
clearly was given "hall pass" after "hall pass" given his father and grandfather. It also
seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the
world.
"The Nightingale's Song" has an excellent treatment of his Naval Academy and service time,
along with and in contrast to Ollie North, Jim Webb, admiral Poindexter and Bud MacFarlane.
Not a pretty picture..
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or
Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
Seeing generations of your close and remote relatives killed and your property destroyed
as a result of war is usually a very sobering collective experience. McCain, apart from being
a rather exceptional warmonger, doesn't know what it is, despite experiencing some serious
trials while being a POW. Ike saw, for starters, concentration camps and, unlike, McCain was
mostly on the ground. This is a crucial distinction.
"It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view
of the world."
I agree, and, that was the point I tried to make, not all veterans are necessary qualified
MINDS for deciding future of the coming generations. I have the same suspicion for General
Kelly, having lost a son in Afghanistan and having power to influence the war in Afghanistan,
I think is this situation, like judges, one has to recuse him/herself to be part of planers.
If you are interested in Higgins and 'Bellingcat', you might want be interested in a
'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' which has recently been set up by a group of
British academics.
At the moment, work which has already been done is being prepared for publication on the
site. However, some of it has already appeared on the blog of one of the members, Tim
Hayward.
This includes a detailed discussion of the report of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
on the Khan Sheikhoun attack by Paul McKeigue.
His professorship, at Edinburgh, is in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics. This
means that, unlike most of us interested in these matters, with the obvious exception of
Theodore Postol, he has a grasp of a lot of relevant science.
A basic tool of his trade is a technique called 'Bayesian analysis', one of whose many
applications is to separate out genetic factors in disease from others. His use of it in the
piece may make bits of it somewhat hard going for those of us whose scientific education
stopped at school.
But if you are interested in a demonstration of the way that the kind of pure charlatanry
propagated by Higgins and Kaszeta has come to be accepted uncritically by supposed impartial
international bodies, you should read the piece.
Also on Hayward's blog is an article which was submitted to the Guardian's 'Comment is
Free' page, in response to a piece by Olivia Solon smearing those who have had the temerity
to suggest that the 'White Helmets' may be something less than a band of disinterested
charity workers, and an account of the attempts of the 'Working Group' to get a response from
the paper.
Thanks for the link. But what Mattis has said relates to the latest accusations, not early
ones. Key paragraphs:
'A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald
Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation
is said to have been launched.
'"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be
ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said.'
So he is not repudiating the conventional wisdom according to which sarin was used at Khan
Sheikhoun, and the possibility of a military response to a fresh 'false flag' is left open.
Unless he is basing his accusation on credible evidence, this to be blunt, comes close to
inciting jihadists to atrocity.
The extent -- and unscrupulousness -- of the mounting propaganda campaign in relation to
the recently claims is well brought out in a piece by Rick Sterling in 'Consortium News' on
Sunday. Whether those involved are still hoping to precipitate a serious American military
intervention, and whether those hopes might be realistic, I cannot say.
This makes the detailed demonstration by Professor McKeigue of the frankly farcical nature
of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun, to which I linked, all the
more important. In addition to exposing the total dependence of its analysis on a completely
incredible claim about the aircraft which is supposed to have delivered the chemical weapon,
and discussing much other evidence, he brings out a key point about developments in 'chemical
forensics' over the past years.
As well as the 1995 sarin attacks, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks led to an enormous
investment of money and intellectual energy in the development of analytical techniques
making it possible to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons incidents. A fascinating
article entitled 'Tracing a Threat' by Bethany Halford in 'Chemistry & Engineering News
World' in February 2012 provides a good picture of what the state of play was at that
time.
She quotes an expert called Joseph Chipuk, from a consultancy called 'Signature Science'
in Austin, explaining how the 'spectra' -- different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
associated with different 'impurities' in samples, including 'environmental' ones, such as
soil, fragments of weapons, and clothing -- can be matched with reconstructions of possible
'synthetic pathways'.
The levels of sophistication of which this kind of analysis was already capable, he made
clear, are close to breathtaking:
'To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says
that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as
2,000 times in an "almost robotic manner," following a database that tells them exactly what
conditions to use. They then hand off the product to the analytical chemists, who look at all
the tiny impurities that turn up along with the toxic chemical -- "the stuff that's down in
the weeds," as Chipuk describes it. From there, the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of
spectra that are collected go to statisticians and computer scientists who work their magic
to tease out the unique attribution signatures.'
At the end of the article, Halford quotes Chipuk again making clear that improvement is
continuous in a way that is making it quite extraordinarily difficult to fool analysts who
are genuinely looking for the truth -- as not only Dan Kaszeta but, very regrettably, key
figures at the OPCW and some of its 'Designated Laboratories' do not appear to be:
'"The fact is that technology continues to improve, instrumentation continues to improve,
and computers continue to improve. The chances of someone being able to slip by undetected
are getting smaller and smaller," says Signature Science's Chipuk. "If you were to choose to
do something like this, the science is going to catch up to you."'
In relation to the claims now being made, what is initially at issue is simply the
question of whether the 'impurities' identified by the 'spectra' in samples from the
incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal match.
What characterised the 'hexamine hypothesis' as put forward by Kaszeta was the -- close to
surreal -- suggestion that a single substance, hexamine, was a 'smoking gun'. To anyone who
had taken the trouble to read easily accessible discussions of the methodology, such as
Halford's piece, it would be apparent that it is simply ludicrous to base a claim on a single
substance -- particularly given that hexamine is also used in explosives.
In the 'Reuters' report on 30 January, we were told:
'Two compounds in the Ghouta sample matched those also found in Khan Sheikhoun, one formed
from sarin and the stabilizer hexamine and another specific fluorophosphate that appears
during sarin production, the tests showed.'
So we have an -- unidentified -- compound which supposedly establishes that the hexamine
did indeed form part of the sarin production process, rather than of the explosive charge.
And we are then told of the presence of another compound, which are told is 'another specific
fluorophosphate': why not tell us which?
To anyone interested in actually making sense of the evidence, to have a mere two
compounds mentioned, and those not adequately identified, suggests an alternative
possibility: that people who knew details of the 'synthetic pathway' by which Syrian
government sarin had been synthesised leaked them to those who were producing the substance
for a 'false flag.' It would have been beyond the capabilities of a relatively primitive
operation to produce any kind of close fit -- to get a couple of compounds to match would
probably not have been difficult at all.
If this suspicious interpretation if false, there is a very simple way to refute it -- and
General Mattis is in a perfect position to do this.
The close links between the American and British 'intelligence communities' have been
stressed in comments on this thread. It is clear that in relation to Syrian chemical weapons,
there was a division of labour.
Analysis of 'environmental' samples was concentrated at the British OPCW-certified
facility, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire.
Meanwhile, preparations for the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal were the made at
one of the two American OPCW-certified laboratories, the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center in Maryland.
The destruction of the 581 tonnes of the sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride, or
DF, aboard the specially kitted out vessel 'M.V. Cape Ray' in the Mediterranean was announced
in August 2014. In the extensive reporting on the preparations for this, it was made
absolutely clear that -- as one would expect -- the vessel was equipped with a proper
analytical laboratory, with OPCW scientists involved as well as those from the Edgewood
Center.
In a post entitled 'Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards?' shortly after the Khan
Sheikhoun attack, and then in two 'open letters' to the members of our Defence and Foreign
Affairs Committees, I pointed to the mass of evidence suggesting that the test results from
different incidents did not match each other or those from the stocks destroyed on the 'Cape
Ray.'
The publicly available evidence, I argued, provided strong reason to believe that results
from Porton Down and the OPCW confirmed the claim made by the Russians, supposedly on the
basis of tests from their own OPCW-certified laboratory, that the sarin used at Khan Al-Asal
and Ghouta was a 'cottage industry' product. This was also what Seymour Hersh claimed that
tests carried out at Porton Down had revealed about the sarin used at Ghouta - he used the
term 'kitchen sarin.'
What the Reuters report has -- perhaps inadvertently -- confirmed is that Porton Down had
in fact tested 'environmental' samples from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013, the
first where sarin was used in Syria, by suggesting that tests from that incident as well as
those at Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun matched the results from the stocks on the 'Cape Ray':
'Laboratories working for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
compared samples taken by a U.N. mission in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta after the Aug. 21,
2013 attack, when hundreds of civilians died of sarin gas poisoning, to chemicals handed over
by Damascus for destruction in 2014.
'The tests found "markers" in samples taken at Ghouta and at the sites of two other nerve
agent attacks, in the towns of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib governorate on April 4, 2017 and Khan
al-Assal, Aleppo, in March 2013, two people involved in the process said.
'"We compared Khan Sheikhoun, Khan al-Assal, Ghouta," said one source who asked not to be
named because of the sensitivity of the findings. "There were signatures in all three of them
that matched."'
Can anyone seriously believe that if the tests we know to have been done on at Porton Down
had established what this 'source' who does not have the guts to the identify himself claims,
this fact would not have been trumpeted to the skies -- first when the results from Ghouta
matched those from Khan Al-Asal, and then when both matched those from the 'Cape Ray'?
Allright -- sometimes the practically incredible turns out to be true. But if he has any
evidence on which to base his claims, General Mattis should have the courage of his
convictions, and order the disclosure of the relevant 'spectra.'
You are wrong about this. That the 'chain of custody' principle has been flagrantly
violated in the reports of the 'Fact-Finding Mission' and the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
is patently the case, and in itself reason why the almost unanimous acceptance of these in
the MSM is scandalous. But that is a separate issue.
The reasons why the test results from the various laboratories were critical were set out
last April in my '"Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards"?' piece, and the two 'open letters'
to the members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees pointing out the need for
clarification as to what was being claimed about the test results.
Let me recap, and update.
An example of the kind of 'chemical forensics' one needs in incidents like this was
provided by the analysis of test results on 'shell and soil' samples purporting to derive
from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013 which formed part of the document from the
Russian OPCW-certified laboratory which was submitted to the UN Secretary-General on 9 July
that year.
On 4 September, as part of the attempt to stop the visible attempt to use Ghouta to create
an unstoppable momentum towards the destruction of the Syrian government, more details of
what looks like an expanded version of the original document were made public by the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In it they claimed that:
'shell and soil samples contained nerve agents -- sarin gas and diisopropylfluorophosphate
-- not synthesized in an industrial environment, which was used by Western states for
producing chemical weapons during World War II.'
It was also made clear that the conclusions rested upon precisely the kind of very complex
analysis Bethany Halford is describing:
'We highlight that the Russian report is extremely specific. It is a scientific and
technical document containing about 100 pages with many tables and diagrams of spectral
analysis of the samples. We expect that it will significantly assist in the investigation
into this incident by the UN. Unfortunately, it has in fact not started yet.'
Unfortunately, the detailed 'spectra' have not been released, but they have certainly been
analysed by experts at the OPCW and that organisation's 'Designated Laboratories' in the
West, including Porton Down. We know that the results from the materials tested on the 'Cape
Ray' will show a sarin precursor 'manufactured in an industrial environment.'
To prove what Mattis and others want to claim it is necessary that the 'spectra' from none
of the other tests match those in the Russian report, and the 'markers' from the 'Cape Ray'
materials are the same as those from Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, and Khan Al-Asal. If there are
serious 'chain of custody' problems, the 'markers' from the four sets of tests might not be
sufficient to establish Syrian government culpability -- a lack of a match would be quite
sufficient to establish that the indictment cannot be accepted as it stands.
As I brought out in my post last April, the publicly available evidence -- of which
Hersh's 'Red Line and Rat Line' article and subsequent interviews form an important part --
strongly suggests the Russian claims that the toxin used in both Khan Al-Asal and also Ghouta
was 'cottage industry', as they put it, or 'kitchen sarin', as he put it, are correct.
It is simply not a refutation of these claims to treat one compound supposed to validate
the 'hexamine hypothesis', and an unspecified fluorophosphate, which could be the
diisopropylfluorophosphate reported by the Russians, or hexafluorophosphate, as conclusive
evidence. (The implications, or lack of them, would be quite different, depending on which
compound it was.)
And all this hush-hush whisper-whisper from 'diplomats and scientists' who are not
prepared to be identified, as well as assurances from that supposedly 'independent' expert
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, only add to the grounds for scepticism. As I brought out in
my post, he is under the strongest possible suspicion of having been involved in covering up,
and quite possibly colluding in, the 'false flags.'
If they have evidence to support the case, then let Western governments produce the
'spectra' -- as also should the Russians. We do not need complete reports, which may need to
be kept secret for perfectly good reasons -- simply the 'many tables and diagrams' which must
exist. Once these were out in the open, then it would be much easier to have an informed
argument.
Most of this ground I covered last April. However, there is some crucial new context. Part
of this is provided by a report in 'The Intercept' last October, entitled 'NSA Document Says
Saudi Prince Directly Ordered Coordinated Attack By Syrian Rebels On Damascus.' As it
explains:
'According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower
Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi
royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian
revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition
forces, giving them instructions to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the airport, the
document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.'
This was on 18 March -- the day before Khan Al-Asal. Further relevant context is provided
by a piece in February 2017 on the 'Monitor on Massacre Marketing' site by Adam Larson,
entitled 'What happened on March 19, 2013?' which is subtitled 'The First Bodies Tossed
Across Obama's "Red Line" in Syria.'
This starts by reviewing the -- ample -- evidence that the Khan Al-Asal attack came at a
point where there was very visible enthusiasm on the part of a lot of people in the United
States and Western Europe for intervention in support of the 'Assad must go' agenda, so that
he had every incentive to avoid chemical weapons use, and the insurgents every incentive to
produce a 'false flag.'
And Larson goes on to note that 'Ironically, the first solid news of the feared chemical
attack came in the form of a Syrian government announcement on March 19 that their forces had
been gassed by "terrorists" in a town just west of Aleppo" -- that is, the Shi'ite town of
Khan Al-Asal.
There follow detailed reviews of the evidence of another incident on the same day, in
which the victims appeared to be insurgents, at the Damascus suburb variously transliterated
as Otaybah and Uteibah, and more fragmentary and puzzling evidence about events at Homs.
And Larson goes on to suggest that a three-pronged 'false flag' was planned for 19 March,
in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- the country's three largest cities. This would obviously fit
very well with the NSA intercept, in that it would suggest that the intent was to portray
these as Assad's savage response to the attacks in Damascus, thus, hopefully, generating
unstoppable momentum for American military intervention.
This seems to me eminently plausible, but it leaves open two possible interpretations of
Khan Al-Asal. When insurgents who are difficult to control are given access to weapons like
sarin, there is an obvious possibility of matters developing in unexpected directions, either
as the result of their bungling an attack, or succumbing to the temptation to use it against
government forces.
However, a different set of unintended consequences is also possible. It could be that
Syrian intelligence, perhaps with the assistance of Russian and/or Iranian, and with a
combination of 'SIGINT' and 'HUMINT' methods quite possibly being deployed, knew precisely
what was going on -- and had double agents inside the groups preparing the 'false flags.'
Rather than wait until the inevitable chorus calling for all-out air strikes began, it
could well have made sense to turn one of the incidents into a 'false flag' within a 'false
flag.'
The anti-Assad camp would then have been effectively 'snookered.' They would have faced a
situation where they would know that, if they acceded to the calls from the Syrians and
Russians for a proper UN/OPCW investigation, making a rigorous use of 'chemical forensics',
these would implicate the insurgents. And if the evidence suggested that it was these who had
crossed Obama's 'red line', it would have been game and set, and probably match, to the
Syrian and Russian governments.
Irrespective of people's views on what interpretation is plausible in relation to Khan
Al-Asal, the important point is that strategies which rely strongly on convert action -- as
the 'régime change' projects I outlined in the current post do -- are inherently
liable to run out of control. The uncontrollability of their instruments, and the possibility
of covert action meeting covert action in return, are always liable to generate unintended
consequences which can escalate.
As soon as the possible that an impartial investigation would implicate the insurgents was
real, in relation to Khan Al-Asal, irrespective of whether the imputation would have been
justified, the alternative to facing a complete collapse of their projects in Syria, for
Western governments, was inherently likely to be at best covering up, at worst colluding in,
further 'false flags.' Moreover, intense pressure had to be mounted, to ensure that what were
supposed to be sources of independent expertise supported their cover-ups.
This pattern, I am suggesting is common both to history of the 'StratCom' in which
Christopher Steele has been involved, and that relating to chemical weapons use in Syria.
Particularly when the 'Fourth Estate' ceases to do its job, a likely result is the
progressive systematic corruption of institutions.
You have read one of the articles on what James Mattis said on Friday about sarin? He quite
clearly states that the United States has no evidence that the Syrian government has used
sarin. Given the way, the French, British, German, etc. intelligence services share
information, that suggests that if James Mattis is speaking the truth then no one in NATO,
except perhaps for Turkey given Erdogan's recent behavior, has any evidence either. This
means that both incidents, East Ghouta and Khan Shaykhoun, and any other incidents that are
alleged by the terrorists to have involved sarin are not what they are claimed to be in
western msm and most western politicians. Bellingcat and all the other NGOs who have made
similar claims about sarin are all wrong.
"... Obvious failure everywhere the supposed electorate look. Of course they want an alternative. ..."
"... You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. ..."
"... The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
I'm increasingly coming tip the conclusion that the Russia stuff is caused by the economic failures of the ruling classes in the
UK and US. No noticeable advance in living standards since 1985.
An American oligarch is now a trillionaire and doesn't pay tax.
Obvious failure everywhere the supposed electorate look. Of course they want an alternative. Its lucky the Russians
chose now to become aggressive cos otherwise the Dem party leaders would be fired for incompetence.
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and
refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and
go full authoritarian.
Karl Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall
during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending
access to bankruptcy
likbez -< Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg...
Late Sheldon Wolin (who died Oct. 21, 2015) claimed that the current US political system should be called "inverted totalitarism".
He stressed that the democracy and the republican form of government are incompatible with
Powerful national intelligence agencies, which inevitably tend to escape civilian control and convert the state into national
security state
MIC which enforces the imperial foreign policy which is associated with such terms as "super power" and global neoliberal
Empire. This was noted much earlier by President Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation.
High level of concentration of media ownership. In the USA six corporations control the lion share of MSM.
Neoliberalism as a social system, with its inescapable tendency to replace representative democracy with "one dollar, one
vote" regime and institualized corruption of politicians (via "revolving door" mechanism, mechanism of financing the election
campaign, and the power of lobbyists on Capital Hill )
"Empire" and "superpower" accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure
the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to "the Constitution of the American Empire"
or "superpower democracy." The reason they ring false is that "constitution" signifies limitations on power, while "democracy"
commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens.
For their part, "empire" and "superpower" stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry. The increasing
power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The
[two] party system is a notorious example.
...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by
an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the
major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power,
are consistently deferential to the claims of national security.
Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information
about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media.
Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly
veiled threats... and by their own fears about unemployment.
What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the inevitable discrediting of constitutional
limitations and institutional processes that discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic.
...At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding
power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing
drive
.. a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing, withdrawal or reduction of pension
and health benefits; a corporate political system that relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health
benefits available, especially to the poor.
With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence, it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism
to employ a system of criminal justice [to suppress dissent, like in classic totalitarism. ]
"... Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as "Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not. ..."
My understanding is Fusion GPS does research for both sides. Soros giving them money is
entirely plausible but assuming that money equals control is a bit of a leap.
It appears to be some Russians seeking to discredit the investigation with clever
BS/truthiness.
I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller. They may believe
he is primarily after them and they may be right. I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and
suspect he is using all this as a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian
mobsters, particularly in their money laundering. It would not surprise me if he hopes he
will not be forced to nail Trump himself to the wall, which would drag all kinds of political
noise into the trials, some of the people around Trump will be bad enough. Using some of
them, at least for the moment, is unavoidable, it's the politics is the source of his mission
and resources.
If only our press had the bandwidth necessary to distinguish those few Russians from ALL
Russians...
"I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller."
"I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and suspect he is using all this as a golden
opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters"
Thank you ! You have such a refreshing level of naivety that I really enjoyed your
posts.
How one in his sound mind can call Mueller "an old-school lawman" if one remember
Mueller's role in 9/11 and anthrax investigations.
And FYI those "absurdly wealthy Russians" represents the US fifth column in Russia (as
guarantors and protectors of neoliberalism in Russia; Google such a name as Chubais
https://www.rusjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeltsin_Putin.pdf
) and to destroy them might not be in best USA interests. Moreover, such a move actually will
be do Putin a huge favor, strengthening his hand.
As for "a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters" the danger of such
a brilliant move is to reveal criminal connections with Russian oligarchs (and financial
oligarchs in general as you never know where the oligarch ends and the mafia boss starts) and
the Democratic Party.
Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and
Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might
learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and
intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of
the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as
"Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not.
FYI Bill Clinton took a huge bribe in the form of speech fee from people very close to
"Russian Mobsters" (organized crime figures should probably more correctly be called "the
informal neoliberals" ;-)
There was an interesting discussion in Quora in 2016 on this topic:
"... For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. ..."
"... Ultimately the US government's anti-Russian animus does not matter. US government propaganda intensifies in lockstep with Washington's impotence and discredit. These beltway tantrums are a good sign. ..."
"... But in fact, comprehensive and exhaustive evidence shows that the US is more repressive than Russia. ..."
"... Russia is no longer a communist totalitarian state. In the intervening 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the yankee imperium itself has completed its morph into a quasi-fascist empire begun over the cold war decades. It is, therefore, imperative that Mr. Buchanan's wise counsel be followed if we are to survive. ..."
"... Few Americans understand the extent of the anti-Russian propaganda and the massive profiteering by military contractors that results. Watch this recent Jimmy Dore clip to learn more. Most are shocked to learn the USA spends twelve times more. Our increase this year alone is much greater than Russian entire military budget! ..."
"... The antipathy to Russia comes from the US Deep State, not Trump or the American people. Anti-Russian hysteria is derived entirely from America's Jewish press and Deep State with their "Russian hacking" and "influencing elections" stories – as if the Israel lobby doesn't influence US elections?? ..."
"... Neocons, Izzy firsters, and globalist banksters, mostly. Then there are the stooges like the McCainiacs and the Hillaryhyenas Then we have stupid, gullible people who believe their rot, essentially the rot believed by preceding generations including the brain dead, unquestioning, "greatest" generation of pseudo tough guy servile suck ups. ..."
"And Russians today enjoy freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, travel, politics, and
the press that the generations before 1989 never knew."
And these are freedoms that Americans, since 2001, are enjoying less and less. To add
insult to injury, it's not only our gov't., but our neighbors who seek to curtail Freedom of
Speech. One is likely to be ostracized for not succumbing to the Russiagate hysteria.
This excellent interview discusses motives for this propaganda.
Will Russiagate Help the Israel Lobby Censor Al Jazeera?
Most Americans would have no 'Russophobia' if not for the crazy media. After all, most
Americans, Demmy or Repuby, are wholly oblivious to world affairs. They only care about pop
culture.
So, why did Russia become a big deal?
Not because of the people. It was because of the media and deep state. Who runs them?
Jewish globalists. Why do Jews hate Russia? It's historic.
So, the real problem is Jewish Supremacism. 'Russophobia' is just a symptom of it.
Jewish globalists HATE anything that stands in the way of their total domination.
Russia clearly isn't anti-Jewish. Jews are 0.2% of the population but make up 20% of the
richest people there. So, why do Jews hate Russia? They haven't been allowed to gain total
power as in the US. And Jews fear that the Russian example might inspire other white nations.
And only total mastery and domination will please Jewish globalists who are in supremacist
mode.
That's what this is about. All this hysteria about Russia hacking blah blah is just Jewish
globalists trying to discredit Russia in the eyes of goyim.
Now, given the Jewish globalist mindset, why would they abandon anti-Russian hysteria?
It's not about Russia. It's about them. They will do ANYTHING to serve their own
interests.
Unfortunately, we will not get over it for the following reasons:
1. The military industrial complex needs an enemy to keep Western Europe in line. The
Russians serve this role as Boogeyman.
2. The LA-NYC-DC media axis has a strong hatred of Russians because they are White and
opposed to gays; never mind the fact that the public at large could care less. The axis
controls the megaphone, so Russiophobia it is.
3. Russiophobia is the means by which these Deep State traitors and axis allies are
attempting to overthrow our elected president. Not a single day has gone by that I haven't
seen some BS Russia gate crap from these late night propaganda shows or the controlled media.
Russiophobia is literally the only thing they have going because their immigration and trade
policies are unpopular.
4. Money. Lots of cash to be made in weapon sales from a new Cold War. Since the Chinese
are Chinese, a Cold War with them would be 'racist' but since Russia is white
5. The Israel lobby has their sights set on Iran and Russia stands in the way. Thus, the
lobby fiercely opposes Putin.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for
the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military
impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid
treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by
Washington. Putin is a serious strategist -- on the premises of Russian history.
Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding
Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.
But what Russian leader, save Yeltsin, has not been an autocrat?
How was Yeltsin not an autocrat? He illegally dissolved the parliament by military force
killing hundreds, illegally ousted his own vice president who was elected on the same ticket
as himself, had a new constitution accepted by a plebiscite with massive fraud, then had
himself re-elected with massive fraud, while some 100% of the media and 90+% of the press
were under his or his allies' control. He then handpicked a successor who was elected in 2000
with near total control of the media (and massive fraud, though probably it was only needed
to avoid a second round).
If that's not an autocrat, then what is? How could Yeltsin be any less of an autocrat than
Putin?
Where is the threat? What have they done? Yes they have good weapons and thank God they do or
the crazy Israeli led US Generals would surely have nuked someone by now.
The economy? About the same as Italy, big whoop.
Resource rich, peaceful, mind their own business sort of folks not being led around by Gays
goofs and assholes like the USA, why not do business with em? They are not the BOOGIE
MAN!
I'm sure trump would have been over there cutting deals a year ago if it weren't for the
Hillary crazies. What a bunch of looser's they are, they make me sick.
Very good collection of Buchanan's erros and omissions, but you missed one:
Neither Putin nor Franklin Roosevelt were autocrats. They were (or are about to be)
elected by their people 4 times. They were and are very popular leaders.
The Constitutional Amendment limiting a President to 2 terms should have never been passed
and should be repealed (or if not, then add all of Congress to that 2 term limit
nonsense).
The only reason for a 2-term limit was hatred of Roosevelt by idiots like Buchanan, and
the so-called "tradition" of Presidents only staying or lasting for 2 terms.
Both reasons are obvious poppycock. Buchanan and his ilk never complain about the 10 terms
of many Senators and House members. Yet a beloved and popular President is somehow an
autocrat?
What a moronic smear. Mirriam-Webster's definition of autocrat is: a person (such as a
monarch) ruling with unlimited authority; one who has undisputed influence or power.
FDR like Putin did not have unlimited power, neither did(do) either have undispouted power
or influence.
You are dead wrong about both Presidents, Pat. Shame on you, you know that you know
better.
Ultimately the US government's anti-Russian animus does not matter. US government propaganda
intensifies in lockstep with Washington's impotence and discredit. These beltway tantrums are
a good sign.
When this article says 'us,' I don't think it conflates the US police state and the
American people. Many Americans suffer from induced Russophobia. They feel they have to
qualify any opinion with a general complaint about Russian oppression.
But in fact, comprehensive and exhaustive evidence shows that the US is more repressive
than Russia.
The Russian government has put itself on a self-improvement treadmill of ongoing
independent review by all the nations that commit themselves to human rights. The US
government evades independent review and undermines your rights with bureaucratic red tape
and bad faith.
Russians get a better deal than you do. What happens when we all realize it? We'll do to
the USA what we did to the USSR. We'll knock it over, rip it apart, replace it with a country
based on rights and rule of law. That's the underlying panic of the bureaucrats at Langley.
Their real enemy is rights and rule of law.
I agree, and Mr. Buchanan comes off sounding naive in quite a few of his columns. He knows
what's going on in the world. He also knows American politics, but only in terms of who is on
this committee, who will vote yea on that bill there, whether there is a precedent for this,
etc. and lots of history on all this. What he does not seem to understand is that it is not
1965 or even 1990, as far as the way things get actually run in this country.
There are no civil agreements "across the aisle" that will be held to, no precedent from a
court decision from 1995 that will, of course, be upheld by rule-of-law judges, and that sort
of thing. It is anarcho-tyranny at this point, from top to bottom .
Neither Putin nor Franklin Roosevelt were autocrats. They were (or are about to be)
elected by their people 4 times. They were and are very popular leaders.
I don't know Russian politics that well, but I imagine Putin would be very popular. As far
as relations with American is concerned he's a great guy to have there, and things would be
lots better between our countries without the American Deep State .
Buchanan needs to address the Jewish Power directly. WE are not behind anti-Russianism. If Jews were call a halt to anti-Russianism, everyone else would follow suit since most of
the goys inside the Beltway are shabbos cucks.
Russia is no longer a communist totalitarian state. In the intervening 30 years since the
collapse of the Soviet empire, the yankee imperium itself has completed its morph into a
quasi-fascist empire begun over the cold war decades. It is, therefore, imperative that Mr.
Buchanan's wise counsel be followed if we are to survive.
There WAS a referendum in the Crimea -- I have a copy of it before me, as I write,
provided by my wife, a Ukrainian -- and it asks whether you (the voter), wish to retain the
Constitution of '56, by which the Crimea was ceded by Khruschev to Ukraine, as a gift, or
whether you (the voter) wish to return to Russian hegemony?
The vote for the latter was 97%.
All the talk of "annexation" was nonsense. There were no troops involved, no movement of
military, and the Russian Federation Base, which contractually was allowed to host 10,000
troops, was not involved.
It was a perfectly peaceful SECESSION from Ukraine
Few Americans understand the extent of the anti-Russian propaganda and the massive
profiteering by military contractors that results. Watch this recent Jimmy Dore clip to learn
more. Most are shocked to learn the USA spends twelve times more. Our increase this year
alone is much greater than Russian entire military budget!
"Pat, you need to get over the Putinist propaganda. There was no coup in Ukraine."
Literally the next sentence: "The people rose up because they refused to be betrayed into Russian hands by
Yanukovich." These State Department paid trolls really need to get some better training. State Dept Gets $40 Million to Fund Troll Farm:
Syria was never about "Assad putting down peaceful protests". It is about pipelines –
both existing Russian and potential new ones from Qatar that need a route (a la Trans
Afghanistan Pipeline), geopolitical dominance, regional destabilization (for Israel and the
MIC), and revenge for Putin derailing the imminent US invasion of Syria by brokering a deal
for Assad to eliminate chemical weapons.
It isn't us, Pat, at least not ordinary people like you and me who have no input into
policy decisions. It's the neocons, zionists, and the lunatics in government who are pushing
this Russophobia. They have a goal in mind and it looks as though they are afraid to reveal
what it is.
Whatever that goal is, it's not likely to be good for either the US or Russia.
Yet, what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of
Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United
States.
Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump.
That's what it looked like, and Trump clearly said that he wanted better relations with
Russia.
The antipathy to Russia comes from the US Deep State, not Trump or the American people.
Anti-Russian hysteria is derived entirely from America's Jewish press and Deep State with
their "Russian hacking" and "influencing elections" stories – as if the Israel lobby
doesn't influence US elections??
USA as a country, has been hopelessly captured by Zionist Jews who have their own agenda
directed against Russia (and the US public).
Neocons, Izzy firsters, and globalist banksters, mostly. Then there are the stooges like
the McCainiacs and the Hillaryhyenas Then we have stupid, gullible people who believe their
rot, essentially the rot believed by preceding generations including the brain dead,
unquestioning, "greatest" generation of pseudo tough guy servile suck ups.
Boycott 'em, mock 'em, and play the victim card just like the imaginary heroes and
bureaucrat messiahs typically do.
That's because Bibi is playing good cop while he outsources the role of bad cop to the
Jewish diaspora in the West and specifically AIPAC. This is in keeping with the age old
Jewish strategy of betting on both horses so only a certain segment of Jewry gets blamed and
reaps the consequences.
Putin has to know this and the power American Jews and their goy auxiliaries have over
U.S. foreign policy.
Soros might well be a front company for an intelligence agency.
Notable quotes:
"... a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative ..."
"... This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home. ..."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs." ..."
"... I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency. ..."
"... i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it... ..."
"... It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything.. ..."
"... i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form.. ..."
"... My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian. ..."
"... When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven. ..."
"In a Daily Caller op-ed calling the Russian meddling narrative a "
false public manipulation ," Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska claims that Daniel Jones -
a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a
Fusion GPS operative - told the Russian Oligarch's lawyer in March, 2017 that Fusion
GPS was funded by " a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros. "" Zerohedge
------------
Now, this is something different. I have no idea what the relative truthiness of this may
be, but... pl
This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their
PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the
neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our
IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home.
I appreciate your use of the phrase ' relative truthiness', and I suggest this latest
truthiness is just part of the movie, and a great movie it is.
Still, it's about time Soros
showed up and he's in good company too, along with this week's poisoned Russian spy and a
paid prostitute with a Trump story to tell. Next ?
We're probably due for a
Clinton/Russia-related Julian Assange document dump, some Russian intel officer arrests in DC
and....a new Steele-equivalent originator offering a more respectable document since after
all any evidence is good evidence.
Anything to keep the show going and the audience enthralled !
As for Soros himself, I suggest that there are plenty of Soros's with plenty of attached
money trails, but George has the watch.
All he is missing is the white cat on his lap.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign
influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies,
Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of
state for public diplomacy and public affairs."
Soros? All NGO's that apear in MSM articles, I look up their funding. Most funding traces
back to State Dep NED and Soros, along with other older money 'philanthropist' type
foundations.
I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency.
i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner
of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it...
It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards
singling out russia for everything..
i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would
be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape
or form..
My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated
himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in
past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and
removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has
paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to
Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon
billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are
clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant
like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian.
When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and
personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin
Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven.
Interesting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many
others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relevant information while he was
on her payroll and for whom?
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
More of the past? Nope. It is just a question of how many goyim will be
nuked.
It's all very simple. Fundamentally, Jews have been disliked because, as part of their
Jewish identity, those with power pursue, often successfully, their perceived interests which
often conflict with the perceived interests of another group(s).
"... Russia is acting again as a great power. And she sees us as having slapped away her hand, extended in friendship in the 1990s, only to humiliate her by planting NATO on her front porch. ..."
"... Yet what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump. Yet with the Beltway in hysteria over hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, and the Russophobia raging in Washington, we appear to be paralyzed when it comes to engaging with Russia. ..."
"... The U.S. political system, said Putin this week, "has been eating itself up." Is his depiction that wide of the mark? What is the matter with us? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... " If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in our elections?" ..."
"... "However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary of Russia." ..."
That's pretty naive article. The Russophobia is used to cement fracturing neoliberal society
and create the commonenemy, more important the neoliberal elite which looted the country for
the last 40 years or so.
Russia is just a very convenient target which allow to reuse Cold War stereotypes and play
to the crowd instincts.
Another problem that Russa refuses to the be a Washington vassal (the status it enjoyed
under drunk Yeltsin) and neoliberal empire accept only vassal not eaul partners in thier
ranks.
Unless there is a late surge for Communist Party candidate Pavel Grudinin, who is running in
second place with 7 percent, Vladimir Putin will be re-elected president of Russia for
another six years on March 18.
Once he is, we must decide whether to continue on course into a second Cold War, or to
engage Russia, as every president sought to do in Cold War I.
For our present conflict, Vladimir Putin is not alone at fault. His actions have often
been reactions to America's unilateral moves.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, we brought all of the Warsaw Pact members and three
former republics of the USSR into our military alliance, NATO, to corral Russia. How friendly
was that?
Putin responded with his military buildup in the Baltic.
George W. Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that Richard Nixon had
negotiated. Putin responded with a buildup of the offensive missiles he put on display last
week. The U.S. helped to instigate the Maidan Square coup that dumped over the elected
pro-Russian government in Ukraine. To prevent the loss of his Sevastopol naval base on the
Black Sea, Putin countered by annexing the Crimean Peninsula.
After peaceful protests in Syria were put down by Bashar al-Assad, we sent arms to Syrian
rebels to overthrow the Damascus regime. Seeing his last naval base in the Med, Tartus,
imperiled, Putin came to Assad's aid and helped him win the civil war.
The Boris Yeltsin years are over.
Russia is acting again as a great power. And she sees us as having slapped away her
hand, extended in friendship in the 1990s, only to humiliate her by planting NATO on her
front porch.
Yet what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of
Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United
States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump. Yet with the Beltway in hysteria over
hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, and the Russophobia raging in Washington, we
appear to be paralyzed when it comes to engaging with Russia.
The U.S. political system, said Putin this week, "has been eating itself up." Is his
depiction that wide of the mark? What is the matter with us?
... ... ...
Japan negotiates with Putin's Russia over the southern Kuril Islands lost at the end of
World War II. Bibi Netanyahu has met many times with Putin, though he is an ally of Assad,
whom Bibi would like to see ousted, and has a naval and air base not far from Israel's
border.
We Americans have far bigger fish to fry with Russia than Bibi. Strategic arms control.
De-escalation in the Baltic, Ukraine, and the Black Sea. Ending the war in Syria. North
Korea. Space. Afghanistan. The Arctic. The war on terror. Yet all we seem to hear from our
elites is endless whining that Putin has not been sanctioned enough for desecrating "our
democracy."
Get over it.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Good article, Pat, although it will probably send commenter Michael Kenny into apoplexy.
Yes, we have all heard the official lines about why we should beware of Putin. Like so many
official spins (Saddam's WMDs, etc.) it is probably an intentional distraction from the
actual truth.
It's the same nonsense in other places of the world, North Korea agitates against America,
Israel against Iran, Iran against Israel, China against Japan, etc. What all of these have
in common is that it is easier to point out the distant foreigner as the cause of so many
problems instead of looking inward and asking what REALLY is causing problems.
And with absolute certainty all the liberal comments here will say that this is false
and that Russia is to blame for all the problems.
Russia is neither America's "best friend" nor our "implacable enemy". What it is is a very
powerful competitor, with its own agenda and its own interests. Sometimes those interests
will align with ours, sometimes they will clash. Certainly it is a good thing for our
relationship with them to be on as amicable terms as possible, in order to facilitate our
mutual benefit wherever possible.
But for you to insist that their direct meddling in our electoral process is a non-issue
that should be ignored, is to declare that the United States is not a sovereign state, that
we have no right to determine our own form of government. That we in fact exist as a puppet
of Russia. You may think that is an acceptable position to take. I do not.
So this article is a basically a softball way of pitching the reactionary motto
"America Is A Communist Country". Why did the elites favor engagement with the Soviet
premiers? Because they liked communism. Why are they enraged by Putin, who is in every
significant way less oppressive than his predecessors? Because he's not a communist.
While I agree with you that the expansion of NATO did a lot of damage to the relationship
with Russia I have to say that you seem remarkably sanguine about a foreign power
influencing the American election so much that the clear favorite ended up losing.
I wonder how easily you would have been able to 'get over it' if Russia had leaked
letters from the Republicans which lead to Carter beating Reagan in 1980 or Gore beating
Bush in 2000? I'm no fan of Clinton and am glad she lost but I am a fan of Democracy and a
foreign power undermining it is tantamount to an act of war. Are you really so partisan
that you would rather your side win than the country have a reliable democracy?
If Russia had no military designs on the new NATO members, why was their membership
considered an affront? If Russia had no economic designs on Ukraine, why was it's joining
the EU considered a treat? If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in
our elections?
Is Russia the great bogey-man of yesteryear? Perhaps not. Do they have legitimate issues
and grievances? Possibly. Can we perhaps reach an accommodation with them? Maybe. Is Trump
doing anything to curtail their mucking about in our political process? Nope. There's the
rub.
Patrick Buchanan is an apologist for Kremlin kleptocrats who not only foment trouble
abroad, but oppress their own people to stay in power.
The U.S. did not instigate the Maidan protest, unless you think that upwards of a
million ordinary people in Kyiv and millions more across Ukraine protested for dignity and
the rule of law in the dead of winter for nearly four months, then perhaps Mr. Buchanan has
a point. He does not.
Again, I quote verbatim from comments I made last month to pieces by Robert Merry and
Mr. Buchanan: "The Ukrainian president wasn't toppled; he fled,doubting the loyalty of his
own security forces and despite an agreement with the opposition to stay in power pending a
new election within 10 months."
I lean liberal and it's not that much much about what Russia is up to but If Meuller
actually came out with solid evidence that Trump himself and his people, did collude with
Russia to influence the 2016 election will his followers even care at this point?
I really wonder how Americas next generation is going to behave now that Trump and his
cronies have done so much to damage to any ideas of truth, integrity, honesty, decency, the
common good I could go on.
And something like 70% of Republicans think Trump is a good role model for children
according to a January Quinnipiac poll.
If you want to stop Russiaphobia, then Putin and Trump need to come clean about the 2016
activity. Period. Trump will not be impeached. End the Russian trolling for alt-right
causes or otherwise Democrats will attack hard.
Otherwise, the Manafort trial starting in July is going to be the biggest trial since OJ
and every night cable news will analyze every detail of Manafort working with Russian
government and money laundering for the Russians. (And there will be plenty of details of
expensive area rugs!)
And if there are any connections of Manafort or witness Gates to the Russian trolls it
will not be pretty. (Or Roger Stone to the hacked DNC e-mails.)
The usual double-talk: "Vladimir Putin will be re-elected president of Russia", i.e. the
Russian Federation, a sovereign state which has existed only since 1991, but then, "we must
decide whether to continue on course into a second Cold War, or to engage Russia, as every
president sought to do in Cold War I, "Russia" here meaning the now defunct "Soviet Union".
Mr Buchanan is locked in his cold war mindset and is simply unable to get his mind around
the idea that the Russian Federation isn't the Soviet Union, nor is it even the sole
successor state to the Soviet Union. It is merely one of 15 former Soviet republics and if
Mr Buchanan believes the US should "engage" with the former Soviet Union, shouldn't it also
engage with, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic Republics etc.? Engaging only with the Russian
Federation implies taking sides with Putin against the other 14 former Soviet republics,
which, of course, contradicts Mr Buchanan's much proclaimed belief in "non-intervention"!
It's perfectly true to say that US wrongdoing created Putin, not least the US neocon
attempt to use him as a useful idiot to destroy the EU, but how does US wrongdoing give
Putin the right to violate Ukrainians' rights? This is in fact the standard pro-Putin
nonsense argument: A violates B's rights. C is to be allowed to punish A by also violating
B's rights! If the US is at fault, it must put right its wrongdoing by getting Putin out of
Ukraine. One way or the other. Any other course of action is just one more step towards the
collapse of the US.
All that I know to be the truth is that Russia seems to support the truth more than we
Americans! We have lost our soul. If we cannot recuperate our "soul", we need to die the
death of all failed empires!
During an event in October, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir V.
Putin blamed the collapse of the U.S.S.R. on Soviet Union trusting the West "too much,"
describing the move as "our biggest mistake!"
"You interpreted our trust as weakness, and you exploited that," said the Russian
president, adding:
"Unfortunately, our Western partners, having divided the U.S.S.R.'s geopolitical legacy,
were certain of their own incontestable righteousness having declared themselves the
victors of the 'Cold War'."
"They started to openly interfere in the sovereign affairs of countries and to export
democracy in the same way as in their time the Soviet leadership tried to export the
Socialist revolution to the whole world."
Re: Thaomas, " If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in our
elections?"
The jilted Left has mutated a huge bogus "Russian meddling" junk narrative into a
self-licking ice cream cone of political insanity.
The late, great journalist Robert Parry (RIP) had been tracking the Russia meddling
story assiduously before he died unexpectedly in January. Parry's Consortium News is one of
the few remaining sites of genuine journalistic integrity. It has no affection for Donald
Trump, only the Truth. It swings a 2X4 in every direction. Read the final assessment of the
Russia Meddling ruse by Parry published last December:
And then tell us how Parry had it wrong. Americans, including Thaomas are being played
for chumps by the corrupted MSM and crony Political Hacks. Reject the Big Lie and the Crony
Tools that sustain it.
P.S. Save consortiumnews to your browser favorites and visit it occasionally to wash off
the slime of MSM Fake News propaganda.
The truth is this. Russia is the irreplaceable adversary of the United States because they
are the one significant nation on this planet whose peoples do not fit neatly into our post
modern western concepts of race and ethnicity. Slavic people have and never will be
understood in the United States. They will always be the backwards, unelightened, barbaric,
undemocratic people. The one whom both Churchill and Hitler stated were inferior to both
the Anglo and Germanic peoples.
While your critique of America's unnecessary post-Cold War antagonism is correct, it is
hardly relevant to 2018.
"Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to
restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United States." >? What?!
Putin has and continues to attempt to meddle in and create chaos in our elections. He
clearly "has something" on Trump personally. He's using Trump as an agent of disruption
within the United States to get vengeance on the US for its post-Cold War activities.
It may very well make sense to attempt to reach out to the Russians, but this is hardly
the president or the time to do that.
Pat Buchanan is far from my favourite American (ex)politician, but this article is a model
of pure reason. Indeed, it ranks up there with the best ones on the current topic of
Washington's childish and dangerous Russophobia.
It really is high time that the Democrats and their fellow travellers, the neocons, gave
up on their poorly designed anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda narrative. Ever more
Americans are not buying it, Washington's vassal states have never bought it (although, as
obedient vassals the leaders of those states don't dare say so), and the rest of the world
is simply enjoying the clownish performance of American victimization and injured
innocence.
Good article.
What snowflakes we are -- has our house of Democracy always been built on the sands of
hypocrisy and hubris? The recent demonization of Russia, it seems to me, is a gift to the
War Machine which always needs an enemy to justify $billions in weaponry. I am much more
concerned about John Bolton calling shots from the White House, than I am about Putin, or
even Kim Jungun.
"Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to restore
respectful if not friendly relations with the United States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as
did Trump. [..] What is the matter with us?"
Let us not pretend to be naive, and let us give credit where credit is due. Whereas the
Republican Party's principled stance against the political opponents focused on "stained
dress" and "birth certificate", the Clinton/Obama leadership of the *other* war mongering
party managed to strike a strategic alliance with the neocons and the "national insecurity"
apparat, and, together with the "Real GOP", has prevented Trump from changing US foreign
policy for the better as effectively as the business wings of the "Biparty" have co-opted
Trump into Reagonomics 2.0 – now as farce.
There is a reason why the GOP refused to focus on the Benghazi CIA pipeline channeling
Libyan arsenals to Syrian islamists.
The authors recap makes rather clear that the US elites, since before the end of WW2,
committed themselves to the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the subordination of its
parts. US policy towards Russia is not driven by negligence or incompetence, and we should
not ever forget that US talk of "winneable" nuclear war, decapitation strikes and "regime
change" goes far back – to Eisenhower, in fact, who denied that nuclear weapons were
different from other means of "mass destruction" in war. The continuity of US aggressive
posture – and posturing – is exemplified by the career of Keith Payne, with GWB
and now Trump, and his sponsors – like Rumsfeld – with Reagan, Bush and Bush
– posturing that culminated in Able Archer, which led Thatcher to concern herself
with containing and rolling back US nuclear blackmail.
The Biparty and other camp followers of the war profiteering classes and the global
oligarchy are not concerned with "defending" The People, much less our "allies", as South
Korea is learning at cost – the Endsieg over Russia and, eventually, China, is their
multi-generational project. If you wonder whether the 2016 election was rigged or fixed in
any way, you have to go back to the primaries that were supposed to only offer us a choice
between two warmongers intent to outdo each other.
In Clinton, the establishment succeeded in promoting another Judas goat in the mold of
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, for the Democratic Party. The Republican leadership failed
in this task, but it turns out that Trump is not merely a flawed champion of the
discontent, a hollow man, but the perfect Judas goat of our time – he even believed
himself.
Anybody voting for "pocket change" in 2018 will lead us to another goat rodeo in 2020.
Meanwhile, we are heading for a repeat of Able Archer and another change to "win" ourselves
a profitable nuclear war at "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."
A phobia is an irrational fear, not based on reason. The term "Russophobia" is used to
proactively belittle and discredit arguments critical of Russia.
However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary of Russia.
The Soviet Union occupied and violently oppressed Eastern Europe for 50 years, while
building the capability to wage massive nuclear war on Western Europe on short notice.
It is now perfectly sensible for former Warsaw Pact allies or Soviet republics to seek
maximum integration with any and all institutions of the West, such as NATO and the EU. It
is also their right to do so as sovereign nations. Russia has no legitimate "sphere of
interest" beyond her own borders.
And NATO in its current form is but a shadow of the Cold War alliance in Europe. US
troop levels there are at 1/5 of Cold War numbers. NATO does not have an offensive posture
in Europe, hardly even a good defensive one. It does not threaten Russia in any way, even
if you might think otherwise from the incessant complaining by Putin and some of his
American fellow travellers.
Re: DanJ, "However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary
of Russia."
Talk is cheap. The actual level of European fear of Russia is implied by the level of
military spending by the Europeans to defend themselves against that supposed threat. Those
military spending levels are almost universally below the relatively modest GDP targets,
especially compared to the out of control U.S. "defense" spending.
The perverse irony is that the low levels of military spending by Europe would indicate
masochistic irrationality if the Russian threat were genuine.
Agree NATO does not militarily threaten Russia. The Russian objection is to the Global
Cop Gorilla that consciously throws wrenches in the normalization of Russian/European
relationships by militarizing every element of foreign policy. Simply because the U.S.
Security State apparatus needs an existential enemy to justify its TRILLION dollar War
Machine.
The Europeans currently accept U.S. hegemony because it doesn't cost them anything.
The U.S. war-monger led foreign policy model is completely bankrupt. The Crony Elite
Hacks in Washington just haven't realized it yet. Because as parasites, they make too much
money from it. They will feed on the carcass until it collapses.
@ Aleks "They will always be the backwards, unelightened, barbaric, undemocratic people. The one
whom both Churchill and Hitler stated were inferior to both the Anglo and Germanic
peoples."
If what you wrote isn't racist, then I dunno what to say.
Something else to keep in mind is this: In the 1960s, Russia detonated an H-bomb that
was–I forget the exact ratio–about 10,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped
on Hiroshima. And now we're worried about a country–North Korea–that a half
century later detonated a bomb five times as powerful as the one that obliterated
Hiroshima.
How crazy is it to demonize Putin when, if push came to shove, they could annihilate the
U.S.? Yes, we could annihilate them, even if they launched a first strike with strategic
(as opposed to tactical) nuclear weapons. But it's no offense to the country that produced
the incomparable Tolstoy to say that against the ruin of Moscow and St. Petersburg would be
measured the ruin of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., San Diego, and Denver. Russia can destroy far more human capital in
America than we can destroy in Russia. Advantage, Russia.
The moral of this story: It's unwise to poke the bear–much less to poke the bear
in the eye, as we have been doing since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who started NATO's
misguided project of encircling Russia.
Guys, if you trully believe that 13 superheroes with 100 K$ can overcome +1Bn$ plethora of
PACs|SuperPACS|and all other whatnots you should quit watching all these fine Marvel movies
about superheroes.
And, btw, leaving aside total lack of proofs, how did this DNC hack played out? Was it
some dirty invented lies about Whight Knigtess? Or was it blatant truth? ) I'm really
amused how lemmings started to sing 'DNC hacks!DNC hacks!' being completely oblivious to
the content of this leaked emails. You don't care that you're being, hmm, 'abused' by your
ruling class all the time, don't you?
Finally, do you care that US meddled (and this fact is 1000% proven) in internal politics
in quite a number of different countries, Russia included?
"If what you wrote isn't racist, then I dunno what to say."
I fail to see the racism in what I wrote since they were both well-known beliefs (and
quotes) held by both Churchill and Hitler. But I'm sure you knew that.
I will follow Buchanan's reasoning to its logical conclusion and say that, well, the guy,
and maybe his daughter to, were spies and deserved the classic kgb response. What putin
does, we deserve. It is getting hard to swallow so much putin and kgb love here at TAC.
Like, most americans are not suffering from russophobia nearly as much as so many are
enamored by authoritarianism and the murderous kgb agent putin. The don himself admires
putin for the head oligarch the don wishes he himself could be. Putin is head of an
organized crime syndicate masquerading as a great state. Social conservatives have even
crowned putin an advocate for western christian civilization. Russians gladly kiss his
hand. It may not pay them anything, but the consequences of not kissing his hand have been
demonstrated. You know, something right wingers admire. The don is doing the same thing
here. Like, if we could see his tax returns, we could readily anticipate his policy
actions. Hey, and get rich too.
I will be surprised though, if US steel does much more than become the middle man in
marking up steel they import and stamp USA on to. I do not know, but expect a large part of
the imported steel the US buys, is bought from middlemen companies that buy chinese steel
and stamp it canadian. Canada does produce allot of aluminum. Most of china sits on a 15k
foot plateau of minerals. The rest of the world will buy from their glut. We might really
not want to depend on chinese steel if we are planning to war. Europe is beholding to putin
to stay warm in the winter, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the
collateral damage from assassinations carried out in their own countries. Like, I wonder if
their punditry will claim they probably deserve it. Churchill has been gone for quite a
while after all. Russophobia? Is that where people show illegitimate concern when putin
proclaims to have shiny new nukes that we have no defense against. Yepper, we deserve that
too. Once you put the victims mantle on, it is hard to be anything but a victim, and much
easier to excuse yourself anything while projecting your fear onto, well, defenseless
snowflakes are an easy target.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-ex-spy-sergei-skripal-his-daughter-poisoned-nerve-agent-n854516
The Democratics are obsessed with Putin and the Russians, blaming them for the most
ignominious shellacking in modern electoral history, and yet refuse to do the necessary
groundwork to win the presidency in 2020. They've placed all their cards on the collusion
narrative, hoping for the best. BTW, good article, Pat.
I think cdugga expresses best the mentality that defines the present moment: 'If Russia is
accused of something, it means that they are guilty.' Can't imagine how that assumption
could ever be abused, can you?
One of your better articles, Pat, was glad to see it. Let's hope a few more of our
leaders start thinking along these same lines and decide it might be just as well not to
nuke the planet out of pique over some bleeping facebook ads.
2 cdugga
>> I will follow Buchanan's reasoning to its logical conclusion and say that, well,
the guy, and maybe his daughter to, were spies and deserved the classic kgb response.
Could you please provide some proofs that they were poisoned by some Russian secret
service? Why on Earth would these aforementioned services like to kill the guy? He's 100%
non-entity.
On the other hand, it's a very convenient target if someone wants to frame FSB or GRU, so
I'll bet on British MI-###. Tough luck for this guy, you're fired in this way in this
business.
@ Aleks
I'm aware that Hitler and Churchill believed those. I apologize for taking your comment out
of context and calling out racism where none was intended. I feel kinda silly now.
"... It would also require the FBI to investigate all requests by U.S.-based Russian diplomats to travel 50 miles outside his or her official post to ensure those diplomats have properly notified the U.S. Government of their travel plans. No Russian diplomats could travel outside of that 50 mile perimeter unless all of their colleagues have followed travel rules in the three months prior. The FBI would also be required to notify Congress that the Russians have followed the rules before the travel is cleared by the State Department. The purpose is to ensure the Russians are following proper protocol in their travel. ..."
Dr. Strangelove already back, McCarthy coming! 02/07/2016 Senate Committee Looks
To Revive Cold-War Era Body To Catch Russian Spies
By Ali Watkins
A new intelligence bill also proposes tightening how Russian diplomats can travel.
Congress is pushing the White House to revive a Cold War-era committee to crack down on
Russian spies, underscoring just how uneasy Washington is about its adversaries in Moscow.
In its 2017 Intelligence Authorization Bill, the Senate Intelligence Committee is asking the
White House to reinstate a presidentially-appointed group to unmask Russian spies and uncover
Russian-sponsored assassinations. The group, which would include personnel from the State
Department, intelligence community and several other executive offices, would meet monthly.
Along with spies and covert killings, the committee would also investigate the funding of front
groups -- or cover organizations for Russian operations -- "covert broadcasting, media
manipulation" and secret funding.
A similar interagency body called the
"Active Measures Working Group" existed during the Cold War, but it hasn't been active in
decades. This new group would be modeled after its Cold War predecessor, one U.S. intelligence
official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive bill.
The intelligence bill
passed through the Senate committee in May, and now must be passed by the full Senate.
It would also require the FBI to investigate all requests by U.S.-based Russian
diplomats to travel 50 miles outside his or her official post to ensure those diplomats have
properly notified the U.S. Government of their travel plans. No Russian diplomats could travel
outside of that 50 mile perimeter unless all of their colleagues have followed travel rules in
the three months prior. The FBI would also be required to notify Congress that the Russians
have followed the rules before the travel is cleared by the State Department. The purpose is to
ensure the Russians are following proper protocol in their travel.
"... Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack. ..."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray suspects a different motive and culprit:
Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg - 10:21 AM - 8 Mar 2018 Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces
intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal
attack.
When we look at how the corporate media is spinning this story, it seems to me that Craig
Murray's theory about using the incident to ramp up Russophobia has its merits.
"... The custom software program was secretly built last year to comply with a classified US government directive. The program scanned hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts, according to revelations first reported by Reuters. ..."
"... Surveillance experts told Reuters this is the first case to surface of an US internet company agreeing to a spy agency's demand by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to requests for stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time. ..."
The custom software program was secretly built last year to comply with a
classified US government directive. The program scanned hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail
accounts, according to revelations first reported by
Reuters.
It is not known whether the directive, which was sent to the company's legal team, came from
the National Security Agency or the FBI, according to the two former Yahoo employees. It is
also not known what the intelligence officials were seeking, except wanting the company to
search for a set of characters, which could mean a phrase in an email or an attachment.
The former employees said Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's decision to follow the directive angered
some senior executive and led to the departure of Alex Stamos, the company's chief information
officer.
When Stamos discovered Mayer had authorized the program, he told his subordinates that he
had been left out of a decision that hurt users' security, the sources said. Due to a
programming flaw, he told them, hackers could have accessed the stored emails.
Yahoo said in a statement issued to Reuters about the intelligence demand that it "is a law
abiding company, and complies with the laws of the United States."
Surveillance experts told Reuters this is the first case to surface of an US internet
company agreeing to a spy agency's demand by searching all arriving messages, as opposed to
requests for stored messages or scanning a small number of accounts in real time.
"... by Norman Solomon Posted on March 09, 2018 ..."
"... "If you have information that bears on deception or illegality in pursuing wrongful policies or an aggressive war," he said in a statement released last week, "don't wait to put that out and think about it, consider acting in a timely way at whatever cost to yourself . Do what Katharine Gun did." ..."
"... That's the kind of reality George Orwell was referring to when he wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." ..."
"... What Ellsberg read in the newspaper story "was a cable from the NSA asking GCHQ to help in the intercepting of communications, and that implied both office and home communications, of every member of the Security Council of the UN. ..."
"... Now, why would NSA need GCHQ to do that? Because a condition of having the UN headquarters and the Security Council in the US in New York was that the US intelligence agencies promised or were required not to conduct intelligence on members of the UN. Well, of course they want that. So, they rely on their allies, their buddies in the British GCHQ, to commit these criminal acts for them. And with this clearly I thought someone very high in access in Britain intelligence services must dissent from what was already clear the path to an illegal war. ..."
Those Who Controlled the Past Should Not Control the Future
by Norman Solomon
Posted on
March 09, 2018
Daniel Ellsberg has a message that managers of the warfare state don't
want people to hear.
"If you have information that bears on deception or illegality in pursuing wrongful
policies or an aggressive war," he said in a statement released last week, "don't wait to put
that out and think about it, consider acting in a timely way at whatever cost to yourself . Do
what Katharine Gun did."
If you don't know what Katharine Gun did, chalk that up to the media power of the war
system.
Ellsberg's
video statement went public as this month began, just before the 15th anniversary of when a
British newspaper, the Observer , revealed a secret NSA memo – thanks to
Katharine Gun. At the UK's intelligence agency GCHQ, about 100 people received the same email
memo from the National
Security Agency on the last day of January 2003, seven weeks before the invasion of Iraq got
underway. Only Katharine Gun, at great personal risk, decided to leak the document.
If more people had taken such risks in early 2003, the Iraq War might have been prevented.
If more people were willing to take such risks in 2018, the current military slaughter in
several nations, mainly funded by U.S. taxpayers, might be curtailed if not stopped. Blockage
of information about past whistleblowing deprives the public of inspiring role models.
That's the kind of reality George Orwell was referring to when he wrote: "Who controls
the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
Fifteen years ago, "I find myself reading on my computer from the Observer the most
extraordinary leak, or unauthorized disclosure, of classified information that I'd ever seen,"
Ellsberg recalled, "and that definitely included and surpassed my own disclosure of top-secret
information, a history of US decision-making in Vietnam years earlier." The Pentagon Papers
whistleblower instantly recognized that, in the Observer article, "I was looking at
something that was clearly classified much higher than top secret . It was an operational cable
having to do with how to conduct communications intelligence."
What Ellsberg read in the newspaper story "was a cable from the NSA asking GCHQ to help
in the intercepting of communications, and that implied both office and home communications, of
every member of the Security Council of the UN.
Now, why would NSA need GCHQ to do that? Because a condition of having the UN
headquarters and the Security Council in the US in New York was that the US intelligence
agencies promised or were required not to conduct intelligence on members of the UN. Well, of
course they want that. So, they rely on their allies, their buddies in the British GCHQ, to
commit these criminal acts for them. And with this clearly I thought someone very high in
access in Britain intelligence services must dissent from what was already clear the path to an
illegal war. "
"... Nobody of us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they tried to kill. But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election. DK ..."
"... By Robert Stevens ..."
"... Financial Times, ..."
"... Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorising the murder of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents. ..."
Nobody of
us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they tried to kill.
But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many
years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election.
DKAnti-Russia campaign follows alleged poisoning of former UK/Russian double agent and
daughter
By Robert Stevens 8 March 2018
The British government and mass media have mounted a hysterical anti-Russian campaign
centred on the still unexplained circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation of former
British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, after they were found unconscious on a
bench in Salisbury on Sunday.
Initial reports Monday stated that Skripal, aged 66, may have ingested fentanyl, a synthetic
opioid many times stronger than heroin, which can be fatal in small doses.
On Tuesday, the other person hospitalised was identified as Skripal's 33-year-old daughter,
Yulia, who was also said to be in a critical condition.
Skripal is a former colonel in Russia's GRU, the military intelligence service. He spent
four years in jail in Russia after being found guilty in 2006 of passing secrets to MI6, the
UK's foreign intelligence service. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
Skripal served four years before being released in 2010, when he was pardoned by Russia as
part of a well-publicized 10-person spy swap between the US, the UK and Russia. He moved to the
UK where he has lived for the past seven years.
The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping centre.
Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at around
16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. It was announced Wednesday
that a police officer is also in critical condition after attending the incident. The Skripals
visited a nearby restaurant, Zizzi's, which was cordoned off, as well as a local pub, The
Bishop's Mill.
By Tuesday, despite nothing of substance being reported by the police, the government and
media had effectively declared the incident an act of terrorism, with the finger pointing at
Russia's Putin government. References to an opioid being involved were dropped, with media
reports saying the government's secret chemical lab at Porton Down was as yet unable to
identify the substance. Wiltshire police announced that London's Metropolitan Police
counter-terrorist unit would be taking over the investigation. In parliament, Foreign Secretary
Boris Johnson spoke about the "disturbing incident in Salisbury" and stated, "Although I am not
now pointing fingers, because we cannot point fingers, I say to governments around the world
that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished," He
then referred to Russia as a "malign and destructive force" and warned that if Moscow were
found to be involved, the government would "take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect
the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms."
In another pointed reference to Russia, he stated that the case had "echoes of the death of
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006" -- the former officer in Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB,
the successor to the KGB), who died on November 23, 2006 after having been granted asylum in
Britain in 2000. The UK, backed by the US have long claimed that the Putin regime ordered the
killing despite no evidence being presented in an official British inquiry in 2016 -- other
than the presence of the radioactive substance polonium.
Johnson threatened that England could consider boycotting the soccer World Cup in Russia
this summer.
Every newspaper, apart from the Financial Times, led with hysterical anti-Russian
headlines . The Sun blared, "Red Spy in UK Poison Terror," with an accompanying story
referring to "fear over a Kremlin backed hit " The Daily Mirror's headline was "
'Assassins' on British street".
In an article in the Spectator , columnist Ed West posed the question, "Will
Britain stand up to Russia?" By the evening, despite Newsnight anchor Kirsty Wark introducing
the story by saying, "so far we know nothing about what happened to them, if they were poisoned
and if they were, by whom," the BBC's flagship news programme was dedicated to a narrative that
Russia was responsible and that Skripal and his daughter were likely victims of an attack by
Russia intelligence operatives.
The media have reported the deaths of Skripal's wife, his son and his older brother as
mysterious events requiring investigation. His wife died of cancer in 2012 in Britain.
The following day the DailyTelegraph asserted that "Putin swore death on
poisoned Russian spy." The Times went with "MI5 believes Russians tried to kill former
spy."
On Wednesday morning, the government convened its COBRA committee, which meets during
periods of national emergencies. On Wednesday evening, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark
Rowley announced that Skripal and his daughter were subjected to an attack by a "nerve agent,"
with it being classified as a case of "attempted murder."
No information released by the authorities can be taken at face value. All reports attest
that Skripal was supposedly politically inactive. He evidently did nothing to hide his
identity, buying a house for £260,000 in his real name and applying to join a railway
social club. He regularly bought lottery scratch cards and purchased food from a local Polish
food store.
If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some explanation
needs to be made as to motive. Skripal's daughter lived and worked in Russia and made regular
trips back and forth.
At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much more
likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent
anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK,
becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence
think-tank.
RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism's anti-Russian policy. Even the
Guardian's main advocate against the Putin regime, columnist Luke Harding, was forced
to acknowledge that Sutyagin "gave lectures on Vladimir Putin's darkening state, and kept a
high public profile. Skripal, by contrast, eschewed London. He settled with Liudmilla [his
wife] in the comparative quiet of Wiltshire." Asking the question who would benefit from the
deaths of Skripal and his daughter, there would appear to be no obvious reason why the Putin
government would authorize such an act. Putin is currently campaigning in the last stretch of
the 2018 presidential election, which takes place on March 18. He is expected to be
re-elected.
Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any
pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorising the murder
of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents.
The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context of
the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times devoted its
front page, an op-ed piece and an editorial to bellicose calls by senior military figures,
including second in command of the armed forces, Sir Gordon Messenger, for an increase in
military spending, naming Russia as the power that must be confronted.
This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the
General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively
prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals:
Best Buy's Geek Squad has been discovered acting as undercover FBI informants, snooping on
their customers' computers and reporting anything that looks amiss to the FBI...for cash
payments!
And Google is teaming up with the Pentagon to help it better analyze drone footage
for targeting and other purposes.
While once it seemed the big tech firms would provide us
protection against the ever-prying eyes of the national security state, it seems now they have
become arms of the national security state. We look at this troubling phenomenon in today's
Liberty Report:
There is huge difference: Stalinist were convinced that communism is a bright future of
mankind and were determine (with the religious zeal_ to eliminate allthe resistance to tits
coming.
Neoliberalism is clearly experience both ideological (since 2008) and now social crisis in
the USA. So here the purges are designed to prolong the like of decaying regime which lost its
legitimacy in the eyes of population. As such is is not similar to the Stalin Doctors' plot - Wikipedia -- the purge of
Jewish doctors at the end of this reign.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to the world. But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance. ..."
This year could turn out to be a defining year for the United States. It is clear that the
US military/security complex and the Democratic Party aided by their media vassals intend to
purge Donald Trump from the presidency. One of the open conspirators declared the other day
that we have to get rid of Trump now before he wins re-election in a landslide.
It is now a known fact that Russiagate is a conspiracy of the military/security complex,
Obama regime, Democratic National Committee, and presstitute media to destroy President Trump.
However, the presstitutes never present this fact to the American public. Nevertheless, a
majority of Americans do not believe the Democrats and the presstitutes that Trump conspired
with Putin to steal the election.
One question before us is: Will Mueller and the Democrats succeed in purging Donald Trump,
as Joseph Stalin succeed in purging Lenin's Bolsheviks, including Nikolai Bukharin, who Lenin
called "the golden boy of the revolution," or will the Democratic Party and the presstitutes
discredit themselves such that the country moves far to the right.
Stalin didn't need facts and could frame-up people at will as he had absolute power. In the
US the presstitute media, like Stalin, does not concern itself with facts, but the presstitutes
do not have absolute power. Indeed, few people trust the presstitutes, and even fewer trust
Mueller.
Many are puzzled that President Trump has not moved against his enemies as they have no
evidence for their charges. Indeed, Mueller's indictments have nothing whatsoever to do with
the Russiagate accusations. Why are not Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and all the rest indicted
for their clear and obvious crimes?
America's future turns on the answer to this question. Is it because the Trump regime is
letting the presstitutes and the Democrats destroy their credibility, or is it because Trump is
weak, confused, and doesn't know how to use the powers of his office to slay those who intend
to slay him?
If it is the former, then America will move far to the right. If it is the latter, America
will have had its own Stalinist purge, and the purge is likely to follow the Stalin model and to
extend down to those who voted for Trump.
The failure of the integrity of the liberal/progressive/left has left the US facing two
unpalatable outcomes. One is a right-wing government empowered by the left's self-defeat. The
other is the rise of the Identity Politics state in which oppression will be based on gender,
race, and beliefs.
This is not the only issue that could be resolved in 2018. There are others, and the other
two major ones are the economic situation and the military situation.
For a decade the central banks of the West and Japan have printed money far in excess of the
increase in real goods and services. This money printing has not caused massive inflation of
consumer prices. Instead it has caused inflation in financial instruments and real estate.
The high Dow Jones average is the product of this money printing. Can the central banks stop
printing money and allow interest rates to rise, thus collapsing equity prices and pension
funds? What would be the consequences?
Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to
the world. But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US
perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give
Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance.
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC
because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine
the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images"
of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided
these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC .
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to
its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly
contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor
that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and
even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks
as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth
Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly
dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished
to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials
took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The
main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was
more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump
over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler"
comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with
intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons
inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC
because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine
the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images"
of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided
these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC .
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to
its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly
contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor
that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and
even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks
as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth
Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly
dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished
to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials
took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The
main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was
more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump
over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler"
comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with
intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons
inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
It is interesting that US tax payer dollars fund an agency that executes foreign policy, with no controls, which is the responsibility
of the federal government according to the US constitution.
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position. ..."
"... If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators. ..."
The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now. The reasonable position now is to
wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. All else is partisan spinning, by all sides.
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor
Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that;
We should by all means just sit back and let the narrative unfold as those who are trying to unseat the elected president continue
unopposed to craft public opinion, just in time for mid-term elections.
Using the same legal logic there is "probable cause" for the FBI to investigate every member of the House and Senate as well
because they have all have met some guy who is connected to somebody who is corrupt, a foreign agent, or some other kind of crook
or some drunk in a bar is saying they have. The only people above reproach are the senior agents committing adultery; failing
to inform their bosses of conflicts of interests due to their wives working for the very people who are witnesses in the investigation
they are conducting; or are omitting important facts from submissions to court for warrants. Even mentioning those is just
further evidence that something really did happen. I for one don't want the professional bureaucracy running the candidate
selection process in the Republic or keeping the elected representatives "in line" by making "some people sweat their future freedom
and wealth". But that statement alone would make me a suspect too.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is
assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can
always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity
in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
"The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now."
that is true.. however, what is not new, is the fact that lies or exaggeration is going on non stop still! perhaps you got
a chance to read this article 'cult of authority' which i think is applicable here... https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/07/the-cult-of-authority/
This case looks more and more like Litvinenko II -- another false flag designed to implicate Russia a fuel anti-russian hysteria.
British MI6 are masters in such provocations.
Along with sabotaging Moscow soccer tournament this also can also be an attempt to distract from MI6 role is creation of Steele
dossier too.
Notable quotes:
"... Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in 1995
by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn.
Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians. ..."
"... The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying fingered
Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited him. He says it was
Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him to British intelligence agents.
Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities' suspicions that another former FSB officer,
Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium. ..."
"... Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..."
"... Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British intelligence,
transmitting information about Russian agents. ..."
"... Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What did
he do to earn the higher pay? ..."
"... Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. ..."
"... If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it, he
must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will be thrown
under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of ruling elite as
high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free ..."
"... If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories in
fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional quest
of riches ..."
"... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr
Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties. ..."
"... It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way... ..."
"... Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what the 'counter-terror'
mob do. ..."
"... The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever happened,
but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they do trying to find
out what actually did occur. ..."
"... Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration. ..."
"... B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow via
his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke of genius.
Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide. ..."
"... On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will provide
all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such. ..."
"... Meanwhile The Guardian is spewing its usual bilge : Russian spy attack inquiry widens after medics treat 21 people ..."
"... The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it. ..."
On Sunday a former British-Russian double agent and his daughter were seriously injured in a mysterious incident in Salisbury,
England. The British government
says that both were hurt due to "exposure to a nerve agent". Speculative media reports talk of Sarin and VX, two deadly nerve-agents
used in military chemical weapons. Anonymous officials strongly hint that 'Russia did it'.
New reports though point to a deep connection between the case and the anti-Trump/anti-Russia propaganda drive run by the Obama
administration and the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
Sergei Skripal
once was
a colonel in a Russian military intelligence service. In the early 1990s he was
recruited by
the MI6 agent Pablo Miller. He continued to spy for the Brits after his 1999 retirement. The Russian FSB claims that the British
MI6 paid him $100,000 for his service. At that time a Russian officer would only make a few hundred bucks per month. Skripal was
finally uncovered in 2004 and two years later convicted for spying for Britain. He was sentenced to 18 years and in 2010 he and other
agents ware exchanged in a large spy swap between the United States and Russia. Skripal was granted refuge in Britain and has since
lived openly under his own name in Salisbury. His wife and his son died over the last years of natural causes. The only near relative
he has left is his daughter who continued to live in Russia.
Last week his daughter flew to Britain and met him in Salisbury. On Sunday they went to a pub and a restaurant. At some point
they were poisoned or poisoned themselves. They collapsed on a public bench. They are now in intensive care. A policeman one the
scene was also seriously effected.
Authorities have declined to name the substance to which the pair is suspected to have been exposed,
but :
Local media had on Monday reported the substance found at the scene to be similar to fentanyl: a lethally strong opioid available
even on Salisbury's soporific streets.
I think this event is a ramp to offing Knesia Sobchak prior to or just after the national poll. She is a pawn of the West.
She has been directed to consolidate the disparate liberal opposition campaigns by the use of primaries...which would just happen
to result in her primacy. The idea is to have her win enough vote it can be alleged that she has embarrassed Putin...and then
they six her using VX. Her father was close go Putin during Putin's early years in St Pete. The BBC has been running chaff out
the foot saying Putin killed his mentor Anatoly Sobchak. Knesia has been moved into position. She will be offed to harm Putin's
reputation but also to place e a complex wound in him. The West are monsters
Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become
clearer".
Yeah, right.
Like the illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country based on the lies by the same 'government', with a million+ casualties
among the middle eastern population.
That kind of outrageous crime , correct?
One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how low
what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink.
I was wondering if Grigory Rodchenkov was in danger of meeting the same fate by some of the more unsavory elements of U.S. Intelligence
Agencies. He would become a poster boy for Russian assassinations on U.S. soil.
One thing about Rodchenkov, if the doping was not state sponsored, what motive would have have for doing it on his own, is
there enough money in the Olympics that individual athletes would bribe him or would it make him look better if his athletes did
better? I don't buy that it was state sponsored, or at least there is no evidence to that affect.
Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in
1995 by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy
in Tallinn. Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians.
The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying
fingered Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited
him. He says it was Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him
to British intelligence agents. Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities'
suspicions that another former FSB officer, Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium.
Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..
Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British
intelligence, transmitting information about Russian agents.
Nikolai Luzan, who calls himself a colonel and a veteran of Russia's security agencies, wrote a detailed book about how
the British recruited Sergey Skripal. Luzan says his book, "A Devil's Counterintelligence Dozen," is an "artistic-documentary
production."
If we assume that Luzan's account is generally accurate, then Skripal was recruited during a long-term assignment in Malta
and Spain, where he "got greedy."
...
Further on:
Skripal led a quiet life in Salisbury, where he reportedly bought an average house for 340,000 British pounds (about $472,000).
His neighbors describe him as an ordinary, reasonably friendly pensioner. When he moved to the area, he even invited the whole
street over for a housewarming party.
It's unclear why Skripal decided to resettle specifically in Salisbury, but LinkedIn indicates that Pablo Miller -- the
MI6 agent who recruited him -- lives in the same town. In 2015, the year he retired, Miller received the Order of the British
Empire for services to Her Majesty's Government.
Skripal's wife, Lyudmila, lived with him in Salisbury until her death a few years ago. His son died from liver failure in
2017 in St. Petersburg.
It must be Pablo Miller who worked with Steele ...
Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What
did he do to earn the higher pay?
Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. The UK's fairly well covered by CCTV; I'd be very interested
in what those in Salisbury observed. The incident has La Carre written all over it.
If someone like MI6 for FSB wanted him dead they would be instantly in a car accident of robbery attempt, they whoever they are,
wanted this to thing to prolong in time to feed the press Russia gate and wanted people like b to follow the trap since most of
the info here can be found just after few clicks, will be picked up by rational people.
If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it,
he must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will
be thrown under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of
ruling elite as high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free .
If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories
in fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional
quest of riches .
In the society of control ruling elite controls everything it needs to control and hence is responsible for this. Case closed.
The Russian double agent poisoned in Salisbury may have become a target after using his contacts in the intelligence community
to work for private security firms, investigators believe.
Sergei Skripal could have come to the attention of certain people in Russia by attempting to "freelance" for companies run
by former MI5, MI6 and GCHQ spies, security sources say.
... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether
Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.
It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way...
For me it was particularly suss when the Leceister Police who are the coppers on the ground in Salisbury were heavied by Scotland
Yuk ( or 'the met' as englander papers call that gang of proven torturers & murderers) to
turn the Skripsky investigation over to the 'counter-terror squad'
- the mob of thugs whose skillful manipulation of england's media combined with
evidence falsification made their
indicted murder of Brazilian electrician
Jean Charles de Menezes seem like an heroic act by playing the old honest whitefella card - "all those brownfellas look the same,
who can tell the difference?" . No copper, not the killers or the idiot in charge suffered any disciplinary actiion, much less
a criminal one. IIRC the policeperson in charge who claimed to be 'in the bathroom' at the time of de Menzeses murder, one Cressida
Dick, is now chief commissioner, the boss of Scotland Yuk.
The local coppers know the area and will have a rapport with witnesses that a mob of arseholes in sharp suits backed by balaclava
wearing armed heavies is unlikely to enjoy, so why grab the gig especially since it is certain to remain unsolved?
Well partly that, to make sure it remains unsolved, but also because counter-terror plays the press release regurgitators who
are englander 'journos' like a fine old violin. Questions about fentanyl being a nerve agent get tricky? Spin the chooks a yarn
about evil a-rabs you have met.
Kalen is right. Such a flamboyant killing is not how modern intelligence agencies dispose of problems. Unless they want to draw
attention to their work.
Maybe there's a bunch of people around the Christopher Steele dossier thinking of talking. What better way to shut them up
than to knock off a Steele source.
It could always be a simple & rather human explanation - The daughter was struggling for cash at home, dad was old but refused
to die & had a stash of cash from his past, she knocked him off to get an earlier inheritance but being an amateur at this she
did herself in too, which would be poetic justice...?
It is highly unlikely that fentanyl was the toxin that poisoned Skribal and his daughter. That hypothesis should be excluded at
this point.
The main reason for this is that the patrol man who discovered them also came down with similar symptoms. Fentanyl is extremely
toxic when injected intravenously. But not to any one coming into contact with them, touching them or even performing mouth to
mouth resusication.
There are numerous acetyl choline inhibitors (e.g. sarin, vx, and many other similar compounds that have never been approved
for chemical warfare) that can cause symptoms if someone comes into contact with an intoxicated patient especially one has be
exposed externally.
Also the Portland Down lab has identified an ACE inhibitor (of course, that is part of the British military and they could
very easily be lying.)
In any case, this looks like a nerve toxin poison, fentanyl is not in that class.
Fentanyl patchs are used to control intense chronic pain...If he resigned from GRU because of health issues, as the "Meduzas"
affirm, it might be related to this chronic pain and so he could well be a patient using this drug for pain control.....
Thus,
fentanyl is not a nerve agent, but an anesthesic in any case....All could well be a performance...to blame the Russians and contribute
to scare the population about them previous to some machination to be mounted at......Do not forget that that factory of mannequin
challenges broadcasts, the White Helmets, is also a British "enterprise", creation of "former" MI6 LeMesurier....
Yesterday when questions about fentanyl were raised, the sick policeman was identified, up until that point all that had been
said was that the bill first on the scene were admitted to be checked out by medics. Today the close to death's door copper is
in fine fettle once again. I leave it up to others to decide whether he was crook (sick - an Oz term) or the imported police were
crooks (lying).
Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what
the 'counter-terror' mob do. If they were really opposed to scaring the bejeezuz outta englanders which is what their name
implies they would A) be better at preventing actions which they hadn't cranked up themselves for entrapment and B) not imagine
it was on the up and up to terrify the burghers of Salisbury with yarns about possible 'nerve agent' on the loose that were placing
the town's population at risk.
The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever
happened, but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they
do trying to find out what actually did occur. The form of this gang of sleek deceitful killers means that just because they
claim this local woodentop was poisoned, it doesn't mean that is what actually befell him.
Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration.
It seems that MI6 was keeping Sergei Skripal on a tight leash by having him live in Salisbury close to Pablo Miller who must be
the old fellow's minder as well as recruiter. One way of keeping Skripal on this leash must be to supply him with an addictive
painkiller, for whatever pain he is suffering (physical, perhaps psychological?), and fentanyl fits the bill.
Fentanyl also fits the bill for a poisoning agent that also affected the police officer who attended the Skripals. The fentanyl
epidemic is apparently forcing emergency and first-response personnel to re-evaluate procedures in handling patients so that they
themselves are not affected by sniffing fentanyl accidentally.
B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow
via his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke
of genius. Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide.
Nobody died. Only 3 remain in hospital and are not endangered.
On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will
provide all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such.
The question raised by the link offered by Oyyo at 6 (at least 21 affected by the "neurotoxin"), the comments offered by Debisdead
at 21, and the note from Craig Murry about the nearby chemical site: Was this an attack targeting Skripal at all, or some other
kind of "misadventure"? There are so many opportunities to use this kind of incident, by entities capable of spinning it this
way and that, that it doesn't give to us individuals reading the news much hope of ever learning the truth.
A police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, collapsed and was rushed to the hospital after he brushed fentanyl residue off his
uniform, allowing the drug to enter his system through his hands. The officer had apparently encountered the opioid earlier
in the day while making a drug bust.
Fenatanyl acts on the nervous system so could be described as a "nerve agent", particularly by a British politician or civil servant.
In addition to the three inpatients**** who are currently receiving treatment in relation to the incident, in line with Public
Health England guidance, which asked anyone who was in the area and is concerned because they feel unwell to come forward,
the Trust has seen and assessed a number of people who did not need treatment.
**** - These are Sgt Nick Bailey & the two original victims.
The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it.
"... Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any such legitimacy. ..."
Does Putin really believe Washington will "listen now"? He may still have some
"illusions," but we should have none. In recent years, there has been ample evidence that
US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to
read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service
reports.
Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to
imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding
positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If
nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that
Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years
of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any
such legitimacy.
And making matters worse, there are the still unproven allegations of "Russiagate"
collusion. Even if President Trump understands, or is made to understand, the new --
possibly historic -- overture represented by Putin's speech, would the "Kremlin puppet"
allegations made daily against him permit him to seize this opportunity? Indeed, do the
promoters of "Russiagate" care?
"... What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative' as possible. ..."
"... Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to term 'bad Straussianism.' ..."
"... What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic. But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning, which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places. ..."
More material on the British end of the conspiracy.
Commenting on an earlier piece by PT, I suggested that a key piece of evidence pointing to
'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to
disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a
leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt
Tait.
To recapitulate: Back in June 2016, hard on the heels of the claim by Dmitri Alperovitch
of 'CrowdStrike' to have identified clinching evidence making the GRU prime suspects, Tait
announced that, although initially unconvinced, he had found a 'smoking gun' in the
'metadata' of the documents released by 'Guccifer 2.0.'
A key part of this was the use by someone modifying a document of 'Felix Edmundovich'
– the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky, the Lithuanian-Polish noble who created the
Soviet secret police.
As I noted, Tait was generally identified as a former GCHQ employee who now ran a
consultancy called 'Capital Alpha Security.' However, checking Companies House records
revealed that he had filed 'dormant accounts' for the company. So it looks as though the
company was simply a 'front', designed to fool 'useful idiots' into believing he was an
objective analyst.
As I also noted in those comments, Tait writes the 'Lawfare' blog, one of whose founders,
Benjamin Wittes, looks as though he may himself have been involved in the conspiracy up to
the hilt. Furthermore, a secure income now appears to have been provided to replace that from
the non-existent consultancy, in the shape of a position at the 'Robert S. Strauss Center for
International Security and Law', run by Robert Chesney, a co-founder with Wittes of
'Lawfare.'
A crucial part of the story, however, is that the notion of GRU responsibility for the
supposed 'hacks' appears to be part of a wider 'narrative' about the supposed 'Gerasimov
Doctrine.' From the 'View from Langley' provided to Bret Stephens by CIA Director Mike Pompeo
at the 'Aspen Security Forum' last July:
'I hearken back to something called the Gerasimov doctrine from the early 70s, he's now
the head of the – I'm a Cold War guy, forgive me if I mention Soviet Union. He's now
the head of the Russian army and his idea was that you can win wars without firing a single
shot or with firing very few shots in ways that are decidedly not militaristic, and that's
what's happened. What changes is the costs; to effectuate change through cyber and through RT
and Sputnik, their news outlets, and through other soft means; has just really been lowered,
right. It used to be it was expensive to run an ad on a television station now you simply go
online and propagate your message. And so they have they have found an effective tool, an
easy way to go reach into our systems, and into our culture to achieve the outcomes they are
looking for.'
What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not
invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now
confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative'
as possible.
Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm
Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous
high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'
'Gerasimov was actually talking about how the Kremlin understands what happened in the
"Arab Spring" uprisings, the "color revolutions" against pro-Moscow regimes in Russia's
neighborhood, and in due course Ukraine's "Maidan" revolt. The Russians honestly –
however wrongly – believe that these were not genuine protests against brutal and
corrupt governments, but regime changes orchestrated in Washington, or rather, Langley. This
wasn't a "doctrine" as the Russians understand it, for future adventures abroad: Gerasimov
was trying to work out how to fight, not promote, such uprisings at home.'
The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti
which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to
term 'bad Straussianism.'
What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has
to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime
change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic.
But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning,
which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places.
Having now read the text of the article, I can see a peculiar irony in it. In a section
entitled 'You Can't Generate Ideas On Command', Gerasimov suggests that 'The state of Russian
military science today cannot be compared with the flowering of military-theoretical thought
in our country on the eve of World War II.'
According to the 'exoteric' meaning of the article, it is not possible to blame anyone in
particular for this situation. But Gerasimov goes on on to remark that, while at the time of
that flowering there were 'no people with higher degrees' or 'academic schools or
departments', there were 'extraordinary personalities with brilliant ideas', who he terms
'fanatics in the best sense of the word.'
Again, Galeotti discounts the suggestion that nobody is to blame, assuming an 'esoteric
meaning', and remarking: 'Ouch. Who is he slapping here?'
Actually, Gerasimov refers by name to two, utterly different figures, who certainly were
'extraordinarily personalities with brilliant ideas.'
If Pompeo had even the highly amateurish grasp of the history of debates among Soviet
military theorists that I have managed to acquire he would be aware that one of the things
which was actually happening in the 'Seventies was the rediscovery of the ideas of Alexander
Svechin.
Confirming my sense that this has continued on, Gerasimov ends by using Svechin to point
up an intractable problem: it can be extraordinarily difficult to anticipate the conditions
of a war, and crucial not to impose a standardised template likely to be inappropriate, but
one has to make some kinds of prediction in order to plan.
Immediately after the passage which Galeotti interprets as a dig at some colleague,
Gerasimov elaborates his reference to 'extraordinary people with brilliant ideas' by
referring to an anticipation of a future war, which proved prescient, from a very different
figure to Svechin:
'People like, for instance, Georgy Isserson, who, despite the views he formed in the
prewar years, published the book "New Forms Of Combat." In it, this Soviet military
theoretician predicted: "War in general is not declared. It simply begins with already
developed military forces. Mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the
onset of the state of war as was the case in 1914 but rather, unnoticed, proceeds long before
that." The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in
great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the
General Staff Academy.'
Unlike Svechin, whom I have read, I was unfamiliar with Isserson. A quick Google search,
however, unearthed a mass of material in American sources – including, by good fortune,
an online text of a 2010 study by Dr Richard Harrison entitled 'Architect of Soviet Victory
in World War II: The Life and Theories of G.S. Isserson', and a presentation summarising the
volume.
Ironically, Svechin and Isserson were on opposite sides of fundamental divides. So the
former, an ethnic Russian from Odessa, was one of the 'genstabisty', the former Tsarist
General Staff officers who sided with the Bolsheviks and played a critical role in teaching
the Red Army how to fight. Meanwhile Isserson was a very different product of the
'borderlands' – the son of a Jewish doctor, brought up in Kaunas, with a German Jewish
mother from what was then Königsberg, giving him an easy facility with German-language
sources.
The originator of the crucial concept of 'operational' art – the notion that in
modern industrial war, the ability to handle a level intermediate between strategy and
tactics was critical to success – was actually Svechin.
Developing the ambivalence of Clausewitz, however, he stressed that both the offensive and
the defensive had their places, and that the key to success was to know which was appropriate
when and also to be able rapidly to change from one to the other. His genuflections to
Marxist-Leninist dogma, moreover, were not such as to take in any of Dzerzhinsky's
people.
By contrast, Isserson was unambiguously committed to the offensive strand in the
Clausewitzian tradition, and a Bolshevik 'true believer' (although he married the daughter of
a dispossessed ethnically Russian merchant, who had their daughter baptised without his
knowledge.)
As Harrison brings out, Isserson's working through of the problems of offensive
'operational art' would be critical to the eventual success of the Red Army against Hitler.
However, the specific text to which he refers was, ironically, a warning of precisely one of
the problems implicit in the single-minded reliance on the offensive: the possibility that
one could be left with no good options confronting an antagonist similarly oriented –
as turned out to be the case.
As Gerasimov intimates, while unlike Svechin, executed in 1938, Isserson survived the
Stalin years, he was another of the victims of Dzerzhinsky's heirs. Arrested shortly before
his warnings were vindicated by the German attack on 22 June 1941, he would spend the war in
the Gulag and only return to normal life after Stalin's death.
So I think that the actual text of Gerasimov's article reinforces a point I have made
previously. The 'evidence' identified by Tait is indeed a 'smoking gun.' But it emphatically
does not point towards the GRU.
Meanwhile, another moral of the tale is that Americans really should stop being taken in
by charlatan Brits like Galeotti, Tait, and Steele.
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
Looks like Brennan was the architect of DNS false flag operation: "Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign -- directly pointing a finger
at former CIA director (and now
MSNBC/NBC contributor
) John Brennan as the architect."
Now all this staff started to remind me 9/11 investigation. Also by Mueller.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian hacking of Ukrainian military equipment ..."
"... Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council? Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying on the Trump campaign: ..."
"... Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign -- directly pointing a finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect. ..."
"... I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press -- they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military intelligence service leaked it. ..."
"... Listen to Seymour Hersh leaked audio: https://www.youtube.com/embed/giuZdBAXVh0 (full transcription here and extended audio of the Hersh conversation here ) ..."
"... As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed typical of file transfers to a memory stick. ..."
"... Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source: ..."
"... Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert Mueller should at minimum explore these leads. ..."
"... As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they? ..."
In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery," forensic
technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company
partially
funded by Google , was the
only
entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking:
Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news.
In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged "80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine
removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners," Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs
that the said information is incorrect .
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources.
Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces
of Ukraine. -- mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)
In fact, several respected journalists have cast serious doubt on CrowdStrike's report on the DNC servers:
Pay attention, because Mueller is likely to use the Crowdstrike report to support the rumored upcoming charges against Russian
hackers.
Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.
Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had
been spying on the Trump campaign:
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try
to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. - Evelyn Farkas
... ... ...
Brennan and Russian disinformation
Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign -- directly pointing a finger
at former CIA director (and now
MSNBC/NBC contributor
) John Brennan as the architect.
I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and
the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press -- they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA
was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military
intelligence service leaked it.
Hersh denied that he told Butowsky anything before the leaked audio emerged , telling NPR " I hear gossip [Butowsky] took two
and two and made 45 out of it. "
Technical Evidence
As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name
Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The big hint
Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source:
Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing
to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert
Mueller should at minimum explore these leads.
As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they?
Relax you conspiracy theory-loving extremists. Our 336 spy agencies are just busy trying to solve the Michael Hasting's murder
first. But it's just really hard to find the culprits because they're all hiding in Siberia.
"... So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power. ..."
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial."
From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to Flynn were
already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not constitute a
crime in any case.
Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If you're telling me this, we have
reason to think that you're mistaken?"
If I'm correct in my understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a
very chickenshit fashion and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the least
reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of the
White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia.
For example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating
to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI
Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what
would, what could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and
the track record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the
leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
I dunno I think the whole air of ineptitude around The Company is just a cover. Why else
would GHW Bush have been in Dallas at the time and then rocket just a few years later to its
top job? Yeah, I know, it could have been KBR pulling all the strings, but I would still
assert The Company was used as the vehicle to pre-position all the other necessary elements,
like Papa Cruz, a former anti-Batista foot soldier, showing up a few years to UT just in time
to radicalise LHO and set him up as the fall guy. And at the centre of all this, though I'm
not sure how except that he ran against Jeb! and Ted, is Donald J Trump.
"... We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers, no doubt). ..."
As
NBC News pointed out, Hicks' hacking claim raises questions about who hacked the account and why. But the committee wasn't able
to pursue those questions because Hicks, like many other members of the White House staff who have appeared before the House Intel
Committee, has refused to answer questions about her time at the White House or her experiences during the transition -- and also
because she was appearing voluntarily and not under a subpoena for her testimony.
It is standard practice for lawmakers to ask witnesses about phone numbers and email accounts. However, it is uncommon, according
to people familiar with the committee process, for a witness to tell lawmakers that he or she no longer has access to past accounts.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has famously been pursuing the emails of Trump associates and other records from the campaign period,
transition and the Trump administration.
Mueller recently sent a subpoena to former Trump aide Sam Nunberg ordering Nunberg to turn over documents relating in any way
to 10 current and former Trump associates, including Hicks.
As
NBC points out, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's first campaign manager (who reportedly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was
married to another woman), is slated to testify before the committee on Thursday.
We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers,
no doubt).
What is always a mystery to me is why these email servers are attached and available to the public Internet. Any script kiddie
with a version of "crack" can eventually guess a password that is composed of regular words or favorite clichés. Not to mention
some inherently hackable OSs.
Are your email accounts all hosted on servers not attached to the internet?
Email servers, even ones attached to the internet, can be protected. Not perfectly, but well enough. Throw in proper use of
non-trivial passwords and you become even safer in a relatively private environment such as a corporation or campaign committee
might set up. When email services are offered freely to everyone you are always at risk, because the hosts will have full access
to whatever you send and receive.
One more thing: make certain you can trust those running your servers. Then you won't have to hire someone to kill them when
they steal stuff via direct access to the servers. Think Seth Rich.
"... The figures contained in the recent budget deal that kept Congress open, as well as in President Trump's budget proposal for 2019, are a case in point: $700 billion for the Pentagon and related programs in 2018 and $716 billion the following year. ..."
"... Though the Pentagon's budget was already through the roof, it will get an extra $165 billion over the next two years, thanks to the congressional budget deal reached earlier this month. ..."
"... Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy put the new Pentagon budget numbers in perspective when he pointed out that just the approximately $80 billion annual increase in the department's top line between 2017 and 2019 will be double the current budget of the State Department; higher than the gross domestic products of more than 100 countries; and larger than the entire military budget of any country in the world, except China's. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the majority of Republican fiscal conservatives were thrilled to sign off on a Pentagon increase that, combined with the Trump tax cut for the rich, funds ballooning deficits as far as the eye can see -- a total of $7.7 trillion worth of them over the next decade. ..."
"... Although Congress is likely to rein in the administration's most extreme proposals, the figures are stark indeed -- a proposed cut of $120 billion in the domestic spending levels both parties agreed to. The biggest reductions include a 41% cut in funding for diplomacy and foreign aid; a 36% cut in funding for energy and the environment; and a 35% cut in housing and community development. And that's just the beginning. The Trump administration is also preparing to launch full-scale assaults on food stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare. It's war on everything except the US military. ..."
"... Items that snagged billions in new funding in Trump's proposed 2019 budget included Lockheed Martin's overpriced, underperforming F-35 aircraft, at $10.6 billion; Boeing's F-18 "Super Hornet," which was in the process of being phased out by the Obama administration but is now written in for $2.4 billion; Northrop Grumman's B-21 nuclear bomber at $2.3 billion; General Dynamics' Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at $3.9 billion; and $12 billion for an array of missile-defense programs that will redound to the benefit of you guessed it: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, among other companies. These are just a few of the dozens of weapons programs that will be feeding the bottom lines of such companies in the next two years and beyond. For programs still in their early stages, like that new bomber and the new ballistic missile submarine, their banner budgetary years are yet to come. ..."
"... Trump wants to create jobs, jobs, jobs he can point to, and pumping up the military-industrial complex must seem like the path of least resistance to that end in present-day Washington. Under the circumstances, what does it matter that virtually any other form of spending would create more jobs and not saddle Americans with weaponry we don't need? ..."
"... The list of wasteful expenditures is already staggeringly long and early projections are that bureaucratic waste at the Pentagon will amount to $125 billion over the next five years. Among other things, the Defense Department already employs a shadow work force of more than 600,000 private contractors whose responsibilities overlap significantly with work already being done by government employees. Meanwhile, sloppy buying practices regularly result in stories like the recent ones on the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency losing track of how it spent $800 million and how two American commands were unable to account for $500 million meant for the war on drugs in the Greater Middle East and Africa. ..."
"... Most important of all, this flood of new funding, which could crush a generation of Americans under a mountain of debt, will make it easier to sustain the seemingly endless seven wars that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. So call this one of the worst investments in history, ensuring as it does failed wars to the horizon. ..."
The Military-Industrial Complex Is on Corporate WelfareThe Pentagon will get an
extra $165 billion over the next two years -- that's even more than Donald Trump asked
for.
Imagine for a moment a scheme in which American taxpayers were taken to the cleaners to the
tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and there was barely a hint of criticism or outrage.
Imagine as well that the White House and a majority of the politicians in Washington, no matter
the party, acquiesced in the arrangement. In fact, the annual quest to boost Pentagon spending
into the stratosphere regularly follows that very scenario, assisted by predictions of imminent
doom from industry-funded hawks with a vested interest in increased military outlays. Most
Americans are probably aware that the Pentagon spends a lot of money, but it's unlikely they
grasp just how huge those sums really are. All too often, astonishingly lavish military budgets
are treated as if they were part of the natural order, like death or taxes.
The figures contained in the recent budget deal that kept Congress open, as well as in
President Trump's budget proposal for 2019, are a case in point: $700 billion for the Pentagon
and related programs in 2018 and $716 billion the following year.
Remarkably, such numbers far exceeded even the Pentagon's own expansive expectations.
According to Donald Trump, admittedly not the most reliable source in all cases, Secretary of
Defense Jim Mattis reportedly said, "Wow, I can't believe we got everything we wanted" -- a
rare admission from the head of an organization whose only response to virtually any budget
proposal is to ask for more. The public reaction to such staggering Pentagon budget hikes was
muted, to put it mildly.
Unlike last year's tax giveaway to the rich, throwing near-record amounts of tax dollars at
the Department of Defense generated no visible public outrage. Yet those tax cuts and Pentagon
increases are closely related. The Trump administration's pairing of the two mimics the failed
approach of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s -- only more so. It's a phenomenon I've termed
"Reaganomics on steroids." Reagan's approach yielded oceans of red ink and a severe weakening
of the social safety net. It also provoked such a strong pushback that he later backtracked by
raising taxes and set the stage for sharp reductions in nuclear weapons.
Donald Trump's retrograde policies on immigration, women's rights, racial justice, LGBT
rights, and economic inequality have spawned an impressive and growing resistance. It remains
to be seen whether his generous treatment of the Pentagon at the expense of basic human needs
will spur a similar backlash. Of course, it's hard to even get a bead on what's being lavished
on the Pentagon when much of the media coverage failed to drive home just how enormous these
sums actually are. A rare exception was an Associated Press story headlined "Congress, Trump
Give the Pentagon a Budget the Likes of Which It Has Never Seen." This was certainly far closer
to the truth than claims like that of Mackenzie Eaglen of the conservative American Enterprise
Institute, which over the years has housed such uber-hawks as Dick Cheney and John Bolton. She
described the new budget as a "modest year-on-year increase." If that's the case, one shudders
to think what an immodest increase might look like.
The Pentagon Wins Big
So let's look at the money.
Though the Pentagon's budget was already through the roof, it will get an extra $165
billion over the next two years, thanks to the congressional budget deal reached earlier this
month. To put that figure in context, it was tens of billions of dollars more than Donald
Trump had asked for last spring to "rebuild" the US military (as he put it). It even exceeded
the figures, already higher than Trump's, Congress had agreed to last December. It brings total
spending on the Pentagon and related programs for nuclear weapons to levels higher than those
reached during the Korean and Vietnam wars in the 1950s and 1960s, or even at the height of
Ronald Reagan's vaunted military buildup of the 1980s. Only in two years of Barack Obama's
presidency, when there were roughly 150,000 US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about seven
times current levels of personnel deployed there, was spending higher.
Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy put the new Pentagon budget numbers
in perspective when he pointed out that just the approximately $80 billion annual increase in
the department's top line between 2017 and 2019 will be double the current budget of the State
Department; higher than the gross domestic products of more than 100 countries; and larger than
the entire military budget of any country in the world, except China's.
Democrats signed on to that congressional budget as part of a deal to blunt some of the most
egregious Trump administration cuts proposed last spring. The administration, for example, kept
the State Department's budget from being radically slashed and it reauthorized the imperiled
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for another 10 years. In the process, however, the
Democrats also threw millions of young immigrants under the bus by dropping an insistence that
any new budget protect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or "Dreamers," program.
Meanwhile, the majority of Republican fiscal conservatives were thrilled to sign off on a
Pentagon increase that, combined with the Trump tax cut for the rich, funds ballooning deficits
as far as the eye can see -- a total of $7.7 trillion worth of them over the next
decade.
While domestic spending fared better in the recent congressional budget deal than it would
have if Trump's draconian plan for 2018 had been enacted, it still lags far behind what
Congress is investing in the Pentagon. And calculations by the National Priorities Project
indicate that the Department of Defense is slated to be an even bigger winner in Trump's 2019
budget blueprint. Its share of the discretionary budget, which includes virtually everything
the government does other than programs like Medicare and Social Security, will mushroom to a
once-unimaginable 61 cents on the dollar, a hefty boost from the already startling 54 cents on
the dollar in the final year of the Obama administration.
The skewed priorities in Trump's latest budget proposal are fueled in part by the
administration's decision to embrace the Pentagon increases Congress agreed to last month,
while tossing that body's latest decisions on non-military spending out the window.
Although Congress is likely to rein in the administration's most extreme proposals, the
figures are stark indeed -- a proposed cut of $120 billion in the domestic spending levels both
parties agreed to. The biggest reductions include a 41% cut in funding for diplomacy and
foreign aid; a 36% cut in funding for energy and the environment; and a 35% cut in housing and
community development. And that's just the beginning. The Trump administration is also
preparing to launch full-scale assaults on food stamps, Medicaid, and Medicare. It's war on
everything except the US military.
Corporate Welfare
The recent budget plans have brought joy to the hearts of one group of needy Americans: the
top executives of major weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman,
Raytheon, and General Dynamics. They expect a bonanza from the skyrocketing Pentagon
expenditures. Don't be surprised if the CEOs of these five firms give themselves nice salary
boosts, something to truly justify their work, rather than the paltry $96 million they drew as
a group in 2016 (the most recent year for which full statistics are available).
And keep in mind that, like all other US-based corporations, those military-industrial
behemoths will benefit richly from the Trump administration's slashing of the corporate tax
rate. According to one respected industry analyst, a good portion of this windfall will go
towards bonuses and increased dividends for company shareholders rather than investments in new
and better ways to defend the United States. In short, in the Trump era, Lockheed Martin and
its cohorts are guaranteed to make money coming and going.
Items that snagged billions in new funding in Trump's proposed 2019 budget included
Lockheed Martin's overpriced, underperforming F-35 aircraft, at $10.6 billion; Boeing's F-18
"Super Hornet," which was in the process of being phased out by the Obama administration but is
now written in for $2.4 billion; Northrop Grumman's B-21 nuclear bomber at $2.3 billion;
General Dynamics' Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine at $3.9 billion; and $12 billion for
an array of missile-defense programs that will redound to the benefit of you guessed it:
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing, among other companies. These are just a few of the
dozens of weapons programs that will be feeding the bottom lines of such companies in the next
two years and beyond. For programs still in their early stages, like that new bomber and the
new ballistic missile submarine, their banner budgetary years are yet to come.
In explaining the flood of funding that enables a company like Lockheed Martin to reap $35
billion per year in government dollars, defense analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group
noted that "diplomacy is out; air strikes are in In this sort of environment, it's tough to
keep a lid on costs. If demand goes up, prices don't generally come down. And, of course, it's
virtually impossible to kill stuff. You don't have to make any kind of tough choices when
there's such a rising tide."
Pentagon Pork Versus Human Security
Loren Thompson is a consultant to many of those weapons contractors. His think tank, the
Lexington Institute, also gets contributions from the arms industry. He caught the spirit of
the moment when he praised the administration's puffed-up Pentagon proposal for using the
Defense Department budget as a jobs creator in key states, including the crucial swing state of
Ohio, which helped propel Donald Trump to victory in 2016. Thompson was particularly pleased
with a plan to ramp up General Dynamics's production of M-1 tanks in Lima, Ohio, in a factory
whose production line the Army had tried to put on hold just a few years ago because it was
already drowning in tanks and had no conceivable use for more of them.
Thompson argues that the new tanks are needed to keep up with Russia's production of armored
vehicles, a dubious assertion with a decidedly Cold War flavor to it. His claim is backed up,
of course, by the administration's new National Security Strategy, which targets Russia and
China as the most formidable threats to the United States. Never mind that the likely
challenges posed by these two powers -- cyberattacks in the Russian case and economic expansion
in the Chinese one -- have nothing to do with how many tanks the US Army possesses.
Trump wants to create jobs, jobs, jobs he can point to, and pumping up the
military-industrial complex must seem like the path of least resistance to that end in
present-day Washington. Under the circumstances, what does it matter that virtually any other
form of spending would create more jobs and not saddle Americans with weaponry we don't
need?
If past performance offers any indication, none of the new money slated to pour into the
Pentagon will make anyone safer. As Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies has noted, there is a danger that the Pentagon will just get "fatter not stronger" as
its worst spending habits are reinforced by a new gusher of dollars that relieves its planners
of making any reasonably hard choices at all.
The list of wasteful expenditures is already staggeringly long and early projections are
that bureaucratic waste at the Pentagon will amount to $125 billion over the next five years.
Among other things, the Defense Department already employs a shadow work force of more than
600,000 private contractors whose responsibilities overlap significantly with work already
being done by government employees. Meanwhile, sloppy buying practices regularly result in
stories like the recent ones on the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency losing track of how it
spent $800 million and how two American commands were unable to account for $500 million meant
for the war on drugs in the Greater Middle East and Africa.
Add to this the $1.5 trillion slated to be spent on F-35s that the nonpartisan Project on
Government Oversight has noted may never be ready for combat and the unnecessary
"modernization" of the US nuclear arsenal, including a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers,
submarines, and missiles at a minimum cost of $1.2 trillion over the next three decades. In
other words, a large part of the Pentagon's new funding will do much to fuel good times in the
military-industrial complex but little to help the troops or defend the country.
Most important of all, this flood of new funding, which could crush a generation of
Americans under a mountain of debt, will make it easier to sustain the seemingly endless seven
wars that the United States is fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
and Yemen. So call this one of the worst investments in history, ensuring as it does failed
wars to the horizon.
It would be a welcome change in 21st-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet
more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious
discussion about America's hyper-militarized foreign policy. A national debate about such
matters in the run-up to the 2018 and 2020 elections could determine whether it continues to be
business-as-usual at the Pentagon or whether the largest agency in the federal government is
finally reined in and relegated to an appropriately defensive posture.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in
waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the
wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this
around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this
post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war
based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched
reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly,
for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the
Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before
Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to
save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against
Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike
Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens
the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a
sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am
not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
The Iron Law of Oligarchy and the Iron Law of Institutions.
All institutions are corruptible and all institutions eventually will be corrupted, because institutions = power and power
is to sociopaths what catnip is to cats.
Some corollaries of this are:
The people who want power the most are the most inclined to abuse that power.
The principal function of any institution is to keep sociopaths out of power as much as possible for as long as possible.
There are no political or economic systems that work everywhere or at all times. Rather, a system works in a given time
and place, to the extent that they further the above principles.
"... The neocons are nothing if not survivors: they've managed to escape being totally shunned despite their disastrous leadership of the Iraq war, and they're now enjoying a new vogue in "liberal" and even leftist circles on account of their pioneering efforts on behalf of the NeverTrump movement. ..."
"... yet in this era of "America First" nationalism and the explicit anti-globalism of some in the higher reaches of the Trump administration, this time they may well be facing a humiliating defeat. ..."
The neocons are nothing if not survivors: they've managed to escape being totally
shunned despite their disastrous leadership of the Iraq war, and they're now enjoying a new
vogue in "liberal" and even leftist circles on account of their pioneering efforts on behalf of
the NeverTrump movement.
This attack on their longtime stronghold in government is bound to call out the Furies, and
yet in this era of "America First" nationalism and the explicit anti-globalism of some in
the higher reaches of the Trump administration, this time they may well be facing a humiliating
defeat. The NED is a rich source of grants and other government goodies: for the neocons
to lose this is hitting them where they live.
Yes, the good news is breaking out all over! Enjoy it while it lasts
"... #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented Americans across the political spectrum. ..."
"... it might be more scary then insane actually given how many are being suckered into this stupidity.. ..."
"... The US is under a psychotic mind massage that requires daily doses of Russophobic "medicine". ..."
"... All they have is their own crippled view of reality. But it is very dangerous. Projecting their own fears and hatreds often self-triggers into violence when schizoidal patients act out. ..."
"... The silver lining here though is that it is not working. Take the case of Matteo Renzi in Sunday's general election in Italy. He had tried to copy his neoliberal colleagues in other countries and allege victimization at the hands of Russian hackers and bots, but he eventually threw in the towel because the absurdity of his claims were roundly dismissed by the public. His Democratic Party polled under 20% and he announced his resignation the other day. The neoliberals can keep peddling their Russophobia but it doesn't work at the polls. ..."
"... "This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on everything else." To me it looks like a Sisyphos work. Where I look I am confronted with cheating Russians, faking Russians, murdering Russians, they are just evil, evil, evil. I honestly doubt you can do anything against this avalanche of genuine demonizing. It's disgusting but apparently the ruling circles want to go to war. And even you won't stop them. ..."
"... The morons who peddle this "Russia did it" nonsense fully realize it isn't true, but it distracts the masses, so the bought and paid for idiots who now own the U$A, can dismantle any Govt. interference to their plan for global market share capture. ..."
"... Taibbi is right and that makes 'progressive' embrace of the Russiagate hoaxes that much more sinister. It is fundamentally pro-war, pro-establishment and pro-censorship ..."
"... "...but I rather doubt "the ruling circles" want a hot war with Russia/China and their allies as that will destroy their Casino-economy faster than most anything else..." ..."
"... Let's hope you're right. Brit General Sir Gordon Messenger views the "next big fight," most likely against nuclear-armed Russia, as winnable. (Times 18.03.01) And he isn't the only confident warmonger. ..."
"... Really folks, what the hell do people expect the rest of the globe to do, as the U$A's corporate empire continues to surround and attempt to strangle other nations? If other nations of the globe didn't push back, I for one, wouldn't respect them. Other nations of the world have the legitimate right to push back, and should. ..."
It is unlikely that the headline was chosen by the author of the op-ed. The editors of the
Washington Post opinion page wrote it. I also doubt that she would have chosen a
picture of the FCC head to decorate her piece.
For the record: The headline is false.
The op-ed is about a request for comments the Federal Communications Commission issued last
year in preparation of its net-neutrality decision. Anyone, and anything, could comment
multiple times. Various lobbying firms, political action groups and hacks abused the public
comment system to send copy-paste comments via single-use email accounts or even without giving
any email address.
But this had and has nothing to with Russia or Russians.
Here are the top graphs of the the WaPo op-ed with the "Russia-did-it" headline:
What do Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), deceased actress Patty Duke, a 13-year-old from upstate
New York and a 96-year-old veteran from Southern California have in common?
They appear to have filed comments in the net neutrality record at the Federal
Communications Commission. That ought to mean they went online, submitted their names and
addresses, and typed out their thoughts about Internet regulatory policy. But appearances can
be deceiving. In fact, each of these individuals -- along with 2 million others -- had their
identities stolen and used to file fake comments.
These fake comments were not the only unnerving thing in the FCC net neutrality record. In
the course of its deliberations on the future of Internet openness, the agency logged about
half a million comments sent from Russian email addresses . It received nearly 8 million
comments from email domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com with almost identical
wording.
I have emphasized the only words in the whole op-ed that are related to Russia. They are
wrong. The author of that op-ed does not understand the FCC public comment system. Public
comments are made by filling
out a form on the FCC website leaving ones comment, some address data and an email address.
Public comments are not "send" by email. Thus the FCC did not log any comments "sent from
Russian email". It logged comments made in a web form where the human (or program) making the
comment provided a Russian email address as a means of contact. (It is obviously not expertise
on communication issues that qualifies Mrs. Rosenworcel for her position as FCC
commissioner.)
At least 12-13 million of the 21.7 million comments to the FCC were fake. 8 million email
addresses entered in the form the FCC had set up were generated with www.fakemailgenerator.com , half a million were entered
with *.ru Internet domains.
FakeMailGenerator can use foreign domains for generating throw-away email addresses. In the
screenshot below it generated an Hungarian one for me.
If I would comment at the FCC and enter [email protected] into the FCC form I
would be counted as Hungarian. I would not have "sent" that comment from an Hungarian email
address. Nor did the entering of the comment make me Hungarian. Neither do *.ru email domains
mean that the people (ab-)using them have anything to do with Russia.
The Pew Research Center
analyzed the 21.7 million comments the FCC received:
Fully 57% of comments used temporary or duplicate email addresses, and seven popular comments
accounted for 38% of all submissions
The FCC and other agencies are required by law to accept public comments. But, as the op-ed
says, it is utterly useless to request such public comments on the Internet without having some
authentication system in place. The FCC did have some email address verification system in
place. But it did not use it. As the Pew Center writes:
[T]he Center's analysis shows that the FCC site does not appear to have utilized this email
verification process on a consistent basis. According to this analysis of the data from the
FCC, only 3% of the comments definitively went through this validation process . In the vast
majority of cases, it is unclear whether any attempt was made to validate the email address
provided.
As a result, in many cases commenters were able to use generic or bogus email addresses
and still have their comments accepted by the FCC and posted online.
It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments.
But the FCC at least did not blame Russia. The Washington Post editors do that when
they chose a headline that has no factual basis in the piece below it. They abuse the op-ed
which has the presumed authority of an FCC commissioner to reinforce their anti-Russian
campaign.
C. J. Hopkins notes that such a cult of authority is
systematically used to make the lunatic claims of Russiagate believable.
Matt Taibbi writes that the aim of the Russiagate campaign was and is to
target all dissent :
If you don't think that the endgame to all of this lunacy is a world where every
America-critical movement from Black Lives Matter to Our Revolution to the Green Party is
ultimately swept up in the collusion narrative along with Donald Trump and his alt-right
minions, you haven't been paying attention.
That's because #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one
potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved
to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional
response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented
Americans across the political spectrum.
Some commenters here lament about my posts about the Steele and or Russiagate issues. "It's
enough already." But the issue is, as Taibbi points out, much bigger. This Russiagate nonsense
has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on
everything else.
Posted by b on March 7, 2018 at 04:17 PM | Permalink
thanks b.. this Russiagate thing is insane... i like the counter punch article you linked to
and appreciate your breaking these fcc thing apart... it might be more scary then insane
actually given how many are being suckered into this stupidity..
b: "This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its
further abuse against dissent on everything else."
Concur 100% Truth must be used in the constant battle against Big Lie Nation and its
perverse billionaire Deep State. Bezos should be wary he now wears a bullseye on his back
none of his billions can remove. I see Taibbi has finally gotten part of his head out of his
ass and is finally beginning to recognize Russiagate to be the Big Lie that it is, although
he hasn't yet extracted his mouth so he can tell the world it's all a Big Lie--bet Deep State
affiliated Rolling Stone would fire him if he did so. That's why we're treated to his
poorly written article that's almost two years too late.
b, glad to have your expert mind cutting through the maze of crapola. The US is under a psychotic mind massage that requires daily doses of Russophobic
"medicine".
All they have is their own crippled view of reality. But it is very dangerous.
Projecting their own fears and hatreds often self-triggers into violence when schizoidal
patients act out. We see this in America with school and concert shootings. With Russia as its enemy, the Exceptional Nation is taunting a great power with more nukes
than the US has. Every stupid American statement, thus, must be challenged. We can't be silent or laugh.
It's too serious.
The silver lining here though is that it is not working. Take the case of Matteo Renzi in
Sunday's general election in Italy. He had tried to copy his neoliberal colleagues in other
countries and allege victimization at the hands of Russian hackers and bots, but he
eventually threw in the towel because the absurdity of his claims were roundly dismissed by
the public. His Democratic Party polled under 20% and he announced his resignation the other
day. The neoliberals can keep peddling their Russophobia but it doesn't work at the polls.
Sorry to go off topic but the Syrian Arab Army has just marched thru East Gouta town of
Al-Hammouriyah to the joy of locals who are demanding that the arseholes of Faylaq al-Rahman
and Jaysh al-Islam take the next stage outta Beit Sawa.
There is a vid from
Al Masdar Newshereand another
here if you want to use facebook links as the vids are mounted on FB. Both vids show
support for the SAA by the population of East Gouta.
"This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further
abuse against dissent on everything else."
To me it looks like a Sisyphos work. Where I look I am confronted with cheating Russians,
faking Russians, murdering Russians, they are just evil, evil, evil. I honestly doubt you can
do anything against this avalanche of genuine demonizing. It's disgusting but apparently the
ruling circles want to go to war. And even you won't stop them.
"It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments.
..." hahaha. too true, B!! quite simply, democracy and capitalism can no longer co-habitate under the same roof
The morons who peddle this "Russia did it" nonsense fully realize it isn't true, but it
distracts the masses, so the bought and paid for idiots who now own the U$A, can dismantle
any Govt. interference to their plan for global market share capture.
Taibbi is right and that makes 'progressive' embrace of the Russiagate hoaxes that much more
sinister. It is fundamentally pro-war, pro-establishment and pro-censorship and thus not
progressive -- depending on how we define progress of course...
"...but I rather doubt "the ruling circles" want a hot war with Russia/China and their allies
as that will destroy their Casino-economy faster than most anything else..."
Let's hope you're right. Brit General Sir Gordon Messenger views the "next big fight," most
likely against nuclear-armed Russia, as winnable. (Times 18.03.01) And he isn't the only
confident warmonger.
Yes, we (patriotic) dissenters are "swept up in the collusion narrative" when we are labeled
"Russians." This has happened to me. When I comment a lot on military sites about the
ridiculous waste of money they are, I occasionally get the Russian treatment. "You're a
Russian." Once it was hilarious when the "Russian" label on me was deemed authentic by one
genius blogger. He said I must be Russian because I had used the word "kilometers." That
proved my Russian-ness to him. . . .Currently Trump is denigrated for being a Russia-lover,
but calling him a Russian is not likely (but possible).
Really folks, what the hell do people expect the rest of the globe to do, as the U$A's
corporate empire continues to surround and attempt to strangle other nations? If other
nations of the globe didn't push back, I for one, wouldn't respect them. Other nations of the
world have the legitimate right to push back, and should.
The US Power Elite ... would be rightfully called the „Deep State" of the USA (
http://tinyurl.com/ho2nz87
).
And this Deep State has become more and more ruthless over the time. They have brought
nightmares over the Southern Hemisphere by installing brutal dictatorships ( http://tinyurl.com/kkpvcf7 ) in their
interest and waging bloody colonial wars, in the last one and a half decades especially with
their „War on Terror" ( http://tinyurl.com/nrxxej5 ).
One of their aims is to prevent countries of Africa, Latin America, Near and Middle East and
Southern Asia from choosing their trade partners freely and from making use of their resources
and industrialize, since that would mean a division of resources and allowing them their part
of „consuming ecologic Earth capacity".
Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US presidential
election , the Democratic Party establishment has held tightly to the belief that her shock
defeat was not the result of her and their shortcomings, but rather due to a nefarious Russian
plot to "hack" the election in "collusion" with the winner.
Instead of examining why Donald Trump was able to connect with voters in economically
distressed parts of the country in a way that Democrats failed to do, adherents of the
Russiagate narrative hoped that investigations would quickly find a smoking gun, leading to
Trump's impeachment and undoing an election result they consider aberrant and unjust.
On Friday, I spoke at a conference in Washington, DC, titled The Israel Lobby and American Policy , sponsored
by The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and IRmep , a group that researches the lobby's influence.
As I note in my talk, a handful of journalists – especially Max Blumenthal and
Aaron Maté of The Real News – have consistently debunked the wild, exaggerated
and sometimes fabricated claims of Russian interference made by members of the self-styled but
woefully ineffectual "Resistance" to Trump.
Watch the video above.
True, over the course of the last year, special counsel Robert Mueller has made a number of
indictments, but none of those cases – including the recent
indictment of 13 Russians linked to a St. Petersburg troll farm – substantiates the
heavily hyped claim that Russia helped Trump win the White House.
Perhaps the most high-profile indictment of someone in Trump's inner circle, the president's
first national security adviser Michael Flynn , actually shows that
rather than colluding with Russia, senior members of Trump's team were really
working with Israel to
advanceits agenda.
And while no one has pinpointed evidence of Trump auctioning off his foreign policy to any
Russian oligarchs, he has definitely
tailored his policy toward Israel to the demands of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson , his biggest campaign
donor .
Adelson's immediate priority was securing US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital
and moving the American embassy there – and Trump duly
obliged .
New censorship helps Israel
In my talk I consider how the Russiagate narrative is actually helping Israel and its lobby
in particular ways.
I point out that the Russiagate hysteria being adopted by many liberals is legitimizing
censorship that helps Israel clamp down on free speech and a free press.
Last year, the Russian-funded network RT was forced to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA).
As Maté has noted, free speech advocates and journalists were largely
silent about it , perhaps thinking this tool of government control over the media would
never be used against them.
But now, Israel's supporters in Congress –
including Senator Ted Cruz – are demanding
that Al Jazeera be investigated by the Department of Justice and forced to register as an agent
of Qatar. They are explicitly citing the US government crackdown on RT as their precedent.
Al Jazeera's transgression is that it produced an undercover documentary on the workings of
the Israel lobby in the US.
Qatar has come under intense pressure from that lobby to make sure the documentary is never
aired. Five months after the network's head of investigations Clayton Swisher
announced it would be released "very soon," the film has yet to be broadcast.
According to a source who has seen it, the film identifies a number of lobby groups as
working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques.
It is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too
critical of Israel.
True, FARA is being used only against foreign networks, but the point is that these outlets
– whatever their flaws – are providing space for discussion and dissent that docile
US mainstream media keep closed.
It's simply impossible to imagine CNN, ABC – or for that matter the BBC –
showing true independence and taking on the power of the Israel lobby.
While organizers diligently informed media about the Washington conference, the only outlets
that invited me on to talk about the Israel lobby were the The Real News and RT. I know that
other speakers were shut out of mainstream media as well.
And besides, there are other forms of high-tech censorship that are being used to stifle or
stigmatize dissent in domestic media: Partly as an outgrowth of Russiagate, Silicon Valley
giants Google and
Facebook have succumbed to political
pressure to effectively
throttle the exposure
of independent outlets in the name of fighting extremism, "fake news" and alleged foreign
interference.
The perverse effect has been to reassert state and elite control over media and erode the
freedom that those of us shut out of mainstream outlets rely on. Nothing could suit Israel and
its lobby better.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was
secretary of state in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, issued a stark warning that the US ramping up its
military presence in Syria may be a prelude to launching a war on Iran on behalf of Israel.
Wilkerson said that Israel and its ally Saudi Arabia are encouraging the US to fight a
regime-change war against Tehran that they would be incapable of mounting on their own.
"We've already done Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan," Wilkerson said, "so we'd just be seen
as continuing the trend."
He warned that an Israeli confrontation and war with Lebanon – perhaps on the pretext
of disputed gas fields in the Mediterranean – could provide the pretext.
In an ominous parallel, he likened the current situation to 1914, the eve of World War I
– any spark could generate a broad regional or even global conflagration.
Wilkerson singled out the role of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of
Democracies as leading the campaign for war on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and his defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Notably, the source who spoke to The Electronic Intifada about Al Jazeera's suppressed
Israel lobby film said that the documentary reveals that the same think tank may be acting as
an agent for Israel in its covert efforts to undermine support for Palestinian rights in the
US.
In spite of Wilkerson's worrying thesis, it must be said that, however powerful, the Israel
lobby cannot alone force the US to undertake foreign military conquests. For one thing, US
elites have never needed encouragement from anyone to wage devastating wars around the
world.
When the US establishment sees a critical interest at stake, it pursues it regardless of
what the lobby may want. That is why the US signed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement despite
all of Israel's efforts to sabotage it. Of course whether that deal survives the Trump
administration
remains to be seen .
In his keynote
address , Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy stated that Israel's
military rule over Palestinians "is today one of the most brutal, cruel tyrannies on
Earth."
He asserted that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights
is a "legitimate tool" and the "only game in town" to force Israel to end this injustice.
"... Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret decisions without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also fundamentally incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which free speech and elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for advertising profit. ..."
We have come a long way from the reactionary and authoritarian chants of "if you have done
nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" in the lead-up and then wake of the sarcastically
name PATRIOT Act.
Surveillance and monitoring are, like all other "national securities" spending, primarily
profit extraction driven public-private "partnerships", but the major point here always was
"if you build it, they will use it".
That, too, is the foundational criticism driving Global Zero and the insistence that
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be honored by all signatory nuclear powers.
The basic principle of any evolutionary stable open society based on checks and balances
is that no self-inflating institutions and power centers are permissible – whether that
is inbred, networked multi-generational wealth, incorporated power such as financial
institutions, or specific government institutions, such as the military, the "intelligence"
agencies etc.
Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret
decisions without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also
fundamentally incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which
free speech and elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for
advertising profit.
"... Why are all the Obama administration people so caught up in their own celebrity status? Clapper is always on MSNBC, or CNN. ..."
"... If you go back to Brennan's testimony to Congress he admitted that they use the bogus dossier as the basis for their investigation it was in April you can go look it up ..."
"... Sounds like he's projecting a little doesn't it? After all he was in charge in Saudi Arabia when the 9/11 hijackers got EXCEPTIONS approved for their visas to come to America! ..."
"... Brennan is a key figure of the deep state who is highly pissed off that they did not get their puppet Clinton into office. ..."
"... I am fairly certain that Brennen is in as deep as any of them in the seditious act of trying to destroy Trump's presidency by framing him with the charge of collusion. The cracks are widening in their story and if it breaks into pieces as it appears to be, there are going to be a lot of people in Obama's former administration facing some very serious charges. ..."
Why are all the Obama administration people so caught up in their own celebrity
status? Clapper is always on MSNBC, or CNN.
Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Kerry, who cares what these people have to say?
I only want to hear them plead the fifth, or give witness, after they cut a deal to save
their worthless hide. If Iran had an embassy, Brennan would already be hiding in it. Better
take his passport
If you go back to Brennan's testimony to Congress he admitted that they use the bogus
dossier as the basis for their investigation it was in April you can go look it up
Sounds like he's projecting a little doesn't it? After all he was in charge in Saudi
Arabia when the 9/11 hijackers got EXCEPTIONS approved for their visas to come to
America!
Brennan's erroneous dig of Trump's approval rating being at 30% is proof that Trump's
tweet has hit its mark. I am fairly certain that Brennen is in as deep as any of them in
the seditious act of trying to destroy Trump's presidency by framing him with the charge of
collusion. The cracks are widening in their story and if it breaks into pieces as it appears
to be, there are going to be a lot of people in Obama's former administration facing some
very serious charges.
The Washington Free Beacon reported
Under a CIA polygraph test he admitted to voting for a communist running for president. In
doing so he admitted to supporting a group, "dedicated to overthrowing the U.S.,"...
Brennan is doing the Democrat Party action of projecting his own beliefs/feelings onto
someone else. I always thought Brennan looked scary to me or maybe it is the pictures
that are published. Both sides always show the worse pictures of the opposition
folks.
Sad to watch the Democrat Party reduced to only this type of action and no ideas or
support to fix problems. This is not the Democrat Party of old, not close. Democrat
voters need to take a hard look at what their party represents these days. I don't think
they really want to support what the DNC is pushing.
This soft civil war between faction of the Us elite is going to be really interesting. If Brennan fails with his color revolution
against Trump think he might be prosecuted -- the first head of CIA who was ever prosecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps it is John Brennan who is panicking since President Trump is exposing the Deep State and illegal spying carried out by Obama's crooked Intel agencies. ..."
"... As previously reported, Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Devin Nunes plans to investigate former CIA Director John Brennan and other Obama officials for their role in promoting Hillary's phony dossier. ..."
"... According to investigative reporter, Paul Sperry, Chairman Nunes is also investigating whether Brennan perjured himself in a public testimony about the dossier. ..."
Former CIA Director John Brennan has been reduced to a pathetic Twitter troll.
Brennan, who may have perjured himself in a May 2017 testimony to the House Intel Committee spends his days attacking President
Trump and his allies on Twitter.
On Monday morning President Trump unleashed fury from his Twitter account.
Trump tweeted:
"Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into the Trump Campaign (with zero proof of wrongdoing) long before
the Election in November? Wanted to discredit so Crooked H would win. Unprecedented. Bigger than Watergate! Plus, Obama did NOTHING
about Russian meddling."
Brennan called President Trump a paranoid charlatan in response.
"This tweet is a great example of your paranoia, constant misrepresentation of the facts, and increased anxiety and panic (rightly
so) about the Mueller investigation. When will those in Congress and the 30 percent of Americans who still support you realize
you are a charlatan?"
Perhaps it is John Brennan who is panicking since President Trump is exposing the Deep State and illegal spying carried out by
Obama's crooked Intel agencies.
As previously reported, Chairman of the House Intel Committee, Devin Nunes plans to investigate former CIA Director John Brennan
and other Obama officials for their role in promoting Hillary's phony dossier.
According to investigative reporter, Paul Sperry, Chairman Nunes is also investigating whether Brennan perjured himself in a public
testimony about the dossier.
Brennan is also furious with Nunes and previously lashed out at the Chairman from Twitter after the FISA memo was released.
The demons always scream the loudest when they are being exorcised.
I highly recommend reading "Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi". It's an amazing book. Among the many gold
nuggets of information in it, you'll learn Brennan's role in making sure that a whole big bunch of Gaddafi's shoulder-fired missiles
ended up in the hands of radical muslims. He's an extremely dangerous traitor.
I have thought he was much worst that all that almost from the first time he came on my radar. Long before I ever heard of
Obama. It is the reason I always write Obama/Brennan. I think he is a vile, evil man that hates everything we equate with America.
Nasty. Vile. Obama. Holder. Brennan.
Brennan was in charge of the department at the State Dept that handles the passport records that were breached just before
the 2008 election. One of the persons who worked for Brennan and who was in on the scheme, Sgt. Quarles Harris (Not a mistake,
that's his name) who maintained the records where Obama's were purportedly hacked, stolen, along with Hillary's and McCain's (All
2008 Presidential Candidates) so the culprits could use the information to obtain fraudulent Amx cards; or so the ridiculous story
goes. Only trouble is, Harris took a bullet in the back of the head the night before he was to go in front of a grand jury. Obama's
passport records were no longer anywhere to be found. Google this for full story.
Brennan's ridiculous personal jabs at the President are the behavior of a man who knows he has lost. Trump plays those tools
like fiddles. The only anxiety and panic are coming from the Dems, who know what will happen to them when the electorate absorbs
the fact that the Obama DOJ targeted and spied on the domestic political campaign of an opposition candidate based on fabricated
oppo research funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Worse than watergate, indeed. This will define American politics for decades.
Notice how Brennan deflects the substance of Trump's claim...that's why Sessions must appoint a special counsel that has the
power to subpoena Mr. Brennan to finally get some answers. Brennan belongs in jail for his part in an ongoing soft coup attempt
against the president.
Oh, here is one other thing:
The FBI has screwed the pooch one too many times.
WHOOPS! Internal Department Guidelines Prove FBI GUILT in FISA Warrant Scandal
heir own department "rules" prove their GUILT in FISA Warrant scandal.
Internal department guidelines for submitting evidence is as follows:
"Only documented and verified information" may be used in
Department of Justice surveillance applications, according to FBI
internal guidelines.
The FBI relied on an unverified dossier of opposition
research against President Donald Trump to apply for a warrant,
according to House Republicans.
"Only documented and verified information may be used to
support FBI applications [FISA] to the court [FISC]," according to the
guidelines.
Did The Dossier Have To Be 'Verified' For FBI To Use It For Carter Page FISA?
If there is one dirty mofo who is worse than Comey, it is this guy. The most corrupt CIA head ever and a man with no shame.
Clapper is an idiot but this dirtbag was dangerous and is personally responsible for inventing the "17 intelligence agencies"
nonsense and doctoring up that garbage CIA "report" on behalf of his crooked master Obama to delegitimize the incoming President.
Sob thinks we are idiots to not see through this crap.
Michael Hastings was working on a profile of CIA director John Brennan for Rolling Stone at the time of his death (6/13). I'll
always believe Brennan was involved.
Brennan shopped the pee pee dossier to members of congress and then testified to the committees that he knew nothing about
it's origins. Brennan is squirming right now and deservedly so. My hope is that Holder, Clapper, Brennan, Rice and the rest keep
talking. They aren't aiding their cause by doing so and if they shut up now, they simply look guilty (which they are). O hasn't
said anything regarding this subject he is ultimately behind this. The first black POTUS should dangle over this and I voted for
the traitor in chief. I feel stupid and am pissed about the whole affair.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found
itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force -- its own substantial
fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA
(its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI),
had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized"
malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook.
The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to
whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
Criminals like John Brennan, James Comey, and Hillary Clinton aren't afraid of running their big mouths, because the Justice
Department has their backs. At this point, I don't believe that anything will ever happen to these people. And that speaks volumes
for our justice system!
I'll tell you what. I didn't really buy into the whole deep state concept until all of this stuff had been unearthed. There
are some really dirty criminals currently in our government. Of course having someone like Obama running the show for 8 years
certainly didn't help. I honestly think it all started when Clinton was in office. I couldn't believe he won and there is no doubt
in my mind he started the corruption we see today.
Mr. Brennan did you orchestrate the maleware to make it look like a foreign entity hacked the DNC when everyone knew it was
a whistle blower and this is what you did to cover it up, REMEMBER what Vault 7 suggests....in Wikileaks?? Your pathetic and part
of the cover up and got caught.
It came out right away that the leak came from the DNC. Remember the FBI bragged they could make anything look like it came
from anywhere. Putin swears Russia had nothing to do with it and told the left to produce the evidence.
Why would Russia help Trump win when they were already getting everything they wanted from Obama and Clinton, from the very beginning
when Obama took down the missile shields.
Before Obama's election there was a break-in at the DC Passport office by employees of a janitorial company owned by Brennan.
The purpose was to cleanse Obama's passport files. A week before the man witness was to testify he was found in his car shot once
in the head. Anyone know what happened to that investigation?
Running scared, are you John? The world already knows that YOU spearheaded a stealth task force of saboteurs from SIX US agencies
to run to covert, illegal wiretaps in domestic surveillance of President Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. We KNOW
your conspiracy to illegally wiretap and ruin Donald Trump - and feed intel to Obama who passed it to Hillary during and after
the campaign - started long before the bogus "Trump Dossier".
Paul Manafort was wiretapped. Cater Page was wiretapped. Donald Trump Jr. was wiretapped. Jared Kushner was wiretapped. Gen. Michael
Flynn was wiretapped as were others. Not very legal of you was it, John?
"... The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious. ..."
"... The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation. ..."
"... The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election. Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains. ..."
Well of course there are. We've been told repeatedly that the Obama administration was on the job and focused like a laser
on Russia collusion and meddling.
Unfortunately, the hard drive all that was stored on crashed and it was all lost.
If we really want the truth then we have to stop relying on what people say just because we like them, or we think they are
on our side, and instead we have to examine the interests of the various sources. Only then we can make better decisions. At this
stage of the game the deep state can no longer blame with any credibility Russian hacking as the source of the alleged leak. The
know it came directly from the DNC. However, the deep state has a priority (a very strong interest) to keep the heat on Russia.
The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether
or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in
the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious.
The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification
of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic
rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged
or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining
resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation
to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation.
The disproportionate ongoing emphasis on the fake story that Russia meddled in the US election, not only serves to stir up
suspicions and fears regarding Russia in the generally brain-numbed population, but mainly at this stage, and by the sheer fact
that the deep state has carried this rouse so far down the field, the only rational conclusion one can make is that the deep state
is going to interfere in the Russian elections in a very major way to ensure that Putin and his cronies - those wicked oil and
gas nationalizers, those heinous enemies of the Rothschild banksters and their plans for an expanded US Fed to the auspices of
their proposed One World Bank; those upstart renegades who support nations which choose to trade oil without US petrodollars;
those evil monsters who oppose globalism and defend their own nation's sovereignty and other nations like Syria which call for
help.
The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election.
Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure
Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains.
The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists. And the first
victims of their dishonesty are themselves. In fact even describing them as "liars" who've
deceived themselves is being generous. To put it another way, they've created a false reality
for themselves. Actual facts and reasoned arguments, especially any kind of moral reasoning,
bounce off such creatures like bullets bounce off Superman.
"... " Incidental collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans' communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for incidental collection, no probable cause is needed, no warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up. ..."
"... While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't " wiretapping " Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information. How was it used? ..."
"... Incidental collection nailed Michael Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his "game-changing" testimony against others. ..."
A significant number of Trump's people were electronically monitored by
a Democratic administration -- many "by accident." We now know that a significant number of
people affiliated with Donald Trump were surveilled during and after the 2016 campaign, some
under warrants, some via "inadvertent" or accidental surveillance. That surveillance is now
being used against these individuals in perjury cases, particularly to press them to testify
against others, and will likely form the basis of Robert Mueller's eventual action against the
president himself.
How did the surveillance state become so fully entrenched in the American political process?
Better yet, how did we let it happen?
The role pervasive surveillance plays in politics today has been grossly underreported. Set
aside what you think about the Trump presidency for a moment and focus instead on the new
paradigm for how politics and justice work inside the surveillance state.
" Incidental
collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans'
communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists
alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for
incidental collection, no probable
cause is needed, no
warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up.
While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is
unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in
surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance
of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't "
wiretapping
" Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information.
How was it used?
Incidental collection nailed Michael
Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian
ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as
Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his
"game-changing" testimony against others.
Jeff Sessions was similarly incidentally surveilled, as was former White House chief
strategist Steve
Bannon , whose conversations were picked
up as part of a FISA warrant issued against Trump associate
Carter Page .
Paul Manafort and
Richard Gates were also the subjects of FISA-warranted surveillance: they were surveilled
in 2014, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, and then they were re-surveilled after they
joined the Trump team and became more interesting to the state.
Officials on the National Security Council revealed that
Trump himself may also have been swept up in the surveillance of foreign targets. Devin
Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, claims multiple communications by Trump
transition
staff were inadvertently picked up.
Trump officials were monitored by British
GCHQ with the information shared with their NSA partners. Some reports
claim that after a criminal warrant was denied to look into
whether or not Trump Tower servers
were communicating with a Russian bank, a FISA warrant was issued.
How much information the White House may have acquired on Trump's political strategy, as
well as the full story of what might have been done with that information, will never be known.
We do know that the director of national intelligence Dan Coats saw enough after he took office
to
specify that the "intelligence community may not engage in political activity, including
dissemination of U.S. person identities to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the
political process of the United States."
Coats likely had in mind the use of unmasking by the Obama administration. Identities of
U.S. persons picked up inadvertently by surveillance are supposed to be masked, hidden from
most users of the data. However, a select group of officials, including political appointees in
the White House, can unmask and include names if they believe it is important to understanding
the intelligence, or to show evidence of a crime.
Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice
told House investigators in at least one instance she unmasked the identities of Michael
Flynn,
Jared Kushner , and Steve Bannon. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations,
Samantha Power , also made a number of unmasking requests
in her final year in office.
But no one knows who unmasked Flynn in his conversations with the Russian ambassador. That
and the subsequent leaking of what was said were used not only to snare Flynn in a perjury
trap, but also to force him out of government. Prior to the leak that took Flynn down, Obama
holdover and then-acting attorney general Sally Yates warned Trump that Flynn could be
blackmailed by Moscow for lying about his calls. When Trump didn't immediately fire Flynn, the
unmasked surveillance was leaked by a "senior government official" (likely
Yates ) to the
Washington Post . The disclosure pressured the administration to dump Flynn.
Similar leaks were used to try to pressure Attorney General
Jeff Sessions to resign, though they only resulted in him recusing himself from the
Russiagate investigation. Following James Comey's firing, that recusal ultimately opened the
door for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller.
A highly classified leak was used to help marginalize Jared Kushner. The Washington
Post ,
based on leaked intercepts, claimed foreign officials' from four countries spoke of
exploiting Kushner's economic vulnerabilities to push him into acting against the United
States. If the story is true, the leakers passed on data revealing sources and methods; those
foreign officials now know that, however they communicated their thoughts about Kushner, the
NSA was listening. Access to that level of information and the power to expose it is not a
rank-and-file action. One analyst
described the matter as "the Deep State takes out the White House's Dark Clown Prince."
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Trump associate George
Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about several meetings concerning Clinton's emails. The FBI
knew about the meetings, "
propelled in part by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British
and Dutch." The feds asked him questions solely in the hope that Papadopoulos would commit
perjury, even though there was nothing shown to be criminal about the meetings themselves. Now
guilty of a crime, the FBI will use the promise of a light punishment to press Papadopoulos into
testifying against others.
There is a common thread here of using surveillance to create a process crime out of a
non-material lie (the FBI already knew) where no underlying crime of turpitude exists (the
meetings were legal). That this is then used to press someone to testify in an investigation
that will have a significant political impact seems undemocratic -- yet it appears to be a
primary tool Mueller is using.
This is a far cry from a traditional plea deal, giving someone a light sentence for actual
crimes so that they will testify against others. Mueller should know. He famously allowed Mafia
hitman Sammy the Bull to escape more serious punishment for 19 first-degree
murders in return for testimony against John Gotti. No need to manufacture a perjury trap;
the pile of bodies that never saw justice did the trick.
Don't be lured into thinking the ends justify the means, that whatever it takes to purge
Trump is acceptable. Say what you want about Flynn, Kushner, et al, what matters most is the
dark process being used. The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a
harbinger that should chill Americans to their cores.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Key advice: Never talk to a cop. Never trust an agent of the Security State. They may still wreck your life, but at least you won't make it easy for them.
Are you really arguing that using surveillance on foreign agents and spies to catch and
compel traders to testify against each other is bad????? Isn't that the way it is usually
done?
It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies. And don't tell me the
government has no right to investigate what could be treason by the president and his staff.
I know how you love Trump and Russia.
I voted for Trump but now I'm completely disgusted with his failures and betrayals and won't
vote for him again.
Setting that aside, it's starting to look to me like the Hillary campaign and allies in
the Obama federal bureaucracy were spying on the Trump campaign.
They fully expected Hillary to win and therefore to be able to cover up what they were
doing.
But then they lost, and now they're ginning up the Russia/national security angle to blow
smoke over what's starting to look like the worst campaign skullduggery since Nixon and
Watergate.
It needs to be investigated, and if there's any fire there, vigorously prosecuted. I don't
give a damn about Trump anymore, but I give a damn about our democracy and system of
government, and if it turns out that some government filth was spying on Trump's campaign, I
want them arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in the darkest, dirtiest hole in our prison
system. We can't have that kind of s***.
If I see one more variation on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" in a
comment my brain will explode. Anyone who writes that kind of thing ("Well maybe they
shouldn't lie") is missing the point: our political process was surveilled and no one can
control what happens to information gathered. Even if you think it good to "take down" Trump,
the process will exist past him to be aimed at a future candidate you support.
"It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies."
Even if true, do you think it is fair for Flynn to be hit with felony charges for his
"less than candid answers" with regard to politically and diplomatically sensitive phone
calls to the Russian ambassador after the elections were over?
Republicans created this mess in their desire to make "security" a partisan issue after 9/11.
If they now regret it and wish to undo the mess, more power to them!
Peter: "If I see one more variation on 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'
in a comment my brain will explode."
The Left used to be vociferously in favor of privacy rights. I took note during the Obama
years that it really only mattered for abortion and library books, nothing beyond that.
But a thought experiment: How many progressives, for that matter how many Black and
Hispanic Americans would be comfortable with the following government requirements:
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have your name and current address on
file at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a key to your home at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a tracking device on your car or your
person at all times.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections to any of those
requirements.
[[It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies.]]
Even easier: Be a Democrat, preferably the Party's presidential candidate, and then it
doesn't matter whether you tell lies or commit felonies because the corrupt Deep
State-lib-Dem-media alliance will hold you safely above the law.
Even in the midst of all of this, the ongoing ability to continue to spy on our own citizens
was recently voted on and passed overwhelmingly, with large bipartisan support. Save your
crocodile tears now.
Russia is not an enemy of the United States despite all the hoopla about how eeeevil they
are, we are not at war. Treason is not on the table unless you, you know, amend the
constitution, or abandon it, or something.
@MM: apart from the key to your house (and even that might be questionable if you have
certain "smart" appliances), you are describing Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and/or
Microsoft. Adding Federal Government to that list isn't as much of a jump as you seem to
believe.
"The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a harbinger that should chill
Americans to their cores."
Thankfully J. Edgar Hoover practiced his job with restraint.
That being said, while there is certainly a need for improvement of the FISA program (sadly,
the 'principled' Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Matt Gaetz, et al., missed their opportunity in
January when they voted for reauthorization), those individuals caught in the web "by
accident" were regularly communicating with targets of legitimately obtained warrants. It was
their choice to subsequently lie.
With respect to their "unmasking", it doesn't seem unreasonable that policy makers in the
White House should have knowledge of their identity (even in the politicized environment of a
presidential campaign), especially when there's the taint of influence of an adversarial
government and/or organized crime on a potential POTUS.
It is amazing how many law and order Conservatives start screaming about abuses of power, and
targeting specific people when they are the ones at the receiving end.
As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they get
to shut up on the subject now.
(Maybe they SHOULD team up with Black Lives Matter..)
We have come a long way from the reactionary and authoritarian chants of "if you have done
nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" in the lead-up and then wake of the sarcastically
name PATRIOT Act.
Surveillance and monitoring are, like all other "national securities" spending, primarily
profit extraction driven public-private "partnerships", but the major point here always was
"if you build it, they will use it".
That, too, is the foundational criticism driving Global Zero and the insistence that
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be honored by all signatory nuclear powers.
The basic principle of any evolutionary stable open society based on checks and balances
is that no self-inflating institutions and power centers are permissible – whether that
is inbred, networked multi-generational wealth, incorporated power such as financial
institutions, or specific government institutions, such as the military, the "intelligence"
agencies etc.
Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret decisions
without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also fundamentally
incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which free speech and
elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for advertising profit.
mark_be: Sorry, I meant to include fingerprints and DNA samples in that list of items for all
levels of law enforcement to retain on file on every American.
Any government whose interests clash with ours must be considered a potential enemy
– not enough to go to war, of course, but to be wary of what steps they may take to
protect their interests and thwart ours.
As for Russia, alas, she is known for playing very dirty. Before there was a KGB, there
was an Okhrana, among whose achievements was the writing and disemination of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion. Anyone who thinks that because they are no longer communists they
Russians are nice guys lives in a fool's paradise
YKW: "As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they
get to shut up on the subject now."
There is no such rule in a free society. People are within their rights to be as
hypocritical and inconsistent as they like.
But if there were such a rule, where are the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party?
Why aren't they castigating DOJ abuse of power in the previous administration?
Why are neoconservatives and Bush era creeps like Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden darlings of
the Left?
that's not exactly what I've been saying and what concerns me. That's the easy, nice
option. There is only one, very little snag there. TRUST.
That's an astute observation, but it cuts both ways. You also need to take into account
the level of Neo-McCarthyism in the USA and resulting growing distrust toward neoliberals and
compradors in Russia. Despite efforts of Putin personally and Putin administration (Lavrov,
Medvedev) to suppression growing anti-Americanism, soon Russian people might start throwing
eggs at neoliberals/comparadors rallies. Look at the travails of the elite prostitute who is
the most neoliberal and pro-Western candidate for Presidents in the current race:
Add to that a distinct desire by the "Collective West" to expropriate Russian oligarchs
holdings during the next six years of Putin rule (which they now probably understand, or at
least start to understand after the most recent "blacklist"). That creates some links with
the motherland even for the most cosmopolitan Russian bankers
$21 trillion of unauthorized spending by US govt discovered by economics
professor
Published time: 16 Dec, 2017
[MORE]
The US government may have misspent $21 trillion, a professor at Michigan State
University has found. Papers supporting the study briefly went missing just as an audit was
announced.
Two departments of the US federal government may have spent as much as $21 trillion on
things they can't account for between 1998 and 2015. At least that's what Mark Skidmore, a
Professor of Economics at MSU specializing in public finance, and his team have found.
They came up with the figure after digging the websites of departments of Defense (DoD)
and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as repots of the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) over summer.
The research was triggered by Skidmore hearing Catherine Austin Fitts, a former
Assistant Secretary in the HUD in the first Bush administration, saying the Inspector
General found $6.5 trillion worth of military spending that the DoD couldn't account for.
She was referring to a July 2016 report by the OIG, but Skidmore thought she must be
mistaking billion for trillion. Based on his previous experience with public finances, he
thought the figure was too big even for an organization as large as the US military.
"Sometimes you have an adjustment just because you don't have adequate transactions so
an auditor would just recede. Usually it's just a small portion of authorized spending,
maybe one percent at most. So for the Army one percent would be $1.2 billion of
transactions that you just can't account for," he explained in an interview with
USAWatchdog.com earlier this month.
After discovering that the figure was accurate, he and Fitts collaborated with a pair of
graduate students to comb through thousands of reports of the OIG dating back to 1998, when
new rules of public accountability for the federal government were set and all the way to
2015, the time of the latest reports available at the time. The research was only for the
DoD and the HUD.
"This is incomplete, but we have found $21 trillion in adjustments over that period. The
biggest chunk is for the Army. We were able to find 13 of the 17 years and we found about
$11.5 trillion just for the Army," Skidmore said.
I think Americans might be able to get along just fine without the USA?
If the USA wants to threaten or mute those who offer an opinion?
As stupid as Americans are said to be,
they do feel the pains of fake news, loss of freedom of speech,
spying, corporate dominance, and corrupt in purpose leadership?
Another possibility is that even the best technology can't compensate for human
factor.
From the crew being overworked, untrained to being on drugs. Or vodka. Pick the one more
likely.
Perhaps you've seen the article linked below.
Some excerpts from the summation follow:
"Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria, and done so with
impressive efficiency, flexibility, and coordination between military and political
action."
" Russia's "lean" strategy, adaptable tactics, and coordination of military and diplomatic
initiatives offer important lessons for the conduct of any military intervention in as
complex and volatile an environment as the Middle East."
" Washington should pay close attention to the Russian intervention and how Moscow
achieved its objectives in Syria."
Leaving the requisite downplaying of what happened in Syria ("partial victory"?, really?)
aside, the authors seem a little envious, frankly.
Your points are of course valid, but the Russians seem to have answered those calls and a
few others besides, at least in the Syrian theatre. One can expect a similar or better
performance in any conflict involving Russian soil, especially as only the creme de la creme
of missile crews would be assigned to game changing weaponry.
Putin's announcement represents a massive FAIL on the part of a $1T's worth of
intelligence agencies, military think tanks, political analysts and military planners who
collectively didn't see it coming . They're all now in either panic, the foundation of
America's geo-political goals utterly undermined, or in denial.
Denial is winning, so their next big FAIL is already underway. Heads aren't rolling. The
Pentagon thinks it can save the day by doubling down and demanding more of the useless crap
they've got now. We can expect the CIA et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and
politically destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand at regime change. Even the
Afghans are on to them, so good luck with that.
The US simply must internalize the strategic significance of these developments, and
change everything about their postures and behaviours in the world. There's little sign of
that happening, Mad Dogs can't learn new tricks, so we're sailing into very treacherous
waters indeed.
The Deep State, also known as the Swamp, holds Trump in contempt because he put Deep State
people into so many positions. The Secretary of the Air Force is a Lockheed agent – she
took in $600k from Lockheed while she was a politician. Mattis is in favour of trannies in
the military – 50% suicide rate and $100k a pop. Tillerson was in favour of the Paris
climate treaty, so was Mattis. There are signs that reality is sinking in though –
putting Trophy systems on M1 tanks for example. The increase in the bomb production rate is a
sign that it is not business as usual. A much larger warstock is necessary for the coming
conflict with China. Nobody in the system has the guts to end the F-35. Mattis, for all his
bravado, is just a political creature.
One thing that struck me about Putin's speech on the new missile systems is that he
understood the technical detail of how the things worked to the extent of having a genuine
personal interest in knowing such stuff. Corruption and the Russian mafia are still Russia's
biggest problem but I see that Russian wheat production is finally increasing near 20 years
after the fall of communism.
These was reported some time ago. Pentagon needs another 911 to remove all evidents that
they did after 5+Trillions unknown usage was discovered.
Tip of iceberg how many trillions US is printing from air for its lavish unproductive
lives & endless wars over last many decades unreported. The world having their foreign
reserves tied by IMF to 5 currencies, is picking up the tabs of US, EU, Japan & UK free
currency printing QE to artificially prop up their collapsing economy based on stupid theory
of growth by borrowing.
These countries run on deficit(except jp with high export & artificial low ex-ch
rate), high debts, high salary, high property price, overspending with budget deficit, and
financial banking scams to prop up high Nominal GDP.
When music stop, someone will miss the seat.
China & Russia know, they stored up time proven gold reserve, & Petrol Yuan
started. When China replaced Petrol $ with yuan, slash its 3T US treasury reserve, the music
stop.
I see that Russian wheat production is finally increasing near 20 years after the fall
of communism.
Food commodity price is controlled by big oligarchs. West has big subsidy to artificially
lowered their cost/ export price in name of food security, to the tune that all subsidies are
enough to feed all hungries on earth. But its aim to destroy developing countries agri
sector. Latin America was hit badly in past that agri no longer sustainable, when land bcom
barren, capitalist swoop in to buy land dirt cheap.
China & Russia aren't stupid to let West control their food chain, but they imported
these subsidized food without ruin own agri ability, esp for animal feeds. When sanction
started, Putin simply activated its standby agri program. When trade war start, China will do
the same, already its probing US sorghum subsidy.
Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence information
about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or
Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not do
it.
Look at the keyword, allies. Putin emphasized, if Russia or its allies are attacked .. so
its Syria potential hyper escalation, Ukraine brewing collision with new lethal weapons, to
some lesser extent, Iran & Venezuela with Russia high investment.
12. China has less than 300 nuclear weapons and still is regarded as a formidable
nuclear power, probably spending 20 times less money in this area.
China might have to do something similar to Putin later just to ensure US won't took the
wrong calculated risk to do something stupid. However China style is always keep secretive of
its killer weapon that worry US most. Its said in every Wargaming, whenever Red team losing
to Blue, they launch China Murderer Mace(Trump card), then everything end in Red favour.
In another topic, some said China has est 400 nukes, with only 20~40 that can reach US
which might tempted US to believe it could survive an exchange. So a large upgrade is
necessary. Anyone got better idea?
In last year during South China Seas confrontation, China actually sent out all its navy
to conduct live exercise till eve of fake Hague court judgement, with nuclear subs in high
profile despatched to US Guam & Indian ocean bases(where their nuclear bombers station).
Two strike groups that with its Adm Harry threaten war start tonight, were reportedly hiding
in East Philippine Seas to get out of H6k bomber missiles(aircraft carrier killer) range.
WH panick of real war escalation, Obama sent its top general to China, with NSA advisor
Rice also visited Xi to resolve. This shows US isn't ready for a military clash with nuke
China, with much lesser warheads than Russia.
The new $14 billion USS Ford aircraft carrier has a launch system that cannot be fixed
because it never worked. It remains an experimental system that after 20 years of
development is not ready for use, and may never be. Replacing it with a proven steam system
will cost over $5 billion.
EMALS works! Carrier Ford completes first flight operations
By: Mark D. Faram July 29, 2017
Construction of the third carrier is expected to start next year and will use
electromagnetic launch rather than steam-powered catapults. The carrier is expected to have
80,000 ton displacement which would put it in the super carrier class.
China was confident about its EMALS technology now that it was able to produce its own
insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips, a key component of the high-efficiency
electric energy conversion systems used in variable-speed drives, trains, electric and hybrid
electric vehicles, power grids and renewable energy plants.
All things described like "realism", "order" and references to Napoleon is all contrived
pseudo-academic bunk. In the end another "great" strategic minds such as neocons wrote
(Kagan's cabal) what is touted as the "best" history pf Peloponnese Wars. And look where this
"academic brilliance" based on those ideas brought the United States and the world to.
American elites of the 20th and 21st Century, with some minor exceptions, have no grasp of
the nature of the military force (power) and how it applies. None and this can not be fixed.
It is also a tragedy for many, including the US itself.
Mr. Martyanov -- Does the ECM/EMP capability that the USS Donald Cook allegedly ran into
in the Black Sea enter into these deliberations at all?
No. Russia does have the best EW capabilities in the world–the fact admitted even by
US military's top brass, but USS Donald Cook's alleged "shutting down" of her radar by SU-24
never happened. It is all, hm, as strange as it sounds, Russian amateurs' and fanboys'
propaganda. SU-24 is not capable to "shut down" anything on a ship with energy capacity of
Arleigh Burke-class DDG. Two different weight categories. Most likely SU-24 simply put out
what is known as pomehi (interference) which may have created multiple targets
picture–this is possible. It is still very unpleasant and unnerving situation but
nothing as dramatic as what became now a consistent and false meme.
and I'm just guessing, but for the same reasons successful anti-laser techniques could be
devised once that becomes a reality (even in clear day conditions)
Andrei, I don't know if you're still reading comments on this thread, but ZeroHedge posted
confirming what you wrote, yet somehow analysts are still dismissive. Still to quote you
"butt hurt."
Quote: "From a national security perspective, Putin's claims of hypersonic weapons should
not be underestimated but should be analyzed in an attempt to parse fact from fiction.
"The team of analysts at The Drive precisely did that, and made several conclusions: In
particular, one of the weapons Putin mentioned in his speech was an air-launched hypersonic
anti-ship missile launched from a Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound. Upon closer examination, the Drive
team found the hypersonic weapon closely resembles the Iskander short-range ballistic
missile."
End quotation.
I wonder if Putin will deploy the laser system to Syria, now that America is making
threats.
"A potential decision by Washington to take new military actions against Damascus would
mark the second US strike on Syria in less than a year."
The elder Kagan's Peloponnesian war history is actually instructive from a neocon point of
view. He identifies with the Athenian side, and with the most belligerent Athenian
politicians, so completely that he shows not the least understanding of why the other side,
or neutrals, or less aggressive Athenian politicians acted as they did. So although he uses a
respectable scholarly apparatus, he has no conception of how history should be written.
Thanks for the reply but my point primarily is that the A.Z. (to quote The Saker) Empire
is doubling down. Its attitude is still "what're you gonna do about it" and the recent news
indicates they're pushing in Syria.
A nuclear strike from Russia that kills 99% of the population doesn't bother them in the
slightest. Or they think Putin is bluffing.
My concern is about the plane crash in Syria: why were so many pilots (allegedly) on board
and thus so vulnerable. Not that it's necessarily true that the "Deep State" caused this.
The self-confessed military analysts "Q" with millions of followers states, incidentally,
that CIA caused the recent jetliner crash to kill Rosatom executives and scientists. I don't
trust him. He says Snowden now is in China; was CIA all along and was deliberately sent to
Russia for mischief making.
Finally, if you have any idea about my hypothesis discussed with F.B. above whether the
glider manipulates plasma using electric fields and a small on-board nuclear reactor or just
uses an undiscovered and unknown to America composite. But from what F.B. wrote we have no
how idea how it would work, hence the skepticism by the fake experts.
I hope you can comment since you're the expert and can separate truth from the
bullshit.
Putin's character makes me think he doesn't bluff. Western politicians are such liars they
don't believe Putin tells the truth.
Your points are of course valid, but the Russians seem to have answered those calls and
a few others besides, at least in the Syrian theatre. One can expect a similar or better
performance in any conflict involving Russian soil,
Agree.
Keywords "Syria" and "similar".
How about:
A new flareup in Novorossya->in, say, 3 months of "engagement" that part of Ukraine starts
looking as parts of Syria now.
An ethnic unrest in one of remote regions->reaction by the Kremlin->that part of RF
starts looking as parts of Syria now.
So, based on that, this
.the foundation of America's geo-political goals utterly undermined, or in denial.
and
They're all now in either panic, the foundation of America's geo-political goals utterly
undermined, or in denial
sounds .wrong?
Perhaps those advising Kremlin are in denial?
So, related to
We can expect the CIA et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and politically
destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand at regime change.
how about:
We can expect the Kremlin et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and internal
politically destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand against The Empire.
My concern is about the plane crash in Syria: why were so many pilots (allegedly) on
board and thus so vulnerable.
Systemic failure. Somewhere between acquiring spare parts, through maintenance and general
processes and procedures to, last, but not least .vodka.
More to come in coming months.
So although he uses a respectable scholarly apparatus, he has no conception of how
history should be written.
True, but to add insult to injury neocons generally do not know actual military
history–one is bound to fail to know it when they are in the business of erasing
causalities, rather than finding them. That is why they suck as strategists, have a very
vague understanding of operational and tactical issues and, of course, none of them
understands serious military-technological problems. Just to reiterate my point–they
have no idea what warfare is.
{ ., he has no conception of how history should be written.}
I think he does, so do his ilk.
They mind-bend history to fit their narrative, to confuse the multitudes into seeing the
world through their Neocon lens. Part and parcel of the full spectrum
disinformation/propaganda/brainwashing campaign. History (books & movies), "news",
analysis, commercials, nothing is off the table.
I am assuming the laser is state-of-the-art anti-missile defense: better chance of
shooting down Patriot missiles and making a point if another attack comes and prove the
system exists and he's not a liar. A real field test.
I am saddened, incidentally, by the death of so many brave Russian personnel in the plane
crash, which I notice you didn't remark upon. If it was an accident, I am sure the callous
Americans are saying, "See, they kill themselves, we don't have to bother trying" unless
there was duplicity involved and not just a gross failure due to negligence, etc.
I assume also that there is no evidence CIA (or Mossad) did target Rosatom executives in
the jet liner crash or Russia would not want that to get out, clear act of war.
Of course, sadly, American Deep State is at war with Russia. They just use duplicity and
proxies and it's too bad since we could have been friends and not enemies. So many voted for
Trump hoping for the best.
American Deep State won't change (neocons) until they get a bloody nose. Not sure when or
if that will ever happen.
The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists. And the first
victims of their dishonesty are themselves. In fact even describing them as "liars" who've
deceived themselves is being generous. To put it another way, they've created a false reality
for themselves. Actual facts and reasoned arguments, especially any kind of moral reasoning,
bounce off such creatures like bullets bounce off Superman.
My contention is that the factions are not so clear cut and most people that matters can
switch sides. That is why I think, the compradors will eventually win if a sweeping cleaning
is not done as such a setup is open to external manipulation for tipping the balance on one
side.
Currently, the wind is blowing from the side of patriots so many people that are
influential position themselves on this side. But as said before, a patriot billionaire is an
oxymoron and they would switch sides when they feel themselves or their wealth are
threatened. That is why the military-security bureaucracy that spearheads the Russian
nationalist faction will eventually have to make a choice if they want to sustain their
power: either clean them up or try to juggle a a difficult balancing act while also not
completely alienating western elites. In my view, this cannot be done. But, since the
difference among them is not day and night for many an reverse transition of power in a
similar manner like the smooth transition from Yeltsin to Putin is most likely.
"... How is Trump different from Hillary? Here's how: Trump is MUCH better at playing the crowd. He is a MUCH better faux populist and distractor. Please take note: The left hates Trump for being a playboy and colluding with Russia!! Real issues like inequality and militarism are back page material. ..."
"... It's all political games now. One side promises too much, the other side corrects that, then goes overboard themselves. This back and forth APPEARS to rock the boat but no one of any importance ever falls out. Only the occasional wildcard - like Assange and Putin - give the establishment pause. ..."
Russia this and Russia that. It's a circus. It's a spectacle. Nothing more. US has one
party: the war party. US has one establishment that wants MOAR.
Why did Al Gore choose not to fight for the Presidency? Why did "liberal lion" Ted Kennedy
throw his support to Obama, the sneaky warmongering neoliberal? Why did Sanders not walk away
from the Democratic Party when it became clear that they conspired with the Hillary
campaign?
How is Trump different from Hillary? Here's how: Trump is MUCH better at playing the
crowd. He is a MUCH better faux populist and distractor. Please take note: The left hates Trump
for being a playboy and colluding with Russia!! Real issues like inequality and militarism are
back page material.
It's all political games now. One side promises too much, the other side corrects that,
then goes overboard themselves. This back and forth APPEARS to rock the boat but no one of any
importance ever falls out. Only the occasional wildcard - like Assange and Putin - give the
establishment pause.
"... Frankly; I'm so bloody fed up with this whole narrative; I don't care if it's true or not! What difference does it make? Russia, Russia, Russia; bloody hell; get over it! It's a massive distraction from many other vile things being done; war against Yemen; illegal US occupation of Syria; ongoing war in Ukraine; massive violations of the US constitution within the borders of the continental US; militarized police violence against US citizens; the list goes on ad infinitum... ..."
"... I'm shocked! Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM???? ..."
"... The term "presstitute" which is used for attacking pro-establishment media shills comes to mind. Formerly respectable outlets such as the New Yorker and their writer, Jane Mayer, have gone over into war crimes by in effect fomenting a new cold war based on falsehoods, similar to what the postwar less corrupt yankee imperium considered war crimes in the four power Nuremberg trial which convicted the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi sheet, on that basis. ..."
"... The reason why this whole Russiagate seems to go beyond the usual partisan tit-for-tat when it comes to the executive branch (Kenneth Star v. Clinton, Birthers v. Hussein-Obama, liberal-educated dems v. A fundamentalist-protestant dumbass W. Bush), is the absolute certainty which the MSM, the dems, and neocons spew their Russophobic spittle onto anyone that happens to be listening; meanwhile dragging Trump through the mud. The usual partisan coverage of prior executive branches were more evenhanded by news outlets (it resembled news). The current atmosphere resembles pure propaganda and smacks of utter desperation and globalist panic. ..."
"... The New Yorker refused to allow Sy Hersh to publish "The Red Line and the Rat Line", about the covert US effort to transfer weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadist groups, so he had to go to the London Review of Books. At that point it became clear the New Yorker had gone over into partisan pro-government propaganda publishing. ..."
"... These days the corporate media will often start a story with a lie. They think it's funny or something ..."
"... Mayer is no Judith Miller, but if it's not "selling out", she may be suffering from a case of incipient Judith Miller Syndrome. ..."
"... This New Yorker disinfomation piece is most likely not exclusively Ms Mayer's doing alone. David Remnick (NYer Publisher & Ms. Mayers boss) is a full fledged participant in the MSM'S ongoing 'Russian Collusion' narrative. ..."
"... Remnick is a full fledged supporter of our oligarchical, neocon establishment that's hell bent on establishing a US/Israel centered global hegemony since the break-up of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... So, we have yet another fraud promoting the initial fraud as Big Lie Nation manufactures and exports its #1 commodity. Those of us knowing Russiagate's yet another Big Lie ought to be shocked by the further digging of this massive excavation that can no longer be called a deep hole but aren't because the desperation's become all too predictable. The exceptional witch is melting live in living color! ..."
"... The Slate is another publication that wants to go to war with Russia, 'Why are we letting the Russians get away with it' ... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/why-is-america-letting-russia-get-away-with-meddling-in-our-democracy.html What does Fred Kaplan want to do? Oh nothing crazy, just cyber espionage on the order of Stuxnet, or at least outing Putin's secret foreign bank accounts (or pilfering them). ..."
Frankly; I'm so bloody fed up with this whole narrative; I don't care if it's true or
not! What difference does it make? Russia, Russia, Russia; bloody hell; get over it! It's a
massive distraction from many other vile things being done; war against Yemen; illegal US
occupation of Syria; ongoing war in Ukraine; massive violations of the US constitution within
the borders of the continental US; militarized police violence against US citizens; the list
goes on ad infinitum...
CNN had another lengthy special report on alleged Trump-Russia collusion over the weekend.
Remember CNN was the lead-dog on the dossier with its release of the dossier fake news on Jan
10, 2017, just ten days before the Trump inauguration. But also remember what a CNN producer
said last summer about Trump-Russia collusion: " Could be
bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any big giant
proof ."
And twice Ms Mayer repeats the lie about "all US intelligence agencies concluding that Russia
interfered in the US election". Her phrasing: "that major U.S. intelligence agencies had
unanimously endorsed this view'" then: "It [the report] contained the agencies' unanimous
conclusion that, during the Presidential campaign, Putin had directed a cyber campaign aimed
at getting Trump elected."
These are obvious references to the January 6th 2017 "report" that was full of unsupported
assertions and distraction. Ms Mayer doesn't appear to be familiar with reasons to avoid
citing that report.
The New York Times has had to retract the "17 agencies lie"--did so at the end of June
2017. Ms Mayer doesn't appear to have noticed, or worse thought she could get away with
changing the phrasing of the lie slightly to "major intelligence agencies".
I too seemed to remember that Yahoo news had published on the Steele report in advance of
others in the press. Obviously the New Yorker staff didn't.
All very embarrassing for the New Yorker and Ms Mayer, will now of course be used to
question the validity of other Jane Mayer reporting.
I'm shocked! Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and
misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM????
exiled off mainstreet , Mar 6, 2018 11:04:37 AM |
18
The term "presstitute" which is used for attacking pro-establishment media shills comes
to mind. Formerly respectable outlets such as the New Yorker and their writer, Jane Mayer,
have gone over into war crimes by in effect fomenting a new cold war based on falsehoods,
similar to what the postwar less corrupt yankee imperium considered war crimes in the four
power Nuremberg trial which convicted the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi sheet, on that
basis.
Ah, so the elitist award-winning (((culprit))) of
global warming propaganda and niece of "dark money" oligarch henchmen such as Emanuel Lehman
and Allan Nevins has written a eulogy for the creatures of the Imperial Swamp?
As a former, longtime New Yorker reader I can attest that the New Yorker's supposed fact
checking is basically non-existent. They do check rigorously for spelling and grammar to fit
the writing style of the magazine, but incorrect facts have riddled articles for decades.
They do publish a few letters each issue and occasionally allow criticisms through but for
the most part as long as the narrative fits what "the right sort of people believe" there
seems to be no standard for actually, you know, basing statements on reality.
My guess is that the Democratic Party, so addled at the top, splits by 2020. All it has for
the voters, which it repetitiously blares from its many organs -- CNN, MSNBC, NYT, New Yorker
-- is Russophobia. For instance, I ran into a guy last night who regularly watches MSNBC and
he said the network has not once mentioned the statewide teachers strike underway in West
Virginia. How's that for "leaning forward"?
The reason why this whole Russiagate seems to go beyond the usual partisan tit-for-tat
when it comes to the executive branch (Kenneth Star v. Clinton, Birthers v. Hussein-Obama,
liberal-educated dems v. A fundamentalist-protestant dumbass W. Bush), is the absolute
certainty which the MSM, the dems, and neocons spew their Russophobic spittle onto anyone
that happens to be listening; meanwhile dragging Trump through the mud. The usual partisan
coverage of prior executive branches were more evenhanded by news outlets (it resembled
news). The current atmosphere resembles pure propaganda and smacks of utter desperation and
globalist panic.
It makes the whole situation seem like Trump really is anti-establishment. That is where
the hope came from which won him the election and it continues on in his fanbase.
@24 nemesiscalling.. ditto your comment as well.. thanks..
The New Yorker refused to allow Sy Hersh to publish "The Red Line and the Rat Line",
about the covert US effort to transfer weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadist groups, so he
had to go to the London Review of Books. At that point it became clear the New Yorker had
gone over into partisan pro-government propaganda publishing.
It's also curious how the article doesn't really touch on Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry in the United States; that sector also donates heavily to Democrats, which is likely
why. There could be some issues there related to sanctions-dodging by ExxonMobil but digging
into that doesn't serve the political agenda, so. . . . Still nothing credible on the
evidence side as far as iI can tell.
Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and
misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM????
____________________________________
Some well-regarded Amerikan investigative journalists seem deeply ambivalent when
reporting on US government, military, and intelligence (spook agencies) affairs.
They can be appropriately skeptical and critical some of the time-- admirable "watchdogs"
or "gadflies" in the best muckraking tradition. Their critical stories are even a form of
"speaking truth to power", and their reputation and popularity is deserved.
OTOH, at other times they seem to display a core uncritical regard, respect, and even
admiration for these institutions and their personnel. I've seen interviews with Mayer
following some exposé in which she comes across as being either deliberately
naïve, or reluctant to follow her own findings to an unacceptably radical logical
conclusion.
As in this article, Mayer is far more trusting and credulous of official sources than her
experience of their habitual mendacity dictates.
Sorry that I can't provide precise examples off the top of my head, but I think this is an
occupational hazard of journalists who spend their careers working (too) closely with
government insiders. Seymour Hersh and Jeremy Scahill come to mind.
In a nutshell, I think they're trying to be disinterested, dispassionate
journalists who report without fear or favor though the heavens fall, etc. But my
pop-psychology guess is that they also develop an affinity with their sources that
occasionally trips them up, and/or renders them vulnerable to manipulation by their vaunted
insider connections.
Or maybe it's comparable to the undercover drug enforcement agent who ends up getting
addicted and engaging in criminal activity after becoming too immersed in the life they're
supposed to be policing.
Mayer is no Judith Miller, but if it's not "selling out", she may be suffering from a
case of incipient Judith Miller Syndrome.
An autotranslated article about a pending(?) cw false flag in Syria with the usual cast of
cute children, fake wounds and the White "False Flags 'R US" Helmets. If they do pull
something off it may be worth keeping an eye open for these actors.
Fakebook and LiveJournal have already pulled the original articles this item was based
on.
This New Yorker disinfomation piece is most likely not exclusively Ms Mayer's doing
alone. David Remnick (NYer Publisher & Ms. Mayers boss) is a full fledged participant in
the MSM'S ongoing 'Russian Collusion' narrative.
Remember, even the great Sy Hersh had to go to the independent European press to publish
his 'controversial' article that methodically debunked the deep states fairy tale narrative
of events on what exactly went down in the infamous OBL Abottabad compound raid in 2011.
Hersh, up until then, exclusively published most of his investigative "bombshell" articles
in the New Yorker. Remnick is a full fledged supporter of our oligarchical, neocon
establishment that's hell bent on establishing a US/Israel centered global hegemony since the
break-up of the Soviet Union.
So, we have yet another fraud promoting the initial fraud as Big Lie Nation manufactures
and exports its #1 commodity. Those of us knowing Russiagate's yet another Big Lie ought to
be shocked by the further digging of this massive excavation that can no longer be called a
deep hole but aren't because the desperation's become all too predictable. The exceptional
witch is melting live in living color!
V.ARNOLD #7 ..You forget very important stuff....since 11/9/16 Dems they still wage war
against legally elected president PDJT...those whores did try everything..and nothing is
working......
BTW I do not believe that Putin has billions socked away offshore. If he did then Obama
would have revealed it on his way out the door and even if Obama didn't the CIA / FBI /
Treasury would have leaked it. Instead what they did was claim he had billions without
providing any proof.
Some Faraday bags allow you to reveive calls if placed in the front pouch and block all
signals at back pouch, while still offering complete EMP protection front or back
If you are able to receive a call on your cellphone - in a Faraday bag, or not, you are still
completely vulnerable to hacking and/or tracking. No "back of the bag EMP protection" claim
is gonna be able to block invasive signals - unless the pouch, or bag, or whatever it's
stored in is COMPLETELY impenetrable - period!
You can make your own Faraday bag with rolls of aluminum or tin foil spun around a crayon
box.
Anyway, cell phones are unavoidable tracking devices and can not be immunized from
surveillance and hacking http://hpub.org/article-64217/ so anybody with secrets
would avoid using one unless your name is Her Haughtiness Hillary Clinton and you keep an
unencrypted email server in your personal bathroom or, your name is Podesta and your google
account password is "password."
End to end encryption is available but requires cooperation on both ends.
I seem to recall that Steele was involved in the Magnitsky and Litvinenko cases and that he
has long made a living out of defending oligarchs against the Russian government's attempts
to collect taxes from them.
It is sad that Steele is polluting the air of Farnham an ancient town with a long history
which includes being the birthplace of some of the greatest English writers.
The Australian diplomat whose 2016 tip resulted in the FBI's Trump-Russia
counterintelligence investigation had previously arranged one of the largest donations to
Clinton charities, documents reveal.
...
Downer tipped off Australian authorities after a conversation with Trump campaign advisor
George Papadopoulos at a London bar, in which Papadopoulos reportedly said the Russians had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton. After Australian authorities alerted the FBI, a
counterintelligence probe was launched according to reports
Greta work
It only proves that western journalist have become stenographers and propagandist for
pax-americana/anglo-zionist.
15000 word readers digest entry on the so called fourth estate. It only shows how desperate
they are in trying to keep the perception of the Russians ate my lunch. Seeing that the
Russian Federation just recently revealed that their invincibility as a Military force is
questionable Nato must be rethinking their first strike capacity.
Post Scriptum: It is sad to see not one nation in the west speaking of peace and detente but
of aggression and conquest. It smells like 1913 all over again especially since the Trump
regime has now opened up the can of worms TRADE WARS. If any individual with a semblance of
grey matter can critically analyse these moves one could see WAR on the horizon .
Firts currency wars then trade wars and docius in fundem Firing wars. How sad the weste has
become.
Alexander Downer has never been a diplomat, he was always a particularly sleazy politician
- may even have been leader of the opposition as head of Oz's conservative & misnamed
Liberal Party. The guy is the worst of the worst, a small time suburban solicitor (lawyer who
doesn't go to court), whose play was posing as a mock englander gentleman but never quite
pulling it off.
Anything Downer gets his sticky fingers into has two common features 1) It benefits A.Downer
and 2) It is a lie.
Tobin Paz @ 48, Debsisdead @ 54: I thought Alexander Downer had been sent overseas to play at
being ambassador or diplomat so as to limit the amount the damage he could cause just by his
very existence. Instead he hoovers up money faster than a pig can sniff out truffles.
I'm sorta enjoying it all it's so over the top I doubt anyone apart from the usual dingbats
& drongos, takes it seriously.
Just as the Steele dossier with its outrageous fictions led the way, the englanders are
outdoing themselves sledging Russia and Russians.
Even the seemingly innocuous 'weatherman' has been getting in on the act, England has been
even colder than usual and before the freeze over actually began the incessant weather
reports which dominate englander 'news' was warning of a cold wind from Siberia that was in
evil Russian fashion about to "freeze the balls off Her Majesty's brass monkey".
The cooler air a direct result of western europe's (including england) two century long
penchant for burning shit up which had raised the temperature of the Arctic seas to the point
where even in the middle of winter the North Pole waters no longer freeze. Warm seas=warmer
air which rises and cooler air comes in to fill the gap blah, blah but that didn't stop the
weather reports, which by the time england was frozen the cause had been casually abbreviated
into "the beast from the east". Cold are you englanders? Don't forget to blame Russia and
Russians while you salute Stephenson's Rocket (the instigator) and you wait for a train which
will never come thanks to Thatcherism/neoliberalism/can't pick Johnnie Foreigner's pocket any
more, better pick Johnnie Neighbours.
But blaming the weather on Russia is so last week, this week it is all about some
treasonous former KGB colonel and his daughter who prolly offed themselves in the most public
way possible
since their lives turned to shit . Natch the englander media being what it is, the
traitor was executed at the behest of the man himself Vladimir Putin. Except of course the
timing is inexplicable as Prez Putin is about to have an election - sorry 'election'
(elections in Russia have to have single quotes around em because the winner is not supported
by any englander newspaper and must therefore be a put up job cos englander fishwraps never
get it wrong). The old cui bene is relevant since this death happened at a bad time for
Russia one is left asking if the traitor didn't top himself who else would want it right now,
certainly not Russia's leadership.
I can still remember 50 years later exactly how gobsmacked I was the first time I read a
serious englander newspaper and discovered that these otherwise seemingly intelligent journos
actually believed all this Cold War horseshit that we used to laugh at in the South. Yeah
amerika sure they believe anything they are told to, but the englanders subscribe to this
nonsense - how can that be? I was young and naive and didn't realise that the most truthful
parts of englander media are in the boxes around the edges of the articles. The real
commercials are the news stories. In england in the 1970's all the foreign correspondents had
two jobs, there was the newspaper gig which paid well but felt sleazy and the other gig with
the SIS aka MI6 which was a good way to rub shoulders with the elite plus it covered the
kids' public school fees.
Nothing about englander media can be believed, for a long time the audience was entirely
captive so the earn was guaranteed with more money if you could tell a really big lie. Big
enough to generate headlines and start a fleet street feeding frenzy. Those days are gone the
journos know no other way to work so the stories are getting more tawdry and less believable
by the day.
This is the poisonous atmosphere the Steele dossier came out of. There is certain to be a
few doubles in the generation of this yarn That is the double giggers englander journo by day
wannabe 'secret' agent by night. Steele wasn't allowed into Russia so who else is he gonna
call?
It's becoming more amusing. From Stars and Stripes--
WASHINGTON, Mar 6 -- Senators grilled the top intel chief Tuesday, pushing for details of a
U.S. plan to stave off attempts of Russian meddling and cyberattacks .
In a tense congressional hearing examining worldwide threats, the lawmakers expressed
frustration that the U.S., hampered by President Donald Trump, hasn't done enough to
address past and future Russian cyberattacks.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee that while counterintelligence work is underway, the details of those operations
are classified.
"The American people deserve to know whether or not the president directed his top
intelligence officials to effectively counter this continuing act of war on our
country ," Sen. Richard Blumethal, D-Conn., said in a sharp exchange with Coats.
The comments come a week after a hearing before the same committee when U.S. Cyber
Command Chief Adm. Mike Rogers said that Russia has paid little for its interference in
the 2016 elections , and that he hasn't been authorized by Trump to combat future
attempts.
There are growing concerns that Russia will target this year's elections and that the
U.S. hasn't done enough to counter that effort.
"We're taking steps, but we're probably not doing enough ," Rogers told the
committee last week. . .
here
President Putin must be enjoying this. I know I am.
"...looked much like the other businessmen heading home, except for the fact that he kept his
phones in a Faraday bag -- a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block
signal detection..."
A practical man, Steele also kept a giant roll of telephone line attached to his belt.
Unrolling it as he proceeded down the high street, he glanced upwards.
A Pteranodon, perched upon the slate roof was watching him closely. A bead of sweat
appeared on his temple, just showing underneath the rim of his bowler hat, trickling down the
side of his face, the leaving a streak that resembled a long forgotten river delta.
A chimmney sweet was approaching him on his right, whistling a jaunty tune, his bag of
extendable brushes jingling and clanking, just like Steele's nerves. Obviously a Russian
operative, the sweep was whistling an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, an ominous
warning...
This part of the New Yorker article could be sheer comedy gold:
'... Regardless of what others might think, it's clear that Steele believed that his
dossier was filled with important intelligence. Otherwise, he would never have subjected it,
his firm, and his reputation to the harsh scrutiny of the F.B.I. "I'm impressed that he was
willing to share it with the F.B.I.," [former CIA spook John Sipher] said. "That gives him
real credibility to me, the notion that he'd give it to the best intelligence professionals
in the world."...'
FBI, best intelligence professionals in the world? Didn't the FBI along with the CIA miss
most indications of a looming terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the months
leading up to September 11, 2001?
A former CIA officer called John Sipher, calling a rival organisation 'the best
intelligence professionals in the world'?
"... Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA. ..."
"... But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines : ..."
"... An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..." ..."
"... Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing. ..."
"... Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration. ..."
Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller (yes, I know it is not deemed reputable) looked into some
claims Mayer makes in her piece which, if true, contain new morsels on the issue. They support
the standpoint that the whole dossier is fake. These points are:
Steele likely knew who funded the dossier
Steele used dozens of paid confidential 'collectors', not unpaid ones
Steele may have earlier worked for a Kremlin-connected oligarch
The salacious claims in the dossier were based on secondhand information
Steele briefed Jane Mayer during the campaign
A John McCain associate wanted to use dossier to force Trump to resign
Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting
between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which
GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign
associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have
been the FBI, not the CIA.
But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the
campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and
deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As
Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations,
opines :
IMO there was a criminal conspiracy among various parts of the government, the Clinton
Campaign and the MSM to rig the election against Trump, and it continues. pl
Posted by b on March 6, 2018 at 05:12 AM |
Permalink
Nicely written piece. It just leaves you shaking your head in disbelief sometimes, the brazen
repetition of utter nonsense and total lies in hopes that it will eventually start to stick.
And I had also noticed some time back the rampant circular citations bootstrapped into being
called evidence. An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by,
say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each
other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by
multiple newspaper stories..."
No wonder the New Yorker and their ilk stick to print rather than video...with AV media,
you would be able to hear the heavy breathing and wiki-wiki-wiki sounds of turd polishing in
the background.
And of course this one assertion by Steele is used by the Hannity's of the world to assert
that Trump was the victim of a Russian misinformation campaign ...
"In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were
described as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the
Kremlin,""
The beauty of it is that this alleged source never has to be revealed because it would
endanger the source so we have to take this Boy Scouts word for it.
How about the report graun had today; The Russians had poisoned their ex-spy? Another made up
crap.
The NYer is another web of deceit, the web of zionism. All of msm is.
@22
The possible poisoned spy case is now being used by Boris Johnson for a possible boycott of
the Moscow World Cup. It is obvious bullshit and a rerun of the litvinenko affair some years
ago.
Also an Mi6 setup in my opinion. The Russians provided a shipload of LNG to alleviate gas
shortages in Britain. Boris Johnson is an ungrateful sack of S--t
Max Blumenthal has observed that much of what is in the "dossier" was available in the public
sphere. The dossier is touted as being deep revelation totally missed a figure like
Papadopoulos, who only appeared to the public after the dossier was published. Strange that.
What seems strange is that so many people in Russia were willing to divulge what would
have been closely held secrets like the golden showers tape. Putin is described in the
Western press as somebody who would disappear you if you even criticized his shoe laces.
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes." ..."
"... Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal. ..."
"... Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative. ..."
"... Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men. ..."
"... That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates." ..."
First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior
of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and Mueller's professionalism
will supersede any personal loyalty. OK, but here's a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic
infighting -- with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political
intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It's a long and convoluted
story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:
In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft,
who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated
after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of
the program's constitutionality, wouldn't do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed
there, too, to stop them.
Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they'd quit rather
than extend the program. "Here I stand, I can do no other," Comey told Bush. That's Martin Luther's iconic line, and although in
2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government
appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection,
but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who
was attorney general by then.
The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled
the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected
17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq,
and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political
pressure.
This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax,
it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual
anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed
on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick
Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped
into focusing on Hatfill by two sources -- a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who'd never met Hatfill
and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.
In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium.
(Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit
of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters -- including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI).
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from
California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill,
who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that
he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least
checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted
-- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative
book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's
dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft
and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.
Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with
contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department
had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across
the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless.
"I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes."
Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted
in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions
of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.
I know Steven Hatfill's attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better -- and I
spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by
that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the
reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers
of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative.
While running for president, Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him
president. So here's the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million
people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding -- an investigation
that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of
uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting
impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning? .
Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.
Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the
course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men.
I recall sitting in the senate gallery once, doing a little studying somewhere warm while waiting for my bus (security was
pretty lax in those days) watching Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms going at it like the sergeant at arms was going to have to physically
restrain them from killing one another. It was all Kabuki theater.
That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not
interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their
too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates."
And over the next four or five decades, the place has changed little, and that mainly for the worse. No, if you are expecting
to find people of honor, don't waste your time looking at those who have spent their careers inside the beltway.
This part of the New Yorker article could be sheer comedy gold:
'... Regardless of what others might think, it's clear that Steele believed that his
dossier was filled with important intelligence. Otherwise, he would never have subjected it,
his firm, and his reputation to the harsh scrutiny of the F.B.I. "I'm impressed that he was
willing to share it with the F.B.I.," [former CIA spook John Sipher] said. "That gives him
real credibility to me, the notion that he'd give it to the best intelligence professionals
in the world."...'
FBI, best intelligence professionals in the world? Didn't the FBI along with the CIA miss
most indications of a looming terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the months
leading up to September 11, 2001?
A former CIA officer called John Sipher, calling a rival organisation 'the best
intelligence professionals in the world'?
"...looked much like the other businessmen heading home, except for the fact that he kept his
phones in a Faraday bag -- a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block
signal detection..."
A practical man, Steele also kept a giant roll of telephone line attached to his belt.
Unrolling it as he proceeded down the high street, he glanced upwards.
A Pteranodon, perched upon the slate roof was watching him closely. A bead of sweat
appeared on his temple, just showing underneath the rim of his bowler hat, trickling down the
side of his face, the leaving a streak that resembled a long forgotten river delta.
A chimmney sweet was approaching him on his right, whistling a jaunty tune, his bag of
extendable brushes jingling and clanking, just like Steele's nerves. Obviously a Russian
operative, the sweep was whistling an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, an ominous
warning...
Brennan is now afraid that Trump might survive the color revolution against him and he will be cooked...
Notable quotes:
"... Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into theTrump Campaign (with zero proof of wrongdoing) long before the Election in November? Wanted to discredit so Crooked H would win. Unprecedented. Bigger than Watergate! Plus, Obama did NOTHING about Russian meddling. ..."
"... Trump in November called Brennan and other intelligence leaders "political hacks" and the investigation into Russia's election interference "a pure hit job." ..."
"... Trump has similarly attacked Mueller's probe into Russia's election interference, repeatedly labeling it a "witch hunt." ..."
"This tweet is a great example of your paranoia, constant misrepresentation of the facts,
and increased anxiety and panic (rightly so) about the Mueller investigation," Brennan tweeted
Monday.
"When will those in Congress and the 30 percent of Americans who still support you realize
you are a charlatan?" he continued.
Trump had tweeted the claim earlier Monday, declaring the accusation "bigger than
Watergate."
"Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into the Trump Campaign (with zero
proof of wrongdoing) long before the Election in November? Wanted to discredit so Crooked H
would win," Trump wrote.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into theTrump Campaign (with
zero proof of wrongdoing) long before the Election in November? Wanted to discredit so
Crooked H would win. Unprecedented. Bigger than Watergate! Plus, Obama did NOTHING about
Russian meddling.
8:22 AM-Mar 5, 2018
Q105K Q 83.7K people are talking about this О
Brennan, a frequent critic of Trump, led the CIA when a declassified report from
the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies was released that said Russia created an influence
campaign aimed at interfering in the 2016 election.
Trump in November
called Brennan and other intelligence leaders "political hacks" and the investigation into
Russia's election interference "a pure hit job."
Trump has similarly attacked Mueller's probe into Russia's election interference, repeatedly
labeling it a "witch hunt."
Mueller charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups last month with interfering in
the U.S. election.
He also filed new charges against former Trump campaign staffers Paul Manafort and Richard Gates.
A federal court in Virginia in February returned a 32-count superseding indictment charging
Manafort and Gates with committing tax fraud, failing to file reports on foreign bank and
financial accounts, and bank fraud conspiracy.
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a remark aimed directly at Russia. ..."
"... NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia." He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark." ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as " imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the region. ..."
"... While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as "military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion. ..."
"... The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1. ..."
"... Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016. ..."
"... But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them. ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia " would be like declaring war ." ..."
The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.
It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the
Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current
tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea
as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when
it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.
It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried
to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was
barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms
race with Pakistan in South Asia.
And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly
backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between
Washington and Beijing.
So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new
bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to
it.
1914 vs. Today
In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary
James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a
remark aimed directly at Russia.
NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick
Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of
choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with
Russia."
He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark."
Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described
as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense
Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "
imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the
region.
But there are differences between now and the run up to the First World War. In 1914, there
were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the case today.
While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons,
Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet
Union.
The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend
more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates
Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as
"military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5
trillion.
The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China
almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South
Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly
greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.
This isn't to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant. Russia's
intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put
together by the United States. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is
arguably a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep.
Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by
building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep
potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships,
and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area
denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing
in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.:
1.9 percent as
opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016.
Beijing has been heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," alienating many of its
neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South
China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.
But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856,
when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895
and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.
China is, however, the United States' major competitor and the second largest economy in the
world. It has replaced the U.S. as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully
outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the U.S. asked its
key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with
the exception of Japan , they ignored Washington.
However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."
Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet
Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems,
socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about
"Communist subversion," but trade.
Behind the Shift
There are other players behind this shift.
For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems,
Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time.
"Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers,
submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.
This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms
company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have
spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a
stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those often high paying jobs.
Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the
Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. That's true even
though higher defense spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding
many of the programs the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a
major side benefit: cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services,
Social Security, and Medicare in order to service the deficit.
And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the
Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's
loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own
lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program.
There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush
administration's neoconservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even
though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is
$12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia,
which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and
the U.S. and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be closer to 60 to 1 .
However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.
The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump
administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will
not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops
on its southern border?
Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's
largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia "
would be like
declaring war ."
"... Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and slipping further into decline. ..."
"... This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in the West are causing. ..."
I don't understand the last three paragraphs of your comment so I may be missing
your central point. However, I believe this sentence taken in isolation could do with
qualifying:-
"No doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket
case and the US is rapidly joining them."
The picture one gets of Russia is of a country slowly digging itself out of the
disintegrative corruption of the 90's. Putin's recent remarks indicate how slowly.
President Carter's characterisation of the US as now being an oligarchy shows the US
slowly going the other way. Even including Germany that is the general picture in the
West.
Some recent remarks and examples from DH show the Russian people, or rather a substantial
number of them, soberly and consciously preparing to address the threat from the West. Unless
it's all Russian PR there is a sense of national unity there, at least for many, and that is
reflected by the Russian leadership.
I'm afraid our host is correct when he characterises the current anti-Russian sentiment in
the West as hysterical. That, however, is I believe largely top down. It is a product of PR
from the media and from the Western politicians. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or
national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided
within themselves.
The Russians seem also to have escaped the demoralising effects of the more far out social
trends in the US and other Western countries.
Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less
powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a
West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and
slipping further into decline.
This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously
unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in
the West are causing.
Trump +247: Mueller, the 9/11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis
Robert Mueller is
considered to be a man of integrity, of impeccable credentials and character. His appointment
to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election was lauded by the Establishment
political class, media and a great deal of the public. And yet the same media is utterly
failing to connect his name to the recent Saudi scandal that's been quietly making the news. It
seems the media would rather this story just went away. For years some of the families
associated with the victims of 9/11 have been dissatisfied with the official investigation.
With good reason they view it as insufficient, truncated and even corrupt.
Many angles of the 9/11 story were not investigated and many more received only a surface
level consideration. The Saudi angle as some would have it has not been sufficiently considered
and as the years have gone by numerous investigations and inquiries seem to point to Riyadh
playing no small role in the attacks. Many believed this to be the case even in the fall of
2001. Saudi politics have always been confusing and the relationship of the extensive royal
family with jihadist groups has always been a present danger but murky and difficult to grasp.
On the one hand there's a real antagonism between the House of Saud and groups like al Qaeda.
On the other hand the Saudis have provided extensive funding for the spread of Wahhabism and
they certainly played no small part in funding some of the Mujahideen groups in 1980's
Afghanistan. Some of these same figures (including but not limited to bin Laden) would be
instrumental in the founding of al Qaeda. This part of the story isn't all that controversial.
Where it becomes problematic for many is that the US and all too often Israel have been right
there, right alongside Riyadh in backing these various projects. US intelligence continues to
struggle in distancing itself from the founders and initial characters surrounding the founding
of al Qaeda and even some of the important figures that later affiliated with the Taliban. You
can be sure the media has done all it can to facilitate the re-crafting of the narrative. The
so-called 9/11 families were always suspicious of Riyadh. It's understandable considering the
fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have shown that Saudi
diplomats and intelligence were in contact with some of these men and even high ranking figures
like Ambassador Prince Bandar were involved in funding them. The thing is, the connections
point not only to the Saudis but to American intelligence... both the FBI and the CIA. These
terrorists were facilitated. The story of their entry and surveillance is more than a little
remarkable. There were agents that were on to them but they were silenced and set aside. The
scale of the 9/11 cover-up ranges far beyond some Saudi connections to the hijackers. Some
believe this is all about money, the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud.
Michael Moore and others have intimated as much. But that can't be the whole story. That might
explain some of the cover-up, though such an explanation is hardly sufficient. It does not
explain the way in which these men were facilitated by the FBI in the days leading up to 9/11.
The CIA angle is also worth looking into and is potentially vast and certainly more than a
little suspicious.
Mueller as head of the FBI played a leading role in the suppression of the 9/11 investigation.
If there is a cover-up, as indeed I and many others believe there to be, then Mueller is one of
the chief perpetrators. Mueller at this point must be reckoned a top figure (or more likely an
actor/agent) within the Deep State. His task vis-à-vis the 9/11 investigation was to
obscure the hijacker's connections to US intelligence and to deflect any investigation of the
Saudi's. For those that have sought to peel back the layers of deception surrounding 9/11 and
its cover-up, Mueller is undoubtedly reckoned one of the great villains of the whole affair. To
reckon him a man of integrity is laughable... if such things can be laughed at. The fact that
he was selected to investigate supposed Russian manipulation of the US election is more than a
little interesting. The ironic part is this... those who question 9/11 are deemed conspiracy
theorists. And yet the whole Putin/Trump/Wikileaks narrative which Mueller will supposedly
uncover is... a conspiracy theory and yet one without merit. All too often conspiracy theories
are rooted in conjecture and inference based on circumstantial evidence. That they all too
often err does not discount the reality of a conspiracy. It's simply that there are too many
gaps in knowledge or often false assumptions driving the inference. The Ockham's Razor
reductionist method of focusing purely on so-called brute facts also proves insufficient to
postulate unifying theories and in fact is often hostile to the attempt. For a conspiracy
theory to be plausible the inference has to make sense in light of the larger context and what
can hopefully be described as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It's akin to and often is
criminal in nature. There has to be motive and intent. There has to be some benefit in terms of
the outcome. These questions do not guarantee a correct answer or an accurate interpretation of
events but they are at the very least necessary to employ the inference that is at the heart of
all such inquiries and investigations. The Russian narrative with regard to the 2016 US
presidential election fails this most basic of tests. The motives and outcome of the supposed
conspiracists fails on all fronts.
I'm speaking politically at this point. Profits and dirty
business deals (of which there is some evidence) cannot be entirely divorced from politics, but
the motives, means and desired outcome are often quite different. There a host of narratives
being spun about Trump and the nature of his administration. Once again I would argue the
proper way to understand these events is in terms of an Establishment internecine battle. The
present political struggle is not about an embattled Establishment at war with an insurgent
rogue power. Rather I view it as a battle of intramural factions and yet undoubtedly some of
those factions view this struggle as existential... or it is in their tactical interest to cast
it thus. The DNC is in a state of crisis. It has turned to the media, to Hollywood and
entertainment figures and to conspiracy theories to explain the election. The results of the
2016 election have discredited their narrative about the United States, what it is and what
direction it is heading. Are they that different from Trump? The answer is a resounding 'no'
and while they grandstand for the cameras in decrying his thuggish buffoonery they have offered
little political resistance to his agenda.
Hillary Clinton is trying to salvage her legacy. Her
defeat in 2016 discredited her life-narrative and historical legacy. She was to go down in
history as the great pioneer in modern American politics. Obama stole some of her thunder. Her
subsequent defeat at the hands of Donald Trump has completely discredited her. Corrupt, plastic
and probably self-deceived she has turned in desperation to a grand conspiracy theory in order
to justify her loss. As she sees it, she is not a defeated politician but the victim of a
crime. It would seem that in her distorted mind she is only one tier below the assassinated
Kennedy brothers. Hers is a great administration stolen, a tragic 'what if' that will haunt
American political history. But it's all nonsense of course as are the often contrived Kennedy
narratives. The two slain brothers are intriguing figures to be sure, complicated and yet
hardly the virtuous paragons they are often made out to be. They represented possibility and
yet the change in their character came too late. Clinton has also changed and shifted in her
outlook but in quite the opposite direction.
She is not the 'liberal' woman many took her to be
in the 1990s. And yet she has only grown more deeply entrenched and tied to the US
Establishment. She ranks high on the list of corrupt politicians and she utterly lacks the
charm and personal connection that many colourful political figures have possessed. She can't
even compete with her husband.
Odious to be sure he is nevertheless a masterful politician. The
dirty secret of modern democracy is that it has little to do with objective consideration of
issues. Some people vote for tribal factions and some vote on the basis of personality. The
latter are the folks who are most easily manipulated by the Madison Avenue types and the
camera-work of television producers and directors. The Democrats who were once perceived to
have stood for the working class have been exposed. Generations of betrayal and the breaking of
the trade unions have destroyed that old base that helped put them into office for several
decades. They still command a great deal of the minority vote but their grip is not as solid as
it once was and social disintegration has led to a great deal of apathy. Figures like Hillary
Clinton are not capable of stirring the disengaged masses to participation. The truth is that
Hillary Clinton has long been hated by a huge section of the electorate.
The DNC has lost vast
portions of its base. The Democrats have embraced sexual perversion and identity politics and
yet have done so while moving to the Right in terms of economics and militarism. The Left is
beginning to peel off and the Right has moved even farther to the Right leaving no Centrists or
working class sector who would still vote democratic or possible consider swinging that
direction in a tight contest. We are left with two Right-wing parties...a Centre-Right and a
Far Right. The US Establishment has been concerned with the direction the Far Right has headed.
It has clearly taken the government into a position of being unable to govern. It is generating
too much chaos and dysfunctionality. In 2016 the bulk of the US Establishment was invested in
the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Please understand the bulk of the Establishment is really above
the political factions. Much of that is just theatre for the masses.
The pseudo-political war
between the Red and the Blue also spawns vast sums of money and creates occasions to generate
and launder even more. The Clinton defeat created a crisis because it signalled that many
assumptions that have dominated for more than a generation have collapsed. The Trump victory
signalled not just a crisis for the 2016-2020 political cycle, but a looming threat of social
unrest. The Establishment fears the masses and if the working class starts to unite they are in
trouble. Seeds of distrust and fear must be sown. Identity politics divides the populist
street. Discrediting Trump will not only hinder his agenda and ability to be effective but it
will keep the street divided. People will focus on events like Charlottesville and Trump's
foolish comments rather than the real issues that place this society, even this civilisation in
danger. The Establishment is banking on the fact that the generals can restrain him from
disastrous war.
Mueller's task will be to expose enough of the obvious corruption within his
family and organisation to leave him paralysed. Mueller is the Establishment's Sword of
Damocles, an ever present threat. Like Kenneth Starr, he will continue to dig and gather dirt,
whether related or not. With Trump the pile of refuse will be all but endless and he will
likely generate as many problems in trying to cover up his deeds as the actual acts and
problems themselves. Mueller's placement remains an ongoing threat to Trump... and yet it's one
that may not work as Trump seems all too often divorced from reality. Obstruction of justice is
as likely to bring him down as anything else. His own hubris and attempts to cover his tracks
will further destroy what little integrity he has left. Eventually someone like Mueller will be
able to issue a report and say almost whatever he wants. The political class will believe it,
because they want to. If they can restrain him... good. If he self-destructs... that's okay
too. If he wages war that's also a fine thing. No one in ruling circles has a problem with US
militarism. What they don't like it was it's done unilaterally and without utilising the proper
mechanisms that proved plausibility, cover and a right narrative. I am certain there are some
that are very concerned about what's happening with regard to North Korea and rightly so.
They
are not opposed to war but how it is being set up and prosecuted. In the meantime the
Establishment will continue to spin out the narrative that the country was undermined by dark
foreign influences. A new Cold War, a new age of McCarthyism is upon us. Censorship, often
voluntary has returned with a vengeance. The corrupt moguls who dominate the media and the
neo-media centers of Silicon Valley are part of this re-tooling of American society. Even the
Trump interlude is being used to re-shape the Internet and to bolster the surveillance state.
It's not that hard when millions are apparently more than willing to not only to reject any
notions of privacy but are eager to give up their biometric data to the realm of cyberspace and
its corrupt and incompetent guardians. Mueller is no man of integrity. He is a shill for the
powers that be. His evident lack of virtue and honesty has no power to render judgment as to
what Trump is or is not. These are all evil people. Some seem to be fooled into thinking that
there are some 'good' folks who make it into these positions of power. Mueller will investigate Manafort who is obviously a corrupt businessman if not something else. He actually looks more
like a CIA connected figure to me. His history and placement within the Trump campaign raises
some very interesting questions... as does the timing of his departure. Yet thus far the
evidence surrounding Manafort seems to actually exonerate Trump and his campaign, a point the
media seems unwilling to acknowledge.
Did Trump's people go after dirt on the Clinton's? Of
course they did and so did the Clinton's. Are they tied in with corrupt business people in
Ukraine and Russia? Yes. So are the Clinton's. Are these people tied in with the political
powers within Ukraine and Russia? Of course. But once again the notion that the Putin
collaborated with Trump and Assange and that it was these leaks and some ads taken out on
social media that somehow stole the election and led to Clinton's loss... is absurd. The
evidence is not there and thus far the policies of the Trump administration do not support
this. If this were the case then Putin must be seething. It's a betrayal on the order of the
Kennedy double-cross of Sam Giancana and the mafia. But I doubt anyone wants to revisit that
chapter of history. In a way Mueller's position is both interesting and ironic. All the events
of the present, the discussions about leaks, media, wars, politics, Russia etc.... all rest on
the foundation created by 9/11. And so now the investigator of corruption is one of the
guardians who continues to protect that fortress of lies upon which the new order has been
built. For if 9/11 were to come undone the Orwellian regime wed to the War on Terror narrative
would collapse. It is therefore appropriate that Mueller continues in his role as guardian and
the media will do all it can to make him out as a man of integrity.
When in reality he is
already known as one who is utterly lacking character, an obstructor and facilitator of mass
murder. He can claim no moral superiority vis-à-vis someone like Trump...and you can be
sure Trump knows it.
"... Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side. ..."
"... The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes . ..."
"... A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins. ..."
"... Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes. ..."
Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some
think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others
maintain he is working on Trump's side.
We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important
investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through
the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle's office. The
terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The
world panicked .
Under Mueller's management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now
brag about
spending "hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case." Let's take a closer look
at Mueller's response to understand the context of the investigation -- who his people
investigated, targeted, and found guilty.
The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane
hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing
anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who
housed
two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions
consistent with
infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he
claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for
"skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was
the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting
airplanes .
So how did Mueller's investigative team handle the case?
Mueller issued a
statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found "no
direct link to organized terrorism." The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the
FBI continued , Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they
needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.
A few weeks later, the FBI released a
remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the
letters, where it was written in bold block letters, "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah
is Great." Instead, they focused on a "linguistic analysis," stating that the letter's writer
was atypical in many respects and not "comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case
lettering." The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled
American with bad personal skills.
The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to
kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became "mission oriented"
following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a
Muslim.
Mueller's FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit -- a "flag-waving"
American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from
bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases.
There was no direct link
from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI's own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill.
The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of
Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.
While Hatfill's dignity and life was being trampled on by America's secret police, Mueller
took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would
resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an
American in the FBI's largest-ever investigation.
Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million
dollars.
After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI's face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins,
another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and
had been doing so for years. It wasn't until five years after the attack that Mueller's men
decided
Ivins was a target .
The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but
Frontline documented
this was not true. Ivins was "familiar" with the area from which the anthrax letters were
mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the
case showing it was impossible
for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters .
The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins
worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive -- so
sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented
, "This is not your mother's anthrax" -- that was likely produced by a nation state or
Al-Qaeda.
Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was
threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under "
relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo ." He committed suicide.
One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
stated Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they were "confident that Dr.
Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks."
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks,
did not
believe that Ivins was the sole actor . Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI's
case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with
the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS
released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the
FBI's science and conclusions were not solid .
A former FBI official involved in the investigation
sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.
Mueller made his position known,
saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had
made no mistakes.
The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn't go after al-Qaida
for the anthrax letters because he couldn't find a direct link. But then he targeted American
citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI
Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone ( except Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert ).
Now he's running the Trump-Russia investigation. Daniel Ashman is the author of two books,
"Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been
published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76 .
Obama was a CIA protégé. At least in his young years. How CIA protégé can ask for 911 investigation, or release of some
materials? That's unrealistic.
Mueller was Bush II appointee. That tells us a lot, because it was Cheney who vetted all candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..."
"... The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that ..."
"... The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. ..."
"... Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. ..."
First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you listen to any member of our
government state that the newly released 29 pages are no smoking gun -- THEY ARE LYING.
Our government's relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is no different than an
addict's relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat, and steal to
feed their vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat, and steal to continue their
dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA -- a relationship that is rotting this
nation and its leaders from the inside out.
When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the
government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan
is not a man living in reality -- he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi
vice.
When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies --
under oath -- that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help
us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and
protects only her Saudi vice.
Do not let any person in our government deny the damning
reality of the 29 pages.
And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003.
President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has
deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the
Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that
said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President
Bush.
It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its
investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Mueller acknowledges that much of
the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators ultimately uncovered was
unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had
purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out
of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and
the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's
investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.
Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush
Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to
write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given
such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria.
Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years
-- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience,
embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper
nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that .
The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release
of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by
President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who
themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks
-- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families.
Frankly, it re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path
to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held
responsible. Most alarmingly, Obama's silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an
emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State
Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle, and ignore the truth
leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our
"ally" the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so
far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically
follow-up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat --
the investigator was fired. In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission's entire section
regarding the Saudi's and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John
Lehman, Bob Kerrey, and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately
investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang their hat on the
9/11 Commission's Final Report -- when Commissioners, themselves, have admitted that the Saudis
were not fully investigated, is absurd and disgraceful.
For example, one glaring piece of information was not mentioned in either the 9/11
Commission or the Joint Inquiry's 29 pages -- the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and
Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI
report and a CIA
report -- that are now declassified. Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy -- a Saudi
Consulate official -- helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so
he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy
escorted bin Attash -- a known al Qaeda operative -- through INS and Customs at LAX evading
security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI
report.
Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS
Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar
and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole.
Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated?
Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin
Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they
would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11
attacks -- more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened.
But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17
sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.
I'm sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all
consider Thumairy's operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar, and Hazmi as within
the threshold of being an "ally" of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would
not.
I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know
that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice,
Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris, and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked
Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey. For an Administration
looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice -- doing it
yesterday when Congress was leaving for their two month summer recess was probably the best day
anyone could have imagined.
But, the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my
government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that
of other citizens, I now know better. For fifteen long years, I have fought to get information
regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government. I have fought, pleaded, and
begged for the truth, transparency, justice, and accountability because my husband and 3,000
others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but
block, thwart, impede, and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability, and
justice. Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth
written on the plain paper of the 29 pages.
Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way
various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts -- telling you to
deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting
disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.
Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San
Diego . They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the
29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently
being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida -- 80,000 documents that neither the 9/11
Commission, the Joint Inquiry, the Clinton, Bush, or Obama White House, nor the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia wants us to know about.
More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and
financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been
covering up that fact for fifteen years -- even to this very day. And that is a crime.
Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both democratic and republican administrations.
Blame President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama -- as well as, all of their
officials and appointees. They are ALL to blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks,
helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11
attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming
clean with the American public for fifteen years.
(9/11 widows Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, and Patty Casazza all sign
their names to this blog)
"... I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing. ..."
"... When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. ..."
"... For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey ..."
"... Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on) ..."
"... While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history. ..."
Rowley, a former FBI special agent and division counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of
the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She just appeared on The Real
News report "
Special
Counsel Investigating Trump Campaign Has Deep Ties to the Deep State ," about Mueller being appointed to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia.
While Mueller has been widely described as being of impeccable character by much of official Washington, Rowley said today: "The
truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general -- see my
New York Times op-ed
on day of Comey's confirmation hearing ) presided over a cover-up "
In her interview, Rowley noted: "The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning
[about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a
chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get
us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
"When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and
went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.
For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers,
Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included
CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey."
Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco,
as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo
etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was
making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on)."
"While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute
integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power,
that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political
partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history."
As part of what Donald Trump has dubbed an ongoing "witch hunt", Special Counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed longtime Donald
Trump associate and former aide Sam Nunberg. requesting he appear before a grand jury investigating Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Nunberg, however,
told Bloomberg he has no intention of cooperating with Mueller's subpoena.
"I'm not going to cooperate with Mueller. It's a fishing expedition ," Nunberg
told Bloomberg News . " They want me in there for a grand jury for testimony about Roger Stone. He didn't do anything. What is
he going to do? His investigation is BS. Trump did not collude with Putin. It's a joke."
Nunberg was on Trump's payroll from mid-2011 to August 2015 when he was fired from Trump's campaign shortly after it emerged that
he had posted racially charged Facebook posts. In July 2016, Trump sued him for violating a confidentiality agreement, however the
suit was dropped the following month.
. "What's he going to do? He's so tough - let's see what they do. I'm not going to spend 40 hours going over emails. I have a
life."
Nunberg told Bloomberg he expects one line of questioning before the grand jury to be related to Stone, who Nunberg worked with
closely over the years.
In a somewhat surreal interview, Nunberg also spoke with NBC's Katy Tur on Monday afternoon, reiterating that he was not going
to comply with the subpoena while stating his belief that his onetime boss may be guilty of collusion with the Russians.
After admitting to host Katy Tur that he'd been interviewed by Mueller's investigators, the host asked Nunberg if he believes
the special counsel "has anything" on Trump.
"I think they may," the ex-aide responded. "I think he may have done something during the election. But I don't know that for
sure."
This isn't the first time Nunberg's given a rambling MSNBC interview. Last week, he called presidential adviser and son-in-law
Jared Kushner a "weak link" who has done "nefarious things," and earlier this year, called Trump an "idiot" and a "complete pain
in the ass to work for." In the latter interview, which was conducted by host Joy Ann Reid, many noted that Nunberg appeared to be
intoxicated.
... ... ...
In the subpoena dated Feb. 27, Bloomberg reports that Nunberg was also asked to turn over emails, texts and other communications
with 10 campaign associates, including Trump, former campaign manager Corey Lewandoski and outgoing White House communications director
Hope Hicks starting in November 2015 and running through the present.
Another possible line of questioning could be related to Trump's activities in Moscow in 2013 during the Miss Universe pageant,
which the president once owned. The book by author Michael Wolff, "Fire and Fury," quotes Nunberg extensively describing the early
months of the Trump administration. Wolff said the former adviser was "generally regarded as the man who understood Trump's whims
and impulses best" and a Bannon associate. Mueller's team interviewed Bannon earlier this month.
Incidentally, when asked if Nunberg was correct that Trump "may have done something during the election", Press Sec. Sanders dnied,
saying that "He's incorrect...I certainly can't speak to him or the lack of knowledge that he clearly has."
Seriously, what about Trump's Hotels? Do they employ any Russians? I think that black jack dealer looked Russian.
I am not a big fan of OJ, but Jesus Christ this Mueller investigation acts like our QA department. Non-stop making you do retarded
shit just because someone, somewhere might not fully get exactly what you did because they are retarded.
Mueller better just close up shop before the people supporting him give him the hook. Russian Troll farm? Really? Shitposting
is now a national security issue. omg.
The longer this goes on, the more I think that our government just needs to go away. Total loss of all credibility. And when
he does find something HUGE, if it isn't related to Trump (Uranium One) he just passes it by.
We are now past the point of absurd. Trump will next be guilty of having a bottle of Stoli at his house.
Kudos to this guy for calling this for what it is. Just downright stupid.
I took Russian as my foreign language elective in college and sometimes even understand some of it. I also read RT from time
to time and donated to the Trump campaign.
So someone that worked for Trump says that he doesn't know for sure if Trump did something bad and it is headline news? Give
me a break! What click-bait garbage this article is.
I love the liberal delusion that the Trump-Russia evidence is going to show up any day now while they continue to ignore the
fact that Hillary paid for Kremlin help in the election.
How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier
Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was
"a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."
Maybe this is the guy who stops pretending? He already sounds like would call Mueller for what he is. I bet Mueller is sitting
there in his psychosis thinking that because this guy said what he did he is the one really holding all the dirt.
Someone should go and testify and just start dropping bombs.
I think all witnesses should do the same. Then when they are forced to testify under penalty of contempt, they should plead
the 5th amendment and force Mueller to grant them immunity. This is all total BS. Any witness who cooperates and appears before
a grand jury runs the risk of some bogus perjury or obstruction of justice charges. Mueller is a piece of human vermin.
Mueller has already committed a crime he lied to the Senate, if there was any law and order in this Country Mueller would have
been locked up a long time ago.
I don't know anything about this guy but glad to see someone is calling bullshit on this ongoing witch hunt. And there are
plenty of idiots thinking it is a real thing when basically nothing has been uncovered in a year and a half related to Trump/Putin.
Meanwhile gigantic conflicts on the Hillary side are going totally uninvestigated..
Mueller is not looking for anything Russia-related because he knows no such evidence exists. Instead, he is looking to file
completely unrelated charges against other people such as Paul Manafort, who can then be pressured into making false accusations
against Trump. "Special Counsel" Mule-er is nothing but the leader of a star chamber packed with (((Democrat))) loyalists who
have no interest in serving justice. This entire ruse is nothing but a seditious attempt to overthrow a Constitutionally elected
president because the Deep State and its cronies remain in a state of apoplexy over the 2016 election results. More than anything,
this reminds me of some kind of Stalinist NKVD secret police operation from the 1930s: false charges supported by fraudulent evidence
followed by show trials that delivered the expected results. Truth and justice be damned. Of course, we know (((who))) was calling
the shots in the Soviet Secret Police, don't we?
I don't think he's actually investigating anything. Once in awhile, he pops up with serious-sounding garbage, that really means
nothing.
He's intended to be a shark in the waters around this administration, nothing more. A "potential" threat he might "find" something.
He's had his time at the "Russian collusion" plate, and he needs to be outta pitches.
Meanwhile, the country's business isn't getting done, and Trump's time in office isn't open-ended.
Business like infrastructure, the BloCare repeal, the wall, sanctuary city crackdowns, trade deal overhauls (not simply tariffs,
but new deals or no deals at all), and much more.
His supporters really DO need to rise mightily and force these issues to the front and center.
The Bolshevik fascists are stymieing this president, as they bide their time toward the midterms.
Only in Americana, the deep State mother fuckers, can go over the president like never before, and undermine his authority,
take down his staff and stall his presidency... and basically place him in a corner for the kill.
Trump since his inauguration, wasn't able to get anything done because of these fuckers... they are enemies of the people!
Why are these freaks being allowed to make a mockery of Trump presidency using bs excuses? How stupid people can be to believe
on this shit! Where are the good politicians if any left in Washington? Is there any political decency left in the States? WTFIGO?
Most veterans and folks on the service that I know of are ashamed of these debacle!
The President needs to set a deadline for Mueller - end of summer would be good - either present evidence of collusion with
Russia to Congress - or you're fired. Otherwise this investigation will still be ongoing when Ivanka is sworn in as the 46th.
president January 20, 2025.
He is setting up a trap for Mueller. Get Mueller to go balls to the wall and make a misstep and blow his whole investigation
up by being retarded. Stone created an art of being a provocateur. This guy learned from Stone. Mueller will see that conversation
and think " WE got the President dig dig dig send subpoenas, do raids. " Thing is doing raids on innocent people catches up to
you very fast. You never know who knows who and who is connected to who. This will get Mueller to spend more money and he will
for sure go over the line and cut his own throat. Keystone cops tend to die by their own gun.
Muller was in charge of 9/11 investigation. So he is the perfect prosecutor for the "deep
state." Proven in action. Everything is possible with him being the Grand inquisitor for
Trump.
One insightful comment that re4flect my sentiments about Mueller investigation as well :
"Honestly don't care about Trump's personal fate, but I despise the [neo]libs and their clubby
parody of justice typified by Holder, Lynch, Comey, Mueller et al. It's probably too much to ask
for, yet what would really be fun is to see Mueller's probe shut down before he can bring
charges. Just as the Dems are about to splurge in celebration....conspiratus interruptus!"
Meanwhile, liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz disagrees:
" You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his
constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice
Department who to investigate, who not to investigate, " said Dershowitz last December.
"That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We
have precedents that clearly establish that."
The controversy over whether or not Trump obstructed justice was one of the primary drivers
behind Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's appointment of Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel following Comey's dismissal. Notably, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself
from all things related to the Russia investigation - frustrating many who say he's simply been
sitting on his hands while Mueller and his fleet of trump-hating Democrat investigators gun for
the President.
"I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder
protected President Obama. Totally protected him," Trump told the New York Times. " When you
look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect
for that, I'll be honest. "
Holder shot back fast and furiously on Real Time with Bill Maher - stating " The difference
between me and Jeff Sessions is that I had a president I didn't have to protect ." Perhaps he
forgot about the selective targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, lying about the cause
of Benghazi, Obama's knowledge of Hillary's private server, the Solyndra green energy and
similar crony capitalism scams, spying on journalists, the Secret Service hooker scandal, and
of course Fast and Furious.
Holder thinks Sessions should resign in the wake of President Trump openly criticizing him.
"At some point, though, you would hope that you would have the intestinal fortitude or the
pride to simply say, you know, 'I wanted this job all my life, but it's not worth it, and I'm
not going to take that kind of abuse, and I'm simply going to tell you, you know, go screw
yourself, and I'm out,'" Holder told Maher.
And this from the only AG in the history of the country to be held in contempt of
Congress... Come on Holder, you can do better than this weak effort, especially when they
drag your ass to jail for sedition...
This is William Binney discussing the magnitude of the corruption of the FBI, the secret
FISA courts, and how it affects us all.
One of the NSA's top code breakers Bill Binney explains how the FBI works.
Secret, unconstitutional courts...
"Law enforcement" agents who lie as a matter of course.
Evidence falsified daily.
That's just another day at the office at the FBI.
34:57 https://www.brasscheck.com/video/about-the-fbi/
Comey has already Been caught in several major lies, some of them indictable... no one
with a brain believes anything that sewer roach says...
Holder is an old pro when it comes to obstruction... and lying... and sedition... and,
probably... gobbling Barry's joint... and why hasn't that Contempt Citation this maggot got
ever been prosecuted... or perhaps accessory to MURDER, in Terry's death?
Holder let HSBC get away with crimes of laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists
and gave them (HSBC) subsequent immunities not even available to the President of the United
States.
Starts at 12:18 (Interview with John Titus who produced All the Plenary's Men, which
describes HSBC's exoneration)
Report: Holder Blocked HSBC Trial On Drug Cartel Money Laundering Scandal
" Former Attorney General Eric Holder overruled Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who
said British banking giant HSBC should be prosecuted for missing hundreds of millions of
dollars in money laundering by drug cartels, a congressional
committee report said Monday"
" Attorney General Holder misled Congress concerning DOJ's reasons for not bringing a
criminal prosecution against HSBC," the committee report said."
Thanks, Eric Holder, because several months ago I thought that Trump firing Comey was
obstruction of justice. The other curious incident to me is why Trump thought that Barack
Obama "hacked" Trump in Trump Tower, NYC. It's going to be interesting to read about someday
exactly what made Trump think that. Of all the people in the world, if anyone wanted to
remain anonymous, it would be the POTUS. I can imagine someone trolling Trump and signing
Barack Obama's name to it, and Trump falling for it.
Appreciated also the Holder comment "because I never had to protect President Obama from
anything." LOL well said.
Honestly don't care about Trump's personal fate, but I despise the libs and their clubby
parody of justice typified by Holder, Lynch, Comey, Mueller et al.
It's probably too much to ask for, yet what would really be fun is to see Mueller's probe
shut down before he can bring charges. Just as the Dems are about to splooge in
celebration.... conspiratus interruptus!
"... Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine. ..."
"... (Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.) ..."
"... It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won. ..."
"... Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming. ..."
"... When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos. ..."
"... Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. ..."
"... The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process." ..."
"... On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking. ..."
"... One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks. ..."
"... Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC! ..."
"... From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud. ..."
"... With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy. ..."
What is not generally known, however, due to the lying coverage in the Transatlantic "Fake
News" media, is that included in this unholy alliance of coup plotters were armed militia units
made up of neo-Nazis, who were responsible for the bloodshed on Maidan Square in Kiev, and
which threatened the ethnic Russians, which constitute the majority of the population in the
eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The lie that there was no neo-Nazi involvement has been maintained, despite ample evidence
to the contrary, including interviews with militants pronouncing admiration for Hitler's
collaborators in the Bandera movement in Ukraine during World War II, when Ukrainian units
murdered ethnic Poles, Russians, and other "non-Ukrainians", including Ukrainian Jews. The
armed "Banderistas" and related thugs have been incorporated into the security apparatus of the
Kiev regime, and continue to march in the halls of Parliament and on the streets, under banners
with pictures of Bandera, the Nazi collaborator, and symbols going back to their alliance with
the Nazi SS.
The coup provoked a chain of events which the U.S., London and NATO used as justification to
impose punitive sanctions against Russia, while demonizing Russia's President Putin, asserting
that the he was engaged in military operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to reverse the
coup. Efforts to stop the fighting between the regime's armed forces and ethnic Russian rebels
in eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk Accord in 2015, which included a cease fire and the
granting of autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. The Minsk Accord was brokered by France, Germany
and Russia.
On January 18, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament ripped up the Minsk Accord, referring to the
two republics as "temporarily occupied" by an "aggressor country," that is, Russia, and vowed
to reintegrate them, by military force if necessary. This bill, which received the full support
of Ukraine's President Poroshenko, has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "a
preparation for a new war." It occurs simultaneously with an outburst of war-like propaganda
from western neocons, typified by a report from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), released on February 20 with the title, "Coping with Surprise in Great Power
Conflicts." The report charges that both Russia and China are preparing for war against the
U.S., and that the Russians are deploying forces and artillery to overrun the Baltic states in
a lightning strike, to reincorporate them into a new Russian empire!
THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT
This background is necessary to understand the vicious hostility behind the targeting of
Paul Manafort, a long-time U.S. political operative, by the "amoral legal assassin", special
counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign manager at a key moment
in his fight to secure the Republican nomination, from May to August 2016, was indicted by
Mueller on October 27, 2017, charged with numerous counts of money laundering, tax fraud, not
registering as an agent of a foreign government, and of making false statements to the FBI.
Mueller filed a revised indictment on February 28, 2018, following his "turning" of Manafort's
partner Rick Gates, who filed a guilty plea to a single count on February 22. While awaiting
trial in September, Manafort is confined to house arrest.
None of the charges against Manafort are related to the initial mandate given to Mueller, by
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to investigate the allegations of Russian hacking and
sundry meddling in the 2016 election, and whether Donald Trump had "colluded" with the
Russians. However, they are directly related to the geopolitical manipulations against Russia,
which have been sharply criticized by Trump, both as a candidate and as President.
Manafort was first placed under surveillance following a FISA Court order in 2014. FISA, the
super-secret court set up as part of the post-9/11 apparat to spy on potential terrorists,
granted the surveillance order as part of an investigation into alleged illegal lobbying on
behalf of the Yanukovych government of Ukraine by Manafort and others. Note that the timing of
the court order coincided with the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Manafort had been working for several
years as an adviser to the Party of the Regions, which was the party of President Yanukovych,
who was overthrown by the regime change coup.
The original FISA warrant targeting Manafort
was subsequently not renewed, for lack of evidence. A second order, however, was approved by
the FISA Court for surveillance of Manafort sometime during 2016 -- the exact date of the order
has not been released -- likely around the time Manafort took over the reins of the Trump
campaign. Manafort played a key role in holding the Trump coalition together heading into the
Republican convention July 18-21, as Bush-directed "Never-Trumpers" were attempting to steal
the nomination away from him.
Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove
language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko
government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump
for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as
the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a leading campaigner for tougher sanctions against Russia --
he was one of the authors of the initial anti-Russia sanctions, in the Magnitsky Act -- accused
Trump and Manafort of changing the platform to benefit Russia, which he accused of robbing
Ukraine of sovereignty! It is now reported that Manafort's role in changing the language in the
platform is "under investigation" by Mueller!
(Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass
Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London
financial institutions.)
It was during this same time period, June and July, once it was evident that, barring some
unforeseen event, Trump would be the Republican nominee, that the anti-Trump activities of the
"Deep State" went into high gear. While the "Never Trumpers" were unsuccessfully plotting to
prevent his nomination at the convention, Christopher Steele began churning out memos, paid for
by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which included wild claims about
Putin's secret service filming Trump in compromising sexual activity during the 2013 Miss
Universe contest in Moscow. His first memo was written on June 20, 2016, and he met for the
first time with an FBI official on July 5, 2016.
It was also in June that CIA Director
John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of
"suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's
cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled
together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity.
Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating
the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the
Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy"
against him, if he won.
This incriminating text describes the meeting as taking place in "Andy's office", a
reference to the now-fired Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who told a Congressional
hearing that there would have been no surveillance warrant issued by the FISA court in October
2016 against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, had it not been for the Steele dossier.
Nunes has sent a list of ten questions regarding how the Steele's dossier shaped the
anti-Trump mobilization of Obama's intelligence agencies. Among those receiving the list of ten
questions are James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump, Obama's Director of National
Intelligence Clapper, Brennan and Victoria Nuland. They are given until March 2 to answer, or
they will face subpoenas. What Nunes is looking for is answers as to when the Steele dossier
was brought to their attention, by whom, what actions were taken in response to it, its role in
the submission to the FISA Court, and whether President Obama was briefed on what the dossier
contained. They lay the basis for possible indictments against those receiving the questions,
and for Steele. Senators Grassley and Graham have already stated they believe charges should be
filed against Steele, who has thus far been protected by Her Majesty's government, which has
acted to prevent Steele from being brought before a court of law.
STEELE AND THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION
But Steele's role in shaping U.S. policy predates the setting up of the Get Trump task
force. Both Nunes and Grassley are investigating Steele's connections with the U.S. State
Department, including with the notorious Nuland. They are looking into the role of Jonathan
Winer, a former assistant Secretary of State who served as a long-time aide to former Secretary
of State John Kerry. Winer befriended Steele in 2009, when they were collaborating on
investigations of Russian "corruption".
Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100
memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to
Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer
admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to
Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written
at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep
State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes
helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming.
When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 --
four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the
Steele memos.
But the Steele-Winer connection continued. In September 2016, Winer met with Steele, who
presented to Winer his anti-Trump dossier. Winer drafted a two-page summary of the dossier,
which he gave to Nuland. She told him to present this to Kerry. Later in the month, Winer met
with Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who showed him another specious anti-Trump
dossier, compiled by Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Winer then shared this who Steele, who
then claimed it confirmed the charges he made in his dossier, though coming from different
"sources."
Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what
this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate
coup. Among those calling for a full criminal investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and Hillary Clinton, which would reach Obama as well, is former Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney
Joseph DiGenova, who said it's very likely they could all be indicted.
YET BRITISH HITMAN MUELLER PROCEEDS!
The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates.
Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to
him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea,
Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a
change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the
circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family
moving forward by exiting this process."
On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's
astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and
Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged
in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking.
One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined
repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against
criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a
criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global
financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file
any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks.
Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of
Directors of HSBC!
From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes
clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows
from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch
hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being
dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than
prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud.
With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty
role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance
strategy.
It's the way to achieve mass-indoctrination, which the Ministry of Truth specializes in.
Thus, among the reader-comments to that bold article, the top-listed one under "sort by best"
(in other words, the most popular) was the anti -Russian "Have you counted how many neo-Nazis
are in the Russian army as well?"
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blasted the United States on Friday saying that
the Russian Foreign Ministry will allocate special seats for American journalists at press
briefings if the US continues to infringe on the rights of Russian reporters.
The aggressive response came as US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert rudely and
condescendingly rejected questions from a Russian reporter at a press briefing on Thursday.
"You're from Russian TV too? OK! Enough said then, I'll move on," Nauert interrupted.
Nauert's outburst even received condemnation from some American journalists who also wanted
the spokesperson to clarify her remarks about Putin's speech.
"This behavior is unacceptable! If the State Department once again dares to label our
journalists who are present at press briefings 'journalists from Russia' and stop communicating
with them because of that, we will carry out what we promised," Zakharova said.
"We will arrange special seats for the so-called journalists from the US at the Foreign
Ministry's press center so that your journalists could feel this time what it is all about,"
she said.
"Earlier, literally several decades ago, people with different skin color were not allowed
to ride on the same bus in the United States. It is necessary to overcome that instead of
returning to the flawed practice of the early 19th century, dividing journalists into countries
and nationalities. You have no right to deny them access to information due to their
nationality," Zakharova stressed.
She then also went onto thank "those American reporters who defended their Russian
counterparts' right to access information and be treated equally."
"... Maher released a helpful summary of "rules for identifying fake news" - which everybody who posts on social media about the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls ..."
"... In his monologue "explainer" on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture controversies out of thing air. ..."
"... "I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a world where its news if Mariah Carey's tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard about it doesn't make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it's news." ..."
"... This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today's journalism. Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on those tweets like all of America's talking about nothing else ..."
"... No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans - because so much of it is fake! Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy that aren't controversial. And outrages that aren't outrageous. ..."
"... Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon - they make their money based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what's important and instead creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn't that what Russia was doing to us? Yes it is . ..."
"... And no, it's not easy: in fact, as the media's current business model shows, clickbait works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and "sowing discord", when the real culprit is America's endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession, always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt by blaming, why who else, Russia. ..."
Every once in a while, Bill Maher reminds us that he's the only liberal pundit on TV who
will call "the tolerant" left on its BS. In his latest weekly show, Maher released a helpful
summary of "rules for identifying fake news" - which everybody who posts on social media about
the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls and the mechanics of "internalized
misogyny" would do well to watch: "Fake News" isn't some made-up phenomenon concocted by
pro-Trump bloggers. It's a very real and disturbing trend that goes much further in tearing at
the social fabric of American society than $100,000 of spending on Facebook ads ever could.
In his monologue "explainer" on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have
good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and
exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture
controversies out of thing air. Or, as he puts it, just because a few people on Twitter with no
followers and no real-life influence are angry, doesn't mean the rest of America feels that
way...
"Since so much of what passes for today's journalism is anything but...how about some
rules for identifying actual news.
"If anybody is demanding an apology... unless they have hostages, that's not news.
"And when the offended group are identified as the internet, twitter or people - it's
nobody. I guarantee when you click on the story the internet is three losers with a combined
twitter following of their mom."
"I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a
world where its news if Mariah Carey's tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a
journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard
about it doesn't make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it's news."
Maher gives several examples of what passes as news, including the "controversy surrounding
Jennifer Lawrence's performance in the movie "Red Sparrow". The mainstream press reported that
a shot of Lawrence with a group of men was unforgivably sexist...because Lawrence wasn't
wearing a coat (while the men in the shot were).
Maher threw up all over the "story" which just happened to be reported in dozens of
"serious" media outlets, despite having zero social import or even any grounding in
reality.
Here's the headline from Elle online and a hundred other sites: 'Jennifer Lawrence's
latest red sparrow protocol has twitter calling out gender inequality. See because the men
are wearing coats but she's not. And even though that was her choice, somebody with 11
followers didn't like it so the the story was reported in the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the New York Post, Fox News..."
" Now all these esteemed news organizations aren't saying they think it's a big deal
because they're serious journalists. They'd rather be writing about Syria or the oceans dying
but oh the humanity, Jennifer Lawrence didn't have a coat. Wrap her up, wrap her up!"
Such "clickbait" stories like this aren't rare, in fact as Maher admits they have become the
norm, to an extent that most consumers of news hardly recognize how ridiculous they sound.
"This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today's journalism.
Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on
those tweets like all of America's talking about nothing else."
Justin Timberlake used a protection of Prince for his Superbowl halftime show and people
are furious...nope nobody cared.
People are really mad that Sean White dragged the American flag after he won the
gold...nope not even a little you fucking liars.""Weight Watchers is targeting teens and
twitter is outraged. No it isn't, it's the same three people. And it's not hard to find three
people who are mad at anything. I could say good morning and three people on twitter would
object: 'Good in your privileged world, Bill Maher'."
Yet considering the mainstream media's obsession with these types of stories, it is no
surprise that a sizable chunk of the US population has lost its faith in the validity and and
motivations of news organizations like CNN. What is surprising is that people like Maher are
finally admitting what is really going on...
"No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans - because so much of it is fake!
Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy
that aren't controversial. And outrages that aren't outrageous.
And what is really going on is that as Maher admits, what the US media is doing is no
different than the alleged "discord-sowing" misinformation campaign that Mueller recently
accused 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies of perpetrating on the US population?
"Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon - they make their money
based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are
actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what's important and instead
creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn't that what Russia was doing to
us? Yes it is .
And we need to stop both of them from using us as the cocks in their cock fights. And so I
saw to the people who were unable to go on after seeing Kendal Jenner tweet the wrong colored
emoji A bit of advice: If you didn't like what Kendal did with a brown fist...then don't
watch her sister's sex tape."
So, next time you're reading about the epidemic of teenagers eating Tide Pods, or rushing to
be the first to know all about the latest Kardashian clickbait du jour, don't: not only will it
stop rewarding hollow headlines designed for clicks, it will force the US media to once again
focus on news that truly matters. The real news.
And no, it's not easy: in fact, as the media's current business model shows, clickbait
works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and "sowing
discord", when the real culprit is America's endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession,
always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt
by blaming, why who else, Russia.
"... Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ..."
"... "This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces All across the media spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other "leftist" publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession "Russia Sees Midterm Elections as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord ( NY Times , 2/13), "Russia Strongman [Putin] haspulled off one of the greatest acts of political sabotage in modern history" ( The Atlantic , Jan. /Feb. 2018), "Mueller's Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime" ( Mother Jones , 2/16/18), "A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists" ( whowhatwhy.com , 2/7/18), etc." ..."
The compulsive hatred of President Putin
in élite western circles has surpassed anything witnessed during the Cold War. Western
states have been hyping political hostility in almost every sphere: In Syria, in Ukraine,
across the Middle East, in Eurasia, and now, this hatred has leached into the Security Council,
leaving it irretrievably polarised -- and paralysed. This hostility has percolated too, across
to all Russia's allies, contaminating them. It potends – almost inevitably –
further sanctions on Russia (and its friends) under the catch-all Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act . But the real question is: Does this collective
hysteria portend war ?
Ed Curtis reminds us of
the almost parabolic escalation of antagonism in recent weeks:
"This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces All across the media
spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National
Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other "leftist"
publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become
hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession "Russia Sees Midterm Elections
as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord (
NY Times , 2/13), "Russia Strongman [Putin] haspulled off one of the greatest acts of
political sabotage in modern history" ( The Atlantic ,
Jan. /Feb. 2018), "Mueller's Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime" (
Mother Jones , 2/16/18), "A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists" ( whowhatwhy.com
, 2/7/18), etc."
By casting Russia's interference in the US presidential election as "an attack on American
democracy" and thus "an act of war", the 'Covert American State' is saying – implicitly -
that just as the act of war at Pearl Harbour brought a retaliatory war upon Japan, so, pari
passu , Russia's effort to subvert America require similar retribution.
Across the Middle East – but especially in Syria – there is ample dry tinder for
a conflagration, with incipient or existing conflicts between Turkey and the Kurds; between the
Turkish Army and the Syrian Army; between Turkish forces and American forces in Manbij; between
Syrian forces and American forces; between American forces and the USAF, and Russian servicemen
and Russia's aerospace forces; between American forces and Iranian forces, and last but not
least, between Israel and Syria.
This is one heck of a pile of combustible material. Plainly any incident amidst such
compressed volatility may escalate dangerously. But this is not the point. The point is: Does
all this Russia hysteria imply that the US is contemplating a war of choice
against Russia, or in support of a re-set of the Middle East landscape to
Israel's and Saudi Arabia's benefit ? Will the US deliberately provoke Russia – by
killing Russian servicemen, for example – in order to find pretext for a 'bloody nose'
military action launched against Russia itself – for responding to the American
provocation?
Inadvertent war is a distinct possibility, of course: Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are
experiencing domestic leadership crises. Israel may overreach, and America may overreach, too,
in its desire to support Israel. Indeed the constant portrayal of the US President as Putin's
puppet is pursued, of course, to taunt Trump into proving the opposite - by authorizing some or
other action against Russia – albeit against his better instincts.
At the Munich Security Conference, PM Netanyahu
said :
"For some time I've been warning about this development [Iran's alleged plan to complete a
Shi'i crescent] I've made clear in word and deed that Israel has red lines it will enforce.
Israel will continue to prevent Iran from establishing a permanent military presence in Syria
We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves. And we will act, if necessary, not just
against Iran's proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself."
And, at the same conference, US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warned
Saturday against increased Iranian efforts to support its proxies in the Middle East, saying
the "time is now" to act against Tehran.
But what did McMaster mean by "time is now to act" ? Is he encouraging Israel to
attack Hizbullah or Iranian-linked forces in Syria? This, almost certainly, would lead to a
three or four front war for Israel; yet there are good grounds for believing that the Israeli
security establishment does not want to risk a three front war. Possibly, McMaster was
thinking more of full-spectrum hybrid, or COIN war, but not conventional war, especially since
Israel cannot, any longer (after the shoot down of its F16), be sure of
its air dominance , without which, it cannot expect, or hope, to prevail.
As senior Israeli officials complain about
the gap between US rhetoric and action, General Josef Votel, the commander of
Centcom , stated explicitly, by way of confirmation of the differing view, at a
hearing in Congress on 28 February that, "countering Iran is not one of the coalition missions
in Syria".
So – back to the Russia hysteria. I do not believe that Syria is a practical locus for
a war of choice either for the United States or Russia. Both are circumscribed by the
realities of Syria. American forces there are not numerous: they are isolated, and dependent on
allies – the Kurds – who are a minority in that part of Syria, who are divided, and
who are disliked
by the Arab population. And Russian forces mostly consist of no more than 37 aircraft, and
small numbers of Russian advisers and Russian supply lines are extended and vulnerable (in the
Bosphorous).
No, the US aim in Syria is limited to denying any political success to either Presidents
Putin or Assad. It is pure schadenfreude. The American occupation of north-east Syria is
primarily about spitting in the face of Iran – i.e. the pursuit of a COIN war against an
American, generational enemy.
And at the same time, at the macro, geo-strategic level, America has precisely been trying
to 'disarm' Russia's nuclear defences, and seize the advantage, by withdrawing from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and by deliberately surrounding Russia on its borders with
anti-ballistic missiles (the ABM treaty provided for only one site on its territory -
for each party - that would be protected from missile attack). The US strategy effectively left
Russia naked, in the nuclear sense. And that clearly was the intent. "With the build-up of the
global US ABM missile system, the New START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is
devaluated, and the strategic balance [was] broken", Russian President Vladimir Putin
said in his State of the Nation
Address yesterday.
But then, as 'the quartet of generals' (effectively, General Petraeus is a part of the WH
trinity of generals), having usurped America's foreign policy out from the prerogative of the
President and into their control, so US defence policy has metamorphosed beyond 'Cold War', to
something far more aggressive - and dangerous: a precursor to 'hot war'.
From the original Strategic Statement, casting Russia and China as 'rivals and competitors',
the subsequent Defense Posture Statement elevated the latter from mere rivals, to 'revisionist
powers', which is to say, dubbed them as seditionists committed to overturning the global order
by military force (the definition of revisionist power). The Statement placed great power
competition above terrorism, as the primordial threat facing America, and implied that
this 'revisionist' threat to the American-led global order needed to be met. American generals
complained that their erstwhile, unchallenged global dominance of the skies, and of terrain,
was being
eroded by Russia acting as 'arsonist' [of stability] whilst presenting itself as the
"fire-fighter" [in Syria]. America's air dominance must be reasserted, General Votel
implied .
But in a startling upending of the strategic balance and missile encirclement, that America
has been seeking to impose on Russia, President Putin
announced yesterday that:
"Those who for the past 15 years have been fueling the arms race, seeking advantages over
Russia, imposing restrictions and sanctions, which are illegal from the standpoint of
international law, in order to hinder our country's development, particularly in the defence
field, must hear this: all that you have been trying to prevent by this policy has happened.
Attempts to restrain Russia have failed."
The Russian President announced a series of new weapons (including new nuclear-powered
missiles invulnerable to any missile defence, hypersonic weapons, and underwater drones,
inter alia ), that remarkably
return the situation to the status quo ante – one of mutually assured
destruction (MAD), were NATO to contemplate attacking Russia.
President Putin said that he had repeatedly warned Washington not to deploy ABM missiles
around Russia – "Nobody listened to us: [But] Listen now!", he said:
"Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response
to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her
allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the
state."
"It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its
allies , be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a
nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant - and with all the relevant
consequences" (emphasis added).
President Putin underlined that he was not threatening America, nor did Russia have
revanchist ambitions. It was rather Russia simply using the only language that Washington
understands.
Putin's speech, accompanied by visuals of the new Russian weaponry, explains at least
something of what has been going on in DC: America's recent seizure by a madness for spending.
The Pentagon must have got (some) wind of Russia's advances – hence the huge increase in
the budget for Defence planned for this year, and another 9% next year, and an
unbudgeted commitment to fund a new nuclear submarine fleet, a replacement for the Minuteman
missile system, and the development of new nuclear (tactical) weapons (costs unspecified).
The expense will be prodigious for the US government. But Russia already has stolen the
lead, and did this with government debt, as a percentage of nominal GDP, standing
at only 12.6%, whereas America debt's already is at 105% of GDP (before the weapons upgrade
has begun). President Reagan is credited with busting the USSR economically by forcing it into
an arms race, but now it is the US that is vulnerable to its mountain of debt – should
the US try to reverse Putin's Spring 'surprise', and (if it can), restore its global
conventional and nuclear primacy.
So, America has a choice: either to re-set the relationship with Russia (i.e. pursue
détente), or, risk running a US borrowing requirement that busts the credibility of the
dollar. The US, culturally, is accustomed to acting militarily 'where, when and how' it decides
so to do. It will probably be culturally unable to abstain from this well-practiced habit.
Therefore, a weak dollar and rising debt servicing costs seems inevitable: thus, the
rôles seem set for a reversal from the Reagan era. Then it was Russia that overreached,
trying to catch up with the US. Now, it may be the vice versa .
The hysteric anti-Russian rhetoric will continue – so deeply embedded is it as an
'article of faith' - but it seems likely that America will need to reconsider before further
provoking Russia in Syria. If America is now unwilling to 'bloody Russia's nose' over some
escalation in Syria, then its isolated and vulnerable military outposts in eastern Syria will
loose much of their point, or begin to take casualties, or both.
The question now must be how Russia's exercise in speaking 'truth to power' will play on
America's policy towards North Korea. The US 'generals' will not like President Putin's
message, but there is probably little that they can do about it. But North Korea is different.
Just as Britain, at its moment of weakness, in the wake of WW2, wanted the world to know that
it remained strong (though the signs of its weakened state were evident to all), it sought to
demonstrate its continued power through the disastrous Suez Campaign. Let us hope North Korea
does not become America's 'Suez moment'.
It seems Russia was able to develop all these weapons, right up to the testing phase, in
total secrecy. Testing, impossible to conceal, would have been undertaken over the last two
years or so, which fits the time frame for US looking at upgrading their weapons. US ABM
defense, a big part of US military future, what twenty years in the making for US? is now
null and void.
If I know my country our reaction will be, 'we beat them in space race, we beat them in the
80's arms race, and dog gone it, we will beat them again'.
We have no interest in examining how we got here or who triggered it. All we see is that a
gauntlet has been thrown down. We will go into even more massive deficit spending to whip
them again and won't think about it again until we are eating out of garbage cans.
I'm angry at the professional Cold Warriors but even more angry at the MSM. Just today, I
heard a Russian expert (aka hater) on FOX intone that Russia never had anything to worry
about with our ABM systems because it can't a massive first strike. I naively expected the
lady host to ask, 'but maybe they are worried that it would be able to stop a retaliatory
strike after we send them to hades'. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Instead, Eboni
Williams (mentioning her name to show that I'm not hallucinating, any of them would have
reacted the same way), her eyes opened wide, 'we must improve our defenses to stop them'.
There you go, the FOX host, not only didn't see through the guests straw man argument but
took it as a given that the U.S. should be able to nuke Russia out of existence with no
consequences for us. The entire premise of the START treaty was to preserve MAD with a
smaller nuke force to reduce accidents. Mr. Naive again, why should I expect the host to know
that or the expert to inform her that MAD is the expected norm.
''The point is, ladies and gentleman, that war, for lack of a better word, is good. War is
right, war works. War clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary
spirit. War, in all of its forms; war for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the
upward surge of mankind.''
So say the fellows who qualify to sit it out in well stocked gov bunkers and watch it on
TV.
When you qualify any anti-Russian sentiment as "hysteric", you lose a lot of credibility. No
doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket case
and the US is rapidly joining them.
For the next decade, we are faced with an unstable world and that will cause a lot of
damage. However, it is unlikely that it will result in the massive land wars of the past. The
biggest potential adversary to both the US and Russia is China. The battle field will be the
communications platforms. The good new is that they will remain fragmented and technology
will more than likely make it even more so, which will thankfully and eventually localize
information, as global solutions are increasingly rejected.
As with these pages, there are a lot of conspiracies published right now, but as they are
increasingly dispatched, a standard will be developed. Some will agree with it and others
will not and will thus migrate elsewhere. This will be repeated all over the Internet.
I was an early user of the Internet and it quickly became a rather awful place where
people were exchanging views. It soon became evident that was not sustainable and things
changed. Like in a pond, the scum will rise, until encountering sunlight, when it is
transformed and sinks to the bottom, never to be seen again, unless you dig very deep. But
the cream will assemble at the top.
The compulsive hatred of President Putin in élite western circles has surpassed
anything witnessed during the Cold War. Western states have been hyping political hostility
in almost every sphere: In Syria, in Ukraine, across the Middle East, in Eurasia, and now,
this hatred has leached into the Security Council, leaving it irretrievably polarised --
and paralysed. This hostility has percolated too, across to all Russia's allies,
contaminating them. It potends – almost inevitably – further sanctions on
Russia (and its friends) under the catch-all Countering America's Adversaries Through
Sanctions Act. But the real question is: Does this collective hysteria portend war?
Not necessary. With MAD temporary restored on a new level the benefits of the
first strike against Russia (if such plans existed) are null and void.
Moreover spending on the current generation of missile defense systems should be partially
written off, as their efficiency is now highly questionable (but they can be repurposed into
offensive weapons carrying cruise missiles and such)
But the new neo-McCarthyism campaign, which is now in full force in the USA, serves a
different purpose than the preparation to the WWIII, and reached such scale and intensity for
a quite different reason.
Neoliberalism, which was the social system that the USA adopted in 1970th and spread
around the globe entered a deep crisis. And Russia is a very convenient scapegoat, which
allows to avoid the most difficult question: what to do next as neoliberalism entered the phase of
decline (also Russia as a scapegoat allows just to reuse Cold War stereotypes firmly engraved
in minds of the considerable part of the US population.)
The collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008. and the collapse of support by the US
population of neoliberal elite in 2016, threatens the USA role in the world and thus the
existence of global neoliberal empire. And, in a more distant perspective (a decade, or two),
the status of dollar as a global reserve currency.
And nobody knows what to do with this situation, how to approach it.
First it looked to me that the election of Trump was a sign that a more forward looking part
of the US elite was trying to organize a soft landing: declare victory for neoliberalism and
slowly retreat from the large part of the expenses for maintaining the global neoliberal
empire. Partially off-loading those costs on EU, Japan, Australia, etc.
In this case enormous resources spent on MIC and empire per se can be redirected internally
to placate restive population, and the deepening of the internal crisis in governance and the
loss of confidence of population in the ruling elite, which demonstrated itself is such a
dramatic manner in Hillary loss in 2016, can be probably be averted.
I was wrong. Multinationals fully and tightly control the US neoliberal elite (and are an
important part of it) and they will never allow this. Also a large part of neoliberal elite is
hell bent on world domination, and, like French aristocracy, "forgot nothing, and learned
nothing" after 2016 elections.
With the alarming level of degeneration of the elite clearly visible in both Trump
Administration and Congress. But the process itself started long ago (people say that Nixon
was the last "real" president ;-). To say nothing about top intelligence agencies
honchos.
In any case, it is clear that the US neoliberal elite still is hell-bent on world
domination and is resistant to any change of the status quo . And I also noticed that,
like in Rome, there is now an influential caste of "imperial servants", also hell-bent on
maintaining the status quo.
Which includes not only Pentagon, and State Department which have a lot of staff living
abroad for years. But also major intelligence agencies, closely connected with their counterparts (note
role of UK-USA connections in Steele dossier) and as such fully "globalized/neoliberalized",
at least ideologically. As well as the majority of the US Senate and House
That blocks any possibility of change in the US foreign policy and budget priorities. It
looks like MIC needs to be fed at all costs. And the power of the "deep state" is such that
it took them just three months to emasculate Trump, and put him in line with previous
policies.
I would like to remind that Trumpism (or "economic nationalism" as it sometimes it is
called) initially was pretty attractive proposition which included the following elements
(most of which are anathema to classic neoliberalism):
Rejection of neoliberal globalization;
Rejection of unrestricted immigration;
Fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
Fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and
offshoring of manufacturing;
Rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially
NATO role as global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in the Middle
East;
Détente with Russia;
More pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of
influence;
Revision of offshoring of manufacturing and relations with China and India, as well as
addressing the problem of trade
deficit;
Rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
The cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and
concentrating on revival on national infrastructure, education, and science.
Abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal
empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist" foreign policy;
Closing of
unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
The truth is that the moment, when the USA could change direction to the regime of
"splendid isolation", or whatever such move can be called, was lost.
Moreover, despite Trump capitulation, the color revolution against him continued because
he is not accepted as a legitimate POTUS by neoliberal elite, and, especially, by neocons. Which
further weakens the state. That's another reason why neo-McCarthyism hysteria is still in
full swing: it helps to compensate for the damage caused by slash-and-burn political
infighting (which is a kind of soft civil war, if you wish)
The problem with witch hunt against Russia is that can speed up the alliance of China and
Russia, on most beneficial for China terms. If and when China-Russia alliance materialize,
the containment of China would be even more difficult and costly, the threat to dollar more
pronounced and all bets are off for the US led global neoliberal empire as "Silk road"
project will eat it in Europe and Asia chunk by chunk.
Neo-McCarthyism in this respect might be not such an absurd policy (and it does provide
internal benefits in the form of consolidation of society against the fake external enemy --
a classic trick described by Hermann Göring in his famous quote https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/33505-why-of-course-the-people-don-t-want-war-why-should
) as Putin is not eternal and this will be his last term in office. With clear signs of
possible political crisis in Russia due to the weakness of the mechanisms for smooth
transition of the power to a new leader, or even the selection of the new one.
The danger is that instead of desirable new pro-European president (or at least a person
who is inclined to cooperate with the West, but only on equal terms, like Putin) the next
Russian president can be a fierce nationalist.
NBC's Megyn Kelly has tried to establish herself as the US media's preeminent "Putin
whisperer" since confronting the Russian president last year over allegations he sanctioned
interference by hacking groups in the 2016 US presidential election. In a formal
interview with the Russian president, Kelly asked the Russian leader about the latest
development in the ongoing controversy, Mueller's indictment of
13 Russians and 3 Russian entities for election meddling.
Ignoring that the indictment stated that the alleged activities of the trolls at the
Internet Research Agency had no impact on the outcome of the election, Kelly insisted on
pressing the Russian president about why Russia hadn't acted to prosecute the men - including
Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a wealthy Russian businessman.
Putin pointed out that no formal requests had been made by the US government, and no effort
to share the incriminating information had been made.
"I have to see first what they've done. Give us a document, give us an official request"
Putin said in the NBC interview adding that "We can not respond to that if they do not violate
Russian laws."
Kelly responded by listing some of the allegations, before Putin insisted that they
shouldn't be presented to him personally - but to Russia's general prosecutor.
"This has to go through official channels, not through the press, or yelling and hollering
in the United States Congress," Putin said.
The broadcast aired a day after Putin grabbed headlines in Western media by revealing that
Russia had recently finished testing a range of nuclear weapons that were capable of evading US
anti-ballistic missile batteries, showing animated footage and digital representations of the
missiles' capabilities striking Florida which
prompted an uproar at the US State Department .
Meanwhile, even though Russia has repeatedly criticized the US and NATO for installing
anti-ballistic missile shields in Eastern Europe that Russia says more closely resemble
offensive missile batteries, Putin pushed back against questions about whether the US and
Russia were entering a new Cold War. The Russian leader said anybody spreading these
accusations are more concerned with propaganda than accurate representations of the
relationships between the two countries.
"My point of view is that the individuals that have said that a new Cold War has started
are not analysts. They do propaganda."
Repeating a claim that has been made by many Russian officials, Putin said the arms race
between the US and Russia began when George W Bush withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile
treaty in 2002.
"If you were to speak about an arms race, then an arms race began exactly at the time and
moment the U.S. opted out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," he said.
When asked, Putin refused to answer direct questions about the missile tests, saying only
that "every single weapons system that I have discussed today easily surpasses and avoids a
missile defense system."
Whatever interview is shown of Putin on any lamestream outlet, you can bet your bottom
dollar that they will twist it to fit their narratives that Putin is bad, and the Swamp is
good. In fact, it don't matter that the US pulls out of treaties and acts
unilaterally.......laws and treaties are optional to the evil empire. Non-agreement capable
comes to mind.
I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he
exuded a high level political corruption.
He hasn't changed a bit. His looks come from central casting. Underneath is a dangerous man. He is only now revealing the depths
that he is willing to go to maintain the worst kinds of corruption. He has to be this corrupt to keep himself out of prison for
his role in the Uranium One scandal. As can plainly be seen he is a Javert type in his willingness to go to the end of the plank
- a really ruthless son of a bitch protected by so many ion Washington.
With few exceptions, all of them have dirt on each other. They are preselected based on whether they are blackmailable or not.
How can we know this? By their behavior. These are not stupid people. They know what we know when it comes to the guilt of people
like Hillary. But they refuse to act because the smell in their closet reeks of little boy's underwear.
I keep seeing all these stupid articles. The answer is simple. .... The rule of law is dead...Our ruling class does what they
want. Who is going after any of them?. ... Nobody...Well why not? Because too many people know where all the bodies are buried.
There is enough "dirt" on people to do 2000 long length movies (greater than 3 hours) about all the scandalous materials. No one
wants to stick their nose out because they will get what Seth got - a bullet in the back...
Leaked: Secret Documents From Russia's Election Trolls
An online auction gone awry reveals substantial new details on Kremlin-backed troll farm efforts to stir up real protests and
target specific Americans to push their propaganda.
The Kremlin-backed troll farm at the center of Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. election has quietly suffered a catastrophic
security breach, The Daily Beast has confirmed, in a leak that spilled new details of its operations onto obscure corners of the
internet.
The Russian "information exchange" Joker.Buzz, which auctions off often stolen or confidential information, advertised a leak
for a large cache of the
Internet Research Agency's (IRA) internal documents. It includes names of Americans, activists in particular, whom the organization
specifically targeted; American-based proxies used to
access Reddit
and the viral meme site 9Gag; and login information for troll farm accounts.
Even the advertisement for the document dump provides a trove of previously unknown information about the breadth of Russia's
disinformation effort in the United States, including rallies pushed by IRA social media accounts that turned violent.
While special counsel Robert Mueller's recent
conspiracy
indictment against the IRA showed a sophisticated organization aimed at targeting U.S. voters with disinformation, the seller
appears not to have understood the implications of the auction.
The listing was titled "
Savushkina 55
," the physical address in St. Petersburg from which the troll farm used to operate. The date on the auction is listed as
Feb. 10, 2017 -- seven months before Facebook and Twitter identified and pulled down Internet Research Agency accounts from Twitter.
It received no bids. The seller, "AlexDA," has not posted any other listings, and was unable to be reached. In Russian, the listing
promised "working data from the department focused on the United States."
"The leaks show that Russian imposter accounts targeted activists for specific causes the Kremlin-backed troll farm wanted
promoted. On the target list: the daughter of one of Martin Luther King's lieutenants."
While the date of the auction could not be independently confirmed, the authenticity of the leak can. The leaked documents
list screen names connected to a number of American citizens who were used as unwitting proxies by the Russians. The Daily Beast
was able to track down four of those citizens, whose names have not been previously revealed. The leak contains precise dates
in 2016 in which the IRA-created account Blacktivist reached out to those U.S. citizens, plus a short description of the conversations.
The Daily Beast spoke to those citizens, and confirmed they interacted with the Blacktivist account in the ways described by the
IRA in the document. In one case, the American even provided screenshots of his interactions with the Russian troll trying to
dupe him.
In short, the leaked document contains details of the Russian disinformation campaign that have not been previously made public
-- details which The Daily Beast was able to confirm. .....
This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General
Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:
"I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to
attack Russia. They couldn't come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.
The French said: " We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. "
The Germans responded: "We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried."
Someone in Obama's war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new
ideas.
The Chinese answered: "The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North
Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian
railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities
for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic Well, now they really need
as many POWs as possible!"
"... The legitimate Tor application for Android ("Orbot") doesn't do that. You either downloaded a second-party Tor impostor app, or you have some OS problem with your phone. ..."
"... Google doesn't need Tor's help, or anyone's help, to collect data directly from your phone on behalf of the USG. ..."
"... It was born our of a need for internal use, but not internal use only. In fact, it required external users to provide cover for internal users. ..."
When I upgraded the Tor in my Android, it requested access to my phone hardware no. and
all communication records. I was just wondering why the developers of Tor needed this
information. Now, I think I have the answer.
The legitimate Tor application for Android ("Orbot") doesn't do that. You either
downloaded a second-party Tor impostor app, or you have some OS problem with your phone.
Google doesn't need Tor's help, or anyone's help, to collect data directly from your phone
on behalf of the USG.
It's was either born out of a need for something secure for INTERNAL USE ONLY (and it got
out)... or it's a big cluster fuck for those seeking online privacy.
I don't really know enough about how Tor works to make a informed opinion.
"... I find it absurd that anyone is making it news that foreign governments are trying to find ways to manipulate White House connected officials. Surely this is the nature of the beast. Both in the US and in foreign governments. Why would anyone expect anything different. Ah, yes, because everyone in the US government is supposed to be honest, honorable, and of impeccable character (and brilliant to boot) - whereas anyone in a foreign government is a scumbag capable only of nefarious intentions and criminal methods. ..."
"... So, yes, our leakers are revealing our SIGINT capabilities - without revealing how it's done. But since Snowden, my guess is most foreign government officials have already been told by their intelligence people that nothing they say is really secure unless it's face to face in a SCIF. ..."
I find it absurd that anyone is making it news that foreign governments are trying to
find ways to manipulate White House connected officials. Surely this is the nature of the
beast. Both in the US and in foreign governments. Why would anyone expect anything different.
Ah, yes, because everyone in the US government is supposed to be honest, honorable, and of
impeccable character (and brilliant to boot) - whereas anyone in a foreign government is a
scumbag capable only of nefarious intentions and criminal methods.
Well, the latter might be true - but it's also true of the former.
As for SIGINT leaks, I suspect anyone in any government who isn't assuming their most
encrypted conversations are immediately revealed to the NSA are idiots. If they don't know
how it's being done, I would imagine they've already ordered their intelligence people to
find out how. In the meantime, they're resigned to speaking over any communication link only
information that isn't "Eyes Only" military technology secrets.
And even that isn't necessarily true. Yesterday Putin revealed no less than FIVE major
Russian military breakthroughs in a speech.
So, yes, our leakers are revealing our SIGINT capabilities - without revealing how
it's done. But since Snowden, my guess is most foreign government officials have already been
told by their intelligence people that nothing they say is really secure unless it's face to
face in a SCIF.
I have a meme I use in computer security: "You can haz better security, you can haz worse
security. But you cannot haz 'security'. There is no security. Deal." It would behoove most
people to take that to heart.
However, the Colonel is certainly correct in that our leakers appear intent to reveal our
secrets for political purposes - and they should be arrested and imprisoned for that.
For fun I often run NORDvpn which apparently keeps no records, and you can even use its
double VPN if you want (vpn in vpn tunnel),
PLUS Opera with javascript disabled, AdBlock, Click&Clean, DuckDuckGo privacy
essentials, WebRTC leak control....and set your PC time to that of your vpn server.
You think that protects you? - well not really - each browser has a 'finger print' - the
way you set up your browser, with add-ons etc gives it a finger print - so your setup maybe
equivalent to 1 in 10,000 globally - and if they narrow down your location, maybe 1 in 5 and
so on.
"... It wasn't until 2013, however, that the issue gained wider public attention when it was revealed that an SS7 network had been exploited for purposes of illicit information gathering. ..."
"... Subsequent incidents have since revealed that unauthorised access to the network is not only possible but far simpler to achieve than was once believed. Networks are vulnerable to fraud and misuse, with loopholes in the SS7 protocol being used to steal money, listen in on conversations, monitor messages, determine a subscriber's location, manipulate network and subscriber data, and generally disrupt services. ..."
"... an attacker can leverage data commonly used for real-time tariffing of a subscriber's incoming calls to determine the subscriber's location to within a few hundred metres. ..."
"... More worryingly, a spoofed MSC/VLR zone can allow attackers to intercept incoming SMS messages, from which they can gain critical personal information and sensitive data such as one-time mobile banking passwords, two-factor authentication interactions, and password resets for various services including email accounts or social networks. ..."
Signaling networks enable the exchange of information that sets up, controls and terminates
phone calls.
Signaling System No. 7, or SS7, is widely used by mobile companies to enable subscribers to
communicate with anyone, anywhere. The central nervous system of a mobile operator's network,
it contains mission-critical real-time data such as a subscriber's identity, status, location,
and technology, providing the operator with the ability to manage communications, as well as
bill subscribers for the services they provide.
As each network component in a core network uses SS7 to interface with other network
components, any vulnerability related to the SS7 protocol could severely threaten the trust and
privacy of subscribers.
Gaining access to the information it holds and using it for commercial or nefarious ends can
prove very valuable to the right person. So when you consider that the SS7 network has more
users worldwide than the Internet, it's perhaps little surprise that operators and subscribers
alike are seriously concerned about its security.
Using SS7 to exploit the mobile network
Designed for use as a 'trusted network', it has since transpired that the network is not as
secure as was once believed. Indeed, vulnerabilities in SS7 were being publicly discussed as
long ago as 2008.
Telecom engineers had warned of possible risks and even top government officials were
voicing concern about its security after a German researcher was able to demonstrate how the
protocol could be used to determine the location of a mobile phone.
It wasn't until 2013, however, that the issue gained wider public attention when it was
revealed that an SS7 network had been exploited for purposes of illicit information
gathering.
Subsequent incidents have since revealed that unauthorised access to the network is not only
possible but far simpler to achieve than was once believed. Networks are vulnerable to fraud
and misuse, with loopholes in the SS7 protocol being used to steal money, listen in on
conversations, monitor messages, determine a subscriber's location, manipulate network and
subscriber data, and generally disrupt services.
In the past, safety protocols around an SS7 network's hosts and communications channels
involved physical security, making it almost impossible to obtain access through a remote
unauthorised host. Today though, while the process of placing voice calls in modern mobile
networks still relies on SS7 technology dating back to the 70s, the deployment of new
signalling transport protocols known as SIGTRAN allow SS7 to run over IP.
Unfortunately, while this move offers the advantages of greater bandwidth, redundancy,
reliability, and access to IP-based functions and applications, it has also opened up new
points of vulnerability.
With the right technical skill and intent, it's possible for someone to use SS7 to exploit
the mobile network and its users.
Examples of exploitations
IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) is a unique subscriber identification used
by mobile network operators, and is generally considered to be secure and confidential. Using
the target subscriber's number, however, an attacker could exploit an SS7 vulnerability to
obtain the subscriber's IMSI as part of a routine SMS delivery protocol.
By using the IMSI in conjunction with the current Mobile Switching Centre (MSC) and Visitor
Location Register (VLR) address - also obtainable via an SS7 vulnerability - an attacker can
leverage data commonly used for real-time tariffing of a subscriber's incoming calls to
determine the subscriber's location to within a few hundred metres.
The combination of IMSI and current MSC/VLR address can also be used to block a subscriber
from receiving incoming calls and text messages by registering the handset in a spoofed
coverage zone; an experience similar to being a roaming subscriber registered on a different
network.
More worryingly, a spoofed MSC/VLR zone can allow attackers to intercept incoming SMS
messages, from which they can gain critical personal information and sensitive data such as
one-time mobile banking passwords, two-factor authentication interactions, and password resets
for various services including email accounts or social networks.
Similarly, it's possible to intercept incoming voice calls and illegally monitor
conversations, or redirect calls to expensive international numbers or pay-per-use schemes
where voice traffic can be monetised.
Of considerable concern to many, USSD (Unstructured Supplementary Service Data) commands are
widely used by subscribers in some markets as a means of communicating directly with the
automated billing or payment services offered by mobile network providers or those partners
offering monetary transactions and banking services.
Attackers are able to use USSD commands to spoof transactions such as authorising purchases
or transferring funds between accounts. And, by intercepting incoming SMS messages confirming
the transactions, they can go undetected for some time.
Building and implementing solutions
With potential threats to the SS7 network coming from a growing number of sources including
hackers and fraudsters with criminal intent, operators are under increasing pressure to protect
the privacy of their subscribers.
The mobile ecosystem has begun work on defining recommendations, and building and
implementing solutions to detect and prevent potential attacks. Operators need a solution that
is easy to deploy whilst being comprehensive, and which ideally should overlay existing
architecture, eliminating the need and expense of redesigning that which is already in
place.
Not only should it block suspicious traffic, but it should also use global threat
intelligence and advanced analytics to secure the network against privacy and fraud
attacks.
Mobile communications are a prime target for hackers looking to exploit personal information
as well as penetrate critical infrastructure and businesses, and SS7 vulnerabilities provide
the way in they're looking for. It's crucial therefore that the ecosystem works together to
quickly find and implement protective measures now, before subscribers, businesses and even
governments are severely impacted.
"... None of the articles you linked to provided any clear indication that Russian secure communications were compromised or that there was a drop in productivity of any USI penetration operations. ..."
"... The common denominator in all this reporting is the SS7 exploitation that was known for a long time and was publicly explained at the 2014 Chaos Computer Communications convention in Berlin. ..."
"... This was probably how Nuland's "F the EU" conversation was picked up. This is no longer a technical breach of secure communications. It's a breach of human behavior. These smartphones are ubiquitous and open everyone around them to 24/7 surveillance. ..."
None of the articles you linked to provided any clear indication that Russian secure
communications were compromised or that there was a drop in productivity of any USI
penetration operations.
The most recent account talks about intelligence briefings provided
to McMaster. These briefings could have referred to SIGINT outside of secure diplomatic
communications or even diplomatic cocktail party chitchat. Much of the reporting about
Kislyak referred to conversations with Trump associates. Certainly that wasn't secure
communications systems.
The common denominator in all this reporting is the SS7 exploitation that was known for a
long time and was publicly explained at the 2014 Chaos Computer Communications convention in
Berlin.
This was probably how Nuland's "F the EU" conversation was picked up. This is no
longer a technical breach of secure communications. It's a breach of human behavior. These
smartphones are ubiquitous and open everyone around them to 24/7 surveillance.
Having said all that, I agree with you in considering these disclosures felonious.
The Tor Project - a private nonprofit known as the "
NSA-proof"
gateway to the "dark web,"
turns out to be
almost "100% funded by the US government
" according to documents
obtained by investigative journalist and author Yasha Levine.
The Tor browser, launched in 2001, utilizes so-called "onion routing" technology developed by the
US Navy in 1998 to provide anonymity over computer networks.
In a recent
blog post
,
Levine details how he was able to obtain roughly
2,500 pages
of correspondence via FOIA requests while performing research for a book. The
documents include strategy, contract, budgets and status updates between the Tor project and its
primary source of funding; a CIA spinoff known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which
"oversees America's foreign broadcasting operations like Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe."
By following the money,
I discovered that Tor was not a grassroots
. I was able
to show that despite its indie radical cred and claims to help its users protect themselves from
government surveillance online,
Tor was almost 100% funded by three U.S. National Security
agencies: the Navy, the State Department and the BBG.
Following the money revealed that
Tor was not a grassroots outfit, but a military contractor with its own government contractor
number.
In other words: it was a privatized extension of the very same government that it
claimed to be fighting.
The documents conclusively showed that Tor is not independent at all.
The
organization did not have free reign to do whatever it wanted, but was kept on a very short leash
and bound by contracts with strict contractual obligations.
It was also required to file
detailed monthly status reports that gave the U.S. government a clear picture of what Tor employees
were developing, where they went and who they saw.
-
Yasha Levine
The FOIA documents also suggest that
Tor's ability to shield users from government spying
may be nothing more than hot air.
While no evidence of a "backdoor" exists, the documents
obtained by Levine reveal that Tor has "no qualms with privately tipping off the federal government to
security vulnerabilities before alerting the public, a move that would give the feds an opportunity to
exploit the security weakness long before informing Tor users."
Exit nodes
Cybersecurity experts have noted for years that while Tor may be technically anonymous in theory -
the 'exit nodes' where traffic leaves the secure "onion" protocol and is decrypted can be established
by anyone - including government agencies.
Anyone running an exit node can read the traffic passing through it.
In 2007 Egerstad set up just five Tor exit nodes and used them to intercept thousands of private
emails, instant messages and email account credentials.
Amongst his unwitting victims were the Australia, Japanese, Iranian, India and Russia embassies,
the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the Indian Ministry of Defence and the Dalai Lama's liaison office.
He concluded that people were using Tor in the mistaken belief that it was an end-to-end
encryption tool.
It is many things, but it isn't that.
Dan Egerstad proved then that exit nodes were a fine place to spy on people
and
his research convinced him in 2007, long before Snowden, that
governments were funding
expensive, high bandwidth exit nodes for exactly that purpose
. -
Naked Security
Interestingly, Edward Snowden is a big fan of Tor - even throwing a "cryptoparty" while he was
still an NSA contractor where he set up a Tor exit node to show off how cool they are.
In a
2015
interview
with
The Intercept's
(Wikileaks hating) Micah Lee, Snowden said:
LEE:
What do you think about Tor?
Do you think that everyone should be familiar
with it, or do you think that it's only a use-it-if-you-need-it thing?
SNOWDEN:
I think Tor is the most important privacy-enhancing technology project being
used today.
"Tor Browser is a great way to selectively use Tor to look something up and not leave a trace that
you did it. It can also help bypass censorship when you're on a network where certain sites are
blocked.
If you want to get more involved, you can volunteer to run your own Tor node, as I
do, and support the diversity of the Tor network."
This should not be a surprise at all. Tor's own release notes state it was developed
by the US with the aim of allowing citizens in repressive countries to communicate
over the Internet without their governments being able to read the traffic. People
who don't read the instruction manual deserve what happens to them.
Nice indictment of every spy and every military service member
in history. Not everyone can code. And most people who think
they can write secure software, can't.
Is Tor via Tails safe?
"Safe" is not an either-or thing. Make a threat model and
conduct an assessment or go home.
No, the internet was set up as a communications system for government and
academic research centers. It was transformed into an intelligence-gathering
system decades later, when it began to be used by the public.
Peer to peer networks are very costly. The
cheapest to set up and operate are hub & spoke. This means you end up with
big hubs which are easy to monitor.
If you want to avoid this you need to look into mobile and wifi peer to
peer networking.
Peer-to-peer wifi is trivial to set up. If you're talking about mesh or
other decentralized wifi, it's nontrivial but it's not "very costly".
Look at Freifunk BATMAN.
In cities like New York with SIGINT packages
integrated into every public wifi kiosk, it gives no privacy advantage.
Outside of cities it may provide a privacy advantage, but only if you
are not being actively targeted by widely-available police SIGINT
equipment.
This is hardly breaking news, on many of the sites you can download TOR from there
is a little preface about its history, so anyone that has used TOR and read anything
about it will find that it was developed by the CIA/FBI for their operatives.
but it is still very useful if you live somewhere that has any form of
censorship. but you are better of using a VPN for downloading anything you do not
want screened.
but if a government actively wants to track you, they will.
the problem with the clain that "Bernie is a fraud and Trump is the only real opposition to
the entrenched neocon thieves and murderers in Washington"this that Trump quickly became neocon
in foreign policy.
While Bernie of course proved to be not a fighter and he just gave Hillary the top spot
without any fighting. I started to suspect that he is a "corral dog" from the moment he dismissed
"private email server" scandal. Moreover he tried to crush the fighting that his supporters
intent to launch. In this sense he is still a fraud.
But Trump himself was quickly neutered (in just three month) and now does not represents "Trumpism" (rejection of neoliberal
globalization, unrestricted immigration for suppression of wages, rejection of elimination of jobs via outsourcing and offshoring
of manufacturing, rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen
and wars for Washington client Israel in Middle east, detente with Russia etc) in any meaningful way. He is just an aging
Narcissist in power.
CPAC shows the conservative grassroots are with the president and that the Beltway
elites are cowed.
I was good with Kucinich and Nader. I'm neither Conservative nor Republican. I voted for
McGovern. Yet I am a card carrying deplorable. Bernie is a fraud and Trump is the only real
opposition to the entrenched thieves and murderers in Washington. Your Conservative grass
roots have a significant cohort of fellow travelers. Trump could not have won the upper
midwest without us.
I thought Trump's offer of amnesty in exchange for moving toward a sane immigration policy
WAS leadership. It's easier to stop immigration than to reverse it. And he exposed the
Democrats. They have lost the dreamers as a political tool.
Where Trump is losing me is with his stupid and dangerous foreign policy. That's where I
would like to see some leadership.
Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the
deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.
Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's
white
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a
long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of
his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey
Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support
Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South
Carolina
Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two
African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.
Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating
white men.
"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President
Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.
"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it
represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench
is necessary for the equal administration of justice."
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on
Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by
starting with their offices.
"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own
staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of
South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.
Muller was the guy who buried 911 investigation. That's probably why he was hired for Russiagate investigation too.
Notable quotes:
"... retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional
Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was
Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election? ..."
"... Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with
a memory stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation. ..."
"... In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google
, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking: ..."
"... Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news. ..."
"... Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying
on the Trump campaign: ..."
"... "The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not
a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons. ..."
"... Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder ..."
"... Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky and
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth Rich
sent emails to WikiLeaks ." ..."
"... Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect. ..."
As rumors swirl that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is
preparing a case against Russians who are alleged to have hacked Democrats during the 2016 election -- a conclusion based solely
on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, a Friday op-ed in the
Washington Times by retired
U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators
or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks'
source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election?
Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who
clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a
memory
stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company
partially
funded by Google , was the
only
entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking:
Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news.
In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged "80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine
removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners," Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs
that the said information is incorrect .
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources.
Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces
of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)
In fact, several respected journalists have cast serious doubt on CrowdStrike's report on the DNC servers:
Pay attention, because Mueller is likely to use the Crowdstrike report to support the rumored upcoming charges against Russian
hackers.
Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.
Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had
been spying on the Trump campaign:
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try
to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. - Evelyn Farkas
Odd facts surrounding the murder of Seth Rich
"The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was
not a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons.
Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder.
Furthermore, two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family
acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death.
"According to Ed Butowsky, an acquaintance of the family, in his discussions with Joel and Mary Rich, they confirmed that their
son transmitted the DNC emails to Wikileaks ," writes Lyons.
While Wheeler initially told TV station Fox5 that proof of Rich's contact with WikiLeaks lies on the murdered IT staffer's laptop,
he later walked
the claim back - though he maintained that there was "some communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks."
Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich's
brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth's computer and stonewalled his investigation.
Wheeler said that brother Aaron Rich tried to block Wheeler from looking at Seth's computer, even though there could be evidence
on it. "He said no, he said I have his computer, meaning him," Wheeler said. "I said, well can I look at it? He said, what are
you looking for? I said anything that could indicate if Seth was having problems with someone. He said no, I already checked it.
Don't worry about it."
Aaron also blocked Wheeler from finding out about who was at a party Seth attended the night of the murder.
"All I want you to do is work on the botched robbery theory and that's it," Aaron told Wheeler -
Big League Politics
Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky
and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth
Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks ."
As transcribed and exclusively reported on by journalist Cassandra Fairbanks last year:
What the report says is that some time in late Spring he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that's in his computer," he says. "
Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents -- of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC."
Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected
DropBox where Rich had put the files.
" All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.' Later, WikiLeaks
did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the DropBox."
Hersh also states that Rich had concerns about something happening to him, and had
"The word was passed, according to the NSA report, he also shared this DropBox with a couple of friends, so that 'if anything
happens to me it's not going to solve your problems,'" he added. "WikiLeaks got access before he was killed."
Brennan and Russian disinformation
Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now
MSNBC/NBC contributor
) John Brennan as the architect.
I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and
the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press – they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA
was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military
intelligence service leaked it.
(full transcription here and extended audio of the Hersh conversation
here )
Hersh denied that he told Butowsky anything before the leaked audio emerged , telling NPR " I hear gossip [Butowsky] took two
and two and made 45 out of it. "
Technical Evidence
As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name
Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The big hint
Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source:
Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing
to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert
Mueller should at minimum explore these leads.
As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they?
Something all of us here already know, if Mueller gets away from the delusion of Trump-Russia collusion then it will be his
ass in the frying pan. So he won't go after the Clintons, Obama, Comey or anyone else. Hitlery could show up with a gun in her
hand and tell Mueller she shot Seth and he would ignore it.
And, sadly, there ain't nobody gonna do anything about it unless and until a Special Prosecutor from outside DC is hired. Right
now a snowball in hell has a better chance.
Why don't the Democrats scream about the exploitation of his murder against them like they do with every minor accusation? It's as if they want his death to disappear from the public view...wonder why?
I think it is mostly because they know so much of their world hangs in the secrecy. If they let the Seth Rich story get out,
the Uranium One story gets out. If the Uranium One story gets out, the Awans' stolen cars with diplomatic cover for guns to Syria
in return for heroin to America comes out. If that story comes out, then the ISI Pakistani doctors with fake medical degrees pushing
pharma opiods in America comes out. And finally, Pizzagate, Pedogate, call it what you want, it comes out too. And then all of
these dirty sons of bitches go to jail.
And that's why you aren't hearing any of it. Especially from Mueller. I think he got hoodwinked too. They sold him this job
as a slam dunk to get Trump out of the White House. It really is the shits when the best laid plans of mice go south.
One of Trumps big problems is that as an outsider he did not have people both qualified and loyal to appoint to critical offices
in the deep state. That is why he wound up with a cipher like Sessions, a guy naive and gullible enough to believe the justice
department was filled with honorable and trustworthy people or at least men who played by some set of rules. Having found out
the hard way that he screwed up Trump is groping for a way out, trying to use a knife in a gun fight. The other side is too ruthless
and i suspect they will take him down in the end.
"All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.'
Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the
DropBox."
Why has no one followed the money on this yet? This introduces an interesting angle - did Seth Rich get paid by WikiLeaks?
And if so, can we find evidence of the payoff? How did he afford his expensive watch and necklace?
Report a crime, yet don't allow law enforcement access to evidence to help them solve the case.
Sounds like a case in Illinois. A 1 1/2 year old went missing, yet the parent wouldn't let the authorities search the house.
I don't remember if there was a warrant or what finally happened that the police were allowed to search the home, but they did,
and found the baby, dead, under the sofa.
The other key is Rod Rosenstein's post-indictment presser. At the very end, he gave away the game by admitting there was no
collusion, no Americans were involved, and nothing allegedly done by the Russians affected the election's outcome. BOOM. Stick
a fork in Mueller's ham sandwich indictment.
The one bit of evidence that pushes me over from the possible to probably is the gun, what are the odds of this gun being stolen
from the FBI, not just some random joe, but the FBI themselves. If that was the same gun used in the murder than the odds of it
happening to turn up immediately in a robbery where nothing was stolen in an area where no one commits crimes is so small as to
be near zero. It is vague above, what do ballistics say?
If Trump really wants to drain his swamp then this would be the way in, however if they did murder Seth then they'll murder
Trump's family too so he is neutralized unless they can go in and get everyone involved in one go. Otherwise I'd expect the job
to be handed over to someone ready to die, thinking here a retired general/admiral with no family might be the one to do it.
"... The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now have the " Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that challenges Official Washington's version of reality. ..."
"... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
"... Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for " strategic communications " and " public diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government approach leveraging all elements of national power." ..."
"... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
"... Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media. ..."
"... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media
narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total
domination. Thus we now have the " Countering
Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23
as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that
challenges Official Washington's version of reality.
The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of
Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global
Engagement Center "to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to
recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and
disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The law
directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and to share expertise among agencies and to
"coordinate with allied nations."
The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian
hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly
"fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for
the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step
up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives."
The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges
a new
McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with
a new
Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center
– to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the
Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing
expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and
implementing best practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google,
Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as
purveyors of "Russian
propaganda" or "fake news." )
Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies
for " strategic
communications " and " public
diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government
approach leveraging all elements of national power."
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among
the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call
evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails
to "influence" the U.S. election.
Despite these accusations -- leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the
mainstream U.S. news media -- there is little or no
public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis
by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig
Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media
has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new
"Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.
Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA
agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting
"black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world,
with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media.
In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that
formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment
for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and
distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream
media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who
challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another
$160 million into the pot.
Propaganda and Disinformation on Syria
Syria is a good case study in the modern application of information warfare. In her memoir
Hard Choices , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that the U.S. provided
"support for (Syrian) civilian opposition groups, including satellite-linked computers,
telephones, cameras, and training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent
journalists."
Indeed, a huge amount of money has gone to "activists" and "civil society" groups in Syria
and other countries that have been targeted for "regime change." A lot of the money also goes
to parent organizations that are based in the United States and Europe, so these efforts do not
only support on-the-ground efforts to undermine the targeted countries, but perhaps even more
importantly, the money influences and manipulates public opinion in the West.
In North America, representatives from the Syrian "Local Coordination
Committees" (LCC) were frequent guests on popular media programs such as "DemocracyNow."
The message was clear: there is a "revolution" in Syria against a "brutal regime" personified
in Bashar al-Assad. It was not mentioned that the "Local Coordination Committees" have been
primarily funded by the West, specifically the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which was
founded by the U.S. State Department and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
More recently, news and analysis about Syria has been conveyed through the filter of the
White Helmets, also known as Syrian Civil Defense. In the Western news media, the White Helmets
are described as neutral, non-partisan, civilian volunteers courageously carrying out rescue
work in the war zone. In fact, the group is none of the above.
It was initiated by the U.S. and U.K. using a British military contractor and Brooklyn-based
marketing company.
While they may have performed some genuine rescue operations, the White Helmets are
primarily a media organization with a political goal: to promote NATO intervention in Syria.
(The manipulation of public opinion using the White Helmets and promoted by the New York Times
and Avaaz petition for a "No Fly Zone" in Syria is documented here.
)
The White Helmets hoax continues to be widely believed and receives uncritical promotion
though it has increasingly been exposed at alternative media outlets as the creation of a
"shady PR firm ." During critical times in the conflict in Aleppo, White Helmet individuals
have been used as the source for important news stories despite a track record of deception.
Recent Propaganda: Blatant Lies?
As the armed groups in east Aleppo recently lost ground and then collapsed, Western
governments and allied media went into a frenzy of accusations against Syria and Russia based
on reports from sources connected with the armed opposition. CNN host Wolf Blitzer described
Aleppo as "falling" in a "slaughter of these women and children" while CNN host Jake Tapper
referred to "genocide by another name."
The Daily Beast published the claims of the Aleppo Siege Media Center under the title
"Doomsday is held in Aleppo" and amid accusations that the Syrian army was executing
civilians, burning them alive and "20 women committed suicide in order not to be raped." These
sensational claims were widely broadcast without verification. However, this "news" on CNN and
throughout Western media came from highly biased sources and many of the claims – lacking
anything approaching independent corroboration – could be accurately described as
propaganda and disinformation.
Ironically, some of the supposedly "Russian propaganda" sites, such as RT, have provided
first-hand on-the-ground reporting from the war zones with verifiable information that
contradicts the Western narrative and thus has received almost no attention in the U.S. news
media. For instance, some of these non-Western outlets have shown videos of popular
celebrations over the "liberation of Aleppo."
There has been further corroboration of these realities from peace activists, such as Jan
Oberg of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research who published a photo
essay of his eyewitness observations in Aleppo including the happiness of civilians from
east Aleppo reaching the government-controlled areas of west Aleppo, finally freed from areas
that had been controlled by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and its jihadist allies in Ahrar
al-Sham.
Dr. Nabil Antaki, a medical doctor from Aleppo, described the liberation of Aleppo in an
interview titled
"Aleppo is Celebrating, Free from Terrorists, the Western Media Misinformed." The first
Christmas celebrations in Aleppo in four years are shown here, replete with marching band members in
Santa Claus outfits. Journalist Vanessa Beeley has published testimonies of civilians from east Aleppo.
The happiness of civilians at their liberation is clear.
Whether or not you wish to accept these depictions of the reality in Aleppo, at a minimum,
they reflect another side of the story that you have been denied while being persistently
force-fed the version favored by the U.S. State Department. The goal of the new Global
Engagement Center to counter "foreign propaganda" is to ensure that you never get to hear this
alternative narrative to the Western propaganda line.
Even much earlier, contrary to the Western mythology of rebel "liberated zones," there was
strong evidence that the armed groups were never popular in Aleppo. American journalist James
Foley described the situation in 2012 like this
:
"Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it
continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent
and unrecognizable opposition -- one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure,
and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are
predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once
lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the
authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad."
On Nov. 22, 2012, Foley was kidnapped in northwestern Syria and held by Islamic State
terrorists before his beheading in August 2014.
The Overall Narrative on Syria
Analysis of the Syrian conflict boils down to two competing narratives. One narrative is
that the conflict is a fight for freedom and democracy against a brutal regime, a storyline
promoted in the West and the Gulf states, which have been fueling the
conflict from the start . This narrative is also favored by some self-styled
"anti-imperialists" who want a "Syrian revolution."
The other narrative is that the conflict is essentially a war of aggression against a
sovereign state, with the aggressors including NATO countries, Gulf monarchies, Israel and
Jordan. Domination of the Western media by these powerful interests is so thorough that one
almost never gets access to this second narrative, which is essentially banned from not only
the mainstream but also much of the liberal and progressive media.
For example, listeners and viewers of the generally progressive TV and radio program
"DemocracyNow" have rarely if ever heard the second narrative described in any detail. Instead,
the program frequently broadcasts the statements of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations Samantha Power and others associated with the U.S. position. Rarely do you hear
the viewpoint of the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, the Syrian Foreign Minister or
analysts inside Syria and around the world who have written about and follow events there
closely.
"DemocracyNow" also has done repeated interviews with proponents of the "Syrian revolution"
while ignoring analysts who call the conflict a war of aggression sponsored by the West and the
Gulf monarchies. This blackout of the second narrative continues despite the fact that many
prominent international figures see it as such. For example, the former Foreign Minister of
Nicaragua and former President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said,
"What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which,
according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against
another State."
In many areas of politics, "DemocracyNow" is excellent and challenges mainstream media.
However in this area, coverage of the Syrian conflict, the broadcast is biased, one-sided and
echoes the news and analysis of mainstream Western corporate media, showing the extent of
control over foreign policy news that already exists in the United States and Europe.
Suppressing and Censoring Challenges
Despite the widespread censorship of alternative analyses on Syria and other foreign
hotspots that already exists in the West, the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center"
will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign
state and non-state propaganda and disinformation." We can expect even more aggressive and
better-financed assaults on the few voices daring to challenge the West's "group thinks"
– smear campaigns that are already quite extensive.
In an article titled "Controlling the Narrative on
Syria" , Louis Allday describes the criticisms and attacks on journalists Rania Khalek and
Max Blumenthal for straying from the "approved" Western narrative on Syria. Some of the
bullying and abuse has come from precisely those people, such as Robin Yassin-Kassab, who have
been frequent guests in liberal Western media.
Reporters who have returned from Syria with accounts that challenge the propaganda themes
that have permeated the Western media also have come under attack. For instance, Canadian
journalist Eva Bartlett recently returned to North America after being in Syria and Aleppo,
conveying a very different image and critical of the West's biased media coverage. Bartlett
appeared at a United Nations press conference and then did numerous
interviews across the country during a speaking tour. During the course of her talks and
presentation, Bartlett criticized the White Helmets and questioned whether it was true that Al
Quds Hospital in opposition-held East Aleppo was attacked and destroyed as claimed.
Bartlett's recounting of this information made her a target of Snopes, which has been a
mostly useful website exposing urban legends and false rumors but has come under criticism
itself for some internal
challenges and has been inconsistent in its investigations. In one report entitled "
White
Helmet Hearsay," Snopes' writer Bethania Palmer says claims the White Helmets are "linked
to terrorists" is "unproven," but she overlooks numerous videos , photos, and other reports showing
White Helmet members celebrating a Nusra/Al Qaeda battle victory, picking up the bodies of
civilians executed by a Nusra executioner, and having a member who alternatively appears as a
rebel/terrorist fighter with a weapon and later wearing a White Helmet uniform. The "fact
check" barely scrapes the surface of public evidence.
The same writer did another shallow "investigation" titled
"victim blaming" regarding Bartlett's critique of White Helmet videos and what happened at
the Al Quds Hospital in Aleppo. Bartlett suggests that some White Helmet videos may be
fabricated and may feature the same child at different times, i.e., photographs that appear to
show the same girl being rescued by White Helmet workers at different places and times. While
it is uncertain whether this is the same girl, the similarity is clear.
The Snopes writer goes on to criticize Bartlett for her comments about the reported bombing
of Al Quds Hospital in east Aleppo in April 2016. A statement at the website of Doctors Without Borders says the
building was "destroyed and reduced to rubble," but this was clearly false since photos show
the building with unclear damage. Five months later, the September 2016 report by Doctors Without
Borders says the top two floors of the building were destroyed and the ground floor Emergency
Room damaged yet they re-opened in two weeks.
The many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of Doctors Without Borders
resulted in an
open letter to them. In their last report, Doctors Without Borders (known by its French
initials, MSF) acknowledges that "MSF staff did not directly witness the attack and has not
visited Al Quds Hospital since 2014."
Bartlett referenced satellite images taken before and after the reported attack on the
hospital. The images do not show severe damage and it is unclear whether or not there is any
damage to the roof, the basis for Bartlett's statement. In the past week, independent
journalists have visited the scene of Al Quds Hospital and report that that the top floors of
the building are still there and damage is unclear.
The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader
issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict.
Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and
analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative.
U.S. propaganda and disinformation on Syria has been extremely effective in misleading much
of the American population. Thus, most Americans are unaware how many billions of taxpayer
dollars have been spent on yet another "regime change" project. The propaganda campaign –
having learned from the successful demonizations of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar
Gaddafi and other targeted leaders – has been so masterful regarding Syria that many
liberal and progressive news outlets were pulled in. It has been left to RT and some Internet
outlets to challenge the U.S. government and the mainstream media.
But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough.
Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.
The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that
the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the
official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch
skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems
to be propaganda and disinformation.
As part of the $160 million package, funds can be used to hire or reward "civil society
groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and
development centers, private companies, or academic institutions."
Among the tasks that these private entities can be hired to perform is to identify and
investigate both print and online sources of news that are deemed to be distributing
"disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies
and partners."
In other words, we are about to see an escalation of the information war.
Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay
Area and can be reached at [email protected]
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 4:08 pm
If Russia-Gate hadn't been about providing a distraction from Hillary's blasted emails, it
would have been something else to create this need to combat 'fake news', because for my
whole life of 68 years most of everything our government and media has told us is a lie, so
now truthful reporting will be censored. Now all alternative news is being attacked by the
very establishment of people who have been lying to us for so long, as their constant lies
have made necessary a market for honest news. Rather the corporate owned media tell the
truth, they instead rally behind a patriotically draped 'news ban', as this is the MSM's fix
for all that's fake, or to tell the truth their fake news hammer to squash all that's honest.
We are in the bottom of the ninth whereas our police state nation is about to lose it's free
press god help us, god help the world.
" their constant lies have made necessary a market for honest news." yes, Joe, perhaps
that's the only good thing that has come out of their monopoly of MSM.
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Yes being able to find truthful journalism is a commodity these days, but how long before
we lose that, is the question?
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Lt. Col. Daniel L Davis says it's time to quit going to war with the AUMF. After you read
this let's see how much media attention the good Lt. Col. gets.
Here's an interesting view[1] and a classic on patriotic peer pressure for war[2]. There
must have been ample profit for stakeholders in the Vickers maxim gun production during the
Boer Wars and WW1[3,4].
Thank you very much. I watched the first video and got the book, I also am going to enjoy
'the Four Feathers' movie since it is one of my favorites.
Here something where moonofalabama is suggesting of how the NYT is back to their old
tricks like before the Iraq WMD invasion, where now the NYT is claiming N Korea is selling
nuclear weapons parts to Syria.
Checked out all of your links. I have downloaded, and saved as favorites. I have some
reading to do. I'll watch the youtube links that you have provided first. Thanks
godenrich.
John W , March 1, 2018 at 11:19 am
Keep those links coming Joe Tedesky. People need actual reality, not reality derived by
the criminally insane.
Bruce , March 1, 2018 at 5:57 am
Excellent comment. To paraphrase Orwell .telling the truth has become a revolutionary
act.
Joe Tedesky , March 1, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Orwell was so right, that sometimes I swear we in this century should be looking to see if
he is amongst us .a true time traveler. Joe
John W , March 1, 2018 at 11:13 am
I concur Joe Tedesky. The shit is indeed hitting the fan. Destroying the very thing that
gives them live(Earth) is complete insanity. But, psychopaths want control, and I believe
that these humanoids in control do not want anything to grow, live, prosper, or be, unless
they say so. Unless they have ultimate control over it(trees, grass, flowers, birds, animals,
humans, bacteria, planets, suns, etc). This geoengineering and other agendas that they are
doing, is killing off everything. This I believe is where their GMO's comes in. Kill all off,
then replace it with that they have created to live in the environment they have created.
Nothing or no one has a child or offspring unless they deem it ok, give their acceptance for
it to be. Entirely psychopathic, or an extremely primitive beastial mind. But, no one says
that what we call psychopathic is anywhere near sane. A bit off the tracks, but it does
coincide with controlling narratives or 'truths' for their agendas.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:07 pm
In a crazy way, it makes sense!
Joe Tedesky , March 1, 2018 at 5:50 pm
John W if more people were to investigate the harmful effects of GMO food products, and
they were to take what they found seriously, why this alone would be a good reason to stand
up and say to our corporate masters, 'enough is enough'.
Glad you enjoyed the links, because I was fearful that I had over done it with all those
posted links get this I had even more, but thought I was going overboard with what I had
already posted. So thanks for the approval John W. Joe
"the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train
and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false
stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media." and yet they
hyperventilate about "Russian trolls". How many of these pseudo patriotic agencies have been
financed with our taxes?
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:22 pm
They paid just one British PR company, Bell Pottinger, $540 million to produce fake
material about Iraq and Syria and get it on to the Internet. This firm is run by a British
Lord, Lord Bell. He and his firm have a very shady record. They were hired by corrupt South
African politicians to divert attention from corruption scandals by fomenting hatred towards
the white minority there.
mike k , February 28, 2018 at 4:17 pm
Mind control is an essential feature of the project to enslave the world. If you think
there is no such project, you may already be a victim of it. Realizing that this is happening
is essential for defending against it. Those who are waging this war against your freedom
will do everything in their power to make you unaware of being brainwashed.
For a person to awaken to being brainwashed requires humility, openness, honesty, courage,
and the right kind of help from those already awakening.
mike k , February 28, 2018 at 5:43 pm
And if you lack the qualities mentioned, welcome to zombiehood!
ranney , February 28, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Last Sunday 60 minutes had a segment on the White Helmets so full of lies I wanted to
barf. I hope everyone who reads this comments section will write 60 minutes and tell them
that lying to the public is a big no-no and that White Helmets is an ISIS organization that
gasses their own people and leaves "evidence" to prove Assad did it.
Lois Gagnon , February 28, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Once in a while I go on the networks' Facebook pages and link an article that contradicts
what they just reported. Sometimes the next night they will add what the critics of US policy
are saying. They go out of their way to minimize that content, but it's good to let them know
there are people paying attention to the reality on the ground. It also exposes those
commenting on the FB page to alternative information.
It may not make a big difference, but even putting a dent in the official propaganda is
better then nothing.
Realist , March 1, 2018 at 3:48 am
I make it a point not to watch 60 Minutes any more, because I have a low tolerance for
deceit. However, I am aware of the false narratives they have been propagating on this
country's foreign policy for a long time. Other media outlets that have taken on that role
with zest these days include the History Channel, with a scathing systematic slander of
"Public Enemy Number One," President Vladimir Putin, and the National Geographic Channel.
Like PBS and NPR, both try to pass themselves off as dispensers of a refined intellectual
approach to news. Frankly, there is more thoughtful analysis given to the purchases of
backyard junk made by Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz on the History Channel's "American
Pickers."
john wilson , March 1, 2018 at 5:23 am
60 minutes is part of the MSM deep state mouth piece. You don't seriously think they will
take the slightest bit of notice of letters complaining about their shyty programme do you?
We need to support and donate to genuine alternative media, news and comment like the late Mr
Parry's great site. Further, good, informative articles and alternative news clips should be
printed out and left on public transport for others to read. If each of us only printed out
10 copies of informative alternative news and left them on public transport for others to
read, then we might get at least a bit of the alternative (no, not alternative but truth
news) out there.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:10 pm
That's a great idea.
Virginia , March 1, 2018 at 2:51 pm
I second that idea.
Dan Good , February 28, 2018 at 7:04 pm
It is quite amazing to see that America is creating a class of American dissidents.
Growing up in the 50's and 60's it was hard to understand how the USSR could treat its
writers as outcasts. But it is about to happen now in the US of A.
Sobering recap in reprint of this Rick Sterling article, to realize that things continue
as bad or worse since this was published. There is a very well written opinion piece on
Sputnik by Finian Cunningham, "American Collapse -- The Spectacle of Our Time". The US power
structure, rather than address US internal societal rot, he says, doubles down on its rogue
nation behavior and militarism. The US is now as bad as Nazi Germany was and ought to receive
a "Judgement at Nuremberg" condemnation, is my opinion, but read Finian's piece at Sputnik,
very good.
geeyp , March 1, 2018 at 12:24 am
Particularly good choice to reprint as many have awoken since then to the last president's
sedition and cutting of the last thin thread of what was left of US democracy. And, he didn't
even have to pay for it. He allotted for it, and you paid for it.
robjira , March 1, 2018 at 1:12 am
It was the one sided reporting on Syria that was the last straw for me regarding DN, of
which I had been a financial supporter. Cracks in the veneer appeared (for me, at any rate)
as far back as the release of the Collateral Murder video (I distinctly recall Amy Goodman
relentlessly badgering Julian Assange to confirm it was [Bradley] Chelsea Manning who
provided the material to Wikileaks, while Assange with obvious discomfort repeatedly told
Goodman Wikileaks did not reveal the identities of sources), and continued with her ignorant
and insulting treatment of a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War who acknowledged during
a segment on the CM video, that he had friends among the squad of ground troops who arrived
after the massacre (he didn't want to reveal their names, and Goodman tore into him
questioning his enthusiasm for transparency, displaying stunning ignorance of the bonds
formed by soldiers serving together in combat). My misgivings deepened with the enthusiastic
support for the vilification of Putin as a monolithic representation of all that is brutally
and nefariously, "Russian." This coincided with DN's somewhat murky reporting on the
Ukrainian crisis, but it was Syria and the coverage of the 2016 election that did it for me
as far as DN is concerned.
Thank the stars for Consortium News. RIP Robert Parry.
robjira – thanks for the observations on Democracy Now. It has really been quite
amazing to watch Amy and company continue to shill for amoral neocon war mongering while
continuing to promote themselves as some sort of challenge to power. I'm really not sure how
that crew sleeps at night given the amount of civilian blood on their hands from their
reporting both Libya and Syria. Glad to see Aaron Mate left and now is able to do important
ethical journalism over at RealNews. Meanwhile a senior reporter Shane Bauer at "Mother
Jones" openly calls for censorship by the web platform "Medium" of those posting views that
challenge the official government narrative on Syria. And "Counterpunch" seems to have
stopped publishing the work of Andre Vitchek, as its editorial selection of articles becomes
more and more milk-toast "McResistance" by the week. As the ranks of "alternative media"
willing to actually stand up and oppose U.S. imperialism continues to shrink, those (like
Consortiumnews) that have maintained their integrity become that much more important.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:21 pm
The times we are living in are separating the real truth-seekers from the phonies. This is
a good thing, as Democracy Now, Counterpunch, etc. are exposing themselves as part of the
problem, not the solution. The truth is hard to face but as the saying goes–will set us
free –someday.
The good news is that there are other independent sources that keep popping up. They may
have occasional links to MSM(when relevant) but the bias is toward uncovering corruption and
international hypocrisy. One such website I recently discovered was Defend Democracy Press
with an emphasis on European news.
Robjira, Gary, Nancy -- I observed the same thing with DN and Amy Goodman. I recall a
piece here at CN that show DN not to be the independent news source it used to be, some huge
contribution was mentioned. DN is compromised now.
Maybe you saw Amy interview Glenn Greenwald who early on debunked Russia hacking the DNC.
He made a good case but she, as did MSM's reporters, stopped using the word "alleged" hacking
almost right away.
Two good articles not to miss on RT today: one on White Helmets, the other on Putin's
speech.
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Not really all that amazing.
DemocracyNow is funded by Soros.
Just follow the money.
It's the same story with a lot of these "radical", "alternative" sites.
Realist , March 1, 2018 at 3:37 am
Wonderful, this gives me another chance to say it: Thanks, Obama! NOT!!!
KiwiAntz , March 1, 2018 at 4:39 am
What a godsend Consortiumnews & other alternative news outlets like RT & Sputnik
are which provide real news rather than the Fakestream American & Western Media? I can't
even watch or read Western Media now, I just cringe in disgust at the endless, baseless &
24 hr propagandist lies & bull crap, it makes me sick to my stomach! Consortiumnews has
really opened my eyes to the real situation behind World events? As a thinking person, I
reached a sort of "Road to Damascus moment" & that's when one comes to the realisation
that everything our Leaders & Countries have told us are blatant lies & brainwashing
lies at that? Some Americans, especially those who read alternative news & refuse to be
brainwashed by their Govt, are slowly coming to this realisation, that their Country has
become a evil, murderous, Fascist, Oligarchy state & when that happens the scales really
come off the eyes (just like the Apostle Paul) & you really start to understand the
serious threat to every human being on Earth, that this evil, scumbag, American deepstate
elite class are, with their demented agenda, seeking to manipulate, deceive & enslave the
World with their murderous, money making schemes. Using Nazi style, fake media propaganda as
demonstrated in this article, that Joseph Goebels would have rejoiced in, they fail to
recognise that just as Hitler's fascist Empire fell, it is the fate of this current false US
Empire as well, to collapse under its own imperialistic weight? Americans need a "storming
the Bastille" revolution like the French Revolution, where they round up this elite class
& dispense justice by gullotine? It worked out fine for the French & it could work
for American citizens, fed up with this bunch of crooks? That's the only way to get rid of
these satanic nutcases? The Writings on the Wall, the rot has set in, & hopefully we will
be around to see the American empire collapse, it's going to happen & the sooner the
better before it's drags us into WW3?
john wilson , March 1, 2018 at 5:31 am
Hey there KiwAntz, there is another great site out there called 'information clearing
house info' and it has great articles by people like John Pilger and others. Just type in the
usual www, etc and you will find it.
Well of course the USG has to quiet the Alternative News army – how else can one
have successful False Flags or assisted ones , when you have someone – spilling the
beans. And there is a big one coming folks – you can bet on it – but they have to
silence the Truth News – first. The Deep State , MIC, Corporations, Bankers, Wall
Street, and many many USG employees along with State and Muni Govs. are going to throw all
their chips into the pot on this Global poker game – they're all in – Look out
World !
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 6:32 am
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been hired by Google to police the content of YouTube
for hate speech. IOW, one hate group gets to stifle their opposition.
anastasia , March 1, 2018 at 8:10 am
Is this why I have noticed that google and youtube are taking down comments, youtube
channels, etc of alternative media; why I also noticed that new bogus websites are going up
purporting to be "alternative" websites (but who clearly are not) that are putting up false
information and are very threatening, etc. Is google, Amazon, etc. doing this in accordance
with this new law? What is our President doing about it? What about Congress? Eventually will
they close down Trump's Twitter account and claim that they are only complying with the
National Defense Authorization Act for 2017? This is very disturbing.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 8:45 am
anastasia – yes, it is disturbing. I think Congress is putting pressure on Google
(who owns YouTube), Facebook and Twitter to censor. Of course, some say that these outfits
are merely an arm of the U.S. government. Who knows what's really happening.
The upshot is that freedom of speech is being strangled right in front of our eyes. I hope
everyone will stop using Google, Facebook and Twitter. Boycott them.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 8:47 am
As Paul Craig Roberts said:
"Who asked Google to transform itself from search engine to gatekeeper? Is there a
conspiracy here against the First Amendment? What are Google's qualifications for determining
what is fake news and extremist views? Is what are we witnessing here the elite's use of a
private company to control explanations in behalf of the One Percent?
How does a private company get to overrule the First Amendment of the US Constitution? [
]
Why do people use Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter when the companies are in a
conspiracy against freedom of the press? Is the answer that Americans would rather be
entertained than to be free?"
E. Leete , March 1, 2018 at 11:03 am
I remember Paul Craig Roberts saying that the neoliberal economic agenda is getting enough
pushback that it will have to use nuclear weapons to succeed, and make no mistake the
neoliberal economic agenda means. to. succeed.
I can't fathom why the 99% underpaid are not campaigning united for an end to allowing
overpay. When will humans snap awake and stop shoveling world wealth to a fraction few in
exchange for tyranny? Tyranny is where overfortunes are – money is power – power
to influence power to control power to make human history be what they say it will be –
!! – the government is bought by people with overfortunes who are writing the laws and
putting themselves above the laws they write – because they can – the gigarich
are behind all the disinformation, the waste of wealth, the chaos, violence, corruption, the
psychopathological militarism we cannot afford – divide and conquer –
distractions instead of focus on the root cause – people endlessly discuss myriad
CONsequences of allowing overpayoverpower but won't go near the one idea that would reverse
the colossal destruction of everyone's everything. Getting good government and an unbiased
press requires turning to justice and obeying her. Peace, safety, prosperity, a bright
future? Spread world wealth as evenly as world work is spread and outlaw once and for all
time any human being's being able to keep an overfortune. The madness is not going to stop
until we resolve ourselves to end the stealing – legal thefts are too numerous to count
right now and the gigarich obviously have the power to keep inventing new ones even if you
can manage to shut one legal theft down now and then – see the biggest picture,
humanity – or perish by your own lack of seeing. Endlessly attacking the consquences of
allowing overpayoverpower is getting you nowhere but deeper in the hole.
"Who asked Google to transform itself from search engine to gatekeeper?" exactly, it's the
loose end of a long rope that tends to choke dissent on the internet at best, it induces
paranoia one never knows whether that "glitche" is intended to censor or is merely a
technical aberration
jools , March 1, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Just wait until Net Neutrality "officially" kicks in, when the Stasi will go full throttle
in interrupting many of the progressive channels esp. on UTube. On a side note, I was
wondering, does Consortiumnews have a podcast? Again, thanks for enlightening us all w/your
hard hitting journalism for I fear that much darker days awaits this nation.
Liam , March 1, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Excellent article Rick Sterling and Consortium News. For those wanting to learn more about
the White Helmets (FSA terrorists) this link includes hundreds of pics from their own
Facebook accounts proving that they are indeed terrorists posing as rescuers of little
kids.
Huge Cache of White Helmets Exposed Links All In One Massive Volume For Sharing and Red
Pilling – Over 400 Images in 22 Files
Also worth noting: A huge purge of You Tube alternative information channels took place in
the wake of the Parkland shooting event. Looks like the school shooting has been used not
just as a gun grab, but also to assert control via purging of a large number of popular You
Tube channels that were critical of the children's acting skills. It would be great to see
Consortium News cover this attack on free speech, and also the Google/You Tube connections to
the Deep State and why they should be looked at as a government entity and not simply as a
corporate entity that has the right to ban and censor people. They have almost complete
control of information.
Massive list of channels removed from YouTube #The1984IsREAL
Liam – great post! People need to open their eyes. I too hope that more and more
articles are written on this very topic. I know Tucker Carlson at Fox tries to bring this to
people's attention on a weekly basis. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. We had
better smarten up quickly.
me under the circumstances , March 1, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are targeted by the "pure white never mistaken good guys"
ie the Fawning Corporate Media, as Ray McGovern calls them, as fake news providers,
indicating to fair observers that they are actually the reporters on the scene in many parts
of the globe who record what is really happening and how it affects the people involved.
Even when evidence is staring people in the face, many refuse to change their stereotyped
images of who is to blame.
Lucifer Christ , March 1, 2018 at 3:49 pm
The problem with this propaganda is that the US government is calling its own ticked off
citizens trolls.
The American people should not be paying for propaganda against their own interests.
This money is being spent by the Deep State to destroy the American people.
The American people are aware of the evil that lives in Washington, DC and how people in
Washington, DC within the Deep State care nothing about them or their families. No matter of
money will change that fact!
People's actions say much. Over time the American people have learned that the Deep State
and the majority of politicians in DC are all about their own agenda and padding their own
pockets – not serving Americans.
Washington DC is evil. Everybody knows!
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:02 pm
DemocracyNow is just controlled opposition.
It is constantly shilling for regime change and "humanitarian bombing".
It gets its funding from Soros.
It is just another faux Left outfit like the Guardian.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 10:22 pm
From Paul Craig Roberts again:
"The Trump presidency is the perfect timing for the oligarchs to take over control of all
information. The liberal/progressive/left hate Trump so much that they are willing to ignore
the proven fact that Russiagate was a FBI/Obama/Hillary conspiracy against Trump in order to
use the false accusation as a weapon against Trump.
Gun control advocates and Identity Politics are willing to turn a blind eye to the
unanswered questions about school shootings and terrorist bombings in order to get more gun
control and police power to suppress "white supremacists." Partisan in their approach, they
do not consider that the same power will be used against them.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of young Americans have no idea what is at stake.
Most will never realize that their reality consists of controlled explanations. They will
never know the truth about anything."
The Lefties are playing right into their trap. Like I said, useful idiots.
Drew Hunkins , March 2, 2018 at 12:55 am
There were two points in very recent history when the Putin vilification operations really
began to ramp up in the West:
1.) The anti Putin propaganda campaign escalated in 2006 when Kemp & Edwards published
their CFR paper in which they made the absurd charge that Putin was "rolling back democracy"
in Russia. What a sick joke. They made no such breathless accusations during the rape and
pillage of Russia during the 1990s when j. Sachs and his Harvard boyz provided the
intellectual muscle for the massive exploitation and plunder. No, it was only when Putin put
a halt to a lot of the looting and capital flight that the Western liberal intellectual class
became alarmed and proceeded to assail and decry the Putin "regime" ( it is almost always
deemed a regime, rarely is it referred to as the Putin "administration.")
2.) Then the anti Putin propaganda campaign began to escalate even more so in 2013 when
Putin pulled off one of the finest diplomatic moves of the last 30 years: he talked Obama
down from bombing Damascus to remove Assad. This made Putin enemy number one in the eyes of
the Zio-Saudi-Washington militarist Terror Network. They wanted ever so desperately to topple
Assad and turn Syria into a wasteland and miserable failed state. They were apoplectic.
From here on out the Rachelle Maddows & Masha Gessens were off and running, fomenting
Russophobia and putting the world on the brink of thermo nuclear Armageddon.
Gerry , March 2, 2018 at 2:45 am
I wrote a small comment thanking Rick (whom I know) and even that comment was not
published.
I cannot find a moderation policy, but perhaps non-US citizens are not allowed on this site?
I cannot find any way of contacting anybody either.Probably because I said a few more things
that were upsetting the status quo here.
Well, so much for the most censored site I have ever seen: nice website but operated by
controlling journalists, so better stick to non-US sites as this is really ridiculous. You
publish whatever somebody says (Abe) who exposes anybody who dares to disagree with his idea
about those of us who do not agree with Zionism, but no rebuttal allowed. Nobody will see
this comment probably, so censor that as well and you are right up there with all the other
Americans who pretend they have a broader view and yet censor anybody who says something
slightly critical. Goodbye and good luck with the effect of this site on the media while your
part of the same policies in the end if it does not suit you.
Loretta , March 2, 2018 at 5:11 am
What about Israel's foreign propaganda and meddling in elections?
Biggest blunder in our lifetimes was not inviting Russia to join NATO, but I guess after
years of anti-Russian propaganda the Neocons figured China would never be quite the bogeyman
that we had built the Sovs into, big enough to keep the defense-dollars gravy-train flowing
while we re-jiggered the mission to find another bogey man. Then, one day, we woke up and
realised the Chicoms held enough of our debt to destroy us, while the Russians don't, so we
keep kicking at the old bogeyman.
"... Yes but very slowly. Russia consistently confounds my western sense of escalation by slicing all situations into tiny increments, smaller than I would have guessed they could be sliced, but on inspection completely realistic and sane. ..."
"... And at the end of each gradual path of escalation sits a hammer blow so final that every time it strikes the world has changed, in the blink of an eye. ..."
"... You wake up and Russia's in Syria. You wake up and every map of Crimea needs to be changed. You wake up and it takes the sane perspective of people like b to narrate how the Munich speech warning of consequences spent 11 years in the preparation, and on this day the Kremlin decided the time to announce this had come. ..."
"... The US has shown nothing but developmental incompetence for some years now. No amount of forced science on special projects can compensate for the systemic failures of a naval fleet that can't steer straight, a trillion-dollar 5th-gen plane that actually doesn't work to 5th-gen standards, and the clear display of a Military Complex saturated with corruption. The gang that can't shoot straight is incapable of peer warfare. You'd hate to be a village without some nuclear arms to protect you in the next 3-4 years, but otherwise the US is done as a world force, and Putin's speech is the milestone of that. ..."
"... The stupidity that the US is trapped it is fealty to the God of Mammon. If your first priority is to make profit then making good stuff become secondary and your competitors have you for lunch ..."
"... Pushing the US into an arms race will be the final nail in its bankruptcy coffin. Are the other nations of the world going to continue to buy Treasuries so we can build weapons to suppress them more? ..."
@39 V. Arnold - "I sense the gloves are coming off"
Yes but very slowly. Russia consistently confounds my western sense of escalation by
slicing all situations into tiny increments, smaller than I would have guessed they could be
sliced, but on inspection completely realistic and sane.
And at the end of each gradual path of escalation sits a hammer blow so final that every
time it strikes the world has changed, in the blink of an eye.
You wake up and Russia's in
Syria. You wake up and every map of Crimea needs to be changed. You wake up and it takes the
sane perspective of people like b to narrate how the Munich speech warning of consequences
spent 11 years in the preparation, and on this day the Kremlin decided the time to announce
this had come.
And with the announcement of the fruition of the last warning comes also the next warning,
that new systems are in development and they will be developed.
~~
@14 karlof1
I like what you're saying about an arms race. And so let the US try. Let it either do
nothing and bluster in its media, or else attempt to catch up and step into the real world to
match the forces playing at the table. Either way it achieves nothing of substance.
The US has shown nothing but developmental incompetence for some years now. No amount of
forced science on special projects can compensate for the systemic failures of a naval fleet
that can't steer straight, a trillion-dollar 5th-gen plane that actually doesn't work to
5th-gen standards, and the clear display of a Military Complex saturated with corruption. The
gang that can't shoot straight is incapable of peer warfare. You'd hate to be a village
without some nuclear arms to protect you in the next 3-4 years, but otherwise the US is done
as a world force, and Putin's speech is the milestone of that.
The US is trapped in its own stupidity.
I'd say, stick a fork in it, but Putin could probably describe the 36 gradations of
fork-sticking, and advise me to be patient ;)
@ Grieved who wrote: "The US is trapped in its own stupidity."
The stupidity that the US is trapped it is fealty to the God of Mammon. If your first
priority is to make profit then making good stuff become secondary and your competitors have
you for lunch
Pushing the US into an arms race will be the final nail in its bankruptcy coffin. Are the
other nations of the world going to continue to buy Treasuries so we can build weapons to
suppress them more?
Pushing the US out of Syria will be the test of Putin's strategy. Will it work? I suspect
we will know soon enough.
More than likely the same clown as went by the username milomilo back in the aussie
ambassador thread.
The username this time round links back to a junk news site.
Grieved | Mar 1, 2018 8:58:39 PM | 44
Indeed, Putin seems a man of infinite patience; but calculating and analyzing might be a
better descriptive.
And then there is NATO; standing naked in front of the Bear. When will its citizens (of so
many countries) realize they'll be the first recipients of nuclear wrath wrought by a corrupt
hegemon and its sycophant vassals (redundant?) following an insane behavior not their own? Or
rather, do they realize they now own that inane behavior?
Greived 44 "You'd hate to be a village without some nuclear arms to protect you in the next
3-4 years, but otherwise the US is done as a world force"
I have felt for some time that Putin's aim is to see the US empire done and dusted before
he retires. 3-4 years looks about right as he will be getting on a bit by the end of the next
term.'
America's Beltway wonks admit the USA won't be able to keep up with Russia, bring idea of
abolishing nukes altogether. I have to admit that although I view condition of the United
States as dire and hopeless, I didn't expect to see first signs of folding so soon.
It is Daniel 8. The watchman (Trump) will unfortunately decide to have a big go at
eliminating Syria. The descendant of the Greek shaggy goat is RF. This announcement will be
misread. The US will fall into the Daniel 8 trap. 2017 it erected its first facilities
between the holy mountain and the sea. We are being puppeted into Armageddon. And for a
little tickle consider the Sanhedrin minted coin celebrating Trump's movement of the US
embassy to Jerusalem...he is put on same level as Cyrus...the anointed one...messiah...Cyrus
is considered by the Judaics as a messiah...Trump is being lauded by them as a new messiah in
the vein of Cyrus.
p
You are right on. The hypersonic Russian cruise missile rules; the US has nothing like it. And
we have seen that the evolution of battleship-->carrier-->cruise missile is complete.
First planes from carriers out-distanced battleship rounds, now cruise missiles have
out-distanced carrier planes (plus speed and maneuver). Bye-bye carrier fleets in peer
conflict. At 12 billion each, plus the cost of the escorts and the 5,000 crew (prospects for
Davey Jones's locker). Still effective against third world.
Actually they have a small presence anyhow because they are high maintenance. Currently, as
usual, only two carriers of the US eleven are deployed as seen here . Two of eleven!!
Posted by: Don Bacon | Mar 1, 2018 10:24:24 PM |
52
"... In fact not only do most Americans shy away from finding out about the truth in a country that has pushed division of labour to the maximum, they are trigger happy to be totally controlled by corporate media in a repetition of 'Iraq's weapons of mass destruction' to 'Russia and Putin the source of all evil'. ..."
"And this is why economic policy cannot not be decided by popular opinion. A typical Russian is ignorant about economics and
government finance. A typical Russian doesn't want responsibility for these decisions anyway. He would rather let someone else
(some authority figure) make these choices for him. This is why real democracy cannot work in Russia."
If you had not specified the word 'Russian', I could have guessed you were talking about the USA.
In fact not only do most Americans shy away from finding out about the truth in a country that has pushed division of labour
to the maximum, they are trigger happy to be totally controlled by corporate media in a repetition of 'Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction' to 'Russia and Putin the source of all evil'.
Beyond some truly enlightened Americans whose opinions I am honored and glad to read on this site, the majority of the
American public still go about their struggle for survival trusting the American politicians and American military are doing the
right thing.
However the Tor system is a product of DARPA and now we have reports that the
supposedly 'non-profit' Tor of today is in fact nearly 100 percent funded by some very scary
US agencies. Including the Broadcasting Board of Governors the US propaganda arm that runs
Radio Liberty, Radio free Europe etc
This based on Freedom of Information requests that netted 2,500 pages of documents
' employees of the non-profit met regularly with the Department of Justice, the FBI, and
other three-letter agencies for training sessions and conferences, where the agencies
pitched their software needs, the documents show '
My rule of thumb is to assume that the massive NSA data scooping is able to get everything
that goes online and I have long suspected that services like Tor and VPNs are actually
convenient backdoors for the malefactors
The basic assumption is that there is no online anonymity the smartphone is the ideal
spying device even better than the computer since it also tracks your movements
What Washington really haptes about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order.
Notable quotes:
"... The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. ..."
"... That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny. ..."
"... John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling back democracy" in Russia. ..."
"... What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order. ..."
"... Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day. ..."
"... But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. ..."
"... Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground. ..."
"... The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. ..."
"... The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble. ..."
"... After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders committed abroad. ..."
"... China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. ..."
"... American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free' trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike. ..."
"... not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs. ..."
"... Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows administered by US/NATO. A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example? ..."
"... Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example. It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for. ..."
"... Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence. Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has. ..."
"... When asked by a Germany-based academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests." ..."
"... America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria. Very sad. ..."
"... America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes. Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. ..."
"... In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons ..."
"... The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors. ..."
"... GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British empire now? ..."
"... US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them militarily. Good luck with that. ..."
"... The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various "dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British style. ..."
"It is essential to provide conditions for creative labor and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division
of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least
a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development,
and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to
all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems." Vladimir Putin, President
Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Putin wants to end poverty? Putin wants to stimulate economic growth in developing countries? Putin wants to change the system
that divides the world into "permanent winners and losers"? But, how can that be, after all, Putin is bad, Putin is a "KGB thug",
Putin is the "new Hitler"?
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For
example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in
universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution. Naturally, the Russian system has its shortcomings, but
there has been significant progress under Putin who has dramatically increased the budget, improved treatment and widened accessibility.
Putin believes that healthcare should be a universal human right. Here's what he said at the annual meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club:
"Another priority is global healthcare . All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long
and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development." (Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club)
How many "liberal" politicians in the US would support a recommendation like Putin's? Not very many. The Democrats are much more
partial to market-based reforms like Obamacare that guarantee an ever-increasing slice of the pie goes to the giant HMOs and the
voracious pharmaceutical companies. The Dems no longer make any attempt to promote universal healthcare as a basic human right. They've
simply thrown in the towel and moved on to other issues.
Many Americans would find Putin's views on climate change equally surprising. Here's another clip from the Valdai speech:
"Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. I suggest that
we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new,
groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us
to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity
to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities,
and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN
to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia
is willing to co-sponsor such a forum .." Valdai)
Most people would never suspect that Putin supports a global effort to address climate change. And, how would they know, after
all, bits of information like that– that help to soften Putin's image and make him seem like a rational human being– are scrubbed
from the media's coverage in order to cast him in the worst possible light. The media doesn't want people to know that Putin is a
reflective and modest man who has worked tirelessly to make Russia and the world a better place. No, they want them to believe that
he's is a scheming tyrannical despot who's obsessive hatred for America poses a very real threat to US national security. But it's
not true.
Putin is not the ghoulish caricature the media makes him out to be nor does he hate America, that's just more propaganda from
the corporate echo-chamber. The truth is Putin has been good for Russia, good for regional stability, and good for global security.
He pulled the Russian Federation back from the brink of annihilation in 2000, and has had the country moving in a positive direction
ever since. His impact on the Russian economy has been particularly impressive. According to Wikipedia:
"Between 2000 and 2012 Russia's energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising
by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. In the
same period, unemployment and poverty more than halved and Russians' self-assessed life satisfaction also rose significantly."
Inequality is a problem in Russia just like it is in the US, but the vast majority of working people have benefited greatly from
Putin's reforms and a system of distribution that –judging by steady uptick in disposable incomes – is significantly superior to that
in the United States where wages have flatlined for over 2 decades and where virtually all of the nation's wealth trickles upward
to the parasitic 1 percent.
Since Putin took office in 2000, workers have seen across-the-board increase in wages, benefits, healthcare and pensions. Poverty
and unemployment have been reduced by more than half while foreign investment has experienced steady growth. Onerous IMF loans have
been repaid in full, capital flight has all-but ceased, hundreds in billions in reserves have been accumulated, personal and corporate
taxes have been slashed, and technology has experienced an unprecedented renaissance. The notorious Russian oligarchs still have
a stranglehold on many privately-owned industries, but their grip has begun to loosen and the "kleptocracy has begun to fade."
Things are far from perfect, but the Russian economy has flourished under Putin and, generally speaking, the people are appreciative.
This helps to explain why Putin's public approval ratings are typically in the stratosphere. (70 to 80 percent) Simply put: Putin
the most popular Russian president of all time. And his popularity is not limited to Russia either, in fact, he typically ranks at
the top of most global leadership polls such as the recent Gallup International End of Year Survey (EoY) where Putin came in third
(43 percent positive rating) behind Germany's Angela Merkel (49 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron. (45 percent) According
to Gallup: "Putin has gone from one in three (33 percent) viewing him favourably to 43 percent, a significant increase over two years."
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations
where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. This should come as no surprise to Americans
who know that the chances of stumbling across an article that treats Putin with even minimal objectivity is about as likely as finding
a copper coin at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The consensus view of the western media is that Putin is a maniacal autocrat who
kills journalists and political opponents (no proof), who meddles in US elections to "sow discord" and destroy our precious democracy
(no proof), and who is conducting a secret and sinister cyberwar against the United States. (no proof). It's a pathetic litany of
libels and fabrications, but its impact on the brainwashed American people has been quite impressive as Gallup's results indicate.
Bottom line: Propaganda works.
The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist
the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. This is when the powerful Council on Foreign Relations funded
a report titled "Russia's Wrong Direction" that suggested that Russia's increasingly independent foreign policy and insistence that
it control its own vast oil and natural gas resources meant that "the very idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seems realistic."
That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling
back democracy" in Russia. They claimed that the government had become increasingly authoritarian and that the society was growing
less "open and pluralistic". Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign
against Putin has been built. Twelve years later, the same charges are still being leveled at Putin along with the additional allegations
that he meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.
Needless to say, none of the nation's newspapers, magazines or broadcast media ever publish anything that deviates even slightly
from the prevailing, propagandistic narrative about Putin. One can only assume that the MSM's views on Putin are either universally
accepted by all 325 million Americans or that the so-called "free press" is a wretched farce that conceals an authoritarian corporate
machine that censors all opinions that don't promote their own malign political agenda.
What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order. As he said at the annual Security Conference at Munich in 2007:
"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force,
one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival
that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against
each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day.
But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the
turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced
the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. At present, US Special Forces and
their allies are clinging to a strip of arid wasteland in the Syrian outback hoping that the Pentagon brass can settle on a forward-operating
strategy that reverses their fortunes or brings the war to a swift end.
The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current
war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression
is really the victim. More important, failure in Syria has led to a reevaluation of how Washington conducts its wars abroad. The
War on Terror pretext has been jettisoned for a more direct approach laid out in the Trump administration's National Defense Strategy.
The focus going forward will be on "Great Power Competition", that is, the US is subordinating its covert proxy operations to more
flagrant displays of military force particularly in regards to the "growing threat from revisionist powers", Russia and China. In
short, the gloves are coming off and Washington is ramping up for a land war.
Putin has become an obstacle to Washington's imperial ambitions which is why he's has been elevated to Public Enemy Number 1.
It has nothing to do with the fictitious meddling in the 2016 elections or the nonsensical "rolling back democracy" in Russia. It's
all about power. In the United States the group with the tightest grip on power is the foreign policy establishment. These are the
towering mandarins who dictate the policy, tailor the politics to fit their strategic vision, and dispatch their lackeys in the media
to shape the narrative. These are the people who decided that Putin must be demonized to pave the way for more foreign interventions,
more regime change wars, more bloody aggression against sovereign states.
Putin has repeatedly warned Washington that Russia would not stand by while the US destroyed one country after the other in its
lust for global domination. He reiterated his claim that Washington's "uncontained hyper-use of force" was creating "new centers
of tension", exacerbating regional conflicts, undermining international relations, and "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent
conflicts." He has pointed out how the US routinely displayed its contempt for international law and "overstepped its national borders
in every way." As a result of Washington's aggressive behavior, public confidence in international law and global security has steadily
eroded and "No one feels safe. I want to emphasize this," Putin thundered in Munich. "No one feels safe."
On September 28, 2015 Putin finally threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly
in New York. After reiterating his commitment to international law, the UN, and state sovereignty, he provided a brief but disturbing
account of recent events in the Middle East, all of which have gotten significantly worse due to Washington's use of force. Here's
Putin:
"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention
destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty,
social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy,
which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting
for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose
statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 ."
US interventions have decimated Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond. Over a million people have been killed while tens of millions
have been forced to flee their homes and their countries. The refugee spillover has added to social tensions across the EU where
anti-immigrant sentiment has precipitated the explosive growth in right wing groups and political organizations. From Northern
Africa, across the Middle East, and into Central Asia, global security has steadily deteriorated under Washington's ruthless stewardship.
Here's more from Putin:
"The Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes.
Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions .It is irresponsible
to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of
them or somehow eliminate them ."
Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy
to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform
at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct
a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground.
Putin: "We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."
Less than 48 hours after these words were uttered, Russian warplanes began pounding militant targets in Syria.
Putin again: "Dear colleagues, relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are
facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism .Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous
potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations,
we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make
the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples."
So, here's the question: Is Putin "evil" for opposing Washington's regime change wars, for stopping the spread of terrorism, and
for rejecting the idea that one unipolar world power should rule the world? Is that why he's evil, because he won't click his heels
and do as he's told by the global hegemon?
The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century.
The next war, if it comes, will be over something like Cobalt. The future lies in big and plentiful electric batteries and China
and Russia between them control almost 50% of the known supply of Cobalt, while the US has none. Stand by and wait, folks.
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the
two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class.
I would be staggered is only 14 percent of Americans had a negative view of Putin – almost everybody I have spoken to
has completely swallowed the media line. In Europe UK in particular has been brainwashed against him – southern Europe far less
so. The 28 percent is more realistic.
Is China trying to trash our constitution? Is China invading other countries, killing people with missiles and bombs all over
the world, staging "color revolutions" and subverting legitimate governments in the "West"? Is China patrolling the Gulf of Mexico
and putting missiles in Mexico and Canada? China hasn't done anything bad to me or to anyone I know, so please explain how China
is "our" "rival"?
This is a great article. The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful
for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble.
There's a simple reason why Putin is talking sense. He's doing nothing more than stating customary international law. Those
economic quotes have been set out in a series of UN resolutions including A/RES/41/128 on the right to development. This is the
acquis of the civilized world. No country in the world opposes it – except the USA. The US votes alone against it every time it
comes up, even though customary international law is US federal and state common law under the Supreme Court decision, The Paquete
Habana.
Mr. Whitney has accepted the official framing that it's all about Putin. That clever decision makes his article more provocative.
Calm appraisal of the current official foreign devil is inherently inflammatory. However, this has nothing to do with Putin. Rigid
legalist that he is, his hands are tied. Russia has ratified the ICESCR.
Russia has ratified the ICESCR. The USA has not. Here are some of the rights Russians have that you do not:
OHCHR has a convenient compilation showing how each government meets its legal obligations and commitments. The synoptic heatmap
below shows the US deep down in the shithole with Wahhabi headchoppers and neocolonial African presidents-for-life.
The exhaustively documented fact here is, the Russian state meets world standards. The US government does not. The Russian
government respects, protects, and fulfils human rights. The US government fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach,
and negates your incomplete half-assed constitutional rights with statist red tape. Russians get a better deal than you do. Merely
by reciting the law as he does, Putin would win a fair election here with Roosevelt-scale majorities, again and again. That's
why he drives the US government up the wall.
Where is it the propaganda campaign going? We have seen this before as preparation for a war or a regime change. In Russia both
are unlikely to succeed. That leaves an ever increasing propaganda bombast in the West, people brainwashed to the point where
outright racism against anything 'Russian' will become widespread. Then what? Move movies with white Russian villains, as if that
is what threatens West the most?
Russia can neither be isolated, nor 'collapsed' economically, nor ignored. It is too resource rich and powerful. Russia could
possibly be checked in a second tier conflict (Syria?), but that would be of minimal consequence. Ukraine could be escalated,
but there Russia has an enormous local logistics advantage, it would be a disaster for Kiev. And Russia is on friendly terms with
China, its only potential military threat on land.
Propaganda by itself does nothing, it is only means to an end. West is in no position to go beyond propaganda, so we might
experience a bizarre example of a mindless propaganda that goes on and on. As with all propaganda the main target is the domestic
population – in other words it is the common people in the West who are being propagandised and in effect made more stupid, less
capable of making rational decisions.
Even a slight u-turn is at this point unthinkable, almost all elites have too visibly engaged in the evil-Russia talk, how
could they let go of it? We are stuck, we might get saved by an unrelated 'big event' somewhere else. If not, this could just
be fatal, after all this belligerent talk we could perish because somebody dared to call Clinton a satan on Facebook. And they
didn't use their real name – the horror .
My own view is that Putin is probably as trustworthy and honest as any other ex-KGB man. On the other hand he does come across
as intelligent, cautious, and calm. Especially when compared to the crook Hillary or the oaf Trump.
The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
This is starting to bother me. Stuff is disappearing from the web. Look at the link below to an Al Jazeera documentary which
has disappeared from YouTube and the web.
Si1ver1ock, interesting problems you're having. I had no problem with the links, but then the magic of Tor means I'm reaching
them from the Netherlands. State censorship is harder when you can access suppressed URLs from a couple dozen different countries.
Please do respond, and in good faith, to the reply of commenter Harold Smith. I share his apparent concern that you may be
conflating the interests of the American people with the imperial ambitions of their Uncle Sam.
I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing. I
tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade and business,
while China certainly is.
Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned. However, I am afraid our national focus in this
unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious competition is actually coming from and be able
to deal with it in a timely fashion.
"I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing."
In your original comment you said:
"The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century."
Since a big part of the U.S. "focus" on Russia is military encirclement, confrontation by proxy, the threat of direct conflict
even nuclear war, etc., this statement clearly suggests a "military solution" to "contain" an economically "rising" China, IMO.
(After all, when the only tool the U.S. "government" has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).
But so what if China has some kind of "mastery" of the Eastern hemisphere? To the extent that's true, at least they didn't
do it by way of lawless imperial treachery.
The U.S. is losing influence all over the world because it's making itself hated; it's imposing itself everywhere and squandering
everything of value on the hopeless pursuit of world domination and control.
"I tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade
and business, while China certainly is."
The thing is "we" don't demonize Russia "as a nation"; rather, it's done by the Satanic ruling class that hates Russia – not
for any rational reason, but for the same reason that Cain hated Abel: because "evil" hates a "good" example.
"Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned."
Unless you're going change the definition of "rival" again, I should point out that the U.S. "government" doesn't generally
attack "rivals" but deems any country that asserts its sovereign independence and refuses to take orders an "enemy", subject to
economic, political and military attack.
"However, I am afraid our national focus in this unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious
competition is actually coming from and be able to deal with it in a timely fashion."
You seem to be conflating "us as a people" with the U.S. "government" which has by now lost even the pretense of moral and
constitutional legitimacy, and thus has nothing remotely to do with what's in the best interests of "us as a people".
Here is the explanation. China is economic rival to US. That is not only inconvenient, rival, it is the most efficient and
most dangerous rival, because who is wining the economic competition is pushing out the opponent from world markets.
That people in the West believe the lies that TPTB concoct for their consumption, I can conceive, though only after a convoluted
intellectual effort, for given all the now exposed deceit, one is left in wonder as to why the masses still believe proven liars.
After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very
low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders
committed abroad.
Still, I can't figure out if TPTB believe their own narrative. It takes a very peculiar mindset to be able to live in permanent
lies. Contrary to truth which can exist per se and is therefore essentially cost-free, lies demand permanent maintenance and have
high maintenance cost.
So, TPTB of the West are either delusional in thinking they can maintain their lies ad vitam aeternam, or they are mythomaniacs.
Either way, just think what happens when lies cannot be maintained any more and the liars don't want to relinquish power.
Bear in mind that lying being effectively irrational, they cannot be considered as rational actors. Prepare your shelters folks.
Very seldom, I've read such a realistic article on President Putin and his policy. I've been following not only his administration
but also that of the US Empire, and I'm always flabbergasted about the US elites demonization of this leader. He belongs to the
few leaders who got their act together compared to the political exorcists in Washington. The real thugs and psychopaths are the
members of the American political elite and their cheerleaders in the fawning US mainstream media. Following their analysis, I
often think they stem from lunatics who are coming from outer space.
Yes, China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically
facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour.
So -- Dr Frankenstein is now scared of his own monster. Oh the irony !
In the last two weeks a virtual book burning has begun on YouTube. Scores of independent truth seeking channels have been deleted.
Some were pretty amateur and sensationalist, many were good, top notch investigative fact checking in nature. Many had large numbers
of subscribers, a few had 100,000s subscribers.
Common denominator seemed to question official mainstream media narrative on mass shootings, 9/11, war on terror, human sex
trafficking, Clinton Foundation corruption, and even UFO coverups. One channel was a woman skilled at body language commenting
on videos of people like John Podesta being interviewed as to whether he was lying.
None of these channels advocated violence, quite the contrary. Most couched opinion alongside probable facts by asking deductive
and inductive questions. The YouTube virtual book burning appears to have gathered pace in last week.
So much for free speech in the fake but very slickly fake Western democracies. Where the geopolitical narrative is uniformly
uniform.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution.
American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free'
trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike.
"I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve
introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony
with it "
I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable energy–whether
or not global warming is real.
not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him
trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs.
"China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. "
We all know the drill here. China makes stuff cheap so that WalMart can undercut competitors and grow rich. Therefore, alas,
what can be done?
Except that WalMart has over four hundred stores IN CHINA and plans to build forty more! So what's our excuse now for not being
able to compete?
Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows
administered by US/NATO.
A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed
to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example?
Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough
shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example.
It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for.
Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined
military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence.
Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms
race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has.
Alden, sounds like you stopped with the maps and didn't read any of the underlying documents because of the preconceptions you
wear on your sleeve: "idealistic pie in the sky by and by UN treaties impossible to effect." Those preconceptions happen to coincide
with the residual message of one persistent strand of US statist propaganda.
Have you ever read, in any US institution or medium, criticism as comprehensive and incisive as this?
IGs can't do this. Courts can't begin to do this. Congress wouldn't dare do this. Media would never do it if they could. The
recommendations are legally binding and the US government knows it. Each review is videoed. You haven't lived until you've seen
State and Justice bureaucrats crawling and sniveling and tying themselves in logical knots, making fools of themselves in the
most public forum in the world. You get to watch the US regime bleeding influence and standing and 'soft power.' It's public disgrace
in front of the 96% of the world outside the US iron curtain. You may not want to watch impartial legal experts make a laughingstock
of the USG, but everybody else in the world watches with amusement, so you might as well know.
Treaty body review has driven more reforms than Congress ever did. You know perfectly well how bad your government sucks, what
a useless parasite it is. The treaty bodies and charter bodies give you more say than either state-controlled political party.
Face it, human rights review is all you got. When your government sucks, you go over its head to the world.
"During a policy talk at the Valdai Discussion Club, the Russian leader spoke on a number of issues, especially criticizing
U.S. foreign policy moves across the globe and lauding Russia's increasingly relevant role as a world power. When asked by a Germany-based
academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust
in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests."
Well maybe you can make Vladimir Putin feel better about this. You can tell him that blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in
the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all, since Russia couldn't have done a single thing
about it anyway, right?
This is a ridiculous statement. When Putin came aboard, there was no Russian economy to speak of. Now it's grown strong enough
to withstand the events in Ukraine, sanctions and what not and even derive benefits from these challenges. I am not saying everything's
coming up roses but it could hardly be expected considering the deep hole Russia dug itself into in the 1990s.
the entire region is upset with Putin's behavior as they have seen Putin's behavior in Crimea and the Donbas.
The entire region, it you mean our Eastern European neighbors, can like it or lump it. They, Poland in particular, participated
very willingly and actively in the coup in Ukraine. Crimea and Donbass are direct, and perfectly predictable, consequences of
that coup. If they forgot the law of physics that every action has a reaction, this is just as good a reminder as any.
the thing is, because of the recent study by J. Leroy Hulsey, Putin could still do it, but I predict that he unfortunately
will do nothing of the kind.
blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all,
since Russia couldn't have done a single thing about it anyway, right?
Actually, it could've done a lot. Right at the beginning, Russia could've refused to trust in the word of the West's leaders
about the NATO expansion and demand guarantees. A formal treaty plus a couple of remaining military bases, say, in Poland and
East Germany, would've sufficed. This likely would've saved Yugoslavia as well.
Russia could've refrained from stopping the development of many weapon system and from destroying others. It could've also
kept its own industry (civil aviation comes to mind) instead of relying on cooperation with the West. It could've refrained from
allowing the US troops to use the Russia territory to move supplies to Afghanistan. Even recently it did occur to someone exceedingly
smart to order aircraft carriers in France – speaking about trust! I do hope they learned their lesson, finally.
America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic
how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria.
Very sad.
America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes.
Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. Come on dudes !
This is just a phase, we will turn it around and make America great again ( as opposed to israel which was never great anyway).
It is just a question of how long it will take.
It will start the day when we'll tell that terrorist, shit-hole country called israel to go the hell, fight your own wars,
pay for your own wars.
In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons.
Because of this the Sept 11 shock, while in reality it meant very little, as USA citizens working in the Netherlands soon afterwards
said 'we have 30.000 traffic deaths each year'.
Good comeback there that was one of the best ones in a while!
I'm sorry, but no we're not. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we here in the "West" are living under a Satanic judeo-communist
dictatorship, bent on world domination and control at any cost.
The difference between corporate state, and totalitarian state like old Soviet system is getting blurier all the time. Like
planned economies of command systems, now they just create money for the cronies, who might as well be commies, and they don't
give a care about what's true or honest, they lie and that's, like you mentioned, (Satanic), the truth isn't in 'em.
' I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable
energy–whether or not global warming is real '
Good comment however the environment is about more than just 'global warming' which may or may not be man-caused there is no
scientific certainty but certainly what looks like a concerted push by certain quarters
But there is also habitat loss the toxins introduced through pollution industrial farming and the problems it causes with erosion,
bad food etc
Putin's comments and Mike's citation of them reflect a thoughtful and realistic approach to at least start looking at these
problems
Anon from TN
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US,
but actually collapsed due to internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed their
luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all dominant empires lose their grip and eventually
crumble (remember Roman or British), and now it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the
Chinese Empire, not Russian. (PS. Muslims missed the train. Again)
It's not like he used the term 'enemy,' which too many unfortunately resort to in these discussions. During Cold War 1.0, a
lot of us referred to the Sovs as the 'Adversary' because it was a less loaded term than enemy, though many equate the two. Are
the Chinese rivals? Sure. Are they adversaries? You bet, especially when we keep stepping into their back yard. Are they enemies?
The will be if we keep stepping into their back yard and telling them how to behave with their next door neighbours. All of this
applies to Russia as well.
The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying
to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors.
GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British
empire now?
From an empire on which the sun never sets, pretty soon they'll be a country where the sun never rises – thanks to their stupid
immigration policies and preoccupations with Russia (still!), like they (the British) are still even a factor in the global power
games.
US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various
"dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using
those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British
style.
If anything the British military record was at least better than US's, at least they used to win wars – they pretty much went
down undefeated – but they did went down and US military doesn't have the same success rate and even if they did, they will not
accomplish holding the world back – same as Britain didn't.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution
I do not see anything 'liberal' in Putin's ideas, certainly not as in the liberal agendas in the US.
I see him advocating Balance . creating a better order for the needs of populations and interactions between nations
. therefore preserving nations, people and earth. Balance is not rocket science .nature is the ultimate example of balance, when it is tampered with all species eventually suffer.
The neocons were/are Zionist in essence and mainly Jewish in thought leadership – this is inarguable.
Also inarguable, though I am not aware of very many well-written essays on the topic, is that under Yeltsin, brought to power
in no small part by US meddling, there was a fire sale of Russian assets – something arranged very largely by Jewish economists
and Jewish bureaucrats. And the new 'oligarchs?' Why 6 of 7 of the most enriches were Jews in a nation <3% Jewish.
Ukraine was largely a coup by Nuland, Pyatt, Feltman ato help Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine who suddenly found themselves in
the very top of the new govt. Jewish names pop up inordinately as to authors and editors of unhinged Russophobic articles. At what point do we say that the mideast wars are driven by Jews, so, disproportionately (maybe even mainly as to the media)
is the aggression and disinfo on Russia.
The Jewish Problem is to be taken seriously. We need to find a way to discuss it, rescued from Zionists and bona fide Judeophobes. Our lives may well depend on it.
"... Brennan has the bad luck to be the nastiest Deep Stater out there, plus its poster-boy, just when the Deep State is being put on trial by an enraged citizenry. Maybe this explains why he is shilling for big money Trump haters, as explained in last week's article by Charles Bausman. Maybe he thinks they will protect him. ..."
"... Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi gave him a shellacking in major articles last week. Now Stone joins them. ..."
"... "DOJ statement and indictments reveal the extent and motivations of Russian interference in 2016 election. Claims of a "hoax" in tatters. My take: Implausible that Russian actions did not influence the views and votes of at least some Americans." ..."
"... – February 16, 2018 Tweet by Embittered Obama Spy Chief John O. Brennan ..."
The alleged convert to Islam almost certainly perjured himself in the RussiaGate hearings, and is the most
egregious of all the RussiaHoax plotters. His legal problems are real, and his checkered career leaves him
vulnerable.
Roger Stone
Feb 20, 2018
|
5,230
86
MORE:
Politics
Brennan has the bad luck to be the nastiest Deep Stater out there, plus its poster-boy, just when the Deep
State is being put on trial by an enraged citizenry. Maybe this explains why he is shilling for big money Trump
haters, as explained in
last week's article
by Charles Bausman. Maybe he thinks they will protect him.
"DOJ statement and indictments reveal the extent and motivations of Russian interference in 2016
election. Claims of a "hoax" in tatters. My take: Implausible that Russian actions did not influence the views
and votes of at least some Americans."
– February 16, 2018 Tweet by Embittered Obama Spy Chief John O. Brennan
At the heart of this Obama-Clinton-Democrat FBI-DOJ-CIA-FISA Court cabal is the originator of the Trump-Russia
collusion hoax himself, the deepest deep state denizen of the bunch, former CIA Director John O. Brennan. As our
country's Russian Collusion Hoaxmaster General John Brennan has good reason to be worried.
Best known for indulging Obama's most evil compulsions as Obama's 2nd-term CIA chief, Brennan was just
freshly-minted as an NBC "News" shill (shocking) under the title "senior national security and intelligence
analyst." It is obvious to anyone near Brennan that he is now bitter, acrimonious, hellbent on malicious
retribution and likely the Obama-Clinton coup plotter with the most to fear should President Trump, and a
newly-inspired, freshly-fumigated DOJ actually perform its constitutional duty and prosecute these manipulative
Obama-Clinton gangsters.
Thanks to the unflappable courage of the House Intelligence Committee Chairman and astute, stalwart
truth-seeker Devin Nunes, John Brennan's legal jeopardy is real and the most immediate of all the Obama-Clinton
sedition mechanics. Investigative journalist Paul Sperry
broke
the news last week
that Nunes is initiating an investigation into Brennan's central and leading role in
promoting and leaking the "dirty dossier" in a manic effort to smear Donald Trump with any and every means at
Brennan's disposal. (Just consider the import of this proposition, given that Brennan was the DIRECTOR OF THE
CIA!).
It is almost certain that Brennan perjured himself before the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, at
minimum, when he denied knowledge of the origin of the Steele dossier and that it was in any way used in the
intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians were attempting to influence the 2016 election, specifically
via the Trump Campaign.
"the information and intelligence revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US
persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn
such individuals.
It raised questions in my mind about whether the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of such
individuals."
When Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Brennan directly about any evidence that Trump officials colluded with the Kremlin,
Brennan said "I don't know" and "I don't know whether such collusion existed."
Yet in the same response, Brennan said that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that
required further investigation by the FBI to determine whether or not US persons were actively conspiring or
colluding with Russian officials. Brennan also testified that he had no knowledge of who commissioned the
anti-Trump reports, although senior national security and counterintelligence officials at the DOJ knew in 2016
that the Clinton campaign had funded them.
It is extremely unlikely that Brennan somehow didn't know of Clinton's role in the fake reports. It was Brennan,
after all, who in April 2016 supplied the reports to Obama and then briefed Hill Democrats on its existence. If he
didn't know the source of the reports, he's guilty of gross negligence for not verifying the material. If he knew
the source of the reports he's guilty of disseminating false information. Either way, Brennan should be held
accountable for his role in attempting to undermine the will of the American voters.
If the Russians had a plan to destabilize and influence our elections then John Brennan was carrying out that
plan to the letter. In recent months there have been startling revelations that leading members of Mueller's task
force investigating Trump were found to have orchestrated a plan to undermine the Trump presidency using the fake
dossiers. It's certainly not in dispute that the dossiers were funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and were
approved of by Obama and some of his top staff. Evidence from their own texts exposed a conspiracy to destroy
Trump's credibility, hopefully leading to his forced resignation.
Initially, the focus of the current investigation was on Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Ben Rhodes. Thanks to
Chairman Nunes, the focus is now going to shift to Obama's murky national security apparatchiks, with Brennan
topping the list of those warranting scrutiny for their outrageous abuses of the massive powers of our national
security-intelligence complex. Truth is that there is much about John Brennan that warrants investigation.
Brennan, who also served as Obama's Homeland Security Advisor from 2009-2013, before becoming CIA Director, is
believed to be a Muslim convert. He clearly despised Trump for what duplicitous Democrats characterized as the
president's "Muslim ban." Former CIA field operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was:
"known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the
election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says."
Brennan was not sworn into office on a Bible, as the tradition goes in America, but on an original draft of
the Constitution WITHOUT the Bill of Rights. Clearly, this was a purposeful signal that Brennan has no regard
for the limits on the powers of the state enshrined in these amendments. [Just this past week, this
constitutional quisling called on Congress to ban semi-automatic firearms altogether, a radical infringement on
the right to keep and bear arms that even most Democrats do not support.]
Brennan's 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin denied the existence of "absolute human
rights", arguing in favor of censorship by Egypt's dictatorship. "Since the press can play such an influential
role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship.
Inflammatory articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in developing political
systems."
Brennan hewed to his own thesis when he possessed extraordinary power, as shown in an obscure November 2012
Wikileaks email dump which pointed to Brennan as the official behind a "witch hunt" conducted on journalists
who reported unflattering Obama administration leaks.
In Brennan's CIA Director confirmation hearing, he refused to answer direct questions by Sen. Rand Paul
about the Obama administration's use of lethal drone attacks on U.S. citizens in U.S. territory. Brennan coyly
responded that the U.S. "has not carried out such attacks" and "has no intentions of doing so." The Obama
administration did, however, conduct such attacks on U.S. citizens abroad.
Consistent with Brennan's sympathies for Islamic terror nations, he warned President-Elect Donald Trump that
scrapping the outrageous Obama-Iran nuclear deal would be "the height of folly" and "disastrous."
Brennan went out of his way to attack Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, even saying publicly he
would refuse to employ water-boarding in some extreme cases. "I can say that as long as I'm director of CIA,
irrespective of what the president says, I'm not going to be the director of CIA that gives that order. They'll
have to find another director," said the pre-emptively insubordinate Brennan.
In 2016, Brennan admitted that in the 1976 presidential election he actually supported the
Communist
Party
presidential candidate – a hard line, unrepentant Stalinist named Gus Hall.
Brennan has long been cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite evidence presented (and later upheld)
during the landmark 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial in federal court, which established the Islamic Society of
North America as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and financial supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas,
Brennan has continued to meet with ISNA officials and participate in ISNA events. Brennan delivered the keynote
address to ISNA's annual conference in 2009.
With all of this questionable information about Brennan, it is no surprise that he inspired a lack of
confidence among key national security hawks in Congress, who began calling for Brennan's resignation as far back
as 2010. Brennan addressed a New York University assembly in 2010 and defended freeing U.S.-held terror
combatants, saying that it "isn't that bad" that 20 percent of terrorists released by the U.S. return to terrorist
attacks, since the recidivism rate for inmates in the U.S. prison system is higher. After this, Senator Lindsey
Graham told Fox News that Brennan had "lost my confidence" and called for Brennan's resignation.
"when you impugn people's patriotism and integrity and make statements that compare people going back into
the fight in Afghanistan or Yemen or other places with criminals who go back to a life of crime in the United
States, you've lost touch with reality."
New York Congressman Peter King said,
"I strongly believe that John Brennan ought to resign immediately or be fired because of his incompetence
and inability to do his job any homeland security adviser who can't tell the difference between a terrorist and
a shoplifter doesn't belong in office."
In March 2014 Brennan denied to the Associated Press that CIA was involved in hacking U.S. Senate computers.
Barely three months later, Brennan was back, publicly apologizing to the Senate Intelligence Committee leadership
for you guessed it CIA hacking of Senate computers. This little outrage clearly demonstrated that Brennan is both
a manipulator and a liar, who has absolutely no respect for the notion of oversight by elected representatives, or
for the sanctity of our 1st branch of government as representatives of the people.
The origins of the Trump – Russia collusion started when John Brennan used phony and uncorroborated intel
provided by Estonian spies to British intelligence assets purporting to show a link between the Kremlin and
members of Trump's campaign.
The BBC's Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an
unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation that supposedly indicated that the
Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign. Even Brennan's equally bald-headed Obama administration soul
mate, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, discounted the report saying "we could not corroborate the
sourcing." That should have put an end to the whole thing.
Brennan didn't think so and despite having no corroboration for the Estonian intel he attached the information
to an official report to President Obama. He also included these unverified allegations in a briefing he gave to
Hill Democrats known as the "Gang of Eight," practically guaranteeing that it would be leaked.
Of course, it was.
Brennan also showed incredible disrespect for DonaldTrump during the first weeks of Trump's presidency. The
Washington Times
reported that
"[m]
embers of President
Trump
'
s
inner circle charged Sunday that former
CIA
director
John
O. Brennan
is trying to undermine the relationship between the new administration and the
intelligence community on his way out the door."
When
President Trump officially visited the CIA headquarters for the first time to support and bridge any gap
with the intelligence community, Trump blamed it on "dishonest" media reporting. Brennan used the opportunity to
take a swipe at Trump:
"Former
CIA
director
Brennan
is
deeply saddened and angered at
Donald
Trump
's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of the
CIA
's
Memorial Wall of Agency heroes,"
said
Brennan
's former deputy chief of staff, Nick Shapiro.
President Trump tweeted an immediate rebuttal: "
Brennan
says
that
Trump
should
be ashamed of himself Is this the leaker of Fake News?" Then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus added, "I
think that Brennan has a lot of things that he should answer for with regard to these leaked documents I think
perhaps he's bitter." There can be no doubt that John Brennan is, at minimum, a very shady and malevolent
character.
But, even worse, as recent revelations are beginning to prove, Brennan is a criminally-manipulative partisan
sycophant who abused nearly every power of his position as director of perhaps the most powerful, and
historically-lawless, agencies of the federal government in service to a seditious conspiracy intent on
illicitly-securing the election of his preferred candidate for President of the United States by
fraudulently-framing her opponent with perhaps the most grave offenses that can possibly be levied against any
person seeking public office at any level in this country.
When Brennan's and his co-conspirators' plot to smear and defeat his political matron's opponent failed
spectacularly in the greatest upset in American political history, a now-embittered and politically-unrestrained,
if not unhinged, Brennan maliciously set about poisoning the well and salting the fields to undermine the incoming
president and his administration. He did this by systematically and purposefully disseminating the defamatory
contents of the sleazy, Clinton-purchased "dirty dossier" to official Washington and numerous sympathetic media
mouthpieces during the transition period and beyond, ensuring their continued proliferation, compounding the
damage Brennan hoped and expected would result from his calculated treachery.
Brennan was even so brazen as to attach the dossier's contents to an official daily intelligence briefing
provided to the outgoing president just weeks before the inauguration of the president-elect. He also persisted in
pressing Congressional leaders to launch expansive, disruptive investigations targeting the president and his
team.
Being highly-practiced in the art of diabolical backstabbing, Brennan knew full well that the murky, outlandish
nature and wide-ranging subject matter of the fake dossier's contents would only serve to complicate, prolong and
ultimately thwart the orderly expeditious resolution of any good faith investigative effort undertaken by any
official body, especially those impacted by the cumbersome demands of dealing with classified materials. (See e.g.
the "FISA memo" saga.) That his deceitful, underhanded scheme would falsely divert public resources and distract
official efforts and public attention, costing hundreds of thousands of lost manhours and tens of millions of
dollars, fruitlessly chasing down a sordid fraud, is not just of no consequence to Brennan,
it is what he
intended.
To this day, the dossier's contents remain almost entirely-unverified for the simple reason that falsehoods and
fabrications are incapable of ever being verified, at least by any standard that would be the minimum applied by
any law enforcement or intelligence agency, or at least one not tainted by the criminal corruption of a lawless
agency head.
Perhaps the most vile aspect of Brennan's ruthless political jihad against our democracy, seeking to undermine
a quadrennial national election by which we choose our president, lies in his motives.
He did not run around splattering our national political life with gutter-grade filth and Clinton-grade lies in
service to some higher purpose or noble patriotic impulse. Not in the slightest. Just like his petty, vain,
manipulative Obama administration crony, the worse-than-a-woman-scorned James Comey, this degenerate megalomaniac
Brennan did it all, first out of borderline-psychotic desperation to preserve his power and position atop
America's near-omnipotent intelligence infrastructure.
Brennan fully-expected, and was valid in his expectation, that Hillary Clinton would have retained him as CIA
Director, had she been elected president. Having failed to achieve this first and only motivation for his
miserable existence, Brennan then persisted, in the second place, out of seething, now-undeniably-psychotic
bitterness over his now-ended career, matched only by his almost-satanic lust to wreak destructive vengeance on
the man, and the movement, that denied him the power he has so unequivocally and despicably demonstrated that he
believes to be his divine right.
John Brennan is an evil, repugnant criminal on par with our nation's most righteously-reviled villains and
monsters. If there is any justice in this land, he will spend the rest of his grotesque blighted existence locked
in a windowless concrete cage somewhere halfway to the center of the earth.
(By Roger Stone) The extraordinary effort by leakers inside US Intelligence Agencies to
create a false narrative accusing Donald Trump and his associates of colluding with the Russian
State has been orchestrated by former CIA Chief Brennan. Brennan even took the incredible step
of putting out a statement denying he is the leaker, a move so ham- handed it virtually
guarantees he is the ring-leader. Who is this man and how did he come to serve both Bush and
Obama and thus the Deep State.
John Brennan, CIA chief during the Obama-administration starting in 2013 until 2017.
Previously he held the position of Homeland Security Advisor from 2009- 2013. This is a man who
has subverted justice and is responsible for planting the seeds of the Russian collusion story
designed to undermine the administration of Donald Trump. Well for starters he was a supporter
of Hillary Clinton and wanted to retain his position as CIA director under her administration,
Brennan despised Trump for his "Muslim ban."
Brennan himself is almost certainly a believed to be a Muslim convert. Two former CIA
employees stationed at the CIA Station in Riyadh told the Stone Cold Truth that their suspicion
Brennan had converted to Wahhabism, the most radical form of Islam had been confirmed by things
they both saw and heard. Former CIA field operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was "known
as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before
the election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says." (1)
http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/how-team-obama-tried-to-hack-the-election/
The origins of the Trump -Russia collision started when John Brennan used phony and
uncorroborated intel provided by Estonian spies to British, intel purporting to show a link
between the Kremlin and members of Trump's campaign. (2) April 19, 2017, 12:04 am THE AMERICAN
SPECTATOR https://spectator.org/confirmed-john-brennan-colluded-with-foreign-spies-to-defeat-trump/
The BBC's Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State
had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was
funneling cash into the Trump campaign. Obama's intel czar James Clapper discounted the report
testifying that "we could not corroborate the sourcing." That should have put an end to the
whole thing. Brennan didn't think so and despite having no corroboration for the Estonian
intel, Brennan attached the report to an official report to President Obama. He also included
the unverified allegations in a briefing he gave to Hill Democrats known as the "Gang of Eight"
practically guaranteeing that it would be leaked, which it was.
According to National Review, the Russian collusion scandal is manufactured. "Throughout our
consideration of the "collusion with Russia" narrative, we have taken pains to stress that the
probe is a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. It is a salient
distinction for two reasons. First, the subject of the investigation is the foreign power (in
this case, Russia), not those Americans whom the foreign power may seek to trick, co-opt, or
recruit. If those Americans were suspected of criminal wrongdoing, they would be made the
subject of a criminal investigation; counterintelligence investigations are not conducted for
the purpose of building prosecutable court cases. Second, counterintelligence investigations
are classified. The presumption is that the information they uncover will never see the light
of day.
There are several good reasons for this. The one of most relevance here is to prevent the
smearing of Americans. Purely for political gain, officials of the prior administration and
Democrats on Capitol Hill are publicizing an investigation that should never be public. It may
be called a "counterintelligence investigation," but the objective is to undermine Trump, not
Russia. In a criminal investigation, agents and prosecutors fully expect that their work will
eventually become public when arrests are made. Yet even in a criminal investigation,
government officials are not supposed to speak publicly about suspicions or uncharged conduct.
Due process dictates that they withhold comment unless and until they file a formal charge in
court. It is a grave ethical breach to smear a person who is presumed innocent and whom the FBI
and Justice Department lack sufficient evidence to charge with a crime." (3) by Andrew C.
McCarthy May 24, 2017, 1:04 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY NATIONAL REVIEW
Brennan answered questions posed by members of the House Intelligence Committee this past
recently and by his answers, he clearly showed a disconnect with his reasoning in the Trump
collision matters. When Rep. Trey Gowdy asked whether he saw any evidence that Trump officials
colluded with the Kremlin, Brennan said: "I don't know." "I don't know whether such collusion
existed." Yet in the same response, Brennan said that there was a sufficient basis of
information and intelligence that required further investigation by the Bureau (FBI) to
determine whether or not US persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian
officials."(4) http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/how-team-obama-tried-to-hack-the-election/
Brennan refused sworn into office on a Bible, as the tradition goes in America, but on an
original draft of the Constitution sans the Bill of Rights. He was swearing to uphold the
Constitution not on a complete copy, but on one that omitted the documents that most clearly
limit State powers, such as the First Amendment and Second Amendment, which prohibit the
federal government from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion
and the individual freedom to bear arms. This is also an act intended to appease his Muslim
brothers.
In his 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin, Brennan denied the
existence of "absolute human rights" and argued in favor of censorship on the part of the
Egyptian dictatorship. "Since the press can play such an influential role in determining the
perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government censorship.
Inflammatory articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in
developing political systems."
Not surprising with that background, an obscure November 2012 Wikileaks email dump points
to Brennan as the person behind the "witch hunt" of journalists who reported unflattering
Obama administration leaks.
In his confirmation hearing to become CIA director, Brennan refused to answer direct
questions by Sen. Rand Paul about the Obama administration's use of lethal drone attacks on
U.S. citizens on U.S. territory. He would only say the U.S. "has not carried out such
attacks" and "has no intentions of doing so." The Obama administration did, however, conduct
such attacks on U.S. citizens abroad.
In November he warned Donald Trump that scrapping the nuclear deal with Iran would be
"the height of folly" and "disastrous." Brennan also started claiming the Russians would hack
the election at almost the same time as Clinton Campaign Chief John Podesta coined the phony
storyline to distract from his own extensive and lucrative dealings with the circle around
Putin not to mention then pay-day realized by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Brennan admitted in 2016 to support the Communist Party presidential candidate – a
hard line, unrepentant Stalinist named Gus Hall – in the 1976 presidential election.
Neither was Brennan penitent about casting that vote. Brennan even chortled at his good luck
after no Senator in his confirmation hearings to be Director of Central Intelligence asked
him directly if he had been a member of the US Communist Party at that time, Brennan has long
been cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite evidence presented (and later upheld) in
federal court during the landmark 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, which established the
Islamic Society of North America as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and financial supporter
of the terrorist organization Hamas, Brennan has continued to meet with ISNA officials and
participate in ISNA events. At ISNA's annual conference in 2009, for example, Brennan
delivered the keynote address.
It gets worse. One of the FBI's former top experts on Islam says Brennan converted to
Islam years ago in Saudi Arabia. FBI veteran John Guandolo says Brennan remains a closeted
Muslim, having been recruited by the Saudis as part of a counter-intelligence operation.
In a speech delivered Aug. 9, 2009, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies
that is archived on the White House website, Brennan said using "a legitimate term, 'jihad'
– meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" – to
describe terrorists "risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with
Islam itself."
In 2010, when Brennan was serving as Obama's Homeland Security chief, He said that having
20 percent of terrorists released by the U.S. return to terrorist attacks "isn't that bad,"
since the recidivism rate for inmates in the U.S. prison system is higher."The statement
prompted Sen. John McCain to assert Brennan had "lost touch with reality."
Brennan clearly has had his own agenda for minimizing Muslim extremist activities as well as
his personal vendetta against Trump. He's a reborn Muslim and possible Saudi plant in addition
to being a liar. In March of 2014, he told Associated Press that the CIA was not involved in
hacking Senate computers. But by July 2014 he publicly apologized to the Senate Intelligence
Committee leaders for CIA hacking into Senate computers. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton
said "It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into
the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation," he said. "We just don't
know.
Back in 2010, Brennan was being called upon to resign. After Brennan addressed a New York
University Assembly, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for Brennan's departure. Graham told
Fox News that Brennan had "lost my confidence." Then Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., added his
perspective. "I strongly believe that John Brennan ought to resign immediately or be fired
because of his incompetence and inability to do his job," he told Fox. "Any homeland security
adviser who can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a shoplifter doesn't belong in
office." Then McCain, the Republican from Arizona, joined in. "When you impugn people's
patriotism and integrity and make statements that compare people going back into the fight in
Afghanistan or Yemen or other places with criminals who go back to a life of crime in the
United States, you've lost touch with reality," he said. (5) http://www.wnd.com/2010/02/12528
Brennan showed incredible disrespect for Trump during the first weeks of his presidency. As
reported by The Washington Times "Members of President Trump's inner circle charged Sunday that
former CIA director John O. Brennan is trying to undermine the relationship between the new
administration and the intelligence community on his way out the door."
Mr. Trump made his first official visit to the CIA on Saturday in order to show his support
for and clear the air with the intelligence community, following a series of damaging leaks
during the presidential transition period. He said reports of a feud between his campaign and
the intelligence services were the product of "dishonest" media reporting. "I love you, I
respect you, there's nobody I respect more," Mr. Trump told several hundred cheering workers
who came in the Langley complex on a Saturday. "We're going to start winning again, and you're
going to be leading the charge."
"Former CIA Director Brennan is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump's despicable
display of self-aggrandizement in front of the CIA's Memorial Wall of Agency heroes," Nick
Shapiro, Mr. Brennan's former deputy chief of staff, said in a statement. "Brennan says that
Trump should be ashamed of himself."
"Is this the leaker of Fake News?" Trump tweeted. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus
reinforced those suspicions on Sunday. "I think that Brennan has a lot of things that he should
answer for with regard to these leaked documents," Mr. Priebus said. "I think perhaps he's
bitter."(6)
Russian active measures hope to topple democracies through the pursuit of five complementary
objectives: One, undermine citizen confidence in democratic governance; two, foment, exacerbate
divisive political fissures; three, erode trust between citizens and elected officials and
their institutions; four, popularize Russian policy agendas within foreign populations; and
five, create general distrust or confusion over information sources by blurring the lines
between fact and fiction -- a very pertinent issue today in our country. John Brennan has
enabled at least four of these objectives
John Brennan should be charged with treason. Why hasn't Attorney General Jeff Sessions
convened a grand jury?
"DOJ statement and indictments reveal the extent and motivations of Russian interference in 2016
election. Claims of a "hoax" in tatters. My take: Implausible that Russian actions did not influence the
views and votes of at least some Americans."
– February 16, 2018 Tweet by Embittered Obama Spy Chief John O. Brennan
There can be no doubt that panic is rapidly setting in amongst the principal players of the neo-leftist
Obama-Clinton-Democrat crime cabal that has largely been consigned to watching impotently from the sidelines
as the central pillar of their plot to frame and take down President Donald J. Trump -- the Trump-Russia
collusion hoax – has now begun to crash down on top of them.
At the heart of this Obama-Clinton-Democrat FBI-DOJ-CIA-FISA Court cabal is the originator of the
Trump-Russia collusion hoax himself, the deepest deep state denizen of the bunch, former CIA Director John
O. Brennan.
As our country's Russian Collusion Hoaxmaster General John Brennan has good reason to be worried.
Best known for indulging Obama's most evil compulsions as Obama's 2nd-term CIA chief, Brennan was just
freshly-minted as an NBC "News" shill (shocking) under the title "senior national security and intelligence
analyst."
It is obvious to anyone near Brennan that he is now bitter, acrimonious, hellbent on malicious
retribution and likely the Obama-Clinton coup plotter with the most to fear should President Trump, and a
newly-inspired, freshly-fumigated DOJ actually perform its constitutional duty and prosecute these
manipulative Obama-Clinton gangsters.
Thanks to the unflappable courage of the House Intelligence Committee Chairman and astute, stalwart
truth-seeker Devin Nunes, John Brennan's legal jeopardy is real and the most immediate of all the
Obama-Clinton sedition mechanics.
Investigative journalist Paul Sperry
broke
the news last week
that Nunes is initiating an investigation into Brennan's central and leading role in
promoting and leaking the "dirty dossier" in a manic effort to smear Donald Trump with any and every means
at Brennan's disposal. (Just consider the import of this proposition, given that Brennan was the DIRECTOR OF
THE CIA!).
It is almost certain that Brennan perjured himself before the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017,
at minimum, when he denied knowledge of the origin of the Steele dossier and that it was in any way used in
the intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians were attempting to influence the 2016 election,
specifically via the Trump Campaign.
Brennan testified that: "the information and intelligence revealed contacts and interactions between
Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known
Russian efforts to suborn such individuals.
It raised questions in my mind about whether the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of such
individuals."
When Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Brennan directly about any evidence that Trump officials colluded with the
Kremlin, Brennan said "I don't know" and "I don't know whether such collusion existed."
Yet in the same response, Brennan said that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence
that required further investigation by the FBI to determine whether or not US persons were actively
conspiring or colluding with Russian officials.
Brennan also testified that he had no knowledge of who commissioned the anti-Trump reports, although
senior national security and counterintelligence officials at the DOJ knew in 2016 that the Clinton campaign
had funded them.
It is extremely unlikely that Brennan somehow didn't know of Clinton's role in the fake reports.
It was Brennan, after all, who in April 2016 supplied the reports to Obama and then briefed Hill
Democrats on its existence.
If he didn't know the source of the reports, he's guilty of gross negligence for not verifying the
material.
If he knew the source of the reports he's guilty of disseminating false information.
Either way, Brennan should be held accountable for his role in attempting to undermine the will of the
American voters.
If the Russians had a plan to destabilize and influence our elections then John Brennan was carrying out
that plan to the letter.
In recent months there have been startling revelations that leading members of Mueller's task force
investigating Trump were found to have orchestrated a plan to undermine the Trump presidency using the fake
dossiers.
It's certainly not in dispute that the dossiers were funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and were
approved of by Obama and some of his top staff.
Evidence from their own texts exposed a conspiracy to destroy Trump's credibility, hopefully leading to
his forced resignation.
Initially, the focus of the current investigation was on Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Ben Rhodes.
Thanks to Chairman Nunes, the focus is now going to shift to Obama's murky national security
apparatchiks, with Brennan topping the list of those warranting scrutiny for their outrageous abuses of the
massive powers of our national security-intelligence complex.
Truth is that there is much about John Brennan that warrants investigation.
Brennan, who also served as Obama's Homeland Security Advisor from 2009-2013, before becoming CIA
Director, is believed to be a Muslim convert.
Brennan clearly despised Trump for what duplicitous Democrats characterized as the president's "Muslim
ban."
Former CIA field operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was "known as the greatest sycophant in the
history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election. I find it hard to put any real
credence in anything that the man says."
In an article for World Net Daily, Joseph Farah enumerates Brennan's history of dubious or even outright
anti-American proclivities:
Brennan was not sworn into office on a Bible, as the tradition goes in America, but on an original
draft of the Constitution WITHOUT the Bill of Rights. Clearly, this was a purposeful signal that Brennan
has no regard for the limits on the powers of the state enshrined in these amendments. [Just this past
week, this constitutional quisling called on Congress to ban semi-automatic firearms altogether, a
radical infringement on the right to keep and bear arms that even most Democrats do not support.]
Brennan's 1980 graduate thesis at the University of Texas at Austin denied the existence of "absolute
human rights", arguing in favor of censorship by Egypt's dictatorship. "Since the press can play such an
influential role in determining the perceptions of the masses, I am in favor of some degree of government
censorship. Inflammatory articles can provoke mass opposition and possible violence, especially in
developing political systems."
Brennan hewed to his own thesis when he possessed extraordinary power, as shown in an obscure
November 2012 Wikileaks email dump which pointed to Brennan as the official behind a "witch hunt"
conducted on journalists who reported unflattering Obama administration leaks.
In Brennan's CIA Director confirmation hearing, he refused to answer direct questions by Sen. Rand
Paul about the Obama administration's use of lethal drone attacks on U.S. citizens in U.S. territory.
Brennan coyly responded that the U.S. "has not carried out such attacks" and "has no intentions of doing
so." The Obama administration did, however, conduct such attacks on U.S. citizens abroad.
Consistent with Brennan's sympathies for Islamic terror nations, he warned President-Elect Donald
Trump that scrapping the outrageous Obama-Iran nuclear deal would be "the height of folly" and
"disastrous."
Brennan went out of his way to attack Donald Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, even saying publicly
he would refuse to employ water-boarding in some extreme cases. "I can say that as long as I'm director
of CIA, irrespective of what the president says, I'm not going to be the director of CIA that gives that
order. They'll have to find another director," said the pre-emptively insubordinate Brennan.
In 2016, Brennan admitted that in the 1976 presidential election he actually supported the Communist
Party presidential candidate – a hard line, unrepentant Stalinist named Gus Hall.
Brennan has long been cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite evidence presented (and later upheld)
during the landmark 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial in federal court, which established the Islamic
Society of North America as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and financial supporter of the terrorist
organization Hamas, Brennan has continued to meet with ISNA officials and participate in ISNA events.
Brennan delivered the keynote address to ISNA's annual conference in 2009.
With all of this questionable information about Brennan, it is no surprise that he inspired a lack of
confidence among key national security hawks in Congress, who began calling for Brennan's resignation as far
back as 2010.
After Brennan addressed a New York University assembly in 2010 and defended freeing U.S.-held terror
combatants, saying that it "isn't that bad" that 20 percent of terrorists released by the U.S. return to
terrorist attacks, since the recidivism rate for inmates in the U.S. prison system is higher."
After this, Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News that Brennan had "lost my confidence" and called for
Brennan's resignation.
Similarly, John McCain weighed in, saying that "when you impugn people's patriotism and integrity and
make statements that compare people going back into the fight in Afghanistan or Yemen or other places with
criminals who go back to a life of crime in the United States, you've lost touch with reality."
New York Congressman Peter King said, "I strongly believe that John Brennan ought to resign immediately
or be fired because of his incompetence and inability to do his job any homeland security adviser who can't
tell the difference between a terrorist and a shoplifter doesn't belong in office."
In March 2014 Brennan denied to Associated Press that CIA was involved in hacking U.S. Senate computers.
Barely three months later, Brennan was back, publicly apologizing to the Senate Intelligence Committee
leadership for you guessed it CIA hacking of Senate computers.
This little outrage clearly demonstrated that Brennan is both a manipulator and a liar, who has
absolutely no respect for the notion of oversight by elected representatives, or for the sanctity of our
1st branch of government as representatives of the people.
The origins of the Trump – Russia collusion started when John Brennan used phony and uncorroborated intel
provided by Estonian spies to British intelligence assets purporting to show a link between the Kremlin and
members of Trump's campaign.
The BBC's Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped
Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation that supposedly indicated that the Kremlin was funneling cash
into the Trump campaign.
Even Brennan's equally bald-headed Obama administration soul mate, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, discounted the report saying "we could not corroborate the sourcing." That should have put
an end to the whole thing.
Brennan didn't think so and despite having no corroboration for the Estonian intel he attached the
information to an official report to President Obama.
Brennan also included these unverified allegations in a briefing he gave to Hill Democrats known as the
"Gang of Eight," practically guaranteeing that it would be leaked.
Of course, it was.
Brennan also showed incredible disrespect for DonaldTrump during the first weeks of Trump's presidency.
The Washington Times reported that "[m]embers of President
Trump
's
inner circle charged Sunday that former
CIA
director
John
O. Brennan
is trying to undermine the relationship between the new administration and the intelligence
community on his way out the door."
When
President Trump officially visited the CIA headquarters for the first time to support and bridge
any gap with the intelligence community, Trump blamed it on "dishonest" media reporting.
Brennan used the opportunity to take a swipe at Trump.
"Former
CIA
director
Brennan
is
deeply saddened and angered at
Donald
Trump
's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of the
CIA
's
Memorial Wall of Agency heroes,"
said
Brennan
's former deputy chief of staff, Nick Shapiro.
President Trump tweeted an immediate rebuttal: "
Brennan
says
that
Trump
should
be ashamed of himself Is this the leaker of Fake News?"
Then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus added, "I think that Brennan has a lot of things that he
should answer for with regard to these leaked documents I think perhaps he's bitter."
There can be no doubt that John Brennan is, at minimum, a very shady and malevolent character.
But, even worse, as recent revelations are beginning to prove, Brennan is a criminally-manipulative
partisan sycophant who abused nearly every power of his position as director of perhaps the most powerful,
and historically-lawless, agencies of the federal government in service to a seditious conspiracy intent on
illicitly-securing the election of his preferred candidate for President of the United States by
fraudulently-framing her opponent with perhaps the most grave offenses that can possibly be levied against
any person seeking public office at any level in this country.
When Brennan's and his co-conspirators' plot to smear and defeat his political matron's opponent failed
spectacularly in the greatest upset in American political history, a now-embittered and
politically-unrestrained, if not unhinged, Brennan maliciously set about poisoning the well and salting the
fields to undermine the incoming president and his administration.
Brennan did this by systematically and purposefully disseminating the defamatory contents of the sleazy,
Clinton-purchased "dirty dossier" to official Washington and numerous sympathetic media mouthpieces during
the transition period and beyond, ensuring their continued proliferation, compounding the damage Brennan
hoped and expected would result from his calculated treachery.
Brennan was even so brazen as to attach the dossier's contents to an official daily intelligence briefing
provided to the outgoing president just weeks before the inauguration of the president-elect.
He also persisted in pressing Congressional leaders to launch expansive, disruptive investigations
targeting the president and his team.
Being highly-practiced in the art of diabolical backstabbing, Brennan knew full well that the murky,
outlandish nature and wide-ranging subject matter of the fake dossier's contents would only serve to
complicate, prolong and ultimately thwart the orderly expeditious resolution of any good faith investigative
effort undertaken by any official body, especially those impacted by the cumbersome demands of dealing with
classified materials. (See e.g. the "FISA memo" saga.)
That his deceitful, underhanded scheme would falsely divert public resources and distract official
efforts and public attention, costing hundreds of thousands of lost manhours and tens of millions of
dollars, fruitlessly chasing down a sordid fraud, is not just of no consequence to Brennan, it is what he
intended.
To this day, the dossier's contents remain almost entirely-unverified for the simple reason that
falsehoods and fabrications are incapable of ever being verified, at least by any standard that would be the
minimum applied by any law enforcement or intelligence agency, or at least one not tainted by the criminal
corruption of a lawless agency head.
Perhaps the most vile aspect of Brennan's ruthless political jihad against our democracy, seeking to
undermine a quadrennial national election by which we choose our president, lies in his motives.
Brennan did not run around splattering our national political life with gutter-grade filth and
Clinton-grade lies in service to some higher purpose or noble patriotic impulse. Not in the slightest.
Just like his petty, vain, manipulative Obama administration crony, the worse-than-a-woman-scorned James
Comey, this degenerate megalomaniac Brennan did it all, first out of borderline-psychotic desperation to
preserve his power and position atop America's near-omnipotent intelligence infrastructure.
Brennan fully-expected, and was valid in his expectation, that Hillary Clinton would have retained him as
CIA Director, had she been elected president.
Having failed to achieve this first and only motivation for his miserable existence, Brennan then
persisted, in the second place, out of seething, now-undeniably-psychotic bitterness over his now-ended
career, matched only by his almost-satanic lust to wreak destructive vengeance on the man, and the movement,
that denied him the power he has so unequivocally and despicably demonstrated that he believes to be his
divine right.
John Brennan is an evil, repugnant criminal on par with our nation's most righteously-reviled villains
and monsters.
If there is any justice in this land, John Brennan will spend the rest of his grotesque blighted
existence locked in a windowless concrete cage somewhere halfway to the center of the earth.
Raconteur, bon vivant, boulevardier – Roger Stone is a seasoned political operative,
speaker, pundit, and New York Times Bestselling Author featured in the Netflix documentary "Get me Roger
Stone". A veteran of ten national presidential campaigns, he served as a senior campaign aide to three
Republican presidents: Nixon, Reagan and, to his regret, Bush. An outspoken libertarian, he is the author
of the New York Times bestseller "The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ", the Clinton's War on
Women, The Bush Crime Family, and the Making of the President 2016- How Donald Trump Orchestrated a
Revolution. Mr. Stone has written for Fox Opinion, Infowars, Breitbart News, StoneZone, the Daily Caller,
and the New York Times. A well-known voice in politics for over forty years, Roger Stone often gives
insights on behind-the-scenes political agendas at
StoneColdTruth.com
, as well as
InfoWars.com
, where he hosts an hour long
show every Wednesday at 3 pm ET. Follow him at
StoneColdTruth.com
.
Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for
materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.
In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum
tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich
uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum
tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the
intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.
The infamous aluminum tubes Iraq sought to buy from Italy were for short range rockets, not
for uranium enrichment centrifuges as the Bush administration claimed. That was a fact well
known to several U.S. agencies like the Energy and State Departments. But the claim, first
propagandized by the NY Times, was repeated by then President Bush in a speech to the UN and
became a
main basis for the war on Iraq. The Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) Washington Bureau, but
not the NY Times, reported
about the many doubts experts had about such Weapon of Mass Destruction claims.
North Korea has been shipping supplies to the Syrian government that could be used in the
production of chemical weapons, United Nations experts contend.
...
The supplies from North Korea include acid-resistant tiles, valves and thermometers,
according to a report by United Nations investigators .
...
The possible chemical weapons components were part of at least 40 previously unreported
shipments by North Korea to Syria between 2012 and 2017 of prohibited ballistic missile parts
and materials that could be used for both military and civilian purposes , according to the
report, which has not been publicly released but which was reviewed by The New York Times.
The valves, thermometers and acid resistance tiles Syria may have sought to acquire could be
used for medical facilities, the production of candy or for dozens of other civilian purposes.
They could be used to produce something for the military with chemical weapons probably being
the most unlikely.
But like the discredited aluminum tube story, the current NYT piece, written by its UN
reporter Michael Schwirtz, obfuscates the doubts about WMD connections of the issue. It makes
false claims and is full of war-mongering assertions by hawkish figures. It is a scare story
constructed to vilify various opponents to U.S. hegemony on meager factual grounds.
The reporter does not understand the issue he writes about. The "possible chemical weapons
components" are not such. Chemical weapons obviously do not contain valves,
thermometers or acid resistance tiles. To increase the "be afraid" effect of his piece the
author mentions an alleged 2007 accident "in which several Syrian technicians, along with North
Korean and Iranian advisers, were killed in the explosion of a warhead filled with sarin gas
and the extremely toxic nerve agent VX." No weapon designer ever thought of "a warhead" that
was filled with both - Sarin and VX. That would be lunacy and reports thereof are obviously
bogus.
The "United Nations investigators" are a bunch of spooks selected by individual Security
Council members who collect claims of North Korean breaches of sanctions. The group was set up
in 2006 under the UN Security Council resolution 1718 as a "Committee of the Security Council
consisting of all the members of the Council". The Committee is not part of the UN bureaucracy
and they are not "UN experts" or "UN investigators". The reports of the committee list various
claims made by single UN member countries without judging their veracity.
[The report] said, a visit by a technical delegation from North Korea in August 2016
"involved the transfer to Syria of special resistance valves and thermometers known for use
in chemical weapons programmes".
That information came from another member state , which also reported that North Korean
technicians "continue to operate at chemical weapons and missile facilities at Barzeh, Adra
and Hama", the report said.
The valve and thermometer point in the Committee report are based on the claims of one
country alone. But the NY Times lists those claims as "the [UN] report says" giving them a
false aura of neutrality. That one country also claims that Syria still has chemical weapons
facility. In 2013 the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) verified (pdf)
that all Syrian production facilities for chemical weapons and under control of the government
were rendered unusable or destroyed. The OPCW can request to inspect additional facilities it
deems suspicious. It has not done so. The AP, but not the New York Times, notes that the Syrian
government officially denied that any North Korean technicians are working there.
The New York Times discredited itself over its support for the false Bush administration
claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It later issued a lame mea culpa and fired
one reporter while the responsible editors and managers stayed on.
The paper has obviously not changed. It is again creating false pretexts for wars by
publishing unobjective, one sided and intended-to-scare pieces about alleged weapons of mass
destruction.
Posted by b on February 28, 2018 at 08:36 AM |
Permalink
It's amazing that these diplomats could get copies of key documents.
NYTimes -- The report, which is more than 200 pages long, includes copies of contracts
between North Korean and Syrian companies as well as bills of lading indicating the types
of materials shipped. Much information was provided by unidentified United Nations member
states.
But hey, why release the details when the US propaganda public diplomacy
mill is working.
The UN declined to comment on the report, which was written by a panel of eight experts
tasked with checking North Korea's compliance with sanctions. It may never be publicly
released, but a spokesperson stressed that the "overarching message is that all member
states have a duty and responsibility to abide by the sanctions that are in place."
"The valves, thermometers and acid resistance tiles Syria may have sought to acquire could be
used for medical facilities, the production of candy or for dozens of other civilian
purposes. They could be used to produce something for the military with chemical weapons
probably being the most unlikely"
Funny how their is no mention of the simple fact that most 'western' homes have numerous
devices which could be identified as 'suspect' if TPTB needed an excuse. Where I'm from there
is a big push for households to obtain pressure cookers, as 'a roast from frozen in two
hours' fit's a hyper active stressful cancer causing lifestyle and eating out is becoming
prohibitively expensive even for those of us on the west side of town.
How many households
have old cell phones? Got a pool/hot tub? Bromine/chlorine anyone? Like to garden, oops might
be some NPK fertilizers around. Like to hunt? Gunpowder, I wont even go into the over the
counter kinetic explosives that are the target shooter rage ATM. Got kids' then you probably
have electronic kits and RC vehicles, likely in doubles.
Western society bows to authority regardless how illegitimate it shows itself to be. How
else can you explain a belief that fires at the top of three buildings caused them to free
fall into their own footprints against the laws of gravity taught in grade school and still
practiced and verified daily in universities and regular life.
You quoted: "Much information was provided by unidentified United Nations member
states" The NYT has given everyone on this planet permission to identify themselves as from a UN
member state. This post came to you courtesy of a UN Member state.
All these lies based and hidden under the auspices of a UN Panel of Experts which
consists of 8 members: P5 + Japan , South Korea and South Africa , sitting on their a---s @
Turtle Bay.
Did they visit Syria or North Korea or any port to check on those shipments ?
This "report" coincides with US charges on chemical use in Ghouta.
Diplomatic sources have said the chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, opened an investigation into attacks in eastern Ghouta to
determine whether banned munitions were used. U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood said
on Wednesday that Russia has violated its duty to guarantee the destruction of Syria's
chemical weapons stockpile and prevent the Assad government from using poison gas. . .
here
"Russia has..." -- In a larger sense this is part of an updated US diplomatic offensive
against Russia. From recent testimony of General Votel, CENTCOM Commander:
>On the diplomatic front, Moscow is playing the role of arsonist and
firefighter–fueling the conflict in Syria between the Syrian Regime, YPG, and Turkey,
then claiming to serve as an arbiter to resolve the dispute. Moscow continues to advocate
for alternate diplomatic initiatives to Western-led political negotiations in Syria and
Afghan-led peace processes in Afghanistan, attempting to thwart the UN's role and limit the
advance of American influence.
> Russia is also trying to cultivate multi-dimensional ties to Iran. Though historic
rivals, Moscow and Tehran share interests across the region, including an overarching
desire to sideline, if not expel, the U.S. from the region.
> Russia also maintains significant influence in Central Asia,where the countries of the
former-Soviet Union rely on Russia to varying degrees for their economic and security
needs. This is problematic as Russia's efforts could limit U.S. engagement options and
provide Moscow additional levers of influence, particularly as NATO forces deployed in
Afghanistan are dependent on Central Asian partners for logistical support. . .
here
Meanwhile, the sanctions on North Korea shipping are a joke. More than 50 ships and shipping
companies were cited by the Treasury Department for evading existing U.S. and international
sanctions. While most of those named were based in North Korea, companies and ships from
China, Singapore, Taiwan, Panama, Tanzania, the Marshall Islands and the Comoros were also
included.
Bloomberg reports on the "name game":
The Jin Teng, sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2016, became the Shen Da 8 and then the Hang
Yu 1 last November, according to Kharon, a Los Angeles-based firm that identifies sanctions
risks for banks and companies. The Jin Tai 7, also sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2016,
changed its name to Sheng Da 6 two months later and then to Bothwin 7 last November, Kharon
said. That was before a new round of UN sanctions was agreed on in December. Both ships
remain on the U.S.'s sanctions list despite the name changes.The Bothwin 7 visited the port
of Lianyungang, China, in January, the same month that the Hang Yu 1 stopped at the Port of
Ningbo-Zhoushan, also in China. Both ships, once part of a fleet owned by Ocean Maritime
Management Co., based in Pyongyang and sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department and the
UN, changed their names to evade detection, according to Kharon, whose researchers drill
down into company releases as well as court and corporate filings to establish links
between front companies and sanctioned entities.
"Sanctions against North Korea are largely symbolic gestures of disapproval that do not
demonstrate any capability to change the political behavior of the Kims," said Robert
Huish, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, who has been
monitoring the country's shipping traffic. . .
here
And we have the recent striking news that the Pentagon doesn't believe Syria used Sarin
last year.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis made it very clear recently that "aid groups and
others" had provided the U.S. with evidence that was insufficient to conclude that
President Bashar Assad had recently used the chemical weapon Sarin against Syrian
civilians . In other words, the Pentagon does not believe what has been presented to
it as evidence, chiefly because of the dubious provenance of the providers. . .
here
Remember that almost a year ago a UN commission concluded that the Syrian government
was responsible for a widely discussed incident in Khan Sheikhoun. An alleged gas attack by
air happened in April in an al-Qaeda controlled area in Syria. It was used by the White
House to justify its bombing of a Syrian airbase.
The Guardian link has one of the most comical requests that the U.N. tends to make on the
accused in the vein of 'prove you are not a witch' ...
"The UN experts added that they had not yet received a reply with documents supporting
this claim and a list of all North Koreans who had travelled to Syria."
Syria, 'there were no Korean technicians, military, or official visits'.
U.N. - 'Prove it, give us a list of the Koreans'
The Syrians should give the U.N. an empty list.
They did this to Syria before when they were accused of a WMD bombing of civilians. The
Syrians said that they didn't have any military flights that day, 'give us a list of
flights, what, no list? GUILTY!'
thanks b... i think what you are doing here, if i could be so bold, is that you are tearing
apart of merits of this reporter michael schwirtz's talking points... this is very
important to do, as no one is doing it! in looking at what the dolt has written for the nyt
the past few months, it becomes very clear the agenda is to carry water for the neo con
crowd, facts be dammed... this is his job... he does need to be taken to the woodshed and
given a beating! and why is it these ambiguous types are always given clearance in such
papers as the nyt, wapo or wsj? it would be hard not to conclude the folks who own these
papers are very intent on doing the same - carrying water for the military and financial
industry in a move towards war, or a desire for war..
your story is not going to get the coverage the nyt story gets... how do we change
that?
@don bacon - reading the usa daily press propaganda briefings is always informative...
why it was just yesterday that the quote you gave from today, was served up yesterday
thanks heather nauert.. this from yesterday "MS NAUERT: Russia signed on to this. That's
first of all. Russia signed on to this as an entity that agreed to this UN Security Council
resolution. Let me remind you also that Russia had agreed to help, years ago, Syria with
getting rid of its chemical weapons. Russia has failed to do that. I want to point that out
as well." who needs facts, when you can lie, make shit up and etc. etc.?? https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278913.htm
@1 librel.. i agree with you - change the word, again to still... the nyt is 'still'
shilling for the war machine...
Is it some surprise that US sanctioned countries trade with other US sanctioned countries
(for benign, commercial reasons)? It apparently is to some.
(Warning: sweeping statement alert...) This GLOBAL US sanctions regime only hastens the
formation of a non-US/alternative commercial trade collective, the end of the dollar as
"world trade currency," and the subsequent end of the US ability to fund global war (as US
T-Bill interest rates jack up - currently at ZERO - correspondingly, US sovereign debt
becomes unsupportable by the economy, and the end of economic life as we in the US know
it). Perpetual war, as a function of the end of empire, do have that effect.
The Syrian attempt to end militants in Ghouta has elicited an incredibly strong, and for
me, unexpected response. Why are the NATO/zionist/neocon crowd going crazy over a small
plot of land that was obviously going to be recaptured? Are they concerned that the
inability of the jihadists to shell Damascus will be too beneficial to Assad? Is this just
an attempt by Bibi to save his skin? Maybe the jihadist backers have finally come to
realize that this little game is coming to a close?
@17 alaric - "Reading media reports of the fighting in east Ghouta over the last few days
has triggered an eery sense of déjà vu.
It is like taking a time machine back to the autumn of 2016 and listening to all the
arguments over the fighting in Aleppo all over again." the article is here
Thanks b and also Yul | 6 for shedding light on that matter.
Those "UN experts" are being cited on German state media again and again, with some new
report on this or that, establishing Syria as guilty party. But whenever that happens and I
go on the UN's website to find s.th. on said report, like a press statement, just anything
official, there's nothing to be found. So clearly they're misusing the official 'UN' tag,
and no-one's stopping them.
As for the latest expert ruse, it's eye-opening to have a look at the people from the
document which Yul posted. On the face of it, it might look like a pretty diverse crew, ppl
from all regions of the world with names no-one has ever heard of, so why not trust
them?
It gets bad when you take a closer look. The French boy (born '84) is from law and has
dealt with nothing but law so far, yet poses as an expert on "missile issues and other
technologies". Would you believe it?
This just goes on, the Britisher ("air transport") has a background in political science
(or "science" rather).
Rounding things off, there's this American lady with her no doubt common English name
Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt. If you're confused as to her actual nationality you can at
least be sure that she's a deep-state outgrowth. Council on Foreign Relations, Council of
Europe, council here, council there. Political science by training too, probably's never
done a day's work in her life. But quite the expert on "finance and economics", I hear.
PS: Those tiles, I remember we had tables clad with those in the chemistry labs, back in
high school. So maybe they were justmeant for one of the schools they're rebuilding in
Aleppo, another thought.
These reports (allegations) are part of a psychological war waged by the US and its allies
on Syria et al. There may be a military attack in the works, maybe not, but one thibg's for
sure -- serious allegations like these serve to keep the Syrians and their allies on their
tippy toes, and intended to make them think twice before they make moves contrary to US
interests. So yes the reports are for domestic consumption but also part of a warning to
foreign foes.
@ 19 Scotch
Don't forget who has got the permanent post for the USG of Political Affairs at the UN . A
US citizen- currently Jeffrey Feltman who is leaving soon to be replaced by another ilk - a
woman this time around. Ban Ki-Moon couldn't sneeze w/o the approval of Jeffrey. Looks like
Antonio is in the same boat - guess that's how and why he got elected - another US puppet
as UNSG.
The NYT piece so obviously contradicts itself internally to boil down to a leaked document
without official imprimatur, containing unverified information from unnamed UN member
states, information which may or may not appear sinister, should it ever be confirmed,
depending on one's point of view. That's very thin gruel, and yet the story has been
amplified by other outlets and presented to the public as representing some sort of
established fact. Yes, that is exactly the Iraqi WMD propaganda playbook.
.... Abdulmonam Eassa AFP News February 28, 2018
Syrian civil defence volunteers pray over the body of a victim who died in a building
collapse following reported regime bombardment in Haza, in the besieged Eastern Ghouta
region on February 26, 2018 More In Syria's rebel-held Eastern Ghouta enclave, the bombs
have stopped falling from the sky but the dead are still being raised from the
rubble.
In the town of Hazeh, volunteers from the Syrian Civil Defence known as the "White
Helmets" pull one body from the basement of a collapsed home. And minutes later, a second
one.
"It's carnage down there," says Ali Bakr, a young man looking on with other
residents. "People hide underground to shelter from the strikes but even that doesn't
guarantee you're safe."
Syrian regime forces, backed by Russia's military, intensified their bombardment of
Eastern Ghouta on February 18, carrying out one of the bloodiest assaults of the country's
seven-year war.
More than 600 civilians have been killed in 10 days of air strikes, barrel bombs
dropped from helicopters and rocket fire on the area, which is controlled by Islamist and
jihadist groups....
The „churnalists" live up to their real name. They did the same stunt in 2017 –
even more brazenly rehashing what the press agency „said" (in turn relying on what
anonymous „officials" and reports „said"):
The „sources":
1 a „confidential" (read: secret) report by ANONYMOUS authors (called:
„independent experts" in manipulative press jargon):
„The report by a panel of independent U.N. experts, which was submitted to the
U.N. Security Council earlier this month and seen by Reuters on Monday, gave no details on
WHEN or WHERE the interdictions occurred or WHAT the shipments contained".
(Give me a break )
2 the allegations of 3 UNIDENTIFIED „(UN) member states": 2 „interdicted
shipments " and 1 „HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE" :
(REUTERS) " Two MEMBER STATES interdicted shipments destined for Syria. Another Member
state informed the panel that it HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE that the goods were part of a KOMID
contract with Syria," according to the report.
„KOMID is the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation. It was blacklisted by the
Security Council in 2009 and DESCRIBED AS Pyongyang's key arms dealer and exporter of
equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. In March 2016 the council
also blacklisted two KOMID representatives in Syria."
The consignees were Syrian entities DESIGNATED by the European Union and the United States
as front companies for Syria's Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC), a Syrian
entity identified by the Panel as cooperating with KOMID in previous prohibited item
transfers," the U.N. experts wrote. SSRC has overseen the country's chemical weapons
program since the 1970s."
The latest „reporting" is using the same methods: secret sources, innuendo,
conjecture, confirmation bias, framing, etc.
The report is UNPUBLISHED, the authors („experts on what?) are NOT KNOWN but the
insinuation is that it contains „new evidence" for criminal activities between the
DPRK and Syria (criminal only because of the unwarranted sanctions)
So the „multiplicators" write about what Reuters says is in the report (as if it
were true) although no journalist has tried to verify the claims but when the Syrian
government refutes the allegations they dutifully point out that
„The UN panel said Syrian officials had not responded to a request for documents
that would support this assertion "
BENOIT CAMGUILHEM (F) – missile issues
a French university lecturer in public / administrative law - an expert on missiles?
HUGH GRIFFITHS (UK) - air transport
leads the panel this guy is a dangerous fraud ... infiltrating SIPRI and earlier involved
in the black "human rights" propaganda about Serbia and Kosovo (director of field mission,
medecins du monde (1999-2001)- as "authentic" as the White Helmets...)
(„he worked for governments" (!) and the „Institute for War &
Peace":
„Institute for War & Peace Reporting (or IWPR for short) is an international
media development charity, established in 1991. It runs major programmes in Afghanistan,
the Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, the Philippines, Southeastern Europe, Syria, Uganda
and Southern Africa. (nice choice of countries !)
"IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the power of
professional journalism. IWPR programs provide intensive hands-on training, extensive
reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to build the capacity of local media ."
(haven't we heard this crap before ?)
„Also we are managing a special reporting project on war crimes tribunals" .
„managing" indeed:
Edward Herman's great analysis about the Milosevic trial (Marlise Simons: A Study in
Total Propaganda Service) contains this reference:
Marlise Simons, "Prosecutors SAY Documents Link Milosevic to Genocide," New York Times,
June 20, 2003
„Simons swallowed the Office of the Prosecutor's bait, its revelation of a
document that "MAY PROVE TO BE crucial evidence in support of their case that the former
Yugoslav president is guilty of genocide." (First published on the webpage of the
highly-compromised Institute for War & Peace Reporting..)" Sound familiar?
The Simonses of this world have multiplied like cancer cells and as Herman
remarked:
„Framing and sourcing are closely linked, as the use of a particular source
allows that source to define the issues and to fix the frames of reference, presumably
those acceptable to or preferred by the journalist"
By the way, the IWPR (their "democracy-loving" directors) seem to be very unpopular
in Iraq .. I wonder why:
The newly-appointed Iraq Director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting
(IWPR) has been found dead in suspicious circumstances at an Istanbul airport.
(„hanged herself with shoelaces") The ex-BBC journalist had been returning from a
memorial service in London for the former IWPR Iraq director, Ammar Al Shahbander, who was
killed in a car bomb attack in Baghdad in May.
I hate to admit it, but clearly the AZ Empire is not "finished" with Syria yet. The
division of this ancient society with the storied Euphrates River serving as one border (as
"Promised" in Genesis 15:18) is enforced by thousands of US troops, artillery pieces,
warplanes and at least a dozen US military bases. That gives about 1/3 of Syria's land and
1/2 of its oil to the proposed Kurdistan (with Kurdish people making up 6% of Syria's
population).
I sincerely hope that Syria's allies, Russia and Iran, are themselves sincere in their
commitment to preserve Syria's sovereignty and the integrity of its borders.
Another story came out of this devastated land and people.
Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'
It's been going on since "revolution" began. The first UN report on it was 3 years ago,
but nothing has been done. And of course, it is the Sharia Councils we pay for that set the
terms for trading food for women and girls (and no doubt boys).
Senator Lindsey Graham said Iran is testing President Donald Trump and warned Israel was
preparing to start a war in southern Lebanon over an Iranian-backed Hezbollah rocket
factory.
You write: "the folks who own these papers are very intent on doing the same - carrying
water for the military and financial industry in a move towards war, or a desire for war..
"
Have you considered that the owners of the media also own large parts of the military
industrial complex, as well as controlling interest in the financial institutions?
The media is not a separate fourth estate seeking objectivity, it is a useful tool to
create popular support for policies that go against the interest of the majority. They are
not separate.
Excellent points! I shun most "traditional" media of all types as most are corrupted in
some manner, with some more than others. I'm reminded of the closed door meeting FDR had
with the major media CEOs just prior to 7 Dec and the resulting lock-step they all
displayed afterwards--a lock-step continuing as we breathe.
This is a black propaganda two-fer, casting aspersions upon both Syria and North Korea. Let
us now forget it was the U.S. that enabled sales of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. It
was the U.S. that most likely used Sarin gas during the Vietnam War. And it was the U.S.
that amnestied the worst biological warfare criminals from Japan's Unit 731 complex and
then used their expertise to conduct a large-scale experimental campaign of germ warfare
against both China and North Korea during the Korean War. Regarding the latter, readers are
referred to
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-long-suppressed-korean-war-report-on-u-s-use-of-biological-weapons-released-at-last-20d83f5cee54
Castellio @ 28, James and Karlof1: In the case of Rupert Murdoch, who through News
Corporation owns newspapers, journals, magazines, TV and online news channels, at least one
major film studio (20th Century Fox), publishing company HarperCollins Publishers and other
media outlets, the link between the media and the military industrial complex is between
the two hemispheres of his brain. Murdoch is on the Board of Directors of Genie Energy
(along with ex-US President of Vice Dick Cheney) which owns a company that has a licence
(granted by an Israeli court) to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's Golan
Heights.
How much more incestuous can the media be with the military industrial complex?
Wait while I hunt out the connection between The Guardian newspaper's management and
investment bank NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd ...
What is up here? Apart from the horror of the NYT story, why are so many commenters in this
thread too damn lazy to use the html tags provided. It is 2018 and I find it impossible to
accept that so many are still incapable of posting to a blog.
The only reason I can deduce is that far too many still sit at ancient desktops and don't
comprehend the disaster their laziness causes for those who use tablets & phones.
A new movie "Revolution Man" directed by Syrian director Najdat Aznour. Deals with rebel
propaganda ie. #WhiteHelmets fakery, child soldiers & the role of western media in
demonizing the government.
A new movie "Revolution Man" directed by Syrian director Najdat Aznour. Deals with rebel
propaganda ,#WhiteHelmets fakery, child soldiers & the role of western media in
demonizing the government
Such incestuousness was uncovered during the Merchants of Death Congressional hearings
during the 1930s and helped enact the Neutrality Acts. Prominent US Historians Charles and
Mary Beard were decrying the evils of media consolidation soon after WW1, a message that
only increased in volume as time moved forward. Imagine what we might have if anti-trust
legislation were enforced as rigorously as Taft(!) did 100+ years ago.
"... It has been a long year ever since January 20 th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the incessant daily media focus on the so called "Russiagate" scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton. ..."
It has been a long year ever since January 20 th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments
of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the
incessant daily media focus on the so called "Russiagate" scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin
and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary
Clinton.
The United States and the Russian Federation have a long history of mutual hostility – famously dividing the East and West into
a bipolar world during the Cold War – and the vision of Russia is among many Americans still that of the Soviet
bad guys . The Cold War was not a pleasant time for many
obvious reasons, but in the minds of the American left, the McCarthy era is one that still sticks, and
its apparent return is something
that seems to concern only a minority on the left – including myself. Now for the unacquainted, McCarthyism can be described as "
the vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the period 1950–4. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, though most did not in fact belong to the
Communist Party " ( source ). It was a
clever way used by the US government to frame and condemn all the big left leaning civil rights and social justice movements that
were happening during the Cold War era. Professors, academics, independent media platforms, politicians or activists with left leaning
messages were being labelled as Soviet agents by the US government, discrediting them completely of any legitimacy in the eyes of
the American people through the widespread Red Scare
. What has been happening in the last year can be seen as a mirror of the same mentality, except that " Soviet spy " has today
been replaced by labels such as " Kremlin agent " or " Russian bot ".
It isn't news that what is often referred to as the " American Left" of the Democratic party is in reality nothing more
than a neo-liberal party slightly more to the center/left than the GOP. So in this article, when I am referring to the terminology
"American Left" , and the one subject to the revamped McCarthyism, I am in fact talking about the often anti-establishment,
anti-imperialistic and even sometimes anti-capitalistic left – the one that threatens the current neo-liberal status quo. So as I
elaborate my case, I just want to make it clear that I am referring to the latter.
One of the greater, larger left-wing media presence on US ground is undoubtedly RT America (RT short for Russia Today). Hosting
many US critical segments such as Redacted Tonight
by Lee Camp, On Contact with Chis Hedges and Breaking The Set with Abby Martin, RT America comes
out as a prominent side-narrative to the mainstream medias such as MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and so forth. Yet last year,
RT America has had to register itself as a "foreign agent" , on the basis of a
very weak report by the Director of National Intelligence
. Reasons for this decision as stated in the report claims to be that RT regularly covers surveillance, civil liberties, protest
movements, the environmental impacts of fracking and Wall Street greed. Other more establishment friendly foreign news media on US
soil such as BBC America have not had to register as a foreign agent. So far, only RT. Facebook (known for working closely with the
US government) has even gone as far as marking RT articles shared on its platform
as spam The Intercept
Where the delegitimization of leftist media really strikes is in the realm of "fake news"-stamping and propaganda-flagging.
The Washington Post backed the website project PropOrNot.com which frames in a sort of 'blacklist' news medias that they believe
are Russian Propaganda, with usually no evidence to back up their claims. Many independent news outlets are to be found on their
list, and none of the major media conglomerates (unless they're Russian, of course). In the same vein, Facebook has decided to team
up with established media outlets such as AP and ABC News to find out and
decide what is or is
not "Fake News" .
Apparently, Americans are believed to be too unwise to figure it out for themselves, and if alternate narratives and opinions
are being held, it must be because they have fallen victim of fake news. BBC has even gone as far as taking the
teaching role in spotting "fake news" . The concept
seems to be that social media platforms and mainstream media outlets are to tell the population what is real and what is a lie. The
same outlets that pushed the war in Iraq, Syria, Libya, as well as the current Russiagate narrative. Media outlets that are
ramping up on US intelligence spokesmen for their news
segments, despite the fact that they are
historically known to lie
and deceive the American people . These same people are to tell us what is the truth. It is my belief that one of the only way
such a development has become possible lies in the fact that the Democratic party and its voters have a
newfound love for the FBI, NSA and
CIA, thanks to the Russiagate conspiracy.
During the last year, James Comey and
Robert Mueller have incessantly been praised
by the media as American heroes and patriots saving the American people from the Kremlin puppets that Trump and his administration
are accused to be (with very little evidence so far). It would seem that in this day and age, the Democrats would rather side with
the deep state than with reason. Through programs such as COINTELPRO
and Operation
Mockingbird , the FBI and CIA have spent decades and millions of dollars deceiving and crushing any movement that dared to challenge
the two-party system. For " the resistance " movement to embrace US intelligence agencies and the lies they propagate is an
extremely reckless and dangerous move, and by doing so they are not only consciously trying their best to harm the current administration,
but unconsciously harming the many media outlets, journalists, activists and politicians who hold a different view on the world than
the Washington narrative, and who are now all being flagged as Kremlin agents pushing Russian propaganda.
During the last year we have been told not only that Trump's campaign colluded with the Kremlin, but also that
Bernie Sanders, Green Party leader Jill Stein and even that UK's
Jeremy Corbyn did. So have we been told about whistleblowers
Julian Assange ,
Edward Snowden
and
Chelsea Manning , and many of RT America's journalists who have their shows and articles published on RT America for the sole
reason that RT is one of the only outlets allowing their differing viewpoints on American politics. Many Russiagate sceptics on Twitter
have
r
eceived messages directly from Twitter informing them that they might have fallen victim to Russian propaganda because they had
retweeted or were following certain accounts they deemed to be associated with the Kremlin. From my own personal experience, I cannot
count how many times I have seen Russiagate sceptics being called-out by liberals for being Kremlin agents or Russian bot accounts
– all because of the many, many Russia-Kremlin-Trump stories that have been promulgated over the last year. It has paralyzed a large
portion of the centre-left to not even move an inch more towards the left, and has condemned those who have.
There is a paranoia happening in the US political establishment, remarkably similar to the one experienced during the Cold War
era. It doesn't matter whether the Russia-Collusion story is true or not (let's not forget the United States has itself
meddled in countless foreign elections ever since the end of WWII , even in
Russia in 1996 ), it matters more what this ongoing investigation and grotesque media-hype is doing to the American public –
and by extension to the rest of the world. The
US-Russia relation
is worse today than at the high point of the Cold War , all thanks to this constant Putin bashing and the fact that NATO is slowly
encircling the Russia in Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, the Arctic, the Middle-East and Asia. Despite the West
promising
not to expand NATO an inch Eastwards as part of the German reunification deal, such promises have not been kept. But of course,
most of the general population is fine this politically unwise expansion of NATO, " because you know, Russians are bad " (satire).
If there is a threat to national and global security today, and a threat to free speech and independent media, it is not coming
from Putin or the Kremlin – but rather from the United States. And until the American left gathers itself and stops listening to
the warmongering pundits and establishment journalists parroting the Washington narrative, we have nothing but a bleak future in
front of us with regards to the relation between thte two old nemesis nuclear superpowers.
*
Jonathan Sigrist is a student at the University of Tromsø in Northern Norway, currently studying the geopolitical, environmental,
cultural and economic relations between the Arctic nations (The US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland and
Iceland), as well as the future of the Arctic's role in global politics. He has lived in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and France, and
is a fervent observer and critic of US foreign policy.
Looks like Mueller investigation was a part of color revolution to depose Trump, using
consequentialism slogan widely attributed to
Machiavelli's The Prince "the end justifies
the means".
Mueller witch hunt is a part of neoliberalism counterattack on forces that are against neoliberal globalization, dropping
standard of living of common people and offshoring of manufacturing. That means tiny greedy elite against the majority of the USA
population. We read about such situations in history books, did not we?
Notable quotes:
"... The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year. ..."
"... It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings. ..."
"... What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won? ..."
"... It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided. ..."
"... Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed. ..."
So here's what Mueller has: evidence of unrelated-to-Trump financial crimes by Paul Manafort and others, based mostly from FISA
surveillance on Manafort dating back to
2014
. The FBI's earlier investigation was dropped for lack of evidence, and it appears Mueller revived it now in part so the information
could be repurposed to press Manafort to testify. The role pervasive surveillance has played in setting perjury traps to manufacture
indictments to pressure people to testify against others has been grossly underreported. We'll see more of it, unfortunately, a new
tool of justice in a surveillance state.
Flynn and Papadopoulos are currently charged with relatively minor offenses whose connections to Russiagate are tenuous. Flynn's
contact with the Russian ambassador can be seen as a lot of uncomplimentary things, but it does not appear to have been a crime.
With Papadopoulos there may be a conspiracy charge in there with some shady lawyering, but little more. Further offstage, Carter
Page, a key actor in the
Steele dossier and the
subject of
FISA warrants, has not been charged with anything.
Here's what Mueller is missing. The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government
(not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff
memo reveals
five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's
collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year.
It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence,
no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele
dossier and its salacious
accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings.
What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty
that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won?
But so far the booked charges against Flynn and Papadopoulos and the guilty pleas of others point towards relatively minor sentences
to bargain over -- assuming they have game-changing information to share in the first place. These are process crimes, not ones of
turpitude. Manafort says he'll go to court and defend himself, lips sealed.
It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving
help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn
an election probably a full two years after it was decided.
Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7
to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their
core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed.
A limping-to-the-finish line conclusion to Mueller's work just ahead of the midterms alleging Trump technically obstructed justice,
or a "conspiracy to commit something" charge without a finding of an underlying crime, will risk tearing the nation apart. Mueller
holds a lot in his hands, and he needs soon to produce the conclusive report to Congress he was charged to write. Until then, absent
evidence, skepticism remains a healthy stance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets
@WeMeantWell.
If Kushner was/is involved with such risky staff, why he tried to join Trump administration. It does not requires any IQ
to understand that he will be the target and that knife are out to depose Trump. In view of color revolution against Trump the
best strategy would be to stay in NYC. You need to be squeaky clean to work for him.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons. " ..."
"... Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most expensive building ever purchased", in New York City. ..."
"... After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado ..."
"... While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times . ..."
"... Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal. ..."
"... Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action. ..."
"... Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation ..."
"... Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down. ..."
"... They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. ..."
"... They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump ..."
"... If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present. ..."
"... Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance. ..."
"... Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation! ..."
"... You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on. ..."
"... NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE. ..."
"... I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not nice. ..."
"... It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it. ..."
"... Thank goodness the FBI and Justice have all the Democrat/Clinton crimes solved so they can dispense equal Justice to the Republicans ..."
After losing his
top secret security clearance and reportedly falling under intense scrutiny by Robert Mueller's probe, the New York Department
of Financial Services has asked Deutsche Bank two local lenders for information about their dealings with Jared Kushner, the Kushner
companies and his family , according to
Bloomberg .
Letters were sent by department superintendent Maria Vullo to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank last week,
said a person who had seen the letter which seeks a response by March 5. Vullo was appointed by New York's Democratic governor, Andrew
Cuomo.
The requested information is broad, and include the banks' processes for approving loans.
Vullo requested copies of emails and other communications between the Kushners and the banks related to financing requests
that have been denied or are pending. She also asked whether the banks have conducted any internal reviews of the Kushners and
their companies and the results of any such inquiries revealed.
The most detailed information about the Kushners' finances can be found in their government disclosures. The couple had unsecured
lines of credit of $5 million to $25 million each from Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank according to
a late December filing.
Deutsche Bank's line of credit was extended to Kushner and his mother; lines from the other two banks were extended to Kushner
and his father. Signature Bank also extended a secured line of credit to the couple of $1 million to $5 million, according to
the disclosure. - Bloomberg
A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department
of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO
voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely
for political reasons. "
Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most
expensive building ever purchased", in New York City.
After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner,
the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange
for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado.
While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according
to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of
troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner
and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the
New York Times .
Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought
financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion
apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal.
Kushner in the crosshairs
Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials
from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking
advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current
and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action.
Meanwhile, the presidential son-in-law's security clearance was downgraded from "Top Secret/SCI-level" to "secret" this week,
walling him off from the most sensitive information.
Many had expected that Trump would grant Kushner a waiver, even though Trump himself said Friday that he would let
Chief of Staff
John Kelly decide if such an exception should be granted. In a statement issued last week, Kelly said that any changes to Kushner's
security clearance wouldn't impact his ability to do his job:
"As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio
including overseeing our Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico," Kelly
said in the statement.
At the end of the day, unless Kushner or his company broke the law, it appears that this entire exercise is meant to embarrass
the president's son-in-law over his troubled 666 property.
Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation..... .yeah I know but how in your
face are they going to get... wait dont answer that
Trump, the first US President with two Jewish children
, beholden to the money power
of the US establishment (i.e.,
Jewish
money ) that supported his presidential bid (or
bought the presidency for
him), is making the Israeli dream of stealing Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine a reality; especially since
he owes
Jewish investment banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which can be easily written off the books if certain conditions are met.
"I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," Trump
said .
In one fell swoop, Donald Trump overturned decades of
international
consensus and laws. He also ignored recorded history: Jerusalem was
NEVER the capital of even ancient Israel.
Furthermore, he constantly and nonchalantly overlooks the fact that Israel today is an inhumane,
apartheid
country that uses its carte blanche from the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East. It
oppresses the Palestinians,
treats them like
caged animals , and spreads
chaos in the region regardless of how it affects the peace of the world.
The reason is because the Jews control
the
Federal Reserve , the real center of power in the United States or the
money power of the establishment
(i.e.,
Jewish
money ). In turn, the Fed
wags
every other financial institution in America, and consequently ends up being the
root cause of all
of America's economic ills.
Trump's Jewish Entourage
Not even Trump
, who supposedly wants to "make America great again," dares mention the need to dismantle the Fed. Worse, he drools every
time he talks about
Apartheid
Israel , not unlike every other American politician.
The anti-Christ spirit of
hate
thy neighbor , which revs up the engine of the state of Israel and that of its Prime Minister, seems to fire up Trump's motor
as well with his loathing of
immigrants , especially
of his Mexican neighbors. He and Netanyahu are two peas in a pod – both arrogant, haughty, and supercilious narcissists.
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18
Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down.
They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. All the righteous types just don't get it, they are being
played to heighten the drama and division.. they don't give a shit.
They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is
fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the
reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump.
If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI
is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present.
Remember WACO. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember 911. Remember Lynch. Remember DACA. Remember Obama stealing from Freddie and Fannie.
Remember all the government assistance programs you are paying for, that you are not eligible for because of the color of your
skin, that you had no say in. Nice work, FBI.
Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind
the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance.
Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they
know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation!
How much of the loot from the US taxpayer did Deutche get from the "bailout"? The credibility of their organized bankster cartel
is lower than that of a belarus hooker in jail in Thailand, because they practice fraud professionally. The FBI is an active enemy
of the United States. The masks are coming off.
"The Knives Are Out For Kushner: Loans With Deutsche Under Scrutiny By Regulator"
Will this be the catalyst for Trump to fire Muler's sorry-ass or does he just become more defensive every day about taking
action and hope the issue will just sort itself out?
I too would continue unabated like a crazy man until stopped, if I were Muler.
Kushner wants a security clearance? They get to ream, steam and dry clean his ass. This is no game. Now, it just so happens
I ran one of the biggest commercial real estate shops on the Street. I have been in the market recently for a major developer.
5-10X the size of Kushner. You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be
that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on.
You see, on a secured credit line, the bank only has to reserve about 4-8% of the limit as a capital charge. That allows them
to operate at about 12X leverage. If they are charging LIBOR + 300 for the line, and they fund art LIBOR-50, and the line is fully
drawn (no bank wants a line that isn't utilized, that's why they charge non-utilization fees), their 350BP spread translates into
a nice ~35% ROE. That's good business. On an unsecured line, there is a 100 % capital charge. That's a 3.5% ROE. That sucks balls.
I have literally had a major bank walk away from an unsecured $50mm line when it would have given them the inside track for
a $800 million loan they could securitize and make a quick and easy $25 million on. The regulatory headache and capital charges
just made it a non-starter.
NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding
with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens
and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a
while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking
no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making
an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE.
If I were working for Mueller, I would be very curious about this stuff, too. If they called me, I would give them a list of
things to look for. Something sounds screwy. Either the reporter has the details wrong, or something IS wrong.
I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking
his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be
suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not
nice.
It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with
a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it.
"... This is why Washington has adopted a strategy of bashing Russia. The US wants to break our country and withdraw it from the game, deprive it of sovereignty and subjectivity in world politics, as was the case in the 1990s, so that at the hour of the decisive clash, Russia was not an independent player capable of making decisions based on its interests. ..."
"... Thus, the minimum and maximum goals of the US are pursued: the first is to neutralize Russia, and since today it reliably covers China's rear, create threats for China from the Russian direction. ..."
"... The second is to establish a power in Moscow that would act together with Washington against China in a decisive battle. In recent years, we have seen elements of the implementation of this strategy. These are sanctions in Ukraine, attempts at financial and economic strangulation, involvement in mediated wars and a new arms race in order to provoke a split in elite Russian circles, and between the masses and the leader -- in order to ruin Putin's power and establish a puppet regime in Russia. ..."
The US is no longer a superpower: Washington's nuclear strategy tells us this.
By now, the United States has already adopted a deterrence strategy with respect to
Beijing and methodically pursues a policy of encircling the PRC with the help of its partners
and allies. China has with almost all its neighbours conflicts and problems that the US
traditionally skilfully uses to create an anti-China coalition. Countries that can form its
core include Japan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Australia. Over time, other states
may join them.
... And now - the most important thing. Against the backdrop of a possible battle between
the two giants in the foreseeable future, Russia's role and significance are incredibly
increasing. Obviously, having huge nuclear-missile potential, vast spaces and immense
resources, Russia can, with its participation on the side of one of the giants in the battle,
decide the fate of the confrontation.
I personally get the impression that Washington strategists understand this perfectly.
However, they do not believe that by improving relations with Moscow, they can make it a
reliable ally in the case of a head-on confrontation with China. And because the future
destiny of the United States is at stake, facing an impending existential challenge, any
miscalculation can prove fatal.
This is why Washington has adopted a strategy of bashing Russia. The US wants to break our
country and withdraw it from the game, deprive it of sovereignty and subjectivity in world
politics, as was the case in the 1990s, so that at the hour of the decisive clash, Russia was
not an independent player capable of making decisions based on its interests.
Thus, the
minimum and maximum goals of the US are pursued: the first is to neutralize Russia, and since
today it reliably covers China's rear, create threats for China from the Russian direction.
The second is to establish a power in Moscow that would act together with Washington against
China in a decisive battle. In recent years, we have seen elements of the implementation of
this strategy. These are sanctions in Ukraine, attempts at financial and economic
strangulation, involvement in mediated wars and a new arms race in order to provoke a split
in elite Russian circles, and between the masses and the leader -- in order to ruin Putin's
power and establish a puppet regime in Russia.
Will the Americans succeed in implementing their strategy? This is highly doubtful,
despite the enormous resources that the collective West, led by the United States, can
mobilize. First, the Western world and the States are not experiencing the best of times.
America has overextended itself over almost the past two decades in a series of endless wars
and external adventures. Secondly, Russia cannot be broken by applying crude, direct pressure
on it. If it breaks down, as we know from our history, it is only because of internal
conflicts and confrontations. So, in the medium term, external pressure can only consolidate
Russian society and power.
Third. The history of the White House's pressure on North Korea suggests that this huge
country cannot cope even with this small state, which has taken a firm stand.
Fourth. The solidarity of Western countries with the United States also has its limits.
They are unlikely to become willing hostages to the confrontation of the US vs Russia, and
then the US vs China.
And lastly, I like to hope that in Beijing they understand (or very soon will realize)
that the main target of the States is not Russia. Thus, the Kremlin is now resisting the
White House both for itself and, as we used to say in the USSR, for the other guy.
And it seems to me that if in this confrontation China more vigorously defends Russia,
then it is likely that the US will understand the hopelessness of the strategy of bashing
Russia and change the paradigm of its policy. Otherwise, they themselves are at risk of being
broken because of the exorbitant imperial overstrain.
No wonder Patrick Buchanan, one of the most astute patriarchs of American politics and
analysts of US foreign and domestic policy, published a few years ago a book with the very
characteristic title "Suicide of a superpower: will the US survive until 2025?"
Interesting observation: "This is what happens when you have 'Five Eyes' but no brains!"
Notable quotes:
"... The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap. ..."
"... It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause. ..."
"... I've been writing to my favorite websites telling them that the Russians could not possibly compete with the U.S. when it came to manipulation of twitter/facebook etc. Where is the comparative analysis? How could the Russians possibly compete with US Internet-manipulation, US-election-funding? Look at the most basic numbers, US population compared to Russian population... ..."
"... The whole Russiagate thing has been proven to be nothing but a cover for the Democratic Party's real manipulation of the last election to cut out the only progressive in the race (Sanders) and get the worst possible opponent (Trump) for the elite's favorite candidate (Clinton). The stupid little people of middle America just didn't follow orders like their ever so sophisticated compatriots on the east and west coasts and now the 0.01% have to cover their tracks. Mueller's indictment of 13 interns in some sadsack little St Petersburg troll farm would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (well actually it is pretty funny). ..."
"... It's McCarthyism on steroids, and as usual, the real targets are progressives and the "real left" fighting for workers. We are allowed to have all the social justice we want, but don't you dare discuss economic justice that threatens the bank accounts of the 0.01%, or watch any of that evil alternative news that provides a different perspective from our govt/corporate approved sources. ..."
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Finally, I do not believe my eyes. I've been writing to my favorite websites telling them
that the Russians could not possibly compete with the U.S. when it came to manipulation of
twitter/facebook etc. Where is the comparative analysis? How could the Russians possibly compete with US Internet-manipulation,
US-election-funding? Look at the most basic numbers, US population compared to Russian
population...
"Russia is attracted to Canada because destabilizing it will 'undermine the cohesion' of
the broader NATO alliance. Moreover it could serve to undermine Canadian policy in
Europe..."
More money for CSIS, CSE, 'Five Eyes' etc. Maybe we'll build a Trudeau troll-farm too.
Gee gosh golly a NATO researcher thinks Russia is threatening Canada and the CBC acts as a
megaphone for this BS.
The whole Russiagate thing has been proven to be nothing but a cover for the
Democratic Party's real manipulation of the last election to cut out the only progressive in
the race (Sanders) and get the worst possible opponent (Trump) for the elite's favorite
candidate (Clinton). The stupid little people of middle America just didn't follow orders
like their ever so sophisticated compatriots on the east and west coasts and now the 0.01%
have to cover their tracks. Mueller's indictment of 13 interns in some sadsack little St
Petersburg troll farm would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (well actually it is pretty
funny).
Who exactly is Putin going to support in a Canadian election? The liberals and
conservatives are both reliable lapdogs of Washington and even the NDP (No Difference Party)
is infected with Russophobia and Whitehelmetphilia. Between supporting an overtly fascist
regime in Kiev, contributing to every "bombing brown people to save them" campaign concocted
by Washington, and leading a NATO battle group in Latvia some 250 miles from Moscow, it's
pretty hard to make a case that Canada is a passive little angel looking for world peace
anymore.
Very sad what the neo-liberal imposter Trudeau is doing to Canada. The guy is Harper with
ridiculous socks and a bit of identity politics thrown in to fool whatever passes as
center-left in Canada these days. What a change and almost nobody makes a fuss or cares. Of
course the Canadian media attacks anyone suggesting better relations with Russia and Canada
might be worth trying. It's McCarthyism on steroids, and as usual, the real targets are
progressives and the "real left" fighting for workers. We are allowed to have all the social
justice we want, but don't you dare discuss economic justice that threatens the bank accounts
of the 0.01%, or watch any of that evil alternative news that provides a different
perspective from our govt/corporate approved sources.
"When people ask about what is most threatening to humanity and all of
life on Earth today, they usually mention nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, but forget about one more
truly terrible weapons of mass destruction, aimed primarily at the human brain. This is information, propaganda
and agitation."
Valentin Falin, who recently died aged 92.
More on what he thought (some of it quite extreme) here:
Anyone up for a story? It is going on bedtime somewhere, so why not?
Full disclosure – have not read all the comments (Incorrigibly Deplorable mind
elsewhere).
Shall we check on Lisa Monaco? Chris Farrell says Lisa Monaco was the Trump
Administraton's Homeland Security Director in the vid above (2:17).
No. Gen John Kelly was Trump Administration Sec of Homeland Security 20 Jan 2017 to 31 Jul
2017 (Wikipedia). Farrell obviously meant Obama Administration.
Monaco's title was Homeland Security Advisor 8 Mar 2013 – 20 Jan 2017, not Secretary
of Homeland Security (Wikipedia).
Lisa Monaco was DOJ NSD AAG before John Carlin took over, 1 Jul 2011 – 8 Mar 2013.
Monaco was Counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno.
Monaco obviously had DOJ-NSD ties. Monaco's JD is from Univ of Chicago. Where did Obama teach
Constitutional Law? Univ of Chicago, iirc. There is much more at Wikipedia.
Working from the PBS youtube uploads of the PBS series "The Putin Files" (25 Oct 2017), as
well as Joe Biden at the CFR, the Intel Community's presentation for the Gang of 8 7 Aug 2016
on "Russian hacking" was a Really Big Deal (have listened to hours and hours of these
PBS-Putin vids – these people are nutz). The idea was to get the Gang of 8 to sign on
to a bi-partisan statement declaring Russia was behind the hacking of the DNC, the DCCC,
Podesta, Clinton, etc. The GOPe was reticent, and rightly so. (More on that in a sec.) This
was a week before the RNC 2016 Convention.
(a search for these files is easily done, rather than embedding a ton of links – search
for "youtube PBS The Putin Files")
Back to our story. Lisa Monaco.
Let us ask Obama Deputy Secretary of State and former Deputy National Security Advisor
Anthony Blinken, shall we?
42:58 "And so in August (7 Aug 2016), Brennan, and other leaders in the Intelligence
community, as well as our top Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the White House, Lisa
Monaco, went to Capitol Hill to talk to the leadership, about what we had learned and what we
were seeing."
Lisa Monaco was "our top Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the White House," not
Homeland Security, during the 2016 campaign. Our top, mind you.
Jeh Johnson was Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. Shall we ask Jeh Johnson?
33:00 "There was a session on Capitol Hill, in their SKIF, in their classified briefing
room. It was me, Lisa Monaco, and Jim Comey. And, they were all there, the Speaker, Leader
Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Leader Reed, the Chair and Ranking of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, the Intel Committees, and all the Homeland Security Committees, they were all
there. And, we briefed them again on what we knew."
Lisa Monaco was in the White House, Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, "our top,"
even. Lisa Monaco was in on this from the start, before 7 Aug 2016.
The GOPe leaders were reticent to sign on to that bi-partisan agreement, and did not do so
until mid-Sept 2016. Why?
The PBS interviewer speaking with Jeh Johnson obviously was a Russian plant.
34:15 "The way the story has been reported is that the Republicans, and McConnell
specifically, (garbled, may be the word "eventually") said, I don't see the evidence."
Huh. Imagine that. And there was still was no evidence in the ICA Report. Blast those
Deplorables.
Jeh Johnson did not see that, either. The GOPe intentions, and all that.
Apologies. The Incorrigibly Deplorable mind goes to Deplorable places.
Back to our story. Our top whatsit, Lisa Monaco. Unmaskings.
Staying with Jeh Johnson –
39:25 "My preference was that, however we responded, we respond with some things that were
cyber-security related, so that part of our steps should be effectively unmasking the bad
actors so that they couldn't do it again, outing them, effectively, and that was part of what
we did the actions we did, we took within the last month of our Administration "
Unmaskings, huh? Who was doing the unmaskings?
Samantha Power said she was not doing all the bazillon unmaskings that were done in her
name.
Oh yes. Anthony Blinken, former Deputy National Security Advisor, was Deputy Secretary of
State at that time.
How many unmaskings were done by Lisa Monaco, who worked with Jeh Johnson who wanted
to unmask the bad actors?
Lisa Monaco was White House Counterterrorism and Homeland Security. Lisa Monaco was also
very experienced in cyber-security (Wikipedia).
The FBI was running a counterintelligence operation. But Lisa Monaco was also Homeland
Security Advisor. Lisa Monaco would have every reason to be read into FBI counterintelligence
investigations, if one includes the emphasis the Obama White House was presenting at the
time, which was cyber-security and Russia's hacking.
Odds are Lisa Monaco was in on the John Brennan-Obama meeting in July 2016, as well as the
PDB and all the National Security meetings.
The FBI counterintelligence unit had that FISA Title I thingy going on with DOJ National
Security Division. Just like John Brennan had outlined to Obama (PBS vids, detailed in
comment couple three days ago). And we know National Security Advisor Susan Rice was
unmasking Trump people.
Lisa Monaco did not need to unmask. Others were doing the unmaskings. Laundering unmaskings.
Pretty clever, yes?
Go back to the Chris Farrell vid, 02:23 to 03:24 – "She (Lisa Monaco) appears in the
notes and calender of Andy McCabe in May of 2016, and if you note back a couple weeks, you
remember that there's a text from Page saying that Andy McCabe and Strzok, her friend or
boyfriend, that the White House wanted to know everything that they were doing. And so you
see that there's contact in May, and then in August you see that the counterintelligence
investigation that's opened on the Trump Campaign gets a nickname, they call it Latitude, and
it's tied back apparently to Lisa Monaco And who in the White House was managing that? And it
appears, it's likely, that it is Lisa Monaco."
Monaco was counterterrorism, not counterintelligence, should one care to get really down
in the weeds. Does that matter? Doubtful. The Obama emphasis was originally cyber-security,
and Monaco was the Obama cyber-security expert put forward at the time.
Back to our story.
Jake Sullivan was in the Clinton Campaign. What did Jake Sullivan know about FBI
investigations? Shall we ask PajamaJake?
47:50 "We heard very late in the day, very late in the process, with just days to go before
the election, that there might be some kind of investigation Into the Trump campaign
involving the FBI, and we flagged what we were hearing for a variety of reporters who were
all told, no that's not true that's not happening. We know now in fact it was true and it was
happening, but nobody was able to establish it in the closing days of the campaign."
The Clinton campaign knew about the FBI investigation into the Trump Campaign before the 8
Nov 2016 election. How did Clinton know? McCabe. Wifey. McAuliff.
One last question. Staying with the little weaselly PajamaBoi Jake Sullivan (what a wuss)
–
51:57 "The (Trump) White House directed the State Department to essentially draw up a game
plan for the lifting of (Russian) sanctions. State Department pushed back hard "
Oh really? Who is leaking from the State Department, one wonders.
Oh yes, Antony Blinken was Deputy Secretary of State. When, exactly, did Anthony Blinken
leave the State Department?
Wikipedia says Blinken left the State Department 20 Jan 2017 and was succeeded by John
Sullivan. Blinken is now a Global Affairs Analyst for CN&N .
John Sullivan has been working very well with Sec Tillerson by all accounts, and has
announced his future retirement.
This Deplorable did not care enough to look up the whereabouts of any of the others. No
doubt they are all fomenting our Grande Revolutione somewhere.
Hopefully this is not too convoluted. One's mind has been designated one of the crazies'
disaster areas and condemned. There is so much more, but no one would read it anyway.
The Brennan and Podesta stories from those PBS-Putin vids are much too repulsive and
frightening for a bedtime story, so we shall save those for summer-round-the-campfire ghost
stories.
Nightnight.
" When Brennan's and his co-conspirators' plot to smear and defeat his political matron's
opponent failed spectacularly in the greatest upset in American political history, a
now-embittered and politically-unrestrained, if not unhinged, Brennan maliciously set about
poisoning the well and salting the fields to undermine the incoming president and his
administration.
Brennan did this by systematically and purposefully disseminating the defamatory contents
of the sleazy, Clinton-purchased "dirty dossier" to official Washington and numerous
sympathetic media mouthpieces during the transition period and beyond, ensuring their
continued proliferation, compounding the damage Brennan hoped and expected would result from
his calculated treachery.
Brennan was even so brazen as to attach the dossier's contents to an official daily
intelligence briefing provided to the outgoing president just weeks before the inauguration
of the president-elect "
"... There is no cavalry coming. I do not think that a DOJ prosecutor working in conjunction with the OIG is suddenly going to appear and hand out indictments at high levels. I do not expect to suddenly awake to find that Sessions has had a grand jury in play all the time. If you think Rosenstein is a white hat, then I have some land west of Miami I'd love to sell you, and you should long ago have been able to gain a measure of Jeff Sessions' spine. These are the ONLY two people who can trigger the necessary DOJ/FBI/State prosecutions. ..."
"... Mueller is a made-man in DC and no one will touch him right now. He is the only hope of the Democrat Party, the massive lobbyist establishment, and the pay-to-play RINOs they support. He has a mission and is protected by the full force of the swamp. ..."
"... He is steadily building a conspiracy case against PDJT that will most likely exploit Jared Kushner's ignorant naivety ..."
"... Conspiracy charges are virtually impossible to defend against. Once Mueller has leveled one against PDJT, there is no window for recovery. It will dominate the news cycle well into the midterms, and cripple any chance of the GOP holding both chambers. We all know what happens after that; auntie Maxine has been screaming it every day. ..."
"... SD can only expose the corruption. It is up to our Justice system to prosecute them. I believe that will never happen. There will be investigations on it for years, until the masses forget, and the next season of "dances with stars" comes on. There are examples of proof in my statements such as the IRS/Lerner felonies, Bengazi, etc. ..."
We all know what happened. We all know what should be done. But, being a consummate skeptic,
here's what I think.
There is no cavalry coming. I do not think that a DOJ prosecutor working in conjunction
with the OIG is suddenly going to appear and hand out indictments at high levels. I do not
expect to suddenly awake to find that Sessions has had a grand jury in play all the time. If
you think Rosenstein is a white hat, then I have some land west of Miami I'd love to sell
you, and you should long ago have been able to gain a measure of Jeff Sessions' spine. These
are the ONLY two people who can trigger the necessary DOJ/FBI/State prosecutions.
Mueller is a made-man in DC and no one will touch him right now. He is the only hope of
the Democrat Party, the massive lobbyist establishment, and the pay-to-play RINOs they
support. He has a mission and is protected by the full force of the swamp.
He is steadily
building a conspiracy case against PDJT that will most likely exploit Jared Kushner's
ignorant naivety as one element of the fetid deal, along with the losers he has already
collected in his slippery net. And while we laugh at the ridiculousness of the 13-Russians he
indicted, think of them rather, as an open invitation for Putin to direct a few of them to be
patriots and "testify" in the manner he instructs. If you were Putin, wouldn't you?
Conspiracy charges are virtually impossible to defend against. Once Mueller has leveled
one against PDJT, there is no window for recovery. It will dominate the news cycle well into
the midterms, and cripple any chance of the GOP holding both chambers. We all know what
happens after that; auntie Maxine has been screaming it every day.
There is nothing complex about Mueller's strategy. There is certainly plenty of evidence
to expose it and disrupt it before it is fully executed. But, barring a complete reversal of
Sessions' or Rosenstein's behavior, I am not at present very hopeful.
@ Harleyd, Bill, BillR, and Pelicansview. I must fully agree with all your remarks. SD has
done a outstanding job of bring forth information that would have never been in print
anywhere.
SD can only expose the corruption. It is up to our Justice system to prosecute
them. I believe that will never happen. There will be investigations on it for years, until
the masses forget, and the next season of "dances with stars" comes on. There are examples of
proof in my statements such as the IRS/Lerner felonies, Bengazi, etc.
The AG said he wasn't
going to pursue a criminal investigation. Everything will blow over soon as the Repukes have
decided (or their masters have) to intensionally loose their majority in CONgress, and elect
some more Uniparty, Collins/Juan Mcain, type politicians to undermine Trump.
Looks like people in "alt-right" started to distrust key institutions of neoliberal society. Oh wait... "Net, this may well be a clever Swamp strategy. Get Patriots' expectations high, and then
dash them. And make a lot of "click bait" money in the process."
Notable quotes:
"... the long promised DOJ IG report. It was originally promised here on Jan. 15 and now, who knows when. It has been repeatedly predicted to be the MOAB we are all waiting for. While it has been delayed several times, I still had hope. ..."
"... "Representative Ratcliffe was on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo where he said IG report is expected to be out in about a month. Ratcliffe expects IG report to reveal significant departures of policy and protocol by FBI and DOJ." ..."
"... Here we go again. We are being "softened up" for a typical bureaucratic "nothing burger". How many times have we heard: "Mistakes were made but we will do better in the futur ..."
"... We are talking about sedition, if not treason, here. There is more than enough evidence on the table to start holding these criminals to account. And yet nothing has happened (except Mueller continuing to shred Trump associates). Not one indictment of a significant Swamper, despite 27 leak investigations and who knows what else. ..."
"... Net, this may well be a clever Swamp strategy. Get Patriots' expectations high, and then dash them. And make a lot of "click bait" money in the process. ..."
"... many may be afraid to admit it to avoid being labelled "concern trolls". How much more delaying are you willing to tolerate. Right into the middle of the mid terms? By then, it's "Game Over" and we're on to Impeachment. ..."
"... Inaction is masquarading as patience ..."
"... I question everything and everyone. I never bought into this IG report to bring down the house. Between Rogers, Sessions, Wray, Flynn, Nunes, grassley, Jordan , Horowitz and POTUS himself, there is enough known to have taken some action on someone for something. With each passing day of "patience", my hope diminshes ..."
"... I agree with Harleyd – With all that is currently known, there should have already been major action by the DOJ. ..."
"... And, the crooked main stream media will not even mention the report! The UniParty will shortly say that President Trump was an anomaly only to be read in history books. ..."
"... I couldn't agree more. Unless Mueller is neutered, the outlook is grim. ..."
"... What was promised on Jan 15 happened ! The IG released thousands of pages to Goodlatte's committee. It was what started the ball rolling with the text massages and and awareness of the deliberate "Insurance policy" concept. ..."
"... Since then 7-8 high level FBI and DOJ have been moved, resigned and replaced -- and talk of widespread corruption in upper levels of FBI, DOJ became part of the news. Then came the Nunes memo -- and public awareness that -- just maybe -- the President had been set up by political use of the FISA court. ..."
As many hours as I've spent on this site, and as much as I respect SD's intelligence and
writing ability, I think we may have all been played.
As background, politically, I'm slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. And I not only
have followed the Treehouse, I've followed several Twitter posters with seemingly "inside"
information and insight. We all know who they are.
But I've grown tired of all the "predictions of immediate revelations" that have not come
to pass. Daily, breathless, predictions of a big bomb about to drop have strung out into
weeks, and now months.
The more us true believers in PDJT are led to believe "TRUTH" and the "RULE OF LAW" are
just around the corner, only to be advised of a delay or to have the subject changed, the
more we (whether we admit it or not) become discouraged and demoralized. I fear that's part
of the plan.
I know. Patience, grasshopper. Well patience was apparently what the Sheriffs in Florida
had as they cowered outside the school while kids were blown apart by a known madman with
known firearms and a known agenda. Patience, my a$$.
I could list all the "predictions" that have not come true, either here or on key Twitter
accounts, but I would just be demoralizing you more.
The one thing that has kept me going, beyond PDJT's constant and inspiring efforts on all
our behalfs, is the long promised DOJ IG report. It was originally promised here on Jan. 15
and now, who knows when. It has been repeatedly predicted to be the MOAB we are all waiting
for. While it has been delayed several times, I still had hope.
But now, I see this comment from Tex. Rep. Ratcliffe:
"Representative Ratcliffe was on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo where
he said IG report is expected to be out in about a month. Ratcliffe expects IG report to
reveal significant departures of policy and protocol by FBI and DOJ."
Here we go again. We are being "softened up" for a typical bureaucratic "nothing
burger". How many times have we heard: "Mistakes were made but we will do better in the
futur e".
I have an admission to make. I personally committed departures from policy and protocol
this morning as I didn't fully stop at a stop sign while on my way for newspapers and
coffee.
We are talking about sedition, if not treason, here. There is more than enough
evidence on the table to start holding these criminals to account. And yet nothing has
happened (except Mueller continuing to shred Trump associates). Not one indictment of a
significant Swamper, despite 27 leak investigations and who knows what else.
Net, this may well be a clever Swamp strategy. Get Patriots' expectations high, and then
dash them. And make a lot of "click bait" money in the process.
I hope to be proven wrong. But until somebody actually indicts a crook, I'm assuming this
is all part of the Swamp's plan to skate.
I suspect more than a few of you agree with me. But many may be afraid to admit it to
avoid being labelled "concern trolls". How much more delaying are you willing to tolerate.
Right into the middle of the mid terms? By then, it's "Game Over" and we're on to
Impeachment.
To coin a phrase, I feel your pain. Now, if only Jeff Sessions were alive, this mess would
have been cleaned up ages ago. We'll just have to wait for another "Top Cop" to be appointed
or for kindly ole Jeff to be reborn.
Harleyed, I agree with most of what you say. Inaction is masquarading as patience and people
are dying. I question everything and everyone. I never bought into this IG report to bring
down the house. Between Rogers, Sessions, Wray, Flynn, Nunes, grassley, Jordan , Horowitz and
POTUS himself, there is enough known to have taken some action on someone for something. With
each passing day of "patience", my hope diminshes. I am sure many feel this way and 2018 will
show just how many there are. The people will never be motivated to fight if their leaders
don't.
I do indeed hope. As I've noted a few times recently in my probable desperation pleadings, I
would hope that enough of the good guys are pushing forward with major stuff if only to save
their own skins. Nunes, Jordan, Grassley, etc. They have stuck their necks out so far and esp
with Trump winning, if the republicans lose in November, deep state is going to make a very
quick, obvious, and publicly terrible example of the few good guys. If dems win in November,
fully expect January 2019 to be one of the most scary and dark times this country has ever
faced .and it will not let up. I wouldn't be surprised if they go so far as to root out
opposition at the state and district level. Deep state is going to make it so bad that no one
will ever cross them again for generations .if ever.
I agree with Harleyd – With all that is currently known, there should have already been
major action by the DOJ. The situation is essentially so bad, that we (The Conservative Tree
House) cling to any ray of light (or positive news and debate if Jeff Sessions is good or
bad). To anyone looking from the outside, we are pathetic. The OIG report will come out and
say misdeeds have occurred and the DOJ will investigate and prosecute if necessary. And, the
crooked main stream media will not even mention the report! The UniParty will shortly say
that President Trump was an anomaly only to be read in history books.
Trump knows everything that was going on and has leverage on Mueller who is a compromised
individual in his own right but also has a history of service to the country. Have faith.
The Demosocialists have already set up Mueller as having infallible integrity so they can't
complain (although they will) when Trump is cleared. He will go with clear evidence of
collusion against Trump instead of having "Trump's team" drag him thru the mud if he tries to
falsely indict Trump. Manafort and Papa were basically Clinton plants. Tony Podesta goes down
next.
I suppose it depends on your perspective. Bombs HAVE been dropping. This article itself is
FULL of bombs. Huge bombs. There are several other new investigations of previous matters
pushed aside by Obama's DOJ that currently get little attention. The difference is the leaks
have been plugged for the most part. There will be indictments and it will happen before the
mid-terms.
What was promised on Jan 15 happened !
The IG released thousands of pages to Goodlatte's committee. It was what started the ball
rolling with the text massages and and awareness of the deliberate "Insurance policy"
concept.
Since then 7-8 high level FBI and DOJ have been moved, resigned and replaced -- and
talk of widespread corruption in upper levels of FBI, DOJ became part of the news. Then came
the Nunes memo -- and public awareness that -- just maybe -- the President had been set up
by political use of the FISA court.
Please don't say nothing is being done. Your lack of strategic patience is underwhelming
!
If Muellers witch hunt is still ongoing in June, the impact on the mid-year elections will be
sever. Mueller's plan is to keep this going as long as possible leaving the "Sword of
Damocles" hanging over President Trump and his administration. So far the Manafort
indictments for acts years before the election are all about "guilt by association" of the
Trump team. Muellers endless investigation is clearly theater of the absurd. Russian
collusion is only manifested in the Manafort indictments for things that had nothing to do
with Trump or the election. The anti-Trump forces will play this tune for as long as Trump
lets them.
Reply to John A. Maher – Good catch (and obvious / the best way to hide something is in
the open). The Democratic memo admits "they spied on Trump", (and they were right to spy on
his [the Trump] campaign). And now we see the reaction to all this build up – NO ONE
CARES. Now it is just a debate whether is was done properly (not illegally, but properly) and
that can be argued for years.
Valerie was not the puppeteer. Obummer wore the tiara and waved, had the wife, children and
dog assessoiries Val was the gett'er done person who took the phone calls from the real boss.
She organized and carried out the plans but I don't think she came up with them all on her
own. She took orders. The same someone or small group is still issuing orders and trying to
keep everyone in line.
They won't give up as they have more to lose by doing so than to gain.
It's really depressing watching Mueller continue to do what he wants too. Mueller is the deep
state. When all is said and done, Mueller will probably have a few more indictments
associated with Manafort and Gates and will come out and say the fbi and doj had every right
to do what they did because Trump did have Manafort in his campaign and Manafort is a really
bad guy. Mueller was appointed for the special council to cover up everything and to protect
the fbi. He will not get Trump, but he will save himself and all the black hats from
indictments.
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein. "It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the offensive. ..."
"... Israel is long known for such information operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but actively manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in commercial marketing campaigns. ..."
"... With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b states). ..."
"... If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use' in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million paycheck. ..."
"... The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your lying eyes." ..."
"... money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they will frame it - 180% of that... ..."
The U.S. State Department will increase its online trolling capabilities and up its support
for meddling in other countries. The Hill
reports :
The State Department is launching a $40 million initiative to crack down on foreign
propaganda and disinformation amid widespread concerns about future Russian efforts to
interfere in elections.
The department announced Monday that it signed a deal with the Pentagon to transfer $40
million from the Defense Department's coffers to bolster the Global Engagement Center, an
office set up at State during the Obama years to expose and counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation.
The professed reason for the new funding is the alleged but unproven "Russian meddling" in
the U.S. election campaign. U.S. Special Counsel Mueller indicted 13 Russians for what is
claimed to be interference but which
is likely mere commercial activity.
The announcement by the State Department
explains that this new money will not only be used for measures against foreign trolling but to
actively meddle in countries abroad:
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the
transfer of funds announced today reiterates the United States' commitment to the fight.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to
malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our
allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein.
"It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the
offensive. "
The mentioning of Silicon Valley is of interest. The big Silicon Valley companies Google,
Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the U.S. election campaign. The companies
embedded
people within the campaigns to advise them how to reach a maximum trolling effect:
While the companies call it standard practice to work hand-in-hand with high-spending
advertisers like political campaigns, the new research details how the staffers assigned to
the 2016 candidates frequently acted more like political operatives, doing things like
suggesting methods to target difficult-to-reach voters online, helping to tee up responses to
likely lines of attack during debates, and scanning candidate calendars to recommend ad
pushes around upcoming speeches.
Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one
that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the
Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner.
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of
trolling that already exists online.
Clinton is quite experienced in such issues. In 2009, during protests in Iran, then
Secretary of State Clinton pushed Twitter to defer
maintenance of its system to "help" the protesters. In 2010 USAid, under the State Department
set up a
Twitter-like service to meddle in Cuba.
The foreign policy advisor of Hillery Clinton's campaign, Laura Rosenberger,
initiated and runs the Hamilton68 project which
falsely explains any mentioning of issues disliked by its neo-conservative backers as the
result of nefarious "Russian meddling".
The State Department can build on that and other experience.
Since at least 2011
the U.S. military is manipulating social media via sock puppets and trolls:
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command
(Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop
what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman
or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing
background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be
able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by
sophisticated adversaries".
It was then wisely predicted that other countries would follow up:
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to
users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments,
private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
Israel is long known for such information
operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but
actively
manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in
commercial marketing campaigns.
With the new money the State Department will expand its Global Engagement Center
(GEC) which is running "public diplomacy", aka propaganda, abroad:
The Fund will be a key part of the GEC's partnerships with local civil society organizations,
NGOs, media providers, and content creators to counter propaganda and disinformation. The
Fund will also drive the use of innovative messaging and data science techniques.
Separately, the GEC will initiate a series of pilot projects developed with the Department
of Defense that are designed to counter propaganda and disinformation. Those projects will be
supported by Department of Defense funding.
This money will be in addition to the large funds the CIA
traditionally spends on manipulating foreign media:
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson,
now at the University of Georgia. "We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you
name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British
call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
...
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into
foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day.
Part of the new State Department money will be used to provide grants. If online trolling or
sock puppetry is your thing, you may want to apply now.
Posted by b on February 26, 2018 at 02:02 PM |
Permalink
"to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner"
I call these social media watchers rather than trolls. Rather than simply trying to
disrupt any and all social media threads they don't like, social media watchers look for
comments or comment threads that are disparaging or damaging to their employer.
#2 @Peter AU 1 - I would say the language "to find and CONFRONT" sounds pretty much like
troll behavior.
With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its
allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic
and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and
everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b
states).
That $40 million will probably be pissed away on a couple sweetheart contracts to Tillerson
friends and nobody will see a difference. US State Department propaganda programs, labeled as
"public diplomacy" and other monikers, have been around for a long time but haven't been
executed very well.
From the State Dept. historian office, 2013: . .(excerpt):
Public Diplomacy Is Still in Its Adolescent Stage in the State Department , etc.
. . . The process of convergence has been evolutionary. Secretary Powell grasped the power
of the information revolution, reallocated positions and resources from traditional
diplomatic posting to new areas and recognized the power of satellite television to move
publics and constrain governments even in authoritarian regimes. Secretary Rice forwarded
this reconceptualization under the rubric of "Transformational Diplomacy," which sought to
help people transform their own lives and the relationship between state and society.
Secretary Clinton continued the theme under the concept of "Smart Power." "Person-to-person
diplomacy in today's work is as important as what we do in official meetings in national
capitals across the globe," Clinton said in 2010.The work done by PD officials in Arab
Spring countries beginning in 2011 was as much about capacity-building as advocating U.S.
policies or directly trying to explain American culture. . . here
Prior efforts were targeted more at traditional news outlets, this is just an expansion into
social media along the lines of previous work, example A being the Rendon Group in Iraq,
etc. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rendon_Group
If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For
example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no
on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so
then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use'
in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a
book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million
paycheck.
Media watchers target specific comments or comment threads, in the case stated by b, those
disparaging or damaging to Clinton.
What I term trolls target blogs or social media accounts that are considered targets, no
matter the content of a particular article or comment thread. Social media media watchers are
a little more specialized than trolls and look for specific content.
P.S. it's funny that you can find out what these clowns are up to by looking for job listings
and salary reports:
The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist Salary | Glassdoor
Average [monthly] salaries for The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist: $2,520. The Rendon
Group salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by The Rendon Group employees.
Talk about a soul-destroying job. Right up there with Wikipedia page editor.
I see what you are alluding to, but the only problem with it is that, irrespective of the
differing definitions, at heart, these infiltrators are a disrupting force on the message
boards, whether paid to be or not. Their medium is disruption and obfuscation. I tried to
wade into the neoliberal viper's den at slate.com un the past to post "alt-right" stuff and
was quickly attacked by multiple avatars.
In essence, one troll disrupts because he has a need for recognition, and the latter
disrupts for money. Both are netgain for the troll and loss for the rest of us.
The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation
and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your
lying eyes."
thanks b... troll farms looks like a good name for it... farming for the empire.. they could
call it that too.. russia as trend setter, lol.. i don't think so!
speaking of troll farms, i see max Blumenthal came out with some 'about time' comments on
the sad kettle of fish called 'democracy now'... here is his tweet - "If @democracynow is
going to push the neocon project of regime change in Syria so relentlessly and without
debate, it should drop the high minded literary NPR aesthetic and just host Nikki Haley for a
friendly one-on-one #EstablishmentNow https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/967123918237655041
7:07 AM - Feb 25, 2018 "
money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of
reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more
dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they
will frame it - 180% of that...
The silver lining here is that the state dept. is in a sense admitting that there is nothing
"in the pipe" relating to outright censorship whether through nefarious agreements between
ISP providers and the IC via the repeal of net neutrality.
$40 mil is a lot for liberal college graduates however.
Nonsense Factory @ 8, Peter AU 1 @ 9: There are plenty of communities in rural Australia
who'd be glad to have troll farms paying that sort of money (even as Australian dollars - 1
Australian dollar being worth about US$0.76 at this time of posting) a month. Real farmers
could do trolling on the side during slow seasons of the year and make some money.
What we need are some Mole Trolls, or maybe that's Troll Moles--double agents if you will
that work for 6-12 months recording 100% of all they do then reveal it all in an expose.
Getting ready for mid-terms. It's going to be interesting to see if the Democrats get wiped
off the map. They should be able to hire quite a few people for $40 million. Don't be
surprised if they deploy AI in the first wave, then follow up with a real person.
ben @13:
Turn off your I phones, and think a little.
ROFL After wandering aimlessly in the mall with Her Majesty over the weekend, I'm not sure
if that's even possible now.
"The big Silicon Valley companies Google, Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the
U.S. election campaign. The companies embedded people within the campaigns to advise them how
to reach a maximum trolling effect:"
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Two days before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice received the draft of a formal National Security
Presidential Directive that Bush was expected to sign immediately. The directive contained
a comprehensive plan to launch a
global war on al-Qaeda , including an "imminent" invasion of Afghanistan to topple the
Taliban. The directive was approved by the highest levels of the White House and officials
of the National Security Council, including of course Rice and Rumsfeld. The same NSC
officials were simultaneously running the Dhabol Working Group to secure the Indian power
plant deal for Enron's Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The next day, one day before 9/11,
the Bush administration formally agreed on the
plan to attack the Taliban.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire
conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice
president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997
to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term
that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict
in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in
have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our
very way of life and impose their own."
Yeah well since the writer of the 'quiz' exposes themself as bein a troll of the worst
sort there is nothing to be said. I'm currently attempting to ingest only those newstories
where the publisher provides space for feedback from readers since if a story is truthful it
should be able to withstand challenge. yeah riight cos that means there's bugger all out
there anymore. The biggest 'win' populism has had this far is in driving all feedback off all
sites with a readership of more than a few hundred. Many of those that do allow feedback only
permit humans with credentialed facebook or google accounts to indulge and the comments are
only visible to similarly logged in types. That tells us a lot about the lack of faith the
corporate media actually have in the nonsense they publish.
Of course 'trolls' are the ones held to be the guilty for causing this but if you actually
watch what happens in a feedback column such as the rare occasions when the graun still
permits CIF comments it isn't the deliberately offensive arseholes spouting the usual cliches
who get deleted, it is those who put forward a considered argument which details why the
original writer has reached a faulty conclusion.
We all know this yet it seems as though none of us are prepared to confront it properly as
the censorship it is.
IMO media outlets which continually lie or at least distort the truth to advance a particular
agenda need to be called to account.
Massed pickets outside newsrooms would be a good way cos as much as media hate us loudmouths
who won't swallow their bromides, they like their competition even less. A decently organised
picket of NYT, WaPo or the Graun would be news in every other spineless, propagandising &
slug-featured media entity.
Said troll was published in Richmond and God only knows who else picked it up. I refuted
it in the comments as best I could, also excerpting MOA. Regardless:
Among Rendon's activities was the creation of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC)
on behalf of the CIA, a group of Iraqi exiles tasked with disseminating propaganda,
including much of the false intelligence about WMD . That process
had begun concertedly under the administration of George H W. Bush, then rumbled along
under Clinton with little fanfare, before escalating after 9/11 under George W. Bush.
Rendon thus played a large role in the manufacture of inaccurate and false news stories
relating to Iraq under lucrative CIA and Pentagon contracts -- and he did so
in the period running up to the 2003 invasion as an advisor to Bush's National
Security Council: the same NSC, of course, that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, achieved with input from Enron executives who were simultaneously engaging the
Pentagon Highlands Forum.
Mass surveillance and data-mining also now has a distinctive operational purpose in
assisting with the lethal execution of special operations, selecting targets for the CIA's
drone strike kill lists via dubious algorithms, for instance, along with providing
geospatial and other information for combatant commanders on land, air and sea, among many
other functions. A single social media post on Twitter or Facebook is enough to trigger
being placed on secret terrorism watch-lists solely due to a vaguely defined hunch or
suspicion; and can potentially even land a suspect on a kill list.
In 2011, the Forum hosted two DARPA-funded scientists, Antonio and Hanna Damasio, who are
principal investigators in the 'Neurobiology of Narrative Framing' project at the
University of Southern California. Evoking Zalman's emphasis on the need for Pentagon
psychological operations to deploy "empathetic influence," the new DARPA-backed project
aims to investigate how narratives often appeal "to strong, sacred values in order to evoke
an emotional response," but in different ways across different cultures
This goes a long way toward explaining what is occurring in Hollywood and Nashville.
"... Following Admiral Roger's closing the FSA mega-file to the FBI, it looks as though Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information stateside which had been obtained through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN. *** Fusion GPS immediately hired FBI manager Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr passed his illegally obtained information to Nellie, she to Steele, who then relayed the material back to Fusion / FBI as coming from his "Russian contacts." ..."
"... And here 44 may have made a mistake in authorizing the spread his Daily Briefing to 30+ agencies and individuals -- again as a work-around of the Roger's information ban. This places 44's fingerprints on the work-around. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
Following Admiral Roger's closing the FSA mega-file to the FBI, it looks as though
Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information stateside which had been obtained
through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN. *** Fusion GPS
immediately hired FBI manager Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr
passed his illegally obtained information to Nellie, she to Steele, who then relayed the
material back to Fusion / FBI as coming from his "Russian contacts."
And here 44 may have made a mistake in authorizing the spread his Daily Briefing to 30+ agencies and individuals --
again as a work-around of the Roger's information ban. This
places 44's fingerprints on the work-around.
You may recall the incident of the wrong Michael Cohen traveling to Prague to meet with
Russians -- when the future 45's personal lawyer was having a family celebration / baseball
game stateside? The error was generated by the NSA mega-file. Steele's "Russian contacts"
dutifully corroborated Cohen's visit with them in Prague -- how could they not, since they
exist only in Steele's mind. In short, the Steele "Russians contacts" are proved to be
fictions and if fictions then there was no Russian collusion between the Trump Campaign and
Russia.
*** Our UN Ambassador claims she was not generating hundreds of NSA Inquiries per week and
we can believe her. The NSA Inquiries were coming from the FBI via her State Department
"support" in DC.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through our Ambassador to the UN. ..."
"... Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that laundered Steele material to the FISC. ..."
"... This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague. ..."
"... Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the campaign? ..."
"... The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing but. They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo. ..."
"... Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. ..."
"... Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage. ..."
"... If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem there's something fishy there. ..."
"... And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. ..."
"... Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots (accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers – for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving Mueller for all other people). ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
"... Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant, but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to recruit him in 2013. ..."
"... Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people. This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote. Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence. ..."
Devin
Nunes and his team have saved me the effort of pointing out the problems with the Schiff
rebuttal. I am presenting that in full. Here is the bottomline--we now know that Christopher
Steele was not a "one-time Charlie." He had a longstanding covert relationship as an FBI
intelligence asset. The Democrat memo does nothing to dispute that fact.
It also is clear that DOJ and FBI personnel engaged in unprofessional (and possibly illegal)
conduct with respect to making representations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC). Three key points on this front--1: The so-called Steele dossier was proffered as
evidence to the FISC without fully disclosing that Steele was a covert asset being paid for his
work and that Democrat political operatives were also paying him; 2: Senior DOJ officials,
particularly Bruce Our, were totally comprised yet continued to be involved in the process; and
3: The Democrats insist that Carter Page is a bad guy and deserves to be investigated. Yet, no
charges have been filed against him and the allegations leveled in the Steele dossier were
dismissed by former FBI Director Comey as "salacious and unverified."
Anyway, here are the main points from the Democrat memo and the Republican response.
"George Papadopoulos revealed [redacted] that individuals linked to Russia, who took
interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late
April 2016 that Russia [two lines redacted]. Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred
against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which
the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos's plea that the
information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary
Clinton emails."
my problem with this is wikileaks released the e mails via a search-able archive on march
16th 2016...
i still don't see how anything papadopolous said is relevant time wise.. what am i missing
here, other then the obvious fact papadopolous looks like a lousy liar.. apparently he got
this from Joseph Mifsud who as it turns out was 'director of the London Academy of Diplomacy'
and etc - according to the nyt here -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/world/europe/russia-us-election-joseph-mifsud.html
and from the nyt article "Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about
his conversations with the "professor." Mr. Mifsud is referred to in the papers only as "the
professor," based in London, but a Senate aide familiar with emails involving Mr. Mifsud --
lawmakers in both the Senate and the House are investigating Russia's role in the election --
confirmed that he was the person cited."
the whole thing of russia influencing the usa election seems built on via a number of
sketchy characters at best..
at any rate - this is what emptywheel thinks is relevant in an otherwise irrelevant memo
from schiff... i don't get how it is!
The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page
as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral
Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several
work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through
our Ambassador to the UN.
Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher
Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material
claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that
laundered Steele material to the FISC.
This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael
Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the
US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist
only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague.
I wish I might be a sock-puppet, but too many of my condo neighbors know otherwise. My
favorite hobby in retirement is writing films for children, in which white hats succeed and
black hats don't.
Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If
so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
In some ways, being a sock-puppet and napping, in a bureau drawer (?), between soliloquies
would be rather peaceful. Alas, too many of my condo neighbors know me to be otherwise !
Do check out sites such as The Conservative Treehouse and you will discover that Admiral
Rogers' closing the NSA mega-file to the FBI led to Nellie Ohr's & Christopher Steele's
information laundering operation. Other sites yet will introduce you to FISC Chief Judge
Rosemary Collyer's 99-page rebuke of the FBI for their defalcations.
At a minimum, you won't be surprised when a plethora of FBI / DOJ / State Department
employees are found guilty and sent to prison.
My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known
danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the
campaign?
The memo does note that "the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also
lets slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful
informant since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page
himself has never been accused of lying to the FBI .
So . . . here's the question: When Steele brought the FBI his unverified allegations
that Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin, why didn't the FBI call Page in for an
interview rather than subject him to FISA surveillance? Lest you wonder, this is not an
instance of me second-guessing the Bureau with an investigative plan I think would have
been better. It is a requirement of FISA law.
When the FBI and DOJ apply for a FISA warrant, they must convince the court that
surveillance -- a highly intrusive tactic by which the government monitors all of an
American citizen's electronic communications -- is necessary because the
foreign-intelligence information the government seeks "cannot reasonably be obtained by
normal investigative techniques." (See FISA, Section 1804(a)(6)(C) of Title 50, U.S. Code.)
Normal investigative techniques include interviewing the subject. There are, of course,
situations in which such alternative investigative techniques will inevitably fail -- a
mafia don or a jihadist is not likely to sit down with FBI agents and tell them everything
he knows. But Carter Page was not only likely to do so, he had a documented
history of providing information to the FBI .
There's a reason why Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley are focused on the Clinton commissioned
Fusion GPS dossier, Christopher Steele and the FISA Title 1 warrant on Carter Page. It is the
simplest path to the conspiracy at the Obama administration.
My, street sense, and experience as a lawyer tells me that -- "tips, confessions.." from
informants is true Steve. But the bar for going after a drug dealer, or fence, or kiddie porn
type, is supposed -- one assumes -- to be a hell of a lot lower than going after the nominee for
President of a major political party.
Welcome to the criminal defense world. Everyday, hundreds of warrants based on the statements
of criminals, paid informers, bitter ex-girlfriends, lying cops, and even non-existent
"confidential informants" are issued. With all but the most blatant provably false
affidavits, questionable searches are upheld by judges.
At this point I'm just waiting for Mueller's final indictments and the report. The facts
will be there, or they won't.
If they are, try arguing a Motion to Suppress Evidence in the impeachment trial. That'll
get you far . . .
The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM
outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing
but.
They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
In the words of Emily Dickinson, I'm nobody. So., I come here to test my reaction when I
read what the Democrats wrote -- though it was hard to get any continuity while reading because
of all the big black lines--I was completely underwhelmed. I hate it when someone claims that
what he/she is going to say will be something that will change my entire Weltanschauung and
it turns out to be a nothing burger, in today's parance.
So thank you for confirming my opinion of the memo and thanks to others who have commented
and who have way more experience and knowledge about how our Swam works (or doesn't
work?).
My first reaction before I even tried to read the memo was correct. My first instinct was
to judge on the basis of personality, which I know is not often logical. I felt that nothing
put out under Schiff's authority could change my mind about the point Nunes made when he put
out his mamo. Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really
counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo.
Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are
obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links
to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. All we have to do is hear their
names and we should automatically decide that if we want to be popular, we should malign them
also so as to malign Trump and gain our entrance into the popular group in the cafeteria.
Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking
since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state
witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage.
If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their
prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process
crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem
there's something fishy there.
And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which
would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ
lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather
fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump
campaign.
I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. I agree with you that the
investigation of the "conspiracy" is moving along well despite the roadblocks by the DOJ. Goodlatte who has seen the FISA application has now requested all the DOJ testimony from
FISC. In a recent interview Rep. Ratcliffe who has also seen the FISA application made an
interesting point that since in a FISC proceeding the accused has no ability to challenge the
prosecution's claims, the prosecution has an affirmative obligation under FISA to present all
the evidence, which the DOJ did not do but instead knowingly mislead the court.
It looks like we're heading towards another special counsel to investigate law enforcement
and the IC regarding both the Trump and Clinton counter-intelligence investigations as well
as the IC and media propaganda efforts to build hysteria around the meme of collusion of the
Trump campaign with the Russian government. That investigation could lead all the way into
the Obama White House.
See post No 14: "...the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also lets
slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful informant
since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page himself has
never been accused of lying to the FBI."
The case is not closed – it is closing on the high-placed violators of the US
Constitution --as well as on their lack of professionalism, sheer incompetence and
promiscuous opportunism
Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots
(accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral
process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers
– for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a
lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving
Mueller for all other people).
There is another big Q: To what extend both the FBI and the CIA have been infiltrated by
Israel-firsters that are loyal to Zion, and how extensive is the damage inflicted by the
"duals" on the US.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant,
but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to
recruit him in 2013.
If he was an informant, the FBI would not have had to obtain a FISA
warrant to surveil him in 2014. That also raises doubts about how cooperative he was during
that investigation and the 2015 Russian spy trial.
Obviously he didn't obstruct the
investigation or prosecution or he would have been charged for that long ago. I get the
impression he is a lot more wily than most people give him credit for.
Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people.
This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote.
Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence.
Looks like neoliberals decided to equate widespread anti-neoliberalism and anti-globalization sentiment with pro-Russian
propaganda. A very clever and very dirty trick.
What is funny is that Steele dossier and FBI Mayberry Machiavellians machinations actually deprived Sanders a chance to
represent Democratic Party. nt that he wanted this badly, he folded eve without major pressure (many be under behind the scenes
intimidation due to business dealing of his wife)
Notable quotes:
"... Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against the Russian government " as well as Trump. ..."
"... This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical "indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were flops). ..."
"... Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing – nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a full-fledged witch-hunt: ..."
"... Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material by the fraudulent fanatic Luke Harding all over the web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest about Russia. ..."
"... Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since he's not been charged with a crime after all this time. ..."
"... So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people? ..."
"... A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job – exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible donations. ..."
One by one, the plaster gods fall,
cracked and crumbled on the ground: the latest is Bernie Sanders, the Great Pinko Hope of the
(very few) remaining Democrats with a modicum of sense who reject the "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
paranoia of Rep. Adam Schiff and what I call the party's California Crazies. The official
Democratic leadership seems to have no real commitment to anything other than fealty to a few
well-known oligarchs, who provide the party with needed cash, a burning hatred of Russia
– an issue no ordinary voter outside of the Sunshine State loony bin and Washington, D.C.
cares about – and exotic issues of interest only to the upper class virtue-signalers who
are now their main constituency (e.g., where will trans people go to the bathroom?). Overlaying
this potpourri of nothingness, the glue holding it all together, is pure unadulterated hatred:
of President Trump, of Trump voters, of Middle America in general, and, of course, fear and
loathing of Russia and all things Russian.
And now the one supposedly bright spot in this pit of abysmal darkness has flickered out,
with Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Reds, jumping
on the Russia-did-it bandwagon and cowering in the wake of Robert Mueller's laughable
"indictment," in which the special prosecutor avers that $100,000 in Facebook ads were designed
to throw the election to Trump – and to help Bernie!
Oh no, says Bernie, from his place of exile in the wilds of Vermont, where the
Russians
did not take over the electrical grid: It wasn't me!
Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party
Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but
hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian
agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against
the Russian government " as well as Trump.
This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical
"indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an
out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on
Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump.
Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting
Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were
flops).
Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing –
nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a
full-fledged witch-hunt:
"The key issues now are: 1) How we prevent the unwitting manipulation of our electoral
and political system by foreign governments. 2) Exposing who was actively consorting with the
Russian government's attack on our democracy."
This is the real goal of anti-Trump groups like the "
Alliance for Securing Democracy " and their "Hamilton dashboard," which purports to track
"pro-Russian" sentiment online: it's the explicit intention of #TheResistance to censor the
media with the cooperation of the tech oligarchs like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. It's back
to the 1950s, folks, only this time the Thought Police are "liberals," and "socialists" like
Bernie and the Bernie Bros.
Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material
by the fraudulent fanatic
Luke Harding all over the web site
of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA
will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest
about Russia.
Coming soon: a congressional "investigation" into "pro-Russian" Americans using the
"Hamilton dashboard" and the Southern Poverty Law Center as templates. Remember the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee? Well, it's coming back. That's always been in the cards, and
now those cards are about to be dealt.
I'll tell you one thing: I would have colluded with the Klingon Empire to prevent Hillary
and her band of authoritarian statists and warmongering nutcases from taking the White House.
If only the Russians had intervened, they'd have been doing this country – and the
world – a great service. Alas, there's not one lick of solid evidence – forensic,
documentary, witness testimony – that shows this. Which is what the Mueller investigation
is all about: the Democrats are claiming there was interference, and Mueller is out to find
corroboration. Except it's been over a year and he's come up with nothing.
Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing
to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page
pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since
he's not been charged with a crime after all this time.
The Deep State's bid for power has hit several roadblocks recently, but it could yet
succeed. First, Mueller could indict the President for "obstruction of justice" – a
charge derived not from any real criminal activity, but from the investigation itself. I think
this is the most probable outcome of all this.
Barring that, however, there is one road they could and probably would go down, given the
intensity of their hatred for this President and their overweening power lust. Having gone this
far in an attempt to overthrow a sitting President, they can't just stop halfway to their goal.
They have to go all the way, or else suffer the consequences – public exposure, and
possible criminal charges. In short, if they fail to get Trump on some semi-legal basis, I
think they'd welcome his assassination.
The Deep State cannot allow the Trump administration to stand for a number of reasons, the
chief one being that the coup is already in progress and there's no stopping it now. The
President's enemies are legion, they are powerful, and they are abroad as well as here on
American shores. They cannot allow his brand of "America First" nationalism to succeed, or seem
to succeed: it conflicts too violently with their globalist vision of a borderless
America-centric empire ruled by a coalition of oligarchs, technocrats, and Deep State
operatives who've been shaping world events from the shadows for generations.
So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the
Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a
sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can
exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people?
That's the issue at hand and that's why I spend so much time writing about Trump and his
enemies' efforts to destroy him. Because if the Deep State succeeds, the America we knew and
loved will be no more. Something else will take its place – and believe me, it won't be
pretty.
A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten
together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in
smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job –
exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible
donations.
If we all get together and make that final push we can make our goal. Every donation counts,
no matter the amount. This is how we'll finally win the battle for peace: by uniting, despite
superficial differences, to support the institutions that are in the front lines of the
struggle for a rational foreign policy. And leading the charge is Antiwar.com.
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
So here is my personal conclusion: democracies are political systems in which the real
ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power.
"what we see is that western democracies are run by gangs of oligarchs and bureaucrats who
have almost nothing in common with the people they are supposed to represent."
Perry, a member of the Homeland Security subcommittee on cyber security, said Tuesday that the House Office of Inspector General
tracked the network usage of Awan and his associates on House servers and found that a "massive" amount of data was flowing from the
networks.
Notable quotes:
"... Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
"... This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
"... It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the first amendment. ..."
"... If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." ..."
"... It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved. ..."
"... If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign. ..."
"... Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct. ..."
"... Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary. ..."
"... Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law is why sociopaths flourish. ..."
"... They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs. ..."
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants
in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers
of the case at a loss for words. The
document , provided by the
law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic
Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment.
Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust
at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck's outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation
process for political purposes: "For example, Plaintiffs' counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as "shi*bags" on Twitter
and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants." Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit."
This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense
counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note
the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices
of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy
theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: " There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an
improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political
party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign ."
The brief continued: " To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run
directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by
political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office. "
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment.
If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty
"to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent."
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated
that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary
Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen. Disobedient Media will continue to report on this important
story as it unfolds.
Even on a practical level, beyond the "fraud is free speech" argument, they don't seem to have considered that this argument
is a lose/lose proposition. Even if they (DNC) win legally, they are going to lose as people turn away from the finger they're
giving them.
Notice this is a civil suit brought by a citizen. The Bern is silent and not suing anybody although he was the target
of the scam, or maybe a party to it. The DOJ is silent and not looking to put anybody in jail for what appears to be an
obvious violation of criminal law.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- - Jeff Sessions
Not so for murder, and rigging the general election. Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering
soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct.
What is the difference? There is no any justice in America. It is all gone.
The US people are polarized and, thanks to Hollywood and mainstream media, with the culture of lawless, violence, and hatred
of everybody. America is a very sick country with a fake President and the utterly corrupt US Congress. It will not end good or
bloodless.
The US military reliance on super-technology is poorly thought of since these high-tech military systems require very highly-educated
and intelligent people to operate these systems while the US educational system being a total failure cannot produce.
Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious
plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary.
But, hey, if he can shave a few hundred dollars off of my monthly health insurance premiums he can call for a first-strike nuclear
attack on Russia!
Clearly we have laws for little people while the owners do whatever the fuck they want.
... the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails contain information that is presently
classified Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the
Confidential level; 65 contain information classified at the Secret level; and 22 contain information classified at the Top Secret
level....
I think this is the exact reason election boards exists. They should be suing the DNC over this as well, but are full of party
officials. If there was any sane form of democracy, the DNC would be bared from campaigning in most states.
It's a sewer, the whole fucking system is just a cesspool filled with the most reprehensible, self-serving people in the country
outside of Wall Street. But everybody just keeps playing along.
Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There
are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law
is why sociopaths flourish.
They don't live in the same reality as us and never have.
They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible
actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up
a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs.
My take was Bernie was supposed to cat herd the millennials to the Hillary camp but that blew up in their face when the millennials
decided to put down their cell phones and proceeded to give Hillary the bird.
Wouldn't doubt a large majority still ended up voting for but they probably won't admit it.
Doesn't this make the whole candidate selection process, and all the rules and regulations governing a party's whole nomination
process meaningless? If what DEMS did within their own party to Bernie is moot, then what Trump may have done via his "Russian
collusion" is mooted also. Can't have it both ways.
They used the same argument before the appeal... and the corrupt judge agreed with "The Crooks" and closed the case. NOT ONE media outlet covered the fact they actually said in open court that the DNC had no legal obligation to be fair.
"... The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd, found (Russian, machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number. ..."
"... On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of their visas -- prob. H1B. ..."
"... On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was offered. ..."
Automated Twitter accounts, or trolls, repeated a tweet about a MoA piece
on Muller's indictment of "Russian trolls" . Funny but not really important. There is
interesting news though related to the original Muller indictment. Mueller accused with little
evidence 13 persons involved in the private Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) of meddling
with the U.S. election campaign.
The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd,
found (Russian,
machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller
indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United
States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social
marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number.
On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On
August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of
their visas -- prob. H1B.
On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the
alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US
agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was
offered.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as
unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies.
Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or
'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
This is almost two year old discussion. Still relevant...
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ... ..."
"... I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ... ..."
"... And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did. ..."
"... The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro. ..."
"... Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired. ..."
"... Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened. ..."
"... Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[ ..."
"... "Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..." ..."
"... I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant: ..."
"... Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics! ..."
"... Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him. ..."
"... The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood. ..."
"... This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912. ..."
"... [I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.] ..."
Why Republican Elites are Threatened, by Mark Thoma : ... Donald Trump's tax plan will result in a fall in revenue of 9.5
trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet somehow he will fulfill his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare and
balance the budget? When push comes to shove (or worse – this is Trump after all), who do you think he will protect, social insurance
programs the working class relies upon for economic security or his own and his party's wealthy interests? Ted Cruz has proposed
an 8.6 trillion dollar tax cut. How, exactly, will that be financed without large cuts to social insurance programs or huge increases
in the budget deficit?
Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
...
I am very happy that the
Republican con is
starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican
Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe
that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ...
And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders
to their plutocratic donors - just as W did.
Hence my support for a *countercyclical* Balanced Budget Amendment.
Peter K. -> New Deal democrat...
My point was that Sanders or Clinton would be getting the surprise surpluses as W. did.
My hope is that Clinton would do the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I could see her do tax cuts for
corporations and finance. Summers recently had a piece arguing for tax cuts as incentives for private investment.
sanjait -> Peter K....
If we consider that there is probably some pent up business investment demand that could drive above average productivity
growth for a few years ... then it plausibly is possible for the country to achieve late 90s style growth.
likbez -> Peter K....
The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something
like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates
for the loss of EU to euro.
Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size
if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.
Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt
to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.
Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts
the US elite and feels threatened.
Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last
one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html
) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked
her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know,
is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[
pgl :
All well said! The notion that Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump lie a lot is as established as the fact that the earth is
not flat.
Jerry Brown -> pgl...
True that!
Paul Mathis :
"[T]here are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare."
As every legitimate economist knows, stimulus spending to increase the GDP growth rate would raise tax revenues without raising
tax rates. This phenomenon is well-known to Keynesians and has been demonstrated many times.
Thanks to the disinformation campaign run by Republicans, however, stimulus spending has been taken off the table of economic
choices except in China where minimum GDP growth is 6.5%. China is "killing us" economically because we are stupid.
Jerry Brown -> Paul Mathis...
Instead, the Trumps and Cruzes and Ryans believe in giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. This might provide a weak stimulus for
the economy, but it is a very poor way to go about it. More likely in my mind is that it would lead to increased pressure to cut
government spending on things that actually do help the economy.
Paul Mathis -> Jerry Brown...
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase demand. Trickle down is a false economic doctrine that exacerbates inequality and therefore
reduces demand. Keynes established this principle decades ago but his wisdom has been ignored.
pgl -> Paul Mathis...
You'll love this bit of honesty from right wing Joe Scarborough:
Job losses began the month Reagan signed the tax cuts. Job creation began the month Reagan hiked taxes to pay workers to fix the
roads and bridges. Reagan and his job killing tax cuts caused the recession, not the Fed and monetary policy. Monetary policy
was steady from 1980 to 1983.
Reagan's tax cuts struck fear into would be lenders. How much debt was the government going to need if it intentionally cuts
it's incomes? On the other hand, if the government stops spending, that's millions of workers who will be forced to stop spending.
For Nixon, the Fed monetized the smaller deficits from repealling the war tax surcharge that balanced the budget in 1969. Just
as the Fed monetized all government debt once FDR and his bankers took over, especially Eccles at the Fed.
But Volcker was not going to monetize the debt caused by Reagan's adoption of intentional deficit spending.
But even Reagan eventually understood what FDR did: gdp growth requires workers getting paid more, and government can take
the money from people who have it but won't spend it paying workers, but tax and spend, and create jobs.
If only economists today understood it, and called for tax and spend to create jobs to grow gdp.
anne :
Really nice essay.
Mr. Bill :
"Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
..."
I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery
that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems
particularly poignant:
"At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest,
wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness
of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968,
and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We
knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies
with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest
their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
I'm pretty sure that the Trumpists would be thrilled to raise taxes...on someone else. It's only the elites that are interested
in lowering taxes on the rich. Trump's followers don't care.
I'm also pretty sure that Trump will turn on the donor class rather than reduce anything for his own base - but I could be
wrong.
Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would
allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics!
All this liberal hand wringing about Trump's tax plan. Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!!
Not a single 'attaboy' from these supposedly liberal economists.
"With the most progressive tax policy of any candidate, Sanders would dramatically increase taxes for the very wealthy and
high-income earners (as well as moderate increases for the middle- and upper-middle classes) in order to pay for key planks of
his social agenda including tuition-free public college, a Medicare for All healthcare program, massive infrastructure spending,
and paid family leave for all workers."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/tax-plan-sanders-beats-both-clinton-and-trump-double-digits
"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes,
and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family
leave, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next
decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with
the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent
historical experience in the US."
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf
As I've said many times, most 'liberal' economists simply to not want increased taxes to be put on the table as a viable alternative
for funding stimulus. Else, why would they go silent when a major candidate makes such an economically significant proposal? Why
is it that they are eager to promote ever more debt but refuse to support more taxes?
pgl -> JohnH...
You are pushing this which is fine. But
"Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!"
I noticed this a long time ago. And I applauded Bernie's proposal. I guess I have to resign as a "liberal economist".
Question is, why are all those 'liberal' economists running from Bernie's progressive tax plan like the plague?
pgl -> JohnH...
I have supported tax increases on the rich many times. Pay attention. Also - read the latest column from Mark Thoma which is what
this thread is supposed to be about. I guess Mark must not be a liberal economists either. DUH!
Eric377 -> JohnH...
Because they can always run back to something like it if a Democrat is elected, but not so if Trump or Cruz are and they have
convinced themselves that supporting Sanders is a big risk of getting a Republican. And they are right about that.
JohnH -> Eric377...
LOL!!! Democrats will NOT endorse support anything like Bernie's tax pan EVER! Just like 'liberal" economists will never endorse
it either...in fact, they have every opportunity to endorse it now but refuse to even talk about it, apparently hoping it will
just go away.
But the real benefit of high tax rates on people with lots of money is they will work really hard to not pay taxes by investing
in new capital assets even if the bean counters think building more assets will only slash returns on capital.
The result is no increase in tax revenue, but lots of jobs created if the tax dodges are designed to create jobs.
The best example is a carbon tax. The correct carbon tax schedule of increases will raise virtually no tax revenue, but will
result in trillions of dollars in labor costs building productive capital, which will ironically make the rich far wealthier.
But if millions of people are employed for a lifetime and the burning of fossil fuels ends, only Bernie will be angry that
those responsible end up worth hundreds of billions, or maybe become trillionaires. Their businesses will not be profitable, just
like Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are worth tens of billions but are unprofitable.
pgl :
GOP elite Peter Schiff babbling even worse lies than our excellent host has documented:
Every year Schiff predicts a recession. Once every 6-8 years, he's right. Schiff then claims he's predicted every recession for
the last three dozen years. Everyone is amazed. "How does he do it?" the crowd gasps.
Why does anyone even mention Schiff? He's a grifter with an angle to part rich people from their money. Nothing more.
pgl :
From the day job - filed under fun with Microsoft Excel. Math nerds will get this right away. I'm reading a report from some expert
witness that claims some loan guarantee is worth only 22 basis points when my client has charged 55 basis points. Think of x =
1.005 and take the natural log. Yes, the right answer is 50 basis points. This clown uses Excel and types in log(x).
OK - I hate Microsoft Excel as it took me a while. But the log function assumes base 10. The correct syntax is ln(x).
Somehow I think the right wing elite will start doing similar things in their Soc. Sec. analyzes.
William -> pgl...
Somehow, I think the right wing elite don't know the difference between a basis point and a percentage point, let alone between
a base 10 or a base e logarithm.
pgl -> William...
I know Stephen Moore certainly does not know the difference!
DrDick :
Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts.
pgl :
Politics down under (New Zealand). The Green Party is campaigning on transfer pricing enforcement in order to make the multinationals
pay their fair share of taxes:
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their
authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
I was tired and fell asleep by 9PM missing Rachel's show. Thanks for filling me in. She's awesome!
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old
people, bringing in New Blood.
This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP
back in 1912.
eudaimonia :
[I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are
beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.]
I disagree here. I don't see Trump as exposing the Republican economic agenda to be a fraud. Instead, Trump is exposing that
the main driver in conservatism is not policy, but racism.
The Republican base is not "waking up" per say, but Trump rather erased away the policy veneer and has shown the heart of the
conservative base.
For decades, the RW economic and social agenda was based off of racism and bigotry - fictional Cadillac mothers, how blacks
just vote Democrat since they are lazy, increased voting restrictions for a non-problem, Willie Horton, opposing the CRA in the
name of "freedom" and states' rights, etc.
The argument now has simply shifted away from slashing taxes on white rich males since it creates an underclass of dependent
minorities, to blaming Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
If you look at the heart of Trump supporters, they are high school dropouts who have also dropped out of the labor force since
they were dependent on the old economy, live in mobile houses and have not moved around much, with a history of voting for segregationists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=0
As their economy breaks down around them, like it has in various parts of the country, we are seeing the same social ills emerge
- suicide, drug use, depression, rise of divorce, etc.
What Trump has shown them is that it is not their fault. It is not the fault of policy. It is not the fault of globalization.
It is not the fault of technological change. It is the fault of the Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
The core of conservatism is still there: racism, and Trump has simply shown this. Conservatism is not about policy, but an
emotional reactionary ideology based on fear and ignorance that looks for minorities to be scapegoats.
pgl :
US Supreme Court splits 4-4 in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore:
Appeals Court had ruled in favor of the bank so the bank prevails. OK - we know Scalia would have voted in favor of the bank
but now the standard is how would have Garland ruled. The Senate needs to act on his nomination.
sanjait :
Maybe the simplest way to dissect it is to note that the GOP has been running multiple overlapping cons. They tell the base that
tax cuts will improve their lives, and then passes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich.
They tell the base that regulations are killing jobs, and then block or remove any government protection or program that makes
the country livable so some industrialist can avoid having to deal with externalities. They tell the base that "those people"
are taking their stuff, and then shred the safety net that helps almost everyone except the rich.
What Trump has done is expose how these cons don't really fit together logically, but he hasn't really gone strongly against
any of them. He's been on both sides of the first two, and tripled down on the third.
"... We don't lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. ..."
"... Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent. ... ..."
"... In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule, higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED! ..."
"... Responding to the increasingly inane behavior of the two parties, Robert Reich envisions a third party win in 2020: http://robertreich.org/post/141437490885 ..."
"... Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him in jail for a few days. ..."
"... (i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth. The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before. ..."
"... (ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime tax increase in history. ..."
"... (iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February 1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work. ..."
... I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax
bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. ...
Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight
years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The
average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent.
...
PAUL MATHIS :
Lyin' Ryan
"In 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back
to work."
So the tax cuts reduced growth and increased unemployment. Those are FACTS
PAUL MATHIS -> pgl...
The Question Was the Effect of the 1981 Tax Cuts
Ryan says they were positive for growth and jobs. They were not based on the ensuing facts.
Obviously many other things were happening but Ryan made a clear statement that was a lie and that needs to be called out.
pgl -> PAUL MATHIS...
In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule,
higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED!
"Politics abhors a vacuum. In 2019, the People's Party filled it.
Its platform called for getting big money out of politics, ending "crony capitalism," abolishing corporate welfare, stopping
the revolving door between government and the private sector, and busting up the big Wall Street banks and corporate monopolies.
The People's Party also pledged to revoke the Trans Pacific Partnership, hike taxes on the rich to pay for a wage subsidy (a
vastly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit) for everyone earning below the median, and raise taxes on corporations that outsource
jobs abroad or pay their executives more than 100 times the pay of typical Americans.
Americans rallied to the cause. Millions who called themselves conservatives and Tea Partiers joined with millions who called
themselves liberals and progressives against a political establishment that had shown itself incapable of hearing what they had
been demanding for years."
Will Democrats and Republicans becoming out of touch with voters and illegitimate representatives of the will of the people,
it's time to register your disgust--vote third party!
[Not voting only communicates apathy, which is fine with the elites.]
Ben Groves :
Boomers were driving up the labor force, driving up unemployment.
If you want to be clear, this happened to Jimmy Carter in the late 70's when that expansion was peaking.
The bigger the growth rate of total population, the faster GDP must grow.........and vice versa. Why do you think the classical
liberals hated Malthus so much?
pgl :
Bruce may be right here but this includes business cycle effects:
"Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's
eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent."
Using the typical measure of potential output, we can do this on the terms that supply-siders preach. Long-term growth. This
growth was around 3.5% before 1981. It was also 3.5% after 1992. But during the Reagan-Bush41 years, it was only 3%. You see -
this tax cut raised real interest rates and crowded out investment.
Paul Ryan wants to pretend he's a smart guy. If he is - then he knows this. Which means he is lying to us.
Yesterday when Brussels was attacked – my police department went into action to insure my subway rides were safe. My mayor
took a subway ride to Times Square which showed courage. So what does the slime ball Cruz do?
'Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz swooped into Manhattan Wednesday and promptly hit Mayor de Blasio below the belt
when he said cops who turned their backs on him were speaking for all Americans." When heroes of NYPD stood up and turned their
backs on Mayor de Blasio, they spoke not just for the men and women of New York, but for Americans all across this nation," said
Cruz at the GOP Party & Women's National Republican Club in Midtown.'
There has been tension as our police have to patrol as we march against how the police that murdered Eric Garner got off from
prosecution. And then the horror of two of them murdered in cold blood by some crazed person from Baltimore. A few cops did turn
their backs as the mayor honored these two brave cops. Most of the NYPD, however, was appalled at this garbage. Had I known Cruz
was coming here to insult my city – I would have been there protesting. But my mayor handled this the right way:
'De Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton were two of the most vocal critics, with Bratton saying it was so out of line
it showed why he'd never win the White House race. He doesn't know the hell what he is talking about, to be frank with you," Bratton
said. "While he's running around here, he probably has some Muslim officers guarding him." Later, during an radio interview, Bratton
went after the Texas senator again on the monitoring." He is maligning a whole population group. A religion. That's not the American
way," Bratton said on "The John Gambling Show" on AM970. "Mr. Cruz showed his naivete of the police department. I don't recall
Mr. Cruz in uniform at any time fighting for his country. This election campaign is painting everyone with the broad brush. We
focus on people committing the crime the disorder, not the population."'
Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him
in jail for a few days.
eudaimonia :
Except the tax cut story does not hold up for a couple of reason.
(i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth.
The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before.
(ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime
tax increase in history.
(iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February
1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work.
It is simply a comfortable story that conservatives tell themselves in order to validate slashing taxes on the rich, cut discretionary
non-military spending, and explode military spending and our deficits.
However, like in an echo-chamber for 3-4 decades, they will not come to terms with this.
When I first read this editorial, I assumed it would not be open to comments. Then
later I saw it was. The first half dozen comment were deleted by moderators and then there was
a blizzard of 'american bots' praising the article.
What amazed me was why Putin, who has reversed the shock doctrine neoliberal attack on
Russia and reversed declining mortality rate, raised living standards etc., etc. in Russia and
very logically has a very high approval rating, 80% or so, would need to 'steal' the
election.
The observer/guardian is mindblowing in its simplicity and assumptions that its
readership are complete idiots to be drip fed any old crap about USA good, Russia bad. That
paper sinks further and further into the morass of insignificance.
It's part of a web of stories designed to reinforce each other aka perception management.
Google any of the subjects and the establishment viewpoint will come first, second and third.
"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own
understanding of
MASHA GESSEN: So, I am really fascinated with what it tells us about our imagination about
the Russian imagination. So, Russia imagines America and the American political system as like
this unassailable monolith that they are throwing stuff at just to try to make a dent, whereas
the United States is starting increasingly to imagine Russia as all-powerful, as incredibly
sophisticated, as capable of, you know, sending out some really absurd tweets, in sub-literate
English, and somehow changing the outcome of the election. And that projects such a belief in
the fragility of the system and the basic instability of it and in the gullibility of voters
who read something that's not even comprehensible English and suddenly change their vote. I
mean, the working theory of the investigation -- right? -- is that Russians influenced the
election by influencing American public opinion. And so, we're asked to believe that a
significant impact on American public opinion could be produced by, you know, the Bernie the
Superman coloring book tweet.
"... The sad thing is, by admitting that Trump had no connection to the 13 accused 'election hackers,' his accusers are offering him an easy out–with the expectation that he will pay them back by turning against Russia. ..."
"... Trump has already acquiesced in new arms shipments to Ukraine, and he doesn't seem to have any problem with the Pentagon randomly attacking (among others) Russian soldiers and contractors in Syria ..."
"... Well this was always the ultimate point. Not getting Trump, but making sure Trump falls in line with the insane plan to get Russia. ..."
The sad thing is, by admitting that Trump had no connection to the 13
accused 'election hackers,' his accusers are offering him an easy out–with the
expectation that he will pay them back by turning against Russia.
Trump has already acquiesced
in new arms shipments to Ukraine, and he doesn't seem to have any problem with the Pentagon
randomly attacking (among others) Russian soldiers and contractors in Syria. If there were ever
any doubt, it now seems obvious that "the swamp" has successfully drained Trump. Start digging
your bomb shelters, people
Well this was always the ultimate point. Not getting Trump, but making sure Trump falls in
line with the insane plan to get Russia.
It's hard to see how this ends. Like the Terminator they absolutely will not stop. Ever.
Until they are physically incapable of moving another step. But will the world survive long
enough for that to happen? Or will Russia cave rather than risk war? Without Putin at the
helm I think 'compromises' will start and then pretty soon Russia is back in the fold with a
token president and the IMF running the show. Like the rest of us.
The whole election-meddling distraction is remarkable in both comic and tragic ways. The
tragedy can be summed up in three words: New Cold War. At a time when the U.S. and Russian
governments ought to be working toward nuclear disarmament, relations are deteriorating
dangerously. As the estimable Australian writer Caitlin Johnstone,
notes , despite Donald Trump's campaign promise of détente with Russia,
We are
already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with
a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. [Johnstone's links.]
Would Trump have done these things without the pressure of Russiagate? I don't know, but
Russiagate hasn't helped. And what more would Hillary Clinton have done by this point?
Johnstone argues that Russiagate is all about putting Russia in its place and securing the
American ruling elite's geopolitical and economic interests -- not about getting Trump:
America's unelected power establishment doesn't care about impeaching Trump, it cares
about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential rival superpower in its ally
China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this. The US deep state is using
the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for increasing escalations with
Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the delusion that pushing for
moves against Russia will hurt Trump.
Of course, removing Trump from office would be a cherry on top. If the drivers of Russiagate
can't have that, at least they can leave the impression that Hillary Clinton would be president
today were it not for the diabolically cunning Vladimir Putin and the inherently depraved
Russia in cahoots with their tool, Donald Trump. ( Putin's
opponents in Russia are irritated that Americans portray Putin as virtually omnipotent.)
Russiagate promoters in the Democratic Party deny they intend to right the wrong of 2016, but I
don't believe them. Surely they are trying to delegitimate the election on the grounds that
Trump and Putin stole it from its rightful owner. (For the record, I think all elections are
illegitimate but not because of foreign involvement.)
The anti-Russia campaign has certainly gone well beyond overboard. Former Director of
National Intelligence James (Yeah, I
lied . What you gonna do about?) Clapper, on "Meet the Press," said
the Russians "are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." (Beg your pardon, I linked to RT. Here's an American
site for anyone concerned about having RT in their browser history.) Johnstone
points out that Clapper has said such things before, including: "But as far as our being
intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not going to happen. It is in
their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed to the United States and to Western
democracies." As I recall, former CIA Director John Brennan said something similar.
On the comic side, Russiagate is a new theater of the absurd, featuring Americans running
around with their hair on fire over alleged official Russian actions that amount to
nothing significant: it was an act of war -- another Pearl Harbor -- no wait, another 9/11!
Let's assume -- purely for the sake of discussion since no evidence has been made public --
that the Russians did it. Note, first, that the "it" looks like the product of the gang that
couldn't shoot straight. I'm not going to do what Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron
Maté, and the late Robert Parry have done so well so many times, namely, catalog all the
inane acts the Putin-guided Russian intel agencies are said to have committed in order to bring
down America. (Start here .)
Suffice it to say that if that's the best Putin can come up with, we have little to
worry about. Of course, the very inanity of this so-called campaign to destroy America -- the
ridiculous discrepancy between means and alleged end, the sheer clownish ineptitude --
furnishes sufficient grounds for skepticism, at least, about the Russiagate narrative. (See
David Stockman's
explanation of the ineptitude. SPOILER ALERT: It wasn't a Russian Intel operation. The man
who we are to believe sought to subvert America's democracy is a freelance pro-Putin Russian
food-industry oligarch employing a bunch of minimum-wage keyboard jockeys who didn't pay
attention to the United States until the 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup in Ukraine, i.e., before
there was a Trump campaign.)
Americans generally do not know the nefarious things "their" government has done over many,
many years. This is partly due to what Bryan Caplan in The Myth of the Rational Voter calls "rational irrationalism." Americans embrace a
nationalism that is impervious to facts. Even vivid accounts of the systematic wholesale
slaughter of the Indians wouldn't shake it. People generally don't like to venture outside
their comfort zones to shake up their worldview, and even if they did so, what would change?
Each person has only one vote, and the chance that one vote will make a difference is close to
zero. So why not indulge one's nationalist biases? It's not as though there's an opportunity
cost to doing so.
On the other hand, politicians and pundits do have some idea of America's long record of
intervening in other countries. (Maybe I'm being too charitable.) What's their excuse for being
so offended by even the possibility of meddling in an U.S. election? One explanation is the
"exceptional nation" dogma of the American creed, or what I call the American chosen-people
complex. Even secular American nationalists believe America has been anointed -- by history if
not by a deity -- to lead the world. (This goes back to the founding generation, by the way.
It's no post-World War II phenomenon. See America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited .)
Thus, we have a moral inequivalence on our hands. It's okay if we do it to "them" (whoever),
but it's not okay if "they" do it to us. Moreover,
we can do it to ourselves , but if anyone else tries it, there'll be hell to pay.
Any way you look at it, Russiagate is ridiculous. Of course it serves some people's
interests. But it harms the rest of us, most of all by bringing us closer to conflict with
Russia, perhaps even to nuclear war.
The reality of Russiagate is that the corrupt neoliberal system and its institutions were laid bare in an
unprecedented way. The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the MSM has exposed itself as attack
dogs of intelligence agencies like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and useless system in place. The reality of the system was exposed in magnifying Russiagate lens. That's probably the only
good thing about it
Notable quotes:
"... John Sipher (ha ha) starts out by re-asserting the lie that Russians "hacked" the DNC ..."
"... Why are the people who work for this guy trying to sell opinions being called trolls? This is just another way to give credence to the FBI narrative that trolls tried to sway the election. If anyone was a troll, ..."
"... And Rachel? Quit lying to yourself and others. My gawd! You have come a long way from your time at Air America that I don't even recognize you anymore. You are creating hysteria and you have become a raving lunatic. Enjoy your $30,000/day, $7 million a month salary for selling out to the people who you used to despise. I despise you! ..."
"... He retorts that 'there's enough hot spots -- Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China' -- but fails to acknowledge that for example, the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency/civil war/rise-of-ISIS is all about what Aaron pointed to, the ginning up intelligence to create the Iraq invasion - which then spilled over into Syria. The role that the US is playing in all the other place he mentions, they have constantly resorted to lethal force and refused negotiation. ..."
"... The establishment media leaves out the essential context: The US is on a single superpower, Pax Americana global empire gambit; with everyone else playing for time while building their defences. ..."
"... And 'Russian Doctrine' is just recycled Soviet Doctrine - but the US always lead arms escalations during the old cold war - the so called soviet doctrine was in fact defence against US pressure and aggression. ..."
"... The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the main stream media has exposed itself like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt and useless system in place. The reality of the system is being laid bare in an unprecedented way. As bad as things seem, this is a good thing, if we can keep those in power from destroying the earth before we can recover it. ..."
"... Unless something more comes of this, the Dems and their media cohorts will do a repeat of the Repubs and that same media when the WMD failed to materialize in Iraq. The wonderful thing about The Homeland, though, is that being wrong, all the time, in no way disqualifies you for remaining an important and serious person. ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Bernie Sanders ..."
"... Yeah, I think the point of this is not to change opinions, the point was to try to either suppress voters on one side, or to get people to hardened opinions, and get people to come out to vote, and we've even seen the same troll farm, looks like they're doing this now around the Parkland shooting in Florida. They were going around Black Lives Matter, they're trying to spin up divisions to get us working against each other, as much as electing Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. ..."
AARON MATÉ: Now, Maddow makes at least one error here. The indictment does say that
the operation had a monthly budget of $1.25 million dollars, but that was for its entire global
operations, of which the U.S. was only a part. And more importantly, can we say conclusively
that this was the work of Russian intelligence? Well, joining me is John Sipher, national
security analyst with Cipher Brief, and a former member of the CIA's clandestine service.
John Sipher (@john_sipher) is a former Chief of Station for the C.I.A. He worked for
over 27 years in Russia, Europe and Asia and now writes for various publications and works as a
consultant with CrossLead and New Media Frontier.
Here's what Mr CIA guy 'Sipher' is selling: The indicted 13 Russian trollers
interfered w the 2016 POTUS election- NOT by hacking US voting machines & flipping
votes to Repug Trump, but by sowing discord among the US electorate which even 'Sipher'
admits already existed. Most of the Face-Book posts by these alleged Russian trollers
were either posted AFTER Nov 8, 2016 &/or were seen by virtually NO-One, thus
'Sipher' effectively admits he now ilk in the US intel biz can even assess how much
alleged impact these alleged Russian trollers had on the 2016 POTUS election -But- I can:
Virtually ZERO!!
Now compare that to the US' notorious track-record of nefariously 'meddling' in other
countries' political processes- Mainly by Mr CIA guy 'Sipher's' so-called 'ex'
employer:
- In 1996 the US actively & blatantly interfered in Russia's presidential election to
get Slick Willy's pal & chum(p) that drunk Boris Yeltsin guy elected, & even
openly bragged about it. And then orchestrated a fire-sale of Russia's resources, that
resulted in great hardship to the Russian people.
In 2014 while Putin's attention was on the Winter-Olympics in Sochi, Killary Clinton's
protege' Vikky Nuland actively stoked a Neo-NAZI coup vs Ukraine's democratically elected
president -- In an blatant attempt to push NATO right up into Russia's face / west-flank
& to try to grab Russia's naval base in Crimea [which up till the 1950s was actually
officially Russian territory].
In 1953 the CIA in tandem w MI6 actively worked to overthrow Iran's democratically
selected leader Mosadeq, in an out-right COUP, that brought that notorious dictator the
Shah of Iran to power!
In 1954 the CIA actively worked to overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected leader
Arbenz, in an out-right COUP!
In 1960-61 the CIA in tandem w the Belgiums [& even the UN] actively worked to
overthrow Congo's democratically elected leader Patrice Lumuba, in an out-right COUP the
resulted in Lumumba's DEATH [w the OK of Ike Eisenhower's & Alan Dulles' CIA]! A coup
that brought the notorious despot Mobutu to power.
In 1961 Dulles' & 'Tricky Dick' Nixon's CIA talked JFK into allowing the CIA to
try to over-throw Castro in Cuba, in the 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco.
In 1966 LBJ's CIA helped to overthrow Ghanaian leader Kwame' Nkruma in a military
coup.
In 1973 Nixon's & Kissinger's CIA helped to overthrow the democratically elected
leader of Chile' Allende' in an out-Right coup, the resulted in Allende's DEATH! And
brought the notoriously murderous military regime of Pinochet to power!!
In 1991 Mr CIA POTUS Bush Sr OKed an out-right Coup vs the democratically elected
leader of Haiti Aristide. And Bush Sr's son, Bush Jr would do a repeat vs Aristide yet
again in 2004- Which was Haiti's bicentennial anniversary of its independence from
Napoleon's France [in 1804] as France's notorious [ex] slave-colony. The US & France
have been causing misery in Haiti ever since!!
In 2002 the US [likely spear-headed by the CIA] tried to pull a coup vs Venezuela's
democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez, which failed. But the US has been actively
meddling in Venezuela ever since, & is apparently plotting a coup vs Chavez'
democratically elected successor Maduro.
In 2003 the Bush-Cheney-Bliar nexus used false intel from Mr 'Sipher's' CIA, launched
that disastrous Iraq Attack Pt2 based on LIES, which resulted in over 1 Million Iraqis'
death, in an nefarious Neo-CONian / Neo-Liberal regime-change scheme!! This CIA backed
disaster directly resulted in the rise of AL-CIAeda in Iraq & then ISIS!!
In 2009 under Dim Obama & Billary HRC as his Sec of State, the US OKed a coup vs
Honduras' democratically elected leader Zelaya. And Honduras remains in turmoil to this
day!
In 2011 Dim OBomber & Killary [I came,. I saw, He died, Ha, ha, ha- Yes!] Clinton
in combo w France's Sarkozy, the UK's Cameron & those 'bastions of democracy' the
Saudi-GCC oil monarchs- actively overthrew Libya's leader Col Khadaffi via FUK-US NATO's
relentless 9 month 'R2P' bombing assault in yet another notorious Neo-CONian / NeoLiberal
regime-change scheme [based on LIES yet again]- Resulting in Khadaffi's brutal murder
[that KIllary openly called for just a few days before & then hideously cackled over
afterwards] mass chaos in what was Africa's most prosperous country, & brought to
power a regime that's directly linked to AL-CIAeda & even ISIS, & who are now
openly selling Black Libyans & African immigrants on Libyan SLAVE-Markets!!
In 2012 the US under then Sec of State Billary HRC tried to interfere in Russia's
elections [yet again] to block Putin's regaining Russia's presidency.
In 2011 the US under Slick Willy Clinton [as the UN's Gov of Haiti] & wife Billary
HRC as Sec of State, actively interfered in Haiti's elections yet again to bring that
neo-Duvalier guy Martelli to power, while outlawing Aristide's political party which is
the most popular party in Haiti.
In 2015 the US covertly backed a 'parliamentary coup' vs Brazil's democratically
elected leader Delma Roussef!
And oh let's NOT forget the US' & it allies [UK, the Saudis, the Turks, the IAF,
etc] actively involvement in the on-going Syrian disaster- In yet another Neo-CONian /
Neo-Liberal nefarious regime-change scheme!! And how Mr CIA guy Sipher's CIA & other
intel' agencies have been trying to bait first Dim OBomber & now Repug Trump into an
all out attack on Syria to accomplish it, using dubious 'intel' ala 'WMD redux'!!
I mean seriously Mr CIA guy 'Sipher' & all you other Russia-Gaters [IE: Rachael
Mad-cow & even Bernie]?? All this BS hype over 13 Russians trolling click-bait on
Face-Book, vs all that I've outlined above [just a short-list] that the CIA & even
so-called 'liberal' Dims have actively supported, w DISASTROUS results- Literally
destroying MILLIONS of lives in the process!! PLEASE!!
John Sipher (ha ha) starts out by re-asserting the lie that Russians "hacked" the DNC.
Everything that follows is just blah, blah,blah....Why is TRN interviewing this
buffoon?
No, sorry. I have great respect for Aaron, but TRN is not doing us any favors by
helping spread this noxious propaganda. They legitimize it by acknowledging it.
Meanwhile, there is other news they could be giving us.Check this out:
http://bit.ly/2EMOl4S Sad we have to depend upon comedians to give us the
news....
BTW. Why are the people who work for this guy trying to sell opinions being called
trolls? This is just another way to give credence to the FBI narrative that trolls tried
to sway the election. If anyone was a troll,
I'd say it was the Correct the Record folks
who were the trolls. Hillary's campaign paid over a million dollars for people to go into
websites and if anyone was being critical of Hillary, they tried to get them to change
their minds. How is that not election interference? And was that even legal? It was
unethical if not against campaign finance laws.
It arose inside the country, though Hillary is, without a doubt, scum. Hillbots were
actual 'Murkins, a lot of them still suffering from Hillbotulism. Elections featuring two
absolutely unacceptable candidates are a real drag, and, unfortunately, probably the
OFFICIAL end of the United States (though in reality, the US died in March 2003).
Unbelievable. Aaron: I don't believe that the Mueller investigation has delivered
solid proof that Russia did anything against the country.
Sipher:
Well I think that he and the FBI are reputable sources and I'm going to
believe them and what they tell me. Even if they haven't proven anything, we know that
Putin is a bad man and he wants to sow divisions here and besides he's using chemical
weapons in Syria (even though that's so totally off topic) and when I go to bed at night
I see Putin in my dreams and yackity, yack, yack! So there. I'm a poopy head and you're
not.
Good grief, how can people believe anything by this time? And Rachel? Quit lying to
yourself and others. My gawd! You have come a long way from your time at Air America that
I don't even recognize you anymore. You are creating hysteria and you have become a
raving lunatic. Enjoy your $30,000/day, $7 million a month salary for selling out to the
people who you used to despise. I despise you!
This guys arguments are so weak he must be interacting the very ignorant audience most
of the time (I think the great majority of Americans don't pay attention to what their
own foreign policy is -- and MSM the vast majority of the time offers nothing but safe
softball foreign policy questions).
He retorts that 'there's enough hot spots -- Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China' -- but
fails to acknowledge that for example, the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency/civil
war/rise-of-ISIS is all about what Aaron pointed to, the ginning up intelligence to
create the Iraq invasion - which then spilled over into Syria. The role that the US is
playing in all the other place he mentions, they have constantly resorted to lethal force
and refused negotiation.
The establishment media leaves out the essential context: The US is on a single
superpower, Pax Americana global empire gambit; with everyone else playing for time while
building their defences.
And 'Russian Doctrine' is just recycled Soviet Doctrine - but the US always lead arms
escalations during the old cold war - the so called soviet doctrine was in fact defence
against US pressure and aggression.
MoonofAlabama gives a good analysis of the marketing scheme aspect of these
"meddlings". Max Blumenthal mentions it in his discussion with Mate from earlier in the
week, but this is a very detailed look into the matter:
http://www.moonofalabama.or...
I suppose it is ok for Aaron to interview guys like this CIA agent but the agent
clearly doesn't understand the validity of an indictment. An indictment doesn't prove
anything; If it did, we wouldn't need trial courts.
The Department of Justice could
indict a ham sandwich if they wanted.
The DOJ knows that this case will never go to trial
and they will never have to prove anything. It is depressing that the Democrats and MSNBC
have lost all credibility. We are very lucky to have Aaron and Max looking at this sutff.
The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the main
stream media has exposed itself like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and useless system in place. The reality of the system is being laid bare in an
unprecedented way. As bad as things seem, this is a good thing, if we can keep those in
power from destroying the earth before we can recover it.
I just got done reading the Mueller indictment. For the MSM and the Dems to continue
their pathetic witch hunt is a true indictment of the corruption at the heart of this
country's political and media elites. No doubt there was an attempt, weak as it was, to
influence Americans, but for anyone to think this is the smoking gun that proves it was
decisive in determining the 2016 election, or that the Russian government definitely
orchestrated it, or that Trump, whom I despise as much as anyone else, colluded with
them, reveals a startling lack of intellectual honesty.
The effort put forth by the Russians involved seemed to have two objectives; first to
take advantage of the tribalization of American society to advance the Trump campaign,
and secondly, to make money off it.
Worst of all, if nothing more comes out of this, then the Dems, as corrupt as they are
incompetent, will have added more fuel to the Trump charges of fake news and will have
served only to weaken any resistance they claim to represent as this clown leads this
country on an ever accelerating demise.
I take issue with advancing the Trump campaign as an objective. Some ads, etc., were
anti-Trump and some were about kittens. I haven't seen any predominant political message,
at all, in that "effort". Also, it was so paltry that they had to know that it would have
no effect, at all, and never could have any effect. Implying otherwise is part of what
makes the whole story look like a bumbling, comedic farce to most thinking people.
If you read the Mueller indictment, it's clearly stated that they did contact various
American groups working for Trump, locally, that is, and arranged events, paid for
various materials, even someone to dress up as HRC and be in a jail, and also travel to
the states to do some first hand research, but as you say, the effort was minor, at best,
and was no factor in Trump winning, especially compared to the billions of $ of free air
time he got when running in the Repub primary, he was a cash cow for the networks, after
all, and the DNC advancing his cause during those same primaries, thinking he was an
easier opponent than Cruz or Rubio.
Unless something more comes of this, the Dems and
their media cohorts will do a repeat of the Repubs and that same media when the WMD
failed to materialize in Iraq. The wonderful thing about The Homeland, though, is that
being wrong, all the time, in no way disqualifies you for remaining an important and
serious person.
I haven't seen ANY evidence of traveling to the US for "first hand research". WHERE
does this crap come from? It comes from people desperate to keep the war budget higher
than any war budget in the history of planet earth. I still see nothing in that
"indictment" that serves as any real evidence that Trump colluded with any Russians, much
less any Russians definitively working for the Government of Russia, or any evidence that
the campaign was affected or that Russians were trying to create "discord" in the US.
If they bothered to look at the same types of activities and even direct money given
to candidates by Israeli, Saudi, UK, and other nationals, I think it would dwarf anything
Russian citizens used to fund or further any campaign. They won't look elsewhere, though,
because nothing perpetrates the fraud on the American people that is the Defense budget
like the word "Russians" and most of the "defense" (i.e., war) budget is completely
unnecessary. They should be cut by a third right now, with further cuts pending.
The indictment gives the names and dates of two Russians who made it here for a few
days; a third was unable to secure a visa. There are dates and places named in the
indictment, but nothing that could of had any influence on the election. If the Dems are
so worked up over having lost two elections this century even though their candidate had
more popular votes, you'd think they'd be screaming for a change in determining the
presidential election. We all know the Repubs would.
We are in total agreement as to what really mattered and matters regarding this issue
and the reasons behind the Dems sudden embrace of McCarthyism and their overall need to
point to Russia or anyone else to maintain the unmaintainable American empire. If you
haven't read the indictment, it's not that long, 37 short pages, several of which can be
skipped because they simply list names or laws broken.
If the dems really cared, they would be calling for publicly funded elections, cuts of
a quarter or more of the war budget (i.e., "defense"), and public health care and
education, and jobs programs with benefits. They care about nothing but their own
butts.
Aaron Mate is an excellent, intelligent, sincere, and questioning journalist--in
short, what everything one would expect from a real journalist. So, what is it the
naysayers don't like about him? Is it because he does not support their narrative. Is it
his laid back style? What in particular?
Glen Ford penetrates all the BS and gets right down to the real agenda, Black or
otherwise. He called out Obama back in 2007, when nearly everyone else on the so called
left were coming in their pants over that fake.
CIA staff exhibit two qualities in abundance: 1) Suspicious incredulity regarding all
apparent statements, actions and motivations of subjects in the field, and 2) Studied,
refined, and highly purposeful public mendacity regarding their and their government's
apparent statements, actions and motivations.
Mr Sipher is lying and the tell is his amazing degree of credulity regarding numerous
US entities paired with across the board mistrust and outright defamation of numerous
non-US entities. Virtually every accusation Sipher made against Russia, Putin and the
indicted, is a menu item on standard CIA operational plans for disrupting the elections
of foreign nations and has been practiced continuously for several decades, technology
permitting.
As a companion to this interview it might be nice to solicit an interview with a CIA
antagonist who knows how to expose--point by point, in policy, practice and
tradition--one of the most destructive covert entities in world history.
Mr. Sipher is throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick, attempting to
conflate what he laughably refers to as the "Russian Black Arts" with the Parkland
shooting. He talks in circles; on one hand acknowledging pre-existing social
"hyperpartisan", "tribal", divisions", while on the other hand dismissing genuine
political movements Black Lives Matter , Democratic Socialism ( Bernie
Sanders ), and the Environmental Movement ( Jill Stein ) as products of
Russian propaganda that is at once both sophisticated and simple.
JOHN SIPHER: Yeah, I think the point of this is not to change opinions, the point
was to try to either suppress voters on one side, or to get people to hardened
opinions, and get people to come out to vote, and we've even seen the same troll farm,
looks like they're doing this now around the Parkland shooting in Florida. They were
going around Black Lives Matter, they're trying to spin up divisions to get us working
against each other, as much as electing Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders.
His assessment lacks any measure of self/social-awareness or self/social-consciousness
that should be a pre-requisite before laying out criticism of another. It seems to me Mr.
Sipher might be protecting his CIA pension.
Hey there Munk! True believers will lay down their lives for their preferred criminal
syndicate because they are of one body; pensions are just icing. Your observations among
others are exactly why I said Sipher is lying.
Bill Binney, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou are the first three that come to mind as
potential contrarians, although I am sure there are others as well. Perhaps the Clapper
lyings will come up in part two?
A few months ago, while waiting for wifey to come out of Target, I saw a preteen kid
wearing a T shirt that said, "I speak fluent sarcasm." I want one of those.
Muhammad Ali used rope a dope to defeat George Foreman; Mate let's these idiots expose
themselves with their own words; nothing is more effective than letting a fool speak.
"... He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon. ..."
"... Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump. ..."
"... The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported. ..."
"... The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are usually secondary to his machinations ..."
"... Great development and exposure of this hillary-look-alike. Love the phrase 'pretend progressive,' as it describes Schumer to a T. Great piece. ..."
"... Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong. Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States. ..."
"... Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency. ..."
"... Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes me wonder what he knows? ..."
"... Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers ..."
"... Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerer of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah! ..."
"... Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor ..."
"... Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪ ..."
Thomas Hedges: In the 2007 book he published, Positively American, in the midst of his campaign against the war, Schumer
admitted that his opposition that year and the year before, was as much about ending a failed policy as it was about getting votes.
In reality Schumer had been one of the war's most ardent supporters, beyond his public display against the war carefully timed for
the 2006 Congressional elections, Schumer in fact pitted much of the blame on Iraqis themselves, arguing that Sunis, Shiites and
Kurds seemed more interested in starting a civil war in Iraq than in receiving help from the Americans and constructing any democratic
central government.
He even said, that in a similar future situation, he might vote again to authorize the use of force against a country like Iraq.
"Today," he wrote in his book, "I still believe that when our country is under attack the chief executive deserves a degree of latitude,
if God forbid, we were attacked again, I could well vote to give it to a future President, Democrat or Republican." And when a Real
News correspondent pressed Schumer in 2007 on US reparations to the Iraqi people, this is what he had to say.
Sam Husseini: Do we owe something to the Iraqi people other than just getting out? Do we owe them reparations for having
brought about this war?
Chuck Schumer: I don't believe that.
Ben Norton: It's hard to find a Democrat that's more gung-ho about war than Chuck Schumer. Not only did he support the
Iraq war, and fearmonger about weapons of mass destruction, he tepidly criticized the Bush administration for how it carried out
the war.
Thomas Hedges: In fact, tepid criticism seems to be Schumer at his most radical. In general, he is someone who supports
hard-line policy decisions, atoning for mistakes only years down the line, and usually because it's politically expedient to do so,
as in an election is about to take place.
Chuck Schumer: If you don't give up and you keep fighting and you're right, you win!
Thomas Hedges: In his early days, Schumer wasn't as focused on foreign policy, in the years before 911 would shift America's
attention to the Middle East, Congressman Schumer, along with the new Democrats like Bill Clinton among others, would exploit the
crime scare of the 1990's in order to gain more votes and more power. During those years, Schumer supported the Omnibus Crime Bill
of 1994, which spiked the prison population. And in 1995 he sponsored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, which became the foundation
from which the Patriot Act six years later, was built.
Ben Norton: When it comes to the war on terror he was a very enthusiastic supporter and remains so. He voted for the Patriot
Act, and again this is a supposed Democratic leader, who voted for the Bush administration to take away Americans civil liberties.
Thomas Hedges: In the years straddling 911, he supported many of the same policies Republicans supported. From his tough
on crime approach to supporting war in the Middle East, to defending the surveillance of Muslim groups in New York after 911. Schumer
and the GOP had very few differences, in fact despite shedding tears at a press conference earlier this year after the Muslim ban
that Trump implemented, Schumer himself had proposed something eerily similar.
Ben Norton: In November of 2015, not that long ago, less than two years ago, Schumer also said that the US government should
consider a so called pause on the re-settlement of Syrian refugees. He also, in one of the most egregious yet under reported aspects
of Schumer, previously said that torture should be considered in some places, and he said that, "Oh well if you oppose torture, you
say this now, but you need to put yourself in the shoes of people in these particular situations etc." So he really left torture
on the table.
Before Trump was President, he had actually donated money to Schumer, that of course, represents something, this is not a progressive
Democrat. Schumer actually represents the segment, the influential powerful segment of the Democratic Party, that has helped pave
the way for Donald Trump to carry out many of the policies he's already implementing.
Thomas Hedges: But for voters who have paid attention to Schumer for a long time, the Senator's policy choices are anything
but surprising.
Kevin Zeese:He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which
is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon.
Ariel Gold: He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and was very supportive
of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration,
when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously
upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law.
Ben Norton:Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other
country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that
was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes
it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump.
Thomas Hedges:The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to
launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported.
Chuck Schumer: On Syria, I salute the professionalism and skill of our armed forces, who took action last night. The
people of Syria have suffered untold horrors and violence at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his supporters in Tehran and in
Putin's Russia, making sure that Assad knows when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price, is the right thing
to do.
Thomas Hedges: But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his decision to oppose the Iran nuclear
deal, without which experts have warned, would put the United States and Iran on a collision course.
Ben Norton: Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and
he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about
the nuclear agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons etc.
Thomas Hedges: Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was consulting the most credentialed men
in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled
its democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war.
Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with excellence.
Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat again with Trump winning the election
we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see
come out of the Trump administration.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening for other undecided Democrats
to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.
News Anchor: Schumer's support here really would have been key for the White House, but coming out overnight against
this deal saying in a statement quote, "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable
option, not to challenge the path of dis-plomacy it is because, I believe Iran will not change."
Thomas Hedges: It also put him in yet the same camp as current President Donald Trump in terms of pursuing a Middle East
policy that is in line with Washington's most hawkish advocates. In the end, Schumer's a friend of the neo conservative foreign policy
agenda. While he may cry over Trump's Muslim ban and purport to have the same inclinations as America's most progressive members
of the Senate, he's fundamentally in agreement with the United States forceful efforts abroad.
Kevin Zeese:The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and
so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent.
Thomas Hedges: As the United States nears yet another arms deal with Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, this time for
a hundred billion dollars, and coupled with its four billion dollar annual aid to Israel, we can expect Schumer not only to support
an even more militarized Middle East, but to continue to rail against countries like Iran that pose a threat to US and Israel's hegemony
in the region.
Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are
usually secondary to his machinations
Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong.
Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States.
"I only take up causes in which I know I'll find no allies. And often I wait for a cause to become successful before
attacking it."
Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on
Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency.
Anything in the way of progressiveness that you suggest will be only, like Obama's eloquent blackness, to run cover for favors
for the war party. Which at this late date ought also be christened the "hastening to collective extinction" party.
Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and
his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes
me wonder what he knows?
Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better
for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers
♪ Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪
The Department of Homeland Security's first problem is its name. Mainstream American political
thought long celebrated the United States as a multicultural nation, one that forged a common civic
identity among people from disparate cultures. Except for the Native Americans, this country is no
one's "homeland," a word that evokes the blood-and-soil ethno-nationalism of the Old World.
"The word 'homeland' is a strange
word," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
mused
to his staff in one of his
infamous "snowflake" memos
in February 2001. "'Homeland' Defense sounds more German than
American. Also, it smacks of isolationism, which I am uncomfortable with."
But after the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration rallied around the phrase
to describe its anti-terrorism efforts, reportedly pulling it from a 1998 defense report that
called for an "
increased
emphasis on homeland defense
." The White House established an umbrella Office of Homeland
Security under former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, then proposed the creation of a massive,
Cabinet-level department by the same name to oversee the nation's domestic security.
It's now been more than 15 years since the U.S. government reorganized itself in response to a
terrorist attack committed by 19 people. International terrorism's threat to the United States has
largely receded: Al-Qaeda is a remnant of its former self, and the Islamic State has been largely
defeated in Iraq and Syria. At the same time, the bloated Department of Homeland Security turned
into a boondoggle -- an opinion shared across the political spectrum for years.
As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approached, in a
paper
for the libertarian Cato Institute, David Rittgers argued that the department's unusually
broad mandate is a recipe for waste and inefficiency. "This arrangement has not enhanced the
government's competence," he wrote. "Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is
simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu
epidemics." Matt Mayer, a Homeland Security official under President George W. Bush, argued in 2015
that DHS has too much responsibility. "It goes without saying that I observed up-close the
dysfunction, turf battles, and inherent limitations in an entity that does so much," he
wrote
in
Reason
magazine. "These problems are exacerbated due to the fact that, in many
cases, the activities DHS engages in require enormous coordination with entities embedded in other
federal departments."
Rittgers and Mayer both called for eliminating DHS and distributing its
responsibilities among various independent agencies. Vox's
Dara
Lind
and the Freedom of the Press Foundation's
Trevor Timm
argued likewise in 2015, largely on account of DHS' struggles with accountability
and waste. But the last year has seen the emergence of a deeper problem than mismanagement. Under
Trump, some of the department's agencies have turned openly abusive towards vulnerable members of
American society. The case for abolishing DHS has never been more urgent.
Washington began to rethink its national-security apparatus after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and in 1998 the Department of Defense established the Hart-Rudman Commission to study how
America should defend itself in the twenty-first century. The commission's
final report
proposed the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency, recommending the
Federal Emergency Management Agency as the NHSA's core, combined with the Customs Service from the
Treasury Department, the Border Patrol from the Justice Department, and the Coast Guard from the
Transportation Department.
"Bringing these organizations together under one agency will create important synergies," the
report said. "Their individual capabilities will be molded into a stronger and more effective
system, and this realignment will help ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to tasks
crucial to both public safety and U.S. trade and economic interests."
Creating such a department wasn't a priority for the Bush administration, even initially after
9/11. A
Washington Post
report on DHS's early days
noted
that its most determined early proponent was Joe Lieberman, then a Democratic senator
from Connecticut, who faced resistance from administration officials like Vice President Dick
Cheney. But in June 2002, the Bush administration endorsed the calls for a cabinet-level department
to handle homeland security, an
announcement
that came as Bush officials were facing tough questions on Capitol Hill about what
clues they had missed about the imminent attacks.
Altogether, the department's creation amounted to the most sweeping reorganization in the federal
government's history. As the Hart-Rudman Commission had proposed, DHS incorporated FEMA and the
Coast Guard. The department also absorbed the entire Immigration and Naturalization Service,
merging the Border Patrol and the Customs Service to create Customs and Border Protection and
moving the INS' domestic enforcement functions into Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Coast
Guard and Secret Service were brought under DHS, too. All told, the department combined 22 agencies
from across the government.
The result was a sprawling new federal bureaucracy. In its current form, DHS employs almost a
quarter-million people and doles out tens of billions of dollars in grants and programs each year.
Its missions include taking the lead on counter-terrorism programs, helping Americans recover from
natural disasters, protecting and regulating the U.S. border, and defending the nation from
cyberattacks. In all these efforts, DHS has been either incompetent, wasteful, redundant, or
abusive -- and Congress knows it.
In January 2015, on his final day in office, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
released a report
summarizing what he'd seen during his tenure on the Senate Homeland Security
Committee. "Despite spending nearly $61 billion annually and $544 billion since 2003, the
Department of Homeland Security is not successfully executing any of its five main missions," the
report found. DHS is focused on counterterrorism, Coburn wrote, "but a review of DHS's programs
shows that DHS's main domestic counterterrorism programs -- including its intelligence initiatives and
homeland security grants -- are yielding little value for the nation's counterterrorism efforts."
But lawmakers are hesitant to cut funding for a department designed to fight terrorism, and
reports of wasteful spending abound. Critics often point to so-called fusion centers -- regional hubs
for information sharing -- as the quintessential DHS boondoggle. In theory, these centers should
enable the sort of inter-agency cooperation that may have prevented the 9/11 attacks. But the
reality has fallen far short. A damning 2012 Senate Homeland Security Committee report
found
that the 77 fusion centers scattered across the United States "often produced irrelevant,
useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting
whatsoever."
Fusion centers aren't the only program to draw scrutiny. By 2008, the Government Accountability
Office
reported
that DHS had overseen almost $15 billion in failed contracts. In 2011, for example,
the department
canceled
a radiation-detection project that cost $230 million over five years after watchdogs
raised questions about its efficacy. A 2013 GAO
analysis
on
a $900 million program to staff Transportation Security Administration checkpoints with
behavioral-detection officers "found that the ability of human observers to accurately identify
deceptive behavior ... is the same as or slightly better than chance." The list of such failures is
long
.
DHS also has a poor track record on disaster relief. The department failed its first major test
when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005. FEMA Director Michael Brown resigned amid
widespread public criticism for the federal government's slow response to the crisis. An inspector
general's
report
issued the following year concluded that "much of the criticism is warranted" and found
shortcomings in communications, management, response plans, and implementation during the disaster.
FEMA handled subsequent hurricanes with less controversy, but in 2017 the department again drew
criticism for its slow reaction after two hurricanes devastated Puerto Rico. At one point, FEMA
tapped
an inexperienced Atlanta entrepreneur to provide 30 million meals for the island; she
only delivered 50,000 before the agency ended her contract.
The department also has a responsibility to protect the nation from cyber-attacks, but took a
sluggish approach to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Many states
didn't find out
their systems had been targeted until the department notified them almost a
year after the election. After when they did find out, California and Wisconsin officials
accused DHS
of giving them flawed information about the Russian attacks on their systems, an
allegation department officials denied. (In fairness to the department,
institutional paralysis
also characterized much of the Obama administration's response to the
attack on American democracy.)
No agency within Homeland Security has received as much scorn as Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and for good reason. "Every year," according to a recent
New Yorker
report
, "the branch of the agency tasked with making immigration arrests, called Enforcement
and Removal Operations, detains at least a hundred thousand people -- more arrests per year than the
F.B.I., the U.S. Marshals, and the Secret Service make combined." In 2017, under Trump, that figure
surged
by 40 percent. And the arrest of people without criminal records
doubled
after Trump reversed Obama-era guidelines that prioritized undocumented immigrants with
convictions.
In effect, ICE has become the "deportation force" that Trump, as a
candidate, had
threatened
to build. Agents have carried out arrest operations at
courthouses
,
hospitals
, and
schools
where its targets were dropping off their children. With astonishing cruelty, the
agency targets undocumented immigrants with jobs, families, and deep roots in American society. ICE
seized
Syed Jamal, a chemistry professor in Kansas who has lived in the U.S for 30 years and
has no criminal record, on his front lawn while he was getting his kids ready for school. Lukasz
Niec, a Polish-born doctor from Michigan who came to the U.S. when he was 5 years old,
faces deportation
to a country whose language he doesn't speak.
The agency has also become nakedly political. After California
passed
a sanctuary-state law last October, ICE ramped up its enforcement in the state,
apparently in retaliation
for the move. Thomas Homan, ICE's acting director,
called for
local and state officials in sanctuary cities to face criminal prosecution for not
cooperating with his crackdown. "We've got to take these sanctuary cities on," he
said
on Fox News last month. "We've got to take them to court and we've got to start charging
some of these politicians with crimes."
It's not just ICE, either. Customs and Border Protection has taken a disturbing turn since Trump
took office. The DHS inspector general
found
that CBP officers violated multiple federal court orders in their zeal to aggressively
enforce the first version of the president's travel ban targeting seven Muslim-majority countries
last January. And like ICE, CBP has a cruel streak. Last month, a nonprofit group released footage
showing
Border Patrol agents pouring out water jugs and destroying other humanitarian supplies
left for migrants crossing the deadly desert between the U.S. and Mexico.
If these issues were found in only one part of DHS and its subsidiary agencies, there might be
an option for reform. But the problem is both cultural and systemic. The department will always be
the hastily assembled product of a dark, paranoid moment in American history. It also helps give
permanence to that moment, preventing the country from moving beyond the post-9/11 era.
The solution: Reverse the 2003 law and send almost every agency back to where it came from.
Abolish ICE and return its deportation powers to the Justice Department, whose internal culture is
far more professionalized and less susceptible to systemic abuse. Immigration and citizenship
responsibilities can be transferred to the State Department, which is far better equipped for the
task. Transfer Customs and Border Protection to the Treasury, where the Customs Service existed for
decades.
Not everything will necessarily fit somewhere else. After a
wave of scandals
in recent years, the Secret Service might fare better under the president's
direct oversight. Whatever else is left of DHS can be reorganized under a Federal Emergency
Management Agency that's independent once more. Congress could even change FEMA's name to something
more encompassing of its broadened mission -- just as long as it's less Germanic than what came
before.
US intelligence bodies haven't particularly enjoyed their time in the spotlight these last
few years. The National Security Agency, or NSA, occupies a particularly complicated and
frustrating place in the collective unconscious: It's an institution we must trust with our
wellbeing on a daily basis, but it is also fundamentally unaccountable and untrustworthy. When
was the last time you voted for an NSA director?
So it might feel like schadenfreude to watch this feared and reviled agency fall into
disarray over the past half decade. But the truth is that the NSA still serves a vital purpose,
now more than ever, yet it is barely any longer able to do its job (ie. monitoring malign
foreign actors, anticipating the future moves of national governments, and keeping America's
intel safe from prying eyes). The latest crisis: the NSA's hemorrhaging of talent.
Hey,
Where's Everyone Going?
Of the country's 17 intelligence-gathering apparatuses, the NSA is the most prolific. The
agency's headquarters, located in Fort Meade, Md., staffs some 21,000 individuals. But their
heavy workload is now imperiled by a chronic flight of talent from the agency, described from
within as an "epidemic". It's hard to know exactly how bad of a situation we're talking about
because, of course, the NSA won't tell us details. But we do have some rough numbers:
• The NSA's current attrition rate for science, math and technology specialists is 5.6
percent.
• The attrition rate for hackers and cyberattack specialists is as high as 9
percent.
• And some teams within the NSA have lost as much as
half their staff .
Interestingly, between 2016 and 2017, the agency made the conspicuous decision to remove all
references to "openness," "honor" and "trust" from its core values and mission statements.
Which begs the question: Is it any wonder nobody wants to work there?
... ... ...
Kate Harveston is a journalist and a member of the CODEPINK communications team.
The size of funds that Democrats and Republicans operated were in billions. And , IRA
staffers purchased just $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56% of which ran after Election
Day. So only $44K was spent during election campaign.
There author is wrong about color revolution against Trump. It is progressing.
One interesting side effect will be ruthless suppression of the US influence in Russian
elections. Bismark famously remarked that "the Russians are slow to saddle up, but ride fast."
Here media dogs also are off leash and there will be innocent victims, blamed in treason and
other nefarious activities just to voicing dissent. Russiagate discredited neoliberal fifth
column in Russia, making them all "enemies of the people".
Notable quotes:
"... After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually nothing that's new. ..."
"... Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact. ..."
"... Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at war with our democracy," screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America since 9/11," blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor." ..."
"... This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't working: ..."
"... No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority according to a recent poll , figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67 percent, 72 percent, or even more. ..."
"... " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization, infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are. ..."
"... But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are banned or foreign musicians? ..."
"... "I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead. ..."
"... But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warns that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review" suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war drive is the best way to bring him to his knees. ..."
"... Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed. ..."
"... The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion, and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too soon. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or "Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock. ..."
"... As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts ..."
"... That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election. ..."
"... The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in progress. This cured that. ..."
"... This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame, like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar from recent Cold War. ..."
"... Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens. ..."
Fads and scandals often follow a set trajectory. They grow big, bigger, and then, finally,
too big, at which point they topple over and collapse under the weight of their own internal
contradictions. This was the fate of the "Me too" campaign, which started out as an
exposé of serial abuser Harvey Weinstein but then went too far when Babe.net published a
story about one
woman's bad date with comedian Aziz Ansari. Suddenly, it became clear that different types of
behavior were being lumped together in a dangerous way, and a once-explosive movement began to
fizzle.
So, too, with Russiagate. After dominating the news for more than a year, the scandal may
have at last reached a tipping point with last week's indictment of thirteen Russian
individuals and three Russian corporations on charges of illegal interference in the 2016
presidential campaign. But the indictment landed with a decided thud for three reasons:
It
failed to connect the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the alleged St. Petersburg troll factory
accused of political meddling, with Vladimir Putin, the all-purpose evil-doer who the corporate
media say is out to destroy American democracy. It similarly failed to establish a connection
with the Trump campaign and indeed went out of its way to describe contacts with the Russians
as "unwitting." It described the meddling itself as even more inept and amateurish than many
had suspected.
After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a
mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's
unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually
nothing that's new.
Yes, IRA staffers purchased $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56 percent of which ran
after Election Day. Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary
Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they
also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White
House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA
founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days
away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling
freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact.
Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at
war with our democracy,"
screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America
since 9/11,"
blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through
21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York
Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's
activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor."
All of which merely demonstrates, in proper backhanded fashion, how grievously Mueller has
fallen short. Proof that the scandal had at last overstayed its welcome came five days later
when the Guardian, a website that had previously flogged Russiagate even more vigorously than
the Post, the Times, or CNN, published a
news analysis by Cas Mudde, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, admitting
that it was all a farce – and a particularly self-defeating one at that.
Mudde's article made short work of hollow pieties about a neutral and objective
investigation. Rather than an effort to get at the truth, Russiagate was a thinly-veiled effort
at regime change. "[I]n the end," he wrote, "the only question everyone really seems to care
about is whether Donald Trump was involved – and can therefore be impeached for
treason.
With last week's indictment, the article went on, "Democratic party leaders once again
reassured their followers that this was the next logical step in the inevitable downfall of
Trump." The more Democrats play the Russiagate card, in other words, the nearer they will come
to their goal of riding the Orange-Haired One out of town on a rail.
This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde
gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't
working:
"While there is no doubt that the Trump camp was, and still is, filled with amoral and
fraudulent people, and was very happy to take the Russians help during the elections, even
encouraging it on the campaign, I do not think Mueller will be able to find conclusive evidence
that Donald Trump
himself colluded with Putin's Russia to win the elections. And that is the only thing that will
lead to his impeachment as the Republican party is not risking political suicide for anything
less."
Other Objectives of "Russiagate"
No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort
that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans
believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority
according to a recent poll ,
figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax
policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67
percent, 72 percent, or even more.
Summed up Mudde: " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in
Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover
country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a
nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization,
infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the
only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is
to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are.
But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is
repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're
now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion
and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the
RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times
described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert
disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the
West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are
banned or foreign musicians?
"I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist
Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of
both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains
that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who
designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised
when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its
activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead.
Add to this the classic moral panic promoted by #MeToo – to believe charges of sexual
harassment and assault without first demanding evidence "is to disbelieve, and deny due process
to, the accused,"
notes Judith Levine in the Boston Review – and it's clear that a powerful wave of
cultural conservatism is crashing down on the United States, much of it originating in a
classic neoliberal-Hillaryite milieu. Formerly the liberal alternative, the Democratic Party is
now passing the Republicans on the right.
But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster warns
that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams
Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review"
suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's
plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the
previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war
drive is the best way to bring him to his knees.
Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while
Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But
where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US
regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi
Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now
a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera
cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed.
The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The
process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion,
and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known
as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too
soon.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Zachary Smith , February 24, 2018 at 1:25 pm
First thing I checked before reading this was to check for instances of misuse of the term
"liberal". When I found none at all, the piece suddenly looked very promising. And it
was a fine essay!
A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or
"Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel
wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all
the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock.
With that small objection on record, I will declare this was great.
Zachary, I wouldn't get too hung up on words like "liberal" which have been used and
abused to become almost meaningless but yes, "the Democratic Party is now passing the
Republicans on the right." Somehow I think they believe they can pick up enough "moderate"
Republicans in the midterms to make up for the "angry white males"(& intellectuals) they
lost in the last election the same losing strategy.
mike k , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the
threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the
enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off
the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to
give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with
something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts
Mark Thomason , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
From its first moment, this was a Team Hillary exercise, decided on by her in the days
right after the election and promoted through her media contracts that had been an extension
of her campaign.
Why? At first they seemed to imagine it possible to reverse the election outcome.
Then it shifted to Trump hate. Why?
That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence
and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election.
The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they
were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in
progress. This cured that.
This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a
Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped
it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame,
like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar
from recent Cold War.
It was completely cynical, guided by the same greed that had produced the candidacy of
Hillary and run it the whole time, doing fund raising in friendly places instead of
campaigning in swing states.
JDQ , February 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm
..please do read this. It gives Liberals more a bashing than Conservatives
Joe Tedesky , February 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm
Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that
these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to
promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible
reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes
be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens.
This
is the way the MSM sell too many needless pharmaceutical products, and their drugs are
products, to insurance ad's and somehow make commercial space for the MIC defense
contractors. This is how the MSM makes real money, as they forfeited our learning of anything
worthwhile, as to pave the way for more exploitation of our country's struggles with
everything and anything, but all forfeited simply to make the MSM more money.
It goes without saying that we the American public aren't necessarily as fooled, and
tricked, as our masters would like to believe we are. So to explain away the Empire's
failings certain forces from within our nation's Beltway are hard at work trying to blame all
of their misgivings on another, and that another is Vladimir Putin and his American
engineered misunderstood Russians. For this reason our MSM hardly ever put the real Putin on
our television screens. No never, these American media producers always when describing
Putin, use a prop, or a slimy squinty eyed shirtless Russian stereotype instead. For our MSM
ever to air a speech of Putin, or do as Oliver Stone did, is beyond question, so don't wait
up kids to see ever steady Vladimir on our American TV sets because it just isn't going to
happen.
So now our MSM is exploiting the Florida mass shooting, and it is with their slants and
predisposed opinions where I lose faith in anything our media does. Even as terrible as this
Florida school shooting was, our MSM must politicize and adhere left right slants to this
story as in their daff journalistic heads this is what they must do. Like I said this is my
opinion taken from my own experiences, so take my comment for what it is, and not from any
references I happened upon.
That's a good question: why now. Where was all those immense power of NSA, CIA and FBI during election. Why that calmly
observed that Russian are destroying American democracy :-). Something is really fishy here.
Another interesting tidbit is connection of Mr. Mueller to 911 cover-up.
Yet another interesting tidbit is the story of the USA interference in the Russian election s of 2011-2012. As Caitlin
Johnstone observes the US's long history in meddling in other countries' elections is not "whataboutism," but rather a highly
germane point to understanding the context for the allegations of Russian meddling
Notable quotes:
"... f the purpose of all the warrantless spying -- in direct contravention of the Constitution, no less -- is to keep the country safe from foreign assault, whether by bombs in a subway or by guns in an office building or by hacking into computers, why didn't our 60,000 domestic, and God only knows how many foreign, spies catch this Russian interference? ..."
"... "the Russians ran unchecked through our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club. ..."
"... Muller indicted foreigners knowing they could not be extradicted to stand trial in the US. These indictments are "guerrilla theater" designed to justify Mueller's investigation. ..."
"... Why are so few people laughing at the microminiature level of this so-called meddling? These guys were run-of-the-mill internet trolls, engaging people in idiotic quarrels like trolls everywhere do. ..."
"... Meanwhile, how many American military bases sit on foreign soil where our people with guns and jets meddle for a living? How many countries get our ridiculously misnamed "foreign aid" where we tax America's middle class to bribe foreigners' rich people to do our bidding? ..."
"... All of MSM is owned by one foreign entity with one anti-American agenda. They interfere in every election, hell they hand pick the candidates, make em sign a pledge/oath to the foreign nation. Will Mueller be going after any of these traitors? Why isn't Mueller in prison for 9/11 cover up Mr. Sessions? ..."
Why didn't the CIA or the NSA or the FBI pick this up?
That is the $64,000 question that the indictment does not address, and we may never know the
answer to it. If the purpose of all the warrantless spying -- in direct contravention of the
Constitution, no less -- is to keep the country safe from foreign assault, whether by bombs in
a subway or by guns in an office building or by hacking into computers, why didn't our 60,000
domestic, and God only knows how many foreign, spies catch this Russian interference?
One answer is information overload. By spying on everyone all the time, the spies have too
much data through which to sift, and they miss the evidence of coming terror -- just as they
did with the killings in Orlando, in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, on a New York bike
path and even recently at a school in Florida, all of which were preceded by internet chatter
that would have tipped off a trained listener to the plans of the killers.
Well, shucks. No Russophobic dirk to look for this week in the folds of his robe -- Mr.
Napolitano is finally full on, swinging the Establishment sword at "the Kremlin" and "its
indicted spies." And he's doing it to scare the American people.
"It is a felony for foreign nationals to participate in American federal elections, and it
is a felony for any Americans knowingly to assist them." No citation of the statute(s), or of
the particular acts among all "Judge" has mentioned within the scope of the subject
indictment. He is endorsing the notion that, under the Constitution he pretends to cherish, a
non-US citizen and any American "assistant" can be criminally convicted for "phony web posts"
or "aggressively revealing embarrassing data about Clinton," i.e., publishing anything deemed
relevant to a federal election on the internet. If you suggested after Sunday School there in
Nebraska that your friend check out those documents at Wikileaks, then will Mr. Mueller come
for you? Well, that depends:
"The other reason for the indictment is to smoke out any American collaborators. He has
identified American collaborators, but not by proper name, and the Department of Justice has
said -- not in the indictment, in which case it would be bound by what it says, but in a
press statement, which binds no one -- that the American collaborators were unwitting dupes
of the Russians. My guess is that Mueller's American targets are under electronic and visual
surveillance and that he is listening to their (premature) sighs of relief."
So don't worry, Big Brother most likely still loves you, or at least won't send you to
your room. As long as you were only an "unwitting dupe," and have stopped playing with the
bad kids.
Until Mr. Mueller could get here on his white horse, "the Russians ran unchecked through
our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First
Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your
natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now
are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club.
I hope there's no gentlemen's agreement that precludes some of the other writers published
on this website from confronting Mr. Napolitano on this vile column.
Muller indicted foreigners knowing they could not be extradicted to stand trial in the US.
These indictments are "guerrilla theater" designed to justify Mueller's investigation.
What would Mueller do if Putin gets tough and: sends one Russian to the US; with say $100
million for his legal defense?
Or if Putin offers to try the Russians in Moscow, in a Russian court, with Mueller
prosecuting them?
Though an indictment is a charge only, it presumably relies on hard evidence of a wide
and deep Russian project -- so wide and so deep that it could only have been approved and
paid for by the Kremlin.
Why are so few people laughing at the microminiature level of this so-called meddling? These
guys were run-of-the-mill internet trolls, engaging people in idiotic quarrels like trolls everywhere do.
Meanwhile, how many American military bases sit on foreign soil where our people with guns
and jets meddle for a living? How many countries get our ridiculously misnamed "foreign aid"
where we tax America's middle class to bribe foreigners' rich people to do our bidding?
To call this flapdoodle about Russian net trolling a joke is far too kind.
All of MSM is owned by one foreign entity with one anti-American agenda. They interfere in
every election, hell they hand pick the candidates, make em sign a pledge/oath to the foreign
nation.
Will Mueller be going after any of these traitors?
Why isn't Mueller in prison for 9/11 cover up Mr. Sessions?
We all know it wasn't Muslims caught celebrating the attack, or busted with explosives inside
of a van leaving New York. Why act like it isn't common knowledge, you're making the FBI look
pretty stoopid Mr. Mueller .look even Faux News messed up and reported it
"... Rachel Maddow feeds the left's appetite for bot conspiracy nonsense. But in 2013, MSNBC personalities, including Maddow, were being promoted by Chinese bots. Does that mean Maddow is a Chinese spy? Bots are ads that pretend to be people. Tracking how they're deployed can be interesting, but it's dangerous to read too much into that. ..."
"... The bot paranoia is being used to delegitimize real stories and candidates. If you can connect bots to a point of view you don't like, then no one really believes it. Link it to a candidate you don't like and he was never really elected. Hook it up to a serial predator in the Senate and you can ignore his victims. ..."
"... But if you believe that, then MSNBC must be a Chinese informational warfare operations. ..."
"... Mad Cow disease. ..."
"... Give me a fucking break, they think bots are going to swing big things. Bots are not very advanced, only annoying. They cannot craft intelligent or persuasive arguments. Yet the establishment is freaking out about them. It goes to show how far down the drain things stand if such lowly, unpersuasive, spamming shittery is deemed a threat to the narrative. ..."
"... That's what democracy is all about - steering the public discourse and manipulating the lowest common denominator, which isn't that hard to do if you own big media. The challenge is in deprogramming all the lies and deceptions, which takes effort initially, after which it just becomes a never ending tragicomic episode. ..."
"... Who the fuck needs bots in North America, U.K. and EU when you have bull dyke's like Rachel "Mad Cow" that still have viewers that actually listen to "him" ..."
The Internet Research Agency indictment accuses a troll bot farm of trying to influence the election in what the media claims
is the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. 9/11 need not apply.
Bots are everywhere.
"Bots Are Trying to Help Populists Win Italy's Election," claims Bloomberg. "Russian Bots Are Using 2016 Tactics to Hijack the
Gun Debate," shrieks Vanity Fair. ABC spins that bots are trying to make Black Panther look bad. "Rampaging Twitter 'bots' bred in
Suffolk farmhouse," the London Times asserts.
This media madness might make you think that bots are some sort of new and advanced technology. But you can see them in the comments
and they've been around forever. Automated programs that log into social media accounts are not a new technology. Internet users
of a bygone era remember seeing them in chat rooms and on bulletin boards without ever rampaging around Suffolk farmhouses.
Bots have become a convenient media scapegoat. The new formula is "Bots + Thing We Disagree With = Proof We're Right". That's
why there are stories claiming that Russian bots are tweeting against gun control or Islamic migration. And it explains the "Russian
Bots Rigged the Election for Trump" meme.
Bots are an informational technique. Media spin reverse engineers the technique to discredit the idea. Not only is that a fallacy,
but bots just piggyback on popular trends to gain influence. Russian bots don't tweet about gun control because they care about guns,
but because they get retweeted. The same was true of the bots promoting Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. There are a million brands
doing the same thing with bots and influencers. But that's okay because they push politically correct messages.
And that's the bot double standard. When Russian bots and trolls push Black Lives Matter, Bernie Sanders or Dakota Access Pipeline
protests, their programmed actions don't reflect on leftist causes, organizations and politicians. But the revelation that Russian
bots and trolls tweeted about the Bill of Rights, Islamic migration or Trump is spun by the media into a conspiracy that indicts
the ideas and discredits the previous election.
The latest example of the Big Bot Conspiracy is a bizarre Newsweek article by Nina Burleigh blaming Senator Franken's problems
on bots. Some might have thought that Franken had been forced to resign for groping women across America. But according to Burleigh,
it was the fault of the Japanese bots.
The feminist activist was already infamous for putting her allegiance to Democrats ahead of sisterhood.
"I would be happy to give him a b_____ just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," Nina Burleigh had said of Bill Clinton.
"I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude." Now Burleigh has brought
her kneepads to the raided offices of Newsweek.
Nina Burleigh's article blames Franken's problems on "fake news sites, an army of Twitter bots and other cyber tricks". The Democrat
Senator's original accuser is dismissed as a "Hooters pinup girl and lad-mag model". So there was either nothing wrong with groping
her or no reason to believe her.
That's what leftists denounce as 'slut-shaming', but, as with Bill Clinton, it's okay when Democrats do it.
Burleigh mentions the "release of a picture of a Tweeden and Franken" (editors are one of the casualties of Newsweek's troubles),
but neglects to mention that it's a picture of Franken groping Tweeden. None of the other many accusers rate a mention from this
feminist Franken activist.
There was the feminist choir member and book editor who accused Franken of groping her at the Women's Political Caucus. It's really
hard to write her off as a "right-wing plant" or a "lad-mag model".
Especially since she then voted for Senator Franken.
Another accuser was groped at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis and claimed that Franken wanted to join her in the bathroom.
Nina Burleigh would have probably told her to go along and bring her senatorial kneepads in gratitude for his support of Planned
Parenthood.
A Democrat congressional aide remembers Franken trying to give her an open mouth kiss while he was still a radio host with Air
America. "It's my right as an entertainer," she recalls Franken telling her.
An Army vet on a USO tour described being groped by Franken during the Iraq War. "When he put his arm around me, he groped my
right breast. He kept his hand all the way over on my breast."
Jezebel, a hard left feminist site, offered an account from a liberal "former elected official in New England" who remembers Franken
trying to plant a "wet, open-mouthed kiss" on her, on stage.
Instead of addressing the many accounts of Franken's liberal accusers who supported him and, many of whom indicated they didn't
want him to quit, Burleigh, like most Frankentruthers from Tom Arnold to Richard Silverstein, smears Leeann Tweeden while ignoring
Franken's numerous other accusers.
After silencing the women who came out against Franken, Nina Burleigh surreally claims that the Franken accusations had served
to "silence the testimonies of eight former female staffers who defended the Minnesota Democrat".
Presenting testimonies from the few women you didn't grope is not considered a compelling argument.
But instead of talking about any of this, Burleigh talks about bots. A "bot army" made the Franken accusations go viral. And then
there was "a developer named Atsufumi Otsuka" who "registered a web domain in Japan" that hosted "Japanese-registered fake-news sites".
But, "by November 17, the trending of 'Al Franken' was officially also a Russian intelligence operation."
The Japanese and the Russians had teamed up against the Minnesota groper. This wasn't just worse than Pearl Harbor. It was WW2
and the Cold War combined in one hashtag.
"Researchers have found that each bot account had 30 to 60 followers, all Japanese. The first follower for each account was either
Japanese or Russian," Burleigh breathlessly relates.
Now that the Russian and Japanese bots had teamed up, all hope for humanity was lost.
Burleigh's article has more international locations than a Tom Clancy novel. It also completely ignores the question of whether
Franken groped his victims to discuss the bots who tweeted about it.
That's not accidental. Burleigh doesn't want to talk about whether Franken is guilty; she wants to write a progressive thriller
in which international bots caused the problem by talking about it. And if it can be shown that bots amplified a scandal, then the
facts somehow no longer matter. In the same way that if it can be shown that bots amplified Trump's message, the 2016 election results
were illegitimate.
But shooting the messenger bot doesn't tell us anything the truth of the inconvenient message.
Since the election, these types of articles are everywhere. They rely on the work of "researchers" who are usually partisan activists,
often amateurs with no actual technical training, to spread conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories confuse correlation and
causation. If a foreign bot retweets Trump, he works for the bot's masters. If a bot tweets any conservative story, it's a right-wing
global bot plot.
Anyone who knows anything about how the internet works knows that this is nonsense.
Bots imitate to amplify. In this comments section, a bot will show up sooner or later, it will copy a comment that someone else
made and post it in order to get likes so that it resembles a real account. For every stupid bot telling you how much it makes by
working online, there's a smarter bot leaving legitimate comments to blend in. And so bots tweet, comment and chat about everything
popular.
If there's a trending topic, the bots will quickly show up. And everyone uses them.
Rachel Maddow feeds the left's appetite for bot conspiracy nonsense. But in 2013, MSNBC personalities, including Maddow, were
being promoted by Chinese bots. Does that mean Maddow is a Chinese spy? Bots are ads that pretend to be people. Tracking how they're
deployed can be interesting, but it's dangerous to read too much into that.
Correlating bots with narratives isn't actually causation.
The bot paranoia is being used to delegitimize real stories and candidates. If you can connect bots to a point of view you
don't like, then no one really believes it. Link it to a candidate you don't like and he was never really elected. Hook it up to
a serial predator in the Senate and you can ignore his victims.
But if you believe that, then MSNBC must be a Chinese informational warfare operations.
Give me a fucking break, they think bots are going to swing big things. Bots are not very advanced, only annoying. They
cannot craft intelligent or persuasive arguments. Yet the establishment is freaking out about them. It goes to show how far down
the drain things stand if such lowly, unpersuasive, spamming shittery is deemed a threat to the narrative.
Yeah, I can't imagine reading CNN balls deep or other garbage groupthink mouthpieces that apparently alot of zombies take as
gospel. I go to CNN only to dip my feet in the water and see how fucking stupid its all becoming. Other than that, its a brain
killer.
That's what democracy is all about - steering the public discourse and manipulating the lowest common denominator, which isn't
that hard to do if you own big media. The challenge is in deprogramming all the lies and deceptions, which takes effort initially,
after which it just becomes a never ending tragicomic episode.
Who the fuck needs bots in North America, U.K. and EU when you have bull dyke's like Rachel "Mad Cow" that still have viewers
that actually listen to "him"?!!!
The "Russian troll" farm was a marketing/spam business.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange weighed in on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "13 Russian troll" indictment noting that the
Russians bots from The Internet Research Agency, spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads to grow their audiences something
that is very common and encouraged by Facebook.
Mueller "troll farm" indictment today
– explicitly states no collusion
– does not mention WikiLeaks
– states trolls intent to support Trump & Sanders, oppose Clinton, Cruz
– states trolls intent on anti-Trump AND pro-Trump rallies post electionhttps://t.co/uMxBAwOeOY
The Russian ads mentioned in Mueller's indictment were already released by the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.
Facebook previously announced the Russian ads comprised .004% of their advertising during the election.
Assange tweeted all this out on Friday, but of course the mainstream media failed to note any of this while reporting its propaganda
to those who naively listen and believe in the nonsense (courtesy
The Gateway Pundit)
Buried in the Mueller astro-turfing indictment is something that we have long suspected. The Internet Research
Agency's "troll farm" is geared to develop audience in socially active communities (e.g through aligned memes), in order to spam
them on behalf of anyone willing to pay: pic.twitter.com/sms0YAKB3j
Julian Assange: Buried in the Mueller astro-turfing indictment is something that we have long suspected. The
Internet Research Agency's "troll farm" is geared to develop audience in socially active communities (e.g through aligned memes),
in order to spam them on behalf of anyone willing to pay.
Before advertising networks can advertise they must build audience. How much of IRA's activities were simply
trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities?
Julian Assange: Before advertising networks can advertise they must build audience. How much of IRA's activities
were simply trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities?
IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups. Are we also to believe that these kittens were also
a plot to divide America? To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
Julian Assange: IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups. Are we also to believe that these kittens
were also a plot to divide America? To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
The US has 320 million people with a trillion dollar media and cultural sector that employees over a million
people. I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to "heighten the differences" with a hundred
trolls.
Julian Assange: The US has 320 million people with a trillion dollar media and cultural sector that employees
over a million people. I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to "heighten the differences" with
a hundred trolls.
Re-enforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook & Google have been doing at a vast scale by algorithmically
preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement. In a more traditional manner, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, WaPO etc,
are doing the same thing.
Julian Assange: Re-enforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook & Google have been doing at a vast scale
by algorithmically preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement. In a more traditional manner, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes,
WaPO etc, are doing the same thing.
Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities or whether
a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically insignificant
compared to the other forces at play.
Julian Assange: Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities
or whether a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically
insignificant compared to the other forces at play.
Jimmy Dore did catch on to Assange's explanation as to what exactly was happening at IRA's HQ in St, Petersburg, which
can be summed up as just another social media spam business, which had the misfortune of operating in Russia at a time when
American swamp creatures are trying to find any scintilla of evidence to demonize Russia, and drag on a falling apart "Trump-Russia"
collusion investigation.
"... The bipartisan support Mueller's appointment received is even more telling given that he is the definition of a Washington insider. The power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to, above all, protect their position at the head of the table. ..."
"... McAdams noted that the indictment was especially helpful to the " entire political class in Washington, " which may now " continue with its Cold War 2.0 project " without interference from anyone in favor of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations. In addition, McAdams warned that the recent indictment is likely to have a " chilling effect on the First Amendment, " also a boon to those elements of the political elite that seek to limit the acceptable range of debate on U.S. foreign policy. ..."
The bipartisan
support Mueller's appointment received is even more telling given that he is the definition of
a Washington insider. The power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to,
above all, protect their position at the head of the table.
Part 1
Last Friday, depending on which side of the partisan divide one was watching from, President
Trump was either vindicated or his treachery was confirmed. The impetus for these seemingly
disparate reactions was Robert Mueller's indictment against 13 Russian nationals, the latest
and largest indictment to result from his investigation into alleged collusion between the
Trump campaign and the Russian government.
However, over the nine months that Mueller's investigation has been active, it has continuously
grown from its original purpose of investigating Russian collusion, expanding to include the
business dealings of Trump and his inner circle with countries ranging from Qatar to China,
meaning that the probe is no longer expressly about Russian collusion.
The drift of focus from its original purpose -- as well as its failure to produce any
connection between the Trump campaign, the Russian government, and the leaks of DNC and John
Podesta's emails -- has led critics who place themselves outside of the left-right paradigm to
treat this latest indictment with skepticism. Not only that, but concerns have been raised that
the real purpose of Mueller's probe is much more subtle and nefarious than publicly admitted
and that it may itself be a threat to American democracy.
One such critic is Daniel McAdams, political analyst and executive director of the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity. McAdams, in an interview with MintPress News, stated that
the Mueller indictment " has something for everybody, " explaining the strikingly
different reactions from the establishment left and right.
However, McAdams noted that the indictment was especially helpful to the " entire political
class in Washington, " which may now " continue with its Cold War 2.0 project "
without interference from anyone in favor of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations. In addition,
McAdams warned that the recent indictment is likely to have a " chilling effect on the First
Amendment, " also a boon to those elements of the political elite that seek to limit the
acceptable range of debate on U.S. foreign policy.
Like every single hotly publicized Russiagate "bombshell" that has broken since this
nonsense began, Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian social media trolls was paraded around as
proof of something hugely significant (
an "act of war" in this case), but on closer examination turns out to be empty. The always
excellent 'Moon of Alabama' recently
made a solid argument that has also been advanced by Russiagate skeptics like TYT's
Michael
Tracey and Max Blumenthal of The Real
News, pointing out that there is in fact no evidence that the troll farming operation was an
attempt to manipulate the US election, nor indeed that it had any ties to the Russian
government at all, nor indeed that it was anything other than a crafty Russian civilian's money
making scheme.
The notion that a few Russian trolls committed a "conspiracy to defraud the United States"
by "sowing discord" with a bunch of wildly contradictory posts endorsing all different
ideologies sounds completely ridiculous in a country whose mainstream media spends all its time
actively creating political division anyway, but when you look at it as a civilian operation to
attract social media followers to sock puppet accounts with the goal of selling promoted posts
for profit, it makes perfect sense. James Corbett of The Corbett Report has a great
video about how absolutely bizarre it is that public dialogue is ignoring the fact that
these trolls overwhelmingly used mainstream media like the Washington Post in their shares
instead of outlets like RT and Infowars. As a scheme to acquire followers, it makes perfect
sense. As a scheme to subvert America, it's nonsensical.
There is currently no evidence that the Russian government interfered in the US election.
But it is worth pointing out that if they did they had every right to.
"Whataboutism" is the word of the day . At some
point it was decreed by the internet forum gods that adding "-ism" to a description of
something that someone is doing makes for a devastating argument in and of itself, and people
have hastened to use this tactic as a bludgeon to silence anyone who points out the extremely
obvious and significant fact that America interferes in elections more than any other
government on earth.
"Okay, so America isn't perfect and we've meddled a few times," the argument goes. "So what?
You're saying just because we've done it that makes it okay for Russia to do it?"
Actually, yes. Of course it does. Clearly. That isn't a "whataboutism", it's an observation
that is completely devastating to the mainstream Russia narrative. If it's okay for the CIA to
continuously interfere in the elections of other countries up to and including modern times, it
is okay for other countries to interfere in theirs. Only in the most warped American
supremacist reality tunnel is that not abundantly obvious.
It amazes me that more people aren't willing to call this like it is. No, it would not be
wrong for Russia to interfere in America's elections. Yes, what America did to Russia
absolutely would make a proportionate retaliation okay. Of course it would.
Imagine this:
A guy in a cowboy hat runs into a bar and starts punching people. Most of them just rub
their sore jaws and hunch over their drinks hoping to avoid any trouble, but one guy in a fur
cap sets down his vodka and shoves the man in the cowboy hat.
The man in the cowboy hat begins shrieking like a little girl. All his friends rush to his
side to comfort him and begin angrily shaking their fists at the man in the fur cap.
"Hey, he punched me!" says the man in the fur cap.
"That's a whataboutism!" sobs the man in the cowboy hat.
Can you imagine anything more ridiculous?
Seriously, how do people think this is a thing? How does anyone think it's legitimate to
respond to
my article about a former CIA Director openly admitting that the US still to this day
interferes with elections around the world babbling about "whataboutisms" ?
What a doofy, indefensible monkey wrench to throw into the gears of political discourse.
Yes, obviously by asserting that it is acceptable for the CIA to meddle in other countries'
elections, the US has created an environment where that sort of thing is acceptable. If
Americans just want to embrace their American supremacist bigotry and say "Yeah we can do that
to you but you can't do it to us cuz we have big guns and we said so," that's at least a
logically consistent position. Crying like little bitches and behaving as though they've been
victimized by some egregious immorality is not.
Channel 4 News reported on the research of the Institute for Politics and Strategy at
Carnegie Mellon University's Don Levin back in November, writing the following:
Dov Levin, an academic from the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon
University, has calculated the vast scale of election interventions by both the US and
Russia.
According to his research
, there were 117 "partisan electoral interventions" between 1946 and 2000. That's around one
of every nine competitive elections held since Second World War.
The majority of these – almost 70 per cent – were cases of US interference.
And these are not all from the Cold War era; 21 such interventions took place between 1990
and 2000, of which 18 were by the US.
If Americans don't like election meddling, they need to demand that their government stops
doing it. As long as it remains the very worst offender in that department, the US is entitled
to nothing other than the entire world meddling in its elections.
I shouldn't even have to say this. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't
dish it out if you can't take it.
Interesting information Guccifer II. He falsified the evidence.
Follow the money. Along with a smoke screen for Hillary political fiasco, Russiagate is a swindle to get more money for intelligence
agencies and MIC. For about 15 companies who run the US foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA and NSA, and other intelligence agencies all work on behalf of these corporate entities. There main objective is to keep us all uninformed and dumber than a bag of hammers, so they can extort all the wealth from our great nation ..."
"... If this video won't stop the brainless McCarthyist regressives from knowing the truth about Russiagate, nothing will. And I mean absolutely nothing. Except maybe if they come here to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, NYC. We got lots of Russian immigrants here and they are just normal people ..."
"... Russiagate is an excuse to spend more on the military. Wow- surprising, yet somehow not surprising. American Empire is the biggest destabilizing force in the world ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 is the United States government. Either the CIA, FBI, NSA or DHS. I'd say it was the CIA with the NSA being a close second ..."
Also, when did Russian hackers become so stupid? Since when has the GRU being unable to get even the basics like the up to
date email list for the Clinton campaign, started using two-year-old obsolete malware instead of 0-day exploits, completely forgetting
that VPN's exist and how to spoof an IP address, and on and on and on. These aren't the guys who cloned Nasdaq!
Thank you jimmy so much for doing this interview and thank you Bill Binney for so clearly explaining the technical and structural
reasons why Russiagate is both false and ceaselessly pushed. Amazing interview!
My experience working on the Mississippi democratic party executive committee, the Hinds county Executive committee, and working
for the state employees union here in Mississippi has educated me on the fact that democratic reps and republican reps work together
to pass legislation to benefit the corporate class i.e. business. All you who have replied to my comment make sense, but we must
remember that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republician parties, they all work for their corporate masters.
The CIA and NSA, and other intelligence agencies all work on behalf of these corporate entities. There main objective is
to keep us all uninformed and dumber than a bag of hammers, so they can extort all the wealth from our great nation. In other
words they our commiting treason upon the American people and our constitution and all should be through in prison for the rest
of their lives and all ill-gotten wealth given back to the people of these great nation by rebuilding the infrastructure of America,
investing in the education of our people to secure a prosperous future, and provide healthcare for all Americans. We can ensure
this happens in two ways, pass the 28th amendment and pass FDR's 2nd bill of rights(worker's bill of rights). This will ensure
that corporations will never take control of our country again.
Can we please now move onto whom the person was that stole the data from the DNC? Can I take a stab in the dark (or maybe two
shots to the back of the head?) and guess his name was Seth Rich?
I know I commented this already in the last segment, but this guy is absolutely awesome. Everything he says is substantial,
non-speculative and supported by facts. You're becoming a proper journalist Jimmy. More of people like this please. I got my credit
card again. I will donate shortly. Keep up.
As long as they keep lying about Russia they can continue the sanctions against Russia. Russia is holding it's own even with
the sanctions but originally under Putin Russia had paid off all it's debt to the IMF (World Bank). Now their debt is increasing,
partly because of the sanctions and partly because of helping Syria and preparing for the US to cause a great war. Russia is a
threat to the IMF (World Bank). Russia and China want trade outside of the Petrol Dollar. When Russia was debt free from the IMF
(World Bank) it was completely independent of them. Russia did not have to take orders from the international bankers. That is
why they lie about Russia.
If this video won't stop the brainless McCarthyist regressives from knowing the truth about Russiagate, nothing will. And
I mean absolutely nothing. Except maybe if they come here to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, NYC. We got lots of Russian immigrants
here and they are just normal people.
Russiagate is an excuse to spend more on the military. Wow- surprising, yet somehow not surprising. American Empire is
the biggest destabilizing force in the world
As I tried to tell you the previous time you had referenced the "conclusions" of the CIA groups, this data nonsense he is handwaving
about is all quite feasible, by using a nearby national server, and much skepticism is deserved! Also he doesn't seem to know
what he is talking about, from all of the paraphrasing.
I am also quite reminded of the psychological incorporation into personal behaviors by habit of the standards and policies
of the industry or professional standards, which for the US Intelligence community includes an explicit policy of disinformation
and dishonesty.
How the hell would the NSA's "man in the middle" logging servers see that the transfer occurs to a local USB2 drive (he assumes
this is the case because 40 megabytes per second is approximately the rate of the USB2 protocol of 400 megabits per second...
Very few USB flash drives were manufactured with solid state storage chips fast enough to reach that full transfer rate before
the widespread adoption of USB3, or the modern USB3.1. Essentially, your chosen headline title is a false clickbait, because as
of today there is insufficient evidence to draw ANY conclusion
Just as they smeared Joe Wilson & his wife, and other great Courageous Americans that came out AGAINST the invasion of Iraq!
Until we start DEMANDING those LIARS leave their seats in Washington, put on the Military Gear, and GO to the Countries they want
to invade! I am past FED UP with them sacrificing our Troops, they return home to be MISTREATED, and kicked to the curb! Americans,
wake up and DEMAND that they GO!
in
Analysis
,
Latest
Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of
American Investigative Journalism
Some people's greed, apparently, knows
no limits -- not even when it could produce a world-ending nuclear war.
This is a very weak argumentation which is based of very questionable sources (such as Fontanka rag).
Notable quotes:
"... For the evidence Mueller has revealed of incompetence in the Russian campaign, the waste of money expended, and the failure of the campaign's objectives, there are calls in Moscow for Peskov to be sacked. ..."
"... The Christopher Steele dossier accused Peskov of arranging negative media against Hillary Clinton during 2016; for an analysis of the veracity of that claim, read this . For a painstaking analysis of how the Mueller indictment discredits the Steele dossier, read Alexander Mercouris's account . ..."
Feb 18, 2018
The three types of power which decide the fate of regimes are force, fraud and subversion; that's to say, arms, money, media.
The Roman Empire was good at using small armies to take on much bigger ones; by adeptly concentrating their force they managed
to rule much larger large territories than the legions could cover.
The Byzantine Empire excelled at using bribery of locals to stay loyal; the pre-requisite for that was the intelligence to identify
who to pay, how much, and how often. The British Empire used subversion to divide and rule most of their colonial targets, but if
the British were matched for firepower and intelligence, they failed and were defeated – by the American colonists, the Maoris, the
Boers, the Germans, the Japanese.
The American Empire excels
at subversion on the home front. But abroad it usually combines fraud with subversion. When these two fail to preserve or topple
regimes, US-made wars have been a consistent failure. The Russians are better than Americans at force and fraud. Schemes of subversion
like the US plots to promote Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Chubais, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Alexei Navalny to rule the Kremlin, are not
winners with Russians; they are judged successful only by foreigners who read the Washington Post and London Times.
The Kremlin official responsible for Russian media involvement in the US presidential election of 2016 was Dmitry Peskov (2nd
image, left); he doubles as spokesman for President Vladimir Putin. For Peskov's intention to employ social media he has not been
indicted nor identified as a co-conspirator by Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III ( right). For the evidence Mueller has
revealed of incompetence in the Russian campaign, the waste of money expended, and the failure of the campaign's objectives, there
are calls in Moscow for Peskov to be sacked.
He has so far avoided responding. "We have not yet familiarized ourselves [with the Mueller indictment], " he told Reuters.
The 37-page indictment, dated February 16 and signed personally by Mueller, can be read in full
here .
Mueller's indictment reveals how much evidence was gathered from the internet server companies and social media platforms, Facebook,
YouTube-Google, Twitter and Instagram, together with their banks and the PayPal payment service. But this is circumstantial evidence;
the corpus delicti is absent.
Missing from the charge sheet is identification of the victims of the crime alleged, the numbers of victims, and the money spent
to subvert or defraud them, as Mueller charges. The indictment alleges that "significant numbers of Americans" were targeted, "significant
funds spent", and "thousands of US dollars [paid for advertising] every month"; but no evidence is presented of these numbers. No
witness has come forward to testify to having suffered; no alleged perpetrator or conspirator to substantiate criminal intention.
Also, these aren't the crimes formally charged against the accused Russians.
THE FIVE-CHARGE ALLEGATION, BUT ONLY TWO CRIMINAL COUNTS CHARGED
In short, the Russians are accused of violating the US law on registering as foreign agents, as well as the crimes of stealing
identity data from real Americans and fabricating false identities to open and operate US bank accounts, credit cards and the PayPal
system. Although "interfer[ence] in US political and electoral processes" is alleged, it's an orphan -- no such crime is charged
in the indictment.
Another orphan is the charge of obtaining visas "through false and fraudulent statements" and "false pretenses in order to collect
intelligence for their interference operations". Mueller alleges this offence was committed in 2014, when three of the thirteen Russians
named in the indictment visited the US briefly. However, the "intelligence" they are alleged to have gathered at the time wasn't
used, according to the indictment, until two years later. What this "intelligence" by "false pretenses" might have been isn't provided
in the evidence because Muller and his grand jury don't charge anyone with visa fraud.
Fourteen weeks before last Friday's indictment, executives of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google testified in open congressional
hearings on the same set of allegations as Mueller
presented
to his grand jury behind closed doors.
The media company witnesses started by identifying very small numbers of accounts, advertising messages, reader clicks, and bots
(automated relayed messages). Subsequently, these numbers have been multiplied in US media commentaries by estimates of audience
reach, although reach is not a measure of actual
exposure. Still, compared with the aggregate volumes of internet traffic associated with the presidential election but unconnected
to Russian sources, the numbers for Russian-source material amounted to minuscule fractions of one percent. The media companies weren't
asked for, and volunteered no report of how much money they had received from their Russian content
sources .
In his indictment Mueller provided less precision than the rules of evidence and the defendants' rights require under the US Constitution;
Mueller is not expecting to try the thirteen named defendants in a court of law. In one example of an "overt act" of the alleged
Russian crime (Par. 71), Facebook is reported as publishing an advertisement on August 4, 2016, for a "Florida Goes Trump" rally.
Facebook charged the Russians for audience reach of 53,000, according to Mueller. But only 8,300 clicked on the ad (14%). Although
the allegation is that this audience was then "routed to the ORGANIZATION's 'Being Patriotic' page", Mueller withholds his count
of how many – more likely, how few readers followed the route. The Russians were still paying to advertise the same rally on Instagram
two weeks later, on August 16, but no evidence is presented by Mueller that it happened at all. No route, no rally, no American victims,
no evidence of Russian intention to commit a crime of election interference.
Four bank accounts have been identified at six banks "in order to receive and send money into and out [sic] of the United States
to support the ORGANIZATION's operations in the United States and for self-enrichment". These banks, as well as the US dollar-clearing
banks in New York, have provided Mueller with details of the originating banks for the transactions. The indictment identifies fourteen
Russian company names as holding these bank accounts. The Russian company names are mentioned in evidence, but not the originating
banks. If they were Russian state banks under US and European Union sanctions since 2014 (Gazprombank, for example), Mueller's indictment
doesn't say so; noone has intimated that the Russian money was anything but lawfully earned and then legally transferred from source.
Details of fake or stolen names, driver's licences or social security numbers have been reported by Mueller to substantiate the
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. But this was a fraud with a twist. No sum of money is identified in the
evidence as having been taken from an unwitting victim; all of it, however much or little, was sent to the US bank accounts from
the alleged Russian conspirators and their companies, and spent on social media placements. As for enrichment – again, no sum reported
in the indictment – this appears to have been earned by the US media companies and the US banks. Lawfully, according to Mueller.
The only losers were the Russians, but the accused haven't been complaining of not getting their money's worth.
The criminal counts set out in the indictment turn out to be crimes without victims – that's to say, no American victim, according
to the charge sheet.
Mueller's indictment is precise about the names of the Russian companies established by the principal defendant Yevgeny Prigozhin,
allegedly "for operations to interfere with elections and political processes". Mueller also claims that the only link he could find
to the Russian government was the official registration of the "ORGANIZATION [Internet Research Agency] as a Russian corporate entity"
"in or around July 2013." Although the allegation is that Prigozhin's organization had an "annual budget [of] the equivalent of millions
of US dollars", there is no evidence, nor even an allegation that this money came from a Russian government source. Instead, other
companies operated by Prigozhin are reported to have had "various Russian government contracts".
Prigozhin's parent company called Concord is alleged to have funded "the ORGANIZATION as part of a larger CONCORD-funded interference
operation it referred to as 'Project Lakhta'."
... ... ...
Mueller noted in passing that Project Lakhta wasn't targeted only in the US. The indictment alleges that by September 2016 it
was working on a budget exceeding Rb73 million ($1.25 million) per month, with bonus payments to its Russian employees of Rb1 million
(1.4%). The money was being spent, according to Mueller, on "multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian
Federation, and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States".
This is another clue to Prigozhin's real line of business, and the reason for the multiplicity of company names and functional
departments through which he operated; and for an employment roll Mueller counted as "more than eighty" in Project Lakta alone. Russian
sources believe Prigozhin's organization has contracted for domestic Russian operations paid for by Russian corporations and local
politicians. Some of the operations are believed to be conventional positive advertising of events, products, campaigns, and ideas.
Some reportedly involve the circulation of kompromat against business and election rivals; some to defend against botnet and denial
of service attacks on corporate websites and communication systems; some to attack the websites of business adversaries or investigative
journalists, Russia-based or Russia-related.
Investigations by Russian media and government regulators have been reporting for some time allegations that Prigozhin has been
diverting money from state procurement contracts for himself, and for clandestine purposes approved by state officials and state
company executives. For a sample of the details, start in 2014 with the St. Petersburg website Fontanka's investigation of Mikhail
Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik, the second and third defendants in the Mueller indictment.
Fontanka said it had uncovered evidence that paying clients
of the Prigozhin, Bystrov and Burchik organization included a youth group of the Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg municipal
authorities, and a Gazprom media promotion company. The payroll of the organization was reported in mid-2014 to be Rb180,000 per
month (about $5,500).
In December 2016 Prigozhin was listed on the US Treasury's sanctions list, the evidence for which appears to have been cribbed
from Fontanka and other Russian press
reports . Prigozhin was accused
of,
"having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in
support of, senior officials of the Russian Federation. Prigozhin has extensive business dealings with the Russian Federation
Ministry of Defense, and a company with significant ties to him holds a contract to build a military base near the Russian Federation
border with Ukraine. Russia has been building additional military bases near the Ukrainian border and has used these bases as
staging points for deploying soldiers into Ukraine."
Mueller's indictment fails to mention this Treasury charge or its Russian media sources. Mueller claims the reason for the multitude
of Russian corporate names used by Prigozhin in Project Lakhta was to "obscure its conduct" and conceal the Russian source of funds
from the US media and US regulators. For much longer, however, Russian investigators have been reporting that Prigozhin has created
corporate chains of this type to conceal personal enrichment schemes from Russian regulators and commercial competitors.
Prigozhin has replied publicly to the US prosecutor's charges, not to the Russian ones. "The Americans are very impressionable
people; they see what they want to see," he is quoted by a state news agency as saying last Friday. "I have a lot of respect for
them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see him."
Russian sources believe Prigozhin's Project Lakhta was ordered by someone in a position to exercise a call on Prigozhin's cashflow.
They exclude Russian officials on the Kremlin Security Council -- Sergei Ivanov, Sergei Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu, Anton Vaino, Nikolai
Patrushev, Sergei Naryshkin – and dismiss the possibility that Project Lakhta had either President Putin's or Russian intelligence
service support.
The suspicion of Russian sources is that the American campaign element in Project Lakhta was "so hare-brained there is only one
official who could have considered Prigozhin's project worth the money and the attempt – Dmitry Peskov". Peskov is officially titled
Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary. From the Kremlin he
supervises
the budgets for the state television broadcaster RT, the state news agency Sputnik, and special US-targeted propaganda programmes,
such as the Valdai Discussion Club for academics and the Oliver Stone films.
The Christopher Steele dossier accused Peskov of arranging negative media against Hillary Clinton during 2016; for an analysis
of the veracity of that claim, read
this . For a painstaking analysis of how the Mueller indictment discredits the Steele dossier, read Alexander Mercouris's
account .
Russian experts charge that the Russian targeting of Americans through social media, as described by Mueller, was a colossal mistake
because the US audience for social media was young and overwhelmingly committed to Clinton. Between their intention to vote and the
vote they cast, the social media made next to no difference.
... ... ...
Brookings , the Washington think-tank most supportive of Clinton, reached the conclusion that her defeat was caused by "blowback"
among older voters. In other words, Clinton's defeat, Trump's victory came from voting by older Americans. They were not the ones
targeted by the Russian social media campaign; they didn't see the advertisements and tweets the Mueller indictment is now reporting
as a criminal conspiracy to "defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the government."
Official Russian reaction to the indictment has been to ridicule the election interference allegation but avoid addressing the
foreign registration and false identity charges. "Thirteen people interfered in the US elections?!"
responded the Foreign Ministry
spokesman Maria Zakharova.
"13 against an intelligence services budget of billions? Against intelligence and counterintelligence, against the latest developments
and technologies? Absurd? Yes."
Her minister Sergei Lavrov
claimed
: "unless we see the facts, all the rest will be just twaddle, I am sorry for my not so diplomatic expression."
The unofficial Russian reaction towards Prigozhin's activities in the US is more quizzical, and under the American pressure, more
private. It acknowledges that Prigozhin is a commercial operator, and for every outlay he has a paying client. Who that client was
for Project Lakhta is the object of speculation so far unreported in the Russian press.
To Russian lawyers the facts presented in the Mueller indictment suggest the big crime in the affair may have been a Russian one.
If Mueller's small numbers are correct, then Prigozhin may have spent much less money, and to lesser effect and purpose than he had
led his client to believe and pay for. If there's a difference between what Prigozhin was paid and what the Mueller indictment suggests
he spent, Prigozhin may have a case for fraud to answer to Russian prosecutors – and his client, the charge of abuse of authority.
"If the US prosecutor makes it a crime for a Russian to pretend to be an American," commented a Moscow lawyer, "will the [Russian]
General Prosecutor investigate Prigozhin for the crime of spending such money with the pretence of having brains?"
"... This is an abridgement of an article first published by Lobster Magazine ( ..."
"... www.lobster-magazine.co.uk ..."
"... ). Republished with permission. All rights reserved by the author. ..."
"... Setting aside that dubious charge, this author and others supporting this narrative claim that Nixon's actions prevented a peace treaty before the November 1968 elections. IMHO this is a false assertion. ..."
There could only be a very small number of White House figures privy to this precise set of
information in mid-1974, and perhaps only one. Woodward's source was Nixon's National Security
Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Still alive in 2018, Kissinger has maintained
public silence about his knowledge of Nixon's Vietnam treason for half a century.
It is incomprehensible that neither Woodward nor Bernstein appeared to understand the
information they were being told by Kissinger: the allegations against Nixon had swirled ever
since he won the Presidency. On January 12, 1969, the Washington Post itself had
carried a profile of Nixon's go-between, Anna Chennault, which stated: "She reportedly
encouraged Saigon to 'delay' in joining the Paris peace talks in hopes of getting a better deal
if the Republicans won the White House." Chennault was reported as making no comment on the
allegations, which were entirely accurate.
Woodward and Bernstein had been handed the skeleton key that would have unlocked the entire
Watergate affair. The reporters had been told – by no less a figure than Nixon's National
Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger – about the real motive behind Nixon's plan to burgle
the Brookings Institute. It was to destroy the evidence that Nixon had conspired to prolong a
war with an official enemy of the United States in order to win the presidency in 1968; after
which he deliberately prolonged – even escalated – the Vietnam War. And – for
reasons that might never be known – Woodward and Bernstein stayed silent.
Bob Woodward and Henry Kissinger were contacted for comment on the specific disclosures made
in this article. Neither of them replied.
This is an abridgement of an article first published by Lobster Magazine (www.lobster-magazine.co.uk). Republished
with permission. All rights reserved by the author.
mike k , February 20, 2018 at 5:13 pm
Professional liars at work. Dirty games of the rich and powerful. Can anyone be so
naïve as to think these power players care one bit about the rights and safety of
ordinary people, even millions who have been murdered by their scheming? This is the truth
about your government in action. These people are the enemies of mankind.
The United States, through The Constitution, has the strictest definition of treason in
the world. That is giving aid(material aid) and comfort(in its 18th century meaning) to a
nation at war with the US. How Nixon's alleged action constitutes treason is not made clear
by this article.
Setting aside that dubious charge, this author and others supporting this
narrative claim that Nixon's actions prevented a peace treaty before the November 1968
elections. IMHO this is a false assertion. Certainly, LBJ halted the bombing of N Vietnam as
a good faith gesture, and invited the Hanoi regime to peace talks.
However there is no way a
treaty could be negotiated in the six months before the Presidential elections. There were
numerous issues that were very difficult, and in certain cases impossible to resolve with an
agreement by all four parties such as a Ceasefire and agreed lines of control and composition
of a Control Commission, future elections in S Vietnam, replacement of critical military
equipment to respective parties, the complex particulars of POW exchange, permitted military
activities of the US, and perhaps the stickiest, would the NVA agree to leave S Vietnam or
would it insist to stay.
This last one was particularly offensive to the Saigon regime.
Kissinger could not get the NVA to agree to leave, lied to Saigon about it(Saigon was wise to
his lying) and in the end Nixon had to threaten cessation of all aid to get Saigon to sign.
The negotiations for the Paris Accords were neccesarily complex and long as the US had to
leave Saigon with a structure that gave it a chance for survival. The US violated the Accords
by continuing B-52 raids in support of Saigon only halted by Congressional action in August
1973. Nixon was elected in 1968 on the promise to end the war and it is a false charge to
accuse him of lying cynically with the intention to prolong the war. His actions in 1969,
1970, and 1971 were an attempt to give Saigon the best position possible. Nixon also had to
deal with the rightists in America who would see the Paris Accords as a sellout. Originally,
Hanoi proposed signing on October 1972, thinking they were giving Nixon a boost. Nixon
however fearing the rightists didn't want the Accords known until after the election so he
allowed Saigon to object to several clauses as a delaying tactic. Hanoi then walked out
because they thought Nixon was buying time to ram in more materiel. This led to the infamous
1972 Christmas Bombing of Hanoi, to get Hanoi back to the table. In the end it was Saigon
that balked, refusing to sign because the Accords left the NVA in the South. Nixon forced
their hand by threatening to cease all aid. I have added this final narrative to illustrate
the bizarre complexity of the absurd mess, and what mind boggling difficulties Nixon had to
face. A simplistic narrative casting Nixon as a traitor and "war prolonger" is not justified
by a balanced analysis of the facts.
Back in April 2014 Lyndon Johnson's daughter Lynda Bird Johnson Robb was on the Pure Bull
Shit Newshour (they have gone a long way from the days of McNeill Leher) and she brought up
the fact that as her father was attempting to bring peace in Vietnam the South Vietnamese
government was being told they would get a better deal under President Nixon.
Gwen Ifill, reporter for PBS essentially did her "Star Wars" line of nothing to see here,
move on stating: "So much drama involving Vietnam, so much drama involving the Civil Rights
Act. Robert Kimball, you were 24 years old " moving away from Lynda Bird Johnson Robb so she
had no change to expand on the treason by Nixon supporters.
1) Accurately define treason. 2) Explain how in the six or seven months between April 1968
and the November election LBJ could have negotiated and signed a peace treaty with North
Vietnam.
I'm so sick of these egotists who think that aggressively firing stupid questions at a
commenter constitutes a reply or a counter argument.
Explain this, define that This isn't the 12th century anymore Gregory..
If we're harassing people into explaining arbitrary assertions, how about you explain how 'to
give aid and comfort to the enemy' is the 'strictest definition of treason in the world'. And
make sure you list every known definition in your answer.
In case you are capable of reason, here is a rebuttal to your assertions.
" claim that Nixon's actions prevented a peace treaty before the November 1968 elections.
IMHO this is a false assertion."
Your logic that a peace treaty is complex and that this complexity is why it was delayed
is flawed. You are speaking of practicalities. The article speaks of intent.
"She reportedly encouraged Saigon to 'delay' in joining the Paris peace talks in hopes of
getting a better deal if the Republicans won the White house".
Nixon intended to delay peace so he could win election on a platform of calling for
peace.
By mine and apparently many others definition, this is treasonous manipulation of the
electorate. If it troubles you that this definition doesn't correlate with the definition
provided by your precious constitution, go buy a feckin dictionary like everyone else
David Smith , February 21, 2018 at 10:09 pm
Luke, if you want to accuse Nixon of treason, you are stuck with the definition of treason
in The United States "precious constitution". Regarding the Paris Accords, practicalities are
all that matter, negotiations in the political environment of the Vietnam War would
absolutely be long and complex, and the history shows that they were, hence claiming a peace
treaty could be signed in the six months before November 1968 is unrealistic, even
delusional. In addition to the extreme time constraints, the US was in a poor negotiating
position as around July 1968 it was forced to abandon the Khe Son complex, the Khan Duc
complex, and many other positions under heavy NVA pressure. These positions near the Laotian
border had been key to US plans to interdict NVA reinforcements and return the critical
Central Highlands to Saigon control. Certainly not a time for the US to push for a swift
settlement. Despite these mind boggling realities, this article claims that peace was lost
because the South Vietnam government " delayed" something due to a guy who wasn't President
asking Anna Chennault to visit Saigon.
Joe Tedesky , February 20, 2018 at 11:34 pm
Hey mike good of you to point that out, because what Ifill did there was classic
redirection of a focal point to another one, which ends up being an omission of where
convenient truths get purposely left out. Just thought I'd mention it, because one should
really let your comment sink in. Joe
Annie , February 20, 2018 at 10:01 pm
Someone explain this to me. "At the height of the Watergate scandal, in summer 1974,
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger tried to tell the world about Nixon's sabotage of the 1968
Paris peace talks, talks which – had they succeeded – could have spared the
nation six more years of futile slaughter." Am I missing something?
What happened to the Kissinger, the war criminal, who worked to prolong the Vietnam war,
advocating it should continue for as long as possible?.
What happened to the Kissinger who encouraged Nixon to wire tape and intimidate his political
enemies?
What happened to the Kissinger who supported secret bombings of Cambodia and Laos, killing
thousands, and eventually leading to a regime in Cambodia that killed millions.
What about the Kissinger who said, "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as
pawns in foreign policy."
Lee Campbell , February 20, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Kissinger, knowing Nixon is going down, trying to save his own reputation. Birds of a
feather
Annie , February 21, 2018 at 12:11 am
Yes, I agree, but there is something about this article which makes me uncomfortable, and
maybe it's because the author does not indicate in any way that Kissinger was protecting his
own reputation, or being very self serving. Maybe he was not to believed since his role in
that war was notorious, and not the reliable source the author proclaims him to be.
Joe Tedesky , February 20, 2018 at 11:47 pm
Annie, what happened to a elderly Pablo Picasso who had admitted to a Japanese newspaper
how he had been in the arts for only for the money? Well first is this statement true? How
does little old me corroborate such news? Was Picasso drunk when he said this? So many
questions, but where to find the truth.
I'm not doubting Garrick Alder because he does give adequate references to this Kissinger
quote, but Annie haven't you on occasion read something by the legendary elite of our past,
and sometimes present where they say the most off the wall things like think Joe Biden
telling a West Point Class (I think it was there or Harvard) that our Saudi allies are
backing ISIS. What goes on, or gets served, at those gushy luncheons they give speeches
at.
I also believe that people like Henry are so encased into their own bubble world, that
they get caught off guard with the most simplest of secrets. I once had a list of 7 people
who either before they died, or on their death bed, had confessed to their knowing to who
killed JFK need I tell you who they all singled out?
Broompilot , February 21, 2018 at 4:21 am
I seem to recall Kissinger being very complicit in sabotaging the Paris peace talks, maybe
even the instigator.
But, Hollywood and history is an oxymoron. Hollywood and truth is an oxymoron.
Fritzi Cohen , February 21, 2018 at 1:10 pm
What about Kissinger and Chile, and the overthrow of Allende. Not to be forgotten.
And should we now take Kissinger's word about Dan Ellsberg, somewhat of a narcissist
and pervert.
Joe Tedesky , February 20, 2018 at 11:27 pm
I recall Robert Parry speaking to LBJ's envelop marked with a big X, and how it had
finally surfaced after being under a mattress, and I'm hard pressed to remember the name of
this Johnson Aid who hid it for LBJ there. This envelope was a report on Chennault's goings
on at the Paris Peace Talks, and her links to Nixon's campaign. Robert Mueller wasn't old
enough to investigate this one.
I always thought of how with LBJ having this peace talk sabotage to hold over Nixon's head
that LBJ was using this as insurance to keep Nixon quiet about what he knew of LBJ's secret
to hide. This is why nobody in DC is held accountable.
Yes, going back to reveal Nixon's secret regarding Madam Chennault would have been a great
starting point for a movie to lead up to not only the Pentagon Papers, but the telling of
Watergate as well but then we are talking about our infamous Hollywood, and when did they
ever get the story right?
geeyp , February 21, 2018 at 4:12 am
The only item new to me here is Daniel married a millionaires' daughter?
Tom W. , February 21, 2018 at 11:25 am
In a taped call of Nov. 2, 1968, LBJ called Republican Senator E. Dirksen and told him
that Nixon was committing treason in regards to the Paris talks. I don't think we've ever
seen the underlying intelligence that was the basis of this call.
Jon Dhoe , February 21, 2018 at 12:43 pm
This is not surprising. Woodward is comes from the Navy (Intelligence?). He's not a
civilian reporter. And look at his reporting since then. Status quo stuff. The Pentagon
Papers were just a distraction?
There's nothing new about this story, and there's nothing particularly condemnatory about
Nixon in it.
US President Johnson wanted his VP (Humphrey) to win the 1968 election, which was very
close.
Early in 1968, the US/S Viet side had defeated a Communist "go for broke" offensive (Tet)
in which the Communists had expected the South Vietnamese populace to rise up and help defeat
the US/South Vietnamese military. The populace did not rise up, and the Communist side took
some very heavy losses. It was a big set back for them.
Some months later, US President Johnson, at a key time before the Nov. 1968 election,
tried to pressure the S Vietnamese President to give some concessions to the N Vietnamese to
get peace talks going.
This would not have stopped the fighting, but would have looked good to anti-war US
voters, maybe getting Johnson's VP a victory.
Commonly, in most conflicts, when peace talks begin, both sides step-up fighting as each
hopes to make gains to improve their negotiating position.
Nixon probably did take measures to thwart Johnson's pressure on the S. Vietnamese
president.
In any case, the war would have gone on, just like it did for a long time after peace
talks actually did get going.
nonsense factory , February 21, 2018 at 5:21 pm
Hey, no mention of the Shah of Iran and the Nixon Administration? It's the corporate
states of America now, it was alway about the money. If you're not tracking the corporate
system, you are irrelevant. At least Eisenhower was honest, about US interests in Vietnamese
resources, about controlling Indonesian oil. . . People care about money. Not ideology. But
that's more complex, isn't it?
Ullern , February 21, 2018 at 7:17 pm
Robert Parry found out and wrote about this treason by Nixon, of course. Except (?) that
W&B's source was the wily Kissinger. Kissinger, 94, could still be tried for not
disclosing the treason-crime by candidate Nixon.
Somebody should go for it, before Kissinger dies. Then at least the facts of the matter
will be on public record.
Gosh, If we can't nail Kissinger on openly calling for Genocide in Cambodia, then I don't
think anything else will work. I'd love to see him official dishonored before he dies
(completely), mind you.
peggy , February 21, 2018 at 9:09 pm
LBJ calling Dirksen and telling him Nixon was committing treason is rich considering the
treason LBJ committed with the Tonkin incident to say nothing of the USS Liberty cover up.The
US has been corrupt since Woodrow Wilson.The CIA controls the country since the Kennedy
coup.
exiled off mainstreet , February 22, 2018 at 2:11 am
So they still are cashing in for getting the smaller story while failing to get the
treason story that set up the creation of a dangerous world imperium and was a key step in
the brushing aside of the rule of law and constitutional rule in the US
A very interesting interview. It is almost one year old.
When intelligence agencies use the phase "with high confidence" means that they do not have evidence. This is one of
the biggest lie intelligence agencies resort to. They are all professional liars and should be treated as such.
If DNC email offloading was done over Internet (which means it was a hack not an internal leak) NSA should have the direct evidence.
They do not. So this is a progpaganda move by Brennan and Clapper to unleash MSM witch hunt, which is a key part of the color revolution
against Trump.
Another question is who downloaded this information to Wikileaks. Here NSA also should have evidence. And again they do not.
They have already to direct attention from the main issues. Oversight of intelligence agencies is joke. They can lie with impunity.
BTW NSA has all Hillary emails, including deleted.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve
their spying access.
It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third
world country gets the better of us.
The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must
be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
"... The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks." ..."
"... Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how the technical systems and hacking work, have been saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red herring , so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPs to apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that conclusion. ..."
"... Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called "Russian hack" of the Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of the ICA. ..."
"... What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament. That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together by those "handpicked" analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA. It is, in all candor, an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the status of Holy Writ. ..."
"... And Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, were kicking the ball hard down the streets of Washington. On Jan. 25, 2017, I had a chance to confront Schiff personally about the lack of evidence -- something that even Obama had acknowledged just before slipping out the door. I think our two-minute conversation speaks volumes. ..."
"... Now I absolutely look forward to dealing with Adam Schiff from my new position as CIA director. I will ask him to show me the evidence of "Russian hacking" that he said he could not show me on Jan. 25, 2017 – on the chance his evidence includes more than reports from the New York Times ..."
"... Intelligence analysts put great weight, of course, on sources. The authors of the lede, banner-headlined NYT article of Jan. 7, 2017 were Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger; Sanger has had a particularly checkered career, while always landing on his feet. Despite his record of parroting CIA handouts (or perhaps partly because of it), Sanger is now the NYT's chief Washington correspondent. ..."
"... More instructive still, in May 2005, when firsthand documentary evidence from the now-famous "Downing Street Memorandum" showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, the NYT ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title given his article of June 13 2005 was "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made." ..."
"... Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value the Jan. 7, 2017 report he co-authored with Michael D. Shear – "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." ..."
"... Nor am I inclined to take seriously former National Intelligence Director James Clapper's stated views on the proclivity of Russians to be, well, just really bad people – like it's in their genes. I plan to avail myself of the opportunity to discover whether intelligence analysts who labored under his "aegis" were infected by his quaint view of the Russians. ..."
"... I shall ask any of the "handpicked" analysts who specialize in analysis of Russia (and, hopefully, there are at least a few): Do you share Clapper's view, as he explained it to NBC's Meet the Press on May 30, 2017, that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever"? I truly do not know what to expect by way of reply. ..."
"... In sum, my priority for Day One is to hear both sides of the story regarding "Russian hacking" with all cards on the table. All cards. That means no questions are out of order, including what, if any, role the "Steele dossier" may have played in the preparation of the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment. ..."
Now that I have been nominated again – this time
by author Paul Craig Roberts – to be CIA director, I am preparing to hit the ground
running.
Last time my name was offered in nomination for the position – by The Nation
publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel – I did not hold my breath waiting for a call from the
White House. Her nomination came in the afterglow of my fortuitous, four-minute debate with
then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when I confronted him on his lies about the attack on
Iraq , on May 4, 2006 on national TV. Since it was abundantly clear that Rumsfeld and I
would not get along, I felt confident I had royally disqualified myself.
This time around, on the off-chance I do get the nod, I have taken the time to prepare the
agenda for my first few days as CIA director. Here's how Day One looks so far:
Get former National Security Agency Technical Director William Binney back to CIA to join me
and the "handpicked" CIA analysts who, with other "handpicked" analysts (as described by former
National Intelligence Director James Clapper on May 8, 2017) from the FBI and NSA, prepared the
so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017. That evidence-impoverished
assessment argued the case that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his minions "to help
President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton."
When my predecessor, CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited Binney to his office on Oct. 24, 2017
to discuss cyber-attacks, he told Pompeo that he had been fed a pack of lies on "Russian
hacking" and that he could prove it. Why Pompeo left that hanging is puzzling, but I believe
this is the kind of low-hanging fruit we should pick pronto.
The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together: "We assess with high
confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to
release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets
and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how
the technical systems and hacking work, have been
saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red
herring , so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPs to
apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that
conclusion.
Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called "Russian hack" of the
Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of
the ICA.
Again, Binney says that the main conclusions he and his VIPs colleagues reached are based
largely on principles of physics – simple ones like fluid dynamics. I want to hear what
that's all about, how that applies to the "Russian hack," and hear what my own CIA analysts
have to say about that.
I will have Binney's clearances updated to remove any unnecessary barriers to a
no-holds-barred discussion at a highly classified level. After which I shall have a transcript
prepared, sanitized to protect sources and methods, and promptly released to the media.
Like Sisyphus Up the Media Mountain
At that point things are bound to get very interesting. Far too few people realize that they
get a very warped view on such issues from the New York Times . And, no doubt, it
would take some time, for the Times and other outlets to get used to some candor from the CIA,
instead of the far more common tendentious leaks. In any event, we will try to speak truth to
the media – as well as to power.
I happen to share the view of the handful of my predecessor directors who believed we have
an important secondary obligation to do what we possibly can to inform/educate the public as
well as the rest of the government – especially on such volatile and contentious issues
like "Russian hacking."
What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to
be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a
year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament.
That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together
by those "handpicked" analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA. It is, in all candor, an embarrassment
to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the
status of Holy Writ.
The Paper of (Dubious) Record
I recall the banner headline spanning the top of the entire front page of the NYT on Jan. 7,
2017: "Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says;" and the electronic version headed "Putin
Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." I said to myself sarcastically,
"Well there you go! That's exactly what Mrs. Clinton – not to mention the NY Times, the
Washington Post and The Establishment –
have been saying for many months."
Buried in that same edition of the Times was
a short paragraph by Scott Shane: "What is missing from the public report is what many
Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the
Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission."
Omission? No hard evidence? No problem. The publication of the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment got
the ball rolling. And Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House
Intelligence Committee, were kicking the ball hard down the streets of Washington. On Jan. 25,
2017, I had a chance to confront Schiff personally about the lack of evidence -- something that
even Obama had acknowledged just before slipping out the door. I think our
two-minute conversation speaks volumes.
Now I absolutely look forward to dealing with Adam Schiff from my new position as CIA
director. I will ask him to show me the evidence of "Russian hacking" that he said he could not
show me on Jan. 25, 2017 – on the chance his evidence includes more than reports from the
New York Times .
Sources
Intelligence analysts put great weight, of course, on sources. The authors of the lede,
banner-headlined NYT article of Jan. 7, 2017 were Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger; Sanger
has had a particularly checkered career, while always landing on his feet. Despite his record
of parroting CIA handouts (or perhaps partly because of it), Sanger is now the NYT's chief
Washington correspondent.
Those whose memories go back more than 15 years may recall his promoting weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq as flat fact. In a July 29, 2002 article co-written with Them Shanker, for
example, Iraq's (nonexistent) "weapons of mass destruction" appear no
fewer than seven times as flat fact.
More instructive still, in May 2005, when firsthand documentary evidence from the
now-famous "Downing Street Memorandum" showed that President George W. Bush had decided by
early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, the NYT ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger
rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title
given his article of
June 13 2005 was "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made."
Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value the
Jan. 7, 2017 report he co-authored with Michael D. Shear – "Putin Led a Complex
Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds."
Nor am I inclined to take seriously former National Intelligence Director James
Clapper's stated views on the proclivity of Russians to be, well, just really bad people
– like it's in their genes. I plan to avail myself of the opportunity to discover whether
intelligence analysts who labored under his "aegis" were infected by his quaint view of the
Russians.
I shall ask any of the "handpicked" analysts who specialize in analysis of Russia (and,
hopefully, there are at least a few): Do you share Clapper's view, as he explained it to NBC's
Meet the Press on May 30, 2017, that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever"? I truly do not know what to expect by way of
reply.
End of Day One
In sum, my priority for Day One is to hear both sides of the story regarding "Russian
hacking" with all cards on the table. All cards. That means no questions are out of order,
including what, if any, role the "Steele dossier" may have played in the preparation of the
Jan. 6, 2017 assessment.
I may decide to seek some independent, disinterested technical input, as well. But it should
not take me very long to figure out which of the two interpretations of alleged "Russian
hacking" is more straight-up fact-based and unbiased. That done, in the following days I shall
brief both the Chair, Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and ranking member Schiff of the House
Intelligence Committee, as well as the Chair and ranking member of its counterpart in the
Senate. I will then personally brief the NYT's David Sanger and follow closely what he and his
masters decide to do with the facts I present.
On the chance that the Times and other media might decide to play it straight, and that the
"straight" diverges from the prevailing, Clapperesque narrative of Russian perfidy, the various
mainstream outlets will face a formidable problem of their own making. Mark Twain put it this
way: "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled."
And that will probably be enough for Day One.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
"... For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that enmity with Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is a smashing success already. ..."
For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the
heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to
ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent
presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and
the CIA,
plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British
Foreign Office (with the involvement of former
British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.
Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly
Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the
Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary
from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place,
securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National
Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a
bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer
formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition);
former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein,
himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests .
Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O.
Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .
Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic
administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who
according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're
doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally
implausible.
On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat
Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a
year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime
Minister's office.
The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be
allowed to be pulled back!
What to do, what to do . . .
Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even
Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!
Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens
and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true,
however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a
complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a
presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending
not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to
Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic"
grounds .)
Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively
the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions
(R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a
few conclusions:
Finally, "collusion" is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any hint
that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included it.
They didn't. That means that after months and months of "investigation" – or really,
setting "perjury traps" and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul Manafort's alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting
however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes.
Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always
was.
And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less
evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the indicted
Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage
Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there was no actual
cooperation. It's a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent (of someone
else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit Trump as a
Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian desperados supported
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they're also Putin's dupes.
Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any
connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with the hysteria
over social media placements by "Russian interests" on account of which hysterical Senators demanded that tech
giants impose content controls , or dimwit
CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange
for – well, pretty much nothing. ( The CIA denies it , which
leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a
click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50
per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to "self-enrichment" as one motive of
the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the
indictment that the Russian goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" by posting
content on "divisive U.S. political and social issues." What! Americans disagree about stuff?
The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment,
Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to "promote discord in the United States and
undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." (He wagged his
finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn't occur to Rosenstein that he and his
pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political
ends.
Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans' attention to
their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration, Black Lives
Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA,
#Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any
of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting
Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where
patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that
they've been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade ?
An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S. does.
At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big "if" –
it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the table that a
lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this gargantuan Russian
scheme was (as reported
by Politico ) an "expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and
employed as many as hundreds of people." Millions of dollars! Hundreds of
people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to
point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never
mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election.
That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political
influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the
guise of "democracy promotion." The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its
Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of
ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft
compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and
nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the " Demintern " in
analogy to the Comintern , an organization
comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also
coordinated
internationally at the official level through the less-well-known " Community of Democracies ." It is often
difficult to know where the "official" entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department,
Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED,
Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that
cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by
billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often
successful "
color revolutions " targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime
change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
"
Mitt Romney was right ." Already many of Trump's supporters are not only crowing with
satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing their gaze from
the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign threat. "This whole saga
just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt Romney was right" for "suggesting
that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe," is
the new GOP meme . To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that
enmity with
Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is
a smashing success already.
The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans'
attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to
a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves
complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.
"... Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1. ..."
Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated
Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed
a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to
the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against
us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects.
Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We
admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this
because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."...
At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for
the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the
Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service.
He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all
the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also
briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert
Storm.
He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years
at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA
for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the
Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. -- Wikipedia
"... I don't care about USA hypocrisy, I care about the stupidity of thinking that elections are somehow tainted for no other reason than that spurious points of view were expressed by somebody somewhere. ..."
"... Looking at the lefty dupes who actually fell for this trolling, I surmise that (1) the disinformation only confirmed the choices they already made, and (2) the stupidity of those sky-screaming dupes will never be good for success of a democracy, whether they are trolled or not. ..."
I don't care about USA hypocrisy, I care about the stupidity of thinking that
elections are somehow tainted for no other reason than that spurious points of view were
expressed by somebody somewhere.
Act of war? Dangerous balderdash! Most of the information available to voters is
always a mish-mash of lies, myth and spin. It's the voters' responsibility, as in
all areas of life, to assess incoming info with skepticism and individual research. You can
not hold an election if you insist on invalidating it afterwards whenever a lie is
discovered in the petabytes of hype that support it.
Looking at the lefty dupes who actually fell for this trolling, I surmise that (1)
the disinformation only confirmed the choices they already made, and (2) the stupidity of
those sky-screaming dupes will never be good for success of a democracy, whether they are
trolled or not.
Looks like securityboulevard.com
is peddling disinformation. But like in all such cases you never know... Colonel Lang is a very
respectable blogger and if he quoted this garbage there might something behind it.
My impression is that if Russians wanted to disrupt the US elections (the good question is
why, because the consensus in Russia is that it is just a political show that does not affect the
US foreign policy one bit; in other words Russians as believers in "deep stat" hypothesis) they
would use much more sophisticated approaches. Those internet trolls are far from the the level of
Russian professionals in the area of "active measures" ;-)
BTW commenters trashed his post mercilessly.
Notable quotes:
"... Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1. ..."
"... The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects. ..."
"... Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill." ..."
"... Our political parties far surpass any Russian effort "to create, publish and repeat divisive messages." Proof? Just look at all the attack ads aired in before any important election. Lots of the ads come from dark money sources, so who can tell who's behind them. Maybe Mueller should be investigating that, too...if the integrity of US elections is really the goal, not just opportunistic Russia-bashing. ..."
"... Was the Organization (Internet Research Agency) acting on behalf of the Russian government, or was it a commercial marketing operation with no operational ties to the Russian government? ..."
"... It seems the notion of "sowing discord" or creating chaos within the American body politic is arrived as a means of explaining the lack of internal consistency in the Organization's methods, but such analysis is predicated on the assumption this was a Russian government operation. ..."
"... Evidence for that assumption is obviously lacking, although that has not prevented such assumption from being presented as flat fact by many. ..."
"... It's a circus, a distraction against the Nunes Memo and investigation by Mueller, a compromised individual, if every there was one. ..."
"... Mueller is in it for the $$$millions in fees he gets for his office. Period. ..."
"... No one who actually tried to skew the election will ever be indicted. That includes, Clinton herself, and her husband, the DNC, and the media. ..."
"... Never mind the same Obama administration brought down the Brazilian President through leaking "Panama Papers". Unfortunately a clean politician was replaced by a corrupt politician in that country. Thanks ..."
"... When we compare these trolls to the New York Times, which admitted it intentionally kept news of Bush's illegal electronic spying from the American people during the Bush/Kerry election, specifically so it would not be an election issue, the trolls were doing exactly what our founding fathers wanted the press to do, while the NYT was not. ..."
"... I believe that these Russian trolls were merely parts of a private profit making Internet advertising firm that had zero to do with election interference and everything to do with generating the most eyeballs for its customers' advertisements, However, the claim that these trolls were a Russian government operation intended to create "divisiveness" is based on the assumption that opposing Hillary Clinton was somehow divisive. Since when did criticism of a US politician become devisive? ..."
"... We don't need the Russians to "sow discord" among our polity. We do it rather well ourselves. TDS, Birtherism, BLM, #MeToo, pro-choice/pro-life, safe spaces, and all the PCness and identity politics is just that, more grist for the discord mill. ..."
"... The hysteria over the Russian trolling shows how far into madness we've fallen. My personal hunch however is that Russiagate is a giant smokescreen to obfuscate a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration to interfere in the elections in a partisan manner and when the electorate chose otherwise to discredit a duly elected POTUS. Russia just happened to be roadkill in that plot. ..."
"... It shouldn't take long before Russian are blamed for 9-11 and Great Depression. A complete dehumanization of Russia and Russians is gaining a full steam. ..."
"... And while the outcome, regardless of who funded this operation, has contributed to US political disarray, it seems this outcome has primarily been driven by HRL's loss, plausible (but not yet proven) DOJ, FBI and White House illegal election and post-election interventions and the desperate efforts by Democratic party types and their tribal supporters to believe that HRC was robbed of her rightful Presidency. ..."
"... How do we know this wasn't some cockamamie propaganda exercise drawn up in some CIA office? the whole thing is small potatoes.. Mueller has nothing of relevance here, other catching some advertising agency trying to make a buck off social networks... and it was chump change in terms of $... if 100, grand a month could affect the direction of an election - i am sure many others would happily pay some troll farm based in st. petersburg for that kind of success.. ..."
"... This organisation has been well known and received coverage in the western press for years so I assume the relevant people have poked around their, likely poorly protected, systems. Two things to remember is Russia is a pretty anarchic place with different factions and people doing their own thing. ..."
"... Others would be a better judge of whether this smacks of an organised Russian intelligence operation, or just one of Russia's many incompetent private companies ..."
"We will use the key performance indicators (KPIs) we created in November to measure the
level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active measures campaign. The plethora
of examples within the indictment serves to confirm much of our analysis, but also shows
their successes were more robust than previous analysis had concluded.
KPI 1 – Shape the U.S. election discourse and feed divisiveness into the
United States. The efforts in the creation of thousands of online accounts to create,
publish and repeat divisive messages, creating slightly nuanced content and otherwise pushing
themes that would be most inflammatory has now been documented in the indictment. The DoJ
shared an example: "The Russians organized one rally in support of the President-elect and
another rally to oppose him, both in New York, and on the same day."
KPI 2 – Framing the dialogue via ads and fictitious persons. This is
where the Russians invested heavily -- not only millions in funds which they funneled to
social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook, but also in online search ads with
Google and Bing. Additionally, their use of email and assuming the identities of real U.S.
citizens to infiltrate and provide direct support to various political entities is now
well-documented." securituboulevard.com
-------------
I have no idea what or who "Security Boulevard" may be but I needed a mission statement for
Project Lakhta. A number of people are saying that Lakhta just wasn't professional enough for
them to give it much credit. I disagree. the program may have been run by Putin's Caterer
billionaire friend with a few ex-SVR as cadre and the rest enthusiastic geeks, but IMO the
results speak for themselves. If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this
project certainly contributed to US political disarray.
The image of Michael Moore marching in a Project Lakhta anti-Trumo demonstration is just
too, too delicious.
The question arises of actual motive on the part of the Russians. Much of the usual drivel
is circulating about Russian hatred of democracy as a commodity.
IMO that is not the root of their behavior in this matter and in all the other IO operations
that they seem to be continuing against the US. No, I think the objective is simply to weaken
the US as a self-declared adversary that wishes to see Russia reduced to the status of a
mid-sized regional player subject to US oversight and control.
Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated
Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a
more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the
east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft
against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own
defects.
Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We
admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this
because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."
Our political parties far surpass any Russian effort "to create, publish and repeat
divisive messages." Proof? Just look at all the attack ads aired in before any important
election. Lots of the ads come from dark money sources, so who can tell who's behind them.
Maybe Mueller should be investigating that, too...if the integrity of US elections is really
the goal, not just opportunistic Russia-bashing.
Was the Organization (Internet Research Agency) acting on behalf of the Russian
government, or was it a commercial marketing operation with no operational ties to the
Russian government?
It seems the notion of "sowing discord" or creating chaos within the
American body politic is arrived as a means of explaining the lack of internal consistency in
the Organization's methods, but such analysis is predicated on the assumption this was a
Russian government operation.
Evidence for that assumption is obviously lacking, although
that has not prevented such assumption from being presented as flat fact by many.
The Story was broken and published in 2015. It found the perps were using bots to get
advert revenues........ period. The indictments are of Russian Nationals for activities and
actions taken within Russia. Neither Mueller nor the US have jurisdiction.
It's a circus, a distraction against the Nunes Memo and investigation by Mueller, a
compromised individual, if every there was one.
Mueller is in it for the $$$millions in
fees he gets for his office. Period.
No one who actually tried to skew the election will ever be indicted. That includes,
Clinton herself, and her husband, the DNC, and the media.
Colonel I totally agree with your analysis, we seem to forget about our adventures in
promoting democracy else where. What I think is that the Russians exposed our own corrupt
politicians (I can still hear Obama's preaching about wikileaks and Clinton emails "Never
mind the content of those emails, it is a fact they stole our documents, and attacked our
democracy). Never mind the same Obama administration brought down the Brazilian President
through leaking "Panama Papers". Unfortunately a clean politician was replaced by a corrupt
politician in that country. Thanks
The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to allow for a vigorous public debate. The flaw
in the above reasoning is that if the alleged goal of the supposed Russian "interference" was
to "aggravate divisiveness" then that Russian troll farm was doing exactly what our founding
fathers wanted the press to do, provoke a public debate about issues during an election.
When we compare these trolls to the New York Times, which admitted it intentionally
kept news of Bush's illegal electronic spying from the American people during the Bush/Kerry
election, specifically so it would not be an election issue, the trolls were doing exactly
what our founding fathers wanted the press to do, while the NYT was not.
I believe that these Russian trolls were merely parts of a private profit making
Internet advertising firm that had zero to do with election interference and everything to do
with generating the most eyeballs for its customers' advertisements, However, the claim that
these trolls were a Russian government operation intended to create "divisiveness" is based
on the assumption that opposing Hillary Clinton was somehow divisive. Since when did
criticism of a US politician become devisive?
This is the part I don't understand. The devisiveness stick can be swung against anyone
and anything. My comments here can be seen by some as devisive. Same with the post I'm
commenting on, this entire blog and every other person or group exercising their First
Amendment rights by debating an issue. So while I believe the whole Russian thing is complete
bullshit, the thing I worry about most is that it is being used to demand conformity and
squelch our First Amendment rights. Vigorous debate, no matter who or what is sponsoring that
debate, doesn't weaken our country. It only makes it stronger. What is really weakening our
country is the current demonizing of free speech via evidence free claims that such speech is
hurting the US and helping a supposed enemy country.
"If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this project certainly
contributed to US political disarray."
So you're saying that because a commercial fake ad campaign was seized upon by a US
government Russian witch-hunt that therefore the fake ad campaign contributed to US political
disarray? As opposed to the witch-hunt itself?
I believe that's putting the cart before the horse.
We have Facebook's head of ads explicitly saying that he's seen all the ads and they
definitely had nothing to do with swaying the election - before he's forced to recant that
statement by Facebook management on the excuse that it insults Mueller.
In other words, everyone views this as a commercial marketing operation which used the US
elections as a vehicle to make money by supporting and denouncing both Trump and Clinton, but
you're convinced it was a real Russian government disinformation operation.
Based on what? The fact that it had zero impact on the election? Or the fact that by
definition it couldn't possibly have had any significant impact on US divisiveness by
comparison with the US media and social media themselves - other than by having been put up
by Mueller's witch hunt as significant? The fact that this operation has zero connections to
the Russian government except for this "chef" having some vague connections with Putin?
Not buying it. This operation in my view had zilch to do with weakening the US in any way,
shape or form - except to extract some money from it.
Scott Adams
does a white board presentation where he compares the theory of Russians helping Trump with
the theory of Russians as someone else who wanted anybody but Hillary.
Scott has been right about quite a few things before and has written the book "How to win
biggly in a world where facts don't matter" explaining trumps style and persuasion
methods.
We don't need the Russians to "sow discord" among our polity. We do it rather well
ourselves. TDS, Birtherism, BLM, #MeToo, pro-choice/pro-life, safe spaces, and all the PCness
and identity politics is just that, more grist for the discord mill.
The hysteria over the Russian trolling shows how far into madness we've fallen. My
personal hunch however is that Russiagate is a giant smokescreen to obfuscate a conspiracy at
the highest levels of the Obama administration to interfere in the elections in a partisan
manner and when the electorate chose otherwise to discredit a duly elected POTUS. Russia just
happened to be roadkill in that plot.
A lot of you armchair sleuths are creating your own reality on an unwarranted basis
proceeding from a desire to think that because Mueller is embarked on a voyage to Gulliver's
various lands, all his results are false. This is a fallacy. The first amendment? The framers
never intended that it should protect people acting either directly or indirectly on behalf
of a foreign power. Their reaction to the Citizen Genet case shows that clearly. The British
did things like this on a sustained basis for the purpose of luring the US into WW2. Why do
you think they made that effort a covert campaign?
A covert political action on behalf of a
foreign power would never have been thought by the framers to deserve first amendment
protection.
A commercial venture? Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. If
you had ever written a business plan for a new venture you would know that a competent
entrepreneur would have looked at the "pro forma" financial projections in the plan and
decided that the trivial possible revenues would never recover the capital invested in the
scheme and would have decided against proceeding. Have you never watched "Shark Tank?"
Some
of the operatives involved did travel to the US to work some of the street demonstration
capers. The indictment says that in September of last year, they concluded that the FBI was
closing in on them and left the country rather than be apprehended. pl
With Col Lang's forbearance on posting an except in this case, the following excerpt from
John Helmer's current blog post (johnhelmer.net) provides some insight into that has been
driving the "Organizations" activities:
"Russian sources believe Prigozhin's organization has contracted for domestic Russian
operations paid for by Russian corporations and local politicians. Some of the operations are
believed to be conventional positive advertising of events, products, campaigns, and ideas.
Some reportedly involve the circulation of kompromat against business and election rivals;
some to defend against botnet and denial of service attacks on corporate websites and
communication systems; some to attack the websites of business adversaries or investigative
journalists, Russia-based or Russia-related.
Investigations by Russian media and government regulators have been reporting for some
time allegations that Prigozhin has been diverting money from state procurement contracts for
himself, and for clandestine purposes approved by state officials and state company
executives. For a sample of the details, start in 2014 with the St. Petersburg website
Fontanka's investigation of Mikhail Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik, the second and third
defendants in the Mueller indictment. Fontanka said it had uncovered evidence that paying
clients of the Prigozhin, Bystrov and Burchik organization included a youth group of the
Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg municipal authorities, and a Gazprom media
promotion company. The payroll of the organization was reported in mid-2014 to be Rb180,000
per month (about $5,500).
Russian sources believe Prigozhin's Project Lakhta was ordered by someone in a position to
exercise a call on Prigozhin's cashflow. They exclude Russian officials on the Kremlin
Security Council -- Sergei Ivanov, Sergei Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu, Anton Vaino, Nikolai
Patrushev, Sergei Naryshkin – and dismiss the possibility that Project Lakhta had
either President Putin's or Russian intelligence service support.
The suspicion of Russian sources is that the American campaign element in Project Lakhta
was "so hare-brained there is only one official who could have considered Prigozhin's project
worth the money and the attempt – Dmitry Peskov". Peskov is officially titled Deputy
Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary. From the Kremlin
he supervises the budgets for the state television broadcaster RT, the state news agency
Sputnik, and special US-targeted propaganda programmes, such as the Valdai Discussion Club
for academics and the Oliver Stone films"
So this appears to me to be primarily a "commercial for hire to make something happen
through the web" model for arrange of potential corporation and political clients. I find it
interesting that the one possible "sufficiently hare-brained" suspect is Peskov who oversees
the budgets of Russia's state owned "open" US-targeted information programs..
The piece in NYT certainly broke through the bottom. But then again, I learned today from
Adam Schiff that Russians love 2nd Amendment because they love nothing more than Americans
killing each-other. It shouldn't take long before Russian are blamed for 9-11 and Great
Depression. A complete dehumanization of Russia and Russians is gaining a full steam.
"The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft
against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own
defects. "
I have always thought that this makes sense. It would have been incredibly passive and an
abdication of responsibility for the Russians to not respond. You can argue about the
particulars on exactly what they did or did not do, but it never made sense to think that
they were not acting in their own best self-interests in response to provocation.
I think the following excerpt from Helmer's piece is more relevant here:
The unofficial Russian reaction towards Prigozhin's activities in the US is more quizzical,
and under the American pressure, more private. It acknowledges that Prigozhin is a
commercial operator, and for every outlay he has a paying client. Who that client was for
Project Lakhta is the object of speculation so far unreported in the Russian press.
So finding the client would seem to be critical to both the 'Russian government
involvement' and 'Trump team colluded' allegations.
It is noted that Prigozhin had previously tried to take another Russian Company - Yandex
(Equivalent of Google for Russia) to Court to have his Name removed from Search Results that
connected his Name with [this] Search Query, before eventually backing down....
This points out an obvious Dilemma to many Critiques of Russia, the all Powerful Russian
Government whom between apparently personally controlling all Business, nor does it allow a
free Press neither forced Yandexs Hand in having those results Removed, nor did it prevent
RBC/RBK from publishing their Report on the 'Troll Farm' which if to be believed was a vital
Part of their Political Interference...
Which way does it go? Do they suddenly have to admit that Press is maybe the more Free than
imagined? Or does the Government simply not extend any interest in hiding its 'Operation and
Assets'... Or is it that simply - It has no Hand in this and thus no interest?
All of this goes back to the Points others have clearly made very well above - That of
this being about Commercial Interests and Motivations not a super Secret Plot that clearly is
not being hidden..
To add one more Aspect to what I mean by 'Commercial Interests' - This does not have to mean
Directly... Favorable Patronage if the right People are pleased with you can leverage Profits
through further Contracts and Opportunities..
I am not pushing Peskov and basically agreeing with jjc's post that evidence that this was
a Russian government is lacking (at least so far).
And while the outcome, regardless of who funded this operation, has contributed to US
political disarray, it seems this outcome has primarily been driven by HRL's loss, plausible
(but not yet proven) DOJ, FBI and White House illegal election and post-election
interventions and the desperate efforts by Democratic party types and their tribal supporters
to believe that HRC was robbed of her rightful Presidency. Absent this context - which was
clearly not created by the IRA operation - it is hard to see that this operation would be
getting any attention.
Sir:
An Alternate to your thesis is that the object of Lakhta is to make Russia Great Again.
It appears with every US inspired sanction Russia recovers after a brief pause, and advances
her economy far beyond what was foreseen but a few years ago:
1., agriculture -greatest wheat exporter in 2017, rather than importer.
2., replacing slowly all the software from the west with either homegrown
product or Chinese goods
3., the famous Kremlin List might force lot of offshore Russian wealth to go home, lest it be
expropriated by the US Treasury.
4., you, Sir, can add other observations based on facts of Russia's recovery since the
sanctions started.
How do we know this wasn't some cockamamie propaganda exercise drawn up in some CIA office?
the whole thing is small potatoes.. Mueller has nothing of relevance here, other catching
some advertising agency trying to make a buck off social networks... and it was chump change
in terms of $... if 100, grand a month could affect the direction of an election - i am sure
many others would happily pay some troll farm based in st. petersburg for that kind of
success..
sorry - cold war 2 / mccarthyism 2 - all on tap and who benefits from that? that is the
question i would like to hear an answer to.. thanks..
Re the KPI's to "measure the level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active
measures campaign":
I was taught that performance measures are meaningless unless they can quantify a
commodity which equates to 'success'. The examples given here seem to fall well within that
category IMHO. Discord and divisiveness may be a valid goal, but how much was sown? There was
plenty around, but it is surely next to impossible to assess the impact of Lakhta in a
meaningful way. So Moore went to a Lakhta rally, rather than what, perhaps a different anti
Trump rally? Is the net effect better or worse and by how much?
The second KPI is not even a KPI - how is dialog framing a valid goal? The text describes
the significant investment made (the other side of the equation) and the methods used - this
is meaningless re any assessment of supposed 'success'.
Average salary in St Pete would be around USD1000 a month so the costs are not much, maybe
more if they had English language skills. Wouldn't be many fixed/startup costs at all. Also
not just click bait advertising but the opportunity to take a contract to run a PR campaign.
I am still undecided. This organisation has been well known and received coverage in the
western press for years so I assume the relevant people have poked around their, likely
poorly protected, systems. Two things to remember is Russia is a pretty anarchic place with
different factions and people doing their own thing.
Generally Russians can still be pretty
incompetent at things, these guys seem to be a good example of that. Others would be a better
judge of whether this smacks of an organised Russian intelligence operation, or just one of
Russia's many incompetent private companies. Creating a little mischief can be fun as well. I
can't be bothered to look fully in to everything but actual real examples of attempts to
cause mischief are too few, and the evidence sufficient to convict has not been
presented.
As for British activities before WWII, I have always been of the opinion the success of
that was due to important power centres, the people Lindbergh listed in his Des Moines
speech, although I would include white Southerners, in the US consciously turning a blind
eye. The inference would be that this was so insignificant and ineffectual that it wasn't
picked up, or dismissed if it was.
Security Boulevard is an aggregation of cyber-security bloggers. Christopher Burgess, the
author of this article, retired from the CIA in 2005 with 30+ years. He worked as a security
advisor for Cisco and in several other security related companies. I don't remember ever
hearing about him. I looked at some of his writing about the Russia thing going back to
before the election. Our views largely coincide and I recognize the terminology he uses. I
chalk that up to his background. He certainly was aware of some of the same experiences in
foreign cyber-espionage and IO that I dealt with. These key performance indicators are from
an article he did back in November 2017.
It is not in the interests, to say the least, of Russia to weaken the US. And Putin, above
most, knows this. Maybe tweak us a bit...but weaken us? Why? He is going to need us against
China. We have no natural geopolitical antipathy (hostility) with Russia. We may thrust
ourselves into that position, at times, in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. However it is
not organic to our relationship. On the other hand, such antipathy (hostility) does exist
between China and Russia. And it is not just , organic, geopolitical, but racial was well.
Although we're not supposed to talk like that anymore. Putin might not talk it...but he is
thinking it.
YOU may not have any antipathy toward Russia but Washington and New York and the media
drip with it and our actions since the fall of the USSR would not look like friendship to any
neutral observer. pl
The thing about British activities in the US before WW2 is laughable and rather
self-serving. So, you think that 1.25 million US a month was trivial, eh? Have you ever
funded a business? pl
"I was taught that performance measures are meaningless unless they can quantify a
commodity which equates to 'success'. " You were taught poorly. Nothing in international
policy operations can be meaningfully quantified. Only social science idiots thank that this
is possible. pl
You have CIA on the brain, something like water on the knew and have seen too many movies.
you have no idea how difficult it would be to construct an operation like this in a police
state like Russia if you were foreign. pl
And then there were a few British capers like the Zimmerman telegram and the BS about
German atrocities in Belgium in WW1. Oh, yes and the lies told about the Boers in the S.
Africa War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Co-ordination
pl
He seems not to be using KPI in the traditional way, but it could be a terminology
difference between intelligence and business uses. Substitute the word "goal" and you're
fine.
pat - b did a post to break down this us .25 million a month b.s..
here is the quote for you - "(Some U.S. media today made the false claim that $1.25
million per month were spend by the company for its U.S. campaign. But Point 11 of the
indictment says that the company ran a number of such projects directed at a Russian audience
while only the one described in 10d above is aimed at an U.S. audience. All these projects
together had a monthly budget of $1.25 million.)
as memory serves they had at least 10 different projects going... - 100 grand a month is a
better guesstimate... chump change...
Do you really think that Russia sees its relations with the US as other than a zero sum
game? How could they see it any other way given the way the US has acted toward them? pl
I didn't say the Russian project created the aura of animosity. The US is falling apart
politically. The Russian project originators perceived this and sought to exacerbate it, and
succeeded. pl
So, you think this project was put up on "spec" like building something in the hope that
someone will buy it and redeem your costs. Have you ever done that? pl
I concur on Burgess. The graphic in the article you cite is pretty good, though it doesn't
mention the "seeding and feeding" use of bots and commenters in blog and media platform
threads to influence the discussion. But I think that's inferred by the use of the term
"computational propaganda." I've never seen that before, but I like it. In psychology, it is
called the "availability heuristic." The idea is that if you make the same claim or idea
appear again and again, people will eventually become convinced it's true. So if you can
swarm the Internet with many instances of the same falsehood or argument, people will come to
believe it's true.
In case anyone's curious, this is the same tactic employed by GEICO in the US.
With respect Colonel, my point was that the use of KPI's in this context is indeed
meaningless. Thus the authors are discredited in my view by using & abusing the term.
This report reads no different to many others to me - allegations that the mission was to
sow discord. So is this a new Pearl Harbor or a laughably tiny contribution to the immense
discord extant already. My own gut feel is that it is likely well towards the latter end of
the scale.
Following Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three entities
behind a Russian "troll farm" said to have meddled in the 2016 U.S. election (admittedly, with
zero impact
), two people familiar with both the
ads
purchased
by Russians on Facebook, and the "troll farm" in question have refuted Mueller's
narrative over the course of four days. Indeed, things don't seem to be going well for the Russia
investigation, which started out with serious claims of Collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin, and has been reduced to CNN
diving through the garbage
of a Russian troll farm.
About that troll farm...
Adrian Chen, staff writer for
The New Yorker -
who first profiled
the indicted Russian troll farm in 2015,
sat down with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, where he
proceeded to deflate Mueller's big scary indictment to nothing.
"Tried to tamp down the troll farm panic on @chrislhayes show last night,"
Adrian Chen tweeted
. "
It's
90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics shitposting
on Facebook.
"
Chen then responded to a tweet saying the IRA has 300-400 individuals. "That was the entire
Internet Research Agency," Chen wrote."
The American department had ~90 people
,
according to the Russian journalists who did the most in-depth investigation."
Chen links to a Washington Post article which profiles Russian journalists who
also
investigated
said troll farm.
The former director of the FBI has assembled a "dream team" of investigators for his Special
Counsel probe and concluded that 13 Russians and 3 entities tried to meddle in the election after
an entire year of investigation.
Those efforts had zero impact on the election
Facebook's VP of ads is on record saying "I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very
definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal
The same FB Exec noted that most of the ads were purchased after the election.
Suggesting that the real, underlying narrative is one of
US media
propaganda, he was
then made to walk back his comments and apologize for his "
uncleared
thoughts
"
CNN is rooting around in the trash outside the troll farm.
And for all of this, Obama and Congress slapped sanctions on Russia, evicted two diplomatic
compounds, and launched several Congressional investigations over.
But at least the US Military Industrial Complex is happy, while the stock of Boeing has never been
higher.
The United
States, through a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) called The
National Endowment for Democracy has spent over $27,000,000 since 2013
in Russia to "promote democracy".
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. non-profit soft
power organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of
promoting democracy abroad. It is funded primarily through an annual
allocation from the U.S. Congress in the form of a grant awarded through
the United States Information Agency (USIA).
NED was banned in Russia as an undesirable international NGO in for
"using Russian commercial and noncommercial organizations under its
control... to declare the results of election campaigns illegitimate,
organize political actions intended to influence decisions made by the
authorities, and discredit service in Russia's armed forces.
Former Congressman Ron Paul also argued against NED funding
stating that NED has "very little to do with democracy. It is an
organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by
showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It
underwrites color-coded 'people's revolutions' overseas that look more
like pages out of Lenin's writings on stealing power than genuine
indigenous democratic movements."
Investigative reporter and editor of Consortiumnews Robert Parry has
characterized NED as a "neocon slush fund," whose founding was the
brainchild of Reagan Administration CIA Director William Casey and its
leading propagandist Walter Raymond Jr., then on the staff of the
National Security Council. The idea was to set up an organization funded
by the U.S. Congress to take over CIA programs that attempted to
influence foreign elections by promoting the selection of candidates who
supported U.S. policy and would "do what the U.S. government tells them
to do.
NED's Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984,
asserts that "No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of
candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of
such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American
elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".
As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED
successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in
1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria
in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate
for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in
Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the
opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and
to support a referendum to unseat him.
Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition
of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united
in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive
ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president.
The Endowment has made its weight felt in the
electoral-political process in numerous other countries.
The United States has continued democracy programs despite
local prohibitions.
Nevertheless, USAID and the NED have continued to fund organizations,
even where that's against the local country's laws. In Venezuela, for
example, the United States has
openly
continued
funding civil society organizations, even listing that in
its annual budgets, albeit without naming recipients.
USAID and the NED are undoubtedly keeping their plans in the country
secret. However, the NED and its leaders
continue
to
openly counter Russian ideological efforts throughout Eurasia.
For instance, when NED President Carl Gershman
testified
before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2016, he said
that one of the NED's five main focuses includes pushing back against
"an information offensive by Russia and other authoritarian regimes."
MSM has a story to run for 3 nights on "Russian meddling" - the sheeple bleat - go
to work, pay bills, pay taxes, invest in their "retirement", and send their kids off
to die in pointless wars.
The other funny thing about the indictments is that the speech of these Russian
nationals if they ran ads as alleged, is protected by the First Amendment, which
does not limit itself to US citizens. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech ...". The indictments claim that one must register as a foreign
lobbyist if they want to engage in political speech in the United States. For very
important reasons, the Constitution does not limit its protections to citizens,
including and especially where speech and religion are concerned.
Let's use a little math here. Even FB admits that only 1 in 23,000 images on
their site during this time period were paid for by the trolls. The vast
majority of FB users would never even have seen this content. If they were in
the .0004 of users who stumbled upon "troll speech," the message would no
doubt be drained out by all the other hundreds or thousands of messages they
did notice (mostly pictures of friends' babies). And, believe it or not, a
whole lot of voters don't even use Facebook. So only a minute fraction of FB
users could have conceivably seen one random, lonely impression, which would
have been drowned out by thousands of other non-troll impressions, posts made
by people who actually speak English and made by people the FB users actually
know.
Finally, if you were in the subgroup that found one of the five golden
tickets (stumbled upon a real Russian troll post), who is to say the dang post
wasn't 100 percent accurate.
I know I'm supposed to panic over all of this, but I'm not gonna do it.
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
The FBof
Matters apparently have exposed their MSM
strategy...they stole it from the Chocolate Factory...(((super secret FIB
methods)))...
Oomph Loompa doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for
you. Ooompa Loompa doompadah dee, If you are wise you'll listen to me." I
suppose Mueller and associates have their heads so far up their asses they
actually believe they're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory...Oh look!!! Another
pristine Passport!!!
Let's use a little math here. Even FB admits that only 1 in 23,000 images on
their site during this time period were paid for by the trolls. The vast
majority of FB users would never even have seen this content. If they were in
the .0004 of users who stumbled upon "troll speech," the message would no
doubt be drained out by all the other hundreds or thousands of messages they
did notice (mostly pictures of friends' babies). And, believe it or not, a
whole lot of voters don't even use Facebook. So only a minute fraction of FB
users could have conceivably seen one random, lonely impression, which would
have been drowned out by thousands of other non-troll impressions, posts made
by people who actually speak English and made by people the FB users actually
know.
Finally, if you were in the subgroup that found one of the five golden
tickets (stumbled upon a real Russian troll post), who is to say the dang post
wasn't 100 percent accurate.
I know I'm supposed to panic over all of this, but I'm not gonna do it.
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
The FBof
Matters apparently have exposed their MSM
strategy...they stole it from the Chocolate Factory...(((super secret FIB
methods)))...
Oomph Loompa doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for
you. Ooompa Loompa doompadah dee, If you are wise you'll listen to me." I
suppose Mueller and associates have their heads so far up their asses they
actually believe they're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory...Oh look!!! Another
pristine Passport!!!
The trolls were allegedly trying to "sow discord." The MSM - working closely with
the FBI and the Establishment in Washington - are trying to "spread panic."
For
once, the fear-mongering isn't playing in Peoria.
If Obama hadn't slapped sanctions on Russia, what were the Oval Office conspirators
going to leak to media about Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador?
What was Sally Yates going to assert could be a violation of the Logan Act, and also
a possible way for Russia to blackmail Flynn? What was the FBI going to question
Flynn about? So McCabe could change their 302s. So there
had
to be
sanctions. And there
had
to be trolls.
The Saker gives a few findings to those who understand what might be happening:
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin trolls from the Internet
Research Agency paid by Putin's favorite chef," came from one source, a group of CIA
spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective
online persona.
Just think about this working scheme: Shaltay-Boltay with a group of
anti-government "activists" created the "Internet Research Agency," they and some
"activists" created 470 FaceBook accounts used to post comments that looked
unmistakably "trollish."
After that other, CIA affiliated entities, like the entire Western Media, claimed
the "Russian interference in the US election." Finally, the ODNI published a report
lacking any evidence in it."
"... "Mr. Mueller, due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, by shutting down pertinent FBI investigative operations and by transferring certain terrorism related Gulen files to the counterintelligence division, has a major conflict of interest as Special Counsel targeting Flynn's case as it pertains to exposing the Gulen network and his relationship with Turkish entities sharing the same interest in exposing and extraditing Fethullah Gulen. Thus, Mr. Mueller must step down from his position as Special Counsel in this case- a case targeting and probing Lt. General Michael Flynn." ..."
"Mr. Mueller, due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in
covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, by
shutting down pertinent FBI investigative operations and by transferring certain terrorism
related Gulen files to the counterintelligence division, has a major conflict of interest as
Special Counsel targeting Flynn's case as it pertains to exposing the Gulen network and his
relationship with Turkish entities sharing the same interest in exposing and extraditing
Fethullah Gulen. Thus, Mr. Mueller must step down from his position as Special Counsel in
this case- a case targeting and probing Lt. General Michael Flynn."
"... I turned in a blank ballot in November 2016. A choice between the Devil's Sister and the Devil's Jester wasn't a choice that sober grownups would make. I didn't need 13 Russians's help to arrive at that conclusion. ..."
"... My God, what a confession it is to believe that 13 non-billionaires could influence an American election: "Horosho! Now that election goes to Trump, next we get Moose and Squirrel!" Seriously?! ..."
"... "Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election?" The Deep State folks want us to think so. Is there any way to turn the tables on them? ..."
"... If career lawyers at DOJ told Jeff Sessions that he should probably recuse himself because of X, Y, and Z, then they are presumptively guilty of bad faith, and Sessions need not necessarily feel bound to stay recused. ..."
"... Sessions was under no legal compulsion to recuse himself, as Andrew C. McCarthy has demonstrated. Arguably, the A.G. can point to any such bad faith as a reason for taking back his recusal. "The rule of law!" the Deep State will scream. But bad faith of the kind in question is ipso facto a negation of the rule of law. ..."
"... The rule of law only demands that a reversal of a recusal bear an extremely heavy burden of proof for its justification. No problem if Sessions relied on bad-faith actors at DOJ–reversing his recusal would be justified. ..."
Cue the resident amoral neocon scumbags to tell us that darn it, it's DIFFERENT when we do it. Sure our "allies" might be neonazis,
slave traders, people who bomb churches, behead priests, kidnap nuns, and enslave Christians .but you know .Putin.
The insanity that is engulfing the USA is no longer just a joke, that these lunatics have nuclear weapons is now a very serious
threat to the rest of the world – that is hopefully not as insane. Bombing foreign nations is not considered an act of war (kinetic
action in Syria, Libya, Niger, Somalia, etc), however making online comments is an act of war?!?
I have made online comments against America, I suggest I also get added on that list as an act of war.
I don't think if I were a "resident amoral neocon scumbag" I would dare to reply after VikingLS' opening comment.
The title sounds silly: "acts of war" in the real world are defined by people who want to go to war.
And BTW, Pat's language is slippery when talking about the Chilean coup. Maybe the White House had "deniability" but State
and the CIA left fingerprints everywhere. If you want to see an obviously lying Kissinger, read the section on the coup in "White
House Years."
I turned in a blank ballot in November 2016. A choice between the Devil's Sister and the Devil's Jester wasn't a choice that
sober grownups would make. I didn't need 13 Russians's help to arrive at that conclusion.
My God, what a confession it is to believe that 13 non-billionaires could influence an American election: "Horosho! Now
that election goes to Trump, next we get Moose and Squirrel!" Seriously?!
I tell my kids all the time that half the people in this country are, by definition, below average in intelligence.
"Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election?" The Deep State folks want us to think
so. Is there any way to turn the tables on them?
If career lawyers at DOJ told Jeff Sessions that he should probably recuse himself because of X, Y, and Z, then they are
presumptively guilty of bad faith, and Sessions need not necessarily feel bound to stay recused.
Sessions was under no legal compulsion to recuse himself, as Andrew C. McCarthy has demonstrated. Arguably, the A.G. can
point to any such bad faith as a reason for taking back his recusal. "The rule of law!" the Deep State will scream. But bad faith
of the kind in question is ipso facto a negation of the rule of law.
The rule of law only demands that a reversal of a recusal bear an extremely heavy burden of proof for its justification.
No problem if Sessions relied on bad-faith actors at DOJ–reversing his recusal would be justified.
Career lawyers at DOJ, especially in the Office of Legal Counsel, would clearly have known that Sessions was under no legal
compulsion or professional obligation to recuse himself. If they left him with a different impression and advised that it would
be best for him to recuse himself, their actions couldn't realistically be attributed to incompetence. Only bad faith could explain
such advice.
This is true even if they deliberately neglected to inform the A.G. of the legal non-necessity for recusal and played up the
alleged political necessity for recusal. It would still be bad faith.
If that's correct, it doesn't mean Sessions should immediately take back his recusal. Weeks or months of preparation might
be needed for educating the public and injecting a spine-stiffening drug in a number of Republican senators–call your office,
Lindsey Graham. But it does allow for a stronger attack right now on Robert Mueller, who needs to get out from under his own shadow
of bad faith before he ends up earning the nickname "Bad Faith Bob."
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
"... The whole of American politics is nothing but 'sowing discord'. The only thing that holds the two parties together is the hatred shared for the 'other party'. ..."
"... Again, if election laws were broken, arrest, try, convict and imprison the perpetrators. Lots of money gets spent sowing discord during the elections. I'm not concerned one bit about the drop in the bucket spent by the Russians ..."
"... She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she was for universal health care. ..."
"... So, if I have a heart attack, based on my obesity, poor diet and alcoholism, I should immediately blame the background radiation in my basement? ..."
"... A classic case of misdirection, served up and serving the converging interests of a variety of players: neo-cons and defense contractors wet for a new Cold War with Russia, the Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic Party desperate to use this to distract from their catastrophic political negligence, and factions in the National Security State looking to be rehabilitated in the eyes of media and liberal elites. ..."
"... What Russian government? It was a commercial operation posting click bait, of all sorts, to sell ads. And yes, that's the explanation that fits the facts best. If Putin was really bankrolling it, no evidence so far, he was wasting his money. From our point of view, a good thing. ..."
"... A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way of Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs. ..."
"... Google files patent for robot that writes your Facebook posts, emails and tweets ..."
"... All Russian bot claims appear to originate from the same group of warmongers and their highly flawed Hamilton 68 Dashboard project: McCarthyism Inc.: Terror Cranks Sold America the Russia Panic Truthdig ..."
"... [The Alliance for Securing Democracy's] researchers and advisors have become go-to pundits for mainstream reporters seeking expert opinions on Russian online meddling. They have been endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and chief of staff for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the Atlantic's Russia correspondent, has also weighed in to promote the ASD's efforts. Both highlighted the ASD's Hamilton 68 Dashboard as a scientific barometer of Kremlin influence over the American social media landscape ..."
"... Bill Kristol, among others, is on the so-called Alliance for Securing Democracy's board of advisors. ..."
"... And "b" at Moon of Alabama thinks that they've deliberately indicted a bunch of people they don't expect to prosecute (they're all in Russia) in order to have the above "message" on the books for as long as it takes for someone to stage a legal test of it. ..."
"... Until then it is simple intimidation. ..."
"... If the Russian government actually funded this sort of thing, they must be pretty simple-minded. ..."
"... Anyway, do we even know that it was Russian "government" money financing these things? It was some oligarch who had "ties" to Putin. By the standards used so far in Russiagate reporting, that basically means that he and Putin are both Russian. ..."
"... The Russian Federation is very much against neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements due to what it suffered from Nazi Germany during WWII. Now Russia sees this on it's boarders in Ukraine. But Russia is branded with this because white folk live there. What about all the Muslims in Russia, many of which have come from Central Asia? What about all the Asians in Eastern Russia? The quoted statement is born of either ignorance, misinformation or disinformation. ..."
"... Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the only source of evidence of Russian hacking of DNC. And Crowdstrike had to walk it back when they used the exact same evidence to claim that Russia had hacked Ukraine's artillery. That is likely why DNC refused to let FBI run forensics on their servers. ..."
"... negotiable convictions ..."
"... This is the mental equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy. At this point the media, the Dems and legions of David Brock led trolls have invested so much time and energy into "Muh Russia" that they can't write off their investment. ..."
"... Keep going. You're doing fine. It's down there somewhere. You can endure another season of Persist, the payoff is right around the corner. There is nothing more important right now than ignoring inconvenient facts. ..."
"... Domain Keys Identified Mail, or DKIM, is a highly regarded email security system that can be used to independently authenticate the contents and sender of an email that uses it. ..."
"... argumentum ad ignorantium ..."
"... argumentum ad ignorantiam ..."
"... Feffer says that progressives don't take Russiagate as seriously as they should. I think critical thinkers are taking it very seriously, because of potential censorship of dissenting voices that favor peace over war, and that favor productive social spending over wasteful military spending. ..."
"... Even absent such concerns, the Russiagate hysteria is obviously a partisan power struggle that sucks the air out of the room for productive political discourse to address real social, economic, and environmental problems. ..."
"... So, the 13 incitements, in addition to keeps the Russian narrative alive for another few weeks, is providing political cover for the establishment to clean house as it were, and clear out the Progressive infestation threatening to cripple the money train the establishment has become accustomed too. ..."
"... democracy in the USA is broken. ..."
"... when 10s of thousands of soldiers would be sent somewhere for an extended period ..."
"... Historically speaking, America peaked at the moon landing. ..."
I find this question, in light of Real News (quite missing from the American landscape)
and Real History (likewise), rather tedious and specious.
Did America (via John Negroponte and Frank Wisner, Jr., and their Franco-American
Foundation's creation of false political scandals against his competitor) do conceivably
worse in France to get Sarkozy elected the first time?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected Honduran
president, Manuel Zelaya?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected president of the
Ukraine (cost to American taxpayers: $5 billion)?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected and farsighted
Chilean president, Salvador Allende, with the subsequent torture/murders of over 30,000
Chileans as well as American citizens?
Time doesn't allow me to go on for more pages, plus this site has a word limit.
The whole of American politics is nothing but 'sowing discord'. The only thing that holds
the two parties together is the hatred shared for the 'other party'.
Again, if election laws were broken, arrest, try, convict and imprison the
perpetrators. Lots of money gets spent sowing discord during the elections. I'm not concerned one bit
about the drop in the bucket spent by the Russians
So this is more about Americans and their political intelligence than Russia and its
intelligence. Trolls bringing down the Merican political system is theatre of the absurd. How
many people died, again?
What I find truly amazing is that Hillary Clinton had over a billion dollars to provide me
with reasons to vote for her. I was searching for anything.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she was for universal health care.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she would expand social security.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she would make college free or at least
dramatically less expensive.
She had a billion dollars to tell me that she and her crazed neo-con advisors wouldn't start
WWIII. Threatening to shoot down Russian planes doesn't inspire confidence.
Over a billion dollars to explain to us in detail on numerous platforms how she was going to
make our lives better.
It was obvious to every one that she was a hard-core neo-liberal and hard-core
neo-conservative. All she offered was "America is already great!!!" A billion dollars and all
she could provide was insults and paranoia.
And people still don't know that as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, she attended those
rightwing prayer breakfasts at the Bush White House; belonged to rightwing,
imperialistic/military organizations, and had an uncle, Wade Rodham, who was a member of the
US Secret Service's presidential protection unit during the Kennedy Administration.
Not to mention those fundraisers thrown by Lady Rothschild at Martha's Vineyard for
HRC.
This is not about Clinton. It's about Russia and the Trump campaign. Hillary lost and
thank God. We should ban any spouses, children or grandchildren from holding elected office
of any kind.
But turning this into a Democrat or Hillary thing is wrong. If there is something there, then
the investigation might find it. If not, we have already grabbed up some arch-criminals in
the persons of Gates and Manafort. So that is a already justification enough. Frankly, all
the talk of costs is also a lie. Manafort's milllions will be seized. Russiagate will turn
out to be profitable!
So, if I have a heart attack, based on my obesity, poor diet and alcoholism, I should
immediately blame the background radiation in my basement?
Most of the "attacks" Lobel referred to were traditional white propaganda by the likes of
RT, which are invariably conflated with, first, Trump/Putin collusion, and since that puppy
died, Russian "attacks" on our exceptional democracy.
Assume every hyper-ventilating charge by Mueller to be true, and magnify it fifty-fold;
it's still bupkis in the toxic and corrupt stew that is US politics.
A classic case of misdirection, served up and serving the converging interests of a
variety of players: neo-cons and defense contractors wet for a new Cold War with Russia, the
Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic Party desperate to use this to distract from their
catastrophic political negligence, and factions in the National Security State looking to be
rehabilitated in the eyes of media and liberal elites.
This entire tempest (in a teapot) only gained legs because Hillary Clinton is congenitally
unable to accept responsibility for her own mistakes.
What started out as merely a convenient way to distract the public from the embarrassing
and politically crippling *leak* of her own internal emails (the actual content of which no
one in Clintonland or the media ever protested) has, over the last 18 months, devolved into a
swampland of denial and fantasy which has engulfed the Democrats.
So you must be the one who has the actual evidence that any of this was financed by the
Russian government. Please do post it and enlighten us all. Then please forward it to the DNC – if they know the type of bang for their buck
they can get for just $1000 maybe they'll stop sending the rest of us so many emails begging
for money.
Kevin-it seems to me you presume your conclusion when you say 'This is not the case. A
foreign..'
What's your source? What long history, the internet came around in early 90's, I'm old but
that's not that long ago. And seriously, millions of impressions when Trump rallies were
chanting "lock her up" you don't think word had gotten around or you don't think any
Americans would think of that without foreign assistance.
The World Wide Web went live in 1991. The "internet" has become a catchall term for the
WWW, but there were previous proto-internets including the Internet. "Kevin" isn't on the ball clearly. "Sow dissent" is pretty much code for how upset he was
that "Dear Mother" didn't have a coronation.
"A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way of
Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs." Er, citation? I read the indictment. It doesn't say that.
Can you possibly explain this? If the political system can suffer from a few internet
memes, the problem is the state of American politics.
Is the country really this childish? The whole country is founded on dissent. Have you
ever seen those bumper stickers about "Well behaved women not making history"? Do you not see
the problem with your issue.
We aren't discussing arming paramilitary groups or rousing violence. We are discussing a
social media click bait farm in an indictment presented by Bob Mueller, who's greatest hits
include torture, lying about WMDs in Iraq, rounding up Muslims, entrapment, and the Anthrax
farce. I would probably start with a prosecutor with a shred of credibility outside of the
circles where Joe Scarborough is respected.
The worst part is the "OMG Russia" frauds are going to shout so much that nothing will be
done about gun control or any other calamity, but I bet the Pentagon will get more money for
another failed weapon system.
What Russian government? It was a commercial operation posting click bait, of all sorts,
to sell ads. And yes, that's the explanation that fits the facts best. If Putin was really bankrolling
it, no evidence so far, he was wasting his money. From our point of view, a good thing.
A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way
of Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs.
There is no proof that this troll farm was acting on behalf of any government.
In one example, for a mere $1000 or so, Russians were able to get American citizens to
build a fake jail cell on a trailer complete with actors to play Hillary, Bill and
Trump.
Right, no republican ever made an offensive parade float before the Russians came
along.
I fear Lambert is right and that the DNC will hyjack the Florida High School students
anti-gun movement and make it serve their purposes. Not Russians bots to fear.
Actually saw someone (somebot? sometroll?) get called out on twitter today for doing the
Russia! thing and not the US people who actually believe whatever the issue was. I think it's
the first time I've seen that. Maybe the last too, but still for a moment there
[The Alliance for Securing Democracy's] researchers and advisors have become go-to
pundits for mainstream reporters seeking expert opinions on Russian online meddling. They
have been endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and
chief of staff for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the
Atlantic's Russia correspondent, has also weighed in to promote the ASD's efforts. Both
highlighted the ASD's Hamilton 68 Dashboard as a scientific barometer of Kremlin influence
over the American social media landscape
However, an investigation by AlterNet's Grayzone Project has yielded a series of
disturbing findings at odds with the established depiction. The researchers behind the
ASD's "dashboard" are no Russia experts, but rather a collection of cranks, counterterror
retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most
prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus.
Bill Kristol, among others, is on the so-called Alliance for Securing Democracy's board of
advisors.
Our current Powers That Be have never been happy with the legacy of "free speech." It's
now, demonstrably, an indictable offense for non-US citizens to engage in it in the US.
And "b" at
Moon of Alabama thinks that they've deliberately indicted a bunch of people they don't
expect to prosecute (they're all in Russia) in order to have the above "message" on the books
for as long as it takes for someone to stage a legal test of it.
If the Russian government actually funded this sort of thing, they must be pretty
simple-minded.
For not the first time in recent days, I am reminded of a Dave Barry joke from many years
ago, perhaps even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't remember what the column
was about; it might have been about comic strips in general, which were his favorites and
which ones he didn't care for, etc. He mentioned the strip Nancy and said something
like it "was the product of a 70-year Soviet government experimental project to produce a
joke."
Anyway, do we even know that it was Russian "government" money financing these things? It
was some oligarch who had "ties" to Putin. By the standards used so far in Russiagate
reporting, that basically means that he and Putin are both Russian.
It's easy to be skeptical of Russigate. For over a year now the MSM have breathlessly
published a steady stream of "evidence" only to have it fall apart. When "progressive
skeptics" point this out they're accused of going too far? I think we can all assume the
Russian government hasn't been sleeping through the relentless pressure put on it by the
West, but hasnt it been obvious that Russiagate is a politically motivated project?
Toward the end of the book Shattered , there's a passage describing how the
Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative was planned. This happened in a room full of Shake Shack
containers and it involved people from the Clinton campaign.
"It's not a surprise that neo-Nazi groups and white supremacy groups have identified
Russia as one of their key allies, in part because Russia is home to so many white people,
and that the Putin government has identified these movements of key allies as well."
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Russian Federation is very much against
neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements due to what it suffered from Nazi Germany during WWII.
Now Russia sees this on it's boarders in Ukraine. But Russia is branded with this because
white folk live there. What about all the Muslims in Russia, many of which have come from
Central Asia? What about all the Asians in Eastern Russia? The quoted statement is born of
either ignorance, misinformation or disinformation.
The 'net says there are maybe 40,000 "blacks" living in Russia. Also reports a wide
variety of experiences and opinions on what it's like to be a black (actually, of course,
various shades of skin tones from dark olive to golden russety shades of brown, to near
obsidian with hints of blue, but lumped together as "black," like I am a "white" even though
my skin tones range from pinky yellow [soles and palms] to a light tannish cream [most of the
rest]), living and traveling in Russia. One bit of the discourse:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/15/black-in-the-ussr-whats-life-like-for-a-russian-of-colour
I'm reminded of Dick Gregory's observation on America, that as to whites and blacks, "Down
South, they don't care how close you (African-Americans) get, as long as you don't get too
big. Up North, they don't care how big you get, as long as you don't get too close."
Russia is a big place, with some 143 million people living within the geographic
boundaries. Nativism and related notions seem present in any population anywhere, whether
deeply held convictions or convenient ladder rungs to political and economic power. It's so
hard to develop any completeness and accuracy in understanding what's really shakin' and
doin' in the world when people revert to simplisticated personifications as actual important
functional categories. "Russia" is getting the full treatment. Too bad us USians don't use
the same lenses and mirrors to examine our own linty navels
Absolutely right. Russia's dead in WW2 – 20 million (*) is the accepted estimate. I don't think any
other nation suffered as badly (+). If anyone on earth knows the evil consequences of
fascism, neo-Nazism, racial purism the Russians do. That one single line in Feffer's argument comes squeaky close to invalidating the whole
thing.
(*) Strictly the USSR.
(+) Query: Maybe the brutality of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria ?
It is estimated that the total deaths in the Soviet Union under Stalin range from 9 to 50
million (book-keeping was their forte), including famines but not including death by the
Germans.
Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in 40 to 70 million deaths in China.
Not really. The German sympathizers and later defectors who just wanted out couldn't all
claim to be rocket scientists. A factory worker who just wanted to drive a big car and live
in McClean has to come up with a story worth paying for.
There was a cottage industry of tall tales for Stalin's personal use/entertainment. I
don't think the later defectors are an issue, but powerful people helped facilitate the
arrival of too many people with missing records and German accents who weren't in a rush to
go to Israel to not be a political problem.
The former Canadian foreign minister's grandfather was a collaborator. How did he get to
the West? He probably told a tall enough tale. Someone could make their career with that kind
of information coup. What happens if its discovered it was a run of the mill Nazi that was
helped by a now powerful person?
The U.S. actually sent out people to look for Hitler in South America, not escaped war
criminals but Adolph, himself. The U.S. is a paranoid society. Someone was giving tips, and
reason would pretty much dictate the Soviets weren't stopping until they finished the
job.
Its similar to how many people Caesar killed in Gaul, not that he didn't kill a great deal
of people, but after a while, it comes back to there not being that many people.
Here is a Rigorous Intuition post about the CIA's importation of Nazis into post WWII
America . . . . more about the reasons for it than a lot of details about the whole scope of
all the operations . . . all the ratlines, all the paperclips, all the etc.
And here is another, this one about Allen Dulles's persistent sympathy for German Fascism
with perhaps a little of the smelliest Nazism pressure-washed off of it. It talks about his
negotations through various go-betweens with German interlocutors during the early WWII
period.
A combination of ignorance and arrogance is annoying and more dangerous than Russian troll
farms. I can't believe his stupidity about Russians being Nazis. And of Putin being an
Imperialist. If you read Putin's speeches, he is very much a nationalist or patriot. The Bear
is in defense mode and trying to protect its huge borders. Putin' s Speech to the UN in 2015
was about "sovereign democracy" i.e. self -determination of a nation. He said they learned
from the USSR that you can't and shouldn't spread ideology. Feffer could have a permanent gig
on Morning Joe for all the "bafflegab" he spouts.
It's not a particularly well-supported or well-worded statement but it's not ridiculous
nor is it without merit. Muslims are a minority group in Russia and not a very popular one.
Some particularly barbarous acts of terrorism by various aggrieved groups has done nothing to
improve their standing in Russian society. Vladimir Putin's government has actively
cultivated various domestic ethno-nationalist astro-turf movements with fascist predilections
for some time. It is believed that Putin sees these groups as a bulwark against liberal,
western ideology that can be weaponized as CIA sponsored color revolutions or MeToo# type
identity politic movements. Knowing what I know about the United States and post-Cold War US
political meddling, I can't say I blame Putin for wanting a bulwark.
I remember years ago watching a documentary about a state-funded ultra-nationalist Putin
youth group called "Nashi". They staged pro-Putin rallies, hosted summer camps and would
organize free skin-head metal concerts with complimentary vodka and private tents for
appropriately "Russian" ( not muslim and definitely not brown) couples to patriotically
procreate in the service of the fatherland. You can call these state-sponsored groups of
young Russian ethno-nationalists whatever you want, but neo-nazi doesn't seem too unfair if
you're familiar with the ideological history and psychological undercurrents of National
Socialism.
I don't believe Russia hacked any DNC servers, hijacked our elections or flipped any
votes, but I don't doubt for a minute that Russia is actively sowing discord and
disinformation among the American body politic. I believe the ultimate goal is the political
disintegration, or at least paralysis of the United States as payback for the disintegration
of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. I've heard Putin make sly statements over the years where if you
read between the lines this goal is discernible through his thinly veiled remarks and his
smoldering anger at the US for it's continued aggression against Russian influence and
territory post-1989. Years before the 2016 election I remember reading reporting of how the
modern Texas secessionist movement was nothing more than Moscow funded astro-turf. I have no
doubts the "Cal-Exit" campaign that sprung up right after the election (and ironically
supported by the exact same people most worried about Russian influence) was chiefly
organized and funded by professional Russian propagandists as well.
I don't believe the hysterical, McCarthyist media narrative concerning the election and
Russia, but I am also skeptical of absolutist, overarching narratives to the contrary. Putin
is no dummy, he's not a pacifist, and he definitely views the US as a threat/adversary. None
of that means Russian needs to be treated as an enemy or that diplomacy could not result in a
mutually beneficial accommodation for both countries. The world is complicated and becoming
emotionally invested in overly simplistic narratives, even contrarian ones, is unwise.
my major concern is its support for far right-wing nationalist and frankly,
racist movements around the world, including here in the United States.
What does he think Ms. Nuland and her friends were up to in Ukraine? Other than a few bits like that, Feffer does seem to be at least somewhat grounded in
reality (contrast his comments with the quote from Dan Coats). He thinks Russiagate had
little to do with Trump, for example, and was just targeted at spreading confusion in
general. That alone would get him branded as a heretic by the true believers.
I quit reading shortly after that. TV/Video is just awful at policy discussions. The
stupid factoid barrages. I feel dumber just for reading this conversation, I suppose that's
the point.
Great examples of how to fill up newspaper columns without doing any real reporting and
without rocking any important boats.
Also, from 2013:
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth
broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came
silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an
unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for
domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic
propaganda efforts.
I just started a website to organize all these scattered articles I read on the various
sites I visit I need to find where I put the link to an article that outlines the planting of
CIA paid journalist in major newspapers
Given the "resistance" and other self-described "progressive" voices who have lost their
minds over the election of Donald Trump, one should not be surprised by Feffer's credulity.
He may do a better job at hiding it, with his oh-so-civil language, but the desperation
coming from partisan believers, who rightly see Trump as dangerous but refuse to go after him
for real reasons (first-strike policy in retaliation for cyber attacks, for instance –
has a single Democrat gone on record saying how utterly wrong that is? Oh wait, didn't
Hillary herself campaign on refusing to rule out the first strike option?) is palpable.
And who can blame them for being desperate?
But I find the notion that Russian "meddling" successfully increased the amount of discord
among USians to be.ridiculous. We don't need any help from Russia to be dissatisfied with our
polity and the false choices it constantly gives us.
Mate was far too kind. Some people and some ideas don't deserve the benefit of rational
debate.
The "#TheResistance" don't care about Trump's genuine dangers. They care about how he
prevented their Jonestown Priestess Clinton from getting coronated Empress as they were all
expecting.
There are millions and millions of Jonestown Clintonites. They are a deadly threat and a
menace to political improvement in this country. You can get a sample of what they smell like
by reading Riverdaughter's blog "The Confluence" and its threads. Put your nose close to the
screen and you can smell the Jonestown Punch.
Not since German security services sent VI Lenin back on a sealed train to Petrograd, has
one nation fractured the politics of another with cynical support for the deranged.
Nice. If the Russian Empire wasn't on the verge of falling apart, it wouldn't have taken
the one Lenin domino to topple it all. If the US is on the verge of falling apart people will
be blamed, but not the American people, the people who are actually responsible for this
sociopathy.
Caitlin Johnstone made a three-part Debunking Russiagate series back in June 2017. Here
are all three. I think they hold up pretty well. (They were noted at NC.)
.From the outside, Americans screaming about this look like a bully screaming, "How dare
you do to me what I do to everyone else. I'm going to bury you!" This does not induce sympathy.
Still, we can make a strong case that countries shouldn't interfere in other countries'
internal political affairs, including–especially including–elections.
I think that the Russians might be willing to agree to that.
So the sane method of dealing with this issue, to which which virtually everyone will
agree, would be to begin negotiations towards that end.
Americans and Russians get together and have frank talks, which amount to a peace
treaty: We won't do it to you, if you don't do it to us.
They might even extend that to not doing it to other countries.
This is the actual road out, though it seems laughable because it's really impossible to
imagine. Both the US and Russia have been interfering in many countries for a long time,
though America is the champion of the last 30 years or so, and by a wide margin.
Russia has been arguing for just that -- a cyberwar peace treaty -- for almost a decade
now. Here's a 2009 write-up , which is really
quite interesting in a hindsight-y way.
"We really believe it's defense, defense, defense," said the State Department official,
who asked not to be identified because authorization had not been given to speak on the
record. "They [the Russians] want to constrain offense. We needed to be able to
criminalize these horrible 50,000 attacks we were getting a day."
I find the narrative that's been put forward to be honestly more convincing than the
counter narrative
We're supposed to be convinced because he's convinced. It's a gut feeling. Appeals to
actual evidence bounce right off. Guess I don't get out much but had to look up who John
Feffer even is.
The latest M of A–linked here the other day–is a great takedown of Mueller's
troll farm allegation. Some of us prefer a little evidence prior to being "convinced."
Russia is Soros' white whale a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for
nearly a decade.
Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government
realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative
measures which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very
wise move.
Crowdstrike is the only source of evidence of Russian hacking of DNC. And Crowdstrike
had to walk it back when they used the exact same evidence to claim that Russia had hacked
Ukraine's artillery. That is likely why DNC refused to let FBI run forensics on their
servers.
Feffer claims to oppose Cold War II, but is actively promoting it. Russiagate is being
used to silence progressives. Note that both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are named in
Mueller's indictment as beneficiaries of the alleged "Russian meddling" in our election.
BTW: Feffer is a Fellow at Open Society, a NGO financed by George Soros who also funds the
Atlantic Council, whose board includes the owner of Crowdstrike. So Feffer and Crowdstrike
are both funded by the same oligarch.
The Soviets and now the Russians have been messing about with the US for 70 years. Nothing
new about it. Read "The Sword and the Shield" which is sourced from the KGB archives when
they were briefly opened to the west after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Things are just easier now than then. "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle
for the the Third World" is also sourced from the KGB archives has details about what they
did then.
The US messed with the Soviet Union and Russia when they could. See the stories about
Yeltsin's reelection. Or the Ukraine in 2014.
this was reportedly a commercial venture. still awaiting evidence that the election was in
any way affected by some online scam that may have originated in russia. the us has
interfered, as you point out, much more effectively in russia. other countries do it to us,
but there is no evidence that russia effected clinton's loss to trump, or colluded in
effecting it.
A commercial venture, as opposed to David Brock's pro-Clinton paid trolls which was
definitely not a commercial venture and designed solely to influence the election. Also
illegal by the way but he's a Murican so who cares?
This is the mental equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy. At this point the media, the Dems
and legions of David Brock led trolls have invested so much time and energy into "Muh Russia"
that they can't write off their investment.
Keep going. You're doing fine. It's down there somewhere. You can endure another season of
Persist, the payoff is right around the corner. There is nothing more important right now
than ignoring inconvenient facts.
I might suggest that things would go faster if you give up just a little more of your
critical thinking skills. To be honest they just get in the way at times like these when the
narrative gets tenuous.
No one outside of the Dem party faithful really cares about the Russiagate nonsense. The
rest of the world has watched the US meddle in and outright rig elections in more countries
than I have the time to list for decades, a list with very ironically includes Russia in
1996. If a troll factory is the best they have, it's a straight up joke. They better have
more to go along with it, because as it stands now buying a few ads and paying people to post
online, standard PR practice, is incredibly weak. At this stage in the game, it feels kind of
pathetic, an attempt by a party elite still unable to admit they lost, grasping at straws and
still in this late hour desperately trying to make it seem like Hillary was the rightful
winner.
It also, not coincidentally, works to taint the criticism of anyone, right or left, who
disagrees. Not only that, it further casts doubt on all news sources which aren't the
Democrat party approved corporate sources, another bonus. One could make a good case this was
the goal all along: absolve themselves for bungling the 2016 election and discredit any
information sources they don't control lock, stock, and barrel.
'The rest of the world has watched the US meddle in and outright rig elections in more
countries than I have the time to list.'
Not only has the US been hollering "regime change" since the infamous neocon Project for a
New American Century began in 1997, it actually invaded and plundered several countries --
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan -- for the express purpose of replacing their governments
with US-backed ones.
Check out ex-CIA douchebag James Woolsey making weird barnyard noises when MSM anchorette
Laura Ingraham asks him whether "we" still meddle in other countries' elections, before
admitting on the record that it's "only for a very good cause" [yuk, yuk]
With waving arms and hair on fire, Rep. Jerrold Nadler claimed on MSNBC that the Russian
troll farm is "the equivalent of Pearl Harbor." If special snowflake America's democracy is
so fragile that a bunch of amateurish Boris & Natasha trolls can bring it down, then
let it bleed [and share the Stoli, comrades].
" If special snowflake America's democracy is so fragile that a bunch of amateurish Boris
& Natasha trolls can bring it down, then let it bleed [and share the Stoli,
comrades]."
Your second paragraph is I think all that matters at this point. The Russian trolls (who
are probably still active online, albeit with less vigor) are pikers compared to the native
manipulators who swarm the 'liberal' ring of our 2-ring media circus. The latter are devoted
to squelching dissent, and unconcerned about sounding like idiots while they do it. Of course
the only people they are aiming to shame are waverers on their 'own side'. Republican flyover
types are unpeople in their eyes; their target audience is pretty select -- mainly those who
don't want to be out of place among the youthful hipster elite. I.e. former Sanderistas who
might pay attention to establishment Democrat perfidy if the noise machine stops howling for
a second.
I'd love to know where these frantic fellows were when the New York Times comments
sections were overtaken by Correct the Record trolls 2 years ago. That Brockian anti-Sanders
effort was more effective and Orwellian than anything they've since tagged as
Russia-generated. So much of the furor now seems to be coming from men who fear they may be
getting bested at their own game!
"Tainting the criticism" of anyone who disagrees is the primary mid-range goal of the
Russiagate Information Operation. The long range goal is to pass Patriot Act type laws to
suppress and control all expression on all media; digital, analog or other.
feffer keeps saying "who hacked the dnc" but there is no evidence anybody did. it's like
the repeated assertions made about saddam's "wmd's" in the runup to iraq 2.
Timestamps on the DNC data show the files were copied locally, not over a network. That
means they were leaked. Not hacked. Leaked by someone with physical access to the data. This
came out
back in July . Maybe Mate isn't "convinced" but I haven't seen anything, ever, that
convincingly refutes the analysis.
So if someone wants me to believe in Russiagate they need to show me some damn evidence.
I'm not going to believe something simply because every flexian apparatchik in the press
parrots it 24/7 (90% of whom were in the tank for Hillary and personally devastated when she
lost and more than happy to blame evil foreigners for how they called the election wrong).
What we're seeing is a serious mental breakdown on the part of Democrats. What happened to
these people? Back when GWB was in office they were supposedly the party of reality, the
rational people who didn't make things up to justify a convenient war. It appears that only
lasted as long as elections went in their favor. Now we see them for the dishonest hysterical
fantasists they really are. Just like Republicans.
So where does that leave us? At the dawn of a Second Cold War with a psychopathic party on
either side. Well, that's just awesome.
How do we know that the time stamps where created on the DNC's computer and not some other
computer later on? It's easy to change the date backwards and make those time stamps be
anything.
I had occasion to view a Podesta email recently:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11409 Big banner across the top: This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key. Like a blockchain transaction, this DKIM algo was designed to prove cryptographically that
you are viewing what existed when the user clicked send.
Click on the DKIM link in that banner for a full explanation.
Domain Keys Identified Mail, or DKIM, is a highly regarded email security system that can
be used to independently authenticate the contents and sender of an email that uses
it.
Some folks just can't keep themselves from pushing the Narrative. I wonder how many of
those people have been involved in "interfering with elections," as part of the Great
American Enterprise
Yves Smith: You yourself have written that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. What we are getting is flimsy hearsay and calls for war. It is all Remember the
Maine (and don't remember that the Democrats, in particular, brought this on themselves).
Feffer's typical in not being able to keep control of the simplest of facts:
"It's not a surprise that neo-Nazi groups and white supremacy groups have identified Russia
as one of their key allies, in part because Russia is home to so many white people, and that
the Putin government has identified these movements of key allies as well."
So now Russia is the international source of white people? What can this possibly mean?
And don't tell the Volga Tatars or the Mari or the Yakuts or any of the many peoples who
aren't "white" by U.S. standards. (Many of the Mari are among the last pagan Europeans.) The
comment is worthy of Sarah Palin, well-known foreign-policy expert and Chunky Monkey shoes
fancier.
I am reminded of the Watergate crisis. By all means, let's have indictments for real
crimes (besides lying to the FBI) of people who are living within American jurisdictions or
can be extradited. Then have a trial(s) with a judge of the quality of John Sirica.
But that isn't what the powerful want, particularly because establishment figures soon
will be dragged in. They want confrontation, more looting, and more war. And if we are all
suddenly worried about Putin being morally stinky, what should we do with Erdogan, Netanyahu,
Viktor Orban of Hungary, Brazilian President Temer, and Aung San Suu Kyi, all of whom are
considered "friends" of the U S of A?
And as to sowing discord: Someone should have noticed that 50 years ago with Nixon and the
Southern Strategy.
Seems to me that Maté did just fine. I'm not sure of what else you can do with
someone like Feffer. When presented with good reasons for doubting his purported evidence,
Feffer pretty much concedes the point every time. But then he insists that he finds the
evidence convincing. In other words, he insists that he's going to go on treating it as good
evidence, drawing the relevant conclusions, and asserting as much. That means he's a gullible
person, and rather dogmatic to boot. Arguing with such people won't get you very far.
I did find Feffer's repeated demand for a counter-narrative interesting. This seems to be
a way of simultaneously lowering the bar for knowledge and raising the bar for doubt. He's
trying to say that doubt is only reasonable if the skeptic can produce a better theory than
the believer. Absent such a theory, doubt isn't reasonable and everyone should believe. In
other words, having conceded that the evidence isn't very good by ordinary epistemic
standards, he's decided to switch to extra-ordinary standards. Roughly, I think the ordinary
standard for doubt goes something like this: I can correctly say I doubt something when I can
explain why the supposed evidence doesn't provide sufficient support for the claim in
question. I'm not required, as a skeptic, to produce a superior argument for a different,
incompatible claim about the same issue.
And now, having written that, it looks to me like Feffer is just engaging in a bit of
argumentum ad ignorantium , a fallacy so old they named it in Latin.
The counter-narrative, IMO, is this: The avaricious and foolhardy Trump wanted to build
more onanistic monuments to himself in Moscow, to slurp oysters there and cavort with Russian
women. He threatened to upset decades of planning by both Dems and Republicans alike to
encircle Russia, expand NATO, and SELL BILLIONS AND BILLIONS WORTH OF ARMS, often to
dictators, with kickbacks on the side (legal and illegal) to ours truly. The powers that be
in the CIA and FBI decided that intervention was needed, even if the cost was democracy
itself. Trump has enough irons in the fire with Russia, enough outstanding loans and dirty
dealings, that such a clear-eyed narrative may never get its head above water, but that is as
close as we may come to nutshelling it.
"That means he's a gullible person, and rather dogmatic to boot. Arguing with such people
won't get you very far."
Which also means, surely, that his demand that others who refuse to endorse his gullible
dogmatism must meet "extra-ordinary epistemic demands" is – at best – mere
sounding off. For who could be a worse pick for assessing both the required standards and
their being met?
I think the kindest thing to say here, epistemically, is that the man is in a terrible
mess. It is a sad thing to see. But then there are a lot of sad things to see in the
"progressive reality-based community" today.
Makes me wonder what's to be done about it. When I hit upon the idea that he's just
arguing from ignorance, I started thinking about informal logic courses, the ones called
Critical Thinking hereabouts. Perhaps more of those would help.
By the way, I was talking with a colleague who does Ancient yesterday, specifically the
philosophy of Socrates, and I mentioned the question you raised about the Noble Lie. He told
me that it's quite similar to a myth recounted by Hesiod. That was news to me. He also said
that Greek colonists, prior to departure, would settle on a constitution for the new city
together with a founding myth. As for the bit about the whole of one's childhood having been
a dream, he guessed that this was a story that was intended to be told repeatedly, to
successive generations. Now, the first generation was unlikely to believe, granted. But later
generations would believe it of the first , the founding generation. He noted that this would
be quite similar to what a number of native American peoples believed about the first of
their kind. Oh, and one more thing occurred to me: earth mother goddess myths were common to
the region back then, dating back at least to the Minoan civilization. Altogether, to me this
makes the Myth of Metals seem a good deal more plausible relative to the people for whom it
was intended.
This also makes me think that education in the humanities could be part of the solution to
widespread credulity and dogmatism. Studying Plato can, for instance, inoculate against myth,
something which is still with us. Knowing myth when you see it, it's possible to appreciate
it without being taken in. There's much to be gained, too, from thinking like Thucydides from
time to time. It's good to recall that both Sparta and Athens claimed to be fighting for
freedom. And every time I hear about how we're going to use better, more powerful tools to
finally vanquish the things we find most threatening, whether those things are "enemy" states
or tactics (terrorism) or catastrophic ecological processes that we have ourselves set in
motion, I can't help but recall Lucretius' account of what happened when bulls and boars and
lions were trained up for war and loosed upon the enemy. "Don't believe what I've just told
you about all this," he says, "for no one would be so foolish as to think they could ever
really control such beasts." I don't often use the word, but there's wisdom here, or so it
seems to me. We'd profit from knowing it. But, by and large, we don't.
If I take my young kids and have an easter egg hunt with those plastic eggs and tell them
that there's candy inside, and they keep finding them, opening them and there's just candy
wrappers with no candy, then my kids are going to quickly grow tired of looking for the eggs
since they're not delivering the promised candy.
This is what Russiagate feels like. We keep finding eggs, getting excited, then, no candy.
But we're told to keep at it .eventually SOME of those eggs will have some candy. Other
people who are really good at finding eggs have said they found some eggs with candy in them,
even though we know they're habitual liars.
Feffer and the others who believe in this story are going to need some SERIOUS F-ING CANDY
at this point to justify this unshakable belief they have that THERE IS CANDY SOMEWHERE IN
THESE STUPID, PLASTIC EASTER EGGS!?!?!?!
It reminds me of that iceberg that broke off Antarctica last year. The enormity and extent
of the hypocrisy and global delusion it represents.
If anyone wants to understand the level of breakdown, consider the amount of debt being
issued today. That is the real source of cognitive dissonance.
I certainly agree. When politics gets this chaotic and confusing there is some far more
important hidden agenda being guarded by a "bodyguard of lies." The turn of this century will
go down in history as the beginning of the energy wars. When the stakes are this high
everybody pretends to be innocent. My knowledge is scant – I assume Russia's lifeblood
is natural gas and LNG and they want to sell it to Europe. We claim Europe as our URally and
do not want this to happen. Unless we can strong arm our way into some of the action. To that
end we have been pushing US natural gas/LNG exports regardless of the expense and short
returns of fracking. The dead silence on global warming and the energy crisis should be the
first give-away.
A hugely important point which is seldom ever if ever covered in the media here (umm
scratching his head, I wonder if it could be for any particular reason) -- Europe is highly
dependent on natural gas from Russia. We're forecast to have a
big, late cold sna p and suddenly everyone starts getting a little twitchy about energy
security.
Of course, us gas consumers here (well, our governments, anyway) resent their dependence
and the self-loathing which it engenders. But that dependence in fact increases geopolitical
security because neither "side" wants to do anything which upsets the energy apple cart.
Shale gas and LNG exports from the US threatens this equilibrium. But there's no economic
(cost of production) advantage for US shale gas over pipeable Russian gas. Wouldn't it be
nice for the US shale gas industry if, oh, I don't know, there were some shenanigans which
gave a voice to anti-Russia sentiment and a clamour for, maybe eventually, economic
sanctions?
And during the last cold snap in the US, several tankers full of Russian LNG made port
here to make up a shortage. So, having prohibited Europe from buying Russian gas in favor of
importing the US version, we ended up not having enough for our own people and got it from
Russia.
>We have the report from the intelligence community here in the United States that
provides at least a trail. It's been challenged, but I find the narrative that's been put
forward to be honestly more convincing than the counter narrative.
I agree that the 'Russia hacked the DNC' theory is more likely to be true than
any other individual theory, although there still isn't any hard proof available to the
public. But that's hardly a good defense of 'Russiagate'. Not having a better suspect isn't
really a justification for sanctioning Russia (or more, if the Russiagaters get their
way).
I disagree that the report provides a trail. It lists a number of APTs that conducted the
hacking, and states that they are tied to Russia. However, it provides zero underlying
evidence that the hacking was conducted by those APTs, and that they were related to Russia
in any way.
Another possibility is that, yes, Russia did hack the DNC for intelligence-gathering
purposes, but didn't provide the emails to WikiLeaks. It's entirely possible that more than
one entity hacked into them (if anyone did at all). As flimsy as the narrative is with Russia
doing the hack, it's even thinner when it comes to transmitting the emails to Russia.
thanks for this summary. just more assertions sans evidence from the people that brought
you the iraq war (republicans and democrats, working together like the harlem
globetrotters and the washington (hmm) generals.
That's like saying the most popular theory is correct, on the basis that it's the most
popular. Truth doesn't work that way. Supply some evidence. Otherwise you're operating on the
basis of what feels true. "Truthiness", not truth.
Why did the FBI never examine the server?
Why do the timestamps show the data was copied locally by someone with physical access to the
machine?
Why did the NSA decline to back the whitepaper when we know they have every single network
intercept and can literally prove what happened?
All we have is a bunch of handwaving and people who don't know much about computers
repeating things they heard from people with a track record of lying.
I think it's worth looking at the Russia-gate believers, on this. If they all agreed on
one narrative, that'd be something, but they don't even agree among themselves, which I'd
argue is actually really problematic.
Marcy Wheeler says collusion is there, Steele doc is garbage, and the social media stuff
is just fluff. I think she says crowdstrike is garbage, too, but might have had some good
bits.
Some in corp media says Steele doc is unquestionably awesome and should be believed.
Cenk Uygur says it's not about the hacking of the DNC, it's about money-laundering and not
collusion to rig election.
Feffer says crowdstrike is legit report, even though they're Dem Party hack consultants.
Feffer also says Russia wants to sow discord and the social media stuff matters. He says
they're hacking European elections, too, even though those reports have been knocked down. He
also says Trump was an imperfect vehicle for Russia's agenda.
Luke Harding and Steele say Trump and Russia have been besties for years and planned this
all along.
I may be off on one or more of the details above, but all of these "serious" believers in
Russia-gate don't even agree with one another.
I'm growing increasingly tired of watching Aaron Mate disembowel these people one-by-one
but I'd agree it needs to be done because this story just .won't .go .away .
Climate change is real, but not caused by humans .not real ..real, but caused by solar
activity .real, but planet is getting colder and risking new ice age .maybe real, but don't
have enough evidence .
almost like it's an organized campaign to spread DIS-information?!?!?!?
If anyone has a fun link to someone trying to tackle where the secret volcanoes spewing
CO2 are, I'd appreciate it. Because it's become a meme-earworm to me: "Which
volcanoes?!?"
The people you've mentioned are not perfectly mainstream. At least they were not until
quite recently. They are members of the (formerly) 'left' wing blogosphere. A group that
contains many natural contrarians, who each have cultivated slightly different views of
things over the years.
Although they sure seem pretty lockstep now, on this matter, don't they? I suspect most of
them cannot not allow themselves to accept why it is that a skank like Trump was elected. The
'left' blogosphere was completely neutered over the past decade, and it's leading lights now
have little value to add to anyone's thinking on current affairs.
Feffer says that progressives don't take Russiagate as seriously as they should. I think
critical thinkers are taking it very seriously, because of potential censorship of dissenting
voices that favor peace over war, and that favor productive social spending over wasteful
military spending.
Even absent such concerns, the Russiagate hysteria is obviously a partisan power struggle
that sucks the air out of the room for productive political discourse to address real social,
economic, and environmental problems.
How seriously to take Russiagate is a separate question from skepticism over evidence we
have yet to be shown. The bigger question that Feffer doesn't address is "So what?" Even if
the facts stated in the 3-agency report and the DOJ indictment are true, do they really
justify all this hysteria?
If the Russian state is actually interfering in our elections, then quietly take measures
to stop it. Instead, over the past 15 years, the federal government has promoted hackable
computers and voting systems.
Moreover, even if the Russian state did interfere for geopolitical goals, treat it as the
actions of an adversary and quietly take countermeasures. This should not be a political
issue.
The Russiagate narrative has gone far beyond authentic reaction to Russia's actions, which
many experts such as Cohen and Mearsheimer consider to be reactions to NATO actions.
Feffer's concern is that Putin and Trump are colluding to promote white supremacy. That's
his big picture, and would be concerning if true. However, even if true that doesn't address
the concerns I raise above.
Would recommend a recently published book by investigative journalist, Michele McPhee: Maximum Harm: The Tsarnaev Brothers, the FBI, and the Road to the Marathon Bombing. Highly recommended
All good points, Dwight. We need to separate the discussion/investigation of Russian
influence from the ridiculous and dangerous hyperbolic reaction to it. We need to take steps
to make the election process fair and transparent and un-hackable as far as possible (paper
ballots, hand-counted) as much or more for domestic reasons. I care far more about
voter suppression (legal and illegal) and about domestic players monkeying around with
electronic voting systems than I care about a tiny amount of crude ads and trolling on social
media.
Democrats have just strangled the "Blue wave" in the cradle. Political tides are turning, and the Democratic Establishment is starting to feel the
pressure from Progressive primary challengers. And evidence is mounting that Progressives win
elections, even in "red districts" while corporate Democrats still manage to lose even in
blue ones. And on the horizon, is a Sanders run in 2020.
So, the 13 incitements, in addition to keeps the Russian narrative alive for another few
weeks, is providing political cover for the establishment to clean house as it were, and
clear out the Progressive infestation threatening to cripple the money train the
establishment has become accustomed too.
The "Do Russia-gate skeptics go too far" is a part of that narrative. Interesting to note
that "Russia-gate skeptics" don't actually get much air-time to challenge the narrative. So,
the notion that they have gone "too far" is a bit laudable. No, the point here is to justify
further squelching independent media and to silence the few individuals out there who still
dare to speak out over watercoolers.
Already, more assertive smears have been made against Jill Stine and Birney Sanders as
receiving "Russian aid" in their campaigns. The end game is to knock them out of the running
in 2020, justifying even more extreme steps.
Democratic Establishment being challenged in primaries will start to invoke a kind of
"don't change horses" privileges for their primaries in response to this new "9-11". They
might even go so far as to accuse the primary challengers as receiving "aid from Russia."
This will cripple their primary efforts. And failing that, justifies simply locking them out
of the primary all together in the name of "election integrity."
Their thinking is that if they lock out the progressives, then the establishment can rise
the wave for another cycle. But in so doing, they squelch the issues progressives are trying
to represent, and makes Russia-gate more prominent in the 2018 strategy.
It plays right into the hands of the Republicans. Giving them the intellectual high ground
when it comes to rallying around the president. While at the same time de-mobilizing the
progressive vote, ending the blue wave before it gets started.
The Dem-establishment are finished, they just don't know it yet. It's just a mater of time
before they fade away completely. What remains undecided is whether a progressive moment will
take their place, either by taking over the Democratic Party or forming a new third party to
take its place. Or weather America becomes a single party state under Republican Rule.
yes, i think it's a twofer, clean house in the democratic party to preserve their control
and maintain their grift, and support the neocons who haven't had enough wars lately.
The answer is to defeat every single mainstream Democrat in every single race, every
single time. Loss by loss, the Mainstream Democrats can be exterminated from political
existence.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research
that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's
connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin,
people familiar with the matter said.
How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with
Simpson: Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was " a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure. " Source B was " a former top level intelligence
officer still active in the Kremlin. " And both of these insiders, after "speaking to a
trusted compatriot," would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into
Donald Trump.
The Washington-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said in a Wednesday complaint to the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary for America and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) broke campaign finance law by trying to hide payments related to the
dossier, which included graphic, unproven claims about the current president's sexual
habits.
The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's
campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump
associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.
Thanks to the Podesta Emails available on Wikileaks, we can have a clear view of what
research and polling was done to try to come up with a good strategy for the Clinton
campaign.
Secretary Clinton's top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as
Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over
20% of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over $140
million to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to
support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her
after that statement.
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow
control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and
money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business inside the United
States, according to government documents and interviews.
The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009
when Robert Mueller , now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still
FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James
Comey , whom Trump fired earlier this year.
I found the intelligence agency report on the DNC hacking to be rather flimsy. I think the
tell for me was that roughly half of it consisted of some very generic, boilerplate
cybersecurity tips – the kind that you'll find in your agency's annual security
refresher training. The only thing that would've made it more obvious, I think, is if they
had changed around the font size and margins, in order to drive up the page count. What does
that say about their confidence in the rest of the report, that they felt the need to add
fluff to it?
You have no chain of evidence to convict anyone in a court of law for the hack. The FBI
was called in months later, and the already deemed guilty party just so happened to collude
with her election opponent.
I often get called a supporter of "fake news" for ignoring any and all reports on Russian
election interference and Russian twitter bots as profoundly not interesting or important. No
evidence has ever surfaced that votes were changed, fabricated or deleted. The electoral
process itself was untouched. The candidates were not bribed (for a given value of 'bribed'
-- i.e. 'quid pro quo'). Thus, there was no interference.
I was especially ridiculed for claiming that the recent four-alarm fire at Wired
about Russian Twitter posts following the Parkland school shooting was crisis exploitation at
its most disgusting. I do not dispute that posts by Russian government employees exist. I
just fail to see them as a threat or even a meaningful fact to report about.
Why would Putin prefer Trump to Clinton? SABOTAGE.
The term sabotage derives from the practice of throwing "sabots" (clogs) into machines to
break them. It's Luddites 101. Tossing Trump into the machinery of Democracy has clearly
achieved precisely the same thing. Since Trump, many headlines continue to assert that
democracy in the USA is broken.
To Putin, the beauty of it is that he did it so easily and for so little money.
clinton sabotaging the primaries broke our democracy, and so did the supreme ct in
citizens united. are the justices and clinton controlled by putin, too? i understand clinton
has a higher price tag than the average russian troll.
Yeah, sorry, but if we lost our 'democracy', we lost it some good number of years before
Trump. Perhaps when George W Bush beat Gore, if not before that. Trump is just the latest
right wing sh*tlord president we have had in succession, including supposed leftists Obama
and Clinton. The only reason Democrats hate Trump more than they hated Bush (whose image by
the way has since been rehabilitated by the Democratic establishment!) is that he is rude and
goes against social norms.
Also, do you really think a few hundred thousand dollars worth of shitty advertisements
comparing Hillary to the Devil is really enough to actually affect the election in any
significant way?
yeah love it when shrub is now getting brought back into the fold, assuming their disdain
for him ever was real. and ronnie was often complimented by obama.
The extent of the hysteria is mind boggling-do people believe this? another pearl harbor,
worst atk sincie 9-11?
The head of these 13 people, yes just 13, was a former hot dog vendor in St Pete. The $1.2
mil also covered ads to internal Russian markets. Moon over alabama says it was a commercial
exercise-VP of Facbook says most ot the russian sourced ads were place after the
election.
i agree with kuntzler that the us has collectively lost its mind-it really is beyond
hysteria, it goes to "can you top this." I think "worst atk since 9-11" gets us close to the
top but I have never credited scarborough with any ability to think-just keep repeated the
mantra. I do not know where this will wind up but clearly the neo cons have won big time and
america has embarassed itself beyond what anyone could conceiveably imagine. I hold my head
and try not to completely dispair.
It's the blatant in your face lies and it's the ludicrousness of the lies. I recently saw
Dr.Strangelove at the theater, and what do you do when confronted with people who are crazed
or possessed by something? To say things in all seriousness that would make you spit your
drink out in laughter. There's got to be something going on for this many people in "serious"
media outlets to be saying the most lunatic and bizarre things in unison.
i'm afraid it's a push for another war, syria, iran, russia, you name it. it's just about
as bad as the extended propaganda campaign before we attacked iraq for nonexistent (and very
obviously nonexistent, as hans blix and mohammed elbarridei shot down each and every report
of wmd's) weapons. i just hope and pray to the gods of randomness that this one doesn't work
as well.
A few thoughts: Cord cutting. Who watches cable news? In the end people who are older and
towards the more comfortable end of the spectrum, the last eight or sixteen years, weren't
terrible. Trump might be more upsetting to them that the Iraq War, hence the new found
admiration for Shrub.
We should remember the rightward shift of the media in the 90's to chase after the
audience being lost to cable news and talk radio. Rush harped endlessly on the liberal media.
It was grossly inaccurate, but newspapers shifted right in response as conservatives stopped
buying newspapers.
Who is the most likely to be a cable news viewer of the next few years? A kid who went to
an Occupy rally? No, I don't think so. The networks have been furiously fear mongering to
keep the election viewership watching because in the long term they won't pick up new people.
After all, what does Maddow do in an hour (imagine she never went full Glenn Beck) that you
couldn't read in under five minutes? They are pulling out all of FoxNews tricks to win old
people over. Look at the graphics on MSNBC and CNN. In years past, the three cable networks
had different acts, but they look almost interchangeable. Everything, even opinion pieces,
get the "breaking news" chyron. Turn on MSNBC. I guarantee you, you will see "breaking news"
in a frightening form over something entirely trivial.
Senior citizens viewership. Anathema to advertisers. Seniors even the ones with money
already have loyalty to brands. Ads are a waste on them.
Then of course, there is the basic problem with "access journalism." The msm "press"
revolves around the need for "interviews" and access to subjects. For example, Trump and the
NYT have the strangest relationship. The snipe at each other non-stop, and then hold weird
public love fests when Trump does an interview. Instead of "following the money," the media
looks for Deep Throat to provide answers. The Bush and Clinton courtiers dominate Washington
(Obama just kept whoever was around in power), but going forward, what good is a useless
Clinton lackey to a corporate board? A Bush family endorsement? They are still in Washington,
but they desperately need for the paymasters to believe the Clinton/Bush apparatus are still
marketable. They provide the press with a story, and their story of "OMG Russia" excuses
their own losses. Lets not forget $125 million Jeb lit on fire and promises of how Trump
couldn't down to Bush Country and defeat Jeb after the Southern Dandy's endorsement in
SC.
At the end of the day, it still goes back to "What Happened?" The political elites in this
country are so effed up that they allowed Jeb vs. Hillary to be a real possibility. The
future of the GOP is a clownshow, and the Democrats have Bernie Sanders and a drooling
Kennedy or whoever their desperate attempt to block a candidate having to make promises is.
Who is at fault? It can't be "Mother." It can't be people with fancy titles. No, its
foreigners.
To cap things off, CNN, yes that CNN, dispatched one of their reporters to St Pete to go
through the garbage of the troll farm; he tried to enter the building and was asked to
leave.
I think the most recent Mueller indictments are more dangerous than many people realize.
Claims that Bernie was supported by 'Russian bots' in the primaries are already being used
against him. Assuming most Democratic primary voters still believe in Russiagate in 2020, it
would be very easy for Trump to use the Russia conspiracy against Bernie or another
progressive that had a good chance of beating him. His intel heads are all Russia hawks who
have vowed to help prevent 'Russian interference in our elections'. There's guaranteed to be
at least a few Russian internet trolls supporting the campaign, or some minor official with
some vague connection to Russia, so all they have to do is open an investigation, and leak
that investigation to the press.
I was just at a talk and Q&A session given by NH senior Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. There
will be an article in the local paper tomorrow that I'll post, but in the meantime I will do
my best to write up the highlights here today, so please bear with me. I was scribbling
furiously. Unfortunately it was not videotaped.
She gave a 15-20 minute talk at a podium and then the rest was Q&A with the crowd and
a professor moderated it. There were 168 chairs set out but from a quick head count only a
little over 100 people attended- most were retirees, and then students made up the rest. It
was at 11am, so not a very good time of day for normal people.
Okay so for her talk: she said she looks at the cybersecurity threat through a lens of
global security, and that the Kremlin has used these tactics versus Ukraine and in the lead
up to Brexit. She said this isn't a new Cold War because technology has rendered countries
borderless, and only recently has the US become aware that it's been targeted by
cyberattacks, especially spread through social media. She said our efforts in Syria were
damaged by these cyberattacks. She kept mentioning Kaspersky over and over again, how he's a
major buddy of Putin and does his bidding, said Kaspersky Labs is Kremlin-linked, and that
under Russian law it is required to have all servers located in Moscow available/all info
shared with the FSB. She used the term "Russia's hybrid warfare" at least a few times, and
said that our government has to "protect Americans from threats". She wants to establish a
clear command structure for cybersecurity at the federal government level. And that it's
crucial for younger generations to be taught how to identify fake news and
disinformation.
She thinks Putin is doing this to manipulate our open media in order to turn Americans
against each other, and reiterated that all 17 intel agencies have incontrovertible evidence
of Russian interference. She brought up that Dan Coates repeated Pompeo's statement that the
US is under attack. Sanctions against Russia were brought up and she repeated how the bill
was bipartisan, and it sends a strong message to the Kremlin and that Trump won't okay these
sanctions. She said there have been partisan attacks on Mueller, the DoJ, and FBI in order to
undermine the investigations, and that this would help achieve the Kremlin's goal of turning
Americans against each other. She said elections here in the US and "all across Europe" have
been threatened.
The "misleading" Nunez memo was mentioned and she said trolls and bots using facebord and
twitter led to its release, that the Russians are pushing the deep state narrative along with
anti-Obama messages in order to enflame social divisions in the US, and that the Russians are
pushing messaging about Ukraine and Syria. She said "a hostile foreign power interfered in
our election", that the Russians are trying to undermine American democracy, that we have to
fight back because "It's about Patriotism"(yeah, she actually said this-it was all I could do
to not throw up at that point), and how important the independence of the FBI is and that the
Mueller MUST be allowed to complete his investigation. She said the US is being eroded from
within and trotted out a JFK quote about defending freedom "against Putin's methods". Unity
unity unity! Felt like I was in the Twilight Zone.
She accused the Russians of building up their military might and extending it to Ukraine
and Syria, that they caused the Brexit vote result, fomented and stirred up Catalonia's
secessionist movement the other month, and caused a certain Czech leader to be elected(I'm
not up on Czech politics).
She brought up the idea of using paper ballots again and admitted there had been no hacks
to voting machines. She said the Russians were trying to undermine people's(not just
Americans) faith in democracy, getting folks to think elections are rigged, and that their
vote doesn't count (yeah yeah I know, right?!).
During the Q&A session, she said how they were talking to Treasury and others to find
out ways to force the sanctions through, brought up the Magnitsky Act(and his murder in
jail). Someone asked about the Korea troubles and she said how she completely believes
McMaster and other military leaders that the bloody nose strategy isn't on the table even
though "Trump has pleaded for it". She stated that she thinks an AUMF from Congress is
only necessary when 10s of thousands of soldiers would be sent somewhere for an
extended period , and she mentioned how the Syria situation deteriorated because Obama
drew a red line and then didn't back it up.
She thinks the Russians are trying to undermine The West in order to create a new Russian
Empire. She actually said this out loud. A student called out the US's efforts influencing
the elections of other countries(he brought up a recent Carnegie Mellon paper about how the
US meddled in 80 countries), coups, propping up dictators, etc and you could hear a pin drop.
I think she looked like a deer in headlights and then she spurted out she thinks we shouldn't
be doing that. It was awesome and I thanked the kid on the way out.
Anyway, sorry for the super long post, but that's how it went down. She seemed not very
intelligent, like she was just mindlessly repeating what someone above had told her to say,
kept repeating certain terms and statements like Russian hybrid warfare, etc. She sounded
like a crackpot, to be honest with you-I couldn't believe some of the stuff she was saying.
It was very concerning-this is a US senator and there must be a lot more like her, and they
are leading the Dems. She seemed very uncomfortable and not very knowledgeable talking about
this stuff, even though that's why she was here and it's supposed to be her thing. It's like
for example when you didn't actually do the work but you're talking about it-you memorize the
answers or what you're supposed to say and that's it-no depth, just repeat certain terms over
and over. I got the feeling she doesn't know much geography or history, too. It was scary.
These are the people in control and driving this agenda. Cheers.
Thanks for the report.
The public gutlessness and corresponding stupidity of most senior US elected officials
regarding relations with major competitive powers is like a bizarre form of patriotic
observance in which the speaker proudly announces the sacrifice of their critical faculties
in the service of the nation. It's as though there are no constituents who will reward
analytic honesty and the corresponding lives and resources saved. One wonders if her
interactions with staff on these matters amount to anything more than a selection of
camouflage statements that allow her position to become indistinguishable from the modal
patriotic dimwit her fellow elected officials aspire to be. It's like watching high schoolers
try out team cheers.
After today, I'm not confident she knows what the Twitter actually is. And bots this, bots
that, bots bots bots. It was a lot to digest, and makes me appreciate Lambert and his yellow
waders even more. I tried to write down as much as I could word for word what she said,
especially the Russian Empire thing. It seemed like she really thinks the Russians are trying
to take over the whole world to create a new Russian Empire with Tsar Putin at the helm, and
that this supposed meddling is truly an act of war. It's scary. Walking out of there, I felt
like a (family blog) genius. What she said about congressional authorisation needed only when
10,000s of troops are being sent for an extended period, my head exploded. Like I said
before, caught in a Twilight Zone episode.
The D party is pushing this Russia! thing whole hog-this is what they're going with for
the long haul instead of focusing on real issues. They are 100% sure Mueller's going to find
something that takes down Trump. That's their whole plan.
So I must have missed a page in my notebook earlier, sorry-just remembered how she made a
point to crow about forcing the Kremlin-backed and very well-funded RT to register as a
foreign agent, and talked about how if RT's on in a hotel in the US and you watch a few
minutes of it, it's very subtly biased(those sneaky Russians!) and the delivery is a little
different than on CNN and other mainstream US news stations and this is in order trick
American viewers and to subtly sow discord amongst the American public. It was epic stuff
today, so much to try to keep track of and remember.
John Feffer, "the reason we take it seriously is twofold." (What do you mean we , kemo
sabe?)
"One, because we're worried about our U.S. democracy and whether it can function in a fair
way." (We live in a Republic which by design favors the moneyed classes primarily through the
Senate and Electoral College. Fairness has been in retreat since Buckley v. Valeo and
Citizens United v. FEC.)
"And the threats to U.S. democracy, by the way, are not, you know, specific to Russia."
(I'm afraid and you should be, too.)
It sure doesn't help cybersecurity when top US officials (e.g. a former 2016 POTUS
candidate) do not even bother to follow basic government cybersecurity protocols.
i just did something fun. Google 'Evidence of Russian meddling', or 'Why can't Google find
evidence of Russian meddling?'. One gets links to GWB and McMaster's claims of 'clear
evidence' and 'incontrovertible', but no actual evidence.
The American electoral system has always been open to the corrupt current flavor of the
day. George Washington passed out free whiskey,poll taxes, Jim Crow, voter suppression,
gerrymandering, Citizens United, secret money, hackable computerization and so on. We leave
the barn door open and are surprised when stuff happens.
I would be shocked if the Russians did not try to stick a toe in the door and create a little
chaos if for nothing else than our hypocritic and insufferable claims to exceptionalism,
freedom fries and all things bright and beautiful. Especially using a tool as perfect as the
web and social media the Americans own creation.
We have lost all sense of racketeering though sort of on the books, it is not really a crime
any more in this country. I think Russia and the USA are organized as competing racketeering
oligarchies. The cold war was about the commies and the commissars. This is just about your
basic Sicilian mob activity.
Very muddled and gray.
Average Americans do not understand cultures where the lie is the first response in most
discourse. We are working on it, but we are not really there in comparison to the older
cultures.
So while I am certain that elements within Russia have been sowing chaos wherever possible
and that there is some truth in Russia Gate I also recognize that it mirrors the chaos that
the US has sowed throughout the world. Mostly motivated by an ideology of greed and naked
power on both sides.
Donald Trump was for sure laundering money in New York real estate and saved by mob money in
everyone of his bankruptcies. We know Sheldon Adelson was in collusion with the Chinese mob
and got a "cost of doing business" penalty from the government. Grrr. Rant.
corrupt.corrupt.corrupt
Did the finagling around the election have any effect on the outcome? As far as I can see,
no it did not. Worse than Pearl Harbor? Worse than 9/11? Of course not. The hysterical
posturing became tedious long ago. Wake me if you find anything.
Why is Trump trumpeting? I would follow the money.
A minor point but perhaps someone could point out to Feffer that Nazis (both the
ur-example and those currently U.S. favored Ukranian ones) consider Russians to be
sub-human?
I get labeled a Trump supporter by decrying Russiagate.
Frankly I couldn't care less what Mueller does to Trump. This bothers me on several
different fronts.
1. This is demonstrably a McCarthyite witch hunt with goals at clear divergence from what
Mueller was originally appointed for, which was to investigate "collusion" (whatever that
means) between Putin and Trump. We know because of one Adam Schiff (D-McCarthy) and similar
Democrats and their Russian demagoguing anyone who dares to disagree with them.
2. These indictments are clearly exaggerated in their impact on the American system. Why?
I can think of one major effect of the witch hunt: The attempt by the establishment to roll
up dissent of any kind. We now have this media fueled hysteria going on by proven liars in
the establishment to suppress what they call "fake news". We saw efforts such as the infamous
"PropOrNot" anonymous troll cavalcade to try to censor sites. Now Google and Facebook are
doing the censoring for them by ranking non-establishment sources as somehow untrustworthy --
as if the establishment press was ever trustworthy.
3. The hypocrisy. No one in the corporate media establishment ever seems to note that this
cyber behavior and other types of regime undermining is completely typical of the U.S., which
mere hypocrisy might not be so bad, except it leads directly to #4:
4. The warmongering. People have openly talked about Russia engaged in acts of war (as if
the U.S. is pure as a crystal snowflake in this regard). This exaggeration and hypocrisy are
a direct threat to world peace and my own personal survival as a human being.
These are the things I fear: Being silenced by authoritarians who call themselves
"liberal" and getting nuked. That's it. People who accuse everyone of being "Russian dupes"
or "supporting Trump" are IMHO engaged in sheer demagoguery. The influence of the Russians on
the American system, whatever you call it, can be described as ephemeral at best, but the
censorship and warmongering are very real and dangerous.
That our politicians and media are being grossly irresponsible in a supposed effort to get
Trump (the real effort is much more than that) is an understatement.
That the US is hypocritical is not news. But that we should call this a witch hunt because
we are guilty of tampering and worse is not fair to either our constitution or the American
people.
The costs of this investigation are small in the grand scheme and tiny compared to the
principles it purports to protect. Mueller is far from done. Writing this off now smacks of
partisanship. If there is something there, then it will out. If not, then a few will hang
anyway. I, for one, am quite happy that the likes of Manafort and Gates got caught. I think
hillary should swing as well, so don't tar me with a red or blue brush. But the Republicans
had their chance to investigate her and never did, so that tells me something.
Remember that this is a 100% Republican administration carrying out this investigation.
Everyone involved is Republican from Potus to Congress to Mueller.
Frankly, if this keeps Trump from doing too many stupid things, it's time and money well
spent.
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall they investigated her AND Bill many, many times over
the years, starting when he was governor of Arkansas, and never found any evidence they could
take to a prosecutor. Do you happen to recall how many discrete investigations of Benghazi
there were?
"Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for
allegedly using social media to sow discord in the U.S. and support the candidacy of Donald
Trump"
The 13 Russian national stooges social media talking points show is all smoke and mirrors
to distract from the DNC and Clinton campaign tactics that did intentionally interfere with a
presidential election. Considering the enormous amount of actual evidence in the complicity
of the DNC, a foreign ex-spook national- Christopher Steele is fed 'info-mation' by Clinton
buddies Trey Gowdy and Sidney Blumenthal, Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton campaign, FBI
surveillance and FISA memo to spy on the opposing presidential candidate (Trump) is the real
show. All based upon a dubious paid for foreign dossier filled with hearsay of anonymous
sources used to undermine and destroy an american presidential candidate during an election
year is the real crime of complicity Mueller is trying to avoid.
Throwing a ruskie sheet over the 800lb elephant sitting in the middle of the room doesn't
hide the facts and more than likely brings into question the Clinton campaign influences and
connections with the NSA.
Onto more relevant news: Lucky Charms has added marshmallow unicorns to its cereal.
This actually makes me a little sad. I am only skimming the transcript so far and I don't
think I could stand to watch the video, even though I really like Aaron Maté. I didn't
care when he took apart that Luke Harding fool, but John Feffer always seemed like a pretty
smart guy and a good writer. I was dismayed a few days ago when he went off in this direction
in one of his posts. If Aaron is holding back, maybe he feels a little sorry about him,
too.
John Feffer, one more decent person lost to the McCarthyite pod people, for whom I can no
longer have a shred of respect. Is that going too far?
I could have gotten the same exact "depth" of analysis from watching CNN. Or MSNBC. Or
what have you.
Even the interviewer was off the ball – by the time he identified KASPERSKY as a
"Russian hacker" I was essentially howling with laughter. And by the time the interviewee
started insinuating that Russia is supporting far-right neo-nazi type groups in the West
yeah. No. Incidentally, the West [i]is[/i] doing just that in specific places, but that is a
different conversation.
Finally the stamement: "So I don't think anybody, much less Vladimir Putin, could have
predicted the turn U.S.-Russian relations would take " pretty much discredits the interviewee
as any kind of analyst or expert on the subject. Because on every single US-Russia flashpoint
2017 was a direct continuation of 2016 (and 2015, and 2014 ) – and that was pretty much
the "base case" to begin with, since it is silly to imagine that either nation will just
"surrender" and stop pursuing its policies whether in Europe, Asia or the Middle East. The
"Trump == unpredictable-loose-cannon-maverick" talking point, much as it has been bandied
about, applies mainly to Trump's twitter account and decidedly not the ACTUAL foreign policy
steps taken by the US.
And so I reiterate the point – why is this blog suddenly carrying MSNBC-level
content? Because that's why we come here in the first place?
Sometimes when this whole things goes several shades of crazy you have to pull back and
try to look at it from a historical level. I try to imagine what people will be saying some
20 years from now when there is a new generation in place. What will their text books say
about what is happening now. And I realize that we are going to be mocked but hard by them.
Can you imagine what comedians routines on us will say? It will be embarrassing. So, getting
back to the present, I pull up the news this morning and I find a CNN reporter checking out
trash dumpsters next to the 'troll farm' in Russia – which is no longer even there. Uh,
OK.
Maybe some people in government and the media should go back on their meds again and have
a nice warm cup of shut-the-xxxx-up. Just because Trump won the election does not mean that
the 'establishment' gets to have an epic triggering – and take the rest of the country
with it. Are there criminal charges to be laid against certain people? Absolutely. Thing is,
they don't have Russian addresses but more likely American ones and I think that a lot of
people are starting to realize this which may partially explain the increasing support for
the GOP. You can only keep up evidence free accusations so long until somebody shout
"Call!".
If you want to know about election meddling, ask the Russians ( https://www.rt.com/op-ed/419371-election-meddling-us-russia/
) as they have much experience here. And that story doesn't cover even half of what went on.
Getting back to seeing things from a historical level, my own idea is that what we are seeing
is a power that has dominated the world for decades now finding itself with peer competitors
arising and the people in charge are unable to deal with this. There are far too many careers
at stake. Too many lucrative contracts at risk. Too many rice bowls to be broken. It's too
many powerful people not being able to get their way – and being unable to handle it.
This is what I think that we are seeing.
Foreign interference in the U.S. is nothing new. Its why we are so divided.
"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before
the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the
United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and
financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The
voice of the Rothschilds prevailed Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to
exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the
Union."
Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor, 1865
This is a great example of why I think I've gone crazy. This guy Feffer seems more
reasonable than most of the Russiagaters I see on other blogs, but when Mate points out the
lack of evidence he acknowledges that and then goes right on as if he had refuted it. He
acknowledges that the Dutch "revelation" is unsupported, and regrets that, and then goes
right ahead as if that is irrelevant. His whole method of argument seems to be, "Well, we
have a pattern of other Russian involvement, " and then cites speeches by Putin that probably
are not relevant to the case. I mean, supporting white nationalism? This is something you
want to blame Russia for? Spreading divisiveness? Undermining confidence? Kill me now.
Jerrold Lewis Nadler is an American attorney and politician who serves as the US
Representative from New York's 10th congressional district. So it is reasonable to assume that this guy is a stooge of financial
oligarchy and as such died in the wool globalist
When Congressman Jerrold Nadler equated Internet Trolls with Pearl Harbor that does not mean
that his a paranoiac. That means that he is a sleazy opportunist, for whom Party line is more
important then truth. That's why he repeated DemoRats Party like in the color revolution against
Trump. In which NeoMcCartyism is a fundamental component, creating the necessary prerequisites
for the witch hunt on Trump conducted by Mueller. He just can' deviate from the story.
"Have you no decency left, sir? At long last, have you no decency left?" applies
This "slash and burn" style of internal politician debates is another sign of the deep crisis
of neoliberalism in the USA. The crisis that led to election of Trump.
Tactically all this noise is a preemptive move to save Strzokgate participants scalps by putting a smoke screen on Nunes memo as well as
the forthcoming report of Inspector General.
Notable quotes:
"... When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence, said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise attack. Trump's reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: "They are laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow." ..."
"... While Mueller's indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what explains the shock and the fear for "our democracy"? Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own history? Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government. ..."
"... As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? ..."
"... Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. ..."
"... "Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Laura Ingraham asked former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend. With a grin, Woolsey replied, "Oh, probably." "We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other people's elections, Jim?" "Well," Woolsey said with a smile. "Only for a very good cause." Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American side in foreign nations and their elections? ..."
"... "One cannot observe democracy objectively without being impressed by its curious distrust of itself -- it's apparent ineradicable tendency to abandon its philosophy at the first sign of strain. I need not point to what invariably happens in democratic states when the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions, convert themselves into instant despots of an almost fabulous ferocity." H.L. Mencken ..."
According to the indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russian trolls, operating out
of St. Petersburg, took American identities on social media and became players in our 2016
election. On divisive racial and religious issues, the trolls took both sides. In the
presidential election, the trolls favored Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Donald Trump, and
almost never Hillary Clinton.
One imaginative Russian troll urged Trumpsters to dress up a female volunteer in an orange
prison jump suit, put her in a cage on a flatbed truck, then append the slogan, "Lock Her
Up!"
How grave a matter is this?
This Russian troll farm is "the equivalent (of) Pearl Harbor," says Cong. Jerrold Nadler,
who would head up the House Judiciary Committee, handling any impeachment, if Democrats retake
the House.
When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our
democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence,
said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise attack.
Trump's reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: "They are
laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow."
According to Sunday's Washington Post, the troll story is old news in Russia, where
reporters uncovered it last year and it was no big deal.
While Mueller's indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what
explains the shock and the fear for "our democracy"? Is the Great Republic about to fall
because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own
history? Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest
levels of American culture and government.
The Hollywood Ten, who went to prison for contempt of Congress, were secret members of a
Communist Party that, directed from Moscow, controlled the Progressive Party in Philadelphia in
1948 that nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace to run against Harry Truman.
Soviet spies infiltrated the U.S. atom bomb project and shortened the time Stalin needed to
explode a Soviet bomb in 1949.
As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to
meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike?
Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. When the democratically elected regime
of Mohammed Morsi was overthrown, the U.S. readily accepted the coup as a victory for our side
and continued aid to Egypt as tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members were
imprisoned.
Are the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy under orders not to try to influence the
outcome of elections in nations in whose ruling regimes we believe we have a stake?
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Laura Ingraham asked
former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend. With a grin, Woolsey replied, "Oh, probably."
"We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other
people's elections, Jim?" "Well," Woolsey said with a smile. "Only for a very good cause."
Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American
side in foreign nations and their elections?
Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes
from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?
When Republicans discuss Iran on Capitol Hill, the phrase "regime change" is frequently
heard. When the "Green Revolution" took to the streets of Tehran to protest massively the
re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, Republicans denounced President Obama for
not intervening more energetically to alter the outcome.
When China, Russia and Egypt expel NGOs, are their suspicions that some have been seeded
with U.S. agents merely marks of paranoia?
The U.S. role in the overthrow of Premier Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and of Jacobo Arbenz in
Guatemala in 1954, and of President Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963 are established facts.
This "hysteria" as Buchanan accurately describes it is very characteristically American, in
its sheer hypocritical dishonesty.
The US has made a regular practice for a century or more of pushing and attacking others,
via political interference, subversion, diplomacy or outright military aggression, until they
respond, and then screaming hysterically about "unprovoked aggression" against America.
Of several factual mistakes in your piece, Pat, why do you slip in crap like this
"Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele,
paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin
agents to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the
candidacy of Donald Trump"
bs claiming 'Kremlin agents' when it would appear the entire hit job on Trump originated
with s ** t made up on the USA end, and Steele was little more than a cut-out to give the
USA's DoJ (and more likely CIA) cover? Isn't that more than just a bit like playing the
insider game? If you"re going to take a shot at Hillary, why not bring up the actual Russia
collusion concerning uranium?
And pushing the 'hack' line
"What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert
Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to
produce evidence of collusion"
giving cover to the 'Russians did it' hack bs when it is clear the DNC 'hack' was actually
an insider leak? You're no better than yellow rag Marcy Wheeler's 'empty wheel' blog:
Destroying the democratic process? A president was shot dead in full view of the nation and
it was never properly investigated, the same goes for 9/11. Endless and unconstitutional wars
that have bankrupted the nation. I'd say that it was destroyed a long time ago and all that
remains is nostalgia. Buckle up my colonial cousins!
Addendum, lifted from comment (#3) of Ronald Thomas West:
"What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert
Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to
produce evidence of collusion." Are you still unaware of the forensic evidence and credible
analysis of people like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails
were leaked, not hacked?
Columnists like Pat Buchanan and Andrew Napolitano may help people find this website, but
week in and week out they show themselves as sloppy, at best. There may be something to be
said for putting them up here, where they can be compared to Dinh, Giraldi, Hopkins, Sailer,
Whitney, et al.
I read their columns closely when it comes to Russia, and comment when I see them serving
the Establishment line. It has become apparent that "Judge" is purposeful in his Eastasia
bulls ** t. I am reaching the same conclusion about Mr. Buchanan.
And it's still going on under the guise of NGOs. So if Russians tweeting stuff is an act
of war, then the US is already at war with a bunch of countries.
Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels
of American culture and government.
During WW2, too.
They were running some of the biggest banks and corporations, too. It was fashionable for
the trust fund kiddies and some of the money bags "upper crust" to play commie as well. Still
is, apparently.
Famous names, Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney, Morgan, mingled with those of communist
leaders. The Russian Institute was so respectable that it was allowed to give in-service
courses to New York City schoolteachers for credit.
When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our
democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence,
said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise
attack.
"One cannot observe democracy objectively without being impressed by its curious
distrust of itself -- it's apparent ineradicable tendency to abandon its philosophy at the
first sign of strain. I need not point to what invariably happens in democratic states when
the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions,
convert themselves into instant despots of an almost fabulous ferocity." H.L.
Mencken
This is an excellent article summarizing the major issues presented. Though I have views
which vary somewhat about the postwar witchhunt in the US which sort of sets the beginning
precedent for this one the fact situation described is correct. As for whether it is an act
of war, I say that it is, but not by the Russians. It is an act of war by out of control
extra-legal yankee authorities against any individual, foreign or domestic, who would choose
to resist them in any fashion, including those just trying to make money like the Russians in
this case from farming US internet subscribers.
Russiagate is a starched and stuffed empty suit. Buchanan is right to demean its
significance. And yes, there is the shameful fact of rank US hypocrisy in all this. No doubt.
But the relatively modest impact of Russian 'meddling' in the last US election, coupled with
the moral emptiness within the entire Russiagate investigation, is what's most revealing.
Indeed, not only does the US routinely interfere (and even overthrow) other sovereign
states, but Russian machinations in America pales besides other extranational interference,
particularly Israel's.
When it comes to pushing around Washington and shaping US public opinion, Israel is in a
class by itself. You haven't noticed?
Not only do crypto-Israelis own or supervise most American mass media (including hard
news) but hundreds of young, paid Jewish/Israeli trolls regularly clog US social media sites,
American internet news comments sections, and Wikipedia entries.
Israelis (and their US-based cousins) are the masters of political chicanery. No one else
comes close.
Then there's the overbearing influence of AIPAC, the ADL, and dozens of other
crypto-Israeli pressure groups. These highfalutin lobbies have managed to buy their way into
the halls of Congress, the White House, and onto national TV. It's a continuous phenomena.
But we're not supposed to notice or be concerned. After all, they're our best friends!
By comparison, Russian access and interference in American life is infantesimal.
Does this shock you? It shouldn't. It's been this way in America for decades.
Incredibly, it's publicly examining, discussing, and criticizing this odd situation that
becomes 'shocking' (and career-ending). That's the scary part.
Crypto-Israelis have dominated, and continue to dominate, a vast swath of American
culture; especially news and entertainment.
Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, and Marlon Brando all complained about this unique and
dangerous situation. And conditions have not improved since they did. If anything, Zionist
power in America has only hardened.
This makes far-away Russia even more of a bit player in our corrupt political circus. And
this is why Russiagate is such a farce.
In Hollywood, on Wall Street, as well as in Washington, the top dog (and most sacred
cause) involves Israel. Every US politician recognizes this unpublicized fact. Just read
their speeches. See how they vote. And those public servants who don't recognize Israel's
unique status in Washington tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This is Jewish power.
Zio-Americans helped steer Washington into its preemptive and criminal annihilation of
Libya and Iraq and, if they have their way again, there will be additional American wars
fought on behalf of the Jewish state.
Due in large part to Zionist dictates, Assad's Syria is being targeted by Washington right
now. Iran is next. All foes of Israel end up in Washington's crosshairs.
America has been quietly captured and domesticated by Zionists.
Sadly, even referring to the overriding impact of Zionist power in America is taboo.
Buchanan and others have learned this lesson the hard way. But this explosive fact ultimately
renders the entire Russiagate 'scandal' little more than a contrived distraction.
Call it Jewish political theater if you like. But it's mostly a charade.
Mr. Buchanan is correct, of course, that we interfere in other countries. But defending
foreign hostility to America by pointing to America's own misdeeds is a traditional leftist
line.
It's not a "leftist line" (at least in this case), it's one that's basic to human nature
– don't dish it out if you can't take it in turn, and don't whine like a hypocritical
two year old when you do get some back. Nothing "left wing" about that.
There's nothing wrong with us taking our own country's side.
No, not if you don't mind being a hypocrite.
But hypocrisy is a very American thing – throughout your history you've been
manipulated into wars by the very weakness you adhere to here. "We can do it but if anyone
does it back to us that's unacceptable, because we're special" has been pretty much the way
the US has been kept interfering around the world for decades.
The answer is to stop doing it yourself, then complain about other people doing it.
But that isn't going to happen, is it? Your lords and masters are going to keep poking their
noses into other countries' affairs all over the world, and people like you are going to
complain like bitches if you get any back, and those complaints will justify further
aggression in response to supposedly unacceptable foreign "unprovoked"
aggression/interference against your country.
And I write that while being pretty much the very opposite of anything that could be
described as "left wing", just as a foreigner weighing US behaviour.
'Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele, paid
by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin agents
to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the candidacy of
Donald Trump. And the FBI used this disinformation to get FISA Court warrants to surveil and
wiretap the Trump campaign.'
Correct except for 'Kremlin agents' Steele hadn't been to Russia in more than 20 years.
The 'dossier' is full of ridiculous mistakes about Russia. It's just as likely he made the
whole thing up, or was fed stuff by the CIA, not the Kremlin.
When Napoleon Bonaparte executed the Duc d'Enghien in 1804 for what seemed like trumped-up
treason charges, the implications extended far beyond questions of French justice and even
beyond the borders of France. European leaders were shocked, and the episode helped crystallize
anti-Bonaparte sentiment throughout the Continent and in Britain. The famous French diplomat
Charles de Talleyrand captured the moment when he said: "It was worse than a crime; it was a
blunder."
That might well be said now about the Russian effort to manipulate the 2016 presidential
election by using social media to undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, promote the
candidacy of Donald Trump, and generally sow discord throughout the American body politic.
Three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens were indicted by U.S. authorities Friday on
charges of engaging in a three-year, multimillion-dollar effort to interfere in the election.
Americans naturally are shocked at this brazen effort to unravel the political fabric of their
country.
But it isn't really all that shocking. To understand why it was more of a blunder than a
crime -- and a blunder with likely tragic consequences -- it is important to absorb five
fundamental realities surrounding this important development in U.S.-Russian relations.
First, countries have been doing this sort of thing for centuries. It is a fundamental part
of tradecraft -- the use of covert actions to undermine the internal workings of rival nations.
No country likes being on the receiving end, but few refrain from such activity when they think
it will thwart national security threats.
Second, no nation has been more aggressive than the United States in pursuing efforts,
covert and even overt, to destabilize other regimes. In part that's because, as the leading
global power since World War II, the Unites States has had more at stake in events of
significance throughout the world. In part also, it's because America has had the greatest
capacity for bringing the latest technology and the greatest covert capabilities to meet the
challenge.
In any event, the U.S. record in this area is beyond dispute. A New York Times
piece by Scott Shane over the weekend quoted a University of Georgia professor named Loch
Johnson as saying, "We've been doing this kind of thing since the CIA was created in '47. We've
used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you name it." Among other things, he adds, the
United States has planted false information in foreign newspapers and distributed "suitcases of
cash" to influence foreign elections. Steven L. Hall, a 30-year CIA veteran (now retired) with
extensive experience leading the Russia desk, told Shane that the United States "absolutely"
engaged in such activities, "and I hope we keep doing it."
Shane cites a study by Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon that sought to quantify "election
influence operations" by the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia between 1946 and 2000.
He counts 81 by the United States and 36 by the Soviet Union or Russia (though he figures there
were more ops initiated from Russian soil than we know about).
Beyond that, there is what has become known as the "democracy industry" -- legions of U.S.
NGOs, many funded with federal money, that fan out through the world to remake regimes they
consider insufficiently imbued with Western values. Writer and thinker David Rieff, writing in
The National Interest a few years ago, attacked these democracy promotion adherents as
people who "will not or cannot acknowledge either the ideological or the revolutionary
character of their enterprise." He likened the democracy promoters in propaganda terms to
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 boast to America that "we will bury you."
Third, the greatest interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations, aside from
invasion, is regime change, and here the United States is by far the leader in the post-World
War II era. We know of major efforts -- covert or overt, successful or not -- by America to
upend regimes in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Leaving aside the case-by-case merits, this is a powerful record, and it has implications
far beyond U.S. domestic politics. Like Bonaparte's execution of the Duc d'Enghien, it
generates concerns and fears among foreign leaders. In the case of America's regime change
zest, it sends chills down the spines of leaders fearful that they may be next on the list of
U.S. regime change targets. Certainly the resolve of North Korea's Kim Jong-un to develop
nuclear weapons with a delivery capacity to the United States is partly a product of such
fears.
Fourth, America and its allies bear by far the greater share of the blame for the current
tensions between the West and Russia. It was all predictable back in 1998 when NATO fashioned
its policy of aggressive eastward expansion toward the Russian border. George F. Kennan, the
highly respected U.S. diplomat and Russia expert, predicted the outcome in particularly stark
terms. He called it "the beginning of a new cold war a tragic mistake." He foresaw that of
course the Russians would react badly, as any nation would, and then the NATO expansionists
would say, see, we always said the Russians were aggressive and couldn't be trusted. "This is
just wrong," Kennan warned.
But if NATO expansion was a provocative policy destined to elicit a strong Russian response,
the provocation was heightened hugely when America helped perpetrate a regime change initiative
in Ukraine, which is not only next door to Russia but has been a crucial part of Russia's
sphere of influence going back to the mid-17th century. Further, Russia lies vulnerable to
invasion. The unremitting grassy steppes of the nation, extending from Europe all the way to
the Far East, with hardly a mountain range or seashore or major forest to hinder encroachment
by army or horde, has fostered a national obsession over the need to control territory as a
hedge against incursion. Such incursions from the West occurred three times in the 19th and
20th centuries.
Ukraine is crucial in this Russian sense of territorial imperative. It's a tragically split
country, with part tilting toward the West and part facing eastward toward Russia. That makes
for a delicate political and geopolitical situation, but for centuries that delicate political
and geopolitical situation has been overseen by Russia. Now the West wants to end that.
Upending a duly elected (though corrupt) Ukrainian president was part of the plan. Getting
Ukraine into NATO is the endgame.
Note that the Ukrainian revolution occurred in 2014, which just happened to be the year,
according to the U.S. indictments, that Russia initiated its grand program to influence
America's 2016 elections. Kennan was right: Russia inevitably would react badly to the NATO
encirclement policy, and then America's anti-Russian cadres would cite that as evidence that
the encirclement was necessary all along. That's precisely what's happening now.
Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder. Given all
that's happened in U.S.-Russian relations this century, there probably wasn't much prospect
that those relations could ever be normalized, much less made cordial. But that is now utterly
impossible.
Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of seeking better relations with Russia. After getting
elected he repeatedly asserted in his first news conference that it would be "positive,"
"good," or "great" if "we could get along with Russia." Unlike most of America's elites, he
vowed to seek Moscow's cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the
two countries' sour relations, and acknowledged "the right of all nations to put their
interests first."
This suggested a possible dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations -- an end to the
encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and
serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine. That was
largely put on hold with the narrative of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and vague
allegations of campaign "collusion" with Russia on behalf of Trump's presidential
ambitions.
It doesn't appear likely that investigators will turn up any evidence of collusion that
rises to any kind of criminality. But it doesn't matter now, in terms of U.S.-Russian
relations, because these indictments will cement the anti-Russian sentiment of Americans for
the foreseeable future. No overtures of the kind envisioned by Trump will be possible for any
president for a long time. It won't matter that every nation does it or that America in
particular has done it or that the West's aggressive encirclement contributed to the Russian
actions. The U.S.-Russian hostility is set. Where it leads is impossible to predict, but it
won't be good. It could be tragic.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
editor of The American Conservative . His latest book,President McKinley: Architect of the American Century, was
released in September.
I'm disgusted that people are taking this garbage indictment seriously A bunch of Russian
private citizens working for a privately-funded NGO (allegedly funded by an owner of a
restaurant chain) using faked social media accounts to carry out political activism, and no
evidence of Russian government involvement, and this clown Mueller thinks this is some
evidence for "Russian meddling" in elections? It wouldn't be so laughable except that the US
spook agencies do this sort of thing as a routine .
This is just Mueller doing as he was told to do by his Establishment leash-holders, and
come up with any old steaming pile of garbage to be packaged as "evidence" to support this
Cold War 2 paranoia mindset and promote the unfounded allegation of Trumps "collusion" with
Russians in order to undermine his Presidency.
The US continues to disappoint me This country seems to be utterly incapable of getting
things into perspective or acting rationally. A nation run by amoral psychopaths who are
completely obsessed with power and wealth and control, and who will stoop to anything in
order to achieve their unspoken power agendas.
The sad fact is the Mr. Merry is probably right. The die is cast. Enmity is almost certainly
now permanent, with the increasingly likely result indeed tragic.
With this latest indictment, the bogus "Russian collusion" charge has finally achieved its
primary goal -- which was not to remove Trump (that's 3; goal 2 was to elect Hillary), but to
ensure unchangeable hostility towards Russia. The fact that Trump even now controverts what
H.R. McMaster calls "incontrovertible" is nice but irrelevant. It hardly matters what the
president thinks at all. (Besides, for whom does McMaster work, Trump or Mueller?)
Everybody now agrees that "Romney was right." There's nothing Trump can do about it.
Ruthenia delenda est. The madness may now become terminal – for everybody.
Notice too how everyone, including Trump's cheering section at Fox News, has immediately
lost sight of the REAL collusion within the US government (with a little help from "hands
across the water"): Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Rod
Rosenstein (remember, he signed one of the FISA requests to spy on the Trump team), John O.
Brennan, Christopher Steele, Andrew Wood (former British ambassador to Russia who peddled the
Steele dossier), Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.
They'll all skate. No surprise there.
All that said, it would have been nice to explain who "the Russians" are we're talking
about. This looks less like a government op than a clickbait scam of the sort hundreds of
firms in dozens of countries engage in:
Donald Trump campaigned on having better relations with Russia(?). Ok, why? A) Is he a deep
well read strategic thinker on Russian US relations and envisioned better relations as a
positive step towards world peace or B) he admires Putin for being a white right nationalist
that he is coupled with his deep business ties to Russian oligarchs which have the potential
of being un earthed by that Witcher hunter himself Robert Mueller?
This is a good article, but I feel that it would have been stronger if Mr. Merry had
elaborated on the reasons why elevated hostility between Russia and the West represents a
tragedy for both parties.
The geopolitical argument for a modus vivendi between America and Russia can be summarised
with a single phrase: 'the rise of China'. As an immense body of commentators have argued for
years, the #1 geostrategic imperative for the U.S. in the foreseeable future is thwarting
Chinese ambitions to become the military, political, and economic hegemon of Asia. China also
threatens to displace Russia's influence in Central Asia, and menaces the security of its
hold on the thinly populated territories of Siberia. So it would seem that there is a common
interest to build on.
Unfortunately, Russia will always value the security of its western lands above all other
priorities, and so Eastern Europe remains an enduring sticking point in its relations with
the U.S.A. Regardless of whether or not the expansion of NATO back in the 1990s was wise or
not, America cannot let go of its commitments there without incurring an unacceptable loss in
prestige and credibility. An adversarial relationship appears to be locked in on both
sides.
Even if Russia hadn't attempted to influence the 2016 election, I suspect that attempts to
forge a new detente would have proven unavailing – just like the infamous 'reset'
attempted by Obama. What neither Obama or Trump seem to have understood is the first rule of
successful diplomatic resets: 'Only Nixon can go to China'. It takes a leader with genuine
credibility on the issue to make such a thing stick. Otherwise the whole thing collapses as
soon as the political cycle rotates.
"Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder."
_________________________________
I'm not all sure what we are talking about here in the grand effort: the troll army,
thefacebook/twitter "massive" campaign, the DNC "hacking" which by all accounts did not
happen?
I fear that we are falling into the trap of actually believing the press and the
hysterical democrats.
My sense is that it was a minor effort in terms of financial expenditures and people
involved-I am very skeptical that any votes were influenced to any degree.
So where is the there in all of this smoke and hoopala?
There is a worst outcome of these events, never mind the massive hypocrisy of the US
establishment. It will not be possible to have another Bernie Sanders, or even Trump movement
in the US, because such movements will be blamed on Russia.
Pro-social ideas and more political diversity in the US are dead and the country will be
even more overtly move towards a corporatism, militarist regime.
The time will come that even TAC and likes of Daniel Larson will be accused of being
Russian puppets.
My Grandfather (God rest his soul) was born in 1910 and was a brutally honest (and frank) man
who never shied away from giving you his opinion on anything. When I was a teenager in the
mid 1990's we'd watch the CBS evening news together. Him on his recliner and me on the couch
we'd watch the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather and he'd turn to me and say, "You know why
every other country hates America?". Of course I'd say I didn't know and he'd say to me,
"it's because we've got our nose up everybody's ass. We should mind our own Goddamn
business!". That was my Grandfather's take on foreign policy. Most might try to dismiss it
out of simplicity but his opinion on the matter was not without wisdom. My Grandfather lived
through two World Wars (and served in the US Navy during WWII and the Korean War) and worked
for the VA hospital during the Vietnam War. Had Washington followed my Grandfather's advice
(which has been echoed here at TAC by Patrick J. Buchanan and the rest of the gang for almost
two decades now) then there wouldn't be a New Cold War with Russia or China.
Trump's constant assertions of "nothing to see here" are certainly the acts of someone
guilty. Hard to believe there is nothing there. Too many around him have been shown to have
ties to Russia, Trump wasn't even in office yet when he promised to remove sanctions on
Russia, and his loyalty to Russia over the US in the election meddling is telling. If large
numbers of Republicans want to be useful idiots, that's their business, but ducks that quack
and walk, and all that
Was the Russian election meddling a blunder? It was certainly successful. It has fractured
our society. I believe we will come back stronger from this, but it showed the rot in
society, in our religious institutions, and our political institutions. You have to identify
the rot to get in there and clean it out, so the Russians gave us that advantage, but it has
brought us to the brink.
Again, a blunder? Were we really going to get closer to Russia? I don't think so. Trump
tried his best and it didn't work. Not being politically minded, he had to have personal gain
as a motivation to promote closer ties with Russia. So if the odds politically of having
better ties with Russia were next to nothing at this time, again, Russia won with their troll
campaign. While the duped continue to refuse to admit they were duped, Russian influence
remains strong, and the duped can be duped again.
This article trots out the usual inaccuracies about NATO expansion and Eastern European
history. There is no conceivable scenario in which the Eastern European countries admitted to
NATO threaten Russia. Estonia has no invasion plans. NATO does not war game invading Russia
and has no capacity to do so. Russia is not by any reasonable measure encircled by anyone.
She is the largest country in the world and has managed to survive with Turkey as a NATO
member at its doorstep for years.
It's also absurd to make the case that having been invaded three times in the past two
centuries makes Russia especially sensitive to invasion. Many European countries have had
that experience and aren't annexing bits and bobs of their neighbors if things don't go their
way. The Baltic States were invaded three times in FIVE years in World War II, twice by
Russia. Now, they have cause for paranoia.
For that matter, Russia hasn't been invaded three times in the 19th and 20th century. In WWI,
Russia invaded East Prussia. Most of the war took place in what is now Poland and Belarus,
not Russia.
Please stop trying to buttress your commitment to a non-aligned US with dubious statements
about Eastern Europe.
Why can't we trade and exchange with Russia and just get along? Why so much hostility to a
country that did the heavy lifting in WW2? Why not call out Isreal (mainly) and Saudi Arabia
for trying to manipulate us as their attack dog on a very short and disciplined leash? Recall
when Netanyahu addressed the full U.S.Congress (screaming and yelling like rabid fans at a
Beatles concert) and a sitting president was forced to watch on TV? Recall how Johnson let
Israel attack the USS Liberty for hours and would not let our planes splash the aggressors?
What has happened to our values of democracy, dignity, international human rights and above
all national independence, especially from relatively client states? P.T. Barnum's "You can
fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time will take
hold." Enough dying and resource wasting on designer wars, not in our interest.
Post WW 2 we have a history of cozing up to Dictators or questionable regimes, then turning
on them. Our adversaries especially China and Russia understand this very well.
Excellent analysis of America's foolish and perhaps fateful policy of encirclement,
encroachment and permanent alienation of Russia. Buy why expect Russia to remain passive?
Surely they could be forgiven for picking out Trump as a possible source of a more rational
and peaceable policy, and saying: let's help this guy get elected. And doing it with their
usual clumsiness. Why would they stand by and let the warmongering Hillary push the policy to
its ultimate conclusion: war?
Mr. Merry does a brilliant job–the best I have read–of contextualizing the Russia
election interference story. But his analysis is also telling, and typical, in what it omits:
any consideration of what in fact the Russians did, and how and to what extent it mattered.
And this for a reason that says everything that does matter in our time: the truth of the
allegations is irrelevant. Everything is the "narrative".
So, he is correct. Relations will be poisoned for decades. We may even go to war. And the
underlying cause will be something that may or may not have happened and, if it did,
was–relative to the actual presidential election–inconsequential.
I would only add that in a world more than ever shaped and driven by contesting
narratives, the question should be: who benefits most from the Russia indictments,
evidence-based or not?
The answer is the dominance of American hawkishness and interventionism, which can now
accelerate and expand, unopposed, out to infinity.
@Terrence Maloney. Expansion of NATO to the Baltics puts OUR troops on Russia's border.
The Washington Post put out an article yesterday interviews a Russian journalist who
published a detailed report on the Russian troll factory back in October.
"Zakharov (the journalist) explained how it was a strange feeling seeing something he had
so closely investigated become a major issue in the United States, when it had not been a
"bombshell" when he published his report at home."
You would think the major news organizations like NYT and WaPo would have the resources to
constantly research foreign publications. Evidently not, because if the MSM thinks that an
indictment of 13 Russian trolls is a bombshell, surely they would think 90 Russian Trolls, as
described in the Russian news report and $2M would be an even bigger bombshell. And yet it
was never picked up on in this country. It goes to show our big media are navel gazers.
But in any event its NOT a bombshell at all. 90 trolls with $2M in a multi-billion
election? I believe what really upsets our self-proclaimed adults, is that the vast unwashed
masses' opinions can be changed by comments on facebook or any other outlets where they
cannot control the message.
This whole "Russia ate our homework" thing is to divert attention from the corrupt use of
the Justice Department and intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents.
@Terrence Moloney, it's not an issue of Latvia invading Russia it's an issue of those
countries being used as missile platforms and choke points against their navy.
The game goes like this, the U.S. keeps encircling Russia with NATO expansion. If Russia
doesn't resist, great, it continues. If Russia resists then that is evidence of 'aggression'
that justifies a military buildup on existing NATO countries.
Russia lost an area the size of the United States when the Soviet Union collapsed 1991.
After an earthquake there are after shocks.
Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine. In 1992 they created their own constitution
only to have it nullified by Ukraine. Ossetia declared independence from Georgia in 1992. Is
1992 early enough for you? You act like Moses created these boundaries.
Putin has stated that Russia will not invade the Baltics or Kiev. That it is wrong to try
to rule over an unwilling population, that Russia has more than enough land for their people.
The premise behind the Crimean annexation was that it was the population's will.
So Democrats are suppose to simply turn a blind eye towards the Trump campaign then? After
years of Benghazi! and Birtherism during Obama. And do you think Russians would have been as
effective with Marco Rubio running? Or how the Russian activity started against Democrats
Congress in the late election?
Or how the Republican fought against Obama on announcing this activity to the country?
2016 was a God-awful election and conservative have been incredibly smug on their slight
victory. And President Trump is DOING NOTHING on this activity so I assume he is hoping for
their assistance in 2018. (And notice how much they were active they were on the David Nune
memo.)
13 Russians illegally volunteered for Trump's campaign?
So what!
The establishment is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans illegally voted for Hillary Clinton.
Worse, billionaires whose first loyalty is to Israel, such as Haim Shaban and Paul Singer,
exercise immense influence over American foreign policy.
Immense resources are being devoted to investigating minuscule Russian activity. Why?
1. Because the establishment wants to overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential
election.
2. They also hope to find some connection between the Russian government and the American
hard right (via Dugin) which can be used to jail the leading figures of the American hard
right, thus doing what the ADL, SPLC and Antifa have failed to do – nullify the First
Amendment.
This is arguably the most serious assault ever on the Constitution of the United
States.
Putin requires hostility with the west in order to remain in power. He doesn't want a war, he
just needs Russian citizens to feel aggrieved against outsiders so that they don't react to
the kleptocrats running the country. It's classic 'strong man' strategy.
"Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder."
What a second. You call that a "grand effort?" A few Facebook accounts and some organized
trolling? That is anything but a "grand effort" and I question why anyone would characterize
it as such. Especially in the context of what we Americans have done and do (which you touch
on).
At some point the US needs to turn away from it's "Do as we say, not as we do" mentality.
Only thing it's gotten us is a world that doesn't trust us anymore. Unfortunately that day
won't come until the day the American Empire collapses and America returns to it's roots as a
Republic.
The Ukrainian president wasn't toppled; he fled,doubting the loyalty of his own security
forces and despite an agreement with the opposition to stay in power pending a new election
within 10 months.
@celery "Was the Russian election meddling a blunder? It was certainly successful. It has
fractured our society. I believe we will come back stronger from this, but it showed the rot
in society, in our religious institutions, and our political institutions. You have to
identify the rot to get in there and clean it out, so the Russians gave us that advantage,
but it has brought us to the brink. "
An apt comment. And in this connection it's crucially important that henceforth we hold
other countries to the standards we're holding Russia.
I'm thinking of Israel in particular, which has meddled in and distorted American politics
to a degree that the Russians can only dream of. One need say only "Sheldon Adelson" to
suggest its corrupting, distorting influence. What if a Russian oligarch came here and did
for Russia what Adelson and so many others do for Israel? Would we have American politicians
grovelling for the millions that a Russian oligarch could lavish on those who promise to do
Putin's bidding – as they already do for Adelson and Netanyahu?
If the end result of this "Russian meddling" case is criminalization of this behavior (or
even just reinvigorated enforcement of existing laws, like FARA and the Espionage Act), and
if that serves to end Israeli meddling in our political process, then all to the good.
Meddling by foreign countries in our political process is indeed "rot", as you put it –
and as George Washington urgently warned in his Farewell Address. It must be stopped at all
costs, for reasons so obvious that we shouldn't even have to discuss them.
Sorry, there is still no 'Russian Meddling' of any kind. The indictments were against a
commercial marketing scheme, using clickbait to build reputations that could be used to sell
ads. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some for
Hillary, some against, and of course there is the post that is definitely for, puppies.
Again, there is nothing here, about 'Russia'. Even Mueller's team of liars did not claim
any involvement by the Russian government.
What these indictments mean is that being a foreigner, and posting opinions during an
election, without registering as a foreign agent, means you can be indicted for 'defrauding'
the US.
Since Washington is rolling in a slush fund of billions in foreign lobbying money from
countries overwhelmingly not Russia, why is this influence peddling not the real issue? One
guy with a million bucks has more influence with Washington than a million guys with one
buck, and there are thousands of former elected and unelected government officials flush with
their cash doing the bidding of well moneyed foreign states other than Russia, not that of
the hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans.
Now we have the chimera of an indictment against 13 ham sandwiches with Russian dressing
which can never be eaten – there will be no actual trials as the people accused are
people in a foreign country. So, as has become the new standard for public belief in this and
other politicized matters, such findings of fact are unnecessary – accusations become
the same as proof, the very definition of witch hunt hysterias, from McCarthy to McMartin
preschool.
Far from benign foreign influences with far more effective and vast resources were bent on
running interference to make sure that Hillary Clinton was elected, since they believed her
ascendancy was in their best interests. Because millions of Americans knew that her policy
predilections were not in their own best interests, does that make them unwitting tools of a
Russian conspiracy? It's a witch hunt by powerful domestic forces not acting in Americans'
best interests, but those of elites who feel threatened by their own country's heartland and
its increasingly dispossessed.
This, I assume, is the latest pro-Putin propaganda line. With Putin openly interfering in the
Italian election in favour of the Lega Nord, it is now impossible to deny his interference in
the US election. So now the interference is admitted but of course it couldn't possibly be
nice Mr Putin's fault. It was just a blunder and, as we've come to expect, it was all
provoked anyway by the ever dastardly US! The rest is just a re-has of the "let Putin win in
Ukraine" pretexts that we've all heard a thousand times.
I'll say it again. One of the oldest tricks any regime uses when it begins to feel insecure
is to create an enemy for its people to focus on. Our oligarchy has chosen Russia, probably
because China makes them too much money.
Who, specifically, was indicted? Let's hear some names! From whom did they get their marching
orders? How did they "meddle" in the election? Examples please. And, most importantly, where
are they? If ( as rumor has it) they are in Russia then those indictments aren't worth the
paper they're written on.
Yes, please stop the Russian meddling! And please stop all the other foreign meddling while
you're at it. We're sick of doing the spending, fighting, and dying for foreign countries.
An American here. How can I think the Russians for interfering in American elections? I trust
Putin more than our own so-called "leaders." I say, interfere away (and let Hungary and
Poland join in)! Maybe then Americans will have the chance to break free of the chains of the
two-party sham, neocon foreign policy, and corporate globalism.
Interesting how the Trumpeteers have gone so swiftly from "Fake News" to "So What!". (I guess
Oceania has Always been at war with Eurasia.)
What people are missing, including the NeverTrumpers and the ForeverTrumpers is this even
betting there was no collusion (because not even ham-fisted Ruskies would cozy up too close
with such a band of inept jerks as the Trump Campaign) it shows Trump is a Chump.
Donnie the Strong Man is a clueless loser who was USED by the Russian troll factory
because he would be pliable (ie easily manipulated) to give them what they wanted.
Trump has SUCKER written all over his face. He should go play a round of golf and tweet
out pathetic insults to everyone. What else has he left.
For those who have projected their own agenda onto Trump's blatherings (just like the
Lefties did with Obama's vague platitudes), when will it occur to you that if you have to
keep making excuses and attacking those who point out the obvious, you have backed the wrong
horse's ***.
I know he can put on his Admiral-General uniform and review the troops, just like the
Ruskie leadership. Tanks, rocket launchers, ICBMs and goose-stepping soldiery (just like the
Russians). That will Prove he has *large hands*. "I'll Show You!"
Putin got elected because Russians were tired of Western rapacious capitalists trying to use
the broken Soviet Union to make money.. Putin then used his KGB thugs to turn the Russian
government into a mafioso.. The chosen, Putin enablers, looted the country.. The looters want
to free their stolen money to buy things in the west, cause who wants old soviet crap..
Western capitalists who dont care are more than willing to take their cut.. This is Trump,
who could not get a loan in this country.. This article is repugnant, it reduces the USA to
the level of these thieves in Russia.. God help us all.
"All that said, it would have been nice to explain who 'the Russians' are we're talking
about."
Bingo! I'd like to see names, who their bosses were (if they had any), places from which
they did their deeds. I'd like more specifics on exactly "what" they did and how. Most
importantly, and to paraphrase the Fermi (UFO) Paradox, "where are they?" Rumor has it
they're in Rooshia. If so, fuggedaboudit! We ain't EVER gonna seem them.
Indictment! As the saying goes "you can indict a ham sandwich."
"All that said, it would have been nice to explain who "the Russians" are we're talking
about. This looks less like a government op than a clickbait scam of the sort hundreds of
firms in dozens of countries engage in:"
Russia has very tight control of net communications within its borders. This could not
have happened without their support, or at least their tacit approval.
This is falling right into the trap of the neocon and neoliberal warmongerers.
1) No I don't believe Russia wants to reconstitute either the Russian Empire or the Soviet
Empire. Its about territorial integrity and relevancy on the world stage.
2) The US and EU backed Russia into the corner with the tug of war in Ukrainian elections
between pro-Russian candidates and pro-EU candidates then threatening Ukraine to take Crimea
away from the Russian navy. A clear threat to Russian territorial integrity and Russia would
be irrelevant without its warm water port in the Black Sea.
3) US and EU and Israel spy and influence elections around the world. Its concerning yes, but
does the US and EU expect Russia not to reciprocate?
4) I don't care what anyone says, everyone in the US owes Russia a debt of gratitude. I will
thank any nation that tried to tell the US citizenry what an evil, shrill, bipolar,
incompetent, traitorous woman Hillary Clinton was and still is! Hillary and Obama and their
administration should be in jail for murder, corruption and collusion.
This blunder will force a further deterioration between the US and Russia when both the US
and EU need friendly relations with Russia now more than ever. There are threats in this
world far greater than Russia like terrorism and nuclear proliferation and radical islam etc.
This means the US will have to tackle these issues without the help of Russia because it will
be punishing Russia. Mr. Trump, we need a master negotiator now more than ever to get Russia
out past this scandal and build a better relationship with them.
What is distressing is not that it happened. We are an open society (and I use that term in a
general sense, not teh Karl Popper sense). So it is easy to do so.
What is distressing to me is that it may have worked.
One of the strangest things about this whole matter is that it was just a few years ago that
Obama and Clinton were talking about trying to have a "reset" in our relations with Russia,
and the Right was apoplectic that they would even consider trying to talk to the implacable
enemy that was just waiting for the chance to destroy us. Now, with clear evidence that
Russia has in fact caused us harm, those exact same people are the ones saying "No problem,
nothing to see here. We trust Putin implicitly, he would never do anything to hurt us."
A very timely article indeed- one only needs the most basic outline of Russian history of the
last millennium to understand that their foreign policy has always been primarily
defensive.
One thing, though, needs to be corrected: The next president will indeed have an opportunity
to demonstrate a broad understanding of the situation and stretch out a cautiously friendly
hand.
This can't happen with Trump for two reasons- he hasn't demonstrated any understanding of the
context of the issue, and he has thoroughly poisoned the well by only seeing recent events in
terms of his own personal repuatation, not of the nation that he was hired to represent.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
inter alia allegedly later ran a clandestine operation seeking to influence opinion
in the United States regarding the candidates in the 2016 election in which it favored Donald
Trump and denigrated Hillary Clinton. The Russians identified by name are all back in Russia
and cannot be extradited to the U.S., so the indictment is, to a certain extent, political
theater as the accused's defense will never be heard.
In presenting the document, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, stressed that there was
no evidence to
suggest that the alleged Russian activity actually changed the result of the 2016
presidential election or that any actual votes were altered or tampered with. Nor was there any
direct link to either the Russian government or its officials or to the Donald Trump campaign
developed as a result of the nine-month long investigation. There was also lacking any mention
in the indictment of the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton and Panetta e-mails, so
it is to be presumed that the activity described in the document was unrelated to the WikiLeaks
disclosures.
Those of the "okay, there's smoke but where's the fire" school of thought immediately noted
the significant elephant in the room, namely that the document did not include any suggestion
that there had been collusion between Team Trump and Moscow. As that narrative has become the
very raison d'etre driving the Mueller investigation, its omission is noteworthy.
Meanwhile, those who see more substance in what was revealed by the evidence provided in the
indictment and who, for political reasons, would like to see Trump damaged, will surely be
encouraged by their belief that the noose is tightening around the president.
Assuming the indictment is accurate, I would agree that the activity of the Internet
Research Agency does indeed have some of the hallmarks of a covert action intelligence
operation in terms how it used some spying tradecraft to support its organization, targeting
and activity. But its employees also displayed considerable amateur behavior, suggesting that
they were not professional spies, supporting the argument that it was not a government
intelligence operation or an initiative under Kremlin control. And beyond that, so what? Even
on a worst-case basis, stirring things up is what intelligence agencies do, and
no one is more active in interfering in foreign governments and elections than the United
States of America, most notably in Russia for the election of Boris Yeltsin in 1996, which was
arranged by Washington, and more recently in Ukraine in 2014. From my own experience I can cite
Italy's 1976 national election in which the CIA went all out to keep the communists out of
government. Couriers were discreetly dispatched to the headquarters of all the Italian right
wing parties dropping off bags of money for "expenses" while the Italian newspapers were full
of articles written by Agency-paid hacks warning of the dangers of communism. And this all went
on clandestinely even though Italy was a democracy, an ally and NATO member.
Does that mean that Washington should do nothing in response? No, not at all. Russia, if the
indictment is accurate, may have run an influencing operation and gotten caught with its hand
in the cookie jar. Or maybe not. And Washington might also actually have information suggesting
that Russia is preparing to engage in further interference in the 2018 and 2020 elections,
as claimed by the heads of the intelligence agencies, though, as usual, evidence for the
claim is lacking. There has to be bilateral, confidential discussion of such activity between
Washington and Moscow and a warning given that such behavior will not be tolerated in the
future, but only based on irrefutable, solid evidence. The leadership in both countries should
be made to understand very clearly that there are more compelling reasons to maintain good
bilateral working relations than not.
With that in mind, it is important not to overreact and to base any U.S. response on the
actual damage that was inflicted. The indictment suggests that Russia is out to destroy
American democracy by promoting "distrust" of government as well as sowing "discord" in the
U.S. political system while also encouraging "divisiveness" among the American people. I would
suggest in Russia's defense that the U.S. political system is already doing a good job at
self-destructing and the difficult-to-prove accusations being hurled at Moscow are the type one
flings when there is not really anything important to say.
I would suggest that Moscow might well want to destroy American democracy but there is no
evidence in the indictment to support that hypothesis. I particularly note that the document
makes a number of assumptions which appear to be purely speculative for which it provides no
evidence. It describes the Russian company Internet Research Agency as "engaged in operations
to interfere with elections and political processes." Its employees were involved in
"interference operations targeting the United States. From in or around 2014 to the
present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons
known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing,
and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose
of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential
election of 2016."
The theme of Russian subversion is repeated throughout the indictment without any compelling
evidence to explain how Mueller knows what he asserts to be true, suggesting either that the
document would have benefited from a good editor or that whoever drafted it was making things
up. Internet Research Agency allegedly "conduct[ed] what it called 'information warfare against
the United States of America' through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and
other Internet-based media." The indictment goes on to assert that
"By in or around May 2014, the ORGANIZATION's strategy included interfering with the 2016
U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of 'spread[ing] distrust towards the
candidates and the political system in general'"
with a
"strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates,
and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential
campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary
Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying
political advertisements on social media in the name of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants
also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots
entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION
affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates.
Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
Two company associates
"traveled in and around the United States, including stops in Nevada, California, New
Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to gather intelligence.
After the trip, [they] exchanged an intelligence report regarding the trip. The conspiracy
had as its object the opening of accounts under false names at U.S. financial institutions
and a digital payments company in order to receive and send money into and out of the United
States to support the ORGANIZATION's operations in the United States and for
self-enrichment . Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to
receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on
the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators
typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S.
dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts,
including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist. All in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1349."
Note particularly the money laundering and for-profit aspects of the Internet Research
scheme, something that would be eschewed if it were an actual intelligence operation. There is
some speculation that it all might have been what is referred to as a click-bait commercial
marketing scheme set up to make money from advertising fees. Also note how small the entire
operation was. It focused on limited social media activity while spending an estimated $1
million on the entire venture, with Facebook admitting to a total of $100,000 in total ad buys,
only half of which were before the election. It doesn't smell like a major foreign government
intelligence/influence initiative intended to "overthrow democracy." And who attended the phony
political rallies? How many votes did the whole thing cause to change? Impossible to know, but
given a campaign in which billions were spent and both fake and real news were flying in all
directions, one would have to assume that the Russian effort was largely a waste of time if it
indeed was even as described or serious in the first place.
And apart from the money laundering aspect of the alleged campaign was it even illegal apart
from the allegations of possible visa fraud and money laundering? If the Russians involved were
getting their financial support from the Moscow government then it would be necessary to
register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, but if not, they would be
protected by the Constitution and have the same First Amendment right to express their opinions
of Hillary Clinton on blogs and websites while also associating with others politically as do
all other residents of the United States. Many of the commenters on this Unz site are foreign
and are not required either by law or custom to state where they come from.
And, of course, there is one other thing. There always is. One major media outlet
is already suggesting that there could be consequences for American citizens who wittingly
or unwittingly helped the Russians, identified in the indictment as "persons known and
unknown." A former federal prosecutor put it another way, saying "While they went to great
pains to say they are not indicting any Americans today, if I was an American and I did
cooperate with Russians I would be extremely frightened " Politico
speculates that "Now, a legal framework exists for criminal charges against Americans " and
cites a former U.S. district attorney's observation that "Think of a conspiracy indicting
parties ' known and unknown' as a Matroyshka doll. There are many more layers to be
successively revealed over time."
Under normal circumstances, an American citizen colluding with a foreign country would have
to be convicted of engaging in an illegal conspiracy, which would require being aware that the
foreigners were involved in criminal behavior and knowingly aiding them. But today's overheated
atmosphere in Washington is anything but normal. Russia's two major media outlets that operate
in the U.S., Sputnik and RT America, have been forced to register under FARA. Does that mean
that the hundreds of American citizens who appeared on their programs prior to the 2016
election to talk about national politics will be next in line for punishment? Stay tuned.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Nunes chances to bring perpetrators to justice are close to zero. The Deep State controls the Washington, DC and can
withstand sporadic attacks.
It is an extremly courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview.
Notable quotes:
"... Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... Nunes took this highly unusual, no-holds-barred stance during an interview with Emmy-award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson , which aired on Sunday. ..."
"... He unapologetically averred that, yes, a criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial." ..."
"... The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy. Like, felony territory. ..."
"... On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state, including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.) ..."
"... At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ..."
"... One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations, using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. ..."
"... On this point, Nunes said, "In the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans' names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for political purposes." ..."
"... It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have to just keep the fingers crossed. ..."
"... I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the moment of Clinton's loss at the polls. ..."
"... I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. ..."
"... Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250 billion annually. ..."
"... The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people. ..."
"... But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand. Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues, both parties are joined at the hip. ..."
"... It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!" 50s McCarthyites. ..."
"... The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead. ..."
"... Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now. Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who hide behind governmental powers. ..."
"... Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His "constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I would applaud anyone who makes the effort. ..."
"... Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for which he says there is no evidence! ..."
"... In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential office. ..."
"... Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have ..."
"... Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle out? ..."
"... While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the memory hole. There's nothing like success ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes has stated that "DOJ and FBI are not above
the law," and could face legal consequences for alleged abuses of the FISA court, reports Ray
McGovern.
Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the
FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason
Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Attkisson said she had invited both Nunes and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) but that only Nunes agreed. She asked him about Schiff's charge that
Nunes' goal was "to put the FBI and DOJ on trial." What followed was very atypical bluntness --
candor normally considered quite unacceptable in polite circles of the Washington
Establishment.
Rather than play the diplomat and disavow what Schiff contended was Nunes' goal, Nunes said,
in effect, let the chips fall where they may. He unapologetically averred that, yes, a
criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated
emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American
citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial."
Die Is Cast
The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ
and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were
involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump
campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy.
Like, felony territory.
This was not supposed to happen. Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? Back when the FISA
surveillance warrant of Page was obtained, just weeks before the November 2016 election, there
seemed to be no need to hide tracks, because, even if these extracurricular activities were
discovered, the perps would have looked forward to award certificates rather than legal
problems under a Trump presidency.
Thus, the knives will be coming out. Mostly because the mainstream media will make a major
effort -- together with Schiff-mates in the Democratic Party -- to marginalize Nunes, those who
find themselves in jeopardy can be expected to push back strongly.
If past is precedent, they will be confident that, with their powerful allies within the
FBI/DOJ/CIA "Deep State" they will be able to counter Nunes and show him and the other
congressional investigation committee chairs, where the power lies. The conventional wisdom is
that Nunes and the others have bit off far more than they can chew. And the odds do not favor
folks, including oversight committee chairs, who buck the system.
Staying Power
On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four
decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church
(D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state,
including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour
Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight
committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.)
At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose -- or the more things change, the more they stay the same -- but that would be only
half correct in this context. Yes, scoundrels will always take liberties with the law to spy on
others. But the huge difference today is that mainstream media have no room for those who
uncover government crimes and abuse. And this will be a major impediment to efforts by Nunes
and other committee chairs to inform the public.
One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and
Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations,
using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able
to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. In a sense, this provides
what might be called a "confidence-building" factor, giving some assurance to deep-state perps
that they will be able to ride this out, and that congressional committee chairs will once
again learn to know their (subservient) place.
Much will depend on whether top DOJ and FBI officials can bring themselves to reverse course
and give priority to the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic. This should not be too much to hope for, but
it will require uncommon courage in facing up honestly to the major misdeeds appear to have
occurred -- and letting the chips fall where they may. Besides, it would be the right thing to
do.
Nunes is projecting calm confidence that once he and Trey Gowdey (R-Tenn.), chair of the
House Oversight Committee, release documentary evidence showing what their investigations have
turned up, it will be hard for DOJ and FBI officials to dissimulate.
In Other News
In the interview with Attkisson, Nunes covered a number of other significant issues:
The
committee is closing down its investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and the
Trump campaign; no evidence of collusion was found. The apparently widespread practice of
"unmasking" the identities of Americans under surveillance. On this point, Nunes said, "In
the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans'
names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for
political purposes." Asked about Schiff's criticism that Nunes behaved improperly on what
he called the "midnight run to the White House," Nunes responded that the stories were untrue.
"Well, most of the time I ignore political nonsense in this town," he said. "What I will say is
that all of those stories were totally fake from the beginning."
Not since Watergate has there been so high a degree of political tension here in Washington
but the stakes for our Republic are even higher this time. Assuming abuse of FISA court
procedures is documented and those responsible for playing fast and loose with the required
justification for legal warrants are not held to account, the division of powers enshrined in
the Constitution will be in peril.
A denouement of some kind can be expected in the coming months. Stay tuned.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Skip Scott , February 19, 2018 at 9:38 am
Thanks Ray for another great article. One can only hope that Nunes is successful. However,
like you say, the MSM is now complicit with the "Deep State", so the fight for justice
becomes much harder. One also has to remember Schumer's "six ways from Sunday" applies
equally to the congress as it does to the president. I hardly ever watch TV news, but
recently I've been subjected to it, and I've seen a deluge of fluff pieces on our so-called
Intelligence Agencies. I would love to see Trump give a speech (instead of a tweet) directly
to the American people letting them know what rascals like Brennan, Clapper, et al have been
up to.
Bob Van Noy , February 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm
This may be the best broadcast tv journalism in many years, read Sharyl Attkisson's story,
"Stonewalled" (I will link the commentary page to that book for thorough readers). And thank
you Nat, Ray McGovern & CN
An excellent and very timely article by Ray McGovern. Lawlessness, greed, complete
subservience to Wall Street Finance and other Powers, insanity, and utter inhumanity prevails
in present day Ruling Establishment in Washington. Obama, "the hope and change" Con Artist
for whose election, being democrats we worked so hard in 2008 turned to be the biggest
perpetrator of this lawlessness and responsible for fanning the flames still further in
starting a new Cold War.
It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the
accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what
happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral
collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have
to just keep the fingers crossed.
Howard Dean just said yesterday that Nunes and people like him belong in jail. Now can you
believe it, how low these so called liberal democrats have come to? Looking at the pictures
of Adam Schiff, Howard Dean, and others in their company, I literally feel sick in the
stomach. And one asks the essential question: "did not their parents teach them any honesty
or moral principles in young age?".
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 3:54 pm
But what he said is very confusing. First he says that Congress has no way to prosecute the DOJ/FBI for wrong doing then at
the end he says Congress will need to prosecute the DOJ/FBI if necessary. Either Congress has the ability to prosecute the DOJ/FBI and issue indictments and set up
Grand Juries or they don't.
Somebody needs to find out, Constitutionally, what the solution is when the DOJ/FBI at the
highest levels become the criminals. WHO has the power to indict/convict these individuals??
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:36 pm
A special prosecutor (Mueller's position) is appointed by the Pres or AG.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 3:20 pm
From what I've heard expressed by a few FBI people, you don't come before a court, but a
judge, one person, and they are known to rubber stamp almost everything. So they should be
investigated too.
Realist , February 19, 2018 at 5:02 pm
I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even
against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if
they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the
man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the
moment of Clinton's loss at the polls.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in
fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points
about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in
foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing
system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to
pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. We would not know now what he actually wanted
to accomplish.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Yes, neither party nor the mass media shows concern for the Constitution or for the
people. As the propaganda agency, the mass media are primarily responsible. The
zionist/WallSt/MIC oligarchy have consolidated control over mass media, secret agencies, and
elections, but not without factions.
Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to
seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president
and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to
dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250
billion annually.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 11:09 am
Michael I hear ya. Yes, there is a civil war of sorts going on in DC, and yes it would be
a wonderful thing to rid our bureaucracy of all the slim that is in it, but taking Jiminy
Cricket's good advice to heart would be so much more fruitful to if you and I would only
sing;
'When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you"
Now that song will be stuck in my head all day .got any Journey? Joe
Coleen Rowley , February 19, 2018 at 3:27 pm
It's true that people generally do not care when bad practices, policies or violence is
inflicted on others and not on themselves. Of course that's stupid because it's just a matter
of time before "blowback" occurs (as the CIA euphemistically labeled how doing unto others
eventually boomerangs back on perpetrators). Going back to the Church Committee and how that
bit of accountability finally happened, it only got off the ground when Frank Church and
other Senators found THEMSELVES in the crosshairs of FBI Cointelpro; CIA's "CHAOS" and NSA's
"Minaret" surveillance.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documents-reveal-nsa-spied-on-senators/
(To this day, only 7 of the 1000 or so Americans targeted by the NSA during the Vietnam War
have been discovered but their identities are telling.)
The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were
sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over
there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls,
workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation
ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of
gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the
American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a
good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank
Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they
thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 4:50 pm
" the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches
into war zones"
"blowback" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, if you're referring specifically to
"post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes". Whenever
the incidents have had a political agenda attached, it's more often than not been of the
domestic right-wing variety. And of course, all of them have been facilitated by easy
civilian access to hardware that was originally developed by the military (ours and the
Soviets) to efficiently kill/incapacitate large numbers of enemy fighters.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:30 pm
BobS fails to understand that blowback encapsulates more than "revenge". "Forever war" and
all Colleen mentions that goes with it has had societal impact because violence is glorified
as a "solution" and feelings of suspicion and antagonism become part of the dark
undertow.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:54 pm
Well said, Colleen. Let us hope that Nunes is not merely acting the part. I wonder whether
the greatest secrets of domestic spying are now so compartmentalized and controlled that only
those most dependent upon their agency could blow the whistle.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm
This is not to be compared to spying on citizens, which is unacceptable, but they tried to
undermine a presidency, whether you like Trump or not, and at the same time it allowed them
to push their cold war agenda. I remember Clinton's campaign manager coming out right after
the e-mail dump that said the Russians did it. And didn't Obama send a lot of those Russian
ambassadors packing? They should be investigated, as should the FISA court itself. Perhaps if
Trump didn't have this charge of colluding with Russia he might have been able to be more
diplomatic on that score. Now, they made sure he would never be getting along with Russia.
What they have now is a bunch of Russians acting on their own that allegedly interfered in
our elections and created political discord, which is absurd, since the democrats are mainly
responsible for this nonsense, as is the FBI and DOJ. I was a democrat, but no more.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 4:52 pm
Annie, you are right on that. However, Coleen Rowely has also made some very good
observations in her comments. But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments
above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand.
Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues,
both parties are joined at the hip.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:42 pm
I wouldn't completely discount the idea that Nunes' sense of responsibility has been
activated by being a close witness to what is blatant wrongdoing. But then my cynicism is
still tempered by the belief that sometimes people are compelled to do what's right just
because it's what's right. Silly me.
Virginia , February 19, 2018 at 10:34 am
Me, too, Michael, to " dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military
budget to a 'mere' $250 billion annually."
Thanks to Ray McGovern for another good article with link to interview. Good to hear they
will finally be closing the Mueller investigation (Nunes was straightforward about that, no
there there) and will likely be investigating the FBI and DOJ.
Applause goes to David Nunes. Keep up the good work.
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 4:03 pm
But I see where Trump asked for nearly one TRILLION dollars for the military and got
it.
Pandas4peace , February 19, 2018 at 10:24 am
Where can we get access to Seymour Hersh's "recent explosive investigations" even if they
are written in German?
"On June 25th 2017 the German newspaper, Welt, published the latest piece by Seymour
Hersh, countering the "mainstream" narrative around the April 4th 2017 Khan Sheikhoun
chemical attack in Syria."
Consortiumnews.com publishes and comments on everything Pulitzer Prize winning Sy Hersh
does. The problem is that he is BANNED from English-language pubs -- simply banned and even
kept off erstwhile "liberal" TV and radio programs. Amy Goodman, for example, has ALWAYS had
Sy on when he had a new story until this one. She would not touch it; these days prefers to
go with the "White Helmets" of this world. O Tempora, O Mores. Sad.
So, in sum, the problem is a very basic one. Sy does not publish until he has nailed down
every significant detail and, since he is so well plugged in with many longtime, trusted
sources to sift through, that takes a while for a bit story -- as all of them are. And when
he is ready to publish, he hears folks whisper "Leper" as he gets close to an editorial
office. It really IS that bad. We owe the op-ed editor at die Welt our thanks.
Btw: The Consortiumnews.com main page has a SEARCH button that I find very handy. Try to
search on Seymour Hersh. Same goes for easily searchable raymcgovern.com, my website.
Ray
David Otness , February 19, 2018 at 5:37 pm
The London Review of Books has been publishing Hersh's work. That's one source.
The ostracizing of Sy Hersh is a major -- if highly depressing -- story in and of itself.
But he is irrepressible. I do not think he is going to silently steal away any time soon.
Ray McGovern
Kim Dixon , February 19, 2018 at 10:32 am
Can anyone imagine the Neocon WashPo, or the NYT (or CBS, or CNN, or ) committing actual
journalism, as this story progresses?
That, and the DNC's commitment to the DNC to the Russia Did It!™ canard, will ensure
that real revelations go nowhere.
It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments
are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep
State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!"
50s McCarthyites.
The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad
fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online
research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 1:01 pm
You got that right! I live in the 5 college area in Massachusetts. Plenty of those types
around here playing activists. They fit your description. I can't stand to be in the same
room with any of them. They may as well be from Mars.
Nancy , February 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
I agree. The average working person has more common sense than the so-called intelligent,
educated class. I suspect their views reflect the fact that they are very comfortable,
financially, with the status quo, and don't want any real change.
mike k , February 19, 2018 at 10:35 am
Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now.
Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who
hide behind governmental powers. When you allow people to do whatever they want in secret
with no oversight, you can expect them to abuse their power. The basic question all this
leads to is "who is running this country and making crucial decisions about war and peace, or
fascism and democracy"?
Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His
"constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together
from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I
would applaud anyone who makes the effort.
Thanks BobH, that's an excellent rant, thanks for passing it along.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:58 am
The only way any trail that Nunes could even begin to make magically appear to happen
before our weary eyes will happen only, and I say only, will appear because it will be good
for tv ratings. Enforcing Constitutional law, I mean who does that anymore? Why today in our
nation's capital we have congressional people asking the opposite of what Ben Franklin warned
us good citizens about as the swamp critters are saying, 'Constitution how can we lose it'.
You know this Ray that these crooks and crookettes in DC think that the U.S. Constitution is
so passé and so anciently colonial that they hear Jefferson saying, 'ignore this
stupid document, I was drunk with Adams and Franklin when I wrote it. It was all a big
mistake.' Or something like that, but Constitutional law we don't need no stink'n
Constitutional law, now get back to your part time work. (Whip cracking sound)
Hey Ray this whole fiasco does what is most important in this new American century, this
fiasco is entertaining and the ratings are going through the roof so with that what more
could a red blooded good American ask for now pass the tv remote.
Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the
election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says
there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what
we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for
which he says there is no evidence!
If we take Roberts' statement at face value, he may have inadvertenly mischaracterized
Rosenstein's statement. According to Roberts, Rosenstein said there is no evidence of an
effect on the election, but it does not follow from that that Rosenstein is saying that there
is no evidence of interference. There may have been "interference" that had no impact. And,
of course, there is the question, just what is meant by "interference" in this context?
I share the frustration many commenters have about the entire "Russiagate" narrative, but
I think it is important to be careful in how we evaluate these statements. It may all be a
"nothinburger," but it is important to describe things carefully and correctly. Otherwise,
one ends up inadvertently setting up a straw man for someone else to knock down.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:25 pm
I share the stress you do blimblax that you and all who stay on this Russia-Gate pay-ops
suffer, but the way this crooked nail investigation has been going, mostly distorted by the
press coverage, your argument about the interpretation of Rosenstein's words to the general
public will be like splitting hairs with bald people . they just won't get it, and why,
because I'm not sure the vast amount of Americans get it now. They got turned off along time
ago back when the FBI didn't produce Trump performing his much heard about Steele Dossier
acclaimed Water Sports in his Moscow Obama's Presidential Suite sick, yes, but it's the
truth. No pictures, no believe you.
Personally I have never doubted any Russian influence in the way of statements, or essays,
but this contribution of opinion is to be expected from any well thinking country, or nation
if you'd rather of the world. Plus the Russians spending wasn't even close to any real
fraction of what both U.S. Presidential candidate spend on their campaigns, get real.
In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it
well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher
security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to
deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then
Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential
office.
We could argue to how Trump,should be questioned, or even brought up on impeachment
charges, but not for this particular Russia interference into our so well guarded American
democracy. In fact we Americans don't need any Russian help at bringing our American
democracy down, because we Americans already did that with the Patriot Act as among a few
many other things. Joe
Somehow many Democrats are convinced that the FBI/DOJ did nothing wrong with regards to
the FISA warrants. And they're still convinced that Trump colluded with Putin. Nothing will
change their minds, it's hopeless.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm
It is indeed surreal to watch people who classify themselves as the left undermining the
left by supporting the very agencies whose sole purpose from their inception is to destroy
the left.
As David William Pear put it at OpEd News, "I don't think even Orwell has a scene like
this: anti-authoritarian dissidents endorse more authoritarian means to weed out
authoritarians resulting in authoritarians having more control to weed out dissidents."
The Deep State is very, very deep, and we're "Knee Deep in the Big Muddy" (Pete Seeger).
Anybody knows the US Deep State was thoroughly entrenched by Reagan's time. It's overdue not
to let this deep state corruption harden to concrete. I support neither party until there is
a course correction, and Nunes makes valid points in support of a correction. Thanks,
Ray.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 11:58 am
Thin skinned too, eh Ray?
You're right, of course- Russia analysts at the CIA did stellar work in the 1980s.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm
No BobS it's you with your thickhead that doesn't get it. Keep it up BobS, because
eventually you are going to say something funny. Take care. Joe
Will Nunes or any conservative go after the thousands of illegal acts perpetrated by
conservatives??? NO! Nunes, along with every conservative traitor in America (republican or
democrat) needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The conservative agenda is
not moral or constitutional.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Considering their disregard for law as well as their worship of authoritarianism
(exercised against the proper targets, of course), I'd say it's more than "self-enrichment"
that drives conservatives, both ancient and modern.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Perhaps that is an issue, but I am unclear precisely what is wrong in Nunes position that
he is relying on Gowdy, an undeniably sharp, precise, prosecutor, to review the examined
material. Watching both Nunes and Gowdy in sessions, I would have probably, and gladly, made
the same decision. It also make sense politically that they cover for each other, one person
is expendable and takes the heat – Nunes, while the other – Gowdy, an upward star
of the party, who probably ran the whole investigation anyway, keeps his hands clean.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 2:09 pm
The always partisan "upward star" Trey 'BENGHAZI!!!' Gowdy announced his retirement from
congress last month due to his being "sick of hyper-partisanship".
And let me show you this bridge I'm selling
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 2:32 pm
In fact, I would greatly enjoy a discussion on weapons transfers from Libya to Erdogan to
Al – Qaeda via Clinton. This is actually one of my favorite topics. So have it.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm
So what is your argument, that we should be loyal to our crime family and not theirs?
Or do you think Hillary, "We came, we saw, he died" or Mueller, of nothing to see here on
9/11 notoriety are the sort of people we should be defending.
Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have.
Why else are we in such a mess? Both GOP and Democrats have not served the people, so we
should therefore give up trying to address any abuse?
Antiwar7 , February 19, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in
return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle
out?
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 8:14 pm
So you are privy to the briefings in question. Just because Reagan bloated the military
budget doesn't mean he was being fed false intelligence by McGovern.
On the other hand, it is well publicized that Cheney twisted arms at Langley and Tenet
obliged and Rummy worked the Iraq angle as well. We also had the Downing Street Memo and the
Powell fiasco and Valerie Plame. Ray was right to be indignant.
While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has
begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the
Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the
memory hole. There's nothing like success
Drew Hunkins , February 19, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Good point Mr. Alatalo. The Saudi-Zio Terror Network gets away with murder, literally and
figuratively and of course the Saudi-Zio Terror Network NEVER, EVER interferes in ANY
elections in the United States, no never.
Thank you Paul E. Merrell, J.D. I have been convinced from the beginning of all of this
that this was the line to Wikileaks. Now if we could only get a real investigation into
Seth's murder.
Stop Bush and Clinton , February 19, 2018 at 7:34 pm
"We found that they broke a vast number of laws, did surveillance of a competitor with a
warrant based on fake evidence, all adding up to treason worse than Watergate. But we think
that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges .."
-- The FBI
Mueller was the person responsible for investigation of 911. That fact alone tells you all as for what we can
expect.
Notable quotes:
"... NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that Russia hacked the DNC ..."
"... There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin ..."
"... Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept) ..."
"... There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm ..."
"... Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber security ..."
"... Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy (and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War and maintaining U.S. global hegemony. ..."
"... Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss. ..."
"... How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup, kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the media never mentions. ..."
"... Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the party. ..."
"... That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the earth's environment. ..."
"... It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House. Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful idiots". ..."
"... This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary. ..."
"... I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe. ..."
"... tweet by Peter Van Buren, former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally. ..."
"... BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats. ..."
"... Seems that the end justifies the means. No matter what is the truth. In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered their computers for FBI forensics. ..."
"... The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for corporate media. ..."
"... It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT. ..."
"... So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining. ..."
"... Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"? ..."
"... Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House. ..."
"... You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia, don't you? ..."
"... Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely since Gorbachev. Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure in their bad state. ..."
NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that
Russia hacked the DNC
There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the
Kremlin
Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the
extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective
Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake
anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept)
There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently
indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm
Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being
promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is
acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber
security
Read number six again and think about it. The U.S. is ready and willing to launch a
preemptive nuclear attack against any nation it accuses of undermining our cyber security -
no proof necessary. The Democratic establishment, which has spent the past year engaging in
baseless Kremlin-baiting (and very little else), is directly responsible for this
insanity.
Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing
but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy
(and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War
and maintaining U.S. global hegemony.
Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among
Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon
warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and
the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm
Who gives a shit really?
How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup,
kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the
media never mentions.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:12 am
As I open the online edition of The Nation this morning, there are two lead stories. One
of them tells how Trump is planning to evict 5 million poor people from public housing. A
very important story.
The second story by Bob Dreyfuss is probably the 10,000th one I've seen about the Russia
probe. The public housing story is obviously much more important and substantial, yet the
Democrats have been focusing almost exclusively on the flimsy Russia probe. Not even the
pressing need to regulate assault rifles has really grabbed their full attention, even in the
wake of the latest dreadful Florida high school massacre. In perusing the news stories this
Sunday morning, the Russia probe continues to hold first place in coverage by a big
margin.
Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant
Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary
really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the
party.
That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no
importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real
atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the
earth's environment.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 9:52 am
Amen, Caleb It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House.
Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful
idiots".
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:33 pm
This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:42 am
I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat
Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged
against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 8:24 am
FYI tweet by Peter Van Buren,
former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections
between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the
impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but
nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC,
Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything
anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians,
and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm
There is nothing illegal or unethical about any individual of government supporting one
candidate over another. BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 19, 2018 at 9:02 am
Seems that the end justifies the means.
No matter what is the truth.
In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered
their computers for FBI forensics.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm
The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for
corporate media.
Richard Phelps says: February 18, 2018 at 2:52 am
There is one issue that no media is talking about regarding the "memos". Trump is clearly
a "person of interest", if not a suspect in some parts of the investigation. Given Trump's
entanglement how is it not an absolute conflict of interest for Trump being the person who
decides what memos get to be public and what redactions must be made.
Imagine a judge being a suspect in a crime or a major stockholder in a corporate civil
suit. S/he would never be allowed to make any rulings on what evidence the jury gets to see
or anything about the case. Some non-interested 3rd party needs to make those decisions.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Quit feeding this beast.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
The other interesting and fun fact not mentioned anywhere. Three Names won by 3 million
votes. Crafty Ruskis.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This investigation by Mueller is just beginning. In other words, and to use the
vernacular, "We "ain't seen nothing," yet."
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm
You are right. This is nothing but bullshit and it may be just the beginning. The
Democrats have an endless supply of donkey-shit.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three
Names before Trump even announced he was running. The basic set up for this was going on in
2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 10:28 am
Since when have you been so trusting of our FBI & CIA, Carla?
From what we've experienced together from the Gulf of Tonkin onward, I'm a wee-tad taken
aback.
Please read the ex-foreign intelligence officer's twitter posting that I posted above.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up
organizations to do stuff just on the off chance that some politician or wannabe is going to
run. These guys ain't got nothin'. It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he
got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was
not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media
posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be
true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign
parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising
from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a
nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted
various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the
murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented
in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling
dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose
sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI
can convincingly prove that the Russian government
armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group
that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm
You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia,
don't you?
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard
tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever
Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 10:13 am
Yes David, I'm still a skeptic.
In fact, I think this move to indict 13 suspects, that have a snowball in Hell's chance of
ever being tried, is simply a dog and pony show to placate the public.
Debrief yourself, read Binney's report and listen to Stephen F Cohen's latest, here on the
Nation.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely
since Gorbachev.
Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to
an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure
in their bad state.
As if Hill, who stole the primaries actually ran a competent campaign.
The original piece is about an internet marketing scheme that is supposed to have influenced
U.S. elections. It is thus amusing that the retweeting bots are part of an internet marketing
scheme that is supposed to influence U.S. elections.
But why do they use the line "Omg. Fish is priceless"?
1. The first retweet shown above, which introduced the 'fish' line, is from a real person.
Debbie Lusigman, the @saneprogessive , who has her own video channel
with lots of legit content. The other tweets though are copies (not regular retweets) of the
first retweet.
(h/t
oldandyoung and
integer )
2. The other personalities are likely bots that may well be run by one Scott Dworkin , a grifter who runs the
fundraising campaign Democratic Coalition and channels most of
the funds to a company he owns. Geoff Miamifound the connection and
reported on it at Progressive Army .
(h/t
Demeter )
Posted by b on February 19, 2018 at 07:36 AM | Permalink
@saneprogressive is a real account; the rest appear to be bots. The bots RT some posts and
appropriate others as their own. For instance, another one of @saneprogressives posts was
also posted by @SenWarren2020 as its own yesterday. These are simple bots that attach
themselves to certain accounts that have been deemed to be in the right ideological sphere,
one suspects.
I know those bots. @GeoffMiami has called them
out as accounts controlled by Scott Dowrkin (@funder) and his "resistance organization" The
Dem Coalition (@TheDemCoalition). "They hope to grift off Bernie supporters by using
Bernie-themed bot accounts to push their propaganda."
Dworkin's Super PAC promotes fear through a repeating cycle of Russian-based propaganda,
which garners donations, which pay consultants that generate those stories over and over
again, garnering yet more donations. As to what purpose his Super PAC actually serves, it
appears to be little more than a Möbius strip of self-serving opportunism.
@Bobby Mueller @6
"because they are not re-tweeting your post from MOA - they are re-tweeting
@saneprogressive's re-tweet of your MOA post."
No - the 2nd to 8th account are not "retweeting" the 1st. They copied and reposted its
content.
If those were legit one click "retweets" a la normal Twitter it would says so (XYZ retweeted
ABC) and lock different. The form they used as shown above would require several clicks to 1.
go to my original tweet, 2. retweet that with comment, 3. type (or copy) the fish line, 4.
send.
I am not sure that I have taken enough of the right drugs but here goes
1. The retweets are secret messages from "saneprogressive" that bots are trained to
retweet so others know to read your posting as it is priceless
2. The retweets are NSA manipulation to deprecate and make light of your posting by making
it unserious
3. Twitter/NSA has developed bots behind the scene to manipulate public focus and it is
just coming out of Beta testing
4. Some blogs have weekly cat pictures but this is clear evidence that MoA needs to have
at least weekly sock puppet pictures.
5. All this focus on sock puppets and fish on America's president's day is unpatriotic and
taking focus away from the current president's tweets which cannot be tolerated.
6. If this fish is so priceless, why is it stealing focus from humanity's more pressing
problems like determining if this persons G in OMG is the same as that persons G in their
OMG
It is just at freezing in Portland OR with a light dusting of snow from last night on all
but the roads and the sun is shining.....Happy day/life to all!
I updated the piece above with the information provided by oldandyoung, integer, and
Demeter.
Thanks folks!
Sebastian Dangerfield , Feb 19, 2018 1:57:44 PM |
30
This is an absolutely hilarious illustration of your argument. While I don't think the
argument that the Internet Research Agency was a marketing endeavor is conclusive, it
certainly is a compelling explanation, especially given the ridiculous nature of the content
that it produced. It's like everyone simply ignored the fact that there are gazillions of
these click-harvesting schemes and that the 2016 election, being a perpetual internet outrage
machine, was especially fertile ground for them. They all (probably deliberately) ignored the
reporting about, say, the Macedonian bullshit farm, which was generating mostly pro-Trump
posts in order to harvest clicks.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.ynwo9nn2#.rvBVyoo3
The sock puppet does look a bit like a fish and maybe Debbie Lusignan saw a pun in there that
is lost on the bots retweeting her Tweet.
"Fish" is good for "fishing" and "phishing" = collecting clicks (and possibly personal
information attached to metadata generated by clicks) to forward on to third parties willing
to pay for that information.
I have been tweeting your article, not the fish picture, frequently, as I am tired of even
supporters of Trump spouting a false narrative. #IamnotaRussianbot or bot of any sort, just a
human who wants to pass on the excellent info you wrote. I hope it gets new followers to your
blog!
I've been following Debbie Lusignan since early in the 2015/2016 Primaries. She was a Bernie
supporter who documented the election fraud better than any other source. She has since come
to see Bernie as a sell-out at least, if not a sheep dog from the start. And her focus since
has been on discarding the "right/left paradigm" and joining in common causes against the
global, plutocratic, warmongering powers.
I've posted links to MoA articles on her sites several times, so maybe her following b is
my fault. ;-)
The fact that Mueller politicized the action of Russian Internet scammers (who are at best petty criminals) suggest that
he has nothing more significant to offer hungry US Russophobes.
At this point Mueller turned his investigation into pure political propaganda
Notable quotes:
"... My impression has been that the "fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing opinions. ..."
"... information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again. ..."
"... Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA 'get Russia' monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack. ..."
"... This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire "Russians done it" meme. Let's not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco LIES ..."
"... "U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General." When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in political activities within the United States? ..."
"... It's even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can get advertisers to purchase ads. ..."
"... The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, 'lying press', I hope a similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon. In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV. ..."
"... How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most people to understand, but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political, and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered, control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack okay. He's / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney! ..."
"... It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said that he's being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his "service" and that he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in order to act as Special Counsel. ..."
"... This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid? ..."
"... Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton. ..."
"... Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin? ..."
Robert Mueller's Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to
divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley
"criminal referral") which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in
an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump
campaign. The evidence that the FBI and DOJ "improperly obtained" FISA warrants to spy on Trump
campaign affiliate, Carter Page, has now been overshadowed by the tragic massacre in Parkland,
Florida and the obfuscating indictments of 13 Internet "trolls" who have not been linked to the
Russian government and who are being used to conceal the fact that the 18 month-long witch hunt
has not yet produced even one scintilla of hard evidence related to the original claims of
"hacking or collusion".
Think about what's Mueller is really up to: He's not just moving the goalposts, he's loading
them onto a spaceship and putting them on another planet. Where's the evidence that Russia
hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where's the proof that members of the Trump
campaign colluded with Russia? That's what we want to know, not whether some goofy Russian
troll was spreading false information on Facebook. That has nothing to do with the original
charges. It's just politically-motivated gibberish that proves Mueller has nothing to support
his case. After a full year, the investigation has failed to produce anything but a big goose
egg.
According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls "posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates" and its "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Clinton."
Big whoop. If people are so malleable that they can be brainwashed by some suggestive
posting on Facebook, then maybe we should abandon democracy altogether. But that's not what
this is really about, is it? Because if it was, Mueller would have posted the contents of those
nefarious Russian comments in the indictment WHICH HE DIDN'T because he knows it's all
obfuscating bullsh** designed to make the sheeple think evil Putin is dabbling in our precious
elections.
Oh, and here's a little tidbit the MSM managed to overlook in their typically-hysterical
coverage. This is from journalist Alexander Mercouris at the pro-Russia website, The Duran: (If
you think your delicate mind might be brainwashed by Russian propaganda, please, shield your
eyes!)
"The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost
universally overlooked in all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes no
claim that the Russian government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the
persons indicted.
Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian
government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the
indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian
government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf ." (The Duran, Alexander
Mercouris)
No Ruskis involved? But how can that be? We were assured that diabolical Russia is behind
everything bad that happens in America. Has evil Putin been sleeping on the job??
Yes, it's true that the Internet Research Agency, LLC, is in fact located in St. Petersburg
but–as yet–there is no known connection between the company and the government.
And, if there was, you can bet that Mueller would have exploited it for all it's worth.
By the way, Mueller's presumption that the hackers were trying to influence the election, is
just that, a presumption. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is mere speculation like the
rest of the claptrap he's come up with. The more reasonable explanation is that the hackers
were trying to make a little dough on "pageviews or clicks" rather than trying to persuade
voters to vote for one candidate or the other. Here's more from the indictment:
" Defendants and their co-conspirators began to track and study groups on U.S. social
media sites dedicated to U.S. politics and social issues. In order to gauge the performance
of various groups on social media sites, the organization tracked certain metrics like the
group's size, the frequency of content placed by the group, and the level of audience
engagement with that content, such as the average number of comments or responses to a
post."
WTF! Isn't this what everyone is doing, including the Intel agencies, advertisers, media and
corporations? So now it's a crime? Give me a break!
Here's a blurb from the comments-line at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
"The "conspiracy" started in 2014, and cost a whopping $1.2 MILLION, which includes
salaries, tech support, and bonuses. The indictment includes info that the Russians ran ads
supporting Black Lives Matter, Muslims, Jill Stein, Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. They also
organized rallies in support of, and in opposition to Trump and Hillary Clinton. They
continued their activities up into 2017, still organizing pro-Clinton and pro-Trump rallies.
At one point, the indictment says that the Russians ran an ad that reached 59,000 people,
which is laughable, people with a camera in their kitchen get more views than that.
Essentially, after about 1.5 years of investigating "Russian collusion" this is all they've
come up with." –London Bob, Sic Semper Tyrannis
And here's more from the indictment:
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial
disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of
any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without
first registering with the Attorney General."
This is mind-numbingly stupid. Does Mueller really think he can cobble together a case
against 13 foreign-born defendants based on the thin gruel of Russian support for "Black Lives
Matter, Jill Stein and Donald Trump?" Good luck with that, Bob.
Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summarizes how absurd the indictments are in a Friday
article tiled "The Result of Mueller's Investigation: Nothing":
"How did the 13 Russians go about sowing discord? Are you ready for this? They held
political rallies posing as Americans and they paid one person (unidentified) to build a cage
aboard a flatbed pickup truck and another person to wear a costume portraying Hillary in
prison clothes ."
The whole thing is ridiculous and anyone with half a brain knows it's ridiculous. The only
reason this fiasco continues to drag on, is because the mandarins in the US National Security
State run everything in America and they've decided that they can invent whatever reality suits
their foreign policy agenda and the rest of us will simply accept it in silence or be denounced
as "Putin apologists" or "Kremlin stooges". Fortunately, facts and reason appear to be getting
the upper hand which why the deep state powerbrokers are getting so desperate. They're now
genuinely concerned about what might "come out" and who might be exposed.
Do the names John Brennan or Barack Obama ring a bell?
Indeed. I'm sure both names would factor quite large in any seriously impartial and thorough
investigation of the Russiagate conspiracy.
One last thing for all you supporters of Donald Trump. I suggest you carefully examine his
latest tweet on the topic. Here it is:
"Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run
for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing
wrong – no collusion!" Donald Trump, Twitter
As I expected, Trump is going to save his own skin, but allow the "Bigger Lie" to persist.
It looks to me that Trump may have cut a deal with his deep state antagonists to support their
spurious claims of Russian meddling as long as they exonerate him on the charges of collusion.
That means, he will NOT use his power as President to try to uncover the roots of Russia-gate
fabrication. (that would probably expose the former Directors of the CIA and NSA and, perhaps,
even the former president of the United States, who likely gave Brennan the greenlight to set
the wheels in motion.) All of these suspects will go uninvestigated, unindicted, and unpunished
just like the perpetrators of the Iraq War, just like the perpetrators of the Financial
Meltdown, and just like the perpetrators of all the major crimes against the American people.
As always, it is complete and total immunity for Parasite Class while the rest of us have to
play by the rules. But you probably already knew that.
Trump will get off the hook while the rest of us languish in permanent ignorance of how the
shadow government really works. You heard it first here.
After all of the concern expressed in the abstract I'd like to see some concrete examples of
the material used to change opinions of American voters. My impression has been that the
"fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating
money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing
opinions.
In any event, in this new environment – absent some form of censorship as
with authoritarian states – any interested party such as a foreign government may
introduce anonymously, by way of levels of remove, political content intended to change
opinion. Of course, information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered
harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the
electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful
number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple
digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we
need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again.
Now, if this Mueller investigation would set out anew with a determination to find some
Russian government involvement in fomenting the red hot molten lava of Identity Politics
bubbling out of our universities – the obscene notion that a "patriarchy" of white
males, acting as some kind of an informal fraternity in favoring themselves in the economy to
the detriment of the outsiders, needs to get taken down in status in order to make America
great – then they'd be cooking with gas toward the concern of harming the bonds of our
civil union.
Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA 'get Russia'
monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack.
White House blames Russia for 'reckless' NotPetya cyber attack
3 days ago – WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) – The White House on Thursday blamed
Russia for the devastating 'NotPetya' cyber attack last year , joining the British
government in condemning Moscow for unleashing a virus that crippled parts of Ukraine's
infrastructure and damaged computers in countries across the
Best advice for Americans believe nothing, trust nothing that issues from a
government.
The experts:
John McAfee, founder of an anti-virus firm, said:
"When the FBI or when any other agency says the Russians did it or the Chinese did something
or the Iranians did something – that's a fallacy," said McAfee.
"Any hacker capable of breaking into something is extraordinarily capable of hiding their
tracks. If I were the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it I would
use Russian language within the code. "I would use Russian techniques of breaking into
organisations so there is simply no way to assign a source for any attack – this is a
fallacy."
I can promise you – if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you
it was not the Russians."
Wikileaks has released a number of CIA cyber tools it had obtained. These included
software specifically designed to create false attributions.
Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special
prosecutor's known history is framing people for crimes they didn't commit, sandbagging &
sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking,
protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the
perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent
person wouldn't give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat's ass level of sympathy for,
'special' counsel Robert Mueller. The real question is, why the Boyd Cathy and Mike Whitney
types don't go after these guys at the level the deserve; pointing to their established
international criminal mafioso (read intelligence agency) crimes sprees and history of
impunity:
From a different Anonymous ..Mr. Whitney I can see the point of Donald Trump doing the kind
of deal you suggest if there was enough for him to fear as you suggest but do not
demonstrate. Why shouldn't we believe that it's all over, the indictments show there's
nothing to be concrrned about?
Before your suggestion of the deal I had already concluded that you had not made a case
against the indictments. Are you in fact willing to say that they should not have been
instituted? If so, why?
Are they so completely hopeless in law, or as a matter of practicality in terms of their
ever being got to court that it is an abuse if Mueller's position to support them? And if, as
seems likely, nothing will come of them (certainly Russia won't help with extradition), is
there not a case for using these indictments to clear the air on the law and, possibly, by
the courts throwing the cases out on weakness of the matters of fact alleged? Could there
even be a Machiavellian desire to have arguments put which would embarrass the Israel
Lobby?
This should not be allowed either. CNN . 'Israel has 200,000 eligible American voters, according to the non-partisan organization
IVoteIsrael, which registers American Israelis to vote.
Mike Whitney. Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though
US law appears to make what was done illegal? If so, why?
Could Mueller be justified by thinking it could help to sort out a bad law, especially if
lawyers appear for the named defendants and move for the dismissal of the case on the facts
alleged. Or, as has also been suggested, ia this a move which might allow the defendant's
case to embarrass the Lobby? Would Mueller or the FBI be upset by that.
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
"Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American
propaganda
"Jeff Jarvis: Washington shows the morals of a clumsy spammer"
This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire "Russians done it" meme.
Let's not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco
LIES.
Nor is it, per se, about Trump. This is about State &political actors using State
agencies & the MSM to prevent/ bring down an elected president. Its a plain unadorned
assault on what's left of US democracy. (The fact that the vast majority of DNC voters can't
-- WONT see this demonstrates how successful Elites have been in morally &
psychologically corrupting the US public.
How many BIG LIE narratives can a State take ? Or do we just whistle & say " oh, but we
live in a post truth age" as if that's not somehow morally equivalent to being a Moloch
worshipper out for sunny day icecream.
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements
for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign
entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first
registering with the Attorney General."
When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we
going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in
political activities within the United States?
Law enforcement of course doesn't bring every case which meets the definition of a crime.
If it did, nearly everyone would be involved in the criminal justice system.
Discretion is used. And here, the evidence points directly to Mueller's discretion being
used to protect the asses of the FBI and security state.
This indictment will not see the light of day. It's a bit like declaring faux victory in
Iraq and leaving (what should have been done in that case). No lawyer will have the
opportunity to refute th bull shit.
This is also why Meuller just indicted Gates, to strengthen the Manafort case. The only
thing of note that will come out of this debacle of an investigation. He's giving up on
Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.
This is all nonsense, The very idea that Trump, or Clinton is being attacked by the FBI or
CIA, or "Deep State", while doing exactly what he was hired to do, is ludicrous.
Trump is a PRODUCT, just like Obama, and Clinton, all paid whores of the Zionist money
machine.
The CIA and FBI are merely players in this game of distraction. The whole Russia gate BS
was a cleaver rouse to further Zionists goals: Distract Americans from the real foreign
interference by Zionist Jews, and to further demonize Christian Russia to the left, opening
up the support for war with Russia.
Washington, Trump, Congress all lie, the media all lies, yet time and time again I see
their lies playing as truth. Are you just stupid or part of the problem? Nothing comes form
any of this, just distraction and divide and conquer. Trump continues to ACT like an Israeli
firster while he TALKS about Ameirca first, and idiots keep focusing on his words and NOT HIS
ACTIONS!
Trump ran on anti-immigration, building a wall, and getting out of conflicts. Yet, Trump is pushing for AMNESTY FOR DREAMERS, is building no wall, and is pushing
conflict in the Middle East. Seems to me, this should be the ONLY topics of conversation. Trump is a wolf in sheep's
clothing, a Zionist traitor, and these FBI/Russia/Clinton back and forth accusations are just
the Zionist Jews giving Trump cover.
This is all theater, the Zionists rule DC, 9/11 was the culmination of their control over
DC, and now they play is like a Hollywood movie, full of intrigue and misdirection. None of
this amounts to anything, yet, time and again it is front page news, while TRUMP's TREASON,
HIS AMNESTY GO IGNORED???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems there is very little Zionist money cannot buy
Does the writer want us to believe that a bunch of private Russians, with no connection to
the government, decided for their own amusement to spend millions of dollars to play games
with American voters' heads?
It's even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one
of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are
for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the
post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can
get advertisers to purchase ads.
I think and hope that USA citizens have not lost their minds, but are using it, maybe just
for the second time.
The first time then was when the USA refused to ratify Versailles, after USA citizens had
discovered that their sons had die overseas for JP Morgan and British imperialism.
The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, 'lying press', I hope a
similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon.
In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV.
Here in the Netherlands our Minister of Foreign Affairs Halbe Zijlstra had to resign after
the newspaper Volkskrant, in very unusual opening a can of worms, publicised that Zijlstra
never had been in Putin's dacha where Putin had explained what 'greater Russia' was:
including White Russia, Ukraine, Baltic states and Khazakstan.
USA press, this time hitting the mark, called him 'the lying Dutchman'.
Zijlstra's friend, prime minister Rutte, already for years has the nickname Pinochio, his
lies are well known.
Rutte must have known that Zijlstra lied at his party's congress, VVD, in 2016.
A poll now seems to show that more than half the Dutch have had enough with Rutte.
This seems to be the era in which nothing is trusted any more, politicians, media,
experts, and so on.
For me one of the greatest nations on this earth is small insignificant Denmark.
It does not wage wars far from home, it does not allow foreigners to buy houses or land, it
has an excellent pension system and social security system, and an excellent health care
system.
It does not welcome large numbers of migrants, has a very low crime rate.
There may be very rich Danes, but they do not display their wealth.
The only thing I blame Denmark for is the oversized and luxurious post offices.
The country side is not impressive, nor what farmers produce, sugar beets.
And so the Danes are the happiest people on earth, surveys conclude.
"According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls "posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates" and its "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Clinton."
This is straight out of the Stalin and/or Mao playbook: those people thought bad thoughts
and said some things that did not support us, which proves they are EVIL and must be
destroyed for the good of all.
Jewish money 'bought' Oliver Cromwell, the chief epitome of WASP culture, not because it
was an impossible offer to resist, but because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judiaizing
heresy, and Cromwell naturally saw Jews as the best allies for WASPs.
You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.
Good article and thank you for keeping your presentation a reasonable length. Unreasonable
length is a problem for many authors and preachers!
The Florida school massacre, can be orchestrated by simply ignoring significant warnings. For
instance, a rogue FBI leadership intentionally ignores warnings from many different locations
on the likely danger, and just waits for it to happen. When it does happen the rogue FBI cell
can claim plausible deniability, claiming incompetence or stupidity, instead of intention.
Then tens of millions of Americans are distracted from recently released information exposing
the rogue FBI cell.
How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most people to understand,
but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of
most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political,
and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered,
control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack
okay. He's / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they
took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney!
It's wide open, your packets are shooting all over the place, nice n' secure. Hail
Fatherland Security! When you read propaganda, they know all about you and what you're
reading in advance. Us, them, Russians – to the farm junior!
It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism
suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said
that he's being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his "service" and that
he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in
order to act as Special Counsel.
Still, the total cost of his exploration has been over $6.5 million so far. This, I would
have to guess, is all in legal costs, fees paid to attorneys he has selected to do the
investigative work. That amount of money is in excess of what he is supposedly giving up in
order to conduct this investigation.
Looking at his motivation from this angle, it would make sense that a lawyer, especially a
greedy, power hungry lawyer, would set up a system of kickbacks for attorneys he appoints to
do the work. Mueller may be suspected of ensuring himself an equal income to what he is
supposed to have given up.
Any time his fishing trip comes under fire for failing to catch any fish big enough for a
meal, he issues indictments. This time he has indicted some foreign nationals who will
probably never even be arrested, let alone prosecuted. Still, he's allowed to keep
fishing.
All true. Good comment. Also, Denmark appears to have a genetic advantage when it comes to
happiness, its lousy weather notwithstanding! See "National Happiness and Genetic Distance: A
Cautious Exploration," by
Eugenio Proto and Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick.
Abstract
This paper studies a famous unsolved puzzle in quantitative social science. Why do
some nations report such high levels of mental well-being? Denmark, for instance,
regularly tops the league table of rich countries' happiness; Britain and the US enter
further down; some nations do unexpectedly poorly. The explanation for the long observed
ranking -- one that holds after adjustment for GDP and other socioeconomic
variables -- is currently unknown. Using data on 131 countries, the paper cautiously
explores a new approach. It documents three forms of evidence consistent with the
hypothesis that some nations may have a genetic advantage in well-being.
Anon from TN
People who generated lies have vested interest in perpetuating them. They will gladly use new
lies to "confirm" the old ones. Even Trump figured that the red herring of Russian
interference in the elections made the US a laughing stock in Russia. That's an
understatement, though: this red herring made the US a laughing stock of 90% of the world
population (the remaining 10% have no sense of humor).
Where are the indictments of the foreign nationals in California, who openly attacked Trump
supporters in San Jose? They attempted to affect the election through criminal assaults and
batteries, much more than a simple Facebook post. This is the newly unveiled America, the
citizens are not running anything, we are bought and paid for by interests that Gen.
Washington would have deemed treasonous.
How do US Courts have jurisdiction to prosecute speech originating in another country?
If is was said here out in public, fine, but saying something on the internet in another
country does not seem to be prosecutable. Some countries have speech laws, and I would hate
to find myself in their court system for something I say here that violates their deal.
Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law
appears to make what was done illegal?
This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free
speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US
politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do
something so obviously stupid?
Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the
king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To
my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with
'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of
people are daily breaking the 'law' – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump.
During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who
expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.
Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington
going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if
Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?
More seriously. The Russkies, e.g. Zakharova and Lavrov have said that the USA has gone
mad, is in the grip of a crazed delusional hysteria (or words to that effect.) Why the
hype?
Are we to see all this nonsense as merely an internal US matter, with the Dems planning
an attack on Trump before he was elected, and subsequently promoting Russia as a blanket
external enemy - as they can't accuse the Republicans, Banks or Big Corps, need an outside
bogey, though they have post hoc also blamed the electorate, not smart.
Neatly fitting with that Trump did propose 'good' ( ) relations with Russia, in an attempt
to actually conserve some, or even a major part, of US hegemony in the new 'multipolar'
world. (Trump wanted to control and 'annex' the weaker partner, not a bad calculation.)
>> Russia is merely a mythical figure, breathing fire and red-clawed, in the wings,
invisible, serving as a prop for the major contestants.
Naturally, ordinary US citizens are of no account beyond their role as potentially duped
followers, adherents, minions, serfs, ciphers on a page, etc. Influencing opinion(s) the most
efficiently is part of the competition, actualised through media, TV, internet, etc. etc.
The USA is *for real* gearing up for a meltdown war, against Russia in first place, and
all the Media hype is aimed at getting US, NATO citizens to support it, or at least sleep in
front of the TV and not object, and/or be controlled by various entities. The US PTB will
never accept its loss of power/status and will destroy the world in a nukulear storm before
it gives up.
"... The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative. ..."
"... They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly, or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration. ..."
"... This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice. ..."
Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous
comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In response, Dotcom tweeted " Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know
this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him
twice. He never replied. 360 pounds! " alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.
Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined
that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that
the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.
John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a
phishing scam
) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according
to the
Washington Post.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"
Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:
"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared
to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.
If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made.
I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the
United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements.
In the meantime, I will make no further comment."
Dotcom knew.
While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets
hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a
website known as "DCLeaks."
In a May 14, 2015
Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016 ": "I have to say it's
probably more Julian," who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. " But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks
for her ."
Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:
Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question
Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on
the internet who's going to jail?"
It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should
be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in
my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. "
The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything
they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of
the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative.
Meanwhile they keep enacting the most Pro Deep State/MIC/Police State/Zionist/Wall Street agenda possible. And they call it
#winning
"Had to be a Russian mole with a computer stick. MSM, DNC and Muller say so."
They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center
or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly,
or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration.
This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up
to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice.
Kim is great, Assange is great. Kim is playing a double game. He wants immunity from the US GUmmint overreach that destroyed
his company and made him a prisoner in NZ.
Good on ya Kim.
His name was Seth Rich...and he will reach out from the grave and bury Killary who murdered him.
There are so many nuances to this and all are getting mentioned but the one that also stands out is that in an age of demands
for gun control by the Dems, Seth Rich is never, ever mentioned. He should be the poster child for gun control. Young man, draped
in a American flag, helping democracy, gunned down...it writes itself.
They either are afraid of the possible racial issues should it turn out to be a black man killing a white man (but why should
that matter in a gun control debate?) or they just don't want people looking at this case. I go for #2.
Funny that George Webb can figure it out, but Trump, Leader of the Free World, is sitting there with his dick in his hand waiting
for someone to save him.
Whatever he might turn out to be, this much is clear: Trump is a spineless weakling. He might be able to fuck starlets, but
he hasn't got the balls to defend either himself or the Republic.
Webb's research is also...managed. But a lot of it was/is really good (don't follow it anymore) and I agree re: SR piece of
it.
I think SR is such an interesting case. It's not really an anomaly because SO many Bush-CFR-related hits end the same way and
his had typical signatures. But his also squeels of a job done w/out much prior planning because I think SR surprised everyone.
If, in fact, that was when he was killed. Everything regarding the family's demeanor suggests no.
MANY patterns in shootings: failure in law enforcement/intelligence who were notified of problem individuals ahead of time,
ARs, mental health and SSRIs, and ongoing resistance to gun control in DC ----these are NOT coincidences. Nor are distractions
in MSM's version of events w/ controlled propaganda.
Children will stop being killed when America wakes the
fuck up and starts asking the right questions, making the right demands. It's time.
I don't think you know how these hackers have nearly ALL been intercepted by CIA--for decades now. DS has had backdoor access
to just about all of them. I agree that Kim is great, brilliant and was sabotaged but he's also cooperating. Otherwise he'd be
dead.
Bes is either "disinfo plant" or energy draining pessimist. Result is the same - to deflate your power to create a new future.
Trump saw the goal of the Fed Reserve banksters decades ago and spoke often about it. Like Prez Kennedy he wants to return
USA economy to silver or gold backed dollar then transition to new system away from the Black Magic fed reserve/ tax natl debt
machine.
The Globalist Cabal has been working to destroy the US economy ever since they income tax April 15th Lincoln at the Ford theater.
125 years. But Bes claims because Trump cannot reverse 125 years of history in one year that it is kabuki.
"... Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials, and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone connections. ..."
"... Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices. ..."
"... Through the Looking Glass, ..."
"... The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the phones and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people with an active civil stance. ..."
"... Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According to Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai business from the start. ..."
"... Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason. Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. ..."
"... Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted list. ..."
The alleged leader of the Anonymous International hacker group, also known as
Shaltai-Boltai, has been arrested along with important officials in the security services who
collaborated with the group. For several years Shaltai-Boltai terrorized state officials,
businessmen and media figures by hacking their emails and telephones, and threatening to post
their private information online unless blackmail payments were made. "The price tag for our
work starts at several tens of thousands of dollars, and I am not going to talk about the upper
limit," said a man who calls himself Lewis during an interview with the news website,
Meduza ,
in January 2015.
Lewis, whose name pays hommage to the author Lewis Carroll, is the leader of Anonymous
International, the hacker group specializing in hacking the accounts of officials and
businessmen. Another name for Anonymous International is
Shaltai-Boltai, Russian for "Humpty-Dumpty."
Several years ago Lewis and his colleagues prospered thanks to extortion. They offered their
victims the chance to pay a handsome price to buy back their personal information that had been
stolen. Otherwise their information would be sold to third persons and even posted online. In
the end, Russian law-enforcement tracked down Lewis, and in November he was arrested and
now awaits trial . His real
name is Vladimir Anikeyev.
Shaltai-Boltai's founding father
"One's own success is good but other people's failure is not bad either," said the profile
quote on Vladimir Anikeyev's page on VKontakte , Russia's most popular social network.
Vladimir Anikeyev / Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Rosbalt news website said that in the 1990s Lewis worked as a journalist in St. Petersburg
and specialized in collecting information through various methods, including dubious ones. "He
could go for a drink with someone or have an affair with someone's secretary or bribe people,"
Rosbalt's
source said.
In the 2000s Anikeyev switched to collecting kompromat (compromising material).
Using his connections, he would find the personal email addresses of officials and
entrepreneurs and break into them using hackers in St. Petersburg, and then blackmail the
victims. They had to pay to prevent their personal information from ending up on the
Internet.
Fake Wi-Fi
Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new
techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials,
and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone
connections.
Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the
hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices.
In the beginning Anikeyev was personally involved in the theft of information but later he
created a network of agents.
The business grew quickly; enormous amounts of information were at Anikeyev's disposal that
had to be sorted and selected for suitability as material for blackmail. In the end, according
to Rosbalt, Anonymous International arose as a handy tool for downloading the obtained
information.
Trying to change the world
The second name of the group refers to the works of Lewis Carroll, according to Shaltai-Boltai members. The crazy world of
Through the Looking Glass, with its inverted logic, is the most apt metaphor for
Russian political life. Apart from Lewis Anikeyev, the team has several other members: Alice;
Shaltai, Boltai (these two acted as press secretaries, and as a result of a mix-up, the media
started calling the whole project, Shaltai-Boltai); and several others, including
"technicians," or specialist hackers.
The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the
phones and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to
Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to
pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people
with an active civil stance.
"We can be called campaigners. We are trying to change the world. To change it for the
better," Shaltai told the Apparat website. In interviews members of the group
repeatedly complained about Russian officials who restricted Internet freedom, the country's
foreign policy and barriers to participation in elections.
Hacker exploits
Shaltai-Boltai's most notorious hack was of an explicitly political nature and not about
making money. It hacked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's Twitter account. On Aug. 14,
2014 tweets were
posted on the account saying that Medvedev was resigning because he was ashamed of the
government's actions. The `prime minister' also had time to write that Putin was wrong, that
the government had problems with common sense, and that the authorities were taking the
country back to the past.
On the same day Anonymous International posted part of the prime minister's
stolen archive, admitting that, "there is nothing particularly interesting in it."
"The posted material was provided by a certain highly-placed reptilian of our acquaintance,"
the hackers joked
.
Medvedev is far from being Shaltai-Boltai's only victim. The hackers published the private
correspondence of officials in the presidential administration: Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
businessman close to Vladimir Putin; Aram Gabrelyanov, head of the pro-Kremlin News Media
holding company; and of Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the uprising in east Ukraine.
Lewis, however, insisted that only material that had failed to sell ended up on the
Internet.
Law-enforcement links
Anikeyev was detained in November, and the following month Sergei Mikhailov, head of the 2nd
operations directorate of the FSB Information Security Center, was also arrested. According to
Kommersant , Mikhailov was a
major figure in the security services who, "was essentially overseeing the country's entire
internet business."
Mikhailov's aide, FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchayev, and a former hacker known as Forb, was also
arrested. Shortly after, Ruslan Stoyanov, head of the department for investigating cybercrime
at the antivirus software company Kaspersky Lab, was also detained. Stoyanov also worked
closely with the secret services.
According to Rosbalt , Anikeyev revealed
information about the FSB officers and the Kaspersky Lab computer expert and their close
involvement with Shaltai-Boltai.
Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to
take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According
to
Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai
business from the start.
Shaltai-Boltai had a big fall
Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason.
Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to
computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges
against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in
leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav
Surkov.
Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account
since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the
Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted
list.
Anyway, Shaltai-Boltai anticipated this outcome. "What awaits us if we are uncovered?
Criminal charges and most likely a prison sentence. Each member of the team is aware of the
risks," they said dispassionately in the interview with Apparat in 2015.
"... Anikeev immediately began to cooperate with the investigation and provide detailed evidence, which repeatedly mentioned Mikhailov as being associated with the Shaltai-Boltai's team," said the source of Rosbalt. And in December 2016, Mikhailov and his "right hand," another official of the Information Security Center, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested. The Court took a decision on their arrest. Another ISC official was also detained, but after questioning, no preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty were applied to him. ..."
"... After the summer, Shaltai-Boltai began to work exclusively with the content given to it by the curator. ..."
"... later it switched to civil servants' email that contained information that could bring serious trouble. When it became known that Surkov's correspondence "leaked" to Ukraine, it broke the camel's back. "Mikhailov's a magnificent expert. Best in his business. One can say that the ISC is Mikhailov.. But he crossed all possible borders," told a source of Rosbalt. ..."
The story around the arrest of a high-ranking ISC official, Sergey Mikhailov, is
becoming an actual thriller.
The creator of Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty Dumpty) website, which containted the correspondence
of officials, journalist Vladimir Anikeev, better known in some circles as Lewis, was arrested
on arrival from Ukraine, where he is supposed to have been involved in the publishing on a
local site of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov's correspondence. In his testimony, Lewis said
about the employee of the Information Security Center, Mikhailov.
As a source familiar with the situation told Rosbalt, Vladimir Anikeev was detained by the
FSB officers at the end of October 2016, when he arrived in St. Petersburg from Ukraine. "The
operation was the result of a long work. There was a complicated operative combination with the
aim to lure Lewis from Ukraine, which he didn't indend to leave," said the source to the news
agency. Anikeev was taken to Moscow, where the Investigation department of the FSB charged him
under Article 272 of the Criminal Code (Illegal access to computer information).
First and foremost the counterintelligence was interested in the situation with the
"leakage" of Vladislav Surkov's correspondence: by the time it was known that it was in the
hands of the Shaltai-Boltai's team. Since it was e-mail with from the .gov domain, the
situation caused great concern in theFSO. As a result of this, the correspondence was published
on the website of a Ukrainian association of hackers called Cyber-Junta. In reality, it is
suspected that Anikeev was involved in that affair. He'd been constantly visiting this country,
his girlfriend lived there, and, according to available data, he was not going to return to
Russia. Lewis was also asked about other officials' correspondence, which already appeared on
the Shaltai-Boltai website.
" Anikeev immediately began to cooperate with the investigation and provide detailed
evidence, which repeatedly mentioned Mikhailov as being associated with the Shaltai-Boltai's
team," said the source of Rosbalt. And in December 2016, Mikhailov and his "right hand,"
another official of the Information Security Center, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested. The Court
took a decision on their arrest. Another ISC official was also detained, but after questioning,
no preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty were applied to him.
According to the version of the agency's source, the situation developed as follows. At the
beginning of 2016, the department headed by Mikhailov received an order to "work" with
Shaltai-Boltai's website, which published the correspondence of civil servants. The immediate
executor was Dokuchaev. Officers of the ISC were able to find out the team of Shaltai-Boltai,
which participants nicknamed themselves after Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland": Alice, the
March Hare, etc. The website creator and organizer, Anikeev, was nicknamed Lewis. In the summer
there were searching raids in St. Petersburg, although formally for other reasons.
According to the Rosbalt's source, just after the summer attack the team of Shaltai-Boltai
appeared to have the owner, or, to be exact, the curator. According to the source, it could be
Sergey Mikhailov. As the result, the working methods of the Lewis's team also changed, just as
the objects whose correspondence was being published for public access. Previously, Lewis's
people figured out objects in places where mobile phone was used. They were given access to the
phone contents by means of a false cell (when it came to mobile internet) or using a
false-Wi-FI (if the person was connected to Wi-FI). Then the downloaded content was sent to
member of the Lewis's team, residing in Estonia. He analyzed to to select what's to be put in
the open access and what's to be sold for Bitcoins. The whole financial part of the
Shaltai-Boltai involved a few people living in Thailand. These Bitcoins were cashed in Ukraine.
Occasionally the Lewis published emails previously stolen by other hackers.
After the summer, Shaltai-Boltai began to work exclusively with the content given to it
by the curator. Earlier, it published correspondence of rather an "entertaining"
character, as well as officials whose "secrets" would do no special harm; but later it
switched to civil servants' email that contained information that could bring serious trouble.
When it became known that Surkov's correspondence "leaked" to Ukraine, it broke the camel's
back. "Mikhailov's a magnificent expert. Best in his business. One can say that the ISC is
Mikhailov.. But he crossed all possible borders," told a source of Rosbalt.
At the time of their arrests in December, Sergei Mikhailov and Dmitry Dokuchayev were
officers with the FSB's Center for Information Security, a leading unit within the FSB involved
in cyberactivities.
Pavlov confirmed to RFE/RL the arrest of Mikhailov and Dokuchayev, along with Ruslan
Stoyanov, a former employee of the Interior Ministry who had worked for Kaspersky Labs, a
well-known private cyber-research company, which announced Stoyanov's arrest last month.
The newspaper Kommersant reported that Mikhailov was arrested at a meeting of FSB officers
and was taken from the meeting after a sack was put on his head.
The independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, meanwhile, said that a total of six suspects --
including Mikhailov, Dokuchayev, and Stoyanov -- had been arrested. The state news agency TASS
reported on February 1 that two men associated with a well-known hacking group had also been
arrested in November, but it wasn't immediately clear if those arrests were related to the FSB
case.
There has been no public detail as to the nature of the treason charges against Mikhailov,
Dokuchayev, and Stoyanov. The Interfax news agency on January 31 quoted "sources familiar with
the situation" as saying that Mikhailov and Dokuchayev were suspected of relaying confidential
information to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Pavlov told RFE/RL the individuals were suspected of passing on classified information to
U.S. intelligence, but not necessarily the CIA.
"... Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history. ..."
"... This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you have obvious perjury. ..."
"... The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false fairy tale to the detriment of the American people. ..."
So "Russian interference" in our elections are some Facebook trolls? Are you freakin'
kiddin' me? After 18 months of investigation not one shred of evidence has been presented.
Has even one voting machine been hacked?
I seem to remember Nuland and McBraintumor on the barricades in the Ukraine.
These Russian
trolls are exercising what used to be called Political speech. Good or bad I don't think you
will be able to stop it.
Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the
Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection
of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history.
This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a
Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals
against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you
have obvious perjury.
The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false
fairy tale to the detriment of the American people.
If one needed proof that Mueller's investigation was an utter farce, they were
in for a treat this morning when the Deputy Attorney General announced the indictment of indicted 13
"Russian trolls," for allegedly interfering in the 2016 Presidential election by posting on social
media accounts.
Laying Mueller's disregard of the First Amendment aside, the indictment is blatantly hypocritical
in light of active social media intervention by pro-Clinton David Brock and his multi-million dollar
efforts to 'Correct The Record.'
Julian Assange
tweeted on the matter:
The
indictment
alleges that: "Beginning
in or around June 2014, the ORGANIZATION obscured its conduct by operating through a number of Russian
entities, including Internet Research LLC, MediaSintez LLC, GlavSet LLC, MixInfo LLC, Azimut LLC, and
NovInfo LLC."
The indictment further
alleges
that:
"The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it called information warfare against the United
States of America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based
media."
According to the indictment, the co-conspirators "engaged in operations primarily intended to
communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted
Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump."
The indictment represents the latest mutation of Russian interference allegations that have dragged
on for over a year. As
this
author previously noted
, the definition of Russian interference has shifted from unsubstantiated
claims of Russian hacking, to Russian collusion, and finally to Russian social media trolling.
Wikileaks
tweeted on the
subject:
The
Washington Post
reported in 2015 that David Brock's Correct The Record would work directly with
the Clinton Campaign, "testing the legal limits" of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct
The Record skirt campaign finance law?
The
Washington Post
tells us: "by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that
declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation." And post
online, Brock's PAC did: "disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its
Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said."
Time
reported the opinion of a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center who characterized Correct The
Record as: "creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation." Meanwhile,
The
New York Times
detailed the "outrage machine" that Brock and fellow Clinton supporter Peter Daou
had created:
"Peter Daou sat with his team at a long wooden table last week, pushing the buttons that
activate Mrs. Clinton's outrage machine. Mr. Daou's operation, called
Shareblue
,
had published the article on Mr. Trump's comment on its website and created the accompanying
hashtag. "They will put that pressure right on the media outlets in a very intense way," Mr. Daou,
the chief executive of Shareblue, said of the Twitter army he had galvanized. "By the thousands."
Going further, the
New
York Times
details fervently the $2 million budget of Daou's Shareblue and admits that the intent
of the entire operation is interference in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of
Hillary Clinton: "Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue,
which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs.
Clinton elected. Mr. Daou's role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs.
Clinton's opponents."
The
New York Daily News
put
the matter most bluntly: "Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who
disparages her online."
The
LA Times
described the active election interference: "It is meant to appear to be coming
organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it
is highly paid and highly tactical."
Despite the millions of dollars poured into a pro-Clinton 'outrage machine' bent on her support,
Clinton inexplicably lost the election to Donald Trump, a fact which still seems not to have sunk in
for the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
But why bring up this apparently old news, in the face of Mueller's latest mockery of the
American judicial process and the First Amendment? Because it reveals in the words of the legacy press
that by definition Mueller's circus has zero interest in campaign or election integrity and is solely
interested in getting scalps for Clinton and for the unelected powers she represented.
Despite obvious hypocrisy given the actions of Shareblue and David Brock's Correct The Record,
corporate media ignored all double standards and attempted to report on "Russian twitter trolling"
with a straight face.
Business
Insider
wrote: "Russian Twitter Trolls Tried To Bury Or Spin Negative Trump News Just Before
Election," as if that wasn't what Correct The Record spent millions on doing for the benefit of
Clinton.
The double standards applied to Clinton for her benefit goes beyond hypocrisy. Many have claimed
that constantly metamorphosing allegations of Russian interference represents an insidious effort to
silence dissent and anti-establishment political discourse: for example, by turning third-party,
anti-establishment or conservative voices into "Russians" by proxy of their opposition to Clinton.
By converting legitimate American free speech into insidious "Russian bots," a pretext is created
to silence dissent across the board. Without the Russian interference circus, the efforts to breach
the First Amendment would be overtly authoritarian and would be inexcusable even by the most corrupt
establishment media standards.
The results of such a clamp-down on free and effective speech have manifested in censorship
crackdowns across large social media platforms including
Twitter
,
Youtube,
and
Facebook
,
with Twitter admitting to actively censoring roughly 48% of tweets that included the "#DNCEmails"
hashtag. It seems anyone with an opinion the establishment doesn't like is liable to be memory-holed.
"The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it
called information warfare against the United States of
America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media
platforms and other Internet-based media."
What in the statement hasn't been going on since the
internet came into existence? The social internet was
founded on bullshit personas. When you can open a Faecesbook
account, and become an internet sensation as a fucking dog,
what about the above doesn't look patently ridiculous?
These twats are living in La La Land, and its getting
beyond disturbing.
And another thing, from what I understand Grand
Inquisitor Mueller indicted these 13 Russian
internet trolls for being "foreign agents" trying
to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
So
when is he going to indict
Christopher
Steele
for being
an actual
bonafide foreign agent
trying to affect
the outcome of the 2016 election? ;-)
None of them will be hopping on a
plane to come here and I doubt very seriously
that Vlad will play along with this kind of
stupidity...although it would be a fun trial
to have...lol.
Defense counsel opening statement: "My
clients have voluntarily come here to America
to assert their universal free speech rights
in much the same way that Hillary crony David
Brocks "Correct the Record" paid internet
troll army from India did and we look forward
to exposing all of Hillary's and Obama's
astroturfing paid bots in this venue.
Grand Inquisitor Mueller: "Ahem. Your
honor, may we approach the bench?"
And the rest as they say, would be
jurisprudence history.
It was nothing but a contrived media ploy
by Mueller to say he
had found...RUSSIANS!...(insert audible gasp
here) "somewhere" and surprisingly enough, he
found them, in of all places, Russia...lol.
Its stupid to the tenth power...he's
losing. Badly ;-)
Well, I don't run my life trying to keep up
with the comings & goings of Jews and what
they may want or don't want but...
Weinstein raised money for Hillary.
This crooked as a dogs hind leg Weissmann is
Muellers lead attack dog and Rosenstein
appointed Mueller.
On the other hand, Trumps son-in-law is
Jewish so really to me this is more about
left vs right...statists vs individuals.
Now I'm sure someone more consumed with
"Just what the hell are (((they))) up
to today?!"
(lol) can pick
my statement apart and call me a rabbi or
hasbra troll or any other damned thing they
want but I just don't live in that Catholic
vs Protestant vs Black vs White vs Aryan vs
Slav etc Balkanized world.
Not to the degree they do anyways.
It's clear to me a gross miscarriage of
justice is happening
(and has been
happening)
and those are just the
facts, regardless of any skulking Israeli
or Russian supermen others may see hiding
behind every blade of grass who seem to
"control everything" because clearly they do
not or we wouldn't be having this
conversation ;-)
Disobedient Media previously opined on the dagger-in-the-back publication of a hit piece
against Wikileaks' Julian Assange just one day after a UK magistrate, with blatant conflict of
interest in the matter, shot down his legal representatives' attempt to finally free him from
the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.
What that article did not address was the patently obvious terminal illness suffered by The
Intercept. That is, the outlet claims to publish "fearless, adversarial" reporting, while it is
funded by a billionaire. Ken Silverstein
, formerly employed at The Intercept and by Omidyar's First Look Media, has described endemic
problems at the outlet that have risen directly out of Omidyar's leadership or lack
thereof.
The fundamental problem facing The Intercept is not ultimately about how or why the outlet
published a smear specifically timed to cut support away from Assange, even though that is in
and of itself despicable. It's that doing so acts in support of the very deep state and
moneyed, military interests that The Intercept purports to critique "fearlessly."
Adding to a sense of betrayal of The Intercept's principals in the wake of the outlet's
hit-piece is the fact that a number of writers at the publication are by all accounts on good
terms with Assange, and have worked with mutual supporters including the superb Italian
journalist Stefania Maurizi. Maurizi collaborated with Wikileaks on the verification of
documents for many years, and worked with Glenn Greenwald on preparation for the disclosure of
the Snowden files.
Adding to the years of support Greenwald has shown Assange, the Wikileaks co-founder also
sent Wikileaks' own Sarah Harrison to
the aid of Snowden after he was marooned in Hong Kong in 2013, an act which Stefania Maurizi
revealed very likely cost the publisher his freedom.
After the publication of the Snowden files, the UK ceased any attempt to create a legal
process by which Assange might have been safely freed , and in the same year pressured
Sweden to continue its investigation after the country's authorities expressed their intent to
drop the matter. Likewise, in the wake of Assange's actions towards Snowden, the Obama White
House changed its stance from a reluctant acceptance that prosecution of WikiLeaks for
publishing might not be possible given that US publishers had also published the same
material.
Snowden's revelations also provided much of the impetus for the launch of The Intercept as
an outlet, after Glenn Greenwald departed from The Guardian . In this way, Assange's story and his fate in the
Ecuadorian embassy is inextricably linked with the origin of The Intercept's rise on the back
of the Snowden revelations.
Only a few months later, in October 2013 while Snowden was still stuck in a Moscow airport
and out of reach of US authorities and The Intercept was gearing up for launch, the UK made it
clear to the Swedish prosecutor that she should not drop her investigation and European Arrest
Warrant for Assange, even though Sweden's law on proportionality required her to do so.
In the wake of Snowden's escape to Russia, Assange remained trapped in 30 square meters of
an embassy and lost any hope that had existed earlier in 2013 that he would soon be released
from that space, where we now know he cannot receive even the most basic medical care.
Meanwhile, The Intercept has become what it set out to destroy.
The relationship between Assange and The intercept makes it impossible to see the
organization's publication of an intrinsically flawed smear piece aimed at Assange as anything
other than a deep betrayal.
Which brings us inevitably to Pierre
Omidyar . That the multi-billionaire Ebay founder despises Trump and would have preferred
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to assume the mantle of the Presidency is an
understatement, but to focus only on his political outlook also misses the point of the larger
issue facing The Intercept.
The billionaire's incoherent vision of the First Amendment
(disturbing for someone who funds journalistic endeavors) aside, the nature of The Intercept's
fatal catch-22 would remain if Omidyar woke up tomorrow to become a MAGA-hat wearing,
NRA-supporting conservative. That is, a media outlet cannot perform as an 'independent and
adversarial' entity when it is birthed within and nurtured by the very establishment it must
confront.
When USA
Today reported that Omidyar would contribute $250 million to pursue "independent
journalism," a genetic malfunction was written into the Intercept's DNA. One cannot operate in
an adversarial manner when one is supported directly by the same moneyed interests that require
the most scrutiny and transparency of all.
That the magnate's influence would seep, tide-like, into the reporting and editorial
decisions of The Intercept seems difficult to ignore, but it is that inevitable creep itself
and not the flavor of his beliefs which makes the situation so damning for The Intercept.
I've previously
written at length in an effort to describe the chilling uniformity that ultimately pervades
the plutocratic class. Being a billionaire makes Pierre Omidyar much more like one of the Koch
Brothers than any liberal without access to the same magnitude of wealth and influence in the
US political sphere. The fact that wealth translates to political influence was described in a
Princeton University study, indicating
that the United States operates as a plutocracy. In that light, it is the wealth that binds
Omidyar, the Kochs and their ilk, as opposed to political outlook.
When Omidyar made use of Citizens' United to supply
an anti-Trump super PAC with $100,000 in 2016, it's not the flavor of the political activism
that he bought – it's that he bought it at all. Omidyar is a power-player within the same
corrupt establishment that WikiLeaks and The Intercept – in principle – aim to
critique regularly.
Omidyar has also provided funds to
the Clinton Foundation. As indicated by Wikileaks via Twitter , the Freedom Of The Press Foundation recently made the
controversial decision to terminate processing of Wikileaks donations. The move represented an
end to the role that was a central cause for the Foundation's creation, according to a
statement by Assange.
Ironically, the initial financial
blockade that made the Freedom Of The Press necessary was in part initiated by Paypal,
which was a spin-off from Ebay, a company that Omidyar founded. Omidyar served on the board of the
company until last year.
Sarah Harisson expressed the conflict of interest that Omidyar's involvement with The
Intercept represents to German Press ,
saying: " How can you take something seriously when the person behind this platform went along
with the financial boycott against WikiLeaks?"
Here lies the gulf between an adversarial organization like WikiLeaks and a news outlet that
purports to be fearless while subsisting on the payroll of a member of the plutocratic
elite.
The issue here goes beyond Omidyar's politics and the petty, obsessively personal
derangement of The Intercept's Micah Lee towards Julian Assange. The crux of the terminal
illness suffered by The Intercept is that it cannot stand as an outlet that wishes to both
participate in adversarial, anti-establishment reporting while it also relies on the funds of a
billionaire – any billionaire.
The rough beast born of the marriage between Omidyar's funds and the yearning for freedom
that surrounded the release of the Snowden Files cannot help but spiral towards its inevitable
fate.
At The Intercept, the center cannot hold in the widening gyre between its best journalists
and its worst impulses.
More like attempt to unite the nation which crumbles die to crisis of
neoliberalism and decimation of neoliberal ideology. And resore even on
false pretext trust for neoliberal ruling elite that is sitting in Congress
and major government institutions.
As well as swipe Hillary political fiasco under the rug and prevent loss of
power by Clinton wing of Democratic Party.
With the almost non stop Russian bashing in the US one has to wonder if something
else is at play here. Like priming the US psych to cheer on an inevitable war
with Russia. If one digs into the revelations it's obvious they are bunk, unless
your reading Wapo, New York Times, Time, and other neocon mouthpieces which are
full of fiction not facts, but America is a soundbite nation. We stop reading
after the headline and the way stories are structured that do have some truth in
them never get read.
No matter what the US has done to crash the Russian
economy Putin has strengthened it and is working hard to make it impervious to
outside forces.
Unlike the US where the government and the CEO's can't destroy it
fast enough while filling their wallets. The more successful Putin is, especially
on foreign policy, the more desperate and dangerous the neocons will become.
Remember they have nice luxurious bunkers to wait out the inevitable while you
die a slow death.
"... The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI . His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here . To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. ..."
"... If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon . ..."
"... Why Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia? , ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Sport's Illustrated ..."
"... Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results? Oh, by the way, the Times ..."
"... The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email. ..."
"... There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI, NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war. ..."
"... We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work in a very different economy. ..."
He is one of the better-known thinkers
The New Yorker
has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an
excellent 2009 profile
, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another
regular
contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful
crack-up.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on
Patreon
.
Forget about sharks. In their Valentine's Day editorial:
Why
Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia?
,
The New York Times
jumped several
blue whales (all the ones left on earth), a cruise ship, a subtropical archipelago, a giant vortex of plastic
bottles, and the
Sport's Illustrated
swimsuit shoot. The lede said:
The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message: Not only did
Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to
exacerbate the country's political and social divisions.
Hmmm . After almost two years of relentless public paranoia about Russia and US elections, don't you suppose these
Ruskie gremlins would find some other way to make mischief in our world -- maybe meddle in the NHL playoffs, or hack
WalMart's bookkeeping department, or covertly switch out the real Dwayne Johnson with a robot? I kind of completely
and absolutely doubt that they'll bother with our elections.
Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw
prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our
own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results?
Oh, by the way, the
Times
presented no evidence whatsoever that this alleged "meddling" is taking place.
They just assert it, as if it were already adjudicated.
But then they take it another step, making the case that because Mr. Trump does not go along with the Russian
Meddling story, he is obstructing efforts to prevent Russian interference in the elections that haven't happened yet,
and is therefore by implication guilty of treason. A fine piece of casuistry.
The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation
sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political
figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel
services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company
that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email.
There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI,
NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an
active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war.
The "resistance" may think it is getting some mileage out of this interminable narrative, but its arrant
inconsistencies only undermine faith in all our political institutions, and that is really playing with fire.
We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't
have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial
system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and
then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work
in a very different economy.
"... In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital. And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority, and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through force. ..."
"... I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect. There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. ..."
"... Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future. ..."
"... I think that the struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here, but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future. ..."
"... The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools. ..."
"... Any hierarchic system will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths. Systems will not save us. ..."
"... What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear & loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps. ..."
"... Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group or something. :-) ..."
Yves here. This Real News Network interview with professor emeritus John Weeks discussed how economic ideology has weakened or
eliminated public accountability of institutions like the Fed and promote neo[neo]liberal policies that undermine democracy.
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The concept of the [neo]liberal democracy
is generally based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the face of
the law. The rise of financial capital and its efforts to deregulate financial markets, however, raises the question whether [neo]liberal
democracy is a sustainable form of government. Sooner or later, democratic institutions make way for the interests of large capital
to supersede.
Political economist John Weeks recently gave this year's David Gordon Memorial Lecture at the meeting of the American Economic
Association in Philadelphia where he addressed these issues with a talk titled, Free Markets and the Decline of Democracy. Joining
us now is John Weeks. He joins us from London to discuss the issues raised in his lecture. You can find a link to this lecture just
below the player, and John is, as you know, Professor Emeritus of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies
and author of Economics of the 1%: How Mainstream Economics Serves the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy. John, good to
have you back on The Real News.
JOHN WEEKS: Thank you very much for having me.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, let me start with your talk. Your talk describes a struggle between efforts to create a democratic
control over the economy and the interest of capital, which seeks to subjugate government to the interest, its own interest. In your
assessment, it looks like this is a losing battle for democracy. Explain this further.
JOHN WEEKS: Yeah, so I think that Marx in Capital, in the first volume of Capital, refers to a concept called bourgeois
right, by which he meant that, you said it in the introduction, that in a capitalist society there is a form of equality that mimics
the relationship of exchange. Every commodity looks equal in exchange and there is a system of ownership that you might say is the
shadow of that. I think more important, in the early stages of development of capitalism, of development of factories, that those
institutions or those factories prompted the growth of trade unions and workers' struggles in general. Those workers' struggles were
key to the development, or further development of democracy, freedom of speech, a whole range of rights, the right to vote.
However, with the development of finance capital, you've got quite a different dynamic within the capitalist system. Let me say,
I don't want to romanticize the early period of capitalism, but you did have struggles, mass struggles for rights. Finance capital
produces nothing productive, it doesn't do anything productive. So, what finance capital does basically is it redistributes the income,
the wealth, the, what Marx would call the surplus value, from other sectors of society to itself. And it employs relatively few people,
so that dynamic of the capital, industrial capital, generating its antithesis So, that a labor movement doesn't occur under financial
capital.
In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe
and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting
their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital.
And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument
is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority,
and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice
doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through
force.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Before we get further into the relationship between neo[neo]liberalism and democracy, give
us a brief summary of what you mean by neo[neo]liberalism. You say that it's not really about deregulation, as most people usually conceive
of it. If that's not what it's about, what is it, then?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that if you think about the movements in the United States, and as much as I can, I will take examples
from the United States because most of your listeners will be familiar with those, beginning in the early part of the twentieth century,
in the United States you have reform movements, the breaking up of the large monopolies, tobacco monopoly, a whole range of Standard
Oil, all of that. And then of course under Roosevelt you began to get the regulation of capital in the interests of the majority,
much of that driven by Roosevelt's trade union support. So, that was moving from a system where capital was relatively unregulated
to where it was being regulated in the interests of the vast majority. I also would say, though, I won't go into detail, to a certain
extent it was regulated in the interest of capital itself to moderate competition and therefore, I'd say, ensure a relatively tranquil
market environment.
Neo[neo]liberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital. So,
it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in a way
that enhances capital. These regulations, to get specific about them, restrictions on trade unions, as you, on Real News, a number
of people have talked about this. The United States now have many restrictions on the organizing of trade unions which were not present
50 or 60 years ago, making it harder to have a mass movement of labor against capital, restrictions on the right to demonstrate,
a whole range of things. Then within capital itself, the regulations on the movement of capital that facilitate speculation in international
markets. We have a capitalism in which the form of regulation is shifted from the regulation of capital in the interest of labor
to regulation of capital in the interest of capital.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, give us a brief summary of the ways in which neo[neo]liberalism undermines democracy.
JOHN WEEKS: Well, I think that there are many examples, but I'm going to focus on economic policy. For an obvious case
is the role of the Central Bank, in the case of the United States' Federal Reserve System, in which reducing its accountability to
the public, one way you can do that is by assigning goals to it, such as fighting inflation, which then override other goals. Originally,
the Federal Reserve System, its charter, or I'll say its terms of reference, if you want me to use that phrase, included full employment
and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Control of inflation basically means maintaining an economy at a relatively high level of unemployment or part-time employment, or
flexible employment, where people have relatively few rights at work. And that the Central Bank becomes a vehicle for enforcing a
neo[neo]liberal economic policy.
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring that
the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say grinding
into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely neo[neo]liberal
ideology.
In summary, one way that the democracy has been undermined is to take away economic policy from the public realm and move it to
the realm of experts. So, we have certain allegedly expert guidelines that we have to follow. Inflation should be low. We should
not run deficits. The national debt should be small. These are things that are just made up ideologically. There is no technical
basis to them. And so, in doing that, you might say, the term I like to use is, you decommission the democratic process and economic
policy.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, speaking of ideology, in your talk you refer to the challenge that fascism posed or poses to neo[neo]liberal
democracies. Now, it is interesting when you take Europe into consideration and National Socialist in Germany, for example, appeal
mostly to the working class, as does contemporary far-right leaders in Poland and Hungary, that they support more explicit neo[neo]liberal
agendas. Why would people support a neo[neo]liberal agenda that exasperate inequalities and harm public services that they depend on,
including jobs?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that to a great extent it is country-specific, but I can make generalizations. First of all, I'm talking
about Europe, because you raised a case in some European countries, and then I'll make some comments about the United States and
Trump, if you want me to. I think in Europe, a combination of three things resulted in the rise of fascism and authoritarian movements
which are verging on fascism. One is that the European integration project, which let me say that I have supported, and I would still
prefer Britain not to leave the European Union, but nevertheless, the European Union integration project has been a project run by
elites.
It has not been a bottom-up process. It has been a process very much run by elite politicians, in which they get together in closed
door, and they make policies which they subsequently announce, and many of the decisions they come to being extremely, the meaning
of them being extremely opaque. So, therefore, you have the development in Europe of the European Union which, not from the bottom
up, but very much from the top down. You might suggest from the top, but I'm not sure how much goes down. That's one.
The second key factor, I would say, for about 20 years in European integration, it was relatively benign elitism because it was social
democratic, it had the support of the working class, or the trade unions, at any rate. Then, increasingly, it began to become neo[neo]liberal.
So, you have an elite project which was turning into a neo[neo]liberal project. Specifically, what I mean by neo[neo]liberal is where they're
generating flexibility rules for the labor market, austerity policies, bank, balanced budgets, low inflation, the things I was talking
about before.
Then the third element, toxic, the most toxic of them, but the other, they're volatile, is the legacy of fascism in Europe. Every
European country, with the exception of Britain, had a substantial fascist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. I can go into why Britain
didn't sometime. It had to do with the particular class struggle of the, I mean, class structure of Britain. Poland, ironically enough,
though, is one of them. It was overrun by the Nazis, and occupied, and incorporated into the German Reich. Ironically, it had a very
right-wing government with a lot of sympathies towards fascism when it was invaded in the late summer of 1939.
France had a strong fascist movement. Of course, Italy had a fascist government, and Hungary, where now you have a right-wing
government, a very strong fascist movement. The incorporation of these countries into the Soviet sphere of influence, or the empire,
as it were, did not destroy that fascism. It certainly suppressed it, but it didn't destroy it. So, as soon as the European project
began to transform into a neo[neo]liberal project, and that gathered strength in the early 1990s, I mean, the neo[neo]liberal aspect of the
European Union gathered strength in the early 1990s, exactly when you were getting the "liberation" of many countries from Soviet
rule. And so, when you put those together, it led to, It was a rise of fascism waiting to happen and now it is happening.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, earlier, you said you'll factor in Trump. How does Trump fit into this phenomena?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme
versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. Now, though I
wouldn't go too deeply into that, I think that that is the most serious offenses by Obama that have been carried on by Trump have
to do with the use of drones and the military. But at any rate, but there's a big difference from Trump. For the most part, the previous
Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents, accepted the framework of, the formal framework of [neo]liberal democracy in the United
States. That is, formally accepted the constraints imposed by the Constitution.
Now, of course, they probably didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because they saw that the things that
they wanted to achieve, the neo[neo]liberal goals that they wanted to achieve were perfectly consistent with the Constitution's framework
and guarantees of rights and so on, that most of those rights are guaranteed in a way that's so weak that you didn't have to repeal
the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution in order to have repressive policies.
The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't
think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect.
There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. What you have
in Trump, I think, is a sea change. You have a, we've had right-wing presidents before, certainly. What the difference with Trump
is, he is a right-wing president that sees no reason to respect the institutions of democratic government, or even, you might say,
the institution of representative government. I won't even use a term as strong as "democratic." That lays the basis for an explicitly
authoritarian United States, and I'd say that we're beginning to see the vehicle by which this will occur, the restriction on voting
rights. Of course, that was going on before Trump, it does in a more aggressive way. I think the, soon, we will have a Supreme Court
that will be quite lenient with his tendency towards authoritarian rule.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Let's end this segment with what can be done. I mean, what must be done to prevent neo[neo]liberal
interests from undermining democracy? And who do you believe is leading the struggle for democracy now, and what is the right strategy
that people should be fighting for?
JOHN WEEKS: Well, one thing, I think, where I'd begin is that I think progressives, as The Real News represents, and Bernie
Sanders, and all the people that support him, and Jeremy Corbyn over here, I'll come back to talk about a bit about Jeremy. We must
be explicit that we view democracy, by which we mean the participation of people at the grassroots, their participation in the government,
we view that as a goal. It's not merely a technique, or a tool which, what was it that Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy
is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all
about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future.
I'm quite fortunate in that I live in perhaps the only large country in the world where there's imminent possibility of a progressive,
left-wing, anti-authoritarian government. I think that is the monumental importance of Jeremy Corbyn and his second-in-command, John
McDonnell, and others like Emily Thornberry, who is the Foreign Secretary. These people are committed to democracy. In the United
States, Bernie Sanders is committed to a democracy, and a lot of other people are too, Elizabeth Warren. So, I think that the
struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about
than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here,
but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United
States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future.
"A lot of money" in those days- Some say JI "bought land" with the shekels. An early form of asset swap? A precursor to current
financialist activities?
Good article. If it were any bleaker, I'd suspect Chris Hedges having a hand in writing it.
The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions
of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.
There it is, the Gorgon Thiel, surrounded by terror and rout.
"Altman felt that OpenAI's mission was to babysit its wunderkind until it was ready to be adopted by the world. He'd been reading
James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention for guidance in managing the transition. 'We're planning a way to allow
wide swaths of the world to elect representatives to a new governance board,' he said."
I was having trouble choosing which of the passages in this article to provide a mad quote from. Some other choices were
Altman's going to work with the Department of Defense, then help defend the world from them.
Or:
OpenAI's going to take over from humans, but don't worry because they're going to make it (somehow) so OpenAI can only terminate
bad people. Before releasing it to the world.
Or:
Altman says 'add a 0 to whatever you're doing but never more than that.'
But if this sort of wisdom (somehow) doesn't work out well for everybody and the world collapses, he's flying with Peter Thiel
in the private jet to the New Zealand's south island to wait out the Zombie Apocalypse on a converted sheep farm. (Before returning
to the Valley work with more startups?)
I think it's revealing that the only type of democracy discussed, in spite of the title, is "[neo]liberal democracy", which the
host describes as "based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the
face of the law."
I've always argued that [neo]liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms, and you can see why from that quotation. [neo]liberalism (leaving
aside special uses of the term in the US) is about individuals exercising their personal economic freedom and personal
autonomy as much as they can, with as little control by government as possible.
But given massive imbalances in economic power, the influence
of media-backed single issue campaigns and the growth of professional political parties, policy is decided by the interventions
of powerful and well-organised groups, without ordinary people being consulted. At the end, Weeks does start to talk of grassroots
participation, but seems to have no more in mind than a campaign to get people to vote for Sanders in 2020, which hardly addresses
the problem. The answer, if there is one, is a system of direct democracy, involving referendums and popular assemblies chosen
at random.
This has been much talked about, but since you would have the entire political class against you, it's not going to
happen. In the meantime, we are stuck with [neo]liberal democracy, whose contradictions, I'm afraid are becoming ever more obvious.
"Contradictions?" One question for me at least would be whether the features and motions of the current regime are best characterized
as "contradictions." If so, to what? And implicit in the use of the word is some kind of resolution, via actual class conflict
or something, leading to "better" or at least "different." All I see from my front porch is more of the same, and worse. "The
Matrix" in that myth gave some comforting illusions to the mopery. I think the political economy/collapsed planet portrayed in
"Soylent Green" is a lot closer to the likely endpoints.
At least in the movie fable, the C-Suite-er of the Soylent Corp. as the lede in the film, was sickened of what he was helping
to maintain, and bethought himself to blow his tiny little personal whistle that nobody would really hear, and got axed for his
disloyalty to the ruling collective. I doubt the ranks of corporatists of MonsantoDuPont and LockheedMartin and the rest include
any significant numbers of folks sickened by "the contradictions" that get them their perks and bennies and power (as long as
they color inside the lines.)
I hope I am way off the mark, but within that genre & in terms of where we could be heading, the film " Snowpiercer " sums
it up best for me- a dystopian world society illustrated through the passengers on one long train.
Thanks for the Real News Network for covering issues that never see the light of day on the corporate media and never mentioned
by the Rachel Maddow's of the "news" shows.
I actually like the term and find it useful, insofar as it describes an ideology -- as oposed a real political-economic arrangement.
The presence of "free markets" may not be a characteristic of the neo[neo]liberal phase, but the belief in them sure is.
(Which is not to say there aren't people who don't believe in free markets but do invoke them rhetorically for
other ends. That's a feature of many if not most successful ideologies.)
' Originally, the Federal Reserve charter included full employment and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more
recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Eh, this is fractured history. The Fed was set up in 1913 as a lender of last resort -- a discounter of government and private
bills.
In late 1978 Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey Hawkins Act instructing the Fed to pursue three goals: stable prices, maximum
employment, and moderate long-term interest rates, though the latter is rarely mentioned now and the Fed is widely viewed as having
a dual mandate.
The Fed's two percent inflation target it simply adopted at its own initiative -- it's not enshrined in no Perpetual Inflation
Act.
' We had a world of fixed exchange rates which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy.
We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool. '
LOL! This is totally inverted and flat wrong. The Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system prevented radical monetary experiments
such as QE which would have broken the peg. Nixon unilaterally suspended fixed exchange rates in 1971 because he was unwilling
to take the political hit of formally devaluing the dollar (or even more unlikely, sweating out Vietnam War inflation with falling
prices to maintain the peg).
Floating rates are a new and potentially lethal monetary tool which have produced a number of sad examples of "governments
gone wild" with radical monetary experiments and currency swings. Bad boys Japan & Switzerland come readily to mind.
To render history accurately requires getting hands dirty with dusty old books. Icky, I know. :-(
Yes but globalisation meant that all central banks and finance ministers had to act concertedly as in G-20 and similar meetings.
While we may talk of floating exchange rates, each country fixes its interest rate to maintain parity with the others. Isn't that
so?
I think that the key piece of info is that the Federal Reserve was created on December 23rd, 1913. That sounds like that it
was slipped in the legislative back door when everybody was going away for the Christmas holidays.
===== quote =====
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring
that the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say
grinding into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely
neo[neo]liberal ideology.
===== /quote =====
This makes absolutely no sense and seems to have the case exactly backward. Our federal government has no rule that the budget
must be balanced. Fixed exchange rates were not a tool that could be used to affect trade and domestic policy in a good way.
I enjoyed John Weeks' point of view. He's the first person I've read who refers to the usefulness of a fixed exchange rate.
Useful for a sovereign government with a social spending agenda. We have always been a sovereign government with a military agenda
which is at odds with a social agenda.
Guns and butter are a dangerous combination if you are dedicated to at least maintaining
the illusion of a "strong dollar." That's basically what Nixon finessed. John Conally told him not to worry, we could go off the
gold standard and it wasn't our problem since we were the reserve currency – it was everybody else's problem and we promptly exported
our inflation all around the world. And now it has come home to roost because it was fudging and it couldn't last forever.
Much
better to concede to some fix for the currency and maintain the sovereign power to devalue the dollar as necessary to maintain
proper social spending. I don't understand why sovereign governments cannot see that a deficit is just the mirror image of a healthy
social economy (Stephanie Kelton).
And to that end "fix" an exchange rate that maintains a reasonable purchasing power of the
currency by pegging it to the long term health of the economy. What we do now is peg the dollar to a "basket of goods and services"-
Ben Bernanke. That "basket" is effectively "the market" and has very little to do with good social policy.
There's no reason we
can't dispense with the market and simply fiat the value of our currency based on the social return estimated for our social investments.
Etc. Keeping the dollar stubbornly strong is just tyranny favoring those few who benefit from extreme inequality.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability
."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies. Rather than redefine the term, why
not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or 'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
I had not given much thought to "Fascist" until the term was challenged as a synonym for "bully." So, I started reading Wikipedia's
take on Fascismo. What I discovered was the foremost, my USA education did not teach jack s -- about Fascism – and I went to elite
high school in libr'l Chicago.
Is Fascism right or left? Does it matter? What goes around comes around.
What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear
& loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power
by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps.
Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital
if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank
God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group
or something. :-)
Neoliberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital.
So, it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in
a way that enhances capital.
Prominent politicians in the US and UK have spent their entire political careers representing neoliberalism's agenda at the
expense of representing the voters' issues. The voters are tired of the conservative and [neo]liberal political establishments' focus
on neoliberal policy. This is also true in Germany as well France and Italy. The West's current political establishments see the
way forward as "staying the neoliberal course." Voters are saying "change course." See:
'German Politics Enters an Era of Instability' – Der Speigel
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now
called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of
distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the
iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so
social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the
neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate
and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story
with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the
credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan
" are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to,
highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any
Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.
"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the
political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and
untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than
orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."
It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it
vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but
laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more
damaging, is all American-made.
... ... ...
A recent study found
that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers
of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media
consumption.
Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of
reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how
widely Americans had polarized.
That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as
highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from
within.
An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship
... ... ...
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for
decades.
Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the
opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust
of the other side than support for their own.
This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist,
said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by
American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made
Facebook posts.
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
Russia is a perfect scapegoat which ensure lucrative levels of funding for both intelligence
agencies and MIC. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
Notable quotes:
"... "Turns out, there've been 13 people, in the opinion of the US Justice Department. 13 people interfered in the US elections? 13 against billions budgets of special agencies? Against intelligence and counterespionage, against the newest technologies? Absurd? – Yes." ..."
"... The indictment, however, is the "modern American political reality," Zakharova added, jokingly suggesting that the number 13 was picked due to its negative associations. ..."
"... "The Americans are very emotional people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. I am not at all upset that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them," ..."
"... "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump...and disparaging Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... "no allegations" ..."
"... On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did express their backing of the new US leader. ..."
"... "It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic administration. Even worsened to a certain extent," ..."
"Turns out, there've been 13 people, in the opinion of the US Justice Department. 13
people interfered in the US elections? 13 against billions budgets of special agencies? Against
intelligence and counterespionage, against the newest technologies? Absurd? – Yes."
Zakharova said in a Facebook post
.
The indictment, however, is the "modern American political reality," Zakharova added,
jokingly suggesting that the number 13 was picked due to its negative associations.
One of the indicted, Russian businessman Evgeny Prigozhin, said he was not really upset by
the accusations.
"The Americans are very emotional people, they see what they want to see. I have great
respect for them. I am not at all upset that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil,
let them," Prigozhin told RIA Novosti.
The entities and individuals were indicted by a US federal grand jury on Friday of
"supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump...and disparaging
Hillary Clinton."
However, there are "no allegations" that the suspected activities of the Russian
nationals somehow affected the polls, according to the US Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein.
On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has
never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did express their backing of the
new US leader.
The Minister has expressed his discontent with the apparently continuing nosedive in the
US-Russia relations. "It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his
presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic
administration. Even worsened to a certain extent," Lavrov told Euronews.
The indictment of 13 Russians is the latest twist in the "meddling saga," which has
persisted in the US politics and media for over a year. The illicit activities attributed to
Russia include, but are not limited to, "hacking" into Democratic National Committee
(DNC) computers during the 2016 elections campaign, maliciously leaking emails filled with
unsavory revelations, meddling through media coverage and fake social media accounts. However,
no solid evidence to back the numerous allegations has been presented yet.
"... The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe. ..."
"... The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a fascinating book. ..."
Your link to the Giraldi piece is appreciated, however, Giraldi starts off on a false
premise: He claims that people generally liked and trusted the FBI and CIA up until or
shortly after 9/11. Not so! Both agencies were complicit in the most infamous assassinations
and false flag episodes since the Kennedy/MLK Vietnam days. Don't forget Air America CIA drug
running and Iran/Contra / October Surprise affairs.
The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious
facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise
the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to
occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in
order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked
corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe.
The political parties are theatre designed to fool the people into believing we are living
in some sort of legitimate, representative system, when it's the same old plutocracy that
manages to get elected because they've long figured out the art of polarizing people and
capitalising on tribal alignments.
We should eliminate all government for a time so that people can begin to see that
corporations really do and most always have run the country.
It's preposterous to think the stupid public is actually discussing saddling ourselves and
future generations with gargantuan debt through a system designed and run by banksters!
it should be self evident a sovereign nation should maintain and forever hold the rights
to develop a monetary/financial system that serves the needs of the people, not be indentured
servants in a financial system that serves the insatiable greed of a handful of parasitic
banksters and corporate tycoons!
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm
You are so right, in fact Robert Parry made quite a journalistic career out of exposing
the CIA for such things as drug running. I gave up on that agency a longtime ago, after JFK
was murdered, and I was only 13 then. Yeah maybe Phil discounts the time while he worked for
the CIA, but the CIA has many, many rooms in which plots are hatched, so the valiant truth
teller Giraldi maybe excused this one time for his lack of memory .I guess, right?
Good comment Lee. Joe
Annie , February 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm
Yes, but he's referring to the public's opinion of these agencies, and if they didn't
continue to retain, even after 9/11, a significant popularity in the public's mind how would
we have so many American's buying into Russia-gate? In my perception of things they only lost
some ground after 9/11, but Americans notoriously have a short memory span.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:42 pm
And films that are supposed to help Americans feel good about the aims and efficacy of the
agencies like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo are in the popular imagination.
Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 7:19 pm
The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack
on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a
fascinating book.
"... Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According to Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai business from the start. ..."
"... Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason. Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. ..."
"... Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted list. ..."
The alleged leader of the Anonymous International hacker group, also known as
Shaltai-Boltai, has been arrested along with important officials in the security services who
collaborated with the group. For several years Shaltai-Boltai terrorized state officials,
businessmen and media figures by hacking their emails and telephones, and threatening to post
their private information online unless blackmail payments were made. "The price tag for our
work starts at several tens of thousands of dollars, and I am not going to talk about the upper
limit," said a man who calls himself Lewis during an interview with the news website,
Meduza ,
in January 2015.
Lewis, whose name pays hommage to the author Lewis Carroll, is the leader of Anonymous
International, the hacker group specializing in hacking the accounts of officials and
businessmen. Another name for Anonymous International is
Shaltai-Boltai, Russian for "Humpty-Dumpty."
Several years ago Lewis and his colleagues prospered thanks to extortion. They offered their
victims the chance to pay a handsome price to buy back their personal information that had been
stolen. Otherwise their information would be sold to third persons and even posted online. In
the end, Russian law-enforcement tracked down Lewis, and in November he was arrested and
now awaits trial . His real
name is Vladimir Anikeyev.
Shaltai-Boltai's founding father
"One's own success is good but other people's failure is not bad either," said the profile
quote on Vladimir Anikeyev's page on VKontakte , Russia's most popular social network.
Vladimir Anikeyev /
Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Rosbalt news website said that in the 1990s Lewis worked as a journalist in St. Petersburg
and specialized in collecting information through various methods, including dubious ones. "He
could go for a drink with someone or have an affair with someone's secretary or bribe people,"
Rosbalt's
source said.
In the 2000s Anikeyev switched to collecting kompromat (compromising material).
Using his connections, he would find the personal email addresses of officials and
entrepreneurs and break into them using hackers in St. Petersburg, and then blackmail the
victims. They had to pay to prevent their personal information from ending up on the
Internet.
Fake Wi-Fi
Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new
techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials,
and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone
connections.
Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the
hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices.
In the beginning Anikeyev was personally involved in the theft of information but later he
created a network of agents.
The business grew quickly; enormous amounts of information were at Anikeyev's disposal that
had to be sorted and selected for suitability as material for blackmail. In the end, according
to Rosbalt, Anonymous International arose as a handy tool for downloading the obtained
information.
Trying to change the world
The second name of the group refers to the works of Lewis Carroll, according to Shaltai-Boltai members. The crazy world of
Through the Looking Glass, with its inverted logic, is the most apt metaphor for
Russian political life. Apart from Lewis Anikeyev, the team has several other members: Alice;
Shaltai, Boltai (these two acted as press secretaries, and as a result of a mix-up, the media
started calling the whole project, Shaltai-Boltai); and several others, including
"technicians," or specialist hackers.
The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the phones
and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to
Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to
pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people
with an active civil stance.
"We can be called campaigners. We are trying to change the world. To change it for the
better," Shaltai told the Apparat website. In interviews members of the group
repeatedly complained about Russian officials who restricted Internet freedom, the country's
foreign policy and barriers to participation in elections.
Hacker exploits
Shaltai-Boltai's most notorious hack was of an explicitly political nature and not about
making money. It hacked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's Twitter account. On Aug. 14,
2014 tweets were
posted on the account saying that Medvedev was resigning because he was ashamed of the
government's actions. The `prime minister' also had time to write that Putin was wrong, that
the government had problems with common sense, and that the authorities were taking the
country back to the past.
On the same day Anonymous International posted part of the prime minister's
stolen archive, admitting that, "there is nothing particularly interesting in it."
"The posted material was provided by a certain highly-placed reptilian of our acquaintance,"
the hackers joked
.
Medvedev is far from being Shaltai-Boltai's only victim. The hackers published the private
correspondence of officials in the presidential administration: Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
businessman close to Vladimir Putin; Aram Gabrelyanov, head of the pro-Kremlin News Media
holding company; and of Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the uprising in east Ukraine.
Lewis, however, insisted that only material that had failed to sell ended up on the
Internet.
Law-enforcement links
Anikeyev was detained in November, and the following month Sergei Mikhailov, head of the 2nd
operations directorate of the FSB Information Security Center, was also arrested. According to
Kommersant , Mikhailov was a
major figure in the security services who, "was essentially overseeing the country's entire
internet business."
Mikhailov's aide, FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchayev, and a former hacker known as Forb, was also
arrested. Shortly after, Ruslan Stoyanov, head of the department for investigating cybercrime
at the antivirus software company Kaspersky Lab, was also detained. Stoyanov also worked
closely with the secret services.
According to Rosbalt , Anikeyev revealed
information about the FSB officers and the Kaspersky Lab computer expert and their close
involvement with Shaltai-Boltai.
Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to
take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According
to
Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai
business from the start.
Shaltai-Boltai had a big fall
Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason.
Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to
computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges
against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in
leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav
Surkov.
Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account
since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the
Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted
list.
Anyway, Shaltai-Boltai anticipated this outcome. "What awaits us if we are uncovered?
Criminal charges and most likely a prison sentence. Each member of the team is aware of the
risks," they said dispassionately in the interview with Apparat in 2015.
"... A Moscow court has sentenced two Russian hackers to three years in prison each for breaking into the e-mail accounts of top Russian officials and leaking them. ..."
"... The 2016 arrests of the Shaltai-Boltai hackers became known only after Russian media reported that two officials of the Federal Security Service's cybercrime unit had been arrested on treason charges. ..."
A Moscow court has sentenced two Russian hackers to three years in prison each for breaking
into the e-mail accounts of top Russian officials and leaking them.
Konstantin Teplyakov and Aleksandr Filinov were members of the Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty Dumpty
in Russian) collective believed to be behind the hacking of high-profile accounts, including
the Twitter account of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The two were found guilty of illegally accessing computer data in collusion with a criminal
group.
Earlier in July, Shaltai-Boltai leader Vladimir Anikeyev was handed a two-year sentence
after striking a plea bargain and agreeing to cooperate with the authorities.
The 2016 arrests of the Shaltai-Boltai hackers became known only after Russian media
reported that two officials of the Federal Security Service's cybercrime unit had been arrested
on treason charges.
Russian media reports suggested the officials had connections to the hacker group or had
tried to control it.
A notorious Russian hacker whose exploits and later arrest gave glimpses into the
intersection of computer crime and Russian law enforcement has been sentenced to two years in
prison.
The Moscow City Court issued its ruling July 6 against Vladimir Anikeyev in a decision made
behind closed doors, one indication of the sensitivity of his case.
"... The stories implicating Mikhailov gained credence when Russian businessman Pavel Vrublevsky made similar accusations. He asserted that Mikhailov leaked details of Russian hacking capabilities to U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
In January, the Kremlin-linked media outlet Kommersant suggested that the heads of Russia's
Information Security Center (TsIB) were under investigation and would soon leave their posts.
The TsIB is a shadowy unit that manages computer security investigations for the Interior
Ministry and the FSB. It is thought to be Russia's largest inspectorate when it comes to
domestic and foreign cyber capabilities, including hacking. It oversees security matters
related to credit theft, financial information, personal data, social networks and reportedly
election data -- or as some have claimed in the Russian media, "election rigging." Beyond its
investigative role, it is presumed that the TsIB is fully capable of planning and directing
cyber operations. A week after the initial Kommersant report surfaced, Andrei Gerasimov, the
longtime TsIB director, resigned.
Not long after Gerasimov's resignation at the end of January, reports emerged from numerous
Kremlin-linked media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated flood of information and
disinformation about the arrests of senior TsIB officers. One of the cyber unit's operational
directors, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested toward the end of last year along with his deputy,
Dmitri Dokuchaev, and charged with treason. Also arrested around the same time was Ruslan
Stoyanov, the chief investigator for Kaspersky Lab, which is the primary cybersecurity
contractor for the TsIB. There is much conjecture, but Mikhailov was apparently forcibly
removed from a meeting with fellow FSB officers -- escorted out with a bag over his head, so
the story goes -- and arrested. This is thought to have taken place some time around Dec. 5.
His deputy, a well-respected computer hacker recruited by the FSB, was reportedly last seen in
November. Kaspersky Lab's Stoyanov was a career cybersecurity professional, previously working
for the Indrik computer crime investigation firm and the Interior Ministry's computer crime
unit. Novaya Gazeta, a Kremlin-linked media outlet, reported that two other unnamed FSB
computer security officers were also detained. Theories, Accusations and Rumors
Since the initial reports surfaced, Russian media have been flooded with conflicting
theories about the arrests; about Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and Stoyanov; and about the accusations
levied against them. Because the charges are treason, the case is considered "classified" by
the state, meaning no official explanation or evidence will be released. An ultranationalist
news network called Tsargrad TV reported that Mikhailov had tipped U.S. intelligence to the
King Servers firm, which the FBI has accused of being the nexus of FSB hacking and intelligence
operations in the United States. (It should be noted that Tsargrad TV tends toward
sensationalism and has been used as a conduit for propaganda in the past.) The media outlet
also claimed that the Russian officer's cooperation is what enabled the United States to
publicly
accuse Moscow of sponsoring election-related hacking with "high confidence."
The stories implicating Mikhailov gained credence when Russian businessman Pavel
Vrublevsky made similar accusations. He asserted that Mikhailov leaked details of Russian
hacking capabilities to U.S. intelligence agencies. Vrublevsky, however, had previously
been the target of hacking accusations leveled by Mikhailov and his team, so it is possible
that he has a personal ax to grind. To further complicate matters, a business partner of
Vrublevsky, Vladimir Fomenko, runs King Servers, which the United States shut down in the wake
of the hacking scandal.
This article is almost a year old but contains interesting information about possible involvement of Shaltai Boltai in
framing Russia in interference in the USA elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Also called Anonymous International, Shaltai-Boltai was responsible for leaking early copies of Putin's New Year speech and for selling off "lots" of emails stolen from Russian officials such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ..."
"... Later media reports said that the group's leader, Vladimir Anikeyev, had recently been arrested by the FSB and had informed on Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and Stoyanov. ..."
The FBI just indicted a Russian official for hacking. But why did Russia charge him with treason? - The Washington Post
But what is less clear is why one of the men has been arrested and
charged with treason in Russia. Dmitry Dokuchaev, an agent for the cyberinvestigative arm of the FSB, was arrested in
Moscow in December. He's accused by the FBI of "handling" the hackers, paying "bounties" for breaking into email
accounts held by Russian officials, opposition politicians and journalists, as well as foreign officials and business
executives. The Russian targets included an Interior Ministry officer and physical trainer in a regional Ministry of
Sports. (The full text of the indictment, which has a full list of the targets and some curious typos, is
here
.)
Reading this hackers indictment. I'm pretty sure there is no such position as the "deputy
chairman of the Russian Federation"
pic.twitter.com/DOWXYNoWjZ
Dokuchaev's case is part of a larger and mysterious spate of arrests of Russian cyber officials and experts. His
superior, Sergei Mikhailov, deputy chief of the FSB's Center for Information Security, was also arrested in December and
charged with treason. According to Russian reports, the arrest came during a plenum of FSB officers, where Mikhailov had
a bag placed over his head and was taken in handcuffs from the room. Ruslan Stoyanov, a manager at the Russian
cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, was also arrested that month. Stoyanov helped coordinate investigations between the
company and law enforcement, a person who used to work at the company said.
Below are some of the theories behind the Russian arrests. Lawyers for some of the accused have told The Washington
Post that they can't reveal details of the case and, because of the secrecy afforded to treason cases, they don't have
access to all the documents.
None of the theories below has been confirmed, nor are they mutually exclusive.
1. Links to U.S. election hacking
: With attention focused on the hacking attacks against the U.S.
Democratic National Committee allegedly ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, some Russian and U.S. media
suggested that Dokuchaev and Mikhailov leaked information implicating Russia in the hack to the United States. The
Russian Interfax news agency, which regularly cites government officials as sources, reported that "Sergei Mikhailov and
his deputy, Dmitry Dokuchaev, are accused of betraying their oath and working with the CIA." Novaya Gazeta, a liberal,
respected Russian publication, citing sources, wrote that Mikhailov had tipped off U.S. intelligence about King Servers,
the hosting service used to support hacking attacks on targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona in
June. That had followed reports in the New York Times, citing one current and one former government official, that
"human sources in Russia did play a crucial role in proving who was responsible for the hacking."
Nakashima wrote yesterday that "the [FBI] charges are unrelated to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee
and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. But the move reflects the U.S.
government's increasing desire to hold foreign governments accountable for malicious acts in cyberspace."
2. A shadowy hacking collective called Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty-Dumpty)
:
Also called
Anonymous International, Shaltai-Boltai was responsible for leaking early copies of Putin's New Year speech and for
selling off "lots" of emails stolen from Russian officials such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In a theory first
reported by the pro-Kremlin, conservative Orthodox media company Tsargrad, Mikhailov had taken control
of Shaltai-Boltai, "curating and supervising" the group in selecting hacking targets. Later media reports said that the
group's leader, Vladimir Anikeyev, had recently been arrested by the FSB and had informed on Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and
Stoyanov. A member of the group who fled to Estonia told the Russian media agency Fontanka that they had recently
acquired an FSB "coordinator," although he could not say whether it was Mikhailov. None of the hacks mentioned in the
FBI indictment could immediately be confirmed as those carried out by Shaltai-Boltai.
Lawyers contacted by The Post said that in documents they had seen, there was no link to Shaltai-Boltai in the case.
3.
A grudge with a cybercriminal
: A Russian businessman who had specialized in spam and malware had
claimed for years that Mikhailov was trading information on cybercriminals with the West. Mikhailov had reportedly
testified in the case of Pavel Vrublevsky, the former head of the payment services company Chronopay, who was imprisoned
in 2013 for ordering a denial of service attack on the website of Aeroflot, the Russian national airline. Vrublevsky
claimed then that Mikhailov began exchanging information about Russian cybercriminals with Western intelligence
agencies, including documents about Chronopay. Brian Krebs, an American journalist who investigates cybercrime and
received access to Vrublevsky's emails,
wrote in January
: "Based on
how long Vrublevsky has been
trying
to sell this narrative
, it seems he may have
finally found a buyer
."
4.
Infighting at the FSB:
The Russian government is not monolithic, and infighting between and
within the powerful law enforcement agencies is common. The Russian business publication RBC had written that Mikhailov
and Dokuchaev's Center for Information Security had been in conflict with another department with similar
responsibilities, the FSB's Center for Information Protection and Special Communications. The conflict may have led to
the initiation of a criminal case, the paper's sources said.
As Leonid Bershidsky, founding editor of the Russian business daily publication Vedomosti,
wrote in January, the dramatic arrests of two high-level FSB officers -- Sergei Mikhailov , the deputy head of the FSB's
Information Security Center, and Major Dmitry
Dokuchaev , a highly skilled hacker who had been recruited by the FSB -- on treason charges
in December offers a glimpse into "how security agencies generally operate in Putin's
Russia."
At the time of their arrest, Dokuchaev (who was one of the Russian officials indicted for
the Yahoo breach) and Mikhailov had been trying to cultivate a Russian hacking group known as
"Shaltai Boltai" -- or "Humpty Dumpty" -- that had been publishing stolen emails from Russian
officials' inboxes, according to Russian media reports.
"The FSB team reportedly uncovered the identities of the group's members -- but, instead of
arresting and indicting them, Mikhailov's team tried to run the group, apparently for profit or
political gain," Bershidsky wrote. Shaltai Boltai complied, Bershidsky wrote, because it wanted
to stay afloat, and didn't mind taking orders from "government structures."
"We get orders from government structures and from private individuals," Shaltai Boltai's
alleged leader said in a 2015
interview. "But we say we are an independent team. It's just that often it's impossible to
tell who the client is. Sometimes we get information for intermediaries, without knowing who
the end client is."
It appears that Dokuchaev and Mikhailov got caught running this side project with Shaltai
Boltai -- which was still targeting high-level Russian officials -- when the FSB began
surveilling Mikhailov. Officials targeted Mikhailov after receiving a tip that he might have
been leaking information about Russian cyber activities to the FBI, according to the
Novaya Gazeta.
Short of working against Russian interests, hackers "can pursue whatever projects they want,
as long as their targets are outside of Russia and they follow orders from the top when
needed," said Bremmer, of Eurasia Group. The same goes for FSB officers, who are tactically
allowed to "run private security operations involving blackmail and protection," according to
Bershidsky.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that the hack on the Democratic National Committee
during the 2016 election was likely one such "order from the top" -- a directive issued by
Russian President Vladimir Putin and carried out by hackers hired by the GRU and the FSB.
It is still unclear if the Yahoo breach was directed by FSB officials at the instruction of
the Kremlin, like the DNC hack, or if it was one of those "private security operations"
Bershidsky alluded to that some Russian intelligence officers do on the side.
Bremmer said that it's possible the Yahoo breach was not done for state ends, especially
given the involvement of Dokuchaev, who was already caught up in Shaltai Baltai's operations to
steal and sell information for personal financial gain.
"... As the days since Mueller's latest indictment have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies. ..."
"... Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump" ..."
"... In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory ..."
"... Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it ..."
"... This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was). ..."
"... The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been expected to know about it. ..."
"... Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016. ..."
"... Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both in person and online. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel Mueller in his indictment. ..."
"... I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my article about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018. ..."
"... This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting, but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier, which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted. ..."
"... Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see here and here ) they in fact do no such thing. ..."
"... With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there is still a collusion case to investigate? ..."
As the days since Mueller's latest indictment
have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink
in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies.
Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the
Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly
admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump"
There will be understandable disappointment in many quarters that the latest indictments delivered by Robert Mueller, the special
counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, once again failed to nail Donald Trump. Although
the charges levelled against 13 Russians and three Russian entities are extraordinarily serious, they do not directly support
the central claim that Trump and senior campaign aides colluded with Moscow to rig the vote.
The Times of London meanwhile has
admitted
that the latest indictment contains "no smoking gun"
The Department of Justice, however, offered no confirmation to those still smarting from the election in November 2016, who
believe that, in the absence of Russian interference, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House today. Friday's allegations
offered no evidence that the outcome had been affected. Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, said yesterday that Donald Trump's
victories in the key swing states were his own.
There was further comfort for Mr Trump, which he was quick to celebrate with a tweet. The investigation uncovered no evidence
"that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity". That includes, so far, anybody involved in the
Trump campaign. If there is a smoking gun it has yet to emerge, though Robert Mueller's investigation will grind on. President
Vladimir Putin is a malign and dangerous mischief maker. It has not been proved that he is an evil genius with the ability to
swing a US election.
In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory
and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory.
Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump
Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it
This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing
an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in
a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the
DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks.
Belief in this conspiracy dies hard, and an interesting
article in the Financial Times by Edward
Luce provides a fascinating example of the dogged determination of some people to believe in it. Writing about Mueller's latest indictment
Luce has this to say
Mr Mueller's report hints at more dramatic possibilities by corroborating contents of the "Steele dossier", which was compiled
in mid-2016 by the former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele -- long before the US intelligence agencies warned
of Russian interference. Mr Steele, who is in hiding, alleged that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns
of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee. Mr Mueller's
indictment confirms that account.
Likewise, Mr Mueller's indictment confirms the Steele dossier's claim that Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election
by backing leftwing as well as rightwing groups. Among the entities run by the IRA were groups with names such as "Secured Borders",
"Blacktivists", "United Muslims of America" and "Army of Jesus".
What is fascinating about these words is that none of them are true.
Christopher Steele is not in hiding.
The actua l
Trump Dossier does
not allege "that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic
runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee".
Bernie Sanders is mentioned by the Trump Dossier only in passing. By the time the Trump Dossier's first entries were written Bernie
Sanders's campaign was all but over and it was already clear that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the
Presidency.
Jill Stein is mentioned – again in passing – only once, in a brief mention which refers to her now infamous visit to Russia where
she attended the same dinner with President Putin as Michael Flynn.
Nor does the Trump Dossier anywhere claim that "Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election by backing leftwing as well
as rightwing groups".
On the contrary the Trump Dossier is focused – exclusively and obsessively – on documenting at fantastic length the alleged conspiracy
between the Russian government and the campaign of the supposedly compromised Donald Trump to get him elected US President.
Supporters of the Russiagate conspiracy theory need to start facing up to the hard truth about the Trump Dossier.
At the time the Trump Dossier was published in January 2017 little was known publicly about the contacts which actually took place
between members of Donald Trump's campaign and tranisiton teams and the Russians during and after the election.
Today – a full year later and after months of exhaustive investigation – we know far more about those contacts.
What Is striking about those contacts is how ignorant the supposedly high level Russian sources of the Trump Dossier were about
them.
Thus the Trump Dossier never mentions Jeff Sessions's two meetings with Russian ambassador Kislyak, or the various conversations
Michael Flynn is known to have had with Russian ambassador Kislyak, some of which apparently took place before Donald Trump won the
election.
The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous
meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which
the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was).
The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its
high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been
expected to know about it.
Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016.
This despite the fact that the Trump Dossier's first entry is dated 20th June 2016 i.e. eleven days later, so that if this meeting
really was intended to set the stage for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – as believers in the Russiagate conspiracy
theory insist – a well informed Russian source with access to information from the Kremlin would be expected to know about it.
Nor does the Trump Dossier have anything to say about George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign aide who had the most extensive
contacts with the Russians, and whose drunken bragging in a London bar is now claimed by the FBI to have been its reason for starting
the Russiagate inquiry.
In fact George Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Trump Dossier at all.
This despite the fact that members of Russia's high powered Valdai Discussion Club were Papadopoulos's main interlocutors in his
discussions with the Russians, and Igor Ivanov – Russia's former foreign minister, and a senior albeit retired official genuinely
known to Putin – was informed about the discussions also, making it at least possible that high level people in the Russian Foreign
Ministry and conceivably in the Russian government and in the Kremlin were kept informed about the discussions with Papadopoulos,
so that a genuinely well-informed Russian source might be expected to know about them.
By contrast none of the secret meetings between Carter Page and Michael Cohen and the Russians discussed at such extraordinary
length in the Trump Dossier have ever been proved to have taken place.
Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between
members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both
in person and online.
The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet
Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel
Mueller in his indictment.
The only conclusion possible is that if the Trump Dossier's Russian sources actually exist (about which I am starting to
have doubts) then they were extraordinarily ignorant of what was actually going on.
That of course is consistent with the fact – recently revealed in the heavily redacted memorandum sent to the Justice Department
by Senators Grassley and Lindsey Graham – that many of the sources of the Trump Dossier were not actually Russian but were American.
John Helmer – the most experienced journalist covering Russia, and a person who has a genuine and profound knowledge of the country
– made that very point – that many of the Trump Dossier's sources were American rather than Russian – in an
article he published on 18th January 2017, ie. just days after the Trump Dossier was published.
In that same
article Helmer also made this very valid point about the Trump Dossier's compiler Christopher Steele
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the
Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed
messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British
prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012.Read more on Steele's fake rock operation
here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming
Putin for fabricating the story.
Given that Steele was outed by Russian intelligence in 2006, with his intelligence operation in Russia dismantled by the FSB that
year, it beggars belief that ten years later in 2016 he still had access to high level secrets in the Kremlin.
What we now know in fact proves that he did not.
I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my
article
about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018.
This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting,
but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier,
which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted.
For my part I owe Helmer an apology for not referencing his 18th January 2017 article in my article of 6th February 2018. I should
have done so and I am very sorry that I didn't.
I have spent some time discussing the Trump Dossier because despite denials it remains the lynchpin of the whole Russiagate scandal
and of the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail
because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see
here and
here ) they in fact do no
such thing.
Despite Edward Luce's desperate efforts to argue otherwise, Mueller's latest indictment far from corroborating the Trump Dossier,
has done the opposite.
With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly
to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there
is still a collusion case to investigate?
Internet Research Agency: Russian journalist who uncovered election interference left confounded by Mueller - The
Washington Post
A
37-page
indictment
issued by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team on Friday brings fresh American attention to one
of the strangest elements of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election: The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a
state-sponsored "troll factory" in St. Petersburg.
But much of the information Mueller published on Friday about the
agency's efforts to influence the election had already been published last October -- in an article by a Russian business
magazine, RBC.
In a 4,500-word report titled "
How the 'troll
factory' worked the U.S. elections,
" journalists Polina Rusyaeva and Andrey Zakharov offered the fullest picture yet
of how the "American department" of the IRA used Facebook, Twitter and other tactics to inflame tensions ahead of the
2016 vote. The article also looked at the staffing structure of the organization and revealed details about its budget
and salaries.
Zakharov agreed to answer some questions for WorldViews about his reaction to the details about the IRA in Mueller's
indictments (Rusyaeva left journalism after the story came out, although she stresses she did not do so because of a
reaction to the story). Zakharov explained how it was a strange feeling seeing something he had so closely investigated
become a major issue in the United States, when it had not been a "bombshell" when he published his report at home.
"... Situation goes up and down based on money paid. Look at Saudi, things starts to go wrong the moment they try challenge US. Same goes for Israel too. But once the account is filled back up, every problem disappear. ..."
"... Russia stopped payment to Deep State and even dared to try expose Clinton their candidate. Of course Russians got to pay.... ..."
"... All you need to see to know the MSM is fake and biased is to look at the front page the last two weeks. Congressional memo detailing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret warrants for surveillance of US citizens, two paragraphs on page 13. Mueller indicts random Russian internet trolls that will never be arrested or extradited, front page headline, all caps. ..."
"... We live at a time when every honest and decent person who can and wants to think on his own, automatically receives a label of a supporter of Russia and Putin personally. ..."
"... If 13 Internet trolls are really able to influence the choice of the president in a certain country, then this is a third world country. Or the fourth world. Thus, Mueller publicly recognized America, a third world country. Or the country of the fourth world. ..."
There is no double standards, It is always the same for everyone. Saudi paid good money to meddle in US elections, immigration policies among others. Israel arranges payback thru their countless organizations operating and manipulating US. Hey even the lightweight Ukraine paid good money.
Situation goes up and down based on money paid. Look at Saudi, things starts to go wrong the moment they try challenge US.
Same goes for Israel too. But once the account is filled back up, every problem disappear.
Russia stopped payment to Deep State and even dared to try expose Clinton their candidate. Of course Russians got to pay....
All you need to see to know the MSM is fake and biased is to look at the front page the last two weeks. Congressional memo
detailing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret warrants for surveillance of US citizens, two paragraphs on page 13. Mueller indicts
random Russian internet trolls that will never be arrested or extradited, front page headline, all caps. Flynn gets charged with
lying to the FBI about something that had nothing to do with the investigation, and has resulted in no indictments, front page
headline, all caps. Manafort indicted for errors in financial paperwork that happened before he even joined the campaign, and
had nothing to do with Russia, front page, all caps.
We live at a time when every honest and decent person who can and wants
to think on his own, automatically receives a label of a supporter of
Russia and Putin personally.
That is, if a person has reason,
conscience and his own opinion different from the opinion of the Faux
news and CNN, such a person will always receive accusations as a "secret
agent of the Kremlin,"
regardless of his citizenship and
nationality.
If 13 Internet trolls are really able to influence the choice of the
president in a certain country, then this is a third world country. Or
the fourth world.
Thus, Mueller publicly recognized America, a third world
country.
Or the country of the fourth world.
But every honest and decent person is realizing since 2008 the whole
economy is a ponzi and in fact with ZIRP on pension growth the future
looks like poverty on a massive scale.
World will go to rat shit
now, as they try to raise rates on their centrally planned NIRP
economy destroying the economy more when the economy is really
calling out for NIRP across the board to make money cheap once again.
Mueller needs to keep spinning his tune for a long time as
when the music stops the war starts.
Or he could be waiting for the economic implosion to kick it off.
It's possible. If the economy crashes to depression levels while
Trump is in office, which wouldn't shock most of us, what better
time to try and impeach him than when he's got his own party
gunning for him? That's the reason they went after him so
quickly. They were trying to grab what they thought was
low-hanging fruit, only to find nothing there, and now Trump's
numbers are up, and Republicans have fallen in line, making
impeachment impossible without a major smoking gun. Their only
hope now is that the economy tanks. Hence all the wooden faces
during the SotU speech, when Trump told them about how well the
Democrat voting demographics were doing financially
Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a hand grenade in the Russian meddling
narrative in a string of tweets responding to Mueller's indictment of
13 Russian nationals running a "bot farm" which, according to Mueller (via Deputy AG Rod
Rosenstein), was unsuccessful at influencing the 2016 election.
... ... ...
Notably, Goldman points out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on
Facebook occurred after the election - and was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans",
something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed
decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets
artificially afloat at any cost.
This is a very good overview that presents convincing hypothesis why Mueller made himself a
joke. Along with desire to preserve his franchise they needed a smoke screen to distract people
from the evidence of a color revolution against Trump, a palace coup d'état which involved
two dozens or so highly placed officials in Obama administration, including CIA (Brennan), FBI
(Comey, McCabe, Strzok, James A. Baker, etc) and Justice Department (Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr to
name a few . In other words this is nothing more then " a well-timed effort to distract
Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting
attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are
themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work."
Notable quotes:
"... And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage Hillary. ..."
"... Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work. ..."
For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the
heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to
ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent
presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and
the CIA,
plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British
Foreign Office (with the involvement of former
British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.
Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly
Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the
Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary
from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place,
securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National
Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a
bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer
formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition);
former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein,
himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests .
Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O.
Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .
Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic
administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who
according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're
doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally
implausible.
On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat
Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a
year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime
Minister's office.
The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be
allowed to be pulled back!
What to do, what to do . . .
Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even
Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!
Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens
and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true,
however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a
complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a
presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending
not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to
Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic"
grounds .)
Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively
the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions
(R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a
few conclusions:
Finally, "collusion" is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any
hint that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included
it. They didn't. That means that after months and months of "investigation" – or
really, setting "perjury traps" and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul
Manafort's alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting
however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes.
Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always
was.
And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much
less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the
indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and
disparage Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there
was no actual cooperation. It's a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent
(of someone else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit
Trump as a Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian
desperados supported
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they're also Putin's dupes.
Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points
to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with
the hysteria over social media placements by "Russian interests" on account of which
hysterical Senators
demanded that tech giants impose content controls , or dimwit
CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange
for – well, pretty much nothing. ( The CIA denies it , which
leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a
click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50
per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to "self-enrichment" as one motive of
the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the
indictment that the Russian goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" by posting
content on "divisive U.S. political and social issues." What! Americans disagree about stuff?
The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment,
Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to "promote discord in the United States and
undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." (He wagged his
finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn't occur to Rosenstein that he and his
pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political
ends.
Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans'
attention to their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration,
Black Lives Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA,
#Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any
of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting
Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where
patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that
they've been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade ?
An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S.
does. At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big
"if" – it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the
table that a lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this
gargantuan Russian scheme was (as reported
by Politico ) an "expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and
employed as many as hundreds of people." Millions of dollars! Hundreds of
people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to
point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never
mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election.
That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political
influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the
guise of "democracy promotion." The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its
Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of
ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft
compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and
nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the " Demintern " in
analogy to the Comintern , an organization
comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also
coordinated
internationally at the official level through the less-well-known " Community of Democracies ." It is often
difficult to know where the "official" entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department,
Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED,
Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that
cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by
billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often
successful "
color revolutions " targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime
change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
"
Mitt Romney was right." Already many of Trump's supporters are not only
crowing with satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing
their gaze from the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign
threat. "This whole saga just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt
Romney was right" for "suggesting that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe," is
the new GOP meme . To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that
enmity with
Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is
a smashing success already.
The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract
Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting
attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are
themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.
So "Russian interference" in our elections are some Facebook trolls? Are you freakin'
kiddin' me? After 18 months of investigation not one shred of evidence has been presented.
Has even one voting machine been hacked?
I seem to remember Nuland and McBraintumor on the barricades in the Ukraine. These Russian
trolls are exercising what used to be called Political speech. Good or bad I don't think you
will be able to stop it. Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the
Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection
of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history.
This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a
Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals
against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you
have obvious perjury.
The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false
fairy tale to the detriment of the American people.
Disobedient Media previously opined on the dagger-in-the-back publication of a hit piece
against Wikileaks' Julian Assange just one day after a UK magistrate, with blatant conflict of
interest in the matter, shot down his legal representatives' attempt to finally free him from
the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.
What that article did not address was the patently obvious terminal illness suffered by The
Intercept. That is, the outlet claims to publish "fearless, adversarial" reporting, while it is
funded by a billionaire. Ken Silverstein
, formerly employed at The Intercept and by Omidyar's First Look Media, has described endemic
problems at the outlet that have risen directly out of Omidyar's leadership or lack
thereof.
The fundamental problem facing The Intercept is not ultimately about how or why the outlet
published a smear specifically timed to cut support away from Assange, even though that is in
and of itself despicable. It's that doing so acts in support of the very deep state and
moneyed, military interests that The Intercept purports to critique "fearlessly."
Adding to a sense of betrayal of The Intercept's principals in the wake of the outlet's
hit-piece is the fact that a number of writers at the publication are by all accounts on good
terms with Assange, and have worked with mutual supporters including the superb Italian
journalist Stefania Maurizi. Maurizi collaborated with Wikileaks on the verification of
documents for many years, and worked with Glenn Greenwald on preparation for the disclosure of
the Snowden files.
Adding to the years of support Greenwald has shown Assange, the Wikileaks co-founder also
sent Wikileaks' own Sarah Harrison to
the aid of Snowden after he was marooned in Hong Kong in 2013, an act which Stefania Maurizi
revealed very likely cost the publisher his freedom.
After the publication of the Snowden files, the UK ceased any attempt to create a legal
process by which Assange might have been safely freed , and in the same year pressured
Sweden to continue its investigation after the country's authorities expressed their intent to
drop the matter. Likewise, in the wake of Assange's actions towards Snowden, the Obama White
House changed its stance from a reluctant acceptance that prosecution of WikiLeaks for
publishing might not be possible given that US publishers had also published the same
material.
Snowden's revelations also provided much of the impetus for the launch of The Intercept as
an outlet, after Glenn Greenwald departed from The Guardian . In this way, Assange's story and his fate in the
Ecuadorian embassy is inextricably linked with the origin of The Intercept's rise on the back
of the Snowden revelations.
Only a few months later, in October 2013 while Snowden was still stuck in a Moscow airport
and out of reach of US authorities and The Intercept was gearing up for launch, the UK made it
clear to the Swedish prosecutor that she should not drop her investigation and European Arrest
Warrant for Assange, even though Sweden's law on proportionality required her to do so.
In the wake of Snowden's escape to Russia, Assange remained trapped in 30 square meters of
an embassy and lost any hope that had existed earlier in 2013 that he would soon be released
from that space, where we now know he cannot receive even the most basic medical care.
Meanwhile, The Intercept has become what it set out to destroy.
The relationship between Assange and The intercept makes it impossible to see the
organization's publication of an intrinsically flawed smear piece aimed at Assange as anything
other than a deep betrayal.
Which brings us inevitably to Pierre
Omidyar . That the multi-billionaire Ebay founder despises Trump and would have preferred
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to assume the mantle of the Presidency is an
understatement, but to focus only on his political outlook also misses the point of the larger
issue facing The Intercept.
The billionaire's incoherent vision of the First Amendment
(disturbing for someone who funds journalistic endeavors) aside, the nature of The Intercept's
fatal catch-22 would remain if Omidyar woke up tomorrow to become a MAGA-hat wearing,
NRA-supporting conservative. That is, a media outlet cannot perform as an 'independent and
adversarial' entity when it is birthed within and nurtured by the very establishment it must
confront.
When USA
Today reported that Omidyar would contribute $250 million to pursue "independent
journalism," a genetic malfunction was written into the Intercept's DNA. One cannot operate in
an adversarial manner when one is supported directly by the same moneyed interests that require
the most scrutiny and transparency of all.
That the magnate's influence would seep, tide-like, into the reporting and editorial
decisions of The Intercept seems difficult to ignore, but it is that inevitable creep itself
and not the flavor of his beliefs which makes the situation so damning for The Intercept.
I've previously
written at length in an effort to describe the chilling uniformity that ultimately pervades
the plutocratic class. Being a billionaire makes Pierre Omidyar much more like one of the Koch
Brothers than any liberal without access to the same magnitude of wealth and influence in the
US political sphere. The fact that wealth translates to political influence was described in a
Princeton University study, indicating
that the United States operates as a plutocracy. In that light, it is the wealth that binds
Omidyar, the Kochs and their ilk, as opposed to political outlook.
When Omidyar made use of Citizens' United to supply
an anti-Trump super PAC with $100,000 in 2016, it's not the flavor of the political activism
that he bought – it's that he bought it at all. Omidyar is a power-player within the same
corrupt establishment that WikiLeaks and The Intercept – in principle – aim to
critique regularly.
Omidyar has also provided funds to
the Clinton Foundation. As indicated by Wikileaks via Twitter , the Freedom Of The Press Foundation recently made the
controversial decision to terminate processing of Wikileaks donations. The move represented an
end to the role that was a central cause for the Foundation's creation, according to a
statement by Assange.
Ironically, the initial financial
blockade that made the Freedom Of The Press necessary was in part initiated by Paypal,
which was a spin-off from Ebay, a company that Omidyar founded. Omidyar served on the board of the
company until last year.
Sarah Harisson expressed the conflict of interest that Omidyar's involvement with The
Intercept represents to German Press ,
saying: " How can you take something seriously when the person behind this platform went along
with the financial boycott against WikiLeaks?"
Here lies the gulf between an adversarial organization like WikiLeaks and a news outlet that
purports to be fearless while subsisting on the payroll of a member of the plutocratic
elite.
The issue here goes beyond Omidyar's politics and the petty, obsessively personal
derangement of The Intercept's Micah Lee towards Julian Assange. The crux of the terminal
illness suffered by The Intercept is that it cannot stand as an outlet that wishes to both
participate in adversarial, anti-establishment reporting while it also relies on the funds of a
billionaire – any billionaire.
The rough beast born of the marriage between Omidyar's funds and the yearning for freedom
that surrounded the release of the Snowden Files cannot help but spiral towards its inevitable
fate.
At The Intercept, the center cannot hold in the widening gyre between its best journalists
and its worst impulses.
"... The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI . His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here . To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. ..."
"... If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon . ..."
"... Why Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia? , ..."
He is one of the better-known thinkers
The New Yorker
has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an
excellent 2009 profile
, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another
regular
contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful
crack-up.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on
Patreon
.
Forget about sharks. In their Valentine's Day editorial:
Why
Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia?
,
The New York Times
jumped several
blue whales (all the ones left on earth), a cruise ship, a subtropical archipelago, a giant vortex of plastic
bottles, and the
Sport's Illustrated
swimsuit shoot. The lede said:
The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message: Not only did
Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to
exacerbate the country's political and social divisions.
Hmmm . After almost two years of relentless public paranoia about Russia and US elections, don't you suppose these
Ruskie gremlins would find some other way to make mischief in our world -- maybe meddle in the NHL playoffs, or hack
WalMart's bookkeeping department, or covertly switch out the real Dwayne Johnson with a robot? I kind of completely
and absolutely doubt that they'll bother with our elections.
Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw
prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our
own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results?
Oh, by the way, the
Times
presented no evidence whatsoever that this alleged "meddling" is taking place.
They just assert it, as if it were already adjudicated.
But then they take it another step, making the case that because Mr. Trump does not go along with the Russian
Meddling story, he is obstructing efforts to prevent Russian interference in the elections that haven't happened yet,
and is therefore by implication guilty of treason. A fine piece of casuistry.
The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation
sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political
figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel
services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company
that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email.
There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI,
NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an
active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war.
The "resistance" may think it is getting some mileage out of this interminable narrative, but its arrant
inconsistencies only undermine faith in all our political institutions, and that is really playing with fire.
We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't
have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial
system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and
then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work
in a very different economy.
PS:
Readers may wonder why I did not devote this space to the school shooting in Parkland,
Florida. It is exactly what you get in a society that wants to erase behavioral boundaries. It is especially
dangerous where adolescent boys are concerned. The country has a gigantic boundary problem.
We have also created perfect conditions -- between the anomie of suburbia and the dreariness of our school systems
-- to induce explosions of violent despair. That's why these things happen.
Until we change these conditions, expect ever more of it.
The irony of this indictment is so thick that it is overwhelming.
The US has as far back as I can recall, as an political aware person, say 1973, been implicated in regime change or meddling.
In Europe less violent than the rest of the world, but never the less they were there, as was the USSR. Spending money, influencing,
subverting, coercing and in some cases resorting to violence, in order to get their government of choice. Italy and Greece
were places that were sought out because of the strong left. And things did get violent from both sides. Those not old enough
, look it up, there is plenty of evidence, declassified documents available. Northern Ireland was another place they meddled
quite openly.
In the rest of the world, especially in South America, it was far, far more violent and less covert, almost all South American
countries suffered.
It is blatantly hysterical, mind boggling hysterical, that Israel's influence and is silently accepted, but Israeli influence
is so huge that opposition can be suppressed.
To counter foreign "meddling" the US is quietly regulating the Internet, introducing the Great US Firewall. What a pathetic
nation, what a joke....
For hundred times it is all provocation against Russia, psyop that intensified since Putin
returned to power and started rebuilding Russian military after another western provocation
in Georgia and later in Moldova, it became exponential after Ukrainian putsch in 2014.
Ultimately removal and Putin and now Xi who will follow Putin to be elected four times
breaking the western imposed rotation of CIA agents in the Chinese and Russian leadership is
the ultimate goal of the Western globalists to be replaced by oth Chinese and Russian
oligarchs with more consmopolitan autlooke devoid of notions of nation states but rather
global imperial provinces of US western emporium.
These are neocons sick dreams but as we see they will not be stopped without real bottom
up anti oligarchic revolution and instead escalate into preprogrammed chaos and global
conflict among people while harmony among oligarchy.
@liburl @20 - "Could you comment on this. All things being equal the marketing scheme would
have spread
their positive and derogatory posts equally to any given candidate, yet Mueller says
Hillary was under attack."
Aside from the "Russian influence" there were commercial fake-news site created and run
from Macedonia. These were widely reported about. for example by Wired: Inside the Macedonian
Fake-News Complex .
The people running these sites did not care who would win the election. But they found
that stories about Trump generated MORE TRAFFIC than pro Clinton stories. (BTW: U.S. main
stream media found the same and was therefore full of Trump stories.) More traffic/followers
is their sole point.
What Veles produced, though, was something more extreme still: an enterprise of cool, pure
amorality, free not only of ideology but of any concern or feeling about the substance of
the election. These Macedonians on Facebook didn't care if Trump won or lost the White
House.
...
Trump groups seemed to have hundreds of thousands more members than Clinton groups,
which made it simpler to propel an article into virality. (For a week in July, he
experimented with fake news extolling Bernie Sanders. "Bernie Sanders supporters are among
the smartest people I've seen," he says. "They don't believe anything. The post must have
proof for them to believe it.") He posted under his own name but also under the guise of
one of 200 or so bogus Facebook profiles that he'd purchased for this purpose. (A fake
profile with a Russian name cost about 10 cents; for an American name, the price went up to
50 cents.)
"... The sole point of creating a diverse army of sock-puppets with large following crowds
was to sell the 'eyeballs' of the followers to the paying customers of the marketing company
[Concord Catering] ..."
In other words, what Prigozhin's company is doing is hardly much different from what
Facebook originally was set up to do: sell its followers, their details and their behaviours
to paying customers, be they marketing organisations or the US government.
No Russian influence-just more fake news, more lies, more manipulation, more of the same
pantomime politics starring puppet politicians and directed by the dangerous psychopaths who
rule us and who are rushing us down a one way street to extinction... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078L8K9H3
Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 alleged members of a Russian troll farm
is leading to calls for escalation with Russia, exacerbating tensions that are already at
historic – and dangerous – lows, observes Caitlin Johnstone.
By Caitlin Johnstone
U.S. empire loyalists are so close to telling the truth when they babble about "Russian
propaganda." They are openly admitting that it is wrong to use media to manipulate the ways
that Americans think and vote. Now all we need is for them to admit that they themselves
do this constantly , and we'll be on the right track.
St. Petersburg's Internet Research Agency building, the alleged Russian troll factory that
has sown discord in U.S. politics, according to Robert Mueller's indictment.
The word "Russians" is America's top
trend on Twitter at the time of this writing because of a Mueller indictment of 13 alleged
members of a Russian troll farm, those nefarious supervillains who posted pictures of puppies and
promoted Bernie Sanders to "sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016
U.S. election."
Predictably, no evidence is added to cohesively tie the establishment Russia narrative
together with allegations of Russia hacking the Democratic Party and giving their emails to
WikiLeaks, meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower, any shenanigans with well-hydrated
Russian prostitutes, or indeed anything tying the troll farm to Trump or the Russian government
at all.
The focus instead is on people disguising their identities to troll Americans on social
media, which we
have now learned constitutes a "conspiracy to defraud the United States." As Disobedient
Media's Elizabeth Lea Vos
rightly points out , it is also behavior that the Hillary Clinton campaign is known to have
funded and engaged in extensively.
We are
already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with
a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. And these deranged lunatics want
more.
"Special Counsel Mueller's indictments are further proof that Vladimir Putin directed a
campaign to interfere with our elections, with the goal of tipping the outcome," tweeted Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "Given these indictments, @realDonaldTrump should implement the
sanctions that Congress passed immediately."
Steven Schmidt, MSNBC analyst and former strategist for George W. Bush and John McCain,
said that the word
"meddling" is not a sufficiently inflammatory word, because "What Russia did is ATTACK the
United States. Trump and the Corrupted GOP majority refuse to defend the sovereignty of the
country from this outside THREAT from a hostile state actor."
Congressmen Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff , Senator
Bernie
Sanders , popular commentators Preet Bharara and Joe Walsh have
all joined in the pile-on, along with many, many others, all demanding that the president do
more to escalate tensions with Russia even further than he already has.
This is exactly what renowned U.S.-Russian relations expert Stephen Cohen
has been warning of : an extremely dangerous mixture of continually escalating Cold War
tensions coexisting with hot proxy wars between two nuclear superpowers, with a president
facing immense political pressures to keep advancing and never, ever back down. A narcissist in
the White House being baited by his political enemies into a game of nuclear "chicken," without
the ability to swerve when necessary.
Meanwhile what are Republicans talking about? Why, they're all crowing about the fact that
these Russia revelations began on Obama's watch and don't show collusion, of course.
Do you see what is happening here? There is never, ever going to be any proof of
Trump-Russia collusion, because that has never been what this is about. We've
talked about this before : America's unelected power establishment doesn't care about
impeaching Trump, it cares about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential
rival superpower in its ally China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this.
The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for
increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the
delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump.
Well they will not hurt Trump, because there has never been any Trump-Russia collusion. If
there had been it would have been picked up by America's sprawling surveillance networks and
leaked to the Washington Post before the end of 2016, and if Trump were a Putin puppet he
wouldn't be continually escalating toward direct conflict with Russia in ways his predecessor
Obama never would have dreamed of doing. They aren't hurting Trump with these loud cries for
increased sanctions and hawkishness, they're imperiling us all.
Democrats, it is time to stop letting them bait you into calling for even more escalations
with a nuclear superpower and start calling for detente instead. Republicans, it is time for
you to stop putting partisan politics ahead of the survival of our species and start pushing
against these dangerous escalations that your president has been playing right along with.
These escalations are extremely dangerous and getting ever more so, and in the name of all that
is holy I implore you to stop before the unthinkable happens.
On my knees I beg you all to stop this madness, for the sake of my children and yours. You
lunatics on both sides of the political divide are going to get us all killed. In God's name,
stop. Please.
"... Besides that Rosenstein did his duty, as to redirect our attention from those nasty FISA court accusations, made by the Nunes Memo how conveniently timed. Although, Mueller's fantastic work (not my words but Rachel's) did not implicate any Russian involvement, and to the disappointment of many Democrates Mueller didn't imply that Vladimir Putin gave his permission to flip Hillary's win, but all the same .the Russians are up to no good, period. ..."
"... Mueller's Russia investigation is the le creme de le crumb of FBI investigations ..."
"... Fox news was thrilled, and patted themselves on the back for knowing it was a lie all along, at least the part where Russia helped Trump get elected. However they continued with their anti-Russia rhetoric and repeatedly brought up Hillary's sale of Uranium to Russia. Now Trump is out there acknowledging, yes Russia interfered in our elections. Our interventionism on a world wide scale makes this all quite nauseating. ..."
"... Those Russians created discord, well, they really didn't have to bother since Americans were so good at it, they didn't need any outside help. I haven't had the stomach to see how CNN, and MSNBC are going to handle this since they were such proponents of Russia-gate. ..."
"... Annie I'm glad you bring up the predictable timing of Rosenstein's release of the Mueller Russia-gate investigation, for these new allegations of Russian interference could replace the news of that awful shooting down in Florida ..."
"... I am now convinced that the indictment is a fraud upon the court deserving of sanctions being imposed on Mueller by the Court. ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is a highly unusual document. It's extraordinarily verbose for an indictment. Coupled with the fact that Mueller knew there was no way he would ever be required to prove what was charged (the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia), the indictment is not in reality addressed to a judge or jury; it's fodder for propaganda purposes and as discussed below, is intended to protect the indictment's entire subject matter from Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
"... The document is overflowing with information that would be filed under seal if it was not fictional. A host of classified intelligence sources and methods would be on full display if the information in the indictment was factual. E.g., we get internal Russian company documents and private emails. Those records would have to be authenticated at trial with admissible proof of how DoJ and the FBI acquired them (sources and methods) if the indictment was intended for a judge and jury. But we get a 37-page detailed document without a single redaction for classified information. Are we to seriously believe that the Deep State is willing to burn the identities of private actor spies in Russia so they can testify that they stole company documents and emails in a foreign country? Or are we to believe that the FISA Court issued search warrants for FBI or NSA to penetrate the company's networks for a criminal rather than foreign intelligence purpose? ..."
"... Since we are purportedly dealing with Russians, one would also expect at least most of the quotes to be in Russian, requiring translation to English, yes? But we have here perfect English language smoking gun quotes and lots of them, without any indication that they have been translated from Russian as would be required if they had been. And they all speak for themselves, without need for interpretation. Even one such quote would be rare in criminal cases. But to have a bunch of them, all in English? It beggars belief. ..."
This Mueller revelation of 13 Russians flipping a combined campaign amount of 6.9 billion
dollars spent by both American presidential candidates, is awl inspiring, and convinces me to
if I were to run for public office I would do myself well to get these 13 Russians to work
for my campaign utterly amazing, these Russian trolls could flip such an overly expensive
long term election with so little.
Besides that Rosenstein did his duty, as to redirect our attention from those nasty FISA
court accusations, made by the Nunes Memo how conveniently timed. Although, Mueller's
fantastic work (not my words but Rachel's) did not implicate any Russian involvement, and to
the disappointment of many Democrates Mueller didn't imply that Vladimir Putin gave his
permission to flip Hillary's win, but all the same .the Russians are up to no good,
period.
This story barely tops the exclusion of Russian athletes from the Olympics for drug
doping, but Mueller's Russia investigation is the le creme de le crumb of FBI investigations
. Florida 19 year old shooter, not so much.
In the end, this will just be another day in an America life, while Mueller and company
wind this thing down, and with the hopes the open sore FISA court insinuation goes away.
Joe, you do have to ask yourself why Mueller came out with their non-findings on Friday
when everyone's attention was drawn to the school shootings in Florida where the FBI was
given warnings, but neglected to pay attention, and the governor of Florida is calling for
Wray's resignation, and heads to roll.
Fox news was thrilled, and patted themselves on the back for knowing it was a lie all
along, at least the part where Russia helped Trump get elected. However they continued with
their anti-Russia rhetoric and repeatedly brought up Hillary's sale of Uranium to Russia. Now
Trump is out there acknowledging, yes Russia interfered in our elections. Our interventionism
on a world wide scale makes this all quite nauseating.
Those Russians created discord, well, they really didn't have to bother since Americans
were so good at it, they didn't need any outside help. I haven't had the stomach to see how
CNN, and MSNBC are going to handle this since they were such proponents of Russia-gate.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Annie I'm glad you bring up the predictable timing of Rosenstein's release of the Mueller
Russia-gate investigation, for these new allegations of Russian interference could replace
the news of that awful shooting down in Florida.
I actually picture Mueller & Rosenstein as planning this long before the shooting, and
I can just see them figuring out that during the next mass shooting on a Friday before a
weekend news cycle, that bringing up the Russia thing would not only distract our attention
away from how the FBI dropped the ball on catching a 19 year old shooter who had tons of red
flags surrounding him, while adding some new life to all that is bad about Russians, was the
go to point.
I'm not surprised, although disappointed, that FOX is on the anti-Russian band wagon. This
keeping Russia in the dog house has been discussed, and written about on this comment board,
so keeping Russia & especially Putin in the spot light of all that is evil, to me comes
as no surprise.
It would appear that the U.S. is eventually going to go to war with Russia, or do we dare?
Neocon's are good at dropping bombs on far away places, but will they be any good at ducking
them when the bombs drop here?
And yes we Americans don't need any help from any Russians in order to screw up our
democracy, we are perfectly great at doing that ourselves. Joe
I am now convinced that the indictment is a fraud upon the court deserving of sanctions
being imposed on Mueller by the Court. I'll add some reasons for believing that in my
follow-up comment.
Joe Tedesky , February 18, 2018 at 1:33 am
Paul that was the best so far of anything I read, or learned, about this
Mueller/Rosenstein travesty. Joe
john wilson , February 18, 2018 at 6:04 am
Also Paul, did you know that the vice chairman of Face book has just announced that most
of the Russian advertising spend happened AFTER the election. Read it for yourself on the
zero hedge site.
Yes, Joe. I'd really like to see VIPS dive into what b presented.
The Mueller indictment is a highly unusual document. It's extraordinarily verbose for an indictment. Coupled with the fact that Mueller knew
there was no way he would ever be required to prove what was charged (the U.S. has no
extradition treaty with Russia), the indictment is not in reality addressed to a judge or
jury; it's fodder for propaganda purposes and as discussed below, is intended to protect the
indictment's entire subject matter from Freedom of Information Act requests.
As further indications that the document is a work of fiction not intended for a judge or
jury:
1. The document is overflowing with information that would be filed under seal if it was
not fictional. A host of classified intelligence sources and methods would be on full display
if the information in the indictment was factual. E.g., we get internal Russian company
documents and private emails. Those records would have to be authenticated at trial with
admissible proof of how DoJ and the FBI acquired them (sources and methods) if the indictment
was intended for a judge and jury. But we get a 37-page detailed document without a single
redaction for classified information. Are we to seriously believe that the Deep State is
willing to burn the identities of private actor spies in Russia so they can testify that they
stole company documents and emails in a foreign country? Or are we to believe that the FISA
Court issued search warrants for FBI or NSA to penetrate the company's networks for a
criminal rather than foreign intelligence purpose?
2. There are way too many perfect smoking gun English language quotes. It's rare to get
smoking gun quotes from defendants and they almost always require context to interpret them.
Since we are purportedly dealing with Russians, one would also expect at least most of the
quotes to be in Russian, requiring translation to English, yes? But we have here perfect
English language smoking gun quotes and lots of them, without any indication that they have
been translated from Russian as would be required if they had been. And they all speak for
themselves, without need for interpretation. Even one such quote would be rare in criminal
cases. But to have a bunch of them, all in English? It beggars belief.
3. In a normal criminal case, an indictment's allegations would be tested at a public
trial and the public would then learn what the evidence actually is. But with a case where
the defendants will never be extradited to stand trial, the entire case file is exempt from
public disclosure under the law enforcement records Freedom of Information Act exemption so
long as the investigation is ongoing. By vastly increasing the level of detail beyond what is
required for an indictment, Mueller sweeps far more evidence into what is clearly exempt from
public disclosure.
4. Grand jury procedure permits what bernard describes, although it is highly unethical
and violates a lawyer's duty of candor to the grand jury and the court. In a grand jury, the
prosecution is not required to show any evidence tending to establish the defendants'
innocence. Just enough evidence for the grand jury to find that the prosecution can present a
prima facie case of guilt. That means Mueller did not have to show the grand jury any of the
Internet communications that favored Hillary Clinton rather than Trump. But we know from
bernard's October article and from MSM reports when the Facebook ads were disclosed to
Congress that the pro-Clinton communications exist too. In other words, Mueller apparently
cherry picked the evidence to support his charge that the communications all favored Trump
instead of Clinton.
5.The indictment presents a wacky theory that the defendants conspired to defraud the
United States that is riddled with First Amendment issues. Conspiracy to commit wire and mail
fraud, that's not obviously a bad argument. But that fraud conspiracy claim smells like a
very long distance stretch to me (caveat, I have not yet researched it thoroughly). But
what's fraudulent about reports you never filed with the FEC and DoJ? Why not just charge
them with not filing the reports? Is it just so you can trumpet "conspiracy to commit fraud
on the United States?"
There's more but those are the major points I've got so far.
"The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support
for increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under
the delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump."
On the mark, but the strategy goes beyond the deep state which I take to mean actors
within our government. Cui bono, and that includes suspects that make no pretense of what
they are after. The problems with their plans is that it assumes they have their hand on the
switch that can turn this putsch on and off and somewhere in between.
Absolutely, politics is mostly theater, as nonsense factory stated. Tom Welsh and mike k,
what a great exchange on humans as stupid as sand fleas! The western nations are floundering
because of their slavish dependence on money and military might, and the US is set for
economic collapse soon with $20tn debt and unbelievable deficit and continuing to rise to aid
oligarchs; meanwhile with desperate masses, many of whom can't even put a roof over their
heads without help. The Goldman has Sacked US. Notice how Goldman Sachs has been in charge of
the gold since Bill Clinton? These fiends are using displacement because they have made the
bloodiest mess of American society so they blame Russia for what they do, they're
psychopathic. We've got to call them on it. Do read that article at The Saker, "A Brief
History of the Kremlin Trolls". The imprint of CIA is all over this.
jaycee , February 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm
The Mueller indictment describes a common clickbait operation through a most hysterical
and paranoid lens. Absurd madness. It's "commies are poisoning our vital bodily fluids" level
stuff. Imposing controls on the internet is one endgame here.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 8:42 pm
I put myself through the excruciation of watching a bit of Chris Hayes tonight talking
with Nadler (D-NY) and some guy from the Clinton campaign who were both calling the so-called
"interference" an "attack" tantamount to Pearl Harbor. Hayes played the straight man and
poohed the comparison a bit, but they were insistent and Hayes suggested the logical
conclusion of what they were demanding in response was war. Nadler stopped short of that but
said the Russians must pay a heavy price (more sanctions) and the other guy said the new war
would be of the cyber variety. I think you are right that "imposing controls on the internet
is one endgame here".
David G , February 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
The rhetorical slippery slope started with "hacking the DNC" (not that I'm conceding the
reality of that), and slid rapidly through:
"hacking the election" to
"hacking our democracy" to
"attacking our democracy" to
"attacking our country",
and now what you saw on MSNBC, Gregory Herr, is the norm.
I've seen: What is the difference between what the Russians did here and if they'd
occupied the Aleutian Islands?
How to rationally engage with argle-bargle paranoia like that?
David G , February 17, 2018 at 9:19 pm
jaycee, I think that is actually a key point that should be foregrounded in commentary on
this nonsense: the psychological drivers are concerns about *purity* and *contamination*.
I've read about studies that show such preoccupations correlate with right-wing, or
"conservative", political orientation, which absolutely describes the Russia-gate construct,
despite its demographic base on the Dem-partisan, allegedly liberal, side of the
aisle/populace.
KiwiAntz , February 17, 2018 at 6:26 pm
I'm from NZ so I'm going to use a Lord of the Rings analogy? America & it's Deepstate
is the evil "Sauron" of the World"? Sauron (like the US) is a cowardly bully who wants to
dominate all life on earth using his Ork minions (MIC) & one ring (nuclear weapons) to
rule them all? What did it take to stop Sauron (& what will it take to stop the US?) A
last alliance of men, elves & all the other people's of middle earth (planet earth)
uniting & standing together as one to confront this grave threat to life on earth?? JRR
Toiken understood the situation only to well I think? Simplistic solution,but a time is
coming when all Nations of the Earth are going to have to stand up too & destroy the
greatest existential threat too life on Earth, that has ever been, which is the American
Empire & USA? A greater threat than Nazi Germany ever was? The survival of the human race
is at stake as your lunatic leaders are leading us to permanent destruction! You'd be
surprised at the amount of rich Americans, think Peter Thiel for one example, buying end
times, survival prepper, bolt holes in my Country of NZ as they can see what your insane,
hysterical Nation is leading us too? When the rich start abandoning the Country, like rats
leaving a sinking ship, ITS TIME TO TAKE NOTICE? Just as one small hobbit, the most
unlikeliest of hero's changed the outcome & the fate of middle earth, it set a precedent
that ordinary people or small people of the World could stand up to & unite against EVIL
& become the most unlikeliest of heroes in order to SAVE our Earth? God help us all?
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Well said!
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 7:12 pm
My dying last warning to you KiwiAntz while I'm stuck here on the USA mainland is when
those rich creeps of ours do come to your beloved New Zealand .immediately arrest them, and
put then in jail. Since I'm not big on capital punishment that's the best advice I can give
you, but if you would rather I could hand this over to my cousins in Jersey, because their
good at making things disappear. Be careful, watch yourself KiwiAntz. Joe
Good one, KiwiAntz! I agree with you and I also think that Mother Earth is sending
messages to humans, too. Too many people allowing (mis)leaders to lead us over a cliff.
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 7:00 pm
"Worse than Hitler" hits Uncle Sam right on the head. Our leaders learned a lot from
Hitler and his gang, but they have gone far beyond what Hitler accomplished. Racism, power
lust, torture, fiendish weapons, mass murder – we have the whole package now in
spades.
Marko , February 18, 2018 at 8:26 am
Worse , indeed , but what bothers me most is that we ( the American people ) have allowed
the situation to get this bad.
I used to wonder : " How could the German people have allowed Hitler to obtain and
maintain his power ? Were they blind , or were they just as evil as he was ? " Now I don't
have to wonder any more – I'm experiencing the phenomenon first-hand , in real time. If
the Guiness Book of World Records ever comes up with a category called " Nation With the Most
Irresponsible Populace " , Germany no longer has to fear being named the record-holder ,
thanks to us.
To say that what the Russians did had any effect on the election is like claiming it was
the fly fart in the tornado that blew the roof off.
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 7:45 pm
Lately I've seen some quips which are really memorable. "Fly fart in a tornado" is great,
and the one by mike k the other day also made my day:
Voting in a crooked system is like pissing in the ocean – it's OK if you have
nothing better to do .
jose , February 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
You are correct when you assert that : "It's all been gossip and innuendo" Somebody ought
to tell Mr. Mueller " clay, clay, clay for without it, I cannot make bricks" I have not seen
anything remotely resembling hard evidence. This entire Russia debacle reminds me of the 2007
movie of Batman in which at the end the joker states the following: "Madness as you know is
like gravity, all it takes is a little push" The worse part in all this is that millions of
Americans believe this Russia meddeling as a given without demanding any solid prove. The
grip of the American doctrinal system is very powerful, indeed.
Everything written here by Caitlin Johnstone makes sense except that you can't beg a
psychopath to stop what they're doing. Like asking a serial killer not to kill you.
MLS , February 17, 2018 at 11:25 pm
The more I see the same commenters congratulating themselves on their respective
confident, cognitive bias-laden assertions, the more painfully obvious it becomes that while
posters here may know what they have read and heard, none have any clue what is going on.
Where exactly is the factual basis, for example, for this stunning paragraph:
"Well they will not hurt Trump, because there has never been any Trump-Russia collusion.
If there had been it would have been picked up by America's sprawling surveillance networks
and leaked to the Washington Post before the end of 2016, and if Trump were a Putin puppet he
wouldn't be continually escalating toward direct conflict with Russia in ways his predecessor
Obama never would have dreamed of doing. They aren't hurting Trump with these loud cries for
increased sanctions and hawkishness, they're imperiling us all."
?
Because Caitlin said so? If/then theoreticals? Please.
The great Robert Parry did research. Journalistic legwork.
The cynicism olympics of small-time blogsylvania is no substitute.
BobS , February 18, 2018 at 12:11 am
Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
backwardsevolution , February 18, 2018 at 4:35 am
MLS – well, where's the evidence? Please enlighten us.
My question is, is the American public wittingly or nonwittingly going along for the ride
on this Russia-gate bus to no where?
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 4:00 pm
Based on what looks, at first glance, as widespread censorship of comment sections on this
story in the corporate media across the English-speaking world, I'm guessing that the general
public is not really buying it, outside the hardcore center of wealthy Clinton-Blair
supporters and MIC insiders. That's just my impression, though.
When empires begin to collapse, the centers of wealth and power draw inwards and set up
walls in a desperate bid to retain control; but the harder they try to grasp it the more
slips through their fingers. They also tend to blame external forces for their own
incompetence and Byzantine corruption, which is why all the finger-pointing at Russia. That's
what I'm seeing, anyway.
Prophecy is never to be trusted; who knows how this will turn out? But it sure doesn't
look good for the status quo of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era; those days are likely gone
forever. Trump is ramping up wealth inequality with his massive tax cuts and huge
military-industrial budget – again, much like the end days of the Soviet Union, when
the apparatchiks had their Black Sea villas while the rest of the country lived in
poverty.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 4:06 pm
I'm growing to like hearing from you nonsense factory, thanks for your input. Joe
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Thans Joe, I have used a wide variety of outlets to post my samizdat commentary but
Consortium is one of the few places where both the publishers and the commentariat seem to be
honest people, not playing some manipulative game.
Joe Tedesky , February 18, 2018 at 1:36 am
That's great, and you fit right in. Stay with us, we all might learn something. Joe
Earlier in February, according to various Fox and Neoconservative pundits, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein was close to being labeled "the devil incarnate," the man responsible
for naming Robert Mueller as Special Counsel (and who had basically given him carte
blanche to engage in a slow-burn campaign, an ideological investigative war, based on a
spurious made-up dossier, against President Trump). Calls went out that Rosenstein should be
replaced, even fired.
Now, a few days later -- and thirteen indictments from one of Mueller's grand juries,
announced by the very same Rosenstein, specifically against more "Russian players" who
reportedly "meddled" in the 2016 American elections, but without any connivance by the
Trump campaign -- and Rosenstein is feted as a veritable savior of the republic by those
same commenters. Those Neocons who now selectively support the president and those
bitterly anti-Russian Fox pundits (with the possible exception of Tucker Carlson) are
absolutely giddy with delight! For too long, in their defense of President Trump against the
charge of collusion, they had found themselves in the extremely uncomfortable situation (for
them) of having to mount an attempt to exculpate the Russians, or at least lessen their
culpability.
But now, Rosenstein has presented them with one of those exquisite "Aha!" moments: at last,
the onerous burden of disputing Russian connections with the Trump campaign has been lifted,
but they can still, with more reason, keep those evil Russkies in the cross hairs as the
supreme enemy of America!
And this fits to a tee their ideological predispositions. For the Neocons (and most of the
Fox punditry) -- who are the dominant voice of the so-called contemporary "conservative
movement" and the intellectual brain trust for much of the GOP -- are inveterate Russophobes.
It makes no difference to them that Russia in 2018 is definitely not Russia of the old Soviet
days; it makes little difference to them that since 1991 Russia has emerged as the leading
global power in opposition to the secularist New World Order, and that its political and
cultural trajectory is, if anything, more conservative and traditionalist. They ignore the fact
that Gorbachev voluntarily agreed with George H. W. Bush to dissolve the Warsaw Pact (which he
did), ending the Communist control of Eastern Europe, on condition that the United
States not advance NATO further east (which is exactly what the United States then proceeded to
do). They have repeatedly ignored and rejected Russian overtures for partnership, collaboration
and cooperation (not the subinfeudation and subjection that Paul Wolfowitz and Charles
Krauthammer demanded). They rip out of context Putin's statement that the dissolution of the
old Soviet Union was "a monumental catastrophe" for Russia, failing to understand that his
comments dealt specifically with the radical and disastrous ethnic and political
consequences of the break up, with millions of ethnic Russians now in regions that were always
part of Russia, now separated from the Mother Country, economically adrift and incapable of
true independence.
Back on February 6 , in an effort to briefly explain some of the background for this
zealous Russophobia, I wrote the following in a column:
"The Neocons, of course, owe their intellectual origin decades ago to that other major
stream of Marxist thought, identified with Leon Trotsky and his zealous internationalism.
Early on for those intellectual descendants of Trotsky their opposition to Soviet Communism
was just as much a hatred for Russia, which they saw as anti-Semitic (e.g., the infamous
"doctors' plot") and "reactionary," as it was for what they perceived as Stalin's (and
Brezhnev's) perversion of the original "humanist" and "democratic core" of Marxist theory.
Thus, even with the daily revelations, the reports and all the accounts of skulduggery by
agents of the Deep State that seem to seep out, the narrative of "the Russians Did It!" must
be maintained, by both Progressivists AND the Neocons. Either the Russians and that "new
Hitler" (to use Neocon Max Boot's ill-chosen comparison) Putin were somehow directing Donald
Trump like a puppet master controls a stick puppet, or the Russians and that "new Hitler"
were working with Hillary and the DNC to blacken Donald Trump's good name and unseat him.
Either way "the Russians Did It!"
So, now we hear the news from Rosenstein that thirteen individual Russians and Russian
organizations, beginning back in 2014, two years prior to the 2016 elections (and before
Donald Trump was even mentioned as a real candidate), are charged with "attempted meddling" in
our national elections using mainly the Internet and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
But no American citizens were compromised, and there was no collusion with the Trump
campaign.
Duh. So? This is news? That a major world power spent a paltry million dollars (in a
campaign in which a total of billions of dollars were spent) in some rather uniformly
unsuccessful attempts to "meddle" here?
You would think that the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor or that Putin's Cossacks had landed
and seized Miami Beach! This story has nearly displaced the tragedy of the school shooting in
Broward County, at least on Fox. With obvious satisfaction, Laura Ingraham (whom I do like on
occasion), intoned on her Fox program: "I've been warning about the Russians for years!" But
when she asked her guest former CIA director Admiral R. James Woolsey if we ever
"meddled" in other countries' elections and governments, he simply laughed a bit nervously and
attempted to avoid answering. (The answer is of course we do and have done so for
decades : Guatemala, Iran, the Kennedy-approved assassination of President Diem, the recent
Ukrainian coup against a popularly-elected but pro-Russian president, our funding of candidates
subservient to our interests -- the list is endless.)
Another Fox pundit, Tucker Carlson on his program, briefly mentioned the "meddling" of
Chinese operatives and organizations in the United States (where literally billions of dollars
have been spent to shape American opinion and a major percentage of American commerce is now
controlled by Beijing). Where is the Special Counsel investigating Chinese "meddling" and
influence on American elections? Where are the congressional committees examining the
extraordinary control by the Chinese of American business?
And what about Mexico which, using its various consulates scattered across the United
States, helped engineer the registration of Mexican voters who would vote in the 2016
American elections? How many of those were -- are -- illegals? Except for such groups as
ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, NC Listen, FAIR, VDare.com, and a few others, not a word and certainly, no
congressional hearings.
Then, there is Saudi Arabia and the billions of oil-based petrodollars that have found their
way into the coffers of American political leaders. When was the last time that you heard a
serious critique of the Saudis (or their virtual, if remote responsibility for much of the
Islamic extremism in the Middle East)?
And, lastly, and most significantly -- and this is the white elephant in the room -- what
about the incredible influence of Israel in American politics? Okay, I recognize that you're
not supposed to notice this, at least not mention it, lest you be labeled an "anti-semite" --
an accusation, a stain, like the charge of racism that is difficult, if not impossible, to
expunge. Yet, can anyone rationally deny the immense influence of Israel -- and its "meddling"
-- in our elections and politics?
I will make no judgments here whether the issues advanced by Israel and its supporters, the
positions pushed, are good or bad, whether they are in our national interest or not. Israel has
been an ally since its foundation in 1948, and the cultural and political bonds between our two
nations have been and are very strong. But that doesn't change the facts: Israel is a major
player in our politics, and such extremely powerful lobbying/public interest groups like AIPAC
(American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) generally serve
the interests of the State of Israel and attempt to identify them with American interests.
"Meddling" is an understatement when it comes to Israel. Remember the Jonathan Pollard
espionage case? Pollard was a major American Israeli spy, whose spying and pilfering of top
American secrets on behalf of Israel got him life imprisonment. And, politically, we only need
to cast a brief glance to the past -- to the defeat of Senators J. William Fulbright (Arkansas)
and Chuck Percy (Illinois), and Congressman Paul Findley (Illinois), and the attempted defeat
of Representative Walter Jones Jr. more recently in North Carolina (e.g, Bill Kristol's
million-dollar campaigns to defeat Jones in GOP primaries) -- all of whom refused to go along
with unquestioning support of a pro-Israeli American agenda, or who raised some embarrassing
questions, even in the most respectful and mildest manner.
Years ago, when working with the founder of the older conservative movement, Dr. Russell
Kirk in Michigan, I met Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a thoughtful Jewish opponent of Zionism and of
the kind of international entanglements that he sincerely believed gave the Jewish state and
Jews universally a negative reputation. Later on he presented me with copies of his major
documented study on the topic, The Zionist Connection (original edition, 1978, and
revised, 1982), which were revelatory for me.
More recently, Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski's impressively documented, The Transparent Cabal:
The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel
(2008), and Drs. John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign
Policy (2007) have deepened aspects of Dr. Lilienthal analysis. And additional research and
discussion by such writers as Philip Giraldi ( "Are America's Jews
Driving America's Wars," 2017), and such distinguished authors of Jewish descent as
Professors Walter Block ( "Is It Permissible to
Criticize Jews?" January 2018) and Paul Gottfried ( his review of Neil Jumonville's
The New York Intellectuals , 2008, on the relationship between Russian Jewish emigres
centered in New York and their powerful influence in American culture and politics), have
raised questions that should be examined calmly and rationally, but probably won't.
The shadowy Russians purportedly spent a million dollars to "meddle" and "sow confusion" in
American politics, beginning two years before the 2016 elections. And the Neocon narrative, the
template that indicts Russia, is preserved, and that is all you need to know. An anti-Trump
"demonstration" in New York with forty-five sullen attendees, some fake ads on Facebook (which
is literally filled with millions of other fake ads), some cyber interference, some phony URLs
-- and the Russophobes go literally wild.
And all the while the major players in meddling and espionage and influence here in the US
-- they skate, are ignored with a wink-and-a-smile, dollar signs in the eyes of the supposed
guardians of the Republic!
Never mind, Mueller can now further boost his pension prospects by taking a leaf out of
Kenneth Starr's book and start investigating Trumpian payoffs to bimbos, and consider
indictments for adultery. That should give him another couple of years of pensionable Deep
State service.
"I swear that Russiagate is nothing more than trying to cover up the blatant corruption of
the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, CIA and The Department of Justice. Keep everybody busy with
Russiagate and don't allow the corruption (with the help of the press) to see the light of day.
Otherwise, people in high places would be going to jail.
Notable quotes:
"... As many commentators have pointed out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . . they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with. ..."
"... They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to call "free" in this country. ..."
"... The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party's authority and ideology. ..."
"... Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state. ..."
"... What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying to spark a war with Russia? ..."
"... The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... "Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia." ..."
"... The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. ..."
"... Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC). ..."
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so. Mueller made no links to the Russian government, Putin,
the FSB or even their alleged puppet Donald Trump. Just private individuals being persecuted
for expressing an opinion on American politics in public because they are foreigners. Doesn't
matter whether the opinions were true, false, complementary or disparaging because they were
subjective just like anyone else's opinions (you know, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's
got one).
So, if that move by Mueller is allowed to stand and serve as a precedent in American
jurisprudence, doesn't that mean that journalists from foreign lands, like Caitlin herself,
are at risk of being indicated at any moment by the US Justice Department if they express
opinions that the insiders in the Deep State do not like? And, what about all the foreign
nationals who post here in this forum on this blog? I daresay most offer opinions not
complementary of the US government and its political menagerie. And, to be honest, many do so
in order to either change minds or solidify shared beliefs with others, including great
swirling drifts of snowflake Americans.
This free exchange of thoughts is now to be verboten because someone other than Uncle Sam
may have an influence or even change the mind of a precious American citizen? This is
madness. That the most educated and articulate amongst us do not see this, but rather
participate in the feeding frenzy upon the carcass of what is left of our liberal democracy
is absolutely stupifying. As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must
be imposing a form of mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most
here) seem to be immune to its effects. Maybe something we consume acts as an antidote.
Perhaps your Italian grandma's muffalettas or calzones, Joe? Or my mother's German
rouladen?
Dave P. , February 17, 2018 at 5:01 pm
Realist –
"As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must be imposing a form of
mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most here) seem to be
immune to its effects."
You are dead right on that. My wife was yelling and screaming last night that why I was
not watching this "Russia trolls" show with her on CNN, MSNBC, and PBS; to learn how the
Russians have destroyed our beautiful democracy. She had seen the World too, mostly for fun
and experiences; she taught English in Malaysia – British colony until 1957 – as
a peace Corps volunteer during 1960's. There you have it. As many commentators have pointed
out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . .
they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who
will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of
opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:21 pm
They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin
puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either
shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called
Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to
call "free" in this country. They not only take us for moronic fools, but they can't even see
that that they are insulting us further by insinuating that our voting decisions are
completely unsophisticated and easily swayed to the point that 13 Russians could have an
impact amidst a sea of election season campaign "propaganda" from both major parties and an
array of special interest influence peddling. Like the Clinton campaign didn't hire Facebook
trolls!
Bye Bye First Amendment no one in the halls of power takes it seriously enough to defend it
unless you're spouting groupthink right Bernie?
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so.
I'll echo Drew Hunkins in calling this a brilliant condensation of the issue. What worries
me is what the morons-in-charge might have in mind as a follow-up to this lunacy.
CitizenOne , February 18, 2018 at 2:31 am
Perhaps we are entering into the Orwellian dawn of Thought Crimes which are any feelings
or thinking a Citizen has which are counter to the State Propaganda put out by the Ministry
of Truth. The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police
use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who
challenge the party's authority and ideology.
Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump
colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state.
It would appear to be allegations of thought crime because 15 foreign nationals posted
things on social media. We have been under the perception that social media is a free forum
for discourse but now, like China, we are seeing the formation of a witch hunt for foreign
devils who have infiltrated the social mediascape and are on trial for the results of a
national election.
We are literally burning some innocent teenager for the calamity we are convinced was not
of our own making. We need to find a witch to brew some witchcraft to explain how our current
situation has arisen.
Not sure if anyone alive today believes the Salem Witch Trials served justice and created
a restoration of civil harmony. I'm fairly sure that everyone looks at those dark days as a
travesty of justice.
Yes we are living in a time of universal deceit and the act of telling the truth has
become a revolutionary act just as Orwell portrayed in his novel.
Thought crimes are fairly scary and they imply that our government is willing to indict
the thoughts of whoever it deems to be an enemy of the state and bring the thinkers of
thought crime as defined by the state as anyone who questions the official fake narrative of
Russia Gate to "justice".
What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war
with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your
question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying
to spark a war with Russia?
The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its
insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery
strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is
happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough
pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what
I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence
agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely
believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons.
Even the analysis on North Korea which opines that NK will use all weapons first as a
first strike in a scenario the USA has called the "Use it or Lose it" fell short and was
proved a false scenario or that there were really no actual WMDs in Iraq as the UN
claimed.
Either way, the likely outcomes of a WMD armed Iraqi leader facing imminent demise which
would cause him to use all available weapons at his disposal did not happen. There are only
two conclusions to the outcome. Saddam did not have these weapons or the likely scenario of
"Use it or Lose it" is all wrong.
Either way the premise of the war was shown to be false.
Unfortunately in the aftermath of that war there was no US counterpart to the British
Chilcot Report and the US went on to engage in regime change in other nations like Ukraine,
Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
There is no sense to it other than to destabilize nations, foment violence and create
international tensions which have the effect of causing our elected leaders to pony up more
money for defense to combat the new enemies we just created.
Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia.
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before.
I agree with you Joe that a form of mass hypnosis has gripped our democrat officials and a
large segment of our population. We have been handed a leader they don't like and they are
ready and able to make hay with the election outcome to persuade us by force to support more
military adventures.
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 3:53 am
Citizen One –
"Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia."
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before."
Yes. This scenario is getting more and more likely. All steps point to that direction.
Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Unfortunately I'm not as confident. Here is the complete indictment at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945
. There are three counts (with almost 70 allegations): 1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United
States 2. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud And Bank Fraud and 3. Aggravated Identity Theft. It
ends with a forfeiture allegation seeking property, real or personal from the defendants.
The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is
under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. Mueller will
be the hero; Trump may be saved as the interference started in 2014, before his campaign
began; the Hillary emails and Nunes memo will be cast aside; and the USA can say to the world
"see I told you so."
Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer
another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia
for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC).
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 18, 2018 at 1:15 am
If the allegations are true, they need to be put in perspective:
– what might be the rational behind? Eg tit-for-tat for Western meddling, arms
race,
– do other nations engage in similar projects? What are the scale of those?
Starting in 2014 could it have been triggered by the Kiev coup and Nuland's was it five
billion?
This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war
profiteers, the retired generals & intelligence members who prostitute themselves as
media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate
media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting.
That's why we must all be kept fearful, so we don't demand that annual trillion dollar
military "defense" budgets be slashed and that money instead be spent on social safety net
programs and infrastructure.
That's also why tensions with not only Russia, but Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China
must be maintained, and our endless wars and global empire of military bases continued.
As long as war and militarism are such profitable rackets, it doesn't matter that all life
on earth is threatened. That is the essence of capitalism in a nutshell: profits are more
important than life itself.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 12:55 pm
You got that right, and the sooner the American public wise up to all these lies the
better. If you want this maddening insanity to stop, well then my fellow Americans quit
buying into their lies. Just go ahead and board the damn plane, oh BTW one of the reasons NFL
attendance is down is well think of the new security rules put in place plus who knows the
rules of football anymore (our football is even tainted with screwiness). Sorry for the rant,
but we Americans got to start calling our officials out on this stuff. It's that plain and
simple. Nice post REDPILLED. Joe
Virginia , February 17, 2018 at 1:06 pm
REDPILLED,
I'm just imagining how it must feel, if you're Putin, to be able to rein in your emotions,
to not react no matter how much baited, and to stay above the fray while warmongers, like
dogs, are barking at your feet. That degree of self-composure, resting on a strong necessity
to try to prevent WWIII and nuclear annihilation, well, I'm afraid not many of us will ever
know or feel that exactly, but we can imagine! To do this with grace and dignity, insult
after insult! There are lessons to be learned here.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:10 pm
Virginia we Americans better hope patient Putin stays in power. Joe
irina , February 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm
Exactly. I can't imagine who the Creatures of the Deep think would be a
good successor to Putin, but I do think they should be very careful of
what they wish for. Case in point, the Ukraine. What exactly happened
to "Our Man Yats" anyway ? He seems to have (been ?) disappeared. . .
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
There is a bit of a warring nature still left in this old fighter cat, and during these
imaginary moments of destruction I struggle with I see Russian T72 tanks driving down Maiden
Square looking for old Yats and his friends. Not to worry though, I seriously don't want
anyone, anywhere, to have to suffer even one minute of war, but on a bad day, well need I say
more? Joe
ranney , February 17, 2018 at 5:45 pm
I agree Virginia. I am so depressed by Mueller's actions my head swims. I had hoped that
Mueller was actually an honest investigator who believed in the rule of law as everyone said.
Now I can't imagine what game he is playing. Now it seems like all hope has vanished that
anything even vaguely resembling the truth will come out.. Mueller"s indictments of these
poor people seals the deal: Russia is the evil bugbear that must be destroyed and all right
thinking patriots will agree to that when we launch nuclear war.
I keep feeling like we're all in a Kafka exercise or a Harold Pinter play where motives and
truths are hidden behind an impenatrable wall. Even the new Consortium article by McGovern
and Binney seems to hint at much more than they are telling, leaving me to wish they'd just
come out and say what they are worried about given their knowledge and expertise. Instead I'm
left with the sense that there is a coded message in there that I have missed.
So yes, I too worry about how patient Putin can be when we have already in so many ways
performed a dozen or more acts of war on Russia in the past year and he has not reacted
violently.
p.s. Once again Caitlin has provided great links. Click on one of the first about the
government telling us lies. It'll get you a great 4 minute cartoon based on Chomskys book
Manufacturing Consent. It's about propaganda. You'll like it.
Virginia , February 17, 2018 at 8:50 pm
Ranney -- One thing that has lifted my spirit somewhat, I heard a real thinker say that
the Deep State (DS) is losing ground now because its anointed candidate HRC was defeated in
2016. So 2016 marks a positive time of turning and healing. Putin and Xi seem to both be
working for the good of the world. Wonderful if Donald Trump could drain the swamp and get on
board. Either way, those two Leaders together can lead us out of this morass.
There's a state of thought that remains composed no matter what the valley of the shadow
of death. The more I learn -- and sometimes what I learn is vastly darker than I could ever
conceive -- the deeper grows my joy. It's been a puzzle to me that I could read something
truly devastating here on CN and walk away with more joy than I had before reading it (and
believe me, it's not because of the evil news). It's partly because I'm grateful that my eyes
have been opened. There is absolutely nothing I can do without being well informed about it.
I feel I'm learning all this for a reason; a very real big good reason. Don't you? There's a
state of thought that refuses to be fearful no matter what. Adopt that one, Ranney.
Just look at those Olympiads doing the impossible! They start with, "I can."
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 4:07 am
Virginia,
Yes. Regarding the barking dogs, I read some where this Putin's answer to a question a few
days ago on that list of 200 sanctioned Russians put out by U.S. Treasury Department. Putin
said: Let the barking dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.
"... That "faction" is the trump regime (cough) justice department. They are who indicted the 13. Do the math. The trump regime is the "deep state". ..."
"... The 13 indictments were brought by Special Prosecutor Mueller. Due to Jeff Sessions recusal, he is answerable only to Deep State Globalist, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein. 0% Trump involvement. ..."
"... The indictments are so sketchy they are almost certain to collapse. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/16/asst-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-announces-robert-muellers-russian-election-interference-indictments/ ..."
On a related note . it is now apparently illegal to have opposed the Deep State's candidacy
of Hillary for President. 13 people indicted by the US prosecutors for "supporting the
presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton."
The faction in the USA that seems to desperately want a nuclear war is now prosecuting
people who opposed their candidate who virtually promised that nuclear war as a part of her
campaign platform. Trying to save humanity is no defence apparently against charges that one
interfered with the Deep State's plans for nuclear war.
Note, that this is not an isolated ruling. The people like priests and nuns who've
protested against America's nuclear arsenal have had judges rule in court that arguments
about the illegality of such programs (in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaty) nor
the immorality of planning to kill every living human and wipe out the human race are not
permissible defenses to make against the charges filed against them.
Apparently one is now free to either die in a nuclear holocaust or to spend probably years
in a US prison. The land of the free!
"The faction in the USA that seems to desperately want a nuclear war is now prosecuting
people who opposed their candidate who virtually promised that nuclear war as a part of her
campaign platform."
That "faction" is the trump regime (cough) justice department. They are who indicted
the 13. Do the math. The trump regime is the "deep state".
The 13 indictments were brought by Special Prosecutor Mueller. Due to Jeff Sessions
recusal, he is answerable only to Deep State Globalist, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein. 0% Trump
involvement.
Russia became a standard punch ball in the US political games. As in "Russia dog eat my homework."
Notable quotes:
"... This article is very important and outlines the destructive effort being done to Russia by the USA. It should be noted and clearly displayed by the psychopathic nature of USA meddling in Russian affairs. ..."
"... "With the current uproar about Russia interfering in the USA elections. It has to be noted that the Kremlin is very silent on this subject." ..."
"... It is extremely difficult and time consuming for an ordinary person to find the truth in the millions of pages on the Internet, the ordinary mushroom knowing that the MSM only serves you sh't and keeps you in the dark. ..."
"... Yea, just a common internet malpractice called spoofing, that any IT professional, especially one working in IT security, knows about. I suspected all along that most or all of this "Russian Hacking" and "Russians did it" was exactly that. ..."
With the current uproar about Russia interfering in the USA elections. It has to be noted that the Kremlin is very silent on this
subject. It is more important now than ever to bring forth information from Russia in exposing how serious the problem is from
the USA interfering in not only Russian affairs but how the intelligence community continues unabated in interfering in most countries.
This article is very important and outlines the destructive effort being done to Russia by the USA. It should be noted and
clearly displayed by the psychopathic nature of USA meddling in Russian affairs.
One has to wonder why people cannot see how the current government of the USA is totally out of control around the world.
Everything has its cycle of life and the USA is no exception to this theory. When humanity is controlled in such a fashion,
by that I mean that the USA is supported by the four pillars consisting of GREED, CORRUPTION, POWER and CONTROL. They are sitting
on the top of these structures and are desperately trying to maintain their grip over the world.
Perhaps the purpose is to "open Russia" to debunk those silly "Kremlin hacking" claims and give Empire more important information
inside Russia. E.g how to go deep through military security defense line.
Empire actually don't know what Russia don't know or do know. Is this chess where you have to sacrifice pawn or two or even
knight to secure queen and king? Or why to shoot fly with cannon?
"One has to wonder why people cannot see how the current government of the USA is totally out of control around the world." end
quote.
It is extremely difficult and time consuming for an ordinary person to find the truth in the millions of pages on the Internet,
the ordinary mushroom knowing that the MSM only serves you sh't and keeps you in the dark. The most reliable method (not
100 % though) is the "Follow the money" method, who has to gain by this or that development, but even that can lead to false conclusions.
Always count on that everyone has a hidden agenda, but watch out you are not gripped by paranoia.
Yea, just a common internet malpractice called spoofing, that any IT professional, especially one working in IT security,
knows about. I suspected all along that most or all of this "Russian Hacking" and "Russians did it" was exactly that.
What a pathetic waste of time. American society and government are really getting very low.
And, of course, reality is actually defined as "what you cannot change by speaking about it". You can change reality, a very
little bit at a time, by doing honest physical work.
"... Much later, in mid-2013, the idea of Shaltay-Boltay appeared. ..."
"... Anikeev had sources of information, the information itself, important and interesting one. Anikeev decided to leave the information and analytical structure for which he had been working, and start his own project. ..."
"... His role has been greatly exaggerated. He's just our mutual old friend. When we were getting significant numbers of files that had to be processed, we would ask Teplyakov to help, for a fee. We knew him and trusted him. ..."
"... Just then, I was beginning to get annoyed with the country, I decided to go to Thailand. When I started discussing this project with Anikeev, it seemed okay: you could engage in an interesting and promising business from home. What did I expect in financial terms? Definitely not the sale of arrays of information. I was rather thinking about advertising or administration fee. Lite-version. ..."
"... All the information came from Anikeev. I published the received information, perhaps, by illegal means, but I have nothing to do with how it was obtained. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I think by our actions, especially in 2014, when we were working on the idea, I deserved asylum in Estonia. So far no response was received. ..."
"... The Anonymous International published a lot of information from the correspondence of officials and businessmen between 2014 and 2016. Among the disclosed information was Dmitry Medvedev's hacked Twitter, and e-mail, Facebook, iPhone and iPad of owner of NewsMedia Holding Aram Gabrellyanov; e-mail and WhatsApp of TV host Dmitry Kiselev, official correspondence between the employees of "Prosecutor's Office" and the "Ministry of State Security" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and a lot of other, equally interesting information. ..."
"... Before Anikeev's detention, Shaltay-Boltay also obtained the correspondence of the presidential assistant Vladislav Surkov. ..."
St. Petersburg programmer Alexander Glazastikov, who was hiding under the mask of Shaltay-Boltay (Humpty Dumpty), hoping for a
political asylum reached out to the former President of Estonia. He is the only member of Anonymous International who remains at
large.
Fontanka has been chasing the last Shaltay-Boltay member for a week. One member of the mysterious hacker group, which has been
leaking e-mails of businessmen and officials for three years was found in Estonia, but shied away from a direct talk.
After the news came that Anonymous International members Vladimir Anikeev, Konstantin Teplyakov, and Filinov were arrested, it
was not difficult to single out their colleague Alexander Glazastikov. The 'scary hackers' themselves, as it turned out, were quite
unrestrained on social networks and left striking marks on the Internet.
Five days ago, Alexander Glazastikov gave an evasive answer to the straight question sent by Fontanka via e-mail. Three days ago,
he admitted to being one of the Anonymous International on condition of anonymity. Then, he agreed to an interview saying "Come to
Estonia".
When, on the arranged day, a Fontanka reporter arrived to Tartu, Alexander dropped a bombshell: "I'm on my way to Tallinn: already
twenty kilometers away from Tartu." He suggested: "I can wait at the gas station Valmaotsa. Drive up, let's go together." It was
the offer, from which one cannot refuse. A taxi was found quickly.
When the meeting took place, the Shaltay-Boltay member, who was easily recognizable due to the photos from the web, surprised
the journalist once again: he silently passed him the ignition keys from the SUV. After a question, he explained: "You will have
to drive, I was drinking beer while waiting." There wasn't much of a choice, and the correspondent of Fontanka drove the hackers
group member to Tallinn to meet with the crew of Dozhd TV-channel and Ksenia Sobchak. 180 kilometers and two hours of time was enough
to have a decent conversation.
- Alexander, you are probably the only member of the Anonymous International who managed to remain at large. You're in Estonia,
the Russian justice is far away, can I call you by your name and surname?
- Perhaps, you can. Anyway, tomorrow or the day after, I will officially reach out to the authorities for a political asylum.
The FSB already knows my name.
- They know the surname. And who are you in the Anonymous International: Shaltay or Boltay?
- Shaltay, Boltay ... what a mess. Initially, when starting this project, Shaltay-Boltay was supposed to be a spokesman for the
Anonymous International. Mainly, I was doing this job. Then, Anikeev started introducing himself to the reporters as Lewis and got
everyone confused.
- How many people initiated the Anonymous International?
- Me, Anikeev. Teplyakov helped with some things, but purely technical aspects.
- Who is Filinov, whose arrest was reported in connection with Shaltay-Boltay?
- I don't know the man. He was not involved in the creation of the Anonymous International. I think this is Anikeev's acquaintance,
who accidentally got under the press. I've heard his name for the first time, when the media wrote about his arrest.
- Have you known Anikeev and Teplyakov for a long time?
- For a long time... There was a resource called Damochka.ru. When basically no social networks existed, and VKontakte only began
to emerge, everyone was on this website, it was one of the most fun projects. In the real world, meetings of the website users were
held, some users just organized those parties – Dima Gryzlov, Nikolai Bondarik, and Anikeev. That's how we met. Much later, in
mid-2013, the idea of Shaltay-Boltay appeared.
- How? Did you just decide that you would steal e-mails of bad people?
- Anikeev had sources of information, the information itself, important and interesting one. Anikeev decided to leave the
information and analytical structure for which he had been working, and start his own project.
- Could this project be called a business?
- It depends It was assumed that the project will bring substantial financial result, but initially it was made partly out of
ideological considerations.
- But Anikeev is not a hacker at all, judging by the stories of his former colleagues.
- True. If he needed to install any software on the computer, he would usually ask me to do it.
- But Teplyakov is a programmer.
- His role has been greatly exaggerated. He's just our mutual old friend. When we were getting significant numbers of files
that had to be processed, we would ask Teplyakov to help, for a fee. We knew him and trusted him.
- And why did you join this project?
- Just then, I was beginning to get annoyed with the country, I decided to go to Thailand. When I started discussing this
project with Anikeev, it seemed okay: you could engage in an interesting and promising business from home. What did I expect in financial
terms? Definitely not the sale of arrays of information. I was rather thinking about advertising or administration fee. Lite-version.
- With a reference to the investigation, there was information that Shaltay-Boltay has a whole network of agents with special
equipment, who, at places popular among local officials, steal information by creating fake Wi-Fi connections. Do you have a network?
- Complete nonsense. There were discussions about getting to know technical possibilities like this. As far as I know, and I know
a lot, in fact, we didn't have it.
- Where did you get the information from, then?
- From specialized hacking sites, one can order hacking someone else's e-mail box for a few thousand rubles.
- It worked successfully. If you remember 2014 was the most fruitful year. Serious stories, serious figures, and no commerce.
Strelkov, Prigozhin...
- Out of the three years that the project existed, 2014 was the most significant. I am proud of that year.
- But, from 2015, the Anonymous International has become almost a purely commercial project. How much money did you manage
to earn?
- Only one or two million dollars.
- So, you are now a rich man?
- No. Most of the money was spent on operating expenses, so to speak. There were about fifty boxes in the work. Plus, there were
variants in which a transaction was made not via bitcoins, but with the help of Anikeev's friends; these intermediaries could ask
for two thirds of the whole amount.
- Was there anyone above you and Anikeev? For several years, people have been wondering who Shaltay-Boltay works for?
- Funny. Everyone is looking for conspiracy, but, in fact, it was a 'quick and dirty' project made by me and Anikeev. However,
at some point, in the summer or in the spring of 2016, Anikeev said that some person from the FSB found us, he knew our names. Allegedly,
military counterintelligence was looking for us, but the FSB found our meadow attractive and decided to take control of our petty
pranks. They, supposedly, were uninterested in the commercial part of the project: the scale was much bigger, but they wanted to
supervise the project and to have the veto right. Mikhailov's name was not voiced, in fact, no one's was. Nothing, actually, happened:
no one used the veto right and no one leaked any information. If these mysterious people existed at all. And who turned whom in:
they – Anikeev or Anikeev – them, or even third force got them all, I do not know.
- How quickly did you find out about Anikeev's arrest?
- The next morning. He sent me a selfie from Pulkovo Airport, wrote that he checked in and flies to Minsk. The next morning, it
was reported that he was arrested and transported to Moscow. Given the subsequent events, it could be the game of the FSB. Then,
he contacted me, convinced that he solved all the issues and now works under the control of the FSB, called in me to Russia, but
I didn't believe him for some reason.
- Did Teplyakov believe?
- Teplyakov, in the summer of 2016, moved from Thailand to Kiev. He had no permanent earnings, he depended on Anikeev. When the
game was on, and it was claimed that the project would continue, but he needs to come to Russia and work there under supervision,
for safety reasons, as well, Teplyakov didn't have much of a choice. He went to Russia.
- Is there somewhere a chest with Shaltay-Boltay's information?
- Good question. I need to think how to respond. Well no, not really. What was sold and purchased by the clients was deleted.
What was sold was fairly deleted and this information doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps, some of our customers are now concerned about
this question, but what was declared, was implemented. Some operative material that we had been working on, I also deleted. Maybe
a couple of screenshots were left in the trash bin, but nothing more.
- Alexander, you're going to submit a request for a political asylum. Aren't you afraid that Estonians will simply put you
in a cell? In this country, they are very sensitive to computer security, and the specificity of computer crimes lies in the fact
that, for committing them, one can be prosecuted in almost any country?
- My position is that I was not personally involved in the cracking of passwords and sending malicious links. To me all that information
was already delivered in an open form. Yes, it was, probably, stolen...
- So were you ordering its thefts or not?
- No.
- Who did, then?
- All the information came from Anikeev. I published the received information, perhaps, by illegal means, but I have nothing
to do with how it was obtained. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I think by our
actions, especially in 2014, when we were working on the idea, I deserved asylum in Estonia. So far no response was received.
We drove to Tallinn. More and more texts came to Alexander's telephonefrom Dozhd TV journalists, who were preparing
to shoot with Ksenia Sobchak. After leaving the car in the parking lot, we said goodbye. Alexander Glazastikov promised to inform
when he receives a reply from the Estonian government.
It is to be recalled that Glazastikov's colleagues from the Anonymous International are awaiting trial in a predetention center.
The law enforcement agencies arrested Vladimir Anikeev and his two probable accomplices: Konstantin Teplyakov and Alexander Filinov.
The latter two were arrested as early as November 2016, and, on February 1, the judge of the Lefortovo District Court of Moscow extended
their detention until April. The alleged leader of the Anonymous International, who was acting under the nickname Lewis, was arrested
on January 28 after a short time spent in the company of police officers; he confessed.
All three are charged with the crimes stipulated under part 3 of Art. 272 of the Russian Criminal Code (Illegal access to legally-protected
computer information, which caused a major damage or has been committed because of vested interest or committed by a group of persons
by previous concert through his/her official position).
Initially, the media associated their criminal case with the investigation on the FSB staff and the manager of the Kaspersky Lab,
who were accused of treason, but later, the lawyer of one of the defendants denied this information.
The Anonymous International published a lot of information from the correspondence of officials and businessmen between 2014
and 2016. Among the disclosed information was Dmitry Medvedev's hacked Twitter, and e-mail, Facebook, iPhone and iPad of owner of
NewsMedia Holding Aram Gabrellyanov; e-mail and WhatsApp of TV host Dmitry Kiselev, official correspondence between the employees
of "Prosecutor's Office" and the "Ministry of State Security" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and a lot of other,
equally interesting information.
Before Anikeev's detention, Shaltay-Boltay also obtained the correspondence of the presidential assistant Vladislav Surkov.
"... The other question is to what extent Strzok and McCabe can be considered as Brennan allies, or maybe even Brennan agents of influence within FBI. It is not that plausible that those two guys ventured into "va bank" operation of spying on Trump by themselves. From recovered texts, it is clear that Strzok opinion about Hillary was pretty low. ..."
"... "It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians." ..."
"... Links from Crowdstrike "analysis" (which most probably was a false flag operation to implicate Russians and cover the leak of emails to a USB drive) also might lead to Brennan. ..."
First of all the "Intelligence community" here means predetermined conclusions by specifically handpicked for this purpose
by Brennan team, consisting of a dozen or so analysts. Which included Peter Strzok and, most probably, Andrew McCabe.
The key operation launched after election nicely fits the scheme of a color revolution (which are CIA specialty in tandem with
the State Department ;-) In this context, the role ICA was to launch the media frenzy (to use controlled MSM as attack dogs to
de-legitimize the elected government accusing it of some mortal sin such as corruption, collision with Russia (or other chosen
scapegoat country), plunging the standard of living and economics of the country, racism and suppression of ethnic minorities,
etc) is a classic recipe from Gene Sharp book
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/30/gene-sharp-dead-arab-spring-political-scientist
).
That goal was successfully achieved -- unprecedented neo-McCarthyism campaign, along with the allegations of "collision with
Russia" by Trump and his team were both in full bloom by January 2017.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President Obama himself.
And this MSM witch hunt was in turn a step stone toward "Appointment of the Special Prosecutor" gambit (for which Rosenstein
was used possibly with help of intimidation), the most important goalpost so far achieved by plotters.
Your interpretation of the visit of Brennan to Reid is probably wrong. Information about Steele dossier was of secondary importance.
His goal was to recruit an influential Congress ally who shared the agenda "Trump should go" and who can help with the forthcoming
color revolution steps based on dossier and ICA. Reid subsequent steps of propagating Steele dossier were just a part of larger
effort.
Barack Obama biography and his very strange relations with Brennan raises a lot of interesting questions one of which is: To
what extent Obama was dependent/controlled by CIA and to what extent he was the part of the color revolution plot. He definitely
took unprecedented (and dangerous for him personally) steps to de-legitimize Trump and implicate Russians before leaving the office
("unmasking" campaign by Rice and Powell, exclusion of Russian diplomats and confiscation of Russian property made of the basis
of Steele falsification and the burning desire to "get" Trump )
The other question is to what extent Strzok and McCabe can be considered as Brennan allies, or maybe even Brennan agents
of influence within FBI. It is not that plausible that those two guys ventured into "va bank" operation of spying on Trump by
themselves. From recovered texts, it is clear that Strzok opinion about Hillary was pretty low.
Now we know that Brennan single-handedly opened Russiagate investigation and even boasted about that. That means that he is
the real godfather of Russiagate. According to the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed
the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence
Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians."
Links from Crowdstrike "analysis" (which most probably was a false flag operation to implicate Russians and cover the leak
of emails to a USB drive) also might lead to Brennan.
The same is true about Fusion GPS. And even Steele himself, who, as we now know, got some information collected by the duo
of Shearer-Blumenthal via State Department. So it is plausible that none, or very little of the dirt on Trump published in the
dossier belongs to Steele. He might simply be used for the legitimization purpose of already collected by somebody else dirt;
I read somewhere that he produced the "initial" dossier memo used for FISA court in record short period; something like three
days). The story with prostitutes urinating on the bed in a Moscow hotel really smells with Blumenthal. It's his methods of dealing
with Hillary political opponents. BTW he is the author of "birth certificate hypothesis" and "birther movement" (of which Trump
became a part much later, after Obama victory) and due to this was rejected by Ralph Emmanuel when Hillary tried to get him into
Obama WH (
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/does-clinton-have-a-blumenthal-birther-problem/article/2602090
)
But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the
water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in
the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies?
Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the
contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were
they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation
on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving
Hillary an edge?
I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
Taking oil price to 30th or 40th is a strategic goal of the USA in relation to Russia. Listen at 3:30.
Notable quotes:
"... Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years. ..."
"... You are exactly right. U$ politicians are uninformed, stupid, detached from reality, selfish and they think like schoolyard kids do. ..."
"... They are the product of the US society as a whole. ..."
"... Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them". ..."
"... In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of power? ..."
"... I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors. ..."
"... The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin). ..."
"... Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election, 2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States. ..."
"... What an admission! trump doesn't want more drilling for oil to Americans to use. It is for export and for foreign interference ..."
"... and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too ..."
Another tiresome, butthurt yank/wank? Between the new One Belt, One Road Chinese initiative, the Russians taking control of
ME oil production and the fact that america has NO answers to help it's declining empire, it would seem to the non-partisan observer
that america is well and truly f***ed. You must be talking about their debt expansionism, $20 TRILLION and rising by the second.
Thank you Mario......let's not forget Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, the entirety of eastern Europe, the entirety of northern Africa,
Rwanda, the Congo, Venezuela, Chili, Guatemala, Panama, Jeeeeeeeze etc......
Russia condemned and defined as the enemy of America with laughably little evidence (effing Facebook posts being about the
extent of it) .... not a word about JEWISH MONEY controlling the entire political system in the USA. When Netanyahu gets 29 standing
ovations from Congress should that not have triggered an FBI "Investigation"? Nah ... nothing happening there. It is breathtaking
that THIS is the Alice-In-Wonderland world we inhabit.
Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual
level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years.
Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them".
Yeah, that's hilarious. Join the murdering creep in a giggle, Laura, that's cute. Here's a global criminal who should have
been hung years ago for crimes against humanity. No one in their right mind would treat this creep with anything but contempt
and horror, let alone find him funny.
In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of
power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we
in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of
power?
My profound and sincere condolences. You are getting the 'Democracy Treatment' by the West. I hope some of you survive to tell
the tale and take revenge.
Are those ears or bat-wings? WOW! Yet another Jewe, pretending not be be. I guess he would say that the USA murdered all the
Indians and enslaved Africans 'for their own good' as well.
Talmudo-Satanism is the pernicious underlying ideology of the people who have taken over, not just the USA, but, lets face it,
the entire West.
Lets not forget that the U.$.A. meddled in Australia's election of the Whitlam Government. (And several governments there after
as soon as they realised they could get away with it an nothing would happen to them). The United States are a bunch of sick puppies;
really sick puppies the way they have treated Australia.
So much for being allies. With allies like the United States you don't need enemies (Unless the U.$. doctors them up for you
to force you to pay them more money for weapons and protection).
And it makes me sick that so many 'naive' people around the world keep falling for the SH*T that comes out of their mouths.
When dealing with the United States there are a few rules to follow. (Apologies to the innocent Americans out there but 'they'
allow their government to do some unspeakable horrors to the world.)
Rule One: If an American politician is speaking, then they are lying to you.
Rule Two: If an American Politician is quiet, they they want you to believe a lie.
Rule Three: If you have relations with the United States, you will be lied to.
And that goes for the entire planet no matter who the United States is speaking to.
Worst part is the our Gov can't think ahead, if they keep antagonising China on behalf of the Seppo's China will eventually
pull their mineral imports and our economy will crash overnight.
Yes, nobody doubts that the US interferes with elections in other countries - we're the good guys, so this is ok :)
I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the
Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors.
The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch
Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin).
Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election,
2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just
a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their
elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States.
Frederick the Great concluded that to allow governments to be dominated by the majority would be
disastrous: "A democracy, to survive, must be, like other governments a minority persuading a majority to let itself be led by
a minority."
and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking
industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too
...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a slave market for humanity's good
as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.
"... In September 2016, the two men reportedly were involved in obtaining information on Page and it has also been suggested that Brennan sought and obtained raw intelligence from British, Polish, Dutch and Estonian intelligence services, which might have motivated FBI's James Comey to investigate the Trump associates. Brennan and Clapper, drawing on intelligence resources and connections, might have helped the FBI build a fabricated case against Trump. ..."
"... Currently the senior officials who were so hostile to Donald Trump have decided against going quietly into their generously rewarded retirements. Morell has long been a paid contributing "expert" for CBS news, Hayden has had the same role at CNN, and they are are now being joined by John Brennan at NBC. ..."
"... Brennan, an NBC "senior national security and intelligence analyst," is an Obama-Clinton loyalist who can be relied upon to oppose policies and actions undertaken by the Trump Administration, admittedly not a bad thing, but he will be doing so from a strictly partisan perspective. ..."
"... Brennan has behaved predictably in his new role. In his first appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday he said that the Steele dossier did "not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessment that was presented to President Obama " which is a lie. He denounced the release of the so-called "Nunes memo" by the House Intelligence Committee because it was "exceptionally partisan," which is true, and because it exposes secrets, which it does not. ..."
"... Brennan, who was hated by much of the CIA's rank-and-file during his tenure as director, does not have much of a reputation for truth-telling. He lied about how the Agency under his leadership tried to spy on and disrupt the Senate's investigation into CIA torture. ..."
"... Of course that makes Brennan turning into a TV "expert" even worse. It marks the completion of Operation Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ..."
"... US corporate media is now 100% propaganda, 1% truth (the 1% being where the truth actually is what they would have you believe it is -- the little overlap between truth and propaganda) ..."
"Brennan, who was hated by much of the CIA's rank-and-file during his tenure as director, does not have much of a
reputation for truth-telling."
Once upon a time in the United States there was a general perception that organizations like the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were both apolitical and high-minded, existing only to calmly and professionally
promote the safety and security of the nation. Directors of both organizations often retired quietly without fanfare to compose their
memoirs, but apart from that, they did not meddle in politics and maintained low profiles.
There was a widespread belief at CIA that former officers should rightly retire to a log cabin in the Blue Ridge Mountains where
they could breed Labrador retrievers or cultivate orchids.
But the relative respectability of America's national security agencies largely vanished in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist
incidents. It was learned that both the CIA and FBI had made fatal mistakes in their investigations of the al-Qaeda group, putting
in question their effectiveness, and the leaders of both organizations began to focus on pleasing their political masters. The appearance
of CIA Director George Tenet at the United Nations supporting lies promoted by Secretary of State Colin Powell was a low point, but
there were many more to follow.
In September 2016, the two men reportedly
were involved
in
obtaining information on Page and it has
also been suggested
that Brennan sought and obtained raw intelligence from British, Polish, Dutch and Estonian intelligence services, which might
have motivated FBI's James Comey to investigate the Trump associates. Brennan and Clapper, drawing on intelligence resources and
connections, might have helped the FBI build a fabricated case against Trump.
Currently the senior officials who were so hostile to Donald Trump have decided against going quietly into their generously
rewarded retirements. Morell has long been a paid contributing "expert" for CBS news, Hayden has had the same role at CNN, and they
are
are now being joined
by John Brennan at NBC.
Brennan, an NBC "senior national security and intelligence analyst," is an Obama-Clinton loyalist who can be relied upon to
oppose policies and actions undertaken by the Trump Administration, admittedly not a bad thing, but he will be doing so from a strictly
partisan perspective.
And the danger is that his tag as former DCI will give him a certainly credibility, which, depending on
the issue, might not be deserved or warranted. To be sure CIA interests will be protected, but they will be secondary to commentary
from a partisan and revenge seeking John Brennan who is out to burnish his own sorry reputation. He looks perpetually angry when
he is on television because he is.
Brennan has behaved predictably in his new role. In his
first appearance
on Meet the Press last Sunday
he said that
the Steele dossier did "not
play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessment that was presented to President Obama " which is a lie. He denounced
the release of the so-called "Nunes memo" by the House Intelligence Committee because it was "exceptionally partisan," which is true,
and because it exposes secrets, which it does not.
Brennan, who was hated by much of the CIA's rank-and-file during his tenure as director, does not have much of a reputation
for truth-telling.
He lied
about how the Agency
under his leadership tried to spy on and disrupt the Senate's investigation into CIA torture.
He was also the driving force behind the Obama administration "kill list" of U.S. citizens selected for assassination. Concerns
that Brennan will represent the Agency's viewpoint on NBC News are largely irrelevant as the network should have instead considered
his credibility and judgment before hiring him.
The CIA is very much effective - it just doesn't do what we're told it does.
Of course that makes Brennan turning into a TV "expert" even worse. It marks the completion of Operation Mockingbird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
.
US corporate media is now 100% propaganda, 1% truth (the 1% being where the truth actually is what they would have you believe
it is -- the little overlap between truth and propaganda)
.
"... . As usual, the most appropriate response amounts to contemptuous, refined amusement ..."
"... It's not as though we have a lack of ludicrous, ridiculous material. As the inventor of this site once described, how did the people in the late-era Soviet Union fight their declining regime? Jokes. ..."
Frankly, I don't really see too big a problem with people swallowing the hogwash about "Kremlin disinformation trolls" working
to undermine the West's irrepressible belief in itself. As usual, the most appropriate response amounts to contemptuous,
refined amusement:
"They seem to know indeed what they are talking about -- well worth their salary for doing
honest work."
If you cannot change the Weltanschau of Ziomedia addicts, then at least you're fully
entitled to have some fun at the slobs' expense.
Absolutely, humor is one of the best weapons around. The more pompous a person is, the more
they hate being dropped down to size. Pop goes the balloon of hot air.
Humor has probably
woken more people up than any other method.
It's not as though we have a lack of ludicrous,
ridiculous material. As the inventor of this site once described, how did the people in the
late-era Soviet Union fight their declining regime? Jokes.
"... What this guy did (who is not "Putin's Chef", a term that uses the ever-favorite smear of putting something next to Putin to make people think there is guilt among both parties) is what every sleazy purveyor of fake profiles and fake likes does. If you have done any work in marketing or social platforms, you will have seen dozens of the same outfits. ..."
"... They're also happy to sell you ads that will target these fake people, pocketing the cash without achieving any results for the business owner buying the ads. Meanwhile, the US Cointelpro operation continues, masquerading as an actual investigatio ..."
"... Of course the New York Times and Washington Post have reacted to this like US Cavalry coming to the rescue in the last reel of a 1950's B-movie by demanding that Trump apologizes and accepts that their stories about Russian interference in the elections, were true and had nothing to do with 'fake news.' How convenient for them! After all this time, this is what Mueller can come up with, give me a break! ..."
"... Maybe they should sue Mueller for libel, go on the offensive? So Mueller's accusations are 'free', cause he knows the Russians can't really reply. It's a kind of smear. ..."
"... And what about conflating 'Russians' with 'Russia' all the time? A hacker or troll living in Russia doesn't represent 'Russia.' There's this ghastly wave of hysteria sweeping the United States and it's dangerous. ..."
"... With this indictment: Rod Rosenstein has come clean and delivered on solemn oath that the entire Russiagate farrago is baseless and evidence free. The only thing he has truly indicted is the obvious and continually developing disassociation of the American ruling class psyche from reality. ..."
"... "'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." ..."
"... An empire of unreality that can no longer be connected to the experiential, discernible and true. Such men are the architects of the demise of the dominant culture of lies? ..."
"... "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." – Sol Wachtler ..."
"... Well, they (Cocaine Importing Authority) do have history ..."
"... I personally know almost all pro-Russian English-speakers that have an influence on English language alternative and social media. None of them are Russians. If they ever were, they emigrated decades ago. There is no one that can translate Russian talking points from Russian society and media into the English speaking world. ..."
"... When will we discover who in Britain gave Steele authority to send his Dossier to the Clinton campaign? He needed that approval because the information was gleaned when in post as the Head of the Russian Desk of MI6 in quite recent times, apart from the normal requirements of the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 are an Intelligence Agency it's fair to assume they knew the Dossier's destination and the purpose to which it was to be put. Wasn't that interfering in the US election? ..."
"... The absurdity is that America spends billions on doing exactly these sort of things. $5 billion on Ukraine before pulling off the coup, according to Nuland. But that's just a crumb of the total mis-information cake. It's what the CIA spends most of its time doing! ..."
"... Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries. ..."
"... About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million). ..."
"... The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose. ..."
"... But let's be clear, by "democracy building programs" they mean sending in NGOs to promote the "values" of austerity and debt, and they mean funding candidates for elections approved by the IMF because they have agreed to promote austerity and debt. They aren't promoting democracy, they are promoting the western political belief system. They are also acting to disenfranchise and discredit people who don't support this system. Just as Yeltsin in Russia, so Yarushenko, Yatseniuk & Poroshenko in Ukraine – men prepare to tank the standard of living for ordinary people and asset-strip the country. ..."
"... An indictment is simply an accusation. Since all 13 (what a magical number) of these people are in Russia, and there's no extradition agreement with Russia, they will never be able to get a trial to exonerate themselves. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Clinton was running a fraudulent charity and accepted 145 million dollars in "donations" from Russian Banks. ..."
What this guy did (who is not "Putin's Chef", a
term that uses the ever-favorite smear of putting something next to Putin to make people
think there is guilt among both parties) is what every sleazy purveyor of fake profiles and
fake likes does. If you have done any work in marketing or social platforms, you will have
seen dozens of the same outfits.
I've even seen them in operation, delivering tons of fake
followers and such. The goal is straight up sleazy commerce, and it should be noted that ALL
the social platforms, especially Facebook, not only tolerate this but turn a blind eye as it
makes their platform appear to have more users than it actually does.
They're also happy to
sell you ads that will target these fake people, pocketing the cash without achieving any
results for the business owner buying the ads. Meanwhile, the US Cointelpro operation
continues, masquerading as an actual investigation.
It's a really awful sign of the times we live in, when the Guardian, supposedly a
beacon of truth and true liberal, left-of-centre values, is so eager to swallow stuff like
this latest report from Mueller on face value alone without any examination of the wider
internal US context; the people and forces Mueller represent.
Of course the New York Times and Washington Post have reacted to this like US Cavalry
coming to the rescue in the last reel of a 1950's B-movie by demanding that Trump apologizes
and accepts that their stories about Russian interference in the elections, were true and had
nothing to do with 'fake news.' How convenient for them! After all this time, this is what
Mueller can come up with, give me a break!
It's all so pathetic. There's no way these Russians will receive a fair trial in the
US, even if they decided to turn up for a hearing. Maybe they should sue Mueller for libel,
go on the offensive? So Mueller's accusations are 'free', cause he knows the Russians can't
really reply. It's a kind of smear.
And what about conflating 'Russians' with 'Russia' all the time? A hacker or troll
living in Russia doesn't represent 'Russia.' There's this ghastly wave of hysteria sweeping
the United States and it's dangerous. What's appalling is how the left/liberal press,
typified by the ghastly Guardian, goes along with it all, without a murmur of protest,
criticism or real searching analysis.
The title and description of the linked article is right from the Time Magazine web
site:
(( Yanks to the Rescue: the Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win
))
article description from Time's site –
"THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND
ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN"
What we do 'in secret' we must expect to be secretly arraigned against us, and the
knowledge that we do such thinks enforces the conviction the 'Other' is a deceiver, whatever
they say or do. Because such is our own false witness.
With this indictment: Rod Rosenstein has come clean and delivered on solemn oath that the
entire Russiagate farrago is baseless and evidence free. The only thing he has truly indicted
is the obvious and continually developing disassociation of the American ruling class psyche
from reality.
"'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
An empire of unreality that can no longer be connected to the experiential, discernible
and true. Such men are the architects of the demise of the dominant culture of lies?
Well the fact you find it per se impossible the CIA would run a fake "Russian troll"
outfit says more about your utter naivety than anything else. I'm not completely convinced
that is what is going on in Savushkina Street. I think MoA is closer in pointing out it's
just a slightly dodgy internet marketing outfit who are paid to say nice or nasty things
about a whole range of things, mostly non-political.
Well we had Goldman Sachs CEO splashed all over the BBC website demanding UK remain in EU.
After the Referendum. We had The Black Dude threatening to send us to the back of the queue
if we were not subservient little vassals voting Remain. That was Headline News too. None of
us asked the Black Dude to interfere in Our Referendum, but he did it anyway, because America
does what it wants and everyone else gets indicted if they do the same thing back.
Just ask yourselves this: if you had a mad dog fascist HillaryBilly campaigning for US
President saying: ' NUKE (insert your nation's name HERE)!', you would just sit by and say,
'Oh, none of my business'.
Basic lesson to subnormal, cretinous Yanks: as soon as your election campaigns on
foreign wars, foreign blockades, foreign threats to nation state sovereignty, it is no longer
just your business. Any politician eho says otherwise, in fact any Yank who says otherwise,
has lost all right to human rights. Why? Because you have said that the right to safety
within a doctrine of self-determination for the rest of the world does not exist without
kissing America's ass .
Stop treating Americans as anything other than violent, psychopathic cretins who should
be incarcerated for the safety of the world.
It is pointless treating them as human beings when they never behave like human beings
..
I treat others as I would in truth be treated, not as a result of any set of rules of
'deservability' made in my mind or acquired from any other, but because such is a core sanity
of being that does not give worthship to hate and thereby become the think it hates.
Oh I can feel hateful feelings – but these are MINE. and as mine they are in my power
to release, rather than be defined and driven by.
So I appreciate your points, but not your personal result.
The elites operate on this sort of thinking:
"It is pointless treating them as human beings when they never behave like human beings
."
WHO defines what is a human being and how they 'should' behave?
A set of rules?
I agree that cause and consequence belong together – for only in recognising and
accepting consequence can we reconnect with true cause – and so cause a different life
than an attempt to deny and displace consequence to 'others' deemed unlike our self.
Power class operates (manipulates) its population while people use others (manipulate)
to evade their own responsibilities ie they give power away in exchange for what they get, or
believe they have got rid of. For example, they have got rid of guilt by assigning blame to
others who failed to act as their 'rules' required. Except the results of guilt are still
active in their own minds and bodies and not in those who 'fail us'.
Manipulation in a pure sense would be for example holding a tool correctly so as to
attain the desired result, but in the sense of manipulative deceit, it holds the
consciousness in distortion so as to achieve a wished for result.
Manipulative thinking – not Americans – runs the global agenda – and
whatever agencies serve purpose, including the USA. It does so while conferring some sense of
power and protection, in self specialness.
If you are too angry to read and consider, that's ok. But to assign it to a blanket
blaming of Americans as unworthy of their humanity is playing the 'god' of vengeance. Perhaps
this 'god' is the nature of the Beast.
Playing 'god' is the attempt to make reality be as your own Word defines. The lack of
support, encountered rejection and sense of betrayal that follows is the 'wound' of a terror
that generates the 'god' of rage as power and protection.
With regard to 'headline news', what ISN'T a psyop?
Whilst I fully appreciate the wisdom in removing the log from your own eye before you
touch the splinter in someone else's eye, there comes a time when you have to take the f***er
out.
Mueller's indictment rests on the false claim that the suspended 'Russia-connected'
Twitter and Facebook accounts were controlled by a non-existent company and 13
Russian individuals in Saint Petersburg. The only thing that connects the anonymous U.S.
accounts to Russia or the hoax " Internet Research
Agency " is that they may have used some Russian VPN service to hide their identities
from NSA and FBI spies.
Twitter and Facebook self suspended the accounts based on some connection to Russia,
including use of Russian IP addresses or Cyrillic letters in administrator names. They had no
way of knowing if all accounts were controlled from a single "troll factory" or if that troll
factory was operated by a company named "Internet Research Agency". (If they had such
information, they would have said so.)
The whole thing is hoax. It is impossible for Russians to impersonate American internet
personalities, when they are unable to speak up in English under their own names. Russia does
not have the people and skills needed to maintain English language accounts that would
influence and resonate among the American audience and electorate – yet alone do this
at a minimum wage in a "troll factory" sweatshop.
I personally know almost all pro-Russian English-speakers that have an influence on
English language alternative and social media. None of them are Russians. If they ever were,
they emigrated decades ago. There is no one that can translate Russian talking points from
Russian society and media into the English speaking world.
The amerikans will be relying on the Russians never getting their day in an open court.
Can't have a repetition of the George Galloway business see here now can we?
The 'grand' jury process is even more corrupt deceitful and one sided than so called senate
inquiries. At least with shit hurled from the hill, a bloke does eventually get the
opportunity to speak against the allegations – albeit in a controlled environment where
the accuser chairs the meeting, but a Grand Jury, which is similarly controlled by the
prosecutor, provides no room for a defense argument.
The carefully hand selected 'jurors' unlike amerika's senators, most of whom are graduates of
amerika's prestigious law schools, lack any legal training.
The law they are charged with investigating breaches of, is complex, riven with contradictory
precedents and completely outside any retired contractor's area of expertise. So they rely on
the prosecutor to tell em what's what.
amerikans are forthright in their condemnation of everyone else's legal system but the
amerikan one has to be the most corrupt power serving travesty known to man.
Ask J. Assange who lives under the shadow of a so-called 'sealed indictment' which he's not
even meant to know exists, much less what is contained in it and what deceits have been told
by alleged 'co-conspirators' aka jailhouse snitches.
Assange will find out should he ever be kidnapped and abducted to amerika and held in
solitary isolation under the 1917 espionage act – otherwise like many others including
hundreds who have never even set foot in that arsehole of the universe, the us, also stitched
up by grand jury, he must live in ignorance of the accusations and with no right of
reply.
Thank you for the link to George Galloway's interrogation. He sure told them in no
uncertain terms. The US justice system seems to be corrupt beyond redemption. So glad I don't
live there and feel sorry for the ones that do to be honest.
When will we discover who in Britain gave Steele authority to send his Dossier to the
Clinton campaign? He needed that approval because the information was gleaned when in post as
the Head of the Russian Desk of MI6 in quite recent times, apart from the normal requirements
of the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 are an Intelligence Agency it's fair to assume
they knew the Dossier's destination and the purpose to which it was to be put. Wasn't that
interfering in the US election?
Former intel analyst and regular UK Column guest, Alex Thomson, named Sir Richard Dearlove
(he of dodgy dossier No1, seems to have had a hand in dodgy dossier N02?) However, I can't
find the exact day or time for reference.
The absurdity is that America spends billions on doing exactly these sort of things. $5
billion on Ukraine before pulling off the coup, according to Nuland. But that's just a crumb
of the total mis-information cake. It's what the CIA spends most of its time doing!
Politifact directly asked the State Department and looked at public information
released by the U.S. government since 2009 to sample what the money was spent on:
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building
programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State
via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy,
Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.
About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include
military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics
abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with
the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people"
($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300
million).
The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used
for some clandestine purpose.
But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years.
Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is
inaccurate.
The State Department created ForeignAssistance.gov to help taxpayers, journalists and
others find out where the money is going, but the data is limited in the number of years
available and not reported by all agencies.
From that website, we calculated the United States spent $456.4 million in Ukraine
since 2009. Again, that's an incomplete picture based on incomplete data reporting.
Some examples? The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in
Ukraine over the past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health
programs in the countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal
and child health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects
related to weapons of mass destruction , according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building
programs in Ukraine .
But let's be clear, by "democracy building programs" they mean sending in NGOs to
promote the "values" of austerity and debt, and they mean funding candidates for elections
approved by the IMF because they have agreed to promote austerity and debt. They aren't
promoting democracy, they are promoting the western political belief system. They are also
acting to disenfranchise and discredit people who don't support this system. Just as Yeltsin
in Russia, so Yarushenko, Yatseniuk & Poroshenko in Ukraine – men prepare to tank
the standard of living for ordinary people and asset-strip the country.
Whether that $5 billion was spent over ten years or twenty the result has been the
same.
The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in Ukraine over the
past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health programs in the
countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal and child
health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects related
to weapons of mass destruction, according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Have you noticed how whatever money is allegedly spent on this worthy projects the
countries receiving never seem to improve? They all become debt-slaves, they all end up
exporting cheap goods to western countries and letting the IMF tell them how to run
things.
An indictment is simply an accusation. Since all 13 (what a magical number) of these
people are in Russia, and there's no extradition agreement with Russia, they will never be
able to get a trial to exonerate themselves.
Meanwhile, Clinton was running a fraudulent charity and accepted 145 million dollars in
"donations" from Russian Banks..
"... There is no possibility that any of the Russians named in the indictment will ever be extradited to the US to stand trial there. Special Counsel Mueller cannot therefore obtain convictions against these people, which begs the question of why an indictment was issued at all. ..."
"... The short answer is that the indictment is intended to give credence to the claim of 'Russian meddling' in the US election, which has been made both privately and publicly ever since campaigning in the US began in 2015. ..."
"... Presumably, by giving that claim credence, more reasons can now be offered for keeping Special Counsel Mueller in his job. ..."
"... Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf. ..."
"... I would add that the indictment shows that US intelligence has successfully hacked the Internet Research Agency, LCC, a fact which by the way suggests that its internal security systems are very weak. The result is that US intelligence is very well informed about its structure, funding, personnel and activities. ..."
Indictment describes botched and
amateur attempt to use social media, but no one in the Trump Campaign was involved
A recurring pattern of the Russiagate investigation is that whenever pressure increases on the FBI and on
Special Counsel Mueller an indictment appears.
This happened in October when following the FBI's admission that the Trump Dossier – the keystone in the
"evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – could not be verified and the Wall Street
Journal called for Special Counsel Mueller to resign, indictments against Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and
George Papadopoulos appeared.
It happened again in December when growing demands from Congress – from Senator Lindsey Graham in
particular – for another Special Counsel to be appointed were followed by the indictment of Michael Flynn.
It has now happened again.
Hot on the heels of the publication of the GOP memorandum, which catalogued a succession of breaches of
due process by the Justice Department and the FBI in seeking surveillance warrants against Carter Page, we
have a new indictment, this time against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities.
In every case the indictment is received with rapture by the Russiagate conspiracy theorists.
In every case the indictment appears to be intended to give the impression that progress in the
Russiagate investigation is being made, presumably so as to justify keeping Special Counsel Mueller in his
job.
In every case it turns out that the indictment is a damp squib, taking the whole Russiagate conspiracy
theory no further forward.
The latest
indictment
against 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities is a case in point.
The first thing to say about this indictment is that it is entirely declamatory.
There is no possibility that any of the Russians named in the indictment will ever be extradited to the
US to stand trial there. Special Counsel Mueller cannot therefore obtain convictions against these people,
which begs the question of why an indictment was issued at all.
The short answer is that the indictment is intended to give credence to the claim of 'Russian meddling'
in the US election, which has been made both privately and publicly ever since campaigning in the US began
in 2015.
Presumably, by giving that claim credence, more reasons can now be offered for keeping Special Counsel
Mueller in his job.
The second thing to say about the indictment is that as even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has
admitted
, it makes no claim that any US citizen or any member of the Trump campaign in any way colluded
with Russia or with any of the persons named in the indictment either before or after the election.
Rosenstein was very clear about this in the
press conference
he held directly following the publication of the indictment
Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this
illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome
of the 2016 election ..
QUESTION: On page 4 of the indictment, paragraph 6, it specifically talks about the Trump campaign,
saying that defendants communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
My question is, later in the indictment, campaign officials are referenced, not by their name; by
"campaign official 1" or "2" or "3." Were campaign officials cooperative, or were they duped? What is
their relationship with this?
ROSENSTEIN: Again, there's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And
the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were
ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private
network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be
Americans.
President Trump is treating this admission as further confirmation that there was no collusion between
his campaign and Russia, and he is right.
Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I
would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing
wrong – no collusion!
The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost universally overlooked in
all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes
no
claim that the Russian
government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the persons indicted.
Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any
agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that
any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or
on its behalf.
Again Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's
press conference
is most revealing about this, with him speaking of the persons named in the indictment
as if they were private persons
The indictment charges 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for committing federal crimes
while seeking to interfere in the United States political system, including the 2016 presidential
election.
The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States,
with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.
According to the allegations in the indictment, 12 of the individual defendants worked, at various
times, for a company called Internet Research Agency, LLC, a Russian company based in St. Petersburg.
The other individual defendant, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, funded the conspiracy through companies
known as Concord Management and Consulting, LLC; Concord Catering; and many affiliates and subsidiaries.
The conspiracy was part of a larger operation called Project Lakhta. Project Lakhta included multiple
components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation, and others targeting foreign
audiences in multiple countries.
Internet Research Agency allegedly operated through Russian shell companies. It employed hundreds of
people in its online operations, ranging from creators of fictitious personas, to technical and
administrative support personnel, with an annual budget of millions of dollars.
Internet Research Agency was a structured organization headed by a management group and arranged into
departments, including graphics, search engine optimization, information technology and finance
departments.
In 2014, the company established a translator project focused on the United States. In July of 2016,
more than 80 employees were assigned to the translator project. Two of the defendants allegedly traveled
to the United States in 2014 to collect intelligence for their American influence operations.
Note that there is nothing here that ties any of the individuals or entities named by Rosenstein to the
Russian government.
The arch conspirator is said to be a Russian businessman called Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is alleged to have
masterminded and funded the whole project.
Prigozhin has in fact long been identified in Russia as the owner of the notorious Internet Research
Agency, LLC, the supposed Russian "troll farm" operating out of a nondescript building in St. Petersburg
(shown in caption photograph).
It has moreover often been suggested in Russia that Internet Research Agency, LLC, is Prigozhin's own
personal project.
Certainly no public information linking the Internet Research Agency, LLC, to the Russian government or
to any Russian state institution has ever come to light.
Perhaps Rosenstein and Mueller have information that Prigozhin was indeed acting at the behest and on
behalf of the Russian government. Perhaps they may have some reason for not disclosing the fact in their
indictment.
However, for what it's worth, the indictment lends support to the theory that the Internet Research
Agency, LLC, is indeed Prigozhin's own personal project, and that the Russian government is not involved in
it.
I would add that the indictment shows that US intelligence has successfully hacked the Internet Research
Agency, LCC, a fact which by the way suggests that its internal security systems are very weak. The result
is that US intelligence is very well informed about its structure, funding, personnel and activities.
That suggests that if there really was some connection between the Internet Research Agency, LLC, and the
Russian government the US authorities would be well informed about it.
The fact that neither the indictment nor Rosenstein in his press conference had anything to say about
such a connection rather suggests that no evidence for a connection has been discovered, probably because it
does not exist.
I would add – though this will be fiercely denied by some people – that it would be a grave mistake to
think that it is impossible for an agency like the Internet Research Agency, LLC, to be set up in Russia on
someone's private initiative. On the contrary, those genuinely familiar with the country know that such
things go on there all the time.
The fourth thing to say about the indictment is that it centres exclusively on the social media
activities about which so much has been said in the last few months as the evidence of collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia has failed to appear.
I have said very little about this aspect of the Russiagate affair up to now because I have felt that
this aspect of the affair was not in any way important.
This is because the social media activities of which the Internet Research Agency, LLC, and its employees
have been accused of have looked both astonishingly incoherent (witness that the indictment says that they
were promoting both pro- and anti-Trump rallies on the same day) and quantitatively insignificant, making
their impact on the election inconsequential.
The indictment gives no reason to change that view.
The highest number of followers of any of the bogus social media accounts that were set up is alleged by
the indictment to have been in the hundreds of thousands, whereas social media activity on any given day
runs into the tens of millions.
The social media advertisements mentioned in the indictment appear to have been par for the course during
the election, and to have attracted no special interest.
The indictment fails to give numbers for any of the rallies which the persons who have been indicted
allegedly tried to organise via social media; that suggests that the number of persons who attended these
rallies was insignificant.
That even some of those involved were not taking the project wholly seriously is shown by this frivolous
episode solemnly recorded in paragraphs 12 (a) and (b) of the indictment
a.PRIGOZHIN approved and supported the ORGANIZATION's operations, and Defendants and their
co-conspirators were aware of PRIGOZHIN's role.
b.For example, on or about May 29, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through an
ORGANIZATION-controlled social media account, arranged for a real U.S. person to stand in front of the
White House in the District of Columbia under false pretenses and hold a sign that read "Happy 55th
Birthday Dear Boss." Defendants and their co-conspirators informed the real U.S. person that the sign was
for someone who "is a leader here and our boss our funder." PRIGOZHIN's Russian passport identifies his
date of birth as June 1, 1961.
This silly stunt provides more reason for thinking Prigozhin was the author of the whole project.
I do not wish to trivialise what happened.
Assuming that the claims made in the indictment are true – as I believe they are – then multiple serious
crimes were committed.
These included cruel deceptions of innocent people, as well as cases of identity theft. The latter
especially is a very serious crime, the impact or seriousness of which should not be minimised.
However I cannot believe that any of this activity – which looks like a botched and amateur attempt by
Prigozhin to copy some of the highly professional 'colour revolution' activities carried out around the
world by various US and Western NGOs – had any conceivable bearing on the outcome of the US election.
No less a person than Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has moreover said as much
There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016
election
QUESTION: Jack, is there concern that this -- the (ph) indictment undermines the outcome of the
election?
ROSENSTEIN: Well, haven't I (ph) identified for you the allegations in the indictment? There's no
allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.
In summary, the latest indictment to have come from Special Counsel Mueller's team, far from causing
problems for President Trump, actually helps him.
In the one part of the Russiagate conspiracy theory in which some evidence of Russian activity exists –
the part relating to social media – it turns out that President Trump's campaign was not involved, and those
members of his campaign who got drawn into the activities of Prigozhin and his people were completely
innocent dupes.
As for the activity itself, the indictment shows that it was carried out on far too small a scale and in
far too amateur and disorganised a way for it to have had any impact on the election, and the US authorities
do not claim that it did.
It is also my personal view that what we are looking at is a private project cooked up by Yevgeny
Prigozhin, who appears to fancy himself a sort of Russian anti-Soros.
If I am right about that then it is clear that Prigozhin has neither the high level backing nor the skill
to play that role successfully, and his clumsy attempts to do so have instead simply caused Russia
embarrassment and trouble.
I accept that the latter view will be disputed by many – though the evidence in my opinion supports it –
but even if I am wrong about that, it does not detract from the fundamental fact that no evidence of
collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and Russia appears in the latest indictment, and that the
activities catalogued in the indictment can have had no effect on the outcome of the election, and the US
authorities do not say that they did.
How is this "news"? The US has been meddling in foreign elections for hundreds of years. When we can't change the results,
we change the leader. We have assassinated foreign leaders. We have organized revolutions. We have carried out false flag "terrorist"
attacks to destabilize countries.
Russia has paid for a few Facebook trolls. Boo hoo. Better that than the typical US method of kidnapping and torturing opposition
leaders we don't like. Fuck America and it's brutish hypocrisy.
Woolsey is one of many profiles in the "machine" that turns out the worst socio/psychopaths called Langley!... Much like the
Department of Defense they train them to believe they are the most highly intelligent and capable in espionage even when they
"lose" and lose "badly"!
They look at themselves as superior beings in every way that deserve and expect no restraint. And are repeatedly rewarded with
pay and responsibility even when failure on missions includes the worst "blowback"!
If there ever was a government agency alongside the DOD that deserves the honorary title of total betrayal to their motto "
And You Shall Know The Truth And It Shall Set You Free "... that has economically and politically SINGLE HANDEDLY done the opposite
of EVERYTHING DEMOCRACY STANDS FOR in it's TOTAL DESTRUCTION -- this agency is the personification without equal and "without
question"!
MIC controls Trump, not the other way around. That's why Trump deflated just three months
after inauguration. He can tell all he wants, but his actions speak louder then his words. His
actions are typical neocon actions.
Notable quotes:
"... However inadvertently, Trump has thereby bestowed on the American people a singular gift, putting a presidential imprimatur on a point that critics have been making for years, to no avail. Pointing out that our post-9/11 wars have resulted in a multitrillion-dollar waste of lives and treasure represents easily the greatest achievement of his young administration. ..."
"... Now let's look at the rest of the story. I will claim that most US military adventures, since Korea has been a failure often with unintended consequences, squandering taxpayer dollars while the national infrastructure and national psyche crumble. Involving ourselves in Vietnam after the French abandoned it was a horrific mistake with the loss of many lives and the expenditure of immeasurable political and economic capital. Somebody tell me again what Bay of Pigs and Grenada accomplished? There have been numerous other short term in-and-out deployments of troops and materiel since Korea. See Wikipedia's "Timeline of United States military operations." ..."
"... Let's face it. The military-industrial complex continues to lead the country into deeply unfortunate places and situations. Let's tie all this back to the recent school massacre in Parkland FL, one of many in recent years. Military surplus has been given away by the federal government to build up highly militarized SWAT teams in cities, armed with tanks, missile launchers and automatic weapons. Citizens easily and quickly arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons, seizing on loopholes that regulate the buying of hand guns but not AK-15s, all because the NRA owns too many members of Congress. ..."
"... Let's go beyond Trump's simplistic pronouncement. The United States has been and is a bellicose and violent nation. Unfortunately, President Trump's words have been equally bellicose, especially toward North Korea. I have little faith that our country will dial back its aggressiveness under the Trump regime. ..."
In a typically offhand remark, President Trump the other day rendered his personal
assessment of our various post-9/11 wars, interventions, and punitive expeditions. "
Seven trillion dollars. What a mistake ," he said. "But it is what it is."
The seven trillion is merely a guesstimate, of course. No one, least of all the lords of the
Pentagon, really knows how much our sundry military campaigns, large and small, have cost. Yet
at this point, total expenditures certainly reach well into the trillions. And whatever the
current tally, that sum will inevitably increase as our wars drag on and as downstream
obligations – care for veterans, for example – pile up for decades to come.
That Trump himself should characterize those wars as mistaken represents a moment of plain
speaking rare in today's Washington. After all, as the current commander in chief, he owns that
mistake and its myriad consequences. We may doubt that the generals occupying senior positions
in his administration share their boss's assessment. Nor, in all likelihood, does the national
security establishment as a whole. Yet it qualifies as more than mildly interesting that the
individual exercising supreme authority views the entire enterprise as misbegotten.
Imagine the head of Planned Parenthood declaring herself a pro-lifer. Imagine Amazon CEO
Jeff Bezos criticizing the American penchant for conspicuous consumption. Imagine Tom Brady
announcing that his son will never play a brutal and dangerous sport like football. A sitting
American president characterizing ongoing American wars as mistaken is hardly less notable and
ought to command widespread public attention.
Imagine the head of Planned Parenthood
declaring herself a pro-lifer. Imagine Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos criticizing the American penchant
for conspicuous consumption. Imagine Tom Brady announcing that his son will never play a brutal
and dangerous sport like football. A sitting American president characterizing ongoing American
wars as mistaken is hardly less notable and ought to command widespread public attention. Of
course, Trump is an improbable source of truth. His many critics have become accustomed to
dismissing his every word as either false or hateful or simply bizarre. Yet in this instance, I
submit, he has uttered a genuine truth of profound importance.
Unfortunately, Trump's bottom line obscures the implications of that truth: "It is what it
is." There are at least two ways of interpreting that remark. The first is fatalistic: We're
stuck in a heckuva mess and there's no way of getting unstuck. The second is pragmatic: Here
are facts that we dare not ignore.
... ... ...
In Hans Christian Andersen's familiar tale "The Emperor's New Clothes," a young child states
the obvious: The monarch is naked. Now we have the emperor himself making a comparably
self-evident point: Our wars aren't working.
However inadvertently, Trump has thereby bestowed on the American people a singular gift,
putting a presidential imprimatur on a point that critics have been making for years, to no
avail. Pointing out that our post-9/11 wars have resulted in a multitrillion-dollar waste of
lives and treasure represents easily the greatest achievement of his young administration.
We tend to think that the story of that administration thus far has been one of ineptitude
combined with persistent scandal. Yet the real scandal will occur if the American people and
their elected representatives in Washington fail to treat Trump's verdict regarding our recent
wars with the respect and seriousness it deserves.
Thank you, Mr. President, for your candor. If for nothing else, on this score, we owe you
one.
Andrew J. Bacevich is the author, most recently, of "America's War for the Greater
Middle East: A Military History."
Reubenhop 02/16/18 09:49 AM The
trouble is Trump criticizes these wars only because they are not his wars. He needs to be the
outsider who will do better than those that preceded him. But what does he do? He builds up
the military for future wars (even nuclear wars) and engages in dangerous saber rattling and
shows of strength. He learned nothing from his criticisms.
bernieman
02/16/18 09:57 AM said this before: arm both sides with our most destructive weapons, nukes
included, withdraw from the midevil east and let them kill each other. problem solved in
probably less than a year.
MassGuy2 02/16/18 09:57 AM Another
big mistake we're continuing to make is paying for these wars without raising taxes. In
fact, Trump is lowering taxes. Its like a homeowner taking out an expensive loan to buy
something he can't afford, and then cutting back on his work hours. As long as these wars
are being funded by future debt, most Americans will not seriously question the need to
spend money on foolish wars. If Trump is really serious, he should propose taxes be
immediately raised to pay for these wars, bring back the draft, and scrap the volunteer
army. Then see how fast the American people demand good answers as to why we're fighting
these wars.
CambridgeMAry 02/16/18 12:07 PM
I agree. Getting rid of the draft was a mistake, and it does not redound to the credit of
those who opposed the Vietnam War that most of their opposition to it evaporated when the
draft was abolished.
The draft during WWII applied to all men, including the sons of Members of Congress.
Hitler was devastating Europe, and attempting to bomb and strafe the UK into submission,
but the US did not really become involved until we were actually attacked at Pearl
Harbor.
Now, it is too easy for us to dismiss the dangers we send our service persons into
because "They volunteered."
no-name- 02/16/18 04:20
PM "Getting rid of the draft was a mistake, and it does not redound to the credit of
those who opposed the Vietnam War that most of their opposition to it evaporated when
the draft was abolished."
you're misinformed. there was strong and ever-growing opposition to the war until it
ended.
Eurydice9276 02/16/18 01:29 PM
Not at all defending Trump - but stating the obvious doesn't have to be an original
thought.
NinjaLibn 02/16/18 10:15 AM
I've long admired Andrew's insights and incisive writing. It would have been interesting to
hear his recommendations for disentangling ourselves from these wars.
Ben-Myers-not-gutless-anonymous
02/16/18 10:51 AM Trump was almost right, and he did not go far enough. Bush 41's quick
in-and-out adventure in Kuwait makes some sense. Bush 41 and his advisors smartly realized
that a surgical removal of Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait would have few long term
implications.
Now let's look at the rest of the story. I will claim that most US military adventures,
since Korea has been a failure often with unintended consequences, squandering taxpayer
dollars while the national infrastructure and national psyche crumble. Involving ourselves
in Vietnam after the French abandoned it was a horrific mistake with the loss of many lives
and the expenditure of immeasurable political and economic capital. Somebody tell me again
what Bay of Pigs and Grenada accomplished? There have been numerous other short term
in-and-out deployments of troops and materiel since Korea. See Wikipedia's "Timeline of
United States military operations."
Let's face it. The military-industrial complex continues to lead the country into deeply
unfortunate places and situations. Let's tie all this back to the recent school massacre in
Parkland FL, one of many in recent years. Military surplus has been given away by the
federal government to build up highly militarized SWAT teams in cities, armed with tanks,
missile launchers and automatic weapons. Citizens easily and quickly arm themselves with
semi-automatic weapons, seizing on loopholes that regulate the buying of hand guns but not
AK-15s, all because the NRA owns too many members of Congress.
Let's go beyond Trump's simplistic pronouncement. The United States has been and is a
bellicose and violent nation. Unfortunately, President Trump's words have been equally
bellicose, especially toward North Korea. I have little faith that our country will dial
back its aggressiveness under the Trump regime.
MNMoore 02/16/18 12:00 PM Right.
Our economy is addicted to war. The goal is not to win the war. It is to sustain it.
"... Lockheed Martin, after all, gets nearly as much money from the US government as the State Department. CEO Marilyn Hewson is, by the reckoning of some analysts, as powerful as most US cabinet secretaries. ..."
Lockheed Martin, after all, gets nearly as much money from the US government as the
State Department. CEO Marilyn Hewson is, by the reckoning of some analysts, as powerful as most
US cabinet secretaries.
Teal Group's Richard Aboulafia has the gold medal quote on this – "
diplomacy is out; airstrikes are in. " From the F-35 on, Lockheed is a key facilitator of
airstrikes, and soaring demands for its products are leading to soaring revenue and rising
profit margins.
Reports on the company brag about "juicy" shipbuilding deals, and the money pouring in from
nuclear weapons upgrades. Lockheed Martin's status as a main seller of US arms and the US
obsession with growing its military seem to ensure that the company will remain rich, and
wildly influential, for years to come.
"... Another compelling fact is that the NSA only signed on as having "moderate confidence" in the conclusions and analysis presented in the document. That's a weasel word for "not sure." If there actually existed solid intel from reliable sources do you think that the NSA would insist that it only had "moderate confidence." Given my experience on working such issues the answer is a resounding, "hell no!" ..."
"... Finally, there is the dog that did not bark. It was a canard to claim, as Clapper did in October 2016, that "17 intelligence agencies" agreed there was Russian meddling. That was a lie. No document had been circulated and cleared on by all "17 agencies." ..."
"... Here is the bottom line. John Brennan is a proven liar and this whole charade about having some sensitive, well placed source giving us the inside dope on Putin is a new fraud and raises further questions about his credibility. ..."
"... UPDATE--More mindless idiocy courtesy of Robert Mueller. His indictment of Russians for meddling in the US election is a goddamn joke. Seriously? This kind of activity has been going on between Russia and the US for 60 plus years. Anyone remember Radio Free Europe? Voice of America? (And I can't disclose what we were doing covertly to meddle in Soviet/Russia politics, but we were). ..."
"... This is a clever move on Mueller's part - indict a bunch of Russians who (some) already have been arrested by the Russians and therefore are in no position to defend themselves against a US indictment. I suppose Brennan doesn't care that a bunch of Russians recruited as CIA assets get dumped on their own resources. Good luck recruiting any more Russians to help you! ..."
"... How nice and simple and tidy. '13 Russians'... has nice ring to it... will make a great propaganda movie. Seriously though, will this face saving result in any way encourage the Dems to pick a new strategy for "success" the Republicans? Or will they simply triple down on dumb? ..."
"... Yet, somehow, a few Russian trolls posting online claims that were indistinguishable from most of the "normal" election rhetoric is a threat to our democracy ..."
"... Imho, a far bigger threat to our elections is the massive amounts of money involved, and the funding of candidates by oligarchs. But the msm seems confortable with that. ..."
"... And it goes without saying that one of the most immediate threats to our democracy generated by Russiagate are the ongoing attempts to silence alternative dissent to the status-quo and label it as coming from Russianbots. ..."
"... Sounds even more desperate than simply dumb to me. Comey and his kins seem so pressed by (the lack of) facts and the overall incoherence of their ludicrous tale that they finally see no other choice than resorting to the ultimate weapon in store : direct scolding and shaming of ordinary citizen bold enough to object HRC's wrongdoings, past, present and future. ..."
Sorry to belabor the point of the Deep State conspiracy, but the tenacious insistence of TTG
in clinging to Democrat talking points and refusing to step back and objectively look at the
facts demands an answer.
He is upset because I refused to post his comments to my last posting. He does a masterful
job of seizing on an issue, such as John Brennan's briefing to key members of Congress sometime
in August 2016, and insisting that this proves that Brennan was on the up and up. What I did
not put on paper was the fact that I have spoken to one of the members of Congress briefed by
Brennan and the content was not as advertised. Everyone did not get the same brief.
But let's go back and look at what Brennan was leaking to the press about this supposedly
damning intelligence. If it really was as clear cut and damning, as TTG and others seem willing
to believe, then we are faced with having to conclude that the Obama Administration, including
Obama himself, endangered America's security or that the info was based on innuendo and
conjecture.
Let's keep the timeline straight:
The FBI learns from Christopher Steele in early July that the Russians reportedly are in
cahoots with Donald Trump, who also happens to have a golden shower fetish. The FBI opens a
counter intelligence case.
John Brennan supposedly receives intelligence from a different source that Vladimir Putin
is not only meddling in the US election in order to sow chaos but to get Donald Trump
elected.
Brennan then, at the urging for Barack Obama, supposedly briefs this incredible material
to members of Congress.
Okay, so TTG wants us to believe that all members of the Congressional leadership got the
same briefing and that it had nothing to do with the Steele memo. This is total bullshit. Let's
go to the record.
We know that Harry Reid was briefed by John Brennan on 25 August 2016, according to a 6
April 2017 NY Times piece
by Eric Lichtblau .
What did John Brennan tell Reid? Well, we only have to look at the letter that Reid sent to
Comey two days later (27 August 2016) to understand the content of what Brennan briefed. Reid
states:
The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's
presidential campaign continues to mount . . .
questions have been raised about whether a Trump advisor who has been highly critical of
U.S. and European economic sanctions on Russia, and who has conflicts of interest due to
investments in Russian energy conglomerate Gazprom, met with high-ranking sanctioned
individuals while in Moscow in July of 2016, well after Trump became the presumptive
Republican nominee.
This last point comes directly from the Steele dossier. There is no other source for it.
Yet, Reid was not briefed by Comey or anyone from the FBI on the matter. He was only briefed by
John Brennan.
I can hear TTG howling now. "Oh no," he'll insist, "Brennan surely had an independent source
from the Steele dossier." Really?
Then how do you square the circle that James Comey, in his testimony before Congress in June
of 2017, said that the dossier was "UNVERIFIED and salacious?" If the CIA actually had info
corroborating the claim in the Steele dossier that Carter Page was acting as an agent of Trump
and conspiring with the Russians then Comey would have had access to such information. In fact,
if there actually were at least two sources confirming that Page was in Russia and
collaborating with Putin on behalf of Trump, then Comey would have at least been able to say
that part of the dossier was VERIFIED. He did not.
Do I think James Comey is a liar? Not on this point. I believe that if he had one shred of
evidence corroborating one part of the dossier then he would have testified to that fact. He
would not have said, "unverified and salacious." He would have said, "yes, some key parts but I
cannot discuss that in open session."
But I do not have to rely on mere inference. I know from a source well placed in the
intelligence community that Brennan was peddling the Steele memo and had no independent
alternative source for such information. In fact, the intel backing up the audacious claims of
Brennan and DNI Chief James Clapper was so weak that only a hand picked group of analysts were
allowed to review and write up their analysis of that material.
Here again, I do not need to rely on inference. The only document supposedly coordinated in
the intelligence community was the one published in January 2017 at DNI Jim Clapper's
direction. TTG should know better, given his experience in the intel community, what charade
and fraud this document is because only three agencies cleared on it (note, the term
"clearance" refers to the process of relevant personnel from each of the named agencies
certifying the language and content of the analysis).
It was a cooked, pre-determined document. Rather than let the analysts who were the actual
substantive experts on the issues work on the document, DNI's Jimmy
Clapper testified :
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that "the two dozen or so analysts for this
task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies."
I know for a fact that a senior CIA analyst with special expertise on the GRU and Russia,
who normally would be part of such a drafting process, was excluded. And it was not because the
analyst lacked the appropriate clearance.
Another compelling fact is that the NSA only signed on as having "moderate confidence"
in the conclusions and analysis presented in the document. That's a weasel word for "not sure."
If there actually existed solid intel from reliable sources do you think that the NSA would
insist that it only had "moderate confidence." Given my experience on working such issues the
answer is a resounding, "hell no!"
Finally, there is the dog that did not bark. It was a canard to claim, as Clapper did in
October 2016, that "17 intelligence agencies" agreed there was Russian meddling. That was a
lie. No document had been circulated and cleared on by all "17 agencies." The reality is
that one would never have all 17 clear on such a document because not all have expertise or
even access to the intel that such a judgment would be based on. However, two agencies with
direct and important expertise were excluded from coordinating on the DNI fraud--DIA and
State's INR. Both agencies have experienced analysts with substantive knowledge. Don't believe
for a minute that the "intel" (which only inspired moderate confidence in the NSA) was so
sensitive that analysts with TS SCI clearances at DIA and INR could not see nor comment on such
material.
Here is the bottom line. John Brennan is a proven liar and this whole charade about
having some sensitive, well placed source giving us the inside dope on Putin is a new fraud and
raises further questions about his credibility.
So, if TTG wants to rely on Brennan as a solid source, that is his right as a free citizen.
But buyer beware. Brennan's story does not add up.
UPDATE--More mindless idiocy courtesy of Robert Mueller. His indictment of Russians for
meddling in the US election is a goddamn joke. Seriously? This kind of activity has been going
on between Russia and the US for 60 plus years. Anyone remember Radio Free Europe? Voice of
America? (And I can't disclose what we were doing covertly to meddle in Soviet/Russia politics,
but we were). And here is Mueller's conclusion:
anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13
Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election.
PT,
re"God help America. We've lost our damn minds."
I am of the opinion that the parasites infesting the US body politic have now infected the
nerve centers and the brain.
God help the World. Things are reaching a breaking point all over.
Ishmael Zechariah
The problem is not whether the meddling did or did not happen, it's that the general populace
here has no curiosity, and thus have lost their ability to think for themselves, and decide
between what seems right, let alone the difference between right and wrong. We have
institutional disregard for critical thinking here, and the fallout is that you have people
who can be easily swayed by soundbites, 140 character twitter posts, and the onion type rags.
If they want to have a congressional hearing on something, it should be why a sitting
member of congress thinks the Island of Guam might tip over if the Military continues to
build on it.
We have lost our minds, but that is the question that needs answering. Maybe then you can
find evidence of foreign interference.
In the Mueller indictment it also notes (page 23) that "Trump is Not my President" NYC,
Novermber 12 2016, was a Russian idea. So by Meuller logic the Resistance is a Russian idea.
How many members of congress should get expelled over being Putin's puppets?
Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of
investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they
going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would
violate the narrative . God help us.
Russian meddling -- Finally some "evidence" for the gullible:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/special-counsel-robert-mueller-indicts-13-russians-hacking-during-us-election
"Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting
the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and
disparaging Hillary Clinton."
-- Really? Somehow the righteous Mueller and Rosenstein have missed very important Intel:
Comment section: "Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump
protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked
group [?!!] that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans.
The event was shared with 61,000 users. As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually
convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media
reports at the time. ... The group's protest was the fourth [4th!] consecutive anti-Trump
rally in New York following election night, and one of many across the country."
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
-- And then there was a pink-pussy D.C. riot and the DisruptJ20 protest group riot against
Trump. Have Mueller and Rosenstein had a sudden onset of dementia and forgotten the mass
protests? Who was financing and organizing the logistics for the anti-Trump protests? Was
there any investigation of the organizers of the protests against the elected POTUS?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-i-saw-at-the-anti-trump-riot-in-dc/article/2612548
http://www.businessinsider.com/pussy-hats-womens-march-washington-trump-inauguration-2017-2
It sounds like the indictment makes 13 Russian trolls into felons. How many trolls do we
have? Where do they work, will other governments decide they are felons as well? This isn't a
"nothingburger", it's a "veginothingburger". Hasn't President Trump now been exonerated as
well, "unwittings" versus "colluders"?
thanks pt... good overview.. i want to reiterate you last words here -
"God help America. We've lost our damn minds."
is this what happens when a country goes overdrive with propaganda? the propaganda ends up
eating away at the host country itself and causes a complete collapse of it's own
sanity..
Back during the Cold War we were told that the USSR would try to block or jam
VoA/RFE broadcasts from reaching their citizens.
So, my very sincere question is:
Just how did U.S. efforts to influence the population of the USSR via the broadcasts of
VoA/RFE
differ from the alleged efforts of Russia to support
what the media calls far-right parties and policies in the U.S. and Europe?
So these 13 Russians are accused of trolling and planting rumors?
Since the same thing is being done by Americans and, yes, Israelis, it seems ludicrous to
suggest this is really "meddling" in the election. More like "feeding red meat to grey dogs"
in the sense of stoking the fires of internecine culture wars already ongoing in this
country.
If we actually end up arresting any of these individuals there will be tit for tat since
there are still American financed NGOs operating in Russia whose personnel can be easily
arrested on similar charges of promoting chaos and discord. Maybe the Germans can rent us
that famous Berlin Bridge where "spies" were exchanged in various cold war movies.
See my comment in TTG's thread about who these "Internet Research Agency" people actually
are. Scott Humor over at The Saker dug deep into these people and determined that they are
actually anti-Russian Russians who were allegedly proven in court to be CIA spies!
I link to Scott's piece in the TTG thread. Hell, might as well link it here, too:
This is a clever move on Mueller's part - indict a bunch of Russians who (some) already
have been arrested by the Russians and therefore are in no position to defend themselves
against a US indictment. I suppose Brennan doesn't care that a bunch of Russians recruited as CIA assets get dumped
on their own resources. Good luck recruiting any more Russians to help you!
It's a measure of Mueller's desperation, nothing more.
To summarize: in 2014, 13 Russians launched a campaign to interfere with the US political
system by "disparaging" candidates. This continued until ultimately Trump was elected,
meanwhile, "there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing
participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the
[Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
----------------
How nice and simple and tidy. '13 Russians'... has nice ring to it... will make a great
propaganda movie. Seriously though, will this face saving result in any way encourage the Dems to pick a new
strategy for "success" the Republicans? Or will they simply triple down on dumb?
Aren't the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia due to Russian meddling in our elections?
Might it not be prudent for Putin to round the 13 yokels up and put them on the next flight
to NY (with lots of publicity)?
During the campaign any voter using social media could come across literally hundreds of
posts effectively proclaiming "Hillary is trash" and "Trump is trash".
Or for that matter the voters could see much the same by reading the campaign literature
in their mailboxes, or listening to speeches on television.
Yet, somehow, a few Russian trolls posting online claims that were indistinguishable from
most of the "normal" election rhetoric is a threat to our democracy.
Imho, a far bigger threat to our elections is the massive amounts of money involved, and
the funding of candidates by oligarchs. But the msm seems confortable with that.
And it goes without saying that one of the most immediate threats to our democracy
generated by Russiagate are the ongoing attempts to silence alternative dissent to the
status-quo and label it as coming from Russianbots.
"anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13
Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election"
Sounds even more desperate than simply dumb to me. Comey and his kins seem so pressed by
(the lack of) facts and the overall incoherence of their ludicrous tale that they finally see
no other choice than resorting to the ultimate weapon in store : direct scolding and shaming
of ordinary citizen bold enough to object HRC's wrongdoings, past, present and future.
I this vein, I also read in earlier comment threads speculations regarding a new, very
cunning objective of the putative Russian attackers : getting willfully spotted in order to
spread chaos within the US politics and doubt within the heart of citizen. Frankly this
sounds a wee bit far-fetched, like machiavelous 2.3 with Putin and the Kremlin gang upgrading
to 4-D chess politics. Wouldn't it have been bold enough for them to bet on the universally
predicted loser Trump? What sense does it make to interfere ostenteously when precisely their
vowed nemesis is bound to win? How would that have tarnished her victory if she had won
despite their meddling? Doesn't hold any water to me, but desperation stimulates imagination,
and truly, confusion. Contenders of this view seem well engaged in a perillous intellectual
twister game.
Besides, such an account shows very little appreciation for the intelligence and critical
thinking of American voters. I bet that if many came to distrust their institutions, it is
out of their own experience and reflexion rather than out of foreign engineering.
Delusion, desperation, confusion, stupidity, whatever. But for sure the seams are
creaking.
The funny thing is that it looks like the Russian government jailed several people from IRA
last year. It would be prudent to look into it and try to figure out what is going on for
real.
You say: "Harry Reid was briefed by John Brennan on 25 August 2016, according to a 6 April
2017 NY Times piece by Eric Lichtblau.
Well, now that's pretty convenient timing, don't you think? After all, Trump didn't become
the GOP candidate for prez until the GOP convention on July 16, 2016. That gave the scheming
Brennan a month to make up this dumb story and start passing it around Capitol Hill.
Regarding your claim that Mueller concluded "unwittingly collaborated":
According to the text of the indictment that our host, Pat Lang, posted Mueller made no
such conclusion. I note you did not put it within quotation marks.
Is there a separate indictment floating around out there with those conclusions?
You need to do a better job of reading
"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment said.
With all due respect (and I read you assiduously), GeneO raises a valid point. Mueller's
text, paraphrased accurately, says that some of the Russians contacted Trump campaigners with
the intent to seek a collaboration. That's all it says. Nothing is said about a collaboration
having been achieved with anyone or any organization
At the conclusion of your original essay, you augment Mueller with your own
interpretations and words: "anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have"; "been a
collaborator with the 13 Russian"; and "who cost Hillary the election". You wrap your added
words around two words that Mueller did use, "unwittingly" and "specialists". By doing this,
you concoct a statement that summarizes what you read into the indictment, likely what you
regard as Mueller's unspoken message.
Having done this, you present the blend of your several words and Mueller's two words as
Mueller's conclusion. In this, you stretch a bit too far. "Anyone who was disparaging
Clinton, may have 'unwittingly' been a collaborator with the 13 Russian 'specialists' who
cost Hillary the election" is your conclusion, not Mueller's. To have prefaced the conclusion
with something like "Here is what I think Mueller really means" would have been acceptable,
and the supposition very likely might have been accurate. To say "And here is Mueller's
conclusion" is disingenuous.
Well it is an organisation that has received a lot of publicity in the West for awhile so it
is an odd choice, I would have thought they would want a less public organisation for any IO.
Comey was telling the truth, he was still in the delusional belief he could weasel out of
it and continue on as FBI chief.
PT, in the latest, US indictment against a number of Russians, as its only example, cites a
US placard holder on the birthday of JFK as evidence of "Russian interference". Jeez, JFK was
a Russian?
what a friggin shambles the empire has become.
Yes indeed. As I said before in another thread. If the election is "disrupted" by voters
altering their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that
Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are altering their votes based
on posts they read on Facebook. There is little point in correcting the former problem
without correcting the latter and vastly more serious problem.
The indictment accuses Russia of attempting to "diminish the public's faith in
democracy," or some such thing. I really don't think our own voting public needs Russia's
help in doing that.
Nope, our crooked Politicians AND Intelligence/Law Enforcement entities are doing a good job
of diminishing the public's faith. I don't know how many of my fellow Americans I have talked
to have said to round them all the crooked politicians/intelligence/law enforcement and
eradicate them from the earth permanently. That is why we see more and more the crooked
politicians/intelligence/law enforcement understanding well their simmering public anger, and
because of their fear of the angry public that they have created the surveillance grids (has
nothing to do with misnomer terrorism), their legislation/laws that further restrict the
public's ability to fight back against their crooked ways.
Diminished public faith, that's putting it mildly.
The Democrats remember how well the Republicans ( with help from Truman and others)
made Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for them. So the Democrats have decided
to try making their own 2.0 version of Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for
them. They will spend the next several-to-many years running their Reverse McCarthyism 2.0
operation.
They will accuse any Bitter Berners rejectful of yet-one-more-Clintonite of witless
dupe-ness. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of Russian subversive
Fellow-Traveller-ism. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of being Russian
agents.
Of course they will try doing this to Republicans as well. If the Republicans complain,
the Democrats will say such complaints are proof of Republican secret-Russian-agent
subversionism; while quietly thinking to themselves " payback time for
McCarthy and HUAC").
I have no connection to intelligence agencies. I'm a mere citizen. I've been spending the
last few days making cold calls to registered party members here in CO, trying to get them
interested in the caucuses that are coming up. Remember how the caucuses became an issue when
Trump was running?
Almost no one responded that they were going to attend. Several said they were so sick of
politics they would definitely not attend. I'm beginning to believe that I and our precinct
captain and her husband will be the only ones there.
What a sad state our country is in. Your last line is true, to a great extent, but I have
to add to it. Yes, we need God to help American. And, yes, many Americans seem to have lost
their mind. But what makes me sadder is that most of us who have not lost our minds are
losing our belief that we could ever make a difference, to make things better.
"... Well, now that's pretty convenient timing, don't you think? After all, Trump didn't become the GOP candidate for prez until the GOP convention on July 16, 2016. That gave the scheming Brennan a month to make up this dumb story and start passing it around Capitol Hill. ..."
You say: "Harry Reid was briefed by John Brennan on 25 August 2016, according to a 6 April
2017 NY Times piece by Eric Lichtblau.
Well, now that's pretty convenient timing, don't you think? After all, Trump didn't become
the GOP candidate for prez until the GOP convention on July 16, 2016. That gave the scheming
Brennan a month to make up this dumb story and start passing it around Capitol Hill.
"... Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would violate the narrative . God help us. ..."
"... And then there was a pink-pussy D.C. riot and the DisruptJ20 protest group riot against Trump. Have Mueller and Rosenstein had a sudden onset of dementia and forgotten the mass protests? ..."
In the Mueller indictment it also notes (page 23) that "Trump is Not my President" NYC,
November 12 2016, was a Russian idea. So by Mueller logic the Resistance is a Russian idea.
How many members of congress should get expelled over being Putin's puppets?
Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of
investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they
going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would
violate the narrative . God help us.
"Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting
the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and
disparaging Hillary Clinton."
-- Really? Somehow the righteous Mueller and Rosenstein have missed very important
Intel:
Comment section: "Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump
protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked
group [?!!] that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans.
The event was shared with 61,000 users. As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually
convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media
reports at the time. ... The group's protest was the fourth [4th!] consecutive anti-Trump
rally in New York following election night, and one of many across the country."
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
It sounds like the indictment makes 13 Russian trolls into felons. How many trolls do we
have? Where do they work, will other governments decide they are felons as well? This isn't a
"nothingburger", it's a "veginothingburger". Hasn't President Trump now been exonerated as
well, "unwittings" versus "colluders"?
Back during the Cold War we were told that the USSR would try to block or jam VoA/RFE
broadcasts from reaching their citizens.
So, my very sincere question is: Just how did U.S. efforts to influence the population of
the USSR via the broadcasts of VoA/RFE differ from the alleged efforts of Russia to support
what the media calls far-right parties and policies in the U.S. and Europe?
So these 13 Russians are accused of trolling and planting rumors?
Since the same thing is being done by Americans and, yes, Israelis, it seems ludicrous to
suggest this is really "meddling" in the election. More like "feeding red meat to grey dogs"
in the sense of stoking the fires of internecine culture wars already ongoing in this
country.
If we actually end up arresting any of these individuals there will be tit for tat since
there are still American financed NGOs operating in Russia whose personnel can be easily
arrested on similar charges of promoting chaos and discord. Maybe the Germans can rent us
that famous Berlin Bridge where "spies" were exchanged in various cold war movies.
See my comment in TTG's thread about who these "Internet Research Agency" people actually
are. Scott Humor over at The Saker dug deep into these people and determined that they are
actually anti-Russian Russians who were allegedly proven in court to be CIA spies!
I link to Scott's piece in the TTG thread. Hell, might as well link it here, too:
This is a clever move on Mueller's part -- indict a bunch of Russians who (some) already
have been arrested by the Russians and therefore are in no position to defend themselves
against a US indictment.
I suppose Brennan doesn't care that a bunch of Russians recruited as CIA assets get dumped
on their own resources. Good luck recruiting any more Russians to help you!
It's a measure of Mueller's desperation, nothing more.
PT, if I understand you correctly you think the 2017 IC "assessment" that Russia meddled does
not really reflect an IC consensus. If that is your view, how do you reconcile it with these
statements:
To summarize: in 2014, 13 Russians launched a campaign to interfere with the US political
system by "disparaging" candidates. This continued until ultimately Trump was elected,
meanwhile, "there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing
participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the
[Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
----------------
How nice and simple and tidy. '13 Russians'... has nice ring to it... will make a great
propaganda movie.
Seriously though, will this face saving result in any way encourage the Dems to pick a new
strategy for "success" the Republicans? Or will they simply triple down on dumb?
Aren't the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia due to Russian meddling in our elections?
Might it not be prudent for Putin to round the 13 yokels up and put them on the next flight
to NY (with lots of publicity)?
During the campaign any voter using social media could come across literally hundreds of
posts effectively proclaiming "Hillary is trash" and "Trump is trash".
Or for that matter the voters could see much the same by reading the campaign literature
in their mailboxes, or listening to speeches on television.
Yet, somehow, a few Russian trolls posting online claims that were indistinguishable from
most of the "normal" election rhetoric is a threat to our democracy.
Imho, a far bigger threat to our elections is the massive amounts of money involved, and
the funding of candidates by oligarchs. But the msm seems confortable with that.
And it goes without saying that one of the most immediate threats to our democracy
generated by Russiagate are the ongoing attempts to silence alternative dissent to the
status-quo and label it as coming from Russianbots.
"anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13
Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election"
Sounds even more desperate than simply dumb to me. Comey and his kins seem so pressed by
(the lack of) facts and the overall incoherence of their ludicrous tale that they finally see
no other choice than resorting to the ultimate weapon in store : direct scolding and shaming
of ordinary citizen bold enough to object HRC's wrongdoings, past, present and future.
I this vein, I also read in earlier comment threads speculations regarding a new, very
cunning objective of the putative Russian attackers : getting willfully spotted in order to
spread chaos within the US politics and doubt within the heart of citizen. Frankly this
sounds a wee bit far-fetched, like machiavelous 2.3 with Putin and the Kremlin gang upgrading
to 4-D chess politics. Wouldn't it have been bold enough for them to bet on the universally
predicted loser Trump? What sense does it make to interfere ostenteously when precisely their
vowed nemesis is bound to win? How would that have tarnished her victory if she had won
despite their meddling? Doesn't hold any water to me, but desperation stimulates imagination,
and truly, confusion. Contenders of this view seem well engaged in a perillous intellectual
twister game.
Besides, such an account shows very little appreciation for the intelligence and critical
thinking of American voters. I bet that if many came to distrust their institutions, it is
out of their own experience and reflexion rather than out of foreign engineering.
Delusion, desperation, confusion, stupidity, whatever. But for sure the seams are
creaking.
The funny thing is that it looks like the Russian government jailed several people from IRA
last year. It would be prudent to look into it and try to figure out what is going on for
real.
You say: "Harry Reid was briefed by John Brennan on 25 August 2016, according to a 6 April
2017 NY Times piece by Eric Lichtblau.
Well, now that's pretty convenient timing, don't you think? After all, Trump didn't become
the GOP candidate for prez until the GOP convention on July 16, 2016. That gave the scheming
Brennan a month to make up this dumb story and start passing it around Capitol Hill.
Regarding your claim that Mueller concluded "unwittingly collaborated":
According to the text of the indictment that our host, Pat Lang, posted Mueller made no
such conclusion. I note you did not put it within quotation marks.
Is there a separate indictment floating around out there with those conclusions?
Well it is an organisation that has received a lot of publicity in the West for awhile so it
is an odd choice, I would have thought they would want a less public organisation for any IO.
Comey was telling the truth: he was still in the delusional belief he could weasel out of
it and continue on as FBI chief.
PT, in the latest, US indictment against a number of Russians, as its only example, cites a
US placard holder on the birthday of JFK as evidence of "Russian interference". Jeez, JFK was
a Russian? What a friggin shambles the empire has become.
Yes indeed. As I said before in another thread. If the election is "disrupted" by voters
altering their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that
Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are altering their votes based
on posts they read on Facebook. There is little point in correcting the former problem
without correcting the latter and vastly more serious problem.
The indictment accuses Russia of attempting to "diminish the public's faith in
democracy," or some such thing. I really don't think our own voting public needs Russia's
help in doing that.
Nope, our crooked Politicians AND Intelligence/Law Enforcement entities are doing a good job
of diminishing the public's faith. I don't know how many of my fellow Americans I have talked
to have said to round them all the crooked politicians/intelligence/law enforcement and
eradicate them from the earth permanently. That is why we see more and more the crooked
politicians/intelligence/law enforcement understanding well their simmering public anger, and
because of their fear of the angry public that they have created the surveillance grids (has
nothing to do with misnomer terrorism), their legislation/laws that further restrict the
public's ability to fight back against their crooked ways.
Diminished public faith, that's putting it mildly.
The Democrats remember how well the Republicans ( with help from Truman and others)
made Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for them. So the Democrats have decided
to try making their own 2.0 version of Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for
them. They will spend the next several-to-many years running their Reverse McCarthyism 2.0
operation.
They will accuse any Bitter Berners rejectful of yet-one-more-Clintonite of witless
dupe-ness. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of Russian subversive
Fellow-Traveller-ism. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of being Russian
agents.
Of course they will try doing this to Republicans as well. If the Republicans complain,
the Democrats will say such complaints are proof of Republican secret-Russian-agent
subversionism; while quietly thinking to themselves " payback time for
McCarthy and HUAC").
I have no connection to intelligence agencies. I'm a mere citizen. I've been spending the
last few days making cold calls to registered party members here in CO, trying to get them
interested in the caucuses that are coming up. Remember how the caucuses became an issue when
Trump was running?
Almost no one responded that they were going to attend. Several said they were so sick of
politics they would definitely not attend. I'm beginning to believe that I and our precinct
captain and her husband will be the only ones there.
What a sad state our country is in. Your last line is true, to a great extent, but I have
to add to it. Yes, we need God to help American. And, yes, many Americans seem to have lost
their mind. But what makes me sadder is that most of us who have not lost our minds are
losing our belief that we could ever make a difference, to make things better.
"... I did read the indictment of the Russians and to my non-lawyer eyes, it read more like a political document rather than a criminal indictment. ..."
"... The charges seem very silly to me. And if ever there is a trial with these defendants challenging the prosecution I can see how they can win. But of course no one would pay any attention to the trial as the indictment is the desired endpoint that the media and the Democrats want. In comparison to the foreign money and influence operations of the zionists, the Saudis and of course many British politicians and their media during the last election, the operation by these Russians charged was more nonsensical. It would be absurd on the face of it that a bunch of Russian trolls could influence the election in any meaningful way. ..."
"... With respect to the potential conspiracy at the FBI, DOJ, and the IC, can Mueller really investigate his own colleagues and personal friends? I think he is a card carrying member of the Borg elite ..."
I agree with you that the questions you posed should be answered.
An interesting point in all this high stakes drama is that a federal judge has ordered
Mueller to hand over all related documents to Flynn. If there is exculpatory evidence then
Flynn could withdraw his plea and Mueller censured.
I did read the indictment of the Russians and to my non-lawyer eyes, it read more like a
political document rather than a criminal indictment. Mueller provided both sides
reinforcement of their talking points. Hillary and the Democrats can confirm she lost the
election due to a bunch of Russian trolls who spent a few million dollars and upended her
billion dollar campaign war chest. Trump gets to confirm that there was no collusion.
The
charges seem very silly to me. And if ever there is a trial with these defendants challenging
the prosecution I can see how they can win. But of course no one would pay any attention to
the trial as the indictment is the desired endpoint that the media and the Democrats want. In
comparison to the foreign money and influence operations of the zionists, the Saudis and of
course many British politicians and their media during the last election, the operation by
these Russians charged was more nonsensical. It would be absurd on the face of it that a
bunch of Russian trolls could influence the election in any meaningful way.
With respect to the potential conspiracy at the FBI, DOJ, and the IC, can Mueller really
investigate his own colleagues and personal friends? I think he is a card carrying member of
the Borg elite.
"... How about Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa? Fuck Allen Dulles, Mike Pompeo, and everybody in-between! ..."
"... BTW, Victoria Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work. ..."
"... Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along others like Hannity have blood on their hands. ..."
"... You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment. ..."
Former CIA chief James Woolsey appeared on Fox News to push the narrative of how dastardly 'dem Russkies' are in their meddling
with the sacred soul of America's democracy.
Woolsey did his patriotic deep-state-duty and proclaimed the evils of "expansionist Russia" and dropped 'facts' like "Russia has
a larger cyber-army than its standing army," before he moved on to China and its existential threats.
But then, beginning at around 4:30 , the real debacle of the conversation begins as Ingraham asks Woolsey,
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?"
Hes responds, surprisingly frankly...
"Oh probably... but it was for the good of the system..."
To which Ingraham follows up...
"We don't do that now though? We don't mess around in other people's elections?"
Prompting this extraordinary sentence from a former CIA chief...
"Well...hhhmmm, numm numm numm numm... only for a very good cause...in the interests of democracy"
So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other
nations "in the interests of democracy."
In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here's a brief selection since 1948...
2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)
This Russia bullshit has gotta stop. For the love of God, it's been like two and a a half years now. If Vladimir Putin was
as twice as evil as we're told, he still wouldn't be half as evil as the Clintons are on any given Thursday.
Democracy? Annnnnnnd it's gone! No wonder the rest of the world thinks we've collectively lost our minds. BTW, Victoria
Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work.
Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair
and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and
along others like Hannity have blood on their hands.
The whole purpose of the Mueller indictment was to give the mainstream outlets something to report so idiot Americans will
believe the crap put out about Russia since the Winter Olympics in Sochi and set the tone to justify a military conflict with
Russia that won't end well for anyone, IMO
mary, just a touch catty tonight, don't cha' think?
Zio-Nazi? How dat work?
Whole purpose of the Mueller indictments is to give the folks a show to prove that their money hasn't been wasted on a Trump
collusion charge for collusion that started in 2014 when Trump was prolly out schlongin' some playmate or other..
I kinda wondered why they missed that one, too. I've seen that list on here before. I guess messing with Israel's elections
doesn't fit the ZH narrative?
No way he believes it. One thing about people who lack human empathy is that they would NEVER fall for the same tricks that
the empathy having population does. They will always see the angle. It's what their brain is devoted to. All the capacity that
we use to be reflective, emotional or caring all goes to angling for advantage with them. He knows exactly why people are tortured
and couldn't give a shit less. You are either shark or mutilated gold fish as far as he is concerned.
Woolsey is an evil man, for a certainty. But, au contraire, I bet he does believe it is for their own good. Whoever "they"
are that he's doin' shit to. Like the Jesuits in Andalusia, purging the non-believers.
You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura
Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment.
It really would be a new dawn for this country if the entire Deep State were outed, and publicly executed. I know that sounds
like tinfoil hat talk, but hey, I'm sure the NSA is all over me right about now. Too bad they can't seem to find serial killers
that say they're going to shoot up a school online. Too busy trying to shut up those that don't like the Deep State.
They have always done this and every single other accusation that they have levied against other "tyrants". The crazy train
continues to pick up speed.
Ummm, Fidel Castro, Cuba, 1962 ? Leading up to Dallas? Which led to LBJ and ramp up of Indochina. If you look closely you will
see that there was a huge little war going on in Laos, lots of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail from fighter bombers based in
Thailand.
Also, Australia. The 1972 Whitlam dismissal was a bloodless coup d'état. Whitlam recognized North Vietnam which pissed off
a bunch of people in Langley. The pilots were on strike and they couldn't fly parts and crew into Alice Springs (Pine Gap Satellite
facility). The Aussies have long memories and it will be a cold day in hell before they trust the Yanks like before. This is a
country with a strong sense of injustice. The Aussies still talk about the "bodyline" cricket scandal with the Brits, and that
happened in the 1930's....
"... We need a separate, really non-partisan investigation for the rest of the list. I think it would be possible to find competent investigators outside of the more politicized agencies who could be vetted for any political bias before being assigned. Investigation is investigation - you just need a place to start and a list of people to talk to. Facts then shake out. ..."
"... If Mueller does not look sufficiently into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this, let us hope that the Congress and the Administration together can force into existence a Special Counsel with all of the powers and staff and funding that Mueller currently has/ will have. . . . to look into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this. ..."
"... If such a counsel would look into the "letting Clinton off the e-mail hook" aspects of all this and esPECially into the "who shot Seth Rich" and "e-mails . . . hacked or leaked?" aspects of all this, so much the better. ..."
I agree that the list should be investigated - especially the DNC "hack" hoax as that
involves screwing with the investigation of a Federal crime and has counterintelligence
implications and could lead to lots of indictments.
However, as someone else pointed out in the last thread, Mueller's only remit was to find
evidence of Russian government "meddling" in the election and/or "collusion" with Trump and
the Trump campaign - which he has not found yet and is highly unlikely to find. The 13
indictments are a joke in that regard.
We need a separate, really non-partisan investigation for the rest of the list. I think it
would be possible to find competent investigators outside of the more politicized agencies
who could be vetted for any political bias before being assigned. Investigation is
investigation - you just need a place to start and a list of people to talk to. Facts then
shake out.
If Mueller does not look sufficiently into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this,
let us hope that the Congress and the Administration together can force into existence a
Special Counsel with all of the powers and staff and funding that Mueller currently has/ will
have. . . . to look into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this.
If such a counsel would look into the "letting Clinton off the e-mail hook" aspects of
all this and esPECially into the "who shot Seth Rich" and "e-mails . . . hacked or leaked?"
aspects of all this, so much the better.
All very good questions and one more either related to, or subsumed within #s 3 and 6 is
whether Steele/MI6 are "targetable" for having meddled in the 2016 election.
Rosenstein unaccountably failed to mention yesterday Mueller's having landed a really,
really big fish on February 2, the unwitting colluder and witless Ricard Pinedo (age 28), a
small town scammer who operates a fake ID business out of Santa Paula, CA, a 80% Hispanic
farm worker town in boondocks California. Pinedo plead guilty to one count of identify fraud
and had, apparently, profited to the extent of some $10,000 or so from the sale of identify
and banking information on-line with only a minimal amount sourced from any of the 13
defendants in the indictments.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-richard-pinedo-mueller-investigation-20180216-story.html.
The MSM, apparently, like Mr. Mueller has decided not to make a big deal out of the Pinedo
indictment for reasons which remain the subject of speculation.
Building a cage on a flatbed track with Hillary in prison uniform played by an actor inside is directly from Gene Sharp
playbook and could be
Otpor!
activity ;-) No that bad idea for a
anti-Hillary rally actually :-)
"... Mueller alleged that Russian operatives "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign", but the indictment did not address the question of whether anyone else in Trump's team had knowingly colluded. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge." Rosenstein added that the charges did not mean the Russian activity had an effect on the outcome of the election. ..."
"... In a statement on Friday, Trump suggested that what he called "outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories" relating to possible collusion were serving to further the Russian agenda. ..."
"... "This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet," said Rosenstein. He alleged that the Russians had "worked to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy," adding: "We must not allow them to succeed." ..."
"... Prigozhin, who has also been linked to the Wagner Group, a shadowy Kremlin-linked private military contractor believed to be operating in Syria, -> was included on a US sanctions list in July . ..."
"... Speaking to the RIA Novosti state news agency on Friday, Prigozhin said: "The Americans are really impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. If they want to see the devil -- let them see him." ..."
"... Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the allegations "absurd". "Thirteen people carried out interference in the US elections? Thirteen people against special services with a budgets of billions?" she wrote in a Facebook post. ..."
A 37-page indictment alleged that the Russians' operations "included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton," his Democratic opponent.
Mueller alleged that Russian operatives "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump
campaign", but the indictment did not address the question of whether anyone else in Trump's team had knowingly
colluded.
Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: "There is no allegation
in this indictment that any American had any knowledge." Rosenstein added that the charges did not mean the
Russian activity had an effect on the outcome of the election.
Trump
and the White House seized on Rosenstein's remarks to falsely claim that the indictment proved there had
been no collusion and that the election result had definitely not been impacted.
In a statement on Friday, Trump suggested that what he called "outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false
allegations, and far-fetched theories" relating to possible collusion were serving to further the Russian agenda.
The Russians allegedly posed as Americans to operate bogus social media accounts, buy advertisements and stage
political rallies. They stole the identities of real people in the US to post online and built computer systems in
the US to hide the Russian origin of their activity, according prosecutors.
"This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet," said
Rosenstein. He alleged that the Russians had "worked to promote discord in the United States and undermine public
confidence in democracy," adding: "We must not allow them to succeed."
The charges state that from as far back as 2014, the defendants conspired together to defraud the US by
"impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of government" through interference with the American
political and electoral processes.
One defendant, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, is accused of using companies he controlled – including Concord Management
and Consulting, and Concord Catering – to finance the operations against the US. The operation at one stage had a
monthly budget of $1.25m,
according to Mueller, which paid for
operatives' salaries and bonuses.
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and
as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter
, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly
before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for
splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their "@donaldtrump.com"
email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought
advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on
a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside.
->
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, said to be the headquarters of Russia's 'troll army'. Photograph:
Shaun Walker for the Guardian
One defendant, Irina Kaverzina, is accused of admitting her involvement in the operation and a subsequent
coverup in an email to a relative in September last year, after Mueller's inquiry had begun. "We had a slight
crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity," Kaverzina allegedly wrote, "so I got preoccupied with covering
tracks together with the colleagues."
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly
created an Instagram account posing as "Woke Blacks" and railed against the notion that African Americans should
choose Clinton as "the lesser of two devils" against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus "United Muslims of
America" social media accounts to claim that "American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today."
Following Trump's victory, the Russian operation promoted allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic party,
according to Mueller's team. Around that time, Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that he would have won
the popular vote if not for large-scale voter fraud.
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova,
Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda,
Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna
Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin
and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
Separately, Mueller's office announced that Richard Pinedo, of Santa Paula, California, had
pleaded guilty to identity
fraud
. Pinedo, 28, admitted to running a website that offered stolen identities to help customers get around
the security measures of major online payment sites. It was not made clear whether his service had been used by
the Russian operatives.
Rosenstein said no contact had been made with Russian authorities regarding the charges so far, but that US
officials intended to seek extradition of the defendants.
US intelligence agencies previously
concluded that Russians mounted
an attack on the US election system aimed at electing
->
Donald
Trump
to the presidency.
Mueller is conducting a criminal inquiry into interference by Russians and possible collusion by Trump's
campaign. Two Trump campaign advisers have pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Two others have been charged with
federal crimes.
US investigators have long signalled their belief that Prigozhin, a 56-year-old billionaire businessman, is
behind Russia's internet troll factories.
Nicknamed the "Kremlin's chef", Prigozhin once ran Putin's favourite restaurant in St Petersburg, after which
he was awarded multi-billion pound state catering contracts. He provided catering for Dmitry Medvedev's presidential inauguration in 2008, and also has lucrative contracts
to feed Russia's army and Moscow's schoolchildren.
Prigozhin, who has also been linked to the Wagner Group, a shadowy Kremlin-linked private military contractor
believed to be operating in Syria,
->
was included on a US sanctions list in July
.
Speaking to the RIA Novosti state news agency on Friday, Prigozhin said: "The Americans are really
impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. If they want to see the
devil -- let them see him."
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the allegations "absurd". "Thirteen people carried out interference in the US elections? Thirteen people against special services with a
budgets of billions?" she wrote in a Facebook post.
Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian media he had not yet had a chance to study the
indictments.
"... The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. ..."
"... 2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit. ..."
"... Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be guilty of the same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries? ..."
"... B-but the Russians conspired ... to commit free speech. They obstructed ... by speaking . (The story doesn't mention if what was said was true.) Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money. ..."
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014
- so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals"
associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be
guilty of the
same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
Sounds to me like they're being indicted for exercising free speech. Does that only apply to citizens?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
It restricts Congress .
I believe political speech is the most protected form of speech. I think there's a Supreme Court ruling on that topic.
B-but the Russians conspired ... to commit free speech. They obstructed ... by speaking . (The story doesn't mention if what
was said was true.) Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money.
I'm re-posting this from an earlier post someone else made. The Internet Research Agency is a CIA hacking group!
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin's favorite
chef," came from one source, a group of CIA spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective
online persona.
This is the same online site which published Steele dossier
As for daily workloads those nasty Russians looks like real neoliberal slave owners not that
dissimilar to Amazon packers, or WalMart cashiers ;-) "The documents show instructions provided
to the commenters that detail the workload expected of them. On an average working day, the
Russians are to post on news articles 50 times. Each blogger is to maintain six Facebook accounts
publishing at least three posts a day and discussing the news in groups at least twice a day. By
the end of the first month, they are expected to have won 500 subscribers and get at least five
posts on each item a day. On Twitter, the bloggers are expected to manage 10 accounts with up to
2,000 followers and tweet 50 times a day. "
"... Osadchy told BuzzFeed he had never worked for the Internet Research Agency and that the extensive documents -- including apparent budgeting for his $35,000 salary -- were an "unsuccessful provocation." He declined to comment on the content of the leaks. The Kremlin declined to comment. The Internet Research Agency has not commented on the leak. ..."
"... "What, you think crazy Russians all learned English en masse and went off to comment on articles?" said Leonid Bershidsky, a media executive and Bloomberg View columnist. ..."
Plans attached to emails leaked by a mysterious Russian hacker collective show IT managers
reporting on a new ideological front against the West in the comments sections of Fox News,
Huffington Post , The Blaze, Politico , and WorldNetDaily .
The bizarre hive of social media activity appears to be part of a two-pronged Kremlin
campaign to claim control over the internet, launching a million-dollar army of trolls to mold
American public opinion as it cracks down on internet freedom at home.
"Foreign media are currently actively forming a negative image of the Russian Federation in
the eyes of the global community," one of the project's team members, Svetlana Boiko, wrote in
a strategy document. "Additionally, the discussions formed by comments to those articles are
also negative in tone.
"Like any brand formed by popular opinion, Russia has its supporters ('brand advocates') and
its opponents. The main problem is that in the foreign internet community, the ratio of
supporters and opponents of Russia is about 20/80 respectively."
The documents show instructions provided to the commenters that detail the workload expected
of them. On an average working day, the Russians are to post on news articles 50 times. Each
blogger is to maintain six Facebook accounts publishing at least three posts a day and
discussing the news in groups at least twice a day. By the end of the first month, they are
expected to have won 500 subscribers and get at least five posts on each item a day. On
Twitter, the bloggers are expected to manage 10 accounts with up to 2,000 followers and tweet
50 times a day.
They are to post messages along themes called "American Dream" and "I Love Russia." The
archetypes for the accounts are called Handkerchief, Gay Turtle, The Ghost of Marius the
Giraffe, Left Breast, Black Breast, and Ass, for reasons that are not immediately clear.
According to the documents, which are attached to several hundred emails sent to the
project's leader, Igor Osadchy, the effort was launched in April and is led by a firm called
the Internet Research Agency. It's based in a Saint Petersburg suburb, and the documents say it
employs hundreds of people across Russia who promote Putin in comments on Russian blogs.
Osadchy told BuzzFeed he had never worked for the Internet Research Agency and that the
extensive documents -- including apparent budgeting for his $35,000 salary -- were an
"unsuccessful provocation." He declined to comment on the content of the leaks. The Kremlin
declined to comment. The Internet Research Agency has not commented on the leak.
Definitively proving the authenticity of the documents and their authors' ties to the
Kremlin is, by the nature of the subject, not easy. The project's cost, scale, and awkward
implementation have led many observers in Russia to doubt, however, that it could have come
about in any other way.
"What, you think crazy Russians all learned English en masse and went off to comment on
articles?" said Leonid Bershidsky, a media executive and Bloomberg View columnist.
"If it looks like Kremlin shit, smells like Kremlin shit, and tastes like Kremlin shit too --
then it's Kremlin shit."
Despite efforts to hire English teachers for the trolls, most of the comments are written in
barely coherent English. "I think the whole world is realizing what will be with Ukraine, and
only U.S. keep on fuck around because of their great plans are doomed to failure," reads one
post from an unnamed forum, used as an example in the leaked documents.
"... From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role. ..."
"... Note: this article is part of a ..."
"... included in the March/April 2018 issue of the ..."
"... George Beebe is director of the Center for the National Interest's intelligence program. He formerly served as chief of Russia analysis at the CIA, and as special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia and the former Soviet Union. ..."
From Eisenhower to Trump, the intelligence community has always struggled with its political role.
Tweet
Share
ShareMarch-April 2018Note: this article
is part of asymposium
included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
FEW QUESTIONS have greater import for the health and integrity of any republic than the question of whether important parts of
its government's national-security apparatus are abusing their power for political purposes. This is particularly true in the United
States, where the departments and agencies known collectively as the Intelligence Community (IC) have grown so large and capable,
where faith in the integrity of our democratic institutions is so vital to the effective functioning of our system, and where suspicions
about secret police and intelligence organizations are baked so deeply into our country's political culture.
The United States has faced this question several times in its recent history. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations
all used -- or attempted to use -- the FBI and CIA to gather intelligence on U.S. citizens they suspected of collaboration with communist
agents, with too little regard for statutory regulations and prohibitions of such practices, and too great a tendency to view their
political enemies as national-security threats. Lyndon B. Johnson believed, without much justification, that the CIA had conspired
against him at the 1960 Democratic convention to ensure that John F. Kennedy won the presidential nomination. Richard Nixon was equally
convinced that the CIA had helped to swing the subsequent presidential election to Kennedy. These misperceptions barely surfaced
in public at the time and did little to shake voters' faith in the outcome of the election, but they had significant implications
for the working relationships of both Johnson and Nixon with the CIA once in office. Johnson's suspicions probably increased his
inclination to side with the Defense Department's optimistic assessments of the Vietnam War over the CIA's more pessimistic -- and,
in retrospect, more accurate -- analyses. Nixon's suspicions fueled his determination to build a small intelligence-gathering and
covert-action group within the White House, which ultimately led to the Watergate break-in and cover-up that destroyed his presidency.
Investigations in the 1970s into various IC abuses, including efforts to collect intelligence on the political activities of U.S.
citizens, led to the creation of specially designated congressional oversight committees -- the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- with the power and authorization to ensure that the CIA, NSA,
FBI, and other IC bodies conduct their activities strictly within the bounds of law. The investigations also resulted in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which imposed strict limits on the government's ability to surveil the communications
and activities of U.S. persons, requiring warrants issued by a special FISA court based on probable cause to believe that the target
is a foreign power or its agent. The act established "minimization" requirements for disclosing the identities of U.S. persons being
surveilled, allowing for "unmasking" -- that is, revealing their names to authorized government officials -- only when there is strong
reason to believe they have committed a crime or when their identities are necessary to understand the intelligence information.
The now-infamous Iraq WMD estimate of 2002 raised questions of the political misuse of intelligence in a different form. Seldom
had intelligence figured more prominently in the public justifications for a decision to go to war, and seldom had it been proven
more spectacularly wrong in retrospect. Years of efforts by the CIA to increase its relevance had paid off in an unprecedentedly
close relationship to the White House, but its unique ability to provide policymakers with the skepticism of a disinterested party
suffered. The reorganization and reform of the IC mandated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005 were designed
less to prevent political abuses of intelligence than to make the IC less prone to such consequential errors. This required something
new of intelligence overseers: not only to ensure that IC activities remained within the bounds of law, but also to encourage qualitative
improvements to its analytic rigor, information sharing and collaboration.
In principle, no one disputes that intelligence operations should be conducted strictly within the bounds of law, and that intelligence
and law-enforcement professionals should be guided solely by evidence and analytic rigor in producing their assessments. Human nature
being what it is, however, two temptations will be a never-ending challenge: for the IC, to please its White House masters, and for
the presidency, to conflate its political enemies with those of the country as a whole. Aspects of both these temptations are evident
in the controversies over the 2016 presidential election.
The use of the IC's vast capabilities to gather intelligence on opposition political campaigns should occur only in the rarest
of circumstances, justified by solid evidence of treasonous activities warranted by the FISA court. The so-called Steele dossier,
a piece of Clinton-funded opposition research gathered from London through unsecure communications with unnamed contacts in Russia,
does not meet that standard of evidence. If, as is alleged but not proven, the FBI relied on this unverified document to justify
a FISA warrant for collecting intelligence on Trump campaign officials, then the Obama administration crossed an important ethical,
though probably not legal, line. Is there a deep state in the United States? Yes, if that means that important parts of our national-security
apparatus have the capability, albeit not the legal authority, to abuse intelligence to alter the outcomes of national elections
or distort public-policy debates. But we have processes in place to minimize this danger if the oversight provisions established
by our laws are properly implemented and our independent media play their informal oversight role effectively. The IC, Congress,
judiciary and media all appear to have fallen short of the standards our country should expect.
George Beebe is director of the Center for the National Interest's intelligence program. He formerly served as chief of Russia
analysis at the CIA, and as special advisor to Vice President Cheney on Russia and the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Beebe, crossed an ethical but probably not legal line??? Really, appalling. FBI/DOJ operatives using the national level
intel services to spy against a political opponent? Corruption, deception, lying to judges? Then there's this little aspect of
a "cover up." Remember Nixon and Watergate, the break in was small potatoes, it was the lying and cover up that cost Nixon the
Presidency. These two questions MUST be asked: What did they know and when did they know it??? Lynch, Holder, Brennan, Comey,
Panetta, Biden and especially Obama. The truth will come out, eventually.
CIA and Intelligence community in common are parts of the American political system;their successful functioning is basis of
success and victory of the USA as civil country;its alpha and omega of practical politics!
The American so-called "Intel community" is a very peculiar phenomenon. Including this very term. Any intelligence agency is
a military organisation with a very strict discipline directly subordinated to the commander in chief. Its activity is strictly
secret and the commander in chief is the only recipient of the intelligence they acquire.
The Chinese book of military strategy "Sun Tzu" says that if the information of an agent became known to anyone before it was
reported to the superior commander, both the agent and the recipient must be executed: the former for his loose tongue, the latter
for his inappropriate curiocity. This implies that a particular branch of the intelligence service cannot distribute the information
even to the adjacent branches, leaving alone the media.
In the US these rules seems to be entirely foreign. The intelligence officers actively discuss everything both with each other
and with the media so that the commander in chief is often the last receiving the information. In a normal country this behaviour
would have been stopped by executing the first 100 caught in leaking. The rest would learn the lesson.
I agree but i would say these people are obviously Obama lovers... We both know the realities of today wouldn't allow for executions
but it would stop ot and i do agree... The only answer is smaller government but it's to late for that..
Another worthless article - how can you mention the Deep State and Nixon and not mention the mighty James Schlesinger and the
Family Jewels? I think the Master Old Boy talked about peak oil in his later years too - nah, no such thing as the Limits to Growth
eh boys?
"... Michael Lind is a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author, with Robert D. Atkinson, of ..."
"... (MIT Press, March 2018). ..."
"... The rise of the power elite has long been a serious problem in many Western societies, but trying to forcibly overthrow it will only create a new and potentially more dangerous elite in turn. ..."
"... Information is the key to winning any war between the people and the elite ..."
"... Would have been nice to mention that all this was possible post-1991 because there was no longer a peer competitor to the US, and thus Western business elite no longer was constrained to be allied with Western workers. Since 2014, that has all changed. There are now two near-peer competitors to the US. ..."
Political scientists often divide explanations of democratic politics in the United States and similar nations among theories
of pluralism, state autonomy and elitism. The pluralist theory holds that the American elite, like the population, is divided among
competing centers of power and authority with different values and interests. The state-autonomy theory holds that government agencies
and military and intelligence organizations are independent actors in politics. The elitist theory holds that in most democracies
most of the time, no matter how many political parties there may be, there is a dominant elite, which includes most of the leaders
of politics, the economy and civil society and shares a broad consensus.
... ... ...
In my view, the elitist approach best explains the Trump phenomenon, along with contemporary populism on both sides of the Atlantic.
Since the end of the Cold War, highly homogeneous social elites in North America and Europe have liberated themselves from the constraints
of the institutions that restrained them between 1945 and 1989 -- institutions including strong labor unions, grassroots political
parties and, in the United States, a distinct Southern oligarchy that by now has largely lost its identity and power and has been
absorbed into the national ruling class.
Elites in the United States, Britain, Germany and other Western nations under post–Cold War leadership have deliberately weakened
the bargaining power of workers in their nations by a combination of austerity-induced unemployment, offshoring, permitting Western-controlled
corporations to play nation-states against one another and mass low-skilled immigration, creating a low-wage "reserve army of labor"
in Western countries.
While restructuring the global economy to crush organized labor, transatlantic elites have simultaneously restructured government
to minimize democratic accountability, by shifting decisionmaking from legislatures to executive and judicial agencies within the
nation-state, and by enabling treaties and transnational agencies like the European Union, which are more insulated from voters,
to replace or modify national statutory law. In both of the cases of anti-worker economic restructuring and de-democratization, American
and European oligarchs have claimed that a mysterious, unstoppable force called "globalization" compelled them to do what they wanted
to do anyway. This post–Cold War oligarchic revolution from above might be described as a conspiracy, but it is not a secret conspiracy
perpetrated by the deep state. It was a program carried out in broad daylight by Bill Clinton and George Bush, Tony Blair and centrist
European leaders. And it succeeded in its two goals of weakening the economic leverage and political power of the working-class majorities
in the United States, the UK and other Western nations.
The populist rebellions of the second decade of the twenty-first century, which have been led by right-wing tribunes like Trump
or left-wing demagogues like Sanders and Corbyn, can only be understood as a long-delayed reaction by populations to the replacement
of the cross-class compromises of the post–World War II period by untrammeled oligarchy. America's newly empowered ruling class has
closed ranks against Trump, but it would also close ranks against any other outsider president who challenged its post–Cold War dominance
of American society, including Bernie Sanders. Deep divide? Yes. Deep state? No.
A bizarre misreading of history, though good points are made as well.
This is a classic example of a dishonest person analyzing something they disagree with, and instead of sticking to reality,
they build a straw man bugaboo to assign blame to, and make their side into a victim:
"deliberately weakened the bargaining power of workers in their nations by a combination of austerity-induced unemployment,
offshoring, permitting Western-controlled corporations to play nation-states against one another and mass low-skilled immigration,
creating a low-wage "reserve army of labor" in Western countries"
He pretends that he isn't calling it a conspiracy, but that is exactly what he's doing, and some have done what he describes,
but where he willfully jumps off the cliff of dishonesty is in claiming to know why ("deliberately") these actions were taken
by so many people, over such a long period of time.
That's an obvious lie. Unless Mr. Lind is Professor X, using science fiction psychic magnifying machines to read thousands
of minds, both past and present, there is no way anyone could honestly make that claim.
His use of conspiracy theory makes it doubly interesting in how he deconstructs the conspiracy theory many on the right are
pushing about the 'deep state'.
Turn that skeptic's lens back on yourself, Mr. Lind.
The rise of the power elite has long been a serious problem in many Western societies, but trying to forcibly overthrow it
will only create a new and potentially more dangerous elite in turn.
Information is the key to winning any war between the people and the elite.
Would have been nice to mention that all this was possible post-1991 because there was no longer a peer competitor to the US,
and thus Western business elite no longer was constrained to be allied with Western workers. Since 2014, that has all changed.
There are now two near-peer competitors to the US.
"... The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech. ..."
The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the
growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has
been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free
speech.
Senator Mark Warner
The performance of Senator Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the committee, was
particularly obscene. Warner, whose net worth is estimated at $257 million, appeared to be
doing his best impersonation of Senator Joe McCarthy . He declared that foreign subversion
works together with, and is largely indistinguishable from, "threats to our institutions from
right here at home."
Alluding to the publication of the so-called Nunes memo, which documented the fraudulent
character of the Democratic-led investigation of White House "collusion" with Russia, Warner
noted,
"There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian Internet bots and trolls, who have
attacked the basic integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department."
Responding to questioning from Warner, FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the US
intelligence agencies' greater "engagement" and "partnership" with the private sector,
concluding,
"We can't fully police social media, so we have to work with them so that they can police
themselves."
Wray was referring to the sweeping measures taken by social media companies, working
directly with the US intelligence agencies, to implement a regime of censorship, including
through the hiring of tens of thousands of "content reviewers," many with intelligence
backgrounds, to flag, report and delete content.
The assault on democratic rights is increasingly connected to preparations for a major war,
which will further exacerbate social tensions within the United States. Coats prefaced his
remarks by declaring that "the risk of inter-state conflict, including among great powers, is
higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War."
As the hearing was taking place, multiple news outlets were reporting that potentially
hundreds of Russian military contractors had been killed in a recent US air strike in Syria.
This came just weeks after the publication of the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, which
declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
However, the implications of this great-power conflict are not simply external to the US
"homeland." The document argues that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary," and that "America
is a target," for "political and information subversion" on the part of "revisionist powers"
such as Russia and China.
Since "America's military has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield," the only
way the US can prevail in this conflict is through the "seamless integration of multiple
elements of national power," including "information, economics, finance, intelligence, law
enforcement and military."
In other words, America's supremacy in the new world of great-power conflict requires the
subordination of every aspect of life to the requirements of war. In this totalitarian
nightmare, already far advanced, the police, the military and the intelligence agencies unite
with media and technology companies to form a single seamless unit, whose combined power is
marshaled to manipulate public opinion and suppress political dissent.
The dictatorial character of the measures being prepared was underscored by an exchange
between Wray and Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who asked whether Chinese students were
serving as spies for Beijing.
"What is the counterintelligence risk posed to US national security from Chinese students,
particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics?" asked Rubio.
Wray responded that
"the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's
professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around
the country, not just in major cities, small ones as well, basically every discipline."
This campaign, with racist overtones, recalls the official rationale -- defense of "national
security" -- used to justify the internment of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during
the Second World War.
In its open letter calling for a
coalition of socialist, antiwar and progressive websites against Internet censorship, the
World Socialist Web Site noted that
"the ruling class has identified the Internet as a mortal threat to its monopolization of
information and its ability to promote propaganda to wage war and legitimize the obscene
concentration of wealth and extreme social inequality."
It is this mortal threat -- and fear of the growth of class conflict -- that motivate the
lies and hypocrisy on display at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
"... or like viewing old photos of the Robber Barons. The msm has stopped trying to convince middle class readers it's 'on their side', imo. A few have gone full plutocrat friendly. Anything that rocks the plutocrats boats must be caused by 'russians, russians, russians', or outside agitators, or foreigners of one kind or another – not 'real' Americans. ..."
"... Exactly the kind of things the robber barons and their press said 100+ years ago about working class workers striking for better wages and working conditions. ..."
"... I agree in the regard to the seeming reduction in analytical quantity and quality. I think you're right with it being caused by reductions in newsroom staff, but I think the type of journalists we have has also changed drastically. ..."
"... In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to get Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane. ..."
"... Not only disgusting and insane, but politically stupid. Any Democrat politician who thinks that promoting Unhinged Russia Hysteria is a winning political strategy is guilty of political malpractice. ..."
"... seems to be what she and they are pushing(unhinged Russia hysteria ) as a winning political strategy. ..."
"... That's what people are going to remember when they go to the voting booth in 2018 (if they even bother) – while the Democrats where whining about Putin and Russia and doing nothing productive whatsoever to improve people's lives, Trump gave everybody more $$$. ..."
"... The "official" narratives from much of the MSM are increasingly removed from any reality experienced by the majority. For example, the latest is a report from Hamilton that much of the social media activity concerning the Florida school shooting is now infested and promoted by Russian bots "to sow division". How more absurd could it be? ..."
"... I have it on good authority that the whole rebranding of the KKK first as the CCC than as the NRA was a long-term Soviet Russian plot to cause an epidemic of mass shootings that would undermine not only US 'Democracy', but the entire capitalist juggernaut! ..."
"... Following up on something Lambert wrote once, it seems that pundits who are incapable of using the term "working class" without somehow attaching the word "white" to it are -- besides not really being on the left -- also more likely than others to push the "Russia ate my Election" nonsense. ..."
"... I think what the horrid warmongering article in Useless News misses is that the flyover states, which supply the troops for the wars, are getting war weary (and why not). Trump capitalized on this in the election, and there was a positive correlation at IIRC the county level between war casualities and troop support. ..."
"... An anti-war candidate who could make the case in the flyover states might really make an impact. ..."
"... I wholeheartedly agree about how a significant factor is that the mainstream media insists on viewing everything through ridiculously contrived "lenses" (Trump, "Russia-gate", Brexit, harassment) and, intentionally I would claim, deliberately obscuring the real problems (wealth distribution, neoliberalism, collapse of the social contract). ..."
"... whatever other news there is seems weirdly predictable and is based around personalities, rather than communities and systems. ..."
"... Animals become agitated in advance of earthquakes. It may be that the reason for angst does not lie in the past, but in the future. In general, so many of the stories are predictable self-parodies, from the Democrats relentless pursuit of the mythical 'moderate insurgents' in republican suburbs, and their comical screeching about Putin, to the drumbeat stories attacking Trump for Obama policies, to the contortions of the neocon policy apparatus trying to justify occupation and regime change in Syria, without mentioning those goals ..."
"... For me, this is key. When I cast my eye upon the news I'm greeted with unrelenting bleakness. Trump's cruel and terrible health plan was big news for months, then his terrible tax cut plan, now his terrible budget. Foreign affairs are equally bleak: the Democrats are busy stirring up a second Cold War. There's no end in sight to the trillions of dollars our nation spends every year on waste and destructive mayhem. Sociopathic corporations and octogenarian billionaires own this country. It's difficult to see anything positive on the horizon. ..."
"... There are two Americas. The news is mostly for and from the one that protects the rentier or elite class. They send their children to private schools. The second one has children who go to public schools who get shot and killed by gunmen that the school and law authorities have been warned about and then decide it's not worth their attention. ..."
"... I think we have reached America's breaking point. Shitty jobs, shitty pay, shitty hours, no hope of affordable housing anywhere, no advancement, massive amounts debt, no easy access to medical care, uneven safety nets, denigration, lack of mutual respect, a lifetime of working with little hope of a safe retirement it's just not pretty out here. ..."
"... I think we are still in a Wile E. Coyote moment where he has gone off the cliff but gravity has not taken hold yet (cartoons don't understand parabolic arcs, similar to central banks and politicians). One of the purposes of financial crises like 2008 is to reset the playing field. The inequality and inefficiency of the Roaring 20s got reset in the 1930s where many people who had paper wealth, but large debt, collapsed and regulation followed that survived for 60 years in preventing similar scenarios. The 2009-2016 period missed that window of opportunity as the focus became preserving the people who had destabilized the system. That meant the damage was one-sided to the bottom 90%. The top 10% are largely disconnected, deliberately, from what is going on with the bottom 90% and as a result are baffled about the swelling unrest in the country. That unrest is still largely unfocused and just burps out random things right now like the Tea Party, Trump, Sanders etc. ..."
"... The only good news to come out of the Florida shooting is that the young people are beginning to realize that they are cannon fodder (literally) in the cynical political battles waged by their elders. ..."
"... I've done my stint in living through the chaotic end to the 1970's and endured the major social upheavals in Thatcher's show-no-mercy early 1980's. Those were bad times. But this is worse in a lot of ways, if only for the crushing atmosphere of a powerless proletariat. ..."
"... The Dem commitment to Russiagate has become their WMD story, it has to be stuck with lest its proponents admit their lying ..."
"... The Russo-Resistance strategy has had the effect of exacerbating divisions in the potential opposition to neoliberalism. Not a bug. ..."
"... Compare and contrast with Putin and Xi, who are personally untouched by corruption taint, and whom their population actually believes has their nations' long-term interests at heart ..."
"... The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. ..."
"... I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whether it's skyrocketing measures of income inequality, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, college tuition rates and student loan balances rising faster than wages, mindlessly skyrocketing stock markets and asset bubbles fueled by stupid central bank policies, or whatever other unsustainable woe you choose to pick, these things cannot go on forever ..."
"... And we're incredibly divided. Most of the MSM has been sucked into personality conflicts and the us-vs-them mindset. They actively feed it now. You're expected to pick a team and learn to hate the other guys. ..."
"... I too suspect that "tweaking round the edges" will prove totally inadequate, but I have no desire for revolution. I've seen too many of them start off well but then go off the rails in horrible, terrifying directions. Revolutions can be terribly sloppy affairs, with real people getting hurt in the process. And they usually don't end where we really want them to. ..."
"... Just yesterday I was asked, "Aren't you a liberal Democrat?" I answered, "No, I hate both parties equally." That set them back on their laurels. They expected me to say "Yes." ..."
"... The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are ..."
"... Waiting for Godot ..."
"... A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of powerlessness -- that all that is important in life is out of our hands, and in the hands of those who look at us and see nothing but another source of revenue. ..."
"... I rather think that our "feeling of powerlessness" is the goal aimed for by the msm. And identity politics serves a divide and conquer function. (But you can buy T-shirts! so it's all good. /s) ..."
"... I hope to draw some response to the second part of my complaint, which is that in the dog-eat-dog world of a society ordered solely by markets, we are reduced: First, from being to citizens to consumers, then from being consumers to being marks, rubes, suckers. The "news" (such as it is) isn't reported to us, it's sold to us. ..."
"... Corporate media has been pumping out Trump Derangement Syndrome stories for 18+ months. [if you're cynical] not only because the media genuinely dislike trump, but to drive clickbait and subscription sign-ups ..."
"... From my reading of history, when countries have been in the grip of anxiety it is often a relief when a feared thing happens – such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour it was widely reported that the response of the public, including anti-war activists, was great relief. ..."
"... I've read that much the same feeling descended over much of Europe at the start of WWI. While the same situation doesn't quite apply in the US, I do fear that there is a craving for some sort of decision, a decisive act. ..."
"... I think Trump understands more than he reveals. I think we are looking at the tempered effects of MSM froth by all the good, sensible internet bloggers and commenters which serve to neutralize the nonsense. What I see is angst failure – nobody bought this farcical onslaught of propaganda. Everyone questioned it. Something happens to the "news" when opposite views and facts collide – it gets emulsified like vinegar and oil into much less drastic possibilities. ..."
"... Interesting reminds me of how some torturers have learned that the fear of the pain can be worse than the pain itself in terms of emotional distress and breaking down ego-barriers to cooperation/submission. When the fear is worse than the feared experience, the feared experience itself is a relief. ..."
"... ur–Angst? ..."
"... Our Jerri-Lynn, who mainly lives overseas, was briefly in the US last month and dropped by our NYC meetup. She commented to me that she was very eager to leave because she could sense how high the general tension level was. ..."
"... Few people I know feel secure; a lot of it is about the basic stuff, health care and jobs. ..."
"... True, but can they address those concerns? The Occupy movement was such an effort, but the police seem to have stifled it. Then Sen. Sanders appeared on the scene with his Presidential campaign and that too was suppressed. If people are in fact not engaged it probably indicates an absence of what is important and meaningful for them in the larger society ..."
"... The LAT had truly turned into a piece of garbage the past years, they'd get scooped on stories in their own backyard, the writing was what you'd expect from a newspaper emanating from a city of 48,424, and it would be a given that new reporter hires should go at least a page into google when investigating. ..."
"... We've been watching a German TV series called Babylon Berlin, which is set in Wiemar Germany, 1929, just before the crash. It's fascinating to compare those times to our own, there are many parallels. The show is extremely well done. https://newrepublic.com/article/147053/babylon-berlin-sees-weimar-republic ..."
"... ah, yes. this has been on my mind lately. More the best lacking all conviction and the worst full of passionate intensity than the rough beast part He's already ensconced in Washington and doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything [brain glancing off the specter of all those judges]. ..."
"... post the nation state ..."
"... When war comes it will not be fought by "post-nation states." ..."
"... These are middle aged and middle class professionals about to be thrown on the scrap heap. ..."
"... Colonel Smithers, I observed something similar during the Sanders campaign's peak here in Tucson. That would be during late 2015 and early 2016. Let's just say that people weren't flocking to Bernie because their lives were going well. ..."
"... If the subtext to the MSM's Trump coverage is, "He's a racist authoritarian so he must be stopped at all costs," then you'd think they'd cover police brutality every day. If they're so concerned about racism and authoritarianism. Instead, we're seeing the FBI, CIA, etc., cast in the role of 'oppressed minorities standing up to The System, Maaan!' ..."
"... Plus, as a fan of paranoia, I can say. . . I've never seen a more unsatisfying, overly-abstract conspiracy in my life. It's not that they are rehabilitating CIA goons, but they're doing so specifically in order to obsess over memos, and reports about memos, and memos about reports about leaks about other memos. ..."
"... It's like an episode of The Office if everyone in the office had nukes. ..."
"... that attitude is nearly universal, across all layers of society ..."
"... I am in my late 50s, and for most of my life there was an air of seriousness and competence about national leaders. Even when they were doing something you didn't like, you could generally assume they were adequate to the situation, or at least had access to people who were. E.g., the moronic Reagan at least supposedly had a coterie of serious people in his administration who could keep the train on the tracks. ..."
"... Now we seem to be at a point where the people in charge are unapologetic about their greed, their lack of ability or even interest in their jobs and consitiuents, their lack of intellect and integrity, and the absence of any pretense of doing anything useful for the population or the society ..."
"... I guess what I'm saying is, as one surveys the landscape, there is a marked loss of hope coupled with a tearing urgency that something needs to be done. It's a terrible, very volatile and dangerous condition. ..."
' orthodox MSM outlets like the New York Times and the WaPo seem to be presenting us
with stale fare right now '
Such as this [paywalled] bombshell from the WaPo: 'With McCain's retreat, some turn to
Romney to carry his torch.'
Riveting. Like reviewing old photos of the Soviet Politburo to see who got airbrushed out. To paraphrase the WaPo's slogan, 'Democracy dies in decadence. '
or like viewing old photos of the Robber Barons. The msm has stopped trying to convince
middle class readers it's 'on their side', imo. A few have gone full plutocrat friendly.
Anything that rocks the plutocrats boats must be caused by 'russians, russians, russians', or
outside agitators, or foreigners of one kind or another – not 'real' Americans.
Exactly
the kind of things the robber barons and their press said 100+ years ago about working class
workers striking for better wages and working conditions.
I agree in the regard to the seeming reduction in analytical quantity and quality. I think
you're right with it being caused by reductions in newsroom staff, but I think the type of
journalists we have has also changed drastically.
Most of the younger generation that is
being brought in has gone directly to journalism school, but has no other experience in the
real world. I think many of the older guard had other careers, expertise or experience before
they started writing.
So much of what passes for "analysis" nowadays reveals very shallow
knowledge of the subject being covered by the writer. This is often most apparent in tech or
science articles. I would say some overlap to "management" culture – managers are
interchangeable, no matter the industry, since they are experts on managing. Same thing with
journalism – if you can write something, you can write about anything .
For one thing, the, MSM has become heavily dependent on election coverage in the last
decade or so, both (I assume) in revenue from political advertising, and in fountains of
easy-to-write daily horse race articles about the state of the election.
I think 2017, a post-election year, kind of got a free pass because of the election of
Trump, who was either going to make everything great (again!) or blow everything up, and the
media was able to sustain an electoral-style energy and reader involvement well beyond the
2016 elections.
Now that (a) Trump has turned out to be an incompetent and ineffectual idiot who does
nothing but watch TV, (b) we are seeing the tired old GOP program of screwing the population
instead of anything new, and ( c) the Dems have done absolutely nothing for 13 months beyond
foam at the mouth about Trump, perhaps the energy of the 2016 election is finally wearing
off.
This strategy was already starting to become implicit, as the Mueller-related
"wolf"-crying drags on (and counter-investigations of Clintons are brandished as a M.A.D.
deterrent), and as we read that Trump's tax cuts are playing well among likely swing voters
both in Congress and in the low-middle income electorate, while it gets ever-closer to "too
late" (to be credible before the 2018 midterms) for the Democratic establishment to show any
new seriousness about the issues raised and pursued by Bernie Sanders, and by the many local
candidates being sabotaged (of necessity more openly than in the past) by the donor-addicted
Democratic establishment.
In the real world, we have growing social needs with an aging population that will require
Social Security and Medicare. This guy is basically saying to ignore that, which will likely
result in a mass die-off of the middle-aged and elderly like that which occurred in 1990s
Russia when social programs were gutted under neoliberal shock-therapy "advisors" to the
puppet Yeltsin.
Meanwhile, climate change advances requiring massive investment in adaptation, and
mitigation if Democrat concerns about climate change are to be taken at face value. (I
believe we are 30 years too late, but should do what we can. Democrats claim to be concerned
about climate change with their posturing around the Paris Agreement – how does this
new cold war lower emissions?)
Nuclear waste from nuclear power and weapons needs to be secured before climate change
kicks in, but instead we are spending trillions on new weapons that will create new
radioactive waste. The new arms race with Russia and China will be incredibly expensive and
dangerous, taking money from real societal and economic needs. Arms spending by the US will
result in arms spending in Russia and China, multiplying the problem on a global scale.
Unsecured nuclear waste in Russia and China, like unsecured nuclear waste in the US, affects
the entire globe.
In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to get
Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane.
In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to
get Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane.
Not only disgusting and insane, but politically stupid. Any Democrat politician who thinks
that promoting Unhinged Russia Hysteria is a winning political strategy is guilty of
political malpractice.
On that note, I'll try harder to go to that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen talk on Tuesday, as that
seems to be what she and they are pushing(unhinged Russia hysteria ) as a winning political
strategy.
I got paid today and since the Republican tax cut, my take home pay is larger. Not a
dollar or two larger, but enough that it's very easy to notice.
That's what people are going to remember when they go to the voting booth in 2018 (if they
even bother) – while the Democrats where whining about Putin and Russia and doing
nothing productive whatsoever to improve people's lives, Trump gave everybody more $$$.
Not everything is about money and its not going to affect the majority of people who will
be going to the polls, we are already set in our objections of the POTUS and unless he
becomes Presidential quickly none of us are changing our minds. This brought to you by a
swing voting independent. I will not vote for a republican in 2018 sans what I said.
. . . articulating and advocating a strategy of the Democratic establishment making
anti-Russia hysteria (and resulting surveillance and military spending and probably
adventures), as a core campaigning plank, the new normal, completely independent of any
impeachment or even re-election defeat of Trump.
The "official" narratives from much of the MSM are increasingly removed from any reality
experienced by the majority. For example, the latest is a report from Hamilton that much of
the social media activity concerning the Florida school shooting is now infested and promoted
by Russian bots "to sow division". How more absurd could it be?
I think that sort of disconnect produces both a numbness and an anxiety and a belief that
we are governed and led by institutions completely clueless and out of control. Therefore,
people just hunker down in disbelief.
this. this seems important. coupled with the fact that enough of the news consumers today
are wholly cynical regarding any ability of the hoi poloi to make change.
I have it on good authority that the whole rebranding of the KKK first as the CCC than as
the NRA was a long-term Soviet Russian plot to cause an epidemic of mass shootings
that would undermine not only US 'Democracy', but the entire capitalist juggernaut!
I've definitely been noticing a fairly obvious breakdown in people's ability to be on top
of even basic things. We're all fried. I've got really reliable clients suddenly bouncing
payments, unable to track projects I've also had first hand encounters with both the
law/court system and the medical industry/health care system and the IT processes are
byzantine and hugely ineffective.
I think Lambert used the phrase "boom exhaustion ". I think it's apt. We're spinning so
hard and nothings getting better or easier.
That story is a classic example of a dominant minority resorting to archaism to address
the present crisis they face. It won't work either. The US government had an extraordinarily
high amount of social trust and support heading into the external crisis that was the Cold
War. They eventually frittered it away into the present and the expectation that events will
turn out the same is why the creative minority of our past is now a dominant minority in the
present. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, for the sake of clarity. We live in a
target rich environment for people who've studied Toynbee.
Following up on something Lambert wrote once, it seems that pundits who are incapable of
using the term "working class" without somehow attaching the word "white" to it are -- besides not really being on the left -- also more likely than others to push the
"Russia ate my Election" nonsense.
I think what the horrid warmongering article in Useless News misses is that the flyover
states, which supply the troops for the wars, are getting war weary (and why not). Trump
capitalized on this in the election, and there was a positive correlation at IIRC the county
level between war casualities and troop support.
An anti-war candidate who could make the case in the flyover states might really make an
impact. And the only candidate I can see doing that is Sanders, and I'm not sure Sanders has
the inclination, or even the stones, to do it. That F-35 base in Vermont rankles. Is
that really the kind of bacon to bring home?
1) Do you think this might be an age-related experience? The elders among us may have a
feeling of deja-vu, been here, seen that there's not much new in the world, just the same
scenes endlessly repeated with new actors, or an incremental worsening of situations that
have already been in decline for years. How long can endless war be news? Or endless
corruption? Or endless neo-liberalism etc?
2) Here in the UK, I personally am sick to death with everything being seen through the
prism of Brexit. Yes it is an existential crisis for our politics and our way of life but
no-one is addressing the ways in which it will improve/demolish our daily lives – food
being an obvious one. Yes it is referred to but not in such terms as ordinary people can
identify with. It's all about abstracts – treaties/reciprocal arrangements/customs and
tariffs/values and volumes of exports/imports etc. And in the meantime, we get stories about
how Europeans leaving us will damage our NHS and crop picking without addressing the
underlying causes of WHY we need imported labour and why the NHS is still deteriorating
despite having those immigrants.
3) Following on from 2, whatever other news there is seems weirdly predictable and is
based around personalities, rather than communities and systems. Whatever source one chooses
to read, this predictability leads one to end up agreeing with Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he
would say that, wouldn't he?", no matter who the subject is.
4) Now we are leaping on the Russiabus but it is largely met with a huge yawn, unless you
like to foam at the mouth at ConservativeHome.
I wholeheartedly agree about how a significant factor is that the mainstream media insists
on viewing everything through ridiculously contrived "lenses" (Trump, "Russia-gate", Brexit,
harassment) and, intentionally I would claim, deliberately obscuring the real problems
(wealth distribution, neoliberalism, collapse of the social contract).
Here in the UK, I personally am sick to death with everything being seen through the
prism of Brexit.
I read the following article from today's Links fully expecting it to be about Brexit and
the political fallout from a possible hard border. Instead, the pivotal issue in the split
between Sinn Fein and the DUP apparently revolves around efforts to secure offical status for
the Irish language in the North. While that issue too may well be a distraction, it had
nothing to do with Brexit, and I was surprised.
Animals become agitated in advance of earthquakes. It may be that the reason for angst
does not lie in the past, but in the future.
In general, so many of the stories are predictable self-parodies, from the Democrats
relentless pursuit of the mythical 'moderate insurgents' in republican suburbs, and their
comical screeching about Putin, to the drumbeat stories attacking Trump for Obama policies,
to the contortions of the neocon policy apparatus trying to justify occupation and regime
change in Syria, without mentioning those goals
" The centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ".
Yes! I've never seen anything like this by any measure. It's the scope and magnitude and
number and inter-relatedness and intractability of all the issues at once. Population,
climate change, economic disaster systems as in Capitalism going nuts, exploding Military
Industrial Complex and perpetual wars , 2 Bat -- - Crazy and utterly corrupt political
parties playing nuclear Russian Roulette, Baghdad Bob like main stream media, transformation
from a democracy into a police state, open and protected killing of blacks for being black
(the fact that isn't exaggerated is mind-numbing), technological tsunamis being co-opted and
twisted into iron fisted dystopias by all of the above.
The mind simply can't keep up with it – particularly the reality of it (as in the
Democrats going stark raving mad with Russia-Gate – never mind just being corrupt and
hypocritical to the core) and the body or something inside sends out a sort of anesthetic to
help the mind deal with the increasing perception of the trauma.
I do "get" the analogy of calm before the storm and perhaps that is indeed what we are
going through right now but to me it feels like we are simultaneously in the middle of the
disaster and constantly waking up to just how horrific it really is.
"Slowed down by a sense of hopelessness in all his decisions and movements, he suffered
from bitter sadness, and his incapacity solidified into a pain that often sat like a
nosebleed behind his forehead the moment he tried to make up his mind to do something."
-- Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities
For me, this is key. When I cast my eye upon the news I'm greeted with unrelenting
bleakness. Trump's cruel and terrible health plan was big news for months, then his terrible
tax cut plan, now his terrible budget. Foreign affairs are equally bleak: the Democrats are
busy stirring up a second Cold War. There's no end in sight to the trillions of dollars our
nation spends every year on waste and destructive mayhem. Sociopathic corporations and
octogenarian billionaires own this country. It's difficult to see anything positive on the
horizon.
It could also come down to low Vitamin D and an unusually cold (thanks to climate change)
winter.
There are two Americas. The news is mostly for and from the one that protects the rentier
or elite class. They send their children to private schools. The second one has children who go to public schools who get shot and killed by gunmen
that the school and law authorities have been warned about and then decide it's not worth
their attention.
I think we have reached America's breaking point. Shitty jobs, shitty pay, shitty hours,
no hope of affordable housing anywhere, no advancement, massive amounts debt, no easy access
to medical care, uneven safety nets, denigration, lack of mutual respect, a lifetime of
working with little hope of a safe retirement it's just not pretty out here.
Where I live, they post the real estate sales in the newspaper and there are many weeks
where not a single house sold for over $500k. But in SF, it is news that something sold for
$500k because nothing is ever that cheap.
So you have many areas of the country (not accidental they voted for Trump) where $500k is
a fabulously high price for a house because the economies are in a rut but the places where
all the people carrying huge student debt loads are supposed to go to work to be part of the
future are completely unaffordable for all but a few.
I think we are still in a Wile E. Coyote moment where he has gone off the cliff but
gravity has not taken hold yet (cartoons don't understand parabolic arcs, similar to central
banks and politicians). One of the purposes of financial crises like 2008 is to reset the
playing field. The inequality and inefficiency of the Roaring 20s got reset in the 1930s
where many people who had paper wealth, but large debt, collapsed and regulation followed
that survived for 60 years in preventing similar scenarios. The 2009-2016 period missed that
window of opportunity as the focus became preserving the people who had destabilized the
system. That meant the damage was one-sided to the bottom 90%. The top 10% are largely
disconnected, deliberately, from what is going on with the bottom 90% and as a result are
baffled about the swelling unrest in the country. That unrest is still largely unfocused and
just burps out random things right now like the Tea Party, Trump, Sanders etc.
The only good news to come out of the Florida shooting is that the young people are
beginning to realize that they are cannon fodder (literally) in the cynical political battles
waged by their elders. We may start to see more passion for change occurring.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/florida-school-shooting-survivors-share-powerful-messages.html
Hopefully the 70 years old politicians will move out of the way and allow a new generation
with new ideas to start to emerge. However, it will take a lot to displace the current
political inertia from funding allowed for the wealthy 70 year olds by Citizens United.
Strangely enough, I've been thinking the exact same things, obviously from a U.K. framed
perspective. I've not commented on this on posts nor have I discussed this with either
Jerri-Lynn, Lambert, Yves, Richard Smith or any of the regular crowd here. I just passed it
off to myself as my usual neurotic preoccupations.
I can't really put it into words properly. Which can be one of the reasons why I've not
put my thoughts down in writing. Musing on this earlier this week, the best way I could come
up with capturing the vibe was to quote from E M Forster who (describing an English country
house, the people in it and as a metaphor for the country as a whole at the time) as "being
not yet actually in decline, but in the torpor which precedes it". That fit both the mood
that I sense and the cause of the pervasive anxiety.
It also, he says, opening a can of worms which he'll probably regret, but here goes,
covers and explains several conversations I've had with fellow Brexit voters. The U.K.
government is screwing things up royally with regards to the implementation of Brexit. The
national division is just as bad as ever. And we're alienating the neighbors who we really
need to keep in with for the sake of the long term. We may yet end up as being something akin
to Mordor-on-Sea. But, among the friends and relatives I've had these discussions with, none
of us could, if we were being honest, really say we cared that much. The nihilism was
slightly shocking. What was the reason for that?
The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. Something --
anything -- is better than years and years, decades and decades of more of the same.
A shake up is long overdue and we're way past the point that tweaking round the edges is
going to be good enough.
I'm still slightly stunned to have stumbled across this unsettling zeitgeist.
I've done my stint in living through the chaotic end to the 1970's and endured the major
social upheavals in Thatcher's show-no-mercy early 1980's. Those were bad times. But this is
worse in a lot of ways, if only for the crushing atmosphere of a powerless proletariat.
I do think there are some safety valves. And at least in the past decade we've come to
recognise in our shared culture the harms done by things like inequality and how corrupt our
governments and corporations really are. And we've channels of common communication (like
Naked Capitalism, amongst a few others) which didn't exist a decade or so ago. I'm just not
sure they're enough.
Completely agree with "none of us could, if we were being honest, really say we cared that
much". My friends and I are in the same boat. I'm not sure it's nihilism sometimes I think
this is the point of our news coverage – to grind us down with boring mediocrity until
we accept whatever settlement suddenly becomes acceptable to TPTB. But then maybe THAT is
nihilistic too.
Important question! Let me serve up a goulash of inertial fear and loathing:
1. Attacks on Trump have failed to wing him legally. Passage of the corporatophilic tax
bill is going to produce a short term stimulus that many of us suspect will undermine the
reversal of fortune the policy-thin Dems hoped to pull off. So in part we're stuck with
watching a dreary theme in political economy play out in as margin estimates drift
downward.
2. The Dem commitment to Russiagate has become their WMD story, it has to be stuck with
lest its proponents admit their lying. Down on the ground, I was flummoxed to get a forwarded MoveOn email from a friend encouraging me to participate in flash demonstration at the
capitol if Mueller is fired. I was moved to explain that this worried me since it likely
hinged on Russophobia. A coolness ensued. This is happening broadly. The Russo-Resistance
strategy has had the effect of exacerbating divisions in the potential opposition to
neoliberalism. Not a bug.
3. The Syrian conflict has entered yet another crucial phase. I expect the Israelis to
kick over the table, and the Trump administration doesn't have the necessary resolution to
stop them with guaranteed threats. Militaristic cretins might be given a chance to run with
the ball. And then there's North Korea. Breath holding here.
4. Personally, I have very little gut-level understanding of the cadences of crisis
politics. Given the seriousness of the issues and the obviousness of the targets, I'd expect
Sanders or someone else to be sounding the trumpets. Instead, it seems to be more a matter of
setting out rebuttals, worrying about exhausting or boring the audience. I realize that we're
not in an "in the streets" phase, but are supposed to be building organizations, finding
candidates, etc. But the methodical, deliberate pace of that effort starts to seem inadequate
to the moment.
5. And then there's climate warming, which so easily gives rise to that deck chairs
feeling. Hard to suppress it at times.
I hate to concede much to the importance of national leadership, but in the absence, as
yet, of a broad, thoroughly anti-neoliberal social democratic organization that provides a
"culture of solidarity," (as Rick Fantasia described it in his fine book) we need it. And so
we're left with moods and presentiments, while trying to deflate fake leader trial balloons
-- another Kennedy? Cory Booker?
I would argue that there's a basic need for most human beings to feel like part of
something greater, that they're working towards something more meaningful than ever more
crass consumerism, ala Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you .."
So when push comes to shove, a credible national leader who is able to cajole everyone to
start pulling together in the same direction can make a serious go at solving or at least
addressing / amerliorating some of our pressing issues. I don't think there's anyone in the
US political circles right now that fits the bill ..
Compare and contrast with Putin and Xi, who are personally untouched by corruption taint,
and whom their population actually believes has their nations' long-term interests at
heart
I'd say national leadership will make all the difference when push comes to shove. Been
telling that to US friends for a couple of years, fwiw.
" The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whether it's skyrocketing measures of income
inequality, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, college tuition rates and
student loan balances rising faster than wages, mindlessly skyrocketing stock markets and
asset bubbles fueled by stupid central bank policies, or whatever other unsustainable woe you
choose to pick, these things cannot go on forever . Indeed, you can almost feel the
"major social upheaval" lurking around the corner.
And we're incredibly divided. Most of the MSM has been sucked into personality conflicts
and the us-vs-them mindset. They actively feed it now. You're expected to pick a team and
learn to hate the other guys.
I too suspect that "tweaking round the edges" will prove totally inadequate, but I have no
desire for revolution. I've seen too many of them start off well but then go off the rails in
horrible, terrifying directions. Revolutions can be terribly sloppy affairs, with real people
getting hurt in the process. And they usually don't end where we really want them to.
So where does this leave us? Unsettled and full of angst, to say the least, with no good
solutions in sight.
Just yesterday I was asked, "Aren't you a liberal Democrat?" I answered, "No, I hate both
parties equally." That set them back on their laurels. They expected me to say "Yes."
A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of
powerlessness -- that all that is important in life is out of our hands, and in the hands
of those who look at us and see nothing but another source of revenue.
Yes, I agree with the "endless loop of outrage" weariness that has set in, the best
example being the (ho-hum) shooting of a dozen high school students that in a normal society
would prompt mobilization for change and quick marginalization of any leader who said, Let's
do nothing! When murder becomes routine, an overall numbness is unavoidable. I had a visitor
from Mexico with me recently who asked why I was watching a documentary about serial killer
John Wayne Gacey (as someone who hitchhiked nearby around that time, I take a personal
interest) and remarked, "In Mexico serial killers are not news."
"A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of
powerlessness–"
I rather think that our "feeling of powerlessness" is the goal aimed for by the msm. And
identity politics serves a divide and conquer function. (But you can buy T-shirts! so it's
all good. /s)
I hope to draw some response to the second part of my complaint, which is that in the
dog-eat-dog world of a society ordered solely by markets, we are reduced: First, from being
to citizens to consumers, then from being consumers to being marks, rubes, suckers. The
"news" (such as it is) isn't reported to us, it's sold to us.
Corporate media has been pumping out Trump Derangement Syndrome stories for 18+ months.
[if you're cynical] not only because the media genuinely dislike trump, but to drive
clickbait and subscription sign-ups
but just as 'likes' juice the happy-chemical parts of your brain, Trump-related outrage
stories juice the angry-chemical parts of your brain.
After 18 months of being triggered by the news media [sometimes by Trump, sometimes by DNC
pundits, sometimes by real life], your brain basically says -- 'so what? i'm not angry any
more.'
I was idly wondering yesterday where the current hysteria surrounding Trump will lead
everyone. There have been hysterical political situations before, but they have tended to be
'single issue' ones – I can't recall any time when so many people on the main political
parties have been so singlemindedly determined to whip up anger. When its a 'single issue' or
generated by one side it can run out of steam or diffuse but when its multiple issues I think
its liable to either result in an explosion, or, conversely, lead to a sort of nervous
exhaustion. Looking at it from the outside, I would really fear what could happen in the US
if there was a major economic reversal. A sense of a rising tide can ease over a lot of
worries, but if things go into reverse, it can curdle into real anger. In historical
situations it can help if the anger has a particular focus, but a huge problem in the US
seems to me to be that there is no focus – its all so diffuse – anger at Trump,
at inequality, at feminists, at equality, at Russia, at Iran, at pretty much everyone.
From my reading of history, when countries have been in the grip of anxiety it is often a
relief when a feared thing happens – such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour it was
widely reported that the response of the public, including anti-war activists, was great
relief. A feeling that at least a course had been set, a key decision made, even if it was a
potentially disastrous one.
I've read that much the same feeling descended over much of
Europe at the start of WWI. While the same situation doesn't quite apply in the US, I do fear
that there is a craving for some sort of decision, a decisive act. While I think Trump is by
nature someone who prefers to stir the pot rather than take decisive action, he is also very
sensitive to the darker drives of the public feeling. I do fear that he might feel inclined
to do something really stupid, and there is nobody sensible around him to stop it
happening.
I think Trump understands more than he reveals. I think we are looking at the tempered
effects of MSM froth by all the good, sensible internet bloggers and commenters which serve
to neutralize the nonsense. What I see is angst failure – nobody bought this farcical
onslaught of propaganda. Everyone questioned it. Something happens to the "news" when
opposite views and facts collide – it gets emulsified like vinegar and oil into much
less drastic possibilities.
On the one hand – on the other hand. The internet was able
to neutralize the MSM because the MSM does only superficial "reporting". There seems to be a
state of angst withdrawal, lots of confusion, and no direction. As if "time goes on like
nothing is important." And lately a very interesting thing has happened – there is
almost no hysteria about "the debt. I have the vague feeling that there are some few people
who are actually in control of their senses and the sea change is approaching critical mass.
Things will change for the better not only because everyone is fed up but probably more
because our dear leaders, including the banksters, are clueless and they don't know how to
make capitalism work using the old rules. It's gonna be interesting. Thank you NC.
Interesting reminds me of how some torturers have learned that the fear of the pain can be
worse than the pain itself in terms of emotional distress and breaking down ego-barriers to
cooperation/submission. When the fear is worse than the feared experience, the feared
experience itself is a relief.
Our Jerri-Lynn, who mainly lives overseas, was briefly in the US last month and
dropped by our NYC meetup. She commented to me that she was very eager to leave because she
could sense how high the general tension level was.
I can assure you, what she feels is very, very real.
My wife and I travel at least once a year back to Canada , where my wife is from – the
difference in tension is palpable. I feel so loose and calm when I am there.
"Do you sense, as Lambert and I do, that the news tide has receded?"
My primary news source is the print edition of the Wall Street Journal and I've noted to
myself a similar observation recently. The first time I saw the gymnist doctor sex abuse
story featured prominetly on the first page I thought it odd. When the story was featured
promintely on the front page multiple times after that it felt bizzare. My reaction was
wondering how can this possibly be that important compared to everything else happening in
the world.
"If so, to resort to Warren Buffett's image, who do you think it has exposed as swimming
naked?"
My interpetation has been the news media has been exposed as swimming naked. They are
unable or unwilling to spend the money required to deliver professional reporting. Since
election season they have depended on reporting on Trump's controversies to fill their pages.
That is cheap and easy to do. Without that they have to spend time, money and talent to
report on other complex matters.
The quaility and quantity of the print edition of the WSJ has been a noticeable decline
the last few years. Little things like a front page lead in to what was supposed to be on
page B1 was instead on B4. I've been reading the WSJ for probably twenty years now and never
seen that happen before.
Twice during the presidential election they had what looked like at
first a normal section of the newspaper but was actually a "paid advertisement" from China
and Japan. It was blatant propaganda from their governments. It was shocking that the WSJ
would take money to print foreign government's propaganda on election matters. There have
been many other observations like that which have lead me to the conclusion news reporting
capabilities have been gutted more than most people realize.
True, but can they address those concerns? The Occupy movement was such an effort, but the
police seem to have stifled it. Then Sen. Sanders appeared on the scene with his Presidential
campaign and that too was suppressed. If people are in fact not engaged it probably indicates
an absence of what is important and meaningful for them in the larger society.
I have had the same or at a least similar feeling of late, but for the most part
considered it as me reflecting my own circumstances on the world, as well as worrying items
of news particularly from Syria. A bit like an increasing tightness of breath, within the
increasingly stale & pressurized air of an expanding balloon.
It has been a rather dull time for news, and i'm not really feeling any angst, other than
when I went to a neighbor's dinner party surrounded by reign of error supporters that seemed
to be doubling down on their choice in an assertive manner, with absolutely no prompting from
me.
I found that disturbing, the group-sink mentality, a blackjack equivalent of doubling down
on a 16, with the dealer showing a face card, why?
The LA Times got sold this week, which came with the SD Union Tribune as 2 for 1 deal for
$500 million.
The LAT had truly turned into a piece of garbage the past years, they'd get scooped on
stories in their own backyard, the writing was what you'd expect from a newspaper emanating
from a city of 48,424, and it would be a given that new reporter hires should go at least a
page into google when investigating.
Why would somebody pay half a billion for something that's broken down and even if you
fixed it, where is the upside?
My take is we are in the period just before WW1 and the last garden parties. Everything
seems warm, slightly off. The skirts are hobbling, the hats large and the military medals
shiny on gold braid. The politicians are making noise, but we all know that for all the strum
and bother, they will come to a resolution.
Did you hear the Austrian heir and his wife were shot? Try the sandwiches .
Ummm, those sandwiches are simply MARVELOUS I *must* get your recipe.
My neighbors sons both joined the Uhlan Regiment, and we are organizing a party for them
before they go to the academy. They look sooooo precious in their uniforms, I want to be sure
we have the best in food and drink for their send off party!
And yes, those dang Serbians. Such troublemakers. Rest assured they will be dealt with
swiftly and severely.
We've been watching a German TV series called Babylon Berlin, which is set in Wiemar
Germany, 1929, just before the crash. It's fascinating to compare those times to our own,
there are many parallels. The show is extremely well done. https://newrepublic.com/article/147053/babylon-berlin-sees-weimar-republic
There's an Ingmar Bergman film from the 1960s called Winter Light where one of the
characters finds out the Red Chinese have acquired the bomb and kills himself. Surely it's
the news media who are creating the current wave of high anxiety and even tragedies like
school shootings seem to be egged on by the media since most shooters are copycats.
Which is why some of us have taken to getting our news from sites like this one. A sanity
filter is needed. A sense of perspective may also be useful as in world historical terms
there have been much worse periods than this. Time does heal wounds, perhaps even elites who
have lost their marbles.
ah, yes. this has been on my mind lately. More the best lacking all conviction and the
worst full of passionate intensity than the rough beast part He's already ensconced in
Washington and doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything [brain glancing off the specter
of all those judges].
This is an astute post by NC and lots of great comments -- little to add but I'll see your
Yeats and raise you one Gramsci:
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be
born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
Well as long as we're talking poetry, I think Auden's September 1, 1939 might be even
more relevant today than it was back when it was written. So much so that I can't decide
which part of it to excerpt (and it's a bit too long to just quote the whole thing!).
Actually, no, I do know -- here is the last stanza of the poem, which just happens to
describe exactly the kind of thing that NC -- at its best -- can provide in opposition to the
"waves of anger and fear [ ] obsessing our private lives."
Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
The DOJ Inspector General report will be out in March. After one look at a draft of the
report, Randall Wray fired McCabe. And remember, the DOJIG has all of the Strzok e-mails,
including the ones the FBI "inadvertently destroyed." Hopes–and fears–are high
that this report will expose all of the Russiagate corruption in complete detail. If so, even
mainstream media stars won't have a place to hide. They went all in too long ago and pushed
the story way too hard.
So to answer Yves's questions: yes, there is deep fear that a receding tide is about to
reveal a lot of naked swimmers and that yes, it will be a tsunami.
Professor Kendall Thomas, director of the Center for the Study of Law and Culture at
Columbia Law School, spoke at Goethe House New York recently. He designated Trump a
'post-president,' saying that the mythological status of the US presidency has been exploded
(my word). An audience member asked if we were also post the nation state; Kendall replied
that the questioner had answered his own question.
Perhaps here we have the source, or one major source, of the generalized angst?
(No video, or no video yet, however, see https://www.goethe.de/ins/us/en/sta/ney/ver.cfm
? fuseaction=events.detail&event_id=21154521)
I suppose it might have been private eye, a very changed publication from my first
introduction, suggested that the offspring of the firm were far more interested in
discotheques and tax free beaches than than the fealty of the field mice in their
property.
A little disinterested resignation might go a long way.
NCO smithers, sorry to hijack your thread; But if I'm going to do it within the headline post: Iraq war protests: The one in edinburgh was glorious, people flowing in from the mound, the west est end and
leith street, blocking the roads, g galloway and t sheridan doing what they do best.
I retired and watched the news on the bbc and that is why I have hardly looked at since
then.
What your have gifted me is contributions is that nothing is rational as family business,
and extra-family is hopeless romance.
I'll jog along (to use the contemporary parlance),
1) gaslighting with news that doesn't matter
2) feeeling of an echo chamber and the same ol same ol
3) unclear ways of taking action and identifying those persons who can fix the mess that
those persons impmementing neoliberalism and warmongering have created
I don't have much contact with the 1% now, having changed jobs in mid-2016, but agree with
you and get that sense from friends / former colleagues who do.
I work in the City of London. To use the euphemism en vogue at my employer, many people
will be "rolling off the platform", ours, over the spring. It's the same at my former
employer and another firm I know well. These are middle aged and middle class professionals
about to be thrown on the scrap heap.
Colonel Smithers, I observed something similar during the Sanders campaign's peak here in
Tucson. That would be during late 2015 and early 2016. Let's just say that people weren't
flocking to Bernie because their lives were going well.
Just to clarify, these are Bernie folks I'm talking about, with no love of corporate
Dems/Hillary, but I fear they don't realize how very real the threat is that the energy of
the base will be coopted by the leadership.
The news tide has receded because by blurring the line between news/information and
entertainment, for most people, it looses all relevance in conducting daily life. People are
tuned out and apathetic. Those watching the MSM closely are either entirely satisfied with
society as is, brainwashed, social voyeurs titilated by the access to human suffering in ever
expanding forms, or for professional interest. The weird atmosphere is that people realize
how precarious their social positions have become, but are offered no outlet to relieve the
growing anxiety. There is no leadership attempting to address these grievances, and when
movements do surface, the same set of characters jump to the forefront and successfully
diffuse the energy building for something different.
There is no accountability.
The MSM is ubiquitous in its constant drone of irrelevance. Just as the constant flashing
of advertising becomes harder and harder to see, it just stops carrying any useful
information regardless of what is being said or shown.
My sense for years has been the thought, "what will it take to break the malaise". Society
has gone from the Deep Water Horizon disaster, Fukushima meltdown, endless small wars, and
growing ecological disasters. Not to mention growing economic inequality with no end in
sight. The response is indifference and obfuscation.
Democracy requires civic action, but without proper leadership, Democracy is impossible.
Democracy requires institutions that citizens can participate in, and the current crop of
leaders undermines that participation at every turn.
So what is left is that everyone conducts their lives on autopilot- until forced to act
otherwise. It is a weird atmosphere where the general consensus is one of quiet despair, but
easier to pretend that all is well.
I will note that years after I stopped biting my nails I have started again. And this time
it is worse. I never endangered the quick, but am now so anxious And I have eliminated most
traditional sources of news from my life.
I am powerless. A seismic event that should have caused at least a small path change has
not. Instead the road is even more closed to alteration, the real news is the same or worse.
And the bread and circuses is not considered necessary because nothing really changed. The
shootings, the growing early deaths of the populace, and so on are normal. I do not know if
the slow boil of the frogs/populace will only end with their total collapse and that we have
merely turned up the heat to speed things up. Or if another seismic event that is more
violent and revolutionary is going to happen as the restricted road is overrun by those
supposed to die quickly and quietly. A Russian and French Revolution level up rising where
our current system is bludgeoned to death.
I try to ignore that sense, that prediction. But as my admission makes clear I cannot. We
are cursed to live in interesting times.
The firehose of information (shit?) being sprayed at me during my waking hours by the industrial-information complex was
chipping away at my soul one clickbait headline at a time, one junk email at a time, one advertisement at a time. So I made a
choice and l 'opted out' as best I could. I have only 3 news bookmarks (NC on of them). I dropped all social media in the
summer of '16. I've been cable free for nearly two years.
My overall mood has improved greatly over this time. I am not feeling the angst but I see the effect the 24×7 bombardment
is having on people close to me.
I am beginning to wonder if this constant bombardment is someone's grand design to wear us down, divide us, and keep us in
a permanent state of fear and paralysis.
Brilliant! I felt a similar Lightness of Being after giving up Facebook a few months ago. But this has been undermined by
recently taking up Twitter. Twitter is like having a stranger run up to you every few minutes shouting the same piece of
nonsense in your face. Then someone else shouts the exact opposite. And so on and so on.
I share your sense of "bombardment," and for me it's an on-going fight with my husband who
wants to watch MSNBC, CNN, etc. We have a very small house, so it's almost impossible for me
to get away from the audio, and it's winter, so going outside to escape is more
challenging.
I find the yelling of Rachel Maddow et al. actually like a physical assault on my senses.
I say to my husband, "you know things in the world are crap. Do you need to have that fact
repeated to you again and again? And don't you feel that this assault wears you down and
makes you less able to take positive action? That's its effect on me."
Gosh, Kokuanani, I am in much the same situation. My recently-retired husband turns the TV
on first thing in the morning and almost never shuts it down until bedtime. We have downsized
to a small condo, which fortunately has a small second bedroom/sitting room, so I can escape
for a time.
He watches CNN and the local news stations a lot and, as I stroll through the living room
or work in the adjacent kitchen, I am assaulted with the tension-laden voices of the news
anchors, pushing the latest disaster. I was almost grateful for the school shooting, since it
did make a change from the incessant prattling about l'affaire Porter.
What I find most horrifying are the daytime TV shows that feature white male authority
figures telling hapless people who have supposedly screwed up their lives and relationships,
exactly where they have gone wrong and what they need to do to straighten themselves out. The
audience, or should it be the 'mob,' acts as a chorus, egging on the participants.
I now realize how insulated from the 'real world' I have been for decades.
It is interesting that you feel the verbal yelling as as an almost physical assault. I
feel the same about constant background noise; it hurts. My spouse, on the other hand, seems
to need the stimulation of the verbal stream. (Might have something to do with his
dyslexia).
I frequently like to have the television on – often as background while I do other
things. I do have cable (as part of an integrated telephone/internet/television package) and
when I have broadcast television playing, as opposed to DVD's etc., I find I gravitate to old
comedy reruns. I've rewatched the entirety of the Mary Tyler Moore show multiple times this
winter along with many other 50's through early 80's television. The only breakthrough from
the hurricane of angst whirling through the U.S. media has been the commercials. The ads are
often made up of 50% promotion of a new pharmaceutical or medical product and 50% an
invitation to join a class action suit against the makers of a slightly older pharmaceutical
or medical product. It's an odd juxtaposition.
The wheels keep turning in place with no movement forward, backward, or in a circle. Case
in point: Yet one more mass shooting in a school. Yet one more disturbed, angry, and/or
obsessed personal with a semi-automatic weapon. Shock, horror, thoughts, prayers; we need
'sensible' gun controls; it's not the time to talk about guns, etc., etc. Same script every
time and it fades away until the next time. Does no one notice?
What can I add to what has already been said? I am sick to death of slippery empty words
and sly tactics and thievery. I want to say to hell with it all, but I cannot not care.
The reason most news is dull is that most of it is fake. I was watching an old interview
that Kerry Cassidy did with Jim Marrs the other day and he was riveting. A lot of people
classify Marrs as a conspiracy nut but he described himself as a journalist. One of the most
memorable things he said (this is not an exact quote) is that he still tried to do
journalism, but we really don't have journals any more. They are more like advertising
circulars and the stories are almost all government or corporate public relations pieces.
There are plenty of stories to write. The pieces you guys run on Uber and Calpers are rare
and not dull. It is obvious when a competent journalist has taken the time to do research and
investigate and double-check things and think about what they are doing.
The manipulated dope the government releases on the latest shooting is not news. It is
propaganda. It isn't worth reading.
my 2 cents: the FOX NEWS-ification of the MSM is now complete, and that's why it's
weird.
If the subtext to the MSM's Trump coverage is, "He's a racist authoritarian so he must be
stopped at all costs," then you'd think they'd cover police brutality every day. If they're
so concerned about racism and authoritarianism. Instead, we're seeing the FBI, CIA, etc.,
cast in the role of 'oppressed minorities standing up to The System, Maaan!'
Plus, as a fan of paranoia, I can say. . . I've never seen a more unsatisfying,
overly-abstract conspiracy in my life. It's not that they are rehabilitating CIA goons, but
they're doing so specifically in order to obsess over memos, and reports about memos, and
memos about reports about leaks about other memos.
It's like an episode of The Office if everyone in the office had nukes. Sheesh, give me P2
and the Vatican Bank any day.
TLDR: It's weird because of the sudden growth of the disconnect between [the very real
anxieties we news consumers feel in our daily lives] . . . . and the news reports which
attempt to leverage those anxieties into outrage at [whatever media elites are mad at that
day].
A question I'm pondering lately that may be related: suppose a general pulled a Julius
Caesar, crossed the Rubicon/Potomac and seized control of the US government. What would the
response be?
Sixty years ago, there would have been staunch support for the civilian government,
politicians of both parties would have rallied their supporters to defend our democratic
heritage, and I believe ordinary citizens would have actively opposed the military government
in a number of ways up to and including taking up arms.
Today? I just can't see it. I don't know if anyone would really give a [family_blog]
beyond some outrage on Facebook or Twitter. The nihilism and ennui are palpable.
Mark Blyth tells the story of speaking to a room full of fund managers and other monied
types, and he asked them if they would have trusted the politicians they supported twenty or
thirty years prior to manage one of their accounts, to general assent. But when he asked if
they would trust any of the politicians they currently support to do the same, they all
laughed out loud. In the US, that attitude is nearly universal, across all layers of
society .
Could you see yourself risking your life to go fight for our democracy under the banner of
Chuck Schumer? The DNC? Any of the ghouls in the GOP? I can't. And I think that's
meaningful.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say the MSM is getting revenge on us. They got the 2016 election wrong, were exposed as out-of-touch, and rightly ridiculed.
Lacking credibility and unwilling to do stories that would upset their owners (i.e. stories
ABOUT average American problems), the only tool left in their 'keep people reading us'
toolkit is. . .'aaaaah read this or the country dies!!!!'
And what do you know, the 'anxiety' tool just also happens to inflict a lot of psychic
punishment on the same news consumers that ridiculed them. So that's a two-fer!
I'm having trouble articulating the pile of words in my head to describe my thinking on
current news media. I'll just say that I've suspected an "establishment agenda" in most news
for years and Trump has mostly confirmed that suspicion. I'm sure it has, to some extent,
always been that way with the press (we can't escape our culture), but the stakes of
milquetoast (or outright nefarious) new media seem bigger now than ever (US empire collapse,
climate change, ballooning global inequality). I'm only 31 so let me know if I'm off base
thinking the sky is falling.
I think the hosts are right that the news seems to be drying up as of late, but I think
that is more a feature than a bug. There is plenty to discuss and dissect. They are just not
the kinds of things that capitalist media wants to even acknowledge much less cover.
I don't know if there are any Aussies in this thread, but I'll include a link to a
comedian from Australia who has excellent and usually funny commentary on Australian
politics. He posts a great deal on Youtube and has a pretty excellent take down of Vice News.
BTW the ever edgy Vice has a 5% stake owned by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox and his boy
James is/was a board member, figure that one out. The comedian says more pointedly what I was
trying to say above to a particular example of the problem, and I think the critique of Vice
News is within the topic of the thread. As a heads up, you may need to see his initial video to get any context. I recommend
both.
I think one thing that is new recently is that the people supposedly driving the bus are
*obviously* incompetent and in over their heads.
I am in my late 50s, and for most of my life there was an air of seriousness and
competence about national leaders. Even when they were doing something you didn't like, you
could generally assume they were adequate to the situation, or at least had access to people
who were. E.g., the moronic Reagan at least supposedly had a coterie of serious people in his
administration who could keep the train on the tracks. Various government departments were
staffed by people who had a lifetime of experience in their affairs, and there was thus a
deep bench of skill and experience the national leaders could rely on when needed. Government
seemed serious and purposeful for the most part, and the nation seemed in reasonably good
hands.
It's impossible to say how much of this sensibility was real and how much carefully
maintained illusion; my guess is a lot of what was going on was the latter, but at least
leaders and the media realized seriousness was an important front to maintain.
Now we seem to be at a point where the people in charge are unapologetic about their
greed, their lack of ability or even interest in their jobs and consitiuents, their lack of
intellect and integrity, and the absence of any pretense of doing anything useful for the
population or the society. Important national institutions (e.g. the State Department! The
CDC!) are being left to languish or being actively dismantled. Who will fill the void? No one
cares. The media, meanwhile, not only fails to lament these things but actually seems to have
some glee about the situation and delights in spotlighting incompetence and even criminality
in the leadership
(I write from the US, obviously; however, the same seems to be true, perhaps even more so,
in the UK, from what I read.)
As a result, a deadly sense of futility sets in. At best, we can head off the bigger
disasters. Nothing is likely to actually improve. The will and leadership to face our many
impending disasters (climate change, nuclear war, inequality, racism, financial collapse,
infrastructure collapse) seems utterly absent.
I guess what I'm saying is, as one surveys the landscape, there is a marked loss of hope
coupled with a tearing urgency that something needs to be done. It's a terrible, very
volatile and dangerous condition.
"Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation -- the test
of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same
time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that
things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."
Two senior FSB officers and a high-level manager of Russia's leading cybersecurity firm
Kaspersky Lab are facing official charges of treason in the interests of the US, a lawyer
representing one of the defendants has confirmed to Interfax. Ruslan Stoyanov, head of
Kaspersky Lab's computer incidents investigations unit, Sergey Mikhailov, a senior Russian FSB
officer, and his deputy Dmitry Dokuchayev are accused of "treason in favor of the US,"
lawyer Ivan Pavlov said on Wednesday, as cited by Interfax. Read more 70mn cyberattacks,
mostly foreign, targeted Russia's critical infrastructure in 2016 – FSB
Pavlov chose not to disclose which of the defendants he represents, adding, however, that
his client denies all charges.
The charges against the defendants do not imply they were cooperating with the CIA, Pavlov
added. "There is no mention of the CIA at all. [The entity] in question is the US, not the
CIA," he stressed, according to TASS.
The lawyer maintained the court files included no mention of Vladimir Anikeev, an alleged
leader of 'Shaltai Boltai', a hacking group that previously leaked emails from top Russian
officials, including Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The hacking group's name was in the news earlier in January, when Russian media reports
linked Mikhailov and Dokuchayev to 'Shaltai Boltai' . In an unsourced article last
Wednesday, Rosbalt newspaper claimed Mikhailov's unit was ordered in 2016 to work with the
group.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday the treason charges do not
relate to the US suspicions of Russia being behind the alleged cyberattacks on the 2016
presidential elections. He added that President Vladimir Putin is receiving regular updates on
the current investigation.
Russian media reports said Mikhailov was arrested during a conference of top FSB leadership.
He was reportedly escorted out of the room with a bag placed over his head. His deputy,
Dokuchayev, is said to be a well-known hacker who allegedly began cooperating with the FSB
several years ago. Kaspersky Lab manager Stoyanov was also placed under arrest several weeks
ago.
Stoyanov is still employed by Kaspersky Lab, the company told RIA Novosti later on
Wednesday, adding there were "no personnel changes" at this point.
Treason charges mean that the defendants could be handed a sentence of up to 20 years in
prison. The treason charges also mean any trial will not be public due to its sensitive
nature.
Russians Spooked by Nukes-Against-Cyber-Attack Policy February 16, 2018
New U.S. policy on nuclear retaliatory strikes for cyber-attacks is raising concerns, with
Russia claiming that it's already been blamed for a false-flag cyber-attack – namely the
election hacking allegations of 2016, explain Ray McGovern and William Binney.
By Ray McGovern and William Binney
Moscow is showing understandable concern over the lowering of the threshold for employing
nuclear weapons to include retaliation for cyber-attacks, a change announced on Feb. 2 in the
U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
A nuclear test detonation carried out in Nevada on April 18, 1953.
Explaining the shift in U.S. doctrine on first-use, the NPR cites the efforts of potential
adversaries "to design and use cyber weapons" and explains the change as a "hedge" against
non-nuclear threats. In response, Russia described the move as an "attempt to shift onto others
one's own responsibility" for the deteriorating security situation.
Moscow's concern goes beyond rhetoric. Cyber-attacks are notoriously difficult to trace to
the actual perpetrator and can be pinned easily on others in what we call "false-flag"
operations. These can be highly destabilizing – not only in the strategic context, but in
the political arena as well.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has good reason to believe he has been the target of a
false-flag attack of the political genre. We judged this to be the case a year and a half ago,
and said so. Our judgment was fortified last summer – thanks to forensic evidence
challenging accusations that the Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee and
provided emails to WikiLeaks. (Curiously, the FBI declined to do forensics, even though the
"Russian hack" was being described as an "act of war.")
Our conclusions were based on work conducted over several months by highly experienced
technical specialists, including another former NSA technical director (besides co-author
Binney) and experts from outside the circle of intelligence analysts.
On August 9, 2017, investigative reporter Patrick Lawrence
summed up our findings in The Nation. "They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong
and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation," he explained.
As we wrote in an open letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left
office, the NSA's programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. "We
strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of
Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks," our letter said. "If NSA cannot produce such evidence
– and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any."
A 'Dot' Pointing to a False Flag?
In his article, Lawrence included mention of one key, previously unknown "dot" revealed by
WikiLeaks on March 31, 2017. When connected with other dots, it puts a huge dent in the
dominant narrative about Russian hacking. Small wonder that the mainstream media immediately
applied white-out to the offending dot.
Lawrence, however, let the dot out of the bag, so to speak: "The list of the CIA's
cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called
Marble Framework
that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving
markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to."
If congressional oversight committees summon the courage to look into "Obfus-Gate" and
Marble, they are likely to find this line of inquiry as lucrative as the Steele "dossier." In
fact, they are likely to find the same dramatis personae playing leading roles in both
productions.
Two Surprising Visits
Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to discuss
Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove it.
In retrospect, the Pompeo-Binney meeting appears to have been a shot across the bow of those
cyber warriors in the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the means and incentive to adduce "just
discovered" evidence of Russian hacking. That Pompeo could promptly invite Binney back to
evaluate any such "evidence" would be seen as a strong deterrent to that kind of operation.
Pompeo's closeness to President Donald Trump is probably why the heads of Russia's three top
intelligence agencies paid Pompeo an unprecedented visit in late January. We think it likely
that the proximate cause was the strategic danger Moscow sees in the
nuclear-hedge-against-cyber-attack provision of the Nuclear Posture Statement (a draft of which
had been leaked a few weeks before).
If so, the discussion presumably focused on enhancing hot-line and other fail-safe
arrangements to reduce the possibility of false-flag attacks in the strategic arena -- by
anyone – given the extremely high stakes.
Putin may have told his intelligence chiefs to pick up on President Donald Trump's
suggestion, after the two met last July, to establish a U.S.-Russian cyber security unit. That
proposal was widely ridiculed at the time. It may make good sense now.
Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and
briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one from 1981-1985. William Binney worked for NSA
for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical
analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
mike k , February 16, 2018 at 5:36 pm
Those Russians had a strange mission coming to CIA headquarters to try to negotiate with
soulless mass murderers in the name of maintaining a precarious semblance of peace, knowing
full well that these men's words and assurances were worth less than nothing. Ah well, I
guess in a mad situation one is reduced to making desperate gestures, hoping against hope
.
Mild-ly -Facetious , February 16, 2018 at 5:42 pm
F Y I :> Putin prefers Aramco to Trump's sword dance
Hardly 10 months after honoring the visiting US president, the Saudis are open to a
Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the upcoming Aramco IPO
By M.K. BHADRAKUMAR
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[extract]
In the slideshow that is Middle Eastern politics, the series of still images seldom add up
to make an enduring narrative. And the probability is high that when an indelible image
appears, it might go unnoticed – such as Russia and Saudi Arabia wrapping up huge
energy deals on Wednesday underscoring a new narrative in regional and international
security.
The ebb and flow of events in Syria – Turkey's campaign in Afrin and its threat to
administer an "Ottoman slap" to the United States, and the shooting down of an Israeli F-16
jet – hogged the attention. But something of far greater importance was unfolding in
Riyadh, as Saudi and Russian officials met to seal major deals marking a historic challenge
to the US dominance in the Persian Gulf region.
The big news is the Russian offer to the Saudi authorities to invest directly in the
upcoming Aramco initial public offering – and the Saudis acknowledging the offer. Even
bigger news, surely, is that Moscow is putting together a Russian-Chinese consortium of joint
investment funds plus several major Russian banks to be part of the Aramco IPO.
Chinese state oil companies were interested in becoming cornerstone investors in the IPO,
but the participation of a Russia-China joint investment fund takes matters to an entirely
different realm. Clearly, the Chinese side is willing to hand over tens of billions of
dollars.
Yet the Aramco IPO was a prime motive for US President Donald Trump to choose Saudi Arabia
for his first foreign trip. The Saudi hosts extended the ultimate honor to Trump – a
ceremonial sword dance outside the Murabba Palace in Riyadh. Hardly 10 months later, they are
open to a Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the Aramco IPO.
Riyadh plans to sell 5% of Saudi Aramco in what is billed as the largest IPO in world
history. In the Saudi estimation, Aramco is worth US$2 trillion; a 5% stake sale could fetch
as much as $100 billion. The IPO is a crucial segment of Vision 2030, Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammad bin Salman's ambitious plan to diversify the kingdom's economy.
"Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to
discuss Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove
it."
That was about some Dm. Alperovitch for CrowdStrike fame, who had discovered the "hacking" in
10 sec. Guess Alperovitch, as an "expert" at the viciously Russophobic Atlantic Council
(funded by the State Dept., NATO, and a set of unsavory characters like Ukrainian oligrach
Pinchuk) decided to show his "understanding" of the task. The shy FBI did not even attempt to
look at the Clinton's server because the bosses "knew better."
Alperovitch must be investigated for anti-American activities; the scoundrel has been sowing
discord into the US society with his lies while endangering the US citizenry.
In a recent interview, James Clapper, who served as President Obama's director of national intelligence, said explicitly that
the Intelligence Community Assessment itself had nothing whatsoever to do with the dossier. "We briefed, John [Brennan, then CIA
director] and I, briefed the president-elect [Trump] at the time, on January 6. He viewed what we presented to him, which had very
high confidence levels in what we presented him, which by the way, a point I'll make, had nothing to do with the dossier. We did
not draw on the dossier. The dossier, the infamous dossier, was not a part of our Intelligence Community Assessment," said Clapper.
"His first reaction to it was that this caused a question about the legitimacy of his election."
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three Names before Trump even announced he
was running. The basic set up for this was going on in 2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up organizations to do stuff just on the off
chance that some politician or wannabe is going to run. These guys ain't got nothin'.
It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political
operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine.
Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true.
If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling
said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories.
Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it.
How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier
by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a
Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell,
we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies.
"... Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com . ..."
The hawks and internationalists who set our house on fire don't now deserve the contract to rebuild it.
While it may have significant popular support, much of the anti-Trump "Resistance" suffers from a severe weakness of message.
Part of the problem is with who the Resistance's leading messengers are: discredited neoconservative poltroons like former president
George W. Bush, unwatchable alleged celebrities like Chelsea Handler, and establishment Republicans who routinely
slash and burn the middle class like Senator Jeff Flake. Furthermore, what exactly is the Resistance's overriding message? Invariably
their sermonizing revolves around vague bromides about "tolerance," diversity, unrestricted free trade, and multilateralism. They
routinely push a supposed former status quo that was in fact anything but a status quo. The leaders of the Resistance have in their
arsenal nothing but buzzwords and a desire to feel self-satisfied and turn back to imagined pre-Trump normality. A president like
Donald Trump is only possible in a country with opposition voices of such subterranean caliber.
Remember when Trump steamrolled a crowded field of Republicans in one of the greatest electoral upsets in American history? Surely
many of us also recall the troupes of smug celebrities and Bushes and Obamas who lined up to take potshots at Trump over his unacceptably
cruel utterances that upset their noble moral sensibilities? How did that work out for them? They lost. The more that opposition
to Trump in office takes the same form as opposition to him on the campaign trail, the more hypocritical and counterproductive it
becomes. Further, the resistance to Trump's policies is coming just at the moment when principled opposition most needs to up its
game and help turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock. It's social conservatives who are also opposed to war and exploitation of
the working class who have the best moral bona fides to effectively oppose Trump, which is why morally phrased attacks on Trump from
the corporate and socially liberal wings of the left, as well as the free market and interventionist conservative establishment,
have failed and will continue to fail. Any real alternative is going to have to come from regular folks with hearts and morals who
aren't stained by decades of failure and hypocrisy.
A majority of Democrats now have
favorable views
of George W. Bush, and that's no coincidence. Like the supposedly reasonable anti-Trump voices on their side, Bush pops up like a
dutiful marionette to condemn white supremacy and
"nativism," and to
reminisce about the good old days when he was in charge. Bush also lectures about how Russia is ruining everything by meddling in
elections and destabilizing the world. But how convincing is it really to hear about multilateralism and respect for human rights
from Bush, who launched an unnecessary war on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left thousands of American
servicemen and women dead and wounded? How convincing is it when former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously remarked
that an estimated half a million Iraqis dead from our 1990s sanctions was "worth it," haughtily claims that she's
"offended" by Trump's travel ban ? "Offended" -- is that so, Madame Secretary? I have a feeling millions of Muslims in the Middle
East may have also been "offended" when people like you helped inflame their region and turned it into an endless back-and-forth
firestorm of conflict between U.S.-backed dictators and brutal jihadists, with everyone else caught in between.
Maybe instead of being offended that not everyone can come to America, people like Albright, Kerry, and Bush shouldn't have contributed
to the conditions that wrecked those people's homes in the first place? Maybe the U.S. government should think more closely about
providing military aid to 73 percent of the world's dictatorships? Sorry, do excuse the crazy talk. Clearly all the ruthless
maneuvering by the U.S. and NATO is just being done out of a selfless desire to spread democratic values by raining down LGBT-friendly
munitions on beleaguered populations worldwide. Another congressman just gave a speech about brave democratic principles so we can
all relax.
Generally, U.S. leaders like to team up with dictators before turning on them when they become inconvenient or start to upset
full-spectrum dominance. Nobody have should been surprised to see John Kerry fraternizing in a friendly manner with Syrian butcher
Bashar al-Assad and then moralistically threatening him with war several years later, or Donald Rumsfeld grinning with Saddam Hussein
as they cooperated militarily before Rumsfeld did an about-face on the naïve dictator based on false premises after 9/11. Here's
former president Barack Obama
shaking Moammar Gaddafi's hand in 2009 . I wonder what became of Mr. Gaddafi?
It's beyond parody to hear someone like Bush sternly opine that there's
"pretty clear evidence" Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Even if that were deeply significant in the way some argue, Bush
should be the last person anyone is hearing from about it. It's all good, though: remember when Bush
laughed about how there hadn't been weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2004? It's all just a joke; don't you get it? (Maybe Saddam Hussein had already
used all the chemical weapons
the U.S. helped him get during the 1980s on Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which killed over one million people by the time the coalition
of the willing came knocking in 2003). That's the kind of thing people like Bush like to indirectly joke about in the company of
self-satisfied press ghouls at celebratory dinners. However, when the mean man Mr. Trump pals around with Russian baddie Vladimir
Putin, mistreats women, or spews out unkind rhetoric about "shitholes," it's far from a joke: it's time to get out your two-eared
pink hat and hit the streets chanting in righteous outrage.
To be fair, Trump is worthy of opposition. An ignorant, reactive egotist who needs to have his unfounded suppositions and inaccuracies
constantly validated by a sycophantic staff of people who'd be rejected even for a reality show version of the White House, he really
is an unstable excuse for a leader and an inveterate misogynist and all the other things. Trump isn't exactly Bible Belt material
despite his stamp of approval from Jerry Falwell Jr. and crew; in fact he hasn't even succeeded in
getting rid of the Johnson Amendment and allowing churches to get more involved in politics, one of his few concrete promises
to Christian conservatives. He's also a big red button of a disaster in almost every other area as commander-in-chief.
Trump's first military action as president reportedly killed numerous innocent women and children (some unnamed U.S. officials
claim some of the women were militants) as well as a Navy SEAL. Helicopter gunships strafed a Yemeni village for over an hour in
what Trump called a
"highly successful" operation against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). A senior military official felt differently,
saying that
"almost
everything went wrong." The raid even killed eight-year-old American girl Nawar al-Awlaki, daughter of previously killed extremist
leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whose other innocent child, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also droned while eating outdoors at a
restaurant in 2010 (with several friends and his 17-year-old cousin). The Obama administration dismissed Abdulrahman's death at the
time as
no big deal .
The list goes on with the Trump administration, a hollow outfit of Goldman Sachs operatives and detached industry and financier
billionaires helping out their hedge fund friends and throwing a small table scrap to the peasants every now and then. As
deformed babies are born in Flint, Michigan , Ivanka grandstands about
paid parental leave
. Meanwhile, Trump and Co. work to
expand the war in Afghanistan
and Syria. It's a sad state of affairs.
So who are the right voices to oppose the mango man-child and his cadre of doddering dullards? Not degenerate celebrities, dirty
politicians of the past, or special interest groups that try to fit everyone into a narrow electoral box so mainline Democrats can
pass their own version of corporate welfare and run wars with more sensitive rhetoric and politically correct messaging. Instead,
the effective dissidents of the future will be people of various beliefs, but especially the pro-family and faith-driven, who are
just as opposed to what came before Trump as they are to him. The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying
liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative
individuals who define their own destinies instead of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational
corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity outreach strategies. It's possible, for example, to be socially conservative,
pro-worker, pro-environment, and anti-war. In fact, that is the norm in most countries that exist outside the false political
paradigm pushed in America.
If enough suburbanite centrists who take a break from Dancing With The Stars are convinced that Trump is bad because
George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright say so, it shows that these people have learned absolutely nothing from Trump or the process
that led to him. These kind of resistors are the people nodding their heads emphatically as they read Eliot Cohen talk about why
he and his friends
can't stomach the evil stench of Trump or
Robert Kagan whine about fascism in The Washington Post. Here's a warning to good people who may not have been following
politics closely prior to Trump: don't get taken in by these charlatans. Don't listen to those who burned your town down as they
pitch you the contract to rebuild it. You can oppose both the leaders of the "Resistance" and Trump. In fact, it is your moral duty
to do so. This is the End of the End of History As We Know It, but there isn't going to be an REM song or Will Smith punching an
alien in the face to help everyone through it.
Here's a thought for those finding themselves enthusiastic about the Resistance and horrified by Trump: maybe, just maybe
, the water was already starting to boil before you cried out in pain and alarm.
Paul Brian is a freelance journalist. He has reported for BBC, Reuters, and Foreign Policy, and contributed to the Week, The
Federalist, and others. He covered the fledgling U.S. alt-right at a 2014 conference in Hungary as well as the 2015 New Hampshire
primary, and also made a documentary about his time living in the Republic of Georgia in 2012. You can follow him on Twitter @paulrbrian
or visit his website www.paulrbrian.com .
"The future of a meaningful political alternative to the underlying liberalism, materialism, and me-first individualism on the
left and right will revolve around traditionalists and pro-family conservative individuals who define their own destinies instead
of letting themselves be engineered into destinies manufactured by multinational corporations and boardroom gremlins with diversity
outreach strategies."
They will have to lose their faith in "Free Market God" first. I don't believe that will happen.
I enjoyed the heat. The comments made are on point, and this is pretty much what my standard response to reactionary trump dissidents
are. Trump is terrible, but so is what came before him, he is just easier to dislike.
Even with inadequate opposition, Trump has managed to be the most unpopular president after one year, ever. I'm guessing this
speaks to his unique talent of messing things up.
Wow! Paul! Babylon burning. Preach it, brother! Takes me back to my teenage years, Ramparts 1968, as another corrupt infrastructure
caught fire and burned down. TAC is amazing, the only place to find this in true form.
Either we are history remembering fossils soon gone, or the next financial crash – now inevitable with passage of tax reform
(redo of 2001- the rich got their money out, now full speed off the cliff), will bring down this whole mass of absolute corruption.
What do you think will happen when Trump is faced with a true crisis? They're selling off the floorboards. What can remain standing?
And elsewhere in the world, who, in their right mind, would help us? Good riddance to truly dangerous pathology. The world
would truly become safer with the USA decommissioned, and then restored, through honest travail, to humility, and humanity.
You are right. Be with small town, front porch, family and neighborhood goodness, and dodge the crashing embers.
The Flying Burrito Brothers: 'On the thirty-first floor a gold plated door
Won't keep out the Lord's burning rain '
The depressing thing to me is how hard it is to get people to see this. You have people who still think Trump is doing a great
job and on the other side people who admire the warmongering Resistance and think Hillary's vast experience in foreign policy
was one of her strengths, rather than one of the main reasons to be disgusted by her. Between the two categories I think you have
the majority of American voters.
U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated
campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump,
delivering on his initial mandate by the Justice Department.
In an indictment disclosed in Washington on Friday, Mueller describes a sweeping,
years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing
Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump. He charged 13 Russian
nationals and three Russian entities and accused them of defrauding the U.S. government by
interfering with the political process.
The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, and the defendants began working
in 2014 to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment. They used false
personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with
"unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
The documents point to a broader conspiracy beyond the pages of the indictment, saying
the grand jury has heard about other people with whom the Russians allegedly conspired in
their efforts.
Bloomberg News cited a "person with knowledge" of Mueller's investigation in a report on
Friday afternoon to note that this indictment is just the beginning of actions to be expected
and avenues to be explored by Mueller in the coming months ahead. Bloomberg's Chris Strohm
wrote .:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors haven't concluded their investigation
into whether President Donald Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the
2016 election, according to a person with knowledge of the probe. Friday's indictment of a
St. Petersburg-based "troll farm" and 13 Russian nationals should be seen as a limited slice
of a comprehensive investigation, the person said. Mueller's work is expected to continue for
months and also includes examining potential obstruction of justice by Trump, said the
person, who requested anonymity to discuss an investigation that is largely confidential.
The indictment targets 13 Russians as well as Internet Research Agency, LLC, which is a
Saint Petersburg-based organization that pushes influence operations on behalf of the Russian
government. The indictment alleges that those 13 Russians and Internet Research Agency, as well
as fellow Russian firms Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering,
knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown
to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the
lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering
with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of
2016.
The scheme, the indictment alleges, began as far back as 2014 and continued until after the
2016 presidential election. U.S. intelligence authorities and officials say the Russians intend
to engage in similar actions in 2018's midterm elections here in the United States, and future
elections thereafter.
While the indictment does not say how much money these Russian entities spent on this, it
does say that Concord and Russian oligarch and Vladimir Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin "spent
significant funds to further" the operations of Internet Research Agency and "to pay the
remaining defendants" along with others not charged in this indictment but employed by Internet
Research Agency.
In a Friday report filed from Saint Petersburg, the New York Times' Neil
MacFarqhuar noted that Prigozhin is a Russian oligarch with deep connections to Putin.
"Despite his humble, troubled youth, Mr. Prigozhin became one of Russia's richest men,
joining a charmed circle whose members often share one particular attribute: their proximity to
President Vladimir V. Putin," MacFarqhuar wrote
. "The small club of loyalists who gain Mr. Putin's trust often feast, as Mr. Prigozhin has, on
enormous state contracts. In return, they are expected to provide other, darker services to the
Kremlin as needed."
Prigozhin himself, per the Times quoting him via Russian state media outlet Ria
Novosti, responded to the indictment in dark terms.
"The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see," Prigozhin
said. "I have a lot of respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If
they want to see the devil, let them see him."
The Mueller indictment alleges that these Russian actors engaged in paid and other social
media efforts as well as staging political rallies and sowing discord in the United States
using identity politics by propping up causes like Black Lives Matter, pro-Islamic causes,
religious entities, and more. And they did it by posing as U.S. persons with falsified or
stolen identities. The indictment reads:
Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media
pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed
divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists
when, in fact they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities
of real U.S. to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these
social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for
purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election
of 2016." Some of these Russia-based Defendants, the indictment alleges, "traveled to the
United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence" and obtained
and "procured and used computer infrastructure" that was partially American-based "to hide
the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law
enforcement.
The indictment also details contacts that these Russians, posing as Americans with assumed
or stolen identities, had multiple contacts with "unwitting" campaign officials with President
Trump's campaign.
Internet Research Agency, the indictment says, had a "strategic goal to sow discord in the
U.S. political system" and that the Defendants "posted derogatory information about a number of
candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the
presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ('Trump Campaign') and disparaging
Hillary Clinton." The indictment reads:
Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying
political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities.
Defendants also stages political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S.
grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and
ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage
candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian
association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and
with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller's investigation after the
recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said in a press appearance announcing these
indictments that no real U.S. persons who communicated with these fake U.S. persons who were
really Russians actually knew that they were talking with Russians about these activities.
Presumably, Rosenstein's comments would include the various Trump campaign officials and
associates who were in contact with them. Rosenstein said at the press conference:
There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge, and the
nature of the scheme was the Defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear as though
they were ordinary American political activists even going so far as to base their activities
on a virtual private network based here in the United States. If anybody traced it back to
that first jump, they would appear to be Americans.
Rosenstein also said there is nothing in this indictment that suggests that the outcome of
the election was impacted. "There is no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the
outcome of the election," Rosenstein said.
But the allegation does detail a sophisticated scheme by which Russians tried to influence
the American political discourse at such a volatile time in U.S. politics -- and that they did
it through "fraud and deceit" by "making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S.
presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure" and "failing to register as foreign
agents carrying out political activities within the United States" as well as "obtaining visas
through false and fraudulent statements."
The indicted Russian organization Internet Research Agency allegedly created a team of
"specialists" who were "tasked to create social media accounts that appeared to be operated by
U.S. persons" then "divided into day-shift and night-shift hours and instructed to make posts
in accordance with the appropriate U.S. time zone." Internet Research Agency also allegedly
"circulated lists of U.S. holidays so that specialists could develop and post appropriate
account activity" and that said specialists were "instructed to write about topics germane to
the United States such as U.S. foreign policy and U.S. economic issues."
They created social media groups designed to enflame the fringes of American society,
including pushing Black Lives Matter, immigration control, religious groups, and certain
geographic areas inside the United States. Examples cited in the indictment include accounts
called things like Blacktivist, United Muslims of America, Army of Jesus, Secured Borders,
South United, and Heart of Texas.
"By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands
of online followers," the indictment says.
The Defendants also allegedly bought social media ads starting in or around 2015 designed to
promote their controlled entities, "spending thousands of U.S. dollars every month." They
falsely made a Twitter account called @TEN_GOP to make it appear as though they were the
Republican Party of Tennessee, a major political party in a U.S. State.
As Rosenstein detailed in the press conference, the indictment also explains how the
Russians allegedly hid their Russian identities by buying "space on computer servers located
inside the United States in order to set up virtual private networks ('VPNs')."
"Defendants and their co-conspirators connected from Russia to the U.S.-based infrastructure
by way of these VPNs and conducted activity inside the United States -- including accessing
online social media accounts, opening new accounts, and communicating with real U.S. persons --
while masking the Russian origin and control of the activity," the indictment says.
They also stole U.S. persons' identities -- or used stolen identities -- to engage in this
scheme so they could create PayPal accounts. The indictment says:
In or around 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators also used, possessed, and
transferred, without lawful authority, the social security numbers and dates of birth of real
U.S. persons without those persons' knowledge or consent. Using these means of
identification, Defendants and their co-conspirators opened account at PayPal, a digital
payment service provider; created false means of identification, including fake driver's
licenses; and posted on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts using the identities of
these U.S. victims. Defendants and their co-conspirators also obtained, and attempted to
obtain, false identification documents to use as proof of identity in connection with
maintaining accounts and purchasing advertisements on social media sites.
Regarding the 2016 election, the Defendants' efforts began per the indictment as far back as
2014 -- and over time became clearer as to their intentions. "They engaged in operations
primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate
other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and
then-candidate Donald Trump," the indictment says.
In line-item number 45 on page 17 of the indictment, it says that the Russians "also used
false U.S. personas to communicate with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the
Trump Campaign involved in local community outreach, as well as grassroots groups that
supported then-candidate Trump."
"These individuals [the American Trump backers referenced] and entities at times distributed
the ORGANIZATION's materials through their own accounts via retweets, reposts, and similar
means," the indictment says. "Defendants and their co-conspirators then monitored the
propagation of content through such participants."
In addition, via an Instagram account controlled by the Russian Internet Research Agency
called "Woke Blacks," in the weeks before the general election the account encouraged American
minorities not to vote at all. Another Russian-controlled Instagram account called
"Blacktivist" urged black people to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, something that
would hurt Hillary Clinton's chances. And in early November 2016, the indictment says a Russian
controlled "United Muslims of America" account encouraged Muslims not to vote for Clinton.
The indictment also says that the Russians from April 2016 through November 2016, while
using false identities, "began to produce, purchase, and post advertisements on U.S. social
media and other online sites expressly advocating for the election of then-candidate Trump or
expressly opposing Clinton."
"Defendants and their co-conspirators did not report their expenditures to the Federal
Election Commission, or register as foreign agents with the U.S. Department of Justice," the
indictment says about the ads.
In addition, to pay for the ads, the Russians "established various Russian bank accounts and
credit cards, often registered in the names of fictitious U.S. personas created and used by the
ORGANIZATION on social media." They also allegedly used PayPal accounts.
The ads, several examples of which are detailed on line-item number 50 in the indictment on
page number 20, are expressly political pleas to vote for Trump or oppose Clinton.
Perhaps even more significantly, the indictment alleges that these Russian operatives
engaged in the staging of political rallies in the United States to further their objectives,
starting approximately in June 2016.
"To conceal the fact that they were based in Russia, Defendants and their co-conspirators
promoted these rallies while pretending to be U.S. grassroots activists who were located in the
United States but were unable to meet or participate in person," the indictment says, adding
that the Russians used their social media presence and contacts at they had spent years
building to promote the rallies.
One particularly interesting tidbit comes on line-item 53 on page 21, where it says the
Russian-controlled group "United Muslims of America" promoted a rally titled: "Support Hillary.
Save American Muslims," a July 9, 2016 rally in Washington, D.C.
"Defendants and their co-conspirators recruited a real U.S. person to hold a sign depicting
Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating 'I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new
direction of freedom,'" the indictment says. "Within three weeks, on or about July 26, 2016,
Defendants and their co-conspirators posted on the same Facebook page that Muslim voters were
'between Hillary Clinton and a hard place.'"
In June, July, and August 2016, the indictment says, other pro-Trump Russian-controlled
social media accounts organized and promoted a variety of pro-Trump or anti-Clinton rallies in
New York and "offered money to certain U.S. persons to cover rally expenses."
They also pushed to create pro-Trump rallies in Florida around this time, and in
Pennsylvania. Then, after the election, the Russians organized rallies for and against
then-President-elect Donald Trump.
In the case of the Florida efforts, the indictment details how the Russians created a false
U.S. persona named "Matt Skiber" in August 2016 to communicate with real people connected with
the Trump campaign. The indictment says:
On or about August 15, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators received an email at one
of their false U.S. persona accounts from a real U.S. person, a Florida-based political
activist identified as the 'Chair of the Trump Campaign' in a particular Florida county. The
activist identified two additional sites in Florida for possible rallies. Defendants and
their co-conspirators subsequently used their false U.S. persona accounts to communicate with
the activist about logistics and an additional rally in Florida.
The Russians then allegedly used an Instagram account they controlled to buy ads to push the
rally. The indictment continues:
On or about August 18, 2016, the real 'Florida for Trump' Facebook account responded to
the false U.S. persona 'Matt Skiber' account with instructions to contact a member of the
Trump Campaign ('Campaign Official 1') involved in the campaign's Florida operations and
provided Campaign Official 1's email address at the campaign domain donaldtrump.com. On
approximately the same day, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the email address of a
false U.S. persona, [email protected], to send an email to Campaign Official 1 at that
donaldtrump.com email account
In the email, which is partially quoted, the Russian posing an American writes to the
unidentified unassuming Trump campaign official that they are organizing a rally on Aug. 20,
2016, to support Trump. The Russian wrote:
Let us introduce ourselves first. 'Being Patriotic' is a grassroots conservative online
movement trying to unite people offline [W]e gained a huge lot of followers and decided to
somehow help Mr. Trump get elected. You know, simple yelling on the Internet is not enough.
There should be real action. We organized rallies in New York before. Now we're focusing on
purple states such as Florida.
The email, per the indictment, identifies "thirteen 'confirmed locations' in Florida for the
rallies and requested the campaign provide 'assistance in each location.'"
They also sent money via wire transfer to a separate U.S. person "to build a cage large
enough to hold an actress depicting Clinton in a prison uniform" then communicated again with a
second Trump campaign official via official email -- and then the Russians used the fake "Matt
Skiber" Facebook account to communicate with a real third Trump campaign official in Florida.
The indictment then details several other rallies in Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania that
the fake Russians helped organize, including payment via interstate wire transfer for
costs.
That all is part of count one in the indictment, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Count two, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud, as well as counts three through
eight -- all Aggravated Identity Theft charges -- all build upon many of the revelations in the
first part of the indictment.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the
defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced
- to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false
personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with
"unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of
Soros' org would be guilty of the same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the
main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
The United States, which has interfered in the domestic affairs of nearly every country on
the planet, including not only elections but armed attacks, government overthrows and
assassinations, was terribly hurt by some Facebook ads placed by people who conspired to
defraud this helpless government. The horrors!
from the indictment
From in or around 2014 to the present, in the Dustrict of Columbia and elsewhere,
Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the grand Jury, knowingly and
intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and
defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for
disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities. . . here
"... Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything bad that happens in the world. ..."
"... No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling. ..."
For a very simple reason. The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves. They wanted Hillary to win, badly, but
were not willing to risk too much for her. James Comey in particular cares about James Comey. Remember, this is a guy who views
himself as a historical Religious Figure. He wanted to be able to serve out a full 10 year term. He wanted to please his Democratic
masters enough to avoid being fired by either Obama or Clinton, but not too much to gain excessive ire from Congress. He was afraid
that a Republican Congress under a future Clinton Administration would go after him tooth and nail if he "concealed" new evidence
against Clinton prior to the election - especially since he promised the Congress that he would inform them of new developments.
And Comey probably feared the worst as to what was in Wiener's email archive. When they finally went through that archive, and
failed to find much that was new, he must have breathed a sigh of relief - only to see the wrong person win the election.
The political system in the US is a near complete failure. On one hand the massive levels of corruption legalized in Citizen's
United give influence over political decisions to wealthy elites previously unseen outside of the deeply corrupted and criminal
Russian oligarchy. On the other hand and synergistic with the previous point, the least informed and most easily influenced of
people have votes equal in weight to highly informed, well-educated, expert and professional practitioners.
Rights guaranteed by a difficult-to-alter constitution combined with easily managed and easily created social media content
based on opaque sources of emotionally charged, unverified and unverifiable information have gained control over public opinion
(making alteration of our constitution even more difficult.)
And look at the fourth (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump) wave of Republican explosion of national debt under the banner of "fiscal
responsibility."
It is astounding how "A" can be so successfully marketed as "B."
I am afraid that once control of public opinion has been so successfully attained in our form of democracy/legalized-corruption
that there is no way to recover.
It is a sad state of affairs. I'd love to hear solutions.
Great piece by Merry. Not new, but worthy of repetition when presented clearly like this.
It does not matter what you call it, Deep State or something else. What Merry says about the threat it poses to what remnants
of democracy we have is true.
I prefer to call it the Imperial State since its highest priority is the US Empire, with domestic well-being simply an afterthought
or of no cosequence at all.
There is only ONE country that consistently "messes" in the politics of nearly every other country on the planet and that is
not Russia.
It is the USA Deep State. I challenge you to research the evidence, "hidden in plain sight", of these examples:
1) US
money that flowed into France and Italy elections after WW2;
2) overthrow of Greece elected pres in 1974 by US-friendly generals;
3) overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile 1973;
4) overthrow of Iran Mossadegh in 1953;
5) overthrow of neutral govt in Indonesia
in early '60s;
6) the massive money that flowed into Russia in 1996 to get Yeltsin re-elected;
7) the money and attention US put
into overthrowing legally elected govt in Ukraine in 2014.
That is just a VERY short list.
NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS MAINTAINED THIS FRANTIC PACE OF MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS/MEDDLING/BRIBING/OVERTHROWING/BOMBING/INVADING/DEATH-SQUADing
FOREIGN POLITICAL SYSTEMS FOR 70 YEARS LIKE YOUR "GOOD OLE USA", powered by it's un-elected Deep State.
Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The
Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything
bad that happens in the world.
No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records
of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling.
You're right, Kelly, about some of your points. Evil: check. Kill: check. Steal: check. Co-opting the largest per capita criminal
network in the world: check.
Note: this article is part of asymposiumincluded in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
OF COURSE there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells us that power corrupts,
as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched, it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched
in secrecy, it will be abused in secret. That's the Deep State. James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political
theorist (1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941 that the great political development
of the age was not the battle between communism and capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance
in business, finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it, would be resisted, but
it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle
and stealthy ways, they would exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to protect themselves
from those who might want to bust them up.
Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy than in what Dwight Eisenhower called
the military-industrial complex, augmented by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive
for global hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of dominance.
Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as in Cold War days. We have also permanent
wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's
how power gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State endures.
Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump campaign "collusion" with Russia,
or how the investigation into those troubling allegations emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.
We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that Russia and President Putin were behind
the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really
a National Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence analysis) but rather the
work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine intelligence officer and arms-control official,
put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia NIA casts a shadow over the
viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion
and short on evidence. Even the New York Timesinitially derided
the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to 'trust us.'"
We have substantial reason to believe that an unconfirmed salacious report on Trump, paid for by the Democratic Party and the
Hillary Clinton campaign (with the FBI eventually getting hold of it), was used in an effort to get a secret national-security warrant
so the government could spy on the Trump campaign. We know that the FBI went easy on Clinton in its investigation of her irresponsible
email practices, and then we find out that a top FBI official involved in both the Clinton and Trump/Russia investigations despised
Trump, liked Hillary and expressed an interest in doing what he could to thwart Trump's emergence. We know he
privately told his lover
that, while he didn't think Trump could win, he nevertheless felt a need for an "insurance policy" because "I'm afraid we can't take
that risk." We know these matters were discussed in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.
We know further that former FBI director James Comey used a cutout to leak to the press a rendition of an Oval Office conversation
with the president that could be interpreted adversely to Trump. We know he did this to set in motion the appointment of an independent
investigator, a potentially mortal threat to any president -- and perhaps particularly to this freewheeling billionaire developer.
Perhaps most significant, we know that all this had the effect of wrenching from the president the flexibility to pursue a policy
agenda on which he had campaigned -- and which presumably contributed to his election. That was his promise to work toward improved
relations between the United States and Russia. Prospects for such a diplomatic initiative now are as dead as the dodo bird. Trump
lost that one. The Deep State won.
I don't believe there is a secret 'deep state' controlling the USA from the shadows like some Bond villian.
What people call the deep state is in fact the interests of the business elite who have been granted nearly unprecedented political
influence by the American people in the form or nearly unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who promote their interests,
unregulated lobbying, control of the MSM and the funding of think tanks and other institutions that promote their interests.
When historians look back at this time it will be Madison Avenue and the revolution in persuasion that they study.
1934 Major General Smedley Butler, US Marine Corp, was asked by US Industrialists to help them overthrow the government. Roosevelt
was to remain as the figurehead of the US but the industrialists would be in charge. The industrialist would supply Butler with
a 500,000 man army that he would be in charge of. Butler's father was a congressman in the 1920's and Butler told congress of
the possible Coup. Read of The Committee of Foreign Affairs, CFA.
Teddy Roosevelt and the Presidents that followed him understood the dangers of the Robber-Barons buying the government. That's
why they launched anti-trust, income tax and estate taxes to protect democracy.
The problem is not that the "deep state" is thwarting Trump's policy agenda. It is his reliance on advisers who agree with the
post–Cold War foreign-policy consensus.
"... History informed his judgement. "The means of defense against foreign danger," he said, "have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." ..."
"... National Security and Double Government ..."
"... Christopher A. Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of ..."
AMERICA'S FOUNDERS anticipated how a sprawling national-security state could subvert the
popular will, and even endanger the nation's interests. James Madison told his fellow delegates at the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, "A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty."
History informed his judgement. "The means of defense against foreign danger," he said,
"have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
George Washington agreed. In his Farewell Address, the general turned president advised his
countrymen to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any
form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty."
Another general-president, Dwight Eisenhower, echoed these concerns. He worried that the
evolving "military-industrial complex" would acquire "unwarranted influence" and "endanger our
liberties or democratic processes." "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," he continued,
"can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Alas, the citizenry is neither alert nor knowledgeable.
Which means that the actual conduct of foreign policy falls to what Michael Glennon dubbed
the Trumanites: "the network of several hundred high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic,
and law enforcement officials within the executive branch who are responsible for making
national security policymaking." And within that executive branch, Glennon concludes in his
book National Security and Double
Government , "The President . . . exercises little substantive control over the
overall direction of U.S. national security policy."
Even if you don't buy Glennon's argument, it seems likely that the men and women responsible
for executing U.S. foreign policy are uninterested in the views of the many Americans who
actually pay for the nation's wars, and the few Americans who fight them.
Defenders of the status quo like to argue that it survives because it works. The public is
wrong to doubt the wisdom of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the foreign-policy elite sees it,
the American people can't be expected to understand why we defend wealthy allies, deploy
hundreds of thousands of military personnel in numerous foreign countries and align ourselves
with some of the world's most reprehensible autocrats.
Dean Acheson, Truman's secretary of state, presumably spoke for many elites (though perhaps
too candidly) when he explained, "If you truly had a democracy and did what the people wanted,
you'd go wrong every time."
In this sense, it isn't merely inertia that explains why U.S. foreign policy remains on
autopilot, despite widespread public dissatisfaction with the status quo. Rather, it's the deep
state, doing what the deep state does.
Donald Trump tapped into the resentment engendered by the establishment's contempt for the
great unwashed. He has failed, so far at least, to dislodge the deep state and its policies.
Then again, maybe he never intended to roll back American primacy. After all, he promised
massive military spending increases, and expressed regret that we didn't take the Iraqis' oil.
Even his claim to have always opposed the Iraq War was a taradiddle. So there were ample
grounds for doubting that Trump would give the American people the foreign policy they wanted.
Maybe the deep state didn't thwart him?
The deep state obviously isn't all-powerful. After all, had the deep state gotten its way,
Donald J. Trump would never have come close to the Oval Office, let alone be sitting in it.
Now, given the power that we have erroneously invested in the office of the presidency,
critics of the deep state should rethink their opposition to it, and members of the deep state
should rethink their enthusiasm for a chief executive generally unencumbered by the Congress or
the people. The deep state doesn't control the @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed. It cannot stop
him from engaging in behavior that increases the risk of a catastrophic conflict. Perhaps we
should wish that it could?
But we should never welcome a situation in which unelected officials distort or ignore
public sentiments, or undertake policies that are demonstrably harmful to vital national
interests.
One year later we can say with confidence, yes he morphed into a neocon in foreign policy.
What is especially bad is that Trump executed "bait and switch" maneuver as smoothly as Obama. Devastating.
Notable quotes:
"... So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? ..."
"... Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view. ..."
"... I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street. ..."
"... It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start... ..."
"... While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative. ..."
"... Stop those wars. They don't serve us. ..."
"... Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam. ..."
"... Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle! ..."
Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. He was particularly critical of neoconservatives, who
seemed to back war at every turn.
Indeed, he promised not to include in his administration "those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except
responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war." And he's generally kept that commitment, for
instance rejecting as deputy secretary of state Elliot Abrams, who said Trump was unfit to be president.
Substantively candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical if not exactly realist, he
cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who had treated wars as moral crusades in Somalia, the
Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In contrast, Trump promised: "unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and
aggression will not be my first instinct."
Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal
interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.
The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. The president can speak and tweet, but he needs others to turn
ideas into reality and implement his directives. It doesn't appear that he has any foreign policy realists around him, or anyone
with a restrained view of America's international responsibilities.
Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and H. R. McMaster are all serious and talented, and none are neocons. But all seem inclined toward
traditional foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss's unconventional thoughts. Most of the names
mentioned for deputy secretary of state have been reliably hawkish, or some combination of hawk and centrist-Abrams, John Bolton,
the rewired Jon Huntsman.
Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about
which he is most obviously wrong. He's long been a protectionist (his anti-immigration opinions are of more recent vintage). Yet
his views have not changed even as circumstances have. The Chinese once artificially limited the value of the renminbi, but
recently have taken the opposite approach. The United States is not alone in losing manufacturing jobs, which are disappearing
around the world and won't be coming back. Multilateral trade agreements are rarely perfect, but they are not zero sum games.
They usually offer political as well as economic benefits. Trump does not seem prepared to acknowledge this, at least
rhetorically. Indeed he has brought on board virulent opponents of free trade such as Peter Navarro.
The administration's repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. Trump's decision embarrassed
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who had offered important economic concessions to join. More important, Trump has abandoned
the economic field to the People's Republic of China, which is pushing two different accords. Australia, among other U.S. allies,
has indicated that it now will deal with Beijing, which gets to set the Pacific trade agenda. In this instance, what's good for
China is bad for the United States.
In contrast, on more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as major victories and
move on. For years he criticized America's Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity. In his
March foreign policy speech, he complained that "our allies are not paying their fair share." During the campaign he suggested
refusing to honor NATO's Article 5 commitment and leave countries failing to make sufficient financial contributions to their
fate.
Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the very same alliances incorporating
dependence on America. Worse, in his speech to Congress the president took credit for the small uptick in military outlays by
European NATO members which actually began in 2015: "based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning" to "meet
their financial obligations." Although he declared with predictable exaggeration that "the money is pouring in," no one believes
that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit even the NATO
standard of two percent.
Trump's signature policy initiative, rapprochement with Russia, appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president's strange
personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable
conflicts with the America. Contrary to neocon history, Russia and America have often cooperated in the past. Moreover, President
Trump's attempt to improve relations faces strong ideological opposition from neoconservatives determined to have a new enemy and
partisan resistance from liberal Democrats committed to undermining the new administration.
President Trump also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue. At least Trump's first National
Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, wanted better relations with Russia, amid other, more dubious beliefs, but now the president seems
alone. In fact, Secretary Tillerson sounded like he was representing the Obama administration when he demanded Moscow's
withdrawal from Crimea, a policy nonstarter. Ambassador-designate Huntsman's views are unclear, but he will be constrained by the
State Department bureaucracy, which is at best unimaginative and at worst actively obstructionist.
"Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power
which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America."
I did my due diligence on the writer after this absolutely baffling argument that has no basis on certain fundamental laws
of geopolitics. Referring to this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/n...
So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? Figures...
Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S.
aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view.
And other say you're a sap for believing a bunch of half-baked one-liners that Trump often contradicted in the same sentence...
He never had a coherent policy on anything, no less foreign policy... so don't complain now that he's showing his true colors
The USA should FORCE other nations to use DIPLOMACY as a means to preventing wars. If they don't, they lose all support, financial
and otherwise, from the USA. This would include Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The only thing Trump should take a look at in all this
is the INHUMANE policies that previous administrations have used to placate the military/industrial clique's appetite for money
and blood! If it's going to be "America First" for Trump's administration, it better start diverting this blood money to shore
up America's people and infrastructures!
Most of these issues come down to the fact that President Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "grand strategy", or even
a coherent foreign policy. His views are often at odds with each other (his desire to counter China economically and his opposition
to the TPP, for example), and I suspect that most were motivated by a desire to get votes more than any kind of deep understanding
of global affairs.
Most of his supporters, at least from what I can tell, are actually quite resolutely against entering a new war, and are strongly
condemnatory of the neo-conservatism that involved the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, according to the polls taken at the time, more Democrats favored military intervention in Syria than Republicans did.
It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers.
On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian
programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington
hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in
long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and
did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start...
While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his
opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a
big step down from the alternative.
That does not excuse doing more of the same, but just asserts that we did get some of what we voted for/against.
We should get the rest of it. Stop those wars. They don't serve us.
There are similarities between Trump and Putin . The GOP and its rich corporate members have decided to use Trump as the oligarchs
in Russia used Yeltsin. The oligarchs used a drunken Yeltsin to pry the natural resources out of the public commons for the grabbing
by the oligarchs. Likewise, our rich are going to use an unwitting Trump to lower their taxes to nothing while delivering austerity
to the 99%.
To the oligarchs' surprise and dismay, Yeltsin's incompetence led to Putin and his scourge of the oligarchs. So will Trump's incompetence
lead to the end of our system of crony capitalism and the rebirth of socialism such as the New Deal, and higher taxes.
The crooked bastards can never be satisfied even with 3/4 ths of the whole pie, so no-one should pity them for being hoisted on
their own petard.
I'm sorry --- Trump had a foreign policy? As near as I can tell, he just said whatever the crowd in front of him wanted to
hear. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember that this is a man who can be shown, in his own words, to have been on
all sides of almost every issue, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.
He, they, the US, that is, must obey Israel. Israel wants Assad gone in the end for their territorial expansion. It also helps
the oil companies and isolates Russia further into a geostrategic corner.
This headline is way over the top. The first and foremost foreign policy statement which brought numerous voters to Trump was
the US-Mexico wall and at least some of that wall will be constructed. Hence it is the only promise which has not (yet) changed
except for who will pay for it.
Why must we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his campaign presentations were made in good faith? That is
a very generous assumption.
There's a simple and more logical explanation for what's going on with "foreign policy" in the "Trump" administration:
Trump's
a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam.
Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and
even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't
take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help
us. We are in a pickle!
The fundamental problem of exonerating Trump and blaming this non-reversal on the non-existing "deep state" is believing that
anything a candidate said on the campaign trail can be executed when that candidate becomes president. Such reversal has happened
so frequently in our history that it is truly amazing that " he does not do what he promised" still has adherents.
There is no reversal. I see reality clashing with words. I do not blame Trump for reversals. I see some shift from unrealistic
to more realistic. It is called learning on the job.
Every political position on the planet is stuck in the 80s. There is no one with a will to change what is happening, mostly
because no one wants to get tarred and feathered once the:
a) economy implodes upon itself in the most glorious Depression to
ever happen, and;
b) world war 3 erupts but engaging such a variety of opponents, from Islam to China and Russia and even minor
trivial players such as North Korea, and;
c) civil disobedience in the western world rivals that of even third world revolutions
as people revolt against a failure to protect them from Islamic violence, to preserve their standard of living and their perceived
futures. Lots of change coming, but nothing that any politician is promising.
Politicians are dinosaurs. We are entering a world
where large numbers of people will make things happen. It's called Democracy.
Trump will remain close to Putin ideologically and he might continue to admire the man as a strong leader BUT there is one
thing that neither Putin nor Trump can change and it is that Russia and America are natural rivals. Geopolitics. Land vs Sea.
Eurasia vs Atlantic. Heartland vs Outer Rim.
Trump is hawk, don't be mislead. You cannot have a great country if you're not willing
to kill and die for it. Russia knows that. Which is why Putin made Russia great again after the horror of the Yeltsin years. Now
America knows that too.
Is not "included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging
Hillary Clinton . " (or vise versa) by posting on social media an example of free speech ?
But usage of fake identities clearly is not: "The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some,
as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They
used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to
promote their activities."
The question is how those unquestionable very talented Russians managed to learn English language without living in the USA and
operate such a sophisticated operation from oversees? English is a very difficult language for Russians to master and
Russian immigrants who came to the USA being older then 16 and living in the USA for ten or twenty years typically still have
horrible accent and bad or very bad grammar (tenses, "a" and "the" usage, you name it). Actually Russian woman are noticeably better
then men in this area, especially if they are married to a US spouse. Ass to this dismal understanding of the USA politics
including differences between Democratic and Republican parties (you probably need to live in the USA for ten years to start
appreciate those differences ;-) . How they managed to learn local political culture to be effective? That's a strong argument
in favor of false flag operation -- in case they have puppeteers from the USA everything is more or less rationally explainable.
Notable quotes:
"... It gets better: the defendants reportedly worked day and night shifts to pump out messages, controlling pages targeting a range of issues, including immigration, Black Lives Matter, and they amassed hundreds of thousands of followers. They set up and used servers inside the U.S. to mask the Russian origin of the accounts. ..."
"... The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said. ..."
"... The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some, as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to promote their activities. ..."
"... Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton . ..."
"... Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016 ..."
"... Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked group that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans. The event was shared with 61,000 users. ..."
"... As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media reports at the time . ..."
"... 13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1 BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success. ..."
"... Indict AIPAC. That is the real foreign interference in ALL US elections. Such hypocrisy. At the very least, make them register as a foreign operation! Information warfare using social media ? What, you mean like the Israeli students who are paid to shape public opinion thru social media? This is no secret and has been in the news. I fail to find the difference? Psychologists call this projection, that is where you accuse others of the crimes you commit . ..."
"... It looks like Mueller would have these people for identity theft if he had them in the US, which he probably doesn't. ..."
"... Deep state pivot to keep the Russian hate alive. ..."
"... Fucking hilarious - Mueller has indicted an anti-Russian CIA operation that was run out of St. Petersburg. http://thesaker.is/a-brief-history-of-the-kremlin-trolls/ ..."
"... The bigger question is "when is Mueller going to be indicted for covering up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven??" ..."
Mueller charges "defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons
known and unknown to the Grand Jury)
to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing,
and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of
interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes,
including the presidential
election of 2016."
The indictment adds that the Russians "
were instructed to post content
that focused on 'politics in the USA' and to 'use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest
(except Sanders and Trump -- we support them)'
."
It gets better: the defendants reportedly worked day and night shifts to pump out messages,
controlling pages targeting a range of issues, including immigration, Black Lives Matter, and they
amassed hundreds of thousands of followers. They set up and used servers inside the U.S. to mask the
Russian origin of the accounts.
Ultimately, and this is the punchline,
the goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to
assist the election of Donald Trump.
In other words,
anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a
collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency -
and the
defendants began working in 2014
-
so one year before the Trump candidacy was even
announced
- to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and
communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
The Russians "had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system," according to the
indictment in Washington.
The Russians also reportedly bought advertisements on U.S. social media, created numerous Twitter
accounts designed to appear as if they were U.S. groups or people, according to the indictment. One
fake account, @TEN_GOP account, attracted more than 100,000 online followers.
The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some,
as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They
used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to
promote their activities.
The full list of named defendants in addition to the Internet Research Agency, as well as Concord
Management and Consulting and Concord Catering, include:
MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV,
MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK,
ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA,
ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA,
SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV,
MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA,
ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA,
DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV,
VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV,
GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO,
IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA,
VLADIMIR VENKOV
YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN
Mueller's office said that none of the defendants was in custody.
So how is Trump involved? Well, he isn't, as it now seems that collusion narrative is dead, and
instead Russian involvement was unilateral. Instead, according to the indictment, the Russian
operations were unsolicited and pro bono, and included "
supporting Trump... and disparaging
Hillary Clinton,' staging political rallies, buying political advertising while posing as grassroots
U.S. groups.
Oh, and communicating "
with unwitting individuals associated with the
Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
"
Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Defendants posted derogatory information
about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting
the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump
("Trump Campaign")
and
disparaging Hillary Clinton
.
Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those
activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons
and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing
as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and
ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage
candidates.
Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian
association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with
other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
Furthermore, the dastardly Russians created fake accounts to pretend they are Americans:
Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages
and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive
U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact,
they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons
to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts.
Over time, these social media
accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of
interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016
Mueller also alleges a combination of traditional and modern espionage...
Certain Defendants traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpose
of collecting intelligence to inform Defendants' operations.
Defendants also procured and
used computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of
their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.
Mueller also charges that two of the defendants received US visas and from approximately June 4,
2014 through June 26, 2014, KRYLOVA and BOGACHEVA "
traveled in and around the United States,
including stops in Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and
New York to gather intelligence, After the trip, KRYLOVA and BURCHIK exchanged an intelligence report
regarding the trip."
* * *
The indictment points to a broader conspiracy beyond the pages of the indictment,
saying
the grand jury has heard about other people with whom the Russians allegedly conspired in their
efforts.
I wonder if any of these Russians were behind the anti-Trump rallies
of November 2016?
Thousands attended protest organized by Russians on
Facebook.
Thousands of Americans attended a march last November organized by
a Russian group that used social media to interfere in the 2016
election.
The demonstration in New York City, which took place a few
days after the election, appears to be the largest and most
successful known effort to date pulled off by Russian-linked groups
intent on using social media platforms to influence American
politics.
Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a
Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for
BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked group that sought to capitalize on
racial tensions between black and white Americans. The event was
shared with 61,000 users.
As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually convened at
Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according
to media reports at the time
.
The BlackMattersUS-organized rally took advantage of outrage among
groups on the left following President Trump's victory on Nov. 8 to
galvanize support for its event. The group's protest was the fourth
consecutive anti-Trump rally in New York following election night,
and one of many across the country.
"Join us in the streets! Stop Trump and his bigoted
agenda!" reads the Facebook event page for the rally. "Divided is the
reason we just fell. We must unite despite our differences to stop
HATE from ruling the land."
13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State
Department spend $1 BIllion every year on opposition groups inside
Russia without success.
Indict AIPAC.
That is the real foreign
interference in ALL US elections. Such hypocrisy. At the
very least, make them register as a foreign operation! Information
warfare using social media
?
What,
you mean like the Israeli students who are paid
to shape public opinion
thru social media? This is
no secret and has been in the news. I fail to find the
difference? Psychologists call this projection, that is where
you
accuse others of the crimes you commit
.
Boy Hillary sure didnt get her money's worth. She
shoulda hired these people.
Is it ok for MSM for
to make all of their disparaging commentary, but
not ok for people to do the same? Mueller
mustve forgot about the craigslist ads hiring
protesters to attack Trump rallies. What a fucking
clown show.
I guess that's it Mueller gets his indictments
to save face and Trump is pleased its over.
This ties directly into the October 31, 2017
testimony from Facebook, Twitter and Google
regarding Russian media presence on social
media. Mueller is grasping here, and given that
it talks about visas granted for short visits,
I'm led to believe that most of these people are
actually not on US soil to be arrested. This
means political grandstanding via an indictment
that is never going to see a courtroom where the
evidence can be examined and witnesses can be
cross examined. It looks like Mueller would
have these people for identity theft if he had
them in the US, which he probably doesn't.
I'm going to get called a Russian bot over
this elsewhere. Well, maybe facetiously here.
#WeAreAllRussianBotsNow
Wow, I am going to have to keep the
radio off for a couple of days.
They are going to be wall to wall on
this. Maybe even bump the stories
where fakely sympathetic reporter
cunts (FSRC) ask mother's if they
miss their dead kids.
This is a
fucking clownshow anymore. Jesus,
THIS is what the investigation
brought home? Holy fuckshit, this
is a joke. Some guy had 100k
followers? Really? Like anyone GAF
about that? We have AIPAC making
candidates kneel before them and yet
some guys on Tweeter fucked around.
I think that is even bullshit. If
Russians really did that, they
wouldn't "work in shifts" they would
program some fucking bots to do
this.
I can just imagine the fake
outrage that that worthless kike
from NY Chuckie "don't get between
me and a camera" Schumer has to say
about this.
This is a Matrix alright, and a
cheap ass one at that.
Mueller should be taken out and
horsewhipped for bringing this shit
home.
Hey Mueller, I read a comment on
Yahoo news that was in broken
English. Go get um!
I was gonna vote for
Hillary then I read tweets where
she bullied the woman her husband
raped to keep quiet. And how her
foundation got hundreds of
$millions from countries with
business before her at the state
dept. ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA
KRYLOVA mislead me.
WANHUA CHEMICAL, A
$10
billion chemical company
controlled by the Chinese
government, now has an avenue
to influence American
elections.
On Monday, Wanhua joined
the American Chemistry
Council, a lobby organization
for chemical manufacturers
that is unusually aggressive
in intervening in U.S.
politics.
The ACC is a prominent
recipient of so-called dark
money -- that is, unlimited
amounts of cash from
corporations or
individuals the origins of
which are only disclosed to
the IRS, not the public.
During the
2012
,
2014
,
and
2016
election
cycles, the ACC took this dark
money and spent
over
$40 million
of it on
contributions to super PACs,
lobbying, and direct
expenditures. (Additional
money flowed directly to
candidates via the ACC's
political action
committee.).....
~" In other words, anyone
who was disparaging Clinton, may
have "unwittingly" been a
collaborator of the 13 Russian
"specialists" who cost Hillary
the election. "~
Wait,
does this mean that "disparaging
Hillary" was just for the
witless? I've been doing that for
years, (without any Russian
influence at all), and have found
it to be rather witty virtually
all the time.
Can we
NOW
get to the point where we appoint
a special prosecutor to
investigate Hillary?
any of us who
spread "fake news"
are now "conspirators" who
gave "support" to foreign
agents
with the goal of
undermining the "democratic
process"
by denying Hillary the
presidency.
tsk, tsk.
ignorance can be no excuse
for such wanton lawlessness.
Yes, Mueller is a clown
show, but he came up w/ this crap
in an attempt to divert media
attention away from his & McCabes
direct involvement in trying to
cover up Uranium 1 for
Hillary...The Truth!
The FBI going
DEEP
(#sarc)
into its playbook for this one.
Simultaneously distracting from their
incompetencies with regards to domestic
threats (school shooters/government
collusion to subvert presidential
election), and exonerating Hillary AGAIN.
"Using lies and deception to cover our
lies and deceptions, so that we can
enslave the populace to our will"
(visualize
Meuller/Comey/Strzok/Page/Ohr/Rosenstein/Obama/Rice/
with left hands on Satanic Bible and right
arms extended giving oath in Temple of
Mammon before upside down American flag).
The DoJ and Miller
activities are anti-American. What else is new
in occupied America?
PS
Note Trump does nothing about this
unprecedented assault on Freedom of Speech and
Assembly in the USA. Therefore, Trump is a
willing player in these criminal activities.
Mueller is going to go until he gets some meat.
Maybe this lean and stringy meat is enough to
satisfy. Of course, nobody will look at AIPAC and
all of the foreign influence money funneling into
senators coffers.
He said they stole identities, posting anti-Hillary remarks on
Russian-controlled sites, using the stolen identities. They must do that
through hacking, which is illegal.
They also organized rallies, he
said. There were ads on job sites, advertising for paid
[leftist] protestors, long before Trump emerged as a candidate. People
posted them on American sites. Some attribute it to Soros. I am a little
skeptical that Soros controls the world, anymore than Russians, but that
is what people often believe, when it is leftist ads.
Advertisements are all over the Internet. Is that illegal? He called
it fraud, referring to the misrepresentation of identity, I guess. They
should not be manipulating unknowing people.
But, I wonder if he has the same vigilance when illegal aliens use
fake SS cards to acquire jobs, while their girlfriends use real SS cards
of US-born kids to get $450 on average in EBT food assistance, in
addition to other welfare, making it easy for illegal aliens to undercut
American citizens in jobs. Using a fake SS number -- i.e. posing as an
American to get a job -- is fraud.
As long as the illegal aliens have sex after illegal border
crossings, reproduce and say they misrepresent their identities for the
good of their kids, this is legal and deserving of pay-per-birth welfare
/ child-tax-credit freebies and citizenship, whereas these Russians are
committing fraud.
They should not be doing that in either case, but the double standard
is interesting.
And if people cannot post freely on the internet without revealing
their real names, a lot of internet activity (and a lot of related
commerce) will cease. Many people post anonymously, often due to jobs or
other factors that have nothing to do with elections.
In fact, FBI agents post under identities (personas) that are not
their own. There are many articles, describing how police agencies
use fake identities on the internet to track down criminals, including
those who abuse children. They do the same thing to monitor terrorists;
they use fake identities.
Where are these indictments ? Obama, Hillary
Clinton, Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and John McCain.
The US has been meddling and interfering in other countries
elections and internal affairs for decades. Not only does
the US meddle and interfere in other countries elections it
overthrows democratically elected governments it simply
doesn't like, and then installs its own puppet leaders. Our
deep-state MIC owned neocons casually refer to this as
"regime change".
I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if
Russia fomented, paid for, and assisted in a violent
overthrow of the legitimately and democratically elected
government in Mexico. Imagine Russian spymasters working
from the Russian Embassy in Mexico City training radicals
how to use social media to bring out angry people and foment
violent pubic unrest. Then Russian Duma members in Mexico
City handing out tacos, and tamales emboldening and urging
these angry people to riot, and overthrow the government and
toss the bums out. Then Putin's executive group hand picking
all the new (anti-USA) drug cartel junta puppet leaders and
an old senile Russian senator in Mexico City stating at a
podium on RT, there are no drug cartels here, that's all
propaganda!
On the other side of the world Obama's neocon warmongers
spent billions doing exactly this. Instead of drug cartels
it was Banderist Neo-Nazis. Obama and our neocons, including
John McCain intentionally caused all of this fucking mess,
civil war and horrific death in Ukraine on Russia's border
and then placed the blame on Putin and Russia.
Thanks to John McCain and our evil fucking neocons - the
regime change policy implemented by Obama, Clinton and
Nuland's minions, like Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukraine today is
totally fucked. It is now a corrupt banana republic
embroiled in a bloody civil war. For the US and NATO the
golden prize of this violent undemocratic regime change was
supposed to be the Crimea. This scheme did not play out as
intended. No matter what sanctions the warmongering neocons
place on Russia they will NEVER give back the Crimea!
Our neocon fuck heads spent billions of our hard earned
taxpayer dollars to create pain, suffering, death and a
civil war in Ukraine on the border with
Russia.
This is a case of don't do what we do, only do what we
tell you to do. It's perfectly okay when we meddle. We don't
like it when we think it may have been done to us. It's
hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest!
Tech Camp NGO
- operating out of US
Embassy in Kiev
(using social media to help bring out radicals-and cause
civil war-pre Maidan 2013)
"... So, did Mueller address the crime committed by the then FBI head who refused to allow a FBI informant to address Congress on the Uranium One scam before it was authorized? Uh, that would be Mueller, his very self, so the answer is no. ..."
"... What is the definition of a "fake social media account"? What is the crime for operate a fake social medial account? Is this the standard by which we will all be judged? ..."
"... "In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election." No, not "in other words." That's not what he said at all. Idiot propagandist. ..."
"... And Hillary has done nothing criminal in the last 40 years. All of the evidence has been a fabrication. The Russians perfected time travel technology in the 70's, and have been conspiring against her and planting evidence since then. ..."
"... The goal of the MSM was the opposite. To unfairly disparage Trump and assist the election of Hillary Clinton. So why no indictments of members of the American MSM? ..."
"... What a bunch of horseshit. Mueller did nothing to locate just as much foreign or Russian support for Hillary. Grand Jury is just another one-sided court that passes judgment without any input from the other side. Now where have we seen that before? FISA. ..."
"... What is wrong with anyone doing what they want to support a candidate? If that is somehow illegal interference, why is Soros running loose in the world? ..."
"... I have a friend that was a US Federal Prosecutor. He once told me that the most un-American concepts that exist are grand juries and conspiracy laws. I'm sure he would have included FISA if it existed then. ..."
When does Mueller get charged? He is part of the fabric of the Clinton Gang along with Comey and others. How many people have
posted derogatory comments about Clinton on ZH alone. This sounds like when they ludicrously charged and entire unit of the Chinese
PLA.
Agreed, it's against the law to steal identities and operate bank accounts and all that. But really, compared to the fraud
committed by just one bank - Wells Fargo- this is smal small potatoes.
And did I miss it or did the indictment not even mention the value of the ads bought on Facebook - $100,000. (nope, not missing
any zeros).
And it all started in 2014 while Donald was playing golf and sticking his dick in some whore.
And a few ruskies got into the good ol USofA with false statements on their visas.
While the courts fought Trump on the fact that immigration from a few countries need to be stopped because there was not way
of checking data. I get it - somebody driving too fast gets a speeding ticket, and Muellers investigation gets to issue an indictment.
I'm sure we all feel better now.
So, did Mueller address the crime committed by the then FBI head who refused to allow a FBI informant to address Congress
on the Uranium One scam before it was authorized? Uh, that would be Mueller, his very self, so the answer is no.
What is the definition of a "fake social media account"? What is the crime for operate a fake social medial account? Is
this the standard by which we will all be judged?
Or is it that Mueller has NOTHING and is too big of a corrupt idiot to admit it.
Putin should define what a NGO is. He should tell the world how the US uses NGO's to destabilize elections. He wont do it because
he's digging tunnels for the big day.
"In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists"
who cost Hillary the election." No, not "in other words." That's not what he said at all. Idiot propagandist.
And Hillary has done nothing criminal in the last 40 years. All of the evidence has been a fabrication. The Russians perfected
time travel technology in the 70's, and have been conspiring against her and planting evidence since then.
What planet am I living on again? We have now stepped into the twilight zone. Facepalm.....
"Ultimately, and this is the punchline, the goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to assist the election of Donald Trump."
The goal of the MSM was the opposite. To unfairly disparage Trump and assist the election of Hillary Clinton. So why no
indictments of members of the American MSM?
What a bunch of horseshit. Mueller did nothing to locate just as much foreign or Russian support for Hillary. Grand Jury
is just another one-sided court that passes judgment without any input from the other side. Now where have we seen that before?
FISA.
What is wrong with anyone doing what they want to support a candidate? If that is somehow illegal interference, why is
Soros running loose in the world?
I have a friend that was a US Federal Prosecutor. He once told me that the most un-American concepts that exist are grand
juries and conspiracy laws. I'm sure he would have included FISA if it existed then.
The indictment adds that the Russians " were instructed to post content that focused on 'politics in the USA' and to 'use
any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump -- we support them)' ."
Criticizing Hillary Clinton constitutes election interference? This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Over half the United States said she was corrupt and morally bankrupt. Does that mean all those Americans interfered in the
election?
"Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals
associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
I thought this was our "shtick" for subverting and overthrowing government(s) since 194_?... Fast forward to 2012 and subverting
sovereign foreign government(s) using other means then election(s) ( https://jasirx.wordpress.com/
)
Just ask this person ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
) who handed out cookies before starting an "overthrow of a sovereign government" right before a Winter Olympics?... And while
we're on the subject of subversion of sovereign Nation(s) "OCONUS" ask this fat shit how it's going in the Middle East with it's
"partners" (
https://southfront.org/meeting-between-us-state-secretary-and-lebanese-
) Nor should we forget 22 within the Russian diplomatic community in the last 6 years "eliminated" for early retirement courtesy
of the U.S. government...
And if all this is true why isn't Muelller indicting government officials within the FBI Department of immigration and Homeland
Security that would allow "some defendants" to impersonate Americans after 9/11 and the security infrastructure we built around
U.S. to prevent "future attacks" that were obviously (here illegally)???...
What a complete load of horseshit. Waste of time and money while the crimes of the clintons and collaborators remain unpunished,
including Mueller himself.
"Mueller describes a sweeping, years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing Hillary
Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump"
Only in the idiot world of Liberalism and Conservatism is this not a laughable statement.
The idea that these "selected" analysts really understand "Russian thinking" and "Russian
interests" is highly questionable. The bottom line remains that Russia had ZERO POSSIBILITY
of actually influencing the election in favor of Trump at any point up the night of the
election itself.
And the Russians would know that. And they also know that despite the US' more extensive
efforts to influence Russian elections that the US has no chance of influencing the upcoming
election. Which means they understand this fact better than you do.
It's an interesting theory, but it pales in probability to the likelihood that Russiagate is
actually a disinformation operation run by the CIA.
It also fails to take into account the inevitable hiking of US hostility to Russia which
Putin has shown zero evidence of wanting to have happen and which would be the obvious result
of such a plan. Which as I say is precisely why he wouldn't do it because it is in no way in
Russia's interests, whether they got caught or not.
This is far more logical than the ICA and TTG's notions that Russia's interests would be
served by trying to do the impossible and actually mess with a US election.
And of course, there have been NO "solid clues" to any of this - just innuendo and
unsupported assertions by a pack of liars including Clapper, Brennan, and others.
A video has shown up on
Senator Bernie Sanders' Facebook page, with his name on it and his face in it making all the
familiar (to a small number of people) points about U.S. military spending (how much it is, how
it compares to the rest of the world, how it does not produce jobs, what wonders could be
achieved with a small fraction of it, etc.).
I wish there were mention of the fact that it kills huge numbers of people, or that it risks
apocalypse, or that it damages the earth's environment. I wish the alternatives proposed were
not all of the bring-our-war-dollars-home variety, as if the amount of money under
consideration were not enough to radically transform this and every other country.
Still, had Sanders put out this video in 2015, tens of thousands of people wouldn't have had
to petition him in
vain to oppose militarism, to fill the glaring gap in his website . I wouldn't have had to write
this or this or even
this
.
Sanders willingly subjected himself to endless accusations of raising taxes, rather than
declare that he would push for a small cut in military spending. Jeremy Corbyn has had greater
success -- albeit in a different country -- by taking the other approach. I continue to think
Sanders is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
It's not as if Sanders doesn't know the issues. A half-century back he would have said
something very close to what I want to hear. There's no reason why he can't do so now. But I'm
afraid that this video may have slipped through because there's not a presidential election
this year, and that such things will be nowhere to be found in the years ahead.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Sanders actually declares himself in favor of a serious
transfer of resources from militarism to human and environmental needs. As soon as he does,
I'll start advocating for all of us to work for his election. He can keep promoting the
Russiagate nonsense that was primarily invented to distract from the story of the DNC cheating
him. He can publicly commit to allowing the DNC to cheat him again. He can ask Saudi Arabia
again to kill even more people. But if he comes out against the military budget, that's the big
one. He will deserve the support he could have had last time.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency -
and the defendants began working
in 2014
-
so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced
- to interfere in U.S.
elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging
political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be gulty of
the same thing wouldn't they?
Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
Sounds to me like they're being indicted for exercising free
speech.
Does that only apply to citizens?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
It restricts
Congress
.
I believe political speech is the most protected form
of speech. I think there's a Supreme Court ruling on that
topic.
B-but the Russians
conspired
... to commit free
speech. They
obstructed
... by
speaking
.
(The story doesn't mention if what was said was true.)
Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money.
I'm re-posting this from an earlier post someone else made.
The Internet Research Agency is a CIA hacking group!
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin
trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin's
favorite chef," came from one source, a group of CIA spies
that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty,
for their collective online persona.
So 13 Russians managed materially influence the USA elections. Nice... As ne ZeroHedge
commenter noted "13 Russians can change the course of US history by going on-line and posting
stuff. Okay, sure I buy that BS"
For starters, MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV is the former head of the Police in Moscow...While
Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin is a businessman(Friend of Putin) with high-end Russian
restaurants all across the country(In Russia).
So now Russia will go after the NSA trolls and charge them with interfering with their
election, which we did do...
Part of the PsyOps going on as the US public (and really much of the world) becomes MORE
and MORE familiar with the Deep State operation undertaken by three letter agencies, FBI and
DOJ, and the White House in 2016 and expanded after Nov 2016. The Special Council now needs
to provide material to the rabid "Resist" crowd, and even though this entire set of
indictments cannot possibly demonstrate a material alteration of election results, in so
large a country as the USA, this would serve to feed the crowd who will believe this all to
be "definitive". These are primarily political battles, since no one is going to bring
Russian nationals over to the USA to serve time. This helps also to show "results" of the
expensive and mostly useless Special Counsel project.
Around page 12 the indictments says a total of two (2) Russian nationals entered the US
and toured for a short while. How they were able to get rally permits, hand out fliers
organize speakers etc isn't stated. So those claims remain entirely bogus.
The rest of the nefarious plot includes re-posting articles from the MSM or BLM sites...
zero impact... Pathetic nonsense.
Meanwhile Israeli agents and dual-passport types pour hundreds of millions into the
election. Crickets.
Plan: using students who go on delegations abroad on behalf of the Union (approximately
250 students a year) for hasbara purposes. Before each delegation the students will undergo
a hasbara workshop on behalf of the Ministry of Hasbara, which will give them the tools and
information to contend with the questions and the critical salvos and the ability to
present in their stead "a different Israel."
After selecting the students for a delegation, the students will undergo a hasbara
workshop given on behalf of the Ministry of Hasbara, where the logistics are coordinated by
the Department head. This training will be a condition for the student's going on any
delegation this year.
"With Israel coming under ever-increasing criticism for its human rights abuses and war
crimes against Palestinians and other Arabs, changing the subject is a common tactic for
Israel's PR flacks and official propaganda or hasbara efforts .
Attempting to shift the conversation over to Israeli technology in this way is sometimes
dubbed " techwashing ." Similar tactics include " greenwashing " – the effort to
market Israel as supposedly environmentally friendly (something Israel21c is involved in too ) – and "
pinkwashing "
– the effort to market Israel as LGBT-friendly and progressive as well as a welcoming
destination for
gay-male sex tourism .
The main point about such cynical strategies is that, even were these stories all true,
it would not in any way mitigate Israeli atrocities , such as its most recent round of
slaughter in the Gaza
Strip "
"But in fact, these are campaigns of organized lying, orchestrated with
government-approved talking points and crowdsourced volunteers and stipend recipients,"
Shunra added..."
"...Working in 30 languages, the students working this comment far target online forums
including so called "anti-Israel" pages on Facebook and comments sections of online
media."
Require valid ID to vote. How many mexicans vote multiple times? How many *activists* get
bused around from county to county, voting multiple times?
The blue team loves this so no go. It's racist to require ID because blacks are too stupid
to get one That's the democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths.
RT.com had to register as a foreign agent - and you know what, fair enough...
But AIPAC has been allowed to violate the law requiring them to do so by a DOJ that, admin
to admin, never enforces the law as to Israel.
Meanwhile the Jewish/Israel Lobby, with the eager support of US politicians, are
continuing their assault on the 1st Amendment. They want to criminalize boycotts and
criticism of the state/govt of Israel.
And the media is, predictably, silent - and for the record a number of Jewish lawyers and
libertarian writers have been vociferous in their opposition to the assault on free speech -
but the ADL/AIPAC/neocon matrix is all in to criminalize speech that is both fair and
factual.
Which brings me to this indictment, gents.
I'm no lawyer, and would be very happy to get comment/criticism/correction - but how in
the fuck is posting anti-Hillary (or anti-anyone) comments on facebook not protected 1st
Amendment speech?
So far as I know it is not a crime to pretend to be someone else on the internet absent
actual fraud/theft. Israelis quite literally are paid to do so all the time, and while
irritating - that's part of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
This indictment, apart from more Deep State poking the bear, and distraction from the
FBI's obstruction of justice and felony misrepresentation to a federal judge... is a direct
assault on the 1st Amendment.
How is it 'interfering' with an election to present people with ideas? If presenting
slanted, even false information to voters is now a crime - why arent the executives of CNN
and the Times under indictment?
The Left's hatred of Trump (and I'm not a fan given his moves in Syria and deficit
spending etc) has made them absolutely boond to the dangers to civil liberties, nevermind
world war.
Apart from the idea of some internet trolls having any influence relative to the cia/dni
controlled media being absurd on its face, how can an 'indictment' to 'conspire' to talk
about some political issue even be brought given the 1st Amendment?
If they can indict some Russians for pretending to be Joe Six-pack to help a candidate -
who else can they try to jail for saying the Establishment candidate is a lying cheating
warmonger who belongs in prison?
Cruz was a Canadian until 2014. The People had enough with Obama.
The People had enough of Bush-Clinton from 1989 through 2008.
The odds are that Trump is controlled opposition.
The election process has been corrupted internally since the beginning.
Lincoln was installed by Northeast Industrialists and the Media. His opponent that was
promoted by the large newspapers was the Democrat least likely to threaten Lincoln in an
election.
Dr. Ron Paul received zero Media attention in 2012. Trump was in the news 24 by 7 in
2016.
Those people are only guilty of trolling and that is not a crime . I found ridiculous in
the extreme that Mueller thinks he can seize the property of the agency in question is Russia
! ah,ah,ah, Nobody has told that ass hole that the USA has no Jurisdiction in other countries
? ah,ah,ah !
And then how many times that USA has in the past and in the present tried to interfere
with Russian elections and those of other countries ? What about the coup d'etat in Kiev and
the colored revolution ? Has that buffoon got no memory ?
That buffoon is out of his mind , Who believes his bullshit ? There are a lot
personalities in the USA that buy favorable comments to their Facebook accounts . Thera ere
firms specialist in opening FAKE accounts and writing fake favorable comments for customers .
I am talking about tens of thousands and much more of favorable comments on Facebook and
others social BLS networks . In conclusion this is a fake trumped up operation to continue
with the farce
Exactly. They tried to change hearts and minds. Are we going to criminilaize politics
then? PACs and millions of peoplel try to argue often using anonymous or false identities.
What a load of horseshit this whole thing is.
Btw, the number 13 is a great number. That was my hockey jersey. Also my class rank after
my bitch choir and glee club teacher got the grade for my last 2 years and gave me cs and ds
despite the fact i was the president of the group. Dropped me from like 5th to 13th. Still
pisses me off. And the Templars were burned at the stake on Friday the 13th werent they? Good
enough for me
If we are chasing down foreign nationals attempting to influence the elections, I'm
waiting on the indictment against Vincente Fox.
"Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is urging US voters to look before they leap. The
global consequences would be dramatic if Donald Trump won the presidency, he told DW's James
Blears in Mexico City."
I'm with Schiff, there's ample evidence of election hacking if you are willing to see
it.
So true, the hypocrisy and I'll say glee at watching the unintended consequences of their
ill planned "findings", comments/ general stupidity (iq's just high enough to be a danger to
society, but not high enough to keep society working well)
There is against the violation of a persons civil rights, perjury, using government
resources for personal gain, knowingly introducing falsified evidence to a federal court,
unmasking individuals found by use of said falsified evidence, theft and destruction of
government documents.
Broadly called, a conspiracy and obstruction of justice ;-)
I'm going to start a go-fund-me page to buy mirrors for Rosenstein and Mueller, and the
love-birds (who I surmise have had their wings clipped) and others.
As a point of interest, Rosenstein is the only one left of those who signed off on the now
known to be specious FISA warrant or it's reauthorizations after this known false evidence
had been submitted to a federal court.
The reauthorizations are key, they knew what the "Steele intel dossier" was by then.
And Rosenstein appointed Mueller on the basis of Comey stealing government documents and
giving them to an unauthorized friend.
Basically, Mueller is illegitimate in everyone's eyes except the federal
bureaucracies...hell, even one of the FISA judges recused himself after it came to light that
the Hillary campaign paid Steele for what is, in essence, tabloid muck raking.
Maybe we'll be able to afford two mirrors for Rosie, so he can be doubly sure who the
bastards are.
Meanwhile, Mueller handing down these "indictments" is further making a joke of his
investigation. He's surrounded himself with all of the Hillary partisans, keeping them
closer. It will be worth all of the money and all of the spilled (digital) ink for the
investigation to be a self-discrediting evolution.
I'll disagree with your "everyone" statement--it is only creeping to 50%. It needs to get
up to landslide numbers (>60% or so) for a true black hole implosion.
This honestly looks like a surrender moment. He's saying there were bad people trying to
portray Hillary in a negative light (as if anyone really needed to do that) but Trump's team
were unwitting participants if they participated.
He had to show something for his work but clearly there's no trail of deliberate scheming
and collusion leading to the Trump team. He even throws in the caveat that they were also
working for Sanders.
Stick a fork in it..this is over and MSM once again are full of shit for all to see no
matter how they spin it.
13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1
BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success.
"13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1
BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success."
... and a billion is but a drop in the bucket compared to what Israel has spent
influencing US elections over the last 4 decades.
Israel has built a money machine. They spend money to bribe politicians in the form of
campaign contributions and PACS. They tell those politicians to vote on large aid packages to
Israel. They take a small portion of the money from those aid packages and spend it to bribe
politicians in the form of campaign contributions and PACS ... rinse and repeat forever. A
wonderful machine that they have built for themselves to endlessly siphon blood and treasure
from the USA for their benefit.
Yes. THIS is the real scandal. Israhell using U.S. aid (U.S. taxpayer dollars) to buy off
U.S. politicians who then undermine the U.S. taxpayers by increasing Israhelli control over
U.S. politics.
But according to Mueller the Zionist can buy members of Congress and the Senate , but
Russian trolls are not allowed ........ ah,ah,ah,ah,
So there is the "good interference" , when it is done by the Rogue state in the Middle
East and then there us the " bad " interference created by foreign trolls .
Concord Catering was serving Smirnoff for sure. That's very influential and definitely
swayed voters. The rest on the list are back ups in case.
What a farce this witch hunt is. USSA is on cruise control and everyone is in the back of
the Winnebago swinging at each other. This is neglect of the electorate and the country as it
spirals into bankruptcy. (again)
Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to
mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton .
(now what could these people possibly tell me about that ridiculous cunt Hillary that I
didn't already know?)
No, they were Americans who did that (or, at least, "dual citizens"). "Subverting"
democracy in the US is only illegal if carried out by foreign agents.
... with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar...
Special Counsel Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians For Hacking During US Election
My response: ROFL!!!! Since they (MARXIST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS) could NOT get TRUMP, they
have now decided that they are going after the RUSSIANS directly.
This action is probably really going to piss off PUTIN rightly or wrongly.
WAR DRUMS ARE BEATING AGAIN.
I now believe that a market CRASH is a real distinct possibility.
Mueller is cherry picking a small effect in the market place when there was huge
subversion by Hillary et al - In NYC 125,000 registrations went missing and "the party in
charge fired" at the Board of Elections who had direct line via family to Hillary -
overwhelming number denied access to primary vote were young new residents - white people to
Brooklyn - primarily Bernie voters
things elsewhere the same - Ohio / Iowa but not as much in your face
This is beginning of hit job by Mueller - is it sustainable?
I'd like to see from Muellers analysis how many votes that swayed. Curious if it's as many
as the illegal votes allowed in California. I'm sure the Russians had a huge impact in West
Virginia (being sarcastic)
Let's allow them to hack the next one and see who they pick...maybe we should start
thinking outside the box here...
God, this whole thing must just be an unending source of confusion for Putin. Guy's got to
be watching this, thinking, "What the fuck is wrong with these people?". In fact, anyone
expecting the US to be a source of leadership in the future has to feel like Shelley Duvall
after she found out that Jack Nickolsen's months of work consisted only of typewritten sheets
with "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." over and over and over again...Her face as
she flips through all those pages is EXACTLY how I imagine Putin's expression as he watches
this unfold...
"Oh my god, it's so much worse than I ever suspected, and winter's only half over..."
How about where was Mueller when the Tsarnov (sp) brothers (Boston Marathon) when Vladimir
warned him about them.
I see that on January 5th, somebody phoned the FBI about the soon-to-be Florida shooter.
This is not to be confused with the September contact which the FBI couldn't track down.
So where was the FBI? Certainly not manning up and resigning in protest about all of the
corruption anybody could see/smell on the 7th floor. Probably watching porn and whacking off
on the job like so many SEC employees.
Robert Peters: SEC pornography scandal shows harms of obscene material
New York City, N.Y., Apr 24, 2010 / 07:02 am ( CNA/EWTN News ).-
The exposure of workplace pornography use at the Securities and Exchange Commission while
the 2008 financial crisis was unfolding shows ........
SO, according to this indictment, if I'm reading it correctly, we also need to indict
every single foreigner that spoke highly, in a positive way, or tried to influence an
American citizen, about Killary? Looks like a lot of indictments to be handed out to pretty
much every Globalist on the planet.
Per the indictment, "Individuals had a strategic goal of sowing discord in the U.S.
political system"
That's a crock, we really didn't need Russian help to make our political system any more
broken and divided than it already is.
Come on, do you really believe the Russians were responsible for the absolute dismal
choice of the two candidates we were stuck with in the last election? And that their effort
made any difference in the outcome.
Read the documents. Read what Muller is actually accusing them of:
- Buying a few thousand bucks worth of ads
- Holding a sparsely attended fake rally
- Trying to contact members of the Trump campaign without identifying themselves (this
right here is the full limit of their vaunted "collusion", if it's even true)
Are any of those things even illegal? Does anyone, anywhere, actually think any of those
things influenced the election in the slightest?
Meanwhile the DNC was paying Russian spies for fake intel so they could use
illegally-obtained surveillance warrants to spy on US citizens and try to stage a coup on a
duly-elected President.
These indictments are basically just Mueller running out of ideas to prolong his meddling.
He had to do something, or else Congress was gonna start saying, "OK, so what do you have?
This has gone on long enough."
Look at the phrasing, "hacking the elections" which is a general term. Doesn't specify
they hacked any specific voting machines. Per CNBC
The defendants allegedly conducted "information warfare" against the United States
election process to help Donald Trump win.
The defendants used fake American personas, social media platforms, and other Internet
media to advance their scheme, according to an indictment.
So basically trolling online. 13 Russian internet trolls swayed the ENTIRE election,
therefore the entire anti-Russian rhetoric, sanctions and a new cold war is justified!.
20 security and espionage agencies! Hundreds of billions in counterintelligence operations
around the world. A fire-armed uprising around RUSSIA! And with just 13 people a few accounts
in faceboock and a few thousand dollars, what does not billions spent on political campaigns
achieve ???? Damn Russians!!??
Rosenstein explained it differently. He claims that these ads or whatever were done for
the benefit of both candidates because Russia wanted to sow dissension and rip the US
apart.
Soros did a much more effective job than that and certainly spent more than the
Russians.
But Mueller doesn't chose to see things as they were and are.
"... First defendant: The Internet Research Agency. On a very ..."
"... "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [ New York Times ]. "Much more remains to be learned about the effects of these types of online activities, but people should not assume they had huge effects. Previous studies have found, for instance, that the effects of even television advertising (arguably a higher-impact medium) are very small. According to one credible estimate, the net effect of exposure to an additional ad shifts the partisan vote of approximately two people out of 10,000. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of numerous different forms of campaign persuasion, including in-person canvassing and mail, finds that their average effect in general elections is zero." ..."
"The office of special counsel Robert Mueller on Friday announced indictments against 13
Russian nationals and a trio of Russian entities on charges related to the Kremlin's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election" [
Politico ]. "Charges in the indictment include conspiracy to defraud the United States,
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and aggravated identity theft "Some
defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment said."
Here's the indictment . Finally we get to look at some evidence? First defendant: The
Internet Research Agency. On a very quick read: The theory of the case is that the
defendants used social media to "sow discord"; a search on "vot" yields zero hits.
Realignment and Legitimacy
UPDATE "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [
New York Times ]. "Much more remains to be learned about the effects of these types of
online activities, but people should not assume they had huge effects. Previous studies have
found, for instance, that the effects of even television advertising (arguably a
higher-impact medium) are very small. According to one credible estimate, the net effect of
exposure to an additional ad shifts the partisan vote of approximately two people out of
10,000. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of numerous different forms of campaign persuasion,
including in-person canvassing and mail, finds that their average effect in general elections
is zero."
"From Where I Sit, The Trump Era Began In 2014" [ FiveThirtyEight
]. "Numbers can't prove that 2014 was a pivotal year for the Trumpian political era to come,
but they can show it was a year when Americans' institutional trust bottomed out, something
that would come into play in 2016. A few days after the election, I wrote about the erosion
of trust in American institutions over the past decade. There was a link, I wrote then,
between our loss of trust and electing a man who promised to start a new American order. And
in 2014, overall trust in American institutions, which started falling in the mid-2000s, hit
31 percent -- its lowest point since Gallup starting tracking the metric in 1993 . Trump's
ultimately brilliant political intuition was to burrow deep into this recess of the American
mind and to reflect back the sense of creeping disarray. He capitalized on racial and
economic fears, but his campaign kickoff proclamation that "the
American dream is dead" didn't just resonate with the people who might have voted for
populist and nativist campaigns of the past. Trump's appeal was broad, resonating with
the
relatively well-off and
the well-educated ."
UPDATE "A significant minority of Americans say they could support a military takeover of
the U.S. government" [
WaPo ]. "Our research finds that, in fact, substantial numbers of U.S. adults say they
would embrace ruptures in the constitutional order [and I thought I was the only
one who used this term routinely], which is in keeping with Bright Line Watch findings that
experts believe that measures of U.S. democracy have declined under President Trump . In
2017, about 25 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans said they favored a
military intervention if the country faced rampant crime or corruption. The figure below
shows the average support for a military coup when there is widespread corruption." More
Third World stuff! Indeed: "U.S. public opinion on these questions resembles that of
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, countries with a history of military coups and dictatorships."
Let us not, however, focus only on the military! We have an intelligence community, too!
Don't see anything about the DNC or Podesta hacks in the indictment. Isn't that what this
whole thing was about? Changing the 'Russian hacking' meme to mean social media posts was an
amazing feat of goalpost-moving.
And changing "Russian puppet" to "Russian hacking" is also impressive.
That said, there may be more shoes to drop. People who are smarter about investigations than
I am can determine whether this is indicting the small fry to catch the big fish, or not. As a
layperson, it's not clear to me how you do that by indicting Russians, if, as my very
quick reading of the Politico story (and not the indictment), witting cooperation by the Trump
campaign is ruled out. No doubt there will be a good deal of commentary to come!
Rob P and Lambert Strether: The "vindicated" regular Democrats on my FacetoBook thread are
passing around Greg Sargent's WaPo column. Sargent's summary of the indictments:
"Falsely posing as Americans to operate social media to influence voters; employing active
efforts to suppress the turnout of minority groups; creating additional fictional U.S. personas
to sway public opinion; purchasing large numbers of ads on social media; and much more."
Russkies? Uber? Israelis? Saudis? Tell me more. And are those fictional personas swaying our
opinions, ohh, say, Apple and other tax avoiders?
Next up? The Democratic Party praying for a coup, on the assumption that their children
won't be dragged off to jail to be tortured. (Ask South Americans how that worked out.)
I think these indictments are to show credibility of a Russian issue.
I think the Popadopolous and now potentially Gates roll-ups are the missing links to connect
the dots between the campaign and the ongoing operation by the Russians. This really is how
organized crime investigations generally work.
I don't think the claim was ever that the campaign started the Russians doing things; simply
that they were willing to work with them towards a mutual goal. This would be similar to the
GOP claims about the Steele dossier; they leave out that it was begun by a conservative GOP
group and Clinton only got involved when the conservatives dropped out of the race.
Worse, now it is apparently unlawful for a non-US citizen to express in public a preference
with regard to a US election.
This in spite of the fact that UK and other non-US papers do so all the time, and even put
their preferences out there ON THE INTERNET where innocent trusting Americans may stumble upon
them. Not only that, the the Guardian even organized phone banks for Brits to call Ohio voters
in key districts and urge them to vote for Team D.
Surely indictments are forthcoming, right? But let's consider the implications – does
Yves need to check the citizenship status of every poster in a political thread? If not, is she
aiding and abetting "fraud against the United States"? Is Yves now an unindicted
co-conspirator?
Seriously, the implications of this move are terrifying. If that weren't enough, the
indictment was careful to mention Bernie Sanders' name at every opportunity. The insinuation
being that if you support any candidate outside the mainstream of Team D or Team R, then you
are supporting ..
"They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about
Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Lyin' Ted Cruz and
Little Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald
Trump."
-- page 17 of Mueller's indictment
So now we know -- Bernie's candidacy was foisted on us by Russians sending thousands of
tainted $27 donations. /snark
' The mountains labored, and brought forth a ridiculous mouse. ' -- Latin proverb
Why couldn't the Russians have just sent better-looking cheerleaders from Moscow to this
country? Why did they keep their armies of beauties in their Motherland?
Hell, UK papers express their preferred outcomes for US elections all the time. And ZOMG! on
the INTERNET! where innocent Americans might stumble across them and be "influenced"! ZOMG!
The Guardian even organized phonebanking campaigns to urge Ohio voters in key districts to
vote Team D.
The "sowing discord" argument makes me crazy, because it's exactly like "outside agitators"
in the segregated South. If only it weren't for Russian bots, "those damned n*****s
voters wouldn't have gotten uppity."
I mean, does anybody really believe there was no discord in American politics before the
2016 elections and social media?
(This is not a theory of the case; something can be wrong and/or illegal even if there are
no ill effects; but to my cynical mind, this is all about creating a casus belli , and
that does require ill effects, I would think.)
Speaking as a Southerner I'd say you are exactly right. The assumption seems to be that
simple minded voters are the puppets of rabble rousers rather than intelligent beings able to
think for themselves.
A couple of things, Watched a lot of russians in the Olympics over the years and these names look incredibly
fake. Usually when you drop news on a Friday afternoon of a three day weekend you want it to get
buried.
MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV, MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK, ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA, ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA, SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV, MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA, ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA, DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV, VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV, GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO, IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA, VLADIMIR VENKOV YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN
America was pure as snow. In fact, Russians are responsible for Jim Crow. Bear with me. The
Czar, an autocrat if there ever was one, sailed the White Fleet in support of Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps, the British and French would have intervened on behalf of the CSA, thus allowing the
Southern states to secede. Logic dictates this would have meant no Jim Crow. Yes, slavery would
have continued, but it would be in a different country.
As noted by Rob P above, there is no mention of email hacking. Maybe that's coming later,
but I doubt it. Instead, they indicted alleged Russian operators of troll farms. The
implication, I guess, is that these people somehow swayed the election in favor of Trump. Some
questions I have:
– What was the volume of their social media posts? How does that compare to the total
volume of election-related social media posts? – When were these posts actually made? Did they all occur prior to the election? – Did these troll farms make any posts in favor of Clinton? Were there other Russians
posting items in favor of Clinton? – Is there any indication that these posts had any demonstrable impact on the outcome of
the election?
It would be interesting to see these people go on trial. I imagine that a competent defense
attorney would have fun with discovery. But, there's a part of me that suspects that these
Russians were indicted, with the expectation that they won't go on trial. After all, it's a lot
easier to control the narrative, when there's nobody pushing back against it.
So, what we're left with is the impression that the Russians were responsible for all the
bullshirt flying around during the election. Bullshirt being, of course, anything that was
anti-Hillary, or promoted an opponent of hers. All the pro-Hillary stuff doesn't count, of
course. I guess I'm a Russophile for asking the question, but is this really all that they've
got?
Also, I haven't read the indictment, but is there any allegation that these troll farms were
acting in any capacity on behalf of the Russian government?
The indictment indicates that there was some pro-Hillary posts/activity, but the bulk of it
was anti-Hillary/Pro-Trump. Posts were both prior to and after the election. It doesn't look
like the indictment is outright arguing that their activities swayed votes, but just that the
activities violated bank/wire fraud laws (including fraud via cryptocurrencies!) and
electioneering laws (which does not mean that votes were swayed; handing out flyers too close
to a polling site is a violation of electioneering laws).
Looks less like the ultimate smoking gun, and more like another move, such as with Manafort,
to get the small fry to tell on someone higher up.
That's the expectation for how a criminal investigation should take place. But, this is not
a normal criminal investigation. The small fry in this case are Russians, and I'm not sure if
indicting them has the same impact that it would for, say, a similar group of Americans. How
does Mueller flip these Russians? Doesn't he have to get them into custody first?
Indeed. The article on this much ado about not much done by the BBC:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said there was no allegation that any American was
"a knowing participant in this illegal activity" nor was it alleged that the meddling altered
the election outcome.
Which, of course, doesn't prevent the brainwashed from dancing with glee and attacking as a
Trump supporter anyone who so much as points out the above. The least offensive response I've
had today was that these things are incremental so this is likely just the starting point. It
no longer matters whether the alleged interference had any effect on the election -- all sense
of logic on this subject has evaporated even among people I know are intelligent enough they
should know better.
Why I added the information on how hard it is to actually change opinion. IIRC, most of the
contemporary hash tag tracking is coming from the highly dubious Hamilton68 dashboard, which is
being treated as an authority even though, last I checked, they hadn't exposed their data or
methods.
Adding, which is pretty funny, when you think about it; depending on whether the IRA was a
contractor for the Russian government, and what its actual mission was*, the Russian government
probably has a stronger case for fraud against them then Mueller does.
Putin's government overpaid for a intelligence tech contractor that promised way more than
it was capable of delivering? Perhaps the Russians aren't so different from us after all.
o "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [New York
Times] -- Oh, I dunno, methinks the Grey lady is being far too pessimistic here. After all, the
NYT's own fake-news project re. Saddam's WMDs 15 years back led to an actual large-scale hot
war, $trillions in juicy defense contracts for US and foreign mercenary/logistics firms and
upwards of a million dead Iraqis whose 'sacrifice', as former SoS and heroic liberal R2P
goddess Madeleine Albright reminded us, was "worth it". So maybe the high-profile-ness and
political connections of the fake news source might play a crucial role in its impact?
Madeleine Albright made that comment in response to a publishing of a study which found that
the US economic sanctions against Iraq resulted in the deaths of more than 500,000
children.
Otherwise your point is valid. As Yves herself has mentioned regarding Judith Miller, the
NYT did indeed publish a lot of "fake news" (also known as "propaganda") in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq.
"... Thirteen Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft. Here's a rundown: ..."
The defendants are accused of working in conjunction with the St. Petersburg-based Internet
Research Agency, which is also under indictment for allegedly conducting information operations
to influence the 2016 election in the United States.
The Internet Research Agency operated what's become known as "troll farm" in Russian
President Vladimir Putin's hometown that employed hundreds of English speakers to pose as
Americans and gin up controversy and discord on Twitter, Facebook and other social media
websites during the months leading up to the election.
The company, referred to as the "ORGANIZATION" in the indictment, "had a strategic goal to
sow discord in the U.S. political system, including... supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton," according to the
indictment.
Thirteen Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Five
defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft. Here's a rundown:
Yevgeniy
Viktorovich Prigozhin
Prigozhin, 56, is a businessman from St. Petersburg who's been called "Putin's chef" by
Russian media because his restaurants and catering businesses have hosted dinners between Putin
and foreign dignitaries.
Prigozhin is on the list of those sanctioned by the U.S., according to the Associated
Press.
Prigozhin is accused of funding the Internet Research Agency, through companies he
controlled -- Concord Management and Consulting, and Concord Catering -- and using them to
launch operations against America. He paid the "ORGANIZATION," all the rest of the defendants
and other unnamed employees, the indictment said.
Prigozhin's co-defendants arranged through social media for a U.S. person to stand in front
of the White House on May 29, 2016, three days before Prigozhin's birthday, with a sign saying
"Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss."
"The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see," Prigozhin
reportedly told the Russian state news agency Ria Novosti on Friday. "I have a lot of
respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the
devil, let them see him."
Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov
Bystrov allegedly was named the general director of the Internet Research Agency, and served
as the head of various other entities it used to mask its activities, including Glavset LLC,
where he was also listed as general director.
He is accused of holding regular meetings with Prigozhin around 2015 and 2016. Bystrov is a
retired police colonel, according to Voice of America.
Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik
According to the indictment, Burchik was named executive director of the "ORGANIZATION" as
of March 2014, holding the second-highest ranking position. During operations to interfere in
the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election, Burchik was a manager
involved in operational planning, infrastructure and personnel.
Burchik is described in a 2015 New York Times report as a young tech entrepreneur
connected to the "Masss Post" tool used to create bulk social media postings.
Aleksandra
Yuryevna Krylova
Krylova worked for the IRA from around 2013 to at least November 2014, according to the
indictment, and was its third-highest ranking employee. She allegedly entered the U.S. on false
pretenses in June 2014 and traveled through Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois,
Michigan, Louisiana, Texas and New York to "gather intelligence."
Sergey Pavlovich
Polozov
Polozov "served as the manager of the IT department and oversaw the procurement of US.
servers and other computer infrastructure that masked the Russian location when conducting
operations within the United States," according to the indictment.
An unnamed co-conspirator who worked for the company traveled to Atlanta in November 2016,
and shared information gathered with Polozov, according to the indictment.
He traveled to the U.S. to create virtual private networks to hide his organization's ties
to Russia, while communicating with U.S. citizens, the indictment said.
Anna
Vladislavovna Bogacheva
According to the indictment, Bogacheva oversaw the IRA's data analysis group, and allegedly
traveled through the U.S. in 2014 to gather intelligence along with Krylova.
Together with Krylova, Bogacheva planned travel itineraries, purchased equipment such as
cameras, SIM cards and disposable phones and discussed security measures, including "evacuation
scenarios" for defendants who traveled to the U.S., the indictment said.
Maria
Anatolyevna Bovda
Bovda worked at the company from November 2013 to October 2014 as head of the translator
project.
The project "focused on the U.S. population and conducted operations on social media
platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter," according to the
indictment.
Robert Sergeyevich Bovda
Robert Bovda served as deputy head of the translator project and tried to travel to the U.S.
under false pretenses to collect intelligence but could not obtain a visa, according to the
indictment.
Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina
The defendant is accused of admitting her involvement in the operation and a subsequent
coverup in an email to a relative in September last year, after Mueller's probe had
started.
"We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity," Kaverzina allegedly
wrote, "so I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues."
She also wrote: "I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believed that it
was written by their people."
Dzheykhun "Jay" Aslanov
Aslanov was described by a manager at the ORGANIZATION's "troll farm" in St. Petersburg,"
according to an October interview on Moscow's Dozhd TV with former employee Alan Baskayev.
Baskayev was the third former troll to identify Aslanov as a supervisor at the facility,
according to the Moscow Times , which described the interview.
"Jay was a really bad manager: not the most competent in this field, well, frankly speaking,
generally incompetent, but he had assistants," Baskayev told Dozhd TV.
Vadim
Vladimirovich Podkopaev
Podkopaev allegedly was responsible for conducting U.S.-focused research and drafting social
media content for the IRA, according to the indictment.
Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko
Vasilchenko was allegedly "responsible for posting, monitoring, and updating the social
media content" for many IRA-controlled accounts "while posing as U.S. persons or U.S.
grassroots organizations."
Vladimir Venkov
Venkov allegedly "operated multiple U.S. personas, which he used to post, monitor, and
update social media content," the indictment stated.
BREAKING: Mueller concludes Russians posted
mean things on social media about Hillary Clinton
Mueller indicts 13 Russians and 3
companies for hacking the US election.
The indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three entities over allegations by the DOJ that
Russians interfered in US elections – but "did not alter the outcome of the 2016
election" nor that any American was a knowing participant in this activity – are absurd,
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
"13 people interfered in the US elections?! 13 against an intelligence services budget of
billions? Against intelligence and counterintelligence, against the latest developments and
technologies? Absurd? Yes," Zakharova
wrote in a post on Facebook .
Then again, what else could she say.
Furthermore, as noted in the DOJ complaint, the funding for the Russian operation came from
catering and management companies controlled by defendant Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a
Russian businessman often referred to as "Putin's chef" in the media because his organizations
had hosted dinners for Russian President Vladimir Putin and foreign leaders, the AP
reported.
Prigozhin was quoted in Russian state media responding to the indictments, saying,
"Americans are really impressionable people. They see what they want to see. I greatly respect
them. I'm not upset at all that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see
him."
This probably means that Russia will not exactly rush to extradite the 13 named officials to
the US.
"Have you had any assurances by the Russians that they will provide these individuals for
prosecution?"
Rosenstein: "We have no communications with the Russians about this. We will follow the
ordinary process of seeking cooperation and extradition." https://t.co/oShWvKYDRWpic.twitter.com/vOT0iH6Cu0
re:So Mueller indict russians for... talking about the american election in russia? What
farce have this become? Posted by: Anon | Feb 16, 2018 3:15:09 PM | 35
Farce is certainly the operative word; two of the 13 Russians are the former head of Moscow
Police and the other is a restaurateur friend of Putin.
And if there were " millions" spent then their is a financial paper trail certainly. Can't
wait to see it...
My favorite parts of this indictment: 1. Trump and his campaign are no longer involved, 2.
the Russians did NOT influence the election, 3. they were supposedly advocating for Bernie as
well as Trump.
Lastly,so much "news" in the last few days; we have a possible Florida false flag, Russia
hacking the world and now this. What are we not meant to see?? My first thought is they are
moving forward with the Syrian chemical attack psy op; next week perhaps?
Yeah, apparentlty these Russians sought to expand the political commentary and voice
support for candidates, how is this even illegal? Ridiculous but this will give the
anti-russia actors 100% more fuel for decades to come. That Trump will even talk with Putin
is out of the question by now unfortunately. WW3 just came closer sigh.
One of the best bits about the indictement is the mention ;"arranging for a Real US person
to stand in front of the White House in the district of Colombia with a sign that read;
"Happy 55th birthday dear boss" (May 29, in 2016)" America must have trembled. (or maybe they
were shaking with laughter?).
People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus
and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to
question the assertion.
In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to
weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which
increases the rate of infection. The virus then blossoms into a fairly beautiful and uniform
flower with clean, geometric edges and universal appeal which catches the gaze of others and
so is able to double the rate of infection from this secondary source.
This flower, the Ruskiesdidittous, is the result of haphazard propogation, though its ability to survive and
thrive is notable due to a carrier population already enfeebled by a diet of Dr. Pepper and a
lack of discernible vegetables.
The indictment includes charges not yet proven in a court of law, yet prominent Americans
are treating the indictment as fact. from CNN:
>House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Russians' alleged actions "a conspiracy to subvert
the process, and take aim at democracy itself." "We have known that Russians meddled in the
election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a
statement.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that given the indictments,
Trump should "immediately" implement the Russia sanctions that Congress passed last summer
to punish Moscow for its election meddling. "The administration needs to be far more
vigilant in protecting the 2018 elections, and alert the American public any time the
Russians attempt to interfere," Schumer said.
>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the indictments "make
absolutely clear" that Russians tried to influence the presidential election to support
Trump's campaign and continue to try to interfere with our elections. "We are on the eve of
the 2018 midterm elections," the statement added. "There is no time to waste to defend the
integrity of our elections and our democracy."
>Robby Mook, Clinton's former campaign manager, tweeted: "The intelligence community
has repeatedly told us Russia meddled. Now criminal indictments from DOJ. We were attacked
by a foreign adversary. Will our Congress and President stand strong and take action? Or
let it happen again?"
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
Notable quotes:
"... And the USA has indeed thoroughly developed means to falsely laying blame for cyber attacks it actually performs itself (next to it's proven credentials of falsely laying blame with chemical and terrorist attacks). ..."
"... And the USA has indeed thoroughly developed means to falsely laying blame for cyber attacks it actually performs itself (next to it's proven credentials of falsely laying blame with chemical and terrorist attacks). ..."
There indeed doesn't seem to be a motive to why the Russian authorities would launch a cyber attack that economically disrupts
both itself, allies and other countries. Either the virus writers didn't care for a solution, hoped that a solution that never
works might panic the victims even more so they make more cash transfers or enjoyed reaping money while seeing their victims suffer
of something where there is no solution for. The last 2 reasons are short term because news that there is no solution for the
ransomware will stop victims from making cash transfers. More convincing would be a cyber attack initiated by USA authorities
that would hit already crumbling Ukraine businesses even further and create even more mistrust between Ukraine and Russia.
And the USA has indeed thoroughly developed means to falsely laying blame for cyber attacks it actually performs itself
(next to it's proven credentials of falsely laying blame with chemical and terrorist attacks). On 31 March 2017:
WikiLeaks published hundreds of more files from the Vault 7 series today which, it claims, show how CIA can mask its hacking
attacks to make it look like it came from other countries, including Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which
is basically an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted
into the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
...
The White House has condemned the revelations made by Wikileaks, saying that those responsible for leaking classified information
from the agency should be held accountable by the law.
There indeed doesn't seem to be a motive to why the Russian authorities would launch a cyber attack that economically disrupts
both itself, allies and other countries. Either the virus writers didn't care for a solution, hoped that a solution that never
works might panic the victims even more so they make more cash transfers or enjoyed reaping money while seeing their victims
suffer of something where there is no solution for. The last 2 reasons are short term because news that there is no solution
for the ransomware will stop victims from making cash transfers. More convincing would be a cyber attack initiated by USA authorities
that would hit already crumbling Ukraine businesses even further and create even more mistrust between Ukraine and Russia.
And the USA has indeed thoroughly developed means to falsely laying blame for cyber attacks it actually performs itself
(next to it's proven credentials of falsely laying blame with chemical and terrorist attacks). On 31 March 2017:
WikiLeaks published hundreds of more files from the Vault 7 series today which, it claims, show how CIA can mask its
hacking attacks to make it look like it came from other countries, including Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which
is basically an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted
into the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
...
The White House has condemned the revelations made by Wikileaks, saying that those responsible for leaking classified
information from the agency should be held accountable by the law.
Source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This
would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was
not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even
more strongly to the wrong conclusion, --- but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.
The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and
Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware
creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators
even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, --- but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.
When the White House (doesn't matter who's ostensibly in charge) claims leaker's like Julian Assange should be accountable
by the law, it of course means the malleable arbitrary law which none of the serpents in the White House, Langley, ... are
accountable to.
"... People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to question the assertion. In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which increases the rate of infection. ..."
One of the best bits about the indictment is the mention ;"arranging for a Real US person
to stand in front of the White House in the district of Colombia with a sign that read;
"Happy 55th birthday dear boss" (May 29, in 2016)" America must have trembled. (or maybe they
were shaking with laughter?).
People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus
and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to
question the assertion. In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to
weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which
increases the rate of infection.
The virus then blossoms into a fairly beautiful and uniform
flower with clean, geometric edges and universal appeal which catches the gaze of others and
so is able to double the rate of infection from this secondary source.
This flower, the Ruskiesdidittous, is the result of haphazard propogation, though its ability to survive and
thrive is notable due to a carrier population already enfeebled by a diet of Dr. Pepper and a
lack of discernible vegetables.
The indictment includes charges not yet proven in a court of law, yet prominent Americans
are treating the indictment as fact. from CNN:
>House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Russians' alleged actions "a conspiracy to subvert
the process, and take aim at democracy itself." "We have known that Russians meddled in the
election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a
statement.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that given the indictments,
Trump should "immediately" implement the Russia sanctions that Congress passed last summer
to punish Moscow for its election meddling. "The administration needs to be far more
vigilant in protecting the 2018 elections, and alert the American public any time the
Russians attempt to interfere," Schumer said.
>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the indictments "make
absolutely clear" that Russians tried to influence the presidential election to support
Trump's campaign and continue to try to interfere with our elections. "We are on the eve of
the 2018 midterm elections," the statement added. "There is no time to waste to defend the
integrity of our elections and our democracy."
>Robby Mook, Clinton's former campaign manager, tweeted: "The intelligence community
has repeatedly told us Russia meddled. Now criminal indictments from DOJ. We were attacked
by a foreign adversary. Will our Congress and President stand strong and take action? Or
let it happen again?"
There has never been any "integrity" in US elections, nor is there such a thing as "democracy" within the USA.
IMO, Congresscritters have never before looked and acted so damn stupid -- clearly they are merely mutts being led by a
leash and told to bray at a moon called Russia.
The Outlaw US Empire totally lacks integrity and clearly isn't a democracy; it is merely another of history's failed
empires destroyed by its own hubris; it really needs to gouge its eyes out and wander in the forest until it dies.
If anything, recent weeks have offered remarkable evidence of just how
victorious this country's losingest commanders and their colleagues really are in our
nation's capital. In the bipartisan style that these days usually applies only to the U.S.
military, Congress has just settled on giving an extra $165 billion
to the Pentagon over the next two years as part of a formula for keeping the government open.
As it happens, the 2017 Pentagon budget was already as large as the defense spending of the next
seven
nations combined. And that was before all those extra tens of billions of dollars ensured
that the two-year military budget (for 2018 and 2019) would crest at a total of more than
$1.4 trillion .
That's the sort of money that only goes to winners, not losers. And if this still seems a
little strange to you, given that military's
dismal record in actual war-fighting since 9/11, all I can say is: don't bring it up. It's
no longer considered polite or proper to complain about our wars and those who fight them or
how we fund them, not in an age when every American soldier is a " hero ," which
means that what they're doing from
Afghanistan to
Yemen , Syria to
Somalia , must be heroic indeed.
In a draft-less
country, those of us not in or connected to our military are expected to say "
thank you " to the warriors and otherwise go about our lives as if their wars (and the
mayhem
they continue to generate abroad) were not a fact of global life. This is the definition of a
demobilized
public. If you happen to be that rarest of all creatures in our country these days -- someone
in active opposition to those wars -- you have a problem. That means Stephanie Savell, who
co-runs the Costs of War
Project , which regularly provides well-researched and devastating information on the
spread of those wars and the money continually being
squandered on them, does indeed have a problem. It's one she understands all too well and
describes vividly today.
"... What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads like a parody of a badly written spy novel. ..."
"... It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb... rinse and repeat. No objection from either side. ..."
"... Watch Jerome Corsi and James Kalstrom great video's about all the felony crimes Barry's DNC/DOJ/FBI were involved in including the dossier. ..."
"... to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town... ..."
What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat
and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads
like a parody of a badly written spy novel.
Amazingly, the dossier is what the FBI used to justify spying on American citizens.
Tucker Carlson easily debunks the many claims that Democrats in Congress repeatedly cited as
reason to stop the normal functioning of government, so that millions of tax payer dollars can
be spent trying to figure out if Trump has been a Russian spy for the last 10 years.
It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues
but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb...
rinse and repeat. No objection from either side.
No need to convince me Tucker...have been calling them morons with regards to "Putin did
it" since the ex "moron in chief"...who by the way is now a certified fifth columnist with
the blessing of the treasonous mainstream media...insinuated as much after the "loser"
lost....to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping
all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it
was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would
actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town...
I guess this is an open thread. . . .from The Cipher Brief--
On Tuesday the Senate intelligence committee grilled leaders of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI,
DIA and NGA over the contents of the 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S.
Intelligence Community.
[comment: Not surprisingly, the assessment identified other countries as threats to world
peace, but not the United States.]
DNI Dan Coats warned the U.S. is under cyberattack, by hacking campaigns backed by Russia,
China, Iran and North Korea, as well as terrorists and transnational criminals. He listed
North Korea as presenting the most volatile and confrontational weapons of mass destruction
threat. He said terrorists like ISIS, al Qaeda and Hezbollah would continue to be
dangerous. And he warned that Russia, China and Iran are all trying to find ways to expand
their reach, from land to sea to space.
Coats also mentioned a key warning from the Worldwide Threat Assessment: "The risk of
interstate conflict, including among great powers, is higher than at any time since the end
of the Cold War.
The most immediate threats of regional interstate conflict in the next year come from
North Korea and from Saudi-Iranian use of proxies in their rivalry." . . .
here
This was clear a color revolution against Trump and Brennan was the key player. Which means
that he might be guilty of sedition.
"Intelligence community" below means handpicked by Brennan a dosen of so analysts, which
included Peter Strzok and probably Andrew McCabe.
Notable quotes:
"... "In other words, if the Russians really were in a full court press beyond their normal propaganda activities, then the intelligence community should have been galvanized to collect more information and should have briefed the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees. That did not happen. Key Republican leaders DID NOT, I repeat NOT, receive such a briefing. For example, Devin Nunes, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, did not get briefed by Brennan or any of his minions on this ..."
"... "Brennan started briefing the Gang of Eight individually beginning with Reid. He finished all individual briefings on 5 Sep 2016 commenting that it proved difficult to get appointments and talk with certain Republicans. Obama also sent Comey, Jeh Johnston and Lisa Monaco to brief the "Gang of Twelve" that included the chairmen and ranking minority members of Homeland Security and Intelligence to seek bipartisan support to respond forcefully to the Russians in early Sep 2016. McConnell reacted forcefully to stifle the intelligence and any forceful response saying "he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics."" ..."
"... "Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members." ..."
"... "Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member." ..."
"... The whole Trump/Putin narrative has lost steam. It has descended into an incomprehensible storm of "he said, she said." Unless Democrats, Mueller or the intelligence services can finally produce some kind of smoking gun, I doubt that Americans will just tune out. Advantage Trump. ..."
"... The whole adventure reminds me of the campaign against Bill Clinton in the 1990s. They could only 'get' Clinton because he shot himself in the foot with Monica. Of course, Trump, being Trump, is perfectly capable of doing the same thing. ..."
"... In any event, the longer this bullshit goes on with the innuendo, leaks, counter leaks, memos, and ridiculous histrionics the greater the level of transparency of the entire process and investigations will be necessary to assuage the "losing" side of this debate. And even granted that, it's doubtful there is a happy ending at the end of this particular rainbow. But some clear and convincing cards need to be thrown on the table soon, regardless of what they show. ..."
"... All in all, if there are solid clues, I'd wonder first if Russians aren't framed, and barring that, if their key goal isn't to cause paranoia inside the USA and make people doubt their whole political system. ..."
"... So what are we the people supposed to do with this....beat the bushes for another 3 years to see if something pops up? How is that fair to the people who voted for Trump and think he should be left to rule according to the results of the balloting? ..."
"... At what point does the onus fall on the prosecution to produce hard-evidence or shut the hell up?? Seriously. Or are you okay with a president being put under the microscope for 4 years with no probable cause, and no proof of criminal wrongdoing? ..."
"... Where did Mother Jones get that info on Russian bots? Why according to the article from the German Marshal Fund: http://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/publications/methodology-hamilton-68-dashboard ..."
"... So Germany working to influence Americans is OK. Russians no. Yep. No influencing US elections via activities camouflaged as NGOs doing their good deeds. Never happen here. It's not like millions in donations to the Cxxxxxn Foundation, such as the $25 million donation of the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) - surprise! protected by Canadian law from releasing thier donor identities (see the NYT linked below)- or the multi-million donations of the Kindom of Norway, Kindom of Saudi Arabia, the Commonwealth of Australia and a slew of others would provide that organization with fungable assets that could be used in the USA to influence government policy or influence those voting for representatives who determine US government policy. ..."
"... Democracy dies in darkness. If this is actually worse than Watergate then declassify it all and hold public hearings - with no immunity for anybody. ..."
Another response to Publius Tacitus concerning those
meddlesome Russians - TTG
In the latest posting by Publius Tacitus concerning this subject, he made the following
claim.
"In other words, if the Russians really were in a full court press beyond their normal
propaganda activities, then the intelligence community should have been galvanized to collect
more information and should have briefed the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence
committees. That did not happen. Key Republican leaders DID NOT, I repeat NOT, receive such a
briefing. For example, Devin Nunes, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, did not get
briefed by Brennan or any of his minions on this subject."
I took issue with this interpretation of events in a response to a question posed by
Fred.
"Brennan started briefing the Gang of Eight individually beginning with Reid. He
finished all individual briefings on 5 Sep 2016 commenting that it proved difficult to get
appointments and talk with certain Republicans. Obama also sent Comey, Jeh Johnston and Lisa
Monaco to brief the "Gang of Twelve" that included the chairmen and ranking minority members of
Homeland Security and Intelligence to seek bipartisan support to respond forcefully to the
Russians in early Sep 2016. McConnell reacted forcefully to stifle the intelligence and any
forceful response saying "he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the
Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.""
I got it mostly right, but upon further research I discovered I was wrong about the 5
September date. It was 6 September. Publius Tacitus still took issue with this insisting
"Brennan did not brief all of the Republicans." I offered further proof of my claim in two
comments which Publius chose not to publish. That is his prerogative as a guest writer here.
I've decided to continue the discussion in this post. That is my prerogative as a guest writer
subject to the final decision of Colonel Lang, of course. Both Publius and I must abide by
those decisions.
I offer the testimony of John Brennan given before the HPSCI on 23 May 2017 to bolster my
case that Brennan did brief the "Gang of Eight" on the intelligence community's initial
findings that Russia was interfering with the 2016 elections.
"Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of
our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership;
specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to
representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and
6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight
members."
"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that
means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election,
the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress;
each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member."
This particular transcription of Brennan's remarks was done by a darling of the deep state
conspiracy crowd, sundance. Sundance was also kind enough to provide a video of Brennan's
remarks. Note that Brennan names those he briefed and that list included Nunes. Sundance
accepts Brennan's account of these meetings and, in fact, uses those remarks to beat Comey over
the head over a related issue.
As long as I'm writing a post, I might as well address a couple of other points raised by
Publius Tacitus. There was no "formal lack of response by the intelligence community." Prior to
the briefing of the "Gang of Eight," Brennan established an intelligence task force of a couple
dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI to focus on the issue of Russian interference. This is
probably the same team that wrote the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The
establishment of this task force was preceded by intelligence obtained by the CIA through some
kind of SIGINT, HUMINT or bilateral (FVEY) operation that detailed Putin's direct involvement
in the cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the US election. This intelligence also captured
Putin's instructions on the operation's eventual objectives, to defeat or at least damage
Clinton, and help elect Trump. Brennan sent this intelligence directly to Obama by courier
prior to the "Gang of Eight" briefings. I remember the widespread outcry when the existence of
this intelligence came out. It appeared to blow an apparent US penetration of Russian
government secure communications. Maybe it did. But Brennan's call to FSB director, Alexander
Bortnikov, on 4 August 2016 warning him to knock it off probably tipped off the Russians long
before the public outing of the intelligence as did Obama's face to face warning to Putin at
the G20 Summit that he knew what Putin was doing and warned him to knock it off.
In addition to this intelligence, the IC had at that time intelligence from Estonia (and
maybe others) about Page's June trip to Moscow, the Dutch observation of Cozy Bear activities
and the report from Australia about Popadopoulis' drunken ramblings in a London bar. None of
that came from the Steele dossier. All of that is conveniently ignored by the deep state
conspiracy theorists. All the information Reid referenced in his letter to Comey probably came
from his briefing by Brennan, but we can reasonably disagree on the role or non-role of the
Steele dossier.
In my earlier response to Publius Tacitus, I noted the forcefulness of McConnell in
preventing a public release of intelligence about Russian meddling or a public response to that
meddling. At that point in time, the Republican desire to keep this issue quiet can be seen as
a reasonable maneuver of political electioneering or healthy skepticism. However, perhaps
there's more to it than that. There are dueling conspiracy theories swirling around this whole
Russia thing. Nunes was close to Flynn and was on the Trump transition team. I think he's too
close to this to not recuse himself altogether, rather than this half-hearted recusal he
currently claims. His continued efforts to derail the Mueller investigation smacks of
conspiracy in my mind.
We still need to wait for the Mueller investigation to run its course and hope that the
results will be released to the public. We need that and the results of the ongoing FBI IG
investigation. Until then we'll continue to gleefully argue our respective points in a vacuum.
Unless your comments are unusually abrasive and contribute nothing to the conversation, I'll
publish them.
Well argued, but I respectfully disagree....
and, regrettably, your argument sounds like a defense of the disgraced and untrustworthy John
Brennan, who deserves a recap from author Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture
(other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing
lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan
last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian
deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical
policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen – targeting people without even
knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked
for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's
extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The
Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques)
and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust
about Russia???
You fail to mention that deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe stated under oath that
the dossier was used to "improperly obtain" FISA warrants to spy on a member of the Trump
camp or that the investigation has yet to produce even one scintilla of hard evidence in 18
months or that the media deliberately circulated stories they knew were uncorroborated
nonsense in order to damage the president they never wanted.
I suggest you go back and reread the ODNI that Brennen put out with the help of his
hand-picked team of analysts. I think you might be surprised in retrospect how weak the case
against Trump really is...
thanks ttg.. it is nice to have 2 strong opponents battling it out, for us to possibly gain
greater understanding here!
i am curious if you can shed more light on this quote from your post? "Obama's face to
face warning to Putin at the G20 Summit that he knew what Putin was doing and warned him to
knock it off."
that sounds very subjective to me... is there a transcript or recording of it? otherwise -
it is total conjecture with nothing to substantiate it.. thanks..
The "full spectrum information operation"by British operative Christopher Steele( working
with MI6 ) and US "security and Intell services" ie : John Brennan points to an attempt at a
unconstitutional coup against a duly elected President. Why? To maintain the British/US
establishment policy of geopolitical confrontation with Russia & China and the policy of
"regime change wars "; a policy candidate Trump voiced opposition to.
Russiagate or Intelgate?
The publication of the Republican House Committee memo and reports of other documents
increasingly suggest not only a "Russiagate" without Russia but also something darker: The
"collusion" may not have been in the White House or the Kremlin.
By Stephen F. Cohen FEBRUARY 7, 2018
"some kind of SIGINT, HUMINT or bilateral (FVEY) operation that detailed Putin's direct
involvement in the cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the US election. This intelligence
also captured Putin's instructions on the operation's eventual objectives, to defeat or at
least damage Clinton, and help elect Trump."
I call drivel.
Absent the presentation of "some kind of" said intel, Brennan is lying and conducting a
disinformation campaign.
There is no chance that Putin is dumb enough to believe that his Russian intelligence
services had the capability of swinging the election to anyone, let alone Trump whose
victory, I remind those with - as Publius put it in his thread - "memory on the level of an
Alzheimer patient" - was completely dismissed by everyone until it happened.
So we're supposed to believe the Russians knew better?
Hogwash.
When Brennan goes down for this disinformation campaign, I expect TTG to post a thread
here with his mea culpa.
The whole Trump/Putin narrative has lost steam. It has descended into an incomprehensible
storm of "he said, she said." Unless Democrats, Mueller or the intelligence services can
finally produce some kind of smoking gun, I doubt that Americans will just tune out.
Advantage Trump.
The whole adventure reminds me of the campaign against Bill Clinton in the 1990s. They
could only 'get' Clinton because he shot himself in the foot with Monica. Of course, Trump,
being Trump, is perfectly capable of doing the same thing.
If you expect me to argue that Brennan is not a typical scheming bureaucratic hack, you'd
have to wait a long time. I dislike him as I dislike most of his contemporaries, but I bear
him no personal grudge. The purpose of the ICA on Russian interference was not to make a case
against Trump. It was to make a case against Russia. I don't think it contained anything
referring to any kind of collusion. You're conflating two very different, albeit related,
subjects.
Reread the ICA on "Russian activities and intentions." It lays out the evolution of
Russian thinking over the course of the election season. Russian actions were logical and in
Russia's interests. They were not dependent on Trump's election victory.
This is a point that is rarely addressed or gets lost amongst all the vitriol. The Russians
absolutely could have been (and almost assuredly were) involved in instigating and generally
fuckery with respect to our elections and Trump could be squeaky clean as far as
collusion/obstruction/etc... One does not preclude the other.
In any event, the longer this bullshit goes on with the innuendo, leaks, counter
leaks, memos, and ridiculous histrionics the greater the level of transparency of the entire
process and investigations will be necessary to assuage the "losing" side of this debate. And
even granted that, it's doubtful there is a happy ending at the end of this particular
rainbow. But some clear and convincing cards need to be thrown on the table soon, regardless
of what they show.
On a lighter note, Karl Sharro wrote an entertaining piece last year about all this--more
so to those on here with direct ME experience:
If there was some Russian meddling and hacking going on, I have to wonder if getting caught
wasn't part of the plan. The key goal not being to put Trump in the White House, but to make
sure each party would be at each others' throat and claims of foreign influence, possible
treason and very dubious if not fake election results would poison the inner political life
of the USA for the next 4 years. Basically, sowing seeds of mistrust towards the various
authorities and the whole political process itself, to weaken the US system as a whole.
I base this hypothesis on reasoning similar to Richardstevenhack. Putin knows he can't win
elections by internet and IT shenanigans; GOP or dems would use it already and would be far
more effective than faraway Russia if it were the case. He's also smart enough to expect to
be caught if such a massive endeavour was underway. On the other hand, going in without
taking enough care not to get spotted and making sure the US agencies notice would indeed
mean the operation was designed to be uncovered, and that was its purpose.
All in all, if there are solid clues, I'd wonder first if Russians aren't framed, and
barring that, if their key goal isn't to cause paranoia inside the USA and make people doubt
their whole political system.
I thought it might help to quote the first part of the "Key Judgements in the Intel
Community Assessment:
Key Judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent
expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order,
but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity,
and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect
Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly
contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI
have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." (end quote)
The report was supposed to provide proof-positive that Russia meddled, but facts or
evidence are excluded in the 40 page document.
So what are we the people supposed to do with this....beat the bushes for another 3
years to see if something pops up?
How is that fair to the people who voted for Trump and think he should be left to rule
according to the results of the balloting?
At what point does the onus fall on the prosecution to produce hard-evidence or shut
the hell up?? Seriously. Or are you okay with a president being put under the microscope for
4 years with no probable cause, and no proof of criminal wrongdoing?
Tell me, how long should this investigation be allowed to continue without any proof?
"... cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the US election." Which other nations are
doing the same thing? Which ones were doing so on behalf of the other candidate and why
aren't those campaigns under investigation?
So Germany working to influence Americans is OK. Russians no. Yep. No
influencing US elections via activities camouflaged as NGOs doing their good deeds. Never
happen here. It's not like millions in donations to the Cxxxxxn Foundation, such as the $25
million donation of the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) - surprise! protected
by Canadian law from releasing thier donor identities (see the NYT linked below)- or
the multi-million donations of the Kindom of Norway, Kindom of Saudi Arabia, the Commonwealth
of Australia and a slew of others would provide that organization with fungable assets that
could be used in the USA to influence government policy or influence those voting for
representatives who determine US government policy.
"Nunes was close to Flynn and was on the Trump transition team. I think he's too close to
this to not recuse himself altogether..."
Guilt by association? How many other transition team members should be removed from doing
thier jobs for being "close to Flynn"?
"We still need to wait for the Mueller investigation to run its course and hope that the
results will be released to the public. "
How many years will that be?
Democracy dies in darkness. If this is actually worse than Watergate then declassify
it all and hold public hearings - with no immunity for anybody.
"... And the dossier, a pastiche of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee ..."
"... The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed. ..."
...Donald Trump went to war against the entire political class: all factions of both parties, the bureaucracy, the national
media, the lobbyists, Hollywood and Wall Street. He said the whole system was rotten and had failed the nation: hopeless wars
that accomplished nothing except the wastage of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the extension of Iranian influence
and an immense humanitarian crisis, a flatlined economy, a shrinking workforce, increasing poverty and crime, oceans of debt,
large trade deficits from trade agreements that exported unemployment to the United States and the unmonitored influx of
millions of illiterate peasants from Latin America.
... ... ...
For the first nine months of the new administration, there was the constant confected threat
of impeachment. The phantasmagorical imbecility that Trump had somehow colluded and connived
with the Russian government to rig the election was the excuse of the hapless Clinton and her
Trump-hating echo chamber in the national media for the election result.
The deep state was almost the whole state, and it pitched in to sabotage the administration.
For nearly that long, the Republican leaders sat on their hands waiting to see if he would be
impeached or not. His nominees were a long time in being confirmed. There were leaks of White
House conversations, including with foreign leaders -- outright acts of insubordination
causing Trump, a decisive executive, to fire some fairly high officials, including the malign
director of the FBI, who then informed Congress that he had leaked a self-addressed memo
(probably illegally, as it was technically government property), in order to have a special
prosecutor named to torment the president over the fatuous Russian allegations, although
Comey testified that Trump himself was not a target or suspect and the Russians had not
influenced the outcome of the election. (This was a sober position compared to the wholesale
fabrications of the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark
Warner, that a
thousand Russian agents had swarmed the key battleground states and had delivered
Wisconsin to Trump.)
The president has strengthened the White House staff. The FBI and Justice Department have
been ripped apart in their partisanship and misuse of the dossier on which the collusion
argument and the surveillance of the Trump campaign were based. And the dossier, a pastiche
of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, and the whole impeachment movement has
collapsed. The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep
state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is
forearmed.
Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full
(PublicAffairs, 2007).
Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the
March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
OF COURSE
there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells
us that power corrupts, as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched,
it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched in secrecy, it will be abused
in secret. That's the Deep State.
James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political theorist
(1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941
that the great political development of the age was not the battle between communism and
capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance in business,
finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it,
would be resisted, but it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial
elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle and stealthy ways, they would
exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to
protect themselves from those who might want to bust them up.
Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy
than in what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, augmented by
intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive for global
hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of
dominance.
Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as
in Cold War days. We have also permanent wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not
one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's how power
gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State
endures.
Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump
campaign "collusion" with Russia, or how the investigation into those troubling allegations
emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.
We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that
Russia and President Putin were behind the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot
to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really a National
Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence
analysis) but rather the work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine
intelligence officer and arms-control official,
put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia
NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and
judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion and short on evidence.
Even the New York Times initially
derided the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to
'trust us.'"
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union. But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal
problems.
Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news" , he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed
off in December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by "weaponizing disinformation"
and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia destabilized the
US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir Julian King,
casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated disinformation" to destabilize
the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned that Russia is stepping up its
efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he
claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it,
Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions. It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact" .
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the
press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must stop contributing to
a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real
scandal that the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt
the democratic process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
Anyone who believes MSM is totally indoctrinated since it has been proven over and over that
they won't tell the truth of the matter. The only REAL thing this country supplies or
produces is war. Most other industries have been outsourced and given subsidies to so, thus
taking American jobs from our lives. And now they want to take Social Security and Medicare
to PAY for our military buildup????
It is without a doubt true that the political class and their oligharchic owners are falling
and falling fast. They need a war to sustain their enrichment and attempted control of the
world. They have run out of potential victims , while on the home front the naive Amrikan is
starting to reject their nonsense. They can't really afford to take on China as they could
easily dump their US treasuries and sink the financing arrangements for a war. They would
like to stop the OBOR ; but how? Ah Russia. Smaller population but lethal in central Europe
and perhaps beyond. Good geographic position for cutting OBOR. After all why would anyone be
allowed to put in such a mega project and not let the US oligharchic class control it?
A big part of the problem with Washington DC is that they are ruled by the Rothschild
oligarchs and function first and foremost for Rothschild interests such as Israel and other
Rothschild programs. Washington is not focused on the states it was designed to serve.
Rothschild's and other oligarchs, fascists and the like control Washington crippling them.
Countries like China, Russia are making their own destinies while Washington languishes and
dissolves under a Rothschild fascist flag.
"Intel chief: Federal debt poses 'dire threat' to national security"
The above was the title to an article in The Hill, yesterday. The comment was attributed
to Dan Coates, DNI in testimony to Congress. To me, since elected officials CREATE the
federal debt, what the DNI is REALLY saying is that the elected officials are a dire threat
to national security. Their spending and fake borrowing from the Federal Reserve is the
threat-not Syria, Yemen, or other countries that have not attacked the US. The elected
officials, both Democrat and Republicans are on the way to destroying the US. Not Russia,
China, ISIS, or international terrorism.
I recently read a horrifying commentary by John Whitehead on the burgeoning sex trade in this
country where young girls are abducted and sold for sexual favors to deviants in every major
city in the US. Many of these girls are as young a three and four years old, and the average
age of these victims is 13! Thousands of missing children end up as sex slaves and are forced
to be with as many as 40 men a night.
This great evil has become extremely lucrative, and numerous monsters, both men, and women
are reaping billions of dollars from the unspeakable crime of destroying children's lives,
not only physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.
The West has reached a new level of rottenness. Moral decay is actively gnawing at the
very fabric of our society. The Cabal and its rampant criminality in Washington is a
reflection of this terrible decline we are witnessing around us.
The hypocritical cry and hue from our government officials about the terrible human rights
abuses in other countries as they seek to deflect the attention away from their own
criminality and murderous abuses at home and abroad is indeed sickening.
UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1961. He
dared speak Truth to the Power. His quote from over 60 years ago is so relevant to what is
going on Today. It has spread like never before to affect the judgments of the Politicians,
the news media, and the Public.
-The Assembly has witnessed over the last weeks how historical truth is established; once
an allegation has been repeated a few times, it is no longer an allegation, it is an
established fact, even if no evidence has been brought out in order to support it.
American propaganda is scapegoating Russia to absolve Americans of responsibility for
creating their own political divisions.
Observing from CanaDa, this anti-Russia/Putin Propaganda is confirming this Vision of the
Future published 41 years ago.
On September 13, 1976, the major daily THE KANSAS CITY TIMES published this Vision of the
FUTURE: "He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the
election in November TO DO GOD'S BIDDING: To tell the world, from Kansas City, this country
has been found wanting and its days are numbered [...] He gestured toward a gleaming church
dome. "The gold dome is the symbol of Babylon," he said." [...] He wanted to bring to the
Public's attention an "idea being put out subtly and deceptively" by the government that we
have to get prepared for a war with Russia.
It's taken over 40 years, but that 1976 FUTURE is NOW with the Revelation of the details
GENERALLY unfolding in the spirit of the letter. The World is finally waking up to see Trump
just may hasten "its days are numbered" part of the 1976 Public record.
The KANSAS CITY TIMES did a follow up report on ALL SOULS DAY, November 2, 1976. When the TV
movie 'THE DAY AFTER' Kansas City was incinerated in a Nuclear Holocaust appeared in 1983,
most likely, I was the only Human on Earth, including the newspaper reporters, to note at the
END, the movie pauses at the very same picture frame THE KANSAS CITY TIMES chose for the ALL
SOULS DAY record 7 years earlier.
Any way you look at it, that HISTORICAL FACT is a confirming SIGN for our Generations, the
World has arrived at this point of Decision, of an "idea being put out subtly and
deceptively" by the government that we have to get prepared for a war with Russia."
Multitudes! Multitudes in the Valley of Decision. The Day of the LORD IS NEAR in the Valley
of Decision.
Not many will recognize, "this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered"
as the 1st two parts, of the 3 part 'Writing on the Wall" from Daniel 5 and the Captivity of
Babylon some 2600 years ago. The whole world saw The Writing on the Wall for the 1st TIME at
the same TIME, with the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour in September of
2008, even if the world does not recognize it as such.
The 3rd part of the Writing on the Wall tells of the decline of Babylon, the 1st Biblical
model of the Nation that reaches Imperial Military-Economic Superpower Status, and the rise
of Persia
Ancient Babylon is now Iraq, and ancient Persia is now Iran.
The US is the latest, greatest of all the Nations reaching Imperial Military-Economic
Superpower Status in the 2600 year old Biblical Babylonian superstructure.
The TAIL struck the HEAD, causing the unravelling of the Earthly Babylonian superstructure
and infrastructure, ushering in the Law of the Jungle to the Middle East and this World.
The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979, 2-1/2 years after the record in the 1976 KANSAS
CITY TIMES Timeline.
All the chaos in the Middle East since then, including the carnage in Syria, is the
consequence of the vain attempt to reverse that God ordained, repeat of History, as a SIGN
for our Generations. http://ray032.com/2013/09/01/signs-of-the-times/
Bulldoze them Georgia Guidestones.
Erase that Denver Airport Artwork.
Send Lady Liberty back to France.
Neandertals, behaving badly.
Stars and Stripes gilded cheap pennant should be changed to Skull n Bones.
What the U.S. political and Deep State accused of Russia today is exactly what they
themselves have done to much of the world. Entire Wikipedia is not big enough to write about
the dirty tricks of the CIA and NSA.
Russia of course has no need to do what was accused. But they are surely laughing at being
accused. Indeed, keep the accusation coming. The more the accusations, the longer they last,
the more sure Russia know the corrupt terror empires of the west are going down.
Without firing a single shot. Now isn't that funny? Just ask the Chinese!
February 14, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - Every
empire needs a scary external threat, led by a singular menacing villain, to justify its massive military expenditures, consolidation
of authoritarian powers, and endless wars. For the five decades after the end of World War II, Moscow played this role perfectly.
But the fall of Soviet Union meant, at least for a while, that the Kremlin could no longer sustain sufficient fear levels. After
some brief, largely unsuccessful auditions for possible replacements -- Asian actors
like China and
a splurging Japan were considered
-- the post-9/11 era elevated a cast of Muslim understudies to the starring role: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, ISIS and Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, and "jihadism" generally kept fear alive.
The lack of any 9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S. (or any Western) soil for the past 17 years, along with the killing of a
pitifully aged, ailing bin Laden and the erosion of ISIS, has severely compromised their ongoing viability as major bad guys. So
now -- just as a film studio revitalizes a once-successful super-villain franchise for a new generation of moviegoers -- we're back
to the Russians occupying center stage.
That Barack Obama spent eight years (including up through his final year-end news conference) mocking the notion that Russia posed
a serious threat to the U.S. given their size and capabilities, and that he
even tried
repeatedly to accommodate and partner with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is of no concern: In the internet age, "2016" is
regarded as ancient history, drowned out by an endless array of new threats pinned by a united media on the Russkie Plague. Moreover,
human nature craves a belief in an existential foreign threat because it confers a sense of purpose and cause, strengthens tribal
unity and identity, permits scapegoating, shifts blame for maladies from internal to external causes, and (like religion) offers
a simplifying theory for understanding a complex world.
One of the prime accusations sustaining this script is that the Kremlin is drowning the West in "fake news" and other forms of
propaganda. One can debate its impact and magnitude, but disinformation campaigns are something the U.S., Russia, and countless other
nations have done to one another for centuries, and there is
convincing evidence that Russia does this
sort of thing now. But evidence of one threat does not mean that all claimed threats are real, nor does it mean that that tactic
is exclusively wielded by one side.
Over the past year, there have been numerous claims made by Western intelligence agencies, mindlessly accepted as true in the
Western press, that have turned out to be baseless, if not deliberate scams. Just today, it
was revealed
that Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra lied when he claimed he was at a meeting with Putin, in which the Russian president "said
he considered Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states as part of a 'Greater Russia.'"
"Fake news" is certainly something to worry about when it emanates from foreign adversaries, but it is at least as concerning
and threatening, if not more so, when emanating from one's own governments and media. And there are countless, highly significant
examples beyond today's of such propaganda that emanates from within.
... ... ...
If there's any lesson that should unite everyone in the West, it's that the greatest skepticism is required when it comes to government
and media claims about the nature of foreign threats. If we're going to rejuvenate a Cold War, or submit to greater military spending
and government powers in the name of stopping alleged Russian aggression, we should at least ensure that the information on which
those campaigns succeed are grounded in fact. Even a casual review of the propaganda spewing forth from Western power centers over
the last year leaves little doubt that the exact opposite is happening.
This article was originally published by "
The Intercept "
Russia accusations are a false flag!!-No evidence-Zero NADA!!
Rather than Russia how about Mossad false flags??!
More likely .............and the silence is deafening.......... at theZionist owned MSMs in the USA!!!!
Dollars to Doughnuts-Israel is the perpetrator
I suppose I am too naive to understand the
hysteria and indignation that claims of Russia
Interference in the 2016 american electoral process garners.
The US openly calls for regime change in Syria. Hung Saddam
Hussein after a show trial. Arranged Muammar Gaddafi's sodomization
and assassination.
Do americans not realize that in levelling the accusation that Putin-Russia
successfully subverted the US electoral process that you are conceding that Russia has the power to subjugate (bring under domination
or control, especially by conquest.) the US electoral process, its government, institutions and public perception.
If americans are going to continue to make this outlandish claim for which no evidence has yet to be produced then Putin's Russia
must be recognized as the world hegemon and the indispensable- Exceptional nation. What does that do to the narrative of the "shining
city set upon a hill".
The US is blinded by its own conceit.
Frankly, what I have seen in the past 20 years, the people in San Francisco might be better off under Russian federation management
than it has been under the selected, elected, salaried, privileged 527 USA neo clowns who manage Americans in America. At least
the Russians might not give USA money to foreigners, prevent Americans from drilling their own gas and oil, tax Americans so the
USA can give the tax revenues to the corporations, and send American jobs and educational knowledge to far away places; as the
NEO CLOWN management has done.
My personal experience with Russia people with whom I have worked is they are just exactly like Americans, quite a bit better
educated, may be a little more honest.. so the question becomes under which managing government would 340,000,000 Americans be
better off: the Russian Federation or the 527 neocon-selected, media-elected, salaried, privileged USA neo clowns? Actually, i
think both governments are in need of being better arranged to respond to the needs and intentions of their people instead of
using those they govern to satisfy the Oligarchs.
"9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S." a self-inflicted "catastrophic attack". Perhaps the USI should quit murdering people at
home and abroad... maybe that way some semblence of symathy could be mustered up.
Oh and the "shooter" in Florida.. notuce it's not a "terrorist"? So this kid was a "shooter". Pfft. Call it what it is. He was
and is a terrorist. Treat him as one would treat the invented funded and propped up "terrorists" abroad. Send the kid to 'Gitmo'
(how i loathe that americanized word)
Remember the murderous Anthrax terrorism that happened as Congress was passing the USA
PATRIOT Act? Remember how our
current VP, Pence testified to Congress about it being Saddam's fault?
And that anthrax strain actually was traced to US's Ames Biological Weapons lab?
And FBI Director at that time, Robert
Mueller buried the investigation? What ever happened to that FBI Director who closed a
murderous terrorist attack without having "solved" it?
Judah Grunstein
dubs Trump "the generals' president" because of his total capitulation to whatever the
current and former generals around him want:
Trump's generals have instead gone back to the future, restoring the model of a U.S.
military that faces no fiscal or strategic constraints, while preparing for a conflict -- a
conventional war with either or both of its nuclear-armed big power competitors -- that is
not just unlikely, but unwinnable.
While it is true that Trump voiced some objections to foreign wars long after they were over
or when it was no longer very risky to do so, it is important to remember that he was always in
favor of throwing more money at the military from the beginning of his campaign. He seized on
the nonsense talking point that the military had been "depleted" under Obama, and he has
continued to use it until now, and he made undoing the imaginary "depletion" one of the main
planks of his platform. Since Trump is a militarist, and since he now comes from the more
hawkish of the two parties, it was more or less a given that he would waste huge sums on higher
military spending while agreeing to the policies favored by Mattis, McMaster, et al. Add to
this his fetish for "strength" and "greatness," and you have a recipe for massive wasteful
spending on weapons and programs that the U.S. doesn't need. When there are already Pentagon
agencies losing
track of how they spend hundreds of millions of dollars , throwing more money at a huge
department with inadequate oversight is pure folly.
The increase in military spending that Trump has endorsed reflects his impulse to give the
military whatever they want. In addition to being completely unnecessary, higher military
spending will
indulge the Pentagon in all its worst habits:
The Pentagon budget request for 2019 puts the military on a course of spending unmatched
since the Reagan-era buildup, boosting the number of troops, warplanes and bombs, according
to documents and analysts.
But, defense analysts say, the $716 billion spending plan risks flooding too much money
into a Defense Department that may not spend it wisely.
"The risk is that when the budget is flowing freely, policy makers are usually reluctant
to make hard choices," said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, a non-partisan think tank.
"While this is not a record increase, it comes on top of a budget that was already higher
than the peak of the Reagan buildup when adjusted for inflation [bold mine-DL]," Harrison
said.
The fantasy claim that the military budget suffered significant reductions in the last
decade has been one of the standard hawkish criticisms of the previous administration, and
Trump takes that falsehood as gospel. The truth is that an already bloated military budget has
continued to grow, and Trump proposes to make it grow even faster. Everyone in Washington was
so desperate to have the generals rein in Trump that most of them never thought through what it
meant for Trump to be the military's unthinking yes-man.
"... As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including "digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn " oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas company Joe Biden's son is on the board of). ..."
"... If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants," perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier. ..."
"... The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked? ..."
BuzzFeed is suing the
cash-strapped Democratic National Committee (DNC) to force them to hand over information
related to the "Steele Dossier" that might help the news outlet defend itself against a lawsuit
lodged by a Russian businessman who was named in the document. Three separate lawsuits have
been launched against BuzzFeed in connection to the January 11, 2017 publication of the
dossier, which states that Russian tech executive Aleksej Gubarev used his web hosting
companies to hack into the DNC's computer systems.
The dossier, without substantiation, said Gubarev's U.S.-based global web-hosting
companies, XBT and Webzilla, planted digital bugs, transmitted viruses and conducted altering
operations against the Democratic Party leadership.
While one key name in the dossier was blackened out by BuzzFeed, Gubarev's was not. He
alleges that he was never contacted for comment, suffering reputational harm in the process.
-
Foreign Policy
As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might
help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including
"digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the
hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report
prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very
Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn "
oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian
Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas
company Joe Biden's son is on the board of).
"As part of the discovery process, BuzzFeed is attempting to verify claims in the dossier
that relate to the hacking of the DNC," said BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenhal in a statement.
"We're asking a federal court to force the DNC to follow the law and allow BuzzFeed to fully
defend its First Amendment rights."
Last month, the DNC claimed that providing the requested information would expose the DNC's
internal operations and harm the party politically (it's always someone else's fault, no?).
"If these documents were disclosed, the DNC's internal operations, as well as its ability to
effectively achieve its political goals, would be harmed ," said DNC lawyers.
If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants,"
perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which
CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside
source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was
the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks.
Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the
news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the
globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier.
The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge
of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama
administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based
business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports
Foreign Policy.
At FTI, Ferrante launched what's now been a months-long stealth effort chasing down
documents and conducting interviews on the ground in various countries around the world. His
team directed BuzzFeed lawyers to subpoena specific data and testimony from dozens of
agencies or companies across the country and assembled a cyber ops war room to analyze that
dat a, according to sources familiar with the work.
Considering that much of the Steele dossier came from a collaboration with high level
Kremlin officials (a collusion if you will), one has to wonder exactly what channels
Ferrante and FTI have tapped in order to access such information.
Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked?
"It's worth noting that intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony."
It's also worth noting that sometimes the judge is in on it.
For the Trump Admin surveillance warrants the FISA judge was probably Contreras. So goes
the rumor. He was probably in on it or halfway in on it. All the major players in DC know
each other and trade favors.
And Gen Mike Flynn is in the process of getting his case dismissed. The only thing left to
determine is how much the Federales will have to reimburse him for his lawyers fees, which
are a million plus.
Rudolph Contreras was the FISA Judge who issued a warrant to spy on Carter Page because
of a Yahoo News article and a Phony Probably have already. He needs to go
Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court
Did Judge Contreras OK electronic surveillance of Recused Judge in Flynn
Prosecution Served on FISA Court Did Judge Contreras OK electronic surveillance of
Federal FISA Judge Recuses Himself From Michael Flynn Case
Blows the whole FISA Court to hell in a hand basket and Judge Contreras is getting the
hell out of dodge. This a helluva mess for the FISA Court and it's victims. Rule 5.
Authority of the Judges. (b) Referring Matters to Other Judges.
Putin blocked from 2000 onward the IMF/World Bank extreme privatization/liberalization
forced upon Russia to destroy it as a state and transfer control of its resources. This
process facilitated by Yeltsin caused Russia to default on its loans in 1998. Never have the
US/UK banking and deep state complex forgiven Putin for destroying their dreams of continuing
empire.
Brennan is just another Israeli tool , nothing more , nothing less , and a traitor
besides.
Not a shred of doubt about that.
Also, wouldn't one have to be in possession of something called a mind, to be classified
as a mastermind? I doubt the doofus can put on his own socks unaided.
True, if Brennan is the mastermind, that might explain why the whole Russiagate shitaree
is so obviously stupid. Other than making this little point, though the article is just yet
another rehashing of the same tired points.
Yo, Mike, if you want to say that Brennan is behind this reeking pile of manure, there's
no need to restate everything ever written about it. You could have made this same point in
the comments section of any other article posted here.
Wrong is that Zijlstra in 2006 worked for Shell, he just was a member of the
representatives for the town of Utrecht.
Pandora's box went open in yesterday evening Jinek talkshow, Rutte concluded gas deals for E
Ukraine for Shell.
MH17 now also comes into a different light, why Russia must be blamed for the catastrophe,and
why we still dot not know who did it.
lolz at Putin. More theater from the ActWhores. The Trump character made billions, which
shows he played more people than others played him. The two "intelligence" chiefs worked as
government bureaucrats their entire lives and never did anything on their own. Sorry, but I
grew up in the military, went to military schools, and knew tons of military officers and
NCOs as a child and teenager. People in such organizations become institutionalized and all
think and talk alike and write the same kind of propaganda. Clapper and Brennan and the rest
of their community only can think like their community. Carroll Quigley called it the
Institutionalization of the Instrument. It happens to all large human organizations without
exception. Look at the major US car companies that declined into almost extinction because
the inbred people who run them can't function well.
"... Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis. ..."
"... Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the winner. ..."
"... On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign. The task force included the FBI, the Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA). ..."
"... On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he'd be "frightened" of a Trump presidency. He said, "I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign." A news report told us "Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges." ..."
"... There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against Trump's election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him. ..."
"... The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump's associates had received campaign money from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force " was set up after the director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States." ..."
"... According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to see Trump's presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA have gained considerable power within the government. They've enhanced this by developing operational forces in the field. ..."
"... As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2's attack on Iraq and as in the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can't be traced through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups. ..."
"... On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was "being really dumb" for arguing against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." ..."
"... On January 15, 2017, we read "CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on the verge of commanding." ..."
"... In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences. Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success. ..."
A. Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently
retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative
headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence
agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those
operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis.
Q. When did the coup attempt begin?
A. Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the
election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the
winner.
Q. What evidence points to the CIA's role in the coup attempt?
A. A news report from September 5, 2016, reports that "U.S. intelligence and law enforcement
agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United
States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political
institutions, intelligence, and congressional officials said."
On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to
investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign. The task force included the FBI, the
Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Q. Why did the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's campaign?
A. Why did the CIA not set up a task force to investigate Hillary Clinton's activities
during and after being Secretary of State in response to receipt of mammoth amounts of foreign
money that were laundered through the Clinton Foundation? The reason is that she was the
candidate favored by the CIA leadership and Trump was not.
Early in 2016, Trump was raising very strong doubts in the intelligence community that he'd
govern as they saw fit.
On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he'd be "frightened" of a Trump presidency.
He said, "I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was
consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign." A news report
told us "Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the
U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican
front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges."
A month later, Hayden opined that Trump was a larger threat to national stability on
security matters than Hillary Clinton.
On April 11, 2016, we learn that CIA Director "Brennan said on NBC News Sunday that he would
not allow enhanced interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, even if a future president
ordered it." Trump wasted no time responding: "Donald Trump is taking on CIA Director John
Brennan on torture, saying Brennan's pledge not to allow waterboarding is 'ridiculous.'"
On July 13, 2016, Brennan testified that he'd consider quitting rather than obey a
president's order to reinstate waterboarding, something that Trump had suggested. Another
article says that even before that date, "[Brennan] has already expressed his distaste for
Trump."
There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two
CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's
campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the
investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against
Trump's election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible
president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him.
Q. But wasn't the CIA doing the right thing to investigate possible Russian funding of
the Trump campaign?
A. The idea of Russian funding of Trump's campaign was absurd. This investigation had no
reason to be started other than a goal of smearing Trump and preventing a Trump presidency. It
was absurd because foreign money given to American political campaigns is illegal and everyone
knows it. Trump would not jeopardize his campaign for some trivial amount of money nor would
his campaign officials; and a large amount would easily be spotted through the banking system.
It was also absurd because the Kremlin would not operate and does not operate in this way. It
would not risk being found out blatantly violating American law in this way, as that would
greatly diminish its credibility. "Doing the right thing" for the American system was strictly
a plausible and disingenuous device.
Q. If the investigation was absurd, what leads or allegations did the CIA have to set it
up?
A. The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump's associates had received campaign money
from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and
made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force " was set up after the
director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the
Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was
apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States."
According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to
see Trump's presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule
by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA
have gained considerable power within the government. They've enhanced this by developing
operational forces in the field.
As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2's attack on Iraq and as in
the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence
and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of
Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can't be traced
through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in
public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups.
John Brennan has the CIA initiate an investigation on a flimsy basis and gets away with it.
We know from his public statements at that time and later that he's thoroughly anti-Trump and
anti-Russia. This is why such an investigation went forward. Brennan had nothing to lose. If he
found some dirt on Trump or his associates, he'd discredit Trump and lose him votes. If he
didn't find anything, the investigation itself would still raise suspicions about Trump and
provide Hillary Clinton and her aides with anti-Trump ammunition. In fact, her campaign did use
the alleged Russian connection against Trump.
Q. What else do we know of Brennan's differences with Trump?
A. On Sept. 11, 2016, Brennan disagreed with Trump publicly: "CIA Director John Brennan
pushed back against Donald Trump's claim that he could read disapproval of President Barack
Obama's policies in the body language of the intelligence officers who gave him a confidential
national security briefing."
On November 30, 2016, we read that Brennan expressed another difference with Trump: "The
director of the CIA has issued a stark warning to President-elect Donald J. Trump. Tearing up
the Iran nuclear deal would be 'the height of folly' and 'disastrous.'"
On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was "being really dumb" for arguing
against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
getting back at you."
On January 15, 2017, we read "CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting
message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him
against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked
the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that
laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on
the verge of commanding."
Q. What became of the allegations against the three associates of Trump?
A. The three accused men each strongly denied allegations of being paid by the Kremlin. On
October 15, the FISA court granted a warrant to intercept communications from two Russian
banks. The investigators were looking for evidence that money passed from Russia to the three
Trump associates. No such evidence was found.
On January 19, 2017, the continuing investigation by "American law enforcement and
intelligence agencies" was confirmed, and Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was
mentioned:
"The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings
that some of the president-elect's past and present advisers have had with
Russia . Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there
were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia's Federal
Security Service, one of the officials said."
Mr. Manafort has done nothing illegal, we learn. He has merely done some business in Ukraine
and Russia. He merely came into contact with people with suspected links to a Russian
intelligence outfit. They weren't even known spies. Mr. Manafort has fallen victim to
suspicion by association two or three times removed even from guilt by association.
The other two being investigated are Carter Page and Roger Stone, and we learn that they too
are innocent of wrongdoing.
"The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the
C.I.A. and the Treasury Department's financial crimes unit. The investigators have
accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing,
the officials said."
So, we know that a concerted effort has been made to investigate three of Trump's close
aides. We know that the CIA was the instigator and that it used its typical murky and
unverifiable tips to gain credibility. Finally, we know that this inquiry has produced no
evidence of any illegal activities of Trump or his aides.
Q. What other evidence is there of an attempted coup against Trump?
A. On Oct. 7, 2016, there was released the "Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland
Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security". This brief
statement on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies linked the Russian government to hacking:
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations." It stated its belief "that only Russia's senior-most officials could have
authorized these activities."
On Nov. 30, 2016, an outfit named PropOrNot with links to the U.S. intelligence community
published a report that named 200 websites as propagators of Russian propaganda: "Russia Is
Manipulating US Public Opinion through Online Propaganda".
On Dec. 9, 2016, it was reported that "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that
Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency "
Dec. 29, 2016, arrived the FBI-DHS report: "Grizzly Steppe – Russian Malicious Cyber
Activity". This was widely denounced as lacking even persuasive circumstantial evidence, never
mind direct evidence of Russian involvement.
On Jan. 10, 2017, the Golden Showers report was leaked, accusing Trump of having been
compromised by Russian agents and therefore subject to blackmail. This report had been
circulating for weeks in intelligence and media circles. It had supposedly been written between
July and December by former British MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele.
Once again we observe that a spurious anti-Trump report is purported or arranged to have a
foreign origination; but that it is carried to the public by means of the CIA and leaks within
the U.S.
On February 13, 2017, the coup perps drew fresh blood when Michael Flynn resigned, despite
no evidence of wrongdoing. Their success is attributable to their use of wiretapped phone calls
and to leaking these to the media. Since intelligence agents have access to these calls that
the NSA collects, we once again observe that intelligence circles are active in seeking to
undermine Trump. This is consistent with the conclusion that a coup attempt is ongoing.
Q. Could you summarize, please?
A. In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences.
Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports
and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They
went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they
produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success.
Q. What happens next?
A. The future is guesswork. We will be surprised at what happens, but here are some guesses.
The coup attempt will not cease. There is nothing presently opposing it unless Trump is
counterattacking behind the scenes, of which there is no evidence. Trump will eventually sense
the coup's efficacy and devise ways to stop it. The anti-Trump media will keep the pot boiling.
They will need new stories to exploit. Anti-Trump elements in the CIA can be expected to come
up with new, dubious and devious revelations aimed at discrediting Trump's handling of foreign
affairs. We can expect former intelligence officials to speak out against Trump at critical
times and to recruit allies who will add what appears to be an even more independent criticism
of Trump. The coup may transform into an effort to control Trump's policies from outside his
administration.
"... The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's behalf
and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced
no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor of Trump. This
is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead, they focus
their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia,
especially in confronting jihadi terrorists. ..."
"... The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with
or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians! ..."
"... The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their
sweeping purge of civil society. ..."
"... President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to
overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and
nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China ..."
"... Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the
spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order ..."
Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens' constitutional rights for as long a time and against
as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of
crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the
US Justice Department.
In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members
of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media. The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators,
intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left. Today, the right
and the left have changed places: The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department's fabrications, and abuse
of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public
opinion makers.
The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump
campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency. Private sector investigators,
hired by Trump's rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and
Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens. This was done
with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.
The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's
behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have
produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor
of Trump. This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead,
they focus their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between
the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists.
The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined
with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians!
The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of
their sweeping purge of civil society.
The FBI investigated the private lives of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even threatening their family members. They illegally
spied on and infiltrated civil liberties organizations, and used provocateurs and spies in anti-war groups. Individuals lives were
destroyed, some were driven to suicide; important popular American organizations were undermined to the detriment of millions. This
has been its focus since its beginning and continues with the current fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda and investigations.
President Trump: Victim and Executor
President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war
to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile
and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China .
Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion.
In a word: From the right to the left there are no political options to choose from among the two ruling political parties. Popular
political movements and mass demonstrations have risen up against Trump with clear justification, but have since dissolved and been
absorbed. They came together from diverse sectors: Women against sexual abuse and workplace humiliation; African-Americans against
police impunity and violence; and immigrants against mass expulsion and harassment. They staged mass demonstrations and then declined
as their 'anti-Trump' animus was frustrated by the liberal-democrats hell-bent on pursuing the Russian connection.
In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women
organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video
evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence
in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and
political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements
and especially oppose growing war-fever.
Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty
everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.
Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to
the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order
.
"... Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA. ..."
"... Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) ..."
"... These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia actually exist or not. ..."
"... Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of the dossier. ..."
"... What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose, like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause. ..."
"... Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia. ..."
"... Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails. The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him. ..."
"... It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. ..."
"... It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation must have been irresistible. ..."
"... But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? ..."
"... Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here" principle. ..."
"... Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance ..."
The report ("The Dossier") that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for
by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and
Hillary Clinton campaign. The FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's alleged connections to Russia was launched
on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on
the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign.
The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information
from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this
below)
The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be
traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the "unverified and salacious" information
from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here's how Stephen
Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:
"Steele's dossier was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative from the time
its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US
"Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017 .the dossier and subsequent ICA report
remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of "Trump-Putin
collision." ("Russia gate or Intel-gate?", The Nation)
There's just one problem with Cohen's statement, we don't really know the extent to which
the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the
IC's flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the
2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this
excerpt from an article at Business Insider:
"Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence
report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want
to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly
interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it
aligned with reality", Business Insider)
Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have
been used in the ICA.
In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings
of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level
officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses,
but it was the 8-page "criminal referral" authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here's a blurb from the
document:
"It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained
for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate
of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility
and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is
substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of
his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility."
There it is. The FBI made a "concerted effort to conceal information from the court" in
order to get a warrant to spy on a member of a rival political campaign. So –at the very
least– there was an effort, on the part of the FBI and high-ranking officials at the
Department of Justice, to improperly spy on members of the Trump team. And there's more. The
FBI failed to mention that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, or
that the dossier's author Christopher Steele had seeded articles in the media that were being
used to support the dossier's credibility (before the FISA court), or that, according to the
FBI's own analysts, the dossier was "only minimally corroborated", or that Steele was a
ferocious partisan who harbored a strong animus towards Trump. All of these were omitted in the
FISA application which is why the FBI was able to deceive the judge. It's worth noting that
intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony.
Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of
Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) Here's one suggestive tidbit that
appeared in the Graham-Grassley" referral:
" Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his company "received this report from REDACTED US
State Department," that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was
information that came from a foreign sub-source who "is in touch with REDACTED, a contact of
REDACTED, a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to REDACTED."
It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility." (Lifted from The Federalist)
What are we to make of this? Was Steele shaping the dossier's narrative to the
specifications of his employers? Was he being coached by members of the Hillary team? How did
that impact the contents of the dossier and the subsequent Russia investigation?
These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces
prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was
a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up
the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia
actually exist or not.
Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact
that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization
that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for
a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get
in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little
incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of
the dossier.
What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command
a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him
long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose,
like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they
ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause.
But that brings us to the strange case of Carter Page, a bit-player whose role in the Trump
campaign was trivial at best. Page was what most people would call a "small fish", an
insignificant foreign policy advisor who had minimal impact on the campaign. Congressional
investigators, like Nunes, must be wondering why the FBI and DOJ devoted so much attention to
someone like Page instead of going after the "big fish" like Bannon, Flynn, Kushner, Ivanka and
Trump Jr., all of whom might have been able to provide damaging information on the real target,
Donald Trump. Wasn't that the idea? So why waste time on Page? It doesn't make any sense,
unless, of course, the others were already being surveilled by other agencies? Is that it, did
the NSA and the CIA have a hand in the surveillance too?
It's a moot point, isn't it? Because now that there's evidence that senior-level officials
at the DOJ and the FBI were involved in improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the
opposite party, the investigation is going to go wherever it goes. Whatever restrictions
existed before, will now be lifted. For example, this popped up in Saturday's The Hill:
"House Intelligence Committee lawmakers are in the dark about an investigation into
wrongdoing at the State Department announced by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday.
Nunes told Fox News on Friday that, "we are in the middle of what I call phase two of our
investigation. That investigation is ongoing and we continue work toward finding answers and
asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department
was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."
Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era
State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether
the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia.
"I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State
Department played in the fall of 2016, including information that was used in a court
proceeding. I am troubled by it," Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday." ("Lawmakers in dark about
'phase two' of Nunes investigation", The Hill)
So the State Department is next in line followed by the NSA and, finally, the Russia-gate
point of origin, John Brennan's CIA. Here's more background on that from Stephen Cohen's
illuminating article at The Nation:
" .when, and by whom, was this Intel operation against Trump started?
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly
Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The
Washington Post put it at the time, "in triggering an FBI probe." Certainly both the Post and
The New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan played a
central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress
privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that
almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared
his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI
Director Comey may have joined them actively somewhat later .
When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this
somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article, by late 2015 or early 2016
he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding
"suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian
agents."
In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the
FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate." ("Russiagate or Intelgate?", Stephen
Cohen, The Nation)
Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops
originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam
Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival
requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious
external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary
and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails.
The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the
massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him.
According to the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians."
It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and
Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize
Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary
people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the
country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with
one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation
must have been irresistible.
But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in
the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of
the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the
information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government
agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence
Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked"
analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what
to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence
investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan
attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Soon the investigative crosshairs will settle on Brennan. He'd better have the right
answers.
That the whole media can be in service of a such a fraud and beam their relentless lies
across millions of TV screens even in a democracy like America goes to tell you that the
Power ultimately decides what is 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'.
Why else would most of Big Media be spreading all these lies about Russia Hacking or
'Russiagate' when the only real 'gate' is Deepstategate and Jewishhategate. The anti-Trump
hysteria is nothing but an act of arson set by Jewish globalists who hate him.
Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might
have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the
Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here"
principle.
Planting stories in the kept lugenpresse then citing the resulting articles as evidence is a
common technique of the national security state. Anyone remember DickiePoo Cheney (the man
with no heart) planting bogus weapons-of-mass-destruction stories with "reporter" Judith (the
jooie) Miller whose stuff was dutifully published in the rapidly anti arab Jew York Times.
DickiePoo then cited the stories as evidence that Iraq needed to be invaded and destroyed.
This kind of propaganda is quite effective and very long lasting to this day something like
60% of the american public still believe Saddam had a hand in the 911 false flag operation
and probably future history books will agree.
Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security
at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which
undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance .
His appointment is in the grand tradition of Jesuitical sucking up to the
powers-that-be.
An especially egregious example of this would be the current Jesuit "Bishop of Rome" (his
preferred parlance) playing footsie with communist China. And in the process throwing
faithful Chinese under the proverbial bus – just being chalked up as collateral
damage!
Susan Rice admitted to lawmakers last week that she unmasked Trump transition team
officials even though earlier this year she denied knowing anything about it.
Rice was asked by PBS Newshour 's Judy Woodruff on March 22 about allegations that
Trump transition officials were swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama
administration.
"I know nothing about this," Rice had said at the time.
However, last week, she told the House intelligence committee that she had unmasked Trump
transition team members in order to understand why the Emrati crown prince was
visiting New York late last year, according to a CNN report.
She said the Obama administration "felt misled" by the United Arab Emirates, who had not
mentioned that the crown prince was visiting the country.
Rice's admission also showed that Trump transition team members were indeed caught up in
surveillance of a foreign target, confirming President Trump's suspicions that his transition
team was being surveilled.
The foreign target in this case was apparently the Emiratis, who call themselves "close friends and strong
allies" with the U.S. on its Washington, D.C., website.
Rice's justification -- feeling misled -- was nowhere near a hypothetical scenario Rice laid
out for a reason to unmask during an MSNBC interview on April 4.
During that April interview, Rice laid out a hypothetical scenario of a foreign agent
attempting to buy bomb-making materials from a U.S. citizen.
"Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to
sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability
to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where
knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information," Rice said.
An unnamed senior Middle East official told CNN that the UAE did not "mislead" the Obama
administration about the crown prince's visit, but acknowledged not telling the US government
about it in advance.
The official told CNN the meeting took place on December 15, and was "simply an effort to
build a relationship with senior members of the Trump team who would be working in the
administration to share assessments of the region."
"The meeting was about ascertaining the Trump team's view of the region and sharing the
UAE's view of the region and what the US role should be," the official told CNN. "No one was
coming in to sell anything or arrange anything."
Sources told CNN that the crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, met with
several top Trump officials including Michael Flynn, the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner,
and his top strategist Steve Bannon.
CNN noted that the meeting took place before an effort by the UAE to faciliate a
"back-channel communication" between Russia and the incoming administration.
Sources told CNN that the discussion focused on a range of issues, including Iran, Yemen and
the Mideast peace process, but that opening up a back-channel with Russia was not
discussed.
The alleged back-channel meeting set up by the UAE was at the Seychelles Island between Erik
Prince, the founder of Blackwater, whose sister is Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and an
"associate of Vladimir Putin."
The purpose of the meeting was reportedly an effort by the UAE to persuade Russia to curtail
its relationship with Iran.
The senior Middle East official told CNN that Prince was not discussed at the Trump Tower
meeting, and Prince has said himself he was there for business.
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) told CNN that he did not hear anything to believe that Rice did
anything "illegal."
Unmasking is not illegal, although leaking unmasked names are illegal. Intelligence
involving Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn was leaked to the
Washington Post earlier this year, and it is not yet publicly known who leaked it.
"... The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the email from the National Archives as part of its investigation into potential political bias and influence in the FBI's handling of the "Russia investigation" and the infamous Fusion GPS "dossier" that was used to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on one-time Trump associate Carter Page. ..."
"... It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed "by the book," substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed "by the book." ..."
Two leading Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a redacted top secret
email Monday that Obama administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice appears to have
sent herself just minutes after President Donald Trump took office.
The email contains Rice's impressions from a January 5, 2017 meeting on "Russian hacking
during the 2016 presidential election" between then-President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director
James Comey, and "intelligence community leadership."
According to Rice, President Obama and Comey had a "follow-on conversation" after the formal
meeting during which Obama told Comey that "from a national security perspective" he wanted "to
be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any
reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia." President Obama then
asked Comey to inform him of any changes that would affect how his White House should share
classified information with the incoming Trump administration.
Separately, Rice claims Obama told Comey that he wanted the Russia investigation handled "by
the book" and that "from a law enforcement perspective" he was not "asking about, initiating or
instructing anything."
Rice herself claims to have been present at the meeting and to have stayed for this
"follow-on conversation," along with then-Vice President Joe Biden, and Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates, who weeks later would become a darling of the left-leaning press after she was
fired over her refusal to enforce President Trump's first travel ban on certain terror-prone
Muslim majority countries.
The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the email from the National Archives as part of
its investigation into potential political bias and influence in the FBI's handling of the
"Russia investigation" and the infamous Fusion GPS "dossier" that was used to
obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on one-time Trump associate
Carter Page.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the Crime
and Terrorism Subcommittee chairman,
announced their discovery of the email Monday when they released a letter they
addressed to Rice on February 8. The two senators tell Rice:
It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day
of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email
purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the
FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President
Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed "by the book," substantial questions have arisen
about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State
Department, actually did proceed "by the book."
The public version of the letter includes a redacted version of Rice's email indicating it
once held a "top secret" classification. The letter makes reference to an unredacted
still-classified version of the email.
1. Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself? Do you have any reason to
dispute the timestamp of the email?
2. When did you first become aware of the FBI's investigation into allegations of
collusion between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia?
3. When did you become aware of any surveillance activities, including FISA applications,
undertaken by the FBI in conducting that investigation? At the time you wrote this email to
yourself, were you aware of either the October 2016 FISA application for surveillance of
Carter Page or the January 2017 renewal?
4. Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the
aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama's meeting with Mr. Comey
about the Trump/Russia investigation? If so, who and why?
5. Is the account of the January 5, 2017 meeting presented in your email accurate? Did you
omit any other portions of the conversation?
6. Other than that email, did you document the January 5, 2017 meeting in any way, such as
contemporaneous notes or a formal memo? To the best of your knowledge, did anyone else at
that meeting take notes or otherwise memorialize the meeting?
7. During the meeting, did Mr. Comey or Ms. Yates mention potential press coverage of the
Steele dossier? If so, what did they say?
8. During the meeting, did Mr. Comey describe the status of the FBI's relationship with
Mr. Steele, or the basis for that status?
9. When and how did you first become aware of the allegations made by Christopher
Steele?
10. When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic
National Committee funded Mr. Steele's efforts?
11. You wrote that President Obama stressed that he was "not asking about, initiating or
instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective." Did President Obama ask about,
initiate, or instruct anything from any other perspective relating to the FBI's
investigation?
12. Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Comey, Ms. Yates, or other
government officials about the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump
associates and Russia? If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was
discussed?
The January 5, 2017 meeting Rice references in her email would have occurred just months
after, as Rice herself has
admitted , she "unmasked" certain Trump campaign members' communications during the
transition.
Rice, who in her retirement from public service has taken up a research post at American
University, has
remained critical of the Trump administration's foreign policy, but has largely refrained
from weighing in on the Russia investigation.
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not. For details of the sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source. ..."
"... Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media? ..."
"... US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so, this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency. ..."
"... If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome. ..."
"... And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties." ..."
"... The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties. ..."
"... A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious." ..."
"... A bigger bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we heard that before? ..."
"... I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office? ..."
"... Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win. ..."
"... I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory." ..."
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
"... In fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved. ..."
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand
the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered
his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up -- and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
When Simpson was asked "do you -- did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything -- ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been
clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as
"Russian" were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent,
Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street
Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business
Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before
the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate £155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of £245,017
owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed £317,848 -- to whom and for what purposes is not reported. The
unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from £121,046 in 2015 to £199,223 in 2016, and £441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid £200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about £114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption at the
world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
"The primary reason I generally don't believe in conspiracies is that they can usually be better explained as the result of
sheer incompetence and hubris."
I divide conspiracy notions into two categories: grand mal and petit mal . The former are generally implausible
due to the large number of participants involved and while occassionally attempted, they are typically exposed pretty quickly.
They may still have significant effects – for example, there was a large conspiracy to sell the Iraqi WMD story to the public,
involving top levels of the British and American governments and a good section of the corporate media. That's the grand mal
version.
Petit mal is your typical small criminal conspiracy. The FBI, for example, almost always includes 'conspiracy to commit
mail fraud' on the list of federal charges.
With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald
Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate
media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton
campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so,
this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt
concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency.
If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats
take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the Russians haven't sold the rope to the American
political elite. I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed
his "OMG Russia corruption" biases.
And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion
that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative,
stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties."
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson's firm Fusion GPS and Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence operations
in the US has discredited them in the due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript
shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job;
failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting
to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means
the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client
wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the
press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's
likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed his "OMG Russia
corruption" biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some of his own research and said it
was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson's interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee,
and I've read all 312 pages of the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported
in the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the "bombshells" the mainstream reported was "proof" that it wasn't the dossier that launched the FBI's investigation
of Trump, and therefore the dossier couldn't have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger bombshell, which
of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters
on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't
verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source.
Where have we heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had
a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there
be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence
agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win.
I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm
not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory."
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In fact I am fairly certain that
it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev's link to the Raimondo article, which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting
times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing people in the places & at the times delineated
in the Steele dossier. From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from the first indicated
that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover. He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA. These days I don't know exactly
who the CIA works for, or answers to. I certainly don't think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American people. Of private intelligence
companies I get what I can from IHS Jane's. That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story. So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be
done, & that being what Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their violations of international law as regarded
the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the Ukraine. Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations of International Law leads me
to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic riot. But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA memo, that has apparently just been released.
Obviously, a major development in 'Russia-gate'.
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not. For details of the sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source. ..."
"... Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media? ..."
"... US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so, this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency. ..."
"... If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome. ..."
"... And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties." ..."
"... The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties. ..."
"... A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious." ..."
"... A bigger bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we heard that before? ..."
"... I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office? ..."
"... Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win. ..."
"... I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory." ..."
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
"... In fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved. ..."
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand
the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered
his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up -- and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
When Simpson was asked "do you -- did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything -- ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been
clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as
"Russian" were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent,
Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street
Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business
Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before
the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate £155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of £245,017
owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed £317,848 -- to whom and for what purposes is not reported. The
unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from £121,046 in 2015 to £199,223 in 2016, and £441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid £200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about £114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption at the
world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
"The primary reason I generally don't believe in conspiracies is that they can usually be better explained as the result of
sheer incompetence and hubris."
I divide conspiracy notions into two categories: grand mal and petit mal . The former are generally implausible
due to the large number of participants involved and while occassionally attempted, they are typically exposed pretty quickly.
They may still have significant effects – for example, there was a large conspiracy to sell the Iraqi WMD story to the public,
involving top levels of the British and American governments and a good section of the corporate media. That's the grand mal
version.
Petit mal is your typical small criminal conspiracy. The FBI, for example, almost always includes 'conspiracy to commit
mail fraud' on the list of federal charges.
With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald
Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate
media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton
campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so,
this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt
concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency.
If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats
take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the Russians haven't sold the rope to the American
political elite. I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed
his "OMG Russia corruption" biases.
And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion
that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative,
stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties."
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson's firm Fusion GPS and Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence operations
in the US has discredited them in the due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript
shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job;
failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting
to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means
the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client
wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the
press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's
likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed his "OMG Russia
corruption" biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some of his own research and said it
was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson's interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee,
and I've read all 312 pages of the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported
in the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the "bombshells" the mainstream reported was "proof" that it wasn't the dossier that launched the FBI's investigation
of Trump, and therefore the dossier couldn't have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger bombshell, which
of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters
on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't
verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source.
Where have we heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had
a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there
be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence
agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win.
I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm
not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory."
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In fact I am fairly certain that
it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev's link to the Raimondo article, which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting
times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing people in the places & at the times delineated
in the Steele dossier. From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from the first indicated
that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover. He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA. These days I don't know exactly
who the CIA works for, or answers to. I certainly don't think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American people. Of private intelligence
companies I get what I can from IHS Jane's. That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story. So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be
done, & that being what Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their violations of international law as regarded
the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the Ukraine. Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations of International Law leads me
to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic riot. But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA memo, that has apparently just been released.
Obviously, a major development in 'Russia-gate'.
"... The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there ..."
"... PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ..."
"... two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch, he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world. The exact wrong message. ..."
"... Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways, the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on. ..."
"... The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon, in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time. ..."
"... Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis, and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things, really. ..."
"... And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category. ..."
"... He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen, you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you." ..."
"... It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. ..."
"... And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre. ..."
"... They do not appreciate that there are different manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist. ..."
"... Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place; and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy). ..."
"... Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did. ..."
"... not like capitalism didn't murder a few proletarians if murder is the standard, both are condemned ..."
"... the vast bulk of provocations and exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the "policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.) ..."
"... Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing. Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear "standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists. ..."
"... Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective. ..."
"... Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert oppressed groups here]. ..."
"... Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff. ..."
"... "It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there" Was he subsequently co-opted, or BSing? ..."
"... But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive. ..."
"... Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust. Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination: ..."
"... Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current thinking does not seem much changed. ..."
"... Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack. ..."
"... The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was electe ..."
"... I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller, J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state. ..."
"... The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT. ..."
"... The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it until they did do something about it in 2014. ..."
"... An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski (the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill. ..."
"... LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes. It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped. ..."
"... This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man". ..."
"... General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three? ..."
"... Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted. ..."
Jerri-Lynn here: Lest anyone be deluded into thinking that the current lunacy of Trump foreign policy is unprededented and ahistoric,
part eight of
an excellent
Real News Network series on Undoing the New Deal reminds us this simply isn't so.
That series more generally discuses who helped unravel the New Deal and why. That was no accident, either. In this installment,
historian Peter Kuznick says Eisenhower called for decreased militarization, then Dulles reversed the policy; the Soviets tried to
end the cold war after the death of Stalin; crazy schemes involving nuclear weapons and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba put the
world of the eve of destruction.
Three things I've seen recently made me think readers might appreciate this interview. First, I recently finished reading
Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers
, about the baleful consequences of the control over US foreign policy by Dulles brothers– John Foster and Alan. These continue to
reverberate to today. Well worth your time.
Over the hols, I watched Dr. Strangelove again. And I wondered, and this not for the first time: why has the world managed to
survive to this day? Seems to me just matter of time before something spirals out of control– and then, that's a wrap.
Queued up on my beside table is Daniel Ellsberg's
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of
a Nuclear War Planner . Haven't cracked the spine of that yet, so I'll eschew further commentary, except to say that I understand
Ellsberg's provides vivid detail about just how close we've already come to annihilation.
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network, I'm Paul Jay. We're continuing our series of discussions on the Undoing of the New
deal, and we're joined again by Professor Peter Kuznick, who joins us from Washington. Peter is a Professor of History, and Director
of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University. Thanks for joining us again Peter.
PETER KUZNICK: My pleasure, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So, before we move on to Kennedy, and then we're going to get to Johnson, you wanted to make a comment about Eisenhower,
who made a couple of great sounding speeches about reducing military expenditure but I'm not sure how much that actually ever got
implemented. But talk about this speech in, I guess, it's 1953, is it?
PETER KUZNICK: Yes. The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military
spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the
Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold
War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration
debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold
a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly
in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at
his best, and he says there
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber
is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half
million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I
repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.
Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
PETER KUZNICK: This is not a way of life at all. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.�
What a great speech and the Soviets were thrilled. They republished this. They reprinted it. They broadcast it over and over, and
then two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch,
he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world.
The exact wrong message.
And so, it's sort of like Trump, where Tillerson says something sane and then Trump will undermine it two days later when it comes
to North Korea. The same thing happened in 1953 with Eisenhower and Dulles. We're really much more on the same page, but if you look
at the third world response, you've got the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955, and the third world leaders are all saying,
"We have to be independent. We have to be neutral." They say, "It is insane to spend all these dollars and all these rubles on the
military when we need money for development."
PAUL JAY: So, what went on with Eisenhower, making that kind of speech? He's not known for any big increase in social spending
domestically. He helps build, as you said, the military industrial complex, especially the nuclear side of it. So, what was that
speech about, and then how does he allow Dulles to contradict him two days later?
PETER KUZNICK: That's one of the mysteries. That's why writing books on the debate, what was going on in that administration.
Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways,
the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on.
We talked a little bit about Sputnik but one of the proposals after that was to blast a hydrogen bomb on the surface of the moon
to show the world that we really are the strongest. And they talked about putting missile bases on the moon, and then the idea was
to have the Soviets respond by putting their own missile bases on the moon. We could put ours on distant planets, so that we could
then hit the Soviet bases on the moon. The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon,
in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the
crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time.
This comes across, really, with the nuclear policies. So, when McGeorge Bundy asks Dan Ellsberg in 1961 to find out from the Joint
Chiefs what would be, how many people would die as a result of America's nuclear launch in the event of a war with the Soviet Union,
the Pentagon comes back with the idea that between 600 and 650 million people would die from America's weapons alone in our first
PSYOP. And that doesn't even account for nuclear winter, which would have killed us all, or the numbers who would be killed by the
Soviet weapons. That includes at least 100 million of our own allies in Western Europe.
We are talking about a period the lunacy and insanity was captured best by Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove in 1964. That policy
was so close to what was actually occurring at the time. Did Eisenhower speak for this? When Eisenhower wanted to, one of his visions
was for planetary excavation using hydrogen bombs. People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare.
PAUL JAY: They used to have tourism to go look at nuclear tests outside of Las Vegas and people would sit just a few miles away
with sunglasses on.
PETER KUZNICK: And we sent American soldiers into the blast area, knowing that they were going to be irradiated. Yeah, the irrationality
in these times. People are going to look back at the Trump administration and if we're here later, maybe they'll laugh at us. If
we survive this period, they'll laugh. They'll look back and say, "Look at the craziness of this period." Well, if you look at the
history of the '50s and early '60s, you see a lot of that same kind of craziness in terms of the policies that were actually implemented
at the time, and the ones, for example, one of the ideas was to melt the polar ice caps using hydrogen bombs. We wanted to increase
polar melting. We wanted to increase the temperature on the planet by exploding nuclear bombs.
PAUL JAY: And this was to do, to what end?
PETER KUZNICK: For what end? I'm not sure. I mean, one-
PAUL JAY: Well, they may get their way, the way things are heading right now. They may get that.
PETER KUZNICK: And one of the things from Trump's National Security speech was to not talk about, or to say that global warming
is not a National Security concern as Obama and others had believed it was. But they wanted to actually redirect hurricanes by setting
off hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere in the path of the hurricane, so they could redirect hurricanes. They wanted to build new harbors
by setting off hydrogen bombs. They wanted to have a new canal across the, instead of the Panama canal, with hydrogen bombs and reroute
rivers in the United States.
I mean, crazy, crazy ideas that was considered American policy. And actually, it was the Soviets who saved us because Eisenhower
wanted to begin to do these programs, but the Soviets would not allow, would not give the United States the right to do that because
there was a temporary test ban in the late 1950s. And Eisenhower would have had to abrogate that in order to begin these projects.
PAUL JAY: Okay. Let's catch up. So, we had just, the last part dealt with some of Kennedy. We get into the 1960s. Kennedy is as
preoccupied with the Cold War, the beginning of the Vietnam War, Cuba, the Missile Crisis. And we had left off right at the moment
of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Give us a really quick recap because I think on this issue of militarization and former policy, we kind
of have to do a whole nother series that focuses more on that. We're trying to get more into this issue of the New Deal and what
happened to domestic social reforms in the context of this massive military expenditure. But talk a bit about that moment of the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
PETER KUZNICK: Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis,
and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was
during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things,
really.
One is to, he knows the United States is planning an invasion of Cuba. The United States had been carrying out war games, massive
war games, 40,000 people participating in these war games. Like now, we're carrying out war games off the Korean coast. And the war
game that was planned for October of '62 was called Operation Ortsac. Anybody who doesn't get it? Certainly the Soviets did. Ortsac
is Castro spelled backwards.
And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev
wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he
has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and
it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category.
Still, the pressure was to increase America's missiles and so, the Strategic Air Command in the Air Force wanted to increase
our missiles by 3,000. McNamara figures that the least number he can get away with is to increase our intercontinental ballistic
missiles by 1,000 even though we're ahead 10 to 1 already at that point. The Kremlin interpreted that, and said, "Why is the US increasing
its missiles when it's so far ahead of us?" They said, "Obviously, the United States is preparing for a first strike against the
Soviet Union." That was the Kremlin interpretation. It needed a credible deterrent.
They knew that, initially they thought, "Well, the fact that we can take out Berlin will be a credible enough deterrent. The Americans
will never attack." Then they realized that that wouldn't be a sufficient deterrent to some of the hawks in the American military,
the Curtis LeMays, who had a lot of influence at the time. Or before that, the Lemnitzers. And so, they decide, "Well, we've got
to put missiles in Cuba, which is a more credible deterrent."
And the third is that Khrushchev wanted to appease his hawks. Khrushchev's strategy was to build up Soviet consumer economy. He
said, "The Soviet people want washing machines. They want cars. They want houses. That's what we need." And so, he wanted to decrease
defense spending and one of the cheap ways to do that was to put the missiles in Cuba. So, they do that foolishly. It's a crazy policy
because they don't announce it. It's very much like the movie Strangelove, where Khrushchev was planning to announce that the missiles
were in Cuba on the anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. That was coming up in a couple-
PAUL JAY: You mean Dr. Strangelove, meaning what's the point of a doomsday machine if you don't tell people you've got it?
PETER KUZNICK: As Strangelove says, "Well what's the point of the doomsday machine if you don't announce that you have it?" And
then, the Americans didn't, the Soviets didn't announce that they had the, if they had announced that the missiles were there, then
the United States could not have invaded Cuba the way the military wanted. They could not have bombed Cuba. It would've been an effective
deterrent, especially if they announced that also, that the missiles were there, that the warheads were there and that they also
had put 100 battlefield nuclear weapons inside Cuba.
That would have meant that there was no possibility of the United States invading and that the deterrent would've actually worked.
But they didn't announce it. And so, the United States plans for an invasion and we got very close to doing so. But again, the intelligence
was abysmal. We knew where 33 of the 42 missiles were. We didn't find the other missiles. We didn't know that the battlefield nuclear
weapons were there. We didn't know that the missiles were ready to be armed.
And so, the United States was operating blind. We thought that there were 10,000 armed Soviets in Cuba. Turns out, there were
42,000 armed Soviets. We thought that there were 100,000 armed Cubans. Turns out, there were 270,000 armed Cubans. Based on the initial
intelligence, McNamara said, "If we had invaded, we figured we'd suffer 18,000 casualties, 4,500 dead." When he later finds out how
many troops there actually were there, he says, "Well, that would've been 25,000 Americans dead." When he finds out that there were
100 battlefield nuclear weapons as well, he doesn't find that out until 30 years later, and then he turns white, and he says, "Well
that would've meant we would've lost 100,000 American Troops." Twice as many, almost, as we lost in Vietnam.
He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we
came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or
should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen,
you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you."
Which we learned in Cuba. We learned in Iraq and Afghanistan or we should've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, Trump
hasn't learned it and we had better learn before we do something crazy now in Korea.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks, Peter. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is
solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. The existence
of nuclear weapons, was what prevented either the US or the Soviet Union/Russia from attacking each other. Otherwise the sport
of kings would have continued as usual.
And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the
architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre.
It's always that word, "communism", isn't it? As long as that word is used, everything is justifiable. If you look at it closely,
it would seem that the Russians have discovered that communism is every bit as susceptible to corruption as capitalism. Communism
has been, in fact, MORE discredited than capitalism (for now.) With Russia on the other side of the planet, what would be the
harm in letting whatever failed ideologies they have fail like Kansas failed? As Jesus might say, "Ah Ye of little faith."
The vast majority of Americans today have no idea what communism is. Most cannot even thing about communism in terms of it
being just another economic system different from capitalism. (No, it is slavery!) They do not appreciate that there are different
manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably
the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore
that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist.
In many cases, Americans vote against their own interests just because some pol labels a new social program as communist so
he can give his new bill and edge.
Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates
every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place;
and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even
nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would
take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better
than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy).
Trump is anything if he is not politically and strategically a dim wit. Thus he probably buys into the communist boogeyman
scenario common in our culture. He is likely attracted to the economic stimulus that more guns and less butter offer in the short
run. Our problems seems to hinge on leaders who limit their action to the short run, and the long run (ensuring survival of the
human species?), well, they never get around to that.
I would not be so loving over the "communistic ideals". My great grandparents were murdered for the fact that one was a postal
office manager, another was a sock factory owner. Believe what you want, but communism is far from just an economic theory.
Communism, once you force the politics into the economic theory, is this: equality of all men, regardless of abilities, and
damn if you started off well because everything will be taken from you. Your life is not your own, your family is not your own,
your work is not your own: it belongs to the state.
Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did.
Yaas, it's just Putin friendly propaganda, that's all. Let us persuade ourselves that the vast bulk of provocations and
exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones
discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the
"policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness
of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough
to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and
military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small
nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.)
How does one break the cycle of ever-increasing vulnerability and eventual destruction, that includes the extraction and combustion
and all the other decimations of a livable planet? how to do that when the Imperial Rulers are insane, by any sensible definition
of insanity? And the Russians sure seem to be wiser and more restrained (barring some provocation that trips one of their own
Doomsday Devices that they have instituted to try to counter the ridiculous insane provocations and adventures of the Empire?
Maybe revert to "Duck and cover?" Or that Civil Defense posture by one of the Reaganauts, one T.K. Jones, who wanted Congress
to appropriate $252 million (1980 dollars) for Civil Defense, mostly for SHOVELS: in the firmly held belief that "we can fight
and win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union:"
Three times Mr. Jones – or someone speaking in his name – agreed to testify. Three times he failed to appear. The Pentagon
finally sent a pinch-hitter, Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. But the Senate wants Mr. Jones. It wants an authoritative
explanation of his plan to spend $252 million on civil defense. Evidently, most of that money will go for shovels.
For this is how the alleged Mr. Jones describes the alleged civil defense strategy: "Dig a hole, cover it with a couple
of doors and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It's the dirt that does it."
Mr. Jones seems to believe that the United States could recover fully, in two to four years, from an all-out nuclear
attack. As he was quoted in The Los Angeles Times: "Everybody's going to make it if there are enough shovels to go around."
Dig on, Senator Pressler. We're all curious.
Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little
decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing.
Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human
part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear
"standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists.
"Tu Quoque" is an especially weak and inapposite and insupportable argument in this context.
SPOT ON! IF Robby Mook and the gang can stir up a Russian frenzy from hell based on nothing more than sour grapes, and IF what
we know about the deep state is only the tip of the iceberg, and IF the media is largely under the control of the 'Gov, THEN a
logical human must at least be open to the possibility that there is also such a thing as American propaganda, must (s)he not?
Yes. Nobody invaded Argentina when Juan Peron et al took over. Hitler and Mussolini could have died as dictators decades later
if they had simply kept their armies home.
Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is
starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective.
Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics
were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert
oppressed groups here].
Yet during the Cold War, there were plenty of prominent people calling out the McCarthys and Lemays of the world as loons (and
behind the Curtain, even Stalin was removed from key posts before his death). Guess what, sane generally wins out over the mad
king. The arc of history indeed bends toward justice, though never without sacrifice and diligent truthseeking. The ones to worry
about are the snake oil merchants, who pee on our shoes and tell us it's raining.
g.
Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of
the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic
lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff.
Yes, this is what the world gets when technological advancement is combined with a socio-economic system that rewards sociopathic
tendencies. A system advanced by propaganda (disguised as entertainment and education) backed up with the barrell of a gun and
cameras everywhere.
This article is not scary enough. Find out that in 1983 there was almost a nuclear war. Both sides have a first strike strategy
and a Russian general thought that actions of Reagan were getting ready for the first strike and he was going to strike first.
And during the Cuban missile crisis, Russian subs had nuclear weapons on them and we dropped low level depth charges on them and
we didn't know that they were armed.
This is a very long interview of Daniel Ellsberg in Seattle on Jan 9, 2018.
Now that everyone, except many in the USA, knows that when the USA changes a government that the country is ruined, this may
have forced North and South Korea to get together.
Ellsberg says that any nukes used in the Korean Peninsula would result in at least 1 million dead and while 60 million in WWII
were killed during the course of the war, with nukes that many cold be killed in a week. And then, nuclear winter would finish
off the rest of us.
To be fair, there are now doubts among scientists that Nuclear Winter as classically described would even be a thing.
But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still
occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive.
Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We
have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded
History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust.
Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination:
List them, together with their credentials and "donor$."
You can google nuclear winter early enough. And yes, there are scientists who are skeptical for various reasons. The only group
that has written a paper on it in recent years is composed of some of the same scientists who originally proposed it and they
think it is real.
Reasons for skepticism include doubt about the amount of smoke that would be produced. And the volcano and asteroid comparisons
are imperfect because the details are different. People used to talk about volcanic dust, and now it is mostly sulfuric acid droplets.
With asteroids the initial thought was the KT boundary layer represented trillions of tons of submicron size dust and then Melosh
proposed ejects blasted around the world heated the upper atmosphere and ignited global fires and created soot and then his grad
student Tamara Goldin wrote her dissertation saying the heat might not be quite enough to do that and then people suggested it
was ( I won't go into why) and others suggested the bolide hit sulfur layers .
The point is that there is not a consensus about the detailed atmospheric effects of either large asteroid impacts or of super
volcanoes like Toba and yet we do have some evidence because these things happened. We don't have an example to study in tge geologic
record where hundreds of cities were hit simultaneously with nuclear weapons.
I could go on, but I don't want to give the impression I have a strong opinion either way, because I don't. But I think the
case for global warming is overwhelming because vastly more people are working on it and it is happening in front of us. It is
not just computer models.
Forget possible nuclear winter, the economic effects alone would be worth 10 Lehman brothers (2008 meltdowns). And then the
knock on effects would cause other knock on effects like other wars. Even without a nuclear winter, civilization would probably
collapse within 18 months anyway.
All this, while true, only change the details not the results. The Chicxulub impact almost certainly exterminated the
majority of then living species, and the Toba Supervolcano probably almost caused our extinction. That suggest throwing massive
amounts of anything into the atmosphere is not good.
As a student I would like to know the details, but in practice, it's like arguing whether a snow storm or a blizzard killed
someone. Humanity as a species would probably survive a nuclear war okay, but many(most?) individuals as well as our planetary
civilization would be just as dead. The numbers dying would be slightly different is all.
Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make
Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current
thinking does not seem much changed.
Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba
was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961
by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack.
The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles
out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was elected.
I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller,
J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state.
The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The
subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet
Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings
and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT.
The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of
the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it
until they did do something about it in 2014.
An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski
(the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill.
Just recently Russia deployed more nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.
Maybe something to do with all those special forces NATO keeps stationing on the Russian border?
And all the a -- -oles who Command and Rule, and most of the commentariat and punditry, all treat these affairs as if they
are playing some Brobdingnagian Game of Risk ™, where as with Monopoly (which was originally intended to teach a very different
lesson) the object of the game is all about TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA an idiotic froth on top of an ever more
dangerous brew of exponentially increasing,and largely ignored, mutual if often asymmetric, deadly vulnerability.
Stupid effing humans and their vast stupid monkey tricks
LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes.
It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter
in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with
the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped.
So no the crazy didn't start with Trump and Trump had even advocated we make nice with the Russians until the Dems, their remnants
at State and Defense and the press forced him to change course (on threat of impeachment). The elites who have gained more or
less permanent power over the direction of this country are a threat to us all.
Anyhow, thanks for the above post. Those who forget history ..
Different world. The first generation of nuclear weapons had yields (around 20-30Kt) that were comprehensible in terms of conventional
bombing, which of course would have required many more aircraft but was also much more efficient per tonne of explosives. For
the formative years after 1945, therefore, people thought of nuclear weapons as weapons in the classic sense and, at that time,
nobody really knew that much about the effects of radiation and fallout. This all changed with the advent of the hydrogen bomb,
but even then it took a long time for the likely catastrophic effects of the use of such weapons in large numbers to sink in.
Nuclear technology, and both delivery and guidance systems, evolved far more quickly than rationales for their use could be found.
Indeed, you can say that the Cold War was a period when nuclear powers found themselves acquiring weapons with technologies that
couldn't actually be used, but couldn't be un-invented either. Enormous intellectual effort went into trying to provide post-hoc
rationales for having these weapons, some of it very ingenious, most of it wasted.
Don't forget the role of paranoia either. NSC-68, the report that formalized US strategy during the Cold War, reads today like
the ravings of a group of lunatics, seeing, almost literally, Reds under the beds. And if Stalin was dead, the Soviet leadership
had just gone through a war which had cost them almost 30 million dead, and any, literally any, sacrifice was worth it to make
sure that they prevented another war, or at least won it quickly.
US military casualties in WW2: 407,300
US civilian casualties in WW2: 12,100
USSR military casualties in WW2: estimated by various sources [see the footnotes] between 8,668,000 to 11,400,000.
USSR civilian casualties in WW2: 10,000,000 [plus another 6-7 million deaths from famine, a line in the table that is completely
blank for the US]
Simply put, for every American that died, somewhere between a thousand to two thousand of their Russian counterparts were killed.
And somehow people in the US were convinced and worried that Russia wanted to start yet another war when they still hadn't finished
burying the dead from the last one.
1. Stalin made his pact with the devil that gave Hitler free rein to invade Poland and France. Hitler then invaded Russia from
Poland as the jumping off point. Stalin miscalculated big-time.
2. Invaded countries always have many more civilian countries than un-invaded ones.
3. Germany started WW II only 20 years after the end of WW I that also slaughtered 2 million German soldiers. Past losses generally
does not appear to impact the decision-making of dictators regarding new wars. So it would have been irrational for the West to
think that the USSR had no intent to expand its borders. That was the blunder that France and Britain made in 1938-39. However,
the paranoia did get extreme in the Cold War.
This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and
France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It
was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move
otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This
was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man".
The Poles have been the Germans and Russians chewtoy ever since it was completely partitioned. All the countries immediately
around Russia have been horribly abused by Russia. Putin is doing his country no favors by reminding everyone of that. He can
cow them into submission, but like the American government is finding, just because they are doesn't mean they cannot cause trouble.
Heck, the current Great Game could be said to have started with the Soviet-Afghanistan War.
Going into the war every country was unprepared and unwilling to fight and had difficulty choices. The German military
itself was not prepared. It was Hitler's choice to start when and where and by 1938 everyone knew it. Hitler was surprised that
France and Great Britain honored their guarantee to Poland.
As evil as Stalin's regime was, and his invasion of Poland was just as bad as Hitler's at first, I don't think most people
really understood just how evil the Nazis were and what they were planning on doing for Germany's living space. It was worse than
anything that Stalin did and between the Ukrainian famine, the Great Purges, the takeover of the Baltic States, the invasion of
Finland, etc he did serious evil.
General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation
bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three?
Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's
Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting
chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has
loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted.
I was going to post the text of the short review, but all I got at the moment is this blankety iPhone and its limits with cut
and paste.
Not many read books anyway these days, and what sufficient moiety of them will form the groundswell that tips over the Juggernaut
we are all pushing and pulling and riding toward the cliff?
I read this stuff mostly to sense which hand holds the knife and not to go down asking "What happened? What did it all mean?"
Trump has been bellicose re NK and Iran, but I see him as resisting the Syrian adventure, while cia plus military hawks pushing
forward.
Dems today are real hawks, itching to confront Russia in both Syria and Ukraine the latter another place trump may be resisting
hawks, the area has been quiet since the election, I.e. since dems were in charge.
It's an odd thought that in some theaters trump may be the sane one
Yaas, nothing is happening in Ukraine, all is quiet on the Eastern Front of NATO:
http://ukraine.csis.org/ Nuland has gone on to other conquests, and all
that. The CIA and War Department have lost interest in that Conflict Zone. Nothing is happening. You are getting sleepy. Sleepy.
Yeah, the title of this post would lead one to believe that their is something uniquely horrible about Trump's foreign policy.
From anything I can detect, her bellicose statement about a no-fly zone in Syria and her abject destruction of Libya, HRC's FP
would have been even worse.
If she had been elected, we might already be in a ground war with the Russians in Syria. The only hopeful sign is that while
Trump spends his day watching TeeVee, State, DOD, and CIA are all working at cross purposes and getting in each other's way.
Foreign policy? We have a foreign policy? If anybody finds it, will they please explain it to me?
I almost never comment, although I rely on NC for most of my news and blood pressure control. You are a treasure.
May I recommend another book – "All Honorable Men" – by James Stewart Martin. Published in 1950 and shortly thereafter all
bookstore copies were hoovered-up and burned by the CIA. It might have been referenced in one of the RNN segments, but I haven't
slogged through all of them yet.
You can get a hardback at Amazon for a mere $298. An i-book is cheaper.
After reading "The Brothers," and "The Devil's Chessboard," I considered starting a non-profit using GPS technology – Piss-on-their-Graves.org.
The Forbidden Bookshelf series by Open Media
is fantastic. Sadly for dinosaurs like me, it is mostly ebooks, but they do the occasional hard copy reprints, and since much
in the series would be out of print without Open Media, even the ebooks are great to have.
And it is interesting to see how many bothersome books just go away even without any "censorship" even with the First Amendment
being the one right courts have consistently, and strongly, enforced.
This article reminded me of an interesting/disturbing thing I saw on tv last night – a local news show had a bit on what to
do in case of nuclear attack!
Boomers & older probably remember the drill: go to the basement or innermost room of the house, have 72 hours of food & water
stashed & don't go outside for at least 3 days, etc. (yeah, that's the ticket).
Thought I was having a flashback to the 60's
Of course the best advice I ever heard on the subject was "Squat down, put your head between your knees & kiss your sweet [rear
end] goodbye."
Well, as I recall they were trying to give us the illusion of control so that we would not go all nihilistic or into a drunken
fatalistic stupor. I don't know if telling people, like little JBird, that the bombs might start dropping anytime in which case
you're just f@@@@d would have done any good.
One interpretation of the Cold War, that I found revealing, was that the two "opposing" militaries colluded to magnify the
threat so as to pump up their respective budgets. So both were essentially conning their own governments – and putting the whole
world at risk in the process.
Of course, another big factor, equally obvious at the time, was (and is) that world "leaders," elected or not, can't resist
the temptation to play chess with live pieces. They don't seem to care that people wind up dead, or that occasionally they put
the whole world in danger.
It's SIOP, not PSYOP. SIOP stands for Single Integrated Operating Plan, which was what the first nuclear war plan was called.
PSYOPS are Psychological Operations.
Having served in the first Cold War, it simply is beyond my comprehension that the Democrats restarted it all over again. Even
weirder are the neo-con proponents of a First Strike. If the USA wins, at least one or two major cities (if not all) will be destroyed.
New Zealand becomes the sequel to "On the Beach". We are in the same position as Germany in the 1930s except we know that the
world war will destroy us. Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of
Eastern Syria surrounded by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?
Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of Eastern Syria surrounded
by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?
Why they are needed to fight the evil-doers of course! Anything to protect our Freedom and the American Way. Now, ifyou keep
asking these inconvenient questions, then "they" might start asking if you support the terrorists.
It's like when my half blind aged mother, and her possibly weaponized cane, is scrutinized as a possible al-Qaeda terrorist
with a super hidden weapon, and I ask why it's 9/11 and the very bad people might hurt us.
Nuclear winter. How quaint. Soot and dust. Rapid cooling. Crop failures. Starvation. Billions -perhaps- dead.
But life, certainly, will find a way!
Not in my world. All-out thermonuclear war means 250 nuclear reactors melt down simultaneously and several hundred thousand
tons of loosely stored nuclear waste becomes aerosoled.
The resulting radiation blast burns the atmosphere off and the earth becomes a dead planet.
We can never look the thing straight in the eye. Take North Korea. We have been told, repeatedly, endlessly, that they have
20,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul!
Again, how quaint. How SCARY! What we should be reading about, are the priority targets, the game changers:
"People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare."
__
Yeah. In 1992 my wife was serving as the QA Mgr for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) nuke remediation project contractor. In 1993
a successful FOIA filing unearthed the Alaskan "Project Chariot." One of the brilliant Project Plowshare ideas was the potential
utility of nuke detonations to carve out deep water harbors (they now deny it), so they took a bunch of irradiated soil from NTS
and and spread it around on the tundra 130 miles N of the Arctic circle on the coast of the Chukchi Sea to "study potential environmental
impacts."
The nuke "dredging" idea went nowhere, so they just plowed the irradiated crap under the surface, where it remained secret
until the FOIA revelation decades later. DOE told my wife's company "go clean this shit up" (Eskimo tribes were freaking after
finding out), so off goes my wife and her crew to spend the summer and fall living in tents guarded by armed polar bear guards
(they had to first plow out a dirt & gravel runway, and flew everyone and all supplies in on STOL aircraft). They dug the test
bed area all up (near Cape Thompson), assayed samples in an onsite radlab, put some 30 tons of "contaminated" Arctic soil in large
sealed containers, barged it all down to Seattle, loaded it on trucks and drove it all back down to be buried at NTS.
Your tax dollars.
She looked so cute with her clipboard, and her orange vest, steel toed boots and hardhat.
As a teenager I read in a newspaper a proposal to use nuclear blasts to form a canal that would bring the sea to the middle
of Australia and form an inland sea from which water could be drawn. We already had nuclear weapon being tested here (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_tests_in_Australia
) so there was no appetite for ideas like this.
"... Last year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime noted that while West Africa "has long been a transit zone for cocaine and heroin trafficking, it has now turned into a production zone for illicit substances such as amphetamines and precursors" and that drug use "is also a growing issue at the local level." Meanwhile, heroin trafficking has been on the rise in East Africa , along with personal use of the drug. ..."
"... In the spring of 2001, American experts concluded that a ban on opium-poppy cultivation by Afghanistan's Taliban government had wiped out the world's largest heroin-producing crop. Later that year, the U.S. military invaded and, since 2002, America has pumped $8.7 billion in counternarcotics funding into that country. A report issued late last month by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction detailed the results of anti-drug efforts during CENTCOM's 16-year-old war: "Afghanistan's total area under opium cultivation and opium production reached an all-time high in 2017," it reads in part. "Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer and exporter, producing an estimated 80% of the world's opium." ..."
"... While AFRICOM and, to a lesser extent, CENTCOM have made changes in how they track counternarcotics aid, both seemingly remain hooked on pouring money into efforts that have produced few successes. More effective use of spreadsheets won't solve the underlying problems of America's wars or cure an addiction to policies that continue to fail. ..."
More troubling than the findings in the IG's report or CENTCOM's apparent refusal to heed
its recommendations may be the actual trajectory of the drug trade in the two commands' areas
of responsibility: Africa and the Greater Middle East. Last year, the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime
noted that while West Africa "has long been a transit zone for cocaine and heroin
trafficking, it has now turned into a production zone for illicit substances such as
amphetamines and precursors" and that drug use "is also a growing issue at the local level."
Meanwhile,
heroin trafficking has been on the
rise in
East Africa , along with personal
use of the drug.
Even the Pentagon's Africa Center for Strategic Studies is sounding an alarm. "Drug
trafficking is a major transnational threat in Africa that converges with other illicit
activities ranging from money laundering to human trafficking and terrorism," it
warned last November. "According to the 2017 U.N. World Drug Report, two-thirds of the
cocaine smuggled between South America and Europe passes through West Africa, specifically
Benin, Cape Verde, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Nigeria, and Togo. Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania
are among the countries that have seen the highest traffic in opiates passing from Pakistan and
Afghanistan to Western destinations." As badly as this may reflect on AFRICOM's efforts to
bolster the counter-drug-trafficking prowess of key allies like Kenya, Mali, and Nigeria, it
reflects even more dismally on CENTCOM, which oversees Washington's long-running war in
Afghanistan and its seemingly ceaseless
counternarcotics mission there.
In the spring of 2001, American experts concluded
that a ban on opium-poppy cultivation by Afghanistan's Taliban government had wiped out the
world's largest heroin-producing crop. Later that year, the U.S. military invaded and, since
2002, America has pumped
$8.7 billion in counternarcotics funding into that country. A report issued
late last month by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction detailed the
results of anti-drug efforts during CENTCOM's 16-year-old war: "Afghanistan's total area under
opium cultivation and opium production reached an all-time high in 2017," it reads in part.
"Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer and exporter, producing an estimated
80% of the world's opium."
In many ways, these outcomes mirror those of the larger counterterror efforts of which these
anti-drug campaigns are just a part. In 2001, for example, U.S. forces were fighting just two
enemy forces in Afghanistan: al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, according to a recent
Pentagon report , they're battling more than 10 times that number. In Africa, an official
count of
five prime terror groups in 2012 has expanded, depending on the Pentagon source, to more
than
20 or even closer to
50 .
Correlation doesn't equal causation, but given the outcomes of significant counternarcotics
assistance from Africa Command and Central Command -- including some $500 million over just
three recent years -- there's little evidence to suggest that better record-keeping can solve
the problems plaguing the military's anti-drug efforts in the greater Middle East or Africa.
While AFRICOM and, to a lesser extent, CENTCOM have made changes in how they track
counternarcotics aid, both seemingly remain hooked on pouring money into efforts that have
produced few successes. More effective use of spreadsheets won't solve the underlying problems
of America's wars or cure an addiction to policies that continue to fail.
160 billion plus 160 billion are pretty serious money. money that were stolen from ordinary Americans.
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money
alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern
heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000
population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter
plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000
people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at
all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. (cited from
The Age of Lunacy The Doomsday Machine naked
capitalism )
Notable quotes:
"... The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and even more disastrous military adventurism. ..."
"... Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those "sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it wisely? ..."
The new Congressional budget boosts military spending in a
big way . Last night's PBS
News report documented how military spending is projected to increase by $160 billion over
two years, but that doesn't include "overseas contingency funding" for wars, which is another
$160 billion over two years. Meanwhile, spending for the opioid crisis, which is killing
roughly 60,000 Americans a year (more Americans than were killed in the Vietnam War), is set at
a paltry $6 billion ($25 billion was requested).
One thing is certain: Ike was right about the undue
influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.
The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there
are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be
restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war
spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and
even more disastrous military adventurism.
Even if you're a supporter of big military budgets, this massive boost in military spending
is bad news. Why? It doesn't force the military to think . To set priorities. To define limits.
To be creative.
Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore
leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those
"sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it
wisely?
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen
years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... In today's podcast, we hear how Vault 8 has succeeded Vault 7 among WikiLeaks dumps (but it's still all CIA all the time from Mr. Assange and company). GCHQ expresses concerns about Kaspersky anti-virus products. ..."
"... The US Intelligence Community reiterates its conclusion that dog bites man, or rather, that Russia wants to work mischief with the United States ..."
In today's podcast, we hear how Vault 8 has succeeded Vault 7 among WikiLeaks dumps (but it's still all CIA all the time from
Mr. Assange and company). GCHQ expresses concerns about Kaspersky anti-virus products.
Media reports suggest that NSA is in the middle of a big mole hunt. Equifax begins to tally up the costs of its breach.
The US Intelligence Community reiterates its conclusion that dog bites man, or rather, that Russia wants to work mischief
with the United States...
"... Hardware and software vendors that are complicit -- most of which are American, British or Israeli -- give the CIA the opportunity to achieve informational full-spectrum dominance, relegating privacy to extinction. Such a convergence of power, money and technology entails major conflicts of interest, as can be seen in the case of Amazon AWS (Amazon's Cloud Service), cloud provider for the CIA , whose owner, Jeff Bezos, is also the owner of The Washington Post ..."
"... In general, when the 16 US spy agencies blamed Russia for the hacking of the elections, they were never specific in terms of forensic evidence. Simply put, the media, spies and politicians created false accusations based on the fact that Moscow, together with RT ..."
"... Now what is revealed through Wikileaks' publications in Vault 7 is the ability of a subsection of the CIA, known as Umbrage , to use malware, viruses, trojans and other cyber tools for their own geopolitical purposes. The CIA's Umbrage collects, analyzes and then employs software created variously from foreign security agencies, cyber mafia, private companies, and hackers in general. ..."
"... These revelations are yet more reason why countries targeted by Washington, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, should get rid of European and American products and invest in reducing technological dependence on American products in particular. ..."
"... This article first appeared on Strategic-Culture.org and was authored by Federico Pieraccini. ..."
New revelations from Wikileaks' 'Vault 7' leak shed a disturbing light on the safeguarding of privacy. Something already known
and largely suspected has now become documented by Wikileaks. It seems evident that the CIA is now a state within a state, an entity
out of control that has even arrived at the point of creating its own hacking network in order to avoid the scrutiny of the NSA and
other agencies.
Reading the revelations contained in the documents
released by WikiLeaks and adding them to those already presented in recent years by Snowden, it now seems evident that the
technological aspect regarding espionage is a specialty in which the CIA, as far as we know, excels. Hardware and software vendors
that are complicit -- most of which are American, British or Israeli -- give the CIA the opportunity to achieve informational full-spectrum
dominance, relegating privacy to extinction. Such a convergence of power, money and technology entails major conflicts of interest,
as can be seen in the case of Amazon AWS (Amazon's Cloud Service),
cloud provider for the
CIA , whose owner, Jeff Bezos, is also the owner of The Washington Post . It is a clear overlap of private interests
that conflicts with the theoretical need to declare uncomfortable truths without the need to consider orders numbering in the millions
of dollars from clients like the CIA.
While it is just one example, there are thousands more out there. The perverse interplay between media, spy agencies and politicians
has compromised the very meaning of the much vaunted democracy of the land of the Stars and Stripes. The constant scandals that are
beamed onto our screens now serve the sole purpose of advancing the deep interest of the Washington establishment. In geopolitical
terms, it is now more than obvious that the deep state has committed all available means toward sabotaging any dialogue and détente
between the United States and Russia. In terms of news, the Wikileaks revelations shed light on the methods used by US intelligence
agencies like the CIA to place blame on the Kremlin, or networks associated with it, for the hacking that occurred during the American
elections.
Perhaps this is too generous a depiction of matters, given that the general public has yet to see
any evidence of the hacking of the DNC servers. In addition to this, we know that the origin of Podesta's email revelations stem
from the
loss of a smartphone and the low
data-security measures
employed by the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. In general, when the 16 US spy agencies blamed Russia for
the hacking of the elections, they were never specific in terms of forensic evidence. Simply put, the media, spies and politicians
created false accusations based on the fact that Moscow, together with
RT and other media (not directly
linked to the Kremlin), finally enjoy a major presence in the mainstream media. The biggest problem for the Washington establishment
lies in the revelation of news that is counterproductive to the interests of the deep state. RT, Sputnik, this site and many others
have diligently covered and reported to the general public every development concerning the Podesta revelations or the hacking of
the DNC.
Now what is revealed through Wikileaks' publications in Vault 7 is the ability of a subsection of the CIA, known as
Umbrage , to use malware, viruses, trojans and
other cyber tools for their own geopolitical purposes. The CIA's Umbrage collects, analyzes and then employs software created variously
from foreign security agencies, cyber mafia, private companies, and hackers in general. These revelations become particularly
relevant when we consider the consequences of these actions. The main example can be seen in the hacking of the DNC. For now, what
we know is that the hacking – if it ever occurred – is of Russian origin. This does not mean at all that the Kremlin directed it.
It could actually be very much the opposite, its responsibility falling into the category of a cyber false-flag. One thing is for
sure: all 16 US intelligence agencies are of the view that "the Russians did it". That said, the methods used to hack vulnerabilities
cannot be revealed, so as to limit the spread of easily reusable exploits on systems, such as the one that hosted the DNC server.
It is a great excuse for avoiding the revelation of any evidence at all.
So, with little information available, independent citizens are left with very little information on which to reliably form an
opinion on what happened. There is no evidence, and no evidence will be provided to the media. For politicians and so-called mainstream
journalists, this is an acceptable state of affairs. What we are left with instead is blind faith in the 16 spy agencies. The problem
for them is that what WikiLeaks revealed with Vault 7 exposes a scenario that looks more likely than not: a cyber false-flag carried
out by the Central Intelligence Agency using engineered malware and viruses made in Russia and hypothetically linking them back to
hacking networks in Russia. In all likelihood, it looks like the Democrats' server was hacked by the CIA with the clear objective
of leaving Russian fingerprints and obvious traces to be picked up by other US agencies.
In this way, it becomes easier to explain the unique views of all 16 spy agencies. Thus, it is far more likely that the CIA intentionally
left fake Russian fingerprints all over the DNC server, thereby misleading other intelligence agencies in promoting the narrative
that Russia hacked the DNC server. Of course the objective was to create a false narrative that could immediately be picked up by
the media, creating even more hysteria surrounding any rapprochement with Russia.
Diversification of computer systems.
The revelations contained in the Wikileaks vault 7 (
less than 1 % of the total data in Wikileaks'
possession has been released to date) have caused a stir, especially by exposing the astonishing complicity between hardware and
software manufacturers, often intentionally creating backdoors in their products to allow access by the CIA and NSA. In today's digital
environment, all essential services rely on computer technology and connectivity. These revelations are yet more reason why countries
targeted by Washington, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, should get rid of European and American products and invest in
reducing technological dependence on American products in particular.
The People's Republic has
already started down this track, with the replacement of many network devices with local vendors like Huawei in order to avoid
the type of interference revealed by Snowden.
Russia has been doing the same in terms of software, even laying the groundwork to launch of
its own operating system, abandoning American
and European systems. In North Korea, this idea was already put
into practice years ago and is an excellent tool for deterrence for external interference. In more than one computer security
conference, US experts have praised the capabilities of the DPRK to
isolate its Internet network from the rest of the world, allowing them to have strong safety mechanisms. Often, the only access
route to the DPRK systems are through the People's Republic of China, not the easiest way for the CIA or NSA to infiltrate a protected
computer network.
An important aspect of the world in which we live today involves information security, something all nations have to deal with.
At the moment, we still live in a world in which the realization of the danger and effect of hacking attacks are not apparent to
many. On the other hand, militarily speaking, the diversification and rationalization of critical equipment in terms of networks
and operability (smartphones, laptops, etc) has already produced
strong growth in non-American and European manufacturers, with the aim of making their systems more secure.
This strengthening of technology also produces deleterious consequences, such as the need for intelligence agencies to be able
to
prevent the spread of data encryption so as to always enjoy access to any desired information. The birth of the Tor protocol,
the deployment of Bitcoin, and apps that are more and more encrypted (although the WikiLeaks documents have shown that the collection
of information takes place on the device b
efore the information is encrypted ) are all responses to an exponential increase in the invasion of privacy by federal or American
government entities.
We live in a world that has an enormous dependence on the Internet and computer technology. The CIA over the years has focused
on the ability to make sure vulnerable systems are exploited as well as seeking out major security flaws in consumer products without
disclosing this to vendors, thereby taking advantage of these security gaps and leaving all consumers with a potential lack of security.
Slowly, thanks to the work and courage of people like Snowden and Assange, the world is beginning to understand how important it
is to keep personal data under control and prevent access to it by third parties, especially if they are state actors. In the case
of national security, the issue is expanded exponentially by the need to protect key and vital infrastructure, considering how many
critical services operate via the Internet and rely on computing devices.
The wars of the future will have a strong technological basis, and it is no coincidence that many armed forces, primarily the
Russian and Chinese, have opted in recent years to training troops, and conducting operations, not completely relying on connectivity.
No one can deny that in the event of a large-scale conflict, connectivity is far from guaranteed. One of the major goals of competing
nations is to penetrate the military security systems of rival nations and be able to
disarm the internal networks that operates major systems
of defense and attack.
The Wikileaks revelations are yet another confirmation of how important it is to break the technological unipolar moment, if it
may be dubbed this way, especially for nations targeted by the United States. Currently Washington dictates the technological capacities
of the private and government sectors of Europe and America, steering their development, timing and methods to suit its own interests.
It represents a clear disadvantage that the PRC and its allies will inevitably have to redress in the near future in order to achieve
full security for its vital infrastructure.
This article first appeared on Strategic-Culture.org and was authored
by Federico Pieraccini.
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not. For details of the sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source. ..."
"... Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media? ..."
"... US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so, this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency. ..."
"... If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome. ..."
"... And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties." ..."
"... The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties. ..."
"... A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious." ..."
"... A bigger bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we heard that before? ..."
"... I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office? ..."
"... Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win. ..."
"... I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory." ..."
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
"... In fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved. ..."
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand
the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered
his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up -- and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
When Simpson was asked "do you -- did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything -- ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been
clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as
"Russian" were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent,
Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street
Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business
Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before
the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate £155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of £245,017
owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed £317,848 -- to whom and for what purposes is not reported. The
unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from £121,046 in 2015 to £199,223 in 2016, and £441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid £200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about £114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption at the
world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
"The primary reason I generally don't believe in conspiracies is that they can usually be better explained as the result of
sheer incompetence and hubris."
I divide conspiracy notions into two categories: grand mal and petit mal . The former are generally implausible
due to the large number of participants involved and while occassionally attempted, they are typically exposed pretty quickly.
They may still have significant effects – for example, there was a large conspiracy to sell the Iraqi WMD story to the public,
involving top levels of the British and American governments and a good section of the corporate media. That's the grand mal
version.
Petit mal is your typical small criminal conspiracy. The FBI, for example, almost always includes 'conspiracy to commit
mail fraud' on the list of federal charges.
With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald
Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate
media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton
campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so,
this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt
concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency.
If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats
take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the Russians haven't sold the rope to the American
political elite. I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed
his "OMG Russia corruption" biases.
And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion
that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative,
stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties."
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson's firm Fusion GPS and Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence operations
in the US has discredited them in the due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript
shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job;
failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting
to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means
the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client
wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the
press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's
likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed his "OMG Russia
corruption" biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some of his own research and said it
was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson's interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee,
and I've read all 312 pages of the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported
in the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the "bombshells" the mainstream reported was "proof" that it wasn't the dossier that launched the FBI's investigation
of Trump, and therefore the dossier couldn't have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger bombshell, which
of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters
on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't
verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source.
Where have we heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had
a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there
be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence
agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win.
I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm
not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory."
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In fact I am fairly certain that
it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev's link to the Raimondo article, which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting
times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing people in the places & at the times delineated
in the Steele dossier. From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from the first indicated
that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover. He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA. These days I don't know exactly
who the CIA works for, or answers to. I certainly don't think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American people. Of private intelligence
companies I get what I can from IHS Jane's. That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story. So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be
done, & that being what Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their violations of international law as regarded
the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the Ukraine. Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations of International Law leads me
to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic riot. But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA memo, that has apparently just been released.
Obviously, a major development in 'Russia-gate'.
"... John Brennan, formerly Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Brennan played a central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI Director Comey, distracted by his mangling of the Clinton private-server affair during the presidential campaign, may have joined them actively somewhat later. ..."
"... The question therefore becomes: When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article , by late 2015 or early 2016 he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding "suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents." ..."
"... In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate. ..."
"... According to Steele and his many stenographers -- which include his American employers, Democratic Party Russiagaters, the mainstream media, and even progressive publications -- it came from his "deep connections in Russia," specifically from retired and current Russian intelligence officials in or near the Kremlin . From the moment the dossier began to be leaked to the American media, this seemed highly implausible (as reporters who took his bait should have known) for several reasons: ..."
"... would these purported Russian insiders really have collaborated with this "former" British intelligence agent under what is so widely said to be the ever-vigilant eye of the ruthless "former KGB agent" Vladimir Putin, thereby risking their positions, income, perhaps freedom, as well as the well-being of their families? ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... And most intriguingly, there was the "research" provided by Nellie Ohr, wife of a top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, who, according to the Republican memo, "was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research." Most likely, it found its way into Steele's dossier. (Mrs. Ohr was a trained Russian Studies scholar with a PhD from Stanford and a onetime assistant professor at Vassar, and thus, it must have seemed, an ideal collaborator for Steele.) ..."
"... Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community, not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American history, and the most detrimental to American democracy. And if so, it does indeed, as zealous promoters of Russiagate assert, make Watergate pale in significance. ..."
"... If Russiagate involved collusion among US intelligence agencies, as now seems likely, why was it undertaken? ..."
"... Did Brennan, for example, aspire to remaining head of the CIA, or to a higher position, in a Hillary Clinton administration? ..."
The publication of the Republican House Committee memo and reports of other documents
increasingly suggest not only a "Russiagate" without Russia but also something darker: The
"collusion" may not have been in the White House or the Kremlin.
... ... ...
In order to defend itself against the memo's charge that it used Steele's unverified dossier
to open its investigation into Trump's associates, the FBI claims it was prompted instead by a
May 2016 report of remarks made earlier by another lowly Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos, to
an Australian ambassador in a London bar. Even leaving aside the ludicrous nature of this
episode, the public record shows it is not true. In testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested
that he and his agency were the first,
as The Washington Post put it at the time , "in triggering an FBI probe."
Certainly both the Postand The
New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan
played a central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter,
briefing members of Congress privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret
envelope in early August 2016 that almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on,
Brennan presumably would have shared his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper,
director of national intelligence. FBI Director Comey, distracted by his mangling of the
Clinton private-server affair during the presidential campaign, may have joined them actively
somewhat later.
But when he did so publicly, in his March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee, it was as J. Edgar Hoover reincarnate -- as the nation's number-one expert on Russia
and its profound threat to America (though, when asked, he said he had never heard of Gazprom,
the giant Russian-state energy company often said to be a major pillar of President Putin's
power). The question therefore becomes: When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of
Trump? His House testimony leaves this somewhat unclear, but,
according to a subsequent Guardian article , by late 2015 or early 2016 he was receiving,
or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding "suspicious 'interactions'
between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents."
In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the
FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate. Certainly, his subsequent frequent
and vociferous public retelling of the Russiagate allegations against Trump suggest that he
played a (and probably the ) instigating role. And, it seems, a role in the Steele
dossier as well. Where, then, Cohen asks, did Steele get his information? According to
Steele and his many stenographers -- which include his American employers, Democratic Party
Russiagaters, the mainstream media, and even progressive publications -- it came from his "deep
connections in Russia,"
specifically from retired and current Russian intelligence officials in or near the Kremlin
. From the moment the dossier began to be leaked to the American media, this seemed highly
implausible (as reporters who took his bait should have known) for several reasons:
Steele has not returned to Russia after leaving his post there in the early 1990s.
Since then, the main Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, has undergone many personnel and
other changes, especially after 2000, and especially in or near Putin's Kremlin. Did Steele
really have such "connections" so many years later?
Even if he did, would these purported Russian insiders really have
collaborated with this "former" British intelligence agent under what is so widely said to be
the ever-vigilant eye of the ruthless "former KGB agent" Vladimir Putin, thereby risking
their positions, income, perhaps freedom, as well as the well-being of their
families?
Originally it was said that his Russian sources were highly paid by Steele.
Arguably, this might have warranted the risk. But subsequently Steele's employer and head of
Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, wrote
in The New York Times that "Steele's sources in Russia were not paid." If the
Putin Kremlin's purpose was to put Trump in the White House, why then would these
"Kremlin-connected" sources have contributed to Steele's anti-Trump project without financial
or political gain -- only with considerable risk?
There is the also the telling matter of factual mistakes in the dossier that
Kremlin "insiders" were unlikely to have made, but this is the subject for a separate
analysis.
And indeed we now know that Steele had at least three other "sources" for the dossier, ones
not previously mentioned by him or his employer. There was the information from foreign
intelligence agencies provided by Brennan to Steele or to the FBI, which we also now know was
collaborating with Steele. There was the contents of a " second
Trump-Russia dossier " prepared by people personally close to Hillary Clinton and who
shared their "findings" with Steele.
And most intriguingly, there was the "research" provided by Nellie Ohr, wife of a top
Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, who, according to the Republican memo, "was employed
by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided
the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research." Most likely, it found its way into
Steele's dossier. (Mrs. Ohr was a trained Russian Studies scholar with a PhD from Stanford and
a onetime assistant professor at Vassar, and thus, it must have seemed, an ideal collaborator
for Steele.)
We are left, then, with a vital, ramifying question: How much of the "intelligence
information" in Steele's dossier actually came from Russian insiders, if any? (This uncertainly
alone should stop Fox News's Sean Hannity and others from declaring that the Kremlin used
Steele -- and Hillary Clinton -- to pump its "propaganda and disinformation" into America. Such
pro-Trump allegations, like those of Russiagate itself, only fuel the new Cold War, which risks
becoming actual war any day, from Syria to Ukraine.) And so, Cohen concludes, we are left with
even more ramifying questions:
Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community,
not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American
history, and the most detrimental to American democracy. And if so, it does indeed, as
zealous promoters of Russiagate assert, make Watergate pale in significance. (To understand
more, we will need to learn more, including whether Trump associates other than Carter Page
and Paul Manafort were officially surveilled by any of the agencies involved. And whether
they were surveilled in order to monitor Trump himself, on the assumption they were or would
be in close proximity to him, as the president once suggested in a tweet.)
If Russiagate involved collusion among US intelligence agencies, as now seems
likely, why was it undertaken? There are various possibilities. Out of loathing for Trump?
Out of institutional opposition to his promise of better relations -- "cooperation" -- with
Russia? Or out of personal ambition? Did Brennan, for example, aspire to remaining head of
the CIA, or to a higher position, in a Hillary Clinton administration?
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russiaglobinfo freexchange
Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.
The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary
warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of
this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding'
with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really
can explain what that 'interference' means.
But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian
hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained
to Aaron Maté and the RealNews
the terrible consequences:
They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However
much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American
political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would
push against that degradation.
Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture
and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator,
" Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "
I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential
levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily
from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called
Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way,
if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy
was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence
of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study
it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has
become a commonplace. We are degraded.
The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in
Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory.
That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of
these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States,
is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism
in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days,
the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and
its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called
Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.
Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains
who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the
conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every
day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been
destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now
called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like
this in my lifetime.
The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party
has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions
in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.
And, unfortunately,
even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they
don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.
"... Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was true. ..."
Shearer, an independent journalist, decided to investigate potential Trump-Russia connections after seeing stories about the hacking
of the Democratic National Committee, the source said.
Shearer's so-called dossier is actually a set of notes based on conversations with reporters and other sources, according to the
person who spoke to CNN, and he circulated those notes to assorted journalists, as well as to Blumenthal.
Blumenthal then passed the notes to Jonathan Winer, who was a State Department special envoy for Libya under former Secretary
of State John Kerry, the source said. Winer had a previous relationship with Steele, and he passed it along to Steele in order to
get his assessment.
Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
Related Article: Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
Blumenthal, according to the source, did not know that Winer would consult Steele on the Shearer document, and said Winer made
that decision on his own.
After Winer gave Steele the notes from Shearer, Steele wrote that he found it interesting and it tended to corroborate some of
what he found, but he also noted that it was uncorroborated, the source said.
Shearer's notes, a copy of which were obtained by CNN, make uncorroborated allegations involving Trump and Russia, and they cite
unnamed Russian intelligence and Turkish sources.
Steele provided Shearer's notes to the FBI in October 2016.
What are the GOP allegations? Steele was being paid for his research by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was
hired by a law firm on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. A key allegation
in last week's Nunes memo was that Steele's political connections to Democrats were not told to the FISA court, and Republicans are
charging that Shearer's involvement could show Steele was receiving information from Clinton associates that went into the dossier
he gave to the FBI. The criminal referral from Grassley and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham --
which was unclassified with some redactions this week -- states that Shearer's notes went to Steele through an official at the
State Department and another person who was a "friend of the Clinton's." "It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded
Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele's allegations raises additional concerns
about his credibility," the senators wrote in the criminal referral, which does not accuse Steele of wrongdoing but urges the Justice
Department to investigate the matter. Winer worked with Steele from 2014 through 2016, according to another source familiar with
their interactions. Steele provided Winer with reports related to the conflict in Ukraine and Russia as a courtesy, which was not
unusual and considered one source among many used for assessing the situation on the ground in Ukraine, the source said.
Former
CIA Director Brennan says Nunes 'abused his office'Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at
the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was
true.
Senior State Department officials showed the dossier to Kerry once it was clear the document was in wide circulation around Washington,
according to the source. Kerry was not briefed on the Shearer document, the source said. Lee Wolosky, an attorney for Winer, said
in a statement that Winer was "concerned in 2016 about information that a candidate for the presidency may have been compromised
by a hostile foreign power." "Any actions he took were grounded in those concerns," Wolosky said.
"Today's attacks are nothing more than a further attempt to undermine the independence and credibility of special (counsel Robert)
Mueller's ongoing investigation into those and related issues." What are Republicans saying? Republicans haven't come out
and accused Blumenthal of any wrongdoing, but they've hinted in public appearances that raw intelligence may have been distributed
for partisan purposes. Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Oversight Committee and is a senior Republican on the House Intelligence
Committee, discussed Nunes' State Department investigation a Fox News interview Tuesday, saying he was "troubled" by the role the
State Department played. Gowdy read the classified FISA documents that the Justice Department gave congressional committees access
to on the condition that only one member of the majority and minority would view them. "When you hear who the source, or one of the
sources of that information is, you're going to think, 'Oh, my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before. Where could he possibly
have been?'" the South Carolina Republican said.
Gowdy:
Memo has no impact on Russia probe "A domestic source. I'm trying to think of Secretary Clinton defined him. I think she said
he was an old friend who emailed her from time to time," Gowdy continued. "Sidney Blumenthal?" Fox News' Martha MacCallum asked.
"That would be really warm," Gowdy concluded. Nunes made headlines over the weekend when he predicted more memos would be coming
from his committee, but he says that the investigation into the State Department has already been in the works. "We have an active
investigation into the State Department. That has been ongoing for a while now," Nunes told Fox News' Sean Hannity.
Nunes has repeatedly declined to discuss his investigations with CNN, saying he doesn't discuss committee business "in the halls."
Graham declined to discuss Blumenthal's role in the committee's investigation into Steele, but said the State Department is one element
of it. "There's some connections outside the Department of Justice and the dossier that we're looking at. One of them goes to the
State Department," Graham told CNN. "It's clear to me he was using the dossier for political purposes and that should have been more
alarming than it was."
Who are the players?
Blumenthal is no stranger to congressional investigations, playing a role in the House Benghazi Select Committee investigation
that was led by Gowdy.
Blumenthal testified behind closed doors as part of the Benghazi investigation, and
he
provided the committee with emails he exchanged with Clinton , who was secretary of state when the 2012 Benghazi attack occurred.
Blumenthal sent Clinton dozens of emails while she was secretary of state on various foreign policy topics, some of which were unsolicited
and others that were requested by Clinton.
A former journalist, Blumenthal has known the Clintons for more than 30 years, and he worked in the Clinton White House as senior
adviser from 1997 to 2001. He's been by the family's side during difficult moments, including President Bill Clinton's impeachment
trial.
Fletcher Prouty's suspicions re Kennedy's assassination were later confirmed by Chauncey
Holt before he died (there are several versions online). His recorded testimony proves the
CIA/MAFIA connection(without knowing who gave the order). Historically the 9/11 Commission
seems to mirror the same CIA infiltration as the Warren Commission did.
More on topic the MSM deification of Mueller reminds me much of their similar
glorification of J Edgar Hoover at that time.
"... The post WW2 promotion process in the armed forces has produced a group at the top with a mentality that typically thinks rigorously but not imaginatively or creatively. ..."
"... These men got to their present ranks and positions by being conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board." ..."
"... If asked at the top, where military command and political interaction intersect, what policy should be they always ask for more money and to be allowed to pursue outcomes that they can understand as victory and self fulfilling with regard to their collective self image as warrior chieftains. ..."
"... In Trump's time his essential disinterest in foreign policy has led to a massive delegation of authority to Mattis and the leadership of the empire's forces. Their reaction to that is to look at their dimwitted guidance from on high (defeat IS, depose Assad and the SAG, triumph in Afghanistan) and to seek to impose their considerable available force to seek accomplishment as they see fit of this guidance in the absence of the kind of restrictions that Obama placed on them. ..."
"... Like the brass, I, too, am a graduate of all those service schools that attend success from the Basic Course to the Army War College. I will tell you again that the people at the top are not good at "the vision thing." They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers ..."
"... Academia reinforces the groupthink. The mavericks are shunned or ostracized. The only ones I have seen with some degree of going against the grain are technology entrepreneurs. ..."
"... "They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I have found this to be the case with 80 to 90% of most professions. A good memory and able to perform meticulously what they have been taught, but little thinking outside that narrow box. Often annoying, but very dangerous in this case. ..."
"... Since Afghanistan and the brass were mentioned in the editorial statement, here is an immodest question -- Where the brass have been while the opium production has been risen dramatically in Afghanistan under the US occupation? "Heroin Addiction in America Spearheaded by the US-led War on Afghanistan" by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/06/heroin-addiction-america-spearheaded-us-led-war-afghanistan/ ..."
"... A simple Q: What has been the role of the CENTCOM re the racket? Who has arranged the protection for the opium production and for drug dealers? Roberts suggests that the production of opium in Afghanistan "finances the black operations of the CIA and Western intelligence agencies." -- All while Awan brothers, Alperovitch and such tinker with the US national security? ..."
"... God help the poor people of Syria. ..."
"... thanks pat... it seems like the usa has had a steady group of leaders that have no interest in the world outside of the usa, or only in so far as they can exploit it for their own interest... maybe that sums up the foreign policy of the usa at this point... you say trump is disinterested.. so all the blather from trump about 'why are we even in syria?', or 'why can't we be friends with the russia?' is just smoke up everyone's ass... ..."
"... Predictably there is always someone who says that this group is not different from all others. Unfortunately the military function demands more than the level of mediocrity found in most groups ..."
"... A lot of technology entrepreneurs--especially those active today--are stuck in their own groupthink, inflated by their sense that they are born for greatness and can do no wrong. ..."
"... The kind of grand schemes that the top people at Google, Uber, and Facebook think up to remake the universe in their own idea of "good society" are frightening. That they are cleverer (but not necessarily wiser) than the academics, borgists, or generals, I think, makes them even more dangerous. ..."
"... They [the generals] seem to have deliberately completely ignored the issues and policy positions Trump ran on as President. It isn't a case of ignorance but of wilful disregard. ..."
"... So true and as others commented this is a sad feature of the human race and all human organizations. Herd mentality ties into social learning ..."
"... Our massive cultural heritages are learned by observing and taken in as a whole. This process works within organizations as well. ..."
"... I suspect a small percentage of the human race functions differently than the majority and retains creative thinking and openness along with more emphasis on cognitive thinking than social learning but generally they always face a battle when working to change the group "consensus", i.e. Fulton's folly, scepticism on whether man would ever fly, etc. ..."
"... This is an interesting discussion. The top in organisations (civil and military) are increasingly technocrats and thinking like systems managers. They are unable to innovate because they lack the ability to think out of the box. Usually there is a leader who depends on specialists. Others (including laymen) are often excluding from the decision-making-proces. John Ralston Saul's Voltaires Bastards describes this very well. ..."
"... Because of natural selection (conformist people tend to choose similar people who resemble their own values and ways-of-thinking) organizations have a tendency to become homogeneous (especially the higher management/ranks). ..."
"... In combination with the "dumbing" of people (also of people who have a so-called good education (as described in Richard Sale's Sterile Chit-Chat ) this is a disastrous mix. ..."
"... That's true not only of the US military but of US elites in general across all of the spectra. And because that reality is at odds with the group-think of those within the various elements that make up the spectra it doesn't a hearing. Anyone who tries to bring it up risks being ejected from the group. ..."
"... "The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country. This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after war broke out in 2011." https://goo.gl/8pj5cD ..."
"... "They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I've often pondered that concept. Notice how many of radical extremist leaders were doctors, engineers and such? Narrow and deep. ..."
"... Long ago when I was a professor, I advised my students that "the law is like a pencil sharpener, it sharpens the mind by narrowing it." I tried to encourage them to "think backwards". ..."
"... Col, I think it might help people to think of "the Borg" - as you have defined & applied it - in a broader context. It struck me particularly as you ID'd the launching of our modern military group-think / careerism behavior coming from the watershed of industrialized scale & processes that came out of WWII. ..."
"... We note parallel themes in all significant sectors of our civilization. The ever-expanding security state, the many men in Gray Flannel Suits that inhabit corporate culture, Finance & Banking & Big Health scaling ever larger - all processes aimed to slice the salami thinner & quicker, to the point where meat is moot ... and so it goes. ..."
"... I just finished reading Command & Control (about nuclear weapons policy, systems design & accidents). I am amazed we've made it this far. ..."
The Borgist foreign policy of the administration has little to do with the generals. To comprehend the generals one must understand their collective mentality and the process that raised them on high as a collective
of their own. The post WW2 promotion process in the armed forces has produced a group at the top with a mentality that typically
thinks rigorously but not imaginatively or creatively.
These men got to their present ranks and positions by being conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of
their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board."
If asked at the top, where military command and political interaction intersect, what policy should be they always ask for
more money and to be allowed to pursue outcomes that they can understand as victory and self fulfilling with regard to their collective
self image as warrior chieftains.
In Obama's time they were asked what policy should be in Afghanistan and persuaded him to reinforce their dreams in Afghanistan
no matter how unlikely it always was that a unified Western oriented nation could be made out of a collection of disparate mutually
alien peoples.
In Trump's time his essential disinterest in foreign policy has led to a massive delegation of authority to Mattis and the
leadership of the empire's forces. Their reaction to that is to look at their dimwitted guidance from on high (defeat IS, depose
Assad and the SAG, triumph in Afghanistan) and to seek to impose their considerable available force to seek accomplishment as they
see fit of this guidance in the absence of the kind of restrictions that Obama placed on them.
Like the brass, I, too, am a graduate of all those service schools that attend success from the Basic Course to the Army War
College. I will tell you again that the people at the top are not good at "the vision thing." They are not stupid at all but they
are a collective of narrow thinkers. pl
IMO, this conformism pervades all institutions. I saw when I worked in banking and finance many moons ago how moving up the
ranks in any large organization meant you didn't rock the boat and you conformed to the prevailing groupthink. Even nutty ideas
became respectable because they were expedient.
Academia reinforces the groupthink. The mavericks are shunned or ostracized. The only ones I have seen with some degree of
going against the grain are technology entrepreneurs.
You remind me of an old rumination by Thomas Ricks:
Take the example of General George Casey. According to David Cloud and Greg Jaffe's book Four Stars, General Casey, upon learning
of his assignment to command U.S. forces in Iraq, received a book from the Army Chief of Staff. The book Counterinsurgency Lessons
Learned from Malaya and Vietnam was the first book he ever read about guerilla warfare." This is a damning indictment of the degree
of mental preparation for combat by a general. The Army's reward for such lack of preparation: two more four star assignments.
"They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers."
I have found this to be the case with 80 to 90% of most professions. A good memory and able to perform meticulously what they
have been taught, but little thinking outside that narrow box. Often annoying, but very dangerous in this case.
Since Afghanistan and the brass were mentioned in the editorial statement, here is an immodest question -- Where the brass have
been while the opium production has been risen dramatically in Afghanistan under the US occupation? "Heroin Addiction in America
Spearheaded by the US-led War on Afghanistan" by Paul Craig Roberts:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/06/heroin-addiction-america-spearheaded-us-led-war-afghanistan/
" in 2000-2001
the Taliban government –with the support of the United Nations (UNODC) – implemented a successful ban on poppy cultivation. Opium
production which is used to produce grade 4 heroin and its derivatives declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. The production
of opium in 2001 was of the order of a meager 185 tons. It is worth noting that the UNODC congratulated the Taliban Government
for its successful opium eradication program. The Taliban government had contributed to literally destabilizing the multibillion
dollar Worldwide trade in heroin.
In 2017, the production of opium in Afghanistan under US military occupation reached 9000 metric tons. The production of opium
in Afghanistan registered a 49 fold increase since Washington's invasion. Afghanistan under US military occupation produces approximately
90% of the World's illegal supply of opium which is used to produce heroin. Who owns the airplanes and ships that transport heroin
from Afghanistan to the US? Who gets the profits?"
---A simple Q: What has been the role of the CENTCOM re the racket? Who has arranged the protection for the opium production
and for drug dealers? Roberts suggests that the production of opium in Afghanistan "finances the black operations of the CIA and
Western intelligence agencies." -- All while Awan brothers, Alperovitch and such tinker with the US national security?
There needs to be a 're-education' of the top, all of them need to be required to attend Green Beret think-school, in other
words they need to be forced to think outside the box, and to to think on their feet. They need to understand fluid situations
where things change at the drop of a hat, be able to dance the two-step and waltz at the same time. In other words they need to
be able to walk and chew gum and not trip over their shoe-laces.
By no means are they stupid, but you hit the nail on the head when you said 'narrow thinkers'. Their collective hive mentality
that has developed is not a good thing.
thanks pat... it seems like the usa has had a steady group of leaders that have no interest in the world outside of the usa, or
only in so far as they can exploit it for their own interest... maybe that sums up the foreign policy of the usa at this point...
you say trump is disinterested.. so all the blather from trump about 'why are we even in syria?', or 'why can't we be friends
with the russia?' is just smoke up everyone's ass...
i like what you said here "conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They
actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board." - that strikes me as very true
- conformist group thinkers... the world needs less of these types and more actual leaders who have a vision for something out
of the box and not always on board... i thought for a while trump might fill this bill, but no such luck by the looks of it now..
As a young person in eighth grade, I learned about the "domino theory" in regard to attempts to slow the spread of communism.
Then my generation was, in a sense, fractured around the raging battles for and against our involvement in Vietnam.
I won't express my own opinion on that. But I mention it because it seems to be a type of "vision thing."
So, now I ask, what would be your vision for the Syrian situation?
Westmoreland certainly, Macarthur certainly not. This all started with the "industrialization" of the armed forces in WW2.
we never recovered the sense of profession as opposed to occupation after the massive expansion and retention of so many placeholders.
a whole new race of Walmart manager arose and persists. pl
The idea of the Domino Theory came from academia, not the generals of that time. They resisted the idea of a war in east Asia
until simply ordered into it by LBJ. After that their instinct for acting according to guidance kicked in and they became committed
to the task. Syria? Do you think I should write you an essay on that? SST has a large archive and a search machine. pl
I am talking about flag officers at present, not those beneath them from the mass of whom they emerge. There are exceptions.
Martin Dempsey may have been one such. The system creates such people at the top. pl
Your usual animosity for non-left wing authority is showing. A commander like the CENTCOM theater commander (look it up) operates
within guidance from Washington, broad guidance. Normally this is the president's guidance as developed in the NSC process. Some
presidents like Obama and LBJ intervene selectively and directly in the execution of that guidance. Obama had a "kill list" of
jihadis suggested by the IC and condemned by him to die in the GWOT. He approved individual missions against them. LBJ picked
individual air targets in NVN. Commanders in the field do not like that . They think that freedom of action within their guidance
should be accorded them. This CinC has not been interested thus far in the details and have given the whole military chain of
command wide discretion to carry out their guidance. pl
"I am not sure that I understand what makes a Borgist different from a military conformist." The Borg and the military leaders
are not of the same tribe. they are two different collectives who in the main dislike and distrust each other. pl
Anna. Their guidance does not include a high priority for eradicating the opium trade. Their guidance has to do with defeating
the jihadis and building up the central government. pl
Predictably there is always someone who says that this group is not different from all others. Unfortunately the military function
demands more than the level of mediocrity found in most groups. pl
Trump would like to better relations with Russia but that is pretty much the limit of his attention to foreign affairs
at any level more sophisticated than expecting deference. He is firmly focused on the economy and base solidifying issues like
immigration. pl
The medical profession comes to mind. GP's and specialists. Many of those working at the leading edge of research seem much wider
thinking and are not locked into the small box of what they have been taught.
Combat Applications Group and SEALS don't even begin to compare, they're not in the same league as 'real deal' GBs. The GBs are
thinkers as well as doers, whereas Combat Applications Group and SEALs all they know is breach and clear, breach and clear.
There is more to life than breach and clear. Having worked with all in one manner or another, I'll take GBs any day hands down. It makes a difference when the brain is
engaged instead of just the heel.
A lot of technology entrepreneurs--especially those active today--are stuck in their own groupthink, inflated by their sense that
they are born for greatness and can do no wrong.
The kind of grand schemes that the top people at Google, Uber, and Facebook think
up to remake the universe in their own idea of "good society" are frightening. That they are cleverer (but not necessarily wiser)
than the academics, borgists, or generals, I think, makes them even more dangerous.
They are indeed "narrow thinkers", but I think the problem runs deeper. They seem to be stuck in the rut of a past era. When
the US was indeed the paramount military power on the globe, and the US military reigned supreme. They can't seem to accept the
reality of the world as it is now.
Of course, these policies ensure that they continue to be well-funded, even if the US is bankrupting itself in the process.
They [the generals] seem to have deliberately completely ignored the issues and policy positions Trump ran on as President. It isn't a case of
ignorance but of wilful disregard.
I've been reading this blog for some time. My question was facetious and written with the understanding of your statement about
the generals not having a good grasp of "the vision thing" on their own.
So true and as others commented this is a sad feature of the human race and all human organizations. Herd mentality ties into
social learning. Chimps are on average more creative and have better short term memory than humans. We gave up some short term
memory in order to be able to learn quickly by mimicking. If shown how to open a puzzle box but also shown unnecessary extra steps
a chimp will ignore the empty steps and open the box with only the required steps. A human will copy what they saw exactly performing
the extra steps as if they have some unknown value to the process. Our massive cultural heritages are learned by observing and
taken in as a whole. This process works within organizations as well.
I suspect a small percentage of the human race functions differently than the majority and retains creative thinking and openness
along with more emphasis on cognitive thinking than social learning but generally they always face a battle when working to change
the group "consensus", i.e. Fulton's folly, scepticism on whether man would ever fly, etc.
One nice feature of the internet allows creative thinkers to connect and watch the idiocy of the world unfold around us.
"A natural desire to be part of the 'in crowd' could damage our ability to make the right decisions, a new study has shown."
The military by definition is a rigid hierarchical structure.
It could not function as a collection of individuals.
This society can only breed conforming narrow leaders as an "individual" would leave or be forced out.
That part of our brain responsible for the desire to be part of the 'in crowd' may affect our decision-making process, but it
is also the reason we keep chimps in zoos and not the other way around. Or, to put it another way; if chimps had invented Facebook,
I might consider them more creative than us.
This is an interesting discussion. The top in organisations (civil and military) are increasingly technocrats and thinking like systems managers. They are unable
to innovate because they lack the ability to think out of the box.
Usually there is a leader who depends on specialists. Others (including laymen) are often excluding from the decision-making-proces.
John Ralston Saul's Voltaires Bastards
describes this very well.
Because of natural selection (conformist people tend to choose similar people who resemble their own values and ways-of-thinking)
organizations have a tendency to become homogeneous (especially the higher management/ranks).
In combination with the "dumbing" of people (also of people who have a so-called good education (as described in Richard Sale's
Sterile Chit-Chat ) this is a disastrous
mix.
Homogeneity is the main culprit. A specialists tends to try to solve problems with the same knowledge-set that created these.
Not all (parts of) organizations and people suffer this fate. Innovations are usually done by laymen and not by specialists.
The organizations are often heterogeneous and the people a-typical and/or eccentric.
(mainly the analytical parts of ) intelligence organizations and investment banks are like that if they are worth anything.
Very heterogeneous with a lot of a-typical people. I think Green Berets are also like that. An open mind and genuine interest
in others (cultures, way of thinking, religion etc) is essential to understand and to perform and also to prevent costly mistakes
(in silver and/or blood).
It is possible to create firewalls against tunnel-vision. The
Jester performed such a role. Also think of the
Emperors New Clothes . The current trend
of people with limited vision and creativity prevents this. Criticism is punished with a lack of promotion, job-loss or even jail
(whistle-blowers)
IMO this is why up to a certain rank (colonel or middle management) a certain amount of creativity or alternative thinking
is allowed, but conformity is essential to rise higher.
I was very interested in the Colonel's remark on the foreign background of the GB in Vietnam. If you would like to expand on this
I would be much obliged? IMO GB are an example of a smart, learning, organization (in deed and not only in word as so many say
of themselves, but who usually are at best mediocre)
Would you then say that a rising military officer who does have the vision thing faces career impediments? If so, would you
say that the vision thing is lost (if it ever was there) at the highest ranks? In any case, the existence of even a few at the top, like Matthis or Shinseki is a blessing.
"When the US was indeed the paramount military power on the globe, and the US military reigned supreme. They can't seem to
accept the reality of the world as it is now."
That's true not only of the US military but of US elites in general across all of the spectra. And because that reality is at
odds with the group-think of those within the various elements that make up the spectra it doesn't a hearing. Anyone who tries
to bring it up risks being ejected from the group.
I forget an important part. I really miss an edit-button. Comment-boxes are like looking at something through a straw. Its easy
to miss the overview.
Innovations and significant new developments are usually made by laymen. IMO mainly because they have a fresh perspective without
being bothered by the (mainstream) knowledge that dominates an area of expertise.
By excluding the laymen errors will continue to be repeated. This can be avoided by using development/decision-making frameworks,
but these tend to become dogma (and thus become part of the problem)
Much better is allowing laymen and allowing a-typical people. Then listen to them carefully. Less rigid flexible and very valuable.
Apparently, according to the last US ambassador to Syria Mr. Ford, from 2014-17 US has spent 12 Billion on Regime change in Syria.
IMO, combinedly Iran and Russia so far, have spent far less in Syria than 12 billion by US alone, not considering the rest of
her so called coalition. This is a war of attrition, and US operations in wars, are usually far more expensive and longer than
anybody else's.
"The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through
2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country.
This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after
war broke out in 2011." https://goo.gl/8pj5cD
It may "demand" it - but does it get it? Soldiers are just as human as everyone else.
I'm reminded of the staff sergeant with the sagging beer belly who informed me, "Stand up straight and look like a soldier..."
Or the First Sergeant who was so hung over one morning at inspection that he couldn't remember which direction he was going down
the hall to the next room to be inspected. I'm sure you have your own stories of less than competence.
It's a question of intelligence and imagination. And frankly, I don't see the military in any country receiving the "best and
brightest" of that country's population, by definition. The fact that someone is patriotic enough to enter the military over a
civilian occupation doesn't make them more intelligent or imaginative than the people who decided on the civilian occupation.
Granted, if you fail at accounting, you don't usually die. Death tends to focus the mind, as they say. Nonetheless, we're not
talking about the grunts at the level who actually die, still less the relatively limited number of Special Forces. We're talking
about the officers and staff at the levels who don't usually die in war - except maybe at their defeat - i.e., most officers over
the level of captain.
One can hardly look at this officer crowd in the Pentagon and CENTCOM and say that their personal death concentrates their
mind. They are in virtually no danger of that. Only career death faces them - with a nice transition to the board of General Dynamics
at ten times the salary.
All in all, I'd have to agree that the military isn't much better at being competent - at many levels above the obvious group
of hyper-trained Special Forces - any more than any other profession.
That is well put.most important is the grading system that is designed to fix a person to a particular slot thereby limiting his
ability to think "outside the box" and consider the many variables that exist in one particular instant.
Creative thinking allows
you to see beyond the storm clouds ahead and realize that the connectedness of different realities both the visible and invisible.
For
instance the picture of the 2 pairs of korean skaters in the news tells an interesting story on many levels. Some will judge them
on their grade of proffiency, while others will see a dance of strategy between 2 foes and a few will know the results in advance
and plan accordingly
"They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I've often pondered that concept. Notice how many of radical extremist leaders were doctors, engineers and such? Narrow and
deep. STEM is enormously useful to us but seems to be a risky when implanted in shallow earth.
These narrow "but deep" thinkers were unable to grasp the nature of the Iraq War for the first couple of years. They thought
of it as a rear area security problem, a combat in cities problem, anything but a popular rebellion based on xenophobia and anti-colonialism
The IED problem? They spent several billion dollars on trying to find a technology fix and never succeeded. I know because they
kept asking me to explain the war to them and then could not understand the answers which were outside their narrow thought. pl
War College selectees, the national board selected creme de la creme test out as 50% SJs (conformists lacking vision) in Myers-Briggs
terms and about 15% NTs (intellectuals). To survive and move upward in a system dominated by SJs, the NTs must pretend to be what
they are not. A few succeed. I do not think Mattis is an intellectual merely because he has read a lot. pl
Long ago when I was a professor, I advised my students that "the law is like a pencil sharpener, it sharpens the mind by narrowing
it."
I tried to encourage them to "think backwards".
My favorite example was a Japanese fisherman who recovered valuable ancient Chinese
pottery. Everyone knew where an ancient ship had sunk, but the water was too deep to dive down to the wreck. And everyone knew
the cargo included these valuable vases. And the fisherman was the first to figure out how to recover them. He attached a line
to an octopus, and lowered it in the area, waited awhile, and pulled it up. Low and behold, the octopus had hidden in an ancient
Chinese vase. The fisherman was familiar with trapping octopuses, by lowering a ceramic pot (called "takosubo") into the ocean,
waiting awhile, then raising the vase with octopus inside. His brilliance was to think backwards, and use an octopus to catch
a vase.
the original GBS were recruited in the 50s to serve in the OSS role with foreign guerrillas behind Soviet lines in th event
of war in Europe. Aaron Bank, the founder, recruited several hundred experienced foreign soldiers from the likely countries who
wanted to become American. By the time we were in VN these men were a small fraction of GBs but important for their expertise
and professionalism. pl
Col, I think it might help people to think of "the Borg" - as you have defined & applied it - in a broader context. It struck
me particularly as you ID'd the launching of our modern military group-think / careerism behavior coming from the watershed of
industrialized scale & processes that came out of WWII.
We note parallel themes in all significant sectors of our civilization.
The ever-expanding security state, the many men in Gray Flannel Suits that inhabit corporate culture, Finance & Banking & Big
Health scaling ever larger - all processes aimed to slice the salami thinner & quicker, to the point where meat is moot ... and
so it goes.
I note many Borgs... Borgism if you will. An organizational behavior that has emerged out of human nature having difficulty adapting
to rapidly accelerating complexity that is just too hard to apprehend in a few generations. If (as many commenters on STT seem
to...) one wishes to view this in an ideological or spiritual framework only, they may overlook an important truth - that what
we are experiencing is a Battle Among Borgs for control over their own space & domination over the other Borgs. How else would
we expect any competitive, powerful interest group to act?
In gov & industry these days, we observe some pretty wild outliers... attached to some wild outcomes. Thus the boring behavior
of our political industries bringing forth Trump, our promethean technology sector yielding a Musk (& yes, a Zuckerberg).
I find it hard to take very seriously analysts that define their perspective based primarily upon their superior ideals & opposition
to others. Isn't every person, every tribe, team or enterprise a borglet-in-becoming? Everybody Wants to Rule the World ... &
Everybody Must Get Stoned... messages about how we are grappling with complexity in our times. I just finished reading Command
& Control (about nuclear weapons policy, systems design & accidents). I am amazed we've made it this far.
Unfortunately, I would
not be amazed if reckless, feckless leaders changed the status quo. I was particularly alarmed hearing Trump in his projection
mode; "I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity, without a major event where people pull together,
that's hard to do.
But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing." It
strikes me that he could be exceptionally willing to risk a Major Event if he felt a form of unity, or self-preservation, was
in the offing. I pray (& I do not pray often or easily) that the Generals you have described have enough heart & guts to honor
their oath at its most profound level in the event of an Event.
As a time traveler from another age, I can only say that for me it means devotion to a set of mores peculiar to a particular
profession as opposed to an occupation. pl
Another springs to mind: James Lovelock (of Gaia hypothesis fame) was once part of the NASA team building the first probe to
go to Mars to look for signs of life. Lovelock didn't make any friends when he told NASA they were wasting their time, there was
none. When asked how he could be so sure, he explained that the composition of the Martian atmosphere made it impossible. "But
Martian life may be able to survive under different conditions" was the retort. Lovelock then went on to explain his view that
the evolution of microbial life determined the atmospheric composition on Earth, so should be expected to do the same if
life had evolved on Mars. Brilliant backwards thinking which ought to have earned him the Nobel prize IMHO (for Gaia). Lovelock,
a classic cross-disciplinary scientist, can't be rewarded with such a box-categorized honor, as his idea doesn't fit well into
any one.
Another example of cross-disciplinary brilliance was Bitcoin, which has as much to do with its creator's deep knowledge of
Anthropology (why people invented & use money) as his expertise in both Economics and Computer Science.
This is they key to creative thinking in my view - familiarity with different fields yields deeper insights.
"... CIA killed Kennedy. This pretty much removes all doubt. They are willing to do anything. ..."
"... It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist passports floating gently down from the sky. ..."
"... What was Oswald's reason to kill JFK? And yeah, he picked the very building he worked at to commit the crime. He wasn't THAT stupid!... ..."
"... RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn Monroe. ..."
"... The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b) in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the Cold War... ..."
"... Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit stationary targets reliably. ..."
It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald
firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a
building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT
being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping
backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in
front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist
passports floating gently down from the sky.
RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had
CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban
hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief
of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn
Monroe.
The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a
thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b)
in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the
Cold War...
Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope
needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle
attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit
stationary targets reliably.
"... think tanks are essentially lobby groups for their donors. The policy analyses and reform schemes that they produce are tailored to support the material interests of donors. None of the studies are reliable as objective evidence. They are special pleading. ..."
"... Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel ..."
"... Bryan MacDonald lists those who support the anti-Russian think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Institute for Study of War. The "experts" are mouthpieces funded by the US military security complex. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48755.htm US government agencies use taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers. ..."
A couple of decades or more ago when I was still in Washington, otherwise known as the snake
pit, I was contacted by a well-financed group that offered me, a Business Week and Scripps
Howard News Service columnist with access as a former editor also to the Wall Street Journal,
substantial payments to promote agendas that the lobbyists paying the bills wanted
promoted.
To the detriment of my net worth, but to the preservation of my reputation, I declined.
Shortly thereafter a conservative columnist, a black man if memory serves, was outed for
writing newspaper columns for pay for a lobby group.
I often wondered if he was set up in order to get rid of him and whether the enticement I
received was intended to shut me down, or whether journalists had become "have pen will
travel"? (Have Gun -- Will Travel was a highly successful TV Series 1957-1963).
Having read Bryan MacDonald's article on Information Clearing House, "Anti-Russia Think
Tanks in US: Who Funds them?," I see that think tanks are essentially lobby groups for their
donors. The policy analyses and reform schemes that they produce are tailored to support the
material interests of donors. None of the studies are reliable as objective evidence. They are
special pleading.
Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the
Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the
military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel.
Bryan MacDonald lists those who support the anti-Russian think tanks such as the Atlantic
Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Institute
for Study of War. The "experts" are mouthpieces funded by the US military security complex.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48755.htm
US government agencies use taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers.
In other words insouciant Americans pay taxes in order to be brainwashed. And they tolerate
this.
"... What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest prize of all and said "Why not.'. ..."
"... Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly, Americans cannot wake up fast enough ..."
"... I am familiar with the tactics of Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more committed to getting him elected. ..."
"... This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy prey for being led to their own political slaughter. ..."
"... Does anybody ever talk about the failures of capitalism anymore or just about people and politics? ..."
"... Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors. That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the Mueller "investigation." ..."
"... yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream media. ..."
"... This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court represents. ..."
"... Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk. In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never. ..."
"... Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our free [sic] press and establishment media. ..."
"... Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them compliant and confused. ..."
"... As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally, then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what they seem to have done. ..."
"... Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war. How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as millions of dead and traumatized survivors. ..."
"... I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of supporting war against Russia. ..."
"... Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential administrative discipline. ..."
"... That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it. Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out. If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media in the service of both. ..."
"... Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade, splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer. ..."
"... I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay. Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left. ..."
"... Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as possible. ..."
"... The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate. ..."
"... One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population. ..."
"... Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions "political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering, just as were our British forefathers. ..."
"... Is it a diversion? From what? It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll. Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to doomsday. Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP. Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima. when nerves fray hey! ..."
"... I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate. ..."
"... For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern. We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us. Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their hatred of Trump is only part of this issue. ..."
"... With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. ..."
"... Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these Russian hackers who weren't there. ..."
"... The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves. ..."
"... I maintain that having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate. People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled." ..."
"... Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the Pentagon budget! ..."
Exclusive: Hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special
Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental
misunderstandings, report Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry.
... ... ...
Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively
to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe
the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as
"perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people
compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported
. We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of
Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of
the Al Qaeda perpetrators.
Such emotional manipulation is the likely explanation for the fact that so many people are
now gearing up to defend someone like Mueller, while largely ignoring other important topics of
far greater consequence. With no demonstrations being organized to stop a possible war with
North Korea – or an escalation in Syria – hundreds of thousands of Americans are
apparently all too eager to go to the mat in defense of an investigation into the president's
possible "collusion" with Russia in its alleged meddling in election 2016.
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this
Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and
defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous
internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn't have to be privy to his inner circle to
recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to
repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only
able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should
still shock liberal consciences.
Although Mueller and his "joined at the hip" cohort James Comey are now hailed for
their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement
officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy
Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the
Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
stunning levels of incompetence.
Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee's and Senate Judiciary
Committee Leaders letters ( here and
here ) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller's
spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration's) Department of Justice
rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a
pedestal. Steele was declared to be a "reliable source" without apparently vetting or
corroborating any of the "opposition research" allegations that he had been hired (and paid
$160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
There are typically at least two major prongs of establishing the "reliability" of any given
source in an affidavit, the first – and the one mostly pointed to – being the
source's track record for having furnished accurate and reliable information in the past. Even
if it is conceded that Steele would have initially satisfied this part of the test for
determining probable cause, based on his having reportedly furnished some important information
to FBI agents investigating the FIFA soccer fraud years before, his track record for
truthfulness would go right up in smoke only a month or so later, when it was discovered that
he had lied to the FBI about his having previously leaked the investigation to the media.
(Moreover, this lie had led the FBI to mislead the FISA court in its first application to
surveil Carter Page.)
The second main factor in establishing the reliability of any source's information would be
even more key in this case. It's the basis of the particular informant's knowledge,
i.e. was the informant an eye witness or merely reporting double-triple hearsay or
just regurgitating the "word on the street?"
If the actual basis of the information is uncertain, the next step for law enforcement would
normally be to seek facts that either corroborate or refute the source's information. It's been
reported that FBI agents did inquire into the basis for Steele's allegations, but it is not
known what Steele told the FBI – other than indications that his info came from secondary
sources making it, at best, second- or third-hand. What if anything did the FBI do to establish
the reliability of the indirect sources that Steele claimed to be getting his info from? Before
vouching for his credibility, did the FBI even consider polygraphing Steele after he (falsely)
denied having leaked his info since the FBI was aware of significant similarities of a news
article to the info he had supplied them?
Obviously, more questions than answers exist at the present time. But even if the FBI was
duped by Steele – whether as the result of their naivete in trusting a fellow former spy,
their own sloppiness or recklessness, or political bias – it should be hoped by everyone
that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court
was ultimately misled.
As they prepare for the "largest mobilization in history" in defense of Mueller and his
probe into Russiagate, liberals have tried to sweep all this under the rug as a "nothing
burger." Yet, how can liberals, who in the past have pointed to so many abusive past practices
by the FBI, ignore the reality that these sorts of abuses of the FISA process more than likely
take place on a daily basis – with the FISA court earning a
well-deserved reputation as little more than a rubberstamp?
Other, more run-of-the-mill FISA applications – if they were to be scrutinized as
thoroughly as the Carter Page one – would reveal similar sloppiness and lack of factual
verification of source information used to secure surveillance orders, especially after FISA
surveillances skyrocketed after 9/11 in the "war on terror." Rather than dismissing the Nunes
Memo as a nothing burger, liberals might be better served by taking a closer look at this FISA
process which could easily be turned against them instead of Trump.
It must be recognized that FBI agents who go before the secret FISA court and who are
virtually assured that whatever they present will be kept secret in perpetuity, have very
little reason to be careful in verifying what they present as factual. FISA court judges are
responsible for knowing the law but have no way of ascertaining the "facts" presented to
them.
Unlike a criminal surveillance authorized by a federal district court, no FBI affidavit
justifying the surveillance will ever end up under the microscope of defense attorneys and
defendants to be pored over to ensure every asserted detail was correct and if not, to
challenge any incorrect factual assertions in pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.
It is therefore shocking to watch how this political manipulation seems to make people who
claim to care about the rule of law now want to bury this case of surveillance targeting Carter
Page based on the ostensibly specious Steele dossier. This is the one case unique in coming to
light among tens of thousands of FISA surveillances cloaked forever in secrecy, given that the
FISA system lacks the checks on abusive authority that inherently exist in the criminal justice
process, and so the Page case is instructive to learn how the sausage really gets made.
Neither the liberal adulation of Mueller nor the unquestioned credibility accorded Steele by
the FBI seem warranted by the facts. It is fair for Americans to ask whether Mueller's
investigation would have ever happened if not for his FBI successor James Comey having signed
off on the investigation triggered by the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton
campaign to dig up dirt on her opponent.
In any event, please spare us the solicitations of these political NGOs' "national
mobilization" to protect Mueller. There are at least a million attorneys in this country who do
not suffer from the significant conflicts of interest that Robert Mueller has with key
witnesses like his close, long-term colleague James Comey and other public officials involved
in the investigation.
And, at the end of the day, there are far more important issues to be concerned about than
the "integrity" of the Mueller investigation – one being the need to fix FISA court
abuses and restoring constitutional rights.
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002
memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named
one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002.
What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted
countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest
prize of all and said "Why not.'.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:04 am
Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve
the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly,
Americans cannot wake up fast enough
Annie , February 9, 2018 at 10:40 am
I'm not all that familiar with the group Avaaz, but I am familiar with the tactics of
Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually
called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the
presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as
undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the
people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared
little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a
victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more
committed to getting him elected.
I discontinued my support for Move-on as a result of these kind of antics. Those I know
who were viciously anti-Trump lost total perspective during his presidential run, and all
supported Clinton whose policies they knew little about. They were hooked into mainstream
media, and none investigated alternative news sources even though they are computer literate
and could have done so. All were hooked into Russia-gate from the beginning, and have never
waivered in their position. I think we have to begin to look at these people not as liberals,
or progressives, but for the most part they are democrats who see their party as representing
liberal causes. None I know who would support this march participated in any anti-war
movement, and were basically silent on Obama's militarism, which informs me these so called
liberals when it comes to war their position is more dependent on who's doing the
killing.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Annie I found this statement of yours a very interesting perspective 'and turning Trump's
rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well'. All this noise coming from the
left is never analyzed from the perspective of what would the average Trump supporter think.
Yet, you did this. Pretty good analytical take on these attacks against Trump.
I thought when Trump honored the 'Natve-American code breakers' that by his doing this
function while standing underneath a picture of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson was very
telling. Although seen properly by many who may have a good sense of history, I thought that
this was purposely done, and done to insight the Trump supporters who's racist attitude were
served quite well with Trump's staging of this honorable affair.
The Left (which isn't really Left) is wandering around trying to bring down Trump, while
at the same time the American Left ignores what a Trump supporter may think. Both groups of
American citizenry would do well to quit with all of this name calling, and derisive contempt
for each other, and they should begin with a dialog which could eventually bring them
together, in order to create a more perfect union.
Then that's where you come in Annie, as to reassure they keep their eye on the ball, and
to what is most important to remember, and that is because we are all together in this big
crazy thing called America. We Americans should bridge our difference into making the U.S. a
better nation for all to live in, and relieve the world from fears of American bombs falling
on their heads.
This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the
FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy
prey for being led to their own political slaughter. He does become more foul mouthed towards
the end. I understand his increasing frustration with this insanity.
Your point is NEVER off-subject. Soros may fund one branch of the Capitalist Party and
Singer the other; but they both and all the rest of their ilk, belong to the same
Brotherhood.
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 4:28 pm
"I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller,
Rosenstein, et al. be fired for cause "
Ray, thanks for not being like most politicians (and journalists) who carefully test which
way the political winds are blowing to decide whether something is a good or bad idea. You do
what you think is right, based on considerations more important than your career (gasp!).
"In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign "
Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored
witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who
don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly
forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors.
That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon.
The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the
Mueller "investigation."
Mueller and his co-conspirators, with all their lies and smears, have been subverting our
democracy long enough. Fire him already and oppose Trump democratically instead.
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Nice summary. I can't really think of anything to say to improve on that title remark of
"This is Nuts.
Virginia , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Ray, Mueller should resign (" if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if
only because of the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation") because there is no there there. Just close the investigation and let
Americans get on with our lives.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:12 pm
yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream
media. as long as that dog has a bone he will run with it. where's a dog catcher when you
need one??
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Thanks Ray,
Way to little truth out there and a whole bunch of characters involved in some modern day
Shakespearean tragedy.
So Tex , February 9, 2018 at 10:48 am
These organizers are arms of or provocateurs for the failing and flailing Democratic
Party.. They have staked their very lives on the Russia-gate nonsense and removing or just
crippling Trump.. It's all very sad since they could be embracing the current political
climate and reforming the once great Democratic Party. The unfortunate reality is that many
people, including good hearted people, are falling for it.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:00 am
"It is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue."
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts."
Ain't that the truth. Most Americans want to believe anything that authority tells them to
believe. They are not worthy of the great democracy they inherited. Thank you Colleen. You
are the opposite. We need to see you more often.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 11:25 am
This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead
reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So
far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever
discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court
represents.
Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be
guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy
obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up
and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his
past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk.
In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe
Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions
imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is
prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no
matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem
quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never.
What this Russia-gate investigation has rot among so many other things, is that it has
taken the weakening Left and showed it for what it is. It was one thing when the Clinton's
moved the Democrates over into the Wall Street column, but now with this organized Left push
to support the Mueller Investigation the Left has been moved into the police state category
whether these poorly misguided liberals even realize this fact. This would be akin to Albert
Einstein marching behind a Nazi flag, or his standing next to Joseph Goebbels to help usher
in the sheep to slaughter under the guise of democracy, and everything that's right.
Wake up America.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 am
"This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up"
Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our
free [sic] press and establishment media.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:34 pm
Thank you Mr Hunkins, I've read many a comment post of yours, and hardly do I ever
disagree with you. To bad there are not more of us voices for sanity, but with that there go
I. Joe
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:46 am
I just saw this on the Duran. Duran reporter Jim Jatras details some very interesting
angles of the likes you don't very often hear in regard to Russia-Gate. Be notified Mr Jatras
has a typo where he says Mac Blumenthal he really means the father of Max who is Sidney.
Jatras also points to the same circumstance where many Russians assumed Hillary would be
our next president, so the attraction to sabotage Hillary's campaign seemed to a fruitless
proposition. I remember our own beloved Robert Parry making the same observation.
exiled off mainstreet , February 10, 2018 at 3:35 am
The last sentence sums it up. Any former member of the left who supports this (they became
former once they supported this obviously flawed fascistic phony investigation the
implications of which threaten the rule of law and the stability and sustainability of life
itself) has gone zombie and can be compared to Einstein backing Goebbels.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:01 pm
I'm still having a hard time accepting this pseudo Left swing to the National Security
State/Deep State. Nothing in life should surprise me by now, but seeing what calls itself the
Left in the U.S. go the way of the CIA/FBI/NSA is hard to swallow.
The Democrates are soon going to regret spending all of this valuable time wasted on this
Russia-Gate craziness, and then what will they blame? Of course they will blame Trump, and
still invoke Putin's name, because that's what sells tv ratings. In the end the Democrates
may wake up to the realization that they blamed Trump,for all the wrong things that should
have mattered. This distraction for their bend obsession with all things Russian, is what
will have sunk their boat in 2018, and unless the Dem's wise up this unneeded shadow will
hover over them even into 2020. Joe
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:42 am
The most disconcerting and heartbreaking thing I've witnessed in my 30 plus years of
studying the politico-economic scene is the manner in which otherwise decent liberals have
fallen for (or of course have been more than willing propagandists for) the hoax Russia-gate
narrative. Sure, with the Schiffs (D-Israel), Schumers (D-Israel) and others in the corporate
DNC, it's all to be expected, and no semi-intelligent CN fan would consider them to be
otherwise decent liberals. But to see good domestic populist liberals sell this dangerous
snake-oil has been illuminating and dismaying. For crying out loud -- on this particular
issue Sean Hannity is better than Rachel Maddow!
It demonstrates more than any other issue the lock that Official Washington and its
military driven empire builders along with the blood soaked mass media have on virtually our
entire political spectrum and social discourse.
The recent Nuclear Posture Review just comes out -- putting the world closer to complete
annihilation and total Armageddon -- and there isn't much of a hue and cry from the smart and
most important people in our media-industrial complex. Frightening.
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:49 am
An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign. We really don't all agree that a "fair partitioning" in the Mideast
would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews. For those who don't know, Israel is a tiny
country (roughly the size of New Jersey). It's the sole Jewish nation, surrounded by vast,
oil-rich Arab countries. Jews are, indeed, indigenous to that bit of land. Those called
"Palestinians" are Arabs who are recruited to work toward the destruction of Israel,
establishing a 100% "pure" Moslem Mideast.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:07 pm
"An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign."
Set up a strawman much?
What you describe is a very, very marginal phenomenon in the Palestinian justice movement,
marginal enough to be totally insignificant. It's interesting that you bring this
disinformation into CN. The Zionist power configuration in America can be relentless, no
doubt. Hasbara is ubiquitous.
Israel's a criminal state and international pariah bent on wiping out any independent pro
Palestinian nation-state in the Middle East and subverting and destabilizing any independent
pro Palestinian head of state. Bloodthirsty Tel Aviv militarists mow the grass in Gaza by
killing and maiming roughly 2,000 women and children every 6 or 7 years. And no, it's not a
"fascist ideology" to point any of this out.
Read Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Mearsheimer and Walt and a few others
I'm forgetting at the moment for the real dope.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm
I think D.H. just ran a Zionist commercial on 'the Consortium'. Should we run a
pro-Palestinian commercial, just to be 'fair and balanced'?
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm
I've noticed the dishonest Zionist was trying to act like a "normal" person a few times
recently. Probably the thought was that this would gain "credibility" for BS like this
"Zionist Commercial" you speak of.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Zachary it's interesting to listen to a Zionist using the same talking points that would
describe the horrible plight of the downtrodden Palestinian, and do it so easily without any
conscious effort to hide the truth, of what's really going on. Joe
Lois Gagnon , February 9, 2018 at 11:22 pm
I've seen this troll on other progressive sites using the same exact wording.
Anon , February 9, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Troll alert: please do not reply to DHF comments. This is an attempt to derail the
discussion and debase the participants, a extreme zionist attack, on a site known for more
cautious and fair commenters.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Maybe we should aim our conversation to this maddening frustration over all things
Russian, to better describe America's relationship to the Zionist Bibi Netanyahu. Do you hear
me, Robert Mueller? Can you Mr Mueller lean heavily onto Flynn's Israeli heavy lifting, and
why Flynn was serving the needs of the Israeli's?
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Yes, this comment is so out of touch that it must be a troll looking to discredit this
site.
A previous comment making the same statement was it seems removed. Israel must be a very
sensitive issue in the US.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 8:20 pm
It is beyond belief how sensitive it is. You have no idea. However, now it actually isn't
as subversive and contentious as it was just 15 to 20 years ago. So there has been a small
amount of progress, long way to go though.
Hey Fabian I have some refugees here so I'm taking your land for them. Pack your trash and
move on.
nonsense factory , February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am
The solution is simple: Allow all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to vote in
Israeli national parliamentary elections. Only then could Israel call itself a 'true
democracy'. This I believe results in about a 50-50 split in the electorate on religious /
ethnic lines so you could even get a Muslim leader of Israel, or at least a balanced
parliament.
This of course raises the issue of the military and executive and judicial structure of
Israel; land ownership and immigration policy would have to be changed so that any citizen
could own land, and non-Jews would be allowed to emigrate back to the region (i.e. the
Palestinian diaspora would have the same rights as the Jewish diaspora).
An even more tricky issue would be the Israeli nuclear weapons program; the first step
there is for the state of Israel to publicly admit its existence and allow for IAEA
inspections of the program.
Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 12:17 pm
Many thanks Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry. Drew Hunkins, I think your comment about
"otherwise decent liberals" is prescient but I'll bet that we could have a long, extended
discussion on The illiberalness of this generation of democrats (please note the small
d).
I would argue that with the inception of the Clinton/Blair "Third Way" that the Democratic
Party separated itself from its historic roots. In fact I think the very label of liberal
opposition here used is disingenuous.
These people The Clintons and their Neoliberal constituents have never represented the
Democratic Party in act or deed. The Neocons switching sides prior to the last election cycle
underscored their illiberal attitude. In fact classic party alignment has little to do with
this issue of criminal behavior, it is just the vehicle of divisiveness being utilized in
this instance
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Points well taken Mr. Van Noy.
Most of the Dem Party has been a complete dumpster fire since corporate Clinton, "New
Democrats!" and DLC completely took over the entire infrastructure.
Nancy , February 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sadly, those decent liberals you speak of also fell for the Clinton/Obama hoax. They are a
big part of the problem -- phonies.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 1:45 am
A big part of the problem for sure. Support for the Democrats on the basis of "liberal
causes" is blind, phony. or both. We have suffered soaring housing and health care costs.
Investment in Social Security has been marginalized at the same time war costs are put "off
the books" and deemed a "necessity" of National Security. Public schools are now
"standardized", but standards are lacking and the quality of "higher"education has taken a
hit too while leaving graduates in piles of debt. The safety of our drinking water is suspect
and other environmental concerns take a back seat as well while "fracking" and "drill baby
drill" get passes. Civil liberties are under assault and the war drums beat on. So where are
the liberal Democrats? Taking "contributions", hiding under rocks, or snickering through
3-martini lunches with their Republican cohorts but they certainly haven't been "liberals"
for a long time now. Bill Clinton and Obama were nothing of the sort.
Next time a Democrat calls him/her self a "liberal", they ought to have to express a true
idea of just what that's suppose to mean. And then explain what happened the last
quarter-century and what in the hell their current "resistance" is really about. Don't worry
there won't be any straight answers forthcoming, and likely nary a hint of embarrassment
either. They are shameless traitors or fools
Bob Van Noy , February 10, 2018 at 10:07 am
Nicely done Gregory Herr. The democratic party talks a good game but manages to Never
Deliver the goods. The party hierarchy (DNC) doesn't deserve support
Simply vote for a candidate that delivers. And, never donate to the party
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:44 am
We saw how powerfully the Clinton "New Democrat Party" gained "influence" over the media
marketed to middle class liberals, from MSNBC to online publications, pulling them well to
the right. The Democrats' anti-Russian crusade does, indeed, mimic Bush's lies about "Iraq's
stockpiles of WMD." What is truly "nuts" is that so much of the liberal media promote the
right wing agenda while wearing their "bold progressive" lapel buttons.
Loretta , February 9, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Thank you for this piece!!
j. D. D. , February 9, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The spectacle of the Democratic Part and even the Black Caucus rallying to support the FBI
is truly a wonder to behold. Have they forgotten the FBI's past in blackmailing presidents
and political leaders including JFK, Robert Kennedy and Matin Luther King? Have they
forgotten its Operation Frugmenschen, which means "ape man" in German to target Balck
politicians and activists, or the threatening dirty tricks letter sent to MLK urging him to
commit suicide? Are they prepared to see through an illegal coup against an elected president
who dared suggest a positive relaitonship with Russia and China, ensuring that no future
president will dare "step out of line" lest the secret files be pulled to create a cripling
scandal?. Apparently not, as the Demcratic Party we knew appears quite dead, perhaps lethally
shot on Nov 22, 1963 and finally buried in 2016 with the nomination of a craven Wall Street
puppet and warmonger.
Thank you, Nat and Coleen, for this article -- as well as continuing and furthering
Consortium News' reputation as one of the few remaining independent outlets that can be
considered trustworthy. In this age, where even Common Dreams has lost its credibility (and
posts by Caitlin Johnstone have to be taken/guarded with grains of salt) it is still a
refreshing rarity.
In overall relation, the following Review is shared as representative:
Robert Shetterly's "Americans Who Tell The Truth.org" continually express, show, and Speak
Truth to Power. During our times of First Draft Coalition[s], where we are subjected to 98%
(?) Controlled Narratives, a predominance critically desires to hear/see those sides which
are purposely and collusively repressed, banned and/or censored. In these
exponentially-escalating periods of secret laws based on secret memos, secret courts acting
with secret evidence (which will not be revealed to the accused), absolute torture to the
point of insanity (and death) as a means of interrogation until one gives predetermined
answers (truthful or not), worldwide surveillance on every inhabitant (without probable
cause) that can be (and is) used as a means to instill fear, to threaten, tarnish, oppress,
and silence even peaceful dissenters of basic causes while (resultantly) turning back history
500 years, we need those with (the ability of) absolute courage to Stand Up Now (more than
ever).
Evolution: from Total Information Awareness (which started long before 9/11) to Total
Information (and Population) Control (as a goal in the present).
Steve , February 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm
FAKE NEWS has been used to snooker the Aemnrician people and as it is gobbled up and
digested and spit back with investigation or corroboration it turns decent folks into FAKE
PEOPLE. Mueller is no choir boy and the mess in Washington is not going away sometime soon.
As for damaging democracy, the 2 party system has taken care of that very nicely but
channeling anger into something positive just wont' be allowed to happen as the media are
controlled by huge moneyed interests.
Janet Zampieri , February 9, 2018 at 12:29 pm
The liberals are reacting this way because of the constant lies they are fed by the
mainstream media. The corporate and CIA control of the media must be exposed and put to an
end.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Being a mere paycheque away from disaster, most Americans cannot afford to take to any
streets. The Powers That Be know and exploit this, having orchestrated their captives' dire
straits, all along.
So, whence shall cometh these threatening troops from Camps AVAAZ and MoveOn? By process
of elimination, from the minority well-enough-heeled and the Soros-paid.
Slavery is Freedom! War is Peace! 1984 was a cookbook; we've been reading Orwell all
wrong.
johnnieandroidseed , February 9, 2018 at 9:03 pm
My chuckle for the day was "1984 was a cookbook." Reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode
"To Serve Man" which should be the motto of capitalists everywhere.
"We serve the workers" [to our Distinguished Diners.]
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:17 am
As the episodes star character Michael Chambers is taken away by the Kanamits for meal
time on their far away planet, Chambers looks at the audience and says, "How about you? You
still on Earth, or on the ship with me? Really doesn't make very much difference, because
sooner or later, all of us will be on the menu all of us."
Yikes how true. Great comment johnnieandroidseed. Joe
Though my instincts tell me there are many more people who are willing to sign a petition
than to actually get out on the street, I might be proved wrong in this particular
instance.
After signing a couple of petitions for this or that, in the forlorn hope they might bring
about change, I began to realize they were mainly designed to make me feel good about myself;
that I was doing something very important to make the world a better place.
Even worse, I saw I was being treated as nothing more than another fish in the net. My
signature had hardly enough time to reach its destination before my inbox was deluged with
requests to sign more petitions, each of which invited me to donate towards the great effort
it takes to think up a petition and put it on the internet. For some unexplained reason, the
process seemed to require highly-remunerated executives, and an awful lot more money than all
the real work needed to run something as work-intensive as Consortium News.
After signing two, I'd already given up the idea of signing more petitions by the time I
was urged to sign one for a no-fly zone over Syria to save hundreds of thousand of lives.
With anti-Russian propaganda being heavily pushed by the corporate media at the time, it was
obvious people who had no idea what a no-fly zone entailed were being manipulated.
We live at a time where, for most people, touchy-feely means engaging with the world
through a screen. No man is an island being far from the state of affairs, all men have
become islands. Far from bringing us together, the internet is being increasingly used to
keep most of us farther and farther away from each other, and the information we need to form
opinions based on facts.
Which leads me to ponder how on earth we arrived at a point where of hundreds of thousands
of people are preparing to come out on the streets to demonstrate their support of an
organization, which just happens to be one of several intelligence agencies, trying to remove
their right to come out on the streets to demonstrate? I hope I'm not the only one who finds
it perversely ironic and extremely disturbing.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Do those intending to demonstrate on the FBI's behalf even realize that one of that
agency's most resource-intensive and mission-critical tasks is to record, identify and
profile demonstrators?
"I am marching for my right to be surveilled. Democracy means Dossiers for All! FISA =
Freedom. I'm guided by the beauty of my shackles. Liberty is Liability. Truth is
Treason."
And Insanity is Virtue. Well played, overlords: you have set the stage well – but
for the hubris you can't shake off. Lofty as you are, you don't float above the law of
unintended consequences. Or that of gravity, either.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:16 am
Love your comments, The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 2:21 pm
My experience with AVAAZ is similar. They petition for many good causes and seem to
achieve quite a lot, but then there appear a slice of the petitions that are political and
naive, like the no fly zone. Inherent problems in their brand of activism. They should
probably reconsider their scope of issues.
Yes, thank you for the link. I had forgot about that. It's very important that we
understand NGO's roles & who they are working for.
Lethal Weapon: NGO Soft Power
"Along with military invasions and missionaries, NGOs help crack countries open like ripe
nuts, paving the way for intensifying waves of exploitation and extraction" " ~ Stephanie
McMillan
""The NGO 'soft power complex' is now one of the most destructive global forces. It is
employed as an interface between civilians of a target nation, with government, economic or
military structures of the colonialist force intent on harnessing any given nation's
resources or undermining its geopolitical influence. The Democratization process, or the path
to regime change is facilitated by these undercover government or corporate proxy employees
who, once embedded into a society, set about producing the propaganda that will justify
intervention, either economically, politically or militarily. NGO propaganda will often
employ slick social media marketing which is underpinned by advance applied behavioural
psychology and advanced NLP-based 'social enterprise' sales pitches.
A recent piece by researcher Eva Bartlett entitled, "Human Rights Front Groups
[Humanitarian Interventionalists] Warring on Syria", provides a detailed insight into how
this new breed of weaponized politics is being deployed right now in the Middle East.
The perception of a 'non profit' complex who purport to be "working for the betterment and
improvement of humanity" can be a difficult nut to crack, but it must be done. In the west.
charities, not-for-profits and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are seen as "do gooders"
and so they rarely fall under public scrutiny. Western governments know the general public
has an inherent faith in their perceived integrity and this provides an ideal cover for
western government and intelligence agencies to operate through their NGO and aid
organisations."
I think it's great that they are calling for massive rallies against the rape of our
democracy by the one percent. It's great to see them rallying hundreds of thousands of us to
protest the state of endless war. It's nice to see them putting all that muscle into the
streets to oppose US foot-dragging on climate change.
Oh wait, I must have misread the article.
On a serious note, we need to see these FISA abuses only as the tools of tyranny. Far more
important is who is wielding them and why.
Thank you Ms. Rowley and Mr. Parry for reporting honestly. If certain factions can set-up
a POTUS, what can they do to "we the people"? Mr. Parry, your father would be proud of
you!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 1:48 pm
"Liberals?" Just another name for war mongering liars these days. "Conservatives?" Just
another brand of liars and thieves. People who put stock in, and vote on the basis of these
baseless tags are the real suckers that enable our whole doomed evil empire. If you vote for
anyone who uses either of those labels, you are a fool, and a dangerous one at that. Come to
think of it, if you vote at all you are an idiot endorsing a corrupt process.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Off topic.
What looks to be an outstanding brand new film is coming out soon. It's entitled, "The
Young Karl Marx." This movie looks like a must-see.
Unfortunately for those very many invested in the Russiagate nonsense, the cold reality is
that doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity. We're watching the
Western power structure fracture before our eyes as their propaganda operations have become
not simply unbelievable, but now have entered into the world of the totally outlandish and
absurd. The notion that "reality" requires some kind of rational connection to observable
events in the physical world seems to have totally lost any meaning in this current climate
of reality meltdown. Quite amazing to witness actually.
Eddie , February 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm
"doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity."–Great
phrasing!
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The undead hands of those two zombie neocons, HRC and John Brennan, reach out from the
boneyard of U.S. politics to drag democracy down with them.
The neocons' ultimate target is Russia, together with anyone who dares to utter the truth
about Russia. They are drunk with power and will stop at nothing, not even nuclear war, to
eliminate any rival for global domination. They are so reckless and arrogant that they think
a nuclear war is winnable.
Megalomania much?
Goebbels boasted that he could play the German public like a keyboard. The neofascist
neocons are using the same tactics with the so-called U.S. left, which, measured by
international political metrics, corresponds to the traditional imperialist right. American
so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public was played by
the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not from the
left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference.
Fascist tactics bring fascist results. There are multitudinous grounds to oppose Trump
democratically. Impeaching him based on ginned-up, right-wing, smears would tear this country
apart at the seams.
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 pm
"American so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public
was played by the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not
from the left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference."
I'm afraid you are right.
Democrats are not "the left." Have they ever really been? That's why you said "so-called
left" I realize. It makes me laugh when mainstream media calls it such.
Richard Hicks , February 9, 2018 at 2:36 pm
The story says: "Considering all of the threats to democracy posed by unconstitutional
overreach, unfair elections, corruption, and voter suppression – not to mention
environmental challenges, economic inequality, an out-of-control U.S. foreign policy,
numerous foreign conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in, and the ever-present threat of
nuclear war – it is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this
particular issue."
Yes, it is "telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue".
Except it's not just this issue. Remember that Al Capone was convicted of crimes other than
the crime he was arrested for. It seems that on an almost daily basis evidence is discovered
that the President is/was involved in crimes other than Conspiracy and/or Obstruction of
Justice. As new evidence is uncovered, it may lead the Mueller investigation in another
direction, and apparently, it has. If that is the case, Mueller is doing his job. The job
that The People hired him to do. If Trump were to fire Mueller, it could very well be because
of newly discovered criminal activity that Trump is, or was involved in, and Trump is nervous
about. Our Nation is a Nation of laws, and no one, even the President is above the law. This
President has a long-standing proven reputation, of difficulty with the Truth. Based on that
alone, if Mueller is fired by Trump, people would be justified taking to the streets, in
protest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
A riot to back up the putch against Trump? Not likely, but a disaster if performed. Is
this how some dream of a new US government? It will take something much deeper and wiser to
accomplish that. Again not likely, but if one has to dream, why not something truly
positive?
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:06 pm
"Putin's life work is spying"? You seem to have a rather shallow estimate of someone who
stands against those in the US determined to turn our planet into an ashy corpse.
Best not to lose sight of this fact: there is no liberal cause, especially the incipient
climate disaster, that is not negatively affected by Trump and the legal coup-d etat achieved
by the Republicans. Anyone working to stymie that,whether sinless or simon pure deserves
support. Also, re Russia, Garry Kasparov the Chess Master says it would be naive to think
that Putin whose life work is spying would not use his current sophisticated apparatus to
work his will on any issue or election of interest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm
"legal coup d'etat?" That's a new one on me, on the other hand the whole loony scene in
Washington is illegal – so what the hey! Still, removing a sitting President on the
basis of phony charges against him for colluding with Russia would really kick over the chess
board and empower the crazies to do their worst. Or is there anybody still out there who
believes the Russiagate nonsense has a shred of truth in it? I hope not, but I am afraid I am
in danger of overestimating my fellow citizens .
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:02 pm
As for Gary Kasparov, he should rest on his fading laurels as a chess master, and stay out
of politics. If he had his way Russians would raise Yeltsin from the grave, and turn their
country back over to the international capitalists.
Mark Thomason , February 9, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Russia-gate has nothing to do with the real Russia.
It is entirely a Team Hillary attack on Trump. It is an attempt to deny the election. It
is rage at losing, looking for excuses to express itself. If not Russia it would be Comey, or
many other things. It has been most convenient to use Putin at the pinata, but that is a
matter of internal US politics, not Putin at all.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:17 pm
And luckily for us, Putin not only groks that dynamic but has been brave enough
to say so in public.
What's with all the new-name trolls here today ?
Mr Boompi , February 9, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I hate the term derangement syndrome but some people surely do have Trump derangement
syndrome. It's beaten into them every day on TV and certain internet sites. I believe they
want Trump removed using any means possible, including illegal means. Their derangement
syndrome includes the mistaken belief attempting to enforce the law regarding Clinton emails
and the frauds perpetrated on the FISA court are nothing more than an attempt to obstruct
justice for Trump. Even though there is no evidence Trump has done anything wrong. It's a
shame actually.
Alan , February 9, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Let's take a step or two back and try to see the current state of chaos in a broader
perspective. People are angry. The Trump administration is without question aberrant. Where
is true leadership today? Certainly not with Trump or his administration. The real issue
isn't specifically "Russiagate", but what lies beneath.
We have been mislead, lied to, manipulated by virtually every administration to greater
and lesser degrees. Of relevance here is that both Nixon and Reagan manipulated the American
people through their backchannel negotiations with foreign powers prior to inauguration.
While this Consortiumnews article can shine some light on potential abuses which takes
place through the FISA court we must recognize that we form an imperfect union. This
particular article seems to be like arguing for changes to the fire codes while Rome
burns!
Any mobilization of the "liberal establishment" is far more about the egregious threats to
our democracy than whatever "Russiagate" means. An imperfect Mueller seems to represent our
best way forward to finding the hidden truths behind all of Trump's malfeasance. Let the
people be heard!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:10 pm
The people have been heard! They voted for Trump
WheresOurTeddy , February 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Damn the people in this country are easy to manipulate. Pathetic.
If the activists of the last generation could see the sellout pieces of garbage that call
themselves democrats today, they'd roll over in their unmarked graves they were dumped into
by the same alphabet agencies of oppression the stooges are standing up for.
Late stage empire in decline.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Amen.
Maxim , February 9, 2018 at 3:29 pm
They don't want Trump, they want Russia. That's why Trump was "elected". So they could use
Trump to get to Russia. In 2020 Clinton will finally get elected and everyone will be begging
for WWW3 against the Russian Threat. Another false Pearl Harbor is coming. Syria, N.Korea,
Iran or Ukraine are all potential flash points. We're sheep being led to slaughter.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:58 pm
In one ponit you are wrong. The orange clown is uninhibited in starting a war. Read just
the new disclosure that pentagon had been resisting requests from the White House to provide
military options for Iran. In his first speach in the UN Trump has threatened to destroy
North Korea totally. This crazy man doesn't deserve to be the president of the US!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Mostly correct, but the Deep State emphatically did NOT want Trump elected. Too
unpredictable. The DS thought Hillary had a lock on the election. Just goes to show that the
DS is not as smart as they like to think they are.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:47 am
For sure, Mike, the DS pulled out all the stops to help Hillary both before and after the
election to no avail. They are still doing it. The most influential insiders in America
couldn't alter the results of the election, yet they would have you believe that Putin merely
snaps his fingers, "meddles in our democracy" and has his way. Yet most people cannot see the
absurdity of that claim because the corporate media, which is part of the real conspiracy
orchestrated by the DS, spews nothing but propaganda full bore 24/7 changing apparent reality
right in front of your own lying eyes.
Now the History Channel is coming out with an extra special demonisation of Putin
extravaganza!!! Be sure to watch if you wanna stay free! These people could rehabilitate
Hitler if it suited their purposes. The American people are putty in their hands. There is no
opposition but those few of us who fail to be hypnotized by the svengalis that represent the
interests of the string puller elites on the boob tube and internets, who and which they
totally own and control. There are so few of us who can still see the truth, I suspect they
could house us all in a single detention camp if it comes to that.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:49 am
I couldn't suppress a derisive laugh reading an above comment about Putin's ability "to
work his will on any issue or election of interest." Yep, those snapping fingers are rife
with ability not to mention speculation about Putin's desires. What a mad genius he must
be!
Snookered and bamboozled, the show must go on.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
I would support any measure that tends to an impeachment of a crazy, impulsive and
retarded president. This president is a misfortune for the US and for the world. One can
criticise the actions to support the current investigations in the Russiagate. But if it
helps to get rid of a mentally ill clown then why not!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Good reasoning, but it fails to consider what's next? Believe it or not, there will
probably be a lot worse in store for us than President Donald Trump. Things just tend to get
worse and worse in a collapsing empire ..
Far , February 9, 2018 at 4:39 pm
What's next is a good question. I hope that Clinton leave finally the political world. She
was one of the main reasons that many of voters elected the bad option instead of the worst
option. Collapsing of the system can not be an option. But Trump is well under way to shake
the political system and polarize the civil society more than ever before
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:59 am
That's what Susan Sarandon foresaw as the "good" outcome of a Trump victory–the
collapse of the system would be advanced. However, how do we benefit from that opportunity
for change when the only announced candidates for Trump's job are the same ilk (Clinton,
Biden, Kerry) or their even shallower accolytes (Booker, Harris ) that caused all the damage
in the first place? All those idiots are still about fooling and fleecing the American public
and warring upon the rest of the world–friends and foes alike. They offer no peace, no
prosperity, and no future whatsoever, only a bleak struggle for existence in a nuclear winter
by the few survivors of their promised handiwork. You nailed it, Mike, things will only get
worse because our leaders (from both of these two abominable parties) insist upon it.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm
"Why not ?" Because such 'measures' only serve to destroy what little remains of our
democracy. Here's a thought experiment for you : would you support similar 'measures'
if they 'tended to an impeachment' of crazy, impulsive, mentally ill Hillary had she been
elected ? (As co-president with Bill, who she promised to 'put in charge' of the
economy).
Because "We came, we saw, he Died" Hillary is arguably even farther off the rails than
The Donald. And probably more dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is
that so many people look at her and see someone 'sane'.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Crooked Hillary was never be an option. And Trump is definitive not fit for the oval
office. Trump will bury the democracy finally. Damages to the reputation of the US in the
world community is immense. With Trump there is no chance to make a real change. Quit in
contrary the US will face serious social, economic and security challenges without a glimmer
of hope to change the things. My father said that a great ship could be sunk. And if it sinks
it will be just slower than a little one. Trump is not an option anymore to steer the
ship.
Have a look at the less than vigorous investigations run by Mueller into BCCI (Bush crime
family "intelligence" op) pre 911. Mueller can run coverups or smear campaigns. Wonder what
his corporate offshore bank accounts look like
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:50 pm
bank accounts. good question.
weilunion , February 9, 2018 at 5:35 pm
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the
intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to
keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported. We
saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans
came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite
– Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators."
Cognitive dissonance, lack of critical thinking, reliance on authority, in this case a
former head of a criminal organization called the FBI.
People have no class consciousness. They have no idea who their enemies ar or how to
organize.
This is the sad case of liberalism melting like warm butter while the fascists
congeal.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Nicely put.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 2:51 am
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. . ."
Yes. On any bar counter, just start some conversation with the person sitting to you. With
all this bizarre drama – Russia-Gate, Iran, memos, dossier . . . going on TV, and in
Washington being enacted knowingly by the the Powers who rule – both, so called
Liberals and Conservatives – one can see how this emotional manipulation has worked to
snooker just about most of the population. I just had the experience today during lunch at a
bar counter. In our conversation, the person sitting next to me was ready to nuke Iran, N.
Korea, and go after Russia; and go after Hillary too.
Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling
Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them
compliant and confused.
Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely concocted
bizarre drama?
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:21 pm
Dave the same stupid asses you speak of will still be the same stupid asses long after
these foreign affairs take any turn for the better. The dumb butts are easy to control. It's
like you point and say bad, and these morons growl, as their faces contort in macho anger.
Although, if one day the U.S. should make friends with Iran, N Korea, or Russia, these silly
little stupid puppies will just go back to work. If you tell them it will be exciting to play
the Russians at hockey, well this might get them going a little bit again, but not to worry
because it's just hockey. Oh, easy on the beer, and make sure the refreshment stands have
plenty of nachos and tip. The jackasses like to eat and drink a lot, what can I say? Joe
Both MoveOn and Avaaz get major funding from George Soros.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:30 pm
As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on
Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally,
then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what
they seem to have done.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Now your talking. Good idea.
ToivoS , February 9, 2018 at 7:11 pm
"This is nuts" is a great headline for our current problem.
Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the
coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant
European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and
Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war.
How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years
led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of
their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war
resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as
millions of dead and traumatized survivors.
I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the
last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political
associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break
in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in
a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of
supporting war against Russia.
Reading other comments here it seems my experience has been shared by others.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:49 pm
Yes ToivoS, many of us here have been watching our family, friends, and fellow citizens
lose their minds in mass over the election of Donald J Trump. It's with his Electoral College
win that I noticed the psychic break in many a citizens mind. So now here we are, where this
psychic break has moved good thinking people to the side of the field where the Deep State,
or National Security State if you will, has replaced critical thinking people by turning them
into 'useful idiots', if that is enough of a suitable label to pin on these stray pseudo
liberals.
These misguided liberal thinkers ought to move out of the way, drop this Russia-Gate
travesty, and allow the real Left to emerge so as justice maybe served upon the Trump
Administration. And if these limousine liberal hacks don't wish to travel a different avenue,
as to confront what the Trump team does, then for the love of mike please dear almost
liberals quit getting so cozy with the National Security State. This kind of stuff gives
reason to believe that 'Nightmare on Elm Street' was a documentary, as Freddy Krueger is a
nice guy in real life. Now I'm afraid to go to sleep .take care ToivoS. Joe
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Regarding Guns of August , it's a book I won't be reading. Anything by Barbara
Tuchman connected with WW1 is automatically suspect with me. I've kept many of her other
history books, but will maintain a distinct level of skepticism while reading them. That's
necessary because she was a fanatical Zionist, and lying about Israel-related issues is just
something that type does.
Lois Gagnon , February 10, 2018 at 12:32 am
The term psychic break I think is dead accurate. It made me think of Naomi Klein's "Shock
Doctrine" in that people who are traumatized by natural or man made disasters are taken
advantage of by powerful interests intent on imposing policies that are against the public
interest.
People who are in a state of shock are not equipped to make rational decisions. Trump's
surprise (at least to Clinton voters) win left Democratic Party voters in shock leaving them
vulnerable to the Establishment's agenda of increasing tensions with Russia. Enter
Russia-gate which serves many purposes at once. As we have seen, it worked like a charm.
Those falling for the psy-op have left all reason behind. They are singularly focused. It is
virtually impossible to introduce evidence that contradicts the narrative. It's as
frustrating as talking to a religious fanatic.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:48 am
In an ironic twist, Naomi Klein today has completely lost her mind due to Trump
Derangement Syndyome.
Larco Marco , February 10, 2018 at 3:34 am
The Ottoman Empire was also destroyed, with the UK subsequently claiming Palestine as a
piece of their own empire.
Sam , February 9, 2018 at 8:26 pm
"[I]t should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get
to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled."
Is the IG even looking at this? The current investigation by the IG, the one due to report
soon, is looking at the investigation into Clinton's email server. I'm not aware of an IG
investigation on this matter. It would certainly be a good idea – assuming that the IG
is not compromised, which is a big assumption.
Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's
potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be
prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of
extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation
could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential
administrative discipline.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:05 pm
the so called liberals need god on their side so they can tear down the constitution (at
least what is left of it) and then put trump's head on a pike. the most fearful thing in this
country is watching ignorance in action.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:45 am
Yes! Stop and think about the consequences of a COUP of a legitimately ELECTED U.S.
President by the Deep State and his political opponents. It's a dangerous game and a slippery
slope. It's frightening to imagine where this could go.
ThomasGilroy , February 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm
To a liberal, the worst possible scenario was the election of Trump – especially
because they are "liberals". That cannot be difficult to see. They rightly see that Russian
inference in the election could have made a significant difference in the swing states.
Whether that is true or not, is irrelevant. There cannot be closure without the
investigation going forward. That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without
question. Whether Trump colluded or not still needs to be answered.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump. Trump had a lot to gain by colluding. We need to find out the truth.
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:00 am
"swing states" – do you suppose that Hillary taking several of them for granted had
anything to do with "influencing" the election?
That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without question.
Without Question! This sounds very much like a religious belief to me. Something like this
1950 declaration by the pope at the time:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and
by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her
earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Change a few words in that, and we'd have the Tragedy of Saint Hillary.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump.
And how do you suggest this "safeguarding" happen? Shut down the internet? Imprison anyone
who says a favorable word about Russia?
ThomasGilroy , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Zachary
HRC was the second worse candidate in US history – just behind Trump. She is
definitely the one most responsible for her loss in the election. None the less, very few
votes separated a significant amount of electoral votes so the Russian influence could have
made a difference. If you view all of the evidence beginning when US intelligence first
identified Russian-related hackers in 2015, followed by Crowdstrike in 2016 (and at least
five other cybersecurity firms which confirmed Crowdstrike's conclusions) , social media and
the obvious reasons that Putin favored Trump over the anti-Russia candidacy of HRC (motive),
then it becomes much more logical that Russia meddled. Assange served the Russian government
as well (mostly with the aid of the Russian government-funded RT). He clearly looked to
undermine the HRC candidacy despite his denials (lies).
The Daily Beast does a nice job with the time line in the current Mueller investigation
(Trump-Russia Isn't About the Cover-Up. It's About the Crime. http://thebea.st/2slKBBE?source=twitter&via=desktop
via @thedailybeast) and Marcie Wheeler (at Empty Wheel) also does a good job presenting
evidence of Russian perfidy. Mueller probably knows a lot more than he is sharing so it's
just a matter of time before the evidence becomes much more difficult to ignore.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:23 am
That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it.
Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out.
If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed
bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and
a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a
hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media
in the service of both.
What's the point in dragging out the process if the object is justice and the removal of a
putative pretender to the presidency? The aforementioned insurrectionists cannot pull off
their desired miracle because the evidence doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because the
purported crime was never committed.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans undoubtedly each cheated to win the election in
their own ways, but not in any way involving the Russians who have just served as unwitting
targets by our own domestic villains. Russia has gained NOTHING by seeing Trump in office.
During the election Putin would not even play favorites, stating the obvious: that he could
not predict the future and that he would have to deal with whomever was elected. Your
scenarios are all delusions, Gilroy.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Realist – Excellent summation of this whole false, delusionary, bizarre concocted
drama being enacted on the American people, and on people beyond in the World.
Paul Easton , February 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm
The article mentions "perception management" and I think it is well to generalize. Ever
since 9/11 the permanent government has kept the population in line by playing on their
fears, in Trump's case fear of fascism. (And quite possibly the events of 9/11 were planned
and executed for this very purpose.) As it turned out the perception management was all too
effective and by now most of the population is freaking out, in one way or another, and our
society is disintegrating. Personally I am cheering it on. Goodbye USA Thank God!
Liberals getting behind the most
racist government agency in a pathetic display of supporting the
"enemy of my enemy" Donald Trump
gives further proof they are as
unprincipled as any of history's
other "national socialists".
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:02 am
What the hell is this endless repetition of the word "Liberals"? Try "Corporate Democrats"
and you'd be a LOT closer to reality.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:31 am
To be sure. The other biggest mischaracterisation is to call the ring leaders of this
witch hunt "the left" or "leftists." The genuine left (what little still exists of it) are
the few who rail against this nonsense, largely on this or similar sites (e.g., ICH).
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm
I completely agree, Zachary. The true democratic party adherents – which includes
lot of us – should have split from the Corporate Democrats long ago during Clinton
presidency.
Bandrui , February 9, 2018 at 10:27 pm
We live in a hall of mirrors. This is yet another example of how easily most Americans are
manipulated, dumbest populace on the planet apparently. I see no hope for us at all.
D.H. Fabian , February 10, 2018 at 12:36 am
Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but
failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs.
poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they
apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade,
splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer.
RandyLee , February 10, 2018 at 9:55 am
so the democrats are going for mob rule now? and they have willing accomplices in liberals
who have no idea why they hate Trump, they just know they are supposed to hate Trump. well I
say take to the streets then! give it your best shot! cry and scream and threaten your little
butts off. when you have no real idea why you are doing something, it won't take long before
you realize how stupid you are and will stop listening to those who encourage you from the
sidelines to attack american principles but aren't actually on the streets with you. its ok
for you to take that bullet but they sure as hell won't be taking one for the cause.
Martin S , February 10, 2018 at 10:19 am
The nefarious results of the Left propaganda: CRUSH THE TRUTH AND THE SHEEP WILL
SWALLOW
I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump
firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay.
Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left.
Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real
investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning
Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as
possible.
I think we're witnessing the absolute genius of the deep state getting taken down. My
hunch is that Mueller is part of the team and the media is getting outsmarted.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm
One can only wonder to where all of this may go. Read this .
The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump
removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep
corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept
one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Remember when the Dem's hated Comey? Boy, those were the days, weren't they?
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:35 am
Robert Mueller is leading an open-ended investigation that can cover any potential crime
uncovered during the course of the investigation. He has unlimited resources, no deadlines,
and no oversight. He can't be fired, except by the President. He reports to noone. His
targets have no idea what their crimes may be. His team is stacked with partisan hacks. He
uses heavy-handed tactics intended to break his adversaries, even if they haven't been
charged with a crime. He refuses to consider contrary evidence or to examine the DNC
computers. He won't interview witnesses. The Constitutional and human rights abuses are
alarming.
Douglas Mailly , February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am
Great article, but too bad about the polygraph reference, it just perpetuates the myth
that they are useful
One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian
interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of
our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political
party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population.
Corporations have taken over our legislatures under the guise of "free speech", and the
country's foreign policy is controlled by a military-industrial-security complex that sees
perpetual war as the answer to domestic economic well being and American world hegemony.
While Russians have no doubt used the internet to sow dissent here via "perception
management", as we no doubt have done there and elsewhere around the globe, what we Americans
as masters of Madison Avenue techniques have done to ourselves pales in comparison. Can we
come to grips with this and then get on to building a more cooperative world? It's a cause
worth fighting for.
Mild -ly - Facetious , February 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Well said, Howard Mettee.
Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy
antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions
"political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing
Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering,
just as were our British forefathers.
The present personification of our historical arrogance is this trenchantly self-approving
/ self-adoring Trump; (Mala Mens Malus Animus), whose wanton path of destruction is largely
more perverse than any of his predecessors. His path of DECONSTRUCTION is the portent of a
free-radical DISORGANIZATION of the world structure as we've known it. ( Poe aptly depicted
this in his short story, "The Descent Into The Maelstrom")
The foreboding actions from Mr. Trump foreshadow Perilous Times predicted first in First
Timothy 6: 9-10, Trump as forerunner and Second Timothy 3: 1-5 -- either and both apt
descriptions of Donald Trump.
– – – – – – "mala mens malus animus"
R Davis , February 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Is it a diversion?
From what?
It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll.
Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to
doomsday.
Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP.
Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima.
when nerves fray hey!
Brad Smith , February 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm
I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the
left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over
our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they
have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public
opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate.
For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern.
We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet
again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us.
Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their
hatred of Trump is only part of this issue.
With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could
exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. It was already
ramping up well before our elections and much of it was targeted at the left then as well.
Remember Pussy Riot? Remember the stories about how homophobic Russians are? The left has
been primed to hate Putin for a long time by this propaganda and they fell for it well before
Trump ran for office. Think about it this way, before we had the American "Deplorables" we
had "Russians". They were shown as nothing but drunken, wife beating, homophobic, Religious,
white, gun nuts, etc. etc. etc. This Extreme form of stereotyping was meant to invoke hatred
by the left and it worked.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:33 pm
Brad you got it right. Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these
Russian hackers who weren't there. Brad you also got it right, that these so called liberals
are blinded by their hatred of Trump, and in my estimation these kool-aid liberals are
passing up any golden opportunity they may have to go after Trump for what they should be
going after him for. Talk about misdirected, the Dem's aren't even close. Joe
Erelis , February 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Well, there was middle last year a nationally organized "March for Truth" which called for
investigation of Trump and any Russian ties. The march by newspaper reports got "hundreds" in
Chicago and NYC. I saw a live stream of the Portland march. Maybe just maybe cracked a
hundred. Basically the march attendees looked like older party partisans. I would expect the
same for any pro-Mueller rallies in that they will be pretty much be democratic party
rallies. As the leadership of groups like Planned Parenthood, unions, and other organizations
are aligned with establishment democrats, I am not sure they can convince their bases to
march.
On the electoral side. Sure some people will show up, and show up in democratic dominated
cities, but in the rest of America, more of a yawn. Establishment democrats think that
Russiagate will win them elections. I think not.
dee , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black
Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves.
So far these "liberals" have not dug their own graves, because media supports their
position now despite having primed Trump for winning during campaigning. I maintain that
having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate.
People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It
is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled."
Dave Sullivan , February 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Yet another "analysis " of russia-gate without mentioning organized crime. The trump
cronies are mobbed up from top to bottom, and the right is shocked they would be looked at by
the FBI. Talk about snookered. Then the author, denigrates FISA, blames liberals, but doesn't
mention the lockstep GOP vote to continue it, or, the majority of dems who opposed .check
your own cognitive dissonance at the door before you sit to "write" again.
No reason for foul language, doesn't enlighten just plays into the already coarse society
we have. Colleen Rowley in the past has written on Mueller's harmful coverups of FBI behavior
including 9/11 collusion with Bush to ignore Saudi complicity, if I remember correctly.
Yoshi Shimizu , February 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the
Pentagon budget!
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
"... Walmart employs 1.4 million Americans. The military employs 1.3 million active duty soldiers. That's a problem. Peace can't be allowed to break out. And the best way to insure that it doesn't is to kill the minimum number of people and export the maximum number of arms to keep people fighting with each other around the world. ..."
Walmart employs 1.4 million Americans. The military employs 1.3 million active duty
soldiers. That's a problem. Peace can't be allowed to break out. And the best way to insure
that it doesn't is to kill the minimum number of people and export the maximum number of arms
to keep people fighting with each other around the world.
That is all about as far as conceivable away from any notion of a professional
soldier.
How do you stop this? Who will employ those 1.3 million... 1.3 million who have been
brainwashed about "terrorism", "communism", "democracy", "muslims", etc. etc. etc.?
Particularly in the context of the tsunami of social change that is about to hit with the
advent of real artificial intelligence. Doctors? Their jobs are on the line and I suspect
they don't know it. Lawyers? Even worse.
The following article was the start of an epochal change in medicine:
Lasko TA, Denny JC, Levy MA (2013) Computational Phenotype Discovery Using Unsupervised
Feature Learning over Noisy, Sparse, and Irregular Clinical Data. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66341.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066341
I guess I should add, although it should be obvious, that the one thing that absolutely
cannot under any circumstances be allowed to happen is real war. Then you have to figure out
how to employ both the soldiers and the Walmart employees. Those that are still alive. And of
course if you look at the behavior of the U.S. in Syria you see that we are about as
interested in real war as we are in the arts.
For months it's been clear that AG Sessions is a total failure. He recused himself and then hired crook Rod Rosenstein as Asst
AG who then created the crooked Mueller investigation. If this republic is to continue, Sessions must go!
The US cannot have multiple layers of laws. It's impossible to have some individuals who do not have to abide by the same laws
as the rest of the population. We also cannot stand for the corrupt FBI, DOJ and State Departments (amongst others) that are able
to spy, lie and assault Americans for faulty crimes. Obama's Administration was corrupt and dishonest at all levels and so it's no
surprise that the entire federal government is corrupt. These people must be swept out. It's starts with AG Sessions!
AG
Sessions praised Asst AG Rosenstein the same day Rosenstein was identified in the FISA memo as one of the individuals who signed
off on the slanderous FISA memo to spy on President Trump. Mueller's investigation is full of former Clinton and Obama corrupt cronies.
The FBI and DOJ continue to
delay and prevent Congress from seeing information requested for month. Much of the information is unnecessarily redacted from
the individuals (Congress) who has the mandate to oversee these same institutions.
Many Congressman are calling for Jeff Sessions to resign or be replaced and have for months –
I don't think he is deep state. Keep in mind that Trump has praised people he clearly didn't trust and later fired. Sessions
may well be intimidated or over his head -- his inaction has been maddening.
Yet by standing to one side, those who are part of
the cabal have revealed themselves and damned themselves . We've now gotten three layers. At some point, hopefully, there will
be an honest person in the DC FBI office.
Trump could fire sessions, but whoever else he hired would first have to endure the
confirmation firestorm and then land in the toxin laden swamp of the DC FBI.
It may be sessions is off doing drug interdiction,
and he's apparently moving, if slowly, on the sanctuary cities issue. The fisagate people are being wormed out without sessions.
Trump obviously thinks he's better with sessions than without.
"... But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do. ..."
"... How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey? ..."
The most plausible hypothesis is that Steele was simply telling Fusion and the DNC what they wanted to hear to collect the money.
When you go on a witch hunt you're going to find witches.
From the Nunes memo, there was, at the highest level of the FBI, a cabal determined to derail Trump and elect Clinton. Heading
the cabal was Comey, who made the call to exonerate Hillary of criminal charges for imperiling national security secrets, even before
his own FBI investigation was concluded.
Assisting Comey was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, running for a Virginia state senate seat, received a windfall of
$467,000 in contributions from Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.
Last week, McCabe was discharged from the FBI. Seems that in late September 2016, he learned from his New York field office that
it was sitting on a trove of emails between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which potentially contained security
secrets.
Not until late October did Comey inform Congress of what deputy McCabe had known a month earlier.
Other FBI plotters were Peter Strzok, chief investigator in both the Clinton email server scandal and Russiagate, and his FBI
girlfriend, Lisa Page. Both were ousted from the Mueller investigation when their anti-Trump bias and behavior were exposed last
summer.
Filling out the starting five was Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general under Loretta Lynch. In 2016, Ohr's wife was working
for Fusion GPS, the oppo research arm of the Clinton campaign, and Bruce was in direct contact with Steele.
Now virtually all of this went down before Robert Mueller was named special counsel. But the poisoned roots of the Russiagate
investigation and the bristling hostility of the investigators to Trump must cast a cloud of suspicion over whatever charges Mueller
will bring.
Now another head may be about to fall, that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
If Mueller has given up trying to prove Trump collusion with the Kremlin and moved on to obstruction of justice charges, Rosenstein
moves into the crosshairs.
For the heart of any obstruction scenario is Trump's firing of James Comey and his boasting about why he did it.
But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify
what the president had decided to do.
How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in
the firing of James Comey?
The Roman poet Juvenal's question comes to mind. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?
Consider where we are. Mueller is investigating alleged Trump collusion with Russia, and the White House is all lawyered up.
The House intel committee is investigating Clinton-FBI collusion to defeat Trump and break his presidency. FBI Inspector General
Michael Horowitz is looking into whether the fix was in to give Hillary a pass in the probe of her email server.
Comey has been fired, his deputy McCabe removed, his chief investigator Strzok ousted by Mueller for bigoted anti-Trump behavior,
alongside his FBI paramour, Page. Bruce Ohr has been demoted for colluding with Steele, who was caught lying to the FBI and fired,
and for his wife's role in Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig up dirt on Trump for Clinton's campaign
If Americans are losing confidence in the FBI, whose fault is that? Is there not evidence that a hubristic cadre at the apex of
the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they
would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved
from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
Beautifully written article Mr. Buchanan
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
What it always looks like to me, is that the interests of the deep state never coincide with the actual interests of
the American people, and that indeed, they are mutually incompatible.
It seems to me that one of, if not the main motivation of the deep state is to dismantle the American people's Constitutional
rights, disarm then, and set about creating an Orwellian dystopia for the purpose of exerting total power over them.
Who doubts that Hillary's very grotesque existence is one big collective desire of a certain bent of people to wield total
power over others? Why else would she publically cackle at the torture/murder of a man she disliked unless she figured her audience
agreed that his murder was a good thing, and that once she came to power, that she's really get to the business of putting it
to those deplorables but good! Not for anything they ever did, but for what they were – irredeemable.
In fact, I see the deep state today as an exact incarnation of Orwell's Ingsoc, with it's total surveillance police state,
and all the other tyrannical state power abuses over every aspect of our lives. (Even with the ubiquitous televisions with the
microphones and cameras monitored by the Ministry of Love)
we have the Newspeak speech codes on our universities. The places where our young and brightest are supposed to be taught to
think, and they're doing the opposite- by creating mindless drones who parrot doubleplus good PC bromides.
we have the Eternal Wars
we have the ((inner party))
we have the two minute hate for the Hitler du jour, (Osama, Saddam, Gadhafi, Assad, now Putin )
we have the Ministry of Truth = msm fake news 24/7 lies and more lies
we have the Ministry of Love = Gitmo
we have the all pervasive fear that governs our conversations and alters our behavior. How many dare to discuss the
inner party at dinner parties or at work? How many dare to flout the speech codes?
1984 was the most prescient book ever written, with a nod to The Protocols, as runner up. And the deep state today is nothing
more than what Orwell was writing about. Men and women who seek power for its own sake. And have a deep-seated imperative to wield
that power over others.
That's what the memo is about. Power-crazed assholes hell bent on putting their boot on our collective faces. And mashing it
in.
who doubts, for one second, that John Brenan
(or Hillary or John McCain ) would relish the opportunity to put the metaphorical 'deplorable' in this chair?
for some reason, when I look at that photo, (a peek into the id of the deep state personality) I see Ron Paul in that chair,
with Rudy Giuliani standing there, but it could just as easily be Edward Snowden in the chair, with Dick Cheney presiding..
But the reason I'm belaboring this Orwellian theme is because it is quintessentially salient to this subject of the deep state.
George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"
True enough, but it was Huxley who nailed the underlying theme that made it all possible; the people will trade all of their
other rights for complete sexual freedom.
Orwell's 1984 was an exposition of Totalitarianism, with the Inner Party using these mechanisms because they work. Like you
say, the whole package is now present in the US, although the Inner Party doesn't yet have sufficient power to use full state
violence against the public.
But at some point they'll have to , since the system is based on the implicit threat of violence against dissidents, and it
has to become explicit (social exclusion is not enough). So, realistically, the cabal needs a National Emergency with an official
suspension of Democracy, probably using the framework for emergency rule already in place under Reagan era COG (Continuity of
Government) legislation.
The 9/11 Coup was a failed attempt to activate a COG dictatorship under Cheney (halted by the events in Florida that morning),
but the same planners will inevitably try again. Their private security depends on public insecurity, allowing them to turn the
mechanisms of state power against the public, while paradoxically, they live by the integrity of this same hijacked state structure.
If the state should melt away in generalized anarchy, then the levers of power would no longer work, and they would face the
fate of Ceausescu or Gaddafi – hence the deceptive Doublespeak of the "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security".
I'm not following this story much because it's boring but I will always be a fan of Nunes by the enemies he keeps. Ana Navarro,
the 'Latina' battle-axe who is a 'Never Trump' 'Republitard' was on TV and made sure to let everybody know that Nunes was not
an Hispanic. He's of Portugese decent, racial politics. LOL Devin Nunes is ok in my book. Hopefully he's not an Israeli firster.
Your information is wrong as always, Corvinky. The leftist "Russian collusion" narrative is collapsing and (((Seth))) and other
lefties are desperate to keep it alive with spin and fake facts. That's why it's quietly changed from claims of collusion to obstruction
of justice since there's no evidence of the former.
If there was other corroborating evidence then why absolutely no mention of it until now? If the (((lamestream media))) knew
and sat on it then they are colluding with the Democrat party on how and what to report which we already know they do. And it
proves that the (((media)) is hyper partisan and not independent but anyone with half a brain already knows that also.
If there was really any evidence of Trump collusion the NSA would have it, but they don't. In fact, it was the NSA that threatened
to spill the beans on the origins of the Steele dossier if the FBI and DOJ failed did not come clean to the FISA court.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. "Science is our best witness in this case. It is not biased and it doesn't lie."
According to police, Zahau bound her own hands and feet with a thick red rope and hanged herself naked off the second-floor
balcony of a guest bedroom. She appeared to have secured one section of the rope to the footboard of the bed before she bound
her feet, wrapped the rope around her neck, tied her hands behind her back, walked to the balcony, and propelled herself over
the railing.
indeed, I suspect that it is because they so often get away with such things that this mega-wealthy Hollywood insider figured
he'd also get away with it.
"Well, then," he said to the police, "I guess you'll have to find out who did it."
Doesn't work that way in a criminal investigation. Man, you really have little clue how our legal system works.
Obviously, you don't either. As someone who was against the Clinton witch hunt that created a perjury trap when they couldn't
get him on real charges related to Whitewater, I can see perfectly well that this is similar – drag this on and on until they
can create some process crime.
There's now a mountain of evidence that shows that they are lying, and the only way for US society to stabilize, is to pull
every thread of the 9/11 shroud until the whole rotten enterprise is revealed, and the US public can see the plotters in daylight.
[Robert] Mueller took over the FBI one week before the 9/11 attacks
His protestations helped the Bush administration railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI's prerogatives
to vacuum up Americans' personal information
whoever pulls down the "Democratic" facade will be doing the US a favour.
not just the US. They'll be doing the whole planet a favor. 9/11 has been the pretext for serial wars of aggression against
nations that have done us no harm. It has been used as the pretext for the total police / surveillance state that has eviscerated
our constitution, and rendered it a worthless piece of toilet paper, all to the bovine cud-chewing apathy of the dumbed down Americanus
Bovinus. Who can't wait for the next Hollywood movie based on cartoon characters to come out on the big screen.
I was poised to leave this country if Hillary became potus, and still wonder if there's any hope at all.
These psychopaths are as bad as they get. These Straussian neocons and tribalist Jewish supremacists are bad news, man. Very,
very bad news. They're ideologically driven by a Satanic imperative to dominate, and they will never, ever stop. Until
they are stopped. And that would require a resolve that the Americanus Bovinus is endemically incapable of, because it necessitates
a spiritual mettle that's been systematically bred out of them.
They'd rather embrace their smart device chains, than suffer the egregious enormity of breaking a societal taboo or politically
correct norm. And this has all been very systematically constructed with schools that dumb them down, and universities that create
slavish fealty to virtue signaling uber alles.
It's all so very tragic, because for one thing, these people had it made! They're the most wealthy and powerful demographic
in the country. They enjoy assess and perks wildly out of proportion to their fellow Americans. But that is not enough! Then want
that boot on everyone's neck and they want it now, God damn it!
So the world is driven to the brink to sate an insatiable appetite for grandiose megalomaniacal power. And once they have the
power, what fun is that unless you use it?
George Soros doesn't want his son to see the fall of Europa and Western civilization, HE wants to see it! He wants to cackle
like Hillary was able to over the murder of Gadhafi, only he want the stake though the heart of Hungary in particular.
It's this psychotic need of these people to see everyone else suffer, while they laugh at the misery, knowing that they caused
it all. Whether it's in Palestine or Libya or Ferguson. Hate all day long, and with a bottomless pit of rancor and bile tossed
in for good measure.
Hell, when I contemplate them and their obsession to hate, all day, every day, I almost feel pity. Almost.
hatred of Trump is such that a huge slice of the country would support his removal by extralegal, unconstitutional means.
This is bigger than Watergate, a conspiracy at the highest levels, and before it's over, will decide the fate of the nation.
I just hope Trump is up to the task.
I very much agree.
I know of liberals who're despondent, and nearly catatonic over Trump. I've heard it said they're psychologically in the fetal
position, unable to cope with the ascendancy of Les Deplorables. Or, more precisely, the altering trajectory that doesn't have
a demographic dagger being plunged into the necks of 'the irredeemables' and their children as we speak.
They've been so rapturous over the looming evisceration of heritage America for so long, that having to wait a few more extra
years until that glorious day when the 'patriarchy' is dead and in its grave- is existential for them. Of course! they'd subvert
our 'democracy' and Constitution and all notions of decency in their butt-hurt quest, since they've never had a shred of integrity
to begin with. They don't even know what the word means, except as something to mock.
I wonder why when I replace Mueller with Starr in your post I seem to get the same conclusion?
However, I will give you this, Mueller is a POS protecting the Deep State against somebody he deems not worthy of a seat at
the table. Starr was a sanctimonious POS thinking he was leading a crusade to keep an uncouth lowbrow sleazeball out of an exalted
position.
However, I would suggest that some in the cabal have understood, all along, that in order for their dreams and plans to materialize,
there would have to be a Long March through the institutions and while they were conquering the institutions, the masses would
have to be given their breads and circuses.
A fellow traveler of our cause once said to me, words to the effect that, "they'll let you go on your football trips, and they'll
let the drunks enjoy their Budweiser, and of course they'll let people go to the movies and out to dinner."
"... Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run. ..."
"... I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north. Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin. ..."
"... My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career. ..."
"... If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity. ..."
"... 'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which raised a total of $915,000.' ..."
"... I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does. IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed. ..."
"... It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning all the dirty tricks from Madeleine. ..."
"... I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack. ..."
1. Nikki Haley is either completely gullible or is in thrall to some collection of Borgists at State. Someone remarked of a previous
US Secretary of State that "if only he were still alive this would not happen." Unfortunately he was still alive and in office. Much
the same could be said of Rex Tillerson. Haley is now tub thumping for US air attacks on Syria. This a reprise of several previous
US assertions of Syrian Arab Government (SAG) use of chemical weapons including the East Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun fiascos. After
Khan Sheikhoun the SAG invited US and UN investigations of the air base but somehow this was not accepted. Now James Mattis is asserting
that the SAG is manufacturing chemical munitions although the US has no evidence of this as yet. I believe this is called "confirmation
bias?"
2. As shown above , the SAA is committed to elimination of the East Idlib pocket. The jihadis are without re-supply and will progressively
be running out of the means of resistance. This should not take too long and is actually a good idea before proceeding further into
Idlib Province to the west. I believe I expressed an opinion as to the wisdom of such a move.
3. The SAA has begun shelling the Turkish strong point (observation post) at Al-Eis. The Turks have been attempting tricky cleverness
by claiming that they are occupying the hill at Al--Eis un accord with a Russian/Iranian/Turkish de-escalation igreement. In fact
IMO they are seeking to position themselves so as to impede SAG liberation of Idlib Province. pl
Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces
have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run.
kooshy,
Colonel Lang, did you see this news on AMN, "Syrian Army allows massive YPG convoy to travel to Afrin from their lines'
God only knows what is going on in Syria? it's a mess, was that to stop the Turks going to Al Eis.
james said in reply to kooshy... ,
and further to that - this also from AMN -
"BEIRUT, LEBANON (7:53 P.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army or allied paramilitary groups or both have reportedly started shelling the
freshly established positions of Turkish forces in the southern countryside of Aleppo province according to both opposition and
pro-government sources.
Opposition sources says that Syrian Army and allied Iranian-linked paramilitary groups have unleashed artillery fire onto recently
established positions of the Turkish Army in the strategic Al-Eis area of southern Aleppo province."
It seems she is attracted by John Bolton, her destructive, cunning and IMO rather malicious hard core neocon predecessor. She
twittered this insight in July 2017:
"Great to see @AmbJohnBolton back @USUN. Thanks to his years of public service to our country, he continues to share great
advice & wisdom."
His great advice and great wisdom? Ah yes ...
I had the pleasure that an indian senior (20+ years of service) UN guy back then did explain me what he did when US ambassador
at the UN, and how and why it was cunning what he did, and how and why it was destructive and what he was after. It turned my
stomach to get it explained to clearly.
So, unlike Haley, I always thought Bolton was a ruthless, destructive, nutty, if cunning, nasty man. I never seen his "wisdom".
Rather I saw an arsonist who likes to play with fire.
For Haley he, with all his "wisdom", is an inspiration. He was also inspirational for Trump, but not inspirational enough.
Bolton didn't make it to Secretary of State ... because of his moustache. See? How very maverick-ish to make a difficult decision
on so simple grounds.
Ah well, perhaps Trump is daily being too savaged by his hair thing on his head. I assume that having to face mirrors likely
can be a terror.
Whatever about that moustache, and assuming that the story is correct - I for my part don't see the problem in what is over
Bolton's mouth but that what comes out of it.
Donald Trump passed over a potential candidate for Secretary of State because of bushy moustache, according to insiders
close to the incoming US President.
Several of Mr Trump's associates said they thought that John Bolton's brush-like moustache was one of the factors that handicapped
the bombastic former United Nations ambassador in the sweepstakes for the role.
"Donald was not going to like that moustache," said one, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I can't think of anyone that's
really close to Donald that has a beard that he likes."
Whats going on ? Iran wants influence and bases as far as the sea, to enable it to convince the Israelis to emigrate en masse.
The West want to stop them now, everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop them when the last FSA / AQ /etc have almost died
off, and Erdogan want to continue mugging people as a form of foreign policy.
Run those actions simultaneously and you have the current outcome.
I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are
reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north.
Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin.
A small number of US and troops from other coalition countries have been in the Manbij area since August 2016 when it was liberated
from the headchoppers. More were sent in 2017 when TFSA from the Euphrates Shield enclave started threatening Manbij. No secret
there, it has been previously announced publicly.
I have happily discovered an analyst who has consistently been right on many aspects of the way the Syrian conflict has played
out, despite its manifold complexities. If you find one that claims to be able to "see" ahead, I'd suggest he/she may better be
described as a clairvoyant.
As to things being "fixed" - I guess an expectation that such a state is attainable, or indeed desirable - betrays something
of one's ontological preferences. In any case, Syria appears to me to be an object lesson in the futility of such expectations.
My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a
war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career.
If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and
Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity.
In fact, most of our elected and unelected career politicians exhibit similar levels of mendacity, on a level that is indistinguishable
from sociopathy. Just that in Haley it's more shameless and obvious. Maybe she is not as good an actress as some, I don't know.
With respect to the allegations surrounding the usage of chemical weapons, yesterday the UN Security Council had an open meeting
to discuss the situation in Syria.
The meeting was held to consider a letter submitted by the Secretary General to the Council on February 1 concerning the latest
report from the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The member states were seeking to have the Security Council President issue a statement condemning the recent reports of the
usage of chemical weapons in Syria, but they were unable to achieve the needed consensus.
Russia submitted a resolution that would replace the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism which had been shut
down. However the proposal is not acceptable to the United States in its current form for the reasons stated.
Follows is a summary of the meeting as prepared by the UN secretariat:
Amid New Reports of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, United Nations Top Disarmament Official Says International Community Obliged
to Enact Meaningful Response http://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13196.doc.htm
Ambassador Haley may be pushing for US military action in response to the most recent claims of chemical weapons usage in other
forums, but she did not call for such action during the UN Security Council meeting.
As to Defense Secretary Mattis, he spoke to the Press on February 2 at which time he issued a warning and expressed concerns
about the usage of Sarin gas.
Q: Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were -- the State Department was talking about just a little bit
yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas? Is this something you're seeing that's been weaponized or – just give us a sense.
SEC. MATTIS: It has.
Q: It has. Okay.
SEC. MATTIS: It has. We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and
we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you
all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
Then later on during the same press briefing:
"Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.
Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence?
Is that what you said?
SEC. MATTIS: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration,
when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.
And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim
it's been used.
We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using --
we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
Q: So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood? I thought I used -- you used that word;
I guess I misunderstood you.
SEC. MATTIS: Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it. And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking
for the evidence.
Q: Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used -- evidence of chlorine gas weapons?
SEC. MATTIS: I think that's, yes --
Q: No, I know, I heard you.
SEC. MATTIS: I think it's been used repeatedly. And that's, as you know, a somewhat separate category, which is why I broke
out the sarin as another -- yeah.
Q: So there's credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine --
SEC. MATTIS: No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don't have the evidence.
What I'm saying is that other -- that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used.
So we are looking for evidence. I don't have evidence, credible or uncredible."
"The Syrian government's chemical weapons stockpile has been linked for the first time by laboratory tests to the largest sarin
nerve agent attack of the civil war, diplomats and scientists told Reuters, supporting Western claims that government forces under
President Bashar al-Assad were behind the atrocity."
"The Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons, and U.S. President Donald Trump is prepared to consider
further military action if necessary to deter chemical attacks, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday."
As to the Friday media briefing by Secretary Mattis on February 2, Reuters reported:
On Monday, February 5, the Bild, a German outlet published a report alleging that Iran was supplying Syria with missiles to
deliver chemical weapons and that some of the materials in the weapons came from Germany. The report analyses missiles with gas
canisters allegedly used in a chemical weapons attack in Douma, Damascus on January 22, 2018.
The Bild article relies on work carried out by an entity known as Syrians for Truth and Justice and the online investigative
journalist website Bellingcat operated by Eliot Higgins.
Also read the following reports posted on the Bellingcat website:
December 2, 2017 - New Attack by Toxic Gases on a Battlefront in Harasta- Damascus Countryside "Testimonies Confirm Using "Organophosphorus
Compounds" https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/344
January 21, 2018 - Exposure of Six Civilians to Poisonous Substances in Eastern Ghouta- Damascus Countryside
https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/391
February 5, 2018 - Syrian Forces Use Chemical Weapons in Duma for a Second Time in a Month. Joint Report: Bellingcat & Syrians
for Truth and Justice https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/413
(Do not shoot the messenger. As to the Bild report, the summary relies on Google translate, the original article being in German.
Since the Bild report relies on work done by Bellingcat and Syrians For Truth and Justice, I have linked to various reports providing
details of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria since July, 2017 produced by these entities for your reference.)
This is all you need to know about Haley and why Trump (or rather Adelson) appointed her to the UN.
'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds
that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which
raised a total of $915,000.'
(Not coincidentally, however, Sheldon Adelson was the GOP's and Trump's single biggest donor)
"Perhaps Adelson gained an unusual interest in South Carolina's state senate, but it seems more likely the investment was a
show of support for Haley's hawkish pro-Israel positions. Adelson, who is also the largest donor to the extreme right-wing Zionist
Organization of America (ZOA), has long pushed stridently anti-Iran positions, suggesting in late 2013 that Washington detonate
a nuclear weapon in Iran's territory unless Tehran complied with demands that it completely abandon its nuclear program.
And, as Weiss wrote, Haley had come through for Adelson already in 2015, when she signed without any reservation the first law
against boycotts of Israel -- about the same time as Adelson convened an anti-BDS summit in Las Vegas.'' https://lobelog.com/nikki-haley-neocon-heartthrob/
Colonel,
Today at House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing :
Former Ambassador Ford: -If purpose to deter Iran from attacking Israel, perhaps we should have troops in Israel instead of eastern Syria.
-US forces in eastern Syria. Iranians in western Syria. Our forces about 350 miles from Iranians. Not likely Iranians going to
leave Syria. Mistake to think Russians will push them out. Hi-level consultations btw us, Israel Jordan to develop menu of options
about how to deter.
-when I was US ambassador in Syria in 2007, Iranians were there. Iranians long been there. They don't need a road/land bridge.
They fly things into Damascus airport.
Thought he has learnt his lessons, but I must be hoping for too much !
That the reports of SAA shelling of the Turks comes from "opposition resources" needs no caveat.
That there is also a report claiming that the shelling of the Turks comes from Iranian militia also needs no caveat. Clearly
someone wants to blame both the SAA and Iran, which dovetails neatly with the US/Israel desire to "roll back Iran" out of Syria
as well as get a full-scale US/NATO/Israel war on Syria started, which has been the goal from Day One of the Syria crisis.
The new rise of "chemical WMD" charges against Syria clearly also feed into the now-confirmed continued desire of the US/Israel
for a full-scale air campaign against Syria.
As I believe I've mentioned before, it ain't over until it's over. The US clearly has not given up a desire to go to war with
Syria as a precursor to Israel and the US taking out Hizballah (to the degree that is possible) which is also a precursor to starting
a war with Iran.
Also, read a report the other day that John Bolton is still considered a candidate for Secretary of State should Tillerson
be forced out at some point, which I still think is quite likely. Such an appointment would signal the absolute end of any notion
of Trump being interested in rapprochement with Russia and would also guarantee war with Iran.
Because John Bolton is a raving neocon lunatic - which is what the moustache tells you.
I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does.
IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro
KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed.
IMO, they are not selected to pursue US foreign policy, they are only there as Israel'gate keepers, they are just there to
make sure nothing against the interests of Israel passes, just like, what just happened in UNSC on Jerusalem. IMO, US for her
own policies, doesn't give a damn about UN or UNSC, she does what she wants, and when she wants, and are not shy saying it like
it is.
She is there as the Israel' veto power over the rest of the word, in case something not kosher comes up to UNSC. IMO, US' UN
ambassadors only job is to protect Israel at UN, they are a retribution from the elected president of US (of either political
party0 to Israel lobby for helping them getting elected. If Nikki is a gift for Adelson' money, whoever Hillary would have appointed
to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB. This country' sovereignty has been successfully
hijacked in almost 50 years.
Nevertheless, I believe WE the People are the sole responsible party for loss of control, as well as what Nikki does and who
she does it for.
In response to these claims, the YPG has issued a statement denying the claim, saying the Turkish military fired artillery
shells containing a chemical weapon, which harmed their forces, so they moved to the high ground, while the jihadists remained
in the low lying areas, so suffering the consequences.
You wrote "everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop [Iran from spreading its influence and bases] ...".
You sir, are wrong. There are a lot of people in the world, and certainly in the Arab world (including Sunnis) who see Iran's
influence as a welcome counterweight to the US/UK/Israel. They remember what happened in 1953 and don't buy into what CNN is pushing.
I say this based on face to face discussions I have had with Arabs.
"THE HAGUE, Netherlands – 7 February 2018 – Recent allegations about the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Aran Republic
continue to be of grave concern to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), whose mandate is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals
for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic", is investigating all credible allegations and provides regular reports for
consideration by States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). A rigorous methodology is employed for conducting an
investigation of alleged use of chemical weapons. The FFM report will take into account corroboration between interviewee testimonies;
open-source research; medical reports and other relevant documentation as well as the characteristics of any samples obtained
by the FFM. The FFM works closely with States Parties including the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The FFM's mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not
include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks.
OPCW Director General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü reiterated: "Any use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention and the hard won international norm prohibiting these weapons. Those responsible for their use must be held accountable.
These abhorrent weapons have no place in the world today."
In turn, in my view, the UN Security Council needs to reach an understanding on the re-establishment of a OPCW-United Nations
Joint Investigative Mechanism so that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons are brought to account.
whoever Hillary would have appointed to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB.
It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning
all the dirty tricks from Madeleine.
sure... but tell me john, how does the opcw offer any credibility to itself, if it is relying on eyewitnesses in the jihadi held
area of Khan Shaykhun???
it is fine for the same countries that have been pushing for regime change in syria to say ''they believe''' syria is responsible,
but that is not proof and it really sullies there reputation and the opcw's further as i see it.. al nusra were in control of
the area at the time... these are the friendly headchopper crew that turkey seems to have in their backpocket at present and who
they are using to further there exercise in afrin.. now, maybe al nusra has had a name change again, so forgive me if i don't
have the up to date name for them... for all i know, they are now called the 'syrian democratic forces' or turkish free syrian
army - 2 other names that sound straight out of a hollywood script.. if i sound cynical - you are reading me correctly.. the western
gov'ts - usa, uk, or even israel, saudi arabia, turkey and france need to stop using international organizations for there own
political ends and start being honest brokers in finding peace, as opposed to dividing up sovereign countries like syria.. thanks..
john - for another example of the blame game that the usa has gotten so in the habit of doing with regard to these chemical weapon
attacks - i call them false flags, as that is just what they are to me, take a look at the stupidity coming via the daily press
briefing from yesterday... all bluster and bullshit with nothing to substantiate any of it.. is this all the usa is capable of
nowadays? see down towards the bottom of the link for the relevant comments on this topic.. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278014.htm
I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less
kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack.
Actually an interesting interview. Of course, interviewer is a regulate presstitute, but still answers on provocative (and
predictable) questions based on State Department talking points were pretty interesting and sometimes unexpected.
Margarita Simonyan is the head of RT, Russia's state-run television network. She's also been
referenced 27 times in a U.S. intelligence report that assesses that Russian President Vladimir
Putin, "ordered an influence campaign aimed at the U.S . election."
Simonyan has a simple response to that.
"There's nothing illegal that we did," Simonyan tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl.
"There's nothing murky. There's no weird activity that we're involved in. Nothing."
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official
imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope
that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the
Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled
by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the
Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies
had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood
was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to
say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt
initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing
was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from
veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of
the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a
constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from
the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate
disclosures conflicted with the original
narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal
journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the
conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a
"Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials
involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump,
adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
"... Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome. ..."
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in
his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have
absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to
political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be
it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous
empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this
bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal
degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation
bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian
"sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with,
thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe.
With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing
with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive
London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka".
Again, the level of
"Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger
since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which
can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger
even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US
military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In
some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new)
which are very worrisome.
"... What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of a 'narrative' -- in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to 'double think' and 'crimestop.' ..."
"... It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception management', or 'StratCom.' ..."
"... The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests. ..."
"... It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs. ..."
My apologies -- it was sloppy of me to use the term.
I was using it interchangeably with 'propaganda.' One reason for this is that I have been
looking at the website of the 'Department of War Studies' at King's College London. This has
a 'Centre for Strategic Communications', which 'aims to be the leading global centre of
expertise on strategic communications.'
An 'Associate Fellow' is my sometime BBC Radio colleague Mark Laity, who, according to his
bio on the site, 'is the Chief Strategic Communications at SHAPE, the first post holder, and
as such he has been a leading figure in developing StratCom within NATO.' In this capacity,
he produces presentations with titles like ' "Bocca della veritas" or "Perception becomes
Reality."
The same ethos penetrates other parts of the War Studies Department -- Eliot Higgins is
involved, as also Thomas Rid, who backed up the claims made by Dmitri Alperovitch of
'CrowdStrike', along with the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. (It appears that Rid, who has now
moved to SAIS at Johns Hopkins, is a German who has earlier worked at IFRI in Paris, RAND,
and in Israel.)
What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation
of a 'narrative' -- in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a
simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far
the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to
'double think' and 'crimestop.'
It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law
enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become
inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception
management', or 'StratCom.'
The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly
non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related
organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests.
It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities
for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris
Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs.
So in describing what these people got up to I sloppily used 'StratCom', when I should
have said propaganda.
"... One key question, she suggests, was whether the FBI had cause to initiate a full-blown counterintelligence probe into an active presidential campaign. "That's a breathtakingly consequential and unprecedented action," writes Strassel, "and surely could not be justified without much more than an overheard drunken conversation or an unsourced dossier. What hard evidence did the FBI have?" ..."
"... Strassel also notes that the government has few tools more powerful or frightening than the ability to spy on American citizens. Indeed, we are in delicate territory here. "If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier," she says, "that in itself is a monumental scandal." In other words, the small details don't really matter. If the FBI knew that the allegations of Steele's now-famous dossier remained unverified and used them anyway, that would constitute an abuse of power and an effort to manipulate the FISA court. ..."
"... Later that day, the Nunes memo was released, and, sure enough, it revealed that all of Strassel's questions were answered in the affirmative. That's what prompted the Journal , in a Saturday editorial, to suggest that the FBI had been used as "a tool of anti-Trump political actors" in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... by all accounts Page ended up cooperating with the FBI during that 2013 investigation and was never prosecuted. Third, why is a supposedly objective journalist carrying water for the opposition in trying to discredit the Nunes memo before people have a chance to digest it? Isn't that what editorialists and commentators do? ..."
"... Savage dismisses Nunes' suggestion that Steele admitted in British court filings that he had met with Yahoo News at the direction of Fusion GPS and that the Perkins Coie law firm knew this as early as 2016. Those court filings, writes Savage, were dated after the initial surveillance application and after at least one renewal request. ..."
"... As Strassel points out, surely the FBI took note when those news articles began appearing, and surely officials would see that the substance of the articles matched the substance of the Steele dossier, which they had studied in detail. Thus do we see another gotcha effort on the part of Savage that fizzles upon inspection. ..."
"... Savage's annotations represent a kind of reflection of modern journalism, a far cry from the kind that prevailed in America before the decay that emerged with cable news, web discourse, and social media. In those more distant times, journalists didn't align themselves with one side of a dispute or the other, ostentatiously answering serious allegations with counter-speculation by way of spreading confusion and thus undermining the allegations. Rather they rushed out to find the facts without regard to the political narratives of competing factions. They sought to remain above the fray. Does that sound quaint? ..."
"... "Much of the outrage, I think, is being fueled by people who want a new Cold War with Russia. Russiagate, true or false, helps keep the all important fear and loathing of Russia on the front page." ..."
Charlie Savage is a clever guy. The New York Times reporter managed to get a
full-fledged editorial into the news section of his paper when the controversial Nunes memo was
released on Friday. He did it through a journalistic device that is likely to be more widely
used in the future as standards of objectivity and fairness continue to wither: an "annotated"
version of the original document.
The memo, three and a half pages long and compiled by House Intelligence Committee chairman
Devin Nunes, documents what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how
the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence
the 2016 election and its aftermath." The Journal adds, "You don't have to be a civil
libertarian to be shocked by the details."
Savage clearly isn't shocked. But he shouldn't be, at least not outwardly -- not in his
reporting on the document. His job is to be dispassionate. On the other hand, neither should he
reveal his own stark bias through deft selections on what precisely he wishes to annotate and
how he wishes to do so.
Charlie Savage is not alone. The country's liberal establishment has joined ranks in
dismissing the memo. It has attacked its veracity, portraying it as a conscious effort to
mislead the American people on FBI and Justice Department efforts to get a surveillance order
on a U.S. citizen connected to Donald Trump's presidential campaign. This intense spin was on
full display even before the memo was released, and then reached full flower afterward.
This was not surprising. The hysteria reflects a recent development in American politics
whereby disturbing facts and suspicions, if they contradict the embraced narrative, are simply
ignored or dismissed as combatants hammer away from their usual scripts. This isn't confined to
liberals; you can see it at a high pitch every night on Sean Hannity's Fox News program.
But the liberal establishment's response to the Nunes memo has been something to behold, and
Charlie Savage's annotated version represents a distilled specimen of this unfortunate decline
in American political discourse -- and the decline also in the journalistic values of old. For
purposes of clarification, let's look at the Savage annotations in juxtaposition with the
Wall Street Journal 's take, which has the merit of being on the editorial page.
We begin with Kimberley A. Strassel's Journal column on Friday, which counseled
readers on how to read the memo once it appeared. One key question, she suggests, was whether
the FBI had cause to initiate a full-blown counterintelligence probe into an active
presidential campaign. "That's a breathtakingly consequential and unprecedented action," writes Strassel, "and surely could not be justified without much more than an overheard drunken
conversation or an unsourced dossier. What hard evidence did the FBI have?"
Strassel also notes that the government has few tools more powerful or frightening than the
ability to spy on American citizens. Indeed, we are in delicate territory here. "If the FBI
obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide
Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier," she says, "that in
itself is a monumental scandal." In other words, the small details don't really matter. If the
FBI knew that the allegations of Steele's now-famous dossier remained unverified and used them
anyway, that would constitute an abuse of power and an effort to manipulate the FISA court.
Another fundamental question, in Strassel's view, was whether the FBI used news stories
unleashed through Steele leaks to corroborate the allegations of the dossier. She writes: "If
the FBI used the conspiracy stories Mr. Steele was spinning as actual justification -- evidence
-- to the court, that's out of bounds."
Finally, she urges readers to pay attention to whether the FBI withheld from the court that
Steele was working ultimately for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee, with the gumshoe Fusion GPS firm and the Perkins Coie law firm as cutouts and
conduits of cash to Steele.
Later that day, the Nunes memo was released, and, sure enough, it revealed that all of
Strassel's questions were answered in the affirmative. That's what prompted the Journal , in a Saturday editorial, to suggest that the FBI had been used as "a tool of
anti-Trump political actors" in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.
This is serious stuff, even without definitive answers on all matters involved. It goes
without saying that when the government puts a U.S. citizen under surveillance, the legal
punctilio, as crafted by Congress, should be observed. The evidence suggests that in this
instance the prescribed safeguards may have been ignored. This is not something that can be
dismissed as phony; it must be considered grounds for an exhaustive investigation.
You wouldn't get any sense of the seriousness of this, however, by reading Charlie Savage's
annotations. Some are simply frivolous, others seriously misleading. None of them reflect any
appreciation for the gravity of the matter at hand, particularly with regard to the issue of
civil liberties.
Annotating a passage in which the Nunes memo identifies the signatories of the surveillance
requests (the original one and subsequent renewals), Savage notes out of the blue that if
President Trump were to use the wiretapping controversy to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, "the president could install someone who might be more willing to constrain or end
the investigation" of independent counsel Robert Mueller, who is looking into possible Trump
campaign collusion with the Russians.
This is a diversionary aside. If Trump did that, the political backlash would be
overwhelming. But in any event, this merely distracts attention from the central questions
identified by Strassel and her editorial page. Whatever the merits of the Nunes memo, or lack
of them, Trump's use of it is irrelevant to any serious assessment.
Responding to the Nunes suggestion that "material and relevant information was omitted" in
the surveillance order requests of the FBI and DOJ, Savage notes that the "memo's critics"
accuse Nunes himself of withholding important information. That includes that other evidence
not connected to Steele, "much of which remains classified," was also part of the surveillance
requests. Savage mentions as an example the fact that Carter Page, the subject of the
surveillance order, had attracted the FBI's interest back in 2013, when it appeared two Russian
agents were trying to recruit him.
Three points here: First, if Nunes withheld relevant and material information about other
evidence used to secure the wiretap orders, then his memo will end up being seriously
discredited. But Savage doesn't seem to have any such information at hand. When he does he
should report it; until then it is a smokescreen. Second, by all accounts Page ended up
cooperating with the FBI during that 2013 investigation and was never prosecuted. Third, why is
a supposedly objective journalist carrying water for the opposition in trying to discredit the
Nunes memo before people have a chance to digest it? Isn't that what editorialists and
commentators do?
Next, Savage annotates this quote from Nunes: "Neither the initial application in October
2016 nor any of the renewals discloses the role of the DNC and the Clinton campaign or any
party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, though the FBI knew this."
Savage trots out a "FISA expert" named David Kris, who calls this the memo's "money quote."
It is, says Kris, "potentially problematic and worthy of further review." But he adds that, if
the opposition funding had been disclosed in a general way -- with a notation, say, that it had
been funded "by people motivated to undermine Trump's campaign" -- then the FISA application
"would be fine." But neither Kris nor Savage has any idea if this was the case. So what is
Savage's purpose in attempting to fuzz up this Nunes allegation? There's only one answer: to
discredit it, without evidence.
Nunes makes much of the FISA application seeking to corroborate the Steele dossier with a
Yahoo News article containing many of the same allegations. As the memo states: "This article
does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele
himself to Yahoo news." Savage promptly quotes Nunes' chief adversary on his committee, ranking
member Adam Schiff of California, as calling this "a serious mischaracterization." The article,
says Schiff, was not used to corroborate the dossier. Savage quotes Kris as saying it would be
"much more likely" for officials to cite news articles to demonstrate a certain urgency due to
increasing public exposure.
But there is no evidence that Kris knows anything about this particular case, and some
journalists -- including Strassel, who has been covering this story meticulously for months --
have written that officials do indeed sometimes use news reporting to corroborate evidence used
in seeking surveillance clearance.
But here again we have Savage countering a congressional report with speculation on the part
of a man who doesn't know the details and a countercharge from a partisan opponent.
This particular annotation helps crystallize what's going on here. This is a pivotal matter
in the controversy. If Schiff is correct that Nunes perpetrated a "serious mischaracterization"
on such a matter, then the entire memo will be discredited. If, on the other hand, Nunes is
correct, his overall critique of the FBI and Justice will demand further attention. There was a
time, not too many years ago, when journalists saw their jobs as going out to get the answers
to such questions. That doesn't seem to be how Savage views his responsibilities, at least in
this instance.
Savage dismisses Nunes' suggestion that Steele admitted in British court filings that he had
met with Yahoo News at the direction of Fusion GPS and that the Perkins Coie law firm knew this
as early as 2016. Those court filings, writes Savage, were dated after the initial surveillance
application and after at least one renewal request. Thus, he asks, how was this relevant to the
matter of those FISA applications? But the question here is not when Steele acknowledged his
media leaks but whether they took place and whether the FBI knew he was peddling dirt on Trump
to news organizations during the crucial weeks of the campaign. That's not a trivial matter,
and it's impossible to believe the Bureau didn't know. As Strassel points out, surely the FBI
took note when those news articles began appearing, and surely officials would see that the
substance of the articles matched the substance of the Steele dossier, which they had studied
in detail. Thus do we see another gotcha effort on the part of Savage that fizzles upon
inspection.
Savage's annotations represent a kind of reflection of modern journalism, a far cry from the
kind that prevailed in America before the decay that emerged with cable news, web discourse,
and social media. In those more distant times, journalists didn't align themselves with one
side of a dispute or the other, ostentatiously answering serious allegations with
counter-speculation by way of spreading confusion and thus undermining the allegations. Rather
they rushed out to find the facts without regard to the political narratives of competing
factions. They sought to remain above the fray. Does that sound quaint?
In the wake of the Nunes memo's release, there's still much we don't know about how federal
officials went about getting approval for placing a U.S. citizen -- and a presidential campaign
-- under surveillance, including what evidence was marshaled for that purpose. Perhaps Nunes'
critics are correct in saying his memo raises more questions than it answers. But those
questions are serious. Charlie Savage no doubt possesses the journalistic capacity to go find
some of the answers. That would be a pursuit of elevated value.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
editor of The American Conservative . His latest book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , was
released in September.
"Much of the outrage, I think, is being fueled by people who want a new Cold War with Russia.
Russiagate, true or false, helps keep the all important fear and loathing of Russia on the
front page."
There's definitely that, but I also think there is a sincere belief amongst some
anti-Trumpers that the Mueller investigation is going finally find something that will get
rid of Trump.
Given how leaky this whole affair is, I think that's increasingly unlikely, but they
don't.
"... We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input. ..."
We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda
apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions
are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the
input.
Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort,
and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt
that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.
It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and
Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies
makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But
most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths
of the propaganda.
New figures published this week on obscene inequality show how the capitalist economic
system has become more than ever deeply dysfunctional. Surely, the depraved workings of the
system pose the greatest threat to societies and international security. Yet, Western leaders
are preoccupied instead with other non-existent threats – like Russia.
Take British prime minister Theresa May who this week was
speaking at a posh banquet in London. She told the assembled hobnobs, as they were sipping
expensive wines, that "Russia is threatening the international order upon which we depend".
Without providing one scrap of evidence, the British leader went to assert that Russia was
interfering in Western democracies to "sow discord".
May's grandstanding is a classic case study of what behavioral scientists call "displacement
activity" – that is, when animals find themselves in a state of danger they often react
by displaying unusual behavior or making strange noises.
For indeed May and other Western political leaders are facing danger to their world order,
even if they don't openly admit it as such. That danger is from the exploding levels of social
inequality and poverty within Western societies, leading to anger, resentment, discontent and
disillusionment among increasing masses of citizens. In the face of the inherent, imminent
collapse of their systems of governance, Western leaders like May seek some relief by prattling
on about Russia as a threat.
This week European bank Credit Suisse published figures showing that the wealth gap between
rich and poor has reached even more grotesque and absurdist levels. According to the bank, the
world's richest 1% now own as much wealth as half the population of the entire planet. The
United States and Britain are among the top countries for residing multi-millionaires, while
these two nations have also emerged as among the most unequal in the world.
The data calling out how dysfunctional the capitalist system has become keeps on coming. It
is impossible to ignore the reality of a system in deep disrepair, yet British and American
politicians in particular – apart from notable exceptions like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie
Sanders – have the audacity to block out this reality and to chase after risible
phantoms. (The exercise makes perfect sense in a way.)
Last week, a
report from the US-based Institute of Policy Studies found that just three of America's
wealthiest men – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own the same level of
wealth as the poorest half of the entire US population. That is, the combined monetary worth of
these three individuals – reckoned to be $250 billion – is equivalent to that
possessed by 160 million citizens.
What's more, the study also estimates that if the Trump administration pushes through its
proposed tax plans, the gap between rich elite and the vast majority will widen even further.
This and other studies have found that over 80% of the tax benefits from Trump's budget will go
to enrich the top 1% in society.
All Western governments, not just May's or Trump's, have over the past decades overseen an
historic trend of siphoning wealth from the majority of society to a tiny elite few. The tax
burden has relentlessly shifted from the wealthy to the ordinary workers, who in addition have
had to contend with decreasing wages, as well as deteriorating public serves and social
welfare.
To refer to the United States or Britain as "democracies" is a preposterous misnomer. They
are for all practical purposes plutocracies; societies run by and for a top strata of obscenely
wealthy.
Intelligent economists, like the authors at the IPS cited above, realize that the state of
affairs is unsustainable. Morally, and even from an empirical economics point of view, the
distortion of wealth within Western societies and internationally is leading to social and
political disaster.
On this observation, we must acknowledge the pioneering work of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels who more than 150 years ago identified the chief failing of capitalism as being the
polarization of wealth between a tiny few and the vast majority. The lack of consumption power
among the masses owing to chronic poverty induced by capitalism would result in the system's
eventual collapse. Surely, we have reached that point in history now, when a handful of
individuals own as much wealth as half the planet.
Inequality, poverty and the denial of decent existence to the majority of people stands out
as the clarion condemnation of capitalism and its organization of society under private profit.
The human suffering, hardships, austerity and crippled potential that flow from this condition
represent the crisis of our time. Yet instead of an earnest public debate and struggle to
overcome this crisis, we are forced by our elites to focus on false, even surreal problems.
American politics has become paralyzed by an endless elite squabble over whether Russia
meddled in the presidential elections and claims that Russian news media continue to interfere
in American democracy. Of course, the US corporate-controlled news media, who are an integral
part of the plutocracy, lend credibility to this circus. Ditto European corporate-controlled
media.
Then we have President Donald Trump on a world tour berating and bullying other nations to
spend more money on buying American goods and to stop cheating supposed American generosity
over trade. Trump also is prepared to start a nuclear war with North Korea because the latter
is accused of being a threat to global peace – on the basis that the country is building
military defenses. The same for Iran. Trump castigates Iran as a threat to Middle East peace
and warns of a confrontation.
This is the same quality of ludicrous distraction as Britain's premier Theresa May this week
lambasting Russia for "threatening the world order upon which we all depend". By "we" she is
really referring to the elites, not the mass of suffering workers and their families.
May and Trump are indulging in "perception management" taken to absurdity. Or more crudely,
brainwashing.
How can North Korea or Iran be credibly presented as global threats when the American and
British are supporting a genocidal blockade and aerial slaughter in Yemen? The complete
disconnect in reality is testimony to the pernicious system of thought-control that the vast
majority of citizens are enforced to live under.
The biggest disconnect is the obscene inequality of wealth and resources that capitalism has
engendered in the 21 st century. That monstrous dysfunction is also causally related
to why the US and its Western allies like Britain are pushing belligerence and wars around the
planet. It is all part of their elitist denial of reality. The reality that capitalism is the
biggest threat to humanity's future.
Do we let these mentally deficient, deceptive political elites and their media dictate the
nonsense? Or will the mass of people do the right thing and sweep them aside?
Wow, the fact that they are talking about talking points to Comey to brief Obama is the big cookie. Obama's legacy is destroyed
completely.
That implements Comey and Obama as traitors. Why does Comey keep tweeting shit? Dude should be lawyering up and perhaps thinking
about getting out of the country.
Hey, Dems? Do we have a Constitutional Crisis yet? LOL at these fuckers.
The best defense is a strong offense. For Comey this worked for a while but I think those days are over. If he was smart he
would lawyer up and shut the fuck up.
Clinton emails found on September 28 and Comey didn't know until October 28, who believes that load of crap.
As soon as I heard in 2007 that the NY Times couldn't find anyone at Columbia who knew Obama,I knew something was up.Columbia
seems to be the default college for frauds with Van Doren,"Dr."Bob Harris,and Meadow Soprano.
. . .yeah and I recall the professor of Political Science who said: never saw him and I knew EVERY student who studied Poli-sci.
It is impossible that I would not have known him. -- or words to that effect.
I have zero confidence that the "deep state" will ever allow
itself to be prosecuted. To me the "deep state" is anyone
inside the perimeter of Washington D.C. They all talk tough
about each other but when push comes to shove, they all have
each others' backs.
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
"... A footnote also reveals that the FBI has not been able to produce the 1023s on many of its meetings with Steele. These are like CIA contact reports that are written up to include the details of what is discussed in a meeting with a source. This is beginning to smell like a good old CIA style Covert Operation to disrupt an election only it is playing out right here in the U.S.A. And no one has yet even looked into the actual Agency angle with good old John Brennan! ..."
You're right Ilyana. Those following the Nunes memo story here on Unz should also read the Grassley letter, link below. It
is somewhat heavy going but it really confirms that the Steele Dossier was the principal source for the FISC warrant request sought
by the Bureau and that Steele was a controlled source working for the FBI.
But even so, the information he was providing was both unvetted and largely uncorroborated. He also was receiving information
from a Clinton associate and leaking his story to the press to validate what he was presenting to the Bureau. Really wild stuff!
A footnote also reveals that the FBI has not been able to produce the 1023s on many of its meetings with Steele. These
are like CIA contact reports that are written up to include the details of what is discussed in a meeting with a source. This
is beginning to smell like a good old CIA style Covert Operation to disrupt an election only it is playing out right here in the
U.S.A. And no one has yet even looked into the actual Agency angle with good old John Brennan!
"... Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires. ..."
"... This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and not a fully-scripted performance. ..."
"... I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong reasons". ..."
"... "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public." ..."
'Deep State' Veterans find New Homes in Mainstream Media February 5, 2018
NBC News' hiring of former CIA Director John Brennan is the latest in a wave of intelligence
community stalwarts being given jobs in the media, raising concerns over conflicts of
interests, reports Caitlin Johnstone.
"Former CIA director John Brennan has become the latest member of the NBC News and MSNBC
family, officially signing with the network as a contributor," chirps a recent
article by The Wrap, as though that's a perfectly normal thing to have to write and not a
ghastly symptom of an Orwellian dystopia. NBC reports that the former head of
the depraved ,
lying, torturing ,
propagandizing , drug
trafficking , coup-staging , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency "is now a senior national security and intelligence analyst."
Brennan, who
played a key role in the construction of the establishment's Russia narrative that has been
used to manufacture public consent for
world-threatening new cold war escalations , is just the latest addition in an ongoing trend
of trusted mainstream media outlets being packed to the gills with stalwarts from the U.S.
intelligence community. Brennan joins CIA and DoD Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash on the NBC/MSNBC lineup, who is
serving there as a national security analyst, as well as NBC intelligence/national security
reporter and known
CIA collaborator Ken Dilanian.
Former CIA analyst and now paid CNN analyst Phil Mudd, who
last year caused Cuomo's show to have to issue a retraction and apology for a
completely baseless claim he made on national television asserting that
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is "a pedophile", is once again
making headlines for suggesting that the FBI is entering into a showdown with the current
administration over Trump's decision to declassify the controversial Nunes memo.
More and more of the outlets from which Americans get their information are being filled not
just with garden variety establishment loyalists, but with longstanding members of the U.S.
intelligence community. These men got to their positions of power within these deeply
sociopathic institutions based on their willingness to facilitate any depravity in order to
advance the secret agendas of the U.S. power establishment, and now they're being paraded in
front of mainstream Americans on cable news on a daily basis. The words of these "experts" are
consistently
taken and
reported on by smaller news outlets in print and online media in a way that seeds their
authoritative assertions throughout public consciousness.
The term "deep state" does not refer to a conspiracy theory but to a simple concept in
political analysis which points to the undeniable reality that (A) plutocrats, (B) intelligence
agencies, (C) defense agencies, and (D) the mainstream media hold large amounts of power in
America despite their not being part of its elected government. You don't need to look far to
see how these separate groups overlap and collaborate to advance their own agendas in various
ways. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, for example, is deeply involved in
all of the aforementioned groups : (A) as arguably the wealthiest
person ever he is clearly a plutocrat, with a company that is
trying to control the underlying infrastructure of the economy ; (B) he is a CIA contractor ; (C) he is part of a
Pentagon advisory board ; and (D) his
purchase of the Washington Post in 2013 gave him total control over a major mainstream
media outlet.
Bezos did not purchase the Washington Post because his avaricious brain predicted
that newspapers were about to make a profitable resurgence; he purchased it for the same reason
he has inserted himself so very deeply into America's unelected power infrastructure – he
wants to ensure a solid foundation for the empire he is building. He needs a potent propaganda
outlet to manufacture support for the power establishment that he is weaving his plutocratic
tentacles through. This is precisely the same reason other mass media-controlling
plutocrats are stocking their propaganda machines with intelligence community insiders.
Time and again you see connections between the plutocratic class which effectively
owns America's elected
government , the intelligence and defense agencies which operate behind thick veils of
secrecy in the name of "national security" to advance agendas which have nothing to do with the
wishes of the electorate, and the mass media machine which is used to manufacture the consent of the people to be
governed by this exploitative power structure.
America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money
increasingly
translates directly into political power , and which is therefore motivated to maintain
economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the economic
inequality, the greater their power. Nobody would willingly consent to such an oppressive
system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive drones are
showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda machine is
needed.
And that's where John Brennan's new job comes in. Expect a consistent fountain of lies to
pour from his mouth on NBC, and expect them to all prop up this exploitative power
establishment and advance its
geopolitical agendas . And expect clear-eyed rebels everywhere to keep calling it all what
it is.
Yeah, I noticed this too and it disgusts me. It doesn't surprise me, though. Ever since
Oliver North got his own show and has been a regular contributor at Fox News, this has been
the trend. CNN also gives plenty of Air Time to the disgraced John Dean of Watergate
Infamy.
It underscores how vital it is We The People take back The Media from the Corporate
Thieves who now own it. We need to reverse consolidation in the Media Industry and in fact,
reverse the trend of Media as an Industry.
Ol' Hippy , February 5, 2018 at 1:58 pm
There appears to be two types of media these days. The first type plays by the "rules" of
the corporate/banking/military state and gets prestigious jobs with all the perks, i.e. Nice
house, good salary, steady work, etc. The second type works independent from the power
structures. They have integrity; Robert Parry being a prime example. They also become media
pariahs. They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc.
Without them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank
goodness for these brave people.
They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc. Without
them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank goodness for
these brave people.
Yes, I agree. Thank goodness for the few of us who still remain and persist against all
odds with no support.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 10:48 am
The culture in DC being described recently as 'critters in the swamp', does not nearly
come close to describing the choking filth that has taken our government over. To be clear,
this coup toke place a very longtime ago, but don't announce that to any good red blooded
American Patriot, that is unless you want to be titled 'un-American'.
My hesitation to get excited over the 'Nunes Memo', is my frustration over what all is
missing from this Congressional members flaming Memo. Like where is Brennan, Clapper, or any
DNC Operatives, as if we should have expected the MSM to be mentioned? Why, just go after a
couple of cheating lovers?
Seeing Brennan join the NBC staff, is like watching him walk across the hall at Langley
only to start his mischief in another CIA department. I'd love to wish the old spook good
luck on his first day at his new job, but then that would be like condoning that pain be
inflicted upon more unsuspecting poor souls, so I won't.
Inserting guys like that into the center of the storm within the corporate media whose job
it *should* be to expose the truth to the public is clearly a conflict of interest (because
they themselves are prime suspects in the purported criminal activities) and obvious
obstruction of justice because we know they are actually snow-jobbing the public and hiding
the truth to protect themselves and their puppetmasters.
In all fairness, when does General Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page or Jared Kushner get
to have a regular segment on the Rachel Maddow show? Why doesn't the media interview Barack
Obama himself to find out what he knows and when he first knew it, or to force him into
self-incriminating or at least highly-suspicious obfuscations? It was his justice department
that targeted the Trump campaign on highly problematic grounds. Or, put a microphone in front
of Hillary's face and ask her how the administration (of which she was an organic outgrowth)
interfaced with the FISA court, allegedly on her behalf to spy on the competition.
This caper is not only worse than Watergate (Watergate was conducted in the shadows), this
crime and subsequent cover-up are being carried out in broad daylight with the full
complicity of the media. They don't care who knows because those people, regardless of their
substantiated facts, will never get a hearing in the media which now creates our
moment-to-moment reality, as far as 99% of Americans know or care about.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Our MSM is lacking the honor and truthfulness of Robert Parry.
Realist, I always like reading your comments, and with this comment of yours you don't
disappoint. I too would like to know when the truth will be broadcast over our airways, and
printed in our national news outlets. Although, I could watch the grass grow, or the snow
melt, and have better results to jump up and down about, before the MSM will shoot straight
with us viewers. I have come to the conclusion that what hurts our nation most, is we have to
much corporate control, like our infamous corporate owned MSM. These pundits, and news
anchors only do what they do best, and that is they promote themselves. I mean, the omissions
of facts, and the over the top characterizations of world leaders and national political
opponents goes to the degree of slander, and yet life goes on. I know it would be an
impossible task, but wouldn't it be great to if we news junkies could sue the MSM for
fraud?
Realist , February 5, 2018 at 8:44 pm
I could have been more strident than I was, Joe. I might have called the FISA court
outright illegal and unconstitutional like Jimmy Dore did yesterday. I mean, what the hell is
its role in America today? It serves as a SECRET COURT which gives permissions to
intelligence agencies to SPY without limits on any American citizen they choose to target,
including, apparently, their supposed boss, the president of the United States. As if the
carte blanch, full spectrum eavesdropping done by DARPA on every American weren't enough of a
violation of our constitutional rights, they have to dress up some of their spying with
special judicial privilege. Useful tools like Brennan, Clapper, Mueller and Comey have been
justifying or fallaciously LYING about this imposition on our citizens for years now.
Remember when the KGB was disbanded and folks were publicly rooting through the files in a
carnival atmosphere after the Soviet Union collapsed? This country needs a dose of the same
thing. We need more of our freedoms back and less of the so-called "order" imposed by the
Deep State and its string pullers. I don't believe for a moment that the Russians, the
Chinese, ISIS, Al Queda, Kim Yung-Un, the Ayatollahs or a squadron of Klingon battle cruisers
are waiting just outside our borders preparing to attack the United States and we all must be
defended by the "Intelligence Community" by living like Winston Smith.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 9:57 pm
The U.S. is so shallow at even their attempting to address its citizens with the
appropriate truth, that after 50 years to prepare for the public more information on the JFK
Assassination that when the time come the government wasn't even ready for the release. What
an insult to the nation.
The purge you spoke of Realist is a dream in this purist eye. I really do welcome a much
broader investigation of panoramic proportions of our nation's massive bureaucracy, and the
discovery of the elements who only conspire to enact their agendas could then be exposed.
You are right about our freedoms. We Americans are in the end going to need to put our
foot down to our governments police state rules, and all of us will need to brave it out when
going into public places. (Oh boy what false flag bate) At some point it will be necessary to
say, enough is enough, and hopefully catch them while at their game. Joe
Ps that last part I doubt will ever happen.
Gregory Herr , February 6, 2018 at 12:52 am
I think you touched upon something really important referring to the "moment-to-moment
reality" that media "creates". A big problem with television "news" and the funny papers is
the failure to.contextualize what's going on today with related events or issues–even
from the relatively recent past. It's almost always about a myopic and usually distorted
focus on just one particularly vexing item that generates competing opinions that must be
paired and parsed to death–until there's something else to "talk" about. Yeah, yeah!
Pick a team–partisanship is entertaining don't ya know! Rachel's got ratings and
Hannity's one of us!
Just one for instance:
Obama relaxed constraints on sharing of NSA raw data as a parting blow to privacy that also
makes it easier to "leak" and cover up the leaking. He signed a Countering Disinformation and
Propaganda Act which essentially is a way for government to make it harder to "counter" their
disinformation and propaganda. Google and Facebook are are all in on the filter and censor
project. Yet with all this and much more there isn't a peep of a national discussion about
the First Amendment and the value of protecting free and diverse expression. Oh, I know why.
The Court says money is speech so all the "important" people can buy their freedom of
expression. Guess that will leave me out.
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 11:16 am
Thank you Caitlin Johnstone!
I'm going to refer readers to an off-guardian article running now and specifically to the
comment pages where one can see Noam Chomsky's (as a young researcher) explain cointelpro.
This is an exceptional explination
Thanks, Caitlin. People need to learn more about Deep State and and also the One World
Order. There are lots of videos on the Internet, including some featuring former CIA
(whistleblower-type) agents who feel impelled to divulge the hidden government. Thanks for
your links, Bob. I'll take a look.
Erin , February 5, 2018 at 11:51 am
Don't watch, don't watch, don't watch!
Skip Scott , February 5, 2018 at 12:42 pm
Erin-
I agree. I think people need to turn off their TV sets. They are mind numbing. People like
Brennan belong in jail, not on television.
Nancy , February 5, 2018 at 2:24 pm
I don't think the majority of people are watching this crap anymore. It's mainly a bunch
of circle jerks mouthing off in an echo chamber. Problem is, the rest of the population is
either preoccupied with making a living or playing with their gadgets to find out what's
really going on. People seem to have given up on the idea of democracy, justice and fairness
and in a way I don't blame them.
It's kind of a curse to still have this notion that a better world is possible.
Good points. I agree. It's as though "The News" is intended for the Oligarchs and the
Political Class. The ads are a dead giveaway that's the target market. The products they are
selling are not for the Average Joe who can't afford such luxuries.
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Now finally for the most adventurous of you I'll introduce you to a man I discovered in an
agonizingly slow way over the course of years. His name is Carl Oglesby and as a young worker
at a defense industry job he started doing research on the Vietnam War. He ultimately wrote a
book called "The Yankee and Cowboy Wars" that surprisingly accurately describes our current
condition. It is one of those books long out of print worth thousands of dollars in
resale.
I will post a link to Spartacus
Educational below but you can find it on your own..
I promise to now shut-up and listen
I saw that recent Mudd comment regarding President Trump = 13 months vs. Hoover Org. =
since 1908. The President needs to eliminate this agency. Then we can watch this asshole
cough up his spleen LIVE on t.v.! I guess these creatures have license to claim anything they
want and get away with it. His Assange accusation falls out of his mouth and gets repeated
endlessly. Then when the weak retraction occurs, it never gets the same press/traction and
the damage is already done.
Babyl-on , February 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Nothing particularly new here, this has been established practice for decades. What is new
about this issue and so many others now is that it is done openly, without any pretense that
there is a constitution. The Imperial institutions housed in the US now act openly for the
interests of an overarching transnational oligarchy.
Trump has destroyed the dominate narrative this is by far the deepest wound I have seen
the Empire receive. No one really believes Clapper any more – whether it is a plurality
or a majority is not the point, enough people don't believe them that the Empire has lost
control of the message. That is the source of their panic. Trotting out their apparatchiks
once worked and worked for decades but – "It's all over now baby blue."
Trump has exposed much of the ways things have been done behind the seines for many years
and unwittingly forced them into the open – this has been his biggest contribution to
the weakening of the Imperial structures. Leaving them naked in their policies of slaughter.
The Empire has nothing now but a huge military which it can't use without destroying
civilization so it goes around the world destroying countries and cities in its helpless
thrashing around slaughtering innocent people as it looses on every front. The last gasp of
Empire – kill them all if they will not submit. In its death throws the Empire will do
untold damage and create vast human suffering, it might very well destroy civilization with
its nuclear weapons rather that accept a place as one part of the human community not the
ruler of humanity.
Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is
showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good
thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is
still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from
the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and
Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires.
This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV
Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and
not a fully-scripted performance.
exiled off mainstreet , February 5, 2018 at 12:29 pm
Yankee media has degenerated into an echo chamber for the deep state structure. This is
just further proof of that salient fact.
No More Neos , February 5, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Maybe we should view this as a good sign that they need to "call in the National Guard"
for corporate media back-up reinforcements. The propaganda machine is sputtering and
sparking, overheated from working OT to push flimsy narrative, which only accentuates the
cartoonish spectacle of it all.
Neoliberalism rests on a fragile foundation of financial myths that are beginning to come
crashing down, aside from shooting itself in the foot in the 2008 crash. They had to admit
that:
Global banks are global in health and national in death. ~ Mervyn King
A growing number of economics students are demanding to be taught economic history and not
just neoclassical economics. Hayek, Friedman, Greenspan and the Apostles of Doublespeak in
the academic and corporate media realm have lost all credibility. Heterodox economists like
Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, Bill Mitchell and Stephanie Kelton are gaining popularity in
their blinders-off clarity of how the economy actually works, sans the political spin.
Even Russia and China have decided to not allow Monsanto to control the world's food
supply, have no desire to continue working with the IMF and World Bank and are wise enough to
see the futility in acquiescing to a unipolar world view. Ultimately, the US will be the
bigger loser by going it alone and not accepting the vast multipolar opportunities that
await, based on faulty principle. But that won't deter them from continuing provocations in
Ukraine, Venezuela (and other Latin American countries), etc., even though Western agenda's
neoliberal offerings are now considered to be an appalling joke internationally.
But this has been known for some time. It was just a matter of time before the "market
society" experiment crashed and burned:
"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and
their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl Polanyi,
1944
"In 1945 or 1950 if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's
standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the
insane asylum." ~ Susan George
Do not confuse the economic -- oikos nomia -- the norms of running home and community with
chrematistics -- krema atos -- the accumulation of money. ~ Aristotle
Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:50 am
Many thanks No More Neos. I was unaware of most of what you wrote. I have noted the names
that you mentioned and I will pay more attention to them. I do know of Michael Hudson and
admire his work.
It has occurred to me that there will be Rich academic histories written about the
organized management of subject matter by TPTB. See my Response To cmp below.
Re, The Deep State and the "media."Do: "Birds of a feather produce propaganda
together?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
December 25, 2015
Are the Corporate Media and Others Covering Up The Treachery of The War Criminals?
There is plenty of evidence that people in positions of power planned and plotted a number
of "illegal" wars [1] in "defiance of international law." Unfortunately, this information is
suppressed and censored in most of the corporate monopoly media. Instead we are fed
propaganda that attempts to disguise the truth, and covers up the massive human suffering
caused by the warmongering criminals of these 21st century war crimes. This has resulted in
the creation of millions of refugees, [1a] many soldiers dead and maimed, countries
destroyed, millions dead, children dead and contaminated, and the war criminals are FREE.
[2]
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2015/12/are-corporate-media-and-others-covering.html
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Thank you Stephan J. Here is a link that you provided from a Robert Parry piece.
If one goes through the commentary, you will see that comments have always been decent,
informative and educational on this truly wonderful site.
Man oh man I miss Robert Parry and F. G. Sanford where are you?
(Caitlin Johnstone you're our new leader, and apparently another fine journalist. Thank
You)
This article by Caitlin just helps me to be glad that I never bought cable TV. I didn't
realize how many former government criminals/ex-officials populated their polluted networks.
Former head spook Mike Morell on CBS doesn't seem like an anomaly any more. The hens are
fattening the foxes guarding the air and cable waves. No wonder those with little time, due
to work and family matters, know so little about what's actually going on.
j. D. D. , February 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Looks like the Obama/British connected warmongering intel agents have decided to eliminate
the "middle-men" (and women) and go directly on record. Rachel, Chris, Jim and Wolfe, your
jobs are in jeopardy, Not to be left out, I expect that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and perhaps
Mueller, are filling out their own applications right now.
, , February 5, 2018 at 2:45 pm
Johnstone tells it like it is. It's a pure pleasure to read her ripping out the guts of
the oligarchic monster creating our present deepening dystopia. Wouldn't it be nice if every
American could read her little piece, and think about what it says? Maybe I can get a few of
my friends to read it. You have to start somewhere to wake people up. If enough of us gently
encourage our friends to take a brief dip into reality, who knows what might come from
it?
Realist , February 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm
Mainstream liberal pundits used to talk like this, blasting the privileged insiders
"feeding at the trough" and such. Now they have become just a bunch of crybaby spoilers and
haters because their push for power via the Hildebeast movement came crashing down. If they
can't have it, they'd rather break it. They couldn't beat the warmongering neocons or the
rapacious neoliberals, so they joined 'em. They became what they always professed to
hate.
Their followers, being just mindless tribalists rather than the perspicacious philosophers
they are told they are, leap in lockstep over the precipice. They can never give you a
coherent or logical reason why, just vapid slogans usually diametrically at odds with any
real truth. All that matters to them is receiving daily affirmation from their fellow ranks
of sloganeering nincompoops. In their newfound McCarthyism they've morphed into the lost boys
from "Lord of the Flies" who went so far as to kill Piggy, Piggy's counterpart being Al
Franken and his career as a champion of liberal causes in the U.S. senate.
But, in a world where one can purportedly choose any identity one pleases with no basis in
reality, these self-immolations merely win accolades from the right-thinking media clerics as
society in general goes into a death spiral. Living the "theatre of the absurd" has become
the new "American way of life." Now, if we could just quickly get out of the way of the rest
of the world, things might turn out all right for the rest of humanity. Unfortunately,
they've designed an "app" to prevent that, it's called the MIC, and it's not user
friendly.
We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It
has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by
emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input.
Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort,
and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt
that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.
It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and
Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies
makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But
most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths
of the propaganda.
Chris , February 5, 2018 at 3:43 pm
"America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money
increasingly translates directly into political power, and which is therefore motivated to
maintain economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the
economic inequality, the greater their power. " This is backwards. The elite does not create
economic injustice to maintain and solidify their power for then there would have been no
French, Russian, Cuban, Chinese revolutions. The capitalist system leads to economic
injustice because it steals unpaid labour power from the working class and puts into the
hands of the capitalists. The reason they keep wages lower is to increase the rate of profit
not to keep power thought they try to hold on to the power to maintain that system. And the
more that inequality is produced the weaker they become because the working class then
realises it has nothing to lose and revolts. This is basic marxism which the writer seems to
be unaware of. The greater the economic inequality, the greater the distress of the working
class is and greater the motivation to change their condition.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Chris – you are right, conditions must be favorable for any action to take place. It
is when the crowd gets a taste of fear that they move.
Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 7:02 pm
Cold, you may know that the original use of the term "American Exceptionalism" was
Stalin's description of how the USAmerican working classes seem incapable of revolting
against capitalist exploitation, no matter how egregious it becomes. We are "the exception"
to Marx's theories about the tipping points for revolutions.
cmp , February 5, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Just what does democracy look like to these cowards who sell prejudice, discrimination,
hate and violence?
Here is an example of how much they think of their (our) own kids, if they even dare to
speak to the teachers & preachers:
On May 2nd 1970, Governor James A. Rhodes (R-OH), says of student protesters at Kent State
University:
"They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and
the vigilantes. They're the worst kind of people we harbor in America. I think that we're up
against the strongest, well-trained, militant revolutionary group that has ever assembled in
America. We're going to eradicate the problem, we're not going to treat the symptoms." Two
days later, on May 4th, National Guardsmen kill four unarmed students on the Kent State
campus and wounded nine others.
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009
On May 5th 1970, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) says of the efforts to stop student
protests on university campuses:
"If it takes a bloodbath, then let's get it over with.."
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009
.. And, 10 years later, in 1980, America elected who??
Who will the sellers offer up in 2024? Are we closing in on the end of the era of the
puppet?
Perhaps it will be a pro. (with media experience on the resume, to boot) .. A John
Brennan-ite?
If there is a hell, then certainly there must be a special spot reserved for those who are
the worst of the guru's in greed. But, in the meantime, for America's own good, maybe someday
soon, the International Community will close Guantanamo.. .. And, do all of the citizens of
the planet a great justice by reopening it in the middle of the Mohave Desert. These cowards
that corporatize & commercialize prejudice, discrimination, hate and violence, they can
be the honorary members. And since it is they who have long killed their conscience, then
maybe that desert heat will serve as a small reminder for what a little heat really feels
like.
Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:31 am
I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this
combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a
truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and
Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which
now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers
they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically
defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong
reasons".
cmp , February 6, 2018 at 4:43 pm
Bob, "Thank You!" I have made a note to look for Lansdale, Carl Oglesby, and now Seth
Rosenfeld. All of this I know, will be such great reading for me!
I also sent you some follow up on the 28th. Did you receive those two? Would you like for
me to send them again?
I look forward to all of your posts – Keep up all of your great work Bob!
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Sean Hannity on Fox is doing a stellar job of exposing the Department of Justice, FBI, and
all of the other characters re the Steele dossier and Russiagate. Every night more
information is revealed; it's like a spy novel. None of the other outlets are even talking
about this stuff. Crickets. If you want the latest on criminality, go there. Meanwhile, Zero
Hedge says:
"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a
criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is
being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information
about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public."
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid Steele for his dossier. But the FBI also
hired Steele, and just before they paid out $50,000.00 to Steele for his work, they
discovered he lied, didn't pay him, but still continued to spy on Trump and his team. With
Steele's dossier now discredited in the eyes of the FBI, they should have stopped their
spying, but they didn't. Russiagate has been based on this Steele dossier, and yet there was
"no there there", and the DOJ and the FBI knew it.
Zero Hedge goes on:
"Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from the
State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with 'a friend
of the Clintons.'
'It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility,' Grassley and Graham wrote in their criminal referral."
So Steele was receiving information from the State Department and a friend of the
Clinton's? How impartial is that?
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
~ The Bard
The Reality TV Show Presidency has great ratings.
Do you think Nikki Haley got the red rose? Apparently Michael Wolf, the author of "Fire
and Fury," is backing down on that bit of salacious gossip "news."
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Daniel – and a line I like to quote from Shakespeare applies so well to the
Clinton's:
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:36 pm
John Brennan – "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." That
guy is evil, and nothing good will come of this.
Mark Thompson , February 5, 2018 at 8:13 pm
Really happy to see Caitlin writing on this forum. Keep up the good work Caitlin. You'll
never be short on material to write about. If what we're witnessing in this point in time is
any barometer, we're in for a world of hurt. Orwell is in his grave wishing he had two more
hands. He has to choose whether to cover his eyes or ears. What a sad state of affairs
Lois Gagnon , February 5, 2018 at 11:18 pm
It becomes more evident by the day that we live in a military dictatorship. One of the
incidents that brought this realization home to me was when John Kerry had negotiated a deal
with the Russians regarding military operations in Syria. The military took it upon
themselves to nullify that deal when it purposely attacked and killed 60 Syrian soldiers.
That was a clear case of insubordination that should have led to firings of the military
brass who ordered that strike. Instead, Obama just carried on as if nothing happened except
that the negotiated deal was null and void.
And of course the press said nothing about the blatant criminality of the military
action.
What president is willing to stand up to the military and the Department of Skullduggery
AKA the CIA anymore? Who is really calling the shots?
Thank you Caitlin! Good job! I especially like: "Nobody would willingly consent to such an
oppressive system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive
drones are showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda
machine is needed." I agree! NO ONE is "willfully ignorant". NO ONE chooses to be under the
influence of government mass mind control/propaganda. Mind control is something that is "done
to" people -- – whether the perpetrator is a psychopathic spouse or cult leader;
religious indoctrinator, military boot camp sargeant, and/or the voice of government control
of the media. Blaming victims of mind control for being mind controlled and therefore being
"willfully ignorant" is just another form of mind control used to discount the reality of
mind control.
This is all for the entertainment of the masses..... If you believe otherwise you are
foolish. Just because we are just seeing these texts, doesnt mean that Grandpa sessions hasnt
had them for months... And...... CRICKETS....
The absence of prosecutions will prove they were correct in their assessment that they
were/are above the law. No one is more above the law than Barack Obama and it does not matter
how complicit he was in all of this. Half the country worships him. With HRC, maybe 20% of
the population worships her but that's enough to give her immunity from prosecution too, not
to mention her assassins who will eliminate anyone who might pose a threat to her freedom. We
are not a country of laws, we are a country of fame and fortune. The more fame and fortune
you acquire, the more above the law you become.
I'm really stuck. Here's the deal: Comey and Co used the dossier to gat the FISA judge to
approve a warrant for spying on Page.
Check.
But why Page? Page was just a small fish who had already left the campaign. Besides, even
if they got dirt on Page, it probably wouldn't be sufficient to nail Trump (which is what
they really wanted). My guess is that Page just provides the first clue in a much bigger
criminal investigation that will uncover massive surveillance on people closer to Trump.
That, at least, would make sense. If they were just spying on Page, it doesn't make any
sense.
Were Samantha Power and Susan Rice using their connections with the NSA (and "unmasking")
to get secret electronic info on other Trump campaign members without even getting a FISA
warrant? How big is this thing and how widespread? Clapper MUST have a hand in this, and
maybe Brennan too.
The screw up and move up syndrome is alive and well. Brennan the DCI screw up is set to make
more bucks as a screw up. Brennan has been hired by NBC as an analyst.
"... On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, ..."
"... In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States. ..."
"... A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another "go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war." ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ..."
"... Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times ..."
"... On Strategy ..."
"... Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984 . Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971 , while Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976 . ..."
"... Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters ..."
"... Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new "mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize" Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones , planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce. ..."
"... The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting. None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side." ..."
"... Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment -- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." ..."
"... Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers again. ..."
"... "America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think? ..."
"... The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense. For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war. ..."
"... Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful. ..."
"... The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless war. ..."
"... The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military. ..."
"... The warhawk imperialists – some of them Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British Empire 2.0. ..."
"... No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their dependents, say. ..."
"... The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption. ..."
"... Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging, insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic. ..."
"... Wars fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there. Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep ask. ..."
"... According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. ..."
"... If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by refusing to participate. ..."
"... Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II. This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War -- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to the American republic. ..."
"... Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media and the university and private research establishments. ..."
"... That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the same. ..."
Vietnam: it's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.
A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and
still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a
century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the
previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business
intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese
government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides
of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a
North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans
in those years as the Vietcong.
More than two decades of involvement and, at the war's peak, half a million American troops
never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. Despite millions of Asian
deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam's military could not, in the end, hold the line
without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North
Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.
There's just one thing. Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the "orthodox"
school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior
American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far
cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most
disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.
The Big Re-Write
In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned
an article
for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral
dissertation on the Vietnam War. It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus's
impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war. Though
he did observe that Vietnam had "cost
the military dearly" and that "the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of
those who lead the services," his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared
to wage what were then called "low-intensity conflicts" and are now known as
counterinsurgencies. His takeaway: what the country needed wasn't less Vietnams but
better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better
job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such
wars.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he
and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers
devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very
conclusions to win the war on terror. The names of some of them -- H.R. McMaster and James
Mattis, for instance -- should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan,
Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice. Americans
-- and much of the rest of the planet -- still live with the results.
Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years
after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient
conflict. After all these decades, such "thinking" generals and "soldier-scholars" continue to
draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America's
second longest war.
Rival Schools
Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools
of revisionist thinking.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in
Vietnam.
The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century. Senior
commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have
translated that conflict's supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in
Washington. The
result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia
to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief
that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can
work now.
The Go-Big Option
The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam
War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy : A
Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military. It's
easy enough to understand why. Summers argued that civilian policymakers -- not the military
rank-and-file -- had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam
rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. More troops, more aggressiveness, even
full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have
led to victory.
Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic.
Later , he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay
in "draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences." In his own
work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians),
failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts
of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national
security interest of the United States.
Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war
encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you
know you never beat us on the battlefield." "That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it
is also irrelevant."
Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I
was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!)
A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser
H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of
Duty . He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give
President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that
"the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice." He concluded that
the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in
Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon's generals, which led civilian
officials to opt for a deficient strategy.
McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint
Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion
of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another
"go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed
out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation
of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war."
COIN: A Small (Forever) War
Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening
salvo for the hearts-and-minders. In The Army and Vietnam , published in 1986, he
argued
that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy's chief center of gravity and that
the American military's failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional
concepts of war sealed its fate. While such arguments were, in reality, no more
impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military
audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points
out , because they offer a "simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam."
Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairspiece , "How to Win
in Iraq," in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged
counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New
York Times 's resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating "discussion in
the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president."
In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War : The
Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam . Sorley boldly
asserted
that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his
comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S.
commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor,
General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have
been) a war winner.
Critics
noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals'
strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work. It didn't matter, however. By 2005,
just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American
occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley's book found
its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State
Department counselor Philip Zelikow. By then, according
to the Washington Post 's David Ignatius, it could also "be found on the
bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad."
Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl. (He even
made it
onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart .) His Learning to Eat Soup with
a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in
claiming that "if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the
start of the war, America might very well have won it." In 2006, the Wall Street
Journalreported that Army Chief of Staff
General Peter Schoomaker "so liked [Nagl's] book that he made it required reading for all
four-star generals," while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.
David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of
FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times -reviewed ) military field manual for counterinsurgency since
Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders. Nagl wrote a
foreword for their manual,
while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement .
Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had
filtered down to the entire officer corps.
Reading All the Wrong Books
In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed
to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps -- the military's primary tactical
headquarters -- he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a
professional reading list to his principal subordinates. To his disappointment, Daddis also
discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War . This
should have surprised no one, since his argument -- that American soldiers in Vietnam
were
denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors
-- was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the
military's fault!
Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual
guideposts to the complex challenges ahead. Indeed, there's much to be admired in the concept,
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire
generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have
been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to
reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.
Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers -- who spoke at my
West Point graduation -- included Summers's On
Strategy on his list. A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker
added
McMaster's Dereliction of Duty . The trend continues today. Marine Corps Commandant
Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the
illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war
criminal fame). Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and
added good
old Lewis Sorley. To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included
yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list , Krepinevich's
The Army and Vietnam .
Just as important as which books made the lists is what's missing from them: none of these
senior commanders include newer scholarship
,
novels , or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about
whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that
might highlight the limits of American influence and power.
Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam
Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War.
They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the
withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in
1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster in 1984 .
Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in
1971 , while
Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his
commission in 1976
.
In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror
entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia. That meant
they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so
the professional credibility that went with it. They were mentored and taught by academy
tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict.
Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era -- and it's never ended.
Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had
reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where
to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a
military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in
Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only
lead to twenty-first-century disasters .
From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War
All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam "lessons" inform the U.S. military's
ongoing "surges" and "advise-and-assist" approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and
Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the
Trump administration's version of global strategy. President Trump's in-house Clausewitzians
clamor for -- and receive
-- ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam
vet) Edward Meyer called for
back in 1983: "a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam." In other words, more
bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts' content.
Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have
spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70%
of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new
"mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the
deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the
stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was
there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize"
Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced
Trump that -- despite his original
instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or
6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more
drones ,
planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on
farce.
The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are
never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that
is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting.
None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington
couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who
flew
269 combat missions over that country) noted in the
recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side."
Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an
interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment
-- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ."
Eerily enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something
similar. speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down. Even as
President Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South
Vietnamese Army (ARVN) -- a process known then as "Vietnamization" -- the general warned
that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support "would be required indefinitely to
maintain an effective force." Vietnam, too, had its "generational" side (until, of course, it
didn't).
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parametersarticle
with a quote from historian George Herring: "Each historical situation is unique and the use of
analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous." When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of
officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), "dangerous"
hardly describes the results. They've helped bring us generational war and, for today's young
soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.
[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
The book that needs to be written is the one that explores the question, "Does this war need
to be fought by us?"
The guys running the show now were mid-grade officers when I served in the '80s. They know
we already were waging a war on terror, but it was a quiet one, e.g "low-intensity conflict,"
the kind that doesn't pump up budgets or put lots of ribbons and badges on the chests of more
than a few of them, much less punch the ticket for promotion.
The problem here is one of governance: Civilians who should be reigning in and questioning
the military leadership (including the senior civilian leadership at DoD and apparently
State) when it wants to take us on yet another foreign adventure seem instead to be be
captive to them, because the spoils of war accrue to their benefit via procurement in their
districts.
Vietnam and the GWOT are merely symptoms of a bigger problem.
BTW, re Vietnam: Vietnam went through its Communist phase, but in a rather short time came
back to pseudo-capitalism, much like China, so aside from nearly 60k US troops and a few
million Viets killed and 20 years of lost time, what did we gain from fighting there?
America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the
other way around.
Didn't US realize that it can win any war with bribes and trade?
Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow
open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers
again.
And Vietnam even has homo parades because it comes with more gibs and bribes.
They established a myth that we almost won in Vietnam but the politicians wouldn't let us
finish the job, claiming we never lost a battle in Vietnam. That is false, so I posted a list
of 104 "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War" that squashed this myth.
"America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so
much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think?
Thanks for that link. I agree, whitewashing those tragedies is a grave disservice to our
soldiers who had to fight in those conditions (how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes
if we can't even come to terms with what we did wrong?).
No the JCS initially said SE Asia was strategically a backwater and not worth the
concentrating of America's limited resources. But military high command were operating within
longstanding army protocols of subordinating the military to civilian policymakers. It was
the CIA's job to say whether the war could be won and they were always skeptical.
America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War makes clear who was responsible for
pressing for escalation and bombing in Vietnam, who was the optimist, and who continued to
insisted after it had finished that the war had stabilized a domino.
If one's fundamental image of the world is as a place full of Quislings, McCains and assorted
dual nationals; then it follows that one will be militarily a Coindinista. If only third
world citizens were like American pols and stayed bought, but they aren't and they don't. If
one's fundamental image is that it is a world full of nationalists, patriots and Churchills:
then the bomb them back to non-existence; then it follows that one is a Summer's soldier.
Unfortunately, if one wishes to debate other nuanced alternatives to this dichotomy; the
enemy gets to shoot first. A policeman walks a beat in his city because he is paid to do it,
the "world's indispensable policeman" is unnecessary to the rest of the world but inevitable
to himself.
The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense.
For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war.
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose
was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the
same.
It's also weird that the idea of Vietnam War as a missionary conflict is never discussed. The
colonial Vietnam & later South Vietnam government gave preference to christians in
governmental positions, bureaucracy & had a monopoly on education. The prevailing
narrative in the west, is that somehow christianity is better & that people flock to it
due to this, just like their ancestors did. Mosmaiorum.org/persecution_list.html
For example, the anti Buddhist discriminatory laws in Korea are never discussed, neither
is the flooding of Japan with bibles post ww2. In the present age you have missionaries
following closely behind the USA army & organizations like the US council on religious
freedom being headed by missionaries sic. soul vultures.
From that pov, if white nationalists cannot control the predatory instincts of 'their'
people nor disavow them by becoming Pagan; then, they deserve their fate & should expect
no support from outsiders. As others have remarked, tariffs & protectionism help accrue
capital as do socially conservative views. The pushing of free trade & social liberalism
on 2nd/3rd world countries is akin to kicking the ladder. It's probably in everyone's
interest for the Protestant west to collapse under Afro-Islamic demographic pressure so the
great clean up can begin. Tldr yes state power leads to liberalism & liberal views but,
if you view that as the legacy of your people, fuck your people.
we are deeply at odds. We did not lose the Vietnam conflict. I am confident that billions
of dollars have been spent drilling that myth into the minds of well everyone. I remember
being a young poli-sci student in KS. And as I listened to the lecture on Vietnam, did the
reading my conclusion was so distant from his as to cause me no small amount of turmoil. The
contention that we lost Vietnam is so counter to the data -- it makes the Twilight Zone look
like Gilligan's Island, the twists on reality are directionless -- but conclude we lost, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
I have another theory, the reason that Vietnam remains etched in the psyche is because the
analysis was political as opposed to what actually occurred. This kind of hyperventilated
self flagellating recriminations will distort truth. Perception over reality -- then becomes
self fulling history.
_________________
But to the point. The US has lost two wars: The war of 1812 and in my view, the Iraq
conflict -- no direct fault of those on the ground doing the fighting. And we may lose the
Afghanistan gambit. It's a loss because it fell apart during our occupation. The guerrilla
warfare (asymmetrics) was not the issues for that failure. The failure was in
1. unjustifiable cause
2. poor implementation
3. under resourced
4. an inability to maintain order among communities -- (1-3)
5. and just a lot of bad decisions
Trying compare Vietnam to Iraq is like trying compare a stone to water in similarity. You
might be able to some generic references and very tiny specifics, but overall: the
environment politically and strategically, just never mesh. We didn't invade Vietnam. They
had a functioning government. There were clear lines of who was who based on borders (I am
not ignoring the insurgency -- Vietcong, etc.
It was the cold war and unlike Iraq there were not six varying countries throwing a myriad
of combatants into the fray with varying agendas and varying religious convictions. Even the
physical environment demanded a different strategy, insurgents or no insurgents.
One has to plan for insurgent warfare as invading any country is bound to have those who
get the best defense is one of stealth when your foe is as large a target as the US was in
Iraq. But for all of the complaints about Counter-Insurgency the one that no one seems
willing to state is the simplest. Don't invade countries for which there is no clean or clear
motive to do so. It's that simple. There was never a need to invade Iraq, if anything we
should have readjusted our dynamic and began a process of easing sanctions for their aide in
countering terrorism.
There was no reason to invade Afghanistan -- even to distribute more bikinis and advance
killing children in the womb. We wanted twenty guys and instead we stirred a hornet's nest .
. . ok well, more than one.
Vietnam really was an act of selflessness, we wanted to shore up a small republic seeking
a different course to communism. It bolstered our own ideas against the grand schema of the
Soviet Union, rightly or wrongly. Now you are not the only one who has a gripe with
counterinsurgency.
And I think it's a debate/discussion worth having, and while it may be useful to examine
COIN as to Vietnam strategically -- I think it can be done minus the incorrect and yet
incessant sack cloth and ashes built on mountains of liberal psychological faux trauma as if
the trauma of war is somehow unique to Vietnam,. It is not. As you know war is a nasty filthy
business, best left alone. But on occasion one gets pushed into a fight as did S. Vietnam and
when that screw is turned -- well history is replete of the consequences, the waste, the
blood, the brokenness . . . The tragedy of war does not mean one loses a war.
How true! If only the US had recognized the power of man's baser instincts and did what
the US does best -- continue selling its culture of consumerism and hedonism, Vietnam would
have arrived at the point much sooner and with virtually no loss of life.
Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and
hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US
economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to
downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would
not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful.
I mean, the Korean war started just 5 years after WW2 ended. They could barely wait for a
new crop of boys to turn 18 and become cannon fodder. 50,000 in Korea right after the 300,000
in WW2.
When casualties became politically incorrect (after VietNam), the focus shifted towards
lengthy 'nation building', that was not meant to succeed, but just to cost a lot for a long
time. In theory, the Iraq War could have worked, IF the true objective was the installation
of a moderate regime in Iraq, coupled with no extended US occupation. But that was not the
true objective after all, so it did not work.
The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the
draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless
war.
Get rid of the draft and there will be no protests hell raised back home by people of
draft age–and their families and friends–who don't want to get drafted to fight
wars so colonels can become generals; Wall Street can make a killing on the killing and so
the Pentagon can try out its new 'gee-whiz' weapons in the field on actual people.
The next biggest lesson was that the media must be tamed and brought under control with
embedding, so they'll push the Pentagon's and Wall Street message of duty, honor, Mom and
apple pie onto gullible Americans, who now damn near get orgasmic when they see a
multi-billion dollar killing machine–the B-2–fly over the upcoming gladiator
battle in the newest billion dollar coliseum and go into the State-mandated 'Two Minutes
Hate' whenever they see or hear the word Muslim or Islam.
For the record, I did my time in the US Army with the 82nd Airborne.
So America worships Ares/Mars and doesn't expect the god of War to want to eat them too?
There shall be wars and rumors of wars .I so look forward to watching this love of war spread
itself from sea to shining sea.
Until the young wise up and realize that the military operations in other countries have
nothing to do with the freedoms we have here and that they're being used as fodder for the
investments that the MIC has in the companies that make the tools of war, we will keep having
this nonsense. The kids need to wise up. The government has at its disposal all it needs to
'win' if it wants to. But if you 'win' , the sales and manufacturing of the
goodies is curtailed. They'd rather send the kids into the meat grinder all pumped up
thinking they're 'preserving freedom' LOL!
Nice, thank U. I´d never before had figured out, never outlined such a precise
conceptual sight of the two still remaining American mindsets on HOW to win.
Yes, cause for them Amerika must obviously must always win. So there are two viewpoints, that
in plain clear English we citizens of the shitholin´ countries wherever -- express as
follows:
Yes, you say tariffs and proteccionism help accrue capital.
Have you got any objection against a large, populous but still poor country (like Nigeria,
Indonesia, India or Brazil) sticking to higher (though not sky high) tariffs and
protectionism to raise their production, their income and their living standards?
That was PRECISELY HOW the US, Uk, Germany and the Meiji era Japan, not to mention China
from 1949 to Chu enLai) acted and because of it rose the heights of the present status and
well being societies.
Yes, you naive repeater, let´s us first protect ourselves from the globalist wolves
and THEN, we can sit down and talk but from a firm solid position, not the other way round.
cut the frack! We southern people are fed up with that northern hemispheric sales talk
– it ´s so convenient to you – but the web exists and times change.
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
It's not just the generals. The whole idea of the state is to control the uncontrollable
in order to continue "growing". That's why we conducted Vietnam as we did and why we conduct
operations as we do all over the world. Rather than Total War that produces winners and
losers we are trying to keep a lid on behavioral sinks and modify behavior so that economic
"growth" can continue.
I am not advocating Total War, but I am predicting that horrible war is coming.
How many dead men will it take
To build a dike that will not break?
The Zionists have been the root cause of every war that America has been in since WWI and
right on through the wars in the Mideast and the wars in the Mideast were perpetrated by the
Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state attack on 911.
America is under Zionist control and if anyone doubts this, just remember Israel did the
attack on 911 and got away with and every thinking American knows that Zionist Israel did the
attack which killed 3000 Americans, that is control.
. . .supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy
Actually the US created the "Republic of Vietnam" within Vietnam, which was rather
unusual, and then fought Vietnam. The US grabbed a Christian out of a New Jersey seminary
(Ngo Dinh Diem) to run the Buddhist "country," that didn't help. More recently the US has
overthrown governments (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then fought the natives. Whatever, it
doesn't work. The citizens (AKA dissidents, insurgents, terrorists, etc.) so effected don't
want US troops in their countries, and who can blame them.
Why do credulous Americans read anti-war books written by war criminals? Only brainwashed
people support the troops. Most Americans hated soldiers after Vietnam. They had seen
soldiers raping wives and daughters, burning houses and huts and crops and wiping out entire
villages. They knew that men who agree to kill for a paycheck do other bad things like raping
and looting and then writing books about it later.
The cons put a stop to all those "incorrect" ideas American slaves had developed by
ramping up the propaganda in the 1980s. Movies kicked in and "learned" the zombies about the
wonderfulness of war and killing and how American soldiers kill with love in their hearts and
the tragedy of the boy baby killers left behind – probably by "communists in the US
Government."
The United States really had no business intervening
That's a, maybe "the," key concept. The US has always had enough internal problems
of its own to deal with and it should always have tended to its own interest first. Damned
know-it-all, brainless busybodies!
I suspect most of them would wise up if their elders did so first, and would teach 'em.
One of the most annoying sights to me is to see some ancient fart wearing some sign that he's
a vet. Even though I was once a sucker too, I always make it a point to remind them that we
had no business in whatever war they happen to be glorifying and still wallowing in. How old
does one have to be to get a clue?
Nothing quite says freedom like heavily armed soldiers on the streets demanding papers. Soon
the US will have the same situation, with the "freedom loving" Americans willingly
surrendering all their freedoms for "safety." Today the US government spies on everyone's
communications, conducts over 80,000 SWAT raids a year, locks over 2 million people in actual
slavery, and lets the cops execute people on the street. Nothing quite says Freedom when cops
can execute poor people without any repercussions. Nothing quite says Freedom when opiate
casualties in one year exceed the American total in Vietnam. Nothing quite says zombie when
Americans can't see the war that is being waged on them right now.
Is that true? The Military simply harvested the poors out of the hills, the South and
other rural areas the same way they would have drafted 'em. All the kids respond once the
Government offers them a way out of potential starvation and hopeless poverty. That's just a
better way to draft people, although they won't call it that.
The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of
them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General
Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military.
"The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century."
Apparently it is not close to clear. The warhawk imperialists – some of them
Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are
lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing
world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent
leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British
Empire 2.0.
"Because we are here to help the Vietnamese because inside every go*k is an American
trying to get out." Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'Middle Easterners' and 'gook' with 'Arab' or
'Moslem,' and you have the Neocon position. Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'the world' and replace
'gook' with 'dark skinned non-Christian' and place the word "liberal' before 'American,' and
you have the Liberal/Leftist position.
As a youth during that time it seemed like a strange idea that they were pushing. How could
Vietnamese be invading Vietnam? They already live there. The Americans had to travel
thousands of miles to prevent this. Years later I realize my youthful intuition was right;
Vietnamese can't invade Vietnam. This North-South dichotomy was just a made up propaganda
tool. The South was an artificial concoction set up by the West to divide someone else's
country. This question of how could we have won is absurd nonsense. What would 'winning' have
looked like? The South would just have been a multi-billion millstone around our neck.
The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump
that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops
(and yet more drones, planes, and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents
tragedy bordering on farce.
No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene,
there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle'
bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and
where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the
crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes
him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet
executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their
dependents, say.
[*] The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its
illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife
with corruption.
a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches
add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies
=====
It's a lot, and here I point for emphasis to all the citizens of the two named entities;
silence is acquiescence. Take a look at the result, not 'just' in Afghanistan but Libya,
Syria etc., the WC7in5 [fortunately not
yet Iran]; wherever the US/Zs deploy their 'hammers.'
In the fewest words: The US/Zs including their 'ordinary people' are all true monsters,
with the only exception being the actively objecting few.
Not so BTW, from the above [but not only] I conclude that there can be no 'god' –
for surely, any such would strike all the US/Z villains down.
Again a 'special case' for emphasis, the intellectuals and academics who really should
know better but where again, silence is acquiescence.
*Guilty, your honour; may they all hang by the neck until dead!* rgds
American sheep can't see war even though they are in one. What better weapon than to have a
group of writers spreading disinformation and colorful propaganda that revolves around
discrediting the other propaganda with falsehoods and romanticization of the war that came
before. Let's have yet another debate about the thing that happened half a century ago
because driving the flock in circles gets them no where closer to resistance.
Meanwhile the real war. If the financial crisis wasn't a terrorist attack because the
press never told you, what will you believe? If more men and women die in one year because of
opiates than in the entire Vietnam effort, will the real owners tell you in their newspapers
that they do it because they want to win?
I think the kids are more pumped up with college tuition, VA health , a chance to learn a
civilian applicable skill , citizenship and something to do other than competing with illegal
Indios for low wages.
Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a
complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging,
insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of
civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation
of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic.
The Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese
communists, who were not amenable to letting people decide for themselves what political
system they chose to live under. They wanted "the whole pie". The South Vietnamese and
American military fought courageously, with one hand tied behind their backs, as they were
not permitted to attack the supply lines, logistics and staging areas of the North Vietnamese
communists. The American news media played a large part in the sympathetic attitudes they had
towards the communists, taking every chance to denigrate American and South Vietnamese
troops, a prime example was communist sympathizer Walter Cronkite reporting that the 1968
"Tet offensive" was a "major loss" for Americans and south Vietnamese, despite it being a
total slaughter of North Vietnamese communists and the Viet Cong. In fact, the Viet Cong
operating in the South were almost all totally decimated.
Yes, the final result of the Vietnam war was communist control, BUT, it was not due to the
efforts of South Vietnamese and American troops. The Vietnamese "boat people" who risked life
and limb to escape that communist "paradise" have a totally different story to tell, but
which had been rarely reported. Ken Burns is a communist sympathizer whose "documentary" on
the Vietnam war was so one-sided, even the communists admitted that his whole premise on the
Vietnam war was one-sided and false. Communist sympathizer Ken Burns inadvertently "let it
slip" that "re-education" by the communists was not a "six month deal" (as he claimed) in
which those in positions of power in South Vietnam would be "re-educated", but were actually
prisons, in which "enemies of the (communist) state were to be interned for as long as 20
years. It is interesting to note that the communists could not exert the same harsh level of
control as was the case in the North, to the people in the South.
Apparently unfamiliar with my long and detailed discussions here and at TAC about the
Vietnam War. I don't think you will find a single suggestion in mt two or more years of
discussion on Vietnam , that it was a civil war -- it was not. In every way, the North
Vietnamese were the aggressors. And if anyone looking at the political issues and objectives
of what happened in Vietnam – those who protested got nearly every aspect about Vietnam
wrong, nearly every contention they make was predicated on the incorrect information, except
one.
war is a nasty filthy affair in which a lot hoes wrong – because that is part and
parcel to the nature of war so many moving pieces on so many potential unpredictable planes.
The entire enterprise is best avoided, but sometimes as in the case of S. Vietnam, you are
left little choice but to defend yourself. Boys and girls afraid to fight screaming "Give
peace a chance" at the defenders like pushing a drowning men under the waves and telling him
all he need do is swim.
You are preaching to the choir and the preacher.
I am going to avoid rehashing the conflict, I think the data sets are on my side in tons.
But I think the authors intentions are to really dismantle the cadre and their advocacy of
COIN. Given that the current President has reneged on his campaign agenda to avoid needless
wars violating the territory of others to regime change. The issue of counter insurgency is
relevant. Because it looks like we are in for more than we bargained for. No doubt, SAS, the
French Legionaries, CIA and a spec ops contingents are pre-prepping for insurgencies of our
own.
A brief look suggests that the only effective response to counter insurgency is
intelligence and brutal response. though intended to suggest finesse, in the end -- it's root
them out and destroy them. I think this is one those the cure is worse than the illness,
because without indigenous support for your political and strategic goals in country --
brutal reprisals eventually reignite acts of terror as a means of self defense.
What are you a troll playing the same old broken record spewing forth the same old line,
for there was a vote coming up by the Geneva Accord, to decide just what kind of government
the two Vietnam's wanted, a vote that would'nt go the way we wanted thus the false flag to
get us involved.
FDR had made a deal with Ho that if they would rise up and drive out the Japs that Vietnam
could choose their own destiny, colonialism was dead he said, well until that little man in
the to big a house got into office and then once again America's word wasn't worth a mouth
full of warm spit and its never changed
Today's officer corps would spare us all a great deal of cost, blood and grief and we
Americans would all do much better if the cadets', midshipmen's, officer candidates' and
officer corps' reading list began with the Bernard Fall book Rue Sans Joie .
Rand? American Conservative? Tom's Dispatch? All fake news for the sheep, i.e COIN. If
people want change, they have to refuse to cooperate. That means no voting. Voting means you
agree with the basic trends and just want to tweak the system. All of us have gotten cheated
by the Government all of our lives. Destruction of schools so people can't learn. Wars
fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there.
Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their
parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep
ask.
The religious aspect of the Vietnamese CIVIL WAR is overlooked by the senile VFW geezers
posting here. The patriots were mostly Buddhists the quislings were mostly Catholics
(inherited from the French). In between perving little kids, American Cardinals and Bishops
demanded even more war and Vietnamese blood. The bloodthirsty homo, Cardinal Spellman, would
even visit the troops in person and exhort them to create more carnage and mayhem.
According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million
Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. The role of the vile
bloodthirsty Homo Cult of the Seven Hills has been mostly overlooked.
Note, I list of sites is not definitive. There are articles critical and article
supportive of COIN. Some articles are just descriptive of what COIN means. COIN has been a
subject of a good deal of debate for a very long time. Most articles are from TAC because
that is the site I most frequently read and comment. And as Dr. Unz will tell you, they
invite a host of articles by a host of authors -- with varying view points.
About Rand, they are one of the most noteable contributors to government policy via
research and while one may not appreciate their advocacy, it's not a bad idea to read what
they are presenting on issues, in this case COIN. Even considering broad definitions of fake
news -- it is unlikely that Rand would be included as such an outlet.
One of the advances launched in the late sixties -- forward was that Vietnam was a MIC
windfall and in fact manufactured by the MIC.
I don't think there is much evidence of that. Pres Johnson and most of the leadership
actually saw it as a case for democracy against the Chinese, the Soviets -- etc. You are not
going to be able to escape the private sector profiting from war. Sure had democracy and
capitalism actually won the day , I don't think there is any question money would have been
made -- capitalism is a very healthy system -- if operated minus manipulation/unfair
dealings. But that is not unique. One does business where business is. but cold war strategic
aims made money for lots of people -- that doesn't deny that there was actually a system of
proxy engagements for democracy and communism.
I am not a member of the VFW. I don't drink and have never been drunk. There was drug use
how prevalent it was is unclear. not enough to prevent mission readiness, it appears.
A lot has been made of fragging, but if you can find the numbers -- The evidence is very
sparse that this practice was anywhere close to a staple. Here's an estimate 800 such
incidents attempted. But given that there are only about 13 confirms that estimations is
suspect. Some 3 million service members service in Vietnam that's a percentage of
0.026666666666% attempted. The actual number of men who died as the result of fragging
0.0005% and i used the highest number of fifteen actuals.
There were tragic incidents of mass killings, but those two were rare. The next series of
complaints are hard to quantify -- but suffice it to say, whatever the complaints -- when
push came to shove the US service member repeatedly got the job done. And contrary to your
comments, the process of the US withdrawal is well documented. More than anything, they
secured a line of defense, and the situation at home was the most pressing. There is no
evidence that the US ran from the battle field.
OI think the evidence is clear that we should maintained support via air and sea power to
ensure the victory was maintained on behalf of the S. Vietnamese who fought and died to
defend their country. kudos to the Aussie's for their loyal support.
If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could
have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees
and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by
refusing to participate.
Money's made fighting wars not winning them. 1945 was the last time the US made the
mistake of winning a war, and may not have made that one had Russia not been on the verge of
invading and occupying Japan, thus forcing the US into bringing the war to a close.
Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II.
This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe
Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War
-- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to
the American republic.
Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not
only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media
and the university and private research establishments.
Tom Jefferson thought periodic revolution against wealth and authority was desirable to
keep these bastards in check. Which implies that he figured they would inevitably get us by
the throat down on the floor from time to time.
I don't think that you understand at all the history of the USG involvement in
VietNam–an act of selflessness??? What a crock.
The entire foreign policy of the united states has been controlled by the
military/industrial/security/espionage etc etc complex since, at least, the end of WWII. that
group doesn't really care about victory–on going conflict somewhere is the only goal.
Personally, I doubt that the USG has ever committed a selfless act in it's entire history.
VietNam was just one stop in a long line of USG aggression.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in
the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did.
LOL.. True enough. Yet an assortment of "Church of Rambo" true believers in civilian life,
including several here on Unz, continue to insist that that the US never lost the war, hell,
never even lost a battle -- claims all debunked by credible historians and military men who
fought there.
the vast majority of senior American military officers do not. Instead, they're still
refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the
scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in
the Greater Middle East.
The weakness of the piece is that you don't say exactly which Vietnam approach today's
generals are following. Are they doing the "big battalions" approach of Westmoreland's
"search and destroy"? Are they doing the "Expanding Inkblot" of Marine General Krulak,
Sorley's "Better war", or John Paul Vann's "Hearts and Minds"?? You say these are all things
from Vietnam but exactly which one is in place, and why is it losing?
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only
purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just
more of the same.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in
Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his
favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to
win the war on terror.
Again questionable. Petraeus had the correct approach to counter the previous "lets just
invade and beat Saddam" approach of Rumsfeld. Rummy's "lean force" package backed by almost
unlimited air power was enough to win the conventional struggle but was woefully short of the
numbers needed for occupation and pacification. Same thing happened to Hitler in the Balkans.
Initial smooth success, grinding guerrilla attrition for years afterward.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have
won in Vietnam.
"Winning" by 1972 did not contemplate victorious US troops marching into Hanoi, or total
abandonment of the field by PAVN/VC but a better final political settlement enabling the
southern regime to survive, and/or a "decent interval" for the US to save face.
n 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of
America's Last Years in Vietnam. Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, "the
fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his comforting tale, the real
explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S. commander General William
Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams --
Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have been) a war
winner.
You are misrepresenting Sorley's full argument somewhat. Sorley did not envision or claim
that there would have been any sweeping US victory with US troops marching into Hanoi, or
that the VC/NVA would flee and abandon the struggle. A big part of his argument is for "a
better war" – that is- the end game of which inevitably would be a BETTER NEGOTIATED
SETTLEMENT. Sorley knew quite well that the VC would not disappear (their political apparatus
was still in place) and that the NVA would not simply pack up and return north. Sorley's book
"A Better War" contemplates a BETTER FINAL POLITICAL SETTLEMENT as part of the bottom line,
not US troops marching triumphantly into downtown Hanoi, as PAVN armies scurried away into
the jungle.
To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included
was Sorley's A Better War. This should have surprised no one, since his argument –
that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian
policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors – was still resonant among the
officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the military's fault!
Keep in mind that Daddis wrote a book on the Vietnam War called 'No Sure Victory' in which
he pins US failure on not being versed ENOUGH on hearts and minds counterinsurgency war,
hence the reliance on massive and unworkable statistical and reporting systems of
"progress."
"The army's unpreparedness for counterinsurgency in the early 1960s surely encouraged
this confusion. Conventional officers had little experience in developing a
counterinsurgency reporting system and applying it within a larger strategic context.. So
it was for the U.S. Army in Vietnam. Insufficiently versed in the mysteries of
counterinsurgency, officers turned to statistics to assist them in measuring and reporting
progress and effectiveness. Statistics, though, bred more statistics, and the MACV
headquarters soon became awash in a flood of numbers, facts, and figures."
–Daddis, No Sure Victory
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of
an entire generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The
generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were
essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful
and unending wars.
You are barking up the wrong tree somewhat. Daddis laments reading list limitations as far
as Iraq, but the reading list did not make any difference given 3 issues:
(a) the decision to go to war in Iraq, when it was not necessary
(b) the woefully inadequate number of troops provided the commanders for conquest and
occupation and
(c) the cavalier, careless nature of planning for postwar Iraq.
What was or was not on the reading list is of limited impact given these 3 big realities
the civilian leadership saddled commanders with.
As is now becoming the way as the Russiagate scandal unravels, confirmation of the collapse of one of its
central pillars – the claim of proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which some have
claimed to see in the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – has slipped out in the most covert way possible.
Nonetheless the confirmation is there and originates in what all the indications suggest is a deliberate
leak either from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team or from the White House's legal team.
The confirmation is provided in an NBC News
article
which reads as follows
Two sources familiar with the questions Mueller's team have been asking about the meeting say the
investigators are most interested in why the president crafted a misleading statement about the meeting
much later, in July 2017, after a New York Times report about it. The sources say Mueller's office is
trying to confirm every detail it can about the meeting.
Mueller's team is less interested in the meeting as a direct example of collusion, the sources said,
although Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after being told he would receive incriminating information about
Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government effort to help his father.
No evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya's account that she wanted to press a case
about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about
Clinton, despite the email from a music promoter to Trump Jr. promising incriminating details about the
Democrat.
Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian
intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The issue of Donald Trump's supposedly misleading statement about the meeting is a red herring since it
can have no possible connection to the collusion allegations which Mueller's inquiry is supposed to be
investigating.
Even assuming that Trump's statement was misleading – which some might question – it would hardly be the
first case of a US President making a misleading statement, and it is impossible to see how it can possibly
give rise to a law enforcement issue for Mueller to investigate.
Of much more importance is the confirmation that Mueller's team now acknowledge that there is no evidence
to connect Veselnitskaya to Russian intelligence and that her and Donald Trump Junior's accounts of their
meeting must be accepted as true since there is no evidence to contradict them.
In truth this was obvious from the start as I pointed out in an
article
I wrote on 12th July 2017, written immediately after details of the meeting came to light
The meeting with Veselnitskaya duly took place on 9th June 2016. It turned out that she had no
information about Hillary Clinton to offer and was not a "Russian government attorney". Instead she
wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, upon which a baffled Donald Trump Junior politely showed her the
door.
That is the unanimous account of all the participants of the meeting including Donald Trump Junior and
Veselnitskaya herself. All agree that the meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes.
There is no evidence that contradicts their account and the absence of any follow-up to the meeting
essentially corroborates their account.
It seems that Donald Trump Junior and Veselnitskaya have never met since and have had no further
contact with each other.
There is
no
evidence here of any crime or wrongdoing being committed or –
contrary to what many are saying – of any intention to commit one.
Russiagate would not however be Russiagate if this important news that Mueller and his team have come to
the same conclusion was not smuggled out in an NBC News article whose title gives the impression that it is
about the totally meaningless fact that Veselnitskaya after leaving the meeting with Donald Trump Junior had
a brief encounter in the lift of Trump Tower with a blonde woman who might – or might not – have been Donald
Trump's daughter Ivanka.
To such ridiculous lengths to conceal embarrassing truths about Russiagate is the media in the US
increasingly reduced to.
Though the Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior meeting is now being finally acknowledged to be the red herring it
always was, there is one further point about it to make.
In my 12th July 2017 article I speculated that the meeting might have been a sting intended to
corroborate the collusion allegations between the Trump campaign and Russia which were to achieve written
form in the first 20th June 2016 entry of the Trump Dossier, written a few weeks after the
Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior took place.
What led others subsequently to speculate along the same lines was that there appeared to be a connection
between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the political consultancy firm which commissioned the Trump Dossier on
behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It turns out that Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS but rather Fusion GPS was working for her,
in connection with her work on the Magnitsky case.
That in itself makes it inherently unlikely that she was acting as a catspaw for Fusion GPS when she met
Donald Trump Junior.
More to the point, Glenn Simpson's comments about Veselnitskaya are anything but complimentary. He
basically describes her – rather convincingly – as a self-important busybody and a minor league player, and
expresses incredulity at the suggestion that she was a Russian intelligence agent who was working for the
Kremlin.
Simpson's characterisation of Veselnitskaya in testimony in which he strongly promotes the Russiagate
collusion allegations and vouches for the truth of the Trump Dossier makes it all but inconceivable
Veselnitskaya was involved in a sting to set Trump Junior up.
Despite taking place at a time when the Trump-Russia collusion allegations were about to take off,
Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump Junior must instead be seen as one of those annoying coincidences which
lawyers, journalists, policemen and the public automatically distrust, but which happen in real life.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to
keep and bear arms... and, as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou writes, according to California Congressman Adam Schiff, those pesky Russians are
using bots to promote the second amendment with an ultimate goal of having Americans"'kill each other."
Once again, another brilliant plan hatched by Putin... good thing Schiff caught on to it and can now begin
seizing American's guns so as to thwart Russia's evil plan.
On Thursday Democrat Schiff spoke to a crowd at the University of
Pennsylvania, where the TDS – "Russia hysteria virus" infected Schiff told the crowd Russian ads promoted the
Second Amendment during the 2016 election "so we will kill each other."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Thursday that Russia promoted content that supported the Second Amendment on
social media during the 2016 election because they wanted Americans to kill one another.
This outline is the story of how the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were weaponized. This
outline is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is currently working to expose. This outline exposes the
biggest political scandal in U.S. history. This outline is also the story of how one man's action likely saved our constitutional
republic.
His name is Admiral Mike Rogers.
I'm calling the back-story to the 2016 FISA 702(16)(17) political corruption by the Obama administration "Operation Condor". Those
of you familiar with the film " Three Days of The Condor
" will note how the real life storyline almost mirrors the Hollywood film. For the real life version, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
plays the role of "Condor".
Mrs. Lisa Barsoomian is an attorney; but most importantly is that she is the wife of Rod
Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice.
Prior to
that, he served as the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. Surely you don't
want to read about that, therefore check out the 5 facts we found about Mrs. Barsoomian
Rosenstein
50-year-old Mrs. Barsoomian was born on January 15, 1968. She is the daughter of Armenian
immigrants. Together they have two beautiful daughters; Julie, 18, and Allison, 15.
She graduated from Georgetown Law. Moreover, according to reports, she represented Hillary
Clinton, between 1991 to 2017; she also represented Bill Clinton, James Comey, Barack Obama,
Kathleen Sebellius and Robert Muller. Furthermore, Lisa Barsoomian Rosenstein works for R.
Craig Lawrence.
R. Craig Lawrence helped seal Obama's college records to prevent inquiry into his
application for full scholarship as a foreign exchange student.
All signs point to, and roads
lead to that NeoCon-infested Nest Of Vipers know as the USSA State Dept...
a cabal of ISISrael Firsters that will stop at no subterfuge , no
slander, no dissimulation, no criminal undertaking to stoke THEIR
Wars For A Greater ISISrael
... even if it means removing a sitting
President to get the job done as fast as Hillary most assuredly
promised her "sponsors"... and even if it means igniting World War 3
blaming Russia.
In the period preceding the World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would
soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended?
Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace,
progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue
indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter,
revolution, and brutal ideologies?
The answer is, probably very few, just as few people today care much about the details of
international and security affairs. Normal folk have better things to do with their lives.
To be sure, in that bygone era of smug jingosim , there was always the entertainment
aspect that "our" side had forced "theirs" to back down in some exotic locale, as in the
Fashoda incident
(1898) or the Moroccan
crises (1906, 1911). Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 seemed less a harbinger of the
cataclysm to come than local dustups on the edge of the continent where the general peace had
not been disturbed even by the much more disruptive Crimean or Franco-Prussian wars.
Besides, no doubt level-headed statesmen were in charge in the various capitals, ensuring
that things wouldn't get out of hand.
Until they did.
A notable exception to the prevailing mood of business-as-usual, nothing-to-see-here-folks
was Pyotr Durnovo, whose remarkable February 1914
memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II laid out not only what the great powers would do in the
approaching general war but the behavior of the minor countries as well. Moreover, he
anticipated that in the event of defeat, Russia, destabilized by unchecked socialist
"agitation" amid wartime hardships, would "be flung into hopeless anarchy, the issue of which
cannot be foreseen." Germany, likewise, was "destined to suffer, in case of defeat, no lesser
social upheavals" and "take a purely revolutionary path" of a nationalist hue.
When the great powers blundered into war in August 1914, each confident of its ability
speedily to dispatch its rivals, the price (adding in the toll from the 1939-1945 rematch) was
upwards of 70 million lives. But the cost of a comparable mistake today might be literally
incalculable – if there's anyone left to do the tally.
During the first Cold War between the US and the USSR, there was a general sense that a
World War III was, in a word, unthinkable. As summed up by Ronald Reagan: " A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be
fought ." Then, it was understood that all-out war, however it started, meant massed ICBMs
over the North Pole and the "
end of civilization as we know it ."
'The 2018 NPR has a vision of nuclear conflict that goes far beyond the traditional
imagery of mass missile launches. While ICBMs and manned bombers will be maintained on a
day-to-day alert, the tip of the nuclear spear is now what the NPR calls "supplemental"
nuclear forces – dual-use aircraft such as the F-35 fighter armed with B-61 gravity
bombs capable of delivering a low-yield nuclear payload, a new generation of nuclear-tipped
submarine-launched cruise missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles tipped with a
new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads. The danger inherent with the integration of
these kinds of tactical nuclear weapons into an overall strategy of deterrence is that it
fundamentally lowers the threshold for their use. [ ]
'Noting that the United States has never adopted a "no first use" policy, the 2018 NPR
states that "it remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding
the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response." In this regard, the NPR
states that America could employ nuclear weapons under "extreme circumstances that could
include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks." The issue of "non-nuclear strategic
attack technologies" as a potential precursor for nuclear war is a new factor that previously
did not exist in American policy. The United States has long held that chemical and
biological weapons represent a strategic threat for which America's nuclear deterrence
capability serves as a viable counter. But the threat from cyber attacks is different. If for
no other reason than the potential for miscalculation and error in terms of attribution and
intent, the nexus of cyber and nuclear weapons should be disconcerting for everyone. [ ]
'Even more disturbing is the notion that a cyber intrusion such as the one perpetrated
against the Democratic National Committee and attributed to Russia could serve as a trigger
for nuclear war. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The DNC event has been
characterized by influential American politicians, such as the Armed Services Committee
Chairman John McCain, as "
an act of war ." Moreover, former vice president Joe Biden hinted that, in the aftermath
of the DNC breach, the United States was launching a retaliatory
cyberattack of its own, targeting Russia. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange of
cyberattacks that escalates into a nuclear conflict would previously have been dismissed out
of hand; today, thanks to the 2018 NPR, it has entered the realm of the possible.'
The idea that a first-strike Schlieffen Plan could knock out the
Russians (and no doubt similar contingencies are in place for China) at the outset of
hostilities reflects a dangerous illusion of predictability. Truth may be the first casualty of
war, but "the plan" is inevitably the second. That's because war planners generally don't
consult the enemy, who – annoyingly for the planners – also gets a vote.
Recently
US Secretary of State James Mattis declared that "great power competition – not
terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security," specifying Russia and
China as nations seeking to "create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,
pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." At
least we can drop the pretense that US policy has been to fight jihad terrorism, not to use it
as a policy tool in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. And of course
Washington never, ever meddles in "other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions"
. . .
At this point Trump is fastened to the neocons' and generals' axle, and all he can do is
spin. Echoing Mattis, in his State of the Union speech Trump lumped "rivals like
China and Russia" together with "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" as "horrible dangers" to
the United States. (Note: The word "horrible" does not appear in the
posted text . That evidently was Trump's adlib.) The recently issued "name and shame" list
of prominent Russians is a veritable Who's Who of government and business, ensuring that
there's no
American engagement with anyone within screaming distance of the Kremlin .
To be fair, the Russians and Chinese are making their own war preparations. Russia's
"Kanyon," a doomsday nuclear torpedo carrying a massive warhead, is
designed to obliterate the U.S east and west coasts , rendering them inhabitable for
generations. (Wait a minute. Is it any coincidence, Comrade, that the coastal cities are just
where the Democrats' electoral strength is? Talk about "collusion!" Somebody call Bob Mueller!)
For its part, China is developing means to eliminate our white elephant carrier groups –
handy for pummeling Third World backwaters but useless in a war with a major power – with
drone swarms and
hypersonic missiles .
Just as in 1914, when Durnovo referred to "presence of abundant combustible material in
Europe," there is any
number of global flashpoints that could turn Mattis's "great power competition" into a
major conflagration that probably was not desired by anyone. However, if the worst happens, and
the lamps go
out again – maybe this time forever – Americans will not again be immune from
the consequences as we were in the wars of the 20th century. The remainder of our lives,
however brief, might turn out very differently from what we had anticipated
KAYFABE: kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true," specifically the portrayal
of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or pre-determined nature
of any kind.
Kayfabe has also evolved to become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect
presence of the general public.
Watch: Bernie Sanders' Response to Trump State of the Union
"Here's the story that Trump failed to mention "
Following President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered a response.
"I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to Trump's State of the Union speech," Sanders announced. "But I also want
to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, Trump chose not to discuss."
And, he added, "I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year."
Watch:
... ... ...
The complete text of Sanders' prepared remarks follow:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
Tonight , I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to President Trump's State of the Union speech. But I want
to do more than just that. I want to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, President Trump chose
not to discuss. I want to talk to you about the lies that he told during his campaign and the promises he made to working people
which he did not keep.
Finally, I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year.
President Trump talked tonight about the strength of our economy. Well, he's right. Official unemployment today is 4.1 percent
which is the lowest it has been in years and the stock market in recent months has soared. That's the good news.
But what President Trump failed to mention is that his first year in office marked the lowest level of job creation since
2010. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 254,000 fewer jobs were created in Trump's first 11 months in office
than were created in the 11 months before he entered office.
Further, when we talk about the economy, what's most important is to understand what is happening to the average worker. And
here's the story that Trump failed to mention tonight .
Over the last year, after adjusting for inflation, the average worker in America saw a wage increase of, are you ready for
this, 4 cents an hour, or 0.17%. Or, to put it in a different way, that worker received a raise of a little more than $1.60 a week.
And, as is often the case, that tiny wage increase disappeared as a result of soaring health care costs.
Meanwhile, at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the rich continue to get much richer while millions of American
workers are working two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water. Since March of last year, the three richest people in
America saw their wealth increase by more than $68 billion. Three people. A $68 billion increase in wealth. Meanwhile, the average
worker saw an increase of 4 cents an hour.
Tonight , Donald Trump touted the bonuses he claims workers received because of his so-called "tax reform" bill. What he forgot
to mention is that only 2% of Americans report receiving a raise or a bonus because of this tax bill.
What he also failed to mention is that some of the corporations that have given out bonuses, such as Walmart, AT&T, General
Electric, and Pfizer, are also laying off tens of thousands of their employees. Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Kleenex and Huggies,
recently said they were using money from the tax cut to restructure -- laying off more than 5,000 workers and closing 10 plants.
What Trump also forgot to tell you is that while the Walton family of Walmart, the wealthiest family in America, and Jeff
Bezos of Amazon, the wealthiest person in this country, have never had it so good, many thousands of their employees are forced onto
Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing because of the obscenely low wages they are paid. In my view, that's wrong. The taxpayers
of this country should not be providing corporate welfare to the wealthiest families in this country.
Trump's Broken Promises
Now, let me say a few words about some of the issues that Donald Trump failed to mention tonight , and that is the difference
between what he promised the American people as a candidate and what he has delivered as president.
Many of you will recall, that during his campaign, Donald Trump told the American people how he was going to provide "health
insurance for everybody," with "much lower deductibles."
That is what he promised working families all across this country during his campaign. But as president he did exactly the
opposite. Last year, he supported legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off of the health care they had while,
at the same time, substantially raising premiums for older Americans.
The reality is that although we were able to beat back Trump's effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 3 million fewer Americans
have health insurance today than before Trump took office and that number will be going even higher in the coming months.
During his campaign, Trump promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
As president, however, he supported a Republican Budget Resolution that proposed slashing Medicaid by $1 trillion and cutting
Medicare by $500 billion. Further, President Trump's own budget called for cutting Social Security Disability Insurance by $64 billion.
During Trump's campaign for president, he talked about how he was going to lower prescription drug prices and take on the
greed of the pharmaceutical industry which he said was "getting away with murder." Tonight he said "one of my greatest priorities
is to reduce the price of prescription drugs."
But as president, Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former executive of the Eli Lilly Company -- one of the largest drug companies
in this country -- to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.
Trump spoke about how in other countries "drugs cost far less," yet he has done nothing to allow Americans to purchase less
expensive prescription drugs from abroad or to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices – which he promised he would do when he
ran for president.
During the campaign, Donald Trump told us that: "The rich will not be gaining at all" under his tax reform plan.
Well, that was quite a whopper. As president, the tax reform legislation Trump signed into law a few weeks ago provides 83
percent of the benefits to the top one percent, drives up the deficit by $1.7 trillion, and raises taxes on 92 million middle class
families by the end of the decade.
During his campaign for president, Trump talked about how he was going to take on the greed of Wall Street which he said "has
caused tremendous problems for us.
As president, not only has Trump not taken on Wall Street, he has appointed more Wall Street billionaires to his administration
than any president in history. And now, on behalf of Wall Street, he is trying to repeal the modest provisions of the Dodd-Frank
legislation which provide consumer protections against Wall Street thievery.
What Trump Didn't Say
But what is also important to note is not just Trump's dishonesty. It is that tonight he avoided some of the most important
issues facing our country and the world.
How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change? No, Mr. Trump, climate
change is not a "hoax." It is a reality which is causing devastating harm all over our country and all over the world and you are
dead wrong when you appoint administrators at the EPA and other agencies who are trying to decimate environmental protection rules,
and slow down the transition to sustainable energy.
How can a president of the United States not discuss the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows billionaires
like the Koch brothers to undermine American democracy by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who will represent
the rich and the powerful?
How can he not talk about Republican governors efforts all across this country to undermine democracy, suppress the vote and
make it harder for poor people or people of color to vote?
How can he not talk about the fact that in a highly competitive global economy, hundreds of thousands of bright young people
are unable to afford to go to college, while millions of others have come out of school deeply in debt?
How can he not talk about the inadequate funding and staffing at the Social Security Administration which has resulted in
thousands of people with disabilities dying because they did not get their claims processed in time?
How can he not talk about the retirement crisis facing the working people of this country and the fact that over half of older
workers have no retirement savings? We need to strengthen pensions in this country, not take them away from millions of workers.
How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in our election in 2016, is interfering
in democratic elections all over the world, and according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections
that we will be holding. How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship with Mr. Putin?
What Trump Did Talk About
Now, let me say a few words about what Trump did talk about.
Trump talked about DACA and immigration, but what he did not tell the American people is that he precipitated this crisis
in September by repealing President Obama's executive order protecting Dreamers.
We need to seriously address the issue of immigration but that does not mean dividing families and reducing legal immigration
by 25-50 percent. It sure doesn't mean forcing taxpayers to spend $25 billion on a wall that candidate Trump promised Mexico would
pay for. And it definitely doesn't mean a racist immigration policy that excludes people of color from around the world.
To my mind, this is one of the great moral issues facing our country. It would be unspeakable and a moral stain on our nation
if we turned our backs on these 800,000 young people who were born and raised in this country and who know no other home but the
United States.
And that's not just Bernie Sanders talking. Poll after poll shows that over 80 percent of the American people believe that
we should protect the legal status of these young people and provide them with a path toward citizenship.
We need to pass the bi-partisan DREAM Act, and we need to pass it now.
President Trump also talked about the need to rebuild our country's infrastructure. And he is absolutely right. But the proposal
he is bringing forth is dead wrong.
Instead of spending $1.5 trillion over ten years rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, Trump would encourage states to
sell our nation's highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure to Wall Street, wealthy campaign contributors, even foreign governments.
And how would Wall Street and these corporations recoup their investments? By imposing massive new tolls and fees paid for
by American commuters and homeowners.
The reality is that Trump's plan to privatize our nation's infrastructure is an old idea that has never worked and never will
work.
Tonight , Donald Trump correctly talked about the need to address the opioid crisis. Well, I say to Donald Trump, you don't
help people suffering from opioid addiction by cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion. If you are serious about dealing with this crisis,
we need to expand, not cut Medicaid.
Conclusion/A Progressive Agenda
My fellow Americans. The simple truth is that, according to virtually every poll, Donald Trump is the least popular president
after one year in office of any president in modern American history. And the reason for that is pretty clear. The American people
do not want a president who is compulsively dishonest, who is a bully, who actively represents the interests of the billionaire class,
who is anti-science, and who is trying to divide us up based on the color of our skin, our nation of origin, our religion, our gender,
or our sexual orientation.
That is not what the American people want. And that reality is the bad news that we have to deal with.
But the truth is that there is a lot of good news out there as well. It's not just that so many of our people disagree with
Trump's policies, temperament, and behavior. It is that the vast majority of our people have a very different vision for the future
of our country than what Trump and the Republican leadership are giving us.
In an unprecedented way, we are witnessing a revitalization of American democracy with more and more people standing up and
fighting back. A little more than a year ago we saw millions of people take to the streets for the women's marches and a few weeks
ago, in hundreds of cities and towns around the world, people once again took to the streets in the fight for social, economic, racial
and environmental justice.
Further, we are seeing the growth of grassroots organizations and people from every conceivable background starting to run
for office – for school board, city council, state legislature, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.
In fact, we are starting to see the beginning of a political revolution, something long overdue.
And these candidates, from coast to coast, are standing tall for a progressive agenda, an agenda that works for the working
families of our country and not just the billionaire class. These candidates understand that the United States has got to join the
rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare for All, single-payer
program.
They understand that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the top one-tenth of one percent now owns almost
as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we should not be giving tax breaks for billionaires but demanding that they start paying
their fair share of taxes.
They know that we need trade policies that benefit working people, not large multi-national corporations.
They know that we have got to take on the fossil fuel industry, transform our energy system and move to sustainable energies
like wind, solar and geothermal.
They know that we need a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and universal
childcare.
They understand that it is a woman who has the right to control her own body, not state and federal governments, and that
woman has the right to receive equal pay for equal work and work in a safe environment free from harassment.
They also know that if we are going to move forward successfully as a democracy we need real criminal justice reform and we
need to finally address comprehensive immigration reform.
Yes. I understand that the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars
in the 2018 mid-term elections supporting the Trump agenda and right-wing Republicans. They have the money, an unlimited amount of
money. But we have the people, and when ordinary people stand up and fight for justice there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.
That has been the history of America, and that is our future.
"... This Putin paranoia is insane and ridiculous. Our homegrown problems regarding every aspect of government far exceed, by orders of magnitudes, Putin tinkering. All of you making hysterical claims about Putin and impugning Americans as Russian stooges are diverting attention from our real homegrown problems. ..."
"... The root of the situation is FISA, as amended after September 11. ..."
"... History tells us that if a government gets a law enforcement tool, somebody in the government will try to abuse it in ways the legislators who provided the tool did not think of. History also teaches us to keep a sharp eye on the law enforcement organizations – trust but verify! ..."
"... Law enforcement is made of normal people, who bring with them all the qualities and defects of human nature. Abusing power is one of the defects, and since September 11, we gave law enforcement much power ..."
"... We need to find out if any of the candidates broke the law. We need to find out if the FBI and the DOJ abused their power. This is not about political preferences, this is about keeping the country a democracy. For those who might have forgotten it, I will remind what Martin Niemöller said: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ..."
"... The land of the surreal; I see the usual in denial left-wing commenters hanging around Buchanan columns are now defending a corrupt, politicized FBI. ..."
"... After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates -- including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information. ..."
"... Is is surprising that all the hoopla for both Republicans, Democrats, the media is about "Trump did it", "Clinton did it, "Putin did it". Only one reader – #Max Charles – made the very intelligent observation that the real beneficiaries of the situation are the Chinese. ..."
"... Democrats and liberals had nothing but disdain for the FBI and other spook organizations until they were 'militarized' by King 'Bama and became the Democrat secret police. Now they love the FBI. This scandal must be dragged into the light of day and cleaned up, folks fired and/or charged and put in prison. OR it will be settled in the streets. When half of the country is 'down with a one party state and secret police,' we're on the same glide path that Venezuela was on. ..."
This Putin paranoia is insane and ridiculous. Our homegrown problems regarding every aspect
of government far exceed, by orders of magnitudes, Putin tinkering. All of you making
hysterical claims about Putin and impugning Americans as Russian stooges are diverting
attention from our real homegrown problems. Look in the mirror everyone. It is in the
reflection that you will find what really ails us.
The root of the situation is FISA, as amended after September 11.
History tells us that if a government gets a law enforcement tool, somebody in the
government will try to abuse it in ways the legislators who provided the tool did not think
of. History also teaches us to keep a sharp eye on the law enforcement organizations –
trust but verify!
Law enforcement is made of normal people, who bring with them all the qualities and
defects of human nature. Abusing power is one of the defects, and since September 11, we gave
law enforcement much power
We need to find out if any of the candidates broke the law. We need to find out if the FBI
and the DOJ abused their power. This is not about political preferences, this is about
keeping the country a democracy. For those who might have forgotten it, I will remind what
Martin Niemöller said: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for
me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_
After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's
campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr.
Trump, his businesses and associates -- including possible connections with Russia. It was
at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather
information.
Is is surprising that all the hoopla for both Republicans, Democrats, the media is about
"Trump did it", "Clinton did it, "Putin did it".
Only one reader – #Max Charles – made the very intelligent observation that the
real beneficiaries of the situation are the Chinese.
Since the departure of the Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao, China has followed a highly focused
and highly effective path towards becoming #1 in the world.
There is a combination of economic policy, internal policy and foreign policy which brought
this country to move quietly into such a position.
Could they be behind the circus?
It is very possible, since the Chinese are now using what Fukuyama presented as "the good
emperor" model.
An intelligent, non-democratic system can be so efficient!
Democrats and liberals had nothing but disdain for the FBI and other spook organizations
until they were 'militarized' by King 'Bama and became the Democrat secret police. Now they
love the FBI. This scandal must be dragged into the light of day and cleaned up, folks fired
and/or charged and put in prison. OR it will be settled in the streets. When half of the
country is 'down with a one party state and secret police,' we're on the same glide path that
Venezuela was on.
The so called facts should not be released unless all of the facts are released –
not simply an interpretation of the facts, least of all Nunes' (or maybe the
Whitehouse's?)
You are being disingenuous in simply stating that all memos should be released when you know
that the Schiff memo will never be placed in the public sphere.
There is also an impact on the public which is being overlooked. No person in their right
mind will ever come forward with information for the FBI ever again. Everyone now knows that
if some political opportunist wants to "out you" and embarrass you, you do not stand a
chance. This release made no pretense that it was a political hit, not some kind of sunlight
on a nefarious practice.
That is not to say that a political hit piece is not legitimate or has its proper place
– because it does. Its just that this memo masquerades as something that it is not, and
as a man of intellectual integrity, you should say so.
Can you remind us of what the lib's said about Nixon's operation engaging in political
surveillance of his opponent?
Also, what was the date that Putin and the Trump campaign met and agreed to hack the DNC
servers? They were hacked from the outside, right? We have proof?
Does this mean it is now fair game if the Trump campaign hires some hack to meet with
foreign operatives who make up nasty stories about his Democratic opponent, Trump's DOJ can
go to the FISA court and get permission to spy on his opponents during the campaign, and then
get a Special Prosecutor to "investigate" fabricated allegations and try to snare the new
leadership in process crimes? Or is this a special right that only Democrats get to exercise
because they wear white hats?
It was not only that Steele memo enabled eavesdropping. More troubling fact that FBI considered both Trump and Sanders as
insurgents and was adamant to squash them and ensure Hillary victory. In other word it tried to play the role of kingmaker.
Notable quotes:
"... The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious and so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously. ..."
"... Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory. ..."
"... One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It probably broke several laws. ..."
Over the last month political enemies of U.S. President Trump and the FBI and Justice
Department have desperately tried to prevent the publishing of a memo written by the Republican
controlled House Intelligence Committee.
The memo (pdf) describes parts of the process that let to court sanctioned spying on the
Trump campaign. The
key points of the memo that was just published:
* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA
applications against Carter Page.
* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court
without the Steele dossier information.
* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,
but excluded from the FISA applications.
* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to
DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming
president.
If the above memo proves to be correct one can conclude that a Democratic front organization
created "evidence" that was then used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to get FISA
warrants to spy on someone with intimate contacts into the Trump campaign.
The Democrats as well as the FBI have done their utmost to keep this secret.
Carter Page was a relative low ranking volunteer advisor of the Trump campaign with some
business contacts to Russia. He had officially left the campaign shortly before the above FISA
warrant was requested.
Andrew McCabe was an FBI assistant director. A few month earlier his wife ran for a Virginia
State Senate seat with the help of $700,000 she had received from Clinton allies.
The wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the outlet hired by the Democrats
to find Trump dirt. Fusion GPS hired the former British agent Steele.
The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig
up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump
was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious
and
so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously.
Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump
campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no
longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had
kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible
for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory.
One must wonder if the FISA warrant and eavesdropping on Page was the only one related to
the Trump campaign.
One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this
looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside
of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the
use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It
probably broke several laws.
There are still many questions: What was, exactly, the result of the surveillance of Carter
Page and the Trump campaign? Who was getting these results - officially and unofficially? How
were they used?
I am pretty sure now that more heads of those involved will role. Some of the people who
arranged the scheme, and some of those who tried to cover it up, may go to jail.
If Trump and the Republicans play this right they have practically won the next
elections.
"... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save your ass
when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. ..."
The White House's handling of the Comey firing looks a lot like a clip from The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight . The
Press Secretary hiding in the bushes, Trump sending virtually his entire staff under the bus with his various and rapidly shifting
versions of his reasons for the firing, and his unhinged Twitter rants at the press for covering the fiasco as a fiasco.
Once again, pundits are talking about impulse control, the ADD Presidency, rank amateurism in the Oval Office, threats to Democracy
-- all the stuff that they talked about in the campaign. The stuff that was supposed to doom his bid for the presidency to failure.
"It's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out."
All of this is grim stuff. We haven't seen a threat to democracy as serious as this since Watergate, so I'm not suggesting that
we shouldn't be addressing it.
But it's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out and also, how
does the focus on Russia undercut the Democratic Party? In other words, what if this is exactly what Trump intended when he fired
Comey? It's worth remembering Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn, who was a master at controlling the narrative and one of his favorite
techniques was to change the subject with an in-your-face outrage of one kind or another.
Let's examine what we're not talking about, and then what the effect of the whole Russian narrative is having on the Democratic
Party.
What We Aren't Talking About
Shortly before Trump tossed in the Comey Molotov Cocktail into the national living room, here's what was dominating the news:
The Republicans in the House had just passed a disastrous Health Care Bill that was essentially a giant tax cut for the rich
and a "screw you" to anyone who actually needs health insurance;
Trump had just put out a "budget" that exploded the deficit and gave huge tax cuts to corporations and the ultra-wealthy;
The Congressional Progressive Caucus had just released a budget that preserved social programs, cut the deficit, and increased
revenues using provisions that are popular with both Republicans and Democrats.
But none of that is being discussed much any longer. And if you ran as a populist, but all your policies are benefitting the top
1%, that's exactly what you'd hope for. Yes, the few Congressional members who are brave enough to hold town meetings are still getting
mugged by outraged constituents, but these meetings are not getting the kind of coverage they would have pre-Comey. And that means
the Health Care Bill isn't getting the kind of serious examination it would have if the media weren't doing all Comey, all the time.
Again, exactly what you'd want if you knew the guts of the legislation were so bad, that if it got out there, even the Trump bobble
heads would be pissed off. So folks aren't talking about the fact that it was rushed to the floor before getting scored by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), before we knew what its effects were and what its ultimate cost could be, before people caught on to the fact
that the state waiver provision stuck in the revised version of the bill turned it from merely a cruel piece of legislation to the
cruelest piece in modern history.
Or take the budget "proposal," which was getting panned by the media and even the few Republicans left in the Senate who actually
are fiscal conservatives. Hell, even Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took issue with some of the cuts. This reprise of "trickle down" and
"supply side" chicanery was being almost universally ridiculed by the press and economists, and it was heavily influenced -- if not
outsourced
to -- the Heritage Foundation, an outfit funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers. Here again, the last thing Trump wants after
running as a populist and a fiscal conservative is to get widespread coverage of just how much this plutocrat's budget resembles
the stuff he railed against in his campaign.
And speaking of budgets, the media once again ignored the sanest budget proposal in Washington, The Congressional Progressive
Caucus's Better Off Budget , which cuts the deficit
by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years -- Trump's budget would have increased it by at least
$1.4 trillion over that time period,
by the way -- while creating 8.8 million new jobs. The Better Off Budget uses policies that are wildly popular with the majority
of Americans to accomplish this.
Now, it must be said that the press always ignores the CPC's budget proposals, but maybe Trump was taking no chances -- after
all, if anyone held them up side-by-side, Trump and the Republicans would have been unmasked as the charlatans they are.
But there's no danger of that when it's all Comey, all the time.
Much is made of the fact that Trump's popularity among those who voted for him hasn't budged, despite the fact that he's screwing
them left and right with his policies. Well, these kinds of maneuvers may explain why. Look back. When the Russian stuff was first
heating up big time, we suddenly just had to bomb Syria. Wagging the dog is a time-honored way to change the subject. So is firing
a controversial senior public servant.
Comey, the Russians, and the Establishment Arm of the Democratic Party
If Trump isn't an idiot, then here's where his tactics are brilliant. The neoliberal elitists who control the Democratic Party
have been trying to keep the focus on the Russian intervention in our election as the reason Hillary Clinton lost. The progressives
in the Party have been attacking the Party's estrangement from the people and its rejection of the New Deal policies as the reason.
In short, there's a battle on for the heart and soul of the Party.
Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to
have about its future.
"Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to
have about its future."
Two things were working to undermine the establishment's hold on the Party until Comey's firing. First, Sanders continued to poll
as the most popular politician in America. Second, people were beginning to realize that it was the content of Secretary Clinton's
emails that hurt her, not the emails per se . And that content revealed the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party.
To wit: the neoliberal belief in small government, the power and goodness of the market, free trade, deregulation, and fiscal austerity
was simply too close to the Republican dogma to generate enough passion among progressives to get a good turnout, and Democrats need
a good turnout to win elections.
But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention from
the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a truly progressive
agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative.
Yeah. What if he's not an idiot?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
"But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention
from the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a
truly progressive agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative."
In my opinion you are right on the mark; especially with your last paragraph. Practically all the ultra rich in the world live
in the same "gated community". Their goal is to control the world's resources and somehow survive the coming mass die-off due
to severe climate disruption. To them their party never ends!
It's possible he's not stupid AND he has zero impulse control. That seems most likely. He's good at subverting the few things
he does think out.
But Democrats have quintupled down on Russia. For them, it's a battle for existence. They were completely exposed, and it's
going to take a lot of "Russia!" to keep that conversation about their profound corruption from taking place.
And Atcheson is also right that this party much prefers losing than giving up its donorship buffet. That's why they do nothing
to correct the course to get more votes. They're relying completely on their corporate media allies to keep the illusion going.
So far it's working, to the great shame of rank and file Democrats.
The D-Party would rather stumble back to electoral victory on the anti-Trump effect than offer policy that might
clash with the wishes of their corporate donors.
Case in point: Single Payer now back-burnered as a distraction from anti-trump hysteria.
Sad to see so many otherwise intelligent commenters here falling for the usual D-Party parlor tricks.
Whether Trump's just lucky or know how to work a room is unimportant. Results matter, and the result is that the important stuff's
not being discussed, and the Greatest Heist In The World continues. Lest we forget, that Heist is NOT just about the USA. There's
a reason they call it 'globalization.'
Corporate bribes, big salaries, perks and tv star jobs will have to be torn from Neoliberal Democrats' cold dead hands.
And Don, Rupert and the rest of Mammon's soldiers will soon have to deal with an Artificial Intelligence that learns in one
day what it took humans 40,000 years to learn. Interesting times.
Anyone who carefully followed the primaries knows that the democratic machine used all kinds of corrupt methods to defeat Bernie
Sanders. And, anyone who follows the general election knows that the election is easily rigged - especially computer voting that
leaves no paper trail and cannot be audited. The hypocrisy of Russians hacking our elections when they are hacked by our own politicians,
and Russians interfering with our elections when our corporate elite have no problem interfering with elections in other countries
all makes me ill. Don't know how many other voters out there are like me, but sure would like to hear from them.
Somehow almost none of this get mentioned in any press, progressive or otherwise.
Trump can't control what he himself thinks. He's been a promoter of the Trump name for 40-50 years. That is a reflex
with him. That is the extent of his thinking. There are many others around him, supporting him. Praising his genius, as this article
is inclined towards, is their means of exploiting his great weakness.
BWilliamson May '17
There is nothing behind the scenes. Everything is happening center stage. If you spend your time trying to see behind
the scenes you're going to miss the whole show.
Olhippy May '17
No, the seething undercurrent of the discontented is rarely reported on in the "news". Only when it explodes as in
Missouri riots or Occupy Wall Street takeovers, does it get coverage which is put down by government forces, either civilian or
feds. The Democratic primaries were changed, back in the 70's I believe, after anti-war candidate McCarthy got the nomination
nod. That's when the super delegates came about, so they had more control of things. Expect the GOP too, to change things to keep
future Trumps' from getting the nod.
Wereflea May '17 1
I see Atcheson's point but I think he needs to remember that Trump is a Prince of inherited wealth. Trump may be an idiot
(he really did seem more intelligent before he got elected and then we had a good look at him and listened to his sometimes unintelligible
speech patterns) but he has always been in a position where he delegated authority to people who got paid to be smarter than he
was, so his 'idiocy' didn't show as much.
Trump paid high priced lawyers to arrange his deals. He paid expensive consultants and investment managers and on and on and
all of those people were exceptionally intelligent. He paid someone to ghost write his book for him. Trump makes the same mistakes
as he was always wont to do but back then they were always covered and massaged for him by his staff! After all... he was the
Prince!
The Oval Office is not quite the same as a business conference with his lawyers, assistants, bankers and etc. Thus we see Trump
blurting out statements that his advisors pull him back from as soon as they get the chance . Being president means everything
you say gets publicized and despite all his billions that was not the case for the Prince back when he was just a wheeler and
dealer.
Trump runs without a script too often but who in his entourage will dare tell the Prince that when he speaks (without their
permission first) he ends up sounding like an idiot! Trump may be feeling constrained by his need to be less reckless and impulsive.
Trump unfiltered? Yeah well maybe he really is an idiot too!
Olhippy I think you need to go back and review the history of Democratic primaries. Until 1972 the candidates were
largely chosen in smoke-filled back rooms. George McGovern was instrumental in largely turning the Democratic primaries over to
the voters. And that is how he got the nomination. Unfortunately he only won a single state but he was the people's choice to
run. I wouldn't be concerned about the superdelegates. They always go along with the candidate who got the most pledged delegates.
It is unlikely they would ever do otherwise. Unless the people chose a candidate who was really off the charts like Trump. Without
superdelegates the Republicans were unable to stop Trump once the RNC backed him. Given what happened to the Republicans a case
can be made for the superdelegates. Parties can choose their candidates any way they want. They don't have to let the people vote.
Both parties now do and for the first time that turned into a complete disaster.
Godless May '17
The Comey firing also distracted from the Kushner family peddling visas for real estate deals in China; the Pence-Koback Commission
to make voter cross-checking a federal law; and Sessions reinvigorating the war on drugs and legal marijuana to strike more minority
voters from the rolls. El Presidente Naranja Mentiroso only cares about playing to his base and his base loves watching Democratic
heads explode. As long as his base is happy, and they are happy with his performance, the Reptilians in Congress will be afraid
to move against him. I thoroughly believe that the voter suppression moves will win the Reptilians the elections in 2018 and 2020.
With their control of gerrymandering for another decade and the paid-to-lose Democrats only concerned about donor money, the Reptilians
have clear sailing to gain 38 governorships and the ability to rewrite the constitution in their twisted image.
I agree with you on your points of Trump having smart lawyers, assistants,bankers etc. around him doing the "smart"
work, I am sure he allso used other tactics, of itimidation of one kind or another , taking it to the courts, threats of financial
ruin, he allso wasnt kidding when he said he "knew' the system and how it worked, ..or rather how to work it, but he didnt do
that singlehanded either, and i am sure there are more than one or two politicians at different levels from municipalitys on up,
in his pocket and or good graces.
But to think him not an idiot is getting to be a bit of a stretch, does he really believe that he actually came up with the
phrase "prime the pump"? I knew he was an idiot years before he made fun of the disabled reporter, but that single act confirmed
it for me.
Yeah "prime the pump" what is he going to lay claim to next? "four score and seven years ago" " E=mc2" or how about.."and Trump
said...let there be light"... I 'll tell you who else the idiots are...and that is any one taking this guy seriouslly any longer
at least in a presidentiall sense,... that is just ...idiotic in the extreme.
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are even more moronic than is Drumpf, which is why, as usual, they are serving only
to strengthen the GOPhers while pretending they're defenders of the public. Why do you think that hundred or so Democrats are
signed onto John Conyers' single-payer bill now that Drumpf is in the Oval office and the Republicans hold majorities in both
houses of Congress, when they could have done so when Obama was the chief executive and their party controlled Congress including
a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but instead passed a bill that was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's plan? It's
all so much political theater designed to distract the public from the last great plundering of the nation before it collapses
in on itself.
I'm with you. The whole Russian thing is ridiculous. And they've never been accused of actually hacking voting machines,
just the DNC emails which showed how slimy the DNC is. I have read that Georgia believed someone tried to hack their voting machines
and they hired a private firm to investigate. What they found was hacking was attempted the the Dept of Homeland Security.
The simple fact that, after losing in 2000 by voting manipulation and probably via voting machines in 2004, the Dems took over
the House in 2007 and 2 years later the Presidency and the Senate, they never, to my knowledge, introduced any legislation to
require paper trails in federal elections. As far as I'm concerned that said all one needs to know about the Dems. It would have
been a simple one page piece of legislation, Ok, maybe 2 pages.
Factor in his mafia connections here and abroad. To roll around in that slime at the high level he's in requires
cunning to kiss up to the really rich guys who can hurt him and whom, actually, he can hurt. Then he's learned how to survive
while he manipulates. Idiot? Define the term.
Cunning. Sociopathic. Narcissistic needing his constant narcissistic supply (adorers). Blackmailer and probably blackmailed.
I gotta get Barrett's biography of this POS.
I wore out years ago but it just goes on and on! Lol
Actually at this point in time I am very much engaged in this garbage since Trump is stunningly entertaining as a rightwing
boob out of his element and unraveling as we speak. Trump's adventures in incompetency fascinate me. It is just week after week
in a steady progression of mistakes, attempted corrections, attempts at re-correcting those corrections that make them even worse
and so forth. It would make for an interesting TV show (sort of like the 'apprentice got himself fired') except that this gross
and often crude person can trigger a nuclear war on a whim which puts a damper on the pleasures of watching him deconstruct in
front of our eyes.
Nevertheless, it is without doubt the most unexpected presidency of my life. Watergate was a comeuppance but Trump is bizzaro
world in action.
Btw... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save
your ass when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. He was never a big brain and up until recently,
he never pretended to be.
He is rich and loves being the center of attention. However his being rich is often at the expense of others. You assume that
because Trump has long had shady connections that he must be an intellect to survive the association. Not really. Trump makes
sure that he is profitable for them and they have no problem with that. It isn't genius on his part. It is always having his projects
go way over budget. He guarantees them the cream and they 'have an arrangement'.
Prior to becoming president, Trump's associates, advisors, lawyers and accountants kept Trump making money and that made them
money.
Trump is truly like the medieval Prince who lives in a sumptuous palace but who needs his Grand Vizier to actually run things
in the country. Keep your eye on Kushner who has become the architect of oligarchy by being the real deal maker (he has the intellect)
that Trump only promotes (he has the ego and the big mouth)!
"... The abuse summarized in the Republican memo apparently spans the last year of the Obama administration and the first year of the Trump administration. If it comes through as advertised, it will show the deep state using the government's powers for petty or political or ideological reasons. ..."
"... The use of raw intelligence data by the NSA or the FBI for political purposes or to manipulate those in government is as serious a threat to popular government -- to personal liberty in a free society -- as has ever occurred in America since Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which punished speech critical of the government. ..."
"... No politician gives a hoot about what the people who vote for them think. I am sure, even if any house member or a senator knew of this memo, the bill would still have passed. ..."
"... It appears that the judge doesn't understand how the US government is run these days. ..."
"... Among other Establishment officials, "Robert Mueller, the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election" (Andrew Napolitano, 12/7/17) helped conduct unlawful, mass surveillance in his FBI gig, and thus violated his "oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Right, "Judge"? ..."
"... Senator Wyden knew when Mr. Clapper was lying about governmental spying on every American in a public hearing years ago, Mr. Snowden pulled back the curtain for all to see, and Congress has since flopped. Right, "Judge"? ..."
I have argued for a few weeks now that House Intelligence Committee members have committed
misconduct in office by concealing evidence of spying abuses by the National Security Agency
and the FBI. They did this by sitting on a four-page memo that summarizes the abuse of raw
intelligence data while Congress was debating a massive expansion of FISA.
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which was written to enable the
federal government to spy on foreign agents here and abroad. Using absurd and paranoid logic,
the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which only hears the government's lawyers,
has morphed "foreign intelligence surveillance" into undifferentiated bulk surveillance of all
Americans.
Undifferentiated bulk surveillance is the governmental acquisition of fiber-optic data
stored and transmitted by nearly everyone in America. This includes all telephone
conversations, text messages and emails, as well as all medical, legal and financial
records.
Ignorant of the hot potato on which the House Intelligence Committee had been sitting,
Congress recently passed and President Donald Trump signed a vast expansion of spying
authorities -- an expansion that authorizes legislatively the domestic spying that judges were
authorizing on everyone in the U.S. without individual suspicion of wrongdoing or probable
cause of crime; an expansion that passed in the Senate with no votes to spare; an expansion
that evades and avoids the Fourth Amendment; an expansion that the president signed into law
the day before we all learned of the House Intelligence Committee memo.
The FISA expansion would never have passed the Senate had the House Intelligence Committee
memo and the data on which it is based come to light seven days sooner than it did. Why should
22 members of a House committee keep their 500-plus congressional colleagues in the dark about
domestic spying abuses while those colleagues were debating the very subject matter of domestic
spying and voting to expand the power of those who have abused it?
The answer to this lies in the nature of the intelligence community today and the influence
it has on elected officials in the government. By the judicious, personalized and secret
revelation of data, both good and bad -- here is what we know about your enemies, and here is
what we know about you -- the NSA shows its might to the legislators who supposedly regulate
it. In reality, the NSA regulates them.
This is but one facet of the deep state -- the unseen parts of the government that are not
authorized by the Constitution and that never change, no matter which party controls the
legislative or executive branch. This time, they almost blew it. If just one conscientious
senator had changed her or his vote on the FISA expansion -- had that senator known of the NSA
and FBI abuses of FISA concealed by the House Intelligence Committee -- the expansion would
have failed.
Nevertheless, the evidence on which the committee members sat is essentially a
Republican-written summary of raw intelligence data. Earlier this week, the Democrats on the
committee authored their version -- based, they say, on the same raw intelligence data as was
used in writing the Republican version. But the House Intelligence Committee, made up of 13
Republicans and nine Democrats, voted to release only the Republican-written memo.
Late last week, when it became apparent that the Republican memo would soon be released, the
Department of Justice publicly contradicted President Trump by advising the leadership of the
House Intelligence Committee in very strong terms that the memo should not be released to the
public.
It soon became apparent that, notwithstanding the DOJ admonition, no one in the DOJ had
actually seen the memo. So FBI Director Chris Wray made a secret, hurried trip to the House
Intelligence Committee's vault last Sunday afternoon to view the memo. When asked by the folks
who showed it to him whether it contains secret or top-secret material, he couldn't or wouldn't
say. But he apparently saw in the memo the name of the No. 2 person at the FBI, Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe, as one of the abusers of spying authority. That triggered McCabe's summary
departure from the FBI the next day, after a career of 30 years.
The abuse summarized in the Republican memo apparently spans the last year of the Obama
administration and the first year of the Trump administration. If it comes through as
advertised, it will show the deep state using the government's powers for petty or political or
ideological reasons.
The use of raw intelligence data by the NSA or the FBI for political purposes or to
manipulate those in government is as serious a threat to popular government -- to personal
liberty in a free society -- as has ever occurred in America since Congress passed the Alien
and Sedition Acts of 1798, which punished speech critical of the government.
The government works for us; we should not tolerate its treating us as children. When raw
intelligence data is capable of differing interpretations and is relevant to a public dispute
-- about, for example, whether the NSA and the FBI are trustworthy, whether FISA should even
exist, whether spying on everyone all the time keeps us safe and whether the Constitution even
permits this -- the raw data should be released to the American public.
Where is the personal courage on the House Intelligence Committee? Where is the patriotism?
Where is the fidelity to the Constitution? The government exists by our consent. It derives its
powers from us. We have a right to know what it has done in our names, who broke our trust, who
knew about it, who looked the other way and why and by whom all this was intentionally hidden
until after Congress voted to expand FISA.
Everyone in government takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. How
many take it meaningfully and seriously?
Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Where is the personal courage on the House Intelligence Committee? Where is the
patriotism? Where is the fidelity to the Constitution? The government exists by our
consent. It derives its powers from us. We have a right to know what it has done in our
names, who broke our trust, who knew about it, who looked the other way and why and by whom
all this was intentionally hidden until after Congress voted to expand FISA.
The Judge is wrong. The government exists by Israel's/AIPAC's consent. The fidelity is to
the state of Israel. No politician gives a hoot about what the people who vote for them
think. I am sure, even if any house member or a senator knew of this memo, the bill would
still have passed.
Everyone in government takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (
State of Israel ). How many take it meaningfully and seriously?
The additions and bolds are mine. It appears that the judge doesn't understand how the
US government is run these days. The US government is for Israel, of Israel, and by
Israel . Every dishonorable house member and every dishonorable senator knows that. Pure and
simple.
Let us see how the Judge's own FOX channel reports on this story.
He'll soon get back to his Russophobia, but Mr. Napolitano's chore today is to create cover
for as much Establishment backside as possible by blaming the recent, further statutory
enshrinement of our police state on the members of a single committee within the House of
Representatives. (He leaves himself room to point his finger at unnamed others who knew about
what has now been summarized in a memorandum supposedly soon to be released.) But he fails to
address the flaws in this narrative.
1. Among other Establishment officials, "Robert Mueller, the no-nonsense special
counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian government in its now
well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election" (Andrew Napolitano,
12/7/17) helped conduct unlawful, mass surveillance in his FBI gig, and thus violated his
"oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Right, "Judge"?
2. This article, foreshadowed in his published here last week, pounds on the farcical
notion that only members of a single House committee have known, and have known only
recently, about "[t]he abuse summarized in the Republican memo," that if "just one
conscientious senator had changed her or his vote on the FISA expansion -- had that senator
known of the NSA and FBI abuses of FISA concealed by the House Intelligence Committee -- the
expansion would have failed." But Senator Wyden knew when Mr. Clapper was lying about
governmental spying on every American in a public hearing years ago, Mr. Snowden pulled back
the curtain for all to see, and Congress has since flopped. Right, "Judge"?
3. Building on his article of last week, Mr. Napolitano wants his readers to think that,
daggum it, there's nothing to be done about this now, as though the tablets have been carved
and sent back up the mountain for several years. But "one conscientious senator" could take
the floor today to introduce a bill to repeal any of these previous or new FISA provisions.
Right, "Judge"?
4. None of this law matters because all these people are above it. Right, "Judge"?
I used to think that the 2 Parties just traded off every few elections and that the
President, being only a figure head, was predetermined. Julian Assange, before the election,
stated, very firmly, that the powers that be would never let Trump become President. I
believed him. I still can't figure out how Trump slipped in under the radar.
"... Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. ..."
"... "Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. ..."
"... If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons. ..."
With the moment of truth - over-hyped dud or Democratic-establishment-crushing dream - looming in less than 24 hours, the headlines,
finger-pointing, pettiness, and back-stabbing has reached 11 on the Spinal Tap amplifier of debacle... to the point where some humor
in this FISA farce may help everyone get through the weekend.
The following is the latest to cross the wires...
Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes
Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States.
"Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal
or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American
people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or
subvert religious and political groups.
"If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive
network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally
personal, reasons."
At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating
constitutional rights.
"... Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. ..."
"... "Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. ..."
"... If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons. ..."
With the moment of truth - over-hyped dud or Democratic-establishment-crushing dream - looming in less than 24 hours, the headlines,
finger-pointing, pettiness, and back-stabbing has reached 11 on the Spinal Tap amplifier of debacle... to the point where some humor
in this FISA farce may help everyone get through the weekend.
The following is the latest to cross the wires...
Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes
Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States.
"Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal
or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American
people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or
subvert religious and political groups.
"If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive
network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally
personal, reasons."
At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating
constitutional rights.
That was always one of the things that most unnerved me about Trump from the start: what,
exactly, motivated him to run? (The other thing about him that bothered me was his
overweening Zionism.) The idea that he was some kind of plant certainly did occur to me, but
the MSM didn't treat him the way they usually treat 'The Chosen One'. Compare him with the
treatment the MSM gave that other 'outside, nontradional' candidate, Emmanuel Macron.
So what did motivate Trump? Ego? Vainglory? Some burning conviction somewhere? I
still don't know. One way or the other, though, I'm pretty sure that MAGA is dead.
"So what did motivate Trump? Ego? Vainglory? Some burning conviction somewhere? I still
don't know."
Several lines of reasoning point me to the conclusion that Orange Clown is a "deep cover"
or "sleeper" agent that's been "waiting in the wings" for his Zionist masters' call.
I believe that the political ascendancy of Orange Clown should be seen as a sign of
Zionist desperation.
Anyway, one valid line of reasoning, IMO, is to rule out anything else. At 70 years old,
Orange Clown is no spring chicken. So why would he run run NOW?
If he had actually followed through on his campaign rhetoric, or at least some of it, he'd
be considered a true American hero, IMO. He's going to finally get us out of NATO? He's going
to pull out of the hopeless war in Afghanistan and cut out the costly and self-destructive
nation building crap? He's going to collaborate with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
and finally investigate the worst crime in U.S. history?
If so he'd go down in history as a modern American revolutionary. The guy that
single-handedly saved America from the "beast". And he's going to begin this herculean task
at the age 70 years old? Seriously? How many historical examples are there where a 70 year
old all of a sudden became a political visionary and led a revolution?
He's at the age where most people suffer cognitive decline, prostate problems, etc., but
he's going to square off against "the powers that be", put himself at risk of assassination
and lead a revolution in American politics? I just can't accept that.
Okay, but what about if he wanted to be president "just for a taste of power"? And that's
a fair question, IMO.
That may explain why he wouldn't necessarily give a damn about following through on his
campaign promises, but it doesn't explain why he would reverse himself on everything of
major
In further thinking about those two op/eds, the authors wasted their time trying to sway
Trump as he's disowned being the policy leader on Syria, with Defense, State and CIA vying
for leadership despite every policy move they've made ending as gross failures seriously
degrading the Empire's brand which was already eroding under Obama/Kerry. With the
FBI/DNC/HRC related Scandals all reaching their acme in a manner that will exonerate Trump, I
don't see him needing to provoke an overseas distraction as he greatly desires to take down
those that tried to do him in. Indeed, exposing the massive rot and corruption at the core of
the federal government would actually give him a campaign promise victory, one I would
applaud. Of the three agencies, the CIA followed by Defense would be most injured by the
scandal fallout; and of the two, the CIA would be more willing and able to create an overseas
provocation in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Wishful thinking--perhaps. Ironically, RussiaGate Truth is on Trump's side. Both RNC and
DNC are vapid and corrupt to the max and the grave awaits them both. Will a domestic
political victory for Trump over RussiaGate provide him with the courage to retake control
over foreign policy? Or will CIA do something more reprehensible than 911 in order to deflect
the fallout? Or ?
"... It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy. But no, it's actually liberating: be a skeptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties to various governments/agencies. ..."
"... In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians didn't believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in the West tended to believe their own media ..."
"... Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the alternative media becomes mainstream. ..."
I have just returned from Syria. The narrative on the Ghouta alleged "chemical attacks" is
coming from the Al Qaeda affiliated, UK FCO/US multi-million-financed White Helmets and has
not basis in fact.
Meanwhile the terrorist groups supported by the White Helmets and the UK/US coalition of
terror, have launched a series of murderous mortar attacks on the civilian areas of Damascus,
Old City (Christian areas). I was leaving Damascus on Monday this week, when they targeted
hundreds of school children pouring out of the schools for the school buses parked in the
streets of the Old City and just outside its walls. 9 people were killed including one 3 year
old child, Elias Khoury. Christine Hourani is a beautiful Syrian teenager, her leg has been
amputated below the knee as a result of this indiscriminate and deliberate attack on children
by the same "moderate" extremists who are feeding the corporate media with the Fake News that
the Guardian relies upon to maintain its anti Syria and New Cold War narrative.
The Guardian is one of the chief fire-stokers for the UK FCO and acts as its main attack
dog when the UK FCO is under threat of exposure for its funding of terrorism in Syria with
taxpayer funds – hence the ridiculous Solon article trying to discredit myself and Eva
Bartlett, among others – while never addressing the facts and hard evidence against the
UK FCO and the various entities it is financing, such as the White Helmets, the Local
Councils in Syria & the Free Syrian Police (to name only a few). The latest CW attack
story is to distract from the crimes against humanity being comitted by the terrorist
factions in the eastern suburbs of Damascus and to further foment the escalation of military
conflict between Russian and the US on Syrian soil. The role of the Guardian is a criminal
one – and it must not be underestimated, they will take us to war, if allowed to
continue.
What the Guardian and others don't mention is. 1. the terrorist attacks on civilians and
the massacre of children & civilians on a daily basis. 2. Russia delivered a humanitarian
aid convoy to eastern Ghouta on 19th January, why are these aid deliveries not mentioned and
who benefits from them (see East Aleppo and Madaya to know exactly who does receive and
stockpile these supplies). 3. How are the terrorist receiving weapon supplies to facilitate
the murder of Syrian civilians in the residential areas of the city? The Guardian is at the
vanguard of the UK FCO dirty intelligence operation in Syria, you only have to create a
timescale of their reports on the alleged Khan Sheikhoun attacks to see who led that
narrative for the British public based upon spurious claims and unverified testimony from
known terrorist operators. Of course the Guardian does not allow comment, it knows perfectly
well that it has been rumbled.
Not expecting anything from the Graun really but this SIS memo is a new low . The mystery for
me is why do they bother even . Who are their target readership ?
This chemical attack has been "in preparation" for a while – several comments on blogs
with sources more credible than either the White Helmets or SOHR. In particular, on Moon of
Alabama – here's a quote:
"Asaad Hanna @AsaadHannaa 4:26pm · 22 Jan 2018
Assad army dropped chlorine bombed barrels on Abo Aldhoor military base #Idlib countryside in
a big attempt to take control of it.
The above is from an anti-Syrian "Media Adviser, researcher and freelance journalist"
previously published or quoted by Al Jazeerah, The Guardian, Business Insider and several
other outlets. His twitter account has a "Verified" mark.
"There is only a tiny problem with the tweet about the Abu Duhur air base. Since Saturday
the base is in government hands. Yesterday the Syrian Ministry of Defense officially
announced the full capture of the air base."
"Whoever conducted the attacks, Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims
in East Ghouta and countless other Syrians targeted with chemical weapons, since Russia
became involved in Syria," Tillerson told reporters.
Tillerson told reporters, and reporters just wrote it down! I was following the Twitter
exchange just now between OffG and the BBC reporter – Dan something – about the
recent new round of Russia fear porn , and it's just the same ; "I just write what the
general said": this alleged journalist.
Glad OffG reminded him what journalism actually is. You are supposed to check your
facts!
"There is simply no denying that Russia, by shielding its Syrian ally, has breached its
commitments to the US as a framework guarantor. At a bare minimum, Russia must stop
vetoing, or at the very least abstain, from future security council votes on this issue,"
he added.
But what if the "rebels" did the attack? or – even more likely – what if the
"attack" never happened like the one featured in "Saving Syria's Children"?
A good reporter could have had this fellow on the ropes, having to explain the nonsense
he's talking – but no, they just obediently type it all up and publish it.
When I first read the Solon article in the Guardian my hackles rose alarmingly. At the
time of publication, there was already widespread information as to the true nature of the
White Helmets, including about origin and funding.
As well as subsequently reading many articles in independent media about the Solon piece,
I have belatedly read your linked article above. The emails you received from Solon inviting
comment were, as you rightly imply, damning 'evidence' as to the nature of her proposed
story. It simply beggars belief.
It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the
mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy.
But no, it's actually liberating: be a skeptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And
what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is
beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties
to various governments/agencies.
In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians
didn't believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in
the West tended to believe their own media. Not any more. We've finally come full circle
Thanks – comments are a great initiative on some of these Guardian propaganda stories.
Amazing the way US officials can in one breath condemn a nation (Syria Govt in this case) and
at the same time announce they are establishing an illegal and permanent garrison in the
country (Syria in this case). These US officials must have skin made of rawhide – or
snake leather. Surprised our Foreign Minister Bishop hasn't been applauding this new
development.
Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the
alternative media becomes mainstream. Once the reset happens good bye to the lame street
media and hello to good old fashion news where journos question more.
The Guardian like all legacy news sights are on life support.
Russia ate my homework to western economic recovery to Takfiri rebranding as freedom fighters
have all be revealed as simple good old fashion propaganda how Orwellian and fascistic the
times we r living
It is censorship. When the Guardian promoted the White Helmet bid for the Nobel Peace Prize
in 2016, it shamelessly lobbied for their success. The hundreds, if not thousands of comments
reflected public outrage at their blatant PR for an organisation that has clear affiliations
to Al Qaeda in Syria and which is financed by the UK FCO with taxpayer funds. To dismiss this
outrage as "trolling" merely echoes the lexicon employed by the Guardian to dismiss those who
are exposing the UK regime's nefarious role in Syria and its project to destabilize a
sovereign nation and to bring about regime change yet again, in favour of a puppet regime
more in tune with UK imperialist designs in the region.
When Solon wrote her appalling
lynch-mob-hack piece attacking myself, Eva Bartlett, Tim Anderson etc she used the same
terminology – and the Guardian exercised the same censorship – even, illegally,
denying myself and others named in the article, the right to reply.
Rather than attack the
"standard of debate", I would be asking, why has the rage against the criminal misdirecting,
omission & misrepresenting of facts in Syria, reached such a fever pitch? You may
consider those "trolling" remarks to be beneath you but I say, that is an insult to the
public that the Guardian is asking to fund their efforts .that makes the Guardian answerable
to its audience, however they may express their disgust.
One of the mysteries of the Snowden affair was why none (almost none) of the 40,000 employees
of the disgusting 4th Amendment-trampling NSA blew the whistle on what they likely would have
known was massive illegal spying. It seems logical to assume they used their own technology
to screen applicants and I have it third hand that they screened each applicant or
nomination, for any left wing activity, any boat-rocking history, any standing up to
authority, emerging with a Stepford culture of fartcatching milquetoasts, who meekly and
submissively did what they were told and nothing else.
I now ask the same question of the disgraceful Guardian, which is nearly unrecognizably
distant from the aims of the family trust establishing it in the wake of Peterloo. Why have
none of their columnist railed publicly against the perverse mutilation of a grand old
establishment gad fly and formerly a beacon of integrity?
To read the Fraudian now, you have to discount nearly everything they say and decipher the
tiresome code for what they really think. Unless you can be sustained by mindless
gender-counting and lifestyle advice preceded by the things you 'must' do , delivered by
yapping non-experts, bulwarked by doctrinaire moderatrices.
This was a paper to which a whistleblower, not long ago might choose to go. They would be
mad to go there now after the Fraudian threw Snowden under the bus in their uninhibited
headlong fanatical drum eating for the dreaded Hillary. The pant-suited one wants him home
"to face the music". Nice. There were many lessons from Hillary's defeat and they have
learned none of them.
We live in an era where lying to Congress can be done with impunity cf. Alexander,
Clapper, Brennan et al. There was no consequence for them There could be a consequence for
the Fraudian.
"... By Major Danny Sjursen, a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, ..."
"... He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at ..."
"... and check out his new podcast ..."
"... . Originally published at TomDispatch ..."
"... On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, ..."
"... Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ..."
"... Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... On Strategy ..."
"... Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... War Comes to Long An ..."
"... I. Laying Plans ..."
"... 1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. ..."
"... 2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. ..."
"... 3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. ..."
"... 4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline. ..."
"... 5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. ..."
"... 7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. ..."
"... 8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. ..."
"... 9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness. ..."
"... 10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure. ..."
"... 11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail. ..."
"... 12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:– ..."
"... 13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment? ..."
"... 14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat. ..."
"... 15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:–let such a one be dismissed! ..."
"... The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation. ..."
"... Chaque fois que les incidents de guerre obligent l'un de nos officiers à agir contre un village [ ], il ne doit pas perdre de vue que son premier soin, la soumission des habitants obtenue, sera de reconstruire le village, d'y créer un marché, d'y établir une école. C'est de l'action de la politique et de la force que doit résulter la pacification du pays et l'organisation à lui donner plus tard. ..."
"... Every time one of our officers is forced to act against a village because of war incidents, he must not lose sight of his first concern, which, after the submission of the inhabitants, is to rebuild the village, to create a market, to establish a school. It is the joint action of policy and force that must result in the pacification of the country and in its later organization. ..."
"... The Bridge on the River Kwai ..."
"... A Bright Shining Lie ..."
"... The Best and the Brightest ..."
"... The Ugly American is a 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. The Ugly American depicts the failures of the U.S. diplomatic corps, whose insensitivity to local language, culture, customs and refusal to integrate was in marked contrast to the polished abilities of Eastern Bloc (primarily Soviet) diplomacy and led to Communist diplomatic success overseas [sic]. The book caused a sensation in diplomatic circles. John F. Kennedy was so impressed with the book that he sent a copy to each of his colleagues in the United States Senate. The book was one of the biggest bestsellers in the country, has been in print continuously since it appeared and is one of the most politically influential novels in all of American literature. ..."
"... The title of the novel is a play on Graham Greene's 1955 novel The Quiet American and was sometimes confused with it. ..."
"... The "Ugly American" of the book title refers to the book's hero, plain-looking engineer Homer Atkins, whose "calloused and grease-blackened hands always reminded him that he was an ugly man." Atkins, who lives with the local people, comes to understand their needs, and offers genuinely useful assistance with small-scale projects such as the development of a simple bicycle-powered water pump.[2] ..."
"... as it very properly attempted to conceal from the Japanese, ..."
By Major Danny Sjursen, a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West
Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a
memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghost Riders of Baghdad:
Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons
in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVetand check out his new podcastFortress on
a Hill. Originally published at TomDispatch
[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
Vietnam: it's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.
A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and
still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a
century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the
previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business
intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese
government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides
of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a
North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans
in those years as the Vietcong.
More than two decades of involvement and, at the war's peak, half a million American troops
never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. Despite millions of Asian
deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam's military could not, in the end, hold the line
without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North
Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.
There's just one thing. Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the "orthodox"
school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior
American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far
cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most
disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.
The Big Re-Write
In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned
an article
for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral
dissertation on the Vietnam War. It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus's
impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war. Though
he did observe that Vietnam had "cost
the military dearly" and that "the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of
those who lead the services," his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared
to wage what were then called "low-intensity conflicts" and are now known as
counterinsurgencies. His takeaway: what the country needed wasn't less Vietnams but
better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better
job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such
wars.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he
and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers
devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very
conclusions to win the war on terror. The names of some of them -- H.R. McMaster and James
Mattis, for instance -- should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan,
Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice. Americans
-- and much of the rest of the planet -- still live with the results.
Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years
after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient
conflict. After all these decades, such "thinking" generals and "soldier-scholars" continue to
draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America's
second longest war.
Rival Schools
Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools
of revisionist thinking. There are the "Clausewitzians" (named after the nineteenth century
Prussian military theorist) who insist that Washington never sufficiently attacked the enemy's
true center of gravity in North Vietnam. Beneath the academic language, they essentially agree
on one key thing: the U.S. military should have bombed the North into a parking lot.
The second school, including Petraeus, Hess labeled the "hearts-and-minders." As
COINdinistas, they felt the war effort never focused clearly enough on isolating the Vietcong,
protecting local villages in the South, building schools, and handing out candy -- everything,
in short, that might have won (in the phrase of that era) Vietnamese hearts and minds.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in
Vietnam.
The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century. Senior
commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have
translated that conflict's supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in
Washington. The
result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia
to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief
that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can
work now.
The Go-Big Option
The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam
War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy : A
Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military. It's
easy enough to understand why. Summers argued that civilian policymakers -- not the military
rank-and-file -- had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam
rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. More troops, more aggressiveness, even
full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have
led to victory.
Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic.
Later , he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay
in "draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences." In his own work,
Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed
to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of
escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national
security interest of the United States.
Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war
encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you
know you never beat us on the battlefield."
"That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it is also irrelevant."
Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I
was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!)
A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of
Duty . He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give
President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that
"the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice." He concluded that
the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in
Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon's generals, which led civilian
officials to opt for a deficient strategy.
McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint
Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion
of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another
"go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed
out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation
of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war."
COIN: A Small (Forever) War
Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening
salvo for the hearts-and-minders. In The Army and Vietnam , published in 1986, he
argued
that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy's chief center of gravity and that
the American military's failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional
concepts of war sealed its fate. While such arguments were, in reality, no more
impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military
audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points
out , because they offer a "simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam."
Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairspiece , "How to Win
in Iraq," in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged
counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New
York Times 's resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating "discussion in
the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president."
In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War : The
Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam . Sorley boldly
asserted
that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his
comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S.
commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor,
General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have
been) a war winner.
Critics
noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals'
strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work. It didn't matter, however. By 2005,
just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American
occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley's book found
its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State
Department counselor Philip Zelikow. By then, according
to the Washington Post 's David Ignatius, it could also "be found on the
bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad."
Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl. (He even
made it
onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart .) His Learning to Eat Soup with
a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in
claiming that "if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the
start of the war, America might very well have won it." In 2006, the Wall Street
Journalreported that Army Chief of Staff
General Peter Schoomaker "so liked [Nagl's] book that he made it required reading for all
four-star generals," while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.
David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of
FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times -reviewed ) military field manual for counterinsurgency since
Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders. Nagl wrote a
foreword for their manual,
while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement .
Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had
filtered down to the entire officer corps.
Reading All the Wrong Books
In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed
to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps -- the military's primary tactical
headquarters -- he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a
professional reading list to his principal subordinates. To his disappointment, Daddis also
discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War . This
should have surprised no one, since his argument -- that American soldiers in Vietnam
were
denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors
-- was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the
military's fault!
Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual
guideposts to the complex challenges ahead. Indeed, there's much to be admired in the concept,
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire
generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have
been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to
reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.
Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers -- who spoke at my
West Point graduation -- included Summers's On
Strategy on his list. A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker
added
McMaster's Dereliction of Duty . The trend continues today. Marine Corps Commandant
Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the
illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war
criminal fame). Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and
added good
old Lewis Sorley. To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included
yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list , Krepinevich's
The Army and Vietnam .
Just as important as which books made the lists is what's missing from them: none of these
senior commanders include newer scholarship
,
novels , or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about
whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that
might highlight the limits of American influence and power.
Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam
Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They
graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal
of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in
1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster in 1984 .
Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in
1971 , while
Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his
commission in 1976
.
In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror
entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia. That meant
they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so
the professional credibility that went with it. They were mentored and taught by academy
tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict.
Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era -- and it's never ended.
Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had
reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where
to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a
military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in
Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only
lead to twenty-first-century disasters.
From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War
All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam "lessons" inform the U.S. military's
ongoing "surges" and "advise-and-assist" approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and
Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the
Trump administration's version of global strategy. President Trump's in-house Clausewitzians
clamor for -- and receive
-- ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam
vet) Edward Meyer called for
back in 1983: "a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam." In other words, more
bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts' content.
Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent
three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70%
of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new
"mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the
deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the
stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was
there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize"
Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced
Trump that -- despite his original
instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or
6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more
drones ,
planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on
farce.
The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are
never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that
is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting.
None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington
couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who
flew
269 combat missions over that country) noted in the
recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side."
Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview
last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment --
disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." Eerily
enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something similar.
speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down. Even as President
Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South Vietnamese
Army (ARVN) -- a process known then as "Vietnamization" -- the general warned
that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support "would be required indefinitely to
maintain an effective force." Vietnam, too, had its "generational" side (until, of course, it
didn't).
That war and its ill-fated lessons will undoubtedly continue to influence U.S. commanders
until a new set of myths, explaining away a new set of failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere, take over, possibly thanks to books by veterans of these conflicts about how
Washington could have won the war on terror.
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parametersarticle
with a quote from historian George Herring: "Each historical situation is unique and the use of
analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous." When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of
officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), "dangerous"
hardly describes the results. They've helped bring us generational war and, for today's young
soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.
I know there is a book with the name; "The Arrogance of Power", but it is apt when applied
to US attempt to obliterate the nation of Vietnam. We continue to spread this filthy type of
"war" around the globe only because we have not really met our "match" but, we will .oh yes,
we will. Every book that has been written about either the war itself or the tactics used to
try to "win" has contributed to more understanding of that brutal war. The military must
relearn the rule of war that war itself alone cannot win, it takes the political side also.
It has been infernally "easy" since 9/11 for the politicians, the military industrial complex
to construct a world of "terror" and most Americans believe in that world. It has been
immensely profitable. No compulsory military service; a bunch of "little" wars around the
globe being run by private enterprises; no excess war profits taxes; a Pentagon budget that
includes the propagandizing of the American sports public .and on and on and on. What's not
to like for the profit mongers and the ideologically bent?? Ho Chi Min and the people of
Vietnam were outright betrayed by WW1 (just like the Arabs) treaties; by the US in it's
treatment of Vietnam in the treaties of WW2 (Roosevelt died but he already had an
understanding with the French (DeGaulle)) to not interfere with their retaking over of
Vietnam after WW2 so as to get French cooperation with the birth of NATO.
May I add another book: "Ho Chi Min" "A Life" William J. Duiker. Pub. 2000.
Well if they are looking for good books on 'Nam, might I suggest some of the books from my
own collection?
"Long Time Passing" – Myra MacPherson
"About Face" – David H. Hackworth
"Nam" – Mark Baker
"Dispatches" – Michael Herr
"One Soldier"- John H. Shook
"The Only War We Had" – Michael Lee Lanning
"To Heal a Nation" – Jan C. Scruggs
Also, the novel (based on the authors experience as an NVA soldier), 'The Sorrows of War'
by Bao Ninh. It shows many NVA soldiers were as cynical of their political masters as the
average US grunt.
Oh, I'd forgotten 'The Quiet American', incredible book – I kept having to check the
inside page when I read it to confirm that it was in fact written before the Vietnam War
– its prescience was amazing. It should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in
foreign policy of any type.
George Martin Windrow's "The Last Valley" (1996) displaces Bernard Fall as the definitive
work on Dien Bien Phu, prelude to America's debacle. I work a lot in Vietnam, and his
description of how their society organizes and moblilizes is spot on. He also has blood
curdling descriptions of what artillery does to human bodies. And there is the entertaining
interlude where the US briefly entertained atomic bombing to break the siege.
From Bernard Fall's Newport lecture at the Naval War College in about 1964:
"Let me state this definition: RW = G + P, or, "revolutionary warfare equals guerrilla
warfare plus political action." This formula for revolutionary warfare is the result of the
application of guerrilla methods to the furtherance of an ideology or a political system.
This is the real difference between partisan warfare, guerrilla warfare, and everything else.
"Guerrilla" simply means "small war," to which the correct Army answer is (and that applies
to all Western armies) that everybody knows how to fight small wars; no second lieutenant of
the infantry ever learns anything else but how to fight small wars. Political action,
however, is the difference. The communists, or shall we say, any sound revolutionary warfare
operator (the French underground, the Norwegian underground, or any other European anti-Nazi
underground) most of the time used small-war tactics–not to destroy the German Army, of
which they were thoroughly incapable, but to establish a competitive system of control over
the population. Of course, in order to do this, here and there they had to kill some of the
occupying forces and attack some of the military targets. But above all they had to kill
their own people who collaborated with the enemy."
Also worth a look: War Comes to Long An by Jeffrey Race, which essentially
discloses that the U.S. war effort, as understood by the Vietnamese themselves, was to keep
the French colonial oligarchy in place.
Race learned Vietnamese on the boat over to Vietnam and interviewed the Vietnamese
themselves to find out why they continued to fight. Basically, the oligarchy promised only
continued oppression by the rentiers.
I didn't need to read books about Vietnam. I simply listened to the stories and night-time
screams of my new roommates returning to school on the GI Bill in '68 and '69. The lives
ruined, on both sides, stays with me today.
One of those room-mates was on Hamburger Hill in May of '69 and was attempting college in
the Fall. PTSD was apparent and he soon enough dropped out (of life).
The sad part is we Americans do everything we keep to keep snatching defeat from victory's
teeth. The Vietnamese as a whole were happy with us before our government (read CIA)
sabotaged the elections, and handed power over to the Catholic minority and its most corrupt
part at that. (When you have to pay/bribe someone for artillery support during a battle ) Ho
Chi Min and company did not ally themselves to their worst enemy, the Chinese, because they
wanted too.
Same with Iraq. It was probably unwindable, but scrapping detailed State Department plans
on what when, and if, Iraq was occupied because you don't want to spend the money, defend
only the oil ministry's offices, let the entire country just collapse, and then fire not only
anyone a member of the Ba'ath Party as well as the entire Iraqi Army. Of course, if wanted to
be a teacher or have a job in the government, you had to be a Ba'athist, and to secure any of
the weapons and ammunition of the army is something. I am not what that something is, but
it's really something. And then the Bush Administration basically says it's going to invade
Iran once everything settles, which gave the Iranians incentive to keep arming anyone in Iraq
fighting the Americans and British.
I am raaaanting now and I can feel my blood rising so I am gonna stop now. It's just so
hard seeing our government's foreign policy and its intelligence services being run by well
educated morons.
Can't comment on Iraq, but Vietnam was a MAJOR F-up by USA. Ho Chi Min was actually very
much pro-USA – until they handed them back to French after WW2.
With even a bit of US support Vietnam could have been fairly firmly pro-US (it always was
anti-China, so the "it will go to Chinese like Koreans did" fears were fearmongering/PR at
worst and lack of understanding at best), aiming to build a sort of social-democratic regime
rather than full-on Communist one. Yes, it would have upset the French. What's not to like,
given how deGaule was trying to screw everyone around to push their national interests? (much
better than British at the time, one should say).
The Cold War was spinning up in Europe, and the U.S. was trying to get France on its side.
The price for that was allowing France to attempt to reassert itself in Indochina.
I know the usual excuse – but there was about zero chance that France would really
go into bed with USSR.
deGaule definitely threatened it, but I very much doubt he would go the full hog –
if nothing else, he didn't want to be anyone's, and that included USSR's, puppet. At the very
very worst, they might end up Yugoslavia-like, although I'd say that once proto-EU was cooked
up, France would jump there pretty quick, as otherwise it would have lost pretty much all
influence in Europe.
Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were all, arguably, 'winnable' – the common thread in
all three is the US failure to understand local political dynamics. With Vietnam, it was the
failure to understand that what was happening was primarily a civil war with the 'Communists'
not necessarily being anti-American – they saw (and still see) China as their long
historical enemy. In Iraq the dismembering of the existing Ba'ath party structures without
having anything (apart from the free market of course) to replace it proved fatal, along with
an ignorance of Shia/Sunni dynamics. In Afghanistan the 'victory' was blown by an insistence
on chasing phantom Al-Q enemies when the Taliban was more or less destroyed.
When you read the history of long lived empires, from Rome to the British Empire, a common
characteristic they all have is an acute awareness of how to manipulate local dynamics in
order to maintain control without expending too much manpower. The US military seems to
completely lack this capacity. In fact, rather than being in charge, a common feature seems
to be that US military power is all too easily manipulated by local powerbrokers for their
own ends.
Yep, I'll sign under that. I do wonder how much it has to do with the American psyche, and
how much with the fact that even British or Roman empires had sort of hard limitations (not
just in terms of manpower, but more importantly in the ability to get the manpower to the
sharp end pronto).
I think an element of it is quite simply the sheer wealth and power of America means it
doesn't have to think through the consequences of interventions too much. Even in the heyday
of the European empires, military adventures were very expensive operations – two or
three failures in a row could fatally set an empire back.
I think another major issue is the lack of skin in the game for decision makers. I think
the early days of WWII was the last time there was a major cull of military officers for
incompetence in the US. And even in WWII, it was rare for officers to get killed. Even more
so since then, and with the ending of the draft, it means no risks for their sons or
daughters, and minimal ones for anyone they would be likely to know.
There is simply little or no price paid for failure. At least not by the people
responsible.
"All, arguably, winnable." For what definition of "WIN?"
Our military rulers are supposed to "study war." The curriculum supposedly includes not
only Clausewitz, Mr. "Center of Gravity," on "modern" war, but also that hoary old classic
under the nom de plume "Sun Tzu," called "The Art of War." Said rulers, for some reason, skip
over the first part of Sun Tzu's advice, the part about asking whether going to war is wise
at all, at all:
I. Laying Plans
1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.
2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a
subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into
account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the
field.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method
and discipline.
5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so
that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.
8. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and
narrow passes; the chances of life and death.
9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and
strictness.
10. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its
proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by
which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.
11. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be
victorious; he who knows them not will fail.
12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military
conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise:–
13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two
generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On
which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater
constancy both in reward and punishment?
14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.
15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a
one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it,
will suffer defeat:–let such a one be dismissed!http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
There's a lot more in "The Art of War" about the idiocy of doofus war-fighting in absence
of the Moral Law and true national interest at the end of immense logistics and supply
chains, war that bankrupts the peasants, getting stuck in quagmires and such. The current
rulers just jump (if they pay any attention at all to the work any more) straight to all the
chestnuts ("All war is deception," duh, "Attack where he is weak, retreat where he is
strong," duh) about how to conduct strategy and tactics.
When was the last time any of these fundamental "Think before shooting" considerations Sun
Tzu distilled from millennia of earlier wars and his own experiences was given ANY attention
by the rotter nihilists ("Mutual Assured Destruction, Massive Retaliation, "counterinsurgency
always and everywhere, the F-35 model of logistics?) who commit "the nation" and the peasants
to their programs and "operations"? And even the attempts to "get the peasants on side" via
Bernays saucing, one of the necessary conditions per Sun Tzu, have been completely bollixed,
or simply plowed over.
All this sh!t-storm activity is conducted from within the same kind of bubble that got
inflated around the French High Command in the run up to the Great War, and seems to
regularly envelop "high commands" which are maybe experiencing a "contact high" from
breathing, inside that bubble, the heady fumes of their self-generated hallucinogenic
"designer drugs."
Many of our cities and towns already look a lot like Fallujah and Raqqa after
"liberation-by-destruction." Waiting for a massive collapse, maybe slow-mo or maybe
tipping-point quick, with huge collateral damage, in three, two, one
The problem is, many will argue that the parts of Sun Tzu you so correctly pointed out
aren't really the US military's job, they are the responsibility of the US Congress.
But something other than "Congress" is what's loosing the dogs of war. There's how it's
supposed to work, on paper, per that "quaint document," and how it actually works. Like so
much of "the Republic." Which ain't.
"When you read the history of long lived empires, from Rome to the British Empire, a
common characteristic they all have is an acute awareness of how to manipulate local dynamics
in order to maintain control without expending too much manpower."
+ 100
It won't surprise readers that Petraeus' "masterpiece" on counterinsurgency bears a strong
similarity to a publication by the late Sir Frank Kitson. Sir Frank commanded British forces
in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and UK Land Forces soon after. He also served in colonial
insurgencies in the 1950s. Kitson gave a talk, based on his publication, on such matters to
his alma mater, which I attended, in the mid-1980s. He was also the speaker at "speech day"
around then.
When the Iraq and Afghanistan War started, the British military were full of confidence
that their experience in counterinsurgency would allow them to show the US how it was done.
They had to be rescued in somewhat ignominious manner from both Basra and Kandahar as they
were shown to be completely out of their depth. It is part of British Army mythology that
they defeated the IRA using sound and sensible COIN, but the reality is much more
complicated.
Incidentally, it is said that Mao (and possibly Ho Chi Minh too) were avid readers of the
biographies of early 20th Century IRA leaders, including Michael Collins and Tom Barry, both
experts in counter-counter insurgency. Tom Barry was the leader of the most effective unit,
the West Cork Brigade. Collins was a master in using intelligence against intelligence
services, while Tom Barry was capable of using limited resources to keep an enormous number
of soldiers tied up. Both knew the skills of provoking the State into over-reactions which
pushed civilians over onto the rebels side.
Yes – despite its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement the British Government
is still sitting on files which would likely shed light on the dirty war in Northern Ireland.
Its pretty clear that both the main loyalist groups were to a large extent run by the
intelligence services to kill suspected IRA members, and were very likely involved in
bombings that resulted in mass casualties in Dublin and Monaghan. While they did undoubtedly
manage to neutralise some IRA Units in reality they stoked up as much violence as they
stopped.
In advance of a Corbyn government, many papers, some going back to the smearing of Labour
in the 1920s, have been "lost". The cache lost include the papers on the "sexed up dodgy
dossier", written by the UK's current envoy to the UN (Matthew Ryecroft) and sexed up by the
loathsome Alistair Campbell, and the death of the weapons inspector. The form of death
officially recorded, as with George Michael's, is disputed by many pathologists, including
former colleagues of my father.
Indeed. Document "disappearance" is a serious problem, with a long history, addressed
pretty well in Ian Cobain's recent title The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the
Shaping of a Modern Nation.
Whatever approach Petraeus & Co proposed, "hearts and minds" counter-insurgency was
basically a century old. Here:
Chaque fois que les incidents de guerre obligent l'un de nos officiers à agir
contre un village [ ], il ne doit pas perdre de vue que son premier soin, la soumission des
habitants obtenue, sera de reconstruire le village, d'y créer un marché, d'y
établir une école. C'est de l'action de la politique et de la force que doit
résulter la pacification du pays et l'organisation à lui donner plus
tard.
I.e. Every time one of our officers is forced to act against a village because of war
incidents, he must not lose sight of his first concern, which, after the submission of the
inhabitants, is to rebuild the village, to create a market, to establish a school. It is the
joint action of policy and force that must result in the pacification of the country and in
its later organization.
From the "fundamental instructions" of General Gallieni from 22nd May 1898, in the midst
of the "pacification" of Madagascar. Its estimated death toll was about 100000.
These generals remind me of the character of Colonel Nicholson (played by Alec Guinness)
in The Bridge on the River Kwai . They're so focused on the task in front of them,
they can't seem to step back and think about the wider picture.
In the Netflix film The Siege of Jadotville ,
the real life Commandant Pat Quinlan is quoted as saying 'Soldiers do tactics, politicians do
strategy'. The US miliitary always seems to have a surfeit of tactics with no discernable
strategy.
And of course Nicholson, at the end of the film, was going to stop the demolition of that
so painfully built bridge by the "inglorious bastards" on his nominal own team. Only dumb
luck and the timing of a bullet from a "Jap" led to his falling on the detonator as he died,
and blowing up the span .
re: wider picture.
The wider picture is the political picture. The military in the US is supposed to be and
remain non-political. The politicians send the military to wars. The military does not choose
what war, where, why to fight. Those decisions are Congress and the prez's job.
adding: When then (2003) Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed
Services Committee the truth about what an Iraq invasion required he displeased the Bush
admin and DoD, and was shortly edged out of his command by retirement. That in-essence
"sacking" had a large effect on the thinking of the entire chain of command, imo.
Thank you Yves for posting this article. It is rather disheartening but explains a lot of
what I have been wondering about for years – Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?
Obviously the answer is no; but even worse is the attitude of "we could/should have won"
displayed by the current military brass.
I remarked to wifey the other day that kids who were only a year old on 9/11 will be old
enough to join the military this year
I first heard of Ghost Riders of Baghdad by following various military Twitter accounts,
like Angry Staff Officer, or the account of Robert Bateman ( who sometimes writes for
Esquire). Angry Staff officer also has a blog with very informative posts. I thought of, Is
The Amy's Professional Military Education Broken?, after reading the above post. A sample, "
All military education must stem from the fundamental that war is a human endeavor, and as
such cannot be prosecuted without understanding basic factors of humanity".
https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/07/18/is-the-armys-professional-military-education-system-broken/
It is never mentioned here but how about the possibility that some wars simply cannot be
won – ever. It is not for nothing that Afghanistan is know as the place that empires go
to die nor that a geopolitical axiom is to never fight a land war in Asia. There was no
possible time-line where the US won in Vietnam using either military means or COIN
operations. The terrible truth is that most of those 58,00 Americans died long after it was
know that they could never win.
The COINdinistas had their chance in Iraq but younger offices at the time were furious with
senior officers in how out of touch they were with what was going on so it was a repeat of
the Vietnam experience all over again, including the notorious body-counts. And this whole
we-would-have-won-if-not-for-the-politicians-and-hippies is as much crap as the post WW1
German officers with their we-were-stabbed-in-the-back obsession. I see this even here in
Australia. Years ago I saw an Army show that featured the history of the Army. When they got
to the Vietnam war era they had Aussie soldiers naming the dead bodies in a mock-up of the
Battle of Long Tan while of the other side of the arena they had hippies shouting peace
slogans and the like. The message was clear – you betrayed us!
And that "you never beat us on the battlefield" was apparently not true either according to
an article I read last year setting out a few hard truths. The truth is that the training of
American officers is badly broken and that sycophants do very well in it. The whole system
needs to be junked as America is not bringing out the best officers that it can – not
by a long shot – and it was this system that produced leaders like Petraeus. They may
have been presented as the Great White Hope once but I invite other commentators find out how
his superior, Admiral William Fallon, regarded him. Nothing less than a root and branch
overhaul of the American officer training regime will counter how we see wars being fought
now. Otherwise we will continue to see more of the same.
Its worse than that: the US military is the cutting edge of a political Imperialist policy
completely contradicted by the
21st C environment. This is failure at the DNA level.
Two things that need to be understand about the Vietnam war that the US military does not
get.
The first is that the US did not lose the Vietnam war, we were beaten by the Vietnamese.
If we just "lost" the war, then all the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics" crap where the
only to lose is through a failure of will, (protesters and namby-pamby members of Congress)
becomes the dominant explanation.
We were beaten, and so we need to know why our military was beaten, and what the
military/Pentagon did wrong.
The second thing is the idea that the
Vietnamese won no battles in the war is patently false .
There are at least 70 battles that were lost.
The reason that the Pentagon insists on ignoring both of these is because the "stab in the
back from protesters" means that there is no accountability for the failures of our
military.
So, like the Bourbon kings, our military has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The article states "Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed
present itself in Iraq "
In fact, the next Vietnam-like quagmire was engineered much sooner than that, and is still
running.
From an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Adviser at the time:
" it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a
Soviet military intervention The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote
to President Carter, essentially: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its
Vietnam war.' " http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
Popular insurgencies can be beaten. There are many examples, especially in Latin America.
The common enabling condition appears to be exhaustion of the peasantry over a period of
years, after which they choose 'peace and order' enforced by thugs with badges over the
guerrillas who cannot restore economic life, even in 'liberated zones'.
Pastoral mountain tribesmen are probably the least susceptible to this exhaustion and
subjugation can take generations: witness the Scots.
I think you're getting at something that the win/lose focus misses: whether or not the US
ultimately failed to maintain a client regime in Vietnam, it brutally demonstrated the costs
of resistance.
In Yves' intro she writes
but decided to stay at war because they deemed the damage to US prestige of winding down
the war to be too great.
US prestige = certainty of monumental costs to resistance. Prestige is honorspeak for
legitimate terrorism.
I think you are missing the point of all of this and in fact trivializing the war.
Vietnam was not a popular insurgency (whatever that means). It was an all out war to rid
that nation of colonial domination and unify the country. It was not the "Viet Namese war"
for these people, but the war against America.
"Popular insurgency" is the Orwellian term used by those in power. A good example is the
American war of independence. From the British Empire's point of view, it was a "popular
insurgency".
It would be instructive if you could define "popular insurgency" more clearly and provide
some context.
The issue is that they can only be done by governments in their own nations or the nations
that they are very close by.
Even then, the success record is mixed and it requires a willingness to be totally
ruthless. Otherwise the subjugated people eventually will be able to win some form of
independence, like the Irish.
The US is different. It is dealing with self inflicted and totally pointless wars in the
Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan.
The insurgencies in Latin America can hardly be compared to Vietnam, as they were for the
most part beaten by CIA dirty work rather than crushed by a full-on military operation.
The long, sad record is so awful, maybe we just turn over the whole military to the Civil
Air patrol and the Coast Guard! They could not possibly do worse, and might be much
better!
In no time flat, either of those organizations (already peopled by nascent Petraeuses and
Mattises) would revert to the mean that we already know too well. Nice thought, though. The
Coast Guard's multi-missions mission: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missions_of_the_United_States_Coast_Guard
Unlike all the other "branches" of the MIC hydra, the CG suffers from cost cutting and
neoliberalism. "More and more work, for fewer and fewer people, for less and less money,
under tighter and tighter constraints, with every more detailed metrics " and their recent
acquisitions of new cutters are kind of F-35/littoral-combat-ships-ish "Billions Later, Plan
to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles," http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html
One thing that is rarely, if ever, mentioned is the type of person who joins the officer
corps. The school I attended has produced (British) generals and admirals (only, not the
ranks). Many, if not most, of the pupils who joined, or were encouraged to join, and only as
officers were considered dunces. Goodness knows what the soldiers and sailors, especially
NCOs, thought of the "young ruperts".
One contemporary, now a well regarded and well known painter (deservedly so), stayed in
the same class / year for three years. He was encouraged into the Welsh Guards and served a
few years. His elder brother joined the same regiment and is a general. Ian Duncan Smith,
formerly of the Scots Guards, is similar.
Read The Pentagon Papers to see why we couldn't win hearts and minds. The Vietnamese hated
the French and we ended up doing everything the French did to make the Vietnamese hate us
too.
Two good books that give a historical perspective of American involvement in the Pacific
and Asia are James Bradley's,The Imperial Cruise, and The China Mirage- The Hidden History of
American Disaster in Asia. Both books are written in a narrative style that is very
approachable and entertaining. Bradley tells a great story. They describe some long standing
American policy that go unreported and bring new understanding to todays events.
These titles led me to Barbara Tuchman's, Stilwell and the American Experience in China-
1911-45. I haven't read this one yet, but Stilwell seems an interesting American character.
Someone on the ground, seeing reality for what it is, and ignored by the upper brass. Another
typical American story- a tragedy.
One of the criticisms of American foreign policy made by the British has always been the
lack of political foresight and strategic thinking. I came across these criticisms in the
context of WWII policy, but at their core, I think they say much about the character of
American leadership. American founding principles and the needs of Empire are contradictory
to the citizenry. America has become an Empire by luck and default. Luck in the unmatched
bounty the North American continent has bestowed on the Nation and Europeans wearing
themselves out. This point is driven home by the fact that American standing in the world is
falling like a rock in many metrics.
I believe this explains why Americans still are reluctant to view themselves as being an
Empire. Too many tricky contradictions when dealing with their own citizens and reason for
being. It is what lies behind the lie of spreading "Democracy" to the world. The British
Empire faced no such dilemma. At least they brought law, order, and culture to those they
conquered. American Empire spreads chaos. Resisting cultures are treated to the political
ideology of annihilation. American policy is, "bombing them into the stone age."
Another great read is Halford Mackinder, The Geographical Pivot of History. In a way, his
thesis ties up all the loose ends of the Great Game being played by our political and social
betters. The Anglo-Saxon mode of rule has been to carve up the world. Asian cultures are much
older and as humanity moves forward in time, people are truly tiring of war. A united
Eurasian Continent would be a supreme power to set living standards and future goals. True
power is moving East.
What has the West to offer, but more blood and bombs. The embrace of cultural diversity
moves away from war and embodies political power in the melding of culture not its
extermination. I think that was the policy of Alexander the Great.
The great fear of American political leaders is being labeled provincials. Failed world
leadership lends credence to this charge. We are not ready to lead, and it shows by the
mediocracy of our leaders. An Empire that kills itself has to be a first. Is it any wonder
that the leadership now embrace the kill anything that moves mentality. It is all they have
in the form of power projection and vision.
All this to get to the point that maybe a multipolar world is not such a bad thing. Trying
something new when everything else seems to fail.
Eh I'm no fan of the West but I wouldn't paint the East in very pretty colors either, for
sure. Humanity has a tendency to suck. Look close to home to make things better I would
say.
You want a multipolar world, me too but what's with this "supreme" "United Eurasian
Continent"??? I want to have to at least take my shoes off to count the world's power
centers.
We have all forgotten the "Forgotten War". In another Asian byproduct of WWII, Curtis
LeMay channeled Clausewitz to the max as we flattened North Korea. How did that work out?
Does it have any ramifications for the USA in 2018?
Books to "explain" Vietnam and sequelae: Why no mention of a really seminal tome, "The
Ugly American"? Dated 1958. I read it, avidly, several times over, as a young,
testosterone-poisoned American Boy Scout Youth, and its mythos helped in getting me to enlist
in the Imperial Army in 1966. From Wiki:
The Ugly American is a 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. The
Ugly American depicts the failures of the U.S. diplomatic corps, whose insensitivity to local
language, culture, customs and refusal to integrate was in marked contrast to the polished
abilities of Eastern Bloc (primarily Soviet) diplomacy and led to Communist diplomatic
success overseas [sic]. The book caused a sensation in diplomatic circles. John F. Kennedy
was so impressed with the book that he sent a copy to each of his colleagues in the United
States Senate. The book was one of the biggest bestsellers in the country, has been in print
continuously since it appeared and is one of the most politically influential novels in all
of American literature.
The title of the novel is a play on Graham Greene's 1955 novel The Quiet American and
was sometimes confused with it.
The "Ugly American" of the book title refers to the book's hero, plain-looking
engineer Homer Atkins, whose "calloused and grease-blackened hands always reminded him that
he was an ugly man." Atkins, who lives with the local people, comes to understand their
needs, and offers genuinely useful assistance with small-scale projects such as the
development of a simple bicycle-powered water pump.[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American
Another of the hero's engineering triumph was getting the women of "Dong Ba" (?) to unbend
their backs by changing to a New, Improved, longer model of the bamboo brooms they used to
sweep the dirt floors of their huts. A relatively innocuous form of Coca-Colonialism But the
part that I got all hepped up about was the engineer's innovation, borrowing from the Soviet
"multiple launch rocket systems" known as "Katyushas," https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F2lPpPVlDhg ,
of fitting a truck with a several dozen rocket-launching rails, which he used to fire a
volley of "spin-stabilized folding-fin air-to-ground rockets (SSFFARs)" into a bamboo grove
where Evil Insurgents were having a meeting of their cabal -- "in the glare, you could see
body parts spinning up into the night sky " Heady Stuff for young mopes.
Apparently the myth of "The Ugly (But Big-Hearted, Local-Language-Speaking) American
settled nicely into the mind and mindset of Saint Kennedy, too
Tradition is durable. I recall Haitians, like some African forebears, preferred to cook
with charcoal, which one gets by burning wood in a low oxygen furnace before burning it in
your clay stove. Vastly wasteful. Now a good part of local effort goes into long walks to
find bits of shrubbery to reduce to charcoal. And they denuded the whole country of trees and
woody shrubs. Efforts made to change the custom met resistance -- "good enough for
grandemere, good enough for.me." Like trying to get Americans to stop smoking, or worse, to
drive smaller cars let alone kick the deadly automobile habit that has so many knock-on
deleterious effects on people and planet.
The degradation of the Haitian portion of Santo Dimingo was as much a result of the soil
erosion caused by that mono-crop, sugar cane. The French merchants were making "boo koo"
bucks deploying as many slaves as possible to harvest this cash crop. (Too many slaves on too
little land.)
The other half of Santo Domingo Island is the Dominican Republic and it has little of the
resource devastation apparent in Haiti.
I see VietNam as the perfect example of successful neo liberal economic policies. Military
Keynesianism, the workings of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and corporate profiteering are
more pertinent than Clausewitz or Coin. As with the thoroughly neo liberal DNC, it's never
been about winning or losing. It's just about the next consulting or munitions contract.
Forever war means forever contract. The Mt. Pelerin society didn't start in 1947 for nothing.
Keep them talking about winning and losing while the money flows in. Tough about the GI Joe
collateral damage.
The destined warriors are misused. International Law has no problem with wars of defense.
I have a right to defend myself. The State has a monopoly on the use of force.
Sports aren't enough for the action figures.
Couldn't beat the Vietnamese so beating the Beats
at home, in the homeland develops into for profit prisons
& the recreation of the Gulag. American Gulags
& how much of that labor for pennies is done for Koch Industries?
Meltoy?
I could found an entire nation on a love & war movie. South Koreans have made the
theaters called 4D. Shakes you around and blows wind and smells on you.
Spies fail in concert with their employers, the diplomats.
Haley is at the UN taking names.
Economic Warfare is universal. I mean there has been all my life
War against me. I went to Canada, so I am the enemy & the Wall is to keep me here where I
can be found & made to pay.
One term President Carter pardoned dodgers.
Wear sweaters.
On goes the petrodollar war. 100 Year Oil War.
Law of unintended consequences.
No care.
10,000 a year die from just small arms, in Mexico, not even artillery.
US Police kill 2,000 or is it 3? or is it 4? A year.
Now it is striking that Scandinavia, the Netherlands?
Nations other places & until France so few do big
murders of their countrymen or even within the EU.
They have lived where war means everything is
bombed or destroyed by cannons.
Germany won economically in capitalism matured
Because debts were to NAZIs enabling a great write off
of debt, not happening and inflated by Hedge Funds
for anybody else till Greece is enslaved & Puerto Rico
& whose next?
Doesn't matter, the US Military & its Bankers
& its police have been & will be at war with or
just at all Territories.
Unitary Power but as Gov. of Govs, can't be
That.
Why? Why Not?
War is not a war against spaceship aliens
So war is to destroy the Earth.
Kill anyone because you are destined
to kill.
Great Generals Have a Zest for Killing the Enemy.
Read "Our Jungle Road to Tokyo" by Robert L. Eichelberger who
is a great and perfect General of the 8th Army
in the Pacific.
Long as a General & an Army has one job only
At the behest of its Civilians.
All will be well.
Or at least rational, which is better.
Obviously Econ War is war.
Declaration of Econ War is Sanctions
Declared.
Because of illegal War.
I insist that the ICAO demand that
Kim Y. Un & DPRK give Notices to Airmen
When launching their Rockets.
My Rocket Program is called
The "Message Rocket Program".
Beat, I'm Beat.
"Army censorship concealed from
the American public, as it very properly
attempted to conceal from the Japanese, How weak we were.
The ethical weakness of the US
has become so profound.
All it does is war piratical parasitical
& everywhere all the time
on the ground or in the mind.
Out flow of all territory is by right
The Unitary Power's.
No Territory is won or lost.
Revisionist history is in full swing across the MSM spectrum. Take, for instance, the new
movie – 'The Post' – that pretends to be an accurate drama about Daniel Ellsberg,
the Pentagon Papers, and the "heroic" roll played by the Washington Post. It's fake history,
as this excellent review makes clear, but it fits a certain preferred narrative. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/
adding: one the the self-serving fictions the Dem party estab tells itself is that the
working class voted for Nixon and other GOP candidates because the working class is racist.
That neatly sidesteps the then growing belief that Vietnam – a Dem war, LBJ's war
– was unwinnable, the Dem power establishment new it was unwinnable, and yet kept
drafting working class boys to go fight and die because LBJ and others' egos were at stake.
The Dems have never dealt with that betrayal of the working class.
The reading list is missing the books that describe the actual horrors of combat that our
soldiers endured:
Hamburger Hill – the movie does not do full justice to the total clusterfuck that
battle was. I guarantee that you will weep bitter tears as you read accounts of the stupidity
of commanding officers from general to lieutenant, and of the tragic waste of life of young
draftees.
We Were Soldiers Once – The first 3/4 of the movie closely follows the book -- and
then goes all Hollywood at the end. It had to, because what actually happened was a stinging
defeat of the American troops and a template for the rest of the war. A REMF staff officer
needed to "get his ticket punched" for promotion with combat command experience, so was put
in charge of a battalion that took part in the latter phases of the battle. While withdrawing
from the battlefield afterward, he led the unit into an NVA ambush and lost 2/3 of his men
(155 KIA, 124 WIA and 4 MIA out of about 450 troopers present).
For somewhat more sanitized versions of what the grunts endured, see the half-dozen books
(extended after-action reports) by S. L. A. Marshall.
Nothing has changed from Nam to GWOT as far as the utter stupidity of America's military
leaders, and their need for constant wars to advance their careers and feed their patrons in
the MIC. One thing they *did* learn, after getting their sorry asses fragged by young
draftees fed up with dying at the hands of incompetent dolts, was to ditch the draft and pay
for mercenary -- called "volunteer" -- enlisted ranks. The wonder is, after 16 years of
endless, futile deployemnts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria, that the mercs aren't
murdering their idiot officers now as well ..
"Go tell the spartans" did without the hollywood ending, us military assistance and Burt
Lancaster ponied up the 150k USD required to finish it.
Set in 1964, says it was clearly fucked then.
Worth a look.
Yeah, Go Tell the Spartans is an excellent Nam flick.
Another is Platoon. Oliver Stone served in the 25th Infantry Division in Quang Tin
Province in 1967. The last big battle of Platoon is based on an actual event in Quang Tin in
1971, when the VC overran Firebase Mary Ann and inflicted 33 KIA and 83 WIA on the 23rd
Division.. Sappers in the Wire is a very good book about that fiasco.
Books by S. L. A. Marshall may have to be read with caution, even though I have never read
them. The reason that I say this is a book that I recommended in this series of posts called
"About Face" by David H. Hackworth. Hackworth was detailed to escort Marshall around Vietnam
and he "described his initial elation at an assignment with a man he idolized, and how that
elation turned to disillusion after seeing Marshall's character and methods firsthand.
Hackworth described Marshall as a "voyeur warrior," for whom "the truth never got in the way
of a good story", and went so far as to say, "Veterans of many of the actions he 'documented'
in his books have complained bitterly over the years of his inaccuracy or blatant bias". The
guy was always chasing a buck.
One significant action this piece left out was Congress' cutting off aid to South Vietnam
after the US military withdrawal in '72 on. When the final tank-led NVA push came in Apr 75
most of the ARVN forces remained at their bases for lack of fuel and ammunition. Could the
NVA Apr 75 campaign have met with similar lack of success as the '71 and '68 campaigns had
Congress continued support for South Vietnam? Guess we'll never know.
Tom Hagel, at one point, calls the wars in Iraq and Afganistan stupid but I can't find it
in the transcript. However, he also said this;
WE DISTRUST OUR INSTITUTIONS, WE DISTRUST THE GOVERNMENT, BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES. WE ARE
ANGRY AND WE JUST WANT TO SMASH IT. IN A WAY, I THINK THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO WRIST
BECAUSE OUR CURRENT POLITICIANS TOO OFTEN, I DON'T TRUST THEM, EITHER. I THINK THEY
CONTINUALLY LIE TO US, BUT WE'VE ALLOWED OURSELVES TO BE LIED TO BECAUSE WE ELECT THEM ALL
THE TIME. THEY FORGOT THAT THEY WORK FOR US. WE ARE CITIZENS, WE RUN THE SHOW. THEY WORK FOR
US. FOR SOME REASON, AS A SOCIETY, WE HAVE LOST THAT. WE JUST LET IT GO ON. CONSEQUENTLY, A
LOT OF THE DISTRUST IN THE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS CAN BE TRACKED BACK TO THE VIETNAM WAR.
BECAUSE IT WAS SO CLEAR UP OR A WHILE,. ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE ARCHIVES AND THE MATERIALS
THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED IN THAT, THE SOCIETY AND THE TROOPS WERE LIED TO,
Basics (I learned this at a military University, informally, not as coursework):
The objective of the military in war is to cause the enemy's economy to collapse.
This can be achieved by other means: eg Sanctions (an act of war) and Venezuela as an
example.
It would have been easier to control Vietnam in the '60s, by becoming the largest customer
for their major product, Rubber, and having American corporations, such as Coca-Cola,
"colonize" the country.
My experience of the Vietnamese, in the largest Vietnamese community outside Vietnam, is
they are Capitalists.
The various wars the US is fighting around the world have all the appearance of draining
the US economy and forcing it to collapse. Which in the world of soccer is referred to as an
"own goal."
That is, the US' largest enemy appears as itself.
1914 there were a number of Empires, British, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman,
Russian, et, and the US.
By the 1920s there were many less.
By the 1960s few.
Today, one, the US.
In California, where I live, manufactured goods used to come from the east, over the
mountains. Today it appears few goods come over the mountains from the east.
One wonders if the union will last, for how long, and if it's ending will be bloody or
peaceful.
I came back from Vietnam feeling that I had just bathed in a septic lagoon. It was a war
based on a false moral premiss, and the obvious was apparent to anyone properly informed. In
a war that is at its foundation a moral outrage, even if you win you lose. Added to our
present situation is the fact that no one will read the Koran READ THE KORAN ..(the Penguin
Classic translation will do nicely) then come back and we'll talk about "hearts and minds".
The halls of power are everywhere stacked with sociopaths, narcissists, and culpable
morons.
David Halberstam from the Best and Brightest:
"The truth of the war never entered the upper-level American calculations; that this was a
revolutionary war, and that the other side held title to the revolution because of the
colonial war which had just ended. This most simple fact entered into the estimates of the
American intelligence community and made them quite accurate. But it never entered into the
calculations of the principals, for a variety of reasons; among other things to see the other
side in terms of nationalism or as revolutionaries might mean a re-evaluation of whether the
United States was even fighting on the right side. In contrast, the question of Communism and
anti-Communism as opposed to revolution and anti-revolution was far more convenient for
American policy."
The Vietnam War could never have been won by the USA. Invasion of the North at worst would
have started a nuclear war (as Russia threaten) or at best a wider war with the Chinese
Peoples Army which had ended in a tie a decade before in Korea.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are repeats except without the draft there is inadequate
manpower. The USA's Great Game uses proxy forces that they supply and then fight; the
Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS. Kurds will soon be added to the list. These wars likewise cannot
be won. Counter insurgency wars have been won against minorities who do not have outside
support or safe havens; the American Indian Wars or Australia for example. This is fairly
clear. Then why don't the experts, West Point graduates, see it? First, it is hard to admit
that it all for nothing. Second, the ruling ideology in the West; neo-liberalism, advocates
the free movement of people, goods and services. The way mankind ends wars is with strong
borders, home based militias and peace treaties. This is antithesis to western plutocrats.
The military is doing what their bosses want them to do.
I think the thing that always needs to put out in front of any discussion of the
euphemistically named 'Vietnam War' is that there literally wouldn't have been a war if not
for US interference. Debates about whether we could have 'won' or not, or if the US should
have 'intervened' in the first place always seem to ignore the fact that this wasn't just
some regional conflict that the US decided to interject itself into. If we had allowed the
elections stipulated by the 1954 Geneva Accords to happen, rather than seeking to make the
South into a permanent puppet regime, there wouldn't have been any war. Going even further
back, if we hadn't given our support to the French to continue their colonial rule there
probably wouldn't have even been a First Indochina War, or it would have at least been far
shorter.
Memorable books that I was reading at the time and shortly thereafter:
"A Viet Cong Memoir," by Truong Nhu Tang, a massively detailed account of his own personal
journey from a privileged family serving the French, to a leader of the Viet Cong war against
the US invaders.
Frances Fitzgerald's "The Fire in the Lake" What the American invaders did not understand
nor care to learn about Vietnamese society and customs, that did them in as much as anything
else in that war.
"Betrayal" by Marine Colonel William Corson;
"Our Own Worst Enemy" by William J Lederer;
"The Viet-Nam Reader," edited by Marcus Raskin and Bernard Fall
Neil Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam"
"Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia" by William Shawcross (This
is an explosive, massively researched, highly detailed and horrifying account of Kissinger's
deliberate destruction of the land and the people of what until then had been the "bread
basket of SE Asia" and the most contented society on earth.)
Why would anyone blame de Gaulle WRT to anything in Indochina? De Gaulle didn't take over
France until several years after their Vietnam debacle, and de Gaulle was the man who got the
French out of Algeria (he nearly got assassinated for this). De Gaulle was an authoritarian
French nationalist, but he was neither an imperialist nor a sabre-rattler.
As the author alludes, the war in Vietnam was essentially unwinnable because it failed to
meet a basic precept for success in any war: It did not have a higher purpose. Ditto
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Raises fundamental questions regarding military action as the geopolitical default option
of choice, which as the title to the post suggests, is not desired by the MIC.
Completely unrealistic assessment of the situation. Essentially "kicking the can down the road:" approach. Looks
like Trump administration is now neocon administration. Kind of Obama II or Bush III.
Military Keysianism (in the style of national socialism) all over again. But the US empire requires now spending that can
hardly be afforded by US economy. Add to this care of disabled veterans, number of which is growing each year (while casualties
rate due to modern medicine is low, number of disabled soldiers is substantial).
Hopefully over $100
per barrel oil will sober some hot Pentagon heads. Neocons, who now dominate foreign policy of Trump administration, are hopeless in this respect, they will
pursue the dream of global dominance and American empire ("America uber alles") till the last American (excluding of cause themselves
-- 99% of them are chickenhawks -- and their families)
So 700 billion dollars will be spent not matter what suffering and deprivations for ordinary
Americans (no jobs, no hope) it entails
The USA population lose much treasure and has a deteriorating standard of living to maintain
an empire at the behest of neoliberal elite... This sentiment is merely confirming the US public
discontent with interventionism and neocon foreign policy that had been revived by the 2003 Iraq
invasion. The recent J. Wallin Opinion Research
survey revealed that 71 percent of Americans believed Congress should pass legislation that
restrained military action. Due to power of MIC an overblown defense budget does not get proper
the scrutiny of any other form of public spending. the United States' annual military budget
around $700 billion. Those guys need war to justify it.
Much of those costs have been borne by ordinary Americans -- from paying for war debts to
being at greater risk of terrorist attacks -- while the war profits go to a select group of
corporations. It is difficult to imagine any single decision in any other realm of policy that
has cost so much, delivered little, and harmed America and the rest of the world so
irreparably.
Notable quotes:
"... our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing to erode. ..."
"... to keep the peace for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day. To ensure our diplomats who are working to solve problems do so from a position of strength ..."
"... It is incumbent upon us to field a more lethal force if our nation is to retain the ability to defend ourselves and what we stand for. The defense strategy's three primary lines of effort will restore our comparative military advantage. ..."
"... We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances and building new partnerships with other nations. And at the same time we'll reform our department's business practices for performance and affordability. ..."
"... We will modernize key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting tomorrow's conflicts with yesterday's weapons or equipment. Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win. ..."
"... And again, the 40-odd nations that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO's mission in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our competitive edge: reforming the business practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, thereby gaining the full benefit from every dollar spent, in which way we will gain and hold the trust of Congress and the American people. ..."
We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from
each other, nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,
pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions.
Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten
regional and even global stability. Oppressing their own people and shredding their own
people's dignity and human rights, they push their warped views outward.
And despite the defeat of ISIS' physical caliphate, violent extremist organizations like
ISIS or Lebanese Hezbollah or al Qaida continue to sow hatred, destroying peace and murdering
innocents across the globe.
In this time of change, our military is still strong. Yet our competitive edge has
eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing
to erode.
Rapid technological change, the negative impact on military readiness is resulting from the
longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation's history and defense spending caps, because
we have been operating also for nine of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions that
have created an overstretched and under-resourced military.
Our military's role is to keep the peace; to keep the peace for one more year, one more
month, one more week, one more day. To ensure our diplomats who are working to solve problems
do so from a position of strength and giving allies confidence in us. This confidence is
underpinned by the assurance that our military will win should diplomacy fail.
When unveiling his national security strategy, President Trump said, "Weakness is the surest
path to conflict, and unquestioned strength is the most certain means of defense."
Ladies and gentlemen, we have no room for complacency, and history makes clear that America
has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield. Simply, we must be the best if the
values that grew out of the Enlightenment are to survive.
It is incumbent upon us to field a more lethal force if our nation is to retain the
ability to defend ourselves and what we stand for. The defense strategy's three primary lines
of effort will restore our comparative military advantage.
We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances
and building new partnerships with other nations. And at the same time we'll reform our
department's business practices for performance and affordability.
In doing this, we will earn the trust of the American people and Congress, if their defense
dollars are well spent.
But let me go through each of the lines of effort. And I want to start with lethality,
because everything we do in the department must contribute to the lethality of our
military.
The paradox of war is that an enemy will attack any perceived weakness. So we in America
cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare. Rather we must be able to fight across the
spectrum of conflict.
This means that the size and the composition of our force matters. The nation must field
sufficient capable forces to deter conflict. And if deterrence fails, we must win.
We will modernize key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting
tomorrow's conflicts with yesterday's weapons or equipment. Investments in space and
cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and
resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to
win.
Changing our forces' posture will prioritize readiness for warfighting for major combat,
making us strategically predictable for our allies and operationally unpredictable for any
adversary.
Increasing the lethality of our troops, supported by our defense civilians, requires us to
reshape our approach that managing our outstanding talent, reinvigorating our military
education and honing civilian workforce expertise.
The creativity and talent of the department is our deepest wellspring of strength, and one
that warrants greater investment.
And to those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy, they must know: If you
challenge us it will be your longest and your worst day. Work with our diplomats; you don't
want to fight the Department of Defense.
The second line of effort I noted was to strengthen alliances as we build new partnerships,
as well.
In my past, I fought many times and never did I fight in a solely American formation. It was
always alongside foreign troops.
Now, as Winston Churchill once said, the only thing harder than fighting with allies is
fighting without them. But we are going to be stronger together in recognizing that our
military will be designed and trained and ready to fight alongside allies.
History proves that nations with allies thrive, an approach to security and prosperity that
has served the United States well in keeping peace and winning war. Working by, with and
through allies who carry their equitable share allows us to amass the greatest possible
strength.
We carried a disproportionate share of the defense burden for the democracies in the
post-World War II era. The growing economic strength of today's democracies and partners
dictates they must now step up and do more.
When together we pool our resources and share responsibility for the common defense,
individual nations' security burdens become lighter. This has been demonstrated right now,
today, for example, by over 70 nations and international organizations of the Defeat-ISIS
campaign that is successfully conducting operations in the Middle East. And again, the
40-odd nations that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO's mission in Afghanistan.
To strengthen and work jointly with more allies, our organizations, processes and procedures
must be ally-friendly. The department will do more than just listen to other nations' ideas. We
will be willing to be persuaded by them, recognizing that all not -- that not all good ideas
come from the country with the most aircraft carriers.
This line of effort will bolster an extended network capable of decisively meeting the
challenges of our time. So we're going to make the military more lethal, and we are going to
build and strengthen traditional alliances, as well as go out and find some new partners --
maybe nontraditional partners -- as we do what the Greatest Generation did, coming home from
World War II, when they built the alliances that have served us so well, right through
today.
Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our competitive edge: reforming
the business practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, thereby gaining
the full benefit from every dollar spent, in which way we will gain and hold the trust of
Congress and the American people.
"... A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived reality as it is described in George Orwell's book, 1984 ..."
"... Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts. Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth. ..."
A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling
interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived
reality as it is described in George Orwell's book, 1984 , and in the film, The
Matrix . Controlled perception-based reality is only a Facebook "like" away from killing
one person or one million or elevating a liar or the warmonger responsible for the killing to
hero status or to the conrol of the CIA or FBI or the US presidency.
... ... ...
...Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western
government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts. Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth.
Peoples in the United States, Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the
various vassal states, such as Japan, all live day in, day out, an orchestrated lie that serves
interests directly opposed to the interests of the peoples.
Governments that do not rest on truth rest on tyranny.
"... This propaganda campaign is part and parcel of the roll-out of a new "official narrative." If it wasn't so completely depressing, I would say it is awe-inspiring to watch. This full-spectrum type of mass indoctrination, or "reality adjustment," doesn't happen that often. It used to only happen on the national level, typically during times of war, when the ruling classes of nation states needed to temporarily unite their populaces and demonize their enemy. It is happening now on a global level, for the second time in the 21st Century. ..."
"... The global capitalist ruling classes (which now reigned unopposed over the entire planet) needed a new official narrative to unite, not just a nation, or region, but everyone within the new global market. This narrative needed a convincing enemy that would function on a global level. "Terrorism" is that enemy. ..."
"... The key to understanding both the original War on Terror official narrative and the expanded variation we are being sold currently is the fact that terrorism is an insurgent tactic employed by weaker militant forces against a ruling government or occupation force. This makes it the perfect bogeyman (in essence, the only bogeyman) for our brave new global capitalist world, where global capitalism takes the place of that "ruling government or occupation force." ..."
"... we we no longer live in a world where nation-against-nation conflict is driving the course of political events. We live in a world where global capitalism is driving the course of political events. The economies of virtually every nation on the planet are hopelessly interdependent. Capitalist ideology pervades all cultures, despite their superficial differences. It is a globally hegemonic system, so it has no external enemies. None. The only threats it faces are internal. Its "enemies" are, by definition, insurgent in other words, "extremist" or "terrorist." ..."
"... This even holds true for the Russia paranoia the ruling classes are pumping out currently it's all just part of the "reality adjustment," and the launch of a new official narrative, not a prelude to war with Russia. The USA is not going to war with Russia. The notion is beyond ridiculous. Have you noticed, despite all their warlike verbiage, that no one has put forth a single scenario in which war between Russia and the West makes sense? That's because it doesn't make sense. Not for Russia, the USA, or anyone else. This is why "the Russian threat" is being marketed as an "attack on democratic values" and "an attempt to sow division," and so on. Because the war the corporatocracy is waging is not a war against Russia, the nation. The war they are fighting is a counter-insurgency, an ideological counter-insurgency. "Russia" has just been added to the list of "terrorists" and "extremists" who "hate us for our freedom." ..."
"... The message is, "you're either with us or against us." The message is, "we will tolerate no dissent, except for officially sanctioned dissent." The message is, "try to fuck with us, and we will marginalize you, and demonize you, and demonetize you, and disappear you." ..."
"... The message is, "we control reality, so reality is whatever the fuck we say it is, regardless of whether it is based in fact or just some totally made-up story we got The Washington Post to publish and then had the corporate media repeat, over and over, for fourteen months. " If that doesn't qualify as full-blown Orwellian, I'm not sure what, exactly, would. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Just when you thought the corporatocracy couldn't possibly get more creepily Orwellian, the
Twitter Corporation starts sending
out emails advising that they "have reason to believe" we have "followed, retweeted," or
"liked the content of" an account "connected to a propaganda effort by a Russia
government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency." While it's not as
dramatic as the Thought Police watching you on your telescreen, or posters reminding you "Big
Brother Is Watching," the effect is more or less the same.
And if that's not creepily Orwellian enough for you, Facebook has established a Ministry of Counterspeech , manned by "a
dedicated counterterrorism team" of "former intelligence and law-enforcement officials," to
"disrupt ideologies underlying extremism" ( see Chris Hedges' recent essay
for details ). The Google Corporation is systematically disappearing
,
deranking , and maliciously
misrepresenting non-corporate news and opinion sources, and the "thought criminals" who
contribute to them. Meanwhile, the corporate media continues to pump out Russia paranoia
propaganda like
this Maddow segment on MSNBC about "the remarkable number of Russian financiers who'll be
rubbing elbows with the Trump team in Davos."
These are just the latest salvos in the corporate establishment's War on Dissent, an
expanded version of the War on Terror, which they've been relentlessly waging for over a year
now. As you may have noticed, the ruling classes have been using virtually every propaganda
organ at their disposal to whip up mass hysteria over a host of extremely dubious threats to
"the future of democracy" and "democratic values," Russia being foremost among them, followed
closely by white supremacy, then a laundry list of other "threats," from Julian Assange to
Bernie Bros to other, lesser "sowers of division."
This propaganda campaign is part and parcel of the roll-out of a new "official
narrative." If it wasn't so completely depressing, I would say it is awe-inspiring to watch.
This full-spectrum type of mass indoctrination, or "reality adjustment," doesn't happen that
often. It used to only happen on the national level, typically during times of war, when the
ruling classes of nation states needed to temporarily unite their populaces and demonize their
enemy. It is happening now on a global level, for the second time in the 21st Century.
The first time it happened on a global level was 2001-2002, when the War on Terror narrative
was launched to supplant the defunct Cold War narrative that had functioned since the end of
World War II. The End of History/New World Order narrative, which had served as a kind of
ideological stop-gap from 1990 to 2001, never really sold that well. It was far too vague, and
there was no clear enemy. The global capitalist ruling classes (which now reigned unopposed
over the entire planet) needed a new official narrative to unite, not just a nation, or region,
but everyone within the new global market. This narrative needed a convincing enemy that would
function on a global level. "Terrorism" is that enemy.
In the official War on Terror narrative, the term "terrorism" does not refer to any type of
actual terrorism (although of course such terrorism does occur) as much as to "terrorism" as a
general concept, an essentially meaningless pejorative concept, one which can be expanded to
include almost anything and anyone the ruling classes need it to which is what is taking place
at the moment. It is being expanded, rather dramatically, to include virtually any type of
dissent from global capitalist ideology. In order to understand what's happening, we need to
understand how terms like "terrorism" and "extremism" function ideologically, not just as terms
to dehumanize "bad guys" but to designate a type of ur-antagonist , one that conforms to
the official narrative. So let's take a few minutes and try to do that.
The key to understanding both the original War on Terror official narrative and the
expanded variation we are being sold currently is the fact that terrorism is an insurgent
tactic employed by weaker militant forces against a ruling government or occupation force. This
makes it the perfect bogeyman (in essence, the only bogeyman) for our brave new global
capitalist world, where global capitalism takes the place of that "ruling government or
occupation force."
I've written a
number of essays about this , so I won't reiterate all that here. The short version is,
we we no longer live in a world where nation-against-nation conflict is driving the course
of political events. We live in a world where global capitalism is driving the course of
political events. The economies of virtually every nation on the planet are hopelessly
interdependent. Capitalist ideology pervades all cultures, despite their superficial
differences. It is a globally hegemonic system, so it has no external enemies. None. The only
threats it faces are internal. Its "enemies" are, by definition, insurgent in other words,
"extremist" or "terrorist."
This even holds true for the Russia paranoia the ruling classes are pumping out
currently it's all just part of the "reality adjustment," and the launch of a new official
narrative, not a prelude to war with Russia. The USA is not going to war with Russia. The
notion is beyond ridiculous. Have you noticed, despite all their warlike verbiage, that no one
has put forth a single scenario in which war between Russia and the West makes sense? That's
because it doesn't make sense. Not for Russia, the USA, or anyone else. This is why "the
Russian threat" is being marketed as an "attack on democratic values" and "an attempt to sow
division," and so on. Because the war the corporatocracy is waging is not a war against Russia,
the nation. The war they are fighting is a counter-insurgency, an ideological
counter-insurgency. "Russia" has just been added to the list of "terrorists" and "extremists"
who "hate us for our freedom."
Thus, our new official narrative is actually just a minor variation on the original War on
Terror narrative we've been indoctrinated with since 2001. A minor yet essential variation.
From 2001 to 2016, the constant "terrorist threat" we were facing was strictly limited to
Islamic terrorism, which made sense as long as the corporatocracy was focused on restructuring
the Middle East. White supremacist terrorism was not part of the narrative, nor was any other
form of terrorism, as that would have just confused the audience.
That changed, dramatically, in 2016.
The Brexit referendum and the election of Trump alerted the global capitalist ruling classes
to the existence of another dangerous insurgency that had nothing to do with the Greater Middle
East. While they were off merrily destabilizing, restructuring, privatizing, and
debt-enslaving, resentment of global capitalism had grown into a widespread neo-nationalist
backlash against globalization, the loss of sovereignty, fiscal austerity, and the soulless,
smiley-face, corporate culture being implemented throughout the West and beyond. That this
backlash is reactionary in nature does not change the fact that it is an insurgency just as
Islamic fundamentalism is. Both insurgencies are doomed attempts to revert to despotic social
systems (nationalist in one case, religious in the other) and so reverse the forward march of
global capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes are not about to let that happen.
The corporatocracy wasted no time in dealing with this new insurgency. They demonized and
hamstrung Trump, as they'll continue to do until he's well out of office. But Trump was never
the significant threat. The significant threat is the people who elected him, and who voted for
Brexit, and the AfD, and Sanders, and Mélenchon, and Corbyn, and who just stayed home on
election day and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The threat is the attitude of these
people. The insubordinate attitude of these people. The childish attitude of these people (who
naively thought they could challenge the most powerful empire in the annals of human history
one that controls, not just the most fearsome military force that has ever existed, but the
means to control "reality" itself).
The corporatocracy is going to change that attitude, or it is going to make it disappear. It
is in the process of doing this now, using every ideological weapon in its arsenal. The news
media. Publishing. Hollywood. The Internet. Intelligence agencies. Congressional inquiries.
Protests. Marches. Twitter's "advisory emails." Google's manipulation of its search results.
Facebook's "counterspeech" initiative. Russiagate. Shitholegate. Pornstargate. The ruling class
is sending us a message. The message is, "you're either with us or against us." The message
is, "we will tolerate no dissent, except for officially sanctioned dissent." The message is,
"try to fuck with us, and we will marginalize you, and demonize you, and demonetize you, and
disappear you."
I wish I had some rallying cry to end this depressing assessment with, but I have no
interest in being one of these Twitter-based guerrilla leaders who tell you we can beat the
corporatocracy by tweeting and donating to them on Patreon, and then going about our lives as
"normal." It's probably going to take a little more than that, and the obvious truth is, the
odds are against us. That said, I plan to make as much noise about The War on Dissent as
humanly possible, until they marginalize me out of existence or the corporate-mediated
simulation that so many of us take for existence these days. What do you say, want to join
me?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Until now, I have considered C. J. Hopkins to be only a playwright or whatever and not a
serious political scientist or political critic. But now, I see that he has grown out to be a
serious political voice.
I consider Hopkins' manifesto to be not unlike the old Communist Manifesto of 1848. Just
as more than 170 years ago the Communist Manifesto could note that "a specter is haunting
Europe," so today we could say that "a specter is haunting the world." But whereas back then
the hunted people had a name -- "communists" -- today those who are wanted for 'terrorism'
have no name or flag under which to come together. Perhaps the most appropriate name for
these people is "Dissidents."
Several individuals come to mind as perhaps having leadership potential for the
Dissidents. First, there is Ai Weiwei, who is known as a dissident artist and also as an
enemy of the state -- so the word for these dissident artists may be "anarchists." But since
anarchists would seem to have to eschew all political organization, they can't be anything
like the old Communist Party. Nonetheless, they can certainly be a specter to haunt the
globalized world, the world that pretends to be based on humanist globalism.
Two other examples, along with Ai Weiwei, are: Jello Biafra in the USA and Varg Vikernes
in Europe (at least in Northern and Central Europe). Both have arisen from the world of music
but have not been particularly shy about getting involveed in politics. So far Jello has
managed to avoid prosecution/persecution, while Varg is actually a convicted murderer and
also convicted of "hate crime" under the infamous "hate crime" statutes of France. Jello is a
Green, however, and it's note-worthy that the current leader (POTUS candidate) of the Green
Party USA (Dr. Jill Stein) has recently been singled out by congressional "intel" committees
as a person of interest in the so-called "Russiagate" affair.
As Hopkins says,
The ruling class is sending us a message. The message is, "you're either with us or
against us."
Maybe that's what has happened with the USA Greens: the global PTB have sent the message,
and it appears that the Greens' leader has responded by chosing to cooperate with the witch
hunt -- "discretion is the better part of valor" (as the old expression goes).
It seems to me a lot like the real California 'hippies' back in the the mid-60s -- not the
war protesters but the real hippies who were too stoned to know that there was a war going
on. They just knew that they did not want any part of the world as we know it. Oh, they
wanted the natural world all right, they just didn't want the so-called "civilized" world.
Rightists tended to place them somewhere on the Left side of the spectrum of the
Right-Left-Right-ya-Left-ya Right-ya-left-right-left (as drill sergeants might express it). I
was there in the 60s, although I was already too old to be trusted according to the political
pseudo-hippies (I was already over 30 years of age) but what I would call the real hippies,
they trusted me just fine. Anyway, Rightists and all the journalists and commentators never
came close to realizing what it was all about. You almost had to have some experience
first-hand of LSD, you know.
Maybe that's where this is all heading -- right back to LSD, psilocybin and good old
Cannabis. I note in this respect that the Trump administration has recently come down strong
to suppress the "Movement" in Colorado and elsewhere. One of Trump's numerous sell-outs or
cop-outs (to use the old 60s terminology). Contrary to his campaign statements, of
course.
Yes, I think that Hopkins way off there in the capital of rationalism, Berlin, probably
has no idea of how this is likely to play out back in the US of A it's going to be all about
illicit drugs and I don't mean factory-produced opioids or amphetamine. This battle will
definitely divide the goats from the sheep -- the real "libertarian" anarchists from the
pretend libertarians. I could be wrong but I think it's going to be a BFD. Yeah, I admit to
it: I hope it's going to be a BFD. Anything else and it's too boring for tears.
No one wanted the First World War, but given the build up of propaganda, tensions, mistrust,
and the alliances, a mere act of terrorism by Gavrilo Princip was enough to ignite a
conflagration that no one could stop.
This is an excellent and exceptional piece. Correct on all points, as we have come to expect
of C. J. Hopkins, one of the most clear-sighted contributors to this site. Fewer comic
flourishes than in his earlier essays, probably reflecting how desperate things are becoming
for independent and fair-minded people trying to make their voices heard. Surprising to see
so few comments, though perhaps that's not a bad thing, given how intemperate some commenters
can be.
"No one wanted the First World War, but given the build up of propaganda, tensions,
mistrust, and the alliances, a mere act of terrorism by Gavrilo Princip was enough to
ignite a conflagration that no one could stop." -- Steve Hayes
I guess that Hayes' comment here at C.J. Hopkins' article is all about demonstrating the
effectiveness of terrorism so then the War on Terror makes sense? but whatever to respond to
Hayes' contention that no one wanted the First World War, I would ask Hayes: "No one? Not
even greedy internationalist central bankers with international connections?"
"... The memo, however, is expected to detail how the surveillance warrant was initially obtained inappropriately using the Trump dossier -- a political document funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. ..."
"... It is expected to show that FBI and DOJ officials did not explain to the secret court granting spy warrants that the dossier was politically fueled opposition research. To obtain the warrant, the officials needed to show "probable cause" that Page was acting as an agent of Russia. ..."
"... The Trump dossier claimed he met with two high-level Russian officials on that trip, despite no evidence of it and Page's testimony under oath that he never met with them. Page has sued BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier. ..."
"... Rosenstein, after he was confirmed as the deputy attorney general in late April 2017, approved renewing the surveillance warrant, according to the Times ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of
former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page shortly after taking office last spring, according to
the New York Times .
That is one of the revelations in a memo compiled by House Intelligence Committee staffers
that is set to be released within weeks, according to "three people familiar with it" who
spoke to the Times .
The memo is expected to detail abuses by senior FBI officials in their investigation of the
Trump campaign, which began the summer of 2016.
The House Intelligence Committee could vote to release the memo as early as Monday. It would
give President Trump five days to object; otherwise, the memo will be released.
Democrats, as well as the Justice Department, have warned that releasing the memo to the
public would be "extraordinarily reckless," although the leaks of the memo to the
Times makes those claims dubious.
Democrats have also claimed that the memo, which summarizes classified information held by
the Justice Department, is misleading and paints a "distorted" picture, and they have prepared
their own counter memo they want to release.
The people who spoke to the Times argued that Rosenstein's renewal of a spy warrant
on Carter Page, Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser, "shows that the Justice
Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was
acting as a Russian agent."
The memo, however, is expected to detail how the surveillance warrant was initially obtained
inappropriately using the Trump dossier -- a political document funded by the Clinton campaign
and the Democratic National Committee.
It is expected to show that FBI and DOJ officials did not explain to the secret court
granting spy warrants that the dossier was politically fueled opposition research. To obtain
the warrant, the officials needed to show "probable cause" that Page was acting as an agent of
Russia.
Page joined the campaign in March 2016, around the time the team was under pressure to
release names of foreign policy advisers.
The former investment banker and Navy officer took a personal trip to Moscow to deliver a
speech at a graduation ceremony in July 2016, which fueled nascent allegations that Trump was
somehow colluding with Russia. Page left the campaign in September.
The Trump dossier claimed he met with two high-level Russian officials on that trip, despite
no evidence of it and Page's testimony under oath that he never met with them. Page has sued
BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier.
The FBI had been tracking Page, who was previously based in Moscow, since 2013, but was
never charged with any wrongdoing. The FBI reportedly received the surveillance warrant on him
in fall of 2016, but Page had left the campaign by then.
Rosenstein, after he was confirmed as the deputy attorney general in late April 2017,
approved renewing the surveillance warrant, according to the Times . When Trump fired
then-FBI Director James Comey in May, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to lead a special
counsel.
Rosenstein has been in charge of the Russia investigation since Attorney General Jeff
Session recused himself.
"... Prior to obtaining his job as chief of security for the Committee to Re-Elect, James W. McCord, the wiretapping expert who had hired Baldwin – and who had personally insisted the break-in move forward that night, even after the burglary team discovered that a Watergate security guard had detected their initial movements – had toiled for years at CIA's shadowy Office of Security. ..."
"... Similarly, an Air Force colonel who participated in CIA's covert operations recalled in 1973: "McCord was just not somebody's little wiretapper or debugging man He's a pro, he's a master. [CIA Director] Allen Dulles introduced him to me and said: 'This man is the best man we have.'" ..."
"... That McCord's loyalties on the night of June 16, 1972 were not aligned with the political well-being of Richard Nixon has long been theorized by Watergate researchers. ..."
"... Baldwin got to know the taciturn McCord better than any other member of the break-in team. "There was something about Richard Nixon," Baldwin told me, summarizing McCord's view of the president they served, "that Richard Nixon wasn't a team player, wasn't an American, wasn't, you know, 'one of us.'" ..."
"... According to Rob Roy Ratliff, the officer who signed the affidavit, Hunt's packages were often addressed to CIA Director Richard Helms and were regularly hand-delivered to agency headquarters until mid-June 1972: when the Watergate arrests occurred. After Hunt's name surfaced in the scandal, CIA's receipts for these packages were destroyed. ..."
"... Previously unpublished testimony taken in executive session by the Senate Watergate committee, and declassified in 2002 pursuant to my Freedom of Information Act request, suggested that Hunt and McCord had indeed traveled in the same circles long before Liddy "introduced" them. ..."
"... Felipe DiDiego was a Cuban Bay of Pigs veteran who took part in both the Ellsberg and Watergate operations. He was questioned in executive session in June 1973 by committee counsels R. Phillip Haire and Jim Hershman, who asked if he had ever met James McCord prior to 1972. ..."
"... Where did Martinez get this key from? What did he expect to find in the DNC secretary's desk? Why was the telephone used by Wells and her boss, Spencer Oliver, wiretapped in the Watergate mission? Why did Baldwin, testifying years later about the conversations he overheard on the DNC wiretap, say that "eight out of ten" listeners "would have said, 'That's a call girl ring. This is a prostitution ring'"? Why did a veteran prosecutor, the assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, testify that he was ordered by his boss, then-U.S. Attorney Harold Titus, to drop an investigation into the DNC's purported links to a prostitution ring? How could so many ex-CIA men, with such conflicted loyalties, have converged on Gordon Liddy's rinky-dink covert operation? And how could such experienced operators have wound up so badly "bungling" the mission? Or were their missteps the result of intentional sabotage? ..."
"... The first answers started appearing in Hougan's landmark of principled revisionism, "Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA" (1984); more evidence surfaced in Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin's controversial bestseller "Silent Coup: The Removal of a President" (1991) and my own book, published, after seventeen years of research, in 2008, sought to advance the story further, on several fronts. ..."
"... Let this, then, be the chief "lesson" of Watergate: that facts matter most of all, and that our lone duty to history, as Oscar Wilde once said, is continually to rewrite it. ..."
Forty years ago this Sunday, in the pre-dawn darkness of June 17, 1972, the late Carl
Shoffler and two other plainclothes Washington, D.C. police officers, Paul Leeper and John
Barrett, were sitting in police cruiser 727, an unmarked vehicle parked at the intersection of
30th and K Streets N.W. At 1:47 a.m., a Metropolitan Police dispatcher issued an urgent call
for officers to respond to a burglary in progress at 2600 Virginia Avenue N.W., the Watergate
office complex in Foggy Bottom.
Guns drawn, the lawmen started their search on the eighth floor, home to offices of the
Federal Reserve, itself the site of a recent break-in. Finding no trouble there, the policemen
checked the ninth floor, then meticulously made their way down until they reached the sixth.
That entire floor, all 16,000 square feet of office space, was occupied by the headquarters of
the Democratic National Committee.
It remains unsettled as to whether any of the policemen knew in advance what they would find
on the sixth floor: the doomed team of five burglars, wearing business suits and rubber gloves,
with traceable ties to the Committee to Re-Elect the President and the Central Intelligence
Agency. Leeper and Shoffler, for example, had already put in two hours of overtime, and each
had forsaken personal obligations to continue working that night. And when the dispatcher's
call rang out, it just happened their car was parked less than four-tenths of a mile from the
Watergate – about a minute away.
We do know the cops were not moving about undetected. Observing them from a perch across the
street, at the Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge – and with rising alarm – was an ex-FBI
agent named Alfred C. Baldwin III. Portly and unexceptional, Baldwin had been hired by the
Watergate burglars to wear headphones 'round the clock, to monitor the wiretap they had
installed, three weeks earlier, in the telephone used by Ida "Maxie" Wells. She was the
secretary to an obscure DNC official named R. Spencer Oliver, Jr., whose official title was
executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen. Another wiretap, installed
on the telephone of Fay Abel, the secretary to Lawrence F. O'Brien, the chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, had never worked properly. The Oliver/Wells office inside the
sixth-floor suites was located right on the façade of the Watergate office building,
complete with doors that opened up to a balcony overlooking Virginia Avenue. Baldwin's line of
sight – both in monitoring the wiretap transmissions across the three-week surveillance
operation, and as he observed the cops' progress across the street that fateful night –
was perfect.
[pullquote]
He saw two of the officers emerge onto the balcony across the street, shining their
flashlights; a third walked into the office directly adjacent. "This is, by the way, Oliver's
secretary's office," Baldwin later told the Los Angeles Times. "The entire room lights [up],
and [the officer] is going around behind the desks with a gun." Determined to help his
confederates, whom he had understood to be performing some top-secret national security
mission, Baldwin called out on his walkie-talkie: Base to any other unit, do you read
me?"What have you got?" replied the burglars' superior officer, G. Gordon Liddy,
the general counsel to the finance arm of the Committee to Re-Elect. Liddy was ensconced in a
separate room at the Watergate Hotel with his co-conspirator, White House consultant and former
CIA officer E. Howard Hunt. Are our people in suits or dressed casually? Baldwin asked.
"Suits," Liddy answered. "Why?" "We got a problem," Baldwin said. "There is a bunch of guys
up here and they have guns." Liddy ordered Baldwin to stay put; Hunt was on his way to
Baldwin's room.
"Now there is all kinds of police activity," Baldwin recalled later. "We got motorcycles, we
got paddy wagons. Guys are jumping out of the cars, running in, uniformed police, bike
policemen." Within seconds, Baldwin could hear, over the walkie-talkie, the sound of someone on
the team whispering: They have got us.
While the consequences of that morning's events would prove historic and profound –
Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency; the United States' measurable loss, towards
the end of its Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union, of global prestige and influence; and
the ensuing emasculation of America's intelligence agencies – precious little
investigative or scholarly attention was ever focused on the actual break-in and wiretapping
operation that touched off the great scandal.
The final report of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities of 1972,
better known as the Senate Watergate committee, devoted only four of its 1,250 pages to the
break-in. "I think we all know what happened on the early morning of June 17," the committee's
baldly partisan chief counsel, Samuel Dash, once interjected during an early interrogation of
Howard Hunt. But Dash was wrong. After four decades of hearings, trials, investigations, books,
films, plays, and documentaries, exploring the details of what happened on June 17, 1972
remains one of the most fruitful areas for further research in the still-nascent field of Nixon
and Watergate Studies.
At the time, most of the authorities' investigative energies were focused, not surprisingly,
on the burglars' ties to the Nixon re-election campaign: 1972 was, after all, an election year,
and that seemed, on the face of things, the swiftest route to tying the president or his top
aides to the crime. But the burglars' ties to CIA, which Republicans on the Senate Watergate
committee probed with only middling results, warrant continuing scrutiny.
Prior to obtaining his job as chief of security for the Committee to Re-Elect, James W.
McCord, the wiretapping expert who had hired Baldwin – and who had personally insisted
the break-in move forward that night, even after the burglary team discovered that a Watergate
security guard had detected their initial movements – had toiled for years at CIA's
shadowy Office of Security. It was this office, at the height of the Cold War, that
spearheaded the U.S. government's forays into mind control (Projects Bluebird and Artichoke);
assassination attempts, with the aid of the Mafia, on a foreign head of state (Fidel Castro);
the use of prostitutes to service and compromise, as needed, the state's assets and enemies;
and a vast array of domestic surveillance projects, undisclosed until Watergate, targeting
antiwar and radical groups. James Jesus Angleton, the agency's deputy director of
counterintelligence, observed that McCord "was an operator, not merely a technician."
Similarly, an Air Force colonel who participated in CIA's covert operations recalled in
1973: "McCord was just not somebody's little wiretapper or debugging man He's a pro, he's a
master. [CIA Director] Allen Dulles introduced him to me and said: 'This man is the best man we
have.'"
That McCord's loyalties on the night of June 16, 1972 were not aligned with the
political well-being of Richard Nixon has long been theorized by Watergate researchers.
These suspicions were confirmed by the lengthy, previously unpublished interview that I
conducted with Al Baldwin, the wiretap monitor, in September 1995. Having spent many hours in
May-June 1972 being instructed in the dark arts of surveillance by his boss, Baldwin got to
know the taciturn McCord better than any other member of the break-in team. "There was
something about Richard Nixon," Baldwin told me, summarizing McCord's view of the president
they served, "that Richard Nixon wasn't a team player, wasn't an American, wasn't, you know,
'one of us.'"
Now, that's divulging a little of the personal conversations that Jim and I would have
[McCord would say] "You know the people we're dealing with..." And he wasn't talking about
the Democrats .I mean, it would be phrased in that kind of a terminology that Richard Nixon
was -- not that he was a liar, but that was something -- that he wasn't an American .
Such was the attitude of the former CIA man then serving as chief of security for Nixon's
re-election campaign. Questions remain, too, about Howard Hunt. An acerbic and tweedy career
CIA officer – and the author, under various pseudonyms, of more than forty spy novels
– Hunt had lived a glamorous life of covert adventure. He ran missions behind enemy lines
in China for the Office of Strategic Services, CIA's fabled predecessor in World War II, before
serving as chief of station in exotic locales like Mexico City and Uruguay.
Hunt made it a point, while working for the Nixon White House, to keep in regular contact
with his old chums at CIA, from which he had ostensibly retired in April 1970. In a sworn
affidavit submitted to the House Judiciary Committee when it was investigating Nixon's proposed
impeachment, a career CIA officer who was detailed to the Executive Office Building described
how Hunt in those days "frequently transmitted sealed envelopes via our office to the
agency."
According to Rob Roy Ratliff, the officer who signed the affidavit, Hunt's packages were
often addressed to CIA Director Richard Helms and were regularly hand-delivered to agency
headquarters until mid-June 1972: when the Watergate arrests occurred. After Hunt's name
surfaced in the scandal, CIA's receipts for these packages were destroyed. Ratliff claimed
the transmitted materials featured "gossip" about members of the Nixon administration. A
congressional source confirmed to author Jim Hougan that Hunt's gossip was "very graphic almost
entirely of a sexual nature," and that some of it concerned "people who worked in the White
House." Such were the activities of the former CIA man then serving Nixon's special counsel,
the late Charles Colson, as a consultant on national security.
Hunt and McCord insinuated themselves into the Nixon orbit -- either the White House or the
Committee to Re-Elect -- at critical junctures: Hunt, just around the time that the Plumbers
were created, in July 1971, to conduct covert investigations and operations aimed at plugging
damaging news leaks; McCord, shortly after the Plumbers' break-in at the offices of Daniel
Ellsberg's psychiatrist, in September 1971, which was carried out by much the same cast of
covert characters that was arrested at Watergate, and which had also been organized by Hunt and
Liddy.
There is persuasive evidence that Hunt and McCord, despite their disclaimers, first met each
other long before Gordon Liddy supposedly introduced them in the spring of 1972. Enrique
"Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Cuban Bay of Pigs veteran, later recalled having met "dozens" of times
with Hunt and McCord, together, in New York and Washington, in the years after the failed 1961
invasion. Despite Ruiz-Williams's inherent credibility -- he even remembered Hunt and McCord
accidentally using each other's aliases, a mistake repeated, but not widely reported, during
Watergate -- his account remained uncorroborated for nearly two decades.
Previously unpublished testimony taken in executive session by the Senate Watergate
committee, and declassified in 2002 pursuant to my Freedom of Information Act request,
suggested that Hunt and McCord had indeed traveled in the same circles long before Liddy
"introduced" them.
Felipe DiDiego was a Cuban Bay of Pigs veteran who took part in both the Ellsberg and
Watergate operations. He was questioned in executive session in June 1973 by committee counsels
R. Phillip Haire and Jim Hershman, who asked if he had ever met James McCord prior to
1972.
DeDIEGO: Yes, sir. Let me explain to you how it was. I did not tell him anything
about it. And this is the first time I am going to tell anyone about this. A long time ago,
McCord, working for the CIA, did work with a group of Cubans down in Florida. So I saw him at
that time. And I did not talk to him, but I recognized his face when I first saw him here in
Washington. But I did not tell him anything about that first day. It was a long time ago down
in Florida. And he did work with another name, of course, for the CIA, [with] another group
of Cubans down in the Keys.
HAIRE: How long ago was that prior to the date you saw him over at the
Watergate?
DeDIEGO: [I]t probably was in 1962, right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.
HERSHMAN: What group of Cubans was he working with?
DeDIEGO: The infiltration group .It was a group of Cubans working for the CIA I
would rather not involve these people
There is more, much more: the fact, for example, that one of the Cuban-born burglars on the
break-in team, Bay of Pigs veteran Eugenio R. Martinez, was still on the CIA payroll, and had
been providing to his agency case officer regular updates on the progress of Liddy's unfolding
operation. At the moment the burglars were arrested – at gunpoint – Martinez
struggled unsuccessfully to conceal an item on his person; the FBI laboratory later determined
it to be a key that fit Ida Wells's desk.
Where did Martinez get this key from? What did he expect to find in the DNC secretary's
desk? Why was the telephone used by Wells and her boss, Spencer Oliver, wiretapped in the
Watergate mission? Why did Baldwin, testifying years later about the conversations he overheard
on the DNC wiretap, say that "eight out of ten" listeners "would have said, 'That's a call girl
ring. This is a prostitution ring'"? Why did a veteran prosecutor, the assistant U.S. attorney
for the District of Columbia, testify that he was ordered by his boss, then-U.S. Attorney
Harold Titus, to drop an investigation into the DNC's purported links to a prostitution ring?
How could so many ex-CIA men, with such conflicted loyalties, have converged on Gordon Liddy's
rinky-dink covert operation? And how could such experienced operators have wound up so badly
"bungling" the mission? Or were their missteps the result of intentional sabotage?
These are important questions, for they conjure, like unwelcome ghosts, the enduring
mysteries of the momentous events we lump under the catch-call name of "Watergate." The deaths
of Nixon and many of his top aides in the intervening decades render the pursuit of these
questions no less important or urgent; what mattered to a nation of laws in 1972 should matter
today, too. And the answers to these questions will not be found in the collected works of
Woodward and Bernstein. Neither of their Watergate books – the now -
much -
discredited "All the President's Men" (1974) and "The Final Days" (1976) – even
mentions Wells or Oliver. The first answers started appearing in Hougan's landmark of
principled revisionism, "Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA" (1984); more
evidence surfaced in Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin's controversial bestseller "Silent Coup:
The Removal of a President" (1991) and my own book, published, after seventeen years of
research, in 2008, sought to advance the story further, on several fronts.
Anniversaries like this tend to trigger a lot of pontification about the "lessons" or
"myths" of Watergate, but not much reexamination of, or search for, the facts. Let this,
then, be the chief "lesson" of Watergate: that facts matter most of all, and that our lone duty
to history, as Oscar Wilde once said, is continually to rewrite it.
James Rosen is Fox News' Chief Washington Correspondent and author of The Strong Man:
John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate. He will discuss his book and its findings on
C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday, June 17. James Rosen joined FOX
News Channel (FNC) in 1999 and is the network's chief Washington correspondent.
Similarities are astounding. Not in circumstances of committing the
crime but the way of dealing with the press (Washington Post was shoddy, shoddy, reporters were
enemy of the country), denial, obstruction of justice, and most significantly, unfolding the
dark side of President personality. But you have to give it to Nixon, he was a smart man, a
seasoned politician and prior to Watergate, a patriot. And yes, this quote is worthy to
remember, "Dislocated relationship with truth".
Truth is the first victim of war. This is also true about the Cold War II with Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?" ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies ..."
"... This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. ..."
"... In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader ..."
"... So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" ..."
"... The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better. ..."
"... So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. ..."
MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question
of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks,
is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"
Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report
first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer
Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of
the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings
of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as
documented here
by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy
Bear," which as Real News ' Max Blumenthal
notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its
findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."
This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York
Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.
*Cough.*
Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over
and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be
debunked ,
retracted , or
erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're
not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community,
which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as
porous claims made by an
extremely shady and insanely profitable
private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.
Why is that?
You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine
what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the
consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began
telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet,
there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and
its allies.
That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and
if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what
they'd say.
It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible.
Hell, Xi Jinping
flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and
many experts think it might happen a lot
sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum
asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the "Xi-style collaborative approach" and Trump's "self-centred
America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the
broader world." China has been collaborating with Russia to
end the hegemony of the US dollar , to
shore up control
of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to
remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.
Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected
plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that
in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barack Obama made the "indispensable"
nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for
a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their
stated primary goal
.
This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent
supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality
this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate
is about China.
In an essay titled
"Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst
Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic
power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine
the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that
poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader .
"Russia is essential to China because of Moscow's long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold
War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China,
with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the
Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through
another power, which today is Russia."
So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is
attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment
and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that
he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from
Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war." It is worth noting here
that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he
recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.
Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's
right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition
of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right
out and say that.
They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't
just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so
we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars
and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll
also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please."
A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives
better.
Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.
So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria
about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that
they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important
it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up;
they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas.
Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's
a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.
And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than
it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally
I would argue that the
death, destruction
and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate
that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really
going on.
Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.
Support Caitlyn Johnstone's work on Patreon or
Paypal . Reprinted with author's permission from her
website .
"... As president, Kennedy maintained some distance from the Israeli government. He supported the right of return of Palestinian refugees and vigorously opposed Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The CIA had obtained evidence of the Israeli nuclear project in the desert at Dimona– claimed to be a fabric factory, Brod says– and in the year before he was assassinated, Kennedy had pushed Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, to account for the activities. ..."
"... Johnson ultimately suppressed intelligence reports that Israel was becoming a nuclear power. "By 1968, the President had no intention of doing anything to stop the Israeli bomb," Hersh writes. ..."
Brod believes that Mathilde Krim was strategic in forming the friendship.
From the day they first met which was at the party for JFK at the Krim residence in the
city– from that day forward she speaks proudly of having nurtured a relationship with
Johnson because Johnson was not part of the JFK inner circle. I don't think it was an
accident that she approached Johnson and developed this ongoing relationship. I have a
feeling that from her entry into the United States if not before there was a plan of how she
could best serve Israel and she began serving them when she was living in Switzerland in her
first marriage and her work with the Stern gang. She had a strong stomach to involve herself
with that kind of terror, and she certainly lived up to it here.
The transition from Kennedy to Johnson in 1963 was an important moment in the history of the
special relationship.
Kennedy had bridled at the pro-Israel influence. In 1960, his campaign was in trouble when a
group of Jewish leaders gave him $500,000 at the Pierre Hotel in New York, and then
"interrogated Kennedy stringently on matters affecting Jews and Israel," (as
Abba Eban later related ). "As an American citizen [Kennedy] was outraged" by the effort to
take "control" of JFK's Middle East policy, his friend the newspaperman Charles Bartlett told
Seymour Hersh.
As president, Kennedy maintained some distance from the Israeli government. He supported the
right of return of Palestinian refugees and vigorously opposed Israel's acquisition of nuclear
weapons. The CIA had obtained evidence of the Israeli nuclear project in the desert at Dimona– claimed to be a fabric factory, Brod says– and in the year before he was
assassinated, Kennedy had pushed Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi
Eshkol, to account for the activities.
His successor had fewer scruples about backing Israel. Johnson's political career was
interwoven with Jews, as his wife later reflected, and he saw that nuclear nonproliferation
"made for bad politics," as Hersh says in The Samson Option, because it alienated the Jewish
community. Johnson ultimately suppressed intelligence reports that Israel was becoming a
nuclear power. "By 1968, the President had no intention of doing anything to stop the Israeli
bomb," Hersh writes.
Mathilde Krim was undoubtedly a factor in that policymaking. Throughout his presidency, the
Krims were among Johnson's very closest friends. They had a room in the White House and built a house on Lake
Lyndon B. Johnson in the Texas hill country so as to be near his ranch in Stonewall when he was on vacation
there. Johnson stayed at their house in New York.
It has been suggested that Mathilde Krim was LBJ's lover. "It was a barely hidden secret in
leading government circles in Israel and the United States at the time that Mrs. Krim was extremely close to
Lyndon Johnson," Helena Cobban wrote in
her blogpost on Krim
last week. While Brod points out that Johnson was a "competitive womanizer," according to
his aide Bill Moyers, and certainly the president had social opportunities alone with Mathilde Krim.
... ... ...
They are missing a fascinating story about the ability of a charismatic intelligent zealot
to gain the audience of the most powerful man in the world as history was unfolding.
"One of the things that made Israel's miracle come true was Israel's ability to use people
like Abe Fortas and Arthur Goldberg," Brod says. "They had a huge Rolodex of influential
people, whether mass media or fundraisers, that they could contact and effectively use
depending on the situation, and there was no one more needed during the Six Day War than
Mathilde Krim."
When Abba Eban told a disapproving Johnson in Texas that Israel could no longer hold off its
attack, it was Johnson and Mathilde who flew back to the White House, leaving Lady Bird behind
at the ranch. It was Johnson who awakened Krim in her White House bedroom to tell her the news
of the war beginning. It was Mathilde Krim who who even as she was forced to get back to work
in New York left Johnson a pro-Israel speech to quiet a pending Jewish demonstration.
As for Johnson's willingness to turn a blind eye to the Israeli nuclear program, or its
attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, we can only guess at Mathilde Krim's advice to him.
As she later advised others, anyone can have an influence over policy– you just have to
throw yourself into it.
"Lyndon Johnson was so willing to be Mathilde Krim's hero that he would do almost anything
he could get away with," Brod concludes. "And that was quite a lot."
RIP. He was a very talented and courageous journalist.
Notable quotes:
"... The Reagan administration immediately began exploring ways to circumvent those legal restrictions, which led to a scheme to send secret arms shipments to the revolutionary and vehemently anti-American government of Iran and divert the profits to the contras. In 1985, Bob wrote the first stories describing this operation, which later became known as the Iran-Contra Affair. ..."
"... In particular, the U.S. media's approach to Russia and related issues, such as the violent ouster in 2014 of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, became "virtually 100 percent propaganda," Bob said. ..."
"... He noted that the full story was never told when it came to issues such as the Sergei Magnitsky case , which led to the first round of U.S. sanctions against Russia, nor the inconvenient facts related to the Euromaidan protests that led to Yanukovych's ouster – including the reality of strong neo-Nazi influence in those protests – nor the subsequent conflict in the Donbass region of Ukraine. ..."
"... Bob's stories on Ukraine were widely cited and disseminated, and he became an important voice in presenting a fuller picture of the conflict than was possible by reading and watching only mainstream news outlets. Bob was featured prominently in Oliver Stone's 2016 documentary "Ukraine on Fire," where he explained how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have worked with the CIA and foreign policy establishment since the 1980s to promote the U.S. geopolitical agenda. ..."
"... Bob regretted that, increasingly, "the American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the 'other side of the story.'" Indeed, he said that to even suggest that there might be another side to the story is enough to get someone branded as an apologist for Vladimir Putin or a "Kremlin stooge." ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... It did appear for some time at least that a good number of Trump supporters were reading Consortiumnews, which could probably be attributed to the fact that the website was one of the few outlets pushing back against both the "New Cold War" with Russia and the related story of "Russiagate," which Bob didn't even like referring to as a "scandal." (As an editor, he preferred to use the word "controversy" on the website, because as far as he was concerned, the allegations against Trump and his supposed "collusion" with Russia did not rise to the level of actual scandals such as Watergate or Iran-Contra.) ..."
It is with a heavy heart that we inform Consortiumnews readers that Editor Robert Parry has
passed away. As regular readers know, Robert (or Bob, as he was known to friends and family)
suffered a stroke in December, which – despite his own speculation that it may have been
brought on by the stress of covering Washington politics – was the result of undiagnosed
pancreatic cancer that he had been unknowingly living with for the past 4-5 years.
He unfortunately suffered two more debilitating strokes in recent weeks and after the last
one, was moved to hospice care on Tuesday. He passed away peacefully Saturday evening. He was
68.
Those of us close to him wish to sincerely thank readers for the kind comments and words of
support posted on recentarticles regarding
Bob's health issues. We read aloud many of these comments to him during his final days to let
him know how much his work has meant to so many people and how much concern there was for his
well-being.
I am sure that these kindnesses meant a lot to him. They also mean a lot to us as family
members, as we all know how devoted he was to the mission of independent journalism and this
website which has been publishing articles since the earliest days of the internet, launching
all the way back in 1995.
With my dad, professional work has always been deeply personal, and his career as a
journalist was thoroughly intertwined with his family life. I can recall kitchen table
conversations in my early childhood that focused on the U.S.-backed wars in Central America and
complaints about how his editors at The Associated Press were too timid to run articles of his
that – no matter how well-documented – cast the Reagan administration in a bad
light.
One of my earliest memories in fact was of my dad about to leave on assignment in the early
1980s to the war zones of El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, and the heartfelt good-bye that
he wished to me and my siblings. He warned us that he was going to a very dangerous place and
that there was a possibility that he might not come back.
I remember asking him why he had to go, why he couldn't just stay at home with us. He
replied that it was important to go to these places and tell the truth about what was happening
there. He mentioned that children my age were being killed in these wars and that somebody had
to tell their stories. I remember asking, "Kids like me?" He replied, "Yes, kids just like
you."
Bob was deeply impacted by the dirty wars of Central America in the 1980s and in many ways
these conflicts – and the U.S. involvement in them – came to define the rest of his
life and career. With grisly stories emerging from Nicaragua (thanks partly to journalists like
him), Congress passed the Boland Amendments from 1982 to 1984, which placed limits on U.S.
military assistance to the contras who were attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government
through a variety of terrorist tactics.
The Reagan administration immediately began exploring ways to circumvent those legal
restrictions, which led to a scheme to send secret arms shipments to the revolutionary and
vehemently anti-American government of Iran and divert the profits to the contras. In 1985, Bob
wrote the first stories describing this operation, which later became known as the Iran-Contra
Affair.
... ... ...
Political Realignment and the New McCarthyism
Although at the beginning of the Obama era – and indeed since the 1980s – the
name Robert Parry had been closely associated with exposing wrongdoing by Republicans, and
hence had a strong following among Democratic Party loyalists, by the end of Obama's presidency
there seemed to be a realignment taking place among some of Consortiumnews.com's readership,
which reflected more generally the shifting politics of the country.
In particular, the U.S. media's approach to Russia and related issues, such as the
violent ouster in 2014 of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, became "virtually 100 percent
propaganda," Bob said.
He noted that the full story was never told when it came to issues such as the
Sergei
Magnitsky case , which led to the first round of U.S. sanctions against Russia, nor the
inconvenient facts related to the Euromaidan protests that led to Yanukovych's ouster –
including the reality
of strong neo-Nazi influence in those protests – nor the subsequent conflict in the
Donbass region of Ukraine.
Bob's stories on Ukraine were widely cited and disseminated, and he became an important
voice in presenting a fuller picture of the conflict than was possible by reading and watching
only mainstream news outlets. Bob was featured prominently in Oliver Stone's 2016 documentary "Ukraine on Fire," where he
explained how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have worked with the CIA and
foreign policy establishment since the 1980s to promote the U.S. geopolitical agenda.
Bob regretted that, increasingly, "the American people and the West in general are
carefully shielded from hearing the 'other side of the story.'" Indeed, he said that to even
suggest that there might be another side to the story is enough to get someone branded as an
apologist for Vladimir Putin or a "Kremlin stooge."
This culminated in late 2016 in the blacklisting of Consortiumnews.com on a dubious website
called "PropOrNot," which was claiming to serve as a watchdog against undue "Russian influence"
in the United States. The PropOrNot blacklist, including Consortiumnews and about 200 other
websites deemed "Russian propaganda," was elevated by the Washington Post as a
credible source, despite the fact that the neo-McCarthyites who published the list hid behind a
cloak of anonymity.
"The Post 's
article by Craig Timberg," Bob wrote on Nov. 27, 2016, "described PropOrNot simply as 'a
nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds
[who] planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness
of Russian propaganda campaigns.'"
As Bob explained in an
article called "Washington Post's Fake News Guilt," the paper granted PropOrNot anonymity "to
smear journalists who don't march in lockstep with official pronouncements from the State
Department or some other impeccable fount of never-to-be-questioned truth."
The Post even provided an unattributed quote from the head of the shadowy website.
"The way that this propaganda apparatus supported [Donald] Trump was equivalent to some massive
amount of a media buy," the anonymous smear merchant said. The Post claimed that the
PropOrNot "executive director" had spoken on the condition of anonymity "to avoid being
targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers."
To be clear, neither Consortiumnews nor Robert Parry ever "supported Trump," as the above
anonymous quote claims. Something interesting, however, did seem to be happening in terms of
Consortiumnews' readership in the early days of the Trump presidency, as could be gleaned from
some of the comments left on articles and social media activity.
It did appear for some time at least that a good number of Trump supporters were reading
Consortiumnews, which could probably be attributed to the fact that the website was one of the
few outlets pushing back against both the "New Cold War" with Russia and the related story of
"Russiagate," which Bob didn't even like referring to as a "scandal." (As an editor, he
preferred to use the word "controversy" on the website, because as far as he was concerned, the
allegations against Trump and his supposed "collusion" with Russia did not rise to the level of
actual scandals such as Watergate or Iran-Contra.)
In his view, the perhaps understandable hatred of Trump felt by many Americans – both
inside and outside the Beltway – had led to an abandonment of old-fashioned rules of
journalism and standards of fairness, which should be applied even to someone like Donald
Trump.
"On a personal note, I faced harsh criticism even from friends of many years for refusing to
enlist in the anti-Trump 'Resistance,'" Bob wrote in his final article for Consortiumnews.
"The argument was that Trump was such a unique threat to America and the world that I should
join in finding any justification for his ouster," he said. "Some people saw my insistence on
the same journalistic standards that I had always employed somehow a betrayal."
He marveled that even senior editors in the mainstream media treated the unproven Russiagate
allegations as flat fact.
"No skepticism was tolerated and mentioning the obvious bias among
the never-Trumpers inside the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence community was
decried as an attack on the integrity of the U.S. government's institutions," Bob wrote.
"Anti-Trump 'progressives' were posturing as the true patriots because of their now
unquestioning acceptance of the evidence-free proclamations of the U.S. intelligence and law
enforcement agencies."
George Eliason , January 28, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Please accept our condolences for your loss which is a loss for all of us. Robert Parry
approached investigative journalism with courage and standards that very few people hold.
That's what made him a legend. Thank you for inspiring us and raising the bar so journalists
hold the standard even higher in the era of fake news because now more than ever that means
something.
Thank you.
JWalters , January 28, 2018 at 8:49 pm
"Thank you for inspiring us"
Robert Parry had an invaluable, inspiring combination of integrity and courage. The GREAT
work of Robert Parry is an inspiration to double down on the fight against the evils of greed
and corruption that are attacking our press and democracy.
Over centuries the human race is making moral progress, though slowly and with setbacks.
It requires patience with the fortitude. Working for the truth and justice, while sometimes
thankless and often condemned, is a noble work that can bring a deep satisfaction,
transcending this world. Robert Parry's light will continue, inspiring other lights.
Bob was one of the best journalists with whom I ever had the privilege to work, and one of
the finest our country has produced. We have lost an insightful, essential voice. He was a
superb reporter, writer and editor, highly ethical, and courageous. I deeply regret his
passing and wish his family and close friends all the best. -30-
Colin Brace , January 28, 2018 at 3:45 pm
I have been reading Robert Parry since the newsletter days, and this is devastating news.
I greatly admired Robert Parry for not only his formidable talents as an investigative
journalist but also his great skills as an publisher and editor, without which this site
would never have become the indispensable outlet for so many fine independent writers and
analysts that it is today. My most profound condolences to the Parry family.
David Smith , January 28, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Through the establishment of Consortiumnews, your father has attained immortality in his
profession. Considering the evil vector of 21st century history, in the next 15 years
Consortiumnews will be doing some of its most important work.
Anonymot , January 28, 2018 at 5:16 pm
A man who dug deep and documented it all, who went many places where others feared to go,
and honest with wherever his research took him, Parry had few equals in this time of junk
journalism. He saw through the false facades of the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
Nat, I can only hope that you have inherited those qualities and the journalistic drive of
your father.
Susana , January 28, 2018 at 6:47 pm
In these days of malevolent deception and shameless hoodwinkery, dear Bob, you
courageously defended truth and honesty. Why is that such a rarity now? Why is this
exceptional? Those who would deceive and take advantage of others are far too plentiful. And
yet voices of justice arise and break through the cacophony of falsehoods.. voices like
yours, Bob. And you continue to resonate onward, amplified by our collective chorus.
The invaluable gift you've given us, beyond your tireless efforts and precious words, is the
inspiration to carry on in pursuit of truth. And it is a gift we will always cherish and
which we lovingly leave in legacy to our own children.
It is with tremendous shock and sadness that we've learned of Bob's passing. He was a
brilliant light in the dark world of covert U.S. Government perfidy.
In celebration of that light and knowing that from his new position of enhanced awareness
he would want the FULL truth to come to light, the record must note that ConsortiumNews
missed 'the' biggest story of the 21st Century which, ironically, is the real reason for the
horrendous illegal and unilateral wars beginning with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq
that Bob so rightly abhored: the truth about who attacked this country on 9/11, the
overwhelming compelling facts of which he either refused to look at or, if he did, refused to
take seriously.
See: 'Behind The Smoke Curtain' and the '9/11 Museum Virtual Walking Tour' on YouTube.
Exposing the Big Lie of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 was 'the' story that,
tragically, 'slipped under the ConsortiumNews radar' because, had it not, Bob's expose of
Official 9/11 Big Lie could well have averted what Nat refers to merely as 'the 9/11
Tragedy'. Like the October Surprise, 9/11 was not just a tragedy -- it was High Treason. Also
in the spirit of full truth, I know that Bob would want it to be corrected that it wasn't he
who 'discovered that there was more to the story' of the origins of Irangate 'than commonly
understood'. I was the original source of the October Surprise research and revelations -- my
book 'October Surprise' was the first by almost three years before Gary Sick's of the same
title, which was in turn followed by Bob's 'Trick or Treason: The October Surprise
Mystery'.
Bob was absolutely right about the Tea Party, but I believe the public record will soon
show that his skepticism on Trump-Russia collusion was misplaced.
Barbara Honegger
Former White House Policy Analyst and Author of 'October Surprise', Tudor Press, 1989
The democrats are angling with Mueller not for obstruction, but conspiracy to obstruct.
This case extract fits nicely with the narrative of the day. (Notice it's from Chicago,
and not too old – Aug 2014). This case might have been the inspiration for the WaPo /
NYT fake news stories.
"... As a former service member, Uncle Sam paid me to live in Europe for a couple years and sure opened my eyes (though they got their money out of me from an Iraq and A-stan deployment). I realized that many parts of US are overrated, crime ridden dumps even when compared to most places even in Eastern Europe. ..."
"... Europeans can thank US promoted defense freeloading so they can focus on beating the US on all quality of life measure including crime rates, mortality, longevity, health care, and other measures of happiness other than GDP such as not worrying about your kids getting massacred at school from yet another mass shooting. ..."
"... I'm a proud American but these infinitely proved wrong neocons keep resurrecting themselves. ..."
@deef, the ad hominem you begin with against the author shows where you are coming from.
George the Lesser revisionists like you never learn.
Where is the ROI on global policing? Selective sampling of wars? Where have you been for
the last 15 years as the US digs deeper within the biggest strategic blunder in the history
of the US? We could have done more useful things with the $5,000,000,000,000+ that was spent
on these dumb wars of choice such as manned mission to mars, universal insurance, pave the
freeways in gold
The US causes more unintended consequences and greater conflicts and deaths than the good
intentions they believe they are performing. See Syria, Iraq, Yemen, et al.
What's the casualty/death/missing numbers of Iraqis during the US's invasion vs. Saddam's
time? Is the average Iraqi happy to be there? I guess all that matters is that the US is
supposedly safer. Would any US citizen agree to that for the past 15 years?
And let's not kid ourselves, the State Dept. in any neocon administration is an extension
of the Department of Defense.
As a former service member, Uncle Sam paid me to live in Europe for a couple years and
sure opened my eyes (though they got their money out of me from an Iraq and A-stan
deployment). I realized that many parts of US are overrated, crime ridden dumps even when
compared to most places even in Eastern Europe.
Europeans can thank US promoted defense freeloading so they can focus on beating the US on
all quality of life measure including crime rates, mortality, longevity, health care, and
other measures of happiness other than GDP such as not worrying about your kids getting
massacred at school from yet another mass shooting.
I'm a proud American but these infinitely proved wrong neocons keep resurrecting
themselves.
I stand corrected, it is 17 years of continuous hole digging, tax dollar burning, and
amortization of the decline of future prosperity continues un-abated.
Sons and daughters born in 2001 of vets of these stupid wars of choice are now eligible to
fight the same end-stateless, no condition of victory wars with an expanded enemy set to
include peer competitors of Russia, China, N. Korea.
The annual soldier that dies on Jan. 1 of year X hand wringing editorial can continue
indefinitely.
@jk "I'm a proud American but these infinitely proved wrong neocons keep resurrecting
themselves."
Because we let them. We don't laugh them off television programs or kick them out of the
auditoriums where they keep inviting each other to appear. We don't punish elected
politicians (like Trump) who keep hiring them because they think we won't notice.
As far as I remember his posts Michael Kenny is "Israel-firster."
He does not care much about the US national security by definition, having different
priorities.
BTW it's a news for me that AEI launched such neocon stalwarts as "Frederick Kagan, John
Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen,
Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka."
It is a sad fact that Trump administration now is infiltrated with neocons, but in reality
how it can be different.
POTUS no longer defines the US foreign policy; MIC does (neocons can probably be better
understood as professional lobbyists of MIC). In a way, POTUS is now by-and-large ceremonial
figure, although Trump at least during the election campaign (and shortly after, say, before
April 2017 and Mueller commission) has had somewhat more isolationist views (his bellicosity
toward Iran and NK notwithstanding.) But he was quickly brought into the fold. Now he acts
like a regular Republican President, say, like Bush III.
The latter just demonstrates the power of MIC.
That's why there a surprising level of continuity of foreign policy between different
administrations.
My impression is that Israel also is effectively acting as a MIC lobbyist injecting some
money they got via military help into the USA politics directly, or indirectly.
"... Mueller was also involved with 9-11-2001 ..."
"... Every single answer they give is nothing but circle talk. Its impossible for congress to do anything when they never find an end to the circle. These dirty bastards in power are lawyers for a damn good reason. ..."
"... Rosenstien does not know any information about the "Special Matter" Clinton email investigation. He did know enough to write a memo to President to fire Comey? How, without knowledge of basic information regarding the Clinton "Matter" did he conclude Comey should be fired for Comey's handling of the "Matter"? He is a liar. He is obstructing justice and part of setting up Trump. ..."
"... He knows exactly the kind of people he or Mueller is appointing in the Special Counsel Investigation. He is not objective and non-partisan. ..."
"... he reveals this by, instead of being outraged by these events , he treats them as if they were no big deal. Nothing to see here , move along. It is so obvious that Rosenstein is there to protect the guilty. ..."
"... Rosenstein rarely would look at the person who was questioning him, he'd just give them a quick glance now and then. Just my thoughts! I don't trust Rosenstein,, or the whole lot of them. ..."
"... FBI Agents do not take notes of interviews or interrogations. FBI agents do not record interviews or interrogation. When FBI agents finish a interview or interrogation they return to their office and write a report. In the report they write whatever they want to. ..."
"... What humans and Americans see is a biased Mueller team that conducted a false investigation based on false evidence (dossier) that was compromised of any justice or information. Knowing now that the Mueller team is corrupt, the investigation is void. ..."
"... An honest unbiased Deputy AG would be really pissed off that his employees were acting this way. They would want to get to the bottom of this mess and fire the shit out of some people. ..."
"... he's trying his best to cover for these corrupt individuals period. Mueller and his entire team need to be dissolved immediately with prejudice and if crimes are uncovered of abuse of authority, charges need to be filed. ..."
"... He's a weasel. and just another person whose testimony is infuriating to watch bc of the refusal to answer, the focus on semantics, denial of everything, and using roundabout tactics to purposefully avoid actually stating an opinion or fact. ..."
"... These hearings end up being pointless even though the reps make great points and lay out great analysis. ..."
Do these people ever show up to work? Nobody knows anything! I had to generate a report if
I changed a smoke alarm battery! Threaten their pension and watch their answers change!
Corrupt pedo-politicians!
These investigations are nothing but a bullshit pony show. If we want change we need to do
it ourselves. These slick ass lawyers are waaay too smart to run themselves over with
Congress. Every single answer they give is nothing but circle talk. Its impossible for congress to do anything when they never find an end to the circle.
These dirty bastards in power are lawyers for a damn good reason.
Rosenstien does not know any information about the "Special Matter" Clinton email
investigation. He did know enough to write a memo to President to fire Comey? How, without
knowledge of basic information regarding the Clinton "Matter" did he conclude Comey should be
fired for Comey's handling of the "Matter"? He is a liar. He is obstructing justice and part
of setting up Trump.
Rosenstein should be fired from the DOJ because he is the Director of all these Dramas
that is unfolding now. He knows exactly the kind of people he or Mueller is appointing in
the Special Counsel Investigation. He is not objective and non-partisan.
Rosenstein is not to be trusted , the first order of defense for the Deep State to protect
itself , would be to minimalize the damages that have been exposed , would be to have one of
their own pretend as if the damages were not a big deal. That PERSON is Rosenstein and he
reveals this by, instead of being outraged by these events , he treats them as if they were
no big deal. Nothing to see here , move along. It is so obvious that Rosenstein is there to
protect the guilty.
Sessions is either complicit or too feeble minded to handle what needs to
be done here. He to needs to be replaced . He has sat far too long on the fence to be trust
worthy, considering the unprecedented amount of corrupt that has appeared in the DOJ and the
FBI . Has he even been able to charge even one of the many leakers yet ? Either he is very
bad at AG or very unlucky, either way it doesn't recommend him much.
Always have had the belief that if a man/woman you are talking to won't look you face to
face, eye to eye, when you're questioning them, there must be something they are trying to
hide. I noticed throughout this hearing that Rosenstein rarely would look at the person who
was questioning him, he'd just give them a quick glance now and then. Just my thoughts! I
don't trust Rosenstein,, or the whole lot of them.
FBI Agents do not take notes of interviews or interrogations. FBI agents do not record
interviews or interrogation. When FBI agents finish a interview or interrogation they return
to their office and write a report. In the report they write whatever they want to.
I have
confidence ( or I had confidence) that the FBI agents wrote their reports to the best of
their memory. I worked at a State law enforcement agency. I always took notes and I relied on
those notes. I guess this is just evidence of how intelligent Federal Agents are. My Trump
clean up the FBI. Someday they may regain the reputation they once had.
After the rambling from Gowdy, Rosenstein answered very witty. What humans and
Americans see is a biased Mueller team that conducted a false investigation based on false
evidence (dossier) that was compromised of any justice or information. Knowing now that the
Mueller team is corrupt, the investigation is void.
It has produced information though, the DNC, FBI, DOJ, and H. Clinton have now been
exposed as absolutely corrupt. Done with the fake collusion joke, now onto the real collusion
and corruption, that would save Mueller his tarnished reputation.
An honest unbiased Deputy AG would be really pissed off that his employees were acting
this way. They would want to get to the bottom of this mess and fire the shit out of some
people.
Does this idiot seem like he's at all disturbed by the evidence being presented to
him? No, he's trying his best to cover for these corrupt individuals period. Mueller and his
entire team need to be dissolved immediately with prejudice and if crimes are uncovered of
abuse of authority, charges need to be filed.
He's a weasel. and just another person whose testimony is infuriating to watch bc of the
refusal to answer, the focus on semantics, denial of everything, and using roundabout tactics
to purposefully avoid actually stating an opinion or fact.
These hearings end up being
pointless even though the reps make great points and lay out great analysis.
Hon. Rosenstein is not very honorable at this moment as he is a stone waller holding it
all up. It's time to bring in the lie detector as that will be the only way to get the truth
out of him.
"... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may
be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian
president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no
discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review
of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor
Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about
Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the
title suggests.
The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day
evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the
mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on
evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and
their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment'
produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper,
the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence
Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of
the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is
often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing
journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for
the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not
a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds
an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July
25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
.)
In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo
, it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two
members of VIPS,
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the
agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and
created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,
today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an
extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they
are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4,
2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of
Russia, June 5, 2017.)
[9]
Demonization of Putin and Russia
The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit
the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I
don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my
understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted
the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with
the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.
Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of
the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles
I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow ,
mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the
extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being
his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman.
[10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and
the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to
Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the
infamous
Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane
coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from
hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to
the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."
Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that
otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who
cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us,
even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith.
[11] .
One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.
President Trump has called for the release of the FISA abuse memo which reportedly lists
abuses by the DoJ/FBI,
The Washington Post reported Saturday. The DoJ warned against its release until they have
had a chance to look it over. This is the same DoJ/FBI that is stonewalling and withholding
information from Congress.
Trump reportedly told Attorney General Jeff Sessions through Chief of Staff John Kelly that
he wants to see the memo released, believing that it will shed light on the special counsel
investigation.
The decision rests with the House Intelligence Committee overseen by Chair Devin Nunes who
has said he wants to release them as early as Monday.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The
first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses,
and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross
negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent
drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
"... For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump hunt. ..."
"... Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner. ..."
"... More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher Steele, who worked up -- for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign -- the Steele dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. ..."
"... Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ. ..."
"... Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction. ..."
"... This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump, and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his oath. Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI. What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to intemperate speech are using words like "criminal," "conspiracy," "corruption" and "coup" to describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers? ..."
"... As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses. This a perjury trap. Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in writing. ..."
"... What is going on in the US is a travesty of justice. For an outside observer of American politics, I'm flappergasted about the corruption and criminal energy the top brass of the FBI, the DOJ, together with the Obama and Clinton mafia, to discredit not only candidate Trump but President-elect Trump and finally the sitting President. Mr. Buchanan is right, arguing that Trump should not sit in with Mueller's agents, who want to trap him. ..."
"... After this witch- or Trump hunt is over, the Trump administration has to be clean up the mess in the FBI, DOJ and the other US institutions. Simultaneously, Clinton, Lynch, Chomey, McCabe and all the political criminals, including former President Obama, have to be brought to justice. What this political gang initiated is unprecedented in US history. Even Watergate fades in the face of this conspiracy of American institutions against a sitting president. ..."
Asked if he would agree to be interviewed by Robert Mueller's team, President Donald Trump
told the White House press corps, "I would love to do it as soon as possible. under oath,
absolutely."
On hearing this, the special counsel's office must have looked like the Eagles' locker room
after the 38-7 rout of the Vikings put them in the Super Bowl. If the president's legal team lets Trump sit for hours answering Mueller's agents, they
should be disbarred for malpractice. For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump
hunt.
After 18 months investigating Trumpian "collusion" with Putin's Russia in hacking the DNC's
and John Podesta's emails, the FBI has hit a stone wall. Failing to get Trump for collusion,
the fallback position is to charge him with obstruction of justice. As a good prosecutor can
get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the tactic is understandable.
Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction
case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump
should have done sooner.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17
witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross negligence," the requirement for
indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, "extreme
carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher
Steele, who worked up -- for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign -- the Steele
dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel. While the Steele dossier was shopped around town to the media, which, unable to substantiate
its lurid and sensational charges, declined to publish them, Comey's FBI went all in.
Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump
campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the
kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ.
Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with
Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a
major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction.
An aggressive Republican Party on the Hill, however, has forced the FBI to cough up
documents that are casting the work of Comey's cohorts in an ever more partisan and sinister
light.
This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump,
and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his
oath. Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI. What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to
intemperate speech are using words like "criminal," "conspiracy," "corruption" and "coup" to
describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers?
Bob Mueller, who inherited this investigation, is sitting on an IED because of what went on
before he got there. Mueller needs to file his charges before his own investigation becomes the
subject of a Justice Department investigation by a special counsel.
As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions
will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or
contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses. This a perjury trap. Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in
writing.
At bottom, this is a political issue, an issue of power, an issue of whether the Trump
revolution will be dethroned by the deep state it was sent to this capital to corral and
contain.
If Trump is guilty of attempted obstruction, it appears to be not of justice, but
obstruction of an injustice being perpetrated against him.
Trump should be in no hurry to respond to Mueller, for time no longer appears to be on
Mueller's side.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
What is going on in the US is a travesty of justice. For an outside observer of American
politics, I'm flappergasted about the corruption and criminal energy the top brass of the
FBI, the DOJ, together with the Obama and Clinton mafia, to discredit not only candidate
Trump but President-elect Trump and finally the sitting President. Mr. Buchanan is right,
arguing that Trump should not sit in with Mueller's agents, who want to trap him.
After this witch- or Trump hunt is over, the Trump administration has to be clean up the
mess in the FBI, DOJ and the other US institutions. Simultaneously, Clinton, Lynch, Chomey,
McCabe and all the political criminals, including former President Obama, have to be brought
to justice. What this political gang initiated is unprecedented in US history. Even Watergate
fades in the face of this conspiracy of American institutions against a sitting
president.
To restore the credibility of the FBI, DOJ and all other government institutions,
especially the Intel community, the US administration have to clean out the Augean
stables.
I think some of the accusations being levelled against Mueller are blown out of proportion
and show a misunderstanding of Mueller's task. His job is to investigate what happened,
including the possibility that people working for Trump did illegal things that are not
Trump's own fault. That doesn't imply Mueller is "out to get Trump".
Let me give an example. Michael Flynn conducted some informal contacts with the Russians
during the transition under Trump's instruction and told by Trump not to disclose it. This is
perfectly legal and legitimate. Flynn then mislead Pence, and later lied to the FBI about the
contacts. This was a tactical mistake by Flynn, because he could have told both that he's
under instruction from Trump not to disclose it and refuse to answer. Now Flynn says in his
own defense to Mueller that he was acting under Trump's instruction. So Mueller wants to ask
Trump if Flynn was acting under Trump's instruction. That doesn't mean it's illegal if Flynn
was acting under Trump's instruction. But if Flynn was acting on his own – there may be
a case against Flynn.
You could argue that Trump doesn't care about this – even if Flynn was acting on his
own – which goes back to Trump having constitutional authority to shut down this
fishing expedition because Trump has no interest in it.
The bottom line is that Trump has a problem with Republicans in Congress. Mueller can't do
anything against Trump – only Congress can. Trump doesn't trust Republicans in Congress
to protect him for doing what any President Elect and certainly President is entitled to do.
If Trump could trust Republicans in Congress – he could fire Mueller, Rosenstein and
Sessions and end the investigation.
"... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may
be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian
president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no
discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review
of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor
Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about
Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the
title suggests.
The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day
evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the
mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on
evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and
their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment'
produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper,
the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence
Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of
the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is
often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing
journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for
the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not
a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds
an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July
25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
.)
In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo
, it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two
members of VIPS,
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the
agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and
created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,
today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an
extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they
are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4,
2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of
Russia, June 5, 2017.)
[9]
Demonization of Putin and Russia
The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit
the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I
don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my
understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted
the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with
the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.
Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of
the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles
I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow ,
mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the
extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being
his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman.
[10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and
the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to
Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the
infamous
Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane
coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from
hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to
the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."
Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that
otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who
cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us,
even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith.
[11] .
One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.
Special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional investigators have interviewed roughly 50
people who work at the White House or were involved in Donald Trump's campaign.
Based on
a compilation of CBS of known interviews, that number includes at least 20 White House
employees and one Cabinet official: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Facebook Accuses Russia of Creating Events, But Unsure if They Took Place
A written statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Google, Twitter, and Facebook
revealed that they have found absolutely no evidence of any attempt by Russia to influence any
US votes within the past year (2017) and were unaware of any state-sponsored attempts to
interfere at all.
With Congress increasingly desperate to turn up something that they can pin on Russia
interference-wise, there is growing pressure on major technology companies to dig through their
logs and try to find something conceivably Russia-related.
Facebook has appeared to be the most eager to come up with something, having claimed that
129 "events" were created by people they suspect of being in league with the Russians, though
later conceding that they had no information if any of those events ever actually took
place.
Facebook did, however, claim an "insignificant" overlap between the putative Russian and the
Trump campaign. That's somewhat surprising, as oftentimes attempts to label someone a secret
Russian hinge heavily on them being perceived as pro-Trump in such after the fact
investigations.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
"... The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. ..."
"... The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq, 9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way. I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness: if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard? ..."
"... "Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII. ..."
"... Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as bad as they seemed. ..."
"... Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore nurtures both. ..."
"... Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used. ..."
"... One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine who's going to be next :-). But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went down. ..."
"... There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater Israel. ..."
"... One honest, generally morally competent man holding the ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man. ..."
"... Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the "collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16 years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an "inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity and order an investigation? ..."
"... The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements. Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal one – is medieval. ..."
"... Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the result of series of mistakes has increased. ..."
"... The US and its vassals (including other NATO countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up "Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed). ..."
"... The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of even a "small" nuke exchange. ..."
"... Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions – it is anything goes world now. ..."
"... The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world happens. ..."
"... Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming next. ..."
"... Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but neither genius. ..."
"... Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I think financial collapse gonna be trouble sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit. ..."
My goal in writing about these things is to alert you to the problems and encourage you to
share your concerns with people you know and with federal policy-makers. Right now, the entire
gamut of political discussion all but excludes the topic nuclear war, so if some Senators,
Members of Congress, and the President were to begin hearing from people that we're concerned
about the threat, and how easily it could happen, and that we want that threat removed, it
would be some progress.
Why the focus on nuclear war? Because of all the pending potential disasters we may have to
face, it's the most sudden, inescapable, irrevocable. At some level, people know that, though
they don't like to think about it. Author Carl Boggs describes the reaction of the people of
Hawaii when they received a false alarm about an incoming ICBM attack:
People scattered frenetically, mostly without logic or purpose or hope. Where to go? If
this turned out to be one of Kim Jong Un's powerful ICBMs, it could be over in 20 minutes.
Repair to a shelter? None exist. Go to the basement? Sure suicide. Find a car or taxi and
head for the hills? No time. [T]he response was utter psychological numbness, paralysis -- a
dysfunctional yet comprehensible state of mind in the face of nuclear oblivion. [T]he end
seemed inescapable.
And because, as Mr. Boggs says upon hearing a talk by former nuclear war planner Daniel
Ellsberg, it's a lot less unlikely than most of us have been led to believe.
The American people have been lulled to sleep, distracted by endless media and political
spectacles, while busy warmakers keep refining their insane nuclear blueprints . More than 70
years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pentagon elites still theorize and fantasize about the
unthinkable, their demented plans far removed from the realm of political debate or even
public awareness.
[1]
The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the
US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been
heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated
by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. And it's heightened
further by a Pentagon plan to develop a "low-yield" warhead for the submarine-based Trident
missile, and a new nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile.
[2] I believe that expanding the range of options in this way would
increase the likelihood that the weapons will actually be used.
In case you think I'm overstating the problem, you should know that almost everything in
"Dr. Strangelove" -- the Stanley Kubrick film in which nuclear war is started by a rogue
military officer -- was true.
[3] . "Doomsday" is an "Actual War
Plan," as Daniel Ellsberg says in a December 13, 2017 interview discussing his new book,
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.
[4].
Dan Ellsberg proposes a Six-Step Program for dismantling the Doomsday Machine:
A U.S.
no-first-use policy;
Probing investigative hearings on our war plans in the light of nuclear
winter;
Eliminating our ICBMs;
Foregoing the delusion of preemptive damage-limiting by our
first-strike forces;
Giving up the profits, jobs, and alliance hegemony based on maintaining
that pretense;
Otherwise dismantling the American Doomsday Machine.
Of course none of that will happen under present circumstances. It's Ellsberg's goal to
contribute to developing an informed electorate that, recognizing the risk, will demand such
actions.
... ... ...
Regarding the two nuclear-armed superpowers, who between them possess some 15,000 nuclear
warheads, the Cold War that ended in 1991 has lately been replaced by a New Cold War. U.S. and
NATO provocations to Russia have reached a largely unheard crescendo in Ukraine, where a
U.S.-backed coup installed a regime, essentially in the Russian belly, that's riddled with
neo-Nazis and hostile to Russia; in eastern Europe generally, where NATO war games have been
held repeatedly just across the Russian border; and in Syria, where the U.S. continues to
maintain an unlawful presence in proximity to Russian forces legitimately there at the
invitation of the internationally recognized and constitutionally elected Syrian government.
And in both Syria and Ukraine, there are signs the situation is becoming even more dangerous
than it's been for some time.
[7]
These situations raise the risk of unintended nuclear war, as confrontation may lead at any
time to escalation spiraling out of control. Dr. William Polk, a member of the White House team
that handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, describes how in a confrontational situation, the logic
of events could force the Russians and us to the next step and that step also to the next and
so on, to the ultimate disastrous result without anyone having initially intended it.
[8] . Mr. Shatz concludes that what we once mistook for safety was more like sleepwalking.
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin sums up the situation in similar terms:
"Under the false and demonizing imagery of 'Putin's Russia' which has now taken hold in the
United States and NATO world, the West is truly 'sleepwalking', as Kissinger, Gorbachev,
[University of Kent professor Richard] Sakwa, [Princeton emeritus professor Stephen F.] Cohen
and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban
missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now [in part] because American policy under
recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical
perspective where Russia is concerned." ( Return to Moscow , University of Western
Australia, 2017, p. 255).
Think you're pretty spot with all you say. The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq,
9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became
mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way.
I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness:
if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a
knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard?
"Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as
a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently
enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in
Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII.
His account of attending a Nazi rally where he appeared to be the only member of the
audience not mesmerized by Hitler's delusional rants reminds me of my own reaction to the
Russiagate hysteria being orchestrated by neocons and Clinton dead-enders. Who are these
people and what is the matter with them? The current state of our Union is a testament to the
power of propaganda, which Hitler and Goebbels understood so well.
Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized
that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they
really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was
so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the
hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as
bad as they seemed.
But as it turned out, things were even worse than they seemed. The nightmare was real and
there was no waking from it.
The USA/Russia/China/Israel/France/UK/India/Pakistan have collectively been playing Russian
Roulette for 65 years.
Probability dictates sooner or later, one of the chambers will contain a live round.
What an excellent essay. It appears to have been submitted initially to The Unz Review, which
should enhance the reputation of both the author and publisher.
Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media
disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the
widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore
nurtures both.
Great article and great comments so far (11 of them).
We have a scenario much like those scenarios prior to the Great War (WWI) and the second
world war, and the same shadowy 'hidden hand' orchestrating the entire pending disaster so
they can yet further augment their control and expand their illegal land theft.
The consolidation of the mass media agencies, now almost pure propaganda/perception
management agencies controlled by the competing factions of the 0.1%, and the advent of the
internet and 'big data' have enabled this psychopathic cabal to attain previously undreamt of
control over the common 99%, including control over their perception.
Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear
that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire
hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by
mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance
will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used.
It is because of this point that the entirety of humanity must rally and do 'what ever it
takes' to stop the terrorist empire from sustaining the current tyranny. The psychopaths of
the empire, not exposed to public scrutiny, hidden in the shadows, can and will nudge the
world into unwinnable (for anyone) nuclear war; their egos are the definition of human
depravity.
Exposing the grand charade to a critical mass of the general population is the first
objective, then exposing the 'hidden hands' in the shadows is the next.
The parasite must be stopped, and we, the people who have seen glimpses of the enemy, are
incumbent to spread the word.
I left this comment on a different article ( http://thesaker.is/listening-to-mattis/ ), but
seems it could be in place here also. Cause we're talking approximately same and nothing gonna
change
-- -- -
Well, it's getting boring a little. I mean the descriptions of the insanity of US's
rulers.
One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president
replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine
who's going to be next :-).
But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went
down.
Thanks God, we, Russians, not that happy. After imbecile alcoholic Yeltsin we've got not
bad alternative (your media and stupid people in power call him a killer). Who (with his sanity) the only chance for this world to survive.
But, actually we're very tired from all this stuff and the possibility of US generals to
test our conventional and even nuke arms constantly increasing. They can also test if our
soldiers who've seen Napoleon, Hitler and many others got worse or still the same. I'm asking US citizens – Is it really interesting to you to get know it for
sure?
There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however
the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game
plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater
Israel.
"But as Mr. Shatz observes, the problems run much deeper than President Trump."
This statement is misleading. One honest, generally morally competent man holding the
ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man.
Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would
destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the
"collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of
that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16
years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an
"inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity
and order an investigation?
There is only one plausible explanation: I believe that Donald John Trump was the "deep
state" candidate of choice in the 2016 election. I believe that's why they ran wild-eyed
madwoman Hillary Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders. I believe that's
why, in the early fall of 2016, as the election was coming into the home stretch, Obama
started ramping up tensions with Russia; i.e., so as to nudge the disgruntled anti-war
Democrats (Sanders supporters) into Trump's camp, swinging the election to him.
I believe that Donald John Trump is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been groomed
and waiting in the wings for his masters' call. I believe that Donald John Trump was called
to power in a desperate now or never moment to save the "deep state" (Zionist) agenda.
Donald John Trump is a liar. Donald John Trump is a fraud. Donald John Trump is a con man.
Donald John Trump is a mass-murderer.
I don't think anyone in the West is sleepwalking into anything, esp the USA. I think the
American people see the writing on the wall and that if the American Empire loses status the
economy of the USA will revert to being a labor intensive existence of working the ground
just to have enough food to eat and water to drink. So entitled and lazy Americans are and
horrified to be relegated back to a 1920/30′s quality of life (loss of Bread &
Circuses), that if the Military Industril Complex has to threaten the entire planet with nuclear
annihilation if they don't tithe 10% of their GDP (Roman Empire) so fat ass Yankees can
continue to be fat asses – then just burn the place to the ground.
If the BRIC countries attempt to dethrone the petro dollar lazy entitled Americans will
BEG Washington to do whatever it takes to bring back $3.00 t-shirts at Wal-Mart.
The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most
politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic
caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they
mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements.
Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is
freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal
one – is medieval.
We are at a point when views other than BBC, CNN, NY Times , are routinely dismissed as
'meddling', 'trolling, or sometimes 'hatred'. The objective is to suppress and dismiss them.
That is very dangerous for any civilisation, but for a system that was built on celebrating
free speech, it is fatal.
I often hear that it is a 'natural' pendulum swing, that most people in the West don't
agree with it, that it is an angry reaction to an unexpected loss ('Clinton dead-enders'),
that it will self-correct over time. In my view that is missing the point and overlooks the
permanent damage this hysteria has caused. If the more rational members of the elite are
unable to defend rationality and freedom today – when it is still easy – they are
co-responsible for the madness.
"After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing neo-Nazi organisations were rewarded with
control of four ministries
Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the fascist Social National Party (SNPU) , which later
changed its name to Svoboda, became the new top commander of the National Defense and
Security Council (covering the military, police, courts and intelligence apparatus). The CIA
renamed the organisation to "Svoboda," meaning "Freedom," to make it more acceptable to
Americans.
Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector commander, was second-in-command of the National Defense and
Security Council. This is the man who organized and ran Ukraine's February 22nd Coup in Kiev,
and the May 2nd Massacre of Its Opponents in Odessa, for Barack Obama. Yarosh's teams
carry out the most violent operations for the CIA in Ukraine. They are responsible for the
atrocities committed in the Donbass, for the crimes against humanity .
Oleh Tyahnybok, co founder of the SNPU and currently the party leader of Svoboda, a self
confessed neo-Nazi. He opposed the introduction of the Russian language as the second
official state language; called for the lustration of former communist officials. He also
proposed recognition of the fighting role of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and
Ukrainian Insurgent Army during World War II."
-- Where are the Lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, the Friends of Israel in UK, and the
whole Holocaust business? Where are the fighters with BDS?
Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the
result of series of mistakes has increased.
The US and its vassals (including other NATO
countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up
"Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify
further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed).
The Empire is
afraid of losing its position, but shortsighted elites do everything to accelerate its
demise. The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we
can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by
their wealth. Hope springs eternal.
Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet
down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of
even a "small" nuke exchange.
But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so if
it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India, who
in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than
ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent.
And the reference "the TWO nuclear-armed superpowers" is out of date. That would be at
least THREE nuke-armed superpowers: China, the USA, and Russia.
"But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so
if it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India,
who in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than
ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent."
because it will keep the victims of ZIO/U$A imperial policy at bay for the victims request
for REPARATIONS, when that time comes
understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal
Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the
global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western
elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they
become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views
because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions
– it is anything goes world now.
So where is the assurance that rationality would prevail in a crisis? It didn't in 1914.
Who would step in and tell the morons that they have been living a lie of their own creation?
That constraints are still there, that their verbal acuity has not changed how the world is,
that 'soft power' is called soft for a reason – it doesn't add up to a hill of beans
when it matters. The risk for any dissenter of consequence is very high (see Trump for a
related, imperfect example).
Let's hope. Most bad scenarios don't actually end life on the planet, they just make life
more miserable. That's what happened in the past. We might see a 'nuclear' version of that.
One thing I know for sure: none of the liberal fire-eaters in Washington, Brussels or London
will ever own up to this. They are born 'victims', so they will go on whining
The Dutch government tries to get a law accepted now that greatly increases the legal
possibilities of our secret service to spy on anyone.
March 21 there is a referendum on the law, I expect that we will reject it, but the
politicians already stated that they will reject a negative referendum.
By accident, of course, today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian
interference in the USA elections, without being specific of course, 'classified', as a lot
in the USA.
The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then
anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign
affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather
of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they
despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to
overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world
happens.
Most regular readers of Unz Review can agree with the above. What they also need to accept
is that those problems did not enter the US, or more generally the Anglosphere, with the
flight of mostly Jewish Trotskyites from the USSR and Europe. The same attitudes of
insufferable hubris that was basically amoral in regard to national and ethnic groups it most
despised marked the British Empire.
The British WASP Elite form certainly was more refined
and pleasant-seeming than the Jewish Neocon form, and other groups of people within that
world usually proved able to bring the most crazed WASP Elite monsters back from the edge of
the cliff. But they existed, and they caused needless trouble around the globe.
It is the mix of the two that makes the American hawkish anti-Russian, Israel-first
foreign policy insane enough to try to start a nuclear exchange.
Anon from TN
You may be right, but we can't do anything about it now: much hyped democracy is a pure ruse
(look at presumably two party system in the US: Republicrats always win). I just hope that
the sense of self-preservation in those degenerate elites is stronger than their lies that
they apparently believe themselves (even mice are smart enough for that). If not, then those
morons along with innocent bystanders (99.9% of world population) would be dead. Look on the
bright side: rodents and insects would be happy to inherit the Earth.
Unpopular jerk-boy opinion incoming. I honestly think the Hawaii response is pretty typical
but shameful. I like the response of the guy who just tweets, 'OK, if I die goodbye, I'm
golfing anyway' and turns his stupid phone off.
Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next
president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming
next. What makes me wonder how this sort of imbeciles gets elected without collapsing the
state. I think it is moving slowly in this direction but there was enough to have just 2 morons in top positions and
look -- no
more USSR. Talk about "Checks and balances."
Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much
but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but
neither genius.
Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I
think financial collapse gonna be trouble
sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar
status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit.
Anon from TN
You are right: Dutch government has already thrown away negative results of the referendum on
EU association with Ukraine. What's more, it betrayed its own citizens by still pretending to
investigate the crash of MH-17, even though everyone with a brain knows that Ukrainian puppet
government is to blame (international airlines made this conclusion long time ago: they fly
over Russia, but avoid Ukraine, flying around it, just like they fly around North Korea).
I
am tempted to say that you guys elected this scum, but then you'd say that I elected Trump,
which I didn't (anyway, what choice did we have: corrupt to the core mad witch would have
been even worse).
today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA
elections
Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on
the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ':
they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or '
meddling ' different from having an opinion about an election. And we all know that
Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries'
elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.
It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning
level?
"... Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found "many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ..."
"... "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," ..."
"... Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 - just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks. During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29. ..."
"... Now, Americans are told we must believe the outcome of these "investigations" into Russian interference as the man behind them has been exposed as complicit in covering for the people responsible for the deadliest terror attack ever carried out on American soil ..."
Further deteriorating the propaganda surrounding the government's probe into alleged
interference by Russia in the 2016 election, recently discovered court documents have just
revealed that the person leading the investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was
complicit in covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Not only did Mueller cover for the
Florida Saudi family but, according to the documents, he released intentionally deceptive
statements to muddy the official investigation.
The new report, released by
Florida Bulldog is nothing short of bombshell.
According to the CIA's database, 15
of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and when they first arrived in the United
States, nine of them arrived in Florida.
As TFTP previously reported, Florida Bulldog, a team of investigative journalists that has
spent years probing the connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia, sued the
FBI in 2012 for details on the ties between the hijackers and a rich Saudi family that
mysteriously left all of their belongings and abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Florida,
just two weeks before the attacks. The lawsuit led to the release of materials from a 2002 FBI
report, which found "many connections" between the Saudi family and "individuals associated
with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001."
The idea that a federal judge would go from supporting a group of investigative journalists
and pushing for transparency, to supporting the FBI and insisting that protecting the location
of a security camera was worth covering up the funding of the 9/11 attacks, may seem bizarre -
but it is a common practice under all administrations.
Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering
that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist
plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the
opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files
obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found
"many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks
on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group
sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
The disingenuous statements were issued by FBI officials in Miami and Tampa in a desperate
effort to disparage a 2011 story exposing the agency's covert investigation of the Sarasota
Saudis as well as reporting that it had been concealed from Congress. Mueller is referenced
in a document index that was ordered by a federal judge to be created in late November 2017.
The south Florida judge, William J. Zloch, a Ronald Reagan appointee, asked the FBI to
explain where it had discovered dozens of pages of documents in the public-records case filed
six years ago. The index reference to then-FBI Director Mueller appears in an item involving
an agency white paper written a week after the publication of a news story about the abrupt
departure of Saudis Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji from their Sarasota area home about two
weeks before 9/11. The couple left behind their cars, clothes, furniture, jewelry and other
personal items. "It was created to brief the FBI Director concerning the FBI's investigation
of 4224 Escondito Circle," the al-Hijjis' address, the index says.
Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears
that the lies were approved by Mueller. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to questions
about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.
Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it's difficult
to ignore that it chips away at Mueller's credibility as special counsel to investigate if
Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election. Even before the Saudi coverup documents
were exposed by nonprofit journalists, Mueller's credentials were questionable to head any
probe. Back in May Judicial Watch reminded of Mueller's
misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI
director.
What's more, under Mueller's leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism
material deemed "offensive" to Muslims in an attempt to grovel and give in to multiple radical
Islamist groups.
As The Free Thought Project has
reported , Trump is also complicit in covering for the Saudis, as he went from calling for
holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in 9/11, to ignoring the idea that the
country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected, Americans
would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on
May 20 - just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of
Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11
attacks. During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110
BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be
considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
Now, Americans are told we must believe the outcome of these "investigations" into
Russian interference as the man behind them has been exposed as complicit in covering for the
people responsible for the deadliest terror attack ever carried out on American soil .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence
operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the
world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent
journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world.
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project.
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. ..."
"... If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies. ..."
"... This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state. ..."
"... When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals. ..."
"... In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States ..."
"... A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight
to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump cover-up that is not believable.
Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans.
Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:
1) Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.
2) Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer
and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.
3) The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by
neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
4) The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and
this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against
Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
5) Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with
Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby,
undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top
officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic
election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported
allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping
to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used
to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate.
Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must
have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but
not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted
or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability
in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under
a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place.
They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and
prosecuted for their act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the
people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable
if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump
is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified
and released and explained
by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperly spied
and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself
that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen
Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to
the FISA court.
(See
Lendman
on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when
government has to cover up its crimes. )
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for
partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to
the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future.
It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for
the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government
of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese
governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation
with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception
that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"... I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government. Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial gain. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation has, according to this article, accidentally turned up something that should put Mueller in prison: https://www.sott.net/article/375184-Muellers-investigation-accidentally-exposes-FBI-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11 ..."
I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there
was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government.
Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on
something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial
gain. Also outreach by Kushner to Russian money men and bankers for his 1 billion in
debt.
Mueller has a better chance of getting Trump on obstruction of justice and maybe lying to
the FBI because Trump, in the coming trump- Mueller interview, doesn't know what Mueller may
already know from his interviews with others so if he spins and lies he's toast.
I don't care about Trump being impeached as much as I care about removing Kushner. Kushner
is dirtier than pig shit and using his position to trade influence for money for the Kushners
in every foreign contact he makes.
Trumps relationship with Kushner is beyond weird, really, really weird .something ties
them together and I would bet money that's its being party to money laundering thru their
real estate deals and loans. Trump cant be the genius he claims to be, and claims Jared is.
and they not know all the money flowing to them from Russian oligarchs and other known money
movers isn't dirty as hell.
If Trump was the stable genius he says he is, he would have seen to it that Kushner would
never have married his daughter. If he is even a little smart, he would give Kushner the boot
now, though it's probably too late to avoid the consequences of his appointment of
Kushner.
Dimwit that I am, my conclusion is that Trump isn't a genius after all.
As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump is also complicit in covering for the
Saudis, as he went from calling for holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in
9/11, to ignoring the idea that the country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected,
Americans would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 – just four days after
Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt
to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks.
During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi
Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why
Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
"... It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an abomination to our constitution and the rule of law . ..."
The Fox News anchor also notes that former FBI Director James Comey may be in hot water over
leaking a memo he says he wrote containing his concerns over President Trump pressuring him to
go easy on former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
Also brand new tonight we have new revelations about one of the lawyers that is now
representing disgraced former FBI director, soon to be probably investigated, national
embarrassment James Comey. According to Buzzfeed, one of Comey's attorneys turns out as his
Columbia law professor buddy - the guy he leaked the memo to to the New York Times because he
wanted a special counsel appointed, which turned out to be "oh, Comey's other BFF Robert
Mueller" You can't make this up in a spy novel!
It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey
testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. And according to the reports,
special counsel interviewed Comey about his memos last year. By the way, they also
collaborated before he testified. Those memos contain classified information. They were
created on government computers, so Comey broke the law by removing them from the FBI, but
it's clear that Mueller didn't care about any of that.
Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat
a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an
abomination to our constitution and the rule of law .
To recap: right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
"Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having
done anything wrong, he was arrested."
Thus begins The Trial , Franz Kafka's 1925 work, in which Joseph K., ordinary bank employee,
is arrested at his home by mysterious agents and notified of legal proceedings against him.
He is not informed of the offense or crime of which he would allegedly be guilty – he
is only given to understand that he must have broken some unknown law – and is notified
of a summons to court a certain day, without knowing the exact time or place.
The protagonist is dragged into a completely absurd circle, wavering between inspectors,
bailiffs, lawyers and judges, and not knowing at any time for what or against whom he must
defend himself.
He is finally executed by three distinguished executioners who, with "odious politeness",
plant a butcher's knife in his heart.
"... The FBI-issued cell phone of Peter Strzok, whose previous texts to his mistress (also an FBI employee) showed fierce hostility to Trump, suddenly had problems due to "software upgrades" and other issues -- and voila -- all the messages between the two from Dec. 14, 2016, to May 17, 2017 vanished. ..."
"... Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, notified a Senate committee that "data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected." The missing texts could have obliterated the remnants of credibility of the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Conservatives are caterwauling about the vanished evidence but this type of tactic has long been standard procedure for the FBI. Acting FBI chief Patrick Gray was forced to resign in 1973 after it was revealed that he had burned incriminating evidence from the White House in his fireplace shortly after the Watergate break-in by Nixon White House "plumbers." Gray claimed he was resigning to preserve the "reputation and integrity" of the FBI -- but that hasn't worked out so well. ..."
"... The FBI has a long history of "losing" evidence that would tarnish its halo. And for most of the agency's history, judges and Congress have let the FBI sweep its dirt under the rug. ..."
"... Evidence disposal is no problem for politically-favored targets of FBI investigation. A month before the 2016 election, Americans learned that the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops of top Hillary Clinton aides after a limited examination of their contents (including a promise not to examine any emails or content after January 31, 2015) in its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Four Republican congressional committee chairmen complained to Attorney General Lynch that the FBI agreement was " simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators." The FBI shrugged off the Clinton team's subsequent use of bleachbit software to erase thousands of her emails. ..."
"... Jeff Sessions, who was then a U.S. senator and is now Attorney General, condemned the FBI's behavior as "breathtaking ..."
"... Will the FBI face any consequences for its latest lost evidence debacle? In our high-tech era, it is no longer necessary to toss damning evidence into a fireplace. "Software upgrades" sounds so innocuous that only conspiracy theorists could wonder about missing smoking guns. But the FBI is no closer to being compelled to operate openly than when Patrick Gray ignited those White House files. ..."
Congressional investigators were rocked this weekend when the FBI notified them that five
months of text messages from a top FBI investigator into the Trump campaign's Russian
connections had mysteriously vanished.
The FBI-issued cell phone of Peter Strzok, whose previous texts to his mistress (also an
FBI employee) showed fierce hostility to Trump, suddenly had problems due to "software
upgrades" and other issues -- and voila -- all the messages between the two from Dec. 14, 2016,
to May 17, 2017 vanished. Strzok, who oversaw the Trump investigation from its start in
July 2016, was removed from Mueller's Special Counsel investigation last summer after the
Justice Department Inspector General discovered his anti-Trump texts.
Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, notified a Senate
committee that "data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term
storage and retrieval was not collected." The missing texts could have obliterated the remnants
of credibility of the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign.
Conservatives are caterwauling about the vanished evidence but this type of tactic has
long been standard procedure for the FBI. Acting FBI chief Patrick Gray was forced to resign in
1973 after it was revealed that he had burned incriminating evidence from the White House in
his fireplace shortly after the Watergate break-in by Nixon White House "plumbers." Gray
claimed he was resigning to preserve the "reputation and integrity" of the FBI -- but that
hasn't worked out so well.
The FBI has a long history of "losing" evidence that would tarnish its halo. And for
most of the agency's history, judges and Congress have let the FBI sweep its dirt under the
rug.
In the Ruby Ridge case, when an FBI sniper gunned down an Idaho mother holding her baby in
1992, the chief of the FBI's Violence Crimes division was sent to prison for destroying
evidence. When a Senate committee held hearings three years later, four FBI agents took the
Fifth Amendment rather than tell the incriminating truth about their activities on the Ruby
Ridge case. A subsequent Senate report concluded that the five successive FBI reports of
internal investigations of the episode "are variously contradictory, inaccurate, and biased.
They demonstrate a reluctance on the part of the FBI initially to take the incidents at Ruby
Ridge seriously." Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) complained, "I would be asked by the FBI to
believe (Ruby Ridge) was almost a model of (good) conduct. The conclusion, is drawn, from ...
all the people we've heard, that no one did anything wrong of significance or consequence."
The FBI suppressed mounds of evidence regarding its final assault on the Branch Davidians in
Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993. The FBI had always vehemently denied that it had any blame for
a fire that killed nearly 80 people; six years after the attack, investigators found
pyrotechnic rounds the FBI fired into the building before the conflagration erupted. Attorney
General Janet Reno lashed out at the FBI for destroying her credibility.
Newsweek reported that, according to a senior FBI official, "as many as 100 FBI agents and
officials may have known about" the military-style explosive devices used by the FBI at Waco,
despite Reno's and the FBI's repeated denials that such devices were used. The FBI deceived
Congress and a federal judge by withholding information that it had six closed-circuit
television cameras monitoring the Davidians' home throughout the siege. The resulting films
could have the key information that could resolve the major issues of Waco but the FBI withheld
the tapes for years, until they were impounded by U.S. marshals.
FBI evidence shenanigans destroyed the prosecution of Cliven Bundy, the Nevadan rancher who
was involved in a high-profile standoff with federal agents in 2014. The feds charged the Bundy
family with conspiracy in large part because the ranchers summoned militia to defend them after
they claimed that FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at
this claim in prior trials involving the standoff but newly-released documents confirm that
snipers were in place prior to the Bundy's call for help. Federal judge Gloria Navarro slammed
the FBI last month for withholding key evidence in the case.
Evidence disposal is no problem for politically-favored targets of FBI investigation. A
month before the 2016 election, Americans learned that the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops of
top Hillary Clinton aides after a limited examination of their contents (including a promise
not to examine any emails or content after January 31, 2015) in its investigation of Hillary
Clinton's private email server. Four Republican congressional committee chairmen complained to
Attorney General Lynch that the FBI agreement was " simply astonishing given the likelihood
that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators." The FBI
shrugged off the Clinton team's subsequent use of bleachbit software to erase thousands of her
emails.
Jeff Sessions, who was then a U.S. senator and is now Attorney General, condemned the
FBI's behavior as "breathtaking " :
"I really don't see how Congress can issue a subpoena for records and they then destroy
those records. I am telling you that every business knows that if they get a subpoena for
business records, and they destroy those records, they are subject to criminal prosecution
and will be prosecuted."
Will the FBI face any consequences for its latest lost evidence debacle? In our
high-tech era, it is no longer necessary to toss damning evidence into a fireplace. "Software
upgrades" sounds so innocuous that only conspiracy theorists could wonder about missing smoking
guns. But the FBI is no closer to being compelled to operate openly than when Patrick Gray
ignited those White House files.
This is really a "soft coup", a color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that. ..."
"... We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State. ..."
"... More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of Justice Inspector General reportedly has additional damaging texts from others on the team that Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate. ..."
"... But the main casualty is the FBI's 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama administration's Russia-gate intelligence "assessment," electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets ..."
"... Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which distributed the supposedly "hacked" Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia – and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to use its immense powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario. ..."
"... on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an "assessment" that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. ..."
"... Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking. He wrote at the time: "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" ..."
"... Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved narrative of Russia-gate. ..."
"... Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House. ..."
"... Justified or not, Trump's feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous -- particularly at a time when the most urgent need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals. ..."
"... On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of the Resistance's strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair – to "get Trump." ..."
"... Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment's storyline that there appears to be no room for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can't stop stoking the smoke of Russia-gate and holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of the "rule of law" and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the "rule of law" and "pursuit of truth" appear to have been reduced to high-falutin' phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack of evidence. ..."
"... In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page text-message exchange and told Mueller ..."
"... At this point, the $64 question is whether the various congressional oversight committees will remain ensconced in their customarily cozy role as "overlook" committees, or whether they will have the courage to attempt to carry out their Constitutional duty. The latter course would mean confronting a powerful Deep State and its large toolbox of well-practiced retaliatory techniques, including J. Edgar Hoover-style blackmail on steroids, enabled by electronic surveillance of just about everything and everyone. Yes, today's technology permits blanket collection, and "Collect Everything" has become the motto. ..."
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
"... If congressional investigators have been paying attention, they already know what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter shared with Veteran intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues this week; namely, that Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, who commissioned the Russia dossier using Democratic Party money, said he reached out to Steele after June 17, just three days before Steele's first report was published , drawing on seven sources. ..."
"... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... As you know Mr. McGovern the police state seldom loses. ..."
"... Compared to the criminal and corrupt US political system, the mafia is an honor society oriented on values. More and more evidence appears that the whole Russian Gate was precooked by the Obama and Clinton mafia together with crooks like Clapper, Brennan, Comey. Lynch and many of the top brass in the FBI and the DoJ. The installment of Bob Mueller who is hugely biased and a Comey body hired only Clinton supporters as his lawyers. But such a team shows how corrupt the US justice system has already become. ..."
"... Considering all the experience gleaned from 7+ decades of subverting and overthrowing governments around the world, the Deep State thugs must of thought securing the WH for their Killer Queen was a 'slam dunk.' ..."
"... The FBI answers to the CIA. This essay is absurd. ..."
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate in 2016, during which Clinton called Trump Vladimir Putin's
"puppet.
Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies manipulating U.S. politics, but now
Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence
official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the
end of this article.)
Despite his former job as chief of the FBI's counterintelligence section, Strzok had the naive notion that texting on FBI phones
could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through "Surity 101." Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page
cannot be happy at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to conduct their affair(s).
It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing
the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest
of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages
does incalculably more damage than that.
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S.
democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not
the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters
sometimes called the Deep State.
More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of Justice Inspector General reportedly
has additional damaging texts from others on the team that Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate.
Besides forcing the removal of Strzok and Page, the text exposures also sounded the death knell for the career of FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe, in whose office some of the plotting took place and who has already announced his plans to retire soon.
But the main casualty is the FBI's 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama
administration's Russia-gate intelligence "assessment," electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that
could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest
advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets.
Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand
evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed
to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to
keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity."
Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers' correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of
the made-up "Resistance" narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream
media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only
lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn't make sense on its face.
The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what
no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the
fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been
led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.
Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which distributed the supposedly "hacked"
Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia – and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to
use its immense powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario.
The Trump Shock
But the shock of Trump's election and the decision of many never-Trumpers to cast their lot with the Resistance led to a situation
in which any prudent skepticism or demand for evidence was swept aside.
So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that
he said was compiled by "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an "assessment" that Russia and President Putin
were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency.
Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking.
He wrote
at the time: "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence
to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies
essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing
Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow
removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record
repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that
falsehood was belatedly
acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the
Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were
witnessing was a "soft coup" were
scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about
the weaknesses of the Russia-gate
narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit
of the goal of removing Trump from the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new
Russia-gate disclosures conflicted
with the original narrative
that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the
Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a "Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evidence that key FBI officials involved in the Russia-gate investigation
were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump, adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch
hunt ."
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
Justified or not, Trump's feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous -- particularly at a time when the most urgent
need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals.
On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte blanche
to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of
the Resistance's strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair – to "get Trump."
Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment's storyline that there appears to be no room
for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can't stop stoking the
smoke of Russia-gate and holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump's impeachment.
Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of
the "rule of law" and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the "rule of law" and "pursuit
of truth" appear to have been reduced to high-falutin' phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans
in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack
of evidence.
Strzok and Page
Peter Strzok (pronounced "struck") has an interesting pedigree with multiple tasks regarding both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
As the FBI's chief of counterespionage during the investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's unauthorized use of
a personal email server for classified information, Strzok reportedly changed the words "grossly negligent" (which could have triggered
legal prosecution) to the far less serious "extremely careless" in FBI Director James Comey's depiction of Clinton's actions. This
semantic shift cleared the way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention began in July 2016, that
"no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges against Mrs. Clinton.
Then, as Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Strzok led the FBI's investigation into alleged Russian
interference in the U.S. election of 2016. It is a safe bet that he took a strong hand in hand-picking the FBI contingent of analysts
that joined "hand-picked" counterparts from CIA and NSA in preparing the evidence-free, Jan. 6, 2017 assessment accusing Russian
President Vladimir Putin of interfering in the election of 2016. (Although accepted in Establishment groupthink as revealed truth,
that poor excuse for analysis reflected the apogee of intelligence politicization -- rivaled only by the fraudulent intelligence
on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq 15 years ago.)
In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible
links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page
text-message exchange and told Mueller.
There is no little irony in the fact that what did in the FBI sweathearts was their visceral disdain for Mr. Trump, their cheerleading-cum-kid-gloves
treatment of Mrs. Clinton and her associates, their 1950-ish, James Clapperesque attitude toward Russians as "almost genetically
driven" to evil, and their (Strzok/Page) elitist conviction that they know far better what is good for the country than regular American
citizens, including those "deplorables" whom Clinton said made up half of Trump's supporters.
But Strzok/Page had no idea that their hubris, elitism and scheming would be revealed in so tangible a way. Worst of all for them,
the very thing that Strzok, in particular, worked so hard to achieve -- the sabotaging of Trump and immunization of Mrs. Clinton
and her closest advisers is now coming apart at the seams.
Congress: Oversee? or Overlook?
At this point, the $64 question is whether the various congressional oversight committees will remain ensconced in their customarily
cozy role as "overlook" committees, or whether they will have the courage to attempt to carry out their Constitutional duty. The
latter course would mean confronting a powerful Deep State and its large toolbox of well-practiced retaliatory techniques, including
J. Edgar Hoover-style blackmail on steroids, enabled by electronic surveillance of just about everything and everyone. Yes, today's
technology permits blanket collection, and "Collect Everything" has become the motto.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President
Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from
Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on.
Thanks to the almost 10,000 text messages between Strzok and Page, only a small fraction of which were given to Congress four
weeks ago, there is now real evidentiary meat on the bones of the suspicions that there indeed was a "deep-state coup" to "correct"
the outcome of the 2016 election. We now know that the supposedly apolitical FBI officials had huge political axes to grind. The
Strzok-Page exchanges drip with disdain for Trump and those deemed his smelly deplorable supporters. In one text message, Strzok
expressed visceral contempt for those working-class Trump voters, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart.
I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
The texts even show Strzok warning of the need for an "insurance policy" to thwart Trump on the off-chance that his poll numbers
closed in on those of Mrs. Clinton.
An Aug. 6, 2016 text message, for example, shows Page giving her knight in shining armor strong affirmation: "Maybe you're meant
to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump]." That text to Strzok includes a link
to a David Brooks
column
in The New York Times, in which Brooks concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become
dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids
will look away in shame."
Another text message shows that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined
the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on
Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he [Trump] gets
elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die
before you're 40."
Insurance Policy?
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls
him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less
legend that Russia hacked
the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and
gave them to WikiLeaks .
If congressional investigators have been paying attention, they already know what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter shared
with Veteran intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues this week; namely, that Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, who commissioned
the Russia dossier using Democratic Party money, said he reached out to Steele after June 17, just three days before Steele's
first report was published
, drawing on seven sources.
"There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single
'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence."
Another VIPS colleague, Phil Giraldi, writing out of his own experience in private sector consulting, added: "The fact that you
do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing
it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security
firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and
to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar
reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable."
It is now widely known that the Democrats ponied up the "insurance premiums," so to speak, for former British intelligence officer
Christopher Steele's "dossier" of lurid -- but largely unproven -- "intelligence" on Trump and the Russians. If, as many have concluded,
the dossier was used to help justify a FISA warrant to snoop on the Trump campaign, those involved will be in deep kimchi, if congressional
overseers do their job.
How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible
consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with
no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed
to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation
by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President
Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee of Judiciary on Crime and Terrorism, joined Sen.
Grassley in signing the letter referring Christopher Steele to the Justice Department to investigate what appear to be false statements
about the dossier. In signing, Graham noted the "many stop signs the Department of Justice ignored in its use of the dossier." The
signature of committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, however, was missing -- an early sign that a highly partisan
battle royale is in the offing. On Tuesday, Feinstein unilaterally released a voluminous transcript of Glenn Simpson's earlier testimony
and, as though on cue, Establishment pundits portrayed Steele as a good source and Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson as a victim.
The Donnybrook is now underway; the outcome uncertain.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army and CIA intelligence analyst for 30 years; prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan;
and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Thanks for the article, Mr. McGovern. I sure wish this could be published where some liberal eyeballs could get a look at it.
I would also be interested in your opinion on the strange stuff found in some of the John Podesta emails. Although I can understand
why you may not want to swim in those murky waters.
The world is controlled by Corporate Fascist Military Industrial Intelligence Police States. They will pick the leaders of the
world and no one will tell the differently. This FBI scandal goes through all the intelligence agencies and begins with Obama
who basically runs the government in his "third term." This entire election was rigged by Dems starting with the exclusion of
Sanders. Unfortunately, for the Dems their plan failed because Hillary was such a terrible candidate. If this is not brought out
in the open we will never have a chance of getting a legitimate candidate again.
As you know Mr. McGovern the police state seldom loses.
An excellent, factual summary. (And, in light of the last two weeks, prescient.) This is true journalism, long gone from the rotten
husks of what used to be known as the Press.
But the passages about Mr. Strzok helping to alter Mr. Comey's letter picked a scab: Why is there such widespread acceptance
of the notion that Mrs. Clinton can not now be charged? I don't believe that Mr. McGovern shares that notion, other than seeing
how immunizing people, etc., makes her prosecution more difficult. But many Americans on each "side" seem to see Mr. Comey's exercise
of what was Mrs. Lynch's discretion to begin with as the equivalent of a Presidential pardon. In the meantime, applicable statutes
of limitation run
The more sunlight, the better. But before getting your hopes up about any of this hullabaloo, or expecting any change in how
the USG functions, go back and look for those pictures of Mr. Trump golfing with Mr. Clinton, the Clintons at his wedding(s),
etc.
Compared to the criminal and corrupt US political system, the mafia is an honor society oriented on values. More and more
evidence appears that the whole Russian Gate was precooked by the Obama and Clinton mafia together with crooks like Clapper, Brennan,
Comey. Lynch and many of the top brass in the FBI and the DoJ. The installment of Bob Mueller who is hugely biased and a Comey
body hired only Clinton supporters as his lawyers. But such a team shows how corrupt the US justice system has already become.
The mainstream media are involved in this witch hunt against Trump from the very beginning. Perhaps some of its bog shots were
even paid for fabricated political reporting. The NYT, the Post, CNN, MSNBC and all the other so-called opinion leaders spread
fake news and kept the legend of "Russian collusion" going over a year, despite presenting not a single piece of evidence. Their
task was to manipulate and brainwash the American public.
Just listen to this interview. One understands what was and still is going on in this crooked US political system.
" thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter
Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page."
Despite the efforts to destroy a significant part of the data trail. You know, in the good old days, evidence of the affair
would be enough for their clearances to be revoked, and use of Government telecomms for such purposes would be grounds for firing.
Don't know what Sessions is waiting for, but this bubba would like some red meat already. For that matter, he should have told
Mueller where to put his subpeona. Sessions really is an empty suit.
Well in reality it began with Bush the Stupid and his remark that the Constitution was only a GD piece of paper and promptly
tore it up,and as long as we continue to have the best government "money can buy" nothing will change,anymore than it will change
under Trump, as he switches from the war on terror to the war on competitors (Russia and China)and world domination and its resources..
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the
U.S. democratic process.
Considering all the experience gleaned from 7+ decades of subverting and overthrowing governments around the world, the
Deep State thugs must of thought securing the WH for their Killer Queen was a 'slam dunk.' My believe is that Trump actually
got around 70% of the vote, a number that overwhelmed their computerized vote fixing.
All the grief, misery and destruction we've visited upon nations around the world is now coming back to haunt Americans. Only
part missing is the violent overthrow or assassination of a leader and don't put the Deep State thugs beyond that.
On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte
blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans.
This looks like a disingenuous conflation of Trump (and his handful of presumably more or less dependable allies/minions) with
the Ryan-Koch- US Chamber of Commerce GOP establishment. Despite what Jeff Flake says, he's not a dictator, so he has to make
concessions to the donor class-controlled wing of the party. This stuff is so obvious I'm embarrassed as I type it out.
Keep right on sucking up that kool-aid,the economy has an up-tick because of government spending, which of course will add
another $1.7 trillion (per David Stockman Reagan's budget directer) to the debt that you just wished onto your children,g children
and their children (ain't you proud/) and lol if you believe those government figures on the unemployment stats than you must
believe in the tooth fairy,and of course along with those bonuses comes the lay-offs, a thousand here a thousand there (on the
Lay-off list) as the work is out sourced to other countries,meanwhile a few more billion goes to the military/industrial group.Ah
yes utopia at last,well while it last that is .
"It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing
the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the
rest of us."
True One of the first thoughts I had was that these were, at most, highschool level communications. To think this is 'high
level' government in action is, at once, amusing and disturbing.
Now, many companies are cutting corners by using "contract workers" on a temporary basis.
Concur all, but this especially. In the DC area starting with the internet boom and dot.com busts of the late 90s, Indians
started coming in and all of a sudden, everyone in IT and computer technologies was being replaced with a contract. After spending
years getting certs and continuously upgrading skills and certs, people were ruined with imported contractors. It started at FannyMae
and Freddie Mac, the entire board and hierarchy there read like the New Delhi phone book for twenty years now. Between the Chins
and Indians, there's been an enormous overclass installed and it's not going anywhere. Someone here recently wrote an article
about it but it isn't recent. With the handwriting on the wall so long ago, I gave up chasing Microsoft certs and contracts and
went back to analog phone systems and infrastructure and electrical, but I saw a lot of people that tried to follow the professional
IT path ruined. Throw in the racial and sexual politics in the offices and the environment is pretty miserable anyway..
Pretty bad as is, but with AI coming about, whole classes of Democrat folks unconcerned with immigration will be replaced by
Bots of all sorts, making the immigration hardships look like Disney World.
"Strzok reportedly changed the words "grossly negligent" (which could have triggered legal prosecution) to the far less
serious "extremely careless" in FBI Director James Comey's depiction of Clinton's actions. This semantic shift cleared the
way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention began in July 2016, that "no reasonable prosecutor"
would bring charges against Mrs. Clinton."
It's a thin line between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness." While "gross negligence" usually involves unintentional
acts, they can border on intentional conduct by the very recklessness of the activity. A senior government moving vast amounts
of classified data on unsecured networks can't begin to assert she didn't know the risks she was taking. Semantics here are irrelevant:
The substance of the law is that HRC was grossly negligent.
As a seasoned lawyer, Comey would know that a prosecutor could very reasonably equate the two and charge on a violation of
18 USC 793 (Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information) There are a couple paragraphs that could be applied, but (f)
looks most likely. The mere act of storing classified data on a personal server could also be a violation of 18 USC 798 (Disclosure
of classified information). Destroying the same data might also be charged as violations of the 2009 Federal Records Act, and
there is plenty of reason to pursue the limb of Obstruction of Justice in light of the other serious charges that could reasonably
be made.
In order to be credible, justice must be seen to be done. The longer Sessions and Trump let this charade go uninvestigated
for fear that investigating it looks overtly political, the more political it actually becomes, and the less credible the rule
of law in America becomes ("Laws and regulations are for the little people!)
The deep state coup was the appointment of Trump or it could have been Clinton. You have no choice when you vote. The work of
retired spooks like McGovern is to convince you that you live in a Democracy where voting matters. There's no evidence that voting
serves anyone other than appearances for the ruling elite.
The FBI is an inherently political organization. I would expect the FBI to tweet things like " that motherfucker is goin' down"
or "fuck her" or "Orange son of a bitch, let's make some noise" or more racist "those nigger motherfuckers in the city" or "think
you're anonymous on the internet lil'boy?" Those would be the tweets of the FBI that we all know and love.
This interference into a presidential election by an agency such as the FBI raises the question of whether there's been manipulation
of other previous elections. Were some of our previous presidents installed through machinations of an intelligence agency?
Sure they are these companies and corporations are saving millions upon millions due to Trump and the republicans, while throwing
a few crumbs to the workers who are suppose to lick their hands, many who only make $10-$11 dollars per hour, and seeing they
are bonuses the government will take more than their share, and down the road these same workers will be paying it back in spades
,after all someone has to fund the military/industrial racket
Trump needs to be impeached. The entire Government is a bad bit of fiction, why not use the symbolic figure head of empire to
generate excitement in the mass of American sheep? To that end, throw up any accusation that will stick, make it sound like a
Constitutional crisis but simple enough for the average begrudged redneck to understand. The FBI has an agenda, what part of the
Government doesn't? The whole point of elections is to have different groups employ every tactic under the sun to manipulate said
sheep. Let's get the impeachment show started.
This whole affair also totally destroys the G-Man mythos. From the outside Strzok looks the part. Yet both he and Page write texts
like they're particularly dim 20 year old girls.
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page– I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Page – He's not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Strzok – OMG did you hear what Trump just said?
Page – Yep. Out to lunch with (redacted) We both hate everyone and everything.
Page – Just riffing on the hot mess that is our country.
Strzok– Donald just said "bad hombres"
This is the level of discourse (Of course this could just be a biased sample to humiliate Strzok but leave the really bad conspiring
out of frame) he has with his mistress on an FBI phone as he plans dirty tricks on his own country?
The sad part will be to see how they will all, one after the other, get away with everything they've done.
If any of them will even go to trial for anything other than some procedural point, they'll all make a deal with DC-Democratic
prosecutors, Hollywood will make a film casting them as heroes and they'll all get a slap on the wrist, a la Petraeus.
The politicians will claim that they have to hide the truth so that the public will not loose their 'trust' in these institutions,
they'll name some RINO as the 'compromise' candidate to lead these institutions and it'll be back to business as usual in the
heart of the empire, as in all previous times, see James Bovard's article:
Page– I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Such vacuous shallowness, imagining themselves to be the heroes of some cheap Hollywood movie, not even suspecting how 2 dimensional,
delusional, and sophomoric it all sounds (of course, it only sound moronic because we found out about it before the plan reach
its planned conclusion).
After 14 years of non-stop wars and mass murder, we find out the empire is run by the cheerleading squad, motivating each other
with high fives while trying to take 'democracy' down. Still, I suspect there were adults at table also who mad sure to say one
step out of the spotlight.
"It's a thin line between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness." "
Not in the context of legal language. In fact, it's a great divide. "Extremely careless" is not a federal criminal charge,
while "gross negligence" actually is. Never mind about the difference in degree when speaking of the two terms, one is a crime,
and the other is merely grounds for an investigation.
"... On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels of the American intelligence community . ..."
"... I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and his appointment was a set up from the beginning. ..."
"... Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and runs biggest detective agency in DC. ..."
"... Mueller's gravy train ends if he can't find anything. So he's setting perjury traps like IEDs in the Sunni Triangle. ..."
"... Mueller trying to put the onus back on Trump instead of FBI corruption covering up Obama's treason ..."
"... The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on his own uncontrollable personality. ..."
"... Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it. ..."
"... Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices. You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks. ..."
"... I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building? Did some areas get clean? ..."
"... Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security? Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government is a secret society. ..."
"... I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. ..."
"... You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid, but they can be that arrogant - as they were! ..."
"... The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free. ..."
"... You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them. ..."
A whistleblower has revealed to Congress that clandestine, offsite meetings between high ranking FBI and DOJ took place in which
officials discussed ways to undermine President Trump after the 2016 election, Rep. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Fox News on Tuesday.
The bombshell revelation all but confirms a "
secret society " alluded to in text messages released last Friday between two anti-Trump FBI employees tasked with investigating
both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
" The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site ," Johnson said.
"We have to continue to dig into it," he added. " This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the
highest levels of the FB I." - The Hill
On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI
investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ
last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels
of the American intelligence community .
What we learned today in the thousands of text messages that we've reviewed that perhaps they may not have done that (checked
their bias at the door). There's certainly a factual basis to question whether or not they acted on that bias. We know about this
insurance policy that was referenced in trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
We learned today from information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a secret society
of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok to be working against him .
As part of the 384 page document delivery, the Department of Justice notified Congressional investigators that five months of
text messages from December 14, 2016 to May 17, 2017 have gone missing (ironically there is a text message about "not keeping texts"
from last Friday's release).
And while Strzok and Page's communications for five months after the election apparently won't see the light of day, what we do
know is that right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he [Trump] gets elected -
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." writes FBI counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he
was having an extramarital affair while spearheading both the Clinton email inquiry and the early Trump-Russia probe, adding " It's
like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
To recap: we now have text messages between Strzok and Page referencing an "insurance policy" and a "secret society" of people
within the DOJ and FBI who came together in the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President Trump... and a
whistleblower who has now told Congress that's exactly what happened in the form of secret, offsite meetings between officials at
the two agencies.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing
or destroying the government of the
United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political
subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the
United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of
persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of
persons , knowing the purposes thereof --
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more
persons conspire to commit any
offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and
shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons , include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs,
classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of
persons .
I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and
his appointment was a set up from the beginning.
Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the
guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and
runs biggest detective agency in DC.
the CIA clean'd-up the evidence while Mueller was in California to introduce himself to the nations top FBI personnel. thus,
unable to fly back to NYC.
coincidence? why the fuck wasn't the meeting held in NYC!?!
Imagine if the text messages between these "Secret Society" members talks about killing Trump if the Russia-Russia-Russian
Collusion Farce fails. And further imagine if McCabe, Rosenstein, J. Edgar Comey or even some Obama people like Susan Rice and
Valerie Jarrett are included in those very text messages. Imagine further if Obama and/or Huma or Hillary are included in any
of them...........these people are arrogant enough and so full of themselves and their ability to "fix" the world around them
that it is all entirely possible.........
How about this scenario: Hillary and the rest of the Deep State expected her to win via fractional voting. She had a mortal
lock, so they thought except Trump snagged 20 to 30 million more votes than Hillary did, overriding the fractional voting scheme
they had in place.
The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the
WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on
his own uncontrollable personality.
With Hillary at the top of all the levers of the government, Trump would have gotten bitch slapped repeatedly with little recourse.
This isn't just a couple of rogue individuals, this is an organized conspiracy at the very top, using all the power of the
FBI and DOJ to destroy a sitting president up to and including harming him.
"Mueller probe accidentally exposes FBI COVER-UP of Saudi role in 911"
1/24/18 ***oops?!? This is what happens when the Saudi's let China offer the 'Public Offering' of Saudi Aramco' on the Shanghai
INE Exchange beginning mid-Feb/2018 if all is finalized. Perhaps this why the opening was delayed?
Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump
signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened
with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump
directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear
his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it.
Simple game thinking, I thought. You can't give up the tools they have until you have won.
The good guys have to assume that the bad guys can go on using covert means, likely they have back-doored their own agencies'
info systems. If not, they have their people scattered through the organization. Or both.
Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices.
You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks.
Great, now we have a 'he said, she said' situation, complete with files that can prove anything, how hard is that to arrange?
For all sides?
I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten
rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building?
Did some areas get clean?
Problem with all this social stuff is that there isn't a clean in/out test for any group. We are going to find that many of
our leading people throughout society have ties in shades from bright white social innocence to partners in crime black, into
the blackest of the crimes. everyone has lots of connections. The more prominent you are, the wider the variety of people you
have mingled with.
There are political careers in the investigations. Trump and his successors can ride this for 2 decades.
Of course, they will become the issue when in some far distant future the last possible bad guy has died and fortune has dispersed
beyond recall, but the surveillance capabilities are greater than ever and the successors of the current good guys refuse to end
the situation.
The compromise will be immediately ending all surveillance, everyone owns their data in return for amnesty for confessions,
files and loss of 90% of fortunes. Ae open all files to everyone and run a public investigation to understand it all.
Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security?
Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government
is a secret society.
If one loves words and their meanings take note that freedom is the antithesis of government. If you don't understand the
concepts of the words you use, don't complain when you get what you ask for.
I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence
would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. Also someone once said that
any anonymous informant should be considered made-up. I'm not denying the agency is anti-Trump. There are all kinds of legitimate
reasons to be anti-Trump. I just wish you and Mr. Johnson would bother getting some slightly less flimsy conspiracy theories before
you go blaring them on the banners. It makes you look pathetic and desperate.
You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails
on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid,
but they can be that arrogant - as they were!
The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate
clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free.
You say Johnson looks pathetic while you spew out terms like "flimsy conspiracy theories" as your 'evidence.' Juggalo, you
look like a dumb f***ing clown with your head so far up your a$$ you think it's nighttime.
You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could
walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them.
No kidding, right? Watched Tucker Carlson last night interviewing Richard Goodstein (former Hillary Campaign Advisor, obviously
unemployed) Great segment asking Goodstein to answer a "Revulsion Test"!
It was unreal! The damn ignorant libtard just would not, could not bring himself to say that anything bothered him about the
corruption going on in the FBI.
Tucker: Does it bother you that the FBI decided not to bring criminal charges against Hillary BEFORE conducting an investigation
of her, or interviewing her.
Goodstein: No
Tucker: Does it bother you that Strozk said he couldn't take the chance that Trump got elected and had an insurance policy
in mind to prevent it, while he was on the committee investigating Trump?
Goodstein: No
Listen to the rest here...its hilarious and shows how Diseased Liberals are mentally!!
Democrats are the spit and image of the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia. Democrats in America today despise everything and everyone
that is not Democrat in policy, propaganda, attitude, opinion & belief. If the Democrat Party is allowed to continue as it is
there will be blood and lots of it.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians.
Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated.
Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about
this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Ok congress critters. If all this is true and a lot of it probably is, can someone enlighten me as to why the delay. I really
see no advantage in holding back on this. It gives every advantage to the Blue team to organize a response and create more smoke
screens. The longer this goes on the more likely this will never see the light of day. Especially when one considers the Red teams
past performance. Release it or shut the fuck up.
Remember these are the same "group thinkers/actors" who voted something like 415-5 to impose harsh sanctions on Russia to punish
Russia for "meddling" in our Democratic processes.
I wonder if any of these critters would take back this vote now?
Maybe they should now vote on imposing "sanctions" on the DOJ and HRC's campaign staffers (Hillary included), as well as the
DNC and the MSM organizations/ "journalists" who spread a bogus story-line for nefarious/unpatriotic reasons.
P.S. I also wonder how many stories/posts on Facebook and Twitter advanced this faux story. Probably about 1 billion more than
Russian bots managed to sneak into the national dialogue. I understand the owner of Facebook has deep pockets. Give him the "Saudi
treatment" - pay up or go to jail, buddy.
Both parties are part of the cabal, including Trump. Arming the neonazis in the Ukraine that wants war on Russia, as well as
US and NATO troops on RUSSIA'S borders. Signing off on the FISA spy ring upon Americans, expanding US WARS, in Syria and Afghanistan
and Africa. Wanting war on N. Korea.
If people would just get that the cabal are addicted to WAR and the enrichment that comes from it as well as it's all ZIONIST
wars, for which Trump is now owned by Netanyahu, as is our Congressional dual Israeli citizens, we might be able to organize under
one banner that never changes witj both parties utterly submissive to the military and security complex. No more WAR .
If this is as reported, and if there was a convening of a meeting in secret outside of the professional roles of law enforcement,
for the purposes of a focused prosecution of a duly elected president, then that is at a minimum an offense that would disbar
employment in the federal government. It would also be grounds for disbarring any attorney.
But what I'm finding equally as troubling is the very casual manner in which somebody from say nation A, can hire person in
Nation B, to provide paid hearsay evidence from Nation C to initiate an investigation that circumvents Nation A's laws of privacy
upon a targeted individual.
That makes the NSA the tool of anyone with money to initiate this type of investigation as described above to harass and intimidate
an individual using tax dollar funded services.
I'm not Ok with Republicans or Democrats doing this.
So someone with means initiates NSL's against a person soliciting banking, building, employment, relationships, all designed
to use the institutional credibility of the NSA or even the FBI to tarnish the standing of a targeted individual.
The bank isn't going to disclose, but they might not offer a loan!
The zoning bard will not disclose, but will withhold permits.
And the zeal and the bias that there groups exercise in their zeal to assist their government in an investigation cumulatively
is damaging. Loan delayed is loan denied. Permit delayed is permit denied.
You want to support legitimate law enforcement activities and investigations, but not this fucking circus.
It is as if you are witnessing the prosecutor receiving cash from a private party, then the prosecutor hand the bailiff cash,
who then passes it onto a paid witness prior to testifying and not swearing in, or being available for cross examination. And
that folks is bullshit. Meanwhile the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense all met in private during recess and agreed that facts
weren't relevant and to not allow facts to stand in the way of their "convictions!"
John Perkins said that to get in the CIA, you have to pass a personality test that shows you are less than morally sound. Just
imagine the test tube of explosive back-stabbing sociopaths that place must be today.
Maybe. I just think these people "self select" their career paths. A certain type of personality type is driven to government
bureaucracies and/or political office and/or capitalist positions that reward "cronies" to government. A certain ambitious type
learns how to "play the game" and rises up the ranks. The culture in these places rewards corruption (or turning a blind eye to
same). These people like the power, prestige and money-making opportunities. They "scratch backs" so their own back can be scratched.
Whatever the psychology or personality type, these people work to preserve and protect the Status Quo.
i don't agree with you on your general premise of immorality. But if things are as reported and as I describe above, then the
NSA is nothing more than the errand chasers of those with cash and connection, and that that service is paid for by the US taxpayer
to be abused by those whom would misuse it as I described. And if that is the way the system is being misused then there is a
problem.
I don't do the hate America first bullshit but I do call em like I see em..
A line pushed repeatedly by Hillary. That was a lie of course. Only a few (hand-picked) "analysts" from three or four of these
agencies signed off on that important "conclusion."
I also think of all the "intelligence experts" who immediately knew that Assad bombed his own people with banned chemicals.
Whatever they say, you know the opposite must be the truth.
How can General Flynn be charged with lying to the FBI when the FBI agent he lied to is plotting to over throw the president?
Who were the coup leaders? It was McCabe's office that set up the meeting with Flynn. Flynn didn't know the meeting was about
Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador. Which is normal for an incoming National Security Advisor. There were no witnesses
to the meeting except two FBI agents, one of which is the disgraced FBI agent. Flynn thought like a former Intel General, he was
protecting national security information on a need to know basis.(standard military SOP).
It looks like Flynn was set up to frame Trump. Flynn's charges need to be dropped.
Oh, my! It looks like things are beginning to clarify! Dear American public has it ever occured to you that this whole Trump
colluding with Russia as well as the Russia meddling in the election narrative is just a one big lie. Too big to swallow?
If "Russia" wanted to swing or rig an election, they couldn't. The whole premise is preposterous. "Russia" convinced millions
of voters in a dozen swing states to change their votes? With a few Facebook entries? Good God.
I think it was clear to most of us. It was those who couldn't accept Hillary's defeat who wanted the narrative to keep them
sane. They were the same as Strock, et. al. - too stupid to see the train coming straight down the tracks. When they realized
they would lose their lifetime of job safety and corruption, they panicked.
Who in the US didn't know Hillary was the most corrupt politician and ruthless sub-human animal ever to run for office? They
were the ones profiting either directly or indirectly from all the criminality.
You know who has/had Hillary and Bill pegged better than anyone else? Linda Tripp. I wish I had the link to a recent feature
on her. Her main take-away: The rules of society and laws do not apply to her. She (and her husband) can and had gotten away with
everything. But the scary part is how seemingly everyone in D.C. and the Establishment is allied with them and has/had no issue
with their MO. The Swamp is full of the same type of people and their defenders. These are the type people who are attracted to
"government service" and move up the ranks once embedded. Not just in government, but the press corps and the worlds of finance
as well.
I'll say again. If Trump had been sincere in draining the swamp - and had did it - he would have gone down as the greatest
president in U.S. history.
That he is not committed to this mission - or quickly abandoned it - is a tragic disappointment.
(For those who say he is still trying to drain the swamp, explain why he never made an effort to investigate and expose "Crooked
Hillary," has no interest at all in auditing the Fed, signed legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia for "meddling" and
filled his administration with Goldman Sachs alums, among other swamp-protecting activities).
There are very senior members of the Intelligence Community who risk exposure, ignominy, and possibly even death if their treason
is exposed to the light of day.
These people are the artists who create false flag events and change foreign Governments at the drop of a hat.
If the Intelligence Community needs to start a war to escape the consequences of their treason; that is what they will do;
without the slightest hesitation.
The rest of the world needs to be extremely sceptical regarding "Intelligence" from the U.S., and wide awake to the risk.
Get everything out in the open before it's too late for the human race.
"This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence
and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation
systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base
structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under
the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years
ahead. " [L. Fletcher Prouty, Alexandria, VA 1997]
Watch this and you will understand why ((((They)))) blew off his head in the streets of
Dallas. Kennedy would not give David Ben - Gurion any nuclear technology and was threatening
the pigs regarding Dimona. Jack Rubenstein AKA Jack Ruby was ordered by Giancanna who was
ordered by Lansky to be a foot soldger in the operation. CIA and Mob did their part But the
bottom line is Kennedy stepped on the Jew Fed's Usury game with EO 11110 Which put legal
Constitutional money backed by silver into circulation. This would put the Fed out of
business over time.
John Kennedy understood very well who the true enemy of his country was and I believe was
determined to destroy them. He foolishly did not protect himself even though he was well
aware he was in ((((Their)))) crossfire.
And here we sit today with the Nation ripped apart. Americans at each other throats and
blaming each other never perceiving the iron fist of the Zionists ruling above them.
Divide and conquer is their main tool to destroy us.
I was home sick from school. In those days a TV gets rolled into your room if you are
sick. Otherwise only Mom and Dad had a TV in the bedroom. We had two TVs in 1963.
I was watching the only thing on TV the president in DALLAS and WHAM The President has
been SHOT comes over .
I run Mommy Mommy President Kennedy has been shot.
SHE WHACKED me across the face. How can you say such a thing. I don't recall the exact
words but the whack hurt. That was common in 1963 when you did something "wrong" or
whatever.
Obviously 5 minutes later she was crying and flipping out.
It sure seems like he was a good man but what the fuck was he smoking to get in an open
fucking car?
They're not treating us like children. They're treating us like chumps. I don't think I'm
the only American citizen who's tired of it. Impanel a grand jury and get to the bottom of
the massive corruption going on in our country.
Next week we will be mad when we get the memo and find it blacked out every other
sentence... That's why they need 19 days to go over 4 lousy pages, To make sure the people don't
see anything that might make any sense.
treating Americans like children - more like treating Americans like subjects, vote cows
without them having any authority. Americans don't have to give up their authority as
employers of Congressmen, the Americans chose to be treated 'like children'.
The correct argument is not that universal spying on the public doesn't work, but that
it's inconsistent with our way of life. Freedom isn't free and one of the costs is not having
some of the options a dictator has to deal with adversaries.
"We could look at it this way"...Muller gathered together, "A Special Council of
Disgusting Back Stabbing Clinton Thug's". So now President Trump and all America have a
clearer picture of who was tapping us in the back of the head, a few month back, no one
really knew, we were all just guessing.
I'm all for removing mueller and his corrupt team but why replace them with another one?
The whole reason for the current investigation was to prove collusion between trump and
russia...it's been debunked and is an obvious hoax. What would there be for another team to
investigate? If they want to create a new special investigation team, put one together to go
after Hillary Clinton and all the other treasonous people she has surrounded herself
with.
They need to close that witch hunt investigation concerning Russia due to the lack of any
evidence. Let's face it if Trump did anything wrong whatsoever someone would have uncovered
some smidgin of evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence against Trump it would be all
over CNN.
I think it's very clear that US Intel is freaking out that Judge Napolitano exposed the
truth about how Obama bypassed the FISA process so that no fingerprints would be disclosed.
It's more than important to notice that Judge Napolitano has been kept off the air as a Fox
NewsLegal Consultant since he made the comment about the British Intel spying on the Trump
campaign. Some people say he was fired, but I haven't officially seen that from Fox News as of
today! If I had to bet, and I am a betting man, I would say that Judge Napolitano exposed
something so dirty on the British Intel and Obama that Fox had to discredit it! What that means
to me after researching this stuff for many years, is that the smoke is from the intel or
people that deny it the most!
The only way for the US Intel to safe face now is to throw someone else under the bus!
Expect US Intel to create a situation where they can pin this on anyone other than the
British.
Trump clearly knew all about what was going on and when he already has the facts he doesn't
back down. Neither Trump or Spicer ever backed down about Trumps original claims! People are
going to go to jail about this! If you watch this entire video the only conclusion you can come
to is that the US Intel Is completely corrupt and operating beyond their directive! It is
sick!
"... Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court. ..."
"... I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge, unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this, the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is. ..."
"... RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly after [Trump] won the election. ..."
"... And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that? ..."
"... GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama. ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?" ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from Strzok. ..."
"... That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate " He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there," meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it. ..."
Hillary Clinton losing threw the biggest wrench in these people's plans, and they had the fear. They were aware she could lose.
But now we've got a secret society -- DOJ, FBI, intelligence community -- some of it directly in touch with the Obama White House.
No doubt in my mind. "Missing" texts that are not really missing. They are somewhere, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails are somewhere.
They're backed up on servers. They're backed up on devices. They are somewhere. The FBI claims they don't have them, but they are
somewhere.
Just like Hillary's missing 30,000 emails are somewhere. The mystery of the missing text messages between Strzok and the paramour,
Lisa Page, continues to widen and deepen at the same time. It's all too pat. It's too easily understandable. This is easy to understand
as the House Bank Scandal was back in 1988 and '89. An FBI agent even texted about deleting the texts, warning everybody, "You know
what? We might want to get rid of these."
I had a suggestion. Ali on our staff -- not my cat, but Ali on our staff -- suggested, "You know what'd be fun one day?" I'm not
gonna do it today. But I'm thinking about it. "It might be fun one day to take calls from people 30 and under -- you know, Millennials."
The problem with that is that anybody can call and claim they're under 30. So we would have to be really discriminatory and aware
of voices. You know, it's not fair to start judging people by their voices, their gender, their sexual orientation, their race, their
anything.
I mean, even though you can do it, you make a mistake in doing it. You're not supposed to do it. But we would have to raise our
vigilance if we're gonna do that. (interruption) "Profiling!" Yeah, that's exactly right. We would have to profile. If we're gonna
have calls from 30 (maybe even 28, I don't know) and under, then the whole thing's blown if a bunch of 80-year-olds start calling
or 75-year-olds trying to pass themselves off as young whippersnappers.
Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group
of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't
know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have
In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court.
I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge,
unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret
anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this,
the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to
get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House
Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly
after [Trump] won the election.
"'The day after the election there is a text exchange between these two FBI agents [Strzok and Page], these supposed to be fact-centric
FBI agents saying, 'Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society,' Gowdy said 'So I'm going to want to know what secret
society you are talking about, because you're supposed to be investigating objectively the person who just won the Electoral College.'"
Trump "resistance,""secret society." These people probably gave themselves that name. I can see I really can. I can see where these
two Strzok In the first place, you got hormones raging 'cause they're having an affair.
And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just
full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the
guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that?
Can I say that without getting beat up by people? (interruption) I can't? Okay, then forget it. I didn't say that. This guy And I
think probably their connections and their contacts as FBI agents
I think they probably really went to their head. They thought they were really doing something important and cool, but they knew
it's on the edge of legality, probably not legal. But they felt protected. They knew that the Obama DOJ was behind 'em, they knew
Obama was behind 'em. Comey, everybody in the deep state knew that they were probably on the edge here, but all aligned -- and I'm
sure it got very heady. This is a very august group, a very small group of people, a very important project: Getting rid of Trump,
defending the Washington establishment.
And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these people got totally lost and caught up in how important they were and how cool they
were and how exciting what they were doing was and how important it was. And it was clear from the texts of theirs that we've seen
that they knew that they were on the edge and that they had to keep this under wraps and they had to keep it secret. So they probably
name themselves this "secret society," and who knows, folks! I wouldn't doubt if this whole group decided to name themselves that.
I think we're dealing with a degree, a level of arrogance and superiority. I'm talking about psychological superiority. "We are
better than everybody else! We're the defenders. We're the protectors." You combine that with their opinion of Trump, which is nothing
more than he's human debris. "This guy is sewer-level scum." You couple that with the fact that he's won, he's an outsider, he's
outsmarted them, and now the lid's blowing. Now we know that Hillary hired the people that wrote the fake Trump dossier.
And now we're getting closer and closer to confirming that Obama and the DOJ lied to a FISA judge to get a warrant to surveil.
So they're panicking, and that's why a bunch of texts from the five-month period of real activity on this are now missing. But, my
friends, they aren't missing. The FBI claims they can't find 'em, that there's a glitch and something's happened, but they are somewhere.
They are on the original device. I read that the FBI was using Samsung 5s, Samsung Galaxy 5s. Is that right? (interruption) Well,
those are old devices.
Those are very, very old devices. But we're talking about the FBI here! There are servers, there are backups, there is redundancy.
We're being told that this stuff's gone just like Lois Lerner's stuff just miraculously disappeared, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails
just disappeared. They didn't. They're somewhere. Somebody can get them. Somebody has them. Like you. If you use IDrive here, if
you pick up on the idea of backing up your phones and your computer to IDrive, okay. So you may have a glitch on your phone or your
computer and you lose 'em.
But they're there.
They're on that server, they're on the IDrive server, and they may be elsewhere. So Strzok and Page, their two devices are being
used and their computers. Whatever server side backups are happening, whatever the FBI's backups are. These text messages are somewhere.
And somebody could find them if they wanted to. Now, let's go to the audio sound bites. Let's listen. This is, first off, last night
on Fox News, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, along with Trey Gowdy, talking about this "secret society" at the
FBI. This is interesting because they have learned that these two people are talking about an investigation.
Obama was briefed on an investigation, but they don't know which investigation, Trump or Clinton. Let's get started
RATCLIFFE: We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a "secret
society" of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok that would be working against him.
RUSH: "We learn today about " This is above and beyond what is in the four-page memo about the FISA warrant. This is additional.
"We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a 'secret society' of
folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok," meaning others, "that would be working against" Trump.
Here's Trey Gowdy weighing in.
GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the
way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president
of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that
had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the
FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama.
RUSH: So that means Obama's in the loop. The "secret society," Strzok, whatever they're doing, Comey knows. He's FBI director,
Strzok and Page are FBI. She's a lawyer; he's an agent. There are other people involved here. They've got this "secret society" going,
and the texts they saw referred to an investigation that Director Comey was gonna update Obama on. But they don't know which, 'cause
he's right: Hillary was being investigated. They reopened this like a weekend before the election, the email server thing -- which
Hillary never forgot.
Or the Trump dossier investigation. Let's go to June 8th, 2017. "If these texts are accurately, it may not look good for Jim Comey.
On June 8th of 2017, Comey testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election.
And during the Q&A, Mark Warner, Democrat, Virginia, said, 'In all your experience, Director Comey, President Trump was the only
president you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point -- using your words -- "he might put out a
non-truthful representation of the meeting"'?"
COMEY: As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it.
RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice
in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable
example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich,
Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner
with a president of the United States?"
COMEY: No! I met Dinner, no. I had two one on ones with President Obama that I laid out in my testimony, once to talk about law
enforcement issues -- law enforcement ERASE -- which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. And then once,
very briefly, to him to say good-bye.
RUSH: Okay. So he tells Mark Warner that as FBI director he interacted with Obama, spoke only twice in three years, didn't document
it. And then he tells Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico (summarized), "No! Dinner? No. I had two one on ones with Obama that
I laid out in my testimony, one to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement ERASE, which was," blah, blah, blah. This was
all about the fact that Comey had to document everything he heard Trump say 'cause Trump's such a liar. Now, if these texts are accurate,
the texts say that Comey was "updating [Obama] on an investigation."
They don't know which, and these are texts that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe read, and the texts detailed Comey updating Obama
on an investigation. Comey under oath doesn't say a word here about updating Obama on anything. All he did was talking about law
enforcement issues and ERASE. So people are thinking Comey may have not have been forthcoming under oath while testifying before
the committees. Based on what we've learned with the texts saying he was actively updating Obama on an investigation. Now, the odds
are he's updating Obama on the Trump investigation, because the only thing about the Hillary investigation is how to cover it up
and make it amount to nothing.
There wouldn't be really be a need for an update of that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: In jaw dropping (unintelligible) Peter Strzok Strzok expressed concern about joining the Mueller team. My friends, look.
If it looks like a witch hunt and it sounds like a witch hunt and it reads like witch hunt, then it is a witch hunt. You know, stop
and think. The Republicans wasted most of the first year of the Trump the presidency because they thought that the media narrative
on Trump-Putin collusion was true, or they thought it was close enough that they couldn't take any chances about going all in with
Trump in case it turned out to be true and he was eventually to be impeached. They believed it.
Look, they're creatures of the swamp themselves. And there was so much of it. And remember, Washington is Washington. And if the
deep state, if the intelligence agencies are saying this over and over and over and over again, if they're flooding the zone, if
every newspaper, every cable network is reporting these leaks, you can almost see how they would have no choice but than to believe
it. And so they kept their distance from Trump. And that whole year, you know, we're talking here.
We're each saying to ourselves, if they would just get on board for three months, if they'd just get on board the Trump agenda,
there'd be no stopping them. And we thought they weren't getting on board because they didn't like Trump or because they rented Trump,
either one of those things. It wasn't that. It was they fell for the narrative. Enough of them thought there might be something to
it that they couldn't risk not buying into it. Speaking of the intelligence agencies, I'm sure some of you have already thought of
this, but it just hit me a few seconds.
For some reason. I was thinking about the war in Iraq. You remember what the intelligence agencies were telling us about the war
in Iraq? You remember what they were telling us? There was detail, there were photos, there was conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction. And it wasn't just U.S. intel. It was MI5, MI6. It was intelligence agencies all over the world.
George W. Bush kept quoting them. George W. Bush kept citing them.
George W. Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with the so-called evidence, and Colin Powell had to present it to the Security Council.
There were photos and all of these bits of proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell now says that's the most
embarrassing period in his life, because it turns out none of it was true. And remember the immediate aftermath, everybody said,
"Wow, man. How could they have gotten it so wrong, man?" And the story we got that Saddam himself was to blame because he was leading
everybody on.
He wanted the world to think that he was the biggest Arab in the Middle East. He was the giant that was gonna slay the United
States. So he furthered the belief. He helped it along. Sorry. That doesn't wash with me. Okay, so the guy says he's got 'em. That's
your basis for believing it? What if ? Just what if ? Remember, they all thought Gore had won that election, until the Supreme Court
came along and stole it for Bush. This is what they thought.
The Democrat Party is the Washington establishment, and the Washington establishment believes that Gore won the presidency and
the Florida recount math was bogus and rigged, that James Baker did a better job than the Democrat people did in finding votes, the
hanging chads. What if the intel on the war in Iraq was another disinformation campaign to damage another Republican president? And,
boy, did that work. Ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction, look at what we did?
Bush spent 2-1/2 years traveling the country building support for the war in Iraq. We had the massive opening day of Shock and
Awe, and we had the pictures of Saddam's statue coming down, Saddam eventually being captured, hiding out in a hole in the ground
somewhere. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. After that "No, yes, there were, Rush, yes, there were, they've been moved
to Syria, we have pictures of the trucks, they got 'em out of there, they got 'em out. We know he had this."
Well, we know he used nerve gas on the Kurds at one time, which is weapons of mass destruction. But just what if? The, quote,
unquote, intelligence community misrepresented on purpose the degree to which Hussein had WMDs, cause, I'll tell you, it was a very,
very embarrassing moment for the Bush administration. I mean, two years of ontological certitude. This guy posed a bigger threat
than Al-Qaeda. This guy -- they even showed us photos where Al-Qaeda may have trained outside Baghdad.
Now, we know the Republicans are not the favored party in Washington amongst swamp dwellers. Even though many of the CIA apparatus
were, of course, aligned with Bush. But I was just thinking about this the other day. And that was a glaring example where, if it
was legitimate, look how wrong they were, I mean, they couldn't have been more wrong, and it was not just one intelligence agency.
It was the entire intel community in this country and in the U.K. and all of our allies.
There was supposedly unanimous agreement on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Now, what if -- this is hindsight, which
is always 20/20 -- what if, based on what we know now -- we know how the deep state has been trying to undermine Donald Trump from
the days he was a candidate to during his transition to even it's ongoing now as president. We're learning of Strzok and the FBI
and the Hillary opposition research dossier that the ends up becoming fodder for a warrant at the FISA court to spy on Trump.
So we know the deep state can mobilize if they want to, and they can create false narratives that everybody in the media believes.
Even had the Republican Party for a year believing that Trump had conspired with Russia maybe to steal the election. What if Saddam
weapons of mass destruction was also a false narrative designed to ? Did it ultimately embarrass Bush? Did it weaken the U.S. military?
Whatever it did, I mean, it opened the doors for the Democrats to literally destroy his presidency in the second term. Which is what
they did.
They launched every salvo they had. They did everything they could to get John Kerry elected in 2014, as the Democrat nominee.
So I just wonder. And then I remember Chuck Schumer telling Donald Trump after he had criticized the intelligence community one day,
Chuck You said, "You better be careful, 'cause those guys can make your life hell, Mr. President." So I don't know. It's all deep
state. It's all stuff happening way beyond wherever our eyes can see and our ears can hear. PMSNBC is reporting that the
It is the New York Times says that Comey shared memos about Trump's meeting. I'm getting this word by word as it's hunt and pecked
on the New York Times: "Comey Shared Memos About Trump's Meeting with the Special Counsel Team." I don't know what that is. I don't
know. This is dangerous to get headlines off TV. So, anyway, we'll track that down and get to it in due course. I just This whole
deep state intelligence community, all of these errors That weapons of mass destruction, that was just huge, and Bush bought it,
totally trusted it.
We all did. Mind-boggling. Now this? What we're learning about Strzok and Comey and there's no question here that there was a
mighty collusion effort between the Democrats, the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the Department of Justice -- that's the Obama administration
-- to spy on the Trump campaign and then the Trump transition team. And slowly but surely we're getting to the bottom of it, despite
a whole lot of efforts to cover it up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with
Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the
impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the
New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from
Strzok.
I was remiss here in not finishing/closing the loop on this. Here's what Strzok Strzok wrote to his paramour, Lisa Page: "You
and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut
sense and concern there's no big 'there' there." What this means is Strzok was writing to Page about his lack of desire to be on
the Mueller team 'cause he didn't think there was any collusion!
That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both
know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate
" He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there,"
meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing
so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody
close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it.
"... The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about - a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony . It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the department of justice - why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton . Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin village. It's a farce. ..."
"... DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Donald Trump . Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says, the FBI "created false facts so that they could get surveillance warrants. Those are all crimes. " He adds, using official FISA-702 "queries" and surveillance was done "to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president. " - Daily Caller ..."
"... This feels like the most significant American political scandal that has taken place in my lifetime, and I was born in the 60's. ..."
"... The entire collection program needs to be shut down, the data deleted and the program replaced by the one William Binney originally created that collected and analyzed only metadata unless a warrant is obtained first. The current program is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment rights even without NDAA section 702. ..."
"... He forgot to mention Weissman: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/fbi-probe-russian-uranium-bri ..."
"... " unauthorized disclosures of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff. " "Stunning" only for the willfully deluded among us. ..."
"... Pretty soon, the MSM is gonna have to do a false flag ..."
"... Is he gonna sit there and let these bastards have another shot at him? ..."
In this highly recommended 30 minute interview with Joe diGenova, the former Special Counsel
who went after both the Teamsters and former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer, paints a very clear
picture of collusion is painted between the Obama administration, the FBI, the Clinton campaign
and opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about - a
brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the
way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime,
absolutely a felony . It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the
department of justice - why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton . Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break
in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand
jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin
village. It's a farce.
And everybody knew it was a farce. The problem was, she didn't win. And because she didn't
wain, the farce became a very serious opera. It wasn't a comic opera anymore, it was a tragic
opera. And she was going to be the focus.
What this is about, this is about a lavabo, a cleansing of FBI and the upper echelons of
the Department of Justice.
We're going to discover that the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, her deputy Sally Yates,
the head of the national security division John Carlin, Bruce Ohr and other senior DOJ
officials, and regrettably, lying attorneys . People who were senior career civil servants
violated the law, perhaps committed crimes, and covered up crimes by a presidential candidate
- but more than that, they tried to frame an incoming president with a false Russian
conspiracy that never existed, and they knew it, and they plotted to ruin him as a candidate
and then destroy him as a president. That's why this is important. That's why connecting the
dots is important.
DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a
political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited
Steele dossier about President Donald Trump . Without a justifiable law enforcement or national
security reason, he says, the FBI "created false facts so that they could get surveillance
warrants. Those are all crimes. " He adds, using official FISA-702 "queries" and surveillance
was done "to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president. " - Daily
Caller
During the interview, DiGenova holds up and references a previously unreported and
heavily redacted 99-page FISA court opinion from April, 2017, which " describes systematic and
on-going violations of the law [by the FBI and their contractors using unauthorized disclosures
of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff."
NSA Admiral Mike Rodgers: An American Hero
diGenova also discusses the immense risks taken by retiring NSA director, Mike Rogers - who
briefed Trump on Nov. 7, 2016 about the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump team.
The next day, the Presidental transition team was moved out of Trump tower and into the
president-elect's Bedminster, NJ golf course until they could sweep for bugs.
Paul Craig Roberts says he's been too hard on the NSA. I don't think so. The FISA warrant
only allowed the FBI to unmask people in surveillance the NSA is already doing on everybody.
If the dirt is being collected and stored, eventually somebody will find a way to use it.
The
entire collection program needs to be shut down, the data deleted and the program replaced by
the one William Binney originally created that collected and analyzed only metadata unless a
warrant is obtained first. The current program is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment
rights even without NDAA section 702.
Trump has known all of this all along. The only pre-emptive move that he could make would
be to declare martial law , and have the military move on the traitors. For Chrissake, look
what's at stake here. Is he gonna sit there and let these bastards have another shot at
him?
(Shakes head in puzzlement).
"... There is nothing to lose at this point. The elite have made day to day life a void of lifelessness and stress chasing inflating life necessities with a falling dollar. The revolt hinges on the upcoming market crashes. ..."
"... As in the Rome's example, it may be that America can be saved by the cancerous corruption only by a military coup, the alternative being a massive war which will also enable the Army to overtake the control of the government ..."
Trump's got the military behind him - the only institution powerful enough to challenge the deep state. I also understand he
has a special forces security contingent in addition to SS. Trump gets hit - revolution will explode in their face.
After reading the new National Security policy directive I'm not so sure. it is a blueprint for a new cold war possibly nuclear
war with Russia and China which is antipathy to Trumps stated policies of collaboration with Russia, no more regime change and
cooperation with China on Infrastructure projects. There is obviously a very strong Neo-con component in the Trump administration
so i would not necessarily say the generals have his back.
Black Knight Pence is the Deep State choice, and the military is the epicenter of the Deep State. The US is no longer a country,
but an empire, with born and bred, programmed Globalist Officers in the military and all through the government.
It's a system which isn't a part of the country, it's completely in it's own synthetic realm, devoid of reason and logic. It's
officers often confer with the Council on Foreign Relations and various controlled think tanks for it's marching orders. We, the
American people aren't in the decision loop.
This system was designed from the outcome of the civil war. It's a centralized command and control system. It rules the states
as harshly as it rules the world. We speak of freedom, but no one in their right mind can call this freedom. So most of us are
not in our right mind, some brainwashed, others suspicious.
Agree. I'm sure that Army's Intelligence services are indeed behind all the hacks & leaks which collapsed HC campaign and helped
DT's. Also, they exposed the FBI's and NSA dirt. Kind of they didn't liked the ascension of the civils controlling the intelligence
policies strategically - kind of the situation between Soviet's army and KGB. In the game of the pig and the chicken, the chicken
is only involved with the eggs but the pigs must provide the bacon. Id Trump gets hit I'm pretty sure you'll see a military coup
overtaking the governement.
I have a feeling the US army is really pissed they died for nothing. Despite all the talk of shortcomings, the US army, not
USAF or USN, is not to be toyed with in an existential war, they will fight!
All adversaries understand that, they lose wars because they don't believe, simple. If the deep state, including feckless military
leaders push too far, they'll be facing rifle barrels and possibly be chesting bayonets.
A military coup can happen in the USA despite talk of sacrosant democracy, it happened in Rome, word enough for the wise.
😎
BTW, the bulk of us army is not in active service, never underestimate patriotic veterans, if it comes to a shootout at the
OK corral, they'll kill and die for their loved ones, against all enemies, foreign, and "domestic".
No, they won't Never have, never will .Gutless cowards one & all.They pick on the poor& weak & never won a real war, except Japan. They
burn babies 4 billionaires,& there is no such thing as a domestic enemy.
Stupid goldbricking brutes fit 4 fertilizer and nothing else. Go copsuck & flagwank elsewhere, cuckfaggot vet or fanboi
There is nothing to lose at this point. The elite have made day to day life a void of lifelessness and stress chasing inflating life necessities with a falling dollar.
The revolt hinges on the upcoming market crashes.
Agree + Scipio. As mentioned, till now the chickens lied and Army provided the bacon and the chickens collected all the revenue.
As in the Rome's example, it may be that America can be saved by the cancerous corruption only by a military coup, the alternative
being a massive war which will also enable the Army to overtake the control of the government, here is where NK and Iran would
be good players in the scheme.
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He
appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches
Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.
Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't
believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.
A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee took a shot at
Democrats for pushing the false narrative.
"When Democrats demand investigations of a hashtag but find no cause for concern after the
FBI loses five months' of critical evidence concerning the Strzok text messages, then someone's
priorities are out of whack," Jack Langer told The Daily Caller.
He mentions of the Melian Dialogue lygdamus.com . that an interesting
read. The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be
destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation,
because in practice might makes right -- or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and
the weak suffer what they must".[25] The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an
enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos'
neutrality and independence, they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left
Melos alone because they were not strong enough to conquer it.
Insulting never works as a method of persuasion
Notable quotes:
"... This speech should be obligatory study for each prospective teacher, politician and in fact every person around. ..."
The Athenians offer the
Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do
not wish to waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice might
makes right -- or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what
they must". [25]
The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to
conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence,
they would look weak: Their subjects would think that they left Melos alone because they were
not strong enough to conquer it.
The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will
become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the
Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states
and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up
arms against Athens.
The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight.
The Athenians counter that it is only shameful to submit to an opponent whom one has a
reasonable chance of defeating. There is no shame in submitting to an overwhelmingly superior
opponent like Athens.
The Melians argue that though the Athenians are far stronger, there is at least a slim
chance that the Melians could win, and they will regret not trying their luck. The Athenians
counter that this argument is emotional and short-sighted. If the Melians lose, which is highly
likely, they will come to bitterly regret their foolish optimism.
The Melians believe that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is
morally just. The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural
order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.
The Melians argue that their Spartan kin will come to their defense. The Athenians counter
that the Spartans are a practical people who never put themselves at risk when their interests
are not at stake, and rescuing Melos would be especially risky since Athens has the stronger
navy.
The Athenians express their shock at the Melians' lack of realism. They say that there is no
shame in submitting to a stronger enemy, especially one who is offering reasonable terms. They
also argue that it is sensible to submit to one's superiors, stand firm against one's equals,
and be moderate to one's inferiors. The Melians do not change their minds and politely dismiss
the envoys. Warships of the era ( triremes ) could carry little in the way of
supplies, and thus needed friendly and neutral ports where the crew could purchase food and
other necessities on a daily basis. [26] Whether or not Melos
was truly neutral, Peloponnesian ships could freely resupply there, which made it strategically
important to the enemy. [27] Capturing Melos
reduced the reach of the enemy's navy.
The mercilessness which the Athenian invaders showed to the Melians was exceptional even for
the time and shocked many Greeks, even in Athens. [28] These may have
included the Athenian playwright Euripides , whose play The Trojan Women is widely
regarded as a commentary on the razing of Melos. The historian Xenophon wrote that in 405 BC, with the Spartan
army closing in on Athens, the citizens of Athens worried that the Spartans would treat them
with the same cruelty that the Athenian army had shown the Melians. [29] The Athenian
rhetorician Isocrates was
a proud patriot but accepted that the razing of Melos was a stain on Athens' history.
[30][31]
It is uncertain whether the fate of Melos was decided by the government of Athens or the
Athenian generals on Melos. A historical speech falsely attributed to the Athenian orator
Andocides claims that the
statesman Alcibiades
advocated the enslavement of the Melian survivors before the government of Athens.
[32] This account gives
no date for the decree, so it could have been passed to justify the atrocities after-the-fact.
[33]
Thucydides made no mention of any such decree in his own account.
The phrase "Melian hunger" became a byword for extreme starvation. Starvation is a normal
goal of sieges and the ancient Greeks had much experience with them, so this suggests that the
Melian experience was extreme. The earliest known reference to the starvation of the Melians is
in Aristophanes '
play, The
Birds , which was first performed in 414 BC. [34] Its usage lasted
well into the Byzantine era, as it is mentioned in the Suda , a 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia.
[35]
I really appreciate your thoughts, and concerns for the future of our country! It's so
nice to know that we still have some politicians who truly care about WE the people! GOD
BLESS YOU Trey!
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. ..."
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ
- Hold him in contempt of congress. Have him arrested. During questioning, press him to the
wall, get him to tell him who in the FBI told him 'they couldn't find them.' Then go arrest
that guy too. Rinse and repeat. Look what these bastards did to Mike Flynn. Go get 'em.
NOW!!!
One of the silver linings in this mess is the clear view that the FBI is ridiculously
compromised & has chucked its standard of non-political leanings right out the window.
Shutting it down may have once seemed a long shot, now maybe not so much. If you haven't
noticed, another Trump boomerang has happened to the Left with their favorite word starting
with the letter S. This time I'm thinking Storm is what's about to follow instead of hole or
house.
If the republican leadership hiccup here on the release of the memo then it's things as
usual and forget a full on war from them. I don't trust those bastards as far as I can throw
them. Trump then needs to fire Sessions and Mueller and go full on attack mode with a press
conference doing what he does and light the left's hair on fire like never before. This is
war and it needs kicked off in grand fashion. The left's ability to guilt shame has been
neutered and they know it and are scared to death.
The Genius has lost control. Washington is oozing and dripping its corrupt, manipulating,
narcissistic and deceiving bile. Just one thin mint is all it will take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0
At one point, Peter Strzok made reference to a phone that "could not be traced". He
probably had a 2nd phone for a period. I'd be willing to bet it was a BlackBerry. While he
had (if he had) that 2nd phone, he could have used that more secure phone for his
communications with Lisa Page.
The IG may have all of Strzok's text messages with Lisa Page from his official phone, but
none from the 2nd phone.
The article says that it was Lisa Page who suggested using the 2nd phone. That message
from her was in March 2016.
"Also in March, Page seems to be concerned about whether the things they say about Mr.
Trump can be found out. "So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about
Hillary because it cant be traced," she wrote."
Haven't read through the entire thread here, but the end date of the interval for the
missing data is also the date that Mueller was appointed.
All of this shit is at the NSA Blufdale, Utah, facility. Why are the taxpayers spending
umpteen billion dollars collecting and storing this stuff if the government is going to
pretend it doesn't exist? You can bet this internet post, and anyone who replies to it, is
archived there. We are supposed to be afraid of being surveiled by assholes like Clapper and
Brennan. Guess what? We're not.
If Horowitz now claims he really didn't receive all the text messages he requested, then
he too is part of a massive cover-up and any report that is issued by the DOJ's Inspector
General's office can't be believed by definition.
It's possible Horowitz lied then to placate the Congressional inquiry. I believe that the
Deep State believes that they can get Trump impeached before the shit hits the fan with the
Sedition by the FBI. There is always Plan B for the Deep State but 50 years after they rid
the world of 2 Kennedys the general population isn't buying it.
If I understand how US communication systems work, every network has a splitter which
copies all transmissions to NSA, or related agencies, storage devices. I would be shocked if
they didn't collect everything from FBI or DOJ employees, and I mean everything, from FBI
devices or their private devices. If the files are sitting safe and secure on NSA storage
devices, only the NSA could really "lose" them. And this would also be true for every one of
Clinton's messages. Why don't we ever see Congress ask NSA for anything? Is that
verboten?
FBI and DOJ and the Weasel Liar Rosenstein are LIARS. They don't want the world and the
American people know what Liars, corrupt, in the tank for Hilray to know what they did are
still trying to due. Trump needs to clean house of the FBI and DOJ of all Clinton and Obama
people.
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. ..."
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ
- Hold him in contempt of congress. Have him arrested. During questioning, press him to the
wall, get him to tell him who in the FBI told him 'they couldn't find them.' Then go arrest
that guy too. Rinse and repeat. Look what these bastards did to Mike Flynn. Go get 'em.
NOW!!!
One of the silver linings in this mess is the clear view that the FBI is ridiculously
compromised & has chucked its standard of non-political leanings right out the window.
Shutting it down may have once seemed a long shot, now maybe not so much. If you haven't
noticed, another Trump boomerang has happened to the Left with their favorite word starting
with the letter S. This time I'm thinking Storm is what's about to follow instead of hole or
house.
If the republican leadership hiccup here on the release of the memo then it's things as
usual and forget a full on war from them. I don't trust those bastards as far as I can throw
them. Trump then needs to fire Sessions and Mueller and go full on attack mode with a press
conference doing what he does and light the left's hair on fire like never before. This is
war and it needs kicked off in grand fashion. The left's ability to guilt shame has been
neutered and they know it and are scared to death.
The Genius has lost control. Washington is oozing and dripping its corrupt, manipulating,
narcissistic and deceiving bile. Just one thin mint is all it will take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0
At one point, Peter Strzok made reference to a phone that "could not be traced". He
probably had a 2nd phone for a period. I'd be willing to bet it was a BlackBerry. While he
had (if he had) that 2nd phone, he could have used that more secure phone for his
communications with Lisa Page.
The IG may have all of Strzok's text messages with Lisa Page from his official phone, but
none from the 2nd phone.
The article says that it was Lisa Page who suggested using the 2nd phone. That message
from her was in March 2016.
"Also in March, Page seems to be concerned about whether the things they say about Mr.
Trump can be found out. "So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about
Hillary because it cant be traced," she wrote."
Haven't read through the entire thread here, but the end date of the interval for the
missing data is also the date that Mueller was appointed.
All of this shit is at the NSA Blufdale, Utah, facility. Why are the taxpayers spending
umpteen billion dollars collecting and storing this stuff if the government is going to
pretend it doesn't exist? You can bet this internet post, and anyone who replies to it, is
archived there. We are supposed to be afraid of being surveiled by assholes like Clapper and
Brennan. Guess what? We're not.
If Horowitz now claims he really didn't receive all the text messages he requested, then
he too is part of a massive cover-up and any report that is issued by the DOJ's Inspector
General's office can't be believed by definition.
It's possible Horowitz lied then to placate the Congressional inquiry. I believe that the
Deep State believes that they can get Trump impeached before the shit hits the fan with the
Sedition by the FBI. There is always Plan B for the Deep State but 50 years after they rid
the world of 2 Kennedys the general population isn't buying it.
If I understand how US communication systems work, every network has a splitter which
copies all transmissions to NSA, or related agencies, storage devices. I would be shocked if
they didn't collect everything from FBI or DOJ employees, and I mean everything, from FBI
devices or their private devices. If the files are sitting safe and secure on NSA storage
devices, only the NSA could really "lose" them. And this would also be true for every one of
Clinton's messages. Why don't we ever see Congress ask NSA for anything? Is that
verboten?
FBI and DOJ and the Weasel Liar Rosenstein are LIARS. They don't want the world and the
American people know what Liars, corrupt, in the tank for Hilray to know what they did are
still trying to due. Trump needs to clean house of the FBI and DOJ of all Clinton and Obama
people.
Brilliant summary of the situation. You should listen this interview. False Russiagate was from the beginning a plot to derail and then depose Trump. They created false facts.
Brazen port to exonerate Hillary Clinton and then derail Trump
Notable quotes:
"... It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful man! ..."
It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks
about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no
integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who
are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful
man!
Love Joe to bad he can't become the new AG and why isn't this interview on the news at
least Fox, Hannity, Tucker, Laura. And we know CNN, MSNBC, and the rest are all in the bag
for Obummer and Killary. 😎
NY Times Buzzfeed Washington Post CNN ABC CBS NBC are all complicit in perpetrating these
lies Just watch Colbert Jimmy Farrel or Jimmy Kimmel These bad actors pretending to be
entertainers need to hang
Mueller carried the sample of Uranium to the Russians. Mueller was paid off, as was Comey.
So glad President Trump can confiscate all their money. Now to catch Daddy Bush and Jr for
having all those people in New York killed on 9/11! Go Trump!!
There needs to be an arrest of ALL the top MSM owners and chairpeople of all the
affiliates including those who stand in front of the camera pushing false information. Their
license needs to be rescinded and taken away. Bankrupt the news affiliates and sell off their
assets.
This is a truly excellent and clear explanation of how our government was corrupted by
Team Hillary. I reckon she needs to pay the Ultimate price: a thorough investigation into her
crimes: A fair trial... and maybe execution, followed by her being reviled down the centuries
as one of the most evil women in History. Every little girl should be told: Do not be like
this woman!
Bill, don't forget to mention that those same entities also include those working for CNN
and MSNBC who were funded by Clinton donations to push the false media on the country. Can
you say lawsuits?
"... House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a "credibility" problem. ..."
"... But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence" is presented. ..."
"... He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr. ..."
"... But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no chance the meeting hadn't occurred. ..."
"... "This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution." ..."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door
testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a
"credibility" problem.
Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House adviser Steve Bannon spent
several hours testifying before Gowdy's committee Tuesday.
Gowdy said Lewandowski wanted to answer every question posed to him, but that his lawyers
advised him against answering those regarding his work after he left the campaign. "That [onus is] on the lawyer, not the witness. Corey is going to come back and answer every
question anyone has," Gowdy said.
But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege
that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a
privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence"
is presented.
He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the
Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr.
But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no
chance the meeting hadn't occurred.
"This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed
acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire
case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution."
"... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
"... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
"... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
"... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
"... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
"... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
"... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
"... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the
'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the
FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.
A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of
the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say,
Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view
point."
"Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just
get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal
things and help us out," he said.
"Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're
dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right
now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to
get political advantage."
Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama
administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.
"I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they
have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."
However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the
expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.
"The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the
president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe
they did, and he believes that."
"I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have
their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work
on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the
worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.
The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo
"might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would
exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.
Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it
"has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia.
From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."
"I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way
overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and
they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like,"
he said.
Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about
Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the
media in misleading the public.
"It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the
media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox
News Friday.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's
2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to
information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier
commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that
the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges
even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant
to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
"... For Germany, the idea of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration' ..."
"... "That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples. According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic realm?" ..."
"... More recently, an article in Politico Europe ..."
"... Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance – even against ..."
"... Germany (and France) have been the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote , overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'. ..."
"... This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general), while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level. ..."
"... German authorities have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'. ..."
"... Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of 'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika -forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by the German airport operator Fraport. ..."
"... France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years, French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased 'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship between the stronger and weaker countries of the union. ..."
"... In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie ..."
"... Exportnationalismus' ..."
"... Modell Deutschland ..."
"... Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation' – under the German aegis, of course. As a recent article in Foreign Policy ..."
"... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy ..."
Originally from: Germany's dystopian plans for Europe: from fantasy to reality?By Thomas
Fazi 4 December 2017
For Germany, the idea
of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their
hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'
After Emmanuel Macron's election in France, many (including myself) claimed that this
signalled a revival of the Franco-German alliance and a renewed impetus for Europe's process of
top-down economic and political integration – a fact that was claimed by most
commentators and politicians, beholden as they are to the Europeanist narrative, to be an
unambiguously positive development.
Among the allegedly 'overdue' reforms that were said to be on the table was the creation of
a pseudo-'fiscal union' backed by a (meagre) 'euro budget', along with the creation of a
'European finance minister', the centre-points of Macron's plans to 're-found the EU' – a
proposal that raises a number of very worrying issues from both political and economic
standpoints,
which I have discussed at length elsewhere .
The integrationists' (unwarranted) optimism, however, was short-lived. The result of the
German elections, which saw the surge of two rabidly anti-integrationist parties, the
right-wing FDP and extreme right AfD; the recent collapse of coalition talks between Merkel's
CDU, the FDP and the Greens, which most likely means an interim government for weeks if not
months, possibly leading to new elections (which polls show would
bring roughly the same result as the September election); and the growing restlessness in
Germany towards the 13-year-long rule of Macron's partner in reform Angela Merkel, means that
any plans that Merkel and Macron may have sketched out behind the scenes to further integrate
policies at the European level are now, almost certainly, dead in the water. Thus, even the
sorry excuse for a fiscal union proposed by Macron is now off the table, according to most
commentators.
At this point, the German government's most likely course in terms of European policy
– the one that has the best chance of garnering cross-party support, regardless of the
outcome of the coalition talks (or of new elections) – is the 'minimalist' approach set
in stone by the country's infamous and now-former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, in
a 'non-paper' published shortly
before his resignation.
The main pillar of Schäuble's proposal – a long-time obsession of his –
consists in giving the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which would go on to become a
'European Monetary Fund', the power to monitor (and, ideally, enforce) compliance with the
Fiscal Compact. This echoes Schäuble's previous calls for the
creation of a European budget commissioner with the power to reject national budgets – a
supranational fiscal enforcer.
The aim is all too clear: to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member
states have left, particularly in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition
of neoliberal 'structural reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of
collective bargaining rights, etc. – on reluctant countries.
To this end, the German authorities even want to make the receipt of EU cohesion funds
conditional on the implementation of such reforms , tightening the existing arrangements
even further. Moreover, as noted by Simon
Wren-Lewis , the political conflict of interest of having an institution lending within the
eurozone would end up imposing severe austerity bias on the recovering country.
Until recently, these proposals failed to materialise due, among other reasons, to France's
opposition to any further overt reductions of national sovereignty in the area of
budgetary policy; Macron, however, staunchly rejects France's traditional
souverainiste stance, embracing instead what he calls 'European sovereignty', and thus
represents the perfect ally for Germany's plans.
Another proposal that goes in the same direction is the
German Council for Economic Experts' plan to curtail banks' sovereign bond holdings.
Ostensibly aimed at 'severing the link between banks and government' and 'ensuring long-term
debt sustainability', it calls for: (i) removing the exemption from risk-weighting for
sovereign exposures, which essentially means that government bonds would no longer be
considered a risk-free asset for banks (as they are now under Basel rules), but would be
'weighted' according to the 'sovereign default risk' of the country in question (as determined
by credit rating agencies); (ii) putting a cap on the overall risk-weighted sovereign exposure
of banks; and (iii) introducing an automatic 'sovereign insolvency mechanism' that would
essentially extend to sovereigns the bail-in rule introduced for banks by the banking union,
meaning that if a country requires financial assistance from the ESM, for whichever reason, it
will have to lengthen its sovereign bond maturities (reducing the market value of those bonds
and causing severe losses for all bondholders) and, if necessary, impose a nominal 'haircut' on
private creditors.
As noted by the German economist Peter Bofinger , the only member of the German Council of
Economic Experts to vote against the sovereign bail-in plan, this would almost certainly ignite
a 2012-style self-fulfilling sovereign debt crisis, as periphery countries' bond yields would
quickly rise to unsustainable levels, making it increasingly hard for governments to roll over
maturing debt at reasonable prices and eventually forcing them to turn to the ESM for help,
which would entail even heavier losses for their banks and an even heavier dose of
austerity.
It would essentially amount to a return to the pre-2012 status quo, with governments once
again subject to the supposed 'discipline' of the markets, particularly in the context of a
likely tapering of the ECB's quantitative easing (QE) program. The aim of this proposal is the
same as that of Schäuble's 'European Monetary Fund': to force member states to implement
permanent austerity.
Of course, national sovereignty in a number of areas – most notably fiscal policy
– has already been severely eroded by the complex system of new laws, rules and
agreements introduced in recent years, including but not limited to the six-pack, two-pack,
Fiscal Compact, European Semester and Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP).
As a result of this new post-Maastricht system of European economic governance, the European
Union has effectively become a sovereign power with the authority to impose budgetary rules and
structural reforms on member states outside democratic procedures and without democratic
control.
The EU's embedded quasi-constitutionalism and inherent (structural) democratic deficit has
thus evolved into an even more anti-democratic form of 'authoritarian constitutionalism' that
is breaking away with elements of formal democracy as well, leading some observers to suggest
that the EU 'may easily become the postdemocratic prototype and even a pre-dictatorial
governance structure against national sovereignty and democracies'.
To give an example, with the launch of the European Semester, the EU's key tool for economic
policy guidance and surveillance, an area that has historically been a bastion of national
sovereignty – old-age pensions – has now fallen under the purview of supranational
monitoring as well. Countries are now expected to
(and face sanctions if they don't): (i) increase the retirement age and link it with life
expectancy; (ii) reduce early retirement schemes, improve the employability of older workers
and promote lifelong learning; (iii) support complementary private savings to enhance
retirement incomes; and (iv) avoid adopting pension-related measures that undermine the long
term sustainability and adequacy of public finances.
This has led to the introduction in various countries of several types of automatic
stabilizing mechanisms (ASMs) in pension systems, which change the policy default so that
benefits or contributions adjust automatically to adverse demographic and economic conditions
without direct intervention by politicians. Similar 'automatic correction mechanisms' in
relation to fiscal policy can be found in the Fiscal Compact.
The aim of all these 'automatic mechanisms' is clearly to put the economy on 'autopilot',
thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or decision-making at either the
European or national level. These changes have already transformed European states into
'semi-sovereign' entities, at best. In this sense, the proposals currently under discussion
would mark the definitive transformation of European states from semi-sovereign to de
facto (and increasingly de jure ) non-sovereign entities.
Regardless of the lip service paid by national and European officials to the need for
further reductions of national sovereignty to go hand in hand with a greater 'democratisation'
of the euro area, the reforms currently on the table can, in fact, be considered the final
stage in the thirty-year-long war on democracy and national sovereignty waged by the European
elites, aimed at constraining the ability of popular-democratic powers to influence economic
policy, thus enabling the imposition of neoliberal policies that would not have otherwise been
politically feasible.
In this sense, the European economic and monetary integration process should be viewed, to a
large degree, as a class-based and inherently neoliberal project pursued by all
national capitals as well as transnational (financial) capital. However, to grasp the processes
of restructuring under way in Europe, we need to go beyond the simplistic capital/labour
dichotomy that underlies many critical analyses of the EU and eurozone, which view EU/EMU
policies as the expression of a unitary and coherent transnational (post-national) European
capitalist class.
The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the geopolitical-economic
tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional blocs, and the
conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital fractions located in
those states, which have always characterised the European economy. In particular, it means
looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over the European continent.
It is no secret that Germany is today the leading economic and political power in Europe,
just as it is no secret that nothing gets done in Europe without Germany's seal of approval. In
fact, it is commonplace to come across references to Germany's 'new empire'.
A controversial Der Spiegel editorial from a few years back event went as far as
arguing that it is not out place to talk of the rise of a 'Fourth Reich':
"That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace
of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But
further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term
refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples.
According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic
realm?"
More recently, an article in
Politico Europe – co-owned by the German media magnate Axel Springer AG
– candidly explained why 'Greece is de facto a German colony'. It noted how, despite
Tsipras' pleas for debt relief, the Greek leader 'has little choice but to heed the wishes of
his "colonial" masters', i.e., the Germans.
This is because public debt
in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get
governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these
policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to
seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and
promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other
member states) from straying 'off course'.
Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by
the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an
accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental
empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance –
even against Germany's wishes – as a result of the euro's design faults, which
have allowed Germany and its satellites to pursue a neo-mercantilist strategy and thus
accumulate huge current account surpluses.
Now, it is certainly true that the euro's design – strongly influenced by Germany
– inevitably benefits export-led economies such as Germany over more internal
demand-oriented economies, such as those of southern Europe. However, there is ample evidence
to support the argument that Germany, far from having accidently stumbled upon European
dominance, has been actively and consciously pursuing an expansionary and imperialist strategy
in – and through – the European Union for decades.
Even if we limit our analysis to Germany's post-crisis policies (though there is much that
could be said about Germany's post-reunification policies and subsequent offshoring of
production to Eastern Europe in the 1990s), it would be very naïve to view Germany's
inflexibility – on austerity, for example – as a simple case of ideological
stubbornness, considering the extent to which the policies in question have benefited Germany
(and to a lesser extent France).
Germany (and France) have been
the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially
amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled
back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser
degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote ,
overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'.
This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general),
while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention
and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state
intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level.
As Andy Storey notes, not only did the German government, throughout the crisis, show a
blatant disregard for ordoliberalism's non-interference of public institutions in the workings
of the market, by engaging in a massive Keynesian-style programme in the aftermath of the
financial crisis and pushing through bailout programmes that largely absolved German banks from
their responsibility for reckless lending to Greece and other countries; German authorities
have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European
institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete
abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular
to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its
precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the
Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'.
Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of
'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika
-forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to
take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at
bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by
the German airport operator Fraport.
France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years,
French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six
times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased
'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and
production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution
sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship
between the stronger and weaker countries of the union.
These transformations cannot simply be described as processes without a subject: while there
are undoubtedly structural reasons involved – countries with better developed economies
of scale, such as Germany and France, were bound to benefit more than others from the reduction
in tariffs and barriers associated with the introduction of the single currency – we also
have to acknowledge that there are loci of economic-politic power that are actively driving and
shaping these imperialist processes, which must be viewed through the lens of the unresolved
inter-capitalist struggle between core-based and periphery-based capital.
From this perspective, the dichotomy that is often raised in European public discourse
between nationalism and Europeanism is deeply flawed. The two, in fact, often go hand in hand.
In Germany's case, for example, Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect
alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'.
Ironically, the European Union – allegedly created as an antidote to the vicious
nationalisms of the twentieth century – has been the tool through which Germany has been
able to achieve the 'new European order' that Nazi ideologues had theorised in the 1930s and
early 1940s.
In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but
one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the
dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have
supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their
support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie of
the old colonial system – sections of a country's elite and middle class allied with
foreign interests in exchange for a subordinated role within the dominant hierarchy of
power.
From this point of view, the likely revival of the Franco-German bloc is a very worrying
development, since it heralds a consolidation of the German-led European imperialist bloc
– and a further 'Germanification' of the continent. This development cannot be understood
independently of the momentous shifts that are taking place in global political economy –
namely the organic crisis of neoliberal globalisation, which is leading to increased tensions
between the various fractions of international capital, most notably between the US and
Germany.
Trump's repeated criticisms of Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilist policies should
be understood in this light. The same goes for Angela Merkel's recent call – much
celebrated by the mainstream press – for a stronger Europe to counter Trump's
unilateralism. Merkel's aim is not, of course, that of making 'Europe' stronger, but rather of
strengthening Germany's dominant position vis-à-vis the other world powers (the US but
also China) through the consolidation of Germany's control of the European continental economy,
in the context of an intensification of global inter-capitalist competition.
This has now become an imperative for Germany, especially since Trump has dared to openly
challenge the self-justifying ideology which sustains Germany's mercantilism – a
particular form of economic nationalism that Hans Kundnani has
dubbed ' Exportnationalismus' , founded upon the belief that Germany's massive
trade surplus is uniquely the result of Germany's manufacturing excellence ( Modell
Deutschland ) rather than, in fact, the result of unfair trade practices.
This is why, if Germany wants to maintain its hegemonic position on the continent, it must
break with the US and tighten the bolts of the European workhouse. To this end, it needs to
seize control of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which
hitherto has never been under direct German control (though the Bundesbank exercises
considerable influence over it, as is well known). Indeed, many commentators openly acknowledge
that Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency. This would effectively put Germany
directly at the helm of European economic policy.
Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over
the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation'
– under the German aegis, of course.
As a recent article in Foreign Policy revealed , 'Germany is quietly building a
European army under its command'.
This year Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, announced
the integration of their armed forces, under the control of the Bundeswehr. In doing so, the
will follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the
Bundeswehr's Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the
Bundeswehr's 1st Armored Division.
In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the
initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if
Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military
sovereignty, which it currently lacks.
Europe is thus at a crossroads: the choice that left-wing and popular forces, and periphery
countries more generally, face is between (a) accepting Europe's transition to a fully
post-democratic, hyper-competitive, German-led continental system, in which member states
(except for those at the helm of the project) will be deprived of all sovereignty and autonomy,
in exchange for a formal democratic façade at the supranational level, and its workers
subject to ever-growing levels of exploitation; or (b) regaining national sovereignty and
autonomy at the national level, with all the short-term risks that such a strategy entails, as
the only way to restore democracy, popular sovereignty and socioeconomic dignity. In short, the
choice is between European post-democracy or post-European democracy.
There is no third way. Especially in view of the growing tensions between Germany, the US
and China, periphery countries should ask themselves if they want to be simple pawns in this
'New Great Game' or if they want to take their destinies into their own hands.
Last week,
Twitter sent out a creepy email to over 677,775 users letting them know that the platform
was actively working to understand "Russian-linked activities" that took place during the 2016
presidential election.
Twitter claimed that they had identified and suspended a "number of accounts that were
potentially connected to propaganda efforts by a Russian government-linked organization known
as the Internet Research Agency [IRA]".
One of the 677,775 users to receive the message was "Liquid IQ", the only problem is that the Liquid IQ twitter
account was created in July 2017. That is a full eight months after the US elections.
The 2017 Liquid IQ account was definitely not spreading Russian propaganda during the 2016
US presidential election on twitter, unless Liquid IQ magically found a way to follow "Russian
trolls" on twitter without having an actual twitter profile.
The is a single party of neoliberal oligarchy with two wings. Both are afraid of citizens and would like to sly on them.
Notable quotes:
"... Despite being in the minority, Democrats last week had enough Republican votes on their side to curb the president's ability, enhanced since 9/11, to spy on citizens and non-citizens alike. ..."
"... In the House, a majority of Democrats were willing to join a small minority of Republicans to do just that. But 55 Democrats – including the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi; the minority whip, Steny Hoyer; and other Democratic leaders of the opposition to Trump – refused. ..."
"... After the House voted for an extension of the president's power to spy, a group of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans attempted to filibuster the bill. The critical 60th vote to shut down the filibuster was a Democrat. ..."
"... This is despite the fact that the surveillance bill gives precisely the sorts of powers viewers of an Academy Award-winning film about the Stasi from not long so ago ..."
"... Pelosi: 'We Must Fight Even Harder Against Trump's Authoritarian Impulses Now That We've Voted to Enable Them' ..."
"... But in the same way that discourse of authoritarianism misses the democratic forest for the anti-democratic tweets, so does it focus more on the rhetoric of an abusive man than the infrastructure of an oppressive state, more on the erosion of norms than the material instruments of repression. ..."
You'd think that Democrats in Congress would jump at the opportunity to impose a constraint on Donald Trump's presidency – one
that liberals and Democrats alike have characterized as authoritarian. Apparently, that's not the case.
Despite being in the minority, Democrats last week had enough Republican votes on their side to curb the president's ability,
enhanced since 9/11, to spy on citizens and non-citizens alike.
In the House, a majority of Democrats were willing to join a small minority of Republicans to do just that. But 55 Democrats
– including the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi; the minority whip, Steny Hoyer; and other Democratic leaders of the opposition to
Trump – refused.
After the House voted for an extension of the president's power to spy, a group of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans
attempted to filibuster the bill. The critical 60th vote to shut down the filibuster was a Democrat.
With the exception of Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept, a press that normally expresses great alarm over Trump's amassing and
abuse of power has had relatively little to say about this vote (or this vote or this vote).
This is despite the fact that the surveillance bill gives precisely the sorts of powers viewers of an Academy Award-winning
film about the Stasi from not long so ago would instantly recognize to a president whose view of the media a leading Republican
recently compared to Stalin.
It was left to the Onion to offer the best (and near only) comment:
Pelosi: 'We Must Fight Even Harder Against Trump's Authoritarian Impulses Now That We've Voted to Enable Them'
Last week, I wrote in these pages how the discourse of Trump's authoritarianism ignores or minimizes the ways in which democratic
citizens and institutions – the media, the courts, the opposition party, social movements – are opposing Trump, with seemingly little
fear of intimidation.
But in the same way that discourse of authoritarianism misses the democratic forest for the anti-democratic tweets, so does
it focus more on the rhetoric of an abusive man than the infrastructure of an oppressive state, more on the erosion of norms than
the material instruments of repression.
So much for the director of CIA personal email security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something about it".' ..."
A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military
reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire
home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts
lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gamble, who founded the pro-Palestinian group 'Crackas With Attitude', taunted the security
service on Twitter about his successes.
During the attacks, which spanned from June 2015 to February 2016, he made hoax calls to Mr
Brennan's family home and took control of his wife's iPad.
His other targets included former deputy director of the FBI Mark Giuliano, secretary of
Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under
Obama.
He used the phone numbers he obtained to call and taunt his victims and their families, and
take control of their devices.
Gamble, who is autistic, boasted about targeting Mr Clapper's email account and said:
'That's where the juicy s*** is'.
He also pretended to be Mr Clapper to phone communications company Verizon and set up
call-forwarding to divert calls to the Free Palestine movement.
Gamble used Clapper's email to message other officials.
While speaking to an accomplice, he said: 'This email of Clapper's is very useful to fool
these r****d into thinking I'm him. I can't wait lmao [sic].'
He also boasted about carrying out 'the best breach ever' after accessing an FBI database to
get the names of 1,000 staff, including the officer responsible for the controversial shooting
of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama.
Gamble made a hoax call to Massachusetts police, resulting in armed officers being sent to
the aide's family home.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
+3
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
In the days before his arrest Gamble accessed the Department of Justice network using
compromised details he gained from a former employee.
He gathered documents and information relating to offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon
and details of more than 9,000 DHA officers and 20,000 FBI members of staff.
These details were posted online with the messages 'This is Free Palestine' and 'Long live
Palestine.'
The Department of Homeland Security spent 40,000 dollars to resolve the problem and suffered
'substantial reputational damage', the court heard.
Gamble was arrested in February 2016 at his council home in Coalville, near Leicester, at
the request of the FBI after he hacked into the Department of Justice network.
Last October, Gamble, of Linford Crescent, Coalville, pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown
Court to eight charges of performing a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to
computers and two charges of unauthorised modification of computer material.
Prosecutor John Lloyd-Jones QC told a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey: 'Kane Gamble
gained access to the communications accounts of some very high-ranking US intelligence
officials and government employees.
'The group incorrectly have been referred to as hackers. The group in fact used something
known as social engineering, which involves socially manipulating people - call centres or help
desks - into performing acts or divulging confidential information.'
'The group frequently bragged on social media and subjected the victims to online harassment
and abuse.'
The court heard Gamble 'felt particularly strongly' about US backed Israeli violence on
Palestinians, the shooting of black people by US police, racist violence by the KKK and the
bombing of civilians in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave described Gamble's activity as 'torture in the general sense - he got
these people in control and played with them to make their lives difficult'.
Gamble was allowed to sit next to his mother behind his barrister rather than the dock when
he appeared at the Old Bailey dressed in a dark blue coat.
Gamble also used an anonymous Twitter profile to talk to journalists.
Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more
annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something
about it".'
He is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey at a later date.
Pargolfer, Billericay, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Does this not show, that the higher up you are the more you think you are too important to
be hacked? If a 15 year old could do this, how safe is American security? I think you had
better hire him.
oscartheone, London, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
In fact what he actually did was to gain access to the CIA directors hotmail account and
ex po se d the fact the director of the CIA was using hotmail to email top secret documents.
The travesty being it should be the director of the CIA on trial, not Gamble
steviewunda, Warrington, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Some state he should be given a job, but then others would do outrageous things to put on
their CV for a job in intelligence. We can't be seen to encourage this despicable behaviour,
for any reason.
Villain1874, Villain Park, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
This will either ruin him or make him, if hes smart (which looks that way) he will use his
talents for the better if hes arrogant and tries this again U.S and U.K authorities will
destroy him before he knows whats hit him...
stc6, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A talented kid! We should put him to good use but keep him on a tight leash!
CallMeDave, Bury, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
And right this minute the CIA are trying to link him to Russia.
Del, AEglesburgh, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A lot of suggestions here to employ him. Yes appears to be a clever chap and probably
could do a good job, but he has acted in a criminal manner with intent to cause harm. He's
done this from his house, what damage could he do if employed by a Gov't agency? Temptation
would be too great.
erict, ipswich, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Well this goes to show intelligent the US homeland security the NSA and the FBI are I'am
surprised the haven't put sanction's on Liestershire Iexpect those who work at HCHQ are
laughing their head's off,
WASHINGTON -- When President Trump mused last year about protecting immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children,
calling them "these incredible kids," aides implored him privately to stop talking about them so sympathetically.
When he batted around the idea of granting them citizenship over a Chinese dinner at the White House last year with Democratic
leaders, Mr. Trump's advisers quickly drew up a list of hard-line demands to send to Capitol Hill that they said must be included
in any such plan.
And twice over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has privately told lawmakers he is eager to strike a deal to extend legal status
to the so-called Dreamers, only to have his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, make clear
afterward that such a compromise was not really in the offing -- unless it also included a host of stiffer immigration restrictions.
But, his favorite NYT reporter also can't help herself from insulting Trump.
... ... ...
Great strategy, NYT. The surest way to get Donald Trump to side with what you demand for the good of the Democratic Party electing
a new electorate is to insult his intelligence.
Your strategy is foolproof! There's nothing Trump like more than being played for a fool. What could possibly go wrong?
There's a lot of media focus on Miller atm, the thrust being that Miller is Bannon* 2.0, riding on the coat tails of The Great
Deal-Maker (formerly the New Hitler, but that didn't work) to push his own agenda.
They're hoping that Trump won't like a staffer getting more attention than he does and will say "you're fired". The same thing
will happen to any Trump appointment who looks like they want to implement the platform Trump ran on.
* AFAIK Bannon wasn't actually doing that, but it's the Narrative.
PS – BBC only ever quote Flake or Ryan when they want a "Republican" view.
OT: while y'all rightly shake with apprehension at what the next skullduggery from the FBI, CIA, or NSA might be, cheer yourselves
up by contemplating the incompetence of the people involved. They're such mugs that a 15-year old can dance rings around their
security procedures.
Still, it doesn't seem to inhibit the FBI from murdering US citizens, staging a slow-motion coup against a President, or manfully
saving the USA from a terrorist attack on 9/11. Hang on; the latter would have called for competence
"... And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA director in history by CIA employees. ..."
"... The UK Govt appears to be complicit in the overthrow of the newly elected US Govt..........Team Globalist ..."
"... as I noted my beliefs before. Trump can be goofy at times. can be a walking ego at times. but he does not have an inherently evil heart. So he never fully comprehends the evil hearted person or collection of persons. ..."
"... He is a great marketer, but he is not a brilliant war strategist, because he doesn't fully understand the heart of his enemy. Example: He thought laying off of Hillary after the election was actually the gentlemanly thing to do....because, he thought she'd accept defeat and leave the playing field. (we on ZH knew better, but Trump actually didn't know) ..."
"... So now we know the real purpose of the FBI Trump investigation, to give Mueller and his band of merry Clinton-Lawyers the opportunity clean up the evidence. ..."
"... First, the backups are at the NSA and the Telco systems. 2nd, I'd ask WHO ELSE in the FBI was affected by lack of backups for such long period, AND how does that other impact ongoing investigations... If the answer is just those 2, well, follow the money. If the answer is more than these 2, than the credibility of the entire FBI is at stake. Which may not be much, but that is the only thing left at the moment. ..."
"... By the way, for non-techie out there, the FBI's excuse is that they couldn't get the software upgrade done right. If you work in a big company, you know how much testing and disturbance goes on before new software is rolled out. There is no such thing as a serious bug left running for months. Big companies just roll back in such extreme cases. Now imagine the amount of testing that goes on for secure phone on FBI systems. LOL. I suggest my american friends to look at this great invention called the guillotine? ..."
A major contradiction has been discovered between yesterday's revelation that the FBI "lost"
five months of text messages, and a claim by the DOJ's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz -
who claimed his office received the texts in question between FBI employees Peter Strzok and
his mistress Lisa Page last August.
... ... ...
Knowledge of the missing texts was revealed in a Saturday letter from Ron Johnson (R-WI),
Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) - after the
Committee received an additional 384 pages of text messages between Strzok and Page, several of
which contained anti-Trump / pro-Clinton bias. The new DOJ submission included a cover letter
from the Assistant AG for Legislative Affairs, Stephen Boyd, claiming that the FBI was unable
to preserve text messages between the two agents for a five month period between December 14,
2016 and May 17, 2017 - due to "misconfiguration issues" with FBI-issued Samsung 5 devices used
by Strzok and Page (despite over
10,000 texts which were recovered from their devices without incident).
However - as the Gateway Pundit 's Josh Caplan
points out , the lost text messages are in direct contradiction to a
December 13, 2017 letter from the DOJ's internal watchdog - Inspector General Michael
Horowitz, to Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and HSGAC Chairman Ron Johnson, in which
he claims he received the texts in question on August 10, 2017 .
In gathering evidence for the OIG's ongoing 2016 election review, we requested,
consistent with standard practice, that the FBI produce text messages from the FBI-issued
phones of certain FBI employees involved in the Clinton email investigation based on search
terms we provided. After finding a number of politically-oriented text messages between
Page and Strzok, the OIG sought from the FBI all text messages between Strzok and Page from
their FBI-issued phones through November 30, 2016 , which covered the entire period of the
Clinton e-mail server investigation. The FBI produced these text messages on July 20, 2017.
Following our review of those text messages, the OIG expanded our request to the FBI to
include all text messages between Strzok and Page from November 30, 2016, through the date
of the document request, which was July 28, 2017.
The OIG received these additional messages on August 10, 2017.
This glaring contradiction suggests someone is lying or perhaps simply incompetent. Did
Horowitz's office *think* they had received the texts in question without actually verifying?
Did the DOJ screw up and fail to read Horowitz's letter before "losing" the text messages so
that "leaky" Congressional investigators wouldn't see them? Either way, this question needs
answering.
While you can draw your own conclusions, keep in mind that Inspector Horowitz has been
described as your archetypical Boy Scout bureaucrat - who
as we reported two weeks ago - fought the Obama administation to restore powers taken away
from the OIG by then-Attorney General, Eric Holder.
After a multi-year battle, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the
Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into
law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress
.
And Congress has been very engaged with Horowitz's investigation; spoon-feeding the OIG all
the questions they need in order to nail the DOJ, FBI and the Obama Administration for what
many believe to be egregious abuses of power. As such, the OIG report is expected to be a
bombshell , while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to
impartially appoint a Special Counsel to launch an official criminal investigation into the
matter.
As illustrated below, the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both
investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
At this point, Horowitz's office needs to clarify whether or not they indeed took delivery
of the "lost" text messages. If the OIG does indeed have them, it will be interesting to get to
the bottom of exactly what the DOJ claims happened, and particularly juicy if they're caught in
a lie.
If not found at the NSA, surely the texts will still be at Verizon or whichever SP the
phones operate under. Only talking 18 months here. What really cracks me up is "Peter Strzok - Head of Counter Intelligence." Really? Has a dumber cunt ever graced the 7th floor of the Hoover Building?
Speaking of which, by the time this shit has gone down in it's entirety, they won't need a
7th floor. Chris Wray will be bloody lonely up there on his own. Probably coinciding with the
search for Andrew McCabe's missing pension beginning in earnest...
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Bottom Line: The party in power used the apparatus of the police state to spy on and damage an
opposition candidate. There really isn't a higher crime in our supposed system. THEN there's the cover-up.....as in deleting files and pretending you never had them even
though the IG already does.
This used to be the reason why each new gov't as soon as it took power would toss out any
folks showing any alignment to a party at all.........guess they knew a thing or two back
then, didn't they. Time for Trump to warm up those Apprentice vocal chords and start uttering
his famous words. At the current rate Nixon will be exonerated by the end of 2018.
Could the treason be any more obvious? And not just treason, but treason in collaboration
with foreign governments and multinational corporate elitists!
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the
course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for
themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted
them to unjust dominion." President George Washington
Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796
I read about this, it was quickly brushed under the rug. Didn't know it was as extensive
because media coverage on this angle hasn't been clear. Good report.
And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and
who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his
own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own
intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he
and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel
for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply
involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State
assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA
director in history by CIA employees.
Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump. It would
explain Clappers irrational statements about Trump, sabotage and incitement of government
employees not to follow Trump's orders. We got that from Clapper, Brennan and former CIA
director Hayden. All three have joined forces in LA, using celebrities to continue the coup
against Trump. They formed, essentially a convert political action group using celebrities,
to make their case in the media. It's illogical for Clapper to continue with the coup, there
is no reward in it unless, he is guilty of treason and must continue the coup to protect
himself. In other words, this isn't for Hillary Clinton.
And we wonder why these "intelligence agencies" endorse Hillary for President? These fuckers need to hang. They not only conspired to excuse the email scandal, torpedoed
Sanders in the primary -- and were conspiring against her political opponent. President Trump the time is NOW!
Nice write up, keep improving, updating and posting it. The UK Govt appears to be complicit in the overthrow of the newly elected US
Govt..........Team Globalist
They ARE ALL in on it. ALL of them are guilty of TREASON, SEDITION. Republicans didn't want Trump in power at first...until they realized Trump, as Mitch
McConnell said, "He'll sign anything we put in front of him." If you want to know what is being done on Trump Administration end. Just watch SESSIONS.
Right now, Sessions has bigger fish to fry with weed smokers.
ZIOCONS have an invested interest in Russia gate: to win public support for a war on
Russia. Russiagate is WMD all over again. It's why Trump does ZERO about Russia gate, while
arming neonazis in the Ukraine and surrounding Russia and China's borders with US and NATO
troops.
N. Korea isn't about N. Korea but about regime change to put nukes on China's doorstep.
Look at what they are or are not doing. Not what they SAY..
i disagree. they're digging their hole deeper. it's ALL already been captured. everything going on is to keep us off balance & emotional. don't feed the beast.
as I noted my beliefs before. Trump can be goofy at times. can be a walking ego at times. but he does not have an
inherently evil heart. So he never fully comprehends the evil hearted person or collection of
persons.
He is a great marketer, but he is not a brilliant war strategist, because he doesn't fully
understand the heart of his enemy. Example: He thought laying off of Hillary after the
election was actually the gentlemanly thing to do....because, he thought she'd accept defeat
and leave the playing field. (we on ZH knew better, but Trump actually didn't know)
Bannon understood but wires got crossed there somehow. Kellyanne Conway understood.
Sessions is a fine gentleman that appears to have no clue the battle that is really
waging.
Most of the Washington VIPs that DO understand, are more interested in preserving their
membership in the country club than saving America. This is why I like Trump...because he already has a country club and doesn't need to get
invited to another party and doesn't really care about those scumbags. He just needs to understand a little bit more.
So now we know the real purpose of the FBI Trump investigation, to give Mueller and his
band of merry Clinton-Lawyers the opportunity clean up the evidence.
First, the backups are at the NSA and the Telco systems. 2nd, I'd ask WHO ELSE in the FBI was affected by lack of backups for such long period, AND
how does that other impact ongoing investigations... If the answer is just those 2, well,
follow the money. If the answer is more than these 2, than the credibility of the entire FBI
is at stake. Which may not be much, but that is the only thing left at the moment.
By the way, for non-techie out there, the FBI's excuse is that they couldn't get the
software upgrade done right. If you work in a big company, you know how much testing and
disturbance goes on before new software is rolled out. There is no such thing as a serious
bug left running for months. Big companies just roll back in such extreme cases. Now imagine
the amount of testing that goes on for secure phone on FBI systems. LOL. I suggest my
american friends to look at this great invention called the guillotine?
I thought all deleted materials could be recovered from any hard drive, unless something
like BleachBit is used, or the hard drive is physically destroyed. If the FBI lacks the
expertise to recover the materials, may a team of IT specialists should be sent in to help
them.
There are magnetic traces left behind even after several passes of a "zero-fill" utility
or pseudo-random over-writes. There are commercial companies whose business it is to recover
such data. I recovered data for the Sheriff's department from a computer involved in a murder
case. A company I worked for lost a Dell 96-drive array when just the right 3 drives died at
the same time. A data recovery company got everything back and sold us our own data (and
that's on a RAID 10 striped and mirrored array with 3 crashed drives).
They can get any data back if they want to badly enough.
That's a really fishy development. Like a mafia running inside FBI ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via: ..."
"... Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money order ..."
"... Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous texting ..."
"... Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of federal subpoenas ..."
"... Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said. ..."
"... With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm. ..."
"... "The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals. ..."
"... "It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the FBI source said. "They have switched to burners." ..."
"... The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations. ..."
Members of the FBI and Justice Department's top brass at their Washington D.C.headquarters
and other field offices are now using burner phones to stay under the radar of federal
investigators and lawmakers, according to FBI insiders.
The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI deleted thousands of text
messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before investigators could review their content.
While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy employing the telecom habits of
drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and
the DOJ. And breaks federal laws as well.
Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via:
Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money
order
Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous
texting
Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of
federal subpoenas
Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of
federal laws, insiders said.
But that hasn't slowed their use by top law enforcement personnel in the United States.
With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector
General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on
disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders
confirm.
"The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long
time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved
wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public
scandals.
One of the main reasons why the Inspector General's report of its investigation of the FBI
has been delayed is because investigators keep getting wiretap intelligence on the key players,
the FBI official said.
"It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the
FBI source said. "They have switched to burners."
Multiple FBI and federal law enforcement sources disclosed earlier that the IG was running
wiretaps on FBI and DOJ officials to True Pundit but requested an embargo on publishing the
information which would interfere with the investigation. True Pundit agreed to withhold until
given the green light to publish.
The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while
working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.
The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
"The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI's technical system for
retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text
messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page," Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for
legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the
chairman of HSGAC.
He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.
Boyd attributed the failure to "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning,
and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities."
"The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for
long-term storage and retrieval was not collected," Boyd wrote.
Former FBI Director James
Comey has landed a teaching gig at his alma mater, the College of William & Mary, and
will join the ranks of the school's teaching faculty this fall with a course on ethical
leadership.
The Washington Post reports that Comey has accepted a nontenured position as an executive
professor in education with the school, and will teach the course on ethical leadership in fall
2018, spring 2019 and summer 2019 semesters.
I read about this, it was quickly brushed under the rug. Didn't know it was as extensive
because media coverage on this angle hasn't been clear. Good report.
And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and
who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his
own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own
intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he
and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel
for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply
involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State
assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA
director in history by CIA employees.
Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump. It would
explain Clappers irrational statements about Trump, sabotage and incitement of government
employees not to follow Trump's orders. We got that from Clapper, Brennan and former CIA
director Hayden. All three have joined forces in LA, using celebrities to continue the coup
against Trump. They formed, essentially a convert political action group using celebrities,
to make their case in the media. It's illogical for Clapper to continue with the coup, there
is no reward in it unless, he is guilty of treason and must continue the coup to protect
himself. In other words, this isn't for Hillary Clinton.
"... But, according to the letter, the FBI told the department that its system for retaining text messages sent and received on bureau phones had failed to preserve communications between Strzok and Page over a five-month period between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 7, 2017. The explanation for the gap was "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities." ..."
"... Technical glitches obviously do happen but I can't help getting a bit of a Lois Lerner flashback upon hearing that five months of messages are missing from the time right after Trump was elected until 10 days before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. So if you were hoping for any follow up on that comment about an insurance policy, it looks like you can forget it. That's a well-timed glitch. ..."
"... But it seems the DOJ did turn over some additional texts that are worth considering. One involves an early draft of the Comey memo clearing Hillary Clinton. Originally the draft pointed out that Clinton had exchanged emails with President Obama while she was "on the territory" of a hostile power. Eventually, Obama's name was scrubbed from the document and finally all reference to the incident was removed. So that's one more example of the statement being watered down over time. And finally there is this : ..."
"... In another exchange, the two express displeasure about the timing of Lynch's announcement that she would defer to the FBI's judgment on the Clinton investigation. That announcement came days after it was revealed that the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting aboard her plane in Phoenix, though both sides said the email investigation was never discussed ..."
"... Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch's announcement "looks like hell." And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch's decision to accept the FBI's conclusion in the case as a "real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought ..."
"... Comey himself had suggested Lynch appeared biased in the email probe and that he felt the need to act independently from her. ..."
"... "And she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Mr. Comey continued. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'" ..."
"... Mr. Comey said the "conclusive" episode that persuaded him to make his own announcement in the Clinton investigation rather than leave it to Ms. Lynch came last June, when former President Bill Clinton spontaneously boarded her plane on a tarmac and sat down to talk with her. ..."
"... So the story was that Lynch was biased (she was) but that Comey acted to protect the independence of the investigation. In fact, Lynch knew what Comey was going to say days before he said it. ..."
The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional
investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend
Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between
December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of
a technical glitch .
Looks like another false flag operation , now with the participation of Italian intelligence services.
Notable quotes:
"... Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence Agency. See more information from the Link Campus based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ... ..."
"... "We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," ..."
"... "We have respected the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on vital contemporary issues." ..."
"... "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." ..."
"... "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world." ..."
"... Prince Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said Prince Turki , who also served as his country's envoy to Britain and the US. ..."
"... ... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States. ..."
Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior
Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence
Agency. See more information from the
Link Campus
based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with
knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ...
The EDOF Centre will work closely with the various interdisciplinary academic departments at the Link Campus University as
well as with international governments and organizations in order to support experts, academics, researchers, diplomats, governments,
and civil society activists in their attempts to help countries in conflict, crisis and transition around the world. The Partnership
Agreement was signed in Rome on May 8, 2017.
"We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks
to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," said
EDOF's CEO, Dr. Nawaf Obaid . "We have respected
the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating
peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on
vital contemporary issues."
Professor Joseph Mefsud will be appointed the Founding Director of the Centre for a period of three years. Scholarships
and bursaries will be allocated in the field of War and Peace studies. The Centre will also hold international seminars and conferences,
produce research publications, and appoint Senior Fellows in the field of War and Peace studies.
According to
Tarek Obaid (
1 ), Founder of EDOF, "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring
smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." It will achieve this by having three areas of concentration:
training, mentoring, and providing platforms for professional and expert seminars; building up the capacity of institutions and
civic groups; and working with independent and official partners to remove barriers to free expression, robust public debate and
open citizen engagement. "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing
the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world."
Nawaf Obaid is the Visiting Fellow for Intelligence & Defense Projects at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
He is also a weekly columnist for the pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat Newspaper.
He is currently the CEO of the Essam and Dalal Obaid Foundation (EDOF).
From 2004 to 2007, he was Special Advisor for Strategic Communications to
Prince Turki Al Faisal , while Prince Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom & Ireland, and then the United
States. And from 2007 to 2011, he worked with the Saudi Royal Court, where he was seconded as a Special Advisor to the Saudi Information
Minister. Most recently, he served as the Special Counselor to the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2011 to 2015.
Il 20 marzo alle ore 10:30 presso l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University, si è tenuto il convegno "Brexit: stepping
off a cliff or indipendence day?"
Il convegno determina il primo atto di una collaborazione italo-britannica post Brexit, ed è stato organizzato in occasione
della firma del Protocollo d'intesa tra l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University e la London School of Economics and Political
Science, tenutasi lo stesso giorno nella sede dell'università romana.
Sono intervenuti: Franco Frattini - Presidente del Corso in Studi Strategici e Scienze Diplomatiche e Presidente della SIOI,
Vincenzo Scotti - Presidente dell'Università
degli Studi Link Campus University, Michael Cox - Direttore della LSE IDEAS e Professore di Relazioni Internazionali presso la
LSE.
Prince
Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian
responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said
Prince Turki , who also served as his country's
envoy to Britain and the US.
... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of
the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador
to the United States.
Looks like Mueller has strong connections to CIA and according to Brennan is his personal friend. This glowing introduction by none
other then Brenner rises several questions. One is did CIA controlled Mueller during his tenure of FBI director.
The fact the Muller was in charge after 9/11 attacks rases additional questions.
Listening to this, I feel very confident that Mr. Mueller will be able to get to the very bottom of the Russian investigation.
I think he is probably three or more steps ahead of any tricks our "President" might try. This man is a head chess player.
Ash Pro
No wonder Trump and co are scared of this man. He is gonna take the whole thing down.
On Friday at the Aspen Security Forum former CIA director John Brennan said senior officials in the executive branch should refuse
the order if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller
(VERO BEACH, FL) Speaking on a panel to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer with former DNI chief James Clapper, John Brennan effectively
called for a coup against the president if he should give the order to fire the DOJ appointed investigator.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," Mr. Brennan
said . "I would just hope that this is not going to be
a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs
to be done for the good of the future.
"If he's fired by Mr. Trump, or is attempted to be fired by Mr. Trump, I hope, I really hope that our members of congress, our
elected representatives, will stand up and say enough is enough, and stop making apologies and excuses for things that are happening
that really flaunt, I think, our system of laws and government here," Mr. Brennan said.
The editorial staff of ZeroHedge, an influential global blog which covers politics, economics, and war from a libertarian perspective,
also concluded
that Mr. Brennan's statement was "effectively calling for a coup" should President Trump give the order to fire Mr. Mueller.
From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017, Robert Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7 Million of taxpayers' dollars. In seven
months, no solid evidence has been produced to prove that Pres. Trump colluded with the Russians to impact the elections. The
budget for Mueller's investigation was approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- 12.5.17 –"Mueller's Russia probe
spent nearly $7M in four months – May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017" – Fox News --
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/muellers-russia-probe-spent-nearly-7m-in-first-few-months.html
Now there's a face to go with the name of the biased FBI operative at the center of multiple probes and controversies dogging
the Trump administration.
Fox News has obtained a photo of Peter Strzok, the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against
President Trump. Strzok (pronounced "Struck"), was sacked by Mueller after electronic messages he reportedly sent to a colleague
emerged, but not before he played key roles in the probes swirling around Trump.
Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, oversaw the bureau's interviews with ousted
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, changed former FBI Director James Comey's early draft language about Hillary Clinton's actions
regarding her private email server from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and reportedly helped push the largely unverified
dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.
Strzok's messages were reportedly not only anti-Trump, but also pro-Hillary. That has raised the ire of critics because, prior
to joining Mueller's probe, he made edits to Comey's speech exonerating Hillary Clinton.
The language being edited was important because classified material that's been mishandled for "gross negligence" calls for criminal
consequences, analysts point out.
The wording change
came to light last month after newly reported memos to Congress showed that a May 2016 draft of Comey's statement closing out
the email investigation accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent." A June 2016 draft stated Clinton had
been "extremely careless."
The modified language was final when Comey announced in July 2016 that Clinton wouldn't face any charges in the email investigation.
A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically
sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General
is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that
Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with
Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community,
including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.
Key figure
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016,
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election
that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him
that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed
that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice
and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee
investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing
the House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since
the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the
anti-Trump texts to the House investigators
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended
to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress.
Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress
citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests
for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations
before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why
they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in
a statement.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British
spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared
already before the Senate panel.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on
the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence
investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.
"... FISA is an abomination. Let's get that out of the way. And since I don't believe there are any coincidences in U.S. or geo-politics, the releasing of the explosive four-page FISA memo after Congress reauthorized FISA is suspicious ..."
"... Former NSA analyst (traitor? hero?) turned security state gadfly Edward Snowden came out in favor of President Trump vetoing the FISA reauthorization now that the full extent of what the statute is used for is known to members of the House Intelligence Committee, who are rightly aghast. ..."
"... Someone leaked this memo to the House Intelligence Committee with the sole intention of giving President Trump the opportunity to do exactly what Snowden is arguing for. And well Trump should. ..."
"... This is the essence of draining the swamp. It is the essence of his war with the Shadow Government. If one makes the distinction between the Deep State and the Shadow Government, like former CIA officer Kevin Shipp does , then this falls right in line with Trump's goals in cleaning up the rot and corruption in the U.S. government. In a recent interview with Greg Hunter at USAWatchdog.com, ..."
"... Shipp explains, "I differentiate between the 'Deep State' and the shadow government. The shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that they act even without the knowledge of Congress. There are many things that they do with impunity. Then there is the 'Deep State,' which is the military industrial complex, all of the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power and greed that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen. So, they are connected, but they are really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be exposed. If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization." [emphasis mine] ..."
"... Trump's continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the media which is the tip of the Shadow Government's spear while strengthening the support of both the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing. ..."
"... So, Trump cozying up to the military, cutting a deal with the military-industrial complex (MIC) has the Deep State now incentivized to fight the Shadow Government for him. The tax cut bill, while a brilliant example of political knife-fighting, is fundamentally about shoring up the finances of the corporations that make up the MIC through the repatriation of foreign-earned income, lowering the corporate tax rate and stealing even more of the middle class back from the Democrats. ..."
FISA
is an abomination. Let's get that out of the way. And since I don't believe there are any
coincidences in U.S. or geo-politics, the releasing of the explosive four-page FISA memo after
Congress reauthorized FISA is suspicious.
Former NSA analyst (traitor? hero?) turned security state gadfly Edward Snowden came out in
favor of President Trump vetoing the FISA reauthorization now that the full extent of what the
statute is used for is known to members of the House Intelligence Committee, who are rightly
aghast.
Officials confirm there's a secret report showing abuses of spy law Congress voted to
reauthorize this week. If this memo had been known prior to the vote, FISA reauth would have
failed. These abuses must be made public, and @realDonaldTrump should send
the bill back with a veto. https://t.co/BEwJ9EyIq0
But, like I said, timing in these things is everything. And the timing on this leak is
important.
Someone leaked this memo to the House Intelligence Committee with the sole intention of
giving President Trump the opportunity to do exactly what Snowden is arguing for. And well Trump should.
This is the essence of draining the swamp. It is the essence of his war with the Shadow
Government. If one makes the distinction between the Deep State and the Shadow Government,
like former
CIA officer Kevin Shipp does , then this falls right in line with Trump's goals in cleaning
up the rot and corruption in the U.S. government. In a recent interview with Greg Hunter at
USAWatchdog.com,
Shipp explains, "I differentiate between the 'Deep State' and the shadow government. The
shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that
they act even without the knowledge of Congress. There are many things that they do with
impunity. Then there is the 'Deep State,' which is the military industrial complex, all of
the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power and greed
that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen. So, they are connected, but they are
really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that
is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be
exposed. If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization." [emphasis mine]
Court the Military Against the Spooks
And as I've talked about at length, I've felt from the moment Trump was elected he was going
to have to ally himself with the U.S. military to have any chance of surviving, let alone
achieve his political goals.
Trump's final campaign ad was a clarion call to action. It was a declaration of war against
both the Shadow Government and the Deep State. And it ensured that if he won, which he did,
they would immediately go to war with him.
And you don't declare war like this if you aren't prepared for the biggest knock-down,
drag-out street brawl of all time. If you aren't prepared for it, don't say it. And for the
past year we've been left wondering whether Trump was 1) prepared for it 2) capable of pulling
it off.
Trump's continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the
media which is the tip of the Shadow Government's spear while strengthening the support of both
the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy
the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing.
As a hard-core, jaded politico, I can tell you I never thought for a second he had the
ability to what he's already done. But, as the past few months have pointed out, the real power
in the world doesn't rest with the few thousand who manipulate the levers of power but the
billions who for years stood by and let them.
And those days of standing by are gone.
So, Trump cozying up to the military, cutting a deal with the military-industrial complex
(MIC) has the Deep State now incentivized to fight the Shadow Government for him. The tax cut
bill, while a brilliant example of political knife-fighting, is fundamentally about shoring up
the finances of the corporations that make up the MIC through the repatriation of
foreign-earned income, lowering the corporate tax rate and stealing even more of the middle
class back from the Democrats.
Trump had the right strategy from the beginning. Civil Wars turn on what the police and the
military do. They are instigated by and fanned by the spooks, but it is the soldiers and the
cops who decide the outcome.
And so here we are.
FISA, It's Everywhere You Don't Want it to Be
Trump has called the Democrats' and RINOs' bluff on DACA and chain-immigration as a
vote-buying scheme with zero political fallout. He's properly reframed the looming government
shutdown on their inability to stick to their original agreements.
His much-maligned Justice Department is now rolling up traitors associated with Uranium One,
pedophiles and human traffickers all over the country and preparing for a showdown with blue
state governors and attorney generals over "Sanctuary" grandstanding.
By leading the charge, he gave strength to the patriots within both the Shadow Government
and the Deep State organizations to leak the material needed to keep his campaign afloat.
And as each new thing drops at the most inopportune time for the political establishment
mentioned ad nauseum in that final campaign ad linked above, you have to wonder just how big
the revolt inside these organizations is.
Because, right here, right now, Trump can demand the release of this FISA memo and use it to
torpedo the very thing that allowed the entire "Russia Hacked Muh Election" nonsense and send
it back to the sh$&hole it was spawned from in the first place, the CIA and the DNC.
And if that means for a few months the FISA courts are inoperable while a new bill and a new
set of rules is drafted so be it.
* * *
Support work like this by subscribing to my Patreon Page where you can get access to the
Gold Goats 'n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.
The Justice Department confirmed this week that employees in Mueller's office are exempt
from the shutdown and can continue their work. His office is not funded through the regular
congressional appropriations process.
A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the
meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information
? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
Notable quotes:
"... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
"... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
"... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
"... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the
conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should
have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father
in the meeting "is zero."
When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom
he accused of having "lost his mind."
But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying
that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort.
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate.
He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.
," Bannon said in
a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election
.)
... ... ...
Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House
panel, told
CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic
at a minimum."
Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"
Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose
[senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul
Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all
denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me
or trade me."
He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster,
Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he
questioned Kushner's
maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also
declared
his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."
"... the recent influx of attack dog journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news, both of which have serious, negative implications. ..."
"... All the President's Men ..."
"... The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It" slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in office, not the poor wording choice. ..."
Journalists' role in the political process should be to serve as intermediaries between
politicians and the public. The average American does not have the means by which to get the
news directly from the White House and other bureaucrats. Therefore, there are reporters, who
exist to provide such information to the people. However, the recent influx of attack dog
journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news,
both of which have serious, negative implications.
Woodward and Bernstein, as portrayed in All the President's Men , should be the
heroes of every news reporter in the country. By tirelessly digging up the dirt on the
Watergate, they discovered a government scandal. The pair adhered to their journalistic duty of
reporting the details to the public, despite hesitation from others and a warning from Deep
Throat that their lives may be in danger. They did not cease their searching once they had
enough to publish a story; rather, they kept probing until they got to the bottom of things.
According to lecture, their investigative journalism is indicative of a shift from lap dog
journalism to watch dog journalism.
Around the 1990s, American journalism lost its watch dog affiliation. Today's reporters are
rarely incited by the whispers of a government cover-up. For example, it took at least eight
years for the public to learn that Iraqi detector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi lied about
weapons of mass destruction in an effort to influence Western war efforts (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41609536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/curveball-i-lied-about-wmd-hasten-iraq-war/#.UFzwiVGQTE0
). Reporters should not be expected to question every government decision. Nevertheless, when
the issue at hand is a war, they should be counted upon to look into why exactly one country
proposes going to war with another – reporting not only why the government is saying it
is time for war, but providing what evidence they are using to authorize their decision. This
is an enormous responsibility that is vital to our very democracy.
That is not to say that investigative journalism or watch dog reporting has died out (e.g.,
http://watchdog.org/about/ ). Rather,
their admirable tactics have been subsumed by the new news norm of non-news. In an effort to
attract an audience, countless news outlets have transitioned to offering non-news items as
news. For instance, the top story's headline on one of Tucson's local news station's websites
reads, "Donate hair this weekend to win tickets to "Disney on Ice." Another is, "Man jumps off
Bronx Zoo train, mauled by tiger." While a contest and a novel story might be interesting
enough for people to tune in, they are undoubtedly not the top stories of the day. One might
find the protesters' overtake of an Islamist group's headquarters in Benghazi more pressing,
especially considering the potential link to the recent attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya
(or perhaps Mitt Romney's tax release).
The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog
journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a
critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and
pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For
instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and
spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It"
slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his
policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what
his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the
comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in
office, not the poor wording choice.
The trend away from watch dog journalism toward attack dog journalism, as well as the warped
definition of what is considered news, have serious implications for the country as a whole.
The current nature of political news coverage can serve to place importance on non-issues,
inspire and perpetuate misinformation, and leaves out what is not easily accessible. By giving
so much attention to minor gaffes, rumors, and unimportant issues, the media make such items
salient to the public and communicate that they are important. This can lead to skewed
priorities, as people might find insignificant items to be much more relevant than they
actually should be. Additionally, attack dog journalists' mongering about Obama's birth
certificate led approximately 25% of the country to believe Obama was not born in the United
States – according to 2011 polls, administered two to three years after the rumor's
origin. Finally, acting like attack dogs rather than watch dogs prevents journalists from
investigating stories. Reporters might not act as politicians' lap dogs but by attacking rather
than digging, they fail as watch dogs.
Such a sociological shift in news norms and journalistic tendencies is difficult to reverse,
but not impossible. In All the President's Men , Woodward and Bernstein did not act
alone. While met with hesitation from most, a few people offered invaluable support, such as
their executive editor and Deep Throat. The four of them (Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, and
Deep Throat) prove that it does not take an army to reveal a scandal. Both the moral of the
film and the return to watch dog journalism is the belief that all it takes are a few people
impassioned by a desire to get the story and to get it right.
(Sabato's book is titled "Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American
Politics")
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.
Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too
for what it has been worth.
Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and
Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.
""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because
I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""
***
Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known
about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.
More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external
threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.
Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look
at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.
The empire is getting a bit tattered around the edges
by Justin Raimondo Posted on
January 17, 2018 January 16, 2018
While the population of Hawaii dove under manhole covers, and #TheResistance screeched that The Orange Monster had finally done
it and forced Kim Jong Un to nuke the island paradise, it took Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the levelheaded, and quite personable representative
from that state, to issue a statement countermanding the "take cover" message sent out by the military earlier.
Rep. Gabbard did this within minutes, thus avoiding a major panic with potentially dangerous consequences, while the Authorities
took nearly an hour to issue a retraction.
How did this happen? The Official Story is that "someone pushed the wrong button." As to the identity of this Someone, or the
consequences that have befallen him or her, we hear nary a word.
This bizarre incident underscores the utter absurdity and darkness of the permanent state of emergency which we live under.
For it turns out that there was no system in place capable of countermanding the emergency alert once it went out. A tacit understanding
of the reality behind our military strategy: it's a suicide pact.
It also underscores the Potemkin Village aura of what is routinely referred to as our National Security Establishment: in this
case, it amounted to some guy in Hawaii wearing flip flops and all too eager to go off duty and get back in the water after going
through the unending drill he'd complete hundreds, probably thousands of times before.
So who was the culprit, and what happened to him? The Hawaii authorities refuse to identify him – because "he would be a pariah."
Which is a military disciplinary system that has to be unique in all the world. The administrator in chief of the system, a Mr.
Miyagi, explained it
this way :
"Looking at the nature and cause of the error that led to those events, the deeper problem is not that someone made a mistake;
it is that we made it too easy for a simple mistake to have very serious consequences. The system should have been more robust,
and I will not let an individual pay for a systemic problem."
What about the individual architects of the system? You can be your bottom dollar none of them will bear any consequences for
almost starting World War III. Gee, I recall an incident that occurred on September 11, 2001, in which the "defenses" we'd spent
billions on simply did not function and thousands dies as a result – and not a single person was fired.
Inefficiency and outright incompetence are built into structures as large, unwieldy, and unresponsive as the American Empire,
and this is what the concept of decadence really entails: the slipshod slips in, the shiny surfaces get to looking a little ramshackle,
overconfidence and complacency infiltrate both leaders and led, and pretty soon you're the Austro-Hungarian Empire: big, garish,
unsustainable, and basically ready to fall to pieces.
Which is not to say that the Empire is really on its last legs and will fall of its own weight – although that's entirely possible.
Look at what happened to the Soviets. Yet the rulers – and inhabitants – of such empires always overestimate their strength and
endurance: they live inside the bubble of their own hubris.
That popping sound you hear may augur more than anybody bargained for
A SPECIAL NOTE : My apologies for the abbreviated column, but this is being written on the fly as I get ready to travel
to San Francisco to receive my fifth infusion of the anti-cancer drugs Keytruda and Alimta. I have to say I'm feeling a lot better
since the treatments started, but I still have a ways to go: I'll keep you posted.
The empire is getting a bit tattered around the edges
by Justin Raimondo Posted on
January 17, 2018 January 16, 2018
While the population of Hawaii dove under manhole covers, and #TheResistance screeched that The Orange Monster had finally done
it and forced Kim Jong Un to nuke the island paradise, it took Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the levelheaded, and quite personable representative
from that state, to issue a statement countermanding the "take cover" message sent out by the military earlier.
Rep. Gabbard did this within minutes, thus avoiding a major panic with potentially dangerous consequences, while the Authorities
took nearly an hour to issue a retraction.
How did this happen? The Official Story is that "someone pushed the wrong button." As to the identity of this Someone, or the
consequences that have befallen him or her, we hear nary a word.
This bizarre incident underscores the utter absurdity and darkness of the permanent state of emergency which we live under.
For it turns out that there was no system in place capable of countermanding the emergency alert once it went out. A tacit understanding
of the reality behind our military strategy: it's a suicide pact.
It also underscores the Potemkin Village aura of what is routinely referred to as our National Security Establishment: in this
case, it amounted to some guy in Hawaii wearing flip flops and all too eager to go off duty and get back in the water after going
through the unending drill he'd complete hundreds, probably thousands of times before.
So who was the culprit, and what happened to him? The Hawaii authorities refuse to identify him – because "he would be a pariah."
Which is a military disciplinary system that has to be unique in all the world. The administrator in chief of the system, a Mr.
Miyagi, explained it
this way :
"Looking at the nature and cause of the error that led to those events, the deeper problem is not that someone made a mistake;
it is that we made it too easy for a simple mistake to have very serious consequences. The system should have been more robust,
and I will not let an individual pay for a systemic problem."
What about the individual architects of the system? You can be your bottom dollar none of them will bear any consequences for
almost starting World War III. Gee, I recall an incident that occurred on September 11, 2001, in which the "defenses" we'd spent
billions on simply did not function and thousands dies as a result – and not a single person was fired.
Inefficiency and outright incompetence are built into structures as large, unwieldy, and unresponsive as the American Empire,
and this is what the concept of decadence really entails: the slipshod slips in, the shiny surfaces get to looking a little ramshackle,
overconfidence and complacency infiltrate both leaders and led, and pretty soon you're the Austro-Hungarian Empire: big, garish,
unsustainable, and basically ready to fall to pieces.
Which is not to say that the Empire is really on its last legs and will fall of its own weight – although that's entirely possible.
Look at what happened to the Soviets. Yet the rulers – and inhabitants – of such empires always overestimate their strength and
endurance: they live inside the bubble of their own hubris.
That popping sound you hear may augur more than anybody bargained for
A SPECIAL NOTE : My apologies for the abbreviated column, but this is being written on the fly as I get ready to travel
to San Francisco to receive my fifth infusion of the anti-cancer drugs Keytruda and Alimta. I have to say I'm feeling a lot better
since the treatments started, but I still have a ways to go: I'll keep you posted.
It is exactly as I told you. Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the DOJ, and the
Hillary campaign to overturn Donald Trump's election. We have treason committed at the highest
levels of the FBI and Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee.
If you believed one word of Russiagate, you now must laugh or cry at your incredible
gullibility.
This scandal should also bring down the presstitute media who have done the dirty work for
the conspiracy against Trump.
GOP Rep. Gaetz Calls on House to Release 'Important Intelligence Document' -- Goes to 'Very Foundations of Our
Democracy,' Involves FBI, DoJ and Trump
.
@mattgaetz
: "The
allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy and
they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion."
pic.twitter.com/kqjxp21GcA
18 Jan, 2018
18 Jan, 2018
Thursday on the Fox Business Network, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) teased an intelligence memo that he claimed went "to
the very foundations of democracy" and called on his colleagues in the House of Representatives to make the memo
public.
Gaetz told host Liz Claman the memo involved the FBI, the Department of Justice and President Donald Trump.
"The allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy,
and they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion," Gaetz said. "Unfortunately, I can not talk
about the specific facts contained within this memo. I can only share my observation -- that if the American people
knew what was happening if they saw the contents of this memo, a lot would become clear about the information that
I've been talking about the last several months. And so, I am calling on our leadership to hold a vote on the
floor of the House to make public the key contents of this intelligence memo regarding the FBI, the Department of
Justice and President Trump."
According to Gaetz, a vote could be held simultaneously with a continuing resolution vote that would make the
"critical allegations" in the document on the floor of the House of Representatives.
All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. tonight after a four-page memo detailing
extensive
FISA court abuse
was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The
contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could
lead to the
removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller's
special counsel investigation.
These sources say the report is "explosive," stating
they would not be surprised if it
leads to the end of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation
into President Trump
and his associates. -
Sara
Carter
A source close to the matter tells
Fox
News
that "the memo details the Intelligence Committee's oversight work for
the FBI and Justice,
including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance."
An
educated guess by anyone who's been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion
that the report reveals
extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the
Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team
during and after the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers who have seen the memo are calling for its immediate release, while the phrases
"explosive," "shocking," "troubling," and "alarming" have all been used in all sincerity. One
congressman even likened the report's details to KGB activity in Russia. "
It is so alarming
the American people have to see this,
" Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told
Fox News
. "
It's
troubling. It is shocking
," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "
Part of me wishes
that I didn't read it because I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in
this country that I call home and love so much.
"
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored
report available to the members.
"
The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document
available, so the public can see it,
" said a senior government official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. "
Once the public sees it, we
can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways
."
The government official said that after reading the document "
some of these people
should no longer be in the government.
" -
Sara Carter
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter's sentiment
that people might lose their job
if the memo is released:
"
I believe the consequence of its release will
be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice
," he
said, referencing DOJ officials
Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr
.
Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Gatetz (R-FL) said
not only will the release of this memo result in
DOJ firing, but "people will go to jail."
Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says "
Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are
devastating for the Dems
."
The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump
campaign,
according to a
story
published this month
. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016,
was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall
Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In
October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign
and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.
Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and
released to the public.
"
We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month
," stated a
congressional member, who asked not to be named. -
Sara Carter
Releasing the memo to the public would require a committee vote, a source told
Fox
, adding
that if approved,
it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House
within five days
.
Reactions from the citizenry have been on point:
... ... ....
Even WikiLeaks has joined the fray, offering a reward in Bitcoin to anyone who will share the memo:
Oddly, the Twitter account for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - @HPSCI - has
been mysteriously suspended.
Of all the recent developments in the ongoing investigation(s), this one is on the cusp of turning
into a genuine happening.
Emails
released Tuesday by Trump Jr. reveal that his friend Rob Goldstone pitched the meeting
based on the promise of damning information on Hillary Clinton that supposedly was being
offered by senior Russian government officials. On Monday, Mark
Corallo , a spokesman for President Trump's outside counsel, alleged that the meeting had
been set up under false pretenses and implied that Veselnitskaya's association with Fusion GPS
was relevant to the alleged deception.
"... "Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than stand before the grand jury." ..."
"... Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous." ..."
"... The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele. ..."
"... "The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained. ..."
"... "The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government, as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research [has] never been established as a crime." ..."
Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed to testify before a
grand jury, supposedly on alleged ties between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and
Russian actors. Brian Becker on Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear was joined by Joe Lauria,
a veteran journalist who has also worked for major newspapers in four countries, perhaps most
notably as the Wall Street Journal's correspondent to the United Nations.
"Mr. Bannon has fallen and I think he was the ideological force behind Trump,
particularly in relations with Russia," said Lauria. "It's interesting to know why did Trump
call for detente, and still seems to be pursuing detente, with Russia. Many people who believe
in Russiagate believe it's because he's somehow beholden to them or has been blackmailed or
whatever. But professor Jeffrey Summers with the University of Wisconsin wrote an interesting
piece where he said Bannon was the one who had impressed upon Trump that he should improve
relations with Russia so they can team up against Islamic extremism."
"Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being
mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the
intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the
story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than
stand before the grand jury."
Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the
first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump,
Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous."
"If you read the key quote in that book, the House Intelligence Committee wants to question
him about an allegation against Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. for treason. I find this
very curious. If Bannon wanted Trump to have better relations with Russia, it's curious that he
would roll out an accusation of treason. He's far from the only one to bring the charge against
Trump in this entire Russiagate fiasco, but if you look at treason, it's the only crime defined
in the US Constitution. It says clearly treason against the US consists only of assisting an
enemy of the US in a state of open hostility with us."
"Russia is not in open hostilities with the United States, no one would argue that. The idea
that Trump, Jr. has committed treason is ridiculous. I don't know why Bannon used [the term].
Clearly he was angry at Trump for being fired, I don't know if he was begging for his job back
as Trump tweeted," Lauria said.
The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting
between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection
with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele.
"If I could talk a second about that Don Jr meeting, there's a core issue in it over the
difference in opposition research and intelligence," Lauria said. "While Christopher Steele was
an MI-6 intelligence agent for Britain, he was working for a private company at the time. He
was hired by the Clinton campaign and the [Democratic National Committee] through Fusion GPS.
Glenn Simpson, of Fusion, who hired Steele directly, wrote in a New York Times editorial that
Steele produced intelligence memos. He was either lying or misleading the readers -- he has to
know the difference between them."
"The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then
by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's
also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always
what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting
dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained.
"The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government,
as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian
government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no
dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research
from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British
former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research
[has] never been established as a crime."
"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say
that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from
Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.
" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump
replied while Acosta continued to interject.
" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts
of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump
looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:
Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the
president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again
when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan
Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.
"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see
in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign
government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."
Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a
January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of
another reporter:
Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her
that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."
Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.
"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference
between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot
say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is
false."
"... Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia's attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition , complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even -- though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities -- the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. ..."
"... Administration officials said Mr. Putin had miscalculated and would pay a cost regardless of what the United States did, pointing to the impact on Russia's currency and markets. "What we see here are distinctly 19th- and 20th-century decisions made by President Putin to address problems," one of the officials said. "What he needs to understand is that in terms of his economy, he lives in the 21st-century world, an interdependent world." ..."
"... The dossier's claim that Putin talked about the "ideals-based international order" also rings false. Putin only ever refers to Western ideals when saying that Western countries' leaders are hypocrites for not adhering to them. ..."
"... The more straightforward explanation is that, knowing that this is opposition research, Steele and his sources provided information that rang true with what the client already believed and would want to hear. This is the first report in the series–in effect, a teaser trailer–and no consultant working on a monthly retainer is going to tell you in the first memo that his services aren't needed. If Steele had indicated that there was no dirt to investigate, the $15,000/mo. (as estimated by Vanity Fair ) contract wouldn't have lasted longer than a month or two. ..."
"... The dossier's use of the phraseology "Trump and his team" and "Trump team" and the like is confusing in reference to the pre-2016 campaign period. Other than his lawyer Michael Cohen, there's nothing I've seen to indicate that the other Trump campaign people mentioned by name in the dossier (Paul Manafort and Carter Page) knew Trump before 2016. By all appearances, the key members of Trump's team before 2016 were his children, and maybe his talent agent. ..."
"... It also seems out of character for Trump to have the foresight and planning that it would take to seek out intelligence on Hillary Clinton several years back. Several years ago, Trump and the Clintons were friends , and the Clintons attended Trump's wedding and Bill and Donald played golf together. ..."
"... Russians are very cautious about what they talk about, even amongst each other. Therefore, with the story about [sexual acts] in the Moscow Ritz Carlton, the idea you have managed to triple source it via an employee at the hotel, a serving FSB [Russian security service] officer, and the security officer at the hotel, who inevitably will be at least a former FSB or GRU [Russian intelligence agency] officer It just doesn't make sense. If such a thing had taken place, it would be a Russian state secret. ..."
"... Seems more likely that it's just a piece of "scuttlebutt" that Steele's sources, pressed to find anything juicy on Trump, saw in the newspaper or in a news search on Google or on Russian search engine Yandex . ..."
"... Whatever the truth of the matter, Page is clearly someone who was very keen to network with powerful Russians in 2016 and was not shy about leveraging his affiliation with the Trump campaign to do it. ..."
"... But at the same time, this would also mean Page was a loose cannon and a huge potential liability to the Trump campaign. Igor Sechin is, and was in July 2016, on the Specially Designated Nationals list of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. This means that it's a crime for any US citizen to do any business with Sechin personally (though not with Rosneft as a corporate entity). ..."
"... Page, by all appearances, is reckless and kind of an idiot . He had to have known that his activities (even if they were limited to just non-treasonous networking with Russians) carried a huge risk of blowback for Trump. He didn't care. Carter Page's willingness to toe the Russian line on foreign policy, publicly and on the record, goes beyond even what the most Russophile Western expats in Moscow say in private conversations. I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask why and how Carter Page came to be affiliated with the Trump campaign, why he visited Russia alone at least twice in 2016, and what contacts he's had with Russian officials (he definitely met with some of them, at least at the New Economic School graduation reception on Jul. 8, at which there were several senior Russian officials present and Carter Page was commencement speaker and an honored foreign guest). ..."
"... And why send him to give a public university commencement speech in which he rails against US foreign policy, ensuring wide media coverage? ..."
"... A meeting with a Trump adviser on the sidelines of such a noisy, high-profile trip–with both the Russian and foreign press speculating in real-time what the hell Page was doing in Moscow–seems like an extremely incautious setting for a meeting to discuss the most scandalous quid pro quo since the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. ..."
"... To sum up, I have serious doubts that a meeting took place as described. But I also think that Carter Page was–at the very least–trying to leverage his connection to Trump in Russia for personal gain at the very earliest opportunity he got. ..."
"... *This report doesn't have a date. However, the July 19 report is numbered "2016/94" and the July 26 report is numbered "2016/097" so it seems like this is where the report should go. ..."
"... This is the central allegation against the Trump campaign – that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to take actions aimed at defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The one thing that I'd add (or, rather, remind) is that by late July, the story of allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was in full swing . Manafort's history in the former Soviet Union was being widely reported . Carter Page, as mentioned above, had traveled to Moscow for unknown purposes a few weeks before, a trip that was covered in the Russian and US media. ..."
"... What I'd like to point out here -- in terms of the timing of the information in this report -- is that the DNC hacked e-mail dumps on WikiLeaks that led to Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning as head of the DNC happened on July 22, 2016 , and even before the WikiLeaks dumps the DNC had been attributing the hack to Russia. ..."
"... Since this report refers to the WikiLeaks dump of DNC e-mails that happened on July 22, even though it's undated we know that the report must have been made after that, as well as after the Republican National Convention that happened on July 18, as well as after reports had emerged that the Trump team had been behind a change in the Republican Party platform to remove a reference to providing lethal arms to Ukraine. The allegation made here closely tracks what was being reported in the media at the time. ..."
"... FBI director James Comey made a point of saying that US intelligence services were struck by how unusually noisy the Russians had been in their election interference, as if they wanted to be discovered. ..."
"... *The actual date on the report is "26 July 201 5 " (in the British style), but since it refers to events that happened as recently as June 2016, and based on the news reports that said that Steele was hired in June 2016, I assume this is just a typo. ..."
"... This strains credulity. So there's a single Russian emigre who not only knows the internal mood of the Trump team, but also knows what the Russian leadership is thinking (about a matter that, remember, according to the dossier is top-top secret)? And I know what you're thinking – well, if they were in collusion, of course there's such a person. But who is it? You'd think that there couldn't be too many people who fit this description – being a Russian emigre, close to the Trump campaign, and also with top-level Kremlin access. ..."
"... This is described as someone's opinion so it's hard to argue against or fact-check. I will note that the e-mails from John Podesta's Gmail account started being published by WikiLeaks in October 2016, and since the e-mails run only through March 2016, and given that WikiLeaks usually takes time to prepare for a dump, whoever broke into Podesta's Gmail account was likely very active at the time when this report was dated. If you believe that it was the Russians who broke into Podesta's Gmail account, then this intelligence report is precisely wrong. Eleven days after this report, on August 10, Guccifer 2.0 published the personal contact info of 200 prominent Democrats, so if you believe that Guccifer 2.0 was the alter ego of the Russian government, this intelligence report was precisely wrong. ..."
"... This report is dated precisely one week before Sergei Ivanov was dismissed from his post and moved to a less political role as Putin's special envoy for the environment. If you want to be charitable to the dossier, you could say that this report foreshadows Ivanov's dismissal (later reports say that the dismissal was unexpected). But on the other hand, clearly Ivanov's move to his new position was already in the works on Aug. 5 – it was reported that rumors of the move had been circulating since spring. Why hadn't Steele's "well-placed and established" sources heard those rumors? ..."
"... Peskov is widely considered not to be an independent political player in the Kremlin. He is seen as being a sort of assistant to Putin in addition to his role as spokesman, but someone who likes the spotlight, celebrity and glamour a bit too much. ..."
"... About Turkey: Peskov started his career in the Russian diplomatic corps as a Turkey specialist and worked as the third secretary of the Russian embassy in Ankara in the early '90s. He speaks Turkish. So hearing him mentioned in connection with Turkey makes some sense. ..."
"... Russia was reported to have given advance warning to Erdogan, based on intelligence intercepts, that a coup was being planned. Peskov denied these reports. Just a few weeks earlier, Turkish president Erdogan had apologized to Putin for shooting down a Russian fighter jet on the Turkey-Syria border and Medvedev had announced that Russia would begin lifting the sanctions it had imposed on Turkey in connection with the incident. ..."
"... So in early August 2016 it seemed like Russia-Turkey relations had turned a corner and were being handled quite well – as a matter of fact, over the course of 2016, Turkey went from being the US's partner on Syria to being in a de facto alliance with Russia . The turnaround is stunning – in January 2016 , the US and Turkey were conducting joint operations in Syria, and in January 2017 , Turkey and Russia were conducting joint operations in Syria. Whoever was handling Russia's relationship with Turkey, they did a good job by any objective measure – hard to see how this can be considered "botched." ..."
"... Around this time , there was a lot of speculation in the media about whether Trump would drop out of the race. It's remarkable how the "intelligence" in the dossier follows what was being reported in the news at the time. ..."
"... Ivanov was leading the operation to "hack the US election" literally days before he was fired? That doesn't make sense. ..."
"... This ethnic Russian associate of Trump – who is it? Is it Sergei Millian ? He's supposed to be Source D , a "close associate" of Trump, but he might also be the ethnic Russian (even though Millian is technically from Belarus) associate referred to here and elsewhere. ..."
"... Here we have Carter Page telling the maybe-Millian about his collusion with Russian intelligence on the DNC leaks. Do people really go around confessing crimes willy-nilly? According to this dossier, they do. ..."
"... The big Trump campaign news of August 2016, of course, was that on Aug. 17, Steve Bannon replaced Paul Manafort as head of Trump's campaign. This news was absolutely huge. If Steele's source would have said on Aug. 9 that Bannon would be replacing Manafort, or even that a change of campaign management was being discussed, then in retrospect, you would have to admit that this source was well-informed. But if on Aug. 9, this source was talking about "a rethink and a likely change of tactics," s/he either was not very close to the campaign or was holding back on Steele. ..."
"... So this associate was so close to the campaign that he was privy to all of the team's discussions about collusion with the Russians, but he didn't know that Steve Bannon was about to be named as the new campaign head? ..."
"... But my main beef with this paragraph involves the phrase "kick-back payments to MANAFORT as alleged." Manafort wasn't accused of receiving kickbacks (as I'll explain in a moment, that doesn't make any sense) – he was accused of being paid cash by Yanukovich's political party in an off-the-books scheme, and this was widely covered in the press after the story broke in The New York Times on Aug. 14. ..."
"... That's not a kickback. A kickback is when a government or other organization is offering a contract to an outside contractor, typically in a competitive bid situation, and then when the winner is selected the winner kicks back some of the contract proceeds to the person who manipulated the contract selection process. ..."
"... So if there were kickbacks involved in Manafort's work for Yanukovich, it would've been Manafort kicking back money to Yanukovich, not the other way around. ..."
"... However, what Manafort was actually accused of in the press -- receiving money not properly accounted for under Ukrainian law -- is a crime under American law only if he received income that he didn't report to the IRS, or engaged in money laundering, even if an indisputable "documentary trail" emerges. ..."
"... It is difficult to imagine Putin and his inner circle being fearful of political vulnerability and embarrassment in connection with Manafort. As even Julia Ioffe–a journalist opposed to both Trump and Putin–conceded i n a recent article i n The Atlantic , the political consulting work that Manafort did for Yanukovich and others in the former Soviet Union was hardly unusual. ..."
"... Just to point out – there's a certain implication in the dossier's description of Manafort's work for Yanukovich that this work was "exposed" during the 2016 US election campaign. That's not the case. Manafort just wasn't a household name before 2016, so no one cared. He was just another American political consultant who was more than happy to offer his services to unsavory foreign politicians, like Sandra Bullock's character in "Our Brand is Crisis." ..."
"... Manafort's work for Yanukovich was public knowledge in Ukraine as early as 2005, and was reported actively in the Ukrainian press. By 2016 it was part of Manafort's resume. ..."
"... The report on the Alfa Group (yes, Steele spelled it wrong) is actually the only place in the whole dossier where the dossier was ahead of the mainstream news cycle. The report doesn't give any context for why a special report on the relationship between Putin and Alfa was requested. But on Halloween 2016, the story broke that in Spring and Summer 2016, white-hat hackers had been tracking electronic communications between Trump's e-mail server and an Alfa-Bank (part of Alfa Group) computer in Russia, posting their findings on Reddit – so it was in the public domain but you really had to be paying attention (as apparently a few New York Times journalists and probably the FBI were). I doubt that Steele or his sources were following hacker forums on Reddit. ..."
"... So here's what I think happened: by September, Steele's ultimate client was the Democrats. Someone tipped off the Hillary Clinton campaign (and/or the Clinton-aligned group that was paying Fusion GPS / Orbis) about the electronic link to Alfa, and then Orbis (Steele) got a call asking for an intelligence report on Alfa Group's connections to Putin, without saying why. However, since it was on the phone, the Orbis person heard it as "Alpha Group," and their Russian sources didn't correct the error. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg from 1992 to 1996 . In August 1996 Putin moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow to be Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Directorate (Yeltsin was president at the time, of course). He needed a new job because his boss, St. Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak , lost his re-election bid. ..."
"... Alfa-Bank was a direct competitor to Khodorkovsky's Bank Menatep (a subsidiary of Rosprom) at the time. So there's no way Fridman and Aven used Govorun to deliver cash to Putin when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. The dates don't line up. There was an 8-month gap after Putin left St. Petersburg and before Govorun started working at Alfa. ..."
"... How could Steele's sources have made this mistake? Because Govorun's Wikipedia page omits his time at Rosprom, and makes it look like Govorun worked at Alfa-Bank from 1993 to 2000. This is why you don't prepare your report based on Wikipedia, kids! ..."
"... Or if Steele was feeling particularly lazy, he could've gone to Trump's Twitter feed, where Trump proudly told his millions of followers that he'd just spent the weekend with Aras Agalarov and that he wanted to do more business with him. Maybe in Steele's world, being "well-placed" to hear intel about Trump's connections with Russian businesspeople means reading Donald Trump's tweets? ..."
"... There's no other word but "fraud" to describe an "intelligence report" that tries to make it look like the connection between Trump and the Agalarov family is some kind of inside information that you'd need "well-placed sources" to obtain. It took some serious balls for Steele to present it that way, since all anyone would have to do is Google the names mentioned in the report and it would be instantly clear that the intelligence was worthless. ..."
"... Hmm. This is the intelligence that Hillary's people were getting less than one month from Election Day. Intelligence that they paid for. Makes you feel sorry for her; I strongly suspect she was being conned with these reports. ..."
"... In December 2016, Rosneft did indeed sell 19.5% of its shares to two investors using a complicated financing structure. Some have pointed to this as an example where the dossier correctly predicted something would happen. However, the sale of 19.5% of Rosneft to an investor was part of Russia's privatization plan for 2016, which the Russian government announced in December 2015 , and the timeline for the privatization (referring to the 19.5% figure) was updated throughout the year . Anyone who was following Russian business news in 2016 knew that Rosneft was planning to sell 19.5% to an investor that year. ..."
"... Sucks to be Michael Cohen! Unless the dossier is true, he should sue for libel. ..."
"... Sechin is a very big deal in Russia, and a total badass that you don't want to mess with. He is an intimidating guy who is as serious as a heart attack. Carter Page is a dumbass. But the account of this conversation makes it sound like Page was running the meeting like a seasoned pro, leaving Sechin hanging, keeping things vague and noncommittal. I, on the other hand, think that Sechin would never bother meeting with a nobody like Carter Page to discuss something as consequential as billion-dollar oil deals and international relations unless Page had made his bona fides abundantly clear. ..."
"... "Unexpectedly." This looks suspiciously like ass-covering as to why Steele's earlier reports dated mere days before Ivanov's dismissal, containing statements attributed directly to Ivanov, made no mention that these were his last days on the job. ..."
"... Most political observers believed at the time that it was Bernie Sanders, not Russia, who pushed Hillary Clinton away from supporting TPP. This is because Bernie Sanders said openly that he was pressuring Hillary to drop support for TPP. Strangely, the only place where the "veterans' pensions ruse" was ever reported was in the Steele dossier, and the media haven't been tipped off to it to this day. Dodged a bullet! Remember, this is after Putin had supposedly directly ordered all Kremlin insiders, all of whom are tried-and-true Putin loyalists, not to talk about these matters even in private. ..."
"... Steele's team has made the bold decision to misspell Paul Manafort's name as MANNAFORT (Mannafort from heaven?) throughout this report. ..."
"... Gubarev sued BuzzFeed and its editor-in-chief for libel and slander and, lacking any basis other than the dossier itself for these allegations, BuzzFeed blacked out the identifying information. ..."
"... This is quite a cinematic portrayal of hacking. The implication seems to be that there were teams of hackers in a room somewhere and they were ordered to "stand down." Is that how hacking works? Especially in this case, where the hacking that resulted in the 2016 DNC and Podesta leaks had taken place several months before this alleged meeting? This also seems to contradict the declassified US intelligence community findings that said that the hacks were done by Russian government hacker teams called "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" that were working for the GRU, a Russian intelligence agency that isn't mentioned once in the dossier. The Romanian angle apparently refers t o Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be Romanian but was also believed to be a Russian intelligence agency alter ego only pretending to be Romanian. If these were Russian government hackers, why would they be ordered to cross international borders and "lay low" in Bulgaria, a member of NATO? ..."
"... Also, given that Russia allegedly had huge wins in their 2016 election meddling, why would they be so stingy as to demand that Trump pay his share for the hacking? Especially if they were so concerned about covering their tracks? This only would implicate the Trump campaign and create a paper trail leading directly to Trump transition team members in the United States, plus they would be involving themselves in a criminal conspiracy to violate US money laundering laws, RICO and the like. ..."
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said it was "wild" that Trump's son was being
blamed for speaking with a Russian attorney. Lavrov – who met Trump last week at the G20
summit in Hamburg, together with Vladimir Putin – said he knew nothing of the meeting
with the lawyer. Serious people were trying to "make a mountain out of a molehill", Lavrov
said.
In the emails, Goldstone said he made contact with Trump Jr at the behest of the
Russian-Azeri businessman Aras Agalarov and Aglaravov's pop-star son, Emin. The Agalarovs
hosted Trump when he visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe beauty pageant.
On Wednesday, Aras Agalarov claimed the story was invented. "I think this is some sort of
fiction. I don't know who is making it up," he told Russia's Business FM radio station, adding:
"What has Hillary Clinton got to do with anything? I don't know."
It would be interesting if they get Wolff to testify too ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday. ..."
"... the NYT reports that Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia. ..."
"... After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr. Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right website Breitbart News. ..."
"... The experts also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators. ..."
"... Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer every question. ..."
"... Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen. ..."
"... Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been. ..."
"... Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. ..."
"... So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Grand Inquisitor Mueller, drowning in a sea of DEMOCRAT Russian collusion, subpoenas...Bannon...lol. ..."
"... How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? ..."
"... First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started. ..."
"... In his emails to Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." ..."
"... If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the meeting. ..."
Update:Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel
Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday.
The bad news for Steve Bannon just keeps on coming.
Not long after Bannon was bounced from Breitbart following his feud with Trump
over his comments in Michael Wolff's book, moments ago the
NYT reports
that
Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller
to testify before a grand
jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia.
And the reason why stocks dipped modestly and the VIX bounced on the news, is that the subpoena marks the first time Mueller is
known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump's inner circle.
After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr.
Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right
website Breitbart News.
Mueller reportedly issued the subpoena after Mr. Bannon was quoted in a new book criticizing Mr. Trump, saying that Donald
Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with Russians was "treasonous" and predicting that the special counsel investigation would ultimately center
on money laundering.
According to the NYT, the subpoena could be a negotiating tactic:
Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned
by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel's offices in Washington, according to the person, who would
not be named discussing the case.
But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen
administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday Bannon was testifying behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating
Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The NYT quotes legal experts who said
the subpoena could be a sign that the investigation was intensifying, while others
said it may simply have been a negotiating tactic to persuade Mr. Bannon to cooperate with the investigation.
The experts
also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite
Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators.
Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses
do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning
or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer
every question.
The news will hardly come as a surprise to Trump: "the president appeared to ease his anger toward Mr. Bannon at the end of last
week. When asked in an interview with The Wall Street Journal whether his break with Mr. Bannon was "permanent," the president replied,
"I don't know what the word 'permanent' means.""
As a result, "people close to Mr. Bannon took the president's comments as a signal that Mr. Trump was aware that his fired
strategist would soon be contacted by investigators."
Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen.
Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own
corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the
Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been.
Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with
this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. Meanwhile mountains of evidence
being ignored on Comey, Clinton, Lynch
How does a probe "intensify"? Does it mean they discuss things in louder voices?
Wear more colorful clothing? Increase the office lighting brightness?
What I wish would "intensify" is the brainpower of journalists.
Oh . . . and "Hillary" has two l's. Like "hell" has two l's.
They think Bannon is at odds with Trump and will roll over on him.
Must.Get.Moar.Popcorn.
This episode is about to start...
Mike Masr • Jan 16, 2018 1:49 PM Permalink
So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We
look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world.
How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? Washington
Gov is a total waste.....beyond repair I would say. From that Idiot Black
Chick who wears the Cowboy hats like a Clown from the Circus, to the 84
fucking year old senile Bitch Feinstein......to waste of time and money.
This Country is lost.
First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well
publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book
sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this
whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started.
Second, is Bannon that petty or does he
see the bigger picture?
In his
emails
to
Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had
damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. replied to
Goldstone in one email.
Bannon doesn't have to say a word. Trump Jr. stated he loved the idea of Russian Government
support. Bannon is right. Jr.'s intent was treasonous-not to be confused with actually
committing treason.
If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a
child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the
meeting.
Watch A Sitting Congresswoman Shred The MSM Narrative In Under A Minute
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/15/2018 - 16:34 155 SHARES
Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared on multiple Sunday news shows a day after her
state's false ICBM
emergency alert sent the islands into a tense 40 minutes of panic before it was revealed to
be a message sent in error, where she slammed the mainstream media's reporting on the North
Korean nuclear threat, saying , "We've got to
understand that North Korea is holding onto these nuclear weapons because they think it is
their only protection from the United States coming in and doing to them what the United States
has done to so many countries throughout history."
She further called for Trump to hold direct talks with Kim Jong Un in order to prevent the
real thing from ever happening.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Gabbard is an Army reserve officer who previously served two tours
in the Middle East, including in Iraq. Image via the Ron Paul Institute
On Saturday Gabbard had
immediately criticized President Trump for mishandling North Korea, taking to MSNBC to
proclaim that "our leaders have failed us. Donald Trump is taking too long... he's not taking
this [nuclear] threat seriously..." During Sunday interviews she elaborated on a plan of
action, advising
Trump to enter talks with Pyongyang which should "happen without preconditions" and that Trump
should "sit across the table from Kim Jong Un" in order stamp out the climate of fear which
contributed to the "unacceptable" alert issued on Saturday.
"We've got to get to the underlying issue here of why are the people of Hawaii and this
country facing a nuclear threat coming from North Korea today, and what is this President doing
urgently to eliminate that threat?" Gabbard said on
CNN's State of the Union. She added that Pyongyang sees its nuclear weapons program as "the
only deterrent against the U.S. coming in and overthrowing their regime there " after decades
of the US exhibiting a pattern of regime change when dealing with rogue states, which she said
makes setting up preconditions for talks a self-defeating step.
And concerning the potential for an "unintentional" nuclear war, Gabbard said, "It's not
just the President making a decision to launch a nuclear weapon . It's these kinds of mistakes
that we have seen happen in the past that bring us to this brink of nuclear war that could be
unintentional."
The Hawaii lawmaker, who has garnered a lot of attention over her non-interventionist stance
on Syria while angering establishment pundits for doing things like visiting
Damascus last year on a fact-finding mission, left ABC's George Stephanopoulos visibly
flustered during an
interview on Sunday's "This Week" . She said:
We know that North Korea has these nuclear weapons because they see how the United States
in Libya for example guaranteed Gadaffi - 'we're not going to go after you, you should get
rid of your nuclear weapons.' He did, then we went and led an attack that toppled Gaddafi,
launching Libya into chaos that we are still seeing the results of today. North Korea sees
what we did in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, with those false reports of weapons of mass
destruction. And now seeing in Iran how President Trump is decertifying a nuclear deal that
prevented Iran from developing their nuclear weapons, threatening the very existence and the
agreement that was made.
At this point an incredulous Stephanopoulos stopped the Congresswoman and asked, " Was it a
mistake for the United States to take out Gaddafi and Hussein ?" Gabbard responded firmly with,
"It was, absolutely." Apparently this was enough to end the interview as a presumably shocked
Stephanopoulos had no response at that point.
For those unfamiliar, Gabbard is an Army reserve officer who previously served two tours in
the Middle East, including in Iraq, and has been an outspoken critic of regime change and
Washington's interventionist foreign policy.
"... What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and 400,000 American soldiers died World War II. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the worst they have ever felt. ..."
I saw someone refer to the Trump Presidency as "possibly the darkest time in American
history." I've heard some iteration of that many times from people still in a frenzy over the
Trump Administration.
I'm not a big Trump fan. I wasn't a big Obama fan either. But their presence in office did
not and does not hang over my life like a dark cloud. They really aren't that important.
Yes, they have the ability to make life more difficult for many. It is unfortunate that any
politicians have that much control over our day to day lives.
But the darkest time in American history ?
What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or
maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and
400,000 American soldiers died World War II.
For Japanese Americans, FDR's
presidency was likely a darker time, as they sat in detainment facilities. Their crime was
having Japanese ancestors.
In 1918 the Spanish Flu swept across the globe killing at least 20 million people worldwide,
675,000 Americans. At the same time, soldiers were coming home from WWI blinded by chemicals
and mutilated by bombs.
And that is just going back one century. American history also includes the Civil War,
slavery, and
the Whiskey Rebellion .
Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor
student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the
worst they have ever felt.
... ... ...
Look at where it left the global
warming alarmists . They wanted to reduce pollution, which is a noble cause. But they lied
about the goals, they lied about the causes, and they exaggerated the timetable. It's the
classic boy who cried wolf.
... ... ...
I used to be paranoid about the government. Obviously, some of that paranoia is well
founded. They do monitor communications and
disrupt online discourse . They do violate
rights . They are oppressive
in many ways.
While Trump was emasculated after just three months of his presidency, the reality is that Trump does not matter. It is
the deep state that controls the Us foreign policy...
Over the weekend, the people of
Hawaii were temporarily terrorized by a notification sent to their mobile phones that a ballistic
missile was headed straight for them
and they needed to seek shelter immediately. They were
not notified that it was a false alarm
for
38 minutes
, despite its reportedly being a simple human error triggered by an employee who "pushed
the wrong button".
Many who are less trusting of official CNN narratives when it comes to the US power establishment
have been
voicing skepticism
of this explanation,
finding the timing highly suspect given that the Trump administration
just caused international controversy by
giving the okay
for a $133 million sale of an anti-ballistic missile system to Japan
. A
sale which,
according to Russia,
violates international ballistic missile treaties and will put a strain on
Moscow's relationship with Tokyo.
The general idea is that this deal has a lot less to do with the threat posed by North
Korea, its ostensible object, and a lot more to do with the
Russia-China
tandem
that the US power establishment is continually working to undermine.
Placing an
anti-ballistic missile system in the hands of a US ally right on the east edge of Asia weakens the
effectiveness of
mutually assured
destruction (MAD)
, the understanding that if any nation launches a nuclear attack on another
nuclear-armed country there will be full-scale retaliation and both countries will be destroyed. If
some American officials get it into their heads that their country's rivals can be taken out via
nuclear strikes and any retaliatory strikes nullified via missile defense systems, MAD is no longer a
deterrent to this and we're looking at potentially billions of deaths and possible planetary
extinction.
Regardless of whether the false alarm was a psyop designed to manufacture support for the
anti-ballistic missile sale or a genuine human error, the fact remains that the deal itself is
undeniably a move taken by the Trump administration against the will and interests of the Kremlin.
This is just the latest in a string of maneuvers against Russia that have been made by this
administration, despite Trump's continued outward assurances that he wants to improve relations with
Moscow. As is so often the case, a US president is saying one thing and doing something very
different.
And it completely kills the Russiagate narrative.
Just a few days ago Russiagaters were having yet another "BOOM! We got him!" social media
parade
about
an article
from the
Clinton-directed
Daily
Beast, claiming that a senior national security aide within the Trump administration had suggested
scaling down the US troop presence along Russia's border, a dangerous escalation which all peace
advocates support eliminating. In the first sentence of the article's second paragraph, the author
Spencer Ackerman acknowledges that "the proposal was ultimately not adopted."
Huh?
So President Trump, alleged to have been groomed early and at great expense by the
Kremlin in anticipation of a presidential victory nobody else imagined possible at that time, was
pitched a recommendation to scale down new cold war escalations with Russia... and he refused?
That's how you're starting your article about the "return on Russia's election-time investment in
President Trump"?
Russiagate is so weird.
You need to plug yourself into Louise Mensch and
Rachel Maddow ramblings so extensively that you can contort your sense of reason to the point where it
looks perfectly rational to believe that Putin was omniscient enough to know that Trump could defeat
all primary opponents and take the fight to the heir apparent Hillary Clinton back when virtually no
one else imagined such a thing was possible, recruited his team reportedly at the
cost of billions of dollars
, poured all kinds of intel and resources into ensuring Trump's
election using hackers and bots to influence American opinion, only to get a US president who is, when
it comes to facts in evidence, already just a year into his administration demonstrably more hawkish
towards Russia than his predecessor was.
Again: huh?
Nobody wants to think about this because it doesn't fit in with America's stale partisan models;
Democrats would have to admit that their best shot at getting a rival president impeached
is pure gibberish, and Trump supporters would have to acknowledge that their swamp-draining populist
hero is actually just one more corrupt globalist neocon like his predecessors.
But when
it comes to actual facts in evidence, that's exactly what we're looking at.
Over and over and over again this alleged Russian asset has been choosing to undermine
Moscow instead of advancing its interests.
He approved the sale of arms to Ukraine, a
move loudly
encouraged by DC
neocons
which
Obama refused to do
because of the dangerous tensions it would inflame with Russia. His
administration forced
first RT
and
now Sputnik
to register as foreign agents,
expanded NATO
with the addition of
Montenegro, assigning
established Russia hawk
Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine,
shutting
down a Russian consulate
in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats as part of continued
back-and-forth hostile diplomatic exchanges, and
signing the Russian
sanctions bill
despite loud protests from Moscow. If he is indeed an expensive Russian asset, then
Russia got ripped off.
The one area Russiagaters can claim Trump hasn't gone against Russian interests is in Syria, where
the administration has cooperated with Putin in fighting terrorist forces. Or at least, they would
have been able to make that argument
had Obama not been in favor of it as well
. If Syria proves Trump is a Putin puppet, then the White
House must have been offering a two-for-one deal, because they bought Obama as well.
Russiagaters can claim "Well, Trump colluded with Russia, but because we're putting
political pressure on him not to align with Putin he isn't able to do anything to advance Moscow's
interests."
Okay, but what's the charge, then? That Russia bought Trump, and accomplished
absolutely nothing other than bringing new sanctions and cold war escalations down upon itself? Again,
the Steele dossier upon which the collusion narrative is based alleges that Trump was recruited at
great expense long before anyone in the US thought of him as a serious presidential contender. We're
expected to believe that Putin was psychic enough to know Trump could win with enough confidence to
invest accordingly, but not psychic enough to know that collusion and election meddling could be
detected by America's sprawling surveillance networks and cause backlash, sanctions and escalations?
No part of any of this makes any sense at all. If you can see past the stupid corporate
media-fed filters of Trump_vs_deep_state and anti-Trump_vs_deep_state enough to look at what's actually happening, the
collusion narrative is nonsense on its face.
Maybe the false missile alarm wasn't a psyop, but Russiagate definitely is. America's unelected
power establishment had a plan to manufacture support for new escalations to hobble the Russia-China
tandem regardless of who won the 2016 presidential election, and since their prefered candidate didn't
win they've been employing what is surely the most extensive single psychological operation ever
performed in human history.
And it's working so far. Sure will cause a lot of problems for them if people start waking up to
it, though.
"No part of this makes any sense"...author is a fucking retard. It makes perfect sense when
you realize that the Democrats are traitorous greedy deranged lunatics who have disconnected
from reality.
Sanctions must be placed on the US immediately. Put all US Nationals on Foreign Soil under
House/Base-Arrest, in particular, the Real Psychotic Banker/MIC/Neocon Types. Then Close their
Internment/Training Camps, cutting off their WMD Supply Routes and hence, their ability to form
Militias for Regime Change purposes.
article is bullshit.... If Trump even thinks about cooperating with RUSSIA he is "completely a
russian agent" if he tries to sabotage Russia then he is "totally being played and is a deep
state play-along"
he can't win. like in 90% of all the press............. Trump is hated
because he is against the Deep STate.
I always go with the exact opposite of what the mainstream says. That is , more often than
not, the closest thing to the truth.
Deneen argues that [neo]liberal democracy has betrayed its promises. It was supposed to
foster equality, but it has led to great inequality and a new aristocracy. It was supposed to
give average people control over government, but average people feel alienated from government.
It was supposed to foster liberty, but it creates a degraded popular culture in which consumers
become slave to their appetites.
Many young people feel trapped in a system they have no faith in. Deneen quotes one of his
students: "Because we view humanity -- and thus its institutions -- as corrupt and selfish, the
only person we can rely upon is our self. The only way we can avoid failure, being let down,
and ultimately succumbing to the chaotic world around us, therefore, is to have the means
(financial security) to rely only upon ourselves."
... ... ...
When communism and fascism failed in the 20th century, this version of [neo]liberalism
seemed triumphant. But it was a Pyrrhic victory, Deneen argues.
[Neo]Liberalism claims to be neutral but it's really anti-culture. It detaches people from
nature, community, tradition and place. It detaches people from time. "Gratitude to the past
and obligations to the future are replaced by a nearly universal pursuit of immediate
gratification."
Once family and local community erode and social norms dissolve, individuals are left naked
and unprotected. They seek solace in the state. They toggle between impersonal systems:
globalized capitalism and the distant state. As the social order decays, people grasp for the
security of authoritarianism. " A signal feature of modern totalitarianism was that it
arose and came to power through the discontents of people's isolation and loneliness ," he
observes.
By default I block Google and its octopus of websites as third party sites on websites I
visit. This list includes doubleclick.net, googlesyndication.com, google-analytics.com,
googleusercontent.com, googleadservices.com, googlecode.com, gmail.com, gstatic.com,
googletagmanager.com and, yes, googleapis.com.
When you do this you find that a lot of websites stop working, and proves how google (and
its intelligence agency patrons) are able to egregiously violate your privacy and track you
all over the internet (in addition to whatever tracking your or your friends' Android devices
do).
Unfortunately this site uses googleapis.com for its comment submission. Why? There are
countless ways to activate a "Reply" button without requiring Big Brother Google to monitor
the event.
Please re-consider your reliance on Google to provide minor web features (new comment
submission works with googleapis.com disabled but it is not possible to reply to another
comment as the three options – Reply, Agree/Disagree/etc. and This Commenter links
– are all non-functional without permitting Google spying).
"... I view Trump as a failing would be reformer. I have already stated on this site that Trump's bid to enter the reformers club is pretty much hampered by his reaching power without having a strong third party behind him. He is bound by the diktats of the deep state and the most he can manage is to sabotage the system through guile. His mission is truly impossible. ..."
"... Gorbachov was another failed reformer who nevertheless managed to destroy the old system but his victory was worse than a phyrric one as he moved the situation from a bad system to total chaos of the uncreative destruction type as the Soviet Union morphed into oligarchic Russia. ..."
"... The US could have had a visionary reformer in JFK but unfortunately he was prematurely decommissioned by the deep state but Trump is light years behind JFK in intellect and articulation. Overall I would stick to Gerald Celente's definition of the political establishment as cowards, fools, freaks and liars, a fact that is hard to swallow but true nonetheless. ..."
I view Trump as a failing would be reformer. I have already stated on this site that
Trump's bid to enter the reformers club is pretty much hampered by his reaching power without
having a strong third party behind him. He is bound by the diktats of the deep state and the
most he can manage is to sabotage the system through guile. His mission is truly impossible.
Gorbachov was another failed reformer who nevertheless managed to destroy the old system but
his victory was worse than a phyrric one as he moved the situation from a bad system to total
chaos of the uncreative destruction type as the Soviet Union morphed into oligarchic
Russia.
Truly, the only 20th century impressive reformer, notwithstanding the controversy
surrounding his name, was Adolf Hitler. He was guided by a vision and after he cumulated many
successes started to act on intuition bypassing the guidance of his party and state
apparatus, both the civil and the military one, which led him to commit some grave strategic
errors that proved finally to be his undoing. Here I repeat what I have already stated on
this site that Hitler came to power within weeks from FDR's ascendency, but Hitler managed to
do in two years what FDR failed to do in six years of the New Deal with German unemployment
falling from 25% under the Weimar Republic to 3%. Yet despite his successes, he did fight the
recalcitrance of the bureaucracy by relying on the SA and the SS. Trump has nothing of this
luxury and will invariably have to kowtow to the power structure to stay in power.
That leaves the one truly successful Western reformer who managed to materialise his
vision, the one and only Otto Von Bismarch, who knew how to play the different layers of the
German societies against each other and managed to rule unhindered by the establishment
guided by a visionary plan that was supported by extremely competent military and civilian
officials.
The US could have had a visionary reformer in JFK but unfortunately he was prematurely
decommissioned by the deep state but Trump is light years behind JFK in intellect and
articulation. Overall I would stick to Gerald Celente's definition of the political
establishment as cowards, fools, freaks and liars, a fact that is hard to swallow but true
nonetheless.
Gorka was actually great in very difficult situation when this smug neoliberal shill Cooper try to bully his way in best tradition
of Bill Oreilly. But Cooper is so well trained in bullshit that it is impossible to 'convert" him on anything. He will try to
promote his fake new lines.
Notable quotes:
"... "Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news." ..."
"Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's
literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation
looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news."
"... It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play a game of blame and twisting the facts. ..."
"... Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper! ..."
"... Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible ..."
"... CNN is fake news. Don't talk to CNN ..."
"... They conveniently over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why??? ..."
The Clintons and Trump were friends not too long ago. I think they're all elitists. New boss, same owners. Trump is crass but
I think he's doing a surprisingly good job. I am hoping things will continue to look up, economically...because, money changes
everything.
It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play
a game of blame and twisting the facts. It is amazing what the Liberals are emphasizing especially with the terrible things that
occurred with Obama Administration, spending, loss of millions of dollars, and illegal activity.
Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the
greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper!
Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't
just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible
Cooper sounded more like one of the nut job conspiracy theorists, just like all the rest on CNN and MSNBC. They conveniently
over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why???
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and gave them to WikiLeaks . <img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg" alt="" width="291" height="300" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg 291w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px" /> ..."
"... There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single 'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence. ..."
"... "The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable." ..."
"... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies
manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger
becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
"... It is true that Mr. Miller can come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools. The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them. Mr. Miller is not going to get into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy pajamas. ..."
CNN's Stephen Miller incident proves how fake news ignorantly smears conservatives
White House adviser does not play mental footsie with fools
White House adviser Stephen Miller appears on CNN anchor Jake Tapper Sunday
show. After an exchange, Mr. Tapper cut off Mr. Miller's mic, saying, "I think I've wasted enough of my
viewers' time." (CNN.com)
Behold, the anatomy of a "fake news" smear.
The latest drive-by character assassination of
White House
adviser
Stephen Miller
began, as it so
often does, in a fact-free live TV orgy of public posturing by a journalist eager to display his
virgin-snow virtue when it comes to unalloyed hatred of President
Donald Trump
.
This time it was CNN anchor Jake (
Mr.
Trump
calls him "Fake") Tapper, who invited
Mr. Miller
on his Sunday show to
respond to Mr. Tapper's complex conspiracy theory about how the president is somehow unfit or too
mentally unstable to occupy the
White
House
.
Obviously, Fake Tapper missed the report on Twitter that actually
Mr. Trump
is a "very stable
genius."
Anyhoo,
Mr. Miller
had no
intention of playing any of Fake Tapper's reindeer games. Instead, he wanted to talk about the
unrelenting unfairness of CNN and its coverage of
Mr. Trump
.
When
Mr. Miller
refused to
engage in Mr. Tapper's conspiracy fantasy, the anchor changed his mind and decided he no longer wanted
Mr. Miller
on his show.
"I think I've wasted enough of my viewer's time," he petulantly whined before cutting off
Mr. Miller
's mic.
It was a small, sad, silly moment in the death gurgles of American journalism. But enough to whip
up a little buzz on Twitter or some Internet echo chamber. Which is all Fake Tapper was going for in
the first place.
In all the frenzy, doddering old House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi clamored over to the bright
lights to declare through her unglued dentures that
Mr. Miller
-- a Jew -- is somehow a
"white supremacist."
And then she declared that the Jew be fired from the
White House
. How that does not make
Nancy Pelosi -- a Christian, despite her infatuation with abortion -- an anti-Semite?
Details. Minor details. Then, along comes a Washington reporter who announces that
Mr. Miller
is "standing in the
way of an immigration deal." Not clear if this "deal" is a good one or a bad one.
Mr. Miller
is just standing in
the way of it, which further proves he is a white supremacist. Her entire story was entirely based on unnamed "sources," according to the reporter. Another death
gurgle of American journalism. The story includes a link to a "very tense and loud exchange"
Mr. Miller
had last year with
another CNN reporter in which
Mr.
Miller
utterly eviscerated the reporter over his near total ignorance of immigration policy in
America.
All that matters to doltish reporters around here, though, is that the exchange was "very tense and
loud."
Mr. Miller
is not only a
(Jewish) white supremacist, he is an angry (Jewish) white supremacist. So, like Hitler, basically.
Only Jewish.
It is true that
Mr. Miller
can
come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools.
The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps
combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them.
Mr. Miller
is not going to get
into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy
pajamas.
Rather,
Mr. Miller
-- and his
boss -- wants desperately to fix a horribly broken immigration system that created this whole
unfortunate class of illegal Dreamers in the first place and prevent a future generation of
"Dreamers."
If you have any doubt about the challenge
Mr. Miller
and
Mr. Trump
face in honestly
addressing illegal immigration in this country, consider this: During this week's bipartisan meeting
in the
White House
to begin
negotiations, the word "DACA" was uttered 61 times. The universal sentiment among lawmakers from both
parties was to pass some kind of "DACA" legislation that would legalize the illegal-immigrant
Dreamers.
Sixty-one times.
The word "American" was used just 20 times. "Worker" only twice. "Citizen" not once.
"Citizenship" was used three times -- as in the DACA bill should give Dreamers "citizenship." The words "miner," "unemployed," and "lawful" were never uttered during the 55-minute confab. Perhaps
Mr. Miller
is
"standing in the way of an immigration deal" with these people. But is that a bad thing?
Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other
noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional
testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared
would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and
launching pad for nuclear war."
Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current president of the United
States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country
becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the
number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them
poor and people of color.
While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin
consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and
racial injustice at home.
In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
"four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national
security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.
Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion
of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether
we provide enough for those who have too little."
Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other
noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional
testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared
would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and
launching pad for nuclear war."
Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current President of the United
States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country
becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the
number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them
poor and people of color.
While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin
consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and
racial injustice at home.
In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
"four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national
security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.
Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion
of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether
we provide enough for those who have too little."
In Four Freedoms Under Siege , Raskin and Spero concede that the Cold War
superpower rivalry did contribute to some progress towards Roosevelt's dream of freedom from
want. Raskin was a young aide in Kennedy's National Security Council during a period of high
tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that were playing out with deadly
consequences in Cuba, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
And while he was horrified by the existential threat posed by the superpower standoff,
Raskin later recognized that the competition with the Soviet Union did give a boost to the U.S.
labor unions and other forces that were pushing for progressive economic reforms.
The elites, Raskin and Spero explained, feared that movements for "social and economic
justice, from rhetoric to out-and-out radicalism, would transform the power structure in such a
way as to open up the society to democracy that displaces overlapping economic oligarchies. The
right, especially big business, also feared that this would be just the prelude to the
redistribution of resources, or at least access to them."
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Raskin and Spero point out, "people at the top no
longer had to concern themselves with the people at the bottom." And the permanence of the
national security state obliterated any hope of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" that could've
helped realize FDR's dream of freedom from want.
Raskin and Spero wrote their book during the militarily aggressive administration of
President George W. Bush. As Halliburton and other private military contractors lined up to
feed at the Iraq War trough, the period perfectly illustrated the danger of a war economy
without end.
"This kind of 'let 'er rip' corruption policy did not originate with Bush II conservatives,"
Raskin and Spero wrote, "but they pushed the idea of a corporate controlled state to the limit
as a partner to military expansion."
In his final weeks, Marc Raskin was excited to learn about plans for a Poor People's Campaign that, like his own work,
will take on the inter-connected problems of the War Economy, poverty, racism, and ecological
devastation.
The campaign will mark the 50th anniversary of a similar effort led by the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and other leaders who saw the need to build on the civil rights cause by
tackling the militarism that had led to the Vietnam War and the poverty that plagued too many
Americans of all races. Back then in 1968, Institute for Policy Studies staff included leaders
of both the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Raskin himself was indicted that year
for conspiracy to aid resistance to the draft.
The new Poor People's Campaign, led by two prominent faith leaders -- the Rev. Liz Theoharis
and the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II -- held a kick-off event in Washington on December 4. The
Institute for Policy Studies prepared a report for
the launch that includes data on each of the campaign's focus areas. Theoharis and Barber
announced plans for a historic 40-day wave of civil disobedience across the country in the
spring of 2018, culminating in a mass demonstration in the capital in June.
At a December 12 follow-up meeting at the Institute for Policy Studies, Raskin asked one of
the lead organizers of the new Poor People's Campaign who they expect to be their strongest
opponents. From his six decades of experience in Washington, he had a keen sense of the
challenges ahead. Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for
Policy Studies and is a co-editor of Inequality.org.
"... Sally Yates essentially said 'all DOJ is subject to oversight, except the National Security Division'. ..."
"... In short, FISA "queries" from any national security department within government are allowed without seeking court approval. ..."
"... We know NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of an issue with unauthorized FISA-702(17) " About Queries " early in 2016. As a result of a FISA court ruling declassified in May of 2017 we were able to piece a specific timeline together. ..."
"... At the same time Christopher Steele was assembling his dossier information (May-October 2016), the NSA compliance officer was conducting an internal FISA-702 review as initiated by NSA Director Mike Rogers. The NSA compliance officer briefed Admiral Mike Rogers on October 20th 2016. On October 26th 2016, Admiral Rogers informed the FISA Court of numerous unauthorized FISA-702(17) "About Query" violations. Subsequent to that FISC notification Mike Rogers stopped all FISA-702(17) "About Queries" permanently . They are no longer permitted. ..."
"... Mike Rogers discovery becomes the impetus for him to request the 2016 full NSA compliance audit of FISA-702 use. It appears Fusion-GPS was the FBI contracted user identified in the final FISA court opinion/ruling on page 83. ..."
"... What plan came from that April 19th,2016 White House meeting? What plan did Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson present to use the information they had assembled? How and who would they feed their information to; and how do they best use that 'valuable' information? This appears to be where Fusion-GPS contracting with Christopher Steele comes in. ..."
"... Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. ..."
"... The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ( link ) ..."
"... DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr had a prior working relationship with Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Together they worked on a collaborative CIA Open Source group project surrounding International Organized Crime. ( pdf here ) Page #30 Screen Shot Below . ..."
"... Nellie Ohr is a subject matter expert on Russia, speaks Russian, and also is well versed on CIA operations. Nellie Ohr's skills would include how to build or create counterintelligence frameworks to give the appearance of events that may be entirely fabricated. ..."
"... Knowing the NSA was reviewing FISA "Queries"; and intellectually accepting the resulting information from those queries was likely part of the framework put together by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby; we discover that GPS employee Nellie Ohr applied for a HAM radio license [ May 23rd 2016 ] (screen grab below). ..."
"... Accepting the FBI was utilizing Fusion-GPS as a contractor, there is now an inherent clarity in the relationship between: FBI agent Peter Strzok, Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson, and 'Russian Dossier' author Christopher Steele. They are all on the same team. ..."
"... The information that Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson put together from his advanced work on the 'Trump Project', was, in essence, built upon the foundation of the close relationship he already had with the FBI. ..."
"... Simpson, Jacoby and Ohr then passed on their information to Christopher Steele who adds his own ingredients to the mix, turns around, and gives the end product back to the FBI. That end product is laundered intelligence now called "The Trump/Russia Dossier". ..."
"... The FBI turn around and use the "dossier" as the underlying documents and investigative evidence for continued operations against the target of the entire enterprise, candidate Donald Trump. As Peter Strzok would say in August 2016: this is their "insurance policy" per se'. ..."
"... In October 2016, immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for a valid FISA application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job . His exit came as the NSD and Admiral Rogers informed the FISC that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted. Read Here . ..."
"... Yes, the FBI was working with Christopher Steele through their contractor Fusion-GPS. Yes, the FBI and Clinton Team were, in essence, both paying Christopher Steele for his efforts. The FBI paid Steele via their sub-contractor Fusion-GPS. ..."
"... Lastly, when the DOJ/FBI used the Steele Dossier to make their 2016 surveillance activity legal (the October FISA application), they are essentially using the outcome of a process they created themselves in collaboration with both Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... All research indicates the intelligence information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence Fusion GPS created in their earlier use of contractor access to FISA-702(17) "about queries", was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating "The Russian Dossier". ..."
"... Christopher Steele was just laundering intelligence. The Steele "dossier" was then used by the DOJ to gain FISA-702 approvals – which provided retroactive legal cover for the prior campaign surveillance, and also used post-election to create the "Russian Narrative". ..."
"... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
Following the released transcript of Fusion-GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee
by Senator Dianne Feinstein , several media outlets have begun questioning the relationship between the FBI investigators, Glenn
Simpson and dossier author Christopher Steele.
What we have discovered highlights the answer to those relationship questions; and also answers a host of other questions, including:
Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele? Yes, but now how media has stated. Was the FBI connected to the creation of the Steele Dossier?
Yes, but again, not the way the media is currently outlining.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has become a central figure in the Russia investigation
because of her involvement in the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
And one of the stranger wrinkles in that saga is Veselnitskaya's interactions with Simpson
just hours before that controversial conclave.
Simpson's interview transcript confirms past reporting that he was with Veselnitskaya the
day of that meeting as well as the day before and day after.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia
November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kommersant Photo/Yury Martyanov
But in her own testimony to the Judiciary committee, Veselnitskaya denied encountering
Simpson on those days.
"Did you have contact with Glenn Simpson on June 8, 9, or 10, 2016?" reads one of the 94
questions posed to Veselnitskaya by the Senate panel.
Undercutting that testimony, Simpson said that Veselnitskaya attended dinners
where he was also present on June 8 and June 10. They were also together in a Manhattan court
room on the morning of the Trump Tower meeting.
Simpson's work with Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who also
visited Trump Tower, has stoked speculation that the Russians provided information that ended
up in the dossier.
But Simpson denied in his testimony that either Russian contact told him about the Trump
Tower meeting. He also said he doubted that either provided information to Steele.
"... Well this clearly shows Morell is smart enough to realize that the whole Russian conspiracy is collapsing, and he wants to be the first in line to cover his backside. ..."
"... Well well well no big surprise there. Now, I'm wondering how much of our money they used to try and prove this conspiracy to be true ..."
Well, one of Trump's most outspoken critics in the CIA (Michael Morell Former Director of the CIA) admits in an interview with
Politico, that if there was any collusion, it would have already been found. Morell also admits his becoming political, and attacking
Trump was something "he didn't think through".
Well this clearly shows Morell is smart enough to realize that the whole Russian conspircy is collapsing, and he wants to be
the first in line to cover his backside.
That's not what he actually said regarding collusion. He did indicate that weighing into the election was a mistake both by him and
other intelligence agency heads because it gave the Bannon-Gorka wing conspiracy theory credibility. There was certainly reason to
criticize Trump but they would have been better off remaining out of the fray.
You should read the entire article, good read on Ukraine, Russia. I got a lot more out of it than your statement. It was a half
hour interview and that's all you got.
Also it would be nice if you would provide a link when you are referring to a quote.
Quote:
Morell: So, let's talk about what I think the possibilities are, going forward. So, I would not be surprised if Bob
Mueller concludes that the Trump campaign did not violate the law with regard to its interactions with the Russians. I'm really open
to that possibility. Why? Because, as you know, The New York Times, The Washington Post , every media outlet that is worth
its salt has reporters digging into this, and they haven't found anything. And I think that, had there been something there, they would have found something. And I think Bob Mueller would have found it already
and it would have leaked.
So, I'm really open to the possibility that there's no there there on a crime being committed by the campaign and the Russians.
Right? That interaction leading to criminal charges.
Well, one of Trump's most outspoken critics in the CIA (Michael Morell Former Director of the CIA) admits in an interview
with Politico, that if there was any collusion, it would have already been found. Morell also admits his becoming political, and
attacking Trump was something "he didn't think through".
Well this clearly shows Morell is smart enough to realize that the whole Russian conspiracy is collapsing, and he wants to be the
first in line to cover his backside.
Well well well no big surprise there. Now, I'm wondering how much of our money they used to try and prove this conspiracy to be
true
Sounds like there was no collusion. Manafort may have laundered money, obstructed, etc. but what he may have or may
not have done was done years ago, before there was a Trump campaign.
Well not exactly, also from the interview:
Quote:
The second point I'd make is that I wouldn't be surprised if there were single individuals who were associated with the campaign
who violated the law with respect to their interactions with the Russians on the election. Paul Manafort comes to mind. I think
he has little to no integrity. There's no way you spend that much time with the old Ukrainian government and not bump up against
Russian intelligence officers a lot.
Former Prosecutor Katie Phang called to investigate CIA Director John Brennan over whether he
leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media ( CIA Director under fire , Dec 19,
2016)
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA Has Always Played Political Chess ..."
"... Brennan is a politician, He was working for Clinton because he thought she would prevail. Brennan has NO integrity. He is a spineless worm trying to placate his masters. He needs to be indicted. ..."
"... Brennan is an idiot. what kind of moron tries to undermine and destabilize the administration of his incoming boss by leaking fake news about him? total fool and a liar. he has done america a great disservice. he not only deserveds to be fired, he should be arrested ..."
The CIA is one of the Barrack Obamas corrupt agencies. Trump will need to replace the FBI,
CIA, DOJ, the STATE DEPARTMENT, IRS departments. It would be stupid for Trump to trust the
Obama intelligence machinery.
Here are Clinton's "17 agencies:" Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central
Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy
Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug
Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security
Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. What does
the Coast Guard Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency or the Drug Enforcement
Administration know about John Podesta's emails? Answer: nothing.
Brennan is probably THE MOST DANGEROUS person in Gov't, IMO. I wonder if people remember
that Brennan is who Michael Hastings was allegedly investigating when his car 'crashed and
burned'. A BRAND NEW Mercedes, at that.... yet, again, there was NOTHING to see there...
Brennan is a politician, He was working for Clinton because he thought she would prevail.
Brennan has NO integrity. He is a spineless worm trying to placate his masters. He needs to
be indicted.
Brennan is an idiot. what kind of moron tries to undermine and destabilize the
administration of his incoming boss by leaking fake news about him? total fool and a liar. he
has done america a great disservice. he not only deserveds to be fired, he should be
arrested.
John Brennen , CIA Director , pushing the Russia Hacking agenda but not releasing the
evidence but are here are some facts for you, Obama appointed him , when sworn into office
refused to put his hand on the bible because he joined the Muslim faith, lied about
associations with Hilary in Bengazia and the facts , and there is more to numerous to
mention. When Trump gets in , he'll fire his sorry ass for sure , Ha Ha !!!
"... Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser, Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and (undue) respectability. ..."
"... Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that benefit Israel. ..."
"... More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby. So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges. ..."
"... Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis. ..."
"... Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of treatment. And no country in the world deserves it. ..."
"... Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not to be. ..."
"... America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed. ..."
"... When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel. ..."
"... Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100% misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.) ..."
"... The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack of lies. Believe my pack of lies"! ..."
Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media
visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser,
Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as
high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and
(undue) respectability.
Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of
Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though
astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a
Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function
as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that
benefit Israel.
Being a successful neocon doesn't require being right. Not at all. It's all about sending
the right message. Over and over. Evidence be damned. The neocon mission is not about
journalism. It's about advancing the cause: Mideast disruption and a secure Jewish state.
More importantly, Washington's impenetrable array of Zio-centric PACs, money-handlers,
bundlers, fund-raisers, and billionaires want these crypto-Israeli pundits right where they
are–on TV or in the your local newspaper–telling Americans how to feel and what
to think. And Big Media–which happens to be in bed with these same powerful
forces–needs these Zions in place to not only justify the latest Mideast confrontation,
but even ones being planned. It's one big happy effort at group-think, mass deception, and
military conquest. Unfortunately, it's not being presented that way.
So what lies ahead?
More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's
caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby.
So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges.
The first to go was his pledge to normalize US-Russian relations ('make peace' with
Russia) and after that 2) avoid unnecessary wars abroad. That's was a huge reversal. But
Trump did it and few pundits have scolded him for it. The fix is in.
Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of
wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful
Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the
Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis.
So Trump (the President) now sees things differently. Very differently. When it comes to
the Middle East, Trump has been Hillary-ized. This means there's no light between what Israel
desires and what Washington is willing to deliver. The hyper-wealthy, super cohesive,
extraordinarily well-positioned and diabolically cleaver Israeli lobby has Trump over a
barrel. Shocking, yes. But true.
So watch Israel's roughshod expansion continue, along with the typically meek and
accommodating responses from Washington.
Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic
cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of
treatment. And no country in the world deserves it.
What's worse, our 'independent' MSM will be there to sanitize Washington's pro-Israel
shenanigans and basically cheer the whole bloody process on. This is where the Zio-punditry
of Kristol, Cohen, Stephens, Dubowitz, and Co. come in. They soothe the nervous nellies as
they gently justify the death and destruction that come with these military strikes. Media
tactics include:
Don't count enemy war dead. Don't count civilian war dead. Don't count displaced refugees.
Don't connect Europe's immigration crisis to Zio-Washington's destruction of Iraq, Libya and
Syria.
At the same time: Always praise Israeli 'restraint'. Always refer to Israel as a
'democracy'. Sneer and jeer the 'terrorist' Republic of Iran. Treat every Mideast warlord or
rebellion as if it threatens the sanctity of Disneyland or even the next Superbowl. Oh
my!
It's a slick, highly-coordinated, and very manipulative affair. But the magic is working.
Americans are being fooled.
Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did
nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not
to be.
The reason for this phenomena is that Washington's major PACs, syndicates, heavy hitters,
influence peddlers, oligarchs, and Big Money handlers (and who also have their clutches on
our corrupt MSM) want more Mideast disruption.
Why? Israeli 'security'. Israeli 'survival'. Considering Israel's extraordinary military power, this might seem silly. But this is what
the entrenched Israeli lobby desires. And both Parties are listening. To make matters worse, how one 'thinks' and 'talks' about Israel has unacknowledged
limitations and restrictions in Big Washington as well as Big Media.
Diversity of opinion stops at Israel's doorstep. Like it or not, Zionist Israel is the
Third Rail of American discourse. Watch what you say. Even the typically rancorous disputes
between Democrats and Republicans gets warm and fuzzy when Israel's 'special place' in
American life is raised. America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the
quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that
line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed.
So America is stuck with pro-Israel speech codes and a militantly pro-Zionist foreign
policy that has caused immense cost, dislocation, suffering and destruction. It's been
designed that way. And 'outsider' Trump is stuck with it. Few dare examine it.
Here's the short list of Israel's primary Enemies. Significantly, these are the countries
that also get the worst press in American media:
The (anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian) Republic of Iran.
Syria, which still claims land (Golan Heights) stolen by Israel in 1967.
Lebanon (where Hezbollah roams)
Palestine (will they never give up?)
Russia (allied with Iran and Assad's Syria)
N. Korea is even a player here. Iran and N. Korea have allegedly shared nuclear
technology. This infuriates nuclear Israel.
So the Israel angle in this picture is huge. Overwhelmingly so. This is where the
oligarchs, media lords, and corrupt journalists come together.
Thus, Israel's tenured Hasbara brigade in US media will remain firmly in place.
The local DC 'conservative' radio station has Bolton as a guest all the time. Same old neocon
crap that we don't want any more. Bolton had his day 15 years ago and he sucked then; yet,
they keep bringing him on, slobbering all over him ("Ambassador Bolton"), and letting him
blather about blowing up everyone. I still see a lot of online comments about how people
would love to have John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN. Good grief wise up people.
'Stephens' article, entitled Finding the Way Forward on Iran sparkles with throwaway gems
like "Tehran's hyperaggressive foreign policy in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal" and "Real
democracies don't live in fear of their own people" and even "it's not too soon to start
rethinking the way we think about Iran." Or try "A better way of describing Iran's
dictatorship is as a kleptotheocracy, driven by impulses that are by turns doctrinal and
venal."'
Hmmmmm . I can immediately think of another nation to which those strictures are far more
applicable.
"Hyperaggressive foreign policy"
"Kleptocracy"
Sounds more like the USA, doesn't it?
As for "Real democracies don't live in fear of their own people", that's a real home
run.
1. The USA is not, never has been, never will be, and was never meant to be "a real
democracy". (Except by unrealistic visionaries like Jefferson).
When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to
keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel.
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25
people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if
you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have
happened.
If this insanity keeps up, America will either be destroyed by financial collapse from
waging all these wars or we'll stumble into WW III and the last thing we'll see is a mushroom
cloud.
Former Brit PM Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry:
What role did Israel play in the run-up to the Iraq war?
"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going
to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue
at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations
that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major
part of all this."
"Whether print, air, or both the Neocons want to be players. They have the friends in high
–media– places to do it."
– They, neocons, are devoid of dignity. This explains why none of them feels any
responsibility for the mass slaughter in the Middle East -- picture Madeleine Albright near
thousands of tiny corpses of Iraqi children or the piggish Kristol next to the bloody bags
with shredded Syrian children. They are psychopaths, the profiteering psychopaths. There is
no other way to deal with neo/ziocons but through long-term incarceration.
My fine tuning of this excellent article begins, and perhaps ends, with this quote: "The fact
is that Iran is being targeted because Israel sees it as its prime enemy in the region and
has corrupted many "opinion makers" in the U.S., to include Stephens, to hammer home that
point."
The 'corruption' is not recent and is not about any one issue or series of issues. It
springs from Deep Culture. It is part of the WASP worldview.
WASP culture is the direct product of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy always produces culture and politics that are pro-Jewish,
pro-Semitic.
At least by the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually 100% of British Empire Elites
were hardcore pro-Semitic. Most were pro-Jewish, but a large and growing minority were
pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic.
The Saudis are Arabic. The Iranians are NOT Arabic; Iranians are Indo-European.
Siding with both wings of Semitic culture – Jewish and Arabic/Islamic –
against an Indo-European people is exactly what WASP cultural Elites will do. It is roughly
analogous to Oliver Cromwell allying with Jews to wage war against the vast majority of
natives of the British Isles.
Excellent piece. I'd just like to add that Stephens' op-ed in the NYT ought to be view like
Judith Miller's misleading articles about aluminum-tubes-for-nuclear-centrifuges which
appeared in the Times during the run up to the Iraq war: Preparation of the Times' readership
for yet another war in the middle east, this time against Iran.
Ron Unz is another courageous man. I wish and pray to God, that people like Ron Unz,
Philip M. Giraldi, Paul Craig Roberts, Saker and their likes to move away from FAKE NEWS too,
and tell us the TRUTH.
Evil can be fought only with TRUTH ..
Your idea about an article on political Islam by either Ron Unz or Philip M. Giraldi is an
excellent idea, and I am willing to help provided we keep away from sectarianism and stick to
TRUTH. The war the First Caliph abu Bakr which he fought with Yemen's Muslims within six
months of Prophet's demise is very important to show how the rights given by Prophet Mohammad
(saws) were taken away as soon as his demise. Our aim should be to shine the light on the
Prophet. This is what Yemen's war did, just to start with:
1. Prophet did away with excommuniting someone from the fold as he saw a very powerful
tool in the hands of Rabbis and Preacher. Who gave them the right to remove someone from
Synagogue or Church.
2. So abu Bakr came up with much stronger tool, he called all the Yemeni Muslims en masses as
apostate.
3. Brought back the slavery.
4. Claimed that he the Caliph abu Bakr was appointed by Will of Allah through
predestination.
5. Thus, the ideology of ISIS calling everyone kafir, kafir, kafir .. and chopping their
heads.
6. Used Islam as a disguise to bring other countries in to the fold for power and mammon
(money), thus bring Islam by Sword.
The list is extensive and I can go on and on. The divide / confuse / rule was used against
the Muslims.
The objective of the article should be to bring TRUTH about the Prophet.
Don't lose heart, Mark Green. There is a very good chance that Trump is actually with you,
and that he's winning. He cannot afford to be straight at all. His strategy is to take up
highly charged strands of the dominant discourse and to short circuit them. A strong play of
a weak hand. He's run with the demands of Adelson, Netanyahu and Kushner regarding Jerusalem
and other maximal Israeli demands. It's all in response to the worst Jews. The result is that
Shias are united with Sunnis, Hamas with PLO, Iran with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The whole
world against America, Israel and some specks of guano. The Iran caper is the same. The
Pakistan caper even better. Trump gives the military a free hand to show what they can do in
Afghanistan. Then he blows his twitter top to insult Pakistan so there will no longer be a
land route. He's doing his damndest and always failing. What a clueless asshole. Yet every
failure is undoing the empire, and leading to a one-state resolution in Palestine.
That's just the foreign policy part.
By the time he's finished there will be no Democrat party left as we know it, and the GOP
will be transformed as well.
There will be no more Fed. No more debt based currency. A paid off national debt.
And there will be single payer medical coverage.
God willing.
That was a great summary of our foreign policy situation, Mr. Giraldi. You have a lot of guts
to write out all the truth that you see, as you have in all of the articles of yours I've
read on unz.
I really liked this line, too:
To be sure, Iran is a very corrupt place run by people who should not be running a
hot dog stand, but the same applies to the United States and Israel .
I have one question for you, Phil, and this is not hypothetical or snarky – just
looking for your opinion: What do you think the neocons' attitude about the Orient is? I
realize that China is on the road to kicking our ass economically , but
that's the "war" we need to fight, not a military war. Then, there's N. Korea, which, in my
opinion, is none of our business. Rest of the question – Trump seems to get sucked into
the standard invade-the-world mode in the Far East also – do you think that is
neocon-inspired, and, since that part of the world is no threat to Israel, if so, why? Would
they possibly be masking their intentions by expanding the range of their invade-the-world
program?
I don't usually read that filthy rag other than to skim the headlines, but this was just
so bizarre, I couldn't resist. Brooks seems to admit that they (Jewish neocons/Bolsheviks)
are losing the battle to take down Trump. He openly criticizes the media for being so obvious
and self-discrediting.
Is this a total retreat for the neocons / Bolsheviks? Or is Brooks merely rallying the
troops? Or simply a desperate attempt to regain credibility by telling the truth, for a
change?
Or maybe he is preemptively refuting Mr. Giraldi's premise in this piece, a semi-novel
tactic one might call Jewish Preemptive Vengeance getting even BEFORE the fact?
Do some research, Israel and the U.S. deep state blew up 7 buildings at the WTC on 911 and
blew up a section of the pentagram, the Saudis were the patsys , and as corrupt and evil as
the Saudis are they had on part in it.
The Zionist neocons did 911 to set the Mideast wars in motion, do some research, hell
every thinking American knows Israel did it.
Mr. Giraldi has gone after the real power center in America – the Jew controlled US
media. Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100%
misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated
lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.)
Much is said about "Christian Zionists." Why is it, that NO Christian broadcast media
tells the truth about Palestinian suffering? Of course, it is because of Jew media control.
If Christian stations were to tell the truth, there would be a lot less Christian Zionists
– they would be a small segment of Christianity.
Thanks to Mr. Giraldi and others on the internet – more and more people are
listening and learning and getting mad. A base is building. Truth will out!
The more the psychotic control freaks
publically expose themselves, what with social media, the internet, and disenchanted leakers
in their own group the more of humanity wakes up to a great sense of absolute disgust in
them. We, humanity, are gradually winning and the disgusting pyschopaths are losing.
Does Mr Giraldi really expect us to believe that the US internet is any better than the media
outlets he criticizes? The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack
of lies. Believe my pack of lies"!
Many got the joke, however, many did not and it gained traction because it was "so plausible." This is what "confirmation bias"
is about.
Notable quotes:
"... The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him ..."
"... Some people online at first incorrectly thought that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election ..."
The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on
his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him
Some people online at first incorrectly thought
that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist
Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian
meddling in the 2016 election.
On his first night in the White House, President Trump complained that the TV in his bedroom was broken, because it didn't
have "the gorilla channel". Trump seemed to be under the impression that a TV channel existed that screened nothing but gorilla-based
content, 24 hours a day.
To appease Trump, White House staff compiled a number of gorilla documentaries into a makeshift gorilla channel, broadcast
into Trump's bedroom from a hastily-constructed transmission tower on the South Lawn. However, Trump w as unhappy with the channel
they had created, moaning that it was "boring" because "the gorillas aren't fighting".
Staff edited out all the parts of the documentaries where gorillas weren't hitting each other, and at last the president was
satisfied. "On some days he'll watch the gorilla channel for 17 hours straight," an insider told me. "He kneels in front of the
ТV with his face about four inches from the screen, and says encouraging things to the gorillas, like 'the way you hit that other
gorilla was good'. I think he thinks the gorillas can hear him."
Many got the joke, however, but said it gained traction because it was "so plausible."
The full Clinton conspiracy against Trump, which was supported by the intelligence services,
has not yet been exposed. But bit by bit more details are coming out. The main stream media are
heavily invested in the anti-Trump/anti-Russia narrative and therefore continue to throw smoke
bombs.
This interesting piece from NEO argues against yesterday's thread celebrating Trump.
Theme: Trump is dividing allies and working to replace US world leadership with new
(different) leadership.
(its conclusion)
If Trump causes conflicts and makes others pay to sort them out he really does
disentangle the US from costly foreign wars. He also makes the US relatively stronger
financially, and can run back to his business empire at any time if his own people want him
gone. China will gradually take over the US leadership role, but why should Trump care? He
will have paid for that in office, and his supporters want the jobs the Chinese can provide,
and the infrastructure the Chinese love building, rather than this airy-fairy liberal
nonsense of elite diplomacy and pussyfooting around with foreigners and spineless
"doublespeak" in terms of human rights and the rule of law.
Trump may destroy America, and a lot of its allies with it, but he will escape more or
less intact. As his business record shows, he will think the suffering of others is worth it.
People wondered when he was elected what difference it would make to have a businessman with
no political experience in the most powerful job on earth. 2018 will be the year when we all
come to terms with what that difference is, if we live long enough to do so.
As you know, there has been much discussion regarding dollar as global reserve currency
and implications. I take issue with a number of points made in the article that you link to
such as the reasons underlying the Asian financial crisis and second Iraq War. If the article
has value it is that it provides insight into how some Chinese are thinking about the
adversarial relationship that has developed between US and China.
@5 jackrabbit.. thanks for taking the time to look at it.. i have never read an article so
insightful on the relationship with wars that usa has been responsible for and the connection
to the us$ money supply... the observations on the importance of de-linking the us$ from gold
and all that it has implied to my mind is very accurate and relevant to where we are now.
on the comments where you take issue, i am curious if you can explain why.. i share the
authors view on the asian crisis and iraq war as well.. and yes - it does give insight into
how some in the world, in particular some chinese - are seeing where we are now and how it
dovetails with chinese ambitions on the world stage..
These are cases where the author is over-reaching to make a case for US using its currency
in a war-like manner.
The Asian financial crisis wasn't "harvesting", it was contagion arising from incompetence
of various actors
Likewise, Saddam's was expected to fall after the first Iraq War but managed to remain in
power. His antagonism toward the US included changing how he was paid for his oil but the
second Gulf was was not based on that payments change alone. The fact is Saddam became a
thorn in the side of US and US allies and they would use any convenient excuse to remove that
thorn.
@9 jr... thanks.. we are going to have to agree to disagree then. i think the article is much
more specific in how these different events connect to the money supply.. regarding the asian
crisis, i agree with this overview given in the article.. i am going to quote it so the
broader context can be read by others who are interested.. i think it is much the same with
regard to iraq and saddam.. bottom line on iraq - the war was an unnecessary one and a
destructive one for iraq.. they are still working at recovering from it.
"During the second ten-year weak U.S. dollar cycle, U.S. dollars went mainly to Asia. What
was the hottest investment concept in 1980s? It was the "Asian Tigers." Many people thought
it was due to Asians' hard work and how smart they were. Actually the big reason was the
ample investment of U.S. dollars.
When the Asian economy started to prosper, the Americans felt it was time to harvest.
Thus, in 1997, after ten years of a weak dollar, the Americans reduced the money supply to
Asia and created a strong dollar. Many Asian companies and industries faced an insufficient
money supply. The area showed signs of being on the verge of a recession and a financial
crisis.
A last straw was needed to break the camel's back. What was that straw? It was a regional
crisis. Should there be a war like the Argentines had? Not necessarily. War is not the only
way to create a regional crisis.
Thus we saw that a financial investor called "Soros" took his Quantum Fund, as well as
over one hundred other hedge funds in the world, and started a wolf attack on Asia's weakest
economy, Thailand. They attacked Thailand's currency Thai Baht for a week. This created the
Baht crisis. Then it spread south to Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Then it moved north to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and even Russia. Thus the East
Asia financial crisis fully exploded.
The camel fell to the ground. The world's investors concluded that the Asian investment
environment had gone south and withdrew their money. The U.S. Federal Reserve promptly blew
the horn and increased the dollar's interest rate. The capital coming out of Asia flew to the
U.S.'s three big markets, creating the second big bull market in the U.S.
When the Americans made ample money, they followed the same approach they did in Latin
America: they took the money that they made from the Asian financial crisis back to Asia to
buy Asia's good assets which, by then, were at their bottom price. The Asian economy had no
capacity to fight back."
Had read a section of the speech a few days ago somewhere else but you're link contained
more. Very interesting.
One of Trump's main themes is to bring manufacturing back to the US. I think it was a
commenter at SST listed the manufacturing that had moved back to the US since Trump took
office and it was quite impressive. So, to date, no empty promise there.
There are a few that claim that Trump is playing multi-dimensional chess. I don't think so.
What he's doing is plain and straightforward. He's slowly getting the US out of the
international hegemonic game. He's doing it the way he knows, with a lot of bluster and
contradictions. What many people fail to recognize is that he is not a professional
politician that is glib and talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. He is a
deal maker turned Reality TV star who has used celebrity and its publicity to achieve his
goals.
The amazing thing is that he won the presidency as a non-politician on his first attempt,
defeating the anointed Queen backed by over $1.5 billion as well as the entire media and the
establishment of both parties. He gets no credit for that accomplishment. Ever since his
election he has been fighting a battle with the establishment who have used all the powers of
law enforcement and intelligence as well as the media to try and take him down. Now they get
a tabloid writer to pen a book slamming him, not very different than MI6 Christopher Steele's
dossier with all those scurrilous charges.
When he won the election he had no background in government. He had no knowledge of how DC
works. He had to get people from the establishment to man his administration. He is doing
what he can do within the circumstances and as he slowly gets to grips with what he can and
cannot do as President he will do more. There is no doubt he is unconventional and his non-PC
style drives many in the media and establishment crazy. The more he can make them crazy, the
more they'll focus on taking him out, and the more he can do that achieves his goal of taking
the US out of the hegemony business. Precisely because that would be considered crazy by the
establishment.
He has already achieved so much. He did not go after the Russian alliance in Syria and has
allowed them to roll-up the jihadis and consolidate Assad's power. He shown with his
Jerusalem decision that the 2-state fiction is over and the majority of Arab states don't
really care about the Palestinians. With his tax package he is screwing the liberals on both
coasts who would never vote for him and most importantly making US businesses more
competitive, particularly smaller businesses who don't have the armies of tax attorneys. The
use of law enforcement and intelligence to take him down is slowly backfiring as it is now
showing how partisan these agencies were under the Obama administration, actually meddling in
the election and attempting to delegitimize him after the election - all seditious acts. And
of course how they let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified
information.
If he continues on this path, driving the establishment crazy and getting the US out of
the hegemony business in his own crazy way, America will be better off and he will win a
second term that will make the establishment even more crazy. What do you expect when a
Reality TV star becomes POTUS - More entertainment! But in a good way for both America and
the rest of the world.
Your assessment that the Iraq War was "unnecessary" is both a truism and irrelevant. The
article asserts that it occurred because USA wanted to defend pricing of oil in dollars.
I'm not saying that didn't play some part. I'm just pointing out that the rift between
Saddam and US was much greater than that one aspect. The second Iraq War wasn't due solely to
Saddam decision to accept alternative payment methods. Pretending that it was is
over-reaching - fitting facts to a narrative.
I'll address the Asian financial crisis in another comment.
@12 peter.. thanks.. it would be good if it was true about bringing manufacturing jobs and
etc. back to the usa.. teh idea of so much of usa gdp being generated from financials seems
accurate to me.. i can't see how that is sustainable..
@14 jr.. i realize it is complicated and i do believe the justification as given for war
in iraq and the real reasons are different.
@15 ab initio.. i don't agree with your first sentence, but i agree fully with your
last!
james @ 2: Thanks for the article. Good read. An excerpt:
"People all say that the strength of the U.S. is based on three pillars: currency,
technology, and military force. Actually today we can see that the real backbone of the U.S.
is its currency and military force. The backing of its currency is its military force."
"Every country in the world spends a large amount of money when it has a war. The U.S.,
however, is unique. It can also make money while spending money on a war. No other country
can do that."
IMO, dollar hegemony is a problem. Maybe this article from RT has relevance..
Cossack Czarist Russian General. After making a career in the Tsarist Army, he led several
battalions of Cossack riders in the First World War with the title of General. He took part
in Kornilov's Coup d'Etat at the time of the Provisional Government and at the outbreak of
the October Revolution Kerensky appointed him supreme commander of the army to crush the
nascent Revolution and restore power to Kerensky ("Kerensky-Krasnov revolt") . Although the
Bolsheviks seized him, they released him after Krasnov gave his word not to fight against
the Revolution. In spite of everything, he broke his word. In 1918 he was named head of the
Cossack Horde of the Don Region and started an anti-Soviet Cossack revolt in the Don
Region. In 1919 he put his Cossack army under the hierarchy of the White Army led by
General Denikin in the Ukraine and Southern Russia; however, he would have deep political
disagreements with the White Army (apparently Krasnov defended the "Cossack nationalism"
and that was not well seen by the Russian imperialists of the White Army) and in that same
year he would exile to Germany. There he got involved in various anti-Soviet propaganda
activities until the Second World War. In that war he betrayed his country and put him at
the service of the German fascists who attacked the Soviet People; created divisions formed
by anti-communist Cossacks for the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. After the USSR defeated
Germany in World War II, the Soviets tried, condemned to death and executed Krasnov for his
betrayal.
Anecdote: Krasnov wrote in exile the novel Two-headed eagle to the red flag, which
earned him nomination as a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Literature.
The reason China's economy is growing larger than the hegemons, is that China understands
how the hegemon operates, and counters with asymmetrical moves. The section of the speech by
the PLA strategist Major-General Qiao Liang, is far more than classic conspiracy theory.
The aticle's analysis wrt Asian financial crisis is simplistic and an exercise in
blame-shifting.
Thailand could not defend the bhat fix. It was a mistake for them to attempt to do so.
They should've coordinated with other countries much sooner and other countries should'be
seen what was developing sooner. But the origins of the crisis occurred BEFORE the
speculative attacks on the currency as described well here: UNCTAD: Causes and Sources of the Asian Financial
Crisis
Market panics happen sometimes. They usually stem from policy incompetence of some form or
another. The 1987 US stock market crash is a good example. "Portfolio insurance" meant forced
sales of great magnitude as the stock market declined. Thus, a downturn would "feed on
itself."
The 2008 Global Financial Crisis is another one. Banks stopped doing proper credit risk
analysis because loans were no longer being held by the Bank but sold to the market (via
bundles known as CDOs).
The result of the AFC was that western money was precipitously pulled out of Asia. Some
asians view that darkly. But I see no grand game plan to disadvantage Asian countries. Just a
big F-up caused by incompetence and nervous investors who all went to the exists at the same
time.
Today's demonstration next to the embassy of #Iran in Paris of supporters of the #MEK
(Organization of the Mujahideen of the People of #Iran) in solidarity with the Syrian
rebels under the slogan #StandWithAleppo.
#IS shows support for #IranProtests telling Iranians to continue calls against wilayat
al-Faqih; says development v important, according to editorial in IS weekly paper #alNaba
Estimated number of US troops in ME countries (Via @ Forbes) 🇯🇴 Jordan -
1,500 🇮🇶 Iraq - 5,165 🇰🇼 Kuwait - 15,000 🇧🇭
Bahrain - 7,000 🇶🇦 Qatar - 10,000 🇦🇪 UAE - 5,000
🇴🇲 Oman - 200
Well, to this we must add those currently illegally in Syria, and those in
Afghanistán...not to mention the mercenary armies of Prince and the likes in the
far-East, Africa, South Asia, and so on...and...thus...is this not too much for to be
offloading foreign policy?
Thus, almost all the countries supporting China in its launching of the petro-yuan targetted
by regime-change intends...except Russia....for now....
I insist, too much for offloading foreign policy, doesn´t it?
I think people from the last post didn't get it, so I'll repeat my argument.
This thesis (that Trump is some sort of political genious) is pure first-world dellusion.
I know it's hard to accept, when you're on top, that your hegemon is ending, that the dream
is over -- but it is necessary, for the wellbeing of humanity.
The USA is using the big stick for the simple reason it doesn't have the carrot anymore,
as it did in 1946. Nowadays, the USA is strictly a financial/military power, China being the
industrial power.
Finance is closely connected to military power nowadays because we live in the era of fiat
currency: fiat currency is imaginary, it can be printed at will; its only manifestation in
the real world is the control of the main commercial routes (today, it is the seas). The USA
is the modern Poseidon, the contemporary King of Seas, the World Pirate: thanks to its
inequalled Navy -- by far the most powerful branch of its Armed Forces -- it can enforce the
Dollar to rest of the world must, both by keeping its capacity of maintaining the passive
flow of merchandise and by active enforcing it (e.g. forcing the oil extraction and export by
invading and regime changing Iraq). Military strength has another essential aspect in a fiat
currency world: the USA can indebt infinitely because everybody knows that, ultimately,
nobody can knock on the American door (i.e. has the imperium) and ask its debt to be
paid.
In other words, in modern capitalism, in order to be the financial power, you
automatically have to be the military power. That's why China's recent projection of
financial power is accompanied by its growing projection of power in the seas, both by
expanding and modernizing its Navy (e.g. it is about to complete its third aircraft carrier).
But China has an advantage in relation to the USA: it is in Eurasia, the World Island, the
cradle and center of human civilization: it can also project its imperial power by land (new
Silk Road). The USA can't do that: instead it must spend trillions of dollars by maintaining
lots of bases overseas.
You, first-worlders, must decide if Trump is a political genious or if b's theory about a
military junta de facto governing is correct. Both cannot be true at the same time.
#Trump is a liar. #Pentagon is a liar. #NikkiHaley is a liar. #USA is not fighting the
terrorists in #Syria. Look at the terrorists inside the #American #Tanf military base in
Syria #FromSyria
There are rumors that the real reason the US pulled military aid from Pakistan was their
refusal to allow the basing of CIA-controlled jihadist groups for staging attacks inside
Iran. The money was just going to go to fund the operation and Pakistan's role. They're not
going to allow any terrorist groups that ISI doesn't control (cue Raymond Davis).
On how there is a continuum in US foreign policy, independently of who seats its butts on the
WH, and how nobody is draining any swamp, but making it more thick... if possible:
14 de abril de 2017, Maryam Radjavi, líder del #MEK grupo terrorista e instrumento
de la #CIA en #Irán para agitar las protestas y desestabilizar el país, con
John McCain.
Of course, these people´s grievances are legitimate, but you also notice how they
all agree in that turning protests into politics and those claims like "death to Suprem
Leader" or for the "Shah to return" are from people trying to hijack the protests, and see
also how they condemn those using volence.... They declare themselves the makers and heirs of
the revolution....
Thus, yes, there was CIA/Mossad/MEK/Saudi agents infiltrated all the way in the protests
@19 ben.. thanks.. yes - that article on the topic of china and russia exchanging oil in yuan
is very relevant to this conversation of us hegemony..
@21 peter.. thanks for saying that.. most people don't read articles, myself included!
however i thought that one was the best summary i have read on the importance of the us$
being un-pegged from gold and all the implications that have been set in motion since..
@22 jackrabbit.. i am unable to get to the page you would like me to look at @ unctad.com
- it just takes me to the home page and nothing else.. market panics do happen, but in a
situation where their is more opportunity to park your money in a currency that is offering
interest rates that are better then keeping it in a currency that seems unstable - most go
with the former.. and, in this case - soros and friends had a specific game plan in mind
which seems to have coincidentally lining up with the agenda of the federal reserve to again
raise interest rates for the us$.. this precipitates a move to the us$ for a few different
reasons.. i don't dispute markets get overheated and need to sell off, but i do believe the
us$ has played a pivotal role in shaping a number of situations to favour the us$, including
helping to create and take advantage of weaknesses that they might be partly or fully
responsible for.. that's all..
bottom line, i acknowledge what you are saying and not wanting to get caught up in dark
theories.. however,after reading the article in full, i was surprised at the number of
coincidences in a number of world events and the timing and numbers connected to the us$
supply... i thought it was fascinating to only analyze it from this angle as most folks who
are looking into the cause for war and etc, are not considering this in the same depth that
this author does... and, i do believe the issue of us$ coming unglued from gold aug 15, 1971
is a central pivotal point to where we are now with regard to the us$..
@23 ben.. good quick overview! thanks..
@24 elsi.. regarding more fsa bullshit, you might want to read pat langs
latest.
also, a few of us replied to your comments on the previous post.. you might want to check
that out.
@28 vk.. well, as i said before - trump is no genius and he is only looking out for
himself with his various r/e deals and etc. etc. but their may be some bigger benefit from
someone who isn't willing to serve the interests the military junta automatically.. so, aside
from agreeing with your comments on the financial/military connection and relevance, i would
say there are more then just 2 options in your last line about - either trump is a genius, or
the usa is run by a military junta.. the 3rd option is trump is not saying what he is doing
and he is messing up things for that same military junta that want another war in iran or
where-ever they can get one.. whether trump is successful in his not saying what his actual
intent is, or whether it is just an accident based on his personality - either way - he is
messing things up to the status quo big time here.. the verdict is still out on his agenda,
other then him being totally self serving..
@30 les... i had read that too, so perhaps it is a combo of both.. either way, pakistan is
operating differently to the usa here...
GDP is a poor metric for vitality of an economy. But that is the metric du jour for all
economic analysis. China has grown it's GDP on the back of fixed asset investment. Initially
it was FDI with capital and technology flowing into it as the West offshored its industrial
base. Next it used the growth in banking assets to continue, in particular after the GFC when
it increased the size of its banking system four fold. This is leverage. Look at the fixed
asset investment/GDP ratio of China vs Germany and the US and even Japan. China has huge idle
capacity in real estate and many industries that don't provide a return on the debt deployed.
OBOR is partially to utilize this excess capacity. The reality is no one knows the extent of
financial leverage in China. The size of their banking system relative to GDP is larger than
Japan's at their peak before their financial system deflated.
On the flipside the US has the opposite problem. Not enough fixed asset investment, too
much consumption and far too much financialization of their economy.
For a rebalancing to occur both sides need to emphasize the opposite of what they've been
doing. The US needs to spend more on infrastructure and industrial capacity and less on
consumption whereas China needs more domestic consumer demand and less investment in
capacity. Neither can easily change their current trajectory without some dislocation. Trump
it seems gets the big picture but can he execute considering the constraints he is under
remains to be seen.
The "Trump Offloads" trope, like his "7D Chess" joke, or his "Populist President" meme, is
all patently absurd, right on the face of it. He's a serial bunko artist and lifelong
fraudster, a money launderer and human trafficker through his ex-Soviet Mafiya funded
hotel:casino empire. He has no political expertise or finesse. He's just a side-show.
Even a cursory examination of 2016 confirms this was the 'Deep State' playbook:
RNC ran an 'American Idol' charade. After all, their operatives had captured the alt
Right, the Right and the Cracker Middle, under Obama. The election was theirs to LOSE! DNC
ran a Clinton and Sanders campaign. Sanders was the bagman to capture the Left. He sewed them
all up. This left Clinton free to drift Right, hence her militarist braggado against Russia,
(even at the same time, when BOTH parties were using Russia to obtain 'classified and highly
sensitive data' on each other.) She had to pander to the Right!
So what the People got was: NeoLiberal ZioWarPigA v. ZioWarPigB 2016. Bernie dropped out
at the appointed time, delivering the Left to Clinton. The Republican candidates dropped out
one by one, delivering the alt Right and Right to Trump, WHO IS A CRYPTO-LIBERAL.
TPTB (aka 'Deep State') didn't care one way or the other who 'won'. Just like Karzai 2009,
the Executive, whomever the People 'chose', was there to sign the final bust out:
1999 Gramm-Leich-Bliley Bankster Coup (aka 'Survival of Banking')
2001 Pentagon-DHS-CIA-NSA Deep State Coup (aka 'Survival of Government')
2008 TBTF TARP Bailout Coup (aka 'Survival of Wall Street')
2012 Citizens United Coup (aka 'Survival of Oligarchists')
2016 Trump-Rodham Bust Out Coup (aka 'Tax Abeyance for the Ricos')
Trump has 'opted out' of his duties as Commander in Chief. He lets Pentagon and CIA run
that half of his Administration. Trump has 'opted out' of his duties as Leader of the Free
World. He lets CIA-State run that half of his Administration, just like Obama did, or for
that matter, just like Bush Lite and Clinton before him, and Reagan 2. And he's totally
'toadied' up to Wall Street, bringing the greatest Tax Cuts to Corporate since Reagan 1, (and
at that point at which Reagan realized he was committing capital crimes.)
Democracy in USA ended with Carter and Reagan 1. Brezinzski, Rumsfeld, Cheney, you can
trace the lines down through the End of History to the Surrender of the American Dream.
Now we're left with Team Spirit, and $21,500,000,000,000 black hole in SS and MC Trust, and
All Future Generations will be debt slaves to the Rentiers and Mil.Gov Deep State.
It's over. Smell it! This is the point in the movie where the Titanic breaks in half.
There is only one quintile left on Earth with unencumbered wealth, the USA Boomers. The
inheritance they might have passed down to the next generation will be stripped out by ZIRP,
by >30% per year R/E asset inflation, runaway stock market inflation, Crypto, all the
usual suspects. Then the Boomers will be schlepped off into MIC elder concentration camps,
their 401ks and reverse-mortgages locked into auto-deduction, and whatever hope the Next
Generation held to inherit their Boomer wealth will have been stripped away by Corporate,
while the Next Generation are made Debt Paupers in the interim.
Can't you feel the heat on your skin? It's a CROWN FIRE! Nothing but ashes will be
left.
A mouthful of ashes, and dust. An American Pompeii. Use whatever meme gives you
comfort.
I had a ringside seat to the AFC as I worked at a major financial institution in Singapore
at that time, who had large exposure across the region. I agree with Jackrabbit "The aticle's
analysis wrt Asian financial crisis is simplistic and an exercise in blame-shifting."
Jackrabbit's point that, "Market panics happen sometimes" is axiomatic. From the South Sea
bubble to Tulipmania and beyond, manias occur and they correct in panics.
A lot of capital flowed into Asia. There was an economic boom. Financial leverage grew and
many uneconomic projects were funded along with financial speculation. At some point
speculative gains became losses. The smart money started exiting and then when it became
obvious everyone hit the exit gates at the same time. There was nothing nefarious. Just
another credit boom that busted.
Pakistan's central bank on January 2 reported that it has taken "comprehensive policy related
measures to ensure that imports, exports and financing transactions can be denominated in CNY
(Chinese Yuan)."
"Considering the recent local and global economic developments, particularly with the growing
size of trade and investment with China under CPEC, SBP (central bank) foresees that CNY
denominated trade with China will increase significantly, going forward; and will yield long
term benefits for both the countries."
The $60 billion collection of land and sea projects known as the China-Pakistan Economic
Corridor (CPEC) is a centerpiece of China's Belt and Road Iniative BRI). Beijing has
announced that i intends to extend the CPEC to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
M K Bhadrakumar -- Why businessman Trump is upset with Pakistan
The big question is how far this joint Pakistani-Chinese move to dump dollar –
alongside their announcement on December 26 in Beijing to extend the CPEC to Afghanistan
and Central Asia – explains Trump's New Year Day outburst on tweeter and the
incipient signs of an aggressive policy by the Trump administration toward Pakistan (as is
borne out by an exclusive interview by NSA HR McMaster to the Voice of America on January
3).
To my mind, it explains a great deal, as much if not more than the so-called
counterterrorist operations in Afghanistan. It is useful to remember that Trump is
quintessentially a businessman. He understands perfectly well the gathering storms on the
horizon that threaten the dollar's status as the world currency. What seemed "a cloud, a
small one, about the size of a man's hand coming up out of the sea" – as Elijah said
in the Old Testament – cannot be taken lightly any longer.
And the threat is spearheaded by countries such as China, Russia and Iran principally
– "revisionist powers". Put differently, the preservation of the dollar's global
reserve currency status is vital to the US economy as otherwise there will be and explosion
of further debt and this is turning into an existential struggle for the superpower. . .
here
Your reservations are coming from what was stated in the article. You do realize that the
article is based on a speech by a Chinese military officer, right?
@39 ab initio.. i am curious if you read the article i posted @2... i doesn't dispute much of
what you say, although i take your comment on blame shifting.. as with anything, the
complexities get simplified to project a one size fits all.. i think you would find the
article fascinating, but that is just my view on it..
@41 jr.. thanks.. yes, i am aware of that.. i think the importance of the role of the us$
becoming unhinged from gold and all the dynamics that have happened with regard to wars on
the planet from around that time and since are very well laid out in that article.. of
course, others may choose to skip or read only parts of it, or even read it all and disagree
with it!
B's pointing to a military junta being in control
is not only plausible, but only logical when one
considers where the junta receives it funding from.
It's tax payers' money funneled into the military
machine.
Who is controlling where tax payers' monies end up?
Trump? Congress? Senate? Try "none of the above".
The graphic at "Tom Dispatch: Seeing the cost of war'
for the first time" should pop the bubble about an
imminent end of U.S./allies hegemony immediately.
This occupation of 39% of Earth's countries will
not go away. It took over 18 years to get there.
At this point I like to emphasize that the present
affairs are not any one's individual result. What
we are witnessing is the playing out of long term
plans and strategies for global dominance.
If those who pursue this goal will fail in achieving
it, they will lay this planet to waste.
Here a collection of articles in regards to the
annexation of Iran by all means necessary. Mind
you though that the site has not been updated since
early 2017: http://www.hermes-press.com/stop_iran_war.htm
One must ponder about the fact that daily, weekly,
monthly or even year long events will not reveal
the deeper plans in place for decades. It will also
render moot the assumptions that individual 'failures'
could mean the failure of the grand plan.
@42 jr.. from the article "Our analysis seeks to explain the Asian financial crisis in the
context of the increase in systemic
global financial instability that has become visible after the collapse of the Bretton Woods
arrangements and the increased liberalization and mobility of international capital flows."
and what does the collapse of the bretton woods arrangements mean exactly? to me the big
collapse is the us$ no longer hinged to gold in 1971..
"Paradoxically, the most important factor in triggering the crisis seems to have been the
sudden reversal of the dollar relative to the yen in early May 1997: the dollar fell from
around 127 yen at the beginning of May to 114 yen at the end of June – an over 10 per
cent depreciation. This was accompanied by widespread expectations of a rise in Japanese
interest rates, and caused the short-term arbitrage funds from East Asia to flow back to
Japan, thereby generating strong selling pressure on the baht."
having a currency pegged to the us$ is problematic as i see it.. the article discusses the
peg and the role of capital inflow/outflow, but does not focus on the changes in us$ money
supply in any of it... what i maintain is the us$ has harvested profit around the globe
thanks this unique change from august 1971.. and, importantly i am not blaming the us, so
much as those financial forces that work in alignment with the us financial system to bring
us the various sanctions agendas and etc. that we continue to witness today as expressed
towards iran, russia, north korea and etc. etc. the system is rigged, and while it doesn't
explain everything - i think this article acknowledges this at the very beginning!
China bringing Erik Prince in for anti-terrorism work on the BRI is all the proof you need
them and Russia are part of the NWO. Perhaps not fully on board in public to appease their
populations and perhaps the powers that be also see some merit in their being adversaries
with the West for a gullible public to keep funding for the military strong. Kind of like
1984 when War is Peace. Terrorism is losing its luster w/o another 9/11 event so need to
recreate a more credible enemy.
Cant help but note that both China and Russia voted for increased sanctions on NK and the
Soviet Union did not veto the first UN resolution on Korea over 60 years ago that gave the UN
its first war. Yup, we are being played. Hollywood probably scripting this stuff since we
know the Deep State works closely with them for propaganda
It makes perfect sense for the Chinese and Pakistanis to conduct their bilateral trade in
CNY. Pakistan receives CNY for their lease of their ports and other facilities as well as
Chinese FDI and those CNY flow back for consumer and industrial goods. It eliminates the
unnecessary step of forex exchange. Less friction.
This idea that this somehow impacts the US makes no sense from a financial perspective as
there is no US activity that is being displaced. The petrodollar and USD not going to be a
reserve currency will somehow collapse the US economy is not grounded in any legitimate
economic and financial analysis. If the Chinese want the CNY to become the reserve currency
then they must be willing to run a negative trade account and be able to have deep bond
markets for the returning CNY. I say great. Let them do that. The US can then become
mercantilistic.
The Forbes article makes it clear that if the dollar is replaced as global currency, US
will be burdened by a very high debt overhang that will be a drag on its economy. This
accumulated debt will be a far greater 'hit' to US than any immediate gain by China. In fact
McTeer refers to it as a "sword of Damocles.
Perhaps this is why a PLA officer is exaggerating US financial abuse?
Total credit market debt/GDP in the US is less than China and of course much less than
Japan. Of course no one has the foggiest idea the extent of shadow banking assets in China
which could imply Total Debt/GDP could be significantly larger there. Their banking system is
sitting on some large NPAs.
When I worked at a major financial institution we did an analysis on the impacts to the US
financial system and economy if USD were no longer the reserve currency. Over a 10 year
period it was hugely beneficial. Of course the models developed could have been inadequate.
But conceptually it makes sense. These conspiracy theories floating on the innertubes of a
collapse in the US economy if there are no longer any petrodollars or USD loses reserve
status is just that.
@jr 50.. is that in reference to the 14 or 15 page pdf you posted? i did! i am curious if you
read the full article @2?
what the article @50 fails to take into account are all sorts of details connected with
the bretton woods agreement that are still in place, such as the imf and world bank where
certain countries have more voting rights, or are classified as developed, verses developing
countries and all the restrictions and etc that go with that.. the forbes article is very
superficial as i read it..
"the big collapse is the us$ no longer hinged to gold in 1971."
Actually the dollar getting off the gold standard happened in the 1930s under FDR. Nixon's
move was the final step.
I don't see any collapse in Bretton Woods since 1971 as we still have the major currencies
(USD, EUR, GBP, JPY) freely exchangeable into each other at market prices at scale. We can
however see debt growth worldwide accelerate since then. (
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-05/global-debt-hits-record-233-trillion-but-debt-to-gdp-is-falling).
We are now in a world where every currency is fiat. Meaning they can all be printed at will
and cannot be exchanged into some tangible asset. History however shows that fiat currencies
inevitably reach their intrinsic value which is zero. We now have the longest period with
fiat in history and maybe the prior historical endpoint of fiat will be changed.
These supra-national financial institutions are becoming more irrelevant each day. Global
capital flows are so much larger and central banks act and intervene so much more directly
and in such scale than in the past. The idea that the Swiss National Bank would just conjure
up SFR and convert into USD and buy $80 billion of shares in US companies including Apple
& Google would have been considered ludicrous some decades ago. The fact that the BoJ is
the Top 10 holder of all the 100 companies in the Nikkei Index would have been unthinkable
some moons ago.
But...this is the Brave New Financial World we are in! And all this precisely because we
have fiat. There is no limit to creation of currency except investor psychology.
@ 55 ab initio.. that quote of mine from @46 was in reference from the article of jrs @42.. i
quote from the article again from @42
"Our analysis seeks to explain the Asian financial crisis in the context of the increase in
systemic
global financial instability that has become visible after the collapse of the Bretton Woods
arrangements and the increased liberalization and mobility of international capital flows."
so for you - what is the word collapse in reference to in the above quote? thanks..
i think what you are overlooking or not mentioning is how the us$ has been used as a
reserve currency by a number of countries after the us$ went off the gold standard...
what do you think people in turkey do with their currency that continues to go down? maybe
many ordinary people don't care, but i would venture to guess that many of the business
people have put their money in us$! you see, the us$ has always benefited from the
instability that is created thru war and the prospect of war.. it isn't as simple as saying
'every currency is fiat' which is true btw, although a funny thing is happening in some
countries where some are amassing a good amount of gold - russia, china, india and not sure
where else... the day is coming the us$ will not be the safe haven it has been treated as in
this fiat currency world we presently live in..
@56 ab initio.. well, i do hope the imf and world bank do become more irrelevant by the day
too! the imf/world bank have been piggy banks for usa financial institutions and for the us$
which typically all the imf loans have been set in.. the day can't happen soon enough, so
that this financial pyramid scheme is replaced with something hopefully better...
those are interesting comments you make! i agree the financial world looks insane at this
point and indeed believing in fiat currency is just a part of it.
I'm certainly no economist, but I think the point is that the yuan will become "a" reserve
currency, not "the" reserve currency, thus weakening the dollar and the dollar's position not
necessarily re: Pakistan only but if it slides over to Russia, Saudi, Iran, Venezuela, etc.--
the "petrodollar" thing.
There was no claim that this "will somehow collapse the US economy." There was a claim that
there would be an affect on debt, presumably from higher interest rates, which I am no
authority on (and probably Bhadrakumar isn't either). Perhaps you are?
And let's not forget, the point here is that this issue is motivating Trump in his
anti-Pakistan strategy ("Why businessman Trump is upset with Pakistan"). Bhadrakumar's point
is that this strategy has nothing to do with anti-terrorism and everything to do with the
threat to the dollar.
Your ignoring the part of the paper that describes the policy failures prior to the AFC.
You seem to desperately want to confirm the PLA's assertions. I'm not saying the US hasn't
taken liberties from time to time but the PLA officer is exaggerating in several
respects.
ab initio has confirmed what I've said about the AFC. The Saddam assertions are false just
by application of logic. Do you think the US is the only one that colors the truth?
How to shoot yourself in the foot (x2)... DC Whitehouse risks copyright claim from 'Dumb and
Dumber' scriptwriters.
Had it not been for the American President's zero-tolerance towards immigration from what
his administration labels as "terrorist"-prone countries, which crucially includes
Afghanistan for substantial and not political reasons (as the latter relates to Iran's
inclusion and Saudi Arabia's exclusion), then Pakistan would have risked drawing heavy
pressure from the State Department on exaggerated claims that it's "violating the human
rights" of the refugees.
Trump, however, said that Pakistan was "giving safe haven to terrorists", and since the
US formally regards Afghan refugees as being too much of a potential security hazard to
allow into its own country, it's forced to accept Pakistan's expulsion of 1,5 million of
them on the implicit basis that they also constitute a serious terrorist threat to the
state such as the one that the President just tweeted about.
The US dollar, after moving away from gold, is backed only by faith/confidence. if a country
tries to move away from the dollar, faith and confidence are bombed back into them by the US
military. The US cannot bomb faith and confidence into Russia and China.
US sanctions, and the fines imposed on banks that US decides have committed offenses - German
banks have been hit hard over the last few years, paying many billions in fines.
The yuan/RMB will look attractive to many. I would guess the move to replace some US$ with
RMB, to trade in both currencies, will grow. China is the largest trade partner for many
countries. Where will the US$'s that are off-loaded to replace with RMB go to? Means less
trade in US$, less US$'s in circulation or same amount in circulation, but their value
dropped accordingly.
On another topic, the last Mercouris article is interesting.
"Republican Senators – Senator Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
and Senator Lindsey Graham, have written to the US Justice Department requesting that
Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the Trump Dossier, be investigated
because of "significant inconsistencies" in the statements he has made to the authorities."
Looks like the tide has turned in the Trump/Russia collusion bullshit. Be interesting to
see who gets exposed/washed away as the tide goes out.
@60 jr quote "@james: "collapse" refers to the end of Bretton Woods in 1971." take this up
with ab intio @55.. i was responding to him and saying the same this as you in my post @46!
also, of note although the us$ was unhinged from gold in 71, there were a number of other
features of bretton woods that continued, like the way the imf, world bank and bank of
international settlements are set up.. they continued on in the same structure in spite of
us$ going off gold.. and still no answer from you on my question to you @54! but now you are
asking me more questions.. fair is fair.. answer a few of mine, if you want more answers to
yours!
@63 jr.. i don't want to desperately hang on to every word in the article @2, but i think
it is a healthy alternative to the way world finances are typically presented.. recall how
the topic of syria is presented from the msm, verses the more nuanced viewpoint here at moa?
it is the same sort of thing... i am not all into a particular viewpoint, but i think anyone
who reads that article in full will come away with a more informed idea of how things may get
played out on in the financial world.. after listening to many apparent authorities on the
monetary system and reasons for the various bubbles, wars and etc, i find it a refreshing
approach that made a lot of sense to me. and no, the usa is not the only one to colour the
truth.. - i answered yet another of your questions! and for the record - it is not about
being right or wrong, so much as it is about learning something new, or getting a different
perspective.. so ab antio agrees with you in some context.. many agreed with the white
helmets too.. it means nothing to me! please tell me you actually read the article @2.. you
haven't said and i did ask!
@66 peter.. that is indeed how i see it.. no amount of war making will alter the present
course we are on where the us$ will continue indefinitely to hold this special world currency
status that it has had for however many years.. we are moving into a multipolar world on the
financial level as well, in spite of the special perks that the usa has benefited from the
set up after the bretton woods agreement and in particular after they removed the gold peg..
getting other currencies pegged to the us$, as opposed to gold - worked for a time, but that
world is falling apart and continues to fall apart..
pakistan is only the latest example of a country moving away from settling everything in
us$.. shit continues to fall apart for the usa on this level..
Ethiopia's Communication and Information Technology Minister Debretsion Gebremichael
announced that the construction of the dam had reached 62 percent and generating power
would start this Ethiopian year and before construction is complete. The new Ethiopian year
started on Sept. 11 and ends in October 2018.
"The remaining 38 percent of the construction will be done while the dam is generating
hydroelectric power," Gebremichael had told the Ethiopian News Agency.
Considering the slow pace at which the French consulting firms BRL and Artelia are
preparing technical studies, it is speculated that before Ethiopia begins storing the
Nile's water in the dam, studies necessary for reaching a final agreement between Egypt,
Ethiopia and Sudan on the rules of filling and operating the dam will be completed.
If no agreement takes place between the three countries, Ethiopia's next step would be
considered a clear violation of the tripartite Declaration of Principles on Ethiopia's
Renaissance Dam signed by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, Sudanese President Omar
Al-Bashir and Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn in Khartoum on March 23,
2015.
Although I did graduate with degrees in economics, finance/accounting and math, I don't
consider myself an economist, who in my opinion live in ivory towers and have limited to no
experience of the real world. I worked on the front lines of finance and in its plumbing
and lived its reality. My opinions are based on what I actually saw happening day-to-day in
forex markets, credit & trade finance and banking operations.
CNY becoming "a" reserve currency and used more in bilateral trade with China will
naturally reduce the need for USD. Which means the US will emit less USD by reducing its
trade deficit. That is axiomatic in trade/current accounting. But for CNY to become "a"
reserve currency, China will have to export more CNY by importing more goods &
services. And this CNY has to return to China which means they have to have deep bond
markets. But first China will have to make CNY fully convertible to any other major
currency, meaning their capital account must be free and there can be no capital controls
like they have now. Currently they have capital controls because every time they relax
these controls there is capital flight out of China.
Domestic interest rates in the US is a function of supply/demand for credit and of
course Fed policy. We have seen how central banks can pin short term rates to the floor.
Negative rates in Europe & Japan. The Italian and Spanish government can borrow at
lower rates than the US Treasury today because the ECB is willing to buy it at that low
price.
As far as the issue with Pakistan, I have no insight. But if I had to speculate, the
deals between China & Pakistan have been in the works for some time. Gwadar and related
OBOR infrastructure projects have been going on for a long time. Trump is putting a spoke
in the wheel everywhere he can. I interpret all his actions as causing the situation for
the US to get out. This may be how he gets out of Afghanistan.
If the US loses Pakistan as an ally, which seems to be happening, with China-Pakistan ties
becoming stronger, as they are, and then Pakistan refuses to provide land and air access
for US forces for the war on land-locked Afghanistan, then the Afghan War is finally over
after sixteen years. Might this be Trump's strategy? Let's hope so. It mostly depends upon
what China wants. Beijing may be reluctant to end the US misfortunes in Afghanistan, the
graveyard of empires.
All major currencies including CNY are backed only by faith & confidence. That is a
feature not a bug of fiat. If there is less need for USD, there will be less USD emitted,
which would be good for middle America. Not so much for Wall St.
I've never seen you use so many exclaimation marks. : )
I did read the article @2. I thought that was clear.
I don't want to spend a great deal of time analyzing it. I've described some of the
flaws I see. I think you have to be more cautious about what sources you trust.
I think the PLA wants to hasten a transition so they are willing to exaggerate. Maybe
they think a quick transition would reduce the risk of a shooting war.
I wondered about that myself. I feel that Iran is where we will finally be sure of which
way Trump is going, for good or bad. It is the place where he can throw the Saudi's under
the bus - prior to the election and release of the 29 pages he pretty much said KSA was
responsible for 9/11 - and then send the bus load of neo-cons over the cliff. If that is
what he has in mind.. but then it could, and may well do, go the other way. Iran and China
are his focus.
The paper describing AFC was not meant to be a survey of how the financial system works.
So IMF and WB are not covered.
I pointed you to the paper to support my view that the PLA article was exaggerating US
abuse and shifting blame. But I think you were looking for reinforcements of the PLA
assertions. The paper describes the speculative bubble that proceeded the crisis and the
failure to address the dangers that bubble presented.
@70 -- "...is a genius, but his Administration has an entire stable of geniuses."
In these times words like "democracy" and "genius" should only be used safely with a
suitable qualifying prefix -- e.g. "American ...".
"Exceptionalism" is another such word, but I see that it is now beginning to apply with
some degree of accuracy -- albeit, not in accord with the general direction normally
applied by the self-defining US punditry, but rather more towards the 'idiot' end of the
spectrum.
While the 'Trump vs Clinton' Reality Show continues its mission of mass distraction
there appears to be a new emerging meaning to the traditional autism TLA "ASD" -- aka,
"American Spectrum Disorder" (apologies to the autism cohort).
[* btw, ...AU 1, it unfortunately could also be confused with "Australian Signals
Directorate (ASD)" ]
In Reply To Don Bacon | Jan 7, 2018 10:44:06 PM | 73
Well said. Straight to the point, we shit or get off the pot. Enough of the infinite
wars. I think it is Trump's strategy, you know they say the US cannot be trusted, but there
is an exception where money can be made. There's no money from these 'US investments', or
there is but not for Trump and his cohorts.
Let others take the lead while the US gets to make money by taking the back seat. This
whole 'leadership prize' is overrated, I mean everyone loves the US until the money runs
out.
The conservatives have said: The truth is you don't have to go way back to find that Trump
always has been, and remains to this day, a typical New York City liberal. Ted Cruz
questioned rival Donald Trump's conservative credentials and compared him with Democrat,
Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama had a policy of supporting and allying with Pakistan, when he was aware of the
fact that Pakistan was supporting anti-American forces in Afghanistan, people that were
killing US troops. That's treasonous. And Trump has moved to end it. Good for him.
X 78 "AU 1, it unfortunately could also be confused with "Australian Signals Directorate
(ASD)"
Not sure what to make of this. A work colleague of milomilo perhaps? Not sure I have
said anything damaging to the Au government or Downer in this thread.
@ X
AU 1 can be confused with ASD? AS the saying goes - pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Before you pricks broke into my home, my wife thought I was nuts, as she went with MSM.
After that, you had a convert. Not much perhaps, but you cunts are going down.
@ 75 jackrabbit.. yes - i agree with you in all of that and i am an exclamation type of
mood today!
@ 77 jr.. fair enough.. i agree with you in all that too! i would like to see the
present system that focuses on financial productivity disconnected from actual productivity
- severed.. too much of our world is being driven by an obsession with money.. most people
- healthy living people - have enough to get by and are not thinking of ripping off
others.. i get the opposite impression with a lot of people that are fixated on money..
anyway - i thought that article @2 was especially interesting how it presented the idea of
the many wars and etc that the usa has been involved in from a financial angle.. obviously
the article could be considered skewed towards a more chinese viewpoint, but i thought it
was very interesting either way.. no one says those kinds of things anywhere that i have
read.. i feel that implies i have been given more westernized views on the financial world
then i might recognize... i certainly feel that way with regard to the way wars are
presented in the west.. nice talking with you!
@87 -- chill out dude. It was a simple joke based on previous posts of yours. I work for no
man and also live down under ... no harm or stress intended.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) said in a statement Sunday that the Iranian people and
the country's security forces played a role in ending the recent wave of unrest that the
IRGC says was fomented by foreign enemies.
The group said in a statement, "The new epic of the proud, conscious, pious, and
revolutionary Iranian people, along with the distinguished presence of tens of thousands
of loyal Basij volunteer forces in calming the riots and the sincere endeavors of the
brethren of the Law Enforcement Force and the Intelligence Ministry have broken the chain
woven by America, Britain, the Zionist regime [Israel], the Saudi royal family, the
Hypocrites [the banned Mojahedin-e-Karl Organization] and monarchists and eliminated the
witchery of a new sedition."
Iran's parliament holds a special session Sunday to discuss the anti-government
protests that began December 28 and continued into the following week.
@ 4 It is possible Trump intends to destroy the USA in order to save America?
@11 back and forth money wars do not involve the common man.. asa they do, the millions
more common men will pounce on the bankers, stockbrokers, oil men and politicians.
What just happened in Iran passed over the heads of many, as the entire angry crowd of
Irainain governed, laid aside their personal problem IOTsupport the greater needs of the
gov.
Similar to Venezuela http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/01/07/548164/Venezuela-US-economy-war
Brics may well be the last between nation bankers agreement, as cyber coins are coming on
strong.
The man in the street, at the bottom of the heap, has not yet spoken. China's method of
installing organizing facilitating infrastructure that is more or less indifferent to the
local political situation is likely to be very well received globally.
@13 There are several people who would probably like to hire you as their PR person.
@14 Saddam's failure to retain oil trades in dollars made him historiiiiieeeie. And I want
to point out that the rift between Saddam and Iran was very strong.
@15 I agree 100% . no more USD reserve currency; instead nation state independent Cyber
coin
@17 https://imgur.com/a/DTeK7 has
the idea. But there are many more revealing histories as well.
@ 20 can you make this excellent piece more readable? And maybe add a few references? I
think this guy worked throughout eastern Europe to promote the London interest?
@29 Elsi thank you; for distinguishing America from USA.
@28:@35:@37 capitalism fails mankind b\c it uses rule of law and gov. force to make mice
into giants
@48 the strength of the NWO arises from the intangible property laws: monopoly powers found
in copyright, patent and license. The entire productive output of each nation is
centralized in the legal and police powers of the state, and each thing of value is
transferred from discovery to inventor to monopoly marketeer that is the new world
order.
@49 not if the cyber currency problems get resolved.
@52, the govt of Iran has not been invited into the NWO.
@53, I agree the USA domestic in the ground oil reserves are enough to support the American
Economy even in USA hands. Before 1974, Americans produced oil in America at $11/bbl;there
was plenty of it. The monopoly powers moved production to the ME to stop American
competition from holding prices to down.
@54, right on, but once again Cyber currency is developed, and it is going to be the future
of currency IMO, banks, nations, milti-nationals are not going to be in control.. the
smallest person will trade as a large giant.
@68 its not the world that is falling apart, its the bank controlled, wall street, nation
state system.. a bottom up move is happening.. like a Tsunami, at first nothing then you
can get away from it.
@74 what good for America over what is demanded by wall street excellent point
, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted.
Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the
image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Shakesvshav @ 96: Massoud Rajavi also apparently forced female members of MEK into having
sex with him. Maryam Rajavi coerced women to participate in bizarre polygynous "marriage"
rituals with her husband.
'... Then Massoud [Rajavi] read the wedding sermon for all women one by one.[ ] then
they took the table and spread a large white meters on the floor. I [Batoul Soltani] was
shocked to see some high-ranking women of leadership Council took off their clothes and
went to Massoud. Massoud was saying "yes take off your clothes of heresy and ignorance and
dive in the pool to unite yourself with me in order to be resistant enough in every moment
of your struggle." [ ] Maryam [Rajavi] also said, "Get close to Massoud and unite with
him."...'
What a wonderfully clear and uncompromising analysis of the current political situation in
the US. And done by two of the sharpest and most charismatic truth-telling figures of the
news landscape! Thank you both, it's such a pleasure to listen to you. I pray to our God that
2018 will be the year that sees the beginning of the swamp draining! God bless you both and
God bless America!
Take all of the clintons money, and don't let them leave the country. And never hold any
government position. And life probation and monitoring on their bank funds from their minimum
wage job. That would probably be the worst thing they could be made to experience. Reduced to
commoners.
I'm concerned, irrationally, about how much Stone is shining right now, as a person. Like
fire burning brightest before the light goes out. Christopher Lee was the same way; embraced
the youth culture, wore a funny hat, and did awesome things then died. I'm selfishly
desperate for Stone to stay alive and remain a champion in this fight.
Roger Stone continually blames Bannon as the one who brought globalist McMaster into the
Trump admin. Yet McMaster was the reason Bannon was booted out, because the two of them did
not agree on the agenda & did not get along. Doesn't make sense.
Sessions is a scum! He's a traitor, who needs to be brought up on charges. An act that
would kill two birds with one stone! Prove the Russian Wikileaks allocations fraudulent, and
get Sessions fired. Inturn getting us, an honest new AG!... Preferably one willing to do his
job!
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves. ..."
"... He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons, no indictments were filed. ..."
"... Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair. ..."
"... Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes for President Donald J. Trump? ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when
Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. The two
men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated
in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with hubris and
almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having
worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy
Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering
for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons,
no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Same question I have asked before, why are all these Clinton supporters and Obama clones still part of the Trump White House?
Why have they not been removed. It almost seems as if Trump is handing these people the rope they plan to hang him with. You can
bet the farm if Obama was still in office there would be no supporters of a previous Republican administration in his White House.
They would all have been shoved out the back door long ago. Is there no way either Trump or Sessions can get rid of these people?
And if not, why not?
The Trump administration is more than overloaded with Obama holdovers and you can bet none of them is there to help him enact
his America First agenda. Those people have been working to make sure it's "America Last" for decades now.
One wonders how long they will be able to keep pushing that famous non-event, the Trump/Russian collusion theory before they realize
that people are just not buying it anymore.
Years ago, and some of you all may remember it, there was a hamburger commercial on where a little old lady stepped up to the
counter and asked "Where's the beef?" Today the public could just as easily step up and ask the Establishment "Where's the evidence?"
when it comes to Trump and the Russians because all we have heard from the Trump detractors is lots of political bloviation all dressed
up in legalese--but no real evidence to back it up.
Might I suggest that Mr. Trump and/or Mr. Sessions see about removing these people that are willfully preventing the Trump administration
from doing what we elected it to do?
Send your letter modified to be a formal complaint. I have just sent the following letter to Rosenstein by Certified Mail so
that "Someone" needs to sign for it. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attention: Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ron Rosenstein, Esq.
August 10, 2017
Subject: Mr. Robert Mueller, Esq. serving as Special Council, and calling for a Grand Jury
Dear Mr. Deputy Attorney General:
I am writing to you primarily as a way to establish a historical record of your endeavor to investigate any collusion between
President Donald J. Trump and the Russians, during the 2016 Federal Election process. Your temporary responsibilities as acting
Attorney General caused you to be attuned to the entire Department of Justice case load. And so, you would be fully aware of all
facets of the Trump-Russia 2016 Election collision, if any. No collusion was discovered. And so, it would behoove the present
Attorney General Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, Esq., to un-recuse himself now that there is no evidence of a Trump felony. You, however,
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, are complicit with Attorney Robert Mueller, Esq. in establishing a Special Council and appointed
Mr. Mueller to that position.
It is known in public circles that Mr. Mueller is a close friend of former Dir. FBI, James B. Comey. When the President of
the United States, Donald Trump fired Comey, Attorney. Robert Mueller can be seen as an extremely biased prosecutor. Mueller's
assignment, at the suggestion of Comey and its actual enactment, is, in my opinion illegal.
The Special Council began his investigation in May 2016, it has been noted in the Main Stream Media. We are now almost midway
into August and there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I am aware that a Special Council is triggered by ongoing or previous criminal activity and is based upon hard evidence that
can be used to prosecute a felon. Yet Atty. Robert Mueller was made Special Council without any criminal activity performed by
a felon and without any evidence. And then, to establish a Grand Jury for the prosecution, that is totally out of line with ethical
justice and the Rule of Law. The final partisan development is that Special Council Mueller has moved the Grand Jury from Virginia
to Washington D. C., wherein he is likely to load the Grand Jury with Democrats who, politically are biased against President
Trump.
How is that possible at such a high level in the DOJ to allow such misdeeds of justice? The complicit activity described in
the body of this letter is the criminal activity, in my opinion. No, the Mueller investigation and Grand Jury is not a witch hunt.
Rather it is a stronger term, a Vendetta.
Alan Dale Rhoads, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, Oreland, PA, 19075-1401
Lisa Barsoomian, Rod Rosenstein's wife was FBI FOiA Shot Blocker and
covert communication masking official. Did Rosenstein mention her FBI
oversight duties yesterday?
you don't think that maybe this is a honeypot? I think these over zealous criminals are creaming their pants and hanging themselves,
remember Rogers and the NSA be listening to err thing in the house
Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly
was investigating Hilary's infamous server -- he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate
though this MSM once-over, like all the others, won't go anywhere near the curious fact that the FBI never actually examined
the server, it took the word of Google-funded puppet Crowdstrike, which just happens to be run by a famously anti-Russian activist
and Terry McAuliffe does seem to lead the charmed life doesn't he? His career seems to be a laundry list of grossly unethical
but just-not-quite-illegal behavior...I guess it helps to have friends in high places.
Roger stone overplays Uranium one deal for his own partisan purposes. But he is write in his assessment of the
"Appointment of the Special Prosecutor gambit".
Notable quotes:
"... This incredible scheme perpetrated by the criminal Clintons and their coterie of minions and fellow travelers, implicates top officials of our federal government including and especially the U.S Department of Justice, including and especially Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Mueller's decades as an establishment federal careerist, which only ended with his ceding of the FBI's top job to his good pal, criminal leaker and manipulator Big Jim Comey, offer more than enough grounds for Mueller's disqualification for merely the appearances of impropriety and professional conflicts of interest they raise, just at the outset. ..."
"... That Mueller took the Special Counsel appointment without even blinking, despite his own close professional and personal connections to key figures implicated in the DOJ, NSA and FBI corruption in service to ulterior partisan ends, via the Clinton crime family, was a major red flag, right from the beginning. ..."
"... Reinforcing this red flag was the fact that Mueller's entire (supposed) vetting for this sensitive, consequential special counsel position amounted a single-sentence approval letter signed by some faceless Deputy AG barely a day after the appointment was promulgated ..."
Conspiracy to overthrow elected president by criminal mafia confirmed
As I noted in an editorial last week, President Donald Trump has only one viable option to repel the partisan lynch mob now nipping
at his heels in the form of a taxpayer-funded pack of legal hyenas, masquerading as objective prosecutors under the droopy eyes of
old reliable deep state hatchet man Robert Swan Mueller III, the special counsel appointed to "investigate" the Clinton-Podesta-Schiff-Democrat
Party-Corporate Media fabricated Russia collusion delusion.
As the GOP Congress finally begins to stir, as rapid-fire events make it increasingly impossible to deny the true nature of Mueller's
handpicked partisan hit squad of Trump-hating, Hillary-supporting D.C. swamp lawyers and arrogant federal careerists, as firings
and other departures quickly erode the carefully-contrived, totally-counterfeit veneer of credibility ascribed to Mueller and his
henchpeople, my advice to the president has only become more apropos and more imperative.
President Trump can, and must, kill two birds with one stone.
First, the president must completely disempower and dismantle Robert S. Mueller's fraudulent rogue prosecution gang, which is
merely an extension of a larger corruption of power that is unparalleled in our history.
Second, the president must use every resource at his disposal to prosecute the almost-seditious abuses of power by lawless Clinton-Obama
FBI and NSA apparatchiks who:
Politically weaponized the federal government's electronic intelligence capabilities to spy on a presidential candidate and
his campaign,
Colluded with foreign and non-state intelligence agents to manufacture evidence used as false pretexts for securing FISA warrants(s)
that employed the national security laws of the United States to give illicit, illegal cover to this political espionage,
Used the fruits of this political espionage activity to damage or otherwise hinder this candidate once they had become president-elect
and eventually President of the United States through surreptitious releases of the criminally-procured information,
Fabricated and instigated false allegations about foreign state collusion implicating the president's election campaign and
family members, and
Perpetuated this massive criminal fraud on the American people for nearly a full year by manipulating and abusing the investigatory
and prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice.
To this end, President Trump must begin at the intersection of these seditious current and former federal officials who had previously
facilitated and covered up a similarly-breathtaking and brazen criminal fraud on the country during the previous presidential administration,
to include the previous president.
The president must order his Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Obama-Clinton-Mueller-Rosenstein
criminal collusion that enriched the Clinton-Democrat crime syndicate by 100s of millions of dollars and further embedded the power
of the deep state operators who facilitated what may be the most brazen of self-serving criminal treasons in American history: the
multi-billion-dollar Uranium One pay-to-play scam.
This incredible scheme perpetrated by the criminal Clintons and their coterie of minions and fellow travelers, implicates top
officials of our federal government including and especially the U.S Department of Justice, including and especially Robert Mueller
and Rod Rosenstein.
This course of action is manifestly in the best interests of this country and of justice. It is not some political maneuver against
the president's cynical partisan persecutors or some clever machination to spare his presidency from the illegitimate cabal that
is single-minded in its intent to fraudulently remove the president from office, by any means possible.
This action by the president is both legally and constitutionally necessary to preserve any remaining credibility in our institutions
of government, which now hinges on whether or not justice will, once and for all, be visited upon the Clintons and their well-placed
partisan accomplices, finally vindicating our system of law and justice after decades of brazen, yet-unpunished corruption that the
Clintons and their ilk have insinuated into these institutions, bringing unparalleled and a now-accelerating degradation to American
civic life itself.
Pro-active Republican lawmakers have already demanded the resignation of Robert Mueller, as a start, and are calling for a thorough
probe of his entire ad hoc operation, which is now coming apart at the seams with almost daily revelations of its rotten fraudulent
core.
Mueller's decades as an establishment federal careerist, which only ended with his ceding of the FBI's top job to his good pal,
criminal leaker and manipulator Big Jim Comey, offer more than enough grounds for Mueller's disqualification for merely the appearances
of impropriety and professional conflicts of interest they raise, just at the outset. They are of such incestuous nature as it concerns
key figures of the conspiracy to remove the president that Mueller should never even have been considered for appointment.
That Mueller took the Special Counsel appointment without even blinking, despite his own close professional and personal connections
to key figures implicated in the DOJ, NSA and FBI corruption in service to ulterior partisan ends, via the Clinton crime family,
was a major red flag, right from the beginning.
Reinforcing this red flag was the fact that Mueller's entire (supposed) vetting for this sensitive, consequential special counsel
position amounted a single-sentence approval letter signed by some faceless Deputy AG barely a day after the appointment was promulgated.
"... Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking" is the absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude created for too much money as opposition research against Trump . The only other "evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has a Ukrainian nationalist agenda, was hired by the DNC ..."
"... The Crowdstrike' report was concocted under command of Dmitri Alperovitch, a rabid Russophobe of Jewish ethnicity, who is also an "expert" at Atlantic Council, where he joins other "experts" like Eliot Higgins. Higgins was nicely dressed recently by the honorable C0l. Pat Lang who wrote about Higgins: " an uneducated, inexperienced guy with an opinion The fact that this gentlemen is treated as a credible source is further proof of the insanity that has taken over the public debate. He knows nothing other than what he has read. He has not been through live agent training at Fort McClellan (I have). He has no scientific background in the subject matter and no experience (other than playing video games) with actual chemical weapons (Ted Postol, who has written extensively on the subject, does have actual scientific and military expertise on the topic). Higgins knows nothing of the military doctrine for employing such weapons. He knows nothing of the process and procedures required for a military unit to safely handle, load, activate and deploy such weapons." ..."
"... To illustrate the power of the Lobby, it is educational to know that Higgins is also a "Visiting Research Associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS," - kidding you not. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/visiting/higgins.aspx ..."
"WaPo has a 8,300 word weekend opus on how Obama failed to react to CIA director Brennan's
claims that Putin himself ordered to hack the U.S. election.
Note:
Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that
August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking" is the absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude
created for too much money as opposition research against Trump . The only other
"evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has
a Ukrainian nationalist agenda, was hired by the DNC , had to retract other "Russian
hacking" claims and no one else was allowed to take a look at the DNC servers.
Said
differently: The whole "Russian hacking" claims are solely based on "evidence" of two fake
reports."
The Crowdstrike' report was concocted under command of Dmitri Alperovitch, a rabid
Russophobe of Jewish ethnicity, who is also an "expert" at Atlantic Council, where he joins
other "experts" like Eliot Higgins. Higgins was nicely dressed recently by the honorable C0l.
Pat Lang who wrote about Higgins: " an uneducated, inexperienced guy with an opinion The fact
that this gentlemen is treated as a credible source is further proof of the insanity that has
taken over the public debate. He knows nothing other than what he has read. He has not been
through live agent training at Fort McClellan (I have). He has no scientific background in
the subject matter and no experience (other than playing video games) with actual chemical
weapons (Ted Postol, who has written extensively on the subject, does have actual scientific
and military expertise on the topic). Higgins knows nothing of the military doctrine for
employing such weapons. He knows nothing of the process and procedures required for a
military unit to safely handle, load, activate and deploy such weapons."
To illustrate the power of the Lobby, it is educational to know that Higgins is also a
"Visiting Research Associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS," - kidding
you not. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/visiting/higgins.aspx
"Controlling the narrative" is politically correct term for censorship.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or they feel personally wounded or threatened. ..."
"... "controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was). ..."
"... In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods. ..."
Maybe this is the same kind of clinical detachment doctors have to cultivate, a way of distancing oneself from the subject,
protecting yourself against a crippling empathy. I won't say that writers or artists are more sensitive than other people, but
it may be that they're less able to handle their own emotions.
It may be that art, like drugs, is a way of dulling or controlling pain. Eloquently articulating a feeling is one way to avoid
actually experiencing it.
Words are only symbols, noises or marks on paper, and turning the messy, ugly stuff of life into language renders it inert
and manageable for the author, even as it intensifies it for the reader.
It's a nerdy, sensitive kid's way of turning suffering into something safely abstract, an object of contemplation.
I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate
commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or
they feel personally wounded or threatened.
"controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the
USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was).
In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology
is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods.
They want to invoke your emotions in the necessary direction and those emotions serve as a powerful filter, a firewall which
will prevents you from seeing any alternative facts which taken as whole form an "alternative narrative".
It also creates certain taboo, such as "don't publish anything from RT", or you automatically become "Putin's stooge." But
some incoherent blabbing of a crazy neocon in Boston Globe is OK.
This is an old and a very dirty game, a variation of method used for centuries by high demand cults:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
You need to be able to decipher this "suggested" set of emotions and detach it from the set of facts provided by neoliberal
MSM. It might help to view things "Sine ira et studio" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_ira_et_studio
)
That helps to destroy the official neoliberal narrative.
Here skepticism (whether natural or acquired) can be of great help in fighting groupthink pushed by neoliberal MSM.
We are all guilty of this one sidedness, but I think that we need to put some efforts to move in direction of higher level
of skepticism toward our own views and probably provide at least links to alternative views.
I wish Robert Parry quick and full recovery after his minor stoke. He is a magnificent journalist !
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives. ..."
"... This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact. ..."
"... For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA. ..."
"... And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community. ..."
"... And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false. ..."
"... Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy. ..."
"... And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press? ..."
"... So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged. ..."
In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the
Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called
"Establishment McCarthyism,
" traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in
fright-filled stories about "Russian
propaganda" and wildly
exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks"
by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how
reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact.
It doesn't seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and,
indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.
For instance, PolitiFact still
rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release
of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly
ran corrections after
President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.
And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were
sequestered away
from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth
that should occur inside the intelligence community.
Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable "consensus" of the
"intelligence community." Contrary information, including WikiLeaks' denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and
contrary judgments from former
senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.
The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring
a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also
was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from "fracking."
How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality
and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American "democracy" is hard to comprehend.
However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report's admitted uncertainties about Russian "hacking" and the troubling implications
of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can't
be questioned or challenged.
Silencing RT
For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled "
YouTube Gave Russians Outlet
Portal Into U.S ." that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube's vice
president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising "RT for bonding with viewers by providing 'authentic' content
instead of 'agendas or propaganda.'"
The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report's conclusion that RT is "the Kremlin's
'principal international propaganda outlet' and a key player in Russia's information warfare operations around the world." In other
words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a "useful idiot."
Yet, the article doesn't actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally
to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential
contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of "information warfare."
As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com
on Wednesday, "The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly
before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014
email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that 'the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.'"
In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening
American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.
A Dangerous Pattern
Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press
freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories
that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.
And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the
Times has run favorable
articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and
other mainstream outlets deem false.
Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran
a fawning front-page article
about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other
independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing "Russian propaganda," which basically amounted to our showing any
skepticism toward the State Department's narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.
So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government's version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the
big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced
by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.
Meanwhile, Congress has
authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts"
to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters
eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy.
There is also a more coercive element to what's going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as
a "foreign agent" or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT's American reporters, hosts and staff
who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.
You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media or national
politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans
hear "another side of the story" must be prevented?
A Dangerous 'Cure'
I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories
– and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq's WMD and other U.S. government
falsehoods and deceptions over the years?
Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets
are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the "important people" say and showing little or no professional skepticism.
And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical
examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?
The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump's election that they
don't care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there's lots of money to be made.
For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its "resistance" to the Trump administration an important part of its
fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack. When I asked
ACLU about the Justice Department's move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas
Dresslar: "Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I've been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about
this."
Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional "defenders of a free press" are now part of the attack machine against a free press.
While much of this attitude comes from the big media's high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors
to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers
of what Americans get to see and hear.
For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged
the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration
of mainstream authority.
So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism,"
a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
Now he is fraternizing with former enemy
Meantime the Trump machine, continues to function with indignant disdain toward the old Obama
establishment. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.
It was always about the money laundering.
From today's Guardian:
Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel
was "going to be fair", though he also said the investigation "makes the country look very
bad". The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied
interfering.
Bannon has criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey. In Wolff's book, obtained by the
Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes
for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money
laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a
money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr
and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche
Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the
Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to
roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."
George Papadopoulos ... in 03/06//16, he joined the Trump campaign as a low-level foreign
policy adviser.
Between 03/15/16 and 09/15/16 he tried six times to to arrange meetings between the
Trump campaign and Russians, all of them rejected.
On 04/26/16 he met with a Russian contact in London and was "reportedly" offered "dirt" on
Hillary.
05/21/16. According to Mueller's investigation, a Trump campaign official refused
Papadopoulos's offer to broker meetings with Russian officials.
09/15/16. Papadopoulos emailed a Russian contact, Boris Epshteyn, trying to connect him
with Sergei Milliam, author of much of the Fusion GPS "dossier".
01/27/17. Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI, which resulted in his eventual
indictment for lying to the Bureau.
As Pat Buchanan discusses above, on 12/30/17, the NYT's Maggie Haberman (known to be
linked with the DNC), marketed a narrative that the FBI opened its Trump investigation due to
Papadopoulos, and not because of the "dossier".
These dated facts are taken, mostly verbatim, from a timeline compiled by Doug Ross
I recommend his: A TIMELINE OF TREASON: How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a
Presidential Election [Updated Saturday, December 30, 2017].
It's an excellent account of the key events, from 05/31/13 to the present, with dates and
links to key documents.
You can find it at his dougross timelineoftreason website.
The USA is not a democracy, but a moneycracy.
Jewish sociologist Stephen Steinlight fears immigration from the south.
'They see USA jews just as rich people, they know nothing about the holocaust'.
As long as someone as Soros can abolish Hungarian laws just by visiting Juncker and Tusk,
how do you think the USA can rid itself of the Israeli tether ?
And what is USA's problem with Russia ?
Of course, also the European media are busy with portraying Russia as a threat, while in
reality it is the other way round.
As Van Rompuy said, the man is rather naïve 'our dependence on Russian gas must be
diminished'.
He did not explain why.
In order no longer to be dependent on Russian gas the building costs of a house in Europe
goes up € 40.000, for insulation.
N Korea, is not the country just a Chinese pawn in the power struggle between the USA and
China ?
The country that ruled the world, the greater part of the world, since 1945, must look in
the mirror to see who caused most of today's problems.
USA generals now seem to be talking about a 'limited nuclear war in Europe'.
Generals, except a few like Napoleon, Ludendorff and Rommel, seem always to have been
complete fools.
There is no such thing a a 'limited nuclear war'.
True. The moneyocracy, in fact is what imposed the constitution on the rest of us, and the
anti-federalists were correct about what a monstrosity it would be.
The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other
country, mean well, but they are ill-informed. Floundering about in their ignorance, they
are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how
to take advantage of every turn in the wheel of fortune.
The people voted for Roosevelt because he talked of "trust-busting" at the same time
that he was sanctioning the purchase of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company by the Steel
Trust.
They supported Wilson "because he kept us out of war" at the same time that Wilson was
making preparations to enter the war. The rulers can negotiate "secret treaties" at home
and abroad. The people, knowing nothing of either the theory or the practice of secret
diplomacy, commit all sorts of follies for which they themselves must later foot the
bill.
- R. F. PETTIGREW, TRIUMPHANT PLUTOCRACY , The Story ofAmerican Public Life from
1870 to 1920.
Pettigrew, was elected as a Republican and represented the Dakota Territory in the U.S.
Congress . He was also the first U.S. Senator from South Dakota.
Blast from the past. Now we know why Coney behaved this way and who was instrumental in exonerating Hillary. They wanted to
derail both sanders and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires. ..."
"... The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server. ..."
"... That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure. ..."
"... So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written. ..."
"... Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency, lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her. ..."
"... More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said. ..."
"... For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to. ..."
"... She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute! ..."
"... "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org] ..."
"... What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political. ..."
"... She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute. ..."
"... But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law. ..."
"... She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them." ..."
"... I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal. ..."
"... That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com] ..."
"... Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me. ..."
"... In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested. ..."
"... You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.) ..."
"... She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce. ..."
"... Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her. ..."
"... I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent. ..."
"... Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you? ..."
This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document through
gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody or having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent
with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the
statute requires.
18 USC 1924.
This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without
authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC 798.
This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified
informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified
information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC 2071.
This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly,
Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28PM (
#52467767 )
The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server.
A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English. Especially since we're talking
about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury
is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:
18 USC 793:
"Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The
definition [wikipedia.org] starts with extreme
carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable
care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head
("conscious and voluntary")?
That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy
wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not
consciously choosing to be less secure.
18 USC 1924:
Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which
means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said
that.
Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called
to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries
did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server,
strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.
18 USC 798:
Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person
who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to
harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were
hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.
18 USC 2071:
You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed
or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or
public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not
that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28AM (
#52462567 )
Comey didn't say that she leaked anything. He said that she didn't properly safeguard classified information.
However, there was no intent to leak information, nor is there evidence that anything was leaked. Comey searched high and low
for a precedent which would allow him to bring charges, and he concluded that if he indicted Clinton, he would probably have to
indict a significant portion of the federal bureaucracy.
Hard to bring criminal charges for utilizing a bad process. "Should have known better" isn't a criminal offense.
Actually, you are wrong, it is a criminal offense. Anyone given classified information is briefed on the proper use and handling
of said classified information. The law, under 18 USC 793 subsection (f) actually states that any form of information that through
gross negligence is removed from it's proper place of custody is subject to criminal fines or up to 10 years in prison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Information that the Secretary of State has that she transmits to her subordinates on an unsecured email server does meet the
requirement of "gross negligence".
So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as
written.
He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting
government secrets' etc etc.
The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs.
If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.
Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency,
lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:36AM (
#52461905 )
Page 21: Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet's introduction. He has publicly written:
"To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal
email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to
individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign -minister colleagues...."
Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private
gwb43.com [wikipedia.org] server.
This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of
eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted
all emails after a period of time.
While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he
has admitted
[politico.com] that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss
classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible
to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless
nonetheless [cnn.com] he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared
Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not
have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:05AM (
#52461955 )
"At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related
to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary
Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt
to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell's "internet service or email provider"
to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.
The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell's representative
conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative."
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:10PM (
#52464787 )
A lot of people did the same thing and Colin Powell was one of them.
No. There's a difference here. From FBI director Comey and the State Department:
More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information,
including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said.
The State Department inquiry identified 10 messages sent to Rice's immediate staff that were classified and two sent to Powell,
according to Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Benghazi committees.
The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails
was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.
It appears that Clinton sent / received over 100 Emails clearly marked "secret" in some form or another; Powell had 2 Emails
retroactively classified. Seems like a very narrow distinction, but it's not. Clinton handled 110 messages (those that were found)
that were unambiguously marked as classified, Powell did not.
The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it
over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent
the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network.
Regardless of where the server is hosted from.
A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years
later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime.
It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified.
And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and
at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.
For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required.
Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.
For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time
Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject
to.
Are you seriously trying to make this about a FOIA compliance issue? This has nothing to do with FOIA.
She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony
if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and
we are recommending to not prosecute!
Powell did not have a private server, and while he did have a personal address there is no evidence that any material that
was classified at the time was ever sent to/from it. Politifact rates Clinton's statement that her predecessors did it as "Mostly
false"
"the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized
removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary
did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m...
[theantimedia.org]
The Government Has Prosecuted Nearly Every Violator of Secrecy Rules Before Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration has filed
more charges against those who leak classified information than all previous presidential administrations combined, according
to a statement made by CNN's Jake Tapper that was marked "True" by Politifact.
http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...
[usuncut.com]
What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have
done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000
fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich
enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating
to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered
to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same
has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said
he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was
violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you
promise to not be careless with it.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies
ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of
custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves
intent :)
The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required
security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If
you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that
the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified
information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.
What proof is there that the sysadmins were competent, beyond the faint hope that they should be?
What proof do you have that she personally put classified information on her server?
What proof is there that, at the time the server was built, it was intended to hold classified information?
There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely
solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not
serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified
on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information.
The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving
an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone
else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is
responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified
networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You
request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That
does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject
of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If
there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission.
Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.
It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing
before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your
entire case.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then
and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material
that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin
with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same
extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.
What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information,
with a few exceptions.
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information.
Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there
is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was
the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefore we have Gross negligence.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked-
classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking
of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove
the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like
she knew it was illegal.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong,
makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry
and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has
been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information
are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating
factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written.
Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that).
Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although
there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable
prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey).
I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate
and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction.
That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is
getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the
way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information
are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least
as terrible.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding
with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without
damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor
and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require
intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence.
When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that
if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails
containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with
classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with
classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:33PM (
#52459649 )
He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight
of those emails carried top secret information , eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.
I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...
It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "in such a way as to support an inference
of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." The FBI characterization
of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure
of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified
information.
The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading
something else.
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they
were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains
contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies
everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different,
though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even
just having it
stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com]
It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not.
It was exposed.
As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats
and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very
clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information
on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall
(highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified.
There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked.
That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.
The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and
strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes
the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not
require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet
is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:36PM (
#52459661 )
Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence
community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws
actually applied to me.
I support the NSA and I also support Snowden. Snowden did a brave and terrifying thing that needed
to happen, that needed to be done, knowing the consequences he faced. The NSA is a good organization with many good people doing
what they need to do with love for their countrymen in their hearts and honor in their actions. Some people in the NSA made bad,
perhaps even evil decisions. Sometimes bad people get put in positions they shouldn't be, and sometimes people with power, even
good people, make decisions that are bad.
Supporting the NSA doesn't mean I support all the decisions or people that are a part of it. I believe the NSA did some bad
things, but that doesn't mean I think the organization is bad or comprised of bad people.
What Snowden did may have been illegal, but it was a choice to do what he believed was right. For what it's worth I believe
it was right too. I think it is a terrible thing to have to choose between following the law and doing what is right when the
two are mutually exclusive.
The US justice system was designed intentionally to have people determine not only whether the law was followed, but also whether
the law should apply. Snowden should be able to face a court of his peers and plead his case and that jury should be able to make
a judgement not based on the law, but on whether what he did was wrong or right. It disturbs and saddens me to realize I don't
trust that he could receive such a fair trial.
The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so
powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
The constitution would need to be modified, however.
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying,
or in Manning's case, whistleblowing
I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.
In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges
against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an
affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling
classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000.
The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence officer with Top Secret clearance and had served in the
war zone. She used the information (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there
being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her
intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he
have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to
his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information
was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that
she lied to the American people.)
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded
nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her.
She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".
I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying.
The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is
intended to deceive.
Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used
to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton
Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay
marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent,
and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible
fool are you?
Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953)[1] is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor
to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ.[2] He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and
has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a
biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.
Michael Wolff was born in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Lewis Allen Wolff (October 10, 1920 - February 18, 1984)[5], an
advertising professional, and Marguerite "Van" (Vanderwerf) Wolff (November 7, 1925 – September 17, 2012)[6] a reporter for Paterson
Evening News.[7][8] He attended Columbia University in New York City, and graduated from Vassar College in 1975.[9] While a student
at Columbia, he worked for The New York Times as a copy boy
How Michael Wolf managed to tape people in WH?
Notable quotes:
"... "Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh." ..."
"... Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff." ..."
"... Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mike Allen writes at Axios that Michael Wolff,
author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has "dozens of hours" of
recordings to corroborate the controversial quotes attributed to senior White House personnel
in the new book -- including former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart executive
chairman Stephen K. Bannon.
"Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of
them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White
House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh."
Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah
Huckabee Sanders announced a
ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff."
Wolff wrote in
The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall"
over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the
building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration.
While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James
Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include
anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer
disagrees .
While we
previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he
reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out
that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of
investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer
to that effect:
We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that
we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all
of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they
remain classified. - Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch
Therefore, Farrell points out, Comey mishandled national defense information when he
"knowingly and willfully" leaked them to his friend at Columbia University.
It's also mishandling of national defense information, which is a crime. So it's clear
that Mr. Comey not only authored those documents, but then knowingly and willfully leaked
them to persons unauthorized, which is in and of itself a national security crime. Mr. Comey
should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.
In closing, Farrell tells Dobbs "Recently retired and active duty FBI agents have told me -
and it's several of them, they consider Comey to be a dirty cop ."
"... In a wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state] and their tactics. " It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties, " he explained. "I say that as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." – New American ..."
Longtime Trump advisor and confidante Roger Stone is warning America that the Deep State is getting desperate to find a way to
remove Trump from office and since Plan "A" and "B" are not working out, a horrific Plan "C" may have to be put into play.
In a wide-ranging interview with
The New American magazine
at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state]
and their tactics. "
It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten
or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties,
" he explained. "I say that
as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the
bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for
expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." –
New
American
"He's a shock to the system," said Stone, a legendary political operative who, in addition to his longtime relationship
with Trump, has served as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Senator Bob Dole, and others. According to
Stone, Donald Trump's election represented the "hostile takeover of the old Republican Party, which we now hope to remake in
his image as a party that stands for economic nationalism, that stands for putting American interests ahead of globalist interests,
and re-affirms our sovereign rights as Americans."
"Now, I think the establishment, at this time, when the president has just passed his tax cut, has cut these regulations
-- so you see a record stock market, you see unemployment at all time lows, you see a booming housing market --
it's
easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the Insiders have for this president, and to underestimate
their resolve to remove him
."
Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president when Plan A and B fail, which seems the likely
scenario. "Having written books on the Kennedy assassination, having highlighted the attempted assassination of President Ronald
Reagan by people deeply associated with the Bush family, I think the establishment has Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C," he said.
"
Plan
A is very clearly a take-down by the illegitimate Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
who was appointed not by Jeff Sessions,
not at the direction of the president, but by this fellow Rosenstein, who is a close associate of Mueller and [disgraced former
FBI boss James] Comey, and who is a globalist Bush insider, a liberal Republican, who somehow got the number two position in
the Trump Justice Department," Stone warned, saying the establishment was now hoping Trump would fire Mueller to regain the
upper hand.
The other thing that is becoming more and more apparent, Stone said, is that "neither Mr. Mueller nor the House nor the
Senate Intelligence committees nor the Judiciary committees in those bodies have been able to find any evidence of Russian
collusion."
"Sorry, but Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer that provided nothing is perfectly legal and proper," Stone said. "There's
nothing wrong with it. She produced no evidence, but what we did learn is that she was in the country thanks to the Obama FBI,
without a visa, and she was popping up and being photographed at Hillary rallies and in John McCain's office. She's a Quisling!
It's a setup! She's a spy. She delivered nothing. It's an attempt to entrap Donny Jr. in a meeting that's perfectly innocuous
and perfectly legal."
But the deep state's Plan B is to invoke the 25th Amendment.
"So we'll see an uptick in all of this 'Trump is mentally imbalanced, Trump is insane, Trump must be removed,'" Stone warned.
"Now you have to examine the extent to which they can whip up that hysteria as a backdrop because, without that hysteria, such
a political move on the president will fail." And once Plan B fails, the globalists will move on to Plan C, which is simply
an assassination.
"We know Plan C. We saw it in the case of
President John F. Kennedy,
who had crossed the Central Intelligence Agency and the Deep State over both the Cuban Missile
Crisis and the Bay of Pigs, both, I think, central,"
he said.
Today's
report on the filing of a suit against the "Deep State" DOJ, Rosenstein and Mueller by Paul
Manafort is a HUGE story. Manafort's suit is likely to shut down Mueller investigation!
No wonder the MSM came out with the Bannon – Trump story today. Whenever a huge story
comes out about Criminal and Corrupt Mueller and Rosenstein and the Deep State led DOJ, another
story is released by the MSM to change the subject in the media. Today the MSM talked about
Breitbart's Steve Bannon's remarks about members of President Trump's family. These remarks
have not yet been substantiated. However, the much bigger story in the news is that former
Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort sued the DOJ, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein and is
demanding the Mueller investigation be shut down!
We have reported for months on the many criminal and corrupt actions taken by numerous
parties related to the Mueller investigation.
Mueller never should have taken on the job in the first place due to numerous conflicts. He
is best friends with fired leaker and former FBI Director James Comey. He
met with Comey shortly before Comey testified with Congress and for this alone he should
have recused himself. The team Mueller built to attack President Trump and have him removed is
all Deep State attorneys and crooks. Mueller's record in the past is scattered with actions
that let the Clintons off Scott free on numerous occasions when they should have been put in
jail.
But
the perhaps one of the most damning aspects of
the Mueller investigation is that it was not legal . The corrupt Mueller investigation is
tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility.
Mueller is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
FOX News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett stated
in an article a couple of months ago the fact that the entire Mueller investigation is
lawless. Jarrett argued that –
Shortly after the indictments[against Papadopoulos and Manafort] were unsealed, the
media's spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser
to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during
his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal "collusion," right?
Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to
the FBI. He was not charged with so-called "collusion" because no such crime exists in
American statutory law , except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and
political campaigns.
It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.
They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes "colluding" with a foreign
government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal
codes.
Jarrett then turned his attention to Corrupt Hillary –
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to
funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the
infamous and discredited Trump "dossier." The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101)
prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.
It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose
of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this
one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could
be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking
campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that's not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as
Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in
donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails,
financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials
enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which
unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America's uranium supply to Russia.
If this proves to be a corrupt "pay-to-play" scheme, it would constitute a myriad of
crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC
1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation
is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.
The US statutory law is clear and Jarrett points it out. He concluded with the following
–
Until now, no one had legal "standing" to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller
was illegal. The criminal charges [against Manafort and Papadopoulos] change all that. The
two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller's appointment by Acting
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to
appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction.
Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein
directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any
specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It
is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
Today as reported by Cristina Laila at TGP,
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported
by US Law. This is the biggest story of the day! Manafort is suing to have the Mueller
investigation shut down!
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked
Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further
authority to investigate and prosecute " any matters that arose or may
arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized by
DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to
be investigated." Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct
investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
If Manafort wins this case – which it appears according to the law he will
– the entire investigation would be deemed illegal – which it is – and
therefore legally would have to be shut down – which it should be.
President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, sued the special counsel on Wednesday and asked a federal court to
narrow his authority...
... ... ...
Mr. Manafort's lawsuit gives voice to one of the common grievances Mr. Trump's supporters
have with Mr. Mueller: None of the charges he has brought answer the central question of his
inquiry. Mr. Mueller is investigating the Russian government's meddling in the 2016
presidential election and whether anyone close to Mr. Trump was involved.
Mr. Manafort argued in the lawsuit that Mr. Mueller had gone too far. He sued both Mr.
Mueller and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mr. Mueller. The
lawsuit said Mr. Rosenstein had improperly given Mr. Mueller the authority to investigate
"anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote."
Mr. Manafort asked a federal judge to reject Mr. Mueller's appointment as overly broad and
to dismiss the indictment against him. He also asked for a court order prohibiting Mr. Mueller
from investigating anything beyond Russian meddling in the election.
The ongoing feud between Steve Bannon and various members of Trump's inner circle, including
family members Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., is hardly a secret (we wrote about it here:
Steve Bannon In "Self-Imposed Exile" After Disputes With Trump's Inner Circle ). But, if
The Guardian 's reporting on excerpts from an explosive new book penned by Michael Wolff
are even directionally accurate, then Bannon has just taken his White House feud to a whole new
level.
According to The Guardian, which apparently got its hands on a copy of "Fire and Fury" ahead
of its expected release next week, Bannon unloads on Don Jr. and Kushner saying that their
meeting with
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York was "treasonous" and/or
"unpatriotic" and the FBI should have been called immediately.
Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting
between the president's son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as
"treasonous" and "unpatriotic", according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to
say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked
mockingly: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a
foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with
no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I
happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should
have been set up "in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet
with these people". Any information, he said, could then be "dump[ed] down to Breitbart or
something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication".
... ... ...
Trump is not spared in the new book either. According to The Guardian, Wolff writes that
Thomas Barrack Jr, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital who counts himself as one of
Trump's earliest supporters, allegedly told a friend: "He's not only crazy, he's stupid."
All of which should make for some very entertaining Trump tweets once the book drops next
week.
Meanwhile, even Drudge couldn't avoid getting dragged into the fray and on Wednesday morning
tweeted: "No wonder schizophrenic Steve Bannon has been walking around with a small army of
bodyguards..."
Bannon is being quoted in the Guardian from his forthcoming book, paraphrasing: "they had
(sic) top officials from the new administration meeting with Russians in Trump Tower and
nobody thought to have a lawyer present? The minimum they could've done was call the
FBI."
This statement doesn't pass the smell test or Bannon is smoking some Colorado grass. One
minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI? I don't think
so.
She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular
manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder.
Browder was once the biggest foreign investor in Russia, but he has since become a vocal
critic of the country's leadership and has clashed with Putin's inner circle.
Browder was a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law passed in 2012 that imposes
economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russians named as human rights abusers. Browder
believes it is Putin's No. 1 priority to get the U.S. to lift the sanctions imposed under the
act, which currently affect 44 Russians.
In her interview with Russian government-funded RT, Veselnitskaya called Browder "one of the
greatest experts in the field of manipulating the mass media," and said she had "no doubt that
this whole information campaign is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as
revenge" for a legal settlement earlier this year which effectively saw his efforts to expose
alleged Russian money-laundering in the U.S. hit a brick wall.
During Browder's appearance on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, co-host Charlie Rose called
attention to Browder's description of Veselnitskaya as "probably the most aggressive person I
have ever encountered in all of my contacts with Russians" -- to which Browder replied, "Yes,
she's a remarkable person. I should caveat that: she's not aggressive in a physical
way."
Pat asks interesting question: "If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton
was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to
Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI
investigation?"
That suggest that Rosenstein is an accomplice of the FBI "gang of three"
NYT lost any respectability and is just a CIA controlled outlet. As one commenter aptly put
it: "The article provides further proof that anything the NY Times has published in the last 10
years or so, particularly since the organ became the property of Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim,
is deep state bullshit."
Unlike honest investigation witch hunt has its own rules and dynamics. Mueller is completely
compromised by connections to the FBI "gang of three"
Notable quotes:
"... What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump's team? ..."
"... Yet, if Steele's dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier's contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem. ..."
"... But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017? ..."
"... If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him -- as compared to Steele? ..."
"... If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation ..."
"... Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign's ties to Russian agents, than to Trumpian "collusion" that is yet unproven? Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished: They have kept alive a special counsel's investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI's reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government. Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War. ..."
What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in
July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the
Trump presidency?
As James Comey's FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove
Donald Trump's "collusion" with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting
this investigation?
What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian
candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to
surveil and wiretap Trump's team?
Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as
Mueller's men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the
outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.
Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap
warrants of Trump's team are said to have been issued on the basis of a "dirty dossier" that
was floating around town in 2016 -- but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could
not validate its lurid allegations.
Who produced the dossier?
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele
was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton
campaign and DNC. Writes the Washington Times, Steele "paid Kremlin sources with Democratic
cash."
Yet, if Steele's dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier's
contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a
problem.
Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his
investigation discredited.
Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year's Eve by a major revelation in The New
York Times. Top headline on page one:
"Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry" The story that followed correctly framed
the crucial question: "What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a
counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential
election?"
The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for: "It was not, as Trump and other
politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign.
Instead it was firsthand information from one of America's closest intelligence allies."
The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an "upscale London Bar" in the West
End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump
campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos
had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton's emails.
Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June,
Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government,
which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.
The Times' story pounds home this version of events: "The hacking and the revelation that a
member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that
led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election
and whether any of Trump's associates conspired."
This, the Times assures us, "answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year."
Well, perhaps.
But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the
investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January
2017?
According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he
had learned from the Russians. And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.
If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him --
as compared to Steele?
Yet another major question remains unanswered.
If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking "into Russian attempts to disrupt the
elections," why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier
that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?
If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI
investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using
British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation ?
Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign's ties to Russian agents, than to
Trumpian "collusion" that is yet unproven? Consider what the British spy Steele and his former
KGB/FSB comrades accomplished: They have kept alive a special counsel's investigation that has
divided our country, imperiled the FBI's reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and
partially paralyzed the U.S. government. Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of
his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so
cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Mr. Buchanan bangs this into his every column on the subject, thus securing his place on
the right edge of the Establishment's 3×5 card of condoned discourse.
To paraphrase Mr. Orwell, "We always have to be at war with Eastasia."
But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the
investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January
2017?
Exactly. Something's fishy. The Steele dossier that formed the original basis for the
Trump-Russia collusion investigation is falling apart since it's chock full of salacious and
unverified claims. So a new narrative is being constructed to keep this alive and
kicking.
This investigation is nothing more than a political hit and attempted coup d'etat and we
can thank none other than (((Rod Rosenstein))) for this.
The whole Mueller investigation will fall apart. What lessons will the Trump administration
and the American public learn from it? Mr. Buchanan errs that the Russian spin was triggered
by Putin's old KGB comrades. It was homemade.
The whole affair tells the world more about the rottenness of the American political
system and its elites. All the leftover crooks from the Obama and the Clinton political mafia
have to be indicted, starting with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Rosenstein, and
Mueller with his appointed Clinton supporters. But also the former directors such as Clapper,
Brennon and their ilk should be brought to justice.
I mentioned already several times that the FBI, CIA et cetera are criminal organizations,
which are run by a political mafia. I would even terminate the CIA the most significant, best
paid and well-trained terror organization in the world, followed by the Mossad.
To drain the swamp to have to turn the D.C. institutions upside down. But is Trump capable
or still willing doing it? Doubts are appropriate. The Deep State has already gotten hold of
Trump because he gave in by not publishing all the documents of the assassination of JFK.
Wouldn't they have demonstrated that the CIA committed the crime?
Trump should put first his own house in order before starting another war against Iran for
the benefit of Israel.
Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days,
who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won
the Cold War.
No Pat, the US did not win the Cold War. It all ended fairly amicably. The Russians pulled
their forces out of Eastern Europe and let those countries reassert their independence.
Russia should have pressed for a formal treaty, certainly. But that's another matter.
It is true that since the Bill Clinton presidency the US Government has acted as if it did
win the Cold War. This has been one of the root causes of America's disastrous military and
diplomatic policies. But Russia has revived as a great power, and has been joined by
China.
Some victory, then
No Pat, the US did not win the Cold War. It all ended fairly amicably. The Russians
pulled their forces out of Eastern Europe and let those countries reassert their
independence.
Thus, the most salient reason for the Cold War was no more, and the main US Cold War
objective was fulfilled.
After the lies that the NYT spread about the Iraq nuclear capabilities that destroyed the
life of millions of Arabs, Moslem and Christians, I still wonder how anyone could believe
what its pro-Israel journalists keep writing.
With its obvious bias, in my view the NYT has a very low credibility and is deep in the
swamp.
The problem with white men is white privilege. For us to be honest about our history, we'd
have to come clean about our ancestors, our so-called education, the entire system that
allows us to be "color-blind," basically all the lies we've been fed since day one about the
Calvinist work ethic that suggests we made it on humble Christianity and hard work alone.
the family tree is rotten to the root, and our legacy is the inheritance of the
psychopathology that has defined this country since day one. that we choose denial and
avoidance is a testament to our lack of character and the truth of our soul.
The article provides further proof that anything the NY Times has published in the last 10
years or so, particularly since the organ became the property of Mexican Billionaire Carlos
Slim, is deep state bullshit. Actually it has largely been that for twenty years or longer.
The new book by former NY Times ace reporter Risen documents the decline to servile
propaganda status of the onetime newspaper of record.
"... Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures. Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January 16. ..."
"... More like "the special counsel doesn't have authority to investigate literally anything" since the charges against Manafort have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump-Russia. You can't charge someone with a crime when the evidence was obtained illegally... ..."
Paul Manafort, who served as the campaign chair for then-candidate Donald Trump's presidential campaign from March to August 2016,
on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein.
The suit brought Wednesday in US District Court in Washington where Manafort and another former Trump campaign aide, Robert Gates,
were charged, contends that the order Rosenstein signed to appoint Mueller "exceeds the scope of Mr. Rosenstein's authority to appoint
special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments" and challenges Mueller's decision to charge Manafort
with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, but rather relate to lucrative lobbying work Manafort
and his deputy did for a former Russia-friendly government in Ukraine . That work ended in 2014, the suit says. Manafort and his
deputy Rick Gates deny the allegations in the charges.
The focus is on a part of the Rosenstein order that says that Mueller may investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly
from the investigation." The Manafort lawyers say that goes beyond what the law allows Rosenstein to empower Mueller to do.
Further, the Rosenstein order gives Mueller " carte blanche to investigate and pursue criminal charges in connection with anything
he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote from the specific matter identified as the subject of the appointment
order ," the lawsuit says.
Manafort and Gates was arrested in October and charged with money laundering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent during his
work as a lobbyist for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and his party of regions. None of the charges brought against
Manafort pertain to his work with the Trump campaign.
The legal action represents the latest tack in a broader effort by supporters of the President to push back on the special counsel.
Some Republicans have begun publicly calling for Mueller's probe to be shut down. Manafort's attorneys have echoed the President's
criticism that Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is pursuing crimes that never happened.
Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures.
Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January
16.
Hillary's defense is "What difference, at this point, does it make?" My comment is directed to the fact that we each need 22
sets eyeballs to be able to keep up with all news. Reading headlines is not keeping up with news and to your point of his defense
it is more along the lines of "the special council does not have the ability to charge him because it shouldn't have been in existence
in the first place" based on my first cursory read of it .
More like "the special counsel doesn't have authority to investigate literally anything" since the charges against Manafort
have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump-Russia. You can't charge someone with a crime when the evidence was obtained illegally...
The need to challenge the legality of the special prosecutor "Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999,
there has been no federal law governing the appointment of a special prosecutor. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice
Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels."
And there has be evidence on wrong doing before appointment!
"... Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society. ..."
It's great that The Deep State's attempted coup against Trump has (thus far) failed...
BUT, given all the serious crimes that The Left has been caught red-handed
involved in, and the complete lack of legal repercussions that have resulted, I'm losing
faith in our ability to mend the American justice OR political systems :/
All these witch hunts have done, is continue to exonerate Trump, and expose crimes, and
corruption from the deep stare, MSM, DNC, Clintons, and Obama. As well as further discredit
our intelligence agencies, and destroy what little faith the people had in them.
All this debacle, constantly demonizing Trump is the Dems way of hiding there own
corruption. Smoke & mirrors. The Dems remind me of an Ouroboros like creature eating its
own tail but destroying itself
Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your
commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society.
"... As early as 2009 "secret recordings and intercept emails showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act . ..."
"... The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein , who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe , who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015." -- Looks like a nest of traitors and incompetent opportunists fattening on the US taxpayers' money ..."
As early as 2009 "secret recordings and intercept emails showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with
bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act .
The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein , who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General,
and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe , who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. Robert Mueller was head of the
FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam
being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015."
-- Looks like a nest of traitors and incompetent opportunists fattening on the US taxpayers' money
"... The central groupthink around Russia-gate is the still unproven claim that Russia hacked Democratic emails in 2016 and publicized them via WikiLeaks, a crucial issue that NSA experts say should be easy to prove if true, reports Dennis J. Bernstein. ..."
"... Binney: We at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published an article on this in July. First of all, if any of the data went anywhere across the fiber optic world, the NSA would know. Just inside the United States, the NSA has over a hundred tap points on the fiber lines, taking in everything. ..."
"... The other data that came out from Guccifer 2.0, a download from the DNC, has been a charade. It was a download and not a transfer across the Web. The Web won't manage such a high speed. It could not have gotten across the Atlantic at that high speed. You would have to have high capacity lines dedicated to that in order to do it. They have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here. ..."
"... Bernstein: Let me come at this from the other side. Has the United States ever tried to hack into and undermine Russian operations in this way? ..."
"... Binney: Oh, sure. We do it as much as anybody else. In the Ukraine, for example, we sponsored regime change. When someone who was pro-Soviet was elected president, we orchestrated a coup to put our man in power. ..."
"... Did the US meddle in the Russian elections that brought Yeltsin to power? ..."
"... I believe they did. We try to leverage our power and influence elections around the world. ..."
"... Binney: Yes, to defend privacy but also to defend the Constitution. Right now, our government is violating the first, fourth and fifth amendments in various ways. Mueller did it, Comey did it, they were all involved in violating the Constitution. ..."
"... Bernstein: There seems to be a new McCarthyite operation around the Russia-gate investigation. It appears that it is an attempt to justify the idea that Clinton lost because the Russians undermined the election. ..."
"... Bernstein: It was initially put out that seventeen intelligence agencies found compelling evidence that the Russians hacked into our election. You're saying it was actually selected individuals from just three agencies. Is there anything to the revelations that FBI agents talked about taking action to prevent Trump from becoming president? ..."
"... Binney: It certainly does seem that it is leaning that way, that is was all a frame-up. It is a sad time in our history, to see the government working against itself internally ..."
"... Bernstein: What concerns do you have regarding the Russia-gate investigation and the McCarthyite tactics that are being employed? ..."
"... Binney: Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly unconstitutional. ..."
The central groupthink around Russia-gate is the still unproven claim that Russia hacked
Democratic emails in 2016 and publicized them via WikiLeaks, a crucial issue that NSA experts
say should be easy to prove if true, reports Dennis J. Bernstein.
A changing-places moment brought about by Russia-gate is that liberals who are usually more
skeptical of U.S. intelligence agencies, especially their evidence-free claims, now question
the patriotism of Americans who insist that the intelligence community supply proof to support
the dangerous claims about Russian 'hacking" of Democratic emails especially when some veteran
U.S. government experts say the data would be easily available if the Russians indeed were
guilty.
One of those experts is William Binney, a former high-level National Security Agency
intelligence official who, after his 2001 retirement, blew the whistle on the extraordinary
breadth of NSA surveillance programs. His outspoken criticism of the NSA during the George W.
Bush administration made him the subject of FBI investigations that included a raid on his home
in 2007.
Even before Edward Snowden's NSA whistleblowing, Binney publicly revealed that NSA had
access to telecommunications companies' domestic and international billing records, and that
since 9/11 the agency has intercepted some 15 trillion to 20 trillion communications. Snowden
has said: "I have tremendous respect for Binney, who did everything he could according to the
rules."
I spoke to Binney on Dec. 28 about Russia-gate and a host of topics having to do with
spying and America's expanding
national security state.
Dennis Bernstein: I would like you to begin by telling us a little about your background at
the NSA and how you got there.
William Binney: I was in the United States Army from 1965 to 1969. They put me in the
Army Security Agency, an affiliate of the NSA. They liked the work I was doing and they put me
on a priority hire in 1970. I was in the NSA for 32 years, mostly working against the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact. I was solving what were called "wizard puzzles," and the NSA was
sometimes referred to as the "Puzzle Palace." I had to solve code systems and work on cyber
systems and data systems to be able to predict in advance the "intentions and capabilities of
adversaries or potential adversaries."
Bernstein: At a certain point you ran amiss of your supervisors. What did you come to
understand and try to tell people that got you in dutch with your higher-ups?
Binney: By 1998-1999, the "digital issue" was basically solved. This created a
problem for the upper ranks because at the time they were lobbying Congress for $3.8 billion to
continue working on what we had already accomplished. That lobby was started in 1989 for a
separate program called Trailblazer, which failed miserably in 2005-2006. We had to brief
Congress on how we were progressing and my information ran contrary to the efforts downtown to
secure more funding. And so this caused a problem internally.
We learned from some of our staff members in Congress that several of the corporations that
were getting contracts from the NSA were downtown lobbying against our program in Congress.
This is the military industrial complex in action. That lobby was supported by the NSA
management because they just wanted more money to build a bigger empire.
But Dick Cheney, who was behind all of this, wanted it because he grew up under Nixon, who
always wanted to know what his political enemies were thinking and doing. This kind of approach
of bulk acquisition of everything was possible after you removed certain segments of our
software and they used it against the entire digital world. Cheney wanted to know who his
political enemies were and get updates about them at any time.
Bernstein: Your expertise was in the Soviet Union and so you must know a lot about
bugging. Do you believe that Russia hacked and undermined our last election? Can Trump thank
Russia for the result?
Binney: We at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published an
article on this in July. First of all, if any of the data went anywhere across the fiber optic
world, the NSA would know. Just inside the United States, the NSA has over a hundred tap points
on the fiber lines, taking in everything. Mark Klein exposed some of this at the AT&T
facility in San Francisco.
This is not for foreigners, by the way, this is for targeting US citizens. If they wanted
only foreigners, all they would have to do was look at the transatlantic cables where they
surface on the coast of the United States. But they are not there, they are distributed among
the US population.
Bernstein: So if, in fact, the Russians were tapping into DNC headquarters, the NSA
would absolutely know about it.
Binney: Yes, and they would also have trace routes on where they went specifically,
in Russia or anywhere else. If you remember, about three or four years ago, the Chinese hacked
into somewhere in the United States and our government came out and confirmed that it was the
Chinese who did it, and it came from a specific military facility in Shanghai. The NSA had
these trace route programs embedded by the hundreds across the US and all around the world.
The other data that came out from Guccifer 2.0, a download from the DNC, has been a
charade. It was a download and not a transfer across the Web. The Web won't manage such a high
speed. It could not have gotten across the Atlantic at that high speed. You would have to have
high capacity lines dedicated to that in order to do it. They have been playing games with us.
There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here.
Bernstein: So was this a leak by somebody at Democratic headquarters?
Binney: We don't know that for sure, either. All we know was that it was a local
download. We can likely attribute it to a USB device that was physically passed along.
Bernstein: Let me come at this from the other side. Has the United States ever tried
to hack into and undermine Russian operations in this way?
Binney: Oh, sure. We do it as much as anybody else. In the Ukraine, for example, we
sponsored regime change. When someone who was pro-Soviet was elected president, we orchestrated
a coup to put our man in power.
Then we invited the Ukraine into NATO. One of the agreements we made with the Russians when
the Soviet Union fell apart was that the Ukraine would give them their nuclear weapons to
manage and that we would not move NATO further east toward Russia. I think they made a big
mistake when they asked Ukraine to join NATO. They should have asked Russia to join as well,
making it all-inclusive. If you treat people as adversaries, they are going to act that
way.
Bernstein:Did the US meddle in the Russian elections that brought Yeltsin to
power?
Binney:I believe they did. We try to leverage our power and influence elections
around the world.
Bernstein: What has your group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, been
up to, and what has been the US government's response?
Binney: We have been discussing privacy and security with the European Union and with a
number of European parliaments. Recently the Austrian supreme court ruled that the entire bulk
acquisition system was unconstitutional. Everyone but the conservatives in the Austrian
parliament voted that bill down, making Austria the first country there to do the right
thing.
A slide from material leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden to the Washington Post,
showing what happens when an NSA analyst "tasks" the PRISM system for information about a new
surveillance target.
Bernstein: Is it your goal to defend people's privacy and their right to communicate
privately?
Binney: Yes, to defend privacy but also to defend the Constitution. Right now,
our government is violating the first, fourth and fifth amendments in various ways. Mueller did
it, Comey did it, they were all involved in violating the Constitution.
Back in the 1990's, the idea was to make our analysts effective so that they could see
threats coming before they happened and alert people to take action so that lives would be
saved. What happens now is that people go out and kill someone and then the NSA and the FBI go
on a forensics mission. Intelligence is supposed to tell you in advance when a crime is coming
so that you can do something to avert it. They have lost that perspective.
Bernstein: They now have access to every single one of our electronic conversations,
is that right? The human mind has a hard time imagining how you could contain, move and study
all that information.
Binney: Basically, it is achievable because most of the processing is done by machine
so it doesn't cost human energy.
Bernstein: There seems to be a new McCarthyite operation around the Russia-gate
investigation. It appears that it is an attempt to justify the idea that Clinton lost because
the Russians undermined the election.
Binney: I have seen no evidence at all from anybody, including the intelligence
community. If you look at the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) report, they state on the
first page that "We have high confidence that the Russians did this." But when you get toward
the end of the report, they basically confess that "our judgment does not imply that we have
evidence to back it up."
Bernstein: It was initially put out that seventeen intelligence agencies found
compelling evidence that the Russians hacked into our election. You're saying it was actually
selected individuals from just three agencies. Is there anything to the revelations that FBI
agents talked about taking action to prevent Trump from becoming president?
Binney: It certainly does seem that it is leaning that way, that is was all a
frame-up. It is a sad time in our history, to see the government working against itself
internally.
Bernstein: I take it you are not a big supporter of Trump.
Binney: Well, I voted for him. I couldn't vote for a warmonger like Clinton. She
wanted to see our planes shooting down Russian planes in Syria. She advocated for destabilizing
Libya, for getting rid of Assad in Syria, she was a strong backer of the war in Iraq.
Bernstein: What concerns do you have regarding the Russia-gate investigation and
the McCarthyite tactics that are being employed?
Binney: Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with
Russia. We should definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars.
I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the
fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to
start indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly
unconstitutional.
Who is Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the 30-year-old White House aide who could be a key player in the blockbuster
investigation into Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign?
Cohen-Watnick, 30, who
The New York Times reports
provided key information in the probe, is a once fast-rising protege of ousted
Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn with deep roots in suburban Washington's Jewish community.
The paper identified him as one of two staffers who explosively gave information on intelligence gathering in
the Russia probe to Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a move that potentially
compromised the lawmaker's role in the bombshell probe.
Cohen-Watnick grew up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, and attended the nearby
Conservative synagogue Ohr Kodesh. Last November he celebrated his engagement to Rebecca Miller at the synagogue.
He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 2008. Cohen-Watnick began working as an intelligence
analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency after college. At the DIA, Cohen-Watnick met Flynn, the then-director
who was later removed from his position during the Obama administration.
After Trump won the November election, Flynn brought Cohen-Watnick from the DIA to the Trump transition team,
where the young staffer, according to
The Washington Post,
was among the few Trump advisers to hold a top security clearance. He participated in
high-level intelligence briefings and briefed Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and their team on national security
issues.
When Flynn was appointed to lead the National Security Council, he hired Cohen-Watnick to work with him there.
But Flynn served as national security adviser for less than a month before being asked to leave following
revelations that he had maintained ties with Russia during the campaign.
Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from
the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were
raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees
ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president's desk.
But Cohen-Watnick was spared when Trump personally intervened, reportedly after top White House aides Sphen
Bannon and Jared Kushner stepped in. Cohen-Watnick still serves as senior director at the NSC.
Cohen-Watnick is known for holding hawkish views on national security issues and of being a proponent of an
American tough line toward Iran.
The Times said that Cohen-Watnick became swept up in the Russia probe this month, shortly after Trump wrote on
Twitter about unsubstantiated claims of being wiretapped on the orders of the former president Barack Obama.
Cohen-Watnick apparently was reviewing highly classified reports detailing the intercepted communications of
foreign officials that consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were
trying to curry favor with Trump's family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration.
He and another aide, identified as Michael Ellis, came across information that Trump aides may have been
inadvertently caught on some of the surveillance.
Nunes says he went to the White House to meet with the aides, whom he has refused to identify. Nunes would not
share the information with his colleagues on the committee but did brief Trump, raising major questions about his
independence.
"... In totalitarian systems where the media does nothing but churn out propaganda, people learn to read between the lines. You understand what is really going on by inferring what they don't want you to know from what they do what you to know. ..."
"... Why would you not believe "unnamed officials"? But what we are seeing very obviously is some of the shape and texture of the war based on who is being targeted and why. While those doing the targeting are "unnamed", their targets are named. And that tells us also about those doing the targeting. ..."
In totalitarian systems where the media does nothing but churn
out propaganda, people learn to read between the lines. You understand what is really going on
by inferring what they don't want you to know from what they do what you to know.
The interesting thing about the current political conflict is which key anti-terrorist Trump
figures are being targeted. Flynn was a major target. Then Gorka. The case of Gorka made the
targeting obvious. You can tell the targeting when if the first attack fails, they come back
with a second one.
Now there's Ezra Watnick-Cohen. He showed up in the news recently when McMaster attempted
to replace him with an establishment infiltrator.
President Donald Trump has overruled a decision by his national security adviser, Lt. Gen.
H.R. McMaster, to sideline a key intelligence operative who fell out of favor with some at
the Central Intelligence Agency, two sources told POLITICO.
On Friday, McMaster told the National Security Council's senior director for intelligence
programs, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, that he would be moved to another position in the
organization.
The conversation followed weeks of pressure from career officials at the CIA who had
expressed reservations about the 30-year-old intelligence operative and pushed for his
ouster.
But Cohen-Watnick appealed McMaster's decision to two influential allies with whom he had
forged a relationship while working on Trump's transition team -- White House advisers Steve
Bannon and Jared Kushner. They brought the matter to Trump on Sunday, and the president
agreed that Cohen-Watnick should remain as the NSC's intelligence director, according to two
people with knowledge of the episode.
Cohen-Watnick was brought onto Trump's transition team and then the NSC by a leading
critic of the CIA: retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was Cohen-Watnick's boss at the
Defense Intelligence Agency and preceded McMaster as national security adviser.
Cohen-Watnick and Flynn "saw eye to eye about the failings of the CIA human intelligence
operations," said a Washington consultant who travels in intelligence circles. "The CIA saw
him as a threat, so they tried to unseat him and replace him with an agency loyalist," the
operative said.
Two sources within the White House tell me that last week McMaster had interviewed a
potential replacement for Cohen-Watnick: longtime CIA official Linda Weissgold. Weissgold
apparently had a good interview with McMaster, as she was overheard saying as she left the
White House she would next have to "talk to Pompeo" -- as in Mike Pompeo, the director of the
CIA. But Weissgold was never offered the job; days later, Trump himself overruled the effort
to move Cohen-Watnick out of his senior director role.
During the Obama administration Weissgold served as director of the CIA's Office of
Terrorism Analysis. She was among those who briefed Congress following the Benghazi terrorist
attack in 2012, a team of intelligence and military experts who reportedly earned the
nickname "the dream team" within the administration.
In her position at OTA, she was also involved directly in drafting the now infamous
Benghazi talking points, which government officials revised heavily to include factually
incorrect assessments that stated the attackers were prompted by protests. According to the
House Select Committee on Benghazi's report, Weissgold testified she had changed one such
talking point to say that extremists in Benghazi with ties to al Qaeda had been involved in
"protests" in the Libyan city, despite the fact that no such protests had occurred there on
the day of the attack.
McMaster's interview of Weissgold last week raised eyebrows beyond the White House, with
members of the congressional oversight committees expressing concerns about Weissgold to top
officials in the White House and the intelligence community.
A Jewish security official has been named as the confidential source of House Intelligence
Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) following claims that US President Donald Trump and his
aides were swept up in surveillance by US intelligence agencies, The New York Times revealed
Thursday.
Citing unnamed US officials, the Times identified the White House official as "Ezra
Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council."
Why would you not believe "unnamed officials"? But what we are seeing very obviously is some of the shape and texture of the war based on
who is being targeted and why. While those doing the targeting are "unnamed", their targets are
named. And that tells us also about those doing the targeting. Any enemy action reveals
something about the enemy, his motives, his nature and his goals. That is how wars of this kind
must be understood.
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.' ..."
"... opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. ..."
"... For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't." ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president
Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar
Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before being ordered to return to
Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar
Assad quickly relaxed some old security laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012.
Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians
and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is
not based on objective analysis. Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government under Assad has ever been
proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed
members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting
Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs . His involvement in reconciliation
and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis,
he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along
in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to
the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition
The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs
brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. '"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected
Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow
the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle
East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no
saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
"... What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet. ..."
"... Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers. ..."
"... Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts. ..."
"... For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and eventually recycled. ..."
"... Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign promised. ..."
"... This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to overthrowing governments. ..."
"... It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its profit calculation. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. ..."
What makes a Harvey Weinstein moment? The now-disgraced Hollywood mogul is hardly the first
powerful man to stand accused of having abused women. The Harveys who preceded Harvey himself
are legion, their prominence matching or exceeding his own and the misdeeds with which they
were charged at least as reprehensible.
In the relatively recent past, a roster of prominent offenders would include Bill Clinton,
Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and, of course, Donald Trump. Throw in various jocks,
maestros, senior military officers, members of the professoriate and you end up with quite a
list. Yet in virtually all such cases, the alleged transgressions were treated as instances of
individual misconduct, egregious perhaps but possessing at best transitory political
resonance.
All that, though, was pre-Harvey. As far as male sexual hijinks are concerned, we might
compare Weinstein's epic fall from grace to the stock market crash of 1929: one week it's the
anything-goes Roaring Twenties, the next we're smack dab in a Great Depression.
How profound is the change? Up here in Massachusetts where I live, we've spent the past year
marking John F. Kennedy's 100th birthday. If Kennedy were still around to join in the
festivities, it would be as a Class A sex offender. Rarely in American history has the cultural
landscape shifted so quickly or so radically.
In our post-Harvey world, men charged with sexual misconduct are guilty until proven
innocent, all crimes are capital offenses, and there exists no statute of limitations. Once a
largely empty corporate slogan, "zero tolerance" has become a battle cry.
All of this serves as a reminder that, on some matters at least, the American people retain
an admirable capacity for outrage. We can distinguish between the tolerable and the
intolerable. And we can demand accountability of powerful individuals and
institutions.
Everything They Need to Win (Again!)
What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't
extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet.
In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed
upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance. But to judge from
published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark
Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison
Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed
to survive their encounters. None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder.
No one died.
Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or
promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have,
of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will
ultimately cost American taxpayers many
trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as
President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers.
Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy.
Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist
groups, while acts
of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts.
It discomfits me to reiterate this mournful litany of truths. I feel a bit like the doctor
telling the lifelong smoker with stage-four lung cancer that an addiction to cigarettes is
adversely affecting his health. His mute response: I know and I don't care. Nothing the doc
says is going to budge the smoker from his habit. You go through the motions, but wonder
why.
In a similar fashion, war has become a habit to which the United States is addicted. Except
for the terminally distracted, most of us know that. We also know -- wecannot not
know -- that, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. forces have been unable to
accomplish their assigned mission, despite more than 16 years of fighting in the former and
more than a decade in the latter.
It's not exactly a good news story, to put it mildly. So forgive me for saying it (
yet again ), but most of us simply don't care, which means that we continue to allow a free
hand to those who preside over those wars, while treating with respect the views of pundits and
media personalities who persist in promoting them. What's past doesn't count; we prefer to
sustain the pretense that tomorrow is pregnant with possibilities. Victory lies just around the
corner.
By way of example, consider a
recent article in U.S. News and World Report. The headline: "Victory or Failure in
Afghanistan: 2018 Will Be the Deciding Year." The title suggests a balance absent from the text
that follows, which reads like a Pentagon press release. Here in its entirety is the nut graf
(my own emphasis added):
"Armed with a new strategy and renewed support from old allies, the Trump
administration now believes it has everything it needs to win the war in Afghanistan.
Top military advisers all the way up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say they can accomplish
what two previous administrations and multiple troop surges could not: the defeat of the
Taliban by Western-backed local forces, a negotiated peace and the establishment of a
popularly supported government in Kabul capable of keeping the country from once again becoming
a haven to any terrorist group."
Now if you buy this, you'll believe that Harvey Weinstein has learned his lesson and can be
trusted to interview young actresses while wearing his bathrobe.
For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their
putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of
previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and
eventually recycled.
Short of using nuclear weapons, U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade and
a half have experimented with just about every approach imaginable: invasion, regime change,
occupation, nation-building, pacification, decapitation, counterterrorism, and
counterinsurgency, not to mention various surges ,
differing in scope and duration. We have had a big troop presence and a smaller one, more
bombing and less, restrictive rules of engagement and permissive ones. In the military
equivalent of throwing in the kitchen sink, a U.S. Special Operations Command four-engine prop
plane recently deposited the largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal on a cave
complex in eastern Afghanistan. Although that MOAB made a big
boom, no offer of enemy surrender materialized.
$65
billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. And under the circumstances, consider that a mere down
payment.
According to General John Nicholson, our
17th commander in Kabul since 2001, the efforts devised and implemented by his many
predecessors have resulted in a "stalemate" -- a generous interpretation given that the Taliban
presently controls more
territory than it has held since the U.S. invasion. Officers no less capable than Nicholson
himself, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal among them, didn't get it done. Nicholson's
argument: trust me.
In essence, the "new strategy" devised by Trump's generals, Secretary of Defense Mattis and
Nicholson among them, amounts to this: persist a tad longer with a tad more. A modest uptick in
the number of U.S. and allied
troops on the ground will provide more trainers, advisers, and motivators to work with and
accompany their Afghan counterparts in the field. The Mattis/Nicholson plan also envisions an
increasing number of air strikes, signaled by the recent use of B-52s to attack illicit
Taliban "
drug labs ," a scenario that Stanley Kubrick himself would have been hard-pressed to
imagine.
Notwithstanding the novelty of using strategic bombers to destroy mud huts, there's not a
lot new here. Dating back to 2001, coalition forces have already dropped tens of thousands of
bombs in Afghanistan. Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts
to create effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the
production of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency, alas with essentially
no effect whatsoever . What Trump's generals want a gullible public (and astonishingly
gullible and inattentive members of Congress) to believe is that this time they've somehow
devised a formula for getting it right.
Turning the Corner
With his trademark capacity to intuit success, President Trump already sees clear evidence
of progress. "We're not fighting anymore to just walk around," he remarked in his
Thanksgiving message to the troops. "We're fighting to win. And you people [have] turned it
around over the last three to four months like nobody has seen." The president, we may note,
has yet to visit Afghanistan.
I'm guessing that the commander-in-chief is oblivious to the fact that, in U.S. military
circles, the term winning has acquired notable elasticity. Trump may think that it
implies vanquishing the enemy -- white flags and surrender ceremonies on the U.S.S. Missouri . General Nicholson knows better. "Winning," the field commander
says , "means delivering a negotiated settlement that reduces the level of violence and
protecting the homeland." (Take that definition at face value and we can belatedly move Vietnam
into the win column!)
Should we be surprised that Trump's generals, unconsciously imitating General William
Westmoreland a half-century ago, claim once again to detect light at the end of the tunnel? Not
at all. Mattis and Nicholson (along with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster) are following the Harvey Weinstein playbook: keep doing it
until they make you stop. Indeed, with what can only be described as chutzpah, Nicholson
himself recently announced that we have "
turned the corner " in Afghanistan. In doing so, of course, he is counting on Americans not
to recall the various war managers, military and civilian alike, who have made identical claims
going back years now, among them Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012
.
From on high, assurances of progress; in the field, results that, year after year, come
nowhere near what's promised; on the homefront, an astonishingly credulous public. The war in
Afghanistan has long since settled into a melancholy and seemingly permanent rhythm.
The fact is that the individuals entrusted by President Trump to direct U.S. policy believe
with iron certainty that difficult political problems will yield to armed might properly
employed. That proposition is one to which generals like Mattis and Nicholson have devoted a
considerable part of their lives, not just in Afghanistan but across much of the Islamic world.
They are no more likely to question the validity of that proposition than the Pope is to
entertain second thoughts about the divinity of Jesus Christ.
In Afghanistan, their entire worldview -- not to mention the status and clout of the officer
corps they represent -- is at stake. No matter how long the war there lasts, no matter how many
"
generations " it takes, no matter how much blood is shed to no purpose, and no matter how
much money is wasted, they will never admit to failure -- nor will any of the
militarists-in-mufti cheering them on from the sidelines in Washington, Donald Trump not the
least among them.
Meanwhile, the great majority of the American people, their attention directed elsewhere --
it's the season for holiday shopping, after all -- remain studiously indifferent to the charade
being played out before their eyes.
It took a succession of high-profile scandals before Americans truly woke up to the plague
of sexual harassment and assault. How long will it take before the public concludes that they
have had enough of wars that don't work? Here's hoping it's before our president, in a moment
of ill temper, unleashes "
fire and fury " on the world.
It's astonishing to see people make the claim that "victory" is possible in Afghanistan.
Could they actually believe this or are they lying in order to drag this out even longer and
keep the money pit working overtime? These are individuals that are highly placed and so
should know better. It's not really a war but an occupation with the native insurgents
fighting to oust the foreign occupier. The US has tried every trick there is in trying to
tamp down the insurgency. They know what we're trying to do and can thwart us at every step.
The US lost even as it began it's invasion there but didn't know it yet in the wake of it's
initial success in scattering the Taliban, not even a real army and not even a real state.
They live there and we don't; they can resist for the next thirty years or fifty years. When
does the multi-billion bill come due and how will we pay it?
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?"
It already happened, but Progressives like you failed to note that Republican voters
subbed the Bush clan and their various associates for Trump in the Primary season, precisely
because he called the Iraq and Afghan wars mistakes. The Americans suffer under a two party
establishment that is clearly antagonistic to their interests. As a part of that regime, a
dutiful Progressive toad, you continue to peddle the lie that it was the war-weary White
Americans who celebrated those wars. In reality, any such support was ginned up from tools
like you who wrote puff pieces for their Neocon Progressive masters.
Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign
promised. Might you count that among your lucky stars? Fat chance. You cretinous Progressive
filth have no such spine upon which to base an independent thought. You trot out the same old
tiresome tropes week after week fulfilling your designated propagandist duty and then you
skulk back to your den of iniquity to prepare another salvo of agitprop. What a miserable
existence.
This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never
stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an
intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies
on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you
can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time
in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to
overthrowing governments.
Obama ended up killing more people than any dictator or demagogue of this generation on
earth you care to name, several hundred thousand of them in his eight years. And he found new
ways to kill, too, as by creating the world's first industrial-scale extrajudicial killing
operation. Here he signs off on "kill lists," placed in his Oval Office in-box, to murder
people he has never seen, people who enjoy no legal rights or protections. His signed orders
are carried out by uniformed thugs working at computer screens in secure basements where they
proceed to play computer games with real live humans as their targets, again killing or
maiming people they have never seen.
If you ever have wondered where all the enabling workers came from in places like Stalin's
Gulag or Hitler's concentration camps, well, here is your answer. American itself produces
platoons of such people. You could find them working at Guantanamo and in the far-flung
string of secret torture facilities the CIA ran for years, and you could find them in places
like Fallujah or Samarra or Abu Ghraib, at the CIA's basement game arcade killing centers,
and even all over the streets of America dressed as police who shoot unarmed people every
day, sometimes in the back.
ZOG has now asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. No trial,
no hearing, no witnesses, no defense, no nothing. Is this actually legal? Any constitutional
lawyers out there care to comment? Has ZOG now achieved the status of an all-powerful
all-knowing deity with the power of life and death over all living things?
It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being
attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What
then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a
Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around
the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug
labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green
targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the
article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its
profit calculation.
The Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Male Population used as CANNON FODDER
for Congressman Steven Solarz's and Donald Trump's very precious Jewish only Israel .
Israel and the deep state did the attack on 911 and thus set the table for the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of
the U.S. gov and the MSM and the MIC and the FED ie the BANKS set in motion the blood
sacrifice for their Zionist god SATAN, that is what they have done.
The Zionist warmongers and Satanists will destroy America.
It's not so much that America is addicted to war as that the American "business model" makes
permanent war inevitable. US global dominance rests on economic domination, in particular,
the dollar as world reserve currency. That has allowed the US economy to survive in spite of
being hollowed out, financialised and burdened with enormous sovereign debt. Economic
dominance derives from political dominance, which, in its turn, flows from military
dominance. For that military dominance to be credible, not only must the US have the biggest
and best military forces on the planet, it must show itself willing to use those forces to
maintain its dominance by actually using them from time to time, in particular, to
unequivocally beat off any challenge to its dominance (Putin!). It also, of course, must win,
or, more correctly, be able to present the outcome credibly as a win. Failure to maintain
military dominance will undermine the position of the dollar, sending its value through the
floor. A low dollar means cheap exports (Boeing will sell more planes than Airbus!), but it
also means that imports (oil, outsourced goods) will be dear. At that point the hollowed out
nature of the US economy will cut in, probably provoking a Soviet-style implosion of the US
economy and society and ruining anyone who has holdings denominated in dollars. I call that
the Gorbachev conundrum. Gorby believed in the Soviet Union and wanted to reform it. But the
Soviet system had become so rigid as to be unreformable. He pulled a threat and the whole
system unravelled. But if he hadn't pulled the thread, the whole system would have unravelled
anyway. It was a choice between hard landing and harder landing. Similarly, US leaders have
to continue down the only road open to them: permanent war. As Thomas Jefferson said of
slavery, it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it but you don't dare let go!
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?" Answer: Never.
In Alabama when people would rant about how toxic Roy Moore was, I would politely point
out that his opponent for Senate was OK with spending trillions of dollars fighting pointless
winless wars on the other side of the planet just so politically connected defense
contractors can make a buck, and ask if that should be an issue too? The response,
predictably, was as if I was an alien from the planet Skyron in the galaxy of Andromeda.
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Andrew Bacevich is wrong about a couple of things in this article.
First, he says that the American public is both apathetic and credulous. I agree
that we have largely become apathetic towards these imperial wars, but I disagree that we
have become credulous. In fact, these two states of mind exclude one another; you cannot be
both apathetic and credulous with respect to the same object at the same time. The credulity
charge is easy to dismiss because virtually no one today believes anything that comes out of
Washington or its mouthpieces in the legacy media. The apathy charge is on point but it needs
qualification. The smarter, more informed Americans have seen that their efforts to change
the course of American policy have been to no avail, and they've given up in frustration and
disgust. The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting
on with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the
understanding nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever.
Second,Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it
already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein
moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that
inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. An
echo of that groundswell happened again in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected to office on an
explicitly antiwar platform. But Obama turned out to be one of the most pro-war presidents
ever, and thus an angry electorate made one final push in the same direction by attempting to
clean house with Donald Trump. Now that Donald has shown every sign of having cucked out to
the war lobby, we seem to be left with no electoral solutions.
The only thing that's going to work is for the American Imperium to be handed a
much-deserved military and financial defeat. The one encouraging fact is that if the top ten
percent of our political and financial elite were planed off by a foreign power, the American
people would give as few damns about that as they currently do about our imperial wars.
Very good but some little errors. Concerning Russia and China, Russia vent all or
nothing.
China was much smarter. First they allowed self employment, than small business and long time
after they started to sell state enterprises,
If Tom's Dispatch continues to be successful, Americans will continue to be asleep.
Masterful propaganda. War, according to our favorite spooks, is necessary to win, but
otherwise reprehensible.
Sex is otherwise necessary for human life but Harvey Weinstein is ugly. Hold tightly to
your cognitive dissonance, because you're expected to remember John F Kennedy who got it on,
but is the expendable martyr you should care about, not that other guy
Let's review: terror attacks are wins. Superior or effective anti-war propaganda comes
from the military
itself. They really don't want war, but really they do.
We're trying to make Afghanistan not Afghanistan: aka, trying to be a miracle worker. We
can throw as much money as we like at that place, and it isn't going to happen, least of all
with troops on nine month shifts.
Let Iran and Pakistan squabble over it. Good riddance.
1) doesn't really make much sense, given that Poland and the Baltic States would be more
than happy to take all US forces in Europe to give us a presence near Russia in a part of the
world that would be far easier to justify to the American public-and to the international
community. Afghanistan? Who exactly is Russia going to mess with? Iran is their-for now,
longer term, the two have conflicting agendas in the region, but don't expect the geniuses in
the Beltway to pick up on that opportunity-ally, and unlike the USSR, the Russians don't want
to get involved in the India-Pakistan conflict. Russia's current tilt toward China makes a
strategic marriage with India of the kind that you found in the Cold War impossible, but they
obviously don't want to tilt toward the basketcase known as Pakistan. The only reason that
Russia would want to get involved with Afghanistan beyond having a more preferable status
than having American troops there is power projection among ex-Soviet states, and there are
far more effective ways to do than muddle about with Afghanistan.
2, on the other hand, given Iran-Contra who knows? The first generation of the Taliban
pretty much wiped the heroin trade out as offensive to Islamic sensibilities, but the newer
generations have no such qualms.
I think you give America's rulers far too much credit. The truth is probably far scarier:
the morons who work in the Beltway honestly believe their own propaganda-that we can make
Afghanistan into some magical Western democracy if we throw enough money at it-and combine
that with the usual bureaucratic inertia.
According to General John Nicholson, our 17th commander in Kabul since 2001,
We have been killing these people for 17 years. Now our generals say that if we
indiscriminately kill enough men, women, and children who get in the way of our B52s, that
they will see the light and make peace. How totally wonderful.
My solution is to gage the Lindsey Grahams for a year.
What will do more good for peace – B52s or shutting up Graham's elk?
I remember when Trump said he knew more than the generals and was viciously attacked for it.
It turns out he did know more than the generals just by knowing it was a waste. Trump was
pushed by politics to defer to the generals who always have an answer when it comes to a war
– more men, more weapons, more time.
"The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting on
with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the understanding
nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever."
I wonder if any Abolitionists criticized the slaves for failing to revolt? Probably not;
I'm guessing they were mostly convinced that the negro required intervention from outside,
whether due to their nature or from overwhelming circumstance.
If the enslaved American public is liberated, I hope we'll know what to do with ourselves
afterwards. It'd be a shame to simply end up in another kind of bondage, resentful and
subject to whatever oppressive system replaces the current outrage. Perhaps the next one will
more persuasively convince us that we're important and essential?
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Thank you, Andrew J. Bacevich, for your words of wisdom and thank you, Mr. Unz, for this
post.
This corporation needs to be dissolved. I've read about "the inertia" of Federal Government
that has morphed into a cash cow for a century of wasted tax dollars funding the MIIC, now
the MIIC. Does our existence have to end in financial ruin or, worse yet, some foreign entity
creating havoc on our soil?
The Founders NEVER intended that the US of A become a meddler in other Sovereignty's internal
affairs or the destroyer of Nation States that do not espoused our "doctrine." Anyone without
poop for brains knows that this is about Imperialism and greed, fueled by money and an
insatiable luster for MORE.
This should be easier to change than it appears. Is there no will? After all, it Is our
Master's money that lubricates the machinery. So, we continue to provide the lubrication for
our Masters like a bunch of imbeciles that allow them to survail our words and movements.
Somebody please explain our stupidity.
the folks in the US are sick of the wars, contrary to Bacevich. They simply will vote come
next election accordingly. They register their disgust in all the polls.
This article is not very useful. More punditry puff.
No comments on the Next War for Israel being cooked up by the new crop of neocon
youngsters, I guess, and Trump who will trump, trump, trump into the next War for the
Jews.
How about some political science on Iran, Syria, Hisbollah, Hamas and the US, Arabia,
Judenstaat axis of evil?
Hey Bacevich? When you link to WashPost and NYTimes to make your points, you don't. They
block access if you've already read links to those two papers three times each and can no
longer, for the month, read there. When folks link to papers that won't let you read, it
makes one wonder why.
I believe Americans are damned sick and tired of the stupid, needless war in Afghanistan. But
then they should have been sick and tired of stupid , needless wars like Korea, Vietnam and
Iraq, and probably most of them were. But it's easy to be complacent when someone else's son
is doing the fighting and dying And it's easy to be complacent when your stomach is full and
you have plenty of booze and pain killers available. There will be a day of reckoning when
the next big economic bust arrives and which may make the Great Depression paltry by
comparison. America is a far different place then it was in the 1930s when our population was
140 million. Americans were not so soft and the conveniences we now take for granted not
available. When the supermarkets run out of food, watch out. There may not even be any soup
lines to stand in.
In truth, U.S. commanders have quietly shelved any expectations of achieving an actual
victory -- traditionally defined as "imposing your will on the enemy" -- in favor of a more
modest conception of success.
Your assumptions are wrong about the US goal of the invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq were not invaded to establish democracy or impose American will
whatever that is. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded to establish a temporary military staging ground for a
US invasion of Iran, the designated regional enemy of Israel. As long as the current regime in Iran remains, the US will remain in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
And minerals! Eric Prince himself recently tried to sell the idea of having his private
militias do the fighting in Afghanistan for the US and finance it by mining said country's
minerals, thus making himself even richer.
I was onboard with Mr. Bacevich, until I got to this:
Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts to create
effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the production
of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency
What utter rubbish! The Taliban was instrumental in shutting down the poppy production
until the CIA came along and restarted it to fund their black ops.
We have the reverse Midas touch. Everything we touch (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.,
etc.) turns to shit. We supposedly attack countries to liberate them from their tyrants who
are supposedly killing their own people, and end up killing more people than all of them put
together. And, oh yes, we have our favorite tyrants (Saudis, Israelis) whom we provide with
horrible weapons (like cluster bombs) to help them kill people we hate.
Mr. Bacevich is right about the lack of outrage about our wars, but the current Weinstein
explosion consists of hordes of mostly American female victims, mostly white, a (very) few
jews, and a few men, who have the stage to complain about their oppressors. What would be the
counterpart of that w.r.t. the wars? Millions of brown victims in far away lands that most of
us couldn't even find on a map? How likely is that to happen?
So yes, no outrage, and none likely. The last 17 years have proven that.
You don't know the American has been paying everything through monopoly money printed
through the thin air since WWI, i.e. a keystroke on the Federal Reserve's computer? No wonder
the Americans have been waging reckless wars all over the world on the fabricated phantom WMD
allegations as humanitarian intervention relentlessly.
Romans did not stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed; the British
imitates the Romans and the American is born out of the British, hence the Americans will no
stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed like the Romans.
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
"... The Russia Investigation shifts to Clinton's Political Rivals ..."
"... Let me get this straight: The Democrats think Stein siphoned votes away from Hillary, so Stein must be a "Russian agent". Is that it? ..."
"... The persecution of Jill Stein strips away the facade once and for all exposing Russia-gate as a complete fraud that is being used to exact revenge on the adversaries of Hillary Clinton and her reprobate friends. The New York Times even admits as much. ..."
"... That's what's really really going on, the fatcat honchos behind the scenes are just settling scores for Hillary's lost election. It's payback time for the Clinton Mafia. Here's more baloney from the Times: ..."
"... Give me a break. Does anyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee honestly believe that Jill Stein is a Russian agent? ..."
"... Of course not. They're just harassing her to send a message to anyone who might be thinking about running for president in the future. They're saying, "You'd better watch your step or we'll trump-up charges against you and make your life a living hell. Isn't that the message?You're damn right it is! ..."
"... "This is a witch hunt. It is neo-McCarthyism, plain and simple. The people who are outright calling Stein a Russian agent are making a complete mockery of themselves and of the American political process ..."
"... Dragging Stein into this mess shows Clinton Democrats up for what they really are. It proves that the 'Resist' crowd's crusade is not just about Trump and "collusion" -- it's also about discrediting all dissenting American voices and establishing their own definition of what political opposition is supposed to look like -- and for the Clinton cult, it's not supposed to look like Jill Stein . ..."
"... Anyone who disagrees with the Democrats is a Putin puppet -- and if you've ever been to Moscow, forget it -- don't even bother trying to defend yourself. Off with your head." ("McCarthy-style targeting of Jill Stein proves Democrats have truly lost the plot", RT) ..."
"... "The Socialist Equality Party condemns the targeting of Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in the 2016 election, by the neo-McCarthyite witch-hunters on the Senate Intelligence Committee . The attack on Stein, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, is an unconstitutional attempt to delegitimize and suppress political opposition to the monopoly of the capitalist two-party system . ..."
"... This is the Orwellian reality of America in 2017, ruled by two right-wing, oligarchic parties that can and will tolerate no political opposition . ..."
"... If you're a liberal and you hate Donald Trump, then you probably see the Russia-gate investigation as your best chance to achieve the Golden Grail of "impeachment". But are you willing to compromise your principles, join forces with the sinister and unscrupulous Clinton cabal, and throw allies like Jill Stein under the bus to achieve your goal? ..."
"... How high a price are you willing to pay to get rid of Trump? That's the question that every liberal in America should be asking themselves. And they'd better answer it fast before it's too late. ..."
"... Mueller is clearly not the upstanding 'protector of American values' he is painted he is a servile political degenerate. A lifetime of betrayal has rendered him ethically autistic. He is blind to the way his own actions condemn him before reasonable minds. Hopefully he will wake up when condemned hiself in an American Court of Law at some future date. ..."
"... According to Edward Aguilar of Project for Nuclear Awareness, cancelling construction of the new submarines, reducing the current number of such subs, and retiring rather than replacing nuclear warheads and a couple hundred ICBMs would save $270 billion. ..."
"... The weapons oligarchy appears to be a racketeering-influenced and corrupt organization. Luckily, the RICO Act provides for heavy criminal penalties for such death-dealing corruption. ..."
This review way written almost two year ago. The new President is now sitting in White house. Nothing changed.
The problem with Bacevich' views is that neoliberalism dictates expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire as well in best
Trotskyism tradition "export of neoliberal revolution" using bayonets, if other means do not work. So this is the nature of the
neoliberal beast, not an aberration like he assumes. Militarism is essence of US foreign policy under neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals, journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's widespread use of assassination by drone strike today. ..."
"... A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse would be true." ..."
"... In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy, wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict. ..."
"... From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war. ..."
"... "In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." ..."
"... For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential. ..."
BOOK REVIEW: AMERICA'S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST (A Military History) By Andrew J. Bacevich
Illustrated. 453 pp. Random House. $30.
In the opening chapter of his latest book, the military historian Andrew J. Bacevich blames Jimmy Carter, a president commonly
viewed as more meek than martial, for unwittingly spawning 35 years of American military intervention in the Middle East. Bacevich
argues that three mistakes by Carter set precedents that led to decades of squandered American lives and treasure.
First, Carter called on Americans to stop worshiping "self-indulgence and consumption" and join a nationwide effort to conserve
energy. Self-sacrifice, he argued in what is now widely derided as Carter's "malaise speech," would free Americans from their dependence
on foreign oil and "help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country."
The president came across as more hectoring pastor than visionary leader, Bacevich argues in "America's War for the Greater Middle
East." His guileless approach squandered an opportunity to persuade Americans reeling from high foreign oil prices to trade "dependence
for autonomy."
Carter's second mistake was authorizing American support to guerrillas fighting a Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan, a move
that eventually helped fuel the spread of radical Islam. Finally, in a misguided effort to counter views that he was "too soft,"
Carter declared that the United States would respond with military force to any outside effort to seize Persian Gulf oil fields.
"This statement, subsequently enshrined as the Carter Doctrine, inaugurated America's war for the greater Middle East," Bacevich
writes.
This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive
militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals,
journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares
them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's
widespread use of assassination by drone strike today.
Washington's penchant for intervention, Bacevich contends, is driven by more than America's thirst for oil or the military-industrial
complex's need for new enemies. In addition to these two factors, he argues that "a deeply pernicious collective naïveté" among both
Republicans and Democrats spawns interventions doomed by "confusion and incoherence."
The ultimate responsibility for the United States' actions lies with an "oblivious" American public engrossed in "shallow digital
enthusiasms and the worship of celebrity," Bacevich writes. Americans support freedom, democracy and prosperity in other nations,
he tells us, as long as they get the lion's share of it. "Ensuring that Americans enjoy their rightful quota (which is to say, more
than their fair share) of freedom, abundance and security comes first," Bacevich says. "Everything else figures as an afterthought."
Bacevich's argument is heavy-handed at times, but when he writes about military strategy, he is genuinely incisive. Citing numerous
examples, he convincingly argues that destructive myths about the efficacy of American military power blind policy makers, generals
and voters. The use of overwhelming lethal force does not immediately cause dictators or terrorists to turn tail and run, even if
that's what politicians in Washington want to believe. Rather, it often leads to resentment, chaos and resistance.
A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem
diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal
agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse
would be true."
In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent
has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy,
wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict.
From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology
bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war.
"In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course
midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." The historical forces at work in the Middle East are different from the dynamics
that led to American victories in World War II and the Cold War. American officials have failed to understand that. What's more,
a deluded Washington foreign policy establishment believes that an American way of life based on "consumption and choice" will be
accepted over time in the "Islamic world."
But it is here, in his description of the "Islamic world," that Bacevich stumbles. What is missing in this book about "the greater
Middle East" are the people of the greater Middle East. Bacevich's most highly developed Muslim character in these pages is Saddam
Hussein. The former Afghan president Hamid Karzai is a distant second. Beyond those two, the rest of the world's estimated 1.6 billion
Muslims come across as two-dimensional caricatures.
And so Bacevich lumps together vastly different nationalities - from Bosnians to Iraqis to Somalis - often referring to all of
them primarily as "Muslims." The dizzying complexities of each country's history, politics, culture, resources and rivalries are
missing. And when it comes to how "Muslims" view the world, Bacevich veers into the simplistic essentialism that he accuses Washington
policy makers of following.
Bacevich suggests that in the "Islamic world" lifestyles based on "consumption and choice" might not work. Such broad-brush statements
might well be considered simplistic and even bigoted if applied to other faiths. Can one contend that a "Christian world," "Hindu
world" or "Jewish world" exists? Are such generalizations analytically useful? Do the world's hundreds of millions of Muslims practice
their faith identically?
As a result of this essentialism, Bacevich glosses over a vital point about the Middle East today: A historic and brutal struggle
between radicals and modernists for the future of the region is underway. One can argue that the United States has no place in that
fight, but making sweeping generalizations about Muslims as Bacevich does limits our understanding of the forces at work in the region.
It also plays into the hands of extremists who seek to divide the world by faith.
In the most troubling passage of the book, Bacevich breezily questions pluralism itself. "According to one of the prevailing shibboleths
of the present age, this commingling of cultures is inherently good," he writes. "It fosters pluralism, thereby enriching everyday
life. Yet cultural interaction also induces friction, whether spontaneously generated or instigated by demagogues and provocateurs."
We do live in a dangerous world, but it is also an inevitably interconnected one. The commingling of cultures cannot be stopped.
Nor should it be.
For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An
unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's
call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential.
David Rohde is the national security investigations editor for Reuters and a contributing editor for The Atlantic.
Special Counsel appointment now looks like a fishing expedition in search of a crime. Why
Department of justice is not investigating DNC for obvious corruption in the USA 2016
elections.
Now Rosenstein looks like a very important witness. Recent "gang of three" revelation
undermined Rosenstein. If Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, Rosenstein
should immediately recluse himself.
Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired. That made him a critical player and potential
witness to the events underlying the obstruction of justice allegations.
If Mueller discussed the Comey's termination with Trump as a candidate for the next FBI
Director, he might also be considered a witness in any obstruction of justice investigation.
Mueller could not be viewed as a neutral choice by anyone on Trump's side due to his history
with Comey. I believe that Rosenstein used poor judgment in his selection.
Like invading Russia in winter, it appears that participating in the Russian investigation is
a prospect fraught with peril for those on the front lines.
Mueller was appointed under 28 CFR 600.7, which states that "[t]he Special Counsel may be
disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The
Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity,
conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies." If
Mueller is a potential witness, recusal or termination would be warranted under that standard as
a conflict.
Notable quotes:
"... "The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder." ..."
"... the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. ..."
"... "The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule." ..."
"... I think the position should be narrowed in scope to the charge as opposed a wide open net with a limitless mesh knitting. As is -- it's a sword over the head of any target and that makes for bad politics and policy in my view. Unfair leveraging . . . . b y the losing side to get their way outside the scope of the process. ..."
"... Look, if it turns out that this executive undermined democracy by engaging Russian to cheat our electoral process -- fine. I don't think there's any indication that the accusation is accurate. ..."
"... This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recuse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? ..."
So Trump a billionare has 3rd rate lawyers.
With all that money, why can't he hire firzt rate lawyers and really world class
investigators? He is never going to receive any kind of a break from the press and what
resemble his allies in Congress Gowdy and Jordan have proved to be windbags only slightly
more effective than Hank Johnson and Maxine Waters. Consequently, he needs to tap independent
investigstive resources or he will not be in office for the November 2018 election. Has he
explored a little help from the Mossad?
"The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers)
in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not
investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal
negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with
foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait
to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch
of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder."
As always nothing will come of this. Trump screwed himself.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively,
decide to pack it in and go back to running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would
close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And they want Trump OUT --
no matter what the cost.
The criminal activist Mr. Rosenstein has come under bright light:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Office of Deputy Attorney General
Washington D.C. 20530
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide
supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential
election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special
Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these
matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.
Rod Rosenstein
Acting Attorney General
__________________
"The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that
is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was
'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under
the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein
ignored that rule."
I think the investigation is revealing more about democrats than Republicans or the campaign
of Pres Trump.
I think the position should be narrowed in scope to the charge as opposed a wide open
net with a limitless mesh knitting. As is -- it's a sword over the head of any target and
that makes for bad politics and policy in my view. Unfair leveraging . . . . b y the losing
side to get their way outside the scope of the process.
Look, if it turns out that this executive undermined democracy by engaging Russian to
cheat our electoral process -- fine. I don't think there's any indication that the accusation
is accurate.
Fusion One (the monumental bribery case involving national security), Trailblazer
(fleecing the US taxpayers by Hayden and his coterie of incompetent and greedy contractors,
while persecuting the competent professionals), Awan affair (the greatest breach in national
cybersecurity), the thousands of "declassified" documents on Clinton's server, murder of Seth
Rich (in DC !), delivery of the US weaponry and more to ISIS/Al Qaeda, cooperation of the US
officials with neo-Nazi in Ukraine The list continues. A question: Why the US citizenry
continues paying the exorbitant amounts of money to the incompetent and dysfunctional
national security apparatus?
Debbie Barnhart : June 19, 2017 at 11:00 PM
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recuse themselves and get down to
the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC
emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we
"investigating" the DNC?
Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies." Putin is
an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's
sphere of influence. Can't say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the U.S. is
helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem. Trump's ham-fisted
attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels,
is much ado about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he
didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
Links to his blog below. He's what investigative reporters should be like but most
definitely are NOT like these days. He's sharp as a tack and doesn't miss a thing.
Transparent DOJ and FBI Desperation: New York Times Attempts "Trump Operation"
Justification
December 30, 2017
The article found below is where he discusses his first clue about the HUGE scandal
confirmed at the above DETAILED analyses. If this doesn't result in just a whole bunch of
high level swamp creatures doing a perp walk or AT THE VERY LEAST losing their jobs, you'll
know there's no hope:
THE BIG UGLY – Why U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras Recusal From Mike
Flynn Case is a Big Deal
December 8, 2017
"... The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits). There had to be some other reason. ..."
"... Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust. ..."
"... Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved. ..."
"... Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organization, Robert Mueller . ..."
"... "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!" ..."
"... More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other. ..."
"... As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him. ..."
"... Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] ..."
The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump
over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year.
This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also
intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before
some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or
demerits). There had to be some other reason.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and
opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist
broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.
To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in
celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year's Eve treat, claiming that former
Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister
Alexander Downer at London's Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.
The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue:
drink. Papadopoulos' tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued. There was a Russian
connection. There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton.
Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion. He could make a name for himself with this
decent brown nosing opportunity. Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog
manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be
involved. So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump's former aide, who conceded, in time,
to have lied to the FBI. Trump's response was to
degrade Papadopoulos as a "low-level volunteer" and "liar", giving him the kiss of
unimportance.
Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the
anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for
instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI
probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the
organization, Robert Mueller .
This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the
Republic. Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president's fury. The blasts
centered on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn. He had, in fact,
had conversations with the former Russian ambassador. Trump's approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn's actions had been initially, at least,
lawful, while the conduct of the
FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.
"So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary
Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday 'interrogation' with no swearing in and no
recording, lies many times and nothing happens to her?"
He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ.
"Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about
the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States
Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!"
The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative
transactions blunts the value of the FBI investigation. Whatever it purports to be, it smacks
of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump
Teflon remains in place, immovable.
More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of
the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The
Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in
deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.
As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost
amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably
favourable to Clinton over him.
... ... ...
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
"... The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some solid policies that benefit normal Americans! ..."
Fox News host Maria Bartiromo interviews Representative Bud Cummins about the 2016
weaponization of the FBI and DOJ and the same group of people in 2017 working to undermine the
Trump administration.
This Tuesday FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe will meet with the House Intelligence
Committee. Around the same time Trump lawyers will be meeting with Robert Mueller. Could be a
big news week.
Lutz • 12 days ago
Only the chosen tribe can shut down an agency like the F.B.Lie. Control through money
distribution. They control everyone, PERIOD.
Tom Turek > Claude Taylor • 13 days ago
FBI? On site the night before 911, On site within minutes after Sen Wellstone's chartered
almost new Twin Turboprop Beachcraft with 2 pro plots smashed into the ground on approach.
Wellstone was about to expose 911. Illegally taking over the TWA800 investigation from NTSB
and many times removing evidence overnight that investigators found suspicious of a missile
strike. Told us that a low voltage wire in a fuel tank overheated and caused the plane to
break into 2. Wreckage still under armed guard!
About what 'IDEALS' is DJT talking??
Doctor72 • 13 days ago
The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's
support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some
solid policies that benefit normal Americans!
MikeG the Deplorable > Doctor72 • 13 days ago
What a refreshing change.
Cyrano • 13 days ago
This man is afraid to call it treason...
centurion • 13 days ago
It's a very sad day for Trump supporters when they elected a person to jail the law
breakers in Washington, CIA, FBI, BLM, NSA, the Clintons, the Bush's and Trump does
absolutely nothing about it. Failure to do something IS consent.
Mistaron • 13 days ago
Why is this guy dancing around? It's not 'bad management' mate, it's bloody Treason!
Elim • 13 days ago
I just saw a clip of Trump answering questions at a news conference. He was answering
questions about the Russian collusion crap, and was saying that Putin and his government
denied any interference, just as he denied any collusion. When Trump was asked what he
personally believed, he said that he supported what the intelligence agencies said about it.
In other words, he believes what he was told by our intelligence services...which is what,
exactly? He didn't answer the question.
Why Rosenstein does not investigate the DNC corruption instead or along with targeting Trump? "Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that
proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?" What was the crime committed by Trump that warrant opening
the investigation ?
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has a rather large conflict of interest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta ..."
"... Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. ..."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... There's much more about Mueller which makes it clear he's no friend of democracy. http://www.globalresearch.ca/special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-is-a-political-hack/5594943 ..."
"... Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2] ..."
"... Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional special counsel in search of a crime seriously. ..."
"... Rosenstein and Goldilocks??? You know, like from Hamlet. . . ..."
"... When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify ..."
"... Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be accorded? ..."
"... Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him. ..."
"... as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried" to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. ..."
"... From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. ..."
"... Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning of Rosenstein's DOJ career. ..."
"... "Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million." ..."
"... Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop. ..."
"... It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. ..."
"... I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more weight. ..."
"... "If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit minority of the public are campaign contributors ..."
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recluse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the
hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?
Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies."
Putin is an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's sphere of influence. Can't
say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the US is helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem.
Trump's ham-fisted attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels, is much ado
about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
G.R. headline: "Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller Is a "Political Hack" -- note what JT said:
snippett: Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said
that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil. Constitutional expert Jonathan
Turley commented at the time: "One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities,
including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order."
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss
that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:
FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents
were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect
it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA
whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
All parties involved swore a supreme loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution, which includes fidelity to our Bill of Rights. All
ignored the torture, illegal spying and abusing the Espionage Act but they did lock up those that had fidelity to their oath (i.e.:
John Kiriakou).
Why has the Press lost interest in that disloyalty by most, not all, DOJ employees – they swore to protect Americans' constitutional
rights.
Whenever a member or supporter of the !% tells us that Mr. X is highly respected etc., you can be certain that Mr. X will not
act contrary to the beliefs and aspirations of the established order.
You are exactly right! Mueller is an Apparatchik. Which wiki says is:
Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional
functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political
responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one
as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with
negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2]
Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little
or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually
the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.[3]
Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age.[4]
Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins
English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization".[5]
According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy",
originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.[6]
In Australia, the term is often used to describe people who have made their career as factional operatives and leaders in
political parties, and who are therefore perceived to have little 'real-world' experience outside politics.
Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional
special counsel in search of a crime seriously.
When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations
of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't
the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify regarding:
Why did she advise Comey to call the investigation a "matter"? Why was she pressuring him to back-off and not indict
Hillary? To what degree was POTUS Obama involved in Hillary's e-mail gate? What was in the 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted?
What took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the airplane during Tarmac-gate in AZ? They didn't talk about
their "grandkids" alone, did they ergo, did Bill Clinton promise that if AG Lynch & Comey refused to recommend an indictment
that Hillary would recommend her to be nominated for the US Supreme Court? What, if any other, quid-pro-quos were offered
by Bill on behalf of Hillary in order to obstruct justice?
Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her
during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be
accorded? What was Obama-Lynch's role in aiding-and-abetting Hillary to avoid prosecution of crimes that other US citizens
would endure for lesser crimes?
Let's be honest please: It wasn't Trump or the Russians who obstructed justice -- attempted to rig our elections -- who perverted
the course of justice: -- It was Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton, AG Loretta Lynch and Comey– all of whom thought that Hillary would
be POTUS and were happy to help her out -- and whom were willing to turn a blind-eye -- to her crimes in order to enjoy the perks that
she would provide in return for ignoring her blatant, willful & criminal activities.
Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of
Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him.
Yes! But, as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried"
to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth
admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked
Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. The idiots on the left who continue to venerate
her are true 'sycophants' -- emphasis on 'sick.'
From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting
with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia
thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. It's a sham that DOJ has let go. My main complaint is -- how much is this
going to cost the taxpayer? It has no basis in fact from anyone, so why are we here? Well, because the Dems are afraid of Donald
Trump! Sessions should tell his Deputy to end this by terminating the whole thing. Hopefully Dems will,pay for this in 2018. We
will not let Americans forget!
Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice
You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning
of Rosenstein's DOJ career.
The Dems won't rest until they get Trump's tax returns. Next we'll see "leaks" coming out of the IRS because Trump hasn't cleaned
house over there yet.
And, yes, if Trump is to reveal his tax returns, so should every member of Congress be under scrutiny and/or investigation.
I'm sure we'd find some interesting information. Like this from Mark Warner's:
"Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian
search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire
net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
"As far as we know, President Donald J. Trump has made 0% of his net worth from Russian companies. Maybe Warner should investigate
his own ties to Russia.
Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is blocking the
White House from appointing a Treasury Department official to oversee financial crimes committed by terrorists. Warner, worth
over $80 million, is one of the Senate's richest members."
Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following
the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American
people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop.
The left is tribal and now even becoming openly violent.
It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance
of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
What a mess. Mueller has to recuse himself on anything Comey related, right? So, if Mueller opens an investigation into obstruction,
then both he and Rosenstein have to step aside. So Trump is correct when he says he is not under investigation. Hasn't Comey,
(and Coats and Rogers) all testified under oath that there was no obstruction? Hasn't it been determined that there is no 'collusion'
(whatever that means) between Trump and Russia? So what is the special counsel investigating?
How about instead of obstruction, they take a look at sedition?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire
to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose
by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by
force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Michael Aarethun – he is not going to find Diogenese in Washington, DC. I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate
this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more
weight.
Rosenstein has a clear conflict of interest. Mueller probably doesn't have a conflict of interest, but if I were in his shoes,
I would hire an attorney whose sole job is to deal with conflict of interest issues and other ethical issues that are certain
to come up. I would also take steps to see that this "ethics counsel" can't be fired without approval by the (acting) Attorney
General -- whoever is sitting in for Sessions.
"If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows
them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four
lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure
sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit
minority of the public are campaign contributors. Comment dit-on Establishment stitch-up ?
There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American
history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary
Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the
suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in
an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.
Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the "deep state," a
popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political
views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.
However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and
potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated
investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and
dangerous.
Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by
personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert
electoral democracy itself in our country.
As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very
strong circumstantial evidence.
And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: "Some
circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a
trout in the milk. It smells fishy.
The Plans
The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and
Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with
no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on
circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa
Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
"Part A" was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she
committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her
private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls
and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If
Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy,
and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But "Part A" of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be
prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a "Part B" just in case the
first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged
crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into
so-called Trump-Russia "collusion." It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no
statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political
campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with
Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime
to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.
The Texts
The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm
a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an "idiot" and "loathsome."
At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her
nomination and stating: "She just has to win now."
One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial
smoking gun.
Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the
country from that menace." (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).
Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country
at many levels . "
It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to "protect" the country
from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that
no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the
incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey's view that she should not be prosecuted made no
sense by any objective standard.
This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email
case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey's description of Clinton's
handling of classified material, substituting "extremely careless" for "gross negligence."
As I explained in
an earlier column , this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it
allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as
president.
Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey
intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton's server supported
the "inference" that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet
this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.
This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the
republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey's
otherwise incriminating findings.
Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July
2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed
the documents launching the bureau's Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the
case before jumping to Robert Mueller's special counsel team.
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process,
consider this cryptic text about their "insurance policy" against the "risk" of a Trump
presidency.
Strzok: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office –
that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like
an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. "
The reference to "Andy" is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also
supervising the investigation of Clinton's emails at the same time his wife was receiving
roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups
aligned with Clinton.
What was the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office? Was it the FBI's investigation
of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump "dossier" that may have been used by the
FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump
associates? Perhaps it was both.
The Dossier
The "dossier" was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee. Comey called it "salacious and unverified."
Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump
campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday
during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer,
which sounds like an implicit "yes."
Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from
a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.
The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was
demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.
Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr.
Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the
Mueller investigation of Russia's role in the election, but he did not.
Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the
Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the
FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton's campaign to spy on
her opponent or his campaign.
Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers,
which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate
itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.
This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of
Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the
face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.
If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either
Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be
prosecuted.
The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has
lost credibility and the public's trust.
This is clearly neoliberal/neocon outlet and its interpretation of events is highly suspect. But there one art quote here due to
which I decided to reproduce this example of garbage journalism -- quote from Trump about national security state: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this
fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in
Nazi Germany? "
Calling CIA judgment into question is a dangerous business in the USA (as Chuck Shumer told Trump), as the tail is wagging
the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... In his Person of the Year interview with Time , Trump said that he did not believe Russia interfered in the election. "It could be Russia," Trump said. "And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey." Later, his transition team released a statement that not only rejected the CIA's findings, but called the agency's judgement into question . ..."
"... "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the Trump transition team said Dec. 9 ..."
"... Trump continued to attack the intelligence community into January, appearing to side with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over his own intelligence community and expressing skepticism about the agencies on Twitter. ..."
"... After the release of an unverified bombshell report alleging Russia had been "assisting Trump for at least five years" and that he had received a "golden shower show," Trump invoked Nazi Germany in a tirade against U.S. intelligence. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany? ..."
"... "I have a running war with the media," Trump said. "They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth. And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know, the reason you're the number-one stop is exactly the opposite -- exactly." ..."
In December
, the CIA told Senators that Russia had not only interfered in
the 2016 election, but had done so with the intent of getting Trump into the
White House.
Trump and his transition team immediately dismissed the
claims.
In his
Person of the Year
interview with
Time
, Trump said that he did not
believe Russia interfered in the election.
"It could be Russia," Trump said. "And it could be China. And it could be
some guy in his home in New Jersey."
Later, his transition team released a statement that not only rejected the
CIA's findings, but
called the agency's judgement into question
.
"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction," the Trump transition team said Dec. 9. "The election ended a
long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history.
It's now time to move on and "Make America Great Again.'"
After the release of an unverified
bombshell report
alleging Russia had been "assisting Trump for at least
five years" and that he had received a "golden shower show," Trump invoked
Nazi Germany in a tirade against U.S. intelligence.
Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this
fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in
Nazi Germany?
The day after Trump assumed the presidency, he
gave a rambling speech at CIA headquarters in which he
blamed the media
for "[making] it sound like I had a feud with the
intelligence community."
"I have a running war with the media," Trump
said. "They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth. And they sort
of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just
want to let you know, the reason you're the number-one stop is exactly the
opposite -- exactly."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
"... Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning? ..."
"... Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control ..."
"... "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year." ..."
"... "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?" ..."
"... A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works. ..."
"... I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." ..."
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to
at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire
is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate
media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a
major war is now inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable
Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – so as to swing the election
to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?
"Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider
the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?"
A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's
c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting
to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works.
I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption
"Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."
"... Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant and his attorney survive the prosecutor's pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. ..."
"... The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe "official sources" despite the proven fact that "official sources" lie repeatedly and never tell the truth? ..."
"... The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy. We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the "American character." ..."
"... The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. "Mission accomplished," declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush. ..."
"... The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world? ..."
"... Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned, or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it. ..."
"... For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington's evil and are thereby complicit in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as "domestic extremists" who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano's statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term. ..."
"... Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. ..."
"... When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton's regime's sanctions, which had claimed the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the affirmative. ..."
"... ... Americans are "intentionally ignorant" of other countries' rights and sovereignty while other countries had been well-informed of America's malicious intents of destroying other countries' rights and sovereignty ... ..."
"... No, I don't think Americans are intentionally ignorant, any more than other nationalities. What they are tribal. Tribal peoples don't care whether their policies are right or wrong; they are instinctively loyal to them and to those who formulate them. ..."
"... "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." -- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda ..."
"... "Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." ..."
"... "When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility." ..."
"... Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere. If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme and go back to fucking off. The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously European crimes....& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amongst themselves? ..."
"... "The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." ..."
"... I agree with Paul Craig Roberts. He asks "Why" and "How." Well, Paul, here is my answer. Decades of Public Education and over 50 years of mass media monopoly. In an age where FOX is the top rated News station and CNN is considered liberal? Where kids in Public school are offered Chocolate milk and frozen pizza for school breakfast before going to class rooms with 30-40 kids. When Texas political appointees chose school text book content for the nation? A nation where service has ended, replaced with volunteer soldiers signing up for pay and benefits, instead of just serving as service, like we did in the 70's? ..."
"... There is a difference between IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. As Ron White said, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". In todays information age, ignorance is a choice. ..."
"... The problem is that we have no "Constitution." That is a fable. The constitution of the separation of powers has been undermined from almost day one. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. ..."
"... Yes sir. Globalization has failed us. The infinite growth paradigm has failed us, as we knew it would. Castro's Cuba, based in a localized agrarian economy, is looking pretty good about now. Localization is the only way back to sustainability. ..."
"... Books? Who said books? You mean reading books? Let me throw a couple out there: I read 'The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events In America' last year, it was published 50+ years ago by a very recommended writer and accomplished historian. Boorstin's observations are truer today and even more concerning thanks to our modern, ubiquitous "connectivity". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image ..."
"... Adorno famously pointed out in 1940 that the "Mass culture is psychoanalysis in reverse." ..."
"... He doesn't blame the masses because he simply points out the fact that Americans are completely ignorant and blindly believe anything MSM spoon-fed to them. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts believe that the people are capable of creating a better and more just society. Instead the people have voted against their own best interest and overwhelmingly believe the propaganda. ..."
"... "... the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise ..." ..."
"... Governments were created by the history of warfare, which was always organized crime developing on larger and larger scales. In the context, the greater problem is that people like Paul Craig Roberts are reactionary revolutionaries, who provide relatively good analysis, followed by bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals. ..."
"... The "American People" are the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. As Cognitive Dissonance has previously stated on Zero Hedge: "The absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they are controlled." ..."
"... The article above was another illustration of the ways that the typical reactionary revolutionaries, Black Sheeple, or controlled opposition groups, respond to recognizing the more and more blatant degrees to which there has been an accelerating "transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO STAY WITHIN THE SAME OLD-FASHIONED BULLSHIT-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD, AROUND AND AROUND WE GO, STUCK IN THE SAME DEEPENING RUTS, since they do NOT more fully "face the facts" regarding how and why the only realistic solutions to the real problems would require developing better organized crime. INSTEAD, they continue to promote the same dualities based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the associate bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals ... ..."
How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.-Bob Dylan, "Hurricane"
Attorney John W. Whitehead opens a recent posting on his Rutherford Institute website with these words from a song by Bob Dylan.
Why don't all of us feel ashamed? Why only Bob Dylan?
I wonder how many of Bob Dylan's fans understand what he is telling them. American justice has nothing to do with innocence or
guilt. It only has to do with the prosecutor's conviction rate, which builds his political career. Considering the gullibility of
the American people, American jurors are the last people to whom an innocent defendant should trust his fate. The jury will betray
the innocent almost every time.
As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book (2000, 2008) there is no justice in America. We titled our book, "How the Law Was
Lost." It is a description of how the protective features in law that made law a shield of the innocent was transformed over time
into a weapon in the hands of the government, a weapon used against the people. The loss of law as a shield occurred prior to 9/11,
which "our representative government" used to construct a police state.
The marketing department of our publisher did not appreciate our title and instead came up with "The Tyranny of Good Intentions."
We asked what this title meant. The marketing department answered that we showed that the war on crime, which gave us the abuses
of RICO, the war on child abusers, which gave us show trials of total innocents that bested Joseph Stalin's show trials of the heroes
of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the war on drugs, which gave "Freedom and Democracy America" broken families and by far the highest
incarceration rate in the world all resulted from good intentions to combat crime, to combat drugs, and to combat child abuse. The
publisher's title apparently succeeded, because 15 years later the book is still in print. It has sold enough copies over these years
that, had the sales occurred upon publication would have made the book a "best seller." The book, had it been a best seller, would
have gained more attention, and perhaps law schools and bar associations could have used it to hold the police state at bay.
Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant
and his attorney survive the prosecutor's pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors
who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. Jurors even convicted
the few survivors of the Clinton regime's assault on the Branch Davidians of Waco, the few who were not gassed, shot, or burned to
death by US federal forces. This religious sect was demonized by Washington and the presstitute media as child abusers who were manufacturing
automatic weapons while they raped children. The charges proved to be false, like Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction,"
and so forth, but only after all of the innocents were dead or in prison.
The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support
the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe "official sources" despite the proven fact that "official sources"
lie repeatedly and never tell the truth?
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy.
We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed
ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the
character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the "American character."
Was the American character present in the torture prisons of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and hidden CIA torture dungeons where
US military and CIA personnel provided photographic evidence of their delight in torturing and abusing prisoners? Official reports
have concluded that along with torture went rape, sodomy, and murder. All of this was presided over by American psychologists with
Ph.D. degrees.
We see the same inhumanity in the American police who respond to women children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped,
with gratuitous violence. For no reason whatsoever, police murder, taser, beat, and abuse US citizens. Every day there are more reports,
and despite the reports the violence goes on and on and on. Clearly, the police enjoy inflicting pain and death on citizens whom
the police are supposed to serve and protect. There have always been bullies in the police force, but the wanton police violence
of our time indicates a complete collapse of the American character.
The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home
Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous
countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds
of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over
the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought "freedom and democracy" to Iraq.
"Mission accomplished," declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush.
The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the
rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world?
Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its
will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned,
or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing
up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it.
For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington's evil and are thereby complicit
in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as "domestic extremists"
who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British
Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano's statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from
terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term.
Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. As John Whitehead makes clear, the
American people cannot even prevent "their police," paid by their tax payments, from murdering 3 Americans each day, and this is
only the officially reported murders. The actual account is likely higher.
What Whitehead describes and what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own
sense of truth and falsity, any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples. Americans accept no sense of responsibility for the
millions of peoples that Washington has exterminated over the past two decades dating back to the second term of Clinton. Every one
of the millions of deaths is based on a Washington lie.
When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton's regime's sanctions, which had claimed the
lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the
affirmative.
Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a
criminal enterprise.
benb
The American people have been scientifically mis-educated, propagandized, and beaten down. A disproportionate number of the
under 30's are societal DOAs thanks to ... weaponized TV. But I am being too optimistic...
PrayingMantis
... Americans are "intentionally ignorant" of other countries' rights and sovereignty while other countries had been well-informed
of America's malicious intents of destroying other countries' rights and sovereignty ...
BarnacleBill
No, I don't think Americans are intentionally ignorant, any more than other nationalities. What they are tribal. Tribal
peoples don't care whether their policies are right or wrong; they are instinctively loyal to them and to those who formulate
them.
Also, I have to say that I believe the US empire is a long, long, way from collapse. It is still expanding, for goodness sake.
Empires collapse only when the shrinking process is well under way. (The recent Soviet Empire was exceptional, in this regard.)
It will take several more generations before the darkness lifts, I'm afraid.
macholatte
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element
in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the
true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely
by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers
of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost
every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking,
we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
-- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
OldPhart
"Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government
into a criminal enterprise."
I think that happened August 13, 1971, but didn't get fully organized (as in Mafia) until 2000.
PT
The majority have their nose to the grind stone and as such can not see past the grind stone. They rely on "official sources"
to put the rest of the world in order for them, but have no time to audit the "official sources". Would public education suffer
if mothers and fathers were monitoring what the children were learning? But who has got time for that when both parents are working?
How many non-work organizations were your parents and grand-parents involved in (both the wage-earner and the housekeeper)? How
many organizations are you involved in?
Do you constantly hassle your local politicians or do you just say, "I'll vote 'em out in four years time"? (Yes, I know, you
just don't vote. Fair enough, this question is for the voters.)
Yes, some of us are guilty of not fighting back. We had "Shut up and do as you're told" and "Well, if you're not happy with
what you've got then work harder" beaten into us. Some of us are a little awake because, despite all our efforts, the grind stone
was removed from us and then we got to see the larger picture of what lies behind the grind stone. Others are still busy, nose
to the wheel, and all they see is the wheel.
And that is before we even consider HypnoToad on the Idiot Box. Some "need" the idiot box to help them wind down. Some can
no longer enjoy the silence. (Remember Brave New World? It's true. Many people can no longer stand to be around silence, with
nothing but their own thoughts.) I tell everyone that TV is crap. Radio is crap. Newspapers are crap. Turn that shit off for six
months to a year, then go back to it and see what you really think of it. But they can't handle the thought of being away from
"the background noise".
Ever spoken to grandparents who remember wars and depressions? And even amongst the rations and the hardships they still find
positive memories? Time to talk to them again. Or not. I guess we'll get first-hand experience soon enough.
Allow me for a moment to share a brief anecdote about the new "American Character".
Last Sunday I was at the local supermarket. I was at the bakery counter, when suddenly a nicely dressed, Sunday best, non-Caucasian
woman barrels into my cart riding a fat scooter. She rudely demands from the counter person a single cinnamon bun and then wheels
off towards the front. Curious, I follow her up the aisle as she scarfs down the pastry in three bites. She then proceeds to stuff
the empty bag between some soda bottles and scooters through the checkout without paying for her item. In the parking lot she
then disembarks from her scooter, easily lifts it into the trunk of her Cadillac and walks to the drivers side, gets in and speeds
off with her kids, who were in the back seat.
Amazed at what I had just witnessed, I went back into the store, retrieved the empty bag, included it in my few items at checkout
and then went to the manager to share this story with him. He laughed and said there was nothing he could do.
The new "American Character" is that of a sense of entitlement and apathy.
I weep for the future.
Headbanger
Having character is not politically correct. Plus there's no need to develop character anymore because there's no jobs requiring
any!
Consumption is the ONLY value of the inDUHvidual today.
And the less character they have, the more shit they'll consume to feel fulfilled cause they can't get that from themselves.
clymer Sat, 07/25/2015 - 07:34
Macholatte, i don't think PCR is writing from a point of view that is haughty and contemptful of the American people, per se,
but rather from a perspective that is hopeless and thoroughly depressed after contemplating what the American people of many generations
ago has taken for themselves as natural rights from a tyrranical government, only to see the nation slowly morph into something
even worse than what was rejected by the founders.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within...
He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body
politic so that it can no longer resist."
ThroxxOfVron
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise. "
"I think that happened August 13, 1971 "
The entirety of the Western Hemisphere, not just 'The United States', was seized by invaders from Europe.
It is not an 'American' disease: it is a European disease and always was.
The indiginous populations of the Western Hemisphere were suystemaically and with forethought expropriated, ensalved, and slaughtered.
The indiginous persons that dwelled within the geographical domain that presently comprise the USA were still being margialized,
forcibly relocated, and murdered, long after the so-called 'American Civil War' had been decided.
...& As much as it is fashionable and/or politically expedient to vilify and blame the 'white' Europeans both for this history
and extenuate that history to inform the present state of affairs, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ( most
eggregiously IMHO) were brutal and savage.
Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere.
If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme
and go back to fucking off.
The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously
European crimes.
...& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amonsgst themselves?
Neither in Europe itself, nor in the settled West.
The Pacific Ocean wasn't named for calm waters.
It was named thusly because it is the natural geographic boundary where the mayhem and brutality and genocide ceased, if only
because the greedy and ruthless Europeans had run out of land in the Western Hemisphere with people upon it to plunder and murder...
El Vaquero
The US will collapse within the next decade if some serious new technology is not developed and the infrastructure to use it
is put in. There is too much debt and not enough material resources to continue growing the ponzi scheme that is our monetary
system at an exponential rate without something breaking. The question is, will it be at the end of this boom-bust cycle, or the
next? And if you look at what is being done on the financial front, which is the backbone of our neo-empire, that is shrinking.
The USD is slowly falling out of favor. There will come a point where that rapidly accelerates. We've been in a state of collapse
for 15 years.
Abitdodgie
ignorance is choice these days and Americans love it.
AetosAeros
Not only a choice, but the ONLY choice they are prepared to accept. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest. And to make matters
worse, in only the best American fashion, we've asked if if it can be Supersized to go along with the Freedom Lies we feed ourselves.
I've seen the enemy, and....
But only if I'm willing to look in the mirror. Today's American doesn't look for what's right there in front of him/her, we
look for all the new 'Social Norms' that we aren't living up to. This article is completely on target, and I hope Roberts hasn't
decided to do any remodeling, cause too many idle nails guns make for a great Evening News sidebar mention.
Damnit all to hell.
Fun Facts
Fun Facts's picture
protocol #1 - Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
protocol #2 - Start fights between different races, classes and religions
... ... ...
protocol #13 - Use our media to create entertaining distractions
protocol #14 - Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
protocol #15 - Encourage people to spy on one another
Rubicon727
We educators began seeing this shift towards "me-ism" around 1995-6. Students from low to middle income families became either
apathetic towards "education" or followed their parent's sense of "entitlement." Simultaneously, the tech age captured both population's
attention. Respecting "an education" dwindled.
Fast forward to the present: following the 2007-8 crash, we noted clear divisions between low income vs middle/upper class
students based on their school behavior. Low to slightly middle income students brought to school family tensions and the turmoil
of parents losing their jobs. A rise in non-functioning students increase for teachers while the few well performing students
decline significantly.
Significant societal, financial shifts in America can always be observed in the student population.
reader2010
Mission Accomplished.
"When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments,
when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business
a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility."
- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 1985
Lea
"The American people have been scientifically mis-educated".
You've got the answer there. The education system is the root cause of the problem. I'm from Europe, but if I've understood
correctly, the US education policy is to teach as little as possible to children, and expect them to fill in the gaps in the Universities,
past a certain age.
Only, it can't work. Children WILL learn, as childhood is the time when most informations are stored. If the schools don't
provide the knowledge, they will get it from the television, movies or games, with the consequences we can see: ignorance, obsession
with TV and movies stars, inability to differentiate life from movies, and over-simplistic reasoning (if any).
In Europe, we knew full well children learn fast and a lot, and that was why the schools focused on teaching them as much general
knowldge as possible before 18 years old, which is when - it is scientifically proved - the human brain learns best.
Recently, the EU leading countries have understood that having educated masses doesn't pay if you want to lead them like sheep,
so they are perfidiously trying to lower the standards... to the dismay of parents.
My advice, if I may presume to give any, would be to you USA people: teach your children what they won't learn at school, history,
geography, literature (US, European and even Asian, why not), a foreign language if you can, arts, music, etc; and keep them away
from the TV, movies and games.
And please adapt what you teach them to their age.
Refuse-Resist
Bang on! One anecdotal example: insisting that all 3rd graders use calculators "to learn" their multiplication tables. If I
didn't do flashcards at home with my kids they wouldn't know them. As somebody who majored in engineering and took many many advanced math courses, I always felt that knowing your 'times tables'
was essential to being successful in math.
What better way to dumb down otherwise intelligent children by creating a situation where the kid can't divide 32 by 4 without
a calculator. Trigonometry? Calculus? Linear Algebra? Fuggedaboudit.
doctor10
The CB's and MIC have Americans right where they want them. the consequences of 3-4 generations of force feeding Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny
ThroxxOfVron
Some of US were never fucking asleep. Some of us were born with our eyes and minds open. We were, and are: hated, and reviled, and marginalized, and disowned for it. The intellectual repression was, and is, fucking insane and brutal. Words such as ethics and logic exist for what purpose? What are these expressions of? A bygone time? Abstractions?
Those that have tried to preserve their self awareness, empathy, and rationality have been ruthlessly systematically demeaned
and condemed for confronting our families, our culture and institutions. We all have a right to be angry and disgusted and distrustful of the people and institutions around us. I am very fucking angry, and disgusted, and distrustful of the people and institutions around me.
But I still have hope. Nothing lasts forever.. This self-righteous nation called The United States, this twisted fraud of a culture called America, is most dangerously overdue
for receipt of chastisment and retribution. It would be best if the citizenry of the United States taught themselves a lesson in stead of inviting Other nations and cultures
to educate them.
A serious self education may be tedious and imperfect; but, it would be far far cheaper than forcing someone to come all the
way over those oceans to educate Americans at the price they will be demanding for those lessons...
I do not require representation. I will speak my own mind and act of my own accord.
Every time other so-called Americans take a shit on me for thinking and speaking and acting differently it is a badge of honor
and a confirmation of my spiritual and intellectual liberty. They don't know it but they are all gonna run out of shit before
I run out of being free.
ThroxxOfVron
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise. "
"I think that happened August 13, 1971 "
The entirety of the Western Hemisphere, not just 'The United States', was seized by invaders from Europe. It is not an 'American' disease: it is a European disease and always was.
The indiginous populations of the Western Hemisphere were suystemaically and with forethought expropriated, ensalved, and slaughtered.
The indiginous persons that dwelled within the geographical domain that presently comprise the USA were still being margialized,
forcibly relocated, and murdered, long after the so-called 'American Civil War' had been decided.
...& As much as it is fashionable and/or politically expedient to vilify and blame the 'white' Europeans both for this history
and extenuate that history to inform the present state of affairs, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ( most
eggregiously IMHO) were brutal and savage.
Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere. If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme
and go back to fucking off. The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously
European crimes....& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amongst themselves?
See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
That would be: Hell NO. Neither in Europe itself, nor in the settled West. The Pacific Ocean wasn't named for calm waters. It was named thusly because it is the natural geographic boundary where the mayhem and brutality and genocide ceased, if only
because the greedy and ruthless Europeans had run out of land in the Western Hemisphere with people upon it to plunder and murder...
Mini-Me
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise."
I agree with the first part. As for the latter, "government," by definition, is a criminal enterprise. It doesn't start out
pure as the driven snow and then change into something nefarious over time. Its very essence requires the initiation of violence
or its threat. Government without the gun in the ribs is a contradiction.
The fact that those in power got more votes than the losing criminals does not magically morph these people into paragons of
virtue. They are almost without exception thoroughly deranged human beings. Lying is second nature to them. Looting is part of
the job description. Killing is an end to their means: the acquisition and aggrandizement of power over others, no matter how
much death and destruction results.
These people are sick bastards. To expect something virtuous from them after an endless string of wanton slaughter, theft and
abuse, is simply wishful thinking.
Jack Burton
I agree with Paul Craig Roberts. He asks "Why" and "How." Well, Paul, here is my answer. Decades of Public Education and over
50 years of mass media monopoly. In an age where FOX is the top rated News station and CNN is considered liberal? Where kids in
Public school are offered Chocolate milk and frozen pizza for school breakfast before going to class rooms with 30-40 kids. When
Texas political appointees chose school text book content for the nation? A nation where service has ended, replaced with volunteer
soldiers signing up for pay and benefits, instead of just serving as service, like we did in the 70's?
Paul Craig Roberts points out the police war against the people. That comes right from the very top, orders filter down to
street cops. Street Cops are recruited from groups of young men our fathers generation would have labeled mental! But now they
are hired across the board, shaved heads, tatoos, and a code of silence and Cops Above Justice.
Schools
Media
Crazed Cops
And a corporate owned government.
The people have allowed the elites to rule in their place, never bothering to question the two fake candidates we are allowed
to vote for.
Jtrillian
There is a difference between IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. As Ron White said, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". In todays information age, ignorance is a choice.
Part of the problem that no one is talking about or addressing is the population explosion. And it's not linear. Those who
are the least educated, fully dependent others for their survival (welfare), the most complacent, and often with violent criminal
records are breeding the fastest.
Evolution is not guaranteed. It can be argued that the apathy we experience today is a sign of the human race de-evolving.
It takes a certain amount of cognitive ability to observe and question what is going on.
Further, the society we have created where "60 is the new 40" creates very little time to pay attention to what is going on
in the world. Many people rely on mainstream media which is not really news any more. When six corporations control more than
90% of the news, it's the message of the corporate elite that we are fed. This becomes painfully obvious when you start turning
to other sources for information like social media and independent news. Mainstream media today is full of opinion bias - injecting
opinion as though it were fact. They also appeal to the lowest commmon denominator by focusing on emotionally charged topics and
words rather than boring facts. Finally, the mainstream media is extremely guilty of propaganda by omission, ignoring important
events altogether or only presenting one side of the story as is being done with regard to ISIS, Syria, and Ukraine today. People
who watch the mainstream media have no idea that the US played a significant role in arming ISIS and aided in their rise to power.
They have no idea that it was likely ISIS that used chemical weapons in Syria. They have no idea that the US has propped up real
life neo nazis in high government positions in Ukraine. And they have ignored the continuing Fukushima disaster that is STILL
dumping millions of gallons of radioactive water into the ocean every single day.
To sum up, democracies only work when people pay attention and participate. People are either too stupid, too overworked, are
are looking to the wrong sources for information.
Until we break up mainstream media, remove incentives for those who cannot even care for themselves to stop breeding, and make
fundamental changes to our society that affords people the time to focus on what is happening in the world, it will only get worse.
Much worse.
serotonindumptruck
A dying empire is like a wounded, cornered animal.
It will lash out uncontrollably and without remorse in a futile effort to save itself from certain death.
Enough Already
The problem is that we have no "Constitution." That is a fable. The constitution of the separation of powers has been undermined
from almost day one. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
In the centuries since then, there has been no "separation of powers." Marbury v Madison (1803) gave the Supreme Court the
right to "decide" what the "law" was. Although, only in the 20th century did the "Supreme" court really start "legislating" from
the bench.
We're just peons to the Overall Federal Power; the three "separate" parts of the federal government have been in collusion
from the first. But like all empires, this one is in the final stage of collapse; it has just gotten too big.
gswifty
Yes sir. Globalization has failed us. The infinite growth paradigm has failed us, as we knew it would. Castro's Cuba, based
in a localized agrarian economy, is looking pretty good about now. Localization is the only way back to sustainability.
napples
Books? Who said books? You mean reading books? Let me throw a couple out there: I read 'The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events In America' last year, it was published 50+ years ago by a very recommended
writer and accomplished historian. Boorstin's observations are truer today and even more concerning thanks to our modern, ubiquitous
"connectivity". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image
Another by Boorstin, The Discoverers was my fav, like Bryson's 'Short History' on steroids:
I'm currently trying to fathom all of the historical implications of the claims Menzies is making in his book '1434', where
apparently everything I learned about history is a lie. While he's making a lot of claims(hoping some sticks?) I'm not truly convinced.
It is a very good, believable thought experiment. It almost makes perfect sense given the anglo/euro history of deceit & dishonesty,
but I digress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies
Adorno famously pointed out in 1940 that the "Mass culture is psychoanalysis in reverse." It takes 75 years for someone
such as PCR to reiterate. He doesn't blame the masses because he simply points out the fact that Americans are completely
ignorant and blindly believe anything MSM spoon-fed to them.
George Orwell once remarked that the average person today is about as naive as was the average person in the Middle Ages. In
the Middle Ages people believed in the authority of their religion, no matter what. Today, we believe in the authority of what
Adorno called Culture Industry and MSM, no matter what. Today we are indeed in another Dark Age
PoasterToaster
"Americans" are not one person. Individuals are not fungible. Reasoning from the "average American" leads to false conclusions.
reader2010
Jacques Derrida says, "The individualism of technological civilization relies precisely on a misunderstanding of the unique
self. It is the individualism of a role and not of a person. In other words it might be called the individualism of a masque or
persona, a character [personnage] and not a person." There are many Americans but they all play the same role in the Pursuit of
Happiness, aka wage slaves, career slaves, debt slaves, information junkies, and passive consumers.
Moccasin
Paul Craig Roberts believe that the people are capable of creating a better and more just society. Instead the people have
voted against their own best interest and overwhelmingly believe the propaganda.
When do the people or the society take responsibility for its greater good or own the crimes of those they put into power?
Blaming the aristocracy or the oligarchs seems like a scapegoat when the people have never stood up to the corruption in a
cohesive or concerted way. imho, After a few generations of abuse and corruption the people need to take responsibility for their
future. I expect that most will just buy into the charade and live the lie, on that basis as a society we are doomed to live in
a corporatocracy fascist state.
Aldous Huxley called it a scientific dictatorship, Edward Bernays referred to us as a herd.
Moccasin
In the USA being white, monied and having the capacity to afford a good education is privileged. To his credit he speaks to
the greater population, the 'average citizen' and not the plutocratic class.
MSorciere
What we have is the result of conditioning and commoditizing a population. The country is filled with consumers, not citizens.
Teach the acquisition of money and goods as the main goal and individualism as the only acceptable social unit. We end up with
a nation of insatiable sociopaths, ruled by power-hungry psychopaths.
Divisive politics, jackbooted authority from the DC scumpond down to the cop on the beat, the constant preaching of the cult
of the individual as a sustitute for true liberty... all of these have served to destroy a sense of community and decentness between
Americans.
The ONLY thing that could threaten the ruling class is a banding together of the people - in large numbers. 'They' have purposefully
and effectively quashed that.
TrulyStupid
Shifting responsibility to the usual suspects is simply a manifestation of the American moral collapse. Man up and do some
self evaluation.
T-NUTZ
"what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own sense of truth and falsity,
any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples"
Unfortunately, Paul, the American people have lost any sense of mercy and justice for their own people.
Painful as it may be, we need to rationally look at US history/society. The nascent US was formed by stealing land from the
native population and using human capital (read African Slaves) to generate wealth (it took a civil war with circa 500K casualties
to stop this- one could argue the US "civil war" never ended). More recently, the US has been almost continuously at war since
1940, we dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Currently, the US/NATO war theater extends from the Levant, to Caspian Basin, Persian
Gulf, China Sea, Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa (Saudi/US war on Yemen), the Maghreb and E Europe and Russian Border.
"... the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise ..."
Governments were created by the history of warfare, which was always organized crime
developing on larger and larger scales. In the context, the greater problem is that people like Paul Craig Roberts are
reactionary revolutionaries, who provide relatively good analysis, followed by bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals.
The "American People" are the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. As Cognitive Dissonance
has previously stated on Zero Hedge: "The absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they
are controlled."
It is practically impossible to exaggerate the degree to which that is so, on such profound levels, because of the ways that
most people want to continue to believe that false fundamental dichotomies and impossible ideals are
valid, and should be applied to their problems, despite that those mistaken ideas cause the opposite to happen in the real world,
because those who promote those kinds of false fundamental dichotomies and their related impossible ideals, ARE "controlled
opposition."
Rather, the place to begin would be by recognizing that all human beings and civilizations must necessarily operate as entropic
pumps of energy flows, which necessarily are systems of organized lies operating robberies. Everyone has some power to rob, and
power to kill to back that up. Governments assembled and channeled those powers. There was never a time when governments were
not organized crime. There could never be any time when governments were not organized crime. The only things that exist are the
dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies operating robberies. Those dynamic equilibria have become extremely
unbalanced due the degree that the best organized gangs of criminals were able to control their opposition.
Paul Craig Roberts, as well as pretty well all of the rest of the content published on Zero Hedge, are presentations
of various kinds of controlled opposition groups, most of which do not recognize that they are being controlled by the language
that they use, and the philosophy of science that they take for granted. THAT is the greatest failure of the American People,
as well as most of the rest of the people everywhere else. They believe in false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible
ideals, and therefore, their bogus "solutions" always necessarily backfire badly, and cause the opposite to happen in the real
world.
After all, the overwhelming vast majority of the American People operate as the controlled opposition to the best organized
gangs of criminals that most control the government of the USA. Therefore, the FAILURES of the American People are far more profound
and problematic than what is superficially presented by guys like Paul Craig Roberts, and also, of course, his suggested bogus
"solutions" are similarly superficial.
The ONLY things which can actually exist are the dynamic equilibrium between different systems of organized lies operating
robberies. The degree to which the American People, as well as most of the rest of the people in the world, FAIL to understand
that is the degree to which they enable the best organized gangs of criminals to control them, due to the vast majority of people
being members of various controlled opposition groups. Controlled opposition always presents relatively superficial analysis of
the political problems, which are superficially correct. However, they then follow that up with similarly superficial "solutions."
Therefore, magical words are bandied about, that express their dualities, through false fundamental dichotomies, and the related
impossible ideals.
Governments must exist because organized crime must exist. Better governments could be achieved through
better organized crime. However, mostly what get presented in the public places are the utter bullshit of the biggest
bullies, who dominate the society because they were the best organized gangs of criminals, who were also able to dominate their
apparent opposition. Therefore, instead of more realistic, better balancing of the dynamic equilibria between different systems
of organized lies operating robberies, we get runaway developments of the best organized gangs of criminals being able to control
governments, whose only apparent opposition is controlled to stay within the same bullshit frame of reference regarding everything
that was actually happening.
The mainline of the FAILURES of the American People have been the ways that the international bankers were able to recapture
control over the American public "money" supply. After that, everything else was leveraged up, through the funding of the political
processes, schools, and mass media, etc., being more and more dominated by that fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting
system. Of course, that FAILURE has now become more than 99% ... Therefore, no political possible ways appear to exist to pull
out of that flaming spiral nose dive, since we have already gone beyond the event horizon into that social black hole.
Most of the content on Zero Hedge which is based upon recognizing that set of problems still acts as controlled opposition
in that regard too. Therefore, the bogus "solutions" here continue to deliberately ignore that money is necessarily measurement
backed by murder. Instead of accepting that, the controlled opposition groups like to promote various kinds of "monetary reforms."
However, meanwhile, we are actually already headed towards the established debt slavery systems having generated debt insanities,
which are going to provoke death insanities.
In that context, the only realistic resolutions to the real problems would necessarily have to be monetary revolutions,
that may emerge out of the future situations, after the runaway debt insanities have provoked death insanities. Indeed, the only
genuine solutions to the problems are to develop different death control systems, to back up different debt control systems, which
must necessarily be done within the context that governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best
organized gangs of criminals.
The various controlled opposition groups do not want to face those social facts. Rather, they continue to want to believe in
the dualities expressed as false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals, which is their greatest overall FAILURE.
In my view, the article above by Roberts contained a lot of nostalgic nonsense. There was never a time when there
were any governments which were not based on the applications of the principles and methods of organized crime, and there
could never be any time in the future when that could be stopped from being the case.
The greatest FAILURE of the American People, as well as most of the rest of the world's people, has been to become so brainwashed
to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, that there is no significant opposition that is not controlled by thinking
inside of the box of that bullshit. The government did NOT transform into a criminal enterprise. The government was necessarily
ALWAYS a criminal enterprise. That criminal enterprise has become more and more severely UNBALANCED due to the FAILURE
of the people to understand that they were actually members of an organized crime gang, called their country. Instead, they were
more and more scientifically brainwashed to believe in bullshit about everything, including their country.
The ONLY connection between human laws and the laws of nature is the ability to back up lies with violence. The development
of the government of the USA has been the developed of integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. Those
systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS have been able to become more extremely unbalanced because there is almost nothing which is publicly
significant surrounding that core of organized crime but various controlled opposition groups.
Of course, it seems politically impossible for my recommendations to actually happen within the foreseeable future, as the
current systems of debt slavery drive through debt insanities to become death insanities, but nevertheless, the only theoretically
valid ideas to raise to respond to the real problems would have to based upon a series of intellectual scientific revolutions.
However, since we have apparently run out of time to go through those sorts of paradigm shifts sufficiently, we are stuck in the
deepening ruts of political problems which guys like Roberts correctly present to be the case
... HOWEVER, ROBERTS, LIKE ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE, CONTINUE TO PRESUME UPON DUALITIES, AND THEREFORE,
HAVE THEIR MECHANISMS REGARDING "SOLUTIONS" ABSURDLY BACKWARDS.
Rather, we should start with the concept of SUBTRACTION, which then leads to robbery. We should start with the recognition
that governments are necessarily, by definition, the biggest forms of organized crime. Governments did NOT transform
into being that. Governments were always that. The political problems we have now are due to the best organized gangs
of criminals, which currently are primarily the biggest gangsters, which can rightly be referred to as the banksters, having dominated
all aspects of the funding of politics, enough to capture control over all sociopolitical institutions, so that the American People
would more and more be subjected to the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy, which was built on top of thousands
of years of previous history of Neolithic Civilizations being based on backing up lies with violence.
The runaway systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS, or the integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, that more
and more dominate the lives of the American People are due to the applications of the methods of organized crime, and could not
be effectively counter-balanced in any other ways. However, the standing social situation is that there is no publicly significant
opposition that is not controlled to stay within the same frame of reference of the biggest bullies, which is now primarily the
frame of reference of the banksters. Indeed, to the degree to which people's lives are controlled by the monetary system, they
are debt slaves. Moreover, the degree to which they do not understand, and do not want to understand, that money is necessarily
measurement backed by murder, then they think like controlled opposition groups, who have their mechanisms absurdly backwards,
when they turn from their superficial analysis of what the political problems, to then promote their superficial solutions of
those problems.
I AGREE that "Americans need to face the facts." However, those facts are that citizens are members
of an organized crime gang, called their country. "Their" country is currently controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.
However, there are no genuine resolutions for those problems other than to develop better organized crime. Since the controlled
opposition groups that are publicly significant do not admit any of the deeper levels of the scientific facts regarding human
beings and civilizations operating as entropic pumps of energy flows, but rather, continue to perceive all of that in the most
absurdly backward ways possible, the current dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies operating robberies
continue to become more and more extremely UNBALANCED.
In the case of the article above, Roberts does NOT "face the facts" that governments were
always forms of organized crime, and must necessarily be so, because human beings must live as entropic pumps of energy
flows. Rather, Roberts tends to illustrate how the controlled opposition takes for granted certain magical words and phrases,
such as "Liberty" or "Constitution," that have no adequate operational definitions to connect them to the material
world.
We are living inside of an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, which has applied the progress in science primarily to become
better at backing up lies with violence, while refusing to allow scientific methods to admit and address how and why that has
been what has actually happened. Therefore, almost all of the language that we use to communicate, as well as almost
all of the philosophy of science that we take for granted, was based on the biggest bullies' bullshit, which is now primarily
manifested as the banksters' bullshit, as that bullshit developed in America to become ENFORCED FRAUDS.
ALL of the various churches, corporations, and countries are necessarily various systems of organized lies operating robberies.
Those which are the biggest now were historically the ones that were the best at doing that. The INTENSE PARADOXES are due to
human systems necessarily being organized lies operating robberies, wherein the greatest social successfulness has been achieved
by those who were the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. That flows throughout ALL of the established systems,
which are a core of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition groups.
The degree to which the American People, as well as the rest of the world's people, have been more and more scientifically
brainwashed to believe in bullshit about governments in particular, and human beings and civilizations in general, is the degree
to which the established systems based upon ENFORCED FRAUDS are headed towards some series of psychotic breakdowns. For all practical
purposes, it is politically impossible to get enough people to stop acting like incompetent political idiots, and instead start
acting more like competent citizens, because they do not understand, and moreover have been conditioned to not want to understand
that governments are necessarily organized crime.
Roberts ironically illustrated the deeper nature of the political problems that he also shares, when he perceives that governments
have somehow transformed into being criminal enterprise, when governments were always necessarily criminal enterprises.
Similarly, with those who recognize that, but then promote the impossible solutions based upon somehow stopping that
from being the case, which is as absurdly backwards as stopping human beings from operating as entropic pumps of energy
flows, which then also presumes that it would be possible to stop human civilizations from being entropic pumps of energy
flows.
Rather, the deeper sorts of intellectual scientific revolutions that we should go through require becoming much more
critical of the language that we use to communicate with, and more critical about the philosophy of science that we presumed was
correct. Actually, we were collectively brainwashed to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit, which is as absurdly backwards
as it could possibly be. However, due to the collective FAILURES of people to understand that, as reflected by the ways that the
core of organized crime is surrounded by nothing which is publicly significant than layers of controlled opposition, there are
no reasonable ways to doubt that the established debt slavery systems will continue to drive even worse debt insanities, which
will provoke much worse death insanities. Therefore, to be more realistic about the foreseeable future, the development of new
death control systems will emerge out of the context of crazy collapses into chaos, wherein the runaway death insanities provide
the possible opportunities for new death controls to emerge out of that situation.
Of course, the about 99% FAILURE of the American People to want to understand anything that I have outlined above
indicates that the foreseeable future for subsequent generations shall not too likely be catalyzed transformations
towards enough people better understanding their political problems, in order to better resolve those problems. Rather, what I
mostly expect is for the psychotic breakdowns of the previous systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS to give opportunities to some possible
groups of controlled opposition to take advantage of that, to perhaps emerge as the new version of professional liars and immaculate
hypocrites, who will be able to operate some new version of organized lies, operating robberies, who may mostly still get away
with being some modified versions of still oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, due to social success still being based upon the
best available professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, who were able to survive through those transformations, so that the
new systems arise from some of the seeds of the old systems.
At the present time, it is extremely difficult to imagine how the human species could possibly reconcile progress in
physical science by surpassing that with progress in political science. Rather, what mostly exists now is the core of
organized crime, which gets away with spouting the bullshit about itself, such as how the banksters dominate the mass media, and
the lives of everyone else who depend upon the established monetary system (which is dominated by the current ways that governments
ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks), while that core of organized crime has no publicly significant opposition that
is not controlled by the ways that they think, which ways stay within the basic bullshit world view, as promoted by the biggest
bullies for thousands of years, and as more and more scientifically promoted to brainwash the vast majority of people to believe
in that kind of bullshit so completely that it mostly does not occur to them that they are doing that, and certainly almost never
occurs to them that they are doing that in the most profoundly absurd and backward ways possible.
That is how and why it is possible for an author like Roberts to correctly point out the ways in which the government of the
USA is transforming into being more blatantly based on organized crime ... HOWEVER, Roberts is not willing and able to go through
deeper levels of intellectual scientific revolutions, in order to recognize how and why governments were always necessarily manifestations
of organized crime. Therefore, as is typically the case, Roberts does not recognize how ironically he recommends that Americans
should "face the facts," while he himself does not fully do so.
The whole history of Neolithic Civilizations was social pyramid systems based on being able to back up lies with violence,
becoming more sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which currently manifest as the globalized
electronic frauds of the banksters, were are backed up by the governments (that those banksters effectively control) having atomic
bombs. Those are the astronomically amplified magnitudes of the currently existing combined money/murder systems. Therefore, it
appears to be politically impossible at the present time to develop better governments, due to the degree that almost everyone
is either a member of the core groups of organized crime, or members of the surrounding layers of groups of controlled opposition,
both of which want to stay within the same overall bullshit frame of reference, because, so far, their lives have been socially
successful by being professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.
Ironically, I doubt that someone like Roberts, or pretty well everyone else whose material is published on Zero Hedge
is able and willing to recognize the degree to which they are actually controlled opposition. Indeed, even more ironically, as
I have repeated before, even Cognitive Dissonance, when he previously stated on Zero Hedge:"The
absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they are controlled." DOES NOT "GET IT" regarding the
degree to which he too is controlled opposition, even while superficially attempting to recognize and struggle with that situation.
(Indeed, of course, that includes me too, since I am still communicating using the English language, which was the natural language
that most developed to express the biggest bullies' bullshit world view.)
Overall, I REPEAT, the deeper problems are due to progress in physical science, NOT being surpassed by progress in
political science. Instead, while there EXIST globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, practically nothing
regarding the ways of thinking that made that science and those technologies possible has found any significant expression through
political science, because political science would have to go through even more profound paradigm shifts within itself in order
to do that.
The INTENSE PARADOXES continue to be the manifestation of the oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, that deliberately refuses
to become any more genuinely scientific about itself. Therefore, the banksters have been able to pay for the best scientific brainwashing
that money could buy, for generation after generation, in order to more and more brainwash most of the American People to believe
in the banksters' bullshit world view. While there exist electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, practically nothing regarding
the physical science paradigm shifts that made that possible have even the slightest degree of public appreciation within the
realms of politics today, which are almost totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, despite that being as
absurdly backwards as possible, while the controlled opposition groups, mostly in the form of old-fashioned religions and ideologies,
continue to stay within that same bullshit world view, and adamantly refuse to change their perceptual paradigms regarding political
problems.
However, I REPEAT, the issues we face are NOT that governments have transformed to become criminal enterprises,
but that governments were always necessarily criminal enterprises, which had the power to legalized their own lies, and
then back those lies up with legalized violence. Thereby, the best organized criminals, the international bankers, as
the biggest gangsters, or the banksters, were able to apply the methods of organized crime through the political processes. Meanwhile,
the only "opposition" that was allowed to be publicly significant was controlled, to basically stay within the same bullshit world
view, which is what Roberts has done in his series of articles, as well as what is almost always presented in the content published
on Zero Hedge.
The NEXT LEVEL of "the need to face the facts" is to recognize that the political economy is based
upon ENFORCED FRAUDS, or systems of debt slavery backed by wars based on deceits. However, the NEXT LEVEL "the need
to face the facts" is the that the only possible changes are to change the dynamic equilibria between the different
systems of organized lies operating robberies, i.e., change those ENFORCED FRAUDS, in ways which CAN NOT STOP
THOSE FROM STILL BEING ENFORCED FRAUDS, because of the degree to which money is necessarily measurement backed by murder.
For the American People, as well as the rest of the world's people, to stop being such dismal FAILURES would require them to
become more competent citizens. However, at the present time they appear to be totally unable to do that, because they are unwilling
to go through the profound paradigm shifts that it would take them to become more competent citizens inside of world where there
exist globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs. The vast majority of the American People would not like
to go through the severe cognitive dissonance that would be required, to not only recognize that "their" government was a criminal
enterprise, but that it also must be, and that they too must necessarily be members of that organized crime gang. However, without
that degree of perceptual paradigm shifts of the political problems, then enough of the American People could not become more
competent citizens.
Somehow, most people continue to count on themselves never having to think about how and why progress was achieved in physical
science, by going through series of profound paradigm shifts in the ways that we perceived the world. Most people continue to
presume that it is not necessary for their perception of politics to go through profound paradigm shifts, that surpass those which
have already been achieved in physical science. We continue to live in an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, that employs science
and technology to become better at being dishonest and violent, but does not apply science and technology to "face
the facts" about that scientific dictatorship as a whole.
At the present time, technologies which have become trillions of times more capable and powerful are primarily used as special effects within the context of repeating the same old-fashioned, stupid social stories, such as promoted by the biggest
bullies, and their surrounding controlled opposition groups. Ironically, especially when it comes to politics, that tends to manifest
the most atavistic throwbacks to old-fashioned religions and ideologies being relied upon to propose bogus "solutions," despite
that those kinds of social stories adamantly refuse to change their paradigms in light of the profound paradigms shifts which
have been achieved in physical science.
The article above was another illustration of the ways that the typical reactionary revolutionaries, Black Sheeple, or controlled
opposition groups, respond to recognizing the more and more blatant degrees to which there has been an accelerating "transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO STAY WITHIN
THE SAME OLD-FASHIONED BULLSHIT-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD, AROUND AND AROUND WE GO, STUCK IN
THE SAME DEEPENING RUTS, since they do NOT more fully "face the facts" regarding how and why the only
realistic solutions to the real problems would require developing better organized crime. INSTEAD, they
continue to promote the same dualities based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the associate bogus "solutions" based upon
impossible ideals ...
Given that overall situation, that there there almost nothing which is publicly significant than the core of organized crime,
surrounded by controlled opposition groups, I see no reasonable hopes for the foreseeable material future of a civilization controlled
by ENFORCED FRAUDS, since there is no publicly possible ways to develop better dynamic equilibria between the different systems
of organized lies operating robberies, since the biggest forms of doing that were most able to get away with pretending that they
are not doing that, which was facilitated by their controlled opposition promoting the opinions that nobody should do that, while
actually everyone must be doing that.
Roberts' article above, to me, was another typical example of superficially correct analysis, which implies some bogus "solutions"
because those are based upon the same superficiality. It is NOT good enough to recognize "transformation of government
into a criminal enterprise," unless one goes through deeper levels of analysis regarding how and why that is what
actually exists, and then, one should continue to be consistent with that deeper analysis when one turns to proposing genuine
solutions to those problems, namely, I REPEAT THAT the only realistic resolutions to the real political
problems requires the transformation of government into a better organized criminal enterprise, which
ideally should be based upon enough citizens who are competent enough to understand that they are members of an organized crime
gang, which should assert themselves to make sure that their country becomes better organized crime.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
Posted by BeauHD
on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @03:00AM from the nick-of-time dept. Following the
DefCon demonstration in July that showed how quickly Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment
could be hacked, Virginia's State Board of Elections has
decided it wants to replace their electronic voting machines in time for the gubernatorial election
due on November 7th, 2017.
According to The Register, "The decision was
announced in the minutes of the Board's September 8th meeting: 'The Department of Elections officially
recommends that the State Board of Elections decertify all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or touchscreen)
voting equipment."
From the report: With the DefCon bods showing some machines shared a single hard-coded password,
Virginia directed the Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) to audit the machines in use
in the state (the Accuvote TSX, the Patriot, and the AVC Advantage).
None passed the test. VITA told the board "each device analyzed exhibited material risks to
the integrity or availability of the election process," and the lack of a paper audit trail
posed a significant risk of lost votes.
Local outlet The News Leader
notes that many precincts had either replaced their machines already, or are in the process of
doing so. The election board's decision will force a change-over on the 140 precincts that haven't
replaced their machines, covering 190,000 of Virginia's ~8.4m population.
Posted by BeauHD
on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @03:00AM from the nick-of-time dept. Following the
DefCon demonstration in July that showed how quickly Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment
could be hacked, Virginia's State Board of Elections has
decided it wants to replace their electronic voting machines in time for the gubernatorial election
due on November 7th, 2017.
According to The Register, "The decision was
announced in the minutes of the Board's September 8th meeting: 'The Department of Elections officially
recommends that the State Board of Elections decertify all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or touchscreen)
voting equipment."
From the report: With the DefCon bods showing some machines shared a single hard-coded password,
Virginia directed the Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) to audit the machines in use
in the state (the Accuvote TSX, the Patriot, and the AVC Advantage).
None passed the test. VITA told the board "each device analyzed exhibited material risks to
the integrity or availability of the election process," and the lack of a paper audit trail
posed a significant risk of lost votes.
Local outlet The News Leader
notes that many precincts had either replaced their machines already, or are in the process of
doing so. The election board's decision will force a change-over on the 140 precincts that haven't
replaced their machines, covering 190,000 of Virginia's ~8.4m population.
"... By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
CIA is actually a state within the state as Church commission revealed and it has an immanent tendency to seek control over "surface
state" and media. In other words large intelligence apparatus might well be incompatible with the democratic governance.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds. ..."
"In the long run, the CIA can't deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some way, the American public. This
leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything the CIA says?" [RealClearWorld].
"It's a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the "bad things" an agency does are
good for the country.
If the public believes that that is no longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national
interest – then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to national self-determination,
a means for the ends of the few."
Huey Long <
RE: Hall of Mirrors/Believing the CIA
The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said,
the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds.
I think the reason folks like Manning, Snowden and Assange are so reviled by the agency is because they are a threat to the
CIA's reputation more than anything else.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
"... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
"... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
"... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
"... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
"... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
"... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
"... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
"... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
"... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
"... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
"... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
"... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
"... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
"... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
"... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
"... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
"... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's
involvement in US politics?
The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.
The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.
As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.
Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media
bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion
that is being suggested.
And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set
up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table
modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments
that could fuckup ARM based computers.
Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become
a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside
the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists
fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support
for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped
Putin wiped the terrorists out...
Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists
in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege
Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates'
in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.
I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as
he deserves.
I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
Cheers!
The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign
in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake
stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along."
The Globe and Mail.
No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot
multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.
Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new...
Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing
are getting interesting...
"If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is
based on sheer lies. "
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
"Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
"This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about
their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that
the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C.
pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.
And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.
"It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are
both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump
in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the
most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine
Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."
(Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and
gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across
the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)
Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise
and completely unprovoked .
To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics
of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")
This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed
masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right
under their noses.
and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
So it's true because the CIA said so.
That's the gold standard for me.
So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.
Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.
I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
Happy Christmas, Vlad.
Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political
parties with one fell swoop that way.
The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling
in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result
is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
Where's the gap in this logic:
A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time --
unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that
if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really
this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a
right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling
someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank
you Democratic party.
I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would
we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?
I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the
US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored
some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with
respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of
its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.
If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including
CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.
If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd
say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.
First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that
there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence"
officials. In other words, fake news at this point.
Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen.
Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.
This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the
time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts
about our ruling class.
This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That
fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some
so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.
>> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the
election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.
What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary
so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided
press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the
BS and voted for trump. Good for them.
And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking
story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who
hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking
simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint
statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.
This is very telling:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
Alleged:
adjective [attributive]
said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality
Consistent:
adjective
acting or done in the same way over time
Method:
noun
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Motivation:
noun
a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way
So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?
Well what we can tell is:
the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations
(and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.
There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.
Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone
strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to
do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed
into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies
working against humanity for very many years.
This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.
The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping
away from them.
This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.
What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame
the Russians for it.
The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.
American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes
is one small incident from either side.
And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall
St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.
They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.
This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually
make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in
2020.
I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood
and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win
have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!
I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.
Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather
a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove
the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.
Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy
is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved
into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by
former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential
candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones
from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle
in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon.
The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in
the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well
as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large
listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."
Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite
the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups
etc. etc. etc
Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their
billions of funding.
So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA
are going to publish then think again.
During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy
alliance after the election
Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a
muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation
that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to
stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution
caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson
..
"We are Not calling into question the election results"
next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF
What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep.
who almost managed to have his tie done up..
I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)
Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during
and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!
His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --
People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are
in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.
Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed
up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..
blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..
Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just
over month ago.. whoosh!
It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!
And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..
Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
********
Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.
As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!
Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama
continues to resist, or loose face completely..
Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no
legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect
of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!
Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
& Obama is guilty!
The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them
gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or
otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access
etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration,
they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom
Cobbly.
In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the
perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.
The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in
terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as
the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still,
in truth, all is never fair in love or war
.....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated
policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's
position in those upcoming policy battles.
At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward
imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels,
and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence
or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected
/
Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:
Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.
This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian
"Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.
Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying
people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not
being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong
here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.
Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal
data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.
Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.
IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide
the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about
knowing vulnerabilities.
That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such
an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.
The standard sequence of events is thus:
Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.
If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot
on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP
or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.
The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because
the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.
The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated
privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't
matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints
will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document
what got damaged.
The correct IT manager response is thus:
Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without
exposing the innards of the system.
Lock down misconfigured network systems.
Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions
are controlled via capabilities.
Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential
service.
If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line
of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password
control system to ban bad passwords.
It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled
attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow
such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.
If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections,
perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have
won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign
power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably
more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US
soldiers could never be caught doing!!!
They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US
armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the
the cat out of the bag!!!
Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As
the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if
China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM
EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW:
POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's
reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit
from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo
> Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC
POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent
of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ...
Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is
NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether
Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check
out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons."
http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE
Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which
makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..
Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!
She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.
Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this
time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet
security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have
hacked their security regularly.
In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public
specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity
in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."
Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise.
Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess
not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I
had leading or potentially leading my country.
Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting
flesh.
Don't believe any of this at all.
American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they
really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal
or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results
based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down
in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well
done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
"CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "
You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to
influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say
that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.
So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment,
including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled
the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of
her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost.
But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling
the playing field a bit
The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources'
are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats
guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted
to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias
regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement
is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that
folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...
Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants
this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political
shenanigans.
Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years
ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.
This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.
Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.
Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried
to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.
if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is
a real mess in this case.
Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA
yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?
Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical,
vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too?
Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.
Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes...
and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as
usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that
they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered
past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections,
but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have
beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep
the demonstrators off the streets.
If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's
even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal
hygiene.
The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.
Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral
systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).
The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the
election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.
Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western
nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go
to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced
that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.
I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.
It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama
achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.
The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables,
the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting,
behave like an adult.
As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for
you.
What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande,
Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha!
- you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old
kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.
I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your
side of politics.
It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist,
bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting
down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean
to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities.
Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.
You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the
other side to your one-sided argument.
Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted
down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.
There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged
by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians
taking over our institutions.
Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become
the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.
Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we
had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.
Trump won the election! Get over it!
Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond
in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when
you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of
people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis
that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
It's just a sad situation
Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful
secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline,
but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist
in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership
and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.
Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type
of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.
Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial
Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.
If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet,
Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists
and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires
get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
Viva China , is far from Latin America
So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions
in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is
no industry.
No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed
foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited
this man child is to public office.
Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words
reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the
equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking
gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations.
Are they wrong too?
I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia
conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists,
particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens
of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing
crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences
of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated
that did not result from Russian hacks
Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed
to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has
been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after
all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame
yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar
and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The
U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i
did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public
who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for
profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the
"public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply
choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry
against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment
roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough
buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another
time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as
fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia
must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama
(7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders.
We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors,
we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes?
But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going
their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
The British and French circa 200 years.
The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting
This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.
This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men
security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart,
Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats
are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK.
Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.
I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western
outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!
If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people
a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback
seems fully justified.
Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.
How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the
Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's
no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese
Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none
whatsoever).
I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked.
You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the
mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons
one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition
disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.
BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under
the new POtuS.
I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction!
Oh wait, that was already used.
Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy
of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve
to come up with the term 'fake news'.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops,
warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United
States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the
integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence
to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect
on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question
the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
I do Holiday cards too.
Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer
network, including the voter registration database.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....
Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:
The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive
at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and
will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would
be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity,
not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite
undisturbed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news
/
Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third
Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe
population!Lol
I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.
The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.
One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.
It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.
"Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."
The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.
Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists
in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.
I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other
countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!
Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!
Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating
that the order came from the Kremlin.
It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering
'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism
in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy
the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand,
I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully
interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best
armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very
powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore
100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential
wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit
of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.
Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy
data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.
None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian,
et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating
enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.
I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating,
resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom.
Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of
misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them
have anything to do with Russia.
I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to
bed, it should be done.
So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?
If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just
better at this? I doubt it.
I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually,
I could'nt care less.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
US interference:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
142 more rows
the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
they practically destroyed the country
The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.
This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been
over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they
have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.
The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically
pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.
I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all
this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved
on and nobody cared.
Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people
they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors"
so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here
at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting
so increasingly shrill.
If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them
another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat
this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing
what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his
last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am
making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect
clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption.
after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send
the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the
intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
"Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international
community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear
to President Putin that this is unacceptable."
Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that
is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts
doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't
come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations
of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.
So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some
SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:
9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News
on Tuesday.
Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest
cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,
On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered
a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.
5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers
accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.
June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department
of Defense's network last June.
1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter
accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)
5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data
And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room
is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of
finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted
that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration -
they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did
it" was a convenient distraction.
All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet,
but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by
the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES
it is our duty.
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles
pumped out on today's rag alone.
The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for
war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election"
they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another
illegal war for profit.
There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?
And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing,
" A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."
Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively
makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity
of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow
Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on
the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.
However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for
them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.
Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral
process,
as reported in the NYT :
The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials
that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election
Day."
The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was
borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing
for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack
against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.
What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream
media against the Russians.
Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians
winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.
I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing
her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the
population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing
compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain
its Empire.
The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.
America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine
and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict
with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market,
money printing by another means.
I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on
Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed
doors while we are clear to do so publically.
The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no
one felt it a big deal at the time.
Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well,
use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as
though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"
The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.
..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological
know-how and research."
Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are
right because it's not what's going on.
It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.
But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it
instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered.
How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle
east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective
needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor
of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously
rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't
be in the realm of possibility.
I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S.
intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more
than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have,
as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is
quite possibly "fake news".
Russia did this, Russia did that
its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
you have cried wolf to many times
stop trying to manipulate us
When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western
failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House
suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied
" Wiki
Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime
" US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.
Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!
Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it.
Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?
If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary
would have lost by a landslide.
1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
etc
Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!
"..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States
of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter
anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.
Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating
if the other team does it.
Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the
worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
France Probes Any Moscow Role in Yellow-Vest Movement
Former Trump
campaign adviser targeted by Mueller for his appearances on RT
There's a great deal of talk about how wonderful modern technology is. The internet, cell
phones, and computers are the stars of this firmament. I believe such talk is somewhat
overblown; 
©
Photo : Screenshot Screenshot
© Photo : Screenshot
Screenshot
© Sputnik / Vitaly
Belousov UK Integrity
Initiative Project Aims to Damage Russia's Public Image - Lavrov
22,361 CLICK TO READ
A Couple More Points To Consider 
© Global Look
Press / ZUMAPRESS.com / Panoramic The UK Parliament has taken hold of documents from Facebook
that may shed light on the online giant's carefree approach to user privacy amid claims that it
was fully aware of user data loopholes exploited by Cambridge Analytica. The documents were
seized from the founder of US tech startup Six4Three, who was on a business trip to the UK, the
Guardian 
'In-house fake
news shop' – Facebook facing new scandal and losing friends
© Reuters /
Jonathan Ernst Inconvenient thoughts on Cold War and other news. Intelligence agencies, Nikki
Haley, sanctions, and public opinion. 1. National intelligence agencies have long played major
roles, often not entirely visible, in international politics. They are doing so again today, as
is evident in several countries, from Russiagate in the United States and the murky Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK to the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi
consulate in Turkey. Leaving aside what President Obama knew about Russiagate allegations
against Donald Trump and when he knew it, the question arises as to whether these operations
were ordered by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) or were "
rogue " operations unknown in advance by the leaders and perhaps even directed against
them.
Putin compares
Khashoggi case to Skripal poisoning, asks why Russia condemned despite lack of proof
'Ambitious as
Lucifer': Steve Bannon takes dig at Nikki Haley and her 'suspicious' resignation
© REUTERS/ Leah Millis Conservative
US Lawmakers File to Impeach DOJ's Rod Rosenstein, Who Oversees Mueller Probe Rosenstein
allegedly discussed secretly recording Trump while enlisting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th
Amendment of the US Constitution to remove the president, according to a Friday New York Times
article. Rosenstein denied that he ever suggested secretly recording the president, and
according to a Fox News source, he made these comments with a "sarcastic" tone.
sundar 
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
Erdogan urges Turks
to dump dollar to support lira
No Russian
interference in Brexit referendum - YouTube exec tells parliamentary committee (VIDEO)
'Son of b***h
got fired': Joe Biden forced Ukraine to sack prosecutor general 'in six hours'
© Wiktor
Dabkowski / Global Look Press You'd have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh.
The news that US billionaire Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day
that YouTube said they found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit. Repeat After Me
(with robotic arm movements): "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible!
Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an
anti-Brexit campaigning group – that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!"
Soros-backed
anti-Brexit group is 'undemocratic' – cofounder Gina Miller
Clinton's new
book removes all doubt. She still has no idea why she lost
Ryan Cooper Trump vs. the West 
Damon Linker How conservative media taught Trump to trash NATO
Russia should be
back in G7 as 'we spend 25% of time' talking about it anyway – Trump
'Marx would be
turning in his grave' – Britain's UN envoy appears to think she's debating Soviets
'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
'Weapon of mass
suppression': Russiagate now used to target any dissent in US – Max Blumenthal
FILE PHOTO: U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell holds up a vial that he described as one that could contain
anthrax © Ray Stubblebine / Reuters Use of the term 'false flag' is often met with raised
eyebrows and accusations of conspiracism. But false flags are a very real and very present
feature of geopolitics -- and denying that is simply denying reality. Last week, the United
States, along with the United Kingdom and France, bombed Syrian government targets, ostensibly
in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack which was carried out one week before in the city
of Douma.
Entangling
alliances or scoring at home? Why US went out of its way with Russian diplomat expulsions
US indicts 13
Russians for 2016 election meddling, but 'no allegations' they influenced outcome
Vladimir Anikeyev /
Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Not long after Gerasimov's resignation at the end of January, reports emerged from numerous
Kremlin-linked media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated flood of information and
disinformation about the arrests of senior TsIB officers. One of the cyber unit's operational
directors, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested toward the end of last year along with his deputy,
Dmitri Dokuchaev, and charged with treason. Also arrested around the same time was Ruslan
Stoyanov, the chief investigator for Kaspersky Lab, which is the primary cybersecurity
contractor for the TsIB. There is much conjecture, but Mikhailov was apparently forcibly
removed from a meeting with fellow FSB officers -- escorted out with a bag over his head, so
the story goes -- and arrested. This is thought to have taken place some time around Dec. 5.
His deputy, a well-respected computer hacker recruited by the FSB, was reportedly last seen in
November. Kaspersky Lab's Stoyanov was a career cybersecurity professional, previously working
for the Indrik computer crime investigation firm and the Interior Ministry's computer crime
unit. Novaya Gazeta, a Kremlin-linked media outlet, reported that two other unnamed FSB
computer security officers were also detained. Theories, Accusations and Rumors
70mn cyberattacks,
mostly foreign, targeted Russia's critical infrastructure in 2016 – FSB
Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan from my deep purple state of NH both, voted to allow the bill to proceed. And of course my esteemed congress critter, Annie Kuster, did her bit in congress. Only 968 days until I can exact my retribution on Shaheen at the polls, first and foremost for her vote in favor of fast track, but damned if she doesn't give me another good reason on almost a daily basis.